Discussions

http://myinforms.com/en-au/a/15711315-city-seeks-44-hike-in-water-rates/  
 
 
As a landlord this is crazy, the NDP government allowed us a generous(sarcasm) 2% increase last year. All these increases we pay for taxes, pst, water, etc. doesn't even begin to be covered by a 2% rental increase!  

Still cheaper than what Winnipeggers pay. And Winnipeg gets nice bonuses like brown water and E coli.

ultraguy said "Still cheaper than what Winnipeggers pay. And Winnipeg gets nice bonuses like brown water and E coli. "

should a city our size pay the same rate as a small town like Portage? With the 17% increase next year there will be a ten dollar difference between us. Then there will be four more years of increases.  
 
We have more homes, businesses than Portage to help ease the cost burden.  
 
Nice of the city to, as they stated in the Brandon Sun "give the benefit of cheaper water" for the last five years, ugh!  
 
Didn't the city have money in reserves to help offset the cost for the water treatment upgrades? Does either level of government not chip in for plant upgrades?

Couple of years ago it would have been blamed on the Mayor....lol

ultraguy said "Still cheaper than what Winnipeggers pay. And Winnipeg gets nice bonuses like brown water and E coli. "

Every time I read "still cheaper than" on some topic. We'll always be cheaper than somewhere: point is ~ we live in Brandon.  
This is one heck of a hit any way you find to rationize it.

braid said "Couple of years ago it would have been blamed on the Mayor....lol "

We can blame the previous administration for not making small increases over the past 5 years. If they (she) wouldn't have ignored it, they could have made smaller, less impactful increases year over year.

Since the populace is up and arms about any tax increases be prepared for sky rocketing user fees and new ones to be put in place. We've neglected our infrastructure for decades in this country and are totally averse to taxes.  
 
So user fees are the only place governments have to move. Prepare for massive increase and new fees in the coming years.

Well....going by the advice from the brandon wages thread, we had all better get higher paying jobs or move quickly or ask for pay increases to offset our cost of living if this increase will force us to live beyond our means.  
At least some people who will be getting their pay increases that they feel they are entitled too over the next few years wont feel hit so hard.  
 
Haha!  
 
Like others have said though, some poor past budgeting will have to be corrected somehow, so we will just have to be prepared for this to happen. It'll suck, but its gotta happen.

What about a more reasonable increase seeing as how it will stay that high for every year afterwards. 44% is a whopping increase to basically be paying forever once the full increase is in place.

braid said "Couple of years ago it would have been blamed on the Mayor....lol "

We pay administration damn good money to keep track of such things! Who was counting the beans? Now we are screwed because all of a sudden they sock us with a huge increase? Is that anyway to run a business?

Johnbisonbear said "    ultraguy said "Still cheaper than what Winnipeggers pay. And Winnipeg gets nice bonuses like brown water and E coli. " should a city our size pay the same rate as a small town like Portage? With the 17% increase next year there will be a ten dollar difference between us. Then there will be four more years of increases.     We have more homes, businesses than Portage to help ease the cost burden.     Nice of the city to, as they stated in the Brandon Sun "give the benefit of cheaper water" for the last five years, ugh!     Didn't the city have money in reserves to help offset the cost for the water treatment upgrades? Does either level of government not chip in for plant upgrades? "

The same issue faced Winnipeg a while back. Slimy Sam ran for years on a promise of no tax increases, but when it finally caught up to them that their infrastructure and services were falling desperately behind due to poor budgeting, then the tax increases came so hard and so fast it hurt the people who could not afford such jumps.  
 
Smaller, more consistent hikes are far better for everyone in the long run. It is like running a car - if you take care of the small issues and do regular maintenance you are far less likely to have to replace an entire engine one day.  
 
As for water, by the looks of it I pay about $133/mth. Adding 44% to that takes it up by 60 bucks a month (yes, I realize it is not all at once , but for sheer figures sake). That 60 bucks extra per month means the one time I take my family out in a month to support a LOCAL business like Sushi Hut or Remingtons, or somewhere will have to be cut to cover it. Now that is just me. But I am sure there are many other people in our immediate area that can't just absorb large increases - so what happens now when hundreds of us suddenly can't support the local restaurants, can't go to a movie, can't afford to support a local contractor to get some work done in our home...the trickle down is immense. Even at the basic 17% first year increase, that is still over $20 month for us - that means my "every couple of weeks" Forbidden Flavours or Starbucks treat" is now out.  
 
