Councillor Davis ridiculed for doing what he was elected to do.

Contrary to the Town's August 26th, 2004, Arbor Glen subdivision agreement with Mattamy Homes, council recently voted to give Mattamy Homes $153,360.00 originally levied to capture perpetual  maintenance fee's for the gated entrance of Mattamy Homes controversial - Abor Glen development.

In an unprecedented move, the developer went to Town staff requesting for a $153,360.00 refund. The Town's June 13th, 2005 Agenda for the council meeting indicates  staff capitulated and prepared a report now terming the contract "refund" as an "overpayment" and requesting council address the matter forthwith indicated "with a star" for council's approval to issue the so-called "overpayment".

G. Report No. PD-2005-0040 dated June 1, 2005, regarding File No: D12/Arbor

Valley Estates (now Mattamy – Arbor Glen Subdivision – 24T-98015/H, 20M-918), Part Lots 16 and 17, Concession 8, Town of Halton Hills, Request for return of overpayment to the Gateway Feature Trust Fund.

When it came time to vote, Councillor Davis who was  chairing the General Committee meeting requested a stand-up vote to show transparency on the issue which involved the financial benefiting of Mattamy Homes. mattamy Homes had contributed to the political campaigns of four voting committee members; Councillor Jane Fogal, Councillor Moya Johnson, Councillor Sommerville and our town Mayor, Rick Bonnette.

When put to the question by Councillor Davis, the Town's Planning Director, Mr. MacLain declared there is no obligation to refund the money, the developer was bound by the subdivision agreement that they entered into with the town.

Council members got noticeably uncomfortable when Davis requested to record a stand-up vote over the issue for public record.

Councillor Jon Hurst compared the $153,360.00 contract amendment to;

"I look to it as if you went to Canadian Tire to buy a bike, and a week later they had it on sale - ninety percent off, I think you'd end up in Canadian Tire wondering why you paid 90% more".

Councillor Inglis had reservations about the amount;

"the only draw back is, is ten percent enough"?

then included his support for the refund.

As a departing remark, Councillor Davis stated:

"I'm not happy giving this back, a contract is a contract and certainly I think any developer that felt it was unfair, and I believe they (Mattamy) stated so in their letter, that they could have come to council and asked for some consideration". Councillor Davis went on; " I think the deal should stay there and that would give us a healthy reserve fund".

Councillor Davis went on to ask the Planning Director Bruce MacLean;

"I see that you've asked this to be dealt with at the council level tonight with a 'star' and I was wondering what the reasoning behind that was"?

The Planning Director responded;

"Just from the staffs' point of view - there was an opportunity that you could make a decision in one night - it's not a matter that the public's involved with this process - council's two-step process would allow the public to become involved in an issue. This is a matter between the developer and the town, so staff thought one council meeting would be more than adequate because you would not be looking for any public input on this issue".

Councillor Jane Fogal described the developer, who in part financed her campaign, as;

"good corporate citizens".

She went on to raise concerns over the implications that this developer was getting a break.     

Moya Johnson said she resented any implications of wrong doing. She added - accepting money from people is perfectly legal and she resented any implications that accepting money from developers might persuade her voting over matters that concern the people who donated to her election campaign, then went on to  demanding an apology.

Davis clarified to Councillor Johnson;

"I'm not implying there is any wrong doing, just some members of the public would have some concerns with that, and we need to have some accountability in council, sorry, but I feel that's my duty to the public".

Councillor Mike O'Leary stated a typical Tanner commentary; 

"I'd also like to point out that the NDP and environmental groups also donate to different political parties, and of course, I'm not intimating there's anything there either".

Mayor Bonnette, who was another benefactor of Mattamy's selective political generosities, questioned Councillor Davis's own pecuniary interest as an environmental engineer who does various environmental assessments for an assortment of companies throughout Halton Hills. Davis confirmed - periodically he does work for various entities and declares a pecuniary interest, as per the municipal act, when it's appropriate to do so.

The Mayor raved on:

"That's exactly my point! We have a municipal of conflict of interest act, we're governed by the province... and thank you,  you just answered the question. Your previous comment was almost leading into innuendo, once again, in the council chambers... that we have a municipal conflict of interest act that each and every member has to go by, and I'd like to thank you for clarifying that".

  You can listen to the audio transcript of the entire event by clicking here.

Quote from our interactive forums:

"Regardless, just because an elected representative of the people lobbies his committee for transparency on an issue that involves the benefit of a corporation that’s financed so many councillors election campaigns, isn’t a good enough reason to join the shark frenzy mentality that developed in the chamber that evening. Davis is not in my ward, but I would like to personally thank him for watching out for my best interest. This tax-payer will not be voting to re-elect the mayor or any of his shark councillors".

 

Listen to audio transcript of the proceeding click here. 5.9 MB

More about The Acton Free Press Report ...

Post your Interactive/comments here ...