Author Archives: Webmaster

CHRISTMAS 2012 NEWSLETTER

Posted on by

 

2012 is rapidly drawing to a close as we write this newsletter. The entire SEPO executive extends our collective thanks for our members’ support and we wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season with friends and family. Many challenges face us in 2013 and above all we extend best wishes for happiness, prosperity and good health.

 

MISSION STATEMENT

  • lead collective action in support of the long term affordable enjoyment of our properties in an unspoiled natural environment.
  • ·         encourage responsible attitudes for sustaining the high quality of life on our St. Edmunds properties.

 

YEAR IN REVIEW

The mandate of the SEPO executive is to seek solutions to concerns and issues that have been raised by our members.  We do this via the membership renewal process and the two public forum meetings that we hold each May and September in the Tobermory Community Hall.

 

Property Taxes – The number one concern expressed by our members continues to be the ever increasing property tax burden levied against property owners.  We have been openly critical of our Municipal Council in their failure to reign in spending and to seek a more equitable means of generating revenues beyond property taxes which currently make up 93% of the revenue pool.  SEPO along with two other ratepayer groups made formal presentations to Council on the 2012 draft budget last March, arguing specifically for no tax increase in 2012, which we believed to be attainable.  While our collective recommendations were taken under advisement, Council voted four in favour, one against the budget as presented by staff with an unacceptable 6% increase!

As the 2013 budget process begins, we will not give up.  Our resolve is to engage earlier and collaborate more effectively with other ratepayer groups.

 

Waste Management and Dumpsters – This is the second most frequent concern raised by our members. We covered this topic in great detail a year ago, particularly the ongoing theme of the proposed removal of the dumpsters. The fact remains that refuse removal by use of dumpsters, when managed properly, can be as efficient, cost effective and as conducive to reaching the recycled waste targets set by the Municipality and the Province.

 

A well written article in the Peninsula Press (August, 2012) by Elyse Menerey, summer student assigned to the Waste Diversion Committee, reiterated the key issues with dumpsters that most of us who use dumpsters are well aware of. Clearly there continues to be ongoing abuse in what trash goes into the dumpsters as well as what gets dumped around them.

 

The article concluded with a solicitation for residents to complete a survey on waste management and diversion in our community. 

We took the opportunity at our September meeting to hand out the survey forms.  Eighteen completed surveys were returned after the meeting.  Of those completed, 12 were from seasonal residents and 6 from permanent residents.  Of the 12 seasonal residents, eight use dumpsters and four have curb side pickup.  Only one is not satisfied with the current method of waste removal.  Of the permanent residents, five have curb side pick up and one uses dumpster.  All are satisfied with the current method of waste removal.

All responses pointed to the need for the Municipality to devote more effort towards educating the public in proper waste diversion practices, to establishing regulations that are enforceable by penalties for improper dumping and to provide a means such as closed circuit cameras for monitoring the dumpster sites.   These points are consistent with the recommendations that SEPO has made in the past, both in public forum and to Council. To date, Council has, for unexplained reasons, resisted implementing rate payer recommendations for improved managing of garbage collection with the use of dumpsters; it appears that some staff and certain Council members want garbage collection using dumpsters to fail.

 

Community Projects – Medical Building – The Medical Facility is complete. Funds raised throughout the community were in excess of $300k. In addition, donations of time, material, labour and equipment exceeded expectations. The result is a facility that will serve the community for generations to come. SEPO contributed $1500 to the fund and members played a big part in this project.

 

Questions raised at the September meeting focused on who can use the facility. At present it is available only for patients rostered to Family Health team physicians. All others must travel to the Lion’s Head hospital and be treated in emergency services. To change this will require the collective efforts of the community to lobby for change, and the issues are complex. Dr Harpur wrote about some of these complexities in a series of articles over the summer in the Tobermory Press.

 

It was questioned that, given the inability of non- rostered patients to use the facility, why support it financially? Several reasons were offered:

 

  • The      presence of a medical facility in a community has a positive effect on      property values.
  • The      construction of a new facility, especially one with the quality of      construction that we have built, will be here for generations to come.
  • The      old facility had a limited life cycle and, if we hadn’t built new, our      community could have lost all medical presence.
  • Seasonal      residents (cottagers / property owners) have a vested interest in the      community. Many will become permanent residents upon retirement and the facility      will be there for their use at that time.
  • The      project was built under a registered charity. Many of us support charities      throughout the year. Why not a local charity with no overhead or      administrative costs and a very visible result.

 

Big Tub Light Restoration – This became a community project following the announcement by the Federal Government last year that this heritage icon, along with many other lighthouses across Canada, was to become redundant.  A petition to preserve Big Tub Light as a heritage site was launched late last Fall and by Spring the restoration requirements and funding needs were established.  Property owners, visitors and businesses responded with donations of money, materials and time.  Work began in September and the restoration was complete by the end of November.

The current custodian of the site is the Friends of the Bruce District Parks. In future, ownership of the site will likely transfer to the Municipality with oversight and care remaining in the hands of Friends of the Bruce District Parks.

 

Looking Ahead – The coming year promises to be more challenging than 2012 with new and ongoing issues, particularly the 2013 Municipal budget.  The province wide 2012 MPAC assessment of all properties has resulted in an average residential property increase in our municipality of 3.65% for each year, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Water front property assessed values, in some instances, have increased by double digits with no apparent pattern. Municipal staff and certain members of council will be tempted “to stay the course” by using this 3.65% increase as a starting point for devising the 2013 budget. This is unacceptable and unrealistic, at a time when property values are declining and properties for sale are remaining unsold due to a lack of available buyers. Simply, a growing number of people have less money to spend!

SEPO will aggressively lobby the Municipal administration and Council to take a fresh approach to calculating the 2013 budget with a cap of 0% increase.  This target is readily attainable through better management and planning.

 

MPAC – 2012 Property Assessment notices were mailed out to all property owners across Ontario. For many property owners in the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula[D1] , MPAC is a dreaded acronym that is synonymous with ever increasing property taxes. Following a scathing report by Ontario’s Ombudsman, it is worth noting that, in contrast to previous years, the onus is on MPAC to establish how your property’s assessed value was arrived at.  The message has gone out to all MPAC regional offices that interactions with property owners are to be a positive and open experience.  Have you logged on to the MPAC website “My Property”?

There are numerous inconsistencies in the property assessments throughout the municipality. SEPO encourages all property owners to challenge all assessments that they feel are inequitable.  You are the customer and MPAC has a responsibility to explain and to justify how your assessment was arrived at.

The BruceCounty website www.brucecounty.on.ca has an interactive map, which presently has the previous 2008 assessment and tax information.  It is useful when comparing assessment increases for other properties with your property.

 

Membership – A new membership year begins January 1st. We need your continued support and help to bring on new members.   Please complete the enclosed 2013 registration form with your valued comments and payment, and mail to:

SEPO, PO     Box 152, Tobermory, ON., N0H 2R0.

 

Thank you!

 

We would also like to give special thanks to John Bainbridge, our Deputy Mayor, for keeping us informed in layman terms on Municipal developments via his blog site: johnbainbridge9@wordpress.com.  We highly recommend that you tune in to this site and offer your comments.

 

2011 – 2013 SEPO EXECUTIVE

President                     Udo Nixdorf                Directors         Jack Schenk

Vice-President            David Almack                                     Bob Wilson

Secretary                    Rob Davis                                           Bill Wright

Treasurer                    Jace Weir                                            John Zych

MEETINGS IN 2013

Members’ Forum

Saturday, May 18, 2013

9:00 – 11:00 A.M. – Tobermory Community Hall

Annual General Meeting

Saturday, August 31, 2013

9:00 – 11:00 A.M. – Tobermory Community Hall

 

VISIT US ON THE WEB at www.sepo.ca

To find us, “Google” St. Edmunds Property Owners or sepo

 [D1]Insert a comma after Peninsula

September 1, 2012 Annual General Meeting

Posted on by

PRESENTED BY JOHN  BAINBRIDGE AT THE SEPO  AGM

SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2012. AT THE TOBERMORY  COM CENTRE

Disclaimer – not speaking as Deputy Mayor but ‘democratic’ opposition

 

  • A number of issues have dominated municipal affairs in the last 18 months. These include:

Ø      Increasing taxes and the municipal budget

Ø      The review of the local official plan

Ø      And most loudly, the possible development of Wind Farms on the Peninsula

  • I have been struck by the passion which wind turbines have generated
  • More than 250 people turned out for a meeting in LH to hear Peter Pickfield, an environmental lawyer, speak about the Green Energy Act.
  • Council has received more than 90 letters from residents about wind turbines. I personally replied to many of them at length, trying to be neutral, and setting out what I knew to be true
  • This met with a range of responses from thanks for the information to holding me responsible for the inevitable destruction of the Peninsula
  • Let me lay out five basic facts:

1)     The Green Energy Act has removed all Municipal powers to regulate wind farms

2)     More than 80 municipalities have expressed their opposition to wind farms usually by passing a resolution and sometimes by taking legal action – not one municipality has succeeded in derailing a wind farm.

3)     The opposition to WTs was anticipated by the Ont Govt, which is why they took away municipal powers. In fact, rather than deal with the issue many municipalities begged the govt to take away their powers to avoid having to deal with the expected opposition

4)     As you know, the outcry across the Province against WT began before the last election and the Liberal govt got back in. Consequently, they no longer have to worry about public opinion on this issue

5)     Of course the Government did recently bring in a point system which awards points to a developer who can show community and municipal support and investment. A total of 15 points can be gained by a project which can show widespread support and involvement. But 3 of the 15 points do not rely on support from the community and to get a contract a project only needs one point. Even with the point system the deck is stacked against the public

  • Why then do people still look to the municipality for action?
  • It is clear to me that what people want is moral and political leadership from their elected representatives
  • Accordingly, I want to share with you some characteristics of this Council illustrated by three issues that they do have power to control and you can decide what sort of moral and political leadership you can expect
  • Then I will offer some suggestions about affecting change in the Municipality.

BUDGET

  • First the most recent budget
  • This Municipality has an annual budget of approximately $8 million of which about one third goes on roads
  • Roughly 50% of the municipality’s revenues come from property taxes and 91% of that comes from residential property taxes. Keep in mind that a 1% tax increase generates roughly $50,000 or to lower taxes by 1% the Municipality must make $50,000 in savings..
  • Just under $1/2 million comes from the National Park which is entirely within the borders of the old St. Edmunds
  • Since the three Townships were amalgamated in 1999 taxes have gone up every year except for 2001 and 2006. This year your taxes increased by 6 per cent
  • Consequently, this year’s budget generated more public interest than ever before.
  • There are more than eleven municipal projects which run rising deficits.
  • Four of these deficits amount to over $300,000 for the coming year about the same as your 6 per cent tax increase
  • The Tobermory airport will lose $30,000 this year but only ten residents use it
  • There has been no attempt by Council to try to rein in these rapidly increasing deficits in order to prevent further increases in your taxes
  • One of these projects is the LH arena, which has a deficit that increases, on average, by 8 per cent a year and this year is projected to be almost $200,000 or almost 4% on your taxes
  • Rather than try to manage this rising deficit Council has approved a two million dollar expansion, one million of which will come out of the Municipality’s reserves. This expansion will include an upgrade to the old building, new changing rooms, a new arena parking lot and $600,000 on a new LH library, a wellness room, and new washrooms
  • When Council took this decision they were not presented with:

Ø      any data on who or when the arena is used, and

Ø      the forecasted operating costs, which were hurriedly put together after I had asked for them were based on more than 12 assumptions and they omitted some important collateral costs

  • This slack approach to costing underlies many of the Council’s budgetary decisions and it has not escaped the attention of many residents of the municipality
  • After the last budget was presented to Council seven written submissions from residents were received by Council
  • As well, SEPO and the Isthmus Bay Property Owners made presentations to Council
  • More than 25 people attended the public meeting
  • But nothing was changed. Other than my own comments and written submission almost nothing was said by Council about the budget
  • There was no discussion in Council about any of the public’s recommendations
  • Not a single suggestion from the public was considered
  • This suggests to me that there is not only a reluctance to listen to the public but there is not the level of budgetary oversight of the Municipality that the Municipal Act requires and the public have a right to expect

