Before we talk about today’s claim that bringing water billing in-house will “save money,” it’s important to remember what happened the last time staff presented this exact type of report.
In 2016, council was given a staff report recommending that Norfolk bring water and wastewater billing in-house.
The report claimed it would be more efficient and cost-effective. The numbers presented suggested outsourcing was expensive, inflexible, and not worth continuing.
Those numbers were wrong.
I pushed council to ignore the assumptions and issue a competitive tender. That decision changed everything.
When the actual bids came back, the winning proposal — from ERTH Corporation — was dramatically cheaper than what staff had led council to believe.
The five-year contract came in at roughly $468,000 per year, saving water and wastewater ratepayers about $1.7 million over five years compared to the in-house model staff had been promoting.
That savings was not theoretical.
It was real, measurable, and delivered — because the market was tested.
That history matters.
Because today, we are being told — again — that bringing billing in-house will save money.
This time the claim is $1.5 million over five years. And once again, the comparison being used depends entirely on staff-selected numbers, not on competitive pricing.
Here’s what staff are now saying:
- Norfolk paid $664,000 for third-party billing in 2024
- Hiring five new full-time employees and building an in-house system will save $280,000 per year
- One-time implementation cost is $220,000, paid from reserves
But when you do the math, this story falls apart.
A claimed savings of $280,000 per year against a $664,000 outsourced cost implies that five full-time staff plus software, IT systems, office overhead, benefits, pensions, training, absenteeism, and management can operate for roughly $384,000 per year total.
That is not credible.
Even more concerning is where the supposed savings come from.
A major portion comes from switching from monthly to bi-monthly billing, which staff say would save about $100,000 per year in printing and postage.
That has nothing to do with bringing billing in-house.
Those same billing changes could have been implemented under the existing contract — just as they could have been in 2016.
This is a policy change being used to justify permanent staffing growth.
Here is the part that should concern every ratepayer:
- In 2016, staff said outsourcing was expensive — the market proved otherwise
- In 2024, outsourcing costs $664,000, only about $196,000 more per year than the 2016 contract
- Over nearly a decade, that increase reflects inflation, wage growth, and expanded services
Meanwhile, if Norfolk had hired those staff in 2016, the cost today would be far higher due to:
- Wage escalation
- Pension liabilities
- Benefit growth
- Additional staffing pressures
- System replacements
In other words, outsourcing has barely become more expensive over ten years — while in-house staffing would have ballooned.
And now, like in 2016, staff do not want a competitive tender.
No request for proposals.
No market test.
No opportunity for providers to price the same service under the same billing rules.
When facts and figures are shaped to support a predetermined outcome — rather than tested against reality — that is not good governance.
It’s how costs get locked in permanently.
Norfolk already has some of the highest water and wastewater bills in Ontario.
Those bills don’t just come from pipes and treatment plants. They come from decisions about staffing, overhead, and whether competition is allowed to do its job.
We already proved once that testing the market saved millions.
Refusing to do it again should concern everyone who pays a water bill in this county.
Bottom line
If staff are confident in their numbers, they should welcome a tender.
That’s how we saved money last time.
Questions Ratepayers Deserve Answers To
- Please release all water and wastewater billing contracts, renewals, extensions, and amendments with ERTH Corporation from 2016 to present, including annual costs.
- Please release the full cost-comparison model used to claim $1.5 million in savings, including staffing, benefits, pensions, IT, office costs, and escalation assumptions.
- Please confirm whether ERTH or any other providers were asked to submit updated pricing using bi-monthly billing and expanded e-billing, and if not, explain why.
If the numbers support the decision being proposed, releasing them should not be difficult.
Norfolk residents deserve transparency — especially when it comes to bills they have no choice but to pay.