ATHABASCA — One town resident will have to pay a hefty bill for road clean up services after town councillors opted to uphold the charges incurred when a water leak under his trailer left part of 53 A Street flooded in March.
During their June 18 regular meeting, Town of Athabasca councillors voted 7-0 to stand by a $1,734 bill issued on March 12 after hearing from the impacted resident himself, Adil Imtiaz.
The motion included direction to share a previously heard report from utility supervisor Terry Kosinski with Imtiaz for greater clarity on the work done to resolve the leak and clean up, and a second motion to allow time to pay was also unanimously passed.
“Basically, this whole invoice is kind of ridiculous,” said Imtiaz. “Everybody I show it to, their mouth drops looking it at.” He stood in front of councillors as a delegation to argue the charges from March 8 water break is both overkill and not his responsibility.
“I’m here requesting the council to put themselves in my shoes and see whether you would be paying this invoice if you received it for calling the town to turn off the water,” said Imtiaz. “I’m here looking for a fair and justified invoice, rather than what I have received.”
Imtiaz explained he had requested water service to his trailer be temporarily shut off at the curb stop valve (CC) after noticing a leak near his trailer. He said when town staff arrived, the CC needed to be excavated before water to the trailer could be shut off.
“I left because I had to go to work, and later on I received this invoice,” said Imtiaz. “I’m quite flabbergasted that I received this, mainly because the CC is property of the town, and the maintenance is the responsibility of the town.”
The invoice listed charges totalling over $1,000 for six hours of work by town staff and a dechlorination puck to neutralize potable water headed into the drainage system. That included $480 for equipment necessary to clean up water and slush pooling on the roadway.
Another line item for a commercial vacuum truck totalled $360, and a $215 administration fee was added to the total, charges Imtiaz deemed unnecessary.
“If South Bend Vacuum is there to do the cleanup, why is there an additional charge for the same thing, just reworded, and I’m getting charged $500 for that?” said Imtiaz.
He listed the charges for the dechlorination puck, staff time on site, and the administration fee as costs beyond reason, and said expenses resulting from the town’s failure to shut the CC off should not be passed onto the property owner.
Administration’s argument
Councillors heard from chief administrative officer (CAO) Rachel Ramey following Imtiaz’s delegation, who provided Kosinski’s account of the incident.
“Obviously there was a very big leak, it was found to be on private property, it had nothing to do with the CC valve,” said Ramey.
“I do believe the invoice is fair and just,” she added, noting utility staff were on site for most of the day. She also highlighted several clauses in the town’s utilities bylaw that state property owners are responsible for costs associated with water line breaks on private land and related clean up.
According to Ramey and an April 2 utilities report presented to council, staff arrived at the site after receiving Imtiaz’s request and were able to identify the leak was coming from beneath the home. Kosinski’s report notes the shut off valve located near the water meter was inaccessible, but a valve inside the trailer was used to halt water service.
The report states issues with the CC valve were identified after the water was shut off at the trailer, and Ramey said all charges related to the clean-up of pooling water and slush on the street, not delays caused by CC problems.
“It was on the property owner’s side of the CC, so that makes it his responsibility,” said Mayor Rob Balay.
“Something like this could happen to anybody, including us in town, and unfortunately that’s going to be put on the user,” added Coun. Jon LeMessurier.
Though councillors were clear on a majority of line items on the invoice, the $215 administration fee raised questions from around the table. Ramey noted administration charges a total of 15 per cent of each invoice sent as a fee for staff time and effort.
“If there’s a $15,000 (invoice), we would charge 15 per cent of that?” asked Balay. “You think that’s fair? I don’t think that’s fair.”
“We have to treat our ratepayers fairly. I’m not saying it’s not fair in this instance, but I’m just saying … it didn’t cost us that much money to send that invoice,” said Balay. “I don’t agree with that being a standard 15 per cent, maybe we need to look at that.”
The fees and charges policy, updated in November 2023, does not contain a clause denoting a standard 15 percent administration fee on invoices. Chief Financial Officer Jeff Dalley said the clause may be in another policy or bylaw but could not identify which document.
