The aftermath of the tree by-law and sign by-law public consultation meetings

WOW!!!! The people spoke and they really spoke!!!! Way to go Amherstburg!

I must say this blog is off the cuff. I did not have my notebook, so I’ll do my best with a few scribbled notes I made on a small piece of paper. There were approximately 60 people in attendance.

Tree by-law

First up, administration presented the public tree by-law and took questions and comments. Then, they explained the private tree by-law and took questions and comments. The overwhelming majority did NOT support these by-laws. There were a lot of farmers at the meeting who had serious concerns about those proposed bylaws. Councillor Pouget was the only member of council that was present for this meeting, she came in a few minutes after the meeting started.

The residents in attendance felt these bylaws were “nonsense”, “bureaucratic”, “obstructionist”, unnecessary”, “ridiculous”, “a loss of civil rights”, among other colourful vocabulary to describe their feelings towards this bylaw.

At first, the residents were angry with administration (they didn’t understand the process, which until I started going to all council meetings, I didn’t understand either.) Mr Miceli, the CAO, explained that council had made a motion to adopt a new tree by-law. Once administration had done their research, they presented it to council to be tabled. (that means it’s sort of on hold). Administration recommended to council to have a public consultation, which is exactly what they were doing tonight.

As previously explained, the private tree by-law would not allow a resident to cut down a tree on their own private property without paying a fee and receiving permission from the town. Also, the public tree by-law, leaves private residents responsible to pay for and maintain a publicly owned tree if it’s near the highway or a sidewalk. (not cool.)

Many people asked who exactly had made the motion and why. Things were very heated. So, without rambling on, here is exactly what started this process :

Councillor Pouget moved, Councillor Fryer seconded : “That Council direct administration to investigate the best tree by-law available to municipalities throughout Ontario and provide Council with this tree by-law for council’s consideration and review. This tree by-law should protect all trees on municipal property and have serious consequences of any violators.”

So, council asked for the “best tree by-law” and they sure got it! At our expense.

Then, Councillor Pouget got up and spoke to the angry crowd. She said she would NOT be supporting these bylaws. The residents wanted to know when it goes to vote, who votes for it and against. Councillor Pouget promised that she would ask for a recorded vote when these bylaws go before council for approval. (I believe they said it will be before council at the next meeting, October 11th.)

So, the long and short of it? I think we can safely answer the “how did we get here?” question in the presentation. Councillor Pouget had made the original motion directing administration to come up with the “best tree by-law available”, and here we were. The councillor who made that same motion, now vehemently said she would not be supporting the new by-law and would pass along the message to her fellow councillors. (Okay……so, Councillor Pouget made the motion, and now after listening to the anger, will not be supporting the by-law she requested. I can’t help but wonder, how much money did this cost us? Surely, just to do the research would have been extensive. Then to read the new by-law it’s full of legal talk, so I have to guess that cost a pretty penny. Now, here we sit in a public meeting at the arena, more costs involved there too……wow!!! Talk about whipping money out the window. Make the motion, get the work done, then vote against the motion. Man! Brutal.)

To be clear, I was at the September 12th meeting when this tree by-law was tabled, so I went back in my notes to see how I recorded the various reactions.  According to my notes, Councillor Meloche had expressed that he was okay with the public tree by-law, but not the private tree one. I believe that Councillor Pouget then said she was the one who insisted on the by-law. I think she said at that meeting that initially, she was leary of the private by-law, but the more she spoke with Mr. _____(did not catch his name, arborist), she was okay with it. I remember she may have said that council was already in people’s backyard’s anyway, citing fence heights as an example. Then, I believe, Councillor Pouget mentioned there would be public consultation. Councillor Courtney expressed that she disagrees with the by-laws. Councillor Fryer had expressed, they were just talking and they could talk at the public meeting. (Didn’t see him there tonight?) At that point, Councillor Pouget pointed out that Mr. (Moussad?? maybe? arborist for sure) was there. The arborist said there is lots of support for private tree by-laws (little did he know what would happen tonight) and that it provides protection for the community and tree preservation. Councillor Meloche again expressed that he felt the by-law is regressive. Councillor Lavigne then pushed to just table the motion and that it was getting late. He did point out that the town lacks staff, an arborist, by-law department, reducing costs etc just as an issue. Council then tabled the issue to allow for public input. (which happened tonight)

So, a complete 360 spin in no time at all. Councillor Pouget made the motion, and stated tonight she would not be supporting these by-laws. (My opinion? What a huge waste of people’s time and tax payer money.)

Sign by-law

This meeting was not as heated and not as well-attended. Approximately 25 people were there. Factoring in that the tree by-law literally affected all 22 000 of us, the sign by-law affects much fewer people.

From what I could gather this by-law is being amended simply as to not allow portable signs on property not owned by the person or company that is advertising. (Therefore, apparently, we could not put signs in our windows, as I had said yesterday, for quite some time now. Noted. Sign removed lol. But seriously, everything else in this by-law was already there, except this part  for the portable signs.)

So, how did we get here for this one?

In March 2013 (previous council), Council passed a motion :

“Request Administration to introduce a by-law that would control the use of signs being erected on property, not owned by the person or company that is advertised on said signage.” 

Then, “at the August 8th 2016 Council meeting, Councillor Pouget asked for an update with respect to the Sign by-law and when it can be expected to be before Council.” So it appears, we have the same councillor to thank for this one too.

Basically, council does not want any portable signs on the property on Sandwich Street North.

This meeting seemed more compromising in tone. Many people expressed concerns for the small businesses that need to advertise and that are not located on the “main drag” and that do not have big advertising budgets. There was mention of perhaps allowing less signs and spacing them farther apart etc as a few possible ideas. Someone even suggested, no signs during the month of July (for the Communities in Bloom contest), but signs are okay the other 11 months of the year. (Personally, I think for council to out and out not allow any portable signs located off-property, would be very hurtful to small businesses. Shouldn’t town council be supporting small businesses? Don’t they pay taxes and provide jobs? )

The sign by-law meeting only lasted a little over half an hour. Mayor DiCarlo and Councillor Pouget were present for this one. Administration said they will bring the comments back to council. In the meantime, we just have to wait and see who seems willing to work with the needs of small business and who simply cares about getting 5 blooms…….

Tree by-law and sign by-law public consultation meetings tomorrow night Thursday September 29

I’m back mid-week. I usually try to stick to council meetings, but this is pretty darn important.

There are a couple of meetings tomorrow night (Thursday September 29th), the first at 5PM at the Libro Centre about the new tree by-law and, afterwards, at 7PM, there’s a public consultation meeting for the new sign by-law as well.

A few months ago,  council asked administration for the strongest tree by-law in the province to protect ALL trees, public and private. (I didn’t realise we were cutting trees down all over Amherstburg just for fun, but who knows?)

Here’s the proposed tree by-law for private property :

Click to access Draft%20Private%20Property%20Tree%20Protection%20By-law.pdf

Here’s the long and short of what will have to happen if you want to cut down a tree on your own property.

