How Farbridge moves the ball downfield

Here is another example how the Farbridge administration shifts responsibility.

The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) will evaluate the technical report on what’s wrong with the $34 million compost plant. Maple Reinders, designer and contractor of the plant along with its two wholly controlled subsidiary companies, prepared the report.

I’m informed that this report is of such a technical nature that the average person, such as those on the CAC, will not understand the impact of the suggested remedial changes Maple Reinders is proposing.

Taxpayers should ask why the City’s waste management department isn’t vetting this report and recommending its findings to council – the people’s representatives?

It appears this is not a simple operation problem incurred at start-up. It is most likely a design problem that rests with Maple Reinders.

Council chose to get in bed with Maple Reinders because its proposal claimed to be the latest and most innovative solution converting the city’s wet waste into compost. Well, it hasn’t worked out that way.

Is Guelph the guinea pig for radical solutions to convert wet waste into environmentally safe production of compost?

Stay tuned to this. It’s going to be quite a while before a solution is reached. That is if one can be reached.

Meanwhile our Teflon Mayor shifts responsibility onto a volunteer board of citizens.

As usual, it’s your money.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines

4 responses to “How Farbridge moves the ball downfield

  1. KS

    $59,500.00 that was not in the original proposal from Maple was added for roughing in a power booster in the stack, however it was never installed during construction. Why is it’s installation not part of the action plan? Also in the original contract document between Maple and the city, an acid scrubber was not part of the original proposal, however a budget price of $25,000.00 was added to rough one in without installation. If the acid scrubber is important enough to be a part of the action plan, why was it not included when the original contract was signed and what was the total installed cost since just roughing it in was a budget of $25,000.00? The PLC will at least try and get some answers.

  2. KS

    PLC Meeting December 16/11: The question was asked to the MOE Director of West Central Region Bill Bardswick, was an amendment made to the C of A to allow for a commissioning or phasing in period after the “start up date”? The answer was NO! Commissioning is a term only in the contract documents to determine the “Substantial Performance of the Work” and not a term used in the C of A.

  3. Craig Chamberlain

    Thanks for providing this blog, well written. Perhaps the best writing in the city. All the best in 2012!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s