There was no opportunity for discussion about a motion by Town Ward councillor Joy Lachica on the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment plan at Peterborough city council’s general committee meeting on Monday night (May 13), after councillor and committee chair Andrew Beamer ruled the motion out of order and six of the 11 committee members supported his ruling.
Lachica’s motion had proposed that council be granted final approval authority for the controversial $4.4 million redevelopment plan, which includes the installation of 16 pickleball courts, an expanded skate park, a bike pump track, and an 80-vehicle parking lot.
A group of neighbourhood residents are concerned about the noise impact that the pickleball complex will have on their quality of life, the loss of their neighbourhood greenspace, and what they claim was a flawed process in terms of notification that the park was being considered for redevelopment and what the scope of the plan was.
“The redevelopment project for Bonnerworth Park has generated significant concern over the loss of greenspace, its impacts on current park users, and its compatibility with surrounding residential neighbourhoods,” Lachica’s motion states, adding “the city has acknowledged that the public engagement process for the redevelopment of Bonnerworth Park could have been improved and been more inclusive of park neighbours.”
Lachica’s motion requested that city staff provide a report to council for approval that includes the recommended site plan, final technical studies (for traffic and parking, noise, stormwater management, and geotechnical items), a record of the input of stakeholder and community consultation on these studies as well as the final draft plan, a list of revisions made to the technical studies and the changes to the draft site plan as reflected in the site plan, and the assigned budget apportioned for each aspect of the work to be contracted for construction.
At city council’s April 8th meeting, a motion by Lachica to delay the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment plan for further consideration and consultation lost in an 8-3 vote, clearing the way for the project to proceed in the hands of city staff with no further council oversight. Only councillors Lachica, Alex Bierk, and Keith Riel voted in favour of delaying the project.
At the May 13th meeting, a premonition that something was going to happen came with Beamer’s introduction of Lachica’s motion, which is printed in its entirety below.
“You can read your notice of motion and I will make a ruling, but you go ahead and read it,” Beamer said.
After Lachica read the motion, Beamer said he was making a ruling that “the motion in my opinion is contrary to the direction previously provided by council.”
“Council has debated this project and has voted to proceed,” Beamer said, adding that council has already voted to give staff direction to proceed and to establish a budget for the project.
“Once the chair rules a motion out of order, there is no debate. However, councillor Lachica, you can challenge the chair if you would like.”
Lachica was then offered the opportunity to “procedurally tell the council why she is challenging the chair,” which would followed by a vote on the challenge.
On a point of information, Bierk asked Beamer for a further explanation of the ruling and Beamer replied, “I have made my comments, councillor Bierk,” before yielding the floor to Lachica.
“I don’t feel that there are grounds for this to be ruled out of order based on our procedural by-law,” Lachica began. “By no means is this a motion to rescind or to reconsider. It’s not asking for a pause, nor is it proposing a different redevelopment plan. This is a brand new motion, scaffolded upon the current approval and current direction of council on the existing Bonnerworth redevelopment plan, of the 16 pickleball courts and 80 parking spots.”
Lachica said council will not know the results of the final technical studies or the site plan unless they come back to council for review and approval.
“How is this responsible? How is this respecting our residents, our users, our taxpayers? For this to remain only with staff, and not reviewed by elected decision makers, is problematic. It’s our duty to listen, to learn, and be open to recommendations of the studies.”
“This new motion is calling for the site plan and the studies to come back to council, in order for us to responsibly authorize and budget for the work ahead. Will it cost more than expected for sound and lighting mitigation? If so, this is crucial to inform our upcoming budget talks. If 16 courts —”
At this point, councillor Lesley Parnell interrupted Lachica on a point of order.
“Mister chair, I do believe we are getting off the procedural reason for your ruling, sir, and getting into debate.”
Lachica replied that she had five minutes to speak, but Beamer said that did not apply to the procedural challenge, at which point Lachica asked if she “could finish my sentence.”
“If 16 courts were to be installed 50 metres from any of our own homes, we would want to know the measures that were in place to assuage our fear and our uncertainty of a new normal,” she continued. “If this is the will of council to see the site plan and technical studies before work commences, a motion to request this is absolutely in order.”
After Lachica finished, Beamer said “I see the hands in the air,” referring to members of the public in the gallery showing their support for Lachica, before asking for a motion on his ruling to be put to a vote. An affirmative vote would support Beamer’s ruling that Lachica’s motion is out of order.
On a point of order, Lachica requested a verbal vote in addition to a recorded electronic vote.
“It’ll be in the minutes,” Beamer said.
“It will be in the minutes, but sometimes it disappears very quickly,” Lachica replied, referring to the display of the electronic vote on monitors.
“I don’t think we have that in our procedure right now, councillor Lachica, but this will be a recorded vote that everyone in the community will see, and it will be on the website, and it will be in our minutes — in three weeks.”
Courtesy of media coverage of council, you don’t have to wait three weeks to find out how councillors voted.
The motion to support the chair’s ruling was carried 6-5, with Mayor Jeff Leal and councillors Beamer, Gary Baldwin, Don Vassiliadis, Kevin Duguay, and Parnell voting in favour, and councillors Lachica, Bierk, Keith Riel, Dave Haacke, and Matt Crowley voting against the chair’s ruling.
Notice of Motion – Bonnerworth Site Plan
WHEREAS, the Bonnerworth redevelopment project is multi-faceted in scope and has implications for a wide range of park users, neighbourhood residents, and the environment;
WHEREAS, the redevelopment project for Bonnerworth Park has generated significant concern over the loss of greenspace, its impacts on current park users, and its compatibility with surrounding residential neighbourhoods;
WHEREAS, the city has acknowledged that the public engagement process for the redevelopment of Bonnerworth Park could have been improved and been more inclusive of park neighbours;
WHEREAS, the City’s Strategic Plan promotes a corporate culture of transparency, engagement and openness, collaboration, and partnership;
WHEREAS, the City can foster public trust and confidence by adapting the current approval process for Bonnerworth Park;
WHEREAS, it is the fiduciary duty of members of Council to ensure that budget-approved resources are safely and responsibly applied to any approval of the redevelopment plan;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That Council be granted final approval authority for the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment plan after being provided with the following via a Report of the Commissioner which includes:
a) the recommended site plan
b) the final technical studies identified in the Invitation to Tender, for traffic and parking, noise, stormwater management, and geotechnical
c) a record of the input of stakeholder and community consultation, including First Nations engagement, on these studies as well as on the final draft plan
d) a list of revisions made to the technical studies and the changes to the draft site plan as reflected in the site plan presented for Council approval
e) the assigned budget apportioned for each aspect of the work to be contracted for construction.
