“…it’s been proposed we’re going to privatize the water system. It’s deceitful and it’s absolutely untrue,” said Peary”

Deceitful and untrue? Not really……

As a P3 is this a traditional public project? No. As a P3 is there private involvement? Yes. Does the private sector take the lead in construction and operation of the project? Yes. Is a P3 privatization?

That very much is a matter of definition. A public project has no private sector participation beyond being the constructor. A P3 has private sector participation well beyond simple construction into operations.

The mayor is using the meaning of ‘privatization’ that existed prior to the rise of P3 projects. Those who call P3s ‘privatization’ are referring to the dominant role private sector organizations play in P3s: adding the private sector into what were public sector projects is by definition privatizing.

The important point is not what you call it but what differences there are in the terms of the agreement and ownership between a strictly public project and a P3.

‘…the cost efficiencies of a P3 operation…” Studies of P3 projects have shown that P3s cost both more to build and to operate than a well managed public project. All other things being equal a P3 water project will cost taxpayers significantly more than building a well managed public water project.

I use ‘all other things being equal’ because of the existence of the conservative governments P3 Canada funding that provides funding of up to 25% for P3 projects.The fund exists to provide funding to make P3 projects competitive with well managed public projects, promoting P3 projects in keeping with the federal Conservative government’s ideology.

Without the 25% federal (P3 Canada) funding Abbotsford and Mission should not consider, much less go with, using a P3 to build the water project because without the 25% funding a public project will provide appreciable savings to taxpayers.

Even a full 25% subsidy, given the congruence of current economic conditions with the state of affairs in the construction business, may not make a P3 the best choice.

Despite the previous council’s insistence that construction costs would continue to skyrocket and that those who called for Plan A construction be delayed until the post Olympic construction boom lowered prices and saved taxpayer $$$$ were idiots……now is a time when significant savings can be realized on construction costs.

The downward pressure on construction starts created by the economy together with the end of federal stimulus construction projects translates into significant reductions in construction costs for public projects.

Should Abbotsford/Mission explore the costs of a P3 water project – yes.

Is that all Abbotsford/Mission councils should do? Of course not – it would be irresponsible not to do due diligence to ascertain the cost of a well managed public project. A thorough and accurate determination of the water project, its timelines, its management and its costs if it is built as a public project must be made.

As to the referendum question in November – we don’t even know what the question should be at this point and won’t until we know whether the P3 will get the 25% funding, the costs of proceeding as a P3 project and the costs for a public project.

The water project is a financial decision that represents an extensive and long term commitment of City/taxpayer resources/dollars.

The effect the project will have on City/taxpayer resources/dollars necessitates an accurate and full understanding of the costs of both the P3 and public build options, the specifics and details of both options as well as the ownership implications of going with a P3.

Only when they are in possession of all the facts can voters make an informed decision in November on how to proceed with the construction of the water project.