Monday May 27th Regular town council meeting

Monday night’s meeting was among the worst that I have ever attended. There was a cloak of negativity and disrespect that hung over the room. The people in the gallery had to be silenced (more than once), some members of council were blatantly rude and disrespectful to the Mayor and the rest of council. I think, instead of passing the gavel, the Mayor ought to have been pounding the gavel and getting certain councillors in line. As well, some residents in the gallery would talk while certain members of council would talk….it was extremely distracting, made it difficult for me to take notes, to concentrate and to listen. At one point, Councillor Courtney announced that he didn’t care about the code of conduct. That was quite obvious with his behaviour and his words. The usual member of council spent much of the evening typing on their computer, not looking at the person that was speaking or paying attention to what was going on. Must be something very interesting going on on that computer. Too bad that the person is being paid to attend a meeting and pay attention to the role they were elected to do. I’m not sure typing on a computer all night is part of that. Perhaps they are needing guidance from outsiders? I dunno. Councillor Pouget used a mocking voice towards certain members of council. The disrespect was palpable. It’s sad really. Really sad. This type of behaviour is actually harming our democratic process and is bad for Amherstburg. And it only seems to be getting worse. 

The meeting lasted 4 hours. The Transportation Master Plan lasted 3 hours…..It was a marathon meeting….which means this is a big blog…..sit down, get comfortable…..if you manage to read through all of it until the end, you deserve some type of award. At this point, I’m not even sure how and if I’ll ever get to the end of that four hour gong show. 

First council met in-camera at 4:00 to discuss : 

SPECIAL IN-CAMERA MEETING

That Council move into an In-Camera Meeting of Council pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended for the following reasons:

Item A – Proposal by Essex Power Corporation requiring Shareholder Review & Approval 

• Section 239 (2) (i) –   a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization.
• Section 239 (2 (k) – a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. 

Item B – Legal Advice regarding Development Agreements and Contractual Obligations

• Section 239(2)(c) – a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.
• Section 239(2)(f) – advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose

There was a revised agenda for Monday night’s meeting. 

Here’s the link in HTML format (it gives each report on at a time, you can click on what you need) https://pub-amherstburg.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=ae1d24cb-09a4-4c06-af67-036eb2c878c2&Agenda=Merged&lang=English

Here is the PDF format if you prefer that, it’s 735 pages, so it will take quite a bit of scrolling to find what you’re looking for. https://calendar.amherstburg.ca/council/Detail/2024-05-27-1800-Regular-Council-Meeting/e0119918-1f5d-4836-87c2-b17a00f99522

I arrived at town hall around 5:45 thinking it may be a full house. The gallery did fill up but closer to 6:00 and it was not “standing room only” by any means. 

DELEGATIONS

Delegation- Item 12.1 – Transportation Master Plan – Michael Weber

Mr Weber spoke first on behalf of the Masonic Temple Association. He said that he would be providing his comments about the closure of Murray Street as well as be a voice of many that use the building. He said that no one had received prior notification about the possibility of closing the block of Murray Street (between Dalhousie Street and Ramsay Street).  He gave a history of the Masonic Lodge, that they had existed since 1849, one block away from their current location and moved to the current building in 1953. He listed off the Mason’s contributions and the tenants that use the building. He noted that the demographic of the Mason’s are senior citizens. It seems that they have regular formal gatherings and upgraded the banquet hall in 2019. He noted that they do not have rear or side access to their building and asked that council vote no regarding the permanent closure of Murray Street. 

After profusely thanking him for the delegation, Councillor Pouget asked if they had received any notification. Mr Weber replied that the first he had heard about it was when Councillor Crain posted about it on social media and he then wrote an email to council. Councillor Pouget asked if the Mason’s had been consulted about the speed reduction to 30km/hr. He again replied that he had not been but felt that people will speed anyway if the limit is reduced. 

Councillor Courtney then thanked the delegate. He seemed stoked about the passion for our history. He asked if the street were closed would it decommission the organization as a whole. Mr Weber felt that no, it wouldn’t but that it could be threatened. He noted that he had had discussions with people interested in buying the building and mentioned that the board has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the organization still exists in 50 years. He noted that they had a history of being downtown and that they could move but….Councillor Courtney jumped in and spoke about the rising inflation and that it would be impossible for them to build new. Mr Weber talked about the donations that they’ve received and did note that social clubs are somewhat dying out. 

(Just my own personal observation….I noticed there is a large sign offering 5,000 square feet for rent/lease in the building. This seems to be a large portion of the building that is sitting empty? Why not consider selling – real estate is high right now – and build or buy something smaller that would be fully occupied? Keep and invest the profit to ensure the organization remains viable? Just a thought….) 

Delegation – Item 12.1 – Transportation Master Plan – David Cozens

Mr Cozens spoke next on behalf of the Thistle Masonic Lodge #34. He said that he has been a member of the Thistle Masonic Lodge for over 40 years and is currently their treasurer. He mentioned that the long range planning committee has been planning about the use for the 6,000 square foot main floor. He noted that he did not attend the two open houses about the Transportation Master Plan nor did he fill out the surveys. He mentioned that he was not aware of the impact it would have for them. He said that he was opposed to closing the block of Murray Street and felt that it would be devastating financially and that it would inconvenience the members. He gave measurements of the sidewalks and felt that they were the widest downtown. He quoted some items from the report. There was a motion made to extend the delegation past the 5 minute time limit. Mr Cozens requested a fulsome consultation about the possible street closure, that the closure be looked at as a temporary means and that after the trial period a future report be brought back before a decision is made regarding a permanent closure. He noted that the Mason’s had been there 174 years and noted their contributions. He asked that council please turn down proposal number four. 

Mayor Prue asked the delegate, since he mentioned the three prongs from the staff report (consultation, temporary trial period and a report back) if that’s what he would support. Mr Cozens replied yes. Councillor McArthur said he had the same question since consultation had not yet been done. He wondered when consultation would happen but Mayor Prue asked that questions for staff be held for later in the meeting. Councillor Courtney also inquired about the support of consultation and a temporary closure. There was some back and forth and then Mr Cozens said that he did not support the closure of the street. 

Delegation – Item 12.1 – Transportation Master Plan – Paul Hooper

Mr Hooper spoke next. He said that he was speaking in opposition to the closure of Murray Street. He mentioned that he was speaking on behalf of the Order of the Eastern Star, an organization that meets at the Masonic Lodge.  He noted that the organization is a group of both men and women but that most members are women and senior citizens. It seems that they are required by the group’s constitution to wear full length dresses when they attend meetings and that they must be dropped off at the front door. He also spoke of fundraisers that they organize. He felt that he wouldn’t have a problem parking further but that the group needs access to the front doors for drop offs and deliveries. He explained that they rent space in the Masonic Lodge and that he was requesting that council deny the closure of Murray Street. 

Councillor Pouget asked if the groups needed access to Murray Street in order to succeed. Mr Hooper felt that a closure of Murray Street would make them move locations. Councillor Pouget asked how they access the side and back of the buildings for repairs. One of the previous delegates (from the Mason’s) responded that the building fills the entire lot and that they have to rely on their neighbours so that they access the side and back of the buildings for repairs and such. He mentioned that there are fire exits at the back and that the issue of access at the side and back of the building dates back to the 1950s and was a contentious issue for previous councils at the time. 

Councillor Pouget asked about people with accessibility issues and wanted to confirm that they need to be dropped off at the front door. The previous delegate was still at the podium and replied that yes, they need to be dropped off at the front door. It seems that they have a member that comes from Windsor and uses a wheelchair. It seems that this man has to drag himself up the stairs and that he couldn’t imagine that man having to do that for a block or two.

 (Personally, I was kind of surprised that Councillor Pouget didn’t ask further questions about the accessibility of the building….someone has to drag themselves up the stairs? Why is the building not accessible for those with wheelchairs or other assistive devices? Is there an elevator inside the building to allow residents equal access to the second floor? I got the impression that the ballroom is on the second floor. If there’s no elevator, how are they ladies in ballgowns safely managing the stairs? Seems kind of odd that Councillor Pouget didn’t pick up on the lack of accessibility and compliance of the building itself and ask questions about that?….) 

Mayor Prue interjected that a former deputant was answering questions about the property and that Councillor Pouget had to direct her questions to Mr Hooper (a tenant of the building). Councillor Pouget asked Mr Hooper if it would be viable for supplies to be dropped off at Dalhousie Street or Ramsay Street, as had been suggested by others. Mr Hooper said that that would not be viable since many of the members are senior citizens. 

Councillor McArthur asked about a white door on the east side of the building. The previous delegate explained three different doors and what they are used for. It seems that one is for the banquet hall, one is for a storage area and another is for an office. He also mentioned the fire escape and that the alley near the building is privately owned. 

Councillor Crain asked about an old car wash building to confirm it was a separate building from the Mason’s. It was confirmed that it is a separate building and has nothing to do with the Masons. 

Delegation – Item 12.1 – Transportation Master Plan – Linda Saxon 

Ms Saxon delegated to council next. She felt that people may be excluded if Murray Street were to be closed and that it would create a barrier. She cited various pieces of legislation in regards to accessibility and referenced some comments made on social media. Ms Saxon urged public consultation and to increase inclusion. 

Councillor Pouget thanked Ms Saxon for delegating. She mentioned that she had contacted her and others and hoped that council would listen. 

Delegation – Item 14.2 Temporary Patio Extension – Linda Saxon

Ms Saxon then addressed council again but in regards to the temporary patio extension bylaw that was on the agenda. She mentioned that she had read the bylaw and compared it to other municipalities bylaws. She cited some sections from the bylaw that did not include language about AODA. She asked some questions regarding accessible parking spaces, design criteria, requirements for tables, signage, washrooms etc. 

Councillor Allaire said that she didn’t have any questions of the delegate, however she wanted to ask Ms Saxon’s questions to town administration. Mayor Prue explained the procedures that those questions could be asked later, once the report and bylaw were in front of council. 

A motion was made to receive all of the delegations and it carried. 

PRESENTATIONS

2024 Transportation Master Plan – Presenters from Tylin – Adam Bell & John Grieve

Mr Grieve presented to council on behalf of the consulting firm that had done the study and prepared the Transportation Master Plan. Mr Anmar (I believe that was his name?) was on zoom to answer questions since he was the project manager. 

Here is the slide presentation that went with the presentation to council. If you’re interested, take a read through since it will have a lot more detail than what I can type up and provide. https://pub-amherstburg.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=15157

Mr Grieve presented the timeline for the study, when it began, the public consultation, the surveys etc. During the study, five themes appeared.

