SUNDRE – In a decision that was neither cut and dry nor unanimous, council allocated the 2024 Gas Alberta Inc. refund into the municipality’s utilities life-cycling restricted surplus account.
The move came by way of a motion that was opposed by one councillor on Oct. 7 during a regular meeting after a prior motion to disburse the usage-based rebate back to consumers was defeated.
Providing council with some background on the annually-recurring item, Linda Nelson, chief administrative officer, said Gas Alberta Inc. is the municipality’s gas supplier and that the town is among the company’s shareholders.
“Due to gas management and hedging activities during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, Gas Alberta is refunding $4 million to its shareholders – not the Town of Sundre, its shareholders,” said Nelson, turning the matter over the Chris Albert, director of corporate services.
“The $4 million is the total refund. Unfortunately, Sundre’s portion of that is only $30,040.32,” said Albert, adding the refund the town receives is directly related to the cost of gas paid by users over the past year.
“Therefore, it’s administration’s opinion that issuing the refunds to utility customers is deemed the most appropriate,” he said.
If approved as recommended by administration, the motion would result in a one-time disbursement of the rebate back onto the bill for December based on usage from November that each customer had, he explained, adding that would result in an approximately $15 refund for the average residential user.
“Of course it would be higher for industrial users (and other) higher users of gas,” he said.
Coun. Chris Vardas moved the recommended motion. Recognizing that an average of $15 per customer depending on their consumption is a fairly small refund that would otherwise represent a far greater cumulative sum in reserves, Vardas said, “this is just giving a little bonus back.”
Speaking opposed to the motion, Coun. Todd Dalke said the rebate to individual households does not amount to much whereas the collective $30,000 could instead be better spent in the community, for the community.
“I would still suggest we take this type of money and move it into events in which our entire town can benefit from,” said Dalke.
Coun. Jaime Marr was also against the motion, but expressed a preference for placing the rebate into reserves for future capital plans in recognition of all the infrastructure projects that municipality is anticipating.
“We could do more with $30,000 on a capital project than have it go on a residential bill,” she said.
“I appreciate Dalke’s suggestion; however, I think it’s prudent to take the money that we get from utilities and put it back into utilities because this isn’t always guaranteed,” she said, cautioning against using the funds to help host a community celebration that would not be guaranteed to happen again the following year if there’s no rebate.
Coun. Paul Isaac supported the motion and said it’s “a great way for us to show residents, ‘You know what? We’re going to give that back to you.’”
“It’s going to benefit every single household,” said Isaac.
Coun. Owen Petersen agreed with Marr and said he would rather see the rebate transferred into the restricted surplus account for utilities life-cycling.
“A lot of this isn’t going to go to our residents; it’s going to go to the schools, it’s going to go to the churches, it’s going to go to the businesses that aren’t necessarily the residents,” Petersen elaborated.
“A few residents are going to get this, but if we take it and we put it in our reserve funds for utility life-cycling, everyone will benefit from this,” he said.
Mayor Richard Warnock favoured the motion and said giving even a little bit back to residents is the right thing to do.
Seeking clarification following the point raised by Petersen, Isaac asked if the $15 rebate wouldn’t apply to everyone.
“It’s an average,” said Albert, later adding the more a consumer uses, the more of a refund they would receive.
“There may be people that run a wood-burning stove all winter long and use very little gas – they might get $2 back. There are bigger users, so I’ll pick on a restaurant that might get $50 back, or heating a tire shop is another example.”
Although a parallel with the Fortis franchise fee that consumers can keep lower by reducing how much electricity they consume was drawn during the discourse, mayor Richard Warnock said they are both completely different in the sense that the gas rebate is a refund on a utility that customers have already paid.
Speaking in favour, the mayor called a vote and the motion was defeated with Isaac and Vardas also in support while Dalke, Marr, Petersen, and Coun. Connie Anderson opposed.
Anderson then moved to transfer the refund into the utilities infrastructure life-cycling restricted surplus account.
“I think that’s where it should go. I didn’t like the rebate given that it’s a little dribble here and there; let’s do something with it when we need it,” said Anderson, who owns a tire shop, asserting that having a larger sum available to invest in the community is more beneficial.
Still preferring to allocate the rebate toward some kind of community event, Dalke said he was opposed from that standpoint. And looking ahead to next year should the matter come back, the councillor – who also owns a local car shop – added he for comparison’s sake would like to have a greater understanding of the breakdown in terms of residential, commercial, and industrial contributions.
“My $3,000 gas bill is very different than the residents’ $400 bill, and so is Connie’s,” he said.
“I would like to have seen it go back to everyone that payed in,” said Warnock.
“But I understand the reason for this motion,” he said, referring to the tremendous amount of current and impending utility infrastructure work facing Sundre.
The mayor called a vote on the motion, which carried with Dalke against.
