Has Ontario turned its doctors into bounty hunters?

Posted September 27, 2012

It was reported in the Toronto Star that Ontario doctors are paid $36.25 by the Ministry of Transportation for each driver they report as being unfit to drive.

These are the same doctors who are currently locked into a dispute with the province regarding their pay packages.

A study conducted by Dr. Donald Redelmeier, of the Institute for Clinical Evaluation Sciences, proclaimed, “the reduction in risk was immediate, substantial and sustained.”

There is no question about getting unfit drivers off the roads. There is a question of how it is done. Paying doctors to blow the whistle is not one of them.

Let’s look at a typical scenario. An elderly lady comes into the doctor’s office for treatment of an unrelated matter. The doctor is faced with a dilemma because he feels she should not be driving. So he reports her and receives a cheque for $36.25. The trouble is, he has no knowledge of her driving ability including reaction time, safety habits or record.

Under this system she loses her licence.

The Ministry of Transportation (MOT) is responsible for the licensing of Ontario’s drivers. Its own counselors inform those taking the elderly driver (EDL) classes and tests, that the program has markedly reduced accidents involving seniors. So much so that the age group causing the greatest number of accidents involving death and injury, are the under-25 licence holders.

Where the MOT falls down is failing to test the individual driver’s ability to drive a vehicle. This means that reaction time should be measured along with the physical abilities. The MOT already has a system for testing the eyesight of EDL drivers backed up by optometrists and ophthalmologists.

Any driver involved in an accident or charged with a serious offense under the Highway Traffic Act should be tested by the MOT.

Using driver training devices that test an operator’s ability to function using actual road travel on a screen, allows the MOT counselor to get a complete analysis of the candidate’s ability to drive.

Despite The Star’s editorial stating, “You don’t have to be old or ailing to be a bad driver.” It continues to go on to give several examples of horrific accidents involving old people, only one of which occurred in Ontario.

There’s something sleazy and Orwellian about this process of elimination. It rocks the doctor/patient relationship and excuses the MOT from its primary licensing responsibility.

Of course bad drivers should be taken off the road, regardless of their age.

But place that decision where it belongs: The Ontario Ministry of Transportation.

 

 

Potpourri – a collection of events and comments

Posted September 27, 2012

The chickens are coming home to roost

When the University of Guelph announces it faces a budget shortfall over four years of $34 million, you know that the city is not far behind the economic squeeze of rising costs and lower revenues.

Some of this is due to unbridled ideological spending. The jig is up when the city staff recommends a 8.5 per cent property tax increase for 2013. When Coun. Guthrie challenges the staff for complaining about invoking a 3 per cent plan, he gets lambasted by Coun. Ian Findlay who suggests it’s a transgression that calls for the Integrity Commissioner to adjudicate.

He’s kidding, right?

*            *            *            *            *

Police crack down on U of G homecoming illegal drinking

It’s comforting to realize that Guelph Police are doing a great job in civilizing the rowdiness of homecoming weekend.  Similarly, the current efforts to curb excessive behaviour downtown, appears to be resolving some of the issues that made the area a hellhole on weekends.

The irony is the University still closes its pubs on weekends. That forces students to express their party animal instincts on the public streets of Guelph.

The effort of the police department is stretching resources to the limit. Busting up the neighbourhood “Keggers” those who sell beer from garages, often in single-family areas, is great police work.

Kudos to Chief Larkin, his officers and by-law enforcement officers.

*            *            *            *            *

City public relations machine working overtime

The bins are coming! The bins are coming! The bins are coming!  This is Guelph 2012 not Lexington 1775. For $15 million the public deserves better. Instead of committing to this costly system, there were other options. Also would it not have made sense to test this system to determine if it warranted the huge expenditure?

Personally, I cannot understand why the city sent us a “bin how to” brochure package when it refuses to pick up our waste. There are areas in the city that pay for waste pick-up through their taxes but don’t get the service.

But we still get the propaganda.

