Brechin Sewer Decision: Is Tonite the Nite?

I just downloaded tonight's Ramara Special Council Meeting.

It's interesting what this document tells us:

• The township's engineer's CC Tatham suck at what they do. They try to explain away way they were way off in their estimated costs. They don't tell us how much they are costing us for their services. Hopefully will now take steps to end this bad relationship, with a bad engineering firm!
• Finally the township discloses that the citizens of Lagoon City will share in the pain of bringing sewers to Brechin, as the existing wastewater facility will have to be expanded, at a cost of $1.77 million.

What the posted agenda does not tell us:

• What will the revised user fees (cost to homeowners, and developers) be?
• What contigencies are in place if users don't have the means to pay for the new service, or if the pace of development is below the level needed to fund borrowing costs?
• What the municipal portion, and therefore costs to General Ratepayers will be?
• What is the capibility of the water system to service the added loading, once Brechin comes online?

If this expensive project goes through, my fellow Ramarans, you only have yourself to blame, as you have been woefully silent, during this whole ordeal. And shame on you!

Tonight it will be the actions of Clr. Appleby (representing the village of Brechin) and Clr. Kahler (representing the residents of Lagoon City), who will be on the hot seat. They are the swing votes needed, along with Clrs. White and Neher, to defeat this project.

Ontario's Electoral Change Referendum Question?

On October 10th, Ontario voters are being asked to decide if the province should modify the way we elect our representatives in Queen's Park. This is the question on the ballot:


Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?

• The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)?

• The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)?

I will be voting in favour of the existing method, for no other reason than I will not support anything with the liar Dalton McGuinty's taint to it. Unfortunately the Ontario Liberals learned little during their years in opposition. For the same reason the Tories were turfed out in '03, the Libs now have to go:

• Broken Promises!
• Largest Tax increase in Ontario, ever!
• Undemocratic practices where our MPPs aren't free to act in the best interests of their constituents!
• Non-transparent actions and intentional cover-up of misdeeds!
• Unsolicited payments to Liberal connected organizations and special interests that were nothing more then bribes to potential voters in the 905/GTA!

The proposed voting method change will add additional seats to an already bloated Ontario Legislature. I thank Mike Harris for cutting back the number of MPPs during his reign.

I also believe that the proposed change will create an unworkable legislature, like they have in Israel and Italy, where numerous fringe political parties are represented, and a history of never ending minority governments.

By voting against the proposed change, your voting against the McGuinty ship of fools.

Good ridence to the Ontario Liberals, and the liar who lead them.

Agenda Items For June 11th. Meeting

In reviewing the agenda for tonites meeting, the following items jumped out to me:

Item 4.1 - Summary of General Expenditures Spending to May 31, 2007

• On Pg. 3 - was doesn't the budget identify forecast revenues for the McNabb Drain
• On Pg. 4 - $638 715 was spent on the McNabb Drain, but their is no forecast fiqure for this item. So if nothing was budgeted, there were do the funds come from?

Item 4.3 - Proposal to increase mileage from $0.40/km to $0.43

• Yet another tax grab on top of the 41% increase they already gave themselves this year

Item 4.4 - Proposal to stop council from taking their show on the road

• Is this report another example of the township's top unelected official to muzzle democracy. If Richard Bates wants to run the township, you should run for Mayor?
• It's unfortunate that Ramara's ratepayers receive notification of what's up for discussion that night, only hours before the meeting. I see this as yet another attempt to muzzle ratepayers and effectly bar them having their concerns placed on the record, before council makes their decisions.

I've tried to have this council implement a waiting period between the time it makes public their proposals, so that ratepayers have time to review these documents and forward their concerns to their elected officials, but this council is just not interested in open and transparency, by allowing timely public participation.

Do You Use The Trent-Severn Waterway?

The Trent-Severn Waterway (TSW) borders the south and west of the Ramara, and provides some economic benefit to its' citizens. But who should be liable for the operation and upkeep of this transportation network? Federal Environment Minister, John Baird recently announce a panel to discuss the future of the TSW.

Is the federal government looking to pass the buck onto the municipalities? I have recently concluded it's a possibility and maybe local governments, like Ramara need to should spend some time to investigate the matter.

If the Feds do decide to download on the municipalities, how would Ramara allocate these costs.
All ratepayers? As a business tax to relevent tourism based businesses?

Unfortunately the lethargic and non-proactive township of Ramara will likely do nothing other than pass all costs on to all ratepayers, since that's the easy thing to do, and Ramara always takes the easy route.

Brechin Sewer ExpansionTenders Are In..... 18% Overbudget

Ramara council met on Wednesday to view submitted tenders . The lowest bid was 18% more then the $7.4 million budgeted.

Ramara Council will meet on June 11, in General Committee, at the Joyland Beach Community Centre (Hwy 12 and Muley Point Rd. - follow the signs to McRae Provincial Park). The township will only make public this meetings agenda on the afternoon of June 11. Hopefully this matter merits its' inclusion for discussion that night, afterall council approved going to tender, before the public meeting was held, in order to ensure launch would occur in '07.

Where can the township tweek the numbers anymore than they have? Where else can they cut back then they have? The project needs to be expansive as possible, in order that the maximum number of users can be included, to keep individual assessments feasible.

One point I found troubling, at the public meeting, was the proposal for existing properties to be assessed a cost of $17, 448 while development charges for newly developed properties only were assessed a cost of $9,333 (in Brechin) and $7,778 (in Lagoon City). Why did the township make existing and loyal citizens liable for a greater burden of the project's costs? Why would they be subsidizing future newcomers to the region? To me, this was not right and evidence of the township's cozy relationship with its' developer lobby.

In light of these ballooning costs, from the tenders received, council's only viable option now will be to increase development charges. In doing so, it makes the land speculators liable for their fair share of the increased burden of this project's costs. It it these speculators have the most to gain from the sewer expansion, but they were never sufficiently made responsible for their adequate share of its' costs.

I just don't see council asking ratepayers to contribute to it, or to have the existing residents of Brechin asked to pay any more then the $17,448 originally proposed.

Does this council and this municipality have the balls and the desire to stand up to its' developer lobby? Clrs. Neher and White have shown they have. We all know where the Mayor and Clr. and O'Donnell stand. The ball in now in the court of Deputy Mayor Clarke and Clrs. Kahler and Appleby (who respresents the village of Brechin). These three will decide if this project should proceed or not. They all waffled when the vote was taken to go to tender.

I hope now that financial reality has set in, if this project is to proceed, the only possible option will be to place a greater burden for the overall costs, on the shoulders of the developers, who have the most to gain.

Hope to see my follow Ramarans on Monday night at Joyland Beach CC.

If The Brechin Sewer Expansion Is a Can't Miss Opportunity....

..... why then aren't any private investors interested in investing in it?

I came across this article on the web today about the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (OTPP) investing in sewage systems in Chile. The article also notes of a similar investiment in the UK.

Talk about "actions speaking louder than words". When the OTPP talks, people listen. Why do you think teachers have such a comfortable retirement? The OTPP takes money and turns it into a lot more money. Why do you think the Toronto Maple Leafs are so terrible? The OTPP controls some of the Maple Leafs owners' debt, and demand profitable returns and not Stanley Cups, but that's another story.

To date all the township has offered up to Ramara's ratepayers are lots and lots of happy words, and very little in substance, in the form of tangible investors, willing to stake their $$$ in the venture. Why should they when they can get the township to pick up the tab for them. Promises of growth and development charges being sufficient to fund the undeveloped portion of the expansion.

When I asked the Mayor, at the May public meeting, "what if development does not cover these costs?" "No worries", was the response, "that will never happen."

"Sorry Mr. Mayor I have to worry." If you're unwilling to create a bylaw that would specifically prohibit the use of any general ratepayers' tax dollars, for the BSP causes me to worry. How this township handled its' last mega-project, the McNabb Drain causes me to worry. (Readers should note that ligitation is pending, with the township over this blundered project, and the township is not willing to discuss the matter. I have to assume it is in regard to their unwillingness to pay for the excessive cost overuns, as mandated in a bylaw past in Feb. '07).

The fact that private developers are not willing to give their written assurances that quarantee their desire to invest, causes me to worry. The fact that when I asked a member of Ramara's Chamber of Commerce, (who endorsed the BSP) to divulge his list of potential investors, and he would not, causes me to worry.

Most of all the fact that an body like the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan does not see this a sound investment tells me the investment isn't a "can't miss" opportunity.

Ramara's general ratepayers should start collecting their pennies now.