Santa Communication wrote om a email.

Here’s something I thought you all might like to see.
Orville

Santa Communication wrote:

Ms. Jacobson,
With the permission of the Chairman, please table the following under new business.
MEMO:
On several occasions, I and other Councillors have been denied access to information. Most recently, this has occurred regarding Public Information, ie the costs incurred at Sandy Beach.
I would like administration to please provide to Council the reasons for this denial and why a Resolution of Council is necessary to access documents, especially Public documents.
Thank you
Councillor Orville Santa



Ian,
I know this is of exceptional length. However, I have seen many articles in your editorial section run almost a half page or more. As Chairman of the Water Advisory Committee, I feel it necessay to address some of the issues related to our future water supply. As a newspaper editor, I feel it is your duty to allow this message in its entirty out to the public so that they may grasp some of the issues which are buried within the ongoing discussions. You may want to say that I have already submitted a letter. That’s true, but I know you have waived that restriction before. Anyway, I am writing as a Chairman, not a citizen.
Yours Truly,
Orville Santa
Chairman of the Water Advisory Committee


The Business Case for Loch Lomond and the Dual Source Water Supply

I am certainly no stranger to controversy, and Ive certainly had my fill of it. However, as an elected official and Chairman of the Water advisory Committee, I feel it necessary to make clear some of the issues surrounding Councils’ upcoming decisions on the future of our water supply.

Most recently, the future water supply of Thunder Bay has taken, what I consider a dangerous turn. In my opinion the issue of costs has evapourated and has been replaced by an emotionally charged dig in our heels agenda with racist overtones. This does nothing for the future of Thunder Bay and I would appeal to every citizen to step back, take a deep breath and move forward slowly. It is in the best interests of everyone, certainly in the best interests of future generations. All the facts are not out there. The facts that are out there are somewhat clouded. First of all, Chippewa Park was never in the proposal put forward by the First Nations people. They clarified their position to Council when asked by the Mayor.

When Council voted for a dual source system on January 15, 2001, we did not know that our decision suspended the deal to secure a reservoir on the mountain in exchange for Brule Bay lands. In any event, the mountain reservoir site was necessary for both the dual and single source options and it puzzles me why administration did not follow though with the pre-negotiated deal. If they neede Council approval, how could Council turn the deal down as it was necessary for both options.

If we look at the business case for Loch Lomond, we should consider the following;

By staying on the mountain,
1. We save $1.4 or $4.9 million for a new reservoir site off the mountain. These estimates are from Doug Scott, the City Engineer. The 17 thousand acres of watershed lands asked for by the First Nations are valued at $1.4 million. The First Nations have a fifty year, first right of refusal on the lands. By giving these lands to the First Nations, which were once theirs, we come out ahead for the reservoir site and save between $200 thousand to $3.7 million. Those savings amount to approximately between .4 to 4 percent in taxes. It should also be noted that these lands were transferred out of First Nations custody by a surveying error in 1853. No money was ever paid to First Nations for these lands. In essence, the City of Thunder Bay received the lands at no charge. So the net cost to the City os zero dollars.

2. We save big taxpayer dollars on hydro charges. Erveyone is concerned about hydro rates. There are predictions that the rates will increase by 15 percent , every year, over the next five years.
If we stay on the mountain and rely on gravity feed from Loch Lomond, the hydro cost is zero. If we go to a single source and pump water up to the reservoir on the mountain, the hydro costs are estimated at approximately $300 thousand per year or $6 million in twenty years.. If we come off the mountain with a reservoir, we’ll be pumping water all over the south side with additional pumps required. What will the costs be then? In the single source option, the hydro costs are forever. There is also a question of maitaining adequate water pressures for fighting fires. The mountain reservoir location provides thesenecessary pressures.
3. At present, we pay First Nations $75 thousand per year for loss of use of the watershed lands. This figure will increase to $120 thousand. The First Nations are willing to waive this fee. If you equate the water supply to buying a home over 20 years, this equates to a saving of $2.4 million. And we never have to pay again, unlike hydro costs with the single source option.


4. Presently we sell water to several industries in the Mount MacKay area. Approximate value, $1 million.. Treated water which we now provide is not a necessity to these industries. If we come off the mountain with a single source, there is no question that these industries would opt for cheaper, untreated water for their operations. In 20 years the citizens of Thunder Bay would lose approximately $20 million. The taxpayer would have to make up the difference.


