Supporters of proposed utility idea may be right, but that’s not enough

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/07/2009 (5914 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

In the world of government and public policy, there are many ways you can attack a proposal, but the most disingenuous way is to criticize the process.

For those who do not have the smarts or the patience to understand complex concepts, the easy way out is to dwell on the pace of the implementation, the lack or quality of consultation, or the quantity of advance research.

When you don’t know the facts, you pose rhetorical questions that imply there are no answers. Often, this is just an admission that someone hasn’t looked hard enough for the answers.

It is the equivalent of saying, “I don’t like your idea. I don’t know why, but I just don’t like it.”

There has been lots of this sort of commentary surrounding the proposed creation of an arm’s-length municipal corporate utility (MCU) to oversee the operation of the city’s water and waste services.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees has raised alarms about potential job losses and a loss of transparency and accountability. The Council of Canadians has suggested Mayor Sam Katz is on a secret mission to privatize and sell off Winnipeg’s water supply.

Normally, digging deep into an idea is the antidote to this weak and convenient line of attack. In the case of the MCU, however, digging deeper into Katz’s ambitious plan serves only to leave the digger more confused and concerned.

Not about the process, mind you. But despite having raised the idea of a MCU two years ago, Katz has failed to bring forward a cohesive plan for this grand vision. Undeterred by that deficiency, he will nonetheless ask city council on July 22 to approve the creation of the utility.

The city is under the gun on this one. The province has set a hard timetable for upgrades to the city’s sewage treatment system. Not only that, but there is a lull in construction activity in western Canada, which makes it imperative the city get work underway on the upgrades and enhancements to take advantage of lower costs.

The city would like to have its utility in place before starting work on its new sewage treatment system, and there is some logic in that approach. But it’s not clear this idea is ready for prime time.

Chief administrative officer Glen Laubenstein attempted to explain the proposal to the Free Press editorial board on Tuesday. Rather than illuminating a complex idea, Laubenstein only succeeded in confirming that this is a proposal with far too many outstanding questions.

The utility could strike contracts with architects, engineers and construction companies to build the new sewage treatment facilities. Or, the utility could create a subsidiary company that would create a partnership with a private-sector company to design and build the new facilities.

Or, in a final scenario, the utility itself would take on a strategic private-sector partner who finance and “own” up to 49 per cent of new facilities. The city would own 100 per cent of existing facilities, and would buy back the strategic partner’s share of the new facilities over a 30-year time period.

When all is said and done, Laubenstein conceded more time is needed to sort out which scenario is best. And yet, he has no concerns about asking council to approve the creation of the utility. Unfortunately for Laubenstein, many others do have concerns.

That does not mean the new utility embodies all the evil that the howling classes have assigned to it. A careful examination of the details of what’s on the table — as incomplete as it is — does reveal the truth behind certain key issues.

There is no plan to privatize water and sewer services. And there is certainly nothing to suggest water would be sold to the highest bidder.

But there is a huge difference between a utility that on its own oversees a billion-dollar upgrade program, and one that is involved in a public-private partnership.

Given that broad range of business models, it would seem impossible to accurately forecast the benefits of the new utility. And yet, city officials have said on more than one occasion that city taxpayers could save $13.4 million over the first six years of MCU operation. Enthusiasm has clearly gotten the best of some of the proponents.

An arm’s-length municipal utility could be a good thing for Winnipeg ratepayers. There might even be a scenario in which a public-private partnership could make the utility an even better deal.

But what is on the table now is, at most, only part of a good idea. Unless Katz, Laubenstein and the other proponents within city hall get their sewage together, it will be the good idea that died a premature death.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca