HAMILTON, ON – During today’s City Council meeting, Council approved the City of Hamilton 2018 Water, Wastewater / Storm Rate Budget as well as the City’s Tax Supported Capital Budget.
With the approved rates for the 2018 Water, Wastewater / Storm Rate Budget landing at a combined rate increase of 4.5% effective January 1, 2018. The average resident’s bill in 2018 will be $690.70 for a household consuming 200 cubic metres of water annually representing an increase of $29.75 annually.
Hamilton has one of the oldest and most complex water and wastewater systems in Ontario. This investment will improve our ability to protect the environment and deliver on our commitments respecting harbour clean up, support the homeowner assistance programs related to sewer later repair, basement flood prevention and lead service replacement while supporting Hamilton’s ongoing efforts to address the infrastructure deficit and work toward a sustainable level of funding for this critical system.
This rate increase reflects a prudent investment for present and future generations while balancing residents’ ability to pay. Hamilton’s rates continue to remain among the lowest in Ontario.
Council’s approval of the 2018 Tax Supported Capital Budget will support $236 million gross in capital infrastructure projects. The increase in capital funding from property taxes equates to an increase in the operating budget of 0.9 per cent or $7.5 million. This represents an increase of $30 per year on an average household.
The Tax Supported Capital Budget will focus on roads, bridges, traffic, sidewalks, corporate/recreation facilities and entertainment facility rehabilitation, affordable housing, transit initiatives, Fire and Paramedic Services and waste management. In addition, capital investments will be made towards improving the outdoor spaces in Hamilton including open space development, forestry and horticulture and West Harbour development.
2018 Tax Supported Capital Budget Highlights
$236 M in gross capital spending includes:
• $68.5 million towards Roads, bridges, traffic, sidewalks
• $14.2 million towards Roads growth
• $26.4 million towards Corporate and recreation facilities rehabilitation
• $25.8 million towards West Harbour Strategic initiatives
• $19.4 million towards Transit initiatives
• $11.5 million towards Affordable Housing Initiatives
• $8.2 million towards Fire and Paramedic Services
• $7.9 million towards Open Space Development
• $7.7 million towards Vehicle replacement
• $7.2 million towards Entertainment facility rehabilitation
• $4.6 million towards Waste Management initiatives
• $4.3 million towards Forestry and Horticulture
Additional Resources
Learn more about the 2018 Budget - www.hamilton.ca/Budget2018
Quotes
“Council’s approval of the 2018 Water, Wastewater/ Storm Rate Budget and Tax Supported Capital Budget reflect the importance of maintaining our aging infrastructure and facilities while creating new places in the city for the enjoyment of the community. Residents are understanding of the need for the rising water, wastewater/ storm rates, at a reasonable increase, to ensure we are staying on top of this critical system within our City. Hamilton has been at the lead in terms of asset management specifically on the water and wastewater side. We have been working hard and consistently year-to-year to ensure that capital projects, strategic initiatives and growth continues, while showing good value for money and accountability to our residents. The forward planning that we are doing is extremely helpful, and in fact, we are noted across the Province as being the prime example of how you do it right.”
Mayor Fred Eisenberger
“The 2018 Tax Supported Capital Budget supports a series of strategic investments towards maintaining the quality of City assets, growing the City’s assessment base, supporting the City’s transit strategy, while maintaining the City’s tax competitiveness.”
Mike Zegarac, General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services
Friday, December 8, 2017
59 comments:
Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.
Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fred's mind got boggled when he learned Stelco wouldn't be contributing to his levy in the usual fashion.
ReplyDeleteSmells funny
Sam thinks there oughta be an investigation.
These are our stewards
Gasoline and matches.
35% of capital spending goes to Roads.
ReplyDelete"Forward planning"
Solomon Hart
and the "solution?"
Deletelets make driving more difficult, that'll teach 'em.
Stupid is, as stupid does.
Stupid
Don't be so hard on yourself.
DeleteHere's an idea: Let's build a resilient transportation network that doesn't privilege any one mode of movement (at least in principle, since most of Hamilton's 6500 lane kilometres or roads are designed solely with cars and trucks in mind).
2018 Capital Budget brief notes:
$14.2M toward Roads *growth*
Because drivers are demonstrably the City's top budget priority.
Even so, there is no pleasing some. Lower City streets mustn't be two way, for example, just as Suburban streets mustn't be one way. Anything less than the speed limit is described as gridlock. And on and on. Driving is not becoming "more difficult". It is just not the default option. It is hard for some to accept that, but the consolation is that the City still spends far more on drivers than any other demographic.
