1
00:01:59,600 --> 00:02:05,940
Okay, we have a motion to accept the council agenda, Councillor Travalli, Deputy Mayor Hutchin, all those in favor.

2
00:02:07,200 --> 00:02:08,320
That is carried.

3
00:02:12,210 --> 00:02:18,830
That leads us to the acceptance, the council agenda.

4
00:02:19,830 --> 00:02:21,350
Oh, there got that one.

5
00:02:23,640 --> 00:02:34,160
Oh, the periodist, any periodist on that? No. All right. So then we're going to move right into item 6.1 tonight.

6
00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:43,120
And that is the engineers report from RJ Burnside on the young municipal drain.

7
00:02:44,720 --> 00:02:58,580
And so this is a meeting which will be held to consider only the design aspects of the drain, not the assessments at this point.

8
00:02:58,580 --> 00:03:16,460
So, the report will briefly be presented by our engineers, Jeremy Taylor, and Edison Peel, and then we will move into the public portion of the meeting where people can ask questions as well as those online.

9
00:03:17,100 --> 00:03:18,720
So, Mr. Peel, welcome to the meeting.

10
00:03:27,580 --> 00:03:29,580
Thank you.

11
00:03:30,300 --> 00:03:33,340
Some slides to accompany the presentation.

12
00:03:35,820 --> 00:03:37,140
Hi, I'm Edison Peel.

13
00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:39,580
I'm an engineer with RJ Burnside.

14
00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:41,620
With me tonight is Jeremy Taylor,

15
00:03:41,940 --> 00:03:43,780
Senior Engineer with RJ Burnside.

16
00:03:44,600 --> 00:03:47,260
I trust everyone has had a chance to review the report,

17
00:03:47,420 --> 00:03:49,280
so I'll try to be somewhat brief.

18
00:03:54,140 --> 00:03:57,840
So, the young drain was an existing open channel,

19
00:03:57,840 --> 00:04:24,020
Located just east of Glamis within the Greenock Swamp Wetland Complex, several landowners petitioned the municipality to incorporate the water course as a municipal drain and improve the channel to better serve the agricultural lands this petition was initially submitted in July of 2021 and Burnside was appointed in February of 2022 by the municipality of Brockton.

20
00:04:24,020 --> 00:04:32,320
The drawing shows the property owners that petitioned highlighted in red over top of the water shed drawing.

21
00:04:33,580 --> 00:04:37,860
This drain services approximately 1100 acres.

22
00:04:39,340 --> 00:04:48,300
The main drain includes 2.8 kilometers of channel and 600 meters of tile.

23
00:04:48,300 --> 00:04:55,180
The branch drain includes 650 meters of channel and 150 meters of tile.

24
00:04:55,960 --> 00:05:01,680
The drain outlets into a tributary of the tea's water river in the soggy and valley watershed.

25
00:05:02,980 --> 00:05:07,460
The dark blue line, if we could maybe go to the next slide,

26
00:05:10,060 --> 00:05:18,520
so the dark blue line through the middle of the page represents the location and direction of the main drain

27
00:05:18,520 --> 00:05:26,940
And the pink line towards the south extent represents the location and direction of the branch drain.

28
00:05:27,720 --> 00:05:32,860
The black line with the teal outline shows the watershed boundary.

29
00:05:33,620 --> 00:05:40,780
So the watershed boundary is the area that we have determined that produces runoff which flows towards the drain.

30
00:05:42,680 --> 00:05:45,240
If we could go to the next slide, please.

31
00:05:46,260 --> 00:05:57,800
It should be noted that the young drain shares a continuous watershed boundary with another potential drainage project in the municipality of Brockton known as the Dale's drain.

32
00:05:58,360 --> 00:06:02,260
The Dale's drain is a much larger watershed as you can see on the slide.

33
00:06:03,020 --> 00:06:04,740
These are two distinct projects.

34
00:06:05,240 --> 00:06:09,500
The Dale's drain flows to the south and the young drain flows to the north.

35
00:06:09,820 --> 00:06:12,520
Both drains eventually outled into the Teeswater River.

36
00:06:16,900 --> 00:06:25,080
An initial on-site meeting was held in June of 2022, and an information meeting was held in February of 2025.

37
00:06:25,900 --> 00:06:34,500
As a result of the meetings, it was determined that the primary purpose of the report is to provide a sufficient outlet to support the agricultural properties.

38
00:06:35,340 --> 00:06:43,140
Several detailed investigations were completed to support our recommendations, including a topographical survey of the channel and tile route.

39
00:06:43,140 --> 00:06:49,820
Watershed delineation using both survey, landowner input, and publicly available contour information.

40
00:06:51,080 --> 00:06:57,400
Soil and investigations and test pits were completed, a wetland impact assessment was completed,

41
00:06:57,900 --> 00:07:04,280
an aquatic wildlife assessment was completed, as well as site walkthroughs with soggy and valley conservation authority,

42
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:11,420
and department of fisheries and oceans Canada, to review the proposed work and determine the agency requirements.

43
00:07:14,460 --> 00:07:21,860
Upon our investigation we found the invert of the culprit under Bruce Road 15 to be too high

44
00:07:21,860 --> 00:07:26,060
to support the agricultural under drainage and also in poor condition.

45
00:07:26,860 --> 00:07:29,960
The structure reported provided by the county, right?

46
00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:40,620
This month in 2027. Downstream of Bruce Road 15, the existing channel was generally free flowing, and was determined to be a sufficient outlet for the upstream lands.

47
00:07:45,360 --> 00:08:01,780
The proposed work includes the removal and the replacement of the Bruce Road 15, call for crossing, approximately six acres of tree clearing, brushing and mulching, approximately 3.5 kilometers of channel improvement, including

48
00:08:01,780 --> 00:08:09,520
including clean out deepening and channel relocation and approximately 150 meters of tile installation.

49
00:08:10,400 --> 00:08:16,260
The installation of erosion protection and the receding and restoration of all disturb areas.

50
00:08:21,470 --> 00:08:28,570
So the cost estimate for the project has approximately 380,000 in construction.

51
00:08:28,570 --> 00:08:44,130
100 and 10,000 in allowances to owners, 165,000 in engineering, and approximately 55,000 in other costs, including permitting net HST interest to name a few.

52
00:08:45,210 --> 00:08:53,390
The total estimated project cost is 710,000, so the next question is how are these costs divided up?

53
00:08:56,200 --> 00:09:14,160
So there is approximately 70,000 assessed to the municipality of Brockton Rhodes, approximately 180,000 to the county of Bruce Rhodes, and leaving a remaining 460,000 to private lands.

54
00:09:14,160 --> 00:09:22,060
We are anticipating approximately 150,000 through OMAFA for farm tax class properties.

55
00:09:22,900 --> 00:09:25,540
That is a grant that is eligible.

56
00:09:28,020 --> 00:09:36,420
And after the 110,000 in allowances to owners for damage right away and existing features,

57
00:09:36,420 --> 00:09:44,700
That leaves us with approximately 200,000 or 28% of the overall project cost assessed to private lands.

58
00:09:46,100 --> 00:09:54,180
The municipality of Brockton, drainage superintendent, Steve Cobene, and Soggin Valley Conservation Regulations Officer,

59
00:09:54,280 --> 00:09:57,880
Madeline McFadden have been consulted throughout the project

60
00:10:00,030 --> 00:10:01,870
and go to the next slide.

61
00:10:01,870 --> 00:10:12,210
So the petition was determined to be valid based on that the majority of owners in area that requires drainage have signed the petition.

62
00:10:13,530 --> 00:10:23,410
That area that requires drainage is defined as the properties which are being provided a direct connection to the drain for their agricultural lands.

63
00:10:23,410 --> 00:10:33,710
Tonight, the petitioning owners as part of the meeting to consider should be provided the opportunity to withdraw their name or other landowners may add their names to the petition.

64
00:10:35,510 --> 00:10:41,850
Should the petition still have a sufficient number of signatures to proceed following this meeting?

65
00:10:42,170 --> 00:10:47,770
There is a process and timeline for both municipal and provincial appeals from landowners.

66
00:10:47,770 --> 00:10:50,950
This municipal appeal is called the Court of Revision.

67
00:10:51,830 --> 00:10:53,750
The Court is typically made up of counselors

68
00:10:53,750 --> 00:10:56,850
and has the discretion to alter assessments only.

69
00:10:57,630 --> 00:11:00,690
The provincial appeal is the Ontario drainage tribunal

70
00:11:00,690 --> 00:11:04,910
and has the authority to modify any part of the report

71
00:11:04,910 --> 00:11:07,550
including allowances, assessment and design.

72
00:11:09,350 --> 00:11:11,110
If you could go to the next slide,

73
00:11:12,090 --> 00:11:14,870
it just depicts where we are in the process.

74
00:11:14,870 --> 00:11:24,730
there's circled the meeting to consider, so following this meeting should there still be sufficient number of signatures to proceed.

75
00:11:25,090 --> 00:11:27,470
We would move into the appeals process.

76
00:11:28,150 --> 00:11:33,870
Thank you for your time and consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

77
00:11:35,130 --> 00:11:35,330
Okay.

78
00:11:37,190 --> 00:11:44,810
At this point, I know there's a number of people in the audience who may have questions.

79
00:11:44,810 --> 00:11:50,250
So we'll get to that. But first I'll ask, is there anybody online as a question?

80
00:11:51,750 --> 00:11:56,070
I'll entertain the ones in person first, but I just want to know if there's any big online with questions.

81
00:11:58,670 --> 00:12:01,110
No, thanks. So, it doesn't look like it. Okay.

82
00:12:05,040 --> 00:12:09,180
So for those who are wishing to ask questions from the audience,

83
00:12:10,220 --> 00:12:16,640
you can raise your hand and then you come to the mic and identify your name and

84
00:12:16,640 --> 00:12:18,720
and property address,

85
00:12:25,580 --> 00:12:25,720
okay?

86
00:12:29,820 --> 00:12:30,060
All right.

87
00:12:30,740 --> 00:12:30,940
Hello.

88
00:12:31,040 --> 00:12:32,420
Hello, welcome to the meeting.

89
00:12:33,260 --> 00:12:37,180
My name's Nancy Dales, and I have a property at 10, 15,

90
00:12:37,460 --> 00:12:38,580
concession 10.

91
00:12:39,220 --> 00:12:44,340
And we have approximately a bill of $51,000 on this project.

92
00:12:45,440 --> 00:12:51,000
And I'm here tonight to ask for a branch A that's posed on here

93
00:12:51,000 --> 00:12:54,360
to be removed for our cost savings for ourselves,

94
00:12:54,360 --> 00:12:56,340
which is over $23,000,

95
00:12:58,840 --> 00:13:02,560
and I have sent that into Council, the email that I sent.

96
00:13:02,800 --> 00:13:08,320
Yes, we have that email, Nancy, and we're going to read it into the record after this portion

97
00:13:08,320 --> 00:13:15,550
of the meeting. Okay? Are there, all right, Mr. Peel, do you have any input on that?

98
00:13:16,480 --> 00:13:22,840
The, uh, tendency of asked for that little piece to be deleted? I don't know how that would work if,

99
00:13:22,840 --> 00:13:25,400
Thank you Mayor Peabody.

100
00:13:26,640 --> 00:13:31,580
The concern of Branch A and its location have been discussed at the information meeting and

101
00:13:31,580 --> 00:13:33,720
at follow up correspondence with landowners.

102
00:13:34,660 --> 00:13:40,140
The other landowners utilizing Branch A have indicated that they require Branch A for

103
00:13:40,140 --> 00:13:42,220
sub-surface as well as surface drainage.

104
00:13:43,060 --> 00:13:49,560
Currently the surface and sub-surface naturally flows to the existing channel that is noted

105
00:13:49,560 --> 00:13:54,040
as Branch A and is partially located on the Tim and Nancy Dale's property.

106
00:13:55,420 --> 00:14:01,440
We do not expect any loss of agricultural land being that this branch is located within

107
00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:05,860
the wetland area of the Green Oxwamp wetland complex.

108
00:14:06,940 --> 00:14:13,780
This branch will service the under drainage for the Allen Dale's property, Tim and Nancy

109
00:14:13,780 --> 00:14:17,460
Dale's property and Patricia Bauder property.

110
00:14:17,460 --> 00:14:22,620
This channel is being cleaned out and deepens to accommodate these three properties.

111
00:14:23,520 --> 00:14:32,540
The existing Branch A channel is within the regulated area, as deemed by the soggy and

112
00:14:32,540 --> 00:14:33,760
Valley Conservation Authority.

113
00:14:34,400 --> 00:14:39,340
Through our consultation with soggy and valley and meetings on site, the conservation

114
00:14:39,340 --> 00:14:46,460
authority has indicated that they would not be acceptable, it would not be except any harmful

115
00:14:46,460 --> 00:14:52,840
impact to the wetland area and tree clearing should be kept to a minimum to support the channel

116
00:14:52,840 --> 00:14:53,540
improvements.

117
00:14:55,220 --> 00:14:59,180
Based on the SVCA comments, it does not appear to be feasible to-

118
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:04,660
Area and fill this channel without causing harmful impacts to the wetland.

119
00:15:07,490 --> 00:15:10,230
In addition, I believe in Nancy's

120
00:15:10,230 --> 00:15:18,150
letter, there was a comment in regards to the Tammy and Leslie Young property and allowances

121
00:15:18,150 --> 00:15:27,270
there receiving. So, there is an existing channel located within the road right of way, along

122
00:15:27,270 --> 00:15:35,610
side road 20 North and Bruce Road 15 through burn side through discussions with the municipality

123
00:15:35,610 --> 00:15:42,850
are recommending the channel be relocated in this area onto private property. This relocation

124
00:15:42,850 --> 00:15:49,290
will involve the loss of some actively farmland to not impede the road allowance. Large municipal

125
00:15:49,290 --> 00:15:55,930
drains along roads can pose a safety concern and can obstruct the installation of future utilities.

126
00:16:01,320 --> 00:16:01,780
Thank

127
00:16:03,990 --> 00:16:08,870
you. Ms. Deals, do you have a follow-up to that response?

128
00:16:14,840 --> 00:16:15,860
I have a two-day branch,

129
00:16:21,300 --> 00:16:24,220
and why wouldn't they take it down for their own properties instead of

130
00:16:24,220 --> 00:16:31,280
covering us and covering all these spots? If there's not a back rate of a benefit to us, we're kind of a host.

