Collins, McLean, Clement, Webster and McConkey Agree: Growth Trumps the Wishes of Residents

On September 17^th at a special Council Meeting, slated as an update and answers to questions of Midhurst residents, turned into a resolution to stop any consideration of this Council reversing the disastrous plans for mega development in Midhurst.

Instead of the Mayor actually responding, it was left to hired legal representation to respond to the questions that were posed to council. Some blatant misinformation was provided. I will not elaborate in this article but in a series of articles I will be publishing over the next number of months, I will dissect the answers provided and outline many misleading and erroneous statements. For example the lawyer said the Province was mandating the growth and the numbers. That is not true. The province have provided forecasts to 2031 and now 2041 for what might be needed. In fact the forecasts were intended to prevent not encourage paving over farmland. The province a number of years ago realized the growth in Simcoe County was poorly planned and they found it necessary to create a special section to control it in the Places to Grow directive. Besides, schedule 7 of the Places to Grow puts a forecast for Springwater to 2031 at 24,000. Considering we are around 18,500 it suggests we will see another 5,500 new residents in Springwater by 2031. If you check the monthly planning report agenda you will see a report that suggests today that we have enough lots and development at various approval stages exceeding that 5,500 number without Midhurst’s 12,000 to 28,000 added numbers. Unfortunately a “Special Rule” unknowingly, promoted by our heads of council and the landowners, have set aside good planning principles for the sake of unnecessary and unneeded growth.

The resolution itself to me is, on one hand ill-conceived but on the other hand allows all residents to know exactly where our elected officials stand. I congratulate councilors Hanna and Ritchie for not caving in to the intimidation of possible lawsuits both against the Council as a whole and individual councilors. I really don’t like that kind of scare tactic which I think swayed the Clement and McConkey vote in the end.

The reality at this point is that the only signed agreement in place to proceed with the Midhurst Secondary Plan and mega developments is an agreement with the landowners to pay for the Environmental Assessments at an estimated cost of $300,000. There are no written agreements for the cost of infrastructure (estimated at $100,000,000 for the first phase), only letters of position. Deputy Mayor McLean has referred to these letters as “Letters of Intent”. McLean with his many years of experience well knows letters of intent, which are always subject to reaching an agreement are only binding if signed by both parties. The letters I have seen are not letters of intent and have been provided by the landowners representative for guidance purposes. If there are any such letters of intent for the cost of infrastructure then produce them.

The Midhurst Plan can be stopped but it needs a political will and that does not exist in this council. Regardless of where you live in Springwater this Midhurst development will have long reaching negative impacts on your taxes and your way of life. Get involved as we have an out of control freight train that is heading for a very dangerous curve and no one is at the controls. If we all get on board we can slow down the process and allow the voters at the next election to make the final decision by replacing those that do not have the best interests of all Springwater Residents in mind.

Why Won’t this Council Reconsider the Midhurst Secondary Plan? Special Meeting!

 

*Don’t miss Sept 16 Council or the Sept 17 Special Midhurst Meetings.* 

I really appreciated the letter from Margaret Prophet from Midhurst in the last edition of SN. Her concern for costs and long term impacts are legitimate and well founded. The one disagreement I have is her assumption that the developers could sue the township if the township stopped the development plans is not totally correct.

It is obvious that the Midhurst Secondary Plan (MSP) would have been cancelled if not for the Amendment 1 and 2 of the Places to Grow Provincial Policy. Both the province and the county objected to the growth numbers of the MSP as they did not meet the population criteria of either the IGAP or original Places to Grow guidelines. If not for the Special Transition Rule for Midhurst, even the first phase of the development could not proceed. It does illustrate how much influence the large development community has on planning in our local municipalities.

It is clear in the Municipal Act and the Planning Act that the council is immune to lawsuits for things that have not been approved. Remember, the worst case scenario saw the approval of a future settlement area in Midhurst even though the people in the know say it was never a settlement area but a planning area. However the Plan which was hastily rammed though by the last Council, which included the current Mayor and Ward 1 Councillor, did not include phasing or controls of buildout such as where and when and what numbers would be permitted. These are all policies that the Township has full control over. The Township can get itself in hot water if it approves site plans and rezones land and then changes its mind. Since none of that has not occurred or been approved, the Township, if there was any political will, can reverse this catastrophic ill-conceived Midhurst Secondary Plan if it chooses to do so. I encourage Midhurst and all residents of Springwater to get into the discussion. The negative impact as noted by Ms. Prophet will increase everyone’s taxes and definitely increase water and sewer rates for those on municipal services in all areas of Springwater.

On September Tuesday 17^th at 5:30 there is a public information session to answer a number of unanswered questions about the Midhurst Mega development plans. You should make a point of being at the meeting regardless of where you live in Springwater.

We are one year away from choosing new leadership in Springater and it is definitely needed. Give yourself an opportunity to judge for yourself what some of these elected officials are doing with your hard earned tax dollars. See if you agree that some of them are destroying the very fabric of our rich rural based municipality through their lack of vision or concern when making decisions. The long term negative impacts of the decisions they are making today will not be easily revered even if we toss them out of office.

Now is the time for all of us to act and put pressure on our elected to make the right decisions to the benefit of all stakeholders. Tell them to not cave into the pressures of outsiders who have no long term consequence of the poor decisions of the 2010-2014 council.

As an added note I also encourage you to attend the next Council Meeting on Monday September 16^th at 5:30 where the infamous Webster/McLean motion will be tabled to have the Township chase people like me and pay lawyers to do so when we write things that they don’t agree with. It is of course under the guise of Slander and Libel a partial duplication of already clearly defined laws and remedies by provincial and federal statutes. The key is that they want to sic lawyers on people without being vetted by council as would be the current procedure. I am still hoping one other person will join Hanna, McConkey and Ritchie to defeat this unnecessary power. I hope saner heads will prevail and the motion is rejected as was the last ill-conceived motion to pay a communication company thousands of dollars to help this council effectively make itself look good. That approach failed miserably for the County with their expensive communication company that was trying to sell Site 41 as a good idea and a number of local Mayors and Deputy Mayors were punished for it..

These two upcoming meetings will also allow you to consider if you think Webster and McLean, the drivers of recent events, are acting like senior leaders in our local government. My opinion is that I expect to see them on the ballot the next time and one or both I suspect will shoot for the highest office.

 

 

Councillor Webster’s Response to Questions

Councillor Webster’s Response to Questions from Bill French posed at July Springwater Township Council Meeting

In fairness here are Springwater Councillor Rick Webster’s answers to the questions I asked at the July Council Meeting as presented at the August 26^th combined Planning/Council Meeting. (As a point of interest I had asked Webster prior to the Monday meeting to send me a copy of his response but I did not receive it from him. A good citizen in Midhurst requested a copy from the Township the morning after the meeting and sent it to me.)

Everything except my comments in italics were written and read by Webster at the Meeting. I had to leave early and did not hear the comments.

For clarification, Deputy Mayor MacLean indicated his intention to me to second my notice of motion and evidently he continues to intend to second it.

Mr. French’s question, as he laid it out, has four parts which I will address individually however additionally he pontificates regarding the need for this motion since, as he stated, the matter of libel, slander and defamation is covered under Provincial and federal Statute. Additionally he refers to “hurt feelings” as the motive of my motion.

Let me be perfectly clear here: insinuations of dishonesty are not about hurt feelings but rather about a breach of decorum that transcends hurt feelings and reaches the lofty height of maligning the reputation of honest hardworking people. Call me stupid, tell me you do not agree with me, tell me you wish you had not voted for me….say what you like in that regard, but do NOT call me dishonest unless you have the proof to back it up and are prepared to do so. (BF Comment-I have never accused Webster of being dishonest.)

 Part 1- Is this not an attempt to introduce pro SLAPP suit control in our bylaws while the province has recently passed legislation to minimize the use of these strategic lawsuits against public participation as such actions on the part of large companies and institutions has been recognized as bullying and intimidation?

I will quote from the Anti SLAPP Advisory Panel Report to the Attorney General, dated October 28, 2010.

Item #4: Participation by members of the community in matters of public interest is fundamental for democratic society. The very fabric of democracy is woven daily from the acts of citizens who engage in public discussion and contribute in countless ways to creating a civil society alive to the interests and rights of its members.

