Kingsbridge Sidewalks: Accessibility and Inspection Inquiries

Posted on by

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.

Ribfest Controversy in Downtown Amherstburg | Residents Demand Answers

Posted on by

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

Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee’s Motion vs. Administration Report

Posted on by

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.

  1. Shouldn’t rest areas be more important than more planters?

    In 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.’
  3. Why use AODA Compliance Reserve Fund?

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. 

  • Which recommendation should prevail?

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.

  • What type of motion is required?

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?

I Am Not A Piece Of Paper

Posted on by

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. 

Town of Amherstburg Joined The ‘Banned’ Wagon

Posted on by

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.

41 Minute Efficient Council Meeting

Posted on by

No, not Amherstburg. The May 1 County of Essex Council meeting lasted 41 minutes. It was a short agenda but still, there was no passing the gavel, no admin whispering into the chair’s ear, no wait a minute the CAO, clerk or other employee wants to speak, no long winded speeches, no multiple or repetitive comments on the same topic, no confusion about motions. Just efficient handling of business at hand. Deputy Mayor Gibb did share a personal anecdote about one of his daughters, although I’m not sure why; what has that got to do with the issue?

Preferential Treatment Of Delegates

Posted on by

The April 22 council meeting seemed typical: Prue passing the gavel, speeches guised as questions, confusion about whether motions were made, the difference between notices of motions and motions, personal anecdotes, windbaggery, and Deputy Mayor Gibb’s refusal to allow an audience member wanting to speak. I expected once again Councillor Crain would be the one to object. But what stood out was the preferential treatment of delegate Linda DiPasquale, who spoke for 8 minutes and 40 seconds. At no time did the mayor stop her after the procedural by-law mandatory 5 minute limit and ask for a motion to continue as required.

This wasn’t the first time a delegate was welcome to exceed the time limit. The Amherstburg Soccer Club’s delegation at council’s March 14, 2022 meeting was 18 minutes, followed by a 48 minute question and answer session with members of council and staff for a total of 66 minutes.

Open Air Approved/Not Approved

Posted on by

Open Air was approved during budget, according to Deputy Mayor Gibb, but Councillor Pouget stated it was not approved. Where’s the motion?

On March 26, the day after the March 25 council meeting discussion of Open Air, I requested the information below from CAO Critchley, who answered on Saturday during the long weekend, noted in blue after each request.

  1. council’s motion to approve Open Air for 2024. 
    All motions were referenced in the report that went to Council on March 25, 2024, a copy of which can be found on the Town website.
  2. the cost of open air for 2023. 
    This information is contained in the presentation  made by the Director of Development/Deputy CAO at the Council Meeting of March 25, 2024, which presentation will be attached to the Minutes of this meeting. The Minutes of the meeting will be available on the website once approved by Council.
  3. what undue hardship the town would endure if open air ended. 
    As the words used in this question have a particular meaning in law, I will refrain from answering it in this venue.
  4. any documentation that administration included the exclusion of people with disabilities as a risk in an open air risk analysis. 
    The footprint for Open Air was reviewed by the Accessibility Advisory Committee in December 2023. The minutes of that meeting are also available on the website.

    I emailed back: Question 3 does have meaning in law but that shouldn’t prevent you from answering it; you didn’t answer question 4 which should be yes or no and if yes, include documentation. I didn’t ask about the accessibility committee that, as everyone should be aware, cannot speak on behalf of council or administration. I specifically asked about administration.

Don’t Like The Rules? Object!

Posted on by

The Heritage Committee has drafted a council resolution, something that I would have thought was outside the committee’s mandate. It seems ironic that residents are expected to comply with the rules, including the more restrictive Procedural By-law, but provincial rules are sometimes met with objections from the town.

April 10, 2024 Council Agenda iincludes: 17.1 Heritage Committee Meeting Minutes – March 21, 2024

  • The Heritage Committee recommends that:
  • The following Council Resolution BE ADOPTED and BE CIRCULATED as appropriate:

WHEREAS Subsection 27(16) of the Ontario Heritage Act stipulates that any non-designated heritage property listed on the municipal register of properties as of December 31, 2022 shall be removed from the municipal register on or before January 1, 2025, if the Council of the municipality does not give a notice of intention to designate the property under subsection 29(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act on or before January 1, 2025.

WHEREAS Since January 1, 2023, municipal staff and members of the municipal heritage committee in this municipality have been diligently working to: review the municipal heritage register; research the heritage value and interest of listed (non-designated) properties; review and research the heritage value and interest of non-designated properties; contact owners of such properties; determine which properties should potentially be designated in accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; and take all required steps to designate such properties; and

WHEREAS the above-noted work involving 125 listed properties in this municipality is extremely time consuming and cannot be completed by December 31, 2024 with the limited municipal resources available.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

This Council authorize Administration to send a letter to Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, and Michael Ford, Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, requesting that Subsection 27(16) of the Ontario Heritage Act be amended to extend the above-noted deadline for five years from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2030.

The Town of Amherstburg already requested two extension requests for the legislated website accessibility compliance deadline.