Skip to content

Greater Sudbury’s stormwater assets underfunded by $5.2M

The City of Greater Sudbury could retool the way it funds stormwater assets as early as 2024 to fill the current funding gap, pending public input and vetting by city council
191021_TC_Finance_Stormwater crop
An overgrow, clogged culvert is seen at the Minnow Lake boardwalk, which has contributed to the boardwalk’s degradation and its partial closure.

The City of Greater Sudbury’s stormwater assets are underfunded by $5.2 million and there’s a way of filling this gap that costs residential property owners less than they currently pay. 

This, according to a report by consultants at AECOM presented to the city’s finance and administration committee meeting on Tuesday.

The existing stormwater system is “causing issues throughout the city,” committee chair and Ward 7 Coun. Mike Jakubo told Sudbury.com after the meeting, adding that the issue has been flagged as important for several years.

A “substantive shift in things” has been proposed, he said, with Tuesday’s committee approval directing staff to begin public engagement and stakeholder consultation.

“It’s going to be very important how this is communicated,” he said. 

“We have to look at who the primary contributors are to stormwater runoff, and if this exercise just serves to more accurately shift the burden to the users — maybe not at the fullest extent as  expressed in the report, I think that’s important.”

The city currently budgets $14.7 million per year toward stormwater asset management and stormwater system improvements, and the AECOM report recommends an annual investment of $19.9 million.

Stormwater systems, such as culverts, storm sewers and related infrastructure, are currently supported by the general tax levy and cost the average owner of a detached home $185 per year.

If the program were boosted to the recommended $19.9 million, the average homeowner would pay $251 per year.

However, the AECOM report presented Tuesday recommends pulling this expense out of the general tax levy and placing it as a separate line item on tax bills that’s based on use. 

Unlike water, you can’t put a meter on stormwater, consultant Pippy Warburton said during Tuesday’s meeting. However, you can measure impervious land and base the charge on that. 

The consultants’ report defines impervious land as: “A hard area that does not absorb water. Water runs off the impervious surface, collects pollutants, and flows into our local rivers and other waterways.”

Using the square footage of roofs, driveways and parking lots, the consultants determined that roughly half of the municipality’s taxable impervious land is on residential properties and the other half is commercial and industrial. 

Since stormwater systems are currently funded through the general tax levy, of which residential property owners contribute approximately 70 per cent, a funding arrangement based on impervious land would result in a shift toward heavier commercial/industrial taxation. 

Under this proposed funding scheme, homeowners would pay a flat rate of $154 if stormwater systems were fully funded at $19.9 million, which is $31 less than the average homeowner currently pays for the underfunded program. 

Commercial and industrial properties, meanwhile, currently pay an average of $1,024 and would pay an average of $1,951 under the new funding scheme in a fully funded system. These properties would vary in how much they pay based on how much impervious land they have, and tax-exempt properties that previously paid nothing would also pay a varying stormwater fee. 

Although these numbers present an easy sell for residential property owners, the commercial, industrial and tax-exempt property owners who will now pay more, depending on how much impervious land they have, might strike a different tune. 

“We may want to be careful or very vigilant as to how we explain this to the public … because we don’t want to chase away commercial investors,” Ward 5 Coun. Robert Kirwan cautioned during Tuesday’s meeting.

It’ll be interesting to see what the public thinks of the plan, Jakubo said, adding that he expects a range of feedback that runs the gamut. 

Relaying the anticipated argument of those commercial and industrial property owners who would now pay more, he said: “We are already being taxed at a more substantial level than residential and now you’re laying this one on us?”

Thankfully, he said that this effort’s proposed timeline, which would see changes made in 2024 at the earliest, allows plenty of time for public feedback and council consideration. 

“It’s the kind of thing nobody wants to rush through.”

Various additional funding gaps are being addressed

Greater Sudbury is in similar company among Ontario municipalities when it comes to “chronically underfunding” stormwater infrastructure, Warburton said during Tuesday’s meeting.

“There’s so many competing desires for the budget that often stormwater gets underfunded, and that’s across Ontario,” she said. “That’s nothing new.”

It appears the same can be said for other assets, with Greater Sudbury’s finance and administration committee learning a couple of months ago that the city needs to spend an additional $100 million per year to maintain assets at their current level. 

The city’s work toward filling these funding gaps is part of a broader effort among municipalities across the province. 

The provincial Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure regulation, which came into force in 2018, sets a timeline for municipalities to develop asset management plans that identify current levels of service, the cost of maintaining those levels of service and a strategy to fund these activities. The provincial regulation’s phased-in approach concludes on July 1, 2025.

“From an asset management perspective, I think that 2025 is going to be a real crunch for municipalities across the province and I don’t know how much the province is going to keep pushing when it doesn’t give as much of a fair share of funding to munipcilaities across the province,” Jakubo said, adding that provincial funding has decreased during the past decade while costs have gone up.

“It’s really disconcerting to see a policy like this, to put a deadline like this in place and can cause some concern around the council table and the community.

“We have to look at the assets we have, we have to look at the condition they’re in and there has to be some level of acceptability below perfect. … There has to be happy medium.”

Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com. 


Comments

Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.




Tyler Clarke

About the Author: Tyler Clarke

Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
Read more