The MD of Bonnyville is going to get to the bottom of a problem that’s recently come to light.
The municipality decided during their committee meeting on Wednesday, March 6, to reach out to the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) about ATCO charging idling fees for non-energized streetlights.
“(ATCO) have now, whether we energize these streetlights or not, put an idling fee on every one of them, and it equals to what it would cost to energize them,” explained director of planning and development Caroline Palmer.
Previously, any new multi-lot subdivisions were required to include streetlights in their development. Once the infrastructure was built, the MD took over ownership and the costs associated with energizing the light posts.
In order for the lights to be switched on, a subdivision had to reach 50 per cent development.
“We were thinking we were saving money at the time, only to find out that no, we’re not anymore,” Palmer stated.
They were also keeping the environment in mind by only using streetlights in developed subdivisions, noted Coun. Marc Jubinville.
Although the MD does pay a discounted rate for energizing their lights through an RMA program, it wasn’t the bill for lighting up their subdivisions that was the issue.
“To me, this sounds crazy. They’re charging an idling fee but it’s only $1 more to energize them? There’s something wrong with that. There’s power there, but it’s not turned on to any of the lights, and yet, they’re charging us almost identical to what they’re charging us to power them,” expressed Coun. Dana Swigart. “I think that’s ridiculous. If it was a 10th of the price not to have them turned on, then I think I would agree that’s logical, because you have to pay for the infrastructure, but someone has already paid for that infrastructure and they’re just charging us… Someone has to ask the Alberta Utilities Commission that question.”
When Palmer reached out to ATCO about the idling fee, she was told “it’s in (ATCO’s) policy and it’s legislated under the Alberta Utilities Commission that provides them any ability to charge.”
The recent changes is why Palmer brought the issue forward.
She would like to create a policy that gives administration “solid direction” when it comes to future development agreements.
However, council has their residents’ and developers’ opinions to consider.
While some homeowners prefer lighting in their neighbourhood in order to keep criminals at bay, others prefer to go without.
“It’s kind of a mixed opinion out there,” Palmer expressed.
Using a subdivision on the Grand Centre Golf Course road as an example, Palmer explained how lights can be beneficial to some developers, even if they don’t have anyone living in their lots just yet.
“He has all of the lots done and has apparently had a lot of people out there at night. Having those lights would benefit him.”
From dumping garbage, committing criminal offences, and driving quads through the properties, the use of streetlights and a change to their current policy could work in his favour, she added.
A resident in Jubinville’s ward prefers the light in front of his home stay off.
“Everybody’s different. I have light in my subdivision that’s burnt out, but the resident doesn’t want it fixed, he wants it left as-is,” detailed Jubinville.
There are subdivisions that are currently partially lit.
Coun. Ed Duchesne noted how turning all of the lights on could make a neighbourhood more appealing to potential buyers.
“Maybe it would make it inviting and safe.”
While council debated their options, Palmer explained how not requiring a developer to install streetlights when applying for a multi-lot subdivision could hurt the municipality down the road.
“The problem with not putting the infrastructure in at the development stage is it’s that much more costly afterwards,” she explained.
The MD will develop a policy and discuss it at a future meeting. They will also reach out to the RMA to see how other municipalities are addressing the issue.
“I imagine every municipality has this issue,” Reeve Greg Sawchuk stressed.
