Options, Procedure, Process and Outcome: Norway Park

Options, voting procedure, process and outcome

The issue of parking at the Norway Park Landing and Parkette has consumed a tremendous amount of Township time over the past few years.  In 2010, in response to requests from a small group of approx. 17 property owners on Bigwin and adjacent islands, a Committee was struck to investigate the situation.

This topic re-opened with a comprehensive look at the current Parks By-Law – a document that needed to be streamlined and in some places altered. At the meeting on August 23, Council was presented with a report from Staff, and 5 possible ‘options.’

Option One: Status quo. Never mind Norway Point...  status quo keeps us on the current by-law, the one that allows only 3 hour docking and parking at Dorset, Dwight, Baysville – all places where we are trying to attract visitors and encourage them to stay a while in the communities.  3 hours won’t allow that.  Status quo also speaks to no snowmobiles or atv’s in the parks – which, in winter, when these are frequently major access points for the use of the lake, is not what we are trying to encourage either. There are other issues, but those would be among the front runners.

Option Two: all parks Day Use only between sunrise and sunset, including Norway Point, Rabbits Bay and Camp Lake.  The problem with this is that Camp Lake is a unique access point. It was created by the MNR to be a landing and access point, with parking, for the water access lots the MNR created and sold along this remote lake. There are no marinas, no other launch sites, no facilities up there in that northern corner of the Township.  Councillors Burgess and Baker argue that Camp Lake needs to be on its own schedule, because of this, and I agree.

Option Three:  All Parks day use only, sunrise to sunset, with the exception of Rabbits Bay and Camp Lake, with 72 hour Parking, and Norway Point, with 72 hour in the larger of the two parking areas and 72 hour docking included.

I am unable to support 72 hour parking on the main portion of this Park. We underwent an exhaustive process in last term of Council, a process initiated because there were identified problems with the docking and parking on the site.  The Islanders’ Group in fact were the ones who brought the issue to Council in the first place. 

This site is well used by the Public. It is one of the few accesses to the Lake for people who do not own waterfront property to come, launch their boat and spend a day on the lake.  It is well used by fishermen, year round as well. Contractors utilize this launch area – as they do many of our access points and are therefore present with often large vehicles. I feel strongly that the larger parking area needs to be maintained for the Public – that there should not be long term parking on that region.

The fact that we are told there are currently less  vehicles and boats in the Park  is anecdotal – we know that several of the residents have taken advantage of the offer made by Bigwin Island Golf Club. Others are parking, 72 hours only then moving their vehicles (which is fine, if tedious), and others have sought other options. Opening up the larger parking area for 72 hour parking would potentially encourage many of those who have relocated to consider returning, getting us right back to the problem that took up so much time last term.

 It would not ensure that there was parking available for Islanders when they arrived, nor would it ensure that there would be spaces available for the public coming to launch boats for the day. We have had one proposal in front of Council to secure a mainland access point for one of the Islands other than Bigwin – which would be a preferential route for those concerned, although we concede there is an expense attached.

72 hour parking is contentious to enforce. Councillor Burgess made this point very strongly.  Staff reported that they are past this Park three times a week normally, but they conceded that to know if the boats had been moved they were utilizing duct tape on the knots, and initialling it...  To me, this is a waste of staff time and resources.  I agree that 72 hour parking is difficult to enforce – and I agree that simply shifting a vehicle a few feet and re-parking constitutes a ‘re-setting’ of the clock. That to me is much like full time parking, and I would prefer it be called that.

That said, trying to find some middle ground, I brought an Amendment forward, to move the 72 hour parking zone onto the smaller of the two parking lots.  My reasoning was this: there are a very small number of vehicles that are identified as wanting the long term parking.  As the Mayor pointed out, the Municipality should not be writing by-laws for small interest groups:  a group of 17 – 20 people; or at Rabbit’s Bay, about 10 people, would both qualify as small interest groups when compared to the interest of the greater public.   I thought that offering a small parking lot for those who will be away from the Park for several days, hopefully enjoying their Island properties, would keep the main area clear for Day Use by the Public. I must repeat, it is not only the people who may come to picnic or swim in the Parkette that I am thinking about but those who come to spend the day on the lake – they require room to access the launch ramp, places to park cars and trailers. Those who are not in the Park on a daily activity should not be taking up space that could be utilized by the public, so moving them into the smaller parking lot, a little farther away, made sense to me.

While Councillors Ross and Burgess supported this amendment, it did not receive support from Council, and came off the table.

