LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Hopes for strong development agreement despite lack of due diligence

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/12/2023 (691 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Whatever the order of the Municipal Board is, the questions property owners in Springfield should be asking is: are the CAO and planning staff working for the best interests for the citizens of Springfield, who pay their salaries, or do they have other motives and interests behind their decision making? In 2021 they bungled a conditional use application by Sio Silica, then in 2022 they messed-up a zoning bylaw amendment application from the same company which ultimately led to two Municipal Board hearings where Springfield came out on the losing end. Was this by design of Council who avoid all opportunities for public engagement regarding the Sio Silica project? Or is the treatment of a file as complicated and intricate as Sio Silica too much for the RM staff to handle?

Mayor Therrien, who continues to disappoint the many voters who elected him, seems oblivious about his role and responsibilities and does not understand that a primary function of local government is to protect the public’s interest and to justly represent Springfield residents. His approach has been to defer decision making to the province and state that the RM is neutral where Sio Silica is involved. That may be his position but it is not the position of 96.4 percent of the respondents to the recent referendum who voted no to Sio.

Brief background

A development agreement (DA) is a long standing document that is registered on property titles and sets out terms and conditions in respect of the use of the property and any contiguous land owned or leased by the owner. The importance of a DA is that it can include limits and controls on the use of the land and any proposed buildings on the land, the timing of construction, the site and design, hours of operation, parking, landscaping, construction of public roads etc. An appropriate DA should provide conditions that would minimize impacts to nearby residents.

On May 25, CAO Colleen Draper provided council with their first look at a draft development agreement that she and the municipal staff felt represented the interests of the municipality. Mayor Therrien had earlier promised the public that they would have opportunity for input into the DA but a few days later, he retracted his promise. The CAO told the council that the DA had to be signed by June 6, effectively limiting any reasonable review and substantive input from elected officials, not to mention any consultation with the residents. Councillors Miller and Kuczynski were not satisfied with this DA and voted against it. Unexpectedly, Councillor Warren abstained from voting, thus the motion to accept the DA was defeated. Without a signed DA by the due date, Sio Silica appealed to the Municipal Board and the matter became the subject of a Municipal Board Hearing which took place Oct. 23 to 25 in Dugald.

At the hearing, the Municipal Board Chair admitted that this was the first such appeal before the Municipal Board and that he would give the public latitude so that they could finally have an opportunity to voice their concerns publicly and try to get answers to their many questions.

After three full days of Municipal Board hearings with Sio Silica strongly arguing its’ case that the DA should not include any references to mining (that mining was a separate application), they admitted that they are prepared to start construction on the processing facility even before the mining application is approved. The municipality did not take any position and only gave a summary of the discussions held between the RM staff, Sio staff and the respective lawyers.

At the onset of the public presentations it was noted that the DA had not been made public. The Chair ordered the municipality to make the document available to the public before the next day so that the Springfield residents could be aware of and speak to its content.

There were 38 presentations by residents. All but one expressed objections and concerns in a very knowledgeable and emotional manner.

A number of areas of concern for residents had not been addressed in the draft DA including:

• No means to allow residents a quick remediation process if they encountered changes in their well water levels and/or water quality;

• No remedial plans to address potential environmental contamination;

• Numerous reports and attachments referenced in the DA were unavailable for review;

• Very minimal safety conditions were set out for operations, employees, incidents etc.

• Cumulative assessments regarding air pollution, noise pollution, or water pollution were not required;

• No information on CN Rail design or licensing conditions;

• References to the access road and dust control were inconsistent and inadequate;

Recommendations to be included in the DA from the residents were:

• All applicable by-laws for the DA be identified by bylaw number so that they clearly identify the terms and limits that will govern the development throughout its operations;

• Water load/demand and impacts required to transport and process the sand on an annual basis be disclosed for the 24 year life of the project;

• That a financial compensation plan for loss of property values and loss of quality of lifestyles be set up;

• That proper insurance risk and premium levels be attached, based on an independent risk analysis conducted by professional risk assessment officers who work in mining and industrial fields. Include higher premiums to ensure that Springfield property owners and residents are protected from potential environmental incidents, in particular ground water contamination and include a cost of living adjustments;

• Establishment of a community liaison committee steered by local residents.

• A Sio Silica funded water monitoring and testing program with free testing for residents within a radius of 10 miles from the subject lands that includes provisions for monitoring wells downstream for early detection of changes to water quality and/or quantity.

• Water testing be done prior to the commencement of operations to determine a base line for water quality and quantity and be continued for the life of the project; testing to be regularly scheduled with data recorded and stored on a publicly accessible site:

• Preventative plans, incident plans, remediation plans, and closure plans to address not only issues related to ground water but also to air quality, noise abatement, transportation impacts, dust control etc.

The municipality for the framework of the DA used a DA for a portable asphalt plant. The RM did not seek outside professional assistance or advice from professional land use planners, engineers who specialize in industrial construction, hydrogeology, geotechnology, or insurance adjusters who assess risks. It became evident that the interests of Springfield taxpayers were not a primary requisite for the CAO and staff who presented the DA to council or for Mayor Therrien and Councillor Fuhl who voted in favour of it.

Sio Silica has refused to provide any information on the names of the shareholders or those who hold shares in trust and they are an unknown corporate entity whose interests are strictly financial and who care little about Springfield residents and their environment.

Springfield residents are deeply concerned that the Sio Silica Project has been mishandled by the municipality from the start. It started under the leadership of the previous council but it has continued under the guidance of the CAO and planning Staff. Three different times applications by the developer, Sio Silica, should have led to public hearings and involved public input, but the CAO has disregarded normal processes and instead taken on the key role of decision maker not advisor to council.

This is a critical time for the RM of Springfield and its residents. Decisions on this project will have long lasting and possibly life altering impacts on many of its citizens. The role of council should be focused on representing the people and interests of Springfield. Mayor Therrien and Coun. Fuhl should have been more concerned with the content of the DA rather than the deadline date. It was fortunate for the voters of Springfield that Councillors Mark Miller and Andy Kuczynski voted against the DA despite being publically criticized and pressured by the mayor and after being sent a menacing letter from Sio Silica’s lawyer threatening them with personal legal action. The hope of achieving a much more comprehensive document now rests with the Municipal Board instead of with Springfield’s elected officials.

It is not appropriate for Mayor Therrien to shirk his responsibilities by not making tough, sound decisions for Springfield and instead turning it over into the hands of the province.

It is time for the mayor to recognize that he is not the person for the job. It is time for him to consider resigning and making way for a person more suited to the position; one who is willing to stand up for the citizens of Springfield and be an effective leader.

The Municipal Board is required to make a decision on the development agreement between Sio Silica and the RM of Springfield by Dec. 24. It is hoped that the efforts of Springfield residents via the referendum, via the many citizen presentations made to the board will contribute to making the DA a better document for our future.