*            *            *            *            *

Things are not going well on the legal front

Case One: The effort by the city legal staff to mediate the $19 million dispute between the city and Urbacon Buildings Group has foundered. After two days of testimony before a retired judge acting as private mediator, the exercise failed. In January 2013, the case will go to civil court for judgment. There is a slim chance a settlement can still be reached, but after two days of testimony it is unlikely.

Case Two: The Ontario Municipal Board hearing, heard from the University of Guelph’s chief financial officer, that the proposed Abode Varsity Living proposal was competition to the University’s housing plan. Further he testified that the university cannot fill its some 5,300 on-campus residences.

So let’s get this straight: the University cannot find enough students to fill its accommodation but wants to buy the Abode site to create more housing for female students. What in heck has this to do with alleged improper planning? The city staff convinced council to oppose the proposed twin-tower development, as it was not a fit for the neighbourhood. Having a motel there is okay, it appears.

Do you get the feeling this has nothing to do with planning but a lot to do with what the university wants?

As manager of U of G residences, is Coun. Leanne Piper in the thick of all this?

Case Three: The Ontario Ministry of Labour is suing the city as a result of the washroom wall that collapsed killing a 14-year-old student. This is a messy business. The city has settled with the family. The architect and engineer have both been acquitted of liability. The Ministry is appealing the judge’s decision in that case.

The basis of the Ministry’s suit is that the city was negligent in maintaining the washroom where the death occurred. Judgment is this case is expected in December.

These are just three legal cases that the taxpayers must cover.  The result can be devastating to the city-operating budget.

It’s your money.

*            *            *            *            *

What are the costs that are buried in the multi-page city annual budget that the average taxpayer does not receive or is unable to digest?

What are the operating costs of the Sleeman Centre and River Run theatre?

What is the total of outside consulting fees paid by the city in 2011?

How much does it cost to operate the civic museum and McRae House?

How much has the city spent developing the Hanlon Business Park?

What is the cost of operating the $34 million compost plant?

These are just some of the many questions that taxpayers have the right to know.

Unfortunately, this administration is expert at lying by omission, failing to communicate facts to the public, producing a financial statement that the public cannot understand, holding secret meetings with the Farbridge supporters without public exposure.

This last critique is that the five members of council who are not part of the Mayor’s majority are not included in these meetings. It is also unlawful under the Ontario Municipal Act.

*            *            *            *            *

Why is the Farbridge administration afraid of Cam Guthrie?

The arguments range far and wide. He’s too young. He’s inexperienced. He speaks before his brain starts working.

All ill-informed and cruel descriptions of a councillor who understands how this city has been mismanaged for six years. He knows now what has happened and how it must be fixed. But the Farbridge majority collective discredit him every chance they get.

Why? Because they see him as the catalyst that will awake the citizens to take another course for reform, responsibility and resolve for change.

Whether it’s Cam Guthrie or a tidal wave of rejection of this majority dictatorship, remains to be seen in 2014.

But the tsunami of rejection is gathering.

And the Farbridge controlled administration understands this already.

This time you’ve gone too far, department

Posted September 24, 2012

Coun. Ian Findlay represents Ward Two and has gotten on his high horse over fellow Coun. Cam Guthrie’s comments on his blog about the relationship with the civic staff and council. Guthrie made his comments during an open council meeting, so the blog content was in the public domain.

It appears that Findlay is the designated hitter for the Farbridge dominated council who apparently see Guthrie as a threat to their tightly-wound world of controlling the message.

Indeed, Findlay writes a blog himself for Ward Two in which he pompously declares: “It does not matter whether you are in education, healthcare, media, business or government, you do not publicly criticize subordinates.”

Mr. Findlay, did you doze off at the public meeting where Guthrie made his legitimate points about the 8.5 per cent tax increase that staff wanted to inflict, not only on Guthrie’s constituents , but yours as well?

The very point he was trying to make is that the Chief Administrative Office Ann Pappert’s comments about council’s directive to bring in a three percent proposal was inappropriate when she refers to it as a” regressive decision” and not “palatable”.

Mr. Findlay, you’ve been a councillor for almost six years. Your job is to serve your constituents. It is not to threaten a fellow councillor with some form of sedition or breaking council’s code of conduct.

To suggest that this is a matter for the Integrity Commissioner borders on the highest form of pettiness that is unbecoming of a member of council.

Do you really want to bring Mr. Swayze back to judge whether you and your fellow Farbridge cohorts are right in condemning a fellow councillor who is doing his job questioning the staff?

The last session with the part-time Integrity Commissioner cost the taxpayers some $10,000 and turned out to be a wasted exercise.

Under our system of government, city staff is not immune to criticism, especially when they step over the line.

With respect, I suggest that you start representing the interests of the people who elected you and protect their interests and not the staff who they employ.

Have a nice day.

How the staff views environmental sustainability

A Four Part Series

Note to readers: This is the fourth part of a special guelphspeaks exclusive series of the state of the city and the many unanswered questions that taxpayers should be asking.  As usual, guelphspeaks urges all viewers to tell their friends and family to follow the blog that works to keep citizens aware of how their city works. No smoke and mirrors, just the unvarnished commentary and facts.

Part Four

                  The staff wags its finger

Posted September 22, 1012

Why does Ann Pappert, city CAO, complain about a council directive to keep the 2013 property tax increase to three per cent calling it a “regressive decision”?

Why does the staff warn that services will be reduced if they are required to maintain the council proposed 3 per cent tax increase?

Why does staff believe it is sustainable to insist on an 8.5 per cent property tax increase in 2013?

Why is it going to cost an additional $15 million next year just to maintain the level of services available today?

Why is it that maintaining staff including salaries, wages and benefits, cost 89 per cent of the city’s $174 million operating budget?

When the population of Guelph, during the past six years, has grown by some 3,500 according to Statistics Canada, why was it necessary to increase staff by 358 fulltime equivalent employees in that same time frame?

What is the cost of the long-term taxpayer-funded pension and benefits commitments to these employees in the next 10 years?

What is the problem with staff operations that an outside consultant describes as dysfunctional?

Why is staff morale low?

When Mayor Farbridge and her cohorts were elected in 2006, did the voters understand what she meant by putting Guelph back of track?

Why are downtown condo developers getting multi-year tax breaks and subsidies?

So many questions and so few answers.

This is your city and you are entitled to know how it is being managed. Unfortunately, many of the questions posed in the four part series will never be answered by this administration. The true answers can be embarrassing but citizens are entitled to the answers as it is in the public interest.

Stay turned to guelphspeaks as we endevour to seek and report the truth. Your comments and submissions are always welcome. After all this is the people’s blog. There are no commercial sponsors, no ties to any political party, no outside interests to influence or change the content.

Ask your friends and family to check out guelphspeaks. People working for the future of Guelph.

Contact the editor,  gerrybarker76@gmail.com

How the city staff views environmental sustainability

A Four Part Series

Note to readers: This is the fourth part of a special guelphspeaks exclusive series of the state of the city and the many unanswered questions that taxpayers should be asking.  As usual, guelphspeaks urges all viewers to tell their friends and family to follow the blog that works to keep citizens aware of how their city works. No smoke and mirrors, just the unvarnished commentary and facts.

Part Four

The staff wags its finger

Posted September 22, 1012

Why does Ann Pappert, city CAO, complain about a council directive to keep the 2013 property tax increase to three per cent calling it a “regressive decision”?

Why does the staff threaten to cut services if they are required to maintain the council proposed 3 per cent tax increase?

Why does staff believe it is sustainable to insist on an 8.5 per cent property tax increase in 2013?

Why is it going to cost an additional $15 million next year just to maintain the level of services available today?

Why is it that maintaining staff including salaries, wages and benefits, cost 89 per cent of the city’s $174 million operating budget?

When the population of Guelph, during the past six years, has grown by some 3,500 according to Statistics Canada, why was it necessary to increase staff by 358 fulltime equivalent employees in that same time frame?

What is the cost of the long-term taxpayer-funded pension and benefits commitments to these employees in the next 25 years?

What is the problem with staff operations that an outside consultant describes as dysfunctional?

Why is staff morale low?

