February 3, 2014:
Representatives from Durham
Regional Police came before Council on Monday to update us on their plans to
address aggressive driving and speeding. It was a pleasure to see a good crowd
of local citizens to emphasize the growing concerns and frustrations with this
“wild west” attitude of some drivers in Brock.
Durham police acknowledge that
there is not one approach to addressing this problem and in the past year have
established a Traffic Safety Committee. Durham Region Police are pushing a
mixture of education, community support such as Roadwatch, and enforcement.
Staff Sergeant James Stewart-Hass stated “Enforcement is not always the
answer”. I don’t agree with such a statement since it would appear to imply
that enforcement does not help when many would acknowledge it surely does. I
expressed my concern to Durham Police with relying too much on “education”.
Many people who aggressively drive simply do not care. It is similar to the
issue of drinking and driving. Each year there is millions of dollars spent on
education by both police services and third parties such as MADD Canada and yet
still there is drinking and driving. This is why the police, including Durham
Regional Police, establish special enforcement measures including RIDE
programs. In my opinion, application of police resources to enforcement on our
roadways is the key method of deterring aggressive driving. Hit them where it
really hurts …. The wallet and then they will learn the lesson.
When statistics of some
traffic patterns revealed that average speed on Cameron Street was over the
limit Durham Police indicated that that would not be a concern for them even
though that average would imply that a significant number of the vehicles would
be travelling at speeds quite a bit over the limit. I took issue with that. I
agree that there are all kinds of devils in the details of statistics but when
the average speed is already at least 10% over the limit I fear where many more
are.
Many members of Council
expressed concerns regarding poor communication from Durham Region Police either
between the police and constituents or even between police and members of
Council themselves when following up on behalf of constituents. There was also
much concern with reports of officers stating they would not patrol Brock’s
concession roads since it would cause unwanted dirt and/or damage to cruisers.
Although P.C. Sue Kelly (Traffic Safety Coordinator) stated that such incidents
“better not be happening” she could not rule out that it may be taking
place.
I expressed my concern with
the speed in which some Durham Region Police cruisers drive without their
emergency lights operating. When I inquired if there was a mandatory speed at
which lights must be used it appeared there is not. However, Durham Police
utilize technology that will notify superiors if a cruiser is speeding at
130km/h or more without emergency lights operating. I suggested that such a
limit should be reduced to 110 km/h since any vehicle driving up to 129 km/h
poses a real threat to everyone on our roadways and such a vehicle would not be
identified by police. Worst case scenario is that it creates a terrible visual
for the community and sets a terrible standard in which the public sees such
driving by those entrusted to protect us on our roadways.
One of my last questions to
police was what they are doing to address the fact that Brock residents are
alone in Durham Region in feeling that their police service is not providing
them with quality police service. According to Durham Police public opinion
surveys only about 45% of Brock residents were satisfied with the quality of
service while other municipalities in The Region ranged from 85% to 91%
satisfaction. I expressed my concern that the level of enforcement on our
roadways is probably going a long way to feeding this poor result in
Brock.
This lack of service may be
represented in more tangible ways. On more than one occasion on Monday I asked
both representatives from Durham Region Police about the results of the Festive
RIDE program in Brock. The police representatives responded that they did not
have those statistics with them. When I then asked if Brock even had a Festive
RIDE program they again responded that they did not know if we did. I do find
it difficult to believe that the Staff Sergeant and Traffic Safety Coordinator
from our local police division would not even know if we had a RIDE program only
a month ago. From my informal conversations with residents I do not believe we
had such a program in Brock this past year and possibly for many months or years
before. It is this lack of service level on a most fundamental basis which
concerns so many people in Brock. The representatives from Durham Police
acknowledge that we are all Regional taxpayers and we should expect to receive
the same services as everyone else. However, it very much appears that we are
not receiving the same services as many others. No other members of Council
could acknowledge a RIDE program in their respective wards or communities. If
we cannot receive one of Durham Region’s most visible enforcement measures such
as the RIDE program then do we expect to receive adequate and ongoing roadway
enforcement?
Between what members of
Council put forward and the concerns and questions by community members during
Monday’s Council meeting I hope that our Regional police service will
re-evaluate the resources being put into Brock Township to better manage our
“wild west” roadways. Speeding and aggressive driving may not be “sexy” crimes
compared to breaking up gangs and doing large scale drug busts but it goes to a
basic level of keeping our communities safe while we commute to work, while our
children play, and our residents walk about their towns and rural areas. I
stated to representatives present that I hoped we would not have to have them
back again on this matter…. However, I feel it may very well need to
happen.
With Brock residents sending
about $3,000,000 per year into The Regional Police budget we should be expecting
the same level of services enjoyed by the rest of The Region for
policing.
January 20, 2014:
That's right.... there's a whole lot of
zeros in that number. According to the firm putting together
Brock's
Asset Management Plan (a
requirement by The Province for future capital funding) we need to find
$192,842,439.00 fast to fix our outstanding problems with roads, bridges,
culverts, sidewalks, vehicles, and buildings. The report confirms much of what
we knew already and that is we have many things to fix and not much money to do
it with. It confirms that we're not alone with this mess but that is little
comfort to me. It confirms that action must be taken.... what the action is
nobody really knows.Brock takes in a little over $7 million
dollars a year in property taxes. Throw in the various grants, fees, and other
revenues we receive from other levels of government and the taxpayers and the
total revenue goes to anywhere from $10 Million to $13 Million (very dependant
on higher government generosity). The consultants advise that we need to up our
capital spending from the $2.7 Million we do now to over $19 Million every
year. Even if The Township shut down every operating aspect (fire all staff,
close every building, stop all road maintenance, close down the libraries, shut
down the fire department, etc.) we may be able to throw $11 Million at the
issue. You can see the problem.
The consultants have recommended to Council
that an EXTRA 4% levy be put onto the taxpayers to help. However, this help
would only stop the infrastructure gap from getting bigger and it would take 10
years to do that.
Although Brock is not alone in this mess which
affects almost every municipality in Ontario and Canada we're certainly at the
wrong end of the scale. The consultants confirm that Brock is at the "High End"
of the deficit problem given our size, population, and tax base.
Dealing with this $193,000,000 elephant in the
room will take work and time. It took upwards of 50 years for some
municipalities, including Brock, to get into this mess and it may take as long
or longer to get out. It will take some tough decisions and
creative thinking.
I'm glad to see the consultants confirm what I
have pushed for during this term of Council.... to start serious planning and
budgeting on longer terms. We need to think and project out longer than one
year at a time for both the operating and capital costs of this Township (and
the possible revenues). Every time we make a decision it usually affects our
bottom line if not this year then in future years. Whether that decision is to
adopt a harbour or accept a donated asset in a park we take on a further deficit
that a Council in the future will have to pay for and a bill that a future
taxpayer will be asked to cover.
The Federal and Provincial governments must
take a lead role in assisting with these issues. It was also confirmed today
that upper levels of government have had no problem passing on responsibilities
and costs to local municipalities but all too often there are no funds to help
deal with it. Those are called unfunded responsibilities or unfunded mandates
and it has to end. The years and decades to come will continue to be a
challenge both here in Brock and beyond.
I informed our consultants that there is only
so much extra tax burden our property owners in Brock can take. Raise taxes too
much and we will not have a Township to worry about.... people will leave in
droves. Brock is already one of if not the highest taxed municipalities in the
GTA. I know people who have already left Brock for areas around us offering
more attractive tax rates.... can we afford to loose more?
The Province, and Region, must start to put
real efforts into allowing better growth potential in Brock. By addressing
waste water capacity and the assortment of restrictive legislation and policies
in The Province (to name only a few) we may be able to grow our fantastic
Township and give some relief and improved service. There can be solutions to
the problem. Not all of the possible solutions are attractive but swallowing
medicine rarely is a tasty
treat.
January 20, 2014:
Representatives from Brock CHC gave a
deputation to Council updating us on the service delivery and the status of the
Cannington capital project (aka The Primary Health Care Facility at Ann and
Cameron Streets). The capital project is being projected to come in with a
price tag now of just over $7 Million. The cost and size of the building has
come down and may continue to get changed. Brock CHC is still working on
getting through Phase 2 of the project. I emphasized to the CHC my, and the
community's, frustration and limits with listening to the reasons for the
constant delays. The project is now estimated to be completed by 2016/2017 with
no guarantees at all. Over the years the CHC has come to Council
explaining their circumstances and I have personally met with the CHC Executive
Director and members of The Board of Directors on why the project continues to
drag along. I, and others, have been informed that so many of the delays have
been due to Ministry of Health changing the rules and changing the process
which then causes the application processes to start all over again. I, for
one, am fed up with these delays. I sympathize with the CHC board.
I expressed my continued wish to have
representatives from The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care show some
respect and courage to come to Cannington and explain the constant delays,
process changes, and other bureaucratic bull**** that The CHC says have been
plaguing the successful completion of this project in a timely manner. In August
of 2011 a big ceremony took place in Cannington to announce that the project
would begin construction in 2012. I said it then that such an announcement was
convenient just before an election and that is all it appears to have been.
Understanding that The Province is no doubt getting ready for another election
soon I can not wait to see what happens.
I have asked the CHC to pass on my comments
and to pass on my frustrations with this government mess. The old saying of
"Walk softly but carry a big stick" may apply here. We have been polite and we
have certainly walked softly.... perhaps it's time to use the stick. It is time
for some stronger language. It is also often said that "the squeaky wheel gets
the grease"..... let us now sqeak! I fear that if no substantial action is
taken to demand this process move forward more productively than it has that we
will see this empty lot remain empty for years and years to come.
Seven million dollars is a lot of money to a
Provincial Government who is broke and although I was told the money was
earmarked back in 2011 I can't help but think someone at Queens Park may feel
more votes can be achieved by investing these funds elsewhere other than Brock.
Although the CHC is not a Township responsibility it was certainly a big concern
for people here when I campaigned door to door almost four years ago. I hope I
am wrong and I hope this project can be completed before the next term of
Council expires in 2018. It is a shame that we have waited this long for
something we were promised so long
ago.
November 18, 2013:
Even though the federal
government spent about $21 Million during the 2011/2012 fiscal year to advertise
and promote their "Action Plan" (plus more last year and this year) The Township
is now being asked to send them a thank you letter for the Federal Gas Tax funds
received each year. To make it easier on us we were even provided a form letter
version we could simply fill in the blanks and send to our local MP.
I acknowledge that The
Township receives these funds (with strings attached) but I don’t believe we
should be The Federal Government’s PR firm. The Township does not receive thank
you letters from The Federal Government (or The Province) for the manpower and
taxpayer money we are forced to spend on Federal or Provincially mandated
programs each and every year.
This request by The Federal
Government is simply a political manoeuvre to get every municipality receiving
gas tax revenue to send the government a cookie cutter thank you letter which I
am sure will be used by Federal politicians to some degree down the
line.
What’s next… will the Federal
Government ask our pensioners to start sending thank you letters for the Canada
Pension Plan and Old Age Security cheques they receive each month.
A motion was brought forward
to send the thank you but I did not support it…. It passed anyway.
October 29, 2013:
We Made A Mistake and I, For One,
Apologize:
At the Planning Committee meeting on October
28th Council members received a report from The Township’s Chief Building
Official regarding matters discussed in recent months involving The Township's
Zoning by-law and building permits.In May of this year a request was received by
a taxpayer owning farm property in Brock Township to erect an accessory building
on his property in order to store farm equipment. The property owner does not
have a home on the property at this time. Members of Council refused his
request on the basis that we believed The Township’s Zoning By-law would not
permit the building of an accessory building without first having a house on the
property. When the taxpayer later appeared before Council to plead his case for
reconsideration he was again informed that the rules/by-law does not permit him
to do what he was proposing. The taxpayer indicated it is his plan to
eventually build a house on the property and move into full time farming
activities (he currently rents out his farm property). He offered character
references and even offered to provide The Township with financial securities to
back up his intentions. In the end, his request was again denied based on the
“rules in place” but Council did request Township staff to investigate options
that may be available including financial securities pledged.
The report received on October 28th brought a
number of issues to light but the biggest one brought to Council members’
attention was….. we were wrong.
According to the existing Zoning By-Law anyone wishing to build an “accessory
building” on a qualified farm property may do so without a residence on the
property. The Township’s Chief Building Official confirmed that he would be
bound by the law to issue a building permit provided all paperwork was in order
and fees paid.
At The Planning meeting on October 28th when
the report was provided I was shocked that Council members (myself included) had
dragged this taxpayer through a completely unnecessary process and delay. I
expressed my hope that The Township, when communicating this matter to the
taxpayer, would include an apology for the misunderstanding. I was one of the
members who, mistakenly,
indicated to this taxpayer that he could not do what he planned because it was
not permitted under the currently existing by-law.
I was somewhat equally surprised when not all
members of Committee agreed that an apology was necessary. That of course is
anyone’s opinion.
We simply made a mistake in misinterpreting a
municipal by-law. I do not believe there was any malice intended by any member
of staff or Council. Should we have all known better..... perhaps. The zoning
by-law has been "on the books" for a long time (amended from time to time).
I’ve often said that no Council has the monopoly on common sense or knowledge
and we all make mistakes from time to time. I regret that we misunderstood the
by-law in question but the first thing we should do is admit that mistake and
express an apology to those affected. I have already expressed my personal
apology to the taxpayer for my part in misunderstanding the by-law. I
apologized for my part in wrongly denying him a building permit which we now
know we could not refuse. While I confirmed with the taxpayer that I cannot
apologize on behalf of The Township of Brock I do hope one will be
forthcoming.
Any government… Federal, Provincial, or
Municipal is capable of making errors and they do make errors. Anyone who
thinks otherwise is very much disconnected from reality. But in a democracy it
is vital to make sure that we are honest enough and transparent enough to
acknowledge the mistake and apologize for it. It is through acknowledgement
that we will confirm we will do what we can to make sure it does not happen
again.
Once again to the taxpayer affected….. I
apologize for my part in misunderstanding and communicating incorrect by-law
information. I wish him all the best in his future farming work in Brock
Township.
I also thank Township staff who did thorough
investigative work to confirm the TRUE nature of our Zoning By-Law as it
pertains to this
matter
October 7, 2013:
My motion today to have The Township
investigate the feasibility of providing our Council and Committee meetings via
online videostreaming passed narrowly. We are in the 21st century and another
way to bring the public into the meetings of our local government is by way of
video available through the internet. As I stated in The Finance Committee
today, many people are very interested about the workings and "goings on" during
our Council and Committee meetings but so very few can attend these meetings
(whether in daytime or evening). Providing these meetings in online format is
becoming more and more affordable and technically capable for municipalities big
and small in Ontario. It is important for us to do everything we can to foster
improved communication and transparency beyond the same old formats of years
past. My motion will only provide a report and possible budget review. It will
still be up to members of Council, once we see the details, on whether we will
move our Council into the 21st century of communicating and interacting with the
voters and taxpayers.
