To put it into an even broader perspective,there has been about the same amount of building in the first six months of 2009 as there was in the month of June in 2007 when over $1 million in permits issued. The year before that, both May and June were $1 million months.
The one single-family-home permit handed out in June, 2009 was for a home on Trottman Rd. in rural Cramahe. It was the sixth single-family-home start this year. Last year at this time there were 11 home starts. The figures mark a continuing trend. In 2006 there were 20 home starts in the first six months. A year later they had dropped to 14.
Looking at the annual numbers the same trend is revealed. The best year for the township in home starts was 2005 when there were 59. In 2006 there were 27. In 2007 there was a slight increase to 34, before they fell dramatically last year to 19. At the current rate this year there will be about 10 new homes in the entire township.
While the number of home starts may seem relatively unimportant, it will impact on sewage rates paid by the urban home owners. Cramahe Township is embarking on a major sewage treatment expansion project valued at over $6 million. Two-thirds will be paid for by the provincial and federal governments, but $1,375 million will be borrowed by the township to pay for most of its portion of the cost.
Cramahe Council approved a loan proposal at its June 2, 2009 meeting with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) The annual $118,000 cost will be shared by the Colborne users of the system. Information provided to council by Treasurer Mora Chatterson which was partially based on a consultant's predictions, showed an annual cost to each sewage treatment account in Colborne of $91.59 starting in 2012. The chart she presented to Council showed that the cost to users would drop each year as new users were connected.
The numbers were based on 43 new connections in the village each year - a number that has only been reached once since amalgamation. While it is difficult to estimate how many new homes will be built, the numbers presented to council and accepted earlier this year seem unduly optimistic.
In June, 2007, two of the three homes built were rural. In 2008 all three were rural and this year the only house built in June was rural.
The province has passed legislation which dictates that most housing must be built in built up areas. Currently the township is opposing the 85/15 ratio of urban-to-rural housing declared by the province. Even supposing the township gets its way and 70% of new housing is built in built up areas, the sewage cost projections do not add up.
The cost projections given to Council on June 2 stated there will be 1295 sewage treatment accounts in 2012. That represents an increase of 308 accounts in the next 2 1/2 years - well over 100 new houses in Colborne each year.
If we use the number of village homes built in 2008 and project them over the next two years the number of users will be 999 when the loan payments start and the cost to each user account will be $118, not the $91 estimated by the township in the June report.
Using the chart below we can see that the total cost to existing taxpayers who are paying for sewage treatment will not be what was projected by the township treasurer in June, 2009.
One might question the credibility of the numbers based on past growth in the former village and on the growth the province will allow in the next 15 years.
While the total cost to each taxpayer does not amount to much, the actual cost could be 50% higher than the total cost estimated by Treasurer Mora Chatterson. The projected costs do not appear to take into account the limits which the Provincial Governement will impose under its Places to Grow Act passed in 2005, governing population growth.
| Twp estimates | Totals based on 2008 housing starts | Totals based on County Growth Through Design | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Users/Annual Cost | Users/Annual Cost | Users/Annual Cost | |
| Year | |||
| 2012 | 1295 $91 | 993 $118 | 1012 $116 |
| 2013 | 1338 $88 | 999 $118 | 1037 $113 |
| 2014 | 1382 $85 | 1005 $117 | 1062 $111 |
| 2015 | 1425 $83 | 1011 $116 | 1087 $108 |
| 2016 | 1469 $80 | 1017 $116 | 1112 $106 |
| 2017 | 1512 $78 | 1023 $115 | 1137 $103 |
| 2018 | 1556 $76 | 1029 $114 | 1162 $101 |
| 2019 | 1599 $74 | 1035 $114 | 1187 $99 |
| 2020 | 1643 $72 | 1041 $113 | 1212 $97 |
| 2021 | 1686 $70 | 1047 $112 | 1237 $95 |
| 2022 | 1730 $68 | 1053 $112 | 1262 $93 |
| 2023 | 1773 $66 | 1059 $111 | 1287 $91 |
| 2024 | 1817 $65 | 1065 $110 | 1312 $89 |
| 2025 | 1860 $63 | 1071 $110 | 1337 $88 |
| 2026 | 1903 $62 | 1077 $109 | 1362 $86 |
| Total cost to taxpayer | $1,121 | $1,705 | $1,506 |
No comments:
Post a Comment