Beaconsfield Citizen's Association
2022 AT THE COUNCIL
The BCA is at the Beaconsfield Council meetings. We use this public access to question the Mayor and the councillors on their reactions to new issues, on their plans and on the results of their previous actions. The interactions at these question periods are webcasted live and on demand.
​
Please note the menu on the right hand side pointing to each month and the subjects discussed. Also, this page was not updated during the Pandemic (April 2020-December 2021) even though we kept on asking questions to the mayor each month.
Council Meeting : January 2022
Council Meeting : February 2022
The BCA sent written questions to the mayor because the City Hall was closed, due to COVID restrictions
​
Question 1: Mr. Bourelle do you still own a residence in Beaconsfield? (Yes or no). Are you still a resident of Beaconsfield?
Answer: Yes I am
Agglo taxes: In early 2020, and following a campaign to send letters to the Minister of Municipal Affairs by citizens, organized by the Beaconsfield Citizens' Association (BCA-ACB), a working committee brought together the Minister, MNA Kelley, the Mayor of Montreal and the Mayor of Beaconsfield. At this meeting, the Montreal Mayor did not change her position on the new unfair method of calculating the Agglo taxes imposed on the suburban municipalities of Montreal. In the fall of 2021, the Quebec government made permanent by ministerial order the unfair clause that allows Montreal to overtax suburban cities.
Question 2: In the event of a new push by the citizens of Beaconsfield again demanding a review of this decision. What new arguments or new facts will you bring to the negotiating table to force the Mayor of Montreal to change her position or to encourage the Minister to impose a more favorable solution for the residents of the suburban cities?
Answer: You question is timely as I sent a letter to the Minister today about the unethical sharing of expenses. He then read the letter
Council Meeting : March 2022
The BCA was at the for the January 27 2020 Council meeting. We asked four questions and showed our support to the City's lawsuit against the Agglo about the new tax increases and reminded the citizens about our letters to the Minister to protest against those unfair tax increases.
​
During the 2017 and 2019 flood periods, M. Bourelle answered our concerns by saying that we are not at risk on the south side of the island because the water is regulated by the St-Lawrence Seaway Management Committee.
​
On March 14 2022, the City published a « Beaconsfield Update » which included a link to the Report by the International Joint Commission managing the St-Lawrence river flow. The title was: “Expedited Review of Plan 2014, Phase 1: Informing Plan 2014 Deviation Decisions Under Extreme Conditions.”. Public comments are requested.
​
In the report they say that many Municipalities were consulted.
Question 1: Were you consulted by this Commission? What concerns did you provide to them?
Answer: No we were not consulted
The report states that “The Board has the authority to change the planned outflow, or “deviate” from Plan 2014’s provisions when the water reaches extreme high or low levels.”
And
“During the high water in 2017, 2019 and early 2020, the Board was regularly under deviation authority and making decisions that resulted in deviations occurring almost half the time from 2017 through the end of 2020.”
This means that the Commission, almost 50% of that time, had to manage “Trade-offs" which means that alleviating the impact of extreme water levels on one interest or region worsens the impact on another interest or region.
Question 2: Did you read the report and its conclusions? What is your opinion about it now? Do you plan to react officially by sending a public comment on the Committee’s report, you may do so until April 18, 2022.
Answer: No opinion because it is not a problem now. So, we will not provide written comments
In one of the available videos, Ms Sarah Delicate, from the United Shorelines Limited and member of the Public Advisory Group that prepared the report, stated that: “In order to reduce the vulnerabilities [for municipalities], management plans for the flooding should be made mandatory, including plans for preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation and prevention.
Question 3: Did the city prepare such management plans for the flooding, including plans for preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation and prevention? Can we access to them, either on the city’s web site or otherwise?
Answer: The mayor follows the daily water levels. We are not into this management. We studied the situation back in 2017 and 2019. We found that there were NO floods in Beaconsfield with the exception of a few backyards.
In the March 16th “Beaconsfield Updates”, the city posted 3 paragraphs about “Radon: a hidden Killer”. It states that “The city provides a tool to detect radon concentrations”
​
A citizen of Beaconsfield called at the Urban Planning department to register on the list to get the tool. He asked to the manager “Do you know if any Beaconsfield resident who borrowed the tool detected unsafe levels of radon concentration? Do you know if any Beaconsfield resident has taken corrective action for a radon level recorded above the guideline? and if so, what was involved?”. The answer from the Urban Planning was: we “decided that the levels detected would not be documented nor confirmed by us” […] “They should only be used for guidance” […] The remedy will vary pending on the levels, but generally, pumping the air from under the concrete slab of the basement to the exterior is the way to go. I have no clue of the cost.”
In other words, this is a waste of time!
​
Question 4: Can’t the city take a leadership position with regards to the radon, like you did with the Emerald Ash Borer? Instead of scaring the population and doing nothing about it, can the city:
-
State completely the nature and extent of the problem with radon.
-
Control the way the test is conducted to guarantee the quality and the reliability of it.
-
Document the levels detected.
-
Negotiate a deal with a contractor and then suggest him.
-
Follow-up on the situation and corrected levels.
Answer: The city has 12 such detectors. The citizens can use them for one month. If the date shows there is radon, we suggest to reach out to an expert. We do not have the expertise and we cannot call for tenders for entrepreneurs on a problem for which the solutions can be so various. For an Ash tree, we know it is X$ per tree cm. In other words, no city leadership.
Council Meeting : April 2022
1
​
The BCA sent written questions to the mayor because the City Hall was closed, due to COVID restrictions
​
Budget special meeting
According to the city's financial statements as of December 31, 2020, the welcome tax brought in $5.7 million, which justified an operating surplus of $5 million. Working capital was then $5.3 million.
We are eagerly awaiting the 2021 results.
​
In the meantime, we note that you are increasing the working capital to $9.5 million, we conclude that the real estate market having remained favorable, you have had another very rewarding year in terms of welcome tax. We estimate it at a minimum of $4-5 Million again in 2021.
​
The operating surplus will therefore once again be very significant. Probably more than $5 Million, as in 2020.
​
QUESTION 1: In this context of accelerated enrichment, how dare you raise local taxes “by an amount less than inflation”?
Anwer: We are raising the real estate tax by 1,5% which is indeed below the (5% or more) inflation rate. We have been able to maintain our expenses increases to 2,5%.
QUESTION 2 : How do you justify increasing the local tax rate?
Answer: I draw your attention to the Agglo tax raise. Put your energy to fight this.
​
In other words, the Mayor did NOT answer our questions. He acts as if he doesn't "see" the major Welcome tax money pouring into the City's bank account.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
​
You have added a third year to the lawsuit against the agglo.
​