Monday October 24th Regular Town council meeting

Tonight’s meeting lasted a little over an hour and a half. That was a good sign. The lady sitting near me brought a chair pad to sit on. Smart lady. I should watch and learn. The overall theme of the evening was confusion, or at least it ended on that note.

DELEGATIONS  Belle Vue Conservancy Roles and Planned Activities – Shirley Curson Prue, President, Belle Vue Conservancy

Councillor Pouget had declared a conflict on this issue at the beginning of the meeting and did not participate in the discussion, nor vote. Councillor Lavigne asked the CAO if it were really necessary  for himself to declare a conflict and the CAO appeared to tell him that no, it wasn’t. So, he didn’t.

Mrs Prue explained how the new organisation named the Belle Vue Conservancy is taking over from previous groups to form a committee to oversee fundraising efforts and provide steering for priorities to do with the acquisition of the Belle Vue property. The Conservancy is looking to have a close relationship and partnership with the town and was asking council to receive their request and also to direct administration to move forward with defining the roles and responsibilities of all involved.

Councillor Courtney questioned the role of the committee. Would they be a committee of council or an ad hock committee? CAO Miceli explained that they will hold the role of stakeholder and would not be a committee of council. (How many more committees of council could we need?) Council continued to ask questions and the CAO continued to explain that administration needs to define the roles of all involved. CAO Miceli said that the Conservancy would be a group of stakeholders but council still remains the decision-making body. Councillor Fryer asked that Belle Vue be added as a line item in the upcoming 2017 budget. The CAO explained that all donations for Belle Vue will come through the town and the town would control the money. The Conservancy would advocate for what needs to be done, for example, windows as a priority item.

Finally, the motion carried giving administration direction to provide the roles and responsibilities of all involved.

Another person had requested a last minute delegation earlier in the day. Council accepted to allow him to speak.

Mr. Ron Renaud from Waterbee Pools

Mr. Renaud spoke about his concerns regarding the new sign by-law. He feels that council should be supporting small businesses since they are tax payers. He said he thinks the signs are important to help the businesses bottom line. He asked if people really and truly turn around and leave town when they see these signs? (I highly doubt it.) He again reiterated that council should be helping to promote business and that this new by-law amendment just does not make sense.

He used a saying that I liked. (I hope I got it right.) He said that a business without signs is a sign of a no business.

Mr. Renaud said that he has a portable sign that he keeps on a piece of property that he owns in town, however, he does not run his business from this piece of property. With this new by-law, well, it means, no sign for you. (Did you just hear no soup for you? lol)

Hang on for the ride during the all over the place discussion. Here it is:

Councillor Meloche spoke of the importance of small business and that they are vital to the economy. He cited some statistics from a manual from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. He felt that the town should be working with small business, not against them. Councillor Fryer asked if Mr. Renaud’s sign would still be allowed on his property. Councillor Fryer was also the first to mention Communities in Bloom and their ultimate importance to our community. (While I value winning beautification awards, I also value that our small businesses need to make a living and are tax payers too.) Anyway, administration confirmed that the only portable signs permitted are on the lots where the service or business exists. (So, once again Mr. Renaud, no sign for you!) Councillor Pouget then spoke and said they’ve been dealing with this issue for 2 and a half years. Again, she cited hearing from the Communities in Bloom and said she’s received numerous complaints. She said that the majority of Amherstburg residents are in favour of eliminating these signs and that for these reasons she would be supporting this by-law. (I was at the public meeting and I can’t say that I agree. I also read the many, various comments at the end of the report. I would venture a guess that the majority of Amherstburg residents don’t really care either way about the signs, but that’s my opinion. What do I know? I’m just a blogger who likes to sit on the world’s most uncomfortable chair every week or two.) Councillor Lavigne agreed with Councillor Pouget and said that other towns are trying to limit the sign pollution. He said he understands small business but that the local BIA’s in those areas support the elimination of the signs. (I believe the BIA is a business organisation that the business owners are mandated to pay a fee to. We don’t have one in Amherstburg.) Then Councillor Fryer began to question the Chamber of Commerce permanent signs that are at the gateway of town, that have some businesses advertised on them. Administration said that those signs were approved by council previously. Councillor Fryer felt that none of those businesses will be affected by this new by-law but Mr Renaud will be. Administration, once again, clarified that they were discussing portable signs and that the Amherstburg Chamber of Commerce signs are not portable signs. (They look like pretty solid wood structures to me.)

