[3:23] Good morning. It's 9. 30.

[3:38] When we have a quorum.

[3:55] Good morning. We are live streaming and recording the February

[3:59] 3rd, 2026 Community of the Whole Meeting. Our rebuilding has

[4:03] a single - stage fire alarm in the event of

[4:05] an emergency or activation of the fire alarm, please exit

[4:08] the building through the near safe exit. Assemble in the

[4:11] East parking area by the Georgian Trail and the Beaver

[4:13] Valley Reach and await further instructions for individuals requiring special

[4:17] assistants. Please let us staff member know. Good morning, Madam

[4:23] Clerk and members in the chamber. Thank you and welcome.

[4:27] We are now moving on to A2, the approval of

[4:30] the agenda. Madam Chair, we'll just start with the traditional

[4:35] territory acknowledgement. Why don't we, okay. Shall I have you

[4:38] do that, please? Thank you. Thank you. We would like

[4:41] to begin our meeting by recognizing the First Nations, May

[4:45] T, and anyone Peoples of Canada as traditional stewards of

[4:47] the land. The municipalities located within the boundary of Treaty

[4:51] 18, Region of 1818, which is the traditional land of

[4:55] the Anishinaabe on a Shonay, and Wendatwyne. Peoples. Thank you.

[5:02] Now we are going on to A2. My apologies to

[5:05] the approval of the agenda. It's recommended that the agenda

[5:10] of February 3rd, 2026, we proved us circulated, including any

[5:13] items added to the agenda. So what any of my

[5:16] colleagues like to add any items to the agenda. Seeing

[5:21] none, could I remove her in a secondary, please, for

[5:23] the motion. So moved. Thank you, Councillor Del Move, seconded

[5:29] by Councillor Porter. Seeing no further hands. Let's call the

[5:33] vote, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. The vote is open.

[5:48] Is closed. Thank you. The motion is carried five. Nothing

[5:52] with the mayor and the deputy mayor absent today. Mother,

[5:57] I'll just confirm the council member attendance before we go

[5:59] on. I confirm that all members of council are present

[6:02] in the council chamber this morning with the exception of

[6:04] counselor Ardell, who is attending virtually. Mayor Mattrosovs is absent

[6:09] today. Deputy Mayor Bourdigno is absent today, but is expected

[6:12] to join the meeting in a little bit. Thank you.

[6:15] Thank you. Moving on to A3, Declaration of Pecuniary Interest,

[6:20] note in accordance with municipal conflict of interest act, and

[6:23] the town procedural bylaw 2023 - 62. Council members must

[6:27] file a written statement of the interest and its general

[6:29] nature with the clerk for inclusion on the registry. Do

[6:32] we have any declarations of pecuniary interest. We just check

[6:37] my other screen. All right, seeing none, we'll move on

[6:42] then. To the next item, which is previous minutes. So

[6:47] it's recommended that the committee of the whole minutes of

[6:49] January 13th, 2026, we adopted a circulated, including any revisions

[6:54] to be made. Are there any revisions that need to

[6:57] be made. Seeing none could have a mover in a

[7:01] secondary, please. On my option, moved by Councillor Porter, seconded

[7:04] by. Myself, Councillor Hope. Seeing no further comment, shall we

[7:13] put the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. What is open?

[7:19] Thank you.

[7:44] Madam Chair, I'm having an issue with my vote. Oh,

[7:46] there we go. Great, thank you. The boat is closed.

[7:49] Thank you. That motion is carried. 5 - 0 with

[7:52] the mayor and the deputy mayor absent today. So, moving

[7:55] on to a statement that Madam Clerk is going to

[8:00] read out. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[8:03] Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we begin, I would like

[8:06] to remind everyone that the town of the Blue Mountains

[8:08] is committed to maintaining a safe, respectful, and professional environment

[8:12] for all meetings and interactions involving council, the public, and

[8:16] town staff. In accordance with the town's respectful public interactions

[8:20] policy, policy number POLCOR 2207. Courteous and respectful communication is

[8:26] required at all times. Behavior that is disruptive, inappropriate, or

[8:31] disrespectful, will not be tolerated. This includes any comments or

[8:34] conduct that is threatening, harassing, discriminatory, or abusive. All speakers

[8:39] are expected to address council and staff respectfully, and keep

[8:42] comments focused on the matter before council. If these expectations

[8:46] are not met, the chair may issue a warning direct

[8:49] the speaker to stop, or take further steps to maintain

[8:52] order and ensure the meeting can proceed. Thank you. Thank

[8:55] you, Madam Clerk. Now, moving on to item B, staff

[8:59] reports deputations and correspondence. We're in the committee of the

[9:02] whole, and operations is coming up now, and it's to

[9:05] be chaired by Councillor McKinley. Councillor Kinley. I give you

[9:08] the chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, we have no

[9:11] deputation, so item B2, public comment period regarding matters included

[9:15] in operations portion of the meeting. Each speaker is a

[9:18] lot of three minutes. Note and accordance with the town

[9:20] procedural bylaw 2023 - 62. 10 minutes is a lotted

[9:24] at the beginning and end of each section of the

[9:26] committee of the whole meeting to receive public comments regarding

[9:29] matters, included on the agenda. Each person shall provide their

[9:32] name and addresses and is required to address their comments

[9:36] to the chair. Comments shall not refer to personal litigation

[9:39] or potential litigation matters. Or be in response to matters

[9:42] that have already been the subject of a public meeting.

[9:46] It being noted that the verbal commenting period has ended

[9:48] written correspondence may still be received in response to matters

[9:51] that have been the subject of a public meeting. If

[9:54] a person is unable to personally attend the meeting or

[9:56] during any period, we're an emergency has been declared to

[9:59] exist in the municipality. They shall provide their public comments

[10:02] in writing to the clerk in advance of the meeting

[10:04] for the clerk to read on behalf of the author

[10:07] during the public comment period. Now, item B 3. 1.

[10:11] We have correspondence from Mr. Jim Torrance. Blue mountain. Mr.

[10:14] Chair? Yes. Oh, sorry. Yes. Sorry, just start kept reading.

[10:22] My apologies. We have members of the public that would

[10:26] like to make public comment as prescribed. Yeah, but I

[10:29] have a short hands. I have one. Please come ahead.

[10:45] John Milm, Thornbury Ontario. Good morning. I'm here on behalf

[10:50] of Community Matters to continue our conversation about the town's

[10:55] 19 million dollar problem. The lengthy and twice delayed investigative

[11:00] report prepared by CAO Smith at the direction of council.

[11:05] He's a number of questions unanswered while raising a number

[11:07] of concerns. The report has not answered the following questions

[11:12] as it was directed to. One, will the report show

[11:16] when members of the senior management team be carecaware of

[11:19] the escalation. Two, what roles did the CAO and director

[11:25] of finance play an overseeing the escalation and the reporting

[11:28] process. Three. When was the mayor briefed on the escalation

[11:34] and by whom. Four. Was the deputy mayor. Who sits

[11:41] as a finance chair, briefed on the escalation, before it

[11:44] became public. If so, when and by whom. Mr. Smith

[11:50] owes us an explanation as to why these questions weren't

[11:53] addressed. His report simply tells us that responsibility lies with

[11:59] staff. Didn't we already know that? The report lacks any

[12:04] mention of the roles are elected officials played in this

[12:08] affair. And this latter point is especially serious. If we

[12:12] don't know what they were doing in the face of

[12:14] this financial crisis, how can they work with our confidence.

[12:19] This is not accountability in action. Similarly, Mr. Pacheco's report

[12:26] fails to break out the 19 million dollar surprise. While

[12:31] that may not have specifically been called for by council.

[12:36] That lack is very disappointing. Both reports. Like the clarity

[12:43] that begets the transparency that has been called for. What

[12:47] does come through, however, is the gravity of this situation.

[12:51] We have learned from the outset, the project's budgets were

[12:54] based on an adequate estimate. As a magnitude of the

[12:57] shortfalls became known, they were not reported. We've known this

[13:01] since last December. Our failures are both reporting and oversight,

[13:07] and they are shared by staff and council. Now their

[13:10] herald is as learnings, but that's not encouraging. At no

[13:14] point are we told the efficiencies are savings expected from

[13:16] the bundling of the three projects into one. But we

[13:20] are told that a great deal of work is now

[13:22] required to quote, ensure the town remains financially sustainable. Close

[13:28] quote. Sobering words. So too is the warning that this

[13:35] fiscal fiasco, quote, may result in the need to pause

[13:38] defer or reprioritize other capital projects. In other words, years

[13:43] of planning and expectation may be in jeopardy. At the

[13:47] end of the day, and to respect my three -

[13:50] minute times allotment. If the sorely needed clarity around the

[13:56] cultural behavioral and procedural changes, demanded by this 19 million

[14:00] dollar blender are not spelled out in the February 24th

[14:04] report. Council should be ready to engage in independent third

[14:07] party to get to the bottom of this mess. Thank

[14:11] you. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else from the

[14:14] public from the gallery that was going to make a

[14:16] comment. Second call. Mr. Chair, I would like to speak

[14:24] on behalf of a colleague, who like many members of

[14:28] council couldn't make it today. Um, and I'd like to

[14:31] speak on behalf of John Greer. A resident of Thornbury

[14:35] on high bluff lane. Just a second. Madam Clerk, is

[14:39] that something that we practice before. I have not received

[14:43] an email, I don't believe from Mr. Greer noting that

[14:46] this would occur. So if Mr. Greer wishes, he's more

[14:51] than welcome to send his comments in, and I can

[14:53] circulate those to counsel. This is committee of the whole

[14:56] today. So if Mr. Greer wishes to provide his comments,

[14:59] either at the next meeting or provide me something to

[15:01] indicate that you, Mr. Millen, would read his comments on

[15:04] his behalf. We can certainly do that. The recommendations from

[15:07] today's meeting will be considered at the February 17th Council

[15:10] meeting. So Mr. Chair, your discretion. So have you got

[15:18] a pre - it's been in front of you? Yes,

[15:19] I do. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, and

[15:22] good morning to all members elected to this town's council,

[15:26] and two, to the town senior staff. I am speaking

[15:30] on behalf of John Greer from High Bluff Lane Thornbury.

[15:33] It's my hope that these few comments today will invoke

[15:36] a further reflection of the responsibility you have to be

[15:39] the voice of your constituents, because after all, you are

[15:43] our voices in the decision - making process, regardless of

[15:46] some perceived notions that discussion must take place behind closed

[15:50] doors. Reflections too, on your need to remain silent and

[15:54] unengaging during the public comment section of the Council's agenda.

[15:58] Several months ago, I stood at this lectern and made

[16:01] note of the deputy mayor's advisement and warning to counsel

[16:05] staff in the public that this town is operating on

[16:08] quote, razor thin margins, close quote, especially in reserve funds.

[16:13] When the chair of the finance committee makes that comment

[16:15] to taxpayers that sticks with you. Now we receive an

[16:18] advisement that we are going to have more than a

[16:20] 19 million dollar shortfall. On pro - text undertaken by

[16:25] the town and the staff were aware of funding issues

[16:28] in August. Well before budget approval discussions for 2026. Further,

[16:34] the increased cost of the capital program will require according

[16:38] to the town CAO, a quote, careful review of cashflow,

[16:42] reserve strategies, debt projections, and prioritization of other capital projects

[16:46] to ensure that the town remains financially sustainable. Close quote.

[16:51] Through you, Mr. Chair, will the deputy mayor please make

[16:53] another comment today on this latest financial position we find

[16:57] ourselves in. I believe if there is any desire to

[17:00] allow a responsible a response, the chair has the latitude

[17:05] to allow it. Having read the report ADM. 26. 015.

[17:11] I'm extremely disappointed by its content, lack of responsiveness to

[17:15] council's clear direction for the preliminary report. And the fact

[17:18] that it cited as being the template for further reporting.

[17:22] It fails to address the issues at hand, accountability and

[17:25] transparency. The guardrails suggest sign - offs at the half

[17:29] a million dollar threshold. That cannot be considered acceptable by

[17:33] taxpayers after the almost 20 million dollar miscalculation in this

[17:37] project, especially given the massive contingencies involved. Mr. Chair, will

[17:42] you please provide your, will you please provide a response

[17:46] today respectfully? Thank you, John Greer. Okay, thank you. So

[17:55] I'll do the second coal. Third and final call. Okay,

[18:00] thank you. I will close the public comment period for

[18:02] the beginning of this. Now, we will move to item

[18:05] B 3. 1 correspondence from Mr. Jim Torrance. Blue Mountain

[18:09] Rate Paris Association regarding agenda item B 4. 1 Craig

[18:13] Leith SLS, Mill Street SPS and Bay Gray Street Linear

[18:19] Works. I would have a committee like to proceed. I

[18:24] like to pull up, please. Through the chair. Then go

[18:27] ahead. Yes, I didn't, given the, and through the chair,

[18:33] given the enormity of a 19 million dollar overspend. And

[18:38] I would say the way council was informed. I felt,

[18:43] and I do feel that every piece of correspondence and

[18:46] comments needs to be taken, um, seriously. And the Blue

[18:50] Mountain Ray pairs are, um, are respected organization within the

[18:54] town. Um, and I think it's really important. They're wondering

[19:00] about the current and future financial health of our town.

[19:04] Um, which we've just heard in a public comment. And

[19:07] I really just like to, um, address the three questions,

[19:11] three key questions they have to counsel. And they, they

[19:14] really want to know what are the critical learnings regarding

[19:17] financial oversight, project management, discipline, timely communications and reporting. And

[19:24] how and when these will be implemented. And these are

[19:27] really, I think, very common sense questions to ask at

[19:29] this time. Echo what I think. Do council and staff

[19:35] leadership have confidence in the current asset management plan, how

[19:40] the town will prioritize upgrades and replacements of other major

[19:44] infrastructure and have a clear picture of what this means

[19:47] for our long - term finances. I actually think this

[19:51] is a very important question, particularly with the notice of

[19:54] motion that I had brought forward at council because there

[19:56] was another big project on the books for Q2 with

[19:59] a six million dollar engineering budget. And we are still

[20:03] awaiting for an update from finances to how our longer

[20:07] term pitcher from a financial perspective will look. So I

[20:10] think this is equally a very reasonable question. Will an

[20:14] external audit also be conducted so that we can get

[20:16] an unvarnished evaluation and further recommendations for the future. That

[20:21] remains a question in my mind. We'll have to see

[20:25] how the reports go today. And they also ask a

[20:28] question, can it town the size of the Blue Mountains

[20:31] responsibly and effectively manage these kinds of large infrastructure projects.

[20:35] Again, I think that's a question and answer me unfold

[20:38] as we go through this process because the number of

[20:40] reports included in the motion from December 15th. So the

[20:47] problems they mentioned is also raised this question and considered

[20:51] a model for having such projects managed by a broader

[20:54] regional authority, a municipal service corporation working across multiple municipalities.

[21:00] The BMRA has already, as they said, stated indicated this

[21:03] would be worthy of consideration for our region with the

[21:06] municipalities of Southern Georgian Bay, seeming to be a logical

[21:10] geographic area to test this concept. Having recently attended Roma,

[21:14] I would say this didn't get talked about, gets talked

[21:16] about at that conference. It was talked about by members

[21:20] of the ministries. So, um, I just didn't feel this

[21:24] should just solely be received for information. I thought it

[21:27] deserved a due course. I don't know if many of

[21:30] my other colleagues would like to comment, but certainly, um,

[21:34] I'm happy to move that we received this. But, um,

[21:36] it was worthy of, um, noting more than just being

[21:40] a piece of paper. Thank you. Thank you, Council supporter.

[21:45] Um, like I said, to add to that, since I've

[21:49] noted that you're putting forward to move, to receipt, but

[21:51] would you also like to do the, uh, addition of,

[21:55] uh, follow - up report as well to any other

[21:58] unanswered questions. Yes. And thank you for asking, cause I

[22:02] would. And I think we'll take the approach that we

[22:04] took the other, um, which was in the investigation report

[22:08] that each and every question be answered. Okay. Thank you.

[22:11] Thank you, Councillor Porter. Um, I'm going to go to,

[22:14] um, counselor Maxwell. And I'm not sure if you want

[22:17] to do put that in writing to the clerk for

[22:20] the additional, uh, paragraph to that motion. Um, I will

[22:28] look up the wording that was used with respect to,

[22:31] um, the investigation report from Councillor Maxwell. Thank you, Chair.

[22:38] And could we have the correspondence up again, please? So

[22:48] when I was reading, uh, the correspondence, I thought, well,

[22:51] I'll take an opportunity to have a look at something

[22:53] else. So you started looking at, you know, private firms,

[22:58] they can. Deliver infrastructure projects and whatever. Then I came

[23:04] across, um. Infrastructure material. Which is interesting with in the

[23:12] event, you know, that a municipality is struggling. You can

[23:16] reach out to infrastructure interior and lean on their expertise.

[23:21] Uh, for delivery of water and wastewater projects. And I'm

[23:27] just wondering if during the course of this whole exercise,

[23:33] if our municipal staff actually reached out to infrastructure material

[23:39] to seek advice. Because when you do not, if you

[23:42] are concerned about with your abilities or with the delivery

[23:50] or project, I would think you should reach out outside

[23:54] expertise in order to, um, make sure that, uh, things

[24:00] move forward smoothly. And, um, anyway, I just thought I'd

[24:04] comment on that. Okay. Thank you. Kate. Thank you, Councillor

[24:07] Maxwell. Counselor Hope, I thought I saw your hand. Yes,

[24:11] go ahead. Yes. Thank you. Um, and, uh, first of

[24:17] all, as always, the BMRA have always come forward with

[24:20] very thoughtful input and what they have to say is,

[24:26] is, uh, most appropriate and requires a full answer just

[24:32] as the public comments that we heard earlier require an

[24:36] answer to every single one of their questions. So for

[24:39] sure, uh, as Councillor Porter Krafts her motion, I do

[24:42] want to support that, that, uh, that answers to all

[24:47] of these questions would be anticipated in, uh, the final

[24:51] report on February 24th. So, um, really appreciate the public

[24:58] BMRA and the public's interest in this 19 million dollar

[25:03] debacle, which deserves the attention and care of all of

[25:06] us. Um, I do want to, um, respond to a

[25:13] natural question that would come up about when, when did

[25:16] anyone know when? And so there's a question that I

[25:19] would love to answer about when did counsel know. But

[25:23] unfortunately, I can't speak for council. The mayor speaks for

[25:26] council and she's not here today. So, um, but I'm

[25:30] very anxious to, uh, answer that. And I want you

[25:33] to know that, um, that was a surprise, certainly to

[25:38] all of us, but the exact date and so on

[25:40] has to rest in her hands, not, not in ours.

[25:43] Um, so, um, this is a matter of grave concern,

[25:47] as has been identified. And I believe my colleagues and

[25:51] I are going to do everything we can to make

[25:53] sure that, uh, we get to the bottom of everything.

[25:58] And, um, I look forward to working with the community

[26:01] and with staff to make sure that we do that.

[26:03] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hope. Uh, Councillor Ardell, I

[26:07] can see you on the big screen, but you're not

[26:09] on my small one, but did you have anything you

[26:11] wanted to, uh, add and compliment to the correspondence before

[26:15] we get emotional on the floor. Uh, thank you, Mr.

[26:18] Chair. No, I think it's been covered by everybody. I'd

[26:21] just be, be repeating my colleagues questions. Um, yes, definitely

[26:28] there, you know, we can take it further. And yeah,

[26:32] I think we're just going to have to wait to

[26:34] see what comes out of the follow - up staff

[26:36] report. And if we don't get our answers, and we

[26:43] can go further afield, I know of some outlets that

[26:48] we could go further afield with. And I think, but

[26:53] I will give the CAO the opportunity to produce, um,

[26:59] wholesome report that will answer, hopefully all of our questions,

[27:05] because, um, I believe that, you know, the five of

[27:07] us here. And we were all informed the same day.

[27:11] So that's all I can say is I know because

[27:15] we talked singly amongst ourselves, not in a quorum. And

[27:20] we were all very surprised. And, uh, we just want

[27:24] to get to the bottom of it. And, uh, you

[27:27] know, I've seen other municipalities around the province, get themselves

[27:30] in trouble. And there's been a lot of follow -

[27:32] ups. So I think I will give the CAO the

[27:36] opportunity to have that report. And then we will go

[27:39] from there. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Odell.

[27:43] Councillor Porter. Go ahead. Um, yes, thank you. And through

[27:47] the chair, I have sent some semblance of emotion to

[27:52] Madam Clerk trying to locate and copy and paste the

[27:56] exact wording. She's providing, kindly providing me assistance with. Where

[28:02] I'm looking at the motion right now, um, provide a

[28:05] follow up staff report to answer, I would like each

[28:08] and every question. I think, um, CEO Smith him responding

[28:14] to Mr. Milne really set a good framework for that.

[28:18] Each question is followed by an answer. Okay. Madam Clerk.

[28:26] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, when Mr. Milne came

[28:31] to council on the 26, 27th of January, just forget

[28:35] the date. It was a similar motion. If you'd like

[28:38] the questions, um, itemized, I can certainly do that. Yes,

[28:42] please. Thank you. Okay. I'll just be a moment. Thank

[28:43] you. Do we want to take a few moments, Madam

[28:46] Clerk. It'll just take me a minute. Oh, okay. Just

[28:50] a moment. Okay. Through the chair, Madam Clerk, I did

[28:57] cut and piss up for you in an email. Thank

[28:59] you. Thank you.

[29:30] I'd like to second that motion. I need my microphone

[29:34] to stop turning off on me. That would be first.

[29:37] Um, okay. So the motion reads move by council reporter

[29:40] and seconded by counselor hope that council, the talent blue

[29:42] mountains received for information, the January 29th, 2026 correspondence of

[29:46] Jim Torrance, Lu Mount Ray Pairs Association regarding agenda item

[29:52] B 4. 1 Craig Leaf SLS Mill Street SPS and

[29:56] Bay Gray Street linear works. And that council directs I

[29:59] have to provide a follow - up staff report to

[30:01] answer all questions, post in the January 29th, 2026 correspondence

[30:05] of Jim Torrance. Blue Mountain Raper Association as follows. One,

[30:09] what are the critical learnings regarding financial oversight project management

[30:14] discipline and timely communications and reporting. How and when will

[30:18] these be implemented. Number two, do counsel and staff leadership

[30:22] have confidence in our current asset management plan, how do,

[30:26] how the town will prioritize upgrades and replacements of other

[30:31] major infrastructure and have a clear picture of what this

[30:34] means for our long - term finances. Three, will an

[30:38] external audit also be conducted. So that we get an

[30:43] unvarnished evaluation and further recommendations for the future. Four. But

[30:47] the biggest question maybe can a town this size of

[30:51] Blue Mountains responsibly and effectively manage these kinds of large

[30:56] infrastructure projects. Okay. Set the motion you are moving counselor

[31:00] porter. Uh, yes. Through the chair, yes. However, um, when

[31:05] you see it up here, uh, what I'm thinking is

[31:08] we have a number of report deadlines in the, in

[31:13] the emotion that was passed on December 15th, that these

[31:18] questions would nicely fit into. So I would like some

[31:22] wording in the fact that these questions be answered. Some

[31:26] of them should come in the February 24th reports. Others

[31:30] will come in finance so that they reference back to

[31:34] the appropriate report out of future date from the December

[31:38] 15th motion. I'm not sure. If. Do you need any

[31:44] more information, Madam Clerk? It's just really tying it back.

[31:48] As I think it's important that these questions be embedded

[31:51] in the appropriate reports as opposed to being a standalone.

[31:58] Back. There. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just looking at

[32:01] the timeline. So the recommendations from today's meeting will be

[32:04] considered at the February 17th Council meeting. The February 23rd

[32:12] meeting is 23rd and 24th committee. The whole meetings. That's

[32:15] when the next reports are due. Um, so by the

[32:19] time this motion is confirmed by council, the February 23rd

[32:23] and 24th reports will have been written and posted to

[32:27] the website. So a staff have this information. I'm not

[32:31] certain that it'll be available and included in those February

[32:35] 23rd, 24th committee of the whole reports. But staff are

[32:40] provided staffer here and are watching and are listening. So

[32:44] if you want to embed it into the motion, we

[32:47] can. But I don't want to speak for staff as

[32:49] to whether, um, they will have the time to embed

[32:52] this into, uh, that report. I believe CAO has something

[32:56] here. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm going to lean on

[32:58] CAO Smith. Yes, through the chair, what we can do,

[33:03] and, uh, maybe keeping the resolution as written right now,

[33:09] we could take it away to see how that may

[33:11] fit in terms of a follow - up report or

[33:13] which report that would, uh, ideally fit within the context

[33:16] of the previous resolution that was put forward regarding the

[33:22] affected projects. So, uh, and then we can see whether

[33:24] we need some more additional time, uh, these questions I

[33:28] anticipate to be, um, too difficult in terms of providing

[33:31] response back at a, at a, uh, council meeting at

[33:35] an early point of time. So thank you. Thank you

[33:37] CEO Smith. Follow up. Yes. Uh, through the chair. So

[33:41] the would appear from the original motion back in December,

[33:45] the latest report dates are March 16th and 17th. So

[33:48] I think if we put that these are all done

[33:50] by March 16th and it would make sure that everything

[33:53] comes together at one end point because you don't want

[33:56] it coming in dribbles and drops. Does that work CEO

[34:00] Smith. Yes. That would work. Okay. Madam Clerk. Thank you

[34:08] for that information. My apologies. I was thinking that was

[34:11] coming to the next committee of the whole cycle. So

[34:14] I can certainly add that. Okay. We'll just wait a

[34:17] moment. I'll add a line at the very, very end.

[34:25] Did you have something to follow up CEO Smith? I

[34:27] just see your hand. No. Okay. And. I, so Councillor

[34:36] Porter, was that. Once we get the last of the

[34:40] dates in there, I did see Councillor Ardell. I did

[34:44] see your hand. So did you have something to add

[34:48] cancer reporter? Um, it's my hand still. Yes. You're here.

[34:52] Okay. No, that's all right. Councillor, thank you. Council reporter.

