Summary of Marathon Council Meeting

It started at 5:00 pm on Monday with a public meeting to hear about a draft plan of subdivision for 425 King Street.  The full gallery was mostly concerned about Molly Baker Lane which all agreed is a wonderful Natural Heritage location.  It runs along the southern edge of the development and after hearing from citizens in April, details were altered including keeping more trees and ensuring there were no drainage problems.  Any remaining concerns were said to be something that would be resolved at the detailed engineering stage.  Residents were encouraged to keep in touch with planning staff to get details.  At the following Committee of the Whole, Council agreed that the project should proceed. But there were many other agenda items that kept the juices flowing until the meeting finished at 11:30 pm.

Summary of Committee of the Whole Meeting

  • Community Improvement Program (CIP)  – Councillors did not approve all the recommendations – Suzanne Séguin was unhappy that grants were being given to private homes and that the rear of a building was being improved. Adam Bureau was unhappy that a roof was being repaired with grant money.  After much discussion, modifications were made – see the Post on CIP.
  • There was a presentation, a delegation and a lot of heated discussion on the Aquatic Safety Audit – watch for a full report on this site in the next day or so.  This is a hot issue and included accusations of a conspiracy to reopen expansion of the marina which Dean Hustwick vehemently denied.
  • The Sidewalk priority policy was not discussed although councillors felt that it needed to be discussed so it was deferred to October 15.
  • The County recommendation on employment zones was simply accepted for information since, although it was passed by Port Hope, Hamilton Township voted it down.  None of the areas specified were in Cobourg although they were close by and might have affected employment and Cobourg services.
  • Despite the fact that the Sustainability Advisory Committee spent 4 hours coming up with a definition of sustainability, Council were not happy with it and referred it back to them.
  • Ken Strauss represented CTA and criticized what he called Stealth taxes imposed by LUI (Lakeshore Utilities). That is Ken felt that the dividend and interest paid by LUI were taxes in disguise – put another way, electric rates should be much less and LUI (or rather Holdco) should not pay Cobourg anything.  This will be discussed further at the October 15 COW meeting.
  • Emily Chorley asked numerous questions (ad nauseum) asking for clarity on some of the wording of the Council and Staff Relations Policy. Her questions were answered by the recently appointed integrity commissioner. No other councillors seemed concerned since no-one else asked questions about it.
  • A large number of unfinished business items (7 of 15) were past due (that is, late!) so were rescheduled.  See new dates on the next Council Agenda.
  • Since the meeting was already running late, the follow-on closed session was rescheduled to October 15.


Print Article: 


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
4 years ago

Sidewalk priority policy clearly not a priority as it has been two years since our town announced a new sidewalk on Abbott Blvd.
We have no sidewalk on Abbott Boulevard.

Walter Luedtke
4 years ago

The admirable John Draper does not step often out of his persona as the impartial purveyor of facts.
He did it in the report when he described Councillor Chorley’s questioning of the Integrity Commissioner as going on ‘ad nauseam’ – which is Latin for ‘it makes you want to throw up’.
Chorley has a thing about wrongdoing in high places. In the past she accused Council of giving preferential to a developer in the 394 College Street conversion and insinuated nepotistic dealings on the part of former Mayor Brocanier.
It can be expected that Councillor Chorley will keep the Integrity Commissioner busy during her term of office.

Miriam Mutton
Reply to  Walter Luedtke
4 years ago

Just watched the Town Council meeting video, the section is about 48 minutes in length during which Council reviewed two policy items on their meeting agenda, namely Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Local Boards, and, Council and Staff Relations Policy. Generally, I found Councillor Chorley’s questions highlighted sections in the policies that could be open to interpretation or in some situations would benefit with some additional clarity. Council did a section by section review of the revised Procedural By-law and in hindsight these two very important policies could have benefited by a similar review. No one really wants to make a meeting longer and Councillor Chorley was not the only person speaking or asking questions during those 48 minutes!