Norfolk Council In Comittee Meeting - Oct 2, 2013 - 4th Concession Closure.

Who's said Town Council meetings are boring?  This one had it all.

Thanks for every one who came out to show support and to those that didn't, you don't know the fun you missed.  Not quite the FE-NA-LI of Breaking Bad but likely the most fun in Norfolk since Mumford and Son's left town.

With the Mayor feeling the need to tell a Councillor that he did not need to stand when addressing Mr. Cline, (which we assume was out of the councillor's respect for the gentleman; to a vote on whether to interrogate a private citizen at the meeting,  even though his Solicitor was giving the deputation (which was a Yea 5-4); to another Councillor addressing a member of the community in a way we personally found offensive.  Exciting times folks and make sure you're there for the next episode!



We haven't received the video as of yet, however, we'll be sure to post it online. Check back in for the antics.  It's not to be missed.

Kudos to Councillor Luke for handling himself like a professional and asking the only pertinent question of the evening.  Councillor Luke was the only one who seemed concerned with whether they had actually followed their own procedures in the closure of the road.

Legal Counsel Mr. Tom Cline started the show by educating Council on the legal aspects of closing a public road.  Citing similar circumstances in a few different jurisdictions and stating that the Public must be notified at least 14 days prior to closing a road, as was recently done in Simcoe.  Mr Cline also stated that in not doing so the Councillors were in violation of their own rules and regulations. An information package was given out to the Councillor's but we do not have those details as of yet.  We will certainly post them as they become known to us.

Some questions were asked.

Speaking on behalf of his two clients Mr Cline fielded all questions, including some off topics ones, that the Councillors seemed to think he knew the answers too.  After being asked repeatedly his testy reply was 'I don't know what you're talking about'.

Finally he was able to speak of the Petition that was signed by the 141 people in the community who would like to see the road open to the public.  This unfortunately was largely ignored except for a Councillor asking if these people use this road frequently.  We're thinking "Yes" since they did sign their name to it.   The most frustrating issue regarding the petition was that one of the signed pages was stolen from the St.Williams Variety store.  We do know that the pages were full or very close to full as they were checked regularly.  Another 20 names would have been added to the petition had the page not disappeared.

Council's largest concern seemed to be regarding money.  They would be required to fix the road and rebuild the bridge.  Considering that this particular bridge was assessed and recommended to have a guard rail installed in 2012, it does make one wonder what other bridges in the County have also been neglected. The Roads Managers' guesstimate for the guardrail is priced at $100,000.  Keep in mind that this is for a 24 foot long bridge.  So a mere $2083.33 per foot.  Little wonder the Roads division is so far in the hole.  The bridge cost is estimated to be $350,000 to $400,00 to repair according to Cridland's report.  We would like to see additional bids and suggestions.

In the end, the County took the obvious way out and delayed the decision so that they may have time to speak with their counsel on how to defend their decision.  With the ridiculously high guesstimate on the bridge cost and road repair looming, Las Vegas odds makers have it down as 9-1 that they move the gate down past the property owner's private property and continue to deny the public access to the road.
9 Councillors vs 1 Public.   Well actually, 9 Councillors + NCC vs Public. We wish we could be a fly on the wall when Council informs NCC that they were unable to sneak the closure through without a fight.

All we can do is wait and continue to email council.


The Municipal Act clearly states :

Maintenance

44.  (1)  The municipality that has jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge. 2001, c. 25, s. 44 (1).

Norfolk Council's Policy and Procedures:

https://norfolk.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?Id=95623&Search=1&Result=8