Instead of coming to a final decision on the hotly debated water meter billing structure on Monday, City Council decided to send the issue back to the committee level and start from scratch in hopes of finding some consensus. PHOTO BY LIAM BERTI
City Council isn’t ready to make a decision on how the new water meter billing is going to work.
Months of deliberation came to a head on Monday night, where the politicians were scheduled to make a final decision on the water bills that will be dictated by a fixed rate and a variable rate based on usage.
But in the end, the team decided to send the issue back to square one to gain some consensus and hammer out the details they felt were overlooked before.
The fixed component of the new bills will be a set charge regardless of water use that provides a dependable revenue source for the city. The new variable rate, on the other hand, will allow users to control their consumption and the amount they are billed for.
At the last council meeting a fortnight ago, it looked like the debate was going to be debunked after Coun. Daryl Vaillancourt suggested a billing structure that would allow for resident’s to more effectively dictate how much they pay for water usage.
Vaillancourt’s suggested structure called for a 60 per cent variable component and 40 per cent from a fixed rate, a direct flip of the city staff recommendation.
But a deadlock 5-5 vote defeated the amendment in the absence of one of the councillors, which Vaillancourt immediately followed with a motion for reconsideration.
With two weeks to re-evaluate the scenario, Vaillancourt’s suggestion was once again defeated on Monday night.
That then set the stage for Coun. George Maroosis to table his own amendment, calling for the issue to be sent back to the committee level for more in depth discussion
Council carried Maroosis’ motion with a 6-4 vote, with support from Mark King, Derek Shogren, Mike Anthony, Jeff Serran and Mayor Al McDonald.
Anthony recommended sticking with the fixed rate billing for another year while also providing them with mock bills based on their water meter readings to simulate what they will pay under the new system.
“I really think that would give people some clarity on seeing how their habits affect their billing,” he argued. “For many citizens, I think there are still a lot of unknowns; I believe around the council table, there are still some unknowns too.”
Those who voted against the amendment, like deputy mayor Sheldon Forgette, expressed their concern for the costs that continue to add up as the issue continues to get delayed.
Forgette said the city risks missing out on potential funding sources the longer they wait to implement the new system too.
“The longer we put this off, it’s costing us significant money,” Forgette said during the meeting. “A lot of money was already invested in bringing the water meters to fruition.”
Council heard three more public presentations that preached seeking a more equitable system on Monday, the latest in a long string of residents who have urged council to reconsider the framework of the new bills.
Put simply, many members of public have voiced their concern for the residential water meter ratepayer bearing a much heavier cost burden that those in the industrial, commercial, institutional and multi-residential classes.
Forgette suggested that ciy staff take a closer look at the fairness of the proposed system and prepare a report for council within 60 days.
And as more and more councillors seemed to get swayed by those statements, the issue ultimately got pushed back yet again.
Transitioning into the new system
Council also received a report from the city’s chief financial officer, Margaret Karpenko, on Monday night, which outlined the city’s recommendation of how to move the 14,785 residential customers from the flat rate structure to metered billing by July 1.
The current system, which bills residential customers are tri-annually and multi-residential customers monthly, costs the city $43,600 for the year.
The report analyzed three different options: monthly billing for all customers, quarterly billing for all customers, and a blended system for different residential classes.
Ultimately, Karpenko and her staff have recommended the blended model of monthly billing for industrial, commercial, institutional (ICI) and multi-residential customers, while adopting a quarterly billing cycle for residential customers.
“This results in a slightly higher cost, but is better understood by the general public and aligns with our financial reporting requirements,” the report states.
The recommended hybrid billing frequency would cost the city $72,000 for the year. At a hefty price tag of $183,615, the report argues that monthly billing for all residential units would be too expensive to the city.
However, the ICI and multi-residential customers have expressed how important it is for them to be able to be able to detect leaks and backflow issues, which a change to quarterly billing would hinder.
The report does state that the city is exploring developing an in-house web portal though, which would allow customers to monitor their consumption data more frequently and accurately.
The first bills with metered consumption would be issued in October and would account for July, August and September usage. The plans do call for an equal billing option though, whereby bills would be mailed out quarterly with equal payments withdrawn monthly.
Despite pushing the process back and halting all city staff progress on the matter though, Maroosis said he believes they will still find a way to move the process along fast enough to have a system in place by then.
City staff have also proposed that the final flat rate bills, which would be issued in July, would be distributed with a mock bill based on prior quarter’s water consumption and the new water rates.
Added to the report were frozen water policy options for residents who have to run their taps and avoid frozen pipes, an issue that was brought up many times throughout the public presentation process.
