Thank you for watching!
Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test
test
Thank you.
We'll have a public meeting and we'll have the CEO read it.
At this time, we have a public meeting to consider by-law number 1 of 2020 that is in today's council package.
Being a by-law to set various fees for the corporation, the town of Gaudrich.
And that is included in the agenda.
There are two items that speak to the purpose of us bringing this by-law forward.
And that is stated in section 10.19.
And that is the council memo from Jason Dijkstra, Chief Building Official,
and 10.22, which is from our treasurer, Diana Hasty.
The notice of the public meeting was advertised on the town website on December 20, 2019,
and on the town Facebook page on January 3, 2020 as per by-law number 99 of 2019,
which is the town's notice by-law.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, anyone want to speak for the by-law in the motion?
Anyone wanting to speak for the by-law?
Anyone wanting to speak for the by-law before us?
Anyone wanting to speak against the by-law?
For the third and final time, anyone wanting to speak against the by-law?
Hearing none?
We will bring the by-law forward at the time during the by-laws later in the meeting.
We will go to depotations and petitions 5.1, retail market study for 414,
and 436 here in road.
If I could ask our planner, Victor, to come forward to explain the process and the scope.
Thank you, your worship and members of council.
I think I have a slide deck, so I'll just ample.
I'm not talking about the pre-ample, but what we're waiting for that to get loaded up.
There is a potential application for 414 and 436 here on road.
At this point, there is no application in front of council.
The town's official plan sets out commercial policies that want to maintain the town as a vibrant retail centre for the broader market area,
As such, it identifies the downtown quarters and important focus for commercial activity,
and then sets out highway commercial and group commercial areas as also areas where commercial activity can happen.
Highway commercial areas have the most restrictions on what sort of commercial activities can take place,
with a minimum size requirement for retail stores so that they're larger than the size typically seen in the downtown,
and also a maximum number of units per property, which is set up two as the base,
and sometimes you end up with more units over time through an application process.
Group commercial developments, initially this only referred to the mall.
There are now two group commercial areas in the town. The second one is the new LCBO location at the edge of town.
These are intended to be multi-unit plaza developments or mall style developments,
where you do have smaller retail uses, and you have a larger number of overall units,
and the intention is that these would support the function of the downtown core by helping to provide locations for some of those businesses
that prefer arterial road locations and have large footprints, and kind of that more traditional plaza style development.
So in this case, there is a proposal for a potential new group commercial development, which is triggering the requirement for a market study.
So the town's requirements for a market study are that they have to demonstrate a need for the amount and type of commercial uses,
and no undue detrimental effect on the downtown core in the existing group commercial developments.
Justify why the development can't occur in the downtown core and provide reasonable assurances that there could be tenants available for the proposed units.
And that proposals which can't satisfy these criteria would not be approved.
And these market studies are to be prepared under the direction of council in consultation with the proponent.
Including the terms of reference and selection of a consultant, and it's all at the expense of the proponent for the development.
And then it goes into a little more detail.
So the proposal in question is at the corner of St. Coast Drive, and here on road, the property owner owns two adjacent properties.
And they're looking at bringing them both into the commercial development to allow a bit more flexibility moving forward.
The plaza which contains the ANW and used to contain the crabby jose, now has carquest and Domino's pizza.
There have been a number of rezoning applications over the years for that property to add additional commercial units for it.
If it were brought into the group commercial designation, then a lot of those applications wouldn't be required moving forward.
Similarly, they own the old assault building immediately to the south and east, and their hope would be in the future to redevelop that property.
So like I said, the applicant is proposing to bring the property from highway commercial to group commercial to permit additional commercial units and to permit retail units, which would be under the minimum size for the highway commercial designation.
But there are no applications in front of council. This is just to select a market study consultant and approve the market study process to begin at the cost of the proponent.
And so I did attach the full terms of reference for the proposal and I'm happy to try to answer any questions that council has.
But at this point, we are recommending that a by-law will be passed to authorize the mayor and clerk to enter into the contractual agreement with urban metrics incorporated for a market study retail market study in the town of Gaudert.
This is essentially the first step in the planning process for this project.
If the market study, which is to be prepared with the town as the primary beneficiary of the study, if it came back and said that there is no surplus need for retail in the town of Gaudert, then I doubt that we would see an application for a planning for a.
But if this moves forward, then I expect that we would see an OPA and a zoning for the property in the future coming to council.
I'm just wondering is it totally restricted to just retail the study?
They won't go outside that at all.
The previous study that was done did look briefly at food services, but it depends on the methodology of the applicant.
The official plan test is entirely around retail.
So that's all that they'll have to show in the retail market study to have the town satisfied that the proposal could meet the intent of the official plan.
There's no proposals right now.
There's no planning policies and Gaudert right now that would restrict the amount of safe food service locations and where they can be in the town.
So the only test is, do we have sufficient retail need with this location be appropriate?
And if you created retail at that location would it negatively impact the rest of the town in some way?
Okay, thank you Victor. Council, have you got any questions?
Council Roy.
So if the market study comes back and it doesn't meet those conditions, we won't have an applicant and therefore the town will have to absorb that cost, correct?
No, so we would not initiate the retail market study until the applicant agrees and likely puts up the initial expected cost for the study.
We would not be having the town pay for it initially and then hope to get the money back in the future.
This is only if the money is provided up front and then either overage would be paid on a ongoing basis.
Any other questions?
If not, thank you, Victor. We'll deal with this through a by-law later on in the meeting.
Thank you.
Okay, our next deputation is from the BIA.
Susan is the manager and the chair of the board is Elizabeth.
Thank you.
We are through a year to council. I'm Susan Carrity and I'm the BIA manager and with me, I'm proud to introduce Elizabeth Vandenbrock who says is the BIA board chair.
We don't normally, we don't normally ask for a deputation and we're sending a letter requesting to use the courthouse park.
But because of the changes that are going to occur on our portion of the winterfest events in the downtown core,
we're asking for your indulgence for a brief moment to go over some of the changes in expectations.
So I thank you for your time.
The BIA will not be hosting ice-tacular this year and we thought it was a critically important to reaffirm that message.
It has gone out in the past. We did do our due diligence and spent three to four months looking for cooperative partners.
Somebody who might be interested in taking it on, but we were not successful in doing that.
So this year, the downtown core, is going to look somewhat different.
We do have a request to use courthouse park to run horse and wagon rides, some outdoor active events, as well as a candy land scavenger hunt.
Which would have been this snowflake scavenger hunt in the past.
So that is a brief outline of our request, but I am at this time going to turn it over to Elizabeth Vandenbrock.
Thank you.
Good afternoon council. Your worship.
I'm just here to answer any questions and to clarify any information and to be assured that we get permission to use the park in this manner.
That's a pretty brief presentation.
I spectacular will miss it, but it was a pretty great event and maybe next year somebody will see it's absence and want to take up the mantle of holding it.
I've run it for four years and it's expensive and a lot of work.
Okay for the viewing public.
I know we have it in our briefs.
Could you tell us quickly what we could expect?
So we have a young entrepreneur on our square, a brand and sorbet of surf stuff.
I believe he came to speak with you and there was some confusion as to the way his presentation went.
So he is to be our main sponsor for the event.
Instead of using the terminology ice-tacular, we're definitely dropping that moniker so to manage the expectation of what people will be seeing when they come.
The winterfest downtown 2020 will just be collaborating with the other ongoing winterfest events that are around the community.
So that we're seeing as a package of the whole.
Our horse and wagon as Susan mentioned will be back.
Our instead of a snowflake hunt, we're doing a candyland theme hunt.
So lollipops really working this year to try and engage the businesses so that we have people on the sidewalks going in and out of the store.
So our focus as our BI is to get people into the stores.
The other thing we will be doing is working with Brendan who will be the chairing of the committee or on the committee to do the winterfest in the actual park space.
So Brendan will be providing snowflakes, fat bikes, outdoor physical activities that will be set up as a free to use.
So in the same way the ice-tacular was a free to use activity events based scenario.
He's also been approaching other organizations and businesses to host their own scenarios as such.
And he does have some interest in in line, but you will not see the ice-side, you will not see the ice games and the painting walls.
Although we are looking for sponsors who are willing to create and engage the activities, we're considering buying a few kind of packaged ice.
Packaged activities that if a business said I would like to host say a giant checker board.
So we can get still as many kind of play and use things but to a different degree.
Thank you very much. Council of you got any questions.
No questions from council. I thank you very much and we look forward to the event.
Okay. Do we need anything from this point?
I don't think so. I think we're all set.
Is that everybody's clear?
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Okay. We will move on.
We'll go back to the deputation.
And maybe this brings forward the declaration from our environmental action committee.
And if I could ask the chair of the environmental committee to come forward and maybe explain the declaration of the environment committee.
And also a motion that we will deal with in regards to FCM.
If you can come forward.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for having me again here this evening.
Yes, so our environmental action committee met last week to discuss further the recommendation of a climate emergency in the town of Gaudert.
And our committee was strongly recommend that we join the more than 400 other Canadian municipalities that have declared emergency within Canada.
And I think you all have seen the declaration it should be as part of your package this evening.
Our committee thinks that this would be an excellent move.
I believe we'll be the second municipality and on Lake Huron to join a climate emergency state.
And we would be the first in the county I believe, which would be a very strong move as the town of Gaudert.
And this move would tell people, especially as a great like community that climate change is an important issue.
It's impacting us. It's impacting us here.
We've all seen what's happening along the shoreline in Gaudert right now.
And we're the ones feeling the effects of climate change here on Lake Huron.
So this is really a declaration to the rest of Canada that this is an important issue.
And we're taking it very seriously.
And the recommendation that the committee made outlines this specific details of what types of commitments that we would be making as a community.
Thank you, Aaron.
We will deal with that and then there's a motion after that.
Okay.
I have to bring the motion from the partners of climate protection up first because it was table with the last meeting.
And I believe that as 14 12.5 is the FCM.
So my apologies. We'll have to raise it from the table first.
And then we'll ask you to speak to if we could.
Could I have someone from council make a motion to raise that from the table?
Councilor Donley.
Seconded by Deputy Mayor Murdock.
Any questions?
If not, we'll all in favor of raising it from the table.
Carried.
Now we will speak to the motion from FCM.
It doesn't have to be a big description.
We do have it in our package.
Talk about the partners for climate protection.
And that is part of the initiative that FCM has taken on country wide.
And I believe there's over 400 communities involved in that now.
Between yourself and maybe our CEO we can explain what that means and how does that break down community by community.
Go ahead there.
So declaring a climate emergency sounds like a big strong step.
And I'm sure all of you are thinking about the specifics,
what does this specifically mean for our community.
But really the most important thing is joining this program that's available.
The FCM puts on this program.
And there are resources that are available to our community to assess how we are doing in
regards to greenhouse gas emissions to climate change in general.
We can look at what power communities currently doing.
We can set a baseline.
And then we can move forward to setting specific targets that are achievable and realistic for our
side thing is the green marine.
It's unfortunate that rolling how is out of the country right now.
But the green marine initiative is something that the environment committee has started
also in conjunction with GPMC.
And it is the same type of thing as taking the inventory of what we have now.
And how can we better our footprint going forward in the future.
I don't know Jessica, would you want to speak to this at all partners?
For a climate protection. And maybe just for the viewing public tell people, but position you hold and how you fit into this.
I'm Jessica Fury. I'm the Asim Management Environmental Coordinator with the town, fresh from maternity leave. So just catching up on things I've missed over the last year.
But I would just add with the FCM, just with different grant opportunities with environmental projects.
They're starting to, you know, ask now if your community has a GHG inventory climate change plan, all these initiatives. So it's it's really good for the town to start thinking about these things, having discussions and have things in place because it'll open the doors for more grant opportunities as well.
Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Yes, and I'd like to add to that the county has already applied and received funding for one individual Lily Hamlin. I think many of you know her.
And she is preparing her working on the baseline on the counties behalf.
And I think it's it's very good for us, you know, to start looking at our decision making process with with a variety of lenses, one of which should be should be the environment and and how we can best protect it and steward it for the future.
Council any questions? Councillor Valle.
Well, a question Mr. Mayor, just to comment. There's a general disposition to support and encourage our committees and there's a specific disposition to support this because it's a very timely and important project. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else from council.
We have a motion or we bring the forward the motion. It's on the floor.
Do we have to move it a second and again.
