Test, test, test,
test? It'll like
to call the meeting to order this January 13th, 2020, the first meeting of this new calendar year. And before we get started, as we lowered the flag of town hall last week, because of the disaster in Turan.
Again, I would like to ask if we could have a moment's silence for those Canadians who died and for the others that perished in the disaster aircraft in Iran, a moment of silence, please.
Disclosure of curie interest, council, any disclosures, councilor Donnelly.
Okay. Thank you very much. We'll pass a motion down to you. Thank you.
Adoption of the minutes and the approval of the agenda. Adoption of the minutes first.
Can I have someone move the adoption of the minutes?
Councillor Hoye, seconded by Councillor
Thompson.
The adoption of the minutes of December 16th, regular council meetings, as printed.
Any comments? No comments? All in favor?
Carried.
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 a by-law number one of 2020 that is in today's council package.
Being a by-law to set various fees for the corporation, the town of Gotterch.
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 a council memo from Jason Dijkstra
chief building official and 10.22, which is from our treasure, Deanna Hastie.
The notice of the public meeting was advertised on the town website on December the 20th, 2019,
and on the town Facebook page on January the 3rd, 2020, as per by on number 29 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 before seeing none?
one, anyone wanting to speak against the by-law, number one, anyone wanting to speak against
the by-law. For the third and final time, anyone wanting to speak against the by-law.
Hearing none,
okay, we will bring the by-law forward at the time during the by-laws later in
We'll
go to deputations 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 preamble a bit while we're waiting for that to get
loaded up.
The, 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 center for the broader market area.
As such, it identifies the downtown core as an 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 at two as the base and sometimes you end up with more units over time through an application process.
Yes.
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 the, 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 and 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 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 a 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 Senkos drive and here on road. The property owner owns two adjacent properties. And they're looking at bringing them both into the group commercial development to allow a bit more flexibility moving forward. The plaza, which contains the NW and used to contain the
Crabby Joe's, now his car quest 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 owned the old salt 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 grouped commercial, to permit additional commercial units and to permit retail units
would be, 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 the council has, but at this point we are recommending that a by-law 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 Goddard.
This is essentially the first step in the planning process for this project.
effect 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 Goddard,
then I doubt that we would see an application for a planning, for a official plan amendment
and rezoning because I could not pass the test in the official plan.
But if this moves forward, then I expect that we would see an OPA in his own and for
the property in the future coming to council.
Yes, Victor.
I'm just wondering, is it totally restricted to just retail, the study?
They will 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 in Goddard right now.
That would restrict the amount of, say, food service locations and where they can be in the town.
So the only test is, do we have sufficient retail need?
Would 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. Councilor, have you got any questions?
Councilor Hoi.
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 upfront and then the overage would be paid on an ongoing basis.
Any other questions? If not, thank you, Vector. 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. There, through you to
I'm Susan Carrieden, I'm the BIA manager, and with me I'm proud to introduce Elizabeth
Vandenbrock, who sits as the BIA board chair.
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 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.
And 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 its 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,
Brendan Sorby of Surfset, 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 seen as a package of the whole.
Our horse and wagon, as Susan mentioned, will be back.
Instead of a snowflake hunt, we're doing a candy land theme hunt, so lollipops really
working this year to try and engage the businesses so that we have people on the sidewalks and
going in and out of the store.
So our focus as our BIA 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 winter fest in the actual park space.
So Brendan will be providing snow skates, 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 line.
But you will not see the ice-slide, 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,
These were considering buying a few packaged activities that if a business said I would
like to host 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.
Councillor, have you got any questions?
No questions from Councillor, I thank you very much and we look forward to the event.
Okay.
Do we need anything from this point?
All right.
I don't think so.
I think we're all set.
Is that everybody's clear?
Everyone's clear.
Susan.
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 could come forward.
Thank
you very much. Thanks for having me again here this evening.
So our Environmental Action Committee met last week to discuss further the recommendation
of a climate emergency in the town of Waterwich.
And our committee would strongly recommend that we join the more than 400 other Canadian municipalities that have declared an 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 it would be the second municipality 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 Goddrich.
And this move would tell people, especially as a Great Lakes 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 and Goddard right now.
And we're the ones feeling the effects of climate change here on Lake Huron.
and 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 the specific details
of what types of commitments that we would be making
as a community.
Thank you, Erin.
People deal with that and then there's a motion
after that, okay.
Right.
I have to bring the motion from the partners of climate protection up first because it
was tabled at the last meeting and I believe that is 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 it if we
could.
Hold on. Could I have someone from Council make a motion to raise that from the table?
Councillor Donnelly. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Murdoch. Any questions? If not, we'll all
in favour of raising it from the table. Carried. Now we'll speak to the motion from F.C.M.
a little you know 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 parts of an initiative that
FCM has taken on countrywide and I believe there's over 400 communities involved in that now
between yourself and maybe our CAO we can explain what that means and how does that breakdown
community by community. Go ahead, Erin.
Yes, so declaring a climate emergency sounds like a big strong step and I'm sure all
of you are thinking about the specifics, you know, 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
That's 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 shoreline community.
Okay.
Thank you.
Also, I guess there are a couple other initiatives that sort of couple with this.
And it's a little bit of a side thing, is the green marine, and it's unfortunate that
Roland Howe 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
flip print going forward in the future but 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 the position you hold and how you fit into this.
I'm Jessica Fiery. I'm the Asad Management Environmental Coordinator with the town fresh from mater off from maternity leave. So just catching up on things I've missed over the last year. But I would just add with the 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, a climate change plan, all these initiatives, so 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 grand opportunities as well.
from go ahead Deputy Mayor Murdo yes and I'd like to add too 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 or working on the baseline on the
counties behalf. And I think it's very good for us in order to start looking at our decision-making
process with a variety of lenses, one of which should be the environment and how we can
best protect it and steward it for the future.
Council, any questions? Councilor Donnelly.
Not a question, Mr. Mayor. Just a 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? Okay. We have a motion or we bring forward the motion
It's on the floor.
Do we have to move it and second it again?
If I can have someone move it.
