Where Did The Sewer Surcharge Money Go

I cannot handle this any more. Every day there is a new revelation in Watermain-gate that demands a full and complete investigation. According to Chris Schurr's BLOG,

• "in the 2006 WUC Capital budget, $2,572,075 was earmarked [for] the construction of a feeder main to supply the Town of Tecumseh with water."

The obvious question is:

• was Windsor watermain levy money used for these new Tecumseh watermains and not for replacement of Windsor watermains!

That was just in 2006. What about in previous years? Were those sums included as part of the Mayor's Council presentation to justify that no watermain levy money was diverted? If so, is that how Windsor levy money was to be used?

Then I had a blinding flash of inspiration. Is there an issue also with the sewer surcharge funds for which we need an investigation?

Perhaps the Ministry or Auditor General or outside forensic auditor can add this to the list of matters to be investigated along with the watermains. I note that in a Letter to the Editor in Saturday's paper, a writer added the arena to the mix. What the heck in for a penny, in for a pound I always say---add that one too!

Windsor has a big sewer problem similar to that with watermains:

• "Windsor and other cities... have old sewer infrastructure systems that will require a significant amount of funding to bring them up to current standards.
  
  Windsor has problems with regards to aging and inadequate sewer systems similar to these older cities. More specifically, Windsor assumed inadequate sewer system infrastructures through previous annexations that were at lower standards than what was being installed in the City at the time. The City also has numerous “combined” sanitary & storm sewers. In most cases, the upgrades require the separation and installation of both sanitary & storm sewer systems to correct the problem."

Why am I talking now about sewers? Is it just me or didn't you find it odd that the Mayor spent so much time at the last Council meeting berating Councillors, and Councillor Halberstadt in particular, about the sewer surcharge? I really did not understand the reason for him doing so.

He also made a big point of saying that the sewer surcharge was under the control of Council. In other words, he was saying to them that they were at risk on this one. They could not hide behind some separate organization like WUC if there was a problem. It would be all theirs. It was almost like he was threatening them with it for reasons unknown.

I found it rather presumptuous of the Mayor to tell us no matter what, the water rates are staying where they are. Strange from a guy who 2 years earler thought they could be decreased.

So I got suspicious. Did he want the water rates kept high to increase the sewer surcharge amount? Why was so much money needed for sewers...just to eliminate back-ups or was a lot of money needed for sewer projects for the East end arena or the Tunnel Improvements or to create "shovel ready" land at the airport for developers at taxpayer expense. I'd like to know the answer.

A bit of history. The sewer surcharge was first introduced in 1994. The sewer surcharge amounts are huge. The following are the revenues generated by the City Sewer Surcharge on the water bill for the years 2003 to 2007:

2003.......$28.3 million
2004.......$33.0 million
2005.......$37.1 million
2006.......$36.2 million
2007.......$18.4 million for the first six months

One reason for fighting to keep the water rates so high is that it generates increased sewer surcharge amounts. Thus $600M over 30 years for watermains is a lot better for the sewer surcharge than $660M over 100 years. You get to add the sewer amount on the $20M per year ($600M/30) rather than $6.6M ($660M/100)

I have not been able to find out exactly what the sewer surcharge is to be used for. With the watermain levy, it was clear that it was for capital projects only. I cannot find a specific document which outlines the use of it.

Here is a funny comment from the past though from ex-Mayor David Burr in 1987. It shows how wrong one can be talking about the future, just like the "temporary" income tax or the DRIC traffic projections:

• "Most residential and commercial property owners would get tax decreases if Windsor established a sewage surcharge on water bills, Mayor David Burr told the Windsor Rotary Club on Monday.
  
  Burr said large water users would pay relatively more, but they should because they also generate more sewage for treatment."

The closest I can find about the background is this. In 1993, it was said:

• "Council decided Tuesday that sewer costs will no longer be rolled into property taxes. Instead, the $9.8 million it costs the city to treat waste water and maintain the sewer system will be raised through surcharges based on water consumption."

It was also said in 1993:

• "Regardless of the response, Mayor Mike Hurst says the city is determined to press ahead with what he believes is a fairer "user-pay" approach to funding sewage treatment costs.
  
  If you flush more water down the drain and into a sewage treatment plant, you should pay more, the mayor says...
  
  "For the average residential taxpayer, it (the surcharge) is going to be a wash; that's the bottom line," predicts finance commissioner Wills."

In a 1996 Star story I saw the comment:

• "The sewer surcharge goes into city coffers but is collected by the Windsor Utilities Commission, which is responsible for providing water and electricity.
  
  The surcharge is used to maintain and replace sewage treatment plants, pumping stations and sanitary sewers."

In the 2004 Opeating Budget I saw the comment that there was a reserve account:

• "for ongoing maintenance & repair of the existing sewer system and pollution control plants"

In July, 2007 Council passed a resoution stating:

• "the revenue from the combined Sewer Surcharge rates BE USED to fund the City’s ongoing sewer operations, the operationalization and long-term debt charges for the Lou Romano Water Reclamation Plant Upgrade & Expansion, and continue to fund the sewer infrastructure upgrade program to address the basement flooding issue."

It is clear that sewer surcharge money was to be used for sewer costs only, both capital and operating, unlike the water levy which was specifically capital only. There were to be no sewer charges from property taxes. The surcharge amount started out at 73.5 per cent of what customers pay for water and has grown since then.

If there was a written statement from an equivalent "Ms. Zuber" on the sewer side, then the task of finding out where money went would be easy. Unless one has access to the accounts of the City, there is no real way to find out if the sewer surcharge money has been used the way it is supposed to be used. However, I have been able to find out the following:

1. In 2004, "almost $900,000 in streetsweeping and litter-pickup costs [were charged] to the city's sewer surcharge account" rather than to the the pollution control and environmental services division so it could "reduce its budget by 7.3 per cent."


2. In 2004, "Council has approved $180,000 as the city's part of an expenditure of $360,000 to continue a larviciding program in the city to counteract threats from the West Nile virus and vector mosquitoes...The city's portion will be covered by the existing sewer surcharge.


3. In 2005, funding was again approved for a larviciding program at an estimated gross expenditure of approximately $100,000, and a net cost of approximately $50,000 from the 2005 allocation for sewer surcharge


4. Have we overpaid on sludge processing [BLOG "How Smelly Sludge Turned Non-odorous" September 08, 2006]


5. In 2005 "Council approved spending $7 million for a series of sewer rehabilitation projects across the city....Also included in the projects will be new pavement and watermain construction, all of which will be funded from the sewer surcharge fund.


6. Again in 2005, there was an expenditure Rossini Boulevard Sewers, Pavement, and Watermain Rehabilitation to be funded from the Sewer Surcharge Fund and from a developer contribution


7. What projects make up the "Ongoing city-wide general sewer rehabilitation program" that went from $1,620,349 in 2004 to $7,297,000 in 2007.

Are some of these expenditures adding insult to injury given Watermain-gate. Don't you find it ironic that we have a watermain levy for which money was to be used for capital but that was used for operating instead and perhaps for Tecumseh watermains. And now, it seems that money that was set aside for sewers was used for watermains. It's bizarre.

Is this merely the tip of the ice-berg? It's not a huge number of matters that I found. I grant you that the amounts of money spent (other than #7) are relatively small. In the circumstances, however, I believe an explantion is required. In the circumstances, that explanation needs to be provided by an outside expert thoroughly examining the sewer books and records. In the circumstances, we need that explanation now.