Craig Gammie's Commentary

Re: March 19, 2013 Council Agenda

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=53498

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=53496

Following are comments on a few agenda items.

Agenda item 7.1 Stu Paterson and Allan Hunter, Bruce Peninsula Sportsmen’s Association-Lake Levels and the Wiarton Boat Launch

The Bruce Peninsula Sportsmen’s Association is looking for taxpayers’ money to dredge the Wiarton, Sauble, and Oliphant boat launches. They should be going to the Federal Government. Or if some private entity wants to dredge the launches and charge for launching, that might work. But council should say no to the request for municipal taxpayers’ money.

Is there anyone who doesn’t want a key to the treasury?

Is there anyone who doesn’t have a false sense of entitlement?

Agenda item 8.12 CLK21-2013 Unfinished Business-Wiarton BIA

For years the Wiarton Business Improvement Area (BIA) board of management has been collecting levies far in excess of their statute derived authority, and spending the excess outside of their authority.

This came to council’s attention on April 3rd, 2012.

Some of the discussion is reflected in the April 3, 2012 council minutes as:

“The Manager of Financial Services received a paragraph from them [the BIA board] for works they have performed and it is felt that the works are outside the purview.”

“Council discussed the fact that the BIA is not following Town procedures and their own terms of reference.”

“Council discussed a separation of the two groups [BIA and Chamber of Commerce] into distinct organizations.”

With resolution R-292-2012, council decided to investigate the BIA, and to take action as warranted by the investigation.

R-292-2012 It was MOVED by M. Bowman, SECONDED by K. Klages and CARRIED, THAT Council directs the ex-officio Mayor and Council BIA rep to review the terms of reference and the Municipal Act directions with the BIA Board and bring back a report to Council by the end of May.

The BIA “rep” was Chris Thomas.

Not fully captured in the minutes, but fully captured on my digital audio recording, was the fact that the key concern was the unauthorized payment of BIA funds to the Wiarton Chamber of commerce, and the unauthorized collection of a BIA levy to cover these payments. The payments to the Chamber of Commerce made up almost half of the BIA budget. Meaning that BIA levies are at least twice what they should be.

Prior to April 3, 2012 the BIA board met on the 2nd and fourth Tuesday of each month.

In an attempt to avoid any investigation into their actions, as of April 3, 2012 the BIA board cancelled all planned meetings, stopped scheduling meetings, and stopped meeting.

The BIA board has not met since April 3, 2012. Almost a year without a meeting.

The BIA problem is made very clear by a simple reading of the BIA minutes, the BIA annual budget proposal, and the BIA by-law. John Close and Chris Thomas could have easily reviewed those documents and reported on the BIA problem. And they could have called a meeting of the BIA board. After all Chris Thomas is a member of the BIA board and has a right to call a board meeting. Even John Close could have called a meeting.

One might have expected John Close and Chris Thomas to fulfill their resolution 292 obligation by either investigating the BIA problem without the BIA board or by calling the board to a meeting.

So what did Chris Thomas and John Close actually do?

They did nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Chris Thomas and John Close deliberately sabotaged their mission.

Almost a year having passed, the clerk has finally stepped in and wrote a report.

It appears as report CLK21-2013.

The clerk’s report does not address the problem of the BIA board acting outside their authority.

The clerk’s report does not address the problem of the BIA collecting for, and paying, without authority, Chamber memberships.

The clerk’s report does not acknowledge the BIA problems. The clerk’s report does not even mention the problems.

The clerk’s report is a deliberate attempt to sweep (or keep) the BIA problem under the carpet.

The clerk’s report indicated:

“Municipal Affairs indicated that it was legislatively permitted to have a proxy member as there is nothing expressly disallowing it however, voting by proxy can be addressed in operating by-laws if required.”

This is a complete red herring. I believe it is also false.

That there is nothing expressly disallowing something in the Municipal Act does not mean that the “something” is allowed.

I don’t believe anyone from the Ministry would make such a stupid statement as indicated by the clerk.

Council should ask to see what the Ministry official actually said. In writing. And share it with everyone. So the public can judge for themselves.

