And after that, it's been a downhill. It's a challenge
for me to do things on my own, but I
make myself do. It. I think it's a great program
put on by the United Way, and I enjoy the
meals because not a lot of spices and low installed,
which I have to watch because I have arthritis and
thyroid problems. Thanks to the United Way, seniors like me
get the help we need. Got fried. Let's celebrate. Happy
pride month. We are your tv truly local? Exclusively on
Coachico.
Must recognize our responsibilities, including our collective responsibilities to the
land and water. Mr. Mayor, there is no supplementary agenda
this evening. Rules of decorum at a council meeting. The
municipality of Chatham, Kent, supports open meetings that welcome debate
of public policy issues. In an atmosphere of inclusiveness, integrity,
civility, fairness and respects for differing points of view. Anyone
conducting themselves in a way that disturbs, disrupts, or impedes
the orderly conduct of the meeting, interrupts or makes derogatory
statements or hate speech. Defamatory comments about counselors staff speakers
or fellow members. Of the public may result in removal
from the premises. This also applies to deputations. We ask
that you do not approach members of council if they
are seated in their council seat. The public, unless invited,
is not permitted to come into the gated horseshoe area.
The use of posters, signage in literature is also prohibited.
In attendance this evening. Just to let the public know
that absentee councilor McGrail. And councilor B. McGregor is participating
virtually on the call. There were two disclosures of procurementary
interest this evening. The first one is with regards to
the planning. Item eleven. A application for consent and zoning
bylaw amendment. The estate of Carolina. Mysco 14385 tour and
line community of Orford East Kent by councilor story and
the other one by councilor story. Was item 17 B,
the application for zoning bylaw amendment. For 650 Park street
community of Dresden, North Kent. We'll now move on to
planning services. Thank you, brun. Kenneth.
The process to be followed for each application. Will be
as follows. One the clerk will announce each individual planning
item to the mayor will ask if there's anyone present
other than the applicant with an interest in the application
and to indicate so by raising their hand. Three. The
clerk will advise a burden or video submissions have been
received four. If someone present other than the applicant indicates
an interest in the item, there will be a presentation
by administ. Administration. Five individuals with an interest in the
application other than the applicant will be asked to proceed
to the podium provide their name and address. And address.
Council six. The applicant will be asked that they wish
to proceed to the podium address. Council seven administration will
be asked if they have any comments. Based on any
discussion may have occurred and aid council be asked what
action it wishes to take. With regard. Regards to each
item. If any person in a public body that files
an appeal of a decision of counsel and respect. The
proposed applications does not make oral of written submissions. The
municipal clerk before the proposal is approved they are not
entitled to appeal decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal if
otherwise eligible. Unless, in the opinion of the tribunal, there
are reasonable grounds to add the person and public bodies.
A party to the appeal. Information on council's actions today
will be posted municipal website all persons who have made
a request or who have made an oral written submission
regarding a particular planning item or receive a notice of
council's decision, including appeal procedures. Any other person who wishes
to receive a notice of decision must submit a written
request. Municipal clerk. Thank you. Eleven a application for consent
and zoning bylaw Amendment A, State of Carolina Meisco 14385
tour online Community of Orford East Kent Mr. Mayor, we
have one conflict of interest by councilor. Story and no
deputations were received today. Is there anyone present other than
the applicant or the agent with an interest in the
application? If so please indicate by raising your hand. Seeing
none. Councilor McDonald and Councilor Wright, I get you. Put
this in the floor, please. Happy to move the recommendations.
I'll second it. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none. We'll
put it to vote. Councilor b. Mcgregor.
All votes are in motion. Passes 16 to zero. And
eleven b. Application for consent and zoning bylaw amendment Thames
Sales Yard Limited 13135 Longwoods Road community of Camden, East
Kent. There are no conflict of interest and no deputations.
Were received. Is there anyone present other than the applicant
or the agent with an interest in this application? If
so please indicate by raising your hand. Seeing none. Councilor
Wright and Councilor McDonald, can I get you to put
this. Thank you and seconded. Any questions? We'll put it
to vote. Council, mcgregor. Yeah. Thank you. All votes are
in motion. Passes 17 to zero. That ends the planning
portion of our meeting this evening. We'll now move on
to deputations there were no deputations received this evening. And
the consent agenda. So the following items have been pulled
to be voted on separate from the consent agenda. The
first item is 14 a r 25. 240 cultural plan
update Project 2025 has been pulled by councilor story in
item 14 g tender award contract t 25. Two three
one. King Street west reconstruction and First street water Main
replacement. Community of Chatham has been pulled by councilor story
item. 15 a the Chatham Kemp population growth 2025 update.
Is pulled for a presentation. 15 B. Chatham Kemp Workforce
Planning Board 2025 update pulled for a presentation item 16
a the Public Utilities Commission master plan review with a
growth lens. There is a presentation, and it is pulled
by councilor Carmen McGregor and councilor Sokachi. Item 17 a.
The Chatham, Kent community Improvement plan. Property tax increment equivalent
grant for 100 KING Street Holdings Inc. And. Chatham King
street community of Chatham city has been pulled by councilor
story and councilor Jubenville item 17 B, application for zoning
bylaw amendment for 650 Park street community of Dresden. North
Kent has been pulled by councillor Jubenville, and there's also
a conflict by councilor story item 18, a consol. Consolidated
non core detailed asset management plan 2025 has been pulled
by Councilor C. McGregor. Councilor Anderson, councilor Sokachi and Councilor
Harrigan. Item 18 B, the Talbot trail realignment stage four
assessment pulled by Councilor Anderson. And that is it, Mr.
Mayor. Therefore, on the consent agenda, we have the following
report. 14. B, C, d, e, f. Item 15 c,
item 18, cde. Item 19 a. Councilor Anderson and Councilor
Thompson. Can I get you to put this on the
floor, please? I am happy to do that. And I
am happy to second. Any questions? B. Mcgregor.
Yes. Thank you. All votes are in motion. Passes 17
to zero. Move on to the tender awards item.
14 a r 25 240 cultural plan update project 2025.
Councilor story and Councilor Finn. Can I get you puts
on the floor, please? Mr. Mayor. Seconded. Councilor story. Go
ahead. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions.
On this report. To Audrey. Thanks. I just want to
thank you for bringing this report forward and bringing culture
back into the limelight. Again. I appreciate always seeing that
coming to council. You mentioned in the report. That a
few of the circumstances that brought this forward. In terms
of the changing landscape of arts and culture in our
community, including. The potential move to the downtown Chatham center,
I'm wondering. It might make more sense. To wait until
we've moved there to see the impacts of what that
move to the site might look like before I know.
The plan could potentially go two different directions. Would we
want to perhaps look at doing this plan once we
know for sure we're going to be in that site
and then looking at the impacts of being at the
Sears building. Versus not. Through the mayor. Thank you, councilor,
for the question. I'm not sure I'm best qualified. To
state whether or not the implications of moving to the
hub. What I can say is the reason why this
is before you is because it is a council term
priority, and collectively you have identified that you do want
to update the culture master plan, which is why it
is here with you. But I will say, as you
pointed out, that there have been a lot of changes
to this landscape for culture. Continues to change. And this
plan is not just about what we do municipally. It's
about what happens. In our community in relation to arts
and culture. So in that regard, I think I don't.
Think there's ever a wrong time to reassess where we
are at in terms of culture across our community. Yeah.
No, I agree. And I think planning ahead always makes
good. Sense. It seemed to me that when we were
looking at where the future of our cultural assets, our
municipal assets. And we've been doing a lot of talk
about really important discussions about our municipal assets, especially the
last few months. Once we know we're going to be,
then we would have that clear direction on especially our
heritage sites. So I was just thinking that perhaps it
might be worth looking at the timing. For that. In
terms of. The. Successful bidder. I know that TCI. Consultants
did the previous master plan and. I was part of
that in my previous life here. Is there a reason
why? They. Scored the way they did this time because
they obviously have pretty direct involvement in the previous plans.
Thank you through the mayor to answer council stories question.
When we put out rfps like this, we're following strict
municipal guidelines about how we do that. So following our
purchasing policy, we're working with our manager. Purchasing throughout in
terms of what is listed in the document. We then
evaluate submissions based on what is returned to us subject
to a series of criteria that we then create in
terms of what we're looking for based off what's actually
in the cultural the RFP document. We then assemble a
team to evaluate those submissions. That team consisted of myself,
the manager of arts. And culture and then the manager
of growth and planning from our planning area. And we
did connect with the Ministry of Culture and Gaming to
see if they were have their interest in the actual
document that we put out, but we basically evaluate. A
respondent's ability to complete the project based on what we
believe are the correct things. What we're looking for. So
we opened the pricing envelope once we have actually completed
and identified that the respondent or the identified is capable
of completing the work. So ultimately, the recommendation in front
of you is to go with era architects and monumental.
And that's basically on the basis of the criteria that
were all settled in the RFP documents, so everyone had
the same opportunity to respond on that. And the evaluation
team are putting forward a recommendation for that joint bid.
Thank you. That makes sense. And I know era is
very capable. They are very well known firms. I look
forward to seeing what they come up with. Just last
two questions. I appreciated the references to the Aoda compliance
in the tender related to the materials and the documentation,
however. I didn't see. I know it was a pretty
high level document, but. I didn't see any reference to
accessibility in terms of the description of the work. They're
going to be doing. Could you maybe expand on the
components of the plan related to accessibility? Thank you. Through
the mayor. Thank you, councilor, again for the question. Our
entire approach to this is around accessibility in terms of
engaging with groups who may not always have felt that
there was a place for them at the table who
may not necessarily have been invited. So we're talking about
an accessibility of an approach in terms of engagement, information
gathering. Reporting and accessing arts and culture generally and activities
across our. Community. So we're looking for broad audience appeal.
We're looking for that welcoming piece. For all sorts of
groups. So not those living with disabilities, but people who
are also maybe coming from different cultural backgrounds as well,
so I would say accessibility is implicit in terms of
the work we're doing, but. I will add that. Both
era and monumental. And specifically monumental in the work that
they have done in other municipalities. Really their level of
engagement. Is, I haven't seen a whole lot of it
in terms of comparisons, in as much as their approach
is about engaging groups who are typically not included in
these conversations. And really, that is the thrust of what
we're trying to do here with the cultural plan. Obviously,
there are base things that we know we need to
achieve. But the engagement, the accessibility, all those pieces, I
think, are implicit and certainly front of mind for us.
That would be great. And maybe when the time comes,
you wouldn't mind just shipping that. To the chair of
our accessibility committee to circulate. That would be great. I
would appreciate. That. And last but not least, I know
whenever we talk about. Master plans for our community. And
I know this happened with the last cultural plan as
well. Often we get a lot of great work done
and a lot of great engagement with our community. And
a lot of great recommendations, and then we sometimes hit
a wall, and it's not a Chatham Kent municipal unique
to us. It is often where we end up, especially
in challenging economic times and budget. Fiscal restraint. So what
happens? It looks like January 2026. Approximately. We would see
this report back. Is there any additional funding set aside
to actually implement the recommendations that we're going to see
in the plan. Thank you. Through the Merrick again councilor
story. Thank you for the question. I don't want to
predicate what actually might be recommended or not recommended in
the actual cultural plan. It may or may not involve
requirement of financial resources or otherwise, I don't know. So
I wouldn't like to predicate that. But we certainly do.
Have some reserves. In terms of Kawanis theater Improvement fund,
there are still some reserves there. And we do have
some reserves in our capital budget, but ultimately it will
be a council decision. When we return with recommendations that
the consultant brings forward, then will be a council decision
to decide. What level of investment is required moving forward?
And balancing that thing against our asset management plan and
the requirements generally that have already been identified. As needs
across all of our all municipal facilities. Ultimately. Thank you.
Audrey, I have one last quick question. Maybe that would
be a financial one to Gord. If we saw that
report in 2026. Would we potentially say, okay, if there's
x, y and z financial components to it, will be
say, we would look at that at 2026 budget, for
example. Is that how that would work, generally speaking. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. So, with the timing, your 2026 budget,
you'll be delivering in. November. Of 2025. So it's really.
More likely either the 2027 budget with the next council.
Or in the 28 to 31 multi year budget. Okay.
Thank you very much. Thanks, Audrey, for the report. Seeing
no other questions will put it to vote. Councilor b.
Mcgregor. Yeah. All votes are in motion. Passes 17 to
zero. 14 g tender award contract t 25. Two, three,
one. King Street west reconstruction and first street water. Main
replacement community of Chatham. Councilor story and councilor B. McGregor.
Can I guess you put some floor, please? How can
you move, Mr. Mayor? Councilor story. Go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just had a couple of
questions that came in from residents in that neighborhood that
I thought might be helpful. To discuss on the floor.
So what? Anyone else listening might be aware who lives
in that area. First question is, I know there's a
reference to the streetlight replacement. Those particular street lights are
similar to other historic neighborhoods on Victoria and Ellwood, I
think so I just wanted to clarify. Could you give
us a little more information about what that replacement looks
like on that section of Kingstree. Thank you. Thank you.
Mary Annis. Yeah. The street lights are being replaced. They're
to me standards and our pH standard. And also improves
some of those street lighting levels on King street. So
the style that's being incorporated is similar to the style
that you'd see at downtown Chatham right now on King
Street. So we're trying to match those. Additionally, some of
those older lights are harder to replace. Some of the
parts are difficult to source. So public works. Has been
trying to make an initiative to try to standardize some
of those decorative street lights. Okay. I might add that
to an amendment to this. I think there's going to
be some public pushback on that just because. Those particular
items. Are quite beloved in our community and they're really
unique historic element to. The neighborhood. So I'm wondering if
we might be able to pull that piece out of
this for a little more investigation. I think we have
done replacement on Victoria with those lights. To a reasonable
degree recently, but I know councilor Bonnie might have more
familiarity with that, so. I will leave that for the
moment. But will the Brianny impacts on the water supply
or the water pressure for residents in the area. Thank
you. So during construction, residents may see some fluctuations in
pressure. They'd also have short term outages. When we're replacing
the services over to the new main. But. Long term
project completion. There'd be. No loss of water pressure in
the area. Okay. And then in terms of the easements
along king I know there were a few driveways that
were impacted. And according to residents in that area, there's
not a lot of parking off site. In terms of
first street, it's usually quite busy. So if there are
issues with getting in and out of dry waste, do
you have any suggestions? For those residents who might be
impacted by that. Thank you. During construction or after. During.
Yeah. Thank you. Well, I guess there's two pieces. I'm
not entirely clear on. Which driveways we're referring to, but
I know there were a few folks on the street
who thought they may not be able to get in
and out of their driveway. So I would assume that's
probably during the actual construction. Thank you. Yeah. So during
construction. Our contractors are required to keep access open to
the public. There would be times during construction. When, if
we're replacing a curb across driveway or a sidewalk, That
they would lose access. Typically, when we're doing these projects,
we do one side of the road with curbs. And
sidewalks, and then we flip to the other side. So
that. The residents that lose access side can park on
the opposite side of the road. But we also work
with the commercial properties. If there's businesses for access. And
deliveries and that sort of thing as well. Okay. Maybe.
Will you be letting residents know, sort of directly? Not
too long before that happens on their particular property, so
they'll be aware of when that is something you need
to make other arrangements they can do, so. Yeah. So
we will keep the public informed. We will be installing
or dropping off door hangers. Before the project starts to
inform them of the phasing of the project. And which
areas will be impacted at which times. Our contractor also
provides. A letter. Inform them of the construction project and
we provide contact information if there's any. Questions or any
concerns, and then they can typically work with the onsite
supervisor or inspector. At that time. If there's specific access
requirements. Through the duration of construction. Okay, that's great. And
just the last question. I know in the report, it
said summer 2025, that that would likely begin. Do we
have a little more firm of a date now of
when that's going to start. Thank you. I'm anticipating likely
in August, early August, I would start. Once this is
approved at council here, and then we have a time
to meet with the contractor. We'll get a better idea
of their schedule. We typically. Set up preconstruction meetings shortly
after our council meeting to discuss the details of the
project. Okay, thanks very much. Mr. Chair. I'm not sure
what the proper timing is for this, but can I
add an item number four on this, or is that
at the end of the discussion? Thank you. Okay. Can
I simply add? Review options to keep the historic light
posts. As part of the replacement. I don't want to
keep. It. Too step to be able to provide us
with some options on that. I don't want to make
it too specific, but. Can we review the historic lamp
post replacement option? Maybe that's a proper wording. How does
that fit with. Has it already been awarded? And is
this an adjustment? Sorry. What phase are we at there?
Through you, Mr. Mayor Edwards, general manager of infrastructure engineering.
So what you have before you tonight is. To approve
the tender. The historical street lighting is not included as
part of that tender. So that motion would have us
go back. And if there was a change. If that
change couldn't be accommodated within the contingency, we'd have to
come back. And. Ask. For. Additional, potentially funds to make
that change. Okay, so it's feasible to do that then,
okay? So, item four. Just those few simple words. We
get those. Councilor B. McGregor, are you okay? With this
change. Yes. I've got a couple other speakers, councilor C.
McGregor and councilor Bondi and. Councilor Scott. Thank you. Through
the mayor. Mark, could you just better. Explain to me
the amendments on the amount of $101,700 for the contract
administration inspection. Services to be approved. I see that they
did inspections back in 2019. Do we have to redo
those because of the amount of times since the last
inspection which leads to the. Amendment. In the contract. If
you could just better explain that to me, I'd be
appreciate it. Thank you, mayor. Cannes? Yeah. So the contract
amendment is to cover inspection services through construction. So when
we originally rfp this project, The phasing was a little
bit different. We're phasing into almost kind of two separate
projects now. So there's some additional funds required for inspection
and contract administration. But also just. The extending it into
2026 to cover some of the increased cost for that
as well. Thank you. Councilor Bondi, followed by Councilor Scotty.
Thank you, Mary Kan. I'd like to discuss number four,
like the amendment. So I think the way I'm. Reading
it. Administration would review the options for historical lamp post
replacement options, which means we'll never hear about it, right?
You guys will just decide, like, if this would be
a friendly. Could we just make an amendment? That the
original style stays, and I don't think there's any trouble
finding these. Because. It's less than five years that. They
replaced the light standards from, I think, Amelia to McNaughton
on Victoria, so they got to be out there. And
they changed the lights on Victoria from time to time.
The availability is there. It really would be a shame
to take these out because. It's just kind of a
unique thing, right? Like, there's only three streets that have
them, and I think the people that live there and
the people that travel. Will just say, what a shame.
Like it's not the end of the world. But I'm
sure they'll just kind of wonder, like, why would you
do that? And clearly they are available. The ones on
Victoria are, again, not that old. So how much trouble
would it be? To just have them stay. Thank you,
mayor can if. I recall. The Victoriav that was similar
in that it was a council direction to replace. The
existing lights. We didn't do any work. I guess, on
the existing lights, we extended the street lights. Down the
road and we try to match as closely as possible.
In this instance, we were matching with the existing lights
on King street in the downtown area. We did have
a pic of public information center. We provided door hangers
to all the residents, and we did share that the
street lighting was going to be adjusted. We didn't receive
any comments. But it's not to say that there's how
many people came to owe to that it was a
virtual pic, so we provided door hangers to every resident,
and then there. Was information online. Right. Okay. Well, that's
fine, but I do think the people that live there
would probably prefer to have them stay. I think if
I went door to door and asked everybody. Because really,
they've been that way for 100 years, right? Yeah. So
similar to what? EDWARD mentioned. We couldn't look into if
there's replacement. Lights. If the question is, can we keep
the exact lights, I'd have to take a look at
the drawings just to make sure that there's no infrastructure
that's going to impact. That we'd have to remove them
in order to replace some of the infrastructure. But we
can definitely investigate that. So will we know about it?
Or do you guys. Will you guys just make that
decision? Not tell us, but not tell us. I don't
expect you to tell us when you choose lawnmowers and
stuff. But. Will we hear about it? Because it is
an amendment, but I see that. You can just kind
of run through the amendment. And kind of not come
back to us on it. I know it sounds nit
picky. But it is kind of a cool thing that
people like, and if it's not that. Much trouble. You're
going to exchange the standards anyway to match downtown, which
I don't think is terribly important because that's a commercial
downtown area and this is a residential area, so I
don't know. They really should match downtown Chatham. But I
don't know. If it's that big of a deal. Then
I guess it's not going to happen. But I'm just
trying to get that kind of across. So is it
that big of a deal? I don't think you'll be
able. To use the old lights. I would imagine they're
probably too old. But you're going to put in new
lights, or rather, put in the new style that's in
downtown. Just put in the sale that's existing there. Yeah.
