The MOE has investigated the illegal dump in Lagoon City, and confirmed minimal environmental impact. Ramara got lucky this time. Had a private citizen not lodge a formal complaint, this illegal activity would still be ongoing. All this time the township acknowledges that they were fully aware of these activities. Ramara defends its' inaction with a policy calling it to look the other way, until someone (ie the public) makes a formal complaint. Come on Ramara!
This kind of thinking is no longer acceptable in today's world! This kind of thinking has no place here! Ramara should take immediate steps to have all township staff trained to recognize illegal activity, or the signs of illegal activities, and obligated to report them.
The township actions in the case of this illegal dump, accurately illustrates the culture of this municipality. Reaction is preferred to Proaction! Corrective measures are perferred to Preventative Measure! So why has this current council, which has now been in office 1/2 a year still not taken active steps to change the township's culture? Why is this council unwilling to look in the closets and under the carpets in city hall. Could it be that unelected Sr. staff in the township, are barring your ability to perform the role you were elected to do?
Councilors it is your right and mandated responsibility, as defined in the Municipal Act, to oversee the actions, activities and policies of the township.
You were elected because you promised to bring change! Actions speak louder than words! It's time to show some action!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
So Who Owns The Beach
A father and son from the bottom of Ward 4 made a deputation, last night to council, regarding tresspassing on their private waterfront property on Florida Ave. Here's were it gets messy.
The township feels that they are legal owners of the property in question, and that the public has rights to use it. The petitioners provided council with a copy of the deed to the same property and asserted their claims to its' exclusive use.
And the winner are ....... LAWYERS. These guys must be salivating at the prospect of a long, protracted court battle.
Other hilights from last nite included:
The township feels that they are legal owners of the property in question, and that the public has rights to use it. The petitioners provided council with a copy of the deed to the same property and asserted their claims to its' exclusive use.
And the winner are ....... LAWYERS. These guys must be salivating at the prospect of a long, protracted court battle.
Other hilights from last nite included:
- An in camera meeting regarding McNabb Drain litigation. Not much was stated by council once the public meeting commenced after 7:00pm. I have to believe property owners are telling the township to go F#*k themselves and the levy they imposed for something that they never wanted, and doesn't work. If you want to have some fun, go ask a township official about this drain, and watch them scurry.
- CAO Bates made reference to the private property in Lagoon City, beign used as a dumpsite. The township erected a fence around the property on May 28th. The townships position is that while they have known for a period of time, of its' existence, that given the property is private, is not a township matter. As well CAO Bates stated that solid waste removal, in Ramara, is the responsibility of Simcoe County. Bottom line the Province will be requesting at some point, some will be given the task of cleaning up the site, and a have a strongly feeling they will be looking for Ramara to conduct the clean-up and send the bill to the property owners. Maybe I can find a precedent at www.canlii.org.
- Bad roads at various locations in the township were discussed again. Council were presented with a petition from the residents of one street in Joyland Beach to pave their street. Council responded that the road in question, is scheduled for maintainence in 2012.
- On the question of Roads the township has yet to make public its' findings from the '07 Road Survey, that was conducted this past April. Clr. Neher is the Chair of the Transportation Committee, is is responsible for tabling the report. I have made numerous requests to council that motions and resolutions should include a definative deadline date. The fact they don't allows them not to be held accountable for the timely disclosure of the facts. I will continue to pressure council to implement this reform.
- Regarding the Dental Waste Disposal Site on the Mnjikining First Nation, adjacent to Ward 1, a public meeting will be held on June 9, at the Longford Mills Comm Ctr between 12:00 and 4:00pm. It is a must for all township ratepayers attend this event and clearly voice their dissent for this proposed business venture. The group fronting this venture has already applied for Federal Government funding. I strongly feel our federal govenment is very weak-kneed whenever they deal with our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, and will do whatever they can to approve the proposed venture, as quietly as possible.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Illegal Landfill and Pending Litigation Will Be Hot Topics at Ramara Council Meeting
Tonites monthly Council Meeting may turn out to be and expensive one for its' ratepayers.
An article in today's Orillia Packet and Times give details about the illegal dump site. I was first made aware of its' existence when Clr. Kahler, who represents Lagoon City, disclosed its' existence at the Longford Mills meeting earlier this month. It was apparent Kahler was taking heat from his constituents, fed up with the township turning a blind eye and taking no action to restrict access to the site. My immediate thoughts where about pending provincial fines and a big clean-up bill for Ramara's Ratepayers.
Yet another example of ineffective actions by the township of Ramara. If the township has knowingly looked the other way, their actions are negligent and possibly criminal. I would think now someone is going to have to pay the price, with their township job.
The other nasty on the agenda is the pending litigation relating to the NcNabb Drain. This is the poorly planned, poorly built, over-budget dysfunctional drain that the township now is looking for users along its route to pay the bills for the cost over-runs. Given pending litigation, I must conclude someone has told the township to go f@%k yourself. Good on you!
Unfortunately given it's pending litigation it will be discussed in camera, away from the publics prying eyes. To bad! I'd love to be a fly on the wall for this one.
Tonites meeting starts at 7:00pm, at the township's office in Brechin. Get there early, as seats go fast, and Ramara council is the funniest live theatre you'll ever see for free, (unless your a ratepayer, then it's a tragedy).
An article in today's Orillia Packet and Times give details about the illegal dump site. I was first made aware of its' existence when Clr. Kahler, who represents Lagoon City, disclosed its' existence at the Longford Mills meeting earlier this month. It was apparent Kahler was taking heat from his constituents, fed up with the township turning a blind eye and taking no action to restrict access to the site. My immediate thoughts where about pending provincial fines and a big clean-up bill for Ramara's Ratepayers.
Yet another example of ineffective actions by the township of Ramara. If the township has knowingly looked the other way, their actions are negligent and possibly criminal. I would think now someone is going to have to pay the price, with their township job.
The other nasty on the agenda is the pending litigation relating to the NcNabb Drain. This is the poorly planned, poorly built, over-budget dysfunctional drain that the township now is looking for users along its route to pay the bills for the cost over-runs. Given pending litigation, I must conclude someone has told the township to go f@%k yourself. Good on you!
Unfortunately given it's pending litigation it will be discussed in camera, away from the publics prying eyes. To bad! I'd love to be a fly on the wall for this one.
Tonites meeting starts at 7:00pm, at the township's office in Brechin. Get there early, as seats go fast, and Ramara council is the funniest live theatre you'll ever see for free, (unless your a ratepayer, then it's a tragedy).
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Last Word on Ramara Council’s Pay and Expense Raise
My wife tells me it is time to forget about how Ramara’s Council went about their approving their recent 41% pay raise and move on. I can’t and I will make sure that everybody knows about their actions in November 2010, unless by then I’ve given up on this place and moved on.
Firstly, I am not upset with the outcome, their pay increase. Rather my issue is with the process they used to achieve this outcome. It was not open and transparent. Council did not have the courage to meet with their constituents before hand and none of them made reference to their rate of pay as an issue during the election campaign.
So how can this council reform this process, so that in the future the process is open and transparent?
It can only initiate at a meeting of council. Item 5 on their agenda “Motions of Which Notice Has Been Previously Given,” would be an appropriate place to start. A councilor can introduce the motion: “I move that council undertake a review of the current pay and expense bylaw.”
If the motion is defeated, then the matter comes to end.
If council approves the motion, then there can be no other formal discussions, on this matter, at this council meeting, other than additional motions directing the CAO to:
· Schedule a public meeting regarding this matter;
· Ask the public to forward any comments they may have;
· Produce a report detailing current pay and expense levels in Ramara, as well as the levels for other municipalities in Simcoe County.
* All these actions would need to be back scheduled, so that final assent can be given at the last council meeting, of the calendar year, in December, (if required).
Now Ramara Council has a process that is both open and transparent. Councilors will have an opportunity to review their achievements, from the past year and have tangible evidence to give ratepayers, warranting a pay increase. So what are these achievements? Simple, council defines them, and approaches they will use to achieve them at their inaugural council meeting, in January. If they did what they promised to do, within the parameters they defined, by the end of the year, I would say they deserve their pay raise.
By giving ratepayers a chance to participate in the process, it allows them to refute councilors claims of their achievements.
Process is simple. It will cost nothing to implement. The results will speak for themselves.
A Challenge the members of Ramara council to implement this process.
Firstly, I am not upset with the outcome, their pay increase. Rather my issue is with the process they used to achieve this outcome. It was not open and transparent. Council did not have the courage to meet with their constituents before hand and none of them made reference to their rate of pay as an issue during the election campaign.
So how can this council reform this process, so that in the future the process is open and transparent?
It can only initiate at a meeting of council. Item 5 on their agenda “Motions of Which Notice Has Been Previously Given,” would be an appropriate place to start. A councilor can introduce the motion: “I move that council undertake a review of the current pay and expense bylaw.”
If the motion is defeated, then the matter comes to end.
If council approves the motion, then there can be no other formal discussions, on this matter, at this council meeting, other than additional motions directing the CAO to:
· Schedule a public meeting regarding this matter;
· Ask the public to forward any comments they may have;
· Produce a report detailing current pay and expense levels in Ramara, as well as the levels for other municipalities in Simcoe County.
* All these actions would need to be back scheduled, so that final assent can be given at the last council meeting, of the calendar year, in December, (if required).
Now Ramara Council has a process that is both open and transparent. Councilors will have an opportunity to review their achievements, from the past year and have tangible evidence to give ratepayers, warranting a pay increase. So what are these achievements? Simple, council defines them, and approaches they will use to achieve them at their inaugural council meeting, in January. If they did what they promised to do, within the parameters they defined, by the end of the year, I would say they deserve their pay raise.
By giving ratepayers a chance to participate in the process, it allows them to refute councilors claims of their achievements.
Process is simple. It will cost nothing to implement. The results will speak for themselves.
A Challenge the members of Ramara council to implement this process.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Clr. O'Donnell Parkway Will Not Get Paved This Summer
You should have been a last night's meeting just to see John O'Donnell's face when he was told his route home along Concession 9, most likely woundn't get paved this summer. The purposed costs of $323 000 more then doubled when geological testing confirmed the current substructure of the roadway is not suitable for paving.
The Township's Roads Manager gave some background into the history of Conc. 9.
The basic substructure goes back to pioneer times when the roadway was first opened Trees were felled, and year after year stone was was placed on top. The geological testing showed that the initial layer of topsoil had never been removed, and provides an unstable platform for asphalt.
The added cost for this project comes from the need to remove this layer of topsoil, prior to paving. Unfortunately first you have to remove generations of crushed stone, to get to the layer of topsoil. This would include the truckloads of stone put down in March, of this year.
So what does that mean for the state of the rest of the roads in the township. In 2003 the township conducted a "Roads Needs Study," at great expense to ratepayers. Is this study now worthless? Why didn't the study document the condition of roads like Conc. 9? How many other roads have suspect foundations? The Roads Manager was asked by council this same question. He did not have a database to reference, rather listed roads of the top of his head, that had its' layer of topsoil removed.
In the private sector people would have been fired for such negligence. Finally I understand why this township roads are so bad. What makes it worse is that fact that municipal staff were aware of these deficiencies, and did nothing about it.
At the meeting where the township approved is disharmonous water rate, I asked the Township's Clerk what is the state of it municipal water infastructure. He could not answer me, since he did not know. There was no database.
In regards to the state of the township's roads, I read the 2007 Roads Needs Study, and had a basic understanding of our roads. Now one has to look at this expensive study with reservation, given its' deficiencies, established by the findings tabled at this meeting.
What other potential municipal infastructure time-bombs are out there? The Township's 10 Year Capital Budget is suspect and should be revised.
Rarama Council should immediately request the township to undertake an immediate audit of it assets, so that a determination of the "State of Township" Infastucture can be established. As well Councilmust also review the performance of senior municipal staff and determine if changes are necessary there as well.
The township will now used the budgeted amount of $323 000 to rehabilite the foundation of Conc. 9, leaving $0 to pave it. This is the tip of the iceberg.
All Ramara Ratepayers are going to be liable for the costs a years of poor planning, and mismanagement. Mistakes that will continue to be made over and over again because it is apparent that it is not learning from its' mistakes, and keep on using deficient methods and processes.
The time has come for the Township of Ramara to install a Quality Improvement Program, so that ratepayers can be assured they are getting the most out of their local government.
The Township's Roads Manager gave some background into the history of Conc. 9.
The basic substructure goes back to pioneer times when the roadway was first opened Trees were felled, and year after year stone was was placed on top. The geological testing showed that the initial layer of topsoil had never been removed, and provides an unstable platform for asphalt.
The added cost for this project comes from the need to remove this layer of topsoil, prior to paving. Unfortunately first you have to remove generations of crushed stone, to get to the layer of topsoil. This would include the truckloads of stone put down in March, of this year.
So what does that mean for the state of the rest of the roads in the township. In 2003 the township conducted a "Roads Needs Study," at great expense to ratepayers. Is this study now worthless? Why didn't the study document the condition of roads like Conc. 9? How many other roads have suspect foundations? The Roads Manager was asked by council this same question. He did not have a database to reference, rather listed roads of the top of his head, that had its' layer of topsoil removed.
In the private sector people would have been fired for such negligence. Finally I understand why this township roads are so bad. What makes it worse is that fact that municipal staff were aware of these deficiencies, and did nothing about it.
At the meeting where the township approved is disharmonous water rate, I asked the Township's Clerk what is the state of it municipal water infastructure. He could not answer me, since he did not know. There was no database.
