[0:07] ready.
>> Okay.
[0:14] » Okay.
[0:18] » It's nice to see you all again.
>> Uh let's call this uh meeting to order.
[0:23] Uh we respectfully acknowledge that we
live and work in Mcmagi as a steward of
[0:28] the ancestral territory of the McMahon
people. We are all treaty people.
[0:36] Can I get someone to approve the agenda?
>> So move second.
[0:40] » Moved by Warden Weber, second by
councelor Asf. All those in favor?
[0:45] Opposed? Motion's carried.
Minutes of the previous meeting were
[0:50] circulated.
Any errors or omissions?
[0:58] [laughter]
>> Moved by Warden Weber and seconded by
[1:02] Councelor Church. Um discussion.
One thing I noticed uh in the minutes is
[1:08] that um during the uh this the the topic
of the landfill business strategy, we
[1:16] talked a lot about um septage and I feel
like most of that conversation was sort
[1:22] of maybe maybe in I'm not sure on
purpose, but uh they didn't really speak
[1:28] to it at all in the minutes and uh
somehow I hope that that that message
[1:34] wasn't lost on staff. Oh,
>> good. Okay. Well, maybe we only need it
[1:40] Maybe we only need it at a high level at
this point.
[1:43] » Yeah, I think some of that was in
camera.
[1:45] » Very well. All right. So, uh we have a
mover and a seconder. All those in
[1:50] favor? Opposed? Motion's carried.
All right.
[1:56] Exciting. Topic one.
System of municipal fire inspection
[2:04] inspection policy policy review
community and develop community
[2:08] development and recreation. All right,
council.
[2:13] » Good to see you.
>> All right, the floor is yours.
[2:18] » So, we'd like to bring this to your
attention. This policy um this is we're
[2:23] looking to do a policy review. This is
one of the policies we're looking at.
[2:27] identified some things we'd potentially
like to change and get some council
[2:30] direction on some of those changes. So,
the agenda for this, this is going to be
[2:35] very quick. Um, if you go back up. Yeah,
I know that's always the preferred one.
[2:40] Uh, so a few areas we'd like to look at.
The inspection schedule, that's the most
[2:44] important part of this policy. It's a
fairly limited policy if you've looked
[2:48] through it. Um, in the initial policy
review, we've looked at a few areas we
[2:53] would like to either change or correct
some small errors or generally shake up
[2:57] a bit. Um, and then we'd like to look to
you for any direction you have in how
[3:02] you would like this policy to be shaped
and to be applied. So, a little bit
[3:07] about the background, how we got here.
Um, we are required to have a system of
[3:13] fire inspections. This is one of those
areas where it's split between all
[3:16] jurisdictions. So we have a part to
play. The province largely has the most
[3:21] in terms of framework. And then there
are also national building codes and
[3:24] fire codes we have to adhere to. So in
accordance with all three of those, we
[3:29] have to have a system of fire
inspections. By system, it's mostly the
[3:33] schedule on which we are going to do our
inspections. Uh in September 2018, we
[3:38] enacted this policy and that's the last
time it has been updated. So we're about
[3:44] due for an update.
[3:48] So the objectives for why we want to
review it and make some changes. We have
[3:53] four sort of smaller points. One is just
update the schedule. This will have the
[3:57] most sort of council direction, council
input if you'd like. The second is to
[4:02] remove duplicate sections. A lot of this
policy is copied from the provincial
[4:06] legislation and generally we should try
to avoid that. Uh the third is to narrow
[4:10] the scope. Again, we are one part of
three different jurisdictions all
[4:14] dealing with this. So it would be good
to kind of pare it down to just those
[4:18] areas where we have jurisdiction over.
Uh and then four just general
[4:21] housekeeping changes. This policy is
eight years old and should be looked at
[4:25] and updated with our language and you
know updated with anything else we've
[4:28] changed.
So the inspection schedule this is the
[4:33] area where we have more authority over
more jurisdiction more leeway. So our
[4:39] current schedule, we have the group A's
and C's, that's assembly occupancy and
[4:43] residential occupancy. Those are every 3
years. The legislation, the provincial
[4:48] legislation tells us we have to do that
every 3 years. But the rest of them we
[4:52] have authority over how often we want to
inspect and most we've defaulted to
[4:57] every 5 years and then industrial
occupancy high hazards every 3 years. In
[5:02] general, and this is in consultation
with our fire inspector and looking at
[5:06] some of the other municipalities, we
would like to be a little more proactive
[5:09] on this and have three years for most of
them and then every year for industrial
[5:14] occupancy high hazards. So that's the
schedule we would like to go to, but
[5:19] this is also, you know, within our
leeway. We can decide whether this is
[5:23] sufficient. I'll also note that these
are are minimum. We can always
[5:28] investigate more if there are issues, if
it's a known problem, if it's, you know,
[5:32] for whatever reason, we are allowed to
use jurisdiction and or use um
[5:37] discretion and investigate more
frequently if needed.
[5:42] » To the next one, the duplication. Uh in
general, we try to avoid this. Uh
[5:47] » just a moment. Warden Weber has a
question.
[5:49] » Of course.
>> I mean, like you guys know more about
[5:52] this than me. I mean, the only you're
you're you're going you want to do the
[5:56] the inspections more frequently, which
makes perfect sense as long as you have
[6:01] the staffing capacity to do it. And
that's what that's my what I want to
[6:06] know.
>> Well, a big one is that we're cancelling
[6:08] service with Mahome Bay, which opens up
a lot of extra time.
[6:13] » Yeah. So,
>> yeah. Yeah. I mean, when it comes to
[6:17] this kind of stuff, I mean, you're
you're the professionals on it. I I just
[6:20] want to make sure you can actually do
it. That's all.
[6:24] » Yeah. No, that is absolutely and on an
ongoing basis that is worth considering.
[6:28] So, this is as as we determine within
our current capacity and we don't expect
[6:33] that to run out anytime soon. So, this
should be good.
[6:37] » Yeah. I just one other comment is we
we've talked through this at the staff
[6:41] level as well because we knew this would
be uh more than likely [clears throat]
[6:44] one of the primary concerns that council
would have. And uh so upon uh you know
[6:48] talking about fire inspections over the
past few years, we've let council know
[6:52] that we've we've been in a deficit and
we've been behind schedule for a good
[6:57] period of time where we had periods
where we didn't have a fire inspector or
[7:00] we had part-time fire inspectors doing
other work. Uh and for a short period of
[7:05] time, another municipality was was
assisting us with doing some of those
[7:08] fire inspections. And uh so I think this
is partly credit to the great work that
[7:13] Matthew's been doing since he's been
here. and we are now in a in a point of
[7:17] uh we've caught up and and we're back on
par with where we should be. And so that
[7:23] deficit has been kind of cleared up. And
so now that we're kind of in that
[7:26] position of into our regular schedule,
uh that that has also uh freed up some
[7:32] of our staff resources to be able to
have the time uh to do our regular
[7:36] inspections and not to be always be
working backwards or trying to catch up.
[7:39] And so I think we're in a in a really
good position now. And so
[7:43] [clears throat]
uh and so uh increasing the frequency of
[7:46] inspections uh is not anticipated uh to
be an issue.
[7:52] » I I counselor ASF.
>> Thank you.
[7:54] » Just a second.
Yeah, that was my biggest concern
[7:57] because
>> I mean I know from my area, you know,
[8:01] when they don't get a fire inspection
for 2 or 3 years or whatever and then
[8:05] all of a sudden it comes in and said,
well, like it it it caused a lot of
[8:09] friction between the inspector and not
always, but you know, they're wondering
[8:15] why are you coming to me now? And it's
so I'm I guess what I'm trying to say is
[8:19] if if we're back on a level playing
field now,
[8:23] » I hope we don't let it get to that point
again
[8:25] » in some fashion. I don't know how we'll
do it, but
[8:27] » yeah,
>> we can't get behind the eightball again
[8:29] because it's it's not fair to the public
either as well as the inspectors because
[8:34] it puts a burden on everybody and uh
>> you know, the last thing we want to do
[8:38] is close a business down. That's right.
Put a put a put an undue burden on them
[8:42] that
>> you know, they have to do everything at
[8:44] one time. But that was my biggest
concern. So, I'm glad.
[8:47] » Yeah. And that was part of what we had
identified a couple of years ago when we
[8:50] brought uh we brought Matthew on as as
full-time fire inspector was for that
[8:54] exact reason. And so, and and I do uh
think and Matthew can can chime in if he
[8:58] likes, but I think, you know, having
those more regular inspections so that
[9:02] people are used to seeing the fire
inspector and so you're not be like a
[9:06] lot in 5 years a lot can happen uh
versus you know, 3 years or one years
[9:10] like then you're seeing the fire
inspector more frequently. It's like,
[9:13] yeah, know what to expect or um you
know, you know, you have to stay on top
[9:18] of those things and people tend to do
that if they know they're going to have
[9:20] an inspection more frequently. So, yeah.
So, so I do I do think this is a a good
[9:24] change.
>> More frequent inspections usually equate
[9:28] to less contraventions because you're
you're there more frequently, which
[9:32] means shorter inspections and eventually
you might not have any contraventions.
[9:36] So,
>> solicitor
[9:40] » me. Okay. Yes. Um, this probably sounds
like a good idea, but I think we have to
[9:44] be careful in in our wording because,
uh, you put something in the policy, it
[9:51] can easily become a standard. So, I', I
think what we want to see is a policy
[9:56] that would allow for more frequent
inspections, but that's not, you know,
[10:00] that's not necessarily a standard, if
you know what I mean. So, you might you
[10:04] might want to start with a minimum if
it's three or five, whatever, but have
[10:07] the policy worded such it could be more
frequent.
[10:10] » That is the current policy. Yeah. It
allows for the discretion of the fire
[10:13] inspector to do more frequently.
>> Yeah. But at least until we know that if
[10:18] you want to do it every three years or
every year, at least until we know that
[10:21] that's doable and feasible, you know,
and then maybe when that becomes the
[10:26] norm, then you may want to come back and
put it more definitively in policy. But
[10:32] I would hesitate to do it in advance
only because if you fall short
[10:38] then you're you've fallen short of your
own policy.
[10:41] » Yeah.
>> And if and if there's repercussent can
[10:44] be repercussions.
>> That was my concern.
[10:46] » Something happens
>> should we have a staff change and then
[10:48] we start to fall behind and then
>> you know then you know should there be
[10:53] an accident and we haven't been on site
to do their inspection per our policy
[10:57] then does that put us in a jeopardous
situation? All right. Okay. I don't
[11:06] » And it will it will we'll this is just
for discussion of what what council's
[11:10] thoughts are. Um the only other thing I
would add is uh right now we we have
[11:14] capacity. We know we're we're
potentially growing and if those
[11:18] residential occupancies do um grow those
over three we have to do those every
[11:23] three years. That's mandated every three
years. So if we start to get a
[11:28] proliferation of those and that could
that could impact right
[11:32] » make adjustments in the future for sure.
>> Um barring no other questions I I had a
[11:39] question also like are there no uh
provincial standards on inspection
[11:43] frequency because that is that that's
what how does that line up with what
[11:48] we're proposing today? So there are some
uh the group A and group C are
[11:53] provinially mandated and then the rest
of them fall under a municipality shall
[11:59] uh and they are not prescribed as
specific terms.
[12:02] » The wording of the regulation I've got
it in front of me. A municipality must
[12:05] carry out a system of fire inspections.
So it has to be a a system of fire
[12:08] inspections on all buildings containing
the following occupancies. And then it
[12:12] lists them but it doesn't list a time
frame. So we have to articulate. I think
[12:17] that's one of [clears throat] the we'll
have to work on that with you. We I
[12:20] think we have to articulate how often it
can be expected and then um
[12:24] » and surely there's a like a you you have
professional associations that we would
[12:31] probably belong to.
>> Surely they have guidelines that they
[12:34] publish as well outside of the
regulation.
[12:37] » Yeah. So so the policy A's are required
every 3 years that is mandated. the rest
[12:43] is up to each municipality. And I did a
little bit of research on some other
[12:49] municipalities in Nova Scotia. And it's
actually all over the place. There
[12:53] really isn't much of a standard. Like
some like Halifax, for example, does
[13:00] residentials every 2 years or some do
bars every year. Some other places are
[13:06] like F1s, F2s, and F3s, which are all
the high hazard, medium hazard, and low
[13:11] hazard buildings. Those are like two
years, three years, four years. So it's
[13:15] it is really up to the municipality and
a lot of the municipalities use a
[13:19] riskbased analysis which they determine
within that municipality and kind of
[13:25] pick building per building where they're
going to place it in an inspection
[13:28] interval.
>> Yeah. I mean, me personally, sorry to I
[13:33] don't want to monopolize this
conversation, but I I think I would be
[13:37] in favor of maybe
like shrinking down some of these
[13:41] inspection periods. I I agree with you
that more frequent we'll bring pe folks
[13:46] into compliance and they'll they'll tend
not to drift out
[13:49] » because they'll be an expectation that
this is this reoccurring thing is
[13:53] happening more frequently. That's good.
Um, but you know, maybe when this comes
[13:59] back as a proposed policy change, we
could have I'd like to see like rather
[14:06] than a jurisdictional scan because
that's often times a tool that we use to
[14:09] benchmark our policy changes against
others,
[14:13] you know, I'd rather look at what like
like your professional associations,
[14:17] what they have to say about these sort
of things because they they tend to have
[14:20] a broader view. um, you know, looking at
some other hillbilly municipalities next
[14:26] door that that that may not actually be
a a good way of of figuring out if we're
[14:31] on the right track or not. So, you know,
[14:38] » council per
>> Thank you, Deputy Wardant. Um, staffing
[14:44] is always going to be the issue how we
can do it. Glad to hear we have some
[14:48] free time. For me, it's the senior
complexes, the special needs locations,
[14:55] which we have several. They can change,
as you know, Matt, a lot frequently.
