The town held a public meeting about the Solar Complex on May 26, 2022. Lots of “information” was presented that conflicted with what was in reports about the building – and the numbers appear to have been fabricated. A week after the meeting, a list of questions was submitted to the town, mostly asking where they got the numbers and information presented.
Though the town repeatedly promised to answer the questions, a week before the plebiscite vote, the mayor indicated that there would be no answers.
It should not be difficult to point to where you got the information that you presented – if it was valid and true information. But the town was unable to show that there was any truth to what was told to residents. The town said $2 million for renovation, while the report said 10.6 million. Where did the town get this number – other than perhaps just making it up?
The unanswered questions follow:
Questions Resulting from the Public Meeting of May 26, 2022
Solar Complex and Quarry
Given the prospect of a referendum for the future of the Solar Complex, I am in agreement with June and many others that we need more information, and confirmation that the information is accurate.
With that in mind, I would like further information on some of what was presented at the meeting last week. Please provide a written response for clarity.
In my questions I will refer to the three 2018 reports downloaded from the Town website as “Final Report-Solar Complex 2018” as “The Report”. I will refer to the page numbers of this combined PDF document, rather than the page numbers used on each of the individual reports.
From the slides presented at the meeting: (slides are below text)
1. Option 2: Make every effort to sell it.
a) Selling was presented as “the best option,” however on p.16 The Report states “In conclusion, private investment is not a feasible approach to rehabilitation of the Solar Complex building” What is the reason to now call it “the best option”?
b) Cost to private sector for redevelopment is estimated at $2m. What is the source of this number? The Report says that $10.6m is likely to be the full the cost for renovation / construction, (p.36) and $3.2m would be needed to cover Phase 1 of the project. (p.3, 15)
2. Option 3: Demolition
a) Are there any numbers regarding the cost of creating a new landfill cell? “$$$” was on the slide, but is a bit vague as the basis of a decision.
b) What would be the difference in volume of waste between demolishing the building and renovating? Seems to be quite a bit either way? The report it states “Currently only the existing concrete slab as well as the post and beam structure, some 2x4 wall framing and 2x12 roof framing hold value. Superstructure elements and structural elements will need to be upgraded to meet current structural and seismic requirements as per National Building Code of Canada.” (p.26) and “… all existing mechanical and electrical systems are viewed to have reached the end of their life expectancy and must be replaced. This forces the hazardous materials within each phase to be removed.” (p.12)
c) Has the option of working with the Federal Government been fully explored? The Report suggests working to combine the demolition with mine site cleanup. This would cover asbestos removal, demolition and removal of waste and likely remove the burden to the town of a new landfill cell. “Due to the high cost of the hazardous waste material removal and demolition, the building should be viewed as part of the extended environmental liability from mining in the Faro district, rather than as a building asset. This supports the case to Government of Canada for Faro to receive financial assistance with its safe demolition as part of the long-term federal commitment to clean-up of the mine site and revitalization of the region.” (p.4)
d) According to the slide: Unsure if we can get financial assistance from Yukon Government. While only listed under Demolition, this seems true of all options? Is there documented and committed funding for any option? If so, please provide.
e) Also under Demoliton: Receiving funding from the Yukon Government may reduce grant monies spent elsewhere in the community. Of course this would also be true for any option, not just demolition. And if grant money is limited, the 10.6m required to fully renovate the Solar Complex is considerably more than the 1.8m to demolish.
3. Option 6: Form a Crown Corporation
a) 75% of the redevelopment costs are eligible for a grant through Energy Solutions Yukon. 75% of what? According to The Report the total cost of redevelopment in 2018 was $10.6m (p.36). Please provide documentation from Energy Solutions Yukon confirming their specific potential contribution.
b) Could be developed in phases as needed: Does this mean that much of the building would remain empty and derelict pending finding tenants and funding for future phases?
c) How long would the building be in a partially renovated and partially decaying state? Is there an expected timeline for completing the three redevelopment phases described in The Report? The Report indicates that there is not – and will not be – sufficient demand to renovate the entire structure. “Need and Demand for space is weak,” (p.6), “Simply put, there is no evidence from the Yukon peers that the Faro community should be able to sustain commercial space needs greater than the current level.” (p.9) and “At this point Across the River Consulting has not identified a need for space as large as Phase 3 offers.” (p.36)
d) Form a Crown Corporation: Can we actually form a Crown Corporation? I was under the impression that this required an Act of Parliament, and/or other things beyond the scope of our town?
4. At the meeting, the mayor said that Energy Solutions had recommended staying with oil fired boilers as the most efficient option. Please provide documentation of this recommendation.On a side note, before the conclusion of the Batch Plant/Quarry discussion part of the meeting, Councillor Nyland chose to speak in favor of the project, despite having previously declared a conflict of interest. Is this project more important to him than the integrity of council? How is this addressed by the Code of Conduct and/or the Municipal Act?
The slides referenced:
Leave a Reply