Major Red Flags Raised in Meetings & Staff Reports

1. Engineering reports exist but aren’t released

• Staff repeatedly confirm they have updated water, sewer, and dike engineering reports.

• Council increases fees or pushes zoning changes without the reports ever being provided to the public.

• Multiple meetings show councillors asking for data that staff say is still “under review” — sometimes for 6–12+ months.

Red flag: Decisions are being made while withholding the supporting evidence.

2. Utility fees increased with zero analysis provided

• Council approved 16% water/sewer fee hikes with no staff report, no charts, no asset summaries, and no capacity analysis.

• Director of Operations confirmed the reports exist but weren’t shared.

Red flag: Huge cost increases approved blindly.

3. Blanket rezoning pushed with incomplete information

• Bylaw 1230 was pushed forward with major unanswered questions:

  • No infrastructure capacity analysis

  • No traffic/parking impact

  • No financial impact report

  • No legal clarity between OCP vs zoning

• Multiple councillors admitted they didn’t fully understand the implications.

Red flag: Council nearly adopted a zoning overhaul they couldn’t explain.

4. Secrecy around dike integrity and seepage issues

• The geotechnical risk assessment for the dike has never been released, despite being publicly funded.

• Council discussed flood-protection decisions without public access to the engineering basis.

Red flag: Public safety infrastructure handled behind closed doors.

5. Civic Lands planning with no costs or service analysis

• The Civic Lands Master Plan discusses replacing the Village Office, museum, and public works yard — but no financial plan, no cost estimates, and no service impacts have been provided.

• Yet the plan is being promoted as groundwork for redevelopment.

Red flag: Major public-building decisions without numbers.

6. Staff frequently say upgrades are needed but don’t show timelines

Across multiple meetings:

• “We are reviewing the reports.”

• “We don’t have the final version yet.”

• “We will bring this back at a future meeting.”

• Items disappear for months with no follow-up.

Red flag: Chronic deferral of critical infrastructure information.

7. Land-transfer and housing proposals hidden until late stages

• The VHHS/AHCS seniors housing project involved financial transfers, annual operating costs, and municipal liabilities that were never disclosed early.

• Mayor and CFO sit on the board of the housing society proposing the development.

Red flag: Conflict-of-interest risk + missing disclosure.

8. Closed meetings used aggressively

• Staff and council use Community Charter s.90(1)(c) & (k) to close discussions that should be public — including:

  • Pay parking enforcement

  • Bylaw enforcement restructuring

  • Dike phases

• Typically, “early stages of a service” is used broadly to shut the door.

Red flag: Overuse of closed meetings to avoid scrutiny.

9. Asset Management Plan shows massive funding gaps

The 2020 AM Plan states:

• Required spending is 3–4× more than what the Village budgets.

• Without grants, service levels will decline and failures are likely.

This information has not been highlighted publicly by staff despite being the Village’s own warning.

Red flag: Severe infrastructure deficit not communicated to residents.

10. Councillors repeatedly say they don’t receive full information

In multiple meetings:

• Councillors Jackson and Schweinbenz have stated they feel information is incomplete.

• Councillor Mark repeatedly says the materials “don’t answer the questions.”

Red flag: Even elected officials can’t get full answers from staff.