Bay Bulls and Witless Bay take differing views on cleanup offer

By Mark Squibb/December 9, 2021

Bay Bulls and Witless Bay both voted on a quote from Clean Harbours Initiative  earlier this month, but while one council enthusiastically welcomed the initiative, the other passed.

The motion first appeared on the agenda for the November 8 Bay Bulls public meeting.

“This is a group that been going around Newfoundland, and cleaning up various harbours,” explained deputy mayor Jason O’Brien. “It’s a great environmental initiative.”

What council did not find so great was the $5,440 price tag.

Councilor Shannon O’ Driscoll motioned to deny, and councilor Jason Sullivan seconded the motion.

“I think we need to deny this at the moment, just for the fact that we’re still trying to burn out our budget for this next year and to this incur this cost is something that we don’t really want to take on right now,” said Sullivan.

Councilor Keith O’Driscoll noted that the port is a federal port.

“They have a harbor authority, so that’s kind of there baby,” said O’ Driscoll.

The very next night, Witless Bay council unanimously approved the initiative.

“The Clean Harbour Initiative is an initiative started by a local Newfoundland man going around to different areas of the province and taking ocean trash and other debris that has been cast to the way side for years, into our lovely oceans and beautiful scenery and onto out beaches,” explained councilor Jacob Hayden, who made the motion. “He’s going to come up and do an assessment just to tell if it’s worth him coming back in the future to do a full cleanup of the harbour.”

Deputy Mayor Lorna Yard seconded the motion and shared her enthusiasm for the project.

“I think it’s a really exciting initiative,” said Yard. “Initially I didn’t know a whole lot about it, until I looked into what he does. I think it’s really good seeing we have a globally significant seabird reserve right off our shores. I think this will be a really good news story for our town.”

Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

Councilor Ralph Carey added that should the clean up go ahead, it would be worthwhile to invite Mobile High School students to participate, as their studies require, they get a certain number of volunteer hours. Councilor Alex Troake added his support to the motion, saying it would be good for both the community and the seabird ecological reserve.

The quoted price was not mentioned in the meeting.

Croft says backup generators badly needed

The Town of Witless Bay called a special meeting this past week so it could get an application for federal capital works funding in on time.

The town requested money for three projects. The first is upgrades to Tuff’s Road at a cost of $400,000. That project would be cost shared at a 50/50 split, leaving the town on the hook for $230,000, including HST. The second project is upgrades to Harbour Road at a cost of $470,000. That project would also be cost shared 50/50. The towns portion would be $270,250.

For both projects, the town would borrow money from the bank over a seven-year term. For the smaller project, the town would have to pay $3,092 monthly. For the bigger job, the Harbour Road upgrades, the town would have to pony up $3,632 monthly.

Council is also requesting funds for emergency generators at both the fire hall and the Puffin Centre. Combined, the generators would cost $180,000. Cost shared at 90/10, the town would pay $20,700, which would be borrowed from the bank at a cost for $377 a month for a five-year term.

Mayor Trevor Croft said the generators are much-needed.

“If the power goes out, our emergency centres are the fire station and the Puffin Centre, and neither of those have back up generators,” he said. “So, we’re looking to get a generator for the town hall/fire station and one for the Puffin Centre so we can have warming centres for the residents in case of an emergency.”

He added the town has been experiencing a number of outages lately.

“We lose power at least twice a week in Witless Bay,” said Croft. “For ten minutes to a half an hour usually. About twice a week for the past two months. It’s getting on our nerves.

As far as he knows the only backup generator currently in town is at Alderwood Retirement Home.

“But we can’t all pile in there, so it will be nice to have something to rely on.”

Witless Bay resident says council shouldn't act on anonymous requests

By Mark Squibb/December 2, 2021

A resident of Witless Bay says council should reveal who requested council rescind four motions made by the previous council, all of which relate to blocking development off Mullowney’s Lane.

Anita Dunne said she’s concerned that council would rescind motions based on what amounts to an anonymous request, and she would like to see the community more involved in such decisions.

“What are their motives?” asked Dunne. “What is their agenda? Who is this person?”