The key word here is CIVIL.  A Civil Society does not make claims that are libel and slanderous. (BF Comment-I do not make claims that are libelous or slanderous but offer opinions on matters relative to good governance)

Further,

Item #91: In Ontario, municipal governments do not have the right to sue in defamation. However, there are several recent cases in which municipal councillors have sued someone for criticisms aimed at the municipality or municipal interests generally. Sometimes municipalities pay the expenses of these suits.       The question arises whether this is a way of avoiding the general prohibition against municipal libel actions.      These cases almost by definition involve matters of public interest, and the resources of an individual or ratepayers group against a municipal government funding an individual politician’s lawsuit  are likely to be unequal. (BF Comment-Webster seems to miss the point that the government is acknowledging that the individual or small group is at a disadvantage)

Item #92: The Panel is not prepared to recommend a blanket probation on such suits as part of the law of defamation, however.   It is prepared to leave such suits to its general remedy for public participation.

Therefore and having admittedly not read the  recently passed legislation that Mr. French has referred to in his question, I will assume that, if such legislation exists at all, it will have not superseded the recommendation of this report. (BF Comment-I think there is some innuendo in here but my feelings aren’t damaged and I will require no therapy)

Part 2 - Is this motion not contrary to the transparency that this council professes?

I believe that my motion when read and understood in its entirety answers this question however for the record I will add, ABSOLUTLEY NOT and this Council’s record stands replete. (BF Comment-He did not explain how it adds to transparency. However he is entitled to his opinion)

Part 3 - Why should we as taxpayers be paying to gag the comments of the taxpayers that you think are uncomplimentary?

The use of the term “Gag” has strong implications. I will assume that Mr. French carefully selected this term as he prepared his question and submitted it in writing. Let me be clear again, “uncomplimentary” is not insinuating dishonesty. It is not the wording or intention of this motion for the taxpayers to pay for legal counsel for anything that is said or written that is merely uncomplimentary. (BF Comment-When you try to control discussion through threat of being sued, it is gagging as we have witnessed with major developers in recent years against resident groups and individuals using SLAPP suits)

Part 4 - Will Councillor Webster withdraw his motion which is a draconian proposal that would find a better place in Iraq or Libya or some third world despot ruled nation?

I think by now, Mr. French will have gotten the notion that I will NOT be withdrawing the motion. It is regretful that Mr. French’s opinion is that the laws passed in this chamber by elected officials have the potential of being “draconian” and that he would compare the result of said passing as making our system similar to countries such as Iraq or Libya.  In fact, as I understand it, in these countries merely posing these statements in public would result in, at a minimum, a long prison term. However, this is Mr. French’s opinion and he is certainly entitled to it. (BF Comment-I stand by my “draconian” description and I only refer to this motion by Webster and make no general reference to other positive laws that have been passed by this council)

I still hope that Webster comes to his senses before the September meeting where this motion will be debated and most likely supported by Webster, Collins, McLean and Clement based on their past history. I expect Hanna, McConkey and Ritchie to oppose it.

Transparency is no longer welcomed at Springwater Township Meetings

I believe the conduct at the Springwater Township is moving to a new time low. We hear the criticism all the time on tightly controlled members of the Harper government. People don’t necessarily agree with me, but I have no problem as it is a party system. On the other hand local councils are to be made up of independently thinking representatives. Not so at Springwater.

This council is on a move to gag opposition both within and outside the council. There are two councilors who are very concerned about the negative impact of the mega developments proposed for Midhurst. Kate Harries filed a complaint with the Closed Session Investigator and it was found that the meeting where the two councilors were berated for publishing articles on a regular basis in the newspaper was not properly conducted. Councillors have every right to address and inform the public as long as they make it clear that unless repeating a council decision they state that they speak on their own behalf and not as council. Politicians do that every day. After that attack one councilor was quite shaken and stopped including comments in the local community section of the newspaper. The other councilor has proceeded as usual.

 

At the July 15^th Council meetings there were two disturbing matters.

The first was a change in the Procedural Bylaw. Effectively they want to lengthen the period for people to give notice of a deputation, they want to reduce the notice periods for most meetings by 50% and they want to restrict the question period to only matters on the agenda. By the way they have already reduced the number of council meetings by 50%.

Also on the agenda was an extremely draconian proposal. It is effectively a pro-SLAPP suit bylaw. The last phrase is the most frightening, “Notwithstanding our unbridled support of stakeholders, where a stakeholder publishes slanderous unsubstantiated innuendo suggesting wrongdoing by elected and Township Officials, that were unsupported allegations and innuendo or wrong doing is distributed or published, that the Township engage legal services to seek relief from such irresponsible behavior, such as but not limited to authorities and the Courts”. It then goes on further to propose that the township spend money to pay legal services to provide comment on how they can apply the Libel and Slander Act. Sounds intimidating to me! The Notice of Motion was tabled by Councillor Webster and seconded by Deputy Mayor Dan McLean and was received. It will be on the next agenda for discussion and ruling and I suspect will pass unless saner heads prevail.

