PUC holding March 2nd meeting in Wallaceburg

water plant

The special PUC meeting scheduled for March 2, will fittingly be held in Wallaceburg.

The meeting will be held from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 2 at the Wallaceburg Service Centre, inside the old Wallaceburg council chambers.

During the meeting, the final decision will be made regarding the future water source for Wallaceburg.

“We need the public to show up and show support,” Wallaceburg Coun. Jeff Wesley told the Sydenham Current.

“The vote is uncertain and you do not know the votes until they are cast.”

Wesley said, while he is confident, he is taking nothing for granted.

“Some commissioners are supporting some are still undecided,” he said.

Here is a list of all the members of the PUC:

– Mayor Randy Hope, chair

– West Kent Coun. Bryon Fluker

– North Kent Coun. Leon Leclair

– Chatham Coun. Brock McGregor

– South Kent Coun. Trevor Thompson

– East Kent Coun. David Van Damme

– Wallaceburg Coun. Jeff Wesley

Mayor Hope announced earlier this week he plans on voting for the recommended option of rehabilitating the Wallaceburg Water Treatment Plant.

“Do we make a huge investment today for sometime 40 years down the road, or do we fix what we have and look at technology as it comes forward,” Hope said. “Based on the cost, and I’m trying to get the debt level down for the PUC, so the choice I’m going to be making is to go with the upgrades to the Wallaceburg Water Treatment Plant right now.”

Wesley said he is happy his request to shift the PUC meeting to Wallaceburg was approved.

“Lots of work to do right up to the meeting on March 2nd.”

The Chatham-Kent PUC announced during their meeting on Thursday afternoon that their “preferred solution” for the future of Wallaceburg’s water source is to remain in Wallaceburg, and not be piped in from Chatham.

The PUC’s recommendation to stay with the status quo was echoed by Stantec Consulting last week at the UAW Hall, during the fourth and final public meeting in the environmental assessment process.

This findings went against the “preferred alternative” that had previously been made by Stantec.

- Advertisment -