In regards to the state of the township's roads, I read the 2007 Roads Needs Study, and had a basic understanding of our roads. Now one has to look at this expensive study with reservation, given its' deficiencies, established by the findings tabled at this meeting.
What other potential municipal infastructure time-bombs are out there? The Township's 10 Year Capital Budget is suspect and should be revised.
Rarama Council should immediately request the township to undertake an immediate audit of it assets, so that a determination of the "State of Township" Infastucture can be established. As well Councilmust also review the performance of senior municipal staff and determine if changes are necessary there as well.
The township will now used the budgeted amount of $323 000 to rehabilite the foundation of Conc. 9, leaving $0 to pave it. This is the tip of the iceberg.
All Ramara Ratepayers are going to be liable for the costs a years of poor planning, and mismanagement. Mistakes that will continue to be made over and over again because it is apparent that it is not learning from its' mistakes, and keep on using deficient methods and processes.
The time has come for the Township of Ramara to install a Quality Improvement Program, so that ratepayers can be assured they are getting the most out of their local government.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Brechin Sewer's Public Meeting
Finally the township placed it's cards on the table for all to see. A few months too late, but I guess late is better then never. Not much new was presented at this meeting that had not already be proposed. The township still doesn't know the how much it will actually cost. Brechin residents were told to expect at $20 000 bill for their share build and hook-up, plus an annual cost of $650 for the sewer service.
How the hell can you estimate what users will pay, if you don't know yourself? Hello! Remember the McNabb Drain and how wrong the township's proposed costs were. Don't believe what this township tells you!
The township did not present information on how the development will impact property taxes for existing residential properties. Increasing property values benefit Land Speculator/Flippers. My impression of Brechin's current residential homeowners aren't looking to relocate, and they will be burdened with added property taxes, which they may not be able to fund.
As everyone who knows me already knows that I would only support this project only if it is 100% users and developer funded. Despite my repeated questions to council, I was not given any guarantees that the township would not dip into general taxpayers' revenue, if development charges were below expections. I made request for a bylaw to prevent the township from dipping into taxpayers funds, it was rejected. They Mayor stated there was no need for one, guaranteeing development and existing users will fund the expansion.
One Flipper/Land Speculator told me to "shut up" about using taxpayers' funds, citing it's payback time for ratepayers funding the Ramara Centre and Library. For many South Ramarans the Ramara Centre must be a touchy issue. Apparently there is a north-south mindset in Ramara going back to pre-amalgamation of Rama and Mara Tsp.
I don't see the proposed Brechin Sewer Project being something that will improve upon this disharmony within Ramara. Some northerners, in the former Rama Tsp. were recently hosed big time when Ramara council chose not to harmonize water rates. On the up side, this act by Ramara council established the precedent of for the prohibition of taxpayer $$$ for individual user municipal services.
At the meeting the township did provide any polling data from the citizens of Brechin, whether they support it or not. What about commercial operators? Industrial tenants? Their costs will be even greater then the residential levy.
One land speculator was present and guaranteeing he will build after the sewer expansion. A representative from the Ramara Chamber of Commerce made comments as to good times and growth, once the sewers are installed, but was not willing to make public who is willing to invest, just promises and "trust me" they will come.
Should Ramara undertake such an extensive project solely based on promises of growth? Should there be something more substantive present? "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" When I bought my house, I put down a deposit. This action demonstrates my committment. Why doesn't the township demand developers do the same? It comfirms for me they are truly interested. Allows me to have greater confidence for the project. Why should Ramara Township take all the risk when 50% of this expansion will be for the benefit of currently vacant/undeveloped properties?
It is my belief that when the tenders are finally presented, this projects costs will have ballooned, and the proposed rates will have skyrocketed to the point where they will not be feasble for the citizens of Brechin. Who will the township turn to? I see only 2 options, either the ratepayers, or the developers will be called on to subsidize it?
Asking the ratepayers will be political suicide for the elected members of council. If, as I have been told Brechin is such a great real estate investment, then I look to the developers to grab the ball. Owners of vacant, undeveloped lands can take their proposals to the bank, or private equity funds. Given it's a "can't miss" investment, you'll have no problem securing the cash. With funding in place, I know this municiaplity will rubber stamp your plans.
At the present time, I see council as: (4 Votes are required)
For: Mayor Duffy; Clr. O'Donnell; Clr. Appleby (who represents Brechin)
Against: Clr. White; Clr. Neher
On the Bubble: Dep. Mayor Clarke, Clr. Kahler The 2 Bubblers voted to approve going to tender.
I felt Clr. Kahler had some reservations, when he approved going to tender, given the possibility of using taxpayer's $$$ to subsidize the project. Since he voted against a unified water rate, it would be hypocritical for him, given this precedent, to approve any measure that would allow taxes to subsidize the project.
Has he been pursuaded by the unsubstantiated promises that investors do exist?
Deputy Mayor Clarke proposed the unifed water rate, as a means to bring greater harmony within the township, and would have no reservation in having taxpayer $$$ subsidizing this project. His support will be tempered by his desire to someday being the Mayor of Ramara, and his support for using tax $$$ will be moderated by this fact. I see his approval would cap the the amount of taxpayer support, or possibly creating a fund, by which any taxpayer contribution is looked on as short term financing, to be returned to ratepayers, as development charges come in.
How the hell can you estimate what users will pay, if you don't know yourself? Hello! Remember the McNabb Drain and how wrong the township's proposed costs were. Don't believe what this township tells you!
The township did not present information on how the development will impact property taxes for existing residential properties. Increasing property values benefit Land Speculator/Flippers. My impression of Brechin's current residential homeowners aren't looking to relocate, and they will be burdened with added property taxes, which they may not be able to fund.
As everyone who knows me already knows that I would only support this project only if it is 100% users and developer funded. Despite my repeated questions to council, I was not given any guarantees that the township would not dip into general taxpayers' revenue, if development charges were below expections. I made request for a bylaw to prevent the township from dipping into taxpayers funds, it was rejected. They Mayor stated there was no need for one, guaranteeing development and existing users will fund the expansion.
One Flipper/Land Speculator told me to "shut up" about using taxpayers' funds, citing it's payback time for ratepayers funding the Ramara Centre and Library. For many South Ramarans the Ramara Centre must be a touchy issue. Apparently there is a north-south mindset in Ramara going back to pre-amalgamation of Rama and Mara Tsp.
I don't see the proposed Brechin Sewer Project being something that will improve upon this disharmony within Ramara. Some northerners, in the former Rama Tsp. were recently hosed big time when Ramara council chose not to harmonize water rates. On the up side, this act by Ramara council established the precedent of for the prohibition of taxpayer $$$ for individual user municipal services.
At the meeting the township did provide any polling data from the citizens of Brechin, whether they support it or not. What about commercial operators? Industrial tenants? Their costs will be even greater then the residential levy.
One land speculator was present and guaranteeing he will build after the sewer expansion. A representative from the Ramara Chamber of Commerce made comments as to good times and growth, once the sewers are installed, but was not willing to make public who is willing to invest, just promises and "trust me" they will come.
Should Ramara undertake such an extensive project solely based on promises of growth? Should there be something more substantive present? "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" When I bought my house, I put down a deposit. This action demonstrates my committment. Why doesn't the township demand developers do the same? It comfirms for me they are truly interested. Allows me to have greater confidence for the project. Why should Ramara Township take all the risk when 50% of this expansion will be for the benefit of currently vacant/undeveloped properties?
It is my belief that when the tenders are finally presented, this projects costs will have ballooned, and the proposed rates will have skyrocketed to the point where they will not be feasble for the citizens of Brechin. Who will the township turn to? I see only 2 options, either the ratepayers, or the developers will be called on to subsidize it?
Asking the ratepayers will be political suicide for the elected members of council. If, as I have been told Brechin is such a great real estate investment, then I look to the developers to grab the ball. Owners of vacant, undeveloped lands can take their proposals to the bank, or private equity funds. Given it's a "can't miss" investment, you'll have no problem securing the cash. With funding in place, I know this municiaplity will rubber stamp your plans.
At the present time, I see council as: (4 Votes are required)
For: Mayor Duffy; Clr. O'Donnell; Clr. Appleby (who represents Brechin)
Against: Clr. White; Clr. Neher
On the Bubble: Dep. Mayor Clarke, Clr. Kahler The 2 Bubblers voted to approve going to tender.
I felt Clr. Kahler had some reservations, when he approved going to tender, given the possibility of using taxpayer's $$$ to subsidize the project. Since he voted against a unified water rate, it would be hypocritical for him, given this precedent, to approve any measure that would allow taxes to subsidize the project.
Has he been pursuaded by the unsubstantiated promises that investors do exist?
Deputy Mayor Clarke proposed the unifed water rate, as a means to bring greater harmony within the township, and would have no reservation in having taxpayer $$$ subsidizing this project. His support will be tempered by his desire to someday being the Mayor of Ramara, and his support for using tax $$$ will be moderated by this fact. I see his approval would cap the the amount of taxpayer support, or possibly creating a fund, by which any taxpayer contribution is looked on as short term financing, to be returned to ratepayers, as development charges come in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
