[1:00:02] to conservation authorities. These two— this
[1:00:05] ERO posting looked at two pieces, one including
[1:00:09] how boards would be established and the other around
[1:00:12] some restrictions associated with naming individuals
[1:00:16] to the upper level board. Staff have
[1:00:21] compiled and put together draft comments in line
[1:00:25] with previously approved advocacy platforms,
[1:00:29] and those are attached to the report for review.
[1:00:33] I do want to note that at the time of drafting this report,
[1:00:36] we didn't have specific information around the individualized
[1:00:43] numbers for those, and these were estimates.
[1:00:46] Since that time we have received those numbers and
[1:00:50] there's slight differentiations. However, generally you're
[1:00:55] looking at a significant number of appointments in the east,
[1:00:59] with Bruce County still looking at one appointment
[1:01:03] to this amalgamated CA. With that,
[1:01:06] I will leave it there and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. There is
[1:01:10] a resolution that staff be directed to submit the comments attached to Report GR-2026-03 -34
[1:01:15] to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks as part of ERO posting 026-0740.
[1:01:22] Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by Kirkland, seconded by Katz.
[1:01:28] Any discussion?
[1:01:35] No discussion. Well, I wanna— the— oh,
[1:01:38] sorry, uh, Councillor Peabody and then the Deputy Warden.
[1:01:43] I just think we have to oppose this
[1:01:47] allocation very vigorously. If you
[1:01:50] look at the bottom of that chart there, giving one
[1:01:55] appointment to Bruce County and then one to Durham,
[1:01:59] Kawartha Lakes, Orillia. If you look at the map,
[1:02:03] those appointments have extremely small Number
[1:02:08] of square kilometers compared to Bruce County, it's, um,
[1:02:13] this chart, this appointment system is absolutely unacceptable, and there's
[1:02:17] no way we can accept this. It's a total misrepresentation
[1:02:23] of what our two watersheds
[1:02:28] are. It's absolutely wrong.
[1:02:32] Yeah, thank you very much. Uh, the Deputy Warden.
[1:02:36] Yes, much along the same lines as Chris. We're going to be left out
[1:02:40] in the cold here is what I believe. Um, I'm not sure how to
[1:02:44] get them to change their mind on these appointments, but we
[1:02:47] need more representation along Lake Huron shoreline, whether it's
[1:02:52] Bruce County, Huron County, or how we do it. But I think we each deserve
[1:02:55] more representation along That shoreline.
[1:03:00] What we did hear from the delegation earlier, and I heard a lot of comments
[1:03:04] from members in support of the delegation with respect to a smaller
[1:03:08] Conservation Authority. If you had a smaller Conservation Authority, the size, the number of
[1:03:11] representatives you had would be, you know, would be—
[1:03:16] if you could have fewer representatives in a smaller organization and your weight
[1:03:20] would increase, right? So I think the problem, the fundamental problem here is is that
[1:03:24] when you get mixed in with Simpcw County and Barrie and
[1:03:28] all these people, places with huge populations, then your voice
[1:03:31] gets diminished. And it probably will be diminished in the end. Um,
[1:03:36] there are not very many ways to structure representation in a board
[1:03:40] like a Conservation Authority. Population is one way to do it, and that's probably
[1:03:44] how it's going to be done. And as long as we're in the mix with
[1:03:47] these great big, big urban centers, we're going to be we're gonna be
[1:03:51] a small voice, right? So, I mean, the key thing is to not
[1:03:56] be in the mix with these great big urban centers, right? So I think it
[1:04:00] comes down to maybe adding, adding something to these
[1:04:04] comments along the lines of, you know, we oppose
[1:04:07] the structure of the Conservation Authority that's being proposed fundamentally,
[1:04:11] that we need it to be smaller. We need to have a— need to perhaps
[1:04:16] propose what Mr. McGoogan has proposed,
[1:04:19] which is to separate the proposed
[1:04:23] Conservation Authority into two. And then, you know,
[1:04:27] if we have a truly Lake Huron Conservation Authority that
[1:04:31] is smaller, then we can talk about representation by population,
[1:04:35] and our voice will be a lot stronger
[1:04:39] in a Conservation Authority that's structured that way. But I think we just sort of
[1:04:42] need to reject the whole structure. We can't—
[1:04:46] this, this geography isn't going to work,
[1:04:50] and this level of representation in that geography isn't going to work. And I think
[1:04:54] we need to make that point as clearly as we can. I got the impression
[1:04:57] from members that that was the general view on Council, and I think we could—
[1:05:00] if it is, then we can direct staff to adjust
[1:05:04] these comments to reflect that. My thoughts. The Deputy Warden.
