Public Meeting 101

“Why go through the charade of holding a public meeting for input if it appears council’s decision is already made?”  Ian Adams, Oct 21/2011

This Saturday, Collingwood Council is holding a public meeting to consider the use of the funds from the recent Collus/PowerStream Strategic Partnership.

Now, one has to wonder, if Adams quote of 13 months ago, is deja vu all over again? Residents are being asked for their input, and one of the options for these funds, is to “Invest in the new Recreational Facilities.” 

These are the same recreational facilities that Deputy Mayor Lloyd asked staff to look into in a June 14th email (over a month before council officially made the same request)

As Mayor Cooper stated, “I’m excited about it. What council directed staff to do was we wanted this particular type of building, and they (Sprung) are the only company that can provide that.”

So, they got what they wanted, but the question remains, how do they pay for it, or, WHO pays for it? There are 19,500 people in Collingwood. How many will use the new rink, and better yet, how many will use the new pool? 

Should the Collus money, ($8,550,000.00 according to the latest Collus mailer), be spent on something that only a number of user groups will frequent? Perhaps. Wouldn’t it be better to use the money to “Decrease existing debt.” (another option put forward by the town.). Maybe. The latter option would benefit ALL of the 19,500 residents of Collingwood, so it seems like an obvious choice.

Does council need the Collus money to pay for their project?

According to Councillor Ian Chadwick, “Looking for ideas and comments. $8 million earmarked for new rec facilities to avoid raising taxes, but that can be changed to another target – but only if you want your taxes increased.”

At the October 3rd public meeting , the same question was asked to our treasurer Marjory Leonard. Her answer was a stark contrast to what Councillor Chadwick is selling.

“Treasurer:  Basically, the Municipal Act states that Council has to prepare a budget that balances to zero. With the preliminary figures we used, it balanced to 0. We didn’t have to increase taxes or add debenture debt. There are internal funds that we can borrow from that don’t affect taxes. As long as the budget comes to zero, Council can adjust the annual budget. I have reserves I can borrow from. If Council were to fund through borrowing, it would happen differently, but we have the money internally.”

Interesting yes? Who are we to believe? (or is it whom?)

In the end, council will do whatever they want with the money. There is no (as Councillor Kevin Lloyd would put it) “scientific method” to determine what people want, unless it’s in the next municipal election. I’m sure council will in the end, once again go with the desires of Mayor Cooper’s “silent majority.”

Should you bother to show up? Well, as they say, “if you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain.” 

It’s your money. You decide.

 

The Birth of "Enough is Enough"

In my last blog , I described how I came to the decision that I had to get involved in the goings on of our municipal government; to help make sure that they were being transparent, that the rules of good governance were being followed, and that the decisions they were making were in the long term best interests of the town. (if you haven’t read it, this blog by E-B’s Ian Adams describes more eloquently than I could hope to do, the lack of transparency in Collingwood.)

My intent now, is to use this blog space to inform anyone who is interested, of what the town is doing that they DON’T tell you about. I will post the results of my FOI (Freedom of Information) requests. I will post updates of any my own ongoing investigations. I will answer ANY questions you may have ( email me directly at mlc@ican.net ).

You can friend me on Facebook

You can like my Enough is Enough page Enough is Enough

You can follow me on Twitter

As I want my next blog to be current, here is a brief timeline of the events leading to this date.

August 24th – Council receives staff report EMC-2012-01 which recommends sole sourcing the project to Sprung

August 27th – Council votes 8-1 & 7-2 to purchase 2 Sprung Structures

August 28th – I email the 8 Councillors that voted for Sprung, asking them to tell me when they made their decisions. To this date, I have not heard back from Councillor Cunningham

August 30th – I filed my first FOI with the clerks office

August 30th – Mayor Cooper signs a contract for $12.4 million with BLT Construction. Note that the contract is not with Sprung. The Sprung structures only account for approx. 30% of the contract price.

September 10th – More than 250 residents protest in front of town hall

September 10th – Councillor Hull is not permitted to ask questions about the deal. Has to submit them to the clerk.

September 11th – Met with Councillor Chadwick at my home.

September 13th – Met with Mayor Cooper and Deputy Mayor Lloyd at my home.

