Graeme Bonham-Carter asked why Council declared the Merrickville Estates parkland as surplus land in closed session, when other cases such as the surplus land on Lewis Street were conducted in public.
Robbie Giles inquired that because of this flawed and inconsistent procedure to sell the Merrickville Estates parkland, will Council suspend the By-law vote, Item 10.2 on the Agenda, pending discussion with residents.
Lee Anne Merkley asked why the owners of properties adjacent to the Merrickville Estates parkland weren't notified of the intent to declare surplus and sell.
Mike Bakker asked why the Merrickville Estates community wasn't notified of the intent to declare surplus and sell the parkland.
Rod Fournier asked what gave staff the authority to discuss selling the Merrickville Estates parkland with realtors before Council formally voted the land surplus.
Gwendy Hall asked if Council will remove the Merrickville Estates parkland for sale until there has been a vote to declare it surplus. She inquired that if a contract is signed with the realtor if the listing will be taken down until a vote on the proposed By-law is taken.
Chris Bidmead asked what the Village's legal position is if it receives an offer when the Merrickville Estates parkland has not yet been officially declared surplus. She inquired if, for example, the realtor would have to be paid their fee even if the Village decided not to sell.
Francine Cote asked that if Council believes that the procedure they followed with the Merrickville Estates parkland is acceptable, then what stops staff from putting any public land up for sale without Council's formal assent.
Chuck MacInnis asked if Council would consider holding off on the decision rather than discussing it at this meeting and allowing public discussion on it because unless you have an active discussion where you can disclose your position, then it does not fit under the exemption of closed meetings. He noted this is a caveat of the Ombudsman's Office.
Mario Dion observed that the Municipal Act states that you may conduct a closed session on the sale of land and not shall or must. He noted that when his house was purchased in Merrickville Estates, one of the items of the purchase agreement contract was the lot area identified as parkland. He asked if the legal and moral implications have been considered for selling this land.
The following questions were submitted in writing for the record:
Agenda Item 10.2 includes 1st, 2nd and 3rd reading as well as approval all in one motion. Can this item be withdrawn from the agenda until a formal process for declaring public land surplus and putting it up for sale, that includes mandatory public consultation prior to approval, is put in place?
With respect to the Merrickville Estates parkland, would a Council representative and the CAO agree to meet with the Merrickville Estates Resident's Association to come to agreement on a way forward?