StandOurGround Presentation to Russell Council

Presented by Rhonda Bradley (check against delivery)
on behalf of StandOurGround
January 27, 2025

Good evening, Council members.

I’m Rhonda Bradley, here with Mary Boland and Harry Baker, representing Stand Our Ground, a grassroots organization of concerned residents.

We've heard Council members claim that our community's future is inevitable—especially due to our proximity to a large urban centre—and that we’re destined to become another Laval or Orleans. We disagree. The kind of growth we’re experiencing is not inevitable. It's a choice. 

As residents, taxpayers, and voters, we believe another choice is possible.

The Stand Our Ground questionnaire—shared with Council tonight and are still circulating—makes one thing clear: residents want sustainable growth, not unchecked sprawl. Yet, we see little evidence that this input is influencing Council’s decisions. The consultation process feels minimal, and reactive at best. Last May, for example, many of us were blindsided to learn our properties were included in new Special Study areas within the Township’s draft Official Plan. While this decision has been reversed for now, it highlights the disregard residents are experiencing.

The Township’s engagement methods—like posting notices in community papers with low readership, holding meetings at inconvenient times, and limiting public input at Council meetings—are not working. And yet, only today we learned that on Thursday, our Township is hosting an open house to welcome builders and developers. We question why developers being offered open-door sessions and more opportunities for engagement, while residents are treated to the barest consultation minimums required by law?

We are deeply concerned about the unchecked growth of commercial and urban development without adequate infrastructure, particularly water and wastewater systems. The Township's own Water/Wastewater Master Plan draft shows our wastewater system is already beyond capacity, polluting the Castor River with excess ammonia and the proposed “band-aid fix” is a $19 million short-term solution. This problem has been known and ignored for years, including during our 2025 budget setting. Instead of addressing a known expense with a real fiscal strategy, Council approved an outsized rec center and is now begging senior levels of government for infrastructure funding help. The issue here is that the line-up for municipal infrastructure funding is a long one. The town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury is but one cautionary tale: they too relied on upper-tier funding for failing infrastructure that was polluting their local environment. When the money came, it wasn’t enough. Now they have raised development charges and utility fees, over-burdening existing residents and making housing less affordable for those who want to live there. The myth that “growth pays for growth” has been exposed—but here in the Township of Russell, we’re still falling for it.

We are also troubled by the rapid destruction of prime agricultural land for development. Every year, we watch Council hand over hundreds of acres of farmland to sprawl. Every 100 acres represents about one family farm. This isn’t just an aesthetic loss—it’s an economic and environmental one too. The Township’s 2017 Economic Development Report downplayed agriculture’s importance, which led to the economic development direction we appear to be pursuing today. But agriculture is still Russell’s strongest economic driver, and forecasts show the sector could add another $11 billion to Canada’s GDP. With only 5% of Ontario’s total land-base being farmable, our Township is well-positioned to benefit from this growing sector. Yet even with the benefit of a Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) that emphasizes the value of agricultural land and directs that non-agricultural use be avoided, our Township often buys or earmarks agricultural land for development, before any evaluation of alternatives ever occurs. This practice raises serious questions about our Council’s commitment to agricultural land protection and support for the local ag industry.

We also urge Council to review the fine print of the updated Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). While much attention has been given to settlement area boundary expansion, it’s equally crucial to note a key condition: expansion is only permitted if there is sufficient capacity in existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities. We already do not meet this condition for the Industrial Park expansion. And as already noted, the wastewater infrastructure is already over capacity, with no feasible fiscal roadmap in place to address the deficiency. Approving this draft Official Plan, as written, raises serious concerns about Council’s commitment to responsible, long-term planning and whether this Official Plan truly serves the best interests of our residents.

Another prime example of this disregard is the expansion of the Industrial Park itself. Despite knowing that we cannot afford to provide adequate public servicing, the Township is moving forward with plans to sell land to industrial developers. This serves to increase demand on groundwater, adding more septic systems, and paving over sensitive groundwater recharge areas. Where we currently have functioning existing natural infrastructure in place, this Council seeks to sacrifice it in the name of creating local jobs we can’t reliably track and collecting taxes on depreciating concrete slab buildings. This undermines environmental sustainability, disregards public input, and blatantly ignores provincial planning guidance in favor of short-term financial gain.

Considering these concerns, the members of Stand Our Ground call for a pause on all new development until a concrete, feasible plan is in place to address water and wastewater infrastructure. A plan based on good intentions is not enough—we need specific timelines and a realistic funding strategy. Without these, it's merely a wish list, and with our taxes already at record highs, wishes won’t cover the additional costs this development will bring.

For the reasons noted above, we also call for a pause on development on prime agricultural land. The Township must act now to protect both our agricultural lands and the local agriculture sector.

Stand Our Ground members are not against growth, but we do oppose kind of growth that compromises our future. We want thoughtful, controlled growth that respects agriculture, the environment, and the quality of life in our Township.

We’re asking for a responsible, sustainable growth strategy that preserves what we value most, and we are asking Council for the following:

1. A public commitment to pause zoning changes and development approvals until we have sufficient capacity and a feasible financial in place to address wastewater infrastructure, before approving any new development.
   
