Why we should not build the Aberdeen sewer line.

I made the following presentation to Coldstream Council last night:

The last election was a closely contested one. Your Worship was elected by a slim majority of about 20 votes. However it was still a majority and you had the privilege of sitting in that chair making decisions in the name of the people.

Unfortunately, your decisions did not always reflect the wishes of the people. Some examples are this Municipal building, approving the huge expansion of Coldstream Meadows, the extension of the sewer line from McClounie to Aberdeen Road at taxpayers’ expense and the Sports Complex. You seem to forget at times that Organizational chart you included in the financial report where taxpayers are supposed to be in the top layer.

This latest effort appears to be another attempt to ignore the wishes of the people. You believe we should build a sewer trunk line down Aberdeen Road. You would not allow anyone addressing that issue during the last public hearing. It seems, your mind is made up and you would not want to hear from those not agreeing with your point of view.

Last year Council commissioned an environmental report, carried out by Golder Associates. While they did report of poor septic systems especially in the Paisley-Shamanski-Rendell Drive area they also polled the residents within the study area wether or not they wished to have sewer. Of the 140 respondents 63% answered “no” and only 29% answered “yes”. Now, that is a substantially larger margin of “no” than your margin of victory in the last election. These taxpayers are the ones who will foot the bill related to sewer connections and not you nor the rest of Council. Heed their wishes!

You may ask why this issue should bother me.

As the Acting President of the Coldstream Ratepayers Association it is my duty to represent the wishes of the ratepayers. All residents are ratepayers even if they are not paying membership fees. They are paying their taxes to this Council and they expect appropriate representation.

The developer is also paying the required fees and he should be treated fairly. He has an alternative sewer system to which he could connect. Council has already set the precedence when approving the adjacent development to use the alternate sewer system. Changing the parameters now for this developer could be considered a biased decision.

It is also my understanding that the developer would be committing to $1 million for the construction of this system. Judging from the site work at the Fire Hall (presently at $617,000) I am certain that the costs of the 1.7 km trunk line will be far beyond $1 million. I hate to think who will be settled with the difference. The problems for a new Council will be tremendous.

We still have not resolved the problems created by the gifting of a new sewer trunk line to Coldstream Meadows. Staff and Council is in a real conundrum over this issue and adding to this mess is totally unfair for the next and subsequent Councils. The present Council inherited the difficulties from the previous one, thus, they should understand the unfairness of passing on a new set of troubles to future Councils. The financial implications are mind boggling. You only have five months left to resolve present issues. November is election time!

Proposed policies tabled at an earlier Council meeting will require residents fronting this new line to connect to it within five years. In the meantime they would have to pay the operation and maintenance costs of the sewer system presently calculated by the Director of Finance at $320 annually. That is a hefty unexpected expense to unsuspecting residents who are supposed to be the BOSS and should be the first to know.

You should also be concerned about the beleaguered residents who are already on the sewer system and are paying inordinate sewer fees. Those same proposed policies I mentioned earlier also require those residents to put up 50% of the replacement costs of the existing sewer main from McClounie to Alpine Centre. That line is only 30 years old. They only finished paying for it in 2005. The only reason that pipe needs to be replaced is due to growth. Why should existing sewer customers pay for a new line that is requiring replacement because of growth and, in fact, put up half of the replacement cost in advance? I have heard of some assistance for growth but what Council has done by requiring these same residents to put up 111% of the cost of the McClounie to Mackie Drive sewer extension was already criminal. To require these same taxpayers to pay half of the replacement costs of their own perfectly functional sewer trunk line in advance is beyond words.

In order to demonstrate what mindless actions create let me show you one map sheet created by Golder Associates. It portrays the suitability of lands for on site sewer disposal. Note that the most suitable sites are along the “urgent” sewer line from McClounie to Mackie Drive. Can you explain that? Why did we have to put up all that money for an unnecessary sewer line? It was not an urgent issue. Since the developer needed that connection he would have constructed it at his own expense and collected latecomer fees from residents connecting to it at a later date.

But of course, except for two of you, you don’t have to pay these costs so why should it bother you? My suggestion is: it should! Remember the Organizational Chart: you are the second layer and the bosses will have to make a decision again in November.

Gyula Kiss
Acting President, CRPA

**********************************************************