So, again. The Victoria. I believe we matched the lights
as closely as we could. You couldn't actually. Replace lights
with the exact same style of that. They did a
great job. Nobody will ever know. It's very uniform when
you drive down. Because I live, obviously, on Victoria, right?
Not obviously, but I do live on Victoria, and so
mine's. An old one, and it's pretty seamless, right? Like
you can't. Tell. I think the new ones are taller,
but other than that. It's a very good match, so
I'm sure that would be just fine. On King west
if that's doable, I don't think it's a huge ask,
right? No. I guess I would say that maybe. The
recommendation should be adjusted a little more specifically than. To.
Just utilize them. Sorry, can I interject here? Just to
say. Administrator review officers historic lamp post. Replacement options and
report back to council, because I think councilor Bondi, that's
what you're afraid of is that. We're never here again.
But if we put that in there, they will report
back and. Say, here's the options and we can look
at it then. That would be great. Thank you very
much, Mr. Mayor. Okay, I'm all done. Thanks. Sorry to
bug you about this. Is that okay with the, you,
councilor story? That's great. Although, yeah, I think we can
take out one of the word options other. Than that.
That's great. Thank you. And councilor B. McGregor. Yes. Councilor
scott. Thank you. Mary can. If no disrespect to your
interpretation, I just wanted to. Make sure with Edward. I
interpreted number four a little bit more difficult than that.
Is it an easy process, Edward, or. Is it a
difficult process? Because I thought the way you sounded that
there would be potentially more. Work or delay if this
was the process. So I just want to clarify that
this was is easy or not. Thank you. Through the
mayor. The replacement of the street lights is not going
to be in the first phase of the project. Right?
We have to do the underground, other things so we
can take this back and we can. Review the various
options. We'll come back with the rationale of why we
chose what. We did, because we did recommend not this
option. And we can look at the other options and
provide council. With the cost implications of making that change,
hopefully within the time frame before we need to install
them. Thank you. Just one quick question to the clerk.
I would just appreciate one through three together. And number
four separately, please. Will do. Thank you. See. No other
questions. We'll put it to vote. We're going to vote
on. Item one, two and three to start, and then
we'll vote on item four. Councilor b. Mcgregor.
Yes. All votes are in motion. Passes 16 to zero.
And now we'll move on to number four.
Councilor b. Mcgregor. Yes. I'll vote, sir. In motion passes
13 to three.
Item 15, chief administrative office. 15, a Chatham, Kent, population
growth of 2025. Update and I'll have Audrey come forward.
For the introduction. Through the mayor. You are going to
receive two interrelated presentations this evening. One is about what's
been happening with Chalam Kent's population and the other is
about what has been happening. With Chadwin Kent's workforce. So,
as you can imagine, both very important to understand. For
the population presentation. You're going to hear from Jason Stubbots,
who is our municipal coordinator of workforce planning and research.
Obviously, changes in population are important to understand what's actually
driving those and what's making them up. And then, of
course, as we plan for growth and changes and attracting
talent to our community. The other presentation is that is
about workforce. It's related to our Chalam Kent workforce. Planning
Board, which is funded by the Ministry of Labor, Immigration
Training and Skills development. You are then going to hear
from David Campbell, who is consultant, who is hired to
complete Chalam the workforce Planning board's annual local labor market
impact or global labor market planning document David Campbell from
Jupia, and he is going to showcase some of the
sectors that are growing. And in need of talent due
to both growth and retirements. And I think really, in
summary, Chunam Kent. Has always been known as a geographic
sweet spot, and I think now we're obviously identified. As
a relocation hotspot as well. And so some of the
data that Jason will share with you. Will strongly illustrate
that. So we'll leave you with Jason stubbots. For a
presentation. All
right. Good evening, Mayor Kenneth and council. As Audrey alluded
to, I'm here this evening to provide an update on
population growth in Chatham, Kent. So, as Audrey alluded to
with my role, workforce planning and research coordinator, my role
helps support our local town attraction and retention efforts by
ensuring that employers, stakeholders, job seekers and policymakers have access
to the labor market data that they need to make
informed decisions. So jumping into the population update as of
July 1, 2024, Chatham Ken's population is estimated to be
111,703. This population level was last seen in 2006. So
Statistics Canada produces the census every five years, with 2021
being the most recent. But Statistics Canada also provides population
estimates on an annual basis that allows us to see
population trends in between those census periods, and that's where
this information comes from. So, looking at the population growth,
if you look at the chart on the screen here,
Cheddam Ken's population was just over 112,000 people back in
2006. If you look at the nine year period that
followed that there was consistent decline in the population. With
it eventually going down to 104,511 people back in 2015.
However, that's when we begin to see these population trends
change and we begin to see that upward growth, so
between 2015 and 2024, Chadam Ken's population grew by an
estimated seven. Thousand, 192 people or almost. 7%. And in
the last year alone, the population increased by an estimated
1176 people. So I think it's important to also note
that since 2001, when this data collection set began, Chatham
Ken's population has only been higher than what it currently
is three times, and that was back in 2001, 2005
and 2006. And currently Chatham Ken's population is only 577.
People. Away from surpassing its highest level since data collection
began back in 2001. So if we look at the
age breakdown of the population, a few noticeable trends stand
out. First almost 24% of Chatham, Kent residents are over
the age of 65. So again, this really highlights the
importance of continued attraction and retention efforts, especially of younger.
Residents to address future workforce shortages that the next presentation
will allude to. Second between 2023 and 2024. Chad McKenz
population in that 25 to 44 age group saw growth
of 2.2%. So again, a positive sign for local workforce
development and then if you did the math on the
screen there, I should note that 21% of Chatham Ken's
population again, based on these estimates. Is under the age
of 20, so a positive sign for the future workforce.
So the decline in the natural population growth rate highlights
a need for population growth from other sources. So if
we look at Chatham Kent's declining birth rate prior to
2013, Chatham Kent saw more bursts than deaths on an
annual basis. And you see that with this chart on
the screen. Here with the number of bursts highlighted by
the blue line and the number of deaths highlighted by.
The gray line. However, starting in. 2014, the number of
deaths began to outpace the number of bursts. It's a
trend. That's continued to present day. And as you see
on the chart there, it's actually widened as time has
gone on. So given the current age distribution of the
population that we just looked at. It's also a trend
that is likely to continue in the future. In 2024
alone, there were 462 more deaths than bursts in the
community. So what? That tells us is Chadam Kent needs
to continue to attract and retain individuals from other sources
to continue to grow its population. So immigrants and non
permanent residents continue to play a key role in driving
population and workforce growth. In Chatham, Ken. So on this
slide we see the number of annual immigrants and net
non permanent resident arrivals to Chatham, Ken. One of the
most noticeable trends. Is, since the pandemic, we see strong
increases in the number of annual arrivals from both of
these population sources. And you see that on the screen
there with a number of immigrants highlighted. By the gray
bar and net non permanent residents by the blue bar.
So between July 1, 2023 and June 30 of 2024.
So over that one year period, 293 immigrants arrived to
Chatham, Kent, and a net of 489 non permanent residents
arrived. In recent years, intraprovincial migration, so movement within the
province of Ontario has been the main source of population
growth in Chatham, Ken. So it was just a decade
ago that Chatham Ken had negative trends when it comes
to intraprovincial migration, meaning the community was losing more people.
To other areas of the province than it was gaining.
And you see that clearly on the screen. There. However,
starting in 2016, this trend started to change, and again
it has sharply accelerated. After the pandemic. In 2024 1077,
more people moved into Chatham, Kent, than out from other
areas of the province. And in the past four years,
Chadam Ken has gained 4561 people via intra provincial migration,
so you see strong growth from other people. Choosing to
come to Chatham, Ken from elsewhere in the province. Continuing
with intraprovincial migration. What we see with these trends is
that there's considerable mobility within southwestern Ontario. So this data
comes from a one year period of 2022 and 2023.
But what Chadam Kent saw was a net gain of
374 people from Toronto and net gain of 148 from
Windsor, a net gain of 125 from Kitchener, Cambridge, Waterloo,
and a net gain of 119 from Hamilton. Cerny is
actually one of the few areas in the province where
we have a negative net number, but it is quite
low with just negative net 13. So again, you're seeing
Chatham can gain more individuals from other areas of the
province than we're losing. So age data suggests that its
young families moving to the community. So we looked at
the number of immigrants, intraprovincial migrants, as well as non
permanent residents. But what their age is telling us is
that a large percentage of arrivals are coming in. The
under 15 age group and the 25 to 44 age
group. So of the 1859 people. That moved to Chatham,
Kent in this one year period via these three pathways.
74% were under the age of 45. So this includes
92% of immigrant and 96% of net non permanent resident
arrivals being under the age of 45. So, in summary,
when it comes to the population, Chatham Ken has seen
consistent growth since 2015. The community continues to deal or
see a declining natural birth rate, which highlights a need
for population. Growth from other sources, and that leads to
our attraction from inward migration. So those moving from elsewhere.
Within the province of Ontario. So intra provincial migrants, as
well as non permanent residents and immigrant. Immigrants. They continue
to be the main drivers of population growth in Chetamken.
So that's it. What I have for the population portion
of it, and I know that. The next presentation will
look at workforce trends councilor crew, followed by councilor story.
Thank you, Jason. I just have one question of clarification.
How do you describe a non permanent resident? Through you.
Merit. So a non permanent resident resident would be someone
on a work visa? Study visa. Or refugee claimant, so
an asylum seeker, so international students would be included in
that. Councilor story, followed by councilor C. McGregor. Mr. Mayor.
Thanks, Jason. That great presentation. I really appreciate you gathering
this data for us and sharing. With us periodically. I
think it's really helpful for us to see. An interesting
how long it took us to rebound from that economic
shock earlier. In the 2000s, but I really appreciate the
work that our attraction retention team have done in our
local businesses to bring folks back to the community to
grow our economy again. In terms of comparators. Do we
know how we line up in terms of. If I'm
reading it correctly, it's correctly about. Two ish percent population
growth every five years. Is that typical for municipalities our
size? Are we a little higher on that front or
a little lower. Where do we fall within that range?
Thank you through the mayor. Thank you for the question,
councilor. So we're working on a report right now that
will look at comparators with other areas. Across the province,
our size. So I do know over the last five
year period when the census Chatham, Kent saw a 2%
2.2% population growth, whereas the province saw a 5.8% population
growth. Looking at different areas within the province, there is
a lot of mix of some communities growing faster. Than
others and slower. Sorry, the census period before China can
saw population decline, so it was positive that we did
see that 2.2% increase, but I will share that report
when it's available. That would be great. Thank you. And
then the last question would be, I know you referred
to in order for us to continue to grow. Since
we have an aging community, we would likely. Be continuing
to prioritize immigrants and non permanent residents to come to
Chatham, Kent. I think since the last census was complete,
we have had a change fairly recently in federal immigration.
Policy that could potentially restrict those numbers to the country,
not just to Chatham, Kent, quite substantially. Have we considered
that new policy development in our forecasting? Thank you. Through
the mayor. Thank you for that question. So, yes, the
stats that you would have saw up there would not
have accounted for the recent policy changes from the federal
government. There probably will be some impacts, but I think
it's too early to know exactly what the impacts will
be. Probably non permanent residents, which would include international students.
Would see some lower enrollment numbers locally is probably one
impact. But a lot of Chatham Ken's population growth that
we looked at is coming from intra provincial migrants. So
people who are already in the province of Ontario could
have been here for six months, five years, ten years
or more coming to the province. Or coming to the
community. So I'm not sure if the actual impact that
the policy might have on that migration trend. Thank you
very much. Councilor C. McGregor, followed by Councillor Anderson. Thank
you. And through the mayor, just a couple of questions.
The non permanent residents. Are they included in the overall
population tally? Through the mayor. Could you please repeat the
question? Sorry. The non resident or non permanent residents that
we saw numbers there, are they included in the overall
population. Yes. They would be like, even if they're on
a student visa and they're. Only projected to be here
for in those estimates, they would be included in those.
So they might not really be turned into permanent residents,
correct? A non permanent resident. Yeah. There's no guarantee that
they would stay in the country. When you're doing these
studies, do you tallytal when you talk about interprovincial? People
moving into Chatham, Kent. Whether or not they're returning members
that may be left during. The time that we lost
so many people that were leaving to find new jobs.
Do we track how many of those are returning members?
From the past. So through this data set, we wouldn't
be able to get that answer. You wouldn't? Be able
to see if that specific individual. Left the community and
then came back. Through the work of resident attraction and
retention with municipality. They do connect with people who have
left the community and come back and tell their story.
But as for the actual figures, through this data, set,
there'd be no way of tracking one individual who left
and decided to come back. Yeah, I remember. In the
decline, a lot of people leaving and moving west. For
jobs, but had family here that have since had families
and decided to return. So I was just curious whether
that was track. Thank you. Councilor Anderson. Thank you. And
through you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for this presentation. I'm
just trying to understand. I definitely see the need for
having more people. My question is more related to the
types of people. What have we seen as far as
economically. How this has improved for Chatham, Kent. Or how
is this? What are our unemployment rates? Let's. Say, compared
to. When. We had a much less population. Are they
fulfilling jobs that we have that haven't been able to
be fulfilled. Are we seeing an improvement because we have
all these immigration coming to us? Is that value here?
Through the mayor. Thank you for the question. We're definitely
seeing a lot more diversity in the community. Immigrants who
are coming are bringing skilled education with them. You really
see that in the education trends? But the following presentation
that's coming up next is going to do the deeper
dive into. Employment trends, unemployment trends. So we'll see that
coming up. Thank you. We'll move on to the next
presentation then. It's the Jason's show. Next presentation is Chadam
Kent, Workplace Planning Board 2025 update and we have a
presentation from David Campbell, and he is on the call.
David, are you there? I'm there. Can you hear me?
Yes. And we can see you on the video in
front of us. Thank you. Go ahead. Now. We can't
hear you. No.
We still can't hear you. I can hear a little
bit of the echoing. I don't know if you want
to turn off your camera and maybe try if that
might help. I'm not sure.
We still cannot hear you. Can see your presentation.
Maybe we still cannot hear you. You were there at
the very beginning. And then it stopped working.
See your message. 1 second. It's an Internet issue.
Okay, why don't we try that quickly, David, and see
if you go back out and. Come back in and
see if that works.
Hi, David. I can see you again. Do you want
to try your microphone? No. I can see you talking,
but we cannot hear you. I've talked with Audrey. And
unfortunately, if we can't get you to hear you, we'll
just have to. Move on. And perhaps you can connect
with Audrey about next steps. Is that okay? We're not
having much luck when we have you on the virtual
call, are we? Okay, no problem. I see your apology.
Thank you. Yes. We'll move on to item 16.
Finance, budget, information, technology and transformation. 16 a public utilities
commission master plan review with a growth lens. We have
a presentation from Jim Harnum. He's the president of the
municipal Vu Consulting, Inc. Jim, if you'd like to. Come
forward and give a brief introduction and start. We hope
that you have better luck. The microphone is in front
of you. If you just want to push the button
till the red. Light comes on. Perfect. Get this up
for a sec. Great. Well, good evening, Mr. Mayor and
members of council. Thank you for allowing me to be
here. To present this evening here to present to you
the results of a study that we were commissioned. To
do. For the. Do we have a presentation up there?
I could plug in here. Thank you. We were commissioned
by the POC to look at their water wastewater master
plan. So you may or may not be aware that
the POC hired a consulting firm to do a master
plan came up with close to a billion dollars worth
of projects. And quite a bit of a sticker shock
for this community. So they'd asked us. To look at
that and try and prioritize and see. What could we
do? To really make this more affordable. Go to the
next slide, please. Start my presentation here, so I'm on
the same slide. There we go. Can't quite see the
bottom part of this. There we go. Thank you. So
really what they asked us to do was to optimize
the infrastructure investment priorities and support the long term service
delivery and encourage growth in the community. So there was
about four objectives that we were to look at, and
it was to review the master plan and other key
documentation. They wanted us to develop an actionable recommendation plan
that observed risks and tried to balance those risks with
growth and levels of service. Identify constraints and risks and
opportunities while we were going through this exercise, and then
lastly, develop a high level alternatives and potential phasing options
for the master plan. Next slide. So when we started
this project, these were some of the discussions we had,
not only with Chatham. Kent staff but also with the
PUC staff. And some of these challenges started to come
to the surface. The first was. The obvious that the
Master plan capital forecast forecasts were unaffordable. Next was the
water wastewater facilities. We're really having. Competing priorities between the
state of good repair. And. The potential growth that the
community is facing. Next we have over the last while
in Chatham tent, you've had limited growth as you're probably
well aware, but with the things changing at the province
and the housing shortage, growth has been accelerating in Chatham,
Kent, and there's estimates of 1% growth in the short
term for this community, which it hasn't seen for quite
some. Time. Wallaceburg costs were continuing to escalate, not just
the capital cost. But the actual scope of the project
was escalating, and all capital projects are escalating. As you're
well aware and you see many times. Through reports that
come before you. Agricultural greenhouse demands and DC discounts were
not sustainable, so there was a huge demand. Or projected
demand of greenhouses between Dresden and Wallaceburg, as well as
closer to. The south end of Chatham, Kent. And right
now, those greenhouses were also discounted under the DC bylaw,
so that wasn't something that was sustainable. And there happened
to be some disconnect between the PUC and the municipal
staff when it came to, what were the priorities and.
What was. The main priority going forward. And then lastly,
we felt that there were some resource opportunities that were
not fully utilized. And what that means is we think
that there was opportunities to do things better. Cheaper, faster.
And prioritize some of these things, and that's what we
ended up looking at. Through this project. Next slide, please.
So I won't spend a lot of time on this,
but just to demonstrate to you, that we did follow
a very extensive process when we went through this project.
We started with a discovery phase. And we looked at
having a kickoff meeting not only with a PUC staff,
but also with the Chatham Kent staff. We basically reviewed
every document that we could get our hands on. Data.
Information about the treatment plants, the projects, the history. There's
numerous reports. That are giving you a snapshot of what's
happening in Chatham. Kent. We reviewed all of that. We
did interview the mayor and some of the PUC board
members, as well as. Numerous Chatham, Kent staff and PUC
staff. Next, we went into our diagnosis phase and we
looked at benchmarking some other municipalities that are similar size
to yourself. We went through a visioning workshop with the
PUC staff and the Chatham Kent staff. We reviewed the
constraints and opportunities. What were some of the opportunities that
were presenting themselves through this? And then we produced a
current state assessment. And lastly, we went into the phase
three, which is the options development, and we came up
with. A prioritization framework and looked at the financial analysis
of the potential solutions. And then again we workshop this
with the PUC staff and with the Chatham Kent staff,
and then we produced a final report, and we're here
today to present that report to you. Next slide. So.
Really? This diagram here shows you when we were originally
brought on. Our focus was to look at the master
plan projects, water and wastewater master plan projects. But as
we started reading as we started going more through the
documentation and having more discussions with staff in both Chatham,
Kenta and the PUC, we realized there was a lot
more below the tip. Of the iceberg. So what we've
organized this report in is these categories, and really what
we have is the water wastewater master plan projects are
just a list of projects, but below that we have
a whole bunch of EA's, three main ones that we
want to talk about in this report. Or we do
talk about is the Wallaceburg Ea, the southeast Chatham ea
and. The southwest Chatham ea, and then below that, you
have a lot of operational studies. That some are there
and some aren't there, but. They really help you. The
classy A's and the master plan are your long term.
