0
Six hours, patios and procedural morass
01 December 2009
[indent]
Six gruelling hours at the table, Monday. And we didn't even get through the whole agenda.
It began with a lengthy discussion over Heritage Park from the Development Committee minutes - I asked why weren't some of the environmental standards that were chosen for the new Library also incorporated in the buildings? Like the green roof! We set a high standard with the Library, now we should stick to it. But that was a touchy subject that set off a spark that would come back later in our debate on the downtown patios.
Another issue that I brought up in that discussion was a comment about keeping in mind a redirection of Third Street. The developers of the west end commercial zone want Third Street rerouted to cut through the park to align with their current intersection into Home Depot. That way they don't have to pay to move to the traffic signal to Third Street (and you, the taxpayer pick up the tab for the engineering). That would mean a third of the park would be isolated and likely be sold for residential development. The town would lose green space (the west end would lose valuable park land) and the developers would benefit.
Council had already vetoed that idea in earlier discussions (I for one will not vote to sell park land). Why was it even mentioned in the committee meeting? However, from his comments, Councillor Labelle seemed to think it was a good idea, and wanted it considered in future Development Committee meetings about this property, even though council already rejected it
Another lengthy discussion bubbled up over sister city committees and relationships - without ever once actually getting to the real question: what is our municipal commitment to these three relationships?
A staff report was prepared, and will be followed by yet another staff report about what to do next. I recommended we advertise for members of a sister city organization to try and judge public support from the response. That was shot down. We ran in circles around the question, but never dealt with a key issue: does the municipality support these relationships? If so, then we can proceed to formalize them. If not, we can debate how to distance ourselves from them or even terminate them. But council waffled around and around without ever answering that.
Waffling. It's usually a sign an election is looming. It is commonly identified by the use of egregious verbiage to mask indecision.
The big issue for most council watchers this week was the debate over location of the downtown patios. And of course we waffled again, without making a decision.
The BIA made a presentation, supporting the proposed design that has the patios pushed towards the curb. The BIA said every restaurant owner they had spoken to was now in agreement with this decision - which contradicts the phone calls I got last week. One downtown restaurant owner has a petition with 1,000 signatures asking for patios to remain beside the buildings. A 400-signature petition was presented to the BIA on November 4, but the executive seems to have ignored it. And the CAO noted that NO correspondence "advocating on behalf of the change in patio location" had been received.
The BIA says it is working on a plan to help "ease" the transition. That includes buying lockable wet-bars for licensed patios (servers will NOT be able to carry alcohol across the public space for the purpose of serving). And the BIA would purchase umbrellas for the tables, then lease them back to the bar owners. So it means more cost for the owners, which in turn gets passed along to you, the consumer. The BIA mentioned the possibility of interest-free loans, but even without interest, it's still an added expense to the businesses. No mention of reimbursement for those businesses that already spent thousands of dollars buying awnings for their current patios.
No mention was made about helping cover costs for getting a new liquor licence ($685 per restaurant), or covering the costs of the extra liability insurance the town will likely need to carry if they are moved. Nor the cost for each restaurant of getting new letters of compliance from fire and health departments (or the time and inconvenience of having to do it again).
Our CAO had made an excellent staff report covering the pros and cons of the proposed change. While acknowledging the benefits of the additional open space, she stressed the "risk and increased liability" the town would have taken on. As well, she noted that moving the patios to the curb side would be "a first" for Ontario municipalities. The CAO recommended allowing licensed patios to stay where they are.
Patios against the store fronts aren't a problem right now with the narrower sidewalks. But widening the sidewalk seems to have engineered them into a contentious issue.
The BIA is saying that, with wider sidewalks, the patio width will have to be reduced on a wider sidewalk. That makes NO SENSE to me at all. Patios can be 2.5m wide right now. Moved towards the curb, they can be a maximum 2.4m, and their area is reduced by the requirement for the lockable wet bar. Geoff Shearer, chair of the BIA, said patios against the building must be reduced to 1.8m even though the sidewalk is a metre wider. If that's the case, why are we wasting money widening the sidewalks?
The discussion spun its wheels in the procedural sand for more than an hour. The mayor determined that, since I had brought up the issue Sept. 14, and asked for the staff report on the liability issues (to which council had agreed), and it had been discussed again, Sept. 21, that the issue was already under reconsideration and did not require the usual procedural kerfuffle to bring an issue back to the table. This didn't sit well with two of the change's proponents - Councillors Jeffrey and McNabb. Both argued at length against the mayor's decision (arrived at after 20 minuted closeted with the clerk and CAO).
McNabb also requested a legal opinion about whether it was legal for the mayor to do so - another waste of your tax dollars. And on top of that, he deferred the discussion and demanded ANOTHER staff report about the patios. What more the CAO can provide, I don't know.
I just wish we hadn't gone around in circles debating about debating and made a decision instead. It seems there are those who aren't satisfied until a report says what they want it to say.*
Councillor Jeffrey commented she didn't want to set a precedent by re-opening issues that had already been decided (as some of us at the table remembered it, the design was approved in principle, with the understanding that the location of the patios was still to be determined). Deputy Mayor Cooper responded that this council had already set a precedent by re-opening the Admiral Collingwood debate and repealling its permits. That led our mayor to snap at her that was a different situation and was done in response to an OMB challenge.** That difference is rather subjective. I certainly don't see it. But of course, since he filed the motion to repeal those approvals, he will defend it, even though it meant we've had a hole on the main street for the past four years, instead of a vibrant development full of people, businesses and generating revenue and taxes for the town.
Both Councillors Jeffrey and McNabb voted to repeal the Admiral approvals, by the way, and had no issues re-opening the discussion then. That was then, this is now, right?
Councillor Foley also commented that, if we could re-open the debate on patios, he should be allowed to re-open the debate on Heritage Park - he's adamantly against its redevelopment. He never passes up an opportunity to comment on it.
And to end the night, we went in camera to hear a potential legal issue about municipal property, a meeting that should have taken five, maybe 10 minutes, but took a lot longer because of the volubility of some members, even when comment is not required. By the time we got out, it was too late to complete the menu unless council approved a one-hour extension (it never does).
I got home about 11:20 p.m. After starting my work day at 8 a.m., I was pretty well exhausted.
~~~~~
* The parking report was received by the committee a year before it was presented to council. But the committee didn't like its conclusions, so it sent it back to be rewritten. The mayor sits as council rep on that committee.
** The challenge was filed by VOTE, a special interest group supported by the mayor when he was councillor. As a councillor, and vocal supporter of VOTE, Chris Carrier publicly donated $100 to VOTE to help them in their OMB challenge against the town. As to whether the town would have won the challenge or not - advice I received is that the town would have won, and could have claimed costs against the group. I'm sure it's just coincidence that the group - which was so vocal about what it perceived as abuses of position and process last term - has not uttered a peep of protest over any such abuses this term. But perhaps the disappearance of their Website presages the group's dissolution.[/indent]
It began with a lengthy discussion over Heritage Park from the Development Committee minutes - I asked why weren't some of the environmental standards that were chosen for the new Library also incorporated in the buildings? Like the green roof! We set a high standard with the Library, now we should stick to it. But that was a touchy subject that set off a spark that would come back later in our debate on the downtown patios.
Another issue that I brought up in that discussion was a comment about keeping in mind a redirection of Third Street. The developers of the west end commercial zone want Third Street rerouted to cut through the park to align with their current intersection into Home Depot. That way they don't have to pay to move to the traffic signal to Third Street (and you, the taxpayer pick up the tab for the engineering). That would mean a third of the park would be isolated and likely be sold for residential development. The town would lose green space (the west end would lose valuable park land) and the developers would benefit.
Council had already vetoed that idea in earlier discussions (I for one will not vote to sell park land). Why was it even mentioned in the committee meeting? However, from his comments, Councillor Labelle seemed to think it was a good idea, and wanted it considered in future Development Committee meetings about this property, even though council already rejected it
Another lengthy discussion bubbled up over sister city committees and relationships - without ever once actually getting to the real question: what is our municipal commitment to these three relationships?
A staff report was prepared, and will be followed by yet another staff report about what to do next. I recommended we advertise for members of a sister city organization to try and judge public support from the response. That was shot down. We ran in circles around the question, but never dealt with a key issue: does the municipality support these relationships? If so, then we can proceed to formalize them. If not, we can debate how to distance ourselves from them or even terminate them. But council waffled around and around without ever answering that.
Waffling. It's usually a sign an election is looming. It is commonly identified by the use of egregious verbiage to mask indecision.
The BIA made a presentation, supporting the proposed design that has the patios pushed towards the curb. The BIA said every restaurant owner they had spoken to was now in agreement with this decision - which contradicts the phone calls I got last week. One downtown restaurant owner has a petition with 1,000 signatures asking for patios to remain beside the buildings. A 400-signature petition was presented to the BIA on November 4, but the executive seems to have ignored it. And the CAO noted that NO correspondence "advocating on behalf of the change in patio location" had been received.
The BIA says it is working on a plan to help "ease" the transition. That includes buying lockable wet-bars for licensed patios (servers will NOT be able to carry alcohol across the public space for the purpose of serving). And the BIA would purchase umbrellas for the tables, then lease them back to the bar owners. So it means more cost for the owners, which in turn gets passed along to you, the consumer. The BIA mentioned the possibility of interest-free loans, but even without interest, it's still an added expense to the businesses. No mention of reimbursement for those businesses that already spent thousands of dollars buying awnings for their current patios.
No mention was made about helping cover costs for getting a new liquor licence ($685 per restaurant), or covering the costs of the extra liability insurance the town will likely need to carry if they are moved. Nor the cost for each restaurant of getting new letters of compliance from fire and health departments (or the time and inconvenience of having to do it again).
Our CAO had made an excellent staff report covering the pros and cons of the proposed change. While acknowledging the benefits of the additional open space, she stressed the "risk and increased liability" the town would have taken on. As well, she noted that moving the patios to the curb side would be "a first" for Ontario municipalities. The CAO recommended allowing licensed patios to stay where they are.
Patios against the store fronts aren't a problem right now with the narrower sidewalks. But widening the sidewalk seems to have engineered them into a contentious issue.
The BIA is saying that, with wider sidewalks, the patio width will have to be reduced on a wider sidewalk. That makes NO SENSE to me at all. Patios can be 2.5m wide right now. Moved towards the curb, they can be a maximum 2.4m, and their area is reduced by the requirement for the lockable wet bar. Geoff Shearer, chair of the BIA, said patios against the building must be reduced to 1.8m even though the sidewalk is a metre wider. If that's the case, why are we wasting money widening the sidewalks?
The discussion spun its wheels in the procedural sand for more than an hour. The mayor determined that, since I had brought up the issue Sept. 14, and asked for the staff report on the liability issues (to which council had agreed), and it had been discussed again, Sept. 21, that the issue was already under reconsideration and did not require the usual procedural kerfuffle to bring an issue back to the table. This didn't sit well with two of the change's proponents - Councillors Jeffrey and McNabb. Both argued at length against the mayor's decision (arrived at after 20 minuted closeted with the clerk and CAO).
McNabb also requested a legal opinion about whether it was legal for the mayor to do so - another waste of your tax dollars. And on top of that, he deferred the discussion and demanded ANOTHER staff report about the patios. What more the CAO can provide, I don't know.
I just wish we hadn't gone around in circles debating about debating and made a decision instead. It seems there are those who aren't satisfied until a report says what they want it to say.*
Councillor Jeffrey commented she didn't want to set a precedent by re-opening issues that had already been decided (as some of us at the table remembered it, the design was approved in principle, with the understanding that the location of the patios was still to be determined). Deputy Mayor Cooper responded that this council had already set a precedent by re-opening the Admiral Collingwood debate and repealling its permits. That led our mayor to snap at her that was a different situation and was done in response to an OMB challenge.** That difference is rather subjective. I certainly don't see it. But of course, since he filed the motion to repeal those approvals, he will defend it, even though it meant we've had a hole on the main street for the past four years, instead of a vibrant development full of people, businesses and generating revenue and taxes for the town.
Both Councillors Jeffrey and McNabb voted to repeal the Admiral approvals, by the way, and had no issues re-opening the discussion then. That was then, this is now, right?
Councillor Foley also commented that, if we could re-open the debate on patios, he should be allowed to re-open the debate on Heritage Park - he's adamantly against its redevelopment. He never passes up an opportunity to comment on it.
And to end the night, we went in camera to hear a potential legal issue about municipal property, a meeting that should have taken five, maybe 10 minutes, but took a lot longer because of the volubility of some members, even when comment is not required. By the time we got out, it was too late to complete the menu unless council approved a one-hour extension (it never does).
I got home about 11:20 p.m. After starting my work day at 8 a.m., I was pretty well exhausted.
~~~~~
* The parking report was received by the committee a year before it was presented to council. But the committee didn't like its conclusions, so it sent it back to be rewritten. The mayor sits as council rep on that committee.
** The challenge was filed by VOTE, a special interest group supported by the mayor when he was councillor. As a councillor, and vocal supporter of VOTE, Chris Carrier publicly donated $100 to VOTE to help them in their OMB challenge against the town. As to whether the town would have won the challenge or not - advice I received is that the town would have won, and could have claimed costs against the group. I'm sure it's just coincidence that the group - which was so vocal about what it perceived as abuses of position and process last term - has not uttered a peep of protest over any such abuses this term. But perhaps the disappearance of their Website presages the group's dissolution.[/indent]
Dick Hill