Well Monday night’s episode of “As Amherstburg Turns” lasted 5 hours and still is not over. Like the December meeting, council took a recess at 11:00 PM and the meeting will need to be finished on another day. I’m not sure yet when that will be. One drawback to that (well, there are clearly so many drawbacks) is that I can not access the video of the meeting until it is finally officially adjourned. So, like in the old days, I’m working off of my notes only. But there are a few things I’ll be going back to watch again later. Disclaimer……I will have plenty of commentary in this blog…..plenty……if you’re one of my readers that doesn’t enjoy my commentary, I suggest you stop reading. Now. Stop reading. Don’t say you weren’t warned. I spent the evening last night sighing, rolling my eyes and occasionally yelling at my computer.
Earlier in the day, at 1:00, council had met in-camera to discuss :
SPECIAL IN-CAMERA COUNCIL MEETING
That Council move into an In-Camera Meeting of Council at 1:00 p.m. pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended for the following reasons:
Item A – Section 239(3.1) – Asset Management Training Session – Educational or Training Sessions.
Item B – Section 239(2)(f) – Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose
I find it somewhat interesting and telling that council needs some training sessions about asset management……I believe they cut their own training budget down to almost nothing……either I guess they feel they don’t need training because they know everything? Or do they think Google is a viable option for training? Either way, good to see they’re getting some training…..because I’m not sure they understand the reports that they’re reading every two weeks…..
The meeting got underway around 6:10.
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
At the beginning of every meeting, council members are asked if they have to declare conflict of interest or pecuniary interest. Mayor DiCarlo declared a conflict of interest for the item “Jack Purdie Park and H. Murray Smith Park Land Use Options”. He explained that his house is located 60 metres from Purdie Park and that he had been given legal advice from the Integrity Commissioner that he had a conflict of pecuniary interest. Then Councillor Courtney said he may have to declare a conflict on the same item but it would depend where it goes and that he had also been in touch with the Integrity Commissioner. Councillor Prue said he may have a conflict about an in-camera item but he couldn’t be sure since he hadn’t seen the report but that his wife is on the Board.
DELEGATIONS
Exemption Request, Noise By-law 2001-43 – Paul Sousa, President, SunParlor R/C Flyers Inc.
Mr Sousa addressed council and requested an exemption for the noise bylaw for Sun Parlour R/C Flyers for their combustion planes. He had addressed council last year before the pandemic hit in March. There was supposed to be public consultation about the noise bylaw but then the pandemic hit.
Opposition to Exemption Request, Noise By-law 2001-43 – Tom Bateman
Mr Bateman then addressed council on behalf of the residents of the 4700 block of Concession 4 North. He said that they are vehemently opposed to any exemption. He felt that the combustible engines create a lot of noise and nuisance. He said he had previously shared his concerns with council and is opposed to a temporary or permanent exemption for this organization.
Councillor Prue wondered when there might be public consultation. Ms Rubli, Manager of Licencing and Enforcement said that there is a third wave of COVID anticipated and was hoping that public consultation could happen by the end of the year.
There was some back and forth but ultimately the delegates were both received, therefore there won’t be an exemption for this season.
2021 OCIF – Formula Based Capital Projects
If you recall, the town received OCIF (Ontario Community Infrastructure Funding) in December 2020 from the province. This is part of the reason that the December meeting spanned two days and over nine hours…..(Who knew that the exact same thing was about to happen again last night?????)
Anyway, here are the recommendations for what to do with those funds :
It is recommended that: 1. The following projects BE APPROVED for completion in 2021 to be funded by Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund – Formula Based funding as a transfer from Reserve Fund – Ontario Grants:
a. $315,000 allowance for Culvert 8 Replacement;
b. $375,000 allowance for Culvert 38 Replacement;
c. $225,000 allowance for Pointe West Drive Mill & Pave (west side); and
d. $50,000 allowance for Wyandotte St Mill & Pave (full extent).
This carried with no discussion.
Status Public Art – King’s Navy Yard Park Mural Project
Back in September, council received a report about the creation of a mosaic art piece to be installed on the east wall on the building in the Kings Navy Yard Park (the one with the washrooms). A committee was formed to review submissions. There were two finalists and the first one was selected. As well, Richard and Colleen Peddie generously offered to cover the entire cost of the project with a donation to the town in the amount of $10,000.
Well, a contract was drawn up and signed in November 2020. However, for some reason, the artist was unable to fulfill the conditions of the contract. When February rolled around and all possibilities were exhausted, the artist was advised that the town was terminating its relationship. So, the town went back to the second place finisher and is now looking for council to approve this project. According to the report Richard and Colleen Peedie have agreed to continue to fund the project stating “of course the Peddie’s are still in. We think art is critical to a successful community.”
Councillor Courtney felt that art is subjective and that council should be able to see the final product. Mr Roberts, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture said that they don’t want to stifle the artistic process. This mural would be somewhat different from the first one that was proposed since it would be a painted mural. He said that they could show the art to council but that they still hadn’t seen it yet. He mentioned that the theme of the Detroit River Region was still the same. Councillor McArthur said he was happy to see that it is a local artist that will be taking on the project and he thanked the Peddies for their donation.
And the motion carried. There will be art!
Update 320 Richmond Project
Councillor Prue said that he had a number of questions. (and my eyes rolled…..the report was pretty clear…..but let show time begin I guess.) He wondered if there was a time limit for the Long Term Care agreement for the land on this same property. CAO Miceli said that there is an offer and conditions set to expire at the end of April but that he expects the agreement will proceed. He also wondered if the $329,000 in the report was new money for the project or if it was a hold over from 2020. (I knew that answer because I read the report……) The CAO explained that it was a holdover of money that had been budgeted but not spent, it was not a new expense. Then Councillor Prue wondered if there was a total amount spent to date on 320 Richmond Street (old St. Bernard’s school.) There was some back and forth between Councillor Prue and the Treasurer. CAO Miceli explained that the building is 32,000 square feet. There has been $1,925,000 spent but $655,000 so far has been recovered (from the Nurse Practitioner Clinic I think?). He explained that the fit up cost of the building is $84.00 per square foot which is very economical for renovations and that the project management team have been following the procurement policy.
Councillor McArthur felt that the report dealt with costs but he wanted to point out the value of the building. He spoke of the Nurse Practitioner Clinic that will be able to serve 2,500 patients. As well, the building houses Amherstburg Community Services, the House Youth Centre and a Senior’s drop in centre. Mr Roberts explained that the Fighting Island Boxing Club and the Verdi Club areas are almost complete and that they would be part of the building as well.
Councillor Courtney spoke about optics and transparency…..he felt he didn’t recall approving the expenditure that was in the report. He went on about the scenario of the report…..(I’m really not sure what he meant and I can’t go back to listen again……and well, I’m not sure I’d bother anyway…..always an insinuation that something is remiss…..) The CAO explained that the report was simply to have the money that was not spent in 2020 brought forward into 2021 so that the work could be finished. He also said that the town acquired the building for $568,000. Then the back and forth continued……Councillor Courtney felt that there aren’t descriptions about the expenses and that residents ask….he wondered if he could get a break down of all of the costs instead of piecemeal in the chaque listing report. (Again, that insinuation that something is remiss…..so much for council working with administration…..) The Treasurer said that there is a detailed project sheet, but that HVAC, plumbing, electrical, everything and anything is on that project sheet. Again, Councillor Courtney spoke about the optics and wanting everything put together in one report….The Treasurer said that they can provide everything up to the end of phase 2. There was some technical talk about financial reports and how they work (because I’m pretty sure some members of council expect it to look like a simple bank statement….). Anyway, Councillor McArthur asked to include the land sales and the revenues with the report.
And finally, it carried. There will be a report forthcoming with all of the numbers put together…..because a couple of members of council have to play to their base……it’s not like it’s a pandemic or anything and there are other more pressing matters……but what do I know? I guess this is some type of populist move to try to make oneself look good…..
Lemay-Cookson Pumpworks and Lemay-Cookson Branch Drain – Tender Results
Councillor Prue had a bunch of questions and commentary about this too. I’m saving myself some keystrokes and I’m moving on. (I wish he would start to do the same sometimes…..) This carried.
Boblo Island South End Development Street Name Request
Here is the recommendation: The proposed street names Bois Blanc Boulevard, Driftwood Crescent and Sandcastle Crescent for Street A, Street B and Street C respectively of the Boblo Island South End Development BE APPROVED.
Councillor Prue jolted right out of the gate and said he had a great many questions. (And he wasn’t exaggerating either.) He felt that the request for these street names flies in the face of the street naming policy. He and Mr Gerardo, Manager Planning Services, began to cite various portions of the policy. I had a hard time keeping up with my notes…..Mayor DiCarlo pointed out that he lives in the Monopoly subdivision and those streets have themed names. As well, Golfview, Pointe West and Kingsbridge subdivisions all have themed street names.
Then Councillor Prue took objection and wondered if the streets had been approved. Mr Gerardo explained that at the moment there is a subdivision agreement and that the developer is meeting various LPAT requirements. He is in the process of checking off items for the proposed development. The back and forth continued. Councillor Prue wondered why council was doing this tonight…..he asked a few times why council was dealing with the street names that night. Mr Gerardo explained that they received a request from the developer and that administration was following policy and bringing the item to council. I have two more pages of notes…..nothing says “we don’t want development” like putting everything Q&A over minutia for what seems like forever……
And ultimately? None of it mattered. The show must go on! It carried. The streets will be named Bois Blanc Boulevard, Driftwood Crescent and Sandcastle Crescent. And everyone will be OK. lol!
320 Ramsey St – Notice of Intent to Demolish
It seems that the owners of 320 Ramsey Street have made an application to demolish the building. The recommendation is that
The application for demolition of 320 Ramsey Street, Amherstburg BE SUPPORTED subject to the following condition:
– The owners of 320 Ramsey St. BE REQUIRED to submit permit drawings for construction of a new home at 320 Ramsey Street to the Heritage Committee for review to ensure that heritage elements are incorporated into the new design and construction of the building.
I believe this property is one of many that are “properties of interest” but it is not designated as a historical building.
Councillor McArthur made the motion for the recommendation since everything had been removed from the building and there was no redeeming heritage value to the structure. He cited that there would be a new house built and that he didn’t want legal action and tribunals for a case they were bound to lose. (I was so happy to hear this! I remember council “saving” a house on Park Street…..you should see it now…..rotting away and empty…..but my joy was short-lived…..)
Councillor Courtney said that he was all for preserving history (really? I believe he didn’t/doesn’t support Belle Vue….) but that he didn’t want to strangle hold the homeowner and that he would support the recommendation.
Councillor Prue then said that he agreed BUT the report didn’t include who has lived in the home…..and off we went…..he went on about not knowing the history of who lived there and felt why should council begrudge the committee to look into who lived there…..he felt that there was no rush since council had until April 26th (60 days) make a decision and could then let it go…..(I’m sure the homeowners were thrilled to hear this could be tied up for two more months…..nothing says “welcome” to new development than, hey, let’s wait and wait until the last second to approve something……) There was discussion that the homeowners were willing to put a plaque on their new house commemorating the old structure. There was a comment made that 109 Park Street would probably end up with a plaque too one day. (So I’m guessing the homeowner fought council about their decision that it couldn’t be knocked down…..) Councillor Prue mentioned again that council had until April 26th to have the Heritage Committee advise if anybody of importance had lived in the house. And more back and forth went on for us to watch…..and finally it went to the vote…..the motion was to approve the demolition with the conditions noted above.
Opposed : Councillors Prue and Simone
In Favour: Councillors Renaud, Courtney, McArthur and Deputy Mayor Meloche.
It wasn’t a recorded vote but I watched. Even if the meeting is on Zoom, I can still see whose hand goes up.
Amherstburg Emergency Response Plan – 2021 Update
Councillor Courtney had a question but the Fire Chief answered it. And then this carried.
Update C/R 20201214-452
Councillor Renaud declared a conflict on this item since he is the President of AMHA.
If you recall, back in December 2020, there was a debate about whether or not the ice should be kept in at the Libro or removed. Council passed the following motion at that time :
“That Option 2, to remove ice and reinstall ice when pandemic status changes back to Orange to allow user groups to book ice at first available opportunity BE SUPPORTED with a report back to Council at the February 22, 2021 before installing ice for March.”
The current recommendation is that the ice not be reinstalled at the Libro. This wasn’t a surprise (at least to me) since we just went into red a few days ago.
Councillor Courtney asked for clarification if the ice would go in during the second week of August. The CAO said that traditionally that is when the ice is installed but that included in the report to council was that the Libro was being considered for a mass vaccination site for COVID-19. Councillor Courtney wondered if this would stall the installation of the ice, if the Libro were chosen as a vaccination site.
Councillor McArthur agreed with the recommendation but wondered if it could be possible to open the walking track now that we’re in the red. The CAO felt that with the limited resources and now the COVID variants they were hesitant to open the track. He also cited concern with the demographic that uses the walking track being in the high risk category for COVID. (hey…..I use the walking track! And I’m not a senior……lol Not yet anyway…..) Mayor DiCarlo pointed out that traffic flow would be restricted and access would be restricted to the building if it were used as a mass vaccination site. He didn’t believe that opening even part of it would be possible. Councillor Courtney wondered about the impact on hockey if other arenas opened but the Libro didn’t due to the vaccination site. CAO Miceli said that the CAOs have been discussing this and that Amherstburg would have access to other arenas to accomodate us while the site is being used here.
And finally, the motion carried. The ice won’t be going back into the Libro Centre this winter.
Proactive Committee Oversight
This new committee seems to be a recommendation that came from the Service Delivery Review. (Remember that important document that I’ve referred to so many times? Yes, that one!) It seems that this new proposed committee would be comprised to oversee the many advisory committees of council. It would include the Clerk, the CAO and 3 members of council, however, one was recommended to be the Mayor.
