Transcript of Munster portion of
Ottawa City Council Meeting
June 11, 2003

00:00 – Mayor Chiarelli:
The next held item is held by Councillor Stavinga, page 16: Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility Re-Evaluation of Alternatives and Recommended solution.

00:20 – Councillor Stavinga:
Thank you very much Mayor Chiarelli. ...Just had a series of questions that I wanted to ask of our staff, with regards to this item. As my colleagues are aware, that this was passed at Environmental Services Committee, at a vote of 7 to 0 in support of the staff recommendation. But regardless of that strong support by Committee there has been quite a bit of correspondence we have each received from various proponents as well as from residents within the community of Goulbourn, and I just have highlighted a number of questions I would like staff to address, because certainly they of concern to me, and I would like those answers, too. The first one is with regards to the fact that both proponents of the other technologies, the on-site treatment, in their various correspondence have indicated that they believe, ah, the process in terms of the evaluative process as seriously flawed. And they reference the issue with regards to information that they have provided that hasn’t been reflected. Costing is incorrect, and I guess really to kind of pin-point maybe where… I think at one point they were on board, but now at this point they are not at all. Is the RV Anderson report that was put together, and we had a community meeting that was advertised in the Goulbourn area, on December, in December 2002.
01:42 -
The recommendation from RV Anderson recommended the city proceed with one of two communal (options), or on-site treatment alternatives, that being the mechanical treatment plant, or Snowfluent technology. However the report also said that from an environmental perspective, each of the three options had merit, and presented acceptable methods for the treatment of Munster’s wastewater. The report also identified distinct challenges associated with each of the three options. So, with that coming out of the RV Anderson Report, in December, and then the staff recommendation coming forward to the Environmental Services Committee, in May, one could say, "What happened?". So, if you could clarify, I mean, certainly RV Anderson indicated there are distinct challenges, that need to be further explored by staff, but from Seprotech, as well as from Snowfluent specifically they’re saying that evaluative process is seriously flawed. So if you can please help us to understand how we went from that point, to the point before us today.

02:46 – Richard Hewitt:
Madame Chair, I think it’s important to recognize perhaps stepping a little bit with regard to the initial work that RV Anderson was hired to do. In fact, they were hired in accordance with a direction that we received from the Ontario Municipal Board in dealing with the Official Plan Amendment, to perfect the case so to speak, or to reconsider the recommendations that had been made in 19(9)8, 99 by Conestoga-Rovers Associates, a firm that had been hired initially to do the Environmental Assessment Addendum to previous work. So, what I’m trying to indicate, here, is, in fact the initial work by RV Anderson, that culminated in their Report in December of last year, was in fact related to very specific guidelines given by the Ontario Municipal Board, and our intent to try and satisfy that requirement. And that requirement was, in fact, that (a) re-evaluation be done of the quantitative analysis that had been undertaken by Conestoga-Rovers, and to undertake a qualitative analysis of the options that had risen as potential solutions. In so doing, in undertaking the quantitative analysis, RV Anderson came to the conclusion that we had three viable options: Two of them communal, one of them a pipeline.
04:04 –
Through evaluating Conestoga-Rover’s work, it came to the conclusion that the work had been done fairly, and appropriately, and that in fact we had three viable solutions. However, in presenting that, they then moved on, and said "we also have been tasked with undertaking a qualitative analysis, and from the evaluation of the information that had been previously done ---and that was the scope of their review--- they came to the conclusion that the pipeline was a more costly option. And therefore, on that basis, they indicate in their recommendations, in December, that the pipeline should be discounted as a potential solution, and that the two communal solutions should be brought forward. All three solutions, as I indicated, were considered to be technically viable, all of them had certain issues related to their application, but none-the-less, I’ll say promise in all three.
05:03-
Looking, then, at staff, at the situation with regard to the fact that we were re-viewing with information that was in essence was four years old, three to four years old, at that time, we felt that it was important to make current information available so that we could evaluate in the 2003 context, where we stood with these options.
05:24 -
And we have undertaken to do that since that time. And that’s the work that we again hired RV Anderson to undertake to assist us in evaluating the three options that were before us. And in fact, in doing so, and in looking at what we feel is the appropriate evaluation life-cycle, and that type of thing, we came to the conclusion that really the cost issue was not as indicated by RV Anderson through their evaluation of old information, that our updating of information led us to the conclusion that in fact the options we in the same ball park, and that the pipeline actually came out certainly in the range, and potentially slightly cheaper.

