City council is stumped as to how it handles delinquent electrical customers.
They’re hoping to find a solution down the road.
The issue was rehashed from the March 16 regular council meeting, when it was put into action that if a residence is visited by city workers to disconnect, but the disconnection is not applied, a $34 fee will be applied, rather than the full charge of $68.
“In a few months when the report comes back from the utility rate review, that might be an opportunity to reengage this conversation, and in the meantime put our thinking caps on to some innovative solutions,” Mayor Andrew Jakubeit said after the April 20 regular council meeting.
“Should we be looking at our policy with respect to first-time people who go down that road?” Jakubeit asked. “Perhaps there may be other mechanisms to recover those costs.”
Those who miss payment just once should be given a break, Coun. Andre Martin argued.
Coun. Max Picton said the focus should be on those with a habit of missing payments.
“I think that the issue is the chronic repeaters,” he said. “That’s where the issue is. Giving a price break to the people who miss it once is not doing anything to change the situation.”
Coun. Campbell Watt said that the disconnect fee is likely to compound problems for those who had trouble paying their bills.
“We should come up with some sort of payment plan or procedures that will help to mitigate people who can’t afford to pay their electrical bill,” he said.
Coun. Watt spoke to a staff report which explored the idea of applying greater reconnection fees to customers who pass a certain threshold.
“I think of it as a form of discrimination and I don’t like the idea of having a dollar amount of tax to it.”
He suggested stretching the disconnect fee out over a longer period of time.
Chief financial officer Colin Fisher said that the revenue collections department makes bonafide attempts to accommodate customers who are behind on bills. He also said that the fees are based on cost of city resources consumed.
Coun. Judy Sentes said that she commends the flexibility offered to customers, but as a landlord, she pointed out a flaw.
“I’ve had tenants who’ve run into financial difficulties, and then they negotiated a payment plan that I was not aware of, and then they left, and I was left with the aggregate amount,” she said. “I would like to ask that landlords are given some advice that that’s going or else we’re left holding the bag.”
Coun. Sayeed agrees with the fee, and said that the rules are in place for a reason.
“It’s the nature, if you break the law you will pay for it,” he said. “If the RCMP is going to give me a one-time free ride for speeding, you bet I’m going to use it.”