131
00:16:31,780 --> 00:16:34,480
And everybody seems to have an early on us.

132
00:16:36,870 --> 00:16:37,650
Mr. Peel.

133
00:16:42,750 --> 00:16:42,910
Okay.

134
00:16:42,910 --> 00:16:43,250
Mr.

135
00:16:43,750 --> 00:16:44,370
Yeah.

136
00:16:45,890 --> 00:16:47,130
All right.

137
00:16:47,490 --> 00:16:49,530
Mr. Peel will now answer your question.

138
00:16:53,350 --> 00:16:54,310
Sorry, Mr. Mayor.

139
00:16:55,110 --> 00:16:57,850
Could you reiterate exactly what the question is there?

140
00:17:01,030 --> 00:17:05,570
Question was about the bottom property and the flow of water there.

141
00:17:07,190 --> 00:17:16,810
Yeah, so some portion of the bottom property flows towards the main drain as well as the

142
00:17:16,810 --> 00:17:24,250
portion of the property does flow towards the branch A in both the surface and subsurface

143
00:17:24,250 --> 00:17:32,210
water. And additionally it provides an outlet for a drainage system for another property,

144
00:17:32,970 --> 00:17:34,890
the Allen Dale's property as well.

145
00:17:38,270 --> 00:17:38,630
All right.

146
00:17:41,210 --> 00:17:43,330
Miss Dale's, we can get back to you, but right now

147
00:17:43,330 --> 00:17:50,030
we'll go to other people in the audience. Other people in the audience have questions. Yes. Yes. Just

148
00:17:50,030 --> 00:17:57,950
off our theater. I guess looking at this and and also coming up with the

149
00:17:57,950 --> 00:18:06,750
deals, the deals, the ditch coming along here. And as a property owner myself, I think the big thing

150
00:18:06,750 --> 00:18:16,570
here is people don't want to pay to service somebody else's property. So I feel like of that

151
00:18:16,570 --> 00:18:26,890
private lands, that people should be the town, sorry. The private lands that is getting

152
00:18:26,890 --> 00:18:33,090
assumed by private taxpayers. Well, if it doesn't benefit that person, why can't it be that

153
00:18:33,090 --> 00:18:38,010
the person who's actually benefiting and drying up their land that's paying for these taxes or paying

154
00:18:38,010 --> 00:18:43,370
for these projects that get done? It's pretty hard to put it on Tim and Nancy Dales and a bunch

155
00:18:43,370 --> 00:18:48,890
other people that happened to live in there and bought that property there, knowing that the

156
00:18:48,890 --> 00:18:54,030
green ox wants right there. So I guess it's not so much a question for the engineers, but it's

157
00:18:54,030 --> 00:19:00,090
at when it comes down to it, the person applying for the work to be done should be worked should be

158
00:19:00,090 --> 00:19:06,590
paying for it, when Tim, tile this land, he tile that to benefit his property. So if the municipal ditch

159
00:19:06,590 --> 00:19:12,790
needs done, and somebody puts their name in and they want it done, well, if it's only 200,000 dollars

160
00:19:12,790 --> 00:19:19,830
on a hundred acre farm. That's peanuts. So I guess my question would be not so much for the

161
00:19:19,830 --> 00:19:25,210
engine ears. I understand the report. I understand it could benefit it. Possibly until it gets

162
00:19:25,210 --> 00:19:32,130
to tease water river. But from a council perspective, it's where where do we draw the line?

163
00:19:32,190 --> 00:19:37,310
When people ask things to get done, we can't just put it on the neighbor. And that's nice people.

164
00:19:38,130 --> 00:19:41,310
Yes, thank you, Justin, and...

165
00:19:41,890 --> 00:19:43,110
Through you, Mayor Peabody.

166
00:19:43,950 --> 00:19:48,790
I think perhaps that's a question that maybe the engineers could answer,

167
00:19:48,890 --> 00:19:50,710
maybe our drainage superintendent could address,

168
00:19:51,270 --> 00:19:53,500
I think overall, the answer, though, was actually that

169
00:19:54,350 --> 00:19:56,970
that is the regime that's outlined in the drainage act,

170
00:19:57,510 --> 00:20:01,350
overall, where there is a mechanism in place

171
00:20:01,350 --> 00:20:06,870
so that you're having a third party engineer come into exam

172
00:20:06,870 --> 00:20:11,610
the watershed overall, rather than having only one or two properties that have to pay.

173
00:20:11,850 --> 00:20:16,050
Like I think that that's really what the drainage act is intended to do, but I'm wondering if

174
00:20:16,050 --> 00:20:20,410
either our drainage superintendent or perhaps the engineers have a comment on that.

175
00:20:23,030 --> 00:20:30,410
Yeah, I think that was well said. We follow a systematic approach to complete our assessments

176
00:20:30,410 --> 00:20:39,910
under the Drainage Act, and we follow the guide for Drainage Engineers publication 852 provided by OMAFA.

177
00:20:41,090 --> 00:20:49,330
I can explain in general terms how the benefit and assessment assessments are put together,

178
00:20:50,070 --> 00:20:56,310
but that may be better suited for our next meeting, where we're reviewing assessments in more detail.

179
00:20:57,910 --> 00:21:03,470
Well, I think a little update on how the assessments are determined would be a good, because

180
00:21:03,470 --> 00:21:09,110
we are a question for Mr. Hallfarts as about how we got into this and we got into it

181
00:21:09,110 --> 00:21:17,950
through the drainage act. And over the years, something that's never really been a process

182
00:21:19,290 --> 00:21:24,010
which has been collaborative. It's always pits neighbors against neighbors and I always see

183
00:21:24,010 --> 00:21:38,030
And certainly I have asked for the act to be changed and to be more aligned with the farmers who are actually getting the benefit.

184
00:21:38,530 --> 00:21:43,990
But certainly those pleas to the provincial government for me, they're not going to change it.

185
00:21:43,990 --> 00:21:52,290
So we're stuck with the drainage act just in and it's going to continue to cause the sort

186
00:21:52,290 --> 00:21:57,170
of friction that we're seeing here tonight, seeing it every term of council for the

187
00:21:57,170 --> 00:21:59,210
non for seven years.

188
00:22:00,210 --> 00:22:04,750
So Mr. Piel, maybe just to update on how you look at the assessments and the benefits

189
00:22:04,750 --> 00:22:09,230
because a lot of people here need a primer on that.

190
00:22:09,610 --> 00:22:09,650
Yep.

191
00:22:09,650 --> 00:22:17,310
So thank you Mayor Peabody. There are two types of assessment, predominantly used in this report.

192
00:22:17,950 --> 00:22:22,310
The first is a benefit assessment and the second is an outlet assessment.

193
00:22:23,350 --> 00:22:28,670
The benefit assessment may include anything that increases the land value or could be

194
00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:52,540
It has a betterment of the land. These benefits are typically provided to the properties with a direct connection to the drain. The other type is the outlet assessment, which is based on the volume and rate of flow that runs off a property. The main consideration in an outlet assessment is land use and where the run off enters the drain.

195
00:22:52,540 --> 00:23:05,300
Certain land uses produce more runoff, for example paved areas, produce more runoff than agricultural areas, and therefore the paved areas have a larger outlet assessment.

196
00:23:06,080 --> 00:23:13,000
Additionally, you do not have to pay towards drainage works upstream of where your runoff would enter the drain.

197
00:23:13,000 --> 00:23:25,160
For example, a property located at the bottom end of the drain does not have to contribute towards work happening at the top end of the drainage system as they do not utilize the top end of the drainage system.

198
00:23:27,500 --> 00:23:27,540
Okay.

199
00:23:27,960 --> 00:23:28,740
Thank you.

200
00:23:28,960 --> 00:23:33,500
Let's go back to questions from the audience who else would like to ask a question tonight.

201
00:23:33,500 --> 00:23:36,940
We have a few property owners here.

202
00:23:39,160 --> 00:23:42,340
If there are no questions, I'll ask for Ms. Dale's letter,

203
00:23:42,480 --> 00:23:45,600
corresponds to be read into the record for the meeting.

204
00:23:49,740 --> 00:23:52,480
Through you, Mayor Peabody, I'd be happy to read that correspondence

205
00:23:52,480 --> 00:23:59,980
that was provided to Council on the 23rd of August.

206
00:24:00,560 --> 00:24:01,800
It says, good morning, Council.

207
00:24:02,500 --> 00:24:06,180
It's coming from Nancy Dale's and the subject

208
00:24:06,180 --> 00:24:09,540
is young municipal drain, council meeting Tuesday, August 25th.

209
00:24:09,660 --> 00:24:10,280
Good morning, council.

210
00:24:10,540 --> 00:24:13,760
This Tuesday, August 25th, there is a notice of meeting to consider engineers report

211
00:24:13,760 --> 00:24:14,820
for young municipal drain.

212
00:24:15,280 --> 00:24:18,660
Our assessment is the second highest at a cost of $51,000, $57.

213
00:24:19,480 --> 00:24:23,340
We had requested the engineer remove the branch A from this project, which is on our property

214
00:24:23,340 --> 00:24:24,440
from the start of this project.

215
00:24:24,880 --> 00:24:28,580
We indicated to engineer that our plans are to fill this ditch in and farm the area on

216
00:24:28,580 --> 00:24:29,100
our property.

217
00:24:29,620 --> 00:24:32,640
This would reduce our assessment by approximately 24,000.

218
00:24:32,640 --> 00:24:36,420
The two neighboring properties have access to draining their farms to the main drain on their

219
00:24:36,420 --> 00:24:40,580
own properties instead of through Branch A. If Branch A is incorporated into the municipal drain,

220
00:24:40,660 --> 00:24:45,700
this allows the two adjacent farms to improve their farms by tiling through our farm via Branch A,

221
00:24:46,000 --> 00:24:49,720
which we are paying the most for and not being credited for loss of use of our farmland and

222
00:24:49,720 --> 00:24:53,860
future income loss from this. The engineer has credited less than Tammy Young on this project

223
00:24:53,860 --> 00:24:58,220
substantially for a small portion of their farmland that will be lost alongside the proposed

224
00:24:58,220 --> 00:25:02,200
ditch for the municipal drain. We are asking Council not to proceed with this project and refer

225
00:25:02,200 --> 00:25:07,160
report back to the engineer for modifications. I note that engineer is no longer an employee with

226
00:25:07,160 --> 00:25:11,700
Arjay Berencite. We have reached out to the CEO of Arjay Berencite and requested that an audit

227
00:25:11,700 --> 00:25:16,340
be performed on some of the assessments and work on both municipal terrains that that engineer was

228
00:25:16,340 --> 00:25:23,820
part of from Tim in the as he deals. Thank you. At this point in the meeting, we're going to open

229
00:25:23,820 --> 00:25:30,520
up to questions from council members who would like to go first. Deputy Mayor Hatchen. Thank you, Mayor.

230
00:25:30,520 --> 00:25:37,720
and thank you Edison for the presentation. I did have one question and it's regarding the

231
00:25:38,480 --> 00:25:46,580
40,000 allowance for an existing drain. How did you arrive at that? And can you explain it just a

232
00:25:46,580 --> 00:25:48,460
little bit for us? Thank you.

233
00:25:52,880 --> 00:26:01,680
Thank you. So the 40,000 dollar allowance provided under

234
00:26:01,680 --> 00:26:05,560
section 31 of the drainage act existing drains.

235
00:26:06,140 --> 00:26:12,140
There's a bit of an explanation on page 3 of appendix A of the report.

236
00:26:14,180 --> 00:26:23,940
So the report has given a credit to the landowner for constructing a tile

237
00:26:23,940 --> 00:26:32,720
drain on his property to collect surface water from upstream lands for approximately 600 meters.

238
00:26:33,760 --> 00:26:42,260
This includes 300 millimeter HDPE, so that is high density polyethylene pipe, complete with an inlet

239
00:26:42,260 --> 00:26:49,860
catch basin at the upstream end. This allowance has been provided based on an estimated value to

240
00:26:49,860 --> 00:27:00,260
struck this tile and has been assessed to the affected upstream and benefiting property owners.

241
00:27:07,030 --> 00:27:09,750
Okay. Next question, Councillor Treballey.

242
00:27:10,390 --> 00:27:13,970
Thanks, Mayor Peabody, and again, thanks everyone for the comments and addison for your presentation.

243
00:27:14,770 --> 00:27:20,570
Comment in a question, I think we need to acknowledge here seriously that there is some concerns I've been raised by the some landowners.

244
00:27:20,570 --> 00:27:27,170
regarding the, well, not engineer, but engineer consultants, whose name is on the report that's no longer with Burnside.

245
00:27:27,350 --> 00:27:32,630
This has caused some cause for concern for some of these landowners in terms of, I guess, hesitancy to accept what's presented.

246
00:27:33,450 --> 00:27:39,370
We don't need to delve into those specifics, but I think when these concerns have been raised, when feedbacks and questions have been raised that have gone on answered,

247
00:27:40,030 --> 00:27:48,090
I think we owe it to all the landowners to have their feedback and core-pray to be engaged and to look on the work that was done by this individual.

248
00:27:48,090 --> 00:27:52,870
just to for that sake of transparency and to instill confidence in the work that's in the report.

249
00:27:53,110 --> 00:27:56,830
At the end of the day, it is the landowner that have to pay this, and of course,

250
00:27:56,950 --> 00:28:00,950
minutes of poverty and county to an extent as well. So really, I guess I would like to know,

251
00:28:01,030 --> 00:28:05,890
you've talked about Branchay a little bit, but based on the, the, the, the comment shared and,

252
00:28:05,890 --> 00:28:10,490
and what you've presented, have we actually done an analysis, a detailed analysis of how

253
00:28:10,490 --> 00:28:12,110
this could work without Branchay?

254
00:28:16,100 --> 00:28:20,820
So thank you, Councillor. Based on the reasons,

255
00:28:21,580 --> 00:28:28,200
I outlined previously that includes that the other landowners have indicated they do require

256
00:28:28,200 --> 00:28:34,600
branch A and its location within the wetland complex.

257
00:28:36,540 --> 00:28:44,900
I feel that the deepening and clean out of this channel is required to support the properties in the

258
00:28:44,900 --> 00:28:51,260
watershed and in the area requiring drainage. Follow up question, councilor Treba.

