Shaun On Council

Council Chickens Out

2012-04-20T15:07:00.000-04:00

In Mississippi Mills, it is easier to build a subdivision on prime agricultural land than to erect a chicken coop in an urban backyard.

In 2006, Mississippi Mills extended the urban boundary onto top quality farmland to allow a subdivision (Riverside Estates). In April 2012, Mississippi Mills Council turned down a proposal to allow people in urban areas to keep up to six hens for home-grown eggs.

Municipalities have been building subdivisions for decades. Despite their warts, they are a known entity.

Urban chickens is a new idea, something out of the ordinary and therefore to be viewed as threatening or dangerous.

I have observed that many people or groups, who oppose a project or policy change, tend to present a list of speculative horrors as facts. (The input into the Enerdu project is an exception—opponents have done their homework.)

The list of chicken horrors presented at Council or to me in private discussions include: hordes of rats attracted to the chicken feed; a legion of predatory mammals roaming through town attracted to the hens; a myriad of health issues; problems with disposal of dead chickens; overloading the planning department with yet another by-law; and, an angry backlash from urban residents.

Only one councillor presented any evidence—the rest speculated. Garry Dalgity provided a study from the Center for Disease Control on the health risks of chickens; however, a thorough read of the paper made it clear the CDC was talking about chickens as pets in homes.

I presented a copy of a Kingston by-law that regulates urban chickens, to lessen the load on our Town staff. I presented a university investigation (thanks for that Bev) of 23 cities in the US that allowed hens. City staff interviewed for the study reported few problems and none of the speculative horrors postulated by my Council colleagues.

I backed the chicken motion because many people asked me to. I also wanted to return a privilege to Ramsay hamlet dwellers denied them since amalgamation.

In the end, my chicken motion had support from three urban-dwelling councillors: Bernard Cameron, Alex Gillis and Duncan Abbott. All the rural-dwelling members voted it down. (Councillor Minnelli was absent.)

.

Budget 2012 Final

2012-03-10T14:20:00.000-05:00

Council passed the 2012 MM budget last week. I didn't support it. Not only is the 7.8% local tax increase too high, the budget widely misses the goals set out in our long-range financial plans.

Part of the reason I ran for office is the high Town debt, now at over $16 million. I believe we should stop adding to it and pay it down. In April 2011, we received extremely useful guidance from BMA Management Consulting. The core of their advice was that we start putting more money into reserves and capital projects to cover the cost of depreciating capital assets: roads, bridges, buildings, sidewalks, street lights, etc. We need to find $54 million over 20 years to cover replacement and repairs. That averages $2.7 million annually. We didn’t even come close in the 2011 or 2012 budget.

Budgeting is an exhausting and frustrating exercise. Events unfold that require immediate and unexpected expenditures. For example, we had to spend $40,000 to add safety features to the ice machines at our two arenas. The elevator at the AOTH needs $90,000 in repairs (paid over three years from reserves). We added 25,000 for a pay equity settlement. Those three items alone account for one-fifth of this year's tax increase.

To meet our BMA goals and rein in tax increases, we must cut expenditures and apply the savings to reserves. But where do you trim? We have to maintain core infrastructure and key service. Operating costs (phone, insurance, fuel, hydro, vehicle maintenance, etc.) are out of our control and increase faster than inflation. Wages and benefits make up a huge percentage of the budget but are not out of line compared to other towns.

Services is the only category where we might find savings and efficiencies. But each service has its staunch followers and defenders. I believe we pay too much for our residents to use the Carleton Place library because the $43,800 we must pay does not account for their residents using our library. I believe we should not be subsidizing daycare ($103,000 this year)—it should be privatized (not closed).

The alternative to reducing services is perpetually higher taxes. If anyone has cost-cutting suggestions for next year, let your mayor and councillors know.

Septage: The White Elephant Awakens

2012-02-11T19:29:00.003-05:00

Nearly two years ago, I wrote that the proposed septage treatment component of the new sewage plant was a white elephant—an expensive, best-of-intentions facility that would never meet its financial or environmental goals. Nothing has happened since to change my mind.

For the proposed business plan to work (that is, for the septage facility to make enough money to pay its bills), the Town assumed that Queen's Park would pass regulations to force local septic-tank pumpers to use the facility. Despite efforts by Diane Smithson and various members of Council to persuade the Province, no regulation is forthcoming. In fact, the current environment minister declined the latest invitation to meet a Town delegation in Toronto.

Troy Dunlop, our very capable Director of Roads and Public Works, contacted all local septage haulers asking if they planned to use the facility. Most said no. One said "maybe occasionally." That means there will not be enough tipping fee revenue to cover the operating costs of the facility.

Troy told me that the Town can't simply shut down the facility. Even if unused, it requires maintenance. Because of that, he asked Council to add $10,000 to the 2012 budget to cover the cost of septage facility operations. That money will be added to the septage tax levy rural taxpayers will be hit with later this year. (I was the only vote against it.)

If the septage facility continues to be underused, rural taxpayers may see a bill for it operations for years to come.

No Fat Cats Here Despite Raise

2012-01-28T17:20:00.001-05:00

Every time I've seen Parliament, Queen's Park or a big city council vote members a fat raise, I have denounced the inequity of it. So, I was mindful of the whiff of self-hypocrisy when I recently voted with the majority to give Mississippi Mills councillors a modest raise. The justification for voting for the raise among councillors varied. (Some residents may think there is no adequate justification.)

The main reason was remuneration catch-up. The current annual salary for a Mississippi Mills councillor is $13,000, far less than councillors in comparable towns: Carleton Place, $17,500; South Glengarry, $16,000; and Smith Falls, $15,700. Carleton Place and Smith Falls also pay members a per diem when they attend conferences and seminars, on top of travel expenses. Mississippi Mills pays just travel expenses.

Salary inequality had little to do with my support. We have 10 councillors while those other towns have five or seven. In my case, I believe we are not adequately compensated for expenses related to being a councillor. One-third of our salary is tax-free, and that is supposed to be compensation for expenses. For someone in the lowest tax tier, like me, the savings is $650. That does not cut it.

The biggest expense is transportation to meetings and constituency events. While five councillors are within walking distance of Townhall, some drive 30 kilometers round trip. I calculated that if I was paid $0.46 per km (the going rate for Town staff) for all my Council-related driving, it would total $1600 annually.

A council subcommittee looked at several additions to councillors' remuneration including: mileage for those far from Town hall, per diem's for outside events, and a small discretionary fund for councillors (the mayor already has one). In the end, the Finance Committee voted 6 to 4 just to give everyone a modest raise of $150 a month. There is less administrative overhead in a salary increase than in managing mileage or per diems.

The raise brings a councillor salary to $14,800 annually—hardly fat cat territory. The $19,800 in additional salaries is equivalent to 0.33% of the tax rate applied to assessment. For the average tax bill, it will equal $4 per year.

Update: The final Council vote was 8 to 3 in favor of the increase.

Mississippi Mills in 2012

2012-01-03T12:52:00.002-05:00

We are now at the start of the second full year of the current Council. I believe I have shed most of my downy rookie fuzz to reveal a councillor better equipped to work in the "house of eleven hard-to-herd cats," a.k.a. town hall.

Here is my list of the challenges, issues and opportunities ahead.

Budget 2012

The last version of the budget we examined in December suggested a 10% increase in the town's tax levy was likely. (Based on expected school and county taxes, it would mean an overall 5% property tax increase.) This increase is triple what the county and Carleton Place propose for 2012. Why are we so much higher?

A big part of our proposed increase is needed to maintain core infrastructure (roads and bridges) and is quite justifiable. The Town has "short-changed" the roads department for a few years and needs to make that up. We also need to put more money into reserves to help pay for expenditures down the road instead of taking on new debt.

Still, we could do better. When Council adds new projects or services to its budget, it should examine old programs and services to see if they remain relevant. Some old "sacred cows" could be culled.

For example, the Town will hand over $140,000 (representing 2.3% of our tax revenue) this year to Carleton Place so that our residents can use their recreation facilities, pool, and library on the same terms as CP residents. Mississippi Mills has two arenas, two libraries, and many sports facilities. Other than the pool, do we really need to use the CP facilities? (Also, CP residents use our library without a reciprocal payment.)

Late last year, Councillor Wilkinson proposed that we dump most of the CP agreement and reimburse our residents if CP makes them pay for a library card. It would save us about $100,000. I and one other councillor supported her fine idea.

Business Reviews

The Town has embarked on a strategic plan review to be followed by an operational review. The first sets goals for the next few years while the latter examines the resources (staff, equipment, etc.) needed to achieve those goals. In the end, we hope to run the Town more efficiently.

New Sewage and Septage Costs

This year, the new wastewater treatment plant and its septage treatment facility will come online. With that comes debt payments related to its construction, plus ongoing operational costs for staff and maintenance. Costs related to the sewage treatment portion will be covered by increases in Almonte water bills.

The septage component is less clear. The previous Council decided to apply a one-time tax to rural residents to cover the capital cost of septage. The exact amount is not yet set. Also, the previous Council assumed operating costs would be covered by tipping fees paid by septage haulers. That may not happen. The province still shows no signs of forcing septage haulers to abandon their own lagoons and field-spreading in favor of the Town's facility. If there are no tipping fees, Council will be under some pressure to add a levy to rural tax bills to cover operations.

Sharing Hydro Revenues

In the next few months, I expect Council will finally agree on how to share the revenues generated by the hydro plant and distribution network. (Currently, all profits go to Almonte ward). I hope that the rural share will initially go to reduce or eliminate the proposed one-time septage tax.

New Web Site

The Town will soon have a completely redesigned web site. This should make it easier for you to keep abreast of these and other issues.

Judge the Results, Not the Process

2011-12-19T16:34:00.001-05:00

Last week I had three conversations (complaints, really) about the sometimes clumsy, often pedantic, frequently laborious, and occasionally mind-numbing decision-making process of Mississippi Mills Council. In each case, I asked that people not judge us during "the construction phase" of policy, but on the final result.

Case in point: On November 8, the Recreation and Culture Committee debated the merits of a proposal by a citizens' group to revitalize Augusta Street Park. The group, under the supervision of Calvin Murphy, our Recreation Director, wanted permission to begin work on the park before winter. They were volunteering their time and were asking for no money in the first phase. Their park revitalization concept had been accepted at a previous Council meeting.