Council should reject report CLK21-2013, and council should pull the BIA problem back out from under the carpet, and council should address the BIA problem.

And council should ask someone competent to investigate and report.

The key concern is beyond-mandate payments to the Wiarton chamber of commerce.

I have been told, but have not confirmed, that John Close may be a member of the Wiarton Chamber of Commerce, and that Chris Thomas may be employed by a chamber member.

Am I wrong to suspect that there may be a bit of private interest at play?

Craig

On the December 4, 2012 agenda there was an item:

“8.8 JACKSON11-2012 Amabel Sauble School Financial Responsibility”

In the agenda package there was a copy of a power point presentation apparently put together by a parent of a Sauble school student.

The presentation correctly indicated that the town is paying $16,000 per year to the School board which covers 5% of the school’s $320,000 annual operating cost.

The presentation then says:

“Designated Usage of Space at Sauble School – Municipality 21%”

The minutes capture Tracey Neifer correcting that as follows:

“Manager of Financial Services Neifer explained that the 21% is not used by the Town 24/7 but we have access to the 21% of the space after hours.’

The town is not designated 21% at all. The 21% is a false.

The presentation writer also implicitly assumes that the town’s share of school costs is based on per cent of designated use of space.

That too is false. There is an agreement between town and school. I got the agreement from our School board trustee Terry Bell, so I assume it is current. That agreement clearly sets out who pays what. Nowhere in the agreement does it mention dividing up costs based on “designated space”. And nowhere does it say the Town is designated 21%.

The presentation writer then concludes, from the false 21 per cent premise, and from the false “designated space” assumption, that we (the town) should be paying $67,000 (21% of operating costs), and that we are shorting the school by $51,000.

Those conclusions, being based on a false premise and a false assumption, are of course invalid.

In the minutes of the December 4 meeting it is indicated:

“Manager of Financial Services Neifer indicated that the $51,000 came as a presentation from a parent.”

In other words, it was not from an analysis of the agreement.

The agreement was not included in the agenda package.

During council’s long discussion of this item, the tone went quickly from the $51,000 that a parent concluded that the town should pay to the $51,000 that the town agreed to pay.

The minutes captured this as:

“She [Councillor Jackson] feels that the Town should be paying for the 21% that we have agreed to pay.” (Emphasis added)

Again, from the information I have, there never was any such 21% agreement.

It appears that at least one councillor had concerns. The minutes captured that concern as:

“A member of Council discussed having more information before giving out taxpayers money.”

It took three tries, but finally a motion was passed to give the school an extra $51,000, conditional on the board keeping the school open. Here is the motion record from the minutes.

R-812-2012
It was MOVED by J. Jackson, SECONDED by M. Standen
THAT Council gives pre-budget approval to an upset limit of $51,000 contingent on the ARC recommendation that the Amabel Sauble Community School remains open;

In a recorded vote it was passed unanimously.

The town is under no obligation to pay the $51,000. Because the $51,000 decision was made based on completely false information, council needs to rethink it.

The issue will then be whether the Town should pay the $51,000 anyway, even if it is not required by the formal agreement.

There are two perspectives on that issue.

One perspective is that that the town must give the school the $51,000 anyway because it’s for the children and it’s an investment in our future, (and other sundry reasons provided by those favouring donating the $51,000).

The second perspective is that the $51,000 should not be given as it is not fair or ethical to take more from the taxpayers and make all taxpayers poorer and risk a few more losing their homes especially when giving money to schools is not within the authority of the Town anyway.

Although one councillor sort of alluded to the second perspective, it was never really discussed.

I am guessing that’s because taking the second perspective would have made any councillor very unpopular with one of the most vocal segments of the voting public.

It will be very hard for any council member to take the side of the taxpayers, even if they feel it is right to do so.

Maybe some readers of this commentary could encourage a few councillors to speak up, on either perspective.

Craig

In the period 2002 to 2006 then-mayor Carl Noble pushed through council an 11.4 million dollar project which combined the eleven Sauble area water systems into four, one of the four being the Oliphant system (a.k.a. the Fiddlehead system).

In the decision process:

• Much of the decision process was hidden.
• Alternative solutions were not fairly considered, if at all.
• The financial assessment of the chosen solution and the few alternatives was fraudulent.
• The true capital and operating costs of the Oliphant upgrades were hidden.

Most of the capital and operating costs of the Oliphant system were illegally passed on to the users on the Foreman, Huron Woods, and Sauble school systems.

If not for the fraud, the problem could have been addressed far less expensively.

As a result of the fraud, all users on the Sauble Area systems got a capital bill of almost $7000, and monthly costs are now sky high.

In mid-2011 one resident asked for details on how capital and operating costs got so out of control, and was rudely told by then CAO Rhonda Cook that the town was not responsible and that the resident and her friends were in good part to blame for the high costs. Cook’s claim was preposterous.

Around the same time, in Council chambers, in an act of bullying, Councillor Turner launched a disparaging oral attack on that same resident, just for asking.

————————————————-
In late 2010 the Ministry of the Environment determined that the Fiddlehead water plant was not working properly, and as designed and constructed could not work properly, and that drinking water safety was an issue. As a temporary measure the plant was shut down and water for Oliphant users was trucked from Wiarton.

This left council with a decision of what to do for the longer term.

So how did council decide what to do?

Council just copied the Carl Noble process.

Council decided to upgrade the Fiddlehead plant.

The decision was made partly in closed meetings, away from the scrutiny of the public.

Council failed to consider alternatives, at least did not consider any in public.

Council failed to properly consider the financial impacts of their preferred solution, and did not consider financial impacts of alternatives at all (because no alternatives were really considered).

Council has decided to make all TSBP residents pay for 50% of the Fiddlehead system upgrade bills, which is illegal. The other 50% will be distributed to all Sauble System users, which is also illegal.

The only element present in the current process that was not in the Carl Noble process was the failure on the part of the current council to even consider suing the people (Genivar) who designed and built the Oliphant system that doesn’t work.

The decision process and the decision are an inexcusable affront to the Oliphant water users, to the Sauble area water system users, and to all of the people of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

How could council do that?

Because most members of council believe that they are above the law, and that they have no obligation to the people.

Their obligation to the people is to conduct an open and proper decision process.

Their obligation in law is to not bill taxpayers for capital upgrades for a system that they are not, and will not be, and cannot be, served by. (See Municipal Act section 391).

Council needs to make this right.

Craig

Craig’s Commentary 3-5

Editor:

Rob Gowan (March 4 Owen Sound Sun Times) reported:

“The [Sauble] chamber has gathered statistics from the town on paid parking and they are showing that the increase in rates is not leading to an increase in revenue. Between 2009 and 2010, when the rate increased from $10 per day to $15 per day, the amount generated through the town’s ticket dispensers actually dropped from more than $230,000 to just over $200,000.”

This is terribly misleading. If you look only at 2009 and 2010 data, it indeed might appear that higher daily parking rates give lower revenues. But you can’t just pick the data that you like and ignore the rest. It’s called data cherry-picking. You need to look at all the data.

And if you look at all the data, the picture is quite the opposite of what Mr. Gowan claims.

Pardon the science, but for those who are keen, here is the data properly presented.

Figure 1 is a line chart of revenues from dispensers and daily rates.

The pattern is clear. The higher the daily parking rate, the higher the revenues.

Figure 2 is the same data presented in what is called an x-y chart.

The line on the x-y chart is called the linear regression line. That it is upward sloping means that when daily rates go up, generally revenues from dispensers go up.

The value labeled R2 on figure 2 is called the correlation coefficient. If the data points were all right on the upwardly sloping the, the correlation coefficient would be one. It would mean that revenues were perfectly correlated with daily parking rates.

The actual correlation coefficient is fairly weak, indicating that there are other things besides daily rates that affect revenues. (Like weather, gas prices).

But regardless, what is clear is that the data, that is all the data, indicate that revenues increase as daily parking rates increase.

In addition, the data (figure 3) are clear that the higher the parking rate, the fewer cars there are paying for parking.

