Good to go

The Glengarry News - - The Classified­s - JAMES JOYCE 613-527-3413 [email protected] tam- creek. ca -- Steven Warburton News The Glen­garry Glen­garry News The While we’re in an in­come tax

North Glen­garry has en­tered into two site plan agree­ments that should fa­cil­i­tate ma­jor de­vel­op­ment projects in Alexan­dria and Maxville.

The Alexan­dria project is for two eight-unit apart­ment build­ings on the cor­ner of Bishop and Kenyon streets. The town­ship en­tered the agree­ment with the site de­vel­oper, Ron The­o­ret. This is a stan­dard pro­ce­dure where the de­vel­oper and coun­cil en­ter into a le­gal agree­ment by way of adopt­ing a site plan con­trol agree­ment by law, wrote Chief Build­ing Of­fi­cial Gerry Mur­phy in his re­port to coun­cil. “The de­vel­op­ment proposal is now con­sid­ered to be com­plete and in com­pli­ance with the On­tario Build­ing Code, the mu­nic­i­pal zon­ing by­law and en­gi­neer­ing con­sid­er­a­tions in­clud­ing storm wa­ter man­age­ment, lot grad­ing and mu­nic­i­pal in­fra­struc­ture ca­pac­ity.”

The sec­ond agree­ment is with the Grant Cas­tle Cor­po­ra­tion and con­cerns the in­ter sec­tion of Main Street and Me­chanic Street Westin Maxville where the new Home Hard­ware store will be built. The store is ex­pected to be about 11,000 square feet. “Any de­vel­op­ment of this size and mag­ni­tude must be pre­sented to coun­cil for con­sid­er­a­tion by way of a site plan agree­ment where­coun­cil can re­view the proposal and feel con­fi­dent that the de­vel­op­ment will meet the var­i­ous en­gi­neer­ing, plan­ning and build­ing code re­quire­ments as well as to en­sure suf­fi­cient fi­nan­cial se­cu­ri­ties will be held in trust with the Mu­nic­i­pal­ity pend­ing the sat­is­fac­tory com­ple­tion of the project,” wrote Mr. Mur­phy. Now that the site plan agree­ments are in place, the next step will be is­su­ing build­ing per­mits.


While my in­fal­li­bil­ity stats will take a hit, I have no choice but to ad­mit that last week’s item on the “Ward vs. At Large” is­sue con­tained at least one in­ac­cu­racy. As well, an­other state­ment I made re­quires clar­i­fi­ca­tion. I’d like to thank Jeff Man­ley, North Glen­garry’s coun­cil­lor for the Kenyon ward, for point­ing out the dis­crep­an­cies. We’ll start with the clar­i­fi­ca­tion. When I opined that al­ter­nat­ing between rep­re­sen­ta­tives re­sid­ing in north Kenyon and south Kenyon would re­sult “in ev­ery sec­ond coun­cil hav­ing a Kenyon rep­re­sen­ta­tive who knows where Dun­ve­gan is,” I was speak­ing hy­po­thet­i­cally. I was not sug­gest­ing that Mr. Man­ley was cut from this cloth. As an ac­tive mem­ber of Dun­ve­gan’s Glen­garry Pi­o­neer Mu­seum, he at­tends many events in our hamlet. As well, he has of­ten helped set up for the Har­vest Fall Fes­ti­val. Jeff has also taken part in an­nual meet­ings held by the mu­seum and the DRA, and has been spot­ted en­joy­ing the DRA’s Win­ter Car­ni­val breakfast on at least three sep­a­rate oc­ca­sions.

In short, Jeff Man­ley knows where Dun­ve­gan is. As well, I’m grate­ful to Mr. Man­ley for point­ing out a huge gap in the ward sys­tem of which I was not aware. There’s noth­ing in North Glen­garry’s rule­book that re­quires coun­cil­lors to live in the ward they rep­re­sent. In other words, un­der the present sys­tem, some­one re­sid­ing in Alexan­dria can run for Kenyon coun­cil­lor. If we want to put a ref­er­en­dum item on the bal­lot, clos­ing this glar­ing loop­hole might be a good place to start.

It turns out my state­ment that “the vast ma­jor­ity of the tax dol­lars con­trib­uted by ru­ral ratepay­ers go to­ward pro­vid­ing ser­vices like wa­ter (and) sewage for Alexan­dria res­i­dents,” was to­tally in­cor­rect. The truth is that any­thing to do with North Glen­garry’s wa­ter and sewer sys­tems is, to quote Mr. Man­ley, ”paid for by the users

of the sys­tem, and this in­cludes ma­jor in­fra­struc­ture up­grades or ad­di­tions.” In other words, what­ever is spent on the Loch Garry wa­ter­shed im­prove­ment project, the in­fra­struc­ture to pipe the wa­ter to Maxville, the Maxville wa­ter tower, etc. will not be re­flected on the tax bills of Kenyon and Lochiel ratepay­ers. Maxville and Alexan­dria res­i­dents are the ones solely re­spon­si­ble for what­ever part of the tab isn’t cov­ered by Queen’s Park and Par­lia­ment Hill.

