Editor's note: This letter has been sent to District of Squamish council. It was copied to The Chief for publication.
I read with interest and some consternation the front-page article in this week's Chief ("Utility rates may rise 50 per cent or more," The Chief, Feb. 18). A suggestion was made by staff that utility rates should increase by over 50 per cent in order to replace aging pipes and other utility infrastructure over the next 50 years.
The plan, based on a report by an outside consultant, is surely well intended. In an ideal world, setting aside money for future needs is admirable and represents the ideal textbook case in engineering economics.
But it was good to learn that some councillors questioned the need for doing this and attempted to bring a measure of realism to the discussion.
To me it also seems that I would be paying for the pipes twice. I am paying now for work done in the past (with borrowed funds) and then again for a sinking fund for work to be done in the future.
In an ideal world, one could see setting aside funds for future pipe replacements if one started with a brand new community where utilities were fully paid for out of development cost charges.
But this is not the case here, so why not continue with the current policy of replacing infrastructure as required and paying for that work with borrowed funds as was done in the past?
I agree that we don't want to place an undue burden on our children, but I don't see that they would have much to complain about if they were asked to pay for services they will be using.
We hear frequently the comment that housing needs to be made more affordable, but drastically raising utility rates is surely going in the opposite direction.
Herbert Vesely, P. Eng.
Squamish
