Proposed Francis Waste Water Treatment Plant
CLICK ON THE COMMENT TIME BELOW for a letter from Mr. Kit Burton to the Town of Francis, Mayor and Council, regarding the "agreement in principle" already established with developer Bruce Riches to build a new sewer system using technology never used in the US, and their decision to cloak this project in secrecy from the town.
Although not on the agenda, Mr Burton plans to demand answers anyway. It should prove interesting! TOWN COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday the 15th of January at 7pm.
Although not on the agenda, Mr Burton plans to demand answers anyway. It should prove interesting! TOWN COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday the 15th of January at 7pm.
posted by OakleyWeather.com at
7:58 AM
1 Comments:
January 14, 2008
To:The Francis Town Council
Re: Proposed Francis Waste Water Treatment Plant
Dear Council Members:The purpose of this letter is to request that the Town Council provide the citizens and taxpayers of Francis with information regarding your decision to approve the ECO-H2O Water Purifier sewage treatment technology so that they may have input in the decision-making process regarding what technology to employ to solve the Town’s capacity crises.
Central to this issue is the recently revealed “agreement in principle” which the Town has entered into with Mr. Bruce Riches and Western Sewer Treatment Systems (“WSTS”) to construct the Town’s proposed waste water treatment plant. While Mr. Riches has for several years been developing a residential / commercial property in Francis on Lambert Lane, it was only recently disclosed that he and his company had been working with the Town and AQUA Engineering to explore a new treatment process at the Town’s present waste water treatment plant. In view of the significant expenditures of public monies and the importance of solving the Town’s sewer storage capacity, the circumstances giving rise to the agreement require full disclosure and scrutiny of the underlying facts surrounding your decision Simply stated, the public’s interest and corresponding right to be involved in this decision cannot be denied nor can you deny their right to information. Not only is there is no need for secrecy, in this situation secrecy is improper.
The Department Of Water Quality’s Community Guide for Water Quality Projects, in addition to stressing the need to consider alternatives in the planning process, states:
It is important to get the public involved and informed early. Early participation can improve community acceptance, even when user charges increase. A successful public participation program may include information meetings, public hearings, news releases, or flyers. The point is to share all available information
concerning the project. Also, an explanation of what the problem is and how much it will cost to fix can minimize confusion and controversy.
In direct contravention of these guidelines, there have been no meetings, no hearings and no attempt to involve the public in solving the most pressing issue facing Francis. Rather controversy and confusion continue to grow while a solution to the sewer problem does not appear imminent.
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2007, the Town, without any public discussion or disclosure, adopted Resolution No. 2007-03 formally setting forth its decision to pursue the design and specifications for an electro-flocculation sewage treatment system to be built and utilized by the Town. The Town staff was directed to formulate, as soon as possible, design specification and bid documents for the 5,000 square foot facility and report back to the Council on a regular basis. Presumably the Council had sufficiently investigated the system prior to voting for technology which subsequent events reveal was proposed by Mr. Riches. However, there is no public record supporting why the Town selected this system.
During the same meeting, each council member received a copy of the 2007-2008 proposed preliminary budget of which there was no public discussion. As of that date, the Town had amassed $323,892.00 in sewer impact fees from the years 1998 through fiscal 2006. In June, 2007, the Council subsequently approved a final budget containing $4,000,000.00 for major improvements, the majority of which would presumably be for sewer improvements. During the meeting, no copies of the proposed budget were provided, preventing any discussion of what constituted the $4,000,000.00 figure. However, clearly the Council had already discussed the price of the previously adopted technology in order to incorporate it in the budget.