Since 2001, the City has added far more lane kilometres of pavement for private vehicles than it has added in expanded transit services, let alone dedicated lanes. Over 1000 lane kilometres of paved road, and growing annually, even as HSR coverage is lower than at any point in the last 20 years and the City struggles to add even a few blocks of bike lanes (there are now around 200 km City-wide, including sharrow-marked shared lanes and accounting for the fact that bi-directional cycle tracks add twice as many kilometres per lane kilometre).
Solomon Hart
here's an idea, let's build a transportation network that actually satisfies its top budget priority.
Deletelets start there.lets make drivers happy.
until then.
adieu
Mike Stark
Noone stays young forever and not everyone is fit to ride a bike, even when they are young. And many people can't ber dragging grocery carts on trains. Long live the car!
DeleteCar Culture Rules
Dodging Christmas potholes on the way to muh big box Boxing Day sales. Tired of half-measures on roads. Let's jack up property taxes by 20%, 30%, whatever to give Public Works the money they need and do this right. Stop wasting money on low-volume lanes because some councillor has someone they want to please and concentrate on the game changers first: repairing the escarpment accesses and rebuilding crosstown arteries like Main and Burlington/Tesla. Sell off budget-suckers like recreation centres and neighbourhood parks if that's what it takes. Let's roll!
DeleteGearhead
are drivers happy?
Deletelets make drivers happy.
they are our largest financial contributors, represent success in life, and are our greatest priority.
lets make drivers happy.
Amazon wanted happy drivers, but we do not have happy drivers.
Happy drivers is the ideal. Happy drivers would be Utopia.
Lets make drivers happy
orangemike
are there fewer drivers this year?
Deleteare there fewer transit riders this year (again)?
Priorities. As they should be.
Demi
Since amalgamation, traffic volume on crosstown arteries has fallen more sharply than transit ridership. And buses, even in an HSR hobbled by electioneering councillors, are more efficient at moving people than the typical commuting mode (statistically, single occupant vehicles). Lots of redundant capacity across the city that can be converted to bike lanes.
DeleteTasse
https://raisethehammer.org/article/2131/city_finally_notices_that_traffic_volumes_are_falling
Deletehttps://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-decline-of-the-drivers-license/425169/
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/emeh45jhij/fewer-people-are-getting-drivers-licenses/
http://www.macleans.ca/society/technology/for-todays-youth-cars-no-longer-represent-freedom/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/many-teens-dont-want-get-drivers-license
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/teens-say-they-re-too-busy-to-get-driver-s-licences-1.1381485
http://time.com/money/4185441/millennials-drivers-licenses-gen-x/
Monde
when a contestant on "the Price is Right" gets more excited about a bike than a Buick maybe we will reconsider those priorities.
DeleteUntil then
Fascinating reading.
DeleteTurns out millennials in Vermont-easily the most dangerous demographic on the roads-are also shiftless and irresponsible, preferring to mooch a ride from a friend, or just sit and stay glued to the internet all day long.
Everyone knows 16 year old's make wise choices.They are my role models.
Solomon Hart
The Price Is Right exists to keep the ill, unemployed & retired entertained with the minutiae of household expenses. It's a social control mechanism. Games behind the games.
DeleteBarker
suggesting only residents of wards 1-4 enjoy the Price is Right is likely accurate. Point for you.
DeleteSigma Cub
I had to look up what it was. The poster is apparently one or more of the aforementioned if he reached so easily for the reference.
DeleteBarker
Q. How does Hamilton City Council serve it's greatest priority aka "motorists"
ReplyDeleteA. Worst road(s) in the Province.
Trust these guys, they have your back (in their sights)
Jim Taylor
Council has spent around $60 million this term on NEW roads. Motorists need to contact their councillors and insist that they stop adding more roads. Quality not quantity.
DeleteMike Cents
NEW roads are for NEW development, were you expecting them to land by drone?
DeleteSigma Cub
Servicing lands is done in anticipation of new sprawl and would mostly be covered by development fees, not taxes.
DeleteDolla Bill
Even if bike lanes occupied 200 km of dedicated full-width traffic lanes, that would still be only 3% of Hamilton's total lane capacity. And the reality is that almost all of the much-ballyhooed 200 km of bike lanes exist as a fraction of that. Most are merely shared-lane markers, a "courtesy" that involves a few signposts and a handful of chevrons painted in the curb lane.
ReplyDeleteHaving 97% of road infrastructure designed around the 85% of the population that drives is not a great example of underrepresentation.
Solomon Hart
even if bike lanes occupied 200 km of dedicated full-width traffic lanes.....
Deletethere will still be only one "knob" riding in winter.
satisfying 85% of the population would be a noble start.