06:01 – Councillor Stavinga:
OK, well just maybe to clar…, because it seems that in terms of potentially cheaper, and I, again this is something that’s really been, meets the proponents of the on-site technology have highlighted, that , if you did it by the lifecycle cost of 20 years, the on-site treatment were the ones that emerge as seeming the most preferable, recognizing that from a technical perspective all three of them could have been there. But what staff ended up doing in their own analysis with the additional work that was done by RV Anderson, was to look, then, at a 60 to 90-year horizon. And then the question that arises, is, have we ultimately, then, skewed the result in such a way that we get our, the desir--- an outcome that actually favours a pipeline. So, the question is, is it truly reasonable to forecast to the 60 or 90 horizon for life-cycle cost, as it relates to the pipeline, and then extrapolate that to the other two?

06:57 – Richard Hewitt:
Well, I would certainly suggest that in terms of trying to provide fairness in evaluation, that we need to look at the expected life-cycle of the options that are before us. And certainly, a 20-year time frame is probably reasonable to consider before major re-habilitation would be required of mechanical plants, but that is by no means a reasonable time span to consider a pipe option, which is obviously a somewhat more simple approach. In fact, if one looks at the direction that cities are moving, and are actually being required to move by incoming legislation, such as Bill 175, where we are moving towards life-cycle evaluation and life-cycle costing of our infrastructure, in fact it is incumbent on us to look at longer term life-spans to properly evaluate the overall cost, both capital and operating, over the period of time that you expect that infrastructure to be in service.

07:52 – Councillor Stavinga:
Another, while taking the life-cycle cost of that, and saying that, yes, it is reasonable to do the extrapolation to the 60, 90-year time horizon, well the next question is, that the, particularly, I mean, you hear it from the representatives of Snowfluent, but also, the latest is Seprotech, specifically saying that they have over 400 on-site wastewater treatment plants in communities across North America. What is the problem with the fact that they can’t do it in Munster? I mean, if they have the ability to do it in 400 communities across America, why is Munster, why is the community of Ottawa, so different that it would not be appropriate, in the sense of just a general extrapolation of what they’ve done in other areas. Why is this a different situation?

08:43 - Richard Hewitt:
Well, I think it’s fair to say that most of the applications are likely different in certain respects. I think what we obviously have most familiarity with is the one that’s before us with Munster. And, what we can say is that while we certainly recognize that technology as being well accepted, it has not been proven to meet the criteria that have been imposed on us by the Ministry of Environment in the case of the Jock River which would be the receiving water in this case, which is classified as a class-2 water. And as a result, we have certain criteria that we have gone back to the ministry with on a number of occasions to ensure that they have no leeway in terms of their requirements, and have been told categorically that in fact the requirement they have imposed on us have to be met. And in fact, with regard to the other applications, so far as we are aware, and certainly have given the proponents of the various technologies every opportunity to provide us with information as well: there is no demonstrated case of that type of technology meeting the discharge criteria that are imposed on us, in this case, in an operational environment.

09:53 - Councillor Stavinga:
So, if I’m understanding correctly, even though they’re working, right now, in over --- Seprotech is working over, in over 400 on-site wastewater treatment plants in Canadian, and across in North America: none of those have shown to be able, or have demonstrated in consistent manner, to be able to meet the requirements that are specific to discharging to a Policy 2 river, that being the Jock River, of .03 mg/ Litre of Phosphorus, correct?

Richard Hewitt:
That is correct.

Councillor Stavinga:
OK. Now just, the fact is CMS is now taken over by Seprotech, we, I mean we do have a facility that we’re trying to get, it’s my understanding--- it’s not up and running yet, it’s not operational in Manotick. So, if we’re already testing that sort of technology in Manotick, why would we not do it in Munster?

