The village of Maryfield held a village meeting on the evening of Wednesday, Jan. 26 to share news and seek a public mandate regarding the village's water pipeline project.
Maryfield had been troubled by uranium levels in the village's well-water that were 10 percent higher than the acceptable limits, regularly testing at 22 micrograms-per-litre per sample, while the provincial standard stood at no more than 20 micrograms-per-litre.
Therefore, in 2008, planning began to develop a new well site, as well as introducing a reverse-osmosis water treatment system into the village.
While the planning for this was underway, the availability of federal and provincial grants in that period ensured that secured funding to cover a large portion of the costs was available.
Through application to the Building Canada Fund, the village managed to secure a grant to assist with the building of the new treatment plant.
It was following this grant that the village was contacted by the Rural Municipality of Wallace, located in the province of Manitoba.
Wallace had undertaken to build a massive water treatment and distribution system, and offered to develop a deal with Maryfield which would see treated water pipelined from the RM's facility, through a connection at the village of Kola, MB, across the provincial border and into a distribution facility in Maryfield.
Due to both the expense and difficulty of finding water plant level II certified employees, which the village would need if it was to build its own RO plant, it was decided that the Wallace agreement would likely be the best route for the village to take.
The first project of its kind in Canada, so far as anyone had been able to verify, this cross-border transfer of treated water required the construction of a six-inch diameter pipeline (this was later changed to an eight-inch diameter) for the approximately 20 kilometres from Kola to Maryfield.
Due to the gradient differential from Kola to Maryfield, in-line pumps were also planned however, as construction got underway, the requirement for proper pressure levels changed this to a variable-speed pumping system.
While Building Canada Fund willingly allowed the grant to be changed to include funding for the pipeline, changes in costs continued to see the final project costs rise.
In the end, the community was left with a bill which they were unable to meet.
"The total cost of the project, what we have to raise to see it through, is now around $1.8 million," said Maryfield's administrator Ward Frazer to those who turned out for the village meeting. "This is quite a bit more than was expected, and due to financing options, we aren't able to meet the costs at this time."
The meeting, which was held at 7:30 p.m. at Maryfield's Legion Hall, saw more than 35 people come out to hear the announcement, and take part in planning for the next step.
"We had initially planned on getting coverage with a 25-year loan," Frazer continued. "It was only afterwards that we found out that no lending institutions were willing to go 25-years on a loan to a municipality."
Instead, a 20-year loan with a fixed rate of 5.1 percent was offered, but due to provincial regulations that disallow deficit budgeting by municipalities, Maryfield needed to make some difficult decisions regarding taxes.
"We have invited you here this evening to go over what happened, how it happened, and to tell us which of the steps we've developed to deal with the situation we should take," Frazer told the audience. "We have to do something."
The plans offered included reducing the present building plans to save additional monies on the project, combined with certain readjustments in several different portions of the taxes and utility fees, as well as continuing on with the plan as-is, but facing somewhat heftier price increases.
Also attending the meeting was the full council of the village.
"We have to keep moving ahead with the project regardless," Frazer said. "Due to the uranium levels, Environment [Ministry] is only being patient with us because the project is moving ahead."
Looking at ways to cut building costs, thus reduce the level of pricing increases rate-payers would be facing, removal of a secondary generator, reducing the size of the building that will house the distribution plant, and a number of other corner cuts were presented.
"But if we cut the generator, for example, we would have to have a boiled water advisory after every blackout," Frazer informed the crowd. "Everything that we cut will come at an expense in time or money at some other point."
One audience member, Jayne Childs, offered her opinion on boiling her water.
"Yeah, it doesn't sound bad," Childs said out loud to the assembly, "but I'm pretty sure you would be darned sick of doing it after the third or fourth go."
Discussions about how to reduce costs of the project continued on in this vein for some time, with the audience finally coming to a consensus that, while the cost-cutting measures would reduce the overall expense of the project, the accumulated total of just over $300,000 wouldn't justify the difficulties that cancelling the selected items would entail.
When a community vote was finally called to provide council with a mandate as it moved forward, a number of cost-increases were to be enacted at the next council meeting.
For one, the village mill rate will be increased by two.
For another, a property base tax in the amount of $250 will be introduced.
The utilities cost for water will be increased, and the minimum use level will be reduced as well.
With a projected yearly loan payment for the project financing estimated to be $145,663.87 per year over the next 20 years, the new pricing structure will provide the town an operating surplus, beyond other expenses, of $16,010.88.
"I was apprised of what was going on by some people, but I hadn't realized how bad it was," said Childs following the meeting. "This is a really ugly scenario for a community this size, but I understand there wasn't much council could do about it, so they have my support for this."
"By that I mean 100 percent support."
Bob Johnson, who presently resides in the RM of Maryfield, but plans on moving into the village now that he is retired, also seemed understanding of the dilemma.
"They moved into this project looking to do good for the community," Johnson said. "It stings a bit to see the prices having to go up, but really, our hands are tied."
There are still several variables the village council needs to work out, including where to apply the taxes (the levy can be raised against agricultural, residential, or commercial/industrial lands, or any consistent combination therein,) as well, whether to included joined lots or separated lots under single ownership as single payers.
