Craig Gammie's Commentary

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=54607

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=54605

Items of interest:

Agenda item 7.1 Paul Leader and BobTrask, Chesley Lake Ratepayers, Beavers in Chesley Lake and Request for Financial Assistance

Is this a matter for the conservation authority?

Agenda item 8.1 EDO03-2013 Sauble Beach Wayfinding

It is not clear from the EDO report is how much taxpayers’ money is going into signs promoting private sector commercial businesses.  Commercial signs should not be paid for by property taxes.

Agenda item 8.6 JACKSON01-2013 Amabel Sauble School Capital Financing

A few months back council was deceived into believing that the Town was contractually obligated to give the school board an extra $51,000 per year for the Sauble School.

In fact the town had no such contractual obligation.

Council, agreed anyway, totally unconcerned about the fact that donating the $51,000 makes no sense and unconcerned that the $51,000 adds almost another 1% to property taxes, making almost everyone worse off.

Now there is a proposal to give the school board even more.

Once again the false claim is being made that we are “not paying our share”.

It is a false claim.  Our agreement is clear.  Before the $51,000 we were paying according to our agreement with the school board.  With the $51,000 we are paying $51,000 more than what is required by agreement.

Council should turn this new proposal down.  It, like the $51,000 grant, is contrary to the public interest.

Council should not be using tax money to distort school board decisions and to meddle in school board business.

Agenda item 8.11 CLK50-2013 Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 122-2009 Housekeeping Amendment

I took a look at some of the so-called “housekeeping” amendments.  Some are not “housekeeping” at all.  Some are major and significant changes.

It is quite dishonest to call the amendments “housekeeping”.

This may have caused residents to pay less attention than they otherwise would.

Council should recast the proposed changes as significant modifications and start the review process over again.

Craig

Below is a letter I sent to council.

Some may find it of concern.

Craig

———————————————————

June 9, 2013

Members of Council, TSBP

Re:  Improper Use Of Treasury Funds By John Close For Private Purpose

On April 29, 2013 I received a notice prohibiting me from entering John Close’s property  at 14 Hea Road in Red Bay.  The notice is attached.

I am not at all concerned about receiving the notice.

I am concerned however that the notice, a purely private matter between me and John Close, was inappropriately paid for by the taxpayers of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

The notice is on Miller Thomson letterhead and is signed by Miller Thomson lawyer Steven O’Melia.  Mr. O’Melia’s billing rate is $575 per hour.

In the subject line of the letter is “Close ats Gammie Court File No. 12-262”.

The notice has absolutely nothing to do with court file 12-262.

Court file 12-262 was put in the subject line to make it look like the notice has something to do with the town, and to provide a TSBP account to charge the lawyer’s time to.

The charge to the TSBP account called 12-262 is illegitimate.

(Any charges related to case 12-262 are illegal, but that is an issue for another time.)

The April 29 notice has nothing to do with the town.  It is a private matter between me and John Close.

Generation, issue, and delivery of the notice were paid for not by John Close, but rather from the TSBP treasury.

That was an improper and unauthorized use of taxpayers’ money.

If John Close wants to issue me a no-trespass notice, he must do it at his own expense, not use taxpayers’ money.

When John Close takes money from the treasury and uses it for private purpose he brings shame not only on himself, but also on all the rest of council.

Council needs to take action to require John Close to pay back, to the treasury, the cost of the April 29 notice.

Council should also issue a serious reprimand.

Craig Gammie

April 29 2013 no tres notice close gammie.pdf

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=54365

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=54363

I have no particular concerns about any agenda item. (That’s a first.)

There are however a few items of interest.

Agenda item 8.5 MLEO06-2013 Power of Entry

The staff recommendation is:

“Pass By-Law as presented to allow Officers to perform their lawful duty to enter and to inspect in order to confirm or deny any alleged infraction of Town by-laws.”

I believe this by-law is necessary. I hope the privilege of entry will not be abused or used for ulterior or improper purpose. No power of entry by-law can permit fishing trips. You need reasonable grounds to go on a property.

Agenda item 7.2 3:00 pm Victoria Serda, Community Foundation Grey Bruce-Eva Leflar Memorial Tree Planting Grant

Everyone wants money from the treasury. Council needs to be reminded that the money in the treasury is not theirs. It belongs to the residents.

