[0:14] Okay, good evening everyone. I'll now call the open Council

[0:17] meeting of Monday, August 24th, 2026 to order and request

[0:21] everyone turn their cell phones off for the duration of

[0:23] this meeting. I'd like to call for Declarations at Petini

[0:26] Interest in the General Nature thereof undermissible conflict of interest

[0:29] to act with respect to the agenda for this meeting.

[0:34] Seeing none. I'd also like for a call for Declaration

[0:39] of Pecunia Interest and General Nature thereof on a municipal

[0:41] conflict of interest to act for means which a member

[0:44] had not attendance and which not been previously declared. See

[0:49] none. I'd like to begin by acknowledging with respect that

[0:53] we were in the 3D - 3 territory in the

[0:56] land on which were gathered as traditional territory, the Nishinabi,

[0:59] the MAT people. Welcome to this Council meeting of the

[1:03] Corporation of the City of Drydon. This forum is a

[1:06] place for Democracy, respectful discussion, and debate. We are committed

[1:11] to the values of integrity, honesty, responsibility and respect. We

[1:16] ask that everyone present, Council members, staff, and the public

[1:20] exercise self - discipline. Please focus your comments on the

[1:24] issues at hand. Respect the time limits and accords others

[1:28] the same courtesy you wish to receive. Let us work

[1:32] together to build a community where diverse views are heard

[1:35] and valued. So we have no delegations this evening or

[1:39] no presentations. No public notices, so we're now at the

[1:42] consent of general electasic clerk conduction of the agenda, please.

[1:46] Okay, I will review the items that are in the

[1:48] consent agenda this evening and ask if anyone would like

[1:50] to speak to our sever anything for a separate vote.

[1:53] Just the two items tonight under Adopt and Receive Minutes.

[1:57] We have the minutes of the August 10th Council meeting

[1:59] to be adopted. And under by - laws, there is

[2:03] By - - - - - - - 2026 -

[2:04] 60. Two amendments by - law 2026, two to account

[2:09] for the 2025 operating surplus as presented by the Treasurer

[2:13] at the August 10th Council meeting. Does anyone want to

[2:17] speak to her several either of those items. Nope, I

[2:23] will look for a remover in a seconder, please. Oh,

[2:29] thank. You. Move by Councillor Charteff, seconded by Councillor McKinnon,

[2:33] the Council hereby consider the following items of the consent

[2:36] agenda under date of August 24, 2026, as read and

[2:40] adopted, 9a and 12a. Okay, we call the question all

[2:45] in favor. Carried. Thank you. So we're now back to

[2:51] the regular agenda, which is out of consent, and each

[2:53] item on the regular agenda will be presented individually to

[2:56] Council. And I'd like to call on Mr. Bagshaw to

[3:00] present his report, please.

[3:12] Good evening, members of Council and members of the Public.

[3:15] The report before Council this evening provides an update on

[3:18] the Planning Work underway for the South Vanholt Autofront lands

[3:23] and introduces the draft South Manhorn Master Plan for Public

[3:26] Consultation. The starting point for this work is policy of

[3:31] 4. 1, 0. 1, 0. 23 of the C's official

[3:33] plan. That policy requires large - scale mixed use waterfront

[3:37] development to proceed through either a secondary plan or master

[3:40] plan process undertaken by the city. The purpose is to

[3:44] determine the appropriate balance of residential and commercial uses, open

[3:48] space and amenity areas and protection of the lake. Staff

[3:52] App prepared the draft South Benhol Monster Plan as the

[3:55] planning instrument contemplated by that policy. It's important to emphasize

[3:59] that the master plan is not a development approval. It

[4:03] does not amend the official plan remove the existing holding

[4:06] provisions, approve a plan of subdivision or site plan or

[4:10] authorized construction. Those approvals and technical requirements remain to be

[4:14] addressed through later stages. Staff of proceeding with a master

[4:18] plan rather than a secondary plan because the official plan

[4:21] expressly permits either approach and the existing waterfront mix -

[4:25] view framework is considered capable of accommodating the contemplated development

[4:28] without an official plan amendment. The master plant also addresses

[4:32] the official plan direction concerning views and vistors at the

[4:35] terminus of ENHORN Avenue through specific public realm and design

[4:38] policies. The draft master plan establishes the city's broad expectations

[4:43] for the approximately 30 acre study area. The current reference

[4:48] concept identifies approximately 396 residential units across the broader area.

[4:53] Uh, this is a planning benchmark only. It is not

[4:56] an approved density. And the final number of units will

[4:58] depend on servicing capacity. Environmental constraints, open space requirements and

[5:03] future planning approvals. The draft also identifies a target housing

[5:08] mix that includes multi - unit housing single - de

[5:12] - touched housing and assisted living. Supportive or seniors housing.

[5:17] Commercial uses are also contemplated, including food service Moscow retail,

[5:22] marine related and seasonal uses. A central component of the

[5:25] plan is public access to the waterfront. The draft establishes

[5:29] an open space benchmark of approximately 35 percent of the

[5:33] study area, including the shoreline buffer, MASH interface, parkland, uh,

[5:38] and trail corridors. It also seeks to ensure that the

[5:42] wobbygoon lake shoreline remains publicly accessible and that exclusive private

[5:46] residential frontage is not created. The plan also seeks to

[5:50] contemplate the signature trail connection through the area and connect

[5:54] lower how mastery our system will be green lake waterfront.

[5:58] Environmental protection is another major component. Detailed environmental review will

[6:02] be required before the final development layout is established. This

[6:06] includes an environmental impact study, consideration of fish and wildlife

[6:09] habitat. Ecological function of lore halmarge, shoreline protection, stormwater management,

[6:15] flood and hazard conditions, archaeological assessment, and potential contaminated slight

[6:20] requirements. Several of these requirements arise directly from legislation or

[6:25] the official plan and are therefore identified as fixed requirements

[6:29] rather than discretionary preferences. The report also distinguishes the earlier

[6:35] Vanholm Landing RFP from the master plan process. The RFP

[6:39] was a procurement process, it tended to identify a development

[6:42] partner and obtain concepts for the approximately 10 acre city

[6:45] - owned first phase. It was not a planning approval

[6:48] and it does not replace the cities responsibility to undertake

[6:51] the master plan process. The mask plan is city -

[6:54] led. And the City establishes the planning framework leads the

[6:58] consultation, considers the feedback received and brings the final document

[7:02] back to Council for Pro Decision. Separate engagement undertaken by

[7:06] the development proponent may inform its proposal, but it does

[7:09] not replace the City's consolidation. It's also important to recognise

[7:13] that approximately 20 acres of the broadest study era remain

[7:16] in principle ownership and acquisition of those lands is not

[7:19] assured for that reason the draft master plan requires the

[7:22] city - owned precinct A, be capable of functioning independently

[7:26] if the provincial lens are not never acquired. Sourcing and

[7:31] land use planning are also being advanced concurrently. Infrastructure, construction

[7:35] does not approve of a particular development layout. Water pressure,

[7:40] Firefoil Capacity must still be verified. Wastewater capacity confirmed and

[7:44] transportation and stormwater requirements addressed before development approval. Uh, an

[7:50] agreement of patients and sale has been executed for the

[7:52] City - owned precinct A, but conditions under that agreement

[7:55] have not been waived. A development agreement accepted by Council

[7:59] is required before closing. And the draft master plan is

[8:02] to be adopted before or could currently with Councillor's consideration

[8:05] of that agreement. The land transaction therefore needs to be

[8:10] distinguished from development approval. The existing holding provision and subsequent

[8:14] statutory planning approvals remain in place. The next major step

[8:18] is Public and Indigenous engagement. Staff are recommending that the

[8:22] Draft Master Plan and Supporting Materials be released for 30

[8:25] - day city - led public consultation period. The city

[8:29] would issue its own notice and receive comments electronically and

[8:32] in writing at City Hall. The consultation will focus particularly

[8:36] on the balance of residential and commercial development, open space

[8:40] and amenities, public waterfront access and protection of what we

[8:44] can like following the consultation period, Stafford document the comments

[8:47] received. Consider NSRE revisions and return the final master plan

[8:52] to Council for consideration. Council may also direct additional consultation,

[8:58] including a city hosted public open house, if it considers

[9:01] that appropriate. Indigenous engagement will also be undertaking, it accordants

[9:05] with the official plan. There are several outstanding matters, including

[9:10] completion of the housing needs study for the consideration of

[9:14] the Sinister Trail Study, clarification of the reference concept by

[9:17] Precinct. And the Uncertain Status of the Provincial Lens, those

[9:22] aren't even matters reinforced the key point this evening that

[9:24] the document before Council establishes a planning framework. It does

[9:27] not approve a final development to sign. Accordingly Staffa recommending

[9:32] that Council will receive the port direct staff to release

[9:35] the draft master plan for 30 - day CD -

[9:38] LED public consultation period undertaking disous engagement. Document and considered

[9:43] the feedback received and return the final master plan to

[9:46] Council before or concurrently with the development agreement. And before

[9:50] I play pool conditions associated with the disposition of the

[9:53] city own lands are waved. Thank you. Oh, thank you

[9:58] Mr. Bagchaw. For your report, before we go to questions

[10:02] from Council, I just want to remind Council the recommendations

[10:06] that we receive this draft South Vanhoor Master Plan for

[10:09] Information. Council Direct Staff to release the draft South Van

[10:13] Horn Master Plan Supporting Material for 30 - day City

[10:16] - led Public Consultation Perry with comments accepted electronically and

[10:20] writing, Staff under Indigenous Engagement, accordance with digital plan and

[10:25] Staff document the feedback received, consider revisions as appropriate and

[10:29] return the final master plan of Council for consideration and

[10:32] adoption prior to a concurrently with Council's consideration the development

[10:36] agreement. And prior to the waiver of applicable conditions associated

[10:39] with opposed disposition of city - owned loans. Okay. A

[10:43] lot before us open up Council for questions. Council Ethan.

[10:51] I would like to defer this. Meeting to the next

[10:56] meeting on September the 14th. I would like a recorded

[11:01] vote on it because we have to vote if we're

[11:03] going to have a meeting or not. Um, there's, I

[11:08] found that there's a lot of things in here, a

[11:10] lot of issues. That are unknowing. And we need some

[11:14] time to absorb this more. That's my opinion. Your worship.

[11:21] Let's confirm with our clerk here. On. The Motion. We

[11:31] generally will continue with some. Discussion and see how the

[11:35] rest of the group feels. Okay, duly noted. Um, Councillor

[11:40] Kievney. Yes, thank you through the chair. Um, I just

[11:49] had a few questions. Sorry, let me just pull this

[11:55] back up. Okay, so, um, I'm curious. The 2010 plan

[12:03] that was mentioned. So in that, um, in the master

[12:07] plan, it states that, you know, we have to cancel

[12:14] or rescind the 2012 plan. Do we have any legal

[12:18] obligation to following the 2010 plan. Okay, that would be

[12:26] for flying department or Mr. Husband. Through your worship.

[12:36] You're talking about the waterfront plan from 2010 Councillor Couning?

[12:42] Yes. So the big kind of group. Project that plan

[12:47] that you're referring to. No, so just in general, the

[12:52] fact that we also have emotion tonight to rescind and

[12:56] within the master plan, it says, you know, we want

[12:58] to. Again, it sounds like from what I understand through

[13:03] reading through it, that we have to rescind this plan.

[13:08] Is there a, did we have previously did we have

[13:11] a legal obligation to follow through with that. 2010 waterfront

[13:17] development plan or like, I'm just curious what the point

[13:21] of rescinding it is, if it's not actually a hindrance

[13:26] to moving forward with this master plan. Thank you for

[13:32] clarifying. Uh, to move forward with a new master plan

[13:35] that we recommetion would be for Council to rescind that

[13:38] motion. Yeah, I can also answer that. I brought the

[13:44] motion for, um, knowing the 2010 plan has really not

[13:49] been, um. Really worked on for the last four terms.

[13:55] It's also been dropped for a long time. It was,

[13:57] I think it's clean. If we want to move forward

[13:59] in different direction, it's clean for us to rescind that

[14:03] to make it, uh, we need to follow policies and

[14:06] procedures. So we need to follow our own act, even

[14:09] though it's done 16 years ago. It's still on the

[14:11] book. So we need to make a decision on that.

[14:14] Okay. Um, and my next question has to do with

[14:21] the public consultation. So if you go to page

[14:31] 16 of the document. Where is she? Here she is.

[14:38] Um, so it does have a whole section on public

[14:42] consultation. So this, uh, 10. 6. 1 states that, or

[14:51] A, I suppose. So consultations should occur before conditions are

[14:54] waived. And before council adopts this master plan so that

[14:58] it can influence the outcome. This is all great and

[15:01] good. I'm curious about some sort of deadline or timeline

[15:08] that we are working with. Um, I feel like we,

[15:13] we received these documents on Thursday. I had only the

[15:20] weekend to review these, um, and I want to make

[15:23] sure, uh, because this document is very. Fulsome is the

[15:30] word I'm going to use. I don't know if I

[15:33] absorbed as much as I could have and I don't

[15:39] know if any of the other, um, councillors feel the

[15:43] same, but there is a lot in this document. So

[15:46] I'm curious if we have to have this completed or,

[15:53] you know, this draft available to the public sooner rather

[15:59] than later or if there is a way that we

[16:01] can maybe spend some more time with it. So it

[16:03] wouldn't be opposed to, um, maybe deferring the draft so

[16:08] that we can have, um, a deeper think on it

[16:12] and kind of dig into the more particular parts of

[16:15] it. Um, but I'm just curious if that, if there

[16:18] was some sort of rush on this. Staffonic tackle that

[16:28] one through your worship. I think Council has time or

[16:34] in parallel with any public consultation to absorb and ask

[16:38] questions as well. Uh, once the public consultation is complete.

[16:43] Uh, Staff will bring those results back to Council and

[16:46] Council can take that into consideration for any further refinements

[16:50] to the master plan, including their own thoughts on the

[16:53] master plan. Okay. Um, and then just a comment again

[17:00] about public consultation. I do think that, um, I think

[17:07] that we should lean heavily into the accessibility, um, bit

[17:13] of this. And from what I have heard around the

[17:19] community, a lot of folks in Driden are wanting to

[17:25] participate in some sort of in - person larger scale

[17:31] public consultation that is led by the city. So while

[17:37] I enjoy participating in these things from the comfort of

[17:39] my home, I think, um, I think it would be

[17:45] a better or best move for us to kind of

[17:49] check every box when it comes to public consultation. Create,

[17:56] you know, some sort of online something where people can

[17:59] write in or email in, but also have a space

[18:03] where people can move through their ideas and talk about

[18:09] these things. I think that one of. The things that

[18:14] people really liked about the 2010 plan was that it

[18:21] felt like. It felt like all of the parts of

[18:25] a, you know, college group project without, hopefully, the, um,

[18:30] the annoying bits of it. Um, so I'm curious if

[18:33] that is something that we can also look into and

[18:38] ensure that that's part of our public consultation. Okay. Go

[18:48] online first to Councillor Noel. He's had your hand up

[18:50] for a while. Thank you, Mayor.

[18:59] Sorry. I was, I was hoping my colleague would ask

[19:02] a pile of questions, uh, because she often rattles off

[19:05] a few of them that I had written down, but

[19:07] there are a couple. The first one is I'll go

[19:13] through the questions and anyone who's qualified to answer can

[19:15] answer. The first one would be that on page five

[19:18] of eight of that huge document that we had by

[19:23] seen in the paragraph that starts with land transaction that

[19:28] there's reference to the transaction for purchase and sale has

[19:33] been executed. Um, can somebody comment on if there's, if

[19:38] that property is actually been sold and the signed contract

[19:42] for it, um, the other concern that I had or

[19:47] questioned would be if somebody could explain the term, uh,

[19:52] holding provision to me. The next question would be, why

[19:58] are we only limiting 30 days for submissions on this.

[20:03] By email and writing. We have to remember that we

[20:06] have a diverse community here. Sometimes the electronic methods of

[20:12] participating in something, although very user - friendly, if you're

[20:17] familiar with that, it may cut out a certain demographic

[20:20] that we have. You know, seniors may not be necessarily

[20:23] as familiar with the process as many others. So I'm

[20:28] wondering if it has to be a 30, what, like

[20:32] what's the rush for 30 days for submission. Next question

[20:37] would be, would the First Nations consulting consultations also be

[20:44] within that timeframe of 30 days. Would that be done?

[20:48] Cause I'm not sure that that's even a reasonable expectation

[20:51] for that to happen within 30 days. I have to

[20:55] echo my colleagues'comments. Councillor Latham in that I feel extremely

[21:03] rushed with this. I too, uh, read all these documents

[21:08] twice just to see if I could delineate some of

[21:12] the questions that I had, but the nagging feeling I

[21:16] have at the back is I feel this is being

[21:18] put before us. At the 11th hour, so to speak,

[21:23] when there's a, there's potentially the completely new council is

[21:26] going to be coming in in a very short time.

[21:32] I don't understand the rush here. This is something that

[21:36] we need to really get correct and have the public,

[21:41] no matter which way we go on this, there. But

[21:44] this is a very important decision. I hope that both

[21:49] sides, if you want to call it that of this

[21:51] equation, we'll accept and realise that if not for residential

[21:57] development down there, we wouldn't have the opportunity to do

[22:00] anything because that's what levied sewer and water going down

[22:05] there because there's no way the city would have been

[22:07] able to afford that on their own. So there has

[22:11] to be a balance here and I hope everybody understands

[22:14] that. My concern, Mayor Harrison and colleagues is that we

[22:19] have to be transparent. I don't see the necessity to

[22:22] rush. At this point. It's not like everybody's going to

[22:26] pack up their back holes and go home if we

[22:28] don't make a decision in the next 30 or 60

[22:30] days. So if someone can answer those questions for me

[22:36] and for the purposes of the record, I support Councillor

[22:39] Latham's suggestion that we defer this so that all of

[22:43] us can have a little bit more time to read

[22:45] and ask questions. I know myself, I'm limited to who

[22:48] I could ask questions to on this. So it's been

[22:51] a challenge. Thank you. Okay. I'll go to Staff. Mr.

[22:54] Nesmith. You'd like to address those questions? Um, I can,

[22:58] you worship and through your worship. Uh, an agreement to

[23:01] purchase and sale was struck with the developer at Council's

[23:05] Direction. But as Mr. Begg Shaw reported tonight, uh, there

[23:09] are many conditions that have not been waived as of

[23:12] yet. Uh, one of those conditions is development of an

[23:15] acceptable development agreement that will come back and publicly be

[23:20] discussed with Council in an open meeting. From a standpoint

[23:25] of public consultation, staff field at 30 days is adequate.

[23:30] Um, we can, uh, we can start that process immediately

[23:34] at Council's Direction. Um, the outcome of this meeting, uh,

[23:38] and again, 30 days should be ample time for the

[23:42] public to provide their input on this matter. Okay. Thank

[23:47] you. I'll go to Councillor Taref. Yeah. Um, I was,

[23:55] uh, same on the concerns about, uh, public consultation, but

[24:00] I had to, um, I guess quiller for a question.

[24:04] Council Kevening had said that there was so much more

[24:06] input on the initial studies. I read them. The first

[24:13] one from CMHC had they invited a hundred people to

[24:16] participate. 33 took part and not all of them stayed

[24:20] for the whole Presentation. And in the, uh, second one

[24:23] for the 2010 final, Mr. Tariq, you're talking about the

[24:27] 2010 2008 first. And then the 2010, they had, uh,

[24:33] open houses. That 60 people attended. And 13 people actually

[24:39] left written in commons. So I don't see, like obviously

[24:44] we want everybody's input. And in this day and age

[24:49] 30 days on electronic, I think does, you know, meet

[24:52] it. And if at everything goes in, uh, it, the

[24:57] people are concerned, obviously the two sides of everything out

[25:01] there. And there's a lot out electronically. And that's where

[25:03] we seem to be getting everything from. If our history

[25:09] repeats itself and we delay and put out for, and

[25:13] the expense of having public, uh, in - person. Presentations

[25:18] and that. I don't know how much, but what I've

[25:22] seen in our last two, I don't know how much

[25:24] more we're going to see. Yeah. They had a charee

[25:28] at the first one and they said they couldn't even

[25:29] keep the people there for three days that they had,

[25:33] uh, on that 2008 one and the 2010 again was

[25:36] poorly attended. And I don't know. We didn't have the

[25:41] electronic capacity that we do now. I think we'll see

[25:44] a lot. I mean, we're still counsel at the end

[25:47] of 30 days if we don't see what we want

[25:49] or we don't think that participations have been great. We

[25:52] still have to accept it in 30 days except our

[25:55] extended then. So why keep delaying stuff. Okay. Thanks to

[26:03] all line back to Councillor Noel. Thank you Mayor

[26:12] Harrison. That prompts another question. Thank you for that, Councillor

[26:16] Tarta. So if the property has been sold now, let's

[26:22] suppose that we don't, um, agree with the development plan

[26:27] or with the developers. Vision. We no longer own that

[26:34] property. So can, can the developer then sell it now

[26:37] that it's been newly serviced with, uh, water and sewer

[26:41] and everything. It may seem a simple question, but it

[26:44] seems like it's a win - win for the development.

[26:48] And it's a win and it's a lose. Win -

[26:51] lose for us perhaps. So if you can speak to

[26:53] that, please. Mr. Nesbert, like to talk to us. Through

[26:57] your worship, the way that an agreement of purchase and

[27:00] sale of land works is that the initial agreement is

[27:04] signed off. Um, and in most cases, there are conditions

[27:09] attached to that contract. Um, in some cases, there isn't.

[27:16] In this case, they're absolutely is. There's, there's quite a

[27:18] few conditions, including, um, development agreement, uh, being created and

[27:25] agreed to by both parties, meaning the municipality and the

[27:28] developer. If a condition is not waived, uh, buy the

[27:33] closing date. Then the parties do have some options. They

[27:36] can extend the closing date and continue to work to

[27:39] waive conditions or the agreement becomes null and void. So

[27:44] the key point to know is that, uh, the land

[27:48] is not sold until, uh, this agreement is closed. And

[27:52] it's not closed until all the conditions are waived by

[27:54] both parties. Yeah, thank you for that explanation, actually. We've

[28:00] gone through this quite a bit through different sales. I

[28:04] can think of the property behind KK Penner. That was

[28:09] signed agreement, uh, with the developer there. And two years

[28:13] to develop. And we actually had to extend that because

[28:15] he didn't meet his conditions. And we had to make

[28:17] a decision. How are we going to look for another

[28:21] developer? Keep going. But we, we had some, I guess,

[28:25] faith in the developer now he's building two buildings there.

[28:29] So it is pretty typical. It's not done until all

[28:32] the conditions are. I've been waived and signed off by

[28:35] the city. You want to add to that, Mr. Nesmith?

[28:39] Uh, through your worship, I do want to clarify the

[28:42] situation that you speak to, uh, was a situation under

[28:46] the actual development agreement after the lands were sold. This

[28:50] is, this is a different situation. Uh, the agreement of

[28:54] purchase and sale for the lands, the conditions have not

[28:57] been waived. So the final sale has not, um, actually

[29:02] happened. So when the conditions or if the conditions are

[29:06] fully waived, then the sale will proceed. And that's when,

[29:11] uh, in order for the sale to proceed the development

[29:14] agreement, we'll have to be in place. And then from

[29:17] there, the development agreement, uh, becomes the contractual obligation that

[29:21] the developer has with the municipality. But right now the

[29:25] land is not technically sold. There's an agreement of purchase

[29:29] and sale against the land. But the conditions all of

[29:33] the conditions associated with that, with that agreement have not

[29:37] been waived, not be met, not being waived at this

[29:39] time. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Councillor Lethal. Thank you,

[29:47] worship. Um, one of the other issues I found when

[29:50] I was reading through the document, as you look at

[29:52] the public space that's available, I can't quite figure out

[29:58] how much public space there is there. Uh, I get

[30:02] lots of comments from some of the public is that

[30:06] they basically feel like this is our last piece of

[30:09] property that could be enjoyed by all. So there's the

[30:13] conception that there's not that much community space for events

[30:19] or whatever wants to happen. And it's very unclear in

[30:24] this document. So. Um, that's one of the concerns. And

[30:28] that, that's coming from the constituents that have talked to

[30:32] me about it. They feel that that's the very last

[30:35] piece of space that is for. Whatever kind of mixed

[30:41] stuff they want to do. But, um. And, and quite,

[30:45] some of them are quite concerned about it because they

[30:48] feel like it is the last piece of property that

[30:52] they would have to use for space for enjoyment. Actually,

[30:57] there is a, there's a hard number in there. What

[31:00] was the number for open space. Matt, do you want

[31:07] to read this? Yeah, I'll go back up there. Yeah.

[31:09] Thanks. Um, yeah, the, the benchmark is 35 percent for

[31:19] open space, but just want to reiterate that the key

[31:24] component of, of the actual or any development plan would

[31:26] be, uh, protection of open space access to the waterfronts.

[31:33] Um, all the, um, all the things that the public,

[31:37] um, uh, it's important to them. Um, so those elements

[31:42] of any approval will be at the forefront of anything

[31:45] that comes forward. So, but we are aiming for a

[31:48] particular benchmark, which is 35 percent for open space. Okay.

[31:51] Thank you. I think Mr. Nespit want to add to

[31:54] that. Yeah. Through your worship. I would like to add

[31:57] to that because the, uh, the South Vann Horn Conceptual

[32:00] subdivision design that the city undertook several years ago, uh,

[32:05] it's very clear what there is for, uh, for open

[32:08] space and publicly accessible space, uh, in that design. And

[32:12] anything coming forward from any future developers. It would also

[32:17] be clear what's designated as open space and publicly accessible

[32:22] space. So, um, I think if you, this master plan

[32:27] is, is really just, um, pulling together the work that,

[32:32] uh, that Council has asked Staff to do, uh, probably

[32:36] since 2022, when we launched into the Comity Capacity study,

[32:40] uh, the South Van Horn area was, uh, was looked

[32:43] at, uh, through that study, uh, we looked at, um,

[32:47] we looked at the South Van Horn area, of course,

[32:49] through the, uh, through the official plan, uh, update that

[32:52] we did after that, uh, the South Van Horn area,

[32:58] you know, came into, I think, the conversation when Council

[33:02] our Staff to undertake the outdoor event venue conceptual design

[33:07] work, uh, that we did in 23. Uh, again, that

[33:12] area came into, into, uh, I think the work that,

[33:17] uh, was done with the trail feasibility study that we

[33:21] did 23, 24. So that area has been looked at

[33:25] extensively through different, uh, initiatives over the years. So the,

[33:31] uh, and of course then the, uh, the South Vannhorn

[33:34] Conceptual Subdivision design that I mentioned. So this master plan

[33:39] really simply, uh, brings all that under, you know, this

[33:43] term master plan. Uh, for, uh, for additional public consultation,

[33:50] because most of those initiatives that I mentioned included fairly

[33:53] extensive, uh, public consultation. Okay. Thank you. We'll go to

[34:00] Councillor Kieving. Thank you through the chair. Um, I don't

[34:05] think that anyone around the horseshoe are online is wanting

[34:09] to discredit all of the work that we know and

[34:13] has clearly gone into this master plan. I think. Some

[34:19] folks would feel that it is part of our due

[34:22] diligence to make sure that we, you know, understand what

[34:26] we're putting out to the public completely before it gets

[34:31] there officially. Um, so when looking at these conceptualizations, like

[34:39] I'm looking at the JR cousins like mockups kind of

[34:44] right now. And like some of them are very. Nice.

[34:49] Like they extend, um, our, our trail system. They create,

[34:56] you know, this lovely boardwalk along the water and extend

[35:01] our existing doc structure and include a kayak launch and

[35:06] a little dock for, you know, non motorized, uh, water

[35:11] sport. Things. Um, so I think that they're, you know,

[35:17] on, on the right track, I'm curious about these, um,

[35:22] these drawings and maybe Matt, you can answer this. Were

[35:26] these documents also provided to the public with like in

[35:33] addition to like the master plan or was this just

[35:35] kind of like, this is part of the agenda package.

[35:37] And if people knew where to find it, that's how

[35:38] they would find it. Uh, these were provided as part

[35:43] of the agenda to the master plan. So yes, this

[35:47] is the, this is, this is informed the master plan.

[35:50] But it is an important part of informing the master

[35:53] plan and the direction that we would like to explore

[35:56] and go in. So yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. So for any

[36:00] members of the public who are watching or listening, um,

[36:03] and you haven't seen these drawings yet. They are attached

[36:05] to our agenda package and go look at them to

[36:08] help inform your thoughts about this, um, the master plan

[36:15] its entirety, I guess. Yeah. Just add, I think that

[36:20] document from the consultant you're referring to the Van Horn

[36:23] Lanning Subvision pre - design report. Like part of the

[36:27] purpose of that was really, uh, to compete against 440

[36:32] municipalities for infrastructure funding for sue and water to get

[36:35] down to the end of Van Horn Landing. So without

[36:38] some documentation showing the ministry of infrastructure, uh, that we

[36:43] had a plan that could get move forward. Like we

[36:46] would not get any funding. So, so this was pretty

[36:49] key, I think, and just showing our due diligence and

[36:53] part of municipality to the government. And unfortunately, we were

[36:58] rewarded that funding. You can see the work ahead. We

[37:01] wouldn't be here tonight if that wasn't going ahead. So

[37:03] that was a key document and moving that forward. Any

[37:08] other further questions, comments, Councillor Taref. Through the chair. So

[37:16] basically as I understand it, this is the culmination of

[37:20] five different studies that have been undertaken presented to Council

[37:23] over the last four years. That are now being amassed

[37:27] and put into a single master plan. So I understand

[37:32] it's overwhelming because you're all of a sudden seeing five

[37:34] at once, but we've seen them throughout the year and

[37:37] accepted them or received voted to receive them as reports

[37:40] from each department as this went along. And again, like

[37:45] I'm saying, it's not that I want to rush it,

[37:47] but nothing burns me more than watching government red tape

[37:51] and drags stuff around forever when you've already looked at

[37:54] it. And it's been there. And we've got another 30

[37:57] days to look at it before it comes back to

[37:59] us again to be accepted. So giving another 30 days

[38:03] another, I'm starting to think we're part of the federal

[38:06] or provincial government, which, you know, and we see what

[38:09] happens to any investment when they get involved. It's deferred

[38:12] and gone forever or drug out. And if I've just

[38:16] described this accurately as the culmination of all these reports

[38:20] we've looked at over the last four years, I think

[38:23] if we've been doing our job up till now, we

[38:26] shouldn't continue to ask staff to wait around and ask

[38:29] for more and ask for more. When we've already had

[38:32] the opportunity to ask questions about this, get our details

[38:37] straight. And we do have another 30 days. To do

[38:40] that. Before we have to accept it or send it

[38:44] back at that point. But I just want to be

[38:47] clear where we are here on this because. I guess

[38:51] I'm not that I'm impatient. I just hate stuff dragging

[38:54] out. Yeah. So the staff, the best ability to put

[39:00] together this master plan, like Mr. Nesba said and you

[39:03] said that based on all the information we've got to

[39:05] say over the last number of years. Really this, we're

[39:08] asking to now bring this to the public and ourselves.

[39:12] We have 30 days to review this and to bring

[39:14] back any comments, questions, concerns. For review of staff to

[39:20] put together and to then try to put a final

[39:25] plan together, Presentation, the Council so that we can then

[39:28] deliberate on whether or not we accept that final plan.

[39:31] I think that's really what they're asking. So do we

[39:35] really, we think it's time. We put the RFP out

[39:38] in, I think, January for looking for call for developers.

[39:41] So it's been a long time since the AFC come

[39:44] back to the public because we had to do that

[39:45] in a closed session. So I think we have, although

[39:49] the public may not be aware, but we've spent a

[39:51] lot of time. And then a lot of energy to

[39:53] try to move this forward up to this point. Councillor

[39:59] Kieving. Mr. Nesbitt, can you give us an idea of

[40:05] when the 30 days? So if this was received tonight,

[40:10] when does our 30 days begin. Through your worship staff

[40:17] would be ready to go with kicking off. I guess

[40:20] the electronic portion of the public consultation. Almost immediately. Okay.

[40:29] With Staff, consider like a half day in person consultation

[40:35] so people can come and talk to people in person.

[40:39] To your worship staff will do what the majority of

[40:42] Council instructs them to do. Great. I think we're hearing

[40:48] that that is a desirable. Council Ethan. You should just

[40:54] one more question. So explain what the vote today would

[40:59] be for. Like it's, it's, it's the vote would not

[41:02] be making that this is going to be done. This

[41:06] is to make it just move on to the next

[41:08] stage. Yeah. So I can say it again, as I

[41:12] said earlier, like receiving the report. So we have an

[41:15] opportunity to look at it. And really, to release it

[41:17] to the public and start a 30 day public consultation.

[41:20] So everyone has a chance to read through it and

[41:25] put in comments electronically or writing or in person. And

[41:28] then, um, also do indigenous engagement. It's not the same

[41:32] as the consultation, but it's engagement. It's a bit different.

[41:35] So then they document that feedback receive considering revisions appropriate

[41:39] and bring them all the comments back and bring a

[41:44] potential final master plan to Council for our deliberation debate

[41:49] and then decide whether we move forward without or chain

[41:51] make changes. So this is just the beginning of a

[41:54] process. We're not approving this document or anything like it.

[41:58] We're really approving consultation on the document to get started

[42:02] on it. Any other further. Comments or questions.

[42:14] I guess one thing is our, is there a majority

[42:17] willing to move forward on this. Because we're looking for.

[42:22] I guess, the mover in second. So. Okay, moved by

[42:27] Councillor Price, seconded by Councillor Taref. No, thank you. I

[42:33] was just going to ask Councillor Lathan needs to like

[42:35] a recorded vote. Oh, yes. Okay. Thank you. Ready. Moved

[42:42] by Councillor Price, seconded by Councillor Tardif, the Council received

[42:45] this report regarding the draft South Van Horn Master Plan

[42:48] for Information. And that Council Direct staff to release the

[42:52] draft South Vanhorn Master Plan and supporting materials for a

[42:55] 30 - day city - led public consultation period with

[42:59] comments accepted electronically and in writing at City Hall. And

[43:03] that Staff Undertake Indigenous engagement in accordance with the official

[43:06] plan and the staff document the feedback received. Consider revisions

[43:11] as appropriate and return the final master plan to Council

[43:14] for consideration and Adoption prior to, or concurrently with Council's

[43:19] consideration of the development agreement and prior to the waiver

[43:23] of applicable conditions associated with the proposed disposition of city

[43:28] - owned lands. Go around the table, Councillor Keening. I

[43:37] can't tell you if that's right or wrong. It's on

[43:40] you. Mostly paying attention. Don't worry, my mic is on.

[43:46] Um, yes, I will support moving forward right now. Hey,

[43:50] Councillor Latham. Yes. Councillor McKinnon. Four. Councillor Noel.

[44:05] Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm against. I don't think 30

[44:13] days is enough time to get it all done. That's

[44:16] my only sticking point is a 30 days. Councillor Price.

[44:23] Taref. May. Harrison. Yay. It voted of six to one

[44:32] in favor. The vote is carried. All right. Thank you.

[44:38] So I'd like to now call Ms. Warren to present

[44:40] her report, please. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and

[44:45] Council and everybody in attendance. Uh, the purpose of my

[44:48] staff report tonight is to request council's approval to create

[44:52] one permanent full - time non - union building and

[44:55] by - law services, supervisor position. So staff, uh, are

[44:59] recommending that Council approve one permanent full - time building

[45:03] in Bylaws Services, supervisor position within the building and planning

[45:07] department effective upon recruitment. Approved the attached job description and

[45:12] placement on the non - union paygrid at Group 7

[45:15] with a salary band of 95, 680 to 107 470,

[45:19] 360. A prove 2026 operating budget amendment of 73, 0120,

[45:27] which would be funded from existing salary vacancies. And then

[45:30] Direct Staff to include the estimated annualized cost of approximately

[45:34] 137, 992 in the draft 2027 operating budget. So some

[45:39] of the key requests is the, this request is intended

[45:43] to address an operational and statutory service delivery gap in

[45:47] our building in Byloft Services. So currently the chief building

[45:50] official is a city only qualified staff member authorized to

[45:53] issue permits and complete mandatory building code inspections. Bylaw Services

[45:58] is also supported by one municipal law enforcement officer without

[46:02] a designated day - to - day supervisor. And then

[46:05] the proposed combined role would add qualified inspection capacity. Provide

[46:10] by loss services supervision and create a plan succession plan

[46:13] for both for the CBO function. So why we're asking

[46:17] for this first reason why we're asking is reduced statutory

[46:23] compliance risk. So provincial requirements established permit review timelines and

[46:28] require mandatory inspections within two business days of notice at

[46:33] present. An absence of the CBO for vacation illness training

[46:37] turnover leaves no qualified internal backup to review applications issue

[46:42] permits, complete mandatory inspections or issue orders, which would create

[46:48] an immediate, you know, risk to the organisation. A second

[46:52] reason we're being, we're asking for this position to be

[46:55] created is to respond to increased development activity. So building

[46:59] activity has increased while staffing has remained at the historical

[47:03] complement of one qualified inspector. Construction value increase from approximately

[47:09] 12. 6 million in 2022 to 30. 5 million in

[47:13] 2025, which is about 143 percent increase. Permits issued increased

[47:20] from 60 to 116 over the same period, which is

[47:23] a 93 percent increase 130 properties for the same period

[47:29] of 2022 to 2025 have been inspected for property standards

[47:33] concerns, which adds to Staff's time for inspection and enforcements,

[47:37] which drives Staff resources from building parking and animal control.

[47:42] The report also identifies practical pressures already being experienced, including

[47:46] deferred plan review, longer pre - consultation timelines, inspections being

[47:50] scheduled near the end of required timeframes and administrative duties

[47:54] reducing available field time. The third reason is to improve

[47:58] our bylaws services coordination. So this position would provide designated

[48:02] operation operational supervision for Bylaus Services, which would include complaint

[48:08] and investigation file triage, consistent application of progressive enforcement, quality

[48:13] control for notes, evidence, photocrafts, and prosecution disclosure. Coordination with

[48:20] OPP Fire Services Public Works, Property Standards Committees, et cetera.

[48:25] And then support for escalated public interactions in proactive compliance

[48:28] education. The combined structure is intended to be efficient because

[48:33] building and Bylaw work have overlapping subject matter, enforcement tools,

[48:38] field activities, and Public Safety Objectives. Another reason is to

[48:43] establish a CBO Succession Capacity. So the City currently has

[48:47] no qualified internal successor for the CBO role. Building official

[48:53] qualifications take time to obtain. And the rule also requires

[48:56] operational knowledge of local building stock approvals and final history.

[49:01] Recruiting a qualified CBO externally in Northwestern Ontario was expected

[49:04] to take 9 to 18 months while interim contracted services

[49:08] could come at a substantial and uncertain premium. Creating this

[49:12] position now permits knowledge transfer while the current CBO remains

[49:15] available and allows the city to build qualifications over time.

[49:20] So the Financial Summary, um, as I said, we're recommending

[49:24] a salary band grid in Group 7, which is 95,

[49:29] 680 to 107, 47360. This reflects comparable Northwestern Ontario and

[49:36] small urban Ontario municipal positions that are similar to this

[49:39] that have combined inspection and enforcement roles, including the supervisory

[49:43] responsibilities. So assuming that this gets passed and we start

[49:49] recruiting and someone can come starting October 1st, our 2026

[49:53] budget amendment, which would be 73, 210. And we would

[49:57] fund that through existing salary vacancies. And then our estimated

[50:01] 2027 annualized costs would be 137. 982, which would have

[50:05] to be considered through the 2027 budget process. So, um,

[50:11] so it also, uh, aligns with our strategic alignment. So

[50:15] the request aligns with the city is 20, 26 to

[50:17] 2031 strategic plan, the growth management goal and properties related

[50:26] to, uh, proactive investment and critical public services, municipal capacity

[50:32] infrastructure first development. It also supports community safety and wellbeing,

[50:38] economic and investment diversity and communication in our people through

[50:41] development approvals, organisational capacity and employee development and retention. Uh,

[50:48] this is not solely a growth related staffing request. It

[50:51] is also a risk management and continuity of service measure

[50:55] for statutory building functions. Approval, like I said, would commit

[50:59] council to reoccurring annual operating costs beginning in 2027 budget.

[51:05] And then recruitment and timing, um, of the successful candidate

[51:11] existing building code identification, number qualifications may affect how quickly

[51:16] full inspection redundancy is achieved, obviously. And so the options

[51:20] to consider. Option one is approved the position, which we

[51:24] recommend. This option provides inspection backup, Bylaws supervision and a

[51:30] succession pathway for the CBO position. As I said, there'll

[51:34] be no tax levy impact for 2026. But Council must

[51:38] be prepared to fund the position recurring costs starting in

[51:42] 2027. Option two. Contract building inspection services on a NAS

[51:48] needed basis. Uh, which is not recommended as a standalone

[51:53] solution. It provides limited backup, but does not address by

[51:57] loss supervision or succession planning and availability of contract services

[52:01] and costs is unpredictable. Option three is enter a shared

[52:05] service agreement with a neighbouring municipality, also not recommended, distance

[52:09] and regional capacity constraints, uh, not support timely response to

[52:14] mandatory inspection timelines. Option four, defer to the 2027 budget

[52:19] process. It's also not recommended. It extends the current risks

[52:22] and does not reduce the eventual cost. And then option

[52:25] five, remain status quo. Which is also not recommended as

[52:30] it continues a single point to failure and service delivery

[52:32] risks. Any question. All right. Thank you for your report

[52:38] and I'll open up four for questions. Councillor Noel. You're

[52:42] up first. Thank you Mayor Harrison. Thank you for your

[52:48] report, Ms. Warren. I just have one question. First of

[52:52] all, I'm supportive of option number one. I'm happy to

[52:55] have another employee come on the fray here. We certainly

[52:59] need that, especially given what you've said about the increase

[53:03] in construction. And the workload that must come with that.

[53:07] I just wonder if we're going to be able to

[53:09] find a person that is that. Qualified. So just if

[53:17] you could comment on. Background that I had read this

[53:23] is Bylaws Services had delivered by a single municipal law

[53:26] enforcement officer reporting the chief building official. Was presently no

[53:30] designated day - to - day supervisor for Bio -

[53:33] Laws Services Staff. A former coordination for file assignment. Investigation

[53:39] standards, evidence handling. And this is the part where prefixes

[53:43] act prosecution readiness. So as this person going to do

[53:47] all that, including POA prosecution, supervision and readiness.

[54:05] So through your worship Council Noel. So basically our department,

[54:10] as we stand right now with my self - assess

[54:12] chief building official and manager, Building and Planning with our

[54:16] loan Bylaw officer. Do all of those functions today. Um,

[54:21] the additional person within the department, obviously allows us to

[54:25] devote more time and efforts and preparedness in all of

[54:31] those aspects. So whether that is in the enforcement piece,

[54:35] whether that is in the education piece for the public.

[54:38] And then of course on the provincial offensive side, when

[54:41] we do have challenges to our enforcements, to our offence

[54:46] tickets writings, all of those things require a lot of

[54:49] administrative effort together, um, our, our packages to submit to

[54:54] the court. So the additional person is going to add

[54:58] to that role and hopefully lessen it across the board.

[55:02] That's the intent. Okay. So that clarifies it that it's

[55:07] just for municipal prosecutions basically under the bylaws, the her

[55:12] municipal bylaws and orders and so on and so forth.

[55:15] It's not for the regular. Highway traffic active and wildlife

[55:18] and things like that. That's, that was my, my question.

[55:21] So thank you for that. Okay. We'll go to Councillor

[55:27] Eckening. Thank you. Say where you are, Pam. Um, okay.

[55:32] So, and also maybe Marcy. Uh, okay. So first question.

[55:40] What is the urgency on hiring this position? Um, is

[55:46] there an option? I assume things were discussed probably at

[55:50] the Finance Committee that we, uh, just don't know about,

[55:55] um, is there an option to do any internal cross

[56:00] training. To kind of supplement. This, um, I guess this

[56:08] position instead of, you know, hiring and having a whole

[56:13] new person. Are there, I assume that they've been explored,

[56:17] but I don't know about them. So I'm just curious

[56:18] about that. Okay. Three worship. Basically our internal staff are

[56:26] myself and one By - la officer. That by -

[56:28] officer is currently going through the in - house training

[56:33] to understand the by - law enforcement role and peace.

[56:36] So there's a certification process that goes through that alone.

[56:40] Second, from that piece is the ability to inspect and

[56:45] understand building code and the construction industry on how buildings

[56:49] have to be put together. Um, that is a whole

[56:52] separate education piece that you either come with as a

[56:55] carpenter, uh, project leader, project estimator, maybe a designer, whatever

[56:59] your background is, leads to that. Um, the Bylaw Enforcement

[57:04] Rule can be learned. The building construction end of thing

[57:07] is more of somebody coming from that industry. Um, so

[57:11] our current byla officer is great in the By -

[57:13] la Officer Role, but his construction industry background is not

[57:17] existent. So it's better if we can get somebody who

[57:20] has more experience in both of those realms or at

[57:23] least comes with that construction. End of things and can

[57:27] learn the rest of the piece. And then it would

[57:29] complement both roles and allow us to move forward out

[57:32] in the public. Okay. So the expertise in that specific

[57:38] realm is what is lacking currently? Correct. Okay. Um, but,

[57:44] but, uh. Is I, and again, this is maybe a

[57:51] question that was already asked, but I don't know the

[57:53] answer. Talking about that specialty or expertise or special training,

[57:59] um, is, is there a major cost associated, um, to

[58:07] bring that staff person up to that level versus hiring

[58:11] a whole new person or is it just the cost

[58:15] benefit analysis of having a separate person in that role.

[58:20] Was determined to be the way to go. We will

[58:25] hopefully luck out to have somebody who has started the

[58:29] qualification process and comes with that background. However, if that

[58:34] person does not exist, then yes, anybody who enters into

[58:38] the role of the inspection side of things requires that

[58:41] qualification background in order to inspect. So it really doesn't

[58:45] matter if we were to do that in - house.

[58:48] That person is still going to go through that process,

[58:50] but not necessarily having the background experience in the construction

[58:54] industry. Okay. Um, and so who does the bylaw officer

[59:02] report to right now. So by - law reports to

[59:06] me as manager of building and planning and Bylaw, even

[59:09] though the title doesn't necessarily add by - law in

[59:11] there, I myself am a certified property standards officer as

[59:14] well. So I have that same authority. Um, so that

[59:17] person does report to me. They do have my supervision.

[59:21] However, my supervision is limited to when I am in

[59:26] office and or not on the building side of things.

[59:29] So we need that person that transitions those rules who

[59:33] can provide that person with more hands - on assistance,

[59:37] but also supervision. And I can concentrate on what I'm

[59:41] trained to do, which is the building side of things.

[59:44] Okay. So from what I'm understanding, your capacity to oversee

[59:50] that person currently is not where we would like it

[59:53] to be. My capacity to engage in my entire role

[59:58] as it currently exists is overdrawn. Yes. Got it. Got

[1:00:02] it. Okay. Perfect. Um, Marcy, question for you. How many

[1:00:08] non - union employees do we have? And is it

[1:00:12] easier for us to hire non - unionized employees. Or

[1:00:18] I'm just curious about, um, how or why the decision

[1:00:21] to make it a non - union position was brought.

[1:00:27] I believe there's 32 full - time, but don't quote

[1:00:31] 100 percent quote me. I believe it's 32. 32 or

[1:00:33] 33, non - union right now. It would just, yeah,

[1:00:37] all of our by - law, like anything at a

[1:00:41] supervisory level is non - union. So supervisory management level

[1:00:44] is known union. If you were to go into, um,

[1:00:48] a collective agreement. And it would be at a lead

[1:00:50] hand. Lead hand roll, not as a supervisory role. And

[1:00:55] we're looking for a supervisory position. Gauchy, gotcha. Um, and

[1:01:01] so from the report, uh, for 2027's budget, we are

[1:01:09] likely going to have to look at some sort of

[1:01:12] tax increase to accommodate this position or some sort of

[1:01:16] deferral of a city project or priority to accommodate this.

[1:01:24] Well, Mr. Nesbitt was going to talk to that one.

[1:01:27] Go ahead, Roger. Thank you. Thank you to your worship.

[1:01:29] I can jump in on that one. Councillor Keening. Yeah.

