After 64 years the industrial zoning bylaw in Nanaimo has developed some strange holes. The ‘condition of use’ clause is missing in Nanaimo’s industrial zoning bylaw which affects the Duke Point garbage incinerator site.
No restrictions on industrial activity at Duke Point
At the last council meeting Mayor Ruttan stated in his report that “…Duke Point is correctly zoned for that type of business [waste-to-energy incinerator].”
Because there is no ‘condition of use’ clause for the property at Duke Point, any type of industrial activity could occur there. How did this happen?
Duke Point Incinerator timeline:
2010: Metro Vancouver sent out requests for waste-to-energy incineration proposals.
2011: Seaspan purchased land at Duke Point.
2011: City of Nanaimo eliminated the industrial zoning bylaw ‘conditions of use’ governing Seaspan’s property with the current Industrial Zoning Bylaw 4500.
The current Nanaimo City councillors where elected November 15, 2011. Some were re-elected, such as Mayor Ruttan, who has been Mayor since 2008. Were our elected officials aware the ‘conditions of use’ clause was omitted in Nanaimo’s current industrial zoning bylaw?
Restrictions on home-based businesses
Yet, at the same time the ‘conditions of use’ clause was kept in place for Nanaimo home-based businesses. Bylaw 6.20.4 states:
“The home-based business shall not discharge or emit odourous, toxic or noxious matters or vapours, heat, glare, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, effluent or other emission hazard, electrial interference or radiation across any lot line.”
Why is there a ‘condition of use’ for home-based businesses and not one for industrial businesses, especially at Duke Point?
When SD68 trustees voted to create Cedar Elementary on June 26, 2013, it was proposed to be a 475 student mega elementary with an arts focused, small learning communities model. In review:
“The new school will be the envy of the District and the entire Island and peoples in Cedar will be excited for their children’s Educations [sic].” Trustee Bill Bard in an email to a community member in Cedar on September 21, 2013
“Cedar Elementary… offers exciting opportunities for elementary education in the Cedar community. Consultation with parents during the planning process will result in a facility and school educational philosophy that is supported by the majority of Cedar parents.” Superintendent Dave Hutchinson in a report to the Board of Education on October 23, 2012.
“Cedar Elementary will result in the implementation of an arts-focused elementary school model in Cedar.” Dr. Player Report to the district, April 11, 2013
“Cedar Elementary should include a ‘Da Vinci studio’ for inventive play by all age groups” Report from Cedar Elementary Visioning Workshop, September 13, 2013
“Cedar Elementary will blur indoor-outdoor space because views and access to the outdoors is important.” Report from Cedar Elementary Visioning Workshop, September 13, 2013
On March 13, district staff released the latest plans for the school they have described as the “crown jewel elementary school” of the district. The school is now projected to have only 277 students and will still cost over $2 million to renovate. The latest architectural plans show:
that there will be no arts focus at the school,
the outdoor playfields, which are unusable for 8 of the 10 months of the school year, will not be upgraded
the woodshop and tech wings will remain in the school and boarded up
washroom vanities and fixtures will not be lowered
lockers will remain in the hallways
water fountains will not be lowered and traffic safety measures will not be considered.
So the crown jewel school that was to house 475 students and be the envy of the District and entire island will now be a half-empty, half-renovated repurposed high school with unsafe and unusable outdoor playfields located next to a commercial marijuana grow op.”
Cedar Community Secondary School to be converted into a ‘mega elementary’ – leaves Cedar with no high school and causes $2 million renovation which SD68 cannot afford.
Save Cedar Schools Coalition has argued that the enrollment projections of 475 for Cedar Elementary were overly optimistic. For months the district has ignored pleas to rethink the use of Cedar Secondary for elementary use.
Of particular concern for Save Cedar Schools is the use of the district’s “Annual Facilities Grant” for the renovation of Cedar Secondary into a half-empty elementary school. According to the Ministry of Education, the AFG is “intended for annual facility projects required to maintain facility assets through their anticipated economic life and to prevent premature deterioration of these assets.”
So SD68 is choosing to “reallocate high priority District-wide annual programs including roof replacement, flooring, and painting” (SD68 Actions Sheet, March 13, 2014) to pay for the renovation of Cedar Elementary. This means that if you have a school that needs a new roof or gym floor and paint job, SD68 staff has chosen to put aside that maintenance in order to funnel the money and resources into renovating the NEWEST and FULLEST high school in the district into a half empty elementary school.
Closing more schools to fill ‘mega’ elementary
Even more distressing is that under this plan we will end up with MORE empty operating seats than we currently have in the area. Not only is this latest version of the plan bad for Cedar students, it is bad for the entire district.
SD68 keeps telling the community that Cedar Elementary has the potential to be a really great school in 10 years. Well, 10 years isn’t good enough for the students that will be stuck in an unsafe, half-empty high school with no play fields in September, 2015. Especially since it will cost $2 million to put them there. Furthermore, in order to make that school “really great” they will have to close another school to fill Cedar Elementary.
Which will that be, Chase River, North Oyster or Cinnabar Valley? At this point you might as well just throw a dart at the map, it would make more sense than any of the planning mechanisms our district seems to be using. They keep saying that these decisions are good for the entire district, but they seem to be forgetting that Cedar is part of the district too and if this plan is bad for the students of Cedar, it is also bad for the district.
Save Woodbank Primary
Save Cedar Schools has suggested repeatedly over the months that the district rethink the proposal for Cedar Elementary and consider renovating Woodbank Primary School for use as a k-7 school for the Cedar Area. The school can hold 229 students and has usable and safe outdoor playfields and equipment. It also has one of the best facilities ratings in the district and will be sitting empty 3 km away from the propose Cedar Elementary.
Woodbank Primary School at 1984 Woobank Road in Cedar scheduled to close in 2015
Save Cedar Schools has asked their zone trustee to consider making a recommendation at the board table to reopen the Cedar Elementary decision in light of the rising costs and dropping enrolment. Cedar Zone Trustee Nancy Curley responded that, “The decision has already been made…and the board is moving forward with the reconfiguration of the school.” During this time, where we are facing a $5.4 million operating shortfall, to spend this kind of money to end up with more empty seats in the district is financially irresponsible.
The renovation of Woodbank Primary into a k-7 school would be more economically and educationally sound.
Have the citizens of Nanaimo been tricked into complacency by Nanaimo Council’s unanimous NO vote to the Duke Point waste to energy incinerator?
Today, April 15th, 91.7 Coast FM reported:
“The Chair of Metro Vancouver’s “Zero Waste Committee” says they’re still digesting Monday night’s Nanaimo City Council rejection of a waste to energy plant. And Malcolm Brodie says for now, they’re going ahead with Duke Point still in the mix.
Brodie says [unless] the group proposing Duke Point formally withdraws that would put an end to it. He also rejects criticism of how Metro has handled the process, saying they’ve tried to be “open and inclusive.”
A site near Port Mellon on the Sunshine Coast is also on Metro’s short list, and a public meeting is planned for May 24th in Gibsons. A similar meeting is supposed to happen in mid-May in Nanaimo, but it’s no longer clear if it will go ahead.”
Does Metro-Vancouver’s statement make Nanaimo’s motion null and void? What about the citizens of Nanaimo and Gabriola, do they not have a say?
Seaspan’s John Lucas stated in the meeting on Monday night that, “We are obviously conceding to the fact that this is not a project that at this time Nanaimo wants to see.” (but maybe later?)
Mayor Ruttan, in his opening report chose his words carefully:
“Council doesn’t control the outcome of this process…Metro-Vancouver couldn’t confirm if Council’s vote would have any influence on their decision. It is important to note if Council choses not to support the project Metro Vancouver could still proceed with the application at the proposed site at Duke Point because it is correctly zoned for that type of business purpose.”
The final decision on the waste to energy incinerator’s location won’t be made until 2016.
Municipal elections are coming up in November and Nanaimo Council doesn’t want to deal with this contentious incinerator issue. Mayor Ruttan made it clear that a public information meeting in May would be “too late” i.e. too close to election time.
Every parent should make plans to attend the School District 68 public budget meeting on Tuesday, April 15 at 6 pm at NDSS(Nanaimo District Secondary School 355 Wakesiah Avenue). If you want to make a presentation, contact ckelt @ sd68.bc.ca or call (250) 741-5238 before noon on Monday, April 14.
This meeting is important because the Nanaimo-Ladysmith Board of Education is in the process of setting the SD68 budget for 2014-15 which is facing a $5.4 million shortfall next year. The Board is scheduled to make final decisions on the budget at a Special Board Meeting at 6 pm on Wednesday, April 30.
The proposed budget cuts total $6.8 million, which is $1.4 million more than the $5.4 million needed.
44 full-time jobs are planned to be cut. So far it appears that the following will be eliminated:
19 teaching positions
all secondary teacher librarians
3 elementary counsellors
Unless there is public outcry, there will be NO cuts to senior management who plan to:
reduce number of custodians
reduce staff as a result of school consolidations
reduce carpenter position
reduce one bus driver position
reduce education assistant contingency budget
change distance learning at secondary schools
restructure secondary school libraries
reduce transportation assistance budget
reorganize Learning Services zone teams
delay elementary school computer upgrading
align supervision aide positions with existing school-based positions
revise school clerical allocation formulas
reduce services at District Administration Centre
use 2012-13 operating surplus of $1.5 million
use $1 million from “clawback” in 2013-14 budget
The proposed budget reductions will be discussed in meetings set for Wednesday, April 16th; Tuesday, April 22nd; and Monday, April 28th. All meetings are open to the public and will be held in the Board Room of the District Administration Centre at 6 pm.
Since 2011-12, SD68 received $12.4 million in a Funding Protection Grant, which is the highest amount received by any school district in the province, but this is being phased out and it is expected that it will no longer be available in 2016-17.
Next year, the Ministry of Education grant to SD68 will be $1.7 million less than this year. SD68 district faces additional costs, such as benefits increases and utilities.
Serious problems for parents to consider:
Since 2004, there has been a 7.1% increase in the number of administrators. At the same time there has been a significant drop in educators.