10:38 - Richard Hewitt:
Well, I think the key word there is, in fact, "testing", or what one might term a "pilot". First of all the scale of the facility in Manotick is much smaller. So, we’re dealing with a system that if remediation is required, and certainly the criteria are the same, I believe, the potential solution would be far simpler to implement in terms of an add-on type of approach to resolve the issues of non-compliance, and that system is in fact, considered to be a pilot system. And it is very small in nature, and it does not fit into the situation that exists in Munster. And here we’re dealing with a community with an existing ---an existing community obviously with a sewage treatment problem that has been in existence for many years: one that the Ministry is very keenly aware of, as are we, and we are under voluntary compliance with the Ministry now, where we feel we need to move forward with a robust, and capable technology that we feel is suitable to resolve the issues and get the community back getting the level of service that the rest of the city gets.

11:44 - Councillor Stavinga:
Again, just a couple more questions, Mayor Chiarelli: One, that again, that’s continuously coming up, and it really truly concerns me, although we talked about it at Environmental Services, again, it came on the emails from last 48 hours, that all of the Councillors received from again Seprotech as well as Snowfluent, the continuous statement that, that they have sent information, they have provided documentation to RV Anderson, under, when they were preparing their report, as well as in preparation for the Technical Memorandum: but none of that , none of that information is actually reflected in what’s being provided to staff and then through to our committee. And that’s a concern. So, is that the case? Is there new information that has not been reflected in here that would actually change our decision?

12:32 - Richard Hewitt:
Well, certainly, none of the information that has been provided of late is any different than information we had received. The proponents were all invited to submit information to us, and some of them took advantage of that, and provided us with as recent information as they could. In some cases we received nothing new from information that had been obtained previously by Conestoga-Rovers, back in the late 90s, and we did our evaluation, based on that. We feel that we were consultative and collaborative with them. We obtained the information that they could give us, and we have utilized that information. I think the conclusion we have reached is perhaps different than they would prefer, and therefore there seems to be some concern about …about that aspect, but I have seen all of the information that has come in, as recently as yesterday and today. And, I feel comfortable that we have addressed that information in our evaluation.

13:19 – Councillor Stavinga:
There’s ongoing concern with respect to the fact that, what will be happening with the pipeline, is the transferring of water. That (the) Jock River already has a problem in the summer months with regards to maintaining its base flow, and that what we’ll be doing is actually transferring water out of that particular sub-watershed, into another watershed. I appreciate your comment upon that, as it relates to this environmental impact on the Jock River.

13:46 - Richard Hewitt:
Well, I think there are two issues that have to be kept in mind here. One is that we’ve certainly confirmed that the aquifer that is providing well water to, or water to Munster, is in fact coming from another watershed, so in fact is not local surface water. And, in fact that other aspect that we need to remember, is the order of magnitude here is negligible in relation to the overall flow of the Jock River.

14:10 - Councillor Stavinga:
Another, with regard to cost of the pipeline: There’s reference to the Totten-Simms and Hubicki Report, which was the first Environmental Assessment that was conducted by the Region. This is back actually under the leadership (at) that time, Regional Peter Clark. It goes back quite some time. But it had a range of the capital cost for the pipeline being anywhere from 11 to 12-million, 13-million dollars. How can technology possibly advance so much, where we’re actually now seeing, a total anticipated capital cost of 7.1 to 8.1? Is it a technological change, or where there certain assumptions that Totten-Simms Hubicki made, in their 11, to 12 or 13 million, that we haven’t factored in. In other words have we underestimated the capital cost of the pipeline? Why the disparity in numbers?

14:54 - Richard Hewitt:
No, I don’t believe we have underestimated the cost, and I would certainly suggest that with regard to the Totten-Simms Hubicki, information, which one must remember is coming close to a decade ago, that that work was undertaken. There was assumptions made with regard to the system, overall. And one of the major assumptions that was made is that there would have to be major upgrades made to the Richmond Pumping Station in order to handle the Munster flow. That in fact is not the case, and that was many millions of dollars that was included in the estimate, I believe around 7-million, ah, included in the estimate at that time, to ah, …which was attributed, of course, to the pipeline option.

15:33 - Councillor Stavinga:
And that’s not needed? Why would that not be needed now, then, if it was needed back with Totten-Simms Hubicki?

15:35 – Richard Hewitt:
Well, I think that was based on an assumption on their part, at the time, which later investigation has proven is not required, and that in fact the Richmond pumping station has been found to be of sufficient capacity to handle the flows that would be coming from the Munster pipeline.

