ATHABASCA — It started out strong with a motion but ended with extensive debate and three motions being defeated.
At the July 12 regular Athabasca County council meeting, Coun. Ashtin Anderson made a motion for the third option presented by administration for setting the water rates for Colinton, Grassland, Wandering River, Rochester, rural subdivisions, and the truck fills at Colinton and Grassland.
“I’d like to move first reading of Bylaw 014-2022 with the rates outlined in Option 3, ‘Cost plus phased in approach,' with a minimum charge of 15 cubic metres per month,” she said.
The amendments came after it was noted the utility was running an average deficit of $270,000 per year over the past six years and council passed a budget which showed it breaking even.
As of Jan. 1, the Aspen Regional Water Services Commission (ARWSC) raised water rates from Athabasca to Boyle and Boyle to Wandering River while the county’s current rates are from 2020 and, if unchanged, will result in a $370,000 deficit for 2022.
In the comprehensive report it was noted 33 per cent was being added to the water bill to cover wastewater but it could be reduced to 20 per cent. Administration also gave four pricing options with two minimum usage levels – 10 and 15 cubic metres – for council to consider.
Option 1 was a cost-plus proposal and based on a 15 cubic metre minimum where Colinton residents would be paying $120.17; Grassland and Wandering River, $174.95; and rural subdivisions, $139.58, with truck fills at $9.31 in Colinton and $11.66 at Grassland and Wandering River.
Based on 10 cubic metres the prices dropped to $73.67, $116.63, $93.05, $9.31, and $11.66 respectively.
Option 2, where everyone pays the same rate, at 15 cubic metre the minimum for Colinton would be $147.92, with Grassland, Wandering River, and the rural subdivisions paying $167.25 and both truck fills at $11.15.
Using 10 cubic metres the prices drop to $92.17 and $111.50 with no change to the truck fill.
Option 3, a cost-plus phased approach, at 15 cubic metres, prices would be, in the same order, $84.54, $139.25, $103.88, and truck fills at $6.99 and $9.34. At 10 cubic metres prices were listed as $49.92, $92.83, and $69.25 with truck fills priced at $6.93 and $9.28.
At 15 cubic metres under Option 4, which would have everyone pay the same rate on a phased-in approach, Colinton would be $100.76 with the rest paying $120.00 and both truck fills at $8.00. At 10 cubic metres, costs would be $60.67 and $80.00 respectively with the truck fills still at $8.00.
“If you look at the rates Grassland and Wandering River pay, they are constantly higher than everyone else,” noted Coun. Gary Cromwell. “Why are residents in the north going to be continually charged higher? The county did receive a grant to put in all the infrastructure for our water so that argument that we as taxpayers up there are paying for that infrastructure is not valid.”
Reeve Brian Hall clarified the infrastructure was not paid for completely by grants and the ARWSC had to take out a debenture as well which meant passing the costs onto the users but Coun. Tracy Holland compared it to the Athabasca Regional Multiplex which also runs at a deficit.
“I’m assuming it was always expected to be running a deficit very much like the Multiplex,” said Holland. “If we’re going to all of a sudden have our water rates be at the stage where we’re breaking even, then we should be doing the same with our member rates at the Multiplex.”
Coun. Rob Minns also threw in with Holland and Cromwell, wondering why the rates had to vary so much between locations but Anderson pointed out it is not the county setting the initial prices.
“It's very unfortunate that the Athabasca County council does not control the prices of the Aspen Regional Water Services Commission who charges for the water that they supply,” Anderson said. “And while I cannot speak to why they charge a different rate in Colinton versus Grassland or Wandering River; I think it’s really wonderful that the two councillors that seem really stuck on this issue actually sit on the water commission and have a say on our behalf there and they can go back and rally at the water commission to help have those prices adjusted and have that corrected there.”
An amendment was made to accept Option 3 with a 10 cubic meter limit, but it and the original motion were defeated.
Then Option 4 with a minimum charge of 10 cubic meters was moved but also defeated, and finally a motion to direct administration to work on a fifth option with the same rate across all municipalities but leaving a $175,000 deficit was defeated.
The bylaw will be brought back to the July 27 regular council meeting for further discussion.