So moved by Deputy Mayor Murdoch, seconded by Councillor Tamming.
Any further questions on the motion before us and that's partners for climate protection
from FCM?
All in favour?
Carried.
Thank you very much.
Now the declaration, we will bring that one forward.
We've already we have a mover and seconder and if you could read the read the motion.
Thank you very much.
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 Tamming.
The Goddard Town Council continue to support actions to safeguard against the current and potential
consequences of the global climate crisis and will set policy goals provide appropriate
to address these goals and mobilize our community to implement these goals once a climate protection program is coordinated between the town of Goddarch and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the ICLEI local governments for sustainability in 2020-2021.
Be it further resolved that based on a five-mile stone framework from the FCM and the ICLEI, the town staff complete a GHG, 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 further resolved 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 further resolved that town staff is directed to promote inter-departmental 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 great
lakes, water levels, flooding, erosion, and storm damage.
Be it further resolved that Goddrich's 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, the Goddurch's 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 resolve the Goddard's Town Council request our provincial and federal governments,
all governments and people around the world to initiate an immediate social and economic
mobilization to reverse anthropogenic climate change and ecological destruction by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to meet target 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, Ben Lobb, MP here on Bruce, Lisa Thompson, MPP for here on Bruce, Environment
and Climate Change Canada, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation Parks, the County
of Huron, and the mainland Valley Conservation Authority.
So red, questions of council.
So this is for the declaration emergency for climate change,
any questions?
No questions?
All in favour?
Carried.
Okay.
Mayor's 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're able to move on it very progressively and
and aggressively.
I have been down in numerous times to see where we're at and how we're doing.
the staff are doing a marvellous 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 councillors remarks,
Deputy Mayor.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Just some information, some of you probably are already aware of it.
But the hearing 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 ours 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 their public health requirements are being taken care of by the respective counties still.
It's just that it's rather a joint or a consolidation of efforts.
Thank you for the update.
Anyone else have a comment?
Okay, we'll move on to financial reports, accounts.
If I could have it moved and seconded by Councillor Thompson.
That the accounts for the period ending December 30th, 2019 in the amount of 2,829,704
and seven cents be approved for payment,
already moved in second, all in favor.
Carried.
Departmental reports.
Can I have someone, so move?
Councillor Haye, Councillor Tamming seconds it, that the department reports that be received, as stated.
Any questions? Deputy Mayor Murdo.
Just a comment with regards to the building report, which is a 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?
Carried.
A correspondence received and copied 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 name again and your rank, 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 Ontario Provincial Police.
I'm currently assigned as the interim detachment commander as a Fierrent County since September.
I'm also the detachment commander in Perth County as well, Perth County detachment commander.
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, sir, is as it evolves into a new model, what does it
like for the community of garbage 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
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, 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 up for questions.
Yeah, through you, your worship.
Having a centralized location, I've worked in various attachments throughout my career,
and I will try to make this brief because I've been known to go over my time at computations
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 attachment command perspective to have all
your resources in one place and then deployed from that location.
Over the last several years under Commissioner Hawks, he pushed quite aggressively to bring the OPP up to its current standards as far as pushing technology.
All our cruisers now have mobile work stations, we know where they are, they're all tied in through GPS network technology to provincial comm center.
We currently have, and it's for the last several years, had closest to the call, which basically it's cut down.
is for two reasons public safety improve response time, where we know where our officers are, so any officer even say they're from South Bruce are traveling through the area,
will 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 on aimlessly, writing out tickets and you got all these tickets, that was a measure of good response.
Certainly, that's changed, like municipalities, the OPP has budgets to address, and all these things, and it 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 certainly is a challenge all the time because of the other calls, some of our you know
calls where we see that currently there are priorities around areas of mental health and addiction
issues and they do occupy a lot of police and emergency services time.
So, as well, looking forward to establish, as well, working with the municipality, 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 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 some things.
and key points that you'd 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 of 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 contractor,
we want to talk about the options we had available
in the pros and cons or do you want to save 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.
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 reflected with boots on the ground?
No, through you, your worship.
Realistically, you should not see that the public should really not see that much of an impact
to 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, the burden and the cost
associated with those things would be, you know, to have in multiple places, wouldn't
be cost effective.
But 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, you're commonly
accustomed to now, but it also gives you the ability, the municipality ability to apply
for grants and various other crime prevention options through the government, should they
become available.
Well, when you add 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 Goddard's 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 finger princess.
To 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 assistants have
done all the court work because of the technology that our officer has available to us now.
The civilian data entry, the dictated into the cell phone that provided every shift.
That goes into our data base, it gets dictated and transcribed.
And now officers are sending e-briefs to the court and we just started that within the last several months here.
So that whole role of an enhanced position when you look at an administrative assistant has changed.
So if you looked at what you've been used to here.
You should see very little impact, except for the fact that when people have to do, you know, their background checks or various things, they need to go down, they would have to go to Clinton in this case.
When you talk, when you speak to, I have to see a police officer right now and run into that office. There's a chance there may not be right now or in for the last several years of police officer in that building because they're on calls for service in and around Goddrich.
So it still remains the 1-800 number to contact our communication center in London.
So in London itself, our communication center is going through a whole new revamped upgrade in that technology as well.
So that should then translate into better service for all communities that we serve.
So when you look at 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 a 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 direct link to council and ultimately
the community with the detachment commander and that's something that's moving forward
you can you would 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
if I have entering into a contract perhaps.
But again, those are municipal decisions
that are at the under the purview of council and mayor.
The biggest concern we have is service, 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 council, it's important to the community.
And Councillor Tammi.
Just so that we're for the viewing 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
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'd still have.
So, even if we had the enhancement with our 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, with the sergeant, he's deployed an administrative assistant, isn't.
So, a sergeant, 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 tour of duty.
That's correct.
If we didn't have that sergeant, it would still not impact the feet that are on the ground in 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
This attached commanders are waste of resources and when you look at the size of God rich and I've worked in many municipalities
Just big and a little biter. I can assure you officers will be here and
And we'll try to again improve on that that service one of the things we have and I just got approval for as we do
We are responsible for the security in the courts
which already have two officers that will be in town every day, there's a court.
And we've also, we've just 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, when needed, and vice versa.
No, that's definitely a bonus for us.
Deputy Mayor has a question.
Sure, Mr. Mayor.
It would seem to me that from a frequency standpoint, we probably would have more officers
involved with the mental health and addiction side of it.
And then to a lost year degree and certainly becoming even more diminishing courthouse security
and courthouse appearances on behalf of the police.
So what you're really saying then is from the mental health
and addictions because we're a scheduled one hospital,
which is uncommon for perhaps a community
or size, you'll still be able to assist in that regard.
I guess that's a proper way.
Is that the case?
Yes, three-year worship. Absolutely. Just on that note alone, the fact that officers have to attend here in court regularly, that's officers coming to town, and the fact that for the mental health aspect at the hospital, this is where officers in here in County bring those that require 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 from counselor. He likes to ask. I have lots of questions always
so um
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, I've, through the last acting detachment commander and
something that I've established in Perth, is we actually have a community safety unit.
That, that integrates our media officer, our community service officer,
our mobilization officer and our school officer.
And that's something that we're moving forward
with the Tri-Stream Line.
Actually bridge gaps within that.
I'm a big proponent of officers in the schools,
school proso- officers.
I recognize something like Jamie Stanley's
been an integral part of this community.
I'm only had to provide support
and further some of those things as well.
So these are things that I've 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 God rich 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 in a really as is otherwise. So thank you very much, and I appreciate it. Thank you
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 bylaw 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 of the contact the town police services board will continue to meet with the detachment commander and municipal and provincial representatives of the mayor and the CAO.
That would be the recommendation that we're asking Council to approve tonight, but 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?
Okay,
so moved by Deputy Mayor Murdoch, seconded by Councillor Tamming. Any other questions
in regards to this motion? So come back in a by-law for your consideration in two weeks.
All in favour? Carried. Thank you, Council.
We could ask, yeah, heads on his way.
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 we 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?
No, I have a question, just a comment, I guess.
And that is in regards to 9-7 in Hemsana, 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 allowing that.
Anything else? If not, all in favor.
Carry.
Correspondence received and recommended action noted.
Move by.
Aye, 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 10.22,
seeing and hearing no comments or hands.
Last chance, council.
Okay, approved. All in favor?
Okay,
we're going to go back into 10.10 as that will require a separate motion for
sign authority for our new CAO. I figured that we should let her have some sign authority.
So if I can have someone move that it's a memo from our treasurer dated January 2nd regarding
in sign authority of the CAO, so moved by Councillor Tamin,
seconded by Deputy Mayor Murdoff.
Fairly straightforward, all in favor.
Carried.
Now we'll go on to
resolutions from other municipalities.
None.
Twelve.
Unfinished business.
12.1 is cottage memorial arena still outstanding 12.2 harbor 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
I've seen that maybe if staff could bring back a recommendation and a motion for 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 next council.
I think we moved it to the strategic planning session.
Yeah, and 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 can all with it.
I think that's the right way to go.
and 12.4 is,
yeah, and that will all come in close session,
12.5.
We've dealt with
13, five laws and agreements,
and if Councillor Donnelly.
Mr. Mayor, before we leave 12.4, request to God Report Management Corporation to disclose
to the town the amount paid by GPMC since March 24, 2015 to the solicitors for negotiating
the revised OMM contract pending a waiting response from GPMC.
Why is that necessarily enclosed?
It doesn't have to be that person but will be in the open portion 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.
that we have not received that documentation.
What I'd be right in suggesting this, that that request was made about the 6th of December
and it remains outstanding.
Has there been any response of any kind?
No response.
You know, I write in suggesting this that our own clerk or in our treasurer, 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 that 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 imperil any negotiations that were in progress.
But I feel a 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 have acknowledged the request.
Tell me, why is it necessary once a 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 closed 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 give 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 counsel.
I want to make this point abundantly clear.
I will not be muzzled by some allegation that I sat back and let this develop under a bedsheet
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. Donnelly, 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 close session then.
Let's get on with it.
Okay, thank you.
We are at by-laws and by-law 2 of 2020.
Where am I?
Got me off course.
Okay.
By-laws 1, by-laws 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
If you could.
I won't even read it.
You can move it all.
Thank you. Let me go back a 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 the first time.
Seconded by Councilor Tim. All in favor? Carried.
Bylaw 1 of 2020 being a bylaw to set various fees for the corporations in the town of
Goddurch and to repeal bylaw number 111 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 Huron County Health Unit to the lower
Bylaw 2 of 2020 being a bylaw to adopt the County of Huron 2020 Annual Accessibility Plan, the purpose of this bylaws to adopt the County of Huron's 2020 Annual Accessibility Plan as the Town of Goddard is part of the Huron County Accessibility Advisory Committee and is required on the Accessibility for Ontarians and Disabilities Act to prepare and publish an annual Accessibility Plan.
Bylaw 3 of 2020 being a bylaw to authorize the mayor in clerk to execute and affix the
corporate seal to a contractual agreement for a retail market study in the town of
Goddurch 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 precondition
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 by law 4 of 2020 being a
by-law to provide for interim tax levies for the year 2020 for the corporation
the town of Gotterge. The purpose of this by-law is to issue interim tax
levies and to establish the 2020 due dates for taxes by law 5 of 2020 being a
by-law to strike uncollectable, realty, commercial, industrial and BIA taxes
from the tax role for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019.
The purpose of this by-laws to remove uncollectable, realty commercial industrial and BIA taxes from the role for 2017, 2018, and 2019, due to assessment changes.
By-laws six of 2020 being a by-law of the corporation, the town of Goddard's authorizing the borrowing of money to meet current expenditures of the Council of the town of Goddard's.
The purpose of this viola is to allow the municipality to borrow $4.1 million if required
for the payment of various expenses until the taxes and other revenues are collected.
By last 7 of 2020, being a viola of the Corporation of the Town of Goddard to authorizing the municipality,
to utilize the direct electronic funds transfer service offered by a BIMO bank of Montreal.
