Craig Gammie's Commentary

Airport “business plan” a “fail”

 July 14, 2014

 Members of Council TSBP

 Re: July 15 2014 agenda item 9.1 – Airport “business plan”

 In the July 15 agenda there is a report presented as a “business plan” for the airport.

 I do appreciate the work that has gone into the report. But unfortunately the report misses the mark, and is not a “business plan” and needs to be sent back or scrapped.

 Council faces policy decisions. Decisions are usually presented to council in the form of problems or opportunities.

 Council’s role is to make good decisions – decisions that are right for the taxpayers. For council this will usually mean decisions regarding how to provide adequate municipal services at lowest cost to the taxpayers.   It is not a council role to use public (taxpayers’) money to provide anyone with private benefits.

 In order to make good decisions that are in the public interest, municipal councils use some decision making process.

 As an example, here’s the decision process that is required by the Ontario Environmental Assessment process:

 1. Problem definition (or opportunity definition)

2. Generation of a range of alternative solutions.

3. Analysis of each alternative

4. Comparison of alternatives

5. Choice of preferred alternative

6. Implementation of preferred alternative.

All formal decision processes are similar.

 If there is no formal decision process, the decision will as likely as not be arbitrary, and will not be optimum, and the taxpayers will suffer as a result. This is especially true for more complex issues.

 It is hard to imagine decisions like the fate of the airport being made without such a proper, formal decision process.  

 Yet that is exactly what is happening.

 Instead of going through a proper decision process, the “business plan” skips all the important first steps and jumps right to the board’s arbitrarily chosen solution. The report jumps straight to step 5 of the formal process above.

 There is no problem definition.

 There are only four lines of generation of alternative solutions.

 There is no analysis or comparison of alternative solutions. The economic analysis is flawed, unsupportable, and useless.

 And there is no proper financial analysis.

 Financial analysis is the foundation of any business plan.   The “business plan” in the agenda has almost no financial analysis. What is presented instead of a proper financial analysis is a list of activities and what they hope to accomplish with these activities

 In fact there is no business plan, not even for the improperly selected preferred alternative. What is presented in the agenda package is not a business plan, not even with a stretch.

 There is no proper selection of the preferred alternative. In fact, following the short listing of alternatives, the board indicates in the report that their decision of which alternative solution to pursue was already made before the report was even started:

 “All four options are mentioned, but the Management Board, for this Business Plan, is basing their decision on retaining Certification status.”

 This is very odd thing to say, as the board has no authority to make the decision about what to do with the airport. The decision on what to do with the airport is properly left to the two councils.

 The airport board had an opportunity to provide some decision making information. They failed. The report, the so-called “business plan”, and the so-called “economic analysis”, need to be scrapped.

 And the two councils need to start over and do the decision properly, following a rigorous decision process like the one above.

Craig Gammie

July 14, 2014

Members of Council TSBP

Re: July 15 2014 agenda item 10.1 – Proposal to sign six-month Extension Agreement for the Amabel Sauble Community School.

I write to appeal to you not to pass By-Law 67-2014 (By-Law to Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to Sign an Extension Agreement for the Amabel Sauble Community School)

The 1995 to 2014 agreement is a great deal

The 1995 to 2014 agreement between TSBP and the school board was and is a great deal for the people of TSBP. It sets out very clearly who pays what operating costs, and it does not tie each party’s operating costs to any ownership percentages or usage patterns. The agreement is very favourable to the taxpayers of TSBP.

The current agreement can be renewed for 20 years – unilaterally

While the current agreement expired on July 1, 2014, there is a very important renewal option built right into that agreement. Regarding renewal, paragraph 11.0 of the agreement reads:

11.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT

This agreement shall be effective from the date of its execution by the parties hereto and it shall continue in force until July 1^st in the year 2014. Either party hereto shall have the privilege of renewing this agreement for a further term of 20 years upon the same conditions as are contained herein subject to any modifications that may have occurred pursuant to this agreement.   Such renewal must be requested in writing within six (6) months of the expiry date of this agreement. Subsequent to any renewal period, this agreement shall continue thereafter from year to year until either party gives notice in writing to the other party that they wish to terminate the agreement on its next anniversary effective on July 1^st in the following year.” (emphasis added by CG)

 You don’t need to be a contract lawyer to understand the sentence: “Either party hereto shall have the privilege of renewing this agreement for a further term of 20 years upon the same conditions as are contained herein”. It is plain, simple, unambiguous English. Simply put, if TSBP wants to continue the contract as it is for another 20 years, all we have to do is inform the School Board that we are renewing.   TSBP can decide unilaterally to continue the existing contract for another 20 years. The school board cannot veto such a decision.