You have to apply and pay a fee. The arborist will have to come to your property and make a decision. If he/she refuses your application, you can go to council and beg for permission to cut down the tree that’s on your own property. (This verges on micromanaging and big brother behaviour to me…..) So, if you want to be able to cut down a tree for any reason, and don’t want to have to pay fees and beg council, I strongly suggest you go to the meeting tomorrow night and express your thoughts. I’d hate to see this go through and hear “well, nobody said anything” or worse yet “I got many phone calls that felt this was a great idea!”.

At this point, I can’t help but wonder how much it has even cost us to draft this by-law. Why are we paying to draft by-laws for what seems to be no reason? Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance of protecting the environment and helping nature, but what if the arborist says no? Will the town pay for damages if the tree falls on my property or my neighbours property? If I want to put in a pool, or a shed or change landscaping, will they allow me to do it if there’s a tree that needs to be cut down? What if I want to put an addition on my house? What if the roots of the tree are causing problems to my foundation or plumbing? But, what’s to worry? If the arborist says no, just go plead your case at a public council meeting……..

There is also a new by-law being proposed for the publicly owned trees. 

Click to access Draft%20Public%20Tree%20By-law.pdf

At first, I thought, sure, protect the public trees. But let me tell you a little story. Last year, the town-owned tree in front of our house needed pruning. Badly. You couldn’t park under or near the tree, as there were low-hanging branches everywhere. I called the town. I was told I’d be put on the list. I called the town again. I was still on the list. Rinse, repeat, rinse repeat. Finally, 10 months later, the tree got trimmed. If the town can’t take care of the trees they currently own, how in the world does council think it’s feasible to impose more regulations? I particularly like this part of the by-law : ““Trees” includes all shrubs, hedges and woody vegetation now or hereafter growing on any public or private place.”  So, not just public trees, but shrubs, hedges and woody vegetation? Will there by a by-law coming soon that no one can touch the trees, shrubs, hedges and woody vegetation? What about taking pictures in front of the trees, shrubs, hedges and woody vegetation? I’ll stop now. I think you got my drift.

It also looks like if your town-owned tree abuts a highway or sidewalk, guess who’s responsible for taking care of it? You.

The sign by-law is being amended. Here’s the link:

Click to access 2016%2009%2012%20Proposed%20Amendment%20to%20Sign%20By-Law%202006-26%20-.pdf

I can barely speak. This stood out as a not allowed sign : ” a temporary sign in a window in a residential use premise, except for real estate signs;” without council approval. What the heck??? Who’s going to enforce all of this? Council cut $100 000 from the by-law department budget. How much has it cost to even draft this by-law? How much will it cost to enforce it?

The list of restrictions, goes on and on and on.

What’s next? Will we have by-laws created to control people wearing socks with sandals?

 

 

Monday September 26th Regular town council meeting

Let me begin by saying that tonight’s meeting was jam packed! There was an overflow of people even out into the lobby. I had a feeling it would be a full house, so I got there early to get a seat! Yep, spent over 3 hours sitting in the world’s most uncomfortable chair, but it was worth it! Here we go:

DELEGATIONS 9.1 Texas Road Thank You – Betty Federico, Joanne DiPierdomenico, & Anne Pietrangelo

This was a very pleasant change. The three ladies thanked Mayor DiCarlo and council for the work that was done on Texas Road. They also thanked previous Mayor Hurst and previous council, along with Todd Hewitt. I got the impression things were tense sometimes during the years about Texas Road. I didn’t attend council meetings then so I can’t attest to what did or did not happen, however, it was really nice and light to hear thank you and have a few laughs. Very pleasant.

Support for Dave Scott, Coach, General Amherst, to be inducted into the Windsor Essex County Hall of Fame – Dave Heath

Mr Heath was seeking council’s support to have Mr Scott inducted into the Windsor Essex County Hall of Fame. He asked council to write a letter in support of this. It was a nice, light discussion, a few laughs and obviously, this passed. Council directed administration to write a letter to support this nomination.

Supplementary Agenda Delegations Neighbour Complaint of Building Code Violations – Neil Stewart

Tonight, when I came in, there was a supplementary agenda along with the regular agenda. This item stood out and quite frankly, the whole thing stood out.

Mr. Stewart had some building violation complaints about his neighbours. He had quite a few in fact. (I couldn’t help but think, why in the world is this before council???) Mr. Stewart proceeded to explain the complaints. Mr. Galvin, director of Engineering and Legislative Services had to weigh in, a lot. So did Mr. Brown, the building inspector. From what I could understand, there is an issue with the height of the deck being built. It was explained that the owners could go to the committee of adjustment for approval or denial of having the deck height higher. (Simple, right? heck no!!!!) The debate began. Administration kept explaining the procedures. Councillors kept asking questions. (I just could not figure out why council was even listening to this or even involved…..and, no, wasn’t just me….everybody around me kept looking at each with a “what the heck is going on here” look.)  Councillor Pouget felt the deck building people were being treated differently than others. The debate raged on. Apparently, it’s quite common for people to get permits during and/or after work being done. Hence, why they were going to go before the committee of adjustment. (I could not figure out why we were sitting there listening to neighbour disputes in a town council meeting. Couldn’t help but wonder…..that tree by-law is coming forward soon. As it stands, you can’t cut down a tree on your own personal property. Yep, that’s right. Can’t cut down a tree on your own personal property. If you want to, you have to apply to the town arborist for permission. If you’re denied, you had to plead your case to council…..could I be looking into the future? Is this what it will come to? Everyone speaking to council and begging for permission to do things on their own property? Would council become the new People’s court for neighbour disputes?)  The debate continued. Councillors taking sides, administration explaining procedures. At one point, Mayor DiCarlo cut Councillor Pouget off (politely) to once again, point out that they would be going to the committee of adjustment over this issue. Councillor Pouget did not seem to care and continued to ask questions for clarification. Finally, council received the motion and I thought we were about to move on……

No, we were not.

Then, the other neighbour (the deck building ones) stood up and wanted to speak. Councillor Fryer explained that there were a lot of people waiting and they did not have a delegation. He also said they would be able to have their say to the committee of adjustment for a minor variance. He was not willing to make a motion to allow them to speak. (The skies opened….the sun shone down….I was having a moment with Councillor Fryer. It doesn’t happen often, and well, it wouldn’t be happening again, at least not tonight. But I enjoyed the moment, until it got squashed by the one I would have least expected….) Suddenly, Councillor Lavigne made a motion to allow her to speak. (what? what? what????? What is going on?? noooo……). And well, speak she did. The owner explained her property, what she was building and why. She even cried. We heard how the other neighbour had been at their wedding. (seriously? This was like neighbour divorce court….) Eventually, Mayor DiCarlo had to ask her to wrap it up. And then it was over.

2016 Assessment Update – Tracy Pringle, Account Manager, Zone 1, Municipal & Stakeholder Relations, MPAC

This part of the meeting was boring. I didn’t take notes. I just wanted to get to Belle Vue. But nope, sat through 10 minute explanation of tax assessments. I had read mine. I was good. Councillor Meloche and Councillor Courtney asked questions about their own personal assessments (yep) and finally it was over.

