Re: June 19, 2012 Council Agenda
The pdf version of the full agenda package is unavailable:
An Html version is at:
Following are some comments on a few select agendas items.
7.2 Marie Wilson, Nuclear Waste Management Organization-Deep Geological
The Nuclear Waste Management Association is looking for a place to put its high level radioactive waste, including spent fuel, and also its low level radioactive waste. Mike Smith, Mayor of Saugeen Shores (Port Elgin, Southampton area) is keen to take the waste in Saugeen Shores. But the people of Saugeen Shores are mostly vehemently opposed.
So Ms. Marie Wilson, of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, is going around to Towns near Saugeen Shores and is looking for some support for Mayor Smith.
The purpose of her delegation to TSBP council on Tuesday June 19th is to try to get support for Mayor Smith from TSBP council.
TSBP council should not be taking a position on whether Saugeen Shores takes the Nuclear waste, and certainly should not be taking a position in support of Mike Smith. TSBP council represents the people of TSBP on local issues only. It would be fraudulent for TSBP to take a position on Nuclear Waste in Saugeen Shores. It would be fraudulent for TSBP council to say they represent the people of TSBP on this issue, or that they represent the views of the people of TSBP on this issue.
The people of TSBP can speak directly to the decision makers on this issue.
It is also improper that Marie Wilson of the Nuclear Waste Management Association is given 20 minutes to present while citizens of TSBP get only ten minutes, and that’s if they can get on the agenda at all.
I am opposed to dumping any Nuclear waste anywhere in Bruce County.
8.1 JACKSON07-2012 Sauble-Amabel Water System
Those on town water systems have been of flat monthly rates from the start. Starting May 1, everyone had to pay by the cubic meter. The bills people got for their May water use are so high that some cannot pay and have been forced to put their homes up for sale.
The situation is unacceptable.
People using the small water systems in the Sauble area were put in the high cost situation, both high capital cost, and high operating cost, by decisions made in about 2004 – 2006 by the council of 2002 – 2006, which was led by Mayor Carl Noble. The very costly systems were not necessary but were shoved through by Mayor Noble and his council supporters even though they knew or at least should have known that the projects were unnecessary and that the high capital costs and high operating costs would have the crippling financial impact on people that we are now seeing.
In the council of 2002 – 2006, three councillors, namely Gilbert, Varley, and Harron, were opposed to the costly water projects. I believe that the others, namely Wunderlich, Fulford, Kirkland, Close, and Hoath, were in support.
Noble, Wunderlich, Hoath, and Fulford are out of the picture, so it’s not much use asking them to help fix the problem they helped create.
But Close and Kirkland are still in the picture. And small water users would be justified in saying to Mayor Close and Councillor Kirkland “You helped create this mess… you need to make a very special effort to fix it!”
Councillor Jackson has introduced a motion to go back to the flat monthly rates while saner minds figure out how to sort this out without people being forced from their homes.
Council should support Councillor Jackson’s motion. Voting against Councillor Jackson’s motion will be rightly seen as callous disregard for the users of town water. Voting against Councillor Jackson’s motion will be seen as throwing people out of their homes over a problem that the water users did not create and were not at fault for.
9.1 Waterpower Group, Power Station at Park Head Dam-Support Resolution (June 5,
In my commentary 2-27, I indicated that the Waterpower Group request for a supporting resolution was based on false information. The information, provided by Waterpower Group, that the rule is that applicants whose projects receive the formal support of municipalities will be awarded priority points, is categorically false. There is at this point no such rule. It is a proposed rule, a draft rule, but it is not the rule.
A motion in the June 19 agenda repeats and is based on the falsehood. The motion in the agenda says:
“AND WHEREAS pursuant to the rules governing the FIT Program (the FIT Rules), applicants whose projects receive the formal support of municipalities will be awarded priority points, which may result in the Applicant being offered a FIT contract prior to other persons applying for FIT contracts;”
(FIT means Feed in Tariff). The motion must fail. And staff should not even be considering a motion in support of the Waterpower Group proposal until the Waterpower Group submits an apology for sending false information and sends truthful information. And council needs a lot of answers about the proposed project before it provides any kind of supporting resolution.