Our elected officials often face difficult decisions where there are consequences whether they act or don't act, and the right way to go isn't always clearly defined.

For the City of Weyburn, council had to decide recently on whether to allow local property owners to petition out several local improvement projects, or have the projects proceed via the Local Government Board.

This year's proposed program was decimated, with only three small projects left and 13 others petitioned out. Some of those petitioned against were projects the city has been trying for years to get done, such as paving the four gravelled streets between Railway Avenue and East Avenue on 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th Streets, along with a short piece on the South Hill on Fifth Avenue.

In addition was a watermain replacement, again needed for a number of years, on Fourth Street South between Sixth and Eighth Avenues.

Several members of council voiced legitimate concerns about these projects failing to meet property owners' approval yet again, but in the end they did not act on those concerns, they simply allowed the petitioning-out process to go ahead.

The council does have an avenue available to pursue projects if they are really needed, namely taking the project to the Local Government Board and requesting approval for the project to proceed. The city would have to explain why, such as that the infrastructure is reaching a critical point or that other ratepayers will suffer as a result of the work not going ahead.

If council is unwilling to suffer the wrath of the affected property owners by taking this route, perhaps they should consider a different approach.

The system or formula devised to split the costs of the road repairs is set by the city; in Weyburn's case, the costs are split 50-50 overall between the city and the abutting property owner or owners. When broken down to individual projects on particular streets, the cost split may vary, depending on whether there's flankage or frontage, whether there's an intersection, and on what type of work is involved, whether it's recapping an already-paved street, or putting down new pavement on a gravel road.

What if the city set up a road repairs fund similar to what was implemented for the utilities? Residents used to have to pay the whole shot of a watermain repair, which could run $3-4,000; now, every household pays a small amount on their utility bill into a repair fund, and repairs are paid for out of that fund. Is there any reason why the same couldn't be done for road repairs? After all, even a recapping or curbing project can add an onerous cost to a property owner's annual tax bill. Whether they pay it in a lump sum or spread it out, it is an added expense over and above the tax and utility costs they're already paying.

It may take a year or two to implement or formulate such a system, but it would avoid the necessity of going to the Local Government Board, or seeing streets digress to gravel, which no one wants to see happen. - G.N.