Public Budget Consultation Meeting

"Public" Noticeably Absent from Podium

[This annual meeting substitutes for the afternoon and evening public information sessions that used to be held at a public venue, such as Midtown Hall, prior to 2006. In the democratic era, managers from city departments would attend the session (including fire and police service representatives), set up a display, give out copies of their budgets, and answer visitors' questions directly - without having the Mayor, councillors, City Manager, or City Clerk run interference for them. From the City's point of view, it was logistically complex. But it did give citizens a clear and present opportunity to comment on budget priorities and specific expenditures. The number of speakers at the annual budget consultation meeting held in council chambers has dwindled to a handful of repeat petitioners.]


START: 7:00 PM

ABSENTEE: Councllor Swystun (ward 7).

PUBLIC GALLERY: Brian Clavier, Merv Bender, Debbie Lehner, Mike Mitchell, Verna Schneider, Reg Beardsworth (after 7:11 PM), three SPCA staff, and eight others.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: 23 (five others will be "Available Soon..."), totalling 514 pages.



For the J.M. Cuelenaere Library . . . .

- Councillor Atkinson spoke briefly about the Library budget - see pages 1 to 4 in document 5, "2009 External Agency Sybmissions," under Operating Budget, General Fund, at http://www.citypa.ca/CityHall/BudgetInformation/tabid/359/Default.aspx


For the Community Service Centre . . . .

- Merv Bender noted that the original increase request is higher than 3.5%. However, since the document was prepared in November 2008, he now projects there will be a decrease in the additional $4800 fuel cost noted there - see pages 5 to 14 in document 5 cited above.


7:14 PM


For the SPCA . . . .

- Debbie Lehner elaborated on options for council. The SPCA runs up considerable expense due to the animal control functions performed by Bylaw officers, though receives no funding from Bylaw enforcement. Some cities have a box on their water bills where residents can add a dollar to specified charities. Other Saskatchewan cities allocate up to $3.92 per capita to their SPCA/Humane Society; PA's contribution works out to $1.32. Councillor Zurakowski said he looked forward to making progress on finding a new home for the SPCA - his daughter regularly reminds him about this. The SPCA budget documents are on pages 15 to 20 in document 5 cited above.


7:28 PM. Six members of public leave.



For the Holy Cross School Community Council . . . .

- Dwayne Thorimbert spoke briefly, thanking council for including $60,000 in the budget for traffic lights at 15th Ave. East and Muzzy Drive. Councillor Ring said 15th Ave. East had the third-highest traffic count of all avenues in the city. Councillor Zurakowski thanked Mr. Thorimbert for "following this to the end, which is tomorrow."


7:33 PM. Three people remain in public gallery.


For the City's Pedestrians and Budget Analysts Everywhere . . . .

- Brian Clavier asked [for the umpteenth time] for the 41 crosswalks at intersections with traffic signals to be painted this year [some were done downtown in 2006, but most have not been painted since 2005 or earlier]; commented on the police budget, "summer banners," and cameras on the Diefenbaker bridge; and questioned golf course expenditures. [His presentation can be found in the post below this one, dated March 27, 2009.] Councillor Ring remonstrated him about not quoting golf course numbers unless he takes fee increases into account, saying that, at the golf course, "users pay." [Courtesy of clarifications from the Councillor, there will a special post on golf course finances for the past nine years. Watch for it this weekend.]

7:39 PM.


For the Golf Course's 100th Anniversary and the 2009 Royal Canadian Golf Association Mid-Amateur Championship . . . .

- Verna Schneider referred to a revised budget [the one on pages 23 to 26 of document 4 under the Operating Budget, General Fund, at http://www.citypa.ca/CityHall/BudgetInformation/tabid/359/Default.aspx was prepared six months ago - and not posted on the City's web site until after March 26, 2009 - along with a revised, March 24, 2009 budget, found at pages 42 to 49] for the golf course's 100th anniversary celebrations, which shows $188, 345 in expenses. She requests $45,836 from council for these golf course events, for which the City wold be acknowledged as "Premier Sponsor." While the legacy wall cost has fallen from $65,000 to $15,000 [since October 31, 2008 - see page 10], and the $4500 history book expense has been assumed by a donor, the request to the city has decreased by only $4164. Councillor Atkinson lamented the absence of a hotel levy in the city, which would generate money for this type of celebration. Mayor Scarrow said that "questioning (city) policy" has nothing to do with this grant request. Councillor Ring said green fees and the other services at the golf club will generate money. Councillor Zurakowski said he could see the next day's headline: council spends $6000 for hospitality and $2000 for beer. [Actually, the $3000 budgeted for "Beer" at the Banquet and Fun Night - see page 24, in the October 31 budget - has magically transformed into $3000 for "Refreshments" at those events in the March 24 budget - see page 42 for the nomenclature flip. $200 for "Champagne" on the earlier budget was changed to $200 for "refreshments" on the later one. Liquor and 25% funding from the public purse must not mix . . . .]



