Would I like lower utility rates? Of course I would. Unfortunately the question of whether that should be achieved by using provincial grant money is a whole other story, and one that is sadly misunderstood by many.
The city receives a large sum of money ($3.85 million I believe) from the province and they can allocate toward different types of infrastructure, utilities or otherwise. For years this has been allocated toward utility infrastructure projects thereby reducing the amount the city needed to collect for water, sewer, and garbage. This money could just as easily be used for sidewalk and road repairs or recreation facilities.
In my humble opinion, it makes far more sense to use it for the latter as the grant is not guaranteed and can change from year to year. Of all the services that a municipality provides, utilities are the most essential and should have sustainable funding. Just like your household budget, income that you may or may not receive or that fluctuates such as bonuses or commissions should probably be used for the "wants" not the "needs" and this should be true of the city as well.
By charging residents the true cost of utilities without relying on unpredictable government grants, the city can ensure long-term stability. Unfortunately shifting this grant money from utilities to other infrastructure projects means higher utility fees and for some that is their sole focus. This shift however also offsets what the city would have to collect in the form of property taxes. So while it may not be as readily apparent, there is an offsetting benefit. One could argue against council's current non-utility spending and this would be quite fair, though it is an argument that should not be conflated with where the MSI grant funds are best used.
How do I know there is confusion around this issue? Take for instance the people quoted in the May 16 St. Albert Gazette article about utility fees. Paul Paulsen was upset that his utility fees have increased substantially and calls it a "hidden tax" yet there is absolutely nothing hidden about it. In fact, utility bills are more transparent than ever. Perhaps Mr. Paulsen should focus on reducing his water consumption instead of throwing out old clichés. His 44 cubic metres is higher than any bill our family of four received last year and we have a larger than average sized lot. Then there is Rashida Hamir who doesn't think the changes were publicized enough. Both local papers had countless articles about this very topic, which spanned almost an entire year, and it was even a prominent election issue. I also saw one fellow's comment on Twitter that St. Albert had the "highest utility costs in the region" and that simply isn't true. According to a Dec. 9th report, St. Albert average utility costs are $8 less than Edmonton and only a few dollars more than Strathcona and Spruce Grove.
This brings me to councillor MacKay's musings about whether or not an MSI utility funding question should be on the June ballot. Ignoring for a second that voter turnout is only expected to be 10 per cent, shouldn't we leave the decision with those we've elected who have studied the complex issue inside and out? If councillor MacKay has his way, the question will be tantamount to "do you want lower utility rates" when it could just as easily be flipped to say "would you like more road repairs." It is nothing more than a political stunt and an obvious one at that.
Neil Korotash, St. Albert