Although I can agree that "the press" is
available at most meetings they simply can not communicate everything that goes
on at the meetings (its a simple matter of column space available). If the
choice is to bring the public more into the process or not.... I choose to bring
them into the process.
We could sit back and let the problem of
disaffection in the system continue and grow. One of the biggest problems which
feeds the issue of the disenfranchised involves a systemic disconnect between
the voters (especially youth) and their political representatives. There is also
a mistrust among many as to what their politicians are "doing for them". We have
to do everything we can to fix this problem or the trust level continues to
erode and voter turnout continues to fail. Although voter turnout in Brock is
the highest in The Region of Durham we can, and must, do better. We must also do
everything we can to better communicate with the people we are elected to
represent.
I will be the first to admit that many Council
and Committee meetings are "dry". However, there are often very good
discussions and passionate debates which can only be appreciated if witnessed in
person or, as I propose, through video capture. Some would argue that by
turning the cameras on Council members there will be "grandstanding" for the
public. Well, I have to say that not only does this happen already, but also
that a little grandstanding may be good. It is important for the voters and
taxpayers to fully understand the positions of the our Council members on
matters which greatly affect us all and these positions can not fully be
understood with short quotes in the paper. There is concern about Council
members "performing" for their constituents. Well many voters have complained
to me that their Council representatives in Brock don't perform well enough now
so perhaps this would be an improvement.
In a recent report The Ontario Ombudsman
recommended that municipalities get more meetings on video (including closed
sessions) in the interest of transparency and improved disclosure and
openness.
By implementing video The Township would be
able to also communicate more than just meetings. Public announcements and
notifications could be done. Also, improved instructions for everything from
tax payments, permit applications, ballot completion, and more could be
achieved. All of this, and more, could better serve our residents and make The
Township more accessible for the disabled. In fact, my motion includes
investigating any possible grants which may be offered for this process since
accessibility for the disabled would be greatly improved for our
residents.
Some would say that we need more broadband
coverage in Brock before The Township starts streaming videos (the cart before
the horse argument). This argument does not "hold water". Broadband internet
is coming to more and more communities and people. And if anyone looks at why
broadband width has increased over the years it is because the content on the
internet has demanded it. It is the content and demand for it which has always
come first. Internet access is also being received by more than just
computers. People can access it, and it's content, through mobile devices (as
witnessed by the decrease in computer sales vs. mobile devices).
The report from Township staff will include a
review of municipalities in Ontario who are currently streaming their meetings
online. Although this will be a useful piece of information, I personally feel
it should be carefully reviewed and weighed. Our Township does not have to view
itself in terms of whether we follow the pack but we must also consider whether
we should lead the pack. By brining in this progressive method of voter and
taxpayer involvement we can show that Brock Township, and its Council, is a
forward thinking Township who is not interested so much in what others are doing
but rather what we should be doing.
Finally, there is the concern on costs. I
fully respect the taxpayer's dime. I believe we should only spend the
taxpayer's funds where it is appropriate. My preliminary investigation of
online streaming has provided some degree of information on costs. There are
many options available and many different cost levels from various suppliers in
Ontario and across North America. I feel, at this time, that there is an
affordable option for Brock. I am so confident of this that I am 100% certain I
could find a way for Brock Township to fund this process without any increase to
the municipal taxes levied on our local taxpayers today. I feel this is an
investment in communication, transparency, and goodwill with our taxpayers which
is critical to us all. I look forward to seeing the staff report on this
enhanced level of local democracy in Brock Township government.
I also look forward to your input and opinion
on this.
September 23, 2013:
At today's Planning Committee meeting my
motion to have Durham Regional Police come to Council/Committee was passed. I
have requested that Durham Regional Police again attend before Council and the
public to outline what their strategy will be in dealing with the issue of road
safety and speeding in Brock. I have requested that they provide statistics on
traffic violations within Brock and how they intend to improve the results.
Speed on our Township and Regional Roads has been an ongoing issue for years.
During the last election it was one of the major concerns raised by residents in
Ward 3. Durham Regional Police are responsible for law enforcement on our
roadways. I will notify residents of the anticipated date of the deputation by
DRP so that interested members of the public may attend.On a related topic, during my Protection to
Persons and Property Committee meeting Councillor Smith did me the favour of
bringing forward a motion to request a Community Safety Zone in Cannington to
help with addressing some issues of road safety. Of course, a community safety
zone is only as good as the enforcement by police of the limits on that
roadway.
In my opinion, as I have stated before, the
only real deterrent to the criminal activity on our roadways is to have real and
meaningful enforcement. That enforcement is the responsibility of Durham
Regional Police. There must be regular and strong enforcement throughout our
area roads. And by the way.... leave Highway 12 to the OPP. Our Regional
Police should not be in the business of patrolling these Provincial Highways.
If our "men in blue" are on their way to Beaverton then they should take the
route that utilizes the most Regional and Township roads as possible. It may
take a little while longer to get their but we will get some patrols on the
roadways we pay to have patrolled.
The budget for police protection in Durham, as
with many municipalities, has repeatedly outpaced inflation. This fact is not
lost on the residents of Ward 3 and Brock Township as a whole. Often I have
been asked what benefit Brock is seeing for the increased dollars sent to our
Police. I will admit there are improved services that we don't always see I
will also agree that there needs to be more services that we do (or should)
see.
You have to know that things are bad on some
of our roadways when residents contact me asking that The Township not do road
improvements on their roads since the removal of potholes will contribute to
increased incidents of speed and reckless driving!
I look forward to a repeat visit by Durham
Regional Police to give us an insight into their plan to better address concerns
of safety on our area
roadways
June 17, 2013:
A marathon Council debate took
place yesterday regarding proposed additional wording to The Township's Free Use
Policy (regarding arenas and community centres) as well as The Township Golf
Tournament Grants. I had requested staff to add a section to the policies which
would inform groups and individuals that they may request to be exempt from the
outlined conditions (provided they justified their reasons). Since exemptions
have happened in the past I felt it was only fair to make sure everyone knew
they could be exempt if needed. While everyone on Council acknowledged this
"unwritten policy" not everyone was in favour of putting it in writing for all
to see. Councillor Smith made an excellent point that one of the watch words
these days is "transparency" and this is indeed a positive move in that
direction. Council finally passed a series of motions allowing the amendment to
the official policy for Free Use but disallowing the same amendment to the Golf
Tournament Granting Policy (even though the "unwritten policy" still exists).
While not everyone feels these issues occur very often it is still important to
have a clear set of rules for everyone. Ironically, Council received two
requests yesterday for free use of Township facilities (Beaverton auditorium and
Sunderland Community Centre) so it is clear that these requests happen and will
continue to do so. Therefore, any group or individual wishing to gain exemption
from some or all of the provisions of Township policy on facility use should
submit such a request in writing and plan to appear before Council to explain
their request.
After all..... fair is
fair.... it's just that simple.
April 1, 2013:
At the recent meeting of the
Finance Committee on April 1 members received a report updating us on the
potential cost of an eventual overhaul of The Thorah Island Harbour and the ways
to fund it. Since the costs for the Federal Government’s work increased
substantially from the original estimate (increasing a whopping 77% from
$500,000 to $885,000) I became very concerned that the eventual liability of The
Township would be increasing as well. It has also been my view that since The
Township took on this eventual liability that The Township should develop a
dedicated way to pay for it rather than “kicking the can down the road”. Our
Township has enough of an infrastructure deficit without adding well over a
million more to the bill.
At the April 1st
meeting I put forward a motion to have a dedicated reserve established and that
the reserve be funded through the annual berthing fees collected at the harbour
as well as a user charge to land owners on the island itself. I decided not to
go down the road of funding it through a levy against all Brock taxpayers
because I do not believe this is a municipal asset we can all enjoy or benefit
from.
Frankly I was not too
surprised that my motion did not succeed. What I was surprised at during the
meeting was the motion that followed mine. The next motion on funding the
harbour simply allocated the berthing fees to the cost of funding the eventual
deficit. Currently The Township collects roughly $15,000 a year from Thorah
Island berthing fees. Putting money away at that rate may pay for the eventual
repairs to the harbour in anywhere from 100 to 140 years. When so much concern
is raised each year about how much we take out of reserves during the budget
discussions I am very concerned about how little we are saving for another
multi-million dollar Township asset.
I can not help but feel we are
throwing a problem at some other Council and future taxpayers of Brock Township
(also known as our children and possibly their children) by choosing not to find
a way to pay for a liability we know exists and have put in place by taking on
this harbour. Of all the options outlined to members of Committee within the
staff report none of them spoke to doing almost nothing. The report from staff
clearly states that relying on berthing fees alone will leave a “substantial
deficit”. I did not vote in favour of the second motion since it does not deal
with the real issue of seriously funding this asset’s long term cost.
Some day, and it may not come
soon, there will be a Council who will hear that the Thorah Island Harbour is in
need of serious repair or replacement (just as many of our roads are and will
be). That Council will be told that there is insufficient funds in the
dedicated reserve to pay for it and the taxpayers of that day will pay the price
one way or another. I’m sure I will not be on Council that day as I’m sure many
others won’t be as well. But I can not help but wonder if the conversation on
that day will speak to “why did we not prepare for this?” and “why did we not
set some real funding in place knowing this would happen?”. I would rather have
voted for a motion spreading the liability across all of Brock than not truly
dealing with it at all. That future day will probably be more of a nightmare
than we think. I very much feel the assumptions on cost increases within the
staff report are on the “light side” as is evidenced by recent Statistics Canada
Data. The staff report forecasts construction costs to increase at a rate of 2%
per year. Given the nature of the work I believe costs will increase much more
rapidly. Even at a 3% annual increase (as per Stats Canada) it will add more
than half a million dollars to the eventual bill. This is a serious-sized can
we are kicking at the taxpayers of Brock’s future and, as I stated in Committee,
I’m not in favour of it.
It was also raised at the
meeting by members of Committee about eventual costs of other Township assets
including the new Cannington Skatebaord Park. I would like to remind everyone
that I raised concerns regarding such assets, specifically the generously
donated assets throughout Brock , back in April of 2011 when I discussed the
possible need for a policy to determine the long term funding of repairs and
replacement to such assets. It was decided back then, as now, not to deal with
that issue in any meaningful way.
Lastly, let me address the
concerns of anyone who feels that I don’t trust members of Council or
Committee. I do indeed trust them and I also welcome their input and discussion
as surely as they trust me and welcome my input. A full and open discussion
about the pros and cons of any proposal should be welcomed and not
silenced.
What are your
thoughts?
March 26, 2013:
The visit to Paris Ontario today was very
much worth the trip. We found out some very surprising facts and issues. While
the circumstances in Paris Ontario do not 100% reflect Brock Township there were
many reasons to take a look. Some very surprising fact included:- The repurposing which included installation
of high quality artificial turf and subfloor, heating systems, supplies, and
other materials cost about $130,000.
- The arena contained no insulation but yet
was very well heated using two long infrared heating units on either side of the
arena
- The arena became an even more diverse
meeting place for the community since it now provided services to an
ever-expanding service base
- The turf surface is now providing services
which include, but are not limited to, indoor soccer, running and walking track
(attended by over 50 people per day every day), driving range, "trade show"
floor space, birthday parties, fitness classes, and many more.
Surprisingly enough, the community is still
learning about all the services offered at the new facility. There may have
been a "not so great" job of promotion done but it is catching on.
Other space in the facility has been turned
into community space for meetings, museums, and even a local home-based business
has opened up in the facility.
The situation in Paris is also a bit of an
envious one. The area is growing greatly. It has a population three times that
of Brock. Demand for traditional facility use has been increasing beyond
capacity to the point a new twin pad complex was built. Much of these
circumstances are directly opposite that of our state here in Brock.
I'll share more information shortly along with
some video I took during our
visit.
January 21, 2013:
Township Finance Committee today received The
Treasurer's monthly financial report for the months of November and December of
2012 (click here for link to report). One of the aspects
of those reports has quite frankly infuriated me. The 2012 operating budget for
the Roads Department was $3,166,756. This budget was for the Works Department
to carry on things like bridge and culvert maintenance, grass cutting along
roadways, brushing, ditching, hardtop maintenance, grading & scarifying,
applying dust layers, winter plowing and sanding, maintenance, and other road
work but does not include the $400,000 of gravel resurfacing which is budgeted
for separately.
As of the December report the Works Department
has spent $2,655,695 leaving a substantial amount of road maintenance funds
unspent. The Treasurer confirmed today that, although not all bills are in yet,
there will likely be a substantial underspending in this area.
Roads are a huge concern for our many
residents both in the rural and urban areas of The Township. At last year's
budget discussions I directly asked The Director of Public Works if there was no
"wiggle room" in his huge budget so that property taxes could be better
managed. The response was that there was no room for cutting. At that time I
made it quite clear that I, and the residents of Brock, expected to see this
badly needed work done and I did not want to see us at the end of the year
looking at unspent road improvement funds. We are now looking at just
that.
I understand that only so much work can be
done by so much staff in so much time. However, if we can not get the work done
then we sure as hell should not be going to the taxpayer asking for money to do
it. Any surplus realized here will likely go into the Rate Stabilization
Reserve which can be used for any project Council wishes (not necessarily for
roads which is where it was intended). I want responsible spending but I also
want responsible budgeting. Surely nobody is going to say there was no roadwork
in order to spend these dollars on. I agreed to this budget amount last year as
I was directly assured it was needed and would be used for 2012. This
underspending on roads would have easily removed the property tax increase
passed on to the taxpayers of Brock last year.
Be assured that this will be further discussed
as we go into the 2013 budget discussions and finalization in the coming
weeks.
January 21, 2012:
Firstly I should
disclose that I am one of two Council members who are on The Brock Township
Library Board.
My motion today to
establish a dedicated reserve to hold surpluses achieved by The Brock Township
Library system did not pass. For a number of years The Brock Township Library
system has been able to achieve operating efficiencies and improved revenue
streams (outside The Township grant). These have permitted The Library system
to come in under their budgets. I believe it would be best practice to allow
them to use these reserves for future needs. Currently, any surplus realized by
The Library goes into the "Rate Stabilization Reserve" which is a Township
reserve comprised, mostly, by accumulated Township surpluses including the
surpluses realized by The Libarary Board.
The Brock Township
Library system is essentially an independent body and separate entity from The
Township of Brock. The system receives the majority of its annual funding from
The Municipality with other amounts received via Provincial and Federal Grants,
private donations, fundraisers, and bequests. The library's annual budget
process is a combined effort of The Township Treasurer and the Brock Libarary
Boad CEO (along with consultations from The Library Board). In fact some line
items in the annual budget are derived largely by, and under the direction of,
The Township/Treasurer.