When Mayor Farbridge and her cohorts were elected in 2006, did the voters understand what she meant by putting Guelph back of track?

Why are downtown condo developers getting multi-year tax breaks and subsidies?

So many questions and so few answers.

This is your city and you are entitled to know how it is being managed. Unfortunately, many of the questions posed in the four part series will never be answered by this administration. The true answers can be embarrassing but citizens are entitled to the answers as it is in the public interest.

Stay tuned to guelphspeaks as we endevour to seek and report the truth. Your comments and submissions are always welcome. After all this is the people’s blog. There are no commercial sponsors, no ties to any political party, no outside interests to influence or change the content.

Invite your friends and family to check out guelphspeaks.ca — people working for the future of Guelph.

Contact the editor,  gerrybarker76@gmail.com

The murky management of Guelph’s sewage sludge

A Four Part Series

Note to readers: This is the third part of a special guelphspeaks exclusive series of the state of the city and the many unanswered questions that taxpayers should be asking.  As usual, guelphspeaks urges all viewers to tell their friends and family to follow the blog that works to keep citizens aware of how their city works. No smoke and mirrors, just the unvarnished commentary and facts.

Part Three

                Sewage treatment saga

Posted September 21, 2012

Why spend an estimated $20 million to build two stainless steel glass-lined storage silos for collecting processed sewage sludge, most of which is currently going into landfill sites?

Has the 2011 request for proposal (RFP) to build the storage tanks been completed and a contract awarded?

Has the storage tank construction begun at the wastewater treatment plant?

How is this project being financed?

What are the terms of the contract with Lystek, the human waste fertilizer company based in Cambridge, to take Guelph’s sewage sludge and convert it to liquid to be spread on agricultural lands?

Does Lystek’ system infuse dewatered sewage sludge with raw sewage from porta-pottys, septic systems and aircraft toilets to liquify for distribution?

What are the dangers to residents of consuming food products grown on lands fertilized with human waste?

Are consumers warned of potential dangers of foods grown on lands fertilized with human waste?

Why spend more money to turn human waste into fertilizer when experiments with the Lystek system in the past five years has resulted in utilizing only 15 per cent of the sewage plant output?

Are the storage silos going to store sewer sludge from other municipalities?

Why is 85 per cent of Guelph’s sewage sludge being transported to three different landfill sites in Ontario and the U.S.?

Is the plan to stop transferring the material to landfills?

Why hasn’t the city informed the public in clear terms what the plan is to dispose of sewage sludge?

When staff is questioned, why is there an embargo on revealing sewage waste plans?

What is the position of the federal and provincial health and environmental authorities in respect to using human waste as agriculture fertilizer?

              Stimulus projects

Why spend federal/provincial infrastructure stimulus funding on bicycle lanes, Sleeman centre time clock?

Why was it necessary to call the $30 million note with Guelph Hydro to finance stimulus projects?

Did the city meet the federal/provincial stimulus completion deadlines in order to obtain the qualifying grants?

If not, were taxpayers forced to pay additional funds to complete the stimulus projects?

Are all the approved stimulus projects completed?

If not, what projects remain to be completed?

Would it be a good idea to inform taxpayers of the status of these projects that have disrupted the city for some three years?

Tomorrow, September 22, the fourth part of this series discusses the staff’s response to a council directive to maintain a three per cent 2013 property tax increase.

How Council turned Guelph into the lab-rat of sustainability

 A Four Part Series

Note to readers: This is the second part of a special guelphspeaks exclusive series of the state of the city and the many unanswered questions that taxpayers should be asking.  As usual, guelphspeaks urges all viewers to tell their friends and family to follow the blog that works to keep citizens aware of how their city works. No smoke and mirrors, just the unvarnished commentary and facts.

 

Part Two

Posted September 20, 2012

In six years, city council, dominated by Mayor Karen Farbridge and her majority cadre of environmentalists and heritage supporters , has increased city debt, property tax revenues, user fees and annual budgets. They’ve done it to accommodate its unsustainable drive to turn the city into the waste reduction, recycling and reusable capital of Canada.

And they’ve done it on the backs of we taxpayers.

Some $100 million has been spent or will be spent on projects all of which have failed to meet expectations or predictable results.

Here are Some questions that need answers:

            The Watson Road organic compost plant

Why build a $34 million compost plant that is six times the size needed to process Guelph’s wet waste of 10,000 tonnes per year?

What are the terms of the contract(s) with Maple Reinders, designer and builder of the compost plant?

How was this compost project financed?

What are the carrying costs of operating the plant?

What are the operational costs of the plant?

Were there change orders approved during construction and during the testing period of the plant?

What was the taxpayer’s cost of these orders?

Was there a business plan developed before the project contract was awarded?

How is the compost plant going to be self-sustainable with only half its 60,000 tonne capacity being utilized?

When will this plant become approved by the Ministry of Environment and start producing useable compost?

Why was it necessary to purchase 900 tonnes of wet waste from Hamilton to conduct a second trial run of the plant?

With tonnes of compost being created at full production, how is it going to be disposed?

What is the city going to do about the odours still emanating from the plant during the recent test?

Why ignore a Ministry of Environment (MOE) 2009 directive of allowing biodegradable plastic bags to be delivered to the new compost plant?

Why, instead of using the established system of collecting pre-sorted waste, contract to spend another $15 million on an untried collection system involving custom made trucks and bins?

Was this contract tendered?

Finally, why are Guelph’s waste management salary and benefits cost of $65.05 per capita so much higher compared to Waterloo Region’s per capita cost of $12.47 for performing the same work?

Tomorrow, Part Three with more questions about sewage treatment needing answers concerning your city.

 

 

Class warfare erupts at One Carden Street

A Four Part series 

Note to readers: This is the first part of a special guelphspeaks exclusive series on the state of the city and the many unanswered questions that taxpayers are asking.  As usual, guelphspeaks urges all viewers to tell their friends and family to follow the blog that works to keep citizens aware of how their city works. No smoke and mirrors, just the unvarnished commentary and facts.

Part One

Posted September 19, 2012

In July, Guelph council called on staff to report back with a draft budget that limited the property tax increase to 3 per cent in 2013.

This was the response to a draft proposal by city staff to increase property taxes by 8.5 per cent.

This week the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) described council’s stand as a “regressive decision.” Ann Pappert went on to say that there had been “incremental scraping” of the operating budget in the past few years.

But she didn’t stop there.  She stated she is “seeing things that I’m not finding palatable.”

Well Ms. Pappert has only been on the job for some ten months so perhaps she may be overreacting a bit. It’s obvious that the senior staff members who closed ranks behind their leader could not care less about the ordinary taxpayer and his or her ability to pay.

This group includes the same top guns earning in some cases, $166,000 a year plus benefits. They are not going to lose their job unless they commit some egregious act that would result in being fired. This would include a hefty severance allowance.

To have the effrontery to threaten council that there could be $15 million in services cuts if they failed to accept the staff 8.5 proposals is beyond reason.

Ms. Pappert claimed the budget should balance affordability with sustainability. To be truthful, I think Guelph should rein in the multi-million capital projects aimed at sustainability. Now we are told that approval has been granted to build two biosolid holding tanks at the sewage treatment plant costing an estimated $20 million.

Already some $50 million has been spent on an organic composting facility that is six times greater than the current needs of the city. Add on another $15 million for a bin collection system. The plant, after opening a year ago, has still to be approved by the MOE and process an once of Guelph wet waste into garden-ready compost.

Coun. Jim Furfaro said council had to be cognizant that there has to be the ability to pay for services. He added asking citizens to pay more than the three per cent would “be devastating.”

The battle between ambitious elitist city staff and the taxpayers finds council caught in the middle.

They enrage voters with passing a budget with an 8.5 per cent tax increase or they cut expenses with almost the same effect.

This all didn’t happen this year. The Farbridge administration has been juggling costs and revenues, while continuing with aggressive capital spending now running over an estimated $100 million. This represents capital funds spent to date. Planned future projects include $63 million for a downtown library, $16 million to create a riverside park on the site of a thriving commercial area. Also missing from the list of past projects are the $16 million Wilson Street parking garage and the south end recreation centre estimated to cost $37 million.

