Open letter to district chair Gord Adams and members of district council:

Re: District debt reduction, water and sewer

I have been reading and listening with interest to the debate and public input on who should pay the current $106-million district debt, $90 million of which is attributable to water and sewer plants throughout the district. Two common threads have emerged by the vast majority: that is, fairness and user pay.

To date, the only voice heard has been rural, non-serviced ratepayers. There is no organized voice for the 8,444 district ratepayers who are on water and sewer. So far, we have been the unheard, silent minority.

What is likely not well understood is the cost we pay for water and sewer services. After the initial hook-up charge ranging between $6,000 and $10,000, we have two ongoing charges. The first is an annual tax levy for water and sewer. This tax is based on MPAC assessment, not use or amount of service provided to a property.

So, an urban waterfront property assessed at $900,000 (similar to a non-urban waterfront assessment) is taxed at about $2,500. In addition, quarterly water and sewer use charges amount to roughly $1,000 for a total, annual cost of $3,500. For this example property (assuming the MPAC assessment never changes), the cost is equivalent to purchasing a new private water and sewer service every five or six years, not every 15 to 20 years, which is the normal life span of a private system. Costs will vary according to MPAC assessment.

One might argue that we chose to live in an urban centre with existing services. That, however, was not true for MacTier, Baysville or Severn, the smallest of the communities that district councillors determined recently must have these services. The cost of those past decisions are now becoming crippling to those forced to hook up and pay for services.

I find it perplexing Recommen-dation 6 (in the district’s debt reduction report), “lagoon haulage charges be set at $40 for 2009 and increased by $10 per year until the 50 per cent target is reached.” I understand the rationale for not increasing the user fee charges so high that individuals may choose to dump illegally and risk pollution. Why isn’t the remaining 50 per cent an annual tax to rural users in the same way as the water and sewer users are taxed as explained above?

Fair needs to be fair for all of us. The only way you have to collect the remaining 50 per cent is general tax levy, which means the minority water-sewer ratepayers pay again for services we don’t receive. That recommendation requires amendment.

Finally, there are a number of district services that most of us will never use but are seen to be necessary for healthy, prosperous communities. One is the Pines (long-term care) home for the aged. Most of us will never use it; no one has complained about its $16-million debt and all of us want to ensure that the service remains in our community for those who need it.

Another service is the portion of water and sewer plants throughout the district that are designed for future growth. I suspect that every one of the six towns and townships comprising the district has an official plan that plans for and expects future growth for their town. A part of that planning is to have a reasonable amount of future capacity available when growth occurs.

That future capacity comes with a cost that someone has to pay for now to use later. Who should pay for that portion of future capacity that no one is now using?

The common theme throughout the debt reduction debate has been “user pay.” We don’t disagree with that concept but we do not and cannot “use” that portion of the plant capacity intended for unknown future residents or developments. The current 8,444 water and sewer ratepayers are not the “users” of that future capacity and should not be expected to be solely responsible for that portion of the debt repayments.

Since you can’t add a “Lego” onto a plant each time a shop or home is built in the catchments area of services, plans must be made at the time a plant is built or renovated for the future capacity. That’s simply good planning for any community.

The future growth of our communities belongs to all Muskokans not just 2,673 in Bracebridge, 2,156 in Gravenhurst, 2,793 in Huntsville, 85 in MacTier, 271 in Bala, 326 in Port Carling, 81 in Baysville and 59 in Port Severn.

Surely, district councillors did not create a $90-million debt to burden 8,444 ratepayers. Many of the lowest income earners in the district comprise this group. Why would you risk the viability of the communities your official plan intends to expand for the benefit of all of Muskoka?

Fair needs to be fair for all of us and stop being an arm-wrestling match between rural and urban ratepayers. Most of the recommendations outlined by Commissioner Cairns are supportable and reflect an equitable solution.

A further amendment to the strategy requires a separation of the debt attributable to: (1) current capacity of water and sewer to be applied to current users; and (2) future capacity to be shared by all ratepayers through general tax levy.

In the alternative, abandon your economic development programs and build for current capacity only. You can’t have it both ways. We few cannot support the burden of all of Muskoka’s future growth plans; we don’t own or use it!