7:49 PM
______________________________________________________
















Cooke Municipal Golf Course is indicated by the arrow on the right . It encompasses at least 40 square blocks. (Compare the square bounded by 17th St., 22nd St., 6th Ave. East, and 2nd Ave. West.) Kinsmen Park, which covers about six square blocks, is indicated by the arrow on the left. If you left click on the photo, you will see it in much greater detail.
__________________________________________________________

Councillor Matheson said 100 years is something to celebrate: "This is what puts Prince Albert on the map." Mayor Scarrow advised that people coming to the golf course events should "feel good because of the golfing experience - not the refreshments." Councillor Dionne [obviously inspired by the overwhelming support his fellow councillors showed for the grant request] said he was purchasing a $2500 golf tournament sponsorship the next day.

7:52 PM

- The Mayor announces that the Budget Committee meeting will begin at 8:30 AM the next morning. [This was a unilateral change to the start time that was advertised in the newspaper and in the March 23, 2009 News Release, under Operating Budget documents, at http://www.citypa.ca/CityHall/BudgetInformation/tabid/359/Default.aspx ]


END 7:52 PM

Budget Consultation Presentation

Intersection crosswalks - NO (never)
Golf - YES (always - and do you want more?)


[This is a verbatim transcript of my presentation to the March 26, 2009 budget meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to hear public comments on the city’s capital and operating budgets. Several explanations have been added, in blue ink. A log of the entire meeting will appear in a subsequent blog post. Most of the relevant budget documents (14, out of a total of 23) were not posted on the city’s web site until March 23, 2009 - see http://www.citypa.ca/CityHall/BudgetInformation/tabid/359/Default.aspx The public had until 4:45 PM on March 24, 2009, to read them and submit speaking notes. Five presentations were given at the March 26 meeting.]


You’ve had my comments now for 51 hours, so I’m going to go really quickly.

I mentioned the categories of expenditures because it’s really important to keep those in mind. [There are eight.] The three most important categories are number 3, maintaining service, where the finance minister [sic - Finance Director] notes in his 19th of March memo to you, on page 8, that there does exist discretion with respect to those expenditures. Category 4 is new services. Category six is “not recommended.” And category 7 is “external agency” expenditures. Keep those numbers in mind.

I’d like to point out that there is one “not recommended” item that I think should be recommended, and that’s fifty-nine-ninety to digitize building plans for the city.

You’ll note my reference there. What do you do with SaskPower and SaskEnergy money? We’re talking about a total of 3.7 million coming from 2008 that SaskPower and SaskEnergy bills give to the city as a result of, literally, the fact that the city gave them franchises - SaskEnergy and SaskPower - in 1954. [Confuses the facts: in 1954, SaskEnergy did not exist. It was hived off the older Crown corporation in 1988.] And that money just goes into the “general” [revenue] pool. I think, fifty-five years later, it might be a good idea to start allocating that money to specific expenditures that relate to the consumption - or non-consumption - of renewable energy. And that’s why I’ve suggested conservation measures and fuel reduction [strategies].

But I also want to point out that there’s one expenditure that’s not necessarily related to energy conservation that I’ve been asking for now for two-and-a-half years, and that’s painting the signalized [intersection] crosswalks. There are forty-one of them. This is my fifth request. It would have cost fifty-one-twenty-five in 2007. It’s probably up to about 6000 now. And I think you should compare that cost - because you’ve got to say, “Well, where is that money coming from, that 6000-dollar cost?” - and I do think you have to look at the lane marking costs, which, in 2008, were up 21,000 dollars compared to 2006-seven, and there’s 12,000 more being asked for this in 2009; that’s a category 6 expenditure, however. And I’d also point out that the thing that came up, within the last three months, specifically [from] Councillor Zurakowski with respect to painting “SCHOOL” [on the pavement] at all of the schools - that’s a category 6 expenditure that would cost 23,400. My fifty-one-twenty-five has never been in any category - except for “not in this decade,” “not in this century.”

