What is the cost of a flush?
Sharon McLeay
Times Contributor
Town Councillors are caught up in how to charge for sewer services while still giving conservation-minded residents equitable water savings. The Town sewer system is operating at an approximate $370,000 deficit and must have funds generated to pay for services. Sixty-five per cent of the sewer costs are fixed and do not vary with water volume.
Residents complain that they are being overcharged for water used on lawns, that isn’t processed by the sewer treatment facility. Some residents feel the discontinuation of the old irrigation system and the removal of the second household metre last year – that monitored outdoor water use – has complicated the process. Other residents that conserve water and purchased low-flush toilets, front-loading washers, and collect rain water (as advocated by the town), say they are not compensated for their efforts. Single person households are being penalized, as they pay the same flush rate as multi-person households. Commercial facilities who don’t irrigate, or snowbirds that don’t use a lot of water in the winter, are not compensated.
Staff developed five options for Council to consider:
• Charge residents $274 plus installation costs, to install second metres to measure water used for outside irrigation, excluding this metered water from the sanitary charges. However, it was noted that if 50 per cent of residents bought the second metre, the town would have to increase fees for everyone again to cover the lost revenue.
• Have residents prove they conserve water for an average sewer credit for the summer months, based on installed water conservation appliances, xeriscaping costs, and rain barrel purchase receipts. This may turn into a logistical problem if only partial measures are used.
• Charge a flat fee for sewer service, but this doesn’t encourage conservation or give equity for low/high usage.
• Sewer averaging for residential customers should be implemented, however, low water use in summer might skew the winter rates.
• Keep billing as it is, which doesn’t recover deficit costs or charges for water not actually treated.
Mayor Steve Grajczyk suggested that the sewer be taken off the utility bill, divided by actual operation costs, and applied to property taxes, based on assessment values. However, it was noted that it gave no incentive to conserve water.
“You would be moving sewer to the Town’s obligation and moving it to property taxes,” said Corporate Services Manager, Mel Tiede.
Councillor Rocky Blockland said that Council already made a decision on removing a second meter, with subsequent billing changes last year. He felt the decision should be upheld and billing should be kept as it is.
Councillor John Rempel said that the Town is already subsidizing the rate for everyone, because according to the deficit, true rates are not on the bills.
“I don’t like the idea of water and sewer tied together. They should be separate,” said Rempel.
“I disagree completely; you are penalizing low users of water when you do that. Those people who use very little water and have no backyard are going to suffer for this. The only way to do sewage is to have it linked to heavy water usage. There is an assumption that heavy water usage is going to the sewer. I know that’s not the case, but it’s the only way to be fair with this,” said Councillor Bob Sobal.
Councillor Pat Fule asked if a cost comparison breakdown could be made for each of the options, so that a better decision could be made, and wondered if there were examples from other municipalities.
The only decision that Councillors could agree on was the decision to extend the requirement that meters don’t need replacing every ten years, but could be done on a fifteen year basis, as recommended by staff.
Staff will develop more cost comparison information and sewer billing will come back to council for more discussion and a decision.