Local Official Plan

  • The second issue which has engaged the community’s attention is the public consultation about the local official plan.
  • There was a public meeting last August attended by 40 residents who were polite but firm about their unhappiness about development in Tobermory. At the time they were assured that their concerns would be addressed.
  • This meeting was followed by 38 written submissions, mostly from Tobermory
  • Many of them were quite detailed and all were relevant to the OP.
  • Eight months later there was a further public meeting in Tobermory attended by 65 residents
  • Altogether, this amounted to a very high level of public interest in a subject as dry as Land Use Planning for any municipality let alone the smallest in Ontario
  • In spite of this huge public interest and participation not a single suggestion or concern from the public was addressed in the revised Official Plan
  • All of the changes that were made were technical and required by the County to bring the local plan into line with the County’s plan
  • Council approved the revision by a vote of four to one. Other than myself there was no discussion in Council either at the beginning or the end of the process
  • As with the public input into the budget, one must conclude that this Council is indifferent to its residents’ concerns

 

 

 

Minuteless meetings

  • Besides being poor budgetary watchdogs and being indifferent to the concerns of its residents the third characteristic that I have observed is a willingness to bend the rules
  • Last April the PRRC, which includes the Mayor and the FHT, unanimously and formally approved a presentation for a meeting of Council with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
  • The presentation included a request for funding for an additional nurse practitioner and emergency services or a walk in clinic in Tobermory
  • The following day two doctors objected to the presentation on the grounds that the requests, if granted, might negatively impact the remuneration they receive for emergency room services in the LH hospital and, therefore, according to them, make it more difficult to recruit and retain doctors
  • The Mayor and CAO immediately convened another meeting, which many of the PRRC were unable to attend and completely rewrote the presentation omitting the request for a nurse practitioner and clinical services in Tobermory.
  • The important point here is not what was in the presentation that was approved by the PRRC or that the Mayor failed to challenge the assumptions made by the doctors but that no minutes of this second meeting were taken and, under the Municipal Act, this is illegal.
  • Under the new Municipal Act, Councils have been given increased powers in return for a requirement for greatly increased transparency and accountability
  • There are seven specific and very narrow exceptions when Council can hold meetings in camera but developing a presentation to a Minister is not one of them
  • And even in camera meetings must have minutes
  • So to sum up, this Council is spendthrift with your tax dollars, doesn’t care what you think, and can be frightened into acting illegally
  • This, then, is the Council that people now appear to be looking to for the moral and political leadership that might stop the development of wind farms on the northern peninsula

What can be done about the Council

  • The indifference to the public which the Council displays is characteristic of the kind of democracy we have, which is really a parliamentary dictatorship. Once every four or five years you are asked for your opinion. The rest of the time you can be ignored. The Municipality is no different.
  • The only way you can have influence is to convince the elected representatives that you will remember how they acted come election time and your displeasure could lose them the election
  • However, most politicians know that the public memory rarely extends beyond six months.
  • Whether you agree with the Council or not, it is important to be engaged because they are spending your money.
  • The duty to be transparent and accountable is meaningless if the voter is silent and uninterested
  • There are many ways to make the Council transparent and accountable. I would like to suggest five.
  • First, every time the Council does something that you do not approve of, send an email to the “Mayor and Council”. It will appear in the Council’s agenda and be part of the public record
  • Second, I write a blog on the day following every Council meeting. You can add your comment on every issue raised.
  • My blog is read by up to 1200 residents and your comment will also be read by them. I know that the municipal staff also read my blog. Accordingly, if many people add their comments it will send a message that people are upset. If only one or two people comment then the message will be that people do not care.
  • Third, write to the BPP. The important thing is to let the public know that you are unhappy
  • Fourth, in the NBP there are 15 ratepayers organizations like SEPO.
  • Collectively, they could have a strong voice. Separately, they have almost no influence
  • There needs to be one organization representing all the taxpayers in the Municipality
  • Fifth and most importantly every voter has three votes. You can vote for Mayor, DM, and one Councillor. Accordingly, put together a program of reform, find three suitable candidates who will implement it, and get them elected. On a Council of five members, three can take power.
  • A recent report in the UK on the state of democracy in Britain said:
  • “The reality is that representative democracy, at the core, has to be about people voting, has to be about people engaging in the political process, …, and having faith and trust in elected representatives as well as those representatives demonstrating they can exercise political power effectively and make decisions that tend to be approved of.”

