"Director Gyula Kiss would like to see revenue generation shift from user fees to taxation. "With water rates, you always have to guess how much (money) you need," he said. "If people reduce water, revenue is less so you have to increase rates."(Above article).
Indeed I did say that and a lot more. Without the context it does not make
much sense. So, here is the context:
First I reflected on the fact that after 12 years and about $70 million
investment we achieved a quality of water from Duteau Creek that matches the Kal
Lake quality prior to the installation of the ultra violet treatment facility
there. Kind of small return for the investment!
Then I commented on the fact that GVW currently collects about $8.1 M
annually for future MWP infrastructure. The problem is that if we plan to finance our future MWP through an annual
contribution of $8.1 M the current contributors may never see the end result.
They are paying for something that will be enjoyed by future generations, not by
them.
Solution: prepare the plans, borrow the funds and pay back the funds using
the $8.1 for the financing. That sum could finance a loan of about $115
million. However, we don't need to collect those funds in advance, we collect
them when payments are due. I am against collecting large sums of money in
advance (slush fund?).
The mode of collecting the funds for infrastructure financing is another problem. We just
approved the borrowing of $7.5 M for playing fields. Mode of financing: taxation
not user fees. Why is taxation not the right method of water infrastructure
financing? Coldstream Council has adopted the idea. Water rates are very
complicated source of revenue due to conflicting objectives (i.e. encouraging
waters conservation at the same time ensuring needed revenues are available).
Basically, those were the comments I made at the above meeting.
*********************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment