Media Release: Hamilton City Council Approves 2018 Rate Budget & Tax Supported Capital Budget

HAMILTON, ON – During today’s City Council meeting, Council approved the City of Hamilton 2018 Water, Wastewater / Storm Rate Budget as well as the City’s Tax Supported Capital Budget.

With the approved rates for the 2018 Water, Wastewater / Storm Rate Budget landing at a combined rate increase of 4.5% effective January 1, 2018. The average resident’s bill in 2018 will be $690.70 for a household consuming 200 cubic metres of water annually representing an increase of $29.75 annually.

Hamilton has one of the oldest and most complex water and wastewater systems in Ontario. This investment will improve our ability to protect the environment and deliver on our commitments respecting harbour clean up, support the homeowner assistance programs related to sewer later repair, basement flood prevention and lead service replacement while supporting Hamilton’s ongoing efforts to address the infrastructure deficit and work toward 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.

Council’s approval of the 2018 Tax Supported Capital Budget will support $236 million gross in capital infrastructure projects. The increase in capital funding from property taxes equates to an increase in the operating budget of 0.9 per cent or $7.5 million. This represents an increase of $30 per year on an average household.

The Tax Supported Capital Budget will focus on roads, bridges, traffic, sidewalks, corporate/recreation facilities and entertainment facility rehabilitation, affordable housing, transit initiatives, Fire and Paramedic Services and waste management. In addition, capital investments will be made towards improving the outdoor spaces in Hamilton including open space development, forestry and horticulture and West Harbour development.

2018 Tax Supported Capital Budget Highlights

$236 M in gross capital spending includes:

• $68.5 million towards Roads, bridges, traffic, sidewalks
• $14.2 million towards Roads growth
• $26.4 million towards Corporate and recreation facilities rehabilitation
• $25.8 million towards West Harbour Strategic initiatives
• $19.4 million towards Transit initiatives
• $11.5 million towards Affordable Housing Initiatives
• $8.2 million towards Fire and Paramedic Services
• $7.9 million towards Open Space Development
• $7.7 million towards Vehicle replacement
• $7.2 million towards Entertainment facility rehabilitation
• $4.6 million towards Waste Management initiatives
• $4.3 million towards Forestry and Horticulture

Additional Resources
Learn more about the 2018 Budget - www.hamilton.ca/Budget2018

Quotes

“Council’s approval of the 2018 Water, Wastewater/ Storm Rate Budget and Tax Supported Capital Budget reflect the importance of maintaining our aging infrastructure and facilities while creating new places in the city for the enjoyment of the community. Residents are understanding of the need for the rising water, wastewater/ storm rates, at a reasonable increase, to ensure we are staying on top of this critical system within our City. Hamilton has been at the lead in terms of asset management specifically on the water and wastewater side. We have been working hard and consistently year-to-year to ensure that capital projects, strategic initiatives and growth continues, while showing good value for money and accountability to our residents. The forward planning that we are doing is extremely helpful, and in fact, we are noted across the Province as being the prime example of how you do it right.”
Mayor Fred Eisenberger

“The 2018 Tax Supported Capital Budget supports a series of strategic investments towards maintaining the quality of City assets, growing the City’s assessment base, supporting the City’s transit strategy, while maintaining the City’s tax competitiveness.”

Mike Zegarac, General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services

With ATU Local 107 President, Eric Tuck- on LRT

Eric Tuck

President ATU107

Given that the role that the HSR will play in LRT continues to be a hot topic, The Hamiltonian checked in ATU Local 107 President, Eric Tuck. Enjoy our chat with Eric:

1. In a recent Spectator editorial, the paper, in its view, expresses grave concern over the incremental costs of having HSR/ATU run the LRT system. It cites an expected $750,000.00 annually for the next seven years in incremental costs if the system is run locally. This 5.2 million dollar seems staggering. Then there is the added costs of training. How do you respond to these concerns?


It is our expectation that there will be a cost to Operating and Maintaining an LRT System. We are also very much aware that the Private operator will have those costs built into their bid along with certain profit margins. No matter how we look at it, Public or Private operating and maintenance costs will be paid for . The City and Metro-linx MOA have left that conversation open. That being said, if Metro-linx was prepared to subsidize the private sector then why wouldn’t we expect those same subsidies to flow to our Public system? Why wouldn’t we want our Public Taxpayers dollars used to support Public Transit over a Private for Profit operator?

Can you describe the elements of the case for having HSR run the system. Why does it make sense to go that route as opposed to opening it up to competition?

