Staff is currently working on new bylaws for Water Rates and Sewer Rates for 2024 to 2028.
According to a pair of reports from Chief Financial Officer Natalie Wehner, current water and utility rates do not generate sufficient revenue to fund water operating costs. “In order to make up the shortfall in user fees, the District has been utilizing parcel tax revenue,” writes Wehner. “With the utilization of parcel tax revenue to cover operating expenditures, the District has reduced the transfer into capital reserves for future capital needs of the water fund.”
According to Wehner, the last time rates were increased was back in 2012. At that time the revenue generated provided sufficient funding for all water operating costs. Parcel taxes were utilized towards debt and transfer to reserves for future capital needs. “Since that time, with inflation and the need for increased maintenance due to an aging system, revenue generated by water user fees is no longer sufficient to fund the operating needs of the service.”
As of December 31 of last year, the Water Capital Reserve fund was $890,954. This is insufficient to meet the future capital needs of the water system, says Wehner.
In order to have water user fees fully cover operational costs, she recommends the rates increase over the next five years.
In 2024, sewer rates would increase $9.11 to $139.29, while water rates would increase $25.43 to $256.57.
In the following year, water rates would increase $28.22 to $284.79, while sewer rates would climb to $150.44. In 2026, water would go up by $34.17, while sewer would go up $12.03. In 2027, water would go up $38.28 and sewer by $13.00. In 2028, water rates would go up by $42.87 to $400.11, while sewer rates would go up by $14.04 to $189.51.
These last three are proposed rates, and would be reviewed in 2025.
The motion to update the bylaw passes. Wehner says the same calculation that was utilized for residential utilities would apply to all water user rate groups. Councillor Norbury says that he would like to see the town consider metering water usage. Right now, he says, the town has a flat rate for all users, but some people use more, other use less.
He makes a motion to see if staff can prepare a report on the cost of adding water meters across all users in town, including residential, and what the cost would be to switch to a metered system.
“I know in some other municipalities, people are charged how much they use. In our current municipality, we get charged a flat rate—I believe it’s based upon the distance from the main water source. I just want to see people pay their fair share, and I think this is the way to do that do that.”
Councillor Hofman says the District current production far exceeds the demand. “I look at this as an infrastructure problem, not so much a usage problem. If we have more water than the town needs, reducing people’s rates based on water uses doesn’t change the fact that we still need to fund the infrastructure changes, like new pipes, or like new pumps.”
CAO Brian Woodward says that changing to metered water for the residential areas would be complicated. “We’d have to do a feasibility study on residential meters. Then we’d have to do a review which would include commercial and industrial rates as well and then do a calculation on how often we would check those meters, and finally we’d have to review what it would cost for the manpower to do that. There are some significant costs that would be attributed to this proposal.”
Councillor Hofman says that cost is his issue. “If there is sufficient water generated, and the entire community is fully satisfied all the time, then doing a feasibility study and the costs associated with that, and then the cost of switching over and the loss of revenue when we start measuring it, because now people are paying for it per unit so they’re cutting back on usage…I don’t know if that’s worth it right now.”
He admits that having enough water at all times might change in the not-to-distant future with this summer’s drought and water restrictions. “But if it does, that seems a more appropriate time. My concern is, going to monitoring water usage doesn’t speak to rebuilding the infrastructure. That’s a sunk capital cost. My inclination—and I’m more than open to changing my mind—is to leave the current structure in place. We can talk about what are we going to do five years or ten years down the road, rather than do it right now, especially when I’m hearing how much work would go into a feasibility study.
Councillor Gulick says her concern is not so much residential as it is commercial. “We have businesses in our community who sell water. We are giving them an unfair advantage over other businesses. I would think that we are against the Community Charter or something. I will support this going forward, just to look at what it would cost for us to start exploring this for businesses.
Councillor Norbury says he doesn’t want water metering to impact one group unfairly “We have home-based businesses, and they may be utilizing a different amount. I believe this could probably help us with the cost of replacing the infrastructure. The larger users will be utilizing the service more and in my mind the more you use it the more you’re responsible for a replacement right. But I’m not looking for us to do a full feasibility study. I’d just like to start with very preliminary discussions about what it would look like. I’m not looking to jump in with two feet. Let’s just dip our toes in. If it’s going to cost us $200,000 for a feasibility study, that doesn’t make any sense.”
The motion to investigate metered water passes.
Trent is the publisher of Tumbler RidgeLines.
