EA Study for Tiny doesn't wash

W A R N I N G Tiny Taxpayers Awake!!

What you are about to read could elevate your blood pressure, but definitely will damage your bank account. This story is about big bucks like proposals costing up to $39 MILLION. It is an awesome example of fiscal gullibility on a runaway train.

The focus of this story is on the Study results of a Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) dealing with the water and sewage services of a shoreline community and/or a municipal sewage treatment plant. We have to go behind the scenes and find out "What's Going On?"

The Federation formed a committee to monitor this Class EA Study and prepare the Federation's position on the proposals. We are extremely fortunate to have had the services of people who have extensive knowledge and experience with these matters.

As the Class EA process requires, the Federation's response to the proposed alternate solutions has been submitted to the consulting engineers. The Federation says: STOP the Class EA because comprehensive testing of the water supplies and septic systems of all homes in the area has not been done.

You, a taxpayer, probably paid no attention to the invitation you received with your tax bill in mid-February, 1996. It invited you to attend an Open House at Tiny's Municipal offices on a Saturday, in April to view "the study material completed under Phase I and II of the Class Environmental Assessment". If you thought that the invitation sounded like it was written in technical gobblygook, you would have been right. Moreover, if you had travelled to Tiny, you probably would not have come away any the wiser. The flyer never mentioned what it will cost you in dollars and cents.

A Committee of Council (Deputy Mayor Doug Taylor, Councillors Susan Kronschnabl and Evelyn Klym) could recommend to Council that something be fixed which may not be broken and do so at a cost of up to $39 MILLION, depending upon which alternative or alternatives is/are chosen.

You are probably saying: "I don't live near Balm Beach/Ossossane (Conc 8, 9 and 10). What do I care what they do down there about water and sewers"? That's where you're wrong. You should care, not only for the concerns of the people at Balm Beach/Ossossane, but you want to be sure that there really is a "problem". Has it been investigated and defined properly? Are the proposed solutions feasible and financially manageable?

If Tiny Township Council decides to adopt any "alternative" other than the status quo, you, the taxpayer, will have to pay the Township's share of a local improvement (20% to 25%) or 100% of any improvement deemed to benefit all taxpayers.

HOW IT BEGAN... In 1987, members of the "Pure Water Balm Beach Committee" met with Tiny's Council to discuss a communal water system in the Balm Beach/Ossossane area. Responding to the request, Council asked its consulting engineers, Ainley, to produce a Conceptual Design Brief for a proposed Water System for that site - study cost estimate was $15,000.

In July 1991, Ainley submitted its conceptual proposal for the Balm Beach/Ossossane Water System Project. It covered 1367 lots in Conc. 8,9 and 10. For reasons not stated, an alternative proposal was designed to include 500 lots in Conc 11 (Cawaja, Rowntree and Lefaive Developments) to the north of the area being investigated.

In the Fall of 1991, the 1367 property owners in the area received a survey questionnaire with a cost estimate based on the Ainley proposal that set out two alternative water supply systems. One proposal depended on a Ground Water supply (wells) with a price tag of $12,582 per lot. The second proposal, using Surface Water intake (from Nottawasaga Bay) and a filtration plant, etc. with a price tag of $22,019 per lot. The property owners were asked to answer 'yes' or 'no' as to which option they would support. Of the 1367 questionnaires mailed, 455 were returned and 425 rejected both options.

It is important to keep in mind that, in 1991, the 'conceptual design' only provided for WATER; a sewage system was not included.

Although Ainley's 1991 study recommended an Environmental Assessment for the proposed water system, they noted that "due to the lack of sufficient background information on compliance of the existing individual wells and septic systems, the project was not expected to qualify for grants."

SCDHU's Balm Beach Survey The next summer (1992), the Simcoe County District Health Unit (SCDHU) undertook the 'Balm Beach Area Sanitary Survey'.

The survey results disclose that 970 septic systems were "classified" but only 219 homes had water tests taken of their wells. (One wonders where the 'surveyor' got details, i.e., age, size, location, distance requirement, level of function of 970 septic systems if only 219 occupants were home to give water samples.)

From the 219 homes, 43% of the tested wells showed unsatisfactory bacteriological water quality. Again, details were missing as to whether it was a representative sample.

Ainley Prepared a Funding Application In June 1994, armed with the SCDHU survey, Ainley, directed by motion 146/94 of the previous Township Council, prepared an application for provincial funding assistance for a Class EA for the Balm Beach/Ossossane area. The estimated cost of the Class EA was $590,000, $140,000 of which was requested for a detailed assessment of the septics and wells.

Shortly after the present Council was elected, in January 1995, a response to the Application was received; it deferred the funding request. The response stated: "a second survey showing similar results, matched with the results of the initial survey, would be adequate evidence of problems that may warrant funding."

Council Widens Scope of Survey A motion prepared by Ainley for Council, was passed in May, 1995; it authorized Ainley to renew the funding application and "to undertake an Environmental Assessment" regarding "sanitary sewage servicing concerns related to existing and future development in the municipality". It wasn't until January, 1996 that water servicing was added to the study.

The May 1995 motions of the Council of Tiny broadened the original Balm Beach/Ossossane study to a Township wide study. A very costly upgrade.

More Testing In July 1995, Ainley conducted limited testing under the supervision of the SCDHU at a cost of under $10,000. Ainley tested 89 wells; 35% were found to have a problem. This appeared to "confirm" that the problem discovered in 1992 was apparently still present in 1995 because the numbers appeared to be consistent - 43% in 1992 and 35% in 1995.

In the autumn of 1995, Council appointed three of its members to be the Class EA Committee: Deputy Mayor Doug Taylor, and Councillors Evelyn Klym and Susan Kronschnabl.

WHERE'S THE STUDY MONEY COMING FROM? A 1994 application for provincial government funding assistance to study sanitary concerns in the Balm Beach/Ossossane area was submitted by the previous Council. Work to continue the previous Council's initiative was done and a revised application for funding assistance was submitted in 1995. In early 1996, it was announced that 58.5% funding assistance had been granted to a maximum of $371,326. If the study costs were $634,745., the taxpayers' portion would be $263,419.

This funding is only towards the cost of studying the issue. There is no promise of any provincial government funding for capital works.

A township wide Class EA Study for water and servicing is NOW underway in Tiny; this would be a run away train.

Proposals have been presented for both water and sewage servicing in the Balm Beach/Ossossane community. If a decision is made to proceed and a sewage collection system is constructed, a sewage treatment plant may be required. Another proposal presented is for the construction of a sewage/septage treatment plant to service hauled septic tank wastes and holding tank wastes. There are many proposals before Tiny's Council - each with a big buck price tag.

For example: (i) if Solution #5 for water and sewage servicing were chosen, $8 to $10 million of the costs would fall on the backs of all Tiny's taxpayers (20% to 25% of the total price tag of $40 million); the remaining portion of the debt would be the responsibility of the 1367 property owners in the Balm Beach/Ossossane area, or

(ii) if "just" a sewage treatment plant and a septage facility were chosen, the $12 million cost would fall on the backs of all Tiny's taxpayers.

These figures make MVA pale by comparison; In 1995, Tiny's taxpayers strongly opposed the countywide MVA proposal which would have had added $2 million more to their tax bills each year.

IS THE BASIS FOR THE PRESENTATION OF SOLUTIONS SOUND? Study funding was requested to investigate the problem and design solutions to rectify the problem.

There is a basic flaw in the whole process.

The "problem" has not been identified.

In July, 1995, Ainley did limited testing under the supervision of the SCDHU at a cost of under $10,000. Ainley tested 89 wells; 35% were found to have a problem. This appeared to confirm that the problem discovered in 1992 was apparently still present in 1995 because the numbers appeared to be consistent - 43% in 1992 and 35% in 1995.

It should be noted that, in 1995, Ainley chose as its sample group only the worst of the 1992 test locations. If only the worst of the 1992 tested wells were investigated in 1995, one would expect that the test results would show some 99.99% of the wells had a problem. Actually, the 35% figure in 1995 indicates that there has been a phenomenal improvement in water quality between 1992 and 1995 in two-thirds of the wells tested.

The MoEE should be asked to conduct, in accordance with MoEE criteria, a comprehensive sampling of the water supplies and septic systems of 100% of the homes in the Balm Beach/Ossossane area to identify the problems, if any. This should happen after this Class EA is closed.

Funds are available for this assessment because $140,000 was specified for this purpose in the 1994 Application.

If a complete assessment is done, the SCDHU and the MoEE have authority to order the owner to correct "a problem". The onus is then on the owner, where it belongs, not on the whole community.

Following the 1992 SCDHU Study, the directions given by MoEE and the SCDHU and the actions taken by the affected home owners proved to be effective as demonstrated by the 1995 test results.

The study should be discontinued; then a detailed investigation of the Balm Beach/Ossossane area can be conducted by the MoEE.

THE FEDERATION: (i) supports solution Number 1 for Water Servicing, and

(ii) supports solution Number 1 for Sewage Servicing, that is, the Federation supports "MAINTAINING EXISTING CONDITIONS" as set out in the Federation's response to the questionnaire. The Federation opposes all other alternate solutions presented.

(iii) maintains that the testing process is grossly flawed and, therefore, the results should not be the basis of any decision or action, and

(iv) maintains that it would be absolute folly to launch any multimillion project based on these tests and these results.

The Federation is against: (I) the PROCESS, (II) the PROJECTS, and (III) the proposed DEBT.

THE FEDERATION ASKS THESE QUESTIONS

The Most Important Question: in the 1994 Application for funding, Ainley said there was a need for a "second study which will form the basis for existing conditions for the Environmental Study Report and to provide sufficient background information to meet future funding criteria." Should Ainley be proposing solutions if the necessary investigations to identify the problem, if any, have never been done?

Why was no mention made to the property owners that servicing brings intense development, which changes the character of a community? Why have the taxpayers of Tiny not been asked their views about such a radical change to the blueprint of Tiny?

Why is there no proposal that a socio economic study be done to determine whether the taxpayers are prepared to fund the "big ticket" solutions?

Why was there no announcement to the taxpayers of the Study funding assistance?

Why, as part of the study materials, was there no explanation of the "Class EA process"?

Why is there no cost benefit analysis and a cost recovery strategy for each solution proposed?

Why are future maintenance costs for any proposed installations not presented?

Why was the question: "Who Pays, How Much and For What?" never answered?

The June, 1994 Application included the 1991 study summary with its proposal to extend service to a future anticipated 500 lots north of the study area in concession 11. Why was Conc 11 targeted for proposed expansion? Are the residents of Conc. 11 (Cawaja, Rowntree and Lefaive Developments) aware of the possibility of this proposed expansion?

Is the Class EA Committee of Council aware that water quality is not a municipal responsibility? Did Ainley advise the Committee that the MoEE is responsible for drinking water quality in Ontario and that MoEE has the authority to address the problem and that the onus is then on the owner, where it belongs, not on the whole community?

Is the Class EA Committee of Council aware that the MoEE and the SCDHU took such actions after the 1992 Study and that those actions proved to be effective as demonstrated by the 1995 tests results?

Is the Class EA Committee of Council aware that the township owns few roads in Conc. 10 and that extensive legal work would be required before the township had legal access to be able to work on the roads?

Why was no water source identified before proposing solutions?

Is the Class EA Committee aware that hauled septic wastes are the responsibility of the hauler and not the responsibility of the municipality?

Why is there a failure to identify the site where the proposed sewage treatment plant would be located?

Why is the site of the proposed outfall from the treatment plant not identified?

Why is there not one solution that could be considered feasible in the present era of: no government funding, federal, provincial and county downloading, plant closures, forced early retirements, recession and a community composed of so many on fixed incomes?

Are those responsible unaware that raising taxes in the amounts contemplated to fund the proposed solutions is not a viable option in the present economic climate?

WHEN IS DECISION TIME? Tiny Township Council will soon be reviewing the comments found in the questionnaires given out at the Open House; after that, it will make a decision.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? Decide whether or not you want a large increase in your municipal taxes, an increase that could be repeated for, say, 10 years. If you say: "I care and I don't want a huge increase in my taxes this year or any year"; NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT.

WHAT YOU CAN DO? The Federation will continue to monitor and report on this issue. However, that is not enough. If you agree with our position, it is up to you to protect YOUR pocket book. HOW? Contact the members of Council and tell them to STOP THE CLASS EA NOW BEFORE THE RUNAWAY TRAIN KNOCKS YOU DOWN.