This means fewer cars parked on our streets. And fewer tourists on the beach. And lower cleanup costs. And lower law enforcement costs. Surely these are good things.

So the data, properly analyzed, suggest that if we raise daily parking rates, we will generate more revenue, and we will have lower beach cleanup costs, (both of which mean lower taxes), and as a bonus we will have fewer cars parked all along our streets, and less litter, and fewer people on the beach, and less noise.

Higher parking rates are saving us money and helping us get our community back. (Killing the Sauble sewers project got us much of the way there.)

In asking for lower parking rates, the tourist industry is in effect asking for us to pay more taxes, and is asking for another handout from all the residents of TSBP.

The residents are entitled to have their taxes go into legitimate services. The residents are entitled to have their money not forcefully taken from them and given to commercial interests. The residents are entitled to choose whether or not they wish to donate to the tourist industry.

Council is not authorized to choose for us.

Council should reject the proposal to lower parking rates.

Council should raise daily parking rates instead.

Craig Gammie
Town of South Bruce Peninsula

Editor, Wiarton Echo:

In a September 29, 2010 all-candidates meeting, mayoral candidate John Close took the mike, casually walked among the audience, and confidently promised to deliver a 15% tax rate decrease over two years. Many in the audience took this as a promise to reduce taxes by 15%.On October 25th 2010 the electorate showed their support for the 15% tax reduction.

Did we get a 15% tax reduction?

Tax increases in total and on the average property were as follows:

2007 0.4%
2008 6.2%
2009 3.3%
2010 9.7%
2011 7.2%
2012 5.2%
2013 3.4%

Property taxes have increased 40.3% since 2006.

Instead of the promised 15% tax reduction from when the Mayor was elected in 2010, we got a 16.6% increase.

The real taxes are the taxes required to pay current expenses plus whatever is required to maintain our assets and treasury.

Since 2010, the current council has run down our assets and depleted the treasury.

I don’t have complete numbers for the asset and treasury depletions because former CFO Neifer refused to provide asset values. But the 2013 budget does include a transfer from reserves of $779,351, which is equivalent to a ten percent tax increase.

I estimated that the real tax increase, that is the nominal tax increase corrected to maintain asset and treasury balances, is over 50 per cent since 2006, over 40 per cent since the current council took office in 2010, and over 17 per cent just since 2012.

Councillor Jim Turner’s claim (Echo February 27) that council did not increase taxes for 2013 is false. In fact average taxes increased by 3.4 per cent. And the only reason that the tax increase is that low is because council decided to pay for their profligate spending by letting our assets fall apart and by depleting reserves.

Property taxes have increased 40.3% since 2007. Tax rate is the same as it was in 2007.

How is this possible?

Because it matters not that the tax rate increase is zero. Tax rate is irrelevant.

If there had been 10,000 properties in 2012 and a 10 million dollar total tax levy requirement, then the average taxes per property would be $1000.

Say for illustration that assessments for all properties doubled in 2013, but the total tax requirement was held constant at ten million dollars.

What would be the average tax per property for 2013?

It would be $1000, exactly the same as in 2012.

You would have a 100 per cent assessment increase, but zero change in taxes.

Because assessments have no bearing on total and average taxes.

And because tax rates have no bearing on total and average taxes.

Total and average property taxes are completely determined by how much council plans to spend. Taxes are completely controlled by council.

Jim Turner’s claim that “provincial assessors” are to blame for the tax increase is false.

Councillor Turner claims that only “10 cents of each dollar we collect from you is for council to direct towards things you tell us you want or need”.

This is rubbish. 100 per cent is supposed to be for serving the resident’s.

The point that Mr. Turner is missing is that much of the budget is inappropriately and in some cases illegally spent for the benefit of private interests and private interest groups, including grants, legal expenses, airport costs and many others.

If all of these improper expenses were eliminated, tax increases could easily be held to the rate of inflation without depleting our assets.

Mr. Turner claims that with growth you get more taxes and can spread municipal costs thinner. This is incorrect. With growth you do get a larger assessment, but you also need more services, which cost more money, and requires more taxes. If the increase in service costs is greater than the new taxes available from new assessment, then taxes actually go up for everyone.

