Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-05-08 CJ. f1 L~~ REPORT CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ~\v-1lon*6(J19-60'-l--O~ Date: April 28, 2008 Report #: CAO-005-08 File: By-law #: Subject: EFW Public Information Session Recommendation It is respectfully recommended that General Planning and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CAO-O05-08 be received; 2. That in the event Council intends to further explore the idea of hosting a Public Information Session with respect to the EFW facility, staff be directed to adhere to the following terms of references: a) The topics to be covered shall include: (select as many as necessary) human health issues, economic issues, site selection issues, etc. b The duration of the session shall be (select one of the following), a two-day, one day or an evening event. c) The presentation format shall be (select one of the following), a panel of experts with no debate, debates among experts, or other format inclusive of questions from the floor. d) Staff to bring forward a separate report with suggested names of available experts for selection by council, as well as suggested date to host the event /\~~Q-,~ Submitted bW ~ Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-5717 REPORT NO.: CAO-O05-08 PAGE 2 1. Background At its meeting held on April 21 st, 2008 Council passed the following resolution: "WHEREAS the incinerator is a highly controversial issue across Durham Region and in Clarington in particular and, WHEREAS there is a clear desire by the public to have a balanced presentation of information regarding the incinerator, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Chief Administrative Officer report back to Council at the next General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting on potential costs and logistics of holding a public information session in order to provide expert opinion on both the 'pro' and 'con' side of having such a facility in Clarington, THAT by letters to the Clerks of the area municipalities, the Mayors and Members of municipal Councils be asked to consider partnering in the public information session, and THAT the Region of Durham be formally requested to allow the consultants that they have hired for the Energy-From-Waste file to participate in the public information session" 2. Clarification of Resolution Although the foregoing resolution appears self explanatory, it would be appropriate to establish a clear understanding of the meaning and intent ofthe resolution, as well as to provide certain assumptions which underpin the comments and discussions that follow: a) This resolution is not a direction for staff to hold a Public Information Session (PIS). Therefore no action will be undertaken by staff unless council directed otherwise b) This resolution does not seek staff comments on the merits of the PIS. Therefore, there will not be any comment or reference made to this matter. c) This resolution requests staff to look at the "potential cost" and "logistics" of holding a public information session. Therefore, this report will only focus on these two elements. d) The resolution makes reference to both the EFW and the "facility" which we interpret as meaning the same thing. Therefore, other waste management options such as landfill, diversion, etc. will not be factored into the 'cost and logistics' discussion. e) The resolution refers to providing expert opinions. We assume this means outside experts. Therefore Clarington staff will not participate in any information presentation REPORT NO.: CAO-005-08 PAGE 3 and or debate. Further, Clarington does not have any expert on staff in matters such as human health and associated environmental impacts. f) The resolution requests partnership with area municipalities and assistance from the Region of Durham. We assume no decision will be made until the Municipality receives the responses from these municipalities. 3. Logistics and Costs The balance of this report will focus on both the "cost" and "logistics" of holding a PIS pertaining to the EFW facility. For ease of understanding, we have broken down the subject matters into several headings and provide comments and discussion under each heading. These headings are: a) Picking the topics b) Choosing the presentation format c) Selecting the experts d) Using a moderator e) Choosing a venue location f) Selecting a date(s) g) Determining the costs 3.1 Picking the topics The current EA process mandates the Region to examine several areas. They include the consideration of alternative ways of residual waste disposal, site selection, and risk assessment (human health, air quality). In addition, economic impact and business case is also subject of considerable interest and discussion. Many consultants' reports, peer review reports, staff reports have been produced on these topics and there will be more reports generated as the EA process progresses. Ultimately the number oftopics being selected for information presentation will determine how much time is needed to be set aside at the PIS. Council has the options of either directing all topics to be covered or selecting a few that it feels is important to the community. In any event, Council should be cognizant of the fact that if all the topics are selected, a minimum of one day and perhaps two days may be necessary just to make sure the experts have the opportunity to present the information in a thorough manner, and presumably to allow sufficient time for questions from the floor. For an evening session, of two (2) to four (4) hours in duration, two or perhaps three topics are probably the most that can be covered in any meaningful way. 3.2 Choosing the presentation format After determining the topics to be presented, a decision is required on the format as to how best to present the information at a PIS. Information sessions undertaken by the Municipality in the past were mostly based on a self-educated format with display of relevant information REPORT NO.: CAO-005-08 PAGE 4 augmented by the presence of staff7consultant/expert to answer specific question on a one-on-one basis. To the extent the resolution refers to 'provide pros and cons sides', it obviously implies some forms of formal presentation. In this regard, the information can either be presented by way ofa panel of experts or having two or more experts debating a particular topic. Since 'questions and answers' is an important feature of any PIS, and for the purpose of encouraging community participation, the question period will be worked into the presentation format by the moderator. 