[15:01] People do things that aren't always the
safest and smartest things to do, but
[15:05] we're hopefully educating them. And the
fact is, we are going to grow and we're
[15:10] going to need these frequencies more
often to do those locations. And I
[15:15] really encourage you to keep doing what
you're doing. in it's it's pleasing to
[15:20] me to know you're on top of the game and
knows what know what we have to have
[15:23] done to keep us safe and it's a it's a
big picture. The province got themselves
[15:28] in some trouble over the years for their
lack of inspections and their confusion.
[15:32] So, we need to set a pace. You said it
well. Nobody's consistent. We could be
[15:37] consistent and should be consistent.
Thank you.
[15:41] So I'm I'm you know I'm feeling from the
body language at this table that I and
[15:47] speak up but that I think mostly we're
in favor of what you're proposing here
[15:52] and you know I I can say over the last
number of years that our building
[15:56] official like the building side of our
department has always been pretty
[16:00] strong. Our fire side
historically had been weak and now it's
[16:06] nice to see like a level of
professionalism that's come in to the
[16:09] department. So I think this is good
another good step forward for us as a
[16:13] municipality. So um you know I look
forward to seeing the proposed changes
[16:18] in in policy form and you know maybe
with a little bit bit of backup for to
[16:23] to because because then it'll have to go
out for public notice at that point and
[16:28] we'll have the backup in the package why
we've chosen to do this.
[16:36] » Okay. Oh, councelor Church, sorry.
>> Just one comment. Um,
[16:40] [clears throat and cough] do you go out
like proactively to businesses and
[16:44] places to
um, you know, suggest to them that you
[16:48] should do this? Because I know with the
schedule being every five years, we know
[16:54] a lot can happen and I've heard it from
some, oh my heavens, you know, the fire
[16:59] inspector is in and now we've got to
spend all this money, huge amount of
[17:04] money to change something. Whereas if
you're in on a more frequent basis, not
[17:10] as an inspection, but just say, "Hey,
you know, we'll be back. Maybe you
[17:15] should look at some a few things and do
it instead of waiting to or I don't know
[17:20] what your time schedule is that you're
even able to do that or whether that's
[17:25] your role. I don't know."
>> Yeah. So, there is some of that. Um,
[17:30] usually it's upon request of the
business owner. Okay. Um, and there's
[17:34] also some of that when uh a business
changes, which happens quite frequently
[17:38] around here it seems. But, um, so the
building, so you could have a building
[17:43] that has six different occupancies in
it. So, it could be a bunch of
[17:46] storefronts and and a restaurant or
something like that. Um, so let's say
[17:50] that is a 5-year inspection interval. If
something changes and a building closes
[17:54] and re reopen or a business closes and
reopens that would typically prompt a
[17:59] visit. Okay.
>> And it's not usually a official
[18:02] inspection
more like a proactive approach. So there
[18:06] is a little bit of that.
>> I like that. I think that's a good
[18:10] » and changes in occupancy as well.
Classifications would would prompt a
[18:14] reinspection as well as complaints. So
those are generally the the one it's
[18:18] it's not a
>> um kind of on your free time go out and
[18:23] and uh drop into different places but
it's it's an on an as needed basis or
[18:28] when the opportunity is there.
>> Right. Okay.
[18:34] » Great. I think that's I think that'll
just about do it unless there's other
[18:38] questions.
>> There's a couple more slides.
[18:41] » All right. Oh, is there Oh, sorry.
>> These other ones are are far more
[18:44] structural and procedural. That's fine.
>> Um, this is Could you go back up to the
[18:48] provincial legislation and uh regulation
there? So, uh, as I, as identified,
[18:54] there are some areas of this policy that
are duplicating provincial legislation.
[18:59] Uh, part that is partially what brought
this. The province has changed um some
[19:03] of their system of complaints if it's
being complained by another public body.
[19:08] So, we'd like to go through and kind of
remove the sections that are duplicating
[19:12] provincial and um either accommodating
them by putting in pointers to the
[19:17] provincial legislation or just removing
them if they are no longer relevant.
[19:23] Uh and then finally, we would like to
kind of narrow the scope a little bit.
[19:27] Uh we have three areas where we have
more control over the actual appointment
[19:34] of the municipal fire inspector, which
is fairly straightforward, fairly
[19:37] simple. We don't anticipate any changes.
We have a schedule for inspections which
[19:40] we will take your uh input and come back
with some options. And then the process
[19:44] for complaints and these are for uh
complaints by the public. Um so how
[19:49] they're processed, how they're
investigated. So we'd like to clean up
[19:52] some of that language, remove some
ambiguities and kind of tighten that
[19:55] process up. So those are the main areas
we'd like to look at. The schedule is
[20:01] the big one that we have a lot of
jurisdiction over and then the other two
[20:04] are mostly procedural structural wording
choices, housekeeping changes.
[20:14] » Good.
>> Slam dunk.
[20:18] » All right. Thank you very much.
[20:24] » All right, folks.
>> Let's try to knock off another one. We
[20:27] got the potable water study update from
the Department of Public Works.
[20:35] » This one's going to be exciting.
[20:44] » I give the tallest the smallest.
[20:55] » All right. Hi. Uh good morning. We're
here to give an update of the potable
[20:59] water study that was started last fiscal
year. It's a two-year program. And with
[21:04] me are uh Maggie and Kyle from Dylan,
and of course Jonathan Megan with our
[21:08] staff.
[21:11] I'm going to go through the capital
project background, the scope of work in
[21:15] the study, the interim findings, early
estimate of costs, and proposed next
[21:20] steps.
Jonathan, I'll get you go. Who that?
[21:25] Sorry,
>> if you can take this there because with
[21:29] » Yeah, we just wanted to sort of go
review where we're at in terms of the
[21:33] some of the financing through external
grants that we've had to the various
[21:36] water initiatives we we've attempted.
So, we've received three different pcap
[21:41] grants from the province uh devoted to
different attempts. So, uh the 23 pcap
[21:48] uh was for originally for test wells in
middle river area that proved to be
[21:53] unsuccessful.
uh but the province has been very
[21:57] flexible and accommodating and allow us
to sort of revise the scope so we can
[22:01] make use of those costs because these
are 50% of the total costs that we
[22:05] receive in advance. So rather than sort
of try and figure out how to return
[22:10] money they're more than more than
[clears throat] happy for us to apply
[22:12] that to to work to activity that's
within the scope of the original uh uh
[22:17] original intent. So in that sense that
first one then we applied that balance
[22:22] to uh community wells work uh both the
agreement development and and some other
[22:28] associated costs. The 24 pcap was
originally for a hydrogeeological study
[22:34] in Robertson's corner area again
unsuccessful. We applied that uh balance
[22:40] to the first phase of the portable water
study which was the watershed flow
[22:45] monitoring. Um so that was we were able
to to get that approval through the
[22:50] province and then the most most recent
uh PECAP and which will turn out to be
[22:55] the last one because the PCAP program
has been discontinued by the province uh
[22:59] is for the wholesale potable water study
that we're undertaking with Dylan right
[23:04] now. So that's essentially where we're
at. So we have
[23:08] » we have uh adequate uh grant funding
available for for for the balance for
[23:13] the work that we need to do. I
understand right.
[23:15] » Yeah, that's correct. Around 200 200,000
roughly
[23:20] uh for future work. Uh the scope of the
work in phase one as a background review
[23:25] and initial screening that's completed.
Uh bthometric survey and drone aerial
[23:30] that's basically to determine the volume
of Henry Lake and what's going into it.
[23:36] Uh the water watershed understanding in
general that's completed. uh field
[23:41] program. We're continuing with uh some
studies and uh the last year that we
[23:47] studied gave us very good data what the
lowest case scenario is. Uh the concept
[23:53] engineering study that's in progress and
we've had preliminary consultation with
[23:59] environment natural resources the
department of transportation regarding
[24:02] potential areas potential routes and so
on and regulatory liaison that's ongoing
[24:08] as well.
Uh we looked at four lakes Vans Lake,
[24:14] Bazansen Lake, Canot Lake and Henry Lake
and Henry Lake was selected for the
[24:20] field monitoring and the further
analysis because we could get full
[24:23] access to that. Uh we looked at three
communities, Western Shore, Chester
[24:28] Basin and Chester and of course anything
in between right the water manes don't
[24:33] skip over areas.
Yeah. And then we looked at the
[24:37] population growth like if this was
actually in place in 2030 to60 we used a
[24:42] high rate the 1.8% 8% growth per year
per year per year and uh it can meet
[24:48] that with our studies but we also want
to sit down with other staff to see if
[24:52] that's reasonable or not like there's
some allowances for industrial activity
[24:56] and so on right uh it's a typical lake
no significant signs of contamination
[25:02] it's also you know worries about uranium
and other things we didn't find anything
[25:07] like that
>> shrank
[25:11] » pretty much only about 25% of it isn't
and there's not a lot of activity in
[25:16] that. And if it goes forward in the
future, we're not looking to make crazy
[25:21] restrictions either. We want to work
with the people that are on the lake,
[25:24] still have it open to recreation. Yeah.
Things like that. So, we uh they had a
[25:31] rough look at cost about, you know, 48.5
million. And that gives you the
[25:35] treatment plan. Uh the main mains going
into the communities, the reservoirs,
[25:41] pressure stations, and so on. We they
didn't look like all the little loops
[25:45] for the subdivisions and that. So, and
bulk water stations, things like to that
[25:51] effect. Engineering's around 5%. I threw
some contingency in there. And then if
[25:58] nothing's done over the three years with
the inflation and costs, another five
[26:04] million there. So it's around 63
million. And then we added further
[26:08] contingency because really phase one's
not even done yet, but we're working on
[26:12] that. So at the end of the day, we're
looking at about 78.6 million. Then
[26:17] you've got to look at land costs and
that. So there's a lot of it, but we
[26:20] have an expert here in uh grants. So we
should be no problem, right? Yeah, and
[26:27] this is just construction costs. We got
to look at operation costs, right? Do we
[26:32] join up with another municipality or
another group or utility out there? So,
[26:37] there's lot to think of.
>> And this would be this would be full
[26:40] with like allin with distribution
system. This isn't phased. This is this
[26:45] is the
>> That's right. Well, we would look at you
[26:48] know maybe one area is not quite ready.
we have on board and with the phasing
[26:53] like a lot of the tanks now with the
glass fuse steel bolted that you put
[26:57] them in sections well maybe you only put
two/ird of it up and then 10 years down
[27:02] the road you put up the others right so
those are pretty sharp things like that
[27:07] next one
so uh the proposed next steps
[27:12] uh we look at different things that we
could look at for the remaining monies
[27:18] » let's give uh Tom a chance to jump Sure.
>> Thank you, Deputy Warden. Quick
[27:22] question, Fred. Any allowance for
hydrant water? I know it says potable
[27:29] water. Or are we laying any pipe for
blue water if we want to grow in the
[27:32] future?
>> No. Uh, this is all for full fire
[27:35] protection.
>> Yeah,
[27:37] » we're smoking.
>> Thank you.
[27:39] » Yeah, the reservoir is for all that good
stuff. Yeah. Right.
[27:43] » Right. And I can go to the next slide.
Yeah. So we looked at uh continue water
[27:48] quality sampling level monitoring just
continue what we have to get another
[27:52] good year data. Uh the downstream
environmental studies 30 to 75,000 and a
[27:59] lot of that is just
we can take you know we know what volume
[28:04] we need but we have to establish what
the rivers and the system needs
[28:08] downstream. So we can't take all of it.
We got to look at what we can do to keep
[28:13] that maintained. is called maintenance
flow. And the early thoughts were uh an
[28:17] engineered wetland where the water the
backwash water from the plant isn't just
[28:22] discharged into a sewer is is retained.
And then that water could help with the
[28:28] the flow downstream. And you got a
school right next door. They're probably
[28:32] interested in habitat and water
treatment plants. Might even get some
[28:37] future uh operators from them. Huh.
Right. And then uh consultation
[28:42] developer survey. We should do that
right off the bat because we got to see
[28:46] who's interested, see if it's even
feasible for that, right? And then
[28:51] again, the phasing, I talked a little
bit about that. So, we're looking around
[28:54] 100,000 200,000
roughly to complete that work, which
[28:59] will be within the PECAP what we have,
right?
[29:04] » Yeah. So, summaries again, we're going
to continue with what we have been doing
[29:09] in phase one for those areas.
And then uh again just want to mention
[29:15] the bulk border station because that
could help everyone in Chester right
[29:19] Miss Paloo not just those with the that
and then the next steps it's recommended
[29:24] that we continue on with that under the
current contact with Dylan or a new one
[29:30] if we have to but I think we have some
good momentum and want to keep it going.
[29:37] » Any questions?
Councelor
[29:40] Connor. Hey,
>> thank you. So, just um the bulk water
[29:45] station. Yeah.
>> So, we're talking location at obviously
[29:48] if it is Henry Lake.
>> Yes. What we're thinking preliminary is
[29:52] uh some of the DNR lands right beside
the school.
[29:55] » Yeah. Yeah. No, Henry Lake is right. But
uh but again, I'm just trying to get my
[30:00] head around a bulk water station and um
residents and businesses,
[30:06] » taxpayers throughout the municipality
from
[30:10] » the tip of Aspagen to the tip of New
Ross. And so I'm just trying to get my
[30:13] head around
>> Yeah. the benefit and the value and the
[30:16] the interest when you know again my
district six residents and taxpayers
[30:23] » um kind of take a look at this and so on
and and then reach back out to me. I
[30:29] think one of the questions that they may
ask me and you've ch chatted about um
[30:34] the capital or this being going back a
few slides this is just construction we
[30:38] need to look at operating and so on
>> and I know that we have for um those
[30:44] with direct benefit with um sewer the
the wastewater systems there is a
[30:50] universal sewer rate so I assume we're
going to be looking at universal water
[30:54] rate as well
>> that's correct we have to look at the
[30:57] utility rates and thanks for bringing
that up
[30:59] » cuz we got to look at what we can get
for construction and the maintenance.
[31:03] Try to get that sweet spot. So our rates
are between the lowest in the province
[31:07] and the highest. We want to have
something that's
[31:10] » acceptable.
