Tonight’s meeting sure got interesting. There was so much back and forth on so many issues, I seriously could not keep up at times with my note-taking. I will do my best and I hope I understood what transpired. (If I misunderstood, I apologise, but I don’t think it’s necessary to call any lawyers.) The gavel was pounded, more than once and there was a recorded vote. Sorry if tonight’s blog is a bit choppy, but if it is, it’s because it’s a reflection of the meeting. There was also a full house tonight, which was really nice to see. The CUPE members from our local libraries were present once again, in the hopes of getting back to the bargaining table. There were also many members of the public in attendance as well. Here we go!
**Important side-note, Councillor Courtney was absent tonight.** (There was a discussion overheard regarding Councillor Courtney’s, what seem to be many, absences. Some seem to feel that she has missed too many meetings and that there should be some type of limit in place in regards to meetings missed. I don’t think there is though.)
WE Harvest Fest Road Closure Request – Chris Gibb, Windsor/Essex Harvest Fest Committee
Mayor DiCarlo declared a conflict for this portion of the meeting since he is co-chair of this new event. Mr. Gibb spoke and requested the road closures that were outlined in the report. The event is happening September 9, 10 and 11th at Fort Malden. The delegation was short, sweet and to the point. Basically, to ensure the safety of the residents, road closures were requested by the Fire Department, Police Department and Town administration. The closures would be manned by volunteers so that homeowners and local traffic could still pass through. Simple, right? Not quite. Councillor Meloche needed clarification of which roads were being closed . (Yes, they were clearly indicated in the report.) Councillor Pouget had a somewhat lengthy back and forth with town administration. Councillor Pouget was wondering if this is a special event being overseen by the special events committee. Since the event is being held on Federal property (Fort Malden), it is not considered a town special event. Councillor Pouget was concerned that people that live in the area would not have access to their homes. Administration explained again, as had the delegation, that it would be “local traffic only” and the closures would be manned so that residents that live in the area would still have access to their property. Deputy Mayor DiPasquale interjected that this process had worked successfully for years for the Wine Festival. (hence, why are we still talking about this?) Then Councillor Fryer made a motion to close the streets, provide notice to the residents AND waive the road closure fees for the event. (Wow! Did I just hear this right? Waiving the fees for a Chamber of Commerce event?) Councillor Lavigne seconded the motion. This fee-waiving part did not sit well with Councillor Pouget. She said she supported the motion, however, not the part about waiving the fees for roads closures. She felt this is setting a precedent. (Um, how many meetings have I attended where I have seen fees waived? Many, let me tell you, many. This is hardly a precedent.) So, it goes to a vote and was supported by Councillors Fryer, Lavigne and Meloche. So, it passed. (Don’t forget, Councillor Courtney was absent, the Mayor declared conflict, the Deputy Mayor was the chair, therefore does not vote, so the lone dissenter was Councillor Pouget.)
2017 Budget Direction
It looks like administration is approaching council early about the 2017 budget process. They are looking to have the budget tabled to Council (and provided to Audit and Finance Committee) the week of November 7th. Council and the Committee would then have two weeks to review the budget and get their questions answered. There is also a public information session scheduled for November 26th. (For those who are interested, mark your calendar!) Then there would be budget deliberations with the Committee presentation at the start November 29 and December 1. The budget adoption is scheduled for December 12th. Councillor Pouget seemed concerned we were only having one public session. (Really? Last year I think 20 people showed up for the public session…..). The CAO explained that the schedule was adopted by council earlier this year and yes, there is only one public information session, however, the public has 4 days of speaking to the budget. They can attend the public information session, they can attend the 2 dates set aside for deliberation and ask questions and they could also request a delegation for the December 12th budget adoption meeting. There was then some back and forth about the times of the November 29th and December 1st meeting. The Mayor offered several times that they could be determined right here and now, but they weren’t. The report carried and that was it.
Removal of Holding Zone for 7809 Howard Avenue
OK, I’m going to be very honest here. I have no idea what the heck this part of the agenda was about. There was a very lengthy report, that quite frankly, I did not read. (Remember, I’m just doing this for the fame and glory, right?) Anyway, there was a gentleman there (I didn’t catch his name) who works for the company (Jones demolitions???) and stated he was in support of administration’s recommendation. Councillor Fryer immediately made a motion to defer and Councillor Pouget seconded it. Here’s where it got sticky. Once there is a motion to defer on the floor, the issue can no longer be discussed, the only thing that can be discussed is a time-line for the deferral. Well, the councillors seemed to have questions and still wanted to discuss…..Then it was debated, how would administration communicate with the people, by phone or written communication. How long would it take? Several various offers got floated around (one month, 2 weeks, 6 weeks). Councillor Fryer didn’t want it scheduled for a long meeting with another 575 page agenda (aren’t they all long meetings with agendas of several hundred pages, but I digress.) Councillor Pouget suggested scheduling it as a planning meeting one hour prior to a regular meeting, then it was discussed it could be a special meeting on September 19th. I think that they decided on the latter. It got deferred and about a dozen people got up and left. (I should have joined them. Those chairs in council chambers are ridiculously uncomfortable.)
Sign Encroachment Request – Duby’s Furniture 269 Ramsay Street
Duby’s Furniture has a new owner and he is seeking “pre-approval” for a sign to project off of the building. It would be 12 feet above the ground, therefore, would not impede pedestrians. Again, this should have a simple and quick process, but noooooooooooo……back and forth and up and down we went. Councillor Meloche was concerned a tractor trailer could pull off the sign. (Um, it’s on Ramsay Street, above the sidewalk……is it just me or was I missing something?) Councillor Pouget also had concerns with the sign. Councillor Lavigne pointed out that this is simply an encroachment agreement. The CAO said the owner is abiding by the town’s sign bylaw and is seeking to hang it in the air space that the town owns and that the sign itself would have an “old world theme” and would be attractive. The owner would still have to comply with permits etc. The debate went back and forth for some time and then finally, it carried. (phew!)
Site Plan Control Agreement, Stella Maris School, 140 Girard Street
OK, this got a little crazy. I had a hard time keeping up with the note-taking. As you are probably aware, the Board of Education closed St. Bernard’s elementary school and is transferring the student body to Stella Maris School for September. Councillor Fryer went into a personal story about driving by the school with his daughter (he even mentioned her by name….?—-I don’t get why he always talks about personal stories, but again, tonight, there was a lot I didn’t get. Later in the evening, he told us a story about being hit in the head by a BB gun bullet on a certain property in Amherstburg……I don’t understand the relevance…..) He had concerns with how the area would be ready for September. Councillor Lavigne wanted to know if site plan controls have ever been debated before. It seems there was a traffic report for the area and then administration had another traffic report done. Councillor Lavigne pushed the question about if site plans had ever been questioned by this council. He even cut off Mr. Galvin (the Director of planning, development and legislative services) when he was talking. Mayor DiCarlo then said that this current council has questioned many professionals, during it’s term including engineers, accountants etc. Councillor Lavigne pressed on and the Mayor pounded the gavel. The Mayor said that it was his meeting and he answered the question. Councillor Lavigne was not happy. (Since I have attended almost every meeting for well over a year now, I can attest to the fact that council has really and truly questioned some professionals and their reports, sometimes to a level of embarrassment, in my opinion.) Councillor Pouget then said she would like to speak with the Board of Education. Three representatives approached the podium (sorry, did not catch names or titles). When I say that the discussion went back and forth, it is no lie. It did for quite some time. It was difficult to keep up. Councillor Pouget feels that the school board created a crisis and lead the public to believe the construction would be done by September. The School Board defended their position and much more back and forth ensued. Councillor Lavigne seemed not to want to debate this and spoke a few times about approving this item and moving on. Basically it seems that council would be giving authority to the CAO and Mr Galvin, Director of Planning, Development and Legislative Services to approve the site plan control agreement once the traffic study is updated to the town’s satisfaction. Then, apparently, the show could get on the road. Councillor Pouget made the motion as per the agenda. Councillor Fryer wanted an amendment to the motion since he felt that council was delegating their authority to the CAO and administration. Councillor Pouget stated that she believes the town is moving forward right now and that the motion is fine the way it is. (My heart skipped a beat. We agreed on something!) Back and forth, forth and back and then Councillor Fryer asks for a recorded vote.
Support : Deputy Mayor Dipasquale, Councillors Lavigne, Meloche, Pouget and Mayor DiCarlo
Opposed : Councillor Fryer
Big Creek Wetland Signage
There was a delegation in the spring that was requesting signage for Big Creek Wetland. Administration was asked to prepare a report. The signs would cost approximately $1200.00. Administration is not recommending approval. Councillor Fryer did not agree. He felt the signs are important and would not encourage trespassing. He made a motion to support the signs and Councillor Pouget seconded. Then, once again, the ride and the music started back up. Back and forth, up and down we went. (Round and round and up and down we gooooo again…..Boblo!, sorry, off topic, I really have been attending too many meetings.) Councillor Lavigne understood administration’s concerns that they’re putting up a sign on property that does not belong to them. The CAO said council would have to pay the $1200.00, decide on the location of the signs and the verbiage on the signs. So, low and behold, after much back and forth about the type of signs, sandbags, wording, location, etc, the motion passes that administration can consult the county about erecting signs for Big Creek Wetland. (Hey, do you think council would pay for a sign in front of my house? Home of Amherstburg2, local blogger. Doubt it.)
Unfinished Business
There were a few issues brought forward under unfinished business. Councillor Pouget wanted to know the status of the sign by-law. Mr. Galvin said it would be on the September 12th agenda. Councillors Fryer and Pouget seemed to feel that people don’t want the signs, most especially the portable type I think, along Front Road. Also, Councillor Pouget asked about the 2016 budget. She said that Council had asked administration to reduce the budget of a particular department by $100,000.00 and wondered what the status was. (I think that was the by-law department.) Administration said they are finalising two postings to deal with those issues.
Overall, this meeting lasted about two hours and 20 minutes.
As for councillor of the week??? I make a motion to defer. What about the timeline you ask?? I don’t know. Perhaps when and if they ever replace those horribly uncomfortable chairs in the gallery. Or maybe when they can keep the discussion relevant, pertinent and on-point, which would translate into a whole lot less time sitting in those chairs. Hmmmm…..maybe instead of asking council to pay for a sign in front of my house, maybe I could make a motion to replace the chairs in the gallery? Any seconders?
amherstburg2 