Dumpsters are on the chopping block – again.

Posted on by

Waste Management and Dumpsters

Readers will recall that two years ago the Municipality tried to replace the rural dumpsters with curb side pick-up and a user-pay fee. Further, in order to prevent bagged garbage from being scattered by animals, residents would be required to buy individual $300 bear proof roadside containers.

This proposal was not popular among residents who already felt burdened by annual property tax increases and SEPO led a successful fight against removing the dumpsters.

Once again, with the election behind us, the Municipality is hatching another plan. Earlier this year Gamsby and Mannerow, consultants from Owen Sound, were hired by the Municipality to prepare a Long-term Waste Management Plan. This was presented to the Municipal staff last summer and, presumably after considerable input from them, it was finally presented to the Waste Diversion Group, a committee of Council, in the Fall.

The Waste Diversion Group (a committee of local residents) had prepared its own Waste Diversion Plan in November 2009. It did not recommend immediate replacement of dumpsters with curb side pick-up. Instead it focussed on what the Municipality itself could do to reduce waste by adopting a “zero-waste philosophy” which included education and improved signage, significant improvements to the current re-cycling programs, and exploring partnerships and opportunities for diverting more recyclable materials from the landfill sites. These recommendations were ignored in favour of removing dumpsters and expanding curb side pick-up, which the public, subsequently, soundly rejected.

You may wonder why the Municipality is so determined to remove the dumpsters, which is a significantly cheaper form of collection system than curb side pick up. The root of the problem is the shortage of landfill space. There are three landfill sites in the municipality. At the current rate of use St. Edmunds will close in ten years, Eastnor in about 12 years, and Lindsay in about 16 years. Assembling the land and paying for the minimum five year approval process for a new landfill site will be extremely expensive and it will significantly increase property taxes for all residents of the municipality.

Furthermore, the geology of the peninsula means that any new landfill site must be in the former Eastnor township. Consequently, the remaining space at the existing landfill sites represents a valuable but decreasing asset to all taxpayers.

It is believed by the municipality that, because they are unregulated, dumpsters allow more recyclable waste to find its way to the landfill site than is the case with curb side pick-up. It is also believed to be easier to control the amount of residential waste that finds its way into the landfill site by introducing a user-pay fee through the ‘bag tag’ system. There is no question that these views are reinforced by the actions of residents, cottage renters, or businesses who leave appliances, large items like furniture, and recyclables, etc. at the dumpsters. However, the one thing we know for certain is that the municipality does not know much for certain. There are few reliable statistics on waste in the municipality. Most of the assumptions about waste are derived from Provincial averages, which do not always apply to the MNBP. Almost nothing is known about waste generation and recycling in the industrial and commercial sector of the municipality. This is complicated by the municipal practice of rolling all tourist generated waste into the poorly understood industrial and commercial sector.

In addition to the lack of good data, particularly about industrial and commercial waste, a further problem is that the Municipality has no enforcement by-laws related to waste disposal in dumpsters.

When a person is observed wrongfully disposing of waste at the rural dumpsters or elsewhere (and this frequently happens) they cannot be charged with an offence. Thus, in the two years since the Council’s own committee recommended sensible measures for improving the diversion of waste nothing significant has been done by Council to conserve our valuable and diminishing landfill sites, other than to commission a second report

The new waste management plan, will be presented to Council in January 2012 after which the public will be allowed to read it. There will be a public meeting, located at the municipal office on Lindsay Road 5, miles from where most taxpayers live. In spite of this inconvenience, we urge all taxpayers who may be concerned about waste diversion, Council’s approach to the enforcement of waste disposal or diversion measures, the eagerness of the municipality to expand the expensive curb side pick-up with an user pay system, the removal of dumpsters, or the imminent increase in our taxes as the need for a new landfill site approaches, we urge you to pass your views on to the Mayor and Council, if not by attending the public meeting, then at least in writing.