If I could have some a move it. So moved by Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Seconded by Councillor Tammy. Any further questions on the motion before us and that's partners for climate protection from FCM all in favor.
Carried. Thank you very much. Now that the declaration we'll bring that one forward.
We've already we have a mover and seconder and if you could read the read the motion.
Thank you.
Through you, Mayor. I have a recommendation from the Environmental Action Committee dated today's date and it's been moved by Councillor Roy and seconded by Councillor Tammy.
The Gaudert Town Council continue to support actions to safeguard against the current and potential consequences of the global crisis.
And we'll set policy goals provide appropriate funding to address these goals and mobilize our community to implement these goals.
What's a climate protection program is coordinated between the town of Gaudert and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability in 2020 2021.
Be it for the result that based on a five-mile stone framework from the FCM and the ICLEI.
The town staff complete a GHD so that's Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast setting a Greenhouse gas reduction target developing a local action plan.
Implement the plan and monitor progress and report results.
Be it for the result that town staff is directed to incorporate climate resilience policies identified in the climate protection program in the corporate strategic plan.
The waterfront master plan and other town plans to ensure climate change and resiliency efforts are strong, effective and aligned.
Be it for the result that town staff is directed to promote interdepartmental coordination to ensure that the town's emergency management plan offers an aligned approach to the threats of the climate crisis.
And natural hazards, including but not limited to changing green lakes, water levels, flooding, erosion and storm damage.
Be it further resolved that Gaudert is an environmental action committee and town staff commit to educating our residents about the financial and regulatory actions needed to eliminate Greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible.
With a priority focus to putting it in place policies programs and actions within the 2030 timeframe.
Be it further resolved that Gaudert is an environmental action committee and town staff commits to educating our residents about the climate emergency and advocating for a transition away from fossil fuel use at the local county, provincial and national level through a climate planning process.
Be it further resolved that Gaudert's town council request our provincial and federal governments, all governments and people around the world to initiate an immediate social and economic mobilization,
which refers anthropogenic climate change and ecological destruction by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to meet targets set by the FCM, ICLEI and the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Be it further resolved that the town clerk forward a copy of this resolution to premier Doug Ford.
In the EAT of the PM clubs, MP here in Bruce, Lisa Thomson MPP for here on Bruce environment and climate change candidate, the Ministry the environment, conservation parks, the county of Huron and the Maintland Valley conservation authority.
council. So this is for the declaration emergency for climate change. Any questions? No questions? All in favour?
Okay. Mayors remarks. Other than our waterfront. I don't have any. I will short update to the waterfront.
Construction continues on a very aggressive state because we have an open winter. And we are able to move on it very progressively.
I've been down in numerous times to see where we're at and how we're doing. The staff are doing a marvelous job along with the engineers and here in contracting.
I don't know if council may have questions later on in the meeting about the waterfront but that's all I have to report. I would ask any councilors remarks.
Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just some information. Some of you probably are already aware of it.
But the here in public health unit has as of January the second of this year merged with Perth County Health Unit and there now being operated jointly and separately whereas our previously was part of the county of Huron.
This is actually an autonomous unit. Any way there are the important thing is that both counties are being.
The public health requirements are being taken care of by the respective county still. It's just that it's rather a joint or a consolidation of efforts.
Thank you for the update. Any anyone else have a comment? Okay. We'll move on to financial reports accounts.
If I could have it moved in seconded by council. Councilor Thompson.
That the accounts for the period ending December 30 is 2019 in the amount of 2,829,744 and 7 cents be approved for payment.
I've already moved in second all in favor. Okay.
Departmental reports. Can I have someone so moved. Councilor High Councilor Tammy seconds it.
That the department reports that be received as as stated. Any questions? Deputy Mayor.
Just a comment with regards to the building report which is the year to date report for 2019.
Just a comment that the total value of permits exceeded 24 million this past year as compared to 7.5 million in 2018. So that's a significant improvement.
And it seems to have hit all of the categories whether it be residential primarily but also commercial and industrial.
Thank you. All in favor.
The correspondence received in copy for which the direction of council is required.
8.1.
The OPP contract. Where is that fine gentleman?
The detachment commander is here.
And Councillor Donnelly has removed himself from the council table.
It is in front of us. We have asked the detachment commander.
If you could come forward sir maybe we can address a few questions that council may have.
If you could state your your name again and your and your rank and and then we have a few questions for you.
Sure. Through you. Your worship. My name is Rob Scott. I'm an inspector with the intel potential police.
I'm currently assigned as the interim detachment commander is a fear on counties in September.
The most of the tashepaner in Perus County as well as county tashepaner.
So it's my pleasure serving you. I've had a great several months here. It's gone very quickly.
And I'm certainly open to any questions that you may have.
So I think our biggest question.
As it evolves into a new model.
What does it look like for the community of Godrich for policing going forward?
And the biggest concern that I've heard is will we still have the same amount of boots on the ground?
Will we still have the same amount of service?
And maybe you can describe in a few brief moments of what does it look like?
What kind of changes do you see in the next four or five months?
Especially when we see the major police station out on highway 21.
Anyone be moved to Clinton and also our local establishment will receive changes also.
Maybe you can describe it for the public.
And then we'll have open enough for questions.
Yeah, through you, you were so.
Having a centralized location, I've worked in various detachment.
My career and I will try to make this brief because I've been known to go over my time and dictations before.
But having one centralized location is certainly an advantage, I think, not only to us, but to the community.
It allows, you know, from a detachment command perspective, to have all your resources in one place and then deploy from that location.
Over the last several years under Commissioner Hawks, he pushed quite aggressively to bring the OPP up to its current standards and as far as pushing technology.
All our cruisers now have, have mobile workstations, we know where they are.
They're all tied in through GPS network technology to provincial comm center.
We currently have, and for the last several years, had closest to the call, which basically it's cut down is for two reasons public safety and progress once time.
Where we know where our officers are.
So any officer even would say they're from south brews or traveling through the area.
They'll be dispatched to a call if it's a high priority serious call.
So moving forward, that's going to stay the same. It's going on now.
From an analytical perspective, the days of just taking your keys when I started a long time ago and driving around aimlessly,
writing out tickets and you got all these tickets that was a measure of group response.
Certainly, that's changed, like municipalities.
Our, our, our, we, the OPP has budgets to address and all these things and impacts the bottom line and officers and all those things.
But one of the things is we look at is deployment through our analytics.
Where are our calls for service and we'll deploy officers to there.
So rest assured, knowing the size of this community, there will be officers deployed to your community.
I am a believer in increasing visibility, foot patrol, all those things.
It is a challenge, it's certainly is a challenge all the time, because of the other calls.
Some of our, you know, calls that where we, we see that currently have priorities around areas of, of mental health and addiction issues.
And they, they do occupy a lot of police and emergency services time.
So, as well, we're looking forward to establish, as well, you know, we're working with the missfality, a local extended service office in the community here.
Which,
We'll give our officers a place to go and report out of while they're working in this zone, and certainly by, by looking at other, you know, our peak times for calls for service and trying to ensure that officers are where they need to be.
So, those are just a couple of, you know, a very high oversight, as to those things moving forward.
And I don't know if there's any other questions, I know I'm limited for time, because I could go on, and I'd probably miss something key points that you would like to see addressed.
Okay, we'll stop there for a second. Council, have you got questions in the level of services that we're talking about?
The 5.1 or 10, what is the enhanced? Council?
Question?
Maybe this isn't the right time to ask the question, but when we're talking about the contract, do we want to talk about the options we had available in the pros and cons or do you want to say that to later?
No, if you have a question, I think we have the gentleman here that can answer the question.
What is, are the pros and cons of the enhanced versus, I think it's 5.1.
So, from my point of view, I know I understand it already, but for the viewing audience, they may not.
So, that's what we want to make clear is a good question.
So, between the two programs, if you could describe to us now, we've always had the enhanced, but we've had a full office here.
Now, we're going to go into an agreement moving forward that may not have the enhanced.
What does that look like? Is that reflective with boots on the ground?
Now, through your worship, realistically, you should not see that the public should really not see that much of an impact of boots on the grounds with the exception of the fact, officers won't be reporting to the location here.
There's a whole variety of reasons that have changed, even giving when you look at the technology that we use to take statements and video statements.
It's a burden in the cost associated with those things would be, you know, to have a multiple places would be wouldn't be cost effective.
When you look at that, from a contract enhanced, a contract enhanced, basically a contract allows you to, all the crime prevention strategies and everything you're commonly in custom to now.
But it also gives you the ability, the municipality ability to play for grants and various other crime prevention options through through the government should they become available.
When you had an enhancement to that here, you have a sergeant and a administrative assistant locally.
I can tell you that even from the administration that was back when God changed, like some 20-plus years ago, that role has changed immensely, where everything's probably done online.
Our background checks, everything, they will be done in Clinton because that's where the technology that we are given through the RCMP to do everything on fingerprints.
They have those in multiple locations, again, is often difficult to do.
So that role has changed a great deal.
From a court perspective, when you look at traditionally our administrative assistance, have done all the court work.
Because of the technology that our officer has available to us now, civilian data entry, the dictated into the cell phone that the provided every shift,
that goes into our database, it gets dictated and transcribed.
Now officers are sending e-briefs to the court and we just started that within the last several months here.
That whole role of an enhanced position when you look at an administrative assistant has changed.
So if you look at what you've been used to here, you should see very little impact except for the fact that when people have to do in other background checks or various things, they need to go down.
They would have to go to Clinton in this case.
When you speak to, I have to see a police officer right now and run into that office.
There's a chance or may not be right now and for the last several years a police officer in that building because they're on calls for service in and around the address.
So that still remains the 1,800 number to contact our communication center in London.
And London itself, our communication center is going through a whole new revamped upgrade and that technology as well.
So that should then translate into better service for all communities that we serve.
So when you look at a 5.1 contract, that's basically, I'm sorry, I'll go back to the contract position.
That allows you have an established police service board which has been very, very rudiment and strong functioning board here for many, many years back probably to the municipal police.
And that allows the through the police chair to have a drink, to counsel and ultimately the community with the detachment commander.
And that's something that's moving forward, you can retain as a seat on that and there are other changes coming but I won't get into that because that's on the scope, I think, of the question.
When you look at a 5.1 contract, that's basically says, you're paying for a police service, we'll respond to calls, we'll do the basic minimum of crime prevention, some rides, those various things in the community.
More about response, most communities that choose that don't really have the calls for service that would maybe justify entering into a contract perhaps.
But again, those are municipal decisions that are at the under the purview of counsel and things there.
The biggest concern we have is service service.
Boots on the ground.
That's our concern, we don't want to lose any type of service that would lessen officers working in our community.
That's important to counsel and it's important to the community.
Counselor.
Just so that we're for the view and public and for the public.
Even if we would do the enhancements, let's say we did a section 10 with the enhancements.
Our sergeant or the sergeant that we would have and our administrative assistant will no longer be in the town of Goddurch.
In the area they would be stationed out of Clinton.
Is that right in April?
Yes, that's correct.
So by not having the enhancement we still have.
So even if we had the enhancement of the administrative assistant, we still would have to go to Clinton in order to get police checks and stuff like that.
That's correct.
You could still have the enhancement.
They could still work here.
However, like with the sergeant he's deployed administrative assistant isn't.
So sergeant, that you could still have that.
That's just a different look and they would come here for the day but they would still have to report back to Clinton at the end of their.
That's correct.
If we didn't have that sergeant, but still not this impact the feet that are on the ground and the service that we get.
No, not at all.
And again, we work on based on our call for service.
We're doing many proactive things now.
Based on again our analytics are focused patrols.
We have problem areas.
We dedicate officers to that.
We go where there's a need and we work with the community to try and address those needs.
To do otherwise, in my opinion, the task commander is a waste of resources.
And when you look at the size of Godrich and I've worked in many municipalities just big and a little bigger, I can assure you officers will be here.
And we'll try to again improve on that service.
One thing we have and we just got approval for is we do what we are responsible for the security and the courts.
We already have two officers that will be in town every day there's a court.
And we've also received approval to advertise for two special constables to be in the courts as well to provide that assistance and some security in the courts.
In addition to this will be a full time patrol zone with officers dedicated here.
And with officers coming in here when extra officers will need it and vice versa.
So that's definitely a bonus for us.
Deputy Mayor.
As question.
Sure, Mr. Mayor.
