The meeting can be summarized as follows: 1. Following my deputation, council entered into closed session in order to receive legal advice given to the clerk by the municipalitys legal council. 2. Council returned to open session and passed a motion to discontinue the process of recovering fees under Regulation 586/06. Letters will be mailed to property owners advising them to disregard the July 23 letter (these should be mailed next week). The petition is therefore moot at this time. 3. Council requested a special meeting with either myself and one other person or two designates to discuss alternatives to fee collection (Sections 326 and 391 of the Ontario Municipal Act will be discussed, which essentially provide for fee collection based either on assessment or on a flat rate basis). The meeting is to take place next Tuesday at 7 p.m. I have submitted a request to the clerk for some information, however, both she and the treasurer are on holiday until Monday. When asked if public notice of the meeting would be given following the council meeting, the mayor responded it would not; when asked if the meeting would be open to the public, the clerk and mayor responded that it would, but it was more of a working meeting to find solutions, so it would be easier with just two people. 4. A motion tabled by Lyle Hall to form an efficiencies committee to report to council prior to September 12, when council will no longer be authorized to make financial decisions (election time) was defeated 4-1. Bill DeVries, in an argument against the committee, stated they could not authorize anything that would be an encumbrance to the next council. Laurie Vincer supported the idea in principle, but suggested the motion should be tabled with a timeline that would allow reporting to the next council. So, in summary, fees will not be collected by frontage as outlined in the July 23 letter, but an alternative method of imposing an additional sewer fee on tax bills will be tabled at the August 26 council meeting, following investigation of these alternatives on August 19 - either using flat rates or assessment. No means of investigating means of offsetting this cost will be pursued, citing the reason that sewers pay for sewers - apparently, legislation exists somewhere that prevents reallocation of funds for sewers - no concrete information on this yet. No efficiencies committee to look for ways of lowering taxes in order to offset this fee was approved at this time. I dont know what role two members of the public can play in next Tuesdays meeting, but I am actively looking for property owners with expertise who feel they can contribute to this discussion. In my view, the meeting should largely be a comparison of different models in which a $184,000 annual bill can be fairly distributed amongst 651 property owners in accordance with the aforementioned Municipal Act sections. I was told following the meeting by the clerk and mayor that a decision needs to be made prior to September 1 in order to impose the fee on the fall tax bill in order to subsequently secure and lock in the Infrastructure Ontario loan for a 30-year term and avoid the necessity of maintaining the current construction loan for an extended period of time at an added expense of thousands of dollars. I would encourage the public to attend next Tuesdays meeting in order to observe the proceedings in an effort to maintain as much transparency as possible with this process. Thank you to everyone has helped with this project so far. The outcome is far from ideal, but it has certainly brought to light the need for the public to engage in the democratic process in an ongoing manner to ensure responsible long-term planning and transparent, accountable decision-making. Megan Jeffers
Posted on: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:17:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015