Follow the Deputy Mayor’s blog for information on how to get a copy of the report and for information on when the public meeting will take place at johnbainbridge9@wordpress.com.

SEPO’s submission for the Official Plan Review

Posted on by

Sabine Robarts, Planner, Bruce County,
Bruce County Planning & Economic Development Department,
Box 129, 578 Brown Street, Wiarton, ON., N0H 2T0.

Subject: Review of Official Plan for Tobermory, Lion’s Head and Ferndale.

Dear Ms. Robarts,

St. Edmunds Property Owners Inc. (SEPO) is a not for profit organization, established over thirty years ago by a group of Tobermory property owners and residents. The purpose then and as it is now, is to provide a collective voice for the property owners and residents of the community comprised of the former Township of St. Edmunds. The membership consists of 435 households or otherwise property owners with approximately 35% being permanent residents in the N0H 2R0 postal code area. The following commentary is specific to Tobermory.

SEPO’s goals are:

  • Lead collective action in support of the long term affordable enjoyment of our properties in an unspoiled natural environment, and
  • Encourage responsible attitudes for sustaining the high quality of life on our St. Edmunds properties.

These goals are not inconsistent with those set out in the Vision Statement of the Official Plan for Tobermory, Lions Head and Ferndale or, for that matter, in the Municipality’s Charter.

Regrettably, Tobermory is undergoing a transformation through largely poor or non existent planning as well as poor municipal management that is moving the community further and further away from the desired mandate of its constituents. Specifically, the rush to meet the needs of the overwhelming visitor traffic, brought on largely through Parks Canada and Provincial tourism promotional activity, has caused commercial developments that have directly impacted the enjoyment of residential properties around Big Tub Harbour as well as removing public access to the Gap. All this has occurred without any consultation or forethought of the long term impact to the many local residents who have devoted so much to the community over the years. Much has been said about the overcrowding during certain periods over the summer and, again due to poor planning, the inadequacy of the public infrastructure to handle the onslaught of visitors to Little Tub Harbour.

2011, in particular, has seen the approval by the County Planning Office and the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula (MNBP) of a large number of developments by the tourist sector, including a hydraulic dock at the Gap, several parking lots and a motel that have all been approved with minimal or no input from the public.

This disregard for public opinion is directly attributable to the use of holding zone by-laws which exist on most commercially zoned properties in Tobermory.

This form of zoning has been in existence for a number of decades and it may have made sense when they were created. However, given the changing demographics of the residential population and the rapid increase in tourism to the former St. Edmunds (according to the National Park their visitor numbers have increased by 8 per cent per year since at least 2008) these holding zones that by-pass public input are like time bombs which periodically go off and deeply unsettle the public. They are in effect a planning tool that is demonstrably creating tension between the residential and commercial sectors of Tobermory.

SEPO will not assume your role as planner by going in detail through the Official Plan and identifying specific actions that have created problems in Tobermory and which are honoured more in the breach. We would, instead, prefer to draw your attention to the Major Community Goals in the current Official Plan which the Planning Department and the MNBP have significantly failed to achieve. These are:

