Chelsea Capital Plan in Question

Chelsea Mayor Pierre Guénard was blindsided.  An extraordinary council meeting was called on December 3 to adopt a five-year capital expenses program.  The municipality is required to adopt a multi-year plan by the end of December, and Council had been working on the elements of the plan throughout the year, with the assistance of staff.  Then some councillors broke rank.

The proposed plan encompasses the following key groupings of capital expenditures:  $12.9 million for water and sewage; $1.2 million for vehicles, equipment, and public safety; $200,000 for river access; $1.9 million for parks, pathways, and green spaces; and $3.6 million for road maintenance. 

Mayor Guénard noted that next year’s election could lead to changes in these plans, but recalcitrant councillors want changes now, basically involving cutting the planned amounts.  First off the list of dissenters was Dominic Labrie.  He took issue with the expansion of the water plant, arguing that solving the clogging issue should precede this expenditure.  As well, he charged that the plan would promote unconstrained growth, resulting in a possible overwhelming of Chelsea’s ability to manage the service demands.

Councillor Enrico Valente complained that the plan would double the debt load.  He specifically took issue with $2 million proposed for a new library.  Rita Jain also spoke of the debt load.  She called for a slowing down of development.       

On the other side, Councillor Cybèle Wilson argued that the capital plan followed the strategic plan that had already been adopted.  She expressed surprise at the opposition, as Council had worked long and hard on the plan.  Why now the opposition?  Councillor Beverly Chan made a detailed defence of the plan.

So what happened when the matter came to a vote?  There was a tie—the mayor, Wilson, and Chan for and Valente, Labrie, and Jain against.  Then matters became complicated.  The matter was lost on a tie vote, but the mayor imposed a veto to overturn the rejection.  As a result, a new vote will be needed.  Will that be possible by the end-of-year deadline? 

If the matter comes before Council unchanged, a different outcome might be possible if Councillor Christopher Blais, who was not present at the meeting, is available at the new meeting and sides with the mayor and his supporters.  Otherwise, would the dissenters be able to muster their own multi-year plan by the end of the year?