Last night Collingwood town council cost me $10. Berman bet me that amount last week that the site remediation agreement for Admiral Collingwood Place would get deferred for another two weeks. I said that was impossible in an election year, even this council wouldn’t be that stupid. But sure enough as per Scoops “Liveblog: Collingwood Town Council” below, they did exactly that. (I keep forgetting Berman took his crystal ball back). This council (and I mean all of them) continue to flounder around on this issue. I personally think that this should now not be dealt with by this current council and should become an election issue. It seems that the continued kid glove treatment of this developer (there’s only one person they don’t want to upset) and the inability of this current administration to show an ounce of impartiality and leadership on the future of this property, seems a lot more important than the placement of a couple of patio’s ever was, which was the defining issue of the 2010 vote. I thought in the past, and some of you still think that the previous council was dysfunctional, read the following and tell me how “functional” this is:
Now getting to the site remediation agreement for Admiral. Time to strap in…
Lawyer Leo Longo updates, that there has been individual meetings with the landowners, and a joint meeting, on how best to proceed.
The options are to not grant a extension to the site remediation agreement – which ran out on April 30 – grant a one-year extension, or a two-year agreement.
Longo says any action by council to revise the agreement will require consent of other two landowners.
In front of council are two options: do extend, and for how long and for what conditions, or no extension, and how to proceed on that basis.
Councillor Lloyd putting forward the motion, to grant the extension for Admiral Collingwood Place for two years, and for the Strand side, one year.
Other requirements are for $10 million in insurance, and for a letter of credit to be deposited with the town.
Hull says he seconded the motion to put it on the table, but will not be supporting it.
Hull says he’s concerned this is the first time other councillors are being made aware of what is being proposed.
Longo says he met with senior staff and the mayor and deputy-mayor, and motion on the table similar to what he understood was coming forward.
Longo says “this is wording… that can be accommodated” from letter from Strandholt solicitor.
Gardhouse pointing out no one has heard the motion until now, so there is no reason to table it.
Notes we are now six or seven weeks into this, and the two developers don’t agree, and council can’t unilaterally change the agreement.
“The motion is just sitting there, and it’s an idea that was just thrown out there,” says Gardhouse.
Longo says what is being presented in the motion still has to be approved by the other two parties.
Otherwise we are in a situation where the existing agreement can be enforced. “What council is doing is not unilaterally extending the agreement… tell us what your decision is and we’ll try and implement as best we can,” says Longo.
Councillor Edwards says he won’t vote on the motion at this time, but wants more of an explanation. “This is a very involved situation,” he says. “I don’t want to vote on something I don’t fully understand what the implications are.”
He says this council should resolve the situation and not leave it to the next council.
Councillor West said what was agreed to in 2011 was what they thought in the best interest of town. Shouldn’t be “left hanging” and wants to know what he’s voting on as the conditions of the extension.
The motion on the table would ‘bifurcate’ the site remediation agreement, similar to how the site plan agreements were separated in 2011
D-M Lloyd says he believes the motion on the table is very clear.
He supports the motion, and believes important that this council needs to deal with the issue.
Councillor Chadwick asks how long it will take to get the new agreement; motion is a “negotiating platform”.
He asks to defer until the next council meeting in two weeks to give developers a chance to review what is proposed.
Councillor Cunningham notes the “numerous” letters and emails from residents on the issue, and how it was time to do something about the matter.
Cunningham says council “is between a rock and a hard place” as only the third party of a three-party agreement, and council has worked hard to see the project completed.
“People can’t point the finger and say, ‘council, this is all your fault’,” says Cunningham.
“Right now, we’re one in three. We can present all night and if one of the parties say, ‘I don’t like that’, we’re still where we sit today,” says Cunningham.
Other parts of the motion include remediation of the boulevard, and securing the hoarding around the perimeter of the site.
Longo emphasizes can’t unilaterally amend the agreement, but can decide to unilaterally enforce the agreement.
Councillor Lloyd says town has endeavoured to be as impartial as it can be on the agreement.
Town trying to accommodate the requests of the landowners, he says, and the motion addresses concerns raised by one of the two parties, “and it addresses the needs and concerns of the community.”
Councillor West asks for a deferral; deferral passes with Edwards, Hull, Chadwick, West and Gardhouse approving.
Looks like it gets put off for another two weeks.