• sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The cost to replace those is enormous, and IMO, should be covered primarily by property tax and/or useage fees.

    Agreed. I’m not sure those are usually covered by development fees. But it sounds like you know more about it than I do.

    • healthetank@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Unfortunately some municipalities have used development fees incorporated into their normal budget, whether directly or indirectly, rather than solely using them to account for the increased costs in maintenance, which is what they should be for. Often times I’ve worked on capital projects (repair ones) where the funding has come directly from development.

      For example, one municipality I work closely with has the salaries for all their development staff and the salaries for their capital design staff paid by development fees, plus some allocations for expansion of other services to account for more citizens.

      Edit for clarity: Municipalities can also skirt this use by doing things like the following: a long stretch of road from a highway is in poor condition and needs to be repaired in the next 2 years. But a development is going in on the road, and they can force the developer to pay for the reconstruction of the road, despite the fact that it is in poor xondition and needs to be redone anyway. Ditto for sewer, or water main replacement.