Now specific suggestions.

I’m kind of curious (always), about the street banners. I mentioned it last year, when I stood here. They’re “summer,” fifty of them, and it’s a ten-thousand-dollar, category 4 expenditure. It’s a “new service,” but there were banners last year, and I’d like to point out that the ones that were put up last year didn’t last very long. The ones that are put up this year - I’m not sure if these “summer” banners went up last weekend [in other words, before being approved by council . . .] because there are new banners up on 2nd Avenue. I think it’s a dubious expenditure when it has to occur every year.

I want to talk about the police briefly. The police are exempt from the three-and-a-half per cent cap [that council asked “external agencies,” such as the library, SPCA, and Community Service Centre to adhere to in setting their budgets]. There are actually three other external agencies that are above that three-and-a-half percent cap, but their total [increased funding request, compared to 2008] is 79,000 dollars. The 7% that the police are asking for represents 651,000 dollars. The bridge camera expenditure [$41,800], and you remember me talking about that as a category 1 expenditure [in the speaking notes I faxed on March 24], is considered a “legal requirement” - I don’t see how it’s a “legal requirement” - but the funding source is said to be “from insurance.” There’s another expenditure - 50,000 dollars - “from insurance,” that is bridge, sorry, “bridge examination” [actually, bridge inspection]. So there’s essentially 91,800 coming from some kind of insurance proceeds that has to do with the bridge. I assume when you have an insurance claim you use the money to actually fix what was damaged - as opposed to a capital expenditure, and that’s what these [three] cameras are for forty-one eight.

The fuel at the police department: you’ll note that there’s only 96 dollars for one small part of the police department [CFSEU - the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit]. The 2009 budget for fuel at the police department is “zero.” I recall you, as well, to take a look at the Fleet Manager report that you looked at [at] the [regular council] meeting on
Monday. He recommended anti-idling [policy], flushing fuel systems, and [adopting] others’ best practices [from other cities], but did not recommend something I’ve suggested from this podium at least three times, and that’s tracking consumption. Nowhere in this budget is there any reference to fuel consumption, except for this 96 dollars [expended in 2008], and then there’s zero dollars [requested for this item in 2009]. If you don’t track your fuel, what is the point in flushing fuel systems and having an anti-idling regulation for city vehicles?

Now the golf course. In 2008, and you see the numbers there, the 11th hole cost 15,000 dollars to repair, there was 12,000 for cart paths, there was 20,000 for tee boxes, there was an additional 25,000 [for potential capital improvements ?!?!] - 72 thousand total for, literally, 2008.

In 2009 that amount is 195,520 [in fact, it's only 194,520, which includes 72,000 for two greens mowers, Category 3; 12,000 more for cart paths (a firm amount for every year from 2008 to 2012), Category 4; 25,000 (again) for potential capital improvements, Category 4 (another recurring expense for each year from 2008 to 2012, in spite of the City Manager’s assertion on page 5 of his March 20 memo that there is no 5-year plan for operating and capital expenditures); a $34,000 Category 3 increase for greenskeeping that includes $7000 more for greenskeeping fuel charges (compared to a $4800 increase in the budget for 2009 fuel used by the 8 Community Service Centre vehicles, only one of which is less than 5 years old, and each of which travelled an average of 21,600 km last year); 50,000 for the golf course’s 100th anniversary celebrations and “Mid-Amateur Canadian” tournament, Category 7; and 1520 for golf course advertising, Category 3; never mind the 200,000 in capital expenditures on the building’s roof, boiler room, and 7th hole concession sink] and the categories of expenditure in 2009 are 3, 4, and 7. The golf course as “external agency?” [There’s no budget for it among the 2009 documents from “external agencies” - see document 5 under the General Fund documents.] I thought it was taken over [property and operation] by the city on May 13, 1935.

Anyway, all of that detail about the golf course, no detail whatsoever for “transit infrastructure” for a 200,000 category 4 expenditure.

Off the Rails 5

We can't print that . It criticizes US!

