Mississauga waking up to a new reality
Toronto Star Jan 19 2012 By Christopher Hume Urban Issues, Architecture
Hazel McCallion may still be the mayor of Mississauga, but it’s the end of an era in the city over which she has presided for more than 30 years.
The suburban dream of high lifestyle and low taxes has come crashing to earth. The old model of growth-by-development-charges no longer applies. Although it is unfolding first in Mississauga, the same fate awaits any number of sprawl cities in the GTA and beyond.
While McCallion nattered on this week about Halloween parties, the price of ice time and parking fees, Mississauga’s new reality was making its nasty presence felt.
Perhaps she hoped her performance would create an appearance of fiscal responsibility, but when it came to the hard issues — proposed service cuts, crumbling infrastructure and staff recommendations that would have had a genuine impact on tax hikes — the mayor fell eerily silent.
In the end, though, was the stark truth of a 7.4 per cent city property tax increase (before the regional increase is factored in), something that doesn’t sit well in a jurisdiction that long prided itself on being the next best thing to free.
But as Mississaugans are about to discover, you get what you pay for. And in their case, the money they thought they were saving has come back to bite them in the pocketbook. And if you thought it would have been expensive back then, wait till you see what it costs now.
The truth, of course, is that under McCallion, Mississauga has been mismanaged beyond the point of no return. Bankrolled by decades of barely controlled development, Canada’s sixth-largest city never had to grow up or face the consequences of its heedless rush to suburbanize.
Despite its relative youth — Mississauga was incorporated in 1974 — it has hit middle age with a thud. The city whose main claim to fame was that it had no public debt is now looking for $450 million to stay afloat.
In the meantime, infrastructure is starting to fall apart. Built as cheaply and quickly as possible, it was intended to allow for growth, not accommodate a community. Little wonder, then, that Mississauga’s infrastructure deficit is expected to hit $1.5 billion in the next 20 years.
Even the city’s roads department — that holy of holies — faces cuts. Though traffic numbers are going up drastically, future projects will have to be curtailed by $25 million, and the annual $2.8 million funding gap for road repairs will soar to $8.2 million by 2016.
To make matters worse, Mississauga handed itself over to the car early in the game and let public transit languish. Though plans for an LRT have been bandied about for years, there’s still little to show for all the talk.
But as Mississauga’s commissioner of planning and building, Ed Sajeki, points out, “The key to the transformation of Mississauga is transit.”
Failure to provide sufficient alternatives to the automobile has left Mississauga poorly equipped to make the transition from suburban to urban, a change Sajeki believes is critical.
“Our intention is to create a walkable, livable public realm,” he insists. “This was put into Mississauga’s new official plan.”
However, he quickly adds, “Many of the single-family neighbourhoods where people live won’t change.” Indeed, the main exception is the area around Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe at Square One. Throughout much of the rest of Mississauga, where subdivisions prevail, this won’t be practical.
In other words, there’s only so much that can be done to keep Mississauga livable and bring it into line with the new priorities of the 21st century. In less than 40 years, its moment has come, and it now seems, gone.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Springwater Council-No Vision, No Leadership, Increased Taxes
We have now completed two years of the four year term for Springwater Council. Has the change in most of the council members except for Mayor Collins and Councillor Clement meant any real change? Unfortunately for the most part we are on the same track as we have been for the last number of years with the previous councils. Some people have said to me that we are actually in a worse state than before. I don’t agree with that statement, but the major problem which has been the issue for many years is that there is no vision of where the Township of Springwater is headed or should be. The Strategic Plan that the council developed is a shelf decoration with honorable mention in each of the staff reports that council receives. It lacks true goals, objectives, strategies and action plans like most strategic plans. The Economic Development Strategic Plan which cost close to $30,000 has progressed very slowly and no one at the township can tell us how many new jobs or businesses have come to Springwater since its inception or can they tell us if we in fact lost more jobs? In 2013 they will spend close to $100,000 for an economic development officer to jump start it. The new gateway signs which were suggested in the plan are a great addition however.
When it comes to cost control, the creative approach to employee increases in the first year of the current council term has now reverted to the standard flat rate COLA type increases instead of placing it where it makes a difference in people’s lives. The rank and file staff I have met over the years are quite good and committed to their jobs and to me are more deserving of higher percentage increases then those bureaucrats in the $100,000 salary ranges. Very few people I know are getting automatic wage increases but when the two leaders of the council come from spoon fed government guaranteed pension plans, I understand how they don’t understand the real world experience and feel that increases in taxes and user fees are standard procedure. The attitude seems to be that everything goes up in price and that is the way it is. Most businesses I speak to have reduced costs and are more productive with more value being created for each dollar spent. Not so with our township operation. There has also been a lot less discussion when it comes to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on new equipment. No real attempt has been made to reduce the cost of operating the township without reducing services.
I fully accept that we have a huge infrastructure deficit with some crumbling roads and bridges but is taking on 2 to 3 million dollars of additional debt per year for the next 5 years really a solution? In 2013, 10% of your tax dollars will go to debt servicing, not delivering services, up from 5 per cent when the current council took office. By the end of the term it will be about 15% of your tax dollar with no end in sight. I am not convinced that we have the best process for obtaining the lowest cost or choosing the right projects for some of our road construction activity or our other capital equipment expenditures. I notice a lot of our trucks, roads equipment and emergency equipment are a lot newer than the surrounding municipalities or even our big neighbor Barrie. I also question some of the construction projects in the $20,000 to $30,000 range and these add up. On Grenfel Road for example we have two steep dangerous hills just south of Sunnidale Road that have ravines about 30 feet deep with large trees at the bottom. A number of vehicles have gone into the ravines over the years and fortunately no one has been killed. There are no guardrails. However in the wisdom of public works and council’s approval we now have shiny new guardrails near CR90 on both sides to protect vehicles from sliding into a 2 foot deep stream. Ironically the same type of bridge and watercourse less than 200 metres away on CR 90 controlled by the County has no such guardrails. Grenfel Road is flat in this area and cars are slowing down for the stop and easily in control. No vehicle has ever gone into this ditch near this point. By the way, they had to redo this new installation as the St Catharine’s firm installed the rails blocking one resident’s access to a field and the other access to his shed which is also the NVCA’s access to the watercourse. I wonder who paid for that design flaw? Public Works state “we could be sued” and council blindly bob their head and pass resolutions to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars that we don’t have on these questionable projects. I agree with due diligence but let’s be sensible. As a councillor I would want proof that some of these projects are needed and insist more justification be included in their reports. Too much dependence is placed on the consultants’ opinions, and they are in the business of creating projects as there are more fees for design and engineering once approved. It is staff and council that should be investigating what is really needed before making a decision.
Just so you know your property taxes this year are increasing just over 2% but your actual increase will be dependent on how much your property assessment increased. So you might be paying 7% more depending where you live as some properties increase in assessment value up to 5% a year. For those on Water and Sewer the increases will continue at about 4.3% or more and the report last week now suggests that we are in a 31% deficit position for the Water portion of reserves. What is frightening is this is being brought to light after a couple of years of the plan being launched to correct it. The reason seems to be that finance underestimated the use by home owners and the consumption is down. When I queried the possibility of the Township being forced to increase the Water portion to as much as 10% to get back on track, the Mayor said that this council would not invoke such increases but would borrow more money instead. I know Mayor Collins is not an economist but she should be told that our province, our country and the world has placed itself in a precarious position because of unnecessary debt and poor fiscal management. We have become intoxicated on low interest rates. If interest increased to 8%, our portion of the property tax to pay the interest cost could end up being 30 or 40 percent of your assessment dollar because of this council borrowing for the next generation. The council needs to do a sanity check and find ways of saving money. I believe if done properly and each line item in the budget investigated meticulously, as business owners do, over a million dollars could easily be carved from our budget with no negative impact on services levels.
On another note here is something that boggles my mind about this council’s thinking. It is the change in the frequency of Council Meetings from December of this year to March of next year. Even though Councillors complain from time to time about the length of the meetings which are twice a month and too much to read, in their collective wisdom they are now only going to meet once a month. How does that make sense? I had been impressed in the Fall when they in fact added a General Committee meeting prior to the Council Meetings to discuss the matters more openly and in detail. That was a concept I tabled during the last election as it works well in a number of municipalities. It made sense as they were acknowledging that they cannot do an effective job unless there is more dialogue and discussion on matters affecting the residents. Now to reduce the meetings as an experiment is ridiculous. I wonder if there is someone on council that is going to Florida for three months. If the councillors are not up to taking the time to deal with the township’s business for any reason, they should resign as did the councillor in Barrie last Summer. I suggest you contact our elected officials and find out where they will be until March.
For those following the mega development in Midhurst, I was dismayed at the Province of Ontario deciding they would no longer contest the residential development of 300 hectares or 741 acres of prime agricultural land around Midhurst which coincidentally is mainly under the control of one developer who is not local. This could mean another 5,000 homes or 12,000 people and up to two hundred million of infrastructure cost for water, sewer, roads etc. Barrie has realized that development charges only pay at best about 80% of these costs and the existing taxpayer pays the rest. Just think about it, if the general taxpayer is stuck with about forty million dollars of these costs and we grow to 30,000 people that means a minimum tax impact tax assessment increase of about a 20% on top of the current average increase of 2 to 4 %. Mayor Collins and most of council still think the developer will pay for all of this new infrastructure. That is simply not true and has never been done as it is not the developer’s decision that allows growth, it is the local council. It is confusing when you think that the residents in Centre Vespra, Hillsdale and Midhurst all say no to mega developments but a majority of this council are in favour of these developments. The Midhurst Ratepayers Association has asked many good questions during the question period at Council and Planning meetings but only receive evasive answers. This council in many ways is more disconnected from the public than the last which sounds impossible but on this point I am sad to say is true.
Everything in this article is of course my view but is based on hours of study and research which our elected officials for the most part have failed to do. I have also attended over 90% of the Council and Planning meetings of this council. The lack of understanding came crystal clear at the Council meeting at the beginning of December when our Deputy Mayor requested that the council be brought up to speed by a training session to better understand the impact of the Provincial Policy Statement, the revised County Official Plan, and the Amendments to the Places to Grow policies. Since this council has passed many resolutions that are impacted by these policies, I find it odd that they are now interested in finding out what they mean and how they impact us. The unfortunate situation is that the study sessions will most likely be conducted by township staff or a planner that favours unrestricted development. They should be asking the Ministry of Infrastructure or the Ontario Growth Secretariat to provide the information sessions as they are the ones that created the legislation. Mayor Collins, Councillor McConkey along with Public Works Brad Sokach and Planner Brent Spagnol are the only ones that took the time from their schedules to attend the information session in Barrie on Amendment 2 of the Places to Grow in December. I am curious why other councilors did not attend this important information session as the changes will impact Springwater for years to come.
I believe we have a council that will leave us with a few improved roads and bridges, more shiny vehicles but the largest debt in the history of the township which will ultimately result in continuing above average tax increases. They will also leave us on a track that will destroy the unique rural character of Springwater because of unbridled mega developments. Midhurst and area will simply look like an extension of Barrie under this council’s plan or lack thereof.
I do believe all of those on council are for the most part honest, sincere and have an interest in doing what is good for Springwater but without visionary leadership, the township will continue to just progress with inertia rather than thoughtful planning. It is like having good players on a team but a poor manager or coach. I can only ask you to pay more attention to what council is doing, attend a few council or planning meetings and be better prepared to choose a leadership in two years that will create the municipality that we all want.
When it comes to cost control, the creative approach to employee increases in the first year of the current council term has now reverted to the standard flat rate COLA type increases instead of placing it where it makes a difference in people’s lives. The rank and file staff I have met over the years are quite good and committed to their jobs and to me are more deserving of higher percentage increases then those bureaucrats in the $100,000 salary ranges. Very few people I know are getting automatic wage increases but when the two leaders of the council come from spoon fed government guaranteed pension plans, I understand how they don’t understand the real world experience and feel that increases in taxes and user fees are standard procedure. The attitude seems to be that everything goes up in price and that is the way it is. Most businesses I speak to have reduced costs and are more productive with more value being created for each dollar spent. Not so with our township operation. There has also been a lot less discussion when it comes to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on new equipment. No real attempt has been made to reduce the cost of operating the township without reducing services.
I fully accept that we have a huge infrastructure deficit with some crumbling roads and bridges but is taking on 2 to 3 million dollars of additional debt per year for the next 5 years really a solution? In 2013, 10% of your tax dollars will go to debt servicing, not delivering services, up from 5 per cent when the current council took office. By the end of the term it will be about 15% of your tax dollar with no end in sight. I am not convinced that we have the best process for obtaining the lowest cost or choosing the right projects for some of our road construction activity or our other capital equipment expenditures. I notice a lot of our trucks, roads equipment and emergency equipment are a lot newer than the surrounding municipalities or even our big neighbor Barrie. I also question some of the construction projects in the $20,000 to $30,000 range and these add up. On Grenfel Road for example we have two steep dangerous hills just south of Sunnidale Road that have ravines about 30 feet deep with large trees at the bottom. A number of vehicles have gone into the ravines over the years and fortunately no one has been killed. There are no guardrails. However in the wisdom of public works and council’s approval we now have shiny new guardrails near CR90 on both sides to protect vehicles from sliding into a 2 foot deep stream. Ironically the same type of bridge and watercourse less than 200 metres away on CR 90 controlled by the County has no such guardrails. Grenfel Road is flat in this area and cars are slowing down for the stop and easily in control. No vehicle has ever gone into this ditch near this point. By the way, they had to redo this new installation as the St Catharine’s firm installed the rails blocking one resident’s access to a field and the other access to his shed which is also the NVCA’s access to the watercourse. I wonder who paid for that design flaw? Public Works state “we could be sued” and council blindly bob their head and pass resolutions to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars that we don’t have on these questionable projects. I agree with due diligence but let’s be sensible. As a councillor I would want proof that some of these projects are needed and insist more justification be included in their reports. Too much dependence is placed on the consultants’ opinions, and they are in the business of creating projects as there are more fees for design and engineering once approved. It is staff and council that should be investigating what is really needed before making a decision.
Just so you know your property taxes this year are increasing just over 2% but your actual increase will be dependent on how much your property assessment increased. So you might be paying 7% more depending where you live as some properties increase in assessment value up to 5% a year. For those on Water and Sewer the increases will continue at about 4.3% or more and the report last week now suggests that we are in a 31% deficit position for the Water portion of reserves. What is frightening is this is being brought to light after a couple of years of the plan being launched to correct it. The reason seems to be that finance underestimated the use by home owners and the consumption is down. When I queried the possibility of the Township being forced to increase the Water portion to as much as 10% to get back on track, the Mayor said that this council would not invoke such increases but would borrow more money instead. I know Mayor Collins is not an economist but she should be told that our province, our country and the world has placed itself in a precarious position because of unnecessary debt and poor fiscal management. We have become intoxicated on low interest rates. If interest increased to 8%, our portion of the property tax to pay the interest cost could end up being 30 or 40 percent of your assessment dollar because of this council borrowing for the next generation. The council needs to do a sanity check and find ways of saving money. I believe if done properly and each line item in the budget investigated meticulously, as business owners do, over a million dollars could easily be carved from our budget with no negative impact on services levels.
On another note here is something that boggles my mind about this council’s thinking. It is the change in the frequency of Council Meetings from December of this year to March of next year. Even though Councillors complain from time to time about the length of the meetings which are twice a month and too much to read, in their collective wisdom they are now only going to meet once a month. How does that make sense? I had been impressed in the Fall when they in fact added a General Committee meeting prior to the Council Meetings to discuss the matters more openly and in detail. That was a concept I tabled during the last election as it works well in a number of municipalities. It made sense as they were acknowledging that they cannot do an effective job unless there is more dialogue and discussion on matters affecting the residents. Now to reduce the meetings as an experiment is ridiculous. I wonder if there is someone on council that is going to Florida for three months. If the councillors are not up to taking the time to deal with the township’s business for any reason, they should resign as did the councillor in Barrie last Summer. I suggest you contact our elected officials and find out where they will be until March.
For those following the mega development in Midhurst, I was dismayed at the Province of Ontario deciding they would no longer contest the residential development of 300 hectares or 741 acres of prime agricultural land around Midhurst which coincidentally is mainly under the control of one developer who is not local. This could mean another 5,000 homes or 12,000 people and up to two hundred million of infrastructure cost for water, sewer, roads etc. Barrie has realized that development charges only pay at best about 80% of these costs and the existing taxpayer pays the rest. Just think about it, if the general taxpayer is stuck with about forty million dollars of these costs and we grow to 30,000 people that means a minimum tax impact tax assessment increase of about a 20% on top of the current average increase of 2 to 4 %. Mayor Collins and most of council still think the developer will pay for all of this new infrastructure. That is simply not true and has never been done as it is not the developer’s decision that allows growth, it is the local council. It is confusing when you think that the residents in Centre Vespra, Hillsdale and Midhurst all say no to mega developments but a majority of this council are in favour of these developments. The Midhurst Ratepayers Association has asked many good questions during the question period at Council and Planning meetings but only receive evasive answers. This council in many ways is more disconnected from the public than the last which sounds impossible but on this point I am sad to say is true.
Everything in this article is of course my view but is based on hours of study and research which our elected officials for the most part have failed to do. I have also attended over 90% of the Council and Planning meetings of this council. The lack of understanding came crystal clear at the Council meeting at the beginning of December when our Deputy Mayor requested that the council be brought up to speed by a training session to better understand the impact of the Provincial Policy Statement, the revised County Official Plan, and the Amendments to the Places to Grow policies. Since this council has passed many resolutions that are impacted by these policies, I find it odd that they are now interested in finding out what they mean and how they impact us. The unfortunate situation is that the study sessions will most likely be conducted by township staff or a planner that favours unrestricted development. They should be asking the Ministry of Infrastructure or the Ontario Growth Secretariat to provide the information sessions as they are the ones that created the legislation. Mayor Collins, Councillor McConkey along with Public Works Brad Sokach and Planner Brent Spagnol are the only ones that took the time from their schedules to attend the information session in Barrie on Amendment 2 of the Places to Grow in December. I am curious why other councilors did not attend this important information session as the changes will impact Springwater for years to come.
I believe we have a council that will leave us with a few improved roads and bridges, more shiny vehicles but the largest debt in the history of the township which will ultimately result in continuing above average tax increases. They will also leave us on a track that will destroy the unique rural character of Springwater because of unbridled mega developments. Midhurst and area will simply look like an extension of Barrie under this council’s plan or lack thereof.
I do believe all of those on council are for the most part honest, sincere and have an interest in doing what is good for Springwater but without visionary leadership, the township will continue to just progress with inertia rather than thoughtful planning. It is like having good players on a team but a poor manager or coach. I can only ask you to pay more attention to what council is doing, attend a few council or planning meetings and be better prepared to choose a leadership in two years that will create the municipality that we all want.
Friday, November 16, 2012
2013 Budget Approval-Debt Increases!
If you care about the taxes you are paying, you may want to attend the budget approval meeting by Springwater Council on Monday Nov 19th at the Admin centre on Nursery Road at 5:30.
The council plans to increase debt by $2.5 million in addition to last year's $2 million which now approaches $10 million in debt or about half the property assessment tax revenue. The cost of the debt which will double over the next 5 years now accounts for 10% of assessment revenue and will end up being 20% at the end of the plan.
The Council needs to rethink its strategy. I agree with investment in infrastructure but it must be done on a responsible manner. Other areas of spending need to be curtailed to allow for the infrastructure investment or the debt will get out of control ending up with huge tax increases after this council is gone.
By the end of the term of this council the debt will be the highest ever in Springwater. The present councillors except for maybe two seem to be oblivious to the follies of debt. Debt does not add value and wastes valuable tax resources that could be invested in township services. This council seems to be going in the same direction as our provincial and federal governments which is saddling future generations with unsustainable debt.
Come out and speak out or be prepared to pay forever. Your voice counts.
Here are some highlights:
Salaries increased by $112K, includes:
•Decrease in staffing level as the 2011 staff restructuring plan finalized
•Addition of a one year contract Community Development Officer
•Increased staffing budget in Recreation Programs for inclusion staff and Library for a restoration of previous reduced hours
•Cost of Living allowance of 2%
Increased spending in Public Works, Planning, Economic Development, Recreation Programming, Administration and Library
$5.9M capital plan (including equipment) proposed funded as follows:
Funding Source and Amount
Development Charge $1.5M
Tax $585K
Reserves $605K
Gas Tax $345K
Buyback Funding $365
Debt $2.5M !
Author's comment:
If staffing decreased, why $112,000 increase in salaries?
Note that Public Works debt spending is more than 4 times the tax revenue for this department. Does it not seem odd to borrow 4 times the revenue source since the assessment tax is the only guaranteed revenue. Development charges are not a guarantee nor is the Gas Tax in the long term!
The council plans to increase debt by $2.5 million in addition to last year's $2 million which now approaches $10 million in debt or about half the property assessment tax revenue. The cost of the debt which will double over the next 5 years now accounts for 10% of assessment revenue and will end up being 20% at the end of the plan.
The Council needs to rethink its strategy. I agree with investment in infrastructure but it must be done on a responsible manner. Other areas of spending need to be curtailed to allow for the infrastructure investment or the debt will get out of control ending up with huge tax increases after this council is gone.
By the end of the term of this council the debt will be the highest ever in Springwater. The present councillors except for maybe two seem to be oblivious to the follies of debt. Debt does not add value and wastes valuable tax resources that could be invested in township services. This council seems to be going in the same direction as our provincial and federal governments which is saddling future generations with unsustainable debt.
Come out and speak out or be prepared to pay forever. Your voice counts.
Here are some highlights:
Salaries increased by $112K, includes:
•Decrease in staffing level as the 2011 staff restructuring plan finalized
•Addition of a one year contract Community Development Officer
•Increased staffing budget in Recreation Programs for inclusion staff and Library for a restoration of previous reduced hours
•Cost of Living allowance of 2%
Increased spending in Public Works, Planning, Economic Development, Recreation Programming, Administration and Library
$5.9M capital plan (including equipment) proposed funded as follows:
Funding Source and Amount
Development Charge $1.5M
Tax $585K
Reserves $605K
Gas Tax $345K
Buyback Funding $365
Debt $2.5M !
Author's comment:
If staffing decreased, why $112,000 increase in salaries?
