Administration’s offer to refund $72,191 to 38 Street residents was rejected by council by a 3-1 vote.
As Coun. Izak van der Westhuizen was out of the country and councillors Loanna Gulka and Rick Bonnett excused themselves from the decision declaring a conflict of interest as they are also 38 Street residents, the decision was left to Mayor Larry Henkelman and councillors Shayne Steffen, John Jacobs and Doug Gill, who voted in favour of the proposal.
This new proposal was presented July 9 after more data, uncovered by Nick Kholman, showed some gas lines were not installed during local improvement projects on the street.
The second refund option is for $92,141 for water lines from 39 Street to 38 Street on 40 Avenue after the discovery some homes already had water connections.
Some of the increases come from the revelation at the last meeting that Peter Davis, owner of properties on 4607 and 4603 38 Street, was being charged for three sewer connections when he had only two properties.
Residents were asked to provide questions to administration after a public meeting with May 21. Those questions were to be submitted by May 31 and administration promised to answer them as quickly as possible.
Some of those answers were accounted for in the proposed refund, which also had a second option, says Betty Quinlan, director of corporate services. “We’ve provided you with an option B just for the sake of giving you an option.”
There were 106 questions provided to administration, said Quinlan. “Rather than try to answer each one of them individually, we went through them. There was some things identified during the meeting, in particular Dr. Davis’s sewer.”
Town frontage on 4803 38 Street was increased to 150 feet from 32.81 feet in an attempt to simplify how the refund was proposed, she added. The land is town owned and is a reservoir site.
Of the 106 questions the majority appear to have come from Kholman, who has advocated for 38 Street residents. However questions were received from Davis, Gary Stickney of 4105 38 Street and Bill Kuncio and Tillie Lloyd of 4015 39 Street.
CAO Brad Watson provided a draft letter, which has been submitted to the town’s lawyer for review. It states some of the questions have been asked by Kholman and have already been answered.
Watson believes there are two issues that came out at the meeting: the first is the improvement on 38 Street and the associated costs. “The second issue is a very old and long-standing issue that Mr. Kholman appears to have with town council. He has used various construction projects over the years as vehicles to question the integrity of council and administration.”
Questions presented to council have inflammatory statements, he further states.
“Council is unwilling to respond to accusations, which claim there has been a ‘cover up’ and ‘inflation charges,’ ‘bullying’ and ‘ridicule and belittlement.’”
Despite all these questions, the only resident who appeared to be in the gallery was Kuncio. Also in attendance was Kholman.
Council reacts to the questions
Coun. Doug Gill was unsure if providing a refund would resolve the issues on that street. “Or will it come back in some other shape or form a month or two down the road?”
He was uncertain how the town should proceed and was worried engineering companies and contractors will now be reluctant to do business with the town.
Jacobs does not believe there was any intentional fraud by employees or councillors during the construction of the local improvement.
Mistakes can occur and Jacobs suggests that will happen. “Everyone of us will make errors.”
Once those errors were found council and administration never said to cover them up. He had no issues with Kuncio except to say his only issue was with administration during the last meeting, not with the engineer.
“If you have confidence in the engineer then there possibly is no fraud,” said Jacobs. “I’m not aware of any attempt to conceal an error.”
Dealing with Kholman’s questions is another issue for him. When questions are presented to council in a negative manner he does not know how to best proceed.
“If concerns are brought in a positive manner then I know how to do something,” he said.
The proposed refund options were considered by Jacobs as he wants a resolution to the issue.
“If they’re entitled to a refund, they should get it,” he offered.
Until he read the letters from Stickney.
Jacobs read one question aloud: “Was it council’s intent at that time to conceal the truth in order to deceive us and get away with overcharging us with these wrongful costs without our knowledge of all these errors?”
“I can’t answer those questions,” stated Jacobs. “If it comes down to that you need a criminal investigation.”
That question and others like it upset Jacobs enough to change his feelings on the issue.
“I’m sorry to other residents but I cannot support the resolution,” he added.
These issues have gone through appeals and each time they came up the Town of Ponoka was not seen at fault, said Steffen. “To me it’s a project that was done underbid and that’s where it’s left. I will not be supporting the motion.”
What appears to have frustrated Henkelman the most is there was no representation from 38 Street residents. “I don’t know whether there’s consensus (among) 38 Street residents”
“Until I hear a consensus from the people on 38 Street, other than Mr. Kholman and other than Mr. Stickney and Mrs. Lloyd, I’m not prepared to move in any place,” added Henkelman.
Watson took a moment to clarify why he feels the proposal is worth considering. The meeting with 38 Street residents appeared to go well and it gave property owners a better understanding of the process.
Neither he nor the engineer knows why gas lines were not installed, which is why a refund option was presented. Watson appeared to regret his actions with Kholman over the course of the years.
“Now if I could turn the clock back I would give Nick Kholman more time. Unfortunately Nick, your reputation precedes you,” said Watson. “There is a first impression and that’s unfortunate.”
Watson believes Kholman was frustrated Watson did not want to go back 30 years on other issues. “I think there is merit in removing engineering costs that was excluded in local improvement.”
Gill was concerned the issues would return whether or not council approved either refund option.
“I just do not want to go back and revisit this mess. Is there any assurance that if this refund were made that the residents would say, ‘This is it. We don’t want to talk about this anymore.’”
“We have none,” Watson replied.
Henkelman has received comments from a resident who would like pavement on 38 Street and wants to see the town pay for a portion of it. He does believe voting in favour of the proposal would stop issues. “The day we pay for pavement on that street is the day that I resign!”
“I just cannot support it without the consensus of all the residents on that street,” stated Henkelman.
He suggests if that does not occur a legal battle may be the only other option.
After the motion was defeated Kholman left the room and spoke with a friend. “They haven’t got a clue.”
Former councillor Les Oberst was also in the gallery and appeared to take offense with the comment.
“Leave our town alone,” ordered Oberst.
At this point Kholman left and Oberst followed to have some words with him. Henkelman called a short recess to ensure a fight did not ensue.