Redland water servicing moves forward after lengthy debate over cost and fairness

By Melissa Crispin-Piche Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Wheatland County is moving ahead with a framework that could bring municipal potable water to Redland, but not before council spent considerable time debating how much residents should pay and whether the process is fair.

Council approved Bylaw 2026-15 during its Sept. 8 regular meeting. The bylaw establishes a minimum threshold of five qualifying service connection requests before the county can begin construction of common water infrastructure in the hamlet.

Those five connections represent 50 per cent of the existing developed or partially-developed residential properties in Redland.

For a request to count toward the threshold, the landowner must submit an approved connection request and pay the applicable connection fee.

The fee was later set at $27,659 under amendments to the county’s master schedule of fees.

Much of council’s discussion centred on whether residents should be required to pay the full amount before construction and what should happen if the eventual project cost comes in below the estimate.

Coun. Glenn Koester repeatedly questioned whether Redland residents were being treated the same as residents involved in other county water projects. 

“Why in this case are we being so hard?” Koester asked.

Some of the councillors took issue with the possibility that the initial connection fees could result in more money being collected than ultimately needed.

“I don’t have a problem with the commitment part at all. It’s the price,” Koester said. “I want it for them to pay it at cost. I don’t want the county to have an extra fund of money.”

Another councillor argued the county needed firm financial commitments before proceeding.

“If they truly want it, they’ll sign up for it and we can reconcile after,” Reeve Scott Klassen said. “You know who hurts on this is the people that live there.”

Council ultimately found a middle ground.

Administration was directed to return with a report following completion of the initial construction phase and present options for reconciling costs with landowners who paid the original connection fee if actual project costs are lower than anticipated.

“Let them pay cost,” Koester said. “That’s all I’m asking.”

Later in the meeting, council approved a new 2026 capital project with a budget of $1,189,475 for installation of Redland water infrastructure.

The money does not mean construction will begin immediately. Administration told council the budget will remain available until the required five paid connection requests are received.

If residents begin paying but the five-connection threshold is not reached within approximately one year, the bylaw includes provisions allowing the county to refund the connection fees.

“The bylaw explicitly states that the county will not pay interest,” administration told council when asked whether residents would receive interest while the county held their money.

Communication with residents also became an issue.

One councillor said some Redland residents he had spoken with did not know what was happening with the project.

The debate over fairness continued immediately afterward when council considered a $184,000 budget for upgrades at the Speargrass Water Treatment Plant.

Council was told $160,000 originally planned for 2027 would be moved into 2026. That prompted questions about why the Speargrass work could be funded from county reserves while Redland residents are expected to cover the cost of their new infrastructure.

Administration responded that existing utility systems and new servicing projects are treated differently and noted some established systems are not currently recovering their full costs through rates.

Council approved the Speargrass budget adjustment.