Council’s Role in Accessibility: A Call for Action

Posted on by

Concerns that customers of the Salty Dog were impeding sidewalks, including people using assistive devices, were raised at the October 15 council meeting.

Following the meeting, I emailed council members: some of your comments during the October 15 meeting are concerning: 

  • ‘it’s good for the residents,’ 
  • it’s in the best interest of the town,’
  • ‘it’s AODA compliant because there are no trip hazards’,
  • ‘I am sorry that some people are not getting out of the way when someone comes by with a cane or a walker or a wheelchair, but what difference would it make if there was two cars there instead of the patio?’
  • ‘It’s two parking spots, or maybe a little bit more, there’s definitely not a parking issue downtown.’ 

there are barriers at the Salty Dog patio and there are trip hazards so if barriers exclude people with disabilities then it’s not good for the residents and it’s not in the best interest of the town. i’ve asked council to create a patio policy to ensure all patios are AODA compliant and i still encourage you to create one.

also, as i’ve pointed out a few times, businesses with barriers may face human rights complaints. in fact, two downtown businesses are currently facing human rights complaints.

thank you Councillor Pouget for acknowledging the right of people with disabilities to equally participate in our community.

As usual, Councillor Pouget was the only one to respond; she thanked me for promoting all accessibility issues in our Town and said she’d do whatever she could to help.

November 4, I emailed a follow up to council and shared one resource: since you’ve not yet enacted a patio policy, like other municipalities, i still urge you to do so. there is an abundance of best practices in other municipalities, along with the AODA standards to address barriers that continue to exist. why are you not addressing them?

for example, at a minimum, the Ontario Traffic Council’s Restaurant Patio Guidelines within the Right of Way ‘was created for the benefit of those road authorities who have not developed their own guidelines and as a supplementary resource to those road authorities who have developed their guidelines but are seeking additional guidance on the topics outlined herein.’

‘The intention of applying these guidelines is to ensure that universal accessibility, public safety and the streetscape experience are enhanced and not negatively impacted by the introduction of a patio within the road authorities’ right-of-way.’

7.1 Accessible Routes

Accessible routes must be provided through the patio area, as follows:

1)  The pedestrian clearway requires 1.8 metres of space on most sidewalks, with wider sidewalks with higher pedestrian volumes requiring 2.5 metres.
2)  To ensure the patio area does not impose a change in the direction of the pedestrian clearway of more than 20 degrees, the patio operator should use a tape measure and something to mark measurement points (pylons, chalk marks, etc.) to verify that this requirement is being adhered to
3)  The patio operator must provide accessible access to the patio with a minimum width of 1.8 metres.
4)  Accessible access can be achieved through two methods, installation of a temporary platform or a temporary accessibility ramp. It is the patio operator’s responsibility to comply with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) at all times.
5)  The patio operator:
i)  Must not place patio materials in the pedestrian clearway.
ii) Must ensure the patio’s perimeter fencing has a solid base that is detectable for someone using a white cane.
iii)  Must not use the pedestrian clearway to queue patrons awaiting their reservation or table.
iv)  Must not place A-frame signs or other obstacles in the pedestrian clearway.

Freedom of Information in Amherstburg: What You Need to Know

Posted on by


It took 4 years for the Town of Amherstburg to enact a Routine Disclosure Policy. Freedom of Information requests may not always have to be relied on because Clerks are required to provide municipal records upon request pursuant to the Municipal Act:

Inspection of records

253 (1) Subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, any person may, at all reasonable times, inspect any of the records under the control of the clerk, including,

(a) by-laws and resolutions of the municipality and of its local boards;

(b) minutes and proceedings of regular, special or committee meetings of the council or local board, whether the minutes and proceedings have been adopted or not;

(c) records considered at a meeting, except those records considered during that part of a meeting that was closed to the public;

(d) the records of the council;

(e) statements of remuneration and expenses prepared under section 284.  2001, c. 25, s. 253 (1).

Salty Dog Patio Accessibility Issues

Posted on by

Comments by some members of council about accessibility at the Salty Dog patio during the October 15 meeting were concerning.

Councillor McArthur stated, in part, overwhelmingly, people love the Salty Dog patio. They love the environment that it creates in downtown Amherstburg, and it’s good for the economy. It’s good for business, but over and above everything else, it’s good for the residents of Amherstburg and that’s why I support it.

the burg watch: McArthur shouldn’t be supporting it because he’s council’s rep to the accessibility committee and the patio has barriers. Saying it’s good for the residents, while it’s not accessible to some residents with disabilities, is unacceptable.

