[0:02] And after that, it's been a downhill. It's a challenge
[0:07] for me to do things on my own, but I
[0:09] make myself do. It. I think it's a great program
[0:13] put on by the United Way, and I enjoy the
[0:16] meals because not a lot of spices and low installed,
[0:19] which I have to watch because I have arthritis and
[0:22] thyroid problems. Thanks to the United Way, seniors like me
[0:27] get the help we need. Got fried. Let's celebrate. Happy
[0:35] pride month. We are your tv truly local? Exclusively on
[0:43] Coachico.
[3:15] Must recognize our responsibilities, including our collective responsibilities to the
[3:19] land and water. Mr. Mayor, there is no supplementary agenda
[3:26] this evening. Rules of decorum at a council meeting. The
[3:31] municipality of Chatham, Kent, supports open meetings that welcome debate
[3:34] of public policy issues. In an atmosphere of inclusiveness, integrity,
[3:39] civility, fairness and respects for differing points of view. Anyone
[3:45] conducting themselves in a way that disturbs, disrupts, or impedes
[3:48] the orderly conduct of the meeting, interrupts or makes derogatory
[3:52] statements or hate speech. Defamatory comments about counselors staff speakers
[3:56] or fellow members. Of the public may result in removal
[3:59] from the premises. This also applies to deputations. We ask
[4:03] that you do not approach members of council if they
[4:06] are seated in their council seat. The public, unless invited,
[4:09] is not permitted to come into the gated horseshoe area.
[4:12] The use of posters, signage in literature is also prohibited.
[4:16] In attendance this evening. Just to let the public know
[4:20] that absentee councilor McGrail. And councilor B. McGregor is participating
[4:24] virtually on the call. There were two disclosures of procurementary
[4:29] interest this evening. The first one is with regards to
[4:32] the planning. Item eleven. A application for consent and zoning
[4:35] bylaw amendment. The estate of Carolina. Mysco 14385 tour and
[4:41] line community of Orford East Kent by councilor story and
[4:45] the other one by councilor story. Was item 17 B,
[4:48] the application for zoning bylaw amendment. For 650 Park street
[4:53] community of Dresden, North Kent. We'll now move on to
[4:57] planning services. Thank you, brun. Kenneth.
[5:08] The process to be followed for each application. Will be
[5:12] as follows. One the clerk will announce each individual planning
[5:15] item to the mayor will ask if there's anyone present
[5:18] other than the applicant with an interest in the application
[5:20] and to indicate so by raising their hand. Three. The
[5:23] clerk will advise a burden or video submissions have been
[5:25] received four. If someone present other than the applicant indicates
[5:29] an interest in the item, there will be a presentation
[5:31] by administ. Administration. Five individuals with an interest in the
[5:36] application other than the applicant will be asked to proceed
[5:38] to the podium provide their name and address. And address.
[5:40] Council six. The applicant will be asked that they wish
[5:43] to proceed to the podium address. Council seven administration will
[5:47] be asked if they have any comments. Based on any
[5:48] discussion may have occurred and aid council be asked what
[5:52] action it wishes to take. With regard. Regards to each
[5:54] item. If any person in a public body that files
[5:58] an appeal of a decision of counsel and respect. The
[6:00] proposed applications does not make oral of written submissions. The
[6:03] municipal clerk before the proposal is approved they are not
[6:06] entitled to appeal decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal if
[6:10] otherwise eligible. Unless, in the opinion of the tribunal, there
[6:13] are reasonable grounds to add the person and public bodies.
[6:16] A party to the appeal. Information on council's actions today
[6:19] will be posted municipal website all persons who have made
[6:22] a request or who have made an oral written submission
[6:25] regarding a particular planning item or receive a notice of
[6:28] council's decision, including appeal procedures. Any other person who wishes
[6:32] to receive a notice of decision must submit a written
[6:35] request. Municipal clerk. Thank you. Eleven a application for consent
[6:40] and zoning bylaw Amendment A, State of Carolina Meisco 14385
[6:46] tour online Community of Orford East Kent Mr. Mayor, we
[6:49] have one conflict of interest by councilor. Story and no
[6:51] deputations were received today. Is there anyone present other than
[6:57] the applicant or the agent with an interest in the
[7:00] application? If so please indicate by raising your hand. Seeing
[7:03] none. Councilor McDonald and Councilor Wright, I get you. Put
[7:06] this in the floor, please. Happy to move the recommendations.
[7:10] I'll second it. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none. We'll
[7:14] put it to vote. Councilor b. Mcgregor.
[7:24] All votes are in motion. Passes 16 to zero. And
[7:28] eleven b. Application for consent and zoning bylaw amendment Thames
[7:31] Sales Yard Limited 13135 Longwoods Road community of Camden, East
[7:37] Kent. There are no conflict of interest and no deputations.
[7:40] Were received. Is there anyone present other than the applicant
[7:44] or the agent with an interest in this application? If
[7:47] so please indicate by raising your hand. Seeing none. Councilor
[7:51] Wright and Councilor McDonald, can I get you to put
[7:53] this. Thank you and seconded. Any questions? We'll put it
[7:59] to vote. Council, mcgregor. Yeah. Thank you. All votes are
[8:07] in motion. Passes 17 to zero. That ends the planning
[8:12] portion of our meeting this evening. We'll now move on
[8:15] to deputations there were no deputations received this evening. And
[8:20] the consent agenda. So the following items have been pulled
[8:24] to be voted on separate from the consent agenda. The
[8:28] first item is 14 a r 25. 240 cultural plan
[8:35] update Project 2025 has been pulled by councilor story in
[8:40] item 14 g tender award contract t 25. Two three
[8:44] one. King Street west reconstruction and First street water Main
[8:48] replacement. Community of Chatham has been pulled by councilor story
[8:52] item. 15 a the Chatham Kemp population growth 2025 update.
[8:58] Is pulled for a presentation. 15 B. Chatham Kemp Workforce
[9:02] Planning Board 2025 update pulled for a presentation item 16
[9:07] a the Public Utilities Commission master plan review with a
[9:11] growth lens. There is a presentation, and it is pulled
[9:15] by councilor Carmen McGregor and councilor Sokachi. Item 17 a.
[9:19] The Chatham, Kent community Improvement plan. Property tax increment equivalent
[9:24] grant for 100 KING Street Holdings Inc. And. Chatham King
[9:29] street community of Chatham city has been pulled by councilor
[9:33] story and councilor Jubenville item 17 B, application for zoning
[9:37] bylaw amendment for 650 Park street community of Dresden. North
[9:41] Kent has been pulled by councillor Jubenville, and there's also
[9:44] a conflict by councilor story item 18, a consol. Consolidated
[9:48] non core detailed asset management plan 2025 has been pulled
[9:52] by Councilor C. McGregor. Councilor Anderson, councilor Sokachi and Councilor
[9:56] Harrigan. Item 18 B, the Talbot trail realignment stage four
[10:02] assessment pulled by Councilor Anderson. And that is it, Mr.
[10:07] Mayor. Therefore, on the consent agenda, we have the following
[10:10] report. 14. B, C, d, e, f. Item 15 c,
[10:18] item 18, cde. Item 19 a. Councilor Anderson and Councilor
[10:26] Thompson. Can I get you to put this on the
[10:28] floor, please? I am happy to do that. And I
[10:32] am happy to second. Any questions? B. Mcgregor.
[10:41] Yes. Thank you. All votes are in motion. Passes 17
[10:45] to zero. Move on to the tender awards item.
[10:56] 14 a r 25 240 cultural plan update project 2025.
[11:04] Councilor story and Councilor Finn. Can I get you puts
[11:07] on the floor, please? Mr. Mayor. Seconded. Councilor story. Go
[11:13] ahead. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions.
[11:16] On this report. To Audrey. Thanks. I just want to
[11:23] thank you for bringing this report forward and bringing culture
[11:26] back into the limelight. Again. I appreciate always seeing that
[11:29] coming to council. You mentioned in the report. That a
[11:37] few of the circumstances that brought this forward. In terms
[11:43] of the changing landscape of arts and culture in our
[11:46] community, including. The potential move to the downtown Chatham center,
[11:53] I'm wondering. It might make more sense. To wait until
[12:00] we've moved there to see the impacts of what that
[12:03] move to the site might look like before I know.
[12:05] The plan could potentially go two different directions. Would we
[12:10] want to perhaps look at doing this plan once we
[12:14] know for sure we're going to be in that site
[12:16] and then looking at the impacts of being at the
[12:18] Sears building. Versus not. Through the mayor. Thank you, councilor,
[12:23] for the question. I'm not sure I'm best qualified. To
[12:30] state whether or not the implications of moving to the
[12:33] hub. What I can say is the reason why this
[12:35] is before you is because it is a council term
[12:37] priority, and collectively you have identified that you do want
[12:41] to update the culture master plan, which is why it
[12:43] is here with you. But I will say, as you
[12:45] pointed out, that there have been a lot of changes
[12:47] to this landscape for culture. Continues to change. And this
[12:52] plan is not just about what we do municipally. It's
[12:55] about what happens. In our community in relation to arts
[12:57] and culture. So in that regard, I think I don't.
[13:00] Think there's ever a wrong time to reassess where we
[13:04] are at in terms of culture across our community. Yeah.
[13:07] No, I agree. And I think planning ahead always makes
[13:10] good. Sense. It seemed to me that when we were
[13:13] looking at where the future of our cultural assets, our
[13:16] municipal assets. And we've been doing a lot of talk
[13:18] about really important discussions about our municipal assets, especially the
[13:22] last few months. Once we know we're going to be,
[13:26] then we would have that clear direction on especially our
[13:28] heritage sites. So I was just thinking that perhaps it
[13:31] might be worth looking at the timing. For that. In
[13:36] terms of. The. Successful bidder. I know that TCI. Consultants
[13:46] did the previous master plan and. I was part of
[13:49] that in my previous life here. Is there a reason
[13:53] why? They. Scored the way they did this time because
[13:57] they obviously have pretty direct involvement in the previous plans.
[14:01] Thank you through the mayor to answer council stories question.
[14:06] When we put out rfps like this, we're following strict
[14:09] municipal guidelines about how we do that. So following our
[14:12] purchasing policy, we're working with our manager. Purchasing throughout in
[14:16] terms of what is listed in the document. We then
[14:19] evaluate submissions based on what is returned to us subject
[14:23] to a series of criteria that we then create in
[14:26] terms of what we're looking for based off what's actually
[14:28] in the cultural the RFP document. We then assemble a
[14:33] team to evaluate those submissions. That team consisted of myself,
[14:38] the manager of arts. And culture and then the manager
[14:40] of growth and planning from our planning area. And we
[14:44] did connect with the Ministry of Culture and Gaming to
[14:47] see if they were have their interest in the actual
[14:51] document that we put out, but we basically evaluate. A
[14:55] respondent's ability to complete the project based on what we
[14:58] believe are the correct things. What we're looking for. So
[15:02] we opened the pricing envelope once we have actually completed
[15:04] and identified that the respondent or the identified is capable
[15:09] of completing the work. So ultimately, the recommendation in front
[15:13] of you is to go with era architects and monumental.
[15:18] And that's basically on the basis of the criteria that
[15:20] were all settled in the RFP documents, so everyone had
[15:22] the same opportunity to respond on that. And the evaluation
[15:25] team are putting forward a recommendation for that joint bid.
[15:30] Thank you. That makes sense. And I know era is
[15:32] very capable. They are very well known firms. I look
[15:34] forward to seeing what they come up with. Just last
[15:37] two questions. I appreciated the references to the Aoda compliance
[15:43] in the tender related to the materials and the documentation,
[15:47] however. I didn't see. I know it was a pretty
[15:49] high level document, but. I didn't see any reference to
[15:53] accessibility in terms of the description of the work. They're
[15:55] going to be doing. Could you maybe expand on the
[15:58] components of the plan related to accessibility? Thank you. Through
[16:02] the mayor. Thank you, councilor, again for the question. Our
[16:06] entire approach to this is around accessibility in terms of
[16:09] engaging with groups who may not always have felt that
[16:12] there was a place for them at the table who
[16:13] may not necessarily have been invited. So we're talking about
[16:16] an accessibility of an approach in terms of engagement, information
[16:20] gathering. Reporting and accessing arts and culture generally and activities
[16:25] across our. Community. So we're looking for broad audience appeal.
[16:28] We're looking for that welcoming piece. For all sorts of
[16:30] groups. So not those living with disabilities, but people who
[16:34] are also maybe coming from different cultural backgrounds as well,
[16:36] so I would say accessibility is implicit in terms of
[16:40] the work we're doing, but. I will add that. Both
[16:43] era and monumental. And specifically monumental in the work that
[16:48] they have done in other municipalities. Really their level of
[16:51] engagement. Is, I haven't seen a whole lot of it
[16:54] in terms of comparisons, in as much as their approach
[16:58] is about engaging groups who are typically not included in
[17:01] these conversations. And really, that is the thrust of what
[17:04] we're trying to do here with the cultural plan. Obviously,
[17:06] there are base things that we know we need to
[17:08] achieve. But the engagement, the accessibility, all those pieces, I
[17:12] think, are implicit and certainly front of mind for us.
[17:16] That would be great. And maybe when the time comes,
[17:18] you wouldn't mind just shipping that. To the chair of
[17:21] our accessibility committee to circulate. That would be great. I
[17:25] would appreciate. That. And last but not least, I know
[17:30] whenever we talk about. Master plans for our community. And
[17:34] I know this happened with the last cultural plan as
[17:37] well. Often we get a lot of great work done
[17:40] and a lot of great engagement with our community. And
[17:42] a lot of great recommendations, and then we sometimes hit
[17:45] a wall, and it's not a Chatham Kent municipal unique
[17:48] to us. It is often where we end up, especially
[17:51] in challenging economic times and budget. Fiscal restraint. So what
[17:56] happens? It looks like January 2026. Approximately. We would see
[17:59] this report back. Is there any additional funding set aside
[18:03] to actually implement the recommendations that we're going to see
[18:07] in the plan. Thank you. Through the Merrick again councilor
[18:11] story. Thank you for the question. I don't want to
[18:13] predicate what actually might be recommended or not recommended in
[18:16] the actual cultural plan. It may or may not involve
[18:19] requirement of financial resources or otherwise, I don't know. So
[18:22] I wouldn't like to predicate that. But we certainly do.
[18:27] Have some reserves. In terms of Kawanis theater Improvement fund,
[18:31] there are still some reserves there. And we do have
[18:34] some reserves in our capital budget, but ultimately it will
[18:37] be a council decision. When we return with recommendations that
[18:40] the consultant brings forward, then will be a council decision
[18:43] to decide. What level of investment is required moving forward?
[18:47] And balancing that thing against our asset management plan and
[18:49] the requirements generally that have already been identified. As needs
[18:53] across all of our all municipal facilities. Ultimately. Thank you.
[18:58] Audrey, I have one last quick question. Maybe that would
[19:00] be a financial one to Gord. If we saw that
[19:03] report in 2026. Would we potentially say, okay, if there's
[19:08] x, y and z financial components to it, will be
[19:11] say, we would look at that at 2026 budget, for
[19:14] example. Is that how that would work, generally speaking. Thank
[19:18] you, Mr. Chair. So, with the timing, your 2026 budget,
[19:21] you'll be delivering in. November. Of 2025. So it's really.
[19:28] More likely either the 2027 budget with the next council.
[19:32] Or in the 28 to 31 multi year budget. Okay.
[19:36] Thank you very much. Thanks, Audrey, for the report. Seeing
[19:40] no other questions will put it to vote. Councilor b.
[19:44] Mcgregor. Yeah. All votes are in motion. Passes 17 to
[19:51] zero. 14 g tender award contract t 25. Two, three,
[19:57] one. King Street west reconstruction and first street water. Main
[20:01] replacement community of Chatham. Councilor story and councilor B. McGregor.
[20:08] Can I guess you put some floor, please? How can
[20:11] you move, Mr. Mayor? Councilor story. Go ahead.
[20:23] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just had a couple of
[20:25] questions that came in from residents in that neighborhood that
[20:28] I thought might be helpful. To discuss on the floor.
[20:33] So what? Anyone else listening might be aware who lives
[20:36] in that area. First question is, I know there's a
[20:39] reference to the streetlight replacement. Those particular street lights are
[20:46] similar to other historic neighborhoods on Victoria and Ellwood, I
[20:50] think so I just wanted to clarify. Could you give
[20:54] us a little more information about what that replacement looks
[20:57] like on that section of Kingstree. Thank you. Thank you.
[21:01] Mary Annis. Yeah. The street lights are being replaced. They're
[21:08] to me standards and our pH standard. And also improves
[21:11] some of those street lighting levels on King street. So
[21:14] the style that's being incorporated is similar to the style
[21:17] that you'd see at downtown Chatham right now on King
[21:19] Street. So we're trying to match those. Additionally, some of
[21:25] those older lights are harder to replace. Some of the
[21:28] parts are difficult to source. So public works. Has been
[21:33] trying to make an initiative to try to standardize some
[21:36] of those decorative street lights. Okay. I might add that
[21:43] to an amendment to this. I think there's going to
[21:45] be some public pushback on that just because. Those particular
[21:49] items. Are quite beloved in our community and they're really
[21:53] unique historic element to. The neighborhood. So I'm wondering if
[21:58] we might be able to pull that piece out of
[22:00] this for a little more investigation. I think we have
[22:03] done replacement on Victoria with those lights. To a reasonable
[22:08] degree recently, but I know councilor Bonnie might have more
[22:11] familiarity with that, so. I will leave that for the
[22:13] moment. But will the Brianny impacts on the water supply
[22:17] or the water pressure for residents in the area. Thank
[22:23] you. So during construction, residents may see some fluctuations in
[22:28] pressure. They'd also have short term outages. When we're replacing
[22:34] the services over to the new main. But. Long term
[22:39] project completion. There'd be. No loss of water pressure in
[22:44] the area. Okay. And then in terms of the easements
[22:48] along king I know there were a few driveways that
[22:51] were impacted. And according to residents in that area, there's
[22:55] not a lot of parking off site. In terms of
[22:58] first street, it's usually quite busy. So if there are
[23:02] issues with getting in and out of dry waste, do
[23:04] you have any suggestions? For those residents who might be
[23:06] impacted by that. Thank you. During construction or after. During.
[23:14] Yeah. Thank you. Well, I guess there's two pieces. I'm
[23:18] not entirely clear on. Which driveways we're referring to, but
[23:21] I know there were a few folks on the street
[23:23] who thought they may not be able to get in
[23:25] and out of their driveway. So I would assume that's
[23:27] probably during the actual construction. Thank you. Yeah. So during
[23:31] construction. Our contractors are required to keep access open to
[23:35] the public. There would be times during construction. When, if
[23:44] we're replacing a curb across driveway or a sidewalk, That
[23:48] they would lose access. Typically, when we're doing these projects,
[23:51] we do one side of the road with curbs. And
[23:54] sidewalks, and then we flip to the other side. So
[23:58] that. The residents that lose access side can park on
[24:02] the opposite side of the road. But we also work
[24:06] with the commercial properties. If there's businesses for access. And
[24:12] deliveries and that sort of thing as well. Okay. Maybe.
[24:17] Will you be letting residents know, sort of directly? Not
[24:23] too long before that happens on their particular property, so
[24:25] they'll be aware of when that is something you need
[24:26] to make other arrangements they can do, so. Yeah. So
[24:30] we will keep the public informed. We will be installing
[24:33] or dropping off door hangers. Before the project starts to
[24:35] inform them of the phasing of the project. And which
[24:40] areas will be impacted at which times. Our contractor also
[24:44] provides. A letter. Inform them of the construction project and
[24:48] we provide contact information if there's any. Questions or any
[24:51] concerns, and then they can typically work with the onsite
[24:55] supervisor or inspector. At that time. If there's specific access
[25:00] requirements. Through the duration of construction. Okay, that's great. And
[25:05] just the last question. I know in the report, it
[25:07] said summer 2025, that that would likely begin. Do we
[25:13] have a little more firm of a date now of
[25:15] when that's going to start. Thank you. I'm anticipating likely
[25:19] in August, early August, I would start. Once this is
[25:23] approved at council here, and then we have a time
[25:25] to meet with the contractor. We'll get a better idea
[25:28] of their schedule. We typically. Set up preconstruction meetings shortly
[25:35] after our council meeting to discuss the details of the
[25:39] project. Okay, thanks very much. Mr. Chair. I'm not sure
[25:46] what the proper timing is for this, but can I
[25:49] add an item number four on this, or is that
[25:51] at the end of the discussion? Thank you. Okay. Can
[25:59] I simply add? Review options to keep the historic light
[26:04] posts. As part of the replacement. I don't want to
[26:10] keep. It. Too step to be able to provide us
[26:15] with some options on that. I don't want to make
[26:16] it too specific, but. Can we review the historic lamp
[26:20] post replacement option? Maybe that's a proper wording. How does
[26:26] that fit with. Has it already been awarded? And is
[26:33] this an adjustment? Sorry. What phase are we at there?
[26:39] Through you, Mr. Mayor Edwards, general manager of infrastructure engineering.
[26:43] So what you have before you tonight is. To approve
[26:45] the tender. The historical street lighting is not included as
[26:49] part of that tender. So that motion would have us
[26:53] go back. And if there was a change. If that
[26:57] change couldn't be accommodated within the contingency, we'd have to
[27:01] come back. And. Ask. For. Additional, potentially funds to make
[27:08] that change. Okay, so it's feasible to do that then,
[27:10] okay? So, item four. Just those few simple words. We
[27:14] get those. Councilor B. McGregor, are you okay? With this
[27:17] change. Yes. I've got a couple other speakers, councilor C.
[27:24] McGregor and councilor Bondi and. Councilor Scott. Thank you. Through
[27:29] the mayor. Mark, could you just better. Explain to me
[27:34] the amendments on the amount of $101,700 for the contract
[27:39] administration inspection. Services to be approved. I see that they
[27:44] did inspections back in 2019. Do we have to redo
[27:48] those because of the amount of times since the last
[27:51] inspection which leads to the. Amendment. In the contract. If
[27:56] you could just better explain that to me, I'd be
[27:58] appreciate it. Thank you, mayor. Cannes? Yeah. So the contract
[28:03] amendment is to cover inspection services through construction. So when
[28:09] we originally rfp this project, The phasing was a little
[28:13] bit different. We're phasing into almost kind of two separate
[28:17] projects now. So there's some additional funds required for inspection
[28:22] and contract administration. But also just. The extending it into
[28:28] 2026 to cover some of the increased cost for that
[28:31] as well. Thank you. Councilor Bondi, followed by Councilor Scotty.
[28:37] Thank you, Mary Kan. I'd like to discuss number four,
[28:44] like the amendment. So I think the way I'm. Reading
[28:47] it. Administration would review the options for historical lamp post
[28:51] replacement options, which means we'll never hear about it, right?
[28:56] You guys will just decide, like, if this would be
[28:58] a friendly. Could we just make an amendment? That the
[29:01] original style stays, and I don't think there's any trouble
[29:04] finding these. Because. It's less than five years that. They
[29:09] replaced the light standards from, I think, Amelia to McNaughton
[29:11] on Victoria, so they got to be out there. And
[29:15] they changed the lights on Victoria from time to time.
[29:18] The availability is there. It really would be a shame
[29:20] to take these out because. It's just kind of a
[29:24] unique thing, right? Like, there's only three streets that have
[29:27] them, and I think the people that live there and
[29:30] the people that travel. Will just say, what a shame.
[29:34] Like it's not the end of the world. But I'm
[29:37] sure they'll just kind of wonder, like, why would you
[29:39] do that? And clearly they are available. The ones on
[29:42] Victoria are, again, not that old. So how much trouble
[29:46] would it be? To just have them stay. Thank you,
[29:52] mayor can if. I recall. The Victoriav that was similar
[29:59] in that it was a council direction to replace. The
[30:03] existing lights. We didn't do any work. I guess, on
[30:08] the existing lights, we extended the street lights. Down the
[30:11] road and we try to match as closely as possible.
[30:16] In this instance, we were matching with the existing lights
[30:20] on King street in the downtown area. We did have
[30:24] a pic of public information center. We provided door hangers
[30:29] to all the residents, and we did share that the
[30:33] street lighting was going to be adjusted. We didn't receive
[30:36] any comments. But it's not to say that there's how
[30:40] many people came to owe to that it was a
[30:43] virtual pic, so we provided door hangers to every resident,
[30:47] and then there. Was information online. Right. Okay. Well, that's
[30:52] fine, but I do think the people that live there
[30:55] would probably prefer to have them stay. I think if
[31:00] I went door to door and asked everybody. Because really,
[31:03] they've been that way for 100 years, right? Yeah. So
[31:06] similar to what? EDWARD mentioned. We couldn't look into if
[31:12] there's replacement. Lights. If the question is, can we keep
[31:16] the exact lights, I'd have to take a look at
[31:19] the drawings just to make sure that there's no infrastructure
[31:21] that's going to impact. That we'd have to remove them
[31:25] in order to replace some of the infrastructure. But we
[31:30] can definitely investigate that. So will we know about it?
[31:35] Or do you guys. Will you guys just make that
[31:36] decision? Not tell us, but not tell us. I don't
[31:41] expect you to tell us when you choose lawnmowers and
[31:42] stuff. But. Will we hear about it? Because it is
[31:47] an amendment, but I see that. You can just kind
[31:50] of run through the amendment. And kind of not come
[31:52] back to us on it. I know it sounds nit
[31:55] picky. But it is kind of a cool thing that
[31:58] people like, and if it's not that. Much trouble. You're
[32:01] going to exchange the standards anyway to match downtown, which
[32:04] I don't think is terribly important because that's a commercial
[32:06] downtown area and this is a residential area, so I
[32:09] don't know. They really should match downtown Chatham. But I
[32:13] don't know. If it's that big of a deal. Then
[32:17] I guess it's not going to happen. But I'm just
[32:21] trying to get that kind of across. So is it
[32:25] that big of a deal? I don't think you'll be
[32:26] able. To use the old lights. I would imagine they're
[32:29] probably too old. But you're going to put in new
[32:32] lights, or rather, put in the new style that's in
[32:34] downtown. Just put in the sale that's existing there. Yeah.
[32:38] So, again. The Victoria. I believe we matched the lights
[32:44] as closely as we could. You couldn't actually. Replace lights
[32:50] with the exact same style of that. They did a
[32:54] great job. Nobody will ever know. It's very uniform when
[32:57] you drive down. Because I live, obviously, on Victoria, right?
[33:00] Not obviously, but I do live on Victoria, and so
[33:02] mine's. An old one, and it's pretty seamless, right? Like
[33:04] you can't. Tell. I think the new ones are taller,
[33:07] but other than that. It's a very good match, so
[33:10] I'm sure that would be just fine. On King west
[33:12] if that's doable, I don't think it's a huge ask,
[33:15] right? No. I guess I would say that maybe. The
[33:21] recommendation should be adjusted a little more specifically than. To.
[33:27] Just utilize them. Sorry, can I interject here? Just to
[33:29] say. Administrator review officers historic lamp post. Replacement options and
[33:33] report back to council, because I think councilor Bondi, that's
[33:36] what you're afraid of is that. We're never here again.
[33:39] But if we put that in there, they will report
[33:41] back and. Say, here's the options and we can look
[33:43] at it then. That would be great. Thank you very
[33:45] much, Mr. Mayor. Okay, I'm all done. Thanks. Sorry to
[33:48] bug you about this. Is that okay with the, you,
[33:50] councilor story? That's great. Although, yeah, I think we can
[33:53] take out one of the word options other. Than that.