[1:01:32] That's exactly as the report states. Uh, that's a consideration

[1:01:36] that Council needs to weigh is that this will impact

[1:01:38] taxation. Um, uh, going into the 2027 budget or it

[1:01:44] could impact taxation. Uh, but, and, uh, your conversation, your

[1:01:50] back and forth with our CBO finally got to, you

[1:01:53] know, one of the key components of this report. Capacity

[1:01:56] is overdrawn within the department. It has been for quite

[1:01:59] some time. Uh, this, uh, this request is, is probably

[1:02:03] overdue at this point. So that's, that's why the recommendation

[1:02:07] is, is to do this out of budget. Uh, but

[1:02:09] for sure Council wants to be fully aware that by

[1:02:13] moving forward on this, this, this is included in House

[1:02:17] to be included in the 2027 budget. Okay. We'll go

[1:02:23] online to Council McKinnon. Just one quick comment. If you

[1:02:30] want this community continue to grow like it should, then

[1:02:35] you got to spend some money on employees. So think

[1:02:38] about that. Just don't think about reasons to get out

[1:02:42] of spending the money. This is a requirement that we

[1:02:45] need. Dreden needs lots of new houses that needs lots

[1:02:50] of economic work. All that work leads to. People that

[1:02:57] know how to do this kind of work. Can't be

[1:03:01] resisted. Okay. Thank you. I'll go to Councillor Latham. You

[1:03:10] have a question? Uh, through the chair, this is kind

[1:03:14] of both the same as what Councillor McKinnon said. Um,

[1:03:17] this is actually a good thing because it proves that

[1:03:20] we are growing as a community. And that's something that

[1:03:23] we've all wanted for a long time. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:03:27] Um, it's been a conversation, a couple of conversations when

[1:03:31] I've been down to many municipal meetings or conferences chief

[1:03:35] billing inspectors. There are statutory. They're in high demand. There's

[1:03:43] many municipalities don't have one. Um, so the options are

[1:03:47] limited. If you want to move forward, talking to frustrated

[1:03:51] mayors who don't have a CBO. So they're have to

[1:03:55] have a third party. And they actually have to go

[1:03:57] around and take pictures of everything. Sentine out the mayor

[1:04:00] himself. But staff member take pictures of all the building

[1:04:04] forward it to somebody in another city. And they look

[1:04:07] at it. And say, uh, could you go back and

[1:04:11] take another picture? Cause I can't really tell if that

[1:04:13] stud is in the right place. So very frustrating, uh,

[1:04:17] for developers. I have talked to two, uh, two developers

[1:04:23] in this city that said we started a project in

[1:04:25] another city, but they didn't have the staff to handle

[1:04:29] us. So we've actually started our project after theirs and

[1:04:34] completed and dried because we had the staff to do

[1:04:36] it. So that says a lot of the quality of

[1:04:39] our staff. And we know they're overworked with 147 percent

[1:04:43] increase. And it says, the testament to Dragon is attracting

[1:04:49] a lot of development at this moment. So we are

[1:04:52] inundated with crust. So I know it's been a strain

[1:04:54] on our staff. So. I think this isn't an important

[1:04:58] position. If developers come in and they can't get their

[1:05:03] approvals in place. And we have actually now statutory requirements

[1:05:08] that the, uh, provincial government have tightened that we must

[1:05:11] meet without the staff in place. Than we fall behind.

[1:05:17] And I think there's actually, some sort of penalty system.

[1:05:22] The government penalized a municipality if we can't follow these

[1:05:24] obligations. So it's important that we have adequate staff. To

[1:05:28] make meet those deadlines. So yeah, so I'm definitely in

[1:05:32] favor. Any further comments or questions. We're really, um, is

[1:05:37] to bring this as a motion to the future Council

[1:05:39] meeting. I assume next Council meeting. So all in faith,

[1:05:46] I think I'm seeing everyone in favor of doing this.

[1:05:48] Okay. Very good. Thanks. So it's your direction. Thank you.

[1:05:56] And thank you. For Pam for the great work you

[1:06:00] do and your staff. Okay. I'd like to now recall

[1:06:05] Ms. Junko to presenter reports, please. Thank you. You worship.

[1:06:11] Good evening Council and members of Public. So tonight my

[1:06:14] first report is the Q2 2026 financials. The recommendations that

[1:06:19] Council received the report for information purposes. The purpose of

[1:06:24] this report is to provide Council with the City's Financial

[1:06:27] Results for the period ending June 30th, 2026, including comparison

[1:06:31] year - to - date revenue and expenditures for the

[1:06:33] 2026 operating and capital budgets. The background is the Council

[1:06:40] approved the 2026 operating capital budgets January 12th, 2026. The

[1:06:47] approved budget provides financial plan for delivering municipal services maintaining

[1:06:51] infrastructure, funding capital projects and meeting legislative and operational obligations

[1:06:57] for the year. The report includes data from January 1st

[1:07:02] to June 30th. Some of the key highlights, um, the

[1:07:08] tax levy, we are unfavorable and that's basically intern billing.

[1:07:13] It doesn't, it reflects the 50 percent of the 2026

[1:07:16] budgeted. So we're a little bit lower there. Other revenue

[1:07:19] is unfavorable, mainly due to the June Airport Revenue was

[1:07:23] not included, that got put into July. So we're missing

[1:07:26] that revenue for airport. And the hockey school programming revenue,

[1:07:31] which doesn't start until Q3. The salaries for expenses. We

[1:07:36] are under budget for that. And that's mainly due to

[1:07:39] vacancies and seasonal positions. Um, the materials and other, we

[1:07:45] are, um, under budget there. And again, that's POA Q2

[1:07:50] billing was not done until after June 30th. And the

[1:07:54] hockey school programming doesn't start until Q3 as well. Um,

[1:07:59] and the contract services, the notice we are under budget

[1:08:02] there. No spending in public works contract services for hot

[1:08:08] mix patching and crack ceiling. That doesn't start until Q3.

[1:08:13] And the legal fees are just as I mentioned, legal

[1:08:15] fees are over about 113, 000. Are there any questions?

[1:08:23] Thank you for reporting any questions from Mr. Chunko. No

[1:08:32] questions. You're off the hook, but I just wanted to

[1:08:33] say, um, the just the, these reports are getting easier

[1:08:38] and easier to understand, which is really, really great. Um,

[1:08:41] for us, us newbies. Um, so I just really do

[1:08:45] appreciate how they are laid out and how, um, easy

[1:08:50] to comprehend they are. So thank you. Thank you. Okay.

[1:08:58] Is there no questions? We're receiving this information. Thank you

[1:09:00] very much. And you have a second report for us.

[1:09:04] Sorry. Thank you. Chair the chair. Um, the next report

[1:09:07] is to best notice of vesting for 215 and 221

[1:09:15] Florence from a tax sale. The purpose of this report

[1:09:20] is to seek Council's direction on the disposition of the

[1:09:23] Tax Cell property following unsuccessful tax sales for 215 Florence

[1:09:28] Avenue and 221 Florence Avenue. The recommendation is that Council

[1:09:34] Direct Staff to register a notice of vesting for the

[1:09:36] properties and to authorize staff to write off outstanding taxes

[1:09:41] in the amount of 35, 329 dollars and 21 cents.

[1:09:47] The background for 215 Florence, the property was purchased in

[1:09:52] 2021 by the owner of 221 Florence Street. The property

[1:09:58] proceeded to tax cell in 2024. No bids were received

[1:10:02] through the Tax Cell. The property is currently listed for

[1:10:06] sale through Sunset Country Real Estate for 37, 500. For

[1:10:11] 221 Florence Street, the property previously proceeded to Tax Sailing

[1:10:16] 2019 and was purchased in 2019. The property again proceeded

[1:10:21] to tax sale in 2024. No bids were received through

[1:10:25] the 2024 Tax Sale process. Uh, the property has also

[1:10:29] been listed for sale through real estate. However, the listing

[1:10:31] has since been removed. A construction lean and certificate of

[1:10:36] action has been filed against a property. The lean holder

[1:10:41] has obtained a court order. For the sale of the

[1:10:45] land with a sale proceed to be paid to the

[1:10:47] lean holder. Um, the lien holder, however, has agreed that

[1:10:51] the city can go ahead and vest the property. So

[1:10:57] prior to proceeding with the Tax Sale process for 221

[1:11:00] Florence, the city obtained illegal opinion confirming that the municipality

[1:11:04] could proceed with the tax sale. And that cities interest

[1:11:06] would be protected. So because of the, there was no

[1:11:15] bids for the Tax Sale properties. The city has four

[1:11:17] options. We could write off and charge back. Um, these,

[1:11:21] the, um, outstanding taxes. And we're going to register or

[1:11:25] we could register and notice of vesting. So we take

[1:11:27] ownership of the property. And then we could, um, declare

[1:11:31] it surplus later on. Uh, we could re - advertise

[1:11:34] for Tax Sale or we could do nothing. Um, and

[1:11:36] then in two years, we'd have to start the Tax

[1:11:38] Hill process all over again. So Staff recommends vesting these

[1:11:43] Tax Sal properties because they have not sold through the

[1:11:46] Taxel Process and leaving it would just continue to accumulate

[1:11:51] taxes. So it would be better just to vest it,

[1:11:55] in our opinion. Financial implications. We have to write off

[1:11:58] 35, 329 dollars in 21 cents in tax rears and

[1:12:02] the penalties. Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you for

[1:12:07] your report. Councillor Keeve. Just a quick one. Do you

[1:12:11] have any idea what the school charge back costs would

[1:12:14] be super significant or just the, sorry, the school board

[1:12:20] charge back? Oh, they're not. Yeah. They're not. Huge. I

[1:12:22] don't know exactly the number, but I can find out

[1:12:24] for you if you like for next week. Yeah. Okay.

[1:12:29] These are vacant properties. Yeah. Okay. They are vacant land.

[1:12:33] Yep. Any further questions. Councillor. Through this area. So the

[1:12:42] agreement with the contractor that has to lean when we

[1:12:45] vest it, uh, it still stays in our possession. And

[1:12:49] he's got to, does he still is there a an

[1:12:53] agreement as to what percentage he'll receive on sale of

[1:12:55] it after? No. I mean, as far as I know,

[1:12:58] we get what we, um, we are owed for that.

[1:13:03] And then, uh, it's ours. So he doesn't get anything.

[1:13:06] So he would get the surplus after if the, if

[1:13:08] the, it's coming into our possession. So we own it.

[1:13:14] Okay. Thank you. So the staff is recommending that we

[1:13:23] vest these two properties. That can't go ownership of them.

[1:13:26] Um. That's, and everyone's in favor of that. We're aimed

[1:13:30] to bring this as a bylaw to, or September 4th

[1:13:33] meeting. Born in favor of that. Nodding heads. Yep. Okay.

[1:13:40] Very good. There's your direction. Thank you. Thank you. So

[1:13:46] we have no, no. We have one motion this evening,

[1:13:50] which we'll ask the correct review. Thank you. You worship

[1:13:55] at the last meeting. I advise that Mayor Harrison had

[1:13:59] put forth a notice of motion. So it comes forward

[1:14:02] this evening as a motion. And I believe. I'll ask

[1:14:07] Councillor Lethum, who's our deputy mayor to chair this section

[1:14:10] of it so I can speak on behalf of my

[1:14:13] motion. Did you want to stay there or switch chairs

[1:14:17] more? Okay. I'll turn it over to you. Mr. Chair.

[1:14:28] So Harrison, can you cover your report, please? Right. Uh,

[1:14:36] thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, I talked a

[1:14:42] little bit about why we're bringing this. I think we

[1:14:43] do have to clear the air on this one. Um,

[1:14:46] there's really three reasons why I'm bringing rescind or, or

[1:14:51] the basis of it. You know, I appreciate the time

[1:14:54] and effort that was put by folks and the cost

[1:14:58] to bring this plan forward by almost 16 years ago

[1:15:01] now. But I think we have to consider the time

[1:15:04] has changed considerably in our community since that time. You

[1:15:08] know, we think about that 16, actually probably 20 years

[1:15:11] ago when they started thinking about waterfront development with the

[1:15:13] 2008 plan and then morphed into 2010. You know, you

[1:15:18] look back to that time, the local pulp and paper

[1:15:21] mill had significantly downsized. You know, from well over 1200

[1:15:26] employees to down to about 350. People, and the sense

[1:15:30] in the forest industry that their days were numbered, uh,

[1:15:34] they were in a bit of death spiral. And the

[1:15:36] city would need to shift become more of a tourist

[1:15:38] destination, much like our neighbour Kanora. Times have changed because

[1:15:45] I'm happy report in our area. The forest industry is

[1:15:48] very strong and healthy. Uh, the new owners driving fibre

[1:15:52] Canada, you know, continue to provide high quality jobs. They've

[1:15:55] increased the employment from 350 to 400. We still have

[1:16:00] approximately 400 employees in the forced lands. Harvesting and hauling

[1:16:05] to the mill. And this company is now contributing a

[1:16:10] regional economic impact about 550 million dollars to our area

[1:16:14] quite substantial. Uh, make it not only major employer, but

[1:16:17] really a cornerstone for economic growth, community development Northwest. Actually,

[1:16:23] we're pretty fortunate last since I retired from full -

[1:16:26] time work. I've been doing some consulting work and going

[1:16:29] around the Northwest Northeast doing independent forest audits of communities

[1:16:36] from Fort Francis to marathon and all parts in between.

