"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Saturday 20 April 2013

Fill-in requested

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Consider This":

Why were staff making such a recommendation at all? Is there any way to check the source of their impetus? It all appeared to be a shock but I suspect that at least one individual instigated the idea. We don't require another witch-hunt on the order of the alcohol expenses but clarification might be a 

Decent idea.

I  had that information in the  version of the post that got lost. St. Andrew's is planning a kitchen addition and construction of an ice arena. They already had an agreement to defer payment of development charges signed in 2002.  The agreement is ten pages long and "defers payment of Development charges until a substantive change of use occurs or change of ownership occurs of the property?"

The request would  properly be made of staff. Sr. Andrew's business manager  delegated in support of staff's recommendation.

The report states "unfortunately late in the process, staff have confirmed that  these buildings were not included in the  original deferment agreement."

The staff report goes on to say;

Staff are supportive of  extending the  deferral agreement to these projects. It is difficult to suggest that circumstances at the property, the college. its mission.purposes and primary purposes of the property have changed since the town entered into the original agreement. Accordingly, it is difficult
for staff to put forward arguments against  changing  our current practice of deferring D.C.'s  in rspect of the College.

Staff are also in contact with counterparts at York Region to assist in any way facilitating the  processing of te College's request the deferral of the Region's D.C.s for these same projects.

The link to the Strategic Plan is cited as follows.

Extending the  existing deferral agreement with St. Andrew's College demonstrates continued support
of the Town's past commitments, demonstrates the Strategic Plan principles of Dignity and Integrity,
leverage partnerships. and recognition of community partnerships.

The report was reviewed prior to submission by the CAO, Solicitor and Treasurer  "only".

It was signed by the Treasurer and the CAO

I note that because if the  report had been reviewed by the Executive Leadership Team , the Director of Recreation would have been obliged to input the town's  opposite decision on the collection of fees DC's from the Separate School Board. Who also  stand for  Principle and Integrity, Leverage Partnerships and Community contributions  but were required to pay  from tax revenues for education purposes, the   town's pound of flesh before receiving a building permit.

That occurred during the last term when at least one Council member was aware of that agreement
and was most insistent  on gathering up the largesse.


Anonymous said...

Good stuff, Evelyn. I have always had a problem with Staff recommending for or against an item. It can quickly put Council & staff at logger-heads and sometimes threatens to end up with them at opposite tables for an OMB hearing. ( We would pay for both sides then ). " Put forth for discussion " works better.
This does sound very fuzzy- Dignity & Integrity are just buzz-words these days- hopefully you will have support Tuesday.

Anonymous said...

Why did they not ask Mr Downey? He's holding the place together.

Anonymous said...

" Present to Council for Direction "

Anonymous said...

So, the Town stands to not collect the Development Charges AND lose ice rental revenue from the ACC, as SAC will have their own rink.

Anonymous said...

C. Ballard has been oddly quiet on this subject. His poll on alcohol is still up but he might need a new cause for the papers? No one is jumping on his tower angst.

Anonymous said...

The only comment on the Blog supporting the staff move claimed Aurora would be guilty of ' double-dipping ' to charge for development. That would only be true if the town had charged them in the first place. And, even then, it is what they are entitled to do. The precedent was set at the OMB with the other school. The sole caution would be not to ask for more that was legitimate.