Reposting an article from October 2021 because of ongoing safety concerns regarding closed downtown streets. Amherstburg Fire Chief Bruce Montone provided me with these documents 5 days after I requested the disclosure.
Events – afd a document that is provided on occasion to event organizers should they require additional guidance.
There are no specific dates for the original 2020 or the 2021 review.
On January 29, 2024, Deputy Mayor Gibb moved and Councillor McArthur seconded a motion to prepare a tender for downtown core sidewalk repairs, to consult four advisory committees, including the Accessibility Advisory Committee Regarding Barrier Free Routes of Travel, and funding not to exceed $31,000 (excluding HST) was to come from the AODA Compliance
Reserve Fund.
On April 10, the Accessibility Advisory Committee endorsed the proposal for the maintenance but objected to using the AODA Compliance Reserve Fund and carried a motion that a reconsideration of the funding source for reduction and reassignment, by 50 percent, BE CONSIDERED by Council.
On May 13, council considered it. Deputy Mayor Gibb had a few words: I’m starting to feel a little bit uncomfortable to hear the accessibility committee talking about you know, their funding or their reserve. This is I just want to remind Council this is our job is to determine where the money is spent. You know I’m not going to oppose Councillor MacArthur’s motion because it’s it’s valid. But I don’t know the last few things I heard just kind of made the hair in the back of my neck stand up. So this is it’s it’s up to council where this money comes from. Just that’s just my opinion.
In the end, council’s flip flop and carried motion was that 50% of the funding COME FROM the AODA Compliance Reserve Fund and that the other 50% of the funding come from another source such as the tax stabilization fund for the Richmond Street Corridor sidewalk rehabilitation.
The short version; the detailed version follows. Deputy Mayor Gibb voted in favour of a motion, it passed unanimously, and he or Mayor Prue were to bring it up at county council ‘at the first available meeting’ (May 1); they didn’t. Instead, Gibb introduced it as a Notice of Motion at the May 15 county meeting. Meanwhile, Gibb wanted it reconsidered at the May 27 town council meeting. It was reconsidered, Councillor Crain suggested it should go to committee, which would require a motion, which failed. Councillor Pouget wondered about the motion’s wording change. Gibb made a motion to ask for a report from staff before they ask the county and that motion was defeated too. Crain made a motion to adjourn; Prue advised he could do that but that would mean this whole day didn’t happen because they have confirmatory by-laws to pass. Crain wanted to make a motion to approve confirmatory by-laws but Prue asked if there was any other new business. Councillor Allaire was acknowledged but then a motion was needed to extend the meeting past the 10:00 pm deadline because otherwise the meeting would be automatically adjourned. The motion to extend the meeting carried.
The more detailed version is:
April 22.
At the April 22 council meeting, Councillor Pouget introduced a motion that carried for Mayor Prue and Deputy Mayor Gibb to ask County Council to include the Town of
Amherstburg, when they initiate the Town of Lasalle’s Traffic Study of County Road 20,
in particular the stretch of highway between County Road 10 intersection heading north
to the River Canard Yacht Club.
Councillor Pouget provided the reasons for the motion were excessive speed, unsafe conditions for motorists and pedestrians and a section of highway 20 in LaSalle has been reduced to 50 kilometers per hour to provide better safety in a housing density similar to our request.
Mayor Prue passed the gavel and said LaSalle’s mayor did raise this at the last county council meeting and she cited one of the reasons for LaSalle needing a traffic study and a slowdown on highway 20 in LaSalle was all the extra traffic that is being generated out of Amherstburg. Prue took the gavel back, members voted, the motion carried and Prue said the deputy mayor or I will bring it up at the first available meeting.
May 1.
The first available county council meeting was May 1.
During the May 1 County Council meeting, LaSalle Mayor Meloche read aloud her motion and mentioned Amherstburg but neither Prue nor Gibb brought forward the Amherstburg town council motion. Gibb and Prue voted in favour of the County Council motion and it carried unanimously.
May 15.
Gibb brought up the Notice of Motion at the May 15 County Council meeting and mentioned the April 22 Amherstburg council meeting motion and it was worded differently. Gibb said direction was given to Mayor Prue and myself to request the County of Essex conduct a traffic study for Essex County Road 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Road Three. This notice of motion is to request Essex County Council direct staff to conduct a traffic study which will investigate the effectiveness of speed reductions and other traffic calming measures to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on this section of County Road 20 is being managed as safely and efficiently as possible.
Councillor Pouget’s motion, as recorded in the minutes is: That our Mayor and Deputy Mayor TO ASK County Council to include the Town of Amherstburg, when they initiate the Town of Lasalle’s Traffic Study of County Road 20, Town of Amherstburg – Regular Council Meeting in particular, the stretch of highway between County Road 10 intersection heading north
to the River Canard Yacht Club.
May 27.
At the May 27 town council meeting, Gibb introduced a reconsideration of the April 22 motion that he and Prue were to bring up at the ‘first available meeting’ which was May 1 and a lengthy discussion followed.
Gibb explained his reason for the reconsideration was because he was concerned they were going to cede control of what happens to that road to the county. (this is confusing since it is a county road). He asked a few what if questions:
The vote to reconsider carried.
Gibb thought they needed a ‘sober second thought’ and wanted to get a report from staff so they know what they’re getting into before it’s too late. (But wouldn’t county staff conclude their traffic study with a report to county council?)
Councillor Pouget pointed out the unanimous April 22 motion and asked if Gibb hadn’t introduced the Notice of Motion that town council directed him to do in over a month.
Gibb answered that the motion was introduced at the last county council meeting and then would be discussed at the next county council meeting.
Pouget asked if Gibb was suggesting that this council passed this motion unanimously, he introduced it, didn’t introduce it when he should have the first meeting, skipped a meeting and then introduced it then and now go back to them and say maybe you don’t have to do that. Gibb said he generally doesn’t speak with that voice and that is categorically false what you’re saying.
Prue called for calm because it was getting late (that’s what happens when meetings are inefficient). and he summarized: What has happened is that the deputy mayor issued the notice, he’s having second thoughts and wants to know council’s position. If Council doesn’t want to change its position that’s well within council’s right. If Council is happy then it just goes to the county and the county makes the decision. That’s what’s going to happen. There will be debate, and I will assure you if the debate goes forward, I will raise the same issues and I’m sure the deputy mayor will raise the issues that we would like to be consulted down through the process because we are a little afraid if it goes from 70 and 80 kilometres to much lower that it may have ramifications on our concession roads.
The April 22 motion was back on the table and was read aloud: That our mayor and deputy mayor to ask county council to include the town of Amherstburg when they initiate LaSalle’s traffic study of County Road 20 in particular the stretch of highway between county road 10 intersection heading north to the River Canard Yacht Club.
CAO Critchley emphasized the importance of being consulted.
Councillor Crain thought it might be appropriate to have the economic development committee review the suggested idea to change the speed limit and Prue advised that would require a motion to amend the original one. The motion failed.
Pouget noted a discussion regarding adding Texas Road.
Gibb said they have a Doctorate in traffic studies on town staff and asked that they maybe get a report and he would prefer a report from staff. Gibb made the motion to get a report from staff before they ask the county to make any changes and said if that fails, then he’s done.
Crain wanted to make a motion to adjourn. Prue said he could but if you do it, it means this whole day didn’t happen because they have confirmatory by-laws. Crain moved to approve confirmatory by-laws but Prue asked if there was any other new business. Councillor Allaire was acknowledged but they needed a motion to continue before 10:00 pm when they’re automatically adjourned.
June 5. County Council Agenda 15.2 Traffic Study for Essex County Road 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Road 3
Chris Gibb brought forward the following Notice of Motion at the May 15, 2024 meeting of Essex County Council:
At the April 22, 2024 meeting of Amherstburg Town council direction was given to Mayor Prue and Deputy Mayor Gibb to request the County of Essex conduct a traffic study for Essex County Road 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Rd 3.
This notice of motion is to request Essex County Council direct staff to conduct a traffic study which will investigate the effectiveness of speed reductions and other traffic calming measures to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on this section of County Rd 20 is being managed as safely and efficiently as possible.
Recommendation:That Essex County Council direct staff to conduct a traffic study which will investigate the effectiveness of speed reductions and other traffic calming measures to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on County Rd 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Road 3 is being managed as safely and efficiently as possible.
My delegation at last night’s council meeting as a person with disabilities, as a representative of residents who reached out to me with their concerns, and on behalf of the Amherstburg Residents Forum, regarding the adverse effect on the disability community of the closing of Murray Street was met with apathy.
Not that it ill have any more effect on council than mentioning, during last night’s delegation, the AODA and the UN Convention On The Rights of Persons With Disabilities, but I emailed council members anyway.
The lack of decorum at last night’s meeting was appalling. I urge you to update the procedural by-law to include a time limit on your speeches, a limit on the number of times you can speak, and a limit on the number of questions to admin. Other municipalities do it and I know you rely on comparators sometimes. Also, a meeting of council is where you, as decision-makers, debate the issues yet admin are invited to participate in debates.
I also urge you to post the council and committee meeting videos to youtube which is a good transparency initiative that other municipalities do.
it’s very disappointing, especially during National AccessAbility Week, that the town is promoting a flag raising or wearing red shirts while votes in favour of closing off yet another public space adversely affects people with disabilities. Shame on you.
in my opinion, it’s hypocritical to promote anything that may appear as tokenism. we already have plenty of awareness. what we need is a stronger commitment to ensuring we live in an inclusive community, free of discrimination and free of barriers that prevent our human right to equally participate. we need to ensure that we people with disabilities stop encountering attitudinal barriers and ableism. we need elected officials to take a stand and not vote in favour of barriers or spend taxpayer dollars on barriers.
we also need people to realize that input from residents like me, with disabilities, should be welcomed; it should not be met with examples like the attached. chris drew, an accessibility advisory committee member posted this yesterday to the town’s facebook page.
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.
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.
Concerned residents reached out to share the following email to council.
Dear Members of Council,
As residents of the downtown area, we are angered and appalled that council is allowing Ribfest to take place in such a confined location in the downtown core on the Father’s Day weekend.
According to Dan Gemus Real Estate Team, who is hosting the event, they expect to have four ribbers set up along the Ramsay Street closure.
Why would anyone think a downtown street for such an event is a suitable location?
This event has the potential to attract thousands and thousands of people to the downtown area. Just scroll through the photos on the Amherstburg Rotary Ribfest Facebook Page and look at all the cars and people that attended in 2019.
Where are the thousands expected to park for this event and what is going to be done about the bumper-to-bumper traffic on our streets all weekend long?
We all know that Ribfests are messy and should be held in a larger and more open setting such as the Libro property. Why would you want that mess around newly renovated buildings?
Are us downtown residents expected to put up with having to breath carcinogenic smoke fumes all weekend long? And depending on which way the wind is blowing, the sticky greasy smoke can cause damage to resident’s property and vehicles. Who will pay to have that cleaned up?
What about the residents at the Navy Yard Condominiums? Will their building and vehicles end up covered in grease from the barbeques? What about all the grease on the sidewalks and streets? Who is going to clean that up? What about the vermin it will attract afterwards?
It’s bad enough we have to put up with Open Air each weekend during the summer and the speeding traffic on our street, noise, and litter and now we get Ribfest rammed down our throats?
Shame on you for allowing this to take place downtown. We know without question that you would not want this type of event taking place in your neighbourhood. We would have thought council would have been more considerate than this.
It’s obvious that council has little regard for us downtown area residents and we will be taking this into consideration at our next municipal election.
Thank you for your time and we look forward to your written reply and explanation on why this was approved and who is going to pay for the damages and clean up.
Sincerely angered and appalled,
Concerned Downtown Residents
Public Notice to view the hearing of Salmoni residents’ concerns about Peddies’ proposed hotel.
Will council agree with its Accessibility Advisory Committee’s (AAAC) motion that this is not just about accessibility or with an administration report to council that accessibility funding should be used?
I shared my concerns with Councillor McArthur, council’s rep to the Committee, and Councillor Pouget who attended the AAAC meeting when the discussion occurred.
‘Designated public sectors when constructing new or redeveloping existing exterior paths of travel that they intend to maintain, shall consult on the design and placement of rest areas along the exterior path of travel and shall do so in the following manner:
The January 29 administration report recommended using funds accrued within the accessibility compliance reserve fund which are intended for repairs and improvements designed to reduce or remove barriers and promote greater access to public spaces, goods and services.
The May 13 administration report states the AODA compliance reserve fund was introduced in 2017 as an annual contribution to the reserves of the town of Amherstburg for municipal building and infrastructure improvements to eliminate barriers with regards to accessibility.
The August 2016 Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes indicate the motion that administration develop a policy that the committee reviews and edits to ensure the town is promoting accessibility in the strategic plan and ask that $50,000 a year starting in the 2017 annual capital budget be set aside for promoting accessibility in public buildings.
The Accessibility Advisory Committee’s April 10 motion, following concerns that AODA Compliance Funds were to be used for the Richmond St. sidewalk repairs, was that council consider the reconsideration of the funding source for reduction by 50%.
The clerk advised the committee that his professional recommendation to council would be to use that fund because that is why that fund was created.
At the April 10 committee meeting, Councillor McArthur asked, couldn’t council in that very meeting make a motion to reconsider it and then either Council says yes to 50% or no to 50% but it could proceed on the same timeline?
The clerk answered that yes, if the motion was carefully worded, where it asked for the funding consideration to be reviewed, he didn’t think there would be any reason why they couldn’t be shifted after they were already spent. If for example, it was 31,000 drawn out of the reserve but this recommendation was that it shouldn’t be funded from this reserve then Council could pull the funds from another reserve to replenish that; they do journal entries all the time.
The clerk repeated that if the committee wished to have council look at that and fund it from a different source if it was worded right the project could continue.
Councillor Donald McArthur stated if the committee is comfortable with 50% he’d happily go to council and ask them to reconsider the funding source.
The May report to council addresses a reconsideration. ‘It is debatable whether such a motion would be permissible though, as portions of the original motion which would be the subject of the reconsideration have already been acted upon, and as such, are not open to be reconsidered. The reconsideration of the funding source would need to be considered outside of the reconsideration on the consultation and/or whether the works should be undertaken. A less procedurally fraught motion would be to cause $16,000 worth of funding to be redirected to the AODA Compliance Reserve fund, from another funding source to offset the associated costs. That said, such a motion is not recommended by Administration as funding this $16,000 from another reserve creates a need to identify $16,000 of unbudgeted and unplanned expense which may have adverse impacts on other projects.’
Didn’t council approve $450,000. of unbudgeted and unplanned expense for pickleball?
The April 10 Accessibility Advisory Committee minutes on council’s May 13 agenda do not accurately reflect the motion made regarding my delegation.
On April 10, I asked the committee numerous questions about accessibility at the proposed hotel at 256 Dalhousie.
Following my delegation, Chair Shirley Curson-Prue asked, “Could I have a motion to receive the report please?” The audio is available online. No report was presented, and the minutes incorrectly state the motion was ‘that the delegation be received.’
During my June 23, 2022 delegation at the Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, I mentioned that one question that is repeatedly asked is do we need a motion. I also encouraged the committee to review duties of the Chair and members.
Following my delegation, Chair Shirley Curson-Prue asked, “May I have a motion to receive this document?” The audio is available online. No document was presented and the June 23 meeting minutes incorrectly state the motion was ‘that the delegation be received.’
If administration is correcting improperly stated motions, perhaps committee members need training to accurately word motions, especially to receive delegates who are not pieces of paper.
Update: May 6, 2024 Stratford residents, including Mike Sullivan, have been banned from attending any city owned properties or from speaking with any city staff for three months.
Some of the external links may have been archived and are no longer available.
The Town of Amherstburg may have set a precedent in its own community when it banned Graham Hobbs from all municipal facilities, but it isn’t the first municipality to issue a ban that judges have ruled unconstitutional.
June 2006 Russell Township banned a persistent council critic.
Jacques Aube, 75, attended Russell Township municipal meetings about four times a month. He was notified last November he was barred from the municipal offices after he asked the township clerk a number of pointed questions about a Ministry of the Environment report on the township’s master plan during an October council meeting.
March 2009 Windsor Edy Haddad
Three years after being banned from city hall and other municipal offices, political and social activist Edy Haddad is now welcome to return. Windsor activist Edy Haddad allowed back at city hall
February 2010 Petrolia Trespass ban partly lifted
February 2012 Niagara Falls council bans resident from City Hall Fred Bracken
In an unprecedented move, Niagara Falls council has gone behind close doors to ban a former city employee from attending meetings.
July 2012 Windsor A leader of last year’s Occupy Windsor movement and outspoken critic of disgraced Coun. Al Maghnieh is no longer banned from city hall.
May 2013 Critics decry “draconian” measures in proposed Windsor no-trespass policy
Cross said the city has still not explained why her client Robert Mittag was banned from municipal property last summer after being ejected while protesting outside city hall. It was the no-trespass order against Mittag that triggered work on the new policy which council will be asked to adopt next week.
November 2013 Town urged to lift Gammie ban by CCLA
October 2014 now elected to council.
December 2014 Judge finds resolutions “violated” Gammie’s rights.
June 2015 Owen Sound Gammie insists town legal costs aren’t his fault.
August 2015 McNab-Braeside Township resident faces lifetime ban from municipal properties
Oshawa ban – Civil liberties organization upset with City.
November 2015 Niagara Region Fred Bracken A one-year trespass notice that barred a Fort Erie man from attending regional council meetings violated his Charter rights, a judge has ruled.
November 2015 – Graham Hobbs banned from Amherstburg town hall and all municipal facilities for one year.
the burg watch 