Over the past eleven years I have written 30 letters to the editor of the local daily newspaper. Over half of them were never published. This is the most recent addition to that list of unpublishable works - obviously of dubious merit. It was written on March 19, 2009, in response to a March 18 letter to the editor, the subject of which was a front page headline (above the fold) in the March 17 edition of the Prince Albert Daily Herald.

*********************************************************************************

WARNING TO READERS:
PLEASE don't pant over nuclear power: we're too shy for such things in this city.

***********************************************

The Editor,
Prince Albert Daily Herald

Until I read Alan Loustel's letter today, I had temporarily forgotten that "pant" without a terminal "s" could also refer to clothing. More often (and this was how I interpreted Kristina Jarvis's proofreading lapse), "pant" is an activity performed by a body eagerly anticipating a particularly desirable experience, or the result of strenuous exertion. Consequently, I burst out laughing when I read "Majority of area residents say they are in favour of nuclear pant" - because I could clearly visualize these people, the riotous mob led by Prince Albert business owners drooling over the prospect of profits to be derived from Bruce Power's investment in this area. This was definitely a disturbing vision.

With this brilliant blunder (it was, in fact, a perfectly appropriate Freudian slip), the aforementioned reporter won the contest begun a day earlier by her colleague, Angela Hill, who blithely tapped out the notion that the Cloverdale Church ladies aid had "a bizarre and dance in the fall." Not to be mistaken for a "bazaar," where small items are sold for the benefit of a charity, those "bizarres" in my dad's home district must have been amazing sensory stimuli.

I presume the spelling and grammar check functions do not work on these reporters' software. Fix them, before I get a laughter-induced hernia.

Sincerely,
Brian R. Clavier

5th Regular Meeting of 2009 - March 23

Floating Quorums and No Evil Here

START: 7:00 PM

ABSENTEES: Councillor Gervais (Ward 1) and Councillor Williams (Ward 4)

PUBLIC GALLERY: Brian Clavier, Pick Potratz, Rhonda Herzog, Mike Herzog, Jordan Herzog, Merv Schneider, Noreen McBride, Paul Blackstock, Greg McEwen, and fifty others.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: 191 pages

RECOGNITION: Jordan Herzog was presented with the 2008 Terry Fox Award. He was the 28th recipient of this honour.


7:15 Break. The Herzogs and fifty members of the public gallery leave.

7:26 Meeting resumes.


Pecuniary Interests - Over and Over and Over and ....

For the thirteenth consecutive meeting, the Mayor requested that members of council submit forms detailing what financial interests they have in the city that might affect their actions as municipal counillors. Of course, no explanation was given for this repeat request.

[Note that this item is not included in council's procedure, specifically Bylaw #10 of 2005, as amended by Bylaw #23 of 2008 and Bylaw #32 of 2006. In addition, re-read my comments posted February 25, 2009, under "Submission of Pecuniary Interest Forms."]


Bylaw 5 Public Hearing - To allow council discretion to approve 45-meter-high telecom towers in the Institutional and Institutional General Service Zones (I and IG - there are 31 in the city) and Private Schools in the Downtown Commercial (C1) Zone

- Brian Clavier spoke against allowing these telecom towers in the I and IG zones [for the third time]. He read the following text as his presentation.


It should come as no surprise that I’m speaking in opposition to the portion of the bylaw that allows telecommunication towers in areas of the city zoned Institutional and Institutional General Service.

Many of the reasons for my opposition are the same today as they were two weeks ago - when I spoke against allowing a 140-foot telecommunications tower at Advantage Credit Union’s property at 215-16th Street West. But now that you’re going beyond one specific tower, I’m going to expand on the arguments you previously ignored .

If you look at the map on page 77 of the background documents, you will see that the areas currently zoned I or IG are spread throughout the city. There are 31 such areas shown on the map. That means there could be 31 more telecommunications towers, each 140 feet tall. Allowing council the “discretion” to permit the construction of these towers is, given past experience, giving any one of these properties carte blanche to construct a tower.

Two weeks ago the Director of Economic Development and Planning said that city council has to adhere to the city’s bylaws [she was speaking in reference to a suggestion by Councillor Dionne - that a temporary limousine service license could be granted, before the taxi bylaw was changed]. But at the same meeting you voted not to adhere to the Industry Canada requirements for approving 140-foot telecommunications towers, which are detailed in the city planner’s reference to them on page 166 of the background documents for the March 9 meeting.