[1:05:08] Thank you. And through you, Warden, I completely agree. Of course, here in Kinloss
[1:05:13] and put the delegation in on them basis. We are asking for a
[1:05:16] smaller Conservation Authority along the shorelines, and I'm hoping Bruce
[1:05:20] County will come on side with that. I think then we could
[1:05:24] get some fair representation, like you say. If it's population-based,
[1:05:28] I'm fine with that along the shorelines. We would have our share.
[1:05:31] So, um, that's what we would be asking, is the support,
[1:05:36] our ask of the minister. Okay, any further comments?
[1:05:39] Kirkland, then Getz. Um, and, and I might have missed something,
[1:05:43] but have we— in a lot of other things we ask for SAHN's
[1:05:47] advice or, or approvals in, in certain instances
[1:05:51] on planning, on the way we want to see this area, and Bruce
[1:05:55] County is in the SAHN territory. So we asked for a comment from
[1:05:59] SAHN on this type of thing, from Conservation Authority,
[1:06:03] or is Is that something that would be wise or
[1:06:07] not needed? Any thoughts from the
[1:06:11] CAO or the director of the CAO? Sure, through you, Warden. So,
[1:06:15] SAAHN does at times make comment themselves directly
[1:06:18] on postings such as this. This is a provincial-level decision.
[1:06:23] And so, you know, typically when there's an ER posting like this, we're providing comments
[1:06:27] from the framework of Bruce County. If either the director
[1:06:32] of government relations or director of planning has anything to add there,
[1:06:36] do, but, but sawn may be making their own comments on the posting.
[1:06:42] Councillor Goetz, thank you. Through you, Warden Charbonneau,
[1:06:45] um, sometimes I find it useful if you
[1:06:49] put it in terms that they could understand. And if this works, if they
[1:06:53] believe this will work for the conservation authorities to amalgamate such
[1:06:58] a big area, then perhaps it'll work for the ridings of our MPPs.
[1:07:01] And look how many MPPs you could get rid of. Look at the cost savings
[1:07:05] there. Excellent point. Thank you
[1:07:09] for that. Uh, are there further, uh,
[1:07:12] comments, uh, questions? Councilor Hamill.
[1:07:16] Well, uh, first I want to clearly state that, uh,
[1:07:19] my, my thoughts are, are pretty near the same as my colleagues
[1:07:23] here. I, I do have a question that's contrary to that though,
[1:07:26] just for a conversation, and the contrary question is,
[1:07:30] is Do we not want the more densely
[1:07:34] populated areas helping us pay for
[1:07:38] the less densely populated areas?
[1:07:41] Like, we could— if we're— if we have less population
[1:07:45] to pay for the projects and the overall running of the area,
[1:07:49] we could be paying, you know, twice or three times per person than
[1:07:53] a densely populated area has for, you know, the smaller
[1:07:57] area. So I don't
[1:08:01] have those details. It's an open-ended question. I agree with this,
[1:08:06] but I also wonder if, if therefore what
[1:08:09] we're asking for 10 years from now or 20 years from now,
[1:08:12] it'll be very costly to maintain
[1:08:18] if we go that path instead of, you know, having a larger
[1:08:21] region helping us because we're we're,
[1:08:25] um, we're a big part of, you know, the water going in and the
[1:08:29] water going out of those, those regions, and therefore they should help,
[1:08:34] help us out a little bit. That's where I'm, I'm just
[1:08:38] going to put it out there to other members that have been on the board
[1:08:40] and have more experience. If anyone else is thinking a little bit
[1:08:44] that way— Council Craig,
[1:08:48] uh, thank you, Warden. I asked that question of,
[1:08:51] uh, Mr. McGugan earlier this morning, and he said one of the issues
[1:08:55] that we are facing in that regard is
[1:08:58] that Lake Simcoe has its own mandated act,
[1:09:02] the Lake Simcoe Act, and the, the water quality
[1:09:07] issues surrounding Lake Simcoe in particular,
[1:09:11] it's not whether they want to do it, they have to do it.
[1:09:15] So yes, the population there will support that work,
[1:09:18] and it could be that rather than being efficient here,
[1:09:22] some of our money supports that work as well. Like there is
[1:09:25] a different issues that face
[1:09:30] the water management in the east and the west half
[1:09:34] side of a split Conservation Authority
[1:09:38] area. So that was one of many different things that, you know, it is the
[1:09:41] fair way to do it based on assessment or population or something.
[1:09:45] More people, more representation. That's the way democracy works.
[1:09:48] But Sometimes you need to look at some of the
[1:09:52] issues underneath that too. So thank you, Warden. Yeah, thank you. I might make an
[1:09:55] even simpler point. No matter how many amalgamations we do,
[1:09:59] our taxpayers are not going to end up paying less money, right? Just because we
[1:10:03] bring in Simcoe— we could bring in Toronto— um, the taxpayers
[1:10:07] in Bruce County are still going to be funding this, probably, and they're going to
[1:10:09] be spending more money on this in the years to come, not less, right?
[1:10:12] So the only question to me is how much representation does their money buy.
[1:10:17] And in this case, they're— it's buying
[1:10:20] less representation, right? And, and so I
[1:10:25] don't think we're going to get much funding help from the City of Barrie.
[1:10:28] They're not going to be sending money over to, over to Bruce County to
[1:10:32] help us pay for conservation, in my opinion anyway. I just don't see that as
[1:10:35] being in the cards. So I think anyway,
[1:10:39] it would be good, I think, if we settle on
[1:10:44] a position here with respect to the whole thing. I think the two things are
[1:10:46] interlinked, right? The geography and the representation
[1:10:51] and the cost. So I think if
[1:10:54] we believe that we're underrepresented in this particular setup,
[1:10:59] then I think we should make the statement on the overall structure of the Conservation
[1:11:03] Authority and say, you know, I was just looking at the map here, you know,
[1:11:06] just those, those Lake Simpcw 2 Big Lakes
[1:11:10] Simpcw Conservation Authorities that are being worked
[1:11:13] in here, and they should be lopped off and they should be made their own
[1:11:16] Conservation Authority. Just as— just even the, the structure of it just doesn't make
[1:11:20] any sense. We've been saying that all along. And so I think, um,
[1:11:24] to me, um, that takes those big urban areas
[1:11:28] out and would increase our level of representation. In my opinion,
[1:11:32] that's the position the County of Bruce should take. Essentially what
[1:11:37] what was proposed by, um, Mr. McGoogan, uh, and Huron-Kinloss,
[1:11:40] um, reduce the size of the authority, increase our representation.
[1:11:47] Councilor Kirkland? Yeah, I agree with that 100%. I think one of the only
[1:11:51] things that we're going to be able to control is to try to get that
[1:11:54] split into two, and then, then our representation
[1:11:58] will be different within our own area. So I agree 100%.
[1:12:02] And I think to note too,
[1:12:04] about putting it in terms, as Councillor Getz raised, that they
[1:12:08] can understand is rural communities. And this government has been
[1:12:13] pretty strong in terms of talking about the importance of rural Ontario and southwestern
[1:12:17] Ontario. And so surely they could be
[1:12:20] made to understand that taking rural communities and putting them
[1:12:24] in the same organization as large urban communities their interests are different
[1:12:28] and, and, and that that would be damaging to those rural
[1:12:32] communities. So I think that's the way to put it to them, in my opinion.
[1:12:36] The Deputy Warden. Uh, the only other thing I would ask
[1:12:39] is the name, the Lake Huron Region Conservation. Let's drop authority
[1:12:43] off the end of it. I think it's a very old word that we don't
[1:12:47] need. So when we're asking for the,
[1:12:50] the name, I would like to see authority dropped off the end of
[1:12:54] it. And I've talked to Mr. McGugan and Phil Beard about that. Nunatsiavut.
[1:12:57] They believe that it's time that we did get rid of that last part and
[1:13:02] make it look like we're more simple there to work with,
[1:13:05] because some people think that we're heavy-handed in the conservation
[1:13:09] authorities. And if we get rid of that word, was one other ask that
[1:13:13] we were going to ask at Huron-Kinloss. Okay,
[1:13:19] Councillor Kirkland. And let's not forget about Georgian Bay
[1:13:22] in there.
[1:13:27] Okay, anything else, uh, from the
[1:13:30] members? If we could— is there a general consensus on that
[1:13:34] direction then? Is there— everybody is— no,
[1:13:37] nobody opposes, uh, what we've been talking about here?
[1:13:41] Is that— do you have some clarity, uh,
[1:13:44] there? I guess we should give you— maybe we should have a resolution on that.
[1:13:47] So, um, So perhaps we could have a resolution
[1:13:51] that council directs staff to amend this,
[1:13:56] amend our letter,
[1:13:59] amend the letter that's in this report to give direction
[1:14:03] to offer them. See, I'm just, I'm stuttering now. I'm stammering and not coming
[1:14:07] up with anything. Do you have anything for me, Christine? Sure, I can
[1:14:11] offer some help, Warden, that, that council is
[1:14:16] asking— directing staff to amend the letter to include distinction.
[1:14:20] And we understand there's two conservation authorities that
[1:14:24] we're asking to break out of it, and so we can specify that and update
[1:14:28] the letter. And my last question for staff for greater clarity
[1:14:32] would be, would you like us to distribute the letter that we're submitting to
[1:14:36] the impacted bodies or not? Yes, I should
[1:14:40] think we would want to circulate it to everybody who's
[1:14:44] in the proposed Lake Huron Regional Conservation Authority, the CAs and the municipalities,
[1:14:49] the upper-tier municipalities. Is there— everybody
[1:14:54] okay with that? Any objection to that? Councillor Craig?
[1:14:58] Yes, I agree. But I think there's the— there's 3 points:
[1:15:03] the splitting of the proposed area into 2 distinct,
[1:15:07] the governance structure and the circulation.
[1:15:13] You know what? Yeah, I'm not sure that we're going to propose the governance structure,
[1:15:17] but, you know, split it apart and revamp
[1:15:20] that. That's two parts of the same question, I suppose.
[1:15:27] Yes. So I guess we want to direct staff to
[1:15:31] include in the letter Bruce County's opposition to the geography
[1:15:36] of the proposed Lake Huron Regional Conservation Authority, our suggestion that
[1:15:40] it be divided into two conservation authorities, and that the
[1:15:45] representation on the conservation— that we, we should state clearly we
[1:15:49] object to the record, to the level of representation we're receiving in
[1:15:53] the proposed Lake Huron Regional Conservation Authority, and that
[1:15:57] our preference would be to have a smaller conservation authority
[1:16:01] where our representation would be greater.
[1:16:05] So we need those two things. We need a smaller Conservation Authority and greater representation
[1:16:09] on that Conservation Authority. That should be our position.
[1:16:14] And that that be circulated, that position be circulated to all of
[1:16:18] the affected Conservation Authorities and upper-tier municipalities.
[1:16:23] Is that clear enough for everybody? Clear enough to
[1:16:27] staff? Is there a mover and seconder?
[1:16:33] Uh, pro? You wrote something down up there. Is that all the cheapers? Look at
[1:16:36] that. Staff be directed to submit the comments attached
[1:16:40] to the report GR-2026-034 to the Ministry of Environment,
[1:16:43] Conservation and Parks as part of the ARO posting 26-0740,
[1:16:48] and the staff be directed to amend the letter to include distinction to separate
[1:16:52] the new organization in two and distribute the letter to the conservation authorities and
[1:16:56] upper-tier municipalities in the proposed new conservation authority. Um,
[1:16:59] and then those points are sort of, uh, set out underneath there.
[1:17:04] So that's an amendment. Is there a mover and seconder for the amendment? Moved by
[1:17:08] Kirkland, seconded by the Deputy Warden. Any discussion to the amendment?
[1:17:13] Seeing none, all in favor? Sorry, opposed, if any?
[1:17:16] That's carried. And then we'll on to the main question
[1:17:20] then, which has been moved and seconded and now amended.
[1:17:23] Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor. Oh, do you
[1:17:28] have some? Sorry, pardon me. The Deputy Warden discussion on the proposed here.
[1:17:31] I'm fine with it other than that. Should lower tier not
[1:17:35] be distributed in the 4 conservation watersheds?
[1:17:39] So that everybody knows what we're pushing forward.
[1:17:43] It says here, and upper tier municipalities,
[1:17:47] should we be Consulting with
[1:17:51] the lower tier. I don't object to it. The upper
[1:17:54] tiers are the ones involved in the discussion at this point, but it's up to
[1:17:57] you. What if council would like to circulate to the lower tiers? We can.
[1:17:59] And I guess my— sorry, through you, Warden— my thoughts are the lower tiers are
[1:18:04] still paying the bill as of today. Okay, we can circulate
[1:18:08] it to all upper and lower tier municipalities. Is that good with
[1:18:12] everybody? If so, we'll take that as just adjustment
[1:18:17] to the amendment. So if there's nothing further, then all in favor of the main
[1:18:20] question? That's carried. All right,
[1:18:26] all right. So we'll now move on to Item B from Government Relations: Election
[1:18:30] Timeline and Lame Duck Restrictions and the Clerk.
[1:18:35] Thank you, Andrew Warden. So this report provides a reminder of the
[1:18:39] restricted acts that council cannot undertake if a lame duck situation were
[1:18:43] to occur. So there's two different dates when lame duck can occur, and the first
[1:18:48] is after nominations close on August 21st and
[1:18:51] after those candidates have been certified.
[1:18:54] So at that point, if less than 6 of our 8 county councilors are not
[1:18:58] certified candidates for the position of mayor, Bruce County Council will
[1:19:02] be in a lame duck situation. If on Election
[1:19:05] Day less than 6 of the current council members are not reelected County
[1:19:10] Council will then be in a lame duck situation.
[1:19:14] So during the lame duck situation, Council is restricted from
[1:19:18] hiring or firing their one employee, being the CAO position.
[1:19:23] Council is also restricted from disposing of property valued over $50,000
[1:19:27] or spending money or incurring liabilities over $50,000
[1:19:31] if it wasn't included in the current year's budget.
[1:19:35] So for the most part, it's business as usual during lame duck,
[1:19:38] except for those expenditures and disposition of assets that were not
[1:19:42] approved by council prior to nomination day.
[1:19:45] That includes if an emergency was to occur, um, council retains
[1:19:49] that ability to take the necessary actions. Further,
[1:19:52] this report recommends a bylaw be passed to delegate authority to
[1:19:56] the CAO to take necessary actions to ensure any unbudgeted expenditure
[1:20:01] or liability $50,000 can be approved if necessary,
[1:20:05] uh, should a lame duck situation arise. The report goes on to
[1:20:09] provide the timelines for the current and the new council, um, and I'm
[1:20:13] available to take any questions. Thank you. There is
[1:20:17] a resolution then that a bylaw be passed to delegate authority to the
[1:20:20] chief administrative officer for certain acts pursuant to Section 275 of the Municipal Act during
[1:20:24] a restricted acts period. Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by the
[1:20:28] Keeper, seconded by the Deputy Warden. Discussion? Seeing none,
[1:20:33] then all in favor? That is carried. Thank you.
[1:20:38] Okay, so now we're on to Item C from Human Resources on
[1:20:42] the 2026 Student Wages Policy. And the director.
[1:20:46] Thank you. Good morning and through you, Warden. This morning I have before you an
[1:20:50] update to our Student Wages Policy. The update provides an
[1:20:53] increase to the compensation rate of students
[1:20:58] to ensure that we remain able to attract and support the recruitment of qualified students
[1:21:00] to our workforce. The effective date of the update will be October
[1:21:04] 1st, 2026, which aligns with the next provincial update to the minimum wage
[1:21:08] rates in Ontario. Updates to the policy are listed
[1:21:11] within the report, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.
[1:21:14] There's a resolution that the updated Human Resources Policy D07, Student Wages,
[1:21:18] be approved. Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by
[1:21:22] Kirkland, seconded by Craig. Discussion? Hearing and
[1:21:26] seeing none. All in favor? That is carried.
[1:21:30] All right, now we're on to Item D from the Museum
[1:21:33] Collections Deaccession Report and the director. Uh, thank you, and through you,
[1:21:37] Warden. So, uh, collection staff have been continuing to do their collections
[1:21:41] management work, which is resulting in the deaccession report in front
[1:21:44] of you today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are Thank
[1:21:48] you. There is a resolution that the items listed in the collections deaccession report August
[1:21:52] 026 be approved for deaccession from the Bruce
[1:21:55] County Museum and Cultural Centre collection. Is there a mover and seconder?
[1:22:00] Moved by Deputy Warden, seconded by Councilor Kirkland. Discussion?
[1:22:03] Seeing none. All in favor? That is carried.
[1:22:06] Thank you. All right, now we're on to bylaws. One bylaw
[1:22:10] there, uh, and the resolution is that the following bylaw be approved.
[1:22:13] Bylaw 2026-035, being a bylaw to delegate authority
[1:22:17] to the Chief Administrative Officer for certain acts during the restricted acts period.
[1:22:20] Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by Goetz, seconded by McKeever.
[1:22:24] Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? That is carried.
[1:22:29] Um, now we're on to communications. There are 5 items of communication
[1:22:33] there. Any questions or comments, any of those? Councillor Goetz. Thank you.
[1:22:36] Through you, Warden Charbonneau, um, on item B there,
[1:22:40] um, Ralph Kreitzweiser's concerns regarding Bruce Road
[1:22:45] for winter maintenance. It's my understanding that Bruce
[1:22:49] County plows into Huron County
[1:22:53] and vice versa. In conversation with
[1:22:57] Ralph back in the spring, he indicated that the— that
[1:23:02] both plows are sanding the roads, and then the next plow
[1:23:05] comes along and takes it off. Is— and, and And
[1:23:10] in that conversation, um, it was suggested
[1:23:13] that, is there a way we can alternate that, that portion
[1:23:18] of winter maintenance from one year to the next, where Bruce County would look after
[1:23:22] it? They would plow into Huron County one year, and then
[1:23:25] the next year Huron County would plow into Bruce County.
[1:23:29] The trouble is the boundary runs between, uh,
[1:23:33] the two curves. The second is my understanding
[1:23:36] of, of, uh, South Bruce It's not safe
[1:23:40] to turn the plows around there, so they're going all the way to the 4th,
[1:23:42] which just shortly— or just south of Teeswater,
[1:23:46] turning around and coming back. But the trouble is that
[1:23:50] when they're doing that, one plow could come through a half hour to an hour
[1:23:54] before, and then the county— our county plow is going through shoving the sand
[1:23:59] off that they put on the road. And I just— I
[1:24:03] would support an opportunity to look into that and see
[1:24:06] if there's a cost savings there or a better way of doing that, or maybe
[1:24:11] Maybe the Director of Highways maybe could speak to that. Yeah, we'll put it
[1:24:14] to— information's correct. Sorry about that. We'll put it to the Director of Transportation.
[1:24:18] Uh, thank you for the question through you, Warden. So it's actually an opportune
[1:24:22] time that this letter came forward. We are starting the process of our boundary
[1:24:25] agreement renewal with Huron County. So in 2027,
[1:24:30] we will see those talks progress, and this could be something that's
[1:24:34] considered as far as maybe trying to work at a different solution
[1:24:38] to this particular you. Okay, anything further?
[1:24:42] Uh, the Deputy Warden, and through you, uh, Warden, to Adam.
[1:24:46] Um, years ago when I plowed for the county, I plowed into Wingham on Huron
[1:24:51] County roads. Huron County plowed into Teeswater at that time. Is that something
[1:24:55] that, instead of meeting in the center— I know Huron County's plowing in the Lucknow
[1:24:58] now. Um, will we be looking to go back to some old
[1:25:03] ways we've done things? I think it worked better at that time than meeting in
[1:25:06] the So just wondering. The Director. Thank you for
[1:25:10] the question through you, Warden. Absolutely. I think, you know, as we
[1:25:14] work through semantics on where plows turn
[1:25:18] around, we're going to see some efficiencies and
[1:25:21] make notes where things are working and not working and then aim to
[1:25:25] correct those in the changes to the agreement as we move forward.
[1:25:28] So I think the update will be a great time to address those and have
[1:25:33] those conversations. Thank you. I'm glad to hear we're working with
[1:25:36] Huron County on roads maintenance and, and those things.
[1:25:40] I was— an issue raised to me by the warden of
[1:25:44] Huron County a while back looking to see if we could work together on
[1:25:48] not only winter maintenance but also on upgrades
[1:25:52] and reconstruction of roads that between the two counties. So I think
[1:25:56] it's good to hear we're working together on that. I know it's a matter of
[1:25:58] concern in Huron County as well. Further comments,
[1:26:02] Councillor Hamel. Thank you, Warden, and through you,
[1:26:06] just maybe a comment from the director in regards to item 3. Years prior,
[1:26:09] a snow fence was placed strategically on the west side of the road in
[1:26:13] approximately 6 places. Was it not placed because, you know, winter came fast
[1:26:18] and early, or is it placed due to
[1:26:22] its effectiveness in spots? Is there historical spots
[1:26:27] where it's always placed, or what's maybe the rationale with snow
[1:26:30] fencing currently, you know, last year and then looking into
[1:26:34] this year? Director. Thank you, through you.
[1:26:38] The operations staff are continually working with landowners in those locations
[1:26:41] where snow fencing has been traditionally placed.
[1:26:46] I can't speak to the particular example, but in past,
[1:26:49] we've seen where lands are exchanged through sales and
[1:26:54] then we don't have a handshake agreement with the new landowners, But that's
[1:26:58] something that's been drawn to our attention through this letter. So I think it's something
[1:27:01] we'll be looking at as we move into the next winter season.
[1:27:06] Okay. Anything further from any of the members on any of
[1:27:10] the correspondence? I don't see
[1:27:14] anything. Okay. So we'll move on then from
[1:27:18] correspondence onto item 14, our closed session. The resolution is
[1:27:22] that council move into a closed session in accordance with section 239 of the Municipal
[1:27:25] Act Act for the following matter: 1, Q2 labor relations
[1:27:29] under Section 2392D, labor relations or employee negotiations, and 2,
[1:27:33] approval of the minutes of June 18th, 2026. Is there a mover and seconder?
[1:27:38] Moved by Craig, seconded by anybody?
[1:27:42] The Deputy Warden. All in favor? Council will now move into a closed
[1:29:22] Okay, so Council will now arise
[1:29:26] from open session, and I'll report that Council received the
[1:29:29] Q2 labor relations update, and we approve the minutes of June 18th,
[1:29:33] 2026. And so now I have a resolution to confirm
[1:29:37] the proceedings, and it is that the following bylaw be approved. Bylaw 2026-036,
[1:29:42] being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the County of Bruce
[1:29:44] at its meeting held the 6th day of August, 2026. Is there a mover and
[1:29:47] seconder? Moved by Gett, seconded by Kirkland. All in favor?
[1:29:51] That is carried. And finally, I have a resolution that this meeting of Bruce County
[1:29:55] Council adjourn at 11:20 AM. Is there a mover and seconder? McIver and
[1:29:58] Kirkland. All in favor? Council stands adjourned and will now move
[1:30:03] to the Long-Term Care Homes Committee of Management when the clerk says