Councillor LaCroix brought an amendment to clarify the times to something less ‘changeable’ than sunrise to sunset. Staff made the comment that fishermen like to make an early start, and suggested a 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. time frame. This made sense to me, and I supported this. Sunset is a very liquid time up here – in the winter, it can be quite early, and there are many members of the public who use Norway Point to access fishing huts and snowmobile trails. Returning from a day out on the lake by boat may also entail arriving after sunset.

Councillor Burgess brought an amendment that Camp Lake be moved to its own Schedule in the By-Law, and that 72 hour parking continue on that site. As I have said, Camp Lake, to me, is a different situation. The land was given by the MNR specifically to be a landing/parking area for the water access cottages the MNR was offering on this more remote lake. There are no marinas, or alternate launch areas.  I supported removing the Camp Lake landing from this option, and keeping it on its own separate Schedule in the Parks By-Law.

Rabbit’s Bay, regrettably, is also a congested area. The number of vehicles and boats left upturned on the shore are causing damage to the work done by the Andrew Daniels Fish Stewardship Program to restore this high level fish habitat stream.  More money is going to need to be spent by the ADFSP to make repairs. The area is becoming overly crowded, and difficult for the general public to use. While building roads in to the mainland water-access lots entails high costs, there are still options for these people. Further, allowing parking/docking at Rabbits Bay and not at Norway Point would be unfair – by moving both these landings/access/parks into the same schedule as the rest of the parks on the Lake of Bays ensures that Council is not favouring one small interest group over another. In the past, I recall Township removing some of the boats from this site – I agree with Councillor LaCroix that it is just a matter of time before there are the same issues on this location, and I supported the amendment to move both Norway and Rabbit’s Bay into Day Use only.

Option Four: This was the same as Option Three, with the addition of paid permit parking.

The option to offer purchased permits was addressed at great length through the last term of Council and the Norway Point advisory committee. We spent a lot of time on this matter, took legal council, and determined that permits were not the direction that Council wanted to take. Since any permit must be available first-come first-served to all the public, it would not address the underpinning concern of the Island residents, that they be assured of preferential parking spaces.  I did not support permitted parking at that time, and I do not support it now.

Option Five: This entailed severing part or all of the parking area adjacent to the docks and launch area, and offering it for sale.

The option to sever and sell land at Norway Park is contrary to our Official Plan, and the District Plan – it is not recommended to be selling public lands that access the water.  Thinking long term, there is less and less access to our lakes – and more and more people who do not own lakefront property who rely on these public places. Council has a duty to protect our parkland and access points. I cannot support that option.  I will not support the severing and selling of our public accesses and designated Parklands.

Listening to the comments from around the table, it was apparent that there was a lot of support for the Day Use only option.  When Council took a short break, I did ask the Mayor if it might be possible to bring a reconsideration (I was still harbouring a faint hope that 72 hour parking in the small parking lot might be a compromise)  but was told no, we were simply voting on the Options as presented and amended.  That’s fair – the option had been tabled and defeated...

Which is how we have arrived at the present position of Council.  Camp Lake is on its own Schedule; The rest of our Parks are Day Use only, from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Budget Basis for 2011

Mayor Bob Young prepared this outline of the Budget Basis for the Public Budget meeting last month. It's quite a helpful synopsis.

BUDGET 3 BASIS

1. This is a minimalist budget
2. Staff salary freeze
3. Front office reception trial ends in June – automated phone answering
4. Includes going it alone on IT
5. No change to and Senior Centres
6. Accepted $5,000 reduction on Libraries budgets
7. Reduced mil rate to accommodate increase in assessment
8. Included the use of $100k from Original Lakeshore Road Allowance from Reserves.
9. Included potential revenue of $100k from sale of assets
10. Minimized spending on Roads and Public Works but included the necessary items
11. Budget includes debt (debenture) repayment
1. This will be separated out as an individual line item on the tax statements
12. The two Tourist information kiosks will be shut down and the monies in the budget redirected to more cost effective tourism initiatives
13. Budget includes new initiatives:
1. Laptops for Council (4) - $4,000
2. Volunteer firefighters benefits plan - $25,000
3. Fire equipment reserve - $10,000
4. Fire Dept. Master Plan - $20,000
5. Public Works training - $20,400
6. Public Works equipment for sign inspections - $15,000
7. Money will be included in the capital budget (approximately $5,000) for the demolition of the two buildings at the Dwight Outdoor Rink.  This money will be transferred from the Parks Reserve Fund.
8. Grant request from Muskoka Watershed - $500
   

RESULT

1. Deficit is reduced to $316,376 from $580k
2. On the base budget no tax increase
3. However there will be a separate line item on the tax statements for deficit recovery equivalent to $12-$13 per $100,000 assessment

Follow the Money

For those who wonder about where the money goes that is collected by the Municipality, Mayor Bob Young has done an excellent report.

