Amherstburg town council will be imposing fees for businesses wishing to set up temporary patio extensions.
Town council received a report from manager of licensing and enforcement Bill Tetler at its most recent meeting and also directed administration to amend the temporary patio extensions bylaw to establish a yearly application fee of $300 per application, plus a $2 per square foot fee, except for applications approved within a road closure.
That was one of four options presented by Tetler in his report with others being just a $300 application fee per application, the application fee of $300 plus $2 per square foot with no consideration of whether or not the road was closed, or leaving the status quo, which was no fee associated with a temporary patio extension.
As part of the approved motion, town administration will also bring forward an operating budget issue paper for the 2026 budget deliberations, outlining potential revenue increases from applying commercial lease rates to temporary patio extensions on town property.
Councillor Molly Allaire asked how the town arrived at the $2 per square foot portion of the charge. Tetler said other comparable municipalities charge for parking and use the fee to make up for that lost revenue, but Amherstburg does not charge for parking so that portion of the fee is lower than the other municipalities.
Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb wanted clarification around what is contained in the Municipal Act, stating he was of the understanding that the town could only recoup costs and not generate revenue. CAO Valerie Critchley said a licensing service has to have full cost recovery and not make a profit.
“With respect to real estate, we are allowed to sell real estate at fair market value. This is not being called a licensing fee. This is being called a temporary patio application. That’s the difference,” said Critchley.
Councillor Diane Pouget had concerns over safety issues over patios being in the roadway. She questioned if there was an accident involving vehicles or with staff with trays crossing a sidewalk, could council be held responsible.
Critchley said a restaurant owner who wants a temporary patio extension would have to have insurance and that the town is a co-insurer and is fully indemnified. The town also has corporate insurance to protect council members, she added.
Accessibility requirements under the AODA act were also addressed by Pouget, with clerk Kevin Fox stating if there is provincial regulations, “those would apply wherever they apply.” Provincial regulations would still have to apply regardless of whether something is a town-approved initiative or not, he noted.
Councillor Peter Courtney said while the town doesn’t charge for parking, there is “value to land and there is a value to extending a commercial real estate space.” It was Courtney who brought forth the addition to the motion to have the issue paper returned to the 2026 budget deliberation.
Under questioning from Councillor Don McArthur, Tetler stated those inside of a road closure such as Open Air Weekends would have to pay the $300 application fee but not necessarily the square footage fee. The motion council passed was to have the square footage fee, except inside of a street closure.
“I guess in terms of the success of Open Air, we’re just hoping, if we pass this, that these businesses would pay this fee. We don’t know that they would. There could just be open spaces,” said McArthur.
Tetler responded by stating that would be a business decision of each of the establishments.
Businesses that put out tables and expand their footprint during Open Air would have to pay an application fee, Tetler clarified. Councillor Linden Crain wanted confirmation on types of patios and whether there would be an application fee, such as a wooden structure like in front of the Salty Dog or whether putting tables out right on the street without an actual structure like Burger 67 or The Artisan Grill.
“If council chooses to move forward with an application fee, that will be applicable across the board for anyone with a temporary patio that serves food and drink,” said Tetler.
Allaire said a $300 application fee with a $2 square footage fee, except for within street closures, made sense to her. She said she didn’t want to hinder Open Air Weekends.
“I’m not going to hinder those groups,” she said. “I want to make sure those outside that who have (a patio) seven days a week have an extra fee they have to pay. It’s free real estate.”
If a business puts up a fixed structure that is not easily set up and taken down during Open Air Weekends, they could be subject to a square footage fee because they would be able to use it more than just during a road closure, noted deputy CAO/director of development services Melissa Osborne. If a business in the footprint repeats what they did last year, they are still subject to a $300 fee.
Mayor Michael Prue asked what would happen to the money collected for the square footage fee.
“I would think it would take logical sense to put it into our parking fund,” said Prue.
Prue recalled the town charged the Bucket List Coffee Roastery in lieu for not having enough parking spaces. Osborne agreed it could go into the parking reserve and address future needs.
Courtney said it would be difficult to charge a square footage fee to those within the Open Air footprint as they take their tables and chairs down after the event versus having a more fixed structure. The issue paper will help council “fine tune” what the square footage fee could look like in the future.
Pouget said she didn’t think it was fair to charge a business like Salty Dog a square footage fee but not others in the footprint who are doing the same thing, but with tables and chairs that are moved in when the streets are not closed.
“They are using town real estate property just like Salty Dog but it’s not a permanent structure. That’s the only thing that’s different about this,” said Pouget.McArthur opposed the motion, stating “I don’t want to add another tax on top of all the other fees and taxes that Amherstburg businesses pay.”
“We have the Trump tariff threat, we have signs of a wavering economy,” McArthur continued. “I don’t want our businesses to pay for something that the residents have told us overwhelmingly that they want – more and additional patios in the downtown core.”
Imposing an application fee on businesses in the Open Air footprint hasn’t been done in the past and businesses have made capital investments. He believed that it was a punitive measure to charge a square footage fee for a fixed patio when the town doesn’t charge for parking as it is.
Stating he wants to promote tourism and economic development, McArthur said he is going to keep promoting that.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. What we have wins awards,” he said.
Gibb opposed the motion as well, stating he thought about the issue “100 different ways” but “it just feels like a cash grab.” The $300 application fee is fair, he believed, but to charge money for something that town doesn’t charge for now like parking was something he didn’t agree with it.
“I cannot get past the idea it’s a cash grab,” he said. “I also don’t think businesses who are forced to be in the Open Air footprint should pay a fee for their patios. If I lose (the vote), I lose, but I want to be very clear – I was $300 (for the application fee) and that was it.”
Crain added he opposed the motion, stating he would favour a simple $300 per application fee. To add something else to the mix, could be harmful. Crain, the chair of the economic development committee, said the addition of the square footage fee “is overkill.”
Courtney said businesses who pay the square footage fee outside the footprint would be showing confidence they can recoup the cost of the fees. Allaire said the issue is about fairness, and questioned how fair it is that some businesses get to use town property without a fee.
“It’s literally extra free real estate,” she said. “It comes down to roughly $4 per day. If they’re not making an extra $4 per day off that patio, I’d be surprised. They are getting a lot of extra business because of it.”
Pouget said she supported Courtney’s motion “because we have to charge something.”
“We have to be fair,” she said.
In a recorded vote, Prue, Courtney, Pouget and Allaire were in favour, while Gibb, Crain and McArthur were opposed.
Council decides that user fees coming for temporary patio extensions
By Ron Giofu
Comments