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!
Friday, November 16, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
