The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
As the owner of a low-end house in Flin Flon, Brian Taylor has heard the argument that residents with costlier homes _ and higher property taxes _ subsidize him. He couldn't disagree more. In fact, he believes that when it comes to his water bills, he is the one subsidizing many of his fellow residents. A single man on a limited income, the white-bearded Taylor, 65, wants to install a water meter at his modest Tweedsmuir St. home. That would ensure he is charged only for the water he consumes. No longer would he pay the same rates as families of two, three, four and up who, naturally, use far more water than he ever will. But under a policy enacted at least seven years ago, the city forbids the installation of new residential water meters. 'I don't think that's fair,' says Taylor. 'They're wanting me to pay the same as what a person who uses twice as much (water) as me pays.' Justification Just as he feels he should not have the same gas bill as someone who drives a huge guzzler, Taylor sees no justification for paying the same water bill as large families. Coun. Bill Hanson, however, argues that the moratorium on water meters is in place to ensure fairness. 'It gives us a little balance (in terms of) the utility bills between people that have meters and those who don't,' he says. Coun. Hanson says the moratorium is a response to the fact that the city cannot afford to install meters in every home, something council once voted to do. See 'Cost' on pg. Continued from pg. Asked about the fairness of the situation, Mayor George Fontaine says the water system carries a certain cost. 'The same system needs to be operated, and we would change (how it is billed to residents) just for the water as opposed to everything else that we do?' he asked rhetorically. Commenting on 'the fairness factor,' Coun. Hanson gave the example of people like himself who have no children but still pay school taxes their whole life. Such comments fail to sway Taylor. Due to health problems, he has a limited income even when his government pension is factored in. 'I'm not the only one on a fixed income,' he says. 'There's how many widows around who aren't getting anywhere near the pension I'm getting.' At a 2006 city council meeting, Chief Administrative Officer Mark Kolt explained the rationale for the meter moratorium. Mandate At the time, council still planned to mandate meters for every home. A mass movement toward meters before they are mandated, Kolt said at the time, could wreak havoc with municipal finances. 'If everybody went and bought their own meters next year... or even a hundred people went and did that next year, you might wind up with $50,000 to recover, and if 200 or 300 people change, all the more so,' he said at the time. 'Really the best thing would be is if everybody in the community would get metered at the same time.' Most Flin Flon homeowners currently pay a flat rate for water, regardless of how much they consume. Prior to the moratorium, a small number of homeowners chose to install meters, hoping it would save them money. In 2007, a previous city council voted to mandate water meters for every Flin Flon home, but no action was ever taken toward that objective. In its 2008 budget, the city set aside $1.6 million to install water meters in all homes. When the year ended without meters, the city budgeted $2 million _ a 25 per cent hike _ to install them in 2009. In both years, the money was spent on other projects. No budgets or resolutions since that time have mentioned water meters.