[1:16:42] And Northwest Ontario is a very special spot in that

[1:16:45] we have full markets for all their products. Uh, some

[1:16:49] of the ones out Easter missing a Pult Mill without

[1:16:51] a Pult Mill. You're really challenged to cut conifer. They

[1:16:54] don't have a hardwood market like we have down in

[1:16:56] Baruck or Kanora. So we are fully utilising our, uh,

[1:17:02] our wood supply basket and the Poltmill local is the

[1:17:05] key that will make all this happen. So we're very

[1:17:09] fortunate that this company has purchased it. So a lot

[1:17:13] of growth opportunities. And also what the big change, I

[1:17:17] think, uh, like this, this plan is really focusing on

[1:17:23] developing a four season. A tourist destination. You know, when

[1:17:28] reality, you know, that would be very difficult to achieve

[1:17:33] and doubtful. Uh, to obtain. And really, you look at

[1:17:38] the plan in depth. It really adds more taxation burden

[1:17:42] to our resident. I'm sure Council Redoff would probably go

[1:17:45] on more detail than I will. But we're looking at

[1:17:49] a different scenario where we saw a decline in population.

[1:17:53] A lot of young people leave our community. We've got

[1:17:56] the opposite happening. We've got a lot of growth, a

[1:17:59] lot of potential. Really the necessity is developing a housing

[1:18:04] needs for the upcoming growth of our community. Such as

[1:18:07] the mining and energy activities that are real create new

[1:18:09] jobs and putting pressures on our municipality. To plan for

[1:18:13] this growth. That's part of our leadership is we need

[1:18:15] to plan for incoming growth. Our population is expected to

[1:18:19] grow over 9, 000 over the next decade. So really

[1:18:25] our responsibility is to, is to look at what's happening

[1:18:28] today and address those planning issues. Take for example like

[1:18:33] NWO is Billy and a new billion Ignis. They say

[1:18:37] 160 to 200 employees there. That's a big deal. So

[1:18:41] where are they going to live. So I mean, they

[1:18:44] could all live in ignies. They could move to Dryden.

[1:18:47] But say, for example, 80 half that, say take the

[1:18:51] low number 16 employees, half that 80 decide to move

[1:18:55] to Dryden. What side, what's the impact for our community.

[1:19:00] 80 homes. Do we have Adams for sale? No. Think

[1:19:04] about who maybe, um, coming. Nuclear scientists, well paid. Who's

[1:19:11] going to be able to compete for our homes, will

[1:19:14] our locals be able to compete for homes? It'll be

[1:19:16] challenging. Like we have good paying jobs, but so we

[1:19:20] need to protect our local citizens from to make sure

[1:19:23] that they have the housing we have name. Because we

[1:19:25] all want our kids to stay and dried, don't we?

[1:19:28] So our focus from 16 years ago has changed. Housing

[1:19:33] has become a focus. I guess the second reason I

[1:19:36] look at the folks's plan is not really financially viable

[1:19:42] for our city. You look at the centrepiece of the

[1:19:45] development of the plan is this Ontario outdoor education centre.

[1:19:50] And also the relocation number of museum. And there was

[1:19:53] no viable business plan component for this Ontario outdoor education

[1:20:00] centre. It suggested that the canora Patricia district school board

[1:20:05] may be operated or perhaps the seed of Dryden or

[1:20:09] maybe the northwest Catholic school board would all contribute to

[1:20:12] make it a viable option. Most successful outdoor education centres

[1:20:19] range from anywhere from 5, 000 at a low end

[1:20:22] to 20, 000 on a high end. Would we be

[1:20:24] able to track even the low end. Of 5, 000?

[1:20:28] The plan says, well, maybe we can, the school board

[1:20:31] will pay to bus every child from the whole Knorr

[1:20:34] District, from Knorr Red Lake Ignis to hear throughout our

[1:20:38] education. Is that. Really likely possibility. I mean, we have

[1:20:43] to ask the questions when we look at the amenities

[1:20:45] that we have, you know, who's going to pay for

[1:20:49] the amenities. Or what's the, what's the cost? Who's going

[1:20:53] to pay? And then what's the burden on the taxpayer.

[1:20:57] That's questions we're asking this report. So it's nice to

[1:21:00] think, yeah, it'd be nice to have one, but is

[1:21:03] it financially viable? What's the burden on the taxpayer. We,

[1:21:08] you know, when I come to this job, it's an

[1:21:10] eye opener when you look at how many beautiful amenities

[1:21:13] we have when we look at a double arena pool,

[1:21:16] fitness centre, beautiful baseball diamonds. This goes on soccer fields,

[1:21:22] but they're all tax. They're all supported by residents. Tax.

[1:21:27] Your taxes are going to support that. To increase our

[1:21:29] quality of life. So we know we have a heavy

[1:21:32] tax burden. Every amenity that we add, we have to

[1:21:36] really ask that question. What's the burden on the taxpayer?

[1:21:39] That question has not been asked in this report. When

[1:21:42] you think about an outdoor education centre, like would a

[1:21:46] large communities come to Dryden to have one here? Like

[1:21:50] go to Winnipeg. I'd been to Omad Marsh. I hope

[1:21:52] you all have. It's a wonderful outdoor education north of

[1:21:55] town, north of Winnipeg. You can see the geese fly

[1:21:58] in. It's just, it's amazing. They have the Fort White

[1:22:01] Centre. What's the business case for them to travel four

[1:22:04] hours to dried in for something similar. Outrider Education near

[1:22:08] a marsh. We have to ask those questions. Would this

[1:22:13] be financially viable? I think not. But I think the

[1:22:18] lastly, and I was kind of surprised when I went

[1:22:21] to the Detailed proposals there because they have drawings. And

[1:22:26] you look closely at the public access that's proposed. And

[1:22:30] the plan really calls for the commercialization of the boat

[1:22:33] launch. And dock space. What do you see disappear? You

[1:22:37] see the Public boat launch, which is free for everyone

[1:22:41] to use Garn. It's moved into a commercial area. People

[1:22:46] have to pay. To use that boat launch. What if

[1:22:49] our doc that people enjoy and Fischer off and swim

[1:22:52] off of. That's reventually replaced by a commercial marina. Does

[1:22:59] this council want to take away the free use of

[1:23:01] a boat launch? And, uh, the land, the Van Horn

[1:23:05] Doc, which we just reinvigorated and put money into. You

[1:23:10] know, does this Council want to be the one who

[1:23:11] eliminates that free access to Open Lake for all our

[1:23:14] exhibition, but I want to overhaul their shocks owners of

[1:23:17] the leak. Or our neighbours to the south who use

[1:23:19] it to cut off time. So I think in conclusion,

[1:23:23] this is an outdated waterfront plan. It's not really relevant

[1:23:26] today. I think it actually reduces access to what we

[1:23:30] have. And as a very high potential of putting a

[1:23:34] tax burden on our residence for manys, that would be

[1:23:37] a little used to our community. So I encourage Council

[1:23:41] members to stay the course that we've been on. We,

[1:23:46] with our master plan, we'll enhance our waterfront. We will

[1:23:49] create open spaces to folks to enjoy. We also focus

[1:23:53] on our housing stock to meet the coming demand. And

[1:23:56] while doing so, we also increase the property taxes generated

[1:24:00] by creating all these housing. We have already attacked high

[1:24:04] tax burden for amenities by bringing in, uh, new folks

[1:24:08] and housing them increasing our property taxes. It actually may

[1:24:12] reduce our tax burden for individuals. So as a win

[1:24:15] - win, and I really urge the Council to rescind

[1:24:19] this 16 - year - old water plan so we

[1:24:21] can go in the right direction. That this city needs

[1:24:24] today. Thank you. Thank you, your worship. Does anybody have

[1:24:30] any questions for the mayor. Council Noel. Thank you.

[1:24:42] Chair Latham. Just a question, like why do we have

[1:24:46] to abandon? Why can't we edit it accordingly? Like I

[1:24:49] agree with many of your comments. Mayor Harrison saved the

[1:24:53] one about, uh, our kids. I want our kids to

[1:24:57] go out and experience the world and come back here

[1:24:59] if they so choose. Um. I mean, both my kids

[1:25:05] are here. I'm grateful for that. So yeah, if you

[1:25:09] could comment on why it is that we can't just

[1:25:13] amend that plan. Cause I'm looking at all the people

[1:25:15] who put in time the citizens and the project team.

[1:25:20] And there were a lot of smart passionate people involved

[1:25:22] in this back when it was implemented. I do agree

[1:25:26] though. Things have changed drastically since then. So. If you

[1:25:31] could perhaps comment on that. Thanks. Yeah. Sure. I'll be

[1:25:35] happy to. I think the focus is entirely on a

[1:25:39] forest. He's in tourists destination. There's so much to be

[1:25:43] changed on that plan. For instance, a large part of

[1:25:46] the Eminar property is devoted to a seasonal RV park.

[1:25:52] Really a seasonal RV park. Does that what we need

[1:25:56] in our community? No. Like that's, so many things. Do

[1:25:59] we need outdoor education cetera? No. Do we need, should

[1:26:03] the museum be relocated down there. I think you'll find

[1:26:06] that the best place if we're going to relocate a

[1:26:10] museum is on the highway. So we can get traffic

[1:26:13] coming through. Stop in, you know, kids spend some time.

[1:26:17] That's, you get a high traffic area on our, on

[1:26:20] our streets. Or highway out there because we're actually being

[1:26:23] on the main highway is incredibly beneficial for businesses and

[1:26:27] commercials. So the like about it. The 2010 plan also

[1:26:32] took into place the private property owned by the nature's

[1:26:36] in and the other properties. And they kind of said,

[1:26:38] well, we want you to follow our plan or basically

[1:26:41] solace the plan. So are we going to now expropriate.

[1:26:46] Private property. No, like the master planets were going is

[1:26:51] going to just utilise them and our base land base

[1:26:53] and the 10 acres. So yeah, I think it's the

[1:26:57] master plan going with the master plan and giving this

[1:27:01] new, this current residence and opportunity to, I say, is

[1:27:05] the right way to go. Target. Through the

[1:27:15] sheriff. Again. Um, I guess I look at things too

[1:27:21] quickly out of a financial lens. And I understand the

[1:27:25] situation leadership was in at the time they developed this

[1:27:29] plan and that. But I had a hard time going

[1:27:32] through it because every time I saw any of their

[1:27:34] financial justifications or plans, it was totally irresponsible spending, in

[1:27:40] my opinion. And, uh. Mayor Harrison mentioned the tax burden.

[1:27:46] And I mean, to even come close to this on

[1:27:48] the assumptions that were in here, you're talking double digit

[1:27:52] tax increases to try and fund this. Just the order

[1:27:54] of construction they did putting the non commercial, uh, parts

[1:27:59] of the phases of the project ahead of everything meant

[1:28:01] that was coming out of municipal coffers, which we don't

[1:28:04] have, uh, they allude to FISA, Financial feasibility studies, but

[1:28:12] never do them. And to pass a plan before you've

[1:28:15] done that again, I find that totally irresponsible. Um, it's,

[1:28:20] you look at these numbers and the assumptions. The assumptions

[1:28:24] that the school board is going to pay for 30

[1:28:26] percent of construction centre. So that part at least doesn't

[1:28:33] hit your property tax, but your school board tax assures

[1:28:36] hell is going to go up. I mean, everything in

[1:28:39] here, we're just getting out from under the debt of

[1:28:43] the other decisions to do with a cell phone company.

[1:28:46] We got four years left to pay for that. It's

[1:28:48] another four million dollars going to be paid out. Well,

[1:28:52] this is coming in. And this, uh, if you take

[1:28:55] the cumulative inflation area increases since this plan was developed,

[1:29:00] we're looking at 60 percent on your average consumer goods

[1:29:03] when it comes to construction, you're looking 250 percent probably

[1:29:12] 200 million. And just we should know just from the

[1:29:15] proposals we received. This project is a 200 million dollar

[1:29:20] project. And on the low side municipal participation at 30

[1:29:25] percent, And we know that the government ain't going to

[1:29:29] jump in and say, Oh, here's a check. Go for

[1:29:31] it. So where do you get that from? Are you

[1:29:33] going to finance 60 million dollars over 20 years and

[1:29:37] pay another 60 million in interest before we get close

[1:29:40] to it? And we're going to be 20 to 25

[1:29:42] percent property tax increases to try and keep up with

[1:29:45] it. I mean, you can't be chasing this kind of

[1:29:48] debt. And it's beautiful and it's great. And it's really

[1:29:52] good. If someone else is paying for it. But that's

[1:29:54] not what's going to happen. We're paying for this. And

[1:29:57] we've got these other plans. We've got what Matthews presented

[1:30:04] tonight. We've got the opportunity to bring in a developer.