It is my opinion that
given that The Council of The Township reviews and approves the grant to be
provided to The Library, and given that many items in The Library budget are at
the direction of The Township treasurer, and if the management and staff of The
Library are able to achieve cost savings and increased revenues from other
sources then The Library should not be punished by having these savings
removed. But that is exactly what is happening now. These savings are being
taken by The Township and placed in the rate stabilization reserve for The
Township to use on other projects when the funds were originally earmarked for
The Library system.
Under Provincial
legislation regarding public library boards every board is required by law to
have its own bank account and treasurer. The Brock system does in deed have its
own bank account for purposes of receiving government grants but not necessarily
for purposes of municipal grants. If the municipal grant, approved by Council,
was to go into this bank account these surpluses would be, by definition, out of
the control of The Township. But this is not the case.
By not permitting the
library to manage its own surpluses we are asking them not to have surpluses.
We are asking them to spend everything given and not worry about savings.
Future Library Boards may very well decide that in the late months of the year
when spending has come in under budget that it would be best to make extra
purchases to simply "eat up" the surplus. This kind of activity regularly
happens in both public and private institutions and it is not healthy. By
encouraging proper use of surpluses we will encourage proper use of
funding.
Some members of
council may feel that use of libraries in Brock do not constitute us having
three branches much like use at arenas does not constitute having three of them
as well and there is some validity to that thought process. I support a
fiscally responsibly library system (as I do any other system) but I also
recognize the value such a system plays in our community. These facilities
pickup where schools leave off. They pick up where employment assistance
programs leave off. They pickup where so many other resources leave off. Use
of Brock libraries is on the rise (and the statistics confirm this). Our
libraries are becoming a service offered where more is being used and offered at
a reasonable cost to the taxpayer (which can not be said about other aspects of
various levels of government).
I agree with some
members of Council who do not like reserves which have no dedicated use. The
rate stabilization reserve is a reserve for just about anything and is from
unspent funds for very specific things. For example this municipality budgeted
over $3.1 Million for road work in 2012 but will likely underspend by anywhere
from $300,000 to $500,000. This "surplus" will largely go into the rate
stabilization reserve and therefore could be used for anything other than roads
in the future (see my other notes in this section). I believe we must start
being more responsible not just when we do spend tax dollars but also when we
don't (and how are those dollars going to be used down the road vs. what we said
we would use them for).
November 26, 2012:
At the November 26th meeting of The
Administration and Personnel Committee I informed my Council and Committee
colleagues that it was my intention to introduce a motion in the coming weeks to
look at establishing a "community/Township body" of some sort to help source out
and recommend implementations to better promote, maximize use, review and
implement best measures to stem the increasing costs and falling use at our
community arenas (all arenas). This "body" would best be composed of residents,
user group representatives, and members of Council and/or staff. It would be
similar to our current town hall boards of management but with perhaps a more
proactive mandate. This group would be a catalyst to help identify problems and
solutions which no Council member or Township staff can claim exclusive rights
to being able to do.It is my belief that public ownership of a
problem can bring public ownership of solutions. This process would be an
implementation of recommendation number two of The Brock Recreation Master Plan.
The consultants who authored the plan confirmed to Council/Committee that it
would make more sense to first do everything possible to increase use and
promotion of these facilities prior to decommissioning them. I agree with that
logic. My proposal would do just that and do it with the help of our residents
who have shown their interest in maintaining these facilities.
At this time I have given my Council
colleagues an idea of what I propose since I am sure that bringing such a motion
forward at this immediate time would result in it being tabled for the
foreseeable future. There was very little support around the Council Chamber for
what I proposed. I am somewhat disappointed in that reaction since I am simply
trying to move forward with what has been recommended. I firmly believe that it
would be irresponsible for us to move forward with the decommissioning of
Beaverton, Sunderland, or Cannington without first knowing we have done
everything we can to reverse current trends in use and costs.
I believe there are systemic problems with how
these facilities are being best promoted and utilized. Some of those problems
are currently being addressed through the review and implementation of a
centralized ice booking mechanism. Township staff will be producing a report to
Committee/Council in the coming weeks on some of these issues. I have pledged
that I will await that report prior to the introduction of any proposed motion
and I pledge to the residents in Ward 3 that I will keep you informed of the
progress and reaction on this matter.
I would welcome your input on this proposal.
You may forward it to myself at contact@walterschummer.ca or to all members of
Council at
council@townshipofbrock.ca
November 12, 2012:
I would like to thank all the citizens who
attended The Council Chambers today to voice concerns and ask questions of the
Brock Recreation Master Plan during The Parks and Recreation Committee meeting.
It is very encouraging to see the seats in the public gallery used (it must
happen more often). The Recreation Master Plan was accepted in principle by
committee. There will be no action on any recommendations until Council takes
action or requests action from staff on each. The Plan contains many
recommendations and I want to see movement. With respect to the arena discussion I am
happy to see the consultant agree that it only makes sense to first do
everything we can to maximize use and efficiencies of these facilities before we
decommission them. As a Township we do face some critical issues on these three
facilities and we must take action to address it. However, only after we have
said, with confidence, that we have exhausted all possibilities -- that we have
done everything we can; that we have tried all possible options; that we have
given a chance for success -- can we take drastic action to close either
Beaverton, Cannington, or Sunderland. If after we have exhausted the options and
the downward spiral of use continues then we can discuss
decommission.
There are many issues to address with the way
bookings are done in The Township. It is very disconcerting that we have stories
of not enough ice time while reports show a surplus available. The Township and
the arena user groups both have some work to do on improving the system and
maintaining fair distribution of facility utilization. I believe that there are
great ideas out there and we should establish a formal body to maximize those
ideas and implement them.
Some members of the public in attendance
stated they knew nothing of the original open houses or the formal public
meeting on the Recreation Master Plan or did not even know of today’s meeting of
The Parks and Recreation Committee. There is only so much that can be done to
publicize such information in a Township like Brock. Although the information
was in The Brock Citizen through advertisements and editorial columns on
numerous occasions and was posted on The Township website I know not everyone
receives the paper or has access to a computer. I must say though that in Ward 3
I can not accept that individuals don’t know of these meetings. All of the open
houses, the special evening public meeting, and today’s committee meeting were
in my monthly Ward 3 newsletter over the past few months and it is mailed to
every household in Ward 3 (as well as being available on my website). If you
have not been receiving the Ward 3 newsletter, please let me know so that I can
follow-up with Canada Post. I continue my pledge to keep the citizens of Ward 3
informed and will provide updates of any proposed adoption of Recreation Master
Plan recommendations.
November 6, 2012:
At this week's Council meeting
representatives from The Nourish and Develop Foundation presented a proposal to
The Township. The NDF is proposing to revive Brock Township's non profit
granting budget and will match such funds up to $10,000 each year while also
proposing to encourage public donating to a combined granting fund. Although
there would be much details to work out I support this proposal. The proposal has been moved to the 2013 budget
discussions. This kind of leverage between the public and our local government
is a great way to assist the groups and organizations who make Brock a great
place to live. Although there are many, and some members of Council, who believe
it is not the mandate of The Municipality to use taxpayer dollars to perform
grants I believe that is not necessarily true. Every level of government must do
what it can to promote the culture and vitality of our communities and one of
the ways it can be done is both through Municipal contributions both in-kind
(which has and continues to take place) and through responsible financial
assistance. We can do more to help our Brock organizations and we must do more.
I do not condone simply cutting cheques to any group or organization. However,
through responsible assistance we can help these groups and organizations grow,
become more responsible and better managed, promote themselves, and assist our
communities' social and economic improvement. I always supported the notion that
our Township assisted groups and organizations and provided help in promoting
and sponsoring activities but it was the way our Township sometimes did this
work that greatly concerned me. That is why I encouraged the development of a
formalized granting policy in Brock. This policy was finally developed last year
only to have the budget eliminated. While the policy remains in place the
funding is not.
I support reinstating this funding in 2013 and
gaining support to double that assistance at no cost to The Brock Taxpayer. This
would not be the first time The Township has taken advantage of leveraging funds
from other sources. If we can turn $10,000 of Township assistance to our
communities into $20,000 with no additional tax burden then I believe this is an
investment worth making. The recent Recreation Master Plan identified a weakness
in Township support of our local non profit organizations and recommended
improvements.
We do have a responsibility to our local
communities and the organizations within them. We can help make them stronger.
We can help them grow and prosper and we can make sure they are here to benefit
the generations of Brock citizens to
come.
October 4, 2012:
I have always welcomed the idea of
the Brock Recreation Master Plan. I fully understand the contents of the draft
plan. I understand where the reasoning for the recommendations are coming from
and I generally agree with most of the recommendations and I am looking forward
to getting them put into effect to improve Brock Township's share of delivering
such important programs. However, one of the key areas of the plan, and the one
which brings many concerns to local residents, includes the shutdown of the
Cannington arena ice surface. This has been giving me feelings of
unease.The draft plan contains a review of both
revenues and expenditures at all three Township arenas and community centres. To
a certain degree it is this review which has contributed to the recommendation
to close the Cannington ice surface. However, and as has already been discussed
and publicized, I do not agree with how the Cannington expenditures were
portrayed in the plan. At first it was obvious that the expenditures for
Cannington included an extraordinary amount for the payment of the debenture
(essentially a loan payment) related to when the new ice system was put into
Cannington in the 1990s. This loan payment is now completed (2012 being the last
year) and given the nature of the payment should never have been included in the
review. When the consultants were asked by me at the September 10 Parks and
Recreation Committee meeting about the debenture payment they claimed they "did
not remember a debenture payment line item". However, we have since confirmed
this large amount was included. I requested that the plan have this amount
excluded.
During the formal public meeting on October 2
at least one resident raised the issue of the debenture payment. The consultants
have now stated that they still consider it an expense since it is paying for
expenses in the past. The two statements from the consultants appear to
contradict each other. Following the public meeting I was informed by Brock
Citizen editor Scott Howard that there was another draft plan produced. I
was unaware of this "second edition" and proceeded to download it from The
Township website (I don't' recall any notice to Council members of a revised
plan).
The "second edition" has indeed addressed the
issue of the debenture. It has made a comment that the debenture payment exists
within the operating subsidy from The Township for the Cannington arena.
However, there was another change to the plan document. The analysis of the
expenditures of each arena has been changed as is reflected in the graph on page
23 of the "second edition". This graph is quite different from the one on page
21 of the original draft. The original graph and cost analysis compared the
operating expenditures of each arena as a factor of total prime time ice
available to rent. The new graph and analysis compares the operating
expenditures of each arena as a factor of the actual booked ice time. Changing
the way the costs are reviewed dramatically changes the result. If the original
way of comparing costs was maintained in the "second edition" but the adjusted
Cannington costs were used (leaving out the debenture payments) then things look
incredibly different. In fact, using such a review Cannington's cost per
available prime time ice becomes the lowest in The Township for each year
reviewed (see comparison of charts below).
I acknowledge that both ways of reviewing costs
at the arenas are "valid". However, I can not help but wonder why there was a
sudden change in methodology used simply because an error in Cannington's true
expenses was identified? The way to review each arena's costs can be a cause for
debate. Since in every such cost structure there are both fixed costs and
variable costs the truly acceptable method of reviewing and comparing them would
lie somewhere in the middle of both methods. It would be my opinion that the
method of using the cost per available hour of prime time ice would be more
reflective of an accurate analysis (which is what the consultants tried to do
originally). But, as I have stated, that would mean that Cannington could very
well be the most cost effective arena in The Township.
As I have always stated, this is a very
important document. The recommendations are extremely important to The Township
and the people who live here and our actions will affect our residents and
taxpayers for decades to come. I only want a fair and honest evaluation of the
facts to take place. If base information needs to be changed then that is fine.
But if the method in which comparisons are done and conclusions are reached is
changed this late in the game, and ironically at the same time some of the base
information is changed, then I feel there should be a full explanation provided
as to why.
One other item to note... there has been some talk about what
the true savings would be if the Cannington ice plant was shut down. A figure
of $15,000 has been "thrown around". This figure comes from a staff report
submitted to Council in September 2011. However, this figure is representative
of a potential net savings. In other words, the report assumes that no revenues
currently attributable to the Cannington arena would flow to the other two
centres. I find such an assumption unrealistic as I pointed out to Council.
Furthermore, there are no allowances for possible savings on Township staff
(which for now I will accept since there is a collective agreement in place).
If one were to consider the pure cost savings of shutting down the Cannington
ice plat the staff report confirms annual savings of over $129,000. That's a
big difference.
I have forwarded my questions to the consultants. They informed
me that they did make the change to the methodology but that they did so to keep
the revenue graph and the expenditure graph based on the same factor. I
understand this reasoning but still feel that it is strange it happens now and
also, as I've stated, do not agree with the reasoning.
I would welcome your input and comment on this.
IT'S ALL IN HOW YOU USE THE NUMBERS... IRONICALLY THERE IS
TRUTH IN ALL OF THEM
The above is the original review by the
consultants. It shows the total arena costs as a factor of the total available
prime time ice available to be rented. This chart includes the incorrect
expenses of Cannington's debenture repayment which inflates the Cannington
results.
The above chart is how the original would
look if the debenture payment was removed. It is the same way of comparing the
information but suddenly Cannington's efficiency is now represented as the best
in The Township. This method of displaying cost comparisons was never
published. It is my opinion that this chart most likely represents the most
accurate comparison since many costs for each arena are generally fixed rather
than variable in nature.
The above chart is how the costs are now
displayed in the draft Recreation Master Plan ("second edition"). In this chart
the costs are now displayed compared to how much ice is actually rented.
Although the total costs for Cannington's arena have been lowered the
"denominator" or dividing factor has also been lowered. No longer are we
comparing each arena by it's available hours but rather by hours rented which
makes Cannington's numbers still appear among the poorest in The
Township.
September 24, 2012:
The Administration
and Personnel Committee of Council today approved to reduce all leases for
operation of the arena concession booths to $2,500 annually which is a reduction
of up to half. For many years now local organizations, and some private
citizens, have operated the arena concessions as a form of fundraising or
income. The Sunderland Skating Club forwarded a request to Council asking that
their lease be reduced from $5,000 annually to $2,500 due to falling profits
(see a copy of the letter on The Township website under agendas and minutes).
Last year, according to the letter, The Club made less than $1,200 on the
concession booth operation.
The history on
these arena concessions is long. According to members of Council, many years in
the past these concession booths were operated by The Township. The operations
of the concessions were then turned over to local organizations (figure skating
clubs, minor hockey, etc) to operate as a fundraising mechanism. The Township
would enter into "lease agreements" with these organizations whereby upwards of
$1,000 per month would be paid to The Township and the participating
organization would keep any profits to pump back into their groups' operations.
These groups would generally use volunteers (many times the parents of youth in
hockey or figure skating) to man and operate the booths. Profitability of the
booths has often been a question of reliability on figures from organizations
and other factors. A number of years ago the former treasurer of The Cannington
Figure Skating Club was charged, and later pled guilty, to theft of funds from
operations such as the concession booth. Some organizations found they had to
begin "hiring" staff to operate them rather than count on volunteers. Some
groups have even abandoned their operation of the booths leaving some private
citizens to step in and take over.
On Monday September
24 The Administration and Personnel Committee received the letter requesting a
reduction for the Sunderland lease. Although I understand their request and
fully sympathise with their group's struggle, a number of points need attention
as was pointed out by myself and other members of Council.
I have trouble with a request like this simply coming in the form of
a letter to Council. A significant request such as this should be presented
through a personal deputation to Council where members of Council can ask
questions of the organization and gain further insight on the
request.
A full accounting of the booth operations should have been presented
to Council/Committee along with the request. The accounting for the profits
should have backed up the claim of reduced profits by showing multiple year
changes.
The individuals or organizations running these concession booths must
take more responsibility for their operations. Perhaps if a deputation had
taken place we would have known if the Sunderland Club have been proactive in
addressing pricing issues as they relate to the increasing costs The Club
outlined in their letter.
I believe Council/Committee needs better and more proactive
notification from these groups on such requests. To put forward a request as
the skating season is about to start may no doubt have left some members of
Council feeling they were "under a gun" to make a decision. I believe now that
we should have taken more time to address this and I take my share of
responsibility on not doing so at Monday's meeting.
The funds being
discussed are taxpayer dollars. By reducing the cost to the various
clubs/individuals it will shift the missing revenues to the taxpayer. As
pointed out by members of Council, I understand our need to "stand behind these
clubs" since I campaigned on it vigorously in 2010. However, I believe we may
be once again entering into an era of uneven assistance to community
organizations. While Council members decided to eliminate granting assistance
to local organizations in last year's budget (after going through all the work
to develop an official granting policy) and have refused to speak with other
community organizations about cost sharing on town initiatives we have now
essentially providing a cash grant of thousands of dollars to the organizations
running these concessions. Let us be consistent and apply our generosity
universally to these valuable organizations in Brock Township. The draft
Recreation Master Plan addresses a need for The Township to be more involved and
provide more recognition to our community groups. I only hope that my Council
colleagues will carry this attitude of community support into this year's budget
where I hope to have the community granting program
reinstated.
August 13, 2012:
The Province of Ontario, through The Lake
Simcoe Protection Plan and changes to The Ontario Building Code, are requiring
inspections of septic systems for any property within 100 meters of Lake
Simcoe. The inspections must be done by January 1, 2016 for systems installed
prior to January 1, 2011 and 5 years following installation of systems after
January 1, 2011. Re-inspections are required every five years. This
requirement will fall onto properties within 100 meters of any streams/rivers
feeding Lake Simcoe and that may be a threat to Source Water Protection
Areas.
The Province has brought this legislation in
but is not providing funding for its implementation and is requiring other
authorities, such as The Township or Region, to do the work on implementation
and ongoing operation. It is ESTIMATED that if Brock were to enter into an
agreement with Durham Region to conduct these inspections the annual costs would
be $15,000. The issue becomes who pays for this.
A Township staff report has recommended that
the ongoing costs of this Provincial program be added to the general tax base in
Brock. I disagree with this recommendation and the logic provided. Firstly, it
is my belief that this is yet another example of Provincial downloading of an
unfunded Provincial mandate. Secondly, the process of inspecting such
properties and confirming their septic systems are up to provincial standards is
a benefit to the individual property owner. With no clear answer as to the true
ongoing costs of this project with respect to inspections, re-inspections,
program maintenance, etc I can not support a precedent setting move to absorb
this cost onto The Township as a whole. The Province has created this liability
and if individual property owners have to pay for something unique to their
property it is important they understand where that cost is originating.... The
Province. Having individual property owners accountable for this user fee will
make them more accountable for their septic systems as well.
While The Province continues to cut their
financial support to municipalities they also continue to add millions of
dollars in Provincial Government initiated liabilities to municipalities. I do
not subscribe to simply adding these costs to our Township expenditures and add
the burden to our general taxpayers. I urge any affected property owners to
contact their MPP and The Provincial Government and demand that if The Province
wishes to add this program into the Province of Ontario then The Province should
step up and pay for it!
Council will make a decision very soon on how
this program will be funded in Brock.... will it be a user fee to the affected
property owner or added to everyone's tax bill?
FOLLOW UP: COUNCIL DECIDED TO ENTER INTO
DISCUSSIONS TO HAVE THE REGION OF DURHAM PERFORM THE INSPECTIONS AND MAINTAIN
THE APPLICABLE DATABASES. THE DECISION AS TO WHO WILL PAY WILL BE MADE AT AN
UPCOMING COMMITTEE MEETING. THE OPTIONS ARE TO SEND , WHAT COULD BE A
BOTTOMLESS PIT OF COSTS, ONTO THE GENERAL TAX LEVY FOR ALL TO PAY OR HAVE THE
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS PAY FOR THEIR INSPECTIONS AND REINSPECTIONS. I AM IN
FAVOUR OF THE LATTER.
May 7, 2012:
At this past Monday's Finance Committee
meeting I put forward a motion requesting that Township staff begin the
development of a 10 year operating plan/forecast starting with this upcoming
budget season. Unfortunately my motion has been tabled until staff come back
with potential costs of doing such planning. It is my belief that initial
planning and forecasting work can be done in-house with little (if any)
significant taxpayer investment.
Until this last year Brock did not have any
real long term planning. In 2011 we were
successful in having a long term capital
budget developed for the works department (including equipment, roads, bridges,
vehicles, etc). This year will see capital budget plans extended to other
departments. However, without putting together a complete 10 year plan,
including operating expenditures and all revenue sources and reserve fund
activities, it will be very difficult to judge whether we can meet capital
requirements let alone operating needs down the road (without putting undue
stress on our taxpayers).
Our Township operating costs have been
increasing at rates many times that of inflation over the last decade (an
average of 5.1% per year since 2003). This, of course, has put a tremendous
strain on our taxpayers and did it's fair share to lift Brock into one of the
highest taxed municipalities in Ontario and the GTA. If we do not do something
to try to see where we are heading then we will surely not be able to come up
with real solutions to our myriad of problems. Almost every decision made by
Council has long term and ever-increasing ramifications for The Township and the
taxpayers who "foot the bill". We need to understand what we are committing
taxpayers, and future Councils to, when decisions are made or are not made.
Also, with the ever-increasing number of Federal and Provincial regulations
being passed onto municipalities (and no funding to help implement such
legislation or regulations) our operating and capital costs will continue to
rise.
Many municipalities in Ontario operate on five
to ten year cycles. Put plainly.... failing to plan is planning to
fail. Our Township is not
an operation which can survive by budgeting 12 months at a time. And while I
understand that the further you forecast out the more uncertainty comes into
play, such "uncertainty" is no excuse to bury our heads in the sand and continue
to fight fires rather than prevent them or prepare for them. A decision to
spend $10,000 today could turn into 15,000 in a few short years and $50,000 in a
few short years beyond that. I understand that doing such forecasts could very
well indicate a horrific impact on taxes down the road (and some may not want to
see that now) but how else will we be able to prevent and manage unsustainable
tax increases on our ever-shrinking tax base?
I am disappointed that my motion was tabled.
I do not believe we can continue to delay in making decisions to better plan our
future. I look forward to staff's comment on the process and I sincerely hope
we will see long term planning become part of our regular budgeting
process.
March 6, 2012:
Last evening members of Council, The Brock
Community Health Centre Board of Directors, and the public were in attendance at
a special Township Administration and Personnel Committee meeting to discuss
issues of mutual concern with respect to The CHC and issues regarding
communication between all parties.Members of The CHC Board, including CHC Chair
Ted Foster, clearly laid out the structure of the CHC and the programs it is and
is not mandated or funded for. Chair Ted Foster made it clear for those in
attendance that The CHC is not associated, controlled, or under any direction of
The Township of Brock. There has been much confusion on this issue over many
years.
It was clear that communication had been the
biggest issue between members of Council and The CHC both in the past and now. I
asked CHC Executive Director Ron Ballantyne for clarification on his remarks
about the timetable for the CHC Primary Care Facility to be built in Cannington.
Mr Ballantyne confirmed it could be another two or three years. I again stressed
the concern, confusion, and anxiety in Ward 3, and The Township, that this
project has been dogged by delays over and over again. In 2009 Council of the
day was informed it would be 18 months to construction. During last August's
press event in Cannington with CHC members, LHIN representatives, and MPP Rick
Johnson it was announced the money for the new building was earmarked and that
construction would begin in 2012. Now we are hearing, only last evening, that it
could be another two to three years. My concern was the appearance of The CHC's
lack of action to put this information forward and keep the public accurately
informed and in a timely fashion. I reminded The CHC board that I had asked for
an open house, not much unlike last evening's meeting, over a year ago but it
was The CHC Board of Directors who declined. I acknowledged to everyone present
that I understand the Board can only do so much to move the project forward and
if the facility is to be used as a "political football" by some then they should
be held accountable. It is still unclear if money is the hold up or if it is
government paperwork. I was pleased that CHC Board Chair Ted Foster intends on
opening up the lines of communication better in the future.
Many residents were better informed last
evening as to what The CHC can and can not do under its mandate and funding
formula. Although some residents are still not happy with not being able to
obtain some services unless they give up their present doctor and join The CHC
it is good to see that there are limitations and many of the limitations are
beyond the control of The CHC Board members.
I do have ongoing concerns that there are
still some members of the public who think The Township can, or should, be
heavily involved in moving the construction project forward. This project is out
of the sphere of responsibility of The Township and I am sure the board members
of The CHC do not want The Township "messing up the works". Unless we hear them
ask for help it is my opinion we should concentrate on issues demanding the
attention of Council. I have always felt that The Township has no responsibility
being involved in telling The CHC how it should run its programs. Unless there
are concerns with respect to the building site or other issues negatively
affecting our Township or its citizens then it is the responsibility of The CHC
to manage The CHC.
Should anyone have any concerns or questions
regarding The Brock Community Health Centre you are asked to contact them
directly. You may contact Brock CHC Chair Ted Foster at 705-432-3322 or
Executive Director Ron Ballantyne at 705-432-3322 or email at
rballantyne@brockchc.ca
I will continue to update my constituents on
any information regarding The Primary Health Care Facility progress as it
becomes known to me since this capital project is of major importance in
Cannington.
March 1, 2012:
Premier McGuinty sent a strong signal
this week that The Government of Ontario is abandoning infrastructure in
Ontario. This leaves municipalities like Brock to struggle along alone in
dealing with millions and millions of dollars in road construction, bridge work,
culverts, and other infrastructure work. While the higher levels of government
make it more expensive and complicated to get the work done they have now told
us all to fix it yourself. Agriculture is Ontario's second largest economy and
one of the largest employers but when it comes to The Province assisting in
moving these goods to market they appear to not care much. I can not believe the
same attitude would be taken if transportation corridors for the automotive
sector were threatened (or other large industries). The below article from The
Ontario Sewer & Watermain Construction Association details Premier
McGuinty`s announcement this week at ROMA/OGRA:Premier Sacrifices
Infrastructure
Feb 28, 2012
TORONTO - FEBRUARY 28, 2012 - The
Construction and Design Alliance of Ontario (CDAO) has grave concerns regarding
the announcement that Premier McGuinty made at the ROMA/OGRA conference on
February 27, 2012.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty warned
municipal leaders at the ROMA/OGRA conference on Monday that billions of dollars
previously earmarked for infrastructure projects are no longer available and
that infrastructure programs have been cancelled.
"I have to support our economic advantage –
the skills and education of our people – and sacrifice the infrastructure fund.
That's why we chose not to move forward this year with a new permanent fund for
roads and bridges with the federal government," McGuinty said during a speech to
association members. The Conference Board of Canada clearly states that every
real dollar spent on public infrastructure generates a $1.11 increase in
economic output. "This funding was available to address the infrastructure
deficit with the intent of supporting the Ontario economy and creating much
needed jobs in the province and the cancellation of these programs is very
disappointing." said Joe Accardi, CDAO Chair.
In mid-February, just before the release of
the Drummond Report, CDAO met with Minister Chiarelli to stress the importance
of addressing the ever growing infrastructure deficit. CDAO noted that without
stable funding the infrastructure deficit will continue to grow at a rapid rate.
It is vital to establish an economic balance between infrastructure investment
and the $16 billion deficit reduction to ensure sustainable public services and
public safety in Ontario. CDAO was pleased to see that Drummond Report
recognized the importance of infrastructure investment and is disappointed that
the Premier is choosing this recommendation to ignore. Finally, CDAO believes
that it is important for all three levels of government to align their
priorities under the weight of deficit reduction, a statement in which Minister
Chiarelli supported during the meeting. The Infrastructure and Transportation
Minister Bob Chiarelli promised that the sudden change in direction by McGuinty
would not compromise public safety, but CDAO is not sure how that can be
accomplished.
The CDAO is composed of the major
construction and design organizations involved in delivering infrastructure
across Ontario. These associations provide technical advice and industry support
for design and construction information to Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure
and other ministries involved in the
process.
January 17, 2012:
Brock Township Council will begin discussions
this year on the format of the 2014 municipal elections in Brock Township.
Although October 2014 is a little way down the road from now it will take
Township staff some lead time to get things ready for January 2014 when
nominations will open for the next election. Therefore, direction needs to be
given to staff some time in 2013 which means we need to get an answer. Part of
that process will involve a report from CAO Thom Gettinby on the options
available.
That report will outline the pros and cons of
the different systems of voting including vote-by-mail, polling stations,
internet voting, etc. I have asked that the report include more than the simple
"black and white" options and that possible "hybrids" of the various systems be
reviewed as well. There are certainly benefits and obstacles to any and all
systems. That is why I feel we need to look at the possibility of bringing "the
best of all worlds" into the electoral system.
It will be important, of course, to hear from
the voting public since many of the decisions both past and future are geared
toward getting more people out to the polls. You may let me know your opinions
and favoured options at any time.
December 5, 2011:
Did Council Cross The Line and Instruct Staff
To Do The Same?
On Monday November 28, 2011 Brock Township's
Administration and Personnel Committee was presented with a report from The
Township CAO regarding leases for Boathouses in Beaverton (click here for
copy). The Township leases these boathouses to residents along
the shoreline in and around the Beaverton Harbour. The report presented to the
committee was to address outstanding issues pertaining to the renewal of these
leases.
