The town should at least look into avenues to force Wellington County to cover a portion of the cost for the Deer Pit storm water management project, Roads Superintendent Larry Van Wyck told Erin council last week.
He said the Erin project, located at the north end of Erin adjacent to a former railway line, has “striking similarities” to the Carroll Pond project in Puslinch two years ago, for which the county provided $1-million, or one third of the entire cost.
Yet last month county council agreed with its roads committee that the county’s 2002 work in the Deer Pit area to construct a wetland outlet – at a cost of $85,800 – “fulfills the county’s obligations related to this issue.”
Van?Wyck said that pond was expected to be temporary and intended to improve the quality of water entering the Deer Pit only; it does nothing to address the volume of water.
“It’s on town property without permission,” he added.
Van Wyck also explained “a large majority” of the water in the area comes from property not under the direct control of the town, including a significant portion that runs off of County Road 124.
The project cost $1.21-million and includes a storm water management facility in the Deer Pit and a storm sewer outlet from the Deer Pit to the north tributary of the West Credit River, travelling along the former CNR right of way, with an outlet at the 10th Line.
The town, which received an $806,666 Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF) grant and funded the remaining $403,334 from its hydro proceeds reserves, originally had planned to work out a private agreement with the county for a portion of the total cost.
Some town officials felt that was the best way to proceed, Van?Wyck explained, because it prevented the duplication of engineering studies, and thus a cost increase, that would have resulted from forcing the county to participate under the Municipal Drainage Act.
But it may not be too late to coerce payment from the county, he noted. A petition signed by either 60% of landowners or the town roads superintendent could do the trick – and Van Wyck said he would sign a petition if instructed to do so by council.
Councillor John Brennan said it sounded unreasonable to charge only the county when there are other adjacent landowners that contribute to the runoff.
“I would not like to dump this on our own property owners if we can avoid it,” said Brennan, adding he is still in favour of exploring the options.
VanWyck said the town could use the ISF grant money to offset costs to town landowners.
He acknowledged proceeding under the Drainage Act after a project is complete is not the normal way of proceeding – last week all that was left to do was site clean up, grading, landscaping and road restoration – and he suggested the town obtain advice from an engineer familiar with the act and send the bill to the county.
Mayor Rod Finnie said he doesn’t necessarily disagree with wanting the county to pay the extra costs, but he wondered if that is possible.
He also noted the county maintains it is responsible for just 3% of the water in the Deer Pit area.
“That sounds more like [a Ministry of Transportation] number than a Drainage Act number,” Van Wyck replied, questioning the accuracy of that figure.
When asked for an estimate of what the engineering advice would cost, Van Wyck said given that “a lot of the leg work is already done,” $5,000 does not seem like an unreasonable figure.
He said that would be money well spent considering if the county is forced to participate, the town could receive $100,000 to $300,000 – whereas is the town is currently getting nothing from the county.
Council voted unanimously to direct staff to obtain an opinion from a drainage expert. Councillors Barb Tocher and Ken Chapman were absent.
