SUNDRE - When a resident on Sundre’s east side gave a contractor the green light to excavate a trench to tie in his property's services to the municipality’s water and wastewater lines, he was under the impression there would be no additional connection fee.
Tim Hus told council during the Jan. 20 meeting that he was therefore caught completely by surprise when a "bombshell" bill for $15,000 came in the mail during the holidays.
Before Hus was granted the floor to address elected officials, Linda Nelson, chief administrative officer, and Chris Albert, director of corporate service, provided some background.
“In 2012, main lines for water and wastewater were installed on the east side of town as part of the hotel construction project,” said Nelson.
“To minimize future road disruptions in the area, council decided to also have the service lines to affected properties installed during construction while excavations were already open,” she said.
That cost, she continued, was covered through municipal funding as well as a borrowing agreement with Totem Developments, which required the town to repay the debt as property owners connected to the services and pay the established fees at such a time.
“What that does is it allows that service and the cost to be deferred until such time as there is a connection,” she said.
Albert said two bylaws were subsequently approved, the first in 2013-14 with a second coming afterwards to clarify some points outlined in the first.
“It does establish that there is a connection fee of $15,000 per property,” said Albert.
“And it also establishes when those fees would come into effect. Basically, those fees are due under re-development, or new development, or applying for a new septic system or a new well system. In instances where either of those systems are failing, then we would require connection to town services.”
For expediency’s sake, the service connections that were at the time extended to the edge of property lines from the municipal mains was a cost borne by the Town of Sundre, he said.
But the fee is still due any time an owner proceeds to complete the connection to those services with their property, he said. So when town staff learned last October that Hus had gone ahead with making arrangements through a contractor to tie in his property to the municipality’s water and wastewater lines, he said an invoice for the $15,000 connection fee was submitted.
Nelson told council that administration had presented three options for consideration: to waive no portion of the connection fee; to waive 50 per cent; or to fully forgive the cost.
“Administration’s recommendation is that no portion of the fee be waived,” she said.
Hus then had an opportunity to plead his case, telling council that previous meetings with municipal staff had impressed upon him that there would be no connection fee because the roadway would not need to be dug up since the stub-outs for sewer and wastewater services were already at his property’s line.
“We had no reason to question that,” Hus said, adding he began to solicit quotes from contractors and eventually proceeded to get the work done. After construction was completed -- which included decommissioning a well and filling a septic tank with crushed gravel -- the municipality’s operations personnel then inspected the connections, pressurized the lines and ensured a water meter was installed before turning the service on.
“Everything was good,” he said.
“Until, in the Christmas season, I received an invoice for the $15,000 connection fee. This invoice landed like a bombshell at our house, because, what do we do now?”
Seeking advice from a lawyer to consider his options, Hus said he was informed about a legal principle known as promissory estoppel, which is essentially a promise that is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.
Coun. Cheri Funke directed a question to administration, wondering about the proper way to proceed since a lawyer had been consulted.
“If a lawyer has been consulted, we would probably be wise to get our own legal information,” said Nelson.
Hus added that he technically had not hired legal representation, but had merely sought information.
Coun. Cheri Funke also wanted to know if the connection fee had ever been waived on any other properties that eventually tied into the municipality’s services since the lines were put in place.
“Not as far as I know,” said Nelson.
Coun. Paul Isaac asked how long Hus has lived at the property.
Although he purchased the lot about five years ago, Hus said the house was “a true fixer-upper” that needed to be rebuilt. That process took time, and his family moved in more than two years ago, he said.
Isaac followed up, wondering if the realtor or previous owner had informed him about past discussions with stakeholders in the area regarding the service lines that had been extended to properties’ boundaries when the hotel was built.
“No, it was an abandoned place,” said Hus.
“The listing agent was a Calgary agent. Even on the MLS there were no photographs,” he said.
Isaac said that was unfortunate, as any such information about a lot should be disclosed when a buyer takes ownership.
“When I hear you say to me that you and your wife were told and assured that you didn’t have to pay that fee, I don’t know how I can vote to charge you. Because I take you at your word,” said Isaac.
“It’s not that I don’t take administration at their word. I do believe them. But I do understand the situation you’re in,” he said.
“If I was in your shoes, I’d be frustrated, angry and nervous,” he said, adding council faced a difficult choice.
“Whatever decision we make, we either take more money from your pocket, or we take more money from everybody else’s pocket.”
Mayor Terry Leslie, who was reluctant “to put staff on the hot seat,” said there was a fourth option available to council, which was to table a decision for the time being.
Isaac agreed with Leslie, and motioned to table the matter until more information was available, which council carried. Not present during the meeting were councillors Richard Warnock, Rob Wolfe and Charlene Preston.