After a tedious debate that had some audience members chuckling and others wincing, Council sent the plan back to the organizers. As a group, we waffled and wavered, and may have looked like a den of doofuses. Because we were handing a park's future over to volunteers and because some funds will be needed, several members were being particularly careful.

Four weeks later, on December 5, Council approved a five-phase plan (with details of phases 2 to 5 to be fleshed out) and committed $5,000. The group got the support it needed—just a bit more slowly than expected. And Council was comfortable with the result.

In short, the process worked. It may not have been pretty, but it was effective.

Planning Lessons from Afar

2011-11-18T17:42:00.003-05:00

On November 13 and 14, Amelia and I toured western Ontario. Two towns we visited provided examples of how we can do better in Mississippi Mills.

St. Mary's is a place I know well. My father grew up there. I spent many weeks there in summers as a lad in the 50s and 60s visiting my grandparents.

In those days, St. Mary's had an east-west rail line that crossed the Thames River on a high trestle and a north-south line that ended in the middle of town at a flour mill (now gone). The rail company closed both lines in the late 1980s.

The Town bought both right-of-ways within the town limits and turned them into trails. The southbound line follows the Thames River; so the town saved river access for the public. The trestle on the east-west line provides fabulous views and is part of a town-wide trail system. The Town raised a significant amount of the funds for the rail trails from local donations. Each plank on the trestle's deck has someone's name on a metal tag.

Trail built on the trestle

Architecturally, St. Mary's is stunning. Most of the commercial core, including a 19th century opera house (now apartments), is built of limestone. Older residential areas seem partial to yellow brick. At 6500 residents, the town has just 2000 more than when I was a boy. Growth has been modest and respectful of built and cultural heritage. New buildings, such as a Tim Horton's on the main drag, are built to fit in.

St. Mary's straddles the confluence of the Thames River and Trout Creek. Besides the rail trail along the Thames, parks grace both sides of Trout Creek. Unlike Almonte, where very little waterfront is public, St. Mary's makes it a priority.

We also took a drive through Goderich. The town, population 8000, sits on a high bluff overlooking Lake Huron. At the base of the bluff, most of the prime lakeshore is a park with lovely beaches. The top of the bluff is also park. Clearly, public space has a higher priority than developers' profits.

It is too late to save public access to most of our waterfront but a public rail trail through the town is still possible.

Pro(Con)fusion of Figures

2011-10-29T11:31:00.002-04:00

Council spent two hours Thursday night (Oct. 27) and seven hours Friday (Oct. 28) pouring over spreadsheets and tables of numbers in attempts to tackle two fiscal challenges: hydro revenue allocation and the 2012 Town budget. The results were headaches (mine) and limited progress.

Hydro Revenue Sharing: Third Meeting

The October 27 meeting was our third attempt to agree on a formula to reallocate revenues from the hydro station to all wards in a fair manner.

At the last meeting on this subject, Councillor Edwards wanted to know how the revenue would be distributed if we used it to pay down each debt related to its size; that is, the biggest debt gets the biggest share. Based on that request, our CFO, Rhonda Whitmarsh, presented data showing that 55% of hydro revenue would apply to the new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and 45% to other debts.

Rhonda's figures also showed how much water rates would rise to make up the difference, since all hydro revenue cushions water and sewer costs at present.

Rhonda also supplied data showing reallocation ratios of 60-40 (60% for the WWTP and the rest for other debt), 70-30, 75-25, and 80-20. The different ratio scenarios led to a fiscal Tower of Babel, where some councillors addressed water rate increases in percentage terms, while others spoke about dollars per year, the monthly impact, or pennies per day. (Insert headache here.)

Into this monetary maelstrom, I tossed an added complication. I pointed out that the debt figures did not include the septage treatment portion of the WWTP. (Since the previous Council had agreed to have rural residents pay for that through a tax levy, technically it is not a debt.)

I stated I could not support any scenario that did not treat the septage component equally to the main WWTP. After some discussion, it appears that the majority on Council, including two Almonte ward councillors, believes that, to be fair, we should allocate hydro revenue to all parts of the WWTP equally. (There was no binding vote.)

Council made no decision that night on a sharing formula. I can report that all members of Council now agree that reallocation is needed. It will be January before we can schedule the next debate on this. We have until June—when the WWTP comes online—to settle it.

Budget 2012

The all-day meeting October 28 was our first look at the proposed 2012 Town budget--a 71-page document with over 1500 separate line items. It asks for $1,417,370 more than 2011—the equivalent of a 20% tax increase. (Don't worry—every budget starts this way.)

Each department head appeared to answer questions as Council went line by line through the budget, looking for items to cut or reduce.

Some councillors are comfortable with this level of detail, but not me. I find the morass of minutiae debilitating. Do we really have to review the cost of license plates for a specific half-ton truck or the fuel and oil costs for a lawnmower? (Insert second headache here.)

Note: Do not take any of this as a criticism of staff or Council—it is a critique of the process.

To me—and I am in the minority on this—the process is ass-backwards. Council is the equivalent of a corporate board of directors. Corporations do not use a staff-driven budget process created in a policy vacuum; instead, corporate officers set a budget policy and goals first, which senior staff must meet.