This city cannot sustain the escalating spending of this administration.

It is only a matter of time before the party is over. That time is fast approaching.

Unless council has the political will to create a realistic budget that can be managed by taxpayers, there will be a new council elected in two years that will take action to rein in the spending.

It’s interesting why Ms Pappert chose this time to become very aggressive about maintaining the 8.5 per cent staff-sponsored increase. Two accountants could chop $15 million from the budget in a New York minute. But this is about preserving the cushy status quo.

So staff puts the wagons in a circle and defends their position with passion and thunder.

My guess is the budget will increase property taxes by 3.5 per cent.

It’s still too much.

Part Two tomorrow. How council has turned the city into the lab rat of waste management.

Now the other shoe drops

Poated September 17, 2012

Remember last fall when the resigning manager of development planning in the city leaked a report?

Wel,l part two has arrived in the form of an 81 page report that staff morale is continuing to bottom as confusion between departments and council stalls development projects.

In the first act of this play, the consultant stated the word was out among those enterprises seeking to set up shop in Guelph described as “ the Guelph Factor”.

dysfunctional council, planning, and economic staff, managerial chaos rampant in the halls of One Carden Street.

The report focuses heavily on internal issues at city hall. It emphasizes “unnecessary conflicts between the planning and economic department departments”. The crunch comes when the economic development staff pushes for advancing industrial projects ahead of other development projects.

This thrust comes right from the top, aka the Mayor and her majority in council.

The back-story is that in almost six years this council has failed to increase the ratio of industrial commercial of 16 per cent of all assessment. This leaves the 84 per cent of taxpayers as the heavy lifters when it comes to budget time.

Topping it off is the provincially mandated University of Guelph deal that pays in lieu of property taxes a rate of $75 per student. That so-called bed-tax has been in effect since 1983 without any increase.

Last year the university property tax bill was about $1.6 million. Compare that property tax contribution to the total city 2012 budget of $174 million.

Let’s paraphrase from the report: The complexity of the issues – in the review process has increased. This is due to the city’s goals (council) related to sustainable development and active participation of stakeholders and the public in the development review process and this is impacting workload.

Okay, let’s interpret that.

First: This council believes that “sustainable development” means only approving projects that meet environmental and council’s community standards. These include accommodating the developmental growth of the university; control of what they believe is waste management; setting heritage standards; paying to operate a transit system; paying generous civic staff salaries, wages and benefits.

Second: Who are the stakeholders as described in the report? The civic unions; the downtown business improvement organization; the police, fire and EMS services?

Third: Is it not interesting that the public is third in line for consideration?  It is the hallmark of this administration that has dominated Guelph civic management for six years. Council’s delusional mantra is the taxpayers will always pay.

The report concludes that: “Guelph is seeking to become a world leader in sustainable development, energy conservation and new agro-biology technology.”

Is this what Guelph is all about?

To become a world leader?

This is monument building on the grand scale.

This city needs responsible financial management, attainable goals that serve the citizens and stop this disastrous reach for the stars as exercised by the Mayor and her cohorts.

If you give a mouse a slab of cheddar, you know what’s going to happen.

Is Dundalk a harbinger of waste disposal trouble for Guelph?

Posted September 17, 2012

The Ontario Community of Dundalk is currently divided over a project being constructed in the town’s Eco-Park to process municipal biosolid sewage waste from communities as far away as 100 kilometers.

What are biosolids?  Plainly it is the sludge material left over from treatment of sewage at a municipal sewage plant.

The Dundalk Organic Material Recovery Centre (OMRC) is being built by Cambridge -based Lystek International. Lystek specializes in commercializing biosolids treatment technology from wastewater facilities. They claim that the Lystek processed sewage sludge, although it still contains all the toxic metals, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, makes a liquid biosolids that has lower bacteria and may have less odour.  Because it is liquid, there is more of it than the dewatered biosolids.

