Review-Mirror

OPINION PAGE Publisher/Editor– Howie Crichton hcrichton@review-mirror.com Advertising Sales – Bill Ritchie advertising@review-mirror.com Office – Louise Haughton lhaughton@review-mirror.com Reporter-Photographer - Margaret Brand mbrand@review-mirror.com 4 – February 8, 2018 The Review-Mirror 43 Bedford St. P.O. Box 130,Westport, Ont. K0G 1X0 Ph. 613-273-8000 • 1-800-387-0796 • Fax 273-8001 editor @ review-mirror.com • www.review-mirror.com • PAP Registration No. 01601 • Printed in Smiths Falls, Ontario • The Review-Mirror is published Thursdays. Subscriptions: $33.84 online; $44.50 locally; $55.00 elsewhere in Canada; $150 in the U.S. We acknowledge the support of the Government of Canada. Publishers ONTARIO COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION CANADIAN COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION 1893-1897 — H. E. Bywater 1897-1916 — W. B. Adams 1916- — Arthur Niblock -1967 — Jim Niblock 1967-1987 — F. Lea and Phyllis Hutchinson 1987-1988 — Bob & Sandy Runciman 1988-1993 — Phil Rutherford 1993- — Howie Crichton CANADIAN MEDIA CIRCULATION AUDIT Mirror The Review Letters to the Editor "I have heard from many frustrated community members since the paper (The Feb. 1 Review-Mirror) was pub- lished this week and hope this update provides information in regard to the proposed rehab of the Main Street bridge. Please call if you have con- cerns". The quote was from a statement made by Mayor Robin Jones, that went out over social media, when she learned of the proposed work, from the Review-Mirror story, to be done on the Main Street bridge. The issue of work on the Main Street bridge was added to the agenda for Monday's council meeting. From the note the Mayor provided to coun- cil, it is clear that the issue of the bridge and possible rehabilitation has been under consideration since the summer/fall of 2017. The mayor, after being notified that the United Coun- ties was going to do some work on the bridge, met with a group of citizens and subsequently passed the concerns raised with the county Director of Public Works. A key concern of the Mayor was that there be some consul- tation between the village and county on just what might be done in con- junction with the rehabilitation of the bridge. The main concern for residents was pedestrian safety on the bridge, in the summer but also in the winter when there is no opportunity, because of plowed snow, to get off the road way. It was clear from the discussion that took place at village council Monday that there was a consensus that any bridge rehabilitation should include, if it is possible, a sidewalk on the bridge. Bearing in mind the age old axiom, that nothing is simple when it comes to government and especially when it comes to three levels of government jurisdiction, is very much at play here. The land to the west of the bridge is controlled by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the United Counties. Main Street, an extension of County Road 10, is a county road. The only real position of the village is that the bridge is in the village and residents use the bridge. Village council has no jurisdiction over what will or won't be done to the bridge other than to ask, as a courtesy, for input. For Councillor Gerald Schwing- hamer, who lives just across the road from the bridge, the concern was whether or not he would be notified of the work and have an opportunity to speak to the issue. The village has been told that no Environmental Assessment has to be done before the bridge rehabilitation can proceed. Councillor Mark Parliament raised the issue of connecting to a sidewalk on the bridge. The nearest sidewalk is at the corner of Main and Bedford Streets. For Parliament it doesn't make sense to put a sidewalk on the bridge if there is no connecting side- walk extending from the bridge to the corner of Bedford and Main. At the moment the land on the west side is used for parking. In a report to council, the Supervi- sor of Public Works for the village, after doing some measuring on the road and the bridge indicated that, "currently there is room for a side- walk on the grassy portion of the bridge". The report from the Supervi- sor went on to add that the sidewalk the village should probably install, to complement the sidewalk on the bridge, would be approximately $8000 to $10,000. The report con- cludes by stating that, "at a minimum it be confirmed that the Counties work would include a sidewalk, not interfere with a future sidewalk, or be designed to include an area for a future sidewalk if the grassy area by the west guardrail does not currently have capacity to support one". The Mayor pointed out that it is her understanding that if a community wants to include a sidewalk on a county road that runs through a municipality the cost would be shared 50/50. The Mayor added that the County budget, which would include a provision to do the work on the Westport bridge, has not been approved at this point. For the Mayor, the process has been somewhat amiss. There really hasn't been any opportunity for the village to have its say with regard to the proposed work. If there is going to be a sidewalk on the bridge now is the time