Councillor Meloche spoke again that he is in favour of some form of regulation, but not this. He cited various court cases where it was judged to be a violation of the Charter of Freedom as it took away the opportunity to express oneself, via using signs to promote business. (Isn’t the Charter a beautiful thing? That’s what keeps me blogging. 😉  Well, that and the fame and glory. ) Councillor Meloche felt we should find a way to work with small business and pick a number and/or duration for the signs. Mr. Galvin, director of Engineering and Legislative Services, said that case law is all over the map on this issue. He mentioned that we’re not just dealing with aesthetics, but also safety, as he said that the signs cause distraction while driving. Councillor Pouget then said that she finds it disturbing that at this final hour, this issue is being debated. (Wasn’t the public consultation meeting just a few weeks ago?) She felt that Councillor Meloche had a chance to attend the meeting and make submissions and he did not. She then cited that the main reason is safety (funny, until someone else mentioned safety, all anyone else mentioned was Communities in Bloom and complaints, but, heck, who knows) and that she is voting for this by-law because of safety. Councillor Lavigne asked about the possibilities of the town being pursued legally about this. Mr Galvin said he can’t guarantee anything, some municipalities have been challenged and others haven’t. The councillors then went into a lengthy round about discussion about election signs. (I’m not even going there right now.) Obviously, this is a separate issue. Councillor Fryer then returned to discussing the Amherstburg Chamber of Commerce signs and said that some of the businesses advertised on there aren’t Amherstburg businesses. (Note to self, drive by the sign real slow tomorrow and read them all.) He also asked for a recorded vote. (I couldn’t help but ponder….council sure listened to the farmers about the tree by-law, yet seemed to disregard the small business owners about the sign by-law…..I wonder why?)

The motion was to amend the by-law as stated. (i.e. no more portable signs off-site of the property)

In support : Councillor Courtney, Deputy Mayor DiPasquale, Councillor Fryer, Councillor Lavigne, Councillor Pouget and Mayor DiCarlo

Not support : Councillor Meloche

There you have it Amherstburg. No signs for you!

Councillor Fryer then made a quick motion (I sort of half missed it) something about looking into the Amherstburg Chamber of Commerce signs. That flew through.

Amending Development Agreement for 680 Front Road South, Blue Haven Apartments

Councillor Pouget declared a conflict on this issue.

There were a few changes made to the site agreement for the improvements at the Blue Haven Apartments. At first, council didn’t seem too pleased about this, but once the owner explained that the changes really were minor in nature, everybody seemed to be okay with it.

In all honesty, the rest of the items sailed through. There were a lot of items, but little to no discussion on most. Until……

NOTICE OF MOTION Deputy Mayor DiPasquale – Reconsideration of Motion from September 26, 2016 – Legal Roster

Okay. I didn’t know what this about at the beginning and I feel like I knew even less at the end. Deputy Mayor DiPasquale said that it was a busy evening when they voted on this and that he missed the vote on this issue. He thinks somebody else did too. He wanted reconsideration to have a legal roster. He said that Councillor Pouget pointed out his mistake to him.

So, it carries.

Councillor Meloche wanted clarification. The Mayor said there is currently no motion. Councillor Meloche asked if they were going back to what they originally approved. It was something about a motion to have an RFP on legal firms and cycling through using various firms. So, Councillor Lavigne moved the previous motion of the motion that they had before. (Ya, you don’t get that? Me neither. This was just the beginning.) Councillor Lavigne said he thinks he remembers and he thinks we have this but we’re not using them fairly and equally and is it based on need or speciality. (I’m going out on a limb here…..so confused….I think they wanted to have a list of pre-approved law firms to use to save money, but I really don’t know. Everyone just kept talking about “the motion”, yet never specified what “the motion” was….) The CAO explained how each law firm has expertise in different areas. One firm they use frequently has expertise in Human Resources, another in real estate and another with policies. Then Councillor Lavigne said he would probably not support the motion of the motion that he made because he was concerned with a technicality. (I was just concerned to figure out what they heck they were talking about. I was starting to think “the motion” was code for …..goodness only knows….so weird.) The CAO explained that he vets everything through Mr. Galvin, the Director of Engineering and Legislative Services before he goes to an outside firm. CAO Miceli pointed out that this year, legal fees are way down. (I can attest to that, I check them too. lol) CAO Miceli cited that they even reduced the budgeted amount for legal fees this year and they are down significantly compared to what was projected. (I have a couple of theories why……one…..council has slowed down on getting involved in things they ought not to be involved in, which has positively impacted the legal fees…..two…..we hired a lawyer, and well, enough said, we hired a lawyer….). Councillor Lavigne then questioned legal fees being down. The CAO confirmed, again, they are down significantly. Councillor Pouget said she keeps hearing that the fees are outrageous and that’s why this was raised, that it was not because of legal fees but because of 2 administrators. The Mayor said he was confused. (Ya, you and me both. And every one else in the room.) Then, out of left field, Councillor Lavigne withdraws his motion of the motion.

Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom, meeting adjourned. Pure what the heck just happened?

So there it is Amherstburg. No soup for you. No signs for you. No motion for you. No lawyer for you. No seat cushion for you.

In preparation for Monday October 24th Regular town council meeting

Well, I glanced through this week’s 458 page agenda and here are the highlights as I see them. Please, be sure to read through, most especially about the new amendment to the sign by-law.

DELEGATIONS  Belle Vue Conservancy Roles and Planned Activities – Shirley Curson Prue, President, Belle Vue Conservancy

It appears that Mrs. Prue will be presenting about the Belle Vue Conservancy roles and the planned activities that will change gears from acquiring the property to now helping to manage it. Council had made it clear they were looking for community engagement when they voted through the initiative to purchase Belle Vue. From what I read as I glanced over the report, it looks like they’ve got it. Mrs. Prue has provided a summary and a comprehensive report about the roles and responsibilities of the committee and their partnership with the town. Will be listening closely, it looks very interesting. (I wonder if any councillors will have to declare conflict each time Belle Vue comes up for discussion now?)

Municipal Banking RFP Results

It appears that administration has undertaken an investigation in regards to the town’s banking institution, dealings and fees. It seems we’ve been dealing with the same bank for 20 years and there has been no RFP for banking services for at least 10 years. (Kudos to whoever in administration caught this!) Obviously, the town is looking to save on banking fees while also getting the most interest possible on reserve accounts. They have received a tender from each of the financial institutions that have a branch in Amherstburg. It appears the best “deal” was offered by Windsor Family Credit Union and administration is recommending to enter into an agreement with them for the town’s financial (banking) needs. Will be listening to hear what council decides to do. (I wonder if anyone will have to declare a conflict and not vote because they personally deal with the Windsor Family Credit Union? LOL)

Installation of Wheelchair Swing at Libro Centre Playground

It appears the Miracle League had previously approached council about installing a wheelchair swing at the Libro Centre Playground. It seems that the Miracle League will be funding the swing and it’s installation. It looks like they need council’s support to continue with this initiative. I have to assume that this will fly through, but again, you just never know…

Shaanti International Museum of Costumes and Dolls Corporation Agreement

It looks like the Shaanti International Museum of Costumes and Dolls operates at the Malden Community Centre. They have over 3000 unique and rare dolls in their collection. From what I can gather, they are looking for a lease agreement with the town with no rental dollars to exchange hands. It appears this has been budgeted for and administration supports this. Will council? (Will the entire council vote? Or does anybody own a rare doll, which could be seen as a conflict? lol)

Decision of Drainage Tribunal – Dufour Drain and Branches A & B

Super long report about the Dufour Drain. Looks like there were several disputes. I’ll listen and see what happens.

Libro Centre Temporary Entrance Road – Tender Results

It appears there was a tender issued to create a temporary Entrance to the Libro Centre during the Meloche Road improvements. The results are in. Time to vote.

Amending Development Agreement for 680 Front Road South, Blue Haven Apartments

The Blue Haven Apartments had received approval for building upgrades last year. It looks like they want to modify a few things and they need council approval. (I am wondering if a certain councillor will declare a conflict on this issue. She had previously declared a conflict in regards to Blue Haven. Am I correct to assume if a conflict’s been declared once, it must be declared every time, like Belle Vue?)

Development Agreement for 65 Sandwich St. North

It looks like Riccardo’s is moving to this new location and is looking for parking possibilities. It seems they’re looking to put parking behind the building. This should be a no-brainer, in my opinion. The town is keeping an existing local business that is moving into what was once a vacant building. Hope council can keep things rolling and moving along.

