|
|
||||||
|
Residents in Sooke are concerned about the imminent tax hikes to pay for the new sewer system. |
||||||
|
Calendar of Events & Special Dates |
March 14, 2001: Sewer Study Open House in SookeSend us your comments and we will publish them on our website! Here are some questions and answers from the Open House. Here's one persons comments, Sewer system open house a real disapointment. Sewer Study Open House in Sooke on March 14, 2001 WRATH attended the open house, and reports on the event. There was an excellent turn out for the open house. Please email us your comments and we will add them to this page. Please email this web page to your friends, fax it to your friends, print it and give it to your friends that don't use the Internet. We urge you to get involved; write letters; attend meetings; donate a few hours of your time to help. Email or call us with your ideas. See our contacts page. Introduction and Overview: The District of Sooke hosted an open house on March 14, the day before they submitted the application for grant funding. The meeting was chaired by John Farmer, Chair of the Sewer Study Committee, and owner of commercial land for development in the service area to be sewered. The forum panel consisted of Tom Day, Sooke Administrator; four representatives from Stantec Consulting (Tony Brisic, Anne Poole, Bob Dawsen, Dwayne Doucet), who completed the initial sewer study report; Eric Dobden from Amec Consulting who completed the soil report; Doug Bright who completed the marine report; and, Chris Laughlin in the audience who is with the CRD Health Department. The proposed sewer system area has been almost doubled in size, and the costs increased from $16.4 million to $19.4 million to $24 million. The actual boundaries are not identifiable on the map provided to the public at the forum and have since been changed again. Stantec's four consultants talked for half an hour about why we need this particular sewer treatment system. They claim that Sooke has a septic failing rate of 20%. So what? That must mean that 80% are working! WRATH investigated this further, and discovered that Sooke has less than 1% per year over the last twenty years. Furthermore, this figure includes minor and repeat service visits to septic fields/tanks in the core area. The Ministry of Health recognizes that 5-10% is considered normal at any given time in a community. Furthermore, Stantec failed in their professional and ethical responsibility to inform the public about the failure rates of municipal sewage treatment plants in BC. When questioned about this, Sooke municipal engineer, Gary Smirf advised that he would obtain this information and make it available. The proposed system will only provide secondary treatment, with the effluent being discharged into the ocean environment by a sewage outfall, or as John Farmer prefers to call it, a marine effluent discharge system. The effluent still contains substances that are significantly harmful to the marine environment. For $2 million more, we could have a tertiary treatment system, which removes all the harmful substances except gender benders, which change male fish to female fish. There is also the issue of dispensing freshwater to a saltwater environment, which will kill all the marine organisms in the area of the outfall. The engineers refer to this as the initial dilution zone or mixing zone; it is also called the dead zone. With the serious water shortages facing our community, it makes more sense to have tertiary treatment, and to save and reuse the water. Reuse the water for low flows in local fish streams, lots of grey water for watering lawns, parks, golf courses, fire fighting, car washing, and we would have as much water as we could possibly need today and tomorrow. The Victoria Water Board is implementing water restrictions effective April 2 because the Sooke Lake is down by 40% already. Furthermore, they are withdrawing water from Charters Creek, a known salmon streem, to augment water needs to try to meet the demand for water. Doug Bright, to use his own words, presented what he called a "quick and dirty desktop study" in highly technical terms about the marine environment, but did not present any hard evidence about the source of the levels of fecal coliforms recorded in the Sooke Harbour. Furthermore, the Bright report is a qualitative overview and is not in fact a formal quantified risk assessment or an impact assessment. It does not contain any scientific evidence to justify the conclusions. Doug Bright admitted there are no test results for the Harbour and Basin that identify human from animal coliform. Bright admitted that the highest levels of fecal coliforms are around the marinas, where boats dump their tanks. The report is biased. The WRATH scientific committee reviewed the report in detail, we probably spent more time reviewing it than he did writing it, and we found it to be erroneous and misleading. Furthermore, the Bright report assumes that there will be no growth or industry in Sooke, which contradicts the unsubstantiated claims