The Town Council at no time during the subsequent months disclosed why it selected the electro-flocculation technology (over other existing and proved technologies ), the potential costs, or the status of the system’s design. Public disclosure of this information was especially critical during this period in view of the Town Council’s enactment in April of a six month moratorium prohibiting the issuance of building permits pending the resolution of the sewer capacity issue. Having received no information and with the moratorium period coming to an end, Wild Willow wrote the Town on October 9, 2007 requesting that the Town place on the October 16, 2007 Council meeting agenda a discussion of the status of the sewer. Wild Willow specifically requested inter alia a description of the system that was the subject of the May resolution, the preliminary costs, the time needed to complete the project, the basis upon which the system was determined to be in the best interests of the Town, the identity of the vendors providing the technology, and the bidding procedures which would be followed. The information was not provided.
It was only at the conclusion of the December 18, 2007 Council meeting, when all but a few members of the public had left, that Mr. Riches’ involvement was revealed. When Mayor Bergen began a brief sewer department report, he asked Mr. Riches to confirm whether the State had received the Town’s report. In response to subsequent questioning Mayor Bergen stated that Riches was a potential vendor, that he would be considered for a bid, and confirmed that Mr. Riches’ technology had not been used in Utah. This disclosure revealed the highly unusual situation where a potential Town vendor was seeking on behalf of the Town approval of sewage treatment technology from the State for which the vendor was the only source–hardly a situation which insured objectivity, especially when millions of dollars are involved.
As a result of this disclosure, Wild Willow submitted a request on December 26, 2007 pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Sec.63-2-101, et.seq (“GRAMA”) to the Department of Water Quality for documents relating to the Town’s proposed waste water treatment plant. A similar request was submitted to the Town on December, 2007. The requests specifically asked for documents relating to Mr. Riches and his relation with the Town regarding the proposed treatment facility. The Department of Water Quality has provided limited information and is considering the Town’s claim of confidentiality regarding approximately 400 pages of documents. To date, the Town has not responded to Wild Willow’s request. Normally, it has ten days after receipt of a request to provide the requested documentation or explain why it refuses to do so.
Information recently provided by the Department of Water Quality reveals the startling fact that the Town has already agreed to give the contract to WSTS to build the system if the State approves their technology. WSTS is apparently not merely a potential vendor, it is the only one. On December 17, 2007 Aqua Engineering, working with Riches, WSTS and Francis submitted a concept plan incorporating ”innovative technology” identified as the ECO-H20 Water Purifier system ( presumably the same technology described in the Councils May resolution). The technology is apparently owned by BCDE Group Waste Management Ltd headquartered in Finland and has never been utilized or licensed for a municipal waste treatment in Utah or, to our knowledge, in the United States. An apparent U.S. affiliate, BCDE Group LLC, is a Minnesota limited liability company located in Minneapolis.
Because the Town has opted for this “innovative technology,” it must comply with more stringent rules. Under Utah Administrative Code R317-3, in any innovative process evaluation, the applicant must (1) have the capital and technical resources to replace or modify developmental processes, equipment and material with conventional processes, equipment and material; (2) a written acknowledgment by the proponent that it assumes the risks incurred with any experimentation and (3) that the applicant will replace the failed processes, equipment and material with proven conventional processes, equipment and material as evidenced by a written acknowledgment. By selecting this process, the Town now has the burden of proving not only why it will work (as opposed to building an already approved system) but must guarantee that it will work.
Of particular interest are the two flow diagrams, copies of which are attached. The WSTS and Town December 17th submission included the flow diagram identified by the ECO-H20 Waterpurifier logo The second flow diagram is from a recent study on the treatment of waste discharged from ships into the Baltic Sea. The flow diagrams are identical with one difference. The Baltic Sea diagram indicates at the bottom “ The closed electro flotation purifier has only been tested on a laboratory scale so far, and the first treatment plant will most probably be installed onboard in October 2006.” Presumably WSTS and the BCDE Group will modify the schematic to apply to a municipal waste water treatment plant rather than a ship’s waste discharge system. Furthermore, the technical information obtained from the web-- identical to that submitted to the State-- negates confidentiality claims as well as demonstrates that the “innovative technology” is not necessarily applicable to municipal waste treatment systems.