Here are the questions I posed of Mayor Collins and Councillor Webster at the meeting:

Question to Mayor Collins as Head of Council related to Item Agenda item 7.7: Since council has reduced the access at council meetings by 50% by having only once a month meetings.

Part 1- Is the procedural bylaw not just a guise to further reduce public comment by restricting comments in question period and reducing notice periods for delegations by 3 days and meeting notices from 48 to 24 hours which makes it more difficult to participate in the public forum?

Part 2 - Will council consider deferring this new procedural bylaw to allow councilors to properly consider what the clerk suggests are “refined” when in fact are significant changes and consider a public meeting as this is a paradigm shift on transparency?

Part 3 - Since the council is to further the business of the municipality possibly the mayor can explain how these restrictions assist in the promise of transparency that you all profess to support?

Collins responded to Part 2 and said there have been discussions and that changes will be made. No other responses however.

 

Question to Councillor Webster related to Agenda Item 11: Before my question a clarification please. Who seconded this motion to get it on the agenda in accordance with section 8.12.1 of the current bylaw? (Note: According to the Procedural Bylaw this was an incorrectly accepted motion as it was not signed by the seconder)

Since libel, slander and defamation are covered by provincial and federal statutes why would the township attempt to duplicate laws by passing an unnecessary bylaw that will cost the township taxpayers money to respond to the possible hurt feelings of a councilor who may be unkindly dealt with in the media which is private matter not a council issue?

Part 1- Is this not an attempt to introduce pro SLAPP suit control in our bylaws while the province has recently passed legislation to minimize the use of these strategic lawsuits against public participation as such actions on the part of large companies and institutions has been recognized as bullying and intimidation?

Part 2 - Is this motion not contrary to the transparency that this council professes?

Part 3 - Why should we as taxpayers be paying to gag the comments of the taxpayers that you think are uncomplimentary?

Part 4 - Will Councillor Webster withdraw his motion which is a draconian proposal that would find a better place in Iraq or Libya or some third world despot ruled nation? 

Webster did not respond. The fact that the Notice of Motion was tabled and received suggests he is not withdrawing it but he could very well do so at the next council meeting which I hope he does.

I wish that was the end of the craziness, but no! Unexpectedly Deputy Mayor McLean on a Point of Order read a long speech on the creation of two resident groups in the Midhurst area. Apparently at the last Planning Meeting there were some unexpected changes to members and Councillor Hanna and McConkey spoke strongly against it. At some point McConkey questioned the ethics of the motion but did not direct the comment at anyone specifically according to a number of people I have spoken to as I could not attend that meeting. McLean’s Point of Order demanded that McConkey retract the statement. After some 40 minute recess and a closed meeting with McConkey, Mayor Collins and the Clerk, McConkey refused to retract any statement as she felt she had not directly accused McLean of being unethical which is the premise of his Point of Order. The Mayor (acting as Judge and Juror which she is entitled to do) then ejected McConkey and told her she could not return to council until she retracted the statement. The Mayor, I think by accident, said McConkey must apologize but that is not what McLean requests in his written statement. Talk about bullying and intimidation! I checked and no one knew that McLean was going to table this non-agenda Point of Order. I have requested information on whether McLean’s Point of Order wording was coached by either township staff or paid legal services and at this point have received no response.

People and constituents must start attending local council and planning meetings or councils will veer off in tangents that are not beneficial to anyone. I believe for the most part our councilors and elected officials are good honest people. But sometimes there develops a “group think” mentality that is dangerous to all stakeholders including those elected officials that institute matters of this nature.

You need to start paying attention as in the case of Springwater this council is travelling in a much more disturbing direction than the last. That my friends is frightening.

I understand that Councilor McConkey may attend the July 22 Planning Meeting at 5:30 at the Township Administration Centre on Nursery Road and ask to be reinstated with an apology. I encourage anyone reading this to come out and show that the public will no longer tolerate heavy handed actions by senior elected officials.

Is this where Springwater is headed?

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.

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.

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!