The report confirms that the leases for the
boathouses fall under the jurisdiction of The Residential Tenancies Act
(Landlord & Tenant Act). The Act clearly defines how the rents for such
items may be increased and how often. Rents may only be increased, generally
speaking, by amounts set forth by The Province each year.
Historically there have been little or no rent
increases on these boathouses. The boathouses are currently rented out at
amounts of $100 annually with no provisions in the leases for increases.
Admittedly the rents are dirt cheap.
According to the report The Township can not
increase the rents beyond the Provincial guideline. However, at Monday's
meeting a motion was introduced to have the rents increased by $50. This would
represent an amount which would be almost 17 times higher than the amount
allowed for in the legislation. The general discussion in the Council Chamber
was that it is a small amount and probably not worth the cost of any resident to
fight it. Although there may be some truth in that argument, I don't see any
argument as being justification for us to essentially be in violation of the
law. I informed my Council Colleagues that I was completely opposed to the
motion and felt that if we expect the public to deal with The Township in an
upfront and legal way then surely, in addition to a multitude of other reasons,
we have the moral and legal responsibility to deal with our taxpayers in a legal
way. I notified Council that I was extremely uncomfortable with Council making
such a decision and I was uncomfortable with Council instructing Township staff
to violate the law by imposing rent increases well above prescribed
limits.
When the motion came to a vote every member of
the committee voted in favour except myself and committee chair Randy Skinner
(who can not vote except in case of a tie). There was no call by the chair for
those opposed to the motion; however if there had been such a call I would have
indicated my opposition.
During the past week I have been reviewing
what transpired at the committee meeting. I have also consulted my own legal
counsel on this matter. Upon receipt of my package for the upcoming meeting of
Council on December 5th, where the minutes of that committee will be approved, I
have discovered that there is no mention of any conversation regarding the
motion put before Council. I am appalled that such discussions are nowhere to
be found in the minutes. With no press in attendance (the committee met after
the lunch break and press did not return) and no public witnesses to the actions
of the committee it appears that a decision was made that would be in violation
of a Provincial Law in a very deliberate way. I am also disappointed in my
Council colleagues who overwhelmingly sided to support such a motion. To
deliberately violate a law, regardless of the degree, to the detriment of the
taxpayers is showing no level of respect for them. For years, if not decades,
The Township has been somewhat careless with how it has handled these boathouse
leases. By not negotiating fair rents for The Township and not having any
mechanisms for annual increases The Township was put behind the proverbial
eight-ball. However, we should not try to deal with those mistakes by
violating the very law put in place to safeguard the taxpayers (who are the
other parties to the leases). The Township should simply learn its lesson and
learn from its mistakes and begin the process of rent increases but do so as
provided by legislation and guidelines.
Perhaps one thing that has caused me to have
such overwhelming feelings of disappointment in what took place is that I have
respect for my fellow members of Council. But I feel each of them not only
betrayed trust in each other but betrayed trust of the taxpayer. This decision
by the committee did not happen without advice and information. The committee
was informed that what they were proposing was in violation of Provincial
legislation but they voted in favour of it anyway. I continue to be on record
as opposing Resolution No 8-17 of The Administration & Personnel Committee
because fair is fair and the taxpayers of Brock deserve to be treated with the
respect they deserve from their Council.
November 21, 2011:
Council heard a couple of deputations
regarding economic development here in Brock during the Council meeting on
Monday. The first to talk to Council were representatives from Durham Region.
Durham Region is officially responsible for economic development throughout The
Region. Regional representatives came in to once again address and confirm that
Brock's economic growth is anaemic at best. Brock Township has lost
opportunities for outside investment due to a lack of available facilities but,
more importantly, a lack of sufficient municiple services such as adequate water
and sewer (waste treatment). Since water and sewer is the responsibility of The
Region I questioned just how hard Durham Economic Development is fighting for
increased services here. It would appear to me that over the past five to ten
years there has been little fight for us in Brock. Our growth, whether it be
industrial or residential, is heavily tied to actions of The Region. They are
the ones who must invest in our basic water infrastructure to allow us to truly
grow and it is about time the proper resources are allocated to us. If the
level of attention to Brock Township continues at the past rate there will be no
hope of maintaining our levels of economic activity and in fact it will likely
decline further.
Second on the agenda to speak with Council
were representatives from the Brock Economic Development Advisory Committee
(BEDAC). This committee, which is a committee of Council, was established a
number of years ago. It's mandate is to advise Council on matters related to
improving economic development here in Brock. Through the municipal budget,
funds are allocated each year including "seed money" for activities and
staffing. It has been the opinion of many that BEDAC has not been achieving
it's goals with respect to real economic development. BEDAC presented its 2012
workplan and a proposed budget for that plan. After correcting for some
mathematical errors in their budget, the committee is looking at a budget of
between $75,000 to $100,000 which would represent a huge increase of taxpayer
funds dedicated to improving the economic activity in Brock. My concern is the
lack of measurable benchmarks this committee provides so that it can be
determined whether they are achieving the goals they lay out and others expect.
The taxpayers of Brock can not afford to have their resources poured into a
non-performing activity when the lack of economic, or other growth is what puts
the strain on our taxpayers to begin with. I feel that BEDAC is entering a time
of judgment in which their successes or failures with determine if this Township
can truly afford to put good money in after bad. Economic development is
important. However, if adequate resources do not exist here in Brock then how
can we truly effect real economic growth. BEDAC has its work cut out for it and
I feel there are steps they need to take first before any real progress is
made.
There must be some true unification of the
businesses throughout Brock Township. This includes BEDAC working seriously
with The Beaverton and District Chamber of Commerce to become Township wide in
scope, in name, and in purpose. Given that the concentration on growth is going
to be 80% local, there must be a push to get all of the businesses in Brock "on
board" and speaking with one voice. Without such unification much of the
workplan put forward by BEDAC will be difficult if not beyond reach. I do thank
all of the members of BEDAC who are committed to achieving the true goals as set
out in BEDAC's mandate and I wish them success as a dedicated group of local
business volunteers striving for an improved economic climate here in
Brock.
Another deputation before Council, and
somewhat related to the above, was a report on The Big Bite which took place in
Beaverton this past August. The Big Bite was a partnership between BEDAC and
Beaverton Special Events. The event is slated to rotate between the downtowns
of each urban area in Brock. Council was provided with a summary of how the
event performed. There was an excellent showing of support and there was great
volunteer turnout at this year's event.
As the event will now be turning to Cannington
for August 2012 one of my concerns was with the financial numbers presented by
the deputation. The Beaverton event received assistance from substantial
donations of product and services ranging from food to advertising and
promotional materials. However, as Council asked for details on these items and
how they fit into the numbers provided it was beginning to appear that the
numbers, as presented, "did not add up". The event, as presented, had a profit
of about $3,000 (after a grant from The Province of $3,300). However, as more
questions were put forth the true bottom line became a little foggy. I am
particularly concerned for a couple of reasons. Firstly, The Township is a
partner in the event through the BEDAC and therefore has an important role to
play in knowing the financial results when taxpayer money may be at stake.
Secondly, since the event is coming to Cannington in 2012 it will be important
to know true costs and income streams. If all donated goods and services are
not received in 2012 it will fall upon the committee to pay for those with "real
cash" and that could change the financial results dramatically. During Monday's
Finance Committee meeting I asked for The Township Treasurer to assist the 2011
group in presenting a detailed and fair financial report so that the planning
for 2012 and beyond can be done correctly.
Lastly, with respect to the 2012 Big Bite in
Cannington it has come to my attention, as well as Regional Councillor Bath,
that having the event downtown may not be what our local businesses would like.
Given the nature of the event and the large number of restaurants in Cannington
there may be significant impact to our local entrepreneurs. It is going to be
extremely important that the organizing committee work closely with our business
community from the start. I have already been speaking with local businesses and
plan on continuing to do so.
November 8, 2011:
A number of local non profit groups were
presented with preliminary designs and renderings of the new "Patterson
Community Services Building". The building will be located at 33 Cameron Street
East (at St. John Street - site of former Patterson Furniture 
Store). The building's main floor is being offered at no cost to
local organizations for their use. Organizations which have confirmed to be in
the new building include the Healthy Harvest Food Pantry (operating a "food
bank" style operation for local needs) and Brock Information / La Boutique
Brock. Other organizations who have open invitations to make this their new
home include The Cannington Horticultural Society, Cannington and Area
Historical Society, and Cannington Seniors Group to name a few. The top floor
of the building will be the new offices of The Nourish and Develop Foundation
which is currently operating out of the old Patterson Store. Other floors are
slated to be occupied by other social-minded organizations and facilities to
help fill any needed gaps in Brock Township.
The building is being constructed by the new
owner of the property and local businessman Mr. David Slabodkin. At the user
group open house, held recently, Mr. Slabodkin addressed concerns and questions
from the user groups and guaranteed their stay in the building would be rent
free. Mr. Slabodkin stated that this is another way he is giving to the
community he lives in since he is able to do so.
The building is has its design based on
Cannington's former Queens Hotel which used to be located at the corner of
Laidlaw Street and Cameron Street (now the location of The Brock Township
Municipal Building). The building is being designed to be energy efficient
utilizing solar panels, geothermal, and rainwater recycling systems to name a
few. Mr. Slabodkin was joined by the architech responsible for the designs and
structural questions were addressed. There may be a few minor changes to the
current drawings based on user group input but construction is expected to start
early next year.
The building will see the demolition of the
existing Patterson building. Also, the adjacent building between 33 Cameron and
the LCBO is not slated for demolition so much as Mr. Slabodkin hopes to relocate
the building to save its architectural charm. Additional parking will also be
made available utilizing other lands in the downtown area.
This project will no doubt be one of the
biggest in Cannington's history. It will signal a major improvement in our
downtown. I am optimistic that such a major investment by private enterprise
will also help fuel local businesses and trades. More information will be
coming forth shortly.
November 7, 2011:
At today's Finance Committee meeting Brock
Council approved a policy regarding grants to non profit organizations in Brock
Township. The vote on the policy was tied but Chair Ted Smith broke the tie in
favour of my motion.
I am pleased that The Township now has a
system in place to provide a level playing field for organizations wishing
assistance from The Township whether that assistance is in the form of cash
grants or non-cash grants (ie the use of Township facilities, equipment, or
manpower). A policy will also make certain that there is full transparency and
accountability on such expenditures of Township resources.
The policy leaves Council the full right to
refuse any grants or even to exclude any grants from the annual operating
budget. Many Council members were concerned about granting to our local
organizations and some feel we should do no such granting. Surely in some
instances and with respect for managing taxes for our residents there is
validity in those arguments. However, there will come the day, as The Township
has been doing for years, when The Township grants money or in-kind resources
to some extent and I feel that having a policy in place allows for a truly fair
way to conduct such expenditures of taxpayer dollars. Having a policy on how we
spend upwards of $15,000 a year is good governance.
Our local groups and organizations dedicate
much of their resources to making Brock a better place to live in. They provide
services and facilities that, in some municipalities, are paid for by the local
taxpayers. These organizations contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars into
our local economy and businesses. Some organizations pay property taxes and
some even employ local residents. They deserve our attention and our support
even if that support is a nominal amount. I am pleased with the results of this
process and I know there is overwhelming support on Council for all of our local
non profit groups and the many volunteers who run them.
October 3, 2011:
For years now The Township of Brock has used
taxpayer dollars to subsidize the private practices of doctors and dentists
operating out of The Beaverton Health Centre. In 2010 The Beaverton Health
Centre had an operating deficit of almost $43,000. While The Township passes on
increases to user groups for arena rentals, increases in some facility rentals
for other groups, and repeatedly tells taxpayers that there must be a tax
increase the tenants at The Beaverton Health Centre have gone without rent
increases for years while costs continue to mount. The larger deficits have
come about in the last few years due to substantial increases in certain
operating costs. From a preliminary review I have done of the last three years
(2008-2010) the Beaverton Health Centre has run a combined operating deficit of
over $150,000.
While some argue that we subsidize libraries,
arenas, community centres, and halls I feel that those facilities are more
closely related to the mandate of a municipality than operating as the landlord
of a professional office building. A professional office building where the
tenants decide the rent more than the landlord does. I fully understand the
argument that much of this originated out of. However, how far do we go and how
much do we leverage the taxpayer in the name of being an under-serviced
area.
When the building was taken on by The Township
the goal was that it would be self sustaining and at least break even but this
has not been the case and is getting further and further from being so. To some
$43,000 a year may not appear that much but it does represent an increase in
municipal taxes of over.6%. As our Township needs to deal with infrastructure
(roads, bridges, sidewalks, culverts) which are crumbling and how to pay for new
assets such as Thorah Island Harbour I can not help but feel that allowing this
problem to fester and grow shows a certain level of irresponsible behaviour
toward the taxpayers of Brock. I have made this clear to my colleagues on
Council.
It is simply my view that this must be dealt
with. Sticking our heads in the sand will not make this go away. To those who
feel "we must spend what we have to" or that this is simply "the cost of doing
business" I would ask is there no limit? Since when do we start issuing blank
cheques all in the name of health care which is a Provincial responsibility.
Our residential taxpayers are the second highest taxed group in the GTA. If
this continues we'll make it to first place fast! I look forward to hearing
from you on this matter and don't forget to let other members of Council know
one way or the other what your opinion of this is.
October 3, 2011:
Representatives from Durham Regional Police
were in attendance to discuss crime and aggressive driving in Brock. Council
was presented with some historical and current crime statistics for all of the
North Durham communities (click for copy). There are many issues with these
crime stats which appear to even baffle the Durham Regional Police. Such
inconsistencies include that even though Brock has about one half of the
population that Scugog Township does many of our more violent crime numbers
represent between 60% and 75% of Scugog's. It is my opinion that this is
reflective of the amount of enforcement in Brock Township. With only about 17
vehicles in the North Durham detachment it would appear that our police are
simply too scattered and need additional resources for the Northern part of The
Region. Not included on the crime stat sheet are the thousands of traffic
tickets issued by the police in Brock Township. Year to date August such
tickets for driving offences are up 30% over last year. Although some of this
could be increased patrols some is, no doubt, increased incidents of aggressive
driving. While I did push the disputants on whether they feel under funded to
patrol the North the answers were appropriately and politically answered. I
have no problem with adequate police funding provided that The Region give us
proper consideration for the policing issues unique to our geographic
nature.
While Durham Police are going through
processes to work more effectively with the resources they have the
representatives of DRPS who attended Council did confirm that they need the
public's assistance and support in every aspect of crime prevention in Brock.
With response times for some crimes averaging 50 minutes (down from previous 59
minutes) people in the community need to help in getting information to the
police.
In the case of aggressive driving I pointed
out the need for enforcement as the real deterrent. DRPS agreed that while
educating the public only does so much there are still those who will drive as
they wish. The Roadwatch program collapsed in Brock some time ago and is trying
to be restarted by Constable Susan Kelly of the North Durham detachment (I will
be posting some information soon if you are interested).
