Sunday, June 27, 2010

AND NOW FOR THE TRUTH

After speaking to some people who are unaware of the time line with regards to the well, I will try to clearly explain.
In May of 2005 we entered into a purchase agreement for our property and one of the conditions was to have a good water test and a well agreement for the property. The well serviced 4 properties and after many months and negotiations between the town and lawyers and the previous owner a well agreement could not be reached. At this time it was quite clear who owned the well, the Municipality. At that point I stepped in and contacted Councilor Terry Seiler who took us down to the municipal office where we had a discussion with Kriss Snell the clerk at the time. He explained that the other people on the well did not want a new well agreement and he offered to sell us the well for $1.00 and although we did think about it we refused the offer. It was decided at that point that the municipality would bring us water from their other well. This was the only reason the purchase agreement went through, in August of 2005. We moved onto the property with the understanding we would be receiving municipal water that fall. When winter started to approach we started to realize we would not be getting the water supply until the following spring. It was during the fall and winter that the well was found to be contaminated with E.coli by someone else on the well who had it tested. When spring came I contacted the municipality about getting the water. It took me contacting the Mayor to finally get the construction started and finally get a potable water source. We only signed the documentation for the water to get the water, we had no choice and they gave us no other choices. It was made quite clear to the Municipality that I had been on this well contaminated with ecoli for 10 months and I was not happy about it. They never offered to correct the contamination or monitor the well. The Municipality was now a year later, after offing to sell the well to us and trying to negotiate a well agreement started stating the MTO owned the well. I contacted the MTO to correct the unsafe condition of the well, the road grader blades had been moved and the well was open. They came out the next day and surveyed the well and found they did not own the well. The municipality owned the well. The municipality had continued to say the MTO owned the well until this year and I have stated right from the beginning that we should not have had to pay a hook up fee for the water. We were already on Municipal water. It has always been their responsibilty. I have been asking for my money back since 2006 and will continue to, five years later.

MUNICIPALITY STANDS GROUND ON WELL REFUND

As reported in the Listowel Banner on Wednesday June 23, 2010 by Andrew Smith
A dispute between the Municiaplity and a resident continued last week with the decision to again deny a $3500.00 water hook up refund. The request from Sherrie McTaggart came forward at the June 14 meeting of North Perth Council, where it was explained that McTaggart is seeking the refund as payment for hooking into a municiapl well. McTaggart wasn't present at the meeting but was later contacted by the Banner. She said the issue goes back to May 2005 when she bought her house in Atwood and was of the understanding she was already hooked into a municipal well. When it was discoverd the well was contaminated by E.colli Mctaggart sought a new water source and went to the municipality. "We needed a potable water source and the municipality offered us the water" "It didn't matter what documentation the municipality sent me I wanted water" The $3500.00 fee attached to that second well connection remains the point of contention for McTaggart who says she shouldn't have to pay for accessing municipal services when she was already receiving them. "I was already on a municipal water supply, it's not my fault they had no care or control and it was contaminated". However, the ownership of the contaminated well has been another unresolved matter. When McTaggart first approached North Perth for a refund in 2006 the municiaplities stancewas that the well belonged to the Ministry of Transportation and they had no responsibilty for it. A survey by the MTO in 2006 later revealed the well was indeed on municipal property, but neither had monitored or maintained the well. At the June 14 meeting Deputy Julie Behrns commented that everyone pays to to hook into municipal services and that the McTaggarts are no exception. Treasurer Frances Hale also stated they have documentation of McTaggarts decision to hook into the municipal well and pay the fee. "We do have her request to us signing up for it and giving us permission to put it on her taxes." McTaggart's response is that she had no choice but to switch wells, or else continue using contaminated water for ten months. "I am going to have to worry about the health issues from that for the rest of my life". McTaggart hasn't proceeded with legal action yet but is considering it after having her second request denied. Lawsuit or not she plans on submitting the request until council listens to her."They can file this with the municipality every Monday night at every council meeting until they decide to deal with it. Hale said McTaggart has the right to continue her protest against the Municipality and they will co operate in any way possible." We don't want to impede her ability to express what she has to express. She can do what she needs to do and certainly we will respond to that."

PERTH COUNTY COUNCIL ACTS ON PLEE TO SAVE TREES

As reported in the Straford Beacon Herald on Friday June 18, 2010 by Laura Cudworth
A group of Listowel school kids can take some of the credit for Perth County council's desire to get tough on developers who build over treelots. Currently the county's wood lot bylaw has an exemption for subdivisions and some councilors are looking to change that. Counc. Bob Wilhelm suggested the exemption is unfair. "Here we are prosecuting farmers for cutting trees down but if you subdivide it you can cut down anything you want". Coun. Bob McTavish agreed and asked the planning department to write a report with a resolution council can vote on that would restrict removing trees for subdivisions."The report will be presented at the July 15 council meeting. The issue came up when Terrier Inc applied to build a subdivision with 25-49 dwellings on a six acre site in Listowel. A petition with 250 signatures and a passionate letter from 12 year old Emily Qureshi urged council to save the trees on the site. A report from the county tree inspector Marvin Smith indicated the site does fit the criteria of a woodlot. Subdivisions go through a two step approval process. In the first draft approval council can attach conditions which the developer then has five years to satisfy before final approval is given. Councilors agreed to proceed with the first draft. McTavish asked as much tree preservation as possible be one of the conditions.

Monday, June 21, 2010

THE ANSWER IS THE SAME

I received a call last night from Andrew Smith, a reporter for the Listowel Banner. He told me that again at Mondays Council meeting my request for the refund of my money for connection to a different Municipal water supply was denied. No surprise. The Municiaplity started out saying the Municipality did not own the well and that the Ministry of Transportation owned it. They can no longer say that now that I am in possession of the survey from October of 2006 by the MTO that shows they do not own it the Municipality does and always has owned it. Now they say they did not have care and control of the well.
The issue of ownership of this well has been going on since 2005. If the Municipality new there was a question about whether thay owned a contaminated well, you think that in those 5 years they would have found out if they did or not. The MTO dealt with the issue immediately. North Perth has been avoiding it. I will file a letter for every council meeting until I get my money back including interest and penalties. They have put this amount onto my tax bill and have started tax sale proceedings against me.
I guess I will be in the local paper again and I look forward to the article and the quotes from council. It is easy to solve GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK !!!!!!!!!!

Sunday, June 20, 2010

HAPPY FATHERS DAY

HAPPY FATHERS DAY TO ALL THOSE MEN WHO LOVE THEIR CHILDREN.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

WHO OWNED THE WELL?????

Until this year the Municipality had been standing firmly that the well was owned by the MTO. When the MTO was contacted by me about the well and it being contaminated they took quick action and had a survey done to prove they did not own it. Earlier this year the MTO sent me a copy of this survey and they were not very happy that the Municipality of North Perth was still saying they owned a well that was contaminated. All of a sudden the Municipality is not saying that the MTO owned the well. Should they now take responsibility for it and quit passing the buck ??????

LETTER FOR JUNE 14, 2010 COUNCIL MEETING

As I was not told my issue would be discussed at the council meeting and was not invited to attend the meeting to defend my case this is the letter that I sent. I requested that the Clerk give this letter to the council members at the meeting.

June 13, 2010
TO THE CLERK AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF NORTH PERTH
RE: JUNE 14, 2010 COUNCIL MEETING AND REQUEST FOR REFUND

I have read the report by Fran Hale with regards to my request for the return of the $3500.00 for connection to Municipal water. A few corrections need to be made and I submit the following.

