Laserfiche WebLink
L <br />vote on this project therefore, our representative is clearly casting a personal <br />vote, not one based on the populations opinion. <br />If we now revert back to the "Stubbs Bay Alternative Waste Management <br />Study" I would like to quote: <br />IV Conclusions: <br />”5o% of the properties surveyed appear to have substantially adequate areas <br />available for any future repairs for permanent usage of current septic systems, <br />if and when necessary" <br />If this report is to be considered technically accurate, why are we going <br />through ♦'hese procedures when the report clearly states there are alternativ^e <br />solutions to the three (3) areas which constitute the remaining 50%. With <br />respect to these three (3) areas, I would like quote from the report again. <br />pagg-I6 <br />"Only 28% have systems that would not be able to meet the minimum code <br />standard, and 22% are considered questionable to severely limited" <br />These points, and ones which related specifically to itemized costs for the <br />alternative solutions, recommended in u • Stubbs Bay Alternative Waste <br />Management Study" were made to Mr Bemhardson,(see letter dated August <br />12th 1990) who was going to acquire this information, but did not! Factual <br />communications in the council are clearly not a strong suite. This is again <br />evident in your recent flyer, where your unwillingness to commit to hard <br />facts which impact people greatly can be seen. Why have the committee not <br />yet made a final determination of what would trigger future lateral <br />installations? As the costs vary from $4,540 (min) to $12,730 (max), I think the <br />public would like to know your position on this. Or is it a case of, trust me! <br />For your reference, I have roughly calculated the costs of the average sum