2016 Special Event Approval

Ever since the current council passed a by-law that EVERYONE planning ANY type of event must come before council and seek approval, well, here’s another one. (My opinion, seems a bit controlling and definitely a time eater for all involved.) The Legion is seeking approval to close the streets during this year’s Remembrance Day celebration. I would think this one too, is a no-brainer also and will sail through.

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

Okay, people, this is a big one. It appears little and it appears to be minor, but it’s really and truly far from little and minor. Council is looking to amend the current sign by-law and has added one portion to it, specifically targeting off-site advertising with portable signs. Based on council’s request, administration is recommending to make it impossible for a business to use a portable sign anywhere other than on their own business property. Therefore, any businesses would be unable, with this amendment, to place a portable sign anywhere else in town (other than on their own property) to advertise their business unless they have council approval. Many businesses can’t place signs on their property, for different reasons, therefore they rely on off-site advertising. This all came to be because of what some feel is “sign pollution” at the north end of town. There have been several portable signs there for quite some time advertising various businesses. From what I heard at the meetings, all of the signs were in compliance.

This is where it gets dicey, in my opinion. Some residents and councillors feel these signs are “ugly” and “unsightly”. When one makes a decision based on opinion of appearances, where does it end? What if I feel that someone’s landscaping is “ugly” or “unsightly” and I can get 4 members of council to agree? Does that mean start ripping out landscaping and re-do it? What if I feel that someone’s house is “ugly” and “unsightly” and again, I can get 4 members of council to agree? Does the house get hit with the wrecking ball? (Obviously, exaggerations, but I think you get the drift.) I read through the comments and it’s fairly evenly divided. Many that want the signs seem to be looking for reason and some type of compromise. I would venture an educated guess that most residents don’t care either way about the signs. As for those who don’t want them, the only reasons I could find within the comments, all have to do with opinion based on appearances. However, for those who want the signs, the reasons are based on cold, hard facts. The facts are that these signs allow small business to advertise and market their business. The facts are these small businesses have small budgets for advertising and these signs are an effective tool to diversify. Sure, they can and do advertise in the local newspaper and on social media, but this is another tool to keep their business alive and successful. Would it be “ugly” or “unsightly” to have “for lease” signs and empty buildings all over town because council has stopped the ability of small, local businesses to remain viable?

Many of the comments offer various ideas in an effort to find a solution, rather than a cold “all or nothing” approach being proposed by town administration, per council’s request. There were suggestions to perhaps limit the number of off-site signs on a piece of property, instead of eliminating them all together. There is a prevailing attitude, from a few, that these signs are cluttering up “our” waterfront. From what I have seen, I have never seen the signs on town property, (i.e. near the Tourist Information Centre) and that is “our” property. The signs I have seen are on privately owned property. If the property owners are okay with allowing signs to be placed there and the business is paying the fee, what’s the problem? If the property owners are okay with putting them up, the businesses are okay with paying the fees, why is the town involved? The waterfront property that belongs to the town does not have signs on it and really, that is the only property “we” as taxpayers own. I’m not sure the town should be so restrictive towards the businesses and property owners.The business owners spoke at the public meeting and I feel for them. It’s not easy to make a living from a small business that’s not on the main drag and these signs are vital for their success. (ex. Ducks on the Roof, small businesses on Dalhousie St etc.). I think what the town is trying to force on them is too restrictive. And at the end of the day, “we” don’t own all of the waterfront property….in fact “we” don’t own any of the properties that the signs are located on. (as far as I know). I sincerely hope that council can see that this new portion of the by-law is very hurtful to the small business community. Council listened to the farmers and the public about the tree by-law. Will they listen to the small business owners and the public once again? Or will they simply impose their will based on their opinion of beauty and ugliness?

NOTICE OF MOTION Deputy Mayor DiPasquale – Reconsideration of Motion from September 26, 2016 – Legal Roster

Will listen and see what this is about.

Accounts payable

The bills have been paid and the report is in. I like to review this report to see what we have paid in legal fees and if anything else stands out. One thing does this week. Looks like we paid the Integrity Commissioner around $5700. Interesting. The report doesn’t say why. (Hopefully one of our town councillors will question this payment. If they are reviewing this report I would think they will???  Maybe a little test to see who has their “eye on the ball”?) Looks like we only paid out about $650 in legal fees this week. (That’s a good thing!)