The purpose of this viola is to allow the town of Goddard to continue to transfer monies
electronically through the bank of Montreal.
Bylaw 8 of 2020, being a bylaw to appoint a plumbing and on-site septic services inspector
for the town of Goddurch, the purpose of this bylaw is to appoint Larry Fulton as a plumbing
and on-site services inspector for the town of Goddurch.
Bylaw 9 of 2020, being a bylaw to authorize the widening of part of Bennett Street, the purpose
of this bylaw is to dedicate and use land as a highway that was acquired through registration
to widen Bennett Street, and that involves Dagnie and Richard Haas.
Biola 10 of 2020, being a Biola to authorize the widening of part of Benet Street, the purpose
of this Biola is to dedicate and use land as a highway that was required through registration
to widen Benet Street under the name Robert Kevin McElwain.
Biola 11 of 2020, being a Biola to repeal Biola 81 of 2019, and to confirm the various
appointment of Laisons, committees and boards for the corporations town of Goddard.
The purpose of this by-law is to update various changes to certain committees and boards.
By-law 12 of 2020 being a by-law respecting construction, demolition, change of use, and inspection,
and to repeal by-law number 25 of 2007 and by-law 42 of 2010.
The purpose of this by-law is to update the building by-law to include plumbing and septic services.
By-law 13 of 20 being a by-law to establish a policy for non-union management employees
with regards to time off and lieu, and to repeal bylaw 15 of 2013.
The purpose of this bylaw is to implement a new time off and lieu policy.
Taking us right a first, I seconded by Councillor Donnelly, all in favor.
Gary, I would move that bylaws 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 of 2020.
be read a second time. Seconded by Councillor Gondley. All in favor, carry.
Bylaw 1 of 2020 being a bylaw to set various fees for the Corporation of the Town of
Goddurch and to repeal bylaw 111 of 2019. Bylaw 2 of 20 being a bylaw to adopt the
county of Huron 2020 annual accessibility plan by law 3 of 2020.
The last six of 2020 being a by-law of the Corporation of the Town of Goddard to authorizing the borrowing of money to meet current expenditures of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Goddard. By-law's 7 of 2020 being a by-law of the Corporation of the Town of Goddard to authorizing the municipality to utilize the direct electronic funds transfer service offered by BMO Bank Montreal. By-law 8 of 2020 being a by-law to appoint a plumbing and on-site septic services inspector for the Town of Goddard. By-law 9 of 2020 being a by-law to authorize the widening of part of benign.
by law 10 of 2020 being a by-law to authorize the widening of part of Bennett Street.
By-law 11 of 2020 being a by-law to repeal by-law 81 of 2019 and to confirm the very
appointment of Laisons, committees and boards for the Corporation of the Town of Goddard.
By-law 12 of 2020 being a by-law respecting construction, demolition, change of use, and inspection
and to repeal by-law number 25 of 2007, and by-law 42 of 2010, by-law 13 of 2020 being a by-law to establish a policy for non-union management employees with regards to time off in lieu, and to repeal by-law 15 of 2013.
13?
Thank you, Mr. Vice.
Second time.
Second to buy.
Councilor Thompson.
All in favour?
Carried.
Questions?
Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
With regards to Baylau No. 5 that are referring to or relating to
Uncollectable Accounts.
From what I can see it looks like there's $111,000 of uncollectable accounts, is that correct?
That's just not the municipal portion.
She's got the county as well, and the school board's municipal portion on that is $45,000.
So then my next question would be because we budget tax
rate to collect that entire revenue,
So have we built into it then a loss factor or an uncollectable factor, and how does that compare to the amount set aside for the budget?
In the budget, we had 70,000 for write-offs as an expense, so we budget the entire tax revenue, and then we do have an allocation of 70,000 for write-ups that occur during the year.
We try and estimate, but it's very different.
So that would be below the norm that 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 thought the public should be aware that.
It fluctuates based on what requests for reconsideration come forward from property owners and any write-offs demolitions.
It really fluctuates here to year.
Thank you.
Any other questions on the bylaws before we have the final.
My question was for the garage to 13.8.
And it was the bylaw to appoint a plumbing and on-site septic services inspector for the town of Goddard.
My understanding was we were doing this in conjunction with another municipality, I think
it was Ashburn, Colbert, and Marlonneau.
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'll dance to the question.
Through your worship, we had actually had discussions previously with ACW to enter into
an agreement with first 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 2020 be given a third and final reading.
And the Mayor and the clerk be in our hereby authorized and instructed to sign the same and place the corporate seal there unto.
Seconded by Councillor Lonely.
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 can ask the CEO to make a comment on it.
Thank you, Your Worship. Through you, we've received a request.
This property for 121 Huckins and 141 Huckins was previously owned by Rob Cerencensche.
It was under a numbered company of 225915 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 are looking at
there's an extension requirement with the MTO for September the 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, 2020 date.
And this is the property that is owned by Rona, so it's all in the same two separate parcels, but owned by the principles of Rona.
I'm very strong on Huckins Street, corner of Huckins and Bayfield Road.
Can I have a mover?
Listen?
Oh, we have a mover in a second.
Through you, Your Worship.
It's been moved by Councillor Hoye and seconded by Councillor Tamming that Council approve
a Mending Site Plan agreement, 55 of 2010 between the town of Gotterch and 225915 Ontario Inc.
and 2-6-3-1-2-7-9 Ontario ink 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
in a future council meeting.
Okay.
Any questions?
No questions?
All in favor?
Carry.
We'll do a new in 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 Goddurch Police Services Board meet at 11 a.m. in the galt room.
January the 14th of BIA will meet at 6 p.m. in the medicine tongue room.
January 15th, mid here in landfill site board meet at 3 p.m. in the medicine tongue room.
January the 15th and mid here in recycling center board will meet at 3.30 p.m. in the medicine tongue room.
January 23rd, Community Economic Development Committee meet at 8 a.m. in the Medicine
Tung Room.
And our next council meeting is scheduled for January the 27th at 4.30 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 in open and we would move into
those discussions.
I'll ask Greg Stewart, our solicitor for comment.
