[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[1:59] Okay, we have a motion to accept the council agenda, Councillor Travalli, Deputy Mayor Hutchin, all those in favor.
[2:07] That is carried.
[2:12] That leads us to the acceptance, the council agenda.
[2:19] Oh, there got that one.
[2:23] Oh, the periodist, any periodist on that? No. All right. So then we're going to move right into item 6.1 tonight.
[2:34] And that is the engineers report from RJ Burnside on the young municipal drain.
[2:44] 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.
[2:58] 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.
[3:17] So, Mr. Peel, welcome to the meeting.
[3:27] Thank you.
[3:30] Some slides to accompany the presentation.
[3:35] Hi, I'm Edison Peel.
[3:37] I'm an engineer with RJ Burnside.
[3:39] With me tonight is Jeremy Taylor,
[3:41] Senior Engineer with RJ Burnside.
[3:44] I trust everyone has had a chance to review the report,
[3:47] so I'll try to be somewhat brief.
[3:54] So, the young drain was an existing open channel,
[3:57] 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.
[4:24] The drawing shows the property owners that petitioned highlighted in red over top of the water shed drawing.
[4:33] This drain services approximately 1100 acres.
[4:39] The main drain includes 2.8 kilometers of channel and 600 meters of tile.
[4:48] The branch drain includes 650 meters of channel and 150 meters of tile.
[4:55] The drain outlets into a tributary of the tea's water river in the soggy and valley watershed.
[5:02] The dark blue line, if we could maybe go to the next slide,
[5:10] so the dark blue line through the middle of the page represents the location and direction of the main drain
[5:18] And the pink line towards the south extent represents the location and direction of the branch drain.
[5:27] The black line with the teal outline shows the watershed boundary.
[5:33] So the watershed boundary is the area that we have determined that produces runoff which flows towards the drain.
[5:42] If we could go to the next slide, please.
[5:46] 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.
[5:58] The Dale's drain is a much larger watershed as you can see on the slide.
[6:03] These are two distinct projects.
[6:05] The Dale's drain flows to the south and the young drain flows to the north.
[6:09] Both drains eventually outled into the Teeswater River.
[6:16] An initial on-site meeting was held in June of 2022, and an information meeting was held in February of 2025.
[6:25] 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.
[6:35] Several detailed investigations were completed to support our recommendations, including a topographical survey of the channel and tile route.
[6:43] Watershed delineation using both survey, landowner input, and publicly available contour information.
[6:51] Soil and investigations and test pits were completed, a wetland impact assessment was completed,
[6:57] an aquatic wildlife assessment was completed, as well as site walkthroughs with soggy and valley conservation authority,
[7:05] and department of fisheries and oceans Canada, to review the proposed work and determine the agency requirements.
[7:14] Upon our investigation we found the invert of the culprit under Bruce Road 15 to be too high
[7:21] to support the agricultural under drainage and also in poor condition.
[7:26] The structure reported provided by the county, right?
[7:30] 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.
[7:45] 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
[8:01] including clean out deepening and channel relocation and approximately 150 meters of tile installation.
[8:10] The installation of erosion protection and the receding and restoration of all disturb areas.
[8:21] So the cost estimate for the project has approximately 380,000 in construction.
[8:28] 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.
[8:45] The total estimated project cost is 710,000, so the next question is how are these costs divided up?
[8:56] 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.
[9:14] We are anticipating approximately 150,000 through OMAFA for farm tax class properties.
[9:22] That is a grant that is eligible.
[9:28] And after the 110,000 in allowances to owners for damage right away and existing features,
[9:36] That leaves us with approximately 200,000 or 28% of the overall project cost assessed to private lands.
[9:46] The municipality of Brockton, drainage superintendent, Steve Cobene, and Soggin Valley Conservation Regulations Officer,
[9:54] Madeline McFadden have been consulted throughout the project
[10:00] and go to the next slide.
[10:01] So the petition was determined to be valid based on that the majority of owners in area that requires drainage have signed the petition.
[10:13] That area that requires drainage is defined as the properties which are being provided a direct connection to the drain for their agricultural lands.
[10:23] 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.
[10:35] Should the petition still have a sufficient number of signatures to proceed following this meeting?
[10:42] There is a process and timeline for both municipal and provincial appeals from landowners.
[10:47] This municipal appeal is called the Court of Revision.
[10:51] The Court is typically made up of counselors
[10:53] and has the discretion to alter assessments only.
[10:57] The provincial appeal is the Ontario drainage tribunal
[11:00] and has the authority to modify any part of the report
[11:04] including allowances, assessment and design.
[11:09] If you could go to the next slide,
[11:12] it just depicts where we are in the process.
[11:14] there's circled the meeting to consider, so following this meeting should there still be sufficient number of signatures to proceed.
[11:25] We would move into the appeals process.
[11:28] Thank you for your time and consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[11:35] Okay.
[11:37] At this point, I know there's a number of people in the audience who may have questions.
[11:44] So we'll get to that. But first I'll ask, is there anybody online as a question?
[11:51] I'll entertain the ones in person first, but I just want to know if there's any big online with questions.
[11:58] No, thanks. So, it doesn't look like it. Okay.
[12:05] So for those who are wishing to ask questions from the audience,
[12:10] you can raise your hand and then you come to the mic and identify your name and
[12:16] and property address,
[12:25] okay?
[12:29] All right.
[12:30] Hello.
[12:31] Hello, welcome to the meeting.
[12:33] My name's Nancy Dales, and I have a property at 10, 15,
[12:37] concession 10.
[12:39] And we have approximately a bill of $51,000 on this project.
[12:45] And I'm here tonight to ask for a branch A that's posed on here
[12:51] to be removed for our cost savings for ourselves,
[12:54] which is over $23,000,
[12:58] and I have sent that into Council, the email that I sent.
[13:02] Yes, we have that email, Nancy, and we're going to read it into the record after this portion
[13:08] of the meeting. Okay? Are there, all right, Mr. Peel, do you have any input on that?
[13:16] The, uh, tendency of asked for that little piece to be deleted? I don't know how that would work if,
[13:22] Thank you Mayor Peabody.
[13:26] The concern of Branch A and its location have been discussed at the information meeting and
[13:31] at follow up correspondence with landowners.
[13:34] The other landowners utilizing Branch A have indicated that they require Branch A for
[13:40] sub-surface as well as surface drainage.
[13:43] Currently the surface and sub-surface naturally flows to the existing channel that is noted
[13:49] as Branch A and is partially located on the Tim and Nancy Dale's property.
[13:55] We do not expect any loss of agricultural land being that this branch is located within
[14:01] the wetland area of the Green Oxwamp wetland complex.
[14:06] This branch will service the under drainage for the Allen Dale's property, Tim and Nancy
[14:13] Dale's property and Patricia Bauder property.
[14:17] This channel is being cleaned out and deepens to accommodate these three properties.
[14:23] The existing Branch A channel is within the regulated area, as deemed by the soggy and
[14:32] Valley Conservation Authority.
[14:34] Through our consultation with soggy and valley and meetings on site, the conservation
[14:39] authority has indicated that they would not be acceptable, it would not be except any harmful
[14:46] impact to the wetland area and tree clearing should be kept to a minimum to support the channel
[14:52] improvements.
[14:55] Based on the SVCA comments, it does not appear to be feasible to-
[15:00] Area and fill this channel without causing harmful impacts to the wetland.
[15:07] In addition, I believe in Nancy's
[15:10] letter, there was a comment in regards to the Tammy and Leslie Young property and allowances
[15:18] there receiving. So, there is an existing channel located within the road right of way, along
[15:27] side road 20 North and Bruce Road 15 through burn side through discussions with the municipality
[15:35] are recommending the channel be relocated in this area onto private property. This relocation
[15:42] will involve the loss of some actively farmland to not impede the road allowance. Large municipal
[15:49] drains along roads can pose a safety concern and can obstruct the installation of future utilities.
[16:01] Thank
[16:03] you. Ms. Deals, do you have a follow-up to that response?
[16:14] I have a two-day branch,
[16:21] and why wouldn't they take it down for their own properties instead of
[16:24] 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.
[16:31] And everybody seems to have an early on us.
[16:36] Mr. Peel.
[16:42] Okay.
[16:42] Mr.
[16:43] Yeah.
[16:45] All right.
[16:47] Mr. Peel will now answer your question.
[16:53] Sorry, Mr. Mayor.
[16:55] Could you reiterate exactly what the question is there?
[17:01] Question was about the bottom property and the flow of water there.
[17:07] Yeah, so some portion of the bottom property flows towards the main drain as well as the
[17:16] portion of the property does flow towards the branch A in both the surface and subsurface
[17:24] water. And additionally it provides an outlet for a drainage system for another property,
[17:32] the Allen Dale's property as well.
[17:38] All right.
[17:41] Miss Dale's, we can get back to you, but right now
[17:43] we'll go to other people in the audience. Other people in the audience have questions. Yes. Yes. Just
[17:50] off our theater. I guess looking at this and and also coming up with the
[17:57] deals, the deals, the ditch coming along here. And as a property owner myself, I think the big thing
[18:06] here is people don't want to pay to service somebody else's property. So I feel like of that
[18:16] private lands, that people should be the town, sorry. The private lands that is getting
[18:26] assumed by private taxpayers. Well, if it doesn't benefit that person, why can't it be that
[18:33] the person who's actually benefiting and drying up their land that's paying for these taxes or paying
[18:38] for these projects that get done? It's pretty hard to put it on Tim and Nancy Dales and a bunch
[18:43] other people that happened to live in there and bought that property there, knowing that the
[18:48] green ox wants right there. So I guess it's not so much a question for the engineers, but it's
[18:54] at when it comes down to it, the person applying for the work to be done should be worked should be
[19:00] paying for it, when Tim, tile this land, he tile that to benefit his property. So if the municipal ditch
[19:06] needs done, and somebody puts their name in and they want it done, well, if it's only 200,000 dollars
[19:12] on a hundred acre farm. That's peanuts. So I guess my question would be not so much for the
[19:19] engine ears. I understand the report. I understand it could benefit it. Possibly until it gets
[19:25] to tease water river. But from a council perspective, it's where where do we draw the line?
[19:32] When people ask things to get done, we can't just put it on the neighbor. And that's nice people.
[19:38] Yes, thank you, Justin, and...
[19:41] Through you, Mayor Peabody.
[19:43] I think perhaps that's a question that maybe the engineers could answer,
[19:48] maybe our drainage superintendent could address,
[19:51] I think overall, the answer, though, was actually that
[19:54] that is the regime that's outlined in the drainage act,
[19:57] overall, where there is a mechanism in place
[20:01] so that you're having a third party engineer come into exam
[20:06] the watershed overall, rather than having only one or two properties that have to pay.
[20:11] Like I think that that's really what the drainage act is intended to do, but I'm wondering if
[20:16] either our drainage superintendent or perhaps the engineers have a comment on that.
[20:23] Yeah, I think that was well said. We follow a systematic approach to complete our assessments
[20:30] under the Drainage Act, and we follow the guide for Drainage Engineers publication 852 provided by OMAFA.
[20:41] I can explain in general terms how the benefit and assessment assessments are put together,
[20:50] but that may be better suited for our next meeting, where we're reviewing assessments in more detail.
[20:57] Well, I think a little update on how the assessments are determined would be a good, because
[21:03] we are a question for Mr. Hallfarts as about how we got into this and we got into it
[21:09] through the drainage act. And over the years, something that's never really been a process
[21:19] which has been collaborative. It's always pits neighbors against neighbors and I always see
[21:24] 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.
[21:38] But certainly those pleas to the provincial government for me, they're not going to change it.
[21:43] So we're stuck with the drainage act just in and it's going to continue to cause the sort
[21:52] of friction that we're seeing here tonight, seeing it every term of council for the
[21:57] non for seven years.
[22:00] So Mr. Piel, maybe just to update on how you look at the assessments and the benefits
[22:04] because a lot of people here need a primer on that.
[22:09] Yep.
[22:09] So thank you Mayor Peabody. There are two types of assessment, predominantly used in this report.
[22:17] The first is a benefit assessment and the second is an outlet assessment.
[22:23] The benefit assessment may include anything that increases the land value or could be
[22:30] 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.
[22:52] 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.
[23:06] Additionally, you do not have to pay towards drainage works upstream of where your runoff would enter the drain.
[23:13] 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.
[23:27] Okay.
[23:27] Thank you.
[23:28] Let's go back to questions from the audience who else would like to ask a question tonight.
[23:33] We have a few property owners here.
[23:39] If there are no questions, I'll ask for Ms. Dale's letter,
[23:42] corresponds to be read into the record for the meeting.
[23:49] Through you, Mayor Peabody, I'd be happy to read that correspondence
[23:52] that was provided to Council on the 23rd of August.
[24:00] It says, good morning, Council.
[24:02] It's coming from Nancy Dale's and the subject
[24:06] is young municipal drain, council meeting Tuesday, August 25th.
[24:09] Good morning, council.
[24:10] This Tuesday, August 25th, there is a notice of meeting to consider engineers report
[24:13] for young municipal drain.
[24:15] Our assessment is the second highest at a cost of $51,000, $57.
[24:19] We had requested the engineer remove the branch A from this project, which is on our property
[24:23] from the start of this project.
[24:24] We indicated to engineer that our plans are to fill this ditch in and farm the area on
[24:28] our property.
[24:29] This would reduce our assessment by approximately 24,000.
[24:32] The two neighboring properties have access to draining their farms to the main drain on their
[24:36] own properties instead of through Branch A. If Branch A is incorporated into the municipal drain,
[24:40] this allows the two adjacent farms to improve their farms by tiling through our farm via Branch A,
[24:46] which we are paying the most for and not being credited for loss of use of our farmland and
[24:49] future income loss from this. The engineer has credited less than Tammy Young on this project
[24:53] substantially for a small portion of their farmland that will be lost alongside the proposed
[24:58] ditch for the municipal drain. We are asking Council not to proceed with this project and refer
[25:02] report back to the engineer for modifications. I note that engineer is no longer an employee with
[25:07] Arjay Berencite. We have reached out to the CEO of Arjay Berencite and requested that an audit
[25:11] be performed on some of the assessments and work on both municipal terrains that that engineer was
[25:16] part of from Tim in the as he deals. Thank you. At this point in the meeting, we're going to open
[25:23] up to questions from council members who would like to go first. Deputy Mayor Hatchen. Thank you, Mayor.
[25:30] and thank you Edison for the presentation. I did have one question and it's regarding the
[25:38] 40,000 allowance for an existing drain. How did you arrive at that? And can you explain it just a
[25:46] little bit for us? Thank you.
[25:52] Thank you. So the 40,000 dollar allowance provided under
[26:01] section 31 of the drainage act existing drains.
[26:06] There's a bit of an explanation on page 3 of appendix A of the report.
[26:14] So the report has given a credit to the landowner for constructing a tile
[26:23] drain on his property to collect surface water from upstream lands for approximately 600 meters.
[26:33] This includes 300 millimeter HDPE, so that is high density polyethylene pipe, complete with an inlet
[26:42] catch basin at the upstream end. This allowance has been provided based on an estimated value to
[26:49] struck this tile and has been assessed to the affected upstream and benefiting property owners.
[27:07] Okay. Next question, Councillor Treballey.
[27:10] Thanks, Mayor Peabody, and again, thanks everyone for the comments and addison for your presentation.
[27:14] 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.
[27:20] regarding the, well, not engineer, but engineer consultants, whose name is on the report that's no longer with Burnside.
[27:27] This has caused some cause for concern for some of these landowners in terms of, I guess, hesitancy to accept what's presented.
[27:33] 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,
[27:40] 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.
[27:48] just to for that sake of transparency and to instill confidence in the work that's in the report.
[27:53] At the end of the day, it is the landowner that have to pay this, and of course,
[27:56] minutes of poverty and county to an extent as well. So really, I guess I would like to know,
[28:01] you've talked about Branchay a little bit, but based on the, the, the, the comment shared and,
[28:05] and what you've presented, have we actually done an analysis, a detailed analysis of how
[28:10] this could work without Branchay?
[28:16] So thank you, Councillor. Based on the reasons,
[28:21] I outlined previously that includes that the other landowners have indicated they do require
[28:28] branch A and its location within the wetland complex.
[28:36] I feel that the deepening and clean out of this channel is required to support the properties in the
[28:44] watershed and in the area requiring drainage. Follow up question, councilor Treba.
[28:51] Thanks and thanks Mr. Peel for that.
[28:54] I appreciate the comment that some landowners feel that they need this, but have we actually looked at it.
[28:58] I know I appreciate your general oversight on this, but can we actually investigate or what would that look like to investigate?
[29:05] It substantially not just based on the feeling of some landowners, I guess, to be more specific.
[29:10] And you know, I think it would be fairly punitive that because of water shed and being afraid to cut down some trees.