5. If we abandon the infrastructure on the mountain, which is estimated by some to have a replacement value of $50 million, we may be asked to decommission all the pipes and return the land to its natural state. This could cost millions. If we leave it up there, then first Nations can modify the plant to more than provide drinking water for its community and still service the area industries.

6. A man once told me, “Everything is negotiable down to zero.” I have talked to the leaders of the First Nations and I truly believe they are open to negotiation. The position they put forward was at the request of their elders, and represents the position of the elders. That doesn’t mean the doors are closed. It is in the best interest of both communities, that negotiations continue. We are about to make a decision which will effect the both communities for many, many years to come.


Before we close the door on any negotiations with the First Nations, we should explore all of our options and the ramifications to you the taxpayer. According to our City Engineers and the consultants, the dual source is the safest option for the citizens of Thunder Bay. If the dual source initially costs more, and I’m not saying it will, what are the future savings for the taxpayer. As long as we are drinking water, the single source saddles you with a huge hydro bill and that is forever. Before we transfer any lands or make any deals, we must ensure the integrity of the watershed lands ie no industrial, commercial or residential development. The first Nations have said they want the lands as part of their heritage and to promote echo tourism.


Two Choices:
If City Council chooses to enter into negotiations with the First Nations and we can come up with a dual source water deal that serves both communities, we will secure the lands we need forever, provide the safest drinking water option and the long term savings to the citizens of Thunder Bay will add up into the millions of dollars. If City Council closes Loch Lomond, we will go down as the only municipality in North America that closed down a second source of drinking water the municipality had been drawing from for almost 100 years. It will be know as the Council that chose the less safe option and saddled the citizens with a hydro bill that lasts forever.

The city spent $1.7 millon on an elevator, and an additional $2.9 million to knock it down. There were plans to build a $15 million overpass to Portside. So ask yourself this, “What is our future water supply worth?” I have provided a lot of detail here. I would ask you to reread it again and add up the numbers. At my next ward meeting, the water issue will be discussed. In the mean time, let’s take our time, cool our heels and emotions and firgure out what is the best option for everyone. In the meantime let’s get all the facts. Derek Bok wrote, “If you think education is expensive - try ignorance.

Orville Santa
Chairman of the Water Advisory Committee







Here’s some thoughts that I’ve passed on to other Councillors. Thought you all might be interested.
If there is anyone else who would like to be put on the list, let me know. All this information, you can discuss openly.
Regards,
Orville



In the minutes, administration is asking us to okay $471,000.00 for an expansion. If theyb provided you with the original information, you’ll see there is a recommendation, no resolution. When I asked Judy, at your behest for the original resolution, she provided an unsigned copy of a resolution containing the $471,000.00 request. I don’t remember this being on the floor at all. does anyone else. If so, why if the resolution unsigned?

The office talk for weeks has been that the request has been granted. Maybe I’m wrong, but something seems fishy here and I hate fish, especially the fishy ones.

On another note, it seems the Chronic Urinal is slamming Council for not securing the reservoir site. Why didn’t administration, knowing we needed a reservoir on the mountain for either option, make the deal. If Scott is right and it’s going to cost $1.4 to $4.9 million for an off the mountain reservoir, we have to consider the value of the watershed lands ($1.2 million). Also, the hydro costs for pumping the water over to the reservoir will require additional pumps and a big hydro bill forever. Marvin Peltier raises some interesting points about decommissioning and environmental assesments. For me Burle Bay is a non issue. We already had the deal for the reservoir. The 17,000 acres is also a non issue. It was their land, it’s valued at $1.2 million and the cost of coming off the mountain is $1.4 to $4.9 million. However I would want a guarantee stasting no commercial, no industrial and no residential development. They say they want to promote echo tourism, let them stay true to their word.

As far as Sandy Beach is concerned, I would just as soon let them have it. It’s cost us well over a million and by the time we’re through, it’ll be about another $2.5 million.
If our Council wants to keep Sany Beach, so be it. Mr. Peltier thinks it’s a non issue for securing the lands.

