It looks like the average St. Albert home’s utility rates will increase at least $25.31 a month compared to 2014 bills.
“I feel like I love our city, but it’s so expensive,” said mother-of-four Mary Burch during a visit to Servus Place. The St. Albert resident said she is “really shocked” to hear that it’s quite probable her utility rates will take such a jump next year.
“Ouch,” said resident Brian Sloan when he heard that such a big increase is on the table. While he’s pleased with utilities like the city’s recycling program, he wondered why the increases aren’t closer to inflation.
On the other side, Amanda McQuaid said utilities are going up and people need to find ways to be more efficient.
“(It) doesn’t really bother me,” McQuaid said.
On Tuesday, council’s standing committee on finance voted unanimously to refer the proposed 2015 utility rates to council’s committee of the whole for consideration during the 2015 budget process.
However, the numbers prepared by staff show the average monthly bill – based on water use of 20 cubic metres and 240-litre container option for solid waste – will increase from $125.68 a month to $150.99.
Those numbers do not factor in the five utility business cases being proposed as part of the 2015 budget. If those projects go through that would add another $1.15 onto the average monthly bill.
The committee voted unanimously to send the proposed rates on for budgetary considerations, though Coun. Cam MacKay called it a “bitter pill” for some to swallow.
The rate changes are mostly sparked by the new supplemental capital contribution fee that will be making appearances on utility bills in 2015. The fee is designed to raise capital for utility capital projects that are forecasted to occur in the next 10 years.
It was two other utility policy related motions that got some heated words tossed about during committee debate.
Coun. Tim Osborne was proposing council contemplate a one-time trial of grants being offered for fixed or low-income individuals to address the spike in utility rates.
He suggested $200,000 be withdrawn from the city’s stabilization reserve, which is used for one-time unforeseen expenses. Staff will be bringing council recommendations on how to administer such a program in 2015.
Osborne said he was suggesting a trial grant program so they could see how it works before entrenching it permanently.
The suggestion raised the ire of Coun. Sheena Hughes, who wondered about the administrative costs and used the debate to say that provincial capital grant funding shouldn’t be phased out from use for utility projects.
“One does not solve overtaxing issues by creating social welfare programs,” Hughes said, going on to say “what council’s effectively done is create a bloodsucking chest wound.”
Osborne suggested that “just because something’s hard to do doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.”
The motion for administration to bring the idea back to council with recommendations on process was passed in a 6-1 vote.
Coun. Gilles Prefontaine’s related motion asked administration to look at the capital funding formula in light of council’s decision to phase out general provincial grant revenue from use in utility projects.
The capital funding formula is used to calculate the amount needed from the municipal operating budget to help with capital projects.
Since more provincial grant funding in the form of Municipal Sustainability Initiative funds will be available to put towards capital projects, Prefontaine wants administration to consider if that formula could be decreased – or increased – in terms of what needs to come from the operating budget coffers, which means a potential property tax impact.
“What I’m suggesting is a review,” Prefontaine said.
The council committee supported it unanimously.
