Falk Report On The Bio-Digester (3,327 KB)

Chatsworth / Georgian Bluffs Bio-Digester
Standing Back to See the Big Picture
January 12, 2015
Introduction
The jointly-owned Chatsworth / Georgian Bluffs Bio-Digester is entering its fifth year of operation. From
the very beginning, it has fallen far short of expectations in terms of both performance and costs.
I want to be perfectly clear from the outset that I have no reason to believe that any representative of
Chatsworth involved in decisions leading to the construction of the Bio-Digester was not acting in good
faith at the time. I believe everyone was attempting to make good decisions on behalf of residents and
taxpayers. Good decisions, however, require more than good faith and good intentions.
I have attended most Joint Management Committee/Board meetings in the last 2 years, during which
time I have also made presentations to the Chatsworth Council. I have occasionally written letters to the
Sun Times and open letters to Mayor Pringle that were published on the OS Hub website. In September,
to begin to address the major problem of little or no information from the Chatsworth Council (not just
about the Bio-Digester), I started a blog which is at http://shininglightonchatsworth.wordpress.com.
My letters, presentations, questions at meetings and the fact that I started this blog have been
interpreted by some as indicating that I am opposed to the Bio-Digester. This is not correct; I support the
concept, but with reservations.
My concerns and questions have to do with whether or not the Bio-Digester is in fact the best way for
Chatsworth to deal with septage even after spending as much as we have on it, whether it is capable of
doing what is being claimed at an affordable cost, how it is being managed, the serious lack of openness,
the tendency to spin information about it, and the fact that Chatsworth taxpayers subsidise sewage
disposal on the Sunset Strip through provisions of the Bio-Digester Agreement.
My independent research raised many questions that were not answered, only partially answered, or
answered in a way that begged more questions. Therefore, I decided (in June 2014) to file a Freedom of
Information request with Chatsworth; after reviewing the documents received, I filed a FOI request with
Georgian Bluffs.
This report is based on my review of the documents made available to me, and my own participation
and research. It provides some history of the project and other information that I believe needs to be
taken into account in decisions about the Bio-Digester, and points in a direction that is likely to be more
favourable for Chatsworth than holding more-or-less to the present course.
1|Page
About the Appendices

As time permitted during my review of the documents (which I went through mainly in chronological
order), I posted links to most of them on my blog, along with some comments.
Appendices A through F are copied from my blog. I am attaching these rather than simply providing links
to the blog so that this report is self-standing.
The Appendices contain many other links to original documents, however. I urge readers to follow as
many of these links as possible because the original documents may contain information that I have
misunderstood, or information on subjects that I have not picked up on.
Decision to Build the Bio-Digester

In 2003, Grey County engaged a consultant (Henderson Paddon and Associates Limited) to examine
septage management in its member municipalities. The resulting report titled Septage Management
Plan for the Municipalities of Grey County is dated March 12, 2004. [See Appendix A for more
information and to read my blog comments made on October 10 and October 11.]
My research leads me to conclude that this initiative seems to have been in response to a discussion in
mid-2003 between County representatives and then Minister of the Environment Mr. C. Stockwell who
apparently spoke about the possibility of banning the practise of spreading septage on approved fields.
Later that year, the Conservative government of then Premier Ernie Eves was defeated in the provincial
election. There is no evidence that the next (Liberal) Minister of the Environment, or any subsequent
Liberal Minister of the Environment, had the same views or priorities as Mr. Stockwell. The only thing I
could find about possible changes in the law was a Policy Statement about septage published by the
Ministry of the Environment in 2005; it is summarized in this July 2007 Fact Sheet. [See Appendix A
October 27]
The 2004 consultants report considered and evaluated a number of alternatives, but nothing came of
its recommendations. It is important to understand that building and operating one or more BioDigesters was not among the alternatives considered.
In June 2006, the same consultant produced a report titled Anaerobic Treatment of Septage/Biosolids to
Produce Biogas, Electrical Power and Treated Biosolids. This report refers to an engagement by
Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs, and speaks in definitive terms about possible changes in the law or
regulations ( disposal of septage will be discontinued and that all septage will need to be treated ).
[Appendix A October 12]
Neither Chatsworth nor Georgian Bluffs provided any contract or letter of engagement with Henderson
Paddon and Associates Limited, so I assume there wasnt one. CAO/Clerk Moore told me that the first
reference to a Bio-Digester is contained in the minutes of a meeting of Chatsworth Council held on
2|Page
December 27, 2006. Motion 344/2006 in these minutes states that Chatsworths share (50%) of the
costs for a Bio-Digester should be paid from the Federal Gas Tax money. [Appendix A November 15]
Since this is the first reference to a Bio-Digester in the Chatsworth minutes, and since Chatsworth
Council authorized paying half of a consultants invoice for work on a Bio-Digester, I think it is
reasonable to conclude that three important decisions had been made by December 2006, and that
these decisions were made somewhere other than at the Chatsworth Council table. The three decisions
were:
Build a Bio-Digester;
Engage a consultant; and
Do so in partnership with the Township of Georgian Bluffs.
It is important, also, to understand that there is no evidence that these decisions were made in the light
of any study or analyses of what might be best for the residents of Chatsworth. There are other options
for treating septage in Ontario. [Appendix A October 27]
The Bio-Digester is not mentioned in minutes of the Chatsworth Council in 2007 even though there is
documentation of regular payments being made that year. The minutes of the Chatsworth Council
meeting on January 2, 2008 (Motion 4/2008) deal with the costs incurred during 2007 in the same way
as for those incurred during 2006.
A number of activities took place in 2007 and 2008 regarding design of the Bio-Digester, and funding
from the Provincial and/or Federal governments [Appendix A October 13 and 14]. Clearly, a decision
had been made to proceed if and when funding could be found; again, there is no evidence that this
decision was made at the Chatsworth Council table.
Sometime in early 2009, the parties learned that funding would be available under the Build Canada
program [Appendix A November 14 and 19]. At that point, a need arose to demonstrate that
alternatives had been considered. Also, Build Canada required a Business Plan.
The Build Canada grant application with supporting documents is dated May 6, 2009. The covering letter
makes reference to the April 2009 Business Plan titled Anaerobic Treatment of Septage/Biosolids/Corn
Stover to Produce Biogas, Electrical Power and Treated Biosolids, and to Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.
My understanding of Section 3 (Analysis of Options) of the Business Plan is that it contains an apples to
oranges comparison. Specifically, Section 3 compares the up-to-date cost of two options from the Grey
County study in 2004 that were sized to deal with all of the septage from the nine municipalities in Grey
County with a Bio-Digester sized to deal with only the septage from Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs. I
truly hope this understanding is wrong, but I dont think it is. [Appendix A November 13]
In summary, the documentation points to the Bio-Digester being decided first (in 2006) with an attempt
to justify it later (2009). There is no evidence to indicate that a Bio-Digester was compared to other ways
of dealing with septage in Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs, together or separately. There is no study
3|Page
concluding that a Bio-Digester would be the best (or even a good) option for Chatsworth, considering
factors such as technology, costs, environmental considerations, social aspects and other such criteria
that are normally used to evaluate proposals and alternatives.
Public Information and Involvement

