City council has decided to move forward and spend another $8 million on Riel Park to complete phases three and four of the landfill remediation, on the rugby and soccer fields.
The first issue of importance is the spendthrift expenditures to replace facilities to council's much loved ‘gold standard’ first approved during councillors Crouse and Bracko’s 2004-07 terms. Facilities have so far cost $15.95 million, including an under-used football field for $7.7 million, expansion and rebuilding the Kinsmen RV park and rodeo facilities, paving of parking lots, BMX track, etc. It will cost $2.8 million for facilities replacement for phases three and four to put the playing fields back together again. The total facilities cost if phases 3 and 4 go ahead means the original facilities estimate has ballooned to $18.75 million from $7 million. This is more than two-and-a-half times the original estimate.
The facilities partially resulted in a cost explosion from the original 2006 $8.4 million estimate for the entire project, to the latest estimate of $32 million. Council is clearly responsible for the facilities part of the increase.
The second issue is the cost of remediation, originally pegged at $1.4 million for the entire site. To date $6.8 million has been spent for remediation in phases one and two, while phases three and four will cost another $5.2 million. In total, remediation for phases one to four will be $12 million! That's more than eight times what was originally estimated! From an environmental perspective, these funds could have been invested in environmental projects with a much more significant and positive effects on the Sturgeon River (e.g. grit separators). But grit separators aren't sexy, and we couldn't have used the environmental issue as an excuse to build gold-plated facilities.
Does the science back up this type of massive cost, particularly for the next phases? First, the rugby and soccer fields have already been capped to the environmental standards of 1986! John Shaw, a civil engineer and a former waste and sewer expert with Albert Environment, said the environmental data doesn't justify further remediation. He raised some very salient points about what exactly the environmental damage has been. Given Mr. Shaw’s credentials, I think his points are credible and valid. There is nothing that says the leachate is sourced in the ‘dumps,’ or whether it comes from the soils (like the similar materials in the seeps across the river), or whether it might be sourced in the industrial park across the street. The reports show that the test wells are not showing an increase or decrease in their composition of the leachate. Mr. Shaw’s point is that the proposed capping and grading of the soccer and rugby fields is not needed.
Then there is the whole issue of whether this site's ‘pollutants’ justify the dollars spent on remediation. In a case of more harmful types of pollutants and much more of them, Kingston, Ont. also had a letter from federal regulators. Did they cap and grade the site as demanded by environmentalists. No! Their council and administration defended local taxpayers, paid a fine and negotiated a deal with Ottawa to cap and grade a small part of the site, thus saving many millions of dollars. This is the key precedent used by St. Albert to say that the entire site must be capped and graded. It seems there is some misinterpretation and scare tactics going on.
I wonder whether council would have originally gone forward with this project if they had realistic estimates of the environmental costs. Council now has a chance to avoid another $8 million expenditure on this “money pit” (potentially resulting in a 13 per cent increase in taxes!) The St. Albert Taxpayers’ Association encourages them to do so and to stop wasting the taxpayers’ money on this project.
Lynda Flannery, St. Albert Taxpayers’ Association
