It was another dumpster fire. An abundance of kudos to staff, who are well compensated to do their jobs so I’m not sure why all the kudos, comments/speeches instead of questions, jabs at provincial politicians, some ignoring accessibility barriers while citing the AODA, and some more grandstanding.

Mayor Prue noted an error in the minutes – it was not the Legion but a different group; another inconsistency since two errors involving his wife were noted in minutes pertaining to my delegations that I asked to be corrected but they never were.

The first delegate, Bryerswood Youth Camp Optimist Club, wanted Texas Road tarred and chipped. After council passed a revised and more restrictive procedural by-law last year, delegates would only be allowed if there was an admin report or a by-law for an agenda item. The delegate request form did not list an agenda item that would be addressed.

So, Bryerswood submitted the petition and request, then the admin report was created, and then the agenda was published. Notification of the council meeting agenda was delivered on October 4 at 3:55 pm. The October 2 admin report mentions ‘a petition was circulated and has been submitted to the Town of Amherstburg requesting consideration of the conversion of a stretch of gravel road on Texas Road, from Howard Avenue to the 6th Concession North. The estimated cost is $250,000.’

Following the delegation, the admin report, item 15.1, was brought forward and Councillor McArthur wanted to move a motion to consider the request at budget because he thought they made a great case for them to at least consider this at budget time among other competing priorities. At the March 11, 2019 council meeting, McArthur declared a conflict of interest because he had a child who was a Girl Guide and was previously hired to do web design for the presenters. The motion carried.

As an aside, it’s shameful that McArthur hasn’t been more of an accessibility champion. After all, he volunteered to be council’s rep to the accessibility advisory committee and I think residents with disabilities have ‘made a great case’ for barrier removal and inclusion.

The second delegate, Bill Petruniak, spoke in opposition of an application for the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund that would allow for the provincial government to match funding of $500,000. Petruniak opposes spending money on parks, citing financial constraints and the need for fiscal restraint. He said the time is now to become a council that Amherstburg taxpayers can be proud of, instead of one we are ashamed of. He mentioned that 14 years ago, McLean’s magazine wrote an article about the 10 worst mayors and councils in Canada; Amherstburg made that list. He continued, If this council does not change course, Amherstburg is going to make that list again. He emphasized the importance of managing tax dollars wisely and avoiding frivolous expenditures. He suggested using the fire hall and town hall for additional space and stopping unnecessary spending. Prue asked the usual, if there were any questions of staff and Councillor Courtney offered kudos to staff not a question. Prue did not object to Mr. Petruniak responding to Courtney for almost a minute and a half like he has done in the past to other delegates; another inconsistency that creates the perception of preferential treatment for some.

When 11.1 was brought forward, community sport and recreation infrastructure fund, there were more kudos for staff from Courtney and McArthur and Gibb, who applauded staff. Prue had two comments and said he didn’t have a question. McArthur said they couldn’t get blinded by dollar signs and we need to invest in recreational amenities; his speech lasted about 4 minutes. His enthusiasm for recreation, including cycling, running, and trails is obvious. Councillor Allaire said she’s obsessed with parks; likewise, her enthusiasm for parks is obvious. I already wrote about Prue’s jabs at MPP Leardi and Premier Ford in this post. Eventually, a motion carried after making some changes.

National Disability Employment Month proclamation is passed with a motion by Allaire and seconded by Deputy Mayor Gibb. More on that to follow.

The contentious issues came up during new business. Councillor Pouget mentioned that she believed it was in June that council passed a notice of motion, unanimously, to go before the county. They thought it was a county road and council would ask them to investigate the feasibility of a crosswalk at Sandwich and Lowes Side Road and to move the 70 kilometer sign from the corner of that intersection, just past the five driveways. The motion went to county council; both the mayor and the deputy mayor acted on their behalf. She further believed it was approved August 14, and now she understands that there’s a problem and they wanted it to come back to this council because they believe that it’s our responsibility, because that section belongs to our town, and the county road doesn’t exactly start until a few meters away from that; they need this council to decide what they’re going to do with that area before the county can proceed with the moving of the 70 kilometre sign.

Pouget suggested that Deputy Mayor Gibb could probably speak more to it since she was just acting on his behalf of what he was told. Gibb’s response was: so when we originally approached the county, I think we were all under the assumption that that intersection was shared with the county, and it’s come to light that no, that intersection of Lowes and Sandwich belongs entirely to the town of Amherstburg. So from discussions I’ve had with county staff, they’re reluctant to make changes to the speed limit until they know what direction Amherstburg is going to go with the intersection. Again, the way I understand it is, you know, if we were to put in crosswalks, they may move. They may have to move the speed limit a certain distance. If we have flashing lights, it might be another distance. If we do a full signaled intersection, it might be something different. So they’re the way I understand it, and I’m I would defer to the clerk, but the way I understand it is the county needs some direction from this council as to what we’re doing before they can take the appropriate action on the speed limit.

Prue asked if it would it be advisable to have staff, and then asked which one? More whispering in his ear, and he agrees to whatever was said, for staff to bring back a report outlining exactly who owns that intersection and what options there are and what costs there are, and bring it back to council so that they would be able to either act on it themselves or go back to county council for their support and assistance. Then Prue asked, is that okay? You can do that? Okay? All right, that’s sufficient. (Why would anyone ask if that was okay? Admin is expected to provide reports, they get kudos for doing so, and it is council’s job to direct them, not ask if it’s ok).

Then Pouget confirmed if she was to make a motion to direct administration but Prue said no no, he thinks they’ve already indicated, (more whispering) yeah, they’re going to bring back the report. (A motion should always be made after there has been a decision to take action. The minutes are the official record where resolutions are stated).

Prue then introduced the matter of some people upset in the George and Seymour area, and staff went out and did what staff is supposed to do. He said they have to dig up the entire two roads and put in new sewers, probably have to put in new sidewalks, and try to keep all the trees. There is some encroachment, and the staff has gone out and talked to people and have sent out a letter talking about the end of the month, and he has tried to advise people that they will not be acting on that, and the staff have agreed they will not act on that until after council has had an opportunity to weigh in. So he asked that a report comes back to the next council meeting. It is not his wish as the mayor, he doesn’t know what council thinks, to force people to take out their porches or their houses or anything else. Some of these houses are 100 years old, and it’s a difficult circumstance, but he wants this to come back to council so they can have a good discussion at the next council meeting and determine how best to proceed. He said it’s gone too far. People are talking about hiring lawyers. Some have actually gone to lawyers to spend money (as is their right). And he thinks they can, with goodwill, accommodate all the concerns around this council table. He just wanted to say that publicly so that the newspaper and others can get it out.

Pouget asked if administration can bring back a report whether or not those five foot sidewalks are required in the older section. She said she fully accepts five foot sidewalks in new sections, but she believed there’s an exception under the Act that when it’s in a very old section, and it would affect some properties like that. She wondered if they can keep the sidewalks at four feet the way they are right now, with this exemption, then they wouldn’t have these worries. While Pouget was speaking, CAO Critchley whispered to Prue; he said the CAO has just indicated to him it will be in the report. Prue added, in case people wonder, (it sounded like he said AOD instead of AODA) compliance to make sure that it’s compliant would be five feet. But if it has to be four in that section so people won’t have to take down portions of their house he thinks they can all recognize that may have to be done but they’ll see the report and have a good discussion at the next meeting.

Allaire read her notice of motion to reconsider council resolution 20240527–008 regarding temporary patio extensions. Councillor Crain said it’s a bad idea to reconsider and McArthur was also opposed. Pouget supported it but Prue cut her off while she was speaking to say she was getting into the merits. Courtney supported. McArthur said he personally loves patios, it gives our residents something to do. Prue said the province allows patios to be on streets in Ontario. Staff needs to ensure AOD (the second time he left off the last A as in AODA). He mentioned emails and the arguments people made: 1. it takes away two parking spots; 2. it was ugly; 3. no money to town in return. He didn’t mention that I pointed out my argument regarding inaccessibility.

The motion to reconsider was carried and then there was more back and forth posturing. Gibb said he just didn’t understand what the issue is; two parking spots out of 500 you know what? He doesn’t think there’s that big of a problem parking in downtown Amherstburg. (The number one complaint in the residents’ survey about Open Air was accessibility, followed by parking. And again I wonder when there will be a strong commitment to accessibility and inclusion).

Crain echoed Gibb: It’s two parking spots, or maybe a little bit more, in the downtown, there’s definitely not a parking issue downtown. We received that in the study that came back, there’s a parking perception issue, but I don’t believe there’s a parking problem, and for me, it’s not something that I think we need to look at again.

More inefficient windbaggery and the motion to remove temporary patios on public properties failed. A recorded vote was held. In favour: Allaire, Pouget, Courtney. Opposed: Crain, Gibb, McArthur and Prue.