By September 25, 2009 when the notice of public meeting was published, taxpayers and residents of
Chatsworth had been told nothing about the Bio-Digester, even though:
Chatsworth Council had authorized payments to the consultant since sometime in 2006
(apparently without anything in the way of a formal agreement);
a decision had been made to build a Bio-Digester in partnership with Georgian Bluffs without
considering alternatives either to the Bio-Digester or to the partnership;
the design was more-or-less complete;
an application for partial funding from both Canada and Ontario had been submitted and
approved;
a schedule had been prepared; and
tender documents were ready to send to contractors.
This project summary information was probably distributed at the public meeting on October 1, 2009
that was held in Keady. It represents the only attempt that has ever been made to pro-actively inform
taxpayers and residents about the Bio-Digester. [Appendix A November 25]
In summary, there was no public information and no opportunity for public input at any stage of the
project. Regrettably, there has been no meaningful public information provided since then, either.
When drawing conclusions or making criticisms of decisions and activities in hindsight, it is possible to
fall into the trap of applying todays standards to earlier decisions. I wanted to be realistic in my claims
that Chatsworth should have provided information that citizens have a right to know and that the
Council had an obligation to provide.
Therefore, I searched for something in the way of standards or best practises from around 2006 which
led led me to A Guide to Service Delivery Review for Municipal Managers published by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing in 2004.
This Guide was created to help municipal managers in ongoing efforts to improve service delivery by
providing better customer service and operating more efficiently, and to improve expenditure
management by setting goals and priorities, managing demand and evaluating performance. It speaks in
many places about the need for communication with citizens, and for public input.
Indeed, according to the Municipal Act, it is an absolute necessity for Council to carry on the publics
business in public.
4|Page
Because this Guide was published in 2004, two years before a decision was made to build the BioDigester and six years before it was built, I feel safe in saying that Chatsworth fell far short of what were
then best practises regarding public information and involvement.
The operation of the Bio-Digester falls into the category of services being provided. I trust that
Chatsworth Council and Administration will consider points and methods outlined in this Guide when
considering the results of the objective engineering report on the Bio-Digester that Council has initiated.
Agreements
At the Chatsworth Council meeting on June 17, 2009, Motion 155/2009 was passed. According to the
minutes of that meeting, this motion states:
5. Georgian Bluffs and Chatsworth agree to finalize an agreement on the construction,
invoicing, project management, acceptance, maintenance and operation of the Bio-Digester,
including revenue sharing, based on the principle that both Townships share equally in the risk
and/or reward from the Bio-Digester Facility.
6. That the CAO/Clerk Administrators bring back an agreement for execution by the Councils of
the Townships.
On this basis: funding was arranged; contracts were signed; construction was started and essentially
completed; bills were paid; and operation began.
The Agreement was brought to the Chatsworth Council table at a meeting on February 2, 2011, by which
time the Bio-Digester was just beginning full operation. A Memorandum of Understanding was brought
to the same meeting that has to do with landfill. Both of these documents were approved at that
meeting by Chatsworth By-Law No. 2011-9. [Appendix B September 18]
The Memorandum of Understanding makes Chatsworths 50% participation in the Bio-Digester
conditional on providing landfill space for Georgian Bluffs:
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that in return for 50% ownership of the Bio-Digester facility the
Township of Chatsworth will accept the solid waste produced by the Bio-Digester at one of their
landfills. (my emphasis by underlining)
AND FURTHER the Township of Chatsworth and the Township of Georgian Bluffs agree to enter
into a contract, subject to final details, to accept all of part of Georgian Bluffs residual solid
waste in the event the Georgian Bluffs landfill reaches capacity or must close due to Ministry of
Environment requirements or order such contract to accept Georgian Bluffs solid waste to
provide for the following
None of the documents from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 mention landfill.
5|Page
In response to my FOI requests to both townships, no documents were provided pertaining to any
meetings or correspondence between the CAO/Clerk Administrators about the Agreement and
Memorandum of Understanding. Chatsworth provided just one document (undated) about landfill.
There is no evidence that the Chatsworth Council provided any direction to the CAO/Clerk about an
Agreement in addition to the above-noted resolution on June 17, 2009. There is no evidence of any
consideration of landfill by the Chatsworth Council either before this resolution or afterwards.
Therefore, it remains an important question as to how Chatsworths partnership on the Bio-Digester
that had been agreed in 2006 became conditional five years later on Chatsworth providing landfill space.
There are recent indications that the link to landfill is very important to Georgian Bluffs. I make this
statement in light of an exchange between a resident of Georgian Bluffs and Councillor Carol Barfoot at
an All Candidates meeting in Shallow Lake on September 26, 2014.
In responding to a comment by the resident who noted that the landfill in Hepworth had only four years
of life, Councillor Barfoot said something along the lines of The Agreement with Chatsworth has solved
our landfill problems for 30 years.
If Councillor Barfoots interpretation of the importance of the Agreement is correct, I suspect that she
might well have added and it has solved our problems very cheaply, too.
This is an aspect of the Agreement that the Chatsworth Council needs to re-visit.
As far as I have been able to determine, and consistent with the fact that the decision to build the BioDigester was not made by Council, it does not appear that the Council was involved in a meaningful way
with the decision to bundle the Bio-Digester with landfill. No studies were evidently done on this.
Chatsworth residents and taxpayers have never been informed, except by me, that the arrangements
with Georgian Bluffs regarding the Bio-Digester also involved providing landfill space.
6|Page
Performance - Costs
Obviously, cost is an important measure of performance. The graph below provides big picture results
from the beginning of operation of the Bio-Digester in early 2011 to the end of 2014.
Chatsworth is responsible for half of all of the figures shown in the graph and contained in the tables
that follow in this section.
Bio-Digester Cumulative Financial Results (2011 through 2014)
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
FORECAST (PROFITS)
$500,000
$0
2010
-$500,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
ACTUAL RESULTS (LOSSES)
-$1,000,000
Notes: 1) Figures for the first year of operation were not audited.
2) Figures for 2012 and 2013 are from Audit Reports.
3) Figures for 2014 are taken from the Agenda package for the January 9, 2015 meeting (which
stated that some of the actual data for the month of December require adjustments).
A few more big picture cost-related items are provided in the following tables. Forecast amounts are
taken from Schedule C (Tables C-1, C-2 and C-3) of the Agreement which, in turn, are the same as
Tables 5, 6 and 7 in the final Design Brief dated February 2010. [Appendix A November 19]
In the graph above and in the tables below, I have reduced the annual forecasts for 2011 by one-twelfth
to reflect the fact that the Bio-Digester was not fully in-service until mid-January 2011; this is not precise
7|Page
but it is close enough for this purpose. Some of the other figures in the following tables have been
computed by me from the Audit Reports and from detailed reports tabled at meetings of the Joint
Management Board.
Chatsworth residents and the Chatsworth Council have never been provided with big picture
information about the financial situation such as contained in the preceding graph and the following
tables.
Bio-Digester Income from Operation

Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
Forecast Tipping
Fees (all sources)
$372,653
$406,531
$406,531
$406,531
Actual Tipping
Fees (all sources)
$111,541
$130,267
$117,540
$145,872
Forecast Hydro
Revenue
$117,333
$128,000
$128,000
$128,000
Actual Hydro
Revenue
$59,558
$81,785
$68,987
$56,564
Mayor Pringle has used the broken promise by the province explanation for the actual income from
tipping fees being so much less than the forecast. There is no evidence whatsoever that any Minister in
the Liberal government (elected in October 2003) ever made any such promise. [Appendix C]
Bio-Digester Annual Operating Costs (Excluding Capital)

Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
Forecast Cost
(from Agreement)
$194,545
$212,231
$212,231
$212,231
Actual Cost
$310,194
$502,948
$416,492
$338,582
The actual cost figures in this table do not include capital even though the forecast annual cost of
$212,231 includes an allowance of $50,000 that is titled Reserve fund for Upgrading of Facility in 20
Years.
In the end, of course, taxpayers have to pick up the bill whether expenditures are classified as capital or
operational, but I have tried to take capital out of the operating costs so I can make valid calculations for
the actual costs of operating a sewage treatment plant (next table).
Again, and to be clear, Chatsworth was responsible for 50% of the actual costs in the preceding table.
8|Page
Sewage and Septage Processed, and Unit Costs

Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
Forecast Volume
from Agreement
(cu. metres)
20,911
22,812
22,812
22,812
Actual Volume
(cu. metres)
Forecast Unit Cost

($ per cu. metre)
Actual Unit Cost

($ per cu. metre)
n/a
10,670
8,122
n/a
$ 9.30
$ 9.30
$ 9.30
$ 9.30
n/a
$ 47.14
$ 51.28
n/a
The tipping fee for the Sunset Strip was $8.05 per cubic metre over the entire period covered by this
table; the fee for residential septage stood at $25.00 per cubic metre from 2011 through 2013; the fee
was reduced to zero for Chatsworth residents in mid-2014, and other changes seem to be pending.
It is my understanding that municipalities often charge for services on a cost recovery basis. If this
were the way in which the Bio-Digester were operated, therefore, the actual unit cost incurred would
become the starting point for a discussion and decision at the beginning of each year about setting
appropriate tipping fees for the next year so as to recover some or all of the costs incurred in treating
the septage / sewage.
Note the forecast unit cost ($9.30 for all septage including from the Sunset Strip) in light of the $35.00
per cubic metre tipping fee assumed in the June 2006 Report [Appendix A October 12] and the $45.00
per cubic metre fee assumed in the Revised Estimates 2008 Report [Appendix A October 14]. The
difference between these assumed tipping fees and the forecast cost of $9.30 per cubic metre is the
primary reason that the Bio-Digester was forecast to pay for itself within a relatively short period of
time.
On October 23, 2013 I made this presentation to the Chatsworth Council on subsidies to the Sunset
Strip. Some Georgian Bluffs Councillors and staff were in attendance. The subject is also covered in my
blog, so I will not repeat that information here, except to state that the presentation concluded that the
subsidies by Chatsworth have amounted to about $100,000 per year since the Bio-Digester came into
service, for a total of $400,000. [Appendix D]
It is difficult for anyone to determine volumes processed from figures normally available at Bio-Digester
meetings; this is why I have not provided actual volumes for 2011 and 2014. In May 2014, however,
information was tabled at a joint meeting of the Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs councils that provided
total volumes and residential volumes for 2012 and 2013.
The May 2014 document said that, in 2012, residential septic tanks provided 4% of the actual 10,670
cubic metres, or 427 cubic metres; in 2013, the residential volume was 3% or 244 cubic metres. These
figures are for Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs combined.
9|Page
Since an average septic tank is about 5 cubic metres, this means that about 85 residential septic tanks
were processed in 2012 and about 49 were processed in 2013, for a total of 134 from both townships
over these two years. There are roughly 2,900 septic tanks in Chatsworth and 4,900 in Georgian Bluffs.
Applying this ratio to the number of residential septic tanks treated leads to the conclusion that about
50 Chatsworth residents directed their septage to the Bio-Digester over the years 2012 and 2013.
From the preceding table, the operating costs for 2012 and 2013 were $919,440, half of which (about
$460,000) was paid by Chatsworth. Therefore, the actual benefit to Chatsworth over these two years
was to receive and process about 50 septic tanks. The average cost was $9,200 each, which amounts to
$1,840 per cubic metre.
The solution to the problem of high operating costs ($/cubic metre) is far more complex than increasing
the volume of septage delivered to the Bio-Digester, especially by making it mandatory for the BioDigester to be used (as was under consider in July 2014).
The reason for this is that Bio-Digester is not capable, as it stands, of handling a steady stream of trucks.
An unknown amount of additional money is needed before this is possible.
Performance Technical Aspects

I am not qualified to say much about the technical aspects of the Bio-Digester. I simply note that the
minutes of the Joint Committee in the first two years of operation (2011 and 2012) indicate a litany of
technical and practical problems that seemed to go beyond start-up issues that would normally be
expected, and that cost a great deal of money.
There are three reports about deficiencies, all of which were produced by the same consulting company.
The reports contain statements to the effect that some problems were anticipated but could not be
addressed in the design because of cost limitations. Needless to say, information such as this has not
been revealed voluntarily by Chatsworth.
The most recent report is dated December 4, 2014; it does not include information about costs to fix
these deficiencies, individually or in total. [Appendix A December 29]
In June, 2014 I recommended that the Chatsworth Council engage an independent consultant to provide
a report on the deficiencies. The Council has taken steps towards this end, but I do not know where this
stands at the moment. [Appendix E]
10 | P a g e
Transparency and Openness

