Huntsville - Lake of Bays Lakes Council

Gord Adams Chair District of Muskoka Dear Mr. Adams: Re: Sewer and Water Debt As you may be aware, the members of the Huntsville Lakes Council are lake associations. As such, most of us are waterfront residents. We are strongly opposed to any downloading of sewer and water costs for a variety of reasons. MPAC figures show a median assessment growth of 45 percent since 2005. A report commissioned by WRAFT/CAPTR from Cushman & Wakefield Lepage compared sales of properties in the last quarter of 2004 with the last quarter of 2007 for Muskoka/Haliburton. This showed values for waterfront properties to be much greater than for those properties not on water which could increase waterfront taxes by at least 50 to 60 percent, if not higher, come fall. Such an increase in the tax base from waterfront owners may well help decrease urban taxes by more than the 50 percent shown in District’s 2002 study. We are by our taxes alone significantly subsidizing the sewer and water costs of urban residents. We would also like to point out that we are subsidizing other Town services many of which we do not directly enjoy. And, as you are aware, assessment is not based on actual, only potential, income. Many of us are stretched to the limit by our tax bill. As we understand it, the general tax base subsidizes lagoon capital projects and about 80 percent of operating costs with the remaining 20 percent covered by user fees. It also subsidizes water and sewer (primarily sewer) capital projects, albeit at an amount approximately 14 percent lower than the total capital and operating funding for lagoons. (In our view, taken on a per capita basis, waterfront taxes easily cover this disparity.) Rural residents have significant ongoing costs related to the ongoing and safe operation of their septic and water systems. Money must be set aside each year to cover septic system replacement or upgrades, with more elaborate (and expensive) systems often required for waterfront properties. Although wells generally do not need replacement, installation is expensive. Maintenance costs are ongoing. Those of us who use lake water, also have ongoing equipment costs (UV lights, multiple filters, line replacement etc.). You are quoted (Jacqueline Lawrence, Forester, March 5, 2008) as stating that lake associations, having pushed for costly upgrades to water and sewer plants to protect water quality, were partially to blame for Muskoka’s sewer and water debt. We would hate to think how the economy of Muskoka would suffer if our lakes supported growths of algal blooms or even blue-green algae. We would also like to remind you that most lake associations spend considerable time every year monitoring water quality, putting on educational programs around lake quality issues and sitting on municipal committees to ensure support for lake-friendly regulations. We realize that District has accumulated a huge debt load for water and sewer infrastructure. A program that sees connections made in an organized manner (with innovative ways to help individuals cope with the financing) would help decrease spending. Timing non-critical infrastructure projects until later would allow for payment of some of this debt. Surely Provincial funds can be sought for portions of the upgrades needed due, in part, to the increased standards demanded by the Safe Drinking Water Act? More taxing is not the only way to decrease debt. Respectfully Mary McCulley Chair, Policy Committee, Huntsville Lakes council cc Mayor Doughty District Councillors Coleman, Thompson and Young The Forester

Attachment	Size
HLC Letter to District re Sewer and Water-Mary- 2008_05_28.doc	32.5 KB