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