The City of Niagara Falls has been dinged again by the Ombudsman's office for holding an illegal meeting.
The report on the Ombudsman's website says the City of Niagara Falls contravened the Municipal Act on February 10th of 2015 when it went in camera to discuss whether the city should partner with a post-secondary institution to apply for development funding.
The Ombudsman's office was told the city went behind closed doors due to acquisition or disposition of land pursue development funding in partnership with an unnamed post-secondary institution.
As part of that discussion, council was told that the city may have to contribute $10 million to the project and that certain city-owned properties may be included as part of that contribution. In addition, council briefly discussed the possibility of expropriating a certain piece of private property if the development were to proceed.
These discussions were high level and general because council did not have any details about the post-secondary institution and did not know whether the funding proposal would be granted.
Council did not have appraisal information for the properties, was taking no practical steps to sell them, and was not engaged in negotiations to dispose of the properties.
Accordingly, council was not entitled to rely on the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception to close its discussion to the public.
During the investigation, The Ombudsman's office was provided with a letter signed by the Mayor and addressed to the development funding program discussed during the February meeting which indicated the city had committed $10 million to the university project.
When asked about the apparent contradiction between the letter and council’s direction to staff, the Mayor said that the letter was intended to be persuasive and that it did not reflect council’s decision during the meeting.
The Mayor told the Ombudsman's office that he has written similar letters when applying for other types of development funding, and that in each of those instances, council understood that it was not committing any money during the application stage.
The Ombudsman's report goes on to make four recommendations to the City, advising that all members of council be vigilant in adhering to their individual and collective obligation to ensure that council complies with its responsibilities under the Municipal Act.
It went on to recommend council for the city should ensure that no subject is discussed in closed session unless it clearly comes within one of the statutory exceptions to the open meeting requirements and council for the city should amend its procedure by-law to implement .
Previously, the Ombudsman's office analyzed the scope of this exception in the context of a very similar closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls. In that meeting, council discussed a consultant’s report related to the possibility of establishing a downtown campus in partnership with a post-secondary institution.
During the meeting, council referenced certain city-owned and private properties that could be affected if a downtown campus were to be established. However, the discussions did not address how the properties were to be appraised or sold, and there was no discussion about putting specific properties on the market.
This finding was shared with council for the City of Niagara Falls after the February 10, 2015 meeting had already occurred. Accordingly, council was unaware of the report’s conclusions when it once again relied on the “acquisition or disposition of land exception” to discuss matters related to the proposed downtown development.
To read the full report click here.