259
00:28:51,260 --> 00:28:53,600
Thanks and thanks Mr. Peel for that.

260
00:28:54,000 --> 00:28:58,300
I appreciate the comment that some landowners feel that they need this, but have we actually looked at it.

261
00:28:58,420 --> 00:29:04,560
I know I appreciate your general oversight on this, but can we actually investigate or what would that look like to investigate?

262
00:29:05,680 --> 00:29:09,600
It substantially not just based on the feeling of some landowners, I guess, to be more specific.

263
00:29:10,540 --> 00:29:14,940
And you know, I think it would be fairly punitive that because of water shed and being afraid to cut down some trees.

264
00:29:15,220 --> 00:29:16,700
Now people are on the hook for a lot more money.

265
00:29:20,190 --> 00:29:21,910
Thank you, Councillor.

266
00:29:22,390 --> 00:29:27,910
So this is the natural flow of the watershed is into Branch A.

267
00:29:28,190 --> 00:29:36,230
So I think this is the most cost effective route to get a solution for the properties that require drainage.

268
00:29:37,470 --> 00:29:43,610
It has the least obstruction into the wetland to utilize the existing channel.

269
00:29:44,270 --> 00:29:47,410
And that is the most cost effective option in our opinion.

270
00:29:48,950 --> 00:29:52,590
Okay, next counselor, counselor McLean, through you mayor.

271
00:29:52,650 --> 00:29:53,590
Thank you very much again.

272
00:29:53,770 --> 00:29:55,850
Everyone for your presentations and being here tonight.

273
00:29:56,710 --> 00:29:59,330
I guess if it sounds like to me, I'm hearing that branch.

274
00:30:00,110 --> 00:30:08,170
And we have Nancy and Tim concerned about their assessment given that this is all like a primer for me on municipal drains.

275
00:30:08,810 --> 00:30:16,410
What mechanisms do they have in order to kind of reevaluate what their assessment will be beyond tonight?

276
00:30:17,130 --> 00:30:18,180
Our clerk will answer that.

277
00:30:20,450 --> 00:30:26,050
Yes. Thank you, Mayor Peabody. I think that's a really important question to keep in mind where we're at in this process.

278
00:30:26,350 --> 00:30:30,670
So the purpose of this meeting is to consider the design and the report itself.

279
00:30:30,670 --> 00:30:35,670
When it comes to the specific assessments, there is another process under the drainage act that

280
00:30:35,670 --> 00:30:40,710
can deal with realignment of assessments, and that's the court of revision process where

281
00:30:41,390 --> 00:30:46,050
landowners are able to appeal to the court of revision and argue that there are assessments

282
00:30:46,050 --> 00:30:49,570
should be something other than what has been assigned to them, and the court of revision

283
00:30:49,570 --> 00:30:51,830
has the ability to reallocate that assessment.

284
00:30:52,090 --> 00:30:54,650
They can't change the overall amount, but they can reallocate it.

285
00:30:55,130 --> 00:31:00,170
So the drainage act does have a process by which landowners could avail themselves of that

286
00:31:00,170 --> 00:31:05,410
as well. If Mr. Peel has something you'd like to add to that, I'm always happy to hear from it.

287
00:31:06,410 --> 00:31:12,250
No, I think that was well said. Yeah, I think concerns about assessment are best handled that

288
00:31:12,250 --> 00:31:17,010
the court of revision and Council does have the discretion to modify the assessments

289
00:31:17,950 --> 00:31:24,430
and re-allocate them to other landowners. Councillor Clarke. Thank you and through you, Mayor

290
00:31:24,430 --> 00:31:29,410
and thank you very much for the presentation and everyone coming out tonight and and being a part of

291
00:31:29,410 --> 00:31:34,170
meeting. I guess my question is, and if you can sort of, maybe this is more of a drainage act

292
00:31:34,170 --> 00:31:39,750
question, but if you can put it in sort of layman's terms, you've mentioned multiple times

293
00:31:39,750 --> 00:31:46,350
that the other landowners require this branch A. So I'm just curious, if they're the ones that are

294
00:31:46,350 --> 00:31:53,330
requiring it, why is the cost and more highly proportion to the daels is? And again, I know you're going

295
00:31:53,330 --> 00:31:57,810
to mention the benefit assessment and the outlet assessment, but it seems clear that the benefit

296
00:31:57,810 --> 00:32:04,990
assessment for them is maybe none or maybe null and it's extremely high for these other properties.

297
00:32:05,530 --> 00:32:12,750
So again, I'm just curious on how that actually works and how that assessment was made on your end.

298
00:32:14,630 --> 00:32:22,210
So the, thank you, Councillor. So the Tim and Nancy Dale's property have access to the branch

299
00:32:22,210 --> 00:32:30,330
a portion of the drain and will benefit from the clean out and deepening of that drain

300
00:32:30,330 --> 00:32:39,330
and have improved outlet for their agricultural lands. The deeper drain will allow them to

301
00:32:39,330 --> 00:32:41,430
better drain their agricultural property.

302
00:32:44,460 --> 00:32:47,140
Councillor Elfitt. Thank you. And through your

303
00:32:47,140 --> 00:32:51,600
Mr. Mayor, again, to everyone in the audiences with us tonight and all the landowners involved in

304
00:32:51,600 --> 00:32:58,100
this project. Thank you for coming forward. This is certainly an important project to some landowners and we want to see

305
00:32:58,100 --> 00:33:01,880
some collaboration and I think that's a good conversation here that we're having tonight.

306
00:33:02,540 --> 00:33:09,760
If I can just ask through you, Mr. Mayor, for more input on Branch A, so we've heard about some landowners requiring this for their benefit.

307
00:33:10,360 --> 00:33:13,720
What other alternatives were considered as part of the project design work?

308
00:33:13,720 --> 00:33:19,200
I'm just looking at the initial drawing series appears that it is exclusively or predominantly

309
00:33:19,200 --> 00:33:20,840
on the timid Nancy Dills property.

310
00:33:21,200 --> 00:33:25,020
I'm just wondering where there are any other alternatives considered to redesign or to change

311
00:33:25,020 --> 00:33:29,280
the channel course to meet the same objectives for Branch A.

312
00:33:29,720 --> 00:33:35,800
We considered their request from the landowners regarding tree clearing and enclosure of

313
00:33:35,800 --> 00:33:41,580
the channel and we did not feel that that was a feasible option to pursue.

314
00:33:41,580 --> 00:33:51,400
It is typically best to utilize the existing natural features that are there, and there is already a channel there.

315
00:33:55,340 --> 00:34:02,820
So just further to that. So modifying digging out out redesigning was not a consideration fully explored or it was fully explored.

316
00:34:04,440 --> 00:34:11,800
It was not explored in the same depth that this report was completed in terms of the assessments

317
00:34:11,800 --> 00:34:19,140
and the approvals and the correspondence with the various agencies, not in the same depth.

318
00:34:23,100 --> 00:34:23,120
No.

319
00:34:23,140 --> 00:34:23,860
Councilor McLean.

320
00:34:24,580 --> 00:34:24,920
Through you, Mayor.

321
00:34:25,740 --> 00:34:31,160
So we've counted tonight provisionally, except this, this dream proposal, to what

322
00:34:31,160 --> 00:34:35,900
extent does it not become non-modifiable just hypothetically

323
00:34:35,900 --> 00:34:39,920
if the councilor chivalry saying, you know, if we're looking for a second opinion on the drain

324
00:34:39,920 --> 00:34:44,140
A, are we locked in and we can't go back that way?

325
00:34:48,300 --> 00:34:48,940
Thank you.

326
00:34:48,980 --> 00:34:49,400
Thank you.

327
00:34:49,440 --> 00:34:49,760
Thank you, Councillor.

328
00:34:51,800 --> 00:34:57,160
From the council's perspective tonight would be the night that you have accepted the design

329
00:34:57,160 --> 00:34:58,680
outlined in this report.

330
00:34:58,680 --> 00:35:08,100
the next avenue for looking at a modification to the report is through the Ontario drainage

331
00:35:08,100 --> 00:35:24,220
tribunal, which has experts in drainage that oversee cases similar to this and can weigh in

332
00:35:24,220 --> 00:35:26,760
on design features as well,

333
00:35:27,020 --> 00:35:29,880
but in terms of design tonight is Council's opportunity.

334
00:35:32,490 --> 00:35:33,370
Councilor Trevellain.

335
00:35:33,830 --> 00:35:34,950
So as a follow-up to that,

336
00:35:35,110 --> 00:35:36,830
we could do have the option to send it back

337
00:35:36,830 --> 00:35:38,650
to our J-Bernside to reconsider

338
00:35:39,110 --> 00:35:41,250
and present other designs before going to the drainage

339
00:35:41,710 --> 00:35:42,150
tribunal.

340
00:35:42,470 --> 00:35:42,710
Correct?

341
00:35:43,450 --> 00:35:45,530
I don't think that's the only recourse or is it?

342
00:35:45,710 --> 00:35:47,450
If we say no, it's not going to the tribunal.

343
00:35:48,290 --> 00:35:49,210
We'd go back to the engineers

344
00:35:50,350 --> 00:35:52,510
to possibly present in more depth

345
00:35:52,510 --> 00:35:54,770
the option that Councilor Ulrich referred to.

346
00:35:54,770 --> 00:35:55,710
That'd be correct.

347
00:36:00,320 --> 00:36:02,460
Thank you, Councillor.

348
00:36:04,240 --> 00:36:08,680
Sorry, was that question for the mayor's for me?

349
00:36:09,020 --> 00:36:10,400
It was good for someone to refer to.

350
00:36:10,500 --> 00:36:13,140
It was good for me.

351
00:36:14,100 --> 00:36:15,160
Through you, Mayor Peabody.

352
00:36:15,400 --> 00:36:17,400
I would just add that as we refer it back,

353
00:36:17,580 --> 00:36:18,400
it will add costs,

354
00:36:18,580 --> 00:36:19,520
engineering costs to the drain,

355
00:36:19,680 --> 00:36:20,700
as well as a consideration.

356
00:36:21,700 --> 00:36:23,840
But me, Mr. Peel, had further additions.

357
00:36:25,180 --> 00:36:49,300
I, at this time, I don't expect that we are thinking that we require an additional look at different options, as I mentioned we did look at this option and we did not think it was feasible to pursue in depth.

358
00:36:55,620 --> 00:37:15,200
Yes, sorry, was there another part to that question or is that if Council should refer the report back, they should provide very specific recommendations on what is to be investigated, because we feel we have put forward the best option here tonight.

359
00:37:16,620 --> 00:37:20,620
Okay, and next question from Council would be Councillor Elfick.

360
00:37:21,200 --> 00:37:27,480
Yeah, so three of us mayor. I certainly would support an additional file review on this, you know, I'm just not satisfied.

361
00:37:30,000 --> 00:37:35,240
Council here tonight about what alternatives existed. You know, I've had the opportunity to sit around this

362
00:37:35,240 --> 00:37:39,800
council table before and to hear about engineering reports that was going to be impossible to

363
00:37:39,800 --> 00:37:44,280
build a new bridge and walker with a completely closing it to the downtown core. And on referral

364
00:37:44,280 --> 00:37:48,760
back to engineers, we suddenly came up with a solution that was attainable, kept our downtown

365
00:37:48,760 --> 00:37:53,980
vibrant for that project. And I'm not convinced that all alternatives have been considered

366
00:37:54,460 --> 00:37:58,780
here, knowing all the facts that are coming forward. And I think that it's owed to all the landowners

367
00:37:58,780 --> 00:38:01,220
in this project that we consider alternative.

368
00:38:01,760 --> 00:38:07,000
So I'm certainly leaning towards a file review of this to have a second look at that branch

369
00:38:07,000 --> 00:38:07,880
A in particular.

370
00:38:07,880 --> 00:38:11,520
I know we're talking about specifics, so it's the branch A component.

371
00:38:12,180 --> 00:38:17,120
I'd like to know what alternatives may have been considered, and I'd like to know to

372
00:38:17,120 --> 00:38:22,940
everything was a comment in Ms. Deals' letter about what, I guess, which would be the

373
00:38:22,940 --> 00:38:27,500
way the water course was, but the actual attachments into the main drain itself from the existing

374
00:38:27,500 --> 00:38:28,020
properties.

375
00:38:28,020 --> 00:38:31,920
at Negating Branch. I'd like to have the engineers comment on that please.

376
00:38:36,020 --> 00:38:54,840
Thank you, Councillor. I will reiterate for the reasons outlined previously that this is the natural flow of the watershed, and there is an existing channel, and we are located in the wetland area.

377
00:38:57,780 --> 00:39:04,080
doing channel filling, channel relocation or anything of that nature would be a significant

378
00:39:04,080 --> 00:39:10,960
permitting undertaking and I feel this is what is before Council tonight is the best

379
00:39:10,960 --> 00:39:13,160
and most economical option.

380
00:39:14,700 --> 00:39:17,200
All right, Councillor Trevalle, then McLean.

381
00:39:18,360 --> 00:39:22,100
Yeah, I guess my question is maybe to staff that if we were to do this file review as Council

382
00:39:22,100 --> 00:39:27,080
self-agmanions. Do we have recourse to get a next third party? Another engineer to do it

383
00:39:27,080 --> 00:39:30,100
or is there, I mean, I've given the end of the comments here pretty clear. They don't,

384
00:39:30,240 --> 00:39:34,440
they're not going to, this is the, this is their opinion. So can we go to another or is this

385
00:39:34,440 --> 00:39:38,300
basically, there's no point to follow review because the cost so it should go to court revision.

386
00:39:39,420 --> 00:39:44,340
Through you, Mayor Peabody. I mean, I think that what we're hearing is that the

387
00:39:44,900 --> 00:39:51,640
engineers that we did hire who do drainage all the time felt that it wasn't feasible to look at

388
00:39:51,640 --> 00:39:55,380
other options beside what's been looked at because of permitting because of the wetland and

389
00:39:55,380 --> 00:39:59,220
because the cost would be significantly higher to all of the other assess landowners.

390
00:39:59,300 --> 00:40:00,780
Not just one, but all of them.

391
00:40:01,140 --> 00:40:04,660
And if it's a matter of assessment that really should be dealt with at the court of revision.

392
00:40:05,840 --> 00:40:11,620
But ultimately, if we decide now that we want a different engineer to review that one component,

393
00:40:12,360 --> 00:40:16,660
that really takes us outside of the scope of where the process is and the drainage act where

394
00:40:16,660 --> 00:40:18,200
we have an engineer that's been appointed.