Yes, through you, Your Worship, there likely isn't what you've got as a product that we have
brought back for council's consideration 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 instructions to go back for matters of the negotiation.
sometimes you want those in close because you don't particularly want the
person you're negotiating with 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 in open for these
discussions. And I think to lead it off, if I could ask Larry McCabe, I'll ask Larry
McCabe to come up and start the discussions and give us a little bit of a history of GPMC
And then we're going to start into a full discussion where we need to be and where 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 the even-go-shading group did.
I thought, and purposely, I thought that it might be a little better if you lead off.
He's going to talk about the negotiation stages.
That's fine.
If you would, at two o'clock this afternoon, I did.
Okay.
Just one second, Councillor Galley.
Mr. Mayor, the background of this is I think on seven occasions and I can give you the
dates if anybody wants them. I have them here. 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 A, B, C, 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.
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 orally is like writing something on the wind.
If somebody's going to come in here and say I've written a letter with 12 points in
it, there should be a letter come back dealing with those 12 points so that the people can
and 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,
and nobody remembers what it was tomorrow morning.
And my own view is this,
that the other thing too is,
this format, if it's going to be useful,
what I suggested was,
I think there'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 diminution of our rights, is there something we're losing
and B, are there areas of risk this could be interpreted this way and 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, 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 of very difficult sledding.
And the other thing, just as an ordinary matter of courtesy,
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. McCabe, and then we would ask our solicitor to chronologically bring this forward through the negotiations. Not all of us have been here. I've missed 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. McCabe, if you could please address counsel at this time.
Well, Mr. McCabe's going to read from a document.
What's wrong with instructing him to file with us 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 farce this afternoon, but I will hand it out.
And there should be sufficient copies for council members.
Maybe it was.
It did on the weekend, 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
of history of the ports 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 the context of where
the ports come from in the last X number of years, starting in about 1985.
And the period of 1985 to 1989 was a period of which the port was one of 300 local regional ports,
and it was owned by the federal government under the Transport Canada jurisdiction.
The federal government received all the revenues from these ports in the form of dockage and
warfage and per ton fee on shipping as determined by Transport Canada.
The company of the day that paid most of those warfages was Dom Tarr and Dom Tarr always
felt and later siftled that they paid too high fees to them and that's part of a factor
later on how we got to some of this.
The costs incurred by Transport Canada, for the research, was approximately 20 million.
I'm referring to, to give you an idea of the types of dollars that have been spent overall.
Dom-Tar indicated and negotiated with Transport Canada back in the period of 1985 to 1989,
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
And did, I think the figure I heard was 20 million, we were not party of that.
That was the conservative government at the time that proceeded to put a seawater facility on the north side that exists.
That's where the infilling is occurring now.
Dom Tart 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 Compass 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 were two ways of getting rid of the ridge 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, and I think the deputy mayor was there, the mayor and staff,
where you attended a few weeks ago that made the Valley Conservation Authority and they showed a picture of that pipe that was from the
area north of Asifto right to the Colve. That's how the Colve was created.
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 Colve and the development at the Colve.
In 1995 to 1999 was also four years of discussions.
There was a National Marine Act that was presented by the Transport Canada.
It never passed, but Section 9 of that Act did change the protocol.
In other words, the Federal, to be vential, to municipal, to private was a normal protocol.
It's still followed by the province and the feds in many areas, but somehow Section 9 of that proposed legislation
change the situation.
That's where SIFTO of the day came in and thought or felt they could own the port
because they were a large revenue payer.
The town, on many, many occasions, met and that was sort of a lack of an agreement
or disagreement with between SIFTO and Canada for years.
And ultimately, there was a meeting, which I've mentioned before with the Federal
government looked at both SIFTO and the town and said the town will not own the port
and sift the one out on the port unless you have an agreement, and that was the basis of the, and also the announcement of those fees of sift though, and the users would be increased by 15% in November of 99% and 30% in the spring of the year 2000.
So that really brought the town and sift together.
The asking price, which was confidential at time, was $7.5 million, I believe it was.
We sat down with Sifto, staff, Roland Howell, El Hamilton, myself, previous mayor, Mayor Schufel,
Ken Hunter of the day, Commissioner of 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 ports.
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 was SIFTO to $650,000 based in there would be a $29 million
that's the program you've heard about from 1999 to the year 2017 or 18 or 19 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 the funds and the infrastructure build up in that regard.
And the agreement was arrived at by the two parties and approved by Transport representing
the Queen.
We all heard that quite often.
And SIFT will pay back the town on 12 monthly installments of $650,000 in the year 2000.
The sale was completed on November the 11th, 1999, and a $29 million infrastructure program
was put into place, which was included as I mentioned around 2018-19, which saw the completion of
that bridge as I had mentioned before. In 2012, and I believe this is the crux of the concerns
and the agreement that started and rightly so I think to a degree of Councillor Donnelly and others,
where we entered into a 2012 agreement perhaps predicated on a new operation managed
and agreement, it's agreement, and which time it was agreed that 16 million MTO money and bear in mind, it was the town staff and the council of the day that secured that money and our member of provincial parliament, Carol Mitchell, who was our member of 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, so they had the right to pull out of the 2012 agreement clearly, and we proceeded on, the municipality did with the poor corporation in completing $16 million worth of work, which is just completed this year, which is the final
five acres of infield land in the north, which was part of the original
seawater depth port.
So 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 seawater 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 8 months of exclusive use of the 20 acres.
What you have now, at least it's in my opinion, maybe it's only 5 acres, but you have 5 acres
that the town can determine what happens with that property.
The 5 acres would be leased along with other leases that you have, and that money would
go into the Waterfront Reserve Fund if Council sold the size 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 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, but the town will receive under the new agreement, the 2020 agreement, if it should be 2020 or whatever date.
I made additional $100,000 immediately to the waterfront reserve on top of the leases,
on top of the current money going in, which should be, and the treasure can better explain,
around $300,000 going in to the waterfront reserve annually with this $100,000 included in that figure.
The town received $500,000 representing reimbursement, and I think this is key.
I'm sure the Treasury Department loses a little sleep when I was your CAO.
