Accusations of bias fly over what letters show up in council package
By: Wayne Doyle, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Source: BarrieToday.com, Jun 06, 2025
SPRINGWATER — A 145-page door-stopper of updated information commissioned by the Midhurst Landowners Group (MLG) and delivered to Springwater council but not presented at the May 21 council meeting as requested was the fuse that lit the powder keg at Wednesday night’s township council meeting.
Accusations of bias, interference and lack of transparency soon followed.
Coun. Anita Moore got things rolling seconds after Mayor Jennifer Coughlin introduced the item — Response to Council Resolution dated Feb. 5, 2025, Future Residential, Community and Employment Lands in Springwater, Midhurst Landowners Group.
Moore said she asked to have the correspondence — which was received on May 15 — added to the May 21 council meeting agenda because she thought the information was “critically important to the future of our township.”
It was added and posted to the weekly council information package (CIP), a public portal, on May 16, but was not added to the next council meeting, set for May 21, due to what the township’s clerk described as a miscommunication.
Moore said the MLG was in full support of the potential expansion of the Midhurst Secondary Plan and they provided multiple reports — planning opinion and land budget analysis, economic benefits assessment, water, wastewater, linear and transportation servicing assessments and an agricultural report — which were completed “on behalf of the MLG for council’s information and consideration,” according to the cover letter written by MLG’s Daniel Steinberg.
“I thought it was important to have it more public and more transparent,” said Moore, who added posting the correspondence to the agenda would have given the public a better opportunity to read it for themselves and ask questions.
Deputy Mayor George Cabral agreed. He said the township has enjoyed “a very productive partnership for years and years and they (MLG) have been extremely generous during the course of their developments.”
He also said the information MLG provided was important.
Cabral questioned why it wasn’t posted when it was requested to be posted the Friday before a council meeting, but a letter from the Office of the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator (OPLDF), which arrived June 2, was added two days before a council meeting.
“What strikes me is that there may be some form of bias from time to time, where some things get on the agenda and some things do not,” the deputy mayor said.
According to the township’s clerk, Jennifer Marshall, the OPLDF’s letter was added to the agenda under the strong mayor powers.
“If the head of council is of the opinion that considering a particular matter could potentially advance a prescribed provincial priority, the head of council may require the council to consider the matter at a meeting,” Marshall quoted from the Municipal Act.
Coughlin said she had the OPLDF letter added to the agenda because “council made it clear that any information or correspondence regarding the communications with the City of Barrie were to be made available to members of the public.”
She added it was more appropriate for the township to take the lead posting the letter so the public could see it there first, rather than hear about it from the news media or see it posted to a social-media site.
Moore responded: “Thank you, Mayor Coughlin. So, I just want to be clear then. The correspondence we received on May 15, you didn’t have anything to do with that not being placed on the agenda?”
Before Coughlin could respond, Moore turned to the clerk.
“I’m sorry to put you on the spot like this, but when I spoke to you at 2:58, I asked you to please make sure the documents were put on the agenda, they were coming, and you said ‘yes, no problem,’” Moore said. “And then the agenda got published at 3:22, so 25 minutes later. The agenda got posted without the documents and then the documents did come in within another half an hour.
“So, I want to ask you, and if it was your mistake that’s fine, but was there any interference?” Moore asked.
“Are you asking me if I had conversations with the mayor, is that it?” Marshall responded.
Moore nodded her head in the affirmative.
“No,” Marshall said.
Coun. Danielle Alexander joined the fray. After advising Coughlin that she appreciated her posting the letter from the OPLDF, she added that by not adding the correspondence from MLG, the township was not being transparent.
That was enough for Coughlin.
“I think the conversation here needs to be the accusations that I’m interfering with information for this council or the public,” Coughlin shot back.
“This information went on the CIP. This information from the landowners group was received after an agenda was published and now we’re sitting here being accused, the clerk and myself, of interfering with information pertinent to this,” the mayor added. “I did not interfere with any information coming from the Midhurst Landowners Group to be put on the agenda.”
Cabral acknowledged that the information was posted to the council information package, but argued, due to its importance, that it deserved to be added to the agenda the same way the letter from OPLDF was.
“That letter from the provincial facilitator is important, very important,” he said. “However, the information we got from the landowners group, it could have just as easily, under the same circumstances, been added to this agenda. And that’s what I’m struggling with.
“You’ve expressed your logic,” the deputy mayor added, “but at the same time, because it deals with the boundary adjustment and annexation and plays right into the research bit to make a logical decision down the road, I see this, the value is intrinsically the same for both documents.”
Land facilitator shows up unannounced at Springwater council to field questions
By: Wayne Doyle, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Source: BarrieToday.com, Jun 05, 2025
SPRINGWATER — While Daniel Mathieson’s appearance at Springwater Township’s council meeting last night was not on the agenda, the chair of the Office of the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator (OPLDF) provided additional clarity to the ongoing Barrie boundary expansion proposal.
Mathieson, who joined the meeting virtually from his vehicle, which was parked on the shoulder of the highway on his way home, answered councillors’ questions candidly and without hesitation.
“Why the Sept. 30 deadline?” Coun. Danielle Alexander asked, referring to the date provided in an update letter that was sent to Springwater Mayor Jennifer Coughlin and copied to the mayors of Barrie and Oro-Medonte, as well as Simcoe County’s warden, earlier this week by Jeffrey Schelling, deputy facilitator at OPLDF.
“There are a number of reasons,” Mathieson said. “It doesn’t mean the minister will make a decision on Oct. 1.
“If there was an argument to be made, and we’re open to the discussion on why that date needs to be moved, we’re open to it,” he added. “We are not time down, per se, but we do have files that we work on over time and we consider moving them forward.”
Part of the reason relates to the upcoming election.
“We do want to make sure we have a lot of time that if there is a boundary adjustment that would take effect prior to the municipal election in 2026, that we would have enough time to make any of those adjustments with regards to voter lists and other considerations that would be relevant.” Mathieson said.
Coun. Anita Moore has been an advocate of a regional solution to Barrie’s request. She wanted to know if the regional needs can be met and satisfied without a boundary adjustment, and would there be consideration then that a boundary adjustment would not be required.
“I will say that all relevant information will be reviewed,” Mathieson responded. “It will be taken into consideration and the recommendation will reflect the best interests of the provincial priorities, the member municipalities and the communities in the long term.”
Moore also wondered why the number of hectares being considered was not consistent. In the proposal Barrie Mayor Alex Nuttall presented to Springwater council at its May 21 meeting, Barrie’s proposed expansion area was pegged at 1,769 hectares with preliminary analysis suggesting approximately 733 hectares may be developable.
In the letter to Coughlin from Schelling, it was noted that future expansion of Barrie’s municipal boundary should address both community and employment area needs, encompassing up to 930 hectares of developable land — approximately 630 hectares for community areas and 300 hectares for employment areas.
“I would say that when these processes start, some communities have their idea of what they need to meet their needs,” Mathieson said. “We also then have the independent review of someone like Hemson, who comes in and collects multiple sources of data, looks at provincial trends, looks at population, looks at employment, looks at density, all of these things, and they come back with a recommendation.”
Mathieson said “there’s no science between the two” and noted two consultants can have different recommendations “depending on who they’re retained by.”
He said Ontario’s ministry of municipal affairs and housing looks at their underlying assumptions to see how they marry up with provincial policy and the assumption the province is using.
“We try to thread a very fine needle between the two of them,” he said.
Deputy Mayor George Cabral had a number of questions. His first dealt with the two options that were delivered via the Hemson report — one was for land to go to Barrie via annexation, and the other was for no boundary adjustment.
Cabral wanted to know if those two options were still on the table.
“We have not chosen a considered path,” Mathieson answered. “But that’s the importance of our dialogue going forward and having all groups at the table and continuing to acquire new information that comes available from different sources, so that we do make a determination or a recommendation to the minister and the minister considers it that we have been able to provide him all relevant and pertinent information to back up any type of recommendation we’d make.”
Another Cabral question was equally direct. In Schelling’s letter to Coughlin, Cabral noted a reference to section 173 of the Municipal Act — proposal to restructure — and wanted to know if it was already “fait accompli.”
“At what point should this section of the Municipal Act be considered to be set in motion, or has it already been set in motion prior to today’s meeting?” Cabral asked Mathieson.
“No, it has not been set in motion,” Mathieson said. “Section 173 allows us, when there is a decision which is covered under the Municipal Act, whether it’s made under strong mayor powers or by council as a whole.
“That then sets in place section 173, enabling Municipal Affairs and Housing staff and provincial land development facilitators to start moving that direction that has not occurred. And it is not contemplated to occur at this time,” he added.
Coun. Matt Garwood was concerned that the Sept. 30 deadline would not provide enough time for the public to provide comments and make their voices heard.
Garwood noted that the letter to Coughlin included the provincial government’s commitment to transparency and openness — “we believe full participation in the process is the best opportunity for the township to advocate for its own interests.