News Items

March 19, 2026

Council Confronts the Cost of Keeping Rossland Running

Rossland is running out of low‑cost options when it comes to infrastructure.

That reality framed discussion at the March 9, 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting, where City Council examined the City’s five‑year capital plan and the growing challenge of maintaining essential systems in an era of rising construction costs and aging assets. Staff emphasized that the plan reflects years of technical investigation and planning, intended to move the City away from emergency repairs and toward more predictable, risk‑based investment.

“This is about risk,” Chief Financial Officer Craig McDonald told Council. “If we don’t proceed with this work, we’re accepting environmental risk, safety risk, and significant financial risk.”

The meeting came at a key point in the budget process, with Council aware it was among one of the final opportunities for public input before the draft 2026-2030 Five Year Financial Plan advances towards final approval.  Previous information on this process can be found here: 2026-2030 Five-Year Financial Plan – Rossland

Aging Infrastructure and the Risk of Delay

Council reviewed a draft capital plan proposing $60.4 million in spending over five years, largely directed toward water, sewer, retaining walls, roads, facilities, and essential equipment. Much of Rossland’s infrastructure was built decades ago, often without the long‑term associated data municipalities rely on today.

That gap has narrowed in recent years with both the updating of an Asset Management Investment Plan (AMIP) and creation of the Utilities Master Plan (UMP) completed in 2025, which provides a 20‑year roadmap for Rossland’s water, sewer, and storm systems upgrades (i.e. critical infrastructure) and identifies priority projects based on condition, capacity, and associated risk of failure.

Even with improved data, staff explained that the true condition of underground infrastructure often isn’t known until excavation begins, at which point the City has little choice but to act.

“When you open the ground, you don’t always like what you find,” said Scott Lamont, manager of operations and facilities. “And when that happens, the City is obligated to act.”

Sudden unexpected failures, Council heard, are among the most expensive and disruptive outcomes. Emergency repairs limit the City’s ability to plan work, pursue grant funding, or coordinate projects efficiently, often resulting in higher costs and greater impacts to residents.

Two Major Project Highlights

Discussion frequently returned to two projects that illustrate both the urgency and complexity of the City’s infrastructure decisions.

The most significant is the replacement of Rossland’s main sewer trunk to Warfield ($6.72M), a single line that carries all of the city’s wastewater to the treatment facility in Trail. Identified through the UMP as the City’s most critical infrastructure investment, the line has no bypass and runs through steep terrain, increasing the consequences of failure.

“If that pipe fails, we don’t have options,” McDonald said. “We’re talking about environmental damage and public health concerns.”

Council also spent time discussing retaining walls, which have emerged as a growing risk across the city. A recent structural assessment identified three high priority walls requiring replacement and close interim monitoring. Staff noted that failure of these walls could compromise vehicle and pedestrian access and affect nearby properties.

The highest priority is a retaining wall on McLeod Avenue that shows signs of movement and roadway settlement.  Council has already approved engineering and design work for the site, with the proposed 2026 budget including its construction ($1.44M).

Inflation Is Driving Costs Higher — Every Year

Layered over these infrastructure challenges is a rapidly escalating cost environment.

Council heard repeatedly that the inflation affecting municipal construction bears little resemblance to household inflation. Materials, fuel, hauling, specialized labour, and contractor availability have all risen sharply, often at rates far exceeding CPI.

“We’re not dealing with normal inflation,” said Councillor Maya Provençal. “For municipal infrastructure, it’s often two or three times higher.”

Staff noted that delaying projects does not preserve affordability. Instead, it increases future costs as construction prices continue to climb. Work that may have been manageable several years ago can now run into the millions once labour, materials, engineering, and contingency are factored in.

Councillor Provençal cited that rebuilding a single block of roadway — including underground services, curbs, sidewalks, and restoration — can now approach $1 million, depending on conditions.

Debt, Grants, and Hard Choices Ahead

Council also examined how the City plans to fund capital work amid these pressures.

The City currently carries $6.8 million in debt and spends approximately $547,000 annually on debt servicing. The draft plan anticipates borrowing up to $10 million over the next five years, depending on project timing and available funding.

At the same time, roughly 70% of the proposed capital plan depends on securing grants from senior levels of government. Years of technical studies, risk assessments, and design work are intended to ensure projects are shovel‑ready when funding opportunities arise, though grants remain competitive and uncertain.

“That’s not an ideal model,” McDonald said. “But it’s the model municipalities across Canada are operating under.”

Maintaining reserves was described as essential to managing uncertainty. Reserves allow the City to respond to emergencies, leverage grant funding, and avoid being forced into rushed or inefficient borrowing decisions.

“If you don’t have reserves, you lose the ability to respond,” McDonald said. “Something breaks, or a funding opportunity comes up, and you simply can’t act.”

What’s Next?

The 2026-2030 Draft Five‑Year Financial Plan will continue through the budget and bylaw process in the coming weeks, with further opportunities for residents to review the plan, ask questions, and provide input before final adoption later this spring.

Mayor Andy Morel emphasized that the Committee of the Whole process is designed to spark discussion, before decisions are finalized.

“These are not easy conversations,” he said. “But they’re necessary ones. And the more transparent we are about what’s driving these decisions, the better positioned we are as a community.”

Did you miss the second COW meeting? Residents are encouraged to weigh in via email by contacting council@rossland.ca.

Learn more: 2026-2030 Five-Year Financial Plan – Rossland

__________

Capital Plan FAQs:

How confident is the City in the capital cost estimates?
Capital estimates are based on engineering studies, asset condition assessments, contractor input, and staff expertise. While figures are refined as projects move closer to construction, they reflect the best available information at the time and support responsible long‑term planning.

What happens if the City doesn’t receive grant funding for a project?
Grant‑dependent projects are re‑evaluated if funding is not secured. This can include delaying, phasing, redesigning, or reprioritizing projects rather than automatically increasing taxes.

Why is the Warfield Sewer Trunk considered the City’s most critical project?
It carries all of Rossland’s wastewater, has no bypass, and shows signs of age and capacity strain. A failure would pose serious environmental and public‑health risks and require costly emergency response.

Why replace infrastructure now instead of continuing to patch it?
Planned replacement reduces long‑term costs, lowers risk, and improves access to grant funding. Emergency repairs are typically more expensive and disruptive.

How does inflation affect infrastructure differently than household costs?
Construction inflation for materials and labour often runs well above CPI and continues even when consumer inflation slows. Delaying work generally increases, rather than reduces, future costs.

Is the City taking on too much debt?
Any borrowing would remain within statutory limits and is planned to align with asset’s lifespan being considered for replacement and future debt retirements. Debt is one of several tools used to spread costs over time rather than paying for large projects all at once and is looked at on a case by case basis.