  • Goal (a) To create a positive economic climate. Based on recent letters to the Bruce Peninsula Press, letters to the Council of the MNBP, and the considerable feedback SEPO has received, we would argue that the climate in Tobermory is not positive.
  • Goal (b) To protect the natural environment in order to ensure future economic growth. In our view the Province, through its regulations, does more to protect the natural environment than the MNBP which, while it says much, is more passive than active in its approach to the environment. Furthermore, SEPO believes that the natural environment in the MNBP is sufficiently unique that the Official Plan should protect it for its own sake and for posterity and not merely to ensure future economic growth.
  • Goal (c) To provide that any development proceeds in a logical, progressive and economically sound manner. There is much evidence that the result of recent developments has been to cause rifts and tension between the residential and business communities in Tobermory. There is no doubt that this goal has been a failure. We would also suggest that the planning process, which has left the centre of the community, Little Tub Harbour, as an almost lifeless husk for two thirds of the year is a palpable failure of community planning. The current Official plan should be adjusted to ensure that more community and business activity returns to the Little Tub Harbour during the eight months when it is not inundated with tourists.
  • Goal (d) To provide quality services to its residents. The lack of parking in the centre of the community of Tobermory has been a problem that has persisted for years and is exacerbated by the annual increases in tourist traffic. It significantly inconveniences residents who want to access their main shopping area and boaters who have difficulty in accessing the only boat launch in the area. The failure of the planners and the Council of the MNBP to address the problem of parking and traffic flow is at variance with this and other goals and a failure of the planning process.
  • Goal (e) To work with the private and public sector to develop a common theme for building construction and appearance that enhances the appearance of the harbour areas, the downtowns, and the commercial areas along the Provincial Highway and County Roads. SEPO and other community organizations have frequently and always in vain approached Council to work with the municipality to achieve this goal. The inability of the Council to work with its residents through formal advisory committees has been a major impediment to achieving this goal.

Furthermore, SEPO would also like to draw your attention to Clause 5.15 (Public Consultation and a Fair and Timely Process) of the current Official Plan. This brief clause (five lines long) says nothing about how public consultation will be achieved. The current system of putting obscurely worded notices in the only local media (a monthly paper) and holding “public meetings” in the municipal offices located more than 40 minutes driving from three quarters of the population falls far short of the spirit of public consultation.

SEPO recognizes the difficulty of communicating with the population of a rural and linear municipality like the MNBP and accordingly, we have suggested establishing a Tobermory Advisory Committee (see below and the attached). Council’s refusal to explore the merits of this proposal and its quick rejection suggests that the MNBP is not interested in public consultation. This perception is reinforced by Council’s other rejections of attempts by the public to be consulted including, Council’s most recent rejection of a Municipal Heritage Committee.

SEPO would like to suggest that its proposal to establish a Tobermory Advisory Committee as a committee of council be revisited.

Progress is inevitable and thoughtful development is desirable. In April, 2008, a presentation was made to Council, proposing the establishment of a Tobermory Advisory Committee of Council. The Committee was to have the following mandate and objectives:

MISSION STATEMENT:

  • The purpose of the Tobermory Advisory Committee of Council is to assist Council by broadening the scope of information that goes both into the identification of needs and thus into the decision-making process of Council affecting Tobermory and the Tobermory Community. The Tobermory Advisory Committee of Council will be only advisory in nature, and will have no other authority or mandate.

OBJECTIVES:

To organize and facilitate bi-monthly (once every two months) public meetings in Tobermory for the Tobermory Community to:

  • express the Tobermory Community’s needs and concerns and to facilitate discussion,
  • address matters referred to it by Council,
  • arrive at a consensus or to take a vote regarding possible solutions or plans, and
  • provide Council with regular reports of the above proceedings for its consideration

Other objectives of the Tobermory Advisory Committee of Council are to:

  • act as liaison with community groups and council,
  • assist Council with the research and any submission needed related to any grant monies that may become available from Federal, Provincial, or other bodies,
  • assist Council in the implementation of any formal needs assessment and/or planning studies related to Tobermory,
  • provide Council with advice, recommendations, knowledge and expertise regarding matters relating to Tobermory, and
  • assist Council in other ways that Council deems appropriate.

The introductory wording to the presentation is attached. At the advice of its administrator, Council voted against this proposal.

Suffice to say that the establishment and existence of the proposed committee could have gone a long way towards avoiding, or at least minimizing the issues that the community has faced, particularly over the last year.

