Here’s the info on the sewer referendum that was held back on Feb 4, 2006 to refresh everyone’s memory. The wording of the ballot for that Referendum was as follows:
2006 Union Bay/Royston Sewerage Service Referendum
Question: Are you in favour of the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona adopting bylaws which would:
– Establish a service enabling the regional district to provide for the collection, conveyance and disposal of sewage in the Union
Bay/Royston sewerage service area;
– Authorize the regional district to borrow a maximum of $10,500,000 (ten million five hundred thousand dollars) for a 20 year
period for its one-third share of the cost to provide this service;
– Authorize the regional district to tax the properties in the service are for up to $983,000 annually to repay the $10,500,000
borrowed amount (based on the 1362 parcels in the service area, each parcel would be charged approximately $722 annually to
repay the borrowed amount;
– Authorize the regional district to establish user fees for the operation and maintenance of the service in addition to the annual
capital repayment of approximately $722 and;
– Be known as “Union Bay/Royston Sewerage Service Establishment Bylaw No. 2825, 2006” and “Union Bay/Royston
Sewerage Service Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 2826, 2006”?
Voter Turnout – 49%
With the grant, it would be a capital cost each household $7,398.60 or $711.82 per year with 20-year financing plus $300 for annual maintenance. Without the grant, it would be a capital cost of $22,420 or $2,135 a year for 20 year financing plus $300 a year (approximately) for annual maintenance.
The vote was 767 “YES” versus 346 “NO” so it passed.
This final project we voted on was a far cry from the original “South Sewer Project”. When Cumberland pulled out and the CVRD went ahead trying to salvage a portion of the project with so few landowners bearing the cost, it was doomed.
Originally it was going to be financed over 20 years (around $2000/yr for a total of $40,000.) and then it went to 30 years (around $2000/yr for a total of $60,000.).
Then the O&M costs went from around $350./yr to over $600./yr.
The answer seems to be there is no plan at present for any developer to contribute to the South Sewer Project in order to reduce the cost to those in Phase 1.
“DCC’s are collected and reserved so that when the cumulative effect on growth requires expansion of the treatment plant funds are available to expand the facility at no cost to existing users.”
Well, why would the existing users pay to expand the facility for new users – of course there should be no cost to existing users. It appears as though the DCC’s would benefit those in the subsequent Phases with the Phase 1 landowners paying for the initial infrastructure.
“The cost of initial construction can also sometimes be included in DCC calculations so that future users help pay for initial project construction.”
Also, sometimes we get answers that provide no information.
This is a follow up question to the answer provided in response to the question of whether the phase 1 landowners are subsidizing developers such as Kensington Island Properties who have remained silent and offered nothing towards the South Sewer Project.
The question asks how the money paid by developers in Development Cost Charges will reduce the cost to the landowners in phase 1. Unless there is a formula where a portion of those DCC’s goes specifically to the South Sewer Project, the cost to landowners in Phase 1 will not decrease.
AND there is this from May 2012
I added the highlighting in the above. So why hasn’t there been a word from Kensington Island Properties regarding the South Sewer? Can’t have water without a wastewater treatment out so how is Kip Constanza going to go ahead with the project this year? What has KIP done since 2012 regarding the wastewater treatment?
AND this one also from May 2012, with the title: Union Bay water picture less murky after agreement reached
I added the highlighting in the above excerpt. Both articles can be viewed at:
Answer to the previous post and available at:
There’s no water used in the treatment process.