Monde
100% satisfaction with infrastructure or lower taxes. The 85% have chosen their priority, and it's fundamentally at odds with he changes they purportedly crave.
DeleteDemi
@CityofHamilton: "Even with the snow this week, our 20 bike lane and trail counters tracked over 14,400 trips, including over 700 trips on the Cannon St Cycle Track. Great work, #HamOnt! bit.ly/2z7BRAf"
DeleteTasse
which is a lot of trips for one knob.
Delete"Get on your bikes and ride!"
p.s. A little perspective for you....Main Street-just one street, just one day- has over 55,000 car trips per day.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Solomon Hart
the Cannon Street Cycle track, aka Hamilton's cycling mecca...
Deletefewer than 3 trips (not cyclists,but trips,1 "knob"circling the block, round and round they go) per hour.
According to them.Their data.
We need to prioritize this stupidity, or eradicate it.
Demi
LRT makes no sense currently. It may 20 years from now but that's a gamble.
DeleteSorce
Transit ridership increased more than 6% between 1999 and 2009.
DeleteCar traffic on Main decreased by as much as 36% between 1999 and 2009.
https://raisethehammer.org/article/2131/city_finally_notices_that_traffic_volumes_are_falling
Monde
transit ridership has been in decline for years, everyone knows this, even PeeWee,even you.
Delete55,000 cars a day-and climbing- on Main Street, according to your sources.
Are those 55,000 happy?
We should make them happy, they should be our greatest priority, since they are our greatest source of revenue.
Makes sense
Sigma Cub.
"Ridership along the B-Line corridor has increased by an amazing 20 percent over the past five years [2009-2014], compared to just 4 percent ridership growth over the entire system. The Main-King-Queenston corridor now accounts for 42 percent of total ridership on the HSR. There is evidence that, from a transit ridership perspective, greater investment in this corridor is warranted."
Deletehttps://www.raisethehammer.org/article/2420/staff_report_recommends_keeping_bus_lane_addressing_concerns
Monde
so we will give it away,to non-unionized outsiders....for free
Deleteamazing.
Mike Cents
Can someone help me? I seem to have misplaced my link to evidence for 55,000 daily car trips on Main. (The best number I have is from 1999, and it's 52,000 daily on the two blocks west of Longwood.)
DeleteSigma Cub
No need for the name-calling. HSR ridership increased 6.2% between 1999 and 2009, and 9.1% between 1999 and 2016.
ReplyDeleteHSR Ridership
1999: 19.63 million
2009: 20.85 million
2016: 21.42 million
Monde
no it didn't, sorry, me bad.
DeleteMonde
"HSR Ridership drop no mystery"
ReplyDeleteNic Kevlahan, Raise the Hammer, 2/6/17
"Flatlining ridership problematic for transit advocates"
Matt VanDongen, Hamilton Spectator, 12/6/16
"HSR Ridership declines as service improves"
Andrew Dreschel,Hamilton Spectator,2/01/17
"435,000 fewer trips in 2016"
Isn't Kevlahan an advocate? How could he be so misinformed?
Interesting.
Ryan
2% decline over two years where fares jumped by up to 40%? Not unusual, and in fact the Council were aware of an HSR formula that suggested a much sharper drop was possible. VIewed over the longer term (1999-2009 or present), however, HSR ridership has increased by around 1.8 million riders annually (with proportionately higher gains on the B-Line corridor) while traffic volumes have dropped.
DeletePro tip: If transit gives you a rash, you always can program your GOs to default to highway routes.
Monde
viewed in a recent context however, ridership is down, system wide, 3 years in a row.
Delete45 cents forced transit riders back into cars.....that doesn't make sense, now does it.
a 45 cent increase forced 435,000 to find alternate means of travel?
Good move, sound economics.
Keep raising the fares. Priorities.
Monde
So if you were planning a $1B multi-generation infrastructure project, you favour three-year samples, the smallest possible trend line, rather than a 10- or 17-year sample? Sound economics, prudent spending mind. Oh, and you'd prefer to do so without and without taking into account externalities that would influence the data, such as disinvestment in the system on both capital and operational levels, paired with fare increases (monthly pass holders saw prices jump by almost 20% for adults and over 40% for seniors), while much ballyhooed "enhancements" were pushed off until the end of 2016 (eg. expanded service hours on the least productive route in the system, 18 Waterdown... millions spent on bus shelters that have never been installed). And amid all of that, ridership fell by just 3.9% over that three year sample.
DeleteSo again, what was the daily vehicle volume on Main on 1999, 2009, and 2016? How much did it rise or fall between 2014 and 2016?