SEPO would like very much to remain involved in future discussions affecting the Official Plan. However, if we have learned anything from how badly development plans and approvals were handled in the recent past, it has become glaringly obvious that more dialogue is required with members of the community to avoid the acrimony that has evolved. Tobermory is a small community but it has tremendous complexity that cannot be managed from afar (the Municipal office) alone. By copy of this letter to the Mayor and Council of MNBP, we encourage that Council recognize this fact and reconsider the need for an advisory committee similar to what was proposed on April 24, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

Udo Nixdorf, President,
St. Edmunds Property Owners Inc.

Cc Mayor & Council, Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula

MNBP – it’s time to listen and reconsider.

Posted on by

Dear Mayor McIver and members of Council,

Re: Municipal Heritage Committee

On behalf of the Executive Committee of the St. Edmunds Property Owners Inc. (SEPO) I would like to express our deep concern that at a meeting of Council, on October 24, 2011, a motion, tabled by the Deputy Mayor to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula (MNBP), was defeated by a vote of four to one.

The motion noted that section 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 requires that significant built heritage resourcesand significant cultural heritage landscapesshall beconserved and that, where there is a significant cultural resource, consideration must be given to this resource at every step in the planning and decision-making process.

It was also noted in the motion that the identification of buildings and landscapes, which were significant to the community, should be achieved by a consensus among community members with an interest in the preservation, use and development of cultural heritage. Further, the Ontario Heritage Act s. 28 provides a mechanism for finding this consensus among community members by enabling the municipality to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) to advise Council.

A member of the Executive Committee was present at the Council meeting. The Committee subsequently reviewed the Ontario Heritage Act with particular interest in the sections referenced in the motion.

It is the view of SEPO that there are buildings and landscapes that have cultural significance to the community and which need to be identified in order that the municipality can be in compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement.

For example, letters have been sent to Council from community members identifying the Tobermory library building and the Tobermory museum and adjacent log cabin as being culturally significant properties. At least one of these letters requested that a MHC be established to begin the process of protecting these buildings, and to identify other significant cultural and heritage buildings and landscapes in the municipality.

The grounds for defeating the Deputy Mayor’s motion were that an MHC would interfere with private property rights, that there is already adequate protection for the cultural landscape through the Niagara Escarpment Commission and other agencies, and that we do not need any more regulations. It was further stated that cultural and heritage resources can be adequately protected by Council itself. It was also pointed out that when Council is in open session we are, in fact, achieving consensus.

It appears that the Council of the MNBP do not understand the intent of s. 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement nor the role of an MHC, which is merely advisory and, therefore, does not threaten private property rights nor increase the number of regulations governing the municipality. Accordingly, the residents of the municipality are being denied their right to take appropriate steps to protect those buildings and landscapes which have cultural and heritage value to them.

The remarks of the Council of the MNBP during the discussion of the motion respecting their reluctance to introduce more regulations and their concern for private property rights suggest an unwillingness to implement Ontario Government policies which are designed to protect the public interest.

Further, we believe that the Council is wrong in asserting that its public meetings are sufficient to determine the consensus of the interested members of the community as to which buildings and landscapes are significant. Council always meets in the municipal building on Lindsay Road 5. This building is located in the heart of a rural landscape. It is at least a 25 minute drive from Tobermory , and the Pike Bay area, where more than 20% and 40% respectively of the population resides. Thus, Council meetings at most times are sparsely attended by members of the public, and rarely for the whole meeting. The minutes of the meetings, while published in the local paper, are stripped bare of all but procedural content. As a result, consensus is nothing more than what three of five members of Council chose to think it is.

The Executive of SEPO, therefore, respectfully requests that the Mayor and Council re-visit their decision and take steps to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee for the Municipality.

Yours truly,

Udo Nixdorf, President,
St. Edmunds Property Owners Inc.

As promised during the last election, MNBP started to develop a Strategic Plan

Posted on by

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula has developed a very impressive Strategic Plan, it is posted on the website as a PDF file which requires Adobe reader to view it: http://www.northbrucepeninsula.ca/d_newsroom_strategic_plan.pdf 

The plan’s content is ambitious and comphrehensive.  SEPO wishes Mayor McIver, Council and Staff every success in implementing this plan.