| |
(May 27, 2003
Presentation
by Richard Bendall
(Munster Lagoon Watchdog Committee)
to:
Ottawa Council, Committee of the Environment
(For the sake of clarity, the use of the term “City” may
be used to refer to both the City and the former
RMOC,
since one is simply a continuation of the other, with many of the
same staff and politicians.)
------------------------------------------------
I come to you with great disappointment
over the shady performance of certain staff of this City and the
Ward-6 Councillor whose agenda, it seems, is to place staff
interests ahead of the public interest, even when it impacts
upon the health and safety of her constituents. There are
current unknowns, and many unanswered questions, regarding
the increased
risk posed by the West Nile virus from open sewage
lagoons, and
risks from the certainty of forcemain breaks which
will occur along a proposed pipeline route ---past 140 shallow
wells, that that have not been addressed by either our
Councillor or City staff. Detailed surveys have been conducted
in both Munster and
Richmond, and most residents (of both
communities) staunchly rejected the pipeline option. In the
Munster survey (conducted in April 2002), 73% of households
returned the filled-out questionnaires (giving the Survey an
accuracy of
± 2.9%, 19
times out of 20). The respondents returned an overwhelming 83%
preference for an on-site treatment plant to be built at Munster.
Environmental reasons ranked the highest, but public health was a
major concern as well. (The Munster Community Association did an
eleventh-hour straw poll that conflicted with the April 2002
survey, but for which the statistical accuracy, or the way the
questions were asked were never published. For example, it is
known that a few people were asked about the pipeline option in a
way that gave the impression that it meant elimination of the
lagoons ---which residents desperately wanted rid of. It worked
before, why not try it again, right? ---So, whatever is claimed,
by the MCA at this late hour, without background data to support
it, is considered to be politically motivated and specious.) In
the Richmond Survey (conducted in July of 2002), 23% of households
responded to a mailed survey (giving it an accuracy of
±5%, 19 times out of 20).
Watershed protection was of highest concern, with 77% of
the respondents stating that they favoured a wastewater treatment
plant in Munster.
I’m also disappointed that the
City continues to hide behind a
$4.2 million SLAPP ACTION lawsuit
against a private citizen and ratepayer sitting as volunteer
committee member; an act that was perpetrated by Conestoga-Rovers
and Associates ---as Agents for the City--- as a means to suppress
evidence of a pipeline fix by RMOC staff (now, City of
Ottawa staff). Deception, misrepresentation, and the bad faith
practices have plagued this sorry case from the very beginning, to
the extent that $15 million has already been wasted, without even
starting the construction of a treatment system ---enough money
to have completed modern mechanical treatment plants for
three-and-a-half communities the size of Munster.
The
City Staff Report of 02 May 2003,
pertaining to the Munster wastewater issue, is fraught with
technical errors, omissions, misrepresentations and erroneous
conclusions. It is completely inconsistent with the expert advice of three
out of the four engineering consultants, hired at taxpayer's
expense ($1,600,000) ...who rejected the pipeline!
Ironically ---five years ago---
Munster’s sewage crisis appeared headed towards resolution, with
the Council Motion of March 11, 1998. Even though Mr. Chiarelli
voted against it, the motion that passed is summed up in his
letter of April 1, 1998. (It’s hoped the date wasn’t the operative
here!) It stated the following:
“Please be advised that on
11 March 1998 Council directed staff to retain an independent
consultant to reassess the preferred alternative in the
Environmental Study Report (expanded treatment lagoons and spray
irrigation) in comparison with other technologies and proposals
that can meet the requirements of improving the level of
treatment, can guarantee to meet the (MOE) compliance schedule and
can reduce the cost of the project.”
Any hope for
honest fulfillment of this motion was short-lived. The minutes of
the Environment Committee Meeting, held in Munster on November 10th,
1998, refer to the comments of City solicitor, Tim
Marc, as follows: “Mr. Mark stated clearly the RFP did not
invite proposals for a pipeline option, however, even if no
company had submitted a pipeline proposal, the Environment Study
Report would still have required CRA to analyze the pipeline
option”. While it is clear that the RFP did not
invite pipeline proposals, it is equally clear that the RMOC
did! (On February 16, 1999,
Taggart Construction wrote a
protest to the RMOC, excerpts of which, follow: "…the
RMOC has now stated that our proposal was unsolicited
and has recommended that a conventional design and tender process,
be undertaken for the project
using our solution.”
..."RMOC staff and CRA were well aware that we were submitting
pipeline proposals and in fact we were encouraged to make our
submissions.")
Also, the second part of Tim Marc’s
assertion completely misrepresents the spirit and the letter of EA
procedure, and is a total fabrication. As stated in the March 11,
1998 Motion (referred to above), the EA is only required to assess
the new technologies being considered, in comparison with the
preferred alternative (i.e.: expanded lagoon and spray
irrigation), of the 1996,Totten-Sims Hubicki ESR. The pipeline
option had already been evaluated in the ESR and had been
rejected.
Equally preposterous is the Staff
Report assertion that selection of one of the communal options
would require all of the original six options to be revisited.