It would seem to me that the, you know, from a frequency standpoint, we probably would have more officers involved with the mental health and addiction side of it.
And then to a last year degree and certainly becoming even more diminishing.
Court host security and court host appearances on behalf of police.
So what you're really saying then is from the mental health and addictions because we're a schedule one.
Hospital, which is uncommon for perhaps a community our size.
You'll still be able to to assist in that regard.
I guess that's a problem we've seen.
Is that exactly the case?
Yes, sir. You were so absolutely.
Just on that note alone.
The fact that officers have to attend here in court regularly.
That's officers coming to town.
In the fact that for the mental health aspect at the hospital.
This is where officers in here in county bring those required treatment here as well.
So officers will be coming here from other parts of the county.
As they always have in relation to those.
Those processes as well.
Okay, any other questions?
One more for councilor.
He likes to have lots of questions.
I have lots of questions always.
So any change to community relations or community education.
We have a really some really great officers that have done some fantastic education in the school system and the medical system.
Any changes at all?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I think for the better.
We've something that I've through the last act in the attachment commander.
Something that I've established in Perth is we actually have a community safety unit.
That that that integrates our media officer, community service officer,
our mobilization officer and our school officer.
And that's something that we're moving forward with to try and streamline.
I actually bridge gaps within that.
I'm a big proponent of officers in the schools.
School of Prisolant officers.
I recognize, you know, something like Jamie Stanley's been an integral part of this community.
And then you had to provide support and further some of those things as well.
So these are things that have done in other areas where I've worked.
And I am very community minded.
And I know the benefits of that and that's the importance of what we do.
Okay.
Deputy Mayor Murdoch, your mic is on.
If there's no more questions.
Thank you very much.
We really appreciate your time coming up to Godwitch tonight.
And we look forward to working with you in the future.
Thank you.
Through you.
Thank you very much.
And I certainly enjoyed my time here so far.
And I don't plan on going anywhere unless the person I report to and
really has says otherwise.
So.
Thank you very much.
And I appreciate it.
Council.
I'm wondering if we could have make a motion for a recommendation.
That we do enter into a section 10 for a four year contract.
We would bring a by-law forward.
Once we pass this motion for council's consideration at the next meeting.
But it would be section 10 four years with no enhancement.
One sergeant in the detachment administrative clerk.
By maintaining section 10 to the contract the town police services board will continue to meet with the
detachment commander and municipal and provincial representatives the mayor and the CAO.
That would be the recommendation that we're asking council to approve tonight.
That we would bring back a motion to reflect that not a motion.
A by-law to reflect that at the next meeting for council's consideration.
Do you need a motion?
No.
So.
Okay.
So moved by Deputy Mayor Murdoch seconded by councilor Tammy.
Any other questions in regards to this motion?
So come back in a by-law for your consideration two weeks.
All in favor.
Carry.
Thank you, council.
If we could ask.
Got ease on as well.
Okay.
We're on to nine correspondence received for information.
Can I have someone move it, please?
Can I have someone move it?
Councillor Thompson?
Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
The correspondence received for information.
And that's from 9.1 to 9.10.
Anything in there that you need to discuss or you had a question on?
Deputy Mayor.
That's a question.
Just a comment.
I guess.
And that is in regards to 9.7.
And Hemsanna, which is on Parsons Court.
Just that they've applied for cannabis license in terms of processing.
And I just thought people should be aware of that.
Okay.
Thank you very much for letting that.
Anything else?
If not.
All in favor.
Carry.
The correspondence received in the recommended action.
Note it.
Move by.
My Councillor Thompson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Murdoch, that the correspondence items be received for
information and the noted action be approved. And that's from 10.1, straight through to 10.2.
Seeing hearing, no comments or hands, last chance council, okay, approved.
Okay, we're going to go back into 10.10, as that will require a separate motion for
sign-in authority for our new CAO. I figured that we should let her have some sign-in authority. So if I can have
someone move that it's a memo from our treasurer dated January 2nd regarding sign-in authority of the CAO. So moved by Councillor
Chairman, seconded by Deputy Mayor Murdoch. Fairly straight forward. All in favour? Carried.
Now we'll go on to resolutions from other municipalities? No. 12. 12. Unfinished business. 12.1 is
got a memorial arena, still outstanding. 12.2, harbour discussions in a GPMC, which we will have during
closed and some open later on in the meeting. 12.3, Dominic, and I'm suggesting that maybe if staff could
bring back a recommendation, a motion for the next council and we can put this to bed and move on.
Would that be appropriate? So that will come back in a motion for the next council? I think we moved it to the strategic
planning session. I thought we resolved it, so that we would bring it back, but there's
not a motion here tonight with a recommendation of staff, so I'd ask staff to bring it back and
we'll get on with it. I think that's the right way to go. 12.4 is that that will all come in
in closed session. 12.5, we've dealt with. 13.5 laws and agreements. And if Councillor Donnelly.
Where, before we leave 12, 12.4, request to God's port management corporation to disclose to
the town, the amount paid by GPMC since March 24, 2015, to the solicitors for negotiating the
revised OEM contract, pending a waiting response from GPMC. Why is that necessarily enclosed?
Yes, it doesn't have to be that that person will be in the open person when we talk about GPMC, and
I think there will be a further motion reflecting another scenario with that. Is that information available?
It is not available as of yet. We have not received that documentation.
Well, I'd be right in suggesting this, but that request was made about about the 6th of December,
and it remains outstanding as there have been any response of any kind. No response, no response.
And I write in suggesting this that our own clerk or an art treasure, I guess, was requested
to check and see what we had paid for our legal advice, and that was made available to us overnight.
That's correct. Yes. Do you draw any inference from that, Mr. Mayor?
Yes, I do.
Well, I have for a long time held this position. The people elected me to do two things.
They want me to think, and they want me to speak, and I have been thinking what I've been here,
and I've deliberately decided not to speak about this GPMC for the moment.
I'd say three or four times in the past. I've been going to speak, and I delayed it,
because I did not wish to imperial and even negotiations that were in progress.
But I feel an obligation A to speak and B to speak at an opportune time in my judgment,
and I will do so. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
Thank you again, Councillor. They have acknowledged the receipt of that, and they are going
to send us something, and we will follow up on it first thing in the morning. Thank you.
But they haven't acknowledged the request.
Tell me, why isn't necessary once they concluded negotiation has been made, as I understand this
to be, because the completed document has been given to us. This is the end product of five years
work. Why does that have to be in close session?
Is that not public information, and if there's an explanation to be made as to the content
and meaning of the document, is the public not A, have a right of disclosure, and B, a right
of transparency to know what's in there?
Yes, and I think we should be in open. I think there may be a few details in the negotiation portion
that our solicitor is suggesting that he gave you that information enclosed, but the general
discussion and all the information before us will come out into open.
Well, but it's up to council.
I want to make this point abundantly clear. I will not be muscled by some allegation that I sat back
and let this develop under a bed sheet here where people couldn't see it, and then I'm
going to be told, well, we all get under the bed sheet. Nobody can tell what happened under
there. Don't let you cannot discuss this because it's confidential information. I say, let
us avoid that kind of a discussion and do it out in public where the people have a right to know.
If there are some specific items that are said to be confidential of that nature, they can
stand aside for the moment. We can be told what they are and if there's justification for
the closed session on the basis of that information, I'll agree to it. Otherwise, my position is
public information, transparency, accountability, five years work. The council are entitled to
know what happened, but no more so than the public. Thank you. Absolutely, I agree.
That's the end of the closed session, then. Let's get on with it.
Okay. Thank you. We are at bylaws and bylaws too of 2020.
Where am I?
Got me off course.
Okay. Bylaws 1, bylaws 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If I, if you could, I won't even read it, you can move it all.
Thank you. Let me go back to the picture.
I would move that bylaws 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Of 2020, be introduced and read for
first time. Seconded by council for Tammy. All in favor.
Okay. Bylaw 1 of 2020, be in a bylaw to set various fees for the corporation of the town of
Goddardch and to repeal bylaw number 1111 of 2019. The purpose of this bylaw is to update schedule F, storm
and sanitary sewer rates and schedule G water rates to reflect the increase in rates from 2019 to 2020.
And to add schedule N, plumbing and septic rates due to the download of responsibility from the
here in county health unit to the lower tiers. Bylaw 2 of 2020, be in a bylaw to adopt the county of
here on 2020 annual accessibility plan. The purpose of this bylaws to adopt the county of here on 2020
annual accessibility plan is the town of Goddardch's part of the here in county accessibility advisory committee
and is required to do the accessibility for Ontarians and disabilities act to prepare and publish
an annual accessibility plan. Bylaw 3 of 2020, be in a bylaw to authorize the mayor and clerk to
execute and affix the corporate seal to a contractual agreement for a retail market study in the town of
Goddardch by Urban Metrics Inc. The purpose of this bylaw is to undertake a retail market study
in relation to a forthcoming commercial redevelopment application for 414 and 436 here on road and as a
pre-condition for a complete planning application. The town requires a professional retail market study
that will independently evaluate the anticipated impacts of new or additional commercial development.
Bylaw 4 of 2020, be in a bylaw to provide for interim tax levies for the year 2020 for the corporation
in the town of Goddardch. The purpose of this bylaw is to issue interim tax levies in
to establish the 2020 due dates for taxes. Bylaw 5 of 2020, be in a bylaw to strike
uncollectable real-t commercial industrial and BIA taxes from the tax roll for the year's 2017, 2018
and 2019. The purpose of this bylaw is to remove uncollectable real-t commercial industrial and BIA
taxes from the roll for 2017, 2018 and 2019 due to assessment changes. Bylaw 6 of 2020, be in a bylaw
the corporation of the town of Goddardch authorizing the borough wing of money to meet current
expenditures of the council of the town of Goddardch. The purpose of this bylaw is to allow the
municipality to borrow $4.1 million dollars if required for the payment of various expenses
until the taxes in other revenues are collected. Bylaw 7 of 2020, be in a bylaw to of the corporation
of the town of Goddardch authorizing the municipality to utilize the direct electronic funds transfer
service offered by a BIMO bank of Montreal. The purpose of this bylaw is to allow the town of Goddardch
to continue to transfer money electronically through the bank of Montreal. Bylaw 8 of 2020,
be in a bylaw to appoint a plumbing and on-site septic services inspector for the town of Goddardch.
The purpose of this bylaw is to appoint Larry Fulton as a plumbing and on-site services inspector for
the town of Goddardch. Bylaw 9 of 2020, be in a bylaw to authorize the widening of part of Benet Street.
The purpose of this bylaw is to dedicate and use land as a highway that was acquired through
registration to widen Benet Street and that involves Dagny and Richard Hauss. Bylaw 10 of 2020,
be in a bylaw to authorize the widening of part of Benet Street. The purpose of this bylaw is to
dedicate and use land as a highway that was to acquire through registration to widen Benet Street
under the name Robert Kevin McAwing. Bylaw 11 of 2020, be in a bylaw to repeal bylaw 8 of 2019
and to confirm the various appointments of layzons, committees and boards for the corporation's
town of Goddardch. The purpose of this bylaw is to update various changes to certain committees and
boards. Bylaw 12 of 2020, be in a bylaw respecting construction, demolition, change of use and
inspection, and to repeal bylaw number 25 of 2007 and bylaw 42 of 2010. The purpose of this bylaw
is to update the building bylaw to include plumbing and septic services. Bylaw 13 of 2020, be in a bylaw
to establish a policy for non-union management employees with regards to time often loo and to repeal bylaw
15 of 2013. The purpose of this bylaw is to implement a new time off in loo policy.
Taking us ready to first test. Seconded by.
Counselor Donnelly, all in favor. Okay. I would move that bylaws 121213 of 2020. Be ready to
second time. Seconded by. Counselor Donnelly, all in favor. Carry.
Bylaw 1212, be in a bylaw to set various fees for the corporation of the town of Goddardch and to
repeal bylaw 1111 of 2019. Bylaw 1220, be in a bylaw to adopt the county of here on 2020 annual accessibility plan.
In a by-law to authorize the mayor and clerk to execute and affix the corporate seal to a contractual agreement for retail market study in the town of
Gaudertch by Urban Metrics Inc. By law 4 of 2020 being a by-law to provide for in-term tax
Letties for the year 2020 for the corporation the town of Gaudertch by law 5 of 2020 being a by-law to strike
Uncollectable, Realty, Commercial, Industrial, NBIA taxes from the tax roll for the year's 2017-2018-2019
By-law 6 of 2020 being a by-law of the corporation the town of Gaudertch authorizing the borrowing of money to meet current
expenditures of the council of the corporation of the town of Gaudertch. By-law 7 of 2020 being a by-law of the
corporation the town of Gaudertch authorizing the municipality to utilize the direct electronic funds transfer service offered by
Bemo Bank Montreal by-law 8 of 2020 being a by-law to a point a plumbing and onsite septic services inspector
For the town of Gaudertch by-law 9 of 2020 being a by-law to authorize the widening of part of benestreet by-law 10 of 2020 being a by-law
By-law 11 of 2020 being a by-law to repeal by-law 81 of 2019 and to confirm the very
Supplement of Laezons committees and boards for the corporation the town of Gaudertch by-law 12 of 2020 being a by-law
Respecting Construction, Demolition, Change of Use and Inspection into repeal by-law number 25 of
2017 and by-law 42 of 2010 by-law 13 of 2020 being a by-law to establish a policy for non-unimamagement
Employees with regards to time-off and lieu and to repeal by-law 15 of 2013.
Taking this for a second time.
Seconded by.
Councilor Thompson.
All in favor.
Carry.
Questions?
Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
With regards to by-law number 5 referring to relating to uncollectable accounts.
From what I can see, it looks like there's $11,000 of uncollectable
Accounts is that correct?
That's just not the municipal portion.
She's got the county as well in the school boards.
Municipal portion on that is 45.
Okay.
So then my next question would be because we budget our tax rate to collect that entire revenue.
Have we built into it then a loss factor or an uncollectable factor?
And how does that compare to the amount set aside per the budget?
In the budget, we had 70,000 for right-offs as an expense.
So we budget the entire tax revenue.
And then we do have an allocation of 70,000 for right-offs that occur during the year.
We try and estimate, but it's very different.
So that would be below the norm then.
Yes.
It would seem given that we budgeted 70.
So for the next thing would be from a comparability factor would be as compared to last year or prior years.
I don't have that bigger with me.
I can certainly provide that.
No, I just I just thought the public should be aware that.
It fluctuates based on what request reconsideration come forward from property owners and any right-offs,
demolitions.
It really fluctuates year to year.
Thank you.
Any other questions on the violence?
Before we have the final.
My question was regards to 13.8.
And it was the by-law to a point of plumbing and on-site septic services inspector for the town of
Godarch.
Understanding what we were doing this in conjunction with another municipality.
I think it was Ashburn Colbert and Walmanosh.
Did we come to an agreement on what percentage they were going to pay or how that split was going to work?
I'll ask to see you.
Dance to the question.
Through your worship.
We had actually had discussions previously with ACW to enter into an agreement with for shared services
arrangement with ACW.
Unfortunately, we have made the decision not to enter into that agreement.
This we are entering into a one-year contract with Larry Fulton who is a previous plumbing inspector with the county health unit.
And he's agreed to work for the town for any inspections that would be pre planned for Tuesdays and Thursdays of each week.
Thank you.
Any other questions in the by-laws?
If not.
Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Take it away.
I would move that by-laws.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, of 20, 20,
be given a third and final reading.
And the Mayor and the clerk, be in our hereby authorized and instructed to sign the same in place the corporate seal they are on to.
Seconded by.
Councillor Holland.
All in favor.
Carried.
14.1 has been previously dealt with.
We'll move on to 14.2.
Site plan agreement amendment.
And if I could ask the CEO to make a comment on it.
Thank you.
Your worship through you.
We've received a request.
This property for one 21 Huckens and one 41 Huckens was previously owned.
By Rob Serencent, it was under a number company of 2259915 Ontario Inc.
And it has been purchased by Upper Canada Kitchen and Bath Limited.
The site plan does indicate that it is transferable.
The site plan itself is transferable.
However, they have asked for an extension as their permits with the MTO.
We're looking at there's an extension requirement with the MTO for September 30th of 2020.
So that's why we're asking at this point in time for a site plan agreement amendment.
Motion to be made by Council tonight so that we can make an amendment specifically to the site plan agreement that speaks to the extension of the work that will not be carried out.
And that would coincide with the permits that would be dealt with through the MTO as well with the September 30th of 2020 date.
And this is the property that is owned by Rona.
So it's all in the same.
Two separate parcels by the principles of Rona.
Murray's Rona on Huckens Street, corner of Huckens and Bayfield Road.
Can I have a mover?
Oh, we have a mover in a second.
Through your worship, it's moved by Councillor Hoy and seconded by Councillor Taming.
That Council approve a Mending Site Plan agreement.
Between the town of Gaudert and 225915 Ontario Inc.
And 2631279 Ontario Inc.
To extend the termination of agreement clause to September the 2020 and that an amended site plan agreement be brought back to Council for consideration that a future council meeting.
Any questions?
No questions?
All in favor.
We'll do a new and general business and then we're going to go to the GPMC discussions.
We'll talk with that as soon as we're done with this.
Through you, worship upcoming meetings for viewing audience as well.
January the 14th, 2020 Gaudert Police Services Board meeting at 11 am in the Galt Room.
January the 14th of BIA will meet at 6 p.m. in the menace and Tung Room.
January 15th, mid here in landfill, site board meet at 3 p.m. in the menace and Tung Room.
January the 15th, mid here in recycling center.
Board will meet at 330 p.m. in the menace and Tung Room.
January 23rd, community economic development committee meeting at 8 a.m. in the menace and Tung Room.
And our next council meeting is scheduled for January the 27th at 430 p.m. here in the council chambers.
Thank you.
Any meetings that we may have missed?
If not, I would.
I think it would be my obligation.
We're going to now start the discussions about GPMC.
But it's my obligation to ask our solicitor if he felt that there was any.
Specific need that we had to go into closed.
And if not, we would stay and open and we would move into those discussions.
I'll ask Greg Stewart or a solicitor for comment.
Yes, through you worship.
There likely isn't.
What you've got is a product that we have brought back for council's consideration.
And based on instructions given to us before to negotiate.
And that is.
That's a debate that you go on in public.
There's no question about that.
The only area where there could be some variance from that is if.
We got into some discussion of.
Negotiation procedures or.
It's instructions to go back for matters of negotiation.
Sometimes you want those in close because you don't particularly want the person
negotiating was sitting watching you develop your strategy.
But I don't as it sits now.
I don't see anything in this that needs to be in a close session.
Okay, very good.
Thank you very much.
So we will stay and open for these discussions.
I think to lead it off if I could ask Larry McCabe or.
I'll ask Larry McCabe to come up and start the discussions and give us a little bit a
history of of of GPMC and.
And then we're going to start into a full discussion.
Where we need to be and.
And we're at today.
Not that I don't want to do that.
I had prepared something if required.
But I would think that maybe the solicitor should maybe for the public.
Bring up the date.
I think he had a memo that included on the agenda historically.
What do you think go shading group did with.
Yeah.
I thought.
And purposely I thought that it might be a little better if you lead off.
You're going to talk about the negotiation stages.
That's fine.
If you would.
I would.
I'd do a clock this afternoon.
Okay.
Just one second.
Councillor Dolly.
As for mayor of the background of this is.
I think on seven occasions and I can give you the dates.
If anybody wants and I have them here.
From from 1950 or 2015 forward.
On seven occasions I've given a written memorandum.
Address to the mayor and the council and so on.
And none of those have ever been answered in any specific terms.
To go through and say ABC and D.
And my.
Problem with what we're doing is this.
This council.
Doesn't have the experience background that.
Some of us senior members have.
But we were here for when these things happened.
And I think it's a disadvantage to them.
To be not fully instructed or fully informed.
And to inform them early.
It's like writing something on the wind.
If somebody's going to come in here and say I've.
Get written a letter with 12 points in it.
There should be a letter come back.
We're doing with those 12 points.
So that the people can get a grasp of what they're doing.
And in these circumstances.
It's so easy to throw a covering blanket over something.
With a few casual words and move on to something else.
And that's taken care of.
Nobody remembers what it was tomorrow morning.
And my own view is this.
And the other thing too is.
This format if it's going to be useful.
But I suggested was.
But I think it's a letter.
I'll stand corrected.
If I didn't give it to Andrea.
But I did write the letter.
I'm not just a note.
But it said this that the.
Have the solicitor tell us two things.
A.
What he sees as a demunition of our rights.
There's something we're losing.
And B.
Are there areas of risk.
This.
Could be interpreted this way in that way.
It's all very well to say the document says this.
But the courts are full of people who say what did it mean.
Not what did it say.
And if we had this in writing.
I think this council could educate itself.
And could make a final decision.
But to come in here.
And just load tons of information on them.
It's a contract.
I don't.
I didn't bother to count the pages.
But if you read the contract in the exhibits.
There's probably 60 or 70 pages.
A very difficult sletting.
And the other thing.
Just as an ordinary matter of courtesy.
I'm speaking to something that's a profound importance, it might be wise to listen to me.
Thank you. I think we will proceed with Mr. McKay, and then we would ask our solicitor to chronologically bring this forward through the negotiations.
Not all of us have been here. I miss four years of it. Some are just brand new to the game.
So we will try to do our best to give as much information as possible to everyone, and then we will move forward.
But Mr. McKay, if you could please address council at this time.
Well, if Mr. McKay was going to read from a document, what's wrong with instructing him to file a way less as well?
I was going to do that. I put together a brief history, so this is just background. It does not give any recommendations.
It sort of brings you from some of the things that you wanted to hear that I was asked to present with regards to history. I apologize for late. I just finished it to a thought this afternoon.
I will hand it out, and there should be sufficient copies for council members, and maybe some left over.
What I did in the weekend is, and previously think about a number of things I've said to council in the past concerning the harbor.
But I thought I should put some key points of the brief history of the port since I've been involved with it.
And I started in 1985 to 1989, and you've heard some of this before, but we'll try to put it very quickly in context of where this port's come from in the last X number of years, starting in about 1985.
And the period of 1985, the 1989, I'm a period of which the port was one of 300 local regional ports, and it was owned by the federal government under the transport can of jurisdiction.
The federal government received all the revenues from these ports in the form of dockage and war feed and per time fee on shipping as determined by transport can.
The company of the day that paid most of those war feed was Dom TAR, and Dom TAR always felt and later siftled that they paid to high fees to them, and that's a part of the fact that later on how we got to some of this.
The cost incurred by transport can of low further research was approximately 20 million.
I'm referring to to give you an idea that the types of dollars that have been spent overall.
Dom TAR indicated and negotiated with transport can of the back in the period of 1985 to 89, where they indicated that they wanted to put separate loading facilities on the north side.
And the federal government at that time started dredging or entered into a contract, and I think the figure I heard was 20 million.
We were not part of that, that was the conservative government of the time that proceeded to put a C-weight facility on the north side that exists.
That's where the infilling is occurring now.
Dom TAR did not proceed with the loading spout.
There might have been changes of the company at that time.
They were sold to a company called George Harrison Associates and later sold to campus minerals.
But whether those were factors, I'm just trying to indicate some of the things that we're talked about.
But we had limited involvement with the town, but we did enter some discussions when we saw there are two ways of getting rid of dredge material.
The cheapest way is to take dredging and dump it in the lake.
That's an approval process, and that's very acceptable.
However, there is another way of bringing that silt sand and stone through pipe.
And I believe that the deputy mayor was there, the mayor and staff, where you attended a few weeks ago to make the Veloconservation Authority.
And they showed a picture of that pipe that was from the area north of Sifto, right to the coal.
That's how the coal was created.
The town entered the picture and negotiated with transport.
And they actually changed the contract and said we will pump it down there.
That was the beginning of the coal and the development of the coal.
In 1995 the 1999 was also four years of discussions.
There was a national marine act that was presented by the transport candidate.
It never passed, but section nine of that act did change the protocol.
The federal, the provincial, the municipal private was a normal protocol.
It's still followed by the province in the feds of many areas.
But somehow section nine of that proposed legislation changed the situation.
That's where Sifto of the day came in and thought or felt they could own the port because they were large revenue.
The town, many, many locations met and that was sort of a lack of an agreement or disagreement
between Sifto and Canada for years.
And ultimately there was a meeting which I mentioned before with the federal government looked at both Sifto and the town and said
The town will not own the port and Sifto will not own the port unless you have an agreement.
