Are Your Taxes Subsidizing Water and Sewer Services for a Select Few??

According to the just released report of Ontario's Environmental Commissioner, we all just may be........

Excerpt from his report...

Financing Ontario’s Municipal Drinking Water Systems (p. 90)

Ontario’s municipalities, by and large, do not charge consumers anywhere near the full cost for the water and sewage services they provide.  Instead, most municipalities heavily subsidize these services through property taxes and provincial grants, and more disturbingly, they simply under-invest in their water and sewage systems creating a serious backlog of repairs and upgrades to their infrastructure.

In 2001, following the contaminated water tragedy in Walkerton, Justice Dennis O’Connor recommended that all municipalities be required to ensure that their water and sewage systems are properly financed to avoid another contaminated water crisis. In response to this recommendation, in 2002, the Ontario government passed new legislation requiring municipal drinking-water and sewage systems to develop financial plans to fully cover their costs.  However, this legislation has never been implemented. Instead, in August 2007, the Ministry of the Environment developed an entirely new regulation that merely requires municipalities to set out a financial accounting of their drinking-water systems.

The ECO is very disappointed that this new regulation does not require municipalities to recover the full costs of their drinking-water systems, to charge municipal water users appropriate fees, or to develop any financial plan at all for their sewage systems.  This regulation does little to address the major infrastructure deficits that threaten the safety of the province’s drinking-water and sewage systems.  The ECO is concerned that by not requiring municipalities to charge water users appropriate rates for water services, the regulation fails to encourage water conservation.

A copy of the full report can be downloaded here.

I have my doubts that Ramara township has a viable and sustainable plan for the adequate up-keep of this municipal infrastructure.  I have made numerous requests, but to date I have not seen any documented plan. 

It's a fact that over $500,000 of taxpayer $$$ paid for the majority of pre-construction costs of the sewer line expansions for approx. 150 homes and businesses in Brechin.   

Now I'm reading in the Packet that some home-owners lack the means to pay the up-front connection costs (the capital costs for the expansion are to be paid over 30 years).  I have written to council that I do not support any further subsidy for these select few.  I recommend that concerned ratepayers also write to their councillor, with their objections.

Is Ramara Responsible for Flood Victims?

In my opinion, if you live in the floodplain, no. I hope the township won't cave in to this sad story. There is a townhall meeting in June and I hope that the township will have this matter on the agenda. Regardless of how you feel on this matter, the township needs to be open, transparent and consistent in its' actions.

I was at a council meeting earlier this year, and heard evidence that the township's fire department responded to a flood event. I am not sure if the township billed the ratepayer for this service or not.

I would think the author of the article, in the Packet and Times would be motivated to find out.

Yet Another Reason to Eliminate School Boards in Ontario

You have to feel for the kids caught in the middle of this fiasco! School boards treat these kids as nothing more than commodities. Each kid they get into their school means more funding.

The SCDSB was happy to poach these kids from neighbouring jurisdictions, but feel they shouldn't pay for any costs associated with their enrollment.

There is plenty of $$$ in the system for busing. All we have to do is eliminate a few fatcat bureaucrats, in the Midhurst HQ of the Simcoe Board! Their a plenty of bodies employed by the board that have no benefit, and do nothing more than spending each day finding new ways to ensure that their job is not eliminated.

Where is Mr. McGuinty? The province needs to step up and fight for these kids!

County of Simcoe H/S Internet Survey

All Ramarans should take the time to complete this survey. You have until May 31st.

I currently pay over $100/mos for Bell's Wireless service, (basically I have a cell phone for my laptop. When I bought it at Christmas, it was sold as an umlimited usage promotion @ $90/mo. After my first bill, they unilaterally changed the terms, given my usage level, up another $10/mos.

The hardware costs me $320. It works; its' portable, but its' too expensive and can't wait for a cheaper option to service the majority of Ramara.

How Ramara decided to spend a funding windfall

The Deputy Mayor and Clr. Kahler proposed that ratepayers, who had been hammered in recent years, with endless tax increases and proposed a 0 tax increase in 2008. The Mayor and Clrs. O’Donnell, Neher and Appleby felt that ratepayers could support a modest increase, and won the day.

As a ratepayer, I support funding any program, with my taxes, if I could be convinced that the spending will fix the problem. This council and its’ 2008 Budgets failed to convince me they have found the solutions.

I would like to hi-light 2 programs:

Council decided that ratepayers should start funding for a new townhall. I do not support the decision, since council has not answered my various requests to publicly disclose their vision for a new townhall, specifically design, location and most important how much. To date, there has been no budget established, but funds have been earmarked for a study.

It should be the policy of this township that prior to the expropriation of ratepayer funds for a specific capital project, that council approve the projects terms of reference and budget. These terms need to be made public, prior to affirmation, and council should consider any comments from ratepayers.

I believe that these questions need to be defined and disclosed, so that the new townhall best meets the needs of ratepayers. The decision making process should be open and transparent. To date it most certainly has not been so!

During the Brechin sewer debate, in 2007, it was proposed that the current townhall site, once serviced, would appreciate in value. If disposed, could bring a cash windfall, the proceeds used to fund other priorities.

Anyone who attends meetings of council, on a regular bias, could assume redeveloping the current townhall site is all but a done deal. Any failure to proactively disclose townhall options, only affirms the bias for this council has for Brechin, over the rest of the township.

Since the townhall redevelopment will so greatly impact the future outlook, of this community, ratepayers should contact their councillor and demand that they publicly disclose their position.

The second point I would like to hi-light, is the township lacks a vision and a documented roads strategy. While council has agreed to meet, in the future, to define its’ 10 Yr Capital Plan, the Deputy Mayor has been able to bully the rest of council, to omit its’ roads strategy, from these discussions, until the 2008 Roads study has been tabled.

On April 24th council and township staff will spend the day inspecting the township’s roads. Ratepayers should have noticed, in the days preceding this tour, the township’s roads department, doing what they can to cover up the deficiencies of our secondary and tertiary roadways. Why wasn’t the tour scheduled 3-4 weeks ago, when they could see the true deficiencies of these roadways.

Clr. Neher, as the Transportation Committee chair, should have been more forceful, and demanded an earlier date. Her timid approach to governance is yet another example of her failure to adequately serve the needs of ratepayers. She has had 1 1/2 years, in this role, and failed to deliver any meaningful roads policy.

Therefore I call for here to be relieved of this important portfolio. Maybe she can learn the workings of local politics, as chair of the townships Culture Committee. With its' limited budget, is it less prominent, and her lack leadership will negatively impact ratepayer's tax bill.

I don’t support the township being allowed to take monies for roads, if it’s going into a fund for future projects. Ratepayers should be aware that in 2007 the township took, in the form of taxes, over $700,000 for roads projects, they never spent that year. These funds were saved and rolled over into their 2008 budget. Ratepayers should know this practice continues year after year!

At the April 24th council meeting, the township mandates that ratepayers ensure their private roads “meet township standards,” while the Mayor disclosed to me that many of the township’s public roadways fail to meet these same township standards. This is shameful! But this can explain why so of our roadways are woefully inadequate, and the excessive road maintenance funding requests, year after year, and coucil's approach to "look the other way," when it comes to its inadequate road remediation strategy.

In 2003 the township paid for its’ last Roads Needs Study. At the April 24th council meeting the Deputy Mayor stated that is study was practically ignored by the township, in planning its roads strategy to date. Since 2006, when I moved into Ramara, I have been witness to the politically motivated bias to roads planning (ie Conc. 9 improvements to Clr. O’Donnell’s homestead).

Ratepayers should contact their elected official and demand they publically disclose their position, on these two important issues. They were elected make policies that serve the needs of ratepayers, and give guidance to township staff, in regards to service delivery needs.

I may opinion council has been woefully deficient in a policy making role, and as result of this vacuum, township staff is dictating policy to council. This haphazard planning approach will result in higher future taxes, as future councils will have to deal with the mistakes from both past and present councils.

Government of Canada supports clean water in Ramara RAMARA, ON

April 4 /CNW/ - Bruce Stanton, Member of Parliament for Simcoe North, today announced the Government of Canada will consider the upgrading of the Lagoon City Sewage Treatment Plant in the Township of Ramara as a priority for up to $287,400 in federal infrastructure funding.

The federal contribution would be up to one-third of total eligible costs, which are estimated at $862,200. "Maintaining a healthy and clean environment is directly related to the health and prosperity of communities and their residents, and is a priority for our Government," said MP Stanton.

"Supporting the upgrading of the Lagoon City Sewage Treatment Plant is one of the ways we will deliver results for the residents of Ramara."

"Ensuring a sustainable environment is directly related to the health and prosperity of our community," said Bill Duffy, Mayor of the Township of Ramara. "Thanks to this federal support, we will be able to improve the sewage treatment plant and provide a safer environment for our residents."

The project consists of adding ultraviolet disinfection and a third clarifier to the Lagoon City Sewage Treatment Plant, as well as modifying and expanding the plant's biosolids facility. These upgrades will increase the plant's capacity and improve wastewater treatment.

Funding for this project comes from the $200 million announced in March 2007, to top up the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (MRIF) nation wide. The Government of Canada is directing $64 million in funding to existing clean water applications under MRIF in Ontario.

Federal financial support for the project is conditional on the initiative meeting all applicable eligibility requirements and other program criteria, a federal review of the project, the successful completion of an environmental assessment, assurance by the municipality that the remaining project costs have been fully financed and accounted for, and the signing of a contribution agreement for the project detailing the project elements and any other federal requirements.

For more information, visit http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/

James Nicol, Office of Bruce Stanton, MP for Simcoe North, (613) 992-6582

Laryssa Waler, Press Secretary Office of the Honourable Tony Clement, (613) 957-0200

Ramara named in rights complaint; Claim states building design discriminates against disabled

Shame on the township of Ramara for being forced to defend their (in)actions!

Here we go again. Due to the inactions of this council, ratepayers may find themselves liable for the consequences of their not taking active measures to move towards complying with provincial legislation, on this matter.

This council decided not to fund a study, in its’ 2008 Budget that would undertake a review of alternatives for the townhall’s designs and alternative locations. In 2007 I made a request to Bill Kahler to establish the terms of reference for this project. I never got any commitment the township would do so! Your inaction spoke louder than words! It said to ratepayers – “accessibility is not a priority”. This council had no plan, except to bury their collective heads in the sand, with the hopes no constituent comes forward with a complaint.

If this was the case, I wonder if council or staff knew what the consequences of their inactions? As a ratepayer I would like to know that my local council has done its’ due diligence. If a risk assessment was undertaken and its’ probable consequences defined, I have no evidence of it ever being made public.

In my opinion Ramara’s inaction is part of a hidden agenda to ensure that a new townhall gets built on the current site in Brechin. Inaction allowed the township to be forced into a corner. Now they can say, “We don’t have the time for a comprehensive and public review if an alternative sight would best serve the needs of Ramarans. This is the only property we have, and there is no time to find an alternative site”.

During the Brechin sewer debate, I heard proponents make declarations that the installations of sewer services will make the current townhall location a valuable commercial site, and that if sold may bring a substantial cash windfall, into the township. I guess now we’ll most likely never know!

This council did recognize that retrofitting the current townhall in Brechin would be throwing scarce $$$ down the drain. Unfortunately due to the inactions, of this council, events may force the township’s hand, and as a consequence, upgrades will be forced upon the old townhall.

If Innisfil Can........

Why can't Ramara?

Congrats to Innisfil's council for the following document, outlining their goals and priorities for their 2007-2010 term. It's like the "Speech from the Throne", used to open parliament, or like the American President's State of the Union Address", delivered at the beginning of the year.

Woundn't it be nice if Ramara's council had the courage to disclose their goals and priorities, for their term. Unfortunately my councillors don't want to have something concrete, on the record that could be used to hold them accountible to their electors.

So who do we blame? Mayor Duffy? CAO Bates? We should ask, who benefits the most when an organization doesn't define its' goals? I would have to say township Sr. staff, as they can just put their feet up, spend the $$$, and provide poor customer service for ratepayers.