[29:15] Now people are on the hook for a lot more money.
[29:20] Thank you, Councillor.
[29:22] So this is the natural flow of the watershed is into Branch A.
[29:28] So I think this is the most cost effective route to get a solution for the properties that require drainage.
[29:37] It has the least obstruction into the wetland to utilize the existing channel.
[29:44] And that is the most cost effective option in our opinion.
[29:48] Okay, next counselor, counselor McLean, through you mayor.
[29:52] Thank you very much again.
[29:53] Everyone for your presentations and being here tonight.
[29:56] I guess if it sounds like to me, I'm hearing that branch.
[30:00] And we have Nancy and Tim concerned about their assessment given that this is all like a primer for me on municipal drains.
[30:08] What mechanisms do they have in order to kind of reevaluate what their assessment will be beyond tonight?
[30:17] Our clerk will answer that.
[30:20] Yes. Thank you, Mayor Peabody. I think that's a really important question to keep in mind where we're at in this process.
[30:26] So the purpose of this meeting is to consider the design and the report itself.
[30:30] When it comes to the specific assessments, there is another process under the drainage act that
[30:35] can deal with realignment of assessments, and that's the court of revision process where
[30:41] landowners are able to appeal to the court of revision and argue that there are assessments
[30:46] should be something other than what has been assigned to them, and the court of revision
[30:49] has the ability to reallocate that assessment.
[30:52] They can't change the overall amount, but they can reallocate it.
[30:55] So the drainage act does have a process by which landowners could avail themselves of that
[31:00] as well. If Mr. Peel has something you'd like to add to that, I'm always happy to hear from it.
[31:06] No, I think that was well said. Yeah, I think concerns about assessment are best handled that
[31:12] the court of revision and Council does have the discretion to modify the assessments
[31:17] and re-allocate them to other landowners. Councillor Clarke. Thank you and through you, Mayor
[31:24] and thank you very much for the presentation and everyone coming out tonight and and being a part of
[31:29] meeting. I guess my question is, and if you can sort of, maybe this is more of a drainage act
[31:34] question, but if you can put it in sort of layman's terms, you've mentioned multiple times
[31:39] that the other landowners require this branch A. So I'm just curious, if they're the ones that are
[31:46] requiring it, why is the cost and more highly proportion to the daels is? And again, I know you're going
[31:53] to mention the benefit assessment and the outlet assessment, but it seems clear that the benefit
[31:57] assessment for them is maybe none or maybe null and it's extremely high for these other properties.
[32:05] So again, I'm just curious on how that actually works and how that assessment was made on your end.
[32:14] So the, thank you, Councillor. So the Tim and Nancy Dale's property have access to the branch
[32:22] a portion of the drain and will benefit from the clean out and deepening of that drain
[32:30] and have improved outlet for their agricultural lands. The deeper drain will allow them to
[32:39] better drain their agricultural property.
[32:44] Councillor Elfitt. Thank you. And through your
[32:47] Mr. Mayor, again, to everyone in the audiences with us tonight and all the landowners involved in
[32:51] this project. Thank you for coming forward. This is certainly an important project to some landowners and we want to see
[32:58] some collaboration and I think that's a good conversation here that we're having tonight.
[33:02] 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.
[33:10] What other alternatives were considered as part of the project design work?
[33:13] I'm just looking at the initial drawing series appears that it is exclusively or predominantly
[33:19] on the timid Nancy Dills property.
[33:21] I'm just wondering where there are any other alternatives considered to redesign or to change
[33:25] the channel course to meet the same objectives for Branch A.
[33:29] We considered their request from the landowners regarding tree clearing and enclosure of
[33:35] the channel and we did not feel that that was a feasible option to pursue.
[33:41] It is typically best to utilize the existing natural features that are there, and there is already a channel there.
[33:55] So just further to that. So modifying digging out out redesigning was not a consideration fully explored or it was fully explored.
[34:04] It was not explored in the same depth that this report was completed in terms of the assessments
[34:11] and the approvals and the correspondence with the various agencies, not in the same depth.
[34:23] No.
[34:23] Councilor McLean.
[34:24] Through you, Mayor.
[34:25] So we've counted tonight provisionally, except this, this dream proposal, to what
[34:31] extent does it not become non-modifiable just hypothetically
[34:35] if the councilor chivalry saying, you know, if we're looking for a second opinion on the drain
[34:39] A, are we locked in and we can't go back that way?
[34:48] Thank you.
[34:48] Thank you.
[34:49] Thank you, Councillor.
[34:51] From the council's perspective tonight would be the night that you have accepted the design
[34:57] outlined in this report.
[34:58] the next avenue for looking at a modification to the report is through the Ontario drainage
[35:08] tribunal, which has experts in drainage that oversee cases similar to this and can weigh in
[35:24] on design features as well,
[35:27] but in terms of design tonight is Council's opportunity.
[35:32] Councilor Trevellain.
[35:33] So as a follow-up to that,
[35:35] we could do have the option to send it back
[35:36] to our J-Bernside to reconsider
[35:39] and present other designs before going to the drainage
[35:41] tribunal.
[35:42] Correct?
[35:43] I don't think that's the only recourse or is it?
[35:45] If we say no, it's not going to the tribunal.
[35:48] We'd go back to the engineers
[35:50] to possibly present in more depth
[35:52] the option that Councilor Ulrich referred to.
[35:54] That'd be correct.
[36:00] Thank you, Councillor.
[36:04] Sorry, was that question for the mayor's for me?
[36:09] It was good for someone to refer to.
[36:10] It was good for me.
[36:14] Through you, Mayor Peabody.
[36:15] I would just add that as we refer it back,
[36:17] it will add costs,
[36:18] engineering costs to the drain,
[36:19] as well as a consideration.
[36:21] But me, Mr. Peel, had further additions.
[36:25] 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.
[36:55] 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.
[37:16] Okay, and next question from Council would be Councillor Elfick.
[37:21] Yeah, so three of us mayor. I certainly would support an additional file review on this, you know, I'm just not satisfied.
[37:30] Council here tonight about what alternatives existed. You know, I've had the opportunity to sit around this
[37:35] council table before and to hear about engineering reports that was going to be impossible to
[37:39] build a new bridge and walker with a completely closing it to the downtown core. And on referral
[37:44] back to engineers, we suddenly came up with a solution that was attainable, kept our downtown
[37:48] vibrant for that project. And I'm not convinced that all alternatives have been considered
[37:54] here, knowing all the facts that are coming forward. And I think that it's owed to all the landowners
[37:58] in this project that we consider alternative.
[38:01] So I'm certainly leaning towards a file review of this to have a second look at that branch
[38:07] A in particular.
[38:07] I know we're talking about specifics, so it's the branch A component.
[38:12] I'd like to know what alternatives may have been considered, and I'd like to know to
[38:17] everything was a comment in Ms. Deals' letter about what, I guess, which would be the
[38:22] way the water course was, but the actual attachments into the main drain itself from the existing
[38:27] properties.
[38:28] at Negating Branch. I'd like to have the engineers comment on that please.
[38:36] 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.
[38:57] doing channel filling, channel relocation or anything of that nature would be a significant
[39:04] permitting undertaking and I feel this is what is before Council tonight is the best
[39:10] and most economical option.
[39:14] All right, Councillor Trevalle, then McLean.
[39:18] Yeah, I guess my question is maybe to staff that if we were to do this file review as Council
[39:22] self-agmanions. Do we have recourse to get a next third party? Another engineer to do it
[39:27] or is there, I mean, I've given the end of the comments here pretty clear. They don't,
[39:30] they're not going to, this is the, this is their opinion. So can we go to another or is this
[39:34] basically, there's no point to follow review because the cost so it should go to court revision.
[39:39] Through you, Mayor Peabody. I mean, I think that what we're hearing is that the
[39:44] engineers that we did hire who do drainage all the time felt that it wasn't feasible to look at
[39:51] other options beside what's been looked at because of permitting because of the wetland and
[39:55] because the cost would be significantly higher to all of the other assess landowners.
[39:59] Not just one, but all of them.
[40:01] And if it's a matter of assessment that really should be dealt with at the court of revision.
[40:05] But ultimately, if we decide now that we want a different engineer to review that one component,
[40:12] that really takes us outside of the scope of where the process is and the drainage act where
[40:16] we have an engineer that's been appointed.
[40:18] 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.
[40:31] So I think what we're hearing is that the reason that this is feasible is because there's an existing channel.
[40:37] because of the permits with the SVCA, so, and because it's cost effective.
