Gord Trask does not want to see good money going down a municipal drain.
Wellington North Township council recently held a court of revision to consider the assessments for West Luther Drain 63, Branch A, near Monck.
Considering only two landowners were involved, one might have thought it should be a relatively short meeting.
But it was not.
Although four properties are involved in the project, the two landowners are Alfred Wilson, of Conn, and adjacent landowner Gord Trask.
Garth Noecker, of K. Smart Associates Limited, was at council presenting a assessment report regarding costs for the expansion of the drain. He said that costs were allocated according to formula, including property size and benefit to individual properties.
Because the majority of benefit goes to Wilson, most of the costs were allocated to him – roughly 80 to 85 per cent. Even though there is an existing drain across the Trask property, Noecker said his firm justified some of the costs to Trask because there are doubts about the longevity of the existing 12 inch pipe in current use.
That drainage is not part of the new drain which would have an 18 inch pipe.
“We feel it is of benefit to the property regardless of who owns it in the future.”
Trask, however, did not share that opinion.
He asked why he should have to pay for a new drain when the current one is already doing the job.
Noecker responded that even if the existing tile was operating at 100% capacity, the new drain can handle over double the amount of water.
Trask maintained it is easier for him to use existing drains.
He was further confused by the inclusion of a Branch A1.
Noecker explained that drain is currently private, but an upgrade would make it a municipal drain and provide a legal outlet.
Trask maintained he sees an awful lot of cost for something he does not see as necessary for his property – even though the drain would run through his land and drain its water.
“I don’t think Mr. Wilson or I should have to pay anything [for Branch A1].” That branch was later dropped from the proposal.
Noecker noted that for the main drain being proposed, while there may not be an initial need, “It will be of benefit in the future. Our position is that it is of benefit to the farm.”
That statement made no impact on Trask.
“The new drain is not worth a penny to me when my drainage already goes to Drain 63.” The only advantage, he said, would be if a catch basin was installed at Drain 63 A.
“But for $6,000 … No, I can’t see it.”
Noecker pointed out the natural flow of water is across the Trask land and according to the Drainage Act the landowner has some responsibility for the flow of water across his land.
“If we do not lay in the large pipe, then a portion of the property has the potential of being flooded every spring,” he said.
Trask countered that one of the reasons behind the drain’s expansion is the possible quarry proposed for the Wilson property.
“What exists now is working.”
Noecker explained that in the context of the Drainage Act the work is deemed an improvement, whether the landowner believes it is needed or not. He also pointed out the court of revision is dealing with assessment costs and that because there are only the two landowners involved any decrease to Trask’s assessment would be added to Wilson’s.
He said it is up to the court of revision to accept the report as presented, or make its own determination of assessment.
Trask’s comment on the assessment report was “I can’t work with this. No.” He suggested the court of revision make a different call on the costs.
“I don’t have $6,000 for this – and it is totally unnecessary.”
He suggested if he is going to be charged $6,000 for the drain, he might have to charge $10,000 to access his property to build it.
Noecker again said the court can uphold the recommendation, remove the costs or put all the cost onto Wilson.
Trask stated “I choose not to use the new drain, and I choose not to pay for it. Nothing said tonight has shown me anything different,” he said.
Noecker said that whether or not Trask chooses to use the drain does not negate the fact the upgrade is a substantial improvement to the property.
The decision by the court of revision was to defer a decision pending further investigation and an on-site visit.