So by staying on the mountain,
1. We save $1.4 or $4.9 million for a reservoir.
2. We save big time on hydro charges.
3. We maitain necessary water pressures for fire etc.
4. We stop paying $75 thousand per year which will escalate to $120 thousand.
5. We hold onto Bowater business.
6. We don’t have to decommission, a cost that could run into the millions.
7. We don’t shut down a second water source that we’ve be using for almost 100 years, and thereby provide the safest option for the citizens.
PREDICTION:
The Council that closes Loch Lomond will go down in infamy as the Council that chose the less safe option and saddled the citizens with a hydro bill forever. What municipality in north America has ever closed down a second source of drinking water. We can be the first.

Orville

Attention: Judy Jacobson
City Clerk’s Office

Ms. Jacobson,

Could you please, with the permission of the Chairperson, have
administration provide an update to members of Council, on the actions
being taken by administration, to implement the resolution passed by
Council on February 25, 2001, calling for a Judicial Inquiry.
Yours truly,
Councillor Santa

From : Santa Communication

To : Jim Gamble
CC : Calvin Cumberland ,  santacom@tbaytel.net
Subject : Re: Reply: Message
Date : Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:54:44 +0100
Attachments : Animated-RattleSnake.gif (24k), pine0wht.gif (10k), NowThat_sABunchaBS...ADUL2.gif (33k), swordfites.gif (11k)
Jim,
The letter that has to be written, the message that has to get out there is this, “ Who would spend $250,000.00 to get rid of an elected official?” Why would they spend this money? How would they benefit? Is Audziss the Lee Harvey Oswald? Think of the parallels. He’s a loner. No resources. Has access to at least six lawyers. Can’t hold down a job. Complete media exposure. So who is behind it and why? It’s not just a trucking issue, although it may have started that way. It’s much bigger. Who are the SILENT power brokers in this town? Who benefits with a QUIET COUNCIL? Who has carried on during the “Slumber Period” of the previous Council? Although you may think Hacio, Boshcoff and MacRae are qualified targets, remain focused. They do not have the savy to continue this escapade. Hacio and MacRae are out. Boshcoff is stupid. So the question begging to be asked is WHO?
Who controls Petrie re: The Judicial Inquiry?
Who controls Scott re: Water Supply?
Who controls the media, Dougall and Chroinicle Journal?
Who pulls the strings re: releasing information?
Who influences Council members to back track on previous decisions so blatantly?
The Mayor, some members of Council, and administration are just pawns. Who is the biggest player in town with connections to lawyers such Erickson, Christie, Potestio, Freitag, Scollie, and Cupello? What connection is any do federal representatives have in this?
Why are past Mayor’s such as Masters slamming Council after seeing the legal papers and credit card papers?
What Council members are friends of the big business players?
How does it affect their business, their ambitions?
In the end, how long has this been going on? Are there a few players who are ruthless enough to achieve any financial means possible?
If I had any dirt on me, do you think it would not have been exposed by now? Or are they still trying to grab at anything?
Pretty soon, they’ll say I’ve been sleeping with Marlyn Monroe and Judith Exner Campbell.
I am not trying to compare myself to Kennedy, but, in my opinion, the same type of forces are in play. The only HOPE is for investigators, civic ones, to come up with credible evidence to dispel the magic bullet theory.

My set-up with Audziss and the audit, is no different than Kennedy riding into Dealy Plaza. Backing him was his administration. Backing me was my administration. Both in my opinion were and are corrupt. I only trust two Councillors, Roy and coincidentally Kennedy.

So the big question, and focus on no other, is who would invest $250,000.00 to remove a Councillor? Portside, the Water issue, golf courses etc. is distracting. That is exactly what is intended.
There Jim! That’s the ingredients of a great letter which will provoke thought. Whether it’s printed or handed out, it will certainly start many, many wheels turning. The only hope for the next election, in my opinion, is to get a platform of seven Councillors of like minds to run. Let the people know they are reform Councillors and they are determined to block vote for the benefit of the city. Be up front and honest. And rip the power away from those who have advanced their positions at the price of holding back the city. This is not a new story, it’s as old as the scriptures, only the characters have changed.