Monde
"Canadians buy record 2.04 million vehicles in 2017."
DeleteHamilton Spectator, 01/03/17
That marked a 4.6% increase over 2016-while transit ridership falls, auto ownership increases-the 8th year in a row of brisk auto sales increases.
Priorities.
Monde.
...and here's the link.
Delete"Passenger car sales were down 3.4 per cent to about 640,000 units, the lowest level since 1964."
https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/01/03/canadians-last-year-bought-more-than-2-million-vehicles-for-the-first-time.html
And on a per-capita basis, car sales fare even worse, as Canada's population doubled between 1964 and 2017.
DesRosiers' data also shows that the late 2017 decline in vehicle sales was 11+ times steeper for passenger cars than vehicles as a whole. Canadian auto sales plunged 12.5% year over year (YOY) in December 2017, while overall vehicle sales fell by 1.1% YOY.
http://www.desrosiers.ca/pdfs/sales.pdf
Plus, the DesRosiers vehicle sales data is a national pool. If you break things out on a provincial level, the picture changes once again. Ontario's vehicle sales figures lagged the rest of the country by a considerable margin. As of October 2017, vehicle sales grew 1.4% YOY in Ontario, the most stagnant in the country (national average was almost 10%).
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ58a-eng.htm
But even this doesn't really answer the Hamilton-specific question in hand, which is: What was the daily vehicle volume on Main on 1999, 2009, and 2016? How much did it rise or fall between 2014 and 2016?
Monde
vehicular traffic increased, while transit ridership continued to implode.
DeletePriorities
Monde
I'm not asking for your hunches. I'm asking you for links to data that substantiate your claims. Here's what I've been able to find:
DeleteDaily Vehicle Volumes
Main at Dundurn
1999: 41,100 vehicles per day
2009: 37,300 vehicles per day
Main east of Bay
1999: 31,000 vehicles per day
2009: 28,400 vehicles per day
Main near Kenilworth
1999: 32,000 vehicles per day
2009: 20,300 vehicles per day
So 1999-2009, vehicle traffic on this 7km stretch of Main decreased by as much as 18,000 vehicles a day (-17.4% over the 11 year sample, or an average of 1.6% annually).
https://raisethehammer.org/article/2131/city_finally_notices_that_traffic_volumes_are_falling
Again, between 1999 and 2009, HSR ridership increased by +6.2%.
If anyone can link to more recent data, please feel do so.
Monde
Daily Vehicle Volumes
DeleteMain at Dundurn
1999: 41,100 vehicles per day
2009: 37,300 vehicles per day
Main east of Bay
1999: 31,000 vehicles per day
2009: 28,400 vehicles per day
Main near Kenilworth
1999: 32,000 vehicles per day
2009: 20,300 vehicles per day
So 1999-2009, vehicle traffic on this 7 km stretch of Main decreased by as much as 18,000 vehicles a day (17.4% decline).
If anyone can link to street-by-street Hamilton traffic volume data from the 2014-2016 period, that would be helpful.
Monde
way more cars than transit riders
DeletePriorities
Monde
data which effectively torpedoes any notion that if vehicular traffic were to decrease, transit ridership would magically increase.
Deletehasn't happened here, won't happen anywhere.
the reality is shoppers are staying away....in droves, spending that cash elsewhere, improving the standard of living somewhere else.
your welcome
Monde
I guess we can reasonably conclude the good readers of the Hamiltonian have no interest in my links.
DeleteNone.
thanks for your help
Monde
How many reactionary Pepes does it take to torpedo the reputation of a civic blog?
ReplyDeleteKnock Knock
just one. me. jim graham.
Deletejim graham
Budget-conscious?
ReplyDelete"Hamilton stands to save thousands of dollars a year if it scales back on traffic lanes that aren't needed on roads that no longer get the traffic they were designed for, city hall officials say. And it's already in the process of identifying some of them.
The city is filled with five- and six-lane roads that were once packed with traffic, particularly in the north end where many were designed for an industrial economy that no longer exists. They’ve fallen into disuse over the years, and taking them out of commission would save taxpayers money, said Gerry Davis, general manager of public works."
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/hamilton/news/too-many-lanes-city-stands-to-save-thousands-cutting-excess-lanes-from-major-roads-1.2586358
Sir Plus
Hamilton stands to save millions of dollars a year if it were to simply end public transit.
DeleteEasy peasy.
Drive or walk,and don't you dare walk on the road.
Mamie minus.
Anonymous transit advocates-like me-should bear the bulk of the criticism.
ReplyDeleteCompletely ineffective, easily dismissed. We have created this mess.