While DRPS could not rule out the possibility
that some Regional Police have operated stationary radar on Highway 12 they did
confirm that Highway 12, and other Provincial Highways, are the primary
responsibility of the OPP. I stressed I would prefer to see those officers in
our towns and concession roads enforcing the laws of the road. I hope to see
that increased enforcement soon. With the design of many of our neighbourhoods
forcing pedestrians and vehicles to share the road there is a unique danger to
children, seniors, and others as a result of aggressive driving.
Although the police attending the deputation
could not fully explain why a recent survey of people in Brock Township found
that only 45% of us felt we were satisfied with the quality of Police service
Staff Inspector Brian Fazackerley did indicate this statistic is something he
feels strongly about rectifying. Once again, I feel increased enforcement in
Brock will improve that poor showing (the worse such showing in all of Durham
Region).
I want to thank the Durham Regional Police for
their strong showing at the October 3rd Council meeting and look forward to them
coming back with news of improved statistics in Brock Township.
If you witness any aggressive driving in Brock
Township do not hesitate to notify DRPS or Roadwatch. You can contact Constable
Susan Kelly to report such issues at 905-579-1520 ext 2043. Any information you
can provide will be usefull. Also, by informing the police of the number of
aggressive driving incidents in any particular area it is more likely we'll
receive enforcement in that area.
September 13, 2011:
At Council’s two day meeting on September 7 & 8,
where a number of issues were addressed and plans for the remainder of this term
were "hammered out", Council members discussed the matter of Council
expenditures.
A number of months ago I put forward a motion to Council
to have The Township Treasurer present a draft policy on how Council spends
taxpayer funds on themselves. All members of Council supported that motion. In
June Mayor Clayton asked that a sub-committee of Council be formed to review
such a policy. That sub-committee included myself, Councillor Smith, and
Councillor Skinner. That sub-committee met once and started the conversation on
the allowance paid to Council members for travel within The Township. Another
meeting was to be held but summer scheduling caused problems.
The issue was then brought up at the recent two day
Council meeting at Fern Resort in Orillia. Staff placed it on the agenda since
it was their opinion that two distinct "camps" had formed on this issue... Those
who felt a policy was appropriate and those who did not.
Despite all Council members endorsing my motion to have a
policy drafted it now appears many no longer feel having a substantial policy in
place to regulate how Councillors and The Mayor spend the taxpayer’s money is
needed. The general consensus by many members of Council is to simply have The
Mayor approve Council member expenses prior to them going to The Treasurer for
payment.
I have made it clear that this is unacceptable to me as a
policy. Despite anything that may have occured in the past I am proposing a
policy out of concern for the future and in the interest of good governance by
our Township. The money spent by Council is not their own. The money spent is
that of the taxpayer and we should ensure that appropriate measures are in place
to ensure it is spent in a responsible manner. Having Council be accountable at
election time is not good enough since that is akin to closing the barn door
after the horses have got out. Many municipalities, including most in Durham
Region, have policies in place not only outlining how Council members may spend
taxpayer money but also on how Council members should do everything in their
power to minimize cost and achieve savings in the operation of Council. Is it
unreasonable to expect any less from your own Council?
If you have views or opinions on whether The Township
should have policies in place governing how Council members spend taxpayer
dollars I urge you to convey those feelings to The Mayor and members of Council.
You may contact them at the numbers or emails which are available on The
Township website or call The Township at 705-432-2355 for further contact
information.
September 3, 2011:
A recent study of municipal property tax rates
for 2011 has placed Brock Township as the second highest in the entire GTA. We
come in only behind Oshawa for residential tax levies (see copy of
findings). The residential rate is the combined "mill rate" for The
Township of Brock levy and The Region of Durham levy.
Of significant note is the fact that all
municipalities in Durham Region occupy 8 out of the 10 highest taxed
municipalities. Having such a "distinguished" reputation as the second highest
taxing municipality in the GTA is not exactly an enticement for people to move
here and it creates yet another burden for those selling their home here. Also,
with a significant number of our residents being seniors on fixed incomes, it is
becoming more and more difficult for many of them to call Brock their home.
Many families are also finding this tax burden more and more difficult to manage
in these hard economic times.
As Council prepares to discuss matters of
priority for the remainder of this term (two day meeting this week) the issue of
taxes and services will be high on the priority list for me. We must plan and
prepare for better management of taxes and, in my opinion, recognizing the core
responsibilities of our Township.
Since The Regional portion of the tax rate is
larger than The Township's we also have to put pressure on The Region to get
that tax component managed better as well. Although we only have two votes on
Regional Council we must ensure those voices are loud and clear on this.
August 19, 2011:
Local MPP Rick Johnson announced today that
The Province has approved funding for the Brock CHC building in Cannington. On
the face of this it is a great announcement. It is long overdue. It is
something the people of Cannington and Brock Township have been waiting for and
it has been the source of great concern and frustration.
However, I can not help but wonder that with
only two months before a Provincial election and that six other similar
announcements were made today.... could this have not been done much sooner? Is
this just the usual political grandstanding prior to an election. All officials
on hand including Ron Ballantyne of The CHC, Karen O'Brien of the Central East
LHIN, and Rick Johnson himself confirmed that nothing is certain with an
election around the corner. I don't want to sound overly cynical but our
community has been led along this CHC path for many years now. Suddenly in the
face of an election the Provincial Government finds the money for not only our
CHC but six other similar projects around the Province.
The press release (click here for
copy) is very vague. It confirms that the CHC will be 24,745 square
feet and Ron Ballantyne confirmed it will be two stories and a basement but no
mention of how much money is being spent. I confirmed with Mr. Johnson and his
aid that the money is "earmarked" and "ready to be spent" but nobody knows how
much. This is very strange since spending money on such a project usually has a
price tag more or less ready to go with it. The press release states "The Brock
Community Health Centre will begin its construction project in 2012" but of
course we have been given dates and years before.
I, for now, will be hopeful and somewhat
optimistic that this project will move ahead with all due haste. However, as
the clock on this project again begins to tick away I hope its timeliness is
better than Mr. Johnson who showed up late for his own press
announcement.
August 2, 2011:
Following a motion brought forward by
Councillor Manchester and Councillor Skinner to move ahead on the Thorah Island
divestiture Mayor Clayton called a quick vote. I must admit I was caught off
guard on how quick the motion went to a vote. Even Councillor Manchester did
not speak to his own motion on why we should commit the taxpayers of Brock
Township to the great unknown of Federal downloading. It did appear that
Councillors Manchester, Skinner, Shier, Smith, and Regional Councillor Bath were
well prepared to move forward as quick as possible with a vote and add to The
Township's asset base.
Some members of Council have discussed the
possibility of selling Thorah Island Harbour in five years when the legal
obligation to the Federal Government ends. However, I do not believe that there
will be any political will in five years to sell the harbour when there is no
political will now to stand up to the Federal Government and say enough is
enough.
One of the things we have to do now as a
Council is determine how things will be paid for. There are many options but
all of them include establishing a reserve which will cause an immediate tax
increase on residents of Brock ( or at least some of them). I will be fully
supporting a reserve establishment in the next budget. I do not want to hand an
expenditure nightmare down to the future taxpayers. If council wishes to
undertake the responsibility and cost of the harbour then they will have to
begin paying for it now.
I am not pleased with the outcome of tonight's
vote but I do accept that the will of Council has been exercised and
recognized.
July 31, 2011
On Tuesday August 2 a vote will come before
Council on whether The Township of Brock should accept the Federal Government
divestiture of Thorah Island Harbour. The Federal Government is proposing to do
over $600,000 of rebuilding of the harbour in exchange for The Township assuming
ownership and full responsibility.
At this time I intend to vote against
accepting the divestiture. I feel it is important for you to understand why I
am voting against it.
Firstly, let us understand the true nature of this
divestiture scheme. Like so many things it is a way for an upper level of
government to cut costs. The Federal Government has been in cost-cutting mode
for some time and these small harbours are simply not a priority for them and
they cost money. If they made money The Feds would not be getting rid of
them.
Honourable Gail Shea, Canada's Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans (February 2010):
"Our Government understands that safe, efficient harbours
are essential."
If safe efficient harbours are essential then the Federal
Government should live up to their responsibility in maintaining harbours under
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Many of the arguments put forth by island residents are
valid. These arguments however should be taken to the level of government where
they belong and that is the Federal Government.
A 2006 Audit of the divestiture initiative identified one
of the primary goals of the divestiture program being:
"The recreational harbours that will be divested are
those that are seen to be more closely aligned with provincial or community
interests in tourism and local economic development than with federal
priorities."
I would submit that in the case of the Thorah Island
Harbour this priority does not exist. Thorah Island is not an island home to, or
likely to be home to, significant tourism and general economic development in
Brock Township. Thorah Island is home to residents (full or part time) and is
not populated with large areas dedicated to the tourism industry nor is it
likely to be home to significant development. Many divested harbours have been
on the shores of The Great Lakes in areas ripe for large waterfront development
projects. I do not see that here.
Since 1995, more than 85 per cent of the 549 regional and
local ports included in Transport Canada’s Port Divestiture Program have been
transferred to new owners — mostly municipal governments. According to Transport
Canada, the handovers saved Canadian taxpayers more than $270 million — because
the federal government no longer had to maintain small harbours used primarily
for recreation — and allowed it to concentrate on the money-generating
commercial ports.
In effect, that means these municipalities have now taken
on over $578,000 each in costs from the Federal Government.... This is not
saving the taxpayers anything. It is simply transferring liabilities from a
large tax base to an extremely small one.
"In Port Hope, next door to Cobourg, some residents are
wondering if the municipality got the short end of the stick when council
approved an agreement that would see 173 acres of Lake Ontario waterfront
transferred to the town, along with $300,000 in federal money for future
dredging work at the harbour. In July 2010, a formal request was put forth to
The Province for a public inquiry into the transaction, which residents fear
will end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars in future
liabilities."
These future liabilities are not simply reconstruction in
30 or more years. We have all seen the impact on our municipal costs as
Provincial and Federal governments implement more and more regulations and
legislation. All too often these are unfunded liabilities meaning the Feds or
Province invoke the regulation but the municipality has to find a way to pay for
it. We have seen this in everything from conservation authority requirements on
bridge and culvert works to provincial requirements on street sign reflectivity
and guardrail construction.
To think for one minute that we will not be placed on the
hook as future regulations regarding harbour operations come down the pipe is
foolish.
Many of these harbour negotiations have gone on for
between 10 or 20 years. The reason for this is that these are not simple issues
with simple obligations. There is much at stake. However, as far as I know,
Brock has only been dealing with this issue for a few short years with no real
negotiations taking place. We truly do not know what is going to happen.
Everything could be at play in this including a rise in The Municipality`s
insurance costs.
The Federal Government, in this case and many others like
Port Stanley, have held the municipality hostage by not living up to certain
responsibilities and payments unless the municipality signs on to take
responsibility for the harbour.
This is the worst case of downloading since the mid to
late nineties. In the nineties municipalities across Ontario were crying foul
because the Provincial Government of the day was downloading provincial services
onto the lower tiers. I`m sure Council members of the past, both in Brock and
Durham Region, cursed that downloading. But that downloading was forced and the
municipalities had no option. We have an option here. We can say no and tell the
Feds to live up to their responsibility. The Thorah Island harbour, I feel, does
not fit into the requirements of the divestiture program but is simply a
cost-cutting program from the Feds.
We in Brock have many tough decisions coming with respect
to municipal assets. There is millions of dollars of road work to be done along
with bridges and culverts. Our communities lack adequate sidewalks permitting
safe walking. We have an overwhelming inventory of halls and other community
owned buildings which cost taxpayers dearly and whose use is questioned. In
other words, both on Thorah Island and the rest of Brock there are liabilities
for The Township to address, which fall into its mandate, without taking on
Federal responsibilities and costs.
I do not support accepting divestiture from the Federal
Government and do support giving the island residents a better voice with the
Feds on saving their harbour in the hands of The Federal Government.... Where it
belongs. If we don’t say enough is enough... Who will? If we don’t stop
capitulating every time another level of government wants to dump their costs
and responsibilities onto us then what good are we doing the people of
Brock?
June 20, 2011
The Brock Community Health Centre came to
Council for a deputation. They came with information about a new Nurse
Practioner planned to be housed in The Beaverton Thorah Health Centre in
Beaverton (see
copy). Healthcare costs are, by definition, the responsibility
of The Provincial government. Although many municipalities spend money for
doctor recruitment (as does Brock) and some other "health related items" there
is a limit. Brock Township can no longer afford to pull out the cheque book
everytime something is brought forward in the name of healthcare. I applaud the
CHC bringing another NP to Brock. I personally have a NP as my primary
healthcare provider and she does a great job. I simply feel that these
expenditures should be shouldered by the appropriate level of government. Brock
Township has enough expenditures to manage which are its responsibility.
Furthermore, the Beaverton Thorah Health Centre needs a full review as it is
loosing between 12,000 and 20,000 per year in operating costs (not to mention
capital costs).
June 20, 2011
I brought a motion forward to Council to form
an advisory committee on the future and improved management/efficiencies of our
Township's three arenas and community centres. The committee would be composed
of user groups, Council members, interested members of the public, and the
business community. The issue of our arenas comes up at least once a year
(usually at budget time) and the buildings have been constant sources of
misunderstanding and frustration. It is time to have a serious and realistic
conversation on where these facilities fit into our Township and what
responsibilities everyone has.
The motion was tabled by Council until the
fall. I will keep you informed.
June 11, 2011
Brock Council was presented with the annual
report on Cost of Council for the 2010 calendar year. Expenses for 2010 came to
a total of $183,349.63. Of this amount, $129,608.67 was for salaries of members
of Council, $19,000 for travel expenses in The Township, $6,429.48 for RRSP
contributions for members of Council, $14,231.14 for medical benefit plans,
$2,051.19 for mileage outside The Township, $10,894.19 for conferences, and
$1,134.97 for other items including cell phones and meals. These costs
represent the cost of members of Council. These costs do not represent the
severence payments to members of Council who lost in the 2010 municipal election
or for former Mayor Larry O'Connor.
Following adoption of a motion from myself
that The Treasurer draft a policy regarding Council expenditures, Mayor Clayton
has asked that a sub-committee of Council be formed to assist in the development
of such a policy. Councillor Skinner, Councillor Smith, and myself will form
the sub-committee and will work with The Treasurer and staff. It is important
that all expenditures charged through to The Township be justified and carefully
monitored. Making certain that the taxpayers receive full value for the money
spent on members of Council is paramount to enhancing trust in the actions of
Council. Developing policy in this important area will ensure this Council, and
Councils of the future, are fully accountable to the people footing the bill. I
will keep you informed as to the progress of this policy. Council has set a
deadline of August for a draft to be presented. The first meeting of the
sub-committee will be Monday June 27 prior to The Council meeting.
June 11, 2011
A public information session will be held on
June 27 7:00 at the Beaverton Community Centre. Members of Council and Township
staff will be available to gather input and provide information regarding the
proposal from The Federal Government on downloading the responsibility for the
harbour.
The Federal Government (Dept of Fisheries and
Oceans) is offering the transfer of The Thorah Island Harbour to The Township of
Brock. In exchange for $650,000 in maintenance to the harbour, The Federal
Government would transfer responsibility to The Township of Brock who would be
required to operate it as a public harbour for a minimum 5 year period. Failing
a transfer to Brock, The Federal Government may offer to sell the harbour to a
private enterprise.
No definitive actions will take place on this
without thorough public consultation.
I believe that such a transfer is extremely
dangerous given the backlog of infrastructure investment here in Brock with
respect to roads, bridges, culverts, etc. For years now, municipalities
throughout Ontario have complained about their fiscal straightjackets due to
imposed downloading of services by Federal and Provincial governments. It is
difficult to believe that now that we have the choice on such downloading we
would choose to go ahead with it.
There are legitament arguments regarding
obligations to the taxpayers of Thorah Island in providing them transportation
services. However, if we subscribe to picking up every service that higher
levels of government decide to discontinue we will quickly bankrupt our
municipality.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada may not stop with
the divestiture of small craft harbours like Thorah Island. In fact, it is
possible that Beaverton Harbour could some day be brought to Council as
well.
May 13, 2011
An article appeared this week in The Brock
Citizen regarding Council considering the closing of the Cannington Arena. At
the meeting of The Parks & Recreation Committee on April 11, 2011 a report
from Facilities Coordinator Mark Warvill outlined ice rentals at the three
community arenas over the last three seasons. The report also included some
discussion as to the reasons for some of the year to year variances (click here for copy of
report). The report also acknowledges the importance of our arenas
especially in our rural communities. The article in The Citizen implied that
serious consideration is now being given to closing the Cannington Arena. This
is not the fact. The discussions on the ongoing costs and use of Brock arenas
has been going on for years.
That being said, I believe it is time for a
serious discussion on this issue. However, the discussion requires more
information which is why I requested that Mr. Warvill also compile information
on the use of the community centres/auditoriums which comprise large amounts of
these buildings. I have had a motion ready to bring before Council to strike a
committee to start the discussions on the future of these buildings and how to
best utilize them and make them more efficient. The discussions will need all
stakeholders at the table including user groups, businesses, and others
interested in the impact of these buildings on our social-economic circumstance
in Brock.
I want to assure everyone that there are no
plans for the imminent closure of The Cannington Arena anymore than there are
plans to close Beaverton and Sunderland (and there are none for those either).
Arenas, like libraries and other municipal services, are not necessarily present
to operate at a profit or even break even. That is not to say we should not
strive to make them as efficient as possible and as less a burden on taxpayers
as possible. I look forward to moving ahead and being proactive with respect to
these facilities
May 2, 2011
Council chambers were packed to capacity on
Monday as representatives from the various organizations who use the Ann Street
Seniors Room (former library building) were in attendance to give deputations on
the possible sale of the building. After the deputations and many questions
were asked Council has decided, after one reading, to table the by-law until The
Cannington Seniors provide some requested statistics and financial information.
Also, staff have been asked to provide Council with a report on the ongoing
operating and capital costs of the building.
The 2011 budget has $150,000 of revenues
attributed to the sale of the building. There has been much confusion and
frustration brought upon these groups from a lack of coordinated communication
from The Township on the intentions for this building. While many of the groups
indicated during their deputations that they received no information regarding a
possible sale, the Chair of Brock Information indicated she was informed by
former Mayor Larry O'Connor that the building would likely be sold and that
notification came years ago. The fate of the building has been sealed since The
Township decided in 2009 to move the Cannington Library Branch to the Cannington
Town Hall building.
Debutantes were also informed that the
proposed by-law was only the beginning of the process and that the building
would not be sold the next day.
May 2, 2011
Brock Township will have a new Mayor shortly
following a vote by Council to appoint Terry Clayton into the seat vacated
following Larry O'Connor's resignation. I voted in favour of the motion brought
forward by Councillor Skinner. Below is my reasoning for doing so.
A decision was made at Council today to
appoint Terry Clayton as the Mayor of Brock Township. While some are saying this
was an "easy way out" they should very much reconsider such a judgment. All
members of Council have spent the last month weighing the issues related to
either appointing a Mayor or holding a by-election. Council members have also
spent the last month listening to citizens of The Township regarding their
views.
Members of Council are not present to simply do as a real or
perceived majority of constituents wish them to do. If that was the case, nobody
in Brock would pay taxes and everyone's roads would be paved and fully
maintained to the highest standards. Members of Council are charged with doing
what they feel is in the best interest of The Township and the people who live
there. As usual, those decisions are not designed to be easy ones. They are not
by definition to be necessarily popular ones. And of course there is not one
person who can state, without emotions at play, that they are the correct or
incorrect ones.
When I voted at Council today to appoint Mr. Clayton as
Mayor of Brock Township I did so after weeks of considering the issue and
considering both sides. I also listened to every single person who contacted me
or came out to my open house where the matter was discussed. The following are
the issues I considered in reaching my decision.
The people of Brock
Township, following a divisive election campaign in 2010, have been further
subjected to the wedge issues of appeals, cross-appeals, and cost issues over
the last four months. The emotions and concerns regarding the "two sides of the
fence" have been running high and there is justification for it. These emotions
were not abating very quickly even though a decision on dealing with an
important issue was on a tight timeline. Former Mayor O'Connor chose to resign
his seat in late March and this resignation put Council on a collision course
with a decision that simply could not be given the time it may have deserved in
some people's consideration. Our communities, neighbours, and friends have been
pitted against one another not only in their choice last October but in the
political fallout since then. It was my belief that sending the electorate into
another election campaign could very well drive that wedge even further. I do
not deny that the decision reached today could not possibly do the same but that
was something I had to weigh.
There is a general consensus by many that a
by-election would have simply put an end to everything. That thinking is very
flawed if not considered in its entirety. It had become clear that not only was
there possibly up to six or more potential candidates ready to throw their hats
in the ring for a by-election but that some of those individuals may have
actually been sitting members of Council. In any case, it is not beyond the
possibility that following a by-election we may have been right back into a
contested result. We may even have had a "winner" which had significantly less
than half of the vote and thus no mandate at all. We may also have had a sitting
member of Council win the by-election which would have put us into yet another
possible appointment or by-election.
I felt that Councillor Skinner had
made a rational argument when he stated that if Mr. O'Connor had resigned, for
whatever reason, a day, or week following the election or swearing into office
that to announce another election will take place that shortly after the October
25 vote would have been foolish and, as has been the case in other instances, an
appointment would have resulted. At what point does the logic of an appointment
end and the logic of a by-election start is not something anyone can lay claim
to know.
In addition, a by-election would have drawn The Township into a
prolonged period of having no official Mayor. A by-election does not happen
quickly. The process would have taken us into late summer or early
fall.
In the end, it has been the responsibility of Council to make this
decision. The laws of the land provide Council with the options to deal with
this vacant seat. A vacancy not created by illness or other uncontrolled
matters. The vacancy came about due to the resignation of The Mayor only four
months into the term.
Everyone who has had the civic pride to come
forward and make their views known have done so with respectable tolerance.
Valid arguments have been put forward by many people on both sides of this
debate. There is no one answer which is going to satisfy all. There is no one
answer which will fully bring closure to this stressful period of Brock's
history. There was, however, a decision to be made. Councillor Skinner had the
courage to bring his motion forward along with his arguments for it. I saw
validity in those arguments and I decided it was time to try to move our
Township along. Fences will need mending and the sooner our Township Council can
be whole again the sooner I hope we can do just that.
In the coming three
and a half years I hope to prove that the decision was a good one. If it was not
I am prepared to accept the judgment of the electorate in 2014. I did not run
for Township Council to get re-elected. I ran to make this a better community to
live in. There are those in politics that will base decisions on what it will do
for their re-election campaigns but I do not subscribe to that. I have done what
I believed to be in the best interests of those in Brock. I have respectfully
listened to your comments over the last month and I thank you for listening to
mine.
APRIL 11, 2011
Councillor Ted Smith has been appointed to
fill the temporarily vacant seat at Durham Region Council. This appointment is
not an appointment to the Mayor position. This appointment ensures that Brock
Township continues to have full representation at The Regional level.
Councillor Smith will join Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor Debbie Bath at
The Region. Council continues to take input from the public regarding the
decision on filling the Mayor's seat on Council. Options include a by-election
or appointment. The continuing recount appeal causes problems with both of
these options.
Council will be reviewing a policy to
determine what is and what is not appropriate to be posted by individual Council
members on their websites. I have removed my posting of The Township expense
summaries. Although a number of Council members question the argument of
whether this document is a "public document", we have been informed by CAO Thom
Gettinby that it is not. I have therefore, until the matter is clarified,
removed it from my website. I will continue to update taxpayers on issues with
respect to Township spending. In place of the report, I will be posting
questions submitted by myself to Township staff regarding such expenditures
along with their explanations. Since such questions are a matter of public
record they can be disclosed.
MONDAY APRIL 4, 2011
I wish to express my disappointment with
comments made by former Mayor Larry O'Connor in a number of press statements
issued by him following his resignation. Mr. O'Connor believes that The
Township was, or was becoming, unmanageable as a result of the ongoing legal
battles following last October's Municipal Election. I do not believe that to
be the case and such an issue has never been brought to the attention of this
Council in the last three months in which we have been conducting business.
Neither The former Mayor or staff made any comments to Council that The Township
of Brock was becoming "unmanageable".
I also take issue with Mr. O'Connor's comments
that a group of citizens have usurped Council. This is simply not the case.
This Council, in the three months it has effectively been in session, has been
productive. We have passed a comprehensive fill by-law, produced a draft
non-profit granting policy, brought in a 1.96% budget, and have had plenty of
healthy discussion and debate about many issues. This Council has not been
seized by anyone or any group.
Furthermore, comments about members of the
public (colourfully referred to as Larry, Curly, and Moe) being constantly in
the face of the Mayor at Council meetings and making it difficult to do his job
is an insult to the public and the institution of our Municipality. The largest
part of the Council Chambers is the area set aside for members of the public.
For years our Council's have complained about the lack of public attendance at
meetings. Now when they show up we have complaints from people.... simply
tragic!
Mr. O'Connor served this Township well and no
doubt did many things with the best of intentions for the people living in
Brock. Mr. O'Connor has been in politics, both local and Provincial, for many
years. Over those years I have no doubt that he developed the ability to take
the good with the bad. As in so many things in life there are people who will
make any issue a personal one. One does not have to be in politics to know
that. Mr. O'Connor chose to resign from Council. While some members of Council
were privy to discussions from Mr. O'Connor others were not or have not had
phone calls returned. I will not debate the reasons Mr. O'Connor left his
position as Mayor but it can be argued that his resignation has caused more
trouble for this Township than it purports to have solved.
MONDAY MARCH 21, 2011
Regional Chair Roger Anderson appeared before
Council giving his annual address. He outlined a number of items which The
Region has planned and then took questions from Council. The Region is planning
work on the water mains along Park Street. This may impact The Township budget
for 2011 since any associated Township costs for this project are not included
(that's a possible revisit of the capital budget). I asked Chair Anderson about
working better and in cooperation with The Township on road work (to find better
efficiencies). Although I was informed that it is currently done, the Park
Street matter appears to be an issue which has fallen through the cracks.
Hopefully when The Township hires a Director of Public Works and an Outside
Supervisor such oversights will not happen. I also urged The Regional Chair to
lobby on behalf of Brock regarding some sort of funding assistance to our
infrastructure. The Province does not mind touting the fact that agriculture is
responsible for 700,000 jobs in Ontario and that it is the second biggest
producer of goods but if you tell them that their main transportation routes are
in trouble they don't see the connection. I see the connection and I am urging
Chair Anderson to help us get the point across to The Province.
I also asked Chair Anderson about possible
improvements to The Region's recycling program. Many surrounding municipalities
collect items in their recycle programs which Durham Region does not (ie:
styrofoam, clamshell packaging, etc) which then forces our taxpayers to place
them in the garbage which increases our waste which bites into the limit we all
have on the number of bags each two weeks. This of course costs the residents
of Brock more money. Chair Anderson indicated that there were no current
improvements planned (since there is no material market) and hence the problem
will continue. That being said, Regional Councillor Bath later in the Council
session indicated that progress is moving forward.
Councillor Shier asked The Chair about his
views of an elected Regional Chair. Regional Chair Anderson indicated he is not
in favour of it and that it is something each Durham municipality will have to
bring forth since a triple majority is needed to enact a change which appeared
to be indicated on the ballots during the recent election. Many of issues with
the North end of Durham having any kind of shot at an elected chair with all of
the votes in The South. Also mentioned was the astronomical costs likely
involved for any candidate wishing to run for the position. Also mentioned by
Regional Chair was the issue that such an elected position could have a
"mandate" which could in fact serve to override local issues even though the
position has no power to do so. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on
this issue. I generally feel any government position on a council (Regional or
Township) should be elected on the basis of democracy. There are strong points
on both sides and it is a debate to have in the coming months.
A draft policy on Township Grants to
non-profit organizations was brought forward to Council. I moved a motion to
have the adoption of the proposed policy deferred for a future Council meeting
so that proper consultation could be had with the groups it affects and the
public at large. A copy of the proposed policy is available by clicking
here. I will be seeking the input of our local non profit groups
regarding this policy. I am a proponent of our Township stepping up to bat in
assisting the groups who do so much for all of our communities.
On a similar note of our non profits. I
confirmed my fears today (and those of others) that there is, and has not been,
any plan for the local groups being evicted as part of the library move to the
refurbished old Town Hall. Already The Cannington Historical Society and Brock
Youth Centre were dealt blows last year as the Town Hall project moved along
quickly with no plans for these groups. Now The Cannington Seniors and Brock
Information/La Boutique Brock will be evicted this year as The Township sells
off this asset. I brought this issue up repeatedly over the last 18 to 24
months since the project was moved ahead. This lack of planning and
consultation with these groups has caused them extreme damage and possibly
irreversible damage in some cases. I will work to see if a solution of some
kind can be found to salvage the needed operations of these local volunteer
organizations.
The Township of Brock will be keeping The
Wilfrid Community Hall on the books. Township Council voted to not sell off the
land at this time. The future of this hall, and many others, will likely be
watched closely by Council and the time may come for us to explore all
possibilities to both maintain these assets and minimize exposure to
taxpayers.