So I was too, that we had to proceed and counsel made the right decision and proceeded on with the construction and reconstruction of South Harbour Road.
That had to be done, it was 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 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 dollars.
And Stug Harbor 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, the corporation being the town.
And the key is that there's no local tax dollars will be required other than a commitment for
the South Road 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 a key, 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
and the leases at that time would be expended from the port fees, and they were adamant about that.
But what you have in the 2020 agreement is something different.
You have projects that just mentioned South Harbour Road, North Harbour Road, which are
outside of the port lands are now being funded by the God's Port Management, Port Corporation,
and fees.
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
All that has been accomplished since 1985, pursuantly above details,
has been 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 to the individuals on behalf of the town to negotiate.
I can answer questions later, but I think there'll probably be a lot more set.
Thank you, Your Worship.
Thank you very much, Mr. McCabe.
Good seeing you again.
If I could 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 you, 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 22nd of 2019.
On that occasion, excuse me,
on that occasion we went through the agreement page by page,
we received instructions from counsel for a number of language changes.
There were 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 a 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 water 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 and a final end date in 2040.
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 at 2%, and they wanted
an agreement to have a term to 2040 with 10-year renewals after that. On August 13th, I 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 there after, and that's reflected in section 4.4.1 of the draft.
On October 17th of 2019 Council advises Council for GPMC, advised 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 OAMM 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
affecting 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, we can answer questions, we can engage in debate this evening.
I require your instructions as to how you wish to go forward with it.
We'll open it up for questions and discussions.
Council, have you got any questions of either the solicitor or Mr. McKay at this time?
Councilor Hoye.
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 it depends on what it is you're asking me.
Okay.
Say, for instance, the appointment of the two individuals,
how was it you arrived at two as opposed to three?
How did that assess?
Good discussion.
Go.
The cap of the CPI of the one and a half.
Where did that come from?
Yeah.
Those are fair questions.
Okay.
The three, 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 ask for three, but we can live with two if we get these other things.
We got these other things, so what we have come back with is two based on those instructions.
The 1.5 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
has gone and with the cost of living that 1.5 percent as a cap is something they could live with.
That's how that developed.
Okay.
Okay. Other Councillors? Councillor Ten.
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 agreement. But if it's
at 1, they would pay 1. But if it's at 3. They would pay 1.5. So just. No, that's a very
for a question, and then
I could go down to 1 percent. So there's always your 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 feeling with 1.5, that's how it came about.
Mr. McCabe.
If you go back to the original agreement, you've 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 all those projects.
It was just felt based as Greg said on the economy.
having a 1.5 in would be the sensible thing to do with regards to saying, well, there's no lid on it.
I mean, we could have argued 2% more, but if North Hyber Road is 2.5 million, fine.
If it's 3 million, the poor corporations are going to pay anyways.
It's just a matter of how you lay out the projects and the timing of the money coming in.
So that was the reasoning we thought 1.5 was fair.
Correct, taking in the other projects in this deal is very important.
Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Yeah, just a couple of questions.
One is I'm wondering about the one
the legal fees relating to the solicitors and whether
or not that payment is forthcoming on our behalf, I'm thinking in respect to our solicitor.
because my understanding also is that GPMC paid the solicitor fees on behalf of the
other users of the board and so I'm wondering whether or not that would be is
that come under this in any regard. Secondly, there's going to be an increase in fees to my
understanding the way I read it, max of 1.5 percent, is that true? In any given year,
it doesn't have to be. But then the question would be, that's to cover the operating expenses
of the corporation. The excess of the fees would then go into an operating reserve fund from
from what I understand, is that correct?
I'll 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 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 to some other area,
but 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 read in there that the fees for war figures, etc., you know, docking, whatever else would be limited, could be changed in a year, but max at 1.5% based upon.
On a CPI commencing in the fourth year, yes, in the fourth year.
But there's nothing saying that Scottish Port Management Corporation, when they meet,
If they agree, they can change any of the programs, ultimately any of the programs would have to be approved by this council in the form of a 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 20 acres or whatever.
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 five acres created, which 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 leasing fees of the five acres of land would go directly to the town.
Is that correct?
Yes, and I'll comment more.
You have at least now that it's paid $35,000 per acre
on the former can egg, which is now owned by Compass,
the blue away in the tornado, but they're still paying $35,000.
That goes into your waterfront reserve.
You're paying $16,500 is being received on the parish
and hind becker because you own dock nine chip dock five,
whatever you want to call it, dock five for you own that.
So you have money there, you have money coming from Dominique that's going into that reserve.
Okay, and I, yeah, goody goody.
All that money's coming in.
My thing is, my thing is, I would like to think that the port generates income for the town and not specifically identified to the waterfront and to the harbor necessarily.
So when I read under eight four here, payments to the town in the last line of A41 that not so transferred shall 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?
So let's start making an estimate.
I don't think you can take the funds other than agreed upon projects outside of the waterfront area.
That's always been clear since day one, and it's clear in this agreement.
You get your money into your waterfront reserve fund, which you determine how you spend it within the waterfront.
and then the leases come into there on top of that,
and those private projects are determined.
But they're, we've never agreed in agreement
that they could take port user funds
and spend it under downtown core or someplace else.
That's, I'm not saying gonna not gonna happen,
but it was never, never agreed upon
in any way, shape or form.
We'll have the solicitor look it up, if you would,
and it's one of those agreements,
he read it, it jumps around, but here.
Thank you very much.
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,
that 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 in 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, my understanding is that we're going to be able to get some federal money through GPMC in order to do that in Herbert Dolphin, which is probably going to be five or six hundred thousand.
So, you know, we gave up here. We got over here.
It's all in the art of negotiations.
Comments.
Councillor Hoye.
Would you like a five minute recess?
Well, we'll carry on.
Anyone else have any comments?
Councillor Hoye.
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 slopes or anything that's through waterfront related.
Okay, so to say that GPMC is paying for our legal fees is a little misleading in that, that's our money already.
The money that's getting be 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 snub and the North Harbour.
Start with snub, and as an example, that the town was adamant in 1999 that snub
harbor would not be part of the harbor for reasons that we won't go in.