September 17th – 220 residents march to town hall in protest

September 17th – Mayor Cooper gives a speech defending councils decision

October 2nd – Friends of Central Park appear on the Penny Skelton show to educate the public on what has happened with this process.

October 3rd – Friends of Central Park hold a public meeting at the Legion

November 5th – Friends of Central Park finally deputes at town council.

Next blog……findings from my 1st FOI

What would Will McAvoy do?

For anyone that has not seen it, Aaron Sorkin’s latest show ” The Newsroom “, is the most important hour of television since the season 2 finale of another Sorkin gem, the ” The West Wing “

Sorkin, who also wrote such classics as A Few Good Men, An American President, The Social Network and Moneyball, creates a lead character, a CNN type new anchor named Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels), who captures the raw, real, factual, and immediate news and delivers it with veracity and commitment.

My wife and I watched all 10 episodes of season 1, and anxiously await Season 2 coming this June.

BUT, all of this is just to put my blog into context….
————————————————————————————————————–

Prior to Friday, August 24th, I knew little of the proposed Central Park Rec project, and even less about the players involved. My wife, having worked for the YMCA for several years, would come home every couple of weeks, and make simple comments like “I think it’s going to happen”, or “it looks like another delay”.

I didn’t pay much attention, as in my ignorance, I figured that details were being sorted out, and that in time, a new facility such as the kind you find in most every town this size, would eventually happen. I had only heard people support this over the years, so to me, it seemed inevitable.

As for the people involved, Mayor Sandra Cooper, was one of the first friends I’d made when I moved into town almost 13 years ago, and I also knew Councillor Hull as I took care of his boys for the 2 years I ran the School Age program at Admiral Collingwood E.S, and his eldest son and my daughter were in the same grade.

As for the other 7 members of council, the acting CAO, town staff ect, I don’t think I’d ever even heard their names, as I’d never taken an interest in municipal politics….prior to August 24th. Ah, the 24th, how I often miss the blissful ignorance I gave up that night.

My wife came home from work that night flustered. She was going on about Central Park, the YMCA, and how there had been a wrench thrown into plan that until then, most felt was inevitable. We got into bed, she pulled out her laptop, and directed me to the agenda for that Monday’s council meeting.

I read the letter from YMCA CEO Rob Armstrong, rebutting a claim that the YMCA was backing off of a new pool at the Central Park Site. I read the staff report that was eventually passed, after being in councils hands for only THREE days.

My wife directed me to a blog called eastendunderground , written by the E-B editor Ian (Scoop) Adams. I read every blog, as well as peoples comments, leading up to that day. I also read his E-B editorial on the subject. I went on Facebook, and read the comments of residents on the subject.

After ALL of this reading, I turned to my wife and said WTF. This is NOT what the residents want. This is NOT in the best interests of the town. This is an expensive MISTAKE, that the children in Collingwood will be paying for in the years to come.

After all of that reading, all of the letters to council PLEADING for them not to make this choice, and the time it took me to process that this council may actually vote for this on the Monday night, left me with one though. THIS IS WRONG.

A small group of 7-8 councilor’s, making a rush decision that will burden the residents of this town for decades to come. I had to do something, but what?

Now you understand. You understand that when I looked to my wife for help, for guidance, she said the one thing….the one thing that would start me on the path that has opened my eyes to what is happening in this town, and what needs to be done to change it.

She said….”what would Will McAvoy do?

Stay tuned………

Me thinks thou doth protest too much…

In an obvious case of not seeing the forest for the trees, some members of Collingwood Town Council missed a golden opportunity last night. Dr. Mike Lewin spoke for about 10 minutes, in an attempt to summarize for council, the findings of the group “Friends of Central Park”. These findings, were based on many things:

Sept 10/12 – 250+ residents protest at Town Hall   Sep-10

Sept 17/12 – 220 residents march in protest from Central Park to Town Hall Sep-17

Oct 2/12 – Friends of Central Park appear on “Penny Skelton Live” (including interviews with people on the street)

Oct 3/12 – 100+ people attend a public meeting at the Legion  Public meeting

A petition and comments signed by over 590 people Petition

A facebook page loaded with feedback from residents Friends on FB

A website visited by over 2,000 people Friends

Not to mention the many hundreds of emails, phone call, texts, letters and conversations each member of the group received.

