Coun. George Maroosis was one of two General Government Committee members who voted against the city's proposed water rate recommendations on Monday night. Deputy Mayor Sheldon Forgette advanced the suggestions though, which go before council for a vote next week. PHOTO BY LIAM BERTI
City Council went back to brainstorming for the new water meter billing debacle during committee talks on Monday night.
The politicians heard from city staff, who are sticking with their guns on a 60 per cent fixed and 40 per cent variable billing structure on the grounds that it is a safer bet to ensure fiscal stability and sustainability, all while promoting conservation.
After a lengthy discussion, and despite a split 2-2 vote, the chair of the committee, Sheldon Forgette, moved the recommendation forward to go before council for a vote next Monday.
He also included an amendment that calls for monthly billing at no additional costs to users until the city is able to provide an e-payment option.
But if the talk around the table is of any indication, councillors have yet to reach any kind of consensus for next week’s vote.
Based on that model, each residential unit would pay $31.06 per month for the fixed rate plus $1.45 per cubic metre of water used in the cost recovery model.
After some billing data is collected, the city would then likely transition to a more balanced ratio and, eventually, a higher variable than fixed component in the next four years.
Forgette and Coun. Derek Shogren approved the recommendation, while Mayor Al McDonald and George Maroosis voted against it.
“To me, it’s just based on fairness,” the Mayor put simply. “At the end of the day, we’re not ready to move forward. Until council really makes that informed decision to move forward, I don’t want to rush it.”
In the current system, the residential sector is paying approximately 73 per cent of the revenue required for cost recovery, but only accounting for 51 per cent of the water usage.
The ICI/multi-residential side, on the other hand, uses the other 49 per cent of the water, but is paying roughly 27 per cent of the cost recovery revenue, according to the presentation from the city's chief financial officer, Margaret Karpenko.
“Unfortunately, fair and equitable are very difficult terms to define and achieve,” Karpenko said during Monday’s meeting. “A lot of our systems are not completely fair and equitable because treating everyone equally is sometimes not the fairest, because not everyone is equal.
“The current proposal, although not perfect and 100 per cent equitable […] it attempts to minimize the level of impact on all customers and it provides us with the opportunity to continually tweak and modify the system moving forward,” she later added.
According to the presentation, the city’s recommendations are “in keeping with original goals.”
The only problem is, it appears as though council never approved those goals.
“Who developed those original goals?” asked the Mayor. “Because it sounds like council didn’t adopt those goals, or any goals for that matter; I think that’s what we are struggling with.”
Karpenko agreed that the more appropriate phrasing would be “in keeping with the goals of staff.”
Karpenko also presented two brand new billing options for council to contrast: billing based on water meter size, as well as reclassifying the condominium and multi-residential classes.
Neither one was recommended or gained ground though.
Based on all of the feedback they received, Karpenko said the two dominant themes were that the new proposed system is too difficult to understand and the new system should seek a more equitable, consistent and simple model.
She continued to emphasize the urgency of a final decision though, as council is setting themselves up for a budget shortfall if the issue gets pushed past the targeted July 1 implementation date.
“For the first six months of the year, we have been under collecting […] by charging the 2014 rates,” said Karpenko. “If the 2014 rates stay in effect for the full year, we will have a deficit because we are not collecting sufficient funds.
“Our time is running out,” she added.
Transition Plan
Once the billing rate is finally settled, the city must find a way to transition into the new system, which they have planned out in a report that was received by council last week.
The foremost issue in the policy is billing frequency, with the city analyzing three different scenarios: monthly billing for all customers, quarterly billing for all customers, and a blended system for different residential classes.
Monthly billing for all customers would cost the city $183,625, quarterly for all would cost $61,201, while the blended option would cost $72,005.
The city currently bills residential customers tri-annually and multi-residential customers monthly, costing them $43,600 a year, which is already set aside in the approved water and sewer budget.
Staff 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.
But council’s recommendation moving forward includes an amendment for monthly billing to residential customers at no extra cost to them.
Based on the feedback they received from countless residents, many councillors emphasized the importance of at least having the ability to monitor monthly usage.
If the committee's recommendations were adopted, the next steps would be to issue the flat rate billing in July for the months of March, April, May and June.
After that, the first metered bill would be issued in August for the water consumed in July.
Regardless of the frequency selected though, the city’s intention is for customers to be able to monitor their consumption via a web portal system.
The city is weighing two web portal options, one from Neptune Technology Group, who installed the water meters, and another which has been developed by the city’s IT department, the latter of which they are recommending.
There will also be an online bill estimator to help residents get a rough idea of what to expect when they open that first bill.
“It’s an estimator, it’s not perfect, but at least they’ll have some guidance,” said Karpenko.
The final flat rate bill will also include a mock-bill insert which will show residents what their previous bill would have been in the prior period had they been charged the new rates.
The policy recommendations also outlined frozen water service policy, among other things.
On the most basic level, the authority to run a resident’s water would be provided by Public Works Department, who will determine if running water is the appropriate solution after their research and investigation.
Any adjustment to a water bill for approved water running will be changed on the customers unadjusted three-month consumption levels.
Snowbirds, on the other hand, must enter a water service agreement or request that their service be turned off. An additional fee would apply and the fixed portion of the bill would continue to be charged.
