The Joint Technical/Local Advisory Group Committee voted to recommend the old Waste Transfer Site as the location for a new consolidated liquid wastewater treatment facility rather than the Townsite site.
The final outcome, however, does not tell the story of this meeting. Had it not been for the fact that approximately 25 taxpayers (mostly from the Townsite) turned out for this meeting, as well as for the relevant remarks of Sandra Macklem and Liz Webster to the Local Advisory Group, plus the educated comments of Local Advisory Group member, Noel Hopkins, things would not have turned out as they did.
Clearly, the City had wanted the Local Advisory Group to vote in favour of the Townsite site. Their methods consisted of developing a decision matrix with weighted numerics given to a number of 'constraints', i.e., proximity to residences, etc. Although the Local Advisory Group had developed such a matrix in 2003, the City, with the assistance of their Dayton and Knight consultant, worked up another such matrix on their own -- without Local Advisory Group input -- with some changes to the 'constraints' employed but, more importantly, to the numeric weighting. Numbers from 1 to 10 were listed under each 'constraint' listed for the four sites identified.
The idea of the matrix was to 'weigh' the four sites and whichever site had the most numbers should be chosen as the site for the new sewage facility. However, many of the numeric ratings seemed based on faulty logic and appeared to be employed merely to assure that the Townsite site would come out with the highest number and/or the other sites would come out with lower total numbers than the Townsite site.
For example, the 'constraint' labeled 'land acquisition costs' was given a '1' as its high number. What the "1" meant was that if land for a site did not have to be purchased by the City, it would get a "1".
If a site's land did have to be purchased, it would get a zero. Not much of a difference, thus, ensuring that the fact that the City would be purchasing the Townsite land, if it was chosen, from the joint venture would not factor into the total equation. In other words, sites where land didn't have to be purchased, such as the old Waste Transfer site, would not accumulate many points (only a possible "1") -- even though it meant that the City would not have to buy that land and, thus, save city taxpayers' money!
Had the City used the 2003 matrix, things would be different. The old matrix, developed by the Local Advisory Group, awarded a "7" as its highest number for land acquisition costs. Thus, if the old matrix had been used, the Waste Transfer Site would have received a "7" as it is already City property and would not have to be purchased and the Townsite site would have received a "0". Under the old matrix, the Waste Transfer Site would have had a total of 6 more points than it did under the new matrix, making it the 'winner'.
Another example of, and I am putting it mildly, 'confusion', was the distances from a proposed site to residential homes. The City and Dayton and Knight based the high number given to the Townsite for this 'constraint' on the distance from the present sewage treatment facility in the Townsite. This is inappropriate as the new facility would encompass ten acres, moving northwest toward the residential area, which would bring it much closer to residences than is the present facility -- not to say it would create substantially larger odour and visual problems. However, they were adamant about basing their number on the distance from the existing site, not a new one.
Aside from developing the matrix, the City, in concert with their consultant from Dayton and Knight, had conveniently already done a 'dry-run' and put in numbers for each of the constraints for each of the sites (except 'archaeological considerations') which they were willing to share with the Local Advisory Group. Members of the Local Advisory Group, sensing that this meeting could go on for days, willingly went along with looking at what the City proposed as the appropriate numbers. No surprise that the totals indicated that the Townsite site was the best site!
The City's blindside of the Local Advisory Group with its filled-in matrix clearly confused some of the members who were unclear what the high and low numbers given to the constraints actually stood for. There was no time for the Group members to study the matrix. They were pushed to accept it and make a decision.
In spite of these machinations, common sense prevailed in the form of Noel Hopkin's resolution to vote the Waste Transfer Site the chosen site due to the fact that the Local Advisory Group had already worked 'ad nauseum' on a matrix in 2003 and had been down this road before. In fact, you may remember that the City actually held an open house in 2004 on the Waste Transfer Site with 72% of survey respondents saying they favoured the Waste Transfer Site for a new sewage treatment facility. Two committee members voted against Mr. Hopkins resolution: Don MacKinnon, City Engineer, and Gino Francescutti, Wildwood resident and former City employee.
While the Local Advisory Group, in the end, chose the Waste Transfer site in order that the City could move along with its planning of a Liquid Wastewater Management Plan, a Ministry of Environment requirement, a caveat was added to the resolution that allows the City to investigate two options for sewage treatment with Catalyst Paper Co.: (1) co-sewage treatment at the mill, and (2) purchasing land adjacent to the kraft mill for a new consolidated liquid wastewater treatment facility. Thus, should either of these options pan out, the City could, once again, change its mind on a site location. However, it is my understanding that they would have to bring the issue back to the Local Advisory Group for its assent.
The siting issue is far from dead. The Local Advisory Group decision now goes to the LWMP Steering Committee made up of City Councillors and their recommendation then goes to City Council.
It is rumoured that had the Townsite site been chosen, the City would have paid $1 million for the property from PRSC Ltd. (the joint venture) of which it, the City, is a one-third partner. That means, we, the taxpayers, would be paying for land that we already have a one-third interest in and which was bought from Catalyst for substantially less that what we would be paying for it. Needless to say, no figures as to land acquisition costs were given at last night's meeting. Remember, the City (meaning the taxpayers) already own the old Waste Transfer Site land. There was no discussion of 'conflict of interest' at the meeting.
Please stay tuned as the City's LWMP Steering Committee will be meeting next.
