Nudgeniks

Someday Shire Hall may consider  a pragmatic way forward

Considering all the energy Shire Hall staff have put into nudging Council to endorse a massive regional water supply, along with a list of waterworks spending items, it seems short shrift was given to the option of simply expanding the existing system to accommodate one per cent growth.

It is a curious situation. At a minimum, such an analysis would have produced a base case—a foundation upon which to understand various other alternatives. Sadly, that scenario is treated as an afterthought in recent waterworks plans and reports.

It was brushed aside as an alternative with the claim that maintaining separate systems would consume $258 million in debt, about the same or more than the grand regional water plan. But how could this be? How does expanding or even massively rehabilitating existing systems manage to exceed the cost of a new regional water system—including a new intake into Lake Ontario, a massive new regional plant, a 20-kilometre pipeline and pumping stations, and a new water distribution hub in Picton?

The Times set out to answer the questions. The sources we relied upon are various reports and studies the County has funded and reported to Council.

According to condition assessments completed on Picton and Wellington facilities, we know that $10.6 million will buy 10 more years and one per cent growth in Picton’s water plant. Its wastewater plant needs just $2 million for the next decade. In Wellington, $20.6 million will support growth and operation of the water plant through 2051, according to the assessment. The wastewater plant needs about $25.6 million, but expanding the facility is not estimated. (Why not? Further, the federal government has committed $20 million to the Wellington wastewater plant. Why isn’t this first on Shire Hall’s to-do list? )

Taken together, these costs total $59 million. But let’s assume a new intake is needed in Picton. Fortunately, the County contracted a thorough analysis in 2014. The preferred solution then was a new intake and plant in Picton. The cost estimate for these projects in 2014 was $47 million. That equals $61 million in today’s dollars. Subtracting $10.6 million allotted to Picton water plant upgrades, which wouldn’t be needed if a new plant is built, leaves about $50 million.

All told, it means about $109 million—much less than $258 million cited in the County’s waterworks financial plan.

The above calculation required piecing together different municipal documents. What happens when we look only at the report provided by Watsons & Associates in June? Again, it regrettably and inexplicably fails to provide a detailed breakdown of the Maintain Separate Systems scenario. But we can get a glimpse in its Scenario 2A. This scenario imagined an accelerated spending schedule on the big grand regional option.

When we back out the items related to a regional water system, the total project costs are just $139 million. Again, it is a far cry from $258 million.

The Times reached out to Shire Hall to reconcile the varying estimates. In fairness, there was insufficient time for Shire Hall to produce a comprehensive response before the newspaper went to press. We will present Shire Hall’s explanation next week.