MINDEMOYA—Despite a petition signed by the majority of assessed property owners for the Mindemoya Drain, requesting that Central Manitoulin reconsider passing a motion for the final cost levy, members of the municipal water, waste and education committee are recommending this final cost levy motion be passed by council.
At a committee meeting last week, Mindemoya resident Steve Shafer stated, “I would like to start out by responding to a question that was asked of me at our last meeting. The question went something like this: ‘do you expect ratepayers in my ward to pay for drainage in Mindemoya?’ The simple answer is yes, yes I do.”
“Ditching and infrastructure has always been costed to general tax dollars. There are over 440 ‘lane’ kilometres of roads and their associated ditches within the township, all built and maintained by general tax dollars, not landowner assessments. Bridges that only benefit a few are costed to general taxes, not the benefiting landowners!”
“So why should we treat the town area any differently than rural parts of the municipality? Ditching is ditching is ditching, infrastructure is infrastructure, all of which should be funded from general tax revenue, not land assessments. Certainly a strong town core benefits all rate payers of Central Manitoulin,” continued Mr. Shafer.
“One of the primary reasons that the drainage act was used in this case was to avoid the complicated and sometimes messy process of land expropriation,” said Mr. Shafer. “To this end the act has served its purpose. The landowners have been clear from the very beginning of this long convoluted process they had no desire to fund drainage based on landowner benefits. To charge individual landowners to provide basic municipal infrastructure is just plain wrong.”
“It goes from wrong to obscene when you consider that the municipality received $1.44 million in funding for this project,” said Mr. Shafer. “So with that I leave you this petition signed by the significant majority of the assessed property owners requesting that you seriously reconsider this proposed course of action.”
“I agree this has been a long, drawn out process,” said Mayor Richard Stephens, a member of the committee. “It has gone through two council administrations. In your letter you referred to 20 years ago when it started.” He pointed out the drain project was actually initiated in 2006 after he had a meeting with the principal of Central Manitoulin Public School concerning security and safety issues to and from school. “I asked the principal to send a letter to council, and this was the start of this issue.”
Mayor Stephens explained, “the first reference to the drain in the capital budget was in 2008. From there in 2009 it was still on council’s agenda. Council made an application for funding at the start of 2010 for a combined drain-roads project with the engineer’s costs coming in at $1,568,000, but the application failed.”
“The new municipal administration went through a couple of attempts to go ahead with the project, but the funding was not there,” said Mayor Stephens. However, “in 2014 an application for funding of both projects was submitted and $1.44 million was awarded in funding. The project went ahead and was concluded and we are at the stage we are at now to fulfill obligations of the drainage act.”
Councillor Patricia MacDonald indicated that there are several drain projects have taken place in the municipality in which those who benefitted have shared in the costs. “I don’t think we can treat one differently from another. And the ratepayers had the opportunity of going to the appeal tribunal board on their assessments.”
“A lot didn’t because we had understood the project would not proceed unless funding was provided and that we wouldn’t be burdened with a share of the costs that we are now,” said Mr. Shafer.
Councillor Ted Taylor noted that the two projects had been split up, but “at the last minute funding became available for the roads project as well.”
“At an all candidates’ night, the previous mayor had said that this would not proceed unless funding was made available and it wouldn’t be a burden on stakeholders,” said Mr. Shafer.
“This was only the mayor’s comment, not the rest of council,” said committee chair and Councillor Derek Stephens.
Mayor Stephens suggested, “as much as I would hate to defer this further, there is still a lot of uncertainty on the calculation and who is responsible for picking up the tab.”
Councillor Stephens mentioned that council had passed the first reading-motion that the final cost levy be passed.
Councillor Alex Baran said the municipality has followed the required regulations in the Drainage Act. He said those that have benefited with the drain have been assessed. But he also explained, “we also have the power to set terms for payment, for say two or three years. We are not in a hostage taking situation here.”
“If we have failed as a committee and council it is that this whole process has not been communicated properly to the public throughout the project,” said Counsellor Baran.
Mayor Stephens noted, “I still have good reason to think accommodations can be made on the assessments, and he put forward a motion to defer this issue until the assessment process was reviewed, however the motion was not seconded.”
Later in the meeting it was moved by Councillor Baran and seconded by Councillor MacDonald that a recommendation be made to council for second and third (final) for the cost levy bylaw to be passed.
“I will be voting against this motion,” stated Mayor Stephens. “I have some sympathy for the 125 property owners that are going to be affected.”
Committee members Councillors Derek Stephens, Pat MacDonald, Ted Taylor and Alex Baran voted in favour of the recommendation being forward to council for second and third reading. Mayor Stephens voted against the motion.