 Contrary to Misters Close and Turner (June 17), the “privilege” of renewing is exactly the same as a “right” to unilaterally renew.

 Renewal option is available until December 31, 2014

 Mr. Close said (July 2) that any 20 year renewal pursuant to paragraph 11 would have had to have been done within the period of six months prior to the end of the agreement on July 1, 2014.

 Mr. Close is mistaken.   Contrary to Mr. Close, the agreement clearly allows six months after the expiry date (of July 1, 2014) to exercise the unilateral 20 year renewal option.

 Here is from Paragraph 11:

 Such renewal must be requested in writing within six (6) months of the expiry date of this agreement.

 All benefits, no downside to unilateral 20 year renewal

 There is a huge benefit in exercising the 20 year renewal option. The 20 year renewal will require that the school board pay the agreed part of operating costs for another 20 years. And if they have to pay the operating costs for 20 years, it will make no sense for them to shut down the school operation. Students, parents, all TSBP residents will benefit from TSBP exercising its 20 year renewal option.

 There is no downside. If the school board has to pay agreed costs it is very unlikely that they will even consider shutting down the school operation. And in the unlikely event that support from the town is needed to keep the school operating as a school, there is nothing in the 20 year renewal route that prevents TSBP from at any time making a grant to the school.

 The proposed 6 month “extension agreement”

 In the July 15, 2014 agenda package there is a proposed 6 month extension agreement and a by-law to give the Mayor and Clerk authority to sign that agreement. I recommend against this by-law, for two reasons:

 Reason 1 – the six-month extension agreement is unnecessary

 Council should exercise the 20 year renewal option. It is completely unnecessary to have a six month extension.

 And if council must have a bit more time to be convinced that we indeed have the “privilege” of a unilateral 20 year renewal, then we can operate without an agreement for a few more weeks, or even a month. Recall that we have until December 31 to exercise the 20 year renewal. There is no reason to believe that over the next few weeks or months either party will do anything less than carry on operations the way they have in the past, even without an agreement in place.

 Reason 2 – the six-month extension could void the 20 year extension option

 I say “could void”, but I believe it actually “would void” the 20 year extension option. If the 20 year option is voided it would be huge loss and a great disservice to all TSBP residents.

 I believe the six month extension will void the 20 year renewal option. But even if it is not certain that the 6 month extension would void the 20 year renewal option, why even take the chance?   There is no benefit to the six-month renewal, and serious potential downside.

 And note that the proposed 6 month extension goes to January 1, 2015, at which point the 20 year renewal option would definitely disappear. So if the six-month extension were to be used to the end of its term on January 1, 2015, the 20 year option would definitely be gone.

 Or make clear that 6 month extension does not void paragraph 11

 In my view, rejecting the 6 month option and exercising the 20 year option is the only sensible way to proceed. But if for some reason council absolutely must take the 6 month agreement route, then council should at least put in the six month agreement that nothing in the six-month agreement alters in any way TSBP’s “right” to unilaterally extend the 1995 – 2104 agreement for another 20 years pursuant to paragraph 11.

 Summary:

 The proposed six-month renewal is unnecessary, provides no benefit to anyone, and voids or risks voiding a very fine 20 year renewal option. The six-month extension should be abandoned.   If the six-month cannot be abandoned, at least council should add a clause to make sure that the 20 year option is not voided by signing the six-month extension. And then exercise the 20 year option as soon as possible.

Craig Gammie

In 1995 the Saugeen Ojibway First Nation sued TSBP (then Amabel), claiming the beach at Sauble from main street to 704 feet north of sixth street. The lawsuit was inactive until 2012, when Mayor Close and the Town’s administrator entered secret mediation sessions with SOFN. The public has been kept completely in the dark.

Concerned about the secrecy and concerned that Mr. Close might be offering to give the beach away, Friends of Sauble Beach, with support of other community organizations, organized a public meeting for July 5 and also requested an audience with council.

Mr. Close responded by issuing a press release, and with a majority of council support denying the Friends of Sauble Beach an audience before council.

John Close’s press release confirms the giveaway rumour

A press release was issued Monday June 30, ostensibly by the town, but in fact by Mr. Close, without authorization of council, and without knowledge of council.

The release says:

…… the Town has entered mediation with the intent to ensure continued public access to Sauble Beach. ….

The message may not be explicit, but it is clear. If Mr. Close were firm in a position that we keep the beach, he would have said so.   But he didn’t. By not saying that he is firm in keeping the beach, he implied that: “I’m giving up the beach but I will do my best to ensure that the residents of TSBP still have access.”

 “Dear Residents – you can trust me – now shut up and go away”

 Kathy Strachan, President of the community group Friends of Sauble Beach, applied to get before council to demonstrate the sheer insanity of Mr. Close’s actions and to try to convince council and Mr. Close to get off the “giveaway track”.   A week ago Councillor Bowman supported the FSB request for audience by putting a motion on the July 2 agenda that council hear the FSB presentation. But when the motion came to a vote on July 2nd, councillor Janice Jackson alone stood up for the rights of the residents to participate meaningfully and to be heard. The other eight council members rebuffed Ms. Strachan and the residents, flatly denying the group an audience before council. Remarkably, Councillor Bowman turned on the residents and voted against her own motion. (Yes, that would be the same councillor Bowman who made the motion for free parking for tourists that is now costing the taxpayers $240,000 per year.)

 The eight council members who voted against the residents were so determined that the truth not be told about the land claim that they were willing to publicly deny the public their right to participate in this very important policy decision.

 As an aside I note that five of the council members who flipped the bird to the residents, namely John Close, Jay Kirkland, Jim Turner, Karen Klages, and Marilyn Bowman, are running for re-election. Some people are calling them the “shut-out-the-residents” candidates. (A few residents are calling them worse, but I cannot print the words).

 The eight council members who shut out the residents out of the decision making seem to want the public kept in the dark until it is too late to change anything.

 Mr. Close’s June 30 press release does promise a public meeting. The title reads:

 “Town of South Bruce Peninsula in Sauble Beach Land Claim – Public to Have Input!

 I believe this is a shallow promise.   I believe the intent is to have a public meeting, tell us some things we already know, tell us that we must trust them as they have our best interests at heart, tell us not to worry, pretend to listen to a few residents, then go back into one of their secret meetings and sign an agreement to give the beach away.

 We cannot let that happen.

 To make sure that we don’t lose the beach a bunch of community organizations have organized our own public meeting, Saturday July 5, 2014 at 9:30 am at the Sauble Community centre, billed as “The Sauble land claim – What the town is NOT telling us”.

 At the meeting it will be demonstrated how weak the SOFN claim is, how wrong John Close’s disastrous giveaway plan is, and what residents can do to stop John Close’s plan.

 Please come to the meeting. Please let your voice be heard. Before it’s too late.

 And please pass this on to as many residents as you can.

Craig Gammie

Here are some comments about items in the July 2, 2014 council agenda package:

Agenda item 8.1 BOWMAN03-2014 Friends of Sauble Delegation

On June 12, 2014 Friends of Sauble Beach requested a delegation to council to talk about the Sauble Beach Land Claim. Friends of Sauble wanted to present the facts, and then implore council not to make any settlement offers unless and until residents can be brought into the decision making process in a truly meaningful way.

The request for a delegation was denied, the Administrator citing a rule that matters related to litigation cannot be brought before council.

Fortunately that rule can be suspended by a two-thirds majority of council. Councillor Bowman’s motion in the July 2 agenda is to suspend the rule so as to allow Friends of Sauble Beach to present to council.

The motion will also be a test of how each council member feels about meaningful participation by the residents in a matter (the Sauble Land Claim) that is so critical to the residents.   I will be taking careful notes during the council discussion, and I will record how each council member argues, and how each council member votes.

Agenda item 8.12 CLK56-2014 Policy-Use of Corporate Resources for Election Purposes

 In the report and draft by-law the clerk provides rules for use of corporate resources (e.g. the town logo) for election purposes. The rules are in my opinion good advice.

The report also says that complaints about breaches can be submitted to the clerk. This too is OK.

Regarding enforcement, the report reads:

 If after the policy is adopted a breach occurs, the town will hold the offending candidate personally and monetarily liable for breaches of the policy.

 And under the title of “Enforcement”, the draft by-law reads:

 “If a breach of this policy is confirmed, the candidate shall be required to personally reimburse the Town for any of the costs associated with the breach.”

 Neither of these is OK.

The clerk has no law enforcement powers and the town is not authorized to give the clerk or the town such law enforcement powers. And the Clerk cannot give herself power to “confirm” a breach, or to make a finding of guilt or liability, or to “hold the offending candidate monetarily liable”, or to order a settlement of costs. That is all the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies and courts.

The by-law must be rejected.

The clerk has indicated that an alternative to the draft by-law would be a “policy to candidates”. That is the route that should be taken.

The policy should make clear that the town may take legal action against those who improperly use corporate resources.   It might also indicate that electors can complain to the courts about alleged breaches of the Municipal Elections Act.

Agenda item 8.15 (ADM48-2014 Extension Agreement for Amabel-Sauble Community School

 This item I discussed in a separate commentary (4-20).

Agenda item 9.2 ADM46-2014 Legal Review of Operating Agreement for Amabel-Sauble Community School

I have no idea what this item is about. It is called a legal review but there is no legal view presented on anything.   The operating agreement should be discussed under agenda item 8.15.   There is currently no capital agreement. I don’t see why one is necessary. We have gone 19 years without one. But if both parties want a capital agreement then there is no reason not to pursue one.

In any case a capital agreement should be kept separate from the operating agreement.

Craig

In my commentary 4-18 of June 15, entitled How To Save The Sauble School Without Costing The Municipal Taxpayers a Dime I quoted this sentence from the current agreement between the school board and the town:

 Either party hereto shall have the privilege of renewing this agreement for a further term of 20 years upon the same conditions as are contained herein [emphasis mine]

 I argued: that the agreement in place for the last 19 years is very favourable to TSBP residents; that the renewal clause above allows TSBP to unilaterally renew the agreement for another 20 years; that once the agreement is renewed the school board will have no reason to shut down the school operation; that renewing the agreement for another 20 years is in everyone’s bests interests; and that TSBP should use the unilateral renewal option.

The matter was discussed in the June 17 council meeting. An alternative proposal was on the agenda. It was to offer the school board a 5 year agreement in which TSBP would pay a lot more money to the school board than would be required if the current agreement were to be unilaterally renewed for 20 more years.

Councillor Bowman asked why we didn’t just unilaterally renew the current agreement.

Jim Turner stated that TSBP does not have the right to unilaterally renew the agreement, and John Close agreed with him. Jim Turner said the agreement gives us the “privilege” of renewing unilaterally, but that a “privilege” is not a “right”, and so we do not have the “right” to unilaterally renew. Mr. Tuner argued that the agreement cannot be renewed without both parties agreeing and signing off.

Mr. Turner and Mr. Close are wrong. While the agreement does say “privilege”, it is crystal clear that in the agreement the word “privilege” means “right”. The agreement is crystal clear that TSBP can unilaterally renew the agreement for 20 years. Contrary to Mr. Turner and Mr. Close, TSBP does not need agreement or permission from the school board.

In my commentary I also indicated that renewing the contract (unilaterally) for 20 years is to the benefit of students, parents, and other taxpayers.   I argued that the school board will be contractually bound to pay most of the school operating costs for another 20 years, and so could not save any money by taking the kids out of the Sauble school and bussing them elsewhere. I argued that if the kids were taken out of the Sauble school and bussed elsewhere the costs to the school board would actually go up, mostly because of the added bussing costs.

If the agreement were to be renewed, I can’t think of any reason why the school board would even think about stopping the school operation.

But even if I am wrong, that is if the school board were to threaten to pull the kids out and bus them elsewhere, the town could just do what it is doing now to stop it from happening. The town could just give the school board a yearly grant. There is nothing in a renewed 20 year agreement to prevent council from giving the school board the cash to keep the school operating as a school. Renewing the agreement for 20 years does not tie council’s hands in any way.

So it makes sense to renew the contract for another 20 years. It keeps all options open, and closes no doors.

Agenda item 8.15 in the July 2, 2014 agenda (ADM48-2014 Extension Agreement for Amabel-Sauble Community School) has a third proposal.

The proposal in the July 2 agenda package is to offer the School board a six month agreement.

This is a bad idea. Because if the Town signs a six-month agreement the very favourable 20 year unilateral option disappears.

Signing a six month agreement would be a great disservice to everyone – taxpayers, students, parents.

I recommend that TSBP (unilaterally) renew the current agreement, for 20 years.

Craig

Agenda item 8.3 EDO01-2014 Overnight Camping at Special Events

The proposal is to allow overnight camping on private property with permission of council for special events.   But no criteria are provided to guide the council decision. I am concerned that with a resident-unfriendly council, should we elect one, approvals will be granted for every request.   I feel sorry for any residents unlucky enough to be beside a private property that gets council permission to run a noisy event.

Special permission should only be granted when neighbours will not be adversely affected.   Special permission should be granted only rarely.

Agenda item 8.12 ADM36-2014 Future Wage Adjustments for Senior Management

ADM36 is a long convoluted report about how senior staff are so hard done by (because some of them aren’t yet on the sunshine list!) and how they are really entitled to more and more and more of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.

The truth is that they are not hard done by at all and they are not entitled to as many taxpayers dollars as they wish they could have.

Council should freeze wages of senior management, until council next is able to do a proper decision about compensation at all levels.

Agenda item 8.13 (Sauble School) I discussed in separate commentary 4-18.

 Craig

Item 8.13 (ADM report 37-2014) on the June 17, 2014 TSBP council agenda is about the Sauble school.

The last time the school came on the agenda I was concerned that council had made a decision based on a lot of false information that had been set before them.

I wrote a commentary about that false information. I supplied correct facts and suggested that council consider the facts and not the false information in the course of making its decision.

Contrary to a false, malicious rumour started by my political opponents, I have never proposed shutting the school down, and I have never proposed anything that would have the effect of shutting the school down.

For the record, I am a strong supporter of our education system, and if the school were really in jeopardy, I would do whatever it takes to save it (bar beggaring the residents).

The school is jointly owned by TSBP (17%) and the Bluewater District chool Board (83%). The 1995 operating agreement between TSBP and the Bluewater District School Board expires July 1, 2014. That is what has put the issue back on the agenda.

Given the false, vitriolic rumours about me that circulated last time, I must say I am tempted to say nothing this time around. But because the proposal now on the table is unnecessarily harmful to the kids, the parents, and the taxpayers, I am putting on my flak jacket and speaking up.

For the record: I want to see the school stay operating as a school.

Council decided in 2012 to pour taxpayers money into the school way beyond the town’s contractual obligations. It was based on false reasoning. We were already meeting our contractual obligations. TSBP has always met the terms of the contract and was never in breach.

Council claimed that an extra donation was necessary to save the school. It was not.

The proposal on the table is a five year agreement that gives much more of taxpayers’ money to the Bluewater District School Board than was donated by taxpayers in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

There is an alternative to the proposal on the table. There is a way to keep the school operating as a school for up to another 20 years, and all without any extra funding by taxpayers (other than standard education taxes). The school can be saved without making the already heavily burdened taxpayers even poorer.

Here’s how.

While the current contract expires on July 1, 2014, there are several renewal options built right into the current contract. Regarding renewal, the contract reads:

 11.0 TERM OF AGREEMENT

 This agreement shall be effective from the date of its execution by the parties hereto and it shall continue in force until July 1^st in the year 2014. Either party hereto shall have the privilege of renewing this agreement for a further term of 20 years upon the same conditions as are contained herein subject to any modifications that may have occurred pursuant to this agreement.   Such renewal must be requested in writing within six (6) months of the expiry date of this agreement. Subsequent to any renewal period, this agreement shall continue thereafter from year to year until either party gives notice in writing to the other party that they wish to terminate the agreement on its next anniversary effective on July 1^st in the following year.” (emphasis added by CG)

 Simply put, if TSBP wants to continue the contract as it is for another 20 years, all we have to do is say so. TSBP can decide unilaterally to continue the existing contract for another 20 years. The school board cannot veto such a decision.

This raises an extremely important opportunity.

Instead of beggaring the taxpayers in order to keep the school open for another 5 years, why not just renew the contract, keeping the school open for another 20 years, without any burden on the taxpayers.

How does renewing the contract for twenty years keep the school open?

In 2012 the school board looked at how much money it could save if it closed the school.

But in determining the savings, the school board assumed that they would actually close the school and apparently sell it, or at least sell their share. The board also assumed that this would have got rid of all of the school board’s share of costs. But this was a false assumption. The school board was contractually bound to keep paying its share of operating costs, and could not have walked away.

Similarly, if TSBP elects to renew the contract for another 20 years, the school board cannot just walk away or stop paying operating costs. If TSBP renews the contract for another 20 years then the school board is contractually obligated to pay the bulk (but not all) of the operating expenses, for 20 years, whether the school operates as a school or not.

But if the school board is obligated to pay those costs whether or not they operate the school, then any savings claimed from stopping operation as a school evaporate.   They are false savings.

So if the contract was renewed for another twenty years, forcing the school board to pay the bulk of operating costs for twenty years, then the option of discontinuing the schooling option would likely actually increase costs to the board, mostly due to costs of bussing the children to another school.

If the operating costs have to be paid for 20 years anyway, bussing kids elsewhere and schooling them elsewhere is going to be far more costly to the school board than continuing to school them at Sauble.

So if the contract is renewed for another twenty years, forcing the school board to pay the bulk of operating costs for twenty years, shutting down the schooling operation and bussing the kids elsewhere would make absolutely no sense, financially or otherwise. There is little chance that the school board, which is supposed to be responsible to the public, would do something so foolish.

Administrator Farrow-Lawrence’s recommended five year contract may appear to be a short term (five year) win for the parents and the kids.   But after that five years there is no more contract, and the school board can just walk away, and stop paying the bulk of the operating costs. Because at that point there would no longer be a contract requiring them to pay the bulk of operating costs. And that is exactly what they would do.   They would walk away.

In addition the Farrow-Lawrence proposal is a huge burden on TSBP taxpayers.

In stark contrast, the alternative, that is renewing the current contract for another 20 years, would keep the school operating for up to another 20 years, and so is a 20 year win for the kids, a 20 year win for the parents and a big win for TSBP taxpayers.

(But all taxpayers in Bluewater school district might see a slight increase in education taxes.)

Council should consider renewing the contract for twenty years instead of the costly Farrow-Lawrence 5 year proposal. Renewing the existing contract for twenty years just makes so much more sense.

And if the school board should turn out to be more foolish than I expected and try to hold us to ransom with another school closure threat, I will participate in any number of fundraising events to raise money to help pay the ransom (other than another tax grab from the TSBP residents). I will wash cars, spin crown-and-anchor wheels, run bingo nights, knock on doors asking for donations, whatever it takes. Because I place high value on a good solid education for the children.

But all bearing in mind that I place an equally high value on the taxpayers’ rights not to have to pay their education taxes twice, namely once as municipal taxes and again as education taxes.

And if we ever do get to the ransom paying stage, we must register a lien against the school board’s share of the school, for an amount exactly equal to any ransom that we pay.

It would mean a lot of bingo nights, but in about ten years we would own the whole school.

And all without costing the taxpayers another dime.

Your faithful servant to all residents,

Craig

8.8 CLK46-2014 Airport Board Request for Funding to Prepare Business Plan

The joint airport board wants money to pay Cliff Bilyea to prepare a business plan for the airport.

One assumption that is being used in the project is that runway repairs are necessary to carry on business at the airport. This is a false assumption.   The airport can legally carry on just as it did for many years, even if the runway is not repaired.

If council gives the board money for a business plan, council should insist that the false runway repair requirement assumption is dropped.

10.3 By-Law 50-2014 A By-Law to Amend By-Law 55-2011 Being a By-Law to Impose a Fee for Improvements to the Amabel-Sauble Water Systems to the Owner or Occupants of Land who Derive or Will or May Derive a Benefit from the Upgrades to the Water Systems

Sounds complex, but it is merely a proposal to add one property to the system and to delete one property.   Residents on the systems should know why the one property is being deleted. Many residents would like to be deleted, and would like to know how to get deleted.

11.1 FS15-2014 BCF 24580 Amended Agreement: Wiarton Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion

The proposal is to amend an agreement so that money originally granted for a small Sauble Sewers system, which was cancelled, can be used to expand the Wiarton sewage treatment plant.

I have no concerns about amending the agreement.

I do have concerns about the expansion project.

The claimed benefit to the town is stated as: “the entire Municipality will benefit from an increased assessment base as the backlog of projects within wiarton can be released and approved, and future development can be accommodated” and, “additional assessment resulting from increased development would benefit the entire Municipality”.

This claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Taxpayers will not benefit because along with the increased tax base there will be a commensurate increase in service costs and thus a bigger budget, and thus about the same level of taxes for existing taxpayers. So there is no tax benefit to the residents of the municipality. The claim of a tax benefit is dubious at best.

Another concern is that the report fails to mention is that the money required beyond the grant will come from a loan, and if the money to pay off the loan cannot be collected from developers for any reason, then taxpayers will be on the hook, including taxpayers who will never use the existing or expanded system.

Council should explore every possible option to ensure that the taxpayers are not left paying for the sewage treatment plant expansion.

Craig

8.3 KIRKLAND/KLAGES/TURNER01-2014 Festivals and Events

 Turner Klages and Kirkland want to amend the special events policy so that for an event on private property that has a special events permit, overnight camping will be allowed. I have argued that this provides inadequate protection for neighbours.

These three want the overnight camping on private property allowed for “events such as plowing matches, rodeos, music festivals, and other such events”.

But it’s moot anyway.

The special events policy says “to be considered for approval a Special event must provide meaningful public benefit and must have a direct impact on one or more of the following areas: arts and culture, education, health and wellness, physical fitness, enrich the character and identity of the town, create unique or innovative experiences, contribute to programming in slow seasons or extend the overall range and mix of programming in the town.   The kinds of events that Kirkland, Turner, Klages seem to have in mind don’t fit those, so would not qualify.

Second it is false that allowing overnight camping is necessary in order to hold such events.

If this is going to be added to the events policy, organizer should be required to get permission from all potentially affected neighbours. That seems only reasonable.

8.4 DMFS01-2014 Community Foundation Grey Bruce, Qualified Donee

There is a proposal for the town to act as an intermediary between Community Foundation Grey Bruce and organizations applying for grants from Community Foundation Grey Bruce (donnees)

Requirements for applicants to be able to use the municipality as an intermediary include:

 the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the “agent”) must have a direct affiliation with the sponsoring municipality (herinafter referred to as the “qualified Donnee”) Examples – shared charitable purpose, membership in an umbrella organization, etc.

 I can’t think of any applicants that would meet that criterion. So it’s an interesting discussion, but it is also a wasteful one. Besides there’s an easier way to get money to applicant groups. Applicants for grants can just register directly with revenue canada and then they can go directly to Community Foundation Grey Bruce with their grant requests.

8.7 PW9-2014 Oliphant Water Treatment Plant Upgrades-Update for May 2014

It still bothers me that the Oliphant upgrades are being paid for by all residents.   If the costs were properly assigned to the users, then there would be a better effort to find a more sensible solution to the problem, rather than just throwing good money after bad. Just another way the current council has pitted residents against each other.

8.13 ADM26-2014 Deputy Manager of Public Works Position

In my commentary 4-15 I devoted some time explaining that the CET designation does not qualify anyone to do the job of Assistant Manager, Public works, or engineering coordinator. I also explained in commentary 4-15 that one needs to be licensed to do any kind of work related to engineering.   It appears that council chose to ignore my advice.   If the job by its nature requires that the employee be licensed, and a new employee who is unlicensed is hired, it won’t be a good situation.

10.4 By-Law 39-2014 Being a By-Law to Amend By-Law Number 44-2009 Being a By-Law to Adopt the Manual Governing the Policies and Procedures for the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (Professional Conduct Policy)

Residents are circulating and posting the professional conduct policy as an example of just how closed and draconian TSBP council is.   Residents from other municipalities have taken note too. Please … some councillor … any councillor … ask for a recorded vote so the residents can see where each council member stands on this ridiculous nonsense.

Craig

Agenda item 8.3 KIRKLAND/KLAGES/TURNER01-2014 Festivals and Events

The agenda indicates:

 The current by-law only allows for overnight camping on Town owned property. The Town has been approached on numerous occasions for private events with overnight camping and the current by-law makes no provision for camping overnight at that type of event. This has prevented events such as plowing matches, rodeos, music festivals and other such events that may require overnight camping from being held, to the detriment of the Town.

This is a difficult policy decision. On the one hand you want to allow truly charitable organizations to continue to do their good work. On the other hand council also has a duty to protect the residents.

If council allows for the Turner, Kirkland, and Klages proposal there is no way that the situations can be controlled. Residents will be harmed.

The duty to protect the residents is paramount. It’s a duty that Turner, Kirkland, and Klages do not seem to comprehend.

In terms of protecting the residents, the Turner, Kirkland, Klages proposal fails, and should be rejected.

Note that the proposal includes “notify the surrounding neighbours”.   That means notify the surrounding neighbours when you’re going to keep them up all night with non-stop partying. This is unacceptable. Turner, Kirkland, and Klages should show a little more respect for the residents.

It’s easy to have charitable organizations do their good work and protect the residents too. Just have events where events are normally and legitimately held (e.g. Wiarton arena), and let people camp where people normally and legitimately camp.   That way the charitable organizations can do their good work and you don’t have to sacrifice the residents. Everyone wins.

Council should not change the special events by-law or the tents by-law. There is no need. And there is no justification.

And anyone who wishes to brand my pro-resident stance as “anti-veteran” should consider this. My father is a WWII veteran. He wasn’t on the front line, but he still signed to fight for the freedom we now have and for the protection of the rule of law that is the foundation of our society, and the basis of our freedom. He turns 94 this month. He has always been a caring and considerate man. He would be appalled at the way some people are trying to invoke the image of “veterans” to justify abandoning the very rule of law that he and so many others were willing to fight and die for. Appalled.

Agenda item 8.6 PW8-2014 Highway 21 Corridor Through Allenford-Paved Shoulders

I agree this should be done. But it is not a town road. It is not a county road. The province should be doing this. Not the town.

Agenda item 8.13 ADM26-2014 Deputy Manager of Public Works Position

The proposed requirements for the position of deputy manager of public works include:

Certified engineering technologist or professional engineering designation (similar to the previous Assistant Public Works Manager position)….

It appears that the previous position required only a certified engineering technician, which is quite different than a certified engineering technologist.

The work of a deputy manager of public works, in my view, would be classified pursuant to the Professional Engineers Act as “engaging in the practice of professional engineering”.

The law is that to “engage in the practice of professional engineering”, one must be a licensed professional engineer or hold a temporary licence, a provisional licence or a limited license issued by the Ontario Association of Professional Engineers. Being a certified engineering technologist does not qualify one to legally do that kind of work. Being a certified engineering technician does not qualify one to legally do the work. Nor does being an unlicensed professional engineer. To do the work one must be properly licensed. And to get licensed requires a lot more than just being a certified engineering technologist.

The job description needs to be modified to match the law so that a new hire doesn’t run afoul of the law.

Agenda item 8.12 ADM25-2014 Deletion of Policy A.1.3 Employee Classification & Remuneration/Benefit /8.14 ADM27-2014 Future Wage Adjustments for Non-Union Employees

This is a proposal by the administrator to give non-union employees a raise equivalent to union employees every time union employees get an increase through collective bargaining.  This is in addition to the annual performance review raise that the non-union employees already get.

The administrator claims that giving non-union employees these automatic raises is a requirement of Ontario’s pay equity legislation. The administrator claims that she has no choice.

The administrator’s claim is bogus.

There is absolutely nothing in Ontario’s pay equity legislation that requires pay raises for non-union staff every time union employees get an increase.

There are lots of residents in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula who are struggling. How does council think these residents feel when they are struggling yet they see their tax dollars going into the pockets of so many staff members that are on or approaching the $100,000 a year “sunshine list”, and they see that staff are controlling their own salaries, and they see staff justifying big salaries and big increases on some nebulous bogus claim about “pay equity”.   (“We had to give ourselves a raise. We had no choice. It’s the law!”)

The administrator’s proposal fails the sniff test. Badly. The administrator’s request should be denied.

And compensation policy should not be made by the people being compensated. Council needs to get control of compensation policy.

Agenda item 10.4 By-Law 39-2014 Being a By-Law to Amend By-Law Number 44-2009 Being a By-Law to Adopt the Manual Governing the Policies and Procedures for the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (Professional Conduct Policy)

I talked about the professional conduct policy in a previous commentary. The policy has made council a joke. Or rather more of a joke than it already was. The professional conduct policy has made the whole town a laughing stock.   Or rather more than it already was. I can’t wait for the election.

Craig Gammie