This is related to, but different from public information discussed earlier in this report.
In the past, the Chatsworth Council and Administration have talked about transparency and openness,
but my involvement related to the Bio-Digester has led me to conclude that, for whatever reason, there
is little in the way of substance to this talk.
Providing a full Agenda package prior to Council meetings was a major step forward, and I commend the
Council and Administration for that. But more, much more, needs to be done.
For example, we seem to be entering a period of time that will see upward pressures on tax rates that
will necessitate reviews of services. There may need to be combinations of increased costs, reduced
services and, possibly, innovations involving cooperation with other municipalities or the private sector.
I am of the view that taxpayers deserve respect, and will respond positively to genuine efforts to inform
and involve them about such problems. The Guide from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
referred to earlier in this report speaks to this in many places. There is no magic bullet, though.
Moving from generalities to specifics, there is an opportunity now to take a different approach with
regard to the Bio-Digester. Council should demand simple and clear cost and performance information
(such as but not necessarily the same as that contained in this report).
In my view, explanations along the lines of it has to be this way because thats the way it is that I have
heard at meetings cannot be accepted; if Councillors or Chatsworth representatives on the Joint Board
dont understand something, then they have a responsibility to say so, and insist that information be
provided in a way that they believe can be understood by residents.
There is no valid reason for a record-keeping system to dictate the form and content of reports which
are then unintelligible to average citizens. For example, it is astonishing that someone cannot download
a copy of an Audit Report for any year and be able to quickly find audited figures showing how much the
Bio-Digester cost in that year. But it is impossible to do that; this is simply not acceptable. [Appendix F]
On this point, Mr. Henry Feenstra was one of the first people to rise at the All Candidates meeting in
Williamsford on October 2, 2014. After stating that he had heard a number of cost figures floating
around, Mr. Feenstra asked Mayor Pringle: What has the Bio-Digester actually cost Chatsworth? To
me, the fact that a respected, intelligent taxpayer needed to ask a simple question like that indicates
that something is seriously wrong.
I was seated in about the fifth or sixth row, and wrote down Mayor Pringles answers as follows: 2011
$191,000; 2012 $310,000; and 2012 $324,000. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time
that the costs of the Bio-Digester have been spoken about openly in public.
That said, however, it is on point to note that these figures are not the same as the ones in the
Provincial Financial Information Reporting system (the official numbers that the Province requires
11 | P a g e
every municipality to file). The FIR numbers at line 0898 on Schedule 40 (Consolidated Statement of
Operations: Expenses) are as follows: 2011 $305,094; 2012 $381,196; and 2012 $307,737.
The Mayor did some rounding, which is fine, but setting that aside, there are material differences
between his answers to Mr. Feenstra and the FIR numbers. Why?
For Agenda Package for the inaugural meeting of this Council on December 3, 2014 contained an
excellent two-part article. I sincerely hope that this was not simply noted and filed as so many of us
tend to do when more immediate events and issues demand our attention.
I have not had an opportunity to observe a normal work day in the Chatsworth office, but it is
possible, even likely, that openness and transparency as a guiding principle rather than some kind of
afterthought like it now appears to be cannot be achieved without additional resources.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but as long as I can be assured that there is minimal waste and
inefficiency, the thought of increased costs for this purpose doesnt trouble me.
In summary, it is both a legal responsibility and moral responsibility for the Chatsworth Council and
Administration to conduct public business in full public view. This is not happening at present.
Management Issues
The preceding sections of this report identify some issues that need to be pursued by the Council.
First: Because there was never any study of alternative ways of treating septage (either independently
or in partnership), there is no evidence on which to base an assumption that the Bio-Digester represents
the best option for the future. The facts that it exists and is operating cannot be ignored, however.
Considering actual results in the first four years of operation, it is clear that continuing along the same
path without significant changes is not sustainable; this is the big picture fact behind the meeting of
both councils on May 28, 1914 and some of the information contained in the Agenda Package for the
January 9, 2015 Joint Board meeting (that was cancelled). That is to say, major changes are required to
the financial foundation; the elephant in the room can no longer be ignored.
Some of the required changes should not, perhaps cannot, be carried out without changes to the
February 2, 2011 Agreement which never did and certainly does not now reflect financial reality.
Therefore, I believe that the Chatsworth Council should provide notice of termination of the Agreement
(Article 6.0) in five years. This should not be seen as an act that is hostile; rather, it is a necessity in
order to protect the interests of Chatsworth going forward. To demonstrate good faith, Chatsworth
should continue to provide its share of funding to keep the Bio-Digester operating, and cooperate with
Georgian Bluffs in present efforts to bring a measure of fairness to the costs. However, it would be a
mistake in my opinion for Chatsworth to agree to provide new capital to attempt to address deficiencies
12 | P a g e
that have been identified, at least until such time as it is shown that continued operation is the best or
at least a very good way for Chatsworth to deal with septage.
Chatsworth then needs to get on with the engineering study that has been initiated. If the results of that
study point to the possibility that the Bio-Digester is a viable option, then reasonable projections of its
costs need to be compared to other options; again, no other options were ever considered.
Second: As long as the Bio-Digester remains in operation and under management by the Joint Board, a
way needs to be found for the entire Council to be involved in decisions. In my observation, the
historical role of the Council in this regard has been something akin to a rubber stamp. This seems to
be at odds with some aspects of By-Law 2012-25 which authorized approval of the September 5, 2012
Agreement that established and governs the operation of the Joint Board. [Appendix B]
A $300,000 per year budget item requires fully informed input from all of our elected representatives,
not just the Mayor and Deputy Mayor at Joint Board meetings. Therefore, Chatsworth needs to
implement some means by which the entire Council can be informed about the Bio-Digester and related
issues. For example, there could be an information report tabled with Council after each Joint Board
meeting by which key issues are identified in advance and direction sought. By comparison, the Council
is routinely provided with far less information about the Bio-Digester than about the Wind Turbine
Committee or Conservation Authorities.
Lack of information can be damaging to the interests of the Township of Chatsworth. For example, the
three Chatsworth Councillors who attended the joint council meeting on May 28, 2014 had very little
background upon which to draw to ask questions and respond to what was said by others. It was
obvious that they had not been briefed, and were pretty much at sea.
I hasten to say that I am not pointing fingers; I am just pointing to a problem that needs to be fixed.
Third: Chatsworth residents and taxpayers need to be provided with full information about possible
impacts of the landfill aspects of the Agreement in the event that Georgian Bluffs initiates plans to
exercise this provision of the Bio-Digester Agreement.
Considering the huge differences between the actual results and the it will pay for itself in 7 years
scenario painted when the Bio-Digester was first announced, there is an understandable measure of
skepticism about the benefits to Chatsworth of the landfill aspects of the Agreement.
It is possible, of course, that Georgian Bluffs will not need or wish to exercise this provision. It is also
possible that accepting garbage from Georgian Bluffs for 30 years (as Councillor Barfoot described) will
be manageable and beneficial to Chatsworth. But if this is even remotely possible, then the Chatsworth
Council needs to initiate discussions with Georgian Bluffs, the Ministry of the Environment, other
agencies and the public in order to figure it out.
Respectfully submitted,
Trevor E. Falk
13 | P a g e
Appendix A Freedom of Information Requests

The information in this Appendix was copied from the Bio-Digester (Freedom of Information Requests)
tab of my blog which can be found at (http://shininglightonchatsworth.wordpress.com). The dates in
bold are the dates on which the information was posted; these dates are referred to in the report to
direct readers of the report to more complete information.
I post information on the blog so that the most current information is at the top of each page. This
means that the blog runs from newest to oldest. For convenience, I have produced this Appendix in the
opposite order so that it is chronological in terms of my comments, and almost chronological in terms of
the documents I have reviewed.
Sept 25, 2014
After almost two years of following issues related to the Bio-Digester, it became clear to me that the
Leaders of the Township of Chatsworth (Mayor Bob Pringle, Deputy Mayor Terry McKay and CAO/Clerk
Will Moore) were not interested in being genuinely forthcoming in response to requests for information
about the Bio-Digester. I was seeking information to help me understand why and how Chatsworth
ended up being equally responsible with Georgian Bluffs for transportation and treatment of septage
generated by businesses on the Sunset Strip.
Therefore, I filed a Freedom of Information request with the Township of Chatsworth on June 11, 2014.
A copy of my letter is here.
Although some documents had been provided by August 20 (more than a month later than the 30-day
deadline specified in the legislation), I appealed on that date to the Information and Privacy
Commissioner of Ontario. The case has been accepted by the IPC, an Analyst has been assigned and I
understand that work is underway.
When I receive the information that I have requested (or a signed declaration of some sort that says that
no such information exists), I will post everything here.
October 9, 2014 FOI Information from Chatsworth
On September 30, 2014, Mr. W. Moore (CAO-Clerk of the Township of Chatsworth) wrote to advise me
that all of the relevant documents in the possession of Chatsworth had been provided (click here to see
the letter).
My original intention was to simply post all of the documents along with this letter. Upon reflection,
though, I think it would be more useful (in terms of developing a broad understanding about how we
arrived at this point) for me to post the documents in chronological order. At the same time, I will
provide a brief description or explanation of my understanding of each document, or make note of
particular points.
1|Page
Appendix A FOI Requests
It will probably take me a couple of weeks to do this. By the end, people who follow just the
commentary should have a reasonable understanding of the story of the biodigester without getting too
deep into the swamp, so to speak. Anyone who is inclined to delve deeper into any subject, or any
particular document, will be able to do so if they wish.
October 9, 2014 FOI Request to Georgian Bluffs
The sewage lagoon is integral to the biodigester project and the Agreement between Chatsworth and
Georgian Bluffs. Chatsworth has one-half interest in the lagoon. It is claimed that the subsidies that
Chatsworth pays (half of the transportation and roughly one-third of the tipping fees for every drop of
septage generated by most businesses on the Sunset Strip) are somehow justified based on the original
financing of the lagoon, but there has never been a coherent explanation of this.
In the circumstances, I thought that Chatsworth would have at least some information about the lagoon,
but apparently not (see point 7 in Mr. Moores Sept 30 letter, below). This strikes me as very odd, but in
any event, the importance of the lagoon and the lack of any information from Chatsworth about it
caused me to file a Freedom of Information request with Georgian Bluffs on October 7, 2014 (click here
to see it).
October 10, 2014 Chronological List of Documents provided by Township of Chatsworth to FOI
Request
A list of documents provided in response to my June 11, 2014 FOI request may be found here. This is
(roughly) the order that I will post them with some commentary, starting later today.
October 10, 2014 Document #1: Septage Management Plan for the Municipalities of Grey County
prepared by Henderson Paddon and Associates Limited (March 12, 2004).
First, note that the Figures and Tables were not provided by Mr. Moore in response to my FOI request.
In April, 2013 I found this report on the Grey County website, but it seems to have been removed since
then. I will post the tables, figures and appendices at a later date.
Section 1.1 of this report refers to a meeting of Grey County representatives with the Minister of the
Environment in February 2003. Although not named, the Minister at that time was Mr. C. Stockwell who
was at the same time the Minister of Energy in the government of then Premier Ernie Eves. The report
states: It was made clear by the Minister to the delegation that they were considering banning the
application of septage from the land in future and that this issue should be resolved.
A meeting in June 2003 with officials of the Ministry (not the Minister) apparently discussed the
possibility of a Pilot Project in Grey County. The Ministry officials apparently discussed certain
conditions that would have to be met, in particular that all nine municipalities in the County would
participate. From the Provinces perspective, I can understand why this would be important (scale and
practicality).
2|Page
There is no reference in the report to the fact that a majority Liberal government was elected after
these meetings, and that a new Minister of the Environment was appointed at the end of October 2003.
I read every Speech from the Throne and every Budget speech beginning in 2004 and did not see a
single word about septage. Furthermore, in response to my FOI request, Mr. Moore did not provide any
documentation of any sort about the promise that the Province has broken.
So as far as I have been able to determine, there never was any promise by the Province in a form that
anyone who was spending their own money could take to the bank. If anyone ever again hears Mayor
Pringle (or Mayor Barfoot) talk about the Province breaking its promise, please ask for specifics.
Section 5.0 discusses the existing (in 2004) wastewater treatment plants in Grey County of which there
were a total of 12 (primary at Owen Sound, secondary or tertiary at Flesherton, Craigleith, Markdale,
Amik, Dundalk, Derby, Meaford, Thornbury, Durham, Hanover and Neustadt). Chatsworth is the only
municipality without a wastewater treatment plant. At the time, it is noted that there was significant
uncommitted capacity at eight of these treatment plants.
Section 8 provides a list of conclusions. Recommendations are in Section 9. The report concludes that a
privately owned and operated dewatering and composting facility at the Durham wastewater treatment
plant was the least costly and most socially and environmentally acceptable alternative considered.
October 11, 2014 Document #1 (continued): Septage Management Plan for the Municipalities of
Grey County (March 12, 2004) and Document #1A: Table 4 from this report.
Section 4.2 of this report deals with quality of septage (that is, its chemical and biological contents)
which must be taken into account in the design of treatment and disposal facilities. References are
made to samples taken in 2001 2003 at wastewater treatment plants in the Town of Meaford, the
Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula, the Town of Saugeen Shores, the City of Hamilton and the
District of Muskoka.
The sample data are summarized in Table 4 of the report that was not provided in response to my
Freedom of Information request. Rather, I downloaded it from the Grey County website in April of 2013.
Section 4.2 states that: It should also be noted that in some grab samples, there were high elevated
levels of metals such as copper, zinc and aluminum. Copper was reported to be as high as 290 mg/L, zinc
at 750 mg/L and aluminum at 5300 mg/L. It is not known where the high levels of metals originated.
These parameters may be from chemicals and cleaning products utilized in households and disposed of
through plumbing to the septic tank. It should be noted that in all cases, for the selected parameters,
other than pH and chloride, the average concentration of septage exceeds the Ontario Sanitary Model
Sewer Use Bylaw criteria.
The report goes on to say that: The U.S. EPA has suggested a design guideline of 8 mg/L for copper,
40 mg/L for zinc and 50 mg/L for aluminum . As can be seen in Table 4, some grab samples indicate
much higher levels than the design concentration listed for copper and zinc, which needs to be
3|Page
investigated further to ensure there is not a problem with final disposal of treated wastewater or
compost on farm land in regard to heavy metals.
At Bio-Digester meetings that I have attended and in related documents, I have not noted any
references to testing for heavy metals. Given the data contained in the 2004 report about heavy metals
in some septage in Ontario, one would think that it would be a good idea to test the digestate (the
end product that is obviously much more concentrated than raw septage). Perhaps this has been done,
or is being done on an ongoing basis, and I just dont know about it.
The report contains no information about pharmaceuticals; are they destroyed, or, like heavy metals,
might they be concentrated?
October 12, 2014 Document #2: Anaerobic Treatment of Septage/Biosolids to Produce Biogas,
Electrical Power and Treated Biosolids, Henderson Paddon & Associates, June 2006.
Section 1.0 of this report states that: The Ministry of the Environment, several years ago, indicated that
the disposal of untreated septage on agricultural land will be discontinued and that all septage will need
to be treated before being disposed of on agricultural land. I assume this to be a reference to the
discussion with Minister C. Stockwell in 2003 (see my October 10 comments regarding Section 1.1 of
Document #1).
It goes on to say that: The Townships of Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs are interested in being
proactive with regard to treatment of septage and have therefore engaged Henderson Paddon &
Associates Limited to further investigate a proven agricultural manure anaerobic digestion system
which could be applied to treat septage and biosolids . I take the portion of the sentence that I have
emphasised with bold font to mean that the consultant was not aware of any (or very few) working
biodigesters for human waste. See comments on Section 3, below.
These are the first references in the documentation to: a) cooperation between the Township of
Chatsworth and the Township of Georgian Bluffs; and b) anaerobic digestion for the production of
biogas and electricity. Note that anaerobic digestion was not one of the options considered in the March
2004 Management Plan for Grey County.
Section 2 of the 2006 report deals with quantity and quality of septage for Chatsworth and Georgian
Bluffs combined, using figures from the 2004 report. The 2006 report for Chatsworth and Georgian
Bluffs is silent about heavy metals; there is no mention of the need for follow-up about heavy metals
raised in Section 4.2 of the 2004 report.
Section 3 is a very high-level discussion about how a biodigester works. There are references to the use
of corn stalks and to the Hydro One feed-in tariff. There is no discussion about the reason for mixing
additional digestible materials (in this case, corn stalks) with septage. As I understand it, bio-digestion of
animal manure does not require additional materials to be added; in turn, I believe this means that
comparisons with Bio-Digesters for animal manure are somewhat limited in value.
4|Page
Section 4 provides a general description of facilities required and costs. I note that about three-quarters
of the estimated annual operating cost (a little more than $200,000) is attributed to the cost of
disposing of the digestate.
Section 5 is titled Financial Analysis. The total cost was estimated at $1.54 million (2006). Revenue
numbers are based on the assumption (that is stated as a recommendation) that residential septic tanks
be pumped every three years and that the tipping fee be $35 per cubic metre.
October 13, 2014 Document #3: Minutes of January 8, 2007 meeting among Chatsworth, Georgian
Bluffs and engineering consultant
Although obviously there had been some informal discussions after the June 2006 report was tabled,
this appears to be the first of a series of official meetings held in 2007. The Township of Chatsworth
was typically represented by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and CAO-Clerk.
In point 5 of these minutes (that are on the consultants letterhead), the minutes outline what are said
to be two approaches, the first of which is to use a proven technology and design facilities from
Europe . The second approach is to Carry out a pilot project in conjunction with a private supplier of
anaerobic digesters to test septage and agricultural products to produce biogas before construction of a
full scale facility.
It isnt clear to me why the options are outlined in this way. If proven technology and design facilities
(approach #1) exist, then why would the second approach involving testing be suggested as some sort
of alternative? Maybe you had to be there but in any event, it appears from the actions agreed at the
meeting that the parties were intent on obtaining funding for the first approach.
At point 14 of the minutes it is implied that Chatsworth had already made a decision (or would shortly
make a decision) to pay for consulting fees from the Federal gas tax money. One would think that
this would have been something that would be drawn to the attention of taxpayers.
Point 18 of the minutes sets February 12, 2007 as the date for the next meeting, but there are no
records from or related to a meeting on that date.
The townships and the consultant put considerable effort into trying to obtain funding. Here, without
further comment, are the documents that were prepared during this period:
1. Presentation Brief Feb 2007 (appears to have been produced by Henderson Paddon)
2. Funding request to Minister Dombrowsky (Agriculture) Feb 19, 2007
3. Funding request to Minister Broten (Environment) Feb 19, 2007
4. Funding request to Parliamentary Secretary of Minister of Agriculture Feb 23, 2007
5|Page
5. Support Letters (from Western Ontario Wardens Caucus, Grey County Federation of Agriculture,
National Farmers Union Local 336, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Grey County Forest
Stewardship Network) April June, 2007
In response to my Freedom of Information request of June 11, 2014, the Township provided no copies of
minutes of Council Meetings that dealt with the June 2006 report or with the activities of the BioDigester Committee in 2007 that arose out of the June 2006 report, including any discussion about
funding. This strikes me as being odd, so I intend to make further inquiry.
October 14, 2014 Gestation Period (Documents from mid-2007 to mid-2008)
Document #15: Revised Estimates 2008 (Henderson Paddon updates of Table 4, 5 & 6 in June 2006
report) August 7, 2008
It is interesting to compare these tables to the same-numbered tables in the June 2006 report
(Document #2). For convenience, click here to see the comparisons (in each case, the table from 2006 is
followed immediately by the table from 2008). No rationale is provided for any of the changes, some of
which are very significant. Inflation from 2006 to 2008 would account for increases of less than 5%
(inflation rates here), but many other factors can influence construction and equipment costs.
With regard to Table 4 (Project Costs), there are round number increases for pretty well all
components (for example: heating system increase of 25% from $40,000 to $50,000; receiving station
increase of 20% from $50,000 to $60,000; and generator set increase of 14% from $145,000 to
$165,000). In addition to a 25% increase in the unit cost for building storage room for digestate, the size
is tripled (from 1,155 cubic metres to 3,465 cubic metres). The per unit cost of constructing the primary
and secondary digesters is 33% higher in the 2008 estimate compared to the 2006 value.
Finally with regard to Table 4, new items in the 2008 estimate include the start-up of the treatment
system ($60,000), engineering assistance for commissioning treatment system ($68,875) and monitoring
of treatment and performance ($90,000).
The overall sense I get from these figures is that the design was evolving, especially with regard to
requirements associated with processing human septage rather than animal manure.
Table 5 shows estimated operational costs. The most notable difference to me is the 66% increase in
cost of corn stalks (from $30 per tonne to $50 per tonne).
Table 6 shows an increase of almost 30% in the assumed tipping fee ($45 per cubic metre compared to
from $35 in the 2006 report). Again, there is no explanation for this. With the revised (higher) cost
estimates and the higher assumed tipping fee, the payback period is shown to be less than ten years.
6|Page
Document #14: Hydro One Cost Estimate January 4, 2008

