Site 41 lands declared surplus and disposable

By Kate Harries AWARE Simcoe June 16 2011

Members of Simcoe County’s performance management committee, after meeting behind closed doors today, voted to declare the Site 41 property surplus – as announced in an official notice published last week. 

However, Deputy Warden Harry Hughes explained to a dozen concerned residents after today’s meeting, a key change was made – the notice had referred to selling the Site 41 lands.

The committee’s motion uses the word “disposition.”

Hughes said that means that council can still consider a proposal for a water innovation centre by Dr. William Shotyk, the scientist whose tests have shown the groundwater below Site 41 to be exceptionally pure. 

“All the options are on the table,” Hughes said.

The committee’s recommendation still has to be approved by council June 28.

Publication of last week’s notice came just two weeks after Shotyk addressed council on May 24.

It details dividing up the property into four parcels, one of which (86 acres that include the disturbed central area) is to be retained, and the rest sold. The notice appeared at odds with the notion that Shotyk’s proposal would be given proper consideration.

That’s because Shotyk was asked May 24 whether the central “disturbed” portion of the site would be sufficient for his research project, and he said no. To be sustainable, the centre would need the full 340 acres to undertake agricultural and water research.

The notice also seemed to contradict a resolution moved by Warden Cal Patterson that staff obtain further information and report back on the feasibility of the proposal. If the property is sold off piecemeal, the feasibility is jeopardized.

But Hughes and Midland Mayor Gord McKay, who also stopped to talk to residents today, insisted that publication of the notice, and the committee’s support for today’s resolution, are required under the Municipal Act, a matter of process that does not bind county council to any action.

Residents told the two that the timing, so soon after Shotyk’s presentation, seemed suspect. Shotyk had suggested council lease the property to local farmers for two years, to give him time to come up with a business plan and a fully detailed proposal. 

“If we’d been smart, we’d have leased it this year,” Hughes admitted.

Hughes said councillors also took steps today towards more openness, by drafting a motion that made clear which property was in question (Simcoe County’s in-camera resolutions are usually exceptionally obscure), and by requesting a staff report on the county’s policy on property disposition as it relates to the Site 41 lands, to be presented in public at the upcoming June 28 council meeting.

If baby steps are being taken towards openness, progress is slow. Despite election of a new council, it is becoming clear that the process regarding the Shotyk proposal has been tortuous and secretive.

According to a communication from a county councillor, council met and directed staff to declare the land surplus, retaining only the central disturbed area, before Shotyk’s May 24 presentation to council.

The decision was taken behind closed doors, based on an earlier March 10 presentation by Shotyk to the performance management committee. Unfortunately, erroneous information was circulated internally, including the fact that Shotyk had asked for just 10 acres for the research project. 

In-camera decision-making makes for poor decision-making. When the public is allowed to hear proceedings, errors like that can be corrected.