Studies, but your short term studies, operational studies like plant
building condition assessments, water loss studies, and ini are inflow
and infiltration studies. We want to talk a little bit
about those. Lastly, we have foundational plans and. Those are
your big plans, like asset management plans, the rate study,
water and wastewater rate study, the official plan itself. And
then the master plan itself. Not the project, but the
master plan itself is. One of those foundational plans, and
then below all of that is really the need for
a strategic business plan and. Having levels of service defined
and key performance indicators. So I'm going to go through
these. Very quickly, these various parts that we discovered. In
our work with the puc. So the master plans the
next slide. We divided the master plan projects. There was
numerous projects that added up to about $985,000,000. And we
divided these projects up into green, yellow and red. The
green projects. Being projects. That. The green projects were projects
that we deemed were ready to proceed and they didn't
need. Any further study, and they were a priority for
the municipality and. The puc. I'll get into the other
ones in a minute. We then went through yellow projects,
which are projects that we feel. Could proceed, but they
needed further investigation. And then lastly, red category were projects
that should be halted. And further study on those projects
needed to happen. It may be a completely different solution.
And Wallaceburg will be one of those that we'll talk
about quite a bit. So in this slide, you'll see
we have approximately $94 million worth of projects out. Of
the 985,000,000 that we're saying, who should go ahead with.
For various reasons. They're either critical for water security or
pressures or. State of good repair for infrastructure, and they're
ready to go, and they will add benefit. To the
community and the PUC. You'll see also that a lot
of these are in the short term and the interim.
So in the one to five to seven year time
frame. And a lot of these projects do take that
long to carry out. Next slide. So this is the
yellow projects, and this is the ones that we've said
to refresh. Your memory is to pause until further investigation,
but they probably will proceed at some point in the
future again. You start to see a shift now that
these are shifting more into the medium. To long term.
So we're really not. By halting them and doing more
investigation, we're not holding. Up a lot of the work
that is planned. But we do feel that there's further
studies and further things that are required before we commit
these dollars and get moving on these dollars. Next slide.
And you'll have these packages, I'm assuming, so you can
read the projects. I won't go through all the projects.
And the next slide is really. Stop these projects. And
do some studies and. They may actually yield different solutions
altogether. So it may not be the solution that was
put forward. In the master plan itself. And again, you'll
see. These are into the short and medium, long term.
And a couple of those biggest numbers are the Wallaceburg
supply system, but also the Chatham water supply system. And
then there is about $225,000,000 identified for combined sewer separation.
And we'll talk about some of these projects in a
minute as well when we get into the EA's and
the operational studies, but we're saying there's $593,000,000. Worth of
projects, or almost half of the projects that you should
halt because we think? That there's probably a better solution.
Or there may be a better solution. Than going ahead
with these projects or a different solution. At the very
least. Next project or next slide? Sorry, projects on my
mind. So the next part of this is really the
class ea the next slide. So the main one we
want to talk about today is the Wallaceburg EA and
this accounts. For over $150,000,000 worth of the projects that
we're talking about. Halting or recommending to halt. And I
want to give you a little bit of background. On
the Wallaceburg EA back in 2012. This has been going.
On. As many of you been around this table probably
know that this has been going on for quite some
time with Wallaceburg. Back in 2012, a company called Dylan
was hired to do an EA. And their recommendation was
to bring a pipe from Chatham to Wallace Burke. In
2016, a second study was done by a company called
Stantech. They're a well known engineering firm, and they also
came up with. A preferred option being three a in
their study of a pipe. And then there was quite
a bit of pushback from the community and quite a
bit of discomfort with this idea of a pipe coming
from Chatham. They like their water supply that they have.
And so there was an amendment. Made to that, and
they landed on upgrading the Wallace treatment plan. Plant, not
replacing it, but upgrading it and fixing the things that
are wrong with it and the pipe option was about
$11.9 million at the time, and that's probably upwards. Of
2020, $5 million in today's dollars. Then there was also
Jacobs, who did an EA. And then they identified upgrading
the existing Wallaceburg, and it would be roughly $26 million
and an additional $10 million. For the total upgrade of
that, which was about $36 million for that study. Then
we come to 2023. And again, the same company, Jacobs
does an EA. And now with the existing. Plant is
about 14 megaliters per day. That, along. With. The projected
demand of these greenhouses was going to bring this plant
to a 28 megal. A day plant. It was going
to completely replace the plant, build a new intake, build
a new reservoir, a low lift pumping station, and also.
New treatment facilities as well. And that was pegged at
about $117,000,000. And now that cost has been inflated. It's
sitting at about $150,000,000, and that cost. Is probably closer
to $200 million by the time you build this plant.
So our recommendation on Wallace Berg. The next slide, please.
Is to really repair the existing immediate concerns at Wallaceburg.
There are some things that need immediate attention in the
Wallaceburg plant. That have pretty well been on hold until
nothing that's affecting the water quality or safety. But they've
been on hold with all of these studies that have
been going on, so. We're suggesting that we get those
repairs done and get some things fixed at the Wallaceburg.
Plant. There has been a lot of talk about the
EA rules changing in the near future, and really loosening
requirements. You're hearing about some of these things in the
media. And really, we're saying that. You should be looking
at utilizing the existing wallets. You could use the existing
Wallaceburg plant. For these greenhouses alone, and they would pay
the entire amount if you separate the water and say?
Greenhouses don't need treated water. Greenhouse is prefer raw water.
They actually take the chlorine. Out of the water when
they use that water. So there is an option to
take that existing Wallaceburg plant and make it a raw
water pumping station to supply the greenhouses. It would be
for the sole purpose of greenhouses, so they would be.
The sole benefactor. Therefore they would pay for that 100%
and not the residents of Chatham, Kent. A fallback position
of that would be. To just upgrade the plant. The
existing 14 megalitre a day plant that's there, upgrade it,
and again, the cost that we're in the 2022 EA
were 26 million and 10 million. But obviously those have
also inflated. And there's a bunch of other things that
the PUC recognizes. In the Wallaceburg plant. So really it's
depending on the EA timing. We feel that. You should
carry out with that original plan of running a pipe
from Chatham tent or from Chatham. I should say to
Wallaceburg. And plan the plant expansion of Wallaceburg or of
Chatham, I should say. In conjunction with that pipe. So
you have to do some work to chat them anyway
for growth. And for the future of Chatham. So make
that plant bigger. You've already got the property. In the
footprint and run the pipe up to Wallaceburg. And I'll
talk a bit more about that in some of the
coming slides. Next slide. So the second one that I
wanted to talk about is called the Chatham southeast ea,
and this is really about Ridgetown in Blenheim. The problem
we have here, we're recommending. That this. Carry on and
this. Go ahead. The Richtown Highgate groundwater supply has difficulty.
Producing. Aesthetically pleasing water, so it's safe water, but it's
not always aesthetically. Pleasing as well. There's about 56 year
old reservoir and 55 year old. Pipes and elevated tank
in that area that are going to need replacing or
upgrading. So rather than do that. There's a plan to
bring that water across from the South Chatham, Kent water.
Transmission system. With a 600 millimeter pipe from the chair
and cross road, and that would eliminate this system. And
same with the Wallaceburg plant. We would be eliminating a
plant which has a lot of operational costs in it.
There's chemicals, there's employees, there's power, all of those things
that we need to think about, not just the capital
cost. There's a long term operating cost that I'll talk
about a bit further as well. Next slide. So lastly
is the southwest Chatham growth and servicing study. This area
has the potential for needed industrial, commercial and housing in
the area. It's partly outside the urban boundary right now,
but it is. An important growth area. A lot of
it is in the urban boundary, but a part of
it is outside the urban boundary. The servicing study was
started on this before the master plan and it was
halted, hoping the two of them would come together. That
wasn't the case. There was nothing considered for this area.
In the POC's water wastewater master plan. And it's likely
that the next official plan will include some, if not
a good portion. Of these lands. There has been a
great deal of ongoing communication with the PUC. And the
Chatham Kent staff on this area now. But there is
potentially upwards of $500 million in water wastewater alone that's
required for the full build out of this area. The
next slide. So next we have operational studies. So we've
got. Next slide, please. We've got a bunch of things
that we feel the Puc should. So this started. To
go a little bit over and above what our original
scope was. With respect to just prioritizing the capital programs.
But as we're going through these we're seeing some of
these issues, and so we've made some recommendations on this.
As well. We think that the POC should immediately begin
detailed condition assessments of all the pumping stations and treatment
facilities. They do do building condition assessments. But from staff
resources not only in the PUC but also in Chatham.
It's difficult to get those assessments done. We feel that
you should do a ten year program and get all
of those facilities you need to know the status of
those facilities you need. To know what shape they're in.
How much money is it going to be to fix?
Them and keep them in a state of good repair.
And these building condition assessments are critical to ensuring that.
You're also managing the growth. And the state of good
repair together. So if you know the condition of the
facility, you will. Say, okay, let's not replace that facility,
because growth that we're going to build something for growth.
So you have the two of them that are aligned.
Next slide. The next operational study that we're recommending is
ini studies and water loss studies. We've got anywhere from
15% to 55% water loss. In the POC system. So
that means if you produce. 100 liters of water. 55%
of that in some areas is being lost. So you're.
Only actually pumping out 45 liters, and the other 55%
of that water is being lost somewhere. There's a bunch
of different reasons. There's firefighting, there's operational flushing. You've got
a lot of dead ends, a lot of small two
and four. Inch mains. In the system, but you also
have leakage, so we're recommending that you do. An Ini
study and find out where that water is going. It's
much more economical. To find water that's already being produced
and lost than it is to expand a plant. For
tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, you may
spend $10 million finding these leaks. And improving your operations,
so it makes more sense to do these studies. On
the flip side is the sewers. So the sewers have
ini or inflow and infiltration and that. Water comes into
the sewers and it's not supposed to come into. The
sewer. So you have a combined sewer system where the
water is supposed to come into the sewers, but you
also have ini, which is water that's not supposed to
come. Into the sewers. And that you've got about $25
million in the master plan. For upgrading some of those
pipes and making them bigger so that we don't end
up with flooding. And we're suggesting that you would be
better to find some of these leaks. And how is
the water getting into that system so that. It's a
better bang for your buck than just upsizing pipes to
deal with water. That shouldn't be there. So again, the
last point there is the return on investment for water
loss and ini. Are much higher compared to upsizing or
building more treatment capacity. Next slide. Thank you. So the
last one is there's about $225,000,000 identified in the Master
plan for sewer separations over the next ten years. And
our recommendation. You've got an engineering firm that I've worked
with over my. Career as well. Andrew's engineering, excellent firm.
They've come up with all of these. Plans to do.
Sewer separation, but there's no real concrete plan, and there's
a combination between. The Chatham Kent staff and the PUC
staff that are responsible for this, but really. We're saying?
There's a guide called f five. Five guidelines. That say?
You can manage this flow. You don't have to separate
everything. If it's not. Affordable. So we're saying take a
pause on this. 225,000,000. You still have. Projects going forward
that our sewer separations when you're rebuilding a road. And
we heard some of those the last time we were
here. But it's really come up with a solid ten
year plan right now, that's just a big chunk placeholder
that's in YOur master plan that says somewhere around $225,000,000.
We need. So we're saying, get a better, more concrete
plan. For that $225,000,000. Next slide. One more. So then
you have. Below that you have foundational plans. And this
is your official plan. And then your municipal DC bylaw.
The municipal DC bylaw is set to expire in. 2027.
So there's an urgency here to get a lot of
these things figured out. And cost it out so that
we can put this money into the DC bylaw so
that. You're appropriately recovering that from the development community. If
it's truly for growth. The rate study which council and
the PUC has passed. That was a big step forward
as well to making sure that you have enough money
to sustain. The state of good repair for these assets,
and that should be reviewed every five years. And then
we're suggesting that you consider an entirely new water wastewater
master plan that looks at some of these solutions that
we put forward in more detail. And then lastly. Is
the need for an asset management plan. Under regulation 588,
you need to be compliant by July of this year.
With. A new full asset management plan, which is the
future levels of service, and I know the staff are
working on that now. But it's coordinating that asset management
plan, which is about the existing assets you have with
the growth, which is the master plan assets and making
sure that those two things have enough money. That they're
not competing with each other. Next slide. Lastly, a couple
more slides here. Our foundational thing here is we feel.
That the POC is lacking in a long term strategic
business plan. They do have a business plan, but we're
looking at things like. A mandate. Overall goals, what are
the key levels of service and key performance indicators, and
then really having a stakeholder management strategy when you have
limited resources. This is critical to have. A good long
term strategic plan. And knowing where you're going for the
next 10, 20, 30 years. We're suggesting what we call
a municipal view model, which is our model, which has
built. Off of another model, which is called the balanced
scorecard approach. And there's also Baldridge approach. There's many ways
to do this. Strategic planning. I'll just go to the
next slide. Which gives you an idea what we're talking
about with. A municipal view model business strategy. It's really
looking at what are the customers you have. And what
are the services you provide to them? What are the
operations and processes that you have to provide those services
and how much do they cost. What technology improvements do
you need to keep performing those processes? And providing that
service to the customer. And then lastly, none of that
works without the people, so. What is your people? How
many staff do you need? Do you have the right
amount of staff? Do you need to work on the
culture? And then lastly it comes down to money, which
is. The finances and the assets. If you don't have
the money. And if you don't. Have the appropriate asset
allocation. You can't. Run any of this business, so it's
making sure that you have a plan for that. Lastly,
you wrap all that together and that's the strategy document
that you would come up. With that would review all
of these things and build yourself a strategy. And that's
our presentation for this evening. Happy to take questions. So
what I'm going to do with this is any questions
we have. Of the consultant. We'll get those through, and
then we'll go to the discussion. I will take the
questions out of that part. So we'll do that piece
first and. Then. I have. Councilor, just put up your
hands, please. Anderson. Harrigan. Okay, so we
had three. So Councilor Anderson, you can start, followed by
councilor Scottie. Thank you, Mr. Mary and through you. Thank
you for this presentation. This is my second time seeing
it. I've had a little bit of time to go
over it a bit more. And. While I certainly appreciate.
I wish we didn't require. Your consultant a consultation on
this, but we are definitely in a critical state with
our PUC. So I appreciate you giving some suggestions. One
of the questions that I do have. Is the structure
of the governance of the PUC and the commission where
we sit and we're six counselors that are making these
major, major decisions, and this has gone on for a
very, very long time. And in no way, shape or
form an I an expert in underground butter infrastructure, and
I'm not sure that anybody else that sits on the
PUC is either with that disconnect. With the municipality in
the past. I mean, we obviously have a different dynamic
now and hopefully moving. Forward. Was that taken into account
as to how we got to this position that we're
in? Right now. Is there a suggestion that you would
have liked to bring forward, or was that not part
of the strategy of this task for you. Yeah, it
wasn't part of our strategy. We do make a few
comments in the more detailed report about coordination and collaboration
and governance. And I do think that there is something
ongoing right now, but that wasn't in our scope. Thank
you. I think that it is important moving forward that.
We do really look at. The structure of the commission
and how we move forward with that in a very
strategic way over these next ten years, like you're saying,
to make sure that the best decisions are being. Made.
And I know that there's been a motion, I believe,
that the mayor brought forward to look at this. Does
anyone know where we're at with that? And is that
going to be in the strategic plan in July. I
can answer that for you. So KPMG has been hired
for the governance review. That works. Just beginning now with
an expected. Delivery in October. Of this fall. So the
governance review of the POC. Thank you. So that won't
be included in the July like Master plan as far
as a restructuring. Of commission. That's a separate project that
was ongoing the same time that we had municipal viewing.
The master plan. It's sort of a parallel project that's
going on. Yeah. Thank you. We can say that it's
a peril project, but I think that it kind of
boils down to kind of a similarity, too. Of we're
still being asked as a commission and now as council,
to make this decision. And with it there being a
disconnect of the municipality, I know that I have reached
out not only to the PUC, but also to engineers
here through CK. It's important that we do include these
experts that we have, both at the administrative level. Of
with CK and also through the PUC in order for
us to make these really big decisions because this isn't
an easy decision for us to make and in no
way shape. Or form. Do I feel like I'm the
expert to sit around a table and say, this is
exactly what we should be doing with a $2 billion
def. Deficit in lifecycle and capital costs. So I feel
like, again, we're in a situation where we could be
potentially. Putting. The car before the horse. Where? You're asking
us to make this decision now before we. Actually have
a master plan. Moving forward. So my second question is,
when we did the interviews, when your consulting company did
the interviews, who? Decided who was interviewed and why wasn't
every member of commission interviews? Through you, Mr. Chair or
Mr. Mayor. Sorry. We did put the offer out to
all of the commission members, and we only received two
responses back from the members, which was the chair and
councilor McDonald. So we did reach out to all of
the commission members to ask them for an interview. Did
that go out to the whole commission as a whole.
To all the commission members. I must. Have missed that
email. Yeah. And then I just have one more technical
question for you. When we discuss now potentially using Wallaceburg
as, are you saying, a raw waterline as an intake
or as a chat. From chat. It's really. Fairly high
level concept. There's a lot of work that would have
to be done to do that. But we know. This
provincial government is very strong on greenhouses, and there really
believes that there's a need for them. So there is
an opportunity there. If the plan was to make Wallaceburg
28 megalitres, to supply 14 or 16 of those mega
liters to the greenhouse. Industry. There is an opportunity, rather
than throw the infrastructure away that's there for Wallaceburg. If
we were to bring a pipe up to create a
raw water pumping station, it would be called Hamilton had
this for stelco when I was a director of water
in Hamilton. So you. Use raw water, and then the
cost of that would be borne. By the greenhouse, not
the residents. Sure. Yes, I certainly understand that concept. I
guess my question is. Do we consider where we're drawing
water from? Because I know right now Chatham is drawing
from Lake Erie. Is that correct? I believe Wallaceburg does
not draw from Lake era, I believe. They draw from
Lake St. Clair. So if we're cutting off, like, a
major separ. Separate water source. What were to happen if
we were to have a major contamination in Lake Erie?
Per se. So a couple of things. I'll respond to
that through you, Mr. Mayor. I think the likelihood of
a contamination is always higher in a river than it
is in a great lake there's. Many people that draw
from Lake Erie, so. It's a highly unlikely scenario. That
something would happen with that source. But the safe drinking
Water Act. Does take into account the treatment of that
water. So regardless of what your source is, you have
to treat it to certain parameters. If there was, let's
say, hydrocarbons or a spill in a river, that would.
Be much more. Disastrous because it's such a smaller body
of water, whereas in Lake Erie that would have it's
called the size of the receiving body could absorb that
with less impact. And the same thing with Lake Ontario
and all of the people that draw from Lake Ontario.
So from decreasing from two water sources to draw from
to just one. Source. It doesn't pose a significant risk
in my mind. No, you've got Hamilton has. One plant
with one pipe going out to Lake Ontario, 600,000, 700,000
people. Mississauga and Brampton have two plants for 2 million
people. Toronto has four plants. With. I don't know what
Toronto is now. Three and a half, 7 million, 6
million. People? Something like that. So. I would say it's
at higher risk to draw the water out of the
river than it is to draw it out of Lake
Erie. Thank you. I appreciate that. And that's just one
of those questions where ignorance is not bliss in sitting
in my position because my thought would be. Why wouldn't
we keep. Two drawing from two water sources as a
safer bet for clean drinking water as opposed to just
going to one major source, so I certainly appreciate you
clarifying that for me. Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Sakachi, followed
by councilor Harrigan. Thank you. Through mayor Cana a. Lot
of times we get these reports and they're really complicated
and really technical, and I think that you did a
really good job at putting it together in a method
that myself as a counselor who doesn't have any expertise
could understand. I actually went through this report several times
because I found. It very, I'm going to say alarming
in some aspects, but it was very well. Put together
so I could actually understand it. So in the report,
There's a lot of verbiage regards, lack of coordination, lacks
issues, challenges, and you actually mentioned the word scorecard. So
for somebody who doesn't have the technical knowledge as many
of us counselors. Don't. And don't sit on the actual
commission if this was an actual scorecard. Or let's say
a report card. Where are we at for like, a
grade? Are we talking like a DC or are we
talking. I know I'm kind of putting you. On a
spot, but I think it's important for us. Who doesn't
have the technical knowledge that we can see this very
baseline of what your thoughts are. Because in reading. This
detailed report, I got to admit, there's more challenges than
there is champions, right? Yeah. So it would be impossible
for me to give this an actual grade. But. This
is not an uncommon problem. Across ontario, canada, north america.