People don't like us. We don't makes sense.
That's why Canadians are buying automobiles in record numbers.
That's why Hamiltonian's are rejecting public transit in droves.
It's my fault.
Monde
I appreciate that private vehicles are the default mode of transportation for most people. However, government and consultant data that I have linked to reveals some trend lines that suggest that (a) despite a recent dip in annual numbers that was anticipated by HSR ridership formulae, transit ridership has been trending upward citywide for the last 20 years, led by growth on the crosstown line; and (b) that there is more than enough capacity in the city's road network to accommodate multimodal solutions (such as pedestrian amenities and dedicated bus and lanes, as well as two-way conversions).
DeleteIt is certainly true that nation-wide, new vehicle purchases are growing. It is also true that most of that growth is taking place outside of Ontario, a province whose sales growth is the lowest in the country (StatsCan shows that average rate of new vehicle sales growth nation-wide is 7 times higher than in Ontario). As well, DesRosiers research shows that two-thirds of new vehicle sales are trucks and vans, not cars. In 2017, auto sales fell to their lowest point in 53 years. (Considered on a per-capita basis, in 2017, new auto purchases were half what they were in 1964.)
I have invited and continue to invite readers to link to other sources of information that would throw light on this debate but the industry and government data in hand doesn't support your claims that "Canadians are buying automobiles in record numbers."
Having said that, I am by no means calling for the eradication of roads or inciting an anti-driver agenda. I'm just pointing out that a resilient and sustainable city is one that accommodates the greatest range of transportation options, and in doing so promotes physical activity and democratic access to social activity and economic opportunity. (It can also free up road space for drivers when those who would otherwise be forced to drive to a location have the option of walking, cycling, or catching a bus instead.)
And as it happens, this very philosophy is baked into every City planning document of the last 20 years, so as usual, it's largely a matter of our leaders following through on policy.
Again, if anyone can link to Hamilton's annual traffic volume data from the 1999-2016 period, that would help anchor various anecdotal claims and also balance a system that eyes transit and cycling critically on an annual basis but pointedly does not seem to issue annual reports on roads use by private vehicles. Given the prominence of roadwork as the leading spend in the City's capital budgets, that seems to be a conspicuous oversight. I hold out hope that the good readers of The Hamiltonian will be able to source and share this data.
Until then,
Monde
do buses travel on roads?
DeleteMonde
It has become apparant that some are using various mechanisms to provoke others or otherwise engage in unprofessional conduct. We have thus turned away such attempts.
ReplyDeleteKnow that any post that contains such tactics will not be posted, even if most of it is on topic. Any comments that are near or cross that line, will not appear. Those of you who confined your comments to reasoned opinions, will continue to benefit from this free public service.
The Hamiltonian Admin
more millennials buying pick-up trucks, single occupant rat runners.
ReplyDeletethis is our future
we best be prepared.
priorities.
Monde
pick-up trucks purchased by youngsters....in record numbers
ReplyDeletewhat are these people thinking? self-centered punks.
so we are going to make things tough for them, make driving more difficult for the least experienced, creating danger and peril where it never existed before.
that how we'll treat our children
makes sense.
Monde
we have the worst road in the Province, which coincidentally is supposed to provide access to the most valuable assessed tax base land in the area.
ReplyDeletethis doesn't make sense.
Priorities
Monde
Recent exuberant reports that Canadian auto sales hit an all-time high in 2017 are not quite the sign of healthy economic growth that this leading indicator at first suggests.
DeleteAfter achieving a fifth consecutive record last year, sales should be expected to decline at least modestly in 2018. We can see that from the November and December figures, which each show declines in total sales.
And for Ontario’s all-important auto-assembly and auto-parts sectors, the fact that light trucks accounted for a whopping 68.6 per cent of total 2017 sales is not encouraging. Continued strong sales in light trucks — that is, SUVs, crossovers, pickup trucks and vans — are more tied to volatile gas prices than passenger vehicles.
The light-truck strength (sales were up 8.7 per cent) does signal robust consumer spending, but what it most powerfully tells us is that business investment is growing, since pickups and vans, in particular, often are fleet purchases by businesses.
https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2018/01/08/have-auto-sales-in-canada-run-out-of-gas.html
Hockey Mom
recent reports of truck sales hitting all time highs is bad new for transit advocates.
Deletemillennials buying non-passenger vehicles likely occupied by a single driver....this is the future.
suggesting hundreds of thousands of units sold were for fleet purposes indicates advocates still have their collective heads buried in the snow.
one day sales will slow
and one day transit riders will return.
when?
don't hold your breath down there.
Sylvia