Each and every person has a unique perspective, especially when it comes to water meter billing in North Bay.
Until now, members of the public were only able to sit and listen to the progressive Water and Sanitary Sewer Review Committee meetings and attend the open house sessions.
But finally, with the committee’s recommendation expected to be presented to council next week, the very people who are set to bear the brunt of the drastic changes were given the opportunity to tell their story and make suggestions of their own in Council Chambers on Monday night.
More than 30 people attended the discussion, as some commended the the committee, others criticized; few told the story of their bills more than doubling without turning their taps on, while others applauded the politicians for helping level the playing field and promising to bring their bills down.
Overall though, there seemed to be a renewed sense of optimism from those who criticized council’s adoption of the current water billing structure. Many also acknowledged the politicians’ effort to find a solution.
“I have come to every single one of the meetings, I’ve seen how hard you work on this committee and, I can’t believe I’m saying it, but I’m very proud of what you’ve accomplished; it was not easy," said presenter Karen Anderson. “I read all the documents, I saw what you were dealing with, and I think you’ve come up with a very fair system."
“What’s happened on this committee is democracy at its best," she added. "If you’re in the ICI sector, you’re not happy that you’re paying 10 percent more; if you’re a resident, you sure appreciate the fact that your bill is going down 10 percent."
Over the past three months, the group have overhauled the water billing system to address the fact that the residential sector is paying 73 percent of the revenue required for the city’s water and sanitary sewer cost recovery, but only accounting for 51 percent of the water usage.
On the other side, the ICI/multi-residential sectors use the other 49 percent, but are only paying 27 percent of the revenue.
After months of data analysis, billing simulations and projected outcomes, the committee came up with a first draft of their recommendation to council last week and are finalizing the list in the coming days.
Put simply, the recommendation for January 2016 is to banish property class distinctions and adopt a system that charges all water customers a monthly flat rate based on the size of the water meter fixture on the property.
Using the 2015 budget numbers, residential homes that have a 5/8-inch or 3/4-inch fixture would be charged $30.40 in fixed fees per month for the water portion of their bill.
As the connection size increases, so too would the fixed rates.
A one-inch connection would pay $79 each month in fixed fees, while a six-inch connection would be paying $1,575, with all other connections falling in that range, which is likely have a big impact on large industrial and commercial users.
On top of that, all will be billed a uniform variable rate per cubic metre of water, regardless of volume consumed.
Using the 2015 budget recovery numbers, a cubic metre of water will cost $0.99, down from the current $1.46 per cubic metre for the residential user and the $1.33 per cubic metre that the ICI/multi-residential sectors are paying.
Together, those figures will make up a 60 percent fixed, 40 percent variable rate structure to meet the city’s $21.3 million cost recovery.
Even then though, the residential sector is projected to make up 64 percent of the city’s budget revenue, with the ICI/multi-residential properties providing the other 36 per cent.
“It’s not a perfect shift and equity isn’t always perfect, but it is a shift and it’s one that we recommend that council review annually when they set the water budget,” said committee chairman George Maroosis. “There’s no question that we’re going to gain a lot of experience over the next few months when the actual bills do come out and we have an opportunity to see what’s happening.”
Numerous commercial and multi-residential users took to the public podium on Monday night for the first time since the committee introduced the idea of fixture size billing.
Commercial property owner Tony Limina, who looked at his projected bill just hours before his presentation, said the fixed costs alone for his building could multiply up to 10 times, from $55/month to $550/month.
He suggested that if council decides to go ahead with leveling the water billing disparity between classes, then they should do the same for the tax rate too.
“I certainly understand the logic with trying to make the water rates similar between residential and commercial,” he said, “but I think you’re tinkering with one portion of it and I think you have to start looking at the tax rate for everything because […] the reality is if you’re doing it on one portion of the tax bill, you should be doing it on all portions of the tax bill.
“You don’t tinker with one without tinkering with the other,” he concluded.
Because the recommendations call for such a drastic change to some of the larger users, Maroosis anticipates that many more ICI/multi-residential property owners will be weighing in over the remaining months of 2015.
The committee also looked at a way to develop a policy and process for users with larger-than-necessary fixtures to apply for downsizing to a smaller pipe and lower fixed fee.
Right now, the idea is to send all ICI/multi-residential property owners an insert in their October bill notifying them of their pipe size and giving them ample time and information to apply for the pipe adjustment.
The water filtration plant surcharge portion of the new bills will also be adjusted to fixture size, Maroosis said.
Another recommendation from the committee is to investigate how the expansion and capital growth projects can be factored out of the water and sanitary sewer cost-recovery and, instead, moved elsewhere so that every taxpayer is accounting for the funding.
Resident Gary Gardiner, who was one of the first to bring the cross-property billing imbalance to council’s attention last Spring and was very active throughout the committee discussions, endorsed the direction the group is moving in but said the overall affordability of the $21.3 million water budget needs to be addressed.
Of that $21.3 million water and sanitary sewer budget, $7.8 million, or 36 percent, is attributed non-capital growth and expansion. He cited the Pinewood Park sewer project as an example of a capital project that is being unfairly financed through water bills.
Moving forward, he recommended that the overall water budget be seriously scrutinized for reduction.
“When we talk about affordability and people struggling to pay their water bill, 36 percent of what they are paying goes to non-capital growth,” said Gardiner. “We should be looking at those projects from the regular tax levy and it should be shifted over so that everybody pays for that expansion […] and shifted away from the water bills.
“To me it’s like a tax; you have to drink water, use it to flush your toilets, cook your food, shower, and yet we are taxing it at 36 percent, and we shouldn’t be doing that,” he added. “If we want to bring water costs down in terms of affordability, the third big step we have to take is looking at the budget and bringing it down.”
Maroosis said shifting that burden is something that will likely be discussed in the upcoming budget deliberations.
Other suggestions from the public presentations included investigating a time-of-use, peak hour rate system similar to hydro, during which the city could charge a premium price and put the extra revenue towards the budget.
There was also some significant concern for the up to 40 percent of wasted water on the city’s part.
“When I hear the city advertising that every drop really makes a difference, but 35-40 percent that comes out of the lake never reaches a meter, I have a problem with that,” said presenter Rob Martyn. “It’s incumbent on the city to fix the system […] I’m not sure it’s totally fair to the people out there in community who are cutting back and taking extreme measures because of the fear that is out there.”
There will be an open house at City Hall on Tuesday night for customers to ask city staff any questions or run through their projected bills, while Maroosis et al. will meet again on Wednesday night to consider the public input and finalize their recommendation.
Once the the list of recommendations is put forward, council still has the ability to pass all of the ideas, none of them, or any combination they come up with.