395
00:40:18,200 --> 00:40:29,900
If you go ahead and appoint a second engineer, you know, now that engineer's going to have to review everything that was done by the first engineer, all of those costs are going to be shared by the, you know, assess landowners yet again.

396
00:40:31,020 --> 00:40:37,540
So I think what we're hearing is that the reason that this is feasible is because there's an existing channel.

397
00:40:37,980 --> 00:40:42,400
because of the permits with the SVCA, so, and because it's cost effective.

398
00:40:42,900 --> 00:40:48,240
So if we want to look at something else, not only is that going to cause a lot of costs for other landowners.

399
00:40:48,300 --> 00:40:52,400
You're also looking at a delay as well, because you're going to have to go back to the SVCA

400
00:40:52,780 --> 00:40:57,180
and see if they'll even consider anything else, which they may not, because there's already a channel here.

401
00:40:58,780 --> 00:41:06,000
All right, Councillor McLane, and I'm going to flip a question to somebody else on staff.

402
00:41:06,000 --> 00:41:11,700
Go ahead. Okay, just about the cost. So if I hear that there's cost that would be additional cost for engineering,

403
00:41:12,200 --> 00:41:19,220
it would go under the engineering cost for the cost summary shared up same percentage as we see already in the report. Is that correct?

404
00:41:19,960 --> 00:41:21,380
Is that how the cost would be shared?

405
00:41:22,340 --> 00:41:27,960
Like I'm just looking at the estimated project cost summary and under engineering costs, it says 165,000.

406
00:41:28,280 --> 00:41:35,020
So if it goes back, it gets added onto the 165,000, which ups the 710,000 correct, which is shared.

407
00:41:36,300 --> 00:41:52,720
Yes, I believe that would be the case and I would, you know, encourage council to think about the fact that you do have other properties that do want branch A to occur and I think it's important that you think about the properties that are benefiting as opposed to.

408
00:41:53,420 --> 00:42:03,920
You know, because those rights that the properties are going to gain under the drainage act are going to remain without property through subsequent owners despite how those owners may plan to use the property as well.

409
00:42:03,920 --> 00:42:08,440
Right. And the subsequent, like another question. So how much would that be the expected

410
00:42:08,440 --> 00:42:13,840
to cost for revision would be? And then number two is that if it goes to the court of revision,

411
00:42:14,380 --> 00:42:20,500
who pays for that cost? So the court of revision is sort of part of the standard procedure

412
00:42:20,500 --> 00:42:27,580
under the drainage act, which means all assessed landowners have the option of exercising their legal

413
00:42:27,580 --> 00:42:31,660
rights through the court of revision and having their assessment reconsidered in that manner.

414
00:42:32,400 --> 00:42:36,580
at the Court of Revision, so that's not an additional cost.

415
00:42:36,640 --> 00:42:38,360
That's already part of this process.

416
00:42:38,520 --> 00:42:41,340
Right, okay. So no one has to pay anything extra to go to the Court of Revision.

417
00:42:41,420 --> 00:42:42,320
That's correct.

418
00:42:43,660 --> 00:42:44,100
Great.

419
00:42:45,760 --> 00:42:52,160
Okay. We have a drainage superintendent here. Mr. Kobe and do you have any input on countertravelies?

420
00:42:52,520 --> 00:42:56,700
Idea of a third party because you're our third party.

421
00:43:00,760 --> 00:43:01,640
Kind of.

422
00:43:01,640 --> 00:43:16,560
But I guess just going on my past experience with the whole drainage process, I don't think I've seen a third party come in to reevaluate what the first engineers done.

423
00:43:17,860 --> 00:43:23,120
I've looked at it, I think the issue is more from a assessment point of view.

424
00:43:23,120 --> 00:43:28,000
The water's going there already, so from a design perspective, water goes downhill.

425
00:43:28,700 --> 00:43:34,260
I think that's the only route it can go at probably from a cost.

426
00:43:34,600 --> 00:43:36,500
It's perspective, the cheapest way.

427
00:43:37,120 --> 00:43:43,240
I don't know if I can't go to the north of the property line and then into the main drain.

428
00:43:44,220 --> 00:43:47,220
Unless, you know, probably significant cost to that.

429
00:43:47,220 --> 00:43:53,000
But I think it's the, I think we're down to who pays for what?

430
00:43:53,100 --> 00:43:56,140
There are several mechanisms along the way.

431
00:43:56,380 --> 00:44:01,660
The quarter of visions, the first one, if the appellant doesn't like that decision,

432
00:44:02,080 --> 00:44:05,300
then they can, they have the option of going to the OLT.

433
00:44:06,500 --> 00:44:09,940
The drainage act, it's been around since before 1900.

434
00:44:10,220 --> 00:44:12,680
It's a, it's a powerful piece of legislation.

435
00:44:12,680 --> 00:44:16,800
that does put property owners against each other,

436
00:44:17,120 --> 00:44:18,360
drainage is a big thing.

437
00:44:19,280 --> 00:44:22,780
If the upstream property owner needs a required drainage,

438
00:44:22,800 --> 00:44:26,240
is what it's called. He has the right to petition for that.

439
00:44:27,200 --> 00:44:31,700
And if the easiest way to get his water to a sufficient outlet

440
00:44:31,700 --> 00:44:34,960
is through another property, then that's typically how it works.

441
00:44:35,620 --> 00:44:40,400
And we've had several drains in the last probably five years or two,

442
00:44:40,400 --> 00:44:48,800
least that have done the same thing. So, um, yes, that's, this is my. Okay, thank you for your input.

443
00:44:49,220 --> 00:44:49,640
Sonia,

444
00:44:52,550 --> 00:44:56,570
the American body, the only thing I just wanted to add for clarity for council and

445
00:44:56,570 --> 00:44:58,830
the drainage matters, or...

446
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:18,240
And for various residents, but that clear that Branch A was always existing. It's not new. And you know, was part of this drain to be cleaned out as an outlet. So it was, it has been an existence.

447
00:45:23,040 --> 00:45:26,960
And so here's your hand up, but we're going to get through council first, no, just wait

448
00:45:26,960 --> 00:45:35,540
to do a sequence here, Mitch, go ahead, just a quick question, on the assessment percentages

449
00:45:35,540 --> 00:45:42,440
or proportions, and maybe this is a staff question, how, who is it that determines that?

450
00:45:42,460 --> 00:45:47,740
Like is this a scientific, quantifiable process, or is this up to the discretion of an

451
00:45:47,740 --> 00:45:53,140
engineer to determine who should pay what? I guess my question is, if a separate engineer

452
00:45:53,140 --> 00:46:00,940
were hired, would that change, or could that change the assessment proportions for these homeowners?

453
00:46:01,720 --> 00:46:07,340
Or is that sort of a fixed mathematical equation that's already been calculated?

454
00:46:14,280 --> 00:46:18,640
Through you, Mayor, I may answer that. I've done a number of reports over the years, so I think

455
00:46:18,640 --> 00:46:23,520
you've asked a couple questions in there. The first answer is, as a mathematical equation,

456
00:46:23,520 --> 00:46:25,900
And we use a systematic approach.

457
00:46:26,040 --> 00:46:28,020
So there is some math associated with it.

458
00:46:28,180 --> 00:46:30,040
There's also some variability in it

459
00:46:30,040 --> 00:46:32,120
and how we assess and break up the percentages.

460
00:46:32,780 --> 00:46:33,960
We have a systematic approach.

461
00:46:34,160 --> 00:46:36,380
We start at the downstream and work our way up.

462
00:46:37,040 --> 00:46:38,800
Internally, at Burnside, we have a system

463
00:46:38,800 --> 00:46:40,840
of spreadsheet that we've set up that we follow.

464
00:46:41,360 --> 00:46:43,380
We do an internal review of that process.

465
00:46:43,520 --> 00:46:45,300
So it's not just one individual goes off

466
00:46:45,300 --> 00:46:46,740
on their own and decides this.

467
00:46:46,880 --> 00:46:48,200
Does have an internal review.

468
00:46:49,200 --> 00:46:51,220
Your second question that I think you asked is

469
00:46:51,220 --> 00:46:52,320
if we hired a different engineer

470
00:46:52,320 --> 00:46:53,640
or they come up with the same numbers?

471
00:46:54,220 --> 00:46:56,040
No, they wouldn't come up with the exact same numbers

472
00:46:56,040 --> 00:46:58,500
because we have dollars that have been involved in here.

473
00:46:58,820 --> 00:46:59,780
Is it in a sense?

474
00:47:00,020 --> 00:47:01,820
It'll probably be a similar sense to those dollars.

475
00:47:02,880 --> 00:47:05,440
The third question I think you asked is how does council

476
00:47:05,440 --> 00:47:07,940
or the quarter revision go about changing that?

477
00:47:08,320 --> 00:47:09,400
What happens to the quarter revision

478
00:47:09,400 --> 00:47:12,720
is we'll present in detail how we came up with the assessments.

479
00:47:12,980 --> 00:47:15,760
So you'll see our logical approach and be able to understand

480
00:47:15,760 --> 00:47:17,080
while hopefully understand it.

481
00:47:17,280 --> 00:47:19,640
And we can explain it so it makes sense.

482
00:47:19,640 --> 00:47:25,460
And then the Pellants have the right to appeal and indicate where they think the dollar should go instead.

483
00:47:25,880 --> 00:47:27,780
Why they should pay less and who should pay more.

484
00:47:28,200 --> 00:47:35,380
And then Council or the Quarter Evision is left with a decision decide doesn't make sense to switch it, or is the logic that's been presented makes sense.

485
00:47:35,620 --> 00:47:37,020
And that's the process that's involved.

486
00:47:38,260 --> 00:47:45,220
So it's not like an engineering calculation per se of designing a beam and you know exactly the stress level that's on it.

487
00:47:45,220 --> 00:47:49,680
There is some opinion, there is some experience that's put into it, and it spills on over the years,

488
00:47:49,840 --> 00:47:53,500
but it is based on a method that was developed quite a number of years ago called the Tajian method,

489
00:47:54,080 --> 00:47:56,880
and then we evolved that method to today's standards.

490
00:47:57,900 --> 00:48:03,740
Okay. All right. Nancy, if you have a question, can you come up to the mic, please?

491
00:48:04,120 --> 00:48:07,480
So it's recording here. We'll get picked up, otherwise.

492
00:48:08,680 --> 00:48:15,960
I think they failed to note that Allen Dale's is already tiled into Branch A and it's been

493
00:48:15,960 --> 00:48:21,560
tiled in there for years, we tiled our farm, we didn't take the tile out, we've just left

494
00:48:21,560 --> 00:48:26,980
it and if there's an issue, I guess I can just come over and fix it, we've never plugged

495
00:48:26,980 --> 00:48:31,520
it up, we've just let things go, like it's left it the way that it was.

496
00:48:31,520 --> 00:48:39,340
So, and if bought Mrs. Bauder to occur, like even to the north east corner, and left

497
00:48:39,340 --> 00:48:45,620
this branch a alone, and just to save everyone money, like this, this train is already

498
00:48:45,620 --> 00:48:49,920
coming across from his property in to branch a. And we haven't, like we haven't touched

499
00:48:49,920 --> 00:48:56,800
it. So, when we've titled our field, we've, after his tile alone, we put tiles parallel to

500
00:48:58,420 --> 00:49:08,060
So, I don't understand we're leaving this branch A and then we pay a whole bunch of money so that they can say, hey, yeah, we've got branch A. You already have an outlet.

501
00:49:13,900 --> 00:49:16,620
Okay, there's no more questions or some council.

502
00:49:18,160 --> 00:49:23,360
Let's get a question. What's the timeline for the Court of Revision if?

503
00:49:27,300 --> 00:49:39,360
Yep. That takes a bit of math on my part. I think within 30 days, 20, within 30 days of sending the notice, sorry.

504
00:49:39,600 --> 00:49:41,920
And you probably have it off top of your head, whereas I count through the calendar.

505
00:49:42,340 --> 00:49:53,820
So it's between 20 and 30 days of sending notice of the provisional bylaw accepted, if it is accepted tonight.

506
00:49:53,820 --> 00:49:58,820
So between 20 and 30 days from sending notice to all landowners.

507
00:50:02,600 --> 00:50:04,100
Okay, then we.

508
00:50:05,800 --> 00:50:09,060
So the quarter revision will be made up of.

509
00:50:10,000 --> 00:50:15,240
Three members of council chaired by the mayor and if it goes that way.

510
00:50:16,560 --> 00:50:16,940
If council.

511
00:50:17,700 --> 00:50:18,940
Depending on council decides.

512
00:50:20,080 --> 00:50:22,540
I just had a question about the quarter revision.

513
00:50:22,680 --> 00:50:23,240
It looks a bit.

514
00:50:23,240 --> 00:50:32,780
I mean, Brockton's assessment is about $87,000, so I don't know who could answer this.

515
00:50:32,820 --> 00:50:38,040
So what if the court of revision didn't want to pay that and they didn't want to pay it?

516
00:50:39,940 --> 00:50:44,600
Because the mayor's getting dinged 87,000, which the mayor has to add to the tax bill.

517
00:50:45,960 --> 00:50:47,880
So what if the mayor doesn't want to pay it?

518
00:50:47,880 --> 00:50:49,220
What happens there at the court of revision?

519
00:50:51,560 --> 00:50:56,200
Through you, Mayor Peabody, my understanding is that the court of revision has the jurisdiction

520
00:50:56,200 --> 00:51:00,640
to reallocate the assessments, but they don't have the jurisdiction to completely reduce

521
00:51:00,640 --> 00:51:01,200
the assessments.

522
00:51:02,020 --> 00:51:05,560
So, you can take it from one, but then you got to give it to another, right?

523
00:51:07,340 --> 00:51:07,820
Right.

524
00:51:08,380 --> 00:51:08,580
Okay.

525
00:51:08,580 --> 00:51:13,580
Now, it's just a bit, maybe a bit of a conflict there that the council's also involved in the

526
00:51:14,360 --> 00:51:17,980
money when there is an interest there.

527
00:51:17,980 --> 00:51:21,040
This is why everybody loves the Drainage Act.

528
00:51:23,040 --> 00:51:24,120
Okay, Tim.