[40:42] So if we want to look at something else, not only is that going to cause a lot of costs for other landowners.
[40:48] You're also looking at a delay as well, because you're going to have to go back to the SVCA
[40:52] and see if they'll even consider anything else, which they may not, because there's already a channel here.
[40:58] All right, Councillor McLane, and I'm going to flip a question to somebody else on staff.
[41:06] Go ahead. Okay, just about the cost. So if I hear that there's cost that would be additional cost for engineering,
[41:12] 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?
[41:19] Is that how the cost would be shared?
[41:22] Like I'm just looking at the estimated project cost summary and under engineering costs, it says 165,000.
[41:28] So if it goes back, it gets added onto the 165,000, which ups the 710,000 correct, which is shared.
[41:36] 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.
[41:53] 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.
[42:03] Right. And the subsequent, like another question. So how much would that be the expected
[42:08] to cost for revision would be? And then number two is that if it goes to the court of revision,
[42:14] who pays for that cost? So the court of revision is sort of part of the standard procedure
[42:20] under the drainage act, which means all assessed landowners have the option of exercising their legal
[42:27] rights through the court of revision and having their assessment reconsidered in that manner.
[42:32] at the Court of Revision, so that's not an additional cost.
[42:36] That's already part of this process.
[42:38] Right, okay. So no one has to pay anything extra to go to the Court of Revision.
[42:41] That's correct.
[42:43] Great.
[42:45] Okay. We have a drainage superintendent here. Mr. Kobe and do you have any input on countertravelies?
[42:52] Idea of a third party because you're our third party.
[43:00] Kind of.
[43:01] 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.
[43:17] I've looked at it, I think the issue is more from a assessment point of view.
[43:23] The water's going there already, so from a design perspective, water goes downhill.
[43:28] I think that's the only route it can go at probably from a cost.
[43:34] It's perspective, the cheapest way.
[43:37] I don't know if I can't go to the north of the property line and then into the main drain.
[43:44] Unless, you know, probably significant cost to that.
[43:47] But I think it's the, I think we're down to who pays for what?
[43:53] There are several mechanisms along the way.
[43:56] The quarter of visions, the first one, if the appellant doesn't like that decision,
[44:02] then they can, they have the option of going to the OLT.
[44:06] The drainage act, it's been around since before 1900.
[44:10] It's a, it's a powerful piece of legislation.
[44:12] that does put property owners against each other,
[44:17] drainage is a big thing.
[44:19] If the upstream property owner needs a required drainage,
[44:22] is what it's called. He has the right to petition for that.
[44:27] And if the easiest way to get his water to a sufficient outlet
[44:31] is through another property, then that's typically how it works.
[44:35] And we've had several drains in the last probably five years or two,
[44:40] least that have done the same thing. So, um, yes, that's, this is my. Okay, thank you for your input.
[44:49] Sonia,
[44:52] the American body, the only thing I just wanted to add for clarity for council and
[44:56] the drainage matters, or...
[45:00] 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.
[45:23] And so here's your hand up, but we're going to get through council first, no, just wait
[45:26] to do a sequence here, Mitch, go ahead, just a quick question, on the assessment percentages
[45:35] or proportions, and maybe this is a staff question, how, who is it that determines that?
[45:42] Like is this a scientific, quantifiable process, or is this up to the discretion of an
[45:47] engineer to determine who should pay what? I guess my question is, if a separate engineer
[45:53] were hired, would that change, or could that change the assessment proportions for these homeowners?
[46:01] Or is that sort of a fixed mathematical equation that's already been calculated?
[46:14] Through you, Mayor, I may answer that. I've done a number of reports over the years, so I think
[46:18] you've asked a couple questions in there. The first answer is, as a mathematical equation,
[46:23] And we use a systematic approach.
[46:26] So there is some math associated with it.
[46:28] There's also some variability in it
[46:30] and how we assess and break up the percentages.
[46:32] We have a systematic approach.
[46:34] We start at the downstream and work our way up.
[46:37] Internally, at Burnside, we have a system
[46:38] of spreadsheet that we've set up that we follow.
[46:41] We do an internal review of that process.
[46:43] So it's not just one individual goes off
[46:45] on their own and decides this.
[46:46] Does have an internal review.
[46:49] Your second question that I think you asked is
[46:51] if we hired a different engineer
[46:52] or they come up with the same numbers?
[46:54] No, they wouldn't come up with the exact same numbers
[46:56] because we have dollars that have been involved in here.
[46:58] Is it in a sense?
[47:00] It'll probably be a similar sense to those dollars.
[47:02] The third question I think you asked is how does council
[47:05] or the quarter revision go about changing that?
[47:08] What happens to the quarter revision
[47:09] is we'll present in detail how we came up with the assessments.
[47:12] So you'll see our logical approach and be able to understand
[47:15] while hopefully understand it.
[47:17] And we can explain it so it makes sense.
[47:19] And then the Pellants have the right to appeal and indicate where they think the dollar should go instead.
[47:25] Why they should pay less and who should pay more.
[47:28] 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.
[47:35] And that's the process that's involved.
[47:38] 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.
[47:45] There is some opinion, there is some experience that's put into it, and it spills on over the years,
[47:49] but it is based on a method that was developed quite a number of years ago called the Tajian method,
[47:54] and then we evolved that method to today's standards.
[47:57] Okay. All right. Nancy, if you have a question, can you come up to the mic, please?
[48:04] So it's recording here. We'll get picked up, otherwise.
[48:08] I think they failed to note that Allen Dale's is already tiled into Branch A and it's been
[48:15] tiled in there for years, we tiled our farm, we didn't take the tile out, we've just left
[48:21] it and if there's an issue, I guess I can just come over and fix it, we've never plugged
[48:26] it up, we've just let things go, like it's left it the way that it was.
[48:31] So, and if bought Mrs. Bauder to occur, like even to the north east corner, and left
[48:39] this branch a alone, and just to save everyone money, like this, this train is already
[48:45] coming across from his property in to branch a. And we haven't, like we haven't touched
[48:49] it. So, when we've titled our field, we've, after his tile alone, we put tiles parallel to
[48:58] 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.
[49:13] Okay, there's no more questions or some council.
[49:18] Let's get a question. What's the timeline for the Court of Revision if?
[49:27] Yep. That takes a bit of math on my part. I think within 30 days, 20, within 30 days of sending the notice, sorry.
[49:39] And you probably have it off top of your head, whereas I count through the calendar.
[49:42] So it's between 20 and 30 days of sending notice of the provisional bylaw accepted, if it is accepted tonight.
[49:53] So between 20 and 30 days from sending notice to all landowners.
[50:02] Okay, then we.
[50:05] So the quarter revision will be made up of.
[50:10] Three members of council chaired by the mayor and if it goes that way.
[50:16] If council.
[50:17] Depending on council decides.
[50:20] I just had a question about the quarter revision.
[50:22] It looks a bit.
[50:23] I mean, Brockton's assessment is about $87,000, so I don't know who could answer this.
[50:32] So what if the court of revision didn't want to pay that and they didn't want to pay it?
[50:39] Because the mayor's getting dinged 87,000, which the mayor has to add to the tax bill.
[50:45] So what if the mayor doesn't want to pay it?
[50:47] What happens there at the court of revision?
[50:51] Through you, Mayor Peabody, my understanding is that the court of revision has the jurisdiction
[50:56] to reallocate the assessments, but they don't have the jurisdiction to completely reduce
[51:00] the assessments.
[51:02] So, you can take it from one, but then you got to give it to another, right?
[51:07] Right.
[51:08] Okay.
[51:08] Now, it's just a bit, maybe a bit of a conflict there that the council's also involved in the
[51:14] money when there is an interest there.
[51:17] This is why everybody loves the Drainage Act.
[51:23] Okay, Tim.
[51:24] Just a further comment or question if I may.
[51:30] Councils considerations tonight relate to the design work.
[51:33] I think there's been some questions about the applicability of the modified branch.
[51:38] You know, it's good to know that there are some preexisting elements of branch.
[51:42] If Council were to approve the plan provisionally tonight,
[51:46] I understand it can go to the court of revision for the assessments and reallocation of the assessments.
[51:51] But in the engineering report, there's a series of work plans and work projects that are going to be completed.
[51:59] So the question I have is, are all of those projects and costings, things that must proceed?
[52:06] Are there sort of preliminary steps that can take place to see if it resolves and satisfies the need for the drain?
[52:12] Um, at least in the initial stages and then certainly, uh, you know, if it has to have further
[52:17] work down the road, like, is there some sort of staging or triaging that can happen, uh,
[52:22] for the work, uh, just noting that that branch a component is about $52,000.
[52:28] Uh, three o'clock.
[52:30] 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.
[52:42] 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.
[52:59] Okay. Council had contemplated some type of referral and it was a direction from our J. Burnside
[53:12] staff as well as our drainage superintendent on that. So where's Council at that idea right now? Mitch?
[53:23] Yeah. I guess my question is from the engineering standpoint, if we say this is the only approach,
[53:30] which it sounds like what they're saying is there a way to get the assessment from a third
[53:36] party and have a second opinion on the actual assessed values? Because I feel like that's
[53:44] part of the concern at least is the actual proportion of those assessments. And I'm just curious
[53:49] if a second opinion on that is something that's allowed, if we can do that. And if that's something
[53:56] that would make sense in this situation.
[54:01] Is that quarter of a vision?
[54:12] Okay.
[54:13] Next question.
[54:14] I guess maybe it's a question on healthy process.
[54:17] So we either accept the by law.
[54:20] We're not really correct.
[54:21] There's no vote at this point of the meeting.
[54:22] Is there?
[54:23] Yep.
[54:24] There is.
[54:25] Yep.
[54:26] So there'd be a resolution.
[54:28] And then later we'd be, you know, doing first and second reading of the
[54:30] Provisual by law.
[54:31] So if we accept the by law, then it's up to the landowners to take it to the
[54:38] of any other, you know, remedies they may have under the act.
[54:41] And if we don't accept it, provisionally, what can we what direction do we give?
[54:44] We just, I'm just saying, it's obviously an obvious.
[54:46] Just keep mine, if you don't, you may also have landowners who have built themselves
[54:50] of remedies under the act for that as well, right?
[54:54] So, you may have some landowners who think that Branch A is going to be the most cost-effective
[55:01] for their properties, because the channel is already there, right?
[55:04] So it means if you don't accept that, you may also be facing some appeals that way.
[55:18] Okay, any further questions?
[55:22] Yes, Mitch.
[55:23] 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?
[55:32] Because my worry is if you go the engineering approach, have a whole other file completed on this,
[55:37] And they find another approach that, instead of the, I believe it was $700,000, is $2 million to do.
[55:44] Then when you proportion that out, it's, everyone's going to be paying more.
[55:48] 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,
[55:55] if the proportionality of who's paying what is the concern, can that portion only be given a second opinion?
[56:03] So then we can at least look at it and say we've done our due diligence.
[56:07] There's a second opinion and both engineers come up with a similar number on that assessment
[56:12] value because we did just learn and hear that those values can change and they can differ.
[56:17] And there is some, it isn't a fully continuity platform.
[56:24] Through you, Mayor Peabody, you know, certainly there's an opportunity.
[56:27] I think to to ask, but I think you need to keep a mind that in order for another engineer
[56:32] to look at those assessments, they'd have to look at, okay, number one, what's the design,
[56:37] they'd still have to look at what's the watershed, they'd have to look at what properties
[56:40] are impacted, they'd have to look at of those properties that are impacted, who's getting
[56:45] a benefit, who has a legal outlet, who needs a legal outlet, where's it going to go?
[56:49] So it's not that, you're not really reducing the scope by a ton to do that, and so you need
[56:57] to expect that there will probably be significant cost in looking at that assessment.
[57:00] In
[57:05] addition to that, I just note that we are under requirements to provide notice, following
[57:10] the adoption of the provisional wireless, so there's only so much time, and that notice
[57:13] will contain what those assessments are, so we give landowners the time to appeal.
[57:20] So then the quarter revision can consider those assessments.
[57:26] And just further to our CEOs comments, I think that the concerns that are predominantly
[57:30] being raised are ones that need to be dealt with in the next stage of this process, that
[57:35] the only thing that Council should be invited to do that is to pass this
[57:39] professionally so that all the things that remain outstanding for questioning
[57:42] and answers can be dealt with in the appropriate form because I'm hearing
[57:46] here tonight that we can't solve that here.
[57:50] All right, so we have a motion that was in the package and I'll read the motion
[57:56] to put it on the floor for further discussion.
[58:00] Oh,
[58:04] yes. Mr. Cobene.
[58:07] Just a reminder about the landlords can choose if they want to draw their name or
[58:14] or others can add their name to the petition too.
[58:17] Just to make sure that happens.
[58:20] Oh, thanks a lot Steve. That was on my script.
[58:23] I lost it there.
[58:24] Okay.
[58:26] All right.
[58:31] Okay, so at this time,
[58:35] I will ask if there is anybody who signed the petition that wants to withdraw their name.
[58:43] Doug.
[58:48] Is that.
[58:50] Yes.
[58:50] Go ahead Mr. Cameron.
[58:51] Thank you Mr. Mayor.
[58:53] Yeah, Doug Cameron.
[58:54] I'm here representing my mom and dad.
[58:56] Elvis Ruth Cameron.
[58:58] A lot of 15 confession 11.
[59:01] Our property is at the very very beginning of the.
[59:04] The drain the young drain.
[59:06] Yes, we feel.
[59:08] There is no benefit to us, our whole farm is systematically drained, which actually goes to
[59:16] the south.
[59:17] Now that, yeah, there is, I believe there's before hectares that is represented on our
[59:22] farm, but it's, we've never had a water problem, as far as that little, the little sway or
[59:28] little drain that's at the bottom of our property, so if possible, to represent Mom and Dad,
[59:34] I would like to withdraw our appeal, or our submission to the right.
[59:43] Okay.
[59:43] Elven Ruth Cameron.
[59:45] Lot 15, Cassession 11.
[59:47] All right.
[59:48] Thank you.
[59:48] Thank you.
[59:50] Would anybody else like to, uh,
[59:52] with throughout their name from the petition?
[59:58] Okay.
[1:00:01] All right, so we have a motion, then.
[1:00:04] 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.
[1:00:16] Just to, thanks.
[1:00:21] Thank you.
[1:00:22] So the gentleman who has issued a his withdrawal is not actually a signature of the original petition.
[1:00:33] 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.
[1:00:53] So, under the drainage act, the properties within the area that required drainage have the say in whether the project should proceed.
[1:01:06] And the four properties highlighted in the presentation were all signatures on the petition and are all within the area that requires drainage.
[1:01:20] 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.
[1:01:33] All right, that's good clarification.
[1:01:35] Okay, sorry Doug, I should have read all four names.
[1:01:40] Either did I, so now both of us do for next time.
[1:01:45] All right.
[1:01:46] Okay.
[1:01:49] All right, that moves us along to a, yes, Justin, one more question.
[1:01:57] Oh, we have another question too from Mr. Dales.
[1:02:00] Yeah, sorry.
[1:02:01] I just, Mr. Dales is wondering what are the four names for the petition?
[1:02:07] And I guess my, my question would be pretty much, I don't know much about the drainage
[1:02:11] act, but you guys either vote yes or no.
[1:02:14] And then the revision, the revision of assessment, you guys can have a little
[1:02:18] accounts like a council meeting about that as well and you can change the assessment of who pays what
[1:02:25] you do that in-house. No, there'll be a public meeting with a quarter of revision with people
[1:02:30] coming back here and making arguments of what their assessment should be and how unfair or fair it is
[1:02:37] or whatever they feel. And that will be probably October, yeah, end of October. I'm going to really
[1:02:48] I haven't void the end of October, but it's between 20 and 30 days from when we send the notice.
[1:02:55] Yeah. All right. Mr. Dales, you're standing up for a question.
[1:03:06] Hello, Council. Alan Dales, our property is Bruce Road 20, 1047. We're at the upper end of it.
[1:03:14] Probably the youngest landowner in this project in the one with the highest bill of everyone.
[1:03:22] Even at that, I fully support this train, red, as a lot of you know, there is very little infrastructure in rural
[1:03:32] rockton that is still functioning properly. With the addition of all these tiled acres that's been going on,
[1:03:40] it's a lot like adding East Ridge Business Park and Tinded in the old system of Valley,
[1:03:47] 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
[1:03:58] We still have the responsibility to deal with our water
[1:04:03] so it's not
[1:04:05] damaging our neighbors as far as
[1:04:09] Branch A
[1:04:11] I would like to question the validity of their plan to close it in
[1:04:15] 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.
[1:04:31] 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.
[1:04:48] 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.
[1:05:00] 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.
[1:05:15] Thank you.
[1:05:16] Thank you.
[1:05:17] Thank you.
[1:05:18] For a point of information, I'll read from page one of the engineers report.
[1:05:23] The petition, the first petition was dated July 14, 2021, was submitted by Leslie Young.
[1:05:32] And Tim and Nancy Dales and Tom Dales, upon review of the petition, Burnside, noted
[1:05:38] the property description and role numbers had not been filled in the original petition.
[1:05:41] The landowners then signed a new petition, February 12, 2025, to correct the air,
[1:05:47] Ellen Dales, the new owner of, in signed in place of Tom Dales, the past owner,
[1:05:52] and the subsequent petition, November 2011-2023 was admitted by Patricia Batter.
[1:06:00] So it's in the engineer's report.
[1:06:05] So I'll move on to a motion on the design, and it's made by Councillor McLane,
[1:06:11] second by Councillor Clarke. That the council was filled you brought to nearby except the
[1:06:15] presentation engineers report prepared by RJ Burnside Associates Limited. And in doing so,
[1:06:20] approves of bylock coming forward provisionally adopting the young municipal drain. Discussion from
[1:06:24] council.
[1:06:33] Okay, just to explain things to everybody. So we had the public meeting and now we're having
[1:06:38] a motion to provisionally adopt the design work. And so I've read the motion. It's been made by two
[1:06:47] Councillors, there's time for council to discuss it further.
[1:06:52] And if not, then I ask for a vote of in favor or a post.
[1:07:02] And so that's what we're at right now, Councillor Elfick.
[1:07:07] Thank you.
[1:07:08] Through Mr. Mayor, just to summarize my comments as it relates to the provisional
[1:07:11] bylaw that we had a detailed engineering report here tonight.
[1:07:14] 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.
[1:07:30] And it is the next step of this process to appropriately adjudicate those through the court of revision.
[1:07:36] 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.
[1:07:49] It does seem that it's in Council's interest, at least certainly for more I sit, that we
[1:07:54] provisionally approve the by-law and allow this move to the next forum, where other remedial
[1:07:59] options remain available to the landowners.
[1:08:01] Deputy Mayor.
[1:08:04] I was basically going to say the same thing.
[1:08:06] I trust that these engineers have come up with the best design, and I would have concerns
[1:08:12] about entertaining a different location, and not getting support from soggy and valley.
[1:08:20] the cost would just triple.
[1:08:24] For this I support the motion.
[1:08:28] Councilor McLean.
[1:08:30] Through you, Mayor.
[1:08:31] I to support this and I think we're ready to move to the next step.
[1:08:35] I appreciate that we've heard from Tim and Nancy and their concern.
[1:08:39] I think the court of revision will take care of that in the process.
[1:08:43] One way or another.
[1:08:44] 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.
[1:08:50] 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.
[1:09:03] 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.
[1:09:19] So I think for this stage we're at here and what we've heard from this sort of every point of view.
[1:09:25] I think going forward with this and then allowing the process to sort of unfold with the
[1:09:31] allocations of the amount makes sense at this time.
[1:09:37] Great. Having heard from Council, I'll now ask for Council to vote on the motion.
[1:09:43] as all those in favor raise your hand.
[1:09:49] All those opposed. Okay, the motion is now carried.
[1:09:59] Okay, that concludes the public meeting on the young drain.
[1:10:12] Thank you, Mayor and council.
[1:10:14] Thank you. Great. Yes, yes, thank you, Mr. Peel.
[1:10:22] Okay, now we have Council minutes, Council of Valley Council, Deputy Mayor Hutchin, that we adopt the August 11 minutes, all those in favor.
[1:10:29] That's carried business arising from the minutes. We have a motion on the pedestrian safety. Council from a clean, Deputy Mayor Hutchin,
[1:10:37] where Scott Street is home to the walker in post office, our own office, Victoria Jubilee Hall,
[1:10:43] and where as residents, including seniors, persons with disabilities, family visitors need to potentially cross the street
[1:10:48] and Jack's Street to access these facilities
[1:10:50] and whereas Councils committed to improving pedestrians
[1:10:52] safety accessibility and active transportation
[1:10:54] within the downtown core and whereas roadway design
[1:10:58] and traffic calming measures have been shown to improve
[1:11:00] pedestrian safety and courage motors to travel
[1:11:02] at appropriate speeds.
[1:11:04] Therefore, it resolves Council Direct staff
[1:11:06] to undertake a pedestrian priority review
[1:11:08] for Scott Street in the vicinity of the walker
[1:11:10] and Canada Post Office and Municipal Office.
[1:11:14] The review will include an assessment of pedestrian volumes
[1:11:16] crossing locations, vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, accessibility for persons with disabilities,
[1:11:22] existing roadway geometry and parking operations, staff are ready to report back to council with
[1:11:28] recommendations of costs, implementing the pedestrian priority area.
[1:11:33] Enhanced high visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb extensions, pedestrian
[1:11:39] warring signage, pavement markings, reduced speed limits for appropriate traffic calming measures
[1:11:43] any additional engineering improvements that would enhance pedestrian safety, staff will consult
[1:11:49] with BM Ross, South Bruce OPP, Accessibility Advisor, Community and other stakeholders
[1:11:54] during the review. Scott,
[1:11:59] Councilor McLean, through your mayor. Thank you very much.
[1:12:03] And I'd like to thank Deputy Mayor Hutchman for seconding this. This motion really does speak for itself,
[1:12:10] regarding pedestrian safety, we certainly understand that Scott Street is a busy spot.
[1:12:17] And I think it's going to be busier when we know that within the next two to three years
[1:12:21] we could be adding 10% to our population.
[1:12:24] We know that corridor is going to be popping for lack of a better word.
[1:12:30] But what I would like to add to this, if you would, and again, with the support of council,
[1:12:35] is that in terms of talking to some of our rate payers, some of our people who cross the street
[1:12:41] there, I really wanted to incorporate the cross over section at Jackson Street, but knowing
[1:12:48] that Bruce County kind of oversees that road, because that actually is part of the linkage
[1:12:54] in my mind. If you want to cross that street, it's a busy street and we need to kind of put
[1:12:59] that as part of the assessment. So, procedurally, I don't know if that requires the amendment to
[1:13:03] Jackson Street and a potential looking at a potential crossover or safety enhancements there.
[1:13:10] I'll seek your advice on that and asking for the support of council to at least look into this.
[1:13:18] Motion says Jackson Street, item two.
[1:13:22] I guess it's the brew is,
[1:13:25] yes, just making sure that the county is consulted.
[1:13:28] I don't see that at the end.
[1:13:30] Sorry.
[1:13:32] Other stakeholders, fine.
[1:13:33] whatever, maybe we don't need to. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate this being brought forward and, you know,
[1:13:39] generally no concerns. My only question is to do this initial review could just have
[1:13:42] have an estimate of cost. I know I'm not saying specifically, I guess on part two, like that the
[1:13:48] review that has done an assessment of ABCD, is there a cost involved beyond staff time to do the preliminary
[1:13:55] work in the motion?
[1:13:59] Through you, Mayor Peabody, it's pretty detailed with traffic studies and such
[1:14:04] I think we'd have to refer back to operations to determine that if it's past tonight.
[1:14:11] We can maybe bring a follow-up report on what this would involve.
[1:14:17] Yeah, sorry.
[1:14:17] My time, my question's not about, you know, the recommendations and associated costs for implementing,
[1:14:21] but just to come, like, yeah, to get to that, I guess.
[1:14:25] But no, you're saying you need to go back to staff, but likely to staff tonight.
[1:14:29] I think we need to follow it.
[1:14:30] I'd like the engineer and group advice.
[1:14:33] Sorry, I couldn't hear that.
[1:14:35] One of you, please.
[1:14:37] For you, Mayor Peabody, I think it's likely that we would need to get an engineer in
[1:14:41] quote on scoping out with that study.
[1:14:43] Okay.
[1:14:44] So it's not committing.
[1:14:45] I said this point to proceeding until we get that.
[1:14:51] All right, all those in favor,
[1:14:55] that's carried.
[1:15:00] Okay, and then we have report on the dog control, which by Councillor Crawford II, by Deputy
[1:15:12] Hutch in that we receive reports, BL number three, amend the dog control by law for working
[1:15:17] livestock guardian dogs prepared by these McDonald's. And in doing so, it proves the bylaw coming
[1:15:21] forward accepting the proposed amendments to the dog control bylaw. Discussion, Councillor Chavalli.
[1:15:27] Thanks very much. I appreciate Council's detailed or staff detailed report kind of comparing.
[1:15:33] There are their comments with what was in the motion in the general rationale.
[1:15:36] I was provided. I'm fine with the recommendations generally.
[1:15:40] Section 3.2 on the maximums. I think the exception process works.
[1:15:44] But I do, from my conversations, I'm going with agricultural stakeholders.
[1:15:47] I don't think this crossfried thing needs to be factored in.
[1:15:50] And I think that anyone who has a livestock guardian dog, they do want and they do use dogs that are bred for it.
[1:15:55] You don't want some animal doing a half a partial job.
[1:15:59] And in terms of the definitions, that's a valid point, but in terms of how we define
[1:16:05] what breeds fall under working livestock guardian dog or herding dog, I think it was just
[1:16:09] be following the Omafa guidelines, and that would be I think a very consistent straightforward
[1:16:13] approach.
[1:16:14] So I don't know if we need to amend or incorporate that, but I would suggest the prudent approaches
[1:16:18] is following Omafa guidelines or definitions.
[1:16:21] Um, otherwise I appreciate the report and some of the local Ontario sheep farmers who did
[1:16:26] some advocacy and then have had ongoing discussions, um, with me on this.
[1:16:31] Three of you, Mayor Peabody, just a couple follow-up points.
[1:16:34] I think when it came to cross breeds, it wasn't that the dogs wouldn't be doing the full
[1:16:38] job.
[1:16:39] It's that you could have a shepherd peer in these mix and why wouldn't that necessarily be permitted.
[1:16:45] 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?
[1:17:03] 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?
[1:17:09] So it's more a question of how do we actually apply that?
[1:17:12] So I think that's where we're saying,
[1:17:14] you know, if there's a German Shepherd
[1:17:17] that's able to work that way,
[1:17:18] why would we force a more restrictive regime on farmers?
[1:17:28] Okay, for the discussion,
[1:17:32] okay, all those in favor, carried,
[1:17:36] Lockered in lawnmower, sanitary,
[1:17:39] moved by Councillor Crawford,
[1:17:41] second-by-step mirror hatching, that we received the report on the Mower Replacement, additional
[1:17:48] information prepared by Tracer Terry CFO, and authorized staff to receive with the replacement
[1:17:54] of the Mower, funded from the Reserve Fund. Questions?
[1:18:06] That'd be mayor.
[1:18:08] Just one little question. How much were they going to give us for a trade-in?
[1:18:15] Was it that
[1:18:17] Okay, bringing the cost of a new one to 16,000.
[1:18:22] Okay, thank you.
[1:18:26] Further questions?
[1:18:29] Councillor McLean.
[1:18:30] Through you, Mayor.
[1:18:32] 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.
[1:18:44] So just wondering if that's $16,000 actually buys the right more this time.
[1:18:51] I'm just an honest question, because it seems like we may accidentally purchase the
[1:18:56] Mower that wasn't for that application, right?
[1:19:00] Through your Mayor Peabody, it is the proper Mower for the cemetery due to the fact that
[1:19:06] it can only be a certain size to go through the different tombstones.
[1:19:09] So we can't get a bigger, more industrial size Mower, because then we can't go through the
[1:19:15] different tombstone areas.
[1:19:18] Right, so are we expecting the same length of time on the new more than?
[1:19:22] That's $16,000.
[1:19:23] Historically, we've always replaced them every four to five years, yes.
[1:19:26] Thank you.
[1:19:30] Sir, I'll think.
[1:19:31] Thank you.
[1:19:32] Through Mr. Mayor, just a question.
[1:19:34] We heard in one of the reports about this piece of equipment being used for leaf collection.
[1:19:40] And I believe there was about a $7,000 purchase made in 2022.
[1:19:45] For particular appliance for this particular law and tractor,
[1:19:48] 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.
[1:19:55] Is that right?
[1:19:58] Through you, Mayor Peabody, the piece of equipment that's being recommended does work with the current leaf collecting component that we do have.
[1:20:08] If we go with any other brand, a manufacturer, then it will not work and we would have to buy a new leaf collector.
[1:20:19] Just another piece of information that preparing for this meeting.
[1:20:25] So the current unit that we have anticipates with maintenance life cycle of 3,000 to 4,500
[1:20:31] engine hours, we're about half right now.
[1:20:36] So I'm just curious what sort of brings it to an endpoint or refresh cycle now.
[1:20:42] You know, some maintenance, I think is reasonable.
[1:20:46] So even doing a $2400 plus HST repair,
[1:20:51] theoretically, we buy us another 1,500 hours,
[1:20:54] assuming that the components are all in good working condition,
[1:20:56] and we do that preventative maintenance.
[1:20:59] So just wondering if we do the repair,
[1:21:01] is it reasonable based on the assessments
[1:21:03] we've been provided to think that we will get more life
[1:21:05] or another 1,500 hours of life?
[1:21:09] Through your mayor, Peabody, my expertise
[1:21:11] is not in lawnmowers by any means, and this more is more of like a light commercial slash
[1:21:20] residential type more. Although we are using it in the cemetery, it's not the terrain in
[1:21:27] the cemetery. There's lots of divots. If there's a new burial and the land isn't necessarily
[1:21:34] smooth, it does create different challenges. So it does have a lot more wear and tear on it.
[1:21:39] Can I sit here today and tell you we'll get another 1500 hours on it?
[1:21:44] I don't know. I can't guarantee you that.
[1:21:50] Mitch.
[1:21:52] Yeah, just sort of follow up listening to the discussion here.
[1:21:57] I sit here and I look at the report and I appreciate the detail in this report.
[1:22:03] And I think there's a lot of good information.
[1:22:05] It's interesting that we continue to come back.
[1:22:07] I think there's been three separate meetings now that we've spoke about this law and more.
[1:22:11] So it's certainly something that keeps coming up.
[1:22:15] I guess my thought on it is that, again,
[1:22:19] it's not like we're sitting here with the engine
[1:22:21] on this lawnmower that's completely wet.
[1:22:24] It is just an oil pan.
[1:22:25] And from the sounds of the report,
[1:22:27] it sounded like it came from some form of...
[1:22:30] 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.
[1:22:41] 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.
[1:22:58] because obviously if a company is giving you warranty
[1:23:00] until four or five years,
[1:23:03] they're expecting it to at least last that long
[1:23:05] and probably a bit more.
[1:23:06] They're gonna give themselves some buffer there on that as well.
[1:23:10] So I think again, for a small cost in this situation
[1:23:14] of $2,000, we have still a lawnmower.
[1:23:17] That's only four or five years old
[1:23:19] that I looked back at, it seemed it cost around 20,000
[1:23:23] back in that time when we purchased it.
[1:23:26] So again, it's an expensive.
[1:23:27] It's a heavy-duty lawnmower, maybe it's not their most commercial one that they have,
[1:23:33] but it's not like this is some cheap lawnmower. And again, I'll go back to what I said at the last meeting
[1:23:37] in that John Deere is willing to give us $5,000 or close to that for this lawnmower back,
[1:23:45] which means that again, it's not completely, they know that it's going to last more than
[1:23:50] And what's the the 1300 hours that we currently have on it right now?
[1:23:55] Or else they wouldn't want it back for that price in my opinion.
[1:23:58] So I lean more towards the $2,000 we can look at it.
[1:24:02] Either the following budget.
[1:24:05] See where we're at at that point.
[1:24:08] And and go from there.
[1:24:12] Councilor Trevelli.
[1:24:14] Thanks, Mary.
[1:24:14] Yeah, fairly succinct.
[1:24:15] I support Councillor Clark on this.
[1:24:17] I think 2400 right now.
[1:24:19] Hopefully we got a couple of years out of it.
[1:24:21] And even, I mean, based on the cost per year of the $20,000 law and tractor of the last
[1:24:25] four years, we're still, I mean, my rough math years were coming in an okay position to
[1:24:29] spend another 2, 2, 2, 400 on it.
[1:24:31] So again, I don't want to blame with this, but that's the option I'm leaning towards tonight.
[1:24:40] Councilor Crawford, through you, Mayor Peabody, I agree with Mitch and Steve on this one.
[1:24:45] I feel like that's a, I want to business and if every piece of equipment got sent back
[1:24:51] when Warren to was up the cost for,
[1:24:55] would just continually rise.
[1:24:56] I feel like for $2,400 to fix it.
[1:25:02] And if there's a bit of maintenance needed next year
[1:25:04] to keep it running, I feel like the piece of equipment
[1:25:07] isn't worn out, it's not even through half of its life.
[1:25:12] So I feel like we should just fix it
[1:25:14] and keep the unit in use at the cemetery
[1:25:20] until it starts to be more of a problem than what it is because like the John Deer wants to
[1:25:27] purchase it, they haven't, they're obviously going to take that piece of equipment and do a
[1:25:32] bit of repair to it and then sell it again. So they wouldn't buy it back if they didn't feel like
[1:25:37] 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.
[1:25:44] Councilor McLean. Through your marries, that's a price of 2400 plus HST. That's, and if I've
[1:25:52] missed this, I apologize, is that going back to John Deer with that? And if that's the case,
[1:26:00] is it feasible to get an estimate from any other place that would fix that, or that's just not how it works?
[1:26:07] I'm, if that weren't you, like it's like a free agent.
[1:26:16] Three of my people, we can refer that back to
[1:26:18] if that's the direction council wants to go on fixing it. We'll determine the most feasible method.
[1:26:25] All right, so you want to head that direction. Got to defeat this motion. Make a new one.
[1:26:30] Councilor Clark. Very small question. It was two weeks ago that we spoke last I believe
[1:26:35] is the more running still right now. I'm just curious if anything's happened in that two weeks.
[1:26:41] It was mentioned that this has to be repaired in a short period of time. And so I'm just curious
[1:26:47] like as of today yesterday, our things still operating and have things operated with that more.
[1:26:55] Three American people, yes, it's currently operating. We do have other measures that we put in.
[1:27:04] So right now, we are putting down extra coverage on the ground to make sure that an oil is
[1:27:09] filling onto the different surfaces and stuff because it is leaking, but as far as I'm aware,
[1:27:15] still operating.
[1:27:18] All right, so I'll call the question that's read.
[1:27:21] It's in favor of replacing it.
[1:27:24] So you have to defeat it at based on the discussion here.
[1:27:27] All those in favor of replacing the lawnmower.
[1:27:30] All those opposed.
[1:27:32] Okay, that's defeated.
[1:27:33] So I need a no motion to repair.
[1:27:35] Most repair from from Clark and Elfick.
[1:27:39] All those in favor of repairing the lawnmower.
[1:27:43] pose so it's a direction to repair and I'll
[1:27:52] just add that I've got a really rough
[1:27:54] property with a lot more I keep smashing into rocks and things and I've gotten
[1:27:59] really good at repairing it and I get my angle grinder out I replace the blade
[1:28:02] zoo name it carburetor you can fix it I could do it for free that's right my
[1:28:07] Oh, yeah.
[1:28:08] He said it.
[1:28:15] Hey, it's eight years and going, okay.
[1:28:18] Information items, got some.
[1:28:22] Council Crawford, Councilor Javali,
[1:28:24] all items in section 12, all those in favor.
[1:28:27] That's carried and some public notifications.
[1:28:32] The office will be closed Labor Day.
[1:28:36] Reminder the IPM coming up, September 22nd of the 26th
[1:28:40] and walk for Wenzhek screening on September 30th.
[1:28:44] And then a walk at six at the River Bend Park,
[1:28:50] the screening of the film will happen September 29th, though.
[1:28:54] Okay.
[1:28:56] Then we have a letter requiring correspondence
[1:29:00] about the speed limits on side 15,
[1:29:04] side word 15, rather.
[1:29:08] Councilor Schvalli.
[1:29:09] Thanks, Mary.
[1:29:10] Yeah, I'm happy to look into this in principle.
[1:29:12] Well, I think we should get some more data and maybe this refers to a previous question on
[1:29:16] Council McLean's motion, but what would be the cost to do a traffic study like did the
[1:29:20] base, the baseline?
[1:29:24] Do you remember your body?
[1:29:25] I think if Council wants more information, we bring forward a staff report related to this.
[1:29:30] Sure.
[1:29:30] I would support a motion to that end, bringing forward more information on the staff report
[1:29:35] Trevali and McLean, all those in favor. Okay. That takes us along to our bylaws. It
[1:29:44] comes in McLean and Clark, that we authorized the following bylaws to be red and acted
[1:29:48] side. Till number is followed. 71, dot control. 72 additional residential unit toolkit by
[1:29:56] law, all those in favor. That's carried.
[1:30:00] Separate by law, on the new young drain council from a clean council are ill-ficked that we authorized
[1:30:05] the following by levy red. First and second time, provisionally adopted, signed sealed,
[1:30:10] numbered as follows. The number 70, young municipal drain by law, all those in favor.
[1:30:20] Okay, that's carried. Just to explain to people watching the by law is not in force. It was
[1:30:28] just past a first and second time and just that's it's a
[1:30:34] provisional. Okay that leads us to the the business
[1:30:40] brought forward by counselors counselor McLean. Through you, Mayor,
[1:30:44] thank you very much. I've got three things that I'd like to
[1:30:47] bring up. I mean, September's childhood childhood cancer
[1:30:49] awareness month and highlights challenges faced by
[1:30:52] children and families dealing with cancer and you know, the
[1:30:55] municipality will fly the flag in honor of this issue just to mention that we have the last
[1:31:00] music in the park coming up on this weekend. It's a double shock because we have an open
[1:31:04] mic on Saturday at the market garden from one to three and also that's also in celebration of
[1:31:09] international play music on your porch day which we've done for the last number of years and then
[1:31:15] on Sunday we're back at the Heritage Water Park from one to three as well and the last thing I
[1:31:19] to mention is congratulations to Evie Schner and Ruby Fulmer
[1:31:22] on being recognized for students start up.
[1:31:25] There's a barbeque and recognition on for them
[1:31:28] on and other students on Thursday.
[1:31:31] So happy that we've got some rock to people there.
[1:31:36] OK, thank you.
[1:31:38] And for their comments,
[1:31:43] I'll just give the rest of council
[1:31:45] a quick update about what happened at AMO.
[1:31:48] the there was action taken on the pickard and damn the whole was plug today the river channel
[1:31:56] is now back into its normal channel flowing over the damn it's temporary plug the the
[1:32:02] permanent fix will take a while but just remarkable that of course of the river is now back into its
[1:32:10] normal channel. And based on what I've saw today, the flood certainly wouldn't happen again with
[1:32:19] all that property damage coming in the spring. So that was appreciated with Minister Harris helping
[1:32:28] us out. And then the other item of concern, though, is the Corto security. We did not get a meeting
[1:32:38] with a solicitor general.
[1:32:40] And the message we got from the Associate Minister of Carthdaft,
[1:32:44] that's where we handed over to, was that they're fine
[1:32:49] with the funding formula with the municipality paying
[1:32:52] for court of security.
[1:32:54] And they've no intention of changing it,
[1:32:56] which will be passed on to our taxpayers.
[1:33:01] It's a total burden.
[1:33:03] It's totally wrong.
[1:33:05] Next year, we're going to have to redirect
[1:33:06] we're going to have to get to the Mayor Godrich with us, Mayor going to sound to try something
[1:33:10] a bit different. But all these delegations we've done on this, they just won't change it.
[1:33:19] Yes, W. Mayor. Who do we approach to ask that the cost be delivered to the counties?
[1:33:27] Like, can we go above them? Well, county is covering an hour. And of course, the liability is the county.
[1:33:33] I was changed their mind, forced it back to us.
[1:33:36] Here on county zaming that way of not paying,
[1:33:39] it's a few counts that's pushing that agenda.
[1:33:42] So it could, but it would all depend on me being
[1:33:47] at the county seat to make sure that we don't lose that county funding
[1:33:53] now, keep it in the budget.
[1:33:56] So that was quite disappointing to hear that.
[1:34:00] And then the Walker to jail reopening, we, that's still, that's still in the works, it's still a project.
[1:34:10] The feasibility state though is not complete.
[1:34:13] So that's where we're at.
[1:34:16] Okay.
[1:34:16] We've got motion to go into closed session.
[1:34:18] Council from a clean council.
[1:34:20] I'll go into closed session at 840.
[1:34:22] In order to deal with the tensile litigation,
[1:34:26] including matters before administrative tribunal,
[1:34:27] affecting the municipality or local board, a drainage claim, all those in favor, that's carried.
[1:47:17] We're ready to go. Welcome back to the open session of Brockton Council. We have a motion from Councillor
[1:47:24] Elfick, Councillor McLean, that we approve direction provided to staff in closed. All those in favor.
[1:47:30] That's carried a confirmation of proceedings. Councillor Elfick, Councillor McLean, following
[1:47:36] I'll be red neck and that sign sale number to follow 73 August 25th, confirmatory bylaw
[1:47:41] all those in favor.
[1:47:44] Motion to adjourn at 850, Councillor Elfick, Councillor McLean, to meet again September
[1:47:49] 8th, all those in favor, it's carried.