There it was. Countless hours of research, all done by a group of dedicated volunteers. The town didn’t have to pay it’s staff. The “Friends” did the work for them.  A 14 page summary entitled “Good Governance & the Development of Recreation Facilities in Collingwood” was presented to council this past Friday, and published for all to see on the town website (Agenda).

The irony that seemed to be lost on council (at least no mention of it was made), is that the majority of the “Good Governance” suggestions made in the report, are similar if not the same, as the report by Ontario Ombudsman Andre Moran which was released only last week. Annual Report

Instead council decided to focus all of their energies into obsessing about one quote from the public meeting, and where it was placed in the report submitted to them November 2nd.  The quote (on page 13/14 in the report, and not even in Dr. Lewin’s speech) reads,”One member of the public who attended the public meeting indicated that”…. “…it is time to put accountable and honest Council members in office…”. 

One member……..

I’m not certain, but I’ll bet if you watched the video of the meeting ( Public meeting) you could find out who it was. In fact, had ANY of council attended the public meeting, that one persons comments would have come as no surprise, and they could have better spent their time last night confirming the ways to make this council a leader in good governance, rather than the divisive force it appears to have become. Then again, there was a heated debate as to whether they were ever invited in the first place. (EEU debate)

Now, I’ve been accused of a lot of things in my life, most recently of having a political agenda AND dipping into my daughters Halloween candy. Like most of us, when I’m asked if I’ve done something, I simply answer the question. (yes, I did take the Smarties from your loot bag. Are you happy now.) If the truth is not enough for the questioner, that’s not my problem, nor should it be. So in this, I have to look at the amount time some members this council have spent defending their decision.

7 hours of meetings with me personally
1 hour on Penny Skelton Live
Published response to Councillor Hull’s “20 questions” Answers
Mayor’s speech Apple commercial
Mayor’s published interview w/ E-B Interview

Deputation, emails, Public meeting, Council’s personal blogs, tweets, Facebook postings, ect, ect…..

I think it’s safe to say, that more time has been spent on defending this decision, than the amount of time they actually had the staff report in their hands prior to voting for it.

