Lots of words are flowing out there about utility funding, making the whole issue very confusing; pardon the pun, but it looks like we are adding even more sewage! So allow me to add mine, too.
Let’s keep it simple and to the point, so we can avoid sorting through and swimming in a real mess.
Pure and simple, the city is “Robbing Peter to pay Paul” and as though that’s not enough, the city is further demanding that “Peter come up with the cash to replace what was robbed from him – and hand that over too.”
The justification seems to be that we have to operate as though we will one day lose the provincial grant; please bear in mind that before this mess of reassigning funds started, only 30 per cent (approx. $3 million) of the grant we receive went to utilities and 70 per cent (approx. $7 million ) to the city’s general funds. With the change in policy, 100 per cent goes to general funds … and goodbye, au revoir, adios, arrivederci utilities.
As (previous letter writer) Mr. Neil Korotash states, there is an offset from one account to another. If it is an offset, why not offset the cost to the taxpayer by equally reducing property tax? That ain’t about to happen bro … no sir! – Looks to me like a money grab – just don’t call it a tax increase. All that is occurring is money being shifted from one account to another – no increase in spending – but an increase in revenue at property-owners’ expense. Call it anything you can get away with … just don’t call it a property tax increase!
For all those who are fearful of losing the grant which will affect utilities, and use this fear therefore to justify increasing utility costs, should also consider fear of losing the balance of 70 per cent of the grant which will affect all city revenue. Somehow, very puzzling to me, there is no discussion of fear of losing the other 70 per cent. Please, logical thinking would suggest that we should raise taxes … just in case. Both are ridiculous.
Finally, Mr. Korotash’s concern about the utility funding question being put on the ballot … “Voter turnout is only expected to be 10 per cent, shouldn’t we leave the decision with those we elected …?”
I would remind him of four things:
• That 10 per cent will elect the next councillor – and it will be binding
• The result of the utility question is not binding on council.
• A 10 per cent representation of a cross-section of voters is a valuable indication of the will of the people.
• Show more respect for voters who fulfil their civic responsibility.
But let’s not get distracted from the real issue … no internal auditor – no trustworthy or meaningful accountability on this or any other issue. That question too was refused on the ballot. Go figure.
Steve Stone, St. Albert