3.3 Selecting the experts There are no shortages of experts who can speak to any subj ect topic related to the proposed EFW facility. However, convincing the experts to attend the PIS could be problematic for several reasons. Firstly, experts are individuals who acquire special skills and knowledge through training and experience in the selected field of study. They generally include academics and consultants but would exclude any individual without the pre-requisite credentials. Experts provide facts; analysis and professional opinions and they are governed or guided by their respective professional associations' code of ethics or code of conducts. As a result, experts seldom take on an advocacy role although their opinions may be interpreted otherwise. Experts will have different points of views but that do not necessarily mean they will take side on a particular issue. We understand the resolution speaks to finding the experts to provide opinions on either the "pro" or the 'con' side. Under this scenario a large number of experts may decline. It may be easier to find experts who are willing to provide a balanced view rather than taking a definitive "pro" or "con" approach. A second potential problem relates to the issue of conflict of interest, perceived or otherwise, faced by the many experts. As Council is aware, there are many experts who have been engaged by the Region and Clarington throughout the EFW EA process. In addition, we believe some experts may have business relationship with the bidders vying for a contract with the Region to build the EFW. The existence contractual agreements will preclude them from participating in the PIS. Request has been forwarded to the Region to see if it would allow its consultants to participate and we will await that decision. In the event those experts who have ties with the EFW project are not available, the municipality can seek out other experts from the consulting and the academic fields. There is also the possibility of seeking experts who are employed by governments and public agencies. Regardless, it would appear premature at this time to decide on the issue of expert selection. Should council decide to go ahead with the public information session, staff will provide a roster of available experts on various topics for Council to consider and to select them. 3.4 Use of Moderator Although the resolution makes no reference to utilize the service of a moderator, it is prudent that a PIS with the scope that envisaged by council be guided by a moderator. Assuming council REPORT NO.: CAO-005-08 PAGE 5 is in agreement and does not wish to be involved in the selection of a moderator; staffwill seek out an experienced individual with emphasis to those who are currently working in the media field. Procedures and ground rules will be necessary to ensure the PIS is conducted in the most efficient and effective manner. Matters such as time allocated for presentation, method of handling questions and answers, etc. would be best left to the moderator to decide. 3.5 Venue location It is difficult to guess the number of people who will attend the PIS. Given the very high interest shown by a large number of individuals, it is reasonable to assume that a large crowd can be expected. Assuming the PIS would be held within Clarington, G.B. Rickard Complex is the only facility that can accommodate upward of 400 persons. This facility is available mostly during day time hours but is generally booked in the evening for various programs and community activities. Depending on the date selected, some users groups may be inconvenienced. 3.6 Date Given several outstanding issues cited previously, it is premature at this time to pick a date even if council decides to go ahead. The most critical element in determining the date is the availability of experts because most have commitments that would preclude their availability on short notice. In addition, significant lead time is also required to plan and organize the PIS. There is an outside chance to have the PIS held in late June or early July but it is contingent on everything moving smoothly. Realistically, an early fall date would be more workable. 3.7 Cost There are many direct costs related to each and every item discussed previously. They include staff time, experts and moderator's fees, facility and equipment, as well as advertising. a) Staff time Planning, organizing, and operating an event ofthis nature and scope requires many hours of staff time, from the CAO to the overtime paid to the extra staff need to be on the day ofthe event. A conservative estimate of total staff time would cost between $3,000 - $5,000. While much of the event planning would be performed by staff during normal working hours by re-arranging work priorities, the time spent does carry a cost and is factored in the total cost equation. b) Experts 'fees REPORT NO.: CAO-005-08 PAGE 6 Unless the Municipality manages to commit experts from the public sector, the cost to engage the service of experts from the private sector is inevitable. Our research in this area reveals that there is a wide range of fee structure for expert to provide expert opinion depending on the subject matter, and how the expert opinions are being used. A similar comparison would be arranging for an expert to speak at a seminar or conference. In those situations, the fee could vary between $3,000 to $5,000 plus transportation and incidental costs. High profile expert will command a higher fee and the number of