Councillor Prue wondered how many other municipalities of the 444 municipalities have such a committee. The Clerk said she wasn’t sure as she hadn’t spoken to all 444 municipalities. (I wonder how many other municipalities have councils that can’t finish a meeting in one evening? Asking for a friend.) Councillor Courtney felt that this committee would be handcuffing the lay people that sit on the committees. The Clerk said that this committee would help to oversee that the committees priorities were lining up with council’s priorities. That council, each term, sets their priorities and then the committee would have oversight of the multiple advisory committees to ensure priorities were lining up and that council could be more directly involved. Councillor Courtney pointed out that he wasn’t sure who would be running in 2022 for re-election or election and that this is mid term. (I have to admit I agree…..we’re only about 18 months away from campaigning time…..)
Councillor McArthur made the motion to create the committee but wasn’t ready to choose two members to nominate for the committee.
Councillor Prue spoke at length about why he didn’t agree with the new committee.
Finally it went to a tie vote :
In favour : Councillors McArthur and Renaud and Deputy mayor Meloche
Opposed : Councillors Courtney, Prue and Simone
Mayor DiCarlo had to break the tie. Before he voted, he explained that since this council is already passed the mid-term point, whatever is decided should be decided by the next council. So he voted in opposition.
Councillor Prue then made a motion to receive the report and to prepare a report for a striking Committee to be voted on at the first meeting of the new council.
It wasn’t a recorded vote but I watched….
In favour : Councillors Renaud, Courtney, Prue and Simone
Opposed : Councillor McArthur and Deputy Mayor Meloche
Resolution # 20201123-441 – Corporate Strategic Plan
This passed with little discussion.
At 8:20, council took a 10 minute recess. I was glad. I needed one. Little did I know at the time that we hadn’t even reached the halfway mark of this meeting yet…..
Affordable Housing – Council Question
At the last meeting, the following motion was made : “That Administration BE DIRECTED to bring a report to Council addressing what the Town can do to further advance the issue of affordable housing and assist in creating affordable housing.”
Well the report is back for council to read and decide if they want to take any action. I read through the report and it is very, very heavy. It’s heavy in the sense of the blatant need for affordable living in our province and in Amherstburg. I feel it is also heavy in the sense of a moral obligation to help everyone have access to affordable housing. Housing is a basic fundamental need. Here is the link to the report for those who are interested (this report starts on page 26) https://calendar.amherstburg.ca/council/Detail/2021-02-22-1800-Regular-Council-Meeting-Electronic-Meeting-with-Pu/372ebc73-4253-4060-bcf0-acd401039c03
Councillor Simone made a motion for a draft policy for affordable housing to be made for the town. She explained that there is currently a housing crisis in Ontario. Amherstburg is facing a crisis and we need all levels of government to act. She explained that when she was canvassing that people would share their concerns…..seniors afraid of where they could go when they sell their house…..single parents having hard times financially……abused women that had left an abusive relationship and needed affordable housing….
Deputy mayor Meloche wondered if council was willing to put skin into the game. He felt that council gets reports but that they don’t take action. He said that council would need to put money behind any initiatives, such as providing land, waiving fees, tax breaks over a period of time……those types of things to incite builders to build affordable housing.
Councillor Prue said that he agreed somewhat. He felt that the province and the federal government hadn’t done anything in 20 years for affordable housing. He mentioned creating a plan where 10% of a development would be affordable housing. He also mentioned dedicating surplus lands for this purpose. He mentioned people that build Co-ops or organizations such as Habitat for Humanity.
Councillor Courtney agreed with Councillor Simone’s direction for a policy. He asked questions about the wait lists for affordable housing. The CAO pointed out that in the report, it showed that the wait list was 546 people in 2018 and is now at 993 people. (If that doesn’t give you chills for a moment I don’t know what will.) The CAO went on to explained that 30% of an individual’s gross income should be used to pay rent or ownership fees. However, he explained that ownership was far different than rentals especially in today’s markets. The cost of materials has significantly increased. Often low income earners are using 50% of their income towards ownership. The CAO felt that as a municipality that council can have an influence on the rental model since the ownership model is more difficult. The solution lies in the rental perspective for affordable housing.
Councillor Renaud noted that in the report the building at 182 Pickering was given $169,000. The CAO said that the funds were granted back for the development since it is an affordable housing unit. Councillor Renaud felt it was important to do something since over 900 families need a home.
Councillor McArthur said he would support it however he wanted a plan of action. He didn’t want the policy to sit and gather dust. He felt it was important to reduce the stigma of affordable housing. He mentioned that in-fill with high density housing would have a broader tax base.
CAO Miceli said that selling surplus land, offering tax breaks, grant development charges, waiving building fees, educating developers and being flexible were all possibilities of what could be done. Councillor Prue also mentioned the need for housing for people with intellectual disabilities that parents may no longer be able to care for as they age.
