Sand and gravel pit operators in Mountain View County will pay a 25-cent-per-tonne tax starting Jan. 1, 2012 after council adopted the Community Aggregate Payment levy last Wednesday following a public hearing.About a dozen pit operators attended the hearing, with several addressing council with concerns about being double-taxed 帽 since they are already required to put up letters of credit for possible road damage 帽 and being unfairly singled out to pay for infrastructure maintenance.矛Regardless of what we say or do, you guys are going to implement this tax,卯 pit owner Rick Hoogenboom told council.矛It is an unfair tax because you're just taxing one industry,卯 Hoogenboom added, saying roads were also sustaining damage from logging trucks, grain haulers and other agricultural users, and from oil and gas activity.矛You're hitting this industry the hardest.卯The comments followed opening statement from councillors, led off by Div. 6 Coun. Paddy Munro, who said funds for road maintenance would either have to come from the people who are causing the damage or from general taxes.矛I believe the people who are doing the damage to the infrastructure have to pay the bill,卯 Munro said.矛I couldn't agree more,卯 Div. 2 Coun. Trish McKean said. 矛But it's just one industry we're getting to pay for everybody's damage to the roads, and that's where I have difficulty,卯 McKean said, citing forestry and oil and gas as two industries that were being let off the hook.Div. 1 Coun. Kevin Good said he is opposed to new taxes, but the levy was a special case because it had been endorsed by the Alberta Sand and Gravel Association and the Alberta Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. 矛For me that overrides卯 his aversion to new taxes, he said.Div. 7 Coun. Al Kemmere responded to McKean's points, saying 矛the oil and gas part was dealt with years ago卯 with the imposition of a well-drilling tax. And adding to Good's remarks, Kemmere noted that the provincial associations developed the levy jointly with rural municipalities because of growing negativity toward the industry and reluctance by councils to approve new pits 矛and the fact that much of the activity is for areas outside the municipality.卯The levy was not a tax on the industry, he added, but rather a tax on end users.矛I support the concept,卯 Reeve Bruce Beattie said, 矛primarily because it creates a level playing field throughout the county.卯Beattie initially said he would like to see the county, in exchange for the levy, stop requiring letters of credit as part of its road-use agreements with pit operators. Other councillors argued successfully, however, to retain the requirement, since it had been introduced to pressure recalcitrant operators to repair damages but none had ever been acted on.Council did make some concessions, modifying the amended bylaw to make reporting a twice-yearly requirement rather than quarterly, as the county lawyer had advised, and specifying that monies collected will be used only for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades.The bylaw was given second reading, with McKean and Div. 3 Coun. Duncan Milne opposed. Third and final reading was passed, with only McKean opposed.In another attempt to placate operators, a follow-up motion by Kemmere 帽 asking administration to draft a graduated letter-of-credit procedure based on traffic volumes 帽 carried unanimously.矛Some pits have a tremendous amount of activity and I don't see why they all pay the same amount,卯 Kemmere said.Staff reported that Red Deer County council had given its CAP bylaw first reading that day and was soliciting input from industry before bringing it back for consideration on Dec. 6.As part of its notification process, Mountain View County sent out 33 letters to known pit operators.As of 2009, the CAP levy had been adopted by 22 municipalities in the province, generating a total of $5.8 million in revenues, with Rocky View County, City of Calgary, Parkland County and Strathcona County being the largest recipients.
