Here are a few responses on key issues concerning sewage treatment from the recent All Candidates meetings:
Location of sewage treatment plant in Townsite
Dave Formosa’s platform for mayor says that one of the achievements of this past Council was to fix the location of the proposed sewage treatment plant – in Townsite. Formosa has said that joint treatment has the advantage of “cementing” the plant’s location in Townsite. (The location previously approved in the second phase of the sewage plan was the waste transfer site.) Formosa also said that members of the sewage advisory committee mostly supported joint treatment but voted 10 to 1 against it because “they lost their will” in the face of public opposition.
Ballot vote on joint treatment
All current councillors opposed Mayor Stewart Alsgard’s proposal to have a question put to voters on whether residents approve of the idea of partnering with Catalyst on sewage treatment. They also blocked even having a Council vote on whether the question should be on the ballot. Chris McNaughton opposed a ballot question saying that “asking people a question just to get information is not a valid approach.”
Incumbent councillors say they will have a referendum once more information is available. New candidate for Council Scott Lukianchuk said he favoured a vote during the election because “if the people of this town don’t like the concept, what’s the point in pursuing it?” Gordon Crawford, Russell Brewer, Myrna Leishman all supported having a question on joint treatment on the November ballot.
Odour Control
A question put to all candidates by the Townsite Ratepayers was whether candidates would vote in favour of a sewage system with open ditches. This is the sample technology that is in the draft plan right now, and what the cost estimates – approved by Council – were based on.
All candidates have said they are opposed to open ditches. Jim Palm and Chris McNaughton said they had voted in favour of “best practices”, but did not address the issue included in our question that City staff have said “best practices” only means as much odour control as the city can afford.
I support the idea of co-treatement in principle. I do wish to be able to wiegh the actual proposal when more is known but I do not agree that this is necessarily privatization. That is a scare tactic used in general terms to raise concern among the un-informed. The final terms will inform us as to whether this is privatization or not. If an agreement with Catalyst will allow us to treat our sewage for a period of time at a saving, or not, allowing us to find and fund a more permanent solution it is a good thing. I do not buy the argument that all agreements with private enterprise is bad. Turning over absolute control is not something I support in general but any opportunity to do something in a collaberative way and use resources better is a good thing. Protecting public sector jobs is not a reason to oppose something. Let’s decide with facts. And about all I have heard or seen so far is a lot of opinions-on both sides.