Thus the title of the blog

Friends of Central Park, Report to Council, November 5th/2012

GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
1
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
TO: Mayor Cooper and Members of Collingwood Council
FROM: Mike Lewin MD, Spokesperson, Friends of Central Park – Collingwood
REGARDING: Results of Public Input on the Development of Recreation Facilities in Collingwood and Good Governance
DATE: Tuesday October 30, 2012
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Council ask staff to report back on the following best practices in municipal good governance by February 1st, 2013;
I. clarify the values and respective actions that they interpret to embrace good governance and share these with the public;
II. direct staff to revise the Procurement Policy to reflect more stringent guidelines and procedures reflective of other municipal, provincial and federal procedures; specifically articles on sole sourcing amongst a more robust review;
III. develop a Strategic Plan – in concert with the residents – for the remainder of their term and include community priorities, accountability/transparency measures and a supporting communications plan at a minimum.
IV. include funds for the development of a long range master plan for the development of parks, recreation and culture infrastructure and service delivery with specific focus on the changing demographics, social issues and working better together with other service providers.
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
2
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
V. direct staff to define best practices in public engagement/consultation and internal and external communications with a view to completing an analysis and improving same as soon as possible within Collingwood.
VI. provide an overview of current priorities (until a strategic plan is drafted), plans to address these priorities and communicate quarterly (at a minimum) as to the progress that is being made.
VII. request an independent body of residents to complete research with a view to implementing an Ombuds and Ethics Office (contract) for Collingwood; whereby the public can be assured of transparency, honesty and fairness in local government in the future and the right to an independent review of questionable governance practices.
VIII. ensure the initiation of a Lobbyist Registry for Collingwood to communicate what firms/individuals are lobbying for what projects and initiatives and with which specific Councillors and senior staff.
IX. all expenditures including expense accounts be listed on line on a monthly basis – that this be implemented as soon as possible to include all costs associated with the development of recreation facilities in Collingwood.
X. articulate the current debt per capita, the approved debt tolerance level, the long range capital plan, the strategy to reduce Collingwood’s debt and plans to address longer term infrastructure needs.
XI. Ensure that there is a panel of qualified citizens appointed by an independent body to oversee the recruitment, participate in interviews and the transparent selection process to fill the vacant position of Chief Administrative Officer for the Town of Collingwood.
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
3
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
XII. develop the terms for an independent body to oversee a full governance review including how the Town measures against best practices, the size of Council, remuneration and ward representation at a minimum.
1.0 BACKGROUND:
In July of 2012, Council directed staff to proceed with covering over a 45 year old pool, develop a fabric covered arena in Central Park and repair a 65 year old arena as the solution to the dearth of recreation infrastructure in Collingwood. Residents were shocked to learn of the speed of the process, the lack of due diligence, the absence of public consultation, no communication and the fact that the projects were sole sourced with no sound rationale (no competitive bidding process) for work of over 11.7 M dollars.
The Friends of Central Park – Collingwood (FOCPC) formed to keep the public informed of the development of public recreational facilities in Collingwood and further to advocate for good governance in the community. It was apparent that the development of recreational facilities post July 2012 was being done too quickly, without public input, adequate due diligence and communications. Residents were perplexed with the turn of events (closed and inadequate process) with no vehicle to share information and communicate. FOCPC has been highly organized and;
 Developed a website and Facebook page to keep residents informed and provide a vehicle for input,
 Deputed in front of Council to indicate the flaws in the process and recommend remedial actions,
 Hosted 2 well attended rallies to demonstrate displeasure with the process and results,
 Collected approximately 600 names on a petition,
 Presented the issues on a local Rogers TV show – Penny Skelton LIVE
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
4
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
 Hosted a public meeting with over 100 residents in attendance to provide an opportunity for residents to hear from the key stakeholders, ask questions and offer input, (video of the meeting is available of the Friends of Central Park website and Facebook page)
 Collected and responded to public suggestions and input on this issue.
 Continue to request documentation from the Town to be posted on the website and Facebook page to keep residents informed.
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT – KEY ISSUES:
FOCPC has summarized the public input received to date on this issue and offers a summary for the public record.
2.1 Good Governance
There appears to be a discrepancy between what the two parties (Council and FOCPC) define as “good governance” FOCPC defines good governance as a Council that “walks the talk” and demonstrates;
– Inclusive and informed leadership
– A compelling vision and strategic plan for the community that is developed with the community through citizen driven input
– Long range planning based on projected demographics and psychographics
– Accountability in meeting the milestones articulated in the plan
– Transparency – clear communications and accountability for Council and staff through regular reporting
– Adherence to approved By-laws and regulations