[1:30:07] But if you tell a developer, yeah, we'd like a

[1:30:09] hundred million for me. But you don't get to say

[1:30:13] in. Like, and that's what this is. This is way

[1:30:18] too much government involvement. Because we are government. And if

[1:30:23] we're going to stick our noses into how somebody spends

[1:30:25] their money, that's like, yeah, getting an inheritance wanting to

[1:30:30] invest it somewhere and someone telling, Oh, no, we should

[1:30:32] keep that over here so we can spend it on

[1:30:33] something else. It's foolish. It's, and this is a, and

[1:30:40] it's a nice plan, but it's just not feasible for

[1:30:42] our community. Not unless we buy Super Bowl tickets and

[1:30:46] states and win something. It's not, it's not something we

[1:30:49] should even be considering. And I, I really wish they

[1:30:54] hadn't accepted it until they spent a little more time

[1:30:58] getting the studies done right financially. And Councillor Noel said,

[1:31:03] how about revamping it. Again, I don't know if that's

[1:31:06] spending throwing good money after that already. If there's that

[1:31:11] old saying that, uh, doing the same thing over again

[1:31:13] and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.

[1:31:17] And that's what this looks like to me. So. Uh,

[1:31:20] just my comments on.

[1:31:30] Thank you through the chair. To me, this sounds like

[1:31:38] an opportunity for our counsel and our community members. To

[1:31:46] start fresh. I am fairly optimistic. That. By

[1:31:58] trusting our community members, trusting our staff to kind of

[1:32:04] lead us through this process that we are going to

[1:32:07] come away with something that is great for our community.

[1:32:14] That, you know, works out in favor for these developers

[1:32:18] who, you know, kind of want to build what they

[1:32:21] want to build, but also take deep consideration from our

[1:32:26] indigenous community members, other indigenous leadership, um, our citizens, our

[1:32:34] council, our staff members. So all of that being said,

[1:32:43] I feel more comfortable. Accepting the motion to rescind this

[1:32:50] plan because I think that we, I think that we

[1:32:55] can do it better. I think that we can take

[1:33:00] all of the information that we have. We can listen

[1:33:03] to our constituents and listen to our staff and move

[1:33:06] this forward. At a pace that kind of works for

[1:33:12] everyone. Again, maybe I'm insane and or optimistic about this.

[1:33:19] But I really believe that. There is a way for

[1:33:26] us to move forward where people will be content with

[1:33:33] the plan that our community has come up with. So

[1:33:38] I think, you know, if we're focusing on what our

[1:33:42] community wants to see, um, what is reasonable, uh, to

[1:33:49] our developers and to staff, like I think that that

[1:33:53] all needs to be considered. So. I think it's a,

[1:33:59] it's a great opportunity for us to kind of start

[1:34:02] fresh. Things have definitely changed in the last 16 years.

[1:34:07] Um, and so, yeah, we, we really do have a

[1:34:10] great opportunity ahead of us to, to do something different,

[1:34:15] um, that still meets all of those kind of like

[1:34:20] lofty goals. Um, and ideals, you know, within the original

[1:34:24] plan, but also kind of create something new and fresh,

[1:34:30] hopefully in this new plan. Thank you. Councillor Taref. Yeah,

[1:34:35] through chair again. I just wanted to add that there

[1:34:37] had been the comment out there that what was the

[1:34:40] rush to do this as we're going to be going

[1:34:42] to a new council. And I think that's an important

[1:34:44] thing, uh, that, uh, the new Council should have the

[1:34:47] opportunity to take the information, whether it was presented tonight

[1:34:50] from our building staff and every planning staff. And like

[1:34:56] Catherine was saying formulate something that's going to work for

[1:34:58] the community rather than being handcuffed to an outdated financially

[1:35:03] and unfeasible, uh, plan, uh, should never have been passed.

[1:35:13] Uh, any more questions. Councillor Noel. You chairly.

[1:35:23] Right up until this discussion started tonight. I was leaning

[1:35:26] towards not supporting the notice of motion, but I'm so

[1:35:30] grateful that some of the questions that were asked, uh,

[1:35:34] Councillor Tardif explaining the numbers. He's always very good at

[1:35:38] that. Um. And my review again on, on what the

[1:35:43] information the committee had at the time to come up

[1:35:47] with this plan has changed drastically, our population is certainly

[1:35:52] different. Median household income is different. Um, there's a lot

[1:35:57] of things that are different now. Uh, that there's no

[1:36:01] way that this team could have foreseen at the time.

[1:36:04] So I'm, I'm thankfully changing my position on supporting this.

[1:36:11] So I probably would support this, um, notice a motion.

[1:36:20] I guess I get to speak. Um. I still believe

[1:36:27] that there's a lot of good things in that plan.

[1:36:30] Uh, I'm hearing what everybody's saying. But, um, with perhaps

[1:36:36] a new Council coming on, it may be able to

[1:36:39] give people some ideas of what's feasible and what's not

[1:36:43] feasible. I know for sure when they talk about putting

[1:36:46] the arena down there, I'm on the committee that museum

[1:36:51] meeting. And we have kind of other ideas of where,

[1:36:55] where it should go and, uh, stuff like that. But

[1:36:59] I'm still stuck on this staying around and giving people

[1:37:05] some information for the next plans that we're going to

[1:37:08] be doing.

[1:37:20] For the motion, please. Council of Price. Seconder Councillor Taref.

[1:37:25] Thank you. Move by Councillor Price, seconded by Councillor Tardif,

[1:37:29] that Council hereby consider. No. Let's start again. Move by

[1:37:38] Councillor Price. Second by Councillor Tired. F. The Council here

[1:37:40] by rescind the Adoption of the Phasing and Implementation Strategy

[1:37:44] outlined in the sustainable waterfront development planal report dated May

[1:37:50] 2010. All in favor.

[1:38:01] Carried. Did I say that wrong. You gave me.

[1:38:11] Thank you, Councillor Lathan for leading that portion of. Thanks

[1:38:16] everyone for your participation and discussion. So we're down to

[1:38:20] Administrative Reports and I'll call REO, Mr. Nesbitt, for his

[1:38:23] report, please. Thank you. Three of your worship. As I

[1:38:28] recorded, I believe at the last meeting of Council, we

[1:38:32] were on our way to the Ontario Municipal Association Conference

[1:38:38] in Ottawa. I did attend with Mayor Harrison and Councillor

[1:38:44] Price. I won't, um, I won't cover all the details

[1:38:47] because I believe Mayor Harrison is going to cover those

[1:38:50] off. So I don't want to step on him. But

[1:38:52] it was, uh, it was a good conference, productive, uh,

[1:38:56] we were able to meet with, uh, with, uh, I

[1:38:58] think about a half dozen different ministries and discuss some

[1:39:01] of those, those priorities that I had elaborated on at

[1:39:05] the last meeting. So all in all. Excuse me, a

[1:39:09] good conference. Um, I would like to just build on,

[1:39:12] uh, some of the comments that, um, Mayor Harrison made

[1:39:15] while discussing, uh, the, uh, the additional position and the

[1:39:19] building and planning department, Mayor Harrison had, uh, mentioned some

[1:39:24] of the feedback that he's received from developers and such

[1:39:27] positive feedback in relation to, uh, to the, uh, services

[1:39:32] that our chief building official, uh, Miss Gillin provides along

[1:39:36] with her department members. Um, Ms. Skillen or Pam, I

[1:39:41] guess if I may, uh, was, was probably one of

[1:39:43] the first management hires that, uh, that I had to

[1:39:49] do coming into this position. Um, I think, uh, I

[1:39:53] think the day that, uh, that, uh, that Council announced,

[1:39:57] uh, myself moving into the CAO position. Our chief building

[1:40:01] official of the day tendered resignation, uh, from a standpoint

[1:40:05] of retiring from, uh, from the position. And, uh, quite

[1:40:10] frankly, um, I don't think there's being, I know there

[1:40:14] hasn't been a regret in bringing PAM on board. Pam

[1:40:18] spoke a bit about the, uh, the background that, uh,

[1:40:21] that really, I think gives a good, a good base

[1:40:24] to a building inspector or a chief building official. Uh,

[1:40:27] PAM had that base and, uh, I think it was

[1:40:30] Councillor Keevening maybe ask a question about development of that

[1:40:36] position. And PAM is a living example of that. POMs

[1:40:41] built herself into, uh, I think one of our region's

[1:40:44] best chief building officials and Dryden is lucky, lucky to

[1:40:49] have her. Um, and with the addition of, uh, Mr.

[1:40:53] Bagshaw in the planner's seat, uh, we have an extremely

[1:40:58] efficient and effective, uh, building and planning team, uh, at

[1:41:02] this point, uh, supported by a strong by law enforcement

[1:41:05] officer. So I just really want to give, uh, much

[1:41:10] thanks and appreciation to the entire department. And, uh, the

[1:41:14] strong focus, the strong customer focus, uh, that miss Skillland

[1:41:18] has brought to the department. That's done so much, so

[1:41:23] much to get us that, uh, that quality name, uh,

[1:41:26] amongst the developers in our region. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:41:34] Call on our Director of Finance Treasurer, Ms. Junkel. Well,

[1:41:37] thank you. Uh, your worship. I have nothing at this

[1:41:39] time. Thank you. I'll go to our clerk, Ms. Idler.

[1:41:44] Thank you. And I will use some of the treasurer's

[1:41:47] time because I'm going to ask everyone to bear with

[1:41:49] me while I, um, speak a little longer than normal

[1:41:52] at this point in the meeting. Because nominations for Council

[1:41:57] and School Board Elections closed at 2 p. m. on

[1:42:00] Friday. Those nominations have been certified. And I can advise

[1:42:05] we'll be having elections for the following offices. Mayor, we

[1:42:09] have three nominees with one to be elected. Council. There

[1:42:13] are 12 nominees with six to be elected. Key waiting

[1:42:17] Patricia District School Board trustee. We have three nominees and

[1:42:21] one will be elected. Northwest Catholic district school board trustee.

[1:42:26] We have three nominees with two to be elected. Locally,

[1:42:31] there will be no election for the French separate school

[1:42:33] board trustee as there was just one nominee for the

[1:42:37] one position. And Michelin Lovnik has been acclaimed. And there

[1:42:42] were no nominations received in the region for the French

[1:42:45] Public School Board. Also on August the 14th, we received

[1:42:51] the then - current voters list amendments to the list

[1:42:55] can be made by members of the Public Beginning September

[1:42:58] the 14th by completing a form at City Hall and

[1:43:01] providing proof of identification and their address. And finally, as

[1:43:06] six of the seven current members of Council are running

[1:43:09] for re - election, we do not find ourselves in

[1:43:13] a lame duct situation from now until voting day on

[1:43:17] October the 26th. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And I'll

[1:43:23] call on our Director of Public Works, Mr. Olson. Thank

[1:43:27] you through the chair. Nothing out at this time. And

[1:43:31] now Director Community Services, Mr. Boyer. Thank you, Mayor. Just

[1:43:36] a reminder to Council that the pool is down due

[1:43:38] to a mechanical issues that happened last weekend. Um, due

[1:43:46] to the limited availability of the parts, it looks like

[1:43:48] it'll be down for at least until after the September

[1:43:52] long weekend. So we do have the parts ordered, but

[1:43:54] some of them are coming from, um, U. S. manufacturers,

[1:43:58] because that's our only option. Um, so we got to

[1:44:00] deal with some border stuff. So, um, yeah, we're hoping

[1:44:04] that everything gets here in a timely manner. Uh, and

[1:44:06] then once it does, it just takes us a few

[1:44:08] days to rebalance and heat up the pool and get

[1:44:11] that running. Uh, also just wanted to let Council know

[1:44:15] that we do have, uh, the ISAs back in ISAN

[1:44:18] operations went fairly well last week. Building ice. And I

[1:44:21] want to thank the team for all their hard work

[1:44:24] and dedication to building that, um, we have started to

[1:44:28] hockey school as of this morning. So we got lots

[1:44:30] of kids bustling around and getting note on the ice

[1:44:34] and sort of another new hockey season. And ices and

[1:44:37] I should say. Thanks. Thanks. That's all. Thank you. And

[1:44:41] I'll knew we're going to hear from our fire chief

[1:44:45] chief wood. Thank you worship. Uh, I do have a

[1:44:50] couple of things. I just want to start by last

[1:44:52] week, the restricted fire zone and municipal fire ban was

[1:44:55] lifted. Um, throughout that, uh, we had most of the

[1:44:58] summer as we were under that restriction. And I want

[1:45:00] to thank our residents, uh, doing a great job following

[1:45:03] those restrictions. I believe we only had one burn complaint

[1:45:06] and so our residents did a great job helping protect

[1:45:08] our community. I want to congratulate all members of the

[1:45:11] Dryden Fire Service for achieving surface water rescue certification. We

[1:45:15] spent, uh, five and ten days in the water. And,

[1:45:18] uh, we're well ahead of our deadline of 2028 and

[1:45:21] achieving this. So, uh, for surface, water and ice rescue.

