To the editor of the Gazette and to any reader of the Nov. 5 edition of ‘Your Views’ column where a letter I wrote was published, titled, “Call to councillors for answers” I would like to add a post script to advise readers of what has happened since.
On Nov. 5, Coun. Cam MacKay sent me an email apologizing for his delayed response in acknowledging my message sent to him on Nov. 1. He acknowledged being, “... quite anxious about the 20 per cent utility increase too.’’ He wanted to acknowledge me for attempting to bring attention to “... this unwarranted and unprecedented increase in utility rates.” He also wanted to acknowledge Coun. Sheena Hughes for her similar efforts.
Later that day, I also received a response from Coun. Gilles Prefontaine.
For the sake of brevity, I will not copy portions of his text to me, but I will attach a copy of my response sent not only to him, but to all members of council, including the mayor.
I am sure readers will get the gist of Prefontaine’s letter to me.
Councillor Prefontaine;
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, the timing of it (after your name appeared in a local newspaper in an article implying that you don’t respond to constituents concerns in a timely manner), as well as the content your comment, “Everyone has their own perspective on the matter,” came across as being self-serving at best, and not a genuine response to the concerns I brought to your attention several days ago.
The point of this response to you, and my initial letter to the Gazette, was not solely the MSI funding issue, but instead, the questioning of city council allowing my utility bill to go up by more than 20 per cent, while apparently not attempting to lessen the increase by maintaining or changing the (then) existing funding model.
I would suggest to you and other members of Council that any current funding supplied to St. Albert by either property taxes, utility fees, etc., be directed to keep the current costs down, not to address some perceived costs ten years down the road.
To hear any public servant attempt to belittle a constituent’s concerns over not only the utility fee increase – your comment of, “This equates to a monthly increase of $9 per month on your 2015 utility bill” – but to any type of tax increase makes me cringe, and should be a cause of embarrassment not only to yourself, but to any of your fellow councillors and/or mayor who agree with your logic. To prove my point, I will supply you with the applicable figures for my 1,500-square-foot home in Oakmont.
In my case, my utility bills for the past 12 months have totaled $1,651.00. An increase of 20.1 per cent equates to $331.85; not a small sum. My property tax bill for 2014 was $5,772.00. As stated in the Gazette, the City of St. Albert is also proposing two different property tax increases of either 3.2 per cent or 3.5 per cent. A 3.2 per cent increase to my property tax bill would equate to a monetary figure of $184.70, while a 3.5 per cent increase would equate to a figure of $202.02.
So using those figures supplied by the City of St. Albert, I can expect to pay the additional amount of either $516.55 or $533.87, bringing my total 2015 property tax/utility bills to either $7,939.55 or $7,956.87.
Sounds a lot worse than “$9 per month,” doesn’t it? It is especially so, when I can guarantee you that my pension income will not be going up anywhere near that amount.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding this email message to the mayor and your fellow councillors.
The only thing worse than hearing the attempts of Prefontaine to belittle me and justify the proposed increase in the St. Albert utility rates and property taxes for 2015, was not hearing from three councillors at all; Wes Brodhead, Cathy Heron and Tim Osborne.
I think I’ll keep this correspondence for the next time one of these people come-a-knockin’ on my door.
I hope others do as well.
Randy Kish, St. Albert
