Regarding the Agenda of April 1, 2014 (4-10)

Agenda Item 7.1 Community Foundation Grey Bruce-South Bruce Peninsula Community Fund

I wish Mrs. Brindell well with her fundraising. Her program is noble. But there is just no way that council can justify forcing residents to give to charitable organizations. Giving to charities is a private decision, and residents must be allowed to make that choice themselves. If council members so crave the good feeling they get from giving, they should give their own money.

Agenda Item 8.6 FS08-2014 Debt Management Policy

This item I have discussed as a separate commentary 4-9.

Agenda Item 8.7 PW4-2014 Roads Needs Study

The road needs study provides some useful information. But the road needs study is a very crude tool and should be used with caution in deciding where taxpayer funds should be spent.

One problem is that the tool does not adequately consider drainage issues. Like at Hope Bay Road.

Agenda Item 8.8 PW5-2014 Master Servicing Plan

The Pubic Works Manager wants to spend $100,000 on a servicing study for Wiarton. He claims that the study is being done for the benefit of the residents of Wiarton. The study in fact is of absolutely no benefit to the people of Wiarton, or to the people of TSBP. The study will cost the people of TSBP. The study benefits only developers.

The proper way to determine available capacity of the Wiarton Sewage treatment system is to take the total capacity of the system and subtract current flows to the plant, subtract anticipated flows from lots on the system but currently not built upon, and subtract future load from septic system pumpouts in all of TSBP. When the available capacity is calculated this way, it comes out zero or negative. There is no available capacity.

So for new development there will have to be capacity added. This is the responsibility of the developer, not the taxpayers of TSBP.

Water supply is a little different. There may actually be some excess capacity. But the developer should pay for determining that too.

New servicing and the $100,000 study should be the responsibility of the developers.

The MPW request should be denied.

Agenda Item 8.9 PW6-2014 Oliphant Water Treatment Plant Upgrades-Update for April 2014

The original Oliphant water project cost $100,000 per connected user in Oliphant. It should never have proceeded. And it didn’t work anyway. Now they want to spend another $20,000 per connected user to try to get it working. That’s throwing good money after bad. And it’s not even the users’ money that’s being thrown away. Some of the money is coming from all Ontario taxpayers and another part is coming from all TSBP property taxpayers.

The repair should be put on hold so that alternatives can be properly considered.

Agenda Item 8.12 CLK20-2014 Resolution of Concurrence for Bell Mobility Inc., Communication Tower at 849 Sauble Falls Parkway, File W4569

The consultation was inadequate, even if it met guidelines. Comments should be invited by the town, through the town.

Agenda Item 8.14 CLK22-2014 Procedural By-Law

There are serious problems with the procedural by-law. I have addressed some of the in a separate commentary (4-7).

Agenda Item 8.16 CLK24-2014 Oliphant Lake Bed Update

The Oliphant Lake bed issue is a jurisdiction issue. The issue is whether the town has the jurisdiction to make and enforce by-laws at Oliphant. The issue is not about who owns the lakebed or shoreline.

In a diversion, the clerk has written a report not on the jurisdiction issue, but rather on the ownership issue.

The issue is not who owns the land. The issue is whether the beaches at Oliphant are within the jurisdictional boundaries of the town of south bruce peninsula. And they clearly are. So the town can make by-laws which cover the Oliphant beaches. Yes the land claims need to be considered. But the by-laws and measures being asked for do not have and will not have any negative impact on the land, and will only have positive impacts, and therefore will not prejudice the land claim or claims in any way.

The Clerk’s report should be thrown in the garbage. And the project should be given to someone who has at least a bit of understanding of the concept of policymaking. There are many who do understand that concept and who do not require a salary of over $100,000 a year to do it.

Whose agenda is at play here anyway?

Council needs to quit stalling and make some proper by-laws for the Oliphant situation.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s