[33:56] That's great. Thank you. And councilor B. McGregor. Yes. Councilor
[34:03] scott. Thank you. Mary can. If no disrespect to your
[34:07] interpretation, I just wanted to. Make sure with Edward. I
[34:11] interpreted number four a little bit more difficult than that.
[34:13] Is it an easy process, Edward, or. Is it a
[34:16] difficult process? Because I thought the way you sounded that
[34:19] there would be potentially more. Work or delay if this
[34:22] was the process. So I just want to clarify that
[34:24] this was is easy or not. Thank you. Through the
[34:27] mayor. The replacement of the street lights is not going
[34:32] to be in the first phase of the project. Right?
[34:36] We have to do the underground, other things so we
[34:38] can take this back and we can. Review the various
[34:40] options. We'll come back with the rationale of why we
[34:44] chose what. We did, because we did recommend not this
[34:46] option. And we can look at the other options and
[34:49] provide council. With the cost implications of making that change,
[34:53] hopefully within the time frame before we need to install
[34:56] them. Thank you. Just one quick question to the clerk.
[34:59] I would just appreciate one through three together. And number
[35:02] four separately, please. Will do. Thank you. See. No other
[35:07] questions. We'll put it to vote. We're going to vote
[35:09] on. Item one, two and three to start, and then
[35:12] we'll vote on item four. Councilor b. Mcgregor.
[35:22] Yes. All votes are in motion. Passes 16 to zero.
[35:32] And now we'll move on to number four.
[35:42] Councilor b. Mcgregor. Yes. I'll vote, sir. In motion passes
[35:49] 13 to three.
[36:06] Item 15, chief administrative office. 15, a Chatham, Kent, population
[36:10] growth of 2025. Update and I'll have Audrey come forward.
[36:14] For the introduction. Through the mayor. You are going to
[36:23] receive two interrelated presentations this evening. One is about what's
[36:26] been happening with Chalam Kent's population and the other is
[36:29] about what has been happening. With Chadwin Kent's workforce. So,
[36:32] as you can imagine, both very important to understand. For
[36:36] the population presentation. You're going to hear from Jason Stubbots,
[36:39] who is our municipal coordinator of workforce planning and research.
[36:44] Obviously, changes in population are important to understand what's actually
[36:47] driving those and what's making them up. And then, of
[36:50] course, as we plan for growth and changes and attracting
[36:53] talent to our community. The other presentation is that is
[36:56] about workforce. It's related to our Chalam Kent workforce. Planning
[36:59] Board, which is funded by the Ministry of Labor, Immigration
[37:02] Training and Skills development. You are then going to hear
[37:06] from David Campbell, who is consultant, who is hired to
[37:09] complete Chalam the workforce Planning board's annual local labor market
[37:13] impact or global labor market planning document David Campbell from
[37:17] Jupia, and he is going to showcase some of the
[37:19] sectors that are growing. And in need of talent due
[37:23] to both growth and retirements. And I think really, in
[37:27] summary, Chunam Kent. Has always been known as a geographic
[37:31] sweet spot, and I think now we're obviously identified. As
[37:34] a relocation hotspot as well. And so some of the
[37:37] data that Jason will share with you. Will strongly illustrate
[37:40] that. So we'll leave you with Jason stubbots. For a
[37:44] presentation. All
[37:54] right. Good evening, Mayor Kenneth and council. As Audrey alluded
[37:58] to, I'm here this evening to provide an update on
[38:00] population growth in Chatham, Kent. So, as Audrey alluded to
[38:06] with my role, workforce planning and research coordinator, my role
[38:09] helps support our local town attraction and retention efforts by
[38:13] ensuring that employers, stakeholders, job seekers and policymakers have access
[38:18] to the labor market data that they need to make
[38:21] informed decisions. So jumping into the population update as of
[38:28] July 1, 2024, Chatham Ken's population is estimated to be
[38:33] 111,703. This population level was last seen in 2006. So
[38:42] Statistics Canada produces the census every five years, with 2021
[38:47] being the most recent. But Statistics Canada also provides population
[38:51] estimates on an annual basis that allows us to see
[38:54] population trends in between those census periods, and that's where
[38:58] this information comes from. So, looking at the population growth,
[39:03] if you look at the chart on the screen here,
[39:05] Cheddam Ken's population was just over 112,000 people back in
[39:10] 2006. If you look at the nine year period that
[39:14] followed that there was consistent decline in the population. With
[39:19] it eventually going down to 104,511 people back in 2015.
[39:26] However, that's when we begin to see these population trends
[39:29] change and we begin to see that upward growth, so
[39:33] between 2015 and 2024, Chadam Ken's population grew by an
[39:37] estimated seven. Thousand, 192 people or almost. 7%. And in
[39:43] the last year alone, the population increased by an estimated
[39:47] 1176 people. So I think it's important to also note
[39:52] that since 2001, when this data collection set began, Chatham
[39:57] Ken's population has only been higher than what it currently
[40:00] is three times, and that was back in 2001, 2005
[40:03] and 2006. And currently Chatham Ken's population is only 577.
[40:10] People. Away from surpassing its highest level since data collection
[40:14] began back in 2001. So if we look at the
[40:19] age breakdown of the population, a few noticeable trends stand
[40:22] out. First almost 24% of Chatham, Kent residents are over
[40:27] the age of 65. So again, this really highlights the
[40:31] importance of continued attraction and retention efforts, especially of younger.
[40:38] Residents to address future workforce shortages that the next presentation
[40:43] will allude to. Second between 2023 and 2024. Chad McKenz
[40:49] population in that 25 to 44 age group saw growth
[40:53] of 2.2%. So again, a positive sign for local workforce
[40:57] development and then if you did the math on the
[40:59] screen there, I should note that 21% of Chatham Ken's
[41:03] population again, based on these estimates. Is under the age
[41:05] of 20, so a positive sign for the future workforce.
[41:11] So the decline in the natural population growth rate highlights
[41:14] a need for population growth from other sources. So if
[41:20] we look at Chatham Kent's declining birth rate prior to
[41:23] 2013, Chatham Kent saw more bursts than deaths on an
[41:28] annual basis. And you see that with this chart on
[41:30] the screen. Here with the number of bursts highlighted by
[41:33] the blue line and the number of deaths highlighted by.
[41:36] The gray line. However, starting in. 2014, the number of
[41:41] deaths began to outpace the number of bursts. It's a
[41:44] trend. That's continued to present day. And as you see
[41:47] on the chart there, it's actually widened as time has
[41:50] gone on. So given the current age distribution of the
[41:54] population that we just looked at. It's also a trend
[41:57] that is likely to continue in the future. In 2024
[42:01] alone, there were 462 more deaths than bursts in the
[42:06] community. So what? That tells us is Chadam Kent needs
[42:09] to continue to attract and retain individuals from other sources
[42:13] to continue to grow its population. So immigrants and non
[42:18] permanent residents continue to play a key role in driving
[42:21] population and workforce growth. In Chatham, Ken. So on this
[42:27] slide we see the number of annual immigrants and net
[42:31] non permanent resident arrivals to Chatham, Ken. One of the
[42:34] most noticeable trends. Is, since the pandemic, we see strong
[42:39] increases in the number of annual arrivals from both of
[42:43] these population sources. And you see that on the screen
[42:46] there with a number of immigrants highlighted. By the gray
[42:49] bar and net non permanent residents by the blue bar.
[42:53] So between July 1, 2023 and June 30 of 2024.
[42:57] So over that one year period, 293 immigrants arrived to
[43:01] Chatham, Kent, and a net of 489 non permanent residents
[43:06] arrived. In recent years, intraprovincial migration, so movement within the
[43:12] province of Ontario has been the main source of population
[43:15] growth in Chatham, Ken. So it was just a decade
[43:22] ago that Chatham Ken had negative trends when it comes
[43:24] to intraprovincial migration, meaning the community was losing more people.
[43:31] To other areas of the province than it was gaining.
[43:33] And you see that clearly on the screen. There. However,
[43:36] starting in 2016, this trend started to change, and again
[43:41] it has sharply accelerated. After the pandemic. In 2024 1077,
[43:48] more people moved into Chatham, Kent, than out from other
[43:52] areas of the province. And in the past four years,
[43:55] Chadam Ken has gained 4561 people via intra provincial migration,
[44:02] so you see strong growth from other people. Choosing to
[44:05] come to Chatham, Ken from elsewhere in the province. Continuing
[44:10] with intraprovincial migration. What we see with these trends is
[44:15] that there's considerable mobility within southwestern Ontario. So this data
[44:20] comes from a one year period of 2022 and 2023.
[44:26] But what Chadam Kent saw was a net gain of
[44:28] 374 people from Toronto and net gain of 148 from
[44:33] Windsor, a net gain of 125 from Kitchener, Cambridge, Waterloo,
[44:38] and a net gain of 119 from Hamilton. Cerny is
[44:42] actually one of the few areas in the province where
[44:44] we have a negative net number, but it is quite
[44:46] low with just negative net 13. So again, you're seeing
[44:49] Chatham can gain more individuals from other areas of the
[44:53] province than we're losing. So age data suggests that its
[44:58] young families moving to the community. So we looked at
[45:03] the number of immigrants, intraprovincial migrants, as well as non
[45:07] permanent residents. But what their age is telling us is
[45:10] that a large percentage of arrivals are coming in. The
[45:14] under 15 age group and the 25 to 44 age
[45:18] group. So of the 1859 people. That moved to Chatham,
[45:24] Kent in this one year period via these three pathways.
[45:29] 74% were under the age of 45. So this includes
[45:32] 92% of immigrant and 96% of net non permanent resident
[45:37] arrivals being under the age of 45. So, in summary,
[45:42] when it comes to the population, Chatham Ken has seen
[45:44] consistent growth since 2015. The community continues to deal or
[45:53] see a declining natural birth rate, which highlights a need
[45:56] for population. Growth from other sources, and that leads to
[46:00] our attraction from inward migration. So those moving from elsewhere.
[46:05] Within the province of Ontario. So intra provincial migrants, as
[46:08] well as non permanent residents and immigrant. Immigrants. They continue
[46:12] to be the main drivers of population growth in Chetamken.
[46:17] So that's it. What I have for the population portion
[46:19] of it, and I know that. The next presentation will
[46:22] look at workforce trends councilor crew, followed by councilor story.
[46:28] Thank you, Jason. I just have one question of clarification.
[46:32] How do you describe a non permanent resident? Through you.
[46:36] Merit. So a non permanent resident resident would be someone
[46:39] on a work visa? Study visa. Or refugee claimant, so
[46:44] an asylum seeker, so international students would be included in
[46:48] that. Councilor story, followed by councilor C. McGregor. Mr. Mayor.
[46:56] Thanks, Jason. That great presentation. I really appreciate you gathering
[46:59] this data for us and sharing. With us periodically. I
[47:02] think it's really helpful for us to see. An interesting
[47:05] how long it took us to rebound from that economic
[47:08] shock earlier. In the 2000s, but I really appreciate the
[47:13] work that our attraction retention team have done in our
[47:16] local businesses to bring folks back to the community to
[47:19] grow our economy again. In terms of comparators. Do we
[47:26] know how we line up in terms of. If I'm
[47:29] reading it correctly, it's correctly about. Two ish percent population
[47:33] growth every five years. Is that typical for municipalities our
[47:38] size? Are we a little higher on that front or
[47:40] a little lower. Where do we fall within that range?
[47:43] Thank you through the mayor. Thank you for the question,
[47:46] councilor. So we're working on a report right now that
[47:49] will look at comparators with other areas. Across the province,
[47:54] our size. So I do know over the last five
[47:57] year period when the census Chatham, Kent saw a 2%
[48:02] 2.2% population growth, whereas the province saw a 5.8% population
[48:07] growth. Looking at different areas within the province, there is
[48:13] a lot of mix of some communities growing faster. Than
[48:15] others and slower. Sorry, the census period before China can
[48:21] saw population decline, so it was positive that we did
[48:23] see that 2.2% increase, but I will share that report
[48:28] when it's available. That would be great. Thank you. And
[48:32] then the last question would be, I know you referred
[48:35] to in order for us to continue to grow. Since
[48:39] we have an aging community, we would likely. Be continuing
[48:44] to prioritize immigrants and non permanent residents to come to
[48:47] Chatham, Kent. I think since the last census was complete,
[48:52] we have had a change fairly recently in federal immigration.
[48:56] Policy that could potentially restrict those numbers to the country,
[49:00] not just to Chatham, Kent, quite substantially. Have we considered
[49:05] that new policy development in our forecasting? Thank you. Through
[49:10] the mayor. Thank you for that question. So, yes, the
[49:12] stats that you would have saw up there would not
[49:15] have accounted for the recent policy changes from the federal
[49:18] government. There probably will be some impacts, but I think
[49:22] it's too early to know exactly what the impacts will
[49:25] be. Probably non permanent residents, which would include international students.
[49:32] Would see some lower enrollment numbers locally is probably one
[49:34] impact. But a lot of Chatham Ken's population growth that
[49:38] we looked at is coming from intra provincial migrants. So
[49:42] people who are already in the province of Ontario could
[49:44] have been here for six months, five years, ten years
[49:47] or more coming to the province. Or coming to the
[49:50] community. So I'm not sure if the actual impact that
[49:53] the policy might have on that migration trend. Thank you
[49:58] very much. Councilor C. McGregor, followed by Councillor Anderson. Thank
[50:03] you. And through the mayor, just a couple of questions.
[50:08] The non permanent residents. Are they included in the overall
[50:11] population tally? Through the mayor. Could you please repeat the
[50:16] question? Sorry. The non resident or non permanent residents that
[50:22] we saw numbers there, are they included in the overall
[50:25] population. Yes. They would be like, even if they're on
[50:28] a student visa and they're. Only projected to be here
[50:31] for in those estimates, they would be included in those.
[50:34] So they might not really be turned into permanent residents,
[50:38] correct? A non permanent resident. Yeah. There's no guarantee that
[50:41] they would stay in the country. When you're doing these
[50:45] studies, do you tallytal when you talk about interprovincial? People
[50:50] moving into Chatham, Kent. Whether or not they're returning members
[50:58] that may be left during. The time that we lost
[51:04] so many people that were leaving to find new jobs.
[51:06] Do we track how many of those are returning members?
[51:10] From the past. So through this data set, we wouldn't
[51:14] be able to get that answer. You wouldn't? Be able
[51:16] to see if that specific individual. Left the community and
[51:19] then came back. Through the work of resident attraction and
[51:23] retention with municipality. They do connect with people who have
[51:27] left the community and come back and tell their story.
[51:30] But as for the actual figures, through this data, set,
[51:33] there'd be no way of tracking one individual who left
[51:36] and decided to come back. Yeah, I remember. In the
[51:38] decline, a lot of people leaving and moving west. For
[51:42] jobs, but had family here that have since had families
[51:47] and decided to return. So I was just curious whether
[51:50] that was track. Thank you. Councilor Anderson. Thank you. And
[51:57] through you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for this presentation. I'm
[52:02] just trying to understand. I definitely see the need for
[52:05] having more people. My question is more related to the
[52:09] types of people. What have we seen as far as
[52:12] economically. How this has improved for Chatham, Kent. Or how
[52:16] is this? What are our unemployment rates? Let's. Say, compared
[52:20] to. When. We had a much less population. Are they
[52:26] fulfilling jobs that we have that haven't been able to
[52:28] be fulfilled. Are we seeing an improvement because we have
[52:32] all these immigration coming to us? Is that value here?
[52:38] Through the mayor. Thank you for the question. We're definitely
[52:41] seeing a lot more diversity in the community. Immigrants who
[52:44] are coming are bringing skilled education with them. You really
[52:48] see that in the education trends? But the following presentation
[52:51] that's coming up next is going to do the deeper
[52:54] dive into. Employment trends, unemployment trends. So we'll see that
[52:58] coming up. Thank you. We'll move on to the next
[53:02] presentation then. It's the Jason's show. Next presentation is Chadam
[53:10] Kent, Workplace Planning Board 2025 update and we have a
[53:14] presentation from David Campbell, and he is on the call.
[53:19] David, are you there? I'm there. Can you hear me?
[53:22] Yes. And we can see you on the video in
[53:24] front of us. Thank you. Go ahead. Now. We can't
[53:28] hear you. No.
[53:42] We still can't hear you. I can hear a little
[53:45] bit of the echoing. I don't know if you want
[53:47] to turn off your camera and maybe try if that
[53:49] might help. I'm not sure.
[54:00] We still cannot hear you. Can see your presentation.
[54:28] Maybe we still cannot hear you. You were there at
[54:34] the very beginning. And then it stopped working.
[54:58] See your message. 1 second. It's an Internet issue.
[55:11] Okay, why don't we try that quickly, David, and see
[55:14] if you go back out and. Come back in and
[55:16] see if that works.
[56:19] Hi, David. I can see you again. Do you want
[56:21] to try your microphone? No. I can see you talking,
[56:31] but we cannot hear you. I've talked with Audrey. And
[56:39] unfortunately, if we can't get you to hear you, we'll
[56:41] just have to. Move on. And perhaps you can connect
[56:45] with Audrey about next steps. Is that okay? We're not
[56:49] having much luck when we have you on the virtual
[56:50] call, are we? Okay, no problem. I see your apology.
[56:54] Thank you. Yes. We'll move on to item 16.
[57:04] Finance, budget, information, technology and transformation. 16 a public utilities
[57:13] commission master plan review with a growth lens. We have
[57:16] a presentation from Jim Harnum. He's the president of the
[57:21] municipal Vu Consulting, Inc. Jim, if you'd like to. Come
[57:24] forward and give a brief introduction and start. We hope
[57:27] that you have better luck. The microphone is in front
[57:31] of you. If you just want to push the button
[57:33] till the red. Light comes on. Perfect. Get this up
[57:40] for a sec. Great. Well, good evening, Mr. Mayor and
[57:46] members of council. Thank you for allowing me to be
[57:48] here. To present this evening here to present to you
[57:51] the results of a study that we were commissioned. To
[57:54] do. For the. Do we have a presentation up there?
[58:00] I could plug in here. Thank you. We were commissioned
[58:09] by the POC to look at their water wastewater master
[58:13] plan. So you may or may not be aware that
[58:17] the POC hired a consulting firm to do a master
[58:20] plan came up with close to a billion dollars worth
[58:22] of projects. And quite a bit of a sticker shock
[58:27] for this community. So they'd asked us. To look at
[58:31] that and try and prioritize and see. What could we
[58:35] do? To really make this more affordable. Go to the
[58:39] next slide, please. Start my presentation here, so I'm on
[58:43] the same slide. There we go. Can't quite see the
[58:51] bottom part of this. There we go. Thank you. So
[58:54] really what they asked us to do was to optimize
[58:57] the infrastructure investment priorities and support the long term service
[59:01] delivery and encourage growth in the community. So there was
[59:06] about four objectives that we were to look at, and
[59:08] it was to review the master plan and other key
[59:10] documentation. They wanted us to develop an actionable recommendation plan
[59:15] that observed risks and tried to balance those risks with
[59:18] growth and levels of service. Identify constraints and risks and
[59:23] opportunities while we were going through this exercise, and then
[59:27] lastly, develop a high level alternatives and potential phasing options
[59:32] for the master plan. Next slide. So when we started
[59:38] this project, these were some of the discussions we had,
[59:40] not only with Chatham. Kent staff but also with the
[59:43] PUC staff. And some of these challenges started to come
[59:48] to the surface. The first was. The obvious that the
[59:52] Master plan capital forecast forecasts were unaffordable. Next was the
[59:57] water wastewater facilities. We're really having. Competing priorities between the
[1:00:04] state of good repair. And. The potential growth that the
[1:00:08] community is facing. Next we have over the last while
[1:00:13] in Chatham tent, you've had limited growth as you're probably
[1:00:16] well aware, but with the things changing at the province
[1:00:19] and the housing shortage, growth has been accelerating in Chatham,
[1:00:22] Kent, and there's estimates of 1% growth in the short
[1:00:27] term for this community, which it hasn't seen for quite
[1:00:30] some. Time. Wallaceburg costs were continuing to escalate, not just
[1:00:36] the capital cost. But the actual scope of the project
[1:00:40] was escalating, and all capital projects are escalating. As you're
[1:00:43] well aware and you see many times. Through reports that
[1:00:47] come before you. Agricultural greenhouse demands and DC discounts were
[1:00:53] not sustainable, so there was a huge demand. Or projected
[1:00:58] demand of greenhouses between Dresden and Wallaceburg, as well as
[1:01:03] closer to. The south end of Chatham, Kent. And right
[1:01:08] now, those greenhouses were also discounted under the DC bylaw,
[1:01:13] so that wasn't something that was sustainable. And there happened
[1:01:18] to be some disconnect between the PUC and the municipal
[1:01:21] staff when it came to, what were the priorities and.
[1:01:26] What was. The main priority going forward. And then lastly,
[1:01:31] we felt that there were some resource opportunities that were
[1:01:33] not fully utilized. And what that means is we think
[1:01:36] that there was opportunities to do things better. Cheaper, faster.
[1:01:42] And prioritize some of these things, and that's what we
[1:01:44] ended up looking at. Through this project. Next slide, please.
[1:01:49] So I won't spend a lot of time on this,
[1:01:51] but just to demonstrate to you, that we did follow
[1:01:53] a very extensive process when we went through this project.
[1:01:57] We started with a discovery phase. And we looked at
[1:02:01] having a kickoff meeting not only with a PUC staff,
[1:02:04] but also with the Chatham Kent staff. We basically reviewed
[1:02:08] every document that we could get our hands on. Data.
[1:02:13] Information about the treatment plants, the projects, the history. There's
[1:02:18] numerous reports. That are giving you a snapshot of what's
[1:02:23] happening in Chatham. Kent. We reviewed all of that. We
[1:02:26] did interview the mayor and some of the PUC board
[1:02:29] members, as well as. Numerous Chatham, Kent staff and PUC
[1:02:35] staff. Next, we went into our diagnosis phase and we
[1:02:38] looked at benchmarking some other municipalities that are similar size
[1:02:42] to yourself. We went through a visioning workshop with the
[1:02:46] PUC staff and the Chatham Kent staff. We reviewed the
[1:02:50] constraints and opportunities. What were some of the opportunities that
[1:02:54] were presenting themselves through this? And then we produced a
[1:02:56] current state assessment. And lastly, we went into the phase
[1:03:01] three, which is the options development, and we came up
[1:03:05] with. A prioritization framework and looked at the financial analysis
[1:03:10] of the potential solutions. And then again we workshop this
[1:03:14] with the PUC staff and with the Chatham Kent staff,
[1:03:18] and then we produced a final report, and we're here
[1:03:21] today to present that report to you. Next slide. So.
[1:03:25] Really? This diagram here shows you when we were originally
[1:03:30] brought on. Our focus was to look at the master
[1:03:35] plan projects, water and wastewater master plan projects. But as
[1:03:39] we started reading as we started going more through the
[1:03:42] documentation and having more discussions with staff in both Chatham,
[1:03:45] Kenta and the PUC, we realized there was a lot
[1:03:48] more below the tip. Of the iceberg. So what we've
[1:03:51] organized this report in is these categories, and really what
[1:03:55] we have is the water wastewater master plan projects are
[1:03:58] just a list of projects, but below that we have
[1:04:01] a whole bunch of EA's, three main ones that we
[1:04:05] want to talk about in this report. Or we do
[1:04:07] talk about is the Wallaceburg Ea, the southeast Chatham ea
[1:04:11] and. The southwest Chatham ea, and then below that, you
[1:04:14] have a lot of operational studies. That some are there
[1:04:18] and some aren't there, but. They really help you. The
[1:04:21] classy A's and the master plan are your long term.
[1:04:24] Studies, but your short term studies, operational studies like plant
[1:04:28] building condition assessments, water loss studies, and ini are inflow
[1:04:34] and infiltration studies. We want to talk a little bit
[1:04:37] about those. Lastly, we have foundational plans and. Those are
[1:04:41] your big plans, like asset management plans, the rate study,
[1:04:44] water and wastewater rate study, the official plan itself. And
[1:04:49] then the master plan itself. Not the project, but the
[1:04:51] master plan itself is. One of those foundational plans, and
[1:04:55] then below all of that is really the need for
[1:04:58] a strategic business plan and. Having levels of service defined
[1:05:03] and key performance indicators. So I'm going to go through
[1:05:05] these. Very quickly, these various parts that we discovered. In
[1:05:11] our work with the puc. So the master plans the
[1:05:15] next slide. We divided the master plan projects. There was
[1:05:21] numerous projects that added up to about $985,000,000. And we
[1:05:26] divided these projects up into green, yellow and red. The
[1:05:30] green projects. Being projects. That. The green projects were projects
[1:05:38] that we deemed were ready to proceed and they didn't
[1:05:41] need. Any further study, and they were a priority for
[1:05:44] the municipality and. The puc. I'll get into the other
[1:05:50] ones in a minute. We then went through yellow projects,
[1:05:54] which are projects that we feel. Could proceed, but they
[1:05:58] needed further investigation. And then lastly, red category were projects
[1:06:02] that should be halted. And further study on those projects
[1:06:06] needed to happen. It may be a completely different solution.
[1:06:11] And Wallaceburg will be one of those that we'll talk
[1:06:13] about quite a bit. So in this slide, you'll see
[1:06:17] we have approximately $94 million worth of projects out. Of
[1:06:22] the 985,000,000 that we're saying, who should go ahead with.
[1:06:26] For various reasons. They're either critical for water security or
[1:06:31] pressures or. State of good repair for infrastructure, and they're
[1:06:36] ready to go, and they will add benefit. To the
[1:06:39] community and the PUC. You'll see also that a lot
[1:06:43] of these are in the short term and the interim.
[1:06:46] So in the one to five to seven year time
[1:06:49] frame. And a lot of these projects do take that
[1:06:52] long to carry out. Next slide. So this is the
[1:06:57] yellow projects, and this is the ones that we've said
[1:06:59] to refresh. Your memory is to pause until further investigation,
[1:07:03] but they probably will proceed at some point in the
[1:07:05] future again. You start to see a shift now that
[1:07:08] these are shifting more into the medium. To long term.
[1:07:12] So we're really not. By halting them and doing more
[1:07:14] investigation, we're not holding. Up a lot of the work
[1:07:18] that is planned. But we do feel that there's further
[1:07:22] studies and further things that are required before we commit
[1:07:25] these dollars and get moving on these dollars. Next slide.
[1:07:31] And you'll have these packages, I'm assuming, so you can
[1:07:34] read the projects. I won't go through all the projects.
[1:07:37] And the next slide is really. Stop these projects. And
[1:07:42] do some studies and. They may actually yield different solutions
[1:07:47] altogether. So it may not be the solution that was
[1:07:50] put forward. In the master plan itself. And again, you'll
[1:07:53] see. These are into the short and medium, long term.
[1:07:57] And a couple of those biggest numbers are the Wallaceburg
[1:08:01] supply system, but also the Chatham water supply system. And
[1:08:05] then there is about $225,000,000 identified for combined sewer separation.
[1:08:11] And we'll talk about some of these projects in a
[1:08:13] minute as well when we get into the EA's and
[1:08:15] the operational studies, but we're saying there's $593,000,000. Worth of
[1:08:20] projects, or almost half of the projects that you should
[1:08:23] halt because we think? That there's probably a better solution.