Belle Vue

Once again, Councillor Lavigne and Councillor Pouget declared a conflict. Councillor Pouget said she was advised to speak on her conflict. She said her backyard is 964 feet to the Belle Vue backyard. She asked Mr. Galvin, director of Engineering and Legislative services if she could stay in the room during the presentations, even though she realises she can’t take part in the discussion, can’t influence the vote and she can’t vote. Basically, he said yes. Councillor Lavigne stated his parent’s property is adjacent to Belle Vue property. (I had expressed my opinion that I’m not sure how valid these conflicts are. It concerns me to have councillors declaring conflicts and not voting. Especially because they were elected to stand up and vote. I really can’t see how purchasing Belle Vue would have a significant effect on their property values. Councillor Lavigne replied politely to my email. He explained his position and well, we will have to agree to disagree. As for Councillor Pouget, I wonder if the Boblo dock is 964 feet from her home? She made a motion about that property…..)

Mr Prue spoke first. He asked council to reconsider the decision to own Belle Vue. He said he supported the Duffy’s decision and felt it was a good decision. He felt that the payment terms for Belle Vue ($200 000 X 5 years, 0 interest) were the deal of the century. He quoted from Gord Henderson’s article from the Windsor Star. He felt this was a once in a lifetime opportunity. (I tend to agree.) He asked council to dream big and develop both Duffy’s and Belle Vue. He had three suggestions :

• reopen the Belle Vue discussion and heed the sage advice from the CAO, Henderson and the architects
• reopen the discussion, extend the deadline and ask for further information on the report
• purchase the property and wait to see what fundraising unfolds as well as see what provincial and federal monies that may come

Next up, Mr. Brad Robitaille spoke. He had previously looked at purchasing Belle Vue about 7 years ago and had an architectural report available. He felt that Belle Vue is a great opportunity. Mr. Scott Weir then spoke. He is a Principal with E.R.A. Architects. He had looked at the building again today and compared it’s present status to his report from 7 years ago. Basically, he said the building is in good shape and is structurally sound. He said it’s “built like a tank.” There are a few problems (one area of wood roof is leaking and needs fixing). Also, the eave troughs need repairing soon too. He compared Belle Vue to other historical buildings in Toronto and Detroit. He had pictures of the inside of the building and outside too. (The stair case is outstanding!!!!)

Mr. Phil Kasurak had a delegation to speak also. Council was leery of listening to his presentation since he is a realtor and represents the vendor. There was some back and forth about this and ultimately, council decided to not allow him to speak.

So, first, Councillor Courtney made a motion to reconsider the report of the Belle Vue purchase. Deputy Mayor DiPasquale seconded the motion. Councillor Fryer asked for a recorded vote. Councillor Courtney said it was true she had agonised over the Duffy’s and Belle Vue decisions. She wants to do all she can to enhance Amherstburg. She made it clear that she expects support from the Friends of Belle Vue, citizens and other organisations with this venture. (Councillor Courtney got a huge round of applause.)

In support : Councillor Courtney, Deputy Mayor DiPasquale, Mayor DiCarlo

Opposed : Councillors Fryer and Meloche

(Don’t forget, Councillors Lavigne and Pouget had declared a conflict and did not vote.)

Then, the motion was made for the CAO to remove conditions, seek senior levels of funding and purchase Belle Vue

This opened the floor to discussion……here we go.

Councillor Meloche said that he does not want any additional debt. He felt that grant money is not 100%, therefore, it involves matching dollars, which means we have to spend money. He was seeking reassurance from administration.

The CAO explained the terms again and explained that no work would be undertaken until all senior levels of funding had been exhausted. Councillor Meloche said that he ran for council based on instilling financial controls and reigning in debt. He felt that Belle Vue is a victim of timing because of the recent Duffy’s purchase. He does not want debt.

Councillor Fryer then spoke. He started out with something about taking his oldest 17-year old daughter there. (Is it just me? I just don’t get why he’s always telling personal stories about his kids in relation to decisions he needs to make for council. Maybe somebody could explain it to me? What am I missing?) Anyway, he feels that since the actual waterfront property is not part of the deal, that it’s not a good deal. He felt the waterfront property is key. He feels that the price of Belle Vue will add 2% to our taxes. He said he ran on a platform to drive down debt and will not support the purchase.

Deputy Mayor DiPasquale said he is concerned like the others, however if they’re all too scared to make a decision and handle the pressure, then it’s time to get out of the kitchen. (I like that……wise man.) He pointed out how Amherstburg has already lost factories and we can use this purchase to get things moving in Amherstburg. (This got a big round of applause.)

Mayor DiCarlo then said since he has to vote on the issue, that he will speak to it. He said he ran on the same principles, to reign in long term debt and unnecessary debt. However, he thinks this is necessary. He said he also promised to listen to the residents and the overwhelming majority he’s spoken to support the purchase of Belle Vue.

The vote to purchase Belle Vue :

In support : Councillor Courtney, Deputy Mayor DiPasquale, Mayor DiCarlo

Opposed : Councillor Fryer and Councillor Meloche

(Don’t forget, Councillors Lavigne and Pouget had declared a conflict and did not vote.)

The crowd erupted in cheers. Most of them then left, but I stayed. There was one more thing I wanted to hear……

NOTICE OF MOTION 22.1 Councillor Fryer – Denied Removal of Holding Zone for 7809 Howard Ave. A motion to RECONSIDER the motion of September 19, 2016, that Council DENY the request to remove holding symbol of the Jones property.

While I was waiting for the above mentioned item, it sounded like a real party was going on in the lobby. I could hear laughter and talking….I don’t like to miss a party and here I was, sitting on one of those awful chairs waiting to hear about the holding zone on the Jones property.

Little side note: Overheard a conversation amongst a few people before the meeting about this. They were not happy that Councillor Fryer reneged and changed his mind about this. He voted against it last week and now wanted to change his vote. (I wonder if he thought about declaring a conflict instead? )

Councillor Fryer reopened the discussion and said he tried to call everyone that was at last week’s meeting. (I guess I missed his call LOL. No, seriously, I don’t live near this property. I have a conflict. I drive by it periodically.) It seems he got a legal opinion and found out that each councillor could be held liable for not removing the holding zone. (Why does it take a legal opinion? Just had to read the report last week. Property owners were asked to meet 2 conditions, MOE report and ERCA. They received their approvals. Now, council simply had to hold up their end of the deal and remove the holding zone, but nope, they did not. So, here we are.) Councillor Pouget then had questions for Mr. Galvin. Again. She wanted to know what the risks were if council didn’t remove the holding zone. Once again, like last week, Mr Galvin said the owner could appeal to the OMB and the costs to defend could be significant. (He said this last week too, but it didn’t seem to matter then.) He then said the town could be sued civilly and that councillors could be sued individually. Councillor Pouget then said she’d been part of this from the get-go. She would have to vote for it and felt like she had a gun to her head. She’s heard so many complaints but can’t take the risk to her family of legal risks and costs and court costs. (Funny, she seemed okay with legal risks and court costs last week when it was tax payer money going to the OMB, but suddenly, now that it was personal, it was a bigger concern??) Then the Mayor did say, yes, she was out of order.