Coordination and communication. Is a huge issue in all large
organizations. Some municipalities are going towards utilities. The region appeal,
right? Now with the province, as you're aware, is looking
at should we go from a city department to a
utility. And others are going Peterborough, for instance. We just
finished a study for them a couple of years. Ago.
They're going from utility and they're bringing it all back
in house, so. There's no right answer to that. It
takes hard work to coordinate, and these are very complex
issues that I think staff are doing a great job
at right now. Al. Although we wanted to give you
the facts, that doesn't mean that staff aren't working on
it. And there's not solutions there. I think there are,
but they're different than they've been for the last 25
years. These are new things that are coming. At you
and staff are finding their way through, and I think
there is coordination and communication happening. Thank you. And. The
part in the report that you actually mentioned during the
presentation, as well as the water loss. I think it
was 15% to 55%. Correct. Is there, like, an industry
standard of what you would normally like to see, because
obviously it's high. I know that, but how high? Is
it? Compared to industry standard, yeah. I was the director
of water treatment for the city of Hamilton, and we
had a high water loss at about 15%, and we
spent $20 million and got that down to about 10%.
Newer municipalities would be in the eight to ten to
12% range that have a lot of pvc pipe. Water
loss isn't just leakage. Sometimes it's unaccounted for. Water. Which
is firefighting. It's a lot of operational water. Backwash water
for treatment plants. You've got a lot of flushing happening
out in the system because you've got a lot of
long dead ends and water decays, so the chlorine evaporates.
For lack of better term, it doesn't actually evaporate. But
it decays. And now the water isn't as safe to
drink, so you. Keep flushing the water to bring fresh
water in. So that's part of your problem. As well.
But that's where a study would define what that problem
is and how you could reduce that. Thank you. And
just a question to Mr. Dubin. Mr. Dubin, I know.
That we're having the governance that Councilor Anderson mentioned. But
is there a potential in that governance to be also,
I'm not going to use a word, but a mediator.
But somebody who can kind of align. Between the municipality
and. The PUC on a more regular basis, or is
that something now with this report? And what? The potential
governance change. Is that something? That's because I think that
the communication which you noted in here and you noted
in other municipalities that have a hard time. I think
that now that we have all this information, what's the
next steps? Besides the governance, what we can do to
approve the alignment to ensure that our growth plans here.
And our strategic directions here are compatible. And lastly, just
to you, Mr. Dubin, when we do our strategic. Growth
and our strategic things when we're first elected, does those
things get sent to the PUC so they understand what
we're looking to do from, like, a growth perspective and
the quadrants and, like, a planning perspective. For instance, what
Ryan brought to us to council are. Those things being
sent to the Puc? Because if those aren't happening, I'm.
Sure that they're more working on. Operational sides of things
instead of the actual potential growth, which I see is
kind of lacking in. This report, right? Thank you. Through
you, Marikana. So I'll try to answer the last question
first. I don't know if the study was actually sent
to the PUC, but I'm. Pretty sure the PUC is
familiar. Even when the PUC writes reports to council and
there have been a couple of reports to counsel. They
do make reference to the council's. Strategic priorities. I don't
remember how many members of council attended, obviously, those sessions
that we had, but we have overlap between the members
of council and members. Of the commission. So I expect
that members of the commission are all familiar. You see
it, right? In front of you every most Mondays. So
I think there's definitely as awareness of the council's strategic
priorities from a staff perspective. That'd probably a question. For
Mr. Galbraith. I think they're probably aware of them. Is
that a fair comment? Yeah, they are. Your second question
talked about sort of the outcome of the governance review.
I don't know what the governance review is going to
say. I think Mr. Harnham is right. You have to
look at what the municipality and the utility need at
that particular time that the review is being done in
some municipalities, they've gone the opposite way. In. Some, they've
embraced the approach that we currently have. Others, they've reversed
it. So it's really hard to tell until KPMG does
their work. It's hard to tell whether or not like
what the outcome of that will be. It'll come. To
you, and you'll get the opportunity to make a decision
on it. It may very well be. By the way,
I expect they will talk to a number of counselors
before they. Produce their report. So it may very well
be that whatever they recommend has some sort of a
I don't know if it'll be called a mediator, but
a process to follow is probably what they would recommend.
Is a process to follow to ensure that there is
alignment between. The commission and the municipality or. Whatever the
commission looks like after the governance review. Is completed and
then council endorses the approach, they may want to keep
it the same. They may want to endorse whatever the
consultant comes forward with, so I don't. Know what the
answer to that will be. I will say that. I
do think I'm looking forward to the governance review because
I think there is an opportunity for the level of
communication to be greater. Our communities change. We're now talking
about building new things. To accommodate the growth, which is
very different, as you saw from a report earlier today,
when your population is declining the way it has. We
weren't talking about master plans. We weren't. Talking about necessarily
building new things. This community was really trying to just
fix whatever we had. As best we could. Now all
of a sudden, we've got 15 years of that kind.
Of approach, and now. We're suddenly looking at a different
approach. You can't expect to just snap your fingers and
think that that's going to happen. There has to be.
A more, I would say, define thought out approach to
how do we plan for the next 15 years. Thank
you. I just wanted to say, whoever. The initiation of
this and all that, whether it be from the commission
or. From the POC general manager or I just think
that this is a great first step and I'm appreciative
of your work, and thank you for keeping it. To
a manner that we could all kind of. It was
palatable for. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Harrigan, followed by
councilor Doyle. Thank you, McKinnon. So a lot of my
questions about the report and presentation have been asked and
answered. I do. Maybe just want to polish a little
bit around. The report noting around how the division of
responsibilities between Chatham, Kent and the PUC is complicated. Because
of that absence of shared governance framework. And then capital
coordination process, which is the other piece to it. In
the recommendations in the report. That I'm sure was a
collective writing, but that Mr. Quinton is authored here. It
notes about the creation of like a flow ck kind
of task force team to help to move projects forward.
Do we know? And as Michael, is that what you
were referring to in terms of the mediator? Who, ultimately
would that group be responsible to? Is that a PuC
group? Is that a municipal group or is that a
joint group? Because I feel like that's just a bunch
of people then operating to be like, well, it's not
clear which way we're going. To go because there's some
tension between. The wastewater plan and the growth plan. Well,
maybe I'll go to Mr. Quinn first. Actually, I'll go
first, and then. We'll go to Mr. Gwen. I don't
think we've sorted that out yet. I do agree that
there'd. Have to be. We want to be in a
position where. We ensure that that flow is taking place.
Now, I'm not so sure if it's. A person or
a mediator. I think it's the process itself. If the
process is designed in such a way that that automatically
happens, then we'll all be in a better place. So
I think that is one of the intents. Of the
group. That maybe Gord will speak to it a bit
more. One of the purposes of that is. To ensure
that there is a process so that you don't have
one group making a decision without considering the other, the
impact on the others and vice versa. And I'm not
sure that that happens now as well as it could.
It does happen. On occasion. And I would suggest that
in my short time here, I've seen improvement, but. I
still think we have work to do, especially since. We're
now going to be moving towards. Building. Big stuff. And
we haven't done that in a long time. Mr. Quinton,
I. Don't know if you want to add more to
it. Thank you. I'll just. Add the focus of that
special group. In the municipal side for engineering of having.
Them responsible for the new linear. Assets. Linear meaning under
roads going out, not the plants themselves having that distinction.
And having. A group that's able to coordinate that. With
the plans for the roads, with integras, for the hydro,
with Enbridge, for the natural gas lines. It's just an
enormous amount of work. To develop. A new area. And
to take that off the back of. The PUC administration
so they could focus on the plant work. That was
part of the strategy. But the charge for, of course,
the water and waste water would still be charged back
through rates. Or through development charges or through the puzz.
Great. My next question is, is in the recommendations. The
recommendation number one asks council to affirm. The green, right.
Things that were in the green category. By affirming what's
in the green category. Are we also saying that we're.
Agreeing that things that are yellow are yellow and things
that are red are red because I think there's a
bit of lack of clarity around that in the recommendation
report. I'm happy to affirm the green category, but I
think I have more questions, and even in the presentation,
it wasn't really clear. For example, like the. Wellsburg treatment
plan. Does it become a raw plant? Does it become
something else? Does it get closed entirely. And so I
just want to better understand what saying yes to recommendation
one means for what's not mentioned here, which is the
yellow and red projects. Through you, your worship. So I
think by affirming the green, you're just doing that you're
affirming the green. I agree with what you're saying. I
interpreted the yellow to be by virtue of the fact
that it's yellow, it still needs further study, so. You
can't affirm it one way or another. If that further
study hasn't. Occurred. But it's Mr. Harim's presentation, so he
should explain whether or not that was the way he
meant for it to be interpreted. Sure. Through you, Mr.
Mayor, I'm happy to do that, yes. I think it's
exactly that. The green is ready to go. There's no
reason. Why we shouldn't proceed with that. And there's actually
reasons why not to proceed. With that. Would be detrimental.
The yellow will most likely proceed, I think. You'll probably.
Bring a report back when those get closer. Or as
one of our recommendations in our report is to kind
of bundle all that together and have another sober look
at the red and the yellow. The yellow have to
go ahead. You need some more work on that before
we start putting tenders on the street. So they should
go. But you need to do a bit more work.
And then lastly. The red. We think that there are
different solutions there, and we've had many talks with the
Chatham Kent staff and the PUC staff. And there to
my understand, working on what does that look like in
the next year or two? With those. Red categories. Okay,
so then just about the red category. Sorry. Americana. I'll
echo, councilor. Anderson feeling like kind of a toddler in
the wastewater department area of expertise here and trying to
work through things. So is really the reason that Wallaceburg
has kind of shifted to be in the red category.
Simply because. Before, we were thinking about maintaining what we
have, and now we're looking towards growth is that compounded
with the greenhouse situation. Is that the reason for the
drastic shift? Because there is quite a big change between
those 2020, 1210, 15 years ago to what's being recommended.
Today. Right. So through you, Mr. Mayor, I would say
that the. 2012, 2016 and even. One of the last
EA's did suggest a pipe. And that is a more
affordable solution. I think one big thing that hasn't been
discussed here is operating cost as well, running a plant.
If you do the Wallaceburg and bring a pipe from
Chatham and you bring a pipe over to Ridgetown. Blenham,
you're. Down to three plants. You just finished telling you
Hamilton has one plant for the entire community. And the
regional Peel essentially has two plants for 2 million people.
So it's about operating costs as well. There's more chemicals,
there's more pumping, there's backwash. Water. There's all kinds of
things to run that plant, not to mention. The maintenance
cost of all of the new things that you might
put in there for that $200 million. So whether it's
growth or state of good repair, I think it's good
business. To look at that. You have to balance the
growth with the state of good repair. If you didn't
have that gross? Maybe. I don't know. Maybe you wouldn't
be having this conversation. You would just say, let's spend
the $200 million on that. But you have to balance
all of those things and. You've got an opportunity in
the southwest Chatham to build industrial commercial, which you really
need. As well as housing, which a community needs. And
then again, I'm assuming the answer is no. We're not
worried. But when I think of our community with, like,
kilometers and kilometers of space with no people compared to
like Hamilton, right, where there's tons of need in that
area. There's not. A concern. Of having all of that
kilometer of pipe through kind of a rural system. And
the service risks for that? In my mind, no. And
Hamilton does have quite a rural community. As well. There's
downtown Hamill proper, but Flamborough, Carlyle. Ancaster. There's a very
rural community there as well, including the regional appeal in
the town of Caladon. So they have pipes running up
to those rural areas as opposed to having their own
plants. Hey, great. I would maybe just. And I don't
think this needs. To change in any of the recommendations,
but this would be a wonderful topic for council to
rece. Receive some optional education on. I think maybe once
the governance report comes back from KPMG. It's still not
clear to me who is ultimately in charge of saying
yes to these projects. Is it us around the council
table? Is it the PuC or on the PUC? Table.
We cover the budget and the capital and the policy
direction, but what's the POC? Doing. So I have a
lot of learning in that space to do and understanding.
So I would look forward and really appreciate some further
education. Thank you so much for your patience and answer
my question. Councilor Doyle, followed by councilor story. Thank you,
mayor. First again, I'd like to thank you for the
report. Very easy to read. And one of the big
things I did like about it is, like, with a
lot of these master plans we get. It doesn't really
put a cost factor into it. It just says, hey,
here's what would be your best case scenario, but we
can't afford the best case scenario all the time. So
I think when you broke it down and said, This
is your priorities. You did a very good job doing
that. So thank you for that. I do also agree
the greenhouse is. I have no problem with greenhouses. But
right now, our DC costs are not covering the operational
costs. So right now the general public is subsidizing some
of the cost for that. And when these are for
profit companies and not all of them. From my knowledge,
are keeping all their products in Canada, and some of
them are shipping it to the US. Because that's where
the profits are. Castra door. This is meant for questions.
And if you can have your time. So just if
you have questions. Thank you. Okay. So. I guess. This
is the third time. Then that it's been brought up.
For. The pipe to be ran from Chatham to Wallaceburg,
now in different ports. And those are experts. Doing these
reports. So that would make sense, but what would happen?
Say if we had a situation, say we did do
that, and then we had a situation in Chatham like
we did in wheelie, where there's a fire. Like a
catastrophic fire. What would happen at that point? I asked
that in Puc as well. Yeah. So through you, Mr.
Mayor, I think the question where you're going is would
having the Wallaceburg plant help us? Not really. Wallaceburg is
if it was 14 mld or. Megalitres per day. You
need 50 mega liters to serve Chadam. So if Chatham
had a major catastrophe. The water coming from Wallaceburg would
not solve that problem. So that's the first part of
the question. I think the second part is. Can you
afford belts and suspenders, right? It's that simple. Is. If
you feel as a community that. Gives you a safer
feeling. Then is it affordable? But I don't think it
is a huge risk, considering. Everywhere in the Gtah, all
the way around Oxford. Niagara region. All of these places
are faced with similar decisions. Okay. Thank you very much.
And I do like that you brought up going towards
the 401. I think we should have done. That two
to three decades ago. So it's nice that we're planning
that and. I said that that was in the report
as well, so thank you very much. Thank you, councilor.
Story, followed by councilor C. McGregor and councilor crew. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Jim for that report. It
was very informative and appreciate you bringing that to. Bringing
that to us. Most of my questions have been asked,
but just to get a little bit of clarity on
in terms of your presentation, and I think we're still
getting a chance to ask a staff piece. Based on
your findings. If I understand your presentation and the report
correctly, it sounds like some of this disconnect is because.
Of some lack of communication or clear communication lines between
PUC and the municipality. So, as I'm thinking through this,
and I'm hearing the discussion from my fellow counselors. In
your experience? Our pucs normally separate. From municipalities, or is
it just really depend on the municipality and those government
structures? Because it really does feel like. We're missing a
piece here. And obviously this has happened for quite some
time, like the predates most of us on council. But
I'm sensing a theme here in the discussions we're having
and in the report. So in your experience. How does
that normally look? Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor. I think
if it's a Puc, it is a separate. Entity. Or
it's a laws, which is another separate entity. There's a
Peterborough utilities commission. Which is a separate entity. Many municipalities
have it as a department of the corporation, but I
can tell you communication. It's not a fatal flaw. Here
you can have a large community, like Hamilton or Toronto.
That I worked in where the planning department doesn't talk
to the water department. Communication is hard, regardless of your
governance structure. What we were pointing out, it wasn't the
root of all of the problems. We were pointing out
that there seemed to be, with southwest southeast Wallaceburg, there
seemed to be a disconnect on what the priorities in
the communication was, so I wouldn't say this community has
a tragic problem compared to other communities. Communication is one
of the main issues in all of these complex problems
for sure. Yeah. I can appreciate that. I just think
sometimes when you're adding another level of organization, Perhaps. Those
issues can be made more challenging. Could you clarify the
Los plan you mentioned that needs to be done in
2025? Can you? Explain a little more about what that
is. Sure. Los stands for level of service. And as
part of your asset management plan for Reg. 588, July
1, 2025, you have to have a proposed levels of
service. You already have an asset management plan that deals
with your existing levels of service, and you need to
be in compliance with the regulations. You need to have
a proposed level. Levels of service, which means. What are
you and levels of services? Not to belabor it, but.
It's a difficult term. It's really about the life cycle
of the asset, not so much. Do we want clean
water or dirty water? That's really not a term level
of service. We're using it more as the life cycle
of the assets for the level of service. So that's
in a week. Is that what this is? I'm not
sure the status of that. There are many municipalities that
are struggling to meet that deadline. We're working with several
municipalities right now, helping them get to that deadline. But
I don't know where your municipality is with that. And
again, if they're not prepared for July 1, 2025. There
is no asset management police, there's no charges. But there
are many municipalities that are struggling to meet those deadlines.
So I'm not sure where you are with that in
your process. We cannot address that later. I think the
last couple of quick questions. State of good repair versus
growth. When you mention things like the, I think, councilor
psychology references. Well. The leak rate. In eight to 9%
you mentioned is reasonable. We are now at 55% in
some areas. In some areas, that seems like a fairly
dramatic difference. To me. Does it sound like we've got
to get our state of good repair? In certain places
before we could actually look at growth. Because our state
of good repair, if we're looking at 55% in some
areas. Is that what we should be prioritizing? I think
it's complex, and that's why we're recommending a study. Because
it's not necessarily just leaks. It could be operational flushing,
which is moving old water. And putting new water in.
You have to dispose of the old water goes into
the sewer, causes two problems. It also causes you to
have the water come back to the sewer, and you
have to retreat it again. But I think they go
hand in hand. I don't think it's. If this then
that. I think it's by finding water loss. You may
not have to build as big pipes or pumping stations
or whatever the case might be. So the state of
good repair and the growth should go hand in hand.
Okay. And we don't. Know. What those causes are yet
the next study will capture. You would have to do
that study for sure. And there's 27 different plates. Not
to bore you, but 27 different places you lose. Water,
and you need to assess where that water is going
through district metering in different areas. And then you would
be able to put resources towards either changing your processes,
upping chlorine doing something or stopping the leaks. Okay, and
last two questions. Thank you for all that you mentioned
that other large areas have one plant that services the
entire municipality. Areas. That have rural components or large populations
or both. Would that ever be something we would want
to consider? I think your Chatham plant is that plant,
right? It's central. It's going to. Now, if you went
ahead with the Wallaceburg pipe idea. It would send water
there. You would look the new southwest so you could
be down. To three plants from five by doing that.
That and the Ridgetown Blenham system. So sorry. I lost
the train of thought. And the question there. Oh, no,
I was just thinking. Just to reiterate. The consolidating plants
because you mentioned other municipalities just have the one. And
since we have multiple, maybe it doesn't make sense, but
I wonder if there are consolidation opportunities. You should constantly
look at that. I was the commissioner of public Works
for Halton Region and. Milton is a groundwater system. They're
constantly. The community wants to keep that system. It's a
very expensive, it's like Blenheim. And Ridgetown. Very expensive system
to maintain. We've been looking at. We were looking at
consolidating that to the lake. Ontario system. Because it's just
such a high cost and there's higher risk with smaller
plants. Right. Okay, well, thank you. And just the last
question, and this is maybe a question even for Meredith
or Judy, but. Your green slide with the green means
go. Would we be able to pull that back up
so. We have that for reference when we're discussing the
next phase. Just for reference. Those are all the items.
That you think we should do? Essentially immediately. Through you,
Mr. Mayor. There's a detailed list in the report, project
by project as well. But I'm not sure what the
staff recommendation was. But if it's that list. Then. It
is. It the same? Not sure through staff if it's
the same list. Just to. Because the first recommendation, it
says. We would be voting to go ahead with the
green. So that would be the 93.9. Hundred. And 93.7.
That's correct. Okay. And that is. You mentioned and you
use the example the 117 to the $150,000,000 example. From
just less than two years ago. Is this an inflationary
number? I would say the closer you get through you,
Mr. Mayor, the closer you get to design and construction,
the higher the price goes, as you're probably seen that
many times. And through my career. I've never seen a
project go down. So the more detail you get. When
you have pre design, you're at plus or -100% you
get the 30%. Design your plus or -50 you get
to 90% design. You should be plus or -10%. So
the staff will, when they design those projects and put
them out on the street, they will. Get actual costs
to you for recommendation on approval. Okay. In the next
zero to five years, we're looking at 32 million. But
that is a fairly high level estimate, correct? It's an
estimate from an Acom study. Another consulting firm. And we
listed them directly from their tables in the report. So
that's their estimates and. Already. That is three, two and
a half years old. Two years old. Those estimates. Okay,
so it would be more than that. Okay. That's a
lot of information. I appreciate you taking the time to
explain all of that. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Councilor C. McGregor, followed by councilor crew. Thank you. And
through the mayor. In your report. I just want to
go back to. The mention of a possible raw water,
Wallaceburg being turned into raw water for greenhouses. Would that
still not have to include pipeline towards dressed and or
towards these greenhouses and. How would we? Well, how would
we? At the price of running all those lines? Would
be similar to running line from Chatham to Wallaceburg. How
would we recoup that? From a greenhouse owner. I can
see recuperating the water costs, but how do we recuperate.
All the upkeep. And initially putting those water lines in,
would that not be the responsibility of the municipality to
do that to get it to that stage. Yeah, through
you, Mr. Mayor. If this project. Two things I would
recommend. If this project was just for greenhouses, then I
would say the greenhouses should pay 100%. Of the cost.
Now, they may say, we can't do that. We can't.
Afford to do that. So then, if this is a
priority for the province, the province may say, we think
this is a priority and they could offer funding towards
that. I think the maintenance. And operating of that system
could be a private system. There are examples of that
out there with the stellco example I gave. We put
the infrastructure in as Hamilton and Stelco operated it, but
I think the entire pipe the system, the treatment, the
pumping would be the responsibility of greenhouses. If that was
the case. But you may choose to operate it and
charge them a fee. I don't know. I think the
millions of dollars that are indicated in all these projects
would make it very unfeasible for greenhouses to consider having
to share that cost. But. The next question, and I
have few. You talked about the escalating cost of the
water treatment plant, and I think in our previous presentations,
the POC I had asked this question about. Are not
all the plants escalating in cost, and I think you
confirmed that it's. Not just Wallaceberg, it's all of the
plants. Escalating cost, so. If you're looking at communities such
as Hamilton or Toronto that only have one plant, why
would the recommendations not be to shut down all of
the other plants and only have one mega plant and
run new lines, which would be cost apparently a lot
less than operating and running all of these other plants.
Why would it not recommend, why would you not recommend
lines to run to all other communities of Chatham Ken
sure. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I think the key is.
You're at a fork in the road, you're at a
decision point with this. Plant. You may to the previous
counselor's thought process. You may do that when you're at
a fork in the road with those other plants as
well. But right now, you're at a decision point. To
spend roughly $200 million or to do something else. Which
is potentially $100 million cheaper than that and reduces ongoing
operating costs forever, as opposed to. So that's the impetus
for this is the decision point that has to be
made on Wallaceburg. And just one last question. Do you
know what the land mass of the Hamilton scenario is.
I don't duff the top. Do you know I worked
there for ten years? I should. Know what the land
mass of Chatham count is? I don't know. It is,
I believe. Somewhere between 2000. Square kilometers. Which. Is probably
why we have multiple. Treatment plans. Okay. Thank you. Thank
you. Councilor crew. Thank you, Mayor Cana. Thanks, Jim, for
the presentation. And I'm going to be very brief. I
was going to ask about the greenhouses. So that's been
answered. Thank you. But I just want to just historically.
And I agree. We land on these committees and commissions
and we learn as we go. Every single one of
us. As we got elected, we were picked to go
on committees. The committees. And commissions before us. They did
the best they could. They were faced with challenging times,
and a lot of times it was band aiding things?
They were handed this large community in 1999 and called
it Chatham Kent. Here we are. And now. We have
all of these issues that were handed to us. So
I just want to say that. The work that was
done was no different than what we do sitting around
this table. We do the best we can. And we
learn as we go and we try to educate ourselves,
and staff really tries hard to educate some people that
sometimes. We don't know. A lot about the subject matters,
and we try really hard. But I'd like to say
that we've started to write the ship a bit. With
the development charges and things like that that we've been
working on. And these master plans. Is there a question?
No. I did have a question. Yeah, you will have
time. That's all. I don't. Have anything else to say,
I'm done. With that. Any other questions? Of the consultant.
Oh, sorry. Councilor Wright. Thank you, Mayor Cana through you.
I guess they call it the Erie beach water treatment.
Does that do? Chattom now in Blenham or what's that
treatments out there? Yes. Did you want to answer that?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Darren Gullis, general manager Chad Pucant
water treatment plant. It comes up as far as. From
Blenham area over underneath the 401 and did Doyle line.
That's as far as ease it goes, but if we
ever get into situations in Chatham, we're going to. Take
the water tower down for service whatnot. We actually bring
chat and water. As far as Park Ave. And then
obviously, right now, Self water treatment plan is assisting the
water in Tilbury Wheatley as we speak. So that's usually
where the water goes from. South african water treatment plant.
It also services the Bloomfield Industrial Park. Originally, wasn't it
designed to take to Ridgetown, too? Like that water treatment
plan was? To go to Ridgetown originally. No, it was
not. Okay. All right. Thank you. See no other questions
to consultant. Now we will get the motion on the
floor. Councilor sey. McGregor and councilor Anderson. Can I get
you. It's on the floor for discussion. Please. Yes, I'll
put it on the floor. And I will second. Okay.
Councilor Sima. Gregor, go ahead. Thank you. Before we get
to the recommendations. I would like to, at this point,
make a motion that the recommendations be referred back to
the PUC and the administration of Chatham, Kent until the
following has been provided to council and I believe it
might be coming up here. Number one, the creation of
the joint POC and municipal group with the purpose of
completing a joint servicing strategy that will include the new
growth management policies and the recommendations of two, three, and
four in the current recommendations in the report. Two the
new growth management policies be adopted into the official plan
as required by the obligations under the Planning act and
the provincial Planning statement 2024, setting the direction about growth
options and planning of the phasing of residential and nonresidential
development in the primary and secondary urban centers and three.
Engineering design that includes estimated capital costing after the completion
of the service plan for the southwest quadrant. Of Chatham,
Kent, which is currently in draft form. And for information
in a combined PUC municipal report that includes engagement and
consultation of the community of Wallsburg and affected surrounded areas.
The consult. Consultation should include the advantages and disadvantages of
no longer following the recommendations of the earlier studies. And
EA's conducted. Between 2012 and 223. And the. Rehabilitational replacement
of the water. Wallsproduct intake and the water Wallaceburg water
treatment plant. And if I can get a seconder on
that, I will explain my thoughts on this. Council McDonald.
Sorry, Councilor Anderson, I ask you to second the original,
so if you want. Yeah. I'm happy to put it
on for I just have. A question, a couple of
questions. Okay. So. My recommendations. One through four of
the following. The first recommendation should be put on hold
until further information. Can be provided to council. The second
recommendation that I made in there is referring to the
report provided to us last week. By Ryan jocks at
our last meeting that addressed the urban boundaries in our
communities. The report said it had completed the second of
four phases, so this is still incomplete. The third recommendation
addresses the need for. Information that we did not receive
before setting our priorities for this term of council and
the fourth addresses the multiple EA's and community engagement sessions
that. Were being asked to now ignore the fifth recommendation
in the report. It appears to me that Chatham count
administration think we need an oversight committee of the already
elected officials that currently represent the council. At the POC
and personally. As chair. I find this kind of unusual.
And as for, sorry, the 6th recommendation. I had to
write this in because I missed that. When I wrote
my notes. I see no reason that this can't continue
without the approved motion that is required. But I am
quite happy to have that act added in as a
recommendation. Should another counselor wish to see? The recommendation regarding
greenhouses added back in. In tonight's report. Provided to us
by our chief financial officer, Gord Quentin. Noted the municipal
vu consulting was hired. To review and prioritize the municipal
water and wastewater projects. This report found misaligned growth priorities,
coordinating coordination gaps, conflicting priorities, glaring infrastructure needs, and operational
risks. I'm sure many of you noted Mr. Quentin was
quoted in the media as saying, That the review also
found that Chad and Kent's municipal administration and the public
utilities commission have often operated independently and lack an undefined
strategy for planning and delivering services like land use. Engineering
and infrastructure investment. He's quoted as saying that the division
has resulted in efficiencies. Missed collaboration opportunities. And inconsistent communication.
Adding the future growth of Chatham, Kent and its finances
require a unified plan. Moving forward to align priorities and
expectations. The report presented to us tonight by municipal Vu
Consulting says that it's discovered the water. And wastewater master
plan does not account for the southwest quadrant of Chatham.
A strategic growth area identified by council and that this
was a strategic area identified by council. The report says.
Its omission limits the municipality's ability to support development and
meet housing and employment. Targets. The draft Southwest community servicing
study outlines over 780,000,000 in infrastructure needs for phased growth,
according to the report, in addition to another 975,000,000 already
identified in the master plan. The report also identifies the
lack of integration between the PUC and municipal administration with
no. Shared capital prioritization or unified servicing strategies due to
the aging infrastructure and high water loss. And incomplete sewer
separation plans. For these reasons alone, these recommendations need to
be referred back to the POC and CK administration. The
PUC commissioners received this information less than a week ago.
And it was only provided to council on Wednesday, one
day prior to going to the public as counselors. We
make pretty big decisions based on reports provided to us.
We trust that the information we see is accurate. The
presentation and the report both. State the southwest west quadrant
as being one of the of councilor's majors priorities and
looking back at, like, how do we trust the decision
that we made making this a priority when we had
not received all the correct information. I think I've said
enough. But I'll conclude with. A few remarks at the
end. If I can. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a
reminder to all of council you had the opportunity to
ask consultant. Questions. Now that there's a motion to refer
on the floor, it strictly comments to that. Should that
pass, we'll move on. If it fails, we'll go back
to the original motion and have a conversation with regards
to that. Hey. Questions regarding the referral. Okay, here we
go. Keep your hands up. Just sorry. Councilor Anderson will
be first. And then sakachi. Harrigan. All doyles.
Okay. Go ahead, councilor Anderson thank you. Mr. Mary mine
is very, very brief. I know that we have an
obligation to have a master plan by July. I just
wanted to make sure that we are not missing something
here by going ahead with this motion or is this
going to stop us? Progressing with certain things that we
need to do. And I'm not sure who would be
the best person. Gord, thanks. Thank you. The part that
I referred to, the asset management plan requirements, is actually
on the agenda later tonight. And sean. So this would
be fine, or. This essentially, would this just take us
back to status quo? I feel like we do need
to move forward with the PUC, we do need to
make significant changes. I definitely agree with that. We're definitely
in a critical state where critical decisions need to be
made. I guess, in a sense. The feeling that we
have a lot of us as counselors, I think, and
as commission, I may speak for all of us. I
may not, but I think I probably sued for the
majority. Of us when I say. Making really major decisions
like this. We're kind of going on. The expertise of
others, which is fine, so long as we've had our
own time to process this. And if anything, some of
us maybe feel like this is potentially a little bit
rushed to take. In all of this information to make
this drastic change. However, I'm not saying this isn't something
that needs to be done. I guess I just want.
The solidification that this is definitely. This request originally is
supported by our administration and by the PC. So if
I could comment. On the deferral. We, as the administration,
do have concerns. Cost that are escalating very quickly.
We moved. Even avian Wallsburg. We've moved from talking about
a $40 million plant a decade ago to a $200
million plant. There are significant. This may cause significant delays.
If you're asking for another month. To report back at
the July, July or August council meeting with more information
around something. That would be a couple of month deferral.
A couple of these items and perhaps Bruce should comment
about the fisher plan and Edward about. The self servicing
study. But both are in the works. But I wouldn't
want to be delaying. Any. Significant amount of time, or
else it's just going to mean that you're adding. To
deed even larger rate increases at the puz in the
future to pay for list. Remember this is all paid
for by the water wastewater bill. Maybe Bruce. Thank you.
And I guess. I'll just end my comments with I
feel like we oftentimes have a difficult time making really
drastic decisions around this table, especially when it's maybe going
in a different direction. Than we had originally planned. And
unfortunately, we are in that space where we do need
to make some sort of drastic decision, or else we
just continue going in this same place and we can't.
Afford to keep going in this same place. Councilor Scotty,
followed by councilor Harrigan. Thank you, Mary Kenneth. And through
you I guess. Councilor Anderson just asked some of my
questions, but I just need a little bit more. Clarity.
So maybe Edward or Darren. How long is this? How
long are we talking for this potential, this? Recommendation in
this motion, and just maybe to Bruce, too. Is this
going to affect any of our growth aspects or anything
like that. I just don't know what the. I understand
that number four. It's important, but. Just from a timeline
perspective. Of all this stuff. Thank you, worship. Bruce McAuster,
general manager, development services. Thanks, council, for your question. So
I'll jump in number two and I'll probably. Defer to
Edward on the other pieces here for the next. And
Darren. But Ryan Jocks was mentioned earlier. Ryan's over here
tonight as well, from our director. Of planning. He did
have a presentation a couple of weeks ago. On where
we're at with the growth management and growth options review
in the proposed schedule. Essentially, we're hoping to be in
front of council with his options by the end of
this year. If we defer this, it's probably going to
make that more difficult because one of the fundamental pieces.
In evaluating where you want to grow. It's. Or expand
a settlement area boundary is, can it be efficiently serviced
with municipal services? And I don't know we can answer
those questions till we get to this next step. To
come back to council and say, here's where we should
be growing, because we may ultimately not be able to
afford it or if there's some servicing challenge that we
can't foresee happening for 50 years. Why would we go
grow in that direction versus another? Area. And then just
in additional to Edward, I know that it's been delayed
a little bit. But staff has also been working on
the recreational master plan as well. And. My opinion is
that it's probably going to have some significant asks in
there, potentially. Is this something that you're looking at as
well, from, like, a recreational master plan standpoint? As well,
or is this something that's kind of a mute point
when it comes? To that. Thank you through the mayor
to the councilor Edward Soldo, general manager of infrastructure and
engineering. Services. All the services we provide are linked. And
so when I look at. Some of the recommendations out
of our master plan. They require servicing. And if we
don't have certainty? That some of those recommendations without servicing.
We're really just pushing things back further and further. I'll
comment on the item number three there. Engineering design includes
estimated capital costing after the completion of Southwest servicing plan.
The service plan for southwest quadrant. That plan right now
is at a very high level. It's in draft. It'll
take quite a bit of time just to complete high.
Level cost estimates to do engineering design. We're talking about
years before we come back and know those numbers. So
what this is going to do is push back. Timeline
for us to implement new growth areas like Bruce has
talked about or implement any of the recommendations of the
master plan that requires servicing. So, just to clarify, This
isn't talking like this term of council. This is years.
Then this is outside of. Our even, our even term
and councilor story, I think, mentioned the word critical. So
is this. Something that you find, if it passes, that.
We are going to markets breach that critical point. I
would say that this motion basically maintains Stasco with a
lot of uncertainty for many years.
Anything else? No, it's just a lot to just. It's
a difficult decision. I mean, if it was a month
or something. And I agree. With numbers. I understand. Councilor
McGregor's number four for sure. If it was my community.
I'd definitely be doing the exact same thing, but knowing
that, like, years. How the consultant said about the cost
associated with escalation and all that, and being critical in
the challenges. It's difficult at this point. Thank you, Councilor
Harrigan. Followed by councilor hall. Thank you. My questions are
related to the impact of the referral to recommendation number
one in the report and I had asked this question.
Kind of to clarify what recommendation meant. So I believe
this question through the mayor is to Edward. There are
master plan project summary recommendations in green, for example, like
state of good repair for wastewater treatment plans or wheatlead
tilbury water supply improvements. Right. Like in the green, that
was. Presented to us. The way that I read this
motion is that we would also be pausing on what
is in the green as well. But I wonder if
those are already in our capital plans, like some of
the state of good repair is just some capital improvements
that we would make in order to keep our wastewater
collection system in a state of good repair. I'm not
sure if that was a question, actually. Do you interpret
this motion as being that we would also not do
what is in the green. What is in the report
that is in the green. Maybe I'll go back to
the original recommendations from the report that Gord wrote. They
were developed. Number two, number three to start to move
on projects, so we start to implement them, to design.
And implement them. Specifically being the green ones. This one
here. I'm not exactly sure how that would work compared
to that. And I don't know if Darren has any
comments on that. And perhaps it's to the. Mover. If
she could comment to help me understand. Yes. Councilor C.
McGregor, can you comment on the green ones that we're
talking about. And yes. In looking at that. I can
see. And through the report tonight. If somebody wanted to
add that the recommendations, the green recommendations move forward during
this period of time. I have no problem with that
amendment into this motion. Is that something we can add?
Is. Your recommendation. It could certainly be added into my
recommendations. Even that this is being referred back. But number
one could be incorporated into my recommendations. I have no
problem with that. And even some of the other ones.
And I've heard some discussion. There. These can be separated
and voted on separately. If some people can understand. My
mythology or what I'm thinking in some of these, but
don't necessarily agree. With one or two, they could be
separated out to as a vote. Yeah. Because my thought
is perhaps the mover is wanting more information in order
for us to make some decisions on what is currently
in the yellow and the red categories, but what I
see in the green are, like, operational things that we
need to do. Right. There was a fire at the.
Wheatley treatment plant. We've got to fix that. And we
might as well fix that properly. However, and I will
lean on the clerk. The first line of the original
recommendation has Council affirming the prioritized project direction. As demonstrated
in the municipal view, consulting. Is it a friendly amendment
for me to ask for a friendly amendment to. Include
in this referral. To proceed with the green category project
as described in the report, which is just the bottom
of the first recommendation. Because this is a new motion.
You can put anything you would like in number one.
So then. I would like to ask our mover and
seconder if it's a friendly amendment. To include the line.
That council proceed with the green category project as described
in the report. I'm fine with that. Yes, definitely. And
that's all I will contribute for now. Thank you. Councilor
hall, followed by councilor story. Thank you, American. I couldn't
agree more with councilor Sey McGregor's motion to defer. And
fully support it. Decisions like this, with this magnitude and
the change of strategic direction, we need to ensure that
we have. All the details, all the proper information, and
we need to ensure that the public is fully aware.
Of these potential options. And I was thinking as well.
I know it's in the motion to the neighboring communities.
Definitely our neighboring community on wallpool. Island, First Nation I
know a lot of well, pilot infers. Nation members live
in Wallaceburg as well. The rest of my comments, I'd
like to kind of wrap it around two streams of
thought as well, so. First I recall covering this topic
as a reporter prior to being on council, I think
it was. Around the 2016 EA. I think I remember
interviewing councilor Thompson when he was a fresh faced PUC
member back in 2016. But I also recall the community
of Wallaceburg not only having concerns, but coming out in
droves. And attending public meetings, providing feedback, speaking passionately about
maintaining the water source for the community. I also recall,
as I was kind of alluded to tonight, basin part
of. That. Really near unanimous feedback from the community that
the preferred recommendation by the EA process that took place
was changed due to the strong message, and the source
was kept the same. So that's. Always been something that
I've really held onto, that. And I've spoken with lots
of people since I've been on council because I thought
that was a true testament of how people's voices matter
and how you can impact change at the municipal level.
Another example is the community rallying to save the hospital
in Wallsburg. That's another example that I've always used. So
secondly, with this tonight, so. Fast forward to today, I
really can't help but draw a comparison to a very
real and active situation that we're dealing with right now
in Dresden. The proposed dump. We've hired lawyers, we've rallied
the community and our neighbors. We've infested taxpayer dollars. We're
putting signs in our yards to defend Dresden. I have
one. In my earth, and I believe in everything that
we're doing with that. But at the end of the
day. What are we hoping for besides it just going
away? We're hoping for an EA process to take place.
And why are we doing that? So that we can
have our collective voices heard. The province is saying that
there's some overarching issues and there's some other priorities and
that the dump should happen anyway, regardless of what the
community says. So we'll see what happens with that. But
unfortunately. This sounds really similar to what we're being asked
to do tonight. And it's really frustrating. But I wanted
to illustrate that comparison, and I think really, it's contradictory
tone. We have a lot of unanswered questions, as councilor
McGregor alluded to. Our community, judging by zero deputations tonight.
With this report. Thanks. Are you judging by the. Noted
going into overtime. Judging by the zero deputations tonight, our
community is not aware of this proposed new direction. So
I believe that staying true to our council's strategic direction
of being open and transparent, That points us to sending
this issue back. So I'm hoping for council support for
councilor. McGregor's motion. Thanks, Mary Kina. Councilor story, followed by
Councilor Doyle. Thank you, Mayor cannoff. Really appreciate the discussion.
Clearly, we all have very good questions, and this will
likely be. One of the most important discussions we have
in terms of this council term, in terms of the
cost and the impact on the taxpayers. Because financially, if
we don't do it, Our economic growth. And might suffer.
And financially. If you don't do, we're going to suffer.
But if we go. Ahead with it. It's a massive
cost to our taxpayer as well. I am glad to
see the deferral motion by Councilor McGregor. As the previous
recommendation reports, that I was not comfortable supporting that as
it was written and with councilor McGregor's amendments. I will
be supporting that because. I also had a lot of
unanswered questions from the first report. That based on the
scale of what we're looking at, I didn't feel that.
There isn't a clear financial recommendation in the first report
for us to be transparent and accountable to our taxpayers
to say what we are approving and why. And based
on some of the counselors who are PUC representatives who
have shared some concerns, I respect those concerns as well,
including the chair. So. I think just a few quick
questions. I'm not clear to councilor Sakagi and Anderson's point.
I do appreciate the risk of delays. I am still
not clear. On how getting this in internal information. Would
potentially cost us years in terms of a time frame.
That's where I'm still not clear because. I totally understand.
We have a lot of moving parts with this. I'm
sorry. I don't know who that question should be directed
to, but I. Am still not clear on why this
could potentially. Add more years to this process by getting
the information that councilor McGregor has asked for. Through you,
your worship. Maybe if I can ask Mr. Soldo just
to give a bit more. Detail on number three, for
instance. Right. That's the engineering design piece that includes. An
estimated capital costing so. Unless I'm interpreting it wrong. I
think that's saying that you've got to do the engineering
design, which cost a lot of money. So I think
part of the delay is probably. Raising the funds to
do that and then also. The time frame associated with
the work. But maybe, Mr. Solder, you can give a
bit more. Idea about why. You said it would cost
years, take years. Thank you. Mayor this year is correct.
If it's the wording that's there. Engineering design that includes
estimated capital cost. Right now we're doing a servicing plan.
We would have to do yays. We actually, actually have
to do engineering. Mostly you're aware, around the table, that
takes. One to three to four years. That's why. The
way that that motion is written right now, that is
problematic to come back and then that sort of a
short time frame. Sorry. Councilor Sima Gregory. You're looking for
some clarification. From what Mr. Nolo said. Yes, I realized
that. Sorry. And it's just clarification. On his remarks, but
I thought by adding. The green category. Priorities. Back into
this. The yellow and the red. Were like five to
ten years out, and the other were possibly not. Due.
So if we add the green categories back in, Which.
Has been added back to or added into my motion
here. We're going to be in that timeline regardless. If
we're looking at getting information for. The other. Recommendations that
are in the previous, so I'm not quite understanding why
it's going to take that period of time if we're
going to move forward with the green category. Projects. If
I can, you worship. That would be helpful. It may
be that. The operative sentence there, the first one that
says the recommendations be referred back to the puc. So
perhaps. The mover might consider that it would be the.
Are you talking about the yellow and red? Recommendations, then,
because if you add the language that I think was
proposed, By Councilor Harrigan. Then that would help because it's
still there. It still says engineering design, and it BASICALLY
says that their recommendations be referred back until. So that
would mean none of this can be done. Until all
that design work is done. So that's where I think
the confusion came in. Again. I don't want to speak
for the planners and engineers. Maybe they can jump in.
If they think I'm mistaken. But if you clarify that.
The yellow and red recommendations are the ones that would
be referred back. Until some additional work can be done.
I'd be still interested in hearing from Mr. McAllister. Or
Ryan jocks, just in terms of how that impacts the
rest of it. But that would help, because at least
it means that we can move ahead with the green
stuff, which I know. Was your intent. But with that
language there still in paragraph number three, that's where I
think we're looking at a couple of years and a
lot of money to get engineering. Design done. Mr. So.
Is that okay, councilor? And that wasn't my intent to
cause years of issues here. For the engineering department. If
it's clearer for administration that the recommendations of the yellow
and red categories from the report be referred back to
the P and I put the PoC and the. Administration
of Chatham, Kent, because I think the creation of that
group, and that's in the group that's going to be
formed, say, the CK flow or whatever needs to be
a combination of both Puc and municipality together so that.
Any so that we don't have. Continued. Misunderstandings. Between. The
two, so. If it makes it easier and better understood.
That the recommendations of the yellow and red categories be
referred back to the PUC and to the municipality administration.
Mr. Soto may want to add to that, I have
an appreciation. Thank you. Through Mr. Mary just for clarity,
the green does not include any projects in southwest servicing
area. So if you are intending to. Have growth along
the Bloomfield corridor. If you're intending to implement some of
the recreational master plan recommendations. That would not be included
in this, and we would not be able to move
forward with those areas. I would also say that if
council's direction is to move forward with the green, then.
You would most likely want to include the recommendations from
the original port numbers two and three because without that
staffing, we cannot move forward with the green projects either.
No, I'll be flexible and remove the words engineering design
if that makes it better for you. But the capital
cost and the completion after the. Service plan, the southwest
quadrant. It needs to come back to this council so
we understand what those dollars are. So far. From what
I read in the report, like, we're over $780,000,000. Of
costing. Of servicing water and wastewater to the southwest water
that everybody wants to move forward with. I think we're
entitled to that information and those costs before those decisions
are made. So, like, if you want to take out
engineer design from number three, So that it includes capital
costing. I'm sorry. I can't make decisions. And decides of
these decisions that come back to council. Mr. Solo, does
that help if we take that out? Because. I don't
think the looking to do is stop the initial progress
on it, on those. Things. But ultimately, when we start
getting down to. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars.
That's when we want the approval we're going to need
to do some of that. So that's why I was
going. To ask the general question is. What can we
do? The yellow and red, that's the big issue of
saying we need. To look at it more. But. We
collectively don't want to stop the progress and wait two
years to start that process. So that's we're looking here.
I think that councilor Sema Greger. Is trying to find
that median that we can move on with everything, but
we really need to. Have a better business case for
the yellow and the red, and I think that's ultimately
what the report saying is we need a better business.
Case to say, what are we going to do with
those cases? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just for clarity. It
was always the intention of staff and the PUC to
come back to council and the PUC with the results
of the servicing plan, and that's why it's not. Actually
included in any of the recommendations in the first report.
In the motion here. So you don't see the southwest
servicing plan on any of the recommendations that Gore is
put forward. It's always our intention to follow the process
and come back. With those costs to council at a
future date. But. The recommendations in the original report, says
council affirm the proprietary project direction as demonstrated in the
municipal vu. Consulting, Inc. Water and wastewater Plan review. And
direct the Chatham Kent public utilities. It says to proceed
with the green categories, but it also says to support
the priorities of that report. And those priorities are. To
then adopt. The scenario of the yellow and the red.
So again, maybe for further clarity, The green, the yellow
and the red speak to the existing. Puc master plan.
They do not speak to the servicing plan. Yes, they
do, but you can. Also not understand. What the cost
is for servicing the southwest quadrant without including those costs
to us to be able to understand what's being asked
for us in the original recommendations. At the end of
the day. It's going to come back to the public.
It was council's direction, and if we don't understand. What
our direction that we're voting on. Clearly. Then. It shouldn't
be considered council direction. Yes. So the yellow and the
red are the contentious issues. I guess we'll get back.
To. What are the barriers? Councilor sey McGregor's motion. What
is in here that stops? You from at least exploring
those options and coming back to council eventually with those
costs. I don't think the intention of this is to
stop. That is to say. Hang on. Here. We don't
want to commit to the yellow and the right. We
need to look. More. I think we all agree we
need to look at all those. I think we're really
getting hung up with the wording here. That we could
talk online about that, but just. I think that's. Correct
me wrong that's. The premise that we're looking at is
saying, let's look at all this other stuff. We commit
to the green, but don't stop the movement of figuring
out. What's best in yellow and red categories. Is that
a good summary? I guess with. That. Mr. Dubin, is
there anything we can change in here? That opens that
door for you? Because I think we're all saying the
same thing collectively. But just in a different fashion. Yeah,
I think. Thank you, your worship. I appreciate the clarification.
About the green, yellow and red, and I think we
all get that now. And I'm appreciative that there seems
to be some support subject to a vote for the
green. I think the part that's missing. In this new
set of recommendations is how is it going to be
done? The recommendations that were in Gord's report talked about
creating a group and probably coming back to council with
a proposal on how much it's going to cost to
do some of this work. I think that's part of
what is missing in this one. And the challenge is
the way that it's worded. Even with the amendments you
talked. About. It says the yellow and red recommendations be
referred back to the PUC and the admin. Until the
following has been provided to council. So we have to
do all this stuff, but I. Don't think we have
the assets to do the stuff and. I think Mr.
Quinton wanted to speak to that. Those were a couple
of recommendation of Mr. Quinton's report that are missing. In
years, council, and I get it. That's not really. Actually,
that is what number one addresses. It's the joint PuC
municipal. I didn't. Call it flow CK, but that's what
that is. You can call it whatever you want to
call it. My recommendation is a joint PUC municipal group
with the purpose of creating that joint servicing strategy. Which.
Then goes to that recommendation of the flow CK. It's
the same intent. Maybe Mr. Clinton. I know he had
something to add that will be helpful. You do fill
the floor. We're just trying to clarify this. Thank you.
I think we're all getting to the same place. That's
what the original recommendations was to do, move forward with
the greens. Because. We haven't done the engineering designs for
the greens yet. There's been some. Yays. And. Some plans
started, but we need to get those things going. We
put them on hold for additional six months to have
municipal view do the work that came here tonight. So
those need to get going? The yellow and reds need
to be studied and whether it's with the flow cc
group. Or the PUC. And I know we had government
discussions and everything else tonight, but I think we're really
getting to the same place that we need further study.
When you're talking about the Wallaceburg, there's no decision on.
What? Tonight on where we're going with Wallsburg. It's saying.
Just to stop. And take another look. Sorry. Just to
try and wrap this up, because we'll at least get
this because I. Think we're saying the same thing. And
if there's nothing in here, that is. Like from Edward
or Bruce. Or from Gore to say, oh, this is
a showstopper. We can still continue on what we're doing,
because I think we're saying the same thing just in
a different motion. And I'll let rail speak out, but
I think. Unless I see anybody saying there's something there
that. This stops us in our tracks from doing this.
Sorry. Point of order. I do believe that Edward did
say it does stop any progression of anything. That's why
I want to get. To specifically, where in here does
that stop it? And that's why I was trying to.
Find that ramp. To say so is there something, Edward,
in here that when you go through, you need to
do? The studies or something because we've taken out. Engineering
design. Thank you, Mr. I would suggest. That be removed.
Because it speaks to the southwest quadrant. We have a
process in place. We'll come back. To council as we
follow through that process. It's not referred to any of
these. And what's missing in this motion is items two
and three. Of the original recommendations that tells us, as
CIOs indicate, how we're going to actually implement these. So
I'll go back to the mover then on those things
that Edward just mentioned. Viewership. Can I make a suggestion?
Certainly. If the move is okay. And I apologize. We
have had an emergency situation, so I've had to get
up a few times. If the mover is okay with
it. I think we all agree that three, four years
delay or multiple years delay is too much. It seems
to me that we're pretty close. And I hear from
councilor McGregor and the seconder and some of the folks
who've. Made suggestions. I think we're pretty close to language
that probably everybody can agree to, and I don't like
having a discussion in the public suggesting that we're fighting
with our counselors. We're not. We're all trying to reach
a common place. I know we. Have another meeting coming
up. I think we can work with councilor McGregor on
language that would be more comfortable for everybody. I'd like
to do that behind the scenes so that we can
then bring something forward. Because I think we're all saying
the same thing. We have a situation we need to
address it. The green ones. I know you haven't voted,
but I'm going to go out on a limb. And
say the green ones are something that most people want
to get done, and we have to work out the
wording. I can tell you staff have no objection to
the language about the engagement and consultation. That's something we
would do anyway, so I appreciate that both councilors. Have
spoken to that. So if it's okay to just. Somebody
would bring a motion to. Just defer this to the
next. Meeting, and we can work with councilor McGregor and
the secondary to get some language that I think? Will
reach meet our needs. Is that good with you as
the mover to defer to the next meeting and come?
Back with something that works, because this is a pretty
complicated issue, and I like to make sure that we
get it right. We're talking about potentially a billion dollars
here. So if we have to wait a few weeks
to get to our next meeting. I don't think that's.
Going to be the end of the world, but I
would like to make sure that. Your concerns are taking
care of the second or. But I think we're pretty
close to having the right wording. And if that's what
everybody. If I can see some heads shaking around here,
if everybody's. Happy with that. To move to the next
meeting to come up with better language. Then certainly I
will. Put this on hold to refer this to the
next meeting. For voting. You're moving that? Councilor Anderson, will
you second that? I will, so long as. There's ample
time for councilor McGregor and I to have the conversations
that we need. To have with the administration, with the
POC to come to common grounds so that when we
do come back to council. There's some confidence in what
we're bringing to them so that we hopefully don't get
in this situation again. Where we are kind of all
going back and forth and not having an understanding. I
just want. To make sure we are all very clear
when we do come back. I see there's three weeks,
and I think we're pretty close collectively. As I look
around, seeing the head, shaking and things that I think
were there. It's just the wording. I hate sitting here
trying to word Smith that we miss. Something that's so
critical with what we're looking at. So with that. Sorry.
Anything. Other comments sorry, counselor, story still has the floor
from this and councilor story, and then. I did have
councilor Thompson as well. Thank you, councilor. Thank you, Maricana.
Yeah, I. Appreciate all the discussion. That's why I asked
the question about the timing, because there obviously is some.
We haven't quite landed on that. I don't know if
my questions are if we're differing all of this, that
there's a point in asking them, but maybe I'll just
quickly ask. So if. We're deferring this council. McGregor's motion.
Are we going back to the original or that is
also not going to be discussed. So it's also off
the table for tonight. Yes, the wording would be similar
to what we have. On whether we're contemplating there, but
to modify it accordingly. I think my only just two
questions to that, then. In terms of the growth study
versus the servicing with the southwest quadrant at our last
meeting, when Ryan presented that detailed update about our growth
area. Like the areas of growth. In our cross municipality.
Is this a chicken and the egg? Type approach. Where?
Why would we even be talking about growth in the
southwest quadrant? In isolation of infrastructure needs in the southwest
Crotch. And I guess maybe. I still being a first
term counselor? I'm learning a lot as I go, but
I guess I perhaps assume that servicing needs are included
in discussions about growth. In our community, so. The piece
about why that was not addressed in other POC plans
is, I think, for another discussion but should be addressed.
But I think in terms of what we already have
discussed, even in the last council meeting. To councilor McGregor's
point. I don't see how we can't do one without
the other. Or is it a chicken in the egg
thing? How can we talk about. Growth in the southwest
quadrant and approve that by their last meeting and then
say we can't. Talk about the infrastructure needs of that.
To me, that was all part of the same discussion.
But perhaps. I am not understanding that correctly. Is it
a chicken in the egg thing? We can't have one
without the other or. We can't do the one first
and then the other second, or we've got. To do
it all together. We're going to ask Mr. Jogg to
come up and given the reference to sorry. I think
this is a question we can do with this, because
we can discuss this the next motion. We have that
because we're starting into details. It's just we're going to
post. I really want to focus on just postponing it
to next meeting. We will have another. Thing. Yes. So
we are just saying we need to have some time
to reword that, so. We can come back with that
motion, and then we'll start again fresh. Everybody have their
opportunity to speak to it, et cetera, at that point.
So, Councilor Thomas, is there anything you want to say
about this? Yes. Just real quickly. And I appreciate all
the conversation that's. Gone on around the table. One thing
that has kind of become. Clear to me is that
this isn't only a Wallaceburg issue. This is very much
a Chatham, Kent issue that has wide ranging impacts. And
going back to number four, that's not up there anymore.
And I appreciate it, because I think you're right, Mr.
Mayor. When we word Smith this on the floor. It
gets really awkward and difficult, so I'm glad. It's going
back, but I would like to see. The consultation expanded
beyond the borders of Wallaceburg to include all of Chattakan.
That's the only thing I would like to add. My
two cent. Okay. Councilor hall. Yeah, thank you. Quick question.
Considering that this report. Is going to be pushed to
the next meeting. I just want to confirm that new
deputations. Will be able to be submitted for that item
on that day. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. With the
new motions coming forward, we want to be transparent and
give the public an opportunity to speak to those. So,
yes. It would be. Deputations would be available. Okay, final
words. Councilor Anderson. Then councilor. C. McGregor. Anything quickly on
this? Thank you. And through you. I think that I'll
just state again that I feel like. We're in this
position because. We have a really difficult time making. Difficult
decisions as council, and it's because we care so much.
But ultimately us not making really difficult decisions and continuously
referring things back is the exact reason that we're in
this position, and if we continuously continue to send things
back and send things back and not get things done.
And not get things done. It's just going to be
exactly as it was before. 40 minutes, million dollar project
becomes a 200 million dollar project. A $30 million project
of the civic center becomes a $54 million product. If
we continuously kick the can down the road and we
don't make these really tough. Decisions. We're just going to
keep having to make tougher and tougher decisions. Thank you,
councilor C. McGregor, anything. Thank you. And, yeah. I didn't
have pages of follow up comments out after this, but
I do want to pull one little piece out of
this, and it's actually. In our report of 18 a
that is coming next, the core detailed asset management plan.
And it states in there that. Challenges for the asset
management plan. One of the challenges. Input from the public
will strive to include public input to ensure chatim Kent
is responsive to community needs, and under continuous improvements, it
says, improve public trust, demonstrating improvement and responsiveness builds public
confidence in how service decisions are made and justified. So
I'll leave it with that. And hopefully. That will. With
that. Put it to vote. Councilor Rondi. Yes. And councilor
b. Mcgregor. Yes. All votes are in motion. Passes 17
to zero.
Item 17, development services. 17 eight Chatham Ken Community Improvement
plan property tax increment equivalent grant for 100 King Street
Holdings, Inc. Councilor story and councilor juvenile, can you put
this in the floor, please? Certainly so moved. And seconded
councilor story and then councilor Junville. Thank you, mayor. Cannoff.
I just had a couple of questions. Certainly this property
has a strong public interest. And I did get some
questions from constituents. So these are questions. Coming to me
from the community. Certainly. Very interested and excited to see
what's happening at the downtown Chatham center. I think the
investment by the private developers who own the site is
to be commended. And certainly welcome their investment to improve
that part of downtown 100%. I think there's a couple
of questions that there might be. Some information at public
that is not accurate as to what this actually means.
So I have some questions that came in from the
public that might help clear some of that up. Just
to give you a bit of background. So. Any business.
Is it correct that any business owner who owns a
brick and mortar building in Chatham can apply for the
CIP and for tax relief. And is that always 100%
tax relief? And always for ten years, or are there
other options within that framework? Thank you, worship. Ruth McAllister,
general manager, development services. Again. I'll start with answering some
of these programs. I think I can address most, but
I may rely on some other members of staff here
as well. But to this particular question, yes, the CIP
program is certainly open to everyone, and there are several
programs offered within our CIP. We're specifically talking about the
property tax. Program tonight. Some incentives within the program are
limited to the type of use that's being proposed. And
sometimes it's based on location as well. So some of
the programs only apply to our defined downtown areas. For
instance is one example. And not all projects are eligible
for ten years. That was actually amended a couple of
years ago. Based on the first iteration of our CIP
from 2020. So some are now limited to five, depending
on. What is the estimated eligible cost or construction value?
And by project type, for instance, as well. Thanks, Bruce.
Okay. I appreciate that. Additional information. I know I've seen
the report that the CIP was put into place to
target investment in rental and affordable housing, commercial business growth
and employment growth. Does that include market rate rentals? And
do we know if there are any rental or affordable
housing units being planned for this site. Thank you, you,
worship. So the CIP does still offer incentives for apartment
dwellings at market rate. That was changed. To. It's ten
years, but it's now 70%. A year is rebated. Back
versus 100% in the previous iteration of the program. And
by apartments. Those are apartments. Over 50 dwelling units. And
affordable dwelling unit. Affordable housing is incented up to ten
years now as well, and that can be anything. Five
units. Or more. In this particular. There's not a residential
component. In this phase of the development we're talking about
here tonight. It's all commercial or employment type uses. Okay.
Thank you. Can you expand a little bit? On. What
commercial and major employment type use is. Is that new
businesses going in or existing businesses moving from elsewhere in
the community or what? That looks like. Thank you. Yes,
thank you. So those terms are all defined within the
community improvement program specifically. So commercial uses. Are the use
of land, building or structure for a purpose of buying
or selling commodities, essentially, or supplying. Of services is distinguished
from employment uses, which can mean. Generally industrial uses, but
also means offices, business support services, call centers, scientific research
facilities, warehouses or other types of similar uses. So in
this case, it's a combination of both. In a major
project. As defined as anything. With over $10 million worth
of eligible costs or estimated construction value. And that's the
requirement up front on our application. That the applicant provide
us with what their estimated eligible costs are, they have
to do the same. For any building permits as well,
because that's what the building permit fee is based on.
Okay. And so that doesn't come into play until after.
They're finished. Building. The building like renovations of the site.
I think I'm a little curious. Maybe. Perhaps not clear
in the timeline why we would. Be approving this now
versus when they are finished. So thank you, you, worship.
No grants are paid out until after all projects are
finished, just to be clear on that. So we're really
talking about eligibility. We issue eligibility letters saying based on
what you provided, you to be eligible for this. The
property tax grant is the one program that does come
to council for approval. That's defined. There's other ones that
are smaller grants. That have been delegated to council, like
facades or building and planning. Building fee rebate. Incentives as
well. So this is basically the applicant. Has given you
notice that once they're finished the project, they will be
applying for this. No. Sorry. Maybe just for further clarification,
your worship. So they are applying for the CIP. Eligibility.
We're asking council to endorse that if they meet all
the thresholds. Finish the project work within two years. That's.
One of. The stipulations in the CIP from the time
of this approval tonight. That has to be completed within
two years. And then. Impact will reassess. Based on the
construction that's happened. Potentially. We assume it will go up
to some extent. And if they meet all those requirements,
they would be eligible. Every year a proponent pays all
their taxes. If they meet other requirements after that first
year, we'll rebate back. Just the incremental. Portion of the
municipal taxes. So for clarity, for everyone. Everyone does pay
their current base tax, so whatever the mall is paying
now will continue to pay. This is really just a
matter. If there's an increase in assessment, they would get
that. Rebate over the ten years after impact reassessments. Thanks,
Bruce. So they're applying now to. Have that come into
play when they're finished. Ideally, if they finish the building
in the next two years. Correct. Okay. And also, to
be clear, they are paying taxes now. But if the
value of the property goes up, which I'm sure it
will, because they are investing clearly a substantial amount to
improve it. If the value of the building goes out
or the property goes up. The difference of that will
be the relief they receive. They will still be paying
taxes the entire time. Thank you, worship. That is correct.
And that's. Really? What a Cip is designed to do
in this fashion is to incent somebody, to reinvest. Especially
in the downtown cores. And the tax break is really.
On that level of reinvestment that. They would be reassessed
going forward, so it's too early to say. How many
tax dollars would be provided. Yes. At this point, we
don't know that for sure. Until impact as a reassessment.
Okay. And does that part come back to council? No,
we generally don't come back to council after the fact.
Councilor storage. You have a lot, Mark. I've given you
some leniency. Given? That there's questions and answers. Sure. No,
I appreciate that leniency, Mr. Mayor. And I think that
wraps up my question. There's just some misinformation, I think.
In the public, so I wanted to be clear on
what some of that looked like. So thank you for
your flexibility on that. Thank you, Bruce. Mr. Duba. Yeah.
So just on the last question about does that come
back to council? Mr. McAllister is right that it doesn't
come back to council specifically on that piece. Of property,
because by then it's too late. But what I would
anticipate is staff would give updates on the success of
the Cip. We can't really do that now because of
the fact that the province hasn't. Done their impact reassessment,
so. It wouldn't be very valid, but I'm hoping that
in about ten years time, which is when some of
these buildings that came online. 2019 2021 this property, we
will be able to assess how. Much investment has occurred
and how much increase in property values has occurred because
of our CIP. Plan so councils in the future will
get a far better idea of how successful this is.
We know it's going to be successful. We just don't
have a number to give. You. So this property and
all the properties that you approve will come forward at
some point once. We're in a position to give you
updates. On the impact it's had on taxes. We won't
know that in the case. Well, five year ones we
could probably do soon, but the ten year ones we
wouldn't. Be able to do in. Ten years of it
have passed and I won't be here. A lot of
us won't be. Councilor Judenville. Thank you, Mayor Cannif. Councilor
story asked most of my questions. I just want to
confirm so I understand. So. It references $16 million project.
So is that just being attributed to a portion of
what they are doing? This tax. Grant is just based
on the $16 million. Am I understanding that correctly? Thank
you, your worship. The tax grant is based on, so
a project is defined. If you're investing more than $10
million on a project like this, you are eligible. To
receive the property tax increment grant. So. Their current construction
value. In this phase of work they're doing now. They've
given us the 16 million. So they're $6 million ahead
of. That's a big investment, right? Into this project, so
that's why they're eligible for the ten years. Okay, so.
It's not really designated to anything specifically. It's just kind
of a blanket amount. Would you say? The tax rate
will be rebated. It's $16 million, is what I'm referring
to? Oh, the 60 million is a construction estimate provided
by them of the work they're doing okay. And does
it have anything to do with the garage at all,
or. Is it just. On. The building. The works that
they're doing for the tax grant. They are doing some
work on the garage. Most of the work that they're
doing is on the facade on King street. Frankly, it
also includes a new elevator work they've done. It includes
the new escalator they'll be putting in just some examples
of all the construction work that's going on. There. Okay.
All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Okay. See?
No other questions. We'll put it to vote. Councilor Bondi.
And councilor b. Mcgregor. All votes are in motion. Passes
17 to zero. 17 B application for zoning bylaw amendment.
650 Park street community of Dresden, North Kent. Councilor juvenile
and councilor Wright and I get you puts on the
floor, please. I so move. I'll second it. Thank you,
councilor. Juvenile. Go ahead. Yeah, I just have a few
questions. I know it's in the report, but just for
clarity, because there's a lot of people concerned about this.
The zoning. That we want to change to, it would
still allow. For a senior citizens or assisted a living
retirement home. To still occupy that location if that was
the decision of the applicant. Thank you, Mayor Canif. Yes.
The proposed medium density residential zoning still provides for a
retirement home. Okay. I went to the meeting, I saw
a copy of the plans, and on it it did
say. Affordable. Apartment
conversion from senior residents. So that is making a lot
of people thinking that this is going to become affordable
housing. So is it going to be affordable housing? Thank
you, Mayor Cannon. I did not attend the meeting, but
one of the planning staff did understand. You were there
as well, councilor, and I have read the summary. I
do know that. The proposed rental units are supposed to
be at a market rate. There's no subsidy being applied.
That would define it as affordable through various government programs.
So this should be considered market apartment, okay? So we
would have knowledge if it was going to be designated
as affordable housing, is that correct? Yes. Okay.
So if something happened tonight and this was voted down,
What are some things that could happen if this was
voted down? Under the planning act process. If this was
voted down, the property would remain in the institutional zone.
The owner of the property would be afforded appeal rights
to move. This application to the Ontario Land Tribunal. And
the impact on the community of Dresden would be that
this building would likely sit vacant for a longer period
of time until a new proposed use, perhaps. Could be
proposed for that site and come back to council in
the future. Okay. So many people have reached out to
me with concerns about this because. They feel the owner,
the new owner is the previous owner. They have concerns.
About a lot of things that have happened. And. They're
just very concerned about what happened. When it was previously
park street. The senior residents what will happen? If the
owner continues on with conducting his business the same way.
It says that the apartments, there's going to be like
40 apartments, but they're not sure how and. Do we
have any governance over how they would construct these apartments?
Because right now. They were homes, rooms. For the retirement
residents. But now, if they become apartments, I would assume
they would have to have like a kitchen and a
bathroom in each unit. Do we know? How these rooms
are going to be set up as apartments, or do
we have any authority over that. The authority over how
they are set up is ultimately guided by the Ontario
building code, so provided the owner provides drawings by a
qualified person that meet the legislation of the province, then
those would be approved and inspected throughout the duration of
the project by municipal building services staff, okay? That's all
the questions I have. Thank you. Seeing. No other questions,
we'll put it to vote. Councilor b. Mcgregor. Yes. And
councilor Bondi. No. All votes are in motion. Passes 14
to two.
Item 18, infrastructure and engineering services. At and a consolidated
non core detailed asset management plans 2025. Councilor C. McGregor
and Councilor Anderson, the four, please. Sure. Yes, I'll second.
All right, I got four speakers to start. Councilor c.
McGregor followed. By councilor Anderson, councilor Harrigan and councilor Sakoch,
councilor C. McGregor. I have to pull up the report
first. Sorry. Hold on. If you want to, go ahead.
It's nothing like my last motion. If you want and
move beyond me and come back. On this, okay? It
was just comments, Councilor Anderson, followed by councilor Harrigan. Sure.
Thank you for this report. My only question was just
strictly clarity. That this report was not suggesting anything, that
this was just bring us to the next level, that
then suggestions will be brought forward for decisions to be
made correct. Thank you for the question through Mr. Mayor.
Yes, that is correct. You are going to approve the
proposed levels of service, as the consultant had said here
before, but it will require us to go back and
look at the creation of the long term financial plan.
Which will connect your budget processes to the asset management
plans. So you know when you're investing what levels of
service you're able to sustain over the long period of
time. Which was in the April 20 eigth report and
will be completed in 20 27 28 in time for
the next multi year budget. Thank you. And I just
wanted to clarify for the public because I've had lots
of questions about this with this report coming out. Obviously,
people got a little bit worried about it, but. I
want to say, as far as transparency goes into this
whole process, you've come and spoken to us a couple
of times now, and it's very much appreciated that we've
been included. With each process and stage along the way.
And this is just another one of those stages to
get us to the final. So I certainly appreciate all
the transparency. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sorry, Councilor
Harrigan. Followed by councilor Sima Gregor. Thank you. Through the
mayor. I just. Have a few questions more to help
myself and members of the public kind of understand about
that. Asset management planning process. So can you just remind.
Members of the public before. I ask the questions. What
do you mean when we say non core assets in
the non core asset management plan, sure. Through. Mr. Mayor.
Thank you for the question. I know it's a bit
clunky. Terminology. It comes from the provincial legislation itself. In
the future, we'll just refer to them. As the asset
management plans, but to get through meeting the legislative deadlines,
the non cores would be. Something. Such as? So emergency
services. Thinking of fire, police, paramedics. It would be recreational
sort. Of services. So you're thinking trails, arenas, pools, those
sorts of things. Cultural ones, museums, libraries. We're talking also
RVG. We're talking public health. We're talking about. The sort
of things that you would think are more service based
and less hard infrastructure in the sense of roads and
pipes in the ground. And then in the report, the
damp. That we have it outlines kind of like what
that gap is, right, in terms of the asset. Management
plan, would you say that we are in? So that's
sometimes when you look at that it can be very
shocking when you see it for the first time. Right?
Like, oh, gosh. We've only have 20 something percent of
our stormwater that's funded or we only have 60% of
this as funded. Are we in good company there compared
to other communities across the province? Or is this something
that's unique to Chatham. Ken. Thank you for the question
through you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. This is not uncommon. I'll
give you a couple of examples. Toronto. When they first
did. Theirs was $28 billion Windsor's $2.6 million Hamilton. When
I did the. Core asset management plans. There. They were
2.5. They're now up to $5.8. Billion. It's a completely
common problem to have not just millions of an infrastructure
gap, but billions. Because this municipality is very old. It's
had a long time to build up a lot. Of
infrastructure, and it will take a long period of time
for us to be able to work. Our way. To
intergenerational equity in a sustainable place. And then last question.
Sometimes when we're making decisions about different asset categories, you'll
hear members of the public give an argument. Well, you
shouldn't invest in X because Y is more important, right?
And it could be any two things. Why is it
important for us to continue to invest. In various asset
management categories as a municipality, compared to, for example, putting
all of our money in gravel roads so that we
then turn them all into pavement in the next three
years. Through you. Mr. Mayor, an excellent question. So in
one of the recommendations in the April 20 eigth, was
for us. To ask the council to consider in the
next multi year budget to raising it from the infrastructure
asset management plan funding from one and a half percent
up. We wanted you to increase it primarily because. Throughout
the communities, there's vastly different needs and different desires. There's
different demands. People want libraries, they want parks, they want
to make sure that they have good trails for recreational
purpose. They want to make sure that fire, police and
paramedics have the assets necessary to respond. To their wants
and needs as well, too. So the idea is to
make sure that. When we come back. And one of
the recommendations in the April 28 was to have administration
take a look at how best to invest in that
plan. The increase of the asset management funding so that
we are creating a sustainable and equitable future. And that's
really challenging when you have so many diverse assets and
so many diverse people wants and needs. Not everybody just.
Wants a road. People do want to make sure that
RVG is taken care of or that they have good
trails, whether they have outdoor pools to go to. So
those competing needs is the best way for us to
look at. That investment funding and how to spread it
out to make sure that it's meeting the needs of
the community, not just today, but in the future. Great.
Thank you. Appreciate your patience as I asked those questions.
And thank you again for this report. It's very well
done. Councilor Senogreger, followed by councilor Scotchy. Okay, thank you
to the mayor. And thank you, Councilor Harrigan, because you
addressed a couple of the things that I had. On
my mind here when I was going through this. I'm
reading this. So this. Is actually a plan that needs
to be in place for the province for the 1
July is that correct? And that's why it is here
now. Unfortunately. If we were to turn this down. Tonight.
What happens. With this first to July date. Again. It's
kind of coming, I think, at the last minute before
it's required to. Be completed. In advance about in a
minute. Is this basically a prelude? To a list of
assets. Or infrastructure that we have that will be on
the chopping block that is going to then again put
council at each other because of what happens in different
communities. And what is recommended. Through you, Mr. Mayor, that's
an excellent question. And asset management is not in any
way intended. To. Pit. Need versus need or community versus
community? That's not the idea. We look at Chatham. Kent
as a whole. And we're trying to make sure that
one of our primary goals which is in the strategic
asset management policy, is to ensure equity. So the goal
is. Not to say one or the other. It's to
just have a realistic sort of approach. And say it
would be lovely to afford everything. We can't afford everything,
so how can we address these needs equitably across the
way, and the asset management plans are really tools and
hopefully. You've all read the overview document, but this is
a tool that counselors can also use when dealing with.
The province and suggesting that we need additional supports. The
idea behind that overview document is to provide you some
opportunities where you can just look at every single service
quickly, see what the gaps are. Where the needs are,
where the funding is required, so that we can not
only advocate for it. At higher levels, but also when
we're sitting around this horseshoe or when. You're discussing with
constituents, you have some very good evidence at your fingertips
to be able to have those. Frank conversations you need
to have with your constituents. If we don't have them,
if we don't have those conversations. We don't educate the
public on how much these things cost will just inevitably
have them thinking we can keep going at the pace
that we're going at without making sure that we're being
very wise and responsible, making sure we're. Funding things appropria.
Appropriately. And the other part is that we've extended this
to be a 30 year window. To be able to
reach sustainability because a ten year window is just an
impossibility. So. With a 30 year window. We hope there's
a little less back and forth and that there's more
of a cooperative approach to looking at how we can
solve this infrastructure gap. Problem. After our earlier reports and
our early conversations, it kind of feels like a cart
before the horse. Scenario again because. We're moving
or supposedly moving forward with this plan without really knowing
what this plan is. Going to entail. So hopefully there'll
be a lot further conversation that comes after this. Thank
you. Thanks. Councilor Scott Chief, followed by councilor story. That's
okay. Mary can if. I'll pass. Thanks. Councilor story. Thank
you, mary kenneth. Thank you again for the detailed report.
These have been really educational. I really appreciate the effort
that you and your team have put into this. Just
in terms of clarity. For the public. And myself as
well. Levels of service. Are not necessarily. Recommendation one. If
we adopt the proposed levels of service. Are we or.
Are we not? Also agreeing to a financial commitment to
that or the level of service merely means we are
approving the approach. And then the dollar amount. Amounts will
come later. Because I'm not quite clear in the financial
implications section. It doesn't attach. Okay by approving this tonight.
You're approving. $100,000. Of costs. Like, I just didn't see
that. So I just want to be clear. This is
the level of service. Terminology might just be more of
a term versus a financial commitment. Am I understanding that
correctly? Through you, Mr. Mayor. Great question. So when you're
setting a level of service which I've always said is
council's role and responsibility when you pass your budget. So
when you pass a budget, you are passing, inevitably, the
level of service that you're going through. What we've done
in our plans here is to propose that. We're not
veering off anything. We're not suggesting you're cutting anything. We're
not suggesting you're adding anything inside of this level of
service. It's. Just that we're going to maintain what we
currently have, and as the consultant had said it could
be considered a condition. So we're going to maintain our
highways in good. Condition. Our local roads say in fair
condition because. That's basically what we're saying there is that
the level of service that you're providing is either going
to be condition based, it's going to be capacity based.
Or it's going to be function based. Okay, so when
you're saying this, does it impact the budget? It could
in the sense that five years, eight years down the
road, you may need to invest. More in renewals or
you may need to do a higher maintenance level. But
what we're. Seeing in here is that you're proposing that
you're going to maintain the current level of service that
you have. And there's the budget implications that are within
the plans that say you need x amount of dollars
to get there. And we've approached it from a 30
year window. So what we've done is one of the
financial measures that we use is something called an ARFR
asset renewal funding ratio. And that really means that we
have the money in place to, say, replace a fire
truck or. An ambulance at the time that we need
to do that. And so what we've done is we've
taken all of the plans and we've taken. What their
current asset renewal funding ratio is, and we've stretched it
out over 30 years. And we've applied a rate that
says you need to put aside this much money over
time. To be able to achieve that sustainable 90% gold
inside of 30 years. So what we've also suggested in
our April plans is that there's no real financial repercussions.
They can't really be known until we pass the long
term financial plan. That's really the driver to this. That's
what happened in the April 28 meeting. Is that we
had you pass that we asked for the recommendation to
be agreed to that you're going to provide us with
enough time to be able to do a long term
financial plan with Gordon, his staff, to make sure that
we have really good numbers for you. I don't. Know
if you remember, but when I first came to, I
said, these are baby plans. And that we're going to
get to really good. Plans by the 2027 timeline for
the multi year budget. We just need to make sure
that maturity through education and process and practice that staff
are quite comfortable with it. I think Edward might also
have a comment on that as well, too. Thank you.
Just to add to what Sean was speaking to. You
really have to read this report. In conjunction with the
April report, because in April, we came back with a
core asset management plans. And we had a number of
very detailed recommendations for the council passed at that time.
We did not want to repeat those recommendations because we
already have direction, but you have to look at those.
Two reports simultaneously. So this is only for the non
core assets. The consultant earlier about the other topic was
speaking about water and wastewater. You've actually approved the asset
management plans for water wastewater in April. So we've met
that timeline there. So I would just recommend councils back
and look at those recommendations really speaks to what. Sean
was talking about, which is the long term financial plan,
how it's going to be tied into the multi year
budget. Looking at a review of all the assets and
services to create a divestment strategy before that process, reducing
the infrastructure gap and also speaking to how we would
potentially fund this over 30 years, potentially moving from the
current 1.5 to two and a half percent property tax
equivalent. Those are all considerations that you'll take into account
when you do. Your multi year budget. Thank you for
that clarification. That's how I appreciate that. And that does
make sense to look at those both together. Because my
last question would be, is there a reason why we
wouldn't look at. This now. At two more years to
our 30 year window to give us a little more
grace period, because there's still work to be done. That's
why we're waiting to the 2028 budget round. Since we're
in the baby the baby plan stage, as you said.
Is that why we're looking at the next budget discussions,
to tackle that through you? Mr. Mayor? Absolutely. Same sort
of thing we need. To make sure that to connect
these to the budget process, the creation of the longtime
term financial plan is probably going to take about 18
months to do. And so that's why we've approached it
in this way. Thank you very much. See. No other
questions. We'll put it to vote. Councilor b. Mcgregor. Yes.
Councilor Bondi? Yes. All votes are in motion. Passes 17
to zero. 18 b Tolbit trail realignment councilor Anderson and
councilor Harrigan. Can I get the floor, please? Yes, and
seconded. Councilor Anderson, you had a question? Yeah, thank you.
I just wanted to. Get a little bit of clarification.
Kind of like the backstory of where we're at on
this, and I appreciate the conversations I was able to
have with Edward today. And I understand that the consultant.
That the consultants here tonight? Yes. Thank you. Could you
just give me a backstory of what? Is taking place
and what the delay is. And that we are still
obviously wanting to go forward with this recommendation. Thank you,
Mary Kanif Margaret. Manager of engineering. I'll start, maybe just
with a quick background, and then I'll introduce Adrian as.
Well. As I'm sure all of you are aware, we
started with the EA and the EA. Addendum. As part
of that EA process, we were required to do a
stage one archaeological assessment. So that was completed through the
EA. So stage one. Essentially kind of determines if there's
a potential for archaeological sites to be within the project.
Area. And if there are, then it recommends stage two.
So. The stage two. As we knew that through the
EA process, we incorporated that into our detailed design. RFP
with the consultant. So we completed that. That started. In
December of 2024. We got through the stage two, and
it was determined that the findings in the stage two
were significant enough to trigger stage three. So that's where,
at that point, we kind of got into working with
Acom. To follow through with stage three and then potentially
the stage four at that time, as we didn't know
the extent of it. So. Yes, Adri is here with
Acom. So she can probably answer your questions on the
archaeological assessment in the process. A lot easier and probably
kind of explain. The findings and where we're at this
point and kind of the steps forward. So she has
a few slides. I think that probably kind of sum
up a lot of that. So I'll hand it over
to her. Thanks, Mark. So I'm major at Grant. I'm
the technical lead for cultural resources at ACOM. Thank you
for that. So I just pulled together a few brief
slides, kind of just a little bit of background on
the process. And then specific to this project is to
help everybody understand so we can go to the next
one. So, archaeology in Ontario. This is run through the
heritage branch at the Ministry of citizenship and multiculturalism that
is the ministry that governs everything. They license the archaeologists
and they've created. The standards and guidelines for consultant archaeologists,
which is the primary document that really governs the entire
process. It is a four stage process. So the stage
one, you're looking at background research, really? The point of
that is to decide. Is there the potential for an
archaeological resource to be there? You get into stage two.
That's. When you're doing that initial survey, seeing what you
find, and then based on what you find? That's when
it's decided whether you need to move towards the site
specific excavation. And the main goal of the stage three,
really, is to get in and figure out exactly what
the limits of the site are and then also get
a better idea through the material that you've recovered what
you're actually looking at. Decide whether or not it warrants
mitigation. So that's the stage four and the mitigation. Could
be deciding to avoid and protect something, or if it's
not feasible to do that. You move towards controlled excavation,
fully removing it out of the ground, but doing it
in such a way that all the information isn't lost.
You can go to the next slide. I will speak
as well too, to the timing of that. I think
Mark spoke to that a little bit. There's some flexibility
when you get into these different stages. With an EA,
it is required that you do a stage one, and
because it's still fairly general, and you're often looking at
a lot of different alternatives. Doing the stage two physical
survey is quite intensive and it costs a lot of
money and most times you don't. Want to be doing
that until you know exactly where you're going to impact,
so. That's usually. What it happens. The stage one is
pretty early. Once you have a really good idea of
where the project will impact. That's when you get into
the stage two. And then, of course, stage three and
four only follow. If you have a resource that meets
that criteria. And then another thing on the timing as
well. So it's the term and condition of the archaeologist
license that we engage with indigenous groups. When we're doing
stage three or stage four of an indigenous site. But
that being said, best practice and most municipalities, most major.
Companies and clients they are involving. Interested indigenous groups at
the stage two level, which I believe is what happened
here. And so I've just put up some criteria of
why you need to move in there. I think what's
important to note is that. Professional judgment doesn't come into
play at all. It is very clearly outlined in those
standards. And guidelines if you meet this criteria. Yes, no,
yes, no. So if we want to go to the
next slide. So this is the actual project. And what
happened? That I think was a surprise to everybody, but.
Not uncommon when it comes to archaeology. Is that after
the stage two. Once we started looking further and getting
into that stage three, we were finding a lot more
things. Than we anticipated. And that's just the virtue of
looking on the ground versus actually getting in and digging
and seeing what's there. So all of this jumbled mass
of colors just essentially shows to you that in this
stretch, on this project. There's a lot of archaeology going
on here, so if you want to go to the
next slide. I'll explain a little bit so you can
kind of understand what's going on. The purple dots here
are the location of. The stage two surface artifacts. And
the yellow line is essentially the limits of the sites
as it was understood. During the stage two. Now, what
happened is when you look at the yellow dots, so
when we came in, we did another surface examination. We
found a lot more material. And you see the sites?
Have expanded incredibly. Another important piece is that the types
of artifacts that we were finding during the stage two,
it was all lithic material, nondiagnostic. But when we got
there, we are finding indigenous. Pottery and ceramics, which is
a diagnostic, and it kind of opens the door to
a whole other set of rules so we can go
to the next one. This is a perfect example here.
So if you see that purple dot and the yellow
around it, this was considered one fine spot. But when
we get there and we see all of this other
material there. There's clearly a lot more going on. So
we can go to the next one. This is an
example. You can't see the numbers, so this was our
stage three each. Of those squares represent an actual 1
meter by 1 meter excavation unit in the plow zone.
Of the agricultural field. So we go down through that
whole plow zone. And then we have to essentially chase
the artifacts. We keep going until we get less than
ten. Or certain special things. And what happened here is
you can kind of see is it just kind of
kept going. We can go to the next one. Similar
to this one. You see the yellow line of where
the site was thought to be. Did need to extend
it out a little bit further. Go to the next
one. This site. Is, and we've done a lot more
here because this is where we are focusing because we
know that it needs stage four because this is in
a wooded area, if not in the plow field because
we have features. It is empottery. It is a woodland
time period. Site, which means, and it could potentially be
intact. And what I mean by that. Is that the
plows hasn't smeared it around. So it has to be
done completely by hand. That's our only option. Whereas with
some. Of the other sites. We do have the option
of a combination of hand excavation and also mechanical like
using a machine. So we can go to the next
one. Again, just another example. Of it kind of being
a little bigger than anyone would have anticipated. You go
to the next slide. So this is essentially the steps
where we're at, so we know the stage three is.
Completed. And that report should be. Ready this week or
next week at the latest. But we know that all
of those sites that I just showed do require stage
four mitigation. And understanding that you don't have a lot
of leeway. That project area needs to be impacted. So
we're looking at excavation, fully removing it out of the
way and, like. I said that would be done in
a combination of hand excavation but also using some machinery
as well. What we're seeing also is. We're not assessing
outside of the project area, but we are seeing these
sites go right. To the end of the project area.
So essentially, We're quite clear, and there's going to be
an instance where we know these sites do extend outside.
We don't need to impact those, but we will have
to put in some protection during construction so that we
know that nothing happens to it and they can stay
where they are. Throughout this entire process. We continue to
consult with the indigenous groups that are participating with us
on site. We're coordinating with them when we're coming up
with our strategy. Timing wise, when we get to stage
four. And it's a fair amount of work in order
to get that done, but we do have the option,
which I've recommended. Is, once we've finished the excavation, you
then have all the material and the artifacts that. You
have to process and analyze and go through all of
that, which can take some time, but. At this point.
We've already removed it out of the ground, so what
we can do? Is we can write a preliminary excavation
report. That satisfies the ministry. What it does is it
provides all the methods that we did. Everything that we
did as far as the excavation went for removing it,
but it leaves out the artifact piece. And what that
does is it allows the ministry to say, okay. We're
comfortable with this preliminary excavation report. Construction can proceed while
we take the time to. Do the thorough requirement of
analyzing all the artifacts and going through all of that.
We're still required to provide that final report, but. Construction
doesn't have to wait for us to get through that
in order for that to happen. And then essentially, when
the MCM acceptance really is that letter saying you're clear
to go. And then that's it. Kind of how it
goes. Thank you so much, and I certainly appreciate you
explaining this. And I want to say I'm definitely very
glad that this process is in place and that we
are preserving. Any indigenous findings that we do include them
in this process as well. And. It's definitely worth the
additional cost, I would say, to preserve any findings. And
it also is worth the delay in the project, but
I do understand some frustrations of the public and that's
the only thing that I wanted, was to have some
clarity provided as to why. There's this delay and the
steps that are taken with a little bit more detail,
so. I certainly appreciate that. As far. As cost goes,
do we get? Any reimbursement from the ministry or from
the indigenous groups in this recovery process or is this
solely on the municipality? Typically, it's solely on the municipality.
I know of some municipalities that have tried to get
various grants through ministries. I haven't. Heard of anyone being
successful, but essentially it's fully proponent. Covered. Okay. Thank you
so much. I did just have one further question. Another
question that I got was. Actually. To the greenhouse. Operation
that's there. And it was sought by the public that
they didn't have to go through this process. Can you
clarify? What happened on that site. To as much that
you can provide with transparency and confidentiality. I don't know.
I looked to see if there was. Any reports for
that area? Because funny enough, A long time ago, maybe
2016. I did the archaeology at a different consultant for
a greenhouse in Chatham, Kent. And I was like, was
that the same one? But I couldn't find any. Reports
for it. This is a requirement, and it falls under.
The. Ontario Heritage act that says you have to do
it. But the Ontario Heritage act, just you're? In violation
of that. If you impact an archaeological resource, it doesn't
say you have. To do an assessment. So that tends
to fall under the Planning Act. A number EA, like
a number of different. Policies, but sometimes it gets missed.
So I can't speak to that particular place. But, yeah,
sometimes that happens. Okay. Thanks, Bruce. Thank you, worship. Maybe
I can just elaborate. I can probably speculate. On what
would have happened there. So greenhouses are permitted as of
right in our agricultural zoning. So they wouldn't have required
a trigger for an assessment. Ultimately any development you do
like, we've had others that have uncovered archaeological artifacts, just
even through building construction. And excavation. That's kind of the
scenario. If you find it, then it would trigger moving.
Forward. So the other greenhouse that I think you're referring
to would have been the one. Here in town that
did require land use changes to permit it in an
industrial zone at the time. So I recall. That triggered
an archaeological assessment, so that's the difference. In. Why? Okay.
Thank you. So if they would have found something, it
wouldn't have not. Gone to the public, but they would
have been required to report to the ministry, is what
you're saying? Thank you, councilor story. Thank you very much.
This is very interesting. You mentioned that it's a woodland
period. Series of artifacts. What time frame are we talking
about in terms of human history? Roughly. Woodland typically starts
around. 600. Bc. Up to about. And we usually stay
around contact, so 14 to 16 hundreds. So it's a
wide time. Period. And frankly, the only difference is that.
Pottery is a big indicator. It was at a time.
That indigenous groups started using pottery and we start seeing
it in there. And it kind of helps us date
it to a certain time period. So it's 600 plus
or more years old. Potentially. Thank you. All right. Thank
you very much. See. No other questions. We'll put it
to vote. Councilor bondi. Yes. Councilor b. Mcgregor. Yeah. All
votes are in motion. Passes 17 to zero. We'll move
on to notice of motion. Councilor Scott, you have two
of them. Thank you, Mary Kane. Whereas an independent audit
by Deloitte conducted for the Chatham Kent police services. Did
to highlight a staffing shortage and recommend an increasing staffing
to meet service demands and that the Lloyd audit found
that the total calls for service have an increased which.
Has turned increased total for police attending. And whereas the
Deloitte audit found that the police budget for police officer
strength had remained the same from. That. And whereas that
Deloitte audit found that the police budget for police officer
strength had remained the same from 2018 to 2021. And
whereas that Deloitte audit found that CKPS has a low
policing ratio compared to the provincial and canadian averages. And
whereas the Deloitte audit found that the proactive work had
decreased office. Officers are required to attend more calls, leaving
less time for proactive and preventative work. And whereas that
dolot audit found CKPS employees well being have been compromised
with an increase to the use of sick time and
long term illness. And whereas Deloitte also noted that officers
were wearing too many hats and suggested streamlined responsibilities for
greater efficiency. And whereas CKPs is nearing the completion of
the hiring process, and there has been significantly. Positive feedback
in the Chattam area. Therefore, be it resolved that Chatham
Kent Council requests the chief of police attend at a
future council meeting and present a report updating council and
the public. About implementation of the hiring process and revised
processes to assist in dealing with the identified issues and
as the municipality of Chatham, Kent is still seeing an
increase in police related. Needs that the chief be asked
to also highlight any future initiatives for all communities of
Chatham, Kent. Thank you. The light got me a little
spotty there for a second. Whereas Chatham can't. Currently reports
on its operating budget variants and whereas purchasing bylaw 205
200:25 provides the delegated authority to award the contracts of
the value less than $1 million with approved budget. And
whereas there has been a recent coverage of. Capital projects
being over budget, while amenity capital projects that are within
budget go unreported. Therefore, be it resolved that infrastructure and
engineering services bring forward an annual information report to council
on attenders and rfps that were awarded for the year
through delegated authority. Closed session reports councilor hall and Connecticut
councilor Bondi the second. Thank you, mayor. Can have confidentiality
and closed session meetings. Closed session meetings of council are
held to discuss sensitive matters. Such as legal issues, personnel
matters, or property negotiations. These sessions are governed by strict
confidentiality to protect the interests of the municipal. Municipality and
individuals involved. Council members and staff are legally, unethically bound
to maintain discretion and any disclosure of information discussed in
closed session may result in penalties or legal consequences. Closed
session report for Monday, June 23, 2025. Council received information
on litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality or local
board and advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege
with regard to claims and litigation. Update section 239, two
e and f of the municipal act, and I so
move. Anyone opposed? Do you want the official vote in
this one? Okay, we can vote now. Council Bondi. Yes,
and councilor B. McGregor. Yes. Although Turin motion passes 17
to zero communication items. Councilor Finn, you wanted to pull
two c. Yes. Thank you. Kind of disheartened to read
yet again that we received no funding. For sports community
sport and Recreation Infrastructure fund. If somebody could explain. Do
we know when the last time was we received funding
from this grant program? And what does this now mean
for the project that was submitted? Perhaps. I can answer
part of that. Four arenas. We have received grant funding.
I'm not sure if it was from this program. Or
from another sports program. As governments come out, they announced
different forms. Of funding. But the Wallsburg Irene rebuild. We
did receive about a million dollars of funding. When we
replaced the floor and did a lot of renovations there.
But, yeah, it's a very disappointing that. We did not
receive funding for the Blana marina. Aligned perfectly with. The
purpose of the grant. It all comes down to be
that. The grants offered by upper levels never have enough
funding to go around. And I can't explain why shadow
was left out again. So what does it mean? Now
for the Blenheim Arena? So it was still budgeted. It
still was in the capital budget to fund. We were
hoping to offset chat and Pentagon so we could move
those dollars to a new project. Instead. It'll just be
chatter cut property tax dollars going to. That project. I
believe it's in. 27 that it's actually being done. Thank
you, councilor fan and Councilor Doyle. Can I get you
to move the communication items? Please. Happy to move it.
Happy to say that. Any questions? Anyone opposed? Motion carries
non agenda business. Hope your hand is okay.
We got eight minutes. I'm sure we'll fit all this
in. Sorry. Who else? Over here. Councilor Scott, chief. All
by councilor Anderson. Thank you, Maricina. I just wanted to
remind everybody that on candidate day, the glad tiny church
is having a very big fireworks display and also that
the Blenham Fire Department is celebrating 150 years. And lastly,
I just wanted that there was several events around CK
last weekend. And dozens and probably hundreds of volunteers. And
I just want to thank all the volunteers that make
these wonderful events happen, whether it be a car show
or all the events that's happening. Across our community. Thank
you. Councilor Anderson, followed by council Juneville. Thank you. I
just wanted to remind everybody that this weekend is the
Wheatley Fish Festival. There's things happening Friday, Saturday and Sunday
at the harbor at the arena and uptown Wheatley. So
bring your family, bring your friends, and come and enjoy
some time with us. Thanks, councilor juvenile, followed by councilor
C. McGregor. Thank you, mayor. Cannoff I have been contacted
by quite a few residents from Dresden today who have
shared some pictures and concerns with me. It appears there
was a lot of activity at the York one. Site
today, and many people have asked if we have any
knowledge, authority or governance over what is currently happening there.
Thank you, worship. Maybe I can answer that. Yeah, we
do have some knowledge of activity happening on that site.
It's really hard to say whether or not we have
any authority. They have the right to use their property
legally like anybody else does. We will be keeping an
eye on them, and I encourage people to share with
their counselors. Or us if they see any activity. That
is beyond what they're entitled to do. We will be
reminding them what their zoning is. And if anyone sees
any, there's certain things, obviously, if buildings go up, it's.
Subject to the Ontario building code. If there's any earthworks
that's happening, that's. Going to impact drains or water courses,
and they need the proper permissions for that. So we'll
certainly keep an eye on it. I just would urge
people to do so. Legally. I'd hate to see somebody
get hurt or be charged for tres. Trespassing. We'll make
sure that our enforcement people drop by from time to
time. As well. I will take the opportunity to indicate
we still have not heard from York one. Nor from
the province. So if there has been. A new application
filed. Now that bill five has been passed, we have
not been advised by either. The province or York, one
of that. Obviously, when we are, we'll let you know,
but. As of right now, we don't know what the
plans are. And we know that the EA is not
a requirement anymore by legislation. We're not really sure how
the ESA is going to be addressed. So as soon
as we get more information, we'll let you know. But
in the interim, any information that people have about the
use of the site. We're happy to collect. Councilor C.
McGregor, probably. Councilor Wright. Thank you. And you can thank
Councilor Finn for me to remember this one. But this
past week, my food palette. Through my food policy council,
I met. With trevor jones. In regards to some of
the direction as envisioned with the Food Policy council. But
in that conversation, he mentioned that should we at any
point in time be submitting grants or submissions through to
the provincial government. He indicated that he could not help
us write those grants or whatever. But once those grants
are written that if we wish to include him, Afterwards
that he would be more than happy to help see
that those submissions get in front of the right people
to try and help us gain. Access to some of
that funding. Thank you for that, councilor. We do. It
hasn't helped yet, necessarily. But in fairness, The minister has
a new portfolio now, so perhaps that's something that will
allow him to. Be more helpful. Councilor wright. Thank you,
mayor. Can if Ridgetown is starting to celebrate their 150
years, this year. Their praise. Friday night, everyone's welcome. 06:00.
The Ridge House Museum got their 50th anniversary. They just
redone their museum. It really looks good. If you get
a chance, get out and go through it. And hats
off to Temville. We were there, me and the mayor,
on Friday night, we went through the parade and they
had a great festival all weekend, so thank you. Okay,
we'll move on to reading of the bylaws first and
second reading councilor. Crew McDonald's. Seconded. Anyone opposed? Motion carry.
Councilor hall and councilor juvenile, third and final reading. So.
Moved and seconded. Anyone opposed? Motion carried. Resolution of council.
Councilor hall, and then if we can get. I don't
know. Who did I write down for this one? Councilor
Scott? This one seconded, I move the chapter council adjourn
to its next meeting to be held on Monday, July
14, 2025, in that Chattel County Council authorized itself to
be in closed session on that day to discuss any
matters permitted by the municipal act. Councilor Zagachi is seconded.
Anyone opposed? Wrapping up at 957. Three minutes to spare.
Here we go. Thanks, everybody. We are your tv
connect with us.