15:48 - Councillor Stavinga:
OK. And Mayor Chiarelli, just with your patience, there’s just three other questions that I have. The next question, third from the last one, with regards to construction and the operation of the pipeline, there’s a real concern by residents within the neighbouring communities, those residents who are along the pipeline route: a pipeline route that was decided through a public process back in 1999, and went through Public Liaison Committees, and community meetings, and such. But there’s still this underlying concern that there is a potential for, and I quote from one documentation, "a potential for a catastrophic contamination". This is a real concern for those residents who are along the route, who do have shallow wells. I mean, they’re not hooked up to the water system like other areas, so they do have shallow wells. My question to you is with regards to that potential happening, both with respect to construction of the pipeline, and the second, in fact, the long-term operation of the pipeline?

16:45 - Richard Hewitt:
And we certainly appreciate the concern. We recognize that any new infrastructure application put through existing communities carries with it the concern of residents of disruption. There are a couple of aspects, though, that I think we must consider in doing so. First of all, while there are many wells in Richmond, certainly Richmond already has sewer systems, and there are pipe systems under, under the …in the rights of way already in Richmond. And, quite frankly, with older systems, I would think, you know, that is always a concern as well. But we are looking at a modern construction of a properly constructed polyethelyne fused-connection pipe, potentially going through the Village, if we stay with a forcemain situation. We’re going through rights of way. We will certainly as part of our final routing review, and our selection, take into consideration the proximity of wells and look at the existing situation in Richmond Village. I’d also point out that in fact, our final design may allow for gravity sewer, which is non-pressurized, of course, going through the Village. We haven’t yet determined whether that is fully possible, but it appears to be at a preliminary design point.

17:54 - CouncillorStavinga:
And again, just to clarify, gravity sewer is already there within the Village of Richmond, right now.

Richard Hewitt:
Exactly, Very similar.

17:59- CouncillorStavinga:
And there’s two final questions: one is for you, Mr. Hewitt, and then the final one is for legal department. I mean, I have been charged with this too, and I just… It’s interesting, so I asked of this. Because, interesting enough, I have been throughout this process, although not from the very beginning of time, because I was a Stittsville Councillor at that point, and not the representative for either Richmond or Munster. I got on board actually when I was the Mayor of the Township of Goulbourn. But I was certainly part of the deliberation under the former Mayor, Paul Bradley, when the Totten-Simms Hubicki Report came forth. But there is this, again, perception that the process has been set up for the pipeline to come out. That there is this momentum that was created, that: that would be the outcome. And, I would ask the staff, ah, I mean, there’s again this underline concern that the staff has been predisposed to valuate this in such a way that the pipeline would be the winner. And, so, I guess the question to both of you gentlemen, and interesting enough, I’m thinking of Rosemary LeClaire, who, none of you have been involved in this process. This is something that was dealt to you as your appointment under the new city. But, why, why, why are you so adamant that it be …a pipeline?

19:21 - Richard Hewitt:
Well, quite frankly, I think "adamant" is probably the wrong word. I think it is our job as staff to come forward with professional recommendations as objectively put together as we possibly can, to recommend to Council the approach we feel is the most appropriate for any given situation. We certainly acknowledge the viability of all the technologies that are on the table. But in this case, we certainly, by looking at environmental issues, risk issues, potential cost issues, we feel that on balance, the pipeline is the preferred alternative, and that is why our recommendation, is in fact before you.
20:00
I would also note that there are a number of agencies and entities that are involved in this process that I think, that while maybe given the weight that perhaps they should be, I think is worthy of note. And I refer to the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority which has accepted the recommendation of the pipeline, the initial recommendation by Conestoga-Rovers, the work that RV Anderson has done with us, in terms of the final recommendations we’re making now. The acceptance of the Environmental Assessment by the Ministry of Environment, where the pipeline remains the only environmentally approved solution at this point, to deal with sewage from Munster. So I would suggest that, ah, in fact there are a number of indicators that, ah, I feel that are indicative of the fact that we have undertaken as objective an evaluation as we can, and come to a conclusion that we feel is most appropriate for this situation.

20:76 – Councillor Stavinga:
OK, my final question is to legal, to Mr. Marc. Again, there was the concern that raised at Committee, and also again has come forward at numerous times in the last week-and-a-half before this matter (rised) into council. And with respect to the OMB direction that was given to the city with regards to this particular matter. And, the concern is that we have not fulfilled the obligation, we have not been responsible to the direction that was given by the OMB. So my question to you Mr. Marc, is, have we fulfilled that direction. Have we not, or we perhaps not tended to something that we should have?

