Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes - 1992-10-14 SCOU NCI L\1992-10-14-SPE COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1992 The Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener met this date in special session with all members present except Alderman G. Lorentz. Alderman J. Ziegler entered the meeting after its commencement. Notice of the meeting had previously been given by the City Clerk, pursuant to section 25 of the Municipal Code. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the new Women's Correctional Facility proposed within Pioneer Park by Public Works Canada and Correctional Services Canada. A number of delegations were registered to appear before Council respecting this matter. Ms. Cheryl McFadden appeared as a delegation representing a large group of Pioneer Park taxpayers and requested that the correctional facilities be relocated to an area of the City that was not within walking distance of a residential subdivision. She expressed concern with regard to information made available by Corrections Canada and stated that the facts of the matter were that the facility was a pilot project, statistics provided by Corrections Canada had no bearing on the proposal, that the offences of the inmates were serious enough to be sentenced to a Federal institution and that they intended to submit a petition to Federal authorities containing over 2,000 names relative to this matter. She pointed out that the potential for new revenue and job creation remains the same for the City if it is relocated to an area not within walking distance of a subdivision. In response to Alderman Wagner, Ms. McFadden stated that they did not object to the Correctional Facility provided it was not within walking distance. She also commented that the neighbourhood would be negatively impacted by the facility in other ways including inmate traffic, the potential for escape, drugs within the facility and the physical aspect of perimeter fencing of the facility. In response to Alderman M. Yantzi, Ms. McFadden expressed fears that through the present Exchange Agreement, minimum security risk prisoners were already being sent to Provincial institutions thus leaving only the more serious offenders to be housed in the Federal institution. Further, she commented that once in a Federal institution, the inmates are classified and it was their view that the classification system has broken down. The matter of temporary day passes was raised and Mr. J. Beatty of Corrections Canada stated that these passes were only granted for correctional reasons. Ms. McFadden emphasized that the point was that inmates could be out of the facility on a day pass and this was a point of concern and fear within the community. Alderman J. Ziegler entered the meeting at this point. Ms. Tammy Rowe appeared as a delegation to express the view of the residents with regard to the ramification that the proposed facility would have on the community. She stated that the long-term effects outweigh the short-term gains resulting from the proposal and commented on the regular incidence of escape from a Gravenhurst facility, the rise in women's crime rate and that residents are entitled to safety and security. She stated that the proposal by eliminating fencing was infringing on residents rights in favour of criminals. Further, she pointed out that residents were not inviting the inmates of the Correctional Facility to be part of their community and that residents were fearful of property devaluation and intrusion of a network of social assistance facilities within the community. Accordingly, she asked that the facility be built well outside of established residential areas and requested that the residents be allowed the right to enjoy safety and security within their community. In response to Alderman B. Stortz, Mr. J. Beatty advised that the inmates would be women from the Province of Ontario but there could be some who transferred from other Provinces. Further, he stated that upon release the plan was to re-integrate the former inmates into their home communities and they would not become permanent residents of Kitchener. Mr. Beatty also commented briefly on the philosophy of the design of the institution and noted that an effort was being made to allow for young children to bond with their mothers, particularly in instances where the inmate was the only supporter of the child. Alderman C. Zehr questioned the concern regarding property values and Ms. Rowe advised that residents have discussed this matter with real estate specialists and feel that property devaluation would be affected in a cyclical manner relative to incidents occurring at the facility. In response to Alderman M. Wagner who questioned the relationship of family and friends to inmates, Mr. J. Beatty advised that traditionally few family members have relocated to the area in which a facility is located, but conceded that some of the associates of the inmates may have criminal records. Ms. Rowe supported locating the Correctional Facility within a rural area and if the area surrounding the facility was COUNCIL MINUTES - 604 - OCTOBER 14, 1992 to develop residentially as time elapsed then at least people would have had choice with respect to where they wish to live. Alderman T. Galloway stated that he was aware of an incident of one lost property sale in the area as a result of the Correctional Facility proposal and another instance of a financial institution tightening its refinancing limits as a result of equity value having dropped due to the proposal. Mr. Bob Rowe appeared as a delegation to oppose the proposal on the basis that it was morally wrong given the lack of public participation, lack