Comment
The same day
It is an easy and sensible path forward. Council can end months of anger, frustration, and mistrust swirling around Wellington’s waterworks expansion on December 19, simply by tying the trunk line tender to the execution of a subdivision agreement and the receipt of $26.5 million payable by the developer as part of its upfront financing agreement. Until the money is in the County’s bank account—no trunk lines. Clear. Simple. Reasonable.
“I am saying that when you approve this tender, I would like to see the subdivision agreement signed on the same day,” said Ernie Margetson. Margetson is extremely well-placed to make this recommendation. He is an engineer by profession, served for a time as the County’s chief engineer, and more recently served on council during the formation of Wellington’s Master Servicing Plan.
“It’s a matter of fairness,” says Margetson.
Simply put, Margetson is urging Council not to approve a $20 million tender to install water and wastewater lines under the Millennium Trail—incurring all the costs and disruption—before it gets a commitment in the form of $26.5 million from the developer. (See story Page 3.)
Margetson believes the trunk line project ought to proceed, and that the County has an obligation to provide waterworks to this developer. But Margetson contends the obligation must work both ways—that absent a provision to compel the developer to sign the agreement and pay its DCs, the County should withhold awarding the tender to build these trunk lines.
The County—and ratepayers by proxy— have worked in good faith, according to Margetson. It has built a water tower, a sewage equalization tank and funded a mound of studies and reports. It has spent $18 million, primarily for the benefit of this developer. It is right, fair, and reasonable to demand the developer put up its contractually obligated payment before spending millions more and adding to the debt burden of existing water users.
Bizarrely, the inscrutable workings of Shire Hall and council mean that it is not at all certain it will take this easiest of paths. The momentum of this process, the expectations of other developers, and the misalignment of the interests of most council members with the ratepayers who fund the waterworks utility may mean that it chooses to ignore Margetson’s advice.
For the moment, however, it has chosen to pause and reconsider. It will reassemble on December 19 with its staff and solicitor to determine how to move forward.
Councillor John Hirsch framed the next conversation well.
“There needs to be a guarantee that our understanding about upfront payments really does work,” said Hirsch, citing Margetson’s comments. “The day we sign the tender is the day we get the cheque from Kaitlin. We need this kind of certainty.”
Yet, some are signalling that Council should snatch up the low tender because six contractors bid on the project. Others say that staff should be trusted to make this decision. Both form a terribly flimsy basis upon which to spend vast amounts of public dollars.
Allowing the tender to lapse may result in a higher cost. Or a lower one. Six bidders usually indicate a buyer’s market—typically more companies seeking to do the work is a positive sign. But in any event, pushing ahead with a big purchase without a clear means to pay for it would be reckless behaviour in your home—it is unconscionable that elected council members are urging a decision be made based solely on the number of bids.
Some folks have sought to frame the waterworks debate as a matter of trust. It isn’t. Good governance is about applying due diligence. It’s about asking questions and continuing to ask questions until you get rock-solid, bulletproof answers—before making a big, expensive, irreversible decision. It’s the job.
Ernie Margetson has laid out a clear, responsible, and reasonable path for Council. He correctly observes that doing so would go a long way in alleviating the intense anxiety and frustration in this community. Will Council take it?
Comments (0)