[34:55] Councillor Odell. Go ahead. Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[34:58] And yes, I was going to say the date, um,

[35:01] and I had recalled a date in March, but I

[35:03] couldn't remember that date. And the clerk is correct. This

[35:07] will be coming to February 17th meeting. And then there

[35:12] is another report. And I hope that all staff involved

[35:17] in this will have something a little bit different by

[35:21] March. And that, and that's what I wanted to say

[35:24] that we did have a march state. And I, and

[35:26] I still can't remember what it was the next meeting

[35:29] in March. And I think then we should have a

[35:31] very wholesome discussion because everything will hopefully have, um, opened

[35:38] up some doorways. And if there's some, uh, legal issues

[35:44] that can't be told and they need to seek out

[35:47] what that is or getting in touch with other avenues

[35:51] and hopefully at that time March 16th, yeah, um, I

[35:56] think everything will be answered. That's all I have to

[36:00] say. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Adele. Okay. So I've

[36:03] read the motion out loud and then the last, uh,

[36:06] paragraph says, and that the above information be included in

[36:09] the staff report to be provided at the March 16,

[36:11] 2026 committee of the whole meeting. It's that appropriate to

[36:14] the mover. Yeah. Since through the chair, since one of

[36:20] the motions said in the December 15th motion one, um,

[36:26] meeting date was the 17th. Say slash because there may

[36:31] be an appropriateness. So just look steam slash 17. So

[36:35] cause it's important. I think it's really important that the

[36:37] relevant information fits in the relevant report. Correct. So I

[36:42] believe Madam Clerk is just going to adjust that to

[36:45] say. 16 slash 17. This is secondary. Oh yeah. Yes.

[36:52] But I do want to add that, um, there's some

[36:55] questions that I think could be answered as expeditiously as

[36:58] possible on the 24th. We look forward to that. There's

[37:01] an opportunity to answer some of these questions or start

[37:04] to. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Hope. Okay. I

[37:08] don't see any further hands from any of the other

[37:11] members of the committee. So, uh, Madam Clerk, you may

[37:14] call that vote, please. I'll

[37:24] just be a moment here, Mr. Chair. The vote is

[37:32] open. I would like to vote in the affirmative. It

[37:38] has not come up on my screen, Madam Clerk. Thank

[37:40] you, Mr. Chair. The vote is closed. That vote is

[37:48] carried with all five members present voting in the affirmative.

[37:52] So now we will move to item B 4. 1

[37:54] Craig Leith SLS Mill Street SPS. And it should say

[37:59] bay gray, not by gray. Street linear works. Financial reporting

[38:05] and project cost update OPS. 26. 008, unless I've got

[38:09] an incorrect version. You're correct. Titan. I should say bay.

[38:15] Yes. I'm going to turn it over to. Director Pacheco.

[38:23] You have the floor.

[38:35] So good morning through the chair. Oh, I got some

[38:37] feedback.

[38:48] Okay. Thank you. So I threw the chair. My name

[38:50] is Al Pacheco. I'm the director of operations here at

[38:52] the town of the Blue Mountains with me. I have

[38:55] proofread desire and manager of capital projects. And I have

[38:57] Michael Campbell, who is our senior engineer coordinator who's online.

[39:03] Uh, this report really is about closing loop on council's

[39:05] direction to bring financial updates. Uh, for the Craig Leithation

[39:10] Bay Street, Gray Street linear works. And the military pumping

[39:12] station. So this is the first of, uh, many quarterly

[39:16] updates as it relates to the project. Although these projects

[39:19] were bundled for construction efficiency. Council asked that we, uh,

[39:23] clearly separate the report. The reports financials for each component.

[39:27] This report does not exactly that. It provides a clear

[39:31] snapshot of where we are today, how much we've spent,

[39:34] what's been committed, and what remains available across engineering construction.

[39:38] And the utility relocating costs. The overall project, um, budget

[39:44] was 53. 5 million dollar given where we are in

[39:51] construction. The engineering where we are in construction. The engine

[39:54] work is well underwear. All construction spending, um, of the

[39:57] lift station and bay street are still near your leaf

[40:01] phases with military pulmonization. Not yet having been tendered. So

[40:05] those costs are still based on pretender estimates. This report

[40:12] sets out a framework of how, uh, staff will be

[40:14] also providing quarterly reports through each quarter at the end

[40:18] of each quarter. Um, again, this, um, this will be

[40:24] for the life of this project starting to get an

[40:26] idea of quarter, the first quarter of 2026. As well

[40:30] as finalizing the year end accounting, um, there are some

[40:33] numbers in 2025 that may slip slightly, uh, but the

[40:38] report gets counsel solid baseline of where we are at.

[40:42] So if I could slowly go through the engineering and

[40:45] maybe go through some of the costing or where we're

[40:48] at with the project. So for engineering, the two tables.

[40:51] The first table here represents the engineering budget where the

[40:54] engineering budget is a budget is the proved budget where

[40:59] the, the second line there is the committed funds which

[41:03] are what the commitments are with the engineering and consulting

[41:07] firm for this project as Councilman Public will see that

[41:12] the, uh, amount spent is where we're at with, with

[41:16] current spend on engineering, uh, the number below that is

[41:21] what's remaining within the, within the, uh, that, um, that

[41:25] PO. So we've to date, um, we've spent 47 percent

[41:28] of the committed values and we have 52 percent, uh,

[41:34] remaining. Frequent scroll down for the next table. This table

[41:41] here represents sort of, well, the engineering budget was consolidated

[41:45] into one budget, uh, here we're showing where the costs

[41:50] are for the engineering costs for the specific projects. So

[41:55] if we look at the Craig Lee Cliff station, uh,

[41:57] we've spent, uh, spent 14 percent of the budget or

[42:01] 361, we've spent 330, 000 non engineering. And, um, the

[42:09] Bay Street, Gray Street 484. 1. 176 of money

[42:19] spent or 47 percent of the budget. While the engineering

[42:24] budget, um, consists of both the design. It also, uh,

[42:29] it also includes the site inspection. And the site inspection

[42:33] of contract administration come on. So that the 54 or

[42:37] 53 percent will be used likely for, for that amount.

[42:47] If you can scroll down, uh, as it relates to

[42:49] the Craig leaf station separated the contract value. So if

[42:54] we look at the contracted amount, we have, um, 8.

[42:58] 477 million dollars to date we spent 363, 000 dollars

[43:04] on the project, leaving us, um, 8. 1 million dollars

[43:09] of 96 percentiles that has been, that has not been

[43:15] spent. Um, leaving the interval project that.

[43:26] We scroll down to the basement mil street. Again, the

[43:30] committed, the committed funds for this contract, uh, with the

[43:36] construction contractor is 17. 927 million dollars. We've spent, uh,

[43:44] not to date, but to December 31st or the last

[43:47] draw was 1. 3 million dollars leaving us with 60

[43:50] million dollars left or roughly 93 percent of the project

[43:54] budget. There is a contingency on that, uh, on that,

[43:58] um, contract of 2. 4 million dollars and haven't spent,

[44:02] uh, contingency. So with that remaining, uh, there's a remaining

[44:07] budget of 19. 19. 03 million dollars or 94 million

[44:12] dollars or 94 percent. Of the projects still unspent are

[44:17] available. So again, with Mail Street, we have intended the

[44:22] work. The 19. 4, 19 point, I think 94 million

[44:27] is the pretender, um, pretender estimates. So once, once we

[44:32] tender the work, we can provide some updates as to

[44:35] what they committed amounts were, um, provide some updates as

[44:39] the contract is issued. In reference to the December, I

[44:46] think it was 15th report. Part of the unsculpt work

[44:51] in the original budget was the utility relocation. So again,

[44:56] here what I've done is I've tried to demonstrate what

[44:58] we've spent as far as, uh, our utility relocation miscellaneous

[45:02] items throughout this project while they're not tied to the

[45:06] any of the contract amounts with the contractors. They're part

[45:09] of the overall budget. So, uh, going through here, we

[45:13] can see that there are some, uh, utility work that

[45:16] has been completed. We have some agreements in place. There's

[45:19] still some outstanding, um, simultaning utility work underway and throughout

[45:25] the project and throughout the quarters will provide updates as

[45:29] it relates to the overall budget spent. If you scroll

[45:35] down, um, currently the pre - HST funding amount for

[45:41] this was 900, 000 dollars You see the 915. This

[45:44] represents, uh, with the non - refundable HST. So if

[45:48] we scroll down and what I aim to do here

[45:50] at this, uh, on this, um, table here below is

[45:53] trying to consolidate all the works here. So it provides,

[45:57] um, provides some clarity as to what's been spent, what

[46:01] the, uh, committed amounts are what's available. And the overall

[46:06] budget. So if we go through the, um, if we

[46:10] go through the stable, the first line here, engineering committed

[46:14] amounts, this is, this is the contract value with our

[46:17] consultant, not the budget. So not to confuse it to.

[46:20] So this is what we've spent, uh, we have 47

[46:24] percent spent leaving us with 53, uh, remaining. Next is

[46:29] a utility in miscellaneous relocation. As mentioned, we have 900,

[46:32] 000 dollars budget for this amount with the HS non

[46:35] refundable HST or non - recoverable HSD. Brings this value

[46:40] to 915, 840. To date, we spent 84, 000 and

[46:49] change. The Craig Leith sewage lift station. Again, the cost,

[46:57] the PO mount is 8. 977 million dollars. If we

[47:01] look at the non - recoverable HST brings that total

[47:05] up to 9. 1 million dollars to date, we've spent,

[47:10] um, three, uh, 363, 000 dollars. Similar with a Bay

[47:15] Street. The numbers here are represented on the above tables.

[47:20] So this just summarizes where we, we have 20 million

[47:24] dollars. Of the cost excluded in HST. We've spent to

[47:28] date 1. 3 million dollars roughly six percent. And as

[47:32] you'll note here with the Mill Street, Sushliv Station, uh,

[47:35] the numbers that representing here are the pretender estimates. So

[47:39] we have an issue that tender and we have an

[47:40] award of the contract. Well, this is just based on

[47:43] the current, um, issue for tender estimates. With that, the

[47:49] overall budget of the, again, rounding this up, the overall,

[47:53] um, budget for this, for this project is 53. 563

[47:59] million dollars. Again, these numbers are, representative of the figures

[48:03] that were shown on the December 15th committee of the

[48:06] whole meeting. So with that, if there is any other

[48:09] questions, um, we'll leave it to the chair. Thank you,

[48:15] director. For we go to the committee, did director of

[48:18] finance when I had anything along those lines for the

[48:20] financial aspects. No, we're good. Okay. So I will look

[48:24] to members of the committee for the questions retaining to

[48:27] this update. Councillor reporter. Go ahead. Yes.

[48:38] Thank you. And through the chair. So since. I spent

[48:44] a lot of time crafting the motion that has resulted

[48:47] along with others and others in the community, which is

[48:51] resulted in the report today, um, I do have a

[48:55] number of questions. So I hope we either I can

[48:59] say them all or I get a few rounds at

[49:01] this. So my questions are to staff. So I'm really

[49:09] not sure why this was called a fulsome report. That

[49:12] is due February 24th. So I'm hoping this is an

[49:15] it. The motion did not ask for a snapshot. It

[49:22] asked for throughout the project. That's what it was. I

[49:26] have found, um, discrepancies. In the budget. This report goes

[49:31] back to it. It was first, the first element of

[49:34] this bundled report was approved in the 2021 budget. And

[49:40] they came with, um. And while it was before your

[49:45] time, Mr. Pachenko, um. This is project resides in your

[49:49] area. In May 22, 2023 was the first escalation. Then

[49:55] we had another one in April 2023, August, 2023, um,

[50:02] where there was two. And I have a difference of

[50:07] 374, 000 dollars. So I will be asking for that

[50:10] to be accounted for. Cause when I've done, um, the

[50:13] math, I just don't understand that. So and. The financials

[50:23] here really don't address. There isn't how we got to

[50:27] where we are. It doesn't address the cost escalation. It

[50:30] gives, as you have said, a couple of times in

[50:33] the report, a clear snapshot. The purpose of the motion

[50:39] in its entirety was to figure out how we ended

[50:42] up 19 million in the whole. So I have some

[50:46] concerns. I also have some concerns that we have no

[50:50] idea with the financials associated with this project, which this

[50:53] report was to do. The financial reporting and project cost

[50:58] update. Where the Hughes funding fits in. And there was

[51:03] a report in October. While it was prepared by finance,

[51:08] I mean finance, you know, it was there. But the

[51:11] Hughes funding supports some of the project funds. And I

[51:15] don't see how that fits in. Because when you factor

[51:18] in the amounts, the fuse funding was to provide based

[51:22] on percentage of completion of the project. The town has

[51:26] spent less. Because they're two separate funding streams and they're

[51:30] not identified. Okay. Just we've got, I've heard two questions

[51:37] so far. I've heard your three, your discrepancy of 300

[51:39] and something thousand. And then I've heard about the hues

[51:42] funding. And Council supporter. Of course, let's have you have

[51:46] your ask your questions, but just so we can keep

[51:48] up. I would like to refer over to either director

[51:52] Pacheco or finance for, as that description that discrepancy been

[51:58] forwarded. I'm not sure what it is. Go ahead. So

[52:01] food chair to Council Podry. I believe on the August

[52:04] 23rd report. There is an escalation of 600, 000 dollars,

[52:08] but that 600, 000 dollars is for a different project.

[52:12] It's for the outfall project and not for the engineering

[52:16] for this project. So I believe that I think the

[52:19] discrepancy you're looking at is that that project is a

[52:22] separate project. So, um, again, I think there's, there's a

[52:27] discrepancy there. Um, again, as it relates, go ahead. I'd

[52:31] just like to have a follow up then. So if

[52:35] that is true and you deduct the 600 and the

[52:37] 275 is the 2. 775 million is still incorrect. And

[52:43] through the chair, if we look at the report here,

[52:46] so the actual budget amount, it accounts for the 2.

[52:50] 275, from the engineering budget and the committed value. So

[52:57] while the engineer, the contract value is 2. 49. The

[53:03] actual budget. If you look at the 2. 77500, 000.

[53:08] If you look at that report, we were at 2.

[53:11] 5, 2. 5 thousand. And then we asked for an

[53:14] additional, I believe it was 160, 000. So again, I

[53:17] can come back. I can provide a clear explanation, but

[53:21] again, I think there was, um, an error on that

[53:26] component of the engineering. So it's, it was actually, uh,

[53:30] what you're referencing is, is for the LFR project, not

[53:33] for the, uh, the engineering of the mill street foreigner.

[53:38] Okay. Through the chair, I can accept that. Um, but

[53:42] if you take then the 3. 15, 3. 1 million

[53:47] minus 600. You don't get 2. 7. So I think

[53:52] I would like that clarified because it's not clear. And

[53:56] if I may just continue with that theme, the report

[53:59] required the financials to be reported out on the project

[54:03] as a whole and individually. Therefore, it wasn't, I think

[54:08] it's a reasonable expectation that the tables are the same.

[54:14] And they have different lines. There's holes. There's places where

[54:18] if the blank, is that because it's not applicable or

[54:21] the number, like it just bakes the question, why is

[54:25] it blank? So I'd like to see the tables identical.

[54:28] I think they should mirror each other. Okay. And then

[54:32] we go ahead. I see Mr. DeSai as well. Yeah.

[54:36] Go ahead. So again, I welcome any, any feedback as

[54:39] far as, uh, the layout and council would want to

[54:42] see this report again. The intent today was provided, I

[54:47] guess snapshot or a summary, we're with a project where

[54:51] we spent the money. Again, um, if they're, if there's

[54:55] anything else that council would like to see in these

[54:57] report, again, originally had contemplating putting the huge funding in

[55:03] and as it relates to the financial spending. But the

[55:06] overall, the focus of this report was more, more outlining

[55:10] where we're at with the project and the project spent.

[55:13] And looking at the huge funding would be more of

[55:14] a financial update as to where the budgets, where the

[55:21] funds are coming from, how much of that will be

[55:23] through the reserves. Um, the financial reserves, the asset replacement

[55:29] reserves, uh, that's where I was looking at providing some

[55:32] more of that, um, the huge funding and correlation with,

[55:36] with the spending. Mr. Desai, yeah. To the chair.

[55:46] Sorry my la. Through the chair. My apologies, my laptop

[55:51] just went off on me, but I have the answer

[55:53] for that question. I have the trail from 2023 to

[55:56] 2025 how the two point, the two million dollars vended

[56:00] to 2. 7250 million dollars. So I just, once it

[56:06] gets on, I can ask that question. My apologies. Okay.

[56:09] Thank you. I'll look for your hand. Continue. Is around

[56:15] the motion asked for, um, the financial, report out throughout

[56:21] the project delivery time period. So I'm still, I don't

[56:25] understand why we received a snapshot because it doesn't really

[56:28] outline how we ended up 19 million in the hole.

[56:32] So I can just leave that. And it would be

[56:38] appreciated to have the hues funding because it is part

[56:42] of the finance. It's funding a law for law. And

[56:46] repeatedly, we've been told that the project needed to go

[56:49] because we would lose the huge funding. So the hues

[56:51] funding, um, I believe, you know, should have been included.

[56:57] And then the other thing I'd like to talk about

[56:59] is the reporting framework, which is being put forward as

[57:03] this is how it will be reported in the future.

[57:05] And I find that from a project management perspective, it

[57:09] really misses the mark. I think there needs to be

[57:13] a lot more fulsome reporting. I would expect it. I

[57:18] have, um, I did actually with my comments on this

[57:21] report to CAO include a sample. I had put together.

[57:25] I think when you have a 19 million dollar overspent

[57:29] on a project report going forward, it is important to

[57:32] tell the taxpayers and counsel. But more importantly, the taxpayers.

[57:36] What did their money do in the last three months.

[57:39] And what is the money going to do in the

[57:42] next three months that they can measure it again? Because

[57:45] they want to know because this money, we only have

[57:49] one taxpayer, whether it comes in a grant, whether it

[57:51] comes from user fees for water, the same person, they're

[57:55] always paying the bill. And I think they owed more

[58:01] than what this proposed framework is providing. And I would

[58:05] like to see a more fulsome. I want to see

[58:10] a comprehensive project reporting template, which a project manager, um,

[58:15] should be able to do on all about the money.

[58:19] And it's not just about the money. If you think

[58:21] about it, when our finance department brings forward a budget,

[58:25] an annual budget, the numbers form a very small part

[58:30] relative to the size. There's a lot of verbiage around

[58:33] what's going to happen and what's going to, what has

[58:36] been done, et cetera, et cetera. You can't just rely

[58:39] on the numbers. You're going to have to provide some

[58:41] explanation. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Maxwell. Or was Councillor Hope's

[58:49] hand, did your hand go up and down. It keeps

[58:51] doing that. I was the next after cancer reporter. Then

[58:55] that's all right with Councillor Maxwell. Take me turn now.

[58:58] Thank you. Um, so yes, I absolutely support what Councillor

[59:05] Porter is saying in terms of this report does not

[59:11] meet the moment. You know, we're in a crisis here.

[59:20] And we've got very rightfully angry public, uh, rightfully angry,

[59:27] council, a lot of disappointment here. And to have this

[59:30] report come up, um, I just don't see where it

[59:36] answers the need. And the first thing that council reporter

[59:39] said, certainly I was expecting this as well. You know,

[59:43] how did we get here. You know, how do these

[59:47] estimates, which is what it seems to be, we've depended

[59:49] on estimates all along. That's my reading of this. You

[59:52] know, how did we continue to do this over years

[59:55] to read these faulty estimates all the way along and

[59:58] to, um, go buy all the gates that are supposed

[1:00:02] to be there for project management purposes and for the

[1:00:06] management of any situation. So it doesn't do what it

[1:00:10] needs to do. Um, in terms of the template itself,

[1:00:14] that's sort of something that is really a little concerned

[1:00:19] at the moment. We need to put out the, not

[1:00:21] the fire, but we need to be able to, um,

[1:00:24] give full answers to the public, which they deserve. And

[1:00:28] this report did nothing. And in fact, I'm worried. Further,

[1:00:34] sorry to make everyone even more worried. But I'm worried

[1:00:38] about the fact that the Mill Street section has not

[1:00:43] been tendered yet. So and also I thought I heard.

[1:00:49] I took a note that we were still working with

[1:00:51] pretender estimates. So, um, I'd like to find out more

[1:00:57] through you, Mr. Chair about sort of three things. And

[1:01:02] the Mill Street, it's not tendered yet. So we don't

[1:01:05] actually know the final cost till we hear from, from

[1:01:07] the trade really. And then secondly, what estimates are we

[1:01:13] working on now? Because that's not clear to me. Thirdly,

[1:01:16] how is this affecting the timing? I mean, we've been

[1:01:19] told again, and we certainly saw what happened in the

[1:01:22] harbor. I'm not questioning for a moment that this isn't

[1:01:25] an emergency from the point of view that we need

[1:01:27] Real Street. But how is this affecting further costs? Because

[1:01:33] we haven't tendered yet. And what are the implications in

[1:01:37] the long run? So we, what I'm hearing is as

[1:01:41] bad as the 19 million was, we still don't seem

[1:01:43] to have a handle on things. So I'm wondering if

[1:01:45] you can give me some comfort. Thank you. So CAO

[1:01:49] Smiths, I see your hand. Go ahead, Sir Gail Smith.

[1:01:53] Through the chair, I can speak to a few different

[1:01:55] pieces based on both council reporters, comments and with respect

[1:01:58] to Councillor Hopes as well. So firstly, I think in

[1:02:01] relation to the report that's presented, uh, currently, and being

[1:02:05] that nature of interim report, I think what I'm hearing

[1:02:08] is well is that certainly that there is a great

[1:02:10] level of detail that is, uh, still expected from, from

[1:02:13] members of council. I will know based on the timing

[1:02:16] as well, uh, that we did have, uh, unfortunately director

[1:02:19] Quinlan did have a personal emergency to which was unable

[1:02:21] to, uh, to, to work with staff and providing that

[1:02:25] deeper dive with respect to the, the interim report. So

[1:02:28] it may benefit from that further review at a later

[1:02:31] point for that, uh, for that Folsom report. Uh, I

[1:02:34] also know, and maybe I would all tackle as well

[1:02:36] as relation to the status of the Mill Street works.

[1:02:39] And while this is absolutely, I think there's also a

[1:02:44] fear, at least a concern, uh, from my perspective, I

[1:02:47] know between, uh, for OP staff as well as for

[1:02:50] finance staff is to your point around what that number

[1:02:52] may be. And while we're at the point where we

[1:02:54] have the highest level of confidence we likely can based

[1:02:58] on the class assessments that have been provided. There is

[1:03:00] still a risk that say if Mill Street does or

[1:03:03] whatever does come end up coming back, that it may

[1:03:05] be higher than, than what was initially forecasted. So I

[1:03:08] know I speak a little bit in my report, but

[1:03:11] essentially is the basis for why we're doing this value

[1:03:13] engineering exercise is a risk management exercise. Yes, the risk

[1:03:17] to say the longer you wait in terms of tendering,

[1:03:22] there may be those higher costs to which a town

[1:03:24] may withstand. But my hope is that through this exercise,

[1:03:28] it does achieve two objectives and one in which is

[1:03:31] looking at taking deeper dives, say from even a design

[1:03:33] element too, if there are still significant savings that can

[1:03:36] be afforded to the town and undertaking this work. Uh,

[1:03:39] but further, uh, is also looking at from a change

[1:03:43] management exercise to understand just at a high level from

[1:03:45] a process standpoint in reflecting on this exercise, uh, what

[1:03:50] else can be done? Not holistically be it for the

[1:03:52] projects I've already been tendered or those even just other

[1:03:56] capital projects as well to find, you know, are there

[1:03:58] ways we could do things differently from a process angle

[1:04:02] and to use those, those lessons learned as a, as

[1:04:04] a big piece moving forward. So, uh, once again, I

[1:04:07] think there is to be a further report that will

[1:04:10] benefit from, I think, some level detail. And certainly we'll

[1:04:13] appreciate it. I think some council feedback via that resolution

[1:04:16] in terms of what those expectations will be. But at

[1:04:19] the same time, uh, we've heard loud and clear in

[1:04:21] terms of that, that, uh, that risk portrait that still

[1:04:24] exists related to the untended works. And that's why we're

[1:04:27] looking at, uh, we've, we've embarked on this, this value

[1:04:30] engineering exercise. Okay. Thank you CEO Smith director. Did you

[1:04:36] have a follow up as well? Thank you. So through

[1:04:38] the chair, I think, um, Salesmith hadn't mentioned it. I

[1:04:40] think the one thing that, uh, again, as far as

[1:04:44] the issue for the, the issue for tender estimates, again,

[1:04:48] the, the mill street, uh, the mill street is the

[1:04:51] only untenred work. Uh, so again, with a level of,

[1:04:55] of, um, I guess level of risk there when we

[1:05:01] all issue the tender and see what, what results from

[1:05:03] that. But as far as the, the Mill Street project

[1:05:07] and the Craig leaf lift station, those projects have been

[1:05:10] rewarded. We are under contract outside of anything major happening

[1:05:16] in the construction work. Those are, those are the level

[1:05:21] of comps that we have with as far as the

[1:05:23] work that's being completed there. Um, there isn't any risk.

[1:05:28] Again, not, not knowing what Mill Street will come in

[1:05:32] at. We do have a level of confidence now that

[1:05:34] we are at a class A estimate. And again, as

[1:05:38] the again, when we started with projections were very, the

[1:05:44] projections were very, very, um, very, very broad. And as

[1:05:48] we go through the design elements, as you go through

[1:05:51] the 30, 60, 90 percent design with the construction estimates.

[1:05:57] And that's, we're at 100 percentage line where the level

[1:06:00] of confidence, the amounts that we're estimating are substantiated through

[1:06:10] the design. So, um, just to provide some sort of

[1:06:13] relief to counselor hope. Please. Follow up. Thank you. Councillor

[1:06:19] King. Chair. Okay. So. I understand answers are on the

[1:06:27] way. And as I said, I hope Ms. Councillor Porter

[1:06:30] and I have indicated their answers more to the point

[1:06:33] coming along the way. But I want to know at

[1:06:36] this point. Where are we with working with estimates. In

[1:06:40] terms of, uh, we estimates were the reason why we

[1:06:44] got into this problem from what I understand correct me

[1:06:46] if I'm wrong. But how much of what percentage right

[1:06:50] now are we working on estimates and how accurate are

[1:06:54] they? Thank you. Director. So for the chair again, as

[1:06:59] it relates to estimates, the only estimate that we're working

[1:07:04] on right now is with Mill Street. Until that contract

[1:07:06] is awarded, uh, we won't know concretely what those, those

[1:07:11] costs are. As far as the other due projects, we,

[1:07:13] we have, we have, uh, they're, they're, um, they've been

[1:07:19] tender, meaning that there's, there's an agreement between the town

[1:07:22] and the contractor with the Mill Street pumping station. We

[1:07:25] are the class A estimate, meaning that there is through

[1:07:28] the design, there's been a lot of rigor put towards

[1:07:31] the design and the cost estimations as it relates to

[1:07:35] as to relates to costs of pumps and certain, certain,

[1:07:40] um, construction material. However, it's still up to, um, the

[1:07:45] market to, to, to bid on this work. But as

[1:07:48] far as, uh, confidence level, we're confident, we're very confident

[1:07:54] with the value of the 19 million dollars. And what

[1:08:00] I would say is again, just, um, uh, anecdotally, uh,

[1:08:04] with our outfall project, uh, issue for tender for 18

[1:08:08] million dollars. So we had budget 18 million dollars We

[1:08:11] awarded the contract, uh, I believe it was, uh, eight

[1:08:15] million dollars. So there was, there was a 10 million

[1:08:17] dollar difference. Again, so there is a level of, of,

[1:08:21] of uncertainty when it comes to tendering work. Uh, and

[1:08:25] we've seen it with some of the projects, some of

[1:08:28] the submissions we had in our projects. We had a

[1:08:30] 17 million dollar bid and we had a 25 million

[1:08:33] dollar bit. We can't dictate what the market's going to

[1:08:36] come to us, but we can do is be able

[1:08:38] to, uh, through the engineering estimates go through and evaluate

[1:08:43] what those costumes cost estimates are. Okay. Director Klingland. Uh,

[1:08:49] thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to answer a

[1:08:50] couple of questions around the timing as well and with

[1:08:54] respect to the Hughes funding. So we have elevated this

[1:08:56] to the province. We've been speaking to the province, um,

[1:09:00] there is an application process to request an extension. We

[1:09:04] are aware of two other extensions that have occurred in

[1:09:07] the province so far. So we're hoping to be, um,

[1:09:11] assessed for that as well. But again, we'll, we'll go

[1:09:14] through the application process. We have raised the flag to

[1:09:17] MPP Saunderson as well. Um, and also addressing the fact

[1:09:20] that the tenders have come in so much higher or

[1:09:24] let me rephrase that the estimates at this point for

[1:09:26] Mail Street and whether there would be any funding remaining.

[1:09:29] Now, of course, that's a real shot in the dark,

[1:09:31] but we're going to do our best to continue to

[1:09:32] go after that. With respect to the risks of being

[1:09:37] even more than the 19 million, I think one thing

[1:09:39] that maybe I just wanted to add is that there

[1:09:42] are some risks. And we brought the risks up about

[1:09:45] around the value engineering assignment. And the fact that, to

[1:09:49] be fair, that it may delay the tender even further.

[1:09:52] The tender was, um, ready. Uh, sometime in January, but

[1:09:57] we have put a pause on it based on the

[1:10:00] value engineering exercise. Because if that exercise does, um, raise

[1:10:05] questions or provide us with alternative methods. We may want

[1:10:09] to change the design or it may even impact those

[1:10:13] earlier projects such as Bay Street and the Craig Leaf

[1:10:17] main live station. Now in addition to that, what, um,

[1:10:21] staff, and I would say that, um, the, uh, project

[1:10:24] coordinator, my comfrey has brought up is that the further

[1:10:28] we delay the project, the increase in bypass pumping as

[1:10:31] well. Because of course we have to have somewhere to

[1:10:33] pump, um, this, uh, sewage and there will be additional

[1:10:38] costs from that perspective. There is contingency already in the,

[1:10:42] in the, um, breakdown of the budget to cover that.

[1:10:46] But we do need to be aware that once we

[1:10:48] go through, um, value engineering exercise, which will occur the

[1:10:52] last week of February, um, with an expectation that the,

[1:10:56] um, the final report or a final draft, I will

[1:10:59] say will be available to staff, um, before the second

[1:11:02] week of March. So, um, we'll have much better information

[1:11:06] at that point as to whether there really are some

[1:11:08] changes that can be had and maybe some savings. Um,

[1:11:12] but also whether what the additional cost may be. Thank

[1:11:17] you, Director Quinlan. If I could, you're looking at me.

[1:11:21] So I couldn't take advantage of that. Appreciate all of

[1:11:24] this detail. I don't know why it couldn't have been

[1:11:26] in the report. Why couldn't it have been in writing,

[1:11:29] uh, why are we hearing it this way? Um, the

[1:11:33] day has gone. When we just hear it casually. We

[1:11:37] need to have very clear. Um, information public can share

[1:11:43] it at the same time. Um, you know, I understand

[1:11:48] how we might want to manage a crisis and try

[1:11:54] to get people to calm down, which of course is

[1:11:56] important, but at the same time, we need to share

[1:11:59] that we are still in muddy water right now. I

[1:12:02] mean, these are not real answers. These, these are, this

[1:12:06] is direction. This is where we're going. But these are

[1:12:09] not answers. So we are still in, I think everyone

[1:12:12] should be clear on this. We're still in on shaky

[1:12:16] ground. We don't really have all the information. And we

[1:12:19] may be looking at new costs. That's what I've heard.

[1:12:25] I don't, you know, that the possibility that there might

[1:12:27] be additional costs. And I think it's important that that

[1:12:31] needs to be enshrined and made very clear from now

[1:12:34] on. That could be at least one of the lessons.

[1:12:37] Thank you. Okay. CEO Smith. Through the chair, I think

[1:12:42] just to the point around, um, and looking at, you

[1:12:45] know, the documenting risks, identifying that, you know, forthright with

[1:12:49] counselor early point in time. And I think that's where,

[1:12:51] you know, I know in January, there was that report

[1:12:53] regarding the value engineering exercise that was brought forward for

[1:12:56] exactly this point. And I think it's also for, you

[1:12:58] know, for awareness, I think generally publicly or otherwise is

[1:13:01] to know, yeah, there is still that. And this is

[1:13:03] where I think, you know, further to my report as

[1:13:06] well is to say, you know, class estimates, while they,

[1:13:09] yes, they're still estimates. They also have to be treated

[1:13:11] in which, Hey, we know there's these, these foundations or

[1:13:15] assumptions with respect to what those variations are going to

[1:13:18] be moving forward. So if we have a sense at

[1:13:21] an early point in time in which you know what

[1:13:22] we might be in, in waters to which there might

[1:13:25] not be available budget or, you know, there may not

[1:13:27] be these, these savings that we can accrue, uh, let's,

[1:13:31] uh, let's really bring that for transparently to, to, to

[1:13:33] counsel, to address that, um, because there might be things

[1:13:36] from a design standpoint that we, we do know are

[1:13:39] easier to do when you're at either engineering design or,

[1:13:42] um, and, uh, opposed to when you're actually ready to

[1:13:45] get the tender release. So that's the challenge we have

[1:13:48] with this value engineering is to which, um, is when

[1:13:51] you look at those anticipate costs, be it some of

[1:13:54] the anticipated bypass pumping, but also looking at if there

[1:13:56] is something significant that will be changed via the engineering.

[1:14:00] That's, that's, that's costly. So, um, I think 100 percent,

[1:14:04] you know, I think the earlier, the better and certainly

[1:14:07] the, the necessity of doing so with council is a

[1:14:11] commitment on my end moving forward to, to address some

[1:14:13] of the issues that we've seen. Thank you, Smith. Councillor

[1:14:17] Maxwell. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair. So and I'm certainly

[1:14:26] glad that, uh, Drecker Quinlan weighed in. The only department

[1:14:31] we're missing is planning, I think, for my next, where

[1:14:34] I'm going. Anyway, okay, I do not believe that, you

[1:14:38] know, one department is solely responsible. Nor are they individual

[1:14:45] or anybody exempt. Um, I think we're looking at an

[1:14:51] overall. Deep systemless failure. Now, I guess what I'm going

[1:14:59] to ask director Pachenko this question. Uh, what department provided,

[1:15:08] uh, the housing unit numbers beyond what was required for

[1:15:12] the huge funding. Of 13, 000 plus unit. I'm not

[1:15:19] sure what this has to do with the financial. It

[1:15:22] has a lot to do with it. So for the

[1:15:27] chair, again, the, the additional Helsinias as it relates to

[1:15:31] the Hughes funding application. I believe that number was, was

[1:15:35] a number that, that we looked at the full build

[1:15:37] out, um, would have been an exercise in coordination with

[1:15:42] planning, I believe, as far as the increased values. Follow

[1:15:48] up. Yeah, I do. Two, actually. So. The additional housing

[1:15:56] units. Could that have led to cost overruns other projecting.

[1:16:05] Through the chair, no, I don't think so. I think

[1:16:08] when we're planning, uh, the design of this work is

[1:16:10] trying to build some resiliency over the next 20 years.

[1:16:14] Again, while they're, there may have been some pressure in

[1:16:18] some of some developments waiting for this to, um, to,

[1:16:23] um, for this project to be completed. Again, the, the

[1:16:29] overall 13, 000 units, um, didn't put pressure. There were

[1:16:34] some pressure from the Dublin community in trying to get

[1:16:36] some, but again, not, not the full amount, uh, not

[1:16:39] the follow - on. This was just more of a

[1:16:42] building, some resiliency in our system. So to be a

[1:16:49] little more particular, we do have some units that are

[1:16:53] still on hold, uh, as far as developments that are

[1:16:57] waiting for this work to be completed. Again, I believe

[1:16:59] the number don't call me as around 400 units. So

[1:17:02] roughly that are, that are on hold. Um, so that

[1:17:05] are tied to this work as well. Okay. Councillor Maxwell.

[1:17:11] Okay. So the 13, 000, I got to go back

[1:17:14] to this 13, 000 plus units have been mentioned in

[1:17:18] a number of reports. These housing units, I do believe

[1:17:23] will be indirectly tied to the finance department. At some

[1:17:28] point in time to shore up recent shortfalls. So I'm

[1:17:33] just wondering if this whole project is geared. To. Facilitate

[1:17:41] more housing units in order to also shore up the

[1:17:46] shortfalls. Cape director, I see manager Kershaw is on the

[1:17:49] line. Are you okay for her to take this? I'll

[1:17:52] bounce back to you. Magic Kershaw. Hi, good morning. Uh,

[1:18:00] so when we looked at sizing of the Mill Street

[1:18:04] pumping station and the forest main and the outfall. Additionally,

[1:18:09] uh, we were also doing the wastewater master plan. And

[1:18:11] the wastewater master plan, we were in communications with the

[1:18:15] planning department and we, we had the growth numbers. We

[1:18:18] looked at every piece of development property that, that's in

[1:18:21] our primary settlement area. And using our official plan and

[1:18:26] the densities, uh, so we looked at the full build

[1:18:28] out of our primary settlement area plus a little extra

[1:18:31] because we always go a little, we always error on

[1:18:34] the side of a little extra. We want a little

[1:18:35] extra capacity, uh, and we also take into consideration our

[1:18:39] INI rate, uh, peaking factor, or sorry, INI stands for

[1:18:44] influention into our sanitary collection system. And additionally, we looked

[1:18:48] at the peaking factors of, of the pumping station. And

[1:18:51] the pumping station mill street pumping station is rather high.

[1:18:54] I believe it's 5. 4 is the peaking factor. So

[1:18:56] during a heavy rain event, the flows will, we'll multiply

[1:19:00] 5. 4 times what they, they normally are on a

[1:19:02] dry day event. And the sizing for the Mill Street

[1:19:05] pumping station, uh, was based on the outcomes from our,

[1:19:10] our wastewater master plan. These projects, we knew right from

[1:19:15] the get go that our wastewater master plan was going

[1:19:17] to take two years to complete. As we did one

[1:19:21] full years worth of flow monitoring throughout the system. And

[1:19:23] we, we knew that from the get go. That was

[1:19:25] always the planet would take two years to finish the

[1:19:28] wastewater master plan. And it was on schedule and on

[1:19:31] time. And once we got the final answers from our

[1:19:34] wastewater master plan, which was in 2025, we knew the

[1:19:37] final size of the pumps that were required or the

[1:19:41] infrastructure that was required at the Mill Street Pumping Station

[1:19:44] and the conveyance all the way to the treatment plant.

[1:19:46] So there were some adjustments made, uh, to the sizing

[1:19:50] of the pumps kind of at the last minute to

[1:19:52] the Mill Street pumping station. Once we had the final

[1:19:55] outcome from our wastewater master plan, I hope that answers

[1:19:59] your question on how did we size? So initially the

[1:20:02] wastewater master plan was done with data that was provided

[1:20:06] from the planning department and looking at our official plan.

[1:20:12] Thank you manager Kershaw. CAO Smith. Yes, you're just further

[1:20:21] to that point. I do see director Quinlan's hand. So

[1:20:25] I didn't want to maybe steal the thunder as a

[1:20:27] relay just in terms of how, you know, looking at

[1:20:29] those future projections or future growth may impact financially. But

[1:20:33] certainly I think that's where, you know, we, we do

[1:20:36] look at our fiscal future, at least from a, from

[1:20:38] a growth standpoint and how to which, you know, moving

[1:20:42] forward on these projects, projects, maybe that, that net benefit

[1:20:45] to the town, particularly in the ability to crew further

[1:20:48] DC revenues. And I think that number that director Pacheco

[1:20:52] noted earlier around say we do have an effect, a

[1:20:55] development freeze within the Thornberry area of around just over

[1:20:58] 400 units that are impacted by the inability to, uh,

[1:21:01] to connect via the capacity constraints at the, at the

[1:21:06] pumping station. So it is critical just to realize, I

[1:21:08] think some of those, those projects that in the media

[1:21:11] term are unable to proceed to which in turn not

[1:21:14] being able to proceed means less assessment value as well

[1:21:18] as in terms of less revenue from a DC standpoint.

[1:21:20] And this is not for getting the numbers that counselor

[1:21:24] Maxwell has noted in terms of the future and looking

[1:21:26] at that, that growth period as well, uh, to ensure

[1:21:29] that when these projects move ahead that they have the

[1:21:32] capacity or at least they're built to a point in

[1:21:34] which there's minimal cost to accommodate any future, uh, significant

[1:21:39] growth changes that may, may occur. And that's, I think

[1:21:42] what we've known in this community since, um, looking at,

[1:21:45] if say, you know, your projection's back in say it

[1:21:48] would have been 2016 or were very different from what

[1:21:50] they were, say, uh, post COVID. So that's what we,

[1:21:54] these systems are designed in a way to be, to

[1:21:57] be nimble and to be responsive, uh, what are often

[1:22:00] just fluid growth projections. But what we do know is

[1:22:02] that we still continue to grow and we still have

[1:22:05] a significant, uh, amount of development within our pipeline that

[1:22:09] we need to accommodate alongside the asset management perspective, which

[1:22:13] is a lot of these assets, particularly between the lift

[1:22:16] station and ban gray. They're at their end of life.

[1:22:18] And they do need to be replaced. Ensure that we

[1:22:20] minimized a risk and liability to the town moving forward.

[1:22:24] Thank you, C. M. Smith. Director Krinlin. Go ahead. I

[1:22:29] think C. A. Smith covered it just well. I was

[1:22:31] just wanting to raise that, of course, DCs cannot be

[1:22:34] collected. If the growth can't happen. So certainly that would

[1:22:36] be, um, just exactly what CO Smith said. So I

[1:22:40] won't add anymore. Okay. Thank you. So. Counselor Maxwell, does

[1:22:46] that suit your, uh, I think. Yeah. I've been answered.

[1:22:50] Okay. Thank you. Councillor Ardell. Go ahead. Thank you Mr.

[1:22:55] Chair. And I think today is been very, very informative.

[1:23:00] And I think we're still getting information out. And I

[1:23:04] don't know why we couldn't have had this information before,

[1:23:08] you know, um, and I think there's where the problem

[1:23:11] lives. I guess we want to ensure that all the

[1:23:15] taxpayers are well informed. And today we're hearing all of

[1:23:20] this because we've got, um, Ms. Kershaw. We've got, uh,

[1:23:25] Mr Desai, we've got the director of Mr. Pacheco. And

[1:23:30] we've got our CAO. We are getting, and sorry, Ms.

[1:23:34] Quinn, uh, we are getting all of everybody speaking together.

[1:23:39] And I'm learning some more information as well and how

[1:23:43] things, when we don't, um, have up to date information

[1:23:49] and that where things can go, um, at a raise.

[1:23:53] And sort of, you know, I remember a couple of

[1:23:56] years ago, I can't remember which department it was and

[1:24:01] came back to us and said, Oh, we did some

[1:24:04] estimates. And we have an overrun. So now we need

[1:24:07] to fund it again, but they were using costing figures

[1:24:10] from 20 either 16 or 17. And it was like,

[1:24:15] why? And I think this was back in 23. And

[1:24:18] like that is so old that information, we need to

[1:24:22] keep updating this information constantly so that we are, um,

[1:24:28] learning where things are, our growth is going to be

[1:24:31] happening. And where we, we should be expecting our numbers

[1:24:34] to be going. So, um, I just wanted to make

[1:24:37] those comments. Everybody else has made a lot of comments

[1:24:40] and I'm not going to dwell on that because as

[1:24:42] the time goes, it's almost 11 o'clock. So I just

[1:24:45] think that, uh, we're getting to where I, the answers

[1:24:49] are and anybody listening online. Hopefully they get the updates

[1:24:53] as well. And I think that's, uh, we're getting somewhere.

[1:24:57] And thank you for all the information today to all

[1:25:00] staff for that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Adele. Okay.

[1:25:05] Councilor Porter, are you bringing forward a motion or you

[1:25:07] have another question. Not yet. Chair, um, through you, I

[1:25:14] have some more questions. So on page two of the

[1:25:18] report under engineering with the table, which is the first

[1:25:22] table in the report. It has about summarizing engineering budget

[1:25:27] for all projects combined showing the revised budget. This is

[1:25:31] a revised budget after council approved. The funding, which was

[1:25:35] the December 15th report. So again, we need to figure

[1:25:39] out, I guess it sums it up. The words that'll

[1:25:43] sum it up is we need to be able to

[1:25:44] follow the money for the project. And we haven't, I

[1:25:47] can't do that. And I just want to make a

[1:25:49] note. I may have made a comment in my last,

[1:25:52] um, maybe staff need to do better. And it wasn't

[1:25:55] intended to be directive. So I just want to make

[1:25:56] sure if it was interpreted that way, that, um, it

[1:26:01] wasn't intended that way. When we go on to, um.

[1:26:07] A table with the engineering expenditures, um, I just want

[1:26:10] to, the funding in the amount of 150, 000 will

[1:26:14] be drawn from this budget line. So I'd like in

[1:26:18] a future report so we know where, what budget line

[1:26:21] it is. And then I just want to be clear

[1:26:23] about when it says any required budget adjustments, will we

[1:26:27] report it to counsel for consideration as appropriate? I just

[1:26:31] want to remind staff, the motion clearly states counsel direct

[1:26:35] staff to report on any variance to this project. Not

[1:26:39] a budget adjustment of variance. And, uh, any project manager

[1:26:43] knows what a variance is. When we go on to

[1:26:46] further, which just talks about the Craig Nate lift station,

[1:26:50] we now see something called an additional contingency. Um, I

[1:26:55] would like to see what the original contingency is and

[1:26:58] broken down. In contingency seeing an additional contingency was an

[1:27:04] interesting label for it. So if you have an original

[1:27:08] contingency and you get an additional one, I think it's

[1:27:11] rightly that it's broken down. Um, and that appears again

[1:27:16] with respect to two Bay Street. So I just think

[1:27:21] there's a lot more questions to be answered. And really

[1:27:28] being able to, um, follow the money. And I just

[1:27:31] like to add, when it comes down to what Councillor

[1:27:34] Maxwell was saying, if you go back and read the

[1:27:37] May 2022 report, it clearly states that the Mills Street

[1:27:45] pumping station lack capacity for the build out of the

[1:27:48] campus of care. Which was a concept at best at

[1:27:53] any given time pointing time. Um, while it was mentioned

[1:27:56] about the one in 100 storms and it was mentioned

[1:27:59] about other things, um, the campus of care was the

[1:28:02] driver at that time. I would also like to know,

[1:28:07] um, the financials with respect to the budget on the

[1:28:11] awarding of the tenders. In a follow - up report.

[1:28:16] So I may want to put that in what was

[1:28:18] the budget when the tenders were awarded because the director

[1:28:22] Pachenko has mentioned about the awarding of the attenders. So

[1:28:28] those are critical milestones in a project financials as just

[1:28:33] checks and balances. You know, you ward, you only have

[1:28:36] so much. So I think it would be. It would

[1:28:39] be responsible for that to be outlined. So how does

[1:28:44] the budget go when you start allocating money out? What

[1:28:48] is when did you know what the amounts would be?

[1:28:53] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Porter. Mr. Desai, I see

[1:28:56] your hand. Go ahead. Uh, thank you, Chair. Uh, through

[1:29:01] the chair, I'd like to first answer the first question

[1:29:05] of counselor porters on the engineering budget, the number itself

[1:29:12] where did we got the 2. 75 200 million dollars.

[1:29:21] So in 2022, uh, town staff through a staff report

[1:29:28] got approval of 2 million dollars. And further after

[1:29:38] that, there was a, uh, through 2023 budget cycle as

[1:29:42] well. They're 2 million dollars was presented in the budget

[1:29:46] cycle. And in 2023, August of 2023, there was additional

[1:29:53] ask for additional 200, 000. Plus. Past that.

[1:30:03] In, let me just pull up my screen over here

[1:30:04] real quick. So through the staff report CSOPS

[1:30:14] dot 23 dot 019, that was this additional 200, 000

[1:30:19] dollars of engineering increase, so which gave 2. 2 million

[1:30:23] dollars in engineering further in the same year, uh, CSOPS

[1:30:28] dot 23. 044 in August on August 28, 2023, the

[1:30:35] engineering budget was increased to 2. 5 million dollars. Adding

[1:30:41] the force main to the project scope as well. Further,

[1:30:47] and this was also reflected in 2024 approved budget cycle.

[1:30:52] And in 2025, uh, the number was for their increased

[1:30:57] to 2. 775 200 million to reflect the huge grant

[1:31:02] application as well. So that 2, 775, 200 dollars is

[1:31:07] directly from the 2025 budget cycle. Approved budget book. And

[1:31:12] that was done to reflect the huge grant application. Further

[1:31:17] coming on the second question related to the. Engineering contingency

[1:31:25] within engineering budget itself. So we had 473, 886 dollars

[1:31:34] and 10 cents of engineering contingency and whole as the

[1:31:38] engineering budget because this was a whole club to one

[1:31:40] project, one engineering exercise. And the current remaining contingency for

[1:31:44] engineering itself is dollar 98, 788 dollar, 69 cents. And

[1:31:50] through the chair, I will make sure that we reflect

[1:31:53] this on the, uh, next quarterly report to have it

[1:31:57] well presented. Uh, further, moving to the next question on

[1:32:02] contingencies on Craiglit main sewage. Cherry, may I ask a

[1:32:06] question. Uh, well. So through the chair, I don't understand

[1:32:11] why you indicated that would come on the next quarterly

[1:32:14] report. I'm hoping that we are able to follow the

[1:32:19] money on February 24th report. Thank you. Sure, it'll be

[1:32:23] captured. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So without further

[1:32:28] ado, please continue Mr. Desai. You had further answers. Thank

[1:32:32] you, Chair. Uh, in terms of the contingencies for Craig

[1:32:37] Leith, main sewage lift station, uh, to answer counselor porters

[1:32:42] question. So, uh, the awarded. Agreement for the works was

[1:32:48] dollar 7. 9 million dollars plus the original contact. And

[1:32:55] within the award letter itself, but that was way kind

[1:33:02] of close to five percent of the award value. So

[1:33:06] due to that reason that additional contingency was added, which

[1:33:10] is 500, 000 additional. And that 500, 000 honestly, it's

[1:33:16] way less to capture. It's just around five percent to

[1:33:19] be captured. So that additional contingency was added there. And

[1:33:27] further, I think so, uh. To answer the last question

[1:33:34] on what was the budget when we awarded the tender.

[1:33:38] So the 2025 budget book, whatever the budget, whatever the

[1:33:44] approved budget was in 2025, approved budget book. That was

[1:33:47] the original budget. What we had when we awarded the

[1:33:50] tenders. Or if the question is what was the remaining

[1:33:54] budget or what was the remaining budget when we were

[1:33:56] awarding this jobs. That's something we can bring it back

[1:33:58] to the council. Do you want to clarify Councillor Porter?

[1:34:02] Um, yes. So with respect to, cause I wasn't able

[1:34:06] to follow, it would be useful to have in the,

[1:34:09] in the 20th February 24th report is. What are the

[1:34:16] contingencies? Because we seem to have different contingency. So it's

[1:34:20] itemizing it so you can literally follow the money to

[1:34:23] get to the total. And yes, I am looking for.

[1:34:30] Um, for the amount of the budget that was remaining

[1:34:35] on the budget that was in the Hughes funding application,

[1:34:38] the 34, I believe it is rounding it up. Upon

[1:34:41] a warning of the tenders, I want to know how

[1:34:42] much money was left on the budget. Balance sheet. So

[1:34:45] to speak. Yes, I do. At that point in time.