When I spoke at a budget meeting in April of 2012, (before I was banned for the crime of absentmindedness), Mr. Turner walked out saying “I don’t need another lesson in economics”.

I’m not necessarily saying lessons would help, but it is quite clear that Councillor Turner needs every lesson he can get.

Craig Gammie
Town of South Bruce Peninsula

The Charter of Freedoms And Rights guarantees freedom of expression, subject only to, in the words of the Charter, “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

On February 19 there was a public meeting at TSBP town hall, the subject of which was the proposed 2013 budget. The notice for the public meeting invited residents to come and speak at the meeting and also indicated that as an alternative to speaking at the meeting, written submissions would be read by staff at the public meeting, and taken into the minutes.

All citizens were invited except me. I am banned from town hall property for the crime of absentmindedness.

I am not banned from making written submissions, so I wrote one and sent it in.

One hour after I sent my submission in, staff member Tracey Neifer sent it back with six phrases completely blacked out, and an indication that only what remained would be read.

The letter is below, as I received it back from Neifer, except the text that Ms. Neifer completely blacked out is instead underlined, bolded and italicized so it is clear what she blacked out.

————————————-

Budget Comments

In the budget document on page 7 of the February 4 agenda package the line called “Total Taxation” shows an increase from $8,432,702 in 2012 to $9,122,516 in 2013, a tax increase of 8.2 per cent.

This is also the tax increase on the average property.

For residential only the increase is 7.8 per cent.

Just as they did for the past two years, council and staff are using the tax rate scam to try to pass off the 8 percent property tax increase as a zero per cent tax increase or a very small tax increase.

The tax rate increase, which is different than the tax increase, is indeed about zero per cent.

But the tax rate increase is irrelevant. What matters is tax increase. What residents will see on their tax bills is a tax increase. And it will not be zero per cent. It will be 8 per cent.

Even the 8 per cent understates the burden on taxpayers.

That’s because council has decided to pay some of the bills in 2013 out of reserves and other assets, without replenishing. This draws down reserves, requiring more taxes next year to build reserves back up.

Reasons for high taxes are:

1. Illegal giveaways to commercial interests in the form of grants to the chambers of commerce. This year the name has been changed from “grants” to “service agreements” but that doesn’t make them any more legal.

2. Illegal payment of private citizen’s legal fees and settlements. This is because the new “indemnification by-law” pays for almost everything. Even former CAO Cook’s private legal fees will be paid.

3. Payment of the $6,000,000 to one million dollar bill for Sauble Sewers project. Instead of putting that on taxpayers backs, council should sue Genivar for the money.

4. Money wasted on the airport. The airport needs to be shut down.

—————————————

Then when the public meeting was held, Ms. Neifer, apparently with the agreement of Mayor Close, decided to censor the whole letter, and read none of it at the public meeting.

The minutes captured the censorship as follows:

42.5 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Manager of Financial Services Neifer indicated that one written submission was received and it will not be read into the minutes in accordance with Section A.12.6 of the Procedural By-Law as it contains defamatory materials. Mayor Close indicated that he has read the submission and agrees with the Manager of Financial Services.

Policy A 12.6 reads:

Correspondence containing obscene or defamatory language will not be directed to the appropriate department for action or response and will not be placed on any Council agenda.

There is nothing wrong with censorship of language that is in law defamatory. What is wrong here is that Neifer and John Close decided what is defamatory and what isn’t, and that they decided based on their agenda of shutting out criticism, not because anything was legally defamatory.

That was improper use of policy A 12.6.

My letter didn’t breach policy A12.6.

My letter certainly did not exceed any “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society “.

The law I apparently breached, in my view, was the Neifer/Close censorship law, the law of a totalitarian regime, the law of a malevolent dictator and his puppet accomplice, a law that contravenes the Charter, a law repugnant in our supposedly free society, a law so repugnant that it would not be tolerated anywhere else in the free world.

Only in TSBP can one be censored for criticizing.

Neifer has resigned effective end of March. Good riddance.

