MINUTES - Council - 19580623MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER,
ON MOND!Y, JUNE 23RD, 1958 AT 8.00 P.M.
PRESENT:
MAYOR:
REEVE:
DEPUTY REEVE:
COUNCILLORS
---------------
D,J •. MURRAY (IN THE CHAIR)
C.F. DAVIS
C.K. NISBET
ADAIR, CHILD, CORBETT, DAVIDSON,
PATRICK AND STODDART.
129
Reeve Davis presented a report of the Fire and Water Committee regarding
Waterworks employees in which the Committee respectfully submit the
following:
On Wednesday, June 18th, the Committee met to discuss a schedule
for hours for the waterworks men so that there would be a man at the
waterworks every week-end, Present: The Committee, Mayor Murray ,
·Councillors Davidson, Patrick and Stoddart, Superintendent Browning,
Also J, McGhee and A. Higgins. The waterworks men requested that
when a man i~ call for a week-end (Sat. & Sun.) that he should be
given Monday & Tuesday off the following week in compensation.
General discussion followed the presentation of the Fire and Water
Committee report and Reeve Davis stated that a schedule had previously
been prepared whereby when a man was on call on week....:ends at the
waterworka in order that a man would be on duty during the week-end
he would be allowed one days compensation lieu thereof. The water-
works men have since demanded two days off in lieu of working the
holidays i~e. Monday and Tuesday the following the week-end on call.
R~eve Davis stated that one full....:time employee was required at the
waterworks and all other Town men might be formed into the Town
labour pool. The scheduie drawn up to allow one day off in lieu
of Sunday or employ a rover to alternate every 3rd week was not
adhered to.
-Deputy Reeve Nisbet asked the Reeve if the men over the week-end
worked just on call and not actually on full-time working duty. Reeve
Davis replied that this statement is correct and if no call was re-
ceived then one man might have four days off,
Deputy Reeve Nisbett stated that it was always considered that men
were always on call. Reeve Davis mentioned that during the time of
the water trouble the foreman was not available.
Councillor Davidson remarked that the salaried man's duty is to be
· on call 7 days per week to ensure that someone is always on duty at ~
the waterworks, '· ·
Councillor Corbett suggested that a work sh41p might be utilized and
on Saturday, when on duty, a man could repair and sharpen work tools
and in this way the man would be on call during this time.
Deputy Reeve Nisbet thought that Council might be critized for allbw-'
ing such extra time as reque.sted. Mayor Murray stated that the Reeve .
and the Town Superintendent had presented a schedule in ·that. the
Waterworks men had refused to try this schedule· prior to :tts adoptjjon ,
and in other worll.s felt that a fair trial should have b'een. allowed
first. Mayor Murray asked if Council were running the Town or are the
'employees running us.
-~
.,.,
1311
-2--Monday, June 23, 1958.
Councillor Adair stated he had supported Mr. McGhee originally be-
cause at the time it seemed reasonable however since that time
apparently .it has become quite prohibitive.
Councillor Stoddart agreed that the work s~op on Saturday might help
this situation somewhat however it would support the Reeve 1 s original
schedule whereby one day was allowed in li~u.of the week-ends.
Councillor Child stated that if Mr. McGhee is willing to accept the
responsibility for Foreman of the Waterworks he must then ascertain
that someone is on duty each day of the week.
DAVIS:
ADAIR:
••11 That the report of the Fire and Water Committee
be adopted. n
The following;·amendment to this motion w·as then proposed.
DAVIDSON:
NISBET:
11 That we revert back to the original schedule pre:.. ·
sented by Reeve Davis and the Town Superintendent,"
Carried.
Re Elevated Trunk sewer across Aurora Heights property
Mayor Murray advised to all present that this evening's meeting they
were not interested in personalities but they are only interested in
Proctor and Redfern and the Subdivider's engineers.
Mr. G.U. Proctor, Engineer representing the firm of Proctor'and
Redfern. outlined a story of this sewer and stated that e.ngine'ering
drawings were first submitted i~ the spring of 1956 for approval.