It would not be part of the port that would not be the responsibility of the GPMC.
We are now saying that is, that's another big plus.
With 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 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 can go wherever we want it to go.
Oh, so the revenue that comes off the five acres does not have to go to reserve.
That can go to any project that we identify.
Well, it's our money.
Yes, anything out of the user fees that are paid technically would not have to go in your
water from reserve.
I don't know if you want to start getting into that sure decision whether you want to start
I guess you could, but really it's, it was always intended to be derived for the waterfront and for that purpose.
Okay. Anyone else?
Councillor Gauley.
I think that we're following the wrong procedure here.
The solicitor comes and he says, I'm here for instructions,
feels qualified now to instruct him.
I don't think any of us do.
But what we should be doing is the solicitor should come and say I went 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.
And let me just use this example.
Suppose you go out of a geese and buy a Cadillac tonight and bring it home and put it in the garage
and they go 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 Menorals 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. That's the first big picture thing 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 they 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 composing 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 plant 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 vetoes or hurt yourself to say, don't put
it in a new breakwater.
Don't remediate the shoreline.
Don't fix the harbor hill.
All you can do is say, don't.
There's not one positive thing that the town of Goddard can do alone.
The power is with the users of the harbor, and it's there forever.
Now, am I wrong in that slister?
The town does have vetoes within the course of the agreement, that's correct.
But Mr. Tom, what can I say?
No, don't get fancy with me.
We want to get this thing done.
And when you say the town has that veto power,
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 put into this agreement, those are the instructions I'm looking for
them. What positive things are we talking about?
Well, Mr. Celester, 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-blind opinion that you didn't think you could win the case
But you've never told this council what your recommendation is
You're our Celester we looked you for some help
Counselor I spent the better part of three hours here one even in giving an analysis of the contract line by line page by page
And give it to us in writing, if that's excuse, if not just I'll say here, 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 can answer the questions.
What I have indicated is that I am here for instructions.
If your instructions are that you want me to come back with a page by page written analysis,
I will do so.
If your 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 and counsel.
I was sent on May 22nd with specific instructions.
We went and carried out those instructions.
We're back to report on, Mr. Solicitor, would you agree with me, I don't know if you agree
with me 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 ahead and answer my question.
Do you think that would be a benefit to council?
It likely would.
Councilor, the ones that can tell me whether it's a benefit to them or not, I think.
Oh, but no, but 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 haven't read it.
They're relying on what impressions are being made or created by what you say.
And we would benefit from your analysis of the contract to say, this is beneficial, this is risky, this is detrimental, and that would be helpful.
If I'm not disagreeing with you, if that's what council wants, the document is put before council.
It's given them to review.
I mean, one of the things that we've always been told is, you know, 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 too far
down here but I will open it up for discussion and I will make a comment myself if I could.
I thought this was done all the way along but I will open it up to anyone on council that
wants to reflect on some of these decisions in which this council has made over the last
year or so.
If you've got a point,
yes, Mr. Mayor.
I, to
hear what the solicitor has to say regarding, I do believe I, in terms of my understanding
of contracts, I'm sure he's much better at it than I, and it would be worthwhile for him
too.
Item, aye, so sayings that may be of concern from his standpoint. Okay, I will ask this 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.
years was 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 Harbor Hill, North Harbor Hill,
Snown Harbor, 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.
You got to 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 U.S. Council 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 CAO 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 very effective and we can go
rate back today, one, if you want, and see what $29 million 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
want to be arm's 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 ask them, okay, let's open up the agreement.
They said, okay, we'll open up the agreement, and from then on, it just costs 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 a pretty good deal, and guess what, we didn't pay for it, the users paid for it.
We were charged $650,000, sift will pay into $650,000 for us.
Not one tax dollar went in to purchase things at the heart.
And we've got, and I can, I can quote captains that have come in in the last year that have said.
Godwrench 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, and
infrastructure rebuilt. Our CAO at the time spoke about 3P 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've got to feel positive about it. We've got
to feel positive about the last agreement and we've 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 that 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 time to put pen to paper.
I think that you, boy, 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 a 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.
Well, Mr. Schlisser, 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.
I agree.
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, bad, or indifferent.
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, how, compass or GPMC
and compass, they're 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.
Well, I don't agree with you.
OK.
Just a minute, you don't know I can leave that hang on the hair
in the air.
No.
I have a letter here from GPMC on June the 20th, 2016.
And it deals with our request that Larry McCabe be appointed 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 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
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
there's no point of me 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 ask them to. The second thing is this. I have a letter here to
from Faskin-Martinow, and it's written it when they were in the context of applying for
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
was 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 Goddard
at the end of every year.
Well, 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 Roland Howe, Roland Howe, GPMC, so Roland 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 instead of 15 acres.
And we asked GPMC, well, you joined 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 our request, 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 and 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 alter the fees without the prior consent
of the town of Gotteridge. So that's another place where they didn't comply with our
instructions. And I think I got more here if I can find them. But in any event, the point
What is as simple as this, 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 harbor 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, that 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...
You place compass in 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. When you negotiate from a position of weakness, they say, oh, we can't win. You do a poor negotiation.
And that's why I said, and I really think this is true, that we should get an independent
litigators' opinion as to the litigators' 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 OAMM 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 if council has questions and I've got a couple
comments.
I'm not sure you're asking me back.
Aside from this evening, don't answer that right now.
So I'm not sure yet.
So I can give you my opinion.
I think you're going down a road that Councillor Donnelly is 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.
Asking whether that, and the solicitor can tell you, if the solicitor walked in here and
I'm putting words in his mouth and said, here's a agreement here and said, I recommend
you go into it.
You'd 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 Councillor Donnelly's 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've got a multiple vote at points, times, and certain things.
They've 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 Councillor Donnelly's 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 them 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 wouldn't argue against that and you're well protected.
The solicitor can go back to his office, he 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 have just been mentioned now and he can't.
And if you do nothing, counsel down 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 to the legal fees you want to see from a Bay Steat lawyer.
They're between $6,800 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 you can make tonight.
