Dumpsters
The Long Term Waste Management Plan recently approved by Council has, as one of its main recommendations, the removal of dumpsters and the introduction of curb-side pick-up throughout the former St. Edmunds. This will allow for easier control of waste disposal. The last time the Council floated this idea there was a great outcry. That is because dumpsters are very convenient for residents and because waste does not get scattered by wildlife. I have also argued against the removal of dumpsters because they are cheaper than curb-side pick-up. Currently, the partial dumpster/curbside pickup system costs the Municipality $240,000. If we switch to full curbside pickup the cost will rise to $320,000-$390,000. The Plan recommends recovering much of that cost by instituting a bag tag levy, something that cannot be done while some residents have access to free disposal of household waste in dumpsters.
At today’s meeting, I was given a photograph of the dumpster at Johnsons Harbour taken on April 22. It showed a discarded fridge, a stove, a bench press, and a quantity of other junk beside the dumpster. The resident responsible for dumping the rubbish saved themselves about $50 in tipping fees at the landfill site but they have provided the Municipality with an excellent argument for removing all the dumpsters. This will add around $100,000 to the Municipal bill which will be paid by all taxpayers and inevitably lead to the imposition of a bag tag levy.
The Biosphere Association
The Council agreed to support the grant application made by the Biosphere Association for the purchase of a telescope. The Association intends to offer astronomy programs to the public.
At Council on April 23, it transpired that a meeting between the Mayor, the CAO, one or more doctors and other unknown persons took place on February 24. There was no quorum and no minutes were kept. The purpose of this meeting was to radically change a Presentation to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care developed for a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary on February 27. This Presentation had been unanimously approved, after some minor changes, by all members of the Physicians Recruitment and Retention Committee (PRRC) at a meeting chaired by the Mayor on February 22. The two Presentations are set out below.
After the discussion at the April 23 Council meeting the CAO felt obliged to write a letter explaining his role in this undemocratic process to all members of the PRRC, the doctors, and the Council. Aside from the fact that, in Canada, secret meetings, which overturn decisions arrived at democratically by Committees of Council are not approved of, the CAO’s letter brings up four issues. These same issues are also raised in a letter to Council from Stacey Hopkins and A. Hopkins at page 6 of the Council Correspondence at:
The first is that whatever the CAO’s role in this sorry affair, it is not he who should have to explain himself to the public. In Canada and under Ontario’s Municipal Act, it is the Mayor and elected councillors who are responsible for the actions of the staff. The staff may not always give good advice but it is the elected officials who must “carry the can” because they make the decisions. Consequently, it is not the CAO who should be taking the blame for holding an illegal meeting but the Mayor.
Secondly, it has long been suspected that it is the staff who “run the show” in this municipality. This came up a number of times during the election and it results from a perception that the elected Council appears to be unwilling take a lead in setting municipal policy, that they defer too easily to staff recommendations, and they allow the staff to explain municipal policy to the public.
The CAO’s letter to the PRRC and doctors is one example of this. Another can be found at page 7 of the Council Correspondence. This is a letter from the CAO to the Isthmus Bay Property Owners Association trying to explain why the Property Owners’ suggestions for improving the 2012 budget were ignored. As the budget was approved by Council it is the elected Mayor and Councillors who should be explaining to the public why they approved it and why they ignored the suggestions of the public. In Canada we expect the federal budget to be defended by politicians not the staff in the Finance Department.
The willingness to let staff shoulder Council responsibilities also came up at the last Council meeting when Council delegated its responsibility to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk for deciding which documents should be released to the public under the Access to Information legislation. It was apparent from the discussion that the distinction between doing the work of the municipality and being responsible for the municipality was blurred.
The third issue is the way the municipality can be stampeded by so called “threats to health care” into holding unorthodox meetings. In his letter to the PRRC and doctors, the CAO claimed that the Presentation approved by the PRRC on February 22 … could have jeopardized the viability of the Peninsula’s only emergency ward thus having a significant impact on the residents of our community. He is repeating the argument used by the doctors to persuade the CAO and the Mayor on February 24 to change the Presentation to the Ministry. The same explanation was given to the PRRC on April 18 by Dr. Thomson. At that meeting Dr. Thomson pointed out that in order to fully staff the emergency room at the Lions Head hospital the FHT relies on being able to attract doctors to come and work there. Currently, the remuneration doctors receive for providing emergency services is a function of the demand for emergency services. This demand is, apparently, just above a ‘threshold’ which makes working in Lions Head competitive with the Wiarton Hospital. Should it fall below that threshold, the doctors’ remuneration will be reduced and, presumably, it will no longer be attractive to work in Lions Head. Therefore, it was not in the interests of recruiting and retaining doctors to do anything that would diminish the demand for emergency services in Lions Head.
