Nobody is happy when their property taxes go up.
Yes, property taxes represent by far the largest source of revenue for a municipality’s operating budget, but if given the choice, most people would rather see expenses trimmed over a property tax increase. And if there needs to be a property tax increase, they’ll want a modest jump in taxes.
Same goes for the utility rates. People aren’t too happy when their sewer and water bill increases, regardless of what the money is used for.
The City of Estevan actually took a different approach with utility rates in recent years, opting to increase the consumption rate rather than the overall rate. If people do the environmentally-friendly thing and cut water consumption, then they won’t be paying more for water.
There won’t be a consumption rate increase this year, but the city has taken the step of increasing the infrastructure fee from $20 to $30 per bimonthly billing cycle.
The money will be used to create a fund so that the water main replacement program can resume, without the burden of the local improvement fee for those who receive new water mains.
People aren’t happy, which is to be expected. Yes, it amounts to $5 per month, but it’s the principle that’s involved.
There are some out there who don’t want to pay more for property taxes, utility rates, infrastructure fees, or facility user fees, just like they don’t want to pay more for groceries, restaurant meals, fuel, clothing or other purchases.
Evidently they aren’t familiar with inflation.
It’s time for the city to resume work on the water main replacement program. This is the time of year when it’s most evident. The city had several water main breaks in late February and early March. It’s a significant inconvenience for those who are affected. And it’s particularly frustrating if it happens multiple times in a year.
Particularly worrisome is that multiple breaks that have occurred in the western half of Fourth Street in recent months. When Fourth Street is due to be resurfaced in a few years, the water mains for the western half of that arterial road will certainly have to be replaced.
Phasing out the local improvement system for payment is also a step in the right direction. It’s a significant burden on the affected ratepayers, especially those on low or fixed incomes.
Eighty per cent of the cost for a local improvement is supposed to be assessed to the affected homeowner. The infrastructure fee was introduced in 2004 as a way to lessen the burden of a local improvement fee for water main replacements, but the burden is still significant.
Now’s the time to move away from local improvements all together.
Those who have had their water mains replaced in the last 10 years should be exempt from this infrastructure fee increase. It doesn’t make sense for them to be dinged again when they’re still paying for the water main replacement.
Once the 10-year period ends, then the infrastructure fee kicks in.
So while we might not like this infrastructure fee increase of $5 per month, it’s still a better option than the local improvement system the city has leaned on for so long.