And that was the basis of the and also the announcement of those fees of Sifto and the users would be increased by 15% in November of 1999
for 30% in in the spring of the year 2000.
So that really brought the town and Sifto together.
The asking price which was confidential at time was 7.5 million I believe it was.
We sat down with Sifto, Sifto, Sifto, Roland Howell, Hamilton, myself, previous mayor of Merissue felt.
I can't hudder of the day and commissioner works.
And we came up with a $29 million program.
And we presented that to the feds and said this port needs $29 million.
There was only 20,000 put in the port between 1995 and 1999.
And the money that was taken from this port I think it was something fees of 2.5 million were paid by Sifto alone to the feds were put into other port.
That was the system keeping the national ports of the local regional ports.
So we actually drove the purchase price down and those discussions cooperatively with Sifto to $650,000 based in there would be a $29 million program.
That's the program you've heard about from 1999 to the year 2017 or 2018.
And that's listed on the next page as the break walls which were done in the latter years because of the amount of money that was required so that funds in the infrastructure build up in that regard.
And the agreement was arrived by the two parties and approved by transport representing the queen we all heard that quite often and Sifto paid back to town on 12 monthly installments of $650,000 in the year 2000.
The sale was completed in November of the 11th, 1999 and a $29 million infrastructure program was put in the place which was included as I mentioned around 2018 and 2019, which saw the completion of that bridge as I've mentioned before.
In 2012 and I believe this is the crux of the concerns in the agreement that started and rightly so I think to a degree of council on the in others.
Where we entered into a 2000 and 12 agreement perhaps predicated on a new operation management and agreement.
And which time it was agreed that 16 million MTO money and bear in mind it was the town staff and council of the day that secured that money and our member of provincial parliament.
Carol Mitchell who was our member at that time secured those funds to be added with the $32 million that compass would pay to create 20 acres of land.
I don't know if history repeats itself or circumstances repeat themselves but it was always said that Sifto at a point in time or compass at this time would have to look at it and see if that made a business sense and I guess they did and it didn't.
They had the right to pull out of the 2012 agreement clearly and we proceeded on the municipality did with the port corporation in completing $16 million worth of work which is just completed this year which is the five acres of in filled land in the north which was part of the original C-way depth port.
It wasn't all lost it was actually the very important that the federal government paid that money and spent that money and contracted to get that C-way depth on the north side.
The conditions would have created 20 acres but I didn't have time to go back and see the exact wording but compass would have had eight months of exclusive use of the 20 acres.
What you have now at least it's in my opinion maybe it's only five acres but you have five acres that the town can determine what happens with that property.
The five acres would be least along with other leases that you have and that money would go into the waterfront reserve fund if council decides to continue that process.
The benefit now is that the five acres of land is available it can be marketed by both the town and the GPMC.
The proposed operation management agreement has been well explained to the town and negotiated between town representatives as directed by council and compass minerals.
This is getting into the part of what the solicitors summarized that the town received under the new agreement the 2020 agreement if it should be 2020 or whatever date.
An additional $100,000 immediately to the waterfront reserve on top of the leases on top of the current money going in which should be in the treasure competitor explained around $300,000 going in to the waterfront reserve annually with this 100,000 included in that figure.
The town were saved $500,000 representing the reimbursement and I think this is key.
I'm sure the treasure department loses a little sleep when I was your CEO.
I was too that we had to proceed and council made the right decision and proceeded on with the construction and reconstruction of South Harbour Road.
That had to be done. It was a 160 year old storm sewer. It was completely breaking down and that is a receivable on the town's books right now.
And in the first five years of the program that's in the agreement then that would be reimbursed in the first year in fact in the 2020 to wipe that receivable off.
The North Harbour Road is projected to be completed in the year 2023 if you looked at the schedule to an amount of $2.5 million.
And stock harbour is in that to be rehabilitated.
Consumer price index will apply in the fourth year I believe it was of the agreement.
There will be ongoing capital provided infrastructure funds for the corporation each year corporation being the town.
And the key is that there's no local tax dollars will be required other than the commitment for the South throat previously agreed upon, which we said we would pay a portion of that.
And projects were never considered to be part.
And I think this is key and just to jump backwards a little bit.
It was always very emphatic of compass as sift of the day that the portlands existed and then there were the greater portlands.
And no money other than the waterfront reserve allocations that were going in and agreed upon in the leases at that time would be expanded from the port fees.
And they were adam about that.
But what you have in the 2020 agreement is something different.
You have projects that just mentioned.
So if Harbour Road, North Harbour Road, which route side of the portlands are now being funded by the gorgeous portman and port corporation and fees.
And just finalizing.
The town council continues to have authority to approve the GPMC annual budgets request or send it back that's under the current agreement.
The same as the proposed.
The town will have two voting members on the GPMC board of management following the governance change, which will follow the approval of the OMMA that you will be considering.
And all I'm just making a comment.
It's not to be controversial.
I just thought that all that has been accomplished since 1985.
Percentive above details being accomplished through intense negotiations, not through an adversarial approach.
I don't think I think sometimes that's required.
It may be required in this instance at the end of your further discussions.
But I did want to provide a history that showed you that it's been negotiated.
It's been good for the town.
It's been good for industry.
Is it the best agreement?
I think it's the best agreement that you've sent the individuals on behalf of the town to negotiate.
I can answer questions later, but I think there probably will be a lot more set.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Ms. McKay.
Good seeing you again.
If I can ask our solicitor to.
Now if you could come up and sort of bring us through chronologically.
The negotiations over the last year or so.
And see where we stand and we will open it up for questions.
Excuse me through your worship.
I gave a summary and I'll just for the benefit of the public go through it.
Our last discussion of this with Council was on May 22.
On that occasion.
Excuse me.
On that occasion we went through the agreement page by page.
We received instructions from Council for a number of language changes.
Words here and words there.
And there were some specific issues that were sent away to address.
One was Council said that they wanted the CPI increase on the fees to start at the beginning of the agreement.
The position of compass at that point is they didn't want it to start for six years. We were not in agreement on the term. We would prefer three persons on the board, but could live with two, those were the instructions.
And we were to ask for an additional $50,000 a year contribution to the Waterfront Reserve Fund.
On June 17th of 2019, we met with GPMC and representatives of compass in Toronto.
We came to a tentative agreement on the various minor language issues, and at the conclusion of that meeting there were three outstanding issues.
Through the discussions, the town increased their request for annual payments to the Waterfront Reserve Fund from $50,000 to $100,000 a year.
The town wanted the CPI increases on fees and payments to begin at the beginning of the term of the agreement,
and the town wanted a five-year term for the agreement with five-year renewals in the final end date in 2014.
On August 9th of 2019, the position was conveyed by telephone from the GPMC lawyer on those issues.
They said they would agree to the increase in contributions to the Waterfront Reserve Fund of $100,000, but they wanted them phased in.
The first payment would be $50,000 in 2020. The second increase would be $50,000 in 2022.
And the CPI increase in the payments would not begin until 2021 on the first $50,000 and then on the whole $100,000 after that.
They wanted annual CPI to commence on the fees in 2024 with a cap of 2% and they wanted an agreement to have a term to $20,000 with 10-year renewals after that.
On August 13th, a advised GPMC Council that the town wanted the entire $100,000 increase in the contribution to the Waterfront Reserve Fund in 2020, not staggered.
On October 15th, there was a meeting with representatives of GPMC and Compass, and at that meeting there was an agreement on the outstanding issues as follows.
The annual contribution by GPMC to the Waterfront Reserve Fund would increase by $100,000 per year starting in 2020.
And that is reflected in Section 8.4.1 of the document.
Secondly, the fees payable by existing users may be increased annually by CPI commencing in 2024 subject to an annual cap at 1.5%.
That is in Section 2.7.1. The annual contribution of $100,000 will increase by CPI starting in 2021.
And the initial term of the agreement would run until December 31st, 2040 with 10-year renewals thereafter, and that's reflected in Section 4.4.1 of the draft.
On October 17th of 2019 Council advises Council for GPMC advise that GPMC directors and members were all in agreement with those three items.
And that the governance change from three to two or from no members to two members for the town would start with the commencement of the OMM agreement.
Those are the instructions that I was given in May. Those are the results based on those items that were those are the three items that I was left with as a result of our discussions on May 22nd and told to go back and negotiate.
And those are the results from those discussions. We have provided to you a draft of an agreement that has come out of these negotiations. It is detailed obviously.
It is the document that we went through on May 22nd with the suggested changes and reflecting those three items that we've come back with.
We're presenting that to you this evening and asking for your instructions as to how you want to deal with it. Do you want to answer questions?
We can debate this evening. I require your instructions as to how you wish to go forward with it.
We will open it up for questions and discussions. Council. Have you got any questions of either the solicitor or Mr. McCabe at this time?
Council.
I'm a little unclear before we start this. What kind of questions we can ask you because we're in open. Can we ask you why you came to a decision?
Like, what was the reasoning behind that? Is that acceptable?
Behind depends on what you're asking me.
Okay.
Say for instance, the appointment of the two individuals. How is it you arrived at two as opposed to three? How did that necessarily?
Good discussion go.
The cap of the CPI of the one and a half.
Where did that come from?
Those are fair questions.
The two we had initially asked for three. The offer that came back was two.
When I was here on May 22nd my instructions going away were asked for three but we can live with two if we get these other things.
We got these other things so we have come back with is two based on those instructions.
The one point five percent is something that GPMC came forward with.
It was discussed among the staff that were there and they felt that looking at the way the economy is gone and with the cost of living that one point five percent is a cap of something they could live with.
That's how that developed.
Okay. Other counselors?
Counselor 10.
Thinking of what you all said.
So on the CPI the cap is 1.5 so that's the max that they will ever pay or increase for the life of this degree.
But if it's at one they would pay one.
But if it's at three they would pay one point five.
So just.
No that's a very fair question and.
Yeah.
Counselor.
And then it could go down to one percent.
So there's always you're going to.
All I can tell you is that among the staff that were there that was discussed and there was a comfort level with one point five.
That's how it came about.
Mr. McKay.
If you go back to the original agreement you got to realize that what they're doing is identifying projects.
I think you're right to be nice to have a higher and have it floating.
But if you're back on the 29 million that was identified as the exact dollar amount required to do the works.
What you're going to have now each five years or ten years whatever is you'll be identifying the projects.
The cost may go up the cost may go down to those projects.
It was just felt based as Greg said on the economy.
Padding a one point five in would be.
The sensible thing to do with regards to.
Saying well it's it's there's no little on it.
I mean we could have argued two percent more.
But if.
North Harbor road is two point five million.
Fine if it's three million the pork corporations going to pay anyways.
It's just a matter of how you lay out the projects and the time you have the money coming in.
So that was the reasoning we thought one point five was fair.
Correct.
Taking in the other other projects in this deal is very important.
Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Yeah just a couple questions one one is.
I'm wondering about the.
One the legal fees relating to the solicitors and whether or not that that payment is forthcoming.
On our behalf I'm I'm thinking and respect to to our solicitor because my understanding also is that.
GPMC paid the solicitor fees for on behalf of the you the other users of the board.
And so I'm wondering whether or not that would be.
Is that commander this in any regard.
Secondly.
There's going to be an increase in fees.
To my understanding.
The way I read it.
Max of one point five percent.
That's true.
In any given year it doesn't have to be.
But then the question would be.
That's the cover the operating expenses of the corporation.
The excess of the fees would then go into an operating reserve fund.
From what I understand.
Is that correct.
Answer the legal question might be.
I don't look at it quite that way.
I from the legal perspective.
They're paying anyways.
They're paying your legal bills and and they're paying ours.
If you take the money from the waterfront reserve from which I think you can't.
You may not have charged that there.
You may have charged it some other area.
But you have you have controls of the waterfront reserve fund.
With regards to how you pay out of that fund as long as it's for the air.
I think you could argue that your legal bills could come out of that.
And those funds come from the users.
With regards to their legal bills.
They'll come from the GPMC and they'll come for the funds of collecting the user fee too.
So in my opinion, it's all user fees that you're paying those bills with.
Your CPI question.
I'm not clear on it but.
Can you just.
Well I thought I I read it in there that that the fees for war featured,
etc.
You know, docking whatever else would be limited could be changed in a year.
But max at 1.5% based upon.
On the CPI financing in the fourth year. Yes.
And the fourth year.
But there's nothing saying that.
God is part management corporation when they meet.