Dunne was so bothered by it, she sent an access to information request to find out who had requested the motions be rescinded. She made the request shortly after the November 9 public meeting. She said Town Clerk Barbara Harrigan returned the request a few days later saying the town won’t be releasing the individual’s name.

“The reason given was that it would compromise the privacy of the person,” said Dunne. “So, they’re protecting the privacy of a person who made an anonymous request to change the town ordinances and rescind motions made by a previous council. In my world, that makes no sense at all. You would think that if someone wants something to happen in town that they would have to make a formal request to the town in writing or put something that would be a notice to people that are affected by these decisions.”

Two of the motions relate to 99 hectares of land surrounding Ragged Beach. Council voted to delay voting on whether to rescind them due to the heavy volume of information involved.

If the motions are rescinded, it would reinstate a 99-hectare Crown Land Reserve that would prohibit almost all development in the area.

Another request that came at the behest of the unnamed individual, which council complied with, was to rescind a motion that had given council the power to set its own road standards including for public Rights-of-Way. The change means the Town won’t proceed with an extension to Mullowney’s Lane that had been ordered by the previous council.

The final motion that was rescinded at the anonymous person’s request related to an approval that had been given for a septic system for a private property located behind Mullowney’s Lane. The previous council had made such applications contingent on approval from Service NL.

Dunne sees the rescindment of the motion as yet another attempt by certain individuals in Witless Bay to prevent several private landowners off Mullowney’s Lane from enjoying the use of their own property.

“There’s just no end to it,” said Dunne.

She said it’s been hard to contact most members of council, as their e-mail addresses and phone numbers are not listed on the Town’s website.

“I think the better way would have been for the town council to put on the meeting agenda that they had a request from this person, and say who made that request, and we should be able to ask that person why they feel this motion should be rescinded,” said Dunne. “It should have been put on the agenda to give people an opportunity to respond to it, and at the very least have an open meeting.”

Mayor Trevor Croft said the request was not anonymous, and council knows who the individual is. He said the request came to council almost immediately following the September election.

He said the town is simply following standard procedure.

“When people want to rescind a motion, they can e-mail us, or contact us in another way, and we can look into it, and put it on the agenda, and do our research on it, and find out if we can rescind it, or if we should rescind it, or if we shouldn’t,” said Croft.

As to the identity of the unnamed resident, Croft said again the town is following protocol.

“It’s anonymous to the general public, that’s just the way it works,” said Croft. “If people want to file an ATIPP request, they can get the information from the e-mail, but the name will be redacted.”

He said he understands people’s concerns, but assured council won’t rescind motions willy nilly or without doing its homework.

He said the decision to rescind two of the motions just made sense.

“We talked with the town engineer and the town planner, and that motion made no sense in their eyes, and the one about Service NL didn’t make sense to begin with, so those decisions were easy to make,” said Croft.

He argued that leaving road standards to council’s discretion can lead to dangerous situations that the town might be held liable for. He pointed out that a fire truck currently would have a very hard time trying to fit down Mullowney’s Lane.

One of the purposes of the extension of that lane, by the previous council, was to provide a turnaround for snowclearing and other heavy equipment that might need to access the lane.

Croft said it’s best to leave road standards to the provincial government.

“The Crown Land reserve, those were two of the motions that this guy had requested rescinding, and there’s a lot of information there, and it takes a long time to go through that information,” said Croft. “I’m still reading up about this Crown Land reserve, I don’t know a whole lot about it.”

He said he has three quarters of an inch worth of information to get through, and he does hope council gets to discuss the motion with folks in the area who will be affected, and that due to time constraints and busy schedules council may not be ready to vote on the issue by the December 14 council meeting.

Croft insisted he does not want to block access to any private land.

If folks have concerns about things that arise during the meeting, he said, the best thing is to e-mail the office directly, and Barb Harrigan will respond in time and get the necessary information.

Dunne, meanwhile, raised another concern relating to the votes cast for issues related to Mullowney’s Lane, and that’s the question of conflict of interest.

She argued that Deputy Mayor Lorna Yard, who has carried on a campaign against the private landowners off Mullowney’s Lane for the past decade, should declare conflict of interest and not vote on issues that relate to any development there.