21:29 – Tim Marc:
Mr. Mayor, the Ontario Municipal Board Decision, in its key paragraph, reads, ah, that, the city was to add a symbol for a city communal wastewater facility located in Munster Hamlet, as shown in the schedule attached, which may be one of the following: a pipeline, the mechanical treatment plant discharging to the Jock River (CMS), or the Snowfluent, provided the following of the evaluation of these alternatives to the satisfaction of Council. And then the Board set out five criteria for the evaluation, which he advised the City to follow, but did not require the city to do so. In my opinion, the evaluation done by RVA, once confirmed by Council, fulfills the requirement of the Ontario Municipal Board’s Decision.

22:14 – Councillor Stavinga:
OK. Thank you, Mayor Chiarelli. I would like an opportunity for wrap-up but I know since some of my colleagues do have some questions or comments, if I may hold my wrap-up for then? Thank you.

22:22 – Mayor Chiarelli:
Thank you. Is the item carried, or do all you speakers still want to speak to it? Ah, Councillor Bloess.

22:30 - Councillor Bloess:
Thank you Mr. Mayor. I don’t think the item’s carried because some of us, I don’t think, will be supporting this item. I guess when you go through the reports, and you’re looking at the process, and the OMB, and certainly it’s a convoluted and a costly process that we’re in here, and there seems to have been a mantra about pipelines here. And, I guess, since I’m hearing this great belief how pipelines are the answer, maybe we can look at a couple of pipeline examples the city has, that I think some of you members of staff have been involved in. The main SW collector that runs around the SW then runs just on the east side of 417, to the SE. Maybe you can tell us about some of the issues and problems you had within the first year ---when consultants told us how well it was going to work--- and what the legal outcome was on that one.

23:25 - Richard Hewitt:
Frankly, Mr. Mayor, I’m not really in a position to do that. I think this was a situation that is a number of years old, and was certainly well before the time of the new City.

23:34 - Councillor Bloess:
Well, maybe I just add in there that, that pipeline within the first year of operation, had significant issues in it, including having 24-hour security in Greens Creek valley where land was eroding, and the pipeline was exposed, and all kinds of issues, and if we’re not in court still, we certainly were in court for a long period of time on that one. That was a brand new pipeline. Perhaps somebody on staff can tell us how long the (Bellcourt) pipeline, which we’re rebuilding right now …how long that one lasted? ….It’s in the budget right now, last year and this year.

(5 second pause, no answer.)

24:22 – Richard Hewitt:
I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, I’m not able to address those issues. I can certainly provide information subsequent to Council, but I’m not in a position to talk on it now.

24:30 – Councillor Bloess:
Well, Mr. Mayor, I guess, what it comes down to is that there could be a great belief that the integrity of pipelines is unquestionable, and may have a 90-year lifespan. But we know from experience ---we have a number of very recent examples where that is not the case. And this is a process, by the way: Something smells about this process, and it’s not just the sewage! There’s something really wrong about what happened here when we go from one recommendation to another, to another, and we end up finding with the Technical Memorandum, which I think came out on April 30^th, which seems to contradict ---again--- what had gone before. And, I guess what this shows me …and I for one, even though there may have a unanimous support at Environment Committee: that does not mean to me that that was the right decision. This shows me, the right decision is to look at what really happened here, and to use one of the alternatives. And the alternatives are very clearly less expensive. The fact is, I guess what this really shows us is, if you don’t like the answer the first time, hire either another consultant, or go back to a consultant until you get the answer you want. And if I hire a consultant and tell them what answer I want, I’ll probably get that answer, even if it means water is going to flow up-hill or up-stream.

26:00: Mayor Chiarelli:
Thank you, Councillor Bloess. I was momentarily distracted. Did you, ah, recommend a preferred option from your point of view?

Councillor Bloess:
Yes, I did.

Mayor Chiarelli:
Ah, which one was it?

Councillor Bloess:
I said the on-site treatment.

Other Councillors:
Which one?

Councillor Bloess:
The one I’ve got flagged here, hang on. Well, I’ll give you the one. I’m definitely not going to snow you, I know. Not going to spray you either. I’m looking for the name of the company. Seprotech, there you go.

