Council will be debating at their Committee of the Whole meeting today whether or not to stick with a 20 year plan to finance much needed improvements to our water and sewer infrastructure, or to give Londoners a ‘taxcation’ in 2011 from water and waste water/treatment rates.

The rationale for freezing rates goes like this: the economy is terrible, people’s budgets are maxed out and we all could use more money in our pockets. I get this rationale and believe governments should be looking extra hard at the books this year and doing their best to pass on savings to the taxpayer. But I think governments should also be wise about where they find those savings - cut frills, find efficiencies and ask for some sacrifices, but also protect priorities that require investment. 

Water and waste water/treatment infrastructure are probably two of the last places I’d go looking to find savings. I can live with my sidewalk and street being a little bumpy and can put up with other temporary service cut-backs, but I really, really don’t like putting our water infrastructure at risk to save a few bucks in 2011.

I think this should be put into perspective - freezing rates probably won’t lead to another sinkhole or Walkerton tragedy, but it also won’t result in mind blowing savings for taxpayers either. In the end it’ll result is some savings this year, but will cost everybody a bit more down the road. 

Here’s the dollars and cents of it: if rates are frozen the average homeowner would save $25 (~$2.50 a month) on the water bill and $41 on waste water treatment (~$3 a month) in 2011. So we’re talking about $66 here - or $5.50 a month. Every little bit helps, but this isn’t a silver bullet for the family budget.

I guess what offends me most is the principle of the matter. We’re dealing with higher than inflation water and wastewater rates because previous generations didn’t pay the piper - they deferred maintenance, let our infrastructure crumble and ultimately pushed costs into the future. Making matters worse, the costs are also higher now than if they’d been dealt with before (it costs a lot more to fix a sinkhole than keeping up a regular schedule of maintenance and replacement.) 

The last Council made the unpopular decision to deal with this once and for all by establishing a 20-year financial and capital plan. It has meant higher rates in the short term, but ultimately gets water rates to inflation by 2013 and wastewater to inflation by 2015. Freezing rates in 2011 throws this plan off kilter. I hope this Council chooses the unpopular yet responsible path by staying the course - we’ve got 4 more years of higher than inflation increases for water and 2 more years for waste water, and then we’re finally in a sustainable position. No more rolling the dice with our water infrastructure, and no more passing costs into the future. High rates aren’t very popular - but in the context of our water infrastructure, they are responsible.

Bottom line for me: you can play politics with lots of things, but water should not be one of them!

Civic administration has prepared a great report here that lays out the debate. In true administrator fashion they’ve prepared several scenarios for Council to consider. Also in good public servant form they’ve provided an option ‘d’ that is a nice compromise between the ‘rate freeze’ camp and the ‘status quo’ camp. If I was a betting man, I’d wager they’ll end up choosing that option. It allows face saving all around, gets us to inflationary rates only two years later than planned (2017 for water and 2015 for waste water), but will result in higher rates until that point. I still would vote for status quo, but could swallow this option if the status quo option is defeated.

I’m on vacation until January 3rd - I’m going to try and get back into a blogging routine, and I’ve got a long list of things to write about!

Heading to Council tonight - hope to see some of you there.