Guelph’s sewage operation produces approximately 20,000 tonnes of dewatered sewage sludge every year.  Lystek equipment was piloted in Guelph and by 2007, an agreement was signed, requiring the city to buy and install a full commercial-sized Lystek operation in our city at a cost of  $1.25 million.

But Guelph puts only a small fraction of its sewage sludge through the Lystek system.  For the past 5 years only about 15 per cent of the Guelph wastewater plant sludge output was processed through the city- owned Lystek equipment, for distribution on farmer’s fields.

Distribution to farms is undertaken under the Ontario Nutrient Management Act regulations through a contract to Terratec, a subsidiary of the giant American Water Services. Spreading the product can only be done between April and November because of weather conditions. Also, many farmers are concerned about damage to land and livestock if they use treated human waste as fertilizer. No organic farms can use Lystek’s products or any kind of sludge.

So what happens to the rest of the sludge? The Guelph sewage plant never sleeps. It is a never-ending process of treating human waste. Accordingly, 85 percent of the dewatered biosolids from Guelph goes into landfills in Ontario and the United States without running through the Lystek equipment.

Back to Lystek’s Dundalk operation. Although still under construction, it has not been approved by the Ministry of Environment (MOE). Is all this starting to sound familiar? Has not Guelph’s $34 million wet waste-composting plant yet to receive MOE approval to commence full operation?

Burbling in the background of all this is a concerted effort by a University of Waterloo professor to sell a sludge system that doesn’t address the toxic metals, chemicals and pharmaceuticals found in Guelph’s biosolid sewage sludge.

The science supporting this is beyond my pay grade.

What I do understand is the danger of spreading Lystek treated human waste on pastures and fields.  Sewer wastes come not only from homes but also from industries, hospitals, porta potties and airlines.  Why can’t human waste be spread such as manure from farm animals, a practice used for centuries? Because the toxic elements in human originated sewage waste can filter up through the food chain to our tables from agriculture lands using the stuff.   For example, cows feeding on Lystek treated pastures could ingest sludge- tainted food and pass it on to unsuspecting families and food processing enterprises.

Once Lystek finishes processing sewage from the municipal plants, the finished product is not a nice, fluffy dried compost, it’s a stinky, liquid slurry. They claim is it is perfectly safe to use as fertilizer.

Now here’s the kicker. In 2006, the City of Guelph issued a request for proposal (RFP), to build a super-sized biosolids storage facility, then estimated to cost $11 million. It is now estimated to cost more than $20 million. This was planned to store Lystek’s “product” until it could be disposed in the warmer months.  The planning that went into this would permit Lystek to pump in biosolid material obtained from other Ontario communities.  But since Guelph can only find a few farm fields to spread with Lystek, why store the Lystek when they can’t even spread the current output?

The city’s rationale is that the current practice of sending biosolids to the landfill would end and the result would be the nirvana of recycling sewage for the public good.  But the public good is not served by delivering toxic metals and chemicals to our food lands. And clearly farmer demand is very limited.

Guelph has built its $34 million wet waste composting plant to convert home-produced organic materials.  The design called for processing 60,000 tonnes of wet waste per year. But the city produces only 10,000 tonnes per year. To the rescue comes Maple Reinders, the plant designer and contractor. Through its subsidiary company, Aim Environmental, a contract with the Region of Waterloo guaranteed another 20,000 tonnes per year.

This still leaves another 20,000 tonnes in total capacity remaining.

It is possible to mix treated biosolid sewage sludge with residential wet waste to produce usable compost?  While current Ontario regulations make this unlikely, it may be coming in the future.  As an aside, in Denmark, they burn the biosolids to heat their buildings.

Could Guelph be planning to use its new Watson Road composter to process liquid biosolids? This would create the mother of all ammonia smells providing an even greater public protest.

What are the terms of the contracts made with Lystek and Maple Reinders?

Or are we stuck with a white elephant on Watson Road that is overpriced and overbuilt? Why should Guelph taxpayers spend $20 million to create housing silos for storing sewage plant sludge that has little or no market?

This party is only beginning.