– Collaboration with agencies and partners
– Services that exceed public expectations
– Fiscal sustainability – long range plans for both capital and operating dollars
– Strategies to attract and retain businesses and residents
– Accountability to build a culture of trust in the community
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
5
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
It is our opinion that Council did not embrace these principles of good local government and rushed an ill informed decision which the public will have to pay for in the long term.
2.2 The Role of Council Members and Staff – Closed Door Meetings
It appears that this Council has confused the independent roles of Council and staff. Council is directing staff to rationalize their decisions before issues are discussed and decided on the Council floor. We refer to an email sent from the deputy Mayor to staff in June that directs them to work with Sprung to cover over the pool and outdoor rink. This is clearly beyond the role of a single Councillor and definitely well before any due diligence and reporting out had occurred on this matter; this is clearly in contravention of the Town’s own Procedural By-law. Also, the Mayor was quoted in a local paper to the effect that “Council decided what we wanted and told staff to make it work”. This also leads the public to think that closed meetings were taking place outside of the chambers; how else were these major decisions decided without being open public meetings?
2.3 Public Consultation and Communications
The public was perplexed and outraged that Council chose not to include them in their thinking and decision making. The Steering Committee in Phase One ensured that the public had ample opportunity to be heard. Engagement mechanisms included;
 A comprehensive communications plan
 A stakeholder survey
 A community survey
 A blog site that had up to the minute updates; this blog site received over 3,200 hits and visits throughout the course of Phase One. This statistic far exceeds any other public input received on any other matter in Collingwood. Council should have gauged the interest in this matter and had a similar engagement process for Phase Two.
 2 rounds of interviews with key community stakeholders
 Updates to Council
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
6
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
The public was fully engaged in Phase One and expected the same treatment for any other options to develop recreation facilities in Collingwood.
2.4 The Role and Records of the Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee
The role of the Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee is to provide advice to Council on matters pertaining to planning, programming, capital development with respect to parks, recreation and culture. The advisory committee was not consulted on the fabric covered recreation facility options until after the fact (Council approved the option and did not seek out their input, when a special meeting could have easily been called in the summer). A one – off meeting was held with the chair but she cannot speak on behalf of the committee. In fact there was a special meeting called in September at which the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Acting CAO and other Councillors (Dale West), specifically asked the members of the advisory committee to help them sell fabric covered facilities to the community. The minutes of another regular scheduled meeting where the issue was finally discussed did not reflect the outrage of the committee members, the critical and numerous questions that were posed, nor the fact that the committee talked about resigning en masse. One member has since resigned in frustration. This issue is still outstanding and the members of the advisory committee are very disappointed in the chair that misrepresented the results of the meeting on public television on October 2nd, 2012 and again at the public meeting held on October 3, 2012. Again, it is not acceptable to misuse volunteers.
2.5 Timing
Council appears to have created a false sense of urgency around making a decision on the fabric covered structures over the summer months. There was absolutely no urgency to this matter (no recreation structures were in peril, there were no critical health and safety issues). A decision that sought public input would have extended the process by 2-3 months, a very small amount of time to do this right. This could have provided staff with the time that they should have taken to complete a more thorough
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
7
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
analysis and follow sound purchasing practices by tendering the work to compare in a more thorough fashion the merits of each structure type (steel, fabric and bricks and mortar).
2.6 Due Diligence
The public has strongly communicated that the lack of due diligence is appalling. Due diligence on this particular project would have called for;
– An open consultation with the public and stakeholder groups
– A Phase Two Steering Committee that respected Council’s unanimous approval of the Phase One Steering Committee report
– A fulsome communications plan that encouraged public engagement
– Draft conceptual designs of the three facility types (fabric, steel and bricks and mortar)
– A comparative analysis of the three facility types and the lifespan of each
– The full operating costs of each facility type over a five year timeframe
– The comparative analysis of the long term implications – when will the pool and arena would need to be replaced and at what cost.
– Once the due diligence was completed a public meeting should have been conducted to get the public’s reaction as to what the best building program was considering short and long term implications.
Anything less would fall and has fallen short of credible due diligence.
2.7 Partnerships
The public has also strongly communicated its disappointment in Council’s failure to pursue the partnership with the YMCA in constructing the pool at Central Park as stipulated by Council in its directions to the Phase One Steering Committee. It is clear from the Phase One Steering Committee Report that a proper 6 lane 25 metre FINA regulation pool could be constructed out of bricks and mortar at the current YMCA for approximately $6.18 million which would have provided the residents of Collingwood with two (2) pool tanks, namely, the FINA regulation tank and a 20 metre therapeutic
