MOOSE JAW 鈥� City council is divided over creating a new stormwater utility, with the crux being either to impose more taxes on residents or let infrastructure crumble and pay significantly more in repairs in the future.
City administration wants a stormwater utility created to ensure there is sustainable funding for daily operational expenses and future stormwater infrastructure projects and maintenance costs, a 2025 budget report said. These financial resources would improve the overall condition and functionality of stormwater assets.
Annual operating costs this year are expected to be $326,122, representing almost one percentage point of taxation. Meanwhile, city hall spent $1.15 million last year on stormwater capital projects.
The estimated replacement value of all stormwater infrastructure items 鈥� which are 鈥渋n poor to very poor condition鈥� 鈥� is $210.73 million, with 79.8 kilometres of pipes being the highest valued at over $156 million, the budget document said. Upgrading all items connected to just the Spring Creek system is expected to cost $20 million.
The monthly fee that administration wants to charge would be based on a lot鈥檚 surface area since that method 鈥渋s reasonably equitable,鈥� is information the municipality has available and could be implemented quickly, the report continued. Aside from agricultural land, all properties would face this charge.
Single-family residential properties would all pay the same charge; multi-family properties, such as apartments and condominiums, would have lower monthly fees than residential because of their denser property footprint; and commercial, industrial and institutional would pay the second-highest fees because of their surface area and the amount of stormwater runoff they generate.
The report noted that the proposed fee structure would be based on lot size in square metres (sqm), number of properties of that size, rate per month, and total revenue generated per month from that group:
- Up to 2,000 sqm: 12,490 / $5 / $62,450
- 2,001 to 7,000 sqm: 633 / $22.50 / $14,243
- 7,001 to 12,000 sqm: 191 / $47.50 / $9,073
- 12,001 to 17,000 sqm: 131 / $72.50 / $9,498
- 17,001 to 22,000 sqm: 44 / $97.50 / $4,290
- 22,001 to 30,000 sqm: 33 / $130 / $4,290
- 30,001 sqm and up: 179 / $170 / $30,430
City hall expects to collect $134,273 per month or $1,611,276 annually from all those properties.
For homeowners, the $5 per month would translate into $60 per year, while for commercial/industrial/institutional, the $170 per month would equal $2,040 per year.
Conversely, administration said a flat fee for all properties would be $10 per month. However, the 鈥渄isadvantage鈥� to that is those properties 鈥� mainly commercial/industrial 鈥� that contributed more stormwater runoff wouldn鈥檛 pay more.
Prioritizing projects
Since most single-family residential properties pay an average of $1,800 annually in municipal taxes, they would pay $15 less per year if the mill rate dropped by almost one percentage point if stormwater expenses were removed from the operating budget, said Coun. Chris Warren.
However, the utility鈥檚 creation would add an extra $60 annually to their bills, which would be 鈥渁 significant expense鈥� for most people, he continued.
Warren understood that the city has significant shortfalls in the stormwater utility infrastructure while the capital budget has competing project priorities in areas such as roads, parks or buildings. Yet, the proposed tax hike was already over five per cent, not including other utilities and levies.
The councillor then asked administration if it had considered amalgamating stormwater into water and wastewater, with the goal of collecting tax revenue in a single stream and prioritizing projects in those three assets.
Stormwater is separate from water/wastewater because they have different rate structures, and while all three could be amalgamated, administration would still face the same dilemma of insufficient capital funding, said finance director Brian Acker.
The problem is the municipality receives only eight per cent of all tax revenues, while the province and the feds receive the rest, which puts a significant burden on taxpayers, he continued. So, council needs to either find a funding source for stormwater rehabilitation or quit doing other capital projects.
鈥溾�� a lot of work has to be done. It鈥檚 just a matter of time till it鈥檚 a crisis with our stormwater,鈥� Acker added. 鈥淎nd it鈥檚 not very far away, to be honest.鈥�
While it鈥檚 great to have a report about the condition of infrastructure, council should be spending within its means and not always raising taxes, said Warren. He wanted council to rank and prioritize storm-water-wastewater projects and determine whether they were in crisis mode and should be done first.