>> Yeah.
[31:12] » Yeah. Yeah. It has to be and it has to
be again um those receiving the benefit
[31:17] like I assume a wastewater system will
will have to pay that universal sewer
[31:22] rate.
>> That's correct. It' be a water utility
[31:24] rate.
>> It would be a water utility. IA
[31:26] regulated utility with rates set by or
approved by the uh regulatory body just
[31:33] wanted
>> and then this construction is would have
[31:36] to be paid back by the utility, right?
So this shouldn't take away from other
[31:40] big projects that we have. We got to
figure out how to do that under the
[31:43] future utility. I think this is I think
this is this is great and thank you for
[31:48] uh the update about the uh the PECAP um
kind of reallocation in terms of where
[31:54] we are today and also too I have full
faith as you do
[31:58] » in Mr. Meikin in terms of uh navigating
and sourcing and applying and receiving
[32:03] and so on. So yeah, thank you. Thank
you. This is exciting. I I think this is
[32:08] very exciting.
>> I think it's worth looking into.
[32:11] And I think Jonathan, you could probably
add a little bit around the
[32:14] opportunities right now for federal
funding and partnering on that. There's
[32:18] some it's a prime time right now for for
some of those opportunities.
[32:22] » Yeah, there's the as you I'm sure you've
heard there's the building Canada strong
[32:26] fund. It's a the fed new federal
initiative and there are several streams
[32:30] attached to that. uh one is a direct
stream which is underway right now but
[32:34] the focus of that doesn't really fit
partly because that that stream is
[32:40] really about shovel ready projects. Uh
but the the provincial and territory
[32:45] stream that's going to be forthcoming
likely uh next year uh sounds like that
[32:50] that scope that focus will be a suitable
fit for this kind of project. Uh I've
[32:55] had a preliminary conversation with with
municipal affairs and they are very
[33:00] keen. So we will see where it goes.
>> Yeah.
[33:05] » Council Ras,
>> thank you. I I I'm looking at your
[33:08] summary recommendation here and the
Henry Lake wershed appears to be a
[33:13] promising candidate for central portable
water systems. Western Shore, Chester
[33:17] Basin, Chester. Now I'm thinking outside
the box here, but those are all coastal
[33:22] communities. And have have we ever
studied desalinization?
[33:27] Has that ever been? Yeah, we we have had
a look at that cuz
[33:31] » we have been trying for four years to
see what the options are and uh
[33:35] desalination is very expensive a lot of
power understood sorry available for
[33:41] that but uh Barington is looking at
something where they get the energy
[33:45] through wave action and then we had some
inquiries about our harbors but where
[33:51] they're fairly sheltered we don't get
the big waves that would help with the
[33:54] cost on
>> the I I just it just seems to me that,
[33:59] you know, we're struggling to find
possible water sources.
[34:02] » Yeah.
>> And that's not going to get any better.
[34:04] Not in my view.
>> Uh I'm a firm believer that in in the
[34:09] future,
>> that's where our water's going to come
[34:12] from.
>> That's just I mean, they do it in in the
[34:16] Middle East out of necessity. And of
course, they have all kinds of money
[34:20] there, but
>> but it's necessity. That's how they get
[34:23] water. Yeah. And
>> and that's what's going to happen to us
[34:26] here. Not not not tomorrow, but
eventually.
[34:29] » Yeah. And then, you know, hopefully with
the utility, you look at the future
[34:33] asset management, the future studies,
and you do that planning as part of the
[34:37] rates, and hopefully by then somebody
cracks the code on how to make that
[34:41] cheaper, right?
>> Yep.
[34:43] » Thank you.
>> Yeah. The hydraology lab at Dhouse
[34:45] University is doing a lot of really
interesting work around desaliniz
[34:50] desalinization
approaches and and I think I think it's
[34:54] just a matter of coming up with
something that's you know there's some
[34:57] really interesting ideas but making it
scalable and cost effective. I think
[35:01] it's coming
>> councelor Connors thank you. Uh so just
[35:06] going back to the slide on the the four
lakes that were identified
[35:10] » can you tell me a bit more about Vans
Bzansen and Kenach and why they kind of
[35:15] didn't make the grade?
>> Yeah we uh well uh Bzansen is also a
[35:21] potential source but uh we didn't do any
field testing on that. We were unable to
[35:26] secure that whereas uh Henry Lake
there's surrounded by crown land so it's
[35:31] very easy to get in to do that. Right.
Okay. And that that may be a future one.
[35:36] Uh Von Lake there's a lot of development
around that right now. So that could be
[35:40] future and it is small as well.
>> Yeah. Canot.
[35:46] » Exactly. So we just try to look at four
potential three possibly. Then we we
[35:53] agreed to look at two. Uh canot lake
that may be a possibility. uh it's
[35:58] pretty far out there and uh there'd be
some concerns maybe although the
[36:04] landfall is managed very well and we
meet all the limits they'll say well if
[36:08] it's downstream from the landfill
>> likely never a problem but
[36:12] » a lot of it's just it's
>> it's quite a ways out but down the road
[36:16] maybe we have to look at that right and
again that becomes with the asset
[36:19] management planning
>> right on um thank you so just as a
[36:23] secondary question to that so again
you're right I recall two lakes we had
[36:27] chat two lakes and bazans was the second
one then right and correct so right now
[36:31] you said that you've just not been able
to secure any field work or kind of have
[36:34] that
>> happen we can do a theoretical one
[36:36] because the baometric information that
we got was very close to the provincial
[36:41] » right
>> but right now it it looks like a very
[36:44] very good source from 2030 to60 if we
can manage the downstream flows right
[36:50] » so Bzansen is is still in the running
>> that's right all those lakes could still
[36:54] be considered in the future that's good
news that's even more even
[36:58] » better.
>> Yeah, it's a good foundation right now
[37:00] for sure.
>> Okay, thank you.
[37:06] » More questions?
>> I have some.
[37:09] » Um,
Hubert's dropped off the list.
[37:13] » Yes,
>> we but we know we've talked a lot about
[37:16] here about the importance of the Hubards
area and how we expect probably that's
[37:22] probably going to be our fastest growing
community in the future. Now,
[37:27] The proposed leg is actually on the very
extreme end of the municipality from
[37:31] hovers.
>> Yeah.
[37:32] » How are we going to overcome that
obstacle because I feel like it it's a
[37:37] big one.
>> Yeah, that's a tough one cuz the the
[37:40] best wells we found were from that from
that community there, 10 beaches and
[37:48] even doing the testing around that there
was some concern and the owners
[37:51] certainly weren't interested. And then
the study that was done by EXP in the
[37:56] area that the the other lands on there
were all low yield and they felt that
[38:00] the lakes couldn't support that which is
verified in an earlier CBCL report. So
[38:06] other than salination maybe canot lake
is a solution for that the future with
[38:11] the future study right that's still
quite a ways out right
[38:15] » not sure
>> yeah I I feel like uh we have to have an
[38:19] answer for that you know since you know
we're talk we can't very well as
[38:25] decision makers defend a decision to
place water treatment on the opposite
[38:30] end of the municipality from where the
week before we were talking that we
[38:35] expect high growth.
>> So I think that we open it up us up to a
[38:41] lot of criticism, don't you?
>> Yeah.
[38:43] » Well, [laughter] so
>> no, that's fair enough. But it's just we
[38:48] couldn't find a viable source I felt to
support more than a low growth area. I
[38:54] mean, if there's individual developers
there that did find something outside of
[38:57] that that could support what they're
proposing, great. But uh maybe the
[39:01] solution maybe there's a lake on the HRM
side that's closer that can do that.
[39:06] It's
>> right now this this seems like a sure
[39:10] thing, right? We could do further
studies for that area. I feel like and
[39:15] maybe we'll have end up with two plants
because our our municipality is broad
[39:21] » for sure and that's fine but I I don't
feel like we can
[39:25] » just uh say okay we found one and and
dust off our hands and walk away from
[39:30] this project because
>> this is of critical importance and I
[39:33] think at the same time we're talking
about this we're also entertaining the
[39:36] discussion about bringing eventually a
sewer in into Hubards and that's going
[39:41] to drive more development
>> and So, we're going to need water there.
[39:45] » Yeah,
>> it it's crucial. It's uh So, this
[39:48] project cannot be completed without a
solution for
[39:51] » Huburns. No, fair enough.
>> I think I think that uh the the growth
[39:58] strategy is planning on coming back. EXP
is pl we're planning on bringing EXP
[40:02] back to talk about the growth strategy,
the two the high um the high density
[40:08] scenario and the lower density scenario.
Um and so that I think is coming back to
[40:14] the table for discussion of uh what
direction do we want to go and where do
[40:18] we what's the next step for that is is
it further water study and and what does
[40:23] that look like? Um but I think that
that's still got to come back. The the
[40:28] last report and I don't think you were
um at the table for the the discussion.
[40:32] And the report did come back talking
about uh where we were and that right
[40:37] now um from the findings so far has been
uh there's only enough uh water there
[40:44] for the low low growth scenario. And so
I think we need to bring that report
[40:48] back and and say what does that mean and
what does that look like? Um kind of
[40:52] remind you of what what the low growth
scenario is. What does it mean for
[40:56] density? What does it actually mean for
growth? It doesn't mean no growth. It
[40:58] means lower than the high density. And I
think we just need to bring that back
[41:03] for discussion.
>> I guess this and and I'll but I will
[41:08] just say that you know whether we say
it's low growth or high growth or
[41:12] whatever or or we have water for one
scenario or another the growth is going
[41:17] to happen. I think anecdotally we know
that that that's where it's going to be.
[41:21] HRM is growing out to us and that's
where we intersect with that with that
[41:27] » um that growth. So, um, you know, we
can't we can't hide from this problem.
[41:34] We have to solve this problem, I feel.
Councelor Connors,
[41:38] » thank you. So, a few weeks ago, we
chatted about um the Huberts community
[41:45] and a location, an additional location
where you were going to go and check, I
[41:50] think. Was that not brought to the
table? I'm trying to remember.
[41:52] » Yeah, that was by 10 beaches. We looked
at an area that would be 500 m away,
[41:57] » right? And that costs like a hundred or
sound and some thousand just to get
[42:03] their
>> okay
[42:04] » the well in there.
>> Okay. And at that distance away, like
[42:08] looking at some of the other residential
wells, it was low again. Like they they
[42:12] kind of have this unique little spot
there, right? Whether there's others,
[42:16] but we could look closer, but they were
not in favor of that. And that there is
[42:21] risk there, right? We what if we
compromise that or even if we were
[42:26] servicing everybody through that water
main break takes out those, you know,
[42:32] communities pretty quick. But that's a
risk with anything. But it
[42:37] we felt for what the
the reward was the risk was too high and
[42:43] talking to the owner they felt the same.
>> I don't think we need to drag it any
[42:47] further.
>> Okay. Yeah, we have uh councelor Cooland
[42:51] here.
>> Just to follow up on Tina, I I
[42:53] appreciate you, you know, asking and and
speaking to that owner about water
[42:58] potential. Um Solers Lake is completely
an HRM, is it not?
[43:03] is
>> I'd have to look at the map.
[43:05] » We have a small little piece of it.
>> We do.
[43:08] » Yeah. They looked at Soler and Nether
Lake for the study that they did a
[43:12] number about 10 years ago and they felt
that wasn't enough.
[43:16] » Okay.
>> Right. But maybe there's one further
[43:19] out. I mean, if you
>> I mean,
[43:21] » probably worth chasing good water.
Right. I mean, not to jump in on you,
[43:25] uh, councelor Con uh, councelor Coolen,
but, um,
[43:29] » you know, if we're if we're looking at a
two source solution, maybe maybe we
[43:34] won't need as much demand.
>> Yeah.
[43:36] » I just somehow if we can circle back
because we
[43:41] don't want to belabor it, but
>> there's no solution until we service
[43:45] hovers.
>> Yeah.
[43:46] » Okay. So, that's I I don't know. That's
my perspective. I
[43:50] » Yeah. Multiple plants can be under the
same utility. Absolutely.
[43:55] » Yeah.
>> Thank you.
[43:57] » I had a couple of other little things
that I wanted to chat quickly about. Um
[44:03] the report or at least a preliminary
report. This is a good update. Thank
[44:06] you.
>> Yeah.
[44:07] » But are we when do you expect that we'll
see something? It'd be nice to see like
[44:11] like a map and how you expect to lay
this out. Anything like just so that we
[44:15] have a little more
>> progress. Really get to some good
[44:19] questions.
>> Yeah. Exactly. We haven't really settled
[44:22] on the appropriate rooting in that.
We're working on that. There is an
[44:25] interimm report that I was able to get
going for this report to give everybody
[44:30] an idea because we have more money to
spend and how should we spend that
[44:34] wisely. But I'll turn that over to Kyle
and Maggie. They're the experts.
[44:37] » Yeah. So, as Fred mentioned, right now
our current schedule is finishing up
[44:40] early fall. So, we agreed with Chester
early on to kind of finish our field
[44:44] logging around the end of August, try
and capture that low flow period for a
[44:47] second time. And then our intent would
be to leave that in. It's just basically
[44:51] a pipe with a level logger that can be
used for future work and then it can be
[44:54] checked. We pull the data, do our final
report and have that probably in
[44:57] October.
>> So we'll see you in October.
[45:00] » Yes, good.
>> We'll be back again. And as Fred
[45:03] mentioned, there is an interim report
and there's been some other sketches. So
[45:06] if there's requests along the way before
that of like a map or a figure, um,
[45:09] we're happy to share that in advance. We
have a good baometric map that will
[45:13] » we shared with you so we can kind of
send it as it comes along. I'm a bit um
[45:17] if I'm honest I'm a bit surprised the
cost projection seems a little low. I
[45:22] know it seems like a big number but it
does seem low as uh in 2018 I think we
[45:27] undertook some work here just looking at
a local lake that that that lake turned
[45:31] out not to be adequate.
>> Um and the but the distribution network
[45:36] that at the time that was under
consideration was smaller as well
[45:41] » and I think the projections for those
costs were in the like 60 million range.
