City water rates could soar

Author: Laurie Watt

Text Size

Changing the way the city charges for water and waste water could mean hiking rates 28 per cent next year, followed by another 31 per cent increase in 2011 and a 34 per cent hike in 2012.

Even water misers who practice conservation could face a double-digit price hike to help top up the city’s dwindling water-budget coffers.
Changing the way it charges for water and waste water could mean hiking rates 28 per cent next year, followed by another 31 per cent increase in 2011 and a 34 per cent hike in 2012.
Those cost increases would bring the city in line with what many other municipalities charge.
“The issue is the rate structure. Some of the issues are: Do we price water to encourage conservation so it gets more expensive if you consume more? Are we treating businesses and residents the same?” said Ward 2 Coun. Jeff Lehman, chairperson of the city’s finance committee.
In a report to the city, BMA Management Consulting noted local customers – regardless of whether they take advantage of the city’s tiered-rate structure that rewards those who use less than 180 cubic metres per month – pay less than those in other municipalities. The consultants recommend the city abandon the water conservation incentive and instead raise rates across customer classes.
The current structure has encouraged conservation, the consulting firm noted. Despite growth, water consumption has declined 7.9 per cent from 2007/8. Water use is expected to decline another 2.4 per cent this year, followed by 1.7 per cent in 2010.
The city should charge more for the first 15 cubic metres per month, which represents basic needs, to help pay for infrastructure upgrades, the consultant says.
BMA Consulting’s report comes as city staff finalize the first draft of the 2010 budget, which councillors would discuss as they set tax and water rate increases.
Lehman said he doesn’t support abandoning water conservation measures, although the city needs more money to help pay for an $80-million expansion to the water pollution control centre and a new $150-million surface water treatment plant, which will augment drinking water supply in the south end.
“I have concerns about the rate structure suggested in the BMA report. I think Barrie is currently aggressively supporting conservation and the recommended strategy weakens that,” he said.
“My bigger concern is that there will be an impact on low-water use households, when these are the folks who should be paying the least, both for affordability reasons and because they are using less. Residents are already having to deal with large rate increases, and we shouldn’t be adding to this burden through the new rate structure.”
The consulting firm also said Barrie’s water rates “are well below the affordability threshold” in other municipalities and the city could double to quadruple the cost and still meet affordability criteria.
The average Barrie household spends $564 per year on water, which represents 0.7 per cent of average household income.
The consulting firm’s survey found some municipalities charge up to 1.8 per cent of household income for water with Fort Erie being the top at $1,137 per year, followed by Gravenhurst, at 1.7 per cent, which equals $1,088 per year.