;;

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Media Release:Hamilton City Council Approves 2017 Rate Budget

HAMILTON, ON – November 24, 2016 - At its meeting on November 23, 2016, Council approved the City of Hamilton 2017 Water, Wastewater / Storm Rate Budget with a combined residential rate increase of 4.85% effective January 1, 2017. The average resident’s bill in 2017 will be $660.95 for a household consuming 200 cubic metres of water annually representing an increase of $30.60 annually.

Hamilton has one of the oldest and most complex water and wastewater systems in Ontario and this rate increase supports Hamilton’s ongoing efforts to address the infrastructure deficit and attain a sustainable level of funding for this critical system. This rate increase reflects a prudent investment for present and future generations while balancing residents’ ability to pay. Hamilton’s rates continue to remain among the lowest in Ontario.

For more detailed information, please visit www.hamilton.ca/Budget2017

8 comments:

  1. But let's blow $$$ on LRT

    The Dark One

    ReplyDelete
  2. LRT will have a positive impact on our future water rates. That is one area there shouldn't be any dispute. The watermains / storm drains along that route will be replaced with new using provincial funds

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. not necessarily true Viv. The province replaces infrastructure "in kind" which is to say it replaces-and pays for-exactly what is replaced. According to Councilor Farr, he wants to "upgrade" the existing main trunk line (which admittedly is probably a sound idea) which puts you and I back on the hook. There is no free lunch. Do you really believe if efficiency is improved rates will decrease?

      Delete
    2. Yes Jim. I believe wholeheartedly. Just like I believed that if we all conserved, our electricity bills would decrease ;-)
      Sorce

      Delete
    3. Jim is right, the sewer lines argument is a scam

      Delete
  3. We conserve and it costs us more money. We replace all of our appliances, taps and so forth with efficient models that cost more $$$ and it costs us more money. We do as they ask but it's never enough.

    Here's to Council looking within and leading by example by taking a 10% pay cut to help us with our massive infrastructure deficit, as well as reducing staff for councillors.

    Also, why is nobody crying bloody murder over all the lost revenue on city buildings that have lights on all night, broken showers/faucets/fountains and so forth? Lots of savings to be found there.

    ~ Miffed on the Mountain

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry Jim et al. Phrased it the wrong way. I should have said prov $ towards water infrastructure will help mitigate impact of future increases. Increasing the capacity of the main line is likely prudent to support increased density (with or without LRT). Agree that our rates will never go down. Just meant that they won't go up as quickly with LRT funding; with respect to water.

    ReplyDelete
  5. STAFF SHOULD EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS:
    1)City doesn't have revenue problem.
    2) City has tremendous problem with expenditures.
    3) Why city charges water charges to City owned properties
    4)Staff must stop playing politics.

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.


Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.