[45:45] So um
>> a project cost of like say 80 million
[45:50] here for a broader network. Uh I I find
that surprising.
[45:54] » It didn't include the distribution
network that was strictly transmission.
[45:57] So it was basically a large trunk pipe
to the extents of the main hubs. The
[46:01] local streets, you know, connections
that was not included.
[46:04] » So it just bringing the big main correct
10 in or whatever you're going to put
[46:08] through.
>> Exactly.
[46:09] » All right.
>> The local distribution networks weren't
[46:11] included. Well, actually that's why it's
based on demand and we can have a harder
[46:14] look on that which is what will help
which was proposed with communication
[46:18] with residents and developers. Who's up
who's up for this? Who's interested?
[46:22] » Do you do you foresee like because it's
kind of a long reach to get to some of
[46:26] these that you expect they're going to
have boosters or something to try keep
[46:30] pushing it along?
>> I fully expect I think in our cost
[46:32] estimate we allowed for a couple storage
tanks and at least you know two PRV
[46:36] booster station type setups.
>> Okay. So I think just with there's a bit
[46:39] of a topographical gradient along the
highway 12 and then a couple others
[46:43] throughout the town. So those would be
ideal spots for for tanks.
[46:47] » As part of this study, you know, is our
on the administrative side, are we
[46:51] looking at um you know how we're going
to set up the cost recovery model and
[46:57] like anything in terms of how to set up
the utility? Are we thinking about
[47:01] bringing
>> the sew our sewers into that utility and
[47:05] making one Chester water style utility
that has everything all in in one thing
[47:10] or or
>> Yeah, that would be a future
[47:12] consideration for sure because there's
also storm water roads, all that stuff,
[47:17] right? that I think that's the way many
municipalities are going to try to bring
[47:20] all the utilities into one place and you
know I feel like
[47:24] » it's something we should probably be
looking at
[47:28] » you know as part of this work because
there's a big administrative component
[47:33] to this if we proceed and the the
biggest concern well not concern the the
[47:39] biggest unknown I would say as part of a
joint utility is whether or not we get
[47:46] Jclass roads And that's a future
discussion. I know they're looking at
[47:49] that right now.
>> Well, we can only Yeah, we can only work
[47:52] with what we know for now.
>> And right now, we know Henry Lake is
[47:56] looking good. So, we're trying to find
out more of that.
[47:59] » Well, it's a starting point.
>> I for one, I'm really happy that we
[48:04] found a a viable water supply.
>> Sounds like it appears that way. Yeah.
[48:08] know and uh there's an answer for a
partial answer.
[48:13] » Yeah.
>> You know, but uh if there's any message
[48:16] I hope you go away with is that we need
the whole answer.
[48:24] » Councelor Kling, I see your lights on.
Is that just rem?
[48:27] » I'll turn you off.
[48:31] » Okay, that's it.
>> Thank you.
[48:39] How's everybody's bladder doing?
All right, we'll take uh just a
[1:01:01] Okay, folks. We're back.
>> All right, so we're going to talk now
[1:01:06] about uh the recreation facility
planning and uh we're going to get an
[1:01:11] update. I guess
>> that's the [snorts] plan. Yep.
[1:01:13] » Floor is yours.
>> Thank you, councelor Vino. Uh morning
[1:01:16] everyone. Nice to see you all. Um yeah,
it's been a little bit since we've all
[1:01:19] been together to talk about the
recreation facility project. So, we just
[1:01:22] wanted to give you an update, do a bit
of a check-in. There's been a lot of
[1:01:26] public facing activities over the last
few months as well. So, I wanted to make
[1:01:29] sure you're all aware of those and then
just give you a sense of what to expect
[1:01:32] in the short term as we kind of near the
end of this project as well. Uh Emily,
[1:01:37] are you driving machines today?
>> Thank you. Okay, so as you know, uh
[1:01:42] Stantech Architecture and Quantum
Recreation were chosen to lead this
[1:01:46] process for us. So, we've been working
with them and they were tasked to
[1:01:51] examine the options to replace the core
existing facilities that we know have
[1:01:56] challenges in the community, but also to
examine the possibility for some other
[1:02:00] amenities as well. And as we'll discuss
as we get into some of the community
[1:02:04] engagement review, I think what has
happened is that uh the community
[1:02:08] engagement has really refined our
thinking about some of the core pieces
[1:02:11] that we need to think about, but also uh
added clarity and expanded our thinking
[1:02:15] about some of those uh extra amenities
that we could be considering too. So uh
[1:02:21] as part of this work, we piggybacked on
the investment strategy work that Hawk
[1:02:26] was Hawk Communications was doing for us
and they hosted a series of focus groups
[1:02:30] you all took part in. one of them, I
believe. Uh, and they helped develop a
[1:02:34] core narrative for this project. And
what they determined with us was that
[1:02:38] this wasn't just about a recreation
facility as a place for people to be
[1:02:42] active, but also as an economic
centerpiece for our community, also for
[1:02:47] at least to attract new families to our
community, and also to improve quality
[1:02:51] of life and create social connections in
our community. So, from that was the
[1:02:56] room to move campaign that you see on
the screen there. And the room to move
[1:02:59] campaign really has become the calling
card and central identity of this
[1:03:03] project as we've gone through it as
well. And what we've done is used that
[1:03:08] uh campaign identity and built on top of
our existing platforms idea or notably
[1:03:14] the engaged Chester platform the invest
platform to put out that public face the
[1:03:20] the internet uh exposure of the project.
So just what you see on the next slide
[1:03:24] there Emily is um just the results uh
from that engaged Chester uh site over
[1:03:30] the last three months roughly uh just to
show some of the engagements that have
[1:03:34] happened with the site. So people are
finding it, people are interacting with
[1:03:37] it. So I'm pleased with the quantity of
of volume on that site. Additionally
[1:03:42] though, and I've reported this to you
previously that early on in the process
[1:03:46] in the fall, we actually went out and
visited eight recreation facilities
[1:03:49] across the province as as steering
committee. Uh but more recently, just to
[1:03:53] be make sure you're aware, we visited uh
three administration buildings in the
[1:03:57] province as well as a group of about 10
of us, staff representatives from
[1:04:02] different departments plus the
consultation team. So we visited Kings,
[1:04:05] Burwick, and Modal just to learn some
lessons from the experiences of some of
[1:04:08] their newer builds that we've seen. And
you also, some of you took part in the
[1:04:13] case study showcase that we hosted back
in March as well. So the purpose of that
[1:04:17] was just to kind of highlight the state
of practice from recreation facilities
[1:04:20] across Nova Scotia and across Canada as
well. So that brings us up to uh the
[1:04:26] good intensive work that happened in
phase one of the community engagement.
[1:04:30] This just a summary table just to give
you a sense of how much reach we had
[1:04:34] with that and the activities that we uh
undertook. So we had the public survey
[1:04:38] that reached about 500 folks. We had a
staff survey that about 40 folks took
[1:04:42] part in. We had five focus groups that
we hosted across the municipality as
[1:04:47] well and those were targeted at users,
stakeholders, um programmers,
[1:04:51] instructors, those kinds of folks. Uh we
had two visioning sessions, one of which
[1:04:56] council was involved with as well just
to define some of the goals of this
[1:04:59] project and kind of the desired
activities that we cons could consider.
[1:05:03] We had three open houses in three
different locations as well and that was
[1:05:07] public facing primarily. So everyone is
welcome to come to that and share again
[1:05:10] desires uh from what they'd like to see
in the uh potential new facility. And
[1:05:15] then lastly there I just noted that we
had a special meeting with leaders at
[1:05:19] Wasoba First Nation as well just to
learn some of their um community and
[1:05:23] cultural priorities too. So that was the
most intensive first phase of the uh
[1:05:29] community engagement piece and from that
uh we learned some of the things that we
[1:05:33] anticipated anyway certainly uh so some
of the things that you see in the RFP
[1:05:38] and what we had asked for in the core
existing facility options considerations
[1:05:41] and some of the additional amenities
they show up here as well in what we
[1:05:45] learned from the community engagement.
But I also highlight that some of the
[1:05:48] things that we didn't expect to see as
high priority as as uh we maybe went
[1:05:53] into this thinking. So the emphasis on
social connection [clears throat] and
[1:05:56] gathering spaces um partnering
opportunities uh some of the
[1:06:01] untraditional uses of recreation
facilities to showed up in community
[1:06:04] engagement. So all of that work was
synthesized down into these themes. So
[1:06:09] these are the things these are the
aspects of community life that we would
[1:06:14] expect that we heard were important to
people. Then just next slide Emily those
[1:06:18] were all then synthesized into these six
project goal areas. So I'll just pause
[1:06:22] on these for a second because the idea
with these is that thoughtful design
[1:06:27] should achieve these goals. So number
one there's the idea of bringing people
[1:06:32] together. So how do we build kinship?
How do we build community? How do we
[1:06:35] also make sure that people feel safe and
a sense of belonging in this space?
[1:06:40] Supporting balanced health. So a place
that supports mind, body and spirit as
[1:06:45] well. The third goal is there is
designing for change. So the idea behind
[1:06:49] that is that we want to be able to
accommodate many different activities
[1:06:53] with the specific needs that those
activities have but also make sure that
[1:06:58] the space is accessible in every uh form
of the definition of that word. So we
[1:07:02] heard about accessibility, physical
accessibility
[1:07:06] um uh but also financial accessibility,
affordability. So that came up often in
[1:07:11] your in your talk as well. These spaces
also need to be flexible too and also
[1:07:15] evolve over time. So the common example
of that is who knew about pickle ball
[1:07:19] five, six, seven years ago but pickle
ball is a force in our recreation
[1:07:23] planning now and so what will the next
pickle ball be? So we have to be mindful
[1:07:27] of what are the what is the um what are
the needs of a community facility like
[1:07:32] this in the future but we can't predict
everything too. So that brings us back
[1:07:35] to the flexibility idea. The goal four
is attract and retain which ties
[1:07:40] somewhat to the economic driver behind
this too. The idea is how do we attract
[1:07:44] new families, professionals, businesses
into the community, but attract and
[1:07:48] retain also speaks to how do we make
sure that people enjoy their time in
[1:07:52] this space and want to come back
frequently. Goal five is the idea of
[1:07:57] going one step further. So people, the
community is looking for something that
[1:08:00] is unique and that they can be proud of.
And then goal six is the stewardship of
[1:08:04] the past, present, and future. So we
need to honor the past and the
[1:08:08] foundation of recreation uh facilities
that have come before this point. know
[1:08:12] who we are and make sure that that shows
up in the facility, but also be mindful
[1:08:16] of how do we protect uh the health of
our future community uh but also we
[1:08:22] don't burden them with uh undue
financial responsibilities too.
[1:08:26] » So those are the goals that uh came out
of that first round of community
[1:08:30] engagement and then I just want to spend
a little bit of time on the student
[1:08:33] engagement. Um credit to the outreach
committee and particularly I'll I'll
[1:08:39] note Amanda and Terry for their energy
behind this. But we set a really
[1:08:42] ambitious student engagement target for
this. The goal was essentially to talk
[1:08:47] to every student in the municipality if
we could. So what we did do or ended up
[1:08:50] doing is we visited school six schools
uh so the five schools in the
[1:08:55] municipality of Chester plus just over
the other side of the line primarily
[1:08:59] because so many of those kids come in
this direction for the recreation
[1:09:02] programming.
Uh we were able to reach students in
[1:09:06] every grade from P to 12. Uh we spent
time in 35 classes between P to 8. So
[1:09:12] just quick snapshot on what that looked
like. We went into those classrooms. We
[1:09:15] scheduled the times, worked with the
teachers and administration. We went in
[1:09:18] those classrooms. We unfold a big piece
of paper on the floor and we invited the
[1:09:23] kids to think like an architect and draw
the inside, the outside of a potential
[1:09:27] facility and or what recreation means to
them as well. I can give you one little
[1:09:32] snapshot of that in a second. uh for the
older grades seven and above we actually
[1:09:37] hosted guided facilitated conversations.
I'll give you a preview of that in a
[1:09:41] second. So all told of about 1,200
students we were able to directly
[1:09:45] connect with 930ish or so uh about 74%
which I was really pleased with. Like
[1:09:51] that's like that's time in classroom
talking to kids and encouraging them to
[1:09:55] think about this space. Uh for the
student contest which I'll give you a
[1:09:59] little bit more on in a second. We had
about 200 submissions to that were
[1:10:03] either independent submissions uh or
submissions tied to curriculum. So
[1:10:08] teachers took this up as well. And my
last stat there is the the multiplier.
[1:10:13] This is not scientific in any way, but I
just wanted to flag that for every kid
[1:10:17] that took that introductory sheet home
and uh or entered the contest, they
[1:10:22] talked to a teacher, a parent, a
grandparent. So this is the idea that we
[1:10:25] use the awareness created amongst the
schools to broaden the awareness of
[1:10:29] those potential pro projects with all
citizenry.
[1:10:33] That is not a scientific number. Um
that's just a screen grab of the uh
[1:10:39] introductory contest video that was
produced. Uh credit to again Amanda and
[1:10:45] Terry, but also we had three students
from Forest Heights who helped us out
[1:10:49] with this. So Connor, Bryce, and Danny,
if you haven't seen this video, it was
[1:10:52] really well done. It was done pro bono
by a professional uh video producer. Uh
[1:10:57] it was really really well done. But also
what it did for us uh as the old
[1:11:01] middle-aged guy going to his classes is
it opened the door for us to go and talk
[1:11:06] to the kids. So Bryce and Danny became
the stars of the show and it wasn't
[1:11:10] about me in any way. Right. So again is
how do we use how do we use the
[1:11:14] influence and the leverage of these
kinds of tools to actually be able to
[1:11:16] talk to our citizens.
Um so [clears throat] um just next piece
[1:11:22] there. So these are just a screen grab
from the short video that we put out to
[1:11:27] announce the contest winners. Uh we had
10 winners. All the prize money except
[1:11:31] for a couple hundred dollars which the
the outreach budget supported was
[1:11:35] supplied by seven businesses in the
community. So that's where the prize
[1:11:38] money came from. If you're not aware,
every school, the six schools each
[1:11:42] received $500 towards uh their
programming. And then each of the first,
[1:11:45] second, and third winners, plus the
grand prize winner, received I think
[1:11:49] between 75 and $125.
Uh if you haven't watched those videos,
[1:11:53] they're worth watching. They're still on
Engaged Chester as well. And I just put
[1:11:57] together a little montage for the social
media.
[1:12:00] Uh this is just one representative uh
screen grab from the I have I did the
[1:12:06] math last night. I have almost two
football fields of murals. [laughter]
[1:12:10] If you laid the paper end to end to end,
it's about 525 ft, I think the math
[1:12:15] said. So, we have a lot uh and we
actually but we actually took the time
[1:12:19] to try to go through it and pull the
themes out that we saw. So, we actually
[1:12:23] did a bit of analysis at the Sharet
session that we hosted talked about.
[1:12:26] I've gone through it. Amelia from
Stantech has gone through it. So, what
[1:12:30] that netted for us is a different set of
perspectives that the youth brought to
[1:12:34] it. One of the things I think is really
really key though and just to note why
[1:12:38] student engagement is so important is
that students young people see the world
[1:12:43] through a different set of eyes than we
do and where they where the adults
[1:12:48] typically focused on what will I do in
this potential facility. Students more
[1:12:54] focus on who will I be with in this
potential facility? What will my
[1:12:58] experience be? How will I s have a sense
of belonging? So, I pulled that uh one
[1:13:04] uh image off of the murals just to
highlight the I'll call it the unusual
[1:13:10] stuff, the stuff you may not necessarily
expect to see showing up at a rec
[1:13:13] discussion. So, if you can't pick that
out, uh the the the booth in the back
[1:13:18] there is a charity food store uh so that
everyone can be supported in their
[1:13:23] community. In the front is uh skate
roller skates with a older cyst and a
[1:13:28] younger cyst uh in the front. And then
one that gets me is the picture on the
[1:13:34] uh right side there, which is very
distinctly a child sitting in a seat
[1:13:40] with their uh uh you know wrapping their
knees up close to them and the caption
[1:13:45] next to it is the overwhelm corner. So
this idea of neurode diverency showed up
[1:13:50] in all of our discussions a whole lot
more than I might have expected. So and
[1:13:54] there's a pride flag on the top there as
well. So the conclusion here is kids are
[1:13:58] awesome and they think differently than
than the adult than adults sometimes. So
[1:14:01] I just wanted to pick that one out again
just to say like people are seeing this
[1:14:04] not just as a place that I'm going to go
do something place that I want to be in
[1:14:08] as well.
Um these are just to give you a sense of
[1:14:12] what we do with the older grades seven
eight and above. Um so we did I think 12
[1:14:17] classes in uh two of the schools. And so
the questions here is what do you want
[1:14:23] what activities would you like to do?
What would make this feel like a center
[1:14:26] for you, not just older people or
younger kids? And then third question is
[1:14:30] what's fun to you? So this netted us a
whole lot of great information as well.
[1:14:35] I actually threw all these pictures into
AI and AI actually did the the synthesis
[1:14:40] of that for me. So we pulled a lot of
information out of this for us. Um so
[1:14:45] some of the stuff that we heard from
again quote unquote the adults shows up
[1:14:49] in this list too. But I just wanted to
highlight again kids emphasized uh
[1:14:54] spaces for fun, spaces for social uh
gathering, entertainment space uh and
[1:15:01] spaces to be with friends and family and
to be able to enjoy freely chosen
[1:15:07] unstructured uh program activities that
benefit themselves and their community,
[1:15:12] which is essentially the definition of
recreation. Classically, that's the
[1:15:16] definition of recreation. So that was
heartening to me in this field to be
[1:15:19] able to see the kids seeing themselves
in this kind of space. So that's the uh
[1:15:24] phase one, the totality of the phase one
community engagement. We've just
[1:15:28] completed phase two. Phase two is
focused on reconnecting with users,
[1:15:33] instructors, programmers, uh operators.
Uh and the format for that was a design
[1:15:38] sharet session that we hosted uh at
forest site. So we had 22 folks in the
[1:15:43] room that day broke into different
groups and the task that they were given
[1:15:47] was to take the programming blocks that
had been kind of defined through the
[1:15:51] first phase and start to put them
together uh and think about proximity
[1:15:56] and how those programming blocks
interact with each other as well. My
[1:16:01] observation I didn't take part in the
tables a couple of folks in this room
[1:16:04] did. um you can back me up or not, but
what I noticed observing was that it was
[1:16:10] really hard to do.
>> Uh it was a challenge to think about how
[1:16:14] does this all work together and but what
I also saw as I think is that once there
[1:16:19] was a starting point and the
conversation began to flow of the
[1:16:22] tables, people got to an interesting
place, an interesting conclusion, but
[1:16:28] every table and I did another mini right
yesterday with another smaller group.
[1:16:32] every single table the results look
different. So what that illustrates to
[1:16:38] me is that you can't just pull these
things out of a magazine or a book.
[1:16:41] There's no template you can just say
because they have to be born out of
[1:16:45] community. And that's what we've been
trying to do and build towards here.
[1:16:48] It's like build the narrative for this
potential facility from the experiences
[1:16:52] and the expectations of community. So
that's the phase two um work that we
[1:16:58] just completed.
Uh so just next steps then so all that
[1:17:02] work uh and I've seen some previews of
this already and we'll be bringing this
[1:17:05] to the steering committee in the next
couple weeks. We're just scheduling that
[1:17:08] meeting but uh next step is to bring
adjacency diagrams to the committee. Uh
[1:17:13] so adjacency diagrams are basically how
do the different pieces relate to each
[1:17:17] other? How do they fit into bubbles? Um
and then how do they actually interact
[1:17:22] with each other as well? Where are the
connections or where are they not
[1:17:25] connected? Those will also turn into
kind of conceptual block diagrams. And
[1:17:30] we've talked about I used the language
in the report of minimal, maximal, and
[1:17:35] hybrid in the middle there. My easier
way of thinking about that is small,
[1:17:39] medium, and large. Um, so small meaning,
you know, what are the core things that
[1:17:43] we've asked Stantech to consider, the
existing facilities that we need to
[1:17:46] replace. Large would be more of the what
are all the great things that the
[1:17:50] communities dreamt of. And then the
medium is like what somewhere in between
[1:17:55] where where can we where can we get the
most bang for the buck. I'll put it that
[1:17:58] way. Understanding we maybe we can't
afford it all. That's that's the you
[1:18:03] know we all understand that. But we also
want to strive for the most that we can
[1:18:07] try to achieve. So um once that's
further refined through the steering
[1:18:12] committee, we'll take some of those out
those ideas those concepts back out to
[1:18:15] phase three of community engagement.
again engaging public users stakeholders
[1:18:20] and kind of test those concepts. The
refinement of those concepts will then
[1:18:25] go back into the stand team which
includes the engineers, the analysts,
[1:18:29] the cost evaluators and the full list
that I have on the screen there which
[1:18:33] essentially is the deliverables that
we've asked for early on in this process
[1:18:37] will be what comes back to the steering
committee for consideration. uh and I'm
[1:18:42] sure the steering committee will want to
make a recommendation to council, but
[1:18:44] ultimately council will see all that
information uh and be able to give us
[1:18:49] direction on how to proceed. One last
reminder, uh you know, council
[1:18:54] thankfully is committed to this process
and seeing this through, but we you have
[1:18:58] not committed uh to future spending. So,
still just to say we've always used the
[1:19:03] language of potential facility and
possible facility. So, we don't know the
[1:19:06] outcome of this, but my goal in this
position is to bring back And I've said
[1:19:11] this to all of you and individually as
well, like I want to make sure that I
[1:19:14] bring back to you all the information
you need to answer any question you
[1:19:19] might have. So, we're still working
towards that. That's the goal and that's
[1:19:22] what we expect to do. So, October uh I
hope expect uh to see that report uh
[1:19:29] going through the committee and coming
back to council as well. At that time,
[1:19:33] you'll be able to give us some more
direction. So, that's where we are. Uh,
[1:19:37] happy to answer any questions you might
have, comments,
[1:19:45] » councelor Connors.
>> Thank you. Yay. Um,
[1:19:50] » and thanks for the real reminder that
kids are awesome.
[1:19:53] » Y
>> and that they are more awesome than some
[1:19:58] of us that are stuck in our traditional
thinking
[1:20:02] » why we're doing stuff, right? because
that's was a reminder for me like why am
[1:20:06] I doing this? Why am I thinking about
it?
[1:20:08] » Yeah, kids are free thinkers.
>> Absolutely.
[1:20:11] » And that's an important thing to infuse
into a process like this. Um someone
[1:20:16] actually at the shared asked me at the
end of it like I'm going to paraphrase
[1:20:20] the question, but the question was Gord
like how are you going to deliver on all
[1:20:23] this? How are you managing the
expectations? Um you may have the same
[1:20:27] question. Uh my answer to that person in
the moment was this especially when it
[1:20:32] came to the kids. So, what I said at the
end of each of those 35 in-class
[1:20:37] sessions was, "Thanks, kids. We're
scooting off to another class. Thanks,
[1:20:40] kids. Thank you so much for all your
great ideas. And here's my last request
[1:20:44] of you. I want you to remember the thing
that you drew on that big piece of paper
[1:20:48] today. And if the first day you walk
into this possible new facility, what I
[1:20:53] want you to do is look around and I want
you to look for your inspiration, your
[1:20:57] drawing somewhere in this building. It
won't look exactly like you drew it, but
[1:21:02] you'll be five, six, seven years older
by then. Uh, and hopefully they'll be
[1:21:07] able to translate that drawing into that
little thing over there or that little
[1:21:11] thing over there or that piece of art on
the wall or whatever it might be or that
[1:21:16] overwhelm corner over there.
>> Um, second thing is um for me today uh
[1:21:24] with the pre previous items on the
agenda
[1:21:27] » talking specifically potable water
>> y
[1:21:30] » this doesn't scare me anymore. Wow.
>> The pricing of this, right? Because
[1:21:34] again,
why are we here in terms of municipal
[1:21:39] kind of I'm thinking back to municipal
awareness week and the areas of
[1:21:42] responsibility of uh municipal
government, water, sewer, recreation,
[1:21:47] outdoor parks, all of that. Right. So,
so
[1:21:51] strategic having it on the agenda with
potable water in my opinion. So, the
[1:21:55] potable water piece can come back on the
same agenda in the fall
[1:21:59] » and like similar timing. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[1:22:04] » Exactly. So, we're talking about
spending money, right? And the reasons
[1:22:08] we're spending it. So,
>> yeah. And my job is not to to tell you
[1:22:12] how to spend money. You know, that
that's your expectation. I mean, my but
[1:22:15] I do want to bring back to you the
information that you need and with some
[1:22:19] inspiration hopefully and a sound
rationale behind the hard decision
[1:22:23] you'll need to make. Very realistic
about that.
[1:22:25] » Last last comment. Um and again people I
I think it applies here. Um so when I
[1:22:32] went to uh during accessibility week um
the first panel presentation over at
[1:22:38] modal during that week and there was a
gentleman there and again I know we're
[1:22:42] talking we were specifically talking
accessibility uh but the reference was
[1:22:47] uh the cost of not doing something.
So for me I can apply that here the cost
[1:22:52] of not doing something. if I'm thinking
again of down the road and uh attracting
[1:22:57] residents, attracting um business,
keeping residents, keeping all of that.
[1:23:03] So again, I know that I'm going to be in
for a discussion in my community when it
[1:23:07] comes back to the table around the
investment and I know councelor Asaf
[1:23:10] have has specifically talked about costs
as well and to the taxpayer and so on,
[1:23:15] but I think yeah, I think it's
important. Just on the accessibility
[1:23:19] note, um Ellen uh attended the Shet
session with us and then I've also had
[1:23:25] set her up with Amelia. We've had a
separate uh conversation just for Ellen
[1:23:29] to
share with Amelia. Amelia, you've all
[1:23:34] met the lead architect on this is a
professional in this world. She knows
[1:23:37] this world, but we all learn when we put
ourselves in a position to learn, right?
[1:23:42] Uh so just having a chat with Ellen uh
illuminated a whole bunch of different
[1:23:46] things that we want to make sure are
front and center in the design and the
[1:23:49] concepts that come forward and the
things that are non-negotiables
[1:23:53] essentially right in whichever the small
medium large we consider. Uh so that was
[1:23:58] really a valuable um perspective to
bring squarely and explicitly into the
[1:24:03] conversation and we'll continue to use
all to to help us out too.
[1:24:08] » Okay, we'll hear from that councelor
from district five. Thank you, Deputy
[1:24:12] Wardina.
>> Uh just to build on what Tina said with
[1:24:17] this final report uh in October,
>> will will Tim or the financial
[1:24:24] department be involved in this last
process?
[1:24:28] » Yes. Yeah.
>> At a at a really high level.
[1:24:32] » Uh I'd say lower than high uh would be
my desire and I'll take you some
[1:24:37] » until we move forward a little further
and get a decision. This would be
[1:24:41] conceptual I think at this point
>> but I think where your question might be
[1:24:45] going is like if we are forecasting how
might we pay for this thing? Yes. uh you
[1:24:50] know in considering uh grants funding uh
our own revenue or our own sources and
[1:24:57] capital campaigns what what does the
math look like right so we have had to
[1:25:01] sit down with Tim early on in this
process especially at budget time to
[1:25:05] consider some of these things and as
some of that analysis gets done uh prior
[1:25:09] to those concepts being fully flushed
out that's when Tim would come back into
[1:25:13] the conversation and really think about
great idea Gourd how are we actually
[1:25:17] going to do this and then bring that
information I I want all that
[1:25:21] information for me. It's critical
decision for me.
[1:25:24] » Yeah. No, we haven't lost sight of that.
That's for sure.
[1:25:27] » But we But just sorry, just to finish
the thought, but we don't have a exact
[1:25:31] number to say Tim, do do your thing now.
>> I appreciate that. And I I I trust our
[1:25:37] financial department.
>> Uh especially Tim. He's he's he's uh
[1:25:43] good with numbers and he's he does his
assumptions are pretty close. So,
[1:25:48] » uh thank you. address him to keep us on
track as well.
[1:25:54] » Okay. Anything further?
Good update. Can't wait till October.
[1:25:59] Lots lots happening in October. It seems
like
[1:26:01] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> Get ready.
[1:26:04] » Okay. Thanks for your attention
everyone.
[1:26:06] » Thank you.
[1:26:09] » Who's handling this update?
>> This is just
[1:26:17] stuff.
[1:26:31] No.
>> Well, we can chat.
[1:26:33] » This one is just to kind of give you an
update, tie up the loose end because
[1:26:37] it's kind of been hanging out there as a
as a to-do.
[1:26:40] » Exactly. It's it's just one about
closing the loop and and but if there's
[1:26:44] if there's any interest in in pursuing
other avenues on it, we you know
[1:26:49] absolutely we can consider that but uh I
won't dwell on this too much. It should
[1:26:53] be fairly straightforward but um so
you're you're all aware of what the Fure
[1:26:58] Foundation is and as Terara said I just
want to get a sense of I want to revisit
[1:27:02] this because it's just been hanging
there with with no recent action. Um the
[1:27:08] so the foundation uh is particularly
interested in in initiatives around
[1:27:12] inclusiveness, rural economic growth and
sustainability that respond to the needs
[1:27:17] of communities and citizens and and
their scope, their scale is they want to
[1:27:21] see things that have a large social
impact that can be replicated throughout
[1:27:25] the province. Um, in that respect, the
Fulture Foundation is is more of a sort
[1:27:30] of incubator of of sort of ideas rather
than sort of a direct funer of any any
[1:27:36] kind of intensive program. Um, and any
projects that they support obviously
[1:27:41] must be uh demonstrate meet more than
one of the the foundation's objectives
[1:27:47] uh in respect to community impacts,
leverage funding from other levels of
[1:27:51] government, and build relationships for
ongoing collaboration.
[1:27:55] Um the summary of discussion where we're
at uh so back in in the fall of 2024
[1:28:03] uh the foundation uh approached Warden
Weber and and our CEO about uh possible
[1:28:10] opportunity of investing an endowment
from the foundation in an initiative
[1:28:15] that would be similar to the Leah River
straight pipe project. That was the
[1:28:20] initial opening conversation bid. So in
November I brought to council some
[1:28:27] possible November 24th this is I brought
to council some possible program ideas.
[1:28:32] Uh and then I from that uh again uh Alan
Terra and I met with the foundation in
[1:28:38] January. In April we submitted a
proposal to the foundation. There was
[1:28:42] feedback on that proposal in a follow-up
meeting. And so we submitted a revised
[1:28:47] proposal on May 1st, 2025,
followed by a further meeting with the
[1:28:51] foundation in June 2025. And at that
point, um, the foundation's response to
[1:28:58] those ideas in the proposal,
the well, they weren't dis they didn't
[1:29:04] dismiss them out of hand or or whatever.
It didn't express a disinterest, but
[1:29:08] they didn't seem excited by by those
proposals. And so their response and and
[1:29:13] rightly so was to sort of try and push
as well what could you do further to to
[1:29:17] advance those core ideas to to really
meet the mandate of the foundation. So
[1:29:22] that's kind of where we're at. Um what
our proposal focused on was related to
[1:29:28] initiatives to water and wastewater
services for residential properties. Um
[1:29:34] we were really trying to sort of pitch
the idea of or sort of focus on the idea
[1:29:38] of the community need for resilient
water and wastewater services and then
[1:29:43] attended sort of public health or
environmental protection concerns
[1:29:46] related to that in addition to uh
investment in in the local economy
[1:29:51] whether it's through contractors who can
provide those those those um uh
[1:29:56] services. Uh so the proposal then we
submitted May 1st 2025 included uh three
[1:30:02] basic components. One was an investment
in our now up and running water supply
[1:30:09] and septic septic system upgrades
program. So this was at that point we
[1:30:13] were just finalizing this as an expanded
initiative um uh that would include
[1:30:20] septic that would inc increase the
financing available for for water
[1:30:25] upgrades and so on. And this seemed at
the time like a sort of suitable uh fit
[1:30:31] or a promising fit because it was that
financing model that the Fulture
[1:30:35] Foundation had adopted with the Lehave
River project. So, we thought this might
[1:30:40] be might might be a good to go.
>> Can I just jump in? I just want to jump
[1:30:45] in. I think part of the part of the key
part of the discussion we were having
[1:30:48] with them was that they really wanted
this this was an endowment fund. So it
[1:30:53] was give us an initial uh injection of
cash to help support some of these
[1:30:59] projects with the idea that the program
whatever we did
[1:31:04] residents or whoever benefited from the
program would pay back that money in
[1:31:08] some way and then it would self- sustain
itself so that we could continue
[1:31:13] projects. We could continue. So it
wasn't a onetime like million dollar
[1:31:17] investment in a or a half million dollar
investment in a project and we take it,
[1:31:21] we spend it and we go away. They wanted
that. They wanted to see a program where
[1:31:25] that money came back to us, that half a
million dollar investment initially and
[1:31:29] then we were able to continue using
that. So that was the one of the key
[1:31:34] things that we had to design this
program.
[1:31:36] » Exactly. And that's why it seemed like
the the why the water and wastewater
[1:31:41] upgrade program would be because it's a
financing model that that that we could
[1:31:45] just okay
>> invest into this existing program that
[1:31:48] we're developing and and and we'd be off
to the races. So that was that was why
[1:31:52] that fit. The other two components were
were uh required a lot further
[1:31:57] development but they was around a
community education and water quality
[1:32:01] testing program uh to enable residents
to sort of really understand the quality
[1:32:06] and and quantity of water portable water
in their wells. And this would be done
[1:32:10] through partnership with other
organizations. And this would sort of um
[1:32:15] uh help build on on some water survey
work that we' done with residents back
[1:32:19] in 2020.
Uh the other was a needs assessment,
[1:32:23] options analysis and implementation of
wastewater service options for the gold
[1:32:27] river area. Uh this is obviously as you
know part of council strategic
[1:32:31] priorities to do some to do a needs
assessment in that area. Uh but again
[1:32:36] there was no um at that point this was
just a sort of conceptual idea. Didn't
[1:32:41] really have any meat to it in terms of
how that would work specifically in
[1:32:45] relation to this endowment financing
model. So at in that June 2025 meeting
[1:32:51] with the foundation, their response to
our proposal was uh basically they
[1:32:57] emphasized three key priorities. One was
uh number one and and they repeated this
[1:33:02] at great length was some form of first
nations involvement in a program. Um and
[1:33:08] so they cited uh the Atlantic First
Nations Water Authority as an excellent
[1:33:13] example and wondered whether there would
be an opportunity for something like
[1:33:17] that in in our own area. Um the other
one was uh sort of just sort of talking
[1:33:26] a little further about Terara alluded to
the even though that that endowment
[1:33:31] would be part of a broader program
potentially it would require specific
[1:33:35] management of that endowment funds quite
rightly um and this would require
[1:33:40] involvement from some foundation board
members to sort of form a specific
[1:33:43] committee. So there would be an extra
administrative layer to that for for us.
[1:33:48] Um so there would be sort of dedicated
process tracking and and uh repayment
[1:33:54] sort of reinvestment of that of that
endowment as it was repaid. So so it
[1:33:59] required some particular sort of uh
administrative framework around it to
[1:34:04] ensure due diligence on their part. U so
that would be the other thing that was
[1:34:08] highlighted in the response. And then
thirdly, um they're very interested in
[1:34:13] in in specific performance targets.
Again, um if you're if they have an
[1:34:18] endowment, their return on investment
isn't necessarily monetary. Well, it's
[1:34:23] not monetary return on that endowment.
Obviously, they want that principle
[1:34:26] repaid, but it's on on that social and
capital returns on that investment. And
[1:34:31] so that's why that partic their
particular interest is in that. So in
[1:34:34] that respect they'd be wanting specific
data uh specific targets and by and
[1:34:40] large so for example the water and
wastewater uh upgrade program that is
[1:34:45] more of a reactive program. It's a
voluntary program. It's not that we're
[1:34:48] going to say we will you know replace 50
people's wells in in a given month or
[1:34:52] something. That's not how that works. So
that's where that that's that's where it
[1:34:56] ended. Um since then the Filure
Foundation has a new executive directory
[1:35:00] in place. Um if council is of interest,
we could certainly uh have a
[1:35:06] conversation just to say, "Okay, we
heard what we said. We're revisiting,
[1:35:10] you know, where do we go from here? If
there is anywhere to go." Um
[1:35:16] my take right now given everything
that's uh that that we're doing um is
[1:35:22] that there doesn't appear to be an
immediate fit to this opportunity with
[1:35:25] the Fulture Foundation. Uh but I'm I'm
open to to any suggestions from from
[1:35:31] council if there's something we wish to
explore. If we do get into a full scale
[1:35:36] full scale water system, uh perhaps
there's an opportunity there we can we
[1:35:41] can explore. So it'd be worthwhile at
the very least what I would do is to
[1:35:45] have a conversation with the Filcher
Foundation just to um
[1:35:49] » council as
>> thank you. I I
[1:35:55] it's exactly what you said. It doesn't
align with everything we're doing at
[1:35:59] this point. Well, I spend all this staff
time and it's crazy in my view.
[1:36:08] » Oh, warden.
>> Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I [snorts]
[1:36:12] mean, when Donnie Dan come down and
wanted to ask me if I wanted them to
[1:36:17] give us a hundred or a couple hundred
thousand dollars or a million dollars, I
[1:36:20] mean, sure, Don. Yeah. Okay. And you
know, and it seemed like a pretty simple
[1:36:24] thing. It was just go do the wells, do
this, some some sewer upgrades, possible
[1:36:29] solar things, all this. And it all seems
simple, but it's been going on for years
[1:36:33] now.
>> And we've changed our plans dozens of
[1:36:36] times, and they keep changing what they
want. So, it's,
[1:36:40] you know, it's not the simple matter
that Donnie just wanted to give us some
[1:36:45] money and
doesn't seem like that anymore,
[1:36:48] [laughter] you know, like to me. I mean,
we've been working on this for a couple
[1:36:52] years.
>> We have
[1:36:53] » for nothing.
>> Yeah. So, I don't I don't see the sense.
[1:36:56] I mean, I wouldn't write them off
because it is possible that we'll come
[1:37:00] up with
the central water or something like
[1:37:04] that. It may work out and we may be able
to because we'll recover some of the
[1:37:07] money anyway. It works. But,
>> no, it would be worth a discussion to
[1:37:11] keep that lines of lines of uh uh
communication open.
[1:37:14] » Yeah. And then and then they're they're
wanting to get the Midmmont community
[1:37:18] involved. that [clears throat] that was
never the beginning. That's not how it
[1:37:21] started. They don't pay taxes.
[1:37:26] » Thank you.
>> My comment is this. Um what I see here
[1:37:32] is an issue with trying to use this fund
for assistance to government. So what
[1:37:39] the the criteria they put in place is
that they'll loan the money essent or
[1:37:44] give the money on the on the condition
that it's a cost recovery model and then
[1:37:49] you take that money back and then
reinvest it into something else. We
[1:37:54] don't need this sort of help when we set
up programs that are cost recovery.
[1:38:00] They we already get it back. We don't
need the capital to do that. we have
[1:38:03] enough money to do projects and then we
would not also then have all these other
[1:38:09] strings attached on how we then should
then use that recaptured monies. So I
[1:38:15] see this as a real structural flaw with
their methodology. I wish that that meth
[1:38:19] message could be sent back to them
because if they wish to advance money to
[1:38:23] municipalities to undergo good social
projects having this criteria really
[1:38:28] makes it a barrier because we simply do
not need that in a cost recovery model.
[1:38:34] Um, you know, we do have, for example, a
community wells program, which I think
[1:38:39] is quite unique in our province and
would be in in theory a good candidate
[1:38:44] if if if they would wish wish to help
fund that that we could expand the
[1:38:49] program, maybe even put one in Gold
River or New Russell where we have First
[1:38:53] Nations communities that may also face
dro.
[1:39:00] But if they insist on a cost recovery
model,
[1:39:04] um, well, one doesn't exist. And if we
put it in place, we wouldn't need their
[1:39:07] money anyway. We have enough money to
fund the program and then recover the
[1:39:11] money and then do what we want with it.
So this this criteria of having cost
[1:39:16] recovery and then using the money and
having all these caveats, that basically
[1:39:20] makes a barrier that every single
municipality they approach will have.
[1:39:24] » In my view,
[1:39:30] Yeah, I'll just say that when when Don
first mentioned it, I mean, we we were
[1:39:34] only spending a very small amount of
money on community wells and things like
[1:39:38] that. So, I thought, well, if you give
me some, then we can double triple the
[1:39:42] amount of people we can help help fix,
but it's going nowhere.
[1:39:47] » Yeah. I see that meeting some of their
other goals of of creating a unique or a
[1:39:52] sort of innovative uh social uh program
that could be expanded throughout the
[1:39:58] province. I'm sure if this worked here
and we had good acceptance from the
[1:40:02] community, they could use it in Shelurn
or
[1:40:04] » in Veresse or wherever.
>> Yeah.
[1:40:06] » Um but um you know this this criteria of
cost recovery just ruins the whole
[1:40:12] principle of what they're trying to do.
And if we supply any message back to
[1:40:16] them, I think that has to be that.
>> Okay.
[1:40:19] » Oh, councelor Cooland
>> and cough recovery is their mandate.
[1:40:23] » It's Yes.
>> Yes. It's
[1:40:26] clear.
>> We have to then re re
[1:40:28] » reinvested in some social programs and
not just
[1:40:33] » two years later.
So the concepts have changed and they
[1:40:37] have like over the last two years it
started off at one initiative and now
[1:40:41] this they're they're
>> concept no I think their approach has
[1:40:46] been has been the same but it's just I
think as as as further information came
[1:40:51] on board from the foundation I think it
just didn't know when because that init
[1:40:56] those proposals went to the foundation
board and so that was their feedback
[1:40:59] coming back to us is they just seem to
want to steer it towards those areas.
[1:41:03] Um, so it just didn't seem like, yeah,
as as one Weber mentioned, it this the
[1:41:10] initial the initiating conversation was
was seemed to be much simpler. Uh, but
[1:41:15] it has become more complex and not an
ideal fit right now. Anyway,
[1:41:19] » I'm quite curious like for if they
participated in the La Haven River
[1:41:22] cleanup project, any monies they
dispersed for that, you know, how how as
[1:41:27] they recover the cost from that program,
is the municipality of the district of
[1:41:31] Lunberg distributing the money into
other philanthropic projects. I'm I'm
[1:41:36] very curious what those would be. So my
understanding I I don't know the exact
[1:41:40] projects they're doing but they are
working they continue to work with the
[1:41:42] Fulture Foundation and that was part of
the the criteria was that there be sort
[1:41:47] of a subcommittee established of uh
municipal elected officials staff and
[1:41:53] and and Fulture Foundation
representatives who would steer those
[1:41:57] projects. And so some of the
administrative stuff and the data the
[1:42:01] requirement for um you know data
collection and um the administrative
[1:42:06] burden on what was was being asked was
great and for projects that we saw we
[1:42:12] were already we were already large in
large part doing right. So the the um
[1:42:17] septic well and lending pro the septic
and well lending program we were already
[1:42:21] doing that and so this was well how can
we fit that program into this because
[1:42:26] that's cost recovery model so that's the
best fit we have how do we fit that in
[1:42:30] and then it just became well that would
be for a project we're already doing
[1:42:35] much more administrative burden and so
that's kind of where we were
[1:42:38] » I mean is and the rule of thumb for for
seeking a grant for example is normally
[1:42:43] 99% of the time you don't uh you don't
develop a project to pursue a grant,
[1:42:48] right? You have your project and then
you seek funding and so it's you just
[1:42:52] make more work for yourself.
>> Yeah, enough's enough.
[1:42:57] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[1:42:59] » Thanks for the update.
>> All right. Thank you all.
[1:43:03] » All right.
[1:43:06] » Last one of the day [clears throat]
>> except for in
[1:43:09] » we have two in.
>> Yes, I should add that. Uh yeah, we
[1:43:13] guess we omitted that we had a couple of
in camera matters and hopefully
[1:43:18] so will of this committee that we can
enter into camera after this.
[1:43:23] Okay. So
>> solid waste fee discussion.
[1:43:28] » Yeah. So
>> welcome.
[1:43:30] » Thank you.
So I think um as probably council server
[1:43:36] aware we recently uh implemented the um
or have been implementing the revised
[1:43:44] uh fee schedule. So part of that is is
like some of the exemptions that were
[1:43:49] previously in there have sort of come
off just based on what was approved back
[1:43:52] in September. Just to very quickly go
back, this is sort of where we got to
[1:43:57] today when we brought this matter
forward back last September is that one
[1:44:01] of the main drivers for a lot of the
updates to the tip fee policy and tip
[1:44:07] fees at Kaiser is simply we couldn't
find an actual basis where council
[1:44:11] approved most of it. [clears throat]
So obviously there's an issue. So, a lot
[1:44:16] of it was tried to simply clean up that
that item and since the topic with the
[1:44:23] tip fee exemptions and who actually got
it sort of has come up again since it's
[1:44:28] been rolled out, uh went back again to
sort of take a look and and a number of
[1:44:35] the other exemptions beyond just simple
residential residual. Again, we can't
[1:44:39] find a basis for what the practice was
at the time. So
[1:44:45] basically with the fees the fee schedule
that was there that was I say mostly
[1:44:50] being followed uh the only exemption
that was provided for the weight was
[1:44:54] residential residual waste. So basically
they're garbage. Um if you can go to the
[1:44:59] next slide.
So, and
[1:45:10] » so,
councelor Ray says, "No, I just
[1:45:15] I just saw this and it's was on Facebook
post that we had our fee structure or
[1:45:20] whatever, a new announcement
[clears throat]
[1:45:23] » and I read some of the comments and I I
guess maybe you're going to explain all
[1:45:27] that."
>> That's why we're here today.
[1:45:28] » Yeah, that's why we're here today. So,
explain it.
[1:45:30] » Thank you. So
what was what was uh put forward for
[1:45:35] council and what was approved at the
time is basically just codified the
[1:45:40] residential
uh exemptions that were basically in
[1:45:45] practice at the time for residual waste.
We also sort of expanded slightly just
[1:45:48] to make clear that nonforprofits would
with certain uh limitations would have
[1:45:54] the same same exemption. uh it was
extended to say mix C and D which seems
[1:46:00] to be I think the primary source of the
discussion I'd say since then
[1:46:06] um it wasn't technically on there
previously although as I understand that
[1:46:10] seems to be that was the practice at the
time but again there was no basis or we
[1:46:15] couldn't find any evidence of a council
motion actually verifying that so
[1:46:22] so simply I guess the next one so with
that there's basically ally three
[1:46:27] options to proceed forward is basically
you leave it as it is or one of an
[1:46:33] option of either direct us to go back
and prepare
[1:46:38] proposed amendment to add a exemption
for residential CND material or a list
[1:46:44] of items beyond with that as well.
[1:46:51] So just just so that it's clear for
council. So what I think has happened is
[1:46:55] we brought the fee policy to you with
some updates and um and and we put some
[1:47:01] new stuff in there and we posted it.
>> It some and when we did that we were
[1:47:06] saying that there was some stuff that in
practice we did not we did not see in
[1:47:11] policy. So we brought forth the policy a
council approved it and now we're
[1:47:17] implementing according to the policy
that was approved. It sounds like what
[1:47:21] we've learned is that there was some uh
practice where we were giving uh
[1:47:26] exemptions for residents for CN D waste
which was not in the old policy is not
[1:47:32] in the current policy but we were doing
in practice when we stopped doing that
[1:47:36] in practice to follow the new approved
fee policy that's where the issues have
[1:47:41] come up. So we wanted to bring it back
just for discussion and to get some
[1:47:45] direction. Do you want us to come back
with a revised policy uh that would put
[1:47:50] that exemption into place or are we are
we correct in the way we're currently
[1:47:56] doing it with the current policy that
does not have that exemption for
[1:48:01] residents for the CN waste in
particular?
[1:48:04] » Warden Weber.
>> Yeah. I mean, I don't know which is
[1:48:07] best, but I I can say that I know well
that uh that we did not charge people
[1:48:13] necessarily,
>> right? And
[1:48:15] » I know we didn't.
>> We know. We know we did, too. But it was
[1:48:18] practice. It wasn't in policy.
>> Financial sense. That's what matters to
[1:48:23] me.
>> Yeah. So, we've been and and Scott and I
[1:48:26] talked about this. We've been doing
this. It hasn't been It's not a a huge
[1:48:31] our practice was to not do it. So, I
don't know that the impact is going to
[1:48:34] be there's going to be a financial
impact. It's not like we were charging
[1:48:38] the fee and we're going to be losing
that fee. We have not been charging the
[1:48:41] fee.
>> Yeah. Let's uh let's let's let these
[1:48:44] guys beat it around here.
>> Yep.
[1:48:46] » Councelor Cooling.
>> So, was the CND was it oversight? Was it
[1:48:50] an oversight? Not charging all the time.
Was it in there?
[1:48:53] » We're not sure if it was just
>> Yeah. It's been for decades.
[1:48:57] » It's been decades. Yeah.
>> Whatever reason it came in and it's that
[1:49:00] was the practice that's being followed.
How it got there other than council
[1:49:04] doesn't seem to have ever approved it. I
can't speak beyond that.
[1:49:08] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Warden Weber.
[1:49:11] » Yeah. I can tell you in practice, it
seems to me based on my
[1:49:16] recollection,
if the homeowner brought it from his own
[1:49:21] property with his own truck, we didn't
charge them. But if if a a construction
[1:49:27] or if they hired somebody else, then it
was commercial. We figured we did charge
[1:49:32] them.
>> And I think that's where some of the rub
[1:49:34] has been. It's been mostly contractors
acting on be
[1:49:39] » indicating they're acting on behalf.
house is supposed to be as if you
[1:49:42] brought it yourself. Yeah. Okay. We
won't charge you
[1:49:45] » or they'll say they're a neighbor or
>> they're a neighbor or something.
[1:49:48] » Yeah.
[1:49:51] » Council church.
>> Thank you. Uh that's almost not a fair
[1:49:55] practice because I don't have a truck
and it's my
[1:50:00] » it's my um woodshed that I'm tearing
down. So, I'm hiring a contractor.
[1:50:07] either the contractor is billing me for
it, which is okay, or
[1:50:13] you know, if there's no charge, then he
shouldn't be billing me for the tipping
[1:50:17] fee. What I'm saying, usually they would
put that on your bill to say landfill
[1:50:22] cost rather than being just trucking
cost.
[1:50:25] » I I would say that was a concern that
was raised when I first started. It was
[1:50:29] a bit of a gray area.
>> It is gray cuz I, you know, don't have a
[1:50:33] truck, so I'll need to take my shed to
the landfill. So, I don't know.
[1:50:37] » Well, a lot of people if I just would
would go with the truck driver and
[1:50:40] they'd be the one.
>> Oh, well then I could do that.
[1:50:42] » You can borrow my truck.
>> I know. I just know people did.
[1:50:45] » Thanks.
>> Uh, councelor Connors.
[1:50:49] » Thank you. So, just to build on uh
councelor Church's uh in to build on
[1:50:55] councelor Church's input in input.
Sorry.
[1:50:59] » Sorry, Councelor ASF. I'm sorry. Um,
yeah. Not certainly uh not everyone has
[1:51:05] a vehicle that has that capability to uh
the bit the the vehicle to transport or
[1:51:11] a trailer to hook to my car, right? Um
and also too people and I know that I'm
[1:51:17] getting into too many levels here, but
not everybody can jump in with their
[1:51:21] truck driver and not everyone, you know,
maybe they have young kids at home,
[1:51:25] maybe they work shift work and so on. I
just think that it's important to work
[1:51:30] through this. And I think it's important
that we treat all
[1:51:35] property owners the same. Whether they
own a vehicle, whether they're a single
[1:51:38] parent, whether they can jump in with
their truck driver or not. I get that
[1:51:41] it's a perfect world if that can happen.
I'm just saying.
[1:51:45] And again, it's a bit of a distance to
travel from the tip of Aspagan or inland
[1:51:50] in Aldersville. Um, and if I don't have
that time to jump in with my neighbor
[1:51:55] who's trucking it, I just think we can
work through this. I do. I think it's
[1:51:58] important.
Thank you,
[1:52:02] » Council Breer. Thank you, Deputy Warden
Veno. Yeah, I agree. We need to work
[1:52:07] through this because this is a win for
us, but it should also be a win for the
[1:52:11] residents of our municipality.
[clears throat] And uh I did receive
[1:52:15] several calls on this exact topic over
the last year or so where the person
[1:52:20] couldn't go with the truck and ended up
paying double because they hired the
[1:52:23] truck to do it and then they hired to
dump it at the landfill or paid to dump
[1:52:27] it at the landfill. So there is some
challenges here. I'd like to see us work
[1:52:31] that the residents of Chester can have
this somehow that it works for them to
[1:52:36] their benefit,
>> but not contractors.
[1:52:39] » Not contractors. That's a different
story. Now, how we come up with that,
[1:52:43] I'm going to have to look at staff and
figure out the best possible way. And I
[1:52:47] know that's tough.
>> I would suggest that maybe in option
[1:52:50] four, we go back and take a take that
consideration
[1:52:54] » to find a service avenue for residents
who may not have an access to the truck
[1:53:00] but may not have access to a contractor.
>> Council,
[1:53:03] » thank you. Yeah, that was actually my
question. I know when I go to out to the
[1:53:08] landfill, they ask for civic address.
>> Mhm. So if you if you get to the scale
[1:53:13] house and you know he asks you what's on
it and it's C and D
[1:53:18] if if the person who's taking it there
whether it's someone doing it for the
[1:53:23] neighbor in a truck if he gives them the
civic address would that work
[1:53:30] » with contractor
>> no but but I mean knowing no but what
[1:53:34] I'm saying if if it's a contract I don't
know how you know what I mean the
[1:53:38] contact wouldn't say my civic address is
or I mean I don't know it's for staff to
[1:53:43] figure out but I think that that's a you
know when you have to report your your
[1:53:48] civic address if I'm taking it for Tina
because she doesn't have a truck I said
[1:53:52] this is Tina Connor's address it's her
civic number I mean we I think it's too
[1:53:58] loosey goosey so if we try to tighten it
up it may it may stop someone from doing
[1:54:03] that because they know that there
eventually there may be some kind of a
[1:54:07] vetting process to make sure Yeah,
>> you know, it's like putting a camera up
[1:54:12] with no film in it, but it's determined,
right? Just a thought.
[1:54:16] » Okay, I'm going to go with councelor
Cooland.
[1:54:18] » Well, it like in the past, of course,
we're going to do we're going to change
[1:54:22] and have have new president moving
forward, but when uh Hurricane Dorian
[1:54:26] decided to flood my basement
>> and I lost everything in my basement, um
[1:54:31] we had to pay tipping fees even though
we assigned and told the gentleman who
[1:54:35] just had a trailer um that our civic
address. So civic addressing verbally
[1:54:40] would not work because you could put any
you could say any address, right? So it
[1:54:44] has to be some sort of control on that
end if that's the end if that's how
[1:54:47] we're going. But I mean just to say well
this this this load in the back actually
[1:54:52] belongs to and give a civic address with
the municipality that's not enough of
[1:54:56] assurance that that's not a truthful
conversation that's had at
[1:54:59] » some form of verification.
>> There has to be I mean obviously I'm
[1:55:03] just pointing that out. Thank you. Yeah,
>> councelor Brener.
[1:55:08] » Thank you, Deputy Wooden Vino.
>> Let's make sure the scaler gets brought
[1:55:12] in on this discussion, too, because
that's the person that's going to take
[1:55:14] the brunt of the
>> unhappy people. And I think their input
[1:55:19] on how they've been dealing or looking
or what they think
[1:55:22] » is very important
>> for certain. Anything we do beyond what
[1:55:27] practices now would have to be there has
to be an operational.
[1:55:31] » Yes, they they need to be
>> we have to look at that. can't impact
[1:55:34] them and also the customers because
there could be four or five people we
[1:55:37] don't spending 20 minutes.
>> Yeah. Or or become very on agreeable in
[1:55:43] the sub. So yes, I I I really am worried
about this the scale or person being
[1:55:48] made sure secure
>> clear and being brought into what they
[1:55:52] say before we do anything. Thank you
>> councelor Connor.
[1:55:57] » Thank you.
>> Lots of exciting discussion here.
[1:56:01] Nothing gets everybody up like solid
waste.
[1:56:05] » So, uh, okay. I I know I'm a simple
thinker.
[1:56:10] » So, if I'm taking a load in to the scale
house and I say I'm Abdella ASF and I'm
[1:56:16] driving this truck and I'm bringing it
for Tina Connors and she lives at 7139
[1:56:20] Highway 12. That's my civic number in
the world to the world. Um,
[1:56:25] cannot the scale host person
hit
[1:56:29] staff directory because you're all
connected. Staff directory and call the
[1:56:33] main municipal office and and maybe
they're not allowed. Call the staff
[1:56:36] directory and say does Tina Connors live
at 7139 or is Zdella AS lying to me like
[1:56:42] are we not allowed to talk to each other
staff and find that out?
[1:56:45] » I think I think through I I think we
could look up the directory but we have
[1:56:50] no idea if Tina has actually had to talk
to
[1:56:53] as if and actually has given him
authorization to take it.
[1:56:57] » Oh,
>> that's the rub of it.
[1:56:59] » Oh,
[1:57:03] » okay. Council councelor Coolen here.
>> Thank you. I'm going to be very brief.
[1:57:07] Thank you, Scott, for your presentation
to Tom's point about, you know, all the
[1:57:11] onus now is on the scaler to be able to
have those conversations. Is there any
[1:57:16] type of potential signage prior to
pulling up to that knowing that the new
[1:57:19] tipping fees are now assigned instead of
you might verbalize it? It could be,
[1:57:23] okay, I'm driving into and I realize,
oh, there's my new tipping fees and then
[1:57:28] when he gets to the scaler, the scaler
would not have to do all the hard work
[1:57:31] that there could be some sort of
pre-signage leading up to his his point
[1:57:34] of work.
>> There has been a little bit of signage
[1:57:37] posted on at at the scale. We've also
did a little bit of uh information
[1:57:43] through our social media when this was
rolled out. So, there has been some
[1:57:47] information. I'd say that always gets to
everybody, but we've tried to take as
[1:57:52] much as the burn burn as we reasonably
can from the operator to
[1:57:58] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Councelor Asa.
[1:58:01] » Yeah. Just just Natina's example
uh and and people being truthful. Well,
[1:58:07] if if we were going to create policy on
people being truthful, we wouldn't have
[1:58:10] the we wouldn't have the water coupon
policy like because we we know we know
[1:58:15] there's abuse in every policy. But this
is pretty I mean you're not having 10
[1:58:21] people a day coming with C and D in
residential.
[1:58:26] I just think there's there's got to be a
way it look there's going to be there's
[1:58:30] going to be flaws in it. Absolutely. But
I think by just just, you know, saying
[1:58:36] that to the resident now, we're going to
change our policy and you have to pay a
[1:58:39] tipping fee. I don't think that's the
way to go. I think we need to leave the
[1:58:43] status quo in my view, but tweak it in a
way that we can verify to as much as we
[1:58:50] can and
and that's for staff to work out how to
[1:58:54] do that. Like that's what I'd be that's
what I'd be in favor of.
[1:58:57] » Okay. I I I've let you guys have a go at
it. I'm going to just jump in for a
[1:59:02] moment. It's okay.
>> Um
[1:59:07] so,
you know, my core business uh outside of
[1:59:11] uh my council duties as as an engineer
and um
[1:59:16] we have a company and I am a part owner
in that company. And when I have
[1:59:20] engineering done for me, I don't pay
very much for engineering because I own
[1:59:26] that company.
You know, we have a community of people
[1:59:29] that own a landfill together and when
they clean up their yards,
[1:59:35] I think that it's what I'm feeling from
the body language in this room is that
[1:59:39] there should be an expectation if you
own a landfill that you should be able
[1:59:42] to dump some of your waste probably for
a pretty good rate.
[1:59:46] » I think that is broadly speaking the
sentiment here. And I think that the
[1:59:52] average person that's a fisherman and
once every four years he's got some old
[1:59:58] traps that he needs to dispose of or um
every 5 years maybe they might do a
[2:00:03] project around their house and they have
a deck they tear off or something they
[2:00:06] need to get rid of some waste. I think
the cost to the municipality or the
[2:00:11] landfill operation for those efforts is
probably low probably in the noise level
[2:00:17] of the signal I would guess. Am I am I
right?
[2:00:20] » Yeah, I would say that that's fair. It's
not a it's not a major contributor to
[2:00:25] our inbound material. So,
>> but the the meaning to the owners of
[2:00:30] this landfill is massive.
>> Yeah.
[2:00:33] » Uh so we can't lose sight of that.
>> No.
[2:00:36] » So that if you're cleaning up your
property, you know that you as an owner
[2:00:39] of the landfill can go to your landfill
and dispose of some waste.
[2:00:43] » Yeah.
>> So then So Okay. So we have agreement on
[2:00:46] that. Good. Um, so then it's like, well
then this discussion of, well, do I take
[2:00:52] it or, you know, maybe maybe I have a
house and I have to hire somebody in a
[2:00:57] wheelchair. You know, I can't ride in a
truck and I can't do it myself. Should I
[2:01:02] have to then pay to dispose of my waste
at my landfill? Well, I think that's
[2:01:09] kind of maybe in my in my view maybe the
wrong way of looking at it. I think uh I
[2:01:13] think if we have caps on the volume
regardless of who brings it, you know,
[2:01:18] if somebody says my neighbor's bringing
it or I hire somebody to do it and
[2:01:23] there's a you know a reasonable cap
because you're taking the address, you
[2:01:26] know, when they come.
>> Yeah.
[2:01:28] » You know, if you're tearing a whole
house down, yeah, sure, you're going to
[2:01:31] have to charge something. But if it's
once every year or something, you clean
[2:01:35] up your yard and you've got a bunch of
junk and you take it,
[2:01:39] » that's probably not a big barrier
regardless of who takes it for you.
[2:01:42] » Yeah.
>> And I would see just forgetting about
[2:01:46] the who. It's rather the volume should
be limited. And then if we're below a
[2:01:51] certain amount, then that threshold,
then I feel like that would be in my
[2:01:55] view probably okay. Um I'm I'm open I'll
open that to discussion but that's just
[2:02:00] my thoughts on the matter at this point
and anybody can you know any part of
[2:02:05] that uh I welcome a challenge.
Okay. Um let's say councelor Brener.
[2:02:12] » Thank you Deputy Warden. That's the
exact two cases that I've had in the
[2:02:16] last few months where they just had a
truckload from once every four or five
[2:02:20] years and off they went. And I agree
with you. I think it's a win-win again.
[2:02:24] I'll say that. And I think we have to
give some encouragement so people don't
[2:02:29] dump their waste in the forest or up the
beach route or wherever they're going,
[2:02:33] which I don't want to see. But that's
what sometimes happens when we start to
[2:02:37] get too complicated and too
non-thoughtful of what we're actually
[2:02:42] doing well and giving some service to
win in the end.
[2:02:46] » Thank you.
>> I think also sometimes people feel like
[2:02:49] dis dis um disconnected.
>> Yeah. um they feel like the government,
[2:02:54] the municipal government is some foreign
object and they lose sight that this is
[2:02:59] we're just administering their assets.
>> And you know, we need to reinforce that
[2:03:05] » uh that sentiment that this is your
landfill. We're administering it on your
[2:03:09] behalf and these are some benefits as an
owner of this landfill you get. That's
[2:03:13] my view on it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Like wood.
[2:03:17] » Oh, sorry. Let me get you turned on
here, Warren Weber. I hope you can hear
[2:03:20] me. Anyway, yeah, woods wood stomping is
one of the reasons the from my
[2:03:25] recollection is why we started to do
this in the first place is to keep
[2:03:28] people from just taking it and throwing
it in the woods.
[2:03:31] » I agree that the general public, our
citizens should be able to to continue
[2:03:37] to do this.
>> But I mean, you got to manage it in some
[2:03:40] fashion in
weight restriction and the pay after
[2:03:45] that that makes that makes sense. The
biggest problem I see is not having it
[2:03:49] abused by contractors who are bringing
it from somewhere else and just telling
[2:03:54] you they're bringing it from
Municipality of Chester.
[2:03:57] » For sure.
>> Yeah. So figuring out how to manage that
[2:04:00] is
>> Yeah. Cuz because that's why we were
[2:04:03] charging the contractors is because they
were who the hell know where they were
[2:04:07] getting their waste from and we didn't
want the valley people bringing it for
[2:04:10] free, you know.
>> So just figure out how to manage that.
[2:04:14] prior I know councelor uh Asa is ready
to go here but just is there a way
[2:04:19] because we we've been collecting data
for a long time we have the the weights
[2:04:22] and we you know on a sat like probably a
Saturday
[2:04:26] » would be like prime time to find out
what's happening there if we had an idea
[2:04:30] what the average tip was from an average
person that's just doing their work that
[2:04:37] would be really good information because
I have a feeling that amount of weight
[2:04:41] is not very much
>> and if we could just make sure that we
[2:04:44] just have a little buffer above that.
Then that might keep us from getting
[2:04:47] into commercial territory where
contractors are, you know, just every,
[2:04:52] you know, doing two or three decks a
week and and taking it in.
[2:04:56] » That's sort of been one of the ideas has
been going through my head as we've been
[2:04:59] chatting here, but certainly I I think
fair points all around. It's it's we
[2:05:05] want to find that balance that, you
know, certainly the residents have
[2:05:08] certainly have a stake in this and
certainly want to make sure they benefit
[2:05:11] from that reasonably, but also make sure
that
[2:05:13] to his point. It's like they're the ones
that actually gain benefit that's
[2:05:17] » from it in the end. So I think we can I
Yeah, I think we can find balance
[2:05:22] somewhere. We'll just
>> Yep.
[2:05:25] » Councelor,
>> thank you. I guess I I guess when you
[2:05:28] find that balance, I guess I How are we
going to pull back the messaging that
[2:05:32] it's already out there? I guess it' be
my question. I don't know. Do we wait?
[2:05:37] » Yeah. So we we would we would have to
come back with a report to council. we
[2:05:41] would have to have a policy change in
there to clarify what it is, make sure
[2:05:44] that everybody understands what it is,
what we're approving or what you're
[2:05:48] approving, and then um we would work
with communications with our comm's
[2:05:53] department to put that message out there
of
[2:05:56] » uh the change.
>> Yeah, because if I could
[2:05:59] » when I read the the municipal post,
>> I wasn't sure when it I didn't see when
[2:06:05] it comes in effect or any of that jazz.
Was there was that
[2:06:08] » Yeah, there was an effective date.
There's a date on it.
[2:06:10] » Yeah. April 1st.
>> It was
[2:06:12] » Yeah. The fe the new feast year.
>> No, actually came in this year.
[2:06:16] » This year.
>> April 1st.
[2:06:18] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[2:06:20] » Oh, so it's it's
>> been in effect. We only just really
[2:06:23] formally rolled out that exemption piece
>> recently, but the the the approved fee
[2:06:29] policy actually took kicked in as to
councelor Church's point April 1st this
[2:06:33] year. So
>> Okay. So change it.
[2:06:36] » Okay. Councelor Church.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Uh yeah, I've heard it
[2:06:39] was changed because I know somebody that
took something out. They were uh build.
[2:06:44] So anyway, so are we going to have an
exemption until we fix this or will
[2:06:49] people have to pay?
>> Next question.
[2:06:51] » I think I'm my based on the body
language here that I'm I think that our
[2:06:55] recommendation to council should be to
to suspend the the absolutely the the
[2:07:00] current practice of collecting fees
until the policy has all been updated.
[2:07:03] » We would bring that as a recommendation.
That would be my uh wish. Yeah.
[2:07:12] » So with that recommendation then I would
say it would for in terms of the
[2:07:16] direction just so we have it captured by
motion would be your opt the motion for
[2:07:21] option two.
>> I don't think we do much. It'll be for
[2:07:24] next week.
>> Next week. Yeah.
[2:07:26] » Yep.
>> Yeah. But I mean I if I don't think if
[2:07:28] staff started
>> suspending that I don't think anybody's
[2:07:31] going to get mad at this table again.
>> Yeah. You need a motion.
[2:07:35] » No
motions. [laughter]
[2:07:38] » We're just here to talk about things.
>> I think we understand council.
[2:07:48] » Good. I think you're doing a great job,
Scott. You brought a lot of
[2:07:51] professionalism to your to this role.
>> Thank you. I appreciate that.
[2:07:59] » All right. Well, I guess that's it for
this. Uh, we have to go in camera now.
[2:08:05] » We have a
pending location and there's a personel
[2:08:10] » against some sort. So, I'm just going
>> Yeah, I don't even know. So,
[2:08:14] » you No, the committee can go in camera.
>> Okay. So, I guess that's the one motion
[2:08:18] we'll do.
>> So,
[2:08:21] » I'll move in camera.
>> Second that move.
[2:08:24] » All right. Move and second. All in
favor?