[1:08:27] Or there may be a better solution. Than going ahead
[1:08:30] with these projects or a different solution. At the very
[1:08:33] least. Next project or next slide? Sorry, projects on my
[1:08:38] mind. So the next part of this is really the
[1:08:42] class ea the next slide. So the main one we
[1:08:47] want to talk about today is the Wallaceburg EA and
[1:08:51] this accounts. For over $150,000,000 worth of the projects that
[1:08:55] we're talking about. Halting or recommending to halt. And I
[1:08:59] want to give you a little bit of background. On
[1:09:01] the Wallaceburg EA back in 2012. This has been going.
[1:09:05] On. As many of you been around this table probably
[1:09:09] know that this has been going on for quite some
[1:09:10] time with Wallaceburg. Back in 2012, a company called Dylan
[1:09:15] was hired to do an EA. And their recommendation was
[1:09:20] to bring a pipe from Chatham to Wallace Burke. In
[1:09:24] 2016, a second study was done by a company called
[1:09:29] Stantech. They're a well known engineering firm, and they also
[1:09:34] came up with. A preferred option being three a in
[1:09:37] their study of a pipe. And then there was quite
[1:09:40] a bit of pushback from the community and quite a
[1:09:42] bit of discomfort with this idea of a pipe coming
[1:09:45] from Chatham. They like their water supply that they have.
[1:09:49] And so there was an amendment. Made to that, and
[1:09:51] they landed on upgrading the Wallace treatment plan. Plant, not
[1:09:56] replacing it, but upgrading it and fixing the things that
[1:09:59] are wrong with it and the pipe option was about
[1:10:03] $11.9 million at the time, and that's probably upwards. Of
[1:10:08] 2020, $5 million in today's dollars. Then there was also
[1:10:12] Jacobs, who did an EA. And then they identified upgrading
[1:10:17] the existing Wallaceburg, and it would be roughly $26 million
[1:10:23] and an additional $10 million. For the total upgrade of
[1:10:27] that, which was about $36 million for that study. Then
[1:10:31] we come to 2023. And again, the same company, Jacobs
[1:10:36] does an EA. And now with the existing. Plant is
[1:10:41] about 14 megaliters per day. That, along. With. The projected
[1:10:48] demand of these greenhouses was going to bring this plant
[1:10:52] to a 28 megal. A day plant. It was going
[1:10:55] to completely replace the plant, build a new intake, build
[1:10:58] a new reservoir, a low lift pumping station, and also.
[1:11:03] New treatment facilities as well. And that was pegged at
[1:11:07] about $117,000,000. And now that cost has been inflated. It's
[1:11:12] sitting at about $150,000,000, and that cost. Is probably closer
[1:11:17] to $200 million by the time you build this plant.
[1:11:21] So our recommendation on Wallace Berg. The next slide, please.
[1:11:26] Is to really repair the existing immediate concerns at Wallaceburg.
[1:11:30] There are some things that need immediate attention in the
[1:11:34] Wallaceburg plant. That have pretty well been on hold until
[1:11:39] nothing that's affecting the water quality or safety. But they've
[1:11:42] been on hold with all of these studies that have
[1:11:45] been going on, so. We're suggesting that we get those
[1:11:48] repairs done and get some things fixed at the Wallaceburg.
[1:11:51] Plant. There has been a lot of talk about the
[1:11:55] EA rules changing in the near future, and really loosening
[1:11:58] requirements. You're hearing about some of these things in the
[1:12:00] media. And really, we're saying that. You should be looking
[1:12:06] at utilizing the existing wallets. You could use the existing
[1:12:10] Wallaceburg plant. For these greenhouses alone, and they would pay
[1:12:15] the entire amount if you separate the water and say?
[1:12:19] Greenhouses don't need treated water. Greenhouse is prefer raw water.
[1:12:22] They actually take the chlorine. Out of the water when
[1:12:25] they use that water. So there is an option to
[1:12:27] take that existing Wallaceburg plant and make it a raw
[1:12:31] water pumping station to supply the greenhouses. It would be
[1:12:35] for the sole purpose of greenhouses, so they would be.
[1:12:40] The sole benefactor. Therefore they would pay for that 100%
[1:12:42] and not the residents of Chatham, Kent. A fallback position
[1:12:47] of that would be. To just upgrade the plant. The
[1:12:52] existing 14 megalitre a day plant that's there, upgrade it,
[1:12:56] and again, the cost that we're in the 2022 EA
[1:13:00] were 26 million and 10 million. But obviously those have
[1:13:04] also inflated. And there's a bunch of other things that
[1:13:06] the PUC recognizes. In the Wallaceburg plant. So really it's
[1:13:11] depending on the EA timing. We feel that. You should
[1:13:16] carry out with that original plan of running a pipe
[1:13:19] from Chatham tent or from Chatham. I should say to
[1:13:22] Wallaceburg. And plan the plant expansion of Wallaceburg or of
[1:13:28] Chatham, I should say. In conjunction with that pipe. So
[1:13:32] you have to do some work to chat them anyway
[1:13:35] for growth. And for the future of Chatham. So make
[1:13:38] that plant bigger. You've already got the property. In the
[1:13:41] footprint and run the pipe up to Wallaceburg. And I'll
[1:13:45] talk a bit more about that in some of the
[1:13:47] coming slides. Next slide. So the second one that I
[1:13:52] wanted to talk about is called the Chatham southeast ea,
[1:13:56] and this is really about Ridgetown in Blenheim. The problem
[1:13:59] we have here, we're recommending. That this. Carry on and
[1:14:02] this. Go ahead. The Richtown Highgate groundwater supply has difficulty.
[1:14:08] Producing. Aesthetically pleasing water, so it's safe water, but it's
[1:14:12] not always aesthetically. Pleasing as well. There's about 56 year
[1:14:17] old reservoir and 55 year old. Pipes and elevated tank
[1:14:24] in that area that are going to need replacing or
[1:14:27] upgrading. So rather than do that. There's a plan to
[1:14:31] bring that water across from the South Chatham, Kent water.
[1:14:34] Transmission system. With a 600 millimeter pipe from the chair
[1:14:39] and cross road, and that would eliminate this system. And
[1:14:44] same with the Wallaceburg plant. We would be eliminating a
[1:14:47] plant which has a lot of operational costs in it.
[1:14:50] There's chemicals, there's employees, there's power, all of those things
[1:14:53] that we need to think about, not just the capital
[1:14:56] cost. There's a long term operating cost that I'll talk
[1:14:59] about a bit further as well. Next slide. So lastly
[1:15:04] is the southwest Chatham growth and servicing study. This area
[1:15:10] has the potential for needed industrial, commercial and housing in
[1:15:14] the area. It's partly outside the urban boundary right now,
[1:15:17] but it is. An important growth area. A lot of
[1:15:20] it is in the urban boundary, but a part of
[1:15:22] it is outside the urban boundary. The servicing study was
[1:15:26] started on this before the master plan and it was
[1:15:28] halted, hoping the two of them would come together. That
[1:15:32] wasn't the case. There was nothing considered for this area.
[1:15:36] In the POC's water wastewater master plan. And it's likely
[1:15:42] that the next official plan will include some, if not
[1:15:45] a good portion. Of these lands. There has been a
[1:15:49] great deal of ongoing communication with the PUC. And the
[1:15:54] Chatham Kent staff on this area now. But there is
[1:15:58] potentially upwards of $500 million in water wastewater alone that's
[1:16:02] required for the full build out of this area. The
[1:16:07] next slide. So next we have operational studies. So we've
[1:16:12] got. Next slide, please. We've got a bunch of things
[1:16:18] that we feel the Puc should. So this started. To
[1:16:22] go a little bit over and above what our original
[1:16:24] scope was. With respect to just prioritizing the capital programs.
[1:16:29] But as we're going through these we're seeing some of
[1:16:32] these issues, and so we've made some recommendations on this.
[1:16:35] As well. We think that the POC should immediately begin
[1:16:39] detailed condition assessments of all the pumping stations and treatment
[1:16:42] facilities. They do do building condition assessments. But from staff
[1:16:48] resources not only in the PUC but also in Chatham.
[1:16:52] It's difficult to get those assessments done. We feel that
[1:16:56] you should do a ten year program and get all
[1:16:58] of those facilities you need to know the status of
[1:17:01] those facilities you need. To know what shape they're in.
[1:17:03] How much money is it going to be to fix?
[1:17:05] Them and keep them in a state of good repair.
[1:17:08] And these building condition assessments are critical to ensuring that.
[1:17:14] You're also managing the growth. And the state of good
[1:17:16] repair together. So if you know the condition of the
[1:17:19] facility, you will. Say, okay, let's not replace that facility,
[1:17:23] because growth that we're going to build something for growth.
[1:17:26] So you have the two of them that are aligned.
[1:17:29] Next slide. The next operational study that we're recommending is
[1:17:34] ini studies and water loss studies. We've got anywhere from
[1:17:39] 15% to 55% water loss. In the POC system. So
[1:17:46] that means if you produce. 100 liters of water. 55%
[1:17:51] of that in some areas is being lost. So you're.
[1:17:53] Only actually pumping out 45 liters, and the other 55%
[1:17:58] of that water is being lost somewhere. There's a bunch
[1:18:01] of different reasons. There's firefighting, there's operational flushing. You've got
[1:18:04] a lot of dead ends, a lot of small two
[1:18:07] and four. Inch mains. In the system, but you also
[1:18:10] have leakage, so we're recommending that you do. An Ini
[1:18:14] study and find out where that water is going. It's
[1:18:18] much more economical. To find water that's already being produced
[1:18:22] and lost than it is to expand a plant. For
[1:18:26] tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, you may
[1:18:29] spend $10 million finding these leaks. And improving your operations,
[1:18:33] so it makes more sense to do these studies. On
[1:18:35] the flip side is the sewers. So the sewers have
[1:18:39] ini or inflow and infiltration and that. Water comes into
[1:18:43] the sewers and it's not supposed to come into. The
[1:18:46] sewer. So you have a combined sewer system where the
[1:18:48] water is supposed to come into the sewers, but you
[1:18:50] also have ini, which is water that's not supposed to
[1:18:53] come. Into the sewers. And that you've got about $25
[1:18:57] million in the master plan. For upgrading some of those
[1:19:01] pipes and making them bigger so that we don't end
[1:19:04] up with flooding. And we're suggesting that you would be
[1:19:07] better to find some of these leaks. And how is
[1:19:10] the water getting into that system so that. It's a
[1:19:14] better bang for your buck than just upsizing pipes to
[1:19:17] deal with water. That shouldn't be there. So again, the
[1:19:20] last point there is the return on investment for water
[1:19:23] loss and ini. Are much higher compared to upsizing or
[1:19:29] building more treatment capacity. Next slide. Thank you. So the
[1:19:34] last one is there's about $225,000,000 identified in the Master
[1:19:38] plan for sewer separations over the next ten years. And
[1:19:44] our recommendation. You've got an engineering firm that I've worked
[1:19:47] with over my. Career as well. Andrew's engineering, excellent firm.
[1:19:51] They've come up with all of these. Plans to do.
[1:19:55] Sewer separation, but there's no real concrete plan, and there's
[1:19:58] a combination between. The Chatham Kent staff and the PUC
[1:20:02] staff that are responsible for this, but really. We're saying?
[1:20:09] There's a guide called f five. Five guidelines. That say?
[1:20:15] You can manage this flow. You don't have to separate
[1:20:17] everything. If it's not. Affordable. So we're saying take a
[1:20:22] pause on this. 225,000,000. You still have. Projects going forward
[1:20:26] that our sewer separations when you're rebuilding a road. And
[1:20:29] we heard some of those the last time we were
[1:20:30] here. But it's really come up with a solid ten
[1:20:34] year plan right now, that's just a big chunk placeholder
[1:20:37] that's in YOur master plan that says somewhere around $225,000,000.
[1:20:42] We need. So we're saying, get a better, more concrete
[1:20:45] plan. For that $225,000,000. Next slide. One more. So then
[1:20:53] you have. Below that you have foundational plans. And this
[1:20:56] is your official plan. And then your municipal DC bylaw.
[1:21:01] The municipal DC bylaw is set to expire in. 2027.
[1:21:05] So there's an urgency here to get a lot of
[1:21:08] these things figured out. And cost it out so that
[1:21:11] we can put this money into the DC bylaw so
[1:21:14] that. You're appropriately recovering that from the development community. If
[1:21:17] it's truly for growth. The rate study which council and
[1:21:22] the PUC has passed. That was a big step forward
[1:21:25] as well to making sure that you have enough money
[1:21:28] to sustain. The state of good repair for these assets,
[1:21:31] and that should be reviewed every five years. And then
[1:21:35] we're suggesting that you consider an entirely new water wastewater
[1:21:39] master plan that looks at some of these solutions that
[1:21:42] we put forward in more detail. And then lastly. Is
[1:21:47] the need for an asset management plan. Under regulation 588,
[1:21:52] you need to be compliant by July of this year.
[1:21:56] With. A new full asset management plan, which is the
[1:22:00] future levels of service, and I know the staff are
[1:22:03] working on that now. But it's coordinating that asset management
[1:22:08] plan, which is about the existing assets you have with
[1:22:11] the growth, which is the master plan assets and making
[1:22:15] sure that those two things have enough money. That they're
[1:22:18] not competing with each other. Next slide. Lastly, a couple
[1:22:22] more slides here. Our foundational thing here is we feel.
[1:22:29] That the POC is lacking in a long term strategic
[1:22:31] business plan. They do have a business plan, but we're
[1:22:34] looking at things like. A mandate. Overall goals, what are
[1:22:38] the key levels of service and key performance indicators, and
[1:22:42] then really having a stakeholder management strategy when you have
[1:22:46] limited resources. This is critical to have. A good long
[1:22:51] term strategic plan. And knowing where you're going for the
[1:22:54] next 10, 20, 30 years. We're suggesting what we call
[1:22:59] a municipal view model, which is our model, which has
[1:23:01] built. Off of another model, which is called the balanced
[1:23:04] scorecard approach. And there's also Baldridge approach. There's many ways
[1:23:08] to do this. Strategic planning. I'll just go to the
[1:23:12] next slide. Which gives you an idea what we're talking
[1:23:15] about with. A municipal view model business strategy. It's really
[1:23:20] looking at what are the customers you have. And what
[1:23:23] are the services you provide to them? What are the
[1:23:27] operations and processes that you have to provide those services
[1:23:30] and how much do they cost. What technology improvements do
[1:23:34] you need to keep performing those processes? And providing that
[1:23:39] service to the customer. And then lastly, none of that
[1:23:42] works without the people, so. What is your people? How
[1:23:45] many staff do you need? Do you have the right
[1:23:46] amount of staff? Do you need to work on the
[1:23:49] culture? And then lastly it comes down to money, which
[1:23:52] is. The finances and the assets. If you don't have
[1:23:54] the money. And if you don't. Have the appropriate asset
[1:23:57] allocation. You can't. Run any of this business, so it's
[1:24:00] making sure that you have a plan for that. Lastly,
[1:24:02] you wrap all that together and that's the strategy document
[1:24:05] that you would come up. With that would review all
[1:24:08] of these things and build yourself a strategy. And that's
[1:24:14] our presentation for this evening. Happy to take questions. So
[1:24:17] what I'm going to do with this is any questions
[1:24:19] we have. Of the consultant. We'll get those through, and
[1:24:23] then we'll go to the discussion. I will take the
[1:24:26] questions out of that part. So we'll do that piece
[1:24:28] first and. Then. I have. Councilor, just put up your
[1:24:34] hands, please. Anderson. Harrigan. Okay, so we
[1:24:44] had three. So Councilor Anderson, you can start, followed by
[1:24:46] councilor Scottie. Thank you, Mr. Mary and through you. Thank
[1:24:50] you for this presentation. This is my second time seeing
[1:24:52] it. I've had a little bit of time to go
[1:24:55] over it a bit more. And. While I certainly appreciate.
[1:25:02] I wish we didn't require. Your consultant a consultation on
[1:25:06] this, but we are definitely in a critical state with
[1:25:09] our PUC. So I appreciate you giving some suggestions. One
[1:25:13] of the questions that I do have. Is the structure
[1:25:16] of the governance of the PUC and the commission where
[1:25:19] we sit and we're six counselors that are making these
[1:25:21] major, major decisions, and this has gone on for a
[1:25:23] very, very long time. And in no way, shape or
[1:25:26] form an I an expert in underground butter infrastructure, and
[1:25:29] I'm not sure that anybody else that sits on the
[1:25:31] PUC is either with that disconnect. With the municipality in
[1:25:36] the past. I mean, we obviously have a different dynamic
[1:25:40] now and hopefully moving. Forward. Was that taken into account
[1:25:44] as to how we got to this position that we're
[1:25:46] in? Right now. Is there a suggestion that you would
[1:25:50] have liked to bring forward, or was that not part
[1:25:52] of the strategy of this task for you. Yeah, it
[1:25:56] wasn't part of our strategy. We do make a few
[1:25:59] comments in the more detailed report about coordination and collaboration
[1:26:04] and governance. And I do think that there is something
[1:26:08] ongoing right now, but that wasn't in our scope. Thank
[1:26:12] you. I think that it is important moving forward that.
[1:26:18] We do really look at. The structure of the commission
[1:26:21] and how we move forward with that in a very
[1:26:24] strategic way over these next ten years, like you're saying,
[1:26:26] to make sure that the best decisions are being. Made.
[1:26:30] And I know that there's been a motion, I believe,
[1:26:32] that the mayor brought forward to look at this. Does
[1:26:35] anyone know where we're at with that? And is that
[1:26:37] going to be in the strategic plan in July. I
[1:26:41] can answer that for you. So KPMG has been hired
[1:26:46] for the governance review. That works. Just beginning now with
[1:26:54] an expected. Delivery in October. Of this fall. So the
[1:27:03] governance review of the POC. Thank you. So that won't
[1:27:06] be included in the July like Master plan as far
[1:27:09] as a restructuring. Of commission. That's a separate project that
[1:27:15] was ongoing the same time that we had municipal viewing.
[1:27:19] The master plan. It's sort of a parallel project that's
[1:27:24] going on. Yeah. Thank you. We can say that it's
[1:27:28] a peril project, but I think that it kind of
[1:27:29] boils down to kind of a similarity, too. Of we're
[1:27:33] still being asked as a commission and now as council,
[1:27:34] to make this decision. And with it there being a
[1:27:37] disconnect of the municipality, I know that I have reached
[1:27:40] out not only to the PUC, but also to engineers
[1:27:43] here through CK. It's important that we do include these
[1:27:48] experts that we have, both at the administrative level. Of
[1:27:50] with CK and also through the PUC in order for
[1:27:52] us to make these really big decisions because this isn't
[1:27:55] an easy decision for us to make and in no
[1:27:57] way shape. Or form. Do I feel like I'm the
[1:28:00] expert to sit around a table and say, this is
[1:28:02] exactly what we should be doing with a $2 billion
[1:28:04] def. Deficit in lifecycle and capital costs. So I feel
[1:28:10] like, again, we're in a situation where we could be
[1:28:13] potentially. Putting. The car before the horse. Where? You're asking
[1:28:17] us to make this decision now before we. Actually have
[1:28:19] a master plan. Moving forward. So my second question is,
[1:28:24] when we did the interviews, when your consulting company did
[1:28:27] the interviews, who? Decided who was interviewed and why wasn't
[1:28:30] every member of commission interviews? Through you, Mr. Chair or
[1:28:35] Mr. Mayor. Sorry. We did put the offer out to
[1:28:38] all of the commission members, and we only received two
[1:28:41] responses back from the members, which was the chair and
[1:28:46] councilor McDonald. So we did reach out to all of
[1:28:49] the commission members to ask them for an interview. Did
[1:28:53] that go out to the whole commission as a whole.
[1:28:56] To all the commission members. I must. Have missed that
[1:29:03] email. Yeah. And then I just have one more technical
[1:29:07] question for you. When we discuss now potentially using Wallaceburg
[1:29:13] as, are you saying, a raw waterline as an intake
[1:29:16] or as a chat. From chat. It's really. Fairly high
[1:29:23] level concept. There's a lot of work that would have
[1:29:26] to be done to do that. But we know. This
[1:29:32] provincial government is very strong on greenhouses, and there really
[1:29:36] believes that there's a need for them. So there is
[1:29:40] an opportunity there. If the plan was to make Wallaceburg
[1:29:44] 28 megalitres, to supply 14 or 16 of those mega
[1:29:48] liters to the greenhouse. Industry. There is an opportunity, rather
[1:29:55] than throw the infrastructure away that's there for Wallaceburg. If
[1:29:57] we were to bring a pipe up to create a
[1:30:00] raw water pumping station, it would be called Hamilton had
[1:30:03] this for stelco when I was a director of water
[1:30:06] in Hamilton. So you. Use raw water, and then the
[1:30:10] cost of that would be borne. By the greenhouse, not
[1:30:14] the residents. Sure. Yes, I certainly understand that concept. I
[1:30:17] guess my question is. Do we consider where we're drawing
[1:30:20] water from? Because I know right now Chatham is drawing
[1:30:23] from Lake Erie. Is that correct? I believe Wallaceburg does
[1:30:26] not draw from Lake era, I believe. They draw from
[1:30:28] Lake St. Clair. So if we're cutting off, like, a
[1:30:30] major separ. Separate water source. What were to happen if
[1:30:34] we were to have a major contamination in Lake Erie?
[1:30:38] Per se. So a couple of things. I'll respond to
[1:30:42] that through you, Mr. Mayor. I think the likelihood of
[1:30:45] a contamination is always higher in a river than it
[1:30:47] is in a great lake there's. Many people that draw
[1:30:50] from Lake Erie, so. It's a highly unlikely scenario. That
[1:30:57] something would happen with that source. But the safe drinking
[1:31:03] Water Act. Does take into account the treatment of that
[1:31:07] water. So regardless of what your source is, you have
[1:31:10] to treat it to certain parameters. If there was, let's
[1:31:14] say, hydrocarbons or a spill in a river, that would.
[1:31:17] Be much more. Disastrous because it's such a smaller body
[1:31:21] of water, whereas in Lake Erie that would have it's
[1:31:24] called the size of the receiving body could absorb that
[1:31:28] with less impact. And the same thing with Lake Ontario
[1:31:31] and all of the people that draw from Lake Ontario.
[1:31:34] So from decreasing from two water sources to draw from
[1:31:37] to just one. Source. It doesn't pose a significant risk
[1:31:42] in my mind. No, you've got Hamilton has. One plant
[1:31:46] with one pipe going out to Lake Ontario, 600,000, 700,000
[1:31:50] people. Mississauga and Brampton have two plants for 2 million
[1:31:55] people. Toronto has four plants. With. I don't know what
[1:31:59] Toronto is now. Three and a half, 7 million, 6
[1:32:02] million. People? Something like that. So. I would say it's
[1:32:07] at higher risk to draw the water out of the
[1:32:09] river than it is to draw it out of Lake
[1:32:11] Erie. Thank you. I appreciate that. And that's just one
[1:32:13] of those questions where ignorance is not bliss in sitting
[1:32:16] in my position because my thought would be. Why wouldn't
[1:32:19] we keep. Two drawing from two water sources as a
[1:32:23] safer bet for clean drinking water as opposed to just
[1:32:26] going to one major source, so I certainly appreciate you
[1:32:29] clarifying that for me. Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Sakachi, followed
[1:32:33] by councilor Harrigan. Thank you. Through mayor Cana a. Lot
[1:32:37] of times we get these reports and they're really complicated
[1:32:39] and really technical, and I think that you did a
[1:32:41] really good job at putting it together in a method
[1:32:44] that myself as a counselor who doesn't have any expertise
[1:32:47] could understand. I actually went through this report several times
[1:32:51] because I found. It very, I'm going to say alarming
[1:32:54] in some aspects, but it was very well. Put together
[1:32:56] so I could actually understand it. So in the report,
[1:33:00] There's a lot of verbiage regards, lack of coordination, lacks
[1:33:04] issues, challenges, and you actually mentioned the word scorecard. So
[1:33:08] for somebody who doesn't have the technical knowledge as many
[1:33:10] of us counselors. Don't. And don't sit on the actual
[1:33:14] commission if this was an actual scorecard. Or let's say
[1:33:17] a report card. Where are we at for like, a
[1:33:19] grade? Are we talking like a DC or are we
[1:33:22] talking. I know I'm kind of putting you. On a
[1:33:23] spot, but I think it's important for us. Who doesn't
[1:33:25] have the technical knowledge that we can see this very
[1:33:29] baseline of what your thoughts are. Because in reading. This
[1:33:33] detailed report, I got to admit, there's more challenges than
[1:33:35] there is champions, right? Yeah. So it would be impossible
[1:33:40] for me to give this an actual grade. But. This
[1:33:45] is not an uncommon problem. Across ontario, canada, north america.
[1:33:50] Coordination and communication. Is a huge issue in all large
[1:33:54] organizations. Some municipalities are going towards utilities. The region appeal,
[1:33:59] right? Now with the province, as you're aware, is looking
[1:34:02] at should we go from a city department to a
[1:34:05] utility. And others are going Peterborough, for instance. We just
[1:34:10] finished a study for them a couple of years. Ago.
[1:34:12] They're going from utility and they're bringing it all back
[1:34:16] in house, so. There's no right answer to that. It
[1:34:19] takes hard work to coordinate, and these are very complex
[1:34:23] issues that I think staff are doing a great job
[1:34:25] at right now. Al. Although we wanted to give you
[1:34:28] the facts, that doesn't mean that staff aren't working on
[1:34:31] it. And there's not solutions there. I think there are,
[1:34:34] but they're different than they've been for the last 25
[1:34:36] years. These are new things that are coming. At you
[1:34:39] and staff are finding their way through, and I think
[1:34:41] there is coordination and communication happening. Thank you. And. The
[1:34:46] part in the report that you actually mentioned during the
[1:34:48] presentation, as well as the water loss. I think it
[1:34:51] was 15% to 55%. Correct. Is there, like, an industry
[1:34:54] standard of what you would normally like to see, because
[1:34:57] obviously it's high. I know that, but how high? Is
[1:35:00] it? Compared to industry standard, yeah. I was the director
[1:35:04] of water treatment for the city of Hamilton, and we
[1:35:06] had a high water loss at about 15%, and we
[1:35:10] spent $20 million and got that down to about 10%.
[1:35:14] Newer municipalities would be in the eight to ten to
[1:35:16] 12% range that have a lot of pvc pipe. Water
[1:35:21] loss isn't just leakage. Sometimes it's unaccounted for. Water. Which
[1:35:25] is firefighting. It's a lot of operational water. Backwash water
[1:35:31] for treatment plants. You've got a lot of flushing happening
[1:35:34] out in the system because you've got a lot of
[1:35:36] long dead ends and water decays, so the chlorine evaporates.
[1:35:40] For lack of better term, it doesn't actually evaporate. But
[1:35:42] it decays. And now the water isn't as safe to
[1:35:45] drink, so you. Keep flushing the water to bring fresh
[1:35:48] water in. So that's part of your problem. As well.
[1:35:51] But that's where a study would define what that problem
[1:35:54] is and how you could reduce that. Thank you. And
[1:35:57] just a question to Mr. Dubin. Mr. Dubin, I know.
[1:35:59] That we're having the governance that Councilor Anderson mentioned. But
[1:36:02] is there a potential in that governance to be also,
[1:36:06] I'm not going to use a word, but a mediator.
[1:36:08] But somebody who can kind of align. Between the municipality
[1:36:11] and. The PUC on a more regular basis, or is
[1:36:15] that something now with this report? And what? The potential
[1:36:18] governance change. Is that something? That's because I think that
[1:36:20] the communication which you noted in here and you noted
[1:36:22] in other municipalities that have a hard time. I think
[1:36:25] that now that we have all this information, what's the
[1:36:28] next steps? Besides the governance, what we can do to
[1:36:30] approve the alignment to ensure that our growth plans here.
[1:36:34] And our strategic directions here are compatible. And lastly, just
[1:36:39] to you, Mr. Dubin, when we do our strategic. Growth
[1:36:42] and our strategic things when we're first elected, does those
[1:36:45] things get sent to the PUC so they understand what
[1:36:47] we're looking to do from, like, a growth perspective and
[1:36:49] the quadrants and, like, a planning perspective. For instance, what
[1:36:53] Ryan brought to us to council are. Those things being
[1:36:56] sent to the Puc? Because if those aren't happening, I'm.
[1:36:59] Sure that they're more working on. Operational sides of things
[1:37:03] instead of the actual potential growth, which I see is
[1:37:05] kind of lacking in. This report, right? Thank you. Through
[1:37:09] you, Marikana. So I'll try to answer the last question
[1:37:12] first. I don't know if the study was actually sent
[1:37:16] to the PUC, but I'm. Pretty sure the PUC is
[1:37:18] familiar. Even when the PUC writes reports to council and
[1:37:21] there have been a couple of reports to counsel. They
[1:37:23] do make reference to the council's. Strategic priorities. I don't
[1:37:26] remember how many members of council attended, obviously, those sessions
[1:37:30] that we had, but we have overlap between the members
[1:37:32] of council and members. Of the commission. So I expect
[1:37:36] that members of the commission are all familiar. You see
[1:37:38] it, right? In front of you every most Mondays. So
[1:37:42] I think there's definitely as awareness of the council's strategic
[1:37:44] priorities from a staff perspective. That'd probably a question. For
[1:37:50] Mr. Galbraith. I think they're probably aware of them. Is
[1:37:53] that a fair comment? Yeah, they are. Your second question
[1:37:57] talked about sort of the outcome of the governance review.
[1:38:01] I don't know what the governance review is going to
[1:38:02] say. I think Mr. Harnham is right. You have to
[1:38:05] look at what the municipality and the utility need at
[1:38:08] that particular time that the review is being done in
[1:38:11] some municipalities, they've gone the opposite way. In. Some, they've
[1:38:15] embraced the approach that we currently have. Others, they've reversed
[1:38:18] it. So it's really hard to tell until KPMG does
[1:38:21] their work. It's hard to tell whether or not like
[1:38:24] what the outcome of that will be. It'll come. To
[1:38:26] you, and you'll get the opportunity to make a decision
[1:38:29] on it. It may very well be. By the way,
[1:38:32] I expect they will talk to a number of counselors
[1:38:34] before they. Produce their report. So it may very well
[1:38:36] be that whatever they recommend has some sort of a
[1:38:40] I don't know if it'll be called a mediator, but
[1:38:42] a process to follow is probably what they would recommend.
[1:38:45] Is a process to follow to ensure that there is
[1:38:47] alignment between. The commission and the municipality or. Whatever the
[1:38:52] commission looks like after the governance review. Is completed and
[1:38:56] then council endorses the approach, they may want to keep
[1:38:59] it the same. They may want to endorse whatever the
[1:39:01] consultant comes forward with, so I don't. Know what the
[1:39:04] answer to that will be. I will say that. I
[1:39:08] do think I'm looking forward to the governance review because
[1:39:11] I think there is an opportunity for the level of
[1:39:13] communication to be greater. Our communities change. We're now talking
[1:39:17] about building new things. To accommodate the growth, which is
[1:39:21] very different, as you saw from a report earlier today,
[1:39:24] when your population is declining the way it has. We
[1:39:27] weren't talking about master plans. We weren't. Talking about necessarily
[1:39:29] building new things. This community was really trying to just
[1:39:33] fix whatever we had. As best we could. Now all
[1:39:35] of a sudden, we've got 15 years of that kind.
[1:39:38] Of approach, and now. We're suddenly looking at a different
[1:39:41] approach. You can't expect to just snap your fingers and
[1:39:44] think that that's going to happen. There has to be.
[1:39:47] A more, I would say, define thought out approach to
[1:39:50] how do we plan for the next 15 years. Thank
[1:39:53] you. I just wanted to say, whoever. The initiation of
[1:39:57] this and all that, whether it be from the commission
[1:39:59] or. From the POC general manager or I just think
[1:40:03] that this is a great first step and I'm appreciative
[1:40:05] of your work, and thank you for keeping it. To
[1:40:08] a manner that we could all kind of. It was
[1:40:10] palatable for. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Harrigan, followed by
[1:40:14] councilor Doyle. Thank you, McKinnon. So a lot of my
[1:40:18] questions about the report and presentation have been asked and
[1:40:22] answered. I do. Maybe just want to polish a little
[1:40:25] bit around. The report noting around how the division of
[1:40:29] responsibilities between Chatham, Kent and the PUC is complicated. Because
[1:40:33] of that absence of shared governance framework. And then capital
[1:40:37] coordination process, which is the other piece to it. In
[1:40:42] the recommendations in the report. That I'm sure was a
[1:40:45] collective writing, but that Mr. Quinton is authored here. It
[1:40:50] notes about the creation of like a flow ck kind
[1:40:53] of task force team to help to move projects forward.
[1:40:58] Do we know? And as Michael, is that what you
[1:41:01] were referring to in terms of the mediator? Who, ultimately
[1:41:04] would that group be responsible to? Is that a PuC
[1:41:07] group? Is that a municipal group or is that a
[1:41:09] joint group? Because I feel like that's just a bunch
[1:41:11] of people then operating to be like, well, it's not
[1:41:13] clear which way we're going. To go because there's some
[1:41:15] tension between. The wastewater plan and the growth plan. Well,
[1:41:20] maybe I'll go to Mr. Quinn first. Actually, I'll go
[1:41:24] first, and then. We'll go to Mr. Gwen. I don't
[1:41:28] think we've sorted that out yet. I do agree that
[1:41:31] there'd. Have to be. We want to be in a
[1:41:33] position where. We ensure that that flow is taking place.
[1:41:38] Now, I'm not so sure if it's. A person or
[1:41:39] a mediator. I think it's the process itself. If the
[1:41:43] process is designed in such a way that that automatically
[1:41:46] happens, then we'll all be in a better place. So
[1:41:50] I think that is one of the intents. Of the
[1:41:53] group. That maybe Gord will speak to it a bit
[1:41:56] more. One of the purposes of that is. To ensure
[1:41:59] that there is a process so that you don't have
[1:42:01] one group making a decision without considering the other, the
[1:42:05] impact on the others and vice versa. And I'm not
[1:42:08] sure that that happens now as well as it could.
[1:42:11] It does happen. On occasion. And I would suggest that
[1:42:13] in my short time here, I've seen improvement, but. I
[1:42:17] still think we have work to do, especially since. We're
[1:42:20] now going to be moving towards. Building. Big stuff. And
[1:42:23] we haven't done that in a long time. Mr. Quinton,
[1:42:26] I. Don't know if you want to add more to
[1:42:27] it. Thank you. I'll just. Add the focus of that
[1:42:31] special group. In the municipal side for engineering of having.
[1:42:37] Them responsible for the new linear. Assets. Linear meaning under
[1:42:43] roads going out, not the plants themselves having that distinction.
[1:42:48] And having. A group that's able to coordinate that. With
[1:42:54] the plans for the roads, with integras, for the hydro,
[1:42:57] with Enbridge, for the natural gas lines. It's just an
[1:43:01] enormous amount of work. To develop. A new area. And
[1:43:09] to take that off the back of. The PUC administration
[1:43:14] so they could focus on the plant work. That was
[1:43:18] part of the strategy. But the charge for, of course,
[1:43:22] the water and waste water would still be charged back
[1:43:25] through rates. Or through development charges or through the puzz.
[1:43:33] Great. My next question is, is in the recommendations. The
[1:43:36] recommendation number one asks council to affirm. The green, right.
[1:43:40] Things that were in the green category. By affirming what's
[1:43:44] in the green category. Are we also saying that we're.
[1:43:47] Agreeing that things that are yellow are yellow and things
[1:43:49] that are red are red because I think there's a
[1:43:51] bit of lack of clarity around that in the recommendation
[1:43:53] report. I'm happy to affirm the green category, but I
[1:43:57] think I have more questions, and even in the presentation,
[1:44:01] it wasn't really clear. For example, like the. Wellsburg treatment
[1:44:04] plan. Does it become a raw plant? Does it become
[1:44:06] something else? Does it get closed entirely. And so I
[1:44:08] just want to better understand what saying yes to recommendation
[1:44:12] one means for what's not mentioned here, which is the
[1:44:14] yellow and red projects. Through you, your worship. So I
[1:44:19] think by affirming the green, you're just doing that you're
[1:44:21] affirming the green. I agree with what you're saying. I
[1:44:25] interpreted the yellow to be by virtue of the fact
[1:44:27] that it's yellow, it still needs further study, so. You
[1:44:31] can't affirm it one way or another. If that further
[1:44:33] study hasn't. Occurred. But it's Mr. Harim's presentation, so he
[1:44:36] should explain whether or not that was the way he
[1:44:38] meant for it to be interpreted. Sure. Through you, Mr.
[1:44:41] Mayor, I'm happy to do that, yes. I think it's
[1:44:44] exactly that. The green is ready to go. There's no
[1:44:47] reason. Why we shouldn't proceed with that. And there's actually
[1:44:49] reasons why not to proceed. With that. Would be detrimental.
[1:44:54] The yellow will most likely proceed, I think. You'll probably.
[1:44:59] Bring a report back when those get closer. Or as
[1:45:04] one of our recommendations in our report is to kind
[1:45:06] of bundle all that together and have another sober look
[1:45:09] at the red and the yellow. The yellow have to
[1:45:12] go ahead. You need some more work on that before
[1:45:16] we start putting tenders on the street. So they should
[1:45:20] go. But you need to do a bit more work.
[1:45:24] And then lastly. The red. We think that there are
[1:45:27] different solutions there, and we've had many talks with the
[1:45:31] Chatham Kent staff and the PUC staff. And there to
[1:45:34] my understand, working on what does that look like in
[1:45:37] the next year or two? With those. Red categories. Okay,
[1:45:42] so then just about the red category. Sorry. Americana. I'll
[1:45:45] echo, councilor. Anderson feeling like kind of a toddler in
[1:45:47] the wastewater department area of expertise here and trying to
[1:45:50] work through things. So is really the reason that Wallaceburg
[1:45:54] has kind of shifted to be in the red category.
[1:45:56] Simply because. Before, we were thinking about maintaining what we
[1:46:00] have, and now we're looking towards growth is that compounded
[1:46:03] with the greenhouse situation. Is that the reason for the
[1:46:06] drastic shift? Because there is quite a big change between
[1:46:09] those 2020, 1210, 15 years ago to what's being recommended.
[1:46:14] Today. Right. So through you, Mr. Mayor, I would say
[1:46:17] that the. 2012, 2016 and even. One of the last
[1:46:21] EA's did suggest a pipe. And that is a more
[1:46:26] affordable solution. I think one big thing that hasn't been
[1:46:30] discussed here is operating cost as well, running a plant.
[1:46:34] If you do the Wallaceburg and bring a pipe from
[1:46:38] Chatham and you bring a pipe over to Ridgetown. Blenham,
[1:46:42] you're. Down to three plants. You just finished telling you
[1:46:46] Hamilton has one plant for the entire community. And the
[1:46:51] regional Peel essentially has two plants for 2 million people.
[1:46:55] So it's about operating costs as well. There's more chemicals,
[1:46:58] there's more pumping, there's backwash. Water. There's all kinds of
[1:47:03] things to run that plant, not to mention. The maintenance
[1:47:07] cost of all of the new things that you might
[1:47:09] put in there for that $200 million. So whether it's
[1:47:12] growth or state of good repair, I think it's good
[1:47:15] business. To look at that. You have to balance the
[1:47:19] growth with the state of good repair. If you didn't
[1:47:21] have that gross? Maybe. I don't know. Maybe you wouldn't
[1:47:24] be having this conversation. You would just say, let's spend
[1:47:26] the $200 million on that. But you have to balance
[1:47:29] all of those things and. You've got an opportunity in
[1:47:32] the southwest Chatham to build industrial commercial, which you really
[1:47:36] need. As well as housing, which a community needs. And
[1:47:40] then again, I'm assuming the answer is no. We're not
[1:47:43] worried. But when I think of our community with, like,
[1:47:46] kilometers and kilometers of space with no people compared to
[1:47:50] like Hamilton, right, where there's tons of need in that
[1:47:53] area. There's not. A concern. Of having all of that
[1:47:57] kilometer of pipe through kind of a rural system. And
[1:48:01] the service risks for that? In my mind, no. And
[1:48:04] Hamilton does have quite a rural community. As well. There's
[1:48:08] downtown Hamill proper, but Flamborough, Carlyle. Ancaster. There's a very
[1:48:15] rural community there as well, including the regional appeal in
[1:48:19] the town of Caladon. So they have pipes running up
[1:48:22] to those rural areas as opposed to having their own
[1:48:25] plants. Hey, great. I would maybe just. And I don't
[1:48:27] think this needs. To change in any of the recommendations,
[1:48:29] but this would be a wonderful topic for council to
[1:48:32] rece. Receive some optional education on. I think maybe once
[1:48:35] the governance report comes back from KPMG. It's still not
[1:48:40] clear to me who is ultimately in charge of saying
[1:48:42] yes to these projects. Is it us around the council
[1:48:44] table? Is it the PuC or on the PUC? Table.
[1:48:47] We cover the budget and the capital and the policy
[1:48:49] direction, but what's the POC? Doing. So I have a
[1:48:52] lot of learning in that space to do and understanding.
[1:48:55] So I would look forward and really appreciate some further
[1:48:57] education. Thank you so much for your patience and answer
[1:48:59] my question. Councilor Doyle, followed by councilor story. Thank you,
[1:49:04] mayor. First again, I'd like to thank you for the
[1:49:06] report. Very easy to read. And one of the big
[1:49:11] things I did like about it is, like, with a
[1:49:14] lot of these master plans we get. It doesn't really
[1:49:16] put a cost factor into it. It just says, hey,
[1:49:19] here's what would be your best case scenario, but we
[1:49:21] can't afford the best case scenario all the time. So
[1:49:25] I think when you broke it down and said, This
[1:49:28] is your priorities. You did a very good job doing
[1:49:31] that. So thank you for that. I do also agree
[1:49:37] the greenhouse is. I have no problem with greenhouses. But
[1:49:40] right now, our DC costs are not covering the operational
[1:49:43] costs. So right now the general public is subsidizing some
[1:49:47] of the cost for that. And when these are for
[1:49:49] profit companies and not all of them. From my knowledge,
[1:49:53] are keeping all their products in Canada, and some of
[1:49:56] them are shipping it to the US. Because that's where
[1:49:58] the profits are. Castra door. This is meant for questions.
[1:50:01] And if you can have your time. So just if
[1:50:03] you have questions. Thank you. Okay. So. I guess. This
[1:50:10] is the third time. Then that it's been brought up.
[1:50:15] For. The pipe to be ran from Chatham to Wallaceburg,
[1:50:20] now in different ports. And those are experts. Doing these
[1:50:23] reports. So that would make sense, but what would happen?
[1:50:27] Say if we had a situation, say we did do
[1:50:30] that, and then we had a situation in Chatham like
[1:50:32] we did in wheelie, where there's a fire. Like a
[1:50:37] catastrophic fire. What would happen at that point? I asked
[1:50:39] that in Puc as well. Yeah. So through you, Mr.
[1:50:43] Mayor, I think the question where you're going is would
[1:50:46] having the Wallaceburg plant help us? Not really. Wallaceburg is
[1:50:50] if it was 14 mld or. Megalitres per day. You
[1:50:53] need 50 mega liters to serve Chadam. So if Chatham
[1:50:57] had a major catastrophe. The water coming from Wallaceburg would
[1:51:04] not solve that problem. So that's the first part of
[1:51:08] the question. I think the second part is. Can you
[1:51:12] afford belts and suspenders, right? It's that simple. Is. If
[1:51:21] you feel as a community that. Gives you a safer
[1:51:25] feeling. Then is it affordable? But I don't think it
[1:51:30] is a huge risk, considering. Everywhere in the Gtah, all
[1:51:36] the way around Oxford. Niagara region. All of these places
[1:51:40] are faced with similar decisions. Okay. Thank you very much.
[1:51:48] And I do like that you brought up going towards
[1:51:50] the 401. I think we should have done. That two
[1:51:53] to three decades ago. So it's nice that we're planning
[1:51:56] that and. I said that that was in the report
[1:51:57] as well, so thank you very much. Thank you, councilor.
[1:52:00] Story, followed by councilor C. McGregor and councilor crew. Thank
[1:52:03] you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Jim for that report. It
[1:52:07] was very informative and appreciate you bringing that to. Bringing
[1:52:10] that to us. Most of my questions have been asked,
[1:52:15] but just to get a little bit of clarity on
[1:52:17] in terms of your presentation, and I think we're still
[1:52:19] getting a chance to ask a staff piece. Based on
[1:52:23] your findings. If I understand your presentation and the report
[1:52:27] correctly, it sounds like some of this disconnect is because.
[1:52:33] Of some lack of communication or clear communication lines between
[1:52:37] PUC and the municipality. So, as I'm thinking through this,
[1:52:41] and I'm hearing the discussion from my fellow counselors. In
[1:52:46] your experience? Our pucs normally separate. From municipalities, or is
[1:52:53] it just really depend on the municipality and those government
[1:52:56] structures? Because it really does feel like. We're missing a
[1:53:00] piece here. And obviously this has happened for quite some
[1:53:03] time, like the predates most of us on council. But
[1:53:07] I'm sensing a theme here in the discussions we're having
[1:53:10] and in the report. So in your experience. How does
[1:53:15] that normally look? Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor. I think
[1:53:18] if it's a Puc, it is a separate. Entity. Or
[1:53:22] it's a laws, which is another separate entity. There's a
[1:53:25] Peterborough utilities commission. Which is a separate entity. Many municipalities
[1:53:28] have it as a department of the corporation, but I
[1:53:32] can tell you communication. It's not a fatal flaw. Here
[1:53:37] you can have a large community, like Hamilton or Toronto.
[1:53:40] That I worked in where the planning department doesn't talk
[1:53:42] to the water department. Communication is hard, regardless of your
[1:53:47] governance structure. What we were pointing out, it wasn't the
[1:53:49] root of all of the problems. We were pointing out
[1:53:53] that there seemed to be, with southwest southeast Wallaceburg, there
[1:53:56] seemed to be a disconnect on what the priorities in
[1:53:59] the communication was, so I wouldn't say this community has
[1:54:03] a tragic problem compared to other communities. Communication is one
[1:54:07] of the main issues in all of these complex problems
[1:54:11] for sure. Yeah. I can appreciate that. I just think
[1:54:15] sometimes when you're adding another level of organization, Perhaps. Those
[1:54:21] issues can be made more challenging. Could you clarify the
[1:54:26] Los plan you mentioned that needs to be done in
[1:54:28] 2025? Can you? Explain a little more about what that
[1:54:30] is. Sure. Los stands for level of service. And as
[1:54:36] part of your asset management plan for Reg. 588, July
[1:54:41] 1, 2025, you have to have a proposed levels of
[1:54:46] service. You already have an asset management plan that deals
[1:54:48] with your existing levels of service, and you need to
[1:54:51] be in compliance with the regulations. You need to have
[1:54:54] a proposed level. Levels of service, which means. What are
[1:54:58] you and levels of services? Not to belabor it, but.
[1:55:02] It's a difficult term. It's really about the life cycle
[1:55:04] of the asset, not so much. Do we want clean
[1:55:07] water or dirty water? That's really not a term level
[1:55:10] of service. We're using it more as the life cycle
[1:55:13] of the assets for the level of service. So that's
[1:55:16] in a week. Is that what this is? I'm not
[1:55:21] sure the status of that. There are many municipalities that
[1:55:24] are struggling to meet that deadline. We're working with several
[1:55:28] municipalities right now, helping them get to that deadline. But
[1:55:32] I don't know where your municipality is with that. And
[1:55:35] again, if they're not prepared for July 1, 2025. There
[1:55:40] is no asset management police, there's no charges. But there
[1:55:44] are many municipalities that are struggling to meet those deadlines.
[1:55:48] So I'm not sure where you are with that in
[1:55:50] your process. We cannot address that later. I think the
[1:55:55] last couple of quick questions. State of good repair versus
[1:55:59] growth. When you mention things like the, I think, councilor
[1:56:03] psychology references. Well. The leak rate. In eight to 9%
[1:56:08] you mentioned is reasonable. We are now at 55% in
[1:56:11] some areas. In some areas, that seems like a fairly
[1:56:14] dramatic difference. To me. Does it sound like we've got
[1:56:19] to get our state of good repair? In certain places
[1:56:23] before we could actually look at growth. Because our state
[1:56:25] of good repair, if we're looking at 55% in some
[1:56:28] areas. Is that what we should be prioritizing? I think
[1:56:33] it's complex, and that's why we're recommending a study. Because
[1:56:36] it's not necessarily just leaks. It could be operational flushing,
[1:56:40] which is moving old water. And putting new water in.
[1:56:43] You have to dispose of the old water goes into
[1:56:45] the sewer, causes two problems. It also causes you to
[1:56:48] have the water come back to the sewer, and you
[1:56:49] have to retreat it again. But I think they go
[1:56:53] hand in hand. I don't think it's. If this then
[1:56:55] that. I think it's by finding water loss. You may
[1:57:01] not have to build as big pipes or pumping stations
[1:57:04] or whatever the case might be. So the state of
[1:57:07] good repair and the growth should go hand in hand.
[1:57:10] Okay. And we don't. Know. What those causes are yet
[1:57:15] the next study will capture. You would have to do
[1:57:17] that study for sure. And there's 27 different plates. Not
[1:57:20] to bore you, but 27 different places you lose. Water,
[1:57:23] and you need to assess where that water is going
[1:57:26] through district metering in different areas. And then you would
[1:57:30] be able to put resources towards either changing your processes,
[1:57:35] upping chlorine doing something or stopping the leaks. Okay, and
[1:57:39] last two questions. Thank you for all that you mentioned
[1:57:42] that other large areas have one plant that services the
[1:57:47] entire municipality. Areas. That have rural components or large populations
[1:57:52] or both. Would that ever be something we would want
[1:57:55] to consider? I think your Chatham plant is that plant,
[1:58:01] right? It's central. It's going to. Now, if you went
[1:58:07] ahead with the Wallaceburg pipe idea. It would send water
[1:58:11] there. You would look the new southwest so you could
[1:58:14] be down. To three plants from five by doing that.
[1:58:19] That and the Ridgetown Blenham system. So sorry. I lost
[1:58:25] the train of thought. And the question there. Oh, no,
[1:58:26] I was just thinking. Just to reiterate. The consolidating plants
[1:58:33] because you mentioned other municipalities just have the one. And
[1:58:37] since we have multiple, maybe it doesn't make sense, but
[1:58:40] I wonder if there are consolidation opportunities. You should constantly
[1:58:44] look at that. I was the commissioner of public Works
[1:58:46] for Halton Region and. Milton is a groundwater system. They're
[1:58:52] constantly. The community wants to keep that system. It's a
[1:58:54] very expensive, it's like Blenheim. And Ridgetown. Very expensive system
[1:58:58] to maintain. We've been looking at. We were looking at
[1:59:01] consolidating that to the lake. Ontario system. Because it's just
[1:59:06] such a high cost and there's higher risk with smaller
[1:59:09] plants. Right. Okay, well, thank you. And just the last
[1:59:12] question, and this is maybe a question even for Meredith
[1:59:15] or Judy, but. Your green slide with the green means
[1:59:21] go. Would we be able to pull that back up
[1:59:23] so. We have that for reference when we're discussing the
[1:59:26] next phase. Just for reference. Those are all the items.
[1:59:31] That you think we should do? Essentially immediately. Through you,
[1:59:36] Mr. Mayor. There's a detailed list in the report, project
[1:59:39] by project as well. But I'm not sure what the
[1:59:44] staff recommendation was. But if it's that list. Then. It
[1:59:49] is. It the same? Not sure through staff if it's
[1:59:53] the same list. Just to. Because the first recommendation, it
[1:59:58] says. We would be voting to go ahead with the
[2:00:03] green. So that would be the 93.9. Hundred. And 93.7.
[2:00:09] That's correct. Okay. And that is. You mentioned and you
[2:00:14] use the example the 117 to the $150,000,000 example. From
[2:00:18] just less than two years ago. Is this an inflationary
[2:00:22] number? I would say the closer you get through you,
[2:00:25] Mr. Mayor, the closer you get to design and construction,
[2:00:28] the higher the price goes, as you're probably seen that
[2:00:31] many times. And through my career. I've never seen a
[2:00:34] project go down. So the more detail you get. When
[2:00:40] you have pre design, you're at plus or -100% you
[2:00:43] get the 30%. Design your plus or -50 you get
[2:00:46] to 90% design. You should be plus or -10%. So
[2:00:52] the staff will, when they design those projects and put
[2:00:55] them out on the street, they will. Get actual costs
[2:00:58] to you for recommendation on approval. Okay. In the next
[2:01:03] zero to five years, we're looking at 32 million. But
[2:01:07] that is a fairly high level estimate, correct? It's an
[2:01:11] estimate from an Acom study. Another consulting firm. And we
[2:01:15] listed them directly from their tables in the report. So
[2:01:19] that's their estimates and. Already. That is three, two and
[2:01:22] a half years old. Two years old. Those estimates. Okay,
[2:01:26] so it would be more than that. Okay. That's a
[2:01:28] lot of information. I appreciate you taking the time to
[2:01:31] explain all of that. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[2:01:34] Councilor C. McGregor, followed by councilor crew. Thank you. And
[2:01:39] through the mayor. In your report. I just want to
[2:01:42] go back to. The mention of a possible raw water,
[2:01:47] Wallaceburg being turned into raw water for greenhouses. Would that
[2:01:52] still not have to include pipeline towards dressed and or
[2:01:55] towards these greenhouses and. How would we? Well, how would
[2:01:59] we? At the price of running all those lines? Would
[2:02:05] be similar to running line from Chatham to Wallaceburg. How
[2:02:08] would we recoup that? From a greenhouse owner. I can
[2:02:11] see recuperating the water costs, but how do we recuperate.
[2:02:17] All the upkeep. And initially putting those water lines in,
[2:02:21] would that not be the responsibility of the municipality to
[2:02:24] do that to get it to that stage. Yeah, through
[2:02:26] you, Mr. Mayor. If this project. Two things I would
[2:02:31] recommend. If this project was just for greenhouses, then I
[2:02:37] would say the greenhouses should pay 100%. Of the cost.
[2:02:40] Now, they may say, we can't do that. We can't.
[2:02:43] Afford to do that. So then, if this is a
[2:02:45] priority for the province, the province may say, we think
[2:02:49] this is a priority and they could offer funding towards
[2:02:52] that. I think the maintenance. And operating of that system
[2:02:56] could be a private system. There are examples of that
[2:02:58] out there with the stellco example I gave. We put
[2:03:02] the infrastructure in as Hamilton and Stelco operated it, but
[2:03:07] I think the entire pipe the system, the treatment, the
[2:03:10] pumping would be the responsibility of greenhouses. If that was
[2:03:13] the case. But you may choose to operate it and
[2:03:15] charge them a fee. I don't know. I think the
[2:03:20] millions of dollars that are indicated in all these projects
[2:03:22] would make it very unfeasible for greenhouses to consider having
[2:03:28] to share that cost. But. The next question, and I
[2:03:33] have few. You talked about the escalating cost of the
[2:03:37] water treatment plant, and I think in our previous presentations,
[2:03:40] the POC I had asked this question about. Are not
[2:03:45] all the plants escalating in cost, and I think you
[2:03:48] confirmed that it's. Not just Wallaceberg, it's all of the
[2:03:50] plants. Escalating cost, so. If you're looking at communities such
[2:03:56] as Hamilton or Toronto that only have one plant, why
[2:04:00] would the recommendations not be to shut down all of
[2:04:03] the other plants and only have one mega plant and
[2:04:07] run new lines, which would be cost apparently a lot
[2:04:10] less than operating and running all of these other plants.
[2:04:14] Why would it not recommend, why would you not recommend
[2:04:17] lines to run to all other communities of Chatham Ken
[2:04:20] sure. Through you, Mr. Mayor. I think the key is.
[2:04:24] You're at a fork in the road, you're at a
[2:04:25] decision point with this. Plant. You may to the previous
[2:04:30] counselor's thought process. You may do that when you're at
[2:04:33] a fork in the road with those other plants as
[2:04:35] well. But right now, you're at a decision point. To
[2:04:40] spend roughly $200 million or to do something else. Which
[2:04:45] is potentially $100 million cheaper than that and reduces ongoing
[2:04:49] operating costs forever, as opposed to. So that's the impetus
[2:04:55] for this is the decision point that has to be
[2:04:57] made on Wallaceburg. And just one last question. Do you
[2:05:00] know what the land mass of the Hamilton scenario is.
[2:05:05] I don't duff the top. Do you know I worked
[2:05:06] there for ten years? I should. Know what the land
[2:05:08] mass of Chatham count is? I don't know. It is,
[2:05:11] I believe. Somewhere between 2000. Square kilometers. Which. Is probably
[2:05:18] why we have multiple. Treatment plans. Okay. Thank you. Thank
[2:05:23] you. Councilor crew. Thank you, Mayor Cana. Thanks, Jim, for
[2:05:29] the presentation. And I'm going to be very brief. I
[2:05:33] was going to ask about the greenhouses. So that's been
[2:05:35] answered. Thank you. But I just want to just historically.
[2:05:40] And I agree. We land on these committees and commissions
[2:05:44] and we learn as we go. Every single one of
[2:05:50] us. As we got elected, we were picked to go
[2:05:52] on committees. The committees. And commissions before us. They did
[2:05:57] the best they could. They were faced with challenging times,
[2:06:00] and a lot of times it was band aiding things?
[2:06:05] They were handed this large community in 1999 and called
[2:06:09] it Chatham Kent. Here we are. And now. We have
[2:06:12] all of these issues that were handed to us. So
[2:06:15] I just want to say that. The work that was
[2:06:19] done was no different than what we do sitting around
[2:06:21] this table. We do the best we can. And we
[2:06:24] learn as we go and we try to educate ourselves,
[2:06:28] and staff really tries hard to educate some people that
[2:06:32] sometimes. We don't know. A lot about the subject matters,
[2:06:36] and we try really hard. But I'd like to say
[2:06:39] that we've started to write the ship a bit. With
[2:06:42] the development charges and things like that that we've been
[2:06:45] working on. And these master plans. Is there a question?
[2:06:50] No. I did have a question. Yeah, you will have
[2:06:53] time. That's all. I don't. Have anything else to say,
[2:06:56] I'm done. With that. Any other questions? Of the consultant.
[2:07:04] Oh, sorry. Councilor Wright. Thank you, Mayor Cana through you.
[2:07:10] I guess they call it the Erie beach water treatment.
[2:07:13] Does that do? Chattom now in Blenham or what's that
[2:07:16] treatments out there? Yes. Did you want to answer that?
[2:07:30] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Darren Gullis, general manager Chad Pucant
[2:07:34] water treatment plant. It comes up as far as. From
[2:07:40] Blenham area over underneath the 401 and did Doyle line.
[2:07:44] That's as far as ease it goes, but if we
[2:07:46] ever get into situations in Chatham, we're going to. Take
[2:07:49] the water tower down for service whatnot. We actually bring
[2:07:52] chat and water. As far as Park Ave. And then
[2:07:55] obviously, right now, Self water treatment plan is assisting the
[2:08:00] water in Tilbury Wheatley as we speak. So that's usually
[2:08:04] where the water goes from. South african water treatment plant.
[2:08:07] It also services the Bloomfield Industrial Park. Originally, wasn't it
[2:08:13] designed to take to Ridgetown, too? Like that water treatment
[2:08:17] plan was? To go to Ridgetown originally. No, it was
[2:08:21] not. Okay. All right. Thank you. See no other questions
[2:08:27] to consultant. Now we will get the motion on the
[2:08:30] floor. Councilor sey. McGregor and councilor Anderson. Can I get
[2:08:32] you. It's on the floor for discussion. Please. Yes, I'll
[2:08:36] put it on the floor. And I will second. Okay.
[2:08:40] Councilor Sima. Gregor, go ahead. Thank you. Before we get
[2:08:45] to the recommendations. I would like to, at this point,
[2:08:49] make a motion that the recommendations be referred back to
[2:08:51] the PUC and the administration of Chatham, Kent until the
[2:08:54] following has been provided to council and I believe it
[2:08:58] might be coming up here. Number one, the creation of
[2:09:02] the joint POC and municipal group with the purpose of
[2:09:05] completing a joint servicing strategy that will include the new
[2:09:09] growth management policies and the recommendations of two, three, and
[2:09:13] four in the current recommendations in the report. Two the
[2:09:17] new growth management policies be adopted into the official plan
[2:09:22] as required by the obligations under the Planning act and
[2:09:24] the provincial Planning statement 2024, setting the direction about growth
[2:09:29] options and planning of the phasing of residential and nonresidential
[2:09:33] development in the primary and secondary urban centers and three.
[2:09:37] Engineering design that includes estimated capital costing after the completion
[2:09:42] of the service plan for the southwest quadrant. Of Chatham,
[2:09:44] Kent, which is currently in draft form. And for information
[2:09:48] in a combined PUC municipal report that includes engagement and
[2:09:52] consultation of the community of Wallsburg and affected surrounded areas.
[2:09:57] The consult. Consultation should include the advantages and disadvantages of
[2:10:00] no longer following the recommendations of the earlier studies. And
[2:10:04] EA's conducted. Between 2012 and 223. And the. Rehabilitational replacement
[2:10:12] of the water. Wallsproduct intake and the water Wallaceburg water
[2:10:19] treatment plant. And if I can get a seconder on
[2:10:25] that, I will explain my thoughts on this. Council McDonald.
[2:10:32] Sorry, Councilor Anderson, I ask you to second the original,
[2:10:35] so if you want. Yeah. I'm happy to put it
[2:10:38] on for I just have. A question, a couple of
[2:10:42] questions. Okay. So. My recommendations. One through four of
[2:10:51] the following. The first recommendation should be put on hold
[2:10:55] until further information. Can be provided to council. The second
[2:11:01] recommendation that I made in there is referring to the
[2:11:05] report provided to us last week. By Ryan jocks at
[2:11:08] our last meeting that addressed the urban boundaries in our
[2:11:11] communities. The report said it had completed the second of
[2:11:15] four phases, so this is still incomplete. The third recommendation
[2:11:20] addresses the need for. Information that we did not receive
[2:11:23] before setting our priorities for this term of council and
[2:11:27] the fourth addresses the multiple EA's and community engagement sessions
[2:11:32] that. Were being asked to now ignore the fifth recommendation
[2:11:38] in the report. It appears to me that Chatham count
[2:11:40] administration think we need an oversight committee of the already
[2:11:44] elected officials that currently represent the council. At the POC
[2:11:48] and personally. As chair. I find this kind of unusual.
[2:12:03] And as for, sorry, the 6th recommendation. I had to
[2:12:06] write this in because I missed that. When I wrote
[2:12:09] my notes. I see no reason that this can't continue
[2:12:13] without the approved motion that is required. But I am
[2:12:16] quite happy to have that act added in as a
[2:12:19] recommendation. Should another counselor wish to see? The recommendation regarding
[2:12:24] greenhouses added back in. In tonight's report. Provided to us
[2:12:30] by our chief financial officer, Gord Quentin. Noted the municipal
[2:12:34] vu consulting was hired. To review and prioritize the municipal
[2:12:39] water and wastewater projects. This report found misaligned growth priorities,
[2:12:44] coordinating coordination gaps, conflicting priorities, glaring infrastructure needs, and operational
[2:12:50] risks. I'm sure many of you noted Mr. Quentin was
[2:12:54] quoted in the media as saying, That the review also
[2:13:00] found that Chad and Kent's municipal administration and the public
[2:13:03] utilities commission have often operated independently and lack an undefined
[2:13:08] strategy for planning and delivering services like land use. Engineering
[2:13:13] and infrastructure investment. He's quoted as saying that the division
[2:13:17] has resulted in efficiencies. Missed collaboration opportunities. And inconsistent communication.
[2:13:24] Adding the future growth of Chatham, Kent and its finances
[2:13:27] require a unified plan. Moving forward to align priorities and
[2:13:32] expectations. The report presented to us tonight by municipal Vu
[2:13:38] Consulting says that it's discovered the water. And wastewater master
[2:13:42] plan does not account for the southwest quadrant of Chatham.
[2:13:47] A strategic growth area identified by council and that this
[2:13:51] was a strategic area identified by council. The report says.
[2:13:56] Its omission limits the municipality's ability to support development and
[2:13:59] meet housing and employment. Targets. The draft Southwest community servicing
[2:14:04] study outlines over 780,000,000 in infrastructure needs for phased growth,
[2:14:09] according to the report, in addition to another 975,000,000 already
[2:14:14] identified in the master plan. The report also identifies the
[2:14:18] lack of integration between the PUC and municipal administration with
[2:14:22] no. Shared capital prioritization or unified servicing strategies due to
[2:14:27] the aging infrastructure and high water loss. And incomplete sewer
[2:14:31] separation plans. For these reasons alone, these recommendations need to
[2:14:36] be referred back to the POC and CK administration. The
[2:14:41] PUC commissioners received this information less than a week ago.
[2:14:46] And it was only provided to council on Wednesday, one
[2:14:49] day prior to going to the public as counselors. We
[2:14:52] make pretty big decisions based on reports provided to us.
[2:14:57] We trust that the information we see is accurate. The
[2:15:01] presentation and the report both. State the southwest west quadrant
[2:15:07] as being one of the of councilor's majors priorities and
[2:15:11] looking back at, like, how do we trust the decision
[2:15:14] that we made making this a priority when we had
[2:15:17] not received all the correct information. I think I've said
[2:15:21] enough. But I'll conclude with. A few remarks at the
[2:15:27] end. If I can. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a
[2:15:32] reminder to all of council you had the opportunity to
[2:15:35] ask consultant. Questions. Now that there's a motion to refer
[2:15:38] on the floor, it strictly comments to that. Should that
[2:15:41] pass, we'll move on. If it fails, we'll go back
[2:15:44] to the original motion and have a conversation with regards
[2:15:46] to that. Hey. Questions regarding the referral. Okay, here we
[2:15:54] go. Keep your hands up. Just sorry. Councilor Anderson will
[2:16:03] be first. And then sakachi. Harrigan. All doyles.
[2:16:15] Okay. Go ahead, councilor Anderson thank you. Mr. Mary mine
[2:16:18] is very, very brief. I know that we have an
[2:16:20] obligation to have a master plan by July. I just
[2:16:22] wanted to make sure that we are not missing something
[2:16:25] here by going ahead with this motion or is this
[2:16:28] going to stop us? Progressing with certain things that we
[2:16:29] need to do. And I'm not sure who would be
[2:16:33] the best person. Gord, thanks. Thank you. The part that
[2:16:39] I referred to, the asset management plan requirements, is actually
[2:16:42] on the agenda later tonight. And sean. So this would
[2:16:47] be fine, or. This essentially, would this just take us
[2:16:51] back to status quo? I feel like we do need
[2:16:54] to move forward with the PUC, we do need to
[2:16:55] make significant changes. I definitely agree with that. We're definitely
[2:16:59] in a critical state where critical decisions need to be
[2:17:02] made. I guess, in a sense. The feeling that we
[2:17:06] have a lot of us as counselors, I think, and
[2:17:08] as commission, I may speak for all of us. I
[2:17:09] may not, but I think I probably sued for the
[2:17:11] majority. Of us when I say. Making really major decisions
[2:17:14] like this. We're kind of going on. The expertise of
[2:17:18] others, which is fine, so long as we've had our
[2:17:21] own time to process this. And if anything, some of
[2:17:25] us maybe feel like this is potentially a little bit
[2:17:27] rushed to take. In all of this information to make
[2:17:29] this drastic change. However, I'm not saying this isn't something
[2:17:32] that needs to be done. I guess I just want.
[2:17:36] The solidification that this is definitely. This request originally is
[2:17:41] supported by our administration and by the PC. So if
[2:17:45] I could comment. On the deferral. We, as the administration,
[2:17:54] do have concerns. Cost that are escalating very quickly.
[2:18:04] We moved. Even avian Wallsburg. We've moved from talking about
[2:18:07] a $40 million plant a decade ago to a $200
[2:18:10] million plant. There are significant. This may cause significant delays.
[2:18:17] If you're asking for another month. To report back at
[2:18:21] the July, July or August council meeting with more information
[2:18:24] around something. That would be a couple of month deferral.
[2:18:29] A couple of these items and perhaps Bruce should comment
[2:18:33] about the fisher plan and Edward about. The self servicing
[2:18:38] study. But both are in the works. But I wouldn't
[2:18:46] want to be delaying. Any. Significant amount of time, or
[2:18:51] else it's just going to mean that you're adding. To
[2:18:55] deed even larger rate increases at the puz in the
[2:18:59] future to pay for list. Remember this is all paid
[2:19:01] for by the water wastewater bill. Maybe Bruce. Thank you.
[2:19:08] And I guess. I'll just end my comments with I
[2:19:14] feel like we oftentimes have a difficult time making really
[2:19:18] drastic decisions around this table, especially when it's maybe going
[2:19:22] in a different direction. Than we had originally planned. And
[2:19:26] unfortunately, we are in that space where we do need
[2:19:29] to make some sort of drastic decision, or else we
[2:19:32] just continue going in this same place and we can't.
[2:19:34] Afford to keep going in this same place. Councilor Scotty,
[2:19:38] followed by councilor Harrigan. Thank you, Mary Kenneth. And through
[2:19:42] you I guess. Councilor Anderson just asked some of my
[2:19:45] questions, but I just need a little bit more. Clarity.
[2:19:50] So maybe Edward or Darren. How long is this? How
[2:19:53] long are we talking for this potential, this? Recommendation in
[2:19:57] this motion, and just maybe to Bruce, too. Is this
[2:20:01] going to affect any of our growth aspects or anything
[2:20:04] like that. I just don't know what the. I understand
[2:20:07] that number four. It's important, but. Just from a timeline
[2:20:10] perspective. Of all this stuff. Thank you, worship. Bruce McAuster,
[2:20:17] general manager, development services. Thanks, council, for your question. So
[2:20:23] I'll jump in number two and I'll probably. Defer to
[2:20:25] Edward on the other pieces here for the next. And
[2:20:28] Darren. But Ryan Jocks was mentioned earlier. Ryan's over here
[2:20:33] tonight as well, from our director. Of planning. He did
[2:20:36] have a presentation a couple of weeks ago. On where
[2:20:42] we're at with the growth management and growth options review
[2:20:46] in the proposed schedule. Essentially, we're hoping to be in
[2:20:49] front of council with his options by the end of
[2:20:52] this year. If we defer this, it's probably going to
[2:20:56] make that more difficult because one of the fundamental pieces.
[2:21:01] In evaluating where you want to grow. It's. Or expand
[2:21:05] a settlement area boundary is, can it be efficiently serviced
[2:21:09] with municipal services? And I don't know we can answer
[2:21:11] those questions till we get to this next step. To
[2:21:14] come back to council and say, here's where we should
[2:21:15] be growing, because we may ultimately not be able to
[2:21:19] afford it or if there's some servicing challenge that we
[2:21:22] can't foresee happening for 50 years. Why would we go
[2:21:26] grow in that direction versus another? Area. And then just
[2:21:30] in additional to Edward, I know that it's been delayed
[2:21:33] a little bit. But staff has also been working on
[2:21:36] the recreational master plan as well. And. My opinion is
[2:21:42] that it's probably going to have some significant asks in
[2:21:45] there, potentially. Is this something that you're looking at as
[2:21:48] well, from, like, a recreational master plan standpoint? As well,
[2:21:52] or is this something that's kind of a mute point
[2:21:53] when it comes? To that. Thank you through the mayor
[2:21:57] to the councilor Edward Soldo, general manager of infrastructure and
[2:22:01] engineering. Services. All the services we provide are linked. And
[2:22:06] so when I look at. Some of the recommendations out
[2:22:09] of our master plan. They require servicing. And if we
[2:22:14] don't have certainty? That some of those recommendations without servicing.
[2:22:22] We're really just pushing things back further and further. I'll
[2:22:26] comment on the item number three there. Engineering design includes
[2:22:30] estimated capital costing after the completion of Southwest servicing plan.
[2:22:35] The service plan for southwest quadrant. That plan right now
[2:22:38] is at a very high level. It's in draft. It'll
[2:22:42] take quite a bit of time just to complete high.
[2:22:44] Level cost estimates to do engineering design. We're talking about
[2:22:48] years before we come back and know those numbers. So
[2:22:53] what this is going to do is push back. Timeline
[2:22:57] for us to implement new growth areas like Bruce has
[2:23:01] talked about or implement any of the recommendations of the
[2:23:04] master plan that requires servicing. So, just to clarify, This
[2:23:11] isn't talking like this term of council. This is years.
[2:23:14] Then this is outside of. Our even, our even term
[2:23:17] and councilor story, I think, mentioned the word critical. So
[2:23:21] is this. Something that you find, if it passes, that.
[2:23:25] We are going to markets breach that critical point. I
[2:23:28] would say that this motion basically maintains Stasco with a
[2:23:32] lot of uncertainty for many years.
[2:23:48] Anything else? No, it's just a lot to just. It's
[2:23:55] a difficult decision. I mean, if it was a month
[2:23:57] or something. And I agree. With numbers. I understand. Councilor
[2:24:00] McGregor's number four for sure. If it was my community.
[2:24:02] I'd definitely be doing the exact same thing, but knowing
[2:24:05] that, like, years. How the consultant said about the cost
[2:24:08] associated with escalation and all that, and being critical in
[2:24:11] the challenges. It's difficult at this point. Thank you, Councilor
[2:24:17] Harrigan. Followed by councilor hall. Thank you. My questions are
[2:24:21] related to the impact of the referral to recommendation number
[2:24:25] one in the report and I had asked this question.
[2:24:29] Kind of to clarify what recommendation meant. So I believe
[2:24:33] this question through the mayor is to Edward. There are
[2:24:38] master plan project summary recommendations in green, for example, like
[2:24:41] state of good repair for wastewater treatment plans or wheatlead
[2:24:46] tilbury water supply improvements. Right. Like in the green, that
[2:24:48] was. Presented to us. The way that I read this
[2:24:52] motion is that we would also be pausing on what
[2:24:55] is in the green as well. But I wonder if
[2:24:57] those are already in our capital plans, like some of
[2:24:59] the state of good repair is just some capital improvements
[2:25:02] that we would make in order to keep our wastewater
[2:25:04] collection system in a state of good repair. I'm not
[2:25:07] sure if that was a question, actually. Do you interpret
[2:25:11] this motion as being that we would also not do
[2:25:14] what is in the green. What is in the report
[2:25:16] that is in the green. Maybe I'll go back to
[2:25:21] the original recommendations from the report that Gord wrote. They
[2:25:25] were developed. Number two, number three to start to move
[2:25:33] on projects, so we start to implement them, to design.
[2:25:36] And implement them. Specifically being the green ones. This one
[2:25:41] here. I'm not exactly sure how that would work compared
[2:25:47] to that. And I don't know if Darren has any
[2:25:51] comments on that. And perhaps it's to the. Mover. If
[2:25:57] she could comment to help me understand. Yes. Councilor C.
[2:25:59] McGregor, can you comment on the green ones that we're
[2:26:02] talking about. And yes. In looking at that. I can
[2:26:08] see. And through the report tonight. If somebody wanted to
[2:26:11] add that the recommendations, the green recommendations move forward during
[2:26:15] this period of time. I have no problem with that
[2:26:18] amendment into this motion. Is that something we can add?
[2:26:22] Is. Your recommendation. It could certainly be added into my
[2:26:26] recommendations. Even that this is being referred back. But number
[2:26:31] one could be incorporated into my recommendations. I have no
[2:26:35] problem with that. And even some of the other ones.
[2:26:38] And I've heard some discussion. There. These can be separated
[2:26:43] and voted on separately. If some people can understand. My
[2:26:48] mythology or what I'm thinking in some of these, but
[2:26:51] don't necessarily agree. With one or two, they could be
[2:26:53] separated out to as a vote. Yeah. Because my thought
[2:26:56] is perhaps the mover is wanting more information in order
[2:26:59] for us to make some decisions on what is currently
[2:27:01] in the yellow and the red categories, but what I
[2:27:04] see in the green are, like, operational things that we
[2:27:06] need to do. Right. There was a fire at the.
[2:27:08] Wheatley treatment plant. We've got to fix that. And we
[2:27:11] might as well fix that properly. However, and I will
[2:27:14] lean on the clerk. The first line of the original
[2:27:20] recommendation has Council affirming the prioritized project direction. As demonstrated
[2:27:25] in the municipal view, consulting. Is it a friendly amendment
[2:27:29] for me to ask for a friendly amendment to. Include
[2:27:36] in this referral. To proceed with the green category project
[2:27:40] as described in the report, which is just the bottom
[2:27:42] of the first recommendation. Because this is a new motion.
[2:27:46] You can put anything you would like in number one.
[2:27:50] So then. I would like to ask our mover and
[2:27:53] seconder if it's a friendly amendment. To include the line.
[2:27:58] That council proceed with the green category project as described
[2:28:02] in the report. I'm fine with that. Yes, definitely. And
[2:28:10] that's all I will contribute for now. Thank you. Councilor
[2:28:15] hall, followed by councilor story. Thank you, American. I couldn't
[2:28:23] agree more with councilor Sey McGregor's motion to defer. And
[2:28:27] fully support it. Decisions like this, with this magnitude and
[2:28:30] the change of strategic direction, we need to ensure that
[2:28:33] we have. All the details, all the proper information, and
[2:28:37] we need to ensure that the public is fully aware.
[2:28:39] Of these potential options. And I was thinking as well.
[2:28:43] I know it's in the motion to the neighboring communities.
[2:28:45] Definitely our neighboring community on wallpool. Island, First Nation I
[2:28:48] know a lot of well, pilot infers. Nation members live
[2:28:51] in Wallaceburg as well. The rest of my comments, I'd
[2:28:55] like to kind of wrap it around two streams of
[2:28:57] thought as well, so. First I recall covering this topic
[2:29:02] as a reporter prior to being on council, I think
[2:29:04] it was. Around the 2016 EA. I think I remember
[2:29:07] interviewing councilor Thompson when he was a fresh faced PUC
[2:29:10] member back in 2016. But I also recall the community
[2:29:15] of Wallaceburg not only having concerns, but coming out in
[2:29:19] droves. And attending public meetings, providing feedback, speaking passionately about
[2:29:23] maintaining the water source for the community. I also recall,
[2:29:26] as I was kind of alluded to tonight, basin part
[2:29:29] of. That. Really near unanimous feedback from the community that
[2:29:33] the preferred recommendation by the EA process that took place
[2:29:37] was changed due to the strong message, and the source
[2:29:40] was kept the same. So that's. Always been something that
[2:29:42] I've really held onto, that. And I've spoken with lots
[2:29:46] of people since I've been on council because I thought
[2:29:49] that was a true testament of how people's voices matter
[2:29:53] and how you can impact change at the municipal level.
[2:29:56] Another example is the community rallying to save the hospital
[2:29:59] in Wallsburg. That's another example that I've always used. So
[2:30:03] secondly, with this tonight, so. Fast forward to today, I
[2:30:07] really can't help but draw a comparison to a very
[2:30:10] real and active situation that we're dealing with right now
[2:30:13] in Dresden. The proposed dump. We've hired lawyers, we've rallied
[2:30:18] the community and our neighbors. We've infested taxpayer dollars. We're
[2:30:22] putting signs in our yards to defend Dresden. I have
[2:30:24] one. In my earth, and I believe in everything that
[2:30:27] we're doing with that. But at the end of the
[2:30:29] day. What are we hoping for besides it just going
[2:30:33] away? We're hoping for an EA process to take place.
[2:30:39] And why are we doing that? So that we can
[2:30:40] have our collective voices heard. The province is saying that
[2:30:45] there's some overarching issues and there's some other priorities and
[2:30:48] that the dump should happen anyway, regardless of what the
[2:30:51] community says. So we'll see what happens with that. But
[2:30:55] unfortunately. This sounds really similar to what we're being asked
[2:30:58] to do tonight. And it's really frustrating. But I wanted
[2:31:03] to illustrate that comparison, and I think really, it's contradictory
[2:31:06] tone. We have a lot of unanswered questions, as councilor
[2:31:10] McGregor alluded to. Our community, judging by zero deputations tonight.
[2:31:17] With this report. Thanks. Are you judging by the. Noted
[2:31:25] going into overtime. Judging by the zero deputations tonight, our
[2:31:30] community is not aware of this proposed new direction. So
[2:31:35] I believe that staying true to our council's strategic direction
[2:31:37] of being open and transparent, That points us to sending
[2:31:41] this issue back. So I'm hoping for council support for
[2:31:45] councilor. McGregor's motion. Thanks, Mary Kina. Councilor story, followed by
[2:31:50] Councilor Doyle. Thank you, Mayor cannoff. Really appreciate the discussion.
[2:31:59] Clearly, we all have very good questions, and this will
[2:32:02] likely be. One of the most important discussions we have
[2:32:07] in terms of this council term, in terms of the
[2:32:09] cost and the impact on the taxpayers. Because financially, if
[2:32:13] we don't do it, Our economic growth. And might suffer.
[2:32:19] And financially. If you don't do, we're going to suffer.
[2:32:21] But if we go. Ahead with it. It's a massive
[2:32:25] cost to our taxpayer as well. I am glad to
[2:32:29] see the deferral motion by Councilor McGregor. As the previous
[2:32:35] recommendation reports, that I was not comfortable supporting that as
[2:32:38] it was written and with councilor McGregor's amendments. I will
[2:32:43] be supporting that because. I also had a lot of
[2:32:47] unanswered questions from the first report. That based on the
[2:32:51] scale of what we're looking at, I didn't feel that.
