Build city with long-term view
The city’s infrastructure deficit a couple of years ago was at approximately $930 million, which is deferred maintenance, upgrades and replacements that we as a city know are needed but hadn’t done, hoping that all will be OK.
Add in the fact that we have a condemned bridge to replace, and we are looking at a billion-dollar tab that’s starting to come due. It’s the municipal equivalent of ignoring that grinding noise from the brakes on your car, hoping that it’s really nothing. (If that strategy actually worked, my wife would be running for city council).
Living in a west-side core neighbourhood, I am used to deteriorating sidewalks and potholes that predate my arrival there. In even worse shape is the infrastructure that’s not visible. Saskatoon’s drinking water is safe when it leaves the treatment plant, but by the time it gets to my street it may be contaminated by lead.
The city has been proactive about this, and sent me a letter that suggests: “As a precautionary measure it is recommended that residents flush the water system by running the cold water faucet for approximately five minutes if the drinking water has been sitting in the lines for six hours or more.”
It also let me know that flushing the toilet helps, too. This is more theoretical than anything, as those old lead-based watermains keep breaking on my street. I have been without water twice this winter, once for most of the weekend.
At least we aren’t alone in this. According to a 2003 Canada West Foundation report, nearly 30 per cent of Canada’s infrastructure is 80 years or older. The Canadian Society of Civil Engineering said in 2002 that Canada’s infrastructure was at 80 per cent of its life expectancy.
The older the infrastructure, the more expensive it is to keep it maintained. This work was deferred during tough economic times, and that bill is coming due. How bad is it? The Federation of Canadian Municipalities calls it a crisis. More than $123 billion of investment is needed, but there’s no money to address the problem.
As the Canada West Foundation notes, we focus on what infrastructure costs to build, but rarely the expenses required to maintain what we build. Replacement is an afterthought, and considered as someone else’s problem.
The other factors that contribute are changes in how cities finance infrastructure. As we moved from debt to pay-as-you go, there was a lag until reserves could be built up. That pushed back maintenance even further.
Cities such as Saskatoon find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Municipalities build the majority of infrastructure in the country, but collect only about eight per cent of total tax revenue paid by average taxpayers. That isn’t enough.
It is estimated that Saskatoon would need a property tax increase of 33 per cent to close the infrastructure gap, which is far lower than the 90 per cent hike Edmonton would need, but far larger than Vancouver’s 12.4 per cent.
Why is Vancouver’s infrastructure gap so much lower? That city has a longstanding policy to annually replace one per cent of its infrastructure, so that theoretically the entire city infrastructure is rebuilt every 100 years.
In other words, Vancouver is one of the few North American cities to actually plan ahead its infrastructure replacement rather than just lobby the province and the federal govern- ments for help. When and if federal and provincial infrastructure money starts to flow again, Vancouver will be in far better shape than Saskatoon ever was.
When Saskatoon’s strategic plan was released, it acknowledged that the city cannot keep expanding the way it has and remain sustainable. As we all are learning, these roads, overpasses and even sewers don’t last forever. And plopping down a new neighbourhood without thinking of how we will move people to and from work is not the best way to build a city.
The best illustration is to look at how Hampton Village has created gridlock on 33rd Street, or what Stonebridge has done to Preston Avenue. Fixing those arteries (if possible) is going to take even more roads, overpasses and longterm costs, and there does become a limit on what a city can pay. At $50 million an overpass, that money has to come from somewhere. And that is just the upfront cost.
While Saskatoon is late in doing this, the solution is found in its long-term strategic plan to build a city that requires fewer roads, has a higher density and is easier to get around. We are a billion dollars behind already. We can’t afford to keep digging a deeper hole.