GREATER GRAVENHURST RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. Nicholas Popovich,

Manager of Development Services

Gravenhurst Municipal Offices

5 Pineridge Gate,

Gravenhurst, Ontario

P1P 1Z3

September 5, 2010

SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment

The GGRA is concerned about our environment and how it's developed. We therefore are in full support of the Lake Associations' agreement with the Town of Gravenhurst on the proposed zoning bylaw amendment to section 5.7.2.1 of zoning bylaw 10-04, which is the insertion of "new provisions related to the replacement, enlargement, and extensions of dwellings that encroach into the required setback from the Optimal Summer Water level."

Because the implementation of the bylaw requires accurate information about the current siting of buildings, the GGRA also recommends to the Town of Gravenhurst that all applications for replacement or enlargement of these buildings must be prepared by Ontario land surveyors.

Please acknowledge this letter as the official written support from the GGRA, to the Town of Gravenhurst, for the proposed above zoning bylaw amendment to be discussed at the public meeting at 9:00 a.m., on September 18th in the Council Chambers of the Gravenhurst Municipal Office.

Thank you,

Evelyn Matson

President, GGRA

Mayor Klinck and Members of Council

Harvie Street,

Gravenhurst, Ontario

July 13th, 2010

The GGRA is concerned about a vital Gravenhurst. We urge the council to reconsider their decision as to the use of the soon to be vacant space on Harvie Street and to look at policies and actions that will bring people and spending into the downtown core.

The space on Harvie St. should be used for more than just four fire staff and a satellite police office. In addition, if the Chamber, License Bureau and Health Card office rented the shared space, this would provide revenue which we definitely need. Letting the Fire Department use all the space does not provide any revenue and only increases costs. As for bringing foot traffic to the downtown area, the recent survey, by the BIA as to the impact of businesses moving to the mall and resultant vacancies, is quite distressing and deserves serious action by council. We support their request for a meeting and action on this issue.

One of the areas where the council could have an impact is to have as a tenant in the current town hall offices; someone who brings serious volumes of foot traffic and spending into the downtown. Additionally, proactive recruitment of businesses into vacant space in the downtown could help. What is important to the survival of our town is building pedestrian and shopping traffic.

You, the council, need a plan.

The GGRA would like the council to rethink their response to use of space at Harvie Street and lease the space for revenue and to develop a plan for downtown revitalization. We would be willing to partner with you and the BIA to move this forward immediately.

GGRA Board of Directors

Starting in early 2008 the District recognized that it had a debt problem, $105 million, incurred by the landfill, the Pines long term care home and the costs of building water and sewer systems over the past few years.

The administration and politicians felt that this was an unsustainable level of debt for the District residents, especially those on water and sewer, to handle and set about finding ways to manage the debt and its paydown.

The annual capital spending in Muskoka has historically averaged $20 to $30 million per year with a bump up to $39 million per year for the last 6 years. The money for this spending comes from the tax levy and fees and development charges. If one of these is kept too low, then the other sources have to increase to raise the necessary funds.

How did we get to this?

The debt is the result of several factors

Poor decision making regarding new treatment plants in low population areas

Poor cost control in the building of such plants

The decision in 2003 to not sufficiently increase development charges so that new development paid for the costs of the infrastructure it required

The failure of the district to increase over time funding for infrastructure so that it reflects construction cost indices

Poor assignment of debt costs and non-enforcement of policies related to associated user costs, e.g. mandatory hook ups

Historically the capital costs associated with roads have been paid out of annual allocations. Those for big ticket items with long operational lives, e.g. water and sewer systems, long term care residences, land transfer sites, council offices, etc., have been debentured.

Who pays

User Pay has been the premise for ongoing costs. The assignment of taxes for capital items varies according to where people live. If they have access to water and sewer then they pay an urban services tax and water and sewer rates. These are supposed to cover the costs of these services and the carrying costs of the debentures for these services. If they live in other areas, i.e. rural and waterfront, they pay into the environmental tax fund which supports the sewage lagoons and related environmental services and contributes a surplus to pay for the debt on the associated capital. Everyone pays for roads, land transfer sites, the Pines, the airport, police and ambulance stations and other capital items through the general levy. The result of this is a user pay system with appropriate allocation of costs, except for one big area – development charges.

Development charges are the one time charges levied whenever new development occurs. This is paid by the “developer”, an individual who is building their own house or a builder of many houses in a subdivision, and what can be assigned to these charges is severely constrained by provincial legislation. But the idea behind these charges is simple – when new development occurs new or upgraded infrastructure is required and the new development which is placing these demands should help pay for this infrastructure. The amount of the development charges is set by the local politicians based on an analysis of projected spending and growth.

Decisions made

Debt reduction

To cope with the high debt the District council implemented several changes; they increased lagoon fees, they allocated Provincial and Federal grants, which could have gone to annual spending and reducing tax increases, to a debt reduction reserve plus they promised changes to some business practices. These had the net effect of a tax impact of approx. $80 per 200,000 assessment for all residents. i.e if ones home is assessed at 400,000 then the impact is approx. $160. Plus they increased costs for rural and waterfront residents. At the time of making these decisions District Council also implicitly contracted with the taxpayer groups to increase development charges so that the costs associated with growth would be paid for by the growth itself.

In the course of this discussion, the MLA and other resident associations asked for the District to “live within its means” and to “adhere to the user pay principle”. When it came to the development charges we asked specifically for them to adhere to the principle that “the costs associated with growth must be paid for by the growth itself” and to keep charges in line with comparator municipalities

We also asked for tight financial and project controls to keep costs and expenditures down for projects and for the Council to adjust expenditures to reflect growth changes as they play out over the near and long terms.

Development Charges

The District had to have a new development charges by-law enacted by November 1, 2008. They commissioned a detailed study which found that the planned new growth will require approximately $60 million to be recovered over the next 5 years. The planned for total expenditure is $130 million so the tax payer would be contributing $70 million more. This DC recovery would mean that development charges be increased significantly. Remember that in 2003 the District did not raise charges as recommended and the debt grew. The current charges are artificially low.

Following the study there was much discussion and pressure from the building industry to not increase the charges this much. They argued that these increases would stop development in Muskoka, and that many jobs would be lost. (Was the same argument made in 2003?) Four of the 6 mayors bought this argument despite requests from 3 taxpayer groups, MLA, GGRA and LOBA, to adhere to what they had committed to in the debt reduction strategy and information from staff that this would lessen needed revenue. The mayors instead recommended and 12 of the District councillors agreed to a 10% increase per annum for 5 years. They did say that they want this revisited by July 2009. The net effect of this decision is a potential shortfall of $46 million. So the debt will increase again, unless expenditures are drastically cut. We saw no talk of this cutting in the discussion on the development charges or the debt.

Of interest, there were 2 options presented, the 10% solution and a 3 year phase in to the full recommended. The difference in charges is $1,903. We find the argument that this amount would stop development to be not credible.

So taxpayers of Muskoka look forward to your tax bills. The cost of new development will come out of your pockets not from the developers’ profits.

Our Board of Directors, at a recent meeting, unanimously agreed to urge Council to implement an independent Efficiency and Effectiveness review of the functions and operations of Council and the municipal staff. In the recent past, this step has been urgently proposed by two deputations, one on behalf of the Association and one by our Vice President.

We feel that the timing of this appeal now is particularly appropriate owing to the proposed move of the municipal operations to the Health Unit building and the imminent commencement of the lengthy preparations of the 2009 budgets. The relocation of the municipal operations will require much study, and ultimate alterations to the new premises. A review in advance would surely assist in this complicated manoever. With respect to the 2009 budgets, the fees of an independent professional consultant for this review, would be provided for.

No such review has been made in recent memory, to our knowledge. Its commendable inclusion in the Strategic Plan will now likely inspire its implementation. Recently, such studies have been made, with positive resluts for the cities of Barrie and Orillia. It is time now for Gravenhurst to invest in a solid business approach to review our business practices and use of staff resources.

Such a study must surely win the needed respect of the concerned element of our electorate. We cannot continue on the road of "business as usual", considering that we are all aware that Gravenhurst is on the threshold of increasing growth and development. You may be very much surprised at what positive measures might come out of such a review. We have requested that the G.G.R.A. be a deputation at the meeting of September 4th, and that this issue be discussed on that agenda.

The District spends $ 134 million each year in operating and another $ 46 million in capital. It raises 73 million in local taxes and gets the rest from fees and grants. The chairman essentially controls the council and its priorities and the direction of this spending. How should s/he be chosen?

1 Select the district chair by open vote of the 22 elected district councillors

2 Select the district chair by secret vote of the 22 elected district councillors

Note: in neither of these two choices is the candidate elected by the public

3 Elect the chair by a district wide vote of the public.

We propose offering a 4^th choice

4 Elect the district chair by secret ballot from amongst the 22 elected local representatives.

The paper that follows offers a bit of background and discusses these options more fully.

Regarding the Method of Choosing the District of Muskoka Chairman.

Background

The options proposed are to choose the chairman :

by the current method – an appointment by the newly elected district councilors from a slate of those who put themselves forward and are nominated by 2 councillors

by a variant on the current method – an appointment by secret ballot by the newly elected councillors from etc.

by direct election by the electors of Muskoka

The full background report on the existing process and options is available at www.muskoka.on.ca or from the clerk of the District clees@muskoka.on.ca.

Analysis

What is missing is a statement of fundamental principles to be used in choosing the chairman. To GGRA the most basic principles which should be used in determining how to choose our public officials are the principles of democracy and accountability. Our municipal governments must operate as an open democratic and accountable system and right now with the current chairmanship process we have neither. The District chairman is not democratically elected, nor is he accountable to the public at large. Instead he holds his power by virtue of negotiation, power brokering and managing the complex relationships amongst the local municipalities. The dangers in this situation are that it can lead to stalemates or disregard of the will of the public or catering to special interests. Should these problems occur, there is no way that that he can be removed from his office. This potential for removal is essential to democracy and accountability.

The missing option

If democracy and accountability are to be achieved, then the chairman must be elected by the public. Which bring us to the 2 options which rest on election:

Elect the chairman at large by the whole population on a District wide ballot at the time of municipal elections. This District wide election is used in a number of regional municipalities in Ontario.

Elect the chairman by secret ballot from those members of the District council who have been elected. This would entail a second election at the local level in the one municipality where the newly chosen chairman held an elected position.

Pros and Cons

The 2 appointment or selection options proposed in the discussion paper are fundamentally undemocratic and have no provision for accountability on the part of the District chairman. Since the District is the largest spender in Muskoka this means that a significant portion of the money from the taxpayers is being managed with no or limited accountability. As stated above the risks of power brokering and special interests are present. Along with the risk of ignoring the wishes of the public.

District wide election has the benefits of being the simplest, the most transparent and the most directly accountable system. It also means that the cost of getting elected due to the need for District wide visibility can represent a barrier to would be candidates.

Election of the chairman from amongst the already elected councillors is more complex but it also maintains accountability. It results in the immediate need for a 2d local election to replace the chosen chairman. At the time of the next election, 4 years later, the chairman would have to stand again locally, thereby being accountable for his/her leadership and actions at the District level.

The GGRA would like to input from its members as to what system they would like to see in place for choosing the Muskoka District chairman.

The GGRA, along with the Gravenhurst Archives, Muskoka Boat and Heritage Centre, the Library and the Town of Gravenhurst organized a meeting to bring together citizens and groups interested in promoting and preserving heritage in the Town of Gravenhurst. This meeting was held in the Gravenhurst Library on Feb. 21/08 and was very successful with over 50 people attending. Many ideas were put forth and a committee was struck to move forward. The idea of a Heritage Committee was the brainchild of Peter Sutherland of the GGRA and he will act as the GGRA's representative on the Committee. Other members of the GGRA are also on the committee so we are well represented.

The Heritage Committee has been meeting at Trinity United Church on the first Thursday of the month. We are moving forward and are developing a mandate and terms of reference for our committee. The Heritage Committee will become a Committee of Council. The committee is maintaining a binder at the Gravenhurst Library where all minutes of meetings and other pertinent information will be available to the public.

We welcome ideas and suggestions from the GGRA membership and the public. These can be forwarded to Peter Sutherland – tommix75@hotmail.ca or by calling 687-4093.

Remarks of the Greater Gravenhurst Residents Association as a delegation to the meeting of Council April 1/08, presented by Ross Ashforth

1. Council and staff are to be commended, and particularly Lou Guerriero and Ken Watson, in producing a budget much easier to read, comprehend and more inclusive.

2. Salaries, wages and benefits budgeted at $5,206,798 represent 49% of total operational expenditures of $10,665,708.

2008 budgeted amount of $5,206,798 is 12.7% greater that 2007 actual of $4,621,305. If the increase had been limited to say a generous 4%, the total tax levy increase would have been 2%, not 6.9%. This infers that the operational maintenance budget for 2008, apart from the wage structure, is modest and therefore commendable.

3. That the wage structure represents nearly one-half total operational expenditures and that it has alarmingly outstripped the consumer price index as a guide over the years, we strongly recommend an independent study be made of all level of present staffing functions and operations. We believe this was included in your Strategic Plan. This would determine if the Town is making or could be making more cost effective use of its staff. The cost of such a review would likely be well covered by future results.

4. Reserves and reserve funds reached a high of $13,083,785 by the end of 2005 and are expected to dwindle to $8,621,070 by the end of 2008(allowing for the recent budget subtraction of $86,000 to cover the archway shortfall, but not allowing for unbudgeted revenues such as sales of Municipal lands). This is a dramatic drop of $4,462,715 or 34% in just three years. Such reliance on reserves for capital expenditures, in our opinion, is excessive. Current fund levying and debenturing should be much more employed. Levying of only $336,000 in 2008 and no debenturing, in our opinion, is indefensible. At the present pace of capital expenditures with no change in funding methods will quickly dissipate our remaining reserves.

Could we not immediately (1) cut a number of capital projects not immediately necessary and (2) debenture over a 5 year period: the tanker replacement $270,000

cab and chassis replacement 115,000

replace 2 half ton pick-ups 58,500

replace single axel truck 185,000

5. Apart from the many valid arguments against purchasing the Health Unit building as our future Municipal office, the $4,000,000 debenture ($3,200,00 for the building and $800,000 for site preparation of the proposed medical centre) the debenture must surely push us to the limits of the debenturing process. To mortgage our future with a 40-year debenture is ludicrous. The ultimate cost to the Municipality will be $9,531,688, and done only for a short term financial benefit to this Council. We cannot overlook the “internal loan” to the Wharf project from the Reinvestment Reserve Fund, for which an annual levy of $399,000 is required for many years. This acts like a debenture requiring its annual levy and must be counted as such in assessing our limit of borrowing (not legally, but morally).

6. Our history of tax levies since 2004 to 2007 does us not credit. Through the four years our general levy has increased 26.4%. For those on District's water, sewer and garbage collection 24.5%. For this period District general levy increased by only 1.7% and education by a decrease of 3.8%. These made the levy palatable to those in the urban area by a net overall tax increase of 11.9%. Why have we been so much out of line?

