Three members were absent: Chris Drew, Councillor McArthur and Christine Easterbrook and Chair Shirley Prue was on zoom. (She was loud, unlike when she’s in person and the mic is sometimes off to the side so it’s difficult to hear her). Vice Chair Pietrangelo chaired the meeting. For whatever reason he, like Prue usually does, called on the clerk to read the land acknowledgement.

Co-An Park Inclusive Playground Design

Heidi Baillargeon, Director, Parks, Facilities and Recreation via zoom, asked if anyone had any questions about the design. Shirley Prue said she thought there was one and offered to read it just because ‘she’ was not going to be there. (‘She’ wasn’t referred to by name but I assume ‘she’ was absent member Christine Easterbrook and ‘she’ actually had three questions).

Question 1: where does the ramp go? It looks the same as the playground apparatus at Ranta, where the ramp goes nowhere; at the end they encounter steps. 

Baillargeon: the ramp does only go up so far within the design; she knows that the design does meet all of the compliance, it is considered fully inclusive; it was the only design that was fully inclusive so when it says fully inclusive, it takes into consideration there’s music panels on there, other play panels, the elements in it and around the playground itself as well as the surfacing and access and egress in and around the playground and to it is what makes it a fully inclusive playground design.  

Prue: What ‘she’ said was that if you let the child get on the ramp and then they just watch everybody play. 

Baillargeon: I guess I would say the intent of the design is they’re allowed to access so far within the structure itself, and then when they’re there, it’s encouraging interactive play in and among the elements so they can get up to all the other areas. So they can go to the top on this one, in terms of coming down that extra wide slide and that’s extra wide if they had somebody assisting to be able to go down there; it accommodates a number of kids at one time, so they can play inclusively alongside those kids.

Question 2: Then ‘she’ asked as well about the swing – is it possible to get a child in a wheelchair on it? 

Baillargeon: the Libro Centre has one. The ones where the wheelchair can fit on don’t meet the public standard, because they need to be fully enclosed, and there has to be a key for them because if the weight of that struck another child on the playground it has the potential to kill them. So those types of swings are in a very controlled environment where there is staffing and personnel. We couldn’t put that out in the general public.

Question 3: ‘She’ did also ask if there was any sort of financial requirement here, but it looks like everything’s covered in the presentation.

Pietrangelo asked if a child in a wheelchair that reaches that area can they go any further right around the curve and go down the slide if they’re in a wheelchair? Baillargeon: in a wheelchair they have to be transferred and then kind of work their way up to the other platform. 

Pietrangelo: so as far as a wheelchair goes, they go up to where it says 305, and there is equipment around there that they can play and even though they’re sitting in their wheelchair, that there’s things. Baillargeon: all the way around that deck. And if they were assisted with somebody else, they could be guided up to the other deck, as well as to the end where the slide is that they could go down with somebody else or another child.

Pietrangelo:  so you’re saying that by themselves, going from that area where it says 305, to the area where is 1.22 they would have to be assisted to go up there, they wouldn’t be able to go up there on their own in a wheelchair. Baillargeon: in a wheelchair, no, depending on their mobility issues they’d have to leave the wheelchair at that point to progress to that stage.

Pietrangelo: and there’s no way, I see figure 1.53 there’s no way that a wheelchair could go over that; there’s barriers around it. Baillargeon: they wouldn’t be able to cross that threshold where it says 305, up to the other one without some kind of assistance to get up. 

Pietrangelo asked what to do and the clerk advised, at this point, the committee could endorse it, receive it, whatever it chose to do. Generally, at this point, the committee does endorse the RFP at this stage. Marc Renaud moved to endorse the proposal as laid out and it carried.

Malden Park RFP for a New Accessible Playground

Baillargeon mentioned this was the first process patterned off of Essex, where there’s a public vote component. The public can visit talk the burg to vote for the playground of your choice of eight designs. Voting closed on April 4 and it’s on Council’s April 14 agenda for approval. Other than Pietrangelo’s question about the survey results, there was no discussion and Renaud’s motion to accept the proposal as presented carried.

Jack Purdie Park RFP for Multi-Use Trail

Baillargeon mentioned the trail is 10 feet wide, fully paved, and inclusive, connecting all elements within the park; ‘little signs’ (hopefully accessible signs) will indicate distances. Baillargeon also noted that every element that they currently have in the park is connected, and every element they develop in the future will also be connected.  (I disagree, given that the accessible swing is segregated). A sledding hill will be installed. Prue asked if they have washrooms in this one. Baillargeon said they’d love to have a washroom; they don’t have funding yet, but they are in the design as well as a future splash pad and a sports court but they’re doing it in phases and this was phase two.

Baillargeon said it would go before council April 14 and let the committee know that all of the bids were over the approved budget for the park in terms of what was allocated just for the trails. Enbridge contributed $30,000 to help fund this project.

Pietrangelo asked how much over budget they were and Baillargeon said all in all, $100,000. The clerk interjected with, just with regards to the role of the committee financials really are not in the realm of the advisory committees. The advisory committee’s purpose and focus is meant to be on the respective subject matters that they deal with, with regards to matters of the financing that really is more of a council matter. Motion to accept as presented carried.

Update on Accessibility Fest for All

Amherstburg offered to host the Essex County Accessibility ‘Fest for All’ to be held at the Libro on September 12. The clerk mentioned how the town has a number of amenities that it can focus on at this location:

1. the wheelchair swing, one of three in the county
2. the miracle league diamond itself
3. sledge hockey 
4. they’re also working with their aphasia friendly friends for the commitment the town has made to push for that proposal for the town to be aphasia friendly. 

Unfinished Business: 

1. The clerk mentioned the progress of the aphasia-friendly Amherstburg initiative, aiming to train businesses and organizations in non-verbal communication strategies with a goal to having the town certified as aphasia-friendly by October 2025. (Individuals or businesses could be certified by taking the basic training, but I fail to see how an entire town could be certified). The clerk said if they’re welcoming people to come to our community, they want them to be able to walk into any business and receive that level of support. (Not everyone can just walk into any business if there are stairs and steps though).
2. The Miracle League is looking for volunteers.
3. The Seymour Street reconstruction.
4. Renaud wanted someone to explain the process of accessible parking, how it works, and the requirements for a home based business for example.
5. Accessible Parking and Enforcement Blitz.
6. Promote the email address for accessibility concerns: accessibility@amherstburg.ca

Adjournment since there was no new business.

A reader reached out and I said I’d make inquiries, which I did yesterday. I sent the following questions to CAO Critchley and specifically mentioned I was making inquiries for my blog; I copied members of council.

1. what accessibility legislation/standard/guidelines/criteria were used for the newest sidewalks in Kingsbridge on Whelan for the tendering process?
2. what is the reason for the elevation changes at driveways? 
3. who was responsible for inspection upon completion?
4. was the inspection upon completion satisfactory/dissatisfactory?
5. was public consultation held?
6. did any member of council visit the area of concern?
7. did any member of staff visit the area of concern?
8. what is the process to file a claim with the town for damage to assistive devices as a result of this situation?

I thought they were all generic questions but CAO Critchley’s response was, “As your email seems to indicate that the information you are seeking is connected to a possible insurance claim against the Town, we are unable to comment at this time. Should someone wish to file a damage claim, this can be down through the Municipal Clerk’s Office. (original typo).

I thanked her but wrote back that perhaps she would answer all the other questions.