Mayor DiCarlo said it was important to take action. He explained they had a developer approach the town about an area but the development didn’t happen due to the stigma. He said it was important that they not be turned down based on stereotypes or location. He said that council would have to make hard decisions to make this a success.
Everybody talked a good talk about affordable housing and the motion for the new policy to be created passed. Next up was time for action and THAT my friends is a whole other story…..who would walk the walk on the next item on the agenda? Who would follow through on their words about the necessity for affordable housing? Keep reading…..
Jack Purdie Park and H. Murray Smith Park Land Use Options
Now sit down. Relax. Take a deep breath. Take another deep breath. The misinformation about this part of the agenda that I have seen on social media today just blows my mind. Take another deep breath. The parks have not been sold. There are no bulldozers coming. The hill will remain at Centennial. There will still be parkland at these two locations. Nothing has been sold. Nothing has been given away. Deep breath again. There will be public consultation about possibilities for both parks. Deep breath again.
Mayor DiCarlo declared a conflict on this issue. His house is 60 meters from Jack Purdie Park, therefore he has a pecuniary interest. Mayor DiCarlo received legal advice from the Integrity Commissioner and declared a conflict. He was about to hand the meeting over to Deputy Mayor Meloche when Councillor Prue asked if the motions could be separated so that each park could be discussed individually. Mayor DiCarlo said he did address this possibility with the Integrity Commissioner but that since the parks are 800 meters apart he wouldn’t be able to speak about one without speaking of the other, therefore he had to declare a conflict. He said he was following the legal advice given to him by the Integrity Commissioner and he left the meeting. Deputy mayor Meloche took over.
Councillor Prue wondered if dividing the two parks would help Councillor Courtney since he said he may have a conflict. (I believe he owns a rental property near Centennial Park. He had previously declared a conflict when it was time to vote on the site plan for the new high school.) Councillor Courtney said he had spoke with the Integrity Commissioner at length. He said he only had a conflict on option #4 but could speak to the others.
At the last council meeting on February 8th, the following motion was made and put this whole discussion and report into motion :
Moved By Councillor Courtney
Seconded By Councillor Prue
That: 1. Administration BE DIRECTED to bring back a report to Council for the February 22, 2021, Regular Council Meeting, on possible land use options, plans and recommendations for Jack Purdie Park and the north end of H. Smith Murray Park aka Centennial Park, based on zoning and legislative requirements;
Therefore, based on the motion made by Councillor Courtney, seconded by Councillor Prue and approved by council, administration wrote the report request and provided four possible options for council.
Here were the four possible motions:
Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with public consultation planning requirements for TWO of the following four options:
Option 1. The redevelopment of Jack Purdie Park as a Leisure Park in accordance with the recommendations of the Council approved 2018 Parks Master Plan; OR
Option 2. The rezoning of Jack Purdie Park in accordance with the highest and best use for the subject lands in accordance with the Town’s Official Plan regarding Housing First Policy; OR
Option 3. The redevelopment of H. Murray Smith/Centennial Park as an Athletic Park in accordance with the recommendations of the Council approved 2018 Parks Master Plan; OR
Option 4: The rezoning of H. Murray Smith/Centennial Park in accordance with the highest and best use for the subject lands in accordance with the Town’s Official Plan for Housing First Policy.
Options 1 and 2 are about Jack Purdie Park and options 3 and 4 are about Centennial Park.
First up, council discussed options 1 and 2 about Jack Purdie Park. Councillor Prue asked administration to clarify how many acres that park consists of. It seems that it is 11 acres. The CAO said that the site had been looked at as a possible site for the skate park. Councillor Prue wondered if the entire 11 acres were needed as park land or if some could be used for affordable housing. The CAO said that if there were public consultation there could be a possibility of retaining some park land while also including some housing.
Councillor McArthur pointed out how at the last council meeting Briar Ridge Park was losing the play equipment and that council dipped into reserves to begin a public consultation process for that park and to replace the equipment. He said that Jack Purdie Park was next on the list and that there was no money for possible improvements. He talked about linear parks with benches, fountains, maximizing the potential to have people walking around and using the parks. Councillor McArthur felt that if any surplus land was sold, the money would then be used to reinvest into the remaining park land. (Makes perfect sense to me!) The CAO mentioned the possibility of townhouse style housing or lowrise buildings but that it would be within the park setting. He said that both affordable housing and a park can co-exist.
Councillor Courtney then spoke. He said he’s old school and he reached out to the people that the parks are named for. He felt that Jack Purdie Park had never been developed and that it was a blank canvass. He said he was elected to make decisions and that he had called the Integrity Commissioner to see what he could do without breaching. (I really wish I could listen to this part of the meeting again and I will once the video is posted when and if the meeting actually ever finishes.) He again spoke about reaching out to the families. He said he didn’t get a lot of feedback about Jackie Purdie Park. He felt it was an underutilized park. He wondered if there could be a hybrid approach and have name recognition for some of the park. He cited that there had not been a lot of outcry or support for Jack Purdie Park. (Interesting…..I guess if people don’t scream and stomp their feet, then they don’t exist? So council will just listen to those who scream the loudest? That’s a dangerous path to go down…..) Councillor Courtney felt that the park could maybe be created into something beautiful.
Councillor Renaud said he was open to the hybrid model as well. (Combination park and affordable housing.) Councillor Simone wondered how many acres would be needed for housing and how many for park. The CAO said he wasn’t sure, that there is still significant space there. He also felt that smart use of park land would allow more people to congregate and that underutilized parks are a sign of the times right now. Residential housing within a parks setting seems to be the ideal for maximum use. Councillor Prue said he spoke to a family member and they weren’t averse to alternate use for the lands.
Councillor McArthur said that it was important to continue honouring the legacy and namesake in a respectful way. He also felt it was important to show people the prize….to bring a vision for the park to the public, involve the public in the process so that we can maximize the park and take care of people all at the same time.
Councillor McArthur made the motion : Option 2. The rezoning of (a portion of) Jack Purdie Park in accordance with the highest and best use for the subject lands in accordance with the Town’s Official Plan regarding Housing First Policy…..Councillor Simone seconded it. They decided to add in the words “rezoning a portion” since the whole park would not be rezoned.
The motion passed unanimously. The discussion will begin……a hybrid park at Jack Purdie Park……nothing is written in stone……nothing has been decided…..ideas will come forth with how to make this a beautiful, vibrant, hybrid park for many to enjoy! There will still be parkland, with improved amenities, using the money from the sale of a portion of the park…..for affordable housing…..since there are over 900 families in need of affordable housing…..
The discussion about Jack Purdie Park was quite open minded and forward thinking……the same can not be said for the discussion about Centennial Park.
It was now 9:51 PM. A motion was made to continue the meeting until 11:00 just to deal with options 3 and 4 about Centennial Park.
The first part of the discussion was about option 3, since Councillor Courtney felt he did not have a conflict about option 3, only option 4. Bear in mind, the discussion centered around the same park for both options but I digress…..
Councillor Prue wondered about the former ACS building and if it was part of the park. The CAO said it was part of the acreage. He said that the building used about 2 acres of land and the hill uses about 2.5 acres of land, therefore it makes that area unusable for an athletic park. He said that more than 8 acres is needed for an athletic park. As it stands, Centennial Park does not meet the definition of an athletic park.
Councillor McArthur pointed out that some people seem to feel that we can take things that were on 15 acres of land and put them onto 8 acres of land and that does not work. He also pointed out that a third of the track is already gone and that they can’t just move the track north without it cutting into the hill.
The CAO said that the board had made the provision for a track on their property on the east side on Victoria Street. Councillor McArthur felt that the board did not intend to install a football field or a track. The CAO said he hadn’t been advised about a field but did know they weren’t planning on putting in a track.
Councillor Renaud said that the board has said there is no funding for a track or a football field.
Councillor Simone wondered if a linear park (like council had just agreed to for Jack Purdie Park) could be done at Centennial as well, since an athletic park wouldn’t be possible.
Councillor Courtney then spoke. He thanked council for working with him. He said he’s always advocated for the need to replace the lost infrastructure and that the infrastructure needs to remain in Centennial Park. (Well, then why no motion to pre-commit some money to budget for these items??????It takes action, not just talk to get things done…..) He felt that Centennial Park was the most centrally located, with better accessibility. He felt that there should be a preservation of history, including the names Smith, McCurdy and Renaud. He felt he takes pride in our history…..we have Fort Malden but that we’ve created history since then. Councillor Courtney emphasized that we are a small rural town. (While we are a historical town…..do we need to remain stuck in the past? Just a thought….) Councillor Courtney then talked about the hill and how it’s always been there. He felt that the big hill means even more than the park….he felt it’s very historical and it’s important…..(Big eye roll here…..I believe that Councillor Courtney did not and does not support Belle Vue…..yet now a piece of land is very historical and important?????? A distinct building built in the 1800s was not worthy of Councillor Courtney’s support but a hill is suddenly historical???? And before anybody starts to judge me…..I grew up with that hill across from my back yard…..yes I went tobogganing on it regularly in the 70s and 80s and it was a lot of fun…..I like the hill…..but to say it’s historical is a real stretch in my opinion…..) Then Councillor Courtney felt that the most important thing was the petition…..He did acknowledge that it was signed by non Amherstburg residents though…..(And I’d still like to know how those non-Amherstburg residents will be contributing financially to re-doing Centennial Park…..and don’t even get me started about the statistical mess a petition is…..they have very little merit statistically…..) Councillor Courtney then stated that history is everything and he wanted the property designated as park land as it has always been. (There are no more dangerous words in the English language than ‘well, that’s the way we’ve always done it’ yet here we were……) Councillor Courtney then congratulated the young student that started the petition and said that he can’t decide the outcome for option 4. (Why would he need to? He basically just said he wanted option 3……yet no conflict on option 3…..none of this makes sense to me…..)
Deputy Mayor Meloche asked if the petition had been provided to the town. Councillor Courtney said he wouldn’t answer that question and said that he had said what he had to say. He then declared a pecuniary interest since he has a rental property. He said he had declared a conflict regarding the new high school but that he might not have had to…..he said that the Integrity Commissioner didn’t have a solid answer for him about this…..Councillor Courtney felt that he was speaking to what has always been there at the park and if somebody wants to challenge it then that’s fine. Councillor Courtney then left the meeting (disappeared off the screen anyway). (Yes, I really, really want to listen to this portion again once the video is posted.)
Councillor Simone mentioned how the former ACS building takes 2 acres and the hill takes 2.5 acres so with what is left, what could be put there. CAO Miceli felt that a linear park could work there and that we could keep the hill.
Councillor Prue felt he was in a dilemma since the province no longer funds recreational facilities for schools. He said he did not intend to any of this land or let it come into play for housing since it was too important for the schools. He also said that an overwhelming number of people wanted to retain this park and that there is a sense of history for the park. He spoke of the Smith, McCurdy and Renaud families. He said we have to keep the park the way the original people intended it.
Councillor Prue then made the motion for Option 3: The redevelopment of H. Murray Smith/Centennial Park as an Athletic (and Heritage) Park in accordance with the recommendations of the Council approved 2018 Parks Master Plan. He added in the heritage word into the motion. Councillor Prue said he was stating that this park was not for sale. He felt that there were no arguments for additional housing in that area.
And then Councillor Courtney magically reappeared from nowhere and seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Meloche thought that Councillor Courtney couldn’t second the motion due to his conflict but Councillor Courtney said he could because it was option 3.
Councillor McArthur thanked Councillor Prue and said he thinks a lot of the same things but had different thoughts for the park. He said he couldn’t support the motion. Councillor McArthur felt that they hadn’t looked at alternatives for the property. He cited that he has a fiduciary duty in order to have a fulsome discussion and to have both visions on the table. He agreed with the importance of the hill and the track. He said that the petition did create a ground swell. Councillor McArthur felt that the hill does have value but that it’s not sacrosanct. (Thank you! My thoughts exactly!!!!) He also felt that a track has value. Councillor McArthur felt that it was important to get behind fundraising. He again spoke about not jamming 15 acres worth of items into 8 acres.
Councillor McArthur mentioned that everyone on council said that we needed a pool yet nothing has been done to get a pool. Council has passed three budgets and no money had been set aside for a pool. He felt that surplus assets could get us some money for a pool and a track and that we need both. He felt that if they embraced option 3 then the town would get nothing. Councillor McArthur pointed out that we can’t recreate Centennial Park on the piece of property that remains. He felt that council has to look at changing circumstances. Now, we have a Community Hub across the street with a Nurse Practitioner Clinic, Amherstburg Community Services and other services for the public. He spoke of all the good that could be done at the Community Hub. Councillor McArthur also pointed out the sorry state of Centennial Park and that the school board didn’t come and displace 100% great infrastructure. He went on that if we want a pool and a track, that we’ll need money and they won’t fit there. He remembered that when he was campaigning he had said that Amherstburg needed affordable housing options to maximize the use of the land. He said we need a planner to come up with a vision, take it to the people, show both sides of the coin and have a discussion of the various possibilities for Centennial Park. Councillor McArthur felt that option 4 was a better option and would allow the town to explore both visions to see what is best.
(Kudos to you Councillor McArthur! You hit it out of the park! You spoke logically and looked at the big picture……a picture of possibilities of openness ……of finding the best possible use for the land…….!)
Councillor Renaud then spoke and that he heard what Councillor McArthur said. He felt that if they leave it an athletic park without any drawings and not enough space for things that that wouldn’t work. He felt that they should show the two concepts….one with and one without affordable housing and also other options. (Although later, he voted in favour of option 3, which was opposite to everything he said…..)
Councillor Simone said that she spent a lot of time at Centennial Park as a kid. She saw the park deteriorate and she saw the park sold to the Board. She also felt unsure of what could physically fit there. She felt it was important to discuss option 3 and 4. (And a big cheer came from this house! Woo hoo! Absolutely! Do not close the door on possibilities.)
Councillor Prue felt it wasn’t his intention to just make it an athletic park and walk away, he wanted to keep it all parkland. He felt that option 4 had created real community anger about losing all or some of our park land. (Hmmmm…..I wonder who’s feeding that anger? That’s a rhetorical question. I’m pretty sure I know who’s feeding it.) His intention was not to lose any of the park land. He felt that if the board doesn’t want to build a track or a field, that’s ok and just keep the property as park land.
(Side note…..two competing levels of government……school boards are funded by the province and they provide playgrounds for their schools……municipalities are funded by the residents that live there……so municipalities shouldn’t be using municipal money to fund schools…..school boards get provincial money to fund schools……just like school boards wouldn’t use their money to fund municipal parks…....)
Councillor Courtney spoke again that he had heard from the people and the families. He felt that he always sees greenspace around schools. (Why should the municipality pay for that?)
Councillor McArthur spoke again about the need for money for a pool and a track.
Finally, there was a recorded vote for Option 3: The redevelopment of H. Murray Smith/Centennial Park as an Athletic (and Heritage) Park in accordance with the recommendations of the Council approved 2018 Parks Master Plan.
In favour: Councillor Courtney, Councillor Prue and Councillor Renaud
Opposed : Councillor McArthur, Deputy mayor Meloche, Councillor Simone
Since it was a tie vote, the motion failed. (Remember the mayor did not vote since he had a conflict of pecuniary interest so he could not discuss the issue, nor vote on it.)
Councillor McArthur then made the motion for Option 4 : The rezoning of H. Murray Smith/Centennial Park in accordance with the highest and best use for the subject lands in accordance with the Town’s Official Plan for Housing First Policy.
He wanted to have wording for fundraising in the motion but I believe that was removed since the school board would have to fundraise if they want to build a track on their property.
Councillor McArthur felt it was important to have a vision for the highest and best use for the land including green space. Councillor Simone seconded the motion.
Another recorded vote :
In favour : Councillor McArthur, Deputy Mayor Meloche, Councillor Simone
Opposed : Councillors Prue and Renaud
The motion passed.
(Councillor Courtney couldn’t vote since he had a conflict only for option 4.)
And it was then 10:56….so the meeting recessed…..council will have to reconvene to finish the meeting…..not sure when that will happen but when it does, there are parts that I’m going to watch again.
And since this was such a nail biter type of night…..I have decided to bring back the Councillor of the week award…..I don’t think I’ve ever done that with this current council…….so drum roll please…….Councillor of the week goes to Councillor McArthur. He stood up and did the right thing rather than the easy thing. Discussions will be opened for two pieces of property…..to hopefully create beautiful hybrid parks with green space, amenities and affordable housing.
If you made it to the end of this very long blog, thank you!
In closing, I will share with you an email that I sent to council on February 14th about affordable housing and park land.
Mayor DiCarlo and council,
I wasn’t going to email council about Centennial Park. However, I feel compelled to do so. Not because I feel that it is a volatile issue but because I feel that if I don’t express myself I will become part of the forgotten 21,900 residents of Amherstburg, the ones that don’t contact council with their opinions. They are the same ones that don’t seem to be represented at council meetings. I know that there is a small group organizing an “email council to save Centennial Park” campaign and I commend them for voicing their opinion. However, just because 40 or 50 people email to save the park doesn’t mean that the other 21,950 people don’t deserve representation.
I could tell you all kinds of heartwarming stories about growing up on Baltic Avenue and walking to Centennial Park throughout my childhood in the 70s and 80s. But I won’t. The landscape in that area has changed a lot since that time 30 years ago. The decision about Centennial Park needs to be made by looking at facts, not emotion.
I walk by Centennial Park several times per week when I go out walking. There were very rarely any children playing in the park in the early evening. These past few weeks, after the snowfall, there are often anywhere from 10 to 25 kids on the hill. However, there are also 7 to 12 cars parked beside the hill with parents congregating at the base of the hill. That leads me to believe that very few (if any) children are actually walking to the hill. Therefore, parents could easily drive their kids to another area to toboggan, such as the Libro, should council decide to relocate a hill there.
It’s a fact that we have too much park land per capita in Amherstburg. It’s also a fact that our reserve funds are still inadequate. It’s a fact that the price of housing is getting higher every day. It’s a fact that there are people that need access to affordable housing. It’s a fact that any naming rights of various items at Centennial Park, can be transferred to other items or locations in Amherstburg.
Council should make decisions based on facts, not emotion. Council is responsible to make solid business decisions for our town. If emotion plays a role for any of you, rather than focus on the nostalgia of Centennial Park, focus on the less fortunate people that need to be represented, the people that need housing, the people that need a voice to represent them. Focus on the people that aren’t privileged as many of us are. Will council put people before parks?
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
Thanks to all that took the time to read the blog too! See you in two weeks!
amherstburg2 