Broken Water Mains

Councillor Budget better learn body language.

When the Mayor starts talking a mile a minute about a topic in answer to one of his questions and makes excuses saying what a great job other Departments or affiliates have done with their problems, then the Councillor should sit down and be quiet. When the Mayor says something that may be a problem will be handled in a like manner, then it means that the Councillor should drop the subject because it is embarrassing. When the Mayor tells us how well things have been dealt with in this term of Council, then the Councillor should hide under the Council table for making a huge faux pas!

There is that darn Communications Package again. This time buried near the bottom as Number 28 out of 38 on Page 72 out of 76 pages is a Report: Funding for Construction of Watermains on City Projects.

The Report states that the Windsor Utilities and the Works Department try to co-ordinate jobs so that roads are not fixed up and then subsequently have to be torn up for water main replacement. Makes sense. However, in early 2006 (note "early") Windsor Utilities told Public Works that it could not fund construction of water mains due to an increase in City roads and sewer projects.

Does anyone recall hearing this when Council congratulated themselves on their great job on the Budget in early 2006?

It is only a $7.2 Million shortfall after all we learn in the middle of 2006 (note "middle"). Six alternatives were discussed for dealing with the financial problem and five were rejected. What was recommended is that the WUC borrow money from a financial institution to fund the work.

The Report calls this "bridge financing." A definition of bridge financing that I saw is "Interim financing of one sort or another used to solidify a position until more permanent financing is arranged." In this case, WUC is to "borrow the funds directly and make repayments in future years from their water revenues." Does this meet the test of "bridge financing?" I assume that the outside auditors will have to agree that this is a proper characterization of the debt.

[Oh I get it now, it's subliminal Finance Department humour. Bridge financing over troubled water mains]

You see if the City provided the money, the City might have a budget problem itself. So now that WUC borrows the funds, they can increase the water rates to pay back the loan and interest and you will never know about it since it will be buried in your water bill. It is NOT a tax so don't complain.

Perhaps someone can explain also how this fits in with "pay-as-you-go." Frankly, if we have all of these millions all of a sudden coming available to build an $80 million arena and we had the cash to meet all of the millions for unexpected costs in the City as the Mayor mentioned in his recent speech, then we should have been able to deal with a trifling $7.2 million easily!

One final thought. Should a matter like this be buried in a Communications package as an item "To Council for Information." I do not think so....do you?