Post by Max on Dec 9, 2007 20:07:33 GMT -3
The still relatively new amalgamated city council made a difficult but wise decision back in 2001 - it decided that water and sewer rates must cover the costs of operating the city's water and sewer system.
That doesn't seem like profound insight, but it has turned out to be a significant, albeit painful, decision.
Greater Sudbury covers a huge land mass - the largest in the province - so maintaining its various water systems was bound to be expensive. Water rates are the highest in the province here, but that's not entirely attributable to land mass.
Some municipalities have refused to raise water rates enough to cover the costs of their water systems and, instead, have chosen to supplement the system with property tax revenues. The money comes from the same taxpayer, but through government grants and creative use of funds, tax rates can be kept to politically acceptable levels while supplementing water rates. But it is not sustainable, and funding levels are usually just for maintenance, rather than progress.
But here are a few important facts to consider.
In 2005, the city produced a report that estimated it was losing 41 per cent of the water pumped through its pipes to leakage, watermain breaks, frozen installations and various other problems.
That cost the city roughly $9 million a year, which today would account for roughly a 2.5 per cent tax increase.
This week, Nick Benkovich, the city's director of water and wastewater services, estimated that water loss has been cut to about 25 per cent.
Water loss is a major municipal problem throughout North America. Earlier this year, Osprey Media's Queen's Park reporter James Wallace reported that about $160 million worth of clean, treated drinking water leaks into the ground through municipal water systems each year in the province, according to the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association. The association also concluded that about $18 billion worth of investment in water infrastructure is needed to address the issue.
And so this week, the city appears to be sticking to its policy of making the water system pay for itself by considering a budget that will see a 5.4 per cent increase in water rates, which means the average resident would pay $54 more for a total of $1,062 water bill next year.
Woebegone the person who calls for higher fees and taxes, but fixing the city's water systems is a wise investment - now and in the future.
The city is also cracking down on cheaters - people who tamper with their water meters to save money - with charges of up to $300. This too, is necessary. If people genuinely can't pay their bills, the city should provide some leniency - no one wants to see people lose their house to fees - but maintaining our water system is one gift we can give to future generations.
The report generated by the Walkerton inquiry recommended the provincial government force municipalities to go this route, but that has not been done. Still, the possibility exists, and if the province does crack down, Greater Sudbury's proactive measures - expensive as they are - will stand the city well.
That doesn't seem like profound insight, but it has turned out to be a significant, albeit painful, decision.
Greater Sudbury covers a huge land mass - the largest in the province - so maintaining its various water systems was bound to be expensive. Water rates are the highest in the province here, but that's not entirely attributable to land mass.
Some municipalities have refused to raise water rates enough to cover the costs of their water systems and, instead, have chosen to supplement the system with property tax revenues. The money comes from the same taxpayer, but through government grants and creative use of funds, tax rates can be kept to politically acceptable levels while supplementing water rates. But it is not sustainable, and funding levels are usually just for maintenance, rather than progress.
But here are a few important facts to consider.
In 2005, the city produced a report that estimated it was losing 41 per cent of the water pumped through its pipes to leakage, watermain breaks, frozen installations and various other problems.
That cost the city roughly $9 million a year, which today would account for roughly a 2.5 per cent tax increase.
This week, Nick Benkovich, the city's director of water and wastewater services, estimated that water loss has been cut to about 25 per cent.
Water loss is a major municipal problem throughout North America. Earlier this year, Osprey Media's Queen's Park reporter James Wallace reported that about $160 million worth of clean, treated drinking water leaks into the ground through municipal water systems each year in the province, according to the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association. The association also concluded that about $18 billion worth of investment in water infrastructure is needed to address the issue.
And so this week, the city appears to be sticking to its policy of making the water system pay for itself by considering a budget that will see a 5.4 per cent increase in water rates, which means the average resident would pay $54 more for a total of $1,062 water bill next year.
Woebegone the person who calls for higher fees and taxes, but fixing the city's water systems is a wise investment - now and in the future.
The city is also cracking down on cheaters - people who tamper with their water meters to save money - with charges of up to $300. This too, is necessary. If people genuinely can't pay their bills, the city should provide some leniency - no one wants to see people lose their house to fees - but maintaining our water system is one gift we can give to future generations.
The report generated by the Walkerton inquiry recommended the provincial government force municipalities to go this route, but that has not been done. Still, the possibility exists, and if the province does crack down, Greater Sudbury's proactive measures - expensive as they are - will stand the city well.