Amalgamation if necessary but.....
Article content
Amalgamation if necessary but not necessarily amalgamation.
That’s how Brantford Mayor Kevin Davis sums up the notice of motion he brought forward this week at a city council committee meeting.
The motion, which has already raised the ire of Brant Mayor David Bailey, calls for city staff to look at “the process by which Ontario municipalities may be restructured through amalgamation, including a list of steps required to prepare a restructuring proposal to support the amalgamation of the City of Brantford and the County of Brant.”
City councillors are expected to debate the motion at a future committee meeting.
“My personal opinion – not interested at the very least,” said Bailey.
“Mayor Davis, in my opinion, has made a very big error in judgment in moving forward with the County of Brant at so many levels.”
Davis said he recognizes that his motion will cause a lot of controversy.
“But when I was elected one of my top priorities was to rebuild the relationship between the city and the county,” he said.
“That’s why we, as a council, wanted to resurrect the joint services committee.”
Davis said the city is eager to work with the county to provide a higher level of service to residents of both municipalities and see if there are ways to more efficiently provide existing services.
“We put three issues out there for discussion,” Davis said. “Animal control, fire dispatch and library services.
“We thought they would be pretty easy ones to deal with because both municipalities have issues with animal control and we didn’t see how exchanging library cards could be an issue.”
The county, to the surprise of Davis and Brantford city councillors, rejected the proposal.
County councillors noted that the two municipalities already share a lot of services, adding that there is little left to discuss.
One county councillor called the idea of joint city-county services a “waste of time,” while others suggested Brant should look at developing partnerships with other neighbouring municipalities, such as Oxford and Norfolk counties and Waterloo and Hamilton-Wentworth regions.
Davis said he was not impressed by the comments made by county councillors.
“It was slap in the face,” he said.
“For every action, there is a reaction and those comments have caused a reaction with my council.
“Many (city) councillors are really upset and there are some who say that perhaps we should look at unravelling social services (now shared by the city and county), that maybe we should start charging county residents who use our swimming pool (Gretzky Centre) or use our other facilities.”
Other city councillors have suggested a new form of government.
Davis said he believes there are important issues the city and county could tackle together for the benefit of all.
“There is a north-south transportation corridor that could be built but, for it to be truly beneficial to all, we need to be working together,” he said. “We have an issue with transportation from West Brant to Highway 403 and one option, a possible solution could involve county roads.
“But we can’t explore those issues because they won’t even talk to us.”
Davis said a co-ordinated economic development plan and tourism strategy could provide benefits to both communities. The two municipalities could also look at making the land around the Brantford Municipal Airport employment land or land that could be developed to the benefit of both municipalities, he said.
Bailey said he is upset because the Brantford mayor’s motion came as a surprise.
He said the county’s rejection of the city’s proposal to resurrect the joint services committee was not meant to say the county isn’t interested in continuing to share services.
“Indeed, almost all of the services we currently share didn’t evolve out of past shared services committees,” Bailey said. “When we considered the city’s request, we said we wanted to look at ways to have a broader shared-service discussion with our many neighbours, not just a single initiative with one neighbour.
“Engaging several neighbours in a discussion about efficiencies is far more effective and will likely create much create benefits to taxpayers in the area.”
Bailey noted that Brant is a largely rural community with a number of communities, all of which have different needs, challenges and issues. The best way to serve them is to have different municipal governments, he said.
During his election campaign and through his involvement with numerous local organizations including the Brant Community Foundation and the Boys’ and Girls’ Club, Bailey said he has never heard any city resident say amalgamation would be good for Brant and Brantford.
While county councillors have yet to consider the city’s notice of motion, Bailey said he is “fairly confident” there is no interest on the county’s part in amalgamation.
“I maintain my position, which I believe is supported by most residents of both communities, when I say that a separate county and city working together in a respectful, forward thinking, and intelligent fashion is the best model to bring prosperity and success to the area.”
Vball@postmedia.com
twitter.com/EXPVBall
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.