of community acceptance and absence of public trust in political representatives. He asked that the City reassess its position on the proposal and noted that the residents were prepared to work with the City to assist in finding an alternate location. Ms. Sheri Manning appeared as a delegation in opposition to the proposal and questioned why it was proposed to be located within this area when the area was saturated with children attending five neighbourhood schools. She also questioned why area children should be forced to witness a prison operation and asked that the community be given a choice in this matter as their right to choose has been compromised by this proposal. She also questioned if the design of the pilot project was the wrong approach and pointed to the generalizations utilized by Corrections Canada in their descriptive material. In summary, she stated that residents were fearful of the project and its results and that the level of such fear varied from person to person and in view of this, that residents be given the right to choose. Mr. Rick Wackenhut stated that it was unfortunate residents could not rely on elected officials and noted that no guarantees from any level of government could be given with regard to jobs in construction, security or servicing of the facility. Further, he stated that the facility would result in increased tax demands for extra policing and servicing and questioned if the City can guarantee that the Federal Government will pay all such extra costs. He asked that the Council demonstrate foresight and oppose the location in view of the evidence as a result of the incidents at the Gravenhurst facility. He stated that it was his information there were 21 site proposals in Kitchener and questioned why the recommended site was chosen. Further, he noted that if Council supports the location residents would hold them accountable. He questioned the benefits of the proposal to the community and Alderman C. Zehr pointed out that there were no guarantees with regard to jobs arising from the building and operation of the facility. Mr. J. Beatty pointed out that the facility was expected to employ 50-55 full-time staff and would contract for a number of services at the local level to meet operating needs within an annual operating budget of $4,000,000. At this time, he commented that the risk to the community was very, very small with respect to federally-sentenced women and that the initiative to house women regionally had come about as a result of a task force that recognized that women inmates did not have the same opportunities as male inmates within the system. Alderman C. Zehr asked for clarification regarding a report that extra policing cost would be incurred and Mayor D.V. Cardillo advised that the Police Services Board would make the final decision with respect to any extra staffing necessary as a result of the facility. He noted that the Police Chief was mis-quoted in the K-W Record on the topic of extra policing cost. Alderman M. Wagner questioned Mr. Wackenhut how he could be so certain that the prison would have a detrimental effect on the community's future and Mr. Wackenhut stated that based on discussions with many people it was evident that everyone agrees the facility has a negative connotation that would hang over the community. Mr. Andrew Dupej appeared as a delegation in opposition to the Correctional Facility and noted that he wished to ask questions that he had been unable to ask at the public meeting. He questioned the reasons that these inmates had been abandoned by their family and friends and why elected officials were so narrow minded in respect to the proposal. He suggested that the Correctional Facility should be placed in the industrial basin but that this alternative was not considered since industrial land developers would not want the facility in an industrial park. Mr. J. Beatty clarified that the Correctional Facility was proposed to be composed of ten cottage-type buildings on 26-acres of land. In regard to the matter of abandonment, Mr. Beatty stated that with only one Federal Correctional Facility for women in the country, the distance of the facility from the places where the inmates lived formerly made abandonment appear to be the case. Also in respect to the matter of victimization, as referred to in Corrections Canada material, this issue was raised to provide a better understanding of the background of the inmates which would aid and facilitate them to progress forward. In regard to a question by Alderman C. Weylie, Mr. J. Wallace, City Solicitor, advised that development of the Federal Correctional Facility was totally within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and that the COUNCIL M/NIYFES - 605 - OCTOBER 14, 1992 City had no powers in respect to the proposal to build the facility on private lands that are proposed to be acquired. Mr. Jerry Dentinger questioned Alderman M. Yantzi with regard to some fifty letters of acceptance from Social Service Agencies that were submitted to the City with regard to the Correctional Facility. He stated that there were a lot of unknown answers to the entire matter, but that his point was the proposal was meant to come to the community for acceptance and had not. Mr. T. McKay clarified that the application for the Correctional Facility was made to the Federal Government with endorsement letters attached from Community Service organizations that may have involvement with inmates. Mr. Dentinger stated that residents have considered obtaining the services of a professional appraiser to evaluate the effects of the proposal at a cost of between $6,000-$10,000 and questioned if the City would be willing to participate in the appraisal. He suggested that the Study would encompass such issues as density, environmental aspects, property values, contrast with the existing community and any negative effects on the existing community. In this way, it was their view that certain answers would be obtained to unanswered questions. In regard to the issue of what was acceptable walking distance from the facility to residential neighbourhoods, Mr. Dentinger indicated that residents were unable to answer that question as an effort was still being made to research that question. Also, he stated that security is a vital issue and that the residents do not feel it has been properly considered and they do not want the land purchase transaction closed by the Federal Government until all matters have received full consideration. He noted that at present the proposal would have a negative impact on the Pioneer Park area and indicated that other people whom he had spoken to that were non-resident have questioned why the plan is to build the facility in a residential area. He posed questions to Mr. J. Beatty and suggested that 44% of the 70 inmates represented those who were convicted murderers. Mr. Beatty stated that in 60 years no record of violence against the citizens of Kingston by inmates had been recorded. In regard to the matter of property values, he stated that it was necessary for Corrections Canada to consider Provincial experiences in this area and that it was found that the same issues were brought up when Provincial facilities were proposed. It was indicated that the communities had been consulted in the design of the facility and that an over-riding concern of the community was that they did not want the facility to appear like a traditional jail and did not want a typical prison wall. Mr. Beatty stated that it was their information that no devaluation of property value has occurred as a result of a facility that was constructed in Sault Ste. Marie. Mr. Dentinger suggested that it would be appropriate for the Federal Government to undertake some spending to do proper research before making such proposals that affect the community and then with data in hand act upon the proposal. Ms. Sandra Erhardt appeared as a delegation regarding the Correction Facility and stated that the views of those residents who had not signed the petition of area residents were not being heard. She stated that as a homeowner, she did not foresee Doon becoming a terrible place to live as a result of the Correctional Facility locating nearby and that it was very unlikely that Kitchener would become known as the penitentiary city. Ms. Vivian Harris appeared as a delegation and commented that originally she had thought the Correctional Facility would have no impact on her family's lifestyle; however, later comments of her daughter had indicated a fear of the facility and consequently, she could no longer ignore it and must oppose the facility. Ms. Cindy Borland Ernst appeared as a delegation and advised that two years ago she had chosen to live in the area because she thought it was a reasonably safe place to reside. However, she advised that her nearby business office has been broken into a number of times and that she had been assaulted during a break-in and she did not want to see the safety of the community further jeopardized. She questioned what the community could possibly get out of the Correctional Facility in the way of benefits and also suggested that should the facility be developed, it would very likely have interior facilities that were superior to those of the area residents and this aspect of the proposal has residents upset. In response to an earlier comment, Mr. J. Beatty advised that the government site selection criteria was applied to 21 sites and that the proposed site was the best found in meeting this criteria. No further delegations responded to the Mayor's invitation to address Council on this matter. Alderman T. Galloway advised Council that he wished to make some preliminary comments prior to stating his position relative to the proposal. He indicated that the meeting this date had been called because Corrections Canada had requested a re-affirmation of City Council's commitment to the proposal and he thanked those members of Council who attended the recent public meeting. Alderman Galloway pointed out that the vast majority of residents support locating a Women's Correctional Facility in COUNCIL 1VHNIYFES - 606 - OCTOBER 14, 1992 Kitchener; however, it is the residential aspect of the proposal that is of concern. He stated that the incarceration model as proposed was admirable, but that the location was the problem and pointed out that compassion for the inmates should not infringe on the rights of individuals. He suggested that the re- action of Pioneer Park residents was the same reaction that would have taken place had the proposal been located in any other neighbourhood of the City and notwithstanding the present ward system, he encouraged Council to look at the residents of Pioneer Park as their own constituents. Alderman Galloway made it clear that the building and operation of the facility was entirely within the purview of the Federal Government, but that the City had submitted an invitation to the Federal Government to consider Kitchener based on the economic benefit the facility would provide. Finally, Alderman Galloway stated that the City had the right to question the site proposal for the facility, the merits of which would be determined outside of the normal planning process. Alderman Galloway indicated that after listening to the concerns of hundreds of people such concerns could be categorized into three general areas; site selection process, neighbourhood safety and property devaluation. With regard to the site selection process, he pointed out that people have questioned how an industrial site could be chosen and noted that under normal planning procedure, notice of the proposal would be circulated to the neighbourhood and a public meeting would be held to consider the matter within the regulations of the Planning Act. He indicated that the owner of the subject lands was marketing the land as an Office Business Park and would have had to apply for and receive approval for a zone change to accommodate the changed use. He pointed out that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are intended to provide for good and proper planning, but that these principles have not been upheld in the case of the Correctional Facility and the only recourse or safeguard available to the residents was City Council through its opportunity to comment to the Federal Government. Alderman Galloway stated that the property rights of residents should be paramount and that the City had a duty to protect them where normal processes was not required to be followed. With regard to the concern relating to the issue of neighbourhood safety, he commented that the residents view the pilot project with concern given that it was un-tried and unproven and there was no data to allay these concerns. Also another safety concern of the residents, pertains to the inability for any assurance to be given that the facility might in future house men inmates when operating circumstances within Corrections Canada change or what the potential was for the addition of more capacity to the Corrections Facility that will allow for the housing of men inmates in addition to women. He noted that the major point here was that Corrections Canada cannot give any assurance that the facility would not in future become a men's facility and this issue was a major concern of residents. He acknowledged that as time elapses, the safety issue would fade, but as soon as any kind of incidents occurred, the entire cyclical process of fears would re-surface. In respect to the concern of property devaluation within the neighbourhood, Alderman Galloway stated that real estate sales people advised that if there is a safety concern then property values will suffer. He stated that issues of safety can relate to various subjects such as water quality in the case of Elmira and methane gas in the case of the Ottawa Street landfill. However, he noted that in respect to these examples, corrective measures can be considered and action can be taken, but that in the case of the Correctional Facility, the safety issue would remain forever. Alderman Galloway stated that property values would likely rebound after the current atmosphere, but that when an incident takes place, the entire cycle will start again. He commented that no one other than Corrections Canada staff consider the proposed site to be the best site and that suitable non-residential sites were available for the facility. He stressed that the site selection criteria of Corrections Canada was limited to a residential component and that he had identified four non-residential sites that were serviced or with services available that could function to meet all other requirements of Corrections Canada. In summary, Alderman Galloway suggested that no one group of property owners should be expected to subsidize the proposal for this facility through devaluation of their properties and he summarized the reasons for the motion he intended to put before Council at this time. Moved by Alderman T. Galloway Seconded by Alderman M. Wagner "WHEREAS the City of Kitchener has committed to the locating of the new Women's Correctional Facility within the City and; WHEREAS the economic impact of this facility will be beneficial to the City and; COUNCIL 1VHNIYFES - 607 - OCTOBER 14, 1992 WHEREAS the location of the facility must be sensitive to the security and property rights of all City of Kitchener residents; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Kitchener requests Public Works Canada and Correctional Services Canada to reconsider their current residential site selection criteria." Alderman M. Wagner questioned Mr. J. Beatty if Corrections Canada had thought about what the reaction of the residents would be to the proposal. Mr. Beatty acknowledged that they had and that to some extent the reaction was predictable, but the volume was in excess of their estimate and he suggested that the recent example of the inmate who walked away from the Gravenhurst Facility had a bearing on this. As to the facility itself, it was planned that the process would involve having members of the neighbourhood work with the design team to allay concerns with respect to safety and property values. Alderman M. Wagner stressed that he did not want the fact that he seconded the motion to be misinterpreted and indicated that his position was that he did not think the facility should be placed in a remote area but that it could locate in an area that was presently undeveloped and allow natural residential growth to take place and grow up to the facility. This would achieve the goal of Corrections Canada to place the facility in a residential setting but would allow for a staged long-term approach to meet their goal. Alderman J. Smola raised a question asking for clarification of the process and how the proposal had come forward to City Council for direction. After comments by Aldermen Galloway and Smola, Ms. V. Gibaut advised that staff had become aware that the Federal Government was considering decentralizing its Correctional Facility and staff had approached City Council for support to make a submission to Corrections Canada in this regard. Alderman B. Stortz stated that in his experience, many of the same arguments were raised with regard to other developments and he suggested that over time the residents would grow to accept the facility and that he would support it. However, he did state that more answers were needed to address the reality of the facility as opposed to perception of the facility. Alderman C. Zehr stated that he understood the residents fears and commented that as an elected representative he would not do anything that would put people at risk. He suggested that the current negativity surrounding the issue will bring attention to the matter of property values and in some respects fear of declining property values could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. He acknowledged that Council must deal with the concerns and fears of the residents and that simply relocating the facility to another site does not resolve these issues. However, he stated that City Council has relied on the expertise of Corrections Canada staff in this matter. He advised that Council could deal with the local real estate industry and more fully inform them of the facility and its operations. Further, he commented that when Homer Watson Boulevard is widened to a four lane roadway, it would provide a more significant separation between the neighbourhood and the facility. In addition, sound barriers might also be a feature of the widened road that would also provide for additional physical separation. Alderman M. Yantzi advised that he has been involved with the Citizens Advisory Committee on this proposal and that he had heard the views of people who opposed the current reaction of the general community to the proposed facility and had also heard from those interested in jobs that the facility would generate. In response to Alderman C. Weylie, Mr. J. Beatty advised that Public Works Canada has reached a point in negotiations with the private owner of the subject lands that a selling price has been agreed upon and consequently an architect has been hired. Also he noted that if the City would support opening up the question of location, such action would be referred to senior officials and/or the Minister for direction. Alderman G. Leadston asked that attention be paid to the earlier comments of the City Solicitor who had stated that the Federal Government calls the tune in respect to this proposal and that the reality was that they had chosen the site based on their established criteria. Alderman Leadston noted that the facility was to be designed to appear like a small subdivision in order to blend with the community and that many people would be involved in providing services to the facility. Alderman J. Ziegler stated that he supports the facility and the site chosen and suggested that because of the ward system other members of Council could look at the proposal objectively. Alderman T. Galloway commented that he was disappointed at some of the comparisons drawn with other COUNCIL M/NIYFES - 608 - OCTOBER 14, 1992 facilities by other members of Council. In regard to the suggestion that declining property values was a self-fulfilling prophecy, he indicated that the residents understood this and that in the short-term they were bringing more attention to the facility than would otherwise be the case, but felt that there was no other alternative given their concerns for safety in particular. He pointed out that the facility would be acceptable within any area provided the residential component was deleted. Alderman Galloway acknowledged that the City had no power to force the Federal Government to change its mind on this matter, but pointed out that the Federal Government was looking for community acceptance but was not looking to Pioneer Park for an indicator of this, but rather to City Council. Finally, he asked that Council members be clear with respect to the intent of his motion which simply asks that Public Works Canada and Corrections Canada reconsider the residential aspect of their criteria. The motion of Alderman Galloway, seconded by Alderman M. Wagner was then put to a recorded vote. In Favour: Aldermen T. Galloway and M. Wagner. Contra: Mayor D.V. Cardillo and Aldermen B. Stortz, M. Yantzi, J. Smola, G. Leadston, C. Zehr, J. Ziegler and C. Weylie. MOTION LOST. Moved by Alderman M. Wagner Seconded by Alderman J. Ziegler That Corrections Canada be requested to obtain input from Pioneer Park residents who would nominate three representatives to work with Corrections Canada, the Project Architect and the City Site Planning Team in providing input into the design, site layout and security aspects of the proposed Women's Correctional Facility. Alderman M. Wagner stated that the purpose of his motion was to resolve some of the concerns of residents by allowing the opportunity to participate in the development so as to bring about a facility that was more acceptable. Mr. J. Beatty stated that the motion was acceptable to Corrections Canada. However, Alderman T. Galloway suggested that the motion of Alderman Wagner was premature at this time and he did not feel the residents were prepared to undertake such participation given that they were likely to continue to pursue their objection to the location of the facility. Alderman C. Zehr stated that the sentiment expressed by Alderman Wagner in his motion was proper but that it may be appropriate not to deal with the motion at this time. Alderman M. Wagner withdrew his motion based on the express intent of Corrections Canada to participate with residents in the development of the facility. Mayor D.V. Cardillo thanked residents for their presentations this date. On motion the meeting adjourned. Clerk Mayor