2. A public commitment to prioritize agricultural land preservation and limit development in designated farming areas, and,
3. A public commitment that demonstrates to this community that you’re not just hearing us, but truly listening—a good first step here would be to insist on the implementation of a tangible public engagement strategy with timelines, resources, and accountabilities attached, and consultation processes that extend beyond minimal legal requirements. 

This Official Plan represents our community at a crossroads. 

The choices we make now will decide whether we become a model for sustainable growth or a cautionary tale of poor public planning.

The choices you make will determine whether we will develop our natural assets and potential, or become just one more Orleans or Laval.

Thank you.

Happy New Year WUR folks. Here's a little holiday musing for you

Contributed by Rhonda Bradley
January 8, 2025

If you've been around long enough (and I have!), you may remember back to the early 2000s when the Province of Ontario forced the amalgamation of the ten urban municipalities and rural townships with the old City of Ottawa. At the time, I recall the people of Nepean complaining bitterly that they had been fiscally prudent while others hadn’t—and now they were going to be saddled with the costs of others’ mismanagement. Fast forward to today, and I found myself reflecting on these complaints over the holidays while sipping a glass of spiked 'nog, reading the December 11th post in Le Reflet. In the story, our very own Mr. Tarnowski made local headlines with his call for the upper tiers of government to redistribute taxes collected to municipalities to meet their growing infrastructure needs. Sounds noble, right? Standing up for the Township of Russell!

But it raises some important questions, too.

As municipalities across the province push for a greater share of tax revenue from higher levels of government, I can't help but wonder: How much of this additional funding is genuinely necessary, and how much is simply a result of poor fiscal management by local councils over the years? After all, the pockets everyone is digging into are mine—and yours. Here’s my question: At what point do we hold our elected representatives accountable for their decisions—and more importantly, their lack of decisions—on the often unpopular, yet crucial, matter of infrastructure management?

Think of it this way: If you spend recklessly on new cars every two years instead of saving for essential home repairs, and I’ve been carefully budgeting $2,000 a year for future needs, should I be expected to bail you out when your roof leaks and it’s raining in your living room?

Tarnowski is quoted in the article as saying that the Township of Russell believes "current funding sources, such as property taxes and user fees, are inadequate to meet these demands." And yet, just last May, our Council decided to go all in on a new rec centre, sized to accommodate double our current population. Could we have been just as enthusiastic about addressing the serious costs headed our way for wastewater deficiencies? ($19 million is the estimate to stop polluting the Castor River). Then, in one of the final meetings of 2024, our Council received a report outlining the fact that we've been significantly underfunding our infrastructure reserves. It doesn’t escape me that this report was only tabled after we set the budget for 2025, which had already included a record-high tax increase – even after we got an early Christmas gift from the province to help cover the OPP bill.

To be fair to the Township, governments of all levels have been robbing Nepean to pay Paul for a long time on the infrastructure front. This is not new. It's also true that with elections on the horizon (tick tock... Ontario and Russell Township in 2026, and Federal, who knows?), we can expect a distribution of some sugared plums in the form of infrastructure funding—after all, the cracks are beginning to show. Will it be enough? I doubt it. So how then do we hold our elected representatives accountable for the decisions they make—and more importantly, those they don’t make—when it comes to the less glamorous task of infrastructure management?

Tarnowski says this “redistribution” would “help address the financial pressures associated with maintaining and upgrading critical infrastructure while ensuring a stable and equitable funding mechanism for the future.” Yet, as Russell seeks support from Ontario’s 444 municipalities and beyond, I find myself asking the same question Nepean residents asked all those years ago: Should the taxpayers of municipalities that have lived within their means and invested in long-term planning be expected to bail out those who have not been as prudent? Isn’t it also important that higher levels of government provide oversight, ensuring that responsible municipalities aren’t penalized while irresponsible ones get a free pass? 

Where does the buck stop? I think it has to stop with us.

Contributed by Tony Baas
October 22, 2024

• Because our Council approved a shiny new rec centre designed for a population of 40,000 – even though we barely have 20,000 residents.

• Because our Township staff signed a waste management contract without really knowing the details, but meanwhile maintain they are too busy to give us any concrete answers to our specific questions about these contracts.

• Because Council is keen on affordable housing… but exploding property taxes are making it anything but affordable to actually have a house here.

• Because, let’s not forget, last fall, Council generously gave itself a 34% pay raise.

• Because we have 352 Township employees to pay. That’s one employee for every 56 residents. A total of 17 of them are on the Sunshine List, earning an average of $122K per year. And all Township employees have been promised 7.5% raise per year.

• Because we pay contractors $72K to write funding applications for the yet unbuilt Rec Centre—with absolutely no guarantee we’ll even get the grants. Then we pay another lobbying consulting firm more money to set up meetings with other politicians for us, because “it’s a very competitive PUBLIC process”.

• Because, apparently, we couldn’t afford a by-election to select our Mayor, but then suddenly we found the funds to run the by-election needed to backfill his Council seat.

• Because we’re building an Industrial Park full of warehouses that residential taxpayers will end up financing, since these basic shell structures don’t significantly increase in property value over time, so their property taxes remain stagnant.

So really, we should welcome this 11% increase—because how else can we possibly keep funding this growing list of Council's bad decisions?