529
00:51:24,860 --> 00:51:28,300
Just a further comment or question if I may.

530
00:51:30,080 --> 00:51:33,060
Councils considerations tonight relate to the design work.

531
00:51:33,200 --> 00:51:38,040
I think there's been some questions about the applicability of the modified branch.

532
00:51:38,480 --> 00:51:41,560
You know, it's good to know that there are some preexisting elements of branch.

533
00:51:42,440 --> 00:51:46,600
If Council were to approve the plan provisionally tonight,

534
00:51:46,600 --> 00:51:51,100
I understand it can go to the court of revision for the assessments and reallocation of the assessments.

535
00:51:51,940 --> 00:51:58,620
But in the engineering report, there's a series of work plans and work projects that are going to be completed.

536
00:51:59,600 --> 00:52:05,940
So the question I have is, are all of those projects and costings, things that must proceed?

537
00:52:06,500 --> 00:52:12,600
Are there sort of preliminary steps that can take place to see if it resolves and satisfies the need for the drain?

538
00:52:12,600 --> 00:52:17,560
Um, at least in the initial stages and then certainly, uh, you know, if it has to have further

539
00:52:17,560 --> 00:52:22,380
work down the road, like, is there some sort of staging or triaging that can happen, uh,

540
00:52:22,620 --> 00:52:26,880
for the work, uh, just noting that that branch a component is about $52,000.

541
00:52:28,880 --> 00:52:29,480
Uh, three o'clock.

542
00:52:30,000 --> 00:52:41,880
Not entirely no. It would really be that this is a design that's moving forward and provided, you know, there's no appeals to the OLD. Then we would move forward with that.

543
00:52:42,160 --> 00:52:52,780
You know, there are sometimes an opportunity to face things in a, in a, in a tendering process, etc. But really this would be the design that would be, would be moving forward.

544
00:52:59,760 --> 00:53:12,160
Okay. Council had contemplated some type of referral and it was a direction from our J. Burnside

545
00:53:12,160 --> 00:53:21,160
staff as well as our drainage superintendent on that. So where's Council at that idea right now? Mitch?

546
00:53:23,360 --> 00:53:30,360
Yeah. I guess my question is from the engineering standpoint, if we say this is the only approach,

547
00:53:30,360 --> 00:53:36,800
which it sounds like what they're saying is there a way to get the assessment from a third

548
00:53:36,800 --> 00:53:44,380
party and have a second opinion on the actual assessed values? Because I feel like that's

549
00:53:44,380 --> 00:53:49,700
part of the concern at least is the actual proportion of those assessments. And I'm just curious

550
00:53:49,700 --> 00:53:56,040
if a second opinion on that is something that's allowed, if we can do that. And if that's something

551
00:53:56,040 --> 00:53:58,040
that would make sense in this situation.

552
00:54:01,520 --> 00:54:02,740
Is that quarter of a vision?

553
00:54:12,910 --> 00:54:12,970
Okay.

554
00:54:13,230 --> 00:54:13,970
Next question.

555
00:54:14,370 --> 00:54:16,230
I guess maybe it's a question on healthy process.

556
00:54:17,170 --> 00:54:19,730
So we either accept the by law.

557
00:54:20,450 --> 00:54:21,070
We're not really correct.

558
00:54:21,170 --> 00:54:22,590
There's no vote at this point of the meeting.

559
00:54:22,770 --> 00:54:23,610
Is there?

560
00:54:23,730 --> 00:54:23,870
Yep.

561
00:54:24,230 --> 00:54:25,270
There is.

562
00:54:25,690 --> 00:54:25,870
Yep.

563
00:54:26,210 --> 00:54:27,790
So there'd be a resolution.

564
00:54:28,150 --> 00:54:30,770
And then later we'd be, you know, doing first and second reading of the

565
00:54:30,770 --> 00:54:31,310
Provisual by law.

566
00:54:31,350 --> 00:54:38,110
So if we accept the by law, then it's up to the landowners to take it to the

567
00:54:38,110 --> 00:54:40,890
of any other, you know, remedies they may have under the act.

568
00:54:41,170 --> 00:54:44,510
And if we don't accept it, provisionally, what can we what direction do we give?

569
00:54:44,630 --> 00:54:46,690
We just, I'm just saying, it's obviously an obvious.

570
00:54:46,690 --> 00:54:50,370
Just keep mine, if you don't, you may also have landowners who have built themselves

571
00:54:50,370 --> 00:54:52,810
of remedies under the act for that as well, right?

572
00:54:54,230 --> 00:55:01,210
So, you may have some landowners who think that Branch A is going to be the most cost-effective

573
00:55:01,210 --> 00:55:04,730
for their properties, because the channel is already there, right?

574
00:55:04,730 --> 00:55:10,830
So it means if you don't accept that, you may also be facing some appeals that way.

575
00:55:18,520 --> 00:55:19,860
Okay, any further questions?

576
00:55:22,330 --> 00:55:22,910
Yes, Mitch.

577
00:55:23,770 --> 00:55:32,070
So I guess my question, like is there an appetite or is that something that can be done to get a second opinion on simply the assessment value?

578
00:55:32,130 --> 00:55:37,830
Because my worry is if you go the engineering approach, have a whole other file completed on this,

579
00:55:37,830 --> 00:55:43,810
And they find another approach that, instead of the, I believe it was $700,000, is $2 million to do.

580
00:55:44,290 --> 00:55:48,210
Then when you proportion that out, it's, everyone's going to be paying more.

581
00:55:48,510 --> 00:55:55,630
And so my concern is if this is the most cost-effective approach, which, from the engineering report and what they've said it is,

582
00:55:55,790 --> 00:56:03,010
if the proportionality of who's paying what is the concern, can that portion only be given a second opinion?

583
00:56:03,010 --> 00:56:07,110
So then we can at least look at it and say we've done our due diligence.

584
00:56:07,310 --> 00:56:12,210
There's a second opinion and both engineers come up with a similar number on that assessment

585
00:56:12,210 --> 00:56:17,470
value because we did just learn and hear that those values can change and they can differ.

586
00:56:17,710 --> 00:56:23,150
And there is some, it isn't a fully continuity platform.

587
00:56:24,270 --> 00:56:27,310
Through you, Mayor Peabody, you know, certainly there's an opportunity.

588
00:56:27,590 --> 00:56:32,810
I think to to ask, but I think you need to keep a mind that in order for another engineer

589
00:56:32,810 --> 00:56:37,610
to look at those assessments, they'd have to look at, okay, number one, what's the design,

590
00:56:37,830 --> 00:56:40,790
they'd still have to look at what's the watershed, they'd have to look at what properties

591
00:56:40,790 --> 00:56:45,250
are impacted, they'd have to look at of those properties that are impacted, who's getting

592
00:56:45,250 --> 00:56:48,930
a benefit, who has a legal outlet, who needs a legal outlet, where's it going to go?

593
00:56:49,590 --> 00:56:57,430
So it's not that, you're not really reducing the scope by a ton to do that, and so you need

594
00:56:57,430 --> 00:57:00,850
to expect that there will probably be significant cost in looking at that assessment.

595
00:57:00,850 --> 00:57:01,450
In

596
00:57:05,450 --> 00:57:10,410
addition to that, I just note that we are under requirements to provide notice, following

597
00:57:10,410 --> 00:57:13,610
the adoption of the provisional wireless, so there's only so much time, and that notice

598
00:57:13,610 --> 00:57:19,730
will contain what those assessments are, so we give landowners the time to appeal.

599
00:57:20,390 --> 00:57:22,890
So then the quarter revision can consider those assessments.

600
00:57:26,660 --> 00:57:30,540
And just further to our CEOs comments, I think that the concerns that are predominantly

601
00:57:30,540 --> 00:57:35,020
being raised are ones that need to be dealt with in the next stage of this process, that

602
00:57:35,020 --> 00:57:39,100
the only thing that Council should be invited to do that is to pass this

603
00:57:39,100 --> 00:57:42,980
professionally so that all the things that remain outstanding for questioning

604
00:57:42,980 --> 00:57:46,980
and answers can be dealt with in the appropriate form because I'm hearing

605
00:57:46,980 --> 00:57:49,100
here tonight that we can't solve that here.

606
00:57:50,850 --> 00:57:56,470
All right, so we have a motion that was in the package and I'll read the motion

607
00:57:56,470 --> 00:58:00,290
to put it on the floor for further discussion.

608
00:58:00,290 --> 00:58:01,250
Oh,

609
00:58:04,130 --> 00:58:06,010
yes. Mr. Cobene.

610
00:58:07,590 --> 00:58:14,170
Just a reminder about the landlords can choose if they want to draw their name or

611
00:58:14,170 --> 00:58:16,510
or others can add their name to the petition too.

612
00:58:17,990 --> 00:58:19,470
Just to make sure that happens.

613
00:58:20,010 --> 00:58:22,230
Oh, thanks a lot Steve. That was on my script.

614
00:58:23,170 --> 00:58:24,350
I lost it there.

615
00:58:24,770 --> 00:58:24,870
Okay.

616
00:58:26,230 --> 00:58:26,770
All right.

617
00:58:31,250 --> 00:58:32,630
Okay, so at this time,

618
00:58:35,160 --> 00:58:41,000
I will ask if there is anybody who signed the petition that wants to withdraw their name.

619
00:58:43,740 --> 00:58:43,900
Doug.

620
00:58:48,750 --> 00:58:49,630
Is that.

621
00:58:50,710 --> 00:58:50,750
Yes.

622
00:58:50,950 --> 00:58:51,630
Go ahead Mr. Cameron.

623
00:58:51,970 --> 00:58:52,750
Thank you Mr. Mayor.

624
00:58:53,110 --> 00:58:53,870
Yeah, Doug Cameron.

625
00:58:54,410 --> 00:58:56,190
I'm here representing my mom and dad.

626
00:58:56,510 --> 00:58:57,210
Elvis Ruth Cameron.

627
00:58:58,190 --> 00:58:59,810
A lot of 15 confession 11.

628
00:59:01,050 --> 00:59:04,210
Our property is at the very very beginning of the.

629
00:59:04,210 --> 00:59:05,730
The drain the young drain.

630
00:59:06,850 --> 00:59:07,910
Yes, we feel.

631
00:59:08,570 --> 00:59:16,530
There is no benefit to us, our whole farm is systematically drained, which actually goes to

632
00:59:16,530 --> 00:59:16,830
the south.

633
00:59:17,670 --> 00:59:22,510
Now that, yeah, there is, I believe there's before hectares that is represented on our

634
00:59:22,510 --> 00:59:28,150
farm, but it's, we've never had a water problem, as far as that little, the little sway or

635
00:59:28,150 --> 00:59:34,850
little drain that's at the bottom of our property, so if possible, to represent Mom and Dad,

636
00:59:34,850 --> 00:59:41,310
I would like to withdraw our appeal, or our submission to the right.

637
00:59:43,110 --> 00:59:43,330
Okay.

638
00:59:43,890 --> 00:59:44,570
Elven Ruth Cameron.

639
00:59:45,130 --> 00:59:46,270
Lot 15, Cassession 11.

640
00:59:47,610 --> 00:59:47,910
All right.

641
00:59:48,170 --> 00:59:48,790
Thank you.

642
00:59:48,850 --> 00:59:49,950
Thank you.

643
00:59:50,610 --> 00:59:52,470
Would anybody else like to, uh,

644
00:59:52,630 --> 00:59:54,690
with throughout their name from the petition?

645
00:59:58,500 --> 00:59:58,600
Okay.

646
01:00:01,520 --> 01:00:04,480
All right, so we have a motion, then.

647
01:00:04,980 --> 01:00:16,400
Sorry, through you, Mayor Peabody. I'm just wondering, maybe a fire engineer wants to explain that even if you remove your name from the petition, it doesn't mean that the drain won't necessarily, that you might not still be impacted by the drain.

648
01:00:16,640 --> 01:00:17,880
Just to, thanks.

649
01:00:21,010 --> 01:00:21,830
Thank you.

650
01:00:22,790 --> 01:00:33,170
So the gentleman who has issued a his withdrawal is not actually a signature of the original petition.

651
01:00:33,170 --> 01:00:53,670
And as Fiona mentioned, the only the properties in the area that require drainage have a vote so to speak on whether the project should continue.

652
01:00:53,670 --> 01:01:05,330
So, under the drainage act, the properties within the area that required drainage have the say in whether the project should proceed.

653
01:01:06,250 --> 01:01:20,250
And the four properties highlighted in the presentation were all signatures on the petition and are all within the area that requires drainage.

654
01:01:20,250 --> 01:01:31,930
So, the properties that don't have the drain on their property and are not getting an improved outlet for their agricultural lands are not in the area that requires drainage.

655
01:01:33,650 --> 01:01:35,170
All right, that's good clarification.

656
01:01:35,970 --> 01:01:39,370
Okay, sorry Doug, I should have read all four names.

657
01:01:40,610 --> 01:01:44,310
Either did I, so now both of us do for next time.

658
01:01:45,890 --> 01:01:46,190
All right.

659
01:01:46,970 --> 01:01:47,490
Okay.

660
01:01:49,690 --> 01:01:57,590
All right, that moves us along to a, yes, Justin, one more question.

661
01:01:57,930 --> 01:02:00,070
Oh, we have another question too from Mr. Dales.

662
01:02:00,490 --> 01:02:00,970
Yeah, sorry.

663
01:02:01,070 --> 01:02:06,370
I just, Mr. Dales is wondering what are the four names for the petition?

664
01:02:07,330 --> 01:02:11,970
And I guess my, my question would be pretty much, I don't know much about the drainage

665
01:02:11,970 --> 01:02:13,890
act, but you guys either vote yes or no.

666
01:02:14,530 --> 01:02:18,750
And then the revision, the revision of assessment, you guys can have a little

667
01:02:18,750 --> 01:02:25,270
accounts like a council meeting about that as well and you can change the assessment of who pays what

668
01:02:25,270 --> 01:02:30,110
you do that in-house. No, there'll be a public meeting with a quarter of revision with people

669
01:02:30,110 --> 01:02:37,170
coming back here and making arguments of what their assessment should be and how unfair or fair it is

670
01:02:37,170 --> 01:02:48,280
or whatever they feel. And that will be probably October, yeah, end of October. I'm going to really

671
01:02:48,280 --> 01:02:55,540
I haven't void the end of October, but it's between 20 and 30 days from when we send the notice.

672
01:02:55,860 --> 01:03:00,640
Yeah. All right. Mr. Dales, you're standing up for a question.

673
01:03:06,340 --> 01:03:13,340
Hello, Council. Alan Dales, our property is Bruce Road 20, 1047. We're at the upper end of it.

674
01:03:14,400 --> 01:03:21,600
Probably the youngest landowner in this project in the one with the highest bill of everyone.

675
01:03:22,460 --> 01:03:32,800
Even at that, I fully support this train, red, as a lot of you know, there is very little infrastructure in rural

676
01:03:32,800 --> 01:03:40,500
rockton that is still functioning properly. With the addition of all these tiled acres that's been going on,

677
01:03:40,600 --> 01:03:47,440
it's a lot like adding East Ridge Business Park and Tinded in the old system of Valley,

678
01:03:47,440 --> 01:03:58,780
Valley side road just not working it's creating problems further down the road and I think as land owners even if it there is no benefit to us

679
01:03:58,780 --> 01:04:02,280
We still have the responsibility to deal with our water

680
01:04:03,020 --> 01:04:04,680
so it's not

681
01:04:05,280 --> 01:04:09,200
damaging our neighbors as far as

682
01:04:09,200 --> 01:04:10,780
Branch A

683
01:04:11,440 --> 01:04:15,720
I would like to question the validity of their plan to close it in

684
01:04:15,720 --> 01:04:30,660
Um, to gain, to gain an area that's 30 feet wide in the middle of the lowest part of the property to farm it doesn't quite make sense, especially when a sprayer boom is 120 feet wide.

685
01:04:31,560 --> 01:04:45,540
Um, I know they said they would honor their old agreements and everything, but the entire point of the municipal drain is to have a legal outlet that is sufficient for everyone.

686
01:04:48,340 --> 01:04:58,620
Yeah, it's, it'd be, especially when Sagan Valley has already said that the plan would not work to farm a 30-foot strip in the middle of this wall.

687
01:05:00,420 --> 01:05:14,160
So, as an end, as a cost savings, it doesn't quite make sense to save 24,000 to spend upwards of 102,000 to closing a piece of ditch that's been there for 40-50 years.

688
01:05:15,040 --> 01:05:16,080
Thank you.

689
01:05:16,740 --> 01:05:17,520
Thank you.

690
01:05:17,960 --> 01:05:18,120
Thank you.

691
01:05:18,160 --> 01:05:22,300
For a point of information, I'll read from page one of the engineers report.

692
01:05:23,160 --> 01:05:30,180
The petition, the first petition was dated July 14, 2021, was submitted by Leslie Young.

693
01:05:32,120 --> 01:05:38,060
And Tim and Nancy Dales and Tom Dales, upon review of the petition, Burnside, noted

694
01:05:38,060 --> 01:05:41,360
the property description and role numbers had not been filled in the original petition.

695
01:05:41,360 --> 01:05:46,760
The landowners then signed a new petition, February 12, 2025, to correct the air,

696
01:05:47,060 --> 01:05:52,100
Ellen Dales, the new owner of, in signed in place of Tom Dales, the past owner,

697
01:05:52,540 --> 01:05:59,600
and the subsequent petition, November 2011-2023 was admitted by Patricia Batter.

698
01:06:00,460 --> 01:06:01,920
So it's in the engineer's report.

699
01:06:05,310 --> 01:06:11,070
So I'll move on to a motion on the design, and it's made by Councillor McLane,

700
01:06:11,070 --> 01:06:15,090
second by Councillor Clarke. That the council was filled you brought to nearby except the

701
01:06:15,090 --> 01:06:19,870
presentation engineers report prepared by RJ Burnside Associates Limited. And in doing so,

702
01:06:20,070 --> 01:06:24,950
approves of bylock coming forward provisionally adopting the young municipal drain. Discussion from

703
01:06:24,950 --> 01:06:25,430
council.

704
01:06:33,920 --> 01:06:38,500
Okay, just to explain things to everybody. So we had the public meeting and now we're having

705
01:06:38,500 --> 01:06:47,480
a motion to provisionally adopt the design work. And so I've read the motion. It's been made by two

706
01:06:47,480 --> 01:06:51,740
Councillors, there's time for council to discuss it further.

707
01:06:52,620 --> 01:07:01,460
And if not, then I ask for a vote of in favor or a post.

708
01:07:02,520 --> 01:07:06,840
And so that's what we're at right now, Councillor Elfick.

709
01:07:07,960 --> 01:07:08,340
Thank you.

710
01:07:08,340 --> 01:07:11,700
Through Mr. Mayor, just to summarize my comments as it relates to the provisional

711
01:07:11,700 --> 01:07:14,860
bylaw that we had a detailed engineering report here tonight.

712
01:07:14,860 --> 01:07:29,320
it was provided to Council. I review the report. We know that there remains concerns between adjacent landowners and around the design work and around the assessment of the of the drain itself that it seems that at the core of it.

713
01:07:30,000 --> 01:07:36,020
And it is the next step of this process to appropriately adjudicate those through the court of revision.

714
01:07:36,860 --> 01:07:49,720
I know that there's questions about still the design, but at this point, for the sake of not burdening all landowners that are part of this, with additional costs and additional obligations that they would have financially.

715
01:07:49,720 --> 01:07:54,740
It does seem that it's in Council's interest, at least certainly for more I sit, that we

716
01:07:54,740 --> 01:07:59,160
provisionally approve the by-law and allow this move to the next forum, where other remedial

717
01:07:59,160 --> 01:08:01,080
options remain available to the landowners.

718
01:08:01,760 --> 01:08:02,320
Deputy Mayor.

719
01:08:04,470 --> 01:08:06,570
I was basically going to say the same thing.

720
01:08:06,910 --> 01:08:12,790
I trust that these engineers have come up with the best design, and I would have concerns

721
01:08:12,790 --> 01:08:20,070
about entertaining a different location, and not getting support from soggy and valley.

722
01:08:20,590 --> 01:08:23,130
the cost would just triple.

723
01:08:24,850 --> 01:08:28,070
For this I support the motion.

724
01:08:28,910 --> 01:08:29,830
Councilor McLean.

725
01:08:30,330 --> 01:08:30,770
Through you, Mayor.

726
01:08:31,430 --> 01:08:35,130
I to support this and I think we're ready to move to the next step.

727
01:08:35,430 --> 01:08:39,050
I appreciate that we've heard from Tim and Nancy and their concern.

728
01:08:39,230 --> 01:08:42,670
I think the court of revision will take care of that in the process.

729
01:08:43,090 --> 01:08:44,250
One way or another.

730
01:08:44,790 --> 01:08:48,890
I don't feel that we're like this is part of that process right now and I'd like it to go with there.

731
01:08:50,410 --> 01:09:02,210
All right. And then Councillor Clark. Yeah, just to follow up with the discussion around the table. Certainly a lot of questions were asked a lot of discussion and I think that's ultimately good.

732
01:09:03,130 --> 01:09:19,270
I think in this situation that the real concern right now is if you were to go another engineering route and it comes up with the same thing or it comes up with a different solution that cost significantly more than again everybody involved is is going to be paying that amount.

733
01:09:19,270 --> 01:09:25,330
So I think for this stage we're at here and what we've heard from this sort of every point of view.

734
01:09:25,590 --> 01:09:31,830
I think going forward with this and then allowing the process to sort of unfold with the

735
01:09:31,830 --> 01:09:35,890
allocations of the amount makes sense at this time.

736
01:09:37,450 --> 01:09:43,130
Great. Having heard from Council, I'll now ask for Council to vote on the motion.

737
01:09:43,130 --> 01:09:47,270
as all those in favor raise your hand.

738
01:09:49,440 --> 01:09:52,600
All those opposed. Okay, the motion is now carried.

739
01:09:59,620 --> 01:10:04,960
Okay, that concludes the public meeting on the young drain.

740
01:10:12,830 --> 01:10:14,050
Thank you, Mayor and council.

741
01:10:14,810 --> 01:10:21,590
Thank you. Great. Yes, yes, thank you, Mr. Peel.

742
01:10:22,190 --> 01:10:28,710
Okay, now we have Council minutes, Council of Valley Council, Deputy Mayor Hutchin, that we adopt the August 11 minutes, all those in favor.

743
01:10:29,670 --> 01:10:36,950
That's carried business arising from the minutes. We have a motion on the pedestrian safety. Council from a clean, Deputy Mayor Hutchin,

744
01:10:37,150 --> 01:10:42,970
where Scott Street is home to the walker in post office, our own office, Victoria Jubilee Hall,

745
01:10:43,810 --> 01:10:48,530
and where as residents, including seniors, persons with disabilities, family visitors need to potentially cross the street

746
01:10:48,530 --> 01:10:50,490
and Jack's Street to access these facilities

747
01:10:50,490 --> 01:10:52,810
and whereas Councils committed to improving pedestrians

748
01:10:52,810 --> 01:10:54,990
safety accessibility and active transportation

749
01:10:54,990 --> 01:10:58,490
within the downtown core and whereas roadway design

750
01:10:58,490 --> 01:11:00,710
and traffic calming measures have been shown to improve

751
01:11:00,710 --> 01:11:02,450
pedestrian safety and courage motors to travel

752
01:11:02,450 --> 01:11:03,610
at appropriate speeds.

753
01:11:04,090 --> 01:11:06,310
Therefore, it resolves Council Direct staff

754
01:11:06,310 --> 01:11:08,250
to undertake a pedestrian priority review

755
01:11:08,250 --> 01:11:10,450
for Scott Street in the vicinity of the walker

756
01:11:10,450 --> 01:11:13,210
and Canada Post Office and Municipal Office.

757
01:11:14,190 --> 01:11:16,950
The review will include an assessment of pedestrian volumes

758
01:11:16,950 --> 01:11:22,310
crossing locations, vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, accessibility for persons with disabilities,

759
01:11:22,970 --> 01:11:28,890
existing roadway geometry and parking operations, staff are ready to report back to council with

760
01:11:28,890 --> 01:11:33,630
recommendations of costs, implementing the pedestrian priority area.

761
01:11:33,790 --> 01:11:39,570
Enhanced high visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb extensions, pedestrian

762
01:11:39,570 --> 01:11:43,710
warring signage, pavement markings, reduced speed limits for appropriate traffic calming measures

763
01:11:43,710 --> 01:11:48,410
any additional engineering improvements that would enhance pedestrian safety, staff will consult

764
01:11:49,230 --> 01:11:54,590
with BM Ross, South Bruce OPP, Accessibility Advisor, Community and other stakeholders

765
01:11:54,590 --> 01:11:56,550
during the review. Scott,

766
01:11:59,060 --> 01:12:02,400
Councilor McLean, through your mayor. Thank you very much.

767
01:12:03,600 --> 01:12:10,300
And I'd like to thank Deputy Mayor Hutchman for seconding this. This motion really does speak for itself,

768
01:12:10,300 --> 01:12:16,620
regarding pedestrian safety, we certainly understand that Scott Street is a busy spot.

769
01:12:17,440 --> 01:12:21,920
And I think it's going to be busier when we know that within the next two to three years

770
01:12:21,920 --> 01:12:24,640
we could be adding 10% to our population.

771
01:12:24,960 --> 01:12:29,640
We know that corridor is going to be popping for lack of a better word.

772
01:12:30,180 --> 01:12:35,480
But what I would like to add to this, if you would, and again, with the support of council,

773
01:12:35,480 --> 01:12:41,720
is that in terms of talking to some of our rate payers, some of our people who cross the street

774
01:12:41,720 --> 01:12:48,480
there, I really wanted to incorporate the cross over section at Jackson Street, but knowing

775
01:12:48,480 --> 01:12:54,040
that Bruce County kind of oversees that road, because that actually is part of the linkage

776
01:12:54,040 --> 01:12:59,040
in my mind. If you want to cross that street, it's a busy street and we need to kind of put

777
01:12:59,040 --> 01:13:03,900
that as part of the assessment. So, procedurally, I don't know if that requires the amendment to

778
01:13:03,900 --> 01:13:08,900
Jackson Street and a potential looking at a potential crossover or safety enhancements there.

779
01:13:10,580 --> 01:13:18,300
I'll seek your advice on that and asking for the support of council to at least look into this.

780
01:13:18,300 --> 01:13:20,900
Motion says Jackson Street, item two.

781
01:13:22,040 --> 01:13:23,140
I guess it's the brew is,

782
01:13:25,300 --> 01:13:28,140
yes, just making sure that the county is consulted.

783
01:13:28,440 --> 01:13:30,280
I don't see that at the end.

784
01:13:30,680 --> 01:13:30,820
Sorry.

785
01:13:32,220 --> 01:13:33,100
Other stakeholders, fine.

786
01:13:33,100 --> 01:13:39,300
whatever, maybe we don't need to. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate this being brought forward and, you know,

787
01:13:39,400 --> 01:13:42,900
generally no concerns. My only question is to do this initial review could just have

788
01:13:42,900 --> 01:13:48,760
have an estimate of cost. I know I'm not saying specifically, I guess on part two, like that the

789
01:13:48,760 --> 01:13:55,720
review that has done an assessment of ABCD, is there a cost involved beyond staff time to do the preliminary

790
01:13:55,720 --> 01:13:56,700
work in the motion?

791
01:13:59,640 --> 01:14:04,260
Through you, Mayor Peabody, it's pretty detailed with traffic studies and such

792
01:14:04,860 --> 01:14:10,380
I think we'd have to refer back to operations to determine that if it's past tonight.

793
01:14:11,640 --> 01:14:14,300
We can maybe bring a follow-up report on what this would involve.

794
01:14:17,120 --> 01:14:17,440
Yeah, sorry.

795
01:14:17,480 --> 01:14:21,360
My time, my question's not about, you know, the recommendations and associated costs for implementing,

796
01:14:21,800 --> 01:14:24,840
but just to come, like, yeah, to get to that, I guess.

797
01:14:25,180 --> 01:14:29,910
But no, you're saying you need to go back to staff, but likely to staff tonight.

798
01:14:29,930 --> 01:14:30,770
I think we need to follow it.

799
01:14:30,830 --> 01:14:32,790
I'd like the engineer and group advice.

800
01:14:33,890 --> 01:14:35,550
Sorry, I couldn't hear that.

801
01:14:35,550 --> 01:14:37,430
One of you, please.

802
01:14:37,950 --> 01:14:41,550
For you, Mayor Peabody, I think it's likely that we would need to get an engineer in

803
01:14:41,550 --> 01:14:43,370
quote on scoping out with that study.

804
01:14:43,510 --> 01:14:43,730
Okay.

805
01:14:44,430 --> 01:14:45,350
So it's not committing.

806
01:14:45,550 --> 01:14:48,510
I said this point to proceeding until we get that.

807
01:14:51,610 --> 01:14:53,390
All right, all those in favor,

808
01:14:55,890 --> 01:14:56,390
that's carried.

809
01:15:00,620 --> 01:15:12,340
Okay, and then we have report on the dog control, which by Councillor Crawford II, by Deputy

810
01:15:12,340 --> 01:15:17,360
Hutch in that we receive reports, BL number three, amend the dog control by law for working

811
01:15:17,360 --> 01:15:21,660
livestock guardian dogs prepared by these McDonald's. And in doing so, it proves the bylaw coming

812
01:15:21,660 --> 01:15:27,540
forward accepting the proposed amendments to the dog control bylaw. Discussion, Councillor Chavalli.

813
01:15:27,540 --> 01:15:32,360
Thanks very much. I appreciate Council's detailed or staff detailed report kind of comparing.

814
01:15:33,180 --> 01:15:36,320
There are their comments with what was in the motion in the general rationale.

815
01:15:36,620 --> 01:15:39,960
I was provided. I'm fine with the recommendations generally.

816
01:15:40,280 --> 01:15:43,460
Section 3.2 on the maximums. I think the exception process works.

817
01:15:44,220 --> 01:15:47,540
But I do, from my conversations, I'm going with agricultural stakeholders.

818
01:15:47,980 --> 01:15:50,460
I don't think this crossfried thing needs to be factored in.

819
01:15:50,620 --> 01:15:55,720
And I think that anyone who has a livestock guardian dog, they do want and they do use dogs that are bred for it.

820
01:15:55,720 --> 01:15:58,620
You don't want some animal doing a half a partial job.

821
01:15:59,560 --> 01:16:04,160
And in terms of the definitions, that's a valid point, but in terms of how we define

822
01:16:05,180 --> 01:16:09,900
what breeds fall under working livestock guardian dog or herding dog, I think it was just

823
01:16:09,900 --> 01:16:13,440
be following the Omafa guidelines, and that would be I think a very consistent straightforward

824
01:16:13,440 --> 01:16:13,920
approach.

825
01:16:14,500 --> 01:16:18,300
So I don't know if we need to amend or incorporate that, but I would suggest the prudent approaches

826
01:16:18,300 --> 01:16:21,420
is following Omafa guidelines or definitions.

827
01:16:21,420 --> 01:16:26,120
Um, otherwise I appreciate the report and some of the local Ontario sheep farmers who did

828
01:16:26,120 --> 01:16:30,060
some advocacy and then have had ongoing discussions, um, with me on this.

829
01:16:31,420 --> 01:16:34,280
Three of you, Mayor Peabody, just a couple follow-up points.

830
01:16:34,520 --> 01:16:38,840
I think when it came to cross breeds, it wasn't that the dogs wouldn't be doing the full

831
01:16:38,840 --> 01:16:39,320
job.

832
01:16:39,600 --> 01:16:45,260
It's that you could have a shepherd peer in these mix and why wouldn't that necessarily be permitted.

833
01:16:45,840 --> 01:17:02,480
Otherwise, if we say that we can only use the breeds that are recognized by Omafra, then in order for staff to determine that if they go to a farm and there's a dog that looks like it's a working livestock guardian dog, it would require them to ask the owner, can you provide us with proof of the breed?

834
01:17:03,100 --> 01:17:09,300
So how are they going to do that? Are they going to have pure bread dogs so that they can provide their paperwork showing that that's the case, right?

835
01:17:09,300 --> 01:17:12,420
So it's more a question of how do we actually apply that?

836
01:17:12,700 --> 01:17:14,140
So I think that's where we're saying,

837
01:17:14,460 --> 01:17:17,260
you know, if there's a German Shepherd

838
01:17:17,260 --> 01:17:18,840
that's able to work that way,

839
01:17:18,880 --> 01:17:24,000
why would we force a more restrictive regime on farmers?

840
01:17:28,240 --> 01:17:29,780
Okay, for the discussion,

841
01:17:32,160 --> 01:17:35,040
okay, all those in favor, carried,

842
01:17:36,540 --> 01:17:38,360
Lockered in lawnmower, sanitary,

843
01:17:39,660 --> 01:17:41,600
moved by Councillor Crawford,

844
01:17:41,600 --> 01:17:48,620
second-by-step mirror hatching, that we received the report on the Mower Replacement, additional

845
01:17:48,620 --> 01:17:54,480
information prepared by Tracer Terry CFO, and authorized staff to receive with the replacement

846
01:17:54,480 --> 01:18:00,760
of the Mower, funded from the Reserve Fund. Questions?

847
01:18:06,430 --> 01:18:07,130
That'd be mayor.

848
01:18:08,030 --> 01:18:13,890
Just one little question. How much were they going to give us for a trade-in?

849
01:18:15,940 --> 01:18:16,640
Was it that

850
01:18:17,940 --> 01:18:21,880
Okay, bringing the cost of a new one to 16,000.

851
01:18:22,260 --> 01:18:23,420
Okay, thank you.

852
01:18:26,750 --> 01:18:27,730
Further questions?

853
01:18:29,010 --> 01:18:29,930
Councillor McLean.

854
01:18:30,750 --> 01:18:31,470
Through you, Mayor.

855
01:18:32,790 --> 01:18:43,810
So I'm just looking at the replacement cost of estimated at $16,000 and then they go back and see that the one that we had was supposed to potentially be, well, it lasted five years.

856
01:18:44,630 --> 01:18:48,510
So just wondering if that's $16,000 actually buys the right more this time.

857
01:18:51,390 --> 01:18:56,530
I'm just an honest question, because it seems like we may accidentally purchase the

858
01:18:56,530 --> 01:18:59,210
Mower that wasn't for that application, right?

859
01:19:00,210 --> 01:19:06,710
Through your Mayor Peabody, it is the proper Mower for the cemetery due to the fact that

860
01:19:06,710 --> 01:19:09,790
it can only be a certain size to go through the different tombstones.

861
01:19:09,850 --> 01:19:15,110
So we can't get a bigger, more industrial size Mower, because then we can't go through the

862
01:19:15,110 --> 01:19:16,990
different tombstone areas.

863
01:19:18,770 --> 01:19:22,250
Right, so are we expecting the same length of time on the new more than?

864
01:19:22,550 --> 01:19:23,350
That's $16,000.

865
01:19:23,470 --> 01:19:26,670
Historically, we've always replaced them every four to five years, yes.

866
01:19:26,930 --> 01:19:27,930
Thank you.

867
01:19:30,660 --> 01:19:31,500
Sir, I'll think.

868
01:19:31,740 --> 01:19:32,540
Thank you.

869
01:19:32,680 --> 01:19:33,880
Through Mr. Mayor, just a question.

870
01:19:34,500 --> 01:19:39,820
We heard in one of the reports about this piece of equipment being used for leaf collection.

871
01:19:40,360 --> 01:19:43,700
And I believe there was about a $7,000 purchase made in 2022.

872
01:19:45,120 --> 01:19:48,380
For particular appliance for this particular law and tractor,

873
01:19:48,380 --> 01:19:55,340
Well, it'd be able to be used if we proceed with the new purchase because I think we're going from a law and tractor to a zero turn unit.

874
01:19:55,560 --> 01:19:56,340
Is that right?

875
01:19:58,480 --> 01:20:07,620
Through you, Mayor Peabody, the piece of equipment that's being recommended does work with the current leaf collecting component that we do have.

876
01:20:08,060 --> 01:20:14,100
If we go with any other brand, a manufacturer, then it will not work and we would have to buy a new leaf collector.

877
01:20:19,880 --> 01:20:24,640
Just another piece of information that preparing for this meeting.

878
01:20:25,400 --> 01:20:31,820
So the current unit that we have anticipates with maintenance life cycle of 3,000 to 4,500

879
01:20:31,820 --> 01:20:35,780
engine hours, we're about half right now.

880
01:20:36,960 --> 01:20:42,620
So I'm just curious what sort of brings it to an endpoint or refresh cycle now.

881
01:20:42,620 --> 01:20:45,520
You know, some maintenance, I think is reasonable.

882
01:20:46,260 --> 01:20:50,160
So even doing a $2400 plus HST repair,

883
01:20:51,080 --> 01:20:53,940
theoretically, we buy us another 1,500 hours,

884
01:20:54,260 --> 01:20:56,680
assuming that the components are all in good working condition,

885
01:20:56,900 --> 01:20:58,440
and we do that preventative maintenance.

886
01:20:59,020 --> 01:21:00,880
So just wondering if we do the repair,

887
01:21:01,120 --> 01:21:03,000
is it reasonable based on the assessments

888
01:21:03,000 --> 01:21:05,460
we've been provided to think that we will get more life

889
01:21:05,460 --> 01:21:07,360
or another 1,500 hours of life?

890
01:21:09,570 --> 01:21:11,450
Through your mayor, Peabody, my expertise

891
01:21:11,450 --> 01:21:20,250
is not in lawnmowers by any means, and this more is more of like a light commercial slash

892
01:21:20,250 --> 01:21:27,190
residential type more. Although we are using it in the cemetery, it's not the terrain in

893
01:21:27,190 --> 01:21:34,450
the cemetery. There's lots of divots. If there's a new burial and the land isn't necessarily

894
01:21:34,450 --> 01:21:39,690
smooth, it does create different challenges. So it does have a lot more wear and tear on it.

895
01:21:39,690 --> 01:21:43,930
Can I sit here today and tell you we'll get another 1500 hours on it?

896
01:21:44,150 --> 01:21:46,910
I don't know. I can't guarantee you that.

897
01:21:50,490 --> 01:21:50,730
Mitch.

898
01:21:52,090 --> 01:21:56,930
Yeah, just sort of follow up listening to the discussion here.

899
01:21:57,830 --> 01:22:03,030
I sit here and I look at the report and I appreciate the detail in this report.

900
01:22:03,090 --> 01:22:04,710
And I think there's a lot of good information.

901
01:22:05,710 --> 01:22:07,750
It's interesting that we continue to come back.

902
01:22:07,970 --> 01:22:11,850
I think there's been three separate meetings now that we've spoke about this law and more.

903
01:22:11,850 --> 01:22:15,350
So it's certainly something that keeps coming up.

904
01:22:15,790 --> 01:22:19,290
I guess my thought on it is that, again,

905
01:22:19,610 --> 01:22:21,170
it's not like we're sitting here with the engine

906
01:22:21,170 --> 01:22:24,210
on this lawnmower that's completely wet.

907
01:22:24,530 --> 01:22:25,730
It is just an oil pan.

908
01:22:25,870 --> 01:22:27,030
And from the sounds of the report,

909
01:22:27,190 --> 01:22:28,990
it sounded like it came from some form of...

910
01:22:30,000 --> 01:22:40,000
Of physical damage, not anything that would have regardless been covered under a warranty claim or anything like that, and it could have been from the bumps and the rough terrain.

911
01:22:41,140 --> 01:22:58,800
So again, and if you do look it up, it does say they last around 3,000 hours on the motor anyways. And I think it is expected to put in some kind of maintenance and repairs on our items and to not always just replace them the moment warranty comes up.

912
01:22:58,800 --> 01:23:00,960
because obviously if a company is giving you warranty

913
01:23:00,960 --> 01:23:02,720
until four or five years,

914
01:23:03,280 --> 01:23:05,460
they're expecting it to at least last that long

915
01:23:05,460 --> 01:23:06,940
and probably a bit more.

916
01:23:06,980 --> 01:23:10,360
They're gonna give themselves some buffer there on that as well.

917
01:23:10,800 --> 01:23:14,360
So I think again, for a small cost in this situation

918
01:23:14,360 --> 01:23:17,020
of $2,000, we have still a lawnmower.

919
01:23:17,300 --> 01:23:19,720
That's only four or five years old

920
01:23:19,720 --> 01:23:23,960
that I looked back at, it seemed it cost around 20,000

921
01:23:23,960 --> 01:23:26,540
back in that time when we purchased it.

922
01:23:26,620 --> 01:23:27,680
So again, it's an expensive.

923
01:23:27,680 --> 01:23:33,240
It's a heavy-duty lawnmower, maybe it's not their most commercial one that they have,

924
01:23:33,240 --> 01:23:37,560
but it's not like this is some cheap lawnmower. And again, I'll go back to what I said at the last meeting

925
01:23:37,560 --> 01:23:44,780
in that John Deere is willing to give us $5,000 or close to that for this lawnmower back,

926
01:23:45,340 --> 01:23:50,640
which means that again, it's not completely, they know that it's going to last more than

927
01:23:50,640 --> 01:23:55,680
And what's the the 1300 hours that we currently have on it right now?

928
01:23:55,820 --> 01:23:58,360
Or else they wouldn't want it back for that price in my opinion.

929
01:23:58,820 --> 01:24:02,760
So I lean more towards the $2,000 we can look at it.

930
01:24:02,760 --> 01:24:04,880
Either the following budget.

931
01:24:05,040 --> 01:24:07,060
See where we're at at that point.

932
01:24:08,160 --> 01:24:10,320
And and go from there.

933
01:24:12,660 --> 01:24:13,580
Councilor Trevelli.

934
01:24:14,000 --> 01:24:14,300
Thanks, Mary.

935
01:24:14,480 --> 01:24:15,180
Yeah, fairly succinct.

936
01:24:15,320 --> 01:24:17,300
I support Councillor Clark on this.

937
01:24:17,440 --> 01:24:19,180
I think 2400 right now.

938
01:24:19,220 --> 01:24:21,080
Hopefully we got a couple of years out of it.

939
01:24:21,080 --> 01:24:25,440
And even, I mean, based on the cost per year of the $20,000 law and tractor of the last

940
01:24:25,440 --> 01:24:29,680
four years, we're still, I mean, my rough math years were coming in an okay position to

941
01:24:29,680 --> 01:24:31,180
spend another 2, 2, 2, 400 on it.

942
01:24:31,660 --> 01:24:35,240
So again, I don't want to blame with this, but that's the option I'm leaning towards tonight.

943
01:24:40,100 --> 01:24:45,600
Councilor Crawford, through you, Mayor Peabody, I agree with Mitch and Steve on this one.

944
01:24:45,600 --> 01:24:51,860
I feel like that's a, I want to business and if every piece of equipment got sent back

945
01:24:51,860 --> 01:24:55,000
when Warren to was up the cost for,

946
01:24:55,040 --> 01:24:56,480
would just continually rise.

947
01:24:56,680 --> 01:25:00,920
I feel like for $2,400 to fix it.

948
01:25:02,040 --> 01:25:04,360
And if there's a bit of maintenance needed next year

949
01:25:04,360 --> 01:25:07,640
to keep it running, I feel like the piece of equipment

950
01:25:07,640 --> 01:25:11,760
isn't worn out, it's not even through half of its life.

951
01:25:12,640 --> 01:25:14,960
So I feel like we should just fix it

952
01:25:14,960 --> 01:25:20,140
and keep the unit in use at the cemetery

953
01:25:20,140 --> 01:25:27,440
until it starts to be more of a problem than what it is because like the John Deer wants to

954
01:25:27,440 --> 01:25:32,300
purchase it, they haven't, they're obviously going to take that piece of equipment and do a

955
01:25:32,300 --> 01:25:37,460
bit of repair to it and then sell it again. So they wouldn't buy it back if they didn't feel like

956
01:25:37,460 --> 01:25:44,620
it wasn't worth buying. So I think we should keep it and just spend the 2400 and save a bit of money that way.

957
01:25:44,620 --> 01:25:52,520
Councilor McLean. Through your marries, that's a price of 2400 plus HST. That's, and if I've

958
01:25:52,520 --> 01:25:59,680
missed this, I apologize, is that going back to John Deer with that? And if that's the case,

959
01:26:00,000 --> 01:26:05,840
is it feasible to get an estimate from any other place that would fix that, or that's just not how it works?

960
01:26:07,720 --> 01:26:09,920
I'm, if that weren't you, like it's like a free agent.

961
01:26:16,460 --> 01:26:18,340
Three of my people, we can refer that back to

962
01:26:18,340 --> 01:26:22,980
if that's the direction council wants to go on fixing it. We'll determine the most feasible method.

963
01:26:25,080 --> 01:26:28,620
All right, so you want to head that direction. Got to defeat this motion. Make a new one.

964
01:26:30,060 --> 01:26:35,380
Councilor Clark. Very small question. It was two weeks ago that we spoke last I believe

965
01:26:35,900 --> 01:26:41,080
is the more running still right now. I'm just curious if anything's happened in that two weeks.

966
01:26:41,860 --> 01:26:47,180
It was mentioned that this has to be repaired in a short period of time. And so I'm just curious

967
01:26:47,180 --> 01:26:52,970
like as of today yesterday, our things still operating and have things operated with that more.

968
01:26:55,410 --> 01:27:04,190
Three American people, yes, it's currently operating. We do have other measures that we put in.

969
01:27:04,370 --> 01:27:09,350
So right now, we are putting down extra coverage on the ground to make sure that an oil is

970
01:27:09,350 --> 01:27:15,350
filling onto the different surfaces and stuff because it is leaking, but as far as I'm aware,

971
01:27:15,350 --> 01:27:16,190
still operating.

972
01:27:18,230 --> 01:27:21,490
All right, so I'll call the question that's read.

973
01:27:21,730 --> 01:27:23,350
It's in favor of replacing it.

974
01:27:24,110 --> 01:27:27,230
So you have to defeat it at based on the discussion here.

975
01:27:27,470 --> 01:27:29,490
All those in favor of replacing the lawnmower.

976
01:27:30,650 --> 01:27:31,370
All those opposed.

977
01:27:32,270 --> 01:27:33,270
Okay, that's defeated.

978
01:27:33,890 --> 01:27:35,490
So I need a no motion to repair.

979
01:27:35,750 --> 01:27:38,810
Most repair from from Clark and Elfick.

980
01:27:39,190 --> 01:27:41,350
All those in favor of repairing the lawnmower.

981
01:27:43,190 --> 01:27:49,850
pose so it's a direction to repair and I'll

982
01:27:52,160 --> 01:27:54,900
just add that I've got a really rough

983
01:27:54,900 --> 01:27:59,140
property with a lot more I keep smashing into rocks and things and I've gotten

984
01:27:59,140 --> 01:28:02,900
really good at repairing it and I get my angle grinder out I replace the blade

985
01:28:02,900 --> 01:28:07,440
zoo name it carburetor you can fix it I could do it for free that's right my

986
01:28:07,440 --> 01:28:08,260
Oh, yeah.

987
01:28:08,300 --> 01:28:09,580
He said it.

988
01:28:15,020 --> 01:28:17,920
Hey, it's eight years and going, okay.

989
01:28:18,660 --> 01:28:21,240
Information items, got some.

990
01:28:22,760 --> 01:28:24,760
Council Crawford, Councilor Javali,

991
01:28:24,760 --> 01:28:26,820
all items in section 12, all those in favor.

992
01:28:27,900 --> 01:28:31,340
That's carried and some public notifications.

993
01:28:32,800 --> 01:28:35,420
The office will be closed Labor Day.

994
01:28:36,780 --> 01:28:40,700
Reminder the IPM coming up, September 22nd of the 26th

995
01:28:40,700 --> 01:28:44,980
and walk for Wenzhek screening on September 30th.

996
01:28:44,980 --> 01:28:48,600
And then a walk at six at the River Bend Park,

997
01:28:50,280 --> 01:28:54,260
the screening of the film will happen September 29th, though.

998
01:28:54,660 --> 01:28:54,980
Okay.

999
01:28:56,580 --> 01:28:59,920
Then we have a letter requiring correspondence

1000
01:29:00,460 --> 01:29:04,180
about the speed limits on side 15,

1001
01:29:04,400 --> 01:29:05,740
side word 15, rather.

1002
01:29:08,720 --> 01:29:09,480
Councilor Schvalli.

1003
01:29:09,700 --> 01:29:10,100
Thanks, Mary.

1004
01:29:10,100 --> 01:29:12,060
Yeah, I'm happy to look into this in principle.

1005
01:29:12,060 --> 01:29:16,140
Well, I think we should get some more data and maybe this refers to a previous question on

1006
01:29:16,140 --> 01:29:20,980
Council McLean's motion, but what would be the cost to do a traffic study like did the

1007
01:29:20,980 --> 01:29:21,820
base, the baseline?

1008
01:29:24,500 --> 01:29:25,100
Do you remember your body?

1009
01:29:25,240 --> 01:29:29,820
I think if Council wants more information, we bring forward a staff report related to this.

1010
01:29:30,000 --> 01:29:30,240
Sure.

1011
01:29:30,580 --> 01:29:35,400
I would support a motion to that end, bringing forward more information on the staff report

1012
01:29:35,400 --> 01:29:44,260
Trevali and McLean, all those in favor. Okay. That takes us along to our bylaws. It

1013
01:29:44,260 --> 01:29:48,920
comes in McLean and Clark, that we authorized the following bylaws to be red and acted

1014
01:29:48,920 --> 01:29:56,440
side. Till number is followed. 71, dot control. 72 additional residential unit toolkit by

1015
01:29:56,440 --> 01:29:59,200
law, all those in favor. That's carried.

1016
01:30:00,000 --> 01:30:05,300
Separate by law, on the new young drain council from a clean council are ill-ficked that we authorized

1017
01:30:05,300 --> 01:30:10,860
the following by levy red. First and second time, provisionally adopted, signed sealed,

1018
01:30:10,860 --> 01:30:19,140
numbered as follows. The number 70, young municipal drain by law, all those in favor.

1019
01:30:20,720 --> 01:30:28,140
Okay, that's carried. Just to explain to people watching the by law is not in force. It was

1020
01:30:28,140 --> 01:30:34,020
just past a first and second time and just that's it's a

1021
01:30:34,020 --> 01:30:40,020
provisional. Okay that leads us to the the business

1022
01:30:40,020 --> 01:30:44,380
brought forward by counselors counselor McLean. Through you, Mayor,

1023
01:30:44,520 --> 01:30:47,100
thank you very much. I've got three things that I'd like to

1024
01:30:47,100 --> 01:30:49,960
bring up. I mean, September's childhood childhood cancer

1025
01:30:49,960 --> 01:30:52,480
awareness month and highlights challenges faced by

1026
01:30:52,480 --> 01:30:55,180
children and families dealing with cancer and you know, the

1027
01:30:55,180 --> 01:31:00,920
municipality will fly the flag in honor of this issue just to mention that we have the last

1028
01:31:00,920 --> 01:31:04,260
music in the park coming up on this weekend. It's a double shock because we have an open

1029
01:31:04,260 --> 01:31:09,940
mic on Saturday at the market garden from one to three and also that's also in celebration of

1030
01:31:09,940 --> 01:31:15,060
international play music on your porch day which we've done for the last number of years and then

1031
01:31:15,060 --> 01:31:19,740
on Sunday we're back at the Heritage Water Park from one to three as well and the last thing I

1032
01:31:19,740 --> 01:31:22,900
to mention is congratulations to Evie Schner and Ruby Fulmer

1033
01:31:22,900 --> 01:31:25,560
on being recognized for students start up.

1034
01:31:25,780 --> 01:31:28,020
There's a barbeque and recognition on for them

1035
01:31:28,620 --> 01:31:30,940
on and other students on Thursday.

1036
01:31:31,800 --> 01:31:35,500
So happy that we've got some rock to people there.

1037
01:31:36,260 --> 01:31:37,780
OK, thank you.

1038
01:31:38,940 --> 01:31:40,920
And for their comments,

1039
01:31:43,530 --> 01:31:45,130
I'll just give the rest of council

1040
01:31:45,130 --> 01:31:48,070
a quick update about what happened at AMO.

1041
01:31:48,070 --> 01:31:56,750
the there was action taken on the pickard and damn the whole was plug today the river channel

1042
01:31:56,750 --> 01:32:02,770
is now back into its normal channel flowing over the damn it's temporary plug the the

1043
01:32:02,770 --> 01:32:10,170
permanent fix will take a while but just remarkable that of course of the river is now back into its

1044
01:32:10,170 --> 01:32:19,310
normal channel. And based on what I've saw today, the flood certainly wouldn't happen again with

1045
01:32:19,310 --> 01:32:28,270
all that property damage coming in the spring. So that was appreciated with Minister Harris helping

1046
01:32:28,270 --> 01:32:38,910
us out. And then the other item of concern, though, is the Corto security. We did not get a meeting

1047
01:32:38,910 --> 01:32:40,530
with a solicitor general.

1048
01:32:40,950 --> 01:32:44,590
And the message we got from the Associate Minister of Carthdaft,

1049
01:32:44,590 --> 01:32:49,310
that's where we handed over to, was that they're fine

1050
01:32:49,310 --> 01:32:52,310
with the funding formula with the municipality paying

1051
01:32:52,310 --> 01:32:53,430
for court of security.

1052
01:32:54,230 --> 01:32:56,390
And they've no intention of changing it,

1053
01:32:56,430 --> 01:33:01,310
which will be passed on to our taxpayers.

1054
01:33:01,830 --> 01:33:02,930
It's a total burden.

1055
01:33:03,270 --> 01:33:04,330
It's totally wrong.

1056
01:33:05,230 --> 01:33:06,770
Next year, we're going to have to redirect

1057
01:33:06,770 --> 01:33:10,450
we're going to have to get to the Mayor Godrich with us, Mayor going to sound to try something

1058
01:33:10,450 --> 01:33:18,310
a bit different. But all these delegations we've done on this, they just won't change it.

1059
01:33:19,790 --> 01:33:26,610
Yes, W. Mayor. Who do we approach to ask that the cost be delivered to the counties?

1060
01:33:27,030 --> 01:33:33,750
Like, can we go above them? Well, county is covering an hour. And of course, the liability is the county.

1061
01:33:33,750 --> 01:33:36,430
I was changed their mind, forced it back to us.

1062
01:33:36,470 --> 01:33:38,970
Here on county zaming that way of not paying,

1063
01:33:39,950 --> 01:33:41,690
it's a few counts that's pushing that agenda.

1064
01:33:42,690 --> 01:33:47,250
So it could, but it would all depend on me being

1065
01:33:47,250 --> 01:33:53,210
at the county seat to make sure that we don't lose that county funding

1066
01:33:53,210 --> 01:33:54,890
now, keep it in the budget.

1067
01:33:56,010 --> 01:34:00,650
So that was quite disappointing to hear that.

1068
01:34:00,650 --> 01:34:10,410
And then the Walker to jail reopening, we, that's still, that's still in the works, it's still a project.

1069
01:34:10,510 --> 01:34:12,930
The feasibility state though is not complete.

1070
01:34:13,970 --> 01:34:15,550
So that's where we're at.

1071
01:34:16,310 --> 01:34:16,590
Okay.

1072
01:34:16,990 --> 01:34:18,790
We've got motion to go into closed session.

1073
01:34:18,790 --> 01:34:19,810
Council from a clean council.

1074
01:34:20,010 --> 01:34:22,230
I'll go into closed session at 840.

1075
01:34:22,870 --> 01:34:25,930
In order to deal with the tensile litigation,

1076
01:34:26,090 --> 01:34:27,790
including matters before administrative tribunal,

1077
01:34:27,790 --> 01:34:32,350
affecting the municipality or local board, a drainage claim, all those in favor, that's carried.

1078
01:47:17,840 --> 01:47:24,720
We're ready to go. Welcome back to the open session of Brockton Council. We have a motion from Councillor

1079
01:47:24,720 --> 01:47:29,540
Elfick, Councillor McLean, that we approve direction provided to staff in closed. All those in favor.

1080
01:47:30,360 --> 01:47:36,060
That's carried a confirmation of proceedings. Councillor Elfick, Councillor McLean, following

1081
01:47:36,060 --> 01:47:41,740
I'll be red neck and that sign sale number to follow 73 August 25th, confirmatory bylaw

1082
01:47:41,740 --> 01:47:43,320
all those in favor.

1083
01:47:44,180 --> 01:47:49,620
Motion to adjourn at 850, Councillor Elfick, Councillor McLean, to meet again September

1084
01:47:49,620 --> 01:47:51,740
8th, all those in favor, it's carried.