"There are three sources of funding (for a new Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment plant). . . . The first is the federal government that mandated the upgrade, the second is the provincial government that stipulated the timeline . . . and the third should be a cost-sharing arrangement with our fellow (Metro) municipalities. . . ."
-Couns. Guy Heywood and Alan Nixon
MY reaction after comparing the May 1 letter to the editor from North Vancouver councillors Guy Heywood (city) and Alan Nixon (district) with the May 12 letter from mayors Darrell Mussatto and Richard Walton was to ask if they sit on the same councils.
While the councillors suggested funding sources and fairness in municipal cost-sharing are major issues for them with respect to replacing the Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant (LGWTP), the mayors seem comfortable with the current regional cost-sharing formula.
In reply to questions from me, Heywood said, "Whether or not a possible increase in utility rates of 500 per cent is right, is pure conjecture."
Then, reminding us that the water filtration plant came in 30-50 per cent over-budget after the first contractor walked off the project, he warned, "If we consider that precedent - including the fact that it, too, was a priority forced on us by the federal government - we should be wary of cost estimates.
"The danger to our local community is that the North Shore communities are the ones that currently have the residual risk of cost overruns if they occur in the same way as the filtration project. The P3 structure is one way that we might be able to avoid that - but the devil is always in the details."
So how about we begin at the beginning and ask whether an entirely new facility at a different location is even necessary in order to achieve secondary treatment.
Just because senior governments have issued decrees from on high, or because the region is behaving as though all's over bar choosing one of its nine glossy "concepts," doesn't mean taxpayers (or experienced engineers) accept the line that a brand new treatment facility on a single site is the way to go.
The councillors were right to raise the cost-sharing issue on a pre-emptive basis. But a replacement of the current plant by a new one at First Street and Pemberton is by no means a done deal - whether or not the Squamish Nation wants the utility off its current site by 2020.
Now for some openers: Site
The Heywood-Nixon letter says: "Fortunately, the land to site the new sewage treatment plant has already been acquired."
Not so fast, gentlemen! Metro Vancouver's acquisition may only be fortunate to the extent it cancelled out a bus depot at that location; availability does not relieve North Shore municipalities of the need to evaluate the highest and best use of the site.
The councillors' letter also says the Squamish Nation "has other plans for the land" when the lease on the current site expires in 2020.
Maybe so; but has the Nation been offered ongoing revenues from an updated plant - perhaps via a design/build/operate partnering agreement with senior, regional and municipal governments?
It would be helpful for us to hear directly from Chief Ian Campbell whether his people have been given an opportunity to consider such a proposal.
To upgrade the current plant to a state-of-the-art treatment/educational facility seems a better idea than to build a residential community underneath the Lions Gate Bridge, next-door to a sulphur terminal. The Squamish Nation might decide that a government-backed partnership in an essential service offered more reliable revenues than leases with other types of industries.
For governments and only-one-pocket taxpayers, upgrading the level of treatment at the current location offers many potential advantages, not least of which would be capital-cost savings resulting from the ability to make use of existing infrastructure.
Single site versus multi site
Will North Shore negotiators take the easy way or the right way?
The easy way is to drive by the former B.C. Rail site at First and Pemberton, look at the newly cleared, empty space, concede to Metro and say, "Hey! Let's cover it with a sewage treatment plant."
The better way is to ask: If we didn't have this empty space, where would be the ideal location(s)?
Would we build one large plant, or two smaller ones at a distance from one another to accommodate projected population hubs and for redundancy?
Responsibilities and funding
The Heywood-Nixon and Mussatto-Walton letters rightly acknowledge that wastewater treatment services are a regional responsibility.
But that is only the case because senior governments like to legislate what will be built where, when and how, turn up for the photo-ops and leave the real work for regional and municipal governments to figure out.
That way, they can't be held responsible for the decisions.
But that is no excuse for local governments to avoid the wastewater-in-the-fan by engaging the LGWTP funding discussion as though all else had already been decided.
I am in no mood to see our elected municipal representatives pass the baton to Metro.
We should be glad Heywood and Nixon explained their quandary to the people; it should happen more often than it does.
Now it's up to us to respect their offer by playing a useful role in the decision-making - before the conversation devolves into an us-versus-them dispute. Beginning next week, with help from a top-ranking specialist in the design of wastewater treatment systems, I hope to provide you with more of the data you need for it to be an informed discussion - all in a non-techie kind of way. [email protected]
