Union calls on council to reject biosolids proposal

The union representing city workers is calling on city council to reject the biosolids plant proposal at the Jan. 26 city council meeting, citing "unknown risks" to taxpayers.

The plant is needed to replace the city's current method of disposing of biosolid sludge. Currently, the city transports and dumps the sewage sludge in Vale tailing ponds in Lively, but both Vale and the Ministry of the Environment has told the city it must stop by the end of 2012.

City staff is currently recommending a biosolids treatment plant option that would see the city own the facility, but it would be financed, built, operated and maintained by the private sector.

The private sector company would be chosen through a request for proposal process.

But Fred Posadowski, CUPE 4705 president, said the option presents "unknown risks" for the city's taxpayers.

“The private model being recommended would result in less accountability (and) more uncertainty over future costs and the City would still be liable for future environmental problems and failures if the company walks away,” he stated in a press release.

“In addition to construction, this model would hand over financing and operation of the facility for 20 years to the private sector.”

Oscar Poloni, partner with KPMG, a finance consulting company which advised the city on different types of projects and costs, told the city's policy committee on Jan. 19 that while the proposed model would initially cost the city more, it would cost less in the long run. He also noted that should the city choose the proposed model, it would be eligible for 25 per cent capital funding through the federal government. Poloni also said the chosen company would assume a higher risk factor, meaning if something were to go wrong, the responsibility would fall on the company and not the city.

Fred Hahn, president of CUPE Ontario, stated in a press release that other communities have had problems in the past with this type of project, known as a P3.

“Time and again P3s have been shown to deliver less value and public oversight while delivering more risk and cost to the public,” he stated. “We've seen it in Hamilton, we've seen it in Picton, and we've seen it everywhere we see proposals like this one. The promised benefits never materialize, and residents are left to pay the price through higher taxes and user fees while corporations siphon public monies to pad their bottom lines.”

CUPE presented Greater Sudbury Council a submission outlining problems with P3 projects in June 2010.

The policy committee voted unanimously to proceed with the project under the proposed model at the policy committee meeting on Jan. 19, and a decision is expected on the issue at city council on Jan. 26.