Before I begin I want to give an especial thank you to Lou Guerriero who has been most responsive to queries and gaining understanding of the budget. As he will tell you I was looking at the budget in detail. But in the end that approach of looking at the micro level misses the key point you as council need to address. So I stood back and looked at our context, the present situation and the future. And here is what I found. Here is what truly alarms me.

Gravenhurst is not a wealthy community. Approx 1/3 of the permanent population are over 55 and this is the only age range in which growth is forecast. Of the 8420 adult population, 3575 or 42.5% are not in the labour force. Approx 1/3 of adults rely on pensions and are on fixed incomes

We have the lowest labour force growth in Muskoka and are the lowest income community in Muskoka with the exception of Georgian Bay Twp. 41% of the labour force works in tourism and services sector an area of low wages. This is a sector which according to Statistics Canada data re tourism statistics has been shrinking and we are seeing business failures. 39% of income in the town is not employment related – i.e. government support programs, pensions and savings are the sources of income. Average incomes in this town are 19k for females, 28 k for males the composite average being 24,000 dollars a year. Average household income is 46,000 dollars. Put these figures in the context of food cost inflation, gas prices etc. How can these people carry fast increasing municipal taxation?

Personally I am lucky, I have a modest pension for my many decades in the labour force. It went up 1.8% this year. Many other seniors I spoke to have increases in the 0 to 1.8 to 2% range. None of us see 3 5 or even 7%. No one I encountered spoke of higher raises. And of course you all know what is happening to our investments. Their direction is net negative. These conditions affect the capacity of the town taxpayers to carry the resulting levy.

The Budget and the Strategic Plan

You have been urged to consider the budget in the context of the town strategic plan. And in that plan you state you want to entice people to live and invest in Gravenhurst. I too want this. You have acknowledged that decreasing financial resources are a reality. I commend this insight. And you said that it is not enough to maintain the status quo. I say Right on!

So then I look at the budget. I see a status quo budget, but one with an operating expenditure which is 6% higher than last year’s budget and 9.2% higher than last years actual expenditure. This will raise the tax levy by close to 7%. This on top of the 26.4% over the last 4 years. In other words a one third increase in the local tax levy in a 5 year time frame. This in a period of low inflation. Does this budget meet any of the above conditions you yourselves subscribed to?

The Budget itself

Having re-looked at the budget I realized that concentrating on the micro level misses the point. You need to look at the whole picture and take charge of the situation.

- The largest item in the budget, close to 50% of expenditure, is salaries and wages. And the increase in this line is 11.2% over last years budget and 12.7% over last years actual expenditures. Obviously this huge increase in the largest line item in the budget has immense impact on the bottom line. This is the elephant in the room and must be looked at if you are to get control. This is in the long run much more important than worrying about arches,generators or washrooms.

Reserves have been reduced by 4.462 million or over 34% in 3 years - Can the town sustain this base cost increase and reserve depletion year after year? I think not.

The Future

oLook at the expenditure categories and you see that the third largest category is already debt repayment. This budget proposes to increase the debenture load on the town and to pay it back with a 2.5% increase in the operating costs every year. over 40 years a total of approx. 9.5 million. This will move this debt repayment item up to 2d place. Yet we are already depleting our reserves to carry the operations budget. When do we hit the wall financially? What then.

I suggest that you are positioned to start to deal with this if you act this year. But you must decide to act as to delay will put you even further behind and create more problems.

I suggest that you revisit your strategic plan and concentrate on 2 items,

Implement the commitment to get an “economic development strategy” as priority one and

Implement your stated goal to “review the efficiency and effectiveness of the provision of service…” To this end the town should undertake an efficiency and effectiveness review of all town operations, there is a cost involved but it would be money well spent.

Take a hard look at all the operations and capital proposals. Ask not what we want to do but rather what can be postponed. Ask yourselves “ Do we need a new truck this year or can it be postponed one more year?” “Do we need ….” Stop forgoing revenue with fee waivers and exceptions. Postpone the hiring of new staff. Get a handle on the best way to deliver the services, there is always a better way of doing business. Invest in an external and hardnosed review of the business practices of the town and the use of staff resources. Direct the consultants to find savings. Implement the findings and then, but only then, start using the savings. Adopt a business approach to running the town. You as Council need to take charge. You cannot continue on the road of business as usual.

If you don’t take action now I truly fear for what lies down the road. Unless there is a dramatic change in external conditions and significant industrial and commercial development in the short term we will be in big trouble. Ask yourselves if you want to bet the future on these things which are out of your control happening in the short term.

Once again I want to thank you for your attention, to thank you Lou for the work you are doing and to tell you that as councillors it is time to take the actions I believe you are capable of. The taxpayers of the town will thank you

Lola Bratty

Jan 13, 2008

Lou Guerriero

Chair, Corporate Services

Gravenhurst council

Dear Lou

I am writing this as a personal and open letter following my reading of the council materials yesterday. I am most disappointed that your report does not accurately reflect the input given to you by me and other citizens on January 4^th.

