[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?

Policy & Strategy

Transcript