County council is changing direction on its shoreline bylaw by hiring a private firm to continue work in response to public outcry.

Council unanimously voted at a special meeting Jan. 27 to put out a request for proposals. The chosen firm will lead further development on the bylaw, including reviewing related science, an environmental scan, exploring municipal comparators and public consultation.

The move comes after weeks of public pushback on the current draft of the shoreline bylaw, which aims to restrict development within 30 metres of shorelines. Coun. Carol Moffatt said the community is unravelling over the issue and there is a need to rebuild trust.

“That firm would provide the leadership to go around and talk to the various groups and tell us where we are – and maybe aren’t – on the mark in regional comparators,” Moffatt said.

More than 250 people watched the meeting live. Council discussed how much controversy the bylaw has garnered and the struggles to communicate it.

“We need to be providing really clear answers to the questions we’re getting,” Moffatt said, adding a comprehensive FAQ is needed. “It feels like a bit of a zombie apocalypse as opposed to people lined up, informed and willing to participate in a process. It just feels like it’s all over the map.

“We need to get the public off Facebook and we need to get them into our information portal,” she later said.

Council initially debated a motion by deputy warden Patrick Kennedy, backed by Coun. Andrea Roberts, to start a committee for the bylaw.

Kennedy said he had received a lot of feedback and justified concerns from smart people who also care about lake health. He said the County could explore other ideas beyond a uniform 30-metre setback, such as varying it based on lake capacity and water type.

“I’m not a planner, I’m not a fish biologist, I’m not a lawyer,” Kennedy said. “I’m trying to make the best decision and recommendations I can. I don’t feel like I have the tools.”

The idea got some positive reception, but councillors expressed concerns. Moffatt said given the controversy, picking public members of the committee could prove difficult, as people may perceive council as handpicking members for bad reasons.

“I believe we are so far down the vitriolic blame game that it would be impossible to adequately or usefully represent all interested parties without making it even worse,” Moffatt said.

Coun. Brent Devolin said in deciding to hire a firm, they had to be cognizant it likely meant the bylaw would not be in place for the 2021 building season.

“We have less than two years in the term of council. We need to get our business done,” Devolin said.

Roberts, who indicated a preference for the committee route, noted the cost comparison.

“There will be a financial implication for this,” she said, adding a committee would be less expensive, with locals with expertise willing to contribute for free.

Warden Liz Danielsen said people need to have patience with the County taking a step back.

“I’ve said it many times, we want to get this right,” she said. “I hope that process will help to do that.”

Highlands East council voted to move ahead with drafting an exotic animal bylaw to address the possibility of them in the municipality.

Bylaw enforcement officer, Kristen Boylan, brought the idea forward Jan. 19. She said it was a response to a recent controversy in the neighbouring Hastings Highlands, where the municipality lacked such a law to address a family bringing in a collection of lions and tigers to create a roadside safari experience.

Boylan said Ontario is the only Canadian province without exotic animals legislation. About half of Ontario municipalities have rules on them, but none within the County. She said with the dog bylaw due for an update, she decided they should address the matter.

“If we do not have a bylaw, there’s nothing to stop anyone from bringing in say, lion cubs, bears, pythons,” Boylan said. “No way of having any enforcement should we receive any complaints.”

Boylan also offered an option to have a unified bylaw including dogs and exotic pets, but deputy mayor Cec Ryall said it would make more sense to separate them.

“In the case of dogs, it’s pretty well defined,” Ryall said, noting the distinction between exotic and other unregulated animals such as domestic cats. “We’re going to licence exotic animals, but we’re not going to licence cats.”

As an example, Boylan cited a 2019 Huntsville bylaw, which she said reduced complaints there. Coun. Suzanne Partridge said she is in favour of prohibiting exotic pets but added she did not want to do so for canine hybrids – such as wolf or coyote hybrids – which are illegal in Huntsville. Huntsville’s bylaw bans all canines other than domesticated dogs.

“My last dog who just died in June was a hybrid and I wouldn’t have been allowed to have her and it was a sweetheart,” she said, adding it can be difficult to determine a hybrid without DNA testing. “It can’t just be the judgement of the bylaw control officer.”

Boylan replied she could research and bring forward information on hybrids.

Coun. Cam McKenzie said the municipality would need to figure out how to grandfather the rules for those who already have such pets.

“Snakes are more common than what most people realize,” McKenzie said. “To try and prohibit them is going to cause some issues … That is something we maybe want to think about before we do this.”

Muskoka Climate change co-ordinator Kevin Boyle said the district’s goal of reducing its corporate and community emissions by 50 per cent in the next 10 years was no certainty.

Boyle spoke to an audience of 37 at the Environment Haliburton! (EH) enviro-café Jan. 12 to discuss “A New Leaf: Muskoka’s Climate Strategy” and its creation. The strategy’s goal is significantly greater than Haliburton County’s corporate plan to reduce its emissions by 30 per cent from 2018 levels by 2030.

Boyle doubted the goal would have been reached without the advocacy efforts of Climate Action Muskoka (CAM), who demanded it.

“You see them every Friday on the corner. That momentum really builds,” Boyle said. “While that is an ambitious target, that shouldn’t be seen as an ambitious target. That is what the science tells us we should do. That should be seen as the baseline.”

Boyle highlighted the years of effort that went into building the climate strategy passed Dec. 21, which also includes a net-zero emissions target by 2050. He said action is needed to address climate change and took pride in Muskoka’s efforts.

“I am very happy despite how confusing the process was – and it was – where we got to and how much support the council has for it and how much support the community has for it,” Boyle said.

“It brings strong policy leadership and firm targets which put climate action at the forefront of all decision-making,” CAM spokesperson Melinda Zytaruk said in a press release.

The County of Haliburton passed its corporate climate change mitigation plan in September. The County is still working on adaptation and community plans.

Boyle complimented the County for getting all its lower-tier townships on board with the overarching plan but said he could not celebrate if Muskoka went for a lower target, given scientific consensus about the need for greater reductions.

“I would rather fail at meeting 50 per cent but try, rather than set something lower. In saying that, I’m not criticizing other governments that haven’t set that target. Maybe they could set that target and blow beyond it,” Boyle said.

Canada’s formal goal is to reach a 30 per cent reduction of 2005 levels by 2030, though the federal government has said it will exceed that. Ontario’s climate action plan aims to reduce its emissions by 37 per cent by 2030 from 1990 levels.

Boyle said Muskoka’s goal will require community buy-in, given 98 per cent of the district’s emissions are from community-based sources.

“You need buy-in from everybody. So, you really want everyone at the table when you’re developing those reduction strategies,” he said.

EH! vice-president Terry Moore said the presentation had takeaways for the organization for when the County begins its community planning.

“It’s a lot of encouragement,” Moore said. “Some really good ideas and lessons for us.”

The OPP is enforcing a new stay-at-home order and dispersing larger gatherings, but said it is not targeting individuals.

The province introduced a new stay-at-home order Jan. 14, demanding people only leave for essential trips such as work, purchasing goods, exercise, caring for animals or others, or moving. The province also said law enforcement would be empowered to issue fines under the order.

OPP spokesperson Const. Iryna Nebogatova said the attention the order has received has brought more complaints, which drive enforcement. She added gatherings – limited to five people outdoors – are the main source of the complaints.

“I do understand the stay-at-home order under the emergency management and Civil Protection Act, Reopening Ontario Act are quite confusing,” Nebogatova said. “What we are focusing on here would be the large gatherings, the gatherings whether they’re indoor or outdoor.

“The individuals are not the focus of this enforcement,” she added.

In a press release Jan. 15, OPP said it could levy fines of $750 for failing to comply with the order and/or $1,000 for preventing others from complying. However, the press release added that officers will not arbitrarily stop an individual or vehicle to check compliance with the orders.

“Individuals are not expected to provide proof of essential work,” OPP said. “Officers can ask an individual to identify themselves if they have reasonable grounds to believe the individual is violating an act.”

The province said bylaw enforcement can also issue fines under the order, but Dysart et al bylaw officer Robert Mascia said he is redirecting complaints to OPP.

“If the OPP require assistance in enforcement measures, the municipality’s bylaw department will gladly help,” Mascia said.

Cottagers being allowed

County resident Donna Pugh said she called police on a cottager neighbour who visited their secondary residence this past weekend. But Pugh said OPP indicated that it is allowed – and they were not going to attend to address someone travelling to a secondary residence.

“Our premier of the province has strongly told us all to stay home,” Pugh said. “Then to see our County booming with people who don’t live here all the time, when they’re asked to stay home, I just find that really frustrating.”

The order states someone can travel to another residence if they intend to be there for less than 24 hours and are attending for an essential purpose; or if they intend to reside there for at least 14 days.

Nebogatova did not directly address cottager enforcement when asked but said there are exemptions for people to leave their homes under the order that should be respected.

“We are requesting that the members of the public voluntarily comply with the new stay-at-home order to limit their mobility outside their homes except for essential reasons,” she said.

Pugh said despite the province’s words, the enforcement is not going far enough.

“The whole thing doesn’t have many teeth,” she said.

County council formalized an economic development position and collaborative procurement as its first steps toward improving operations as recommended by a service delivery review.

Council discussed the review at a special meeting Jan. 13. All members agreed to include an economic development position in this year’s budget and to begin work on collaborative procurement later this year.

The initiatives are just two of the 12 overarching areas addressed by consultant StrategyCorp in the review to improve collaboration, efficiency and realize more than $1 million in potential cash flow improvements. Council also agreed to work through the other recommendations slowly at its future meetings.

“I know that this has been a difficult one,” Warden Liz Danielsen said. “But I think we’ve come to some agreement about how we’re going to approach this a bit at a time, in a reasonable fashion that works for everybody.”

StrategyCorp recommended the County hire an economic development officer this year, with an estimated upfront cost of $200,000 annually. It also suggested starting collaborative procurement – joint purchasing of goods and services by the County and its lower-tier municipalities – with estimated savings between $372,000 and $1,193,000 annually once implemented.

Coun. Brent Devolin said it made sense to move on procurement early.

“That’s some of the savings that fund and helps some of the things that will come in subsequent years,” Devolin said.

“It’s a real area of need for the County,” CAO Mike Rutter said. “No one (on staff) has that expertise. They’re not a purchasing expert. That would be really helpful for us.”

But these only represent two of the six initiatives StrategyCorp suggested to start in 2021. The others were communications, waste management, roads and co-ordination. Council directed staff to bring back more information about implementing those and other recommendations at a future meeting.

Danielsen said ongoing discussions will be needed, adding better communication is important.

“We’re not good at communicating with each other,” she said. “We have discussions at the County council and quite often the information just stays here. It doesn’t go back to the lower-tiers.”

However, Devolin said live-streamed meetings make it easier for lower-tier councillors to access. Although the County may yet move on other initiatives, deputy warden Patrick Kennedy cautioned to not overload staff.

“I’m just so worried about our staff, about burning them out,” Kennedy said. “If it takes an extra year, I don’t care.”

“We definitely need to agree on an approach and what those, maybe one or two low-hanging fruit pieces are,” he said. “That aren’t going to create a massive workload for any specific individual.”

Kennedy praised council for getting through the meeting.

“I’m just so proud of this group,” Kennedy said. “We’ve made some pretty big decisions and I’m just so thrilled to be part of it.”