[1:34:49] When the tenders were awarded. Thank you. Kate, thank you

[1:34:52] Council supporter. Thank Mr. DeSize. Making notation of that. Well,

[1:34:57] he's doing that. Uh, CAO Smith. Inadvertently put your hand

[1:35:03] up. No, through the chair. It's going to note just

[1:35:06] in terms of, uh, looking at that fall report and

[1:35:09] perhaps just in terms of recognizing some of these questions

[1:35:12] have been, or at least some of the responses of

[1:35:14] being staff have been more so looking on the fly.

[1:35:16] I think that's where we certainly benefit from that morph,

[1:35:19] fulsome report coming in and later in February. Okay. Thank

[1:35:23] you, Mr. Smith. So seeing no further, uh, I'm just

[1:35:28] going to put it out there. If there was anyone

[1:35:30] that wanted to make, wanted to move the receipt of

[1:35:33] this or if they had further, uh, further thoughts on

[1:35:37] the motion. Yes. Council reporter. I'm typing away. Maybe given

[1:35:40] the time might be a good time to have a

[1:35:44] break. Yes. That's what I was going to say. So

[1:35:47] whilst you're doing that, um, Madam Clerk, uh, is 11,

[1:35:51] 10 inappropriate time to reconvene. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe

[1:35:57] even 11, 15. Thank you. All right. We'll reconvene. Turn

[1:36:00] your, please turn your cameras and microphones off.

[1:47:51] Okay. It's 11 15. Thank you for that break. Just

[1:47:54] a reminder to please tune your cameras on. Take a

[1:47:56] Madam Clerk. Yep. Take a moment.

[1:48:07] So we need a few. More.

[1:48:25] We don't have a. Quorum anyway. So we can, we'll

[1:48:27] wait.

[1:49:26] Okay. Mr. Chair, we have a quorum now. Okay. Unfortunately

[1:49:34] our, uh, our member that was writing the motion is

[1:49:38] not present yet. So we'll have to wait await for

[1:49:41] her return.

[1:50:06] Thank. You.

[1:51:24] It's been sent. Okay. Thank you, uh, Councillor Porter. Sure.

[1:51:30] Madam Clerk will be receiving it virtually. Um, did you

[1:51:33] want to read what you have counselor porter. Well, happy

[1:51:39] to do so. Thank you. I'll just be a moment,

[1:51:41] Mr. Chair. We can get it up on the screen

[1:51:43] so people can follow along. Okay. Thank you.

[1:52:23] Okay. So we have that counsel receive stat report OPS

[1:52:28] dot two six dot zero zero eight entitled Craig Leith

[1:52:31] SLS Mill Street SBS. And Bay Gray Street linear works

[1:52:35] financial reporting and project cost update, which constitutes the Folsom

[1:52:40] report requested by council. And that council direct staff to

[1:52:45] provide financial updates for the duration of the project. Starting

[1:52:51] in May 2022 in order that all escalation and increases

[1:52:57] our transparent and understandable. Oh, and. That council direct staff

[1:53:04] to itemize the original and additional contingency with dates of

[1:53:09] request and approval. And that council direct staff to provide

[1:53:14] the detailed financial reporting and project costs information starting with

[1:53:19] the CSLS and bay gray at linear works.

[1:53:29] Up to the award of the tenders, which were awarded

[1:53:32] on October 21 and 2023, 2025. That council direct staff

[1:53:40] to provide the amount remaining in the bundled project total

[1:53:43] of budget of, yeah, total, total budget of. Three, 34.

[1:53:51] I think this was supposed to be 34 million, 791,

[1:53:54] 129. Dollar is huge funding in brackets. When the tenders

[1:53:58] were awarded on October 21st and 2020 23rd, 2025. That

[1:54:08] council direct staff to provide detailed information regarding the estimates

[1:54:12] on the Mill Street pumping station, which underpins the 19

[1:54:17] million. That's all of it. Yes. Okay. I may have

[1:54:22] mistaken, you know, I've seen, um, through the chair, Madam

[1:54:25] Kirk's grammatically correct with some of it. I was, we

[1:54:28] were typing as fast as we could. Okay. So I

[1:54:31] will move this. Okay. And Councillor Mack. Turned off again.

[1:54:37] Are you seconding it Council Maxwell? I just want to

[1:54:39] ask a question to the mover before. I'm going to

[1:54:41] get a second or first. Seconded by Councillor Hope. Now

[1:54:44] go ahead, Councillor Maxwell. Thank you. Before your support, this,

[1:54:47] I just want to know what you mean by. Understandable.

[1:54:52] Like, are you saying plain language. What do we say?

[1:54:57] It would be, so through the chair in response to

[1:54:59] Councillor Maxwell, it would be nice to be able to

[1:55:01] follow the money, as they say. To see how it

[1:55:05] goes from one to the other, tells the story of,

[1:55:09] you started out with a 1. 2 million dollar budget

[1:55:13] for Craig Leith in the 2021 approved budget. And now

[1:55:17] we have a budget of 50 some odd million. How

[1:55:20] did we get there? And when you have a project

[1:55:25] and you manage a project. I think it's reasonable to

[1:55:28] expect that you would be able to articulate how it

[1:55:30] grew that big. Councillor Maxwell, do you have a follow

[1:55:34] - up to that? So you're just saying an understandable

[1:55:37] timeline. Basically. Okay. Thank you. It's through the chair as

[1:55:44] well. What I mean by understandable is that it can

[1:55:48] be understood by the audience. The audience is counsel, the

[1:55:52] audience is the public. It's not providing to a fellow

[1:55:56] engineer. I just want to make sure that it makes,

[1:55:59] it's in plain English. It's easy to understand. Okay. Um.

[1:56:05] I would also add, I know this is coming from

[1:56:08] OBS. It's coming from capital project management, but repeatedly on

[1:56:12] the project page. It always has a quarterly update of

[1:56:15] within budget. So it is assumed that the operations in

[1:56:20] the capital management office knows exactly where their finances are

[1:56:23] at any given time. So I'm as, you know, I'm

[1:56:26] not releasing that this should be too owner is to

[1:56:28] do because they reported on a quarterly basis anyway. So

[1:56:32] those numbers come, those statements arise from numbers. Thank you.

[1:56:37] Thank you, Councillor Porter. I don't see any further questions

[1:56:43] from members of committee. No, I see Councillor Adult. Councilor

[1:56:47] Adel's on my screen. Now I can see her. So

[1:56:49] I don't see any virtual hands. So Madam Clerk, please

[1:56:53] call that boat. Thank you. The vote is open.

[1:57:09] Any affirmative, please. Thank you. The vote is closed. And

[1:57:13] that vote is carried with all members present voting in

[1:57:16] the affirmative. Thank you. So we'll now move on to

[1:57:20] item B 4. 2 investigative report. Craig Leith SLS Mill

[1:57:24] Street SPS and Bay, gray, street, linear works, ADM. 26.

[1:57:29] 015. I'll turn it over to director Pacheco. Sorry.

[1:57:39] CAO Smith. Do they show this is my report? Sorry.

[1:57:42] CEO Smith. My apologies. Go ahead, CO Smith. No, sorry.

[1:57:48] Uh, through the chair, though, just for Claire, you generally

[1:57:51] an administrative matter would be more so on the committee

[1:57:54] of the hole on the Monday, but based on the

[1:57:56] tie between, uh, the, uh, the other financial report with

[1:57:59] respect to, uh, this issue that we figured it was

[1:58:02] appropriate to put on, on the Tuesday. So no fault

[1:58:06] of your own chair. Um, anyway, just to start. So

[1:58:09] through the chair, as I noted that, uh, I will

[1:58:11] be taking this report. And I think among the reasons

[1:58:14] in terms of, uh, taking this investigate report is ultimately

[1:58:18] when dubs come to initiatives such as, uh, the scale

[1:58:22] and the significance of these is that, you know, I

[1:58:24] bear that as for the CEO for the town, that

[1:58:27] ultimate responsibility with respect to ensuring that, you know, they

[1:58:30] are, they are done in a fiscally responsible way and

[1:58:33] in a manner that's also going to be, going to

[1:58:34] be operationally sound. So that's where I think certainly is,

[1:58:37] is my, my position to step in here and provide

[1:58:39] that insight and to understand and to have that, uh,

[1:58:42] sense. And I think for any project as well, regardless

[1:58:45] is to say we're, you know, where could there be

[1:58:47] those lessons learned and look in that, that culture of,

[1:58:50] of continuous improvement. Um, but what I will say, and

[1:58:54] I think some general themes as council and members of

[1:58:56] public may note from this, uh, from the staff report

[1:58:59] is that, um, in, in how these, these projects came

[1:59:02] to be is that there's been, you know, I think

[1:59:04] the issues we're associated with, you know, looking at gaps

[1:59:07] in relation internal communication, looking at implementation of existing policy

[1:59:12] and practice as well as the lack of timely reporting.

[1:59:15] So those are likely the three to which, um, if

[1:59:18] I could sum it up in terms of internally where

[1:59:20] there was, there was some challenges. I think that's, that's

[1:59:23] certainly where they do reside. Uh, I will note that,

[1:59:26] you know, in the focus for this, this report is

[1:59:29] exclusively looking at the tendering. These projects by themselves certainly

[1:59:32] have a bit of a long history in terms of

[1:59:34] their inception, be it from engineering or concept to where

[1:59:37] they are today. Uh, but essentially when we go into

[1:59:40] the issue of them being buddled together, this occurred collectively

[1:59:44] back in 2023. And in doing so, we use the

[1:59:47] estimates known as the class C estimates, which then understanding

[1:59:50] that there's going to still be a potential significant variation

[1:59:54] from the class C to when you get to those

[1:59:56] issue for tender, uh, related cause. So there is going

[2:00:00] to be that variation. And at the time, that's generally

[2:00:02] common practice to have that when you're in that more

[2:00:05] of that engineering favorite, early engineering stage in that conceptual

[2:00:08] stage as well. Uh, these numbers, we're used as part

[2:00:11] of that hues grant or the housing enabling water systems

[2:00:15] grant in 2024. So as many would note, this is

[2:00:17] a provincial program that has significant dollars associated with infrastructure

[2:00:21] projects that were essentially going to drive, uh, the housing

[2:00:26] supply, uh, across the province to meet that, uh, that

[2:00:29] provincial priority. Uh, so as part of that grant application

[2:00:32] going into 2024 and as noted within that, that submission

[2:00:36] released the intention of that program is that is to

[2:00:39] be aggressive with relation to meeting certain timelines and milestones.

[2:00:43] And I think that was one of the challenges that

[2:00:45] staff did grapple with in terms of completing that application

[2:00:48] was sticking or aligning with those, uh, ensuring that we

[2:00:52] could meet those timelines, which also served to affect even

[2:00:55] the numbers that were put in. So looking at some

[2:00:57] of the requirements under the program is to note that

[2:01:01] some of those numbers could have been also further adjusted

[2:01:04] to potentially allow for additional dollars that may come from

[2:01:07] that, that program. Um, I would be, I would be

[2:01:11] remiss to say that that would be any guarantee given

[2:01:13] the amount of demand on the program. But I still,

[2:01:16] I do believe that we were tremendously lucky to even

[2:01:19] get the provincial funding that we did receive, recognizing the

[2:01:23] criticality of these, these projects in the community. Uh, now

[2:01:28] going into the summer of 2025, there began to be

[2:01:31] further confidence with respect to the, uh, the cost escalations

[2:01:36] that were primarily with the Craig leafless station as well

[2:01:39] as for the Brie and Grey street linear work. So

[2:01:41] that's when we start to move forward from your class

[2:01:44] C to more that class A range, reducing the variation

[2:01:48] or what that expectation of those, those ultimately, uh, ultimate

[2:01:51] tender costs, uh, may be. But this is where there

[2:01:55] was that, you know, when I know that gap, it

[2:01:57] relates to, to communication and to affect a reporting is

[2:02:01] what did not occur was an effective escalation of these

[2:02:04] costs, uh, to finance staff to be included within the

[2:02:07] context of the, uh, going into that 2026 budget. So

[2:02:11] the budget was ongoing at this point in time, but,

[2:02:13] uh, based on, uh, us not proceeding and based on

[2:02:17] the fact that also as a bundle, when you look

[2:02:19] at the costs as a whole as well, that generally

[2:02:22] we would still be able to lined. So for example,

[2:02:25] within that, that lump sum that when you think of

[2:02:27] a Craig Weef lift station project and based on the

[2:02:29] size of the portion of that project, when you're over,

[2:02:32] say by even a million or two million, you may

[2:02:34] still be able to find cost adjustments or maybe able

[2:02:37] to find ways in which other, um, projects or costs

[2:02:40] may still be lower when you look at those, those

[2:02:43] subsequent, uh, bundle projects moving forward. Um, having said that,

[2:02:48] if these were unbundled, the process would still be that

[2:02:51] we proceed with a report to counsel to request additional

[2:02:53] budget when we know the reasonable certainty in which we're,

[2:02:56] we're to over. Um, so that, that, that was a

[2:02:59] gap and that was certainly a miss from, from our

[2:03:02] end with respect to, to, to the reporting there. Now

[2:03:07] once again, going back to the grant itself and proceeding

[2:03:09] in this manner, it would be, there were those intense

[2:03:13] timelines and milestones. So I will say that I wasn't

[2:03:16] to say that it was an intentional mess. It relates

[2:03:18] to, uh, ensuring be it the public or council did

[2:03:21] not have that touch point. Uh, I think there has

[2:03:23] been an intense pressure from the province with respect to

[2:03:28] ensuring that we can meet those timelines within the grant.

[2:03:30] So I think that's certainly affected some of the decision

[2:03:33] making that it ultimately affect the bundled nature of these

[2:03:37] projects. But regardless, a checkpoint would counsel and it would

[2:03:40] have been an appropriate point or an appropriate thing to

[2:03:45] do from both an operational and from a governance perspective.

[2:03:49] Now moving forward. And I think, um, I once again,

[2:03:52] I don't want to go into great detail and I'll

[2:03:53] leave it with members of council post any questions within

[2:03:56] the body of the report. But I think moving forward,

[2:03:59] I think in reflecting on this experience with respect to

[2:04:02] these projects, I think there have been a number of

[2:04:04] controls that were instituted as part of the, uh, earlier

[2:04:08] report on the overage and to which they've been noted

[2:04:11] as being looking at discontinuing the practice of bundling the

[2:04:14] projects. So that would be, that is one effort in

[2:04:17] which there is now those clear lines to say in

[2:04:19] which there isn't over dissociated with a project that we

[2:04:22] would automatically trigger that request for a budgetary amendment. Now

[2:04:28] the additional one or the next piece that has already

[2:04:30] been noted was for additional sign - offs for expenses

[2:04:33] in excess of 500, 000 prior to the board of

[2:04:35] attenders. So that's been another control that's been instituted to

[2:04:39] reflect upon the experience of for these bundled projects. Now

[2:04:44] some other ads certainly in reviewing the practices and how

[2:04:49] this process did unfold for the respective projects include looking

[2:04:53] at more, and I think the Tomley as it relates

[2:04:56] to review of the staff template going to, going to

[2:04:59] counsel at a later point, particularly in alignment with the

[2:05:01] new strategic plan is ensuring that there is more of

[2:05:04] a onus or at least a more an ability to

[2:05:07] effectively document and address risks pertaining to projects, particularly of

[2:05:12] those that are the scale and magnitude that we are

[2:05:15] currently dealing with here today. So for example, it's looking

[2:05:18] at when a report is coming forward and over a

[2:05:21] G expectation, I think, which is fair that, you know,

[2:05:23] it's not as if council is going to grant the

[2:05:25] additional dollars is to say, what from a staff angle

[2:05:28] did we do to look at being pressure in terms

[2:05:31] of working with the consolidance that we have retained for

[2:05:33] the project or even internally to understand, could they redesign

[2:05:37] shifts? Could they remodifications? Or there could be, uh, other

[2:05:40] ways in which some of this cost burned and, uh,

[2:05:43] that, uh, when it comes to an overage can be

[2:05:44] reduced. So when we look at being fiscally sustainable in

[2:05:47] the future, that certainly is something that can be, uh,

[2:05:51] that is front and center to any decision making. The

[2:05:55] next piece, and I think is, is an important one

[2:05:58] as well is that, uh, is exploring the, the, the

[2:06:01] ability to have triggers with respect to value engineering exercises.

[2:06:05] So when, uh, there was that exploration of, or at

[2:06:08] least identifying the value engineering exercise for this project or

[2:06:11] for these bundled projects, uh, the thinking and when we

[2:06:14] engage, the consultant was at another municipalities depending on the

[2:06:17] scale of the project, uh, that there are those triggers

[2:06:20] and those thresholds which you automatically do a value engineering

[2:06:23] exercise. So I think ingraining that practice within the town

[2:06:26] is I think a sound practice to do. And we'll

[2:06:29] ultimately also, um, allow for a fresh set of eyes

[2:06:32] to identify things to which, um, be it for staff

[2:06:35] or the consultant set often we, we may use on

[2:06:38] a regular basis. May not be so apparent. So I

[2:06:40] think it's always good to have that, that type of

[2:06:43] third party, Matt may be able to challenge the assumptions

[2:06:46] that may be going into these different designs. And depending

[2:06:48] on the value engineering exercise that is to unfold with

[2:06:52] particularly with a focus on the Mill Street pumping station,

[2:06:55] there may be the opportunities to find those efficiencies or

[2:07:00] really to see where that, uh, that this exercise is

[2:07:03] one that, uh, certainly will have value moving forward. Uh,

[2:07:06] and then lastly, and I think that's within the contents

[2:07:10] of the staff report as well is ensuring that when

[2:07:13] there are award forms to be signed, uh, by senior

[2:07:17] staff, you know, you do look at in having that

[2:07:19] once again, a clear picture of what that risk is

[2:07:22] to be. And I think when you look at that,

[2:07:24] the timeline or at least the timing between the bane

[2:07:27] gray street linear works being awarded and understanding that once

[2:07:30] these works are awarded, there's an inevitable. There is this

[2:07:33] tie over to the Mill Street pumping station based on

[2:07:36] some of the design and based on some of the,

[2:07:38] uh, the, uh, the works that would be carried out

[2:07:40] within that scope to which we now have minimal ability

[2:07:43] to, to make any further or significant engineering shifts or

[2:07:47] looking at, uh, how we affect the timing. So I

[2:07:50] think that's another area in which there could be some,

[2:07:53] some improvement and with respect to controls. But generally speaking,

[2:07:56] I think one of the big pieces, at least on

[2:07:58] from, from my end and certainly something that, uh, you

[2:08:01] know, I need to be responsible for moving forward is

[2:08:05] ensuring that we are carrying out the existing practices and

[2:08:08] processes in which that includes timely and early reporting to

[2:08:12] council and work in collectively to find solutions to these

[2:08:15] projects that ultimately are going to drive our goals, whether

[2:08:18] it be for an asset management perspective or looking at,

[2:08:21] uh, driving or ensuring, we're accommodating the growth patterns in

[2:08:25] the community and ensuring we're doing that in a, in

[2:08:28] a responsible way. So, uh, with that, I might conclude

[2:08:31] my presentation and comments with respect to the staff report

[2:08:35] and happy to take any comments or questions for members

[2:08:37] of council. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Smith, or CAO

[2:08:40] Smith. I'm going to, I see Madam Clerk has raised

[2:08:44] that the deputy mayor has joined the meeting. That's correct,

[2:08:47] Mr. Chair. I did not, uh, want to interrupt. Um,

[2:08:51] the deputy mayor joined the meeting at 1125. Thank you.

[2:08:53] Okay. Thank you. So we'll go to Councillor Maxwell first.

[2:08:57] Councillor Maxwell. I think that's you. Jeremy. So I have

[2:09:05] a comment and then I have a question to the

[2:09:07] CAL. Go ahead. So the role of like any organization

[2:09:14] is to protect its membership. And in this case, it's

[2:09:16] a taxpayer. So how will we be shifting risk and

[2:09:24] liability away from the taxpayer in the future. Will we

[2:09:28] be using a collaborative risk. Sharing between consultants and the

[2:09:35] contractors in the near future here. Because you said you

[2:09:40] were going to implement. Larger degree of control mechanisms. CAO

[2:09:47] Smith. Yeah. Strew the chair in relation to, I think,

[2:09:50] uh, and this is where, you know, obviously as we

[2:09:52] still do that deeper dive in terms of funding these

[2:09:55] projects, moving forward, I think I'd paramount is ensuring that

[2:09:58] we are responsible with the responsible in terms of taxpayer

[2:10:02] dollars and ensuring that the revenue sources that, uh, generally,

[2:10:06] can support these projects are in a, in a good

[2:10:11] state. So for example, DC revenue is, is, is certainly

[2:10:14] very significant. These projects are DC eligible to which we

[2:10:17] want to ensure that we have reserves. They're driven by

[2:10:20] those projects or those developments to which, uh, have, uh,

[2:10:25] we, we are creating quite a significant level of demand

[2:10:28] on those different types of assets. So that's one piece.

[2:10:31] We also have to look at it with relation to,

[2:10:33] uh, keeping ensuring be a utter wastewater reserves or other

[2:10:37] reserves are well in a sustainable and a state in

[2:10:40] which we're continually ensuring that, uh, over the long term,

[2:10:43] um, that they are put in a place in which

[2:10:45] when we have these types of projects that come online,

[2:10:48] we're prepared to, to use those, uh, those reserves without

[2:10:51] collapsing them in their entirety. So those are from a

[2:10:54] financial angle. I think that's where I think we look

[2:10:56] to prepare, or at least protect those, uh, those, uh,

[2:10:59] those taxpayer dollars. But when it comes to contractual performance

[2:11:03] and, and sharing of that risk with the consonance and

[2:11:06] absolutely, I think when it comes to these projects and

[2:11:08] to say, I wouldn't, I think it would be remiss

[2:11:10] to say that staff don't challenge consoles in terms of

[2:11:14] assumptions with respect to design or with respect to how,

[2:11:17] you know, things are being calculated for prospective costs on

[2:11:21] different things. I think that does happen. Uh, but I

[2:11:23] think we are, we are and will continue to be

[2:11:26] looking at ways, whether it be for the contracts at

[2:11:29] the town, have in terms of retaining different console contractors

[2:11:33] is ensuring that, uh, there are appropriate performance mechanisms in

[2:11:36] there. And that we're ensuring that, um, there are elements

[2:11:40] such as value engineering that is included within these scopes,

[2:11:44] uh, we, we, we, uh, we can once again make

[2:11:47] sure that we're getting bang for a dollar while at

[2:11:50] the same time still being able to realize outcomes for

[2:11:53] the town and for the community that, uh, are going

[2:11:56] to ensure that we don't have to say tear up

[2:11:58] that pipe or we don't have to rebuild that pumping

[2:12:00] station, say in five years time that these, these, these

[2:12:03] assets are built and they're maintained in a way that's

[2:12:07] going to sustain us for over the longterm. Follow up

[2:12:11] Councillor Maxwell. No, that's fine for now. Okay. Thank you,

[2:12:15] Councillor Maxwell. Uh, Mr. Deputy Mayor, go ahead. Uh, thank

[2:12:19] you, Councillor McKinley, as the chair, uh, through you to

[2:12:21] the CAO. Thank you for the report. There's a few

[2:12:24] aspects in here. Which I question. I'm just looking at

[2:12:27] number one is we keep going back to the fact

[2:12:29] that saying, well, we did a class C. I wasn't

[2:12:33] sure about class A. Shouldn't that have been on a

[2:12:35] project this large? Wouldn't that have shouldn't that be the

[2:12:37] norm? Um, other than the exception on a go forward

[2:12:41] basis, um, with I would assume I'm not an engineer,

[2:12:43] but I'm assuming project in tens of millions of dollars

[2:12:46] would normally be a class A. Now from what I've

[2:12:49] learned over the past few months, uh, once we learned

[2:12:51] about this project. So that would have been, that would

[2:12:54] be my first question. Um, to the CAO. CO Smith?

[2:12:58] Uh, yes, truly chair. I would say it's a fairly

[2:13:01] and certainly operatious staff can, can also jump in here

[2:13:04] or certainly that, uh, that, uh, it is fairly standard

[2:13:07] practice with respect to that, that, uh, triage or that,

[2:13:11] uh, moving through those different class estimates because on the

[2:13:14] basis in which a lot of these infrastructure projects, they're

[2:13:17] not done in say, uh, designed and constructed in a

[2:13:21] given year that they are going to be, especially when

[2:13:23] we look at capturing that within our, our, our municipal

[2:13:26] budgets that these are often multi - year endeavors. And

[2:13:29] then we start with the class C based on the

[2:13:30] fact that, you know, market conditions, cost of materials, the,

[2:13:35] the, the other further design elements that may come to

[2:13:38] be, those are all a big, uh, big things that

[2:13:41] change once you actually get into more of that, that

[2:13:44] 90 percent engineering design versus when you're a more of

[2:13:47] the conceptual stage or in that 30 percent piece So

[2:13:50] it is fairly standard with respect to, I think, um,

[2:13:53] the, the sequencing of this ideally, I think certainly you

[2:13:56] would have the moment you embark on engineering. You would

[2:13:59] have a very much a clear portrait of what those

[2:14:01] costs are going to be. But the reality is, is

[2:14:03] that they do take time to, uh, to fully materialize.

[2:14:06] But I think that's where I go to my point

[2:14:08] around ensuring that we as staff are keep that, that

[2:14:11] risk analysis or at risk management philosophy top in center

[2:14:15] to say, even when we have class C estimates in

[2:14:17] place and when we know there is still that variation

[2:14:21] or that understanding that this could actually be, and maybe

[2:14:24] there's some assumptions that maybe other costs could be lower.

[2:14:27] There's still enough of a variability here that we should

[2:14:29] flag and we should escalate this further, uh, to, uh,

[2:14:33] to make sure council's aware and make sure the general

[2:14:35] public is aware that, uh, we can accommodate, uh, this,

[2:14:39] uh, in, in a mean or within the means of

[2:14:41] the municipality. Follow up, uh, Mr. Epidemir? Yes. Yes. Thank

[2:14:46] you, Mr. Chair. Through you again to the CEO. Thank

[2:14:48] you for that. Um, having checkpoints red flags along the

[2:14:53] way. Then something simple like, and I say simple in

[2:14:57] a project that's large. I'll have 150, 000 dollars of

[2:14:59] value engineering That to me, the project should have included

[2:15:03] that from the beginning. Because then if at the time

[2:15:10] at 40 million dollar project, if it could find, you

[2:15:13] know, 800, 000 million, million, five worth of efficiencies, that

[2:15:16] should be, again, the norm, not the exception. And if

[2:15:20] we did have those touch points, um, along the way,

[2:15:24] then council would be able to, you know, and, and

[2:15:27] staff together, I wouldn't be able to, number one, notify

[2:15:30] the public. But number two, be able to look for

[2:15:33] opportunities such as value engineering, things like that on a

[2:15:36] go forward basis. So when we do projects like this,

[2:15:40] in the future, they know this project needs to be

[2:15:42] done. So, um, regardless of the huge funding or not,

[2:15:44] the use funding is a huge aspect of it. But

[2:15:47] to blame the huge funding portion, uh, the huge funding

[2:15:52] receipt of monies based on the chronological events that happened,

[2:15:58] you know, that doesn't sit the best with me because

[2:16:00] only because we know we had to do the work

[2:16:01] anyways. And I would have really liked to have known

[2:16:04] that, you know, at the end of the day, like

[2:16:05] I said in the beginning, if it was just a

[2:16:07] class, we were going to end up at a class

[2:16:09] A, then let me know that because the class C

[2:16:11] only have 20 to 25 percent escalation costs, you know,

[2:16:15] where, you know, we're seeing 19 million dollars, which is

[2:16:18] 35 on percent. So again, I'm not looking for blame.

[2:16:21] I'm just looking to say, if we include value engineering,

[2:16:26] we should do for the beginning. We should have further

[2:16:28] touch points, um, at the, at the any sniff of

[2:16:31] anything that's, that's going sideways, we should be able to

[2:16:33] get on board with that. So I guess my, you

[2:16:35] know, after halt my question, as you answer the one

[2:16:37] about the, um, uh, but the assessment from the classes,

[2:16:43] will value engineering, um, along a sign offsetting like this

[2:16:46] all be part and parcel of major infrastructure projects like

[2:16:49] this as we go forward to help mitigate this type

[2:16:53] of, um, major project efficiency or differential in the future.

[2:16:58] CEO Smith. Yeah. Through the chair, certainly I think internally

[2:17:02] we've been having conversations of embedding those, those, uh, those

[2:17:05] thresholds. I will say that it's not as if for

[2:17:07] operation staff or otherwise, which value engineering or optimization studies

[2:17:11] have not been done in the past. But I will

[2:17:14] say yes. I think it is important. I think what

[2:17:17] is, um, not apparent at this present time is that

[2:17:21] clear line is to when you do one. Right. It's

[2:17:23] to understand that there is that, uh, that, that trigger

[2:17:25] we can't have instituted. And that is something I think

[2:17:28] on my mind or my end too is to make

[2:17:30] that commitment to, uh, to further ingrain and go from

[2:17:34] the, but I will also maybe make to Deputy Mary

[2:17:37] to your point. I should have, um, maybe reframed at

[2:17:41] least my comments with respect to the, to the Hughes

[2:17:43] grant because I certainly do not want to blame, I

[2:17:45] think to say that the grant is a basis to

[2:17:47] which this is a situation we find ourselves in. I

[2:17:50] think the grant has been a tremendous opportunity into which

[2:17:53] given the work needs to happen in the absence of

[2:17:55] this grant, we be a much more difficult situation. I

[2:18:00] think currently. So I think that's certainly I should provide

[2:18:04] some, some clarity with in that regard. And I think

[2:18:06] to your point is that, um, even when we experience

[2:18:09] those timelines and those pressures is to ensure and work

[2:18:13] with the province at an early point in time to

[2:18:15] know that, Hey, these are these, these risks here. And

[2:18:18] these are the, the, the, uh, cost overruns that were

[2:18:21] perspectively may potentially face. And I think it was director

[2:18:25] Quinlan made the comment earlier when there is that engagement

[2:18:28] with the province, some of the feedback is, well, that

[2:18:30] is something that, you know, when it comes to extensions,

[2:18:33] there might be a little more accommodation for opposed to

[2:18:36] you didn't move on a project in a timely way.

[2:18:38] So that creates a bit of a, uh, more of

[2:18:40] a concern. So, uh, I just wanted to probably maybe

[2:18:42] some, some clary with respect to that, uh, some of

[2:18:45] my comments. I might have not framed in the best

[2:18:47] of, uh, best of ways. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:18:53] Councillor Porter, go ahead. Uh, yes. And through the chair.

[2:18:58] So I just want to, before I go into my

[2:19:01] comments, I'd just like to build on, um, talk about

[2:19:04] the Hughes funding. Cause that was at Roma. It was

[2:19:08] announced in one of the workshops. And I was sitting

[2:19:10] there at the time. And just to, not to make

[2:19:14] any excuses, just to set the context. Is the competition

[2:19:17] for that money was extremely fierce? Because I remember having,

[2:19:20] listened to the presentation when it came to the Q

[2:19:23] and A section asking the ministry representative. So in effect,

[2:19:28] when you have this envelope of money, if you awarded

[2:19:32] each project to the maximum, you wouldn't even award a

[2:19:35] project in a province that has over 400 municipalities. So

[2:19:40] the competition was fierce. Just that is, and he didn't

[2:19:43] really like my comment because it was referenced in a

[2:19:47] subsequent delegation that he remembered me, but that was the

[2:19:50] fact. So the competition was fierce. Uh, I just want

[2:19:53] to make that clear. Um, my take on the report.

[2:19:58] And I thank you, CO Smith, for, um, for doing

[2:20:00] this, um, it's not a report. I'm sure you welcome

[2:20:04] the opportunity to do. I see that there was really,

[2:20:09] um, several three, what I would describe as critical failures

[2:20:14] in communication and transparency. There were three specific points. If

[2:20:18] you have a process map and a process map, there

[2:20:21] are diamonds. Diamonds are decision points where people decide to

[2:20:24] do something. And there's three. Cause we have heard earlier

[2:20:28] today with the previous report about the confidence in class

[2:20:32] A estimates. This is what we're at to Mill Street

[2:20:34] that's going forward. So they, the hundred percent estimates, we

[2:20:39] know from the consultants report, we're going to come back

[2:20:41] to the town. That's in the public information sessions. And

[2:20:46] I've also clarified at an earlier meeting that coming back

[2:20:49] to the town, man, coming back to staff, not counsel.

[2:20:52] So those would have been done and they would have

[2:20:55] had a dollar value. So I ask at that point,

[2:20:59] when you looked at the three tenders that had to

[2:21:02] go out, the three projects that had to go out

[2:21:05] in the bundle were the estimates. Would they leave you

[2:21:09] sufficient money. To finish the rest of the bundle project?

[2:21:12] So that was one. The second decision point was when

[2:21:16] the tenders came back. You're looking at the price that

[2:21:20] the contractors are asking, asking for that it's another decision

[2:21:25] point. And then finally you make a decision. The third

[2:21:28] decision as I see was the actual awarding of the

[2:21:31] contract. And I would just, um, really look for some

[2:21:35] reassurance that the, um, the purchasing Goods and Services policy

[2:21:42] was adhered to. Through Chair, and yes, that's

[2:21:53] where I think when we go back to that practice

[2:21:54] of the bundle projects is that technically from when you

[2:21:57] looked at that whole budget in itself that with those

[2:22:01] between the Craiglie Sewer Lift Station and the Bay and

[2:22:04] Gray Street Linear Works, at that point in time when

[2:22:07] those were tendered, there was available budget. However, there was

[2:22:10] recognition, I think, at the time after Baying Gray was

[2:22:14] that were awarded to which we were not going to

[2:22:16] have enough budget for Mill Street to which, and this

[2:22:20] is where the challenge becomes, is that with Mill Street

[2:22:22] and some of the scope of work connected to Bay

[2:22:25] and Gray creates a pressing situation with respect to time

[2:22:29] and with respect to design given that now you're going

[2:22:32] to back to council when there's elements of that scope

[2:22:35] of work for mill that you no longer can change

[2:22:38] because you started the Baying Grey Works. But having said

[2:22:41] that, once again, it is, yes, to the point in

[2:22:44] which there should have been between one's we understood, even

[2:22:49] around the Craig Leaf Station, despite the fact that we

[2:22:51] still had available budget even after that singular project being

[2:22:55] awarded, that we still should have had that checkpoint with

[2:22:58] council. Yeah, go ahead. Yes, through the chair. So thank

[2:23:03] you for saying that, because at the end of the

[2:23:05] day, you have a pot of money of 34. 7

[2:23:09] million dollars. You award attender that money comes off that

[2:23:12] budget line. And you know this is what you have

[2:23:15] left, and you're looking at, if you have an awarded,

[2:23:18] you know the class A engineering, you put out, I

[2:23:24] could just speak for myself. I've never ever been associated

[2:23:26] with a tender that didn't go out that I didn't

[2:23:28] have a number in my head based on a reasonable

[2:23:31] expectation. Then the attender come back, you have a number.

[2:23:36] You know the bottom line on the spreadsheet. This is

[2:23:38] what you have to play with. So I'm just saying

[2:23:41] there were, as I read the report, there were decision

[2:23:45] points where people decided to move forward where I think

[2:23:50] a detour or two council would have been appropriate. Thank

[2:23:53] you. See Osman. I know through the chair. I think

[2:23:58] Nano Director Quinlan has her hand up. It might be

[2:24:00] a provision comment with respect to procurement. Director. Kremlin. Go

[2:24:06] ahead. Thank you, C. O. Smith, and through the chair.

[2:24:11] I do just want to add that what C. O.

[2:24:15] Smith has shared is that the timing of the information

[2:24:18] flow is what's really important. The procurement process was followed.

[2:24:22] It was identified upon the award of the Bay and

[2:24:25] Gray Street that, in fact, there would not be enough

[2:24:30] funds to do the next project, which would be the

[2:24:33] Mill Street project. So the expectation there is that we

[2:24:36] would have staff come forward, make the presentation and explain

[2:24:39] why. The problem that, you know, sort of came out

[2:24:43] of this is also that no one knew, or meaning

[2:24:48] finance staff recognizing we were both fairly new at the

[2:24:51] time, did not know what the next portion of that

[2:24:55] project would be. So, um, at the time when the

[2:24:59] Deputy Treasurer reviewed the Bit Award farm, it said he

[2:25:02] very clearly states there will not be sufficient funding for

[2:25:05] the next project. But not recognizing what value that was

[2:25:11] or how much, um, the Mill Street Project would have

[2:25:14] been budgeted for caused a problem too. And that's why

[2:25:17] we're saying as part of the 2025 budget, we don't

[2:25:20] bundle. We can't bundle because it's, it, it, it, it

[2:25:24] eliminates the line of sight from a finance staff perspective

[2:25:27] or anybody that's not directly involved in the project to

[2:25:29] be totally fair. So I think a gain, it's really

[2:25:32] just about the escalation of that information. One staff is

[2:25:36] aware that the project or the updated tender, or pardon

[2:25:40] me, the updated estimates are greater than what was previously

[2:25:45] known. That's the point. That's when we need to understand

[2:25:48] it and it needs to be escalated. Follow it. Through

[2:25:56] the chair, I guess, I mean, we did hear on

[2:26:00] December 15th. Some verbiage around that staff looked for savings.

[2:26:09] I recall at that time saying, what amount of savings

[2:26:13] would make it easier, more palatable to come at us

[2:26:16] for more money. I guess I. M, what I was

[2:26:21] trying to point out, and it has been fed back

[2:26:26] is decisions were made. With full knowledge. There wasn't enough

[2:26:30] money to complete the project. And I can't, I just

[2:26:36] find that really hard. Thanks. Okay. Um, I don't see

[2:26:43] any staff able to add comment to that. So I'm

[2:26:46] going to go to counselor Hope. Go ahead. Yes. Thank

[2:26:50] you. And I hope, uh, it's enshrined in the next

[2:26:55] motion. Some of the comments the council reporter has made.

[2:27:00] I'd like to go to page three of the report.

[2:27:02] By the way, thank you for the report. I think

[2:27:03] it was a good beginning. And it was an interim

[2:27:06] report. Uh, the details that allows us to, uh, at

[2:27:10] least consider where we might want to go. But on

[2:27:13] page three, um, the paragraph two, three is as cost

[2:27:19] pressures or scope changes start to emerge that information should

[2:27:22] be escalated as early as possible. So later on, I'm

[2:27:26] going to ask about how you intend to do that

[2:27:29] through you, the chair, uh, to CO Smith. But beyond

[2:27:33] that, I want to think about our friends on Bay

[2:27:35] Street. And to think about how the origins of this

[2:27:40] project, because the real tragedy here is going way back

[2:27:47] is that council didn't have an opportunity to define where

[2:27:51] the force mean was to go. And now as I

[2:27:54] look at what has happened as a result of where

[2:27:57] the placement of the force mean, I would have loved

[2:27:59] the opportunity. To have, uh, had a go at the

[2:28:03] location of that porous main. Um, and I'm really sorry

[2:28:07] that that was that decision was not made available to

[2:28:10] myself or to my council members. So basically all council

[2:28:13] was told is that there was a forcemain. And apparently

[2:28:16] according to Council Reporters figures is something like eight times.

[2:28:20] There was a reference to force Maine, but we were

[2:28:22] never told the location. Uh, that's way back when long

[2:28:26] before many of the people are in this room. But

[2:28:30] certainly council members, um, are, of course, have been affected

[2:28:34] by that. And the whole problem, I think starts with

[2:28:39] that. So when you talk about as cost pressures or

[2:28:42] scope changes start to emerge that information should be escalated

[2:28:45] as early as possible. A force main decision is not

[2:28:48] a council decision. I understand that. Um, but then should

[2:28:52] we be looking at that? I mean, in other words,

[2:28:54] operations, as I understand it, it was what I was

[2:28:56] told at the time. Operations can make that decision about

[2:28:59] the force main. But as it's turned out, it's very

[2:29:03] much a community decision that I think has had devastating

[2:29:06] results. So, um. Through Mr. Chair, to the CAO, um,

[2:29:14] I'm sure you're working on strategies on how to, what

[2:29:17] is early as possible? Are we going to be considering,

[2:29:21] um, some decisions that may in the past have been

[2:29:25] under operations that become, um, community decisions. Thank you. And

[2:29:32] I have a follow - up afternoon. CEO Smith. Yeah.

[2:29:34] Through the chair and certainly I know, um, you know,

[2:29:38] thinking about the force main project. As we're called to,

[2:29:41] and I think actually that, that is where, you know,

[2:29:43] you look at elements say earlier in design where there

[2:29:46] may be flags or things to which, uh, you know,

[2:29:49] Hey, we're, we realize there may be a variance. Anything

[2:29:51] that at that point in time is a great time

[2:29:53] to actually engage with council just to even at a,

[2:29:55] at a point which may there or may not, you

[2:29:57] know, may not have that certainty, but certainly at least,

[2:30:00] um, it gives assurances that there is at level transparency

[2:30:04] and ability to work with council and finding different solutions.

[2:30:08] But I will say in the context of the force

[2:30:11] man location, I do know that the piece to which

[2:30:14] or the one of the biggest variables there was a

[2:30:15] piece around cost. And we should relocation would have been

[2:30:19] the location that did end up going forward was on

[2:30:21] the basis of it represented the most efficient route to

[2:30:25] which, uh, to realize, I think that those project outcomes.

[2:30:29] Now I think moving forward and, you know, looking at

[2:30:31] how we do our public information sessions or how we,

[2:30:34] uh, when we are at the engineering design stage, which

[2:30:38] there may be counsel direction to say we understand, say,

[2:30:41] the engineering, we understand that there was other options proposed

[2:30:45] into which there might be direction to say is that

[2:30:47] we understand that this may be more costly, but we

[2:30:50] think this might be more of a viable route or

[2:30:52] anything like that. There is oftentimes there might be that

[2:30:55] ability for council to provide that perspective relation to a

[2:31:01] engineering design depending on what the project is. But also

[2:31:04] I will say there are certain projects, for example, pumping

[2:31:07] stations being case in point where oftentimes there is no

[2:31:11] real, um, either have to go with this pump size

[2:31:14] or you don't. Right. And I think there's, there's certain

[2:31:16] pieces of certain projects which I don't think have that

[2:31:19] means or that ability to, uh, to, to do those

[2:31:21] types of designs that might, uh, that might, uh, result

[2:31:26] in some significant pivots. It's just, it's barely black and

[2:31:29] white. But as much as possible, I like to further

[2:31:32] work with, you know, certainly our teams as they work

[2:31:35] on different projects to, to see where there could be

[2:31:37] that engagement to understand the risks that council may see

[2:31:40] that might be different from what staff do. Fundamentally, it's

[2:31:43] about ensuring we're doing, we're putting forward recommendations that our

[2:31:47] sustainable fiscally sustainable. But the other side of it is

[2:31:50] to ensure that council has an ability to know all

[2:31:53] the different variables might be, uh, that might be impacting

[2:31:57] design. And they may be the ones to say, we

[2:31:59] think this option B might be more constantly, but it's,

[2:32:02] it's the one in which from a community impact standpoint

[2:32:06] might be from our end, uh, something that could be

[2:32:08] lessened. So, uh, there is that flexibility, but ultimately does

[2:32:11] depend on the project that is being put forward. Follow

[2:32:15] up, Councillor Hope. Thank you. On this issue, and then

[2:32:17] I have another question. So I'm not talking about the

[2:32:19] relocation. I would like your report to go back to

[2:32:23] the original decision. Which is where counsel was told a

[2:32:28] force mane was being placed. But we were never told

[2:32:31] the exact location. So that's long before your time. And

[2:32:36] I'm not sure of the exact date, but early in

[2:32:38] the early 2000s. If council had been able to have

[2:32:42] a chance to have a look at what the different

[2:32:45] locations could be, I think it would have just changed

[2:32:49] so much. And the trust in the community would not

[2:32:51] have been eroded the way it has been. It just,

[2:32:54] there's just so many reasons why we needed another crack

[2:32:58] at that. There's nothing that can be done now. I'm

[2:33:00] not crying over spilled milk, but in future, uh, I

[2:33:04] would like to make sure that council gets first crack

[2:33:09] at everything. And so in your final report, I'd like

[2:33:13] you to go back that far. The original choice. For

[2:33:17] the forcemain and the lack of community involvement. With that

[2:33:22] choice. That is, I think, fundamental. And I hope that

[2:33:26] it helps in terms of building trust. So I will,

[2:33:30] whoever, you know, I will be enshrining that in the

[2:33:32] motion. How can you get as early as possible? How

[2:33:37] do you see doing that? CAO Smith. Uh, through the

[2:33:41] chair. Yeah. I'll have to put some thought with respect

[2:33:43] to exploring it. I think the, uh, as you noted,

[2:33:45] there's some, some history in terms of say the force,

[2:33:48] Spain itself. It might be more of, and this is

[2:33:50] where I think to the scope of this report and

[2:33:53] investigating, say, the tendering of the works opposed to some

[2:33:55] of the more of the design elements with respect to,

[2:33:58] uh, the, the, the force main itself. Maybe there's some

[2:34:02] value in separating them out. But certainly there's a, uh,

[2:34:06] you could put forward that in the via resolution. And

[2:34:09] I'll look further into it. And then, uh, come back

[2:34:11] to council, uh, just for some, some information. And you

[2:34:16] had another question. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. I

[2:34:17] do. Um, I want. It to. Discuss when did finance

[2:34:27] know about the overage at this point. And from what

[2:34:33] I hear, because I think it's important that there's been

[2:34:37] assumptions made that have not been fair is what I

[2:34:41] can, what I can tease out. So I think in

[2:34:44] this, um, at this point, I think we need to

[2:34:47] start thinking about that. Obviously the public is asking for

[2:34:50] that. Uh, and the concern would be. So I want

[2:34:54] to give an opportunity to staff to explain, um, what

[2:35:00] happened in terms of, uh, this project not being included

[2:35:03] in the budget, uh, and what they had to work

[2:35:07] with. Because from what I can see in the report

[2:35:09] here. Information appropriate information was not shared.

[2:35:19] That I can read that on the sentence. And I

[2:35:21] see nod from you, the CAO. So, um, I, I

[2:35:25] would like to open that discussion. And if, if, if

[2:35:29] we can't talk about it a lot today, I would

[2:35:31] certainly like to see, um, all of the questions that

[2:35:34] were raised at the public comment to be included in

[2:35:38] our emotions. So I'll just put war you about that

[2:35:41] coming. But if there's any comments that you want to

[2:35:44] make at this point about, uh. When did the CAO

[2:35:50] level SMT level understand that we had a 19 million

[2:35:54] dollar over So I'm going to go to CEO Smith

[2:35:59] and director Quinlan. Uh, Julie Chair, I could certainly start.

[2:36:03] And I think what I can definitely say with respective

[2:36:06] for, for finance staff, it was in until in terms

[2:36:09] of understand the scale into which we were dealing with

[2:36:11] really in that November, uh, 2025 timeline, which we realized

[2:36:16] that this is, uh, this is the, uh, the scale

[2:36:20] to which we're, we're facing these, these pressures related to

[2:36:23] the, to the project. So and I think that's where,

[2:36:26] you know, it's once again, go into that theme of

[2:36:28] internal communications and how collectively we all work together and

[2:36:32] then escalate things appropriately. Because with budget, when we look

[2:36:35] at through budget and when we do look at every

[2:36:38] department providing their divisional sheets into and understanding and meeting

[2:36:42] that these types of issues, this is where that's the

[2:36:44] time in which they are further divised. That's the way

[2:36:47] they are strategies are formulated. A lot of these inputs

[2:36:50] are further considered. Um, and then that kind of forms

[2:36:53] into where our budget process is. So to the point

[2:36:56] that I think has emphasized previously and within this report

[2:36:59] when this was raised in terms of that, that november

[2:37:03] timeline, it would have been, uh, it would not have

[2:37:05] been appropriate to fit that with in the context of,

[2:37:09] uh, the overall budget. Because even now we're still investigating

[2:37:12] means in which, how does this affect our debt projections

[2:37:16] moving forward? How does it affect in terms of, uh,

[2:37:18] our reserves moving forward. This is a significant overage that

[2:37:21] was not reflect or at least was not considered at

[2:37:24] an earlier point in time in which we could figure

[2:37:26] out those strategies. So that would be, uh, that would

[2:37:29] be just some of my comments with respect to, uh,

[2:37:34] internal escalation. Thank you, CO Smith, director clean one. Go

[2:37:38] ahead. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chair and through you, I

[2:37:42] would agree with what I CEO Smith has shared. I'll

[2:37:45] also say, um, following once we were notified that the

[2:37:49] increase was so severe. And I mean on the mill

[2:37:52] street specifically moving from the value on the application of

[2:37:55] 9. 4 to a class C estimate of 10. 8.

[2:38:00] You're an issue for tender estimate at 19. 9. Um,

[2:38:04] there was no indication or escalation to us prior to

[2:38:08] that November discussion. Following that, we took immediate action. We

[2:38:13] started to review the costs. We looked at, um, where

[2:38:16] the engineers could provide us some information in terms of

[2:38:18] what the differences were from, let's say, the application, um,

[2:38:23] amount to the actual issued for tender estimate. We reviewed

[2:38:26] the project file in detail. We spoke directly with staff

[2:38:30] involved. Um, and met with our external engineering consultants to

[2:38:34] walk us through all of those assumptions as well as

[2:38:37] exploring where there might be some reasonable options to reduce

[2:38:40] the costs without jeopardizing. He was funding as we've talked

[2:38:43] about earlier or the long - term system, uh, capacity.

[2:38:47] I appreciate CO Smith's words around the budget. The truth

[2:38:50] is, is that, um, when it comes to capital planning,

[2:38:53] the capital planning does not directly drive the annual levy.

[2:38:57] At the point that we were at, and again, we

[2:38:59] are still trying to discern where we will end up

[2:39:03] once we go through the value engineering estimate. It does

[2:39:06] not change the tax rate. The tax rate is highly

[2:39:09] tied or completely tied for that matter to the operating

[2:39:11] budget. But what it does do is change our projections.

[2:39:15] And of course, the projections that we provided as part

[2:39:18] of the budget documents will have to be updated. We

[2:39:20] will have to change that. We're reviewing what our debt

[2:39:24] servicing requirements will be, whether or not we should be,

[2:39:27] um, looking at debt and what it means to the

[2:39:29] overall capital plan just in general. What projects maybe we

[2:39:33] could delay or look at delaying. That could help us,

[2:39:36] um, manage the cash flow around this. I will say

[2:39:39] that having the hues funding is we're very fortunate to

[2:39:42] have that. Um, we, we of course have received quite

[2:39:47] a bit of the funding in advance, which means we

[2:39:49] can keep it in, you know, our accounts and provide,

[2:39:52] uh, the cashflow as we need it. So that is

[2:39:55] a very, you know, important part of this. But I

[2:39:58] cannot stress enough the fact that we are working on

[2:40:01] the update of the capital program as you're aware. We're

[2:40:05] bringing the final asset management plan forward. And that will

[2:40:08] come on the February 23rd deadline. That tells us what

[2:40:12] we're going to need to do from an asset management

[2:40:14] perspective. And we'll also tell us what, um, how we

[2:40:18] move forward with these types of projects, recognizing that we're

[2:40:21] also finalizing or hoping to finalize, um, a DC appeal

[2:40:25] that's been in, um, been out there now for almost

[2:40:28] two years. So all of these pieces of the puzzle

[2:40:30] will help us determine where we go forward and what

[2:40:34] we can do in terms of a long - term

[2:40:35] plan. Thank you, follow. Just last one. Follow up. Yep.

