RIVERS
BANNER June 5, 2015
ersary v i n Celebrating our 106th An
Gazette-Reporter Serving the Rivers, Rapid City and Oak River areas for 105 years
Volume 107, Issue 47
89¢ + tax
Apathy apparent and appalling By Sheila Runions Banner Staff
W
ith a population of more than 1,200 and homes in Rivers numbering more than 600, it was very disappointing when less than one per cent of home owners attended a public hearing regarding massive utility increases. Riverdale Municipality advertised its May 28 public hearing through this newspaper, posters in town and full-page notices sent to every user in their water bills — they did their part in keeping ratepayers informed. As so often happens in this community, there are large majorities who whine and complain but when it comes time to meet their elected officials (and maybe that’s the problem — they likely didn’t even make the time to vote and therefore, have no right to complain in the first place) that vast majority is very visibly absent. A mere 45 people attended the hearing and of those, 10 would be considered new and young faces, not the “old” pillars of the town who always attend town meetings. Apathy once again reared its ugly head; even Mayor Todd Gill (who emceed the evening) admitted attendance was “not near the crowd we expected. I wish people would come out and get the right information but I thank YOU for coming.” The meeting was held to discuss funding requirements for construction of a new water treatment plant. Proposed rate increases are jumping as much as 230 per cent in order that finances are in place for the $6 million project which is hoped for completion within 12 months. “This rate increase is directly related to the proposal of a new treatment facility and wastewater lagoon,” said Gill. “It is not the duty of council to carry out large infrastructure projects such as water treatment and lagoons. It is our duty to identify
opportunities and deficiencies and take proactive or corrective measures. Contrary to some beliefs, we have not been in need of a new treatment facility for 20 years. We have, however, been short of the required storage capacity for likely more than that. You will find in many past utility financial plans a proposed $2 million for upgrades and a new reservoir. In 2011 council was informed by Manitoba Water Services Board (MWSB) there were concerns with our plant and its ability to be upgraded to meet the newest water quality standards. The revenue to support principal and interest payments must come from water and sewer sales; a restructuring of the utility financial plan must therefore occur. Council does not hold the expertise nor authority to determine and implement a new rate structure. Our obligation, by provincial legislation, is to contract an independent firm and submit an application with the study. The most recent study as ordered by Public Utilities Board (PUB) includes and reflects all operational and capital requirements for the future of our utility. A public hearing hosted by PUB with regards to the utility rate increase will be held in Redfern Hall on June 15 at 7 p.m.” T h e m a y o r ’s 1 5 - m i n u t e speech included common questions and his answers before 45 minutes were spent on public questions. Gill’s first question was why there wasn’t more money in a utility reserve fund; PUB does not allow it. Past councils have requested increases to allow for a $100,000 per year reserve but PUB reduced reserves to $20,000 per year on belief it’s “unfair to charge current ratepayers for projects in the future they may not benefit from,” Gill explained. Why are you raising rates when the water cannot be con-
You have another chance to defeat apathy: SHOW YOU CARE! Attend the June 15 7 p.m. meeting. sumed? Gill reiterated a portion of his speech when he said is was a “coincidence is all.” Rate reviews/public hearings take time and council hopes to make the first loan payment in December 2016. “We have anticipated the new rates being implemented in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of 2016; we need sufficient time to derive revenue.” In his speech proper he said, “Contrary to the beliefs of some, we are not here due to a boil water advisory. It is nothing more than coincidence that this proposal is being presented at a time when our existing system has failed.” Though there will be many steps to treatment and filtration, the new water plant will “ultimately be reverse osmosis.” The lagoon project is in the midst of a its third revision of a design review; council is making yet another application to Build Canada and is hopeful to receive funding (denied last year) so construction can begin in late 2016. Gill’s question was why the two projects couldn’t be spaced further apart; he answered, “The only way time could be beneficial is if it was 20 years to allow for the payment of one before starting the other. As we have learned, time comes with cost consequences as well.” The first ratepayer question was to find out if a 230 per
cent increase was legal. Gill reminded the small crowd the new rates include increases for both the treatment plant and lagoon (an estimated $5 million project). He explained, “By law, utilities must stand on its own and must not run a deficit; PUB will not allow it. These suggested rate increases come from independent studies and their recommendations.” One person mentioned the “toxicity” of fluoride-treated water and how as early as 1976 Holland banned the use of that chemical and how in the past 40 years, much of Europe, China and Japan are now no longer treating water with fluoride. Gill admitted to seeing much literature on the topic but was unsure of what chemicals were used here; he and the present council (Councillors Larry Fast and Bryan Smith were absent) were asked to hold a referendum on treating with or without fluoride. A professional engineer with 30 years experience in water and wastewater treatment, and who teaches the same at Red River College, attended the meeting. He responded that, “Fluoride is a small part of the process and is not likely an issue here.” He plans to retire to Rivers and came to the meeting to be better informed and to offer expert advice; he “commended council for their proactive approach and I’m glad council is embarking on membrane technology.” When asked if the town’s current infrastructure is strong enough to support the new system, Gill replied yes. One person wanted to know when the increases would be effective. While council hopes for the final three months of 2015 or the first three of 2016, Gill said, “It’s out of council’s hands. It will come into effect when PUB decides.” He was also questioned about the sincerity of his confidence
that water from a new plant will be on tap in 12 months. He stated, “I understand concerns from ratepayers are all valid but the reality is those concerns may create delays so construction may not happen as quick. We would like to see the reservoir constructed by winter, then the building and then the treatment equipment; it’s possible MWSB may tender it in three phases.” When he mentioned tendering someone wondered “what safeguards are in place if it goes over budget?” He answered there are “always contingencies in place for design so we follow the lead of the consultants. We originally thought it might be a $4.5 million plant, then MWSB denied a $10 million plant and said we needed to find something this community can afford. No one likes to swallow these rates but we must. The reality is that’s what it costs. Oak River, Rapid City, Virden, we’re all going through this process and in Rivers, we are better off than some. We require $19 per 1,000 gallons in comparison to Oak River, which is looking for $30 per 1,000 gallons.” Riverdale plans to drain its $400,000 utility reserve and borrow $2.6 million to finance this project. With accumulated debt from Rivers and Daly through amalgamation and a potential lagoon loan next year, council could be in debt $6 million in 2016. Gill was questioned about these numbers and admitted he was “comfortable with this debt load as I think we’ve done our job because citizens will benefit from these projects for many years after we are all gone. We’ve asked for mandatory depreciation costs and an additional $100,000 to rebuild our reserves. There should be reserve funds available at all times though we are never allowed excessive funds in our utility account.”