When it comes to safety and trespassing issues on the Orangeville-Brampton Railway (OBRY), the classic confrontation of government vs. private enterprise could take place.

In one corner, there is Orangeville Council — Mayor Rob Adams and council members Warren Maycock, Gary Kocialek, Mary Rose, Scott Wilson, Sylvia Bradley and Gail Campbell.

In the other corner, there is the board of directors of the Orangeville Rail Development Corp. (ORDC): President Rob Adams and directors Warren Maycock, Gary Kocialek, Mary Rose, Scott Wilson, Sylvia Bradley and Gail Campbell.

Confused? Let us explain.

ORDC is a private company which actually owns the railway, (the conditional sale to the Highland Rail Group is yet to be finalized), and the Town of Orangeville is currently the sole shareholder.

The board of directors of the ORDC is also the Orangeville council.

At issue between the two parties is whether the installation of No Trespassing signage should be limited to within the town boundaries. Such could be the wish of council.

The board of directors, on the other hand, may feel it is their responsibility to apply such signage along the full 55- kilometre stretch of railway between Orangeville and Streetsville in Mississauga.

At a special meeting of Council on March 29, a motion was passed calling for “No Trespassing” signs to be installed “where necessary” on the town railway crossings, and that “enforcement of legislation related to trespassing be requested.”

Council is now faced with the task of enacting and paying for the motion, passed on the same night four councillors rallied to vote down a proposed rail-side trail project.

In a report to council, town planning director, and railway general manager, James Stiver said that there are currently “limited” No Trespassing signs on railway property, but they are not posted at most rail entrance points along the line.

“Regardless,” he wrote, “despite comments made by members of the public at the March 29 council meeting, there is no legal requirement for such signage.

“The (motion) does not provide clear direction to staff, in terms of implementing the wishes of council.”

There are currently 38 level crossings along the 55-kilometre length of the OBRY, and staff estimates that signing each of these crossings would cost about $7,600.

At Monday’s public council meeting, Ms. Bradley, who made the original March 29 motion, put forth another motion that called for signage within the Orangeville town boundaries only; an exercise that would cost just $2,000.

What followed was a somewhat perplexing exchange where it was decided that council would defer the motion to the ORDC board of directors in order to get its opinion on the matter. There seemed to be every confidence that the board of directors could be brought
together for a meeting before the next public council meeting takes place.

The question now is whether council and the board of directors can get over their personal differences and arrive upon a mutual solution. “I would think, as a director, that we would be responsible for the entire length of the tracks,” said Deputy Mayor and ORDC board member Warren Maycock in an interview Tuesday.

“We will see, at the meeting, if they will be wearing directors’ hats or Orangeville council hats,” he said.

Mr. Stiver’s report also mentioned a recent inspection of the rail line where it was noted that a significant amount of illegal dumping was taking place along the railway and at the rail yard.

Much was in the form of yard waste, but there were large items as well, including a discarded sofa.

“Staff suggests that council may want to consider posting signage regarding the prohibition of dumping along the line,” Mr. Stiver wrote.

The rail line also revealed that there were gates in the rear fences of at least 10 properties between Town Line and Church Street.

“The installation of these gates has not been authorized by the Railway and is, in all likelihood, contributing to the prevalence of trespassing along the rail line and the incidence of the illegal dumping of yard waste and other items,” the report read. “Therefore, council may also wish to deal with the issue of the rear yard gates as part of the efforts to minimize the trespass and dumping issues.”

The report also pointed to situations where there was no rear fencing on properties.

“(It) would be appropriate to inspect the entire right-of-way in town to determine how

many other gates are present elsewhere and where there is an absence of fencing,” summarized Mr. Stiver.

“This may lead to the need for additional signage and the possible installation of fencing in other areas resulting in potential costs that are as yet unknown.”