for growth by the District of Sooke. There is a recent case example in USA West where a local municipality erroneously recommended a sewer collection and treatment plant because of high fecal coliform levels. DNA testing revealed that less than 1% of the fecal coliforms were of human origin, and the remaining fecal coliform were from animals; dogs, birds, and farm animals. The community implemented a bylaw to pick up after your dog rather than build a sewer system. The outfall will be near the Ella Road area, and residents of Ella Road have no say in whether they want an outfall there. Furthermore, a sewer processing plant smells. The consultants hid behind process and advised that the public will be able to have input throughout the permitting process with the Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks and the Department of Fisheries Oceans and Canada. The District of Sooke assured us that they would put an add in the paper. We recommend that residents write Ministers and MP's today to express their concerns now. Please see our Letters Page for more information on who to write, and their addresses, faxes, and emails. Costs and Process: Tom Day, Sooke Administrator, advised that the proposed sewerage system would proceed:
Despite repetitive questions about how much this might cost the average person in the sewer area for increased taxes, Tom Day repeatedly said, echoed by John Farmer, that this information will not be available until after Stantec Consulting has completed Phase II of the sewer study in a few months or so. According to the Sewer Study Committee Minutes of July 25, 2000, Stantec began compiling research about the costs for a new sewer system in other municipalities as early as July, 2000. The Sewer Study Committee had almost completed the grant application as early as March 12, 2001. These minutes are now available and will be presented at the Council meeting on Monday, March 26 at 7:30 pm. The District of Sooke completed the grant application form on the next day, March 15th, and it clearly states a tax increase of $629 per household per year. WRATH asked how tax rates would be assessed i.e. on value or footage and if there was any provision for equity between a property valued at $1 million versus $100K. Tom Day advised that there would be some provision for weighting values, and that it may be tied in to the type of zoning on the property. But, when WRATH asked about reassessing taxes after an owner changes the zoning, and they said that the original assessment would stand. Individuals also asked if the District of Sooke had researched average costs in neighbouring municipalities who recently hooked up to new sewer systems, and it was beyond the imagination or ability of our District of Sooke Council and staff to undertake this simple research. It was interesting to note that on March 19th when they rolled out the proposed budget, they had the complete tax breakdown of every neighbouring municipality laid out for our comparison. WRATH has investigated this question, and it will cost thousands of dollars to hook up to the new system. The process includes installing the pipes from your house to the road, and a pump if it is uphill. You will also have to decommission your existing septic system, pull the tank, fill it with sand, landscape your home, and the average costs per home as advised by an engineer is $12,000 to $18,000 per home, which far exceeds any subsidy, even if you qualify for a subsidy and if you can get it. Hook up is mandatory, but there will be a grace period. Grace period not defined. If an owner has to sell his property because of this, then there is no special assistance or consideration forthcoming from the District of Sooke; for example, the District could offer credits or facilitate rezoning applications. John Farmer said that the owner would have to go through the normal application for rezoning. Will this apply to the land that Mr. Farmer currently owns in the core area? Furthermore, if an owner's property depreciates due to a zoning change, the District of Sooke is not willing to provide any form of compensation. Once a property has been assessed for the new taxes to pay for the sewer system, the tax rate is fixed and you will continue to pay for the system for years to come. The sewer study boundary area will be expanded. The District of Sooke plans to implement DCC charges for future growth. The District of Sooke is not going to grant any tax credits to individuals who have recently installed new septic tanks/ fields/ or alternative forms of treatment. Some residents expressed concern that the grant application is being submitted prematurely without proper research to gather information, and without adequate public process. This round of grant funding is open for five years. Furthermore, the grant application may not be approved for the full amount applied for. Note that in the recent budget roll out by the District of Sooke on Monday, March 19th, at the Committee of the Whole Meeting, the costs to incorporate were grossly misrepresented. Tom