John Close is facing a criminal charge of obstruction of justice and there is an application filed to have him removed from office for contravention of the Municipal Conflict Of Interest Act.

Let’s hope he is gone long before the next election.

Craig

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52848

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52846

Following are comments on one agenda item.

9.1 Sauble Water and Sewer Environmental Study Report (January 15, 2013)

There are two decisions to be made.

One is whether to accept the 70 million dollar (option 5a) project of the December 2010 Environmental Study report (“ESR”).

The decision is clear. The Sauble pollution study results were very clear. There is no problem. There is no need for a communal sewers system. The December 2010 ESR proposal must be rejected.

Some $600,000 in ESR project costs have been paid by borrowing money. The second decision is how to pay off the loan.

Some staff and some council will want to confuse things by trying to make the two decisions together. For example they may say we need to proceed with the 70 million dollar ESR project otherwise the whole town will have to pay the $600,000 debt.

Or they may say we need to proceed with a smaller sewers project otherwise the whole town will have to pay the $600,000 debt.

We can’t let them get away with anything like that.

We, the town, (including those in exile) should sue Genivar for the $600,000. Genivar convinced council past that there was a “widespread problem” with water quality of private well and sand point systems at Sauble. That was fraudulent. The Genivar engineers knew of the falsity of their claim. They had data that indicated that there was in fact no such problem. The $600,000 and more should never have been spent. Genivar should pay for that fraud.

Craig

Here’s a note from Ana Vukovic

Interesting,

Our municipality has gone to the dogs ! See how much they spent for lawyers ( as they call it ,” legal costs” ) Last year, and how much they plan to spend this year. Just make sure you do not complain because if you do they might sue you with your own money.

Please read this….

http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2013/01/30/south-bruce-peninsula-talks-budget

The following open Letter from Lisa Thompson, MPP to Dr. Arlene King was submitted for posting by Cuvava.

January 21, 2013

Dr. Arlene King
Chief Medical Officer of Health
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
11th Flr., Hepburn Block
80 Grosvenor St.
Toronto, ON M7A 1R3

OPEN LETTER

Dear Dr. King:

I am writing to you today to express my growing apprehension over the revelations arising from recent Freedom of Information requests that were released. In November 2012, emails from the Ministry of the Environment, released through the FOI process, reveal that provincial field officers had confirmed adverse health effects from wind turbine noise as far back as 2009, and were working on an abatement plan to assist affected residents. The released documents indicate that, in response to a redacted email from government staff, the MOE officers agreed to stand down.

I also have concerns with another FOI document I received, in which Q&A’s were prepared in response to your report, The Potential Health Effects of Wind Turbines. In one section of these Q&A’s, the track changes indicated that you should “add the word direct as studies would show a link through annoyance.” As the Chief Medical Officer of Health, I am sure you are aware that the World Health Organization has determined that annoyance is a health effect of wind turbines.

In another section of the Q&A’s document, this statement was made in relation to health and wind turbines: “there are no known indirect links.” Except, in the track changes comment box it said, “Not really true. The link between perceived noise and symptoms is probably linked to annoyance. The link with annoyance should be recognized.

The last section I would like to draw your attention to is one more Q&A. One answer stated: “Although some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches and sleep disturbance, available scientific evidence does not demonstrate a causal link to wind turbines noise.” The track changes of this comment tells a different story, where you were told, “this answer isn’t credible. Either fess up to the annoyance link or delete.

Dr. King, Dr. Gloria Rachamin acknowledged under oath in the Kent Breeze wind farm case that your study did not look at the indirect health effects of wind turbines. These indirect health effects are the ones that cause the sleeplessness, depression, dizziness, headaches among other health problems.

I am asking you today to acknowledge publicly that your report did not study the indirect health effects of wind turbines. I also have many questions surrounding not only your report, but health complaints that were received by either the Ministry of the Environment, Energy or Health and Long-Term Care. For one, did the Ministry of Environment advise your office that complaints about wind turbines and health were being received? Were you contacted to investigate any of these complaints? Why were any of the reports from MOE field officers in 2009 not included in your 2010 report?