For example, (just an example) a policy could be: allow a 3% increase in operational costs for inflation, a 2% increase for capital improvements and 2% for reserves.

The policy could be modified by setting goals, for example, allocate extra money for specific road and bridge upgrades, and funds for a recreational strategy. Department heads then tailor their budgets to meet the policy and goals. If a department head feels too restricted, Council could meet to reconsider.

In the end, our all-day meeting did not leave time to examine every department. A few good suggestions surfaced for cuts but we are a long way from a final budget.

(Note to self: buy jumbo-sized, extra-strength aspirin.)

Reducing Council Size--Not!

2011-10-25T13:51:00.000-04:00

On October 24, Council held a special meeting to discuss reducing its size. In my opinion, the evening featured one of the best debates I've witnessed since elected. Every member spoke well and eloquently. In the end, the one resizing resolution proposed met defeat, as much to do with process as content.

A smaller Council was one of Mayor Levi's election promises. He wants our numbers reduced from 11 to 7: mayor, deputy-mayor (who also serves as our second County Council rep), and five councillors (Ramsay 2, Almonte 2, Pakenham 1).

At the start of the meeting, two councillors stated they preferred the current size of 11 and five favored the Mayor's formula. Four of us stated we would be willing to consider downsizing but not necessarily to 7.

Councillor Watters explained how a larger Council brought fresh perspectives, diversity and depth of experience to the table. Councillor Edwards believes a larger Council provides more connection points with the electorate and therefore strengthens democracy. Councillor Abbott, a former teacher, drew a parallel with school trustees—their small numbers compared to the populace distances them from residents. Councillor Wilkinson tabled a report showing how the ratio of councillors to people in Mississippi Mills is not grossly out of proportion (as some have said) when compared to other Lanark municipalities. We are in the middle of the pack.

I agree with many statements above (as noted in a previous letter to the editor), but I said I'd support a different Council makeup if it created an clear advantage. I strongly favor an elected deputy-mayor instead of appointing one councillor to be our second county rep, as we do now.

The proponents of 7 claim it would mean shorter meetings. I pointed out that the length of meetings has more to do with how long people talk. You could have a Council with seven gabbers where every meeting ended at midnight. Our current 11 rarely meet longer than three hours, and often finish in two.

The meeting was billed as an opportunity to discuss the composition of Council. We had an opportunity to find consensus on a smaller Council. Unfortunately, the Mayor's formula dominated the debate to the exclusion of others. After about 90 minutes, the Mayor made a motion advocating the 7-member formula. It was defeated 6 to 5.

Our procedural rules state no motion can be revisited in a term of Council unless two-thirds agree to reconsider it. That means a 7-person Council is off the table. At least four of us expressed willingness to discuss 8, 9, or 10 at some later date.

The only valid reason for changing Council's composition, in my mind, is to have an elected deputy-mayor. Meeting length is a weak argument for reducing representation. And there are no salary savings because a deputy-mayor would get a bigger pay cheque than councillors.

We have until the end of 2013 to change Council size to have it in place for the next election.

Budget 2012 Preview

2011-10-12T09:37:00.003-04:00

Budget season is almost here. Rather than wait until December, as has been the practice, this Council will start discussing Town spending October 28 with the aim to finalize the budget and 2012 tax requirements by January.

Mississippi Mills caught a few good breaks moneywise in 2011 that will ease the financial burden. Conversely, our new policy on capital reserves presents a challenge.

This year, after our soon-to-retire ladder truck burned, the Town took delivery of a new $750,000 fire truck for just the $10,000 insurance deductible. That relieves us of the need to borrow for a new truck. Also, the final price tag for the new Boal Bridge in Pakenham was $100,000 under budget. We can apply that savings to other infrastructure projects. And, the Town's unionized employees agreed to a new three-year contract with modest annual increases.

In the spring, BMA Consulting advised Council on long-term financial planning. The crux of the plan, to which we agreed, is that we must put more money into reserves and capital projects to cover the cost of depreciating capital assets: roads, bridges, buildings, sidewalks, street lights, and more. We need to find over $50 million in the next 20 years to cover replacement and repairs.

BMA advised us not to borrow to fix or replace existing capital assets (that should come from taxes and reserves). New debt is OK for new capital investments—that is, building new stuff.

To meet the BMA target, the Town needs to find an average of $2.7 million annually just for capital replacements and reserves. We didn’t even come close to that in the 2011 budget. We cannot jump to $2.7 million in one year but must work towards it. (Some of that money will come from the province and feds.) What this means for future taxes, I do not know yet.

If you have budget suggestions--places to cut, stuff to add--contact the Mayor or your Council reps.

Hydro Revenue Sharing: Second Meeting

2011-09-13T11:45:00.004-04:00

On September 12, 2011, Council held its second special meeting to discuss the sharing of hydro revenues. While resistance still remains to the concept from some Almonte councillors, the meeting did see a consensus form that sharing is inevitable and the monetary impact on Town water users must be limited.

If you have not followed this issue so far, my last post on this subject includes background info.

Several councillors presented a sharing formula. While different in details, each formula would see 66-80% of hydro revenues still going to subsidize water rates in the Almonte ward.