In Bylaw #5 of 2009, these six requirements are lumped into one phrase, which you will find in the middle of page 80. It reads, “the applicant shall provide the city with a license of approval from Industry Canada.” So if you pass this bylaw as is, and I have absolutely no doubt that you will, you will be legally obliged to insist that a tower applicant adhere to the following:

1. there must evidence of public consultation
2. the applicant must comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guideline for the protection of the general public (that means they have to find that guideline, read it, and provide written evidence that they are in compliance with it)
3. the applicant must comply with radio frequency immunity criteria (you may recall my reference to terrible reception of CBC-AM on 22nd Street West, between the tower at PACI and the city’s tower at the 2nd Avenue reservoir)
4. the applicant must notify nearby broadcasting stations (not just the Rawlco ones, but CTV, CBC, Missinipi, and the new Christian Radio station as well)
5. the applicant must give evidence of having taken environmental considerations into account (which means they sought out other alternatives, such as the site on 6th Ave and 16th Street West where the city approved a Rogers cell phone tower seven years ago, and are mitigating the possibility of collisions with birds), and
6. the applicant must obtain an Aeronautical Clearance Certificate from Transport Canada.

I am repeating the six Industry Canada criteria today because the ONLY ONE of these that was met by Advantage Credit Union, in the documentation it gave to the city for the 140-foot tower you approved on March 9th, was number 6. I pointed that out at the last meeting.

If you understand the concept of respecting your own bylaws, you will ensure that every application for a telecommunications tower higher than 50 feet meets all of the Industry Canada requirements. Need I remind you, that you can’t pick and choose when to adhere to the city’s bylaws - even though you’ve already shown that you can ignore the specific content of this bylaw. I am dumbfounded about why you’re giving the bylaw any readings, if you insist on applying the “discretion” to overlook its requirements.

- THE VOTE (to consider during bylaws segment of the meeting): 6 - 1 in favour, Councillor Atkinson opposed.


We Fund it, But Don't Care How it Achieves Quorum

[The city of Prince Albert contributed $1,248,375 to the Wapiti Regional Libary in 2008. It asked for an additional $39,590 from the city's 2009 budget.]


7:44 PM


- Councillor Atkinson spoke to a suggested bylaw change at the Wapiti Regional Libary, one that would allow a reduction in the quorum requirement at the annual [spring] and semi-annual [fall] meetings of the Libary's Board - from 50% of members to 35%. He opposes the quorum change. Mayor Scarrow said the change makes sense. Atkinson said the Library's operational aspect should be more effective, and it should try to get people interested, rather than making change in people's absence. There are about 145 members.

- Councillor Swystun said the Library's annual meeting will address the quorum issue. He asked if Atkinson was asking council to provide direction to the city's representatives on the Board.

- Councillor Atkinson replied that the bylaw proposal reduces the need for participation; maybe the regional should be smaller (it stretches from Hudson Bay to Porcupine Plain to Big River; no input is asked of members other than at the two meetings per year; and there is no particiaption with regard to the Library's operating budget.

- Councillor Swystun stated that the city's representatives should speak to this at the April meeting of the Board. Opponents of the bylaw change should suggest alternatives.

- Councillor Ring said there was no quorum last year. He wondered how they could get people interested in coming tot he meetings.

- Councillor Atkinson reminded council that there will not be a bylaw change next month if there is no quorum.

- THE VOTE (to receive and file the correspondence): 7 - 0 in favour.


Realtors Oppose Secondary Suites in Their Most Profitable Areas

[The city will be holding public meetings to gather opinions on Bylaw 6 of 2009, which allows rental suites in the R1 and R2 zones of the West Hill and Crescent Acres.]

- Councillor Ring encouraged people to come to the meetings.

- Councillor Swystun agreed, saying some people believe this would have a dramatic impact on their neghbourhoods.

- Councillor Dionne said the notification must be clear about the purpose of the meetings.

- Councillor Atkinson added that the meetings' purpose is to get public input, then ensure that the bylaw is adjusted accordingly.



"Pin to the Skin" in like Flynn

[A tattoo parlour on 13th St. West applied for city fee refunds under the downtown Municipal Enterprise Zone program.]

- Councillor Swystun, noting this was the first application to the program, said he looks forward to many more.


Pool Zapped for Five Days

[Due to work by SaskPower in Carlton High School, the swimming pool there will have to be closed over the Easter Break.]