Overall, looks like Monday’s meeting should be interesting. Just hoping it’s not a long one!

 

Tuesday October 11th Regular Town Council meeting

Well, tonight ended up being a fairly interesting meeting after all. There were several recorded votes, some mysterious object fell from the ceiling and whizzed by my head, a fruit fly kept showing up and landing on my hand all night (and I never did manage to kill it) and a surprise vote at the end. Read on for details…..I’m not handing over the details up front. 😉

****Of special note, Councillor Lavigne was absent tonight.****

DELEGATIONS Temperature Control in Community Room at the Libro Centre – Fern Elliott, Golden Age

First up, Mrs. Elliott spoke on behalf of the Golden Age Centre. She said they’ve had an ongoing problem at the Libro Centre for 5 years, seems that the room they use is either too hot or too cold. They’ve met with staff and and made calls to the front desk, but the problem is ongoing. She said they use portable heaters or fans, however, these blow the breakers. She wants the members and guests to be able to enjoy their afternoon. Next up, Mr. Ron Johnston spoke as a member of the club. He offered the man’s side of the experience and attested to the fact that the room is very cold. Members often have to put on coats and gloves. (This was kind of funny, because you know what they say about women’s thermostats…..) He attested that the men find the room cold too. He also cited some problems with cleanliness, garbage smelling and not being emptied etc.

After this delegation, the discussion began…..so hold on……

Councillor Pouget was the first to speak. She spoke of receiving phone calls just recently about this issue, but was not aware of it before last week. She asked CAO Miceli if this is part of the investigation going on at the Libro Centre. The CAO said that they are in the process of reviewing the entire mechanical system and there will be items brought to budget deliberations. He also mentioned that the Senior’s Group’s lease had expired in April. He asked if there would be anything the seniors would be be willing to do in regards to the expense of getting a stand-alone unit with it’s own controls. He also said the data shows the room is 72 degrees and that legally the owner must maintain a temperature of 70 degrees. Councillor Pouget tried to reply but started coughing and had to leave the room for a minute with a glass of water. Councillor Fryer took up the helm with the questions in her short absence. Councillor Fryer then started talking about when he’s at the arena after hockey that the dressing rooms are very hot, like a sauna. (Okay…..when did this delegation become all about him and the dressing rooms now??? What was to be next? Texas Road?) Councillor Fryer also wanted to know why they were blowing fuses. The CAO pointed out that the building met electrical requirements at the time and that the Libro Centre is a LEED Facility and this designation requires multiple checks and balances.

Then Councillor Fryer made a motion for administration to come back to council regarding the hot and cold rooms and get a heater with controls and include this in the 2017 budget.

Stay with me…..the motion got changed about 4 more times…..so much back and forth. (Head on a swivel, people!)

The CAO pointed out (again) that the current lease has expired and should be extended if the town is going to start looking into making improvements. (Makes sense to me….definitely should be paying rent if requesting work to be done.) Councillor Fryer doesn’t want the seniors to pay for this and doesn’t want council asking them for money. Councillor Meloche then spoke up about his concerns with the temperature and started talking about costs of lowering the ceilings and the duct work. (What? Where was I, the Twilight Zone? Now we’re lowering ceilings and moving duct work around? So strange…..) Councillor Meloche was looking for some cost-sharing on the senior’s part. Councillor Fryer then, once again, started talking about how hot the dressing rooms are. (Yes, we get it, they’re hot, but funny thing is, that wasn’t part of the delegation….but I digress….)

So then, the motion was changed to direct administration to report back on why the dressing rooms are hot and the community room is cold, get a unit for the user to have individual heat control, extend the lease for 5 years, and an upset limit of $25 000 for repairs or upgrades.

Councillor Pouget asked for a recorded vote. There was much more back and forth about money. The CAO, once again, assured everyone he would do this as economically as possible and that any repairs will be shown as a variance to the budget, since council did not budget for this.

In support: Unanimous

 Launch of the Multimedia Contest for High School Students – Bob Rozankovic, Chair, Economic Development Advisory Committee

Mr. Rozankovic presented the multimedia contest that will be open to students of General Amherst, Villanova and Western Secondary to write an essay about what they see as the future of our town. This, of course, passed through without a hitch.

Proposed Public Property Tree By-law

Councillor Fryer fully supported this by-law. Councillor Meloche wanted to know how this by-law could go both ways. He asked in what way the town would be addressing their own end of this. The CAO pointed out that they heard from the residents loud and clear two weeks ago. He said the budget is currently $25 000/year for tree maintenance and that he will be recommending an increase in the budget for this. He said that the issues of sight lines and other concerns were expressed at the meeting and were also included in the report. Councillor Pouget said she was at the public meeting and in a way wishes she hadn’t been. (LOL….it was seriously funny….I enjoy when I can have a chuckle with others during a meeting. It’s better than the alternative, I guess. ) Anyway, she said she would bring the people’s concerns forward and she did. She acknowledged that they were all included in administration’s report. She said that she never asked for a private tree by-law and re-read the motion. However, within that motion they asked for the “best tree by-law”…..well, guess what? The CAO pointed out that during their research, the municipalities with the “best” tree by-laws included both a public and private one. (So, I guess this had become one of those life lessons…..be careful what you ask for...) She did request a recorded vote, as promised.

Motion to accept the public tree by-law

Support : Unanimous

Proposed Private Property Tree By-law

Councillor Pouget opened the discussion and again referred to the public meeting. She expressed that she learned a lot of things from this meeting and the public’s input. (I have to admit, so did I……you truly don’t think of what others go through on a daily basis, until you sit and listen….site lines from up high in a combine tractor etc….) Councillor Fryer expressed his opposition as did Councillor Meloche. Councillor Pouget took issue with how Councillor Meloche expressed his opposition by voting against it from day one and wanted that withdrawn. Councillor Meloche re-explained and we continued on.

Finally the motion: To abandon the private tree by-law

Support : Unanimous

Clean Water and Wastewater Fund

Administration wants to apply for a grant to put towards clean water and wastewater. Councillor Pouget expressed concerns that the Amherstburg water treatment plant has had no significant upgrades since 1971. She’s concerned we will have to invest $30 Million in 10 years with no reserves and high water rates. She said she knows clean water is a priority and she feels that council will have to tighten their belts at budget time. (Yet, they just passed a public tree by-law that is going to cost lots to enforce and deliver……um….yikes!) Councillor Fryer then pointed out that on page 33 (of some document) it states that councillors are normally protected from liability of their decisions, except in the cases of safe water. He cited the Walkerton disaster from a few years ago. (So, basically, a councillor could be individually sued if they don’t act on providing safe drinking water…….) There was more back and forth about money. Councillor Fryer then asked if people can drill their own well for drinking water. (Ya, seriously……is there really anybody who would want to do that? Perhaps if the water rates go any higher??) Anyway, the short answer was no. Finally, the motion carried.

The rest of the items flew through….during which time, something fell from the ceiling and went right by my head…..It was a chunk of…. I’m not sure what….have to guess it came from the heating vent…..it was dirty…..almost like a large piece of black mould maybe….or piece of dirt…..or I don’t know…..but perhaps this explains some of the craziness in town hall? For a minute I thought someone threw something at me…..you may think I’m paranoid, but a certain person has clapped when I left a meeting once, a councillor threatened to sue me once, I’ve been yelled at across the arena by a certain councillor, locked outside of town hall…..the bizarre list goes on……..so someone throwing something at me wouldn’t be off the radar, just sayin’.  But that was not the case, just pure grossness falling from the heating system, I think. Time to clean the duct work. Is that covered in the budget?

Unfinished business

This part of the meeting got interesting. Councillor Pouget made a motion to bring back a report, at the next public meeting, of Mr. Neil Stewart’s September 26th complaints, including the ERCA complaints.

Backstory. Does anyone remember my blog about the neighbour dispute that came before council? The one where one neighbour was crying? The one where someone built a deck that was too high and they were told to go before the committee of adjustment? The one where administration had to repeatedly explain procedure for situations like this to council? The one that was really just plain odd? Yes that’s the meeting and the report Councillor Pouget was referring to.

The Clerk pointed out that some of the information would be protected by the privacy act. (Okay……good, we will just let the sleeping dog lie, right?) Councillor Pouget then suggested she would remove the public meeting portion and request the report be presented in-camera. (Seriously???? Neighbour divorce court goes in-camera???) Councillor Fryer did not like this idea. He said that the ERCA board deals directly with the other parties and does not go through council. He then said he does not want the information. He does not want private information dropped into his drop box on his personal computer. (At this point, the fruit fly that had been around all evening, decided to land on my arm. I was already irritated by the possibility of yet another in-camera meeting. And, I could not manage to catch the darn fruit fly.) Councillor Pouget then changed the motion to request the full report of Mr. Stewart’s complaints, to be presented at an in-camera meeting and to remove the part about ERCA. She also pointed out to Councillor Fryer that in-camera information is no longer sent via drop-box, it is handed to them in a sealed envelope at the meeting and then must be returned. (Councillor Fryer did not look impressed.) So anyway, it goes to a vote :

In Support : Councillor Pouget, Councillor Courtney and Deputy Mayor DiPasquale

Opposed : Councillor Meloche and Councillor Fryer

So, just when I thought the next in-camera meeting would become “Amherstburg Neighbour Divorce Court”, Mayor DiCarlo said he was going to exercise his right to vote. (Brief procedural explanation: I thought the Mayor only voted for recorded votes or to break a tie…..but I learned that it’s a complex issue. The chair (the Mayor in this case) can technically vote on every issue if they choose. However, to maintain a perception of neutrality and to avoid perceived bias, in general, the chair will not vote. However, should the chair choose to vote, if they feel strongly enough, they can vote after everyone else votes.) So, it appears that Mayor DiCarlo could see the simplicity of this issue, much like Councillors Fryer and Meloche and enough of the in-camera meetings!!! So, he opposed the motion, which made it a 3-3 tie, so the motion failed. Therefore, no in-camera neighbour dispute divorce court after all.

The meeting adjourned around 7:45. Not too bad.

As for Councillor of the week……believe it or not, I was leaning toward’s Councillor Pouget tonight. She had some good stuff to say tonight. That is, until the end when she wanted to bring the neighbour disputes back for rehashing. So, I changed my mind, which is my prerogative (lol), and I nominate Mayor DiCarlo. Thank you for seeing logic and not allowing yet another in-camera meeting to happen! I never have gotten around to counting them all up, but I’m guessing this council is in the running for some kind of record.

So, I guess it’s true…..never leave a game early. This meeting got most interesting at the very end.

So, rest easy this week Amherstburg. If you need to cut down a tree on your private property, you still can! If you need your publicly owned tree maintained, well we’ll see what happens at budget time! If you’re having thermostat issues, they’ll be looked into! If you want clean drinking water? Absolutely!!!! If you have neighbour disputes? Deal through the regular channels. Just remember to wear a construction hard hat if you find yourself under an air vent in town hall. Have a great week!

 

 

In preparation for Tuesday October 11th Regular town council meeting

Since Monday is a holiday, council will be having their regular meeting on Tuesday night this week. The agenda is a mere 262 pages, so this gives me hope that it won’t be a late one. The less time in those awful chairs the better. 🙂  Here we go.

Proposed Public Property Tree By-law

Council had asked administration to update the public tree by-law. Two weeks ago, there was a public input meeting held about this by-law as well as the private tree by-law. The people didn’t seem too agitated about this public tree by-law, however, there was one part of the by-law that people did mention. The public tree by-law requires private property owners to pay to maintain the public trees if they are near a highway or sidewalk. (Isn’t this why we pay taxes??? Talk about the town shirking their responsibilities.)

” It is important to note that residents do not believe that the municipality is dedicating the resources or funding necessary to adhere to the service levels established in the Public Tree By-law. In adopting this By-law Council must consider whether the Town has the capacity – staff, equipment and other resources – to meet those public expectations presented in the By-law.” (taken from the report). Yes, several people pointed out at the meeting how the town is not taking care of the trees they already own…..if council wants to cut, cut, cut the budget, (not the trees lol) how are they going to be able to actually perform their duties, enforce and follow-through with this by-law? In case you didn’t read a previous blog, long story short, it took me 10 months to get a publicly-owned tree on my property trimmed of it’s low-hanging branches. Many people at the meeting mentioned the town-owned trees and they often cited lack of maintenance on the town’s part. If council passes this by-law, will council have the money in the budget to actually take care of the existing publicly-owned trees? And why is the town downloading the cost of maintenance to private property owners if the tree is near a highway or sidewalk?

Proposed Private Property Tree By-law

This new by-law required private property owners to pay for a permit and receive permission in order to be able to cut a tree down on their own private property.

Well, the people spoke loud and clear about this new private tree by-law! Nobody wants it. Or at least nobody that was at the meeting wants it. Councillor Pouget was in attendance at the public meeting and said that she would request a recorded vote for this issue. (This ensures the public can see who voted and how on this issue in the minutes of the meeting.) (This also assumes, of course, that no elected official will declare a conflict because they have trees on their property and therefore absolve themselves from their responsibility of voting on this issue……)

Here’s the backstory of how and why this new by-law even came to be:

“On May 11, 2015, Council passed the following motion, moved by Councillor Pouget and seconded by Councillor Fryer : “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.””

As promised, administration wrote up a detailed report that the public in attendance at the meeting do not want this new by-law. They have recommended that this by-law be abandoned. At the end of the report, there are numerous comments from the residents. Here’s one of particular interest : “Would like to know who brought this forward. The Private Tree By-law is a Civil Rights problem.” Well, if you’re reading this, the answer is right above this paragraph. So, as it stands, it appears this whole private tree by-law thing was a waste of everybody’s time and taxpayer money.

DELEGATIONS Temperature Control in Community Room at the Libro Centre – Fern Elliott, Golden Age

It looks like this delegation, represented by Mrs. Elliott will be talking about the control of heat and air conditioning. It appears it’s been an on-going problem for 5 years. Will have to see what exactly the problem is and how council will deal with it. (Maybe I should get a delegation for an on-going problem…..the world’s most uncomfortable chairs ever in council chambers…..although I’m starting to suspect they’re very uncomfortable for a reason…….)

Launch of the Multimedia Contest for High School Students – Bob Rozankovic, Chair, Economic Development Advisory Committee

It appears Mr. Rozankovic will be presenting a contest open to students of General Amherst, Villanova and Western Secondary to write an essay about what they see as the future of our town. If I remember correctly, I think they did this last year also.

Clean Water and Wastewater Fund

Administration wants to apply for a grant to put towards clean water and wastewater. This part of the report sums it up just about right :  “The Town of Amherstburg Long-Term Strategic Financial Plan and Water Model identify the need to invest over $30,000,000 in water infrastructure in the next 10 years. Furthermore the Town presently has no reserves in the water division and has one of the highest rates in the region for water. In an effort to remain competitive in the region, administration believes that this grant submission is necessary. A successful grant application will assist the Town in securing future development and providing water at a reasonable rate thus assisting the Town’s long term sustainability.”

OCIF Formula Based Component Funding Agreement

Super long report that doesn’t strike me as very interesting. All I retained was that OCIF stands for Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund. Will listen Tuesday night and see what that’s all about.

Removal of Holding Zone for 8372 Annie Avenue

Looks like council has to remove the holding zone on a different property this week. Didn’t we just go through this with another property?? Yes, yes we did, on Howard Avenue. Memory refresher for the last situation of holding zone removal: Council said no to removing the holding zone on a Howard Avenue property, even though administration recommended the removal. One week later, Councillor Fryer changed his mind, brought forward a new motion and ding, ding, ding…..everybody said yes to the removal of the holding zone. Sooooooo……administration is recommending the removal of the holding zone on Annie Avenue. Will it happen on the first try this time?

Removal of Part Lot Control – Queen Charlotte Residences

I believe this is some type of approval for the property on Dalhousie Street where the new condos are being built. If my memory serves me correctly, it seems to me this developer has had issues before council in the past. I seem to recall a tie vote that left the developer in limbo at one meeting and Councillor Lavigne had to bring the motion back in order to get things moving. From what I can see in the report, looks like the permits are in place and all should be good to go. We’ll see.

Health and Safety Update

Looks like a regular report coming before council about Health and Safety. Will listen and see what comes of this.

Accounts Payable

For information purposes, Council now receives a report at each meeting on all bills paid by the town. I like to tally up what we’re paying in legal fees and see if anything out of the ordinary jumps out at me. This time, we paid around $13 700 for legal fees. Nothing else really jumped out at me, or else I missed it. That could happen.

Tuesday’s meeting shouldn’t be too long. At least I’m hoping so. I’ll be watching and listening to see what happens.

Happy Thanksgiving! Enjoy the long weekend.