Freight payers

Despite changes, waterworks users likely a minority on committee investigating their rates

Waterworks rates and cost structures don’t arouse public interest or participation the way other issues do. Whether it is the numbing sense that nothing that can be done, or an overwhelming sense that the issues are too complex and technically oriented to comprehend fully, few folks show up at council to complain about their water bill.

There are, some things that could be done to affect water rates immediately. The County could decide to refuse to pay the usurious rates for water charged by Belleville for Rossmore and Fenwood’s water. This would save nearly $300,000 a year. It could write the 19 households at Peat’s Point a cheque to assume responsibility for their water. It could compel homeowners in Ameliasburgh, those whose lawns cover the water pipes, to help pay for the system even if they choose not to use it—as is done in Picton and Wellington.

These may or may not be advisable actions to pursue, but they are ideas that should be discussed by water system users who have seen their bills more than triple over the past decade. Those bills are set to rise at least another 50 per cent over the next few years, according to the County’s consulting economic analyst.

Sophiasburgh councillor Kevin Gale, for one, would like to see more residents become involved in the issue and in finding solutions. Gale urged his fellow council colleagues to reconsider the structure of an ad hoc committee being formed to look at the County waterworks—its escalating costs and inadequate funding.

The committee, as originally proposed, consisted of five council members, four staff members, one builder and two residents— though there was no requirement that any member actually be a water system consumer.

As the majority of council members (and County residents) are not on the system, it was possible—under the proposed structure— that Mayor Robert Quaiff might preside over a 12-member committee for whom only he would have a direct stake.

Gale sought to ensure the folks who “pay the freight” be better represented on the committee.

“It is imperative that representation by the users is a little bit stronger,” said Gale. “They are the ones footing the bill.”

He urged council to take advantage of the wealth of talent, energy and expertise that resides in this community.

Ameliasburgh’s councillor, Janice Maynard, wasn’t convinced putting more waterworks users on the committee would add value. This sounded odd since Maynard’s introduction to municipal politics came as a result of her dogged pursuit of Consecon and Carrying Place’s water issues during the 2010 waterworks committee meetings.

Maynard’s bigger concern was the role of staff. Was it necessary for the five of them to be members? And would they be voting members or serve an advisory role?

These issues hadn’t been spelled out in the terms of reference.

It seemed a fair question, but it served to polarize the debate away from who should be represented to who should be allowed to vote.

Mayor Robert Quaiff insisted that staff had to be at the table—sidestepping Maynard’s point.

Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) James Hepburn addressed it directly. He said the committee was to play an advisory role, in which it would consider the issues and only make a series of recommendations. He suggested this could be done either by a consensus or voting basis, wherein staff could be restricted to an advisory role. He acknowledged that the terms proposed had not made that clear.

“Council will make the ultimate decisions,” said Hepburn.

In time, the discussion came back to the matter of who would sit on the committee. Council agreed that it could live with one less representative and bolster the community representation to three members, in addition to a representative of the building community. It did not pursue the matter of who would vote and who wouldn’t, seeming to accept the CAO’s guidance toward consensus.

There remains, even after the changes, the very real prospect that actual waterworks users—those who pay the entire cost of the system—will be outnumbered on the committee looking into how their system is managed.