26:30 – Mayor Chiarelli:
That’s the Snowfluent?

Other Councillors:
No, Seprotech

Mayor Chiarelli:
Thank you. (Councillor Legendre):

26:44 - Councillor Legendre:
Thank you Mr. Mayor. I congratulate my colleague, Councillor Stavinga. After all of her questions it’s amazing that I still have two, that I want to ask. She’s covered the territory very well. One that arises out an article, that I read in one of the local papers today, written by the executive vice president, if memory serves, of Seprotech. Would our staff have seen that article today? You have it there? And, one of the allegations in that article, troubles me. I guess it’s referring to the Technical Memorandum. This is the, I think elsewhere in this report it might have been called an Addendum to the original RVA Report. And it’s saying that there’s no engineer can be found, that will put his name to that … I would like to hear what staff’s response is to that.

27:57 – Richard Hewitt:
Well I would totally disagree with the statement.

Councillor Legendre:
Allright.

28:00 - Richard Hewitt:
Quite frankly, the firm of record is a well-acknowledged consulting firm by the name of RV Anderson Associates. We have the vice president of RV Anderson here today, who is also the Project Manager of this, ah, …registered consulting engineers in the province of Ontario. The sub-consultants are similarly well-qualified and well-respected firms. Ah, I don’t think there is any doubt that we have information and recommendations provided by that firm that are fully supported by that firm, and by the professional engineers that are employed by that firm.

28:33 -  Councillor Legendre:
Mr. Hewitt, you're our Director of Infrastructure Services Branch? Correct?

Richard Hewitt:
Yes

28:39 - Councillor Legendre:
You are an engineer?

Richard Hewitt:
Yes, I am.

Councillor Legendre:
This Report carries your signature?

Richard Hewitt:
….Ah, the staff report carries …

Councillor Legendre:
Ya, the staff Report ...sure, which included all of the other staff?

Richard Hewitt:
Yes...

Councillor Legendre:
Allright.

Richard Hewitt:
...We certainly rely on their expertise.

28:56 – Councillor Legendre:
OK. Now, I’m now going over to page 40 of the report. And this has to do with the Environmental Assessment approvals, should we choose one of the other technologies. And that disturbs me a lot, what I read in the middle of page 40, there. That, for instance, it says there, if either of the communal treatment alternatives ---CMS or Snowfluent--- be implemented, an Addendum to the ESR is required. The MOE has advised that any selection of an alternative solution other that the pipeline, I guess; The pipeline is automatically approved, right?

Richard Hewitt:
That’s correct.

29:47 – Councillor Legendre:
Right. And then it goes on to say, and this is what really floors me, as a minimum, this would entail re-evaluation of ALL SIX alternatives! Because, I was a member of Regional Council when we went through this, and if somebody said a while ago, that something smells here, you know, what we’ve done as elected officials, making these decisions, and I guess the OMB, is that we’ve bent over backwards ---to the point of breaking--- in order to really, you know ---with a microscope--- examine all of the alternatives. And now I read, that if we choose something other that a pipeline, we would have to go back, and re-examine six alternatives. This is incredible to me. Can you put some context around that? Are our laws in this province so written, that this would actually have to happen?

30:46 - Tim Marc:
Mr. Mayor, if I can answer this one. The letter from the Ministry, itself is found on page 72 of the Report. I wrote to the Ministry back in 2001, after the decision came out, ah, in order ---before we reported to Environmental Services Committee--- in order to find out what possible course of action could follow under the Environmental Assessment Act, should Council wish to pursue an option other than the pipeline. The pipeline is not automatically approved. It has gone through the Class Environment, an Addendum under the Class Environment Addendum process, and it came out as the preferred option. If Council wants to pursue an option other than the pipeline, then a similar analysis must be followed, and the Ministry said that if you’re going to pursue that Addendum process, then you are going to have to look, at least, at the six options that were originally evaluated. In fairness, three of them could, perhaps, receive a summary analysis: the lagoons, ah, there was a biological treatment process, and the do nothing alternative: could probably be dealt with in a summary fashion. But the three other options: Snowfluent, Seprotech, and the pipeline --- as well as the possibility of other options that might come forward at this time--- would have to receive a full analysis.

32:12 – Councill Legendre:
It sounds very much to me, like we would be back to square-one.