[2:40:39] Yeah. Thank you very much. First of all, thank you

[2:40:41] for your honesty. Really appreciate it. UCAO Smith has done

[2:40:47] by indicating when the CAO and that had a finance

[2:40:52] learned, which was November 2025. And there was a council

[2:40:55] meeting, December 2025. So you can understand exactly when council

[2:41:01] would probably have come to learn this. So, um, the

[2:41:05] gap is what was noted by the CAO is the

[2:41:09] summer of 2025 when there seems to be some other

[2:41:12] information. But I look forward to hearing more about that

[2:41:15] one. Um, but, um, as you can see from, from

[2:41:20] a public perspective, I'm very happy that this has come

[2:41:22] out that, that the CAO and our director of finance

[2:41:26] did not know till November of 2025 and then council's

[2:41:30] meeting was December 15th. So there was certain good diligence

[2:41:35] done in terms of as soon as our senior staff

[2:41:40] knew pretty close to when council learned as well. So

[2:41:44] I think that information and hopefully that answers some of

[2:41:47] the questions that have come from up today. Um, I

[2:41:50] have more questions, but, uh, I know that, uh, my

[2:41:53] colleagues are looking to speak as well. Thank you. Thank

[2:41:55] you, Councillor Hope. CEO Smith. Is that an old hand.

[2:42:03] To the chair? No, it is not old. And I

[2:42:04] think just, you know, I think the important messaging within

[2:42:07] the scope of this, this report too is not to

[2:42:09] say, to sign blame. And it's, you know, really looking

[2:42:12] at how we move forward with respect to certain controls.

[2:42:15] I think it is important to be transparent where to

[2:42:18] note that we do have existing controls and practices to

[2:42:21] which communication is always the, you know, it's may not

[2:42:23] be or might be a term to which is very

[2:42:26] commonly understood as to be something that, uh, is well

[2:42:30] known and is an important aspect of any of any

[2:42:33] project management. But I think it is something that is

[2:42:36] also can be difficult to practice. So, and I just,

[2:42:39] um, I think once again to reinforce, it's not really

[2:42:42] so much to sign blame. It's, it's really to look

[2:42:45] at objectively how the events unfolded and just being honest

[2:42:49] and transparent with respect to how things could be done

[2:42:51] differently and using these as lessons learned moving forward and

[2:42:55] understanding that even looking at what, what's unfolded things like

[2:42:58] such as value engineering axis to ensure we're, we're controlling

[2:43:01] some of those costs. So, um, I do want to

[2:43:04] make that clear. Thank you CEO Smith. So, and I'm

[2:43:09] sorry. Did you say you're going to, you're leading to

[2:43:11] a motion counselor hope or was in conjunction with council

[2:43:15] reporter. I'm sorry. I thought I caught, I thought I

[2:43:18] caught something about emotion. Yes. I, I think it has

[2:43:21] to be a collaborative one. Uh, but yes, we're going

[2:43:24] to need some time, but I know that my colleagues

[2:43:26] would like to speak as well. Okay. So just while

[2:43:29] I would make note of that, I'll try to work

[2:43:30] on one now. Thanks. Thank you. So, uh, Councillor Ardell,

[2:43:34] I don't see a virtual hand, but, uh, I thought

[2:43:36] I might just ask if you wanted to add anything

[2:43:38] while we're going around the first round. No, I'd just

[2:43:42] be repeating everything everybody else said. There's no point in

[2:43:46] hearing myself speak. So thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councillor

[2:43:49] Adele. Councillor Maxwell, did you have another quick question you

[2:43:53] wanted to get in or before we get to a

[2:43:55] motion? I'm going to add a question here. Go ahead.

[2:43:58] Uh, just building on counselor hopes, uh, comment that. Certain

[2:44:04] departments weren't aware of things. So that almost speaks the

[2:44:08] fact that we're working in silos and, uh. From a

[2:44:13] nest poll, uh, perspective, that's probably not where we want

[2:44:16] to be. Um, I don't think everybody's supposed to be

[2:44:20] in lockstep on a project, I would think. So I'm

[2:44:24] just wondering about that. And I'm also want to talk

[2:44:29] to this about the bundling of, um, projects. So I'm

[2:44:35] having a hard time. Taking that as a negative. Uh,

[2:44:42] because if you look at economies to scale, normally if

[2:44:46] you're bundled a project, yours cost savings. So, I mean,

[2:44:49] if I go into buy a car, it's this much

[2:44:52] of, I say the dealer, how about by five. Hopefully

[2:44:55] it's less. Okay. Um. So I'm just wondering under the

[2:45:01] risk management, uh, scenario moving forward. And, um, I don't

[2:45:08] want to dwelt much in the past, but you know,

[2:45:11] years ago we would have had an engineering firm design

[2:45:16] and managed anti - air project. And all the risk

[2:45:20] and liability basically rested with the engineering firm. And the

[2:45:27] taxpayer's role was just to pay for the project. So

[2:45:31] now in the past recently we moved away from that

[2:45:34] model. And I'm just wondering if there's any potential to

[2:45:39] revisit that model. For the future, because the whole job

[2:45:45] is to. For us at counselors, is to move all

[2:45:50] risk and liability away from the municipality. And I'm just

[2:45:55] wondering if we should have a, another look at that.

[2:45:58] And I'm just going to mention that the CEO sled

[2:46:00] to see what he thinks. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Maxwell.

[2:46:03] I see Director Quinlan had her hand up first. Do

[2:46:07] you want to just hold on for a second? Councillor,

[2:46:10] or sorry, counselor director Quinlan, please go ahead. I think.

[2:46:18] I can just speak with respect to bundling of projects.

[2:46:22] When we talk about bundling, we mean from a budgetary

[2:46:26] perspective. That doesn't mean when we go out to the

[2:46:28] marketplace or reapply to a grant that we can't continue

[2:46:32] to bundle up. It was the right thing as part

[2:46:34] of the Hughes funding application to bring these projects together.

[2:46:38] But once you have the information budgeting it should be

[2:46:43] very, um, should be single. And the reason we say

[2:46:46] that is because it reduces the vision of what we

[2:46:49] can see in terms of our packages. So let me

[2:46:51] just give you a, for example, if you have a

[2:46:53] project that overall is 30 million dollars, but your advancing

[2:46:59] three different, you know, very distinct projects on their own.

[2:47:04] And you start with say a five million dollar tender,

[2:47:10] well then you still have 25 million dollars left But

[2:47:13] if you have a, if you don't know what the

[2:47:16] rest of the projects are. So for example, you have

[2:47:19] 25 million dollars left, but if the second project was

[2:47:22] a 20 million or 25 million dollar project says in

[2:47:29] fairness that you still have an remaining amount in budget

[2:47:33] to assign that tender. But that again doesn't mean from

[2:47:39] a, from a, you know, a procurement standpoint or a

[2:47:43] grant application standpoint that it's the wrong thing to do.

[2:47:46] In fact, it was the right thing to do to

[2:47:48] apply for this huge funding with all three of these

[2:47:50] projects because you needed all three of these projects to

[2:47:53] meet the housing units that were being put forth. So

[2:47:58] no one's saying that, you know, it's bad to save

[2:48:00] money or bad to look at bundling. What we're saying

[2:48:02] is, is when we budget though, we keep it very

[2:48:05] separate and distinct so that it's clear to everybody, including

[2:48:08] council, that this is, these are the amounts that are

[2:48:12] remaining in that budget. As you know, we do quarterly

[2:48:15] reporting. We explain what the actual and the and the

[2:48:18] budgets are. And then we provide a projection beginning in

[2:48:21] the second and third quarters to see where we're going

[2:48:23] to end up. Um, that is the point is that

[2:48:26] we would be able to see at that point that

[2:48:29] our projections are now different, but you can't see that

[2:48:32] when you put them all together. Okay. CAO. Thank you,

[2:48:36] Director Quinlan, CAO Smith. Yes, uh, through the chair, maybe

[2:48:42] to the couple pieces related to operating silos at Councillor

[2:48:46] Maxwell noted as well as just the other piece around,

[2:48:49] I think for third party engineering support, I think that's

[2:48:52] the other component of this. So I will say, and

[2:48:55] I don't think it's, uh, reflection of the reality that,

[2:48:58] you know, for cross different departments, we're operating in silos.

[2:49:01] I think going back to communication too, it's often comes

[2:49:04] down to how you do it as well. Is it,

[2:49:06] you know, in terms of verbal versus written, documenting, you

[2:49:08] know, when certain decision points need to be made, especially

[2:49:12] given the, the degree of complexity, I think involved with

[2:49:15] these three different projects and especially when you look at

[2:49:18] the connectivity between bay and gray as well as for,

[2:49:22] for Mill Street and the history there as well. Um,

[2:49:25] I think that's what, you know, certainly as, as created

[2:49:28] a challenge for, for staff and effectively having some of

[2:49:32] those, uh, internal communications. But, um, but nonetheless, I wouldn't

[2:49:36] say that. That's a serious issue in which we, we

[2:49:38] have this, uh, siloed approach and certainly not something that,

[2:49:42] uh, I would, uh, would say, uh, part of my

[2:49:46] own, my own philosophy, uh, in regards to engineering support

[2:49:51] in third party engineering support. We do know there are

[2:49:54] other municipalities that will deploy as it relates to more

[2:49:56] so on the regulatory side is to say, we will

[2:49:59] have a, a procured, say, third party to manage the

[2:50:04] contracts bound with other contractors or consultants that would be

[2:50:08] doing, uh, various capital projects on behalf of the, uh,

[2:50:12] on behalf of the municipality. Now I will say that

[2:50:15] where there is, I think the thinking in terms of

[2:50:17] the capacity we have from an engineering or capital projects

[2:50:21] management or even from a development management side of things

[2:50:24] is that the value that goes in there is that

[2:50:27] I think is exactly to that in terms of minimizing

[2:50:29] risk because we have, we're constantly monitoring those works. You're

[2:50:33] not having that, uh, that risk exposure that may relate

[2:50:36] to having a consound come in that may not have

[2:50:40] that, uh, municipal contacts or may not have that prior

[2:50:43] experience working with the town or say our relevant engineering

[2:50:46] standards. So oftentimes it can be good to have that

[2:50:50] internal capacity, recognizing that that internal capacity is very familiarized

[2:50:55] with, uh, standards and practices within the town. But, uh,

[2:51:00] it is something I think to further explore when it

[2:51:02] comes to certain projects in which, you know, understanding the

[2:51:06] number that we have on the, uh, on the, uh,

[2:51:08] in the docket coming forward is to say, where could

[2:51:11] there be some additional support to ensure that, uh, you

[2:51:15] know, we can move forward on these projects in a

[2:51:17] timely way. And to consider things are further considered things

[2:51:20] like risk. Thank you, CO Swift. Did you have a

[2:51:23] follow up, Councillor Maxwell? Or does that answer your question?

[2:51:27] No, I could ask questions all day. No, I'm. Okay.

[2:51:33] Thank you, Councillor Maxwell. That's all for now. Councillor Porter,

[2:51:37] please go ahead. Yes. And thank you through the chair.

[2:51:40] So page three, um, the, it is mentioned in August

[2:51:45] 25 with the release of the tender became clear and

[2:51:49] sufficient budget would remain. I wouldn't say with the release,

[2:51:52] I would say prior to the release. And what I've

[2:51:55] been hearing is. Because counsel wasn't aware and no one

[2:51:59] else because to Councillor Maxwell's point, it seemed to be

[2:52:07] managed in the silo. There was a real big missed

[2:52:11] opportunity for our value engineering on the entire bundle. Cause

[2:52:15] we lost valuable time that we can't get back. Because,

[2:52:20] um, and that to me, I haven't hear that that's

[2:52:24] a big question is to why. Um, and I still

[2:52:31] struggle with, um. Awarding a contract knowing you don't have

[2:52:35] enough money to complete the bundle. Maybe it goes against

[2:52:40] my financial framework, but I still struggle with that. Um,

[2:52:45] but we missed an opportunity to value engineer the entire

[2:52:48] project because no one knew. Um, there wasn't other things.

[2:52:54] Things are often best discussed in a wider audience to

[2:52:59] ask the necessary questions. Because with respect to this project,

[2:53:03] there isn't one area of the town. This doesn't touch.

[2:53:07] It even touched parks given all the trees that have

[2:53:09] gone down on B Street. There isn't an area of

[2:53:12] the town. It doesn't touch. So the other thing is

[2:53:16] I want to go back to, um, it's actually not

[2:53:19] clear. Whether or not the Bay Street Force mean was

[2:53:23] more cost effective. It's not clear. You look at the

[2:53:26] PIC presentation. It's not clear. And, um, because some people

[2:53:32] say I don't have a life. I took all of

[2:53:34] the verbiage off every slide and tried to make sense

[2:53:36] of it in a matrix. And it doesn't make sense.

[2:53:39] Um, in fact, there is, the Georgian Trail didn't even

[2:53:43] have a cost. Yet this was deemed the most accosive.

[2:53:49] Um, we have mixed messaging in the community about who

[2:53:53] and when the decision was made. And because yes, in

[2:53:56] the April report, it was mentioned eight times. And it

[2:53:58] was referred to as anything bought a force main on

[2:54:01] Bay Street. But we understand from what we've been told

[2:54:05] and the public have been told the decision had been

[2:54:07] made. When you look at the PIC that these people

[2:54:11] on Bay Street listen to and other people in the

[2:54:14] town saw and heard, it was talked about preferred alternative,

[2:54:17] but the decision had been made. The consultant told residents,

[2:54:22] these were preferred. Um, alternatives. Uh, was preferred. And they,

[2:54:27] they listed four alternatives. Then they give rationale why it

[2:54:32] was preferred. And the next day the Hughes funding went

[2:54:35] in. When it was Bay Street. So this still, that

[2:54:41] eroded so much trust that I don't know when it

[2:54:43] will come back. But this would have been involved. The

[2:54:47] consultant. And what I don't see in this investigation report

[2:54:51] is the role of the consultant either. Um, and the

[2:54:55] part they may or may not have played. I don't

[2:54:57] know because they're not mentioned. We don't know in fact,

[2:55:02] and I go back to not just a strategic plan,

[2:55:05] which accountability and transparency came larger than life. It was

[2:55:10] back in the residential survey of 2024, the public have

[2:55:13] been asking for accountability transparency and evidence - based decisions.

[2:55:17] And when we come to the force main, we've never

[2:55:19] seen the evidence. The hard evidence. And I did say

[2:55:25] council did not support a motion to direct staff, but

[2:55:28] I also have said nothing stopped staff from making that

[2:55:33] transparent. So a lot of things still bother me about

[2:55:38] this. I would ask in the report because I'm a

[2:55:44] great believer in processes. I worked in an industry where

[2:55:49] also things did get escalated from the front line up

[2:55:51] to significant people and how important that is. That on

[2:55:56] page three, when information should be escalated as early as

[2:56:00] possible, I think it's beneficial to have a, um, a

[2:56:05] decision matrix, a flow chart. Like where do the decisions

[2:56:09] when something happens? Where's the next point? Where does it

[2:56:12] escalate it too before a decision is made? It's like

[2:56:15] you sort of have our decision chart. You have yes,

[2:56:18] no. And where you go. Because I don't know what

[2:56:21] the information should be escalated as early as possible. And

[2:56:24] I realized this is, um. Uh, an interim report. I

[2:56:28] think we need to be more, um, specific of how

[2:56:32] the flow of information would go and the criteria for

[2:56:36] when. It's, it's unfortunate. It sounds like it would be

[2:56:40] very prescriptive, but we do have an enormous issue that

[2:56:44] has evolved as perhaps of maybe not being as prescriptive

[2:56:49] as, um, would have been warranted. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[2:56:54] you, Councillor Porter. CEO Smith, I'm not sure. Yeah. That's

[2:56:58] okay. Um, so I see no further virtual hands. I

[2:57:02] was, it was indicated that there would be a motion

[2:57:04] come forward. Uh, yes, I prepared part of one. And

[2:57:10] so I think if we could have five minutes or

[2:57:14] 10 minutes. Yeah. If we could have 10 minutes to

[2:57:16] have a look at to complete the motion, it would

[2:57:19] be much appreciated. Calm. Um, so before we get to

[2:57:22] that, Madam Clerk, how was our timeline for today? So

[2:57:26] we'll take a few minutes for this motion to be

[2:57:28] crafted and we're going to need a suitable break for

[2:57:32] staff and everyone involved before we get to the next

[2:57:34] section. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So yeah, so we'll

[2:57:38] take a 10 minute break now. We'll come back. I'll

[2:57:41] consider the motion. Um, we will do the follow up

[2:57:44] public comment period. And then we'll have lunch for maybe

[2:57:48] half hour 45 minutes and then come back and finish

[2:57:50] the planning section of the reconvene at 1235. Please turn

[2:57:58] your cameras in your microphones off. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:07:32] Okay, Mr. Chair, it's 1235. Thank you for that break.

[3:07:35] We do have a quorum of council at the table.

[3:07:38] Thank you, Madam Clerk. Have you been afforded a motion.

[3:07:50] Direct. CO.

[3:09:02] Okay, Mr. Chair, I've been provided with the, uh, draft

[3:09:06] motion. I'll just put it up on the screen. Okay.

[3:09:08] Thank you, Madam Clerk. Just wait a moment to see

[3:09:10] that. Excuse me. All right. So we have a motion

[3:09:19] that moved by Councillor Hope and seconded by second. By

[3:09:26] Councillor Porter. Thank you. That council received staff report ADM

[3:09:31] dot 26. 015 entitled investigative report. Ash Craig Leith SLS

[3:09:37] Mill Street SPS and gray street linear works for information.

[3:09:45] And that council directs the CAO to address the following

[3:09:47] points in his February investigative report. Number one, what escalation

[3:09:52] processes will the CIO be considering to ensure that all

[3:09:56] information financial, engineering, and construction, uh, and bracket regarding, uh,

[3:10:02] capital projects is reported on, uh, quote, as early as

[3:10:07] possible. End quote to council. Number two, further to these

[3:10:11] processes, how would the CAO incorporate consultation with council and

[3:10:16] the public at the real beginning, uh, bracket or yeah,

[3:10:22] bracket. The thought or identified need and bracket. And throughout

[3:10:27] the projects, as per the example offered about the decision

[3:10:32] to place the force main on Bay Street. Number three,

[3:10:37] please provide the details of the evidence - based decision

[3:10:40] - making process leading to the choice of Bay Street

[3:10:43] for the force main, including, but not limited to how

[3:10:46] they met the bullet points on side 14 of the

[3:10:49] April 18 2024 at a minimum, number four to answer

[3:10:54] all questions put forward by the community matters group in

[3:10:58] their public comments. Made today. Number five, please explain why

[3:11:03] the gap occurred between the awareness of the overridge in

[3:11:07] the summer of 2025 and went SMT became aware in

[3:11:12] November, 2025. I'm going to go to CAO Smith. Since

[3:11:18] this is directed towards yourself as of all. Court. So

[3:11:21] to chair, I have one comment. Inside when it says

[3:11:25] onside, it should be slide 14 of the April 18th,

[3:11:30] PIC. Slide for, okay. Thank you for that, uh, clarification

[3:11:36] on slide 14. Sorry, I threw Mr. Chair. So it

[3:11:44] should read to how they met the bullet points on

[3:11:47] slide 14 of April 18th, 2024. PIC. Thank you. PIC.

[3:11:54] Okay. We'll correct that. Thank you. Smith, is there anything

[3:12:02] in here that's not already under your follow - up

[3:12:05] reports. Or just looking to you. Uh, yes, through the

[3:12:10] chair, I will have to take a review after this

[3:12:13] is put forward on the, what will fit within the

[3:12:15] context of a follow - up report versus, uh, what

[3:12:19] might, uh, might not be practical here for, for open

[3:12:22] session, but I will be able to follow up the

[3:12:24] council at a layer point. Okay. Thank you CEO Smith.

[3:12:31] That being said. Okay. Councilor Hope this did become a

[3:12:36] collaborative motion. And I know that there was one about

[3:12:39] risk management that Councillor Maxwell had wanted to be put

[3:12:43] forward. And we didn't include it because we needed to

[3:12:48] get it off the way we did. But perhaps Councillor

[3:12:52] Maxwell, would you want to put forward what you'd like

[3:12:55] and maybe. The mover in the secondary can agree to

[3:12:58] adding it? What would be your preference? Well, I mentioned

[3:13:01] it to you earlier, but I mean, if it isn't

[3:13:05] reflected in your report, then we won't do it. Okay.

[3:13:10] About risk management that we're thinking that that will come

[3:13:13] through in the next report. But how we intend to

[3:13:16] manage risk in the future. So directed to CAO Smith,

[3:13:22] I believe we heard from a couple of staff members

[3:13:24] about risk management, but CAO Smith. Yeah. Through the chair,

[3:13:27] I think just within the current report, I noted a

[3:13:30] couple measures tied to that risk piece, but I can

[3:13:32] certainly maybe provide some further detail of what that means.

[3:13:35] So for example, looking at, you know, as part of

[3:13:38] the review of the staff templates, I know I won't

[3:13:40] have that ready for the next meeting of council, but

[3:13:43] that's an example where something that I think there could

[3:13:45] be some further prompts or further structural changes to deepen

[3:13:51] at least the details associate in different staff reports. Um,

[3:13:55] same with in terms of our, our bid award forms,

[3:13:57] different pieces in that regard. So I can provide a

[3:13:59] little more information on that if that's, if that's what,

[3:14:03] uh, council would like to see, uh, but I just

[3:14:05] would abrean force your RA pieces, I think, within the

[3:14:08] existing report I've touched on in relation to that matter.

[3:14:13] Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So I think that we

[3:14:15] don't need to enshrine it in the motion. There's an

[3:14:18] understanding that we'd like to see that. Okay. Thank you.

[3:14:22] Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Council reporter. Uh, yes. Thank

[3:14:26] you through the chair. Um, for indulginess, I'm just wondering,

[3:14:30] um, if we could go back to number one in

[3:14:34] the motion, and if there is a way of incorporating,

[3:14:37] uh, considering to show all information, we could also put

[3:14:41] risk management. We could also put that. Have engineering hyphen

[3:14:49] construction and risk management. It's the secondary, I'm comfortable with

[3:14:57] that. In. Regard that as it can be as it

[3:15:03] can be included. Okay. So. Yes, so the brackets now

[3:15:10] is, yeah, reads construction and risk management. Okay. Um, any

[3:15:14] other anything from anybody else attending virtually. Seeing none. Um,

[3:15:20] Madam Clerk, please call that vote. Thank you. The vote

[3:15:24] is open.

[3:15:39] That phone was carried with all present voting. Councillor Adele.

[3:15:42] Yeah. Um, I, I'm having a hard time seeing everybody.

[3:15:47] And I don't know who's on camera and who's not

[3:15:49] on camera. And I was wondering if we had a

[3:15:52] full quorum for, for voting. So we do. Okay. Because

[3:15:58] yeah. Okay. Now Councillor Maximum Councillor Hopes were gone. And

[3:16:02] so I, I, I didn't know what was happening. So.

[3:16:04] No problem cancelor. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Now we will

[3:16:09] move to item B5. Public comment period regarding matters included

[3:16:12] in the operations portion of the meeting in response to

[3:16:16] what has been conducted this morning today. Mr. Chair, I

[3:16:20] do have one comment to read. We have one on

[3:16:22] behalf of something when you're ready. I don't know if

[3:16:24] someone from the public wants to go ahead first or

[3:16:27] well. Well, I'll have the member that's in person come

[3:16:29] first and then we'll, we'll work in tandem. Thank you.

[3:16:41] It's a battery. Oh, okay. We'll. Do a mic. We'll

[3:16:45] do a microphone exchange. Good morning. Our good afternoon, whatever

[3:16:55] it is, uh, Julie Chipping Thornbury. After listening for the

[3:17:01] morning to all of this, um, it becomes very apparent.

[3:17:07] To a taxpayer. That all of this money that's being

[3:17:12] discussed is actually from the community, whether it be provincial,

[3:17:20] federal or municipal. We are all on the hook for

[3:17:24] this. I find it disturbing that, um, there is lack

[3:17:32] of, um, sort of accountability. Considering, um, everything that's going

[3:17:40] on. And I also struggle with the comment, uh, from

[3:17:47] previously about the condot tax. And it's only 40 dollars,

[3:17:53] which makes it all. Sorry, I don't know. Financial. Okay.

[3:18:01] Okay. Then, uh, I, we're just blown away by the

[3:18:07] lack of insight from staff, counselors and this whole municipality.

[3:18:14] Thank you. Okay. Madam Clerk, you have one to read.

[3:18:19] Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This comment is

[3:18:23] from Paul Reali. Thornbury resident. He was unable to stay

[3:18:27] to provide this comment. So he's written it for me

[3:18:29] to read. Reed just follows. After listening to this morning's

[3:18:32] meeting, I'd like to thank Council for the work they

[3:18:35] are doing on behalf of our community. The discussion and

[3:18:39] questions have been excellent. Thank you for taking this issue

[3:18:42] with the utmost gravity it deserves. Paul Reali. Okay. Thank

[3:18:47] you, Madam Clerk. Second call for members in the public.

[3:18:51] Please come forward, stick your name. And address. Oh, you

[3:19:00] got to push the button. There you go. Good morning.

[3:19:03] Um, chair and counselor. So random cloud RR2 Clarksburg. It

[3:19:10] was, um, it certainly perked my ears when this morning

[3:19:13] when, um, the chair used the word disaster. To describe

[3:19:18] this. What I'm asking. Which one are we talking about.

[3:19:24] Because there's two in player. There's a current disaster and

[3:19:28] the impending disaster that's going to happen. In the previous

[3:19:34] term, the mayor of that council said that we had

[3:19:39] a terrible tax ratio. And who I memory serves me

[3:19:45] correctly. It was 9010. So the target ratio amongst most

[3:19:54] municipalities is 6040. So with the explanation is that 90

[3:20:01] percent of our tax revenues are generated from a residential.

