Innisfil landowners facing higher assessments over massive drainage project

MIRIAM KING, QMI AGENCY

INNISFIL — As the South Innisfil Creek Drain improvement project — pegged so far at $6.7 million — continues to stir controversy, some landowners face looming five-figure, or higher, assessments.

They will be looking for answers if a meeting with a new drainage referee, possibly in May, can be arranged by Innisfil officials.

The most recent issue around the ongoing stormwater drain debate — which started in 2005 — is the bill for services presented by engineering consultants Dillon Consulting to Innisfil council on Wednesday.

When Dillon Consulting finally filed the engineering report outlining required drainage improvements last year — seven years after a drainage referee ordered the Town of Innisfil to retain the company to carry out the work — both residents and council were shocked and outraged, not only by the $6.7 million estimated cost of the drainage works, but by what were seen as errors and omissions in the report.

The report by Dillon Consulting outlined improvements to 9,332 metres of main drain and 570 metres of branch drains to bring the system’s capacity from handling a one to 1.5-year storm event, to a two-year storm event at a cost of $6.7 million.

The cost would be assessed to the approximately 750 benefiting landowners within the drain area, leaving many looking at assessments of tens of thousands of dollars, and in some cases, more than $100,000.

Bona fide agricultural operations are eligible for a 33% grant for drainage work from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. There are no grants for non-agricultural property owners.

In October 2013, council deferred acceptance of the Dillon report and ordered the consultants to confer further with the conservation authorities and property owners, undertaking site visits, making information available to landowners and conducting further analyses.

But at Wednesday’s meeting, councillors were dismayed to hear about a bill from the consulting company for approximately $1.32 million, which includes not only $960,000 for the original engineering report, but an additional $361,900 for the extra consultation, reviews and modifications to the proposal carried out late in 2013 and 2014, as well as a proposed $155,000 ‘construction administration fee’ for 2014-15.

Farmer Boris Horodynsky was outraged, telling council in open forum that he thought the bill represented a revised cost for the whole project, not just the engineering fees.

“Get rid of Dillon, don’t pay them any more money, and go after them for the money that’s been paid,” he said, urging the town to go back to the drainage referee. “Let them take a look at this mess they’ve made.”

It was a complaint by Horodynsky back in 2005 that launched the whole review of the South Innisfil Creek Drain.

Resident Diane Hogarth also urged the town to take a closer look at the billing, “especially as Dillon has not received approvals (for its report),” and the bill will ultimately be paid for by the benefiting landowners within the South Innisfil Creek Drainage area, who are already facing huge assessments.

She called the invoice and the estimates “confusing. I think a lot more work has to go into this. Residents need to see the figures and facts.”

Coun. Richard Simpson, who farms land within the South Innisfil Creek Drainage watershed, painted a gloomy picture.

“In my opinion, this has gone on way too long. It’s almost to the point of being sadistic,” he said, of the threat of ever-escalating bills hanging over the heads of every affected property owner.

Simpson said while he wants to contribute and assist those areas now facing flooding, “the amount of money is going to change my life, and my son’s life.”

He said his original assessment was $21,000, back in 2008. It is now $31,000 “and the meter’s still running. Blank cheque: that’s what it looks like I’m signing up for. It’s out of control and I’m one of the lucky ones. There are people who are assessed $100,000.”

There was also talk of the need for government funding for the huge project.

“The province doesn’t want to help us, the federal government doesn’t want to help us. There’s nobody to help us reduce the cost,” Simpson said. “There’s going to be a lot of pain. There’s going to be a lot of places up for sale. Somebody is going to have to pay these bills, and the meter’s still running.”

Other councillors were also disappointed with the engineering report.

“We are not happy with the seven years,” said Coun. Lynn Dollin, of the time it took to get the report. “We were definitely not happy with the (Dillon Consulting) presentation made back in October. Most people want to make their customers happy.”

She asked that staff take the message to Dillon Consulting, “that this council strongly has issues with the billing process, the overrun,” and pointed out the review ordered by the town resulted in the engineers finding nearly $900,000 in savings, “but now they’ve billed us $300,000 for that work.” She also asked staff to negotiate with Dillon, not only over the cost of additional work done since last October, but a $19,000 over-expenditure in the original billing for a report that took seven years to file.

Dollin also took exception to the $155,000 fee for construction administration.

“It presupposes we’re hiring them for future work. I don’t like giving them the assurance that any future work would be done by Dillon,” she said. She noted that e-mails she had received from property owners complain that “nobody scrutinizes it, nobody challenges why it took so long.”

Director of engineering and infrastructure Andy Campbell explained that some of the costs were established by the decision of the original drainage referee.

“Staff do look at every bill that’s come in,” Campbell insisted, and have, in fact, refused to pay some bills. “We have knocked the bill down a few times, when we think it’s inappropriate.” He agreed staff could approach the company for “goodwill” and ask for a further reduction. “I’m not sure how receptive they’ll be,” he added.

Deputy CAO Jason Reynar noted that the town has approached the new drainage referee to request a date for a hearing, which hopefully will take place during the week of May 5, possibly in Barrie. He suggested that a teleconference with the parties involved will be held to set the date, and affidavits providing background information should be ready within the next few weeks.

“I expect that the referee will want to get a sense of what everyone is looking for,” Reynar said, which includes modifications to the plans, permission for the municipality to take on a bigger share of the cost than is permitted under the Drainage Act and consideration of alternatives recommended by the public.

“Obviously, there’s a large number of residents that are affected by this,” said Innisfil Mayor Barb Baguley. She asked Reynar to ensure information be made available to the benefiting landowners to explain the next steps. Anyone wishing to be involved in the process to contact his office at 705-436-3710. Baguley also suggested the town council chambers could be used as a court for the drainage referee, allowing future hearings to be held in Innisfil.

Council was unanimous in asking staff not to increase the payment to Dillon Consulting, but to go back and renegotiate the bill.

“We have concerns about how this unfolded. Why did this take seven years?” asked Dollin.