Note that Public Works debt spending is more than 4 times the tax revenue for this department. Does it not seem odd to borrow 4 times the revenue source since the assessment tax is the only guaranteed revenue. Development charges are not a guarantee nor is the Gas Tax in the long term!
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Sandy Agnew - Chair of AWARE sub Committee
Here are the remarks by Sandy Agnew regarding the concerns about the growth direction that is being proposed by the County of Simcoe. These remarks were made at the AWARE Simcoe Media Conference, May 23, 2012
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thanks you for coming out this morning. My name is Sandy Agnew and I’m a member of the AWARE Simcoe board and chair of our AWARE Growth Subcommittee.
We’ve invited you here to share our views on Amendment 1 of the Provincial Places to Grow Plan, the so called made-in-Simcoe County plan to manage growth to 2031 in Simcoe County.
This Amendment one has many major shortcomings.
There is no long term vision for what the residents of Simcoe County want the County look like in 50 or 75 years. I come from Vaughan. 50 years ago it was a rural farming township. Do we want Simcoe County look like the GTA?
We need to know what the maximum population is that can be sustainably supported by the land, water and ecological functions of the County? Is it 500,000, a million? How many people is the upper target to live in Simcoe County, Barrie and Orillia?
The County planning department is telling County Council that this Amendment is a “Good to go” plan that allows development to proceed in up to 91 Settlement Areas across the county, regardless of the 667,000 number cited by the province. This appears to be based on the myth that all growth in good, always leads to prosperity and can continue forever.
For starters, the notion that growth can continue forever is utterly ridiculous. It is the philosophy of a cancer cell. And we know that cancer, left untreated, always ends in the death of the host, in this case our planet.
On the other hand, the province is telling us that the 667,000 number stands and they want to see growth directed to the seven Primary Settlement Areas and that there are strict conditions that must be met to allow growth in the non-primary settlement areas.
AWARE Simcoe believes that planning in Simcoe County should be driven by two priorities:
1. The need to preserve farmland and agricultural activity because these are the essential elements that the county can contribute to the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and
2. The need to limit sprawl, because it is a wasteful and short sighted use of precious resources and will irrevocably change our unique and fertile landscape.
Among AWARE Simcoe recommendations to the province are:
1. A study to determine the level of sustainable population for Simcoe County.
2. Legislation to protect agricultural businesses as outlined in the Places To Grow vision.
3. Policies to close the loopholes in Sections 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.2.3 in Amendment 1 allowing unwarranted development.
4. That the Province stand firm with its appeal of the approval of the Midhurst OPA 38 by the County of Simcoe and stop the development on these prime pieces of agricultural land.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thanks you for coming out this morning. My name is Sandy Agnew and I’m a member of the AWARE Simcoe board and chair of our AWARE Growth Subcommittee.
We’ve invited you here to share our views on Amendment 1 of the Provincial Places to Grow Plan, the so called made-in-Simcoe County plan to manage growth to 2031 in Simcoe County.
This Amendment one has many major shortcomings.
There is no long term vision for what the residents of Simcoe County want the County look like in 50 or 75 years. I come from Vaughan. 50 years ago it was a rural farming township. Do we want Simcoe County look like the GTA?
We need to know what the maximum population is that can be sustainably supported by the land, water and ecological functions of the County? Is it 500,000, a million? How many people is the upper target to live in Simcoe County, Barrie and Orillia?
The County planning department is telling County Council that this Amendment is a “Good to go” plan that allows development to proceed in up to 91 Settlement Areas across the county, regardless of the 667,000 number cited by the province. This appears to be based on the myth that all growth in good, always leads to prosperity and can continue forever.
For starters, the notion that growth can continue forever is utterly ridiculous. It is the philosophy of a cancer cell. And we know that cancer, left untreated, always ends in the death of the host, in this case our planet.
On the other hand, the province is telling us that the 667,000 number stands and they want to see growth directed to the seven Primary Settlement Areas and that there are strict conditions that must be met to allow growth in the non-primary settlement areas.
AWARE Simcoe believes that planning in Simcoe County should be driven by two priorities:
1. The need to preserve farmland and agricultural activity because these are the essential elements that the county can contribute to the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and
2. The need to limit sprawl, because it is a wasteful and short sighted use of precious resources and will irrevocably change our unique and fertile landscape.
Among AWARE Simcoe recommendations to the province are:
1. A study to determine the level of sustainable population for Simcoe County.
2. Legislation to protect agricultural businesses as outlined in the Places To Grow vision.
3. Policies to close the loopholes in Sections 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.2.3 in Amendment 1 allowing unwarranted development.
4. That the Province stand firm with its appeal of the approval of the Midhurst OPA 38 by the County of Simcoe and stop the development on these prime pieces of agricultural land.
Bernard Pope Ontario Farmland Preservation
This is what Bernard Pope had to say about the growth plans for Simcoe County and area at the AWARE
News Conference Simcoe County Museum May 23, 2012
It is a pleasure to be able to be here this morning to discuss the opinions of the AWARE Land Use Sub-committee with regard to the Places to Grow legislation.
The main concern that I have, coming from an agricultural background, is that there has been a lack of understanding of the importance of agriculture in our economy.
Currently figures are suggesting that agricultural is the number one value added sector in the Province. The sector, when you look closely, encompasses a huge diversity of enterprise, from the farmer’s markets, to the retail stores that supply farmers, equipment dealers , fertilizer and seed suppliers and all the wages paid through farm work.
Typically, when the farmer or rancher is doing well, so does the economy, because that farmer will buy land, stock, equipment (especially trucks) and other infrastructure for the farm.
I drive a GMC extend-a-cab 4x4 and when I showed up at a Soil and Crop meeting in Blackstock in February I had the smallest truck in the lot.
When the AWARE team met with the Provincial Development Facilitator, last June, we stressed the concern that we had for un-required sprawl on the food producing land and as such asked her to incorporate major protection for this land. All the documents dating back to the Policy Statement of 2005, including the Places to Grow document have stated the importance of the preservation of farmland.
What we want to see is serious legislation that does in fact preserve the land that produces the quality local food that more and more people are demanding.
Since the Province recognizes the value of farming and farmers, I think that, especially now that the global insecurities are so prevalent, that the County of Simcoe should lead the way by showing the respect for the agricultural sector in the preservation of food producing land. This would be a major component of the Official Plan.
A working group that believes in the holistic progression of our development would serve Simcoe County and the Province and be a model for which others would aspire.
I have to say that being invited to work with the AWARE group is a pleasure.
The public is indeed being served well by the activities in which AWARE is involved.
News Conference Simcoe County Museum May 23, 2012
It is a pleasure to be able to be here this morning to discuss the opinions of the AWARE Land Use Sub-committee with regard to the Places to Grow legislation.
The main concern that I have, coming from an agricultural background, is that there has been a lack of understanding of the importance of agriculture in our economy.
Currently figures are suggesting that agricultural is the number one value added sector in the Province. The sector, when you look closely, encompasses a huge diversity of enterprise, from the farmer’s markets, to the retail stores that supply farmers, equipment dealers , fertilizer and seed suppliers and all the wages paid through farm work.
Typically, when the farmer or rancher is doing well, so does the economy, because that farmer will buy land, stock, equipment (especially trucks) and other infrastructure for the farm.
I drive a GMC extend-a-cab 4x4 and when I showed up at a Soil and Crop meeting in Blackstock in February I had the smallest truck in the lot.
When the AWARE team met with the Provincial Development Facilitator, last June, we stressed the concern that we had for un-required sprawl on the food producing land and as such asked her to incorporate major protection for this land. All the documents dating back to the Policy Statement of 2005, including the Places to Grow document have stated the importance of the preservation of farmland.
What we want to see is serious legislation that does in fact preserve the land that produces the quality local food that more and more people are demanding.
Since the Province recognizes the value of farming and farmers, I think that, especially now that the global insecurities are so prevalent, that the County of Simcoe should lead the way by showing the respect for the agricultural sector in the preservation of food producing land. This would be a major component of the Official Plan.
A working group that believes in the holistic progression of our development would serve Simcoe County and the Province and be a model for which others would aspire.
I have to say that being invited to work with the AWARE group is a pleasure.
The public is indeed being served well by the activities in which AWARE is involved.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Mixed Messaging on Simcoe County Growth
I have had the opportunity of being close to the growth issue for about 8 years and learned firsthand about the issue while a member of the Committee of Adjustment for Springwater Township, a small municipality of 18,000 bordering Barrie and Wasaga Beach. My initial thinking was that all growth was good growth when I was asked by the mayor and councilor of the day to sit on the committee. As I studied the Provincial Policy Statement, the Places to Grow and the IGAP policies as they unfolded I quickly realized that uncontrolled growth is bad growth and is definitely not sustainable. That is what is happening in Simcoe County if allowed to proceed.
When we talk about sustainability it involved three key factors, the economy, the environment and the social wellbeing of the people. Some people refer to sustainability as people, planet and profits. Without one the system fails.
Let’s look at the economic impact. On the short term there would be a spike in jobs in the building and service trades, but where will the sustainable jobs come from? The province directs employment lands to be created but no method of restricting residential growth until jobs are created. I was amazed that the economic study undertaken by Springwater Township in 2010 confirmed that almost 90% of non-farm workers left the township for employment. Why would it make sense to add more housing without job creation? In the past most municipalities grew in an orderly and organic fashion to bring people to a community as the job opportunities were created. The world has discovered in the last five years that growth is not the answer to the economic crisis of the world.
Most people have come to realize that we are upsetting the ecological balance in the world today. Creating more bedroom communities is contrary to the intent of the province’s growth directive as the dependence on the automobile must be reduced not increased. The current growth plans promotes commuting. The 7 primary settlements identified in Places to Grow make some sense. They are all close to large bodies of water that can provide both the drinking water and the effluent discharge from their sewage treatment plants. The other 84 settlement areas need to be restricted in growth as they can cause irreversible harm to both the aquifer where they will draw water or the small creeks and tributaries where they will discharge the effluent. In these smaller settlement areas restricted growth on sub surface waste treatment systems must be the order of the day. That means very small developments. We can’t ignore the environment in our thirst for growth.
If we have no jobs and people must spend 2 to 4 hours commuting to seek employment and it takes both partners to make ends meet, how does that improve the social wellbeing and health of the individuals or the community where they live. The simple answer is that it does not. Livable communities are more than parks, trails, bike paths and recreation facilities and places to shop. Communities should be places to live, relax and enjoy the company of your neighbor. With the growth that is planned for Simcoe County in the next few decades, these community aspects will decline and we will see the creation of urban ghettos.
Simcoe County has the opportunity of becoming a model of how good growth should occur. That can only happen if the local and county councils take planning back into their hands, listens to what the current residents have to say and proceed in an orderly fashion. The policy and phasing in each of the municipalities must be created by the local council and not be dictated by the large landowner groups or developers, which has now become the norm in the last ten years.
When the green belt around Toronto was created about 10 years ago, the view was that residential growth will stay close to the large employment centres around the GTA and density will automatically increase. I don’t think anyone imagined that as the land disappeared and was ate up with poorly planned urban sprawl that these large developers would leap frog the green belt and simply treat Simcoe County as an extension of the GTA. That is what is and will happen if the Province and the County fail to control growth and keep the numbers controlled and possibly reduced to avoid the spread of the development disease.
Our hope is that the county will keep the projected number at the 667,000 or less, that growth will be directed to the primary settlement areas and that residential growth is only permitted when jobs are created and there is proof there is a real need for more housing in the communities.
We are at a precipice and if the local municipal councils and the county council do not take charge, then the unique character of both Simcoe County and those 91 settlement areas will be destroyed forever.
When we talk about sustainability it involved three key factors, the economy, the environment and the social wellbeing of the people. Some people refer to sustainability as people, planet and profits. Without one the system fails.
Let’s look at the economic impact. On the short term there would be a spike in jobs in the building and service trades, but where will the sustainable jobs come from? The province directs employment lands to be created but no method of restricting residential growth until jobs are created. I was amazed that the economic study undertaken by Springwater Township in 2010 confirmed that almost 90% of non-farm workers left the township for employment. Why would it make sense to add more housing without job creation? In the past most municipalities grew in an orderly and organic fashion to bring people to a community as the job opportunities were created. The world has discovered in the last five years that growth is not the answer to the economic crisis of the world.
Most people have come to realize that we are upsetting the ecological balance in the world today. Creating more bedroom communities is contrary to the intent of the province’s growth directive as the dependence on the automobile must be reduced not increased. The current growth plans promotes commuting. The 7 primary settlements identified in Places to Grow make some sense. They are all close to large bodies of water that can provide both the drinking water and the effluent discharge from their sewage treatment plants. The other 84 settlement areas need to be restricted in growth as they can cause irreversible harm to both the aquifer where they will draw water or the small creeks and tributaries where they will discharge the effluent. In these smaller settlement areas restricted growth on sub surface waste treatment systems must be the order of the day. That means very small developments. We can’t ignore the environment in our thirst for growth.
If we have no jobs and people must spend 2 to 4 hours commuting to seek employment and it takes both partners to make ends meet, how does that improve the social wellbeing and health of the individuals or the community where they live. The simple answer is that it does not. Livable communities are more than parks, trails, bike paths and recreation facilities and places to shop. Communities should be places to live, relax and enjoy the company of your neighbor. With the growth that is planned for Simcoe County in the next few decades, these community aspects will decline and we will see the creation of urban ghettos.
Simcoe County has the opportunity of becoming a model of how good growth should occur. That can only happen if the local and county councils take planning back into their hands, listens to what the current residents have to say and proceed in an orderly fashion. The policy and phasing in each of the municipalities must be created by the local council and not be dictated by the large landowner groups or developers, which has now become the norm in the last ten years.
When the green belt around Toronto was created about 10 years ago, the view was that residential growth will stay close to the large employment centres around the GTA and density will automatically increase. I don’t think anyone imagined that as the land disappeared and was ate up with poorly planned urban sprawl that these large developers would leap frog the green belt and simply treat Simcoe County as an extension of the GTA. That is what is and will happen if the Province and the County fail to control growth and keep the numbers controlled and possibly reduced to avoid the spread of the development disease.
Our hope is that the county will keep the projected number at the 667,000 or less, that growth will be directed to the primary settlement areas and that residential growth is only permitted when jobs are created and there is proof there is a real need for more housing in the communities.
We are at a precipice and if the local municipal councils and the county council do not take charge, then the unique character of both Simcoe County and those 91 settlement areas will be destroyed forever.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Recreation versus Noise-Who should take Preference?
I have resisted writing about the local noise issue in the Grenfel area as it impacts the residents and seasonal visitors in one area of Springwater that amounts to about 150 people. I do think that it is a microcosm of how things seem to work in Springwater and with this council.
In this article I am only addressing the impact of one gun range as I know there are two in the township. I have no comments on the range on the Old Second as I do not live there. I do know that the range on Pinegrove Road is on a small piece of property of about 40 acres and the other one is on 250 acres of property. I also know the local gun club has mainly sports shooters while the other is a conservation organization and conducts its business quite differently. The Pinegrove Road club has almost 500 member while the other has around 200.
The gun range on Pinegrove has grown over the last 15 years to become a very large operation. The constant growth has increased the frequency and amount of noise emanating from the facility.
When I first moved here in 1997, the noise was noticeable as I live about 600 metres directly east of the shotgun ranges. Unfortunately they shoot directly towards my house. It was annoying but they only shot occasionally so it was tolerable. At the time, the activity was so sporadic that my son and daughter went for a walk and wandered onto the ranges as there were no fences and no one was on the site. Because of the state of the outdoor shooting field my son at the time thought it was possibly an abandoned site. That was in 1997.
The old abandoned gravel pit close to Pinegrove, which was in operation until the early 90’s, was repurchased by the gun club around 1994. They constructed a couple of ranges in the late 90’s and then over the next number of years expanded to about 7 to 9 different rifle and handgun setups which added to the noise and a growing number of members. In the mid 2000’s the shotgun ranges expanded. The township had no cut and fill bylaw at the time, so this was perfectly legal. Because the ranges do not have structures, no building permit or site plan was required to build ranges. The noise levels and frequency of activity increased.
The issue in Grenfel is noise not guns. I myself am a fairly good shot with a .22 and I come from a family of hunters and fishermen. We live in a community of farmers and hunters and fully support their right to seasonal hunting and protecting their local livestock from predators. However these farmers and hunters do not shoot frequently or seven days a week as do the members of the gun club. They don’t typically shoot 50 rounds at a time. The constant gunshots from the Pinegrove range is quite different and not tolerable.
The complaints to the township began in 2002 and over the last 10 years there have been numerous deputations and petitions to the council and planning committee about the issue. Around 2005, for two years we had numerous meetings with all the stakeholders but made no progress as the prior council simply wanted to delay the issue hoping it would go away or people would tire of the issue and move on. It only gets worse and more frustrating each year. A number of residents simply have given up and moved away from the noise. They felt that council really does not care or understand the agitation that constant impulse sounds from gunshots creates. Unless you live here you cannot appreciate the negative impact it has on our health and well being. The gun club suggests to this council that there are only a couple people that complain and a majority of residents have no problem. The many delegations and multiple petitions to council over the years suggest something totally different.
In 2010 we saw the first development of a proposed noise bylaw to address a number of noise issues, not just gun noise. It went through a number of variations and meetings and is now approaching the end of the development cycle.
An ideal solution would be to reduce the number of hours of operation for the gun club and possibly restrict the weapons fired. The loudest noise comes from shotguns, large caliber handguns and high powered rifles. A proper solution and compromise for hours of operation would be to limit shooting to Monday, Wednesday, Friday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. and no Sunday shooting. This would be a compromise and much more generous than what courts have ruled in other regions when contested in civil actions. But the residents of Grenfel are community people and respect their neighbors. All we have asked is that the hours of operation be limited to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday to Thursday, Friday and Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and no Sunday shooting. This gives the gun club members over 75% of the daylight hours in the summer to shoot. Don’t you think this is a reasonable request? Maybe it is because few of the Pinegrove club members live in Springwater and the noise they make is not in their backyard. Again I must stress I am referring to the Pinegrove club not the facility on the Old Second.
Much to our surprise the recent Township noise bylaw draft which was debated on Feb 21st not only did not include our requests but in fact extended the hours from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. Monday to Thursday over the previous draft from February 6th. Instead of no Sunday shooting which has been a request of the community for years, they propose shooting Sundays 9 to 6 in the winter months and 12 to 6 in the summer months. This council has at least done a good job at finally drafting a noise bylaw but they have failed to meet the needs of the local taxpayers. We do not fully understand how preference is being given to the gun clubs over those impacted by the constant noise and health hazard of gunshots. How is it a compromise as Mayor Collins touts when you allow the loudest sounds in the township to disturb our properties 80% of daylight hours? A compromise it is not. At best what is being proposed is a small concession on the part of the gun club. The only possibility is that the gun club on the Old Second has a lesser impact on the local residents in the area and has few complaints because of the size of the property, the frequency of shooting or even the direction they shoot. If this is the case I sympathize with them and suggest the Old Second club reinforce the point with council that they made at the June 2010 meeting. They pointed out that they are conservationists first and sports shooters second. Since the members at that club I understand are more local, the council is possibly focused on doing what is right for them and trying to seek a balance. I don’t agree with the approach but I actually understand that idea. If this be the case I suggest that council provide two schedules of operating hours to address both the needs of the gun clubs and the local needs of the community they impact. This would be no different than the other schedules that differ in the draft. If this is not the reason for the generous hours being provided to the gun clubs, it appears that the recreation of mainly out of township sports shooters supersedes that of the local residents. To me that is a travesty. I know there are a couple of people on council that want to do right for those that elected them. But that is only 2 or 3 votes out of seven.
As a resident and a taxpayer, I can only ask that this council to really think about this new bylaw and create legislation that is for the common good of all of Springwater and not just for a few that visit our community.
Kudos for council’s efforts, but it needs a little more work.
In this article I am only addressing the impact of one gun range as I know there are two in the township. I have no comments on the range on the Old Second as I do not live there. I do know that the range on Pinegrove Road is on a small piece of property of about 40 acres and the other one is on 250 acres of property. I also know the local gun club has mainly sports shooters while the other is a conservation organization and conducts its business quite differently. The Pinegrove Road club has almost 500 member while the other has around 200.
The gun range on Pinegrove has grown over the last 15 years to become a very large operation. The constant growth has increased the frequency and amount of noise emanating from the facility.
When I first moved here in 1997, the noise was noticeable as I live about 600 metres directly east of the shotgun ranges. Unfortunately they shoot directly towards my house. It was annoying but they only shot occasionally so it was tolerable. At the time, the activity was so sporadic that my son and daughter went for a walk and wandered onto the ranges as there were no fences and no one was on the site. Because of the state of the outdoor shooting field my son at the time thought it was possibly an abandoned site. That was in 1997.
The old abandoned gravel pit close to Pinegrove, which was in operation until the early 90’s, was repurchased by the gun club around 1994. They constructed a couple of ranges in the late 90’s and then over the next number of years expanded to about 7 to 9 different rifle and handgun setups which added to the noise and a growing number of members. In the mid 2000’s the shotgun ranges expanded. The township had no cut and fill bylaw at the time, so this was perfectly legal. Because the ranges do not have structures, no building permit or site plan was required to build ranges. The noise levels and frequency of activity increased.
The issue in Grenfel is noise not guns. I myself am a fairly good shot with a .22 and I come from a family of hunters and fishermen. We live in a community of farmers and hunters and fully support their right to seasonal hunting and protecting their local livestock from predators. However these farmers and hunters do not shoot frequently or seven days a week as do the members of the gun club. They don’t typically shoot 50 rounds at a time. The constant gunshots from the Pinegrove range is quite different and not tolerable.
The complaints to the township began in 2002 and over the last 10 years there have been numerous deputations and petitions to the council and planning committee about the issue. Around 2005, for two years we had numerous meetings with all the stakeholders but made no progress as the prior council simply wanted to delay the issue hoping it would go away or people would tire of the issue and move on. It only gets worse and more frustrating each year. A number of residents simply have given up and moved away from the noise. They felt that council really does not care or understand the agitation that constant impulse sounds from gunshots creates. Unless you live here you cannot appreciate the negative impact it has on our health and well being. The gun club suggests to this council that there are only a couple people that complain and a majority of residents have no problem. The many delegations and multiple petitions to council over the years suggest something totally different.
In 2010 we saw the first development of a proposed noise bylaw to address a number of noise issues, not just gun noise. It went through a number of variations and meetings and is now approaching the end of the development cycle.