Threats to doctors’ remuneration seem always to “place our health care system in jeopardy.” The Ontario Medical Association recently used a similar argument with the Government of Ontario as the latter tries to rein in doctors’ pay. Those with long memories will recall that similar arguments were used to try to derail the establishment of Medicare in the 1960s. The “threat to health care” is only valid if you believe that all doctors are motivated only by money. This is obviously not true. The argument is also bogus if you believe that only doctors can deliver the level of health care that we need north of Wiarton. This too is not true, as much of the care available in the NBP can be provided by Nurse Practitioners and much more could, if they were permitted to practice within the full scope of their training.
The fourth issue relates to the discussions around the Presentation to the Ministry of Health and the reason why there was a secret meeting to rewrite it. It highlights a gap between the Family Health Team (FHT) and the community it serves. The original Presentation reflected some ideas that many community members felt might improve access to health care in the municipality. For example, the construction of the new Tobermory health facility has created some, not unreasonable expectations. First, that having substantially paid for the building with locally raised funds, the community ought to have some say in the governance of the facility and they have a right to be consulted about local health care issues. Secondly, that all members of the community should have access to health care through their local health facility.
The Municipality has no formal mechanism for enabling the members of the community to communicate with members of the healthcare establishment. Our FHT Board does not include members of the public, unlike the FHT Board in Brockton and many other Ontario municipalities, which have boards made up of community members and health care professionals. Our local health auxiliary organizations are only mandated to raise funds. The PRRC, while being broadly representative of the whole Municipality is only permitted to talk about recruiting and retaining doctors.
When FHT s were first established community involvement on the Board of the FHT was the system used in two of the three different FHT models available. In the NBP the third option, which excludes community participation on the Board, was chosen. The recent Rural and Northern Health Care Framework Plan at Recommendation R6.1 says: Encourage local community engagement in planning and delivery across the health continuum. Accordingly, it does not seem unreasonable that as the recipients of health care, the community should have a say in how it is accessed.
Health care policy is not such a difficult subject that only doctors can make sensible decisions about it. There is enough experience and talent in this municipality that access to health care could be significantly improved if the community were invited to share in the discussions and decisions of the FHT. At the very least we would be spared the undignified spectacle of senior members of the municipality being forced into holding secret meetings to make policy.
Original Presentation to the M o H & LTC
Presentation to the Minister of Health and Long Term Care
From Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula
2012 OGRA/ROMA Conference
Liz Sandals, Parliamentary Assistant and ministry staff, thank you for meeting with us today to discuss health care topics that are currently impacting the residents of Northern Bruce Peninsula.
Our presentation will cover the following: Read more…
Revised Presentation to the M of H & LTC
Presentation to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
From Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula
2012 OGRA/ROMA Conference
Liz Sandals, Parliamentary Assistant and ministry staff, thank you for meeting with us today to discuss health care topics that are currently impacting the residents of Northern Bruce Peninsula.
Our presentation will cover the following: Read more…
Official Plan Review
Council was presented with a summary of the comments received from the public and a review of what action can be and might be taken. This is an excellent document and it can be viewed in full at: https://northernbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/FileStorage/79C00D09C1534A58BFA7700962D0D98E-WorkspacePublic%20Comments%20Summary%20and%20General%20Revie.pdf
Thirty written submissions were received from the public and the majority were in regard to development in and around downtown Tobermory. More global issues such as the seasonality of the tourism industry, climate change, and renewable energy were also identified.