SATURDAY MARCH 19, 2011
I would like to thank everyone who came out to
my open house. The issue of The Township evicting many of our local non-profit
organizations was discussed. With the Cannington Town Hall/Library project
moving along, The Cannington Historical Society and Brock Youth Centre both lost
their "homes" in the old town hall building. With no plan in place for this
issue both of these organizations have been hit hard as a result. Now with the
pending sale of the current library building on Anne Street taking place the
homes of The Cannington Seniors and Brock Information/La Boutique Brock will be
no more. In all, four local non-profit organizations helping everyone from
youth to families to seniors will be left without space. Depending on the
outcome of some hard questions at the upcoming Council meeting I will will be
convening my own meeting with these groups to try to find solutions to this
problem which was created out of haste and lack of planning.
Following my open house I took a tour of some
of our local roads and concessions. One of the worst was Concession 13. I
could not drive anywhere near the posted limit of 60Km/h. In fact, the fastest
I could safely drive was 25Km/h without risking severe damage to my vehicle.
Portions of the 13th are closed due to flooding which is surely in part due to
the lack of crowning on the roadways and inadequate ditches. I will be the
first to say that this work requires funds which is why I am stressing better
management of our operating expenses so that our Township can get back to the
business of what it is responsible for. There is significant improvements in
the 2011 budget for road maintenance. The issue is making sure the funds are
spent and the work is done and done properly.
MONDAY MARCH 7, 2011
Brock Council met today and explained a number
of issues with respect to the ongoing recount & legal costs issues to the
public in attendance. The appeal date for The Township passed today. I still
feel that to appeal now and spend even more taxpayer money is not the way to
proceed. I thank members of the public who continue to take an interest in the
operations of Your Township.
Council returned from the Ontario Good Roads
Association and Rural Ontario Municipalities Association joint conference this
week. Although there were a number of useful workshops, the conference will
only be worth attending if we bring back and take action on some of the
knowledge provided. I believe that in order to maximize the benefit of the
conference and minimize burden to the taxpayer we need not send all members of
Council each time. Rather we could form an alternating attendance of members
who can then bring back the benefits provided by the conference. The meeting
with The Ontario Minister of Infrastructure was not very productive. There will
be little assistance from upper levels of government in rural Ontario
infrastructure (roads, bridges, culverts, etc) so we must begin a system of
improved spending, tax, and budgeting policies within our Township so we may
prepare to meet these liabilities.
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2011
Members of Brock Township Council attended a
special meeting held by The Brock Community Health Centre. Brock CHC held this
information session for Council and Township Staff to update them on the various
aspects of operations within Brock CHC and provide a history of the
organization's development. Also presented was information regarding the
capital projects currently underway with Brock CHC.
Council was informed that the delay in having
the Old Chrysler lot demolished was a certain level of procrastination on behalf
of The Ontario Ministry of Health not signing paperwork permitting that aspect
of the project to proceed. The capital project to build the permanent Primary
Health Facility in Cannington has had the majority of its paperwork completed.
However, Brock CHC is competing for capital funds with other CHCs and medical
projects. Although members of the CHC Board of Directors are confident that the
funding will eventually come down there can be no guarantees.
I extended to everyone in attendance the
matters discussed with Executive Director Ron Ballantyne during my meeting with
him last month regarding levels of frustration within Brock Township that this
project appears to be moving very slowly and perhaps not enough pressure is
being placed on Provincial authorities to get this project completed. Ron
Ballantyne confirmed his intention to hold an open house and public Q&A
session regarding Brock CHC and to invite representatives of Ministry of Health,
LHIN, and our MPP to the meeting.
For a copy of the package presented to Council
and Staff click
here. For a copy of the CHC 2010 Annual Report click
here
MONDAY FEBRUARY 7, 2011
Council passed a motion today to request
Veridian Connections to establish a cement barrier (wall) around the proposed
substation to be moved to Laidlaw Street South. This option is desired in lieu
of possible shrubs which was Veridian's first choice to reduce noise from the
substation. Local residents are pleased to have this as a compromise. Further
on the substation issue, The Township will be discussing alternatives with Hydro
One on possible tree removal which may take place on Laidlaw for the
installation of new poles. I once again disclosed my displeasure with the lack
of public consultation and information with respect to this project. More and
more residents are also upset that they were not adequately informed of the
project from the beginning in April of 2010 under the previous Council.
Council approved a bylaw declaring the land
for the future substation as surplus and gave permission for the eventual
transfer to Veridian Connections.
I was pleased to have Council adopt a motion
to review the establishment of a special Township granting/funding program for
our local non-profit organizations who are not eligible for funds under The
Township Golf Tournament. Our Township has many organizations doing great work
for our seniors, families, and communities who deserve a fair and equal
opportunity to receive assistance from our Township. Should the process move
forward, details will be worked out with respect to funding limits and
application & reporting guidelines. I hope that this will mark a beginning
of real assistance from our Township to our non-profit groups who help make our
communities better. It may also help grow and save our various festivals,
fairs, and other special events. We should no longer loose great events like
The Cannington Car Show or Cannington Quilt and Craft Show. The program will
not cost large amounts of new money from taxpayers since it will act to
amalgamate current granting programs operated on an ad hoc basis.
MONDAY JANUARY 24, 2011
Veridian Hydro provided more information
regarding the proposed move of the Cannington transformer station from Munro
Street to Laidlaw Street South. Understandably, there is concern about such an
item being moved into their neighbourhood. The decision on the move was reached
earlier last year by the previous Township Council. Click
Here for a copy of the information provided by Veridian.
MONDAY JANUARY 17, 2011
Following up to the January 10 meeting of
Council, the matter of The Federal Government (Dept of Fisheries and Oceans)
offering the transfer of The Thorah Island Harbour to The Township of Brock was
brought back up for discussion. In exchange for $650,000 in maintenance to the
harbour, The Federal Government would transfer responsibility to The Township of
Brock who would be required to operate it as a public harbour for a minimum 5
year period. Failing a transfer to Brock, The Federal Government may offer to
sell the harbour to a private enterprise.
No definitive actions will take place on this
without thorough public consultation.
I believe that such a transfer is extremely
dangerous given the backlog of infrastructure investment here in Brock with
respect to roads, bridges, culverts, etc. For years now, municipalities
throughout Ontario have complained about their fiscal straightjackets due to
imposed downloading of services by Federal and Provincial governments. It is
difficult to believe that now that we have the choice on such downloading we
would choose to go ahead with it.
There are legitament arguments regarding
obligations to the taxpayers of Thorah Island in providing them transportation
services. However, if we subscribe to picking up every service that higher
levels of government decide to discontinue we will quickly bankrupt our
municipality.
The item has been referred to budget
consultations for 2011 since it will drastically affect Township finances.
Please note, even though it is moved to budget discussions there is no decision
to move forward at this time.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada may not stop with
the divestiture of small craft harbours like Thorah Island. In fact, it is
possible that Beaverton Harbour could some day be brought to Council as
well.
FRIDAY JANUARY 14, 2011
Mr. Goldie, the applicant in the recount
dispute, has withdrawn any request for legal cost reimbursement from The
Township of Brock following the public concerns regarding his costs and Mayor
O'Connor's legal bills being absorbed by taxpayers.
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 12,
2011
I met with Ron Ballantyne, Executive Director
of Brock Community Health Centre, and again stressed the amount of confusion and
frustration in our communities with the delays in cleaning up 39 Laidlaw Street
West and construction of the permanent Primary Health Centre. He acknowledges
that not everything has been done correctly and that there are significant
delays at The Ministry of Health. He is open to my request for a public
information and Q&A session to be held ASAP with Ministry of Health
officials in attendance. Given it is an election year, having MOH and local MPP
in attendance may get a fire lit under their *** to move things along. Such a
public meeting will also help clear the air with respect to how the CHC fits
into the Township and it does not have any connection with The Township of Brock
(outside of leasing space in municipal facilities).
On a similar note, there will be a
neighbourhood information meeting at The Cannington Seniors Room (beside the
Cannington Library on Ann Street) on Tuesday January 18 at 7:30 PM to review the
progress and issues at the NEW temporary site of the Primary Health Centre.
This temporary site, at the location of the former Knox Church, will be
constructed from trailers (now coming on site). There is much concern in the
neighbourhood with respect to how such a facility will impact the local streets,
property value, appearance, etc. Please show up if you have any
concerns.
MONDAY JANUARY 10, 2011 (currently being
updated)
CAO/Clerk Thom Gettinby brought Council up to
date on a number of issues with respect to the recount application brought
before the courts in 2010. He also disclosed a number of issues with respect to
why The Township legal costs are as high as they are and going higher. In Mr.
Goldie's application to The Superior Court of Justice for the recount, a number
of allegations were brought against The Township and The Clerk with respect to
possible irregularities and possible misconduct during the election process in
2010. Township lawyers were therefore forced to prepare and attend court in
defense of the procedures and mechanisms employed during the election and vote
counting. When all was said and done, the courts and all parties involved
acknowledged that no improper conduct occurred during the election and that all
processes were correct. The CAO/Clerk was not permitted to discuss matters
pertaining to legal cost recovery requests by either Mr. Goldie or Mayor
O'Connor since these matters are still before the courts (this is outlined under
The Ontario Municipal Act). The counting of 76 ballots not previously counted
(for various reasons) will occur on January 18 and the results will be announced
that day. Once all cost matters are resolved either between the parties
involved or through the courts The Township will be permitted to give a full
accounting of such. I would like to thank the many citizens who attended the
meeting hoping to find out more information regarding the request for costs
issue and to find out facts regarding the recount application and its status. I
urge all citizens to stay in touch with their Council representatives and push
for continued transparency on ALL maters regarding their Township.
Township Building Inspector and project
liaison Joe Bonura as well as the architect managing The Cannington
Townhall/Library project gave an update on the status of the project. A number
of issues were addressed through a report to council (click here) and an updated
financial report. Though there have been in excess of $100,000 of additional
costs on the project a number of items in the project have been reduced or
eliminated which have helped reduce the cost overruns. As of January 10, the
revised overrun is now $14,000 with no contingency funds remaining. The
architect is of the opinion that there will likely be more cost overruns due to
the nature of the building. I asked if they have reviewed whether there were
other items which could be managed to help reduce any future overruns and he was
unable to answer. As I requested of Mayor O'Connor, the project status will be
again updated with Council next month. I can discuss this matter further and
review documents at my upcoming Townhall meeting this month. The contractor
continues to believe that the project can meet the March 31 deadline in order to
receive federal grant funding.
During the Finance Committee meeting a number
of useful questions were put forward regarding expenditures incurred by your
Township over the past three months. I have requested that The Township review
possible savings by having its telephone service provider analyzed. Currently,
The Township of Brock is spending approximately $50,000 per year on telephones.
This figure excludes mobile phones and blackberries and also does not
include radios used by Fire and Works staff. The $50,000 is for pure telephone
lines into various municipal buildings. There are many more options these days
for providers and the level of service has increased from these providers using
existing Bell Telephone lines. This is one example of costs incurred by our
Township that have not been looked at for efficiencies or savings and it is a
relatively small amount (just think of the other and bigger savings). I find it
difficult to believe that we should be spending over $160 per month for a phone
at one of our arenas. The basic charge for a business line is not that high!
By identifying areas of savings such as this we can better manage our taxes and
spending without sacrificing services... That was a pledge of mine to you the
taxpayers!
SATURDAY JANUARY 8, 2011
Both sides in the mayoral race recount dispute
which went before The Ontario Supreme Court are now seeking to have taxpayers
pay for legal expenses. Mayor Larry O'Connor has filed papers with The Ontario
Supreme Court to have The Township of Brock cover a substantial amount of his
legal bill and Mr. Goldie is also seeking recovery of some of his legal costs.
I do not believe that the taxpayers should be paying for these legal costs. It
is bad enough that taxpayers will have to cover legal fees for Township lawyers
which will likely be over $30,000. While Cannington resident Mr. Goldie has
every right to challenge the results in the courts he should be responsible for
his costs in doing so. Similarly, if Mayor O'Connor chooses to fight Mr.
Goldie's requests of the courts then Mayor O'Connor should be ready to absorb
his costs. The taxpayers of Brock Township have many needs which their limited
tax resources are to pay for.... this is not one of them.
MONDAY JANUARY 3, 2011
The Township has cancelled installation of the
elevator in the Cannington Town Hall / Library project. Due to an engineering
problem, and lack of time to correct the problem due to the March 31 completion
deadline, the elevator may have to be delayed indefinitely. The project
continues at this time to attempt to meet the March 31 deadline for Federal
funding. A project report will be presented to council on January 10.
THURSDAY DECEMBER 9, 2010
In a communication from Township staff,
council has been informed that the Cannington Townhall / Library project is now
running over budget. Township staff are currently reviewing and implementing
measures to minimize the overage or offset it in other areas of the project.
During the recent election this project was identified as an area of concern
with respect to closely monitoring progress and costs. I also identified it as
such in my discussion and memo to Mayor O'Connor. This council will have to be
vigilant on this project and any others that follow. I pledge to do everything
possible to monitor the project's affect on our fragile tax base and its
eligibility for the Government of Canada funding whose deadline continues to be
March 31, 2011.
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 26, 2010
During a council orientation session this past
week the members of the 2010-2014 council were advised that the ROMA/OGRA
Conference will be held in Toronto February 27 to March 2, 2011. Booking for
the conference must take place starting next Monday or spots will disappear
quickly. I have decided to attend this conference due to the fact I am a new
member to council and our roads are such a critical issue. Attendance at such
conferences were some items leading to increased council expenditures.
Attendance at this year's conference will permit me to determine if this is
something to attend each year. The cost of registering for the conference is
$495.00 plus applicable taxes and function costs.
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 16,
2010
Mayor O'Connor and myself met to discuss the
upcoming term of council and review ideas as to its functioning and issues to
address. Although committees have not yet been fully finalized they are getting
there as The Mayor has more councillors to meet with. I have agreed, if
desired, to sit on the Brock Public Library Board as well as The Cannington Town
Hall Management Committee. I stressed to Mayor O'Connor that the Town Hall
Committee may be in need of change both in terms of structure and its operating
terms of reference. I also pointed out to Mayor O'Connor of council's need to
be kept fully and regularly informed of the progress of The Cannington Town Hall
renovation project with respect to budget and completion time. Mayor O'Connor
agreed with this and indicated that, at this time, the project remains on budget
and on schedule.
I presented Mayor O'Connor with some of my
proposals for improving service to our communities and addressing issues raised
by both myself and others during the election. Mayor O'Connor was very
receptive of the ideas and discussion was positive. The Mayor, and many other
councillors are also open to the idea of council hosting Open Houses where a
more informal and approachable council could be available to the
public.
