Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-124 TO: Members of Council FROM: Mayor Garnet B. Rickard DATE: February 12th, 7.979 SUBJECT: Article — Councillor Ann Cowman On January 29th, 1979 Councillor Ann Cowman distributed to Members of Council and press a prepared statement that was critical of actions of Council. Criticism is good if it is relevant and factual. However, this article was only remotely relevant and very erroneous inits content. This paper prepared by Councillor Cowman was not presented as a Council. item nor is it recorded as part of Council proceedings, yet it was distributed to the press and received front page coverage. I have, therefore, considered it my duty to have the facts prepared and presented to Council as a matter of record. First, I have enquired if Councillor Cowman had asked staff members for answers to her questions, I have been advised that staff were not asked. Since as early as 1960, the Courtice area has been designated for urban growth of up to 34,000 persons by the Official Plan for the former Township of Darlington. This designation has been further confirmed by the Durham Regional Official P1an,Provincial government commitments of interest free loans to finance hard services under the Ontario Housing Action Program and an Ontario Municipal Board decision which was upheld by the Provincial. Cabinet. The O.M.B. decision is especially significant since it gave draft approval to two major Courtice subdivisions citing, among other things, the factthat "the Courtice area has been studied to death", and that all concerns had been given due regard and that matters outstanding could be resolved through the approval. processes. Furthermore, evidence presented to the O.M.B. clearly indicated that development in Courtice would result in minimal costs to the Region and would cause no undue burden upon the residents. In fact, L financial study prepared by Peter Barnard Associates indicated that the development would be financially beneficial to the municipality. It should be made very clear that the "front end" costs for servicing development will not be,borne by the taxpayers but by the revenue from Provincial O.H.A,P. assistance, direct payments by the developers, lot levies, impost charges and tax revenues generated by the development. The suggestions that most of this revenue will not be realized until after development has taken place in somewhat erroneous since the Provincial funds are presently committed and the developers must bear all costs llorio0 atdd with preservicing their lands under the terms of negotiated development agreements. L It was alsp suggested, that development should not proceed because of a lack bf the so-called "soft services" within the Courtice area. This cannot even be considered as a sound argument, especially when one realizes that the need for such services will not exist at a justifiable level until people begin to occupy the new developments. Then and only then are these services emplaced and paid for by the impost charges collected when the development agreements were signed. Contrary to the Councillor's comments no further developments will be approved until after the completion of the Courtice Urban Area Plan, presently being drawn up by Consultants retained by this Municipality and under this Council's control. It is noted that: "immediate cost that comes to mind is that of "staff" answerable to taxpayers". In my opinion, "staff" are answerable to Council and Council are, in turn, answerable to taxpayers. Further concerns expressed are: "who will monitor the roads, storm drainage and supervise the application of Subdivision Agreements in view of the fact that we have no engineer." The Developer pays We 'town's administration costs relevant to development and in accordance with the Agreement., This will be carried out by current Staff, of which none, admittedly, are professional engineers, however., to this point in time Staff have provided these services proficiently. Is, therefore, the suggestion made that the Town should employ a professional. engineer? If this is the case then there would be more economical stress applied to the taxpayers of this Municipality. It should be noted that Lot Levies relative to the Courtice developments are not charged when building permits are issued but, rather by way of phasing, in lump sums, in advance of permits. Interim financing has been recognized in the Agreements in that Lot Levies are in advance of development. At this point: mention should be made that this method was recommended to Council by the very staff who, supposedly, are not capable of fulfilling their duties and/or lacked the ability to prepare an Agreement. These days, all public employees seem to be under constant criticism yet, while speaking poorly of, public servants the public, generally, speaks favourably of individuals. With further reference to the development, before the first phase begins, lot levies will have been collected in accordance with the Agreement; a storm drainage system will have been designed (at the cost of the Developer.) and lands will have been acquired, not "seized". "Whose money?" By an O.H.A.P. Grant: "What Price?" If the land is expropriated the Courts could make the decision as to price. It is stated that: "So far the total budget for the drainage scheme in the 'Town forecast is $288,000.00". I am at a loss to understand from where this figure was obtained and, to my knowledge, the Town has not yet established any drainage scheme in a forecast, nor has any amount of funds been allowed for this. MN Y It is obvious, therefore, Councils have been very much aware of and concerned with, the ramifications of development in this municipality and it is my hope that with the assistance of our senior staff that development proceeds in an orderly fashion with little or no cost to our ratepayers. Garnet B. Rickard.