[2:32:58] There isn't a clear financial recommendation in the first report
[2:33:03] for us to be transparent and accountable to our taxpayers
[2:33:06] to say what we are approving and why. And based
[2:33:10] on some of the counselors who are PUC representatives who
[2:33:14] have shared some concerns, I respect those concerns as well,
[2:33:18] including the chair. So. I think just a few quick
[2:33:24] questions. I'm not clear to councilor Sakagi and Anderson's point.
[2:33:29] I do appreciate the risk of delays. I am still
[2:33:34] not clear. On how getting this in internal information. Would
[2:33:42] potentially cost us years in terms of a time frame.
[2:33:45] That's where I'm still not clear because. I totally understand.
[2:33:49] We have a lot of moving parts with this. I'm
[2:33:52] sorry. I don't know who that question should be directed
[2:33:54] to, but I. Am still not clear on why this
[2:33:57] could potentially. Add more years to this process by getting
[2:34:02] the information that councilor McGregor has asked for. Through you,
[2:34:07] your worship. Maybe if I can ask Mr. Soldo just
[2:34:09] to give a bit more. Detail on number three, for
[2:34:12] instance. Right. That's the engineering design piece that includes. An
[2:34:19] estimated capital costing so. Unless I'm interpreting it wrong. I
[2:34:22] think that's saying that you've got to do the engineering
[2:34:25] design, which cost a lot of money. So I think
[2:34:29] part of the delay is probably. Raising the funds to
[2:34:33] do that and then also. The time frame associated with
[2:34:37] the work. But maybe, Mr. Solder, you can give a
[2:34:39] bit more. Idea about why. You said it would cost
[2:34:41] years, take years. Thank you. Mayor this year is correct.
[2:34:49] If it's the wording that's there. Engineering design that includes
[2:34:52] estimated capital cost. Right now we're doing a servicing plan.
[2:34:57] We would have to do yays. We actually, actually have
[2:35:00] to do engineering. Mostly you're aware, around the table, that
[2:35:03] takes. One to three to four years. That's why. The
[2:35:08] way that that motion is written right now, that is
[2:35:10] problematic to come back and then that sort of a
[2:35:13] short time frame. Sorry. Councilor Sima Gregory. You're looking for
[2:35:21] some clarification. From what Mr. Nolo said. Yes, I realized
[2:35:26] that. Sorry. And it's just clarification. On his remarks, but
[2:35:30] I thought by adding. The green category. Priorities. Back into
[2:35:35] this. The yellow and the red. Were like five to
[2:35:38] ten years out, and the other were possibly not. Due.
[2:35:42] So if we add the green categories back in, Which.
[2:35:48] Has been added back to or added into my motion
[2:35:50] here. We're going to be in that timeline regardless. If
[2:35:57] we're looking at getting information for. The other. Recommendations that
[2:36:04] are in the previous, so I'm not quite understanding why
[2:36:07] it's going to take that period of time if we're
[2:36:09] going to move forward with the green category. Projects. If
[2:36:14] I can, you worship. That would be helpful. It may
[2:36:18] be that. The operative sentence there, the first one that
[2:36:21] says the recommendations be referred back to the puc. So
[2:36:24] perhaps. The mover might consider that it would be the.
[2:36:30] Are you talking about the yellow and red? Recommendations, then,
[2:36:32] because if you add the language that I think was
[2:36:34] proposed, By Councilor Harrigan. Then that would help because it's
[2:36:40] still there. It still says engineering design, and it BASICALLY
[2:36:43] says that their recommendations be referred back until. So that
[2:36:46] would mean none of this can be done. Until all
[2:36:48] that design work is done. So that's where I think
[2:36:51] the confusion came in. Again. I don't want to speak
[2:36:54] for the planners and engineers. Maybe they can jump in.
[2:36:56] If they think I'm mistaken. But if you clarify that.
[2:37:01] The yellow and red recommendations are the ones that would
[2:37:03] be referred back. Until some additional work can be done.
[2:37:07] I'd be still interested in hearing from Mr. McAllister. Or
[2:37:11] Ryan jocks, just in terms of how that impacts the
[2:37:15] rest of it. But that would help, because at least
[2:37:19] it means that we can move ahead with the green
[2:37:21] stuff, which I know. Was your intent. But with that
[2:37:23] language there still in paragraph number three, that's where I
[2:37:26] think we're looking at a couple of years and a
[2:37:28] lot of money to get engineering. Design done. Mr. So.
[2:37:33] Is that okay, councilor? And that wasn't my intent to
[2:37:36] cause years of issues here. For the engineering department. If
[2:37:41] it's clearer for administration that the recommendations of the yellow
[2:37:46] and red categories from the report be referred back to
[2:37:50] the P and I put the PoC and the. Administration
[2:37:54] of Chatham, Kent, because I think the creation of that
[2:37:57] group, and that's in the group that's going to be
[2:37:59] formed, say, the CK flow or whatever needs to be
[2:38:01] a combination of both Puc and municipality together so that.
[2:38:07] Any so that we don't have. Continued. Misunderstandings. Between. The
[2:38:17] two, so. If it makes it easier and better understood.
[2:38:22] That the recommendations of the yellow and red categories be
[2:38:25] referred back to the PUC and to the municipality administration.
[2:38:31] Mr. Soto may want to add to that, I have
[2:38:33] an appreciation. Thank you. Through Mr. Mary just for clarity,
[2:38:36] the green does not include any projects in southwest servicing
[2:38:40] area. So if you are intending to. Have growth along
[2:38:47] the Bloomfield corridor. If you're intending to implement some of
[2:38:50] the recreational master plan recommendations. That would not be included
[2:38:57] in this, and we would not be able to move
[2:38:58] forward with those areas. I would also say that if
[2:39:02] council's direction is to move forward with the green, then.
[2:39:07] You would most likely want to include the recommendations from
[2:39:11] the original port numbers two and three because without that
[2:39:15] staffing, we cannot move forward with the green projects either.
[2:39:18] No, I'll be flexible and remove the words engineering design
[2:39:21] if that makes it better for you. But the capital
[2:39:25] cost and the completion after the. Service plan, the southwest
[2:39:29] quadrant. It needs to come back to this council so
[2:39:31] we understand what those dollars are. So far. From what
[2:39:36] I read in the report, like, we're over $780,000,000. Of
[2:39:42] costing. Of servicing water and wastewater to the southwest water
[2:39:47] that everybody wants to move forward with. I think we're
[2:39:50] entitled to that information and those costs before those decisions
[2:39:53] are made. So, like, if you want to take out
[2:39:57] engineer design from number three, So that it includes capital
[2:40:01] costing. I'm sorry. I can't make decisions. And decides of
[2:40:11] these decisions that come back to council. Mr. Solo, does
[2:40:15] that help if we take that out? Because. I don't
[2:40:19] think the looking to do is stop the initial progress
[2:40:22] on it, on those. Things. But ultimately, when we start
[2:40:25] getting down to. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars.
[2:40:29] That's when we want the approval we're going to need
[2:40:31] to do some of that. So that's why I was
[2:40:32] going. To ask the general question is. What can we
[2:40:36] do? The yellow and red, that's the big issue of
[2:40:38] saying we need. To look at it more. But. We
[2:40:42] collectively don't want to stop the progress and wait two
[2:40:45] years to start that process. So that's we're looking here.
[2:40:48] I think that councilor Sema Greger. Is trying to find
[2:40:52] that median that we can move on with everything, but
[2:40:55] we really need to. Have a better business case for
[2:40:58] the yellow and the red, and I think that's ultimately
[2:41:00] what the report saying is we need a better business.
[2:41:02] Case to say, what are we going to do with
[2:41:04] those cases? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just for clarity. It
[2:41:11] was always the intention of staff and the PUC to
[2:41:14] come back to council and the PUC with the results
[2:41:18] of the servicing plan, and that's why it's not. Actually
[2:41:21] included in any of the recommendations in the first report.
[2:41:26] In the motion here. So you don't see the southwest
[2:41:28] servicing plan on any of the recommendations that Gore is
[2:41:31] put forward. It's always our intention to follow the process
[2:41:34] and come back. With those costs to council at a
[2:41:38] future date. But. The recommendations in the original report, says
[2:41:43] council affirm the proprietary project direction as demonstrated in the
[2:41:47] municipal vu. Consulting, Inc. Water and wastewater Plan review. And
[2:41:54] direct the Chatham Kent public utilities. It says to proceed
[2:41:57] with the green categories, but it also says to support
[2:42:00] the priorities of that report. And those priorities are. To
[2:42:05] then adopt. The scenario of the yellow and the red.
[2:42:16] So again, maybe for further clarity, The green, the yellow
[2:42:20] and the red speak to the existing. Puc master plan.
[2:42:24] They do not speak to the servicing plan. Yes, they
[2:42:27] do, but you can. Also not understand. What the cost
[2:42:33] is for servicing the southwest quadrant without including those costs
[2:42:38] to us to be able to understand what's being asked
[2:42:40] for us in the original recommendations. At the end of
[2:42:44] the day. It's going to come back to the public.
[2:42:51] It was council's direction, and if we don't understand. What
[2:42:56] our direction that we're voting on. Clearly. Then. It shouldn't
[2:43:03] be considered council direction. Yes. So the yellow and the
[2:43:09] red are the contentious issues. I guess we'll get back.
[2:43:12] To. What are the barriers? Councilor sey McGregor's motion. What
[2:43:19] is in here that stops? You from at least exploring
[2:43:22] those options and coming back to council eventually with those
[2:43:25] costs. I don't think the intention of this is to
[2:43:28] stop. That is to say. Hang on. Here. We don't
[2:43:31] want to commit to the yellow and the right. We
[2:43:33] need to look. More. I think we all agree we
[2:43:35] need to look at all those. I think we're really
[2:43:39] getting hung up with the wording here. That we could
[2:43:42] talk online about that, but just. I think that's. Correct
[2:43:45] me wrong that's. The premise that we're looking at is
[2:43:47] saying, let's look at all this other stuff. We commit
[2:43:49] to the green, but don't stop the movement of figuring
[2:43:52] out. What's best in yellow and red categories. Is that
[2:43:54] a good summary? I guess with. That. Mr. Dubin, is
[2:44:01] there anything we can change in here? That opens that
[2:44:05] door for you? Because I think we're all saying the
[2:44:07] same thing collectively. But just in a different fashion. Yeah,
[2:44:12] I think. Thank you, your worship. I appreciate the clarification.
[2:44:16] About the green, yellow and red, and I think we
[2:44:18] all get that now. And I'm appreciative that there seems
[2:44:20] to be some support subject to a vote for the
[2:44:23] green. I think the part that's missing. In this new
[2:44:27] set of recommendations is how is it going to be
[2:44:30] done? The recommendations that were in Gord's report talked about
[2:44:35] creating a group and probably coming back to council with
[2:44:38] a proposal on how much it's going to cost to
[2:44:40] do some of this work. I think that's part of
[2:44:42] what is missing in this one. And the challenge is
[2:44:46] the way that it's worded. Even with the amendments you
[2:44:48] talked. About. It says the yellow and red recommendations be
[2:44:54] referred back to the PUC and the admin. Until the
[2:44:56] following has been provided to council. So we have to
[2:44:59] do all this stuff, but I. Don't think we have
[2:45:01] the assets to do the stuff and. I think Mr.
[2:45:05] Quinton wanted to speak to that. Those were a couple
[2:45:08] of recommendation of Mr. Quinton's report that are missing. In
[2:45:12] years, council, and I get it. That's not really. Actually,
[2:45:14] that is what number one addresses. It's the joint PuC
[2:45:18] municipal. I didn't. Call it flow CK, but that's what
[2:45:21] that is. You can call it whatever you want to
[2:45:23] call it. My recommendation is a joint PUC municipal group
[2:45:28] with the purpose of creating that joint servicing strategy. Which.
[2:45:34] Then goes to that recommendation of the flow CK. It's
[2:45:40] the same intent. Maybe Mr. Clinton. I know he had
[2:45:43] something to add that will be helpful. You do fill
[2:45:46] the floor. We're just trying to clarify this. Thank you.
[2:45:49] I think we're all getting to the same place. That's
[2:45:55] what the original recommendations was to do, move forward with
[2:45:59] the greens. Because. We haven't done the engineering designs for
[2:46:07] the greens yet. There's been some. Yays. And. Some plans
[2:46:12] started, but we need to get those things going. We
[2:46:15] put them on hold for additional six months to have
[2:46:17] municipal view do the work that came here tonight. So
[2:46:21] those need to get going? The yellow and reds need
[2:46:27] to be studied and whether it's with the flow cc
[2:46:30] group. Or the PUC. And I know we had government
[2:46:33] discussions and everything else tonight, but I think we're really
[2:46:37] getting to the same place that we need further study.
[2:46:41] When you're talking about the Wallaceburg, there's no decision on.
[2:46:46] What? Tonight on where we're going with Wallsburg. It's saying.
[2:46:52] Just to stop. And take another look. Sorry. Just to
[2:46:56] try and wrap this up, because we'll at least get
[2:46:59] this because I. Think we're saying the same thing. And
[2:47:01] if there's nothing in here, that is. Like from Edward
[2:47:04] or Bruce. Or from Gore to say, oh, this is
[2:47:08] a showstopper. We can still continue on what we're doing,
[2:47:10] because I think we're saying the same thing just in
[2:47:12] a different motion. And I'll let rail speak out, but
[2:47:16] I think. Unless I see anybody saying there's something there
[2:47:20] that. This stops us in our tracks from doing this.
[2:47:25] Sorry. Point of order. I do believe that Edward did
[2:47:29] say it does stop any progression of anything. That's why
[2:47:33] I want to get. To specifically, where in here does
[2:47:35] that stop it? And that's why I was trying to.
[2:47:37] Find that ramp. To say so is there something, Edward,
[2:47:42] in here that when you go through, you need to
[2:47:45] do? The studies or something because we've taken out. Engineering
[2:47:49] design. Thank you, Mr. I would suggest. That be removed.
[2:47:58] Because it speaks to the southwest quadrant. We have a
[2:48:03] process in place. We'll come back. To council as we
[2:48:05] follow through that process. It's not referred to any of
[2:48:09] these. And what's missing in this motion is items two
[2:48:13] and three. Of the original recommendations that tells us, as
[2:48:19] CIOs indicate, how we're going to actually implement these. So
[2:48:23] I'll go back to the mover then on those things
[2:48:26] that Edward just mentioned. Viewership. Can I make a suggestion?
[2:48:32] Certainly. If the move is okay. And I apologize. We
[2:48:39] have had an emergency situation, so I've had to get
[2:48:41] up a few times. If the mover is okay with
[2:48:45] it. I think we all agree that three, four years
[2:48:48] delay or multiple years delay is too much. It seems
[2:48:50] to me that we're pretty close. And I hear from
[2:48:53] councilor McGregor and the seconder and some of the folks
[2:48:57] who've. Made suggestions. I think we're pretty close to language
[2:49:00] that probably everybody can agree to, and I don't like
[2:49:04] having a discussion in the public suggesting that we're fighting
[2:49:07] with our counselors. We're not. We're all trying to reach
[2:49:08] a common place. I know we. Have another meeting coming
[2:49:11] up. I think we can work with councilor McGregor on
[2:49:15] language that would be more comfortable for everybody. I'd like
[2:49:19] to do that behind the scenes so that we can
[2:49:21] then bring something forward. Because I think we're all saying
[2:49:24] the same thing. We have a situation we need to
[2:49:26] address it. The green ones. I know you haven't voted,
[2:49:29] but I'm going to go out on a limb. And
[2:49:31] say the green ones are something that most people want
[2:49:33] to get done, and we have to work out the
[2:49:35] wording. I can tell you staff have no objection to
[2:49:37] the language about the engagement and consultation. That's something we
[2:49:40] would do anyway, so I appreciate that both councilors. Have
[2:49:43] spoken to that. So if it's okay to just. Somebody
[2:49:47] would bring a motion to. Just defer this to the
[2:49:48] next. Meeting, and we can work with councilor McGregor and
[2:49:52] the secondary to get some language that I think? Will
[2:49:55] reach meet our needs. Is that good with you as
[2:49:59] the mover to defer to the next meeting and come?
[2:50:02] Back with something that works, because this is a pretty
[2:50:05] complicated issue, and I like to make sure that we
[2:50:06] get it right. We're talking about potentially a billion dollars
[2:50:09] here. So if we have to wait a few weeks
[2:50:12] to get to our next meeting. I don't think that's.
[2:50:14] Going to be the end of the world, but I
[2:50:16] would like to make sure that. Your concerns are taking
[2:50:19] care of the second or. But I think we're pretty
[2:50:21] close to having the right wording. And if that's what
[2:50:26] everybody. If I can see some heads shaking around here,
[2:50:28] if everybody's. Happy with that. To move to the next
[2:50:31] meeting to come up with better language. Then certainly I
[2:50:37] will. Put this on hold to refer this to the
[2:50:41] next meeting. For voting. You're moving that? Councilor Anderson, will
[2:50:47] you second that? I will, so long as. There's ample
[2:50:52] time for councilor McGregor and I to have the conversations
[2:50:55] that we need. To have with the administration, with the
[2:50:57] POC to come to common grounds so that when we
[2:51:00] do come back to council. There's some confidence in what
[2:51:06] we're bringing to them so that we hopefully don't get
[2:51:08] in this situation again. Where we are kind of all
[2:51:12] going back and forth and not having an understanding. I
[2:51:14] just want. To make sure we are all very clear
[2:51:16] when we do come back. I see there's three weeks,
[2:51:19] and I think we're pretty close collectively. As I look
[2:51:21] around, seeing the head, shaking and things that I think
[2:51:24] were there. It's just the wording. I hate sitting here
[2:51:28] trying to word Smith that we miss. Something that's so
[2:51:31] critical with what we're looking at. So with that. Sorry.
[2:51:35] Anything. Other comments sorry, counselor, story still has the floor
[2:51:39] from this and councilor story, and then. I did have
[2:51:43] councilor Thompson as well. Thank you, councilor. Thank you, Maricana.
[2:51:47] Yeah, I. Appreciate all the discussion. That's why I asked
[2:51:49] the question about the timing, because there obviously is some.
[2:51:53] We haven't quite landed on that. I don't know if
[2:51:56] my questions are if we're differing all of this, that
[2:51:59] there's a point in asking them, but maybe I'll just
[2:52:00] quickly ask. So if. We're deferring this council. McGregor's motion.
[2:52:07] Are we going back to the original or that is
[2:52:08] also not going to be discussed. So it's also off
[2:52:10] the table for tonight. Yes, the wording would be similar
[2:52:13] to what we have. On whether we're contemplating there, but
[2:52:18] to modify it accordingly. I think my only just two
[2:52:22] questions to that, then. In terms of the growth study
[2:52:27] versus the servicing with the southwest quadrant at our last
[2:52:31] meeting, when Ryan presented that detailed update about our growth
[2:52:35] area. Like the areas of growth. In our cross municipality.
[2:52:40] Is this a chicken and the egg? Type approach. Where?
[2:52:43] Why would we even be talking about growth in the
[2:52:45] southwest quadrant? In isolation of infrastructure needs in the southwest
[2:52:52] Crotch. And I guess maybe. I still being a first
[2:52:55] term counselor? I'm learning a lot as I go, but
[2:52:57] I guess I perhaps assume that servicing needs are included
[2:53:02] in discussions about growth. In our community, so. The piece
[2:53:08] about why that was not addressed in other POC plans
[2:53:11] is, I think, for another discussion but should be addressed.
[2:53:14] But I think in terms of what we already have
[2:53:16] discussed, even in the last council meeting. To councilor McGregor's
[2:53:21] point. I don't see how we can't do one without
[2:53:23] the other. Or is it a chicken in the egg
[2:53:25] thing? How can we talk about. Growth in the southwest
[2:53:27] quadrant and approve that by their last meeting and then
[2:53:30] say we can't. Talk about the infrastructure needs of that.
[2:53:32] To me, that was all part of the same discussion.
[2:53:37] But perhaps. I am not understanding that correctly. Is it
[2:53:40] a chicken in the egg thing? We can't have one
[2:53:42] without the other or. We can't do the one first
[2:53:44] and then the other second, or we've got. To do
[2:53:45] it all together. We're going to ask Mr. Jogg to
[2:53:49] come up and given the reference to sorry. I think
[2:53:52] this is a question we can do with this, because
[2:53:54] we can discuss this the next motion. We have that
[2:53:56] because we're starting into details. It's just we're going to
[2:53:59] post. I really want to focus on just postponing it
[2:54:02] to next meeting. We will have another. Thing. Yes. So
[2:54:07] we are just saying we need to have some time
[2:54:10] to reword that, so. We can come back with that
[2:54:12] motion, and then we'll start again fresh. Everybody have their
[2:54:15] opportunity to speak to it, et cetera, at that point.
[2:54:17] So, Councilor Thomas, is there anything you want to say
[2:54:19] about this? Yes. Just real quickly. And I appreciate all
[2:54:23] the conversation that's. Gone on around the table. One thing
[2:54:25] that has kind of become. Clear to me is that
[2:54:28] this isn't only a Wallaceburg issue. This is very much
[2:54:30] a Chatham, Kent issue that has wide ranging impacts. And
[2:54:35] going back to number four, that's not up there anymore.
[2:54:37] And I appreciate it, because I think you're right, Mr.
[2:54:39] Mayor. When we word Smith this on the floor. It
[2:54:42] gets really awkward and difficult, so I'm glad. It's going
[2:54:44] back, but I would like to see. The consultation expanded
[2:54:48] beyond the borders of Wallaceburg to include all of Chattakan.
[2:54:52] That's the only thing I would like to add. My
[2:54:53] two cent. Okay. Councilor hall. Yeah, thank you. Quick question.
[2:55:00] Considering that this report. Is going to be pushed to
[2:55:03] the next meeting. I just want to confirm that new
[2:55:05] deputations. Will be able to be submitted for that item
[2:55:09] on that day. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. With the
[2:55:13] new motions coming forward, we want to be transparent and
[2:55:15] give the public an opportunity to speak to those. So,
[2:55:17] yes. It would be. Deputations would be available. Okay, final
[2:55:21] words. Councilor Anderson. Then councilor. C. McGregor. Anything quickly on
[2:55:24] this? Thank you. And through you. I think that I'll
[2:55:32] just state again that I feel like. We're in this
[2:55:36] position because. We have a really difficult time making. Difficult
[2:55:41] decisions as council, and it's because we care so much.
[2:55:46] But ultimately us not making really difficult decisions and continuously
[2:55:50] referring things back is the exact reason that we're in
[2:55:54] this position, and if we continuously continue to send things
[2:55:57] back and send things back and not get things done.
[2:55:59] And not get things done. It's just going to be
[2:56:02] exactly as it was before. 40 minutes, million dollar project
[2:56:05] becomes a 200 million dollar project. A $30 million project
[2:56:09] of the civic center becomes a $54 million product. If
[2:56:13] we continuously kick the can down the road and we
[2:56:15] don't make these really tough. Decisions. We're just going to
[2:56:18] keep having to make tougher and tougher decisions. Thank you,
[2:56:22] councilor C. McGregor, anything. Thank you. And, yeah. I didn't
[2:56:27] have pages of follow up comments out after this, but
[2:56:31] I do want to pull one little piece out of
[2:56:33] this, and it's actually. In our report of 18 a
[2:56:38] that is coming next, the core detailed asset management plan.
[2:56:43] And it states in there that. Challenges for the asset
[2:56:47] management plan. One of the challenges. Input from the public
[2:56:50] will strive to include public input to ensure chatim Kent
[2:56:54] is responsive to community needs, and under continuous improvements, it
[2:56:58] says, improve public trust, demonstrating improvement and responsiveness builds public
[2:57:03] confidence in how service decisions are made and justified. So
[2:57:09] I'll leave it with that. And hopefully. That will. With
[2:57:17] that. Put it to vote. Councilor Rondi. Yes. And councilor
[2:57:23] b. Mcgregor. Yes. All votes are in motion. Passes 17
[2:57:30] to zero.
[2:57:44] Item 17, development services. 17 eight Chatham Ken Community Improvement
[2:57:51] plan property tax increment equivalent grant for 100 King Street
[2:57:55] Holdings, Inc. Councilor story and councilor juvenile, can you put
[2:58:00] this in the floor, please? Certainly so moved. And seconded
[2:58:05] councilor story and then councilor Junville. Thank you, mayor. Cannoff.
[2:58:09] I just had a couple of questions. Certainly this property
[2:58:12] has a strong public interest. And I did get some
[2:58:16] questions from constituents. So these are questions. Coming to me
[2:58:20] from the community. Certainly. Very interested and excited to see
[2:58:26] what's happening at the downtown Chatham center. I think the
[2:58:30] investment by the private developers who own the site is
[2:58:34] to be commended. And certainly welcome their investment to improve
[2:58:40] that part of downtown 100%. I think there's a couple
[2:58:44] of questions that there might be. Some information at public
[2:58:48] that is not accurate as to what this actually means.
[2:58:52] So I have some questions that came in from the
[2:58:53] public that might help clear some of that up. Just
[2:58:56] to give you a bit of background. So. Any business.
[2:59:01] Is it correct that any business owner who owns a
[2:59:04] brick and mortar building in Chatham can apply for the
[2:59:07] CIP and for tax relief. And is that always 100%
[2:59:12] tax relief? And always for ten years, or are there
[2:59:15] other options within that framework? Thank you, worship. Ruth McAllister,
[2:59:21] general manager, development services. Again. I'll start with answering some
[2:59:27] of these programs. I think I can address most, but
[2:59:31] I may rely on some other members of staff here
[2:59:34] as well. But to this particular question, yes, the CIP
[2:59:38] program is certainly open to everyone, and there are several
[2:59:42] programs offered within our CIP. We're specifically talking about the
[2:59:46] property tax. Program tonight. Some incentives within the program are
[2:59:52] limited to the type of use that's being proposed. And
[2:59:58] sometimes it's based on location as well. So some of
[3:00:01] the programs only apply to our defined downtown areas. For
[3:00:04] instance is one example. And not all projects are eligible
[3:00:09] for ten years. That was actually amended a couple of
[3:00:11] years ago. Based on the first iteration of our CIP
[3:00:15] from 2020. So some are now limited to five, depending
[3:00:19] on. What is the estimated eligible cost or construction value?
[3:00:27] And by project type, for instance, as well. Thanks, Bruce.
[3:00:32] Okay. I appreciate that. Additional information. I know I've seen
[3:00:36] the report that the CIP was put into place to
[3:00:39] target investment in rental and affordable housing, commercial business growth
[3:00:43] and employment growth. Does that include market rate rentals? And
[3:00:47] do we know if there are any rental or affordable
[3:00:50] housing units being planned for this site. Thank you, you,
[3:00:54] worship. So the CIP does still offer incentives for apartment
[3:01:01] dwellings at market rate. That was changed. To. It's ten
[3:01:06] years, but it's now 70%. A year is rebated. Back
[3:01:10] versus 100% in the previous iteration of the program. And
[3:01:14] by apartments. Those are apartments. Over 50 dwelling units. And
[3:01:19] affordable dwelling unit. Affordable housing is incented up to ten
[3:01:22] years now as well, and that can be anything. Five
[3:01:26] units. Or more. In this particular. There's not a residential
[3:01:34] component. In this phase of the development we're talking about
[3:01:36] here tonight. It's all commercial or employment type uses. Okay.
[3:01:42] Thank you. Can you expand a little bit? On. What
[3:01:46] commercial and major employment type use is. Is that new
[3:01:51] businesses going in or existing businesses moving from elsewhere in
[3:01:54] the community or what? That looks like. Thank you. Yes,
[3:01:58] thank you. So those terms are all defined within the
[3:02:01] community improvement program specifically. So commercial uses. Are the use
[3:02:08] of land, building or structure for a purpose of buying
[3:02:10] or selling commodities, essentially, or supplying. Of services is distinguished
[3:02:16] from employment uses, which can mean. Generally industrial uses, but
[3:02:21] also means offices, business support services, call centers, scientific research
[3:02:25] facilities, warehouses or other types of similar uses. So in
[3:02:30] this case, it's a combination of both. In a major
[3:02:35] project. As defined as anything. With over $10 million worth
[3:02:40] of eligible costs or estimated construction value. And that's the
[3:02:45] requirement up front on our application. That the applicant provide
[3:02:48] us with what their estimated eligible costs are, they have
[3:02:51] to do the same. For any building permits as well,
[3:02:54] because that's what the building permit fee is based on.
[3:02:57] Okay. And so that doesn't come into play until after.
[3:03:02] They're finished. Building. The building like renovations of the site.
[3:03:07] I think I'm a little curious. Maybe. Perhaps not clear
[3:03:09] in the timeline why we would. Be approving this now
[3:03:13] versus when they are finished. So thank you, you, worship.
[3:03:20] No grants are paid out until after all projects are
[3:03:22] finished, just to be clear on that. So we're really
[3:03:25] talking about eligibility. We issue eligibility letters saying based on
[3:03:30] what you provided, you to be eligible for this. The
[3:03:33] property tax grant is the one program that does come
[3:03:36] to council for approval. That's defined. There's other ones that
[3:03:38] are smaller grants. That have been delegated to council, like
[3:03:42] facades or building and planning. Building fee rebate. Incentives as
[3:03:49] well. So this is basically the applicant. Has given you
[3:03:55] notice that once they're finished the project, they will be
[3:03:59] applying for this. No. Sorry. Maybe just for further clarification,
[3:04:03] your worship. So they are applying for the CIP. Eligibility.
[3:04:07] We're asking council to endorse that if they meet all
[3:04:10] the thresholds. Finish the project work within two years. That's.
[3:04:18] One of. The stipulations in the CIP from the time
[3:04:21] of this approval tonight. That has to be completed within
[3:04:25] two years. And then. Impact will reassess. Based on the
[3:04:33] construction that's happened. Potentially. We assume it will go up
[3:04:37] to some extent. And if they meet all those requirements,
[3:04:42] they would be eligible. Every year a proponent pays all
[3:04:47] their taxes. If they meet other requirements after that first
[3:04:51] year, we'll rebate back. Just the incremental. Portion of the
[3:04:53] municipal taxes. So for clarity, for everyone. Everyone does pay
[3:04:59] their current base tax, so whatever the mall is paying
[3:05:02] now will continue to pay. This is really just a
[3:05:05] matter. If there's an increase in assessment, they would get
[3:05:08] that. Rebate over the ten years after impact reassessments. Thanks,
[3:05:12] Bruce. So they're applying now to. Have that come into
[3:05:15] play when they're finished. Ideally, if they finish the building
[3:05:21] in the next two years. Correct. Okay. And also, to
[3:05:26] be clear, they are paying taxes now. But if the
[3:05:32] value of the property goes up, which I'm sure it
[3:05:34] will, because they are investing clearly a substantial amount to
[3:05:37] improve it. If the value of the building goes out
[3:05:40] or the property goes up. The difference of that will
[3:05:45] be the relief they receive. They will still be paying
[3:05:49] taxes the entire time. Thank you, worship. That is correct.
[3:05:52] And that's. Really? What a Cip is designed to do
[3:05:56] in this fashion is to incent somebody, to reinvest. Especially
[3:06:02] in the downtown cores. And the tax break is really.
[3:06:07] On that level of reinvestment that. They would be reassessed
[3:06:11] going forward, so it's too early to say. How many
[3:06:15] tax dollars would be provided. Yes. At this point, we
[3:06:22] don't know that for sure. Until impact as a reassessment.
[3:06:25] Okay. And does that part come back to council? No,
[3:06:29] we generally don't come back to council after the fact.
[3:06:33] Councilor storage. You have a lot, Mark. I've given you
[3:06:36] some leniency. Given? That there's questions and answers. Sure. No,
[3:06:39] I appreciate that leniency, Mr. Mayor. And I think that
[3:06:42] wraps up my question. There's just some misinformation, I think.
[3:06:45] In the public, so I wanted to be clear on
[3:06:46] what some of that looked like. So thank you for
[3:06:49] your flexibility on that. Thank you, Bruce. Mr. Duba. Yeah.
[3:06:54] So just on the last question about does that come
[3:06:55] back to council? Mr. McAllister is right that it doesn't
[3:06:58] come back to council specifically on that piece. Of property,
[3:07:01] because by then it's too late. But what I would
[3:07:04] anticipate is staff would give updates on the success of
[3:07:07] the Cip. We can't really do that now because of
[3:07:10] the fact that the province hasn't. Done their impact reassessment,
[3:07:13] so. It wouldn't be very valid, but I'm hoping that
[3:07:16] in about ten years time, which is when some of
[3:07:18] these buildings that came online. 2019 2021 this property, we
[3:07:25] will be able to assess how. Much investment has occurred
[3:07:30] and how much increase in property values has occurred because
[3:07:33] of our CIP. Plan so councils in the future will
[3:07:36] get a far better idea of how successful this is.
[3:07:38] We know it's going to be successful. We just don't
[3:07:40] have a number to give. You. So this property and
[3:07:42] all the properties that you approve will come forward at
[3:07:45] some point once. We're in a position to give you
[3:07:47] updates. On the impact it's had on taxes. We won't
[3:07:50] know that in the case. Well, five year ones we
[3:07:53] could probably do soon, but the ten year ones we
[3:07:55] wouldn't. Be able to do in. Ten years of it
[3:07:57] have passed and I won't be here. A lot of
[3:08:01] us won't be. Councilor Judenville. Thank you, Mayor Cannif. Councilor
[3:08:09] story asked most of my questions. I just want to
[3:08:12] confirm so I understand. So. It references $16 million project.
[3:08:19] So is that just being attributed to a portion of
[3:08:21] what they are doing? This tax. Grant is just based
[3:08:30] on the $16 million. Am I understanding that correctly? Thank
[3:08:35] you, your worship. The tax grant is based on, so
[3:08:40] a project is defined. If you're investing more than $10
[3:08:46] million on a project like this, you are eligible. To
[3:08:49] receive the property tax increment grant. So. Their current construction
[3:08:56] value. In this phase of work they're doing now. They've
[3:08:58] given us the 16 million. So they're $6 million ahead
[3:09:01] of. That's a big investment, right? Into this project, so
[3:09:04] that's why they're eligible for the ten years. Okay, so.
[3:09:07] It's not really designated to anything specifically. It's just kind
[3:09:11] of a blanket amount. Would you say? The tax rate
[3:09:16] will be rebated. It's $16 million, is what I'm referring
[3:09:19] to? Oh, the 60 million is a construction estimate provided
[3:09:22] by them of the work they're doing okay. And does
[3:09:25] it have anything to do with the garage at all,
[3:09:27] or. Is it just. On. The building. The works that
[3:09:33] they're doing for the tax grant. They are doing some
[3:09:36] work on the garage. Most of the work that they're
[3:09:39] doing is on the facade on King street. Frankly, it
[3:09:42] also includes a new elevator work they've done. It includes
[3:09:45] the new escalator they'll be putting in just some examples
[3:09:49] of all the construction work that's going on. There. Okay.
[3:09:52] All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Okay. See?
[3:09:55] No other questions. We'll put it to vote. Councilor Bondi.
[3:10:04] And councilor b. Mcgregor. All votes are in motion. Passes
[3:10:08] 17 to zero. 17 B application for zoning bylaw amendment.
[3:10:21] 650 Park street community of Dresden, North Kent. Councilor juvenile
[3:10:25] and councilor Wright and I get you puts on the
[3:10:27] floor, please. I so move. I'll second it. Thank you,
[3:10:30] councilor. Juvenile. Go ahead. Yeah, I just have a few
[3:10:32] questions. I know it's in the report, but just for
[3:10:35] clarity, because there's a lot of people concerned about this.
[3:10:39] The zoning. That we want to change to, it would
[3:10:44] still allow. For a senior citizens or assisted a living
[3:10:48] retirement home. To still occupy that location if that was
[3:10:53] the decision of the applicant. Thank you, Mayor Canif. Yes.
[3:10:58] The proposed medium density residential zoning still provides for a
[3:11:02] retirement home. Okay. I went to the meeting, I saw
[3:11:07] a copy of the plans, and on it it did
[3:11:09] say. Affordable. Apartment
[3:11:19] conversion from senior residents. So that is making a lot
[3:11:23] of people thinking that this is going to become affordable
[3:11:26] housing. So is it going to be affordable housing? Thank
[3:11:32] you, Mayor Cannon. I did not attend the meeting, but
[3:11:35] one of the planning staff did understand. You were there
[3:11:38] as well, councilor, and I have read the summary. I
[3:11:40] do know that. The proposed rental units are supposed to
[3:11:46] be at a market rate. There's no subsidy being applied.
[3:11:51] That would define it as affordable through various government programs.
[3:11:54] So this should be considered market apartment, okay? So we
[3:11:57] would have knowledge if it was going to be designated
[3:12:00] as affordable housing, is that correct? Yes. Okay.
[3:12:11] So if something happened tonight and this was voted down,
[3:12:16] What are some things that could happen if this was
[3:12:18] voted down? Under the planning act process. If this was
[3:12:27] voted down, the property would remain in the institutional zone.
[3:12:32] The owner of the property would be afforded appeal rights
[3:12:35] to move. This application to the Ontario Land Tribunal. And
[3:12:41] the impact on the community of Dresden would be that
[3:12:44] this building would likely sit vacant for a longer period
[3:12:49] of time until a new proposed use, perhaps. Could be
[3:12:53] proposed for that site and come back to council in
[3:12:55] the future. Okay. So many people have reached out to
[3:12:59] me with concerns about this because. They feel the owner,
[3:13:04] the new owner is the previous owner. They have concerns.
[3:13:09] About a lot of things that have happened. And. They're
[3:13:14] just very concerned about what happened. When it was previously
[3:13:18] park street. The senior residents what will happen? If the
[3:13:23] owner continues on with conducting his business the same way.
[3:13:29] It says that the apartments, there's going to be like
[3:13:32] 40 apartments, but they're not sure how and. Do we
[3:13:40] have any governance over how they would construct these apartments?
[3:13:43] Because right now. They were homes, rooms. For the retirement
[3:13:49] residents. But now, if they become apartments, I would assume
[3:13:52] they would have to have like a kitchen and a
[3:13:55] bathroom in each unit. Do we know? How these rooms
[3:14:00] are going to be set up as apartments, or do
[3:14:02] we have any authority over that. The authority over how
[3:14:07] they are set up is ultimately guided by the Ontario
[3:14:10] building code, so provided the owner provides drawings by a
[3:14:13] qualified person that meet the legislation of the province, then
[3:14:17] those would be approved and inspected throughout the duration of
[3:14:20] the project by municipal building services staff, okay? That's all
[3:14:26] the questions I have. Thank you. Seeing. No other questions,
[3:14:32] we'll put it to vote. Councilor b. Mcgregor. Yes. And
[3:14:38] councilor Bondi. No. All votes are in motion. Passes 14
[3:14:44] to two.
[3:14:54] Item 18, infrastructure and engineering services. At and a consolidated
[3:15:02] non core detailed asset management plans 2025. Councilor C. McGregor
[3:15:06] and Councilor Anderson, the four, please. Sure. Yes, I'll second.
[3:15:15] All right, I got four speakers to start. Councilor c.
[3:15:18] McGregor followed. By councilor Anderson, councilor Harrigan and councilor Sakoch,
[3:15:22] councilor C. McGregor. I have to pull up the report
[3:15:26] first. Sorry. Hold on. If you want to, go ahead.
[3:15:33] It's nothing like my last motion. If you want and
[3:15:36] move beyond me and come back. On this, okay? It
[3:15:40] was just comments, Councilor Anderson, followed by councilor Harrigan. Sure.
[3:15:46] Thank you for this report. My only question was just
[3:15:50] strictly clarity. That this report was not suggesting anything, that
[3:15:55] this was just bring us to the next level, that
[3:15:57] then suggestions will be brought forward for decisions to be
[3:15:59] made correct. Thank you for the question through Mr. Mayor.
[3:16:03] Yes, that is correct. You are going to approve the
[3:16:07] proposed levels of service, as the consultant had said here
[3:16:10] before, but it will require us to go back and
[3:16:14] look at the creation of the long term financial plan.
[3:16:17] Which will connect your budget processes to the asset management
[3:16:20] plans. So you know when you're investing what levels of
[3:16:23] service you're able to sustain over the long period of
[3:16:25] time. Which was in the April 20 eigth report and
[3:16:28] will be completed in 20 27 28 in time for
[3:16:31] the next multi year budget. Thank you. And I just
[3:16:35] wanted to clarify for the public because I've had lots
[3:16:37] of questions about this with this report coming out. Obviously,
[3:16:40] people got a little bit worried about it, but. I
[3:16:44] want to say, as far as transparency goes into this
[3:16:45] whole process, you've come and spoken to us a couple
[3:16:48] of times now, and it's very much appreciated that we've
[3:16:50] been included. With each process and stage along the way.
[3:16:53] And this is just another one of those stages to
[3:16:55] get us to the final. So I certainly appreciate all
[3:16:58] the transparency. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sorry, Councilor
[3:17:07] Harrigan. Followed by councilor Sima Gregor. Thank you. Through the
[3:17:13] mayor. I just. Have a few questions more to help
[3:17:17] myself and members of the public kind of understand about
[3:17:19] that. Asset management planning process. So can you just remind.
[3:17:27] Members of the public before. I ask the questions. What
[3:17:32] do you mean when we say non core assets in
[3:17:34] the non core asset management plan, sure. Through. Mr. Mayor.
[3:17:38] Thank you for the question. I know it's a bit
[3:17:40] clunky. Terminology. It comes from the provincial legislation itself. In
[3:17:44] the future, we'll just refer to them. As the asset
[3:17:47] management plans, but to get through meeting the legislative deadlines,
[3:17:50] the non cores would be. Something. Such as? So emergency
[3:17:54] services. Thinking of fire, police, paramedics. It would be recreational
[3:17:58] sort. Of services. So you're thinking trails, arenas, pools, those
[3:18:03] sorts of things. Cultural ones, museums, libraries. We're talking also
[3:18:08] RVG. We're talking public health. We're talking about. The sort
[3:18:11] of things that you would think are more service based
[3:18:14] and less hard infrastructure in the sense of roads and
[3:18:17] pipes in the ground. And then in the report, the
[3:18:21] damp. That we have it outlines kind of like what
[3:18:25] that gap is, right, in terms of the asset. Management
[3:18:28] plan, would you say that we are in? So that's
[3:18:31] sometimes when you look at that it can be very
[3:18:33] shocking when you see it for the first time. Right?
[3:18:34] Like, oh, gosh. We've only have 20 something percent of
[3:18:37] our stormwater that's funded or we only have 60% of
[3:18:40] this as funded. Are we in good company there compared
[3:18:44] to other communities across the province? Or is this something
[3:18:46] that's unique to Chatham. Ken. Thank you for the question
[3:18:48] through you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. This is not uncommon. I'll
[3:18:53] give you a couple of examples. Toronto. When they first
[3:18:56] did. Theirs was $28 billion Windsor's $2.6 million Hamilton. When
[3:19:01] I did the. Core asset management plans. There. They were
[3:19:04] 2.5. They're now up to $5.8. Billion. It's a completely
[3:19:09] common problem to have not just millions of an infrastructure
[3:19:13] gap, but billions. Because this municipality is very old. It's
[3:19:16] had a long time to build up a lot. Of
[3:19:18] infrastructure, and it will take a long period of time
[3:19:20] for us to be able to work. Our way. To
[3:19:24] intergenerational equity in a sustainable place. And then last question.
[3:19:29] Sometimes when we're making decisions about different asset categories, you'll
[3:19:32] hear members of the public give an argument. Well, you
[3:19:35] shouldn't invest in X because Y is more important, right?
[3:19:38] And it could be any two things. Why is it
[3:19:41] important for us to continue to invest. In various asset
[3:19:45] management categories as a municipality, compared to, for example, putting
[3:19:49] all of our money in gravel roads so that we
[3:19:51] then turn them all into pavement in the next three
[3:19:53] years. Through you. Mr. Mayor, an excellent question. So in
[3:19:57] one of the recommendations in the April 20 eigth, was
[3:20:00] for us. To ask the council to consider in the
[3:20:05] next multi year budget to raising it from the infrastructure
[3:20:09] asset management plan funding from one and a half percent
[3:20:11] up. We wanted you to increase it primarily because. Throughout
[3:20:16] the communities, there's vastly different needs and different desires. There's
[3:20:20] different demands. People want libraries, they want parks, they want
[3:20:23] to make sure that they have good trails for recreational
[3:20:26] purpose. They want to make sure that fire, police and
[3:20:29] paramedics have the assets necessary to respond. To their wants
[3:20:32] and needs as well, too. So the idea is to
[3:20:35] make sure that. When we come back. And one of
[3:20:38] the recommendations in the April 28 was to have administration
[3:20:41] take a look at how best to invest in that
[3:20:44] plan. The increase of the asset management funding so that
[3:20:48] we are creating a sustainable and equitable future. And that's
[3:20:51] really challenging when you have so many diverse assets and
[3:20:54] so many diverse people wants and needs. Not everybody just.
[3:20:58] Wants a road. People do want to make sure that
[3:21:00] RVG is taken care of or that they have good
[3:21:02] trails, whether they have outdoor pools to go to. So
[3:21:05] those competing needs is the best way for us to
[3:21:07] look at. That investment funding and how to spread it
[3:21:10] out to make sure that it's meeting the needs of
[3:21:13] the community, not just today, but in the future. Great.
[3:21:17] Thank you. Appreciate your patience as I asked those questions.
[3:21:19] And thank you again for this report. It's very well
[3:21:22] done. Councilor Senogreger, followed by councilor Scotchy. Okay, thank you
[3:21:29] to the mayor. And thank you, Councilor Harrigan, because you
[3:21:32] addressed a couple of the things that I had. On
[3:21:33] my mind here when I was going through this. I'm
[3:21:35] reading this. So this. Is actually a plan that needs
[3:21:41] to be in place for the province for the 1
[3:21:44] July is that correct? And that's why it is here
[3:21:47] now. Unfortunately. If we were to turn this down. Tonight.
[3:21:56] What happens. With this first to July date. Again. It's
[3:22:01] kind of coming, I think, at the last minute before
[3:22:04] it's required to. Be completed. In advance about in a
[3:22:08] minute. Is this basically a prelude? To a list of
[3:22:16] assets. Or infrastructure that we have that will be on
[3:22:21] the chopping block that is going to then again put
[3:22:24] council at each other because of what happens in different
[3:22:28] communities. And what is recommended. Through you, Mr. Mayor, that's
[3:22:33] an excellent question. And asset management is not in any
[3:22:36] way intended. To. Pit. Need versus need or community versus
[3:22:41] community? That's not the idea. We look at Chatham. Kent
[3:22:44] as a whole. And we're trying to make sure that
[3:22:46] one of our primary goals which is in the strategic
[3:22:48] asset management policy, is to ensure equity. So the goal
[3:22:53] is. Not to say one or the other. It's to
[3:22:57] just have a realistic sort of approach. And say it
[3:23:00] would be lovely to afford everything. We can't afford everything,
[3:23:03] so how can we address these needs equitably across the
[3:23:06] way, and the asset management plans are really tools and
[3:23:09] hopefully. You've all read the overview document, but this is
[3:23:13] a tool that counselors can also use when dealing with.
[3:23:17] The province and suggesting that we need additional supports. The
[3:23:21] idea behind that overview document is to provide you some
[3:23:24] opportunities where you can just look at every single service
[3:23:26] quickly, see what the gaps are. Where the needs are,
[3:23:29] where the funding is required, so that we can not
[3:23:32] only advocate for it. At higher levels, but also when
[3:23:35] we're sitting around this horseshoe or when. You're discussing with
[3:23:38] constituents, you have some very good evidence at your fingertips
[3:23:41] to be able to have those. Frank conversations you need
[3:23:44] to have with your constituents. If we don't have them,
[3:23:47] if we don't have those conversations. We don't educate the
[3:23:51] public on how much these things cost will just inevitably
[3:23:54] have them thinking we can keep going at the pace
[3:23:56] that we're going at without making sure that we're being
[3:23:59] very wise and responsible, making sure we're. Funding things appropria.
[3:24:03] Appropriately. And the other part is that we've extended this
[3:24:06] to be a 30 year window. To be able to
[3:24:08] reach sustainability because a ten year window is just an
[3:24:11] impossibility. So. With a 30 year window. We hope there's
[3:24:14] a little less back and forth and that there's more
[3:24:16] of a cooperative approach to looking at how we can
[3:24:18] solve this infrastructure gap. Problem. After our earlier reports and
[3:24:23] our early conversations, it kind of feels like a cart
[3:24:26] before the horse. Scenario again because. We're moving
[3:24:35] or supposedly moving forward with this plan without really knowing
[3:24:39] what this plan is. Going to entail. So hopefully there'll
[3:24:43] be a lot further conversation that comes after this. Thank
[3:24:47] you. Thanks. Councilor Scott Chief, followed by councilor story. That's
[3:24:54] okay. Mary can if. I'll pass. Thanks. Councilor story. Thank
[3:24:59] you, mary kenneth. Thank you again for the detailed report.
[3:25:04] These have been really educational. I really appreciate the effort
[3:25:07] that you and your team have put into this. Just
[3:25:10] in terms of clarity. For the public. And myself as
[3:25:17] well. Levels of service. Are not necessarily. Recommendation one. If
[3:25:26] we adopt the proposed levels of service. Are we or.
[3:25:32] Are we not? Also agreeing to a financial commitment to
[3:25:36] that or the level of service merely means we are
[3:25:39] approving the approach. And then the dollar amount. Amounts will
[3:25:45] come later. Because I'm not quite clear in the financial
[3:25:47] implications section. It doesn't attach. Okay by approving this tonight.
[3:25:53] You're approving. $100,000. Of costs. Like, I just didn't see
[3:26:01] that. So I just want to be clear. This is
[3:26:03] the level of service. Terminology might just be more of
[3:26:06] a term versus a financial commitment. Am I understanding that
[3:26:10] correctly? Through you, Mr. Mayor. Great question. So when you're
[3:26:14] setting a level of service which I've always said is
[3:26:17] council's role and responsibility when you pass your budget. So
[3:26:21] when you pass a budget, you are passing, inevitably, the
[3:26:23] level of service that you're going through. What we've done
[3:26:26] in our plans here is to propose that. We're not
[3:26:30] veering off anything. We're not suggesting you're cutting anything. We're
[3:26:33] not suggesting you're adding anything inside of this level of
[3:26:36] service. It's. Just that we're going to maintain what we
[3:26:38] currently have, and as the consultant had said it could
[3:26:41] be considered a condition. So we're going to maintain our
[3:26:44] highways in good. Condition. Our local roads say in fair
[3:26:48] condition because. That's basically what we're saying there is that
[3:26:52] the level of service that you're providing is either going
[3:26:55] to be condition based, it's going to be capacity based.
[3:26:57] Or it's going to be function based. Okay, so when
[3:27:01] you're saying this, does it impact the budget? It could
[3:27:05] in the sense that five years, eight years down the
[3:27:08] road, you may need to invest. More in renewals or
[3:27:11] you may need to do a higher maintenance level. But
[3:27:13] what we're. Seeing in here is that you're proposing that
[3:27:16] you're going to maintain the current level of service that
[3:27:18] you have. And there's the budget implications that are within
[3:27:21] the plans that say you need x amount of dollars
[3:27:24] to get there. And we've approached it from a 30
[3:27:26] year window. So what we've done is one of the
[3:27:29] financial measures that we use is something called an ARFR
[3:27:32] asset renewal funding ratio. And that really means that we
[3:27:35] have the money in place to, say, replace a fire
[3:27:38] truck or. An ambulance at the time that we need
[3:27:40] to do that. And so what we've done is we've
[3:27:42] taken all of the plans and we've taken. What their
[3:27:45] current asset renewal funding ratio is, and we've stretched it
[3:27:48] out over 30 years. And we've applied a rate that
[3:27:51] says you need to put aside this much money over
[3:27:54] time. To be able to achieve that sustainable 90% gold
[3:27:59] inside of 30 years. So what we've also suggested in
[3:28:03] our April plans is that there's no real financial repercussions.
[3:28:07] They can't really be known until we pass the long
[3:28:09] term financial plan. That's really the driver to this. That's
[3:28:13] what happened in the April 28 meeting. Is that we
[3:28:15] had you pass that we asked for the recommendation to
[3:28:18] be agreed to that you're going to provide us with
[3:28:20] enough time to be able to do a long term
[3:28:22] financial plan with Gordon, his staff, to make sure that
[3:28:24] we have really good numbers for you. I don't. Know
[3:28:27] if you remember, but when I first came to, I
[3:28:29] said, these are baby plans. And that we're going to
[3:28:31] get to really good. Plans by the 2027 timeline for
[3:28:34] the multi year budget. We just need to make sure
[3:28:36] that maturity through education and process and practice that staff
[3:28:40] are quite comfortable with it. I think Edward might also
[3:28:43] have a comment on that as well, too. Thank you.
[3:28:46] Just to add to what Sean was speaking to. You
[3:28:49] really have to read this report. In conjunction with the
[3:28:52] April report, because in April, we came back with a
[3:28:56] core asset management plans. And we had a number of
[3:29:00] very detailed recommendations for the council passed at that time.
[3:29:04] We did not want to repeat those recommendations because we
[3:29:07] already have direction, but you have to look at those.
[3:29:09] Two reports simultaneously. So this is only for the non
[3:29:13] core assets. The consultant earlier about the other topic was
[3:29:16] speaking about water and wastewater. You've actually approved the asset
[3:29:20] management plans for water wastewater in April. So we've met
[3:29:24] that timeline there. So I would just recommend councils back
[3:29:28] and look at those recommendations really speaks to what. Sean
[3:29:32] was talking about, which is the long term financial plan,
[3:29:35] how it's going to be tied into the multi year
[3:29:36] budget. Looking at a review of all the assets and
[3:29:40] services to create a divestment strategy before that process, reducing
[3:29:44] the infrastructure gap and also speaking to how we would
[3:29:47] potentially fund this over 30 years, potentially moving from the
[3:29:51] current 1.5 to two and a half percent property tax
[3:29:54] equivalent. Those are all considerations that you'll take into account
[3:29:57] when you do. Your multi year budget. Thank you for
[3:30:01] that clarification. That's how I appreciate that. And that does
[3:30:04] make sense to look at those both together. Because my
[3:30:07] last question would be, is there a reason why we
[3:30:09] wouldn't look at. This now. At two more years to
[3:30:14] our 30 year window to give us a little more
[3:30:16] grace period, because there's still work to be done. That's
[3:30:19] why we're waiting to the 2028 budget round. Since we're
[3:30:23] in the baby the baby plan stage, as you said.
[3:30:25] Is that why we're looking at the next budget discussions,
[3:30:28] to tackle that through you? Mr. Mayor? Absolutely. Same sort
[3:30:32] of thing we need. To make sure that to connect
[3:30:35] these to the budget process, the creation of the longtime
[3:30:37] term financial plan is probably going to take about 18
[3:30:39] months to do. And so that's why we've approached it
[3:30:42] in this way. Thank you very much. See. No other
[3:30:47] questions. We'll put it to vote. Councilor b. Mcgregor. Yes.
[3:30:57] Councilor Bondi? Yes. All votes are in motion. Passes 17
[3:31:01] to zero. 18 b Tolbit trail realignment councilor Anderson and
[3:31:07] councilor Harrigan. Can I get the floor, please? Yes, and
[3:31:11] seconded. Councilor Anderson, you had a question? Yeah, thank you.
[3:31:15] I just wanted to. Get a little bit of clarification.
[3:31:20] Kind of like the backstory of where we're at on
[3:31:22] this, and I appreciate the conversations I was able to
[3:31:24] have with Edward today. And I understand that the consultant.
[3:31:30] That the consultants here tonight? Yes. Thank you. Could you
[3:31:33] just give me a backstory of what? Is taking place
[3:31:36] and what the delay is. And that we are still
[3:31:40] obviously wanting to go forward with this recommendation. Thank you,
[3:31:43] Mary Kanif Margaret. Manager of engineering. I'll start, maybe just
[3:31:49] with a quick background, and then I'll introduce Adrian as.
[3:31:51] Well. As I'm sure all of you are aware, we
[3:31:56] started with the EA and the EA. Addendum. As part
[3:32:00] of that EA process, we were required to do a
[3:32:03] stage one archaeological assessment. So that was completed through the
[3:32:07] EA. So stage one. Essentially kind of determines if there's
[3:32:14] a potential for archaeological sites to be within the project.
[3:32:17] Area. And if there are, then it recommends stage two.
[3:32:23] So. The stage two. As we knew that through the
[3:32:27] EA process, we incorporated that into our detailed design. RFP
[3:32:31] with the consultant. So we completed that. That started. In
[3:32:36] December of 2024. We got through the stage two, and
[3:32:41] it was determined that the findings in the stage two
[3:32:44] were significant enough to trigger stage three. So that's where,
[3:32:49] at that point, we kind of got into working with
[3:32:52] Acom. To follow through with stage three and then potentially
[3:32:57] the stage four at that time, as we didn't know
[3:32:59] the extent of it. So. Yes, Adri is here with
[3:33:04] Acom. So she can probably answer your questions on the
[3:33:08] archaeological assessment in the process. A lot easier and probably
[3:33:12] kind of explain. The findings and where we're at this
[3:33:16] point and kind of the steps forward. So she has
[3:33:18] a few slides. I think that probably kind of sum
[3:33:21] up a lot of that. So I'll hand it over
[3:33:23] to her. Thanks, Mark. So I'm major at Grant. I'm
[3:33:29] the technical lead for cultural resources at ACOM. Thank you
[3:33:34] for that. So I just pulled together a few brief
[3:33:36] slides, kind of just a little bit of background on
[3:33:38] the process. And then specific to this project is to
[3:33:41] help everybody understand so we can go to the next
[3:33:43] one. So, archaeology in Ontario. This is run through the
[3:33:49] heritage branch at the Ministry of citizenship and multiculturalism that
[3:33:53] is the ministry that governs everything. They license the archaeologists
[3:33:57] and they've created. The standards and guidelines for consultant archaeologists,
[3:34:01] which is the primary document that really governs the entire
[3:34:05] process. It is a four stage process. So the stage
[3:34:09] one, you're looking at background research, really? The point of
[3:34:12] that is to decide. Is there the potential for an
[3:34:15] archaeological resource to be there? You get into stage two.
[3:34:19] That's. When you're doing that initial survey, seeing what you
[3:34:22] find, and then based on what you find? That's when
[3:34:25] it's decided whether you need to move towards the site
[3:34:28] specific excavation. And the main goal of the stage three,
[3:34:32] really, is to get in and figure out exactly what
[3:34:35] the limits of the site are and then also get
[3:34:37] a better idea through the material that you've recovered what
[3:34:40] you're actually looking at. Decide whether or not it warrants
[3:34:43] mitigation. So that's the stage four and the mitigation. Could
[3:34:48] be deciding to avoid and protect something, or if it's
[3:34:52] not feasible to do that. You move towards controlled excavation,
[3:34:55] fully removing it out of the ground, but doing it
[3:34:57] in such a way that all the information isn't lost.
[3:35:01] You can go to the next slide. I will speak
[3:35:03] as well too, to the timing of that. I think
[3:35:04] Mark spoke to that a little bit. There's some flexibility
[3:35:08] when you get into these different stages. With an EA,
[3:35:13] it is required that you do a stage one, and
[3:35:16] because it's still fairly general, and you're often looking at
[3:35:18] a lot of different alternatives. Doing the stage two physical
[3:35:22] survey is quite intensive and it costs a lot of
[3:35:25] money and most times you don't. Want to be doing
[3:35:28] that until you know exactly where you're going to impact,
[3:35:30] so. That's usually. What it happens. The stage one is
[3:35:33] pretty early. Once you have a really good idea of
[3:35:35] where the project will impact. That's when you get into
[3:35:38] the stage two. And then, of course, stage three and
[3:35:40] four only follow. If you have a resource that meets
[3:35:44] that criteria. And then another thing on the timing as
[3:35:48] well. So it's the term and condition of the archaeologist
[3:35:51] license that we engage with indigenous groups. When we're doing
[3:35:56] stage three or stage four of an indigenous site. But
[3:36:00] that being said, best practice and most municipalities, most major.
[3:36:05] Companies and clients they are involving. Interested indigenous groups at
[3:36:10] the stage two level, which I believe is what happened
[3:36:12] here. And so I've just put up some criteria of
[3:36:16] why you need to move in there. I think what's
[3:36:19] important to note is that. Professional judgment doesn't come into
[3:36:23] play at all. It is very clearly outlined in those
[3:36:26] standards. And guidelines if you meet this criteria. Yes, no,
[3:36:29] yes, no. So if we want to go to the
[3:36:31] next slide. So this is the actual project. And what
[3:36:38] happened? That I think was a surprise to everybody, but.
[3:36:40] Not uncommon when it comes to archaeology. Is that after
[3:36:45] the stage two. Once we started looking further and getting
[3:36:49] into that stage three, we were finding a lot more
[3:36:52] things. Than we anticipated. And that's just the virtue of
[3:36:56] looking on the ground versus actually getting in and digging
[3:36:59] and seeing what's there. So all of this jumbled mass
[3:37:03] of colors just essentially shows to you that in this
[3:37:06] stretch, on this project. There's a lot of archaeology going
[3:37:10] on here, so if you want to go to the
[3:37:12] next slide. I'll explain a little bit so you can
[3:37:16] kind of understand what's going on. The purple dots here
[3:37:19] are the location of. The stage two surface artifacts. And
[3:37:27] the yellow line is essentially the limits of the sites
[3:37:30] as it was understood. During the stage two. Now, what
[3:37:35] happened is when you look at the yellow dots, so
[3:37:38] when we came in, we did another surface examination. We
[3:37:41] found a lot more material. And you see the sites?
[3:37:43] Have expanded incredibly. Another important piece is that the types
[3:37:49] of artifacts that we were finding during the stage two,
[3:37:52] it was all lithic material, nondiagnostic. But when we got
[3:37:56] there, we are finding indigenous. Pottery and ceramics, which is
[3:38:00] a diagnostic, and it kind of opens the door to
[3:38:03] a whole other set of rules so we can go
[3:38:05] to the next one. This is a perfect example here.
[3:38:09] So if you see that purple dot and the yellow
[3:38:12] around it, this was considered one fine spot. But when
[3:38:16] we get there and we see all of this other
[3:38:18] material there. There's clearly a lot more going on. So
[3:38:25] we can go to the next one. This is an
[3:38:27] example. You can't see the numbers, so this was our
[3:38:29] stage three each. Of those squares represent an actual 1
[3:38:33] meter by 1 meter excavation unit in the plow zone.
[3:38:36] Of the agricultural field. So we go down through that
[3:38:39] whole plow zone. And then we have to essentially chase
[3:38:43] the artifacts. We keep going until we get less than
[3:38:46] ten. Or certain special things. And what happened here is
[3:38:52] you can kind of see is it just kind of
[3:38:53] kept going. We can go to the next one. Similar
[3:38:58] to this one. You see the yellow line of where
[3:39:01] the site was thought to be. Did need to extend
[3:39:05] it out a little bit further. Go to the next
[3:39:09] one. This site. Is, and we've done a lot more
[3:39:15] here because this is where we are focusing because we
[3:39:18] know that it needs stage four because this is in
[3:39:21] a wooded area, if not in the plow field because
[3:39:24] we have features. It is empottery. It is a woodland
[3:39:28] time period. Site, which means, and it could potentially be
[3:39:32] intact. And what I mean by that. Is that the
[3:39:35] plows hasn't smeared it around. So it has to be
[3:39:39] done completely by hand. That's our only option. Whereas with
[3:39:42] some. Of the other sites. We do have the option
[3:39:44] of a combination of hand excavation and also mechanical like
[3:39:48] using a machine. So we can go to the next
[3:39:51] one. Again, just another example. Of it kind of being
[3:39:56] a little bigger than anyone would have anticipated. You go
[3:40:00] to the next slide. So this is essentially the steps
[3:40:05] where we're at, so we know the stage three is.
[3:40:08] Completed. And that report should be. Ready this week or
[3:40:14] next week at the latest. But we know that all
[3:40:17] of those sites that I just showed do require stage
[3:40:19] four mitigation. And understanding that you don't have a lot
[3:40:23] of leeway. That project area needs to be impacted. So
[3:40:27] we're looking at excavation, fully removing it out of the
[3:40:31] way and, like. I said that would be done in
[3:40:33] a combination of hand excavation but also using some machinery
[3:40:37] as well. What we're seeing also is. We're not assessing
[3:40:44] outside of the project area, but we are seeing these
[3:40:46] sites go right. To the end of the project area.
[3:40:49] So essentially, We're quite clear, and there's going to be
[3:40:52] an instance where we know these sites do extend outside.
[3:40:56] We don't need to impact those, but we will have
[3:40:58] to put in some protection during construction so that we
[3:41:00] know that nothing happens to it and they can stay
[3:41:02] where they are. Throughout this entire process. We continue to
[3:41:07] consult with the indigenous groups that are participating with us
[3:41:10] on site. We're coordinating with them when we're coming up
[3:41:13] with our strategy. Timing wise, when we get to stage
[3:41:18] four. And it's a fair amount of work in order
[3:41:22] to get that done, but we do have the option,
[3:41:26] which I've recommended. Is, once we've finished the excavation, you
[3:41:31] then have all the material and the artifacts that. You
[3:41:33] have to process and analyze and go through all of
[3:41:36] that, which can take some time, but. At this point.
[3:41:39] We've already removed it out of the ground, so what
[3:41:41] we can do? Is we can write a preliminary excavation
[3:41:44] report. That satisfies the ministry. What it does is it
[3:41:49] provides all the methods that we did. Everything that we
[3:41:52] did as far as the excavation went for removing it,
[3:41:56] but it leaves out the artifact piece. And what that
[3:42:00] does is it allows the ministry to say, okay. We're
[3:42:04] comfortable with this preliminary excavation report. Construction can proceed while
[3:42:08] we take the time to. Do the thorough requirement of
[3:42:11] analyzing all the artifacts and going through all of that.
[3:42:14] We're still required to provide that final report, but. Construction
[3:42:18] doesn't have to wait for us to get through that
[3:42:20] in order for that to happen. And then essentially, when
[3:42:24] the MCM acceptance really is that letter saying you're clear
[3:42:28] to go. And then that's it. Kind of how it
[3:42:33] goes. Thank you so much, and I certainly appreciate you
[3:42:37] explaining this. And I want to say I'm definitely very
[3:42:41] glad that this process is in place and that we
[3:42:43] are preserving. Any indigenous findings that we do include them
[3:42:48] in this process as well. And. It's definitely worth the
[3:42:54] additional cost, I would say, to preserve any findings. And
[3:42:58] it also is worth the delay in the project, but
[3:43:00] I do understand some frustrations of the public and that's
[3:43:02] the only thing that I wanted, was to have some
[3:43:04] clarity provided as to why. There's this delay and the
[3:43:09] steps that are taken with a little bit more detail,
[3:43:11] so. I certainly appreciate that. As far. As cost goes,
[3:43:14] do we get? Any reimbursement from the ministry or from
[3:43:18] the indigenous groups in this recovery process or is this
[3:43:22] solely on the municipality? Typically, it's solely on the municipality.
[3:43:27] I know of some municipalities that have tried to get
[3:43:29] various grants through ministries. I haven't. Heard of anyone being
[3:43:33] successful, but essentially it's fully proponent. Covered. Okay. Thank you
[3:43:39] so much. I did just have one further question. Another
[3:43:43] question that I got was. Actually. To the greenhouse. Operation
[3:43:51] that's there. And it was sought by the public that
[3:43:54] they didn't have to go through this process. Can you
[3:43:56] clarify? What happened on that site. To as much that
[3:44:01] you can provide with transparency and confidentiality. I don't know.
[3:44:05] I looked to see if there was. Any reports for
[3:44:10] that area? Because funny enough, A long time ago, maybe
[3:44:13] 2016. I did the archaeology at a different consultant for
[3:44:17] a greenhouse in Chatham, Kent. And I was like, was
[3:44:19] that the same one? But I couldn't find any. Reports
[3:44:22] for it. This is a requirement, and it falls under.
[3:44:27] The. Ontario Heritage act that says you have to do
[3:44:31] it. But the Ontario Heritage act, just you're? In violation
[3:44:34] of that. If you impact an archaeological resource, it doesn't
[3:44:37] say you have. To do an assessment. So that tends
[3:44:40] to fall under the Planning Act. A number EA, like
[3:44:43] a number of different. Policies, but sometimes it gets missed.
[3:44:50] So I can't speak to that particular place. But, yeah,
[3:44:55] sometimes that happens. Okay. Thanks, Bruce. Thank you, worship. Maybe
[3:44:59] I can just elaborate. I can probably speculate. On what
[3:45:04] would have happened there. So greenhouses are permitted as of
[3:45:07] right in our agricultural zoning. So they wouldn't have required
[3:45:11] a trigger for an assessment. Ultimately any development you do
[3:45:15] like, we've had others that have uncovered archaeological artifacts, just
[3:45:21] even through building construction. And excavation. That's kind of the
[3:45:25] scenario. If you find it, then it would trigger moving.
[3:45:28] Forward. So the other greenhouse that I think you're referring
[3:45:31] to would have been the one. Here in town that
[3:45:34] did require land use changes to permit it in an
[3:45:38] industrial zone at the time. So I recall. That triggered
[3:45:41] an archaeological assessment, so that's the difference. In. Why? Okay.
[3:45:44] Thank you. So if they would have found something, it
[3:45:47] wouldn't have not. Gone to the public, but they would
[3:45:50] have been required to report to the ministry, is what
[3:45:51] you're saying? Thank you, councilor story. Thank you very much.
[3:45:58] This is very interesting. You mentioned that it's a woodland
[3:46:02] period. Series of artifacts. What time frame are we talking
[3:46:07] about in terms of human history? Roughly. Woodland typically starts
[3:46:16] around. 600. Bc. Up to about. And we usually stay
[3:46:22] around contact, so 14 to 16 hundreds. So it's a
[3:46:26] wide time. Period. And frankly, the only difference is that.
[3:46:31] Pottery is a big indicator. It was at a time.
[3:46:35] That indigenous groups started using pottery and we start seeing
[3:46:37] it in there. And it kind of helps us date
[3:46:40] it to a certain time period. So it's 600 plus
[3:46:44] or more years old. Potentially. Thank you. All right. Thank
[3:46:49] you very much. See. No other questions. We'll put it
[3:46:54] to vote. Councilor bondi. Yes. Councilor b. Mcgregor. Yeah. All
[3:47:03] votes are in motion. Passes 17 to zero. We'll move
[3:47:07] on to notice of motion. Councilor Scott, you have two
[3:47:09] of them. Thank you, Mary Kane. Whereas an independent audit
[3:47:14] by Deloitte conducted for the Chatham Kent police services. Did
[3:47:17] to highlight a staffing shortage and recommend an increasing staffing
[3:47:20] to meet service demands and that the Lloyd audit found
[3:47:23] that the total calls for service have an increased which.
[3:47:27] Has turned increased total for police attending. And whereas the
[3:47:30] Deloitte audit found that the police budget for police officer
[3:47:33] strength had remained the same from. That. And whereas that
[3:47:42] Deloitte audit found that the police budget for police officer
[3:47:45] strength had remained the same from 2018 to 2021. And
[3:47:48] whereas that Deloitte audit found that CKPS has a low
[3:47:51] policing ratio compared to the provincial and canadian averages. And
[3:47:55] whereas the Deloitte audit found that the proactive work had
[3:47:58] decreased office. Officers are required to attend more calls, leaving
[3:48:03] less time for proactive and preventative work. And whereas that
[3:48:07] dolot audit found CKPS employees well being have been compromised
[3:48:11] with an increase to the use of sick time and
[3:48:13] long term illness. And whereas Deloitte also noted that officers
[3:48:17] were wearing too many hats and suggested streamlined responsibilities for
[3:48:20] greater efficiency. And whereas CKPs is nearing the completion of
[3:48:24] the hiring process, and there has been significantly. Positive feedback
[3:48:27] in the Chattam area. Therefore, be it resolved that Chatham
[3:48:30] Kent Council requests the chief of police attend at a
[3:48:33] future council meeting and present a report updating council and
[3:48:36] the public. About implementation of the hiring process and revised
[3:48:40] processes to assist in dealing with the identified issues and
[3:48:43] as the municipality of Chatham, Kent is still seeing an
[3:48:46] increase in police related. Needs that the chief be asked
[3:48:48] to also highlight any future initiatives for all communities of
[3:48:51] Chatham, Kent. Thank you. The light got me a little
[3:48:56] spotty there for a second. Whereas Chatham can't. Currently reports
[3:48:59] on its operating budget variants and whereas purchasing bylaw 205
[3:49:03] 200:25 provides the delegated authority to award the contracts of
[3:49:07] the value less than $1 million with approved budget. And
[3:49:10] whereas there has been a recent coverage of. Capital projects
[3:49:14] being over budget, while amenity capital projects that are within
[3:49:17] budget go unreported. Therefore, be it resolved that infrastructure and
[3:49:21] engineering services bring forward an annual information report to council
[3:49:24] on attenders and rfps that were awarded for the year
[3:49:27] through delegated authority. Closed session reports councilor hall and Connecticut
[3:49:33] councilor Bondi the second. Thank you, mayor. Can have confidentiality
[3:49:37] and closed session meetings. Closed session meetings of council are
[3:49:39] held to discuss sensitive matters. Such as legal issues, personnel
[3:49:42] matters, or property negotiations. These sessions are governed by strict
[3:49:46] confidentiality to protect the interests of the municipal. Municipality and
[3:49:50] individuals involved. Council members and staff are legally, unethically bound
[3:49:54] to maintain discretion and any disclosure of information discussed in
[3:49:57] closed session may result in penalties or legal consequences. Closed
[3:50:02] session report for Monday, June 23, 2025. Council received information
[3:50:06] on litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality or local
[3:50:10] board and advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege
[3:50:13] with regard to claims and litigation. Update section 239, two
[3:50:17] e and f of the municipal act, and I so
[3:50:19] move. Anyone opposed? Do you want the official vote in
[3:50:28] this one? Okay, we can vote now. Council Bondi. Yes,
[3:50:34] and councilor B. McGregor. Yes. Although Turin motion passes 17
[3:50:42] to zero communication items. Councilor Finn, you wanted to pull
[3:50:45] two c. Yes. Thank you. Kind of disheartened to read
[3:50:50] yet again that we received no funding. For sports community
[3:50:56] sport and Recreation Infrastructure fund. If somebody could explain. Do
[3:51:03] we know when the last time was we received funding
[3:51:06] from this grant program? And what does this now mean
[3:51:11] for the project that was submitted? Perhaps. I can answer
[3:51:19] part of that. Four arenas. We have received grant funding.
[3:51:24] I'm not sure if it was from this program. Or
[3:51:26] from another sports program. As governments come out, they announced
[3:51:30] different forms. Of funding. But the Wallsburg Irene rebuild. We
[3:51:37] did receive about a million dollars of funding. When we
[3:51:42] replaced the floor and did a lot of renovations there.
[3:51:47] But, yeah, it's a very disappointing that. We did not
[3:51:50] receive funding for the Blana marina. Aligned perfectly with. The
[3:51:57] purpose of the grant. It all comes down to be
[3:52:01] that. The grants offered by upper levels never have enough
[3:52:05] funding to go around. And I can't explain why shadow
[3:52:10] was left out again. So what does it mean? Now
[3:52:13] for the Blenheim Arena? So it was still budgeted. It
[3:52:18] still was in the capital budget to fund. We were
[3:52:20] hoping to offset chat and Pentagon so we could move
[3:52:24] those dollars to a new project. Instead. It'll just be
[3:52:32] chatter cut property tax dollars going to. That project. I
[3:52:38] believe it's in. 27 that it's actually being done. Thank
[3:52:44] you, councilor fan and Councilor Doyle. Can I get you
[3:52:47] to move the communication items? Please. Happy to move it.
[3:52:54] Happy to say that. Any questions? Anyone opposed? Motion carries
[3:52:58] non agenda business. Hope your hand is okay.
[3:53:13] We got eight minutes. I'm sure we'll fit all this
[3:53:16] in. Sorry. Who else? Over here. Councilor Scott, chief. All
[3:53:21] by councilor Anderson. Thank you, Maricina. I just wanted to
[3:53:23] remind everybody that on candidate day, the glad tiny church
[3:53:26] is having a very big fireworks display and also that
[3:53:29] the Blenham Fire Department is celebrating 150 years. And lastly,
[3:53:32] I just wanted that there was several events around CK
[3:53:35] last weekend. And dozens and probably hundreds of volunteers. And
[3:53:42] I just want to thank all the volunteers that make
[3:53:44] these wonderful events happen, whether it be a car show
[3:53:47] or all the events that's happening. Across our community. Thank
[3:53:50] you. Councilor Anderson, followed by council Juneville. Thank you. I
[3:53:55] just wanted to remind everybody that this weekend is the
[3:53:58] Wheatley Fish Festival. There's things happening Friday, Saturday and Sunday
[3:54:01] at the harbor at the arena and uptown Wheatley. So
[3:54:05] bring your family, bring your friends, and come and enjoy
[3:54:07] some time with us. Thanks, councilor juvenile, followed by councilor
[3:54:11] C. McGregor. Thank you, mayor. Cannoff I have been contacted
[3:54:14] by quite a few residents from Dresden today who have
[3:54:16] shared some pictures and concerns with me. It appears there
[3:54:20] was a lot of activity at the York one. Site
[3:54:22] today, and many people have asked if we have any
[3:54:25] knowledge, authority or governance over what is currently happening there.
[3:54:29] Thank you, worship. Maybe I can answer that. Yeah, we
[3:54:32] do have some knowledge of activity happening on that site.
[3:54:37] It's really hard to say whether or not we have
[3:54:38] any authority. They have the right to use their property
[3:54:42] legally like anybody else does. We will be keeping an
[3:54:46] eye on them, and I encourage people to share with
[3:54:48] their counselors. Or us if they see any activity. That
[3:54:51] is beyond what they're entitled to do. We will be
[3:54:54] reminding them what their zoning is. And if anyone sees
[3:54:59] any, there's certain things, obviously, if buildings go up, it's.
[3:55:02] Subject to the Ontario building code. If there's any earthworks
[3:55:05] that's happening, that's. Going to impact drains or water courses,
[3:55:08] and they need the proper permissions for that. So we'll
[3:55:11] certainly keep an eye on it. I just would urge
[3:55:13] people to do so. Legally. I'd hate to see somebody
[3:55:15] get hurt or be charged for tres. Trespassing. We'll make
[3:55:19] sure that our enforcement people drop by from time to
[3:55:21] time. As well. I will take the opportunity to indicate
[3:55:24] we still have not heard from York one. Nor from
[3:55:28] the province. So if there has been. A new application
[3:55:31] filed. Now that bill five has been passed, we have
[3:55:35] not been advised by either. The province or York, one
[3:55:38] of that. Obviously, when we are, we'll let you know,
[3:55:41] but. As of right now, we don't know what the
[3:55:43] plans are. And we know that the EA is not
[3:55:46] a requirement anymore by legislation. We're not really sure how
[3:55:49] the ESA is going to be addressed. So as soon
[3:55:54] as we get more information, we'll let you know. But
[3:55:56] in the interim, any information that people have about the
[3:55:59] use of the site. We're happy to collect. Councilor C.
[3:56:03] McGregor, probably. Councilor Wright. Thank you. And you can thank
[3:56:06] Councilor Finn for me to remember this one. But this
[3:56:12] past week, my food palette. Through my food policy council,
[3:56:15] I met. With trevor jones. In regards to some of
[3:56:20] the direction as envisioned with the Food Policy council. But
[3:56:25] in that conversation, he mentioned that should we at any
[3:56:29] point in time be submitting grants or submissions through to
[3:56:33] the provincial government. He indicated that he could not help
[3:56:37] us write those grants or whatever. But once those grants
[3:56:40] are written that if we wish to include him, Afterwards
[3:56:47] that he would be more than happy to help see
[3:56:50] that those submissions get in front of the right people
[3:56:53] to try and help us gain. Access to some of
[3:56:56] that funding. Thank you for that, councilor. We do. It
[3:57:03] hasn't helped yet, necessarily. But in fairness, The minister has
[3:57:07] a new portfolio now, so perhaps that's something that will
[3:57:11] allow him to. Be more helpful. Councilor wright. Thank you,
[3:57:14] mayor. Can if Ridgetown is starting to celebrate their 150
[3:57:20] years, this year. Their praise. Friday night, everyone's welcome. 06:00.
[3:57:26] The Ridge House Museum got their 50th anniversary. They just
[3:57:29] redone their museum. It really looks good. If you get
[3:57:31] a chance, get out and go through it. And hats
[3:57:34] off to Temville. We were there, me and the mayor,
[3:57:36] on Friday night, we went through the parade and they
[3:57:38] had a great festival all weekend, so thank you. Okay,
[3:57:43] we'll move on to reading of the bylaws first and
[3:57:46] second reading councilor. Crew McDonald's. Seconded. Anyone opposed? Motion carry.
[3:57:54] Councilor hall and councilor juvenile, third and final reading. So.
[3:57:58] Moved and seconded. Anyone opposed? Motion carried. Resolution of council.
[3:58:08] Councilor hall, and then if we can get. I don't
[3:58:11] know. Who did I write down for this one? Councilor
[3:58:13] Scott? This one seconded, I move the chapter council adjourn
[3:58:17] to its next meeting to be held on Monday, July
[3:58:20] 14, 2025, in that Chattel County Council authorized itself to
[3:58:22] be in closed session on that day to discuss any
[3:58:24] matters permitted by the municipal act. Councilor Zagachi is seconded.
[3:58:29] Anyone opposed? Wrapping up at 957. Three minutes to spare.
[3:58:35] Here we go. Thanks, everybody. We are your tv
[3:58:44] connect with us.