Smoke, no fire

County council is regularly called upon to soften the harder edges of its bureaucracy or reconsider the brittle and at times contradictory policies it casts upon the land, particularly when it affects individuals adversely in our community. It is certainly an important role—and given the quick-and-dirty debate by which some hefty policies are imagined and implemented—a necessary appeal mechanism.

But it is not their only role—nor should it be. Too often council members allow their meetings, and frankly their job, to be consumed by narrow appeals that have little resonance or significance beyond the individuals making the appeal—while important policy discussions are shuffled to the end of the meeting or ignored altogether.

Last week council heard the story of the Bowker family on Massassauga Road. Some of readers will certainly remember the story of the dairy farming family, who over decades could only watch as the suburbs of Belleville spilled over the bridge and surrounded their farm. In the meantime rules were adopted to ensure their new neighbours wouldn’t be bothered by the odours emanating from the Bowkers’ animals. Boxed in by development around them—they waved the white flag— opting to sell the property to a residential developer and begin again elsewhere in the County. Council, however, put the kibosh on those plans—unwilling to change the agricultural zoning to allow the deal to proceed. The Bowkers were locked on a property with few prospects for growth and a young family to raise.

There was much wringing of hands and plenty of ink spilled, but eventually the Bowkers backed out of the increasingly heated and at times personal debate to resume their quiet lives.

Last week the Bowkers were back before a committee of council. Twelve years ago the municipality extended water service to Fenwood Gardens and eastward along County Road 28 to service the new homes that formed the burgeoning suburb. All property owners captured in the designated service area were compelled to pay their share of the capital cost for the new service— either as a lump sum or over a term of 15 years.

Part of the Bowker farm lay within the designated area—and as the bylaw reads, any property owner who does or “may derive benefit” from the service was compelled to pay their share of the water line extension. The Bowkers felt this issue didn’t affect them, since their home was more than 1,700 feet from the service and they were content with the wells that served their personal and farm needs—services they funded themselves.

Unbeknownst to them, however, the family was charged for the service extension—to be paid over 15 years on their property tax bill. They paid their taxes each year, unaware they were paying extra for the useless line extension. That was, until last year.

Even though the municipality had enabled property owners to pay the capital cost over 15 years, it had financed the project over 10 years. So last year, with the debt due, the municipality contacted property owners to ask if they would please pay the balance. It wasn’t compulsory but the financing mismatch was costing the municipality more than it had planned.

That was the first the Bowkers knew they had been paying for a service they couldn’t use. No more lots will be permitted to be carved from the Bowker land—council has made that abundantly clear over the last decade. A water service a third of a mile away offers no benefit to the Bowkers— now or ever. They appealed to council seeking a refund, $5,177 that had been paid over 10 years. The County’s finance chief Susan Turnbull argued against paying the money back—noting that the term “may derive benefit” left it open to broad interpretation—and besides, if the County paid back the $5,177, either taxpayers or Fenwood water users would end up paying the cost. She also worried about a queue of folks seeking refunds forming outside Shire Hall as a result of this precedent. It is her job. She is paid to worry about and protect the finances of the County. She does it well.

But this was a pretty straight up and down matter. Council had been complicit in enforcing the rules that prevent the Bowkers from ever using the water service extension. It took the Bowkers’ money by mistake—it should issue a refund.

The simplicity of the issue didn’t deter council from a good long chew on an old bone. No fewer than 13 council members spoke to the appeal. Nearly all agreed that the circumstances were rather unique and therefore not a precendent. They agreed that the water service was of no value to the Bowkers—nor would it ever be. Some pondered the theoretical benefit that may have existed before the rules governing the promixity of barns and homes had changed. Perhaps the County was right to charge for this elapsed theoretical value.

Others probed the Bowkers’ motives. “How had they not known they were paying this charge?”

Unfortunately too many on council see their role as Judge Judy—dispensing justice in a craggy, uneven and, for some, unjust system. A gleam comes to many an eye around the horseshoe when they stand up and defend the “little guy” against the municipal machine.

As troubling as the situation is for the Bowkers, their issue has little application beyond their personal circumstances.

A more important role for council would be talk about the pressures that put the Bowkers in the situation that they can neither grow nor move.

There are certainly some meaty issues that council could engage in arising from the Bowkers’ experience— but a refund on a water service they can’t use, because of council’s own policies, isn’t one of them.

Yet it was the better part of an hour that council frittered away last Thursday afternoon on the subject.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca