‘Working relationship is better’ between Maple Creek town council and Associated Engineering

Posted on October 5, 2026 by Ryan Dahlman

By Marcus Day

Maple Creek News

Talks between Maple Creek Town Council and Associated Engineering (AE) have led to a better working relationship, according to mayor Michelle McKenzie. They have also increased Council’s understanding of the job of engineering.

The discussions followed concern over AE’s Murraydale subdivision stormwater assessment. Last month, Council rejected a project scope change, which would have seen costs rise from $309,685.80 to $321,385.80, arguing that it was based on an engineering mistake – the failure to understand drainage in the area, including the Airport and golf course, and identify the presence of culverts.

At its September 23 meeting, Council approved revised scope change costs – an increase from $309,685.80 to $314,185.80.

McKenzie said AE accepted there had been a mistake and lowered their bill.

“I appreciated them saying it was their mistake … they were doing the best they could do in a time crunch. I know that’s not an excuse … they were trying to make sure we were in that grant opportunity for a million and a half dollars. So, I get that.”

She added: “I am glad to be working with Associated Engineering. They are open to doing better for us, they know our community.”

McKenzie thanked Associated Engineering for attending the meeting with Council, and thanked Council for doing its job by raising questions.

“Now we have a better working relationship, better understanding in what we are doing with an engineering crew.”

Earlier, Councillor Mike Stork, who had been outspoken in his criticism at the August 27 meeting, said the issue had underlined the importance of stakeholder engagement when undertaking a project like stormwater assessment.

Nevertheless he was now prepared to accept the revised scope change costs.

Councillor Stork recapped the points of contention.

“There were originally two points that they were requesting a scope change on. One was the discovery of culverts underneath the airport that changed the flow of water in their design. The second was based on the discovery of utilities that they didn’t know before. And both of those set me off. I will start with the discovery of the culvert.

“First of all, you know, it is their job to find out where that water course is. It’s not ours. I get that they come in and interview us and they interview our administration and they interview the golf course and everyone else. It’s still their job to find that water course. You can still see it on satellite maps, even though there has been some work there and, of course, as I made very clear, they both said that they were going to do topographical surveys and they followed up by saying they did topographical surveys.

“In their meeting with us, they admitted they were wrong. They admitted that they should have found that and in the original request for an additional $12,000 that amounted to over $7,000 of it and that is gone.

“The second point, the request for the change of scope was for the discovery of utilities and that ticked me off because I thought, all you had to do was call SaskPower, SaskEnergy, blah, blah, blah. It wasn’t that utility. It was a privately held utility – I wouldn’t even call it a utility, I thought that was bad wording on their part. It’s the watering system of the golf course, which is not surveyed. They don’t know exactly where it is. They don’t know exactly how deep it is. And so they have to find it, and I agree with that.

“So, there is an additional cost of $4,000 and change, which I’m ready to accept. However, if there was ever an argument for stakeholder discussions earlier and more often you just had it because they should have been talking to those golf course people much longer or much earlier and they would have found out about that much earlier.”

As it turned out, said Councillor Stork, Associated Engineer had “their backs against the wall” because by the time they went and talked to golf course representives, they were under pressure over the submission of an application for funding.

“So, anyway, I will be approving. I will be voting for this resolution. I’m still a little angry about it. I think they still could have done a better job. But we’re here now.”

Suggestion to review costs of past projects

Engineering costs have come under the spotlight again at Maple Creek Town Council.

Councillor Len Barkman said a lot of money was being spent on engineering, not just in Maple Creek, but elsewhere in Saskatchewan.

This was evident from discussions he held at the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) convention.

Different people told him, he said, that if engineering costs make up more than 10 per cent of the overall cost of a project, then something is amiss.

“You are probably paying too much in engineering costs.”

Councillor Barkman wondered whether the engineering costs of past Town projects would be looked at.

“If we are up at 15 per cent, well, maybe we need to be looking for somebody else to do the engineering. I think that would be helpful for us in making any decisions. So, if we are over 10 per cent of that cost, I think that would be good for us to know …”

Councillor Barkman’s comments follow concern expressed at the August 27 Council meeting about engineering costs for the completion of the Murraydale subdivision stormwater assessment.

Council defeated a motion to approve a project scope change, which would see costs rise from $309,685.80 to $321.385.80.

Council argued the scope change was based on an engineering mistake – the failure to understand drainage in the area, including the Airport and golf course, and identify the presence of culverts.

“We are already paying $300,000 for what appears to be a mistake of another engineering firm,” said Councillor Michael Stork.