John Edward's proposal won support from a plurality of councillors. Essentially, it states we use the hydro revenue to pay down capital debt, with the biggest debt sources (such as the sewage plant) getting the biggest share. (I am backing his proposal because it would achieve the same results as my proposal but be simpler to understand and administer.)

Councillors Bernard Cameron and Duncan Abbott made a strong plea to take a whole Mississippi Mills view and leave the names of wards, and the mention of urban and rural, out of the discussion.

Mayor John Levi suggested the Town might use general revenues to cover part of the water/sewer costs, or the Town could pay Almonters for their pre-amalgamation hydro asset to reduce the debt charge portion of the water bill.

Councillor Val Wilkinson suggested two sharing formulas: 1, that all funds from ORPC continue to subsidize water/sewer costs, and MRPC revenue be split between capital costs and sewer/water costs on a population basis; 2, that 2/3 of the total hydro revenues (ORPC and MRPC) subsidize water/sewer costs, and the rest apply to general capital. She also suggested all Town residents pay a one-time tax, not just the rural residents as proposed by the last Council. This would provide a big down payment on the sewage plant debt.

Councillor Alex Gillis made a very strong case, echoed by Councillors Dalgity and Rick Minnille, that the Town not let water charges become a crippling financial burden on families. All rural councillors spoke in sympathy with this position—no rural councillor expects a population-based split of hydro funds.

Councillors Paul Watters and Abbott did remind Council that the long-term cost for rural residents to provide their water and septage systems is likely greater than what town water users will pay.

The next meeting on hydro revenue sharing is set for October 27. For that meeting, I asked Town staff to prepare a report that applies Councillor Edward's sharing formula to Town debts so that we can see its effects in real dollar terms.

I will keep you posted.

If you are not familiar with MRPC and ORPC, see my earlier backgrounder on hydro revenues.

Response to Newspaper Editorial on Council Size

2011-06-04T10:50:00.002-04:00

The June 2 (2011) edition of the Canadian Gazette carried an editorial endorsing Mayor John Levi's proposal to reduce Council to seven members. The editorial made too much of new councillors' unfamiliarity with procedures and policies, and it undervalued the contribution of new councillors. I wrote a response to the paper. In case you missed it, here it is.

Dear editor,

In response to your editorial "The incredible shrinking council," you were too quick to dismiss the relationship between a smaller Mississippi Mills Council and "fresh blood."

If Mayor Levi's 2-2-1 formula (two councillors each from Almonte and Ramsay, and one from Pakenham) had been in place at the last election, only one (me) of the four new councillors would have made it. Would Council have been better?

Duncan Abbott would not be on Council. His years as a real estate lawyer and teacher, and experience with union negotiations, have already proven valuable in Council work. Council would miss Paul Watters enthusiasm and dedication to recreation and community activities. We would be without the keen perception and lateral thinking that Bernard Cameron brings to the table.

The other winning councillors under the 2-2-1 proposal would have been four men in municipal politics since before amalgamation. Sure, they know "policy and procedural aspects" better, but we newcomers will catch up.

Mayor Levi's proposal does call for an elected deputy mayor who would also be our second rep on County Council. I support that part. I find Council's current policy of appointing the second rep undemocratic. I welcome the discussion on Council size and might support a different formula: 2-2-1 is too small.

Hydro Revenue Sharing: Talks Begin

2011-05-21T21:49:00.001-04:00

One of the major issues during my election campaign was the need for the Town to distribute profits from our new hydro plant to all wards in an equitable manner. At the Finance and Admin (F&A) committee meeting May 19, I introduced a motion to begin negotiating a sharing policy. The majority backed my motion. The debate begins at a special meeting of Council June 13, 6 PM.

I talked to almost every councillor before I introduced the motion. The good news for rural residents is that a majority favor sharing the hydro revenue, including the mayor and two Almonte councillors. The devil will be in the details.

The new hydro plant generates millions of dollars annually selling electricity to Ontario Hydro. In its first year of operation, the new hydro plant made $2,759,000—almost $500,000 more than projected (rain = money). In addition, the Town owns part of the transmission lines and gets money from this source each year too.

The majority of the revenue pays for the plant's debt and operations. Also, the plant's creditors insist we must build up a special cash stash of $1.7 million as a cushion in case of catastrophic failure. Still, a chunk of cash is available to the town annually. In 2010, the Town received $250,000 for generation and transmission. All of it went to pay for water and sewage systems in Almonte ward.

With my motion, I proposed a policy framework. To me, a sharing formula is not complicated. You simply decide what projects and programs should be assisted by the funds, you assign priorities to those projects, and you allocate the funds on a hierarchical basis. My proposed policy framework is as follows:

All hydro revenues would be apportioned on a hierarchical, three-tier basis. The intent is to apply the money in a manner that benefits all of Mississippi Mills while recognizing that the needs of some areas are greater than others.

Tier 1. A fixed amount of money will be directed each year from hydro revenues to pay for capital costs, interest and operating costs related to water systems, sewer systems, and sewage treatment infrastructure. (Council needs to set that amount.)

Tier 2. When funds are available in excess of the set amount for Tier 1, the funds will be used each year to pay for capital costs, interest and operating costs related to septage treatment.