An ideal solution would be to reduce the number of hours of operation for the gun club and possibly restrict the weapons fired. The loudest noise comes from shotguns, large caliber handguns and high powered rifles. A proper solution and compromise for hours of operation would be to limit shooting to Monday, Wednesday, Friday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. and no Sunday shooting. This would be a compromise and much more generous than what courts have ruled in other regions when contested in civil actions. But the residents of Grenfel are community people and respect their neighbors. All we have asked is that the hours of operation be limited to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday to Thursday, Friday and Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and no Sunday shooting. This gives the gun club members over 75% of the daylight hours in the summer to shoot. Don’t you think this is a reasonable request? Maybe it is because few of the Pinegrove club members live in Springwater and the noise they make is not in their backyard. Again I must stress I am referring to the Pinegrove club not the facility on the Old Second.
Much to our surprise the recent Township noise bylaw draft which was debated on Feb 21st not only did not include our requests but in fact extended the hours from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. Monday to Thursday over the previous draft from February 6th. Instead of no Sunday shooting which has been a request of the community for years, they propose shooting Sundays 9 to 6 in the winter months and 12 to 6 in the summer months. This council has at least done a good job at finally drafting a noise bylaw but they have failed to meet the needs of the local taxpayers. We do not fully understand how preference is being given to the gun clubs over those impacted by the constant noise and health hazard of gunshots. How is it a compromise as Mayor Collins touts when you allow the loudest sounds in the township to disturb our properties 80% of daylight hours? A compromise it is not. At best what is being proposed is a small concession on the part of the gun club. The only possibility is that the gun club on the Old Second has a lesser impact on the local residents in the area and has few complaints because of the size of the property, the frequency of shooting or even the direction they shoot. If this is the case I sympathize with them and suggest the Old Second club reinforce the point with council that they made at the June 2010 meeting. They pointed out that they are conservationists first and sports shooters second. Since the members at that club I understand are more local, the council is possibly focused on doing what is right for them and trying to seek a balance. I don’t agree with the approach but I actually understand that idea. If this be the case I suggest that council provide two schedules of operating hours to address both the needs of the gun clubs and the local needs of the community they impact. This would be no different than the other schedules that differ in the draft. If this is not the reason for the generous hours being provided to the gun clubs, it appears that the recreation of mainly out of township sports shooters supersedes that of the local residents. To me that is a travesty. I know there are a couple of people on council that want to do right for those that elected them. But that is only 2 or 3 votes out of seven.
As a resident and a taxpayer, I can only ask that this council to really think about this new bylaw and create legislation that is for the common good of all of Springwater and not just for a few that visit our community.
Kudos for council’s efforts, but it needs a little more work.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Growth Plan-Staff Salary Increases-Council Report Card
I attended the ministry briefing on the Amended Growth Plan for the Simcoe Sub Region in Alliston on January 19th. The ministry and growth secretariat have provided a document that if properly implemented and followed will in fact allow the area to grow at a sustainable rate. But like all documents and regulations of this nature, it will be the County and local Springwater’s application of the Plan that will determine whether it will be sustainable. The final regulations I hope will clarify some gaping holes that the development community will drive through if the local and county councils fail to do their jobs.
I commented previously that our local council has the full authority to approve the way it wants the township to grow. The Amendment confirms that. They must take control and not be overwhelmed by developers, planners, engineers and lawyers with ideas that may be counter to the health and welfare of Springwater.
Springwater could amend their Official Plan and restrict development to the 6,400 people that the Province has proposed. Springwater is not a primary residential growth area or urban node. So if the council of Springwater does their job, they will follow the wishes of most the residents and control the growth in our communities. The large developments around Midhurst are not envisioned in the growth plan as most of the criteria are not met as outlined in the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe.
I hope our Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors read the Toronto Star on the failure of Mississauga’s Development Charges to keep up with the cost of required infrastructure and services. The residents there are facing a 7% increase even with cutbacks in services. This is what I have warned against in my numerous articles, even though many on council and senior staff are convinced we can stay ahead of the costs with development charges.
I was reviewing the presentation for the final 2012 budget that was presented to council. One thing on slide 28 jumped out at me. It read “Salaries are slightly higher - Some downsizing done but offset by Council approved position changes”. If we reduced staff at the top administrative level and combined functions and increased efficiencies and use of manpower in operations, how can the staff costs be higher? I have requested information on the rate increases of the senior staff and I suspect they received much more than the 3% that the rest of the township staff received. It begs the question, “if we are asking department staff to do more and only receive 3%, is it not fair that the executive group do the same”? It sounds like the senior staff may have received significant increases which I estimate may be anywhere between 5 and 10%. Is that fair? It is unfortunate that these matters are settled behind closed doors.
Deputy Mayor McLean made a good suggestion at the last council meeting. He suggested that there should be a council report card on how they are doing. Unfortunately it sounds like they will evaluate themselves. I have many students I teach that would love that concept. So I will do a little report card of my own based on their strategic plan and some other matters that are important. I base these rating on my presence at most council meetings. I will give the council a P for pass, N for needed improvement and an F for failing and explain my reasoning.
Transparency
Meetings P Good effort allowing questions at council and planning meetings but could be a little more open to comments also
Town Hall Meetings N No regular ward meetings with council to discuss local issues
Economic Development
Economic Development Committee N Only internal committee, no new jobs, few times discussed at council
Economic Development Strategy F Very little done with the almost $30,000 study done by previous council
Promotion of Elmvale main street N Some support but not much as Elmvale is still losing main street businesses
Springwater Brand P Signage is underway
Promotion and development of existing businesses F No purchasing policy for preferred local suppliers of services
Growth Management
Growth allocation F Following developer lead strategies rather creating its own phasing strategies
Sustainable Infrastructure
Improve Roads and Bridges P Dedicating investment in previously ignored need
Drinking Water N Still problems with some of the municipal water in small developments
Financial Management
Long Term Capital Plan P Asset management appears to be in place
Creation of Finance Committee P Budget Committee did a good job
Procurement Policy N Develop local business preferred list for products and Services
Green Agenda
Renewable energy N Need some say in local initiatives
Environmental Impact N Fleet selection, car pooling,
Growth decisions F Create growth in existing walking communities like Elmvale
Recycling and Waste N Become test area for some alternatives rather than just relegating to County
Review Potential of Alternate Energy for township buildings P Studies to be undertaken
Community Partnerships
Board of Education EDHS P Shared facilities at Arena
Health Services P Shared facilities at Knox building
Food Bank P Shared facilities at Knox building
Volunteerism and recognition P Good programs in place
Recreation P Good support for local facilities
Communication
Ratepayer response N Allow more interaction with councilors and constituents rather than controlled messaging
Council Corner P Nice addition under this council
Reporting of Council initiatives P Adequate information
Overall I would give this council a passing grade. Most councilors do their home work and are truly interested in making Springwater a better place for all of us. We do have some on council that need to pull up their sox and be better informed of matters on the agenda so they can make improved decisions with township matters. I do see a disconnect between what communities want to see and some of the council’s direction and decisions. More dialogue and town hall events could easily correct that flaw.
I commented previously that our local council has the full authority to approve the way it wants the township to grow. The Amendment confirms that. They must take control and not be overwhelmed by developers, planners, engineers and lawyers with ideas that may be counter to the health and welfare of Springwater.
Springwater could amend their Official Plan and restrict development to the 6,400 people that the Province has proposed. Springwater is not a primary residential growth area or urban node. So if the council of Springwater does their job, they will follow the wishes of most the residents and control the growth in our communities. The large developments around Midhurst are not envisioned in the growth plan as most of the criteria are not met as outlined in the Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe.
I hope our Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors read the Toronto Star on the failure of Mississauga’s Development Charges to keep up with the cost of required infrastructure and services. The residents there are facing a 7% increase even with cutbacks in services. This is what I have warned against in my numerous articles, even though many on council and senior staff are convinced we can stay ahead of the costs with development charges.
I was reviewing the presentation for the final 2012 budget that was presented to council. One thing on slide 28 jumped out at me. It read “Salaries are slightly higher - Some downsizing done but offset by Council approved position changes”. If we reduced staff at the top administrative level and combined functions and increased efficiencies and use of manpower in operations, how can the staff costs be higher? I have requested information on the rate increases of the senior staff and I suspect they received much more than the 3% that the rest of the township staff received. It begs the question, “if we are asking department staff to do more and only receive 3%, is it not fair that the executive group do the same”? It sounds like the senior staff may have received significant increases which I estimate may be anywhere between 5 and 10%. Is that fair? It is unfortunate that these matters are settled behind closed doors.
Deputy Mayor McLean made a good suggestion at the last council meeting. He suggested that there should be a council report card on how they are doing. Unfortunately it sounds like they will evaluate themselves. I have many students I teach that would love that concept. So I will do a little report card of my own based on their strategic plan and some other matters that are important. I base these rating on my presence at most council meetings. I will give the council a P for pass, N for needed improvement and an F for failing and explain my reasoning.
Transparency
Meetings P Good effort allowing questions at council and planning meetings but could be a little more open to comments also
Town Hall Meetings N No regular ward meetings with council to discuss local issues
Economic Development
Economic Development Committee N Only internal committee, no new jobs, few times discussed at council
Economic Development Strategy F Very little done with the almost $30,000 study done by previous council
Promotion of Elmvale main street N Some support but not much as Elmvale is still losing main street businesses
Springwater Brand P Signage is underway
Promotion and development of existing businesses F No purchasing policy for preferred local suppliers of services
Growth Management
Growth allocation F Following developer lead strategies rather creating its own phasing strategies
Sustainable Infrastructure
Improve Roads and Bridges P Dedicating investment in previously ignored need
Drinking Water N Still problems with some of the municipal water in small developments
Financial Management
Long Term Capital Plan P Asset management appears to be in place
Creation of Finance Committee P Budget Committee did a good job
Procurement Policy N Develop local business preferred list for products and Services
Green Agenda
Renewable energy N Need some say in local initiatives
Environmental Impact N Fleet selection, car pooling,
Growth decisions F Create growth in existing walking communities like Elmvale
Recycling and Waste N Become test area for some alternatives rather than just relegating to County
Review Potential of Alternate Energy for township buildings P Studies to be undertaken
Community Partnerships
Board of Education EDHS P Shared facilities at Arena
Health Services P Shared facilities at Knox building
Food Bank P Shared facilities at Knox building
Volunteerism and recognition P Good programs in place
Recreation P Good support for local facilities
Communication
Ratepayer response N Allow more interaction with councilors and constituents rather than controlled messaging
Council Corner P Nice addition under this council
Reporting of Council initiatives P Adequate information
Overall I would give this council a passing grade. Most councilors do their home work and are truly interested in making Springwater a better place for all of us. We do have some on council that need to pull up their sox and be better informed of matters on the agenda so they can make improved decisions with township matters. I do see a disconnect between what communities want to see and some of the council’s direction and decisions. More dialogue and town hall events could easily correct that flaw.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Growth in Simcoe County - Good Effort but not Great
Province eases restrictions on municipalities
By Kate Harries AWARE Simcoe January 19 2012
The Ontario government has bowed to local municipal pressure by easing restrictions on how much growth can take place in Simcoe County.
Flexibility is being touted as the hallmarked of Amendment 1, new provincial legislation governing growth in Simcoe County that goes into effect today.
The question is whether municipalities will hold to the population numbers established by the province now that tough enforcement measures proposed by the province over a year ago have been removed.
AWARE Simcoe is holding a meeting on Saturday at the Angus Recreation Centre, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., to discuss the issue of sprawl and what effect the new provincial policies will have.
Today at the Nottawasaga Inn, several Simcoe County mayors expressed optimism that the changes put them back in control of development in their municipalities.
“Thank you for listening,” Innisfil Mayor Barb Baguley told provincial officials at the morning technical briefing, attended by over 200 people. Some 350 attended a $60 lunch hosted by the Alliston Chamber of Commerce.
Cheryl Shindruk, vice-presdent of Geranium Corporation and chair of the Simcoe County chapter of the Building Industry Land Development Association, also expressed appreciation.
Changes that are welcomed by municipal politicians and developers include:
-Removal of “interim settlement boundaries,” a measure by which the province aimed to draw back boundaries in cases where councils had approved excessive development.
-Addition of Alcona in Innisfil as a primary settlement area (a term that replaces ‘urban growth node,’ the terminology used to date.) This means that major growth is to be directed to seven areas - Barrie, Orillia, Collingwood, Midland-Penetanguishene, Alliston, Bradford and, now, Alcona.
-Greater flexibility for approval of development in settlement areas.
-Municipalities may request that the minister review decisions relating to uses and boundaries of four strategic employment area – in Bradford West Gwillimbury, Innisfil Heights, the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport in Oro-Medonte and the Rama Road district.
The province also announced a provision that will sunset in five years for an extra 20,000 of population to be allocated by the County of Simcoe.
The new polices in Amendment 1 do not apply to the rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe area which, along with Simcoe County, fall under Places to Grow planning legislation
“This is a strong statement that Simcoe is significantly different to other parts of the Greater Golden Horseshoe,” Infrastructure Minister Bob Chiarelli told a crowd of politicians, lawyers, developers, planners and citizens at his announcement this morning.
“The Simcoe area is unique in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, with important sensitive environmental resources, complex growth challenges, and intense development pressures,” Chiarellii said. Two key environmental assets identified in ministry documents are Lake Simcoe and high quality agricultural lands. (Some expressed disappointment that the Nottawasaga watershed was not mentioned.)
Unchanged are the population and growth forecasts established by the province in 2006, when Places to Grow came into effect – a total population, including Barrie and Orillia, of 667,000 by 2031, and a total employment figure of 254,000.
“What has changed,” said provincial development facilitator Paula Dill, “is the increased flexibility for Simcoe County municipalities to approve development if they have historically designated lands that would accommodate growth... The aim is to direct growth to areas that offer municipal water and wastewater treatment."
Dill explained that a new policy allows development in settlement areas in excess of what is needed to accommodate the forecasts, provided that the development is on lands designated for urban use as of today.
“This added flexibility will address much of what we heard through the consultation. It will mean that even if a municipality has lands that were designated for urban development 20 or 30 years ago where growth has not proceeded, the municipality may continue to approve new development, provided that those lands are in a settlement area, and are designated.
“Furthermore, the county may approve, adopt an official plan or amendment that redesignates rural lands as urban land within a settlement area. The total amount of urban land approved under this policy cannot exceed the amount of land that could accommodate 20,000 people across the county. This policy will sunset in five years.
“In all cases, approvals must demonstrate that they meet the planning tests such as contributing to achievement of density and intensification targets and any applicable requirements that relate to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.”
Dill said municipalities will be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency and conservation in energy, water and wastewater management through building and community design.
And, she added, “the County of Simcoe and the lower-tier municipalities shall establish and implement policies to ensure the orderly and timely progression of development on lands for urban uses.”
Bill French of Springwater asked Dill what is to happen in the case of a small municipality that has a forecast increase of 6,000 people people between now and 2031, and yet on the books the township is adding 30,000. "How are those two going to meet?"
Dill replied: “The amendment says if you are in a settlement area and designated urban, the municipality can approve... What this is doing is recognizing that there are a lot of old, old approvals that are taking up a lot of room. We are trying to direct growth to where it should be.”
French didn’t name Midhurst but continued with details of the Midhurst situation: "Is it possible that, given that the population growth is limited to another 6,000 people between now and 2031, that in fact it may meet some of the criteria, that in fact 30,000 people would be allowed in that area? It’s not an urban node.”
Dill: “It depends on the amount of population that is allocated to that municipality.If the allocation is 6,000 and it is designated to be urban development in a settlement area, the municipality may indeed approve in excess of Schedule 7 if it is designated urban. If it’s not urban then it doesn’t qualify.”
French: “Well right now it’s a designated settlement area, but it’s agricultural.”
Dill: “It’s got to be within settlement and it’s got to be designated urban.”
French: “If it’s not zoned for residential or whatever, then it’s not permitted.”
Dell: “It may not be.”
French then asked, referring to the 667,000 population forecast for the county in 2031: “The 667 number - is that a solid number?
Yes,” Dill said. “At this point in time.”
Asked whether Dill’s report would be released, deputy minister Drew Fagan said, “it’s not actually a formal report.” Dill said the advice she provided to the minister is reflected in the amendment.
By Kate Harries AWARE Simcoe January 19 2012
The Ontario government has bowed to local municipal pressure by easing restrictions on how much growth can take place in Simcoe County.
Flexibility is being touted as the hallmarked of Amendment 1, new provincial legislation governing growth in Simcoe County that goes into effect today.
The question is whether municipalities will hold to the population numbers established by the province now that tough enforcement measures proposed by the province over a year ago have been removed.
AWARE Simcoe is holding a meeting on Saturday at the Angus Recreation Centre, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., to discuss the issue of sprawl and what effect the new provincial policies will have.
Today at the Nottawasaga Inn, several Simcoe County mayors expressed optimism that the changes put them back in control of development in their municipalities.
“Thank you for listening,” Innisfil Mayor Barb Baguley told provincial officials at the morning technical briefing, attended by over 200 people. Some 350 attended a $60 lunch hosted by the Alliston Chamber of Commerce.
Cheryl Shindruk, vice-presdent of Geranium Corporation and chair of the Simcoe County chapter of the Building Industry Land Development Association, also expressed appreciation.
Changes that are welcomed by municipal politicians and developers include:
-Removal of “interim settlement boundaries,” a measure by which the province aimed to draw back boundaries in cases where councils had approved excessive development.
-Addition of Alcona in Innisfil as a primary settlement area (a term that replaces ‘urban growth node,’ the terminology used to date.) This means that major growth is to be directed to seven areas - Barrie, Orillia, Collingwood, Midland-Penetanguishene, Alliston, Bradford and, now, Alcona.
-Greater flexibility for approval of development in settlement areas.
-Municipalities may request that the minister review decisions relating to uses and boundaries of four strategic employment area – in Bradford West Gwillimbury, Innisfil Heights, the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport in Oro-Medonte and the Rama Road district.
The province also announced a provision that will sunset in five years for an extra 20,000 of population to be allocated by the County of Simcoe.
The new polices in Amendment 1 do not apply to the rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe area which, along with Simcoe County, fall under Places to Grow planning legislation
“This is a strong statement that Simcoe is significantly different to other parts of the Greater Golden Horseshoe,” Infrastructure Minister Bob Chiarelli told a crowd of politicians, lawyers, developers, planners and citizens at his announcement this morning.
“The Simcoe area is unique in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, with important sensitive environmental resources, complex growth challenges, and intense development pressures,” Chiarellii said. Two key environmental assets identified in ministry documents are Lake Simcoe and high quality agricultural lands. (Some expressed disappointment that the Nottawasaga watershed was not mentioned.)
Unchanged are the population and growth forecasts established by the province in 2006, when Places to Grow came into effect – a total population, including Barrie and Orillia, of 667,000 by 2031, and a total employment figure of 254,000.
“What has changed,” said provincial development facilitator Paula Dill, “is the increased flexibility for Simcoe County municipalities to approve development if they have historically designated lands that would accommodate growth... The aim is to direct growth to areas that offer municipal water and wastewater treatment."
Dill explained that a new policy allows development in settlement areas in excess of what is needed to accommodate the forecasts, provided that the development is on lands designated for urban use as of today.
“This added flexibility will address much of what we heard through the consultation. It will mean that even if a municipality has lands that were designated for urban development 20 or 30 years ago where growth has not proceeded, the municipality may continue to approve new development, provided that those lands are in a settlement area, and are designated.
“Furthermore, the county may approve, adopt an official plan or amendment that redesignates rural lands as urban land within a settlement area. The total amount of urban land approved under this policy cannot exceed the amount of land that could accommodate 20,000 people across the county. This policy will sunset in five years.
“In all cases, approvals must demonstrate that they meet the planning tests such as contributing to achievement of density and intensification targets and any applicable requirements that relate to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.”
Dill said municipalities will be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency and conservation in energy, water and wastewater management through building and community design.
And, she added, “the County of Simcoe and the lower-tier municipalities shall establish and implement policies to ensure the orderly and timely progression of development on lands for urban uses.”
Bill French of Springwater asked Dill what is to happen in the case of a small municipality that has a forecast increase of 6,000 people people between now and 2031, and yet on the books the township is adding 30,000. "How are those two going to meet?"
Dill replied: “The amendment says if you are in a settlement area and designated urban, the municipality can approve... What this is doing is recognizing that there are a lot of old, old approvals that are taking up a lot of room. We are trying to direct growth to where it should be.”
French didn’t name Midhurst but continued with details of the Midhurst situation: "Is it possible that, given that the population growth is limited to another 6,000 people between now and 2031, that in fact it may meet some of the criteria, that in fact 30,000 people would be allowed in that area? It’s not an urban node.”
Dill: “It depends on the amount of population that is allocated to that municipality.If the allocation is 6,000 and it is designated to be urban development in a settlement area, the municipality may indeed approve in excess of Schedule 7 if it is designated urban. If it’s not urban then it doesn’t qualify.”
French: “Well right now it’s a designated settlement area, but it’s agricultural.”
Dill: “It’s got to be within settlement and it’s got to be designated urban.”
French: “If it’s not zoned for residential or whatever, then it’s not permitted.”
Dell: “It may not be.”
French then asked, referring to the 667,000 population forecast for the county in 2031: “The 667 number - is that a solid number?
Yes,” Dill said. “At this point in time.”
Asked whether Dill’s report would be released, deputy minister Drew Fagan said, “it’s not actually a formal report.” Dill said the advice she provided to the minister is reflected in the amendment.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Midhurst-Hillsdale-Centre Vespra Development
I mention these three settlement areas in the heading of this article as they appear to be indicators of the new type of development growth our small communities are facing in Springwater. They are also signs of unwanted change.
Hillsdale received approval of a development of about 500 homes two years ago after local residents dropped their OMB appeal because of fears of a lawsuit from the developer.
Centre Vespra are nearing the end of the planning and approval period which will see another 500 homes added to their small quaint rural area. There is a large residential group assembled trying to restrict the size of the development.
As far as Midhurst everyone knows that if the secondary plan is approved after the OMB hearing sometime this year, up to 10,000 homes or around 30,000 residents could be added over the next ten or more years. A very large resident group is coming together to fight this plan.
These new subdivision plans represent the largest developments that Springwater has ever seen. In all cases, a majority of residents in these areas reject the plans. That is a new phenomenom. However not one person I spoken to objects to development in principle. They simply believe, as a rural area, Springwater needs carefully designed and complementary developments that will not destroy the reason people moved here. The three developments certainly do not meet that criteria.
Why is this happening?
In many small municipalities such as Springwater, local councils have been hoodwinked by large developers and their planning consultants and lawyers. Instead of local councils planning their community’s future, they are allowing the developers to dictate how and when areas will be developed. There is no question that many of these developers are quite good at designing communities with attractive housing, green spaces and general land use. Unfortunately most of the community designs are great for urban centres like Barrie, but not conducive to rural living. The missing link is that the local council is the party responsible to say when and how many houses will be built in an area, not the developers. Councils like Springwater should be enhancing their official plans and dictating to developers what the municipality wants and how they would like it phased in over specific periods of time. This is totally within their jurisdiction and would allow both the community and developers to reach amicable resolutions. This next comment may surprise you. Even though I have been accused of being anti developer, I don’t find the actual problem with the developers. Some have been heavy handed, but so be it. Generally they are simply maximizing the use of landholdings they have secured as any good capitalist would do. Their shareholders expect nothing less. The real problem in my view is the lack of knowledge and lack of visionary leadership in the local councils. I encourage you to ask any of our Springwater elected officials if they have read the provincial documents that guide development growth including the Provincial Policy Statement, Places to Grow and the more recent Proposed Amendment 1 of the Growth Plan for the Simcoe County area. Ask them if they understand how they apply to Springwater. Also ask them if they have actually read the township’s own Official Plan or the By-laws that control development. Nothing requires them to do so. For the most part, by what I hear and see at the council and planning meetings, they haven’t studied them and simply depend on staff to direct them and recommend resolutions to pass at council and planning meetings. To read all the documents I mentioned would take them no more than a day if they dedicated the time. That is why we elected them.
Springwater Council needs to understand that they are not just a board of directors for the township but in fact are the executive management committee and must get their hands dirty. The mayor is the CEO according to the Municipal Act and has the same authority to provide direction as any corporate leader would provide. Of course the council will take advice from bureaucrats, but the elected officials are supposed to be at the helm, not the bureaucrats. The Springwater Council needs to take charge of where it is going with development in general. It should outline a master development plan and inform those land owners and developers in designated settlement areas of how they want them to proceed. In this way they would have much more control of the developments and the associated capital costs for infrastructure. By allowing smaller and controlled development in chunks the township would be able to adjust development charges to meet the increasing costs of the services and avoid deficits or unfairly passing on some of the costs to the general taxpayer. Even though councils always say that all the infrastructure and associated costs of new development is born by the developers through (DC’s) development charges, that is simply not true as all costs can never be anticipated. As an example, when I was reviewing the Midhurst Secondary Plan costs to date I was dismayed that even before we get into the actual development stage we are already in a $104,000 deficit position for the secondary plan itself. Ultimately if the OMB rejects the Midhurst Secondary plan that $104,000 deficit will be made up by the taxpayer either directly or indirectly. The cost for the plan to date is about $175,000 and we have only collected $71,000. That is just for the plan and not any associated services such as roads, sewers or water works. This is an example of the tip of the ice berg and how quickly things can get out of control with poorly controlled development. Talk to your friends in Barrie. Barrie has had huge developments for decades but the development charges never seem to stop the increase in their tax levies. Unbridled development is not the panacea that our mayor, deputy mayor and most of our councillors think it is.
I applaud the resident groups in Hillsdale, Centre Vespra and Midhurst for taking a stand to protect the character of their communities and that of Springwater as a whole. I would like to see some of our key farmers speak out against the loss of some of the most valuable farmland in Springwater as these developments proceed. I can only ask that our elected officials take the time to better understand the irreversible harm that will be done if development is not controlled by the council and planning committee.
This council did not create this crisis, but they must now take charge and start the rebuilding process and put Springwater on a new land development heading. Springwater needs and can sustain about a 2% growth rate or about 200 plus new homes a year. That should be part of new master plan. That controlled growth may help reduce the cost of development land as large speculators may not be as enticed to tie up 1000 acres of land if they know the township is only allowing 200 to 300 homes a year to be built. It would help resurrect the small builder that has been annihilated in the last 20 years as land would be sold in smaller parcels and more attainable by the local builders. These builders typically employ local tradesmen, supplies and services which would add to the Springwater economy. This type of orderly development could help lower our mill rate and truly make Springwater a sustainable community.
I ask you to challenge your Mayor, Deputy Mayor and councilors if you want to retain the rural character of Springwater. Without input from you, this council will follow the easy path that the three councils before them followed. As we are now seeing that path is not sustainable and could be very costly.
The first step in a positive direction would be for this council to make a decision to stand aside and allow the County and Province to resolve the OMB appeal on the Midhurst Secondary Plan. Some would say why won’t the township spend the money and oppose the plan instead. In simple terms Springwater would expose itself to millions in lawsuits as the councils before them lawfully (rightly or wrongly) approved these settlement area plans in Hillsdale, Centre Vespra and Midhurst. However there is no need for the township to spend up to $200,000 in our money to fight for something most people oppose. The OMB fight is between the County and the Province and that is where it should be resolved.
In the case of Springwater Smaller is Better.
Hillsdale received approval of a development of about 500 homes two years ago after local residents dropped their OMB appeal because of fears of a lawsuit from the developer.
Centre Vespra are nearing the end of the planning and approval period which will see another 500 homes added to their small quaint rural area. There is a large residential group assembled trying to restrict the size of the development.
As far as Midhurst everyone knows that if the secondary plan is approved after the OMB hearing sometime this year, up to 10,000 homes or around 30,000 residents could be added over the next ten or more years. A very large resident group is coming together to fight this plan.
These new subdivision plans represent the largest developments that Springwater has ever seen. In all cases, a majority of residents in these areas reject the plans. That is a new phenomenom. However not one person I spoken to objects to development in principle. They simply believe, as a rural area, Springwater needs carefully designed and complementary developments that will not destroy the reason people moved here. The three developments certainly do not meet that criteria.
Why is this happening?
In many small municipalities such as Springwater, local councils have been hoodwinked by large developers and their planning consultants and lawyers. Instead of local councils planning their community’s future, they are allowing the developers to dictate how and when areas will be developed. There is no question that many of these developers are quite good at designing communities with attractive housing, green spaces and general land use. Unfortunately most of the community designs are great for urban centres like Barrie, but not conducive to rural living. The missing link is that the local council is the party responsible to say when and how many houses will be built in an area, not the developers. Councils like Springwater should be enhancing their official plans and dictating to developers what the municipality wants and how they would like it phased in over specific periods of time. This is totally within their jurisdiction and would allow both the community and developers to reach amicable resolutions. This next comment may surprise you. Even though I have been accused of being anti developer, I don’t find the actual problem with the developers. Some have been heavy handed, but so be it. Generally they are simply maximizing the use of landholdings they have secured as any good capitalist would do. Their shareholders expect nothing less. The real problem in my view is the lack of knowledge and lack of visionary leadership in the local councils. I encourage you to ask any of our Springwater elected officials if they have read the provincial documents that guide development growth including the Provincial Policy Statement, Places to Grow and the more recent Proposed Amendment 1 of the Growth Plan for the Simcoe County area. Ask them if they understand how they apply to Springwater. Also ask them if they have actually read the township’s own Official Plan or the By-laws that control development. Nothing requires them to do so. For the most part, by what I hear and see at the council and planning meetings, they haven’t studied them and simply depend on staff to direct them and recommend resolutions to pass at council and planning meetings. To read all the documents I mentioned would take them no more than a day if they dedicated the time. That is why we elected them.
Springwater Council needs to understand that they are not just a board of directors for the township but in fact are the executive management committee and must get their hands dirty. The mayor is the CEO according to the Municipal Act and has the same authority to provide direction as any corporate leader would provide. Of course the council will take advice from bureaucrats, but the elected officials are supposed to be at the helm, not the bureaucrats. The Springwater Council needs to take charge of where it is going with development in general. It should outline a master development plan and inform those land owners and developers in designated settlement areas of how they want them to proceed. In this way they would have much more control of the developments and the associated capital costs for infrastructure. By allowing smaller and controlled development in chunks the township would be able to adjust development charges to meet the increasing costs of the services and avoid deficits or unfairly passing on some of the costs to the general taxpayer. Even though councils always say that all the infrastructure and associated costs of new development is born by the developers through (DC’s) development charges, that is simply not true as all costs can never be anticipated. As an example, when I was reviewing the Midhurst Secondary Plan costs to date I was dismayed that even before we get into the actual development stage we are already in a $104,000 deficit position for the secondary plan itself. Ultimately if the OMB rejects the Midhurst Secondary plan that $104,000 deficit will be made up by the taxpayer either directly or indirectly. The cost for the plan to date is about $175,000 and we have only collected $71,000. That is just for the plan and not any associated services such as roads, sewers or water works. This is an example of the tip of the ice berg and how quickly things can get out of control with poorly controlled development. Talk to your friends in Barrie. Barrie has had huge developments for decades but the development charges never seem to stop the increase in their tax levies. Unbridled development is not the panacea that our mayor, deputy mayor and most of our councillors think it is.
I applaud the resident groups in Hillsdale, Centre Vespra and Midhurst for taking a stand to protect the character of their communities and that of Springwater as a whole. I would like to see some of our key farmers speak out against the loss of some of the most valuable farmland in Springwater as these developments proceed. I can only ask that our elected officials take the time to better understand the irreversible harm that will be done if development is not controlled by the council and planning committee.
This council did not create this crisis, but they must now take charge and start the rebuilding process and put Springwater on a new land development heading. Springwater needs and can sustain about a 2% growth rate or about 200 plus new homes a year. That should be part of new master plan. That controlled growth may help reduce the cost of development land as large speculators may not be as enticed to tie up 1000 acres of land if they know the township is only allowing 200 to 300 homes a year to be built. It would help resurrect the small builder that has been annihilated in the last 20 years as land would be sold in smaller parcels and more attainable by the local builders. These builders typically employ local tradesmen, supplies and services which would add to the Springwater economy. This type of orderly development could help lower our mill rate and truly make Springwater a sustainable community.
I ask you to challenge your Mayor, Deputy Mayor and councilors if you want to retain the rural character of Springwater. Without input from you, this council will follow the easy path that the three councils before them followed. As we are now seeing that path is not sustainable and could be very costly.
The first step in a positive direction would be for this council to make a decision to stand aside and allow the County and Province to resolve the OMB appeal on the Midhurst Secondary Plan. Some would say why won’t the township spend the money and oppose the plan instead. In simple terms Springwater would expose itself to millions in lawsuits as the councils before them lawfully (rightly or wrongly) approved these settlement area plans in Hillsdale, Centre Vespra and Midhurst. However there is no need for the township to spend up to $200,000 in our money to fight for something most people oppose. The OMB fight is between the County and the Province and that is where it should be resolved.
In the case of Springwater Smaller is Better.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Where is the Openeness and Transparency from our Mayors and Deputy Mayors
This is a letter sent from AWARE Simcoe to the Warden
To Warden Cal Patterson and members of Simcoe County Council
Dear members of County Council,
Issues of open government were at the core of the foundation of AWARE Simcoe in 2010 and were central to the 2010 municipal election in which an unprecedented number of new councillors were elected.