1. The well has always been the property of the Municipality of North Perth and previously by Elma Township. It had been used for many years as a water supply for many homes and for firefighting. Many of these wells in Atwood were decommissioned and this one was left for the homes that were connected to it. The lid of the well was a road grader blade installed by a town employee. The Municipality of North Perth decommissioned this well when all the homes were connected to a new potable water supply offered by the Municipality.
2.The previous owners lawyer did not tell us the well was on someone elses property but informed us that it was owned by the Municipality of North Perth. A new well agreement could not be reached between the home owners and the Municipality. The former CAO never had any discussion with us on this issue, but the former clerk Kris Snell and Terry Seiler were involved in trying to find a solution to the problem and connecting to another well was offered by the Municipality. An offer was made to us to purchase the well for $1.00 which we refused. We were told they could not locate the documents from Elma Township. Whether the Municipality ignored the care and control of the well is irrelevant.
3.I have been requesting my money back for this well since 2006 and most recently in a letter to the Municipality dated Monday April 26, 2010 when council again took no action. The well was owned by the Municipality and when the water became contaminated it was their responsibilty to bring us a potable water source at their own expense not mine.

Sincerely
Sherrie McTaggart

CURFEW IN NORTH PERTH

Perth county OPP have implemented a curfew for unsupervised children under 16 years of age. All children found unsupervised between 12 midnight and 6 am will be held until parents arrive to pick the child up. They have done this due to complaints received from residents and municipal officials about late night damage to public and private property.
What are children under 16 doing out after midnight ?????

Friday, June 11, 2010

LAST TIME I REQUESTED MY MONEY BACK.....BEFORE YOU STARTED TAX SALE PROCEEDINGS

Just so I can get this out before I sleep and I am not on the balcony screaming........... I have been requesting my money back since 2006 and my last request was denied by the Municipality on April 29 2010 when the town sent me the letter that states" Please be advised , the Council of the Municipality of North Perth at their regular meeting on Monday April 26, 2010 received your correspondence for information and no action was taken."


Lets see what action they take now............. don't get your hopes up

And that $3500.00 is part of that tax that is owing........or should not be part of that tax owing and then should they be able to sell my property for taxes owing............ if they owe me???????

AND IT CONTINUES.....NORTH PERTH

MUNICIPALITY OF NORTH PERTH
TO: Council
FROM: Frances Hale, Director of Finance/Treasurer
DATE: June 14th
SUBJECT: Request to Refund Municipal Water Connection Fee #F18-10
, 2010
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To bring a request to Council by Ms. Sherrie McTaggart to refund the Municipal Water connection fee of
$3,500.00.
BACKGROUND
Ms. McTaggart has requested that she be refunded the fee she was charged to connect to municipal
water services in Atwood. She has made a formal request which is attached for Council’s consideration.
This is the second request made by Ms. McTaggart to Council. The first request was made last year and
Council considered her request July 20th
, 2009.
The previous owner of the McTaggart property brought it to the municipality’s attention that their shared
private well was on either MTO or municipal property. This happened when they were trying to sell this
property. After some confusion, it was determined that their private well was on municipal property and an
encroachment agreement for the well was in the process of being arranged but never was completed.
The previous owners solicitor did advise the municipality that they informed the purchaser that the well
was located on someone else’s property. The former CAO, former Director of Public Works and former
Clerk had tried to assist the McTaggarts in arranging an alternate water source. Ultimately, the
municipality was able to offer the property owners municipal water services at a cost of $3,500.00. This
was the same charge the municipality had for all other Atwood residents, which was made available when
the municipality looped the water service between the two municipal wells. Both Sherrie and Jamie
McTaggart signed the request form to have the municipal water connection and corresponding $3,500.00
fee financed and collected on their property taxes.
COMMENTS
In Ms. McTaggart’s letter, she indicates that the well that she used before municipal water service was a
municipal well. It has been determined that the private well servicing her property was located on
municipal property; the municipality did not know the well was located on municipal property and did not
monitor, maintain or have any charges applicable.
It appears that being able to connect to municipal water services has been of significant benefit to the
McTaggarts as property owners.
MOTION (proposed)
That the Council of the Municipality of North Perth denies the request to refund
municipal water connection fees as requested by Sherri McTaggart and that Council
directs the Director of Finance/Treasurer to respond in writing.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Letter to Municipality from Ms. Sherrie McTaggart
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
________________________________________ ______________________________________
Frances Hale, Director of Finance/Treasurer Kriss Snell, CAO