Given that this budget cycle, Lake of Bays was faced with a serious deficit, this makes for interesting reading, and will help to answer a lot of questions.

Saturday, March 26, at 10 a.m., is the scheduled public meeting for the Budget. If you have concerns, or ideas, or both, you should plan to attend.

Cheering for the Lake of Bays

It's always an honour to emcee the CIBC Run for the Cure in Dwight, a task I've been privileged to hold since the run started here some 8 years back.

Every year, I'm stunned by the response from the community. Every year, I think, it just can't get better! And every year Lynn, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, CIBC, the community and the sponsors all go that little bit more. Wow. This year, the run raised $62,800.00 here in Dwight.

The Lake of Bays is crammed with generous people. Marie Poirier, with a committee of three other people, raised $250,000 to provide the Volunteer Fire Department with a Fire Boat. Has it been used? Absolutely. There are many places on this lake that can be accessed faster by water than by road, and there are often times when small boats are in distress.

Marie is currently fundraising with Rick Davison on a committee chaired by Deb Harrold to raise $250,000 towards the new Huntsville/Lake of Bays Residential Hospice. $800,000 is needed for this facility, and this contribution will go towards a Lake of Bays 'Wing.'

In Dorset last week for a meeting of the Community Group, I was almost overwhelmed with the enthusiasm in that community. There are so many projects on the table, working forward, some of them already well into the grant application process. Ruth Ross was delighted to make the presentation at this meeting of the Muskoka Heritage Foundation award for Built and Cultural Heritage, given this year to the entire Village of Dorset. That nomination came forward through the Lake of Bays Heritage Advisory Committee -- which I chair -- but it was driven by Ruth Ross, who's boundless enthusiasm for her hometown is infectious.

There are so many people in this township who volunteer for so many fundraising causes -- Saturday at the Dwight Community Centre there's one raising money for Team Kenya, a group of young people heading over to that country to do humanitarian work. Sunday, there's a turkey dinner at Dorset, hosted by the Lion's Club -- and the work they do is amazing. The list goes on and on...

We know the folks who come out to all of these, who serve, sell tickets, bake goodies, provide prizes and sponsorship. You're the ones who make this a wonderful place to live, a vibrant community. So here's a cheer to the volunteers, and those that come out to support their efforts.

Polar Bears and Circus Clowns

Nothing brings out the laughable like an election. Back in May, The Best Party in Iceland, headed by comedian Jon Gnarr found itself in power in Reykjavik. Just six months old, and as surprised by anyone by the victory, this part ran on a platform of 'sustainable transparency', free towels at the swimming pools and a polar bear for the zoo.

Now we learn that an illiterate professional clown named Tiririca has won the seat to become Sao Paulo's state representative in the federal Chamber of Deputies. His campaign slogan (written by someone else, evidently)? "It Can't Get Any Worse." His platform? Tax breaks for circuses and help for the needy (including his own family).

But perhaps it can, since that same magazine reports that Donald Trump is considering running for president in 2012. His slogan? "It has never been worse."

It's entertaining, particularly since those elections happened somewhere else. But it also perhaps a salutory lesson in what happens when people vote for change simply for the sake of change. Change is a good thing, when that change is knowledgeable, when it is change for the better.

There will be plenty of change at the Lake of Bays Council table next term, with both the current mayor and District Councillor Ben Boivin retiring. We are assured of that.

Your vote matters. Please do some homework before filling in the boxes and mailing back the ballot!

Transparency does matter, so does memory

Shane Baker has emailed me, and gone on record in the Huntsville Forester. He suggests that the post showing the cheque written to his legal firm for costs awarded to himself constitutes a smear campaign against him.

I'm sorry that he feels that way. In an election where Accountability and Transparency have been all the buzz, I do not see how posting a public document can be castigated. The facts are there. Shane now says that he 'forgot' he received the money, and we have no reason to doubt his memory. Township accounts are open to any scrutiny. District Councillor Ben Boivin came with me when I collected the copy of the cheque. It was in part because of his insistence that, according to HIS memory, money had in fact been paid out by the Township that I made the request. Let's see the evidence.

