A local rate payers group in Wasaga Beach are getting a tad upset with the broken promises that our former council and our council have made. Listed below is a chain of e-mails that have gone back and forth between council and the ratepayers group of late. Also I've included the responses from an all-candidates meeting that took place during the election campaign. So you be the judge!
Happy reading!
Here are the responses to the emails sent out today from three members:
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:50 PM
To: xxxxx
Subject: Re:
From: xxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:50 PM
To: xxxxx
Subject: Re:
Thanks for including me on all the emails. I'm sure you know the history between Ainley and the town and if you take a look at the candidates financial filings you will notice that Ainley donated to several of the campaigns. So I wish you luck in your fight and if you need any help let me know, but Patterson and group are in the pockets of Ainley and I don't think the town will do anything.
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:38 PM
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:38 PM
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
Mr. Pratt:
The Mayor has replied already as the head of council.
The third party review is for the "Berm" only.
David Foster
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:37 AM
To: Stan Wells; Cal Patterson; David Foster; George Watson; Morley Bercovitch; Nina Bifolchi; Ronald Anderson
Subject: Re:
I supported a third party review of the proposals for the containment of
Trillium Creek (ie the berm)
Stan Wells
=========================================================
Here are the questions and answers from the All Candidates Meeting dated Oct. 14, 2010 from Laura’s notes, a copy of which was forwarded to all the candidates. The wording the second question in Section D entitled Berm refers to “other failed solutions to date” refers to a Third Party Review for both the Berm and the 2003, 2008 and 2009 floodings:
“C) Flooding
QUESTION #8:
Since the 2002 extension of water and sewers and the raising of road levels in Bay Colony, there have been three floods and a dramatic rise in the water table in Bay Colony. What responsibility do you think the Town should assume?
Tracy: Doesn’t feel informed enough to give qualified answer
David: putting roads in natural drainage route creates a dyke. Planners decide water flow path. Water flow through amended watercourse and new roads should be as expected and not create undue risk to safety and security of residents and property. Need to mitigate future flooding.
Connie: Town still investigating why this happened and responsibility.
Steven: Town and developer hire consultants to do planning and work. If company hired erred, they should fix it. Town should ensure they complete work so no o/s issues and fix them or withhold payment until they do.
Sam: Town hires developer and planner. If town approves them, then they are responsible for compliance.
Darlene: If someone does something wrong, Town is accountable and needs to own up and not shirk responsibility. Residents need assurance that new development will not have adversarial affect on their homes. Don’t believe flooding part of our growing community but is foreseeable and preventable.
Gary: Independent study needed by unrelated third party outside W.B. having no vested interest to identify root causes and points to viable corrective action options.
Cal: 2008 flooding caused by 100 year storm. Cannot prepare for that. Flooding resulted due to breakdown in drainage. Water table is high. Drainage construction 70% complete now.
Sandy: Town should take full responsibility and leadership. Sensible solution is required.
Kelly: Independent study needed and Town is responsible for study cost and repair.
Morley: Town is responsible to correct
Stan: If Town created problem, Town has responsibility to correct and deal with problem. Culverts enlarged. Water table high not only in W.B. but other areas in Simcoe County.
Ron: Water table is high. Independent study needed.
George: I support project for drainage and third party review. Believes dramatic weather in future.
Nina: Town responsible to seek professional opinions regarding engineering, environment and flood control. Town makes decisions based on policies and input from them. Often other agencies i.e. NWCA, have final approval authority over certain development taking the case out of Town’s hands.
Beverly: I have driven myself mad on this topic. Have asked Jim MacIntosh, Ed Pratt, some of the residents, the Engineers, and everyone had their own take. What a mess!. Am truly sorry I could not be here tonight.
D) Berm
QUESTION #9:
Since the residents of Bay Colony are strongly opposed to the Berm solution that would remove thousands of trees, expropriate property and disrupt wildlife, are you supportive of this berm in any form?
Tracy: Not in favour of the Berm solution for Bay Colony.
David: I question whether Berm will prevent further flooding. Supports further study to find right solution and eliminate residents’ issues. Roads low, some ground high. Water takes low route. This is not finalized yet.
Connie: I have walked this land. Topography varies, deep and shallow near some current homes and causes concern. Don’t need to create an overkill solution. One solution is to divert water correctly.
Steven: No. Need independent outside consultant to review and report resolution to Town. Should not have to remove trees/disrupt wildlife which would change the look of our Town and destroy environment. There must be better way to resolve without this disruption.
Sam: Not as proposed. Suggests other engineers to review.
Darlene: BCE residents say No so my answer is no to berm and cutting thousands of trees. Town needs to review and find lest destructive solution.
Gary: No. Environmental impact study should have been done and endorsed by several parties to ensure right long term solutions to watershed and natural wetlands taken into consideration before getting to options that appear to favour lifting considerations to create more housing development at taxpayers’ expense.
Cal: No. Town Council required to walk along berm area. Has to be a better solution and quickly.
Sandy: No as may cause problems elsewhere. Need to seek 2nd opinion for fresh approach.
Kelly: No. Request Third Party Review.
Morley: No. Need Third Party Review. Those responsible, i.e. Ainley & Associates, should pay for that review.
Stan: No. Berm in present form too invasive. We do have to address concerns of adjacent property owners. We need to re-review.
Ron: No. Suggests 3rd Party Review
George: No. Most residents have asked for 3rd Party Review and I approve.
Nina: Not in current design. Has been discussed at great length by Public Works Committee. Town Engineers have been directed to provide other solutions that would not have such a great impact on area, which will be discussed again by Council prior to making decision.
Beverly: I have been to the proposed Berm site and am sure there is an alternative solution that would be viable for all parties concerned.
QUESTION:
The residents requested a Third Party Review of not only the Berm but other failed solutions to date, mostly affecting the west end of the Beach to Shore Lane. It is our belief that the cost of the review would be approximately $250,000 while the Berm project would cost approximately $2.0M. Are you in favour of the Town approving the cost of a Third Party Review by an independent engineering firm?
Tracy: I would like to pass answering.
David: I have toured area and question berm will prevent future flooding. Govt. responsible for safety and security of residents. I support further study for solution to resolve not just channel water down streets or downstream. Must be better solution.
Connie: Yes
Steven: Yes to Third Party Review with work being done by independent contractor.
Sam: Answer not recorded
Darlene: Yes
Gary: Yes, and to request tenders for work
Cal: Same answer as above
Sandy: Yes, with tenders requested.
Kelly: Yes
Morley: Yes, and Ainley should pay for it.
Stan: Yes. Ainley and NBCA engineers should report reviews.
Ron: Yes
George: Yes
Nina: Not present to answer
Beverly: Not present to answer.
AUDIENCE QUESTION: A gentleman asked for more information about the Berm and the purpose of the Berm and Cal Patterson offered to respond with “There is no Berm at all” and if one is truly needed, it would come about by Third Party Review.”
Ed Pratt, President
No comments:
Post a Comment