Town council is eager for a meeting with its Westlock Regional Water Services Commission (WRWSC) partners to address Westlock County’s concerns, after they sent a letter to the minister of Municipal Affairs outlining grievances with the running of the commission.
The county is accusing the town representatives of partisanship and not following the mandate of the commission. It alleges the town is also trying to change the formational bylaw of the commission and takes issue with “a closed non-competition process for the bid and award of the operational contract,” which went to the town.
The town recently sent its own letter to minister Shaye Anderson as a response to the county’s letter.
“The town was surprised and disappointed to learn that the county had not notified the town of its concerns, and had not brought its concerns to the commission before writing to the minister,” states the letter from mayor Ralph Leriger.
“The reason he wrote the letter was to show the minister that we’re not opposed to discussing things with the county,” said deputy mayor Clem Fagnan, who is also commissioner of the WRWSC.
The county has accused the town of partisanship and not following the mandate of the commission to supply potable water to as many residents and communities covered by the commission as possible.
“It’s not hard to figure out that the commission might be dysfunctional. It hasn’t been able to fill its mandate and it’s being blocked by the town,” said county Coun. Dennis Primeau.
The subject of the issues between the town and county is Phase 3 of the waterline north project that would deliver water as far north as Jarvie.
“It seems like it’s the town versus the rest, but we didn’t vote against it because it was town and county, we voted against it because our financing wasn’t in order,” said Fagnan.
“The financial issue facing the commission is that the project cost for Phase 3 was approximately $1.7 million over the original estimate,” states the letter. “As of today the commission does not have sufficient funds to pay for the portion of the costs not covered by the provincial grant.”
In September 2016, the province awarded a grant for $6 million for Phase 3 based on the 2012 application numbers. However, in February 2017, Alberta Transportation advised the grant would be reviewed after tender costs were received, which occurred in July 2017.
In December 2017, the ministry advised “that additional funding would be reviewed after the project was completed and asked the commission to up front the additional costs with no guarantee of additional grant funding to cover the costs.”
The commission would have to borrow $2.385 million to cover the cost increase, which would exceed its debt limit and its debt-servicing limit.
The town-appointed directors “recognize that the mandate of the commission is to supply water. However, that mandate is not to supply water, regardless of the cost, the potential negative impact on the debt limit and the ability of the commission to service that debt,” the letter states.
A failed motion at the Dec. 12 commission meeting would have seen the commission delay Phase 3 until they could develop a five-year business plan, a three-year operating plan and a 10-year capital plan. The county also charges there have been unwarranted efforts to change the commission’s formational bylaw.
“The town disagrees that its efforts to engage in dialogue with the other two municipalities about the fairness of the rate structure is “unwarranted.” Rather, all of the parties to the commission should be interested in achieving a fair and equitable rate structure,” the letter states.
The final grievance is an alleged closed, non-competitive process for the bid and award of the operational contract.
The letter states that there have been two sole-source contracts — one to the town to handle operation of the commission, the other to the Village of Clyde to provide administrative support.
At the time the contract was awarded the town was the only partner that had appropriate personnel to provide operational services. The motion to award the contract to the town was also passed unanimously, the letter states.
“The operational contract to the town is for $284,000. If you read the Municipal Government Act, it says you must tender everything over $50,000. In the bylaw it says the water commission can use one of its members to provide service, but it doesn’t have the dollar value,” said Primeau. “From a councillor’s standpoint, there is a moral obligation to have some sort of price discovery.”
“It is not clear why the awarding of the contract to the town is now a concern for the county. However, the town is prepared to discuss the issue, keeping in mind that it has a signed contract for services to the commission which does not expire until December 31, 2020,” the letter states.