Thursday, June 10, 2010

.......... SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

IF YOU ARE A MINORITY OF ONE ..... THE TRUTH IS STILL THE TRUTH

MAHATMA GHANDI

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK



GREAT MINDS DISCUSS IDEAS

AVERAGE MINDS DISCUSS EVENTS

SMALL MINDS DISCUSS PEOPLE



ELEANOR ROOSEVELT

MAIN STREET ATWOOD

WhenI first moved to Atwood and started my dream for my store the first thing I wanted to do was make the Main Street of Atwood a much more pleasant view. There was the derelict store invested with rats, the vacant lot that never had the grass cut, the sidewalks that were never swepted and the road where the sand from winter was never cleaned up. The sidewalks that were never shovelled in the winter. There were no flowers no banners and the town looked deserted, even my store had looked deserted. So we started to clean up our property. Many loads to the dump some to recycling. A new lawn and flower beds and a beautiful urn with flowers out front of the store with a bench. A bench for the people of town to sit and take back their town and sit to watch the traffic go by. We seemed to be the only people that sat out front but slowly so did others. And slowly the Main Street started to change. I got the Municipality to cut the grass in the vacant lot. They came in and cleaned out the derelict store of all the rats but that is as far as that went and it is still the eye sore of the town. We finally got flower boxes on the Main and garbage cans to get rid of the litter and although not as nice as Listowel we did not mind their hand me downs. We finally got the sidewalks shovelled on one side of the street and then last year the snow was cleared on both sides of the street and I no longer had to watch the children walking down the highway to deliver the papers. We still got the ugly flower boxes and small Canadian flags for July 1st celebrations but it was a start. The sidewalks are now swept by the Municipality and the Ministry of Transportation (great guys) clean the street every spring, which kepts the dust down and makes the town so much cleaner.
Which brings me to the biggest change made so far.
Today I watched town employees hanging flower baskets on the hydro poles, just like in Listowel. The Lions Club has hung large Canadian Flags banners and slowly the Main Street of Atwood is looking like someone finally gets it. The Main Street of your town shows people what your town is about. The run down buildings and uncut grass and dirty sidewalks and sidewalks not shovelled makes it appear that no one cares. The Main Street is cleaner,people have urns with flowers , the benches are out and the look of the Main Street is improving and it makes it a much more pleasant view. And all it takes is people to care ............ and make an effort. It takes but one voice............

Thursday, June 3, 2010

ARE SMART METERS A GOOD THING

I having been dealing with Hydro One since November of 2009 with regards to some billing issues on my bill. I have emailed I have faxed and I have even sent the documentation by mail and still could not get anyone to look at the billing mistakes and correct them. I did have an account that was outstanding and the Hydro had been disconnected but after finally paying the bill in full I received a large credit from Hydro and wondered why did I receive the credit. Did I over pay and if I had why. Then I started seeing charges that did not make sense. Then I noticed that the building that is not using any hydro at this time jumped in usage. Every time I contacted Hydro to talk to some one the version would change and no one would resolve the issue. I did receive disconnection notices and threating collection calls to pay the bill but I stated I would not pay the bill in full until the mistakes were corrected. I was promised several time that someone would get back to me and no one ever did. I finally contacted the Ontario Energy Board and filed a complaint with them. Within 24 hours I received a call from Hydro that was a lot nicer than usual and was told they would look into it. But again I still have not heard anything. I am now learning that there are many people with the same problem and there is a great blog on it called h1ripoff.blogspot.com that is taking on this issue. And good for Richard for doing this and all the radio talk shows that are bringing this out to the public. There is something wrong with these new meters and we need to force Hydro to fix this problem not threaten us with disconnection notices. Check out the blog if you to are having problems or question whether you are actually using that much hydro and watch your bills.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

DANGEROUS OFFENDER MOVING TO LISTOWEL

The Police have issued a warning to the residents of Listowel a dangerous offender has moved to town. He has a long list of offences including sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm and weapons charges.
Hopefully he is here to get his life together......... but why Listowel?????