Dear Editor:
RE: “Misremembering,” Aug. 13.
The Centre Wellington Heritage Committee is a very hard-working committee, which has great value because we live in an amazing community with many amazing heritage buildings and bridges worth saving.
Recently there was a letter addressed to the editor with concerns about “misremembering” and I feel that these concerns should be addressed.
It should be pointed out that Centre Wellington Heritage Committee (November meeting) did not offer an official opinion that was intended to be brought forward to council. These types of opinions or recommendations from committees would normally be brought forward in a staff report to council. The discussion at Heritage Committee was verbal and revolved around the parameters of what the committee should consider and the committee agreed that financial implications should not be in their scope.
It is true that I did not bring to council the fact that the Heritage Committee rejected the consultant’s finding based on financial implications because it is very clear that the Heritage Committee should not be considering such things in their scope of work. What was not pointed out in the letter is that council had a fulsome discussion about the heritage attributes of the bridges in question and council’s discussion followed the same pattern as the Heritage Committee discussion.
I am also quoted as saying “Jean feels the committee was bypassed.” This refers to the fact that the Heritage Committee still wanted to have their official report on the file without the financial considerations. I did encourage the committee at their next meeting to generate an official report that could go back to the council chambers for more discussion. Both staff and council were found willing to repeat the discussion in a following council meeting and the outcome remained the same. This second round of discussions happened because council and staff respect the work that is done by all committees and felt it was appropriate to engage with the bridge report a second time.
I do find it disappointing that we now face a Part II order requested, as this could stop the bridge replacement process by a year or more and these bridges are already at risk of closing. It may also cost the township up to $60,000 in excess of the actual bridge cost which will need to be spent in order to deal with the Part II order.
I do believe that the Heritage Committee, staff and council all have a strong desire to do what is best for our community but sometimes our opinions differ based on the scope of our responsibility. These bridges are slated for replacement because council’s scope of information to balance is wider than that of the Heritage Committee’s and thus the outcome may not satisfy all involved.
Council has now dealt with this matter twice with the same decision reached. Unfortunately, the residents who use these bridges will suffer the most while they wait for the Part II order to be completed.
Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen,
Centre Wellington