The presentation is in three sections. Section 1 provides a summary of the public comments and a discussion of how they might be dealt with under the Official Plan or another venue. The comments fell into five broad categories:
Holding zones
- Parking in Little Tub Harbour
- Zoning in the village
- Cultural and heritage resources within the village
- The protection of the natural environment
Section 2 is a review of the plan and an inventory of recommended amendments. Section 3 is a brief overview of the next steps. There are also seven appendices, which the planning department recommends should be incorporated in the revised Official Plan. These are:
- Natural Heritage Mapping
- Hazard Mapping
- Bruce County Affordable Housing Policies
- Bruce County Secondary Suites Policies (a secondary suite is a separate residential unit subsidiary to, and located in the same building as the principal dwelling unit)
- The Environment (eight pages of environmental policies)
- Servicing Policies (this essentially deals with water and sewer)
- Community Improvement Plan Policies
Holding Zones
A holding symbol on a property prevents any development from taking place until the Municipality is satisfied that certain technical conditions have been met. Most of the downtown area of Tobermory has these “H” symbols on the, mostly, commercial property. This has become a contentious issue because there is no requirement to allow public input about a removal of the holding symbol and only the property owner has a right of appeal against Council’s decision. The intent of the holding symbol is to ensure that the general public interest is protected through the vigilance of Council.
The document points to a number of requirements set out in the Official Plan and the Comprehensive Zoning By-law which, with a vigilant and informed Council, ought to be sufficient to protect the public.
Parking in Little Tub Harbour
The Official Plan requires that all development and/or redevelopment provide adequate off street parking and loading facilities and further, that access to the parking areas be limited in number and designed to ensure traffic safety. The Comprehensive Zoning By-law also contains provisions prescribing a minimum number of parking spaces for specific land uses. In some circumstances, a development is unable to accommodate the required number of parking spaces. In this case the Municipality has the authority to offer an exemption from the parking requirements and accept a cash payment in-lieu of each parking space not provided.
The review document points out that current parking issues in Tobermory and Lion’s Head require work beyond the Official Plan process. Accordingly, the municipality and community stakeholders should initiate a process to examine traffic and parking in Tobermory. This process will be complicated as it involves multiple stakeholders from the community, the municipality and provincial ministries such as the MTO and includes multiple factors such as existing parking lots, signage and local and provincial roads. We must therefore look to Council to take the initiative to resolve the parking issue.
Zoning in Tobermory
This issue referred to comments about the zoning of lots on Front Street, in particular, residential vs commercial zoning of waterfront properties and whether or not residential uses should be removed from downtown commercial zone or should more people be encouraged to live downtown year round. According to the review the Comprehensive Zoning By-law is the major tool to deal with this. However, the document also points out that permanent conversion of lands from commercial to residential by re-designating to Residential requires extensive study through a comprehensive review. Conversion is only permitted where it has been demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a need for the conversion.
Cultural and heritage resources within the Village
Several submissions noted that Tobermory contains heritage and architectural resources that should be conserved. This may require the formation of formal (under provincial legislation) and informal local heritage committees to champion the cause and provide volunteer efforts.
The Official Plan requires that the Municipality’s heritage resources are documented and conserved in a responsible manner. Heritage resources include archaeological sites; buildings and structural remains of historical, architectural and contextual value; and cultural and heritage landscaped of historic and scenic interests. It should be noted that in 2011 the Council rejected a proposal to establish a Municipal Heritage Committee, which is the mechanism provided in law to identify and document these resources.
Section 3
An open house to present this report to the public will be held on May 5 2012 at the Tobermory Community Centre from 10 am – 11:30 am and in Lion’s Head at the Rotary Hall from 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm.
After the public open house in May, the Planning Department will prepare a final report to Council. Council will need to hold a further open house to allow the public to review the proposed changes prior to holding a public meeting, when there will be an opportunity to make presentations to Council in respect to the proposed changes. These meetings are tentatively scheduled for June 13 2012 and June 25 2012.
Once Council has adopted the Official Plan update, the amendment must be forwarded to Bruce County Council for final approval. This is tentatively set for August 16 2012 and September 6 2012.
OPP Report
March was warm with drier roads than usual but the number of reported motor vehicle collisions remained virtually unchanged. Persons injured rose sharply this month compared to this time last year.
There has been a slight decline in property crime and the Bruce Peninsula Crime Unit has been trying to identify the suspect(s) responsible for the increase in property crime in the previous months. The OPP continues to request the publics’ help in providing any information through Crime Stoppers or reporting any suspicious activity to them as this will assist in their investigations.
The detachment laid 29 charges under the RIDE program and there were 12 calls respecting domestic violence but only three charges laid. The detachment continues to follow-up on the ‘found human remains’ investigation. Potential links continue to be reported, agencies in Alaska, Utah, British Columbia and Pennsylvania have been contacted. Last year’s armed robbery at the UPI station in Ferndale continues to be investigated.