Day and Ed McGregor blamed the consultant for underestimating the costs, and for putting costs into categories that they thought were eligible, but were not. Ed McGregor chaired that incorporation committee. There is a serious probability that the same mistakes could occur in the sewer system process. Similarly, is history about to repeat itself? The consultant could make mistakes about amounts, eligible costs, and whether Ed McGregor is the Chair or the Mayor, well, what's the difference? The difference is that Ed now has over $24 million tax dollars to err with. Another resident rightly pointed out that some owners will default on paying the additional taxes, and that the rest of the owners in the District of Sooke will pay to make up the shortfall. Someone will have to pay. Will this get buried in a new budget with tax increases for everyone, just like the additional costs that we have to bear for the mistakes in the budget for incorporation? The acquisition of land is not an eligible expense in the application for grants. The District of Sooke would not disclose any information about the cost of land acquisition or relative percent value. WRATH noted that the cost of land acquisition as noted in the grant application was $400,000. Even more interesting, is that Ms. Wilford attended the Council meeting on March 12th and expressed that she was deeply offended and disappointed that the Mayor and Council had not treated her or her family fairly in that they would not provide information to the Wilford Family, even though the District of Sooke plans to build the sewage treatment plant on their property. They "insulted her intelligence" and "there was no meaningfull dialogue" she said. WRATH also found out that there are lift stations all over Sooke to transport the sewage and effluent across properties, and the property owners have not been informed. Apparently, if you meet with John Farmer and Ed McGregor, they will redraw the map for you as one of our WRATH members recently discovered. Also, how is it that one side of Maple Street is in the sewer area and the other side is not? Does anyone have a current map? The District has also informed the Agricultural Land Reserve of their intent to appropriate ALR land to meet some of the land acquisition requirements for the sewer system. It didn't take much for the District to remove most of the ALR land in Sooke last year, so residents in the sewer area can anticipate that this time won't be any different. Could the District of Sooke not complete Phase II, consider alternatives, complete the liquid waste management plan as required by the Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, undertake a public process where the public is informed, and, obtain accurate information to substantiate claims of growth? Why not apply the precautionary principle, especially considering we are spending over $24 million tax dollars? There have been infrastructure grants in the past, and this round of funding is open to new applications through 2005. Why not take intermediate steps, such as a community based septic tank monitoring program? There are funding grants available to establish these kinds of projects and local employment opportunities. Again, concerned residents asked the question, "Why no referendum as promised?" John Farmer assured us that this was a council initiative, and not a public initiative or a public request. Remember this point when we have to pay tax increases for years to come. John Farmer does not live in Sooke so it doesn't affect him or his family. Oh, Marcus Farmer does not live in Sooke either. Timing: The District of Sooke will issue notices of tax increases to residents in the area to be sewered after Stantec Consulting completes Phase II of the sewer study. Owners in the area will have 30 days to respond that they do not support the sewer system as proposed. If an owner does not respond, then it is assumed that the owner approves of the proposed sewer system. There was some debate about the minimum percentage votes to enable the process to move ahead. Tom Day says 50%, others suggest that it's 66%. WRATH is looking into it. According to Tom Day, the District of Sooke should receive a response to the application for grant within 45 days, but it could take up to a year. Conclusion: It is WRATH's position that the Mayor and Council hosted the public forum so that they can claim that they engaged in public consultations prior to submitting the grant application. Recall that Keith Martin stated on March 7th that he supported the grant application on the basis that Ed McGregor told him that the community supported the sewer system. Let's examine the facts: August 2000:
October 2000:
November, 2000:
February, 2001:
March 11, 2001:
March 14, 2001:
March 15, 2001:
March 19, 2001:
WRATH will continue to monitor and investigate "council initiatives", no pun intended. WRATH would appreciate your additional comments pertaining to the Open House on March 14th, or any other aspect of the sewer initiative or tax roll out.
| |||||
|
|
||||||
Email WRATH