to do it. It isn't too late to advance the posi- tion of the village. Mike McIntyre joymikechloe@gmail.com Not too late for village input into bridge rehabilitation Letters to the Editor The Review-Mirror accepts Letters to the Editor. Letters may be edited for content, space and libel. Please include a phone number for confirmation. Editor, It's not often that I would quibble with an adjective in one of The Review Mirror's articles, but the use of the term "failed" to describe the new financing proposal by the Association of the Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) seemed overly pessimistic and premature to me ("Rideau Lakes Pro- posed budget has 2.7 per cent increase", Vol. 127, #4). AMO has only recently launched the "Local Share" campaign, and it will be promoted to all three parties, and Ontario's residents, in the coming months. After extensive analysis, and polling, AMO has con- cluded that the current basis of financing munici- pal costs based on the property tax is no longer viable, given residents' expectations of reliable infrastructure, and in face of other rising municipal costs (e.g. policing). Presently only nine cents of each tax dollar goes to municipalities. The Local Share proposes that the HST be increased by 1 per cent, with rev- enues dedicated to munic- ipal infrastructure costs. Providing a revenue source from a goods and services tax, versus the property tax, means that low income residents including elderly people on fixed incomes are by and large sheltered from the impact. It also means that visi- tors help pay for the infra- structure that they use. A rural-friendly allocation formula contained in the proposition means that Ontario's largely urban- ized population is helping to subsidize the higher per capita costs to run rural communities where there is less density to achieve efficiencies. And unlike the property tax, every resident has some control over their consumption spending. It is true that in the ini- tial presentation of the Local Share to the three party leaders, they each rebuffed the proposal. But AMO will be pursuing this campaign as a long term project. Municipal infrastruc- ture costs are going to rise. This will be increasingly obvious to residents as Asset Management Plans are published, and the future costs of required maintenance and/or replacement, becomes apparent. I suspect that taxpayers will come to see that it is fairer and more appropri- ate to help cover munici- pal costs by the more gen- eralized impact of the HST, than by starkly rais- ing local property taxes. For anyone who would like to understand more about the Local Share proposition, you can see a short video at www.amo.on.ca/Local- Share Liz Huff, Councillor Leeds & 1000 Islands By Pat Jilesen, Director, Ontario Federation of Agriculture Government consulta- tions begin this week for Ontario's Wildlife Damage Compensation Program. The program provides financial compensation to producers whose livestock, poultry or honey bees are damaged or killed by wildlife. New program guidelines were introduced last year that have created problems for livestock pro- ducers making claims and municipal investigators who are responsible for investigating claims. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) has heard clearly that a similar program is needed for crop and horticulture producers to provide compensation for damage caused by wildlife. Crop insurance is not a sufficient tool to address this type of dam- age. However, this review is focused on improving the existing wildlife damage program for livestock pro- ducers. Ontario's Wildlife Dam- age Compensation Program is important to livestock producers and OFA is par- ticipating in the govern- ment consultations by addressing concerns with the new guidelines. To help us deliver the most effective feedback we're asking OFA members for help. OFA has been working with livestock groups to address issues with Ontario's Wildlife Damage Compensation Program, but we need to hear from mem- bers to learn more about your experiences with the claims process and the pre- ventative measures you're taking to deter predators. OFA member experiences, examples and reports will help us make our case to the government in an effort to make necessary changes. If you've participated in the Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program or have experience managing wildlife and the costs asso- ciated with this task, we'd love to hear from you. Please share your experi- ences by emailing wildlifedamage@ofa.on.ca. OFA is aware that the biggest problems facing Ontario livestock producers are the strict requirements under the new guidelines for investigators to prove that an animal was killed or injured from an eligible predator. This has led to a sharp increase in the num- ber of producer claims that have been denied. We know it's not the need to provide evidence of predation that Ontario livestock producers are disputing, it's the stan- dards of proof under the current program guidelines that are creating problems and they need to be expand- ed. AMO to continue pushing for HST solution to infrastructure deficits OFA seeks feedback on wildlife compensation

• Cover