Councillor Courtney stated, in part, it was AODA compliant, because there was no trip hazards, and was wide enough to get in.

the burg watch: There are trip hazards.

Mayor Prue stated, in part, the Salty Dog acted in good faith and continues to act in good faith. The staff went out and acted in good faith and obeyed every single caveat of the province of Ontario and every single bylaw that we have. I am sorry that some people are not getting out of the way when someone comes by with a cane or a walker or a wheelchair, but what difference would it make if there was two cars there instead of the patio? If they won’t get out of the way on the sidewalk, they won’t get out of the way. And so I think a business case has been made, and I do believe that is in the best interest of the town to be a welcoming and friendly place for people to sit out and have a meal in the sun.

the burg watch: an apology that people are not getting out of the way provides no meaningful action to correct the barriers to people with disabilities. The town cannot be a welcoming and friendly place if people with disabilities are not welcome to equally participate in activities. Thus, it is not in the best interest of the town.

Deputy Mayor Gibb: I mean, I just I don’t understand what the issue is. Two parking spots out of 500 you know what? I don’t think there’s a that big of a problem parking in downtown Amherstburg, the extra revenue, the extra jobs it brings.

the burg watch: I’d recommend more training. the number one complaint in the residents’ Open Air survey was accessibility, followed by parking. Council still needs to address the issue.

Councillor Crain stated, in part, it’s two parking spots, or maybe a little bit more, there’s definitely not a parking issue downtown.

the burg watch: again, the number one complaint in the residents’ Open Air survey was accessibility, followed by parking. Council still needs to address the issue.

The AODA aims to remove barriers. I have asked that council create a patio policy to ensure AODA compliance but no such policy has been implemented yet.

AODA Requirements for Sidewalk Construction Causes Concern For Residents

Posted on by

Two residents from the area will delegate at the October 28 council meeting to speak to the issue.

The report to council states, on January 22, 2020 the Town applied for funding toward the reconstruction of the sanitary sewers on George and Seymour Streets through the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP): Green Stream which is a joint federal/provincial grant
program. The proposed project involves the full replacement of the clay sanitary sewers
and all home connections to the property line on George and Seymour Street between
Richmond Street and Simcoe Street as well as some sections of Murray Street. Due to
the significant impacts to existing infrastructure that will result from the sewer replacement
the Town will also be replacing all the sidewalks, curbs and pavement.

The Town’s Licensing and Enforcement Division was requested to provide notice to homeowners of the upcoming infrastructure project on George and Seymour Streets and has circulated notices to the residents that have elements encroaching on public lands.

The report goes on the mention that while the area would be included in the Heritage Conversation District (HCD), the HCD has not yet been officially designated.

Then the AODA is mentioned, including the requirement to create a 1.5 m sidewalk width to comply, although there are exceptions to the Regulation under the AODA.

Three options are presented, even though administration states, this approach is the approach Administration has been proceeding with up to this point and continues to recommend as the best practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS include:

Delegated authority BE PROVIDED to the Clerk/Risk Manager to approve the
insurance requirements of encroachment agreements with regards to non-
commercial policy holders in the absence of Certificates of Insurance where
indemnification language is deemed to be satisfactory to offset the associated
risk; and,
Administration BE DIRECTED to bring back the amendments necessary to do so
for Council’s approval to the Encroachment By-law, By-law 2023-061, and the
Delegation of Authority Policy.

Richmond Street Accessibility: Public Consultations Matter

Posted on by

Several months later I found out why, despite my requests that public consultations be held in the spirt and letter of the AODA, there were no public consultations.

BACKGROUND

January 29, 2024 emailed council and urged members “to embrace the spirit of the AODA and consult the public regarding Richmond Street sidewalk repairs even though the report to council does not mention public consultation in accordance with the AODA’s Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation regarding exterior paths of travel, rest areas:

‘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: 

  1. the public and persons with disabilities.
  2. a municipal accessibility advisory committee if one exits.’

The report to council concludes with Financial Matters and admin’s recommendation to use Accessibility Compliance Reserve Funds that are ‘intended for repairs and improvements designed to reduce or remove barriers and promote greater access to public spaces, goods and services.’ Planters may create barriers for people with disabilities who rely on visual cues and space to travel along the sidewalks. Another concern is that there is no mention of what standards will be specified in the tender. Some of you voted to keep the loading/unloading zone on Dalhousie Street for accessibility reasons, so why not commit to accessibility and persons with disabilities in this instance and hold public consultations?”