Anyway, food for thought.
Orville

Jim Gamble wrote:

Orville: I agree with every thing you have stated in your response..........but my question of you remains un-answered.........there must be a way to get to the truth and expose Boshcoff......Hacio.......etc for what they are and what they have done with our taxpayer money........no different than the issue I explained to you about our current "Chief of Police"........I firmly believe that somehow it has to come out and can be brought out. Even the way in which Dan Munshaw responded to the questions posed to him last night......having done the job he has been hired to do........and in seeking information from him........and being denied.....and having to go thru the freedom of information forum.......I can state to you that Dan Munshaw is on board with the rest of them.........he cannot hide that fact....I read it in his nervous response....as well his body language. He is not as smart as he professes to be......again I know this from both knowing him...as well as his work performance background.........he has moved around more than the normal individual does when it comes to employment..........and there is a reason for that..........check out all the companies he has worked for......especially his last employer......that being Lac Des Isle Mines.....! Anyway..........his so called audit........and or in place system.......as well the so called credit cars training program........and hearing him and the manager of finance respond to the questions........they are all so full of bullshit it is laughable...........I wished I could do the audit..........I would find more wrong doing then you would even care to know............an I state this on fact.........been there.........done it for Bowater Inc. ....and found lots of crooked shit............even got the goods on one guy to the tune of $245,000.00 that he had mis-approiated from the company. Well enough of my carrying on..........In closing........I am as frustrated as you are with the same issues.......and hopefully will come up with additional information to be able to expose these individuals and those parties who are as I stated before..........quite literally stealing from the city/taxpayers. If you get a chance..........or have the time........I would like to get together with you to discuss this subject matter in greater detail as well in person. Sincerely yours,Jim Gamble
----- Original Message -----
From: Santa Communication
To: Jim Gamble
Cc: Calvin Cumberland ; Carla Chalat ; Janie McDaid
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Message
Jim,
The problem is that we are now in election mode. Many members of Council are now concerned with being elected. For some to not agree with certain policy issues is one thing. For some to turn a blind eye to what is going on is totally unacceptable. But they know how to play the game, or so they think. Anything that’s hot from here on in, they will steer clear of. Look for your elected officials to desert you and the issues that should be dealt with. If you thought they were diplomatic before, get out of the way. I can’t believe for $28,500.00 that so many would run and hide. When I think of all the hard working citizens out there and how they break their backs to raise their families, I’m moved to tears at what I perceive as selfishness among these members of Councillors. It’s the me first attitude coming from people who have the most.
When I see them speak in public, it makes me sick. What is even more disconcerting is the fact that business interests in the community have obviously gotten to them. Anyway, a few of us will fight on. There is a price to pay for speaking out. There is a price to pay for silence. We should all be yelling.
Orville

Jim Gamble wrote:


From : Santa Communication

To : Post
CC : Betty Kennedy , Calvin Cumberland , Carla Chalat , Gary Shchepanik , Janie McDaid , Jim Gamble , Ken Whent , Mary Roy , " mroyusc@shaw.ca" , Rene Larson , " RLarson@tbaytel.net" , Trevor Giertuga , Santa Communication
Subject : Editorial Response
Date : Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:38:48 +0100
I read with great interest your editorial of November 22, 2002. Once
again, rather than reporting the news, you chose to create it. You make
inferences about Portside, the MacRae issue, tax hikes, micromanaging
and so on. You dangle this information without providing a follow up.
Mr. Rinne, you and all members of the media have been made well aware of
the facts surrounding many of the issues you raise, and yet you refuse
to cover them. If you have lost the materials provided to you, please
contact me and I will provide them to you once again. It is quite
apparent that there is an attempt by you and others to try and influence
the electorate. It didn’t work in the last election and it won’t work in
this coming election. I know you’d like everyone to rely merly on your
reporting for information regarding what takes place on City Council.
What you’ve continually underestimated, is that the electorate is more
sophisticated now. They think for themselves. They attend ward meeting
(you should too), they become suspicious about changing news stances by
your editorial department and others. It’s afe to predict that most
Councillors won’t be re-elected to office Mr. Rinne, but are you willing
to bet? I know I am. And I’ll bet you have’t got the courage to come out
to my next ward meeting (December 11, at Hammarskjold High School), to
defend your editorial. No, like the rest you will hide in the shadows of
the grassy knoll. I wonder if you’ll even have the courage to print this
letter. If you do, it’s a start. You may still have hope of being
enlightened.