Station Location Petition Submission [Updated]

This, I have decided, is a story about how difficult it can be for citizens to have their voices heard in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality.

It begins in August 2019, when the province announced its intention to move the NSCC Marconi Campus to the Sydney waterfront. The land earmarked for the facility includes the piece occupied by Sydney Fire Station No. 1, which means the CBRM has to build a new fire station (or does it? See this earlier Spectator article).

The province is providing funding for the replacement station (I’ve asked the Department of Labour and Advanced Education for a figure, which I haven’t seen anywhere in the coverage) but the CBRM has seemed hell-bent, since the beginning of the process, on situating the new station on a lot it owns at the corner of George and Pitt. A lot directly across the street from the Highland Arts Theatre.

Although Mayor Cecil Clarke told the CBC in December 2019 there would “absolutely” be public input into the choice of a location, there wasn’t, and during a February 18 council meeting, when District 8 Councilor (now mayoral candidate) Amanda McDougall asked why not, it fell to CAO Marie Walsh to respond. As the CBC reported:

“It’s not like it’s a community centre or a typical civic building,” [Walsh] said. “It’s a safety-related station that we relied on expert opinion from a report that the [firefighters] union put forward.

“We really couldn’t rely on the public to site an emergency services building. That would be our responsibility.”

First, the “expert opinion,” in the form of a report by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), said:

The fire department (both administration and frontline personnel), and the community [emphasis mine] should all have input and come to an agreement on where to place any new fire stations within the jurisdiction.

And second, part of the argument for placing the station smack dab in the middle of Sydney’s downtown is that it will, somehow, be a tourist attraction. If you can imagine tourists getting excited about this:

Fire Chief Michael Seth went so far as to suggest it would become a “showpiece, a cornerstone of the downtown,” which is not how people generally talk about emergency services buildings. (Although the CBRM, I’ll grant you, is different — see the commentary surrounding the new Glace Bay police station which is apparently going to be some sort of “People’s Place”)

These arguments aside, you’d think a municipality that has already had its wrist slapped by the provincial Ombudsman for its failure to adequately consult the public would be twice shy when it came to decisions like this, but you’d be wrong.

On March 3, during a meeting of the Fire and Emergency Services Committee, McDougall suggested they schedule a public meeting on the relocation question but the committee wasn’t interested.

Help the HAT

A Facebook group called “Help the HAT,” which now numbers 1,200 members, formed to oppose the George and Pitt location for the new fire station, arguing it would not only occupy space used for parking by theater patrons, its operations would disrupt productions.

With no official forum for public participation in the process, the group resorted first to an in-person (pre-COVID) demonstration in front of the Civic Centre that attracted about 30 people and then to a petition.

Patricia O’Neill, one of the group’s founders, told the Spectator she initially sent the petition to the CBRM Municipal Clerk’s office on March 6, but received “no reply or acknowledgement.”

Municipal Clerk Deborah Campbell Ryan told the Spectator the petition was received by her office on March 9 and “circulated to Council as requested.”

In her response, Campbell Ryan noted that on March 22, the Department of Municipal Affairs ordered all municipal councils in the province to “discontinue holding their meetings in person and only virtual meetings could be held.”

She says that:

• Following that Order, there were no presentations made by the general public at any of the virtual CBRM Council meetings

Which may be the case, but did it necessarily have to be the case? Is there any reason why a member of the public couldn’t attend a virtual council meeting?

Campbell Ryan also noted:

• All Council had the Petition and any Council member could have made a motion to add it to an agenda
• A majority of Council can call a special meeting of Council if they so wish

That response is interesting given that on July 14, apropos of nothing, apparently (at least, nothing that was explained), Campbell Ryan appeared during the regular monthly council meeting with “Proposed Amendments to Various CBRM Policies.”

The amendments included changing the name of the “agenda review committee” to the “agenda review working group,” and adding a new policy on…petitions. The agenda review committee is made up of the mayor, the deputy mayor, the CAO and the clerk and it decides what items will be on the agendas of council and committee meetings.

The petition rules (which council adopted without question) state:

Once received by the Clerk, the Petition will be reviewed by the agenda working group prior to inclusion on a meeting agenda. Once approved [emphasis mine], receipt of the Petition will be duly noted on the agenda, highlighting the operative clause, and be included under the “Approval of Agenda” order of business.

As I noted when I first reported on these changes, this is an area where CBRM practice deviates from HRM practice. The HRM rules for petitions state:

The Clerk shall list on the agenda every petition which has been delivered [emphasis mine] to the Clerk not later than 12:00 o’clock noon on the Thursday immediately preceding each regular meeting of the Council.

On July 15, O’Neill and Chris Corbett resubmitted the Fire Station petition to the Clerk’s office.

Campbell Ryan told me the petition is now in the file for “pending issues for a future meeting.”

Public consultation

The architecture and engineering contract for the station was awarded to Dillon Consulting in January and on July 23, a tender was issued for construction of the new station.

On July 31, Councilor McDougall submitted a  request to the agenda review working group asking that, in light of that tender, council consider a motion that:

…a detailed and meaning [sic] public consultation process take place upon the completion of the design phase of the Sydney Downtown Fire Station, prior to the project moving forward towards a construction phase.

McDougall attached a copy of the petition which, at that point, counted 2,100 signatures. (I should note that some of the signatories are not CBRM — or even Canadian — residents, a fact I think can be read one of two ways: either some are people who just like signing random internet petitions or some are non-residents who have enjoyed performances at the HAT. I don’t know which is the more accurate read, but I think it’s actually beside the point, because the vast majority of the signatories are locals.)

I spoke to McDougall on Wednesday (she provided me a copy of the agenda request, O’Neill provided me a copy of the petition as sent on July 15) and she told me that she had yet to receive a response from the Clerk’s office (which, she added, she has always found to be efficient in its handling of agenda-related issues.)

Earlier this year, Mayor Clarke announced that council would not meet in July or August except to deal with emergency issues and while they met several times in July, they’ve yet to meet in August. (Many Nova Scotia municipal councils, apparently, take August off.)

There is to be a council meeting in September (municipalities across the province have been told they can even meet in person, if public health protocols can be met), but McDougall’s agenda request and the petition will have been rendered all but pointless by then, because the fire station construction contract was awarded to JONELJIM Concrete on August 14. (Members of the Help the HAT group are claiming, on Facebook, that work on the site actually began in the days before the tender was awarded. I asked CBRM spokesperson Christina Lamey to confirm or deny this, and she responded, by email:

Joneljim Construction was notified by letter from CBRM’s procurement department  on Friday morning, August 14, that their bid to build Sydney Central Fire Station #1 was accepted.

A meeting with CBRM officials was required before construction was to begin so information about timelines could be shared. However, prior to the meeting, the company used heavy equipment on the site and resulted in the displacement of parking spaces earlier than planned.

CBRM has reinstated the parking spaces across the street. Construction will continue to proceed on the fire station project.

Directly across the street, a new parking lot will be completed by Northern Contracting following their work on the re-construction of George Street.

I get that these are unusual times and that any exercise involving the public is challenging, but opposition to involving the community in this issue pre-dated COVID — the CAO dismissed the need to consult the public in February, when the virus was just getting started on to its mad dash around the globe and no cases had been identified in Nova Scotia.

I find the whole thing confusing. How can you claim to be a “public servant” while simultaneously telling the public to buzz off? So I did what I always do when I’m confused: I made a timeline of events. Sometimes these bring clarity — in this case, it didn’t, but for lack of a better conclusion to this article, I will leave you with it:

Fire Station Time Line

2019

August

The Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Advanced Education announces plans to move the NSCC Marconi Campus to the Sydney waterfront, necessitating the relocation of Sydney Fire Station No. 1

October

CBRM council receives a report prepared for it by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) (which you’ll find in this earlier Spectator story) to assist it in choosing a location for the new fire station.

The report focuses on two potential sites — Pitt and George, a property owned by the CBRM, and Glenwood and George, two properties the municipality would have to buy. Of the two, response times are actually better from the Glenwood and George location, but the IAFF later says concerns about “traffic bottlenecks” there, plus the fact the municipality owns the George and Pitt lot made them prefer the latter.

Nevertheless, in the report, the IAFF states that while factors like municipal ownership of land can certainly be taken into account:

The fire department (both administration and frontline personnel), and the community [emphasis mine] should all have input and come to an agreement on where to place any new fire stations within the jurisdiction.

November 4

CBRM council holds an in camera session to discuss the location of the new fire station.

November 18

Michael Seth officially takes over as Fire Chief in the CBRM.

November 30

Mayor Cecil Clarke publicly confirms firefighters prefer the George and Pitt location for the fire station, although council has yet to vote on the location in a public meeting.

December 2

Jody Wrathall, president of the International Association of Firefighters Local 2779, tells the CBC’s Wendy Bergfeldt the Pitt and George location is considered preferable because it is owned by the CBRM, it’s “free land.”

Elsewhere, the CBC reports that patrons of the Highland Arts Theatre (HAT) are not happy with the proposed fire station location — directly across the street from the theatre, on land formerly used by patrons for parking —  and that District 5 Council Eldon MacDonald “couldn’t say whether the public will be consulted before council makes a final decision on the site.”

December 3

The tender for engineering/architectural services for the new Sydney Fire Station No. 1 is posted although it will be amended (twice) before it closes.

December 5

Mayor Cecil Clarke tells the CBC:

“There’s absolutely going to be public participation once we actually have something to present for decision making,” he said.

“This is all good stuff and we will have a public process for the actual final decision and outcome of a fire station.”

December 19

The tender for architecture/engineering closes, having attracted five bidders:

Michael MacDonald Architectural Concepts (based in the CBRM, more specifically, Coxheath)
Dillon Consulting (Based in Ontario with an office in Sydney)
Omar Gandhi Architect (Toronto-based architect with office in Halifax who designed the Cabot Links Villas)
CBCL (Atlantic Canadian engineering firm with an office in Sydney, projects include the Port of Sydney’s second berth.)
MacNeil Architectural Consultants Ltd (Sydney-based architect Ken MacNeil.)

2020

13 January 2020

The design and engineering contract (worth $282,500) for the new fire station is awarded to Dillon Consulting. Dillon is asked to recommend one of the two sites considered in the IAFF report and opts for Pitt and George, stating that the Glenwood and George location (even if you bought two properties there) is not big enough to accommodate the station the municipality plans to build.

Eventually, Dillon (with an uncredited assist from LEGO) will design this:

February 18

CBRM council votes to accept a staff recommendation to place the fire station at George and Pitt.

The CBC reports that, when asked during the meeting why the municipality had decided to forego public participation in the process:

Chief administrative officer Marie Walsh said consultation wasn’t considered for the new fire station because staff didn’t think it was necessary.

“It’s not like it’s a community centre or a typical civic building,” she said. “It’s a safety-related station that we relied on expert opinion from a report that the [firefighters] union put forward.

“We really couldn’t rely on the public to site an emergency services building. That would be our responsibility.”

NB: The “expert opinion” advised allowing the community to have input into the decision.  Also, the overriding factor in favor of George and Pitt was the municipality’s ownership of the land, which is not a public safety issue.

March 2

A group of about 30 citizens gathers in front of city hall to protest the location of the fire station and call for public input into the decision.

March 3

District 5 Councilor Eldon MacDonald puts the relocation of the fire station on the agenda of the Fire and Emergency Services Committee, requesting a “comprehensive briefing by staff.”

During the meeting, District 8 Councilor Amanda McDougall asks why the committee has not met since September 2019 and is told by District 7 Councilor Ivan Doncaster, who is serving as chair, that CAO Marie Walsh asked them to “hold off” meeting until they had a new fire chief.

NB: As noted above, Michael Seth took over as Fire Chief in the CBRM on 18 November 2019.

McDougall asks if, instead of a briefing by staff, they could have a public meeting, outside council chambers, to get community input into the station location, but the committee does not support the suggestion.

Mayor Clarke, on record stating there would be room for public participation in the process now says the “actual people who respond to the fires and the calls were part of the consultation process” as were “the stakeholders immediately affected.”

March 6 (or 9?)

Patricia O’Neill, on behalf of a Facebook group called Help the HAT (which now counts 1,200 members), says she first submitted a petition against the chosen location for the fire station to CBRM Municipal Clerk Deborah Campbell Ryan on March 6, hoping to present at the March 24 council meeting. O’Neill says she received “no response or acknowledgement” from the Clerk’s office.

In an email to the Spectator, Campbell Ryan says the petition was received by her office on March 9 “and circulated to Council as requested.” On March 22, Municipal Affairs ordered municipalities to discontinue in person meetings. Says the Clerk:

Following that Order, there were no presentations made by the general public at any of the virtual CBRM Council meetings.

NB: The order doesn’t seem to preclude citizens presenting at virtual meetings.

June 30

The construction tender for the new fire station is posted and will be amended six times, correcting details about everything from the fate of the “existing trees” (they are to be “removed and disposed of offsite” rather than “removed and reinstated onsite”) to — literally — the kitchen sink:

Revise kitchen sink (KS) designations in schedule to KS-1, KS-2 and KS-3, in that order

(Noted in passing: the two-story building has an elevator.)

July 14

CBRM Municipal Clerk Deborah Campbell Ryan appears at the regular monthly meeting of the CBRM council with “Proposed Amendments to Various CBRM Policies.”

The amendments include changing the name of the “agenda review committee” to the “agenda review working group,” and adding a new policy on petitions. The petition rules (which council adopted without question) state:

Once received by the Clerk, the Petition will be reviewed by the agenda working group prior to inclusion on a meeting agenda. Once approved [emphasis mine], receipt of the Petition will be duly noted on the agenda, highlighting the operative clause, and be included under the “Approval of Agenda” order of business.

July 15

Patricia O’Neill and Chris Corbett re-submit the petition, which now counts 2,100 signatures, opposing the fire station location to the Municipal Clerk’s Office. The email includes the mayor and councilors, CAO Marie Walsh and Municipal Affairs Minister Chuck Porter.

It goes into the “pending” file for discussion at “a future meeting.”

July 23

The tender for construction of the new fire station closes, it has attracted four bidders (the results below are labeled “unofficial” and include “contingency allowance”):

JONELJIM CONCRETE $4,526,552.30 (Sydney-based firm whose projects include Parkside Developments — condos overlooking Wentworth Park — Eastern Fence’s headquarters, the CBRM’s North Maintenance Facility and the Membertou Sport and Wellness Centre.)

BRILUN CONSTRUCTION $4,611,273.00 (Sydney-based firm that renovated Centre 200 in 2010 and apparently built the building housing the Shannon School of Business at CBU, although its website lists it as “under construction.“)

DORA CONSTRUCTION $4,723,978.00 (Dartmouth-based firm behind the Maupeltuewey Kina’matno’kuom P-6 School, Hampton Inn, Business Centre and Heritage Park in Membertou.)

LINDSAY CONSTRUCTION $4,683,911.87 (Dartmouth-based firm whose projects include the new Coast Guard HQ in St. John’s NL and the Emera IDEA building at Dalhousie.)

July 31

Councilor McDougall submits an agenda request calling on council to commit to public consultation on the station design prior to the awarding of the construction contract and commencement of work.

August ?

At some point before the tender is awarded, CBRM representatives meet with Joneljim Construction which then begins work on the site.

August 14

The tender for construction of the new fire station is awarded to Joneljim Concrete for $4,394,598.30, not including contingency and HST.

NOTE: This story (and the timeline) was updated on August 20 to include the response from the CBRM, the reference to the CBC article and the rhetorical question as to how tenders are usually conducted.