Water Rates Homework

I logged in to the Town web site this morning I needed to check the budget.

I voted against the water rate increase. The press report noted the vote to support was seven to one. And that's where the story ended. More than likely because that's where the available space ended. But the story wasn't complete

So, the pressure is on me, myself alone, to keep following my nose.

One explanation for the increase was a change in book-keeping. Until this year, cost of maintaining water lines has been charged to a capital reserve fund established for the purpose of maintaining water lines.

The treasurer and public works director decided during budget preparation, before the year end, that should be changed.

It meant a transfer $250,000 from a charge against the capital reserve to an increase in water rates.

The "water loss" factor was increased from 8% to 11%.

I asked; since the principle that water rates are not tax supported is clearly enunciated, are we equally fastidious about not including water used in tax supported services in rates charged to the consumer.

The answer was yes; departments are charged for water used.

Well, last week I asked for the number of the line item on the budget that shows charges for water. I had found an item for "utilities" which I understood was for gas and electricity.

The answer was : water use in particular facilities is combined and shows on a specific page of the budget as charged and settled.

Well, I gotta tell you. I went looking for that item. I didn't find it. Doesn't mean it isn't there. Just that my search skills are not that great. I don't know what that word "settled" means either.

But I did find the Water Rate Report and read that again.

In a paragraph defining "water loss" it said:

Fire department use. training and fire-fighting.

D'you remember;I didn't get a clear answer when I asked about that in the joint fire committee meeting. Newmarket's treasurer was at the table. He was conspicuous in his silence.

Unmetered supplies for landscaping, parks and road maintenance are also factored in as "water loss"

I don't know how much water is used for landscaping and parks and road maintenance. I do know it isn't "lost" It's used by departments which are tax supported services.

We have multiple parks and sports facilities. More every year. We have a splash pad in the town park. Nobody knows how much water it uses. It's not a trickle.

The water is not re-circulating. It goes straight down the drain. Sewer or storm? Dunno. But it makes a difference to how much we pay.

We create outdoor ice in the winter. A hose is kept running for days.That must take thousands of gallons. Norm Weller used to calculate the cost by man hours. Never mentioned anything about water.

We didn't have meters then.

The Region doesn't charge us by the thousands of gallons. They charge us by the gallon.

The Region by the way, notified municipalities of the increase on April 1st.We got the report at council on April 20th. We didn't deal with it until April 27th. Then it was urgent. Had to be done in time to be implemented by May 1st.

The Mayor was critical of my solitary negative vote.Scoffed at the politics of it. Said I should accept staff advice.

I don't know how many tanks of water, public works uses to wash streets. It doesn't matter. It's not water lost. It is a tax supported service.

The town's budget report notes the increase in taxes on an average house is $36. For perspective, a figure of 30cents a day is included. I hate that perspective.

The increase in water rates on an average household is $115. That means three times the increase for water than taxes.

There's reference to a future increase in rates for the capital reserve account for maintaining waterlines and such.

That has to mean the treasurer's change in accounting may not be as valid as first appeared.

If the money in the capital reserve to maintain water lines and such ,came from water rates in the first place, that is certainly where it should come from to pay for maintaining the water lines and such. Not from an increase in the rates

The report refers to old water meters not registering efficiently.

That may be so.

The only subdivision I know metered before the rest of the town, was Golf Glen.
In the greater scheme of things, that's a mere handful of homes. Meter slippage could easily be checked for "water loss". I doubt it amounts to much.

Now then..... I do not represent myself as an accountant. I don't even claim to be a competent book-keeper.

But I have to tell you, fellow tax and water-rate payers, I am not satisfied the town's water rates are calculated fairly or accurately.

They are certainly not meticulous.

We are paying for more than the water we use in our homes.How much more I don't know. But I believe it is not unsubstantial.

It's clear to me service costs which should be in the tax rate have been down-loaded to the water rate.

That's not straightforward book-keeping.

I believe as a Council, we have not done our due diligence.