There was a plan submitted showing the proposed method of servicing
a subdivision and plans were subll!itted so that the sew:er running
across the valley was laid out and shown to run above ground to the
creek as it is today. At the .. oreek there was an iverte.d syphon on
the ··original plan. On April 30, 1956 approval was not then given
and further information was requested from R.E. Winters, Engineers.
The Department of Health granted approval on July )rd, 1956 and
subsequent things became dormant until last fall when a further set
of diawings were submitted detailing the se1.rer as it now exists. Under
date of October 3lst,l957 Proctor and Redfern wrote R.E, Winters and
a copy of this letter was sent to the Town in connection with a
elevated sewer question and this letter mentioned that the elevated
sewer would act a~ a dam. On December 11, 1957 approval was given
by Proctor and Redfern for this ee~ver with the recommendation that
granular till be used under this elevated pipe. Mr. Proctor pointed
out that at the preseat time the water course at the point where
the sewer crosses over the creek ~as not been widened and an flooding
damage will originate from Aurora ~eights Drive and not from the
sewer dam, . .
Mayor Murray stated that in case of ice ·jamming up at the creek it
could easily strike the se•rer, Although ice might go through the
culverts it could not go through at the Sewage Disposal Plant,
Councillor Child asked if the creek were to be widened at that point
is there a~ specified distance that the widening should be required,
Mr. Proctor stated that the bridge must be removed and the channel
must be cleared and widened up to the bridge~
-3 -Monday, June 23. 1958.
Councillor Davidson stated that a flash flood might easily overflow.
the creek and either wash out the dam or damage the Sewage Disposal
Plant.
Mayor Murray stated that since we place such a high value on our
park lands and conservation areas he could not understand how the
engineers could reobmmend·the dividing of this land in two.
131
Mr. Proctor stated that originally this plan would not have interfered
with very little park area and suggested it might be spread out and
an access made over the sewer. Also that sodding was requested pre-
viously but had been rescinded by Counuil.
Mr. Howard, representing R.E. Winters, Engineers, stated that Mr.
Proctor had certainly outlined the progress of the sewer. very well
and that. he agreed with Mr. Prootor 1 s statement.
Mayor Murray stated that we, as laymen, have been misled and although
he had noticed a pile of dirt there during the winter months presumed
it was fill for the sewer but once speing came he actually saw it was
an elevated dam.
Councillor Child stated that all of Council certainly like to see this
sewer dam removed but asked the question who is going to pay for its
removal.
Mayor Mur·ray mentioned that the Town might have had a very fine park
and conservation area however it is not<T out up in-tell small parcels.
Councillor Child agreed with Mayor Murray that the elevated sewer .
and elevated road certainly makes small parcels out of what was once
to be one large park area.
Mr. Proctor differed in opinion as to how this elevated sewer out the
park up into little parcels. Mr.Prootor further stated that it would
cost approximately $7,000.00 to .$8,000.00 to replace the sewer over
west to the Pumphouse.
Councillor Patrick stated that as soon as we fill on the west side of
the creek flood damage will come to the Sewage Disposal Plant and '"e
must protect our Plant.
Mayor Murray asked if we are going to put up with this dam or are 1•re
going to spend something like $8,000.00 to remove it.
Councillor Adair asked if there were any basis for a compromise in
this situation.
Councillor Davidson suggested that the cost be divided between Proctor
and Re!Rfern and R •. E. Winters.
Mr. Proctor stated that Proctor and Redfern will not accept any part
of this responsibility.
Mr. D. Richardson, representing Aurora Planning Board thought that all
points have been well covered although it was quite apparent that
Proctor and Re!Rfern did not consider all use of land when the dam was
approved. Mr. Richardson also thought the.channel to be widened wax
at the expense of the Aurora Heights Engineers and asked Mr. Howard
if this was understood by himself.
132
-4-Monday;; June 23, 19 58
Mr. Howard replied that this was not understood in his specifications.
Mr. Proctor stated that there will be definitely not be any confirmation
on his part that flooding conditions will not arise in this area and
that these are conditions that are due to happen occasionally and might
only happen in 50 or 100 years. Mr. Proctor further stated that the
water channel area available when increased has adequate area in it
to carry a rainfall similiar to that occasion of Hurricane Haxel.
