The City of Duncan is a case in point when it comes to the enormous amount of money they are going to need in the future to replace aging infrastructure. And the fact that they don't have that money, and won't unless they start saving.
Consultant Christopher Paine recently reported to Duncan council that water and sewer systems as well as other infrastructure are 65 per cent through their useful life and replacement costs are about $524.5 million. And we all know what happens to construction costs over time.
The good news is that it doesn't all have to be done at once and it doesn't all have to be done now. The bad news is that the consultant estimates the city will need between $8.3 million and $9 million per year for infrastructure replacement and currently has only $4.1 million. Obviously that leaves a huge gap that just compounds year over year.
Which brings us to taxes. Grants and such are great, but not a guaranteed source of funds, so it comes down to the residents, businesses and industry to make a long-term plan to foot the bills.
Recommendations from the study include implementing an annual tax increase of 1.75 per cent over 15 years and increasing various fees, including those for water and sewer.
With almost every jurisdiction staring down big yearly tax increases as it is, this is sure to be unpopular. Unpopular means a tough sell to voters, which means those who want to be re-elected could be reluctant to adopt these measures, kicking the problem down the road until the pipes and structures quite literally start to crumble and there's no choice anymore.
Duncan Mayor Michelle Staples pointed out that the city is far from alone in facing this conundrum, saying many local governments in B.C. have not invested much in infrastructure since their communities were founded 60 to 100 years ago. The Town of Ladysmith needs a new town hall. The Town of Lake Cowichan has just undergone extensive renovations to keep theirs viable. And those are the visible bits — the underground services like sewer and water may be out of sight, but they shouldn't be out of mind.
Too often short-term thinking takes hold when being popular is at stake and convenience is chosen over prudence. There is also a certain segment of voters who argue that they shouldn't have to pay for things in a future they may not even be around to see. After all, those of us who are adults now won't be around in 100 years.
But leaving our legacy to be shortsighted selfishness seems decidedly anti-social, and most of us want our communities to continue to thrive, whether we're still around or not.