- Mayor Scarrow asked if the "other pool" [Marion Aquatics] would be open. [If he had read the backgound documents, he would have known the answer to this question . . . .] Community Services Director Zeeben replied "Yes."

- Councillor Zurakowski suggested we should try to coordinate with the Sask. Rivers school board, so that pool closures do not occur during holidays [meaning SaskPower work should happen when classes are on, allowing students, staff, and teachers to fumble around in the dark?]

- Mayor Scarrow said electrical repairs should be done when the outdoor pools [there's only one in Prince Albert . . . .] are operating.

- Councillor Dionne asked about pool usage during last year's Easter Break, saying that most people travel during that week.

- Mayor Scarrow concluded the discussion by saying that the number of users was less important than who uses the pool, since a visit there is an "affordable break. Not everyone goes on a ski holiday."


8:11 PM


Events Attended by Council

- Councillor Swystun went to the UNESCO Municipal Coalition Against Discrimination and Racism signing.
- Mayor Scarrow's jam-packed diary included attending the Baha'i new year celebration, a mixed curling event, the Mayors' hockey challenge [he lost this annual shooting event against the Saskatoon mayor], a chili cookoff, a round dance at the Allan Bird Memorial Centre, the PA Raiders' windup banquet, a teachers' convention, a Francophone week ceremony, the Power 99 breakfast, an Indian-Metis Friendship Centre luncheon, the poster awards ceremony and tea for Elimination of Racism and Discrimination Week, a Riverside School event, a Multicultural Centre business program graduation, and the CCS awards. [Who knew there were so many ceremonies where an appearance was mandatory, and so little else to do?] He reminded us about Earth Hour, on March 28, from 8:30 to 9:30 PM, suggesting "dinner by candlelight," and that we use our imagination about other possible activities.
- Councillor Ring was at the UNESCO signing ceremony at the Rawlinson Centre, and told us about his father, who immigrated from Holland over 50 years ago.


Actress's Death Prompts Mandatory Helmet Inquiry, and Does City Policy Trump The Cities Act?

- Councillor Dionne cited the accident at Mont Tremblant that killed Natasha Richardson, and the fact that the Little Red River Park ski hill is in his ward, in his request to have the mayor write a letter to the province asking for mandatory helmet legislation. Scarrow replied that we should have a city bylaw requiring cyclists to wear helmets. A report was requested. The vote to produce the report was 7 - 0 in favour.

- Councillor Atkinson, referring to an in camera item earlier in the day, asked if city policy took precedence over The Cities Act [with respect to the type of item that should be considered at in camera meetings] Councillor Dionne immediately interpreted this as a request for a report, and said it needed a seconder. None was forthcoming, so the request failed. Atkinson then asked that a report be provided only to him. This also was denied, since no one would provide the [apparently, still-required] second to the "motion." Atkinson then asked if the policy [contained in Bylaw 23 of 2008, and given third reading on July 2, 2008 . . .] requiring a vote to support an information request was "specific to things that we don't agree with." The Mayor skirted the issue, replying that there had been ample time for a seconder. City Clerk Skauge said a seconder was needed. Councillor Dionne, having succeeded in translating the original question into a formal request for a "report from administration," remained silent.

8:28 PM

Mayor Sees No Evil, Hears No Evil

Not content to let Councillor Atkinson go home without a lecture, Mayor Scarrow said that the decision on Atkinson's earlier inquiry was a "judgment call" by the City Clerk. The item in question would move to council's public agenda "via the budget process." His next statement further confused the two people remaining in the public gallery: the item "could have been" on the public agenda. In addition, there was no "mystery" here, only an attempt to give "comfort to a public organization." Atkinson interjected that it should have been on the public agenda for this meeting. Scarrow repeated that the decision was made by the City Clerk, adding that council was not acting in an "evil way."


Always the Last Words, Thank Yous, Invitations, etc.

The Mayor thanked administration; thanked Finance Director Day for the 1500 pages of "light reading" on the city budget; and drew attention to the public's opportunity to comment on the budget at a meeting on March 26.

The City Clerk pointed out that anyone wishing to speak at the March 26 meeting had until 4:45 PM on Tuesday, March 24 [about 20 hours] to submit their speaking notes for review [and, obviously, read through the budget documents - about 400 pages].