From what has been provided by the Department of Water Quality, WSTS has been working with the Town during the past year. WSTS and the Town have also agreed in principle to move forward with the innovative process. If the State approves the technology, the Town and WSTS will enter into a formal agreement whereby WSTS “will completely fund the design and construction of the facilities and improvements required for the implementation of this technology” at the Town’s existing treatment site. According to the agreement “ Once the system is complete and operations begin, it is anticipated that a certain time frame, like one year, will be set aside to demonstrate the performance of the technology.” When the Town and State accept the treatment facility, the Town “will begin to pay WSTS for the facility through previously collected fees, new connections, and other means.”
QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL
The Town’s recent submission to the Department of Water Quality raises serious questions which must be openly and thoroughly discussed, the answers to which will impact the future of the Town’s present and future residents. Some of those questions are:
1.Why was WSTS technology selected over already established working sewage treatment systems, such as Oakley’s MBR facility? This system replaced a lagoon system at a cost of 1.7 million dollars and was, coincidently, engineered by AQUA. Did the Town consider this or any other already acceptable system before making its decision?
2.As WSTS will be funding the design and construction of the facility, what due diligence has been conducted as to its prior experience in the area and will the Town require a bond to guarantee that the facility is constructed if approved by the State?
3.What due diligence has been conducted on the BCDE group and has it ever constructed a fully operational municipal waste treatment facility utilizing the ECO-H2O system?
4.Assuming the system works, after approval, construction, and a year’s trial period, how much money will the Town have to pay WSTS and how does the Town propose to come up with the several million dollars over and above the amount presently in the sewer enterprise fund?
5.What are the terms of the agreement in principle between the Town and WSTS, including but not limited to repayment terms, warranties, and in-demnifications? Specifically, what provisions exist protecting the Town if WSTS or the BCDE Group fail to perform in the middle of construction or if the system simply does not work after a year’s trial?
6.How long has the Town been working with WSTS regarding increasing the treatment capacity of the Town’s sewage treatment facility?
7.What will the Town do if the facility is built but fails to perform? Who pays for the new system and what happens during the interim while another system is constructed?
8.Why did the Town forego seeking public financing as well as technical assistance from the State of Utah to finance and construct its waste treatment facility?
9.Has the Town given any consideration to the fact that its “agreement in principle”,as set forth in the Town’s December 17, 2007 submission, excludes any other party from bidding on the design or construction of the facility if the technology is approved?
10.As the Town will ultimately be required to pay WSTS with public funds for the design and construction of the facility, will the Town require competitive bidding for the design and/or construction of the facility? In this regard, have any other agreements in principle or written or oral contracts been entered into with sub-contractors or other third parties to provide services in connection with the construction of the facility, contingent on the technology being approved?
11.In view of the Council’s attempt to solve the Town’s sewage capacity crises,what contingencies are in place if the State denies WSTS’s innovative technology request?
12.Why have there been no public meetings, discussions or any attempt to inform the public that Mr. Riches/WSTS and the Town were working together to explore and ultimately to pursue the technology that was the subject of the Town’s May 2007 resolution?
13.Why risk the delay in obtaining approval for the use of “using innovative” technology to solve the Town’s sewer problem when there already exists proven conventional processes?
14.Why put the Town to the risk of replacing the “innovative technology” with proven conventional processes if the technology fails as mandated by the Department of Water Quality?
15.Why all the secrecy regarding the “innovative technology” which is described in detail in the public domain?
The foregoing are just a few of the concerns raised by the Town’s December 17, 2007 submission. Undoubtedly, when the issue is opened for public input there will be many more. The point is simply this—the people who will use and pay for whatever sewage treatment plant is ultimately selected have the absolute right to participate in the decision making process. Their public health and welfare, not to mention the economic burden imposed demand no less.
The fact that the Town has prevented this public participation requires, at the very minimum, a thorough and public discussion of the electro-flocculation technology prior to entering into any contracts potentially obligating the Town to millions of dollars. Perhaps the Town’s decision is the right one. But the public will never know unless it has all the facts. We urge the Town Council to provide them.
Christopher L. Burton
Post a Comment
<< Home