Every new councillor – and many incumbents - campaigned on promises to ensure openness and transparency and we believe that the profound change that occurred in October 2010 reflected the electorate’s strong desire for increased accountability and greater public involvement in municipal decision-making.
That is why we were dismayed when County Council decided on November 27 2011 to hire John Maddox of JGM Consulting as its closed meeting investigator, rather than use the Ontario Ombudsman.
Since 2008, when the Sunshine Law came into effect, it has been mandatory to have an independent investigator to review the decision of a council or committee to meet in secret, when requested by a member of the public. If none is appointed, the Ombudsman becomes the default investigator, if needed.
In our view, the choice was between an independent officer of the Legislature, at no direct cost to the local taxpayer, and a consultant at $100 an hour plus retainer. County Council chose the latter, in sharp contrast to at least three councils in Simcoe County that chose the cost-effective and arm’s-length option: Bradford West Gwillimbury, Midland and Tiny have all appointed the Ombudsman to be their closed meeting investigator.
In this they join some 200 other municipalities. Another 136 have picked Local Authority Services Limited, a subsidiary company of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which also bid for Simcoe County’s business. Only 50 municipalities have retained John Maddox.
But cost is not the main reason for our dismay. We believe that in an important test of their commitment to transparency, 24 councillors chose to ante up taxpayer dollars in order to maintain control of the process and minimize the possibility of embarrassment or “fuss” by having to disclose matters they don’t want to discuss in public.
The position in favour of the consultant was articulated starkly four years ago by Midland Councillor Bob Jeffery (at that time Midland voted to retain John Maddox). The Ombudsman was like having the fox in the henhouse, he said. “Our guy is here to do our bidding.”
As citizens, we like to have the fox looking out for our interests, and we don’t care to fork out for the guy who will do council’s bidding. We thank the ten councillors who voted for maximum transparency and information-sharing as had been promised at election time.
We feel County Clerk Brenda Clark was unwittingly reflecting the culture of secrecy that has prevailed for so long in this area when she said that the feeling among clerks in Simcoe County was that the Ombudsman “may have reported more than was really necessary.”
We do not fault the Clerk for this. Staff may advise but it is up to council to show leadership and direct staff on issues relating to the mandate they – particularly the newly elected cohort – have received from the electorate.
We were surprised that no member of council questioned what the Clerk meant by “too much information.” As an officer of the Legislature, we would expect the Ombudsman to release as much information as is allowed by the Municipal Act, no more. And no less. That is all a member of the public who questions a council decision to go in camera can ask for.
A couple of days after the meeting we learnt by happenstance that the Simcoe County Clerks and Treasurers Association had written a letter to the Warden and county councillors. Dated November 18, it strongly argued against having the Ombudsman as the closed meeting investigator.
This letter, signed by SCCTA president Carey deGorter, deputy clerk with the City of Barrie, was not part of the materials in the Nov. 27 council agenda, neither was it tabled as an on-desk item, neither was it mentioned in debate.
The assertions made in the letter are startling.
We are surprised that County Council did not afford the Ombudsman an opportunity to respond before making its decision on such a serious matter– the public’s right to know.
AWARE Simcoe contacted the Ombudsman and received further information on some of the points being made by Ms deGorter.
For instance, the claim that the Ombudsman’s definition and scope of a “meeting” that could attract an investigation is broader that is commonly accepted is made in the context of South Bruce Peninsula in which councillors gathered at Tim Hortons. It should be noted that the courts, not the Ombudsman, have established that gatherings of a quorum of council that advance the business of council constitute meetings under the Municipal Act of which notice should be given.
Ms deGorter does not mention that in the South Bruce Peninsula case, the Ombudsman found no contravention of the Municipal Act or illegal gatherings. However, he did caution councillors to be "careful" about such gatherings in the interest of openness and transparency, because the gatherings at Tim Horton's had sparked considerable negative speculation and innuendo within the community.
Another example cited by Ms deGorter concerns a meeting of the City of Oshawa’s development services committee that was closed for "education and training,” which is allowed under the Municipal Act. But the meeting was attended by officials of a recycling company that was the subject of complaints about odour and there was discussion of zoning changes. This was ruled illegal.
Ms deGorter complains of “provocative” language used by the Ombudsman in relation to procedure involving a draft report on which the City of Oshawa and the investigator disagreed. This is a matter of perspective. From our perspective, when the process involves establishing the public’s right to know is at stake, it may on occasion be necessary to call a spade a spade.
But the clerks and treasurers have a different perspective by virtue of their position. When a council goes in camera, it is generally on the advice of the clerk or CAO. When a member of the public asks for a review of that decision, we feel it is preferable for the investigator to be at arm’s length from those being investigated. But the argument being made by the clerks and treasurers’ association is that it is preferable for council to retain control over the process, “to prepare the terms of engagement” as Ms deGorter puts it.
We seriously question whether it is appropriate for the Simcoe County clerks and treasurers association to be lobbying on the issue of who will provide oversight with regard to decisions in which they play such a pivotal role.
We also question what occurred at the Nov. 27 meeting. In effect, the advice of the clerks and treasurers that the Ombudsman not be the closed meetings investigator was given behind closed doors and we would not have found out about it had we not been vigilant in our role as citizen watchdogs.
This all adds up to a questionable process in which information was withheld from the public until after a decision was made on an issue of major public interest for taxpayers and residents.
That’s why we hope that you will see the advantages of revisiting this decision.
We urge you to re-examine the claims made in the Simcoe County Clerks and Treasurers letter, to educate yourselves as to the services provided by the Ombudsman, and to vote with the interests of the public in mind, not the convenience of councillors and staff.
To Warden Cal Patterson and members of Simcoe County Council
Dear members of County Council,
Issues of open government were at the core of the foundation of AWARE Simcoe in 2010 and were central to the 2010 municipal election in which an unprecedented number of new councillors were elected.
Every new councillor – and many incumbents - campaigned on promises to ensure openness and transparency and we believe that the profound change that occurred in October 2010 reflected the electorate’s strong desire for increased accountability and greater public involvement in municipal decision-making.
That is why we were dismayed when County Council decided on November 27 2011 to hire John Maddox of JGM Consulting as its closed meeting investigator, rather than use the Ontario Ombudsman.
Since 2008, when the Sunshine Law came into effect, it has been mandatory to have an independent investigator to review the decision of a council or committee to meet in secret, when requested by a member of the public. If none is appointed, the Ombudsman becomes the default investigator, if needed.
In our view, the choice was between an independent officer of the Legislature, at no direct cost to the local taxpayer, and a consultant at $100 an hour plus retainer. County Council chose the latter, in sharp contrast to at least three councils in Simcoe County that chose the cost-effective and arm’s-length option: Bradford West Gwillimbury, Midland and Tiny have all appointed the Ombudsman to be their closed meeting investigator.
In this they join some 200 other municipalities. Another 136 have picked Local Authority Services Limited, a subsidiary company of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which also bid for Simcoe County’s business. Only 50 municipalities have retained John Maddox.
But cost is not the main reason for our dismay. We believe that in an important test of their commitment to transparency, 24 councillors chose to ante up taxpayer dollars in order to maintain control of the process and minimize the possibility of embarrassment or “fuss” by having to disclose matters they don’t want to discuss in public.
The position in favour of the consultant was articulated starkly four years ago by Midland Councillor Bob Jeffery (at that time Midland voted to retain John Maddox). The Ombudsman was like having the fox in the henhouse, he said. “Our guy is here to do our bidding.”
As citizens, we like to have the fox looking out for our interests, and we don’t care to fork out for the guy who will do council’s bidding. We thank the ten councillors who voted for maximum transparency and information-sharing as had been promised at election time.
We feel County Clerk Brenda Clark was unwittingly reflecting the culture of secrecy that has prevailed for so long in this area when she said that the feeling among clerks in Simcoe County was that the Ombudsman “may have reported more than was really necessary.”
We do not fault the Clerk for this. Staff may advise but it is up to council to show leadership and direct staff on issues relating to the mandate they – particularly the newly elected cohort – have received from the electorate.
We were surprised that no member of council questioned what the Clerk meant by “too much information.” As an officer of the Legislature, we would expect the Ombudsman to release as much information as is allowed by the Municipal Act, no more. And no less. That is all a member of the public who questions a council decision to go in camera can ask for.
A couple of days after the meeting we learnt by happenstance that the Simcoe County Clerks and Treasurers Association had written a letter to the Warden and county councillors. Dated November 18, it strongly argued against having the Ombudsman as the closed meeting investigator.
This letter, signed by SCCTA president Carey deGorter, deputy clerk with the City of Barrie, was not part of the materials in the Nov. 27 council agenda, neither was it tabled as an on-desk item, neither was it mentioned in debate.
The assertions made in the letter are startling.
We are surprised that County Council did not afford the Ombudsman an opportunity to respond before making its decision on such a serious matter– the public’s right to know.
AWARE Simcoe contacted the Ombudsman and received further information on some of the points being made by Ms deGorter.
For instance, the claim that the Ombudsman’s definition and scope of a “meeting” that could attract an investigation is broader that is commonly accepted is made in the context of South Bruce Peninsula in which councillors gathered at Tim Hortons. It should be noted that the courts, not the Ombudsman, have established that gatherings of a quorum of council that advance the business of council constitute meetings under the Municipal Act of which notice should be given.
Ms deGorter does not mention that in the South Bruce Peninsula case, the Ombudsman found no contravention of the Municipal Act or illegal gatherings. However, he did caution councillors to be "careful" about such gatherings in the interest of openness and transparency, because the gatherings at Tim Horton's had sparked considerable negative speculation and innuendo within the community.
Another example cited by Ms deGorter concerns a meeting of the City of Oshawa’s development services committee that was closed for "education and training,” which is allowed under the Municipal Act. But the meeting was attended by officials of a recycling company that was the subject of complaints about odour and there was discussion of zoning changes. This was ruled illegal.
Ms deGorter complains of “provocative” language used by the Ombudsman in relation to procedure involving a draft report on which the City of Oshawa and the investigator disagreed. This is a matter of perspective. From our perspective, when the process involves establishing the public’s right to know is at stake, it may on occasion be necessary to call a spade a spade.
But the clerks and treasurers have a different perspective by virtue of their position. When a council goes in camera, it is generally on the advice of the clerk or CAO. When a member of the public asks for a review of that decision, we feel it is preferable for the investigator to be at arm’s length from those being investigated. But the argument being made by the clerks and treasurers’ association is that it is preferable for council to retain control over the process, “to prepare the terms of engagement” as Ms deGorter puts it.
We seriously question whether it is appropriate for the Simcoe County clerks and treasurers association to be lobbying on the issue of who will provide oversight with regard to decisions in which they play such a pivotal role.
We also question what occurred at the Nov. 27 meeting. In effect, the advice of the clerks and treasurers that the Ombudsman not be the closed meetings investigator was given behind closed doors and we would not have found out about it had we not been vigilant in our role as citizen watchdogs.
This all adds up to a questionable process in which information was withheld from the public until after a decision was made on an issue of major public interest for taxpayers and residents.
That’s why we hope that you will see the advantages of revisiting this decision.
We urge you to re-examine the claims made in the Simcoe County Clerks and Treasurers letter, to educate yourselves as to the services provided by the Ombudsman, and to vote with the interests of the public in mind, not the convenience of councillors and staff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