How does a tax or user fee increase like that make sense to anyone? A couple of bucks more a month I can swallow, it does not take much to fit that into the budget.  
But everything has gone up, and far more than inflation or wages.  
 
Back to the water again though. I did not read the whole article (too much of a headache to comprehend today...sorry) so correct me if I am wrong, but I have heard nothing else about the high lead levels in some peoples water (my home included - I have a VERY high reading). Is this replacement a planned expenditure with these increases?  
 
Funny how it was all an uproar at the time, we needed to get these tests done and fast and the city was looking into funding to make our water safer for all, but it was dropped with no further information to those of us affected.  
 
I think all the levels of government need to be held more accountable for their accounting. The public trough seems to be unlimited - why budget properly? We can just raise taxes exponentially to cover it. Doesn't make sense.  
 

In order to raise utility rates, the city has to apply to the Public Utilities Board. It is a lengthy, complicated process.  
 
It would seem like a no-brainer to raise rates every year or other year (1-2%) but the city can't change the rate without the PUB involvement. And it can take over a year for PUB to approve new rates.  
 
Think about this, the city can approve a $78M operating budget simply by holding a public hearing and consulting with citizens. But, the utility, which is much, much smaller budget-wise, needs approval from another level of oversight?  
 

The 44% is closer to 52% when you figure in the compounding over the 5 year term.

There is 4 of us in the house and we use on average $35 a month. Our bills around $100 every 3 months (City bills quarterly). If you are using $133 a month in water you need to find away to cut back on your water use because that is a lot!!  
 
Edited by GuyR, 2015-08-25 12:30:42

foxtrot11 said "    Johnbisonbear said "    ultraguy said "Still cheaper than what Winnipeggers pay. And Winnipeg gets nice bonuses like brown water and E coli. " should a city our size pay the same rate as a small town like Portage? With the 17% increase next year there will be a ten dollar difference between us. Then there will be four more years of increases.     We have more homes, businesses than Portage to help ease the cost burden.     Nice of the city to, as they stated in the Brandon Sun "give the benefit of cheaper water" for the last five years, ugh!     Didn't the city have money in reserves to help offset the cost for the water treatment upgrades? Does either level of government not chip in for plant upgrades? " The same issue faced Winnipeg a while back. Slimy Sam ran for years on a promise of no tax increases, but when it finally caught up to them that their infrastructure and services were falling desperately behind due to poor budgeting, then the tax increases came so hard and so fast it hurt the people who could not afford such jumps.     Smaller, more consistent hikes are far better for everyone in the long run. It is like running a car - if you take care of the small issues and do regular maintenance you are far less likely to have to replace an entire engine one day.     As for water, by the looks of it I pay about $133/mth. Adding 44% to that takes it up by 60 bucks a month (yes, I realize it is not all at once , but for sheer figures sake). That 60 bucks extra per month means the one time I take my family out in a month to support a LOCAL business like Sushi Hut or Remingtons, or somewhere will have to be cut to cover it. Now that is just me. But I am sure there are many other people in our immediate area that can't just absorb large increases - so what happens now when hundreds of us suddenly can't support the local restaurants, can't go to a movie, can't afford to support a local contractor to get some work done in our home...the trickle down is immense. Even at the basic 17% first year increase, that is still over $20 month for us - that means my "every couple of weeks" Forbidden Flavours or Starbucks treat" is now out.     How does a tax or user fee increase like that make sense to anyone? A couple of bucks more a month I can swallow, it does not take much to fit that into the budget.   But everything has gone up, and far more than inflation or wages.     Back to the water again though. I did not read the whole article (too much of a headache to comprehend today...sorry) so correct me if I am wrong, but I have heard nothing else about the high lead levels in some peoples water (my home included - I have a VERY high reading). Is this replacement a planned expenditure with these increases?     Funny how it was all an uproar at the time, we needed to get these tests done and fast and the city was looking into funding to make our water safer for all, but it was dropped with no further information to those of us affected.     I think all the levels of government need to be held more accountable for their accounting. The public trough seems to be unlimited - why budget properly? We can just raise taxes exponentially to cover it. Doesn't make sense.     "

Maybe you could cut back on your water usage and still afford to go to Forbidden Flavours. How many people live in your house? $133/month is pretty high.

