It seems that the town has decided an appropriate and reasonable use of taxpayer funds is to engage in a legal battle with those residents who do not wish to have a wireless water meter.
Has the council received an estimate of how much such a legal battle will potentially cost? If so, what are the details of the estimate?
If those residents were simply allowed to have a non-wireless meter at the town’s cost, (i.e. costing taxpayers nothing) what other community projects could be supported by those funds not used for legal purposes?
Has the council considered the negative press it will receive for discontinuing water services to families, and if this may have long term effects on tourism and other industries in Ponoka?
If the council has not considered these points, why not? I fail to understand why engaging in a potentially expensive legal battle over a relatively inconsequential issue provides lasting benefit to the town.