What did City Manager Puffalt provide to the Ombudsman that supported his September 1, 2020 report to council that “I lobbied the city to demolish” the property?
Let me say when asked about my expectations for the property by Mr. Puffalt October 2018 in a meeting I said, “Demolish the house or return it to a liveable state.”
July 28, 2020 (email from Ombudsman)
The Cities Act does give them the power to require buildings to be demolished or to demolish the building themselves. However, when reading legislation, when you see the word “may” it means that the city has discretion to either do or not to do. If the legislation read that the city SHALL demolish the building after the appeal period then this is a binding clause which means the city would have no other option.
I understand that for you this has been ongoing for 20 years or more. But each time the title changes the city then has to give that owner the opportunity to fix the matter. I realize the people involved haven’t changed but according to the title which is what the city has to rely on.
Take care and we will speak again soon.
Lindsay
Email from Ombudsman to me:
From my experience with nuisance bylaws, it is quite common that vacant buildings that are abandoned or unoccupied are to be secured against unauthorized entry
I do understand your frustration.
My letter was reporting on the City’s actions and responses to you and whether or not these actions were timely and reasonable. Our office does not provide legal advice nor do we have first hand knowledge of the home and it’s condition.
The letter I wrote was based solely on facts, not opinion. I provided a chronological summary of how the City responded to you.
The Ombudsman’s letter to me said, I refused to file an Administrative Review Complaint when it was offered.
Why in God’s name would I use the process in the Administrative Review bylaw, if Puffalt is involved even for, “distribution,” (yet the City Act says “no employees or councillors can be involved”.)
(email from the ombudsman)
The letter did not report on your actions so it would not have been mentioned that you apologized. “At no time did anyone with the City make any derogatory comments against you.”
(Puffalt’s September 1, 2020 report)
The City also has a respectful workplace procedure and will not communicate with customers that are exhibiting any type of excessively hostile behavior.
“Excessively Hostile Behaviour,” Mr. Puffalt, can’t help himself, but I realized, he likely believed I’m just an old fool and never read his report to council September 1, 2020; but I did.
“Excessively Hostile Behaviour,” to understand his intent: Verbal hostility, like sending threatening messages through emails, phone calls, or social media, or making threats against someone's life, shouting, and swearing. “None of which I’ve done.”
Since my complaint to the Ombudsman June 30, 2020, Other than an email to a councillor about the eavestrough that blew off the house, and thanks to Councillor Luhning it got repaired, I’ve had no contact with Puffalt and no reason too.
The City responded in a manner that was consistent with enforcement of the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw and worked with the property owner to correct the issues. (Puffalt report to council September 1, 2020)
Where in bylaw 5484 “PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND NUISANCE BYLAW” is the section that allows the city to seal up the property and walk away?
But the following is present:
Nuisances Prohibited Generally
5 No person “shall” cause or permit any property, whether occupied or not, to become, or continue to be a nuisance. Bylaw 5484
There's that pesky word “Shall,” “is a binding clause which means the city would have no other option.” (Ombudsman email, above)
Two things I learned from Mr. Myron Gulka-Tiechko, was there has never been a “kennelling facility on the property.” Yet Gary McKay (30 plus years ago) was saying they have a kennelling licence, for a “nonexistent kennelling facility” on the property.
Mr.Gulka-Tiechko, also said, citizens can file ethic complaints against city officials and councillors.
Why would I want to demolish the property “if it can be renovated to a liveable condition” or sold. Neither of which are being done.
But sadly, my confidence in Mr. Puffalt or Mr. Montgomery or some on council that permit this unexcitable situation is where we’re at. A property that isn’t liveable, hasn’t been sold, but will affect the sale of homes in the neighbourhood.
My last inquiry to Mr. Montgomery (bylaw officer for the property), was, January 13, 2022, “about the property next door.” He forwarded it to Mr Puffalt who forwarded my email to a Saskatoon lawyer, yet it was neither a “contract nor agreement” but questions concerning the “Derelict Property,” next door.
So, sealing up the property and walking away is the result of Mr. Puffalt and Mr. Montgomery’s clumsy attempt to circumvent bylaw 5484.
Maybe councillors: some of you need to read and understand your bylaws, so you can respond to the needs of citizens living next to Derelict Properties. Its time there were consequences for senior managers going around council or your bylaws!
Take care,
Carter Currie
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.