At that meeting we gave you a simple message – there are benefits to good consultation processes but you must be serious about consultation. Ross Ashforth gave you written input and Brian and Hank and Laurie and I gave you verbal input.

What we said is that the consultation on the budget (capital, operating and reserves components) must take place at a time in the budget cycle that there is sufficient information for informed input. We all left the meeting assuming that there would be a public meeting on the next to final budget draft and that it would occur in mid-March. The input process should be informal and similar to a dialogue whereby the public can give ideas and thoughts and Council can listen. It should not be treated as a formal Council meeting with those formal procedures. No one has problems confusing a council member in a listening mode and a Council in a decision making mode. We also said that the consultation materials must be clear, simple, present real alternatives and the implications for decisions to be made at a future time. They must be ready with sufficient lead times that people can read, understand and think about them. The materials must also be complete. For example, with a municipal budget we need to know the costs of running the “programs” of each department, the fixed costs, the costs of new initiatives and their alternatives and the anticipated impact on the reserves. Interestingly these are the same pieces of information that the councillors themselves must have to make good decisions!

I appreciate that you want to have some kind of input to your decision making. But merely telling the public what new initiatives are to be undertaken and providing no analysis does not cut it for budget consultation. It undermines your credibility as someone who wants to be seen as genuinely listening to the electorate. I anticipate that the strategy you have undertaken will not get good public response, although I had hoped for otherwise. I have copied the rest of council in the interests of clarity regarding the input of myself and other citizens.

Sincerely

Lola Bratty

Letter to the Editor of The Banner Re: North Gull Lake Land Use Designation

The Greater Gravenhurst Residents' Association, (GGRA) would like to thank Samantha Hastings, of the District of Muskoka, the Gull & Silver Lake Association, and the M.L.A., for their support of our protest regarding the new land use designation of part of the north east shoreline of Gull Lake. This land is owned by Taboo Resort, and it was discovered by the GGRA that this shoreline property had been changed from "residential" to "mixed use waterfront", AFTER the Citizens' committee (the group working with the Town, on the Official Plan) had been disbanded. This meant that that this shoreline could be developed in the same manner as the Muskoka Wharf area. The GGRA immediately opposed the process that could allow this to happen without public notification!

We then sent a letter to the District of Muskoka, officially stating our opposition, and asking that the land use designation be returned to it's original status of "residential" before the new Official Plan was approved. GGRA then brought this issue before the Gull and Silver Lakes Assoc. and the M.L.A, asking if they would support us in our request. Because of their support and our letters to the District of Muskoka, it is now eminent that Gravenhurst Council will do the right thing and change the land use designation of the described shoreline of Gull Lake, back to its original designation of "Residential".

Again, the GGRA thanks the Gull & Silver Lake Assoc., the M.L.A. and the District of Muskoka, for supporting our endeavor to make sure that any application to change the land use designation of this property, would allow for a public meeting, with sufficient notice, and the chance for public input regarding such changes on this important piece of lakefront property.

If you would like to voice an opinion on the above topic or other issues of importance to you and your town, you are welcome to come to our planned membership meeting of the Greater Gravenhurst Residents' Assoc. on November 15/2007, 7:30 p.m. at Gravenhurst High school. We will be welcoming all our members and any Gravenhurst citizen who would like to be a member of our growing organization.

Open letter to the Mayor and Councillors of the Town of Gravenhurst

As a member of the Gravenhurst Municipal administration for fifteen years as Town Treasurer, I attended countless meetings of Council and it's committees. I have little sympathy for Councillors in their recent reaction to the public outcry against now being the highest paid councillors in Muskoka. They claim they are badly overworked and deserve this dubious honour.

The whole idea of the municipal committee system ( and for committees of organizations in general) is that the entire governing body cannot hope to keep abreast of all the municipal activities and must delegate certain areas to committees, to gather expertise and sound judgments upon which the governing body can rely.

In Gravenhurst, Council has completely abandoned the committee - of - the - Whole session, wherein all departments, (Community Services, Public Works, Development Services, Economic and Corporate Services) report and receive delegations. Do not overlook the Committee of Adjustment, again comprising all of Council, or the excessive number of closed Council sessions. Little wonder councillors feel overworked when, for example, an interminable Tuesday session can extend from 1:00 pm to 7:00 pm. or whatever! How can they remain alert, remember it all, and render sound judgments? Could not there be more citizen participation on committees? Little wonder councillors now demand the highest councillor salaries in Muskoka.

As President of the Greater Gravenhurst Residents’ Association (GGRA), I’m writing regarding the GST taxes that school boards across Canada must pay.

We are aware that school boards currently receive a 68% GST rebate. We feel the remaining 32% should also be rebated, so that school boards would be exempt from paying GST.

Our tax dollars, meant to go towards education, should NOT be used for the payment of GST tax as well.

In February, 2004, an amendment was made to the Excise Tax Act, so that municipalities receive 100% rebate of GST. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance has recommended that school boards receive the same 100% rebate. Also, as of Jan., 2007, M.P.’s across all government parties supported the full rebate for schools.

In accordance, the GGRA urges you to take action on your own Committee’s recommendation. We urge you to amend the Excise Tax Act, to reflect a 100% rebate of the GST paid by school boards across Canada. Many parents and tax payers could be influenced in a positive way, if they knew their education taxes would be used strictly for education, and were not going towards payment of yet another tax, the GST tax that school boards must pay.

For those visiting the GGRA Website. If YOU agree that schools should NOT be paying GST, and that your education tax dollars should NOT be going towards the GST that schools currently have to pay...please voice your concerns via email to the email addresses below.

Honourable Minister of Finance, James Flaherty at
flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca
local MP Tony Clement at clement.t@parl.gc.ca

The GGRA is writing to oppose Town Council’s decision to declare two properties as surplus land. Firstly, the old Carnegie library building, and secondly, the wetland acreage on the north side of Segwun Blvd. (Bock A, Plan M-515)

The Carnegie building is an important part of our “heritage square”, and certainly a part of the history of all the Carnegie Libraries, built in the early 1900’s. We need to keep this beautiful building intact. Surely Gravenhurst does not want to allow it to be torn down or modernized. There are several uses that we can think of as well as the exercise classes currently meeting there. What about other business meetings, youth group meetings, education classes? There could be some fees charged, which would partially offset the costs of the upkeep of this building. Could there be education grants? Historical grants? Towns that have kept their downtowns as heritage, and maintained them as such, attract tourists! People are notoriously nostalgic. If we designate OUR downtown as a “heritage district”, we can preserve our history and beauty, bring better economic development to town, and have control over our main street! If then, the building must be sold, it would have to retain its heritage designation. We are already adding new retail buildings that have “present day faces” but so far they are outside our heritage square. Let’s not mix the old with the new, and ruin this historical area! Let’s keep our wonderful Gravenhurst history intact for years to come. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever! Only memories are left! Preserving our Muskoka heritage is in keeping with the new Official and Strategic Plans.

On our new official plan, the land north of Segwun Blvd., is designated as open spaces with a natural heritage area along the wetlands, flowing into Muskoka Bay. Surely you cannot be thinking of allowing development on this piece of natural watershed land? What will happen then to the drainage? Why, if not for development, are you considering this land as surplus? According to the new Official Plan, you must have wanted to protect it? This land reportedly, was on this same agenda many years ago, (1986) and it was declared then, that it would not be developed, but would be kept as a wetland park area, to remain as “open spaces”. GGRA believes this Council should respect this decision. We must preserve our natural watershed and wetland areas! This also is in keeping with your own new Official and Strategic Plans.

GGRA urges Council to rethink the future of these two properties and remove them from the list of surplus lands. We appreciate the opportunity to have input into your decisions.

Letter #9         To      Muskoka Today         From Bill Black

348 Fairview Dr.
Gravenhurst Banner                                        Gravenhurst
July 2007

Subject: Audited Consolidated Financial Statements - Town of Gravenhurst

In 2006 the 2005 Consolidated Financial Statements were not made available to the residents of Gravenhurst until a few days before the municipal election held on November 13th 2006, and an audited statement was posted at Municipal Affairs and Housing on December 7, 2006, almost one year after the end of the 2005 fiscal year.

We are now in July 2007 and the 2006 Consolidated Financial Statements are not yet in the public domain. On July 9th the towns treasurer advised that they should be available shortly. Given that under the Municipal Act the municipality has 60 days after receiving the statements from the auditor before they must place the financial statements in the public domain it could be September before we have an opportunity to find out how much and where our tax money was spent in 2006. That it takes this amount of time to publish an audited financial statement is not acceptable.

The Municipal Act, section 295 sets out the procedure for placing the audited financial statements into the public domain. One huge problem. The legislation says the audited statements must be made public within 60 days of their being made available to Council. It does not specify a date when the statements must be received by Council

It is therefore suggested that section 295 of the Municipal Act be amended by adding a date when the previous years audited financial statement must be received from the Auditors by Council. It is suggested this date be May 1st of the following year and that the 60 day period be reduced to 30 days for placing the audited statements in the public domain.

Bill Black

PS I have just learned that the Greater Gravenhurst Residents Association has written to the Hon. John Gerretson Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with copies to D. McGinty, H.Hampton, J.Tory and our MPP Norm Miller regarding the above.

The Municipal Act, section 295, sets out the procedure for placing the audited financial statements into the public domain. We believe there is a problem. The legislation says the audited statements must be made public within 60 days of their being made available to council. It does not specify a date when the statements must be received by council. This loophole in the legislation allows a council to delay the release of vital information. Sound public policy demands that the public have timely access to information, especially financial information.

We propose that section 295 of the Municipal Act be amended by adding a date when the previous year’s audited financial statement must be received from the auditors by Town Council. We suggest this date be May 1^st of the following year and the current 60 day period be reduced to 30 days.

This amendment could be effected for this provincial election. It is vitally important that financial reports be made available to the citizens well prior to any election.

