In a vote Monday evening, a motion to have a reimbursement program for Quesnel residents who haul bulk water was defeated four to three.
Gold Pan citizen, Curtis Fenton made a presentation to council August 15, requesting exemption from paying at the bulk water station.
Fenton, who is quite conservative in his water use, spent approximately $800 hauling bulk water per year.
Although Fenton lives within city limits, his lot, as well as surrounding lots, are unserviced for water and sewers.
During a council meeting Feb. 13, council instructed staff to come forward with more information about the matter.
Specifically, Coun. Ed Coleman asked for additional time to get a deeper understanding of the problem and how it affects frontage taxes and stressed his desire for equity for all residents.
During meeting last month, both the city manager, John Stecyk and director of public works, Ken Coombs recommended council keep the bulk water metering system the same, as financial implications to the city would be significant.
The city polled residents in Fenton’s area of residence in 2009 and the majority turned down the water extension proposal, which asked residents to consider paying a $1,482 parcel tax for 20 years.
Since most residents have wells and pumping systems, the city has decided polling those residents again would not serve any purpose.
Monday, director of finance, Kari Bolton, reiterated the financial implications to the city, adding those who do not receive water do not pay into the city’s water fund.
“Only people who get water service in the city pay towards the water fund,” Bolton said.
“If you don’t receive city water, you don’t contribute towards the water fund.”
However, Councillor Sushil Thapar found this unacceptable, especially, he said, since the city worked so hard to expand its city limits
Coun. Thapar found it unfair to some residents who live within city limits who are paying the same rate as residents outside city limits.
“Residents of Quesnel shouldn’t be paying the same price as those outside the city,” Thapar said.
“It is creating an injustice.”
Coun. Mike Cave agreed with Thapar.
“We’ve worked hard to expand our city limits,” Cave said, adding the city should “provide the services for a trial period of two years and re-evaluate at the end of those two years.”
In the report city staff compiled, it is stated “it can be expected that taxpayers in these unserviced areas will be seeking similar rebates to offset the cost of developing a well and installing and maintaining a pumping system.”
On the other side of the table, Councillor Scott Elliott agreed with city staff and was scared reimbursing Fenton meant reimbursing all residents who haul bulk water and reimbursing costs to residents who have built wells and pumping systems.
“I don’t think we have that kind of money,” Elliott said.
“If we open the door for Mr. Fenton, we’re opening the door for people with wells.”
Coleman agreed with Elliott and city staff.
“I think it isn’t wise to go against staff’s recommendations,” Coleman said.
“Twice, staff has recommended we not approve this motion.”
During a vote on Monday evening, council voted to keep the bulk metering system as is.