Councillor Stoddart in~uired as to how much of the $7,000,00 cost would
be cost of removal of this sewer be and Mr. Proctor advised that
approximately $2,000.00 would be involved in the removal ~~~~
of the present sewer.
Councillor Davidson said that a flood is bound to cause flooding east
into the Sewage Disposal Plant beca~se of this elevated sewer and Reeve
Davis stated that he has seen the flats flliood at least three times.
Councillor Stoddart thought that it might cost us $2,000.,00 for re-
moval and the other $5,000.00 should be Aurora Heights responsibility ••
Mr. Proctor stated that he is approving something to save the subdivider
money and was previously reprimanded because he recommended something
causing the subdivider more expense.
Deputy Reeve Nisbet inquired what would happen if the conservation
authorities do not approve of this elevated sewer and if they might
enfoTce Proctor & Redfern to change.
Mr. Proctor replied that we have been acting on behalf of the Town of
Aurora and cannot accept this responsibility.
Mayor Murray stated if Proctor and Redfern were working in the interests
of the Town why did they approve of this sewer. Mr. Proctor/how actually
does this sewer
area would have
not now.
. asked
affect your par~ area. Mayor Murray replied that this
made a fine amphitheatre and ho~se show but certainly
l
Mr. Richardson stated that the problem of a north access is certainly
not good planning.
It was then moved by Councillor Corbett that Reeve Davis take the Chair.
Carried,
Mayor Murray then stated that the Reeve, Councillor Corbett and myself
have been here the longest and we can go back 8 -10 years and talking
about Proctor& Redfern and not Jvlr,· G.U. Proctor that as long as I've
been here we have'run into difficulties with the firm of Proctor &
Redfern and Mayor Murray stated that he was tired.of the fact that
everything that comes before Council we have first discussed and then
disagreed "l'ri th our Engineers. We are now faced with either agreeir_1g
with our Engineers or getting Engineers we can.agree with.
( Jvla:yor. Murray In The Chair·)
Reeve Davis stated he agreed wholeheartedly with Mayor Murray's. statement.
Councillor Patrick asked Mr •. Howard if he would call it eounQ. business 'c
practice to enter into the stream as ·.the sewer now does and Mr. Howard
replied that tremeddous cost is saved and at least half the cost to
the Town regarding extra pumping cost.
1 i:, ,;
-5 -Monday, June 23. 1958
Mayor Murray stated that a meeting should be arranged with Mr. Marrese
and lets hope that no expense to the Town is involved in the solution
to this problem. This matter was then left in Reeve Davis'hands to
arrange a meeting of Council as Committee of the Whole with Mr. Marrese
whereby firm pr!ce might be obtained at no cost to the Town. It was
decided that this meeting be held next week.
Mr. Proctor stated that he had attempted to arrange plans of subdivision
for the Town and that there is no particular way he is able to explain
to Council other than by letter or presentation at a Council meeting
certain faces of these ~-,plans. Mr. Proctor requested Council to appoint
a Committee vmo might be in a position to sit with Mr. Proctor and go
over all engineering drawings on future subdivisions before approval so
there will be no repetition of this matter. Mr. Proctor further stated
that he had endevoured to act in the vary best faith for the good of the
Tovm.
Councillor Child definitely stated he was not aware of this elevated
sewer until the inspection this spring.
Re· Sunnybrook Subdivision
DAVIS: 11 That we discuss this matter briefly."
NISBET: Carried.
Councillor Child then mentioned during his absence a meeting of the
Planning Committee had been held and there were two items in his opinion
that had to be decided this evening. These items 1vere as follo'tors:
Item 4 -there was no quarrel with the width of the road however thought
that only one sidewalk should be required.
Item 5 -that we are out of order pequesting Sunnybrook Subdivision to
pay the cost of 110 ft. of pavement between the t1-ro Subdivisions.
DAVIS:
STODDART:
11 That item 5 be deleted and that we not asked Sunny-
brook Subdivision to pave the 110 ft. in the Aurora
Heights Subdivision."
Carried.
' STODDART:
DAVIDSON:
11 That a sidewalk on one side only of Sunrise Drive be
installed. n
Carried.
Moved by Councillor Child that we adjourn.
The meeting then adjourned.
]) !lifrz~
- - -. - - - - --··· - - - -..
7Tffayor --{/