Tier 3. Any funds in excess of those earmarked for Tier 1 and Tier 2 each year will be used for Mississippi Mills capital projects and reserves. The exact allocation will be determined by Council.

* Hydro revenues in this context mean:
- funds from MRPC for generating electricity
- funds from ORPC for transmitting electricity
- income from the rent of town property by MRPC and ORPC
- funds from any other source connected to MRPC and ORPC

Reducing Council Size-Thoughts and Ideas

2011-05-13T20:32:00.003-04:00

At the Finance and Admin (F&A) committee meeting in April, Mayor Levi stated he wanted to discuss downsizing Council before the next election. His choice is 7 members: mayor, deputy-mayor, 5 councillors (Almonte 2, Ramsay 2, Pakenham 1). The mayor and deputy would go to County council.

On May 19, Mayor Levi officially introduced a motion to discuss reducing council size. He also added eliminating the wards to his motion.

A subsequent meeting at the F&A committee June 23 resolved nothing. Council met again October 24.

At present we have a mayor and 10 councillors, one who is elected from within to go to County council. The mayor’s proposal would reduce the rural councillor component from a majority to a minority.

I posted this info on two local chat groups in late April and got some great responses. There was general support for a smaller council, though no one could nail what value that would bring. Opinions were mixed on getting rid of the wards. And many discussed their dislike of the rural-urban split on Council.

Here is where I stand on these three points at present.

Smaller council: Yes, though not necessary the mayor's 7 plan. I favor 8 (like Tay Valley). I mostly favor the elected deputy-mayor to avoid the undemocratic appointment of the second county rep, as we do now.

Rural-urban split: I campaigned on trying to remove it once we broke down barriers to trust. (See Trust below).

Wards: The ward system (IMHO) has one major benefit—it helps new candidates get on council. You cannot get elected in MM unless you meet people. It took me parts of 53 days to visit the 1750 homes in Ramsay. If there were no wards, how would a new candidate visit 5000 homes? It would be rare for new candidates to unseat incumbents if we had a smaller council with no wards.

Trust: There is distrust on council over the sharing of resources. No where is it more evident than in sharing hydro revenue. At present, all profit from the hydro plant goes to Almonte ward and that payoff is jealously guarded. The other new councillors and I have made some progress on bringing this issue to Council for debate. (More on that soon.)

A Minor Victory but a Win no Less

2011-05-03T22:12:00.004-04:00

Council recently approved a small idea I put forward to improve communications between residents and Council. All councillors will now have town-branded email addresses, like smclaughlin@mississippimills.ca. If people know a councillor's name, they can figure out their email. (The mayor already had such an address.)

It is hard to find our emails on the Town web site; so, this might improve communications.

At first Diane Smithson, our Town's CAO, said it might cost $60 apiece. That cost would have killed the idea. My tech background told me that was not right. I contacted the County IT director and confirmed that all we needed was email forwarding—a joyfully free service.

Thanks to Phil Warland of Pakenham for the idea.

The new emails are on the Town website.

A Lesson in Development

2011-04-19T21:08:00.000-04:00

It didn’t take me long to learn that residential development is the most sacred of cows in Miss Mills. Any suggestion to improve a developer’s “perfect” design has about as much chance to succeed as a Falun Gong resolution at a meeting of the Chinese politburo.

This applies to developments big and small. Here are two examples.

A big example

The new developer for the Sadler subdivision (the one behind Tim Hortons) presented phase one of a five-phase development plan in March. All in all, it’s a good plan—the subdivision will not be on quality farmland or a mile from town (like a few we all know about).

One problem is that its design does not integrate with the existing town. Wherever it touches a street, it is fenced with homes looking inward—like a gated community. (Fences make sense next to highways only.) I asked that those houses be turned to face the street and the fences removed. Most councillors thought the fences were no problem. (I intend to bring this up again in later phases.)

John Edwards argued (rightly) that the main north-south street be widened because someday it will be a link to the next subdivision. He also suggested a bike lane. Both ideas were rejected.

When Mayor Levi remarked that he liked the plan just the way it is, most around the table nodded in agreement.

A small example

A landowner on Glen Isle asked to severe two lots on the southwest side of his property. The position of those two lots was right beside two lots severed from another property. Only Borden Road (a narrow private road) separated them. I argued that moving the severances to the southeast side would provide two benefits.

Benefit one: by not having four houses in a row you help preserve rural character. Benefit two: if a future Council wanted to widen Borden Road to town standards to better service the 40 houses along it, having narrow severances on both sides could make the project more difficult and more costly (because of rules for setbacks and minimum lot widths).

I saw the suggestion as a winner—it would not cost the landowner a penny and the change would produce tangible benefits. Only three people supported it. In fact, Councillor Ferguson gave me a terse lecture—saying that it is not our job to tell people what to do with their land.

Silly me. I thought improving development was part of our job.

Budget 2011--Final

2011-04-18T20:51:00.001-04:00

After four months of talking about the budget, we finally passed it April 18 with no fanfare.

The 2011 budget will impose the smallest tax increase in about five years: 3%. My aim was to keep it at the inflation rate. (StatsCan reports inflation for the 12 months ending this March was 3.3%.) The Town faces huge increases in energy, police services and other costs of doing business in 2011. There was little else to cut without reducing services.