32:16 – Tim Marc:
Mr. Mayor, we would be back to where we were in March of 1997, yes.

32:22 - Councillor Legendre:
It’s not even earlier than that: March of ’97? It sounds recent when you say it that way. It seems much longer to me. Well, I think those are my questions, Mr. Chair.

Mayor Chiarelli:
Thank you Councillor Legendre. Counciller Cullen.

32:42 - Councillor Cullen:
Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, my questions were answered by the very excellent presentation made be my colleague, Councillor Stavinga. This is an issue that has been around for some time. It has become controversial over the process by which different responsible authorities have looked at the options for this particular sewage problem in the Village of Munster, in the Hamlet of Munster. You know, we’ve heard the history of the 1995 Study, which talked about upgrading the facilities of lagoon and current spray technology. We had the 1999 Study that recommended a pipeline. We have the OMB Decision, which caused the re-evaluation of all the three alternatives. We had the RVA recommendation last year, which was for local wastewater treatment, yet today we are facing a recommendation to extend the pipeline. I know there are concerns out in the community and I think staff have addressed these concerns of what would be the impact of this pipeline on neighbouring wells. We’ve had concerns expressed about the method of evaluation. We’ve had concerns expressed about the costing of these projects. Through both the extensive Committee consultation, and today at Council, I have yet to hear any reason …I have yet to hear any reason, other than to choose what we have before us. It’s certainly exhausting. There’s certainly competing viewpoints on this. But ultimately we have to decide. And, I think the report that’s been brought to us, fairly represent the choices before this Council, and makes a recommendation that allows us to deal with this long outstand problem in Hamster …in Munster Hamlet. So, Mr. Chairman, I’m prepared to accept what’s before us, here. I think it is appropriate to raise the questions that have been raised, but ultimately, based on the information that we have, of the recommendation coming from our staff, I think we have done our due diligence, and now can move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mayor Chiarelli:
Thank you Councillor Cullen. Councillor Stewart.

34:55 - Councillor Stewart:
Thank you, Mayor. Just a bit of a follow-up. The question that Councillor Legendre asked about the author of the latest agenda, and you mentioned that it was RVA, but is there any individual who actually signed that Report?

35:13 – Richard Hewitt:
The report, I believe, was signed by the project manager, Mr. Reg Andres.

Councillor Stewart:
Is he and engineer?

Richard Hewitt:
Yes he is.

Councillor Stewart:
And, so he conducted that… ah…

Richard Hewitt:
Yes he … that’s correct.

Councillor Stewart:
So, it isn’t authorless. There is somebody that can be held accountable if there are questions.

Richard Hewitt:
That’s correct.

35:33 - Councillor Stewart:
OK, that’s good to know.
I too, have a copy of the guest column on the environment that was in today’s Citizen, by the vice president of Seprotech. And he’s calling, in the end, for an independent financial audit of this process: an investigation. I think, on the good side, we’ve already begun that. Environmental Services Committee has instructed the independent city auditor to take a look at this entire process. Because, I agree with Councillor Bloess on this one. I’ve been around since ’94, when this first came to the Region, and we sort of derailed the spray irrigation, and opened it up again. And, I am very disappointed in the way this has been carried out, to the point where I really don’t have any faith or confidence that we are on the right track. Personally, I would like to see other solutions, other more creative, innovative solutions than pipelines. I think that either of the other technologies of Snowfluent or the CMS system would give us a little bit more ground-breaking ------ . To turn up our noses at cheaper tertiary treatment, to transport this sewage all the way to a secondary treatment facility, when it’s more expensive to do so, just doesn’t make any sense. So, I will also be dissenting on the recommended solution.

37:32 - Mayor Chiarelli:
Thank you Councillor Stewart. Councillor Stavinga.