END 8:36 PM

Off the Rails 4

Follow-up - Bruce Power


As promised on March 24, I reviewed the information I picked up at the March 18 Bruce Power information session. As well, I checked out the online references sent to me by one of the Golder & Associates principals who was at the Travelodge on Bruce Power's behalf. Here's what I found.


Fact Sheet 1

On page 1, Bruce Power claims its two proposed reactors will "produce no greenhouse gases or air pollutants." This statement takes a highly restricted view of greenhouse gas production by power plants, since it does not consider the carbon-based fuel used to construct the plant, mine the uranium, process it, and deliver it to the nuclear reactor. Such full life-cycle accounting for greenhouse gases is recognized on Fact Sheet 4 [see below], but the claim here about air pollutants simply means no carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, or methane is produced when the plant is producing electricity. Nuclear power plants do pollute the air with radionuclides - check out the 2002 study at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-45KSR67-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c46b922a925ef3120dd59d701a5be475


Fact Sheet 2

The "Key Milestones in the EA [Environmental Assessment] Process" flow chart shows [in the middle] that the proponent submits an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) "most likely to a Joint Review Panel." This prospect is highly unlikely, if not impossible [it depends on how badly gutted the current legislation is by the time Bruce Power submits its EIS]: the list in Part VI, section 19(d) of the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act regulations requires a Comprehensive Study of class 1A nuclear power facilities [what Bruce is proposing]. A Comprehensive Study is more time-consuming, and much more thorough than the Joint Review Panel the company is hoping for. The back side of this fact sheet also shows us the "concept drawings" for the three reactors under consideration for Saskatchewan - hardly helpful, since none of them has been built, anywhere on this planet.


Fact Sheet 4

The page 1 graphic reproduced below gives us 75% of the information from the slide in the Nuclear Energy Institute's PowerPoint at http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/protectingtheenvironment/graphicsandcharts/comparisonoflifecycleemissions/ ;of course, Bruce wants 100% of our support. With tactics like this, not from this rube.



Fact Sheet 4,
page 1 graphic.
[Left click
on image
for better
resolution.]



I wouldn't normally be so offended by receiving selective information (from an important 2002 study . . . ), but then I read the table to the right of the bar graph. This little table raised my hackles instantly by
1) not explaining "uSv" [I realize it denotes "micro-Sieverts," but the vast majority of the general public does not], and
2) failing to specify either the length of time a person "Living Next Door to a Nuclear Power Plant in Ontario" needs to be there to receive the listed dose of radiation [20 days or 20 years?] or how close "Next Door" is [20 meters or 20 kilometers?]

The result of these simple flaws: if you can't reveal all the relevant information, and be perfectly clear about your "data," you're either withholding information for your own benefit or extremely sloppy.

Getting back to the "life-cycle emissions" of greenhous gases, it's crucial to remember that Bruce Power is using this scaled-down graph to support the contention that nuclear power is "clean" - even "green." I think, before you try to make that claim, you should look at the best available research on this topic. For example, after comparing Bruce's graph with the Nuclear Energy Institute original, go to this 2006 article from Energy Policy http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4MBCBR8-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c3bd2073a11801e5c6be50ca18a7246e , and the Canadian Nuclear Association's http://www.cna.ca/curriculum/cna_world_energy_res/understandingCO2-eng.asp?bc=Understanding%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Emissions&pid=Understanding%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Emissions page, then compare the three sets of data with page 8 from this November 2006 report by the University of Sydney http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.auhttp://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf

You may [justifiably] conclude that nuclear power is much less "greenhouse gas benign" than windpower, run-of-the-river hydro, or geothermal power. Fact Sheet 4, in other words, is full of fractured fact . . . .


Fact Sheet 5

The issue of waste management gets glossed over on this one. Note [on middle right of page 1] that "Bruce Power will manage used fuel and radioactive waste in a manner to protect people and the environment. This means isolating the waste . . . ." Fine with me. But HOW and WHERE are they going to isolate the waste? Oops - it's right there, on the bottom right of page 2: "The Government of Canada approved the [Nuclear Waste Management Organization] plan in June 2007. An NWMO used fuel storage facility is expected to be built and accepting used fuel with [sic] the next 30 years." Regardless of which party (or parties) form the federal government during that time? And what of the OTHER radioactive waste from the plant? Does it simply get thrown into the local landfill? The assurances given here don't impress me.