Property tax is complicated. MPAC raised the average Miss Mills assessment by 7% for 2011. Since taxes are applied to assessment, our 3% hike means the actual tax rate will decrease by 4%. So, the Town’s extra tax revenue is riding on the assessment. What this means for a property assessed at $256,000 (the average) is about $30 more for Miss Mills taxes in 2011.

Education, waste management and county taxes are extra. Fortunately, the education and county portions are modest this year. The actual overall tax increase is estimated at 2.8%. That means about $99 for the average house. So, some of you will pay more and some less.

The only bad news is the waste management levy. It was $219 in 2010. This year, the Carp landfill is closing and it will cost us more per ton to dump garbage elsewhere. Fortunately, we made a lot more from selling recyclables in 2010 and some of that profit will be used to cushion the increase. But, expect a waste levy of about $245 this year, or $26 more.

For budget aficionados, see my article on future budget challenges.

Making a Difference--Not!

2011-04-10T19:21:00.002-04:00

Probably the greatest hope and ambition of a rookie councillor is to make a difference; that is, to somehow improve on what went before. The first four months on Council have been a lesson in frustration. I haven’t been able to budge a single issue a single millimeter. Compared to me, the Ottawa Senators have a stellar record.

I went into this job not expecting a great deal. I knew I’d be viewed as an outsider because of my local advocacy work with the Mississippi Mills Residents Association and the Alliance for Fair Taxation. I did hope that good ideas might succeed on their own merit. Wrong! Here is one example.

Councillor Val Wilkinson and I wrote a proposal to extend citizen participation in meetings of Council. Dubbed the “one-minute speakers corner,” the plan was to allow anyone to speak at a meeting for one minute without being on the delegate list. (Up to 10 minutes would be set aside at the start for this.) They could ask a question, make a suggestion, or complain about a decision. The only rule was we would not allow personal attacks. Val and I proposed a three-month trial period.

You’d think we asked to hold Council meetings in the nude! One councillor after another denounced it as a bad idea. Most complained that Council would have no control and that people might make embarrassing statements.

Only Councillor Minnille supported our idea. He remarked that he wasn’t worried about what people might say.

To me, it looked like most took the opposite view and didn’t trust the electorate to behave.

Update: I achieved a minor victory in April.

Sidewalk Clearing: The Sequel

2011-01-15T13:16:00.001-05:00

Following a blizzard of public reaction, Mississippi Mills Council voted January 14 to reinstate sidewalk plowing along Almonte streets that had their snow clearing suspended in December. I think the majority of us felt the earlier decision was not well thought through and we can do better.

At the suggestion of the Town’s Director of Roads & Public Works, Troy Dunlop, staff will develop a sidewalk clearing strategy. The approach, which will cover Almonte, Pakenham, and Clayton, will be based on usage and risk data. It will lay out a multi-tier strategy. Some streets would be cleared as soon as possible, others after some delay, and others maybe never.

The cost of plowing the sidewalks is not huge but trucking away the snow is very costly. The tiered approach allows the roads staff to find some efficiencies.

As I stated in my earlier sidewalk posting, I believe general revenues should cover clearing on main roads and near institutions, but residents should be responsible for the sidewalk on their street. Either pay a fee to have the Town clear it or clear it themselves.

Council will debate the sidewalk clearing issue in June after the immediate demands of winter are behind.

Sidewalk Stats

Almonte has 27.7 linear kilometres (km) of sidewalk of which 22 km are now plowed.
Pakenham has 3.1 km of sidewalk of which 1.5 km are plowed.
Clayton has 0.6 km of sidewalk of which none is plowed yet.
Appleton has a few hundred feet of sidewalk which no one has asked the Town to plow.

Skidding on Sidewalks

2010-12-24T14:33:00.005-05:00

Only 15 days into my job as Councillor and I’ve already walked into a slippery, no-win issue—one of those cases where any decision brings shock and rage from one segment of the community or another.

Background: In the summer of 2010, the previous Council decided to cease sidewalk snow removal in parts of Almonte to save money. At my first meeting of the Roads and Public Works committee on December 9, 2010, two motions came forward that, combined, renewed snow removal on some sidewalks but still left 10 streets on the no-plow list.

Once the local papers printed the list of cut streets, several friends and acquaintances lambasted me about the cuts. Some rant about “rural polarized attitudes” and others about public safety.

Note: Sidewalk clearing occurs on main roads in Almonte, plus those near churches, hospitals, schools and some walking routes to schools. We also plow sidewalks along Pakenham's main street. Clayton’s sidewalks are rarely plowed.

I fully support the idea of clearing every sidewalk in Almonte, Pakenham and Clayton for safety and liability reasons, as long as the full cost is not paid for through taxes.

While general revenues should cover clearing on main roads and near institutions, I feel that residents should be responsible for the sidewalk in front of their homes. Either pay a fee to have the Town clear it or clear it themselves. (A Kitchener a by-law requires people to clear their sidewalks.) As a boy, I shovelled our sidewalk and made a few dollars clearing snow for neighbours.

I have to look at the whole picture. We currently have a $4 million liability for bridge repairs and replacements. At least one rural bridge is critical and must be fixed this year. New bridges are very expensive.