First off Public Transit isn’t profitable - never has been, so competition only takes away from the public system. HSR has spent 31years building the B-Line ridership up to where it is today and will continue to build that ridership base until 2024 when the first LRT starts running.

38 years of investment to build a ridership base and then we are going to turn the keys over to a private company to profit off of LRT for the next 30 years?

We are going to give up local autonomy and any public accountability of the main transit line through the center of our city? Think about that.

It reminds me of the 407 when we were convinced that we should build this super hi-way that was going to relieve congestion and then we sell it to a private consortium to profit off of for the next 100 years. It is now one of the most expensive roads to drive on in North America. York Region privatized their transit system and the fares are $4.40 a ride and receives government subsidy of more than $4.00 a ride. Hamilton can’t stand by and allow this to happen here.

We recently faced,  and are still dealing with a transit crisis at HSR but because it is under local control we were able to hold those people in charge accountable and called on our city council to act to address those shortfalls. This is only possible when you have local and public control.

3. What do you say to those who might suggest that HSR/ATU considerations are resulting in the project being delayed, based on amendments that will have to be done to the RFQ. Are you of the opinion that the HSR/ATU stipulation should have been incorporated from day one, rather than to leave it to a point where a delay in the RFQ process is inevitable?

 RFQ- Request for Qualifications?

Simply a process to ensure those who are interested in bidding on the job have the resources and means to do the job. In the scope it clearly defines “May include DFBOM” key word for me is “may” I would say if Metro-linx wanted to expedite the process they have had 4 months to start these negotiations with the City- why the lengthy delay? Then to respond with fear-mongering and misinformation is wrong spirited and disingenuous. The fact of the matter is we have been advocating for public ownership of operations and maintenance since the day this project was announced. These conversations started years ago . We were repeatedly put off and told that we would discuss this during the RFP Process which is where we are at right now.

4. Is there anything else you’d like Hamiltonians to know about this issue?

There is still a strong will amongst Hamiltonians to support a world class public transit system in Hamilton and if Metro-linx, HSR,bATU and the City can work collaboratively,  we still believe that goal is attainable but the political rhetoric needs to be replace with honest dialogue and goodwill negotiations amongst the stakeholders.

Thanks respectfully Eric Tuck
President ATU107

The LRT Thing

Metrolinx's recent decision to punt the decision as to whether to allow HSR/ATU to run LRT, back to city council has been fraught with controversy. While the decision has been referred back to Hamilton City council, that direction was laced with dire warnings about the risks of hard wiring the running of LRT to HSR.

Much of these concerns are amplified in Andrew Dreschel of The Hamilton Spectators's opinion piece, which can be seen here. Andrew's piece entitled Councillors Should Say No to HSR Running LRT, makes it pretty clear where he stands on this.

While Dreschel's piece lands as it piggybacks on Metrolinx's warnings, Andrew's suggestion that Metrolinx would retain ownership of the system, thereby  having it remain in the public's hands, may not be compelling to some. While the statement is true that Metrolinx's ownership denotes it as being in public hands,  Hamiltonians may not find comfort in that. Referring to a provincial agency that will have interests and responsibilities beyond Hamilton's LRT, is not the same as a locally run system. The proximity effect has force in this. We're not suggesting one or the other is the better option; only that the comparison may not hold as nicely.

The decision as to realize the benefits and risks of privatization is also not a slam dunk. There are many variables to consider. Among them:

What is the track record of agencies such as Metrolinx specifically, and the privatization of public services more generally, location specific and otherwise. We are not suggesting a grade here or rendering a judgment; only that the question should be considered. 

To what degree should we empower a consortium? 

Are there creative solutions that we have yet to consider? For example, is it really a HSR vs. private operator decision? Or can it be privately operated initially, dovetailing into a planned handoff to HSR once certain preconditions regarding readiness are met? Surely that can be contractually cast. Would such a provision be necessary? 

What is the potential cost of litigation, if pieces of a consortium's deliverables fall astray or are otherwise at issue. (we have local examples to refer to).

How much profit is in the for profit model and how does that variable play in the mix.

Were HSR/ATU's interests given enough attention at the onset, and is part of this a hard lesson learned in retrofitting a major stakeholder to the extent that they ought to have been included in early talks? Certainly, if one reads ATU Local 107 President Eric Tuck's past interviews in The Hamiltonian, there is a clear sense that ATU believes that they were not consulted early enough, in a meaningful way.

All this to say that the LRT thing, and more specifically, the decision as to whether to allow HSR/ATU to operate the system is not a simple matter. Nor should it be playing out this late in the process. 

The Hamiltonian