Do the Little Pieces Matter In the Big Picture?A free technical commentary on the CRD Core Area Sewage Treatment Project
The CALWMC proposes to submit three new concepts for sewage treatment for further detailed analysis to an independent consultant. A technical oversight panel is to ensure engineering, business case, lifecycle costing and other project analysis is properly conducted by the consultant to enable fair apple-to-apple comparisons to be made as the public has clearly requested.
|
Category of Household Expenditure
|
Average Household, 2013
|
One-person Household, 2013
|
Reading material and other printed matter
|
$193
|
$132
|
Games of chance
|
$232
|
$138
|
Tobacco products and alcoholic beverages
|
$1256
|
$988
|
Education
|
$1831
|
$436
|
Gifts of money, alimony and contributions to charity
|
$2155
|
$1867
|
Independent Technical Oversight Panel – Terms of Reference and
Selection Criteria – DRAFT
The Technical Oversight Panel:
1. Will be comprised of three to five members.
2. Will be given a $12,000/year honorarium + $750/meeting (up to 4hours, additional $750 over 4 hours) + travel disbursements. Chair will receive $30,000/year + same meeting and travel expenses.*
3. Will commence work in June 2015 and end in March 2016.
4. Will provide independent oversight to the work of the engineering, business case, lifecycle costing and other project analysis done post-June 2015.
5. Will report monthly to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee directly. The Chair of the Panel will have the primary responsibility for presenting updates and answering questions of the committee and speaking on behalf of the Panel at public sessions.
*Based on Seaterra Commission.
Selection Criteria / Skill sets sought:
1. Significant private sector business, finance and large-scale project-management experience.
2. Wastewater/biosolids treatment technology – up-to-date understanding of innovative/emerging/best practices including wastewater regulatory context.
3. Resource recovery – wastewater reuse (irrigation, purple pipe), district energy systems, biogas, biofuels.
4. Financial costing including capital/operating/life cycle, comparative evaluations, business case analysis, risk, financing.
5. Proven ability to pull conceptual ideas into overarching plan.
6. Chair, proven ability to deliver, able to present detailed concepts in political arena and to broad public, comfortable with public speaking, media, video taped proceedings and large venues.
Capital Region District
625 Fisgard Street
Victoria B.C. V8W 1R7
Attention: Lisa Helps, CALWMC Chair
Re: Seaterra and CRD IssuesDear Chair Helps,We, the undersigned, are a group of concerned business owners from the Capital Region District. The reason for our concern is both past and recent developments regarding the Seaterra program and CRD staff.In its relatively short history, the name Seaterra has already become synonymous with the high cost of bypassing meaningful public consultation. The project’s track record of questionable expenditures, ill advised land acquisitions and in camera decisions is already well documented. Thankfully the program was paused last year. However, in the intervening months, both Seaterra management and CRD staff have seemed unable to adapt to the region’s new direction regarding sewage treatment.As recently as the last Core Area meeting (April 8), directors found out that the Seaterra Commission was still meeting, via conference call, without reporting minutes and that the winning bid on the McLoughlin RFP was being extended without the committee’s input. At this point, it would seem management is either unaware of or unwilling to meet the mandated level of transparency. Regardless of the project’s status, this kind of backroom operating is just simply no longer acceptable.Far more worrisome is the apparent cross-pollination between the project, the contracted engineering consultant and CRD staff. What has been a brewing problem within the CRD for years has finally boiled over into a palpable distrust. Suspicions that staff and consultants are attempting to steer the process towards a predetermined outcome threaten to undermine both the efforts of the Select Committees and the integrity of the CRD itself. The CALWMC’s refusal to accept a staff report on February 18th serves as a public confirmation of the conflict.In the six months since the municipal election, itself a de facto referendum on Seaterra, considerable progress has been made in regards to creating an open and accountable process through the Select Committees. However, if a majority of CALWMC directors feel there has been any attempt by CRD staff or project management to interfere with or obfuscate the process currently underway, further action must be taken. It is certainly understandable to want to spare real people the embarrassment that can come with accountability, but any further accommodation would surely risk undoing the gains made by voters on November 15th.As a group of business owners with a considerable stake in sewage treatment, we’d like to express our support for any democratic means necessary, including a nonconfidence vote, to bring a positive resolution to this situation. With tens of millions in unrecoverable costs, the Seaterra Program has already left an expensive and embarrassing legacy for the region’s taxpayers. We know that the CALWMC is far from
unanimous in its feelings towards the project and the Select Committees. However, we encourage the new chair and the progressive voices within to bring a definitive end to Seaterra and any related dysfunction within the CRD.Yours Sincerely,
signatures attachedCC: Mayor Nils Jensen, CRD Board Chair
All CALWMC Directors and Alternates
