LAURIE WEIR
Rideau Lakes council failed to override Mayor Arie Hoogenboom’s veto on the Chantry office retrofit project during a special meeting on Wednesday, May 28.
This caused an eruption of applause from members of the gallery in attendance.
The veto, issued under Ontario’s strong mayor powers, blocked a resolution that would have allowed staff to obtain formal pricing to retrofit the existing municipal office in Chantry. The motion failed to meet the two-thirds majority required.
Those in favour of blocking the veto were Coun. Paula Banks, Coun. Jeff Banks, Coun. Sue Dunfield, Coun. Linda Carr and Deputy Mayor Deborah Anne Hutchings. Opposed were Coun. Ron Pollard, Coun. Marcia Maxwell and Mayor Hoogenboom.
More than $138,000 has already been spent on design work and preliminary planning for the retrofit. That work is now on hold.
Tensions ran high during the meeting, with several councillors accusing the mayor of obstructing transparency by preventing a basic cost comparison between retrofitting the existing office and building new.
Maxwell expressed concern about the tone of the debate, saying she felt intimidated by the process and by pressure from colleagues and members of the public. “The intimidation around this table is appalling,” she said. “It’s wrong on every level.”
She and Pollard could have blocked the veto, but they held firm in stance against moving the project forward. Pollard said it was too much too soon with all the other project they have on the go, even though he’d like to see a cost comparison. “It’s just too much right now for taxpayers,” he said.
Hoogenboom defended his decision to veto the renovation project, stating the retrofit does not align with provincial housing and infrastructure priorities.
“This is the largest single capital expenditure we’ve made in 25 years,” he said. “There has been no formal public consultation, financing is not yet secured, and the township risks taking on long-term debt at a time when interest rates and construction costs remain uncertain.”
He also reiterated support for an alternative proposal involving five acres of “donated” land, which he says could support housing development tied to a new subdivision. “This option was not properly considered by council,” he said.
But J. Banks raised red flags over the land offer, calling it “bonkers” and potentially unethical.
“We are not allowed to accept land from a developer in exchange for favourable treatment,” he said. “That puts us in a bad spot. It’s a conflict.”
J. Banks also questioned the closed-session discussions held around the land offer, saying council and the public were not given enough information to assess the implications. “I’m concerned about what might have been promised outside of this chamber,” he said.
Following the failed override, council voted to suspend its procedural bylaw to allow a new motion from P. Banks to proceed. That motion, which passed, calls for a legal opinion on whether the mayor’s use of the veto constitutes a misuse of power under the Municipal Act. It also directs staff and consultants to provide written clarification explaining why the Chantry project was described as flawed.
A formal letter of concern will also be sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, MPP Steve Clark, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and all Ontario municipalities.
With the veto standing, P. Banks asked that staff prepare a plan to address urgent building issues, including a leaking roof, backed-up plumbing and the building’s lack of accessibility compliance. Constructed in 1979, the Chantry office requires upgrades to meet current standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.
The next meeting of council will be held at 6 p.m. on June 3.
