Rate supporters attend meeting
- Details
- Published on Tuesday, June 23, 2015
By Sheila Runions
Banner Staff
Two weeks ago Rivers Banner reported 45 people attended a municipal hearing regarding the proposed water rate increases. The newspaper encouraged more citizens to attend the Public Utilities Board (PUB) meeting on June 15, also held to discuss the rate proposal; 57 people showed up.
PUB member Susan Proven opened the meeting with general comments such as, 鈥淎ll utilities are subject to PUB oversight and approval, including rate increases. We noticed a significant response from ratepayers about the magnitude of this increase and proposal to fund capital expenses, which also had significant responses. Our decision will be based on evidence we hear and we will try to reach our decision within two months. We concern ourselves with the impact on end-users and the well being of the utility.鈥�
The 鈥渟ignificant鈥� number of ratepayers amounted to 21 鈥� not even one-third of one per cent of all users 鈥� but during the last rate increase in 2012, only three complained to PUB.
Mayor Todd Gill was asked to explain the proposal to PUB, which was a condensed version of what he spoke at the municipal meeting on May 28. Following his presentation, PUB asked some questions for clarification and a few questions were raised from the floor. One question from PUB was if the municipality had promoted water conservation or incentive programs for low-flow shower heads, reduced flush toilets, collecting rain water for lawns, etc. Gill admitted nothing had been done and said, 鈥淐ouncil should look at such programs and promote water conservation, that鈥檚 a good idea, thank you.鈥�
When asked if wells or aquifers could be used to supplement the water source in Rivers, Gill explained, 鈥淲ells are not an option for our community and we have no aquifer in our area. Had demands been less for volume requirements, perhaps, but we don鈥檛 have 16 litres per second 24/7 in our town, which is why we have to draw from Lake Wahtopanah. We鈥檇 like wells because it鈥檚 cheaper to treat well water than lake water but we鈥檝e been told point blank we don鈥檛 have adequate water resources of water per second needed in case of fire. Almost one million litres, that鈥檚 47 per cent capacity of our reservoir, is provincially legislated for fire protection alone.鈥�
When PUB asked if two proposals had been considered, one for a water treatment plant upgrade and one for a lagoon, Gill reiterated the answer he gave at council鈥檚 May 28 meeting: 鈥淲e don鈥檛 have the luxury of 20 years to spread these costs apart.鈥� He told PUB council was 鈥渧ery confident of Build Canada funding but in a worst case scenario we鈥檇 like to have a small reserve so we can borrow less. Our lagoon works on seepage to Little Saskatchewan River and we need to now discharge through a pipe. Those costs in 2008 were $2.3 million and now it鈥檚 $5 million. We feel the lagoon is prudent or costs will escalate even more.
There has never been funding available from any sources for the lagoon project but with the new infrastructure programs available today, we are confident our project will qualify for funding.鈥�
When asked if another increase is likely next year, Proven replied that PUB has 鈥渘o rule but we encourage councils to look at their rates regularly so rates go up a little frequently instead of the rate shock like in this application. Councils can come back every year with a rate study but it鈥檚 hard to project expenses for many years, that鈥檚 why we typically ask for a two- or three-year rate lifetime.鈥�
Gill also responded that, 鈥淣o question the rates are going to be a burden to some, which is why we looked at a monthly billing instead of quarterly, to budget easier.鈥�
Proven credited council for their foresight in this regard, stating, 鈥淵ou are groundbreakers as all other towns still bill quarterly. You鈥檒l be charting new territory and we鈥檒l be very interested to see how that goes.鈥�
Riverdale Municipality CAO Kat Bridgeman recognized five names from people who contacted PUB with a complaint of financial hardship but says not one of them spoke at the meeting. Therefore, Proven closed the meeting by asking if the general consensus of those present was support of the increase; a round of applause as well as some verbal bouquets were offered as a reply.
The meeting was approximately 90 minutes long which is a short time when compared to the two months it could take for PUB to make its decision on this proposal.