37:36 – Councillor Stavinga:
Thank you very much Mayor Chiarelli. I appreciate all of Council’s time with regards to this particular matter, because it is one that has an incredibly long history. What I can tell you is, that when I came to Regional Council as Mayor of Goulbourn Township and I remember actually having a meeting at that time with the newly elected Chair, that being Bob Chiarelli, interesting enough, that was probably one day before the ice storm became a state of emergency. I remember that day very well. But I had approached him on behalf of the community of Goulbourn, because the Township of Goulbourn was not satisfied with the study that was done by Totten Simms and Hubicki, which identified the recommended solution to be the expansion of the lagoons and spray irrigation. We were not pleased with that. And as the Township of Goulbourn, we unanimously requested a Bump-up by the Minister of the Environment. That was denied. When the election came, and I was elected as the Mayor of the community, I had actually a discussion with a member of our community who was very involved with the study beforehand, and also in a subsequent study, too, with regards to a technology, that being CMS, a sole proprietary technology that would actually provide on-site treatment. And I can tell you as mayor of the community ---not just as mayor--- but actually from the background which is mine in Masters of Science degree in physical geography, dealing with water chemistry, dealing with the long range transport of plumes up to the arctic, I was very intrigued with the ability, wouldn’t it be great if we could, in a very sustainable way, treat waste on site.
39:04 -
So, with that information I went to Regional Chair, and then asked Regional Council to open this up. So, indeed, you did have a solution. And you actually began acquiring ---as the former Regional Council--- acquiring land to implement that solution. You started that work. But because of the request from Goulbourn Council, because of the request from the community, you opened it up again. So we asked from Goulbourn Council that it be an open and independent process, and you brought on Consestoga-Rovers. Thank you for doing that. I can tell you at the beginning I was very suspicious of them. I thought, once again, "Who has the Region indoctrinated to bring ...to come in ...to come up with a solution.  But interesting enough Conestoga-Rover proved themselves to the community. And proved themselves to the Township of Goulbourn, by the integrity in which they held out their process. And interesting enough, that’s what RV Anderson says too, the level of detail in the Munster Hamlet 1999 EA Addendum is considerably greater than typical level of detail, based on typical EA documents, were viewed as part of this investigation. So, another engineer evaluating yet another engineer’s reports said they have gone above and beyond. Interesting enough though, it was challenged by the Ontario Municipal Board: not for environmental reasons, but because it needed an Official Plan Amendment, and that enabled an opening to the Ontario Municipal Board. We got the Ruling from the OMB, we did what they told us to do, and interesting enough, the on-site treatment is not the solution.
40:32-
I have a petition here before me with 690 names within the community of Goulbourn, and I take this very seriously. And I’ll read this to you. It says "We the undersigned, reject the proposal of a pressurized sewage forcemain from Munster putting private shallow wells, the environment and human health at risk, when the safer alternative of on-site treatment at Munster would protect health, benefit the environment and cost much less." You know, I would sign this. I would sign this in a flash …if it was true. But, it’s not … it’s not true. And what I would ask you, today, to do, is support the staff recommendation. Support the work that has been done by RV Anderson. Support the addition work that was done through the technical memo, and let us bring this story to a conclusion. This is a basic service for the residents of Munster, and they deserve no less. There is also commitment through staff and through this city council by the adoption of this recommendation to engage the residents in the final design, to the village of Richmond, and to ensure that we mitigate against any potential (impasse), and as staff have said, that pipelines are safe, reliable and reasonable. This is not the SE trunk. This is …. is a pipeline. This is not something that you drive a truck down. The comparisons are ludicrous, and unfortunately, it’s that …that fear mongering which has fostered 690 people signing this petition.
42:00 -
I ask you, today, based on the evidence, and I have 1.4 million of the evidence right here: a box here, of a few other boxes. Lots of evidence, and it is fair. It’s very clear. Please, support the recommendation from Committee, today. It is about, indeed, a pipeline from Munster. Thank you.

42:20 - Mayor Chiarelli:
Thank you, Councillor Stavinga. Yeas and Nays:

Councillor Arnold:             Yes

Councillor Cullen:              Yes

Councillor Stavinga:          Yes

Councillor Munter:             Yes

CouncillorLittle:                     –

Councillor Deans:               Yes

Councillor McNealy:           Yes

Councillor Chiralli:              Yes

Councillor Brooks:          **Yes**

Councillor Lagendre:         Oui

Councillor Kreling:             Yes

Councillor Bellemare:          -

Councillor Harder:              Yes

Councillor Hume:                Yes

Councillor Mallier:               Oui

Councillor Doucette:           ( - )

Councillor Hunter:               Oui

Councillor Thompson:       Yes

Councillor Eastman:           ( -?- inaudible)

Mayor Chiarelli:                     Yes

43:27 - Mayor Chiarelli:
Carried.