If they agree, they can change any of the programs.
Ultimately, any of the programs will have to be approved by this council in the form of the budget.
So it all has to come back to this council anyways.
Okay.
What about what we would like.
We would like the expansion from five acres to.
And that would have to be a discussion of the port management corporation.
And that particular GPMC as to whether they would want to get involved right now.
It's excluded.
You've got the the five acres created.
What's they've done within the finances that we've mentioned before.
If you're going to ask the port corporation say they send their budget.
We want another five acres.
That might be difficult.
But it could be a discussion at the GPMC level.
And you would have input at that level.
Now you indicated also that.
The least the least leasing fees of the five acres of land.
Would go directly to the town.
Is that correct.
Yes, and they'll come at more you heavy.
At least now it's paid thirty five thousand dollars per acre on the former can egg,
which is now owned by compass.
The blue away in the tornado, but they're still paying thirty five thousand dollars.
That goes into your waterfront reserve.
You're paying sixteen thousand five hundred dollars.
Is being received on the pair of Parisian handbecker because you own dock.
Nine chip dot five whatever you want to call it dot five.
Four.
You own that.
So you have money there.
You have money coming from Dominique that's going into that research.
No, okay.
Yeah, good.
All that money is coming.
My thing is my thing is.
I would like to think that the the the port.
Generates income.
For the town.
And not specifically identified.
To the waterfront and to the harbor.
Nest is narrowing.
So when I read under eight four here, payments to the town and the last line of eight four one.
That not so transfer child constitute a reserve fund solely for the purpose of completing town projects.
That doesn't strike me as being specifically identified to go to water reserve.
It could be any reserve for which we set aside that amount of money.
For any project in the town.
Could it not based upon my reading of that?
Well, sir, make an answer.
But I don't think you can take the funds either degree to palm projects outside of the waterfront area.
That's always been clear to stay one.
And it's clear in this agreement.
You can you get your money into your waterfront reserve fund.
What you determine how you spend it within the waterfront.
And then the the leases come into there on top of that.
And those projects are projected to determine.
But they're they're we've never agreed in any agreement that they could take.
Or use your funds and spend it on your downtown core or someplace else.
That that's I'm not saying that I'm not going to happen.
But it was never never agreed upon in any way.
Yes.
I will have the solicitor look it up if you would.
And it's one of those agreements we rated that it jumps around but here.
Thank you.
And that will be close to $300,000 under this new proposal.
Maybe I can plug a couple.
If I can add a little bit to part of the negotiations and why it was a little, we were able to have
a little wiggle room because the town will realize some of the projects like South Harbor Road, like before this agreement, this new agreement happened,
we would have been paying the full amount of that. We would be paying the full amount of North Harbor Road, probably in two or three years,
which is almost $3 million and growing. We would also have to pay for snug Harbor, which is probably going to be a million and a half or two million.
All is going to be paid for by contributions out of this agreement by GPMC, which we never had before.
So, yes, we gave up a little bit on the 1.5, but in return we got these large projects assigned, which were fairly significant.
And even to the dolphin that is being projected to be done in the next year, I'm my understanding is that we're going to be able to get some federal money through GPMC in order to do that in Harbor dolphin.
Which is probably going to be $5 or $600,000. So, you know, we gave up here, we got over here. So all the art of negotiations, comments.
Councilor Hoy? Would you like a five-minute recess?
We'll carry on. Anyone else have any comments? Councilor Hoy?
Yeah, you knew I would. So, going back to what Deputy Mayor Murdoch was mentioning, the funds that go into the waterfront reserve, we can spend those funds as we wish as long as those funds are spent at the waterfront.
The answer is yes, and I think you could be quite inventive on top of the slope, so anything that's root waterfront related.
Okay, so to say that GPMC is paying for our legal fees is a little misleading, and that's our money already. The money that's getting being paid into the waterfront.
I mean, we can pay our tax bills out of the reserve, but it's our money. It's not GPMC's money. Correct, okay. I would like a little bit of clarification around the ownership on the five acres.
So the town and the port authority have the ability to market those five acres, but I'd like clarification on the actual ownership of those five acres.
The five acres, the snug and the north harbor.
The start was snug, and as an example, that the town was adamant in 1999, that the snug harbor would not be part of the harbor for reasons that we won't go into.
Would not be part of the port that would not be the responsibility of GPMC.
We are now saying that is, that's another big plus.
In regards to the ownership of the five acres, it's the town's property, per town property, and the town will use the GPMC or the county or the staff here or whoever to market that five acres.
And all the lands down there are owned by the town. We own it all.
I really just wanted that to be heard out loud. Okay, so that people understood exactly who owns all of that property down there.
And the 35 acres, if it's least out, is not part of GPMC's revenue that comes directly to us.
We may have to pay them a marketing fee or somebody a marketing fee to market that 35 acres, but that is not subject to GPMC's budget.
We get the least money on that land, on that five acres.
But we could go wherever we want it to go.
So the revenue that comes out the five acres does not have to go to reserve that can go to any project that we had to pay.
Well, it's our money.
Yes, anything out of the user fees that are paid technically would not have to go into your water firm reserve.
I don't know if you want to start getting into that sure decision whether you want to start piecing that money out into another retail.
I guess you could, but really it was always intended to be derived for the waterfront and for that purpose.
Okay, anyone else? Councilor Donald.
I think that we're following the wrong procedure here.
The solicitor comes and he says, I'm here for instructions.
Who feels qualified not to instruct him?
I don't think any of us do, but we should be doing this.
The solicitor should come and say, I want over the contract.
My recommendation or my advice as a solicitor for the town is to think of these things.
This is wrong.
This is against your interest.
This is questionable.
And I think it's wrong.
We're getting at a little rabbit runs about where this money goes, where that money goes.
I think you have to think of it in the big picture.
Let me just use this example.
Suppose you go out of a guise and buy a Cadillac tonight and bring it home and put it in the garage.
Isn't it cool up to the Alvin tomorrow and say, well, I don't think I'll pay Alvin.
And Alvin sends the sheriff down to pick up the Cadillac and you say to him, I bought that Cadillac.
I bought the Cadillac.
That's exactly what compass minerals is doing to you.
They bought this contract for $18,900,000.
Why do you think the town gave away all this power?
We gave it away because we were getting millions of dollars.
They backed out and now they insist that contract is valid.
That's the beginning.
The first big picture that you have to get in your mind is that a valid contract.
The next thing to think about, I suppose is this.
Ask yourself, when does this contract end?
And the answer to that is never because it's to a fixed period with unlimited numbers of 10-year renewals thereafter.
So you're never going to get out of this.
That's the second big picture to look at.
The third big picture to look at is this.
If there are weaknesses in that contract as I said that you didn't pay, you're validating with a new contract.
You're giving official lawful recognition to things now that are very questionable.
So you're doing compulsory huge favor in that way.
And then the next thing to think of is what power does the town of God rich have under this agreement acting by itself?
Well, the people who drew it may tell you differently.
They may know better than I.
But as I read that contract, you have no power, whatever,
to do anything positive.
You have a veto power that you can say, well, that plan is too expensive, you can't do it.
But you're cutting your own throat.
You're saying, the only way you can use the veto is to hurt yourself to say, don't put it in a new breakwater.
Don't remediate the shoreline.
Don't fix the harbour health.
All you can do is say, don't.
There's not one positive thing that the town of God rich can do alone.
The power is with the users of the harbour, and it's there forever.
Now am I wrong and that's lesser?
The town does have vetoes within the course of the agreement that's correct.
Don't get fatsy with me.
We want to get this thing done.
And when you say, the town has that veto power.
The veto is a word, maybe we all don't use every day.
I want you to tell us or agree with me if you will, that it's the power to stop something.
It isn't the power to do something.
Is that correct?
The town has the power to have input into the maintenance plans and has the final say on whether those plans go ahead.
If there are, please let me finish.
If there are positive things that the town wants to put into this agreement, those are the instructions I'm looking for and what positive things are we talking about.
Well, Mr. Solester, are you coming to this council and you've never given us an analysis of the contract.
You wrote us a one word or two-flying opinion that you didn't think you could win the case.
But you've never told us council what your recommendation is.
You're our Solester.
We looked you for some help.
Councillor, I spent the better part of three hours here one evening giving an analysis of the contract line by line.
Give it to us and writing.
No, I'll just, I'll say here.
No, just a minute.
I want to make this clear.
For you to stand here and run through that contract and, for suppose, I were to ask this council now about the things that Larry McCabe read to us.
I'll bet you there's not one of them could answer the questions.
What I have indicated is that I hear for instructions.
If you're instructions are that you want me to come back with a page by page written analysis, I will do so.
If you're instructions are that you want to have a public meeting on it, that's what we do.
I require those instructions.
I take my instructions in council.
I was, I was sent on May 22nd with specific instructions.
We went and carried out those instructions or back to report on Mr. Solester.
Would you agree with me, I don't agree with you or not.
Would you agree with this?
This council would be in a better position to make decisions on these issues if it had your opinion, your assessment, and your judgment as to how to proceed on these issues.
If that's what council wants, I'd be happy to go to answer my question.
Do you think that would be a benefit to council?
It likely would.
Council will want to tell me whether it's a benefit to them or not.
We mustn't reduce this to ridiculous terms.
This council has no legal training.
It's got no experience in contracts.
It's never had the contract explained to them.
They probably have a reddit.
They're relying on what impressions are being made or created by what you say.
We would benefit from your analysis or the contract to say this is beneficial.
This is risky.
This is detrimental.
That would be helpful.
If I'm not disagreeing with it, that's what council wants.
The document is put before council.
It's given them to review.
One of the things that we've always been told is you want to see something in writing, and that's fair and expected.
The documents there, each council has to decide for themselves what do you need more than that.
If what you want is a written analysis of that nature, I'm more than prepared to do it.
Mr. Mayor, I move that we ask our solicitor to enlighten us so far as he's able by his analysis and his recommendations on this contract.
Please.
Do I have a second?
Discussion.
Discussion about it.
I want to make some comments myself before we get to far down here, but I will open it up for discussion,
and I will make a comment myself if I could.
In fact, this was done all the way along.
But I'll open it up to anyone on council that wants to reflect on some of these decisions,
which this council has made over the last year or so.
Have you got a point?
Yes, Mr. Mayor.
To hear what the solicitor has to say regarding, I do believe in terms of my understanding of contracts.
I'm sure he's much better at it than I, and it would be worthwhile to for him too.
Item I, those things that may be of concern from your standpoint.
Okay. I will ask the solicitor, and I have these comments written down, losses, risks, and wins.
And I can spell them out. Or our solicitor can spell them out, and we can discuss them here and now.
I've been around through the whole process from day one, I missed a couple years with my sabbatical.
But other than that, I've been part of this process.
And I don't think that the negotiating team failed you in the last four years from when you opened up this contract.
They were always pushing the envelope.
We talk about positive things.
The positive things were to get GPMC to open it up to have participation of council on the board.
The positive things were all the infrastructure jobs that they negotiated.
South Harbour Hill, North Harbour Hill, Snow Harbour, the increase of the 100,000.
Those are all positive things. Those aren't negative things. Those are positive benefits to the community.
Millions of dollars just since the opening of the contract four years ago.
And millions of dollars in CPI payments, which under the original agreement had no CPI.
I remember when this agreement was agreed to, originally, there was never a CPI added for the first 20 years.
And a CPI added to these agreements is millions of dollars.
So don't fool yourself that they weren't positive positions that use council that have been here for the last four years.
Hasn't progressively stepped forward and asked the solicitor and asked your staff to do it.
I've only been here for a year, but everything that we have asked for and question our CEO or our clerk or our solicitor has been forthcoming and has given you.
It's a slow, agonizing process and I understand that. These things take a long time and it hasn't been the easiest thing, but it's been it's been very effective.
And we can go right back today one if you want and see what $29 million dollars that was set out in the original agreement.
Will GPMC fulfill that in 15 years? They did. They did exactly what you asked them to do.
We asked them back 20 years ago to do it alone. Stand alone. We want to be arms length away from this process. We don't want any membership on that board.
Okay. That was done purposely. That was done purposely by the council of the day. It's done purposely by the federal government and all those agreements were adhered to.
They came before you every year for a budget. You either passed it, questioned it, sent it back. They did a great job. They did exactly what you asked them to do for 15 years.
And then you asked them, okay, let's open up the agreement. They said, okay, we'll open up the agreement.