And we have spoken to the city about it. They have no answers and will not do anything to rectify it...it is all on us.  
 
We have awful water pressure (lose shower flow when a toilet is flushed or my HE washer is in use), we have unacceptably high lead levels and the only theory for the issues is that is it due to the T pipe we share with our neighbors property.  
 
Now, even though the city wants that T pipe or whatever it is called removed because it is not to code, it is on our property so it is entirely on us to replace it. Last quote we got a few years back was over $6000 to replace the pipes to the city portion. The city pipes on our property will cost another $3-5000. Nice of the former homeowners, who were aware of the issue, to disclose that when we bought it. (No, no recourse, we tried that)  
 
Of course that opens another cans of worms with the neighbors - I don't even know what happens with their part if we go ahead and fix the portion on our property. The one plumbers' theory was that we have been subsidizing their usage over the years which is why it is higher than it should be.  
 
Thanks for your "concern" though. If I could lower my consumption - I would have.

Sorry for being concerned foxtrot11. Just thought someone playing $1600 a year for water compared to the average family spending $500 would be a cause for concern.  
 
As for your plumbing obviously it is your responsibility the City never installed it in why should they fix it. I imagine the price to have it replaced might be higher now too. But just think if that is the problem changing it a few years back when you found out what it was would have almost paid for itself by now with the water you would have saved! Just throwing money away seems silly you are going to have to fix the problem eventually and it's going to cost so much more in the long run.  
 
 
 
Edited by GuyR, 2015-08-25 13:49:18

The issue with infrastructure is that if you put off paying $10 dollars this year the same repair doesn't cost $10 next year.  
 
Infrastructure deficit isn't a linear cost. Last year's 10$ fix is now a 30$ fix, if put off another year it's a $90 fix, etc.  
 
So what we could have fixed years ago with minimal taxes now requires huge investment and it's ballooning every year.  
 
If you are interested in just how bad our infrastructure has been allowed to get check out the Canadian Infrastructure report card.  
 
http://www.canadainfrastructure.ca/en/latest.html  
 
the 2102 report lays out how quickly costs escalate when you hold off on minor repairs.  
 
https://csce.ca/custom-content/uploads/2012/06/Infrastructure_Report_Card_ENG_Final1.pdf  
 
And although it's easy to blame the politicians of yesterday for not increases taxes and solving the issue remember how badly the electorate punishes any politician for attempting to do so.  
 
Now things have gotten so bad we need drastic increases which are even bigger political suicide. So the cycle perpetuates and today's politician leaves it for the next generation to completely replace our infrastructure.  
 
Which means we have passed massive debt and taxes onto our children while living off the investments of past generations.  
 
The saddest part is that our current government-in its blind quest for a balanced budget-has squandered a golden opportunity to bower vast amounts of money at historically low rates to start reversing this tragic cycle.  
 
Sadly we will end up borrowing far larger sums down the road at much higher interests rates.

SJK said "http://myinforms.com/en-au/a/15711315-city-seeks-44-hike-in-water-rates/       As a landlord this is crazy, the NDP government allowed us a generous(sarcasm) 2% increase last year. All these increases we pay for taxes, pst, water, etc. doesn't even begin to be covered by a 2% rental increase!   "

that you should be blaming not the province.

Mist said "    SJK said "http://myinforms.com/en-au/a/15711315-city-seeks-44-hike-in-water-rates/       As a landlord this is crazy, the NDP government allowed us a generous(sarcasm) 2% increase last year. All these increases we pay for taxes, pst, water, etc. doesn't even begin to be covered by a 2% rental increase!   " that you should be blaming not the province. "

read SJK's post again?  
 
I feel bad for land lords facing this hike! Most people that rent don't give a shit how much water they use just because they don't have to pay the bill.