SANDPOINT - The City Council found itself mired in some unintended consequences at its regular meeting Wednesday evening.

At issue was a city policy that allows for reimbursement of excess water charges due to a defect that causes a leak in a residential customer's water line, so long as those defects are fixed "promptly upon discovery," according to language in the resolution.

Resident Ken O'Toole found himself in just such a predicament when he discovered he had a water leak in December. Outside was what he called a perfect storm of freezing weather, followed by snow, then rain. Then his sump pump kicked in. On a Sunday, after several days of pumping, he began to suspect something was amiss. He searched, but was unable to find a leak.

O'Toole called the city the following day. They confirmed he had a leak between his house and the city's water main. His water was shut off and the leak repaired. The bill: $927. His water bill, normally about $27, O'Toole said, was $418 for the period that included the leak. So O'Toole attempted to invoke the city's excess water adjustment policy.

"The reason I'm here is because I found out I could be," he said.

But therein is the problem: because only 78,824 gallons of water had leaked, he was not automatically eligible for reimbursement under the city adjustment policy.

The council has for the last several years been addressing the issue of excess water charges due to damaged piping. It approved a resolution in 2008 allowing for reimbursement of excess water charges for volumes over 250,000 gallons. The 2010 council reduced the leak volume to 200,000 gallons. Then in 2014 it dropped the volume yet again to 100,000 gallons, but only for the period between the months of December and March; the 200,000-gallon threshold remained in place for the rest of the year.

City Treasurer Shannon Syth told the council that O'Toole's claim was not eligible for automatic reimbursement because he did not exceed the 100,000 gallon threshold.

"That's why he's here: he doesn't meet the policy," Syth told the council.

She then weighed-in on unintended consequence number one: the effort involved in gathering and assessing all the necessary information and making the adjustments under the excess water charge policy was for her and her staff a real burden.

"The impact has been tremendous in my office for me to process these," Syth told the council. "I've done probably 12 since January."

For those bills eligible, the water bill payment is due immediately once an adjustment is applied, according to language in the current city policy resolution. If a payment plan is necessary, the adjustment policy requires bill payers to provide financial information, including six months of past bank statements, canceled checks, and two years worth of tax returns. An interest charge is also applied to the balance.

Unintended consequence number two: the issue led to a bit of a quandary for city officials when Councilman Bill Aitken noted there was potentially a built-in incentive for homeowners to allow a leak to continue until it reached 100,000 gallons, thus making them eligible for reimbursement under the current policy.

Councilwoman Deb Fragoso pointed out yet a third unintended consequence of the policy as it applied to people like O'Toole.

"We're punishing him for his diligence," Fragoso said.

She felt the existing language was vague, that perhaps a time frame for reporting needed to be added.

That might not work in the winter months when the ground is frozen and homeowners can't get to the leak for a repair, according to Syth.

"In the wintertime it's not easy to do repair work, or to even find the leak," Syth said.

She noted the water line was the homeowner's responsibility. Public Works Director Kody Van Dyk confirmed that city responsibility ended at the city water meter. Piping from the meter to the house is the homeowner's responsibility.

Councilman Tom Eddy asked if authorizing reimbursement for O'Toole would be changing the minimum threshold for automatic reimbursement, or if the current policy would remain the same. Syth again weighed in on the discussion.

"Do you want to hear them all?" Syth asked. "Because we can send all the leaks to you. If you aren't going to follow (the policy), you either need to change it or they will all come here."

Mayor Carrie Logan found herself in a bind. The motion before the council was to approve or deny O'Toole's request. A denial of would end the issue. Approval was another matter.

"If you decide to approve the request then you're going to have to move forward with a request for resolution to change that policy, right?" Logan asked, looking at City Attorney Scot Campbell.

Campbell suggested the council could table the issue until the next meeting, allowing time for the policy to be considered further. Both the policy and O'Toole's request could then be addressed at the next council meeting.

The council voted unanimously to kick the can of unintended policy consequence down the road to the next meeting.