January 29: Councillor Pouget asked questions at the council meeting and acknowledged receipt of my concerns and question regarding why they are not consulting with the public according to the AODA. 

The clerk responded and stated, in part, if they were building a rest area, they would have an obligation to consult with the public of course and mentioned feedback mechanisms. When Councillor Pouget asked how they would reach out to the people in our community to ask them, the clerk’s answer was, in part, so in this case we’re not required to consult with the public. We’re looking at perhaps maybe 20 feet of brick sidewalk that we would lift and reset in the same place where it currently exists. So there’s no requirement in the act to deal with the sidewalk as an exterior route of travel. It’s with regards to rest areas that would be placed along the sidewalk and we’re not impacting a rest area. So this time, the consultations that exist in terms of the committees are all that that is recommended. 

May 12 email to council members: I have some concerns about the Richmond Street sidewalk repairs. Shouldn’t rest areas be more important than more planters?

I repeated my January email, I urged council to embrace the spirit of the AODA and consult the public regarding Richmond Street sidewalk repairs even though the report to council did not mention public consultation in accordance with the AODA’s Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation regarding exterior paths of travel, rest areas:

‘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: 

  1. the public and persons with disabilities.
  2. a municipal accessibility advisory committee if one exits.’

May 27 Council Meeting: As a delegate regarding Murray Street: If you plan to redevelop the area, I urge you to hold public consultations for on and off street parking and rest areas. You might decide there’s no requirement to consult the public and people with disabilities. But nothing in the legislation prevents our municipality from exceeding the minimal AODA standards and why wouldn’t you? Last spring Mayor Prue referenced the AODA 2025 deadline and acknowledged in this town we have not brought it into force. Why not? You have an opportunity now to prevent barriers and increase inclusion.

August 29: a reader sent me photos of the Richmond Street rest areas along with some comments: placing a bench on the “repair” by the Scotia bank totally blocks the normal flow of the sidewalk and we have no idea what the “curb” on the repair is for, unless it’s going to be for a bicycle rack. It also slopes downward toward Bathurst now. The repair farther down by the bank on Dalhousie is a bit better, as the bench sits closer to the building and doesn’t impede pedestrian traffic quite as much.

photo 1 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repair

photo 2 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repair
photo 3 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repair
photo 4 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repair
photo 5 by reader of Richmond St. sidewalk repair

August 30: emailed council to request an explanation for not consulting the public and people with disabilities regarding the design and placement of rest areas along Richmond Street. 

August 30: Councillor Pouget responded that there was probably not any consultation at all.  She said she raised the issue at a Council meeting and the clerk explained there was no rest area.

September 20: emailed council: I would still appreciate an answer to my August 30 question to council: what is the explanation for not consulting the public and persons with disabilities regarding the design and placement of rest area along Richmond Street?  

September 27: emailed Critchley another week has passed and I would still appreciate answers.

October 2: CAO Critchley emailed, With respect to the rest areas along Richmond Street, these were created while doing a larger construction project that was subject to a timeline which unfortunately did not allow for consultation.

RECAP October 15 Council Meeting

Posted on by

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.

Mayor Prue’s Stance On Provincial Grant Funding

Posted on by

During the October 15 council meeting discussion of a provincial grant, Mayor Prue passed the gavel to speak. Following comments he made about MPP Leardi and Premier Ford which, in my opinion, were unprofessional I reached out to MPP Leardi, who responded.

Unofficial transcript of Prue’s speech: (listen to the audio).

I’m going to pass the gavel because I want to speak to this. I’m going to support this. And I know that some people say, oh, he just wants to spend the money. No, I also want to save the money. If we put in this application now, we are eligible for 50% funding from the province. If we don’t put it in now and we wait, which was suggested, we’re going to get zero. So am I going to say to the people of Amherstburg I said I’m going to, you know, we should just wait and maybe next year or the year after, we can see whether we have enough money at that point and forego the $500,000 from the province of Ontario, absolutely not. It is very difficult and anyone who sat around this table over many years will know it’s very difficult at budget time to try to do all the competing interests. But never once did I ever, in all of my years see a politician refuse provincial or federal money when it was there, and I don’t think we should be just saying cavalierly, no, we’re not going to even apply, because if we don’t do this tonight, we can’t, we can’t even apply. Might as well kiss it goodbye, and I am not going to kiss that money goodbye. It’s difficult enough waiting for Provincial funds. And every year our funding from the province goes down. Every year it gets less and less and less. And somebody sent me something from Facebook, and I was rather appalled so many people in Amherstburg commenting how wonderful Mr. Leardi was making sure we were getting 200 or $2 million from OCIF. That’s the least amount we’ve got in the last 10 years. Every year it goes down. Every year it goes down. And yet there are people who congratulate him for pushing it down. When I went to the to the AMO conference, there’s the Premier up there, big and bold as could possibly be, bragging that in his four years as Premier, he’s never had to raise taxes once, no, because he doesn’t fund things like municipalities anymore. And then we have to turn around and do the best we can. So when this rare opportunity comes for $500,000 I’m going to take it and I’m going to support this tonight so that we can get that 500,000. If we don’t get it, I know what we’re going to have to do instead. I don’t like it, but I want to see that place built right out if it can be done, I’ll take the gavel back.

MPP Leardi’s response was: Thank you for letting me know about Mr. Prue’s comments. I don’t think he has a full understanding of the millions of dollars that Amherstbug gets in infrastructure grants. Below is a breakdown. The infrastructure grants effectively doubled in 2022. In infrastructure grants alone, Amherstburg has received over $16 million from the Ford government. 

RECAP: September 23 Council Meeting

Posted on by

It was another dumpster fire. The usual time wasters: passing the gavel, long-winded speeches, raising a question, which was really just a comment, confusion about motions, both reconsideration and notices of motion, staff interjecting, and kudos after kudos to staff for a job well done – jobs that they are compensated for. One new twist; Councillor McArthur asked Councillor Pouget to retract a comment that he felt was an attack on the clerk.

First up, a decision had to be made; should the agenda order be changed to allow presenters to go first ahead of delegations? Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb felt that since they were paying people to be there he preferred they deal with those first and that carried.

First presentation, Valente, took about 20 minutes to talk about future plans for incorporating a new town hall into the former General Amherst high school.

Second presentation, the space needs study, lasted for about 12 minutes and appeared to tie in with Valente’s presentation since the preferred location of a new town hall would be Bill Wigle Park area.

Following the space needs study presentation, Councillor Pouget had a question about the presenters’ page 57, which stated:

AODA stands for the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005. It’s a law that sets out accessibility standards for organizations in Ontario. The aim of AODA is to make Ontario more accessible and inclusive for people with disabilities. The Act requires organizations to identify, remove and prevent barriers for people with disabilities. The Government of Ontario was targeting making the province accessible by 2025. However, this has been extended to 2030.

Pouget said she checked all the documents, and couldn’t find that they extended it by five years; the last she was aware was that AODA had to be completed by 2025. She asked if they could guide her to find that document.

The presenter did not answer and Mayor Michael Prue acknowledged the clerk. He explained that he thinks the reference to the 2030 is from the Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility, and the recent findings that they have found that the province of Ontario will not meet the sort of objective of achieving compliance across the board by 2025 in the province of Ontario, and so they have stressed the need to not extend it beyond 2030 and have set that as the goal and benchmark. Certainly that’s the province of Ontario’s goal.

Pouget’s follow up question was, so has it actually been extended? Or are they just speaking on the issue? The clerk continued: So the requirements to comply with accessibility take effect when you build or significantly renovate any structure. And so those exist today and will continue to exist. You know, something like this town hall was required to meet accessible requirements when it was built, and should it be significantly renovated or rebuilt, it would be required to meet those standards. You know, as a town that provides goods and services to members of the public and employees personnel, you want to ensure that you’re putting your best foot forward. So it’s not necessarily about whether the town is in compliance or not, because it might legally be compliant, but it’s about setting yourself to achieve the goal of the province in making it equitable and fair to all by making accessibility the target in every public space.

Pouget then asked about the recommendation to demolish Toddy Jones Park and Bill Wagle Park washrooms and where would washrooms be located? Answer: within a new town hall. Pouget then asked if the presenters were aware of the Bill Wigle Park’s 1949 deed’s stipulation that if it’s not used as a park the deed would revert back to the federal government.

Gibb thanked the presenters for taking a 133 page report and putting it down to a 16 page presentation. He was curious if the town owned 36 buildings were more than average for a town this size? about average? Less than average? Answer: it’s more than average. As is his style, Councillor McArthur editorialized before he inquired about the Libro not being selected. It was noted that the Gordon House, owned by the town, was excluded from the space needs study.

Prue passed the gavel to ask a question, which was really just a comment. He didn’t want people to be horrified and frightened. You mentioned a $64 million cost, but I see that almost a huge portion of that was in 2074, 50 years from now. Okay, so I just want people who are watching there on television, you know, to remember that the only upfront cost that you’re actually talking about in the next five or so years would be the town hall and even the Libro is 10 years from now.

Prue then apologized that it had taken a long time but now they would get to the delegates. (Another argument in favour of revisiting the restrictive procedural by-law would be to initiate time limits for presentations, which aren’t defined in the by-law. While they’re looking at that, they should also implement time limits for their own speeches like other municipalities do.)

Following John Menna’s delegation, there was confusion about whether a motion could be reconsidered. Prue asked if anybody had any comment on that and said, The clerk’s advice, I generally find his advice, although not always welcome, is always right. Pouget said not always and then Prue acknowledged Pouget, who said she had questions for administration.
 
McArthur should get a cheerleading for staff award; he actually asked Pouget to retract her comment, that it was an attack on their clerk. (Last year Mcarthur mentioned they were acting like delegates were urinating on the rug.  Listen to the audio. Weren’t members of council just asking the delegates questions? No one admonished him for that comment.)
 
Pouget said it was not an attack on the clerk and Prue said he didn’t hear it. Pouget asked if she could proceed asking administration questions and Prue said they couldn’t reconsider and then Prue referenced the rules. Pouget reminded Prue that he said the clerk is always right and she said not always; none of us are always right so she didn’t know what the problem was.

Prue advised McArthur that he wouldn’t allow it because he didn’t know that that is serious enough to be offensive. He said he admires the clerk’s expertise, and he’s not ever sent him wrong in the six years he’s been here and he wasn’t the clerk the whole time, but he was the deputy clerk, and he’s never sent him wrong, and he has to unless there’s information the contrary take his advice. And is he always right? No, you’re right. He’s a human being. We are all wrong once in a while, but I don’t know whether he is on this issue. Okay, so I’m not going to ask you to retract that, but your point of order was well taken Councillor McArthur.

Prue’s wife had submitted a delegation request and although she was present, she did not speak after all. Two other Belle Vue Conservancy members spoke instead. Marc Pillon also delegated about Belle Vue.

Financials, more reports, more kudos to staff, more speeches, (is it campaign time already?), more confusion about a motion, more excuses about a lack of accessibility at the Gordon House: due to the age of the building and how it was constructed, to keep the historical integrity, you would not be able to make the building totally accessible without doing major modifications, which would then go against the historical preservation of the building. So we could do things to try to modify access ways, but again, that would be modifying the building, and again, you would have to apply, probably, to the government, for permission to do so.

A no from Gibb and Crain to allow someone in the gallery to speak. Gibb maintains it’s an equity issue and repeated what he said before: I do not think it is equitable to allow people to just raise their hand and speak when others have registered as delegations and people are watching online who may have physical limitations that don’t allow them to be here in person. I’m sorry, but I just think it’s an equity issue that I cannot support.

That should’ve been the end of it but Crain chimed in with if there’s any residents that are looking to speak with us on matters of the agenda, please register in advance or approach us directly offline. (good luck with that; he so rarely answers my emails. Besides, you can’t just delegate on agenda matters; they voted on a restrictive procedural by-law that requires delegates to only speak to admin reports or by-laws listed on the agendas). Then Prue said he wasn’t going to allow a debate. (because rules are rules).

Two notices of motion were dealt with.

I could probably create a template for meetings since so many of them are so similar and predictable.

Mayor Prue’s Response to Open Air Complaints and Lawsuit Inquiry

Posted on by

I requested Mayor Prue’s comments about Open Air complaints and former CAO Peter Simmons’ lawsuit, which he answered below.

  • how many complaints about open air have you received?
    Prue: I have received less than 10 complaints including your own, since becoming Mayor.
  • how many complaints about open air has the town received?
    Prue: I do not have that statistic. We have a seven member Council and many paid staff.
  • what are your comments regarding peter simmons’ lawsuit against the town?
    Prue: I have no comment as this is a personnel matter.  This was clearly enunciated by the Town’s CAO to you, in the past few weeks.

Follow-up question:

Regarding answer 2: if you don’t have the statistics of complaints the town has received, do you feel you’d be making a well-informed decision about what is in the best interest of the town?

Regarding answer 3: I did not ask the CAO for a comment; I asked if she could confirm the claim against the town by former CAO Peter Simmons. I only asked you for comments about it since you’re the official spokesperson.