keoadmin
10-16-2003, 11:49 PM
Kingston's Infrastructure and the Challenges of the Capital Budget
Article by Nancy Foster, with notes from Richard Tindal
Investment in infrastructure is needed to provide new services that will support economic growth and to maintain and replace existing infrastructure that needs upgrading. It is the latter problem that especially confronts the City of Kingston.
Impending Infrastructure Obligations
Project / Timing / Cost
King West Water Tower / Current / $2.5 million
Downtown Sewer and Watermain replacement / 2004-2005 /Estimate not available
Harbourfront Trunk Sewer / 2004-2006 / $6 million
Secondary Treatment Facility at Ravensview / 2004-2006 / $80 million
Twinning of sewer from River Street pumping station / Underway, 2003 - 2006 / $17.6 million
Road construction and maintenance /Annual / $10-$18 million
Urban Growth Report / Varied, as are growth options / To come
The Draft Transportation report examines Kingston annual expenditure ($10 - $12 million) on roads and pronounces it inadequate. To fully maintain current roads, the figure, says the report, should be around $18 million per year. In addition the report strongly recommends a third crossing of the Cataraqui River -- $32 million.
The final Urban Growth Report will detail costs associated with the various growth options that are presented.
Since 1999 user fees have paid sewer and water infrastructure costs. This is not to say that the fees are directly levied according to costs. The total cost to users depends on the support for infrastructure projects given by provincial and federal levels of government. Federal commitment to the Ravensview project will be $25 million.
The Amalgamation Agreement calls for the burden of upgrades to fall on those they benefit -- in this case of the major sewer and water projects -- the East and Central City. This would not apply to the third crossing, as transportation services were not included in the area specific requirements of the agreement.
Between 30% and 50% of the capital budget costs fall directly on the municipal taxpayer through fees or taxes. A recent city publication asserts that ‘funding to municipalities from senior levels of government has decreased from 22.9% to 17.9% of total municipal revenues.’ The province disputes these numbers
Cities do not depreciate their assets so there is no automatic reserve for replacing worn out assets. This means that a council can postpone making necessary investments in infrastructure without this decision showing up in the books as an increased liability facing the municipality. As a result, councils have had less incentive to recognize every year the real costs that are accumulating -- in the form of aging infrastructure -- and to put money aside to replace this infrastructure.
However, since 1999, Kingston councils have been contributing on an annual basis to a reserve fund, which will be used for replacing existing assets. The financial plan calls for a 1% annual incremental contribution to tax supported capital reserve fund. (1% = approx $1 million). Repairs and maintenance are part of the Operating Budget.
While the initiatives mentioned above are welcome, they are far from sufficient. The other sources of revenue for capital financing potentially available to the city include:
~ Provincial and federal grants which are no longer as plentiful, are uncertain, and tend to fluctuate with the priorities of other levels of government;
~ Development charges arising from new growth and development in the city;
~ Expanded user fees, subject to various limits imposed in the Municipal Act;
~ Long term borrowing;
~ Private capital that might be accessed as part of public/private partnerships;
~ Donations from the community in support of particular capital projects.
Recent Councils have tried to keep tax increases approximately at the level of inflation. During the high inflation years of the 70s this was not the case and one could argue that we are paying the price now -- or one could argue that inflation is the wrong benchmark for tax increases.
Attitudes to this mountain of capital costs vary. Some view the projects as optional. Some view them as unavoidable. All view the senior levels of government as a necessary but unreliable source of funding. Long-term solutions will surely involve a lessening of reliance on the residential tax base.
Readers may wish to view the platforms of the provincial candidates on the subject of aid to municipalities found elsewhere on this site.
It is important for the future of the city that candidates for council and mayor demonstrate a solid understanding of these issues and a commitment to make the tough political decisions that will be required to provide for this infrastructure and to pay for it.
It is hard to see how the city can meet its capital obligations without undertaking more long-term borrowing and raising taxes and user fees.
Article by Nancy Foster, with notes from Richard Tindal
Investment in infrastructure is needed to provide new services that will support economic growth and to maintain and replace existing infrastructure that needs upgrading. It is the latter problem that especially confronts the City of Kingston.
Impending Infrastructure Obligations
Project / Timing / Cost
King West Water Tower / Current / $2.5 million
Downtown Sewer and Watermain replacement / 2004-2005 /Estimate not available
Harbourfront Trunk Sewer / 2004-2006 / $6 million
Secondary Treatment Facility at Ravensview / 2004-2006 / $80 million
Twinning of sewer from River Street pumping station / Underway, 2003 - 2006 / $17.6 million
Road construction and maintenance /Annual / $10-$18 million
Urban Growth Report / Varied, as are growth options / To come
The Draft Transportation report examines Kingston annual expenditure ($10 - $12 million) on roads and pronounces it inadequate. To fully maintain current roads, the figure, says the report, should be around $18 million per year. In addition the report strongly recommends a third crossing of the Cataraqui River -- $32 million.
The final Urban Growth Report will detail costs associated with the various growth options that are presented.
Since 1999 user fees have paid sewer and water infrastructure costs. This is not to say that the fees are directly levied according to costs. The total cost to users depends on the support for infrastructure projects given by provincial and federal levels of government. Federal commitment to the Ravensview project will be $25 million.
The Amalgamation Agreement calls for the burden of upgrades to fall on those they benefit -- in this case of the major sewer and water projects -- the East and Central City. This would not apply to the third crossing, as transportation services were not included in the area specific requirements of the agreement.
Between 30% and 50% of the capital budget costs fall directly on the municipal taxpayer through fees or taxes. A recent city publication asserts that ‘funding to municipalities from senior levels of government has decreased from 22.9% to 17.9% of total municipal revenues.’ The province disputes these numbers
Cities do not depreciate their assets so there is no automatic reserve for replacing worn out assets. This means that a council can postpone making necessary investments in infrastructure without this decision showing up in the books as an increased liability facing the municipality. As a result, councils have had less incentive to recognize every year the real costs that are accumulating -- in the form of aging infrastructure -- and to put money aside to replace this infrastructure.
However, since 1999, Kingston councils have been contributing on an annual basis to a reserve fund, which will be used for replacing existing assets. The financial plan calls for a 1% annual incremental contribution to tax supported capital reserve fund. (1% = approx $1 million). Repairs and maintenance are part of the Operating Budget.
While the initiatives mentioned above are welcome, they are far from sufficient. The other sources of revenue for capital financing potentially available to the city include:
~ Provincial and federal grants which are no longer as plentiful, are uncertain, and tend to fluctuate with the priorities of other levels of government;
~ Development charges arising from new growth and development in the city;
~ Expanded user fees, subject to various limits imposed in the Municipal Act;
~ Long term borrowing;
~ Private capital that might be accessed as part of public/private partnerships;
~ Donations from the community in support of particular capital projects.
Recent Councils have tried to keep tax increases approximately at the level of inflation. During the high inflation years of the 70s this was not the case and one could argue that we are paying the price now -- or one could argue that inflation is the wrong benchmark for tax increases.
Attitudes to this mountain of capital costs vary. Some view the projects as optional. Some view them as unavoidable. All view the senior levels of government as a necessary but unreliable source of funding. Long-term solutions will surely involve a lessening of reliance on the residential tax base.
Readers may wish to view the platforms of the provincial candidates on the subject of aid to municipalities found elsewhere on this site.
It is important for the future of the city that candidates for council and mayor demonstrate a solid understanding of these issues and a commitment to make the tough political decisions that will be required to provide for this infrastructure and to pay for it.
It is hard to see how the city can meet its capital obligations without undertaking more long-term borrowing and raising taxes and user fees.