And from then on, it just cost the users that much more money. So from my standpoint, the community is benefiting immensely from this financially.
It's benefiting from building our assets. Remember that harbor when we bought it, I don't know Larry may have quoted how much it was worth at the time. It may have been worth 50 million.
It's probably worth 150 million now on the assets on the books. I think that's pretty good deal. And guess what? We didn't pay for it. The users paid for it.
We retired 650,000. Sift to pay the 650,000 first. Not one tax dollar went in to purchase things to the harbor. And I can quote captains that have come in in the last year that have said,
God range is one of the best harbors on the Great Lakes. You should be celebrating that. And we've celebrated this agreement. The first agreement, the 15 year agreement that we had in the infrastructure rebuilt.
Our CEO at the time spoke about three P conferences in Vancouver to Spain to, I don't know where else he spoke at, but at different conferences, we've been celebrated across Canada for this.
We got to feel positive about it. We got to feel positive about the last agreement and we got to feel real positive about the agreement that is before us tonight.
There's no question that you have negotiated exactly what we ask you to do. But Councillor Donnelly is right in two facts. In the number one, we don't have a solicitor recommendation from our solicitor, whether this is a good agreement or not.
We told you what to do and you did it, but we don't have a recommendation from our lawyer that you should sign this. It's kind of a pen to paper. I think that you boys should sign this thing.
And the other part that's really very, very critical to me is, we've been, this is my second term at this, and I've been told numerous times that the previous agreement wasn't worth the powder. It would take to blow it up.
I really want to have your assurance that this is a legally binding contract, and if someone doesn't adhere to the agreements in it, that it's not a binding contract.
I would hope that we haven't got this far without every turn on this agreement. Standing here before us and sitting beside him as we negotiate has always said, this we're doing a good thing. This is going to be a good agreement. Now, he needs to make that recommendation verbally to council.
Councilor Donald, and then Mr. McKay.
Mr. Mayor, it seems to be unthinkable that a council would refuse to get a recommendation from their solicitor, and for you to say, for him to stand up and say, I endorse it.
That's not, I don't want that one word endorsement. I want a critical examination of the document with his conclusions. Good, better and different.
That's, and I don't see how in conscience, and doing your duty, your sworn duty, you can just turn your back on that and say, don't bother me with the law or the facts, my mind is made up.
Now, just don't, please, this is too important now. You said to, as, how compass or GPS and compass or interchangeable, they did exactly as we told them to, did I hear that correctly?
They adhered to the contract that we first signed. That's correct.
The, I don't agree with you. Okay.
Just a minute, do you, you don't not going to leave that hangout in the air?
No.
I have a letter here from GPMC on June the 20th, 2016, and it's, it deals with our request that Larry McCabe, he applies it to the board of the GPMC.
And they said, after careful consideration of our request, we unanimously elected some other person, not being John Gray's.
So, that was one position where the, the compass or GPMC didn't do exactly as we told them, they did the reverse.
And they explained that in these words.
They said, we thought it would be better to have a distinguished member of the town with the community service and so on.
And they said, so they wanted a community service member.
That's June the 20th, 2016.
I wrote a book on town council, and I'm reading from it.
And three years before that, in 2013, I said this.
In my view, the time has come when there should be a public representative on the board.
My reasons are for fold as follows.
And I, there's no point in reading the reasons.
All I'm saying is, they are wrapping themselves in that cloak of righteousness that they're going to appoint
a public member over their duty as our agent doing our business to take our recommendation.
I don't say that's doing as we asked them to.
The second thing is this.
I have a letter here to, from Faskin, Martinol, and it's written it when they were in the context of applying for a status as a not-for-profit corporation.
And I don't have the first page, so I haven't got the date.
The letter appears to be written by Barbara Miller, and it says this.
It goes on about the membership and the governance and so on.
And it says, all excess revenue over expenditures is transferred by GPMC to the town of guidance at the end of every year.
Well, I don't, as far as my understanding, that's not true.
That money stays in the capital reserve fund there.
Now, the next thing is, on the back page, it says, that a copy of this is going forward to roll-in, how roll-in, how a GPMC.
So roll-in got that information.
I don't know whether it was ever corrected or not.
But then the next thing that happened was, we cut back to five acres and set of 15 acres.
And we asked GPMC, will you join with us in this?
And this is the outfit that you say, so conscientiously, has always done our back and call.
On July the 10th, 2015, they said this.
This is in response to all requests.
Will you join in the five acre development?
Any participation by GPMC in a revised port expansion plan would be conditional upon its members approving such revised plan?
They're telling us right, plain English, we're refusing your instruction.
We're going to take our instructions from the people that are the port users.
The next thing is this in the annual report of May the 20th, 2015.
They report to us as follows.
The fee schedule would remain the same in 2014.
That's the very last thing and then the word questions.
Well, that was not right.
Because then we got in the 2015 budget notes, we got this note from them.
A 6.1 reduction in existing user fees was put in place.
So A, it's contrary to what they said themselves.
And B, it's contrary to the contract, which says they cannot all for the fees without the prior consent of the ton of guidance.
So that's another place where they didn't comply with our instructions.
And they have more of them.
But in any event, the point is as simple as that.
If you look at the huge disadvantages, perpetual, no power to do anything positive,
only a veto power.
And the users have control of the hardware during the currency of the agreement.
Those are huge concessions to make.
And you want to make them without getting a written opinion from the solicitor as to whether we're doing the right thing or not.
Mistake.
Let me say this too.
There are three possible things we could do here tonight.
One, we could say the contract is fine.
Two, we could give instructions to say certain things will fend us generally it's right.
The third thing we could do would be to do nothing.
And doing nothing is better than signing that contract because if you sign that contract.
Contract, you place, compass, and a bulletproof building. You've sealed off the cracks. They're living there now. Why do you think they've negotiated for five years? Why did they do that? Because they're not sure that they've got a valid contract now. And that's another thing that when you negotiate from a position of weakness, they're like, oh, we can't do that.
You do a quorum negotiation. And that's why I said, and I really think this is true, that we should get an independent litigators opinionist to the validity of the contract.
And see what he says. I'm not talking about this contract. I'm talking about the existing. So I say, our solicitor gives us an opinion on this document that we're looking at tonight.
But we should get a litigators opinion, as to whether or not that original OMM is any good. Those are my points. Thank you for hearing me.
Thank you. Mr. McCabe, and then we'll ask a few questions or council has questions and I've got a couple of comments.
I'm not sure you're asking me back. So from this evening, don't answer that right now. So I'm not sure so I can give you my opinion.
I think you're going down a road that council is not only suggesting you don't want to go. You have negotiated in good faith and they have, in my opinion, a contract.
We've done everything you have told us within the context of whatever.
I'm not asking whether that and the solicitor can tell you. If the solicitor walked in here and I'm putting words to his mouth and said, here's a agreement here.
And so I recommend you go into it. You look at him and say, what? You just tell us whether this is a legal document.
And he can do that. He can go through some of the things that council are done. And he can tell you that this is a legal document.
And by the way, I don't know how he's going to tell you what pitfalls are. We know what they are. They got a multiple vote at points times a certain things.
They got this. That's negotiations. We've done our best job negotiating this agreement right now.
And I'm not going to, I've prepared to answer everyone of the council or down these things that he just mentioned, plus what he has before.
I won't do it because you're going down a road of litigation.
And I'm not going to put an argument forward because if anybody has anything at all they're watching this video,
and they're making notes. And I'm not going to argue against him in open session on some of the points he made.
You have the best agreement in my opinion that you could negotiate at this point in time.
It's sort of like you got a house and somebody wants to fix it. And I would now argue that in your well protected.
The solicitor can go back to his office. You can come back and you try to put that. I don't know how he does that. I really don't.
And if he walks in here the next meeting and doesn't satisfy some of the things that just been mentioned now and he can't.
And if you do nothing, council don't these wrong.
If you do nothing because our opinion is the 2012 agreement is invalid. If you do nothing, it's valid.
I don't know where you're going with all this. Good luck. If you invite me back, that's part of my contract. I'll come back.
But I think it's wrong the way you're going. You're talking about the legal fees you want to see from a base steep lawyer.
There between $6 and $800 an hour. That's what they are. If that's where you want to go, go do it.
But you're going to end up back in this making the same decision to make tonight. Good luck for council to do it.
It's an excellent agreement as far as I can certainly. It was like, don't go shaded the way you directed us to do it.
Council just ask anyone else, but go ahead. I'll make a comment.
Well, this interim and terror argument, about a $6, $800 an hour, a base street lawyer.
Who does he think? Who does my cave think we're paying or we're dealing with now?
Faskin, Martyn O. And where's that money coming from? It's coming from Tana Gauder's money.
And they won't even tell us how much they ignored our request.
The... the McCabe statement just now that he made reminds me of this.
The one parent looks to the other parents and says, well, these kids aren't much but their hours.
That's McCabe saying this contract he's negotiated.
I've told you the things that are wrong with it.
And there's such important things. Go on forever. No positive power.
No. Okay. I guess my last comments was that we have been through this and I can't remember the specific date.
I think it was in May. We went through it as a council.
Line by line. Word by word. And we made the changes. We were comfortable.
We had four or five outstanding issues and asked and it was unanimous at that meeting that we were okay.
Make those changes. And we were okay and you sent us back to the negotiating table.
And that's exactly what we did and we brought forward what we said we would.
It is semantics as far as I'm concerned whether it's when I was appointed, how I was appointed to the board three or four years ago.
Yes, they, and in the original contract they had, I've read that they had the right to reduce it if they could, but the hammer is here.
We have the levers of power through the budgets.
So even if they came back next week wanting to reduce.
No, because we have the power. It's all the levers are with us. We own the budget.
So I agree with with Mr. McCabe. We probably could argue point by point. I don't think we should.
There's no way that this agreement would be in front of us if our solicitor didn't recommend to staff and myself.
And those on on a table that it was a good agreement and that we need to bring it now to council.
He said that to us absolutely has.
And he hasn't said it tonight. He's prepared to do it. He's prepared to do it. We haven't got to the final conclusion.
And doing nothing from my perspective as as as as a mayor we lose the opportunity for south harbour we lose the opportunity for north harbour, snowg harbour, all the things that we've progressed in a positive manner moving forward.
It's council's decision.
I'm sure that Mr. Stewart would not be here if he felt that this was not a good agreement.
But I will ask him if he feels that it goes back to my risk assessment on what are we losing?
What are we gaining?
Is this a legal document?
And we've had lots of lawyers hammer away at it.
So.
You refresh my memory as to what our procedural byloss as about the mayor engaging in the debate and having someone else take the chair.
Is that my recollection or is that just fantasy?
Make a comment that I would be commenting on this.
If you object to my comments then we'll go to the procedural byloss.
I didn't hear the last part.
If you object to my comments and want to make an issue of it, we'll go to the procedural byloss.
I'll ask for it to be read it.
I wondered if you knew because I don't.
Samanix again.
You just vacate the chair.
Somebody goes in and you say what you want to say anyways.
It's all the same.
I've seen it for many years.
And it's all of you.
The same or there wouldn't be that provision on the byloss.
We continue to go in circles here.
My question for Greg is.
Do you feel that this is going to be a binding document moving forward?
Does it have the terminology in there stating that this contract replaces all previous contracts and makes this a firm document moving forward?
Do we have a strong termination agreement in this agreement?
Those are the questions I've asked you as a lawyer.
Yes.
It does have a strong termination agreement, which wasn't in the earlier agreement.
There's a definite provision that if there's a default by either a party, the other party,
and terminate the agreement.
The way the earlier agreement was it had.
You went spinning into mediation and a bunch of stuff.
With how many days notice?
Or is it a mediate?
I believe it's 30.
What was the first question, sir?
Is there clauses in this document stating that this replaces all previous documents and this is a firm document moving forward?
Yes.
And it is a binding agreement.
Thank you.
Have we voted on the motion?
No.
You were supposed to say one other point.
I noticed in our last discussion, since there have been numerous changes that come.
There's been a real effort.
And I think you've seen it to try to work with the town.
And I saw that in the last negotiations with the new individuals.
And I see it a positive thing going forward.
I just want to make that comment.
Yes.
I want, if I could, if you would indulge me counsel, I'd ask our CEO to talk about that renewed relationship.
And I will also ask the director of operations.
The impact that the community has had for the infrastructure through these contracts.
