CENTRAL MANITOULIN—A motion to rescind motion 43-2016 that “council consider closure of the Mindemoya Old School building no later than September 1, 2016, by which time a public meeting will be called for information purposes leaving the end date open in order to assist the current tenants in securing alternate rental locations” was defeated at the April 14 council meeting.
The motion to rescind was moved by Councillor Alex Baran and seconded by Councillor Derek Stephens. “I want us to be very clear, it is the occupation of the building that is the main complicating factor as we grapple over the issue,” said Councillor Baran. He went on to describe the Old School as “a very uninhabitable building.”
Before council could decide on a course of action, whether that be to sell the building or to gut it, the building needs to be empty. “It needs to be clear that we do not intend to take on new tenants, filling this building that will implode.”
“It is not that we cannot look at what we are going to do,” clarified Mayor Richard Stephens. “We can look at what course of action we are going to take before the building is vacant.”
“But in the course of our discussions we will be bombarded with questions, ‘have you decided yet?’ ‘are you renovating?’,” he said, suggesting that lack of clarity will complicate the discussions.
Councillor Patricia MacDonald questioned whether the motion implied what course of action the council will take.
“The problem I have when reading the motion is that it is open-ended,” said Councillor Derek Stephens. “The other motion at least had a date by September 1. This motion has no date.” The issue will be locking the council into spending money on the building in the interim. “That’s $18,000 in oil, $42,000 for the hydro, if we keep it open without tenants.” Councillor Stephens pointed out that keeping the tenants in suspense was also not fair. “They need a date,” he said.
“It is hard to justify that level of cost,” agreed Councillor Scott. “The tenants need some time and direction so that they can vacate and look for other places to rent. This motion doesn’t state that.”
Councillor MacDonald questioned whether there was now more than one tenant, to which the response was that the other “tenant” was actually a sublet by the first.
In the end, the motion to rescind the original motion setting the September 1 deadline was defeated and the issue was sent back to committee for further discussion and proposals.
“In 30 days we may have different facts,” said Councillor Baran.
“We are going to be getting reports on the expenses every month,” noted Councillor Scott. “Those will be going to the property committee.”