[3:20:12] And that is what is used to buffer the residential

[3:20:16] taxes. This is a housing enabling project. That we're undertaking

[3:20:22] here. This is only going to further a road. The

[3:20:29] terrible tax ratio that we have here. So anything and

[3:20:34] everything that is that requires funding from this building. Is

[3:20:40] going to be falling upon the residential tax base. It

[3:20:47] brings me to wonder. Who in the future is going

[3:20:51] to buy a home. Live here. With continually escalating residential

[3:20:59] taxes. So I would request a console to do a

[3:21:04] serious consideration as to the long - term implications. Of

[3:21:12] continuing down this road. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else

[3:21:17] from the public. Third and final call. And I will

[3:21:23] close that section of the agenda and I will hand

[3:21:26] it back to, I will hand the chair back to

[3:21:29] Councillor Hope. Yes. Thank you. Um, so Madam Clerk, uh,

[3:21:35] at this point you have, I suggest we need 45

[3:21:38] minutes. So or almost, how about we get back together

[3:21:42] at 1 30? We have a short agenda at that

[3:21:46] time. That sounds great, Madam Chair. Thank you. So just

[3:21:49] a reminder to mute your microphones and turn your cameras

[3:21:52] off. And we will return at 1 30. Thank you.

[3:21:55] Thank you.

[4:03:12] So thank you for that break, Madam Chair. We have

[4:03:15] returned from our lunch break. It's 1 30. We are

[4:03:18] now at agenda item. B6, which is the planning and

[4:03:25] building portion of the meeting. We do have a quorum

[4:03:28] of council just a reminder, please to turn your cameras

[4:03:31] on. Yes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh, we are now

[4:03:38] moving into planning and building. And I have the pleasure

[4:03:45] of chairing that section. Um, and we are at. We

[4:03:54] don't have any correspondence. Staff reports at B9. So B

[4:03:59] point 9. 3 chair. Yes. Um, just the public comment

[4:04:03] period. But I do confirm that I do not have

[4:04:05] any public comments to read. Right. Okay. For this. Yes.

[4:04:09] So no public comments. And no one in the room.

[4:04:14] The press will have it say no matter what we

[4:04:16] do. So no. Thank you very much. Thank you. We

[4:04:20] don't ever want to forget public comment. All right. Moving

[4:04:23] on to B point eight correspondence. There is no correspondence.

[4:04:27] Then moving on to B nine staff reports. And B

[4:04:32] point nine point one report in response to the deputation

[4:04:34] of Andrew Simon. We're allowing backyard chickens in the urban

[4:04:39] area. And that is PBS 0. 26. 006. Take it

[4:04:44] away. Thank you. Who from planning is going to handle

[4:04:47] that. Thank you. If I can, um, introduce this Nicholas

[4:04:51] Kloet sustainability coordinator for the town. Um, yeah, happy to

[4:04:56] introduce this report and the associated proposed draft urban hens

[4:05:01] bylaw. Um, so last year, sustainability and planning staff were

[4:05:05] directed to collaborate on bold action seven in the blue

[4:05:07] mountains future story, which focuses on expanding production of local

[4:05:11] food. More recently in October, planning staff were directed to

[4:05:14] respond to a deputation on the subject of backyard chickens.

[4:05:18] Brought forward by a Mr. Andrew Simon. So we're proposing

[4:05:22] that a bylaw that would apply to the town's urban

[4:05:24] areas, enabling urban hens would help to increase urban agricultural

[4:05:29] opportunities in a fair and even way. Um, preparing the

[4:05:34] draft bylaw involved review of other Ontario municipalities, their respective

[4:05:37] animal control or zoning bylaws. We drew out relevant clauses

[4:05:42] for the town that we felt would be applicable and

[4:05:44] important. Um, and a first draft was reviewed and contributed

[4:05:48] to by sustainability, planning and bylaw staff. Uh, some quick

[4:05:52] highlights from that. This would apply to residential zones and

[4:05:56] does not change anything for agricultural or rural zones, uh,

[4:06:00] were proposing a maximum of six hens per residential property

[4:06:03] with no roosters. Uh, the bylaw includes requirements around minimum

[4:06:07] setbacks from neighboring properties, minimum floor area and heights for

[4:06:11] the coup and run requirements around manure management, maintenance of

[4:06:16] a cleanly environment and other requirements to maximize bird health,

[4:06:20] and minimize risks to neighbors, uh, we're also requiring that

[4:06:24] urban hen owners register with the chicken farmers of Ontario,

[4:06:28] uh, family food program. Uh, that program ensures that, uh,

[4:06:32] owners are notified if the disease outbreak within a certain

[4:06:35] distance and it provides owners with up to date information

[4:06:39] on best practices to ensure their chickens are healthy and

[4:06:43] safe. Um, and the town can contact the CFO at

[4:06:47] any time to verify a specific address is registered for

[4:06:50] that program or not. Uh, also administrative monetary penalties to

[4:06:54] encourage compliance with the bylaw and to compensate staff time

[4:06:58] associated with responding to any valid complaints. Um, there is

[4:07:02] a, um, public consultation process would begin in mid -

[4:07:07] February with release of information on the town's website, followed

[4:07:11] by a public meeting at the end of March. I

[4:07:13] think March 31st is the date. And so, um, that's

[4:07:17] the process we would follow to receive input from members

[4:07:21] of the public. I'll also note that, um, Mr. Simon,

[4:07:24] uh, has been notified of this report and provided with

[4:07:27] the information and the, um, the schedule for, um, the

[4:07:30] public information. Thank you. Thank you. And, um, anything further

[4:07:37] from the planning department. That's the introduction. Okay. Thank you.

[4:07:41] Uh, so I see that, uh, we have counselor Adele's

[4:07:45] hand up. She's ready to make a comment. Thank you.

[4:07:48] Thank you very much. Um, an excellent report and very

[4:07:51] thorough. And, um, I noticed that you even did some

[4:07:57] research on other municipalities. And yes, down in Niagara region,

[4:08:03] they're probably allowed for a maximum. And, uh, so allowing

[4:08:08] six in our urban Blue Mountains. I think that's a

[4:08:12] great idea. You know, having lots of rooms to have

[4:08:19] a chicken coop, which helps, uh, with the airing them

[4:08:24] out, I will say, when we do chickens, we do

[4:08:28] 40 to 50 to 60 at a time, but we

[4:08:30] do have a barn and an indoor enclosure for them.

[4:08:34] So yeah, I think this is excellent, but those are

[4:08:38] for outdoor use. And, uh, I would say if anybody

[4:08:43] else being a farmer as I am, we do have

[4:08:47] chickens. So, um, I know what I'm talking about here.

[4:08:51] So, um, yeah, I, when the time comes, I will

[4:08:54] move the report. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Dell. I

[4:08:58] see Councillor McKinley would like to speak. Thank you, Madam

[4:09:01] Chair. Through you, uh, thank you for the report. And

[4:09:04] I think it's wonderful news to see us making this

[4:09:07] progressive step for the urban, uh, for the urban feature.

[4:09:10] But I do have a question through you, Madam Chair,

[4:09:12] to, uh, to probably planning, not necessarily excluding Mr. Cluette.

[4:09:18] But when it comes to the urban nature of it,

[4:09:20] we just, uh, how can we make sure it's very

[4:09:23] well defined in here that it's, or very well spelt

[4:09:26] out that there are, as Councillor Adele said, like in

[4:09:30] my area, for the last couple of hundred years, people

[4:09:33] have kept hens, chickens, in the barns or in their

[4:09:38] farms, right? These are not, this, this bylaw and this

[4:09:42] and this structure is not applicable to those of us

[4:09:44] in the rural parts. Through you, Madam Chair, the bylaw

[4:09:51] is not applicable to the rural area. And we had

[4:09:54] that on mine only termed it, the urban hens bylaw

[4:09:59] to acknowledge and respect the different types of practices that

[4:10:02] are permitted in the agricultural community and the rural area.

[4:10:05] There's a very clear distinction. Excellent. Thank you through you,

[4:10:09] Madam Chair, just to follow up. Of course. Go ahead.

[4:10:12] Thank you. Yes. So I appreciate your answer, Mr. Farr.

[4:10:16] That's, that's, that's great. And as long as we just

[4:10:18] keep, uh, keep that very front of focus, uh, this

[4:10:21] is for the urban areas only, uh, but I do

[4:10:24] have a question as a follow up though. Uh, as

[4:10:27] it may as it may be, uh, so barring the,

[4:10:30] uh, ability for, uh, registration and registering said, uh, backyard

[4:10:36] hens, um, like we've, I think it's great. The beginning

[4:10:41] stage with the parameters for the, uh, the coupe sizes

[4:10:45] and everything like that. What is it that we expected?

[4:10:48] Oh, maybe I should be looking to where it's more

[4:10:50] building. Mr Morowski, because what is it we're expecting to

[4:10:56] cross here whenever there's already pre - established backyard hand

[4:11:00] pens? Like we don't, like we don't want to get

[4:11:03] step, we don't want to step in it. No pun

[4:11:05] intended for they're already being pre - existing backyard pens

[4:11:10] with hens and how we're going to assimilate them into

[4:11:13] this program. Go ahead. Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair,

[4:11:21] just to understand the question correctly with regards to the

[4:11:24] building department, you're asking about like the size of pins,

[4:11:28] the number of pence and how that would be implemented.

[4:11:31] Correct. And from a henceforth nature because we've just, I'm

[4:11:36] not trying to be funny. Sorry. I do get the

[4:11:39] humor so I didn't even, I wasn't even trying for

[4:11:41] that one, Madam Chair. But, uh, moving in a more,

[4:11:44] in a moving forward fashion because there already will be,

[4:11:48] some that will be preexisting. So how can we conform

[4:11:51] them to what we've just, uh, come up with, sorry.

[4:11:56] Go ahead, anybody. Go ahead, Mr. Farrha. Perhaps that far

[4:12:00] could go ahead. So through the proposed bylaw, we expect

[4:12:06] to hear from the dream, Adam Chair, we expect to

[4:12:09] hear from the public. We don't have a full understanding

[4:12:12] of the scale of how many existing properties would have

[4:12:16] chicken coops and own hens right now. But we're hoping

[4:12:19] to hear from these folks through the public engagement process.

[4:12:23] And, uh, as those issues come forward, we're going to

[4:12:26] deal with them in the context of the review of

[4:12:28] the bylaw. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's an

[4:12:34] important to note that in the report that there is

[4:12:36] a public engagement process after today. So thank you. Go

[4:12:39] ahead director Morowski. Yes, thank you Madam Chair. If I

[4:12:43] could add just due to the size of these buildings,

[4:12:47] the structures and buildings that are not regulated by the

[4:12:50] building code because of the size of that. So again,

[4:12:53] when we have these public meetings and we'll have to

[4:12:55] discuss some of these issues. Right. Thank you. Councillor Maxwell,

[4:13:01] go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, uh. Definitely, uh,

[4:13:11] support this. Um, I just kind of wondering, I have

[4:13:15] a question here. Given that all chickens are not created

[4:13:20] equal. So we got, it says six hands, but I

[4:13:25] mean, you know, can they, are we talking about banties?

[4:13:30] Are we talking about rural island reds? What are we

[4:13:34] doing? Are there you being that specific on what people

[4:13:38] can have and not have. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam

[4:13:46] Chair, through you. Um, we're not really getting specific as

[4:13:50] long as it's a female hen. So at least, you

[4:13:53] know, four months old so they can be properly sexed.

[4:13:57] But, um, we've also considered for the minimum space requirements

[4:14:01] for hens. I mean, there's different sizes, but, um, the

[4:14:05] minimum floor area per hand is being considered in terms

[4:14:09] of if it's larger or smaller, it should be sufficient.

[4:14:15] Go ahead. Yeah. I just have a follow up. So

[4:14:17] actually when I was like counselor Ardell, I was looking

[4:14:20] up some different municipalities. A clear view. You know, they

[4:14:25] have support backyard hands. Definitely a rural community. Municipality. And

[4:14:33] Kingston. They also support it, but they. Also qualify foul.

[4:14:42] Like chicken at our foul, I assume. And so what

[4:14:46] happens if somebody wants to put ducks in their chicken

[4:14:49] coop? Is that permitted. Go ahead. Through you, Madam Chair,

[4:14:55] the way the bylaws currently written, um, know they would,

[4:14:58] they would not be permitted. Um, they may pose a

[4:15:01] different consideration from noise perspective, uh, compared to hens, but,

[4:15:06] um, we would need to do some, some extra digging

[4:15:09] to find some, some examples of, of docs. If that

[4:15:12] comes through the public consultation that people really want ducks,

[4:15:15] we can, we can look into that. Thank you. So

[4:15:18] it will be somewhat of a restrictive bylaw then. It

[4:15:25] enables something new, but yeah, it's, it's specific to, uh,

[4:15:29] to hence. Thank you. Councillor Adel. Yes. Thank you very

[4:15:37] much. And, uh, yeah, I think we would have to

[4:15:41] do that. We had Guinea that were most disruptive. We

[4:15:46] started off with three and four. And they are very

[4:15:50] loud. And you definitely don't want those in the urban

[4:15:54] area, but they are considered a hand still. So I

[4:15:57] think we'd have to really limit it to chickens. And

[4:16:02] also I would like to say, and I forgot to

[4:16:04] do this with my follow - up. Um, I think

[4:16:07] the strategic initiatives communication team needs to put this out,

[4:16:11] um, after a public meeting, um, we need to quantify

[4:16:17] and qualify all of what this chicken, um, backyard is

[4:16:23] all about, um, because we still have questions coming through

[4:16:27] as the chair of the agricultural that we didn't get

[4:16:29] enough communication out to the urban, uh, to the rural

[4:16:34] individuals. And they are still upset because they feel that

[4:16:39] communication was not adequate enough for our rural areas. So

[4:16:46] what I would like to see once we have our

[4:16:48] public meeting or even before the public meeting that the

[4:16:52] rule individuals, if we can put it on our website,

[4:16:55] if we at the next Blue Mountain review that something

[4:17:00] is mentioned about chickens and that we don't want people

[4:17:07] phoning property standards, you know, we just, this is something

[4:17:12] that needs to be communicated out. Um, and some individuals

[4:17:17] in our egg meeting thought that, uh, there wasn't enough.

[4:17:21] So I'm just expressing concern from the rural people, um,

[4:17:27] it needs to be open and transparent. Thank you. Any

[4:17:32] comments from planning. You can go ahead. If I may,

[4:17:36] thank you, Madam Chair. We'll certainly make sure that our

[4:17:40] communications across multiple platforms put front and center that this

[4:17:44] is for the urban settlement areas and does not affect

[4:17:48] rural or agricultural residents. Um, I'd also be willing to,

[4:17:53] um, bring this to the agricultural advisory committee if there

[4:17:56] was an opportunity to speak with them. Um, also just,

[4:18:00] um, just, um, just on an earlier note, I was

[4:18:02] looking at the definition of, uh, of urban hens, which

[4:18:05] specifies the keeping of female chickens or pellets. And I

[4:18:08] wonder if that might be specific enough to exclude, um,

[4:18:11] guinea fowl or other types of hen. But thank you.

[4:18:17] Thank you. Um, I don't see any other hands. I

[4:18:21] just have a, excuse me. I just have a question

[4:18:26] one. I looked at the fines. It seemed to me

[4:18:31] that thinking about the fact that this residential. That 200

[4:18:36] bucks basically for possessing a rooster, it's kind of low.

[4:18:40] And it would be sort of the sin of sins

[4:18:42] really, because that would be, you know, highly disruptive to

[4:18:45] have a rooster there. Plus, um, any other follows that

[4:18:48] happened with roosters that I don't know about, um, but,

[4:18:52] um, does that make sense? I mean, through me too.

[4:18:57] Whoever can handle that one. Go ahead, Mr. Tuer. Thank

[4:19:02] you, Madam Chair. Um, I think what we can do

[4:19:06] is look to a draft copy of the bylaw. And,

[4:19:09] uh, we're using that as the base for a public

[4:19:14] meeting, for people to comment on this and how we

[4:19:17] can make any changes, if necessary on here. So that

[4:19:20] if everybody could kind of look to the draft by

[4:19:23] law and then we can work with that. Perfect. Thank

[4:19:26] you very much. Appreciate it. Now Councillor Maxwell, second pass.

[4:19:33] I just wanted to comment on your, your, the rooster

[4:19:37] at the 200 bucks. Yeah. Uh, the, uh, the people

[4:19:42] who own the hens may need a rooster to visit.

[4:19:47] In order to maintain the flock. So I'm just, uh,

[4:19:51] we'd have to be very careful on that one, I

[4:19:52] think. I think we're anyway, we'll talk about it. Thank

[4:19:57] you. I see Councillor McKinley. I'm wondering if, are we

[4:20:02] on to our way to a motion? Yes. Um, well,

[4:20:05] Council, sir, Madam Chair, counselor Ardell had indicated she was

[4:20:09] moving. I was going to second it. Yes. Um, but

[4:20:11] I know she's the mover. And if you'll allow me,

[4:20:14] Madam Chair, uh, counselor Ardell, if there's enough time that

[4:20:18] we could circulate this, this bylaw and this discussion to

[4:20:22] the advisory committee. Is there another meeting for the eggvisory

[4:20:26] in the near future? Yes. So, uh, if the mover

[4:20:30] would be allowed to be okay with it, I would

[4:20:32] like to add an end that council direct staff to

[4:20:35] circulate this, uh, bylaw or this information to the egg

[4:20:39] advisory committee for their review and comment. Are you meneral

[4:20:45] to that counselor? Dell. I'm thinking back to our ag

[4:20:51] meeting. We didn't have any motions, but I think I

[4:20:53] did mention this. Councillor Maxwell, do you recall that I

[4:20:57] mentioned about a hen bylaw coming in and it wouldn't

[4:21:01] affect the rural areas. But, um, nobody made any comments.

[4:21:06] So that's why I'm pretty sure I mentioned it, but,

[4:21:09] uh, I could be wrong. Councillor Maxwell. That conversation escapes

[4:21:16] me. I don't remember that one. Okay. Well then chair

[4:21:21] and the words of my uncle one more time won't

[4:21:23] hurt. Go right ahead. If you could give us the

[4:21:27] words or perhaps we are getting. Madam Clerk is putting

[4:21:32] that together. And we would want to include in the

[4:21:35] information and an invitation to the public meeting. Thank you,

[4:21:44] Madam Clerk, for that. Do you want to read it

[4:21:46] out too, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Emotion reads as follows.

[4:21:52] The council received staff report PBS 26006 entitled report in

[4:21:57] response to the deputation of Andrew Simon re - allowing

[4:22:00] backyard. Backyard chickens in the urban area. And that council

[4:22:05] direct staff to advance the draft urban hens bylaw being

[4:22:09] attachment to for public consultation generally in accordance with the

[4:22:12] schedule contained within this report PBS 26006. And the council

[4:22:17] direct staff to circulate staff report PBS 26006 to the

[4:22:21] agricultural advisory committee for review and comment. And Madam Chair,

[4:22:26] just to note the next, um, egg advisory committee meeting

[4:22:29] is March the 19th. All right. Thank you very much.

[4:22:33] Um, Councillor Maxwell, is that an old hand. It is.

[4:22:38] Okay. Um, so I think at this point I see

[4:22:41] no other hands. Shall we please call the vote. Thank

[4:22:44] you. Thank you Madam Chair. The vote is open.

[4:23:00] The vote is closed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And the

[4:23:04] motion has carried six nothing with Mayor Way today. Thank

[4:23:07] you. Moving on to the next item for the planning

[4:23:10] section. B 0. 9. 2 removal of holding symbol. 12

[4:23:15] side road bed and breakfast, Lawson, PBS 0. 26. 016.

[4:23:20] And who will be taking the lead on that one?

[4:23:24] Okay. Go ahead. When you're ready. Cu.

[4:23:42] Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Councillors. My name is Manuel

[4:23:44] Rivera. I'm a planner one with a town Blue Mountains.

[4:23:47] And I'm here to discuss the following staff report with

[4:23:50] respects to removing holding symbol H34 from 12 side road.

[4:23:55] To allow the approval of bed and breakfast use to

[4:23:58] proceed in 2019 council approved a zoning bylaw amendment to

[4:24:02] permit a Ben breakfast on the property subject to a

[4:24:05] holding provision requiring confirmation that the owner resides on the

[4:24:08] property as their primary residence in December of 2025. The

[4:24:13] owner applied for a Ben breakfast license and requested the

[4:24:16] holding to be lifted. And as proof of prime residents

[4:24:20] was submitted such as a change of address confirmation letter

[4:24:24] from the ministry of transportation, which is an acceptable proof

[4:24:28] of interim proof until the updated identifications issued. And this

[4:24:34] change of address confirmation letter demonstrates that the owner will

[4:24:38] be residing on site, meeting the requirements of section 4.

[4:24:42] 8D of the zoning bylaw as a result, the holding

[4:24:45] provision has been satisfied. And with council approval, planning staff

[4:24:49] has prepared by law to lift the holding provision from

[4:24:53] the property. And that concludes the report. Thank you very

[4:24:57] much. Now, uh, any comments from members of council are

[4:25:01] questions. Depp Mayor, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair, through

[4:25:05] you. Thank you, Manuel. Um, are the proponents aware of,

[4:25:11] um, changing your driver's license is one thing, but aware

[4:25:16] that in the class licensing system, the provisions for Ben

[4:25:20] Breakfast and the consequences, if it's operated with them, not

[4:25:23] on site as an STA. We've had, I'm not saying

[4:25:26] these people are going to do that, but just is

[4:25:28] that part of the process from the, from the planning

[4:25:30] department and as my law been involved as well, um,

[4:25:34] because we have very stringent STA laws and class systems

[4:25:37] within our amps. So I was just wondering, part of

[4:25:40] the education process to that to the applicants. Is that,

[4:25:43] has that been done? Through you, Madam Chair. With in

[4:25:50] terms of laws aspect in the Benton breakfast licensing, as

[4:25:54] noted in the report, usually they will request primary proof

[4:25:58] of residency, which is usually in a form of their

[4:26:00] driver's license, which indicates that they are residing in the

[4:26:04] subject property as their primary resident. It can't be, let's

[4:26:09] say a mailing address whatsoever. So therefore in that respect,

[4:26:14] they would have to reside. If not. I would hate

[4:26:16] to think that somebody would pull them over from the

[4:26:19] police in that respect and request the drivers identification in

[4:26:24] that regard. Could I just follow them? Yes, go ahead.

[4:26:30] Thank you. Yeah. I think we're going to have a

[4:26:32] different road. I do appreciate that and that they're satisfied

[4:26:35] it, but just again, I've been have evolved with STA

[4:26:39] for the longer that I can remember. As long as

[4:26:43] the applicants know, and I'm not saying that they're not

[4:26:46] doing this, as long as they know the true provisions

[4:26:50] of a bed and breakfast, um, is, is very prescriptive

[4:26:54] compared to a regular STA or a nonconforming SDA. So

[4:26:58] I want to know if part of the process that

[4:27:02] all that was explained, um, not just showing your proof

[4:27:05] of a driver's license. Is that part of the application

[4:27:07] process or the planning process. Um, because it's a two

[4:27:11] - part contingent planning as well to do the bylaw

[4:27:14] as well as our regular SDA bylaws and our AMPS

[4:27:17] penalties, which have, uh, which have been rewritten a couple

[4:27:19] of times over the past eight years. Go ahead, Mr.

[4:27:24] Rivera. Through you, Madam Chair, that part of the, our

[4:27:29] review of the bylaw would be included reviewing the use

[4:27:32] that's permitted as of right, which abandoned breakfast is permitted

[4:27:36] due to the previous zoning bylaw amendment. And we do

[4:27:41] issue planning clearance letters in this particular case, we could

[4:27:44] update the letter to reflect that that request noting that

[4:27:48] they are to comply with the revisions in section 4.

[4:27:51] 8 breakfast, which includes that they are to reside in

[4:27:56] that use permitted as of right. If they were to

[4:27:59] continue to operate as a bed and breakfast and not

[4:28:01] as an STA. Maybe that's something you want to enshrine

[4:28:09] in the motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could

[4:28:12] just indulge me for one quick second through you. Is

[4:28:16] that part and parcel? Like not, we shouldn't have to

[4:28:20] enshrine it in this motion. Like it should be regular

[4:28:24] course of business. Um, to let people know, um, again,

[4:28:27] I helped write that bylaws and those, and those categories.

[4:28:32] So I know them. But the people that are applying,

[4:28:36] do they, well that, is that done normal course of

[4:28:40] business, I guess, is the crux of my main question.

[4:28:43] If somebody's looking for a BNB, don't just show me

[4:28:46] driver's license. Do you know the circumstances what you have

[4:28:49] to reside with property? Is that enshrined in all the,

[4:28:52] in the agreements and in the, in the, um, for

[4:28:55] the applicants. And I'm not saying the applicants are doing

[4:28:57] anything wrong. And we've probably great operators. I'm just saying

[4:29:00] whoever it is, when they're applying for a bed and

[4:29:03] breakfast license, are they aware of what categories they need

[4:29:06] to be in, what contingencies they need to have resideful

[4:29:08] time in the property. And what circumstances, uh, will come

[4:29:14] if that is being a circumvented. I'm just asking if

[4:29:17] that's a normal part of the process. Mr. Postma has

[4:29:21] his hand up. So he'll let us know. Thank you,

[4:29:23] Madam Chair. To the Deputy Mayor, these applicants are well

[4:29:28] aware of the bed and breakfast rules and requirements for

[4:29:30] the town of Blue Mountains. Uh, they've been at this,

[4:29:33] uh, process now for a couple of years, first obtaining,

[4:29:36] uh, zoning approval, uh, it was a couple of years

[4:29:39] ago now. Um, but they were still. They understood at

[4:29:43] that time that they had to be living permanently at

[4:29:46] that residence in order to obtain a bed and breakfast

[4:29:49] license and being able to operate because they were not

[4:29:52] living there at the time council at the time said,

[4:29:54] okay, we're going to put a holding H34 symbol on

[4:29:56] there to make sure that first we get confirmation that

[4:30:00] you have moved there, um, you know, as you're permanent

[4:30:03] location, which is what's been completed now, uh, so they're

[4:30:07] well aware of the requirements, uh, bylaw has a very

[4:30:10] strict and robust licensing program that Ben and Breakfast also

[4:30:13] apply to. So there's still some additional requirements that these

[4:30:18] owners will have to do. And part of that process

[4:30:20] includes that education on how, uh, Ben and Breakfasts are

[4:30:23] to be run. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks

[4:30:26] for that clarification, Mr. Posma. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor

[4:30:31] Maxwell, you're next. I just have a comment what the

[4:30:36] deputy mayor was saying there. So the bed and breakfast,

[4:30:40] this particular bed and breakfast. Has went through significant hurdles.

[4:30:46] To get to where they are. But, you know, you

[4:30:51] can have other organizations, you know, who are in the

[4:30:55] rental business circumvent all zoning and bylaws. So, um, I

[4:31:02] just, I kind of wonder why even people would even

[4:31:04] go through the bed and breakfast process where you can

[4:31:06] just, you know, vacation homes by rentals, all that. They're

[4:31:10] just circumventing everything. So, um, I think these people have

[4:31:13] done the due diligence for sure. In my mind, they,

[4:31:17] they went over and above what these other people are

[4:31:19] doing currently right now circumventing everything. So anyway, any comment

[4:31:26] on that to Mr. Postman. Uh, yeah, just a brief

[4:31:32] comment, um, you know, the town does have quite a

[4:31:34] strong and robust short term accommodation, hotel motel, bed and

[4:31:39] breakfast, uh, program for the town. So whether they're vacation

[4:31:43] homes or whatnot, they do need to operate within the

[4:31:45] bylaws of the town. And if they aren't, we do

[4:31:47] have an active bylaw enforcement that will go after those

[4:31:50] ones that, uh, that aren't abiding by the rules. Um,

[4:31:53] so I just want to be clear that, uh, for

[4:31:56] the most part, operators are operating within their prescribed requirements.

[4:32:00] And those who aren't, uh, are actively, uh, track down

[4:32:04] and, uh, and dealt with. Thank you very much. Uh,

[4:32:15] Council, sorry, Dell. You're next. Uh, yes. Thank you very

[4:32:18] much, Madam Chair. Uh, same along the lines of the

[4:32:22] Deputy Mayor. I've been at STA more than anybody. And,

[4:32:27] uh, I don't know how many times we rewrote this.

[4:32:30] And, uh, we had a lot of bed and breakfast

[4:32:33] back in the day. And they were all very successful.

[4:32:36] We all knew that they lived there full time. Um,

[4:32:40] and my question then to Mr. Rivera is do both,

[4:32:46] uh, owners who are on title, uh, have to prove

[4:32:50] their residency or just one so that for tax, um,

[4:32:56] purposes as well, um, if you're living there full time,

[4:33:00] then both owners should have their license at the same

[4:33:05] residence, not just one. So I'm not sure if that

[4:33:09] was followed through, um, but, um, in the past, we

[4:33:14] probably, and the signs at the bottom of Blue Mountain,

[4:33:18] uh, Blue Mountain Resorts pointing to, uh, see BNBs, uh,

[4:33:24] those people I know them, uh, they, they live there

[4:33:28] full time 24 seven. So not saying that these people

[4:33:31] are not. I just wondering if we have other safeguards,

[4:33:36] um, in that as well, who's ever on title should

[4:33:41] have to have permanent residents in the town of the

[4:33:43] Blue Mountains. Go ahead, Mr. Postma or? Right. Yeah. I'll

[4:33:49] tackle that one. So the way that the bylaw reads

[4:33:53] is yes, the owner has to be living there permanently,

[4:33:56] uh, while the bed and breakfast is being operated. Uh,

[4:34:00] if the multiple owners on title, um, you know, which

[4:34:03] does happen in a lot of cases, um, it's only

[4:34:07] the operator that's required to have their permanent residence there.

[4:34:10] So if it's being operated by one of the property

[4:34:14] owners or two or multiple property owners, then yes, they

[4:34:18] would have to have their permanent residents there, but it's

[4:34:20] tied to the operator and the operator must have their

[4:34:23] permanent address at that location. Well, thank you for clarifying

[4:34:29] that. Um, but if it's a husband and wife team

[4:34:32] and it's being advertised as that, I would think that

[4:34:35] that's, um, a case in point where it should be

[4:34:40] both operators on there, not just one operator. Thank you.

[4:34:45] Thank you, Councillor Porter. Yes. Um. Thank you. And through

[4:34:53] the chair and yes, I sort of share concerns because

[4:34:56] just because something says something on a piece of paper

[4:34:59] doesn't always make it true. And while I certainly believe

[4:35:03] these proprietors are extremely well intentioned, it's nothing personal with

[4:35:07] them is I just want to know what is the

[4:35:10] penalty for this. And I know the STA amps have

[4:35:13] been ongoing for some time now, but maybe what's the

[4:35:18] current one. Does anybody know? And what is the penalty?

[4:35:23] Because this is, you're removing the H, you're allowing them

[4:35:26] to run, um, their business, which is fair. But what

[4:35:29] if there isn't compliance. What happens? For you, Madam Chair.

[4:35:38] That if that's the case, if they're not a compliance,

[4:35:40] then they would have to answer to buy law enforcement

[4:35:44] and whatever penalties there may be, they would have to

[4:35:46] abide by them. If not, I would assume that they'd

[4:35:50] be stricter actions involved, which may include removal of the

[4:35:54] license in general. So I think has been mentioned earlier,

[4:35:58] if I have just have a follow - up through

[4:36:00] the chair, is it probably would be prudent to advise

[4:36:04] them yet again, what the consequences would be if they

[4:36:10] do not abide by it to be under percent sure

[4:36:13] that they are fully informed. Um, so people can't come

[4:36:17] back and say, Oh, I didn't know. Um, so just

[4:36:21] do, it's really always a good reminder for them. And

[4:36:24] equally reduce the risk of the town of not being,

[4:36:27] uh, in a position to say, Oh, well, we weren't

[4:36:29] informed. Thank you. And yes, we'll, uh, we'll do that.

[4:36:33] We'll undertake that. Thank you, Mr. Postma. I have two

[4:36:38] more hands up. Second pass. Three hands up. Councilor Maxwell.

[4:36:47] Thank you, Madam Chair. Now this, I don't know. Maybe

[4:36:50] this question doesn't matter or not, but it can a

[4:36:53] corporation own a bed and breakfast or a numbered company.

[4:37:00] Corporation is individual. So I just didn't know how that

[4:37:02] works. Uh, no. The way the licensing bylaw works is

[4:37:07] you have to be the owner. So corporations would not

[4:37:10] qualify. Follow up. Thank you. Uh, Deputy Mary, go ahead.

[4:37:21] Thank you very quickly through the chair just to answer

[4:37:23] the question from Councillor Porter. It's 4, 000 for the

[4:37:26] first offense 8, 000 for the second offense to operate

[4:37:29] without a natural license or being within contradiction of that

[4:37:33] license. So we council did this council did set those

[4:37:37] amps rather. Aggressive level, just, just, just, just to make

[4:37:42] sure that everybody does follow the rules. So just wanted

[4:37:45] to let the council know that. Thank you very much,

[4:37:48] Depumir. Council Sardell. Yes. Just quickly as well. Um, I,

[4:37:54] you know, I've read the, um, the bylaw and the

[4:37:59] zoning bylaw, but it doesn't state anything. And people will

[4:38:03] come back and say, I didn't know I had to

[4:38:05] live there. Um, and we did have that, uh, from

[4:38:08] prices subdivision. That would be going back two years, two

[4:38:11] and a half years. We remember they stated they lived

[4:38:14] there. And then they didn't and they had other residents.

[4:38:18] Um, as well. So, and they were using it as

[4:38:21] they said it was a B and B and it

[4:38:23] wasn't a B and B and it was an STA.

[4:38:25] So I think we need to make the bylaw very

[4:38:28] clear and concise and maybe have an appendix to it

[4:38:32] stating that this you will be on site. Um, and

[4:38:37] I don't think it's only us to draft something up

[4:38:40] like that. I just think it should be in black

[4:38:43] and white. So they can't come back like this other

[4:38:46] individual. I didn't know that. So that's all I'll say.

[4:38:49] Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Cancer. Dell at this point

[4:38:54] we have a motion on the floor. And if we

[4:38:57] want to propose motion. So if we want to make

[4:38:59] any changes, we can. So ask Madam Clerk. Please put

[4:39:03] the motion up as it stands. Removal of the holding

[4:39:06] symbol. 12 side road bed and breakfast lawson. PBS 0.

[4:39:10] 2 6. 016. The council received staff report PBS 0.

[4:39:14] 26. 016 entitled removal of holding symbol 12 side row

[4:39:19] bed and breakfast. Lawson. Nick Council and act a biology.

[4:39:22] Remove the holding H34 symbol in its entirety from these

[4:39:26] lands municipally known as 609 375 12 side road and

[4:39:30] legally described was concession four SEPT lot 13 RP 16R

[4:39:37] 255 parts four and five RP 16R 3058 part two.

[4:39:44] I'll move that madam chair. Thank you. We mover in

[4:39:46] Kelsey and we'll have a second in the deputy mayor.

[4:39:51] Any further comments. Seeing none shall we call the boat.

[4:39:56] Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. The vote is open.

[4:40:11] Chair. Madam Chair, can I assist you on voting. Oh.

[4:40:17] Did you get it? Oh, no. Okay. Deformative. Thank you.

[4:40:22] Vote is closed. Motion is carried. Six nothing with Mayor

[4:40:27] absent today. Thank you. Moving on to the last item

[4:40:31] under planning. B. 9. 3 information report. Community design guidelines

[4:40:37] PBS 0. 2 6. 003. I suspect Mr. Postma is

[4:40:42] the one that's going to carry this photo. Oh no,

[4:40:44] that's right. Go ahead. The Ms. Marwaha. Yes. Good afternoon.

[4:40:51] Um, Council Members. So this is a brief information report

[4:40:55] to provide an update on the community design guidelines. Um,

[4:40:59] this project will update the existing guidelines. To give them

[4:41:04] a refreshed look and bring it in alignment with the

[4:41:06] town's policy updates. So this project was initiated in 2023.

[4:41:11] Um, the towns official plan review was still underway at

[4:41:14] that time. And now the official plan has been adopted

[4:41:18] and those policies are confirmed. So we are able to

[4:41:20] proceed with updating the community design guidelines. So, um, plan

[4:41:25] is that we expect to have draft guidelines ready by

[4:41:29] spring 2026 followed by a public engagement. And the final

[4:41:33] guidelines and checklists are planned for summer 2026 and council

[4:41:37] adoption anticipated in fall 2026. So that's, um, that's the

[4:41:42] overview. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank

[4:41:45] you very much. Um, any questions. Councillor Maxwell. Thank you,

[4:41:52] Madam Chair. Thank you, Tisha, for the report. Um, so

[4:41:58] these community guidelines. Are they tied to. The potential

[4:42:08] use of secondary plans. Go ahead. Yeah. Through you, Madam

[4:42:16] Chair, to Councillor Maxwell. So the community design guidelines, um,

[4:42:21] build upon official plan and they express their vision and

[4:42:25] intent of the official plan. And secondary plans, they are

[4:42:31] the second step of the official plan, but community design

[4:42:34] guidelines basically, they reflect official plans vision. Follow

[4:42:44] up. Yeah, I do. Yeah. Okay. So. Okay. So this,

[4:42:52] the secondary plans have no influence on these on the

[4:42:57] community design guidelines. I just want to see if my

[4:43:02] AI program was actually truthful to me or not because

[4:43:05] they said it was. So okay. I can rule that

[4:43:08] out then. Thank you. Thank you. Cancer Porter. Yes. Thank

[4:43:17] you. And, um, through the chair, the most certainly, um,

[4:43:24] this is something the community has been looking for, Ritu.

[4:43:27] It's been asked for, um, quite some time. I guess

[4:43:31] what I, I would ask is, um, I get a

[4:43:35] bit nervous when it just sort of like, I hear

[4:43:38] words like a refresh or update. I mean, we are

[4:43:43] 14 years. Down the road. And repeatedly, as long as

[4:43:49] I know people have talked about character, charm, et cetera.

[4:43:55] Small town feel. It comes out in the strategic plan

[4:43:58] yet again. Came out in the official plan. I don't

[4:44:01] know what plant. It doesn't come out in. And I

[4:44:05] guess. STL, I have some confidence in. However, I would

[4:44:11] really appreciate it. If this could be taken into consideration.

[4:44:15] Sogging shores has some really good community designs. And they're

[4:44:20] a bit of a mixed bag of a town. Cause

[4:44:22] sogging chores is poor Elgin and, um, Southampton put together.

[4:44:27] Southampton is more Thormbery like Port Elgin. Well, it's just

[4:44:32] my opinion. I don't think it suffered from excessive planning

[4:44:34] because it's got big bulk stores and accumulation of here,

[4:44:37] there and everywhere, which I have seen evolve over the

[4:44:40] last 24 years. But they're very, very different. So therefore

[4:44:47] they actually have some more specific. And we have seen

[4:44:52] some interesting developments. No one's fond of the one across

[4:44:55] from the peaks. And we've had some other interesting ones.

[4:45:00] Um, interesting home designs, et cetera, which people haven't been,

[4:45:05] they really sort of don't keep in the ambiance of

[4:45:08] the town. Um, I'm not saying it's, and this got

[4:45:13] talked about when the apartment building on the corner of

[4:45:18] Clark and Marsh. Was brought forward. About in keeping with

[4:45:24] the ambiance of Marsh Street, which is Artsburg is very

[4:45:27] special. So I'm just really asking, um, I would like

[4:45:32] the opportunity. I will send you what Sogging Shores has.

[4:45:35] But really just to be mindful that we have something

[4:45:38] very special here. And the idea of keeping the character

[4:45:42] and the charm is. Because a lot of, a lot

[4:45:47] of places people come into when they drive by and

[4:45:49] they don't want to stop walk around. And I'm seeing

[4:45:54] Thornberry has that and other aspects do. Because the community

[4:45:58] design guidelines, if you think about, we have the strategic

[4:46:01] plan. We now have a tourist destination strategy. And if

[4:46:05] we begin to erode about a way at the charm

[4:46:09] in the small town field, et cetera, while just my

[4:46:12] opinion, I feel that's a contradiction. To trying to encourage

[4:46:16] and enhance tourism, the tourist experience, which is why people

[4:46:19] come. And equally has an impact on the economy. So

[4:46:23] I would just ask that the broader perspective of the

[4:46:26] town be viewed with respect to the community guidelines. Cause

[4:46:29] we're in a very different place than we were when

[4:46:32] they were produced in 2012. Thank you. Comments. Okay. Thank

[4:46:41] you. Um, I don't see any other hints. So I'd

[4:46:45] like to, uh, have a go. This. First of all,

[4:46:49] it is a long time coming as, uh, counselor Porter

[4:46:54] has identified. We've been waiting for this for a long

[4:46:56] time with the official plan. So I'd like to know

[4:46:58] the impact is at this point. Because right now the

[4:47:02] official plan is sitting at county waiting for approval. And

[4:47:07] where does the community design guidelines sit. County approve over

[4:47:13] the next year, which one would hope. And when would

[4:47:17] they adopt the community design guidelines.

[4:47:26] Um, Community Design guidelines. They do not need to be

[4:47:29] adopted by counties. So it's just the municipality. So when

[4:47:33] they'll be finalized, they'll be ready. As an implementation tool.

[4:47:40] But in the meantime, a developer could come along and

[4:47:42] use the 2012 community design guidelines. Which should displawning department

[4:47:47] have a plan for that. I mean, I don't know

[4:47:51] how many developments we've got on the books right now,

[4:47:53] but, um. Go ahead. Yeah. So we're currently still operate

[4:47:58] under the 2016 official plan, uh, in the policy direction

[4:48:02] that's there. Uh, and one of the primary reasons why

[4:48:04] we, we kind of put the community design guidelines project

[4:48:07] on hold was we were still waiting for what the

[4:48:09] outcomes were going to be with the new official plan

[4:48:12] policy direction. So things like building height, uh, and, um,

[4:48:16] uh, density were the two biggest components that really influenced

[4:48:20] community design and how do we actually develop the sites

[4:48:22] that, uh, that are available for future development. Um, we've

[4:48:26] got that direction now, uh, from council through the adopted

[4:48:29] plan. And yes, we're working with the county to get

[4:48:32] that, uh, approved. Um, hopefully less than a year. We're

[4:48:35] looking to try to get that done over the next

[4:48:37] few months. Um, still a few hurdles to go through,

[4:48:41] but, uh, yeah, it's still a priority. But then in

[4:48:46] terms of the community design guidelines, we felt it was

[4:48:49] now appropriate to restart this, this program again. Um, and

[4:48:53] we will continue to apply the 2012 guidelines. Um, they

[4:48:57] are still good. Um, they don't reflect the changes and

[4:49:00] the policy changes that have come into, uh, effect with

[4:49:04] the adopted official plan. Um, but they do still give

[4:49:07] strong consideration in terms of house sites should be designed.

[4:49:10] Uh, we've picked up on, you know, the comments from

[4:49:13] Councillor Porter in terms of wanting to make sure we

[4:49:15] recognize that small town feel, you know, there are a

[4:49:19] lot of good notes that we've taken down here in

[4:49:21] terms of, um, the perspective that, that should be applied

[4:49:24] to these community design guidelines. And those are already being

[4:49:26] built in. So in the meantime, we continue to work

[4:49:30] with developers in terms of designing their sites to something

[4:49:33] that's going to fit with the character and the style

[4:49:36] and the, uh, brand, uh, Thornberry or Clarksburg or wherever

[4:49:40] the development is to occur. Um, but really it's this

[4:49:43] next step to get the community design guidelines in place.

[4:49:46] So we have a nice firm document that we can

[4:49:48] share early in development processes to say, okay, this is

[4:49:51] what the expectations are when developing a site and bringing

[4:49:55] planning applications forward. You're pardoned me. I've been waiting for

[4:49:59] this for a long time. So I'm, um. Certainly welcome

[4:50:05] the community design guidelines when they finally decide to appear

[4:50:08] because it has been throughout the, uh, the plan. So,

[4:50:12] um, maybe we'll just put this on the agenda when

[4:50:14] we, when we meet the planning department. So I am

[4:50:18] disappointed. But one last point. Hopefully there's no additional budget.

[4:50:22] Because the design guidelines are so late. Is that still

[4:50:26] part of the 400, 000 dollars that we put toward

[4:50:29] the official plan? We'd watch it. Yeah. It's still part

[4:50:33] of the approved budget. I'm not sure of the number,

[4:50:36] but whatever the budget was approved, it is still within

[4:50:39] that. All right. Thank you. Well, I certainly look forward

[4:50:43] to the community design guidelines. Thank you. Any physical? Yes.

[4:50:50] Councillor Maxwell Oldham knew him. Yeah, I just have one

[4:50:52] quick question. So you mentioned something about Gray County approving

[4:50:57] the official plan. What happens if they don't approve it?

[4:51:01] Has that ever happened. Oh, that's a good question. Um,

[4:51:07] so it does need to go to county council for

[4:51:10] a decision. Uh, so if it's county council generally could

[4:51:14] approve the official plan as it was adopted by council,

[4:51:18] uh, they could approve it with modifications, uh, so they

[4:51:22] can require the municipality to make changes to their official

[4:51:25] plan. Um, generally things that may be in conformity with

[4:51:29] the county plan or with provincial direction, um, they can,

[4:51:33] they can make those changes themselves and approve that version.

[4:51:36] Or they could refuse it and essentially, you know, send

[4:51:39] the whole project back to the municipality for, uh, for

[4:51:42] further review. But not likely. But anyway, yeah, go ahead,

[4:51:48] Councillor Maxwell. Okay. So let's say that ideally that doesn't

[4:51:55] happen. But if it did, would that influence the community

[4:52:00] improvement or the community plan. Go. Ahead. Yeah. Uh, well,

[4:52:08] I should note. I mean, the town staff are working

[4:52:10] diligently and alongside county staff to ensure that, you know,

[4:52:14] any changes that may be proposed to the plan or

[4:52:16] any, uh. Changes that may be considered. Our being reviewed

[4:52:20] with municipal staff, uh, we have made the commitment as

[4:52:23] well that if there are substantial changes to that plan,

[4:52:26] we would bring them back to this council, uh, for

[4:52:28] information, whether it's, you know, an approval decision or a

[4:52:33] set of modifications that are being considered, uh, so those

[4:52:36] would come back before the county would issue their decision.

[4:52:39] Um, with regards to the impact on the timeline for

[4:52:42] the community design guidelines, um, county staff don't have any

[4:52:46] concerns or objections in terms of those major components. The

[4:52:48] building height and the density components that really influence those

[4:52:51] community design guidelines. So we're confident that those pieces are

[4:52:54] set. And from there, we can develop the guidelines based

[4:52:57] on those, that policy direction. So, um, these design guidelines

[4:53:03] can still move forward. Uh, ideally to be approved, you

[4:53:06] know, soon after that the official plan is received its

[4:53:09] final approval. Uh, but they can definitely go concurrent together.

[4:53:15] Okay. Uh, all right. Councillor Dell. Go ahead. Uh, yes.

[4:53:20] Thank you. Um, Madam Chair. And just to answer counsel

[4:53:25] Maxwell, uh, yes, great county and another municipality during my

[4:53:29] time there, uh, from 2014 to 2018 did not approve.

[4:53:33] A municipality's official plan, uh, there was lots of discussion.

[4:53:38] Um, but it wasn't regarding the community improvement plan, but

[4:53:42] it has happened. Um, regarding an official plan, but I

[4:53:47] just, other than that, when I dated back to 203

[4:53:51] to 206, all official plants have been approved and never

[4:53:55] been rejected by Grey County. So I just want to

[4:53:58] add that point in there. Um, and, um, you know,

[4:54:02] great county has a good report still with us. And,

[4:54:05] and I remember in 2016, uh, there was a lot

[4:54:08] of, um, it was slow trying to get our official

[4:54:12] plan to prove because there was, uh, the dialogue with

[4:54:15] the public and having to get back from the public,

[4:54:19] all the dialogue and answer questions. So, um, I think

[4:54:22] they are definitely trying to work with, um, all municipalities,

[4:54:26] but that just answered, uh, Councillor Maxwell's, uh, they didn't,

[4:54:30] um, it wasn't approved by Grey County at the time

[4:54:34] and eventually had to be approved by the province overriding

[4:54:37] the great county. So, um, that's just a side note.

[4:54:41] Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Go ahead. Thank you,

[4:54:47] Madam Chair very quickly through you with what Mr. Paulsterman,

[4:54:51] Councillor Adele said, great county is, you know, they'll look

[4:54:54] at if it falls within their, within their planning has

[4:54:57] to mirror up together because the bylaw is stocked together

[4:54:59] or the planning documents that stacked together plan of Southerners

[4:55:02] and things like that. Or if it follows the PPS

[4:55:04] provincial policy statement. So those are more administrative in nature

[4:55:07] than they would be, um, you know, the one I

[4:55:10] know the research to want to an example. Our counselor

[4:55:12] Adele said when she was at county council, but predominantly

[4:55:15] it's keeping in line with the provincial policy statements and

[4:55:18] the Greg Pandemic planning objectives. It's usually just a tweak

[4:55:21] and it's, um, administrators for nature more than likely because

[4:55:25] they know the work that's done at the lower tier

[4:55:27] will affect the lower tier. And then the, that's where

[4:55:29] the member municipalities who sit at the Great County Council,

[4:55:32] that horseshoe will make those decisions. But it's usually within,

[4:55:35] within the parameters of, um, as long as it mirrors

[4:55:38] up with the provincial policyment and the, and the county

[4:55:40] documents as well. So thank you. Thank you very much.

[4:55:44] I think the matter has been fully discussed at this

[4:55:48] point. I don't see any other hands. Could I, uh,

[4:55:51] Madam Klerkowski to put the motion up. And it is

[4:55:54] that council receives staff report PBS 0. 26. 003 entitled

[4:55:58] Information Report Community Design Guidelines. Could ask for a mover

[4:56:02] in this. I'll second it. Dog moved. I think Councillor

[4:56:05] Maxwell then Councillor McKinley is what I heard. Sorry Councillor

[4:56:09] Dell. Is there any further discussion. If not, let's call

[4:56:14] the vote, please. Thank you. The vote is open.

[4:56:32] The vote is closed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. That motion

[4:56:35] has carried 6 - 0 with the mayor absent today.

[4:56:38] And that completes the section on planning and building services

[4:56:42] with the exception of the public comment. Item B 10.

[4:56:46] Now, Madam Clerk, there is no one in the building.

[4:56:49] And I have no comments to read. Oh, thank you.

[4:56:51] So that finishes my section. Did he mirror? Do you

[4:56:54] want me to continue. Or did you want to go?

[4:56:56] Yes, Great. Please pull it off and meeting. Thank you.

[4:56:58] Okay. So going to item C, new and unfinished business,

[4:57:02] uh, we don't have any committees of council reports. We,

[4:57:05] oh, notice of motion. Is there, are there any notice

[4:57:08] emotions to be offered. At this point. Seeing none, I'll

[4:57:12] move forward. Uh, C3, there were no additions to the

[4:57:15] agenda. D is notice of meeting dates. So we have

[4:57:19] a council public meeting on February the 10th. Then on

[4:57:22] council meeting February 17th, then committee of the whole meeting,

[4:57:26] uh, admin corporate and financial services strategic initiatives and committee

[4:57:30] services on February 23rd. Town Hall Council Chambers and Virtual.

[4:57:35] Another committee of the whole meeting operations and planning and

[4:57:37] building services February 24th, 2026 town hall council chambers and

[4:57:42] virtual. And that takes us to the last item adjournment.

[4:57:45] And if we could please have the motion put forward

[4:57:47] on the screen and the motion is that this committee,

[4:57:50] the hole does now adjourn it 225. P. m. to

[4:57:55] meet again on February 24th, 2026 town hall, council chambers

[4:58:00] and virtually or at the call of the chair. Moved.

[4:58:02] Thank you. But moved by Councillor Porter and Second Admi.

[4:58:07] Second by Council from Kinley. Thank you very much. I

[4:58:10] don't see any objections. So let's call the vote. Thank

[4:58:14] you Madam Chair. The vote is open.

[4:58:28] What is closed? Thank you. The motion is carried six

[4:58:30] nothing with the mayor absent today. Please turn off your

[4:58:35] cameras and we'll see you again. Soon. Thank you.

COW - Operations, Planning and Building Services

Agenda

Transcript