The vote : To remove the holding zone on the Jones property on Howard Avenue.

In support : unanimous!

So, there it all is people…….a heck of a long meeting, but well worth it.

I have decided to return to councillor of the week nominations. This week, it goes to Councillor Courtney hands down. She reviewed the Belle Vue issue, shared her reservations yet outlined her vision for the future of Amherstburg. She dared to dream big and help move us forward! There are a lot of happy people in Amherstburg tonight!

 

In preparation for Monday September 26th Regular Town council meeting

Well, Monday night’s meeting looks like it will be a blast from the past. Literally.

First up, town council is meeting in-camera at 4:30 to discuss :

ITEM A – Removal of Holding Zone for 7809 Howard Ave. – Legal & Risk Analysis – Section 239(2)(f) – Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.

For those of you who remember, just last week, council met for 2 hours to discuss this. They voted NOT to remove the holding zone (4-3), against many recommendations from administration. Alas, already, one week later, council has to revisit the subject with their lawyer. (Man, how much more money have we spent on lawyers? What do these decisions really cost us??)

Brief synopsis: Property on Howard Avenue owned by Jones Group had their site plan approved in 2013 subject to Ministry of the Environment and ERCA approval. They met the conditions of a Ministry of the Environment and ERCA approval in order to have the holding zone designation removed. Four members of council (Deputy Mayor DiPasquale, Councillors Courtney, Fryer and Pouget), then voted to NOT remove the holding zone. (See last week’s blog if you want the full story.)

Then, just when I thought my head may spin a full 360 degrees, I scroll through the agenda and find this :

NOTICE OF MOTION 22.1 Councillor Fryer – Denied Removal of Holding Zone for 7809 Howard Ave. A motion to RECONSIDER the motion of September 19, 2016, that Council DENY the request to remove holding symbol of the Jones property.

So, it appears that Councillor Fryer came to his senses and realised and listened to the recommendations? I don’t know. His notice of motion is dated September 20th 2016, the very day right after the meeting. All I know is that they had darn well better not discuss this for 2 hours AGAIN. Make a decision and move on people. (So frustrating.)

DELEGATIONS 9.1 Texas Road Thank You – Betty Federico, Joanne DiPierdomenico, & Anne Pietrangelo

This looks like a pleasant change. It appears three residents are going to thank council for the Texas Road project.

Support for Dave Scott, Coach, General Amherst, to be inducted into the Windsor Essex County Hall of Fame – Dave Heath

Another pleasant change. It looks like Mr. Heath is seeking council’s support to have Mr. Scott inducted into the Windsor-Essex County Hall of Fame.

Preservation and Alternate Usage of Belle Vue – Michael Prue

It appears that Mr. Prue will be addressing council about the recent decision not to purchase Belle Vue. It looks like he will have a speech as well as some type of animation to present. (a video?) Again, a quick synopsis (if you need more details, please refer back to previous blogs) : Belle Vue is a historical house located on Dalhousie Street. There was a group that had previously approached council to purchase it. Mayor DiCarlo had made a motion to pursue this. Two weeks ago, during the in-camera report-out, the members of the gallery were surprised to hear 2 motions. One motion was to purchase and redevelop Duffy’s (it passed 6-1, Coucillor Pouget against). The motion to purchase Belle Vue failed. When the motion was put forward, the terms were not presented, simply the motion to purchase Belle Vue. The only person to support it was Deputy Mayor DiPasquale. Councillors Courtney, Fryer and Meloche did not. The Mayor did not vote, as he only votes in the event of a tie or a recorded vote, which neither applied in this case. Of special note, Councillors Pouget and Lavigne declared a conflict with the following reasons given :

“Councillor Pouget and Councillor Lavigne declared a conflict and removed themselves from discussion and voting on the matter. Councillor Pouget lives near the property and Councillor Lavigne’s parents live near the property.” (taken from the agenda.)

I feel there may be a little bit of a political game going on, so I did some research. I looked into what constitutes a conflict for a member of council. I found the following :

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m50

I read through the lengthy document and nowhere did I find anything about where a councillor resides (nor their parents) as being a reason to declare conflict and not vote on an issue.  In my own personal opinion, I don’t think that Councillors Pouget and Lavigne have a legitimate conflict and they should not be allowed to “take the easy way out” on such an important issue. They say their conflict is that they (or their parents) live near the property. Whether or not we purchase Belle Vue, I just can’t see how this would affect their properties. I also feel to use a flimsy excuse of a conflict, not only allows them to keep their hands clean, so to speak, from such a volatile and important vote, it also puts a great amount of pressure on their fellow council members. It seems an easy way to work both sides, so to speak. There is a very vocal historical group who supports the purchase of Belle Vue. There is also a very vocal group of people who do not want their tax money spent on this purchase. Needless to say, I think council is feeling a huge amount of pressure from both sides. What does one do if they feel squeezed and don’t know who to satisfy? Well, in a perfect world they stand up and make a decision, but, I guess a conflict would come in handy as it absolves a person of their responsibility to serve, represent and vote.

In my personal opinion, when the initial purchase of Belle Vue was presented, I was on the fence. I could appreciate both sides. I can see and appreciate the historical significance of the property. I could also see the big dollar signs and my tax bill. However, since the new information has come to light (5 equal payments annually of $200 000 and zero interest), well, I’ve changed my mind. I think council should purchase this property. I think it’s a great chance for our town to own something beautiful, historically significant and help move us forward.

2016 Assessment Update – Tracy Pringle, Account Manager, Zone 1, Municipal & Stakeholder Relations, MPAC

Looks like a powerpoint presentation about the MPAC property assessments. Will watch and see if there’s anything new there.

2016 Second Quarter Financial Reports

This is a pretty long, drawn-out report, that quite frankly, I’m not paid to read (maybe I’ll declare a conflict…LOL). I skimmed through it and basically, it appears that, at the end of the second quarter, the town collected around $339 000 more in taxes and fees than they expected. But, they spent around $285 000 more than expected, so we have a net positive of around $55 000. Most of the over-spending seems to have come from the fire department. I had heard they were running way over-budget and from the report, this appears to be true.

August 2016 Reserve and Restricted Cash Update

“In an effort to improve the lines of communication between the Financial Services Department and Council, administration has committed to provide Council with quarterly reports regarding the financial position of Equity Reserves, Reserve Funds and Restricted Cash Funds.”  I think this is great! Transparency and openness at work! Again, another lengthy financial report that I’m not going to read, but if you’re interested (and you haven’t declared a conflict), it’s all there included with the agenda.

September 8, 2016 – September 21, 2016 Accounts Payable

Well, only $2100 paid out in legal fees. That’s good news! I also saw the deposit cheque to purchase Duffy’s is on there too. More good news! 🙂

Amherstburg Police Department Annual Report 

Looks like this will be presented to council.

Overall, Monday’s agenda is pretty full. If council can stay focused and on track, I think they can get ‘er done in two hours. I have a feeling I will have lots of company in the gallery, especially with the Belle Vue purchase being on the agenda as well as the reconsideration of the decision about the holding zone for the Jones Group. I always enjoy seeing the gallery full and the residents engaged in our local politics.

If it lasts more than two hours, I think I may have to start bringing a seat cushion. Maybe some popcorn too.

 

 

Monday September 19th Special town council meeting

Well, tonight’s meeting did not disappoint. There was much back and forth. It was like watching a 2 hour tennis game that never stopped. Back and forth it went. My pen even ran out of ink near the end of the meeting. Seriously. The gavel was pounded, emotions ran high and there was a recorded vote. There were about 25 people in attendance. I will do my best to summarise so that I can get to bed at a decent time.

Council met tonight to discuss one item only :

Removal of Holding Zone for 7809 Howard Ave

The meeting began with Rebecca, the town’s planning services manager outlining how we got to tonight’s meeting. Basically, the site plan for the property on Howard Avenue (which is zoned heavy industrial) was approved in December 2013 by the previous council. There were public meetings and notifications in 2010 and 2012.  The site plan was approved with conditions of a Ministry of the Environment approval and another condition (missed it, sorry). Lo and behold it’s now 2016 and the property owner (Jones Group) has secured the necessary approvals. Jones Group is now requesting that council remove the holding designation since all the necessary approvals are all now in place. Council began with waiving the rules of order to allow the public to speak, and speak they sure did! Residents were concerned about toxic materials being crushed and disposed of. There were lengthy discussions about sewers and drainage since the property being discussed (analysed?) has a pond for waste water included in the plan. It also came out that the property had ERCA approval, however, it has taken so long to get to this point that ERCA’s approval has expired. However, it seemed to be the consensus that if they had ERCA approval before, they would certainly get it again, since it was simply an expiry issue, not non-compliance. It also came to light that the process with the Ministry of the Environment took about 4.5 years, but all was in place. Councillor Pouget brought up an issue that there have been problems with the Jones Group crushing illegally in the past. The representative for the Jones Group that was in attendance, made it very clear that he does not work for Jones Group, that he works as a consultant for them. The residents listed their concerns. They were concerned about drainage of toxic materials, how and when water samples would be checked, how and what would be crushed. One resident wanted to know how council will protect the residents when/if Jones doesn’t comply with MOE requirements. (OK, I’m sorry, but I’m not sure how anyone can expect town council to protect them from anything….just sayin’). The Mayor had to give numerous clarifications to the residents of the process involved. For some reason, the residents felt that council could take a complaint to the Ontario Municipal Board, however, it is only the property owner who can do so. Mr. Galvin, the town’s director of planning, development and legislative services, also weighed in several times with legal thoughts and opinions. He explained that the MOE is superior in power than town council (gasp! I bet that hit a few councillors kind of hard.) He also pointed out that the Jones Group had to provide a surety of almost $1 Million for site clean up. He referred to previous cases where property owners took complaints to the OMB because council failed to make a decision. He said that now is the final step, all decisions were made in 2013 and all conditions had been met and satisfied by the property owner.

The residents started listing numerous complaints and questions. So numerous that it got to the point that the Mayor had to let the residents know they could and should go directly to the MOE with their questions and certainly with any complaints. Mr. Miceli, the town’s CAO, had to explain that obviously, they would be unable to get the facts and answers tonight, but that if council wanted to direct administration to get answers in the future, they certainly could for a later date. Again, the residents wanted to know how council was going to help them. (I just don’t get that……if I needed help, I can’t see town council being on my list of support services, but maybe that’s just me.) Councillor Lavigne finally weighed in and said he could appreciate the residents frustrations, however, council can’t supersede the MOE, and that if council says no to removing the holding zone, it will go to the OMB and the town will lose. Considering all the checks were in place (ERCA and MOE), he just can’t see how the town could win this. (Yep, true ‘dat. You just can’t outvote a power higher than you. At least not without it costing you money.) Councillor Pouget took exception to this and said that it is not true that this council must approve the holding zone removal. She felt that council should say no and let the property owner go to OMB. (I guess it’s true, council can vote however they want, however, it will cost taxpayer money to defend their decision at the OMB and it seems pretty darn certain the town will loose……so yes, they can vote however they want, and then it costs us money afterwards….)  Councillor Lavigne then had some questions for Mr. Galvin about the legalities. Mr. Galvin said the town could expect an appeal of the decision if they refuse. He feels that the OMB would look back at the 2013 approval and the agreement with all conditions met. He also pointed out it would cost about $10 000.00 to defend ourselves and that we could also be required to pay the legal fees of the complainant if they win. (I’ve heard that the Jones’  have deep pockets, so I’m guessing this could cost the town quite a bit after all.) Councillor Lavigne felt that council could say no, but that the owner will get the necessary ruling in their favour eventually. Council would simply be delaying the removal of the holding zone for a few months. The CAO went over the agreement and explained that the materials to be discarded fell within strict criteria (i.e. non-hazardous). He explained that a third party engineer would have to sign and put their stamp on the process and that various levels of government would be involved. He said non-compliance by the owner would risk an increased surety (already almost $1 Million dollars) as well as risk of his business being shut down. The CAO pointed out that tonight’s meeting was about one issue : did the property owner satisfy requirements and the answer is yes.

The residents were still not satisfied. They were looking for assurances and guarantees from council. One resident felt that previous council had too many friends of Jones’ on it and that’s why they got approval. She said she thinks we have a very objective council now. (As someone who has been to almost every single meeting for a year and a half, I disagree, and I won’t go into why. That may be a blog for another day, but anyway….getting back on topic….) The residents started to list their complaints again and lo and behold it turns out there are no recent complaints on file with the town about this property. There are previous, older complaints that have been dealt with, but nothing recent. The Mayor pointed out, again, that the residents need to be in contact with the MOE about any complaints. Councillor Pouget pointed out that it is clearly stated on page 2 of 5 that the people have the right to call the Amherstburg by-law department. (I wonder if she forgot she and a few others requested a $100 000.00 reduction in the by-law department budget???? Sure, call them, they have no money to provide services, maybe somebody will get back to you next year…..completely ludicrous!) Councillor Lavigne concurred with the Mayor that the situation will be in the resident’s hands and to contact the MOE with complaints, that they must respond and there will be heavy consequences. Administration confirmed that they have not received any complaints in years about this property, that there is nothing currently outstanding. (I can’t help but wonder if people think their complaints to council count as formal complaints to the by-law department or the MOE……nope, sorry, I’ve sent in complaints to council too, you have to go straight to the source, not council.)

Anyway, it was getting on to almost 8:00. The ball had been back and forth a thousand times or more. The Mayor said he’s calling the meeting and he’s looking for a motion. Councillor Fryer makes a motion to receive the report and to send information to the residents regarding emergency situations. The motion carries. Then, Councillor Pouget makes a motion to deny the request to remove the holding symbol on the Howard Avenue Property and asks for a recorded vote.

In favour of NOT removing the holding symbol : Councillor Courtney, Deputy Mayor DiPasquale, Councillor Fryer and Councillor Pouget.

Opposed to NOT removing the holding symbol : Councillor Lavigne, Councillor Meloche and Mayor DiCarlo.

So there it is folks, council did not remove the holding symbol and I can only assume that means the Jones Group will be going to the Ontario Municipal Board to appeal that decision. How much that is going to cost has yet to be seen.

My personal opinion? I sympathise with the resident’s concerns about whether the owner will or will not comply with the restrictions. I also feel they really need to bring any complaints directly to the MOE to ensure they’re dealt with. It’s a higher level of government with a lot more power.  However, I also sympathise with the problem that my tax money is about to fly out the window to defend this to the OMB, money that will be gone because it sounds like we will, most likely lose. I guess it’s a good thing that town council stripped $100,000 from the by-law budget, because it looks like that money is on it’s way to pay a bunch of lawyers to argue about something we already know the answer to.

So on that note….See you next week, and thank goodness I had an extra pen!!

In preparation for Monday September 19th Special town council meeting

Council is having a special meeting this Monday to discuss one item, yes one item. Now most of you might be thinking “one item, that won’t take long” well, I don’t put anything past this group and my “sixth-sense” (lol) tells me this may be another heated discussion. So, I think I will be bringing my popcorn and a seat cushion and setting in for some action tomorrow night.

Council will be discussing :

Removal of Holding Zone for 7809 Howard Ave

This item was deferred at the August 8th regular meeting and I would like to remind everyone of what I wrote about this after that meeting :

(From August 8th blog) 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.)

So, here we are, back to today and this item has been scheduled for a special meeting tomorrow night all by itself. This time I have read the report and here is what I can gather from it. (If I have misinterpreted or misunderstood, no lawyers necessary, I will gladly edit. Quite frankly, I hope I misunderstood!)

The Ministry of the Environment has approved the Jones’ Group request for a waste depot, on their land located on Howard Ave. There is a current bylaw, from 2013 I believe, that says that Jones Group can open and operate their  waste depot after the Ministry of the Environment gives them the okay. Lo and behold, they have gotten the okay from the MOE (which is why I’m guessing administration is recommending to approve this). The property where the waste depot is to be located is in an industrial zone, actually a HEAVY industrial zone, which means they can do just about anything, I think. Since all this started, people have purchased properties around this HEAVY industrial zone and now it looks like these people are not happy that someone wants to do heavy industrial work in a heavy industrial zone near their homes…which, by the way, is down the street from an active quarry that blasts and produces dust and has heavy trucks in and out all day long. For whatever reason, it seems that people don’t want the Jones Group to be able to do similar industrial activities on their (did I mention HEAVY) industrial property. It also appears these people have gotten some members of council on board, since this item was quickly deferred and appears to be contentious.  Bottom line, I guess, is that the property is designated heavy industrial and has been for a long, long time. It is also located out on Howard Avenue, which is hardly a resident-type area. (Note to self, if I ever decide to move, check out what the zoning is for the properties around me. ) From what I can understand from the report, council pretty well has no choice but to lift the holding designation. The Jones Group has gotten all the necessary government approvals. I have to venture a guess that if council does not lift this holding designation, the property owner (Jones Group) would have reason to complain to the Ontario Municipal Board. (I would think this will cost us some pretty serious tax dollars to defend ourselves.) Did I mention that the Ministry of the Environment says it’s okay and has given the go-ahead? (Of course, I have heard some of our councillors question engineering reports from engineers and accounting reports from accountants, so why believe environmental reports from the ministry of the environment?) I have to assume that they are a higher level of government than Amherstburg town council and well, the Jones Group would most likely win if council ties this up with a refusal.

So, I will be watching with great interest tomorrow night to see if council approves this. During the last two years with this current council, it seems as if when they like you, you get what you want and when they don’t like you, well…….

Will council approve the removal of the holding zone tomorrow night, considering it appears all requirements have been met and are in place? Or will council refuse based on yet to be determined reasons? Will our tax money get spent defending a refusal at the OMB? Or will this just become another  reason for businesses to be leery of coming to Amherstburg to invest and do business?

Stay tuned folks, I’ll bring the popcorn and hope for some excitement…or maybe pull the fire alarm if I get too bored……Just kidding, I wouldn’t do that. If anyone gasped and took that seriously, it’s time for a sense of humour check. 😉

Monday September 12th Regular town council meeting

Tonight’s meeting was FANTASTIC!!!!!! Read to the end, people, it’s well worth the wait!!!

Here we go! I’m getting right down to business. The gallery was pretty fully tonight. The CUPE library workers were there, once again, trying to get back to negotiations.

When I arrived, council was still in their in-camera meeting that began at 3:30. The doors finally opened at 6:05. The special meeting for planning that was scheduled for 5:30, started around 6:20. Fortunately, there was not much discussion for the planning meeting and it was over in a few minutes. Then, the regular meeting that was supposed to start at 6:00 was called to order.

DELEGATIONS Libro Centre Indoor Turf Rental Rates – Terry Sawchuk, President, Amherstburg Soccer Club

Mr. Sawchuk spoke about the Soccer Club’s desire to increase their rental time, however, they did not receive any subsidised rate like other youth organisations do. Councillor Fryer was the first one in with questions. He was asking how much 40% reduction would be in dollars, how much registration fees are and if the families are residents of Amherstburg. Mr. Sawchuk did not have exact numbers, but had approximate numbers to offer. Councillor Fryer asked administration how the Libro Centre compares to other local facilities. The CAO said the Libro Centre is the most economical in the area with a rate of $113 per hour, compared to $160, $120 and $146 at other local facilities. He felt that our rates are very competitive. (The answer is right there in the numbers, yep, very competitive.) Councillor Meloche was not in favour of cutting the rates as he felt it would simply turn the cost savings to these families back onto the backs of the rate payers, instead of the users. Deputy Mayor DiPasquale wanted some specific numbers, since council has given a break to other organisations. Then the discussion got very interesting……yes, council has given breaks to other organisations….what to do? Councillor Lavigne supported giving them a rate reduction and felt it would only be pennies for the taxpayers. Councillor Pouget concurred with Councillor Meloche and the Deputy Mayor. She felt the CAO showed we have competitive rates and doesn’t feel it’s fair to move this cost on to the tax payers. She felt because we offer competitive rates, she couldn’t agree with the reduction. (Well, here it is folks, I agreed with Councillor Pouget. It happened. It is now noted right here, in black and white. Honestly, I have kids in activities. I bite the bullet and pay the fees. The rates are competitive, which means, they’re not out of line compared to other communities, so, pay up. But, that’s my opinion.) Councillor Courtney felt that they’ve started a trend by lowering fees for other groups and opened a sort of negotiation with the delegation. Mr. Sawchuck asked what number she’d like and she said 20%. He liked that. (It was like being at an auction, lol) Back and forth it went. More requests for numbers from all parties, round and round it went. Finally, Councillor Fryer made a motion to receive and to direct administration to come with a reduction and how it would affect the budget. (Sorry, hand-written, the motion wasn’t exactly that, but you get the gist.) The discussion raged on and finally, council just accepted that they will have to wait for administration’s report with exact numbers.

Council Support – Amendments to Provincial Nuclear Emergency Response Plan (PNERP) and Municipal Nuclear Emergency Response Plan

OK. This portion of the meeting was…….brutally boring……..what could make talking about an Emergency Response Plan worse? Bring in a phone conference with a voice from the ceiling talking to you. Yep, that’s what happened. The discussion was quite frankly, just not very interesting. There was talk about our sirens that don’t work very well. A gentleman in the gallery got into a loud, one-way, conversation with the media about radioactivity, as the voice on the phone was talking in the sky above us. The gentleman was finally shushed by some people around him. The discussion ended with Councillor Fryer asking when the next trip for council is scheduled to visit Fermi II. (I didn’t realise council went on field trips….who pays for that?)

Stakeholder Consultation on Community Based Strategic Plan

A representative from MBD Consulting gave the highlights of the strategic plan reports. She explained that the plan will help with where we’re going and how to get there. I noted some items (as best I could, sometimes the slide changed too darn quickly). The resident’s priorities were (among others) bike and walking trails, investment, hotel, festivals and events and leadership from council. Our challenges are (among others) lack of shared vision, fiscal constraints, loss of traditional industry, lack of collaborative support for Economic Development and sustainable growth and development. Councillor Meloche had a question about implementation. Councillor Pouget said she initially felt the report was inadequate and felt that a small group was trying to pursue their own interests. (And just like that, our moment was gone. How could a survey that was open to every single resident of Amherstburg be a small group trying to pursue their own interests????? Random phone surveys, surveys available to all…..how? how???)  Although, then Councillor Pouget said that, since being interviewed, she now feels satisfied that the report is adequate and that although it’s a guideline, ultimately up to council to decide if and how to do what is within the report. (Just like the budget…..at the end of the day, it’s all up to council, not the committees.)  Councillor Meloche then went into (what I felt was a lengthy) talk about concern with the ageing population and how to replace them. (It went on and on…..I was waiting to see if he would offer subsidies to have more babies, not sure where he was heading) Anyway, Mayor DiCarlo had to cut him off because it wasn’t part of the motion. It was an odd moment in the meeting.

Ontario 150 – Community Capital Program

To fix the tennis courts or not to fix the tennis courts? That is the question. Then, the question became, which tennis courts should be fixed? Originally, administration was recommending fixing Anderdon and Malden tennis courts because the Centennial courts could become part of the new General Amherst project, should that happen. The deadline for the grant application is September 14th, so 2 days. Long story short, they seemed to decide to fix half of the tennis courts at the 3 locations (Anderon, Malden and Centennial). (My side note….that’s just weird. Would you fix and remodel half your kitchen? How about half of your driveway? Maybe I’ll paint half of the living room? Odd, but hey, whatever.)

Church Service, Kings Navy Yard Park – New Proposed 2016 Event

Looks like a local church wants to hold a service in the Navy Yard on September 25th. This discussion was very interesting!!!!! Councillor Pouget wondered if council was allowed to allow prayer in a public park, since council is no longer allowed to pray before meetings. (It was replaced with a moment of silence a little while ago.) Mr. Galvin (town Director of Engineering and Legislative Services) explained the differences of freedom of expression and equal opportunity. The Pastor of the church was present to answer questions. Councillor Lavigne cautioned the Pastor that some people may confront them as he said there were confrontations in the Navy Yard during the Wellness Stroll. He said somebody was handing out religious literature and many weren’t happy about it. Council went round and round, they seemed very conflicted by this request. Mayor DiCarlo pointed out that St. John the Baptist Church does an annual procession on Good Friday and that council allows the closure of the streets, therefore, this request was not out of line. (I know I’ve attended at least 2 religion-based weddings in the Kings Navy Yard Park??? How does that fit in??)Councillor Fryer asked about their intentions if it were to rain. The Pastor said the service would be weather permitting. After much incertitude, council approved the service in the Park.

Sign By-law 2006-26 Amendment to Remove Off-Site Portable Signage

Well, people, it appears council wants those signs gone! If you don’t, there will be a public meeting scheduled during the next 2 weeks for input. (My opinion, give all the input you want, there are some minds made up and those signs are going, going, gone….)

Proposed Private Property Tree By-law and Proposed Public Tree By-law

It also appears council wants to control not only the trees on public property, but on private property as well. Councillor Meloche was leery of the private property part of the by-law, so was Councillor Courtney. They felt it was too much government and they would be in our backyard so to speak, controlling what we do. Councillor Pouget admitted to being the one who insisted on the by-law, however, the arborist made valid points and she was okay with it. She feels the government is already in our backyards, by controlling fence heights etc. (Sorry, this is way too big brother for me. I don’t want to ask council if I want to cut down a tree. Also, my town-owned tree needed trimming badly and that took numerous phone calls and pestering for 10 months before the finally came and did it……so, if the the town can’t take care of their trees, they’re going to dictate how I take care of mine?? hmmm….) Councillor Lavigne agreed with Councillor Fryer to just get this through (it was just to be tabled), that it’s getting late. (Yep, it was!! move this show along) Councillor Lavigne also pointed out that as it stands, the town lacks staff, an arborist etc. and is looking at reducing costs. Anyway, it passed and there will be public consultation. So, if you want to be able to cut down a tree on your own property, you’d better show up for the public meeting, or else, no tree-cutting for you.

In-camera report out

Well, remember how council was in-camera from 3:30 until almost 6PM? It was time for the report out.

First up was a motion about the purchase of Belle Vue. There was a motion on the floor to purchase Belle Vue, direct CAO to remove conditions, apply for government funding (there was more, but again, hand-written, sorry.) Councillor Pouget declared a conflict and left (I think Councillor Lavigne did too, but not 100% sure). They went straight to a vote, however, the only supporter was Deputy Mayor DiPasquale. So, the motion failed, the town will not be purchasing Belle Vue.

Then…..wait for it……………..there was a motion to purchase Duffy’s, remove conditions, apply for government funding and make plans for redevelopment (again, hand-written). Councillor Fryer immediately asked for a recorded vote. However, before the vote, each councillor spoke to justify their vote. Councillor Pouget said that she assured taxpayers during her campaign that she would pay down the debt. She feels she would prefer to vote for new sirens for the evacuation plan and can not vote to purchase Duffy’s. Councillor Meloche felt that this was an opportunity, we’re stable financially, there’s not much water-front property left and it would be a value to the town. Councillor Courtney said she agonised over Belle Vue and sees the beautiful building and historical value, however, she felt we do not have the money for it. She said she felt the same about Duffy’s, however she is being forward-thinking, the marina possibility and the chance to capitalise and she felt she had to lean towards forward thinking. Councillor Fryer pointed out that other communities are actively purchasing waterfront property, this would give a chance to have festivals in the Navy yard Park by expanding it and that it would be an initiative for future generations. Councillor Lavigne also spoke in support of the purchase. He said we have the money in the bank to buy it, then we can sit on the property until we can line up government funding. Councillor Pouget discussed the debt some more and there were various numbers thrown around. Finally, it went to the recorded vote…..

Support for the purchase of Duffy’s : Coucillor Courtney, Deputy Mayor DiPasquale, Councillors Fryer, Lavigne and Meloche and Mayor DiCarlo.

Opposed to the purchase of Duffy’s: Councillor Pouget.

I was so darn excited!!! What a beautiful, unexpected surprise to tonight’s meeting! I left at 9:15 (shortly after the Duffy’s discussion and vote), as the meeting was still going on. But seriously, 3 hours, in those awful chairs!?!  Ah, well, it was worth it, to see what could possibly be the first shining moment of the current council! Finally, some forward-thinking risk being taken to promote and move our town forward! I love it! Well, not by all of our councillors, but a large majority at least.

 

 

 

In preparation for Monday September 12th Regular Town council meeting

Well, council had a month off and it looks like they’re going to have to make up for it Monday night!

First, there is an in-camera meeting scheduled for 3:30 to discuss the following:

ITEM A – Update on Current By-law Enforcement Matter – Section 239(2)(f) – Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.

ITEM B – Possible Property Acquisition – Section 239(2)(c) – A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.

ITEM C – Possible Property Acquisition – Section 239(2)(c) – A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.

Then, there is a planning meeting scheduled for 5:30 PM to discuss :

Zoning By-law Amendment Public Meeting – Meadow View Estates Subdivision.

Then, council will meet for their regular meeting at 6PM, to discuss and vote on the items in the 367 page agenda! Following that, they will once again go in-camera!

Here’s my overview of what stands out to me for Monday night’s meeting. I’m going to try to keep it short and brief (kind of like I’m hoping for Monday’s meeting lol), because I have a crazy busy weekend ahead. Going to briefly look over the agenda and briefly summarise. I want to be able to enjoy the new WE Harvest Fest this weekend!

DELEGATIONS Libro Centre Indoor Turf Rental Rates – Terry Sawchuk, President, Amherstburg Soccer Club

It appears that Mr. Sawchuk is requesting a 40% reduction in user fees for the Amherstburg Soccer Club when they use the indoor field. Will council approve it? We’ll see what happens.

Ontario 150 – Community Capital Program

Looks like administration is requesting permission to submit an application to the Ontario 150 – Community Capital Program to receive funding for the restoration of tennis courts at Malden Centre and in Anderdon. Estimated cost of repairs is $334,000.00.The report includes pictures and these courts are definitely in need of some attention.

Repair and Improvements to the Ouellette Drain – Tender Results

Well, the prices are in and administration is recommending to choose the cheapest one. I would guess this should get passed pretty easily…..Super long report there that I did not read. Hoping the seven who are paid to read it, take the time to do so.

Stakeholder Consultation on Community Based Strategic Plan

As you are all aware, the citizens of Amherstburg were consulted in order that a Strategic Plan be created to help plan to move our community forward. It appears there are some revisions that were made by the Committees of council. Administration wants “to develop a five year business plan that identifies specific actions and the allocation of resources and the annual strategic plan report card for the roll-out of the 2016-2021 Community Based Strategic Plan.” (taken from the agenda). In the Risk Analysis of the report I read : “Failure to adopt the Community Based Strategic Plan generated by MDB Insight which was fuelled by community input and stakeholder involvement may result in the political criticism of Council.” (Uh-oh…..) Administration met with the following committees to discuss the Strategic Plan : Economic Development Committee August 9 th, Audit & Finance Committee August 10th, Recreation and Culture Committee August 11th,  Accessibility Committee August 18th, Heritage Committee August 18th and the Parks Committee August 22nd. I had seen the original draft version and there is a new, revised version included with the agenda. However, I don’t know what the differences are between the two. There is some interesting reading about the various initiatives that the committees supported or wanted amended and there is also an interesting commentary/criticism of some parts of the plan. I’m anxious to hear council’s reaction Monday night.

Church Service, Kings Navy Yard Park – New Proposed 2016 Event

Looks like a local church wants to hold a service in the Navy Yard on September 25th. They will need council’s approval to do so. (I wonder if council will ask as many questions of this organisation as they did of the organisers for the Sunday Market Wellness Stroll????? )

Sign By-law 2006-26 Amendment to Remove Off-Site Portable Signage

Looks like council will be discussing and receiving input about the portable signs that are seen around town. It looks like this issue will be tabled for the moment to allow input.

Proposed Private Property Tree By-law and Proposed Public Tree By-law

On May 11, 2015, Council passed the following motion: “That Council direct Administration to investigate the best tree by-law available to municipalities throughout Ontario and provide Council with this tree by-law for Council’s consideration and review. This tree by-law should protect all trees on municipal property and have serious consequences of any violators.” It looks like this issue will also be tabled for further discussion and input. It appears the issue is fairly complex and not very clear-cut. (haha, sorry…..pun kind of intended). Looks like they need further input since it would affect any resident who decides to cut down a tree on their own private property if the diameter is more than 20 cm. Also, will require hiring someone to enforce and experts to consult in the making of the new by-law. So…….should be an interesting discussion Monday night.

Council Support – Amendments to Provincial Nuclear Emergency Response Plan (PNERP) and Municipal Nuclear Emergency Response Plan

Pretty long report here and my eyes are getting tired. I think they need to amend the Emergency Response Plan…..I don’t know much about nuclear emergencies, so I have to hope council does I guess…..? Will listen Monday night for the discussion.

Accounts payable

The bills have been paid but council gets a report to check over. It appears that all 5 of our councillors registered to attend the AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) conference that was held in Windsor in August. From what I can see on the report, it appears Councillor Pouget did not attend, however, the fees were partially reimbursed. Looks like the other 4 were able to attend. (I am so happy that Amherstburg had representation at this year’s conference. I don’t believe we had anybody attend last year.)  Couldn’t help but notice this one : email message archive appliance computer hardware $5,646.61 (what the heck?).  Legal fees came in around $5000.00.

Monthly Update to Council – Fire Services

“On April 11, 2016, Council adopted the following motion: “That Administration BE DIRECTED to provide monthly activity reports within the Building department, Fire department, and Police Services.” Well, the report is in. Last month the police report was in the agenda and, to me, seemed kind of useless. Do we the people really need to know exactly how many calls the police go to and how many officers show up? It was a very lengthy report. The Fire Department report isn’t as long, but still detailed of who did what and when. I don’t know….I’m not sold on this being a great use of resources. Sure, it lends itself to transparency I guess, but seems kind of wasteful on the other hand. Reports for the sake of making reports cost money, well, that’s what I think anyway.

And then, once again, council will go in-camera at the end of the meeting to discuss :

ITEM D – Update on Current By-law Enforcement Matter – Section 239(2)(f) – Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.

ITEM E – 99 Thomas Road – Section 239(2)(a) – The security of the property of the municipality or local board; and, Section 239(2)(c) – A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.

Pretty big agenda and definitely a big night Monday night for council. Will be back after the meeting with the highlights of what goes on. Have a great weekend! Hope to see everyone at the WE Harvest Festival! Should be another great Amherstburg event!