By Nancy Kelly
The Village of Kingston is moving forward with a plans for potable water system.
Commissioners voted Aug. 11 to continue moving ahead with development following a well-attended public information session a night earlier.
“We are going forward with the question because it is the right thing to do,” said chairman Tom Beardsley.
During the information session, Kings County public works director Scott Quinn presented three scenarios for making the transition from its current individual well system to a central system maintained by the village.
“These are preliminary estimates to give a range of costs for installation of a water distribution and supply system,” said Quinn.
The options included:
• connecting directly to the municipally owned and operated Greenwood Water Utility;
• installing a secondary line from Greenwood’s water towers;
• developing its own water utility and drawing from its own aquifer.
While the first two options could have some drawbacks with the cost of piping in obtaining easements and eventual water pressure, Quinn indicated there “could be some efficiencies in operating costs” achieved if Kingston chose to connect to the Greenwood system in some manner.
At $19.5 million, the first option is the least expensive, with the standalone water system coming in at $22.4 million. The second option would cost between $22 million and $25 million depending on the route of piping.
Quinn said the village-owned option is cost effective at the development end, but estimates do not include system maintenance or service provision costs.
“And in that case it would be your utility entirely, with all costs born by Kingston ratepayers,” pointed out Quinn.
Kingston clerk-treasurer Greg Towne broke down the numbers after Quinn’s presentation. He projects if the village is able to secure funding through a cost-sharing agreement with the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government, it will cost about $4,200 per household to connect to a new water system.
When asked if residents would be able to opt out of the system and remain on wells, Towne said the financial models “would go out the window” if opting out was part of the deal. A 90 per cent participation rate would up the costs to $4,600 per household, a 50 per cent rate would push costs to $8,300.
Towne noted the village would be able to assist by establishing a multi-year payment plan that would ease the financial impact on ratepayers.
Some in the crowd were skeptical of the process, noting the village went through a similar exercise in 2006. Results from that water study showed 66 per cent of village residents had some concern about the quality of their water.
Some voiced opposition to development of a system because of satisfaction with their well water or concerns about rising costs for water.
“Why fix something if it isn’t broken?” wondered one resident.
“Some people want (water), some people don’t. I say cut to the chase, hold a plebiscite and get your answer,” said Kings County Coun. Wayne Atwater.
Commissioner Scott Peckford, who was on the commission six years ago when the possibility of a central water system was first floated, said it is incumbent on the commission to show leadership on the issue.
“We have an obligation to do what is right for everyone,” he said. “If you don’t have good water, you don’t have a good quality of life."
Kings West MLA Leo Glavine recalled the 2003 water crisis for Bowlby Park residents in Greenwood, who for 15 months “couldn’t drink or bathe in their water or sell their homes.”
Kings County Warden Diana Brothers added the Bowlby Park contamination caused “a crisis in the community. I encourage you to continue on this path towards developing a new system that will mean clean water and no worries.”
The village has $53,000 in a reserve fund that could be used to finance the next stage of the development process.