[1:45:24] Uh, we've done a lot of work this year and

[1:45:26] we're in a really good shape. And then lastly, I

[1:45:29] want to talk about something new. We, we went after,

[1:45:31] uh, Council Retardo food emotioned early in the term for

[1:45:34] us to achieve superior tanker accreditation. And we, we went

[1:45:38] after that and trained for it over about two months.

[1:45:42] And on August the 8th, we achieved that accreditation where

[1:45:44] the first one's a Northwestern Ontario. The first fire department

[1:45:47] in Northwestern Ontario to achieve that. And what that means

[1:45:50] for our residence is if you're within eight kilometers of

[1:45:52] our hull too and five kilometers of a fire hydrant,

[1:45:56] you will get the same insurance rating as if you

[1:45:58] were protected by hydrants the same in the city. Stay

[1:46:01] tuned to the website. We will update those certificates and

[1:46:04] the dwelling protection map as the fire underwriters hasn't updated.

[1:46:08] And that can be shared. We've already shared it with

[1:46:10] our insurance companies. So that should, uh, get our citizens

[1:46:13] a little bit better of insurance relief for some of

[1:46:15] our citizens. As well as improve our fire protection rating,

[1:46:18] which is really important. That's all from your worship. Thank

[1:46:21] you. Great. Thank you. And congratulations. Hey, when I'll go

[1:46:27] to Council Announcements, uh, did want to speak a little

[1:46:29] bit about our trip to Amo and Ottawa or annual

[1:46:33] trips to the conference down there with, uh, this time

[1:46:36] with, uh, Mr. Nesbitt and Councillor Price. We really had

[1:46:40] three, three issues or three areas that we want to

[1:46:43] talk to. The first one was, uh, with the Minister

[1:46:47] of Natural Resources. It was in, I guess the spring

[1:46:50] of 2023 that the then, uh, minister Graydon Smith agreed

[1:46:56] to surplus the Aminar Land base, which is what we

[1:46:59] talked about tonight, the Van Horn Landing. So in the,

[1:47:02] in a phased in portion, because we knew that the

[1:47:05] half of it was basically vacant. So and actually already

[1:47:08] put a fence up in between the second half was,

[1:47:12] uh, buildings on it. We're mainly used for storing outdoor

[1:47:15] equipment. So being a former mayor, uh, Mr. Graydon Smith

[1:47:20] agreed to phase that out that really, that whole area.

[1:47:25] So if the housing needs that are important or dried

[1:47:28] and the little thrust from the province to get housing

[1:47:32] into Ontario, um, he agreed to that. The surplusing, uh,

[1:47:38] the first phase one, the empty 10 acres was surplus

[1:47:40] immediately. And we were now realising it's quite a long

[1:47:43] process. That's going through every or every department in the

[1:47:48] province to see if they want it. And then it

[1:47:50] comes closely to, uh, has to go through other consultation

[1:47:54] period. We're hopefully we're near the end of that. That'll

[1:47:58] soon be made available. But we don't have a date

[1:48:01] on that. Just want to give an update. But we,

[1:48:03] uh, we worked, uh, we talked a lot about the

[1:48:06] second phase, which is the waterfront with the buildings on

[1:48:09] it. And they agreed to try to expediate that. They

[1:48:12] really need to find another location for that equipment. And

[1:48:15] so they're working with the ministry of infrastructure to find,

[1:48:19] uh, location and to build some building. So that will

[1:48:22] take a bit more time, but, uh, we've really asked

[1:48:25] them to speed as much as possible. Still follow the

[1:48:29] policy and procedures, but ensure that, uh, that becomes available.

[1:48:34] Really the second discussion we had was with the, uh,

[1:48:38] parliamentary assistant for MTO. And they're really talking about the

[1:48:41] scheduled air passenger service. And we know we lost that

[1:48:45] a few years ago and our, our neighbours, can aura.

[1:48:48] And Fort have been able to establish it. We probably

[1:48:52] could have too, but we don't want to really, we

[1:48:54] won't have burden our taxpayers by putting a backstop in

[1:48:57] to make this profitable. Really asking for some partnership with

[1:49:01] the province in the Fed to make this really an

[1:49:04] economically viable air passenger service. So that it would be

[1:49:09] attractive for many people to fly. Uh, we feel that

[1:49:14] the taxpayers shouldn't backstab a company coming in for a

[1:49:18] pilot project to make them whole as they build up

[1:49:20] the ridership. That the economic development that's happening in our

[1:49:24] area with a mini activity. And Dryden would not be

[1:49:29] the only community using this airport that's important that we

[1:49:32] find partners. So the bad news is they don't have

[1:49:35] a funding stream that can just tap into, uh, but

[1:49:38] we're looking at it. They're looking at options and we're

[1:49:41] continuing meeting with them. Uh, lastly, we met with the

[1:49:45] ministry of Finance, Missel Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Northern

[1:49:50] Economic Development and Growth and Administrative Engine Mind all around

[1:49:53] the concept of Dryden is like a regional hub, a

[1:49:58] service hub to the north. And we're kind of leading

[1:50:02] this charge for about, 13 to 15 communities across the

[1:50:06] north. That we provide services, community services to a broader

[1:50:12] group than just ourselves. Um, but it's our taxpayers are

[1:50:17] facing that burden. As Ontario is looking to the north

[1:50:21] to drive the economy in the south as well through

[1:50:24] mining and energy projects, we're asking the government, like you

[1:50:29] are collecting taxes from these other economic development areas. But

[1:50:34] they're outside or municipal boundaries. Um, we like to be

[1:50:38] recognised that we are, we're servicing there's without our communities

[1:50:43] across the North servicing these that we, they wouldn't be

[1:50:46] successful. So we're having that conversation, uh, making it aware

[1:50:51] that we think the whole provincial municipal partnership needs a

[1:50:56] bit of Twinkie for a communities like Dryden. Um, I

[1:51:01] know there's, there's been talk about us trying to ask

[1:51:05] the annexed areas or increased taxes out in the unorganized.

[1:51:09] We have, we're adamantly opposed to that. We made that

[1:51:12] clear to the ministry. But we're thinking that when we

[1:51:15] look at the economic growth in the North and the

[1:51:17] small size of municipalities that are supporting that growth and

[1:51:21] the income that the parental government is receiving from some

[1:51:24] of these outer areas, especially the economic growth in crown

[1:51:27] land, that they need to support our communities to make

[1:51:32] it economically feasible for our taxpayers. And lastly, I did

[1:51:38] have a private conversation with, uh, Mr. Calandrus, Minister of

[1:51:42] Energy. I've been trying to support, uh, Michael Williams, who's

[1:51:47] the Ground Father, the two children that ground in our

[1:51:50] community. What we as a group have been trying to

[1:51:53] do is get, uh, mandatory streaming lessons across Ontario. And

[1:51:58] I really want to thank Chief Wood. He was one

[1:52:00] of the leaders in bringing it to Dryden. So we

[1:52:03] have in - house training at our schools as well

[1:52:05] as the swim to survive training or pool, which happened

[1:52:08] this spring. I think it was grade threes that were

[1:52:11] all taken from the public school system. Learn it when

[1:52:14] they fall off a dock, how to get back to

[1:52:17] dreadwater and to swim 50 metres. Fantastic. Like we're, we're

[1:52:21] in good shape. But we're really asking that the province

[1:52:24] take this on. And so only conversation, we originally asking

[1:52:27] for Instagram lessons as well as in class and talking

[1:52:31] to the grandfather Michael Williams. We realise that now and

[1:52:37] Mr. Conlandra agrees. It's very difficult to mandate in pool

[1:52:40] lessons all across Interior because some school boards just not

[1:52:43] have, um, access to pools. So our ask is now

[1:52:48] to move off that and to make it make sure

[1:52:50] that it's mandatory that each class gets the, um, three

[1:52:56] 40 minute in - class sessions on swim safety. Because

[1:53:04] one of the things that's important is just kids, you

[1:53:09] know, when they come to a doc, some of them

[1:53:11] don't know how to swim or not used to water.

[1:53:12] We found that like. The attraction of water is great.

[1:53:16] And if they fall off the dock, they have no

[1:53:19] chance of really getting back on. So just the safety

[1:53:22] to prevent them, I know the danger of being by

[1:53:25] water. And also really the danger of, if someone falls

[1:53:29] in and you don't know how to swim, um, and

[1:53:31] you go in and after rescue them, So that just

[1:53:37] that education and knowledge, we think is a very important.

[1:53:41] So we're continuing to ask Administrative education to make this

[1:53:45] mandatory. We've revised our requests and we're very hopeful that

[1:53:49] the province will hear our concerns and make this mandatory

[1:53:53] cross, Ontario. So that was some of the work that

[1:53:56] we've done. And we're pleased to represent our city there.

[1:54:02] A very long winded today. All right. Let's go around

[1:54:05] the table. Let's start with Councillor Latham. I have nothing

[1:54:10] your worship. Councillor Keevening. Uh, thank you. I just want

[1:54:15] to let the community know that on September 12th, there

[1:54:18] is a beauty mingle at shoppers drug mart to support

[1:54:22] Hashzaki house. So you can make an appointment, um, and

[1:54:26] all of the proceeds raised are going into our own

[1:54:29] community. Thank you. Thank you. Go online up to Councillor

[1:54:32] Noel. Thank you, Mayor Harrison. I just wanted to command

[1:54:38] our first responders for the recent. Service call at our

[1:54:44] local fair at Behooves Me that young people don't get

[1:54:47] a kick out of what we used to, which would

[1:54:49] be jump in the fence to get in with OPing.

[1:54:52] Or maybe getting into the beer gardens before you were

[1:54:54] 19 back in the day. But, uh, it was a

[1:54:58] heck of an effort by our dried and fire ambulance

[1:55:01] and OPP and the public were there. So, uh, I

[1:55:03] think it's mentioned that, uh, they did a good job

[1:55:07] and difficult circumstances and something that, uh, nobody really expected,

[1:55:12] even though, as I understand it, the same thing happened,

[1:55:15] uh, at the CLE and Thunder Bay. So kudos to

[1:55:18] everybody involved. Thank you for your service. That's it. All

[1:55:22] right. Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilman Kinnan.

[1:55:25] I have nothing you worship. Councillor Tardif. Nothing. Councillor Price.

[1:55:35] Yes, thank you through the chair. And I agree with

[1:55:39] Council Noel. I was at the fair at the time.

[1:55:44] And the quality of service that was given, um, was

[1:55:48] exceptional. And, um, keeping the fear factor down and keeping

[1:55:53] people safe, um, was also exceptional by the fair providers,

[1:56:01] I would say. It was a outside of that. It

[1:56:05] was a great weekend to be at the Fair for

[1:56:08] Families to enjoy the rides and the food and the

[1:56:12] entertainment and everything that went on. And it shows that

[1:56:15] we have a great community outside of that one, one,

[1:56:20] um, event that up. And unfortunately. So kudos to the

[1:56:25] fair organisers. I know it's a lot of work for

[1:56:27] them. Um, I've, I've seen them there for probably 12

[1:56:31] hours a day as I was there as well. And,

[1:56:34] uh, so yeah, kudos out to them for continuing to

[1:56:37] bring the fall fare in and expanding it as they

[1:56:40] have with their new barn and for all of the

[1:56:43] 4H people that were involved in it. It was, um,

[1:56:46] it was a great time. So, uh, thank you. All

[1:56:50] right. Thank you. And we'll go to our confirmatory bylaw.

[1:56:57] In a seconder. Council evening and a second, Councillor Noel,

[1:57:02] thank you. Move by Councillor Keening, seconded by Councillor Noel,

[1:57:05] the By - Law 2026 - 61 being a bylaw

[1:57:08] to confirm the proceedings of Council be adopted. Call a

[1:57:13] question. I'll in favor. Carried. Thank you. Now we're at

[1:57:19] the time of German. Can I have a mover in

[1:57:20] a seconder? Councillor Keeney Moose. Second councillor price. By Councillor

[1:57:27] Covening, seconded by Councillor Prince. It is meeting be declared

[1:57:30] adjourned. Long favor. Gary, thank you. Thanks everyone for participation.

[1:57:38] Good night.

Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript