Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-04ENVY1995-10-04 OCTOBER 4, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY OF KITCHENER The Environmental Committee met this date commencing at 4:00 p.m. under Councillor T. Galloway, Chair, with the following members present: Councillor C. Weylie and Mr. D. Hilker. Councillor J. Ziegler and Ms. W. Matchett entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials Present: Ms. S. Fisher, Ms. P. Houston and Messrs. T. McKay, B. Stanley, E. Kovacs, B. Musselman, L. Masseo, C. Ford, J. Gazzola, T. Clancy, G. Nixon and L.W. Neil. 1. RAINBARREL PROGRAM (WATER SAVINGS) At the Committee's last meeting, it was requested that the issue of rainbarrels be discussed this date. In this regard, Mr. K. Bowman provided a memorandum advising that he has not investigated any possibilities of a rainbarrel program in the City. It was indicated that such program was one that could be considered under a "Demand Side Management Program"; however, additional resources (financial and staff) would be required to offer the program. Mr. Bowman anticipated being in a better position to report back after budget approval is received for the Demand Side Management Initiative. Mr. E. Kovacs commented that rainbarrels would be part of the Demand Side Management Initiative within the Strategic Plan under Water and Energy. Councillor T. Galloway questioned what Kitchener's approach would be if the Region undertook the program. Mr. Kovacs responded that it would be treated similarly to other initiatives of the Region, meaning the City would work with the Region to complement the program. Mr. D. Hilker questioned if this really meant the City could never take an initiative for preservation of water and Mr. Kovacs replied that there was nothing to stop the City from taking various initiatives. Mr. Hilker suggested that we take the initiative to develop a break-even rainbarrel program. Mr. Kovacs confirmed that staff would bring the matter back to the Committee following 1996 budget finalization. WATERLOO REGION REVIEW - WATER & WASTEWATER, MAY 1995 - (SWEENEY REPORT) The Committee considered the Waterloo Region Review - Water & Wastewater Report dated May 1995 which was mailed to them on September 8, 1995. Also for the Committee's consideration was a draft City of Kitchener Response dated September 29, 1995, prepared jointly by staff of the Public Works and Finance Departments, to the Waterloo Region Review Water & Wastewater Report. The Committee was also in receipt of a submission dated October 2, 1995 from Dr. J. Kay. Mr. J. Gazzola, Ms. P. Houston and S. Fisher attended the meeting on behalf of the Finance Department. Mr. Gazzola advised that senior management staff had made a presentation to the Waterloo Region Review panel on February 28, 1995. He advised that a Tri-City Municipal Staff Committee later reviewed the Water and Wastewater Report and have determined that the report fails to demonstrate that their recommendations would "provide services to the community in the most responsive and cost-effective manner". It is staff's view that the Region Review does not respond to the main issues and that there was no reason for the retail operation of water and sewage operations going to the Region. Mr. T. McKay commented that it appears Kitchener provided the most extensive submission to the Region Review panel and it was his view that the Kitchener delegation was poorly received. He expressed concern regarding the way in which the review panel operates as it is evident the members have no input to the report which is being written by Mr. J. Sweeney, Chair. Mr. McKay stated that at this point, it was his feeling that Kitchener's response should be stronger. The Region Review proposed responsibility for water and sewer at the Regional level as a vehicle to solve financial problems of the Townships at the expense of the City. As well, numerous issues have been ignored in the Review report. In summary, the Review report would reward urban style sprawl in the rural townships. Councillor T. Galloway provided an example of a small, expensive communal water supply system in Linwood that was allowed to develop and which the Region has now assumed. Councillor J. Ziegler entered the meeting at this point. ENVIRONMENTAL MINUTES OCTOBER4,1995 COMMITFEE -91 - CITY OF KITCHENER WATERLOO REGION REVIEW - WATER & WASTEWATER, MAY 1995 - (SWEENEY REPORT) (CONT'D) Mr. T. McKay commented that at the Regional level there are economies of scale in production of water and there are diseconomies in distribution of water; whereas, Kitchener currently has economies of scale relative to its gas and water distribution and administration. Ms. W. Matchett entered the meeting at this point. Mr. T. McKay stated that the basis of the Regional Review was to support a uniform rate structure. Councillor J. Ziegler commented that a uniform rate structure was not in the interest of Kitchener. He noted that there were certain benefits/costs to both rural and urban lifestyles and that while City living has some negatives, there was no reason City taxpayers should incur additional costs to subsidize the negative aspects of rural living. Councillor T. Galloway requested that the Committee identify the Environmental Issues in the Region Review that it wished to comment on and these are outlined below: (a) Urban Development in Rural Areas Mr. McKay commented that the easier it is for rural areas to grow, the more they will grow primarily with Iow density single family dwelling type of development. The Region Review promotes increasing urban development in rural areas identified in the RROP as rural centres. It was agreed nothing should be done on a financial basis that makes it easier to develop in rural areas. (b) Rural Growth By encouraging urban style growth in rural areas, there could be leap frogging of urban growth in favour of rural development at much lower density levels. Also, this rural growth could result in less capacity available to the City to bring about full density development in order to allow for this rural growth. (c) Farmland Lost It was agreed that the Region Review will promote the loss of farmland by promoting rural growth. It was noted that the RROP has boundaries that limit growth around rural communities but that these boundaries reflect present capacity. Extension of water supply will bring about pressure to expand the settlement boundary lines. (d) Infiltration Mr. T. McKay referred to an existing infiltration problem in Elmira that the Region should address. Mr. Gazzola noted that infiltration (discharge of additional effluent) was not an urban problem and that the Region Review does not deal with correcting the infiltration problem. Mr. McKay stated that the Region Review implies that the problem will be solved once there are uniform rates, but Kitchener has solved this problem which is simply a rural problem for which there was no motivation to fix it. There is no need to take over existing systems to solve the problem. Mr. McKay noted that if the Region would move to solve the problem, costs of building larger treatment plants would be avoided. Also, by not solving the problem, additional costs are incurred to treat this excess water. Mr. E. Kovacs commented that in the past, the Province has required infiltration problems to be solved. (e) Water Conservation Mr. E. Kovacs referred the Committee to the staff comment on water conservation which is seen as an area the Region can play a role in. Mr. McKay felt the issue of water conservation was that of working to avoid the necessity to incur extra capital costs. However, investing in additional capacity brings pressure for more urban style development in rural areas. 2. WATERLOO REGION REVIEW - WATER & WASTEWATER, MAY 1995 - (SWEENEY ENVIRONMENTAL MINUTES OCTOBER4,1995 COMMITFEE CITY OF KITCHENER REPORT) (CONT'D) (f) Ground Water Contamination Kitchener supports the Regional government continuing a lead role which it now has. The Committee then discussed other issues centering around financial and customer service aspects. Mr. T. McKay commented that the financial report proved massive duplication does not exist between the Region and local governments on water and sewer issues and that there were very different skill sets utilized by staff in their respective roles. It was noted that City staff consider the $400,000 saving quoted in the Region Review to be fictitious and that in fact Kitchener taxpayers would have to pay 2.8 million dollars more annually if the Region Review recommendations were accepted. Kitchener's fully integrated collection and service operations would be negatively affected by the Region Review recommendations. Further, Mr. J. Gazzola pointed out that combining all of the water and wastewater responsibilities is not doing what the Region originally set out to do. Mr. T. McKay stated that he wished to correct a statement in the C.N. Watson report indicating that Kitchener was subsidizing its system when in fact it is not and he explained the error in the C.N. Watson report. Finally, the Committee indicated it was in general support of the submission prepared by Dr. James Kay. Following further discussion, it was agreed that the Committee would forward its comments to the Finance and Administration Committee for consideration at the FAC October 16th meeting. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That the Finance and Administration Committee be advised that the Environmental Committee, after considering the Waterloo Region Review of Water and Wastewater and the draft City of Kitchener response, has identified environmental concerns and corollary issues respecting the Region Review as outlined below: A. Environmental Concerns/Comments Rural sprawl - the Region Review through the proposal to go to uniform rates, promotes and rewards urban development in rural areas. Rural growth - by supporting rural growth the Region Review will result in inefficiencies due to leap frogging of urban growth. Loss of farmland - the Region Review will promote the loss of farmland by promoting rural growth. Infiltration in rural areas the Region Review addresses an infiltration problem that does not exist in the City where the situation was rectified at the cost of the City taxpayers. It implies a uniform rate structure is the only solution to this rural problem and avoids a recognition that the existing rural problem could be fixed without requiring regional control of water & sewage distribution. Water conservation - is an area the Regional government can play a role and achieve capital savings by deferring the need to expand the capacity of existing facilities. This can be achieved under the present structure. Ground water contamination - the Regional government should take a lead role as per existing authority. WATERLOO REGION REVIEW - WATER & REPORT) (CONT'D) B. Other issues WASTEWATER, MAY 1995 - (SWEENEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMII-FEE MINUTES OCTOBER4,1995 - 93 - CITY OF KITCHENER Financial implications - the Region Review recommendations would cost Kitchener water/sewer users an additional $2,800,000.00 annually. Customer service - the Region Review would negatively affect integrated billing/collection and service response functions provided by Kitchener on matters of taxation, water supply and natural gas operations. That the Environmental Committee does not support many of the key recommendations of the Waterloo Region Review based on the above concerns and disagrees with the main premise of the Review, that in the long term there be full integration of water and wastewater responsibilities at the Regional level. That the Environmental Committee generally supports the submission dated October 2, 1995 on the Waterloo Region Review prepared by Dr. James Kay." 3. DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT The Committee was in receipt of a first draft to revise the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan for the Environment. Mr. B. Stanley stated that he was still waiting for information from some departments in order to verify and revise some aspects of the first draft, but that such information should not affect priorities. Mr. Stanley advised that the draft plan had three significant changes in comparison to the previous approved Strategic Plan. Firstly, the previous plan duplicated in written form what was in tabular form while the new draft plan pays more attention to describing what the initiative is in the tabular format. Secondly, the original Strategic Plan contained a main functional area called "Pollution and Environmental Interference". Staff feel that this occurs in all of the functional areas. Also, a number of educational initiatives were in this functional area. Accordingly, the previous functional area has been revised and redesignated as "Environmental Education and Public Awareness" which includes training and outreach programs. Thirdly, direction was given that previous initiatives that have been completed, not be lost with the production of a new Strategic Plan and Mr. Stanley distributed a summary of completed initiatives. Mr. Stanley stated that there was not much change in wording relating to the objectives and underlying assumptions of the main functional areas. He advised that the staff Environmental Study Group took a first run at the material prior to production of the current first draft plan. He indicated that he would like to further discuss the first draft with the staff group, fill in more detail in the tables and bring a second draft to the Committee to consider and endorse at its November meeting. The Committee was in general agreement with the format of the draft plan with the exception of numbering methodology. The Committee supported a change in numbering wherein the main functional areas would be numbered and this number would be the first number in the Strategic Plan priority reference number. On motion by Councillor C. Weylie, the Committee received the first draft and requested it be revised as suggested. On the issue of an overall Transportation Incentive Policy (2.5 under Environmental Education and Public Awareness), Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he did not support a transit fare reduction for City employees. It was requested that this matter be put on the next agenda for discussion. 4. GREEN ON THE GRAND-TOUR Councillor T. Galloway indicated that possible tour dates were: - Saturday, October 21 at 9:30 a.m. - Friday, November 3 at 1:00 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL MINUTES OCTOBER4,1995 COMMITFEE CITY OF KITCHENER Councillor T. Galloway stated that other groups are visiting the site on these dates to view the building while still under construction. He advised that an additional tour would be planned when the building was completed. It was requested that a newsletter which Mr. Bowman has received, be copied and sent to the Committee for their information. NEXT MEETING It was agreed that the next meeting would be held on November 1, 1995. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk