Even though the issue was not officially on the agenda, Brantford city council delved into another debate about the south side of Colborne Street Monday night.

And nobody involved in the war of words over the street's future missed this one.

So many people showed up to hear arguments about the demolition of 41 aging properties the city has expropriated that city officials were forced to open an overflow meeting room, where council proceedings were televised.

After 16 delegations presented pro and anti-demolition arguments, councillors debated the issue in front of the public for what could be the last time before demolition begins.

The motion before council didn’t have anything to do with whether or not to go ahead with demolition, but Coun. Dan McCreary said it provided a chance to have a debate with all eyes on council.

“We haven’t had a whole lot of debate in front of the public, so tonight can be a poor substitute for a public meeting,” McCreary said. “There has not been a free flow of information to certain councillors and, therefore, the public.”

The motion, introduced by McCreary, asked that all future contracts relating to the demolition come back to council for approval instead of the usual policy of contracts being signed off by staff. It failed by the same 6-5 vote that earlier approved the expropriation of the buildings. 

Delegations included local business owners, former city councillors, the chair of the local YMCA and university professors. In all, seven delegations spoke against the plan for demolition and nine urged city council to press forward.

Coun. Vince Bucci said that a lot of the concern in the community and among some councillors has to do with the sharing of information about the south side project.

“They’re going down. It’s over," Bucci said. "We voted to expropriate and we voted to demolish. This debate tonight should be about transparency.”

Bucci, McCreary, Coun. John Sless, Coun. James Calnan and Coun. Greg Martin – who voted against expropriation 10 months ago – questioned whether or not staff and the six members of council who have pushed the south side project forward were sharing facts openly.

Councillors learned at Monday's meeting that the federal government had extended the deadline for using $1.38 million in grant money for the demolition by a full calendar year, to March 31, 2011.

“I had no idea about that and I wonder when I would have been told if it hadn’t come out just now,” Sless said.

Mayor Mike Hancock said information has been flowing to all members of council at about the same rate.

“Mr. (Brant MP Phil) McColeman just phoned me today to confirm the 2011 date,” Hancock said. “But I’d like to note that the funding from the feds was never an issue. A critical path was laid out last April that called for demolition in February and there was no mention of federal funding. We had planned to pay for it.”

The extension wasn’t the only breaking news, as it was announced that a self-directed environmental assessment was part of the deal to receive the $1.38 million from Ottawa.

“We are in the process of receiving proposals from consultants for that,” said general manager of engineering Sandra Lawson. “From start to finish, it (the environmental assessment) should take two weeks.”

The type of environmental assessment needed for the grant agreement is known as a “screening” and is different in scope than “comprehensive study” EAs. Lawson said the screening EA does examine architectural and heritage issues related to the demolition.

Councillors also heard about extensive recycling plans by the demolition contractor.

“We met with AIM Waste Management (Monday) afternoon, and learned very little is going to the landfill,” Lawson said. “Basically just the asbestos and designated substances.

“The copper, metal and wood will be recycled, and brick will be used as fill for other projects."

Lawson was pressed by councillors to explain the slope stabilization portion of the demolition.

“The contractor has already hired a geo-technical engineer from St. Catharines who has his masters in slope stabilization,” Lawson said. “And I’d like to make it perfectly clear that we are not going down to the foundations, the walls will be used as slope stabilizers.”

Coun. Martin’s main arguments against the plan differ from the others in opposition. He remains adamant that it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money.

“We have a bylaw that prevents anyone from demolishing anything downtown without a clear plan of what is going to replace it,” said Martin. “That applies to everyone except us, I guess.”

But Mayor Hancock disagrees with that course.

“I think the worst mistake we could make is to have a solid plan,” Hancock said. “Let’s take it down and look at what we have got. Then we can start deciding together what should go there.”

Traffic signage regarding the demolition are expected to start going up on Colborne Street on Wednesday.