If I could ask the CEO to talk about the renewed relationship with not only GPMC, but with compass minerals.
Thank you.
Your worship through you.
I had received a phone call back in November from compass minerals staff that were really wanting to ensure that this council and staff understood new that they were in a position where they wanted to reach out and demonstrate that they want to be a good corporate partnership with the town.
Most recently, this past Saturday.
And they had in that discussion back in November.
They indicated that I would be receiving an email with respect to an engagement of a communications firm, Abernathima Greger, that would be working with compass minerals to collect information and to have conversations to establish communication with community members,
and getting important feedback from people and how they're doing.
Are they doing well in the areas where we need to improve on and how we can best build upon our existing working relationships.
To me, a lot of the discussions that we have had, even with our meeting that we had back in October.
There seems to be obviously with the appointments of the new COO CEO.
Is that there is a huge commitment on their part to ensure that they engage partnerships with the town through compass minerals and GPMC.
And I think that we just wanted to ensure that the council are aware that they have reached out to us on several locations to do that.
I also got that same letter.
But I got it from two different people.
I got it from Wayne McConnell and from a lady that I don't know who she was.
And also, we have to recognize that this senior management team has been intimate in this whole process over the last four or five years.
I'm new to the process.
But they have been there day in and day out with meetings, whether it's in Toronto, whether it's here.
And our director of operations has been at the table through all discussions as the rest of the senior management team,
from the Treasurer to the now clerk, Andrea.
I'd like to ask Chip to have a little overview of of the positive things.
Maybe I shouldn't say I find them positive of what has happened with this agreement over the last,
because he's been here a long time.
He's been here longer than the agreement.
Well, I think a lot of it has been reiterated several times here this evening on the positive.
And obviously I looked from the infrastructure part of it.
And what has been done since 1999, and as Larry already commented in his letter,
that they committed to doing $29 million.
And that was right in schedule what was known as Schedule 6 back in 1999, and they did fulfill it.
And moving forward, the harbor, we regarded it as a gem.
And John commented this past year at the top hat ceremony.
The captain, the command, said exactly that.
It's a pleasure to come to the garbage harbor.
He said, when I leave here, I'm going down the St. Clair down the Detroit River,
and then back up through the Rouge River, and he said literally back up because there is no turning basin.
And for his vessel, to back up five kilometers to the John load, the salt is huge.
But he said, you come into a nicely protected harbor here, that has a great infrastructure, and it has a pleasure.
And it's up and the upkeep of it. As well as what we've already talked about, North Harbor Road, saving going to the tax dollars for a half a million, what will be coming in 2023 for North Harbor Road.
2.5 million is huge contribution from GPMC. And when the water levels subside and also they're looking at probably about 2025, three-quarters of a million that they're willing to contribute back to snugg harbor.
So, through the negotiations, and especially with having some new people at the table, there is definitely a will to make a men's with even with their staff down there.
They want to reach out and with their workers and they have a different mindset that may be previous administration from head-off as a compass.
But through the negotiations, it has been long, but I think where we're at now is a very productive and successful negotiation.
And I only see the same thing. Positive, obviously there's always going to be something that somebody isn't going to agree with, but on the big term and the big picture, I think it's all positive.
You know, the treasurer plays a significant role not only on the treasurer's side of these agreements, but also I found through the negotiations and through the long conversations about the agreement.
She has been a stickler for detail. Far beyond what I thought was a reasonable fact.
So, she can talk about how in depth that this committee and the slesterer went into making sure that this was a good contract viable and legal.
I don't know if you have any comments, Madam Treasurer.
Firstly, I guess thank you for the compliment.
Because when I view a contract, I do like to go through every paragraph.
And I too see a lot of positives in this contract in comparison with the previous. You're certainly getting more money into the waterfront reserve budget to do the projects that you're going to develop through your strategies and your strategic plan.
The CPI. It does. The mayor's correct. It probably over the 20-month term. Well, no probably. If I calculated it, it's 5.2 million increase in revenue compared to if the just related to the compass mineral part of the fees.
That's going to come in just due to the CPI. If you compare where we are at right now at your 1.5 million and CPI as further contract starting in 2024, there's 5.2 million dollars more coming in.
And as to to go back a little bit to Deputy Mayor Murdoch's question about the risks around limiting that 1.5% CPI increase.
I guess as you look out over the schedule that's in the document, that schedule accounts for the cash on hand. It accounts for the revenues in.
It accounts for the operating expenses. It shows the planned capital expenditures over the next 20 years and accounts for the cash on hand at the end. So they are comfortable using the assumptions. Certainly it's all assumptions based.
That revenue will cover the projects that they think they want to do, including the incremental costs of contributing to the town projects of the two roads and stock harbor.
There's always given take in an negotiation, but as for the risk regarding the inflationary increase, I think the management plan
provides some comfort in that they feel those fees are going to cover it. Now if down the road some big project comes along, there's a mechanism in place where that project can be brought forward by the users.
Discuss the GPM board level and then brought to the town and then the town can determine whether they think that is a benefit in their view as well.
I think it's a work together agreement. The users, their needs are certainly addressed. Nobody I don't think is disputing that.
They are having a large amount of input into the projects that are brought forward in the plan, but really does that not make sense in that they are the ones that use the port.
It's in their best interest to provide a management and maintenance plan that is going to maintain that port to continue to be the gem that we want it to be.
Okay, Councillor Donnelly had a comment and then Councillor Hoy.
Simply this we're talking about all the money they're going to pay on the CPI. Let us remind ourselves that from 1999 onward up till today there hasn't been a change in the rates.
And according to their proposal there wouldn't be any change in the CPI and for the next four years to 2024.
Well, if you had a tenant at your house at the same rent for 24 years, surely it's time we spit off a little CPI.
I don't see you getting any great credit for that.
There's all part of the negotiations.
Councillor Hoy.
Okay, so we're in open council. We've asked our solicitor whether this is a strong contract and yes it is.
We've asked our solicitor whether there's a strong termination agreement in there and yes there is.
Greg, would you recommend as our town solicitor that we sign this contract?
Based on my instructions and what I was asked to we were asked to go and negotiate.
I can recommend it as something you could sign.
Again, so I'm going to state that one more time so it's clear for everyone.
We gave you instructions of what we wanted you to do.
You follow those instructions and you are now saying that you are recommending as our town solicitor that this is a strong document.
And we should sign this document based upon our instructions to you.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Okay.
We're just waiting for councilor Murdoch to reappear.
Did you want to repeat that question?
Yes.
Thank you, Councillor.
For clarification purposes, I asked our solicitor is.
I was asked if I would recommend this as an agreement and I indicated that based on the negotiations based on what my instructions were.
Based on what we were instructed to go and attempt to get an agreement.
I can recommend it as a good agreement to sign.
I think that's.
Okay.
Anyone else?
Okay.
We have a motion on the table.
Right now that we'll have that we have to.
See to what is the motion.
Almost almost lost it there.
The motion was to do.
Just said.
No.
I just did it true.
That's true.
I know.
No.
Just put the motion.
Please speak the motion.
Move by councilor Don Lee seconded by councilor Hoy.
That the councilor be instructed to provide an analysis and recommendation on the proposed operating management and maintenance agreement for the port of Godritch between GPMC and the town.
Okay.
So that was the motion.
So then we have to.
We'll vote on that.
And then we'll go on from there.
Provided that passes.
There's been a recorded vote.
Asked.
Okay.
Everyone.
I understand the question.
Councilor Don Lee.
Sorry.
Colleen on councilor Don Lee.
Yeah.
Councilor Hoy.
I look like a cook now, but nay.
Deputy Mayor Murdock.
Nay.
Councilor Tammy.
Nay.
Councilor Thompson.
Mayor Grace.
Nay.
Mayor.
Mayor Grace.
Nay.
It's defeated.
Five to one.
Okay.
That is defeated.
Now we'll go on to.
If someone wants to make a motion, we'll bring a buy law forward.
Is that.
We have the the buy law.
Council's wishes.
We can bring the buy law forward.
Right now to deal with it.
With the agreements.
And.
We'll take a vote.
Well.
Yep.
You can make a motion.
Okay.
In the motion number.
I think is 2015.
I think it's.
Oh.
All right.
15 of.
20.
Sorry.
That would come forward.
Secondly.
Deputy Mayor Murdock.
Recorded vote.
If I could ask for a.
Recorded vote.
No no on the served reading.
Okay.
Okay. We'll do the first reading. Councilor Murdoch. I mean Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Move for first read. Yes.
Seconded by. Councilor Tammy. All in favor.
Carried. Second. Deputy Mayor.
Yeah. Sure. By line number 15 of 2020 being a bylaw to authorize an operating management
and maintenance agreement for the port of Godarch between Godarch's port management corporation
GPMC and the corporation of the town of Godarch.
Take it and spread it first time. Seconded by. Councilor Tammy. All in favor. Carried.
Move for second reading. Seconded by.
All in favor. Carried. By line number 15 of 2020 being a bylaw to authorize an
operating management and maintenance agreement for the port of Godarch between
Godarch's port management corporation GPMC and the corporation of the town of Godarch.
Take it and spread it second time. Seconded by. Seconded by. Councilor Hoy.
Questions. This is really silly, but what was bylaw 14?
We just read that as bylaw 15.
There's another one coming in in closed that is bylaw 14 coming forward.
It's already been assigned. Thank you. Okay.
Questions? No questions?
You're. You're a bylaw 15 of 2020 being given a third and final reading.
Mayor and clerk here by authorize an instructed sign same.
Place the corporate sealer on to. And I've asked for a recorder vote.
Councilor Donnelly.
Councillor Hoy. Yeah.
Deputy Mayor Murdock. Yeah.
Councillor Tammy. Yeah.
Councillor Thompson. Yeah. Mayor Grace.
Yeah. That's carried on five years one day.
Okay.
If I I know it's late we're going to take a five minute recess and we need to go into closed for personal matters.
If I could ask the clerk to read out why we're going into closed.
Thank you. Your worship. Council is going to go into personal matters to deal with.
Sorry to deal with personal matters under section 239 to B D F I and K.
And I ask at this time that the senior management team that would include the clerk,
the director of operations and the treasurer in myself to be present during that discussion with Council.
Thank you.
So, I have a motion coming out of closed. There is some personal matters that were addressed by council. And I have a motion here. I need to move on a second or first.
Second. Second. Second. Second. By councilor Tammy? Can you read the motion? Thank you.
That gotoch town council approve the revised job description and pay bans for the director of operation position as well as the director of, sorry, the deputy, sorry.
So, the deputy clerk, a health and safety and emergency preparedness coordinator for the corporation of the town of gotoch.
The updated pay ban for the director of operation will be set up pay ban 3, pay ban 3 is consistent with the treasures position.
And the deputy clerk's position will be at pay ban 7, which is consistent with the current deputy clerk's administrative assistant to the CAO and clerk planning coordinator rule.
These bans will be set and they will become part of the town's non-union salary grid and a subject to the terms of the full time employees of the town of gotoch.
All in favor. Carry.
Yes, we need a mover and seconder for the first reading the bylaw 14.
So moved. All in favor. Carry.
By law number 14 of 2020 being a bylaw to appoint a deputy clerk, health and safety and emergency, sorry.
Emergency preparedness coordinator for the corporation of the town of gotoch.
The appointment will be for a, sorry, excuse me, Michaela, Johnston, Schneiderberg.
And she will be fulfilling that role immediately as effective January 13, 2020.
Taking this ready for the first time.
Move for second reader.
Seconded by councilor Thomson.
Sorry, violent number 14 of 2020 being a bylaw to appoint a deputy clerk, health and safety and emergency preparedness coordinator for the corporation of the town of gotoch.
Take it as ready for second time.
Seconded by councilor Tammy.
Any questions on the bylaw?
All in favor.
No questions on the bylaw?
All in favor.
Carry.
I would move that bylaw 14 of 2020 be given a third and final reading the mayor and the clerk being our hereby authorised and instructed to sign the same place the corporate sealer on to.
Seconded by councilor Tammy.
All in favor. Carry.
Okay, we'll have confirming bylaw.
So moved by councilor Donley.
And councilor Tammy, seconded by councilor Donley.
Carry.
A German.
So moved.
Councilor Thomson.
Seconded by.
Seconded by councilor Donley.
All in favor.
Carry.
Thank you council.
Good night.
Okay.
Thank you.