Rage_Against_The_Municipal_Machine
Feature article April 7, 2005
LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb HomeContact Us
"Rage Against the Municipal Machine" by W.KennyThats the title of an article in the February 2005 magazine Municipal World. Its written by George Cuff, a Management Consultant in municipal matters, and Rick OConnor, Deputy Clerk and Legal Counsel of the City of Ottawa. Part of this article was included in South Frontenac Councils information package this week. Here are some quotes: "Regardless of any other good that a council might do in a term of office, if it does not pay attention to connecting with citizens, the tenure of elected officers will be short indeed. ..If avenues of discussion and debate are not kept open and accessible, it is highly likely that council will hear a public eruption...Ultimately a council and their administration must be mindful of their responsibility to serve the publics needs as expressed through the election, petitions, public hearings, council delegations and the like. Those serving the public must exhibit ...care for community concerns, (and) a desire to seek out the will of the majority...When these are not in evidence, the publics rage may well be expressed by angry outbursts or protests at council meetings, heated exchanges at the front counter, nasty letters to the editor..."
Sound familiar? Meeting after meeting, delegations from the Sydenham Safe Water Association have expressed frustration that their pleas, suggestions and offers of cooperation have been ignored or made fun of. Petitions and presentations asking for traffic calming measures in Sydenham were met by jokes about fast drivers all being local. Offers to help develop a system of trails and connecting roads as a compromise to opening all township roads to ATV use are brushed aside. Letters to council go unanswered. Angry and rude outbursts from the back of the hall are familiar to regular council observers, but have drawn a horrified "Does this sort of thing happen often?" from out-of-township visitors.
Sadly, the positive achievements of South Frontenac Council are being grimly overshadowed by the unfortunate perception that election to public office seems to mean one need never admit to being wrong, or that there just might be a better way of approaching some problems. Granted, a politician can never please everybody, and there come times when unpopular decisions have to be made. But when the same negative patterns repeat so often, it may be time to ask what could be done differently.
Cottage_associations
Feature article July 21, 2005
LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb HomeContact Us
The new face of Cottage Associationsby Jeff Green
New style cottage road:For
those familiar with single-lane glorified cart tracks into their
cottages, this new road into theBadour Estates waterfront
development on Bobs andCrow Lake might not look like a cottage
road. It will be paved next year.
Once upon a time cottage associations were mainly recreational bodies, devoted to running annual regattas, fishing derbies and the like. A change took place about 20 years ago when gypsy moths became a concern and cottage associations became active in informing their members of what was going on.
In recent years two fundamental changes have taken place that have brought on new roles. With concerns over water quality, the invasive species in the lakes, and the state of shorelines, some cottage associations have become environmental watchdogs, developing stewardship capacity. In some cases, lake plans are being put together, a slow and involved process, and one that requires cooperation with conservation authorities. Conservations authorities love this; it provides them with data that would be extremely expensive to gather otherwise.
For property owners on these lakes, lake studies, lake plans, and stewardship initiatives are invaluable in protecting their beloved properties. Probably the best example of these kinds of initiatives in our region has been the Greater Bobs and Crow Lake Association. They are well into their lake plan process, produce a newsletter that is extremely informative about watershed issues, and this year will be combining their Annual General Meeting with displays about many topics of interest to waterfront dwellers and others.
At the same time, cottage associations are becoming waterfront property owners associations. As lots start to sell for over $100,000, and homes on lots start hitting the $500,000 mark, two related things happen. One thing that happens is that properties become major assets for the people who own them, and concerns about environmental issues are also concerns about protecting investments. If cottagers cant swim in the water or eat the fish from the lake, those property values are sure to drop.
The other thing that has happened is that property taxes, which are based on property values, are going through the roof. In the past couple of years associations such as the Sharbot Lake Property Owners Association in Central Frontenac, and the Mazinaw and Gull Lake Associations in North Frontenac, have started to look at municipal budgets, the workings of MMPAC (the agency that determines property values) and, increasingly, at provincial downloading of costs to the municipal level. At the recent public meeting concerning the North Frontenac budget, three of the five members of the public who attended were members of the Mazinaw Property Owners Association. The Sharbot Lake Property Owners Association formed a tax committee two years ago, and since that time has been studying various proposals, and communicating with other associations, specifically in the Muskokas, where million dollar properties are not uncommon, that would radically alter the way rural properties are taxed.
As Rem Westland, newly elected President of the Sharbot Lake Property Owners Association put it last week, It goes against the grain for us to be downplaying the value of our properties because we are afraid of MPAC. We are used to showing off to people, not saying, this property isnt worth very much.
Generally, the new interest in municipal and provincial affairs among cottagers has led to a better relationship between municipal councils and cottage associations. Both Central and North Frontenac councils have made overtures to the associations in the last two years, and these have been well received. I think its fair to say that relations, which were downright frosty a couple of years ago, have improved considerably.
The councils and the associations seem to understand their respective roles in moving politics forward, and they know that there is nothing inherent in their makeup that should lead them into dispute.
However, as noted earlier, next year assessments could increase, and the 30 or 40 per cent annual increases in property taxes on waterfront properties that were the norm in the 2001 2004 will be returning in 2006. Even if municipal councils are extremely careful in their budgeting, if a propertys assessment rises $150,000, it will translate into $2,000 more in municipal taxes.
Those kinds of increases will be a real test of the newly developed good will that has developed between cottage associations and municipal councils.
(Note: a meeting between cottage associations in Central Frontenac Council on the issue of taxation has been tentatively scheduled for September 3. Look for details in August)
Hold_the_fire
Feature article July 28, 2005
LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb HomeContact Us
Hold the Fire - NFHall to be built near township office
by Jeff Green
After many years talking about the need for a new Fire-hall, and a year-long process that led to a task force recommendation to build a Fire-hall on Buckshot Lake Road at Plevna, North Frontenac Council has finally decided to build a Fire-hall.
But it wont be built on Buckshot Lake Road.
At a meeting last week, North Frontenac Council gave unanimous approval to a motion approving, in principle, the construction of the new Clar-Mill Fire Hall and Council Complex at the 6648 Road 506 municipal building.
After considering this issue for the past year and coming very close to accepting a task force report that recommended building at the Buckshot Road site, Council seems determined to move forward with construction at the township office site in short order.
A special Council has been scheduled for this week to consider in detail an administrative report prepared by senior township staff (the Public Works Manager/Chief Building Officer/ and the Chief Administrative Officer), which outlined options for a new Fire-Hall and renovations to the Administrative Offices of the township.
This decision by Council came as a surprise to the townships Fire Chief Cor Bakelaar, who had been a member of the Task Force that had written off the Municipal Office site as untenable. Bakelaar was at Council to present a report of his own about the Buckshot Lake Road proposal. His report notes 10 advantages for the Buckshot Lake Road site, including the existance of two good wells, a sufficient septic system, space for a hose drying rack, and immediate road access in three directions. It also notes several disadvantages at the Mnuicipal Office site, including water quantity and quality, no space for a hose drying rack, and the lack of direct road access.
In preparing the administrative report, staff was charged with considering some of these issues that had led to the township office site being discounted by the task force The first issue was that of water. There are two existing wells at the site; one is dry and the other produces an insufficient volume of water, and that water is not potable. On July 7, a new well was drilled, at a cost of $10,900, and according to the Well Record it can supply an additional 3 gallons of water per minute. Another $1500 is being spent to pipe the water to the township office and it will then be tested for potability.
Fire Chief Bakelaar argued, however, that 3 1/2 gallons per minute is not sufficient to run such a complex as is proposed at the Municipal Office.
Staff has consulted Brian Black of the Kingston Frontenac Public Health Unit about septic requirements for a new building, and has determined that at a cost of $2,500 a new septic system can be put in by public works staff for the new building. The existing septic system will remain in place for the township office.
Various options for a new building are under consideration, and the existing Fire-Hall will be converted into much needed municipal office space. The new building will be attached, perhaps through a tunnel, to the existing township garage on the site, and further site development will have to be done.
Councillor Fred Perry expressed the opinion of many councillors when he said, We asked staff to look at the water, the septic, and whether the site can be made suitable. We have our answers. Lets now go ahead with this.
The report itself does not argue for the Municipal site over the Buckshot Road site, however. The recommendations merely state that Council should decide if a new Fire Hall is going to be constructed and if so, where it shall be constructed.
The report goes on to say that if the Buckshot Lake Road site is selected, council should revisit the Request for Proposals that were received earlier this year.
The report includes rough drawings for the new building and renovations at the current Municipal Office site, and recommends that if Council decides to go that route, it should have the drawings prepared and approved by an engineer immediately. It then recommends that the proposal be put out to public tender, with the companies that submitted proposals for the earlier RFPs receiving individual notification.
What is so attractive for Council about the Municipal Office site, and seems to have led to this apparent about face on the issue over the past two months, is the ability to deal with two problems with one project.
This was a concern expressed last October by Councillor Bud Clayton when the Fire-Hall task force made its first report to Council. If the Municipal Office site is no good for a Fire Hall because we have no potable water, then why is it good enough for Municipal staff? he argued at the time.
It seems Council has decided the Municipal Office site is good enough for the Fire Hall, the Municipal Office, and the Public Works Department after all.
Details about costing for the proposed project are not being released at this point, pending preparation of tenders. Council has made it clear, however, that wherever possible, township staff and equipment will be used in order to keep costs down.
Ah_council
Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy
Feature Article
August 11, 2005. | Navigate | .
ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims
Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright
Addington Highlands Council meeting
by Jeff Green
Northbrook resident Karen Elliot travelled to Denbigh to address Addington Highlands Council at their sole August meeting. Elliott is concerned about the traffic situation in Northbrook, and congestion that results from parking on Hwy. 41.
Council will request that the OPP enforce the No Parking provisions that are in place.
Two years ago there was a public meeting with Ministry of Transportation Officials concerning putting a stoplight in at the corner of Hwy. 41 and Peterson Road. At the time Ministry engineers said a stoplight was warranted for safety reasons. There was some contentiousness over changes to entranceways that would have to take place. Township Clerk-Treasurer Jack Pauhl has been in contact with Ministry of Transportation Officials over the stoplight. Apparently, the engineering has been finalised and it is just a matter of finding funding for the project in the Ministry budget.
Official Plan hits snag – The Township approved its Official Plan late last year and forwarded the document to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in Toronto for review. When the Official Plan came back there were the usual requests for wording changes, but there are were also two requests for changes that are proving difficult for the township to accept. The Ministry would like the township to limit year-round development to public roadways, and prohibit permanent dwellings from private roads.
“Many people have been working at converting cottage properties into year-round residences in recent years, and we don’t see why the township should prohibit people from doing that,” said Reeve Ken Hook.
The other issue in dispute relates to lot size. The proposed Official Plan has a minimum lot size, for newly created lots, of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) and 200 feet of frontage. The Ministry is pushing for a minimum lot size of 1 hectare (2.5 acres) and 300 feet of frontage.
In neighbouring North Frontenac Township, however, there is a minimum lot size for general residential and waterfront residential lots is 0.4 hectares. Frontage requirements vary; for general residential it is 30 metres (98.4 feet) and for waterfront it is 45 metres (147.6 feet). These minimum lot size dimensions have been approved in the North Frontenac Official Plan and the comprehensive zoning bylaw, which was vetted by Municipal Affairs and was approved in April of 2004.
Addington Highlands Council is trying to arrange a meeting with representatives from Municipal Affairs to deal with these two outstanding issues.
Police reporting – The Addington Highlands Police Services Board was dissolved last month when the township moved from contract to status quo policing. The OPP has asked how the township would now like to be apprised of OPP activities in AH, and Council has decided to request quarterly reports to be sent directly to Council.
Library Fire Inspections – The two branches of the Addington Highlands Library are in need of fire inspections and Fire Chief Cuddy will be conducting them in the coming days.
$4000 from Waste Diversion Ontario – Addington Highlands has received a payment of $4,000 for the amount of recycled materials that have been collected at township dumps. This money will be placed in the township waste site closure fund.
From 2003 to 2004 the amount of recycling increased by 27% in the northern part of the township and 55% in the south. Reeve Hook attributes this increase to the implementation of the $2 bag tag system. For every bag of recyclables a free bag tag is issued, creating a significant incentive for recycling.
Rails_to_trails
Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy
Feature Article
August 18, 2005. | Navigate | .
ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims
Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright
The Line Fences Act and Rails to Trails
by Jeff Green
The Rails to Trails movement has been derailed in recent years by the application of Section 20 of the Line Fences Act, which requires that municipalities assume the entire cost of fencing trails along abandoned railway right of ways.
The provincial government, which supports the development of trails as part of their strategy for healthy living and rural economic development, commissioned a report by Wayne Caldwell on potential changes to Section 20 of the Line Fences Act.
Caldwell’s report, “The Line Fences Act and Abandoned Rail Right of Ways” was released at the end of March and has been making the rounds of municipal councils this summer.
Caldwell gathered together municipal officials and representatives of the agricultural community at two meetings in early March to see if there was a way around the impasse between the two groups over the requirement to fence municipally owned abandoned rail right of ways.
The agricultural community was the group of landowners living along these properties that was consulted because two farmers from southwestern Ontario had forced the issue in the first place.
Even though the Line Fences Act is a centuries-old document, it had not been specifically applied to the Rails to Trails initiatives until a court case took place. In the case of Caiser (and others) vs. Bayfield and Tilsonburg, the Ontario Supreme Court upheld Section 20, finding that the municipalities had an obligation to construct fences when requested by a landowner
A second case, Grosvernor (and others) vs. East Luther Grand Valley, is still before the courts. In this case, the municipality has passed a bylaw to designate an abandoned right of way as a “highway”. The Line Fences Act does not require the fencing of boundaries between highways and private lands. Neighbouring landowners are contesting this bylaw on the grounds that it specifically attempts to circumvent the Line Fences Act.
While the report notes that it is strange that fencing was not required when these properties were active railways, but is required if they are to be converted into trails, it concludes that in the interest of farmers and others, fences will be required.
“While there may be arguments to the contrary, from an agricultural perspective the need for a fence adjacent to a trail may be greater than the need for a fence when it was an active railway,” the report says.
Some trail advocates, including Central Frontenac Councillor Bob Harvey, who was involved in the development of the Trans Canada Trail at Sharbot Lake, argue that municipalities should only be required to put up fences where trails are being developed adjacent to active farmland, and one of the report’s proposals would limit the requirement for fences to instances where trails abut agricultural land.
Caldwell’s report concludes that Section 20 of the Line Fences Act should remain intact. “The onus for fencing should continue to rest with the public authority,” it says.
The report includes a series of 20 options, which build from each other. Once it is established that the Section 20 of the Line Fences Act should remain in place, the rest of the options are designed to mitigate the potential costs to municipalities. They include establishing timelines for phased implementation of fencing requirements to minimise the impact on any single budget year. As well, one of options would allow for agreements between municipalities and landowners to forego the requirement for fencing where neither side sees a need.
While the report was written with a focus on the situation in south western Ontario and Grey and Bruce Counties, where there is prime agricultural land and the well-established Bruce Trail system, it cites the relationship between the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance (EOTA) and the Hastings Federation of Agriculture as an example of a successful relationship between trail operations and farming.
EOTA has established 520 km. of multi-purpose trails that are part of a long-term ATV tourism strategy. While they have established agreements with farmers in Hastings County, a proposal to extend the EOTA trail system into North Frontenac and Addington Highlands has met with less success, over municipal concerns over the effects of ATV traffic on environmentally sensitive lands and un-maintained municipal roadways.
The K&P trail extension
Section 20 of the Line Fences Act is seen as a hindrance to plans for the extension of the K&P trail south through Frontenac County to join the Cataraqui Trail north of Kingston. The Council of Central Frontenac has recently been forced to pay over $30,000 for fencing along a section of the K&P trail that has been established for years to the north of Highway 7, and they are loathe to consider any southern extension without changes to the Line Fences Act.
Although Council received Wayne Caldwell’s report at their August meeting, they have yet to have a full discussion of its implications regarding a southern extension of the K&P trail to the border with South Frontenac.
The main focus for advocates of the K&P trail has been South Frontenac, and there are a number of complications to the South Frontenac piece that go beyond the Line Fences Act.
Portland District Councillor Bill Robinson has been an outspoken critic of the proposed extension of the K&P trail into his district.
“I am not opposed to trails,” he told the News in an interview, “but the big thing about the K&P trail is that the cost is staggering, and the taxpayers in Portland can’t afford it.”
Robinson pointed out that: two bridges have decayed along the trail; the surveying is out of date and incomplete; and some small parts of the old railway lands have been sold off.
“While I would be willing to sit down with anyone to talk about changes to the Line Fences Act, I should point out that the cost of fencing only represents about 20% of what it would cost Portland taxpayers to establish a trail,” he said.
Robinson argues that financing trails would not be done by the township as a whole, it would be left to the taxpayers in the districts involved. The K&P line does not run through Loughborough or Storrington Districts.
Councillor David Hahn, who is also a farmer living in Bedford District, takes a different view towards the K&P trail than does Bill Robinson. He sees the Line Fences Act as the major hindrance to developing the trail in South Frontenac.
“I will be disappointed if this report does not result in any changes to the line fences act. As it stands now landowners can use the provision to [place a very expensive obstacle in the way of the owner of the trail, sometimes simply in cases where the trail passes through swampland or bush land where there is no real need for fencing.”
As to the other concerns that Bill Robinson expressed, Hahn argues that many of the costs have not yet been determined, and that trails are a long term proposition, taking up to 20 years to develop.
“As to financing a trail initiative, I don’t think the costs will necessarily come to the taxpayers only in Portland or Bedford. Any money that is required would likely come from parkland reserve funds, which come from development fees and can only be used for capital recreation programs, such as trails. I don’t know how much is in the reserve for Portland, but there is $250,000 in Bedford’s reserve,” Hahn said.
Hahn is also not convinced that surveys will be needed before lands can be transferred from Bell Canada, the current owner of the lands, and he notes that there was a proposal from the Royal Military College to build a needed bridge on the trail as a part of their engineering program, at no cost to South Frontenac.
“Trails have been established in other places, in spite of obstacles. They take time, but they can be made. Why can’t that kind of thing happen in South Frontenac,” he said.
The City of Kingston is going ahead with the development of a non-motorized trail along the K&P lands within its jurisdiction. That trail will end at the South Frontenac border, about three kilometres shy of the Cataraqui Trail, which runs east-west and connects to other trail systems, including the Rideau trail.
Letters_oct20
Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy
Feature Article
October 20, 2005. | Navigate | .
ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims
Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright
Letters to the Editor:October 20, 2005
Sydenham water – does anyone know where this project is going?
Township council has a bylaw in place to proceed with “safe water” for Sydenham village with the costs being borne by the small group receiving the “benefit.”
Now (October 6, page 3) the local MPP “sees the light” where the entire township should share this cost.
Is council now going to change the bylaw to involve the entire township? Will there be public meetings to allow all residents to voice their opinions on this project?
What do the elected officials plan to do about the fact that ground water will continue to be polluted by the end product of municipal “safe” water?
This is an ill-conceived plan to correct the problem of polluted ground water.
- Robert Fish, Harrowsmith
Superior local service
This letter is to express my gratitude and delight with the superior service I received from ‘Doug’s Antenna’ this week. After 19 months of frustration with Bell ExpressVu, I found it necessary to call in an ‘outsider’. Doug’s Antenna was able to fit me in within three days. They showed up exactly on time and proved to be friendly, competent and professional. It seemed they were happy to “go the extra mile” to satisfy me. In spite of all that, I was still amazed when I came home the next day and found a remote left at my door, with Doug’s business card, as a replacement for the faulty one that Bell would NOT replace.
I strongly recommend that anyone thinking of buying a Bell ExpressVu satellite system buy it from Doug’s Antenna!
- Jody Duffy
Inverary Water – 3 Strikes, You’re Out
In reference to the recent Inverary water crisis, I would like to point out a few things:
First, the people of the Sydenham Water Area, in an overwhelming majority of 92%, tell the South Frontenac Council, in no uncertain terms, to stay out of the water issue. In fact we have told them not once, but many, many times, in many many ways.
And what does our mayor and council do? They completely IGNORE the people and take full control, to the point of appearing like an autocratic dictatorship, then ram an inappropriate solution to the problem down our throats. Steeerrrrike One.
Second, the costs of the Sydenham project are skyrocketing out of control, from the initial estimate of $5.6 million, with an estimated people’s share of $800,000, to the now staggering estimate of $8.2 million, with an outrageous $3.2 million share for the people. So the people of Sydenham, other people in the township and our MPP Leona Dombrowsky have asked, multiple times, in multiple ways, to spread the costs of this project across the township.
And what does our mayor and council do? They completely IGNORE the people, and maintain their incredibly stubborn stance of making the people of Sydenham pay the bulk of the township’s share of this project. Steeerrrrike Two.
Third, recently, at least seven homes in Inverary have some tragic water issues. These people, and their neighbours, bless them, all ask council to help them with this crisis.
So what does our illustrious mayor and council do? They not only completely IGNORE the people, but they pull an amazing public 180 degree contradiction and tell the people that water is not their jurisdiction? Huh? I must have a hearing problem OR does this council only get involved in water issues when it suits them?
In the last three years of having to fight with our council over the Sydenham water project, we have been told repeatedly to the point of nausea that this council had to do something about the water in Sydenham. But now when the people of Inverary are actually in a crisis situation they are being told the exact OPPOSITE? Steeerrrrike Three.
Mayor Lake and those on Council supporting him, YOU’RE OUT.
You can either start listening to the people now, or you can listen to us in the next election when we unanimously vote for someone who is actually willing to operate in the PEOPLE’S best interest.
- David Waugh, South Frontenac elector
Re:Harrowsmith closing
My first thought when I read about the closing of the cheese factory in Harrowsmith was: why don't the employees buy the place and return to making local cheeses? Then, I found out that it's all about the milk quota. We used to have cheese factories in just about every village. Then the big boys (Kraft, etc.) started buying these small locations, and before you knew it, the local factory was closed, but the milk quota stayed with the big boys who moved the quota to one of their big operations where it was more efficient(?). It certainly gave them more economic clout. I'm sure that Saputo Inc. will not transfer all 89 jobs being lost to other plants. The purpose is to improve efficiency, after all. And, will they pay to transfer those families to their other locations? Or would employees have to take the chance that once they have paid the cost of a move, that their new jobs would not be declared redundant or moved to another location? Big business is all about the bottom line. We can never forget that.
Is there a homemade solution to Harrowsmilh's dilemma without having to acquire expensive milk quota? I understand that the Harrowsmith facility could be used to produce bottled milk and ice cream without having to buy quota. The dairy closest to Kingston is Reid's in Belleville. With the cost of fuel going through the roof, it might be economically viable for local dairy farmers to purchase the Harrowsmith facility, perhaps as a co-operative.
Another question I have is: why do cheese factories have to have milk quota? The dairy farmer has milk quota which allows him/her to sell a set amount of milk. What purpose is served by having cheese factories own milk quota as well? Especially now that there are so very few cheese factories left in Ontario. Could a way be found to give milk quota at no cost to special bodies (such as co-ops) under contract?
I imagine any solution would require help from government, either as grants, loan guarantees, whatever. I hope that the stakeholders will get together (local council, dairy farmers, businesses) and see what viable solution this community can come up with.
- Irene Backholm, Amherstview
Ontario Municipal Taxes
The Ontario government’s answer to downloading of tax burden from the federal government was to pass the load on to municipal levels along with increased responsibility and a new property assessment scheme described as a “fair taxation system”.
One has to ask, however, under this “fair taxation system”, are the municipal taxes paid in Central Frontenac--mostly by waterfront property owners--intended to be 1) a tax for services provided; 2) a wealth tax; or 3) simply a tax grab by the Ontario government?
If it is the first, why is there such a disparity of services in the township? Many lakefront property owners, paying disproportionately high taxes, have none of today’s basic communication services: no maintained roads, no mail delivery, no internet access. Without municipally maintained roads they, of course, do not have ready access to other municipal services such as fire, police, and health care. Central Frontenac taxes seem to go primarily to support an extensive road network that does not reach most of the heaviest taxed property owners.
If municipal taxes are intended to be a wealth tax, why again are the rates so different across the province? In Toronto, where most of the MPs who brought in this system live, the tax rate is only 0.88895%, whereas it is 1.513% in Central Frontenac, nearly double.
I might add that the Toronto taxes provide a much higher level of services including support for a public transportation system.
One can conclude that the answer must be #3, simply another tax grab by a provincial government that does not see beyond its capital city. One could also conclude from these facts that it is the rural municipalities, not the big cities, that need support from the federal infrastructure initiative.
- Roger Henry, Sharbot Lake
Letters_oct6
Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy
Feature Article
October 6, 2005. | Navigate | .
ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims
Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright
Letters to the Editor
Municipal funding for Sydenham Water
Dear Mr. Lake:
I am in receipt of a letter from Alastair Lamb, which was sent as a follow up to a meeting I had with representatives from the Sydenham Safe Water Association. During the meeting, they described the significant costs that would be borne by local residents to have the new water treatment system installed in their community.
They asked if there would be any possibility for additional provincial dollars to be directed towards this project. I indicated that with all such infrastructure projects, the costs are shared on a one third basis with the federal government, provincial government and the local municipality. With regard to the Sydenham Water System, I indicated that the people of Ontario would cover their third of the approved project costs.
You will note in their letter to me, and during our meeting, the Sydenham Safe Water Association has strongly advocated that the local costs of this project should be shared more equitably by the residents of South Frontenac. Such consideration would mean instead of a few hundred people bearing several thousands of dollars in costs, per household, that if the burden were spread across all of the residents of the municipality, the burden would be less than $200 in one time costs per household. An even more attractive scenario would be for the municipality to spread the capital cost over 20 years at a cost of approximately $13 per year/per household.
You know that I have strongly supported your council's decision to provide safe water to the residents of Sydenham by constructing a water treatment facility. I believe that safe water is essential to a community's health and well-being. Sydenham is the community of interest for much of South Frontenac where children go to school, and people go to shop, worship and recreate.
When funding is provided to municipalities from the Province of Ontario it is important to note that the province does not area rate the funding, as such initiatives are funded by all taxpayers of Ontario. If area rating was applied at the provincial level it would prove burdensome, and insufficient for many parts of the province, particularly for northern and rural communities.
Recognizing that amalgamation did provide an opportunity for a greater pooling of resources and the development of a greater assessment base for municipalities, sharing the costs of the water treatment plant among all of the residents of the township would be consistent with the way the other two levels of government provides funding.
I am sure you can recall my suggestions to you in the past, that council could consider spreading the costs of the project more equitably among all of the residents of the township. Now, that the Sydenham Safe Water Association has presented me with the same suggestion and some compelling numbers to support their position, I respectfully request that the Council of South Frontenac seriously reconsider this funding option.
Such consideration would provide for a more bearable and equitable payment plan for a very valuable part of your municipal infrastructure.
I thank you for your attention to this very important matter, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Leona Dombrowsky, MPPHastings-Frontenac-Lennox &. Addington
Re: Hinge Lake Fire
To: Mayor Bill Lake and South Frontenac Council:
On August 8 smoke was seen above the tree line on the southeast shore of Buck Lake. Alert residents gave the Township Fire Department information to pinpoint the fire location on the south shore of Hinge Lake. Hinge Lake is only about 200 to 300 metres east of the Buck Lake shoreline, and the fire was not accessible to regular fire fighting equipment. Firefighters used pickup trucks and ATVs with trailers, and over a ten to twelve day period, the fire was finally extinguished after considerable heavy and dirty work by our volunteer firefighters.
On behalf of the Buck Lake Community I would like to express our gratitude to our volunteer firefighters for their great efforts. We are truly fortunate to have such citizens commit themselves to this often hazardous responsibility, and they deserve our utmost support and recognition.
- Crawford M. MacIntyre
Re:Sydenham Water - What can we do?
As a non-resident ofSydenham Village I wouldlike to commenton the letter to the editor from David Waugh (September 29, 2005).
I agree that it iscommon sense for all of thetaxpayers, who are participating in the "share costing" amalgamated township, to pay what is not more than the price of a daily cup of coffee for most of the water treatment project.Weshare costs forall other services!Who among us would even know, especially when we have so many other secret and public projects that benefit a host oftaxpayers and municipal employees.
Further on this theory of cost sharing,our councillors will, hire water plant treatment operators, buy chemicals,other materials and testing equipment, provide maintenance, probably purchase a vehicle or two, and as this operation grows, so will the ongoing costs escalate. Surely they are not going to expect the residents using the water to bear these back breaking expenses that they will have no control over. If they do, I hear there are two water plantoperators, formally from Walkerton Ont., who will work for beer.
As far as similar costs for other communities, common sense says that this fiasco will very likely not be repeated. When you look at recommended communitiy sizes, I even question why Sydenham village sudivisions are not included (was there even enough water in Sydenham lake to service them?)
I also agree with another responder that laws are easier to change than stubborn minds.
- Peter Svendsen
Re: The Importance of Local Foods
I am pleased to see the support that the Perth Farmers' Market has been garnering in their fight to continue selling locally produced eggs and "value added" home-made products like pickles or baked goods. In his letter of Sept. 29, MP Scott Reid presents solid arguments for amending what he rightly describes as the "poorly designed provincial regulations" which impose prohibitive bureaucratic requirements both on local farmers and on consumers. Food safety is important, and we should have no problem with government regulations that are actually needed to protect the public. But let's not be ridiculous!
Beyond the specifics of the Farmers' Market, the larger issue is the need for all of us to "eat close to home". Most of the food being sold in supermarkets has travelled hundreds, often thousands of miles before it gets to us. These "food miles" are extremely costly, in environmental, economic and human terms.
Buying lettuce from California or tomatoes from Mexico literally costs the earth in terms of fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, and most of what we are importing is water - water from irrigated fields in naturally arid areas. In many of those areas, salination and aquifer depletion are increasing problems, and the appropriate dryland crops which formerly fed the local population have been abandoned in favour of globalization's export market.
Meanwhile, here at home, prime Canadian farmland is being paved over or sold to big corporate interests because our own farmers don't get decent enough prices for their products to be able to stay in business. And has anyone detected any taste in those massive lumps of California fibre that the supermarkets still promote as "peaches", even at the height of the peach season in Ontario when our own sweet and juicy fruit is abundantly available?
So let's support the farmers markets whenever we can do the rest of our shopping locally where possible, and make sure we demand Canadian food products where ever they exist. With a little awareness we can kick the habit of food from afar, support our neighbours and our own economy, and enjoy quality food that's both tasty and nutritious and hasn't spent days in a truck.
- Helen Forsey
Dombrowsky_weighs_in
Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy
Feature Article
October 6, 2005. | Navigate | .
ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims
Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright
Dombrowsky weighs in on Sydenham Water funding
by Jeff Green
MPP Leona Dombrowsky has sent a letter to South Frontenac Mayor Bill Lake requesting that South Frontenac Council consider an alternate funding arrangement for the Sydenham Water plan project.
The letter, reprinted in the letters to the editor, was mailed on September 13, and was copied to Alastair Lamb of the Sydenham Safe Water Association. It supports suggestions by the Safe Water Association that the project, which is being subsidised by the provincial and federal governments, be funded by ratepayers from throughout South Frontenac Township rather than the residents of Sydenham who will make use of the system.
While Sydenham residents are paying the lion’s share of municipal costs, the township as a whole is paying some background costs, according to Loughbourough District Councillor Ron Vandewal.
Vandewal contacted the News in response to an editorial on the same issue from 2 weeks ago entitled “Sydenham Water Will Leave a Political Legacy”. He pointed out that various background costs to the project, including but not limited to the cost of roadwork within Sydenham Village, are being funded out of the township budget.
Dombrowksy’s letter to Mayor Lake has not been brought before South Frontenac Council, at least in open session, thus far.
Letters_sept15
Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy
Feature Article
September 15, 2005. | Navigate | .
ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims
Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright
Letters to the Editor - September 15, 2005
Re: Walleye Spawning rehabilitation at Bobs & Crow Lake
I would like to put in a rebuttal concerning the article on Walleye Spawning Rehabilitation in your Sept. 1 edition.
The article stated that the Greater Bobs and Crow Lake Association has not done any walleye stocking on the lakes since 1992. It also states that the walleye levels have been increasing over the past 10 years, with the Walleye Netting index showing 2.5 Walleye per net captured in 1997, and 3.12 Walleye per net in 2002.
However, although the GBCLA has not done any stocking since 1992, the Can Am Fishing Club of Bobs Lake has. In 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Can-Am Fishing Club stocked over 9000 walleye fingerlings in Bobs Lake, and I submit that the increase in the Netting Index was due to this stocking.
I have spoken with several elders, with whom I fished in the 70s and 80s, and they say that this lake will never be able to restore itself because of the number of cottages that have been built. The fishing pressure has increased that much and this lake will have to be stocked or Walleye fishing will fade away.
Bob Daok, Vice President
Can-Am Fishing Club
People of Sydenham still at risk of losing homes
The recent Water Aid benefit concert featuring Dan Aykroyd was a huge success, raising $25,000 to assist families in Sydenham at risk of losing their homes due to the exorbitant costs of a new municipal water treatment system. Unfortunately this will only scratch the surface of the substantial financial need.
The people of Sydenham are caught between the knee-jerk reaction by the provincial government to the Walkerton tragedy, the municipality’s quest for infrastructure and the more reasoned approach to ensuring sustainable water outlined in a recently released government requested report. Although over 90% of the 273 affected residents petitioned against this $8 million system, construction got underway this spring.
The irony is that the Province’s own Water Strategy Expert Panel supports the position of the people of Sydenham. The panel’s report, entitled Watertight: The case for change in Ontario’s water and wastewater sector contains many recommendations, some of which highlight the flaws with the system being installed in Sydenham:
Ideally municipal water systems should have a minimum of 10,000 customers. The Sydenham system will have 273 customers!
Small communities with high costs should use newer ‘in-home’ technologies (such as UV lights and reverse osmosis.) Residents of the village petitioned the township council and consulting engineers to consider these systems as alternatives to the system being installed. Their petitions fell on deaf ears.
The smaller the system the more water quality issues are likely to occur and the more costly the system is to sustain. The Sydenham system will be among the smallest in the province.
If the Township of South Frontenac had followed the wishes of the people in the village, now supported by the aforementioned report, the average cost per household would be more like $3,000 to $5,000 instead of $10,000 to $15,000 and up to $25,000!
The provincial and municipal governments should recognize this unfortunate set of circumstances. As representatives of the people they need to be accountable for their decisions (including their mistakes) and make amends for the difficult financial situation in which they have placed the people of Sydenham – many of whom risk losing their homes or their life-savings.
The Sydenham water project, as it is being installed needs additional funds, needs alternative financing arrangements and needs to have the cost of this system spread across the whole township. If the Township of South Frontenac were to function as an amalgamated township and spread the costs across its tax base, each taxpayer would have a one-time expense of $180!
- Alastair Lamb
for the Sydenham Safe Water Association
Ah_council
Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy
Feature Article
November 24, 2005. | Navigate | .
ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims
Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright
Denbigh computer thefts pinpoint library's vulnerabilities: Addington Highlands Council, November 21, 2005
by Jule Koch Brison
A delegation from the Addington Highlands Library Board attended the meeting to ask council to replace two computers that were stolen from the Denbigh Library on October 17, the same night as the last council meeting in the building.
Speaking for the group, CEO June Phillips said that the theft highlighted the libraries’ vulnerability. “Council did not adequately insure the libraries. It is the township’s responsibility to replace the computers,” she said.
The computers were worth approximately $3000 but the township has a $2500 deductible on its insurance.
Reeve Hook acknowledged that the Library Board has worked hard and garnered a lot of money to improve the libraries, but said it would be very expensive to not have a $2500 deductible clause. He said the township had also felt that as the computers were not bought with township money, “why insure them?” The computers had been bought with a grant from Industry Canada to set up a CAP (Community Access Portal) site at the library. Reeve Hook said he supports budgeting to replace the computers and that council is working to make sure the library is “a totally secure area”.
June Phillips asked if there was money in the township budget to cover the $2500 deductible. “If we had a theft, even in this instance, if the money were in the budget, we would only have to fundraise for $500,” she said. “... The Library Board has no responsibility for securing this part of the building. It is through your neglect that we lost the computers. Council left that door open.”
Councillor Bill Cox bristled at the suggestion that the theft was council’s fault and asked about the police report. Reeve Hook then read the report out, but it did not specify whether there had been a break in. Deputy Reeve Lorraine Berger quietly confirmed that there had been no forced entry to the library door.
Councillor Cox said that a new oil furnace will be put in the building on December 1 and Fire Chief Casey Cuddy will do the fire work to make the whole building secure. Cuddy will submit a report in January.
June Phillips said that the Board will be putting bars on the libraries’ windows, and she also discussed an alarm system with council.
Councillor Louise Scott said that since “Robbers wait until you’ve replaced the goods and strike again in three months”, the township would not replace the computers until the library is secure.
Meanwhile, Jim MacPherson of the Frontenac E-Waste Recycling Centre heard of the theft and has offered to donate two computers to the library. June Phillips acknowledged the kind offer, but said that as they would have to spend about $300 on each computer for software and network cards, they would wait.
Council passed a motion to replace the computers after the building is secure. In the meantime, anyone with any information on the theft is asked to call OPP Constable Verbruggen at 336-2244. See the township’s ad on page 2 for more information.
RESOLUTIONS: Council voted to support various resolutions from other municipalities, including:
- one from the City of Niagara Falls asking the federal government to intervene in the wholesale gasoline sector to restore the free market system of competition;
- one from the Township of Chisholm petitioning for the reinstatement of the spring bear hunt;
- and one from a coalition for reforming the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Township Clerk Jack Pauhl explained that presently, if a township passes a bylaw, someone could take it to the OMB and it could be overturned. This effectively takes the power away from elected officials and is costing municipalities a lot of money.
WASTE DIVERSION ONTARIO DATACALL RESULTS: According to WDO’s results, in 2004, the net cost for AH’s recycling program was $79,554 or $586 per tonne. This was higher than the municipal average of $235 per tonne. Reeve Hook said later that part of the difference may be the higher fees for trucking in the north, and also variations in reporting data. For example, North Frontenac, which recycles a similar tonnage to AH, reported administration costs of $342, as opposed to AH’s $2397. Reeve Hook says AH is tremendously pleased with its recycling program, which increased 44% from 2003 to 2004, and is up again in 2005. AH will be participating in a WDO program to lower costs and increase recovery rates and revenue for its recycling program.
ROAD SUPERVISOR’S REPORT: Roads Supervisor Royce Rosenblath reported that two ton loads of garbage had been picked up from the Flinton and Bridgewater Roads. Students had twice cleaned up the same roads in the summer; the last time being in late August. Reeve Hook said that hopefully residents will start taking a few licence plate numbers.
- Reeve Hook conveyed a request from the owners of Four Loons Marina on Weslemkoon Lake for speed bumps to be placed in front of the marina. They said that speeding on that stretch is a problem and a child was almost hit. Plastic speed bumps will be put in place for the summer and removed in the winter.
- Councillor Louise Scott asked for lighting to be placed at the intersection of the Skootamatta Lake Rd, as it is hard to see the turn. Rosenblath said he would check with the engineer, and also ask for the speed limit to be kept at 50 and not raised to 60 until after that point.
- A vehicle and boats that have been abandoned at the Ashby Lake landing will be hauled away. Although the main opinion was that the boats are garbage, they will be held for 30 days before being disposed of.
