Bafflegab and Water Rates

To coin the crude and the vernacular, I think we're being screwed on water rates.

I don't have proof positive yet but I'm working on it.

Your next water bill will reflect a 12% increase.

I don't think that's right.

You need to know what I know.

First,York Region is responsible for the supply of water.They sell it to us at a wholesale price.
I'm not challenging their calculations. Not yet.

Second, water is taken from the ground. . It's not like coal,oil,.copper,diamonds or gold. We take what we need.We use it. We treat it. We return it to its source.

Water is pumped from the deep dark recesses of the ground. It's stored,treated and distributed . Water doesn't cost money. All that other stuff does.

Before meters, a flat rate was charged to every household for water. It came out with the hydro bill. I don't think it ever went much beyond $9.95 every quarter.

As little as it was, we were able to pump, store,treat and distribute fresh.cold.spring water,
to homes in Aurora, pay whatever it cost and still grow a water reserve account.

When I was Chair of the Fire Committee, we had to build an extra bay on the fire station. I think it cost $18.thousand dollars. We borrowed it from the Water Reserve Account.

It was the only reserve we had.

Sewage treatment was on the general levy.

Water meters were installed for the purpose of charging for sewage treatment.

Now the bill also includes the cost to collect rain from roofs and roads in new subdivision and to store it in ponds, for God's sake.

It's a far cry from the cost of water.

Not all water we use goes into the sanitary sewers. But we pay a sewage rate for it just the same.

Water used in the garden, car-washing, topping up the pool,or any other outdoor purpose goes through the water meter and gets charged as a sewer rate.

The Chief Financial Officer told us last week , the region allows for that in the calculation of rates.

I do not recall ever seeing an explanation in the water bill to that effect.

I am not able to accept it.

And that's not all I am unable to accept.


*******************************************

A presentation by the Treasurer was made in Council last Tuesday to explain the double digit increase in the water bill.

It started with the premise, water is not a tax supported service. .

We all know that.

For accurate application of the principle however , the user pays only for water used by the user.

*****************************************************************

First, the Region has increased water rates by ten per cent. That is not within our control.

Second, all regional municipalities pay the same for water.

Not all charge the same rate to consumers.

Why is our rate different to Richmond Hill's rate?

Why is our rate the same as the Town of Newmarket

*********************************************************

Last Tuesday, I attended a joint Fire Services Committee. An Officer referred to water and a Regional agreement.

I seized the opportunity to ask if water used by the fire department is billed to the fire department.

My thought was, water is not tax supported and that is an accepted principle.

But fire protection is tax supported.

Is the cost of water used by the fire department shown in the cost of providing that service or is it somehow folded in to water rates not supported by taxes but charged to consumers?

We have a new fire chief. Newmarket's CAO was at the table. The Deputy Chief ,who prepares the budget was there. And Newmarket Treasurer.

It was established most fires are extinguished with water from the tanker. The tanker is filled at the station. The station is metered.

It was not established that the cost of water used is reflected in the department's budget.We heard from several at the table.

The Treasurer did not volunteer any information.

******************************************

In his presentation to Council that evening, Aurora Treasurer explained that for better accounting he and the Public Works Director had, during their budget preparation, removed $250 thousand, expenditure normally charged against a capital reserve account for maintenance of a capital asset and transferred it to user water rates.

That was before the year end. I do not remember that item being pin-pointed.That's what happens when a change is made.

It decreased the tax rate and five months later, it contributed to a double digit increase in water rates.

In conjunction with public works director, it was also decided to increase estimated "water loss" from 8% to 12%.

"Water loss" they claim, is from "seepage" in the system. Water used in fire practice was mentioned.

The Treasurer explained Provincial requirements for water treatment have increased since Walkerton and that contributed to the increased cost of water .

Walkerton happened ten yeasr ago. . I know bafflegab when I hear it. God knows I've heard enough of it.

When meters were introduced the figure for "water loss" was 4%,I think. Since then, many miles of new waterlines have been installed ,old lines have been re-placed and others re-lined.

That's not a reason for an increase in " water loss" If anything it should accomplish the opposite.

The question about various tax supported services , such as fire department, works department, parks department, town hall, reflecting water consumption in their budgets was answered in the affirmative.

Yet I have no recollection of ever seeing water as a budget item reflected in any department's budget.

We also heard that water revenue decreased last year. It was a wet summer. Consumption was down. A deficit in revenue was likely but not mentioned as the need to increase water rates this year.

********************************************************

I voted against the water rate increase. Just me, myself,alone. Again.

I don't believe the year the region increased the water rate by ten per cent is the year to change book-keeping in a capital reserve account for maintenance of a capital asset to be added to an increase in non tax supported water rates

I don't believe it is the year to increase the estimate of "water loss"

Which I suspect is a misnomer.

I believe the budget item number to prove water use is reflected in the budgets of tax supported services should have been produced immediately the question was asked,to support the statement they are in fact included .

I do not accept justification to charge consumers in Aurora, several hundred dollars more for water than consumers in Richmond Hill, which municipality pays exactly the same for water as we do.

As a representative of the consumer in Aurora, I think we are being royally screwed in the matter of water rates.

I will be happy to be proven wrong.