Warren added that the city is facing a huge infrastructure revenue deficit, but he was hesitant to ask residents to pay more.
Taxes and services
Coun. Dawn Luhning said she understood that council faced capital budget deficits and was doing its best to administer tax dollars and manage its municipal responsibilities, but couldn鈥檛 鈥渟tomach鈥� putting another water charge on taxpayers鈥� bills.
鈥淧eople in this city already think their water bills are high. It鈥檚 a fact,鈥� she said. 鈥淧eople (also) feel their taxes are too high.鈥�
Based on emails and calls she鈥檚 received, Luhning said people correlate what they pay in taxes to services they receive, such as seeing a snowplow clear their streets 鈥� or never seeing one. She didn鈥檛 think she could justify a six-per-cent tax increase to people whose streets were never plowed, nor would that increase be accepted well since people 鈥済et antsy鈥� when council adds fees.
Luhning thought water-related infrastructure projects needed to come before other initiatives like an outdoor pool, arena upgrades or a new landfill, because if Moose Javians didn鈥檛 have water or couldn鈥檛 flush their toilets, 鈥渢his city is in big trouble.鈥�
She pointed out that council doesn鈥檛 have the money to support all of administration鈥檚 proposed budget initiatives, while taxpayers don鈥檛 have more money either because of inflation. Moreover, council can鈥檛 take money from the water/wastewater utility reserve to cover capital deficits because that鈥檚 for the new Crescent View Lift Station (CVLS).
Eating the elephant
Council faced the same challenge with tackling the cast iron replacement project, which was similar to 鈥渁 huge elephant鈥� and figuring out 鈥渉ow to eat the whole thing,鈥� said Coun. Heather Eby. Yet, council started small, and while its efforts 鈥渟eemed like a drop in the ocean,鈥� the city made progress.
With the stormwater utility, Eby thought council could start with a drainage fee first and then increase it as the years progress.
Eby used her own tax bill to show that, while she didn鈥檛 live 鈥渋n a fancy house鈥� or neighbourhood, her family paid $156.18 last year for utilities. Moreover, over Christmas, she spent $150 to have snow cleared from in front of her house and her daughter鈥檚 鈥� and then a city grader filled that space again.
鈥淪o I get a pretty good deal from the City of Moose Jaw for $156 a year for public works (services),鈥� Eby said, noting that utility bill expenses look big, but they鈥檙e 鈥渞eally, really reasonable鈥� if broken into separate service categories. 鈥淚鈥檓 not saying it doesn鈥檛 hurt when you add a tax increase or levy, but the benefit 鈥� is tremendous.鈥�
Eby said she was 鈥渨illing to eat a little bit of the elephant this year鈥� and launch the stormwater utility this year, while she saw no point in upgrading Crescent Park鈥檚 Serpentine Creek when the upstream infrastructure was crumbling.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to pass along more increases to citizens, but we have been working in crisis mode for pretty much as long as I鈥檝e been here,鈥� she continued, pointing to cast iron pipes and Buffalo Pound Water Treatment Plant as past crises and the CVLS as a possible crisis if council didn鈥檛 make it a priority.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to wait 鈥� (until) the storm sewer is a crisis and then we鈥檒l deal with it.鈥�
Heads in the sand
Coun. Jamey Logan said he was initially opposed to this utility but also realized council would be punting this issue down the road if it didn鈥檛 address stormwater infrastructure. Moreover, while hindsight was 20/20, he thought council should have acquired the biggest loan it could have pre-COVID-19 because of how much inflation has increased expenses today.
鈥淣one of this is going to go down in cost. And putting our head in the sand is not going to make this go away,鈥� he said.
If council creates this utility, then commercial and industrial properties will be particularly hard hit because they鈥檙e already paying 1.8 times the tax rate as residential properties, he added. Those owners 鈥� who would also pay a fee for their residences 鈥� would likely pass on those increases to their already struggling tenants.
Because of this issue鈥檚 importance, council tabled the report to the Jan. 23 budget meeting for further discussion.