Council should respond accordingly.

Closed session agenda item 4.5 Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose (Litigation Update)

On November 20, 2012 a resolution was passed banning me from town hall property. The pretext for the ban was the false allegations that I had commenced legal proceedings (plural) against the town and that I had deliberately and willfully tried to record a closed session.

I immediately applied to the superior court of justice to have the illegal resolution quashed.

On May 23rd Judge Clayton Conlan of the Superior Court of Justice issued an order that I am to be permitted to attend council meetings again.  So I will attend the June 4 council meeting.

I expect the court order is at least part of the “litigation update” closed agenda item.

Craig

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=54177

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=54175

Following are comments on a few agenda items.

9.1 Items Referred-CLK33-2013 Sauble Beach Chamber of Commerce Request for Paid Parking Fee Structure Roll Back

In her report on parking rates Clerk Cathrae says:

 “In keeping with the request from the Chamber to “roll back” the rate structure, I would not see any reason why we could not roll back the rates to $2.00 per hour, $5.00 per day and $25.00 per week. “

 The clerk has completely missed the point.  The clerk has completely missed the serious negative impact on taxpayers.

Rolling back the rate structure will significantly reduce revenues.  Property taxes will have to be increased significantly to compensate.  That’s the reason “why we could not roll back the rates to $2.00 per hour, $5.00 per day and $25.00 per week”.

I cannot see how anyone could possibly miss this negative impact on residents.  But clerk Cathrae missed it.

That the clerk cannot see the cost to taxpayers is no reason to reduce parking rates.

Administrator Farrow-Lawrence ’s comments are just as bad.  In her report there is no mention of the inevitable increase in property taxes.

It appears that the clerk and administrator have, like councillor Bowman, lost sight of their duty.

Their duty is to the residents.  At least it is supposed to be to the residents.  Their duty is not to the tourists or to the chamber of commerce or to any other commercial interest.

Council, if they have any sense of their duty to the residents, should end the nonsense and resolve to leave parking rates exactly where they are.

10.3 By-Law 53-2013 A By-Law to Implement a Sewage System Re-Inspection Program

The draft by-law is a bit of an improvement over the one it is supposed to replace.

But it is still a bad by-law.

The introduction implies that the town can trespass at will.

 Whereas the regulatory power to trespass on private property is given under Section 15.9 (1) “Inspection of an Unsafe Building” in the Ontario Building Code Act (OBCA);

 This is very misleading.  The power to trespass without a warrant is indeed in the act, but that is not a power to come on the property to do a maintenance inspection.  An official must have reasonable grounds to trespass using 15.9 (1).  Fishing trips are not permitted.

The introduction also makes this claim:

 And whereas Section 15.10.1 of the Building Code Act allows an inspector to enter upon land and into buildings at any reasonable time without a warrant for the purpose of conducting a maintenance inspection;

 That too is wrong.  The act allows an inspector to trespass to do a maintenance  inspection conducted according to the building code.  The town’s proposal is not according to the building code.   They cannot trespass to do fishing trips.

In spite of assurances given by Genivar’s Michael Vardy, I still believe that the objective of some staff and some council members is to find as many “problems” as possible, even if they don’t exist, and to order unnecessary and expensive “repairs”, so as to put pressure on people to support the failed Sauble sewers project.

I have a no-trespass notice served on Genivar and the town’s staff.

Until the by-law is fixed, the notices stand.

At the morning session of the public meeting on May 11, I tried to ask a question about Genivar’s obvious conflict of interest.  (The more septic system problems that Genivar finds, the more expensive the repairs are ordered, and the more support for Genivar’s 70 million dollar sauble sewers proposal).

My question was valid and relevant.  But I was not allowed to ask it.

I was rudely shouted down by clerk Cathrae and her co-conspirator Jim McKane.

It was clear to me that clerk Cathrae interrupted me because she did not want the residents present to know about Genivar’s obvious conflict of interest, and about how that conflict could cost residents a lot of money.

I stayed for the afternoon session and asked the same question.  Cathrae started across the floor clearly with the intent of grabbing the microphone and shouting me down again.  But having noticed that her accomplice Jim McKane had left the room, she decided not to interrupt me.  My question was posed, others joined the conversation, and the question was answered.

But many observed how desperate Cathrae was to make sure that the conflict of interest issue was not discussed.

Ms. Cathrae once again ignored her duty to the residents of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

I am a strong supporter of a proper septic inspection program.  I am not a supporter of Clerk Cathrae’s improper purpose and improper actions. I do not support Clerk Cathrae’s bylaw.

Council should send the by-law back to get it right.

8.7 CLK38-2013 Liquor Licence Application, Cocoa Vanilla, Wiarton

I have no particular concern with the issuing of the license.

My concern is that in assessing whether the license should be issued, Clerk Cathrae and administrator Farrow-Lawrence did not even consider the residents.

They did not consider the residents who may have to bear any increase in noise that may come with the addition of alcohol, and they did not consider any increase in rowdiness, and they did not consider any other potential negative impacts on residents.

As usual, only commercial interests were considered.

Clerk Cathrae and Administrator Farrow-Lawrence need to review the Municipal Act, especially section 227 (role of the officers and employees of the municipality) , section 228  (clerk’s role), section 229  (Chief administrative officer role),  section 1 (which puts boundaries on economic development services) and sections 106 through 114 (which also put limits on economic development services).

All of these parts of the Municipal Act and more are intended to ensure that council and staff act for the benefit of the residents and do not make policy for the benefit of commercial interests at the expense of the residents.

Cathrae and Farrow are supposed to know this.

Some education and direction is necessary.  Will council provide the necessary direction?  I’m not holding my breath.  Councillor Jackson is the only one who seems to fully understand that the duty is to further the public interest and that the public interest is the public interest of the inhabitants.

Craig

On May 7 councillor Bowman made a motion to eliminate Sauble Beach parking charges.

The motion was narrowly defeated, but the idea did not die, as a motion to put on a future agenda a by-law to decrease rates from $15 per day to $5 per day was carried.

Eliminating parking fees or dropping the rates from $15 to $5 may benefit councillor Bowman’s chamber of commerce buddies.

But it will provide only pain for the residents.

Contrary to Councillor Bowman’s claims, parking revenues currently pay a good part of beach maintenance expenses. The numbers don’t lie. At $15 for a day pass, paid parking adds $270,000 annually to the treasury.

If Councillor Bowman’s motion had passed, the town would lose that revenue, and taxpayers would have had to pony up at least an extra $270,000 in property taxes every year, and likely a lot more, just to keep the beach maintained at its current level.

That’s almost a four percent increase in property taxes. That’s an extra $40 per year for the average property. That would bring the property tax increase in the three years since the current council took office to 21%, or $210 on the average residential property.

Where does Councillor Bowman get the gall to say to the people of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula that:

 “We’re going to raise your taxes by 4 per cent, but don’t worry, you can trust me, because I’m a economic genius and I guarantee you that elimination of parking fees for tourists is for your own good.”

 (Short version: “I’m Marilyn Bowman. I’m from the government. I’m here to help you”.)

I’m sorry Ms. Bowman but I know that you are not qualified to conduct economic analysis, and I know that you are not qualified to make economic policy decisions, and I  don’t trust you.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Councillor Bowman tried to get a “socio-economic study” going to prove that she was right.

How?  She wanted to get the Sauble Chamber to “assist with the measurement plan”.

Guess what the chamber would find from the study?

Fortunately that idea failed to.  But it will be back.

Councillor Bowman’s duty is not to the tourists, and her duty is not to the tourism industry, and her duty is not to the Sauble chamber of commerce.

Her duty is to the residents of the town.

Councillor Bowman has turned her back on the residents of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.  Councillor Bowman has lost sight of her duties.

Councillor Bowman needs to be redirected.

I urge all residents of TSBP to write to councillor Bowman and remind her of her duty to the residents and to inform her that her duty to the residents is to support keeping Sauble parking rates at $15 per day to avoid a 4% tax increase.

E-Mail Councillor Bowman at:

m.bowman@sympatico.ca

Might as well copy all of council:

John.Close@southbrucepeninsula.com

paulwmckenzie@bmts.com

Jim.Turner@southbrucepeninsula.com

jackson4saublebeach@gmail.com

Chris.Thomas@southbrucepeninsula.com

kklages@bmts.com

jaybeck@bellnet.ca

Craig

Resolution R-230-2012, made in the March 20, 2012 meeting of the council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, was captured in the minutes as follows:

It was MOVED by J. Jackson, SECONDED by K. Klages

THAT effective immediately, the municipality will cease to fund the blog lawsuit on behalf of Rhonda Cook; AND THAT the lawyer(s) representing this case on behalf of Rhonda cook will be notified within 24 hours that the municipality will no longer pay legal fees regarding this matter; AND THAT with council scrutiny and approval one final invoice for legal work completed to this day be submitted to and reconciled with the municipality by March 30, 2012; AND FURTHER THAT no additional invoices will be accepted regarding this claim.

Councillor Jackson requested a recorded vote in reverse order. The Clerk indicated that Council should vote yes in support of the motion and no as opposed.

Turner No

Thomas Yes

Standen Yes

McKenzie Yes

Klages Yes

Kirkland No

Jackson Yes

Bowman Yes

Close Yes

Mayor Close declared the resolution to be CARRIED

As members of the gallery indicated that they had not heard what the resolution had said, on the direction of the Mayor, the Clerk/CEMC re-read the resolution.

(The lawyers representing Rhonda Cook were Miller Thompson LLP)

Resolution R-230-2012 of March 20, 2012 was a clear and unambiguous directive.

There should have been no more invoices submitted by Miller Thompson after March 30, 2012 for legal services for Rhonda Cook.  Allowing one month for payment, that means there should have been no cheques paid to Miller Thompson on the Cook file after April 30, 2012.  Definitely none after May 30 2012 at the very latest.

Below is a record of invoices paid to law firm Miller Thompson for “defamation” and “general legal”.

Payments to Miller Thompson LLp for “Defamation” Litigation

Cheque  date                     total billed     “defamation”       “general”

28983  1/19/2012        $7,524.97        $4,742.36

30183  07/11/2012      $13,162.10      $2,870.62        $10,291.48

30352  7/25/2012        $4,639.89        $4,639.89

31868  1/23/2013        $32,372.03      $3,350.72        $5,636.11

 Have we been paying Rhonda’s “defamation” legal fees, contrary to resolution R-230-2012?

Are we still paying?

Or are we paying for some other “defamation” proceeding?

Craig Gammie

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=53603

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=53601

Following are comments on a few agenda items.

Agenda item 7.1 – Bev Buckton and Mike Graham, Sauble Chamber of Commerce-Effects of Paid Parking on Tourism and Commerce in Sauble Beach

The Sauble Chamber of commence members have only one strategy – get the taxpayers of TSBP to subsidize them.

During the 2010 election chamber members offended all seasonal residents in the TSBP by suggesting that seasonal residents should have less say in policy decisions than “permanent” residents.

Also in 2010, in an attempt to force a 70 million dollar sewers project at Sauble so they could turn Sauble into Myrtle Beach, the Sauble chamber, without grounds, falsely blamed Sauble beach closures on septic systems.

With all that chamber deceit, no one but chamber members and John Close believe anything the chamber says.

Now the chamber is trying to tell us, the residents of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, that their proposal for dropping parking rates at Sauble from $15 a day to $5 a day is for the benefit of the residents of TSBP.

Isn’t that nice. The Sauble chamber members have put the interests and wellbeing of the residents of the Town of South Bruce peninsula ahead of their own interests. The Sauble chamber is looking out for us.

At least that’s what the Sauble Chamber wants us to believe.

The problem is that it is untrue. The fact is that the Sauble chamber is looking out for themselves, and for themselves alone, to the detriment of the residents.

Here are some of the lies and misrepresentations in the Sauble chamber’s April 2 presentation to council.

The chamber says:

“additional revenue will flow into local businesses, allowing them to add more staff, add improvements and grow the local economy”

The economy will not grow.

It may be true that additional revenue will flow into tourism businesses if parking rates are cut down.

But what the chamber fails to tell us is that the current $300,000 in parking revenues cover a good chunk of the beach maintenance costs, and if part or all of that $300,000 parking revenue goes away with lower parking rates, then taxes for all TSBP residents will have to be increased by as much as $300,000 to cover the existing beach maintenance costs and up to another $100,000 to cover the increased beach maintenance costs resulting from more tourists.

Residents use their money for consumption or investment.

Take $200,000 to $400,000 out of the pockets of the residents and that’s $200,000 to $400,000 less that they are spending and investing. That’s $200,000 to $400,000 taken out of the economy. So the economy is going to suffer, not improve.

Reducing the parking rate is good for the Sauble tourism businesses. But it’s bad for everyone else, and bad for the economy.

It is also unfair to take from some citizen’s, making them poorer, and just give it to others, making them richer.

The Chamber says:

“tourism is the economic engine driving Sauble beach and much of TSBP”

That’s false. Tourism may be the largest commercial component of GDP in the Sauble Beach area. But the economy is far more than commercial. Tourism is a small part of GDP.

And even if tourism were a bigger part of the economy, it wouldn’t justify taking $200,000 to $400,000 out of the pockets of the residents and using it to subsidize the Sauble tourism industry.

The chamber members may sit around their boardroom table chanting:

“if “they” don’t support us the town will perish” ….“We’re entitled …, We’re entitled …, We’re entitled …”,

But chanting ridiculous lies does not make truth, no matter how long and hard the chant. The chamber members need to get real.

The Chamber says:

“sauble beach businesses are a significant portion of the tax base”

This is just plain false.

All commercial properties in the TSBP represent only 3.7 per cent of the property assessments in TSBP. That’s 3.7 per cent of the tax base. That’s not a “significant portion”.

And tourism is going to be a fraction of the total commercial assessment.

And Sauble tourism again a fraction of that.

I don’t have any assessment data yet for just Sauble tourism properties, but I expect it’s less than 1 per cent of the total assessment.

One per cent or 3.7 per cent – it’s still an insignificant portion.

And even if the Sauble tourism sector was a larger portion of the tax base, it would be irrelevant.

Because if the tourism businesses were not there, the properties would still be paying property tax commensurate with municipal costs incurred. There is no gain to the town or the residents from the property taxes paid by businesses.

The Sauble chamber says:

“we contribute significant income for year round and seasonal residents allowing employees to pay bills tuition, and more”

This is a misrepresentation. First of all the chamber businesses do not “contribute” money to their employees. The pay their employees. Employees work for their money. The chamber pays them because they are bound by contract to do so.

The chamber makes it sound like paying wages is something they do out of the goodness of their hearts.  Wages are not a “contribution”.  They pay people so they can profit.

More importantly, as argued above, taking another $200,000 to $400,000 or more from the residents to subsidize the chamber members makes the residents $200,000 to $400,000 poorer, making it harder for them to pay bills, pay tuition, renovate their homes, start small businesses, and much more.

The Sauble chamber says:

“TSBP’s partnership with the Sauble Chamber is positively affecting our community – thank you for your support.”

First of all we the “town” do not have a partnership with the Sauble chamber. Council is illegally giving the town’s money to the chamber. But that’s a result of a partnership between John Close (and accomplices) and the Chamber. It is not a partnership with the town.

Secondly, as argued above, taking another $200,000 to $400,000 per year out of the pockets of the residents is, contrary to the chamber claim, negatively affecting “our community”.

The chamber has included results from two surveys in their presentations.

The implied conclusion is that residents support the chamber proposals of reduced rates.

These results are misleading, and the implied conclusions are invalid.

Anyone can decide what answer they want for a survey question asked, and get that answer simply by asking a leading question. The leading question is false or biased or incomplete information.

So for example the chamber asked:

“Many tourists complain about the cost of parking at Sauble Beach. Do you believe paid parking is negatively affecting tourism?”

That’s a leading question. The person who posed the question already knew what answer he or she wanted respondents to give. The surveyor biased the result. Any conclusions are invalid.

In addition there is no control to make sure that the survey respondents were randomly chosen, so the respondents that agree with the chamber could have been selected at higher than their proportion of the population. This too would bias the results.

The survey is useless.

Sometime after the chamber presentation on Tuesday, it will be put to council to decide what to do with it.

I hope council members are not gullible enough to believe the chamber misinformation.

In the past council has ignored the plight of the residents and ignored concil members’ sworn duty to the residents and council has instead catered to the Sauble chamber’s ridiculous demands, at the expense of the residents.

What will council do about parking fees?

Council has an obligation to the residents of the town.

Will council ignore the extra $200,000 to $400,000 burden on the taxpayers and coddle to the demands of the Sauble Chamber?

Will some council member propose that staff put together a “parking fees recommendation”?

We already know where John Close stands.

In a March 18, 2013 interview with John Divinski, John Close apparently said that he

“would like to see the [Sauble parking] levy eliminated altogether.”

John is also reported as saying:

“in these rough economic times, they need the tourists in the region to enjoy the beaches and if reduced parking rates does it, then so be it.”

It’s clear that Close is spouting the same economic mistruths as the Sauble chamber.

But that’s not surprising.

John Close is a member of the Wiarton Chamber of Commerce. I do not know if he is a member of the Sauble Chamber too.

For his Sauble chamber buddies John Close thinks nothing of adding $200,000 to $400,000 to the heavy burden TSBP taxpayers already face.

For his chamber buddies John Close thinks nothing of throwing the residents under the bus.

Will council act for the residents and deny the chamber request?

Will any council member, knowing repercussions could be severe, dare to argue against John Close?

Will any council member, knowing repercussions could be severe, dare to speak for the residents of TSBP?

Will council members be considering the votes they can get in the 2014 election by supporting the chamber and throwing the residents under the bus?

Will some council member propose that staff work with the chamber to put together a “parking fees report” for council to accept?

Will some councillor have the courage to ask for a recorded vote so the residents can see what their elected representatives are saying?

Message to council – We’re watching you.

Agenda item 7.2 Betty Hall and Ana Vukovic-Operating and Capital Cost of Small Communal Wells

Council in the March 18 meeting decided to refurbish the Oliphant water plant and charge all TSBP taxpayers for half the bill.

In my most recent (3-11) of several commentaries on the out-of-control Oliphant small water system fisco I showed that taxing non-users to pay for the refurbishing is illegal.

Betty Hall and Ana Vukovic were councillors in the 2006 to 2010 council, when some of the water system changes were put in place.

It will be interesting to hear their perspective on the current council’s actions.

Craig

My commentaries 3-6 and 3-10 dealt with the Oliphant water system “refurbishing” Fiasco.

This commentary deals with illegality of fees imposed on taxpayers for Oliphant water system upgrades.

What Municipalities can do and what they cannot do is defined by provincial statute, mainly the municipal act.

The Municipal Act contains prohibitions, that is things that the municipality cannot do, and also allowances, that is things that the municipality can do.

Municipal Act Part XII contains both allowances and prohibitions regarding “fees and charges”, with section 391 in part XII indicating what the municipality is allowed to do regarding fees and charges, and sections 393 and 394 indicating what is prohibited.

Whether the municipality can impose taxes on water system non-users for water system upgrades or for operating costs is not explicitly spelled out. It is not specifically listed as allowed, nor is specifically prohibited.

Councillor Bowman report 21-2012 in the October 2nd, 2012 council agenda says:

“Although the provincial mandate is that users of the system are financially responsible for the operating costs, in my opinion, this mandate does not prohibit the municipality from assisting with these costs.”

The first part of Bowman’s claim is correct. The Act says users are financially responsible for the operating costs.

But the second part of Bowman’s assertion is wrong. It is true that charging non-users to assist users is not explicitly on the prohibitions list. But what is also true is that is not on the allowances list either.

And what is most important is that in the context of the purpose of the Act and in the context of the explicit allowances and prohibitions in the Act, it is clear that taxing or charging non-users to subsidize users is not allowed.

Taxing /charging non-users is therefore illegal.

Section 391. (1) of the Act says:

“Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to impose fees or charges on persons, … (a) for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;”

This is the general allowance section. It allows the municipality to impose fees on persons for services provided.

This has to be taken to mean that the municipality can impose fees or charges on persons for services provided to those persons. There is no other reasonable interpretation.

There is no allowance in section 391 (1) for the municipality to impose fees or charges on persons for services not provided to those persons.

There is no allowance for the municipality to impose taxes on persons not on the water systems for the services they do not receive.

There is an allowance for fees to cover capital cost on persons who will get the service in the future;

Section 391. (1)

Deferred benefit
(2) A fee or charge imposed for capital costs related to services or activities may be imposed on persons not receiving an immediate benefit from the services or activities but who will receive a benefit at some later point in time. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 163 (2).

Given that the legislators specifically included this “deferred benefit” allowance, if the legislators had wanted to allow a fee for capital costs related to services or activities to be imposed on persons who do not and cannot and will not ever receive the service, they would have said so right in the Act.

But they didn’t say so. So charging non-users for upgrade costs is implicitly, but clearly, and obviously, not allowed.

Nor is charging non-users operating costs allowed.

Also, common sense would say charging non-users is not allowed. We have a user-pay system.

After Councillor Bowman wrote her report 42-2012 I told her that by my careful assessment of the Act she was incorrect, and that her conclusion was wrong.

I asked her to back up her contrary “opinion”, in writing, so that the people of the town could assess the validity of her conclusion (that taxes can be imposed on non-users).

She said she would back up her opinion.

But in spite of several requests on my part she never did back up her opinion.

Councillor Bowman would not even confirm whether she had read Part XII of the Municipal Act.

It seems that council has accepted Councillor Bowman’s unsubstantiated “opinion” as fact, on blind faith, without asking a single question.

Council is illegally imposing taxes of general taxpayers to cover half of the Oliphant upgrade costs.

Council must reverse the decision.

Craig

In my commentary number 3-6, which is at:

https://craiggammieblog.com/ ,

I talked about the Oliphant water system fiasco.

In the commentary I said:

“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.”

A resident on the Sauble school water system read my commentary 3-6 and asked council:

“Is Mr. GAMMIE implying that I am about to get another bill over and above the $7300 I’ve already paid, for the correction of the Fiddlehead water operation?”

The resident got a response from the new Manager of public works (Tom Gray) as follows:

Mr. xxxxxx

Council has approved a budget which will put the Oliphant plant back in operation based on a plan reviewed and approved by the M.O.E.. Half of the estimated costs associated with the refurbishing are included in the existing “Sauble” water rates and the other half will come from the general tax levy. It is estimated that the cost for the works at the Oliphant plant may be $290,000. Therefore, $145,000 has been applied to the general taxes and $145,000 are coming out of the Sauble Water budget. It should be noted that the Sauble water rates have not changed because of this expenditure. Staff will be working closely with the Consultant to minimize the cost of the works. An example of what we would be looking at is the cost to clean the existing media, if it is determined that it can be sufficiently cleaned, compared to replacing the media. We will implement the least expensive method provided we can achieve a comparable outcome . I can assure you that Council and Staff are aware of the costs associated with the Oliphant Plant and will be doing what we can to minimize these cost as we go forward.
I hope I have addressed your concerns in this matter as I was unable to determine your interpretation of the attached document in regards to “another bill”. There is not a separate bill being sent out to the residents of the Sauble Water System or the Town of South Bruce Peninsula in regards to the Sauble Water System/Oliphant Water Treatment Plant refurbishing. If you require further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks

Tom Gray CET
Manager of Public Works

First of all Mr. Gray did not even acknowledge my claim that the decision process was all wrong.

Secondly, Mr. Gray did not even acknowledge my submission that charging the taxpayers for half of the Oliphant upgrade is illegal. And Mr. Gray did not even acknowledge my claim that charging Sauble water system users other than Oliphant users is also illegal.

In fact, both are illegal. Municipal Act section 391 is very clear on that.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01m25_e.htm

But council and staff don’t care about the Municipal Act. They know that if they contravene the act, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs can do absolutely nothing and will do absolutely nothing. They know that residents can take them to court if they breach the act, but they also know that there is only one citizen, maybe two at most, with the courage to take them to court over their contraventions of the act. And they know that if a resident does take them to court they can raid the peoples’ treasury and use it to line up a wall of lawyers to oppose that single resident.

As a result they contravene the act with virtual impunity.

And the people of TSBP will suffer. All the residents in TSBP will see another two per cent increase in taxes to pay for the Oliphant system upgrades.

Finally Mr. Gray is being completely dishonest about water rates.

Mr. Gray said:

“It should be noted that the Sauble water rates have not changed because of this expenditure.”

$145,000 is coming out of the Sauble area water budget to pay for the Oliphant upgrades and Sauble area rates are not higher because of it? ????

Does Tom Gray think everyone is stupid?

(Mr. Gray’s comment reminded me of former works manager Phil Dwyer’s June 29, 2011 dismissal of comments from the public as “not rational”, and “misinformed”).

In his letter Tom Gray implied that people on the Sauble Area water systems are not paying for the $145,000 Oliphant upgrade cost in their monthly water bills.

This is false. This is very dishonest. This is deceitful. This is a scam.

The reason ”Sauble water rates have not changed” is because the cost of the $145,000 Oliphant upgrades was already built into the new water rates last year. No matter how you look at it, Sauble area water users are paying the $145,000. No matter how Mr. Gray tries to spin the story, Sauble area water users are or will be paying $145,000 more in their monthly bills than they would be if they were not illegally being charged the $145,000 for the Oliphant upgrades.  That’s an extra $290 per property spread out on their monthly bills.

The last works manager was bound to honesty and integrity by the professional engineer’s code of ethics, and by her own ethical compass.

So when she was ordered to scam the people, and to betray the people, and to deceive the people, she refused. But from John Close’s perspective (and Jay’s and Jim’s and anyone else who supported John), her honesty and integrity was a barrier, and a problem. So they, being the dark side, fired her.

Then they decided not to hire another professional engineer.

I find Mr. Gray’s response extremely dishonest and unacceptable.

The smell at town hall is getting worse.

If 99 people e-mail me and commit to holding back enough tax to balance their part of the $145,000 being illegally charged to us, I will be the first to hold back. It will mean holding back 2% of your property taxes for a year. It will mean holding back $20 per $1000 of billed taxes.

What can the dark side do if 100 or more of us revolt?

cgammie@rogers.com

Craig

The numbers don’t lie. At $15 for a day pass, paid parking adds $270,000 annually to the treasury.

Mayor Close wants free parking.

http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=55550

If he prevails, taxpayers will have to pony up at least an extra $270,000 per year, and likely a lot more.

That’s almost a four percent increase in property taxes. That’s an extra $40 per year for the average residential property. That would bring the increase in the three years since Mr. Close took office to 21% or $210 on the average residential property.

Mr. Close clearly doesn’t give a damn about the residents of the Town, and is especially contemptuous of Sauble residents. For the pecuniary benefit of his chamber of commerce buddies he thinks nothing of throwing the residents under one of the tour buses Lieutenant Kirkland has unloading along Lakeshore Boulevard at Sauble. Or who knows, maybe he does it just for sport.

Mr. Close says “in these rough economic times, [we] need the tourists in the region to enjoy the beaches”.

Translation: I (John Close) and my chamber of commerce buddies need the beaches and free parking so we can make a year’s salary on two months work while the rest of the residents pay for the beach maintenance and clean up the tourist litter in their front yards and breath the diesel fumes from Lieutenant Kirkland’s buses.

Mr. Close is implicitly claiming that he and his chamber buddies are entitled to the treasury and the beaches and free parking for their customers.

The treasury does not belong to Mr. Close and his chamber buddies. It belongs to the residents. The beaches do not belong to Mr. Close and his buddies. The beaches belong to the residents. And the streets and shoulders do not belong to Mr. Close and his buddies. They belong to the residents.

Mr. Close has already contributed plenty to the “rough economic times”. If Mr. Close gets his free parking wish, he’ll be making the “rough economic times” even rougher. The smartest thing we can do for the local economy in these rough economic times is to load John Close and his lieutenants up on Councillor McKenzie’s septic-tank-pumpout-barge and ship them off to Michigan. (I hear they welcome economy-destroying politicians there.)

Mr. Close calls paid parking “the most regressive form of taxation known”. That rings hollow coming from the man who promised us a 15% property tax decrease and instead gave us a 17% increase (so far).

Craig