My personal goals are to limit tax increases and apply resources where needed most. While people can clear their own sidewalks, they cannot build their own bridges. So, it is a simple decision as to where our limited money goes.

Oh! The Irony

2010-12-21T14:17:00.002-05:00

Years ago, I helped found the Mississippi Mills Residents Association partly to oppose the Whitetail Ridge (WTR) subdivision. Ironically, on December 20 I was asked to vote on WTR as a new councillor. The actual motion was to approve a list of conditions that the developer has met—the last step in the approval process. I attempted to bring up one issue but was told the time had passed to make changes.

I asked for a recorded vote. (I believe major decisions should have recorded votes and launching a subdivision is major.) The motion passed 8-3, with myself, Val W. and John E. dissenting.

Let There Be Less Paper

2010-12-19T12:56:00.000-05:00

Mississippi Mills council committees rely on paper for meeting agendas and all supporting documentation. Some committees are paper-intensive. For example, agenda material for the December 2010 meeting of the Finance, Administration & Policy committee totalled 274 pages (half was the draft 2011 budget).

My goal is to eliminate most of the paper from Council business and increase productivity. Besides the environmental benefits of electronic documents, the Town could reduce paper costs. And, electronic documents are easy to store on a PC for later reference.

Before I attended my first meeting, I met with CAO Diane Smithson and Clerk Cindy Halcrow to ask them to provide all my material in electronic format. They agreed. I offered myself as a guinea pig to develop a system that other councillors could use when they choose to.

So far, town staff has been very good at making sure I get all the committee material in Word, Excel, or PDF format. With their help, I am developing a process to deliver electronic documents in a format that is word searchable and with the ability to add comments. (Current PDFs available from the Town’s website are images that are not searchable nor commentable.)

I have also asked that electric outlets be added to the Council chamber desks for our laptops. At present, I bring in an extension cord. If everyone on Council did that, we’d have a dangerous spaghetti of cords around the table.

Check back later for updates on this move to a paperless council.

Win Some, Lose Some

2010-12-18T21:39:00.003-05:00

At the December 2010 meeting of the Finance, Administration & Policy (F&A) committee, I brought up three issues from my campaign: webcasting, more recorded votes, and letting people speak at meetings. Of the three, one was rejected and two are now under consideration.

I asked that meetings of the standing committees be webcast so that people can "attend" meetings from home. Town staff has looked at this issue before. The system requires hardware, including microphones, in the chamber. Microphones may be installed in 2012 as part of the Town’s accessibility plan. Webcasting can piggyback on that if it happens.

I asked for an automatic recorded vote on significant issues. After some discussion, the majority rejected the idea. Since any councillor can ask for a recorded vote at any time, most felt that was good enough. (Note: The majority of votes are non-controversial, such as simple motions to accept correspondence or minutes of past meetings. A recorded vote for each would take too much time.)

I asked that people be allowed to speak at committee meetings—a soapbox interlude—in addition to speakers in pre-arranged delegations. Councillors Wilkinson and Cameron supported this concept. The committee tasked us with developing guidelines for presentation latter.

Update: We presented the soapbox proposal in late March, 2011. Click here to find out what happened.

As a newbie, I had no idea how the committee would respond to my suggestions. In each case, the debate was reasoned and reasonable. I am pleased two ideas will move forward and I never expected to have all my suggestions accepted.

First Week on Council

2010-12-13T13:30:00.003-05:00

On December 6, Town Clerk Cindy Halcrow swore in the new Council. After a brief bit of business—mostly to do with electing the second County Council rep—the meeting adjourned for refreshments. I expect, that will be the shortest Council meeting of the term.

On December 9, I had three meetings about appointments and money.

The first was the striking committee, which I was on due to my first place finish in Ramsay Ward. I, along with Mayor Levi and Councillors, Ferguson and Dalgity, selected the members of Council to sit on the various subcommittees, using each Councillor’s preference list as a guide. Next we selected members of the community to sit on the subcommittees from a list of those who volunteered.

The striking committee appointed me (at my request) to two subcommittees: the property standards committee, which meets only to hear the occasional complaint; and, the community control group (CCG), which meets only during civic emergencies. There are two cool aspects to the CCG: one, I get some emergency response training; two, if we have a civic emergency and the mayor is unable to assume the lead role, I fill in for the mayor.

Update: I later volunteered to sit on the Arts and Culture subcommittee.

The other two meetings were regular gatherings of the standing committees on roads and public works, and recreation and culture. Mostly we talked about spending money.

I found out that the Town has 49 bridge and large culvert structures. Most of these are in the rural wards and have not been repaired for years because past budgets directed taxes and infrastructure grants elsewhere. In order to catch up, we would have to spend about $4 million between now and 2015. Ouch!

I believe we need to cover this deficit without raising taxes by shifting money from other projects and asking for provincial assistance (if available).

The Campaign is over. Now, the work begins.

2010-10-26T11:06:00.003-04:00

After six months of campaigning, including visiting 1751 homes, the people of Ramsay ward in Mississippi Mills elected me one of their four Councillors.

I finished first with just under 70% support. Much of that success I attribute to great advice and hard work from my friends, campaign team, and volunteers.

Watch this blog for weekly posts on being a local politician.

Me at my campaign party October 25, JR's restaurant. (Photo by James Stevenson)