Summary

OK, maybe I've been a bit too hard on the earnest souls trying to make a [big] buck at my expense [and that of everyone else in Saskatchewan]. So, to be fair, I refer you to the best discussion of nuclear energy pros and cons I came across. This 2008 document, sponsored by Gonzaga University in Spokane, includes reams of reputable report references:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9271148/Nuclear-Power-Scholars

Read it carefully.


A Review of the Infamous February 2009 Survey
on Bruce Power Done for the City of PA


The text of Brian Clavier's comments during the Public Forum segment of city council's March 23, 2009 meeting follows. Editorial comment will be added after reviewing the "Fact Sheets" and online references received at the March 18 information session at the Prince Albert Travelodge.


***********************************************************************************************************

My topic tonight is the report on the public opinion poll that was done in February concerning Bruce Power. [The full text of the 21-page report, which includes the 11 questions used in the poll (on page 19 of the pdf file), is available at http://www.citypa.ca/portals/0/pdf/Communications/Bruce%20Power%20Public%20Opinion%20Poll.pdf .]

I’m not going to say anything positive about the poll results, since the Mayor and City Manager did that at a March 16 press conference - and they spoke much longer than the 5 minutes I have here. That said, let’s look at the survey questions, and the introductions for the questions that respondents were given.

It is crucial to interpreting the results accurately to realize that there are several occasions in the survey where answers are blatantly suggested to respondents (rather than letting them create their own responses).

First, the preamble to question 2 states the city is “working on a new economic development initiative to attract green industries.” This claim is groundless, since there are no references to any of the terms “green energy,” “green energy concept,” “green energy initiative”, or “industrial green hub” anywhere on the city’s web site, or in any of its planning documents. Nonetheless, this preamble sets up a positive context for question 2 - do you support “an industrial park for green energy” - where almost no one responds negatively (only 3.9% did in this survey, which is less than its margin of error). The follow-up in question 3 - is nuclear power green energy? - is even more manipulative. This ludicrous belief is certainly held by the nuclear industry - but not by any “alternate” energy company, “green” publication, or non-nuclear scholarly journal. The lack of consensus among the replies to the question is not as important, though, as the fact that a more important question was NOT asked: would your support for a “green industrial park change if that park included firms in the nuclear industry?” The report’s author says this omission is noteworthy. I agree. Finally, be aware that the lead-in from the preamble and question 2 produces a slanted result in question 3, mainly because most people do recall what was said ten seconds ago in a phone call. In a courtroom, this is called “leading the witness.” It’s totally unacceptable in that venue, and should not occur in a public opinion poll.

Question 5 asks about the main benefit of Bruce Power’s proposal - then gives respondents a list that includes “medical benefits.” I’m confused about this, since no one has ever claimed that a nuclear power plant can provide medical benefits - until now. To be honest, the question should have been totally blunt - like “Do you want a nuclear power plant in your back yard” - not ask about “benefits.”

Question 6 is too vague: if public opinions were honestly being sought, the question would give examples of the “potential opportunities associated with” Bruce Power setting up here - such as concrete companies and water purification businesses, but also bars and bordellos - all of which would make pots of money from a nuclear plant and its highly-paid workers.

Even more unusual are the choices given to poll respondents in question 7, about drawbacks to Bruce Power’s proposal. Inexplicably, nuclear plant “waste” is divided into two categories - waste disposal and waste storage. This results in the minimization of what is really ONE category - “waste.” What’s worse, the question does not list cost to the public purse as a drawback: a legitimate choice for replying to this question is therefore omitted (and there is no indication it came up in the “other” category).

By now, most people know that the expenditure being proposed for this nuclear power plant is 8 to 10 billion dollars; what they need to know is that amount of money is enough to buy and install 10,000 megawatts of wind power in Saskatchewan - in less than half the time it will take Bruce Power to build a 2000 megawatt nuclear power plant here. If this meeting ends soon, we can all go across the street to Wesley United Church to hear what other alternate energy and energy conservation possibilities can be bought for 10 billion dollars [at the "Is Renewable Doable ?" presentation by Peter Prebble - attended by 170 people].

In the conclusion of the report, the author notes that newspaper articles and Bruce Power’s strong marketing campaign in January preceded the February polling. If you really want to know how people in this area think about the issue, re-word the questions, and repeat the poll in May - after nuclear opponents have had an opportunity to present the other side of the story. That would be fair - and give a more accurate gauge of public opinion.

Have a safe walk home.