Respectfully, I ask that you review your 2010 report for clarifications between the direct/indirect link between wind turbines and health effects. I can respectfully acknowledge that the likelihood of a wind turbine blade falling off and hurting someone (a direct link) is highly improbable, but the valid health effects (indirect links) need to be studied so we can help families who have been displaced from their homes and are dealing with serious health consequences. I am sure that we can agree that the health and well-being of Ontario families is first and foremost for both of us.

I appreciate your time to review my correspondence, and I and many Ontario families await your response.

Sincerely,

Lisa Thompson, MPP
Huron-Bruce

cc. Mr. Vic Fedeli, MPP, Nipissing and PC Critic for the Ministry of Energy

Ashley Hammill
Executive Assistant to
Lisa Thompson, MPP (Huron-Bruce)
call:416-325-3467

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52458

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52456

Following are comments on a few select agenda items.

Closed Agenda Item 4.8 Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose AND Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees (Indemnification By-Law)

The Municipal Act says that the clerk is supposed to indicate in a closed session item the general nature of it. The item description above tells virtually nothing.

The indemnification by-law is a bad by-law. Are they trying to hide something from the public?

9.1 Sauble Water and Sewer Environmental Study Report (November 15, 2011) 141 -213

A December 2010 Environmental Study Report (ESR) written by the firm Genivar proposed a $70 million dollar sewers system for Sauble Beach.

The ESR was flawed, as no problem was identified, and certainly no problem that would justify the $70 million.

Because the ESR was deficient, council put the ESR on hold and formed a committee tasked with finding out if there is a problem related to private sewage systems at Sauble.

The committee hired a consultant to answer the question.

The consultant’s report, in the December 18 council agenda, was very clear. The report indicated that there is no general problem with septic systems.

The $70 million dollar proposal was completely unwarranted. The $70 million dollar proposal was completely unnecessary.

The committee agreed that there is no problem with septic systems and also that a communal sewage system is not warranted.

In spite of absolutely clear evidence that sewers are neither needed nor warranted, there are still people on staff and on council that want the 70 million dollar project to proceed.

In the December 18 meeting Councillor Jackson requested that the discussion and decision on the ESR be deferred until the January 29 meeting when she is back from vacation.

In spite of this very reasonable request, it seems that a discussion of the ESR and maybe a decision are on the January 15th agenda, coincidentally when Councillor Jackson is away on vacation.

I hope I am wrong, but I am concerned that the pre-sewers forces are planning a fast one in councillor Jasckson’s absence.

Some Sauble residents need to come to the meeting to see that council doesn’t discuss the matter and especially that council does not decide the matter in Councillor Jackson’s absence.

And also to let council and staff know that they are under scrutiny.

I also encourage all Sauble residents to write to council and ask council not to discuss the sauble sewers issue on January 15th and not to discuss the issue until the Januray 29th meeting when Councillor Jackson is back.

Sauble residents should also tell council that when the Sauble Sewers matter does come up for decision, the decision must be to bury the December 2012 ESR proposal, once and for all.

9.2 SWASRAHC4-2012 Final Report to Council (December 18, 2012) 214 -303

9.3 PW33-2012 Oliphant Water Treatment Plant Re-instatement-Exemption from Purchasing Policy (December 18, 2012)

The Oliphant treatment plant is shut down. It doesn’t work. It never worked.

“Oliphant Water Treatment Plant Re-instatement” means redesigning and rebuilding so that it works.

Most of the discussion and decisions about the Oliphant water treatment system were done behind closed doors, completely out of sight of the public eye.

People accepted this because they thought it meant that someone was being sued for the costs to get the system working properly, and users assumed they would not pay.

As I read the agenda material, there is no money coming from a lawsuit.

If I am reading it correctly it means that all Sauble area water users will be on the hook for the costs. Meaning another increase in water rates.

It’s time to bring the matter out into the open, so water users and the general public can look at the problem and the solution and determine for themselves if council has, behind closed doors, made the proper decision.

10.6 By-Law 6-2013 Being a By-Law to Regulate a Dynamic Beach Park and Commonly Known as North Sauble Beach Park in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula