Monthly Archives: February 2012

Incense and Bath Salts – Not What They Seem

29 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by in Parry Sound, Safety, Suggestions

≈ Comments Off on Incense and Bath Salts – Not What They Seem

Tags

,

This is a strange little post, but one that has been brewing for a few weeks. With a bit of a break between regular and special council meetings and town presentations this seems a good time to put together a few words.

As some of you may know I have a graduate degree from the College of Pharmacy of The Ohio State University, and I have spent my career in the pharmaceutical business, never far from the research and development teams. As a result of education and career I have kept a close eye on the recreational use of pharmaceuticals.

While there is much public discussion of the abuse of prescription narcotics and sedative/hypnotics, as well as recreational use of methamphetamine, there is little local awareness of designer hallucinogens. This was brought to my attention when raising this issue with people in town who are connected in one way or another to mental health services or law enforcement. In all cases I needed to explain what I meant by designer drugs and the terms “bath salts”, “incense” and “plant food”.

These designer drugs are variations on well known, and for the most part well understood, hallucinogens such as LSD, MDA and cannabinoids. In many cases these designer drugs are similar to the better ‘studied’ hallucinogens in terms of ‘psychedelic’ activity. The attraction to these designer drugs is that they are so new that in many cases legislation has not caught up to make them illegal. But because they are so new the dangers associated with their use is also not properly understood. While some might disagree, the better known psychedelics/stimulants – such as LSD, mescaline, and MDA, for the most part are not associated with significant toxicity if taken infrequently and in reasonable doses. This is because they are inherently not remarkably toxic, and over the past 50 years (yes it’s been that long) considerable experience has been gained in their reasonably safe recreational use.

What about “incense”, “bath salts” and “plant food”? Well these are the terms used for designer drugs sold at retail in convenience stores, mini-marts and ‘smoke’ shops. Because these designer drugs are not necessarily illegal (yet), and there are limited tests to verify their composition, they are often brazenly sold over the counter in single dose packages with labeling stating they are not for human use. But they most certainly are intended for recreational use.

These designer drugs carry a number of risks. There may be as many as fifty different designer drugs available worldwide, all of them different in terms of proper dosing, type of experience and length of intoxication. The exact product in the package and the dose can be very variable. While users have some reasonable sense of what they can expect from the more commonly used, and illegal, drugs, this is not the case with designer drugs. There are reports of users being totally overwhelmed by the experience and making very poor decisions that have led to death and injury.

Another major risk relates to dose and contamination. In many cases these designer drugs are sloppily manufactured and subjected to little or no quality control. This can lead to significant variation in quality and contamination with manufacturing chemicals and intermediates. These contaminants can have significant safety issues associated with their use.

I am not aware of “incense”, “bath salts” and “plant food” being sold in Parry Sound. But then again I don’t often frequent the type of stores that would be stocking these products. With reported prices of $10 to $20 per single dose package, they can be a real bargain for someone looking for something ‘different’, and a profitable product for the retailer.

You now know a little more about designer drugs. Check out this additional link, Discovery Magazine, to learn a little more about the problem. Perhaps we should all be on the lookout for these products. And if it’s a problem south of the border, it will be a problem sooner rather than later. Here’s a very recent news item about designer drugs in Owen Sound.

Council Meeting Summary – 2012-02-21

22 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by in Parry Sound, Seguin Township, Town Council, Urban Development

≈ Comments Off on Council Meeting Summary – 2012-02-21

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Last night’s council meeting provided additional insights into the challenges and opportunities facing Council and the Town of Parry Sound. You really need to attend the meetings in person or watch them on Cogeco on a regular basis if you hope to really understand what is going on. Catching meetings here and there really doesn’t allow you properly understand the issues and their context.

I’ll be handing out raspberries starting with this week’s meeting. Raspberries will be awarded to council and mayor as appropriate for suggestions and recommendations that seem a little too far out or, in my opinion, are mean spirited. Don’t expect to see very many of them awarded, this is a council and mayor who have their heads screwed on straight. There will no be mention of who receives these awards, you will need to attend the meeting or view the proceedings on Cogeco to figure it out.

Attendance for the February 21st Council meeting7th meeting: council and mayor – 7 (a full complement), staff – 8, media – 4, audience – 13. The audience figure dropped to 4 following the zoning bylaw amendment discussion related to the new public school. By the end of the meeting the audience was down to two and staff was down to four. The media and council were there to the very end.

Councilors Reports

Interesting points raised in the councilors’ and mayor’s reports included:
– upcoming March 6th public meeting and presentation in Carling regarding the Highway 400 extension
– non-public council meeting(s) regarding Parry Sound Power
– the social services budget will remain at 2011 levels for 2012
– a request was made for additional public comment on the Town’s official plan

Interesting and Notable Agenda Discussions and Decisions

The public meeting related to the zoning bylaw amendment for the new school involved a presentation of the proposed plan and two deputations from residents in the area of the new school. The proposed plan presentation was short with very limited information. The key points I noted was that the school will have a full complement of 624 students, 63 staff and a total of 84 parking spots. The deputations voiced support for the new school but requested information on the plans for the school, particularly traffic management, safety for children walking to and from school, and services management. The school board representatives indicated that there would be much more information forthcoming and council and staff indicated that local residents would have the opportunity to review and comment on the plans.

Item 9.2.1, the water and wastewater report was approved as submitted by Watson & Associates. A resolution was approved accepting Option 1 as the funding plan going forward. Option 1 includes a commonly shared increase of water rates to all water users. This increase is expected to mean a 5% increase per year, or about $50 annually for the average non-metered residential property.

Item 9.2.2, the water report indicated there were there failing tests in 2011. There seems to be little cause for concern as I heard it last night. Some quick figures: the highest daily water supply use was 55% of capacity in 2011, while the average daily water use was 30-35% of capacity. There seems to be significant capacity in the supply side of our facilities to support additional growth.

Item 9.4.1, on the subject of vandalism concerns in the Parry Sound High School area earned certain council members one and a half raspberries. A full raspberry to the councilor who suggested the town ask the OPP to start enforcing behavior by means of ticketing; a law and order type strategy. In my mind like the Americans building a fence on their border with Mexico. A half raspberry is awarded to the councilor who seconded a motion to add this to a resolution, but never really injected themself into the discussion. In the end council recognized and agreed the ongoing process involving a discussion between all stakeholders that is already in place was the best approach to the situation. While many might hope that it would progress more quickly, the ongoing approach has the promise of eventual success by modifying behavior. In general, issuing fines to change behavior is a less than optimal approach, especially if there are alternatives.

Item 9.6.1 regarding the boundary adjustment with Seguin was passed on a split vote, 4 to 3. This resolution offers property owners in the boundary adjustment area property tax relief until that time the properties are developed, require Parry Sound services, or are sold. A deputation by Mike Reeves in support of the resolution emphasized the potential value to the town in extending a proposal to the property owners that made it attractive for them to become part of Parry Sound.

It was interesting to follow the arguments on the part of the two groups of councilors for and against the resolution. Apparently there was concern that Parry Sound was required to cover the full $90,000 cost of the study concerning the boundary adjustment, even though the study addressed an area larger than the one being considered for the boundary adjustment. But that seems to me to be the cost of doing business. I for one support the decision made by council and mayor on this and I hope the property owners will agree to join Parry Sound under these new terms.

What was noticeable by its absence was any proposal from staff regarding the handling of waste from non-profit organizations. Next meeting perhaps?

There was more discussed than I noted here. Read the official council meeting minutes for more information, they should be available in a couple of days at the Town of Parry Sound website. Information, often with additional background, is generally available at the North Star website a few days after the meeting. But these notes and articles really don’t capture much of the thinking that went into the decisions. The best way to understand what went on is to attend.

 

 

 

TOPS Council Agenda Preview – 2012-02-21

20 Monday Feb 2012

Posted by in Parry Sound

≈ Comments Off on TOPS Council Agenda Preview – 2012-02-21

The upcoming Council meeting on the 21st has a couple of interesting agenda items – a sweetened offer for the Seguin property owners to join Parry Sound, and a decision on the future of water rates for Parry Sound.

There are other items that will be of interest to different individuals and groups. I suggest you review the agenda at the Parry Sound website for more information (here’s the link). And for even more details read the council package available at the Parry Sound Library and the Town Office.

Here are, in my opinion, the more interesting/important items to be discussed.

Interesting and Notable Agenda Items

Item 9.1.1 is a request to approve the terms of reference for Waterfront Advisory Committee. It’s good to see that the issue of the waterfront is returning to the attention of staff and council.

Item 9.2.1 is a series of resolutions related to the recently presented Water and Wastewater Study. The key item relates to a recommendation that council approves Option 1 regarding price increases. The recommended option retains the current rate structure with any increase in costs being uniformly applied to all customers.

Item 9.6.1 is a resolution proposing that Seguin property owners impacted by the ‘Boundary Adjustment Area’ be grandfathered (my term) at the current Seguin tax rate with future increases at the rate of Parry Sound increases. This grandfather provision would lapse, and the properties would become subject to the appropriate Parry Sound property taxes, if the properties were to receive town services or the properties were to be sold. There are a number of additional conditions and considerations in the resolution. Attend the meeting to better understand what they are and what they mean. My sense is that this makes good sense for Parry Sound residents and the property owners in the Boundary Adjustment Area. As a town we have made our offer, let’s see if it is accepted.

Item 10.1.1 is a proposed bylaw to permit ATV’s on certain Parry Sound streets during ‘Spring Jam’, April 27th and 28th.

There’s more, but these are the highlights as far as I’m concerned. Check out the council meeting package at the Town Office or the Library.

See you Tuesday.

We’re Getting Bigger and Better

18 Saturday Feb 2012

Posted by in Parry Sound, Urban Development

≈ Comments Off on We’re Getting Bigger and Better

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The recent Official Plan presentations to the public and town council provided a wealth of information on the opportunities and challenges facing Parry Sound as it looks toward the next 5, 10 and 20 years. The Official Plan is currently in the review and draft stages with the intention that a final draft of the plan will be provided to the public in the May/June time frame. A draft of the talking points related to the plan is available now, and the opportunity exists to provide your input. The official plan documents are available on the Town of Parry Sound website homepage. Here is a link to get there directly.

While there is much to say about the official plan and what it implies I will focus on some of the new figures that are included in the supporting documents and what they might imply for Parry Sound.

Parry Sound faces a number of challenges. With a relatively small population, and reasonably high service demands, per capita administration and public service costs can be high. This higher cost is not related to extravagance, it’s a function of increasing public expectations. The town is somewhat penalized by providing a number of services and facilities for the surrounding municipalities for which it receives limited compensation.

Let’s look at some encouraging numbers that will impact the thinking of town council and staff as they prepare and review the Official plan. We have achieved population growth. After a decade of seeing the population figures for Parry Sound drop, the 2011 census figures show a strong increase from 2006 to reach a total of 6,191 (+6.4%). We currently have 3,037 private dwellings, of which 94% are occupied on a permanent basis. This translate into an average of 2.2 persons per permanent residence. It’s worth noting that population figures do not include seasonal residents, these individuals are considered residents where they declare their ‘usual residence’. This gets to be important as we look at the surrounding municipalities which have a very high proportion of cottagers.

While Parry Sound grew, Seguin’s permanent population dropped from 4,276 in 2006 to 3,988 in 2011. While there are 4,348 residences in Seguin, only 37%, or 1,627 are permanent residences. This translates to 2.4 residents per permanent household. The drop in population may be an ominous sign for the permanent residents in Seguin. As the tax base becomes more and more concentrated in seasonal residents there is likely to be pressure on the elected officials to reduce services that are not needed by seasonal residents in an attempt to reduce costs and taxes. And with a majority of the residences, and the ability to pretty much declare as many ‘residents’ for voting purposes as they wish, it seems the seasonal population in Seguin will be able to dictate to council what they will and won’t accept in terms of local improvements that would primarily serve the permanent resident population.

McDougall showed no change in this period with a population of 2,705 permanent residents in 2011. About 65% of the residences in McDougall are occupied on a permanent basis, with an average 2.5 persons per residence.

McKellar showed an increase in permanent residents, rising from 1,080 in 2006 to 1,144 in 2011 (+5.8%). Permanent residences accounted for 36% of all residences, a figure similar to that for Seguin, suggesting again that there will be pressure to limit services so as to limit tax increases. The average persons per permanent residence was 2.2.

Carling showed the largest percentage population increase, 11.1%, rising to 1,284 permanent residents in 2011. The proportion of permanent residents was 33%, again suggesting a much larger proportion of seasonal (cottage) residents relative to the permanent population. The average persons per permanent residence was 2.5.

The Archipelago had the lowest permanent population of the surrounding municipalities, 566 in 2011, a slight drop from 2006. About 9% of the residences were considered to be permanent or primary residences. The average persons per permanent residence was 2.2.

So if you are a Parry Sound resident the population figures are good news from a services and taxes basis. More people and more residences mean a larger tax base to support current services. But this will come with more activity in town as we add people on a permanent basis. I see this as a benefit. More people mean more energy, and more energy leads to greater opportunity. If you want a quieter, less expensive place to live you may want to consider one of the nearby municipalities. But then I’m sure we’ll still be seeing you on a regular basis because Parry Sound has what you want and need, even if it’s a half-hour drive away.

Garbage – A Different Side of the Issue

14 Tuesday Feb 2012

Posted by in Parry Sound, Suggestions

≈ Comments Off on Garbage – A Different Side of the Issue

Tags

, ,

As you know I have been a proponent of giving the Salvation Army and other non-profit organizations a break in dealing with the garbage that is generated as part of their community services. This posting looks to the people of Parry Sound to do the right thing themselves.

Exhibit A – Taken 2012-02-14 (Valentine’s Day)


Exhibit B – A Close Up

Yes it’s what you think it is. While people are good enough to pick it up, it would be appreciated if they would carry it out with them. I know there are no garbage cans along the fitness trail once the snow flies, but it really isn’t too much trouble to carry it in the hand not holding the leash.

If your dog was able to carry it to the trail, you should be able to carry it out.

This is not a problem unique to Parry Sound. A trail close to where I lived in Austin was regularly dotted with these packages. In that case I wonder if it wouldn’t have been better to leave it where it landed and not bag it. It would have returned to nature in short order.

It’s a different issue here, where the snow provides a delightful contrast. But please let’s pick it up and take it home. It all ends up in the same place.

Water, Water Everywhere – Redux

12 Sunday Feb 2012

Posted by in Budget/Financial, Parry Sound, Town Council

≈ Comments Off on Water, Water Everywhere – Redux

Tags

, , , ,

This is a follow up to the public meeting held Monday, February 6th that presented the Water and Wastewater User Rate Study. This report is available from the Parry Sound Town Office in electronic form; I encourage you to request a copy and review it.

The presentation basically was a condensed version of the report. The key topics covered were operation costs, capital costs and options for passing costs on to the users. The numbers speak for themselves and questions from council focused on how the capital costs could best be managed and suggestions on the allocations of costs between the various user groups (residential, business and adjacent municipalities).

Only two members of the audience asked questions or offered a position. My comments addressed the thought that metering all residential users was likely to increase costs by more than a trivial amount (meter installation, meter reading and individual billing) that would need to be passed on to the residents. Metering is a reasonable approach when there is a relative shortage of water and/or water processing capacity. Neither of these situations are currently faced by Parry Sound. In fact, the consultant suggested that metering might well result in reduced consumption that would reduce revenue and create a revenue shortfall unless rates were increased across the board.

The mayor of McDougall Township, Dale Robinson, requested that any increase in water rates required to meet the increasing capital and operational costs of operation not be unfairly apportioned to McDougall. He reminded Parry Sound council and staff that McDougall had originally entered into the water supply agreement with the expectation of fair and reasonable costs. For those not aware of the agreement, Parry Sound provides McDougall with their water supply. This amounted to a little less than 23 million gallons, about 14% of the town’s output in 2011. However McDougall only pays 7.4% of the operating costs of producing the total output. This 7.4% does not include any of the capital costs of water production and delivery. On balance then McDougall is getting a very favourable deal from Parry Sound with respect to water supply, much less than half the price charged to Parry Sound residents. On the flip side it can be suggested that Parry Sound is getting a good deal because the incremental cost of providing water to McDougall is less than what the town receives in revenue. This is one of the many issues the town balances in its relationships with the neighbouring municipalities. One point seems clear to me, the cost of water in McDougall would be much higher if it were required to cover the costs of producing its own water.

A few additional points. Please see my pre-meeting post for additional information:

1. The value of the town’s water and waste water capital assets is $126 million. This is an astounding figure. With some 6,191 residents (latest 2011 figures) that amounts to about $20,350 of value per person. But like owning an expensive car the maintenance and repair costs can be very high.

2. The presentation pegged a figure of $16.7 million in capital upgrades will be required over the next ten years (2011-2020). Water accounts for $6.7 million and waste water $10 million of this total.

3. These capital costs and the inflation related increases in operating costs will mean higher costs to the consumer. There are no provincial or federal grants available to cover the significant capital costs the town faces. In my earlier post I suggested the increase in overall cost for the users of water and waste water would be 80% by 2020. After attending the meeting I have come to understand the increase will likely be on the order of 50-60%.

4. There seems to be little opportunity to reduce the costs, although council asked about the possibility of deferring some of the capital costs. There was also discussion of debenture financing for some of these capital expenses. This of course doesn’t reduce the cost, it just pushes the cost out a little later and spreads it over a larger number of years. There is ‘no free lunch’. Debentures actually increase costs because of the associated interest costs. But like a car loan, debentures allow you to ‘get it now’ and pay for it later.

5. The answer to lowering our individual cost of water and waste water doesn’t involve cutting corners to reduce costs. The answer is to spread the costs over a larger population and business base. And yes this means more people and more business in our little town.

Read the report, it’s an investment in understanding our future.

Image

Larger Parry Sound Moonset Photo

11 Saturday Feb 2012

The posted size of the photo in the header area is limited by the Word Press template. Here’s a larger version of Parry Sound Moonset 2012-02 that  will allow you to more easily recognize landmarks. The original is too large to post here. The image is a composite of three separate images shot as a panorama with an older Nikon D70 and merged using Photoshop.

Posted by | Filed under Parry Sound

≈ Comments Off on Larger Parry Sound Moonset Photo

Council Meeting Summary – 2012-02-07

08 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by in Parry Sound, Town Council

≈ Comments Off on Council Meeting Summary – 2012-02-07

Tags

, , , , ,

As promised the council meeting on Tuesday was very interesting. Parts are worth catching on cable if you have access.

A couple of general notes regarding the meeting. The projector still sucks, the terrible pink tint and the low contrast make it impossible for the audience and council to follow the presentation. It must also be a terrible distraction for the presenter. This situation has been going on for 2 months now. These projectors now go for as little as $400 and having two of them would ensure that the audience’s time is not being wasted. If I have a deputation to make I will beg, borrow or buy a unit to ensure my message is presented in the best ‘light’ possible.

The second note concerns attendance. I will be posting the attendance at the meetings as a way of understanding the trends regarding participation. The numbers for the February 7th meeting are: council and mayor – 7 (a full complement), staff – 9, media – 2, audience – 11. The audience figure dropped to 4 after the West Parry Sound Health Centre deputation was completed. By the end of the meeting the audience was down to two and staff was down to three. The media and council were there to the end.

Interesting and Notable Agenda Discussions and Decisions

Item 9.1.1 requesting council to approve the drafting of an agreement/terms of reference for a youth drop-in centre was approved. This does not imply funding approval. There was support on council for the initiative but concerns about funding given the $51,700 annual price tag, which could be reduced to $16,700 per year if Trillium funding and donations are received.

Item 9.1.2 regarding council approval for a revised Municipal Assistance Program (MAP) took considerable time. The issue facing council was how to help support the Salvation Army with their disposal costs. The net/net is that council wants to help the Salvation Army and similar charitable community groups manage expenses related to the delivery of valuable services to Parry Sound and the region. But the MAP does not allow for grants to be made to any charitable group that has a religious affiliation. Well, that was the unspoken ‘elephant’ in the room during the discussion. Town staff indicated that the Salvation Army did not qualify for the MAP, but never said why. Why not? If religious affiliation is an impediment to doing the right thing it needs to be stated and policy reviewed in that light.

It was also argued that the Salvation Army could not dump unusable donations at the transfer station because of restrictions on the provincial license to operate the facility. Here is the town web page listing the dos and don’ts of garbage pickup. It seems the relevant language is “No other commercial tipping accepted.” Presumably the Salvation Army garbage is considered commercial. But they are in fact just getting rid of garbage from the community that is dumped on their door. Commercial garbage in my mind is the by product of producing a service or product. Tim’s wrappers and cups are commercial waste. Left over rags and sofas dropped off are not. Let’s clear up our definitions here. And what does the town do with the Tim’s and McDonald’s and Subway wrappers that are dropped in the municipal garbage pails? Do they sort them and return them to the shops that pushed them out the door and tell them to dispose of it through commercial disposal services? I don’t think so. Let’s not be too ‘holy’ about what is and what isn’t commercial garbage. Let’s be practical.

But it seems as though council understands the issues and the balance that need to be struck. They have asked staff to return with a proposal that would allow the town to help support the costs the Salvation Army and other denominational charitable organizations that are faced with disposing of garbage related to their invaluable services to the community. I’ll be interested in seeing what staff comes up with.

Item 9.4.2 a proposal for a wider ban on smoking in public spaces, including parks, sports areas, the Fitness Trail and more was approved. It will go into effect in June 2013. This will allow for time to erect signs and educate the public concerning the restriction. It wasn’t clear to me what the penalties and warning procedure would be, but it probably will be the same as for those areas in which smoking is currently banned.

Item 9.6.1 directing council members to attend training concerning obligations under the Code was approved. See my pre-council meeting notes for more information. And no, it did not become a political issue.

Item 10.4.1 a bylaw to increase the parking meter rates from $0.50 to $0.75 per hour, and the parking ticket fees by a couple of bucks was pushed back as requested by the Downtown Business Association (DBA) until their revitalization plan was ready for presentation. Council did ask that the DBA present it’s plan in a timely manner so that the parking increase issue could be reviewed and voted upon. More information on this is available in my pre-council meeting notes.

Item 10.4.2 a proposal to revise how taxi drivers are regulated and licensed was approved. It reduces some of the burden and cost to the taxi drivers and should not negatively impact our safety and security.

Item 10.4.4 a by-law to permit the town to initiate cleanup, at the owners cost, of properties that fail to meet by-law standards for maintenance was approved. This promises to make it easier for the town to take care of issues related to by-law violations that in the past were unreasonably burdensome. There will still be the opportunity to appeal any charges before action is taken.

There were also two very good presentations from the West Parry Sound Health Centre regarding their activities and their performance, as well as a request for certain accommodations in road closures to allow for their upcoming fund raising run.

The official council meeting notes should be available in a couple of days at the Town of Parry Sound website. But these notes really don’t capture much of the thinking that went into the decisions. The best way to understand what went on is to attend.

TOPS Council Agenda Preview – 2012-02-07

06 Monday Feb 2012

Posted by in Parry Sound, Town Council

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The upcoming Council meeting on the 7th has more interesting topics than I originally thought when looking at the agenda on Friday. I apologize for the late posting but the council meeting package was not available at the Library when I dropped by after lunch on Saturday which forced me to take time off work to read it this afternoon. It really would be great if the council meeting packages were provided online, even if it only included the staff analysis and recommendation documents.

Interesting and Notable Agenda Items

Item 9.1.1 requests council to approve the drafting of an agreement/terms of reference for a youth drop-in centre. This drop-in centre is expected to cost $51,700 per year with an expectation that separate funding (Trillium and donations) would reduce the town’s portion of the expense to about $16,700 annually.

Item 9.1.2 requests council approval for a revised Municipal Assistance Program. This program is funded at the level of about $20,000 per year. The revised proposal includes a new class of agencies to be supported at no more than 10% of the total budget. This new class would cover charitable surplus material disposal. Interestingly enough this will probably not cover the Salvation Army’s needs, as the recommendation suggests this group not be considered eligible because they are not non-denominational. This seems a poor recommendation for an organization that provides much to our community. Would Mother Theresa not be afforded any support by council because she was Catholic and espoused the Catholic faith? Let’s see what council decides on this issue. See my earlier blog for my take on this issue.

Item 9.4.2 proposes a much wider ban on smoking in public spaces. As a non-smoker my thoughts on reading this recommendation is that it is too restrictive. In one spot it discusses the banning of smoking on the Fitness Trail. This seems a bit too tough. It’s easy enough to avoid this type of second-hand smoke and these smokers are paying their way in some respect with the heavy taxation of cigarettes. Let’s restrict smoking in confined spaces where it is difficult to avoid inhaling second hand smoke, like entrance ways and buildings, but let’s not over regulate. Council will need to strike a fair balance.

Item 9.6.1 directs council members to attend training concerning obligations under the Code. This seems to me to be a reaction to charges leveled against one of the councilors that were not pursued by the Integrity commissioner after careful review. We will see if this becomes a political issue rather than a training issue.

Item 10.4.1 is a proposed bylaw to increase the parking meter rates from $0.50 to $0.75 per hour, and the parking ticket fees by a couple of bucks. The rates for parking and tickets have not been increased since 2000. What is interesting in the proposal is that it will be possible to park for less than 30 minutes for a quarter (20 minutes) and a dime (8 minutes). This is an attractive option if you just need to drop off, or pick up, something. The Downtown Business Association is opposing the increase and requests that it be delayed until downtown renovations are complete. While it’s possible that the increase may deter parking by shoppers, it’s more likely that it will raise the price for the downtown merchants and employees to park by their stores and feed the meters. My sense is that the increase is reasonable and an appropriate way to cover costs. I don’t believe the $0.25 increase will deter shoppers. And yes I do occasionally park downtown when running an errand, and I do put money in the meters.

Item 10.4.2 proposes changes into how taxi drivers are regulated and licensed. It seems a reasonable proposal that reduces some of the expense and burden of annual renewals.

Item 10.4.4 proposes a by-law that would permit the town to initiate cleanup, at the owners cost, of properties that fail to meet the by-law standards for maintenance. in the past the town was required to take an individual to court to address the issue. This generally took too long and was a burdensome process for the town.

There are other interesting issues that didn’t make the cut for these notes and can be found in the council meeting package. There is much more detail in these packages than is ever raised in the council meetings or is covered in the press. I urge all interested people to read the council package. It can be found at the Town Office and the Library.

See you Tuesday.

Water, Water Everywhere – But It’s Not Cheap

03 Friday Feb 2012

Posted by in Budget/Financial, Parry Sound, Town Council

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

There will be a special meeting of Council on Monday the 6th at 7:00 PM open to the public that will feature a Water and Wastewater User Rate Study Presentation. The report that underlies the presentation is available by contacting Parry Sound town hall.

I’ve had a chance to review the report, and outside of a few typos, it seems to do a nice job of reviewing the current situation with respect to the delivery of water and the management of waste water. It’s a longer report, 112 pages, and includes many tables summarizing the situation and offering projections of costs and pricing options for the next ten years.

There are a few things that jump out of the report and which are worth thinking about. I’m sure some of my thoughts will be revised after attending the presentation, but here are some of the key points as I understand them from reading the report:

1. The town needs to increase its investments related to capital costs. The current thinking about municipal services is that you don’t just buy something when you need it and pay it off, you save for the purchase before you actually buy it. This will be a financial challenge for the town as we are still paying off earlier water and waste water capital investments while saving for future replacement.

2. The waste water expenses are higher than the water expenses. Strange as that may seem it’s real, and largely related to the cost of the capital infrastructure related to waste water. It’s not just the waste water collection systems, it’s the pumps and all the energy required to move the waste water to the treatment facility. In the case of fresh water delivery, gravity does much of the work and the pipes are smaller.

3. We have a relatively low ratio with respect to population versus service needs. Much of our infrastructure could possibly support a greater population. That would reduce the per capita cost of capital investments. Parry Sound is built on hills of granite and gneiss. This makes the cost of construction and maintenance higher than it would be if we were in Southern Ontario (even though the weather may make us feel as though we were).

4. Looking at the report it seems the cost of our water services will go up about 80% by 2020. That’s a much higher rate of increase than inflation and due in large part to the capital investments that will need to be made on the water and waste water side of the business. It’s not the human costs that are driving this increase.

It turns out that the cost of our water service is not related to the availability or cost of the water as it is with gas prices. It’s delivering the water and disposing of it that makes it expensive. Imagine what a liter of gas would cost if the price included a disposal or environmental impact charge.

I’m sure there will be much to learn at the meeting on the 6th. I hope to see you there.