“It’s getting old,” said Croft, when asked about the issue. “It really is. I do not really care much about this Ragged Beach fiasco. There’s so much more to this town than this one chunk. There are so many good things going on, there’s so much positivity going on in this town, and it just so happens that everything seems to fall back to this one area, this one problem, the one continuous issue.”

As to conflict of interest, Croft said Yard’s activism does not fall under the umbrella of conflict of interest.

“Conflict of interest means that you have a monetary gain, or someone you’re related to has a monetary gain,” said Croft. “I know there’s some issues going on because Deputy Mayor Yard voted on some stuff regarding Mullowney’s Lane, and some people are saying it’s a conflict of interest, and it’s not. People seem to like to make up their own version of what conflict of interest means to them.”

He pointed out that councilor Gerard Dunne does not vote on any tenders that Harbour Construction bids on because he works for the company, which his brother owns. That, said Croft, would be a clear instance of conflict of interest.

“But voting on something that you don’t like, doesn’t make it a conflict of interest,” said Croft.

Yard responded to the Post’s request for comment by saying media requests should be directed to Mayor Croft, as he is the official town spokesperson.

Southern Shore volunteers stand out at provincial recreation awards

By Mark Squibb/December 2, 2021`

A couple from Bay Bulls and a prominent community group in Witless Bay have been presented with provincial awards by Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador (RNL).

Rodney and Kelly Joyce, who have volunteered with the BBBAA’s Southern Shore United Soccer Program since 2015, have been named the Provincial Volunteers of the Year for 2021.

“This husband-and-wife duo have played a significant role in growing the program over the last seven years and dedicated a countless number of hours throughout the years to helping children in the region grow their skills,” said RNL president Gerry Hall. “Helping to grow the soccer community in the Town of Bay Bulls has been a tremendous feat and they continue to strive for more. Between summer camps, running the fall, winter and spring indoor soccer sessions, coaching soccer at Mobile Central High School, volunteering with basketball, hockey, and school activities, coaching basketball at St. Bernard’s School, volunteering with the school breakfast program, and lobbying for upgrades to recreation equipment – this duo are busy volunteers.”

The Kinsmen Club of Witless Bay & Area, meanwhile, have been named the Volunteer Group of the Year.

The Kinsmen Club of Witless Bay & Area are a part of Kin Canada and was established in the area in the early 1980s, Hall noted. “This group is committed to giving back in and around the community, with their official motto stating, ‘Serving the Community’s Greatest Need,’” he added.

The Kinsmen Club work in conjunction with other community volunteer organizations such as the Knights of Columbus, 50+ Club, and Witless Bay Town Council.

Over the years, said Hall, the club has organized many fundraisers, contributed, donated, sponsored, supported, and carried out countless other acts of kindness to the community and area. “Their most recent project was the Community Pantry where they provided a space for community members to donate food for those in need. They also completed a school supply drive for the pantry and plan to do a winter clothing drive before the end of the year.”

The Kinsmen Club of Witless Bay & Area has supported all age groups within the community from school aged kids to seniors and are always there when a community member or group is in need, said Hall. The club has helped improve the social, physical, emotional, and financial wellbeing of Witless Bay and the surrounding area, he added.

Four other groups and individuals were recognized in various categories during the awards presentations held last week.

“These awards recognize the contributions of professionals, community groups, volunteers, and service groups who improve recreation in Newfoundland and Labrador,” said Hall. “It is an honour to celebrate those individuals and their contributions. Without such hardworking folks, we wouldn’t be able to engage our communities like we do, or help our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians live healthy and active lifestyles.”

Bay Bulls requests exemption to provincial government tax regulation

By Mark Squibb/November 25, 2021

The Town of Bay Bulls is requesting an own source revenue exemption from the provincial government.

The issue was on the agenda for the November public council meeting.

For those not familiar with how source revenue is applied and what an exemption would mean, Town CAO Jennifer Aspell explained it.

“Every municipality has three main sources of revenue,” said Apsell. “They include tax revenue, municipal operating grants, and gas tax revenue. Municipalities are required to maintain a minimum per capita rate for their total tax revenue. In Bay Bulls, the per capita rate is $1,047.14 per person. So based on the 2016 census, which we’re still using, because the numbers have not been released from the 2021 census yet and won’t be until February 2022, we still have to maintain a per capita rate based on a population of 1,500.”

In a nutshell, it means that each person is Bay Bulls has to pay $1,047.14 in order for the town to meet its income tax quota demanded of them by the provincial government.

Apsell said that staff did some further research and formulated a list of communities along the Northeast Avalon comparing own source revenue rates.

Bay Bulls was near the top.

“There are only three that are higher than us, and one is a fairly large community with over 20,000 people,” said Aspell.

By way of example, Aspell noted that a neighboring community, which she did not identify, has a per capita rate of about$758 per person.

“Council had wanted this information in preparation for potentially requesting ministerial approval for an exemption, either for the 2022 tax year or on a go-forward basis,” Aspell concluded.

Councilor Jason Sullivan didn’t mince words when making the motion.

“I would make the motion that we have the Town Manager prepare an argument to send to Municipal Affairs, or whatever department came out with this outlandish thing that they’ve created here, so that we can be adjusted and treated fairly, compared to other towns of our size.”

Councilor Shannon O’ Driscoll seconded the motion.

“It doesn’t seem right,” said Sullivan. “It’s crazy, what they have done, it doesn’t make any sense. And it’s forcing us to tax people harder than we should. These towns provide water and sewer, and stuff like that, and we don’t have any of that, and here we are being mandated to pay.”

Aspell added the data compiled and presented to council was acquired by finding the population from the census report and then determining the tax revenue based on each municipality’s budget.

“So, these are estimates, but I would say that they’re very close,” said Aspell.

Sullivan complimented Aspell on the work, which was presented in a graph. He said any residents who wished to see the information should request it.

Apsell however, when asked for the information, told the Irish Loop Post that the town would not be releasing the document, as it was not a formal document but estimates presented to council for information purposes only. Apsell said that it would be in the town’s best interest to not release the document, and the paper’s best interest to not print any part of the document, as the numbers were just estimates and may not be one hundred per cent accurate.

Council, meanwhile, unanimously approved the motion to request an exemption from having to levy its taxes at the provincially-mandated rate.

The neighboring town of Witless Bay requested an exemption from the own source revenue mandate in 2020 on similar grounds.

In 2021, that town received the exemption on a conditional approval. Witless Bay council held tax rates steady on the expectation that government would approve the request.

Assistant Town Clerk Barbara Harrigan confirmed that government granted that approval in April.

Shed approval takes two Jasons and a Minister of the Crown

By Mark Squibb/November 18, 2021

Councils don’t often have to get the provincial government’s permission to approve a tool shed, but that was exactly what happened in Bay Bulls last week.

The request for approval of construction of the new shed on a Track Road Extension property had originally appeared on the October agenda.

However, councilor Keith O’ Driscoll, along with wife and fellow councilor Shannon O’Driscoll, declared a conflict of interest because of an immediate family member living adjacent to the property. Mayor Neil O’ Brien also declared a conflict of interest because he also lived near the property.

With only two members of council remaining, the Town had to request ministerial approval for those two members, councilor Jason Sullivan and Deputy Mayor Jason O’Brien, to vote on the matter.

Both Jasons voted in favor of the motion.

'Take down that guiderail' says Bay Bulls

By Mark Squibb/November 18, 2021

The Town of Bay Bulls is calling for the removal of a guiderail on Southside Road.

“We have a resident who installed a guiderail adjacent to their property which is also in the road reservation (area),” explained CAO Jennifer Aspell. “At the last public meeting, council made a motion to notify the resident that the guiderail either had to be brought to spec or removed, with a 14-day compliance period. The resident has not complied with the request, and so the next step could potentially be for the Town to have an official compliance order issued to the property owner requesting compliance and/or removal.”

Deputy Mayor Jason O’ Brien motioned the resident be issued the formal order, which was seconded by councilor Keith O’ Driscoll.

Mayor Neil O’Brien wished to explain the issue further for the benefit of the public.

“What we have here is a typical example of the public probably not understanding what it is that the council is asking,” said O’ Brien. “We do have a guiderail that was installed. But the guiderail that was installed was not installed to the specs of the Municipality Act.”

O’ Brien then went on to say he didn’t think the guiderail was a big deal, but that he wished to go back to the owner to explain that it doesn’t meet the Town’s building specifications.

“It’s not installed correctly,” said O’Brien. “It’s not a huge, huge deal, but as a Town, and for the liability for us all, this guiderail needs to be installed correctly.”

Deputy Mayor O’Brien pointed out council has already had those conversations with the property owner. Councilor Jason Sullivan added that an e-mail from the property owner confirmed as much.

Mayor O’Brien said it wasn’t a witch hunt, but that the guiderail simply needs to be up to spec and that he wished to make a motion that it be installed correctly.

Councilor Sullivan said the deputy mayor had already made that motion. Put to a vote, it was unanimously approved.

Colony of Avalon survived first year of Covid thanks to grants, says chairman

By Mark Squibb/November 18, 2021

The Colony of the Avalon’s Michael Harrington said grants and government subsidies have kept the Ferryland archaeological works out of the red for the last two years.

“As we all know too well, 2020 was an interesting and challenging year, and 2021 hasn’t exactly been boring either,” said Harrington, during the annual general meeting of the foundation that runs the Colony. “We were closed in 2020. We could not have any archeology on site and decided that we could not take the risk of opening to the public, both for health and fiscal reasons. But that doesn’t mean that we sat at home lounging around.”

He noted that staff worked during the off season doing on-site maintenance and working through a conservation backlog. He added that staff also chased every provincial and federal support program available.

“And because of that, we’re still here, and we’re still able to have an AGM in 2021,” said Harrington.

The Colony earned $241,768 in revenue during the 2020 season. Over half, 55 percent, of that revenue came from federal and provincial grants. Of that, about 67 percent, or $88,000, was made up of the provincial operating grant. The remainder of the grant money came from two COVID relief funds, one provincial, one federal.

Some 28 percent of income consisted of federal wage subsidies.

“So, these COVID relief funds along with the wage subsidies were incredibly helpful in keeping us going in 2020 without any admissions or giftshop revenues,” said Harrington.

There were some gift shop sales – “because of course puffin slippers sell in the good times and the bad,” Harrington joked.

Twelve percent of the Colony’s income, $28,000, came from donations. “A nice number, but I’d like to see it a bit bigger,” said Harrington.

He noted that in a normal year, the Colony would bring in about $350,000.

Despite the lower income, the Colony was able to put aside some money for the coming year, spending only $171,736.

The largest chunk of expenses, 59 percent, went to salaries. Nine percent went towards the power bill, while eight percent went towards insurance. The remainder was split over numerous other items such as operating supplies, municipal taxes, and bank charges.

“So, we survived the shutdown year with money in the bank, basically giving us a cushion going into the unknown of the 2021 season,” summarized Harrington.

The 2021 season looked much more like a regular season, although visitor numbers were down.

“The most important thing is we were open for the full season,” said Harrington. “We had a full seasonal staff working, although our student count was down. Like many others on the Shore, we had trouble getting student positions filled this year. 2021 admissions were a little more than 30 percent of those in 2019.”

He did note there was visitor uptake in August, as the number of visitors in that month was almost 50 percent of the number of  visitors welcomed to the Colony in August of 2019.

“I know that’s not really unexpected given the uncertainty of the border openings and the general situation with COVID,” he said.

Wage subsidies and grants, said Harrington, continued to be essential to the Colony’s survival in 2021.

He added the 17th century kitchen event was a 2021 success, and also noted that Shirley Scott (a.k.a. Shirl the Purl) had released a Sara Kirke Fingerless Mittens patten, with all proceeds to go toward the Colony.

Most notably, in 2021 the Colony received approval for a joint federal and provincial grant of $200,000. That funding will be used for enhancements to the building, including some new roof shingles and windows, as well as gift shop and site enhancements. Work is expected to be completed before summer of next year.

The Colony has also applied for more modest grants to replace some fencing and complete other on-site maintenance jobs.

In other AGM news, board member Des Costello retired from the board, and members acknowledged and thanked him for his years of service.

Harrington also announced the Colony will be looking for a new executive director, as Coleen Crane is retiring from the position.

“I want to thank Coleen for the outstanding job she did for us while she was here, and the Colony of the Avalon is a better organization because of her,” said Harrington.

The Colony was accepting applications for the position up until November 12.

Jane Costello, Jane Severs, Michael Harrington, and John Andrews were nominated as directors.

Most importantly, said Harrington, the Colony will be open in 2022.

The information session was followed by an archeological report by Dr. Barry Gaulton.

Witless Bay council goes back to the future on 99-hectare land reserve

By Mark Squibb/November 18, 2021

Motion #’s 2018-222, 2020-019, and 2020-052.

They don’t look like much on paper, but collectively they form part of the nucleus of a battle that has been raging the better part of 12 years in Witless Bay.

Councilor Ralph Carey walked council through the motions one by one, last week, starting, as is often the best place to start, at the beginning, or at least sort of.

Carey said Motion 2018-222, which was passed by the previous council on September 11, 2018, had amended the Town’s engineering and design standards to give council discretion over the standards set for all roads and public rights-of-way in Witless Bay.

It had followed on an earlier council decision regarding road standards that allowed for approval of an access road for a development at 241A Gallows Cove Road.

At the time, that decision was appealed by Jack Foley, who was represented by resident Noel O’ Dea, a prominent landowner on Gallows Cove Road, who has led an effort to oppose any development on back of Mullowney’s Lane for more than a decade.

At the appeal, the Eastern Regional Appeal Board ruled it did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

Carey said the current request to rescind those earlier motions came at the behest of a resident, who remained unnamed throughout the meeting.

“We’ve been requested, and I wasn’t aware of this particular motion, although I may have been at the time in 2018, but it gives tremendous power to a council to use discretion when we’re talking about roads and engineering standards,” said Carey. “We’re talking about safety of the general public, so I don’t think the safety of the general public needs to be in the hands of a few, I think it needs to be in the hands of many, so for that reason I’m willing to make the motion to rescind that motion.”

The motion, meanwhile, appears to go against advice from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Krista Lynn Howell, who advised some residents of Witless Bay in September that the provincial government would not intervene and call a halt to a proposed road off Mullowney’s Lane that the protesters opposed. “It is the responsibility of Council to bring the road up to the standard set in the Town’s municipal plan and development regulations, and to maintain the road,” Howell wrote in a statement. “Under legislation, the Town Council has the authority to make decisions on municipal roads.”

Lorna Yard, who was among the group protesting the extension on Mullowney’s Lane, and has since been elected to council, seconded Carey’s motion to rescind Motion 2018-222. It passed unanimously.

Next on the chopping block were motions 2020-019 and 2020-052, which Carey said related to a similar matter.

Those motions were made by the previous council to overturn a decision made by the council previous to them, when Carey last served, to reserve 99 hectares of land in the Mullowney’s Lane area from development. That was back in 2014.

The effect of Carey’s new motions would be to overturn the decisions of the last council so that the 99-hectare Crown Land Reserve would be back in place, all but putting the kibosh on any building of houses or roads off Mullowney’s Lane, as the reserve would make islands out of any privately-owned lots in the area and prevent them from connecting to the road.

Carey said that while he is well versed in the matter, he knew that other councilors wished for more information and time before making a final decision on the new motions, so he moved to defer both for now.

Yard seconded that motion.

A final motion that the new council rescinded last week was motion 2021-267, which allowed a resident earlier this year to refer to Service NL for final approval regarding a septic system for a private lot off Mullowney’s Lane. Carey argued the Town should have final say, not Service NL.

“So, right now, we, as a council, have no authority to approve a septic system, we have no jurisdiction over septic systems,” he said.

Carey’s new motion, to rescind that one, was seconded by Deputy Mayor Yard and carried unanimously.