The cost estimate from Hydro One for their work in connecting the biodigester to the grid was $23,000
plus taxes. The document states that the Connection Cost Recovery Agreement must be signed on or
before May 7, 2008 for the planned in-service dated of September 1, 2009.
Document #9 through Document #13 Meetings in 2007 (Chatsworth, Georgian Bluffs, consultant)
Some of these are Agendas only (no minutes). My understanding is that Chatsworth was usually
represented at these meetings by Mayor Greig, Deputy Mayor Pringle and CAO Will Moore. I assume
that the role of the CAO was to bring business, management and administrative perspectives to the
table.
The purposes of these meetings seem to have been to flesh out the ideas and try to find support and,
importantly, external funding. Some expenses were incurred, so by email on Oct 13, I asked CAO Will
Moore for more information about how payments were authorized. On Oct 16, Mr. Moore replied that
he would respond in due course. Stay tuned for further information on this.
Joint Meeting April 2, 2007
There is nothing much of note here. Evidently, some representatives of Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs
managed to meet with some provincial politicians and bureaucrats.
Joint Meeting #4 April 24, 2007 (Note that this is an Agenda only no minutes were provided in
response to my FOI request)
Again, it doesnt appear to me that much happened or was decided. Follow-up and cultivating contacts.
Joint Meeting #5 June 19, 2007 (Agenda only)
Ditto. Expenditure of $7,420 noted for Study and Connection Cost Agreement for Hydro One.
Joint Meeting #6 Sept 27, 2007 (Agenda only)
Judging by the Agenda for the next meeting, it appears that this one was cancelled.
Joint Meeting #7 October 5, 2007 (Agenda only)
This Agenda is identical to the one for the September 27 meeting.
October 27, 2014 Policy Statement about septage by Ministry of the Environment, 2005 (summarized
in this July 2007 Fact Sheet). Note: This Fact Sheet was not among the documents provided by
Chatsworth in response to my FOI request, but I am including it here for background.
The introduction to the next document provided in response to my FOI request (Document #16) refers
to a Provincial Policy Statement about septage published in 2005 (before the Bio-Digester option was
decided). For purposes of background before posting Document #16 (in a day or two), here is a brief
summary of the policy as outlined in the 2007 Fact Sheet.
7|Page
The options for treating and disposing of septage are said to be: alkaline stabilization which involves the
addition of lime or alkali to reduce pathogens, with the treated product being spread on approved sites;
composting that, in 2007 when the Fact Sheet was prepared, was not used in Ontario but was under
consideration; stabilization lagoons (not the same as storage lagoons) designed to treat septage to MOE
standards; dewatering trenches which are long, narrow trenches excavated in permeable soils for the
purpose of dewatering septage prior to final disposal at approved landfill sites or further stabilized and
used as nutrients at approved sites; dewatering facilities where treatment usually involves screening,
dewatering to separate the liquid from the solids, and may involve the treatment of either the separated
liquid (such as by means of a constructed wetland system), the separated solids (such as by disposal at
approved landfill sites or further stabilized and used as nutrients at approved locations), or both; and
incineration after dewatering, which the 2007 Fact Sheet states has not found to have been cost
effective and was not practised in Ontario at that time.
The 2005 Policy Statement also states that a municipality could secure sufficient treatment through
building its own sewage treatment plant, through written agreement with another municipality, or
through an approved private sector facility.
November 13, 2014 Further to my October 7, 2014 FOI request to Georgian Bluffs, I spent much of the
day on October 29 in the Georgian Bluffs council chambers reviewing documents provided by CAO/Clerk
Murray Hackett. I have posted the list of documents I reviewed, as well as my closure letter to Mr.
Hackett. I made very few copies, but I will scan those I that I did make and post them as part of the
chronological review.
November 13, 2014: Document #16 Business Plan - Anaerobic Treatment of Septage/Biosolids/Corn
Stover to Produce Biogas, Electrical Power and Treated Biosolids, April 2009 received from Chatsworth
and Document #16a Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 from Document #16 (obtained from Georgian Bluffs)
First, I am putting Business Plan in quotation marks in these comments because the document doesnt
conform to my understanding of a rigorous Business Plan.
Note that this Business Plan is dated April, 2009. Except for the Hydro One estimate (Document #14)
and the Revised Estimates (Document #15), no documents from 2008 were provided in response to my
Freedom of Information request. I dont understand why there wouldnt have been correspondence and
meetings leading up to the authorization for the consultant to prepare this report (or the updated costs
in 2008, for that matter).
Section 1.0 (Problem Statement) of Document #16 makes reference to the 2004 report prepared for
Grey County (Document #1 discussed earlier), stating that the overall project for the entire County as
recommended in that report did not go forward.
Section 1.0 also refers to the Policy Statement published in 2005 (that I reviewed on October 27, below):
In addition, the Reserved Sewage System Capacity for Hauled Sewage Policy, which was introduced in
2005, indicated that municipalities must provide capacity for treating septage at their wastewater
8|Page
treatment plants or have a separate facility for treating septage to provide for significant new residential
growth.
To me, this reads as though wastewater treatment plants were made obligatory by the Policy Statement
but, to the best of my understanding, that was not the case. Even today, there are is no legislation and
there are no regulations implementing this Policy, so it seems to me that the Policy Statement was
nothing more than a statement of intention of some sort by the province in 2005.
Section 2.0 (Project Objective) reads as though a decision had already been made to proceed. In
response to an emailed request about this, CAO/Clerk Will Moore sent the following note to me on
October 30: Regarding initial costs for engineering Council approved payment of $ 3,340 to Henderson,
Paddon from the Federal Gas tax grant on December 27, 2006. In 2007 there were accounts approved in
the net amount of $ 16,207.30 and on January 2, 2008 Council approved a resolution to fund those costs
with the Federal Gas Tax grant.
I will be reviewing the minutes of Chatsworth Council to understand the nature and form of what seems
to have been some sort of contract that must have been in place with the consultant.
Section 3.0 (Analysis of Septage Treatment Options) starts by making reference to the 2004 study for
Grey County (please refer back to my comments about this posted on October 10 and 12). It then goes
on to compare the two least costly alternatives from the 2004 study (updated to 2009) with the costs for
the Bio-Digester.
I hope I am wrong in this, but this appears to me to be an apples and oranges comparison in that the
costs from the 2004 report are for treating all sewage in the County whereas the Bio-Digester option is
sized to treat sewage from Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs only. If this is the case, then the result of the
cost comparison (that the biodigester was much less costly than the other two options) was a foregone
conclusion. Perhaps I am missing something ?
Sections 4.0 through 10.0 are titled Proposed Activities, Project Rationale, Expected Benefits, Timelines
and Milestones, Performance and Progress Measures, Project Risks and Project Budget. Clearly, plans
were well along when this was written.
Regarding Project Risks, I have written elsewhere on this blog and in correspondence with Mayor
Pringle going back almost two years that there was no evidence whatsoever in 2009 that the province
was prepared (or even preparing to) ban the spreading of septage on approved vacant land, but the risks
identified in this Business Plan didnt even include a possible delay in this regard.
When the decision was made to borrow the money and proceed with construction, it was 100% certain
that this assumption was wrong. The resulting financial predicament was 100% foreseeable.
Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the April 2009 report are exactly the same as the revised costs estimates from 2008
(Tables 4, 5 and 6 in Document #14). Table 4 of the April 2009 report, showing cash flow projections, is
consistent with my understanding that plans were well along when this report was written.
9|Page
November 14, 2014: Document #17 Build Canada grant application (May 6, 2009) with supporting
documents (Document #18)
Section II of the Application indicates tendering by Sept 15, 2009 with construction starting on October
22 and substantial completion by the end of June, 2010.
On page 4 of 13 of the Application, the answer to the question about cost recovery states that the
tipping fee for septage and biosolids would be $45 per cubic metre which would produce annual net
revenues of $339,400 after expenses of $227,100. This answer includes some discussion about the
possibility of lower revenues due to less septage (this is the kind of discussion I would expect in a
section titled Project Risk in a Business Plan, but Document #16 contains no such discussion). On page
8, there is reference to what appear to me to be apples and oranges alternatives in the Business
Plan (see my comments with regard to Document #16).
The supporting documents include a letter from Chatsworth Mayor Greig to Georgian Bluffs Mayor
Barfoot that states: The Council of the Township of Chatsworth supports your application for Build
Canada Funds for a BioDigester in the amount of $2,700,000.00. Chatsworth is committed to 50 percent
of the municipal portion of the cost of the project. Council will pass a motion at our next meeting.
It appears that the June 2006 report (Document #2) with updated tables (Document #15) were attached
to the application.
November 15, 2014: Payments by Chatsworth in the early years (2006 and 2007)
As I was working through the documents in chronological order, it dawned on me that I hadnt seen
anything about payments to the consultant for work related to the Bio-Digester. I asked Chatsworth
CAO/Clerk Moore about this, and he provided some information by email on October 29. We later
arranged for me to go through Council minutes prior to 2012 that are not posted on the website; I did
this on November 13.
Chatsworth incurred costs of about $23,000 in 2006 and 2007 (based on this list provided to me by
CAO/Clerk Moore on Nov 13). There was evidently some sort of verbal agreement between Chatsworth
and Georgian Bluffs about equal sharing of Bio-Digester costs. I assume there was a contract between
the consultant and the Township of Georgian Bluffs, but there was no contract between the consultant
and the Township of Chatsworth.
The costs in 2006 were for the consultant only, but the costs for 2007 covered both the consultant and a
payment to Hydro One for a study related to connecting the planned Bio-Digester to the grid.
CAO/Clerk Moore told me that the first reference to the Bio-Digester is contained in the minutes of a
meeting of Chatsworth Council held on December 27, 2006. Motion 344/2006 states that Chatsworths
share (that is, 50%) should be paid from the Federal Gas Tax money.
The Bio-Digester is not mentioned in minutes of the Chatsworth Council in 2007 although regular
payments continued to be made to the consultant. The minutes of the Chatsworth Council meeting on
10 | P a g e
January 2, 2008 (Motion 4/2008) deal with the costs incurred during 2007 in the same way as for those
incurred during 2006 (Federal Gas Tax Reserve).
I did not ask to see the budget for 2007, or the Audit Report for that year. However, based on the fact
that the Audit reports for 2011, 2012 and 2013 contain no separate accounting for the Bio-Digester even
though the total costs to Chatsworth over these three years was close to a million dollars, I would guess
that costs for 2007 were buried somewhere (for related information, see Hiding the Costs under the
Biodigester tab).
I dont know about the legality or ethics associated with flowing money to another township and to a
consultant on the basis of verbal agreements, or about audit-related rules or best practises in such
cases. In my opinion, however, this doesnt meet any reasonable test of transparency.
November 19, 2014: Design meetings in the spring and summer of 2009
After the Build Canada grant application was approved, the parties met regularly in a series of design
meetings, the first of which was held on June 16, 2009 (minutes here). At that meeting, the consultant
handed out the proposed schedule.
The Chatsworth Council met on the next day. Points 5 and 6 of motion 155/2009 in the minutes of that
meeting state:
5. Georgian Bluffs and Chatsworth agree to finalize an agreement on the construction, invoicing, project
management, acceptance, maintenance and operation of the Bio-Digester, including revenue sharing,
based on the principle that both Townships share equally in the risk and/or reward from the BioDigester Facility.
6. That the CAO/Clerk Administrators bring back an agreement for execution by the Councils of the
Townships.
I am of the view that the February 2, 2011 Agreement does not reflect the principle in point #5 (that I
highlighted in bold font) because it transfers to Chatsworth half of all costs associated with sewage
originating in the Sunset Strip.
The second design meeting was held on July 3 (minutes here) and the third one on August 10 (minutes
here).
The fourth meeting was held on September 11 (minutes here). The minutes make reference to a public
meeting to be held at Keady in the evening of October 1, 2009.
Agenda Item #2 of the Sept 11 meeting states that the final Design Brief was tabled. I did not receive a
copy of this document in response to my FOI request to Chatsworth, but I reviewed a copy of it at the
Georgian Bluffs office on October 29, 2014.
Because the Sept 2009 Design Brief turned out to be superseded by a later version (dated February
2010), it is not of much importance except to the extent that it shows how the design evolved.
11 | P a g e
Therefore, rather than scanning and posting the entire document, I have simply scanned those pages or
sections that appear to have been changed significantly by the time the actual Final Design Brief was
prepared in February, 2010. If anyone reading this wants to review the entire document, please contact
me.
Here is the actual final Design Brief dated February 2010, and here are the pages in the Sept 2009 Design
Brief that were changed significantly which contain my comments as to the changes that were
eventually made. Note that I didnt spend a great deal of time comparing the two documents, so there
may well have been changes in addition to those that I have noted.
November 25, 2014: Letting Taxpayers in on the Plans
The last item in the minutes of the fourth Design Meeting (Sept 11, 2009) at which the tender process
was discussed and agreed, states that there would be a public meeting on October 1, 2009 in Keady.
By this time, taxpayers of the Township of Chatsworth had been told nothing, even though: 1) we had
been making payments to the consultant since sometime in 2006; 2) a decision had been made to build
a Bio-Digester; 3) the design was more-or-less complete; 4) an application for partial funding from both
Canada and Ontario had been submitted and approved; 5) a schedule had been prepared; and 6) tender
documents were ready to go.
Obviously, there was no purpose for a public meeting at this point except for show.
This made a mockery of the concept of transparency, and was almost completely at odds with this
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing process for deciding and evaluating services which stresses
the importance of early public involvement.
The notices and information provided were as follows: notice of public meeting and media invitation
dated Sept 25, together with an attachment; project summary probably distributed at the public
meeting at Keady on Oct 1; and notice of ground-breaking ceremony and media invitation dated Oct 28.
November 26, 2014: Approvals and Construction
On December 16, 2009, the consultant produced a single-page document titled Scope of Work Septage
Biodigester. At a meeting on that same day, Chatsworth Council passed Motion 321/2009 that enabled
construction to begin. The Council of Georgian Bluffs passed a similar motion.
The Award Letter from the consultant to the contractor was sent on December 21, 2009. Note that the
cost that had been estimated in May at $2.7 million was now $3,151,099 plus GST.
The kick-off construction meeting was held on January 26, 2010 (minutes here) at which time it was
thought that construction would begin in early April, 2010. The Final Design Brief referred to in that
meeting was evidently completed by the consultant shortly afterwards.
The contract with Maple Reinders Constructors Ltd was signed on February 26, 2010. It shows a total
cost of $3,308,654.28 (including GST in the amount of $157,554.97).
12 | P a g e
Construction meetings were held approximately monthly (April 29 minutes, May 27 minutes, June 29
minutes, July 20 minutes, August 19 minutes, and September 16 minutes).
At a Chatsworth Council meeting on August 4, 2010, Motion 213/2010 authorized borrowing up to
$1,200,000 for financing of the Township of Chatsworths share of the Biodigester.
On August 13, the two townships held a meeting with septage haulers (minutes here). I will have more
to say about the discussion at that meeting as recorded in the minutes within the next couple of days.
Funding for the Bio-Digester was discussed at a Chatsworth Council meeting on September 1, 2010.
Motion 225/2010 of that meeting authorized changes to the already-approved township budget.
November 27: Meetings with Septage Haulers
Yesterday, I said I would have further comments on the August 13, 2010 meeting with septage haulers.
The people who are in the business of pumping septic tanks perform a vital service for the residents of
Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs. It stands to reason, therefore, that the views of these people about the
Bio-Digester, especially with regard to the possibility of enforcing its use through some sort of by-laws in
the townships, would carry some weight.
Haulers were evidently invited to a meeting about the Bio-Digester on August 13, 2010. I have not seen
a copy of the invitation or letter that may have been sent out prior to that meeting, but here are the
minutes of that meeting.
Public meetings about a proposed by-law to force use of the Bio-Digester were called for July 16, 2014
and for July 23, 2014 in Chatsworth. I was present at the first of these meetings which was attended by
two haulers; at the moment, I do not know whether one or more haulers attended the second public
meeting in Chatsworth on July 23, 2014. [Note: I sent an email to Clerk/CAO Will Moore today that said:
The minutes of the regular Council meetings of July 16 and July 23 both say that Minutes of the Public
Meetings are under separate cover but I cannot find them anywhere on the website. Will you please
either provide the link(s) to them, or send copies? I will post these minutes when they are made
available to me.]
The minutes of the August 13, 2010 meeting record the following key points:
1. The haulers wanted it made clear that they were not responsible for the additional costs (tanks are
typically between 4 and 5 cubic metres, so the tipping fee that was set at $25/cubic metre would add
$100-$125 to the cost for residents in Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs).
2. The haulers evidently pointed out the need to ensure they could gain access after normal municipal
hours (the solution proposed for this was/is a cardlock system).
3. It would appear that the townships were adding some responsibilities related to quality assurance
onto the haulers for waste not suitable for the Bio-Digester. It is not clear from the minutes that the
townships had given any thought to how this might be implemented or managed.
13 | P a g e
4. Although the Bio-Digester was not yet even in service, the concept of reduced tipping fees as a means
of subsidizing certain businesses was discussed.
5. The obviously important matter of off-loading times was discussed.
6. The haulers pointed out the desirability of a transition period of some sort, and also that the
requirement for long-distance (one hour was mentioned) trucking of septage takes away from the claim
that the Bio-Digester is green.
I attended the public meeting on July 16, 2014 in Chatsworth. Pending receipt of the minutes of that
meeting from CAO/Clerk Moore in response to my emailed request today, the main concern I recall
being stated by the haulers in attendance had to do with receiving facilities with which they had already
experienced problems. I had heard this concern expressed on a number of previous occasions at
meetings of the Joint Management Committee that I attended.
December 29: Three engineering reports on recommended changes
The first of the three reports is titled Feasibility Study to Improve Septage Receiving and Increase Power
to 340 kW (4.8 MB) and is dated February 10, 2012.
Section 1.0 of this report states: The treated digestate storage that was originally constructed was 850
m3 (cubic metres), however, it was found that more storage was needed at the existing facility and for
expansion to 340 kW. Therefore, in October 2011, an additional 5,630 m3 of digestate storage was
added to the facility.
Its water under the bridge now, of course, but adding 6.5 times more storage after just a few months
of operation must point to a serious deficiency in the original plan. I will attempt to track down how
much the extra storage cost in due course.
Section 4.0 describes the problems experienced to that date; none of these problems have anything to
do with increasing the generating capacity to 340 kW. The first couple of sentences state clearly that
compromises were made in the initial design to reduce costs. Furthermore, it is obvious that a lot of
assumptions were made that proved to be optimistic (for example, the evident problems created by
trash in the septage that would need to be screened out, stored somewhere and then transported to
landfill).
Cost figures are provided in Section 10. The estimate of cost was about $677,000 for receiving and
storage (particulars regarding the work related to this are shown in Table 2A), and about $1.14 million
for costs associated with increasing the electrical generating capacity.
It is astonishing to me that the Joint Committee was evidently considering expanding the generating
capacity while still experiencing major problems related to receiving and storage; one would think that it
would make more sense to get the sewage treatment part working like a fine Swiss watch, then
MAYBE consider expanding
14 | P a g e
*******
The second report is titled Facilities to Improve Septage Receiving and Trash Removal (16 KB) and is
dated August 2013.
Note: I reviewed the complete report in person at the Georgian Bluffs office on October 29, 2014, but I
copied only the page that shows the scope of work that was evidently thought to be required at that
time. (For interest, at least, I should also have copied the page or pages, if any, that provided cost
estimates.)
Section 1.2 of this report provides a list of anticipated work that looks similar to the list provided in the
above-noted Table 2A of the 2012 report. Therefore, it would appear that the scope of work hadnt
changed much from what was thought to be necessary about 18 months earlier. This is not to say that
the estimated costs wouldnt have been higher, however.
*********
The third report (147 KB) was contained in the Agenda package for the Bio-Digester meeting that was
held on December 19, 2014.
You will find my report on that meeting under the Bio-Digester Meetings tab where I state:
WSP (Genivar), the former engineering consultant to the Joint Board, prepared a report on deficiencies
as a condition related to full payment of one of their old invoices. The report does not include any
estimated costs. Even so, I expect this report to be a valuable source of information for the engineering
study authorized by the Chatsworth Council.
15 | P a g e
Appendix B - Agreements
The following was copied from the Bio-Digester (Agreements) tab of my blog which can be found at
(http://shininglightonchatsworth.wordpress.com). The dates in bold are the dates on which the
information was posted (these dates are referred to in the report).
Sept 18, 2014
Chatsworth By-Law 2011-9 dated February 2, 2011 authorized the main Agreement and the
Memorandum of Understanding.
Appendix A of Chatsworth By-Law 2012-35 dated September 5, 2012 is the Agreement that creates
the Joint Management Board for the bio-digester.
Consistent with the keep em in the dark philosophy of Chatsworth, it is doubtful that any of these
documents has ever before seen the light of day. Note that the hand-written markings on the
documents are mine. (When I finally received copies and reviewed them, I didnt realize that Id be the
one to make them public.)
I filed a Freedom of Information request on June 11, 2014 to obtain documents and supporting
information that should have been available at the time of the decisions being made to proceed with
the project. Some documents have been provided so far, but there are more to come. Please stay tuned.
Upon first reading, three key aspects of the arrangements between Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs
jumped out at me. You may see other things when you read them.
First, by Article 5.9 of the Agreement, Chatsworth became an equal partner with Georgian Bluffs in
bearing the cost of reduced tipping fees for certain businesses on the Sunset Strip in Georgian Bluffs.
By Article 5.4, Chatsworth also became an equal partner in sharing the cost of transportation of septage
from these same businesses on the Sunset Strip (because transportation for these businesses is included
in Schedule C). The Tab titled Subsidies provides more information.
Second, Schedule B (referred to in Article 2.1 of the Agreement) and the three tables in Schedule C
(referred to in Article 5.9) are extracts from the Design Report that I have seen (but I do not yet have a
copy). The Tab titled Assumptions provides more information.
Third, by Article 2 in the Memorandum of Understanding, Chatsworth agreed to provide landfill space
for Georgian Bluffs. So far, I have not followed up on this except to the extent of including it in the
above-noted Freedom of Information request.
Appendix C - Assumptions
The following was copied from the Bio-Digester (Assumptions) tab of my blog which can be found at
(http://shininglightonchatsworth.wordpress.com).
This page added on Sept 20, 2014 with edits at 8:40 am on Sept 22
Assumption No. 1 regarding legislation to ban the widespread practise of spreading septage on vacant
land approved by the Ministry of the Environment for that purpose.
Mayor Bob Pringle has often said that, at a meeting or conference some time ago, the provincial
Minister of the Environment promised that the government was planning to implement legislation that
would drive the need for disposal of septic waste at the bio-digester. I have heard Georgian Bluffs Mayor
Alan Barfoot make a similar statement.
It can be implied from this August 29, 2013 article in the Owen Sound Sun Times that there was a
reference at the August 28, 2013 Chatsworth Council meeting to a promise by the Ministry of the
Environment six years earlier. As recently as this past July, I heard Mayor Pringle speak about the
provinces broken promise at a Council meeting.
When I heard this from Mayor Pringle at our first meeting in March 2012, I asked for more specific
information, but he could not point me to anything in writing.
The first sentence in Section 1.1 of the report by Henderson Paddon titled Septage Management Plan
for the Municipalities of Grey County dated March 12, 2004 refers to a discussion with the Minister of
the Environment at the ROMA/Good Roads conference in February 2003. The report says he (the
Minister) indicated that they were considering banning the application of septage from the land in
future (my emphasis by bold text).
In my view, this doesnt cut it as any sort of promise, certainly not one that could be taken to the bank,
so to speak. So I read every Provincial Speech from the Throne and Budget Speech back to 2004 there
is not a single word about legislation that the Mayor says was promised.
By 2009, there was no evidence whatsoever of any pending legislative changes regarding septage. Yet
the 2009 Design Report for the bio-digester contains technical and financial estimates based on the
assumption that legislation was imminent. On this assumption, contracts were signed and money was
borrowed to build the bio-digester in 2010.
There is a term for making an investment based on hope, rumours or guesses about upcoming economic
or political events: speculation.
I dont think it is appropriate for municipalities to invest taxpayers money in a project on the basis of
speculation, but didnt our Leaders (Mayor Bob Pringle, Deputy Mayor Terry McKay and CAO/Clerk Will
Moore) compound the problem by not providing even the slightest hint of any uncertainty associated
with statements like pay back all the capital in less than 10 years? Does this meet anybodys definition
of prudent management or respect for taxpayers?
It appears that Mayor Pringle didnt start to talk about broken promises until after it became clear
even to him that the bio-digester was posing, shall we say, significant operational and financial
challenges. It is natural to want to blame changing circumstances, or bad luck, or somebody else (like
the Province) for the financial mess the bio-digester has created for the Township of Chatsworth.
John Kenneth Galbraith addressed this human trait eloquently when he said: Faced with a choice
between changing ones mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on
the proof.
Appendix D Sunset Strip Subsidies