Perhaps seeing the cheque was what jogged memory. In his email sent Monday, Shane objects " Click on the cheque you posted with the article. It was not made out to me. It was assigned to BakerLaw in Toronto, not Shane Baker RR#4 Huntsville. Just as the courts instructed." Indeed. I have never disputed this, it is pretty clear from reading the document that the cheque was written to Baker Law In Trust.

Equally clear is the line below the cheque stating that the payment was to cover court costs awarded to Shane Baker, not to Baker Law. It's a fine distinction, but I'm willing to post it here if it will make Shane happier.

At no time have I suggested that he was not entitled to money ordered to be paid by the court. Or that he was not entitled to pursue the matter through the courts. He may well have struck a blow for democracy, ensuring that the new mail-in ballots are clearer and easier to use. What troubled me was his insistence that he had not received a penny from the Township of Lake of Bays. He had, whether he considered that 'his' money, or simply payment towards his legal fees. How he spent the money was never the issue. The only question, and the one he was directly asked (not by me) in a public forum was whether he had received funds.

He did. He now admits that. And I think that perhaps a small blow has been struck in favour of transparency and accountability.

And now, we can put the matter behind us all.

Troubling...

At the All-Candidates Meeting in Dwight, a question was posed to Shane Baker. In the Huntsville Forester, he was quoted as saying he didn't have a chance to vote for the Mail-in ballots. The questioner asked him to reconsider, given that prior to the last elections in 2006 Mr. Baker was the sitting councillor for Sinclair/Finlayson. That Council did indeed vote to accept mail-in ballots. As did the current Council for this election. Mr. Baker replied that yes, he had in fact taken part in that process. So, yes, he did vote in favour of the mail-in ballot system used in the last election.

We learn every day. During the last election, through no fault of our staff, there was some lack of clarity on the mail-in ballots. As a result, many were disallowed as "spoiled" ballots. That was an issue, absolutely. Mr. Baker lost to Ben Boivin, the incumbent, by @ a 10% spread. In Baysville, the vote between Margaret Casey and Dan Waters was much closer -- a matter of two votes. It is understandable that the latter pair would demand recount. With a 10% spread, however, it is reasonable to assume that the vote results won't much change statistically, but exercising his right, Shane pushed to have the unopened ballots allowed.

As happens in these matters, since the Elections Act takes it all quite seriously, this went straight to the courts. At the end of the day, the ballots were opened. Margaret won by one vote over Dan. The 10% spread held for Ben Boivin. Lessons were learned about improving the mail-in ballots that you will be getting in the mail any day now.

So far, so good. There were problems with the mail-in ballots that time round. There was a cost to the Muncipality -- the courts ordered payments. The payment is insignificant in the context of democracy being served, really.

Then a question came from the floor to Mr. Baker indicating that he had personally cost the Township nearly $25,000.00 through this process.

That's not true. And Mr. Baker was rightfully quick to point out that the questioner was in error. So far, still so good. So far it is pretty much unfolding as one would expect -- with a result so close in Baysville, there had to be a recount. Those candidates, to whom one or two votes was going to make a big difference were naturally anxious to see which way the votes were going in those unopened ballots, so one would expect them to pursue all avenues.

But then it came a little off the rails. When asked if he, Shane Baker, had received money from this, Shane replied that he had not received a penny. That it had in fact cost him money.

This is the wonderful thing about democracy, about transparency and accountability. These documents are part of the public record. The end product of the process ensured that the ballots this time round will be better, clearer, easier. That's the way of it.

The courts ordered the Municipality to make payments. A cheque was written to the Muncipals Election Act in the amount of $21, 469.21. Did Shane cost the Township this? No. The closeness of the vote, particularly in Baysville, probably had more to do with driving this, although Shane did mount a legal challenge as well. He was certainly within his rights to do so.

A cheque was written, through the legal firm holding the money in trust, to Margaret Casey, for $1,000. Another, through another legal firm, was written to Dan Waters for $2,000.00. That's fact, and that's fine. They have never disputed this. Nor do we dispute that they were entitled to this money. There are always legal costs.

But another cheque was written, #07173, in the amount of $2000.00, for the court decision costs awarded to Shane Baker.

We don't dispute that he was entitled to mount a legal challenge. Nor that he was entitled to this court settlement. We don't assert that he was responsible for the total cost to the Municipality -- had the court found the other way, leaving the ballots unopened and unaccepted, these costs would not have accrued. If it is the Municipality's cost, then we have to pay it.

But Shane Baker has to wear it. He received $2000.00 from the Township of Lake of Bays.