Casino decision to wait until September
Clearview Council will wait until early September to debate its position on the establishment of a casino in the region, allowing time for a behind-closed-doors information meeting with representatives of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and the Councils of the four municipalities the province has named as possible sites for a local gaming establishment. It’s also hoped that the four municipalities – Clearview, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and Springwater – will host some sort of joint public information session in August.
The discussion that takes place in September will be framed by a motion from Councillor Thom Paterson, which was originally brought forward at Council’s June 11 meeting. Worded to express Council’s lack of support for a casino in the region, the motion was deferred at that meeting to give Mayor Ken Ferguson and Deputy Mayor Alicia Savage time to meet with Mayors and Deputy Mayors from the other three municipalities to discuss a regional response to the province’s move.
That meeting took place on Thursday, June 21, and resulted in plans for the in camera meeting with OLG in July as well as tentative talk of some public engagement in August.
At Monday night’s Council meeting, Paterson was eager to nail down a date at which his deferred motion would be brought back to the table, and suggested that it might be best to do it sooner rather than later, in order to let the other municipalities know exactly where Clearview stands on the matter.
But Ferguson was adamant that Council should wait until more information is available, both from OLG and the public. “I don’t want to fight with my neighbours,” he said.
So far, Wasaga Beach is the only one of the four municipalities that has expressed an interest in a casino, and the indication from the province is that, should only one municipality be in favour of hosting a facility, OLG will be ready to deal with that municipality exclusively, regardless of the other three opinions. For that reason, Ferguson advised caution at this point.
In the end, it was decided that Clearview Council will debate Paterson’s motion on September 10, just before the province’s deadline for commenting.
And in the meantime Savage, who has made her objection to a casino clear from the start of discussions, said she would personally be doing whatever she could to “convince Wasaga Beach that this is not our vision for the region.”
Vending Policy Deferred
A new policy brought forward by the planning department dealing with vending on public lands ran into trouble Monday night when no one on Council was willing to make a motion to put it on the table. That didn’t prevent an extensive discussion on the topic, however, during which several possible glitches with the policy were brought up.
The problem which needs to be solved in some way or other is that Clearview Township’s insurance does not cover private vendors on public lands. Even during large events like Stayner’s Heritage Day or Creemore’s Copper Kettle Festival, private vendors are not covered by the event organizers’ insurance. That means Clearview Township is essentially “self-insuring” these vendors, and in the event of a lawsuit, taxpayers would be on the hook to pay for any damages.
The proposed policy would charge vendors an annual permit fee – $500 for motorized sales not associated with a municipally approved event; $250 for non-motorized sales not associated with a municipally approved event; $60 for a private vendor at a municipally approved event; or $30 for a non-profit vendor at a municipally approved event – as well as require them to comply with health and safety regulations and provide third party liability insurance in the sum of $2 million.
Vendors at community halls, arenas or the Creemore Farmers’ Market would be exempt.
When some on Council balked at the fees, Planning Director Michael Wynia said that they weren’t the most important element of the policy, although they would address the workload generated by the permitting process. What’s more important, he said, is ensuring that the vendors have the proper insurance.
That led Councillor Shawn Davidson to loft some hypothetical situations, like for instance the church ladies who sell pie by the slice during Heritage Day festivities. According to Wynia, they would have to comply with the policy and present an insurance policy in the sum of $2 million.
“This is not a feel-good issue, but it is nonetheless an issue,” said Wynia. “Every day that goes by without a policy, you are self-insured.”
Several on Council objected to being presented with the policy without time to give it much thought – Deputy Mayor Alicia Savage said there would be “ramifications that we aren’t even aware of tonight” and Councillor Thom Paterson said he was reluctant to vote until he talked with vendors and other stakeholders.
With that, Council voted to receive the proposed policy for information and asked for it to be brought back at its July 9 meeting.
A Request for Skyway 124
Council unanimously passed a motion brought forward by Councillor Brent Preston Monday night, officially calling on Skyway 124, the developers aiming to erect a wind farm south of Singhampton, to hold another “first” public meeting that meets the requirements of the Green Energy Act.
This is the second time this request has been made of Skyway 124. The company first held a meeting in December, and then “redid” the meeting in March after residents complained that requirements were not met.
According to Preston, the draft plan at the second “first” meeting included several misplaced noise receptors, all landowners within the statutory 160 metres were not notified, and all but one representative of Skyway 124 left the meeting a half-hour before it was scheduled to end.
Council’s resolution will be forwarded to the Minister of Energy.