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
8
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
tank. Further the discussions centred on the fact that the public would have full access to the facility without having to be Y members. It is a matter of public record that the YMCA has expended in excess of $3.2 million to update and upgrade its current facilities including renovating the change rooms to accommodate a new pool tank and to rough in the mechanical room and infrastructure to support the new 25 metre tank. The decision to spend $3.2 million to cover the 45 year old Centennial Pool which is approximately 3 metres narrower than the FINA regulation pool is viewed as short sighted an ill-advised by the general public when looking at the relative capital costs, ongoing operating costs and the loss of the enhanced services to the Town residents, particularly those with special needs and seniors, in having the two pool tanks at the same location.
The fact that the Town is now courting the YMCA to operate the covered pool is viewed by the public as an admission by the Town that it has not the capacity to absorb long term operating debt. As a result of these cumulative actions, the public has little confidence in the wisdom of Council’s decision to cover the Centennial Pool or the arbitrary projections for the annual operating costs of the pool. It is clear from the presentation of the Acting CAO and the comments of the YMCA at the public meeting that the Town has no rational basis for the projected operating costs for the Centennial Pool because it has no objective data around the programming and operation of the pool. This is highlighted by the fact that the pool complex may now include a 25 foot by 20 foot therapeutic pool which was not part of the signed contract and will dramatically impact the operating costs (not to mention a projected increase of $500,000 plus to the capital budget). All operating cost projections generated by Town staff for the August 27, 2012 Council meeting are now meaningless; clearly the time should have been taken to do it right in the first place. More importantly, it is very clear from the public discussions that these costs are likely to be well in excess of $375,000 and as much as $450,000 for the pool facility alone. This is viewed by the public as a complete and utter abdication by this Council of its duty to reasonably and responsibly pursue the partnership with the YMCA for the construction and operation of enhanced aquatic
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
9
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
facilities in this community. As stated by one resident, the Town has signed a $12 million contract using the taxpayers’ money without proper process, without essential information, without due diligence and without any regard to the long term implications for this community.
2.8 Sole Sourcing
The Town of Collingwood’s procurement policy does allow sole sourcing although the policy is silent on amounts and the usual and more acceptable exceptions and pre- conditions. Other levels of government and most local municipal governments are much more stringent on sole source conditions. Specifically sole sourcing is usually acceptable ONLY in emergency situations such as floods, tornadoes etc. and where there is a critical urgency and potential safety issues with the public if work is not done in short order. Further sole sourcing fiscal limits range from $25,000 – $50,000.
It is common practice for all capital works to be tendered; the recreation projects are no exception. One member of the public (whose high level position is in procurement) indicated that that he would have been immediately dismissed if he had tried to sole source such a large project.
The rationale utilized for sole sourcing from staff remains unacceptable – which was that there is no other technology like the Sprung technology. This was not proven in the report and discussions with other suppliers on staff’s list of firms that they researched have indicated that the Town staff has never contacted them to discuss their product. To have developed a matrix and judged companies without even asking for written quotations and specifications was irresponsible at the very least and is negligent in both the private and public sectors. This too is shamefully unacceptable.
2.9 Long Term Impacts to the Community
The long term service and fiscal impacts to the community remain a very significant issue. It is a fact that bricks and mortar structures last longer than fabric structures – according to Sprung’s website, these fabric roofs need to be replaced every 15 years. The pool is 45 years old and the Eddie Bush arena is 65 years old. Spending 11.7 M
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
10
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
plus the costs to repair the arena are clearly temporary solutions whereby a little more invested would bring residents a long lasting new pool and arena. In fact the annualized capital costs for the 3M plus that will have to be invested is approximately $200,000 per annum assuming they last another 10-15 years. In contrast the annualized capital costs for new facilities assuming a lifespan of 45 years (which is fewer years in age than the existing Eddie Bush and Centennial Pool), is less than $15,000 per annum. These figures do not include operating costs which are far less in newer more efficient facilities.
Further, the costs to operate 2 pools is obviously more expensive than to operate one well designed and efficient pool structure. To come close to the stated $250,000 pool deficit listed in the Acting COA’s report, the pool would need to register close to 5,000 registrants in swimming lessons per year. The Y now registers 2,500 – 3,000 lesson participants per year. The pool at Heritage Park will need to attract 1 in 3 residents in swimming lessons to come close to the budget mark counting the members that already register at the Y. With an ageing population and declining number of children and youth; it is doubtful that the pool will attract one in three residents as lesson registrants, it will be more likely 1 in 10 -15.