Here are some stats for 2004-2009:
SD68: 10 more administrators hired, 13 less teaching positions.
SD69: 5.70 more administrators hired, 18 less teaching positions.
Unlike student/teacher ratios, there is no formula for the number of administrators in any of the province’s 44 school districts. Each school district is given a lump sum of money and it’s their choice on what to do with it.
Nowhere has School District 68 proposed to make up for the shortfall of money by cutting upper management. Why do they need 6 superintendents for over $1.3 million? It’s time for parents to demand more education dollars go towards their children.
What can Nanaimo learn from Spokane’s experience with waste to energy?
Spokane, Washington voted to have an incinerator in 1989. Twenty-three years later, the town is rethinking their decision.
Many citizens of Spokane, Washington, were skeptical about building a Waste to Energy (WTE) facility, but rather than listening to the people, Spokane’s elected council went ahead and approved the construction of a WTE incinerator.
Twenty-three years later, Spokane is currently undertaking a study to decide if it should take over the incinerator or return to using a landfill and having a comprehensive recycling program. This year, Spokane will decide if they want to continue with Wheelabrator. They have several concerns: the high cost of labour, cost of repairing the facility, high tipping fees, and toxins in the Spokane River.
In September, 1989, armed Spokane police officers barred concerned citizens from entering City Hall. Only councillors and incinerator supporters were welcomed inside. Council voted to award a twenty year contract with Wheelabrator to design, build and operate a WTE incinerator in Spokane. The contract ended in 2011 and was renewed for three more years to end in September, 2014.
Spokane taxpayers were promised that after the high capital start-up costs (and associated bonds) were paid off, the tipping fees would be reduced, but costs kept increasing.
Tipping fees have steadily increased over the duration of the contract from an original cost of just under $40 a ton. Garbage trucks that dump trash at the incinerator now pay $99.50 a ton. This could rise to $105 in the near future. These tipping fees have been kept artificially low by drawing down reserves.
The City of Spokane also pays to haul off the remaining 30 percent of the weight as ash. When Spokane’s trash incinerator is shut down for repairs, the City of Spokane saves money. This is because it’s cheaper to haul the entire city’s trash straight to the landfill 219 miles away in Klickitat County.
Under the contract with Wheelabrator, Spokane has had to guarantee minimum tonnage each year and pay the difference if it fell short.
Spokane River is the most polluted in Washington State
Electricity and Threats
In January, 1988, a deal was struck requiring Puget Sound Energy to purchase all of the incinerator’s electricity at an inflated price. Puget Sound Energy was threatened with a lawsuit if they didn’t take it.
The city pays Wheelabrator between $18 million to $21 million a year to operate the trash incinerator but the sale of energy produced by burning the trash only generates about $4 million a year. The U.S. Federal government is ceasing its grant program for electricity produced from WTE incinerators so the revenue will decrease.
Cast of Characters
Spokane attorney Dennis Clayton summed up the decision making:
“The problem at the core of this monstrosity is the cast of characters behind it,” said Clayton. “Every adviser the city looked to for guidance about building the incinerator stood to gain personally if the incinerator were built, but not otherwise. There wasn’t a single financial, engineering or city staff consultant who didn’t benefit professionally from construction of the plant.”
By the time Spokane’s incinerator was paid off in 2011, it cost the people of Spokane and Puget Sound hundreds of millions of dollars.
Spokane incinerator needs $18 million in repairs. Many areas falling apart.
If Spokane decides to take over the incinerator they would have to spend $18 million for repairs. This would require improvement bonds, which in order to pay them off, would see tipping fees increase substantially to over $160 per ton.
Lots of signs of neglect. Conveyor where hazardous ash is collected is full of rust holes
The Spokane facility has been importing unknown/hazardous waste from the oil fields of Alberta for four years.
In 2012 a U.S. government contractor sent 300 tons of food waste from Antarctica to Spokane to be incinerated.
Metro-Vancouver passes bylaw
Metro-Vancouver passed Bylaw 280 in October 2013 to stop shipping garbage to material recovery facilities outside city limits. Some believe this is to ensure all the garbage goes to the proposed incinerator.
With not enough trash to burn cities with incinerators have been forced to bid for trash on the open market, often at disposal fees far below what their own residents must pay. Tipping fees in Vancouver are at $107 per ton.
Who will give Vancouver a loan to build this incinerator for half a billion dollars? The province is almost bankrupt with a debt of $68 billion.
The average city in America with a population of one million, instead of spending money to throw its trash away, can earn nearly $800 million a year from its reuse, creating thousands of new local jobs and dozens of new locally owned companies.
If Spokane’s Solid Waste System serves a population of, say, half a million, they could have expected earnings of $400 million a year by shifting the region’s management strategy to waste recovery and recycling.
What does the City of Nanaimo plan for recycling? The non profit recycling drop off on Kenworth Road is about to close (Nanaimo Recycling Exchange).
Will other cities learn from Spokane’s experience?
April 21, 2014 update: On April 17th Spokane Mayor David Condon announced that the city won’t be renewing the estimated $21 million-a-year contract with Wheelabrator when it expires in November 2014. The city intends to take over all plant operations.