1. Safety and Infrastructure Improvements
2. Transit and Transportation
3. Speed Limit and Road Management
4. Community Engagement
5. Infrastructure Preferences and Navigation

He explained the traffic calming framework, which could include a slow zone, curb bump outs and reallocating parking spots. 

He talked about the one block stretch of Murray Street between Dalhousie and Ramsay.  They looked at three options. First, do nothing. Second, remove the parking, widen the sidewalks and allow for traffic. Third, close the street to vehicle traffic. 

He spoke at length about active transportation and the Simcoe/Meloche intersection. He noted that future developments are coming and the area is seeing increased pedestrian traffic. He also noted that speeds ranging from 70-90 km/h were recorded in the 50 km/hr zone. Mr Grieve also explained the cost estimates and that some items would have to be included in the long range capital plan. He spoke as well about a Green Municipal Fund that is available through the federal government to enhance active transportation needs in municipalities. This would help offset the costs for the municipality. 

There were A LOT of questions and lengthy discussions. I’m going to try my best to be brief. 

Councillor McArthur asked about the intersection of Meloche and Simcoe. He noted that the recommendation is a low cost way to make the intersection safer overnight. He asked why a roundabout wasn’t recommended and why a traffic light was suggested as possible in 2033 and not now. Mr Grieve said that the 4-way stop was a low cost solution for the need to improve safety at the intersection. He also said that there is potential for a future traffic light there but that the intersection should be monitored for years to come since it may never be needed. As far as the roundabout…..he said that they take more space, the town would need to acquire more property, they’re more expensive and that they are not easy for pedestrians to navigate.

 (I believe the recommendations for the intersection were to improve the flow and safety for all travelers, whether in a car, on a bike or other wheels, or on foot.

Councillor McArthur asked about the slow zone of 30 km/hr. He noted the safety and higher survival rates should somebody be struck if a vehicle is going at a slower speed. He asked why it was just recommended for the core and not in all neighbourhoods. 

Mr Grieve was speaking but so were a couple of residents in the gallery at the same time. It was 7:10 according to my notes. I believe Mr Grieve said that the focus was on the downtown core since that is the area with the most pedestrian activity and it is a mixed-use area. (commercial and residential combined). He mentioned that other towns often look at expanding the slow zone area later on. 

Councillor Pouget asked as well about the Simcoe/Meloche intersection. She said that some farmers were questioning if the curb cut outs would be compatible for tractors, transport trucks etc. Mr Grieve agreed that this area has a large number of vehicle types and those issues would have to be addressed during the design process. Their study and plan was a high-level design. Councillor Pouget wondered how that may impact the costing. He felt that to accommodate larger vehicles, the bump outs would perhaps be shorter and would likely have to be modified from their design. He felt that the costs could be lower. 

Councillor Pouget asked why the 40 km/hr became 30 km/hr and if the police had provided feedback. Mr Anmar said that the 40 km/hr was a typo and should have been 30 km/hr

 (I feel their pain about typos….) 

and that the police were engaged but had not provided any specific comments. 

Deputy Mayor Gibb found the information fascinating. He noted that increased mobility has positive health effects. He said that in the report it spoke about transportation and income being linked and asked Mr Grieve to expand. Mr Grieve said that where there are increased mobility options it provides increased access to jobs or to be able to get around a town.

 (Not everybody can afford a car.) 

Deputy Mayor Gibb said that he was shocked to see such a dramatic increase in bus ridership. It had gone up to 1862 rides in September 2023. Mr Anmar said that the data shows that the bus system is a success story for Amherstburg and that people are using it. He also noted that during the first public consultation open house many were not aware of the bus service but that at the second open house more people were aware. 

Deputy Mayor Gibb spoke about the psychological benefit to a 4-way stop at Meloche/Simcoe. He also asked why they felt Murray Street should be closed all year round rather than just during the good weather months. Mr Grieve said that the benefit to making it a permanent year round change makes it important. The direction of the Master Plan was to create public spaces, value them and use them for a wide variety of things.  He again noted that this was a high level concept and that exactly how it will operate would need to be determined. 

Councillor Courtney talked about liking the traffic calming measures and said that he “hates stupid drivers”. He felt that roundabouts are “so hard to figure out really”. He felt that there would have been more traffic calming measures along Simcoe Street in the plan. Councillor Courtney felt surprised that they had focused on the downtown core and thought there would be things for McGregor or other areas. He felt that the downtown core is “the flavour of choice”. After he rambled on some more, he finally came to a question….Councillor Courtney wondered how Murray Street had become so important in the study.  Mr Anmar replied that they were retained to study the town of Amherstburg and focused on the downtown core. He said that the traffic calming measures were to be treated broadly. He explained that the site specific areas were added due to the complexity of the area being a commercial/residential mix. His answer was long and very detailed (watch the video please for full info).  Regarding Murray Street, Mr Anmar said that they were brainstorming prior to the first open house and part of the discussion was about adding more public spaces with gathering spots or patios. He noted that currently it is a one-way street and circulation is limited. They presented their discussions at the first open house and found out it was a happy coincidence that aligned with local ideas. 

(I heard the conspiracy theory comments in the gallery…..sigh….) 

He noted that there had been a few other options originally for Murray Street, including the partial closure or full closure all the way to Sandwich Street. He noted that the partial closure would not have a negative impact on the downtown core. 

Councillor Courtney mentioned that he had hoped to see more one way streets with angled parking downtown.

 (I had hoped for an efficient meeting. I guess we don’t always get what we want, like the song says?)

 There was some discussion about the removal of a few parking spots that would eventually be replaced, for the most part, elsewhere downtown. Again, a few people in the gallery were talking and I couldn’t catch everything…..Councillor Courtney was rambling on about streets being for cars or something like that…..then he rudely asked one of the presenters “Do you know we close our streets down every weekend all summer long?” The presenter replied yes and Councillor Courtney cut him off to say “And we want to add Murray to that. Permanently.” Then as if he was a lawyer in a court of law, said “Thank you. I have nothing else”.

  I find it rude the way that some councillors speak to presenters. And it’s obnoxious how they seem to think it’s a court of law, as if someone is on trial for wrong-doing whenever there’s an item on the table that they don’t agree with. It’s a bad look. 

Councillor Crain asked some questions about the parking spots. He also asked if we were comparable to other municipalities of our size for the number of parking spots. Mr Grieve said that we are comparable for parking. And even though there is a recommendation to delete 26 parking spots, some will be replaced or added elsewhere, so the net negative will be less than 26. 

Councillor McArthur asked if they had looked at other communities and where they do their pedestrianization. He asked what the benefits were. Mr Grieve offered his professional opinion. He noted that European cities have pedestrian first environments. Pedestrian streets are fully immersed in their environment and people can walk without fear of vehicular traffic. He noted that all cities and towns that have pedestrian streets have also found ways to make it work, with things like delivery times for vehicles or overnight access and other ideas. Mr Grieve shared that he is a resident of Guelph and that they are looking at pedestrianization since they know that it brings people to the area. 

(Personal side note and real-life observations….read at your own risk…..my family and I have visited many cities and small towns over the years. They ALL had some element of pedestrianization…..whether it was a block or two or many, many blocks of pedestrian only streets. Some streets were pedestrianized for 6 months, some all year round. I noticed signs in some areas, for example, that delivery vehicles were allowed between 6AM and 10AM for example. It is doable. There are solutions and ways to make it work. And yes, people LOVE it!!! I know I do. And I was certainly not walking on the streets, enjoying the shopping, dining and entertainment all alone. They were PACKED with people having fun. Big cities and small towns alike made it work and people love it. Just like our current Open Air weekends….people love them! They have been very successful, even if not every single person likes them. To each his own. But the hard-line resistance that I saw from some councillors about this idea and this concept was disheartening. Times change, things change and evolve. This is something that has changed in society. People want this. Even if some don’t. Many do. I’ve seen it with my own eyes and lived it. Here, in Amherstburg during Open Air and elsewhere in cities and small towns. It really does give a place a great sense of place and of community.) 

Councillor Pouget felt that the open houses weren’t well attended. Mr Anmar explained that they were well attended but that the majority of people did not sign in. He felt that the attendance was substantial for a municipality of our size.

 (I have gone to various public consultations through the years, and again, I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Many people don’t sign in. I’m not sure if I did all the time either. One time I heard someone tell a town employee that they would not sign in because they didn’t want to provide their name or address. I guess that’s somebody’s right not to sign in if they don’t want to. But it doesn’t mean they weren’t there.) 

Councillor Pouget felt that council had not recommended the closure of Murray Street and felt that it suddenly appeared in February 2024 when the “Anchor District” started sharing pictures on social media. Mayor Prue said that council had approved the Economic Development minutes that had made a motion in 2019 to explore the closure of Murray Street and it had been passed along to staff. There was some back and forth about this between Councillor Pouget and Mayor Prue while another member of council typed and typed on their computer. Mr Anmar said he had not been aware of the Economic Development report or recommendation but was happy about the coincidence. He felt it showed that the idea was in sync and not out of touch. Mr Anmar provided some more information, at length. Councillor Pouget raised her hand for a “rebuttal”. Mayor Prue basically refused her. 

(Again? Where do they think they are? In court? People are on trial here? My goodness it had a very weird vibe….)

 She then asked a question for clarification. It went on and on and on…..

Finally, council was finished with the presentation. But they were just warming up. 

Transportation Masterplan

Before I begin trying to summarize a ride on a Merry go round…..here are the links to the documents pertaining to the Transportation Master Plan. There is some very interesting information in there for those that are open-minded to new ideas and concepts. 

First, here’s the 12 page report https://pub-amherstburg.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=15145

Here is the 218 page final report prepared by the consultants https://pub-amherstburg.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=15146

And 373 pages of appendix that accompany the report https://pub-amherstburg.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=15147

So now it was time to debate the Transportation Master Plan……hold on your hats! 

There was a motion made to divide the 5 parts of the recommendation in order to debate and vote on each one individually. 

I will divide them up here to help you follow along. 

Recommendation #1 The Transportation Master Plan BE APPROVED

You’d think this one part would have been simple. It’s a guiding document at a high level, not the nitty gritty. It’s to help council to PLAN for transportation needs within the town for the next 20ish years plus. We paid for the study and the plan. So you’d think it’s logical to approve it so that each year during budget council could decide which parts to slowly begin to implement. But no……that’s way too logical for some…..

Councillor Allaire felt that she liked the plan but had hoped for more for the county. Councillor Crain felt that it was a good guiding framework and that nothing in the plan was set in stone. Mayor Prue felt that it was an overall package and that all items would require budgeting. 

Here’s where it went south. Councillor Pouget felt that if council approved recommendation #1, it includes all the rest of the recommendations and that she couldn’t do that. She said she could just receive the plan but not approve it. 

Then, to add to the twisted logic, Councillor Courtney felt that there were good things in the document and that council could receive it or approve it in principle. He noted that council would have to budget for any changes. But then…..he said he did not want the Transportation Master Plan to become a guiding document. He felt that council should just receive it. He noted that council had turned down previous plans before, with “good reason”, like the Libro Master Plan.

 (My inside voice was screaming! Council asks for these PLANNING documents to help them plan for the future. It is for the current council and the next councils to come…..Then when the plans come in and members of council don’t personally agree with every single word in the document, they want to shelve it???? This defies logic. And, for the record, the previous council did reject the Libro Master Plan as Councillor Courtney said…..it’s sitting in a dusty box somewhere. And guess what? There’s been nothing planned for the Libro, nothing budgeted and things are being added ad hoc only recently – the pickleball courts -.  Council NEEDS planning documents to move this town forward and to budget to get things done. To think for a minute that it’s OK to just receive it and move on like it never happened? WOW. That’s a very small-minded way of thinking. It’s that mentality that got us here I guess…..for the last 25 years council’s didn’t invest in our infrastructure to maintain it…..the pool, the track, the ball diamonds, the list goes on…..if we don’t plan for the future, that’s what happens…..everything falls apart and there’s no budget money to replace it or fix it or change it…..very troublesome comments from certain councillors…..) 

Councillor McArthur then spoke and brought some logic back into the discussion. He felt that council should approve the plan in principle. He noted that if council just receives it, they’re not providing any direction to administration and that there is a traffic calming policy that is linked to this plan. He felt that council shouldn’t put the brakes on this because they don’t like all of the plan and that it definitely shouldn’t be placed on a shelf. 

Luckily, he managed to persuade Councillor Courtney who then made a motion to approve the plan in principle. Deputy Mayor Gibb asked if they were to approve it in principle, if it would be like the budget and they would then have to finalize everything at a later date. Mayor Prue said that there were 100 recommendations in the plan and that administration could go through them and put some into the budget year after year to get things in motion. 

It went to a recorded vote to approve the Transportation Master Plan in principle. 

Opposed : Councillor Pouget

In Favour : everybody else (the 6) 

Recommendation #2 Administration BE DIRECTED to institute the 30km/h ‘slow zone’ in the Town Core as outlined in the Transportation Master Plan;

Councillor Allaire felt a little bit concerned about this item. She felt she understood why it was recommended but felt it had been done a little bit backwards. She was concerned that nobody had reached out to emergency services before proposing to reduce the speed limit.

 (Interesting…..6 months ago Councillor Allaire wanted to just add a crossing guard at a random corner in town that she felt needed one and was not happy that the rest of council wanted to get a study done to see if other areas may need crossing guards too…..so, that wasn’t backwards, but this is? I dunno.) 

There was a lot of back and forth of questions from Councillor Allaire to the police Staff Sergeant about the number of tickets and such. The Staff Sergeant did a quick cursory search and noted that there had been 120 violations in the area that was to be reduced to 30 km/h. He said it was not an extreme amount of violations. 

Councillor Pouget asked where the 120 tickets were given, if on Simcoe/Richmond and not just the downtown core. I could see Councillor Allaire talking across the room to Councillor Pouget telling her to ask which streets….interesting. Anyway, the Mayor stated that it was just a cursory search. 

Deputy Mayor asked if the slow zone was approved if speed limit signs would need to be put up and that would equate to about 25 additional signs. He didn’t like the idea of possible sign pollution. Mr Hewitt, Manager of Engineering, said that generally there are not signs posted in residential 50 km/hr zones but that to make the 30 km/hr area enforceable, signs would be required. 

Councillor Courtney then spoke in circles again. He asked how many pedestrian accidents had happened in the boundary. The Staff Sergeant said he could get him that number. Councillor Courtney wondered what they’re trying to fix if there’s nothing to fix. He felt that the map was strange. He felt certain areas weren’t pertinent and started comparing different streets both inside and outside the proposed map. He felt that it was so finite the way it was presented. He went on and on and on. He disagreed with the boundaries and he said he would not be approving it. 

Councillor McArthur felt that a speed reduction by itself also needs to be accompanied with other measures, like planters, narrower streets etc. He asked the Staff Sergeant how many more resources would be required. The Staff Sergeant felt that there would be more speed complaints if the limit were reduced. Councillor McArthur wondered what takes more time….collision reports or traffic tickets. He felt that a speed reduction would help make for fewer collisions since it would allow people time to react and avoid a collision. The Staff Sergeant felt that a 20 km/hr reduction was a lot. 

Councillor Allaire felt that they were solving one problem but creating another. She noted that in the survey only 6.7% wanted the speed reduction.

 (Funny how the survey is useful when the stats line up with what you want LOL But when 60% want Murray Street closed – in the same survey – well, we’ll just ignore that part I guess LOL) 

She felt that traffic calming measures would be more beneficial than a speed reduction. 

