North Battleford city council ended up in a long discussion Monday on the issue of deposits for utility accounts for tenants in the city.
At issue was a proposal from City administration to raise the utility deposit amount for tenants from the current $150 up to $300, taking effect immediately, with a further increase to $400 authorized for Jan. 1, 2017.
City administration justified the increase, saying pressure was being felt from multi-unit building owners about the increasing cost of delinquent utilities.
It was explained that building owners were experiencing issues with tenants leaving without paying their utility bills for water and sewer.
These amounts are then applied to owners’ accounts after the tenants leave, with the owners left footing the bill.
The argument from administration was the current deposit is not enough to deal with those delinquent tenants’ bills.
“This is a bit of a sore issue with a lot of our owners,” said David Gillan, director of finance, who made the point that he was dealing with owners on this issue frequently.
But members of council pushed back on the proposed increase, expressing concern about the impact on renters.
Councillor Kelli Hawtin said the biggest concern was “affordability for tenants.”
“A $400 deposit on a water bill is a substantial amount of money itself,” said Hawtin, who pointed to all the other expenses new renters faced for damage deposits and hook-up fees.
She asked if there was a different way to go about the billing, perhaps by billing ahead of time like provincial utilities. Mayor Ian Hamilton later noted there were additional costs by going that route.
Hamilton also raised concerns about the deposit and about affordability.
“We talked a lot about the size of this deposit when we passed it before, and it’s a huge barrier to those on social assistance,” he said.
He also made it clear he thought it was the owners’ responsibility.
“The owners can take some responsibility and require all of their tenants to make monthly payments”, said Hamilton. “There’s a program that they have to do that.”
He also suggested owners could add a $5 per month fee to tenants to create a reserve that could go towards covering those expenses.
“This is not the City’s responsibility,” said Hamilton.
In the end, administration took note of some of the concerns raised by councillors about the deposit issue.
They pledged to research the issue some more and bring it back at the next council meeting.