We all know that a large part of our municipal tax bills is for education purposes. Historically the levy was just sufficient to educate the municipality’s young folk. This is no longer the case, where education taxes raised do not relate to expenditures on education within the municipality. Education levies now are, in effect, pooled on a province wide basis and distributed by formula to local school boards according to need in the interests of uniform education standards. In Muskoka and other municipalities with a larger than average seasonal residential component, there is a net outflow of such taxes to subsidize other needy school boards. In the case of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, for example, this outflow becomes extreme. Taxes raised locally should all be used locally. Education taxes, therefore should be removed from the local tax bill and transferred to the provincial income tax levy where they belong.

Presently, the education levy is based on an assessment system that promotes a regressive tax, often not related to the ability to pay. For many this is an onerous expenditure. Most seasonal residents support two different education boards, to one of which they have no access. For them this represents double taxation.

I know my message is an over-simplification of a very complex issue, that previous task forces have attempted to remedy to no real effect. This is due no doubt to provincial political cowardice. The need for change is obvious and wouldn’t it at least remove a huge part of the tax from an assessment system that is badly flawed? Is it not time that the province considers the necessary “uploading” rather than continually downloading many tax responsibilities?

Municipalities, both local and regional, and A.M.O. (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) should keep on bombarding the province to implement this change.

WHEREAS revenues for the support of primary and secondary education purposes in the

Province of Ontario have been historically raised primarily through the imposition of

Encourages the Province of Ontario to be directly responsible for the raising of necessary

Revenues for the support of Provincial primary and secondary education systems through

The Provincial income tax levies and other revenues, and that this resolution be

Communicated to the Minister of Education and to the Province of Ontario, our local MPP, the leader of the Opposition, the leader of the NDP and the AMO

The above letter and motion were forwarded in content by Council to the Province of Ontario encouraging The Province to be directly responsible for the raising of Education Tax Revenues.

The Greater Gravenhurst Residents’ Assoc. (GGRA) would like to express our opposition to the “Urban Mixed Use Waterfront Area” designation of the north east shore of Gull Lake, in Gravenhurst. Part of this land is owned by the Taboo Resort. Therefore the new designation for this land greatly concerns us.

The designation for this property from residential to urban mixed use waterfront was established AFTER the public advisory committee was disbanded. The change was not indicated in any subsequent public consultations and therefore the public was not aware. This change allows for the potential of commercial uses, condominiums, and hotels.

Gull Lake is already classified as “over threshold and moderately sensitive”. There is already heavy boat traffic on the lake because of small lot development. We request that this designation be removed now, and that the designation remain as “residential”. When proposals for any other type of development for this property arise, the need to rezone it will, in itself, generate public consultation and input, which we feel would definitely be necessary.

I am following up on behalf of the GGRA on the presentations made to the Council concerning the Draft Strategic Plan for this term. At the public meetings, you received comments from GGRA members, Sutherland, Bratty, Wallis and Black and I want to reiterate in writing the items we spoke to.

Gravenhurst has two significant assets. Firstly, it is sited in a very beautiful part of the world and still has some elements of its original character. This environment represents the traditional and current primary economic base for the town. So we stress that the full scope of the municipality’s activities must be based on an “environment first” approach. Secondly, Gravenhurst has strong and still viable heritage and cultural opportunities. These must be preserved as they differentiate our town and make it a place where people want to live and work. They sustain and support development. We would like to see these two basic principles in the final document.

We looked carefully at the list of priorities and as indicated in the meetings they could be refined. Our suggested priorities are as follows:

· Institute Citizen Advisory Committees. Such committees are important means of getting citizen input and bringing in expertise to the town’s activities. There is also a commitment to this from the election period and your first meetings this year. Such committees could also help with the workload you yourselves face as you deal with a growing and more complex town.

· Implement a consolidated medical presence . We support the discussion point that if the town developed a precise proposal concerning its role in support of such a presence you would have a good means of furthering this with community support.

· Conduct a Ward Review. We need “Equal representation by population”! We would be very willing to work with the Clerk’s office on this and see this as a priority for immediate action.

· An economic development strategy is needed. As discussed in the public meeting, you need to integrate the relevant items listed in the document under this strategy. Again we see this as a high priority and requiring immediate action. We would like to see a strategy that will provide for employment opportunities which will encourage and sustain the families as well as seasonal and retiree residents, i.e. one which includes housing, employment, educational and youth opportunities as well as direct employment initiatives.

· Environmental protection and retention of the traditional environmental character should underlie all of the Town’s decision making, from planning to street design, to maintenance and public works activities.

· We would like to see Communication and openness with the public supported by clear and understandable decision documents, such as the budget.

In addition to the above which reflect items in the draft document itself we propose you add three very important initiatives as priorities

· Designation of the downtown area as a Heritage District. This would be beneficial to the downtown core and the economic development strategy.

· Incorporate environmental awareness into all the Town’s processes and activities. This requires training, policy and procedure changes but is amongst the best ways of achieving the environment first principle

· Conduct an efficiency and effectiveness review of all town operations. This could help slow the rate of tax rate increase and help you the council ensure that resources are being placed in the proper areas.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and give input. We would be willing to meet with you should you have any questions and also to assist the town with achieving these priorities. We look for ward to your response and working together towards our shared objective of a strong and vital Gravenhurst.

In the new plan, to be adopted on July 17th, the Town has incorporated most of our suggestions and we're happy with the new plan as it stands now. Well done on the Town's part. .Evelyn Matson, President GGRA

The Greater Gravenhurst Residents’ Association would like to commend the Town Council for proposing to establish Citizens’ Advisory Committees. We feel that public input and support in various areas would definitely be an asset to Council’s difficult decision making, and would help to ensure valuable public communication.

We, the GGRA, believe that three of the most important areas, where Citizens’ Committees might be of value are on an Environmental Committee, on the Committee of Adjustment, and on a Budget Committee. We realize that Town staff have already been working on establishing several of these committees and wondered if you could let us know your progress. We would like to inform our members and hope to be able to have knowledgeable volunteers offer their expertise when and where possible.

The Greater Gravenhurst Residents’ Assoc. would like to ask that the OMB support Gravenhurst Council’s decision to turn down Mr. Singer’s application for habitation in his boathouse on Bear Bay. This boathouse has been controversial since the day it was erected, mainly due to size, location and blocking the view of neighbours. Mr. Singer was allowed a minor variance in December, 2003, under the condition that the upper level was used only for storage. It has become apparent that plumbing pipes have been installed before approval has been granted to use this area for habitation. What does that tell us?

Gravenhurst Town Council has tried to enforce their original agreement with Mr. Singer, and deserve to be supported in their efforts of Feb. 27, 2007. If Mr. Singer is allowed to utilize the “storage” area of HIS boathouse for habitation, it sets a precedence for others to do the same. We need to protect our lakes, our lake bylaws and our neighbours’ wellbeing. There must be a point when a rule is a rule, and is NOT meant to be broken.

The Greater Gravenhurst Residents’ Association strongly and respectfully request that you turn down Mr. Singers request, sending a message to all that we MUST begin adhering to our own Official Plans.

COMMENTS BY THE GGRA: Presented to the O.M.B. in person June 13th. July 3rd, The OMB ruled against the application by Mr. Singer (for human habitation) over his boathouse. A good decision thanks to our efforts, the MLA, the MBPOA (Muskoka Bay Property Owners Association) and Mr. Nick Popovich , Senior Planner, Town of Gravenhurst.

On behalf of the Greater Gravenhurst Ratepayers Association, I wish to speak to the Draft Procedural By-law which will be before the Council for consideration on May 1, 2007

This draft by-law has been available to the public, to our knowledge, for about two weeks, and even less time for the notification of the date of consideration before Council. We are concerned that you may not receive much input on this important topic. Procedural by-laws govern not only how you, as Council act, but also how you interact with the public, and we feel this is a very important document.

Having read the by-law, we wish to offer the following comments and suggestions, primarily based on procedural knowledge amongst our members and also on observations of Council meetings.

We ask if there should be a phrase added in this section, to allow for the Mayor and CAO to assign any new duties which arise in future to the appropriate committee. This suggestion is based on the premise that you wish the by-law to be in effect a number of years and that there is an off chance new duties could arise in that time.

This section of the document is written as though there are no advisory committees or a citizen Committee of Adjustment. We suggest that you need a phrase stating that regular meeting times for these committees could be determined and publicized at the time of the establishment of the committee. Otherwise when you develop such a committee, the whole by-law might need revision.

Currently, a deputation is heard apart from the relevant subject matter. We would like to suggest that the hearing of a deputation be attached to the item under consideration. For example, this letter and deputation could be heard when the Corporate Services Committee considers the by-law. We feel the attachment of deputations to related subjects would help with public assurance that their input is important.

Secondly, the notice times for communication, petitions, and requests for deputations are not congruent with the availability of agendas and materials to be considered. We recognize the need for deadlines, however for instance, using the current proposed deadlines, we could not have had this letter recognized, because the agenda noting the consideration of this by-law, was not available in print form before noon on Wed. Apr. 25^th. We would like to see deadlines linked to the availability of materials to the public. We suggest that instead of the absolute times that are proposed, your deadlines could refer to 24 or 48 hours after the Town’s publication of the agenda and background items, either on the Website and/or in printed form, at the Municipal Office reception desk. We do appreciate the flexibility and responsiveness that Council has shown in the past, (and hopefully in the future) to last minute deputations, but we’d like to stress that informed, thoughtful public input requires sufficient timeframes.

This reconsideration of deadlines is also important for the seasonal residents who are approximately 50% of our population. It is virtually impossible for someone who lives in the GTA to meet such deadlines, especially if they are relying on access to printed materials. So we DO encourage you to relate deadlines for such notices to the availability of the information.

We appreciate the chance to put forth our suggestions. We hope Council will consider these suggestions and amend the Draft Procedure By-law accordingly.

GGRA COMMENTS AS OF JUNE 20TH: For now, the Town seems to be ignoring our-in person-deputation, but we will keep trying

YOU CAN ADD YOUR COMMENTS AND INPUT TO ANY GRAVENHURST ISSUE BY E-MAILING THE GGRA AT: SECRETARY@ GGRA.CA