2003 look­ing good

Given that the price tag for the 2018 Alexan­dria/ Maxville wa­ter project is es­ti­mated to be around $ 30 mil­lion, the wa­ter pipe­line from the St. Lawrence to Alexan­dria stud­ied by the Thomp­son Rose­mount Group back in 2003 is look­ing like a real bar­gain. Back then, the hy­dro­log­i­cal en­gi­neers at TRG pegged the cost of this op­tion at around $ 12 mil­lion. In to­day’s money, that works out to about $15.5 mil­lion, al­most a bar­gain. Es­pe­cially, when you read the con­clu­sions sec­tion of the TRG’s 2003 study en­ti­tled Alexan­dria Wa­ter Sup­ply Study. “In­creased wa­ter de­mand and con­di­tions have con­trib­uted to near crit­i­cal source wa­ter short­ages for the Town of Alexan­dria in the re­cent past. In ad­di­tion, de­vel­op­ment around Loch Garry and, to a lesser ex­tent, Mid­dle Lake has con­strained the op­er­a­tional prac­tices of the Raisin Re­gion Con­ser­va­tion Au­thor­ity with re­spect to con­trol­ling lake wa­ter lev­els for reser­voir storage… With­out the con­straints as­so­ci­ated with de­vel­op­ment, the op­er­a­tional prac­tices and par­tic­u­lar the tar­get wa­ter level( s) could be ad­justed on Loch Garry to in­crease storage vol­umes with­out any sig­nif­i­cant en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pacts. The lake sys­tem could then be op­er­ated as a reser­voir sys­tem as op­posed to a recre­ational lake sys­tem.”

If you’d like to read the 2003 Thomp­son Rose­mount study for your­self, you should be able to find a copy on the Rais­inSouth Na­tion Source Pro­tec­tion web site: http:// www. your­drink­ing­wa­ While a bit of a slog, it sure is an eye-opener. The com­pre­hen­sive re­port ex- plores the hy­dro­log­i­cal fea­si­bil­ity of 12 sep­a­rate al­ter­na­tives, from do­ing noth­ing and look­ing for sources of sup­ple­men­tary ground­wa­ter to pip­ing wa­ter from ei­ther St-Isi­dore or the St. Lawrence River. What’s more, it does so in a sur­pris­ing amount of de­tail. It’s al­most like they knew what they were talk­ing about.

Church skips breakfast

If you, like me, have been won­der­ing when this year’s spring breakfast fundraiser will be held at the Kenyon Pres­by­te­rian Church in Dun­ve­gan, the sad an­swer is that it won’t. The Kenyon Pres­by­te­rian Church Women's As­so­ci­a­tion has opted to fo­cus on its an­nual May 26 ham sup­per in­stead.


When check­ing the March 22, 1918 is­sue of

to see what my coun­ter­part was writ­ing about a cen­tury ago, a sub­stan­tial front page ad caught my eye. Topped with the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada and a big bold head­line, the pub­lic no­tice ex­plained Canada’s brand new Do­min­ion War Tax Act, an al­legedly tem­po­rary mea­sure in­tro­duced to pay for the debts racked up dur­ing “the war to end all wars.” As we sub­se­quently learned, WWI didn’t end all wars. And the gov­ern­ment of Canada’s love af­fair with in­come tax was far from short lived. Up un­til the First World War, Canada had man­aged to meet its fi­nan­cial obli­ga­tions through levies like cus­tom du­ties on im­ported goods and ex­cise taxes on com­modi­ties pro­duced or sold within a coun­try, for ex­am­ple, the ex­cise tax on tobacco and cig­a­rettes. As you can tell, Canada’s civil ser­vice and gov­ern­ment pro­grams were far skin­nier then than they are to­day. Af­ter read­ing the 1918 ad, I won­dered if its au­thors re­al­ized their “tem­po­rary” mea­sure would con­tinue to dog us a cen­tury down the line. Or that the la­bels they coined to dif­fer­en­ti­ate the var­i­ous tax forms would sur­vive into the 21st cen­tury. An­other fea­ture that the Com­mis­sioner of Tax­a­tion’s of­fice in 1918 shares with to­day’s Canada Rev­enue Agency is the ob­vi­ous de­light it took in the ab­so­lutes of power. To quote from the 1918 ad, “the Do­min­ion In­come War Tax Act re­quires you to fill in one or more of the five spe­cial Forms pro­vided be­fore 31st March, 1918. In or­der to as­sist the pub­lic to un­der­stand just what is re­quired of them, in­for­ma­tion on each form is given be­low. Read care­fully, then get three copies of the form that fits your case and fill them in. An­swer all ques­tions fully and ac­cu­rately. For making false state­ments, a penalty of $10,000 or six months im­pris­on­ment, or both, is pro­vided.”

If you’re cu­ri­ous, nei­ther the March 22, 1918 nor the March 29, 1918 edi­tions of

had re­ports from the Dun­ve­gan cor­re­spon­dent of the day. She or he was no doubt fu­ri­ously fill­ing out the new tax forms in trip­li­cate.

Tax sav­ings

frame of mind, I wanted to re­mind pri­vate in­di­vid­u­als and busi­nesses that the Glen­garry County Ar­chives may be able to is­sue a tax re­ceipt for the his­tor­i­cal items you do­nate to the col­lec­tion.

Not only will your records be pre­served for fu­ture gen­er­a­tions and be kept in a se­cure en­vi­ron­ment by knowl­edge­able archival staff, but you could also en­joy sig­nif­i­cant tax sav­ings. When I asked ar­chiv­ist, Al­lan J. MacDonald, what he meant by “sig­nif­i­cant” he said the tax credit could range from hun­dreds of dol­lars to over a hun­dred thou­sand dol­lars, de­pend­ing on the value of the col­lec­tion. Al­lan also stressed that an in­de­pen­dent pro­fes­sional does the eval­u­a­tions. For more in­for­ma­tion, please con­tact Al­lan at 613- 209- 0202 or glen­gar­rycount­[email protected] gmail. com


PROGRESS: Work on the new Home Hard­ware store in Maxville con­tin­ues af­ter North Glen­garry fi­nal­ized a site plan agree­ment.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.