Councillor Crain felt that a 50 km/hr limit is high for a downtown area. He felt that when a speed limit is 50 km/hr people will often go 10 or 15 km/hr over that limit. At this point Councillor Crain had to call for order while he was speaking since people in the gallery were talking while he was speaking. He noted that council had listened and respected them and asked for respect in return.

 (It’s too bad that Councillor Crain had to do that, the Mayor ought to have. There was A LOT of talking in the gallery Monday night. I couldn’t help but notice that many in the gallery were quiet and attentive while Councillors Pouget, Courtney or Allaire were speaking…..but often when Councillors Crain or McArthur or the Deputy Mayor spoke, people were making snide comments or mocking them….just a personal observation. And yes, there were a couple of people that I would have to look at to try to give them a sign to be quiet….it’s rude and distracting when people in the gallery can’t sit quietly and listen. Council sat quietly and listened to them….well at least the ones that weren’t busy typing while they speak anyway I guess….)

 Councillor Crain mentioned that there are a lot of children downtown getting ice cream and that people are sometimes gunning their cars. He wondered if a 40 km/hr limit had been considered.

 (And yes, I’m downtown a lot…..some people do gun their cars or motorcycles down Dalhousie Street. I’ve seen it often….) 

Deputy Mayor Gibb made a motion to institute the ideas in the traffic master plan regarding traffic calming measures in the area but not to change the speed limit. 

Councillor McArthur said that he would not support it and that if the motion failed he would make a motion for the 30 km/hr zone. He noted that most don’t want a 30 km/hr zone but that it will save lives and it’s needed. He felt that the Deputy Mayor’s motion was too vague. 

The Deputy Mayor’s motion went to a vote (not recorded but I watched) 

In favour: Deputy Mayor Gibb, Councillor Crain

Opposed: Councillors Allaire, Courtney, McArthur, Pouget 

So the motion failed. 

Councillor McArthur made a motion to institute the 30 km/hr zone but nobody seconded the motion. 

People were talking in the gallery. It was hard to follow. 

Basically, option #2 failed completely. Looks like absolutely nothing will happen with traffic calming measures for the downtown area I guess. 

(Time for my inside voice again…..I personally, am not a fan of the 30 km/hr area. I don’t want to drive that slowly I guess. LOL. Clearly, some members of council were “personally” not inclined to the idea either….but the 7 members of council were not elected to do what they “personally” agree or disagree with…..they were elected to make decisions that would be in the best interests of the town of Amherstburg. What did council decide to do about pedestrian safety in the downtown core? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. No speed reduction, no traffic calming measures were directed. And I found it extremely ironic that 6 months ago Councillors Allaire and Pouget were all about safety and advocated to add crossing guards at one particular corner, yet didn’t seem as concerned about a very congested area with a huge mix of pedestrians and cars? And voted to do nothing. Interesting dichotomy I guess.) 

Recommendation #3 Administration BE DIRECTED to complete the short-term intersection improvements at Simcoe Street / Meloche Road intersection as outlined in the Transportation Master Plan

There was a motion made immediately to approve this recommendation. There were a few questions and then it carried. Unanimously I believe. 

Recommendation #4 Administration BE DIRECTED to institute the full closure of Murray Street between Dalhousie Street and Ramsey Street as outlined in the Transportation Master Plan

The meeting was already off the rails and now it just went straight out to the backcountry. Bumpy and wild. 

Councillor McArthur asked about the consultation regarding the closing of the one block of Murray Street. He asked when it would happen since it hadn’t happened yet. Mr Hewitt, Manager of Engineering, said that the consultant wasn’t tendered to consult with the business owners. He said that if the recommendation were approved on Monday night then administration would work with the business to arrange for deliveries, drop offs etc. There was more back and forth about this. There was talk about patios and businesses paying for use of the public space, adding planters, benches, programming etc. 

Councillor Courtney said that he liked option #1 which was to do nothing. (Of course he did….) He felt that we currently have a good mix and diverse culture downtown. He felt that the town is trying to get some attention to Murray Street with the night markets. He felt that Murray Street had a lot going on for it already with Burger 67 and Lord Amherst. 

(Technically, Lord Amherst is on Dalhousie but I digress and Burger 67 on Murray Street  is in the process of moving into the old Lord Amherst building sooooo….)

 He felt it had a “good mix and diverse culture downtown, namely the historical Thistle Lodge”. Councillor Courtney said he would be preserving our history and keeping Murray Street as is. He said it was logistically planned as a street.

 (My inner voice was chuckling…..it was planned as a street for horse and buggies a couple of hundred years ago. It was never planned for cars. And wanting to change one small block into a pedestrian zone is hardly “preserving our history”…..it’s more akin to living in the past and not being open to change in my opinion…..)

 Councillor Courtney then went on to make jabs at Open Air…..”um, realistically it factored into the footprint of Open Air if you really wanted to do something ‘cause you guys have closed down the streets for so many weekends already”. He went on and on to finish with “permanent closure an absolute no, it’s a terrible idea and I’m not going to support it”. 

 (Draw your own conclusions from that. wow) 

Mayor Prue then passed the gavel. He felt that the main wrong with the process was that the businesses were not consulted in advance about this idea. He felt comfortable with losing 8 parking spots on Murray Street since the plan would later add 6 spots in front of the Duffy’s property. The Mayor said he was not worried about the 8 spots but that he was worried about consultation. He recommended that council receive it and make a motion to instruct staff to consult with the stakeholders and then come back with a report with the outcome. He noted that closed streets can be remarkable and that they are all over Canada and the world. Arrangements are made for deliveries to be made during certain times and that nobody is saying to take the pavement off of the street. He felt that staff should reach out and find out the needs of each business and then report back to council with ways to make it work. He felt it would be a disservice to say yes or no to the idea Monday night. (I wholeheartedly agreed with that!) The Mayor said he was asking someone to make a motion for consultation. While he was speaking, Councillor McArthur said he’d make the motion. 

At this point, for those that were watching from home, the microphones weren’t on….Councillor Courtney seemed all upset and yelled out at Councillor McArthur that he can’t make the motion while the Mayor is speaking. Councillor Courtney then argued with the Mayor, then got up and left the meeting. 

(He did return after a few minutes, that could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing I guess, depending on your perspective LOL) 

I saw it happen live and I did rewatch the video but as I said Councillor Courtney’s microphone wasn’t on, just the Mayor’s was…..

Councillor Allaire felt that she was interested in the proposed motion for consultation prior to any changes. 

Councillor Pouget said that she could not support the motion (it hadn’t been made yet).  She felt that council had heard from the three people from the Thistle Lodge and that they did not want the street closed.

 (Ironically, two weeks ago residents from the Queen Charlotte had also delegated to council about not wanting music, or loud music on the Legion patio, but I guess their opinion didn’t line up with Councillor Pouget’s, so it was dismissed? Strange that tonight’s delegations had to be listened to but two weeks ago, the delegations didn’t matter? What am I not understanding?)

Councillor Pouget went on to say that it will just take one business to sue the town that they lost business because the town closed their street or one person with accessibility issues to make a Human Rights complaint and then it will cost the town. 

(It’s almost like Councillor Pouget wants someone to sue the town? Is that in the best interest of the taxpayers? And I’m not sure if it’s as clear cut as she thinks it is?) 

She was against proceeding any further and said she was going to vote no. 

Councillor Courtney then argued with the Mayor again. His microphone wasn’t on but the Mayor’s was. It reminded me of a parent trying to reason with a petulant adolescent child. 

Councillor McArthur then made the motion to direct staff to consult all of the businesses on Murray Street to hear concerns and see if solutions could be found and then bring a report back to council. Councillor McArthur explained that in 2019 the Economic Development committee had explored the idea of pedestrianization of Murray Street. He noted that that would create an environment where people could shop, draw tourists, stay longer, get ice cream, eat gelato, shop and dine. He noted that people like that and it’s happening everywhere.

 (100%!!! People love it and it is happening everywhere! Most people love it and it is happening everywhere….it’s sad that some on council can’t see the value of Open Air and closing one block downtown….) 

He also felt that Amherstburg is blessed with Open Air and not “stuck with it” as Councillor Pouget had said. It brings money into cash registers, money into our local economy and a sense of community and entertainment.  He felt that council should be returning the streets to the people to enjoy them and that the idea should be explored and not shut down. 

Councillor Crain said he would support the motion and that the idea has a lot of merit. It should be looked into more in-depth. He noted that 61% of the survey respondents were in favour of shutting down the block and that the Economic Development Committee had supported the idea in 2019. 

 (I think many forget that COVID hit in 2020 and it stalled everything for 2 years….so it makes perfect sense that this study wasn’t done until 2023 and now the recommendations are coming forward in 2024. It seems like a long time but with the world shut down for two years, it’s really not….) 

Councillor Allaire asked if the residents within 120 meters would be consulted. Mayor Prue explained that that is a provincial mandate for certain items, but this would not fall under the provincial mandate. There was talk of changing the wording in the motion but Councillor McArthur wanted it left as is, the businesses on Murray Street, including the Legion, since they do own a parking lot that has an entrance from Murray Street. 

Councillor Courtney said he wouldn’t support the motion and then addressed Councillor Crain directly.

 (I really don’t think this is allowed procedurally…..yet Councillor Courtney does it all the time, especially to Councillor Crain….as if he’s a position to school him?…)

Then Councillor Courtney went on a very lengthy and rude tangent. He went on “I’m not delving into the private sector,  I don’t know what’s wrong with you guys.” He went on and on….”I don’t care about code of conduct anymore….”  about how he thinks that council is delving into the private business area. He went on about location and accessibility. He went on and on about closing streets down. He made reference of “I am so done with this”  and “the big GTAers come down here….” 

I listened to the recording to it all and I can’t continue to summarize it. I found the way he spoke about council and residents and emails to be so rude. If you want to hear it for yourself it’s at about the 2:51 mark in the video.

Councillor Courtney’s supporters were in the gallery though and gave him a round of applause when he finished his rude speech. I guess if a member of council doesn’t care about the code of conduct, it’s hard to demand proper conduct from anybody. 

Deputy Mayor Gibb spoke next. He felt it was important to give this a try. While he was speaking, people in the gallery laughed and heckled. Mayor Prue had to call for order and to stop the “cat-calling”. The Deputy Mayor felt that the majority of the people want the downtown to be vibrant and they want it to be walkable. He felt that the possibility of pedestrianization of Murray Street would make downtown even more vibrant. Deputy Mayor Gibb felt that he had to do what is best for the whole town. 

The motion to direct staff to consult all of the businesses on Murray Street to hear concerns and see if solutions could be found and then bring a report back to council went to a recorded vote : 

In favour : Councillor Crain, Deputy Mayor Gibb, Councillor McArthur, Mayor Prue

Opposed : Councillor Allaire, Councillor Courtney, Councillor Pouget

So it passed 4-3….I always find it interesting when the top 4 vote getters defeat the bottom 3 vote getters….the “silent majority” gave those 4 people the most votes I guess right? 

People were yelling and carrying on. There was a 5 minute recess called. 

Recommendation #5  Administration BE DIRECTED to incorporate components from the Transportation Master Plan into future capital budgets.

This item carried with no discussion. 

2024 Special Events Approval – Part 4

The special events were approved with no discussion. 

Temporary Patio Extension

There was quite a bit of discussion about the temporary patio extension. It was after 9:00 and I was tired. Typing this blog up….I’m tired all over again. There was talk about user fees and I believe that Councillor Courtney said he will bring it up at budget time.  

The motion was made for the recommendation. It carried. Councillors Pouget and Courtney didn’t raise their hands in either support and opposition. Perhaps they were still pouting about losing the vote about consulting about Murray Street? 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS and NEW BUSINESS

There were several small items brought up. I’m going to save some keystrokes and not bother. This blog is already ridiculously long, like the meeting was. 

There was more talk about patios. Councillor Courtney seems not to like them. That’s too bad. I think they’re fun and social. Anyway, Councillor Courtney got into a drawn out debate about patios and fees…He spoke in a huffy voice, threw his pen down on the desk…..and I think he’ll be bringing forth a notice of motion at the next meeting. I guess he wasn’t kidding when he said he doesn’t care about the code of conduct. 

Deputy Mayor Gibb talked about a motion that had been made by council that he wanted to bring back for reconsideration. It seems that council had made a motion to include County R 20 in a traffic study that LaSalle was doing. It would extend the study area from LaSalle, all the way back into Amherstburg to the old Allied Chemical property. Deputy Mayor Gibb was concerned that the county could impose a speed reduction from 70 km/hr to 50 km/hr and then council wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. He felt that if that were to happen it could have an impact on Diageo, the concession roads and the commuters that use Highway 18. He felt that in the haste to make the motion a few weeks ago, council may have given power to a higher level of government (the county) to impose a speed limit change that we could then do nothing about. 

The motion for reconsideration passed 4-2  (opposed were Councillor Pouget and Councillor Courtney. Still pouting perhaps? Not sure….) 

Deputy Mayor Gibb said that he wanted to look at the item again now with a sober second thought and rather than hand over the power to the County, to instead ask for a report from staff about that stretch of road and how any changes could impact Amherstburg. 

Councillor Pouget then started arguing with the Deputy Mayor. She said that the motion was made April 22nd and asked the Deputy Mayor why the notice of motion hadn’t been made yet at the County since they had had two meetings. Deputy Mayor Gibb explained that the notice of motion was made at the last county council meeting and that it would be discussed at the next county council meeting. She then went on about about how the Mayor or Deputy Mayor didn’t introduce the motion immediately, that they had skipped a meeting…..she seemed quite upset that council was being asked for reconsideration for a unanimous vote…..(again, ironic…..I believe Councillor Pouget has asked for reconsideration of 2 or 3 unanimous votes in the last 12 months…..? odd….) She then started to use a mocking voice to the Deputy Mayor of things he may say at county council. The Deputy Mayor replied that he generally doesn’t speak with that voice and that it was “categorically incorrect” what Councillor Pouget had said. Mayor Prue asked that they be calm and that it was getting late. 

There was a lot more debate about all of this….again I am getting tired of typing….and of reliving Monday night’s meeting. LOL 

I did find it interesting though that council had rejected a reduction of 50 km/hr to 30 km/hr in the downtown core…..but they were willing to risk that the county may impose a reduction from 70 km/hr to 50 km/hr all through Amherstburg to LaSalle.  

Overall, nothing changed. There was a lot of debate, motions made, motions failed. So the notice of motion to the County for them to study Hwy 18 will proceed. Cross your fingers folks! If the county changes the speed limit (down of course) from Amherstburg to LaSalle, remember this meeting! 

There was a motion made to extend the meeting to 10:15. 

Councillor Allaire read a notice of motion that will be on the next agenda regarding organic waste collection. 

Councillor Crain tried to end the pain for all of us and wanted to make a motion to adjourn. But the Confirmatory Bylaw hadn’t been done yet. So he made the motion for the Confirmation bylaw, then a motion to adjourn. 

The meeting finished at 9:54 PM.  It was a marathon meeting for sure. Bordered almost on a triathlon. Even worse. 

If you made it to the very end of this blog, kudos to you. I know it was long. I know it was painful. Just like the meeting. 

And, I usually try not to weigh-in about how meetings are run….but I really think Mayor Prue needs to be pounding the gavel a lot more than he’s passing it. He’s got a couple of councillors that are going rogue. And that’s not democracy. 

I’ll see you in a few days for the pre-meeting blog for the June 10th meeting. Barely time to recover from this one….