Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADMIN-4-89 11 (a) TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File # �� 3 Res. By-Law y # NESTING: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 23 1989 DATE: ADMIN.4-89 REPORT #: FILE #: SUB,JECT: STUDY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT RELATED TO THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO LAND FILL ISSUE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council: 1. That Report ADMIN. 4 - 88 be received for information. REPORT: At a recent meeting of the previous Council, the Administrator was requested to meet with Mr. C. N. Watson to explore the feasibility of retaining him for purposes of studying the economic impact of all interim landfill sites selected by Metropolitan Toronto within the Town of Newcastle. As a result of several discussions with Mr. Watson and his consideration of the work his firm is presently undertaking, Mr. Watson has indicated that in this particular matter his firm would have a conflict if it carried out the Town's assignment (refer to correspondence provided as Attachment #1) . In his letter, however, Mr. Watson respectfully suggests other experienced practitioners who could undertake the work. ADMIN 4 - 89 Page 2 Accordingly, this matter will be reviewed further as part of the Town's monitoring of the Metropolitan Toronto Landfill issue and a subsequent report and recommendations will be provided to the Committee in the near future. Respectfully submitted, Lawrenc Kotseff Chief A m' nistrative Officer ri 4 1 b LDJ 700L U.N. WMI �Ull .�a av vi a.� �� I . vim ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT ADMIN 4 - 89 C.N. VV atson and Associates Ltd. rNT 11. I Economists 629 The Queensway Telephone (416) 253-8080 Toronto, Ontario MBY 1 K4 VIA FAX January 13, 1989 Mr. Lawrence E. Kotseff Chief Administrative Officer Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance Street Sowmanville, Ontario UC 3Ab Dear Sir: Re: Economic Evaluation of Metro Landfill Alternatives in the Town of Newcastle As you are aware, the matter of Metro' s landfill alternatives arose at Town Council some time ago, when the writer was before Council with the Town's lot levy policy. The desirability of retaining a consultant, such as ourselves, was raised, in order to investigate the economic implications of the Newcastle site alternatives. At that time, the writer mentioned that our Firm had done a small amount of work as part of the Metro team, early in the process. We were unclear at the meeting as to whether: a) our Firm was still a part of the Metro team; and b) since our work was at the broad waste management (as opposed to the site selection) level , would we have a conflict if we also carried out the Town' s assignment. We have conferred with officials at Proctor & Redfern, who are the co- ordinating consultants for the work we have been involved with, and determined that: I a) we are still a part of the team and will be expected to carry out future work for Metro, and b) in accepting the Newcastle assignment, there would, at minimum, be a perceived conflict on our part and this conflict would potentially become quite tangible in future. i U„ 01/13/89 15:55 P. r�z C.N. Watson and Associates Ltd. Mr. Lawrence E. Kotseff - 2 January 13, 1989 For this reason, we must thank you for your interest in our firm on this matter and respectfully decline the invitation. Should you wish to pursue this matter with another firm, practitioners with experience in this area include: Future Urban Research - John Zangari 3633499 Marshall Advisory 229-6356 MorehouseEconomicConServices Peter sultants - SidMorehouse849-1234 We hope this is satisfactory to you and look forward to continuing to work with the Town in the municipal finance and economic impact area. Yours truly, G.N. WATSON AND ASSOCIATES LTD. c.e.. C. N. Watson, CMC I I