Council rejects assistance to low-income residents

Narrow vote nixes $2.8-million program for low-flow fixtures, education on usage

City council narrowly voted Monday to reject a pilot project aimed at assisting the increasing number of low-income Calgarians who are behind on their water bills.

The move means that a temporary suspension on the practice of cutting off service to delinquent customers has ended, save for those who qualify as low income.

Council voted 8-7 against the $2.8-million proposal that would have seen Calgarians who are more than 90 days behind on their bills invited to participate in a pilot program. The program would have provided qualifying customers with low-flow fixtures and assistance to decrease their water use in exchange for rebates on their bill.

Councillors Ward Sutherland, Evan Woolley, Shane Keating, Peter Demong, Sean Chu, Joe Magliocca, Jeff Davison and Diane Colley-Urquhart voted against the pilot. Mayor Naheed Nenshi and councillors Jyoti Gondek, George Chahal, Jeromy Farkas, Druh Farrell, Ray Jones and Gian CarloCarra voted in favour.

The number of water accounts in arrears that are written off each year by the city is increasing, municipal officials said Monday.

Administration suggested the city stood to gain in two important ways from the pilot: the assurance of at least a modicum of revenue from delinquent customers and lower water consumption among successful participants.

But Monday’s debate saw councillors divided on the merits of the pilot.

Coun. Sean Chu suggested the pilot smacked of “social engineering,” arguing that he favoured a simple education campaign instead.

“You’ve got to help yourself first before anybody else can help you. I think that’s the best way to go forward,” he said.

Some councillors objected to proceeding with a pilot without more data on customer billing and behaviour being collected first.

Coun. Ward Sutherland wondered aloud whether people on the “edge of paying their bill” might decide not to pay in order to be eligible for the benefits of the program.

“I think we should be figuring out what’s going on first, then have a solution,” Sutherland said.

But some council members, including Nenshi and Gondek, argued Monday that the pilot was a fiscally prudent approach since the city is already losing around $3 million every year in unpaid bills and it would allow a portion of those losses to be recouped.

Nenshi said a pilot would allow the city to “test” potential interventions before committing to a permanent program. He went on to say council shouldn’t ignore the social cost of families being threatened with water disconnection.

“If you can’t pay your water bill, this is a devastating family event for you,” Nenshi said.

“You are not going to go, ‘oh there’s a program here, so I’m not going to pay my bill’ — that’s not how that works,” he said.

“If you find yourself in an embarrassing situation, in a situation you’re ashamed of where you cannot continue to pay your water bill, this is actually a very big deal.”

While council members rejected the pilot, they ultimately voted to have administration study customer billing data to determine whether an assistance program is needed in the future.

The city will report back with more information and recommendations before the end of 2020.

Can’t pay your water bill, this is a devastating family event for you. You are not going to go, ‘oh there’s a program here, so I’m not going to pay my bill.’