The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

LI4. \I \ SI)\N )1 iMBL10 . I X0. WlIIT13Y FRFI-I PRFSS whUtbyr Voice of the County Town Michael lan Burgess, Publisher - Managing Editor The only Whitby newspaper independently owned and operated by Whithy residents for Whitby residents. I>ublished every '.4ednesday I~N...Publishing and Photography inc. Phone 668-61 Il The Free Press Building. 131 Brock Street North. P.O. Box 206. Whitby, Ont. Michael J. Knoll Community Editor Marjorie A. Burgess Production Manager Karen Thompson Advertising Manager Mailing Permit No. 480 Member of the Whitby Chamber of Commerce Lot levy proposal may end up causing the region more problems than it will solve Today, Durham Regional Council will meet in a special session to decide whether or not they will accept a recommendation that will increase the user rate for water and sewer by 27 per cent over the next two years. Those politicians responsible for the report have said that this recommendation came forward partly because of the decrease in lot levies that it charges to land developers. Fearing that they would lose a potentially ex- pensive court battle, Durham Regional Council lowered its lot levy from $2,730 per housing unit constructed to $2,150 per unit. Many regional politicians have said that the reason they did this was because they felt they would lose any action taken against them. It should be noted that lot levies accounted for 17 per cent of the operating cost of the regional water and sewer system. However, there is a gaping hole in the statement made by these well-meaning gen- tlemen. The regional government does not make a profit on the lot levies that it charges to developers for installing certain (almost all) municipal services. These services include road construction and water and sewage hook-up. Considering that these gentlemen have said that the lot levy reflects an actual measure of the cost incurred by the region, this publication is quite frankly puzzled by the action that they have taken. It also raises some questions. For example: Since the old lot levy purchases those municipal services that every homeowner expec- ts, will the new lot levy mean that he will not get these services? The old lot levy purchases capital materials so we have been told, of high. quality. Does the lower lot levy mean that the materials used to provide needed municipal services will be of lowerquality than before? -Will the lower lot levy mean a decrease in the level of service provided by regional employees, especially in the areas of road repair and clearage and the maintenance of sewage treatment plants? -Finally, and most important of all, how long will it be before the reduction in the lot levy has an im- pact on the general property tax bill? A recent article in another publication quoted the region's Commissioner of Finance as saying that the impace on the property taxpayer (both residential and commercial/industrial will be felt as early as 1983. However, it could be assumed that if regional council raises the lot levy on a yearly basis the impact on the taxpayer could be decreased. Lot levies are an important part of the financing of local government, without them, many needed and wanted projects could not be undertaken. If local government could not raise money through the lot levy, they would have to raise revenue from some other source. There are three alternatives for raising this money. One is from provincial government grants which usually have strings attached and come from the general in- come tax bill. A second method of financing would be by debenture, in other words, the region would borrow the money from banks or other financial institutions at the going interest rate. This bill will be paid by our children in the years ta came. The third method is from the property tax bilI. It would appear that since the provincial gaver- nment is becoming more tight with their grant dollars and the region hasalreadysaid that it does not want ta get more heavily into debt, there is only one way left to finance those municipal ser- vices. That is through the property tax bill. However, as was mentioned earlier, the region is raising the user rates to compensate, in part, for this action. It is hoped that this action, if accep- ted, will prevent any future impact on the general tax bill. However, there are no known convincing arguements that it will. It is inevitable that the reduction in the lot levy and the increase in the water and sewer user rate will eventually have an impact on the taxpayer. This publication does not have the expertise to analys e this situation properly, however we feel that our arguements against these two proposais are reasonable especially since the finance com- missioner has confirmed them. The council itself should be taken to task for their action. They are the level of government responsible for the smooth running of the entire regional community. From where we sit, their reaction to the threat of court or Ontario Municipal Board ac- tion was a bad one. lnstead of standing up to the parties threatening this action they backed off. In our opinion, they should have taken their case to these bodies and justified their position. Even if they had lost, at least they would have tried to protect the interests of the average property taxpayer. -M