This is simply a ruse, to trick Council members into making an
erroneous pipeline selection. The only requirement for an Addendum
to the EA, would be as a result of any
changes to the original
proposal …such as dropping Munster’s sewage into a wet-well on the
corner of Perth St. and Fortune St, to convey it through the
Richmond sewage system (via Fortune St. to York St., to the pump
station). I suggest that Ms. Stavinga was on the “inside” of this plan a year ago, when she met with residents to tell
them how lucky they were
(wink, wink) to be having their street re-built
...from the sewer up!! This would be a major switch from what was
outlined in the EA process, (i.e.: that the Munster forcemain
would connect directly to the pumping station in Richmond). The pipeline
would, therefore, require an Addendum to be filed.
It
is these sorts of distortions, and bad faith dealings by City
staff, that have misled Council decisions along the way, and have
contributed to the current litigation. Council's continued
reliance upon this aggregate of deceptions will only maintain
outside pursuit of legal remedy, which ---sadly--- could continue
to stall proper servicing of Munster's sewage problems for years
to come. Is it not time to give the truth a break!
The costing issue is one of the biggest areas of spurious data.
Keeping in mind that prices usually go up over time with materials
and services, the RMOC had a thorough costing update completer by
Totten-Sims Hubicki Associates (TSH), just before the March
11,1998 Council Motion, (that looked for "new and innovative
technologies"). TSH's ---complete and detailed--- updated price,
on February 13, 1998, for a Munster-Richmond pipeline was
$16,338,680. Additional rock removal costs and newer
health mitigation measures would only add to that figure. One has
to believe that the detailed and itemized pricing of TSH is far
more factual than the unsubstantiated numbers City staff threw
into its report. Even Councillor Stavinga’s office admitted, last
year, that the capital cost of a pipeline would be in the “$12,000,000 to
$15,000,000 range” ...and that was before RV Anderson
disclosed that there would be significant additional rock
removal costs. (All of the other itemized cost estimates ---when
shown in detail--- seem to arrive at the
same $14M to $17M
capital cost range.) This means that Staff has been
planning, all along, to proceed with a COST-PLUS pipeline project
in the capital cost-neighbourhood of $17,000,000! Do you
Councillors realize that the already-wasted $15 million, plus the
$17 million that is about to be wasted on a pipeline …pro-rates to
$73,000 per Munster household? Is that not insane? What are
you, individually, prepared to do about it? Are you Councillors,
(like the staff), intending to simply ignore the TSH numbers,
because they would eliminate the pipeline, out-of-hand?
With all of
the ratepayer sensitivity these days towards Ottawa’s unwise use
of our tax dollars ---especially in the area of infrastructure (i.e:
Ottawa South Collector: $55,000,000,
OC-Transpo Go-Huts, et al)---
is it
of any interest to you that the Provincial Policy Statement on
Infrastructure: Sewage and Water Systems clearly states that,
(Sec: 1.3.1.1.b): “Communal services are the
preferred means of servicing multiple lots/units in areas where
full municipal sewage and water services are not or cannot be
provided, where site conditions are suitable over the long term”;
and that its Housing Policy advises, (Sec: 1.2.1.e): “establishing
cost-effective development standards”.
Knowing that the MOE had granted a
Certificate of approval in 1997 for identical technology (in
Manotick), the Staff Report excessively criticized the Mechanical
Treatment technology for being “new”. Even though the RFP was
SOLELY for “new and innovative technologies” the City,
none-the-less, has consistently tried to defame the technology
---on the very basis of its newness, ---the precise criterion that
was required for its RFP bid-eligibility. Do you Councillors
really feel that this is, dealing honestly, in the public
interest? It is the forcemain that you should be critical of,
due to its history of failure under the City’s watch.
While City staff have been
attempting to cause death to the two communal systems ---by a
thousand defamatory cuts--- Ms. Stavinga, has been doing her part
for staff, by claiming in the
Ottawa Citizen on March 2, 2002,
that, “On-site treatment wouldn’t leave effluent clean
enough to put in the Jock”. Thus, while asserting, as
co-chair of the RVCA, that the mechanical treatment could not
achieve the discharge parameter of 0.03 mg./L of Phosphorus
for the average discharge of 575,000 litres per day from
Munster, she was busy overseeing the MOE’s and RVCA’s
rubber-stamping of quarry de-watering permits, allowing for
discharges into the Jock River averaging 0.35 mg./L of
Phosphorus, (12 X the limit), in the amount of
8,200,000 litres per day (14 X Munster’s average
volume).
Do you councilors really feel that
this double standard, for Phosphorus discharge into the
Jock River, is honest?
The Staff Report, now before you
states: “Design-build proposals were received by the former
ROC in July, 1998. The submissions were used as a means to obtain
information for price-guaranteed alternatives to be considered by CRA”. If one follows the literal meaning of what is being
said here, vis-à-vis commercial RFP protocol and contract law
(right down to the requirement for bidders to post letters of
bonding with their bids, and even pay $25 for their RFP
documents), then the statement appears to be a clear admission
of intent to defraud.
This presentation is to urge
this Committee to delay making any recommendation to council,
until it has corrected the gross misrepresentations in
the Staff Report, which are the basis for today’s motion.
Please consider only that which is truthful… and to do that, you
need more information. The City has failed to perfect its case,
and the OMB order has not been fulfilled. To proceed with
the current motion, founded on the misrepresentations and
falsehoods that are contained in the Staff Report would be
in contempt of the OMB, a travesty against justice and honesty, and
would taint the whole Environment Committee with the same
degree of deceit and deception as exhibited by those staff members
and the one ward councillor who have crafted this abomination.
Please STOP, and investigate, before you leap.
Richard Bendall,
Member, Munster
Lagoon Watchdog Committee
|
|