experts being invited would also impact the total cost. For the purpose of estimating the cost of engaging experts, we assume four experts will be required. c) Moderator'sfee Similarly, the municipality would have to provide an honorarium or fee for moderating service. What one moderator will charge could vary substantial from another. Generally, a moderator will determine his fee structure on the time required to prepare as well as to perform the moderation task. We estimate that a fee of$I,OOO to $2,000 would not be unreasonable. d) Facility and equipment Despite the G.B. Rickard Complex is a municipal facility, there is a hidden cost in using this facility. As mentioned previously, this facility is booked most evenings. If another user is bumped, the municipality probably have to make that extra effort to compensate the loss of booking. The cost of an evening hall rental at the Rickard Complex is around $500. This cost does not include the audio equipments that are required. The Rickard Complex is not set up with the type of audio equipments that can facilitate presentation, debate, or for persons asking questions from the floor. This service would have to be contracted out at an estimated cost of$I,OOO to $1,500. Another potential cost relates to the potential need for security personnel for crowd control purpose. While we do not expect unruly behaviour, over crowding beyond the hall capacity could be an issue. We have provided for a miscellaneous item to account for this cost as well as other unforeseen costs. e) Advertising Given the high profile ofthe proposed EFW facilities and the wide spread interests from individuals both living within and outside Clarington boundary, it would be prudent that the event be widely advertised in all available media that serve the geographical area of Durham Region. Consistent with past practices of public notice, only print media will be used. Based on our current advertising rate with the Metroland newspaper, we extrapolate the rate and estimate that a quarter page advertisement in the Metroland owned newspapers circulated in all area municipalities would cost about $750-$850 per week. There will be additional $100 to $200 for Orono Time depending on the size of the REPORT NO.: CAO-005-08 PAGE 7 ad. In total, we estimate that advertising cost for one week will be in the neighbourhood of$I,OOO. Similar to other public notice requirement, the advertisement shall run for four (4) consecutive weeks at a total advertisement cost of about $4,000. Notice of the PIS will be placed on the municipal web site and requires very minimal stafftirne. Should Council wish to reduce the cost of advertising, a small advertisement can be placed in Page 2 and this will substantially reduce the advertising cost. f) Summary of cost Stafftime Experts' fee (based on 4 experts) Moderator's fee Travel & incidentals for experts Facility & equipments Advertising (4 weeks) Miscellaneous Total $3,000 - $5,000 $12,000 - $20,000 $1,000 - $2,000 $1,500 - $2,500 $1,500 - $2,000 $4,000 $2,000 - $4,000 $21,000 - $39,500 g) Funding sources Council's resolution appears to contemplate financial partnership from the area municipalities and the Region. The cost of hosting the PIS could be reduced if we receive positive feedbacks from these partners. Nonetheless, the maximum amount should be accounted for and fund be set aside for this purpose. Since this is an unplanned event, the cost has not been included in the 2008 budget. The Director of Finance advised that Council can direct to draw funds from the Municipality's Contingency Account which currently has a balance of$28,000, and/or to draw from a Reserve Fund. Total expenditures will be recovered through a general levy to the tax payers in the 2009 budget. It should be noted that the cost estimates are based on a PIS for the EFW facility only. If other waste management options are proposed, the cost estimates would require reconsideration. No decision is required at this time but Council should be aware of the cost implication related to hosting a PIS. 4. Staff Resource Planuing, organizing and operating the proposed PIS is a major undertaking and will require a lot oflead time and staff resources. Significant involvement is required for whoever being assigned to lead this project. Tasks such as fmding the available experts and engaging these individuals are very time consuming. The undertaking of a PIS is not dissimilar in planning and organizing a mini-conference which requires both time and manpower to ensure a well run and well organized REPORT NO.: CAO-005-08 PAGE 8 event. The CAO Office has no staffthat can assist in this undertaking nor does the CAO have any extra hours to spare. Should council decide to go ahead with the PIS, the task would have to be assigned to the Planning Department which at least have the option of shifting priorities and reallocating staff resources to take on this project. In discussion with the Director of Planning, he is very concerned that the current heavy workload in the department would be impacted. Nonetheless, his department is prepared to do whatever council directs. s. Sequence of Actions Assuming Council intent is to proceed and based on the foregoing discussion, it would appear the following steps are necessary prior to Council making the final decision to host the PIS. Step 1 Council renders its decision on key logistical items as contained in the recommendations of this report Step 2 Staff reports to Council on name of available experts suggested date of PIS responses from Area Municipalities and Region Step 3 Council renders decision to either to host or not to host the PIS Step 4 Should Council decide to host the PIS, Council will select the experts confirm the event date approve event budget 6. Conclusion This report covers all the points contained in the Council's resolution of April 21, 2008. The recommendations contained herein reflect the comments and observations made throughout this report, and are consistent with the four-step process mentioned in the previous section.