The following information about subsidies was copied from the Home tab of my blog which can be
found at (http://shininglightonchatsworth.wordpress.com).
Jan 5, 2015 Update on subsidies to the Sunset Strip (click on the Biodigester Subsidies tab),
summarized below:
The charge (tipping fee) at the Bio-Digester for septage from businesses on the Sunset Strip is $8.05 per
cubic metre. It is being claimed that, in 2013, this fee was high enough to cover the costs and make a
profit of a little more than $20,000.
If this is true, then it must also be true that all of the costs at the Bio-Digester in 2013 must have been
created by the other septage treated that year (just 325 cubic metres); this works out to about $1,608
per cubic metre.
The reality is that the actual cost of dealing with Sunset Strip septage was much higher than $8.05 per
cubic metre in 2013, and that the cost of dealing with the small amount of other septage that year was
much less than $1,608 per cubic metre.
According to the Agreement, Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs each bear half of the difference between
the actual cost and the fee of $8.05 per cubic metre charged to Sunset Strip businesses.
I have no objection to Georgian Bluffs subsidizing the Sunset Strip, but it is unacceptable for Chatsworth
taxpayers to contribute to that particular cause. I have calculated the subsidies by Chatsworth to be
about $100,000 per year. To learn more, and to see how I arrived at the $100,000 figure, see the
September 18 posting at the bottom of the Biodigester Subsidies page.
At the All Candidates meeting in October, Mayor Pringle said that the 2015 increase in OPP costs would
be about $100,000 and that this was a serious challenge for Chatsworth. Makes you wonder, doesnt
it?
*********
The following was copied from the Bio-Digester (Sunset Strip Subsidies) tab of my blog which can be
found at (http://shininglightonchatsworth.wordpress.com).
January 5, 2015: Exchange of email with CAO/Clerk Will Moore about subsidies to the Sunset Strip
By way of background, I observed an interesting exchange between Chatsworth Deputy Mayor Scott
Mackey and Georgian Bluffs Mayor Alan Barfoot at the Bio-Digester Management Board meeting on
December 19. Towards the end of the meeting, there was a discussion about the need for another
meeting in the near future to deal with the consequences of not having approved a budget for the BioDigester in 2014. In his brief remarks, Deputy Mayor Mackey mentioned Sunset Strip subsidies which
prompted an immediate, sharp retort from Mayor Barfoot to the effect that Chatsworth Council had
been provided with an assessment signed off by two staff members that there were no subsidies and
that receiving septage from Sunset Strip businesses at the Bio-Digester had created a profit of
$20,000.
At the point towards the end of the meeting when people are permitted to speak or ask questions, I
asked CAO/Clerk Moore to provide me with a copy of the assessment about subsidies to which Mayor
Barfoot had referred. Even though Mr. Moore said that he would do so, I thought it would be a good
idea send a reminder by email and thereby leave a written record of my request.
Mr. Moore responded today. For the record, here are copies of what we each said.
Excerpt from my email at 12:19 pm on Dec 19 addressed to Mr. Moore:
At the meeting today, you said you would provide me with a copy of the report that Mayor Barfoot
referred to this morning that was evidently prepared by Chatsworth staff to address the issue of
subsidies. I assume this was prepared sometime after I made the Agreement between Chatsworth and
Georgian Bluffs public and subsequently claimed that Chatsworth was subsidizing the businesses on the
Sunset Strip and/or the Municipality of Georgian Bluffs.
Excerpt from Mr. Moores email sent at 12:35 on Jan 5:
The information that was provided to Council regarding the Sunset strip is attached. For 2013 there was
a net revenue of $20,543.66. I am aware that you will argue that there are cost to process. The 3-page
attachment to Mr. Moores email contained figures produced by the Treasurer of Georgian Bluffs on July
14, 2014 showing final figures for 2013 (click here to see it); the two lines highlighted in orange by Mr.
Moore contain the figures used to arrive at the net revenue of $20,543.66.
Excerpt from my email to Mr. Moore sent at 4:08 pm on Jan 5:
further to the attachment you provided, Id like to briefly follow-up on the view held by some people,
notably Georgian Bluffs, that the Bio-Digester tipping fees of $66,029.57 (paid in 2013 by businesses on
the Sunset Strip) minus the 2013 trucking costs of $45,485.91 (shared by the two townships) produced
net revenue of $20,543.66 in that year.
From the attachment to your email, I see that total Bio-Digester expenses in 2013 were $568,291.21, so
subtracting out the trucking costs (above) leaves $522,805.30. If there are no costs attributable to
septage from the Sunset Strip, then it follows that the $522,805.30 must have been incurred as a result
of other septage treated at the Bio-Digester in 2013 (everything but the Sunset Strip businesses).
The staff presentation made to the Joint Council Meeting on May 28, 2014 stated that the Bio-Digester
processed 1,786,906 gallons in 2013 and that 96% of this (or 1,715,430 gallons) was from the Sunset
Strip. Therefore, the Bio-Digester must have processed 71,476 gallons of septage from Chatsworth,
Georgian Bluffs and other sources combined (there are 220 Imperial gallons in one cubic metre, so this
equates to 325 cubic metres) at a cost of $1,608 per cubic metre. Note: I made an arithmetic mistake in
my original email which contained a much higher cost per cubic metre. I corrected the mistake by email
shortly after 6:00 pm.
Frankly, I cannot imagine how anyone with any sort of financial or economic training could even state
this position while keeping a straight face. If this remains the position of Georgian Bluffs, then in my view
there is an open and shut case for Chatsworth to immediately give notice to terminate the Agreement
In summary, Georgian Bluffs claims that in 2013 about 7,800 cubic metres of septage from the Sunset
Strip was put through the Bio-Digester at $8.05 per cubic metre (the subsidized rate), and that
Chatsworth residents should be really happy because this created a profit of more than $20,000.
Following this logic, the rest of the septage processed in 2013, all 325 cubic metres of it, was obviously
the really tough stuff to handle because it cost $522,805 to process which is an average of more than
$1,608 per cubic metre.
For interest, if the cost of $568,300 for operating the Bio-Digester in 2013 is apportioned equally over
each cubic metre processed (total volume of 7,800 + 325 = 8,135 cubic metres), the average cost was
$69.86 per cubic metre. For septage from the Sunset Strip, the businesses paid $8.05 of this. The
Agreement requires that the balance of $61.81 per cubic metre be absorbed by Georgian Bluffs and
Chatsworth in equal shares (for 2013, this would be about $30.90 per cubic metre for each township).
For 7,800 cubic metres from the Sunset Strip, this works out to a contribution by Chatsworth taxpayers
of $241,020.
September 18, 2014
At my first meeting about the bio-digester with Mayor Bob Pringle and CAO/Clerk Will Moore around
March 1, 2013, Mayor Pringle denied that Chatsworth is subsidizing the Sunset Strip. CAO/Clerk Moore
said, and Mayor Pringle agreed, that the wording in Article 5.9 of the Agreement was merely
unfortunate.
I continued to press on this issue, the result of which was a special meeting of Chatsworth Council on
October 23, 2013. The minutes of that meeting refer to the presentation that I made that is said to be
attached (but it isnt). Presumably people who read these minutes could obtain a copy by request. The
other presenters did not table any documents.
The presentation I made is here. My conclusion (on the final page) is that each of Georgian Bluffs and
Chatsworth bears costs of about $100,000 per year by paying for the transportation of septage from the
Sunset Strip to the bio-digester, and through the reduced tipping fees (which are about 1/3 of the
tipping fees normally charged).
The fact that Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs are equally responsible for Sunset Strip septage is far
worse for Chatsworth than it appears. The reason for this is that we have fewer residential and notably
fewer industrial/commercial taxpayers than Georgian Bluffs. Therefore, every residential taxpayer in
Chatsworth is contributing more to the costs of Sunset Strip septage than comparable residential
taxpayers in Georgian Bluffs.
In a recorded vote on December 18, 2013, Chatsworth Council passed a motion to stop subsidizing
transportation and tipping fees for Sunset Strip septage. The minutes of that meeting state that the
Deputy Mayor and all of the Councilors voted to stop the subsidies; Mayor Pringle voted against the
motion.
To the best of my knowledge, no changes have been made that would reduce or eliminate the subsidies.
Appendix E What Needs to be Done?