A recent study completed in another Ontario municipality found that older pool infrastructures are considered less attractive and do not draw residents to swim in them. The study showed that bright pools with glass and sunlight with play structures for children drew the greatest number of swimmers. People will drive distances to get to newer family friendly pools and drive by older less attractive structures.
2.10 Systemic Governance Issues
A common theme in the feedback that has been received to date on the development of recreation facilities in Collingwood has been that many issues that Council addresses fall short of credible due process where the public should be engaged in an altruistic way. There is little consultation on most issues and what advice is sought is often ignored. It has lead to a perception among the public that the issues as outlines are systemic in how this Council chooses to govern. There is no strategic plan, no proactive
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
11
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
communications, no true sense of public engagement, no accountability and little if any transparency. These are broad statements but there is great room for improvements especially to gain back the trust that has been lost. Is it possible that Council chooses to ignore due public process or do they just not know any better.
Most alarming is the fact that the Mayor phoned the host of Penny Skelton LIVE and the manager of the local Rogers station to insist that the television show to highlight these recreation issues be cancelled (3 witnesses). The co-chairs of the Phase One steering committee and the current spokesperson for the Friends of Central Park were to attend and answer the host’s questions only to be told by the host once they arrived that this had happened. Why would this happen in our community; what did the Mayor not want to come to light? Is this not unorthodox behaviour for a Mayor?
Another common trend which is very disturbing is the perception that Council’s decisions are motivated not by the public good but by self interest. This perception is continually reinforced by behind the scenes leadership, closed door decision making processes and decisions which appear to be arbitrary and unresponsive to the identified needs of the community. Many, many residents have publicly questioned the motivations of Council and cited a perceived history of misfeasance and self-dealings by a number of Council members. Justified or not, decisions like this call into question the motivation and good faith of this Council.
3.0 ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC
Strong and leading local governments hold themselves accountable for targets and goals and objectives that the community has indicated are the current and future priorities. This Council has failed to develop a strategic plan for its term of office and therefore the public has no idea as what this Council is setting about to achieve. What are your priorities? Better stated; what are our priorities?
3.1 Critical Questions Remain Unanswered
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
12
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
These questions remain and must be answered to the general public’s satisfaction.
a) Why did Council choose such an inappropriate approach to the development of recreational facilities in Collingwood?
b) Why is it acceptable for Council to break its own by-laws but not for the public and businesses?
c) What was to be gained by truncating due and credible processes?
d) What will Council do to ensure that this never happens again?
3.2 Recommended Actions
The prevalent discussions, communications and subsequent recommendations have centred on three themes;
 Much better planning with respect to the development of recreation, parks and cultural infrastructure,
 A significant improvement to the quality of governance in Collingwood,
 Improved communications and public engagement.
Recommendations are listed in the beginning of this report and centre on the following;
a) Define and Operationalize Good Governance,
b) Articulate Values and Behaviours,
c) Develop a Strategic Plan (with community input),
d) Corporate and Community Communications,
e) Community Engagement,
f) Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan,
g) Procurement Policy and Policy Review,
h) Long Range Capital Plan,
i) A guarantee of transparent processes in the future,
j) Debt Reduction Strategy,,
k) Transparency and Accountability Measures
l) Full Governance Review.
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
13
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
3.3 Concluding Statements
There appears to be a systemic misunderstanding in Collingwood as to what good and transparent governance means in a local government context in 2012. We understand that this Council attends conferences at the taxpayer’s expense on good governance and therefore cannot claim ignorance. The public is truly disappointed and embarrassed at what this Council feels is solid recreation infrastructure and good governance. One member of the public was in another municipality recently and residents were shocked at the lack of inclusive process and the underwhelming recreation plan for Collingwood. We do not want to be embarrassed for years to come.
We would ask you to accept responsibility for this lack of good governance and due process regarding the development of recreation facilities in Collingwood and move forward by adopting best practices, sound and transparent approaches and much, much better accountability to the residents that have put you in office. One member of the public who attended the public meeting indicated that “This will clearly be the election issue in the next election; it is time to put accountable and honest Council members in office, people that really care about a sustainable future and put the residents first.”
Friends of Central Park – Collingwood will continue in this void to communicate with residents, seek out information from the Town and share same with the residents. People are very invested in the issue of recreation infrastructure and the issue of good governance in Collingwood and interested citizens continue to grow in number.
C.C. Kathryn Wynn, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Andre Marin, Ontario Ombudsman
Russ Powers, President of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Kelly Leitch, MP
GOOD GOVERNANCE & THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION
FACILITIES IN COLLINGWOOD – OCTOBER 2012
14
FRIENDS OF CENTRAL PARK – COLLINGWOOD
Jim Wilson, MPP