Tag Archives: Chris Gibb

Richmond Street Corridor Sidewalk Rehabilitation Funding Debate

Posted on by

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.

    Deputy Mayor Gibb’s Flip-Flop On Traffic Study

    Posted on by

    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:

    • what if the county wants to change the speed limit to 50 kilometres an hour?
    • How is that going to affect companies like Diageo?
    • How is that going to change traffic patterns and have people move from County Road 20 perhaps onto our concession roads that that aren’t prepared for that kind of traffic?
    • How is that going to affect the commuting time of 1000s of people who commute on that road every day?

      He felt in their haste they may have opened themselves up to something that an upper level of government is going to force upon them before they’ve had a chance to discuss it amongst themselves. (But the chance to discuss it was on April 22 during the town council meeting).

    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.

    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.

    Open Air – If They Vote How Will They Vote?

    Posted on by

    The Open Air Report is on tonight’s meeting agenda and I predict another majority vote in favour, not necessarily a 4-3 vote.

    Everyone on council knows about the accessibility issues because everyone is aware of the number of times I complained, despite the rebuttals; but now the survey results indicate more people have noted the accessibility and parking concerns.

    Councillor Crain: I’ll start with the sole opposition to this survey. In August, Crain said he can’t grasp why Open Air specifically; they’ve done an Open Air survey for residents and businesses so he felt a survey just on Open Air seems to be wasting staff time.

    CAO Critchley confirmed in an email that they have surveyed visitors and the businesses inside and outside the footprint but not a resident wide survey.

    On February 22, Crain asked staff, hasn’t the past Council already looked at ways to refine open air and that’s why some of the barricades were moved in closer? This feels a bit redundant to me if this has already been looked at by council. And from last night and from what we’ve been hearing, it’s pretty clear that the format is great. But based on my understanding, council’s already looked at this.

    Crain was part of the team that created the THRIVE Open Air white paper; from the THRIVE website, ‘We believe that it should be a permanent summer feature.’ 

    On March 13, Crain said he didn’t even think Open Air should have been a topic of discussion. He also thought they shouldn’t even be discussing this every year because eventually it’s going to be nothing.

    On September 16, I asked Crain if he considered declaring a conflict of interest for Open Air discussions involving the event itself and the survey? No response.

    As a candidate, in answer to one of the burg watch 2022 campaign questions to the candidates asking if they will remove barriers during Open Air weekends, Crain said yes. He voted in favour.

    Councillor McArthur: has happily and consistently championed Open Air. As council’s rep to the Accessibility Advisory Committee, I expected he would advocate to remove barriers. He spewed out the statistics from an admin report on the number of parking spaces within a six-minute walking radius. ‘If there are persisting issues with accessibility, let’s work collaboratively to address them in consultation with the Town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee.’ But he’s on the committee. He voted in favour.

    Deputy Mayor Gibb: wears a few hats: business owner, chamber of commerce member, family member, elected official but he publicly admitted he’s a huge fan. While he emailed, as Deputy Mayor, that he was ‘proud to say that I did complete the ADOA training that was offered to all members of council and I hope to put what I learned into practice not only in my “municipal life” but also in my personal life. And then he said, Open Air makes the downtown more accessible for people with in at least in wheelchairs because his mother-in-law and father-in-law both live at Richmond Terrace and he’s personally pushed a wheelchair from Richmond Terrace downtown. He voted in favour.

    Mayor Prue: has given a few speeches at council meetings about being in the legislature when the AODA was introduced decades ago. He stated he has never seen any problem with access and cited his wife as Chair of the Accessibility Committee. I have discussed it with her, she has never once said that there was any accessibility problem brought to that committee or anyone on the committee. He acknowledged one complainant, but he doesn’t necessarily agree with what’s being said; so it is accessible.

    Prue asked council to find it in their hearts to compromise with the other side; he broke the tie vote in favour.

    Councillor Pouget: has consistently acknowledged the town’s obligation to remove barriers that prevent people with disabilities from equally participating in the community.

    Councillor Courtney: has also acknowledged the importance of accessibility, removing barriers and considering the interests of the whole community.

    Councillor Allaire: considered pros and cons and seemed to want to compromise in favour of a shorter time frame.

    Deputy Mayor Gibb And Councillor McArthur Flip-Flop On Gallery Members Speaking

    Posted on by

    It was only two weeks earlier, at the September 11 council meeting, that both Gibb and McArthur spoke against and voted against allowing gallery member Larry Amlin to speak; both voted to allow Bolger to speak at the September 25 council meeting.

    Mayor Prue acknowledged there were no delegates at the September 25 meeting, just one Presentation – Mr. Norbert Bolger. Prue then asked Bolger to come forward and stated just before he did, he needed a motion from council to bring forward items 13.2 and 19.1 which both deal with the matter at hand; it carried and Prue told Bolger the floor was his.

    Bolger then stated he was not going to make a presentation; he was just going to be there to answer any questions; he explained that he sent a letter in to the town and everybody has it. He also said he’s talked to some members of council regarding the naming of the street, one of the streets in Brittney’s Gate. He went to the heritage committee and got their endorsement on it so he was there for the final endorsement from council and if there’s any questions he’d be happy to answer.

    Prue asked if there were any questions of Mr. Bolger, stated there were no questions, and as Prue thanked him, Bolger took his seat in the gallery and Prue said it was back to council.

    Prue asked if there was any discussion on the issue and there was for approximately 8 minutes; Councillor Pouget spoke, then Councillor Crain, Councillor Courtney, Prue passed the gavel and directly addressed Bolger, who went back up to the podium, then Crain again, Clerk, Deputy CAO, and then Bolger raised his hand and said something inaudible. Prue said it would require the unanimous consent of council.

    The motion to allow a member of the gallery to speak carried.

    After Bolger briefly spoke, Pouget asked a question and Bolger returned to the podium to answer her question; Prue didn’t call him out of order – Prue echoed Bolger’s answer.

    Related: September 11 Council Meeting RECAP Part 1

    Three Councillors Campaigned To Remove Barriers During Open Air

    Posted on by

    The burg watch Open Air posts’ viewing statistics have increased, particularly then-candidates’ opinions, which is worth repeating.

    Will you remove barriers during Open Air weekends that block people with disabilities from driving to the bank, local stores, bars, and generally driving through town?

    1. Councillor Peter Courtney: Of course I would!
    2. Councillor Diane Pouget: Yes, I am definitely in favor of removing barriers for people with disabilities during Open Air.  The fact that 51% of the businesses in the downtown core want the closure of streets for 3 days on weekends and 4 days on long weekends from May to September is unreasonable and unfair.  This is especially true, since 49% claim that Open Air hurts their business, especially their clients with disability issues.  Further to that, the taxpayers are footing the bill to hurt our most vulnerable residents.  It was disappointing to learn that only one person with a disability was consulted. This is unfair and must be revisited.
    3. Councillor Linden Crain: Yes. It is important that all members of the community can experience Open Air. If there are particular barriers in place, I am more than willing to investigate further and help find a solution.

    Councillor Donald McArthur: If there are persisting issues with accessibility, let’s work collaboratively to address them in consultation with the Town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee. Let’s not give up on something that engages our youth while promoting economic development, something that sets our Town apart in a positive way and creates the sort of bustling environment where a hotel cannot only open but flourish.

    Councillor Molly Allaire: I love Open Air Weekends, my family partakes every weekend for sure. I will be honest after going door to door my eyes have been opened up to a great deal of problems in our town that I was unaware of. Open air has many positives and negatives. I think the blockades that they created this year allow better parking for the majority. We could make it more accessible for people with disabilities by blocking off the waterfront parking area specifically for them allowing closer access to amenities. I also believe that open air is wonderful but should only be one day instead of 3. Many residents say that it is more of a nuisance trying to get to their bank, business, home etc. Business owners have stated that their business has actually done worse during these hours because lack of access to the area. I think having it one day would be a fair compromise and make it still an event for people to come and enjoy.

    No Answers:

    Mayor Michael Prue
    Deputy Mayor Gibb

    Candidates Address Rumours

    Posted on by

    There are so many active discussions online about the candidates, in addition to the coffee shops, compared to 2014 when I first facilitated questions from residents to candidates.

    Lately, I’ve spent more time online than I care to in an attempt to be better informed and the same rumours keep popping up.

    I reached out to two candidates; I specifically asked Mayoral Candidate John Laframboise if he would provide his phone number for people to call regarding questions and/or rumours. I specifically asked Deputy Mayoral Candidate Chris Gibb if he would address rumours appearing online.

    I won’t duplicate the rumours here but I provided screen shots and or mentioned the online location of them and both candidates were happy to grant me permission to post their responses.

    Mayoral Candidate John Laframboise

    I served as ”the Volunteer President of the Assumption Heritage Trust Foundation“ appointed by the Foundation Board. I resigned June 2012 along with ALL FOUNDATION BOARD MEMBERS …after Bishop Fabbro CANCELLED more than 2 MILLION DOLLARS in Pledges to the Campaign.

    We were actively soliciting 12 Million Dollars of ASKS at the time.

    The Windsor Community Foundation pledged $135,000, The City of Windsor Heritage Fund pledged $250,000, Assumption Parish pledged $567,000, The Baker Foundation $ 100,000, Riverview Steel $100,000, to name a few.

    Jeff Baker was the Lawyer for the Foundation and Jerome Brannigan, Deputy Police Chief City of Windsor was the Treasurer …very easy to VERIFY what I am saying is true!

    Unfortunately the Windsor Star buried the truth in the Paper months later.

    I would be pleased to SHOW the Final Report and audit by Price Waterhouse to anyone.

    John Laframboise 519 259-3636

    Deputy Mayoral Candidate Chris Gibb

    I was asked by the Town to sit on a committee, with many others, to review the resumes of the people who applied to be Amherstburg’s CAO back at that time. The committee reviewed the applicants and then presented John Miceli as the most qualified applicant at the time. He was eventually hired by Town Council. I have attached a copy of the Council meeting minutes showing which councillors voted for and against his hiring.

    As far as the rumours regarding the police bill, for those saying that I owe the town money, that is a lie. I do not, nor have I ever owed the town any money. I was part of a group of volunteers that were asked by the Town to run a festival. We were then presented with, what we felt, was an unjustified bill from the Amherstburg Police. We disputed the bill with the police board and with the town. It is actually quite an interesting story for anyone who has had dealings with the former Amherstburg Police Services Board.

    If you ever want to get together to discuss these issues further I would be glad to sit down with you.

    Chris Gibb

    Miceli hiring_1

    Copyright – this information is protected by Canada’s Copyright Act. Request written permission from the burg watch at gmail dot com.