The following was copied from the Bio-Digester (So What Needs to be Done?) tab of my blog which
can be found at (http://shininglightonchatsworth.wordpress.com).
Oct 25, 2014 Preliminary Terms of Reference for an Independent Study

This was on the agenda of the Council meeting on October 15, 2014. The Council considered draft terms
of reference dated October 6, 2014 that had been prepared by Chatsworth resident Bob deJong who
had spoken in support of an independent study at one of the public meetings in July.
Mr. deJongs draft was not included in the public Agenda package provided in advance of the meeting.
When I asked about this by email on the day after the meeting, CAO Will Moore said that this occurred
because the pages apparently had stuck together in the scanner (more information under the Council
Agenda Packages tab).
Based on the contents of the October 15 Agenda package, I assumed that there would be a verbal
update so I didnt attend the meeting. Therefore, I know nothing more about the discussion than what
Mr. Moore said in an email to me on October 16:
Attached is the report from Bob Dejong. Council approved moving forward. I have been in contact with
Mr. Dejong and we are planning to have something further for Council at the November meeting.
Sept 22, 2014 We Need an Independent Study
On June 18, 2014, I made this presentation to the Chatsworth Council.
I began my oral presentation by explaining why I filed a Freedom of Information request (point 1 of the
presentation). I went on to provide a short overview of the disastrous financial implications of the
situation at present (point 2, which includes some of the information under the tab Hiding the Costs),
and then addressed what seems to be the endemic problem of making and using assumptions that are
unrealistic (point 3, related to information under the Assumptions tab).
In point 4, I urged Chatsworth Council to undertake a thoughtful re-assessment from an engineering
perspective, together with a realistic business plan, that points the way forward.
Point 5 of my presentation was near the heart of the reason I started this blog. Maybe it was acceptable
in the past to not bother to keep residents and taxpayers informed, but it isnt acceptable now. The last
information provided to Chatsworth residents and taxpayers was four years ago (that was when we
were given the story about paying for itself in less than 10 years, no mention of subsidizing the Sunset
Strip, etc).
Point 6 combined points 4 and 5, and urged an independent engineering and financial study with full
public input.
Following my presentation at the meeting, the Minutes of which can be found here, Council seemingly
came to a consensus that an independent study should be undertaken. Since the Chatsworth Minutes
dont record discussion, and since the consensus reached was not recorded in the form of a motion,
there is no record of any discussion or any consensus. Strange, isnt it?
Maybe not so strange, because there is no evidence whatsoever that our Leaders (Mayor Bob Pringle,
Deputy Mayor Terry McKay and CAO/Clerk Will Moore) are interested in any independent study and
report or in providing opportunities for meaningful public input.
Appendix F Hiding the Costs

The following was copied from the Bio-Digester (Hiding the Costs) tab of my blog which can be found at
(http://shininglightonchatsworth.wordpress.com).
Sept 22, 2014: Actual Costs for 2013

Chatsworths 2013 Financial Information Report was filed with the province on September 17 (you can
see that date here), but it is not yet available on the Chatsworth website. If you download a copy from
the provincial website by clicking here, you will see on line 0898 on Schedule 40 (Consolidated
Statement of Operations: Expenses) that the 2013 bio-digester costs after adjustments amounted to
$307,737.
This is much higher than my estimate of $220,000 (I provided this figure towards the bottom of my first
post on Sept 18, below). I think the difference is largely due to capital, depreciation and interest that I
didnt include, but at least our Leaders cant accuse me of exaggerating to make it appear worse than it
is!
This brings the average cost of the bio-digester to Chatsworth for 2011 through 2013 to a bit more than
$331,000 per year, and the total costs over these three years to $994,000! This, instead of the profit
our Leaders promised which by the end of 2013 should add up to about $480,000.
To learn what services Chatsworth residents and taxpayers have received over these 3 years in return
for the million dollars (in addition to the million originally borrowed in 2010 to build the bio-digester),
please navigate to the Operations tab.
Older Information
The following information was posted on Sept 18, 2014; a few revisions were made on Sept 21.
The original plan was that the total cost of operating the bio-digester would be $212,000 per year. This
would be the cost to process every drop of septage produced in both townships. The annual revenue
would be about $535,000 for a profit of more than $320,000. Chatsworth would net about $160,000 per
year. These figures are from Schedule C in the Agreement.
The first place I thought of looking to find actual financial results was in Audit Reports. The fact that
Chatsworth didnt make Audit Reports available in spite of the provisions of Article 295 of the Municipal
Act presented an initial obstacle, but that was fixed after my request. I didnt pursue the matter of why
nobody in Chatsworth seemed to know about Article 295.
The 2013 Chatsworth Audit Report is here. However, there is no separate bio-digester line on the
Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus (page 8 of the pdf file, page 6 of the
Audit Report). Evidently, the figures for the bio-digester are buried among the costs for garbage and
recycling pickups, and landfill sites.
Digging deeper, Note 13 of the Audit Report shows Bio-Digester Revenue for 2013 at about $482,000
and Expenses at about $568,000 for a Deficit of $86,000 (these figures are for both townships
combined). To a casual reader this might look a bit worrying but not too bad. But
But but only the handful of taxpayers who attend meetings of the Joint Management Board know
that Revenue includes money requisitioned from the two townships to keep the bio-digester
operating. Calling this Revenue is preposterous, of course, but it does a terrific job of hiding the truth
from anybody who might take audit figures at face value, doesnt it?
With Revenue flowing in like this, another requisition for $50,000 from each township would have
resulted in the bio-digester making a profit of about $14,000 in 2013. Better yet, if the Joint
Management Board had requisitioned an extra $250,000 from each township, then presumably the
Audit Report would have shown a profit of half a million dollars!
Since tipping fees and payments from Hydro One (these are the real revenues) were around $150,000 in
2013, it is possible to use figures in the Audit Report to conclude that the net cost to Chatsworth
taxpayers for the Bio-Digester was about $220,000 in 2013.
Instead of trying to make estimates based on the Audit Report, costs for previous years can be found in
the compulsory Provincial Financial Information Returns filed by Chatsworth which may be found here.
Chatsworth is a prime example of why the Province has legislation making it compulsory to make certain
financial information available to the public.
These reports show that the bio-digester costs for Chatsworth were $381,196 in 2011 and $305,094 in
2012, so the estimate of $220,000 for 2013 might be a bit low. However, if this is the correct figure, then
the average annual cost to Chatsworth over the first three years will be about $302,000.
The deadline for filing these forms is September 30, 2014. When the figure for 2013 is posted, I will
update this page.
There are other aspects of the costs that will be discussed here, especially the answer to this question:
What did Chatsworth taxpayers get for $300,000 per year for 2011 2013?
Please stay tuned for the answers.

Falk Report On The Bio-Digester (3,327 KB)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Falk Report On The Bio-Digester (3,327 KB)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chatsworth / Georgian Bluffs Bio-Digester

Standing Back to See the Big Picture

January 12, 2015

About the Appendices

Decision to Build the Bio-Digester

Public Information and Involvement

Bio-Digester Cumulative Financial Results (2011 through 2014)

ACTUAL RESULTS (LOSSES)

Bio-Digester Income from Operation

Bio-Digester Annual Operating Costs (Excluding Capital)

Sewage and Septage Processed, and Unit Costs

Forecast Unit Cost

Actual Unit Cost

Performance Technical Aspects

Transparency and Openness

Appendix A Freedom of Information Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Document #14: Hydro One Cost Estimate January 4, 2008

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix A FOI Requests

Appendix D Sunset Strip Subsidies

Appendix E What Needs to be Done?

Oct 25, 2014 Preliminary Terms of Reference for an Independent Study

Appendix F Hiding the Costs

Sept 22, 2014: Actual Costs for 2013

You might also like