Good luck for Council to do it.
It's an excellent agreement as far as I can turn.
It was like negotiate the way you directed us to do it.
Councillor, I just ask anyone else, but go ahead, Councillor, then I'll make a comment.
Well, this inter-rom and terror argument about a $600 or $800 an hour, Bay Street lawyer.
Who does he think, who does McCabe think we're paying or we're dealing with now?
Fask and Martin O. And where's that money coming from?
It's coming from town of Godwin's money and they won't even tell us how much they ignored our request
the
the macape set that macape 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 they're ours
That's macape saying this contract. He's negotiated
I have told you the things that are wrong with it, and there are such important things.
Go on forever, no positive power, none.
Okay.
I guess my last comment 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, lying by lying, word by word.
work. 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 this back to the negotiating table and that's exactly what we did and
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, and in the original contract, I've read that they had the right to reduce it if they could, but the hammer is here.
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 Mr. McCabe. We probably could argue point by point. I don't
I 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 the 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.
Yeah, he's prepared to do it. We haven't got to the final conclusion. And doing nothing from
From my perspective, as a mayor, we lose the opportunity for South Harbour, we lose the
opportunity for North Harbour, snug 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, you know, if he feels that and it goes back to my, you know, 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.
Well, you refresh my memory as to what our procedural by-laws says 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 by-law.
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
by-law.
I'll ask for it to be read it.
I wondered if you knew because I don't.
But, uh,
Maddox, again, you just vacate the chair, somebody goes in, 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 by-law.
So
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'm asking 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 party, the other party
can 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 immediate?
I believe it's 30.
And what was the first question, Sorry?
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.
Okay.
Have we voted on the motion?
You're welcome.
I just want to say one other point is that I noticed in our last discussion since there have been numerous changes
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 a positive thing going forward.
I just want to make that comment.
Yes. I want, if I could, if you would indulge me, Council, I've asked our CAO 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
some compass minerals staff that were really wanting to ensure that this council and staff
understood and knew that they were in a position where they wanted to reach out and demonstrate
that they want to be a good corporate partners 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,
Abernathy McGregor, that would be working with compass minerals to collect information,
and to have conversations to establish communication with community members,
new business, 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 they engage partnerships with
the town through campus minerals and GPMC and I think that we just wanted to ensure
that councilor where they have reached out to us on several occasions 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, if 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 but I'd like to ask Chip to have a little
overview of the positive things maybe I shouldn't say I find them positive
what has happened with this agreement over the last is 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 positives 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 as a gem and John commented this past year at a top
hat ceremony the captain the command said exactly that it's a pleasure to
come to the Godreach 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 base and for his vessel to back
up five kilometers to the Tom Lode, the salt is huge. But he said you come into a nicely
protected harbor here that has great infrastructure, and it has a plant.
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 20, 25, three quarters of a million that they're willing to
contribution back to snug harbor.
So through the negotiations and especially with having some new people at the table, there
is definitely a will to make amends with even with their staff down there.
They want to reach out and with their workers and they have a different mindset that maybe
previous administration had 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, from it 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 solicitor 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 Fund to do the projects that you're
going to develop through your strategies
and your strategic plan.
The CPI, it does.
Because 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 per the contract
starting in 2024, there's $5.2 million more coming in and as 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're 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 town projects of the two roads and snook harbor.
There's always given take and an negotiation, sure.
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. Councilor Donnelly had a comment and then Councillor Hoye.
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 for the
next four years to 2024. Well, if you had attended your house at the same rent for 24
years, surely it's time he's sped up a little CPI. I don't see you getting any great credit
for that.
It was all part of the negotiations.
Councillor Hoye.
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 followed 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.
Yes.
Thank you.
Okay.
We're just waiting for Councillor Murdoch to reappear.
Thank
you, Councillor, for
clarification purposes. I asked our solicitor. Is on.
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.
Okay. I think that's it.
I'm going to have a motion on the table right now that we have to see to what is the
motion? Almost lost it there.
The motion was to do it and just said no no no I understand it true that's true
I know and
you're pleased to speak the motion
Move by a Councillor Donnelly seconded by Councillor Hoye
That the town solicitor be instructed to provide an analysis and
Recommendation on the proposed operating management and maintenance agreement for the port of Goddard's 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 understand the question?
Sorry.
Calling on Councillor Donnelly.
Yay.
Councillor Roy.
I look like a cook now, but nay.
Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Nay.
Councillor Tamming.
Nay.
Councillor Thompson?
Mayor Grace.
Nay.
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 by-law forward.
Is that what we have the by-laws?
It's council's wishes we can bring the by-law forward
right now to deal with it with the agreements.
And we'll take a vote.
Yeah, we can make a motion.
Okay, and the motion number I think is 2015.
All right, 15 of 2020.
Sorry, that that would come forward.
Seconded by.
second. Deputy Mayor Murdoch. Recorded vote,
if I could ask for a record of vote.
No, no, on the third reading. Okay. Okay. We'll do the first reading. Councillor
Murdoch. I mean, Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Move for first reading. Yes.
Seconded by Councillor
second. Deputy Mayor.
By line number 15 of 2020 being a by-law to authorize an operating management and maintenance
agreement for the port of Goddurch between Goddurch Port Management Corporation, GPMC and
the Corporation of the town of Goddurch.
Seconded by, Councilor Tammy. All in favor? Carried. Move for second reading. Seconded by, all in favor. Carried.
Byelun number 15 of 2020, being a by-law to authorize an operating management and maintenance agreement for the port of Goddurch between Goddurch Park Management Corporation, GPMC, and the Corporation of the town of Goddurch.
Seconded by. Seconded by Councillor Hoye. Questions?
This is really silly, but what was
bylaw 14? We just read that as bylaw 15.
There's another one coming in closed that
is bylaw 14 coming forward. It's already been assigned. Thank you.
Okay. Okay. Okay. Questions? No questions?
You're a question.
I would then move that by law 15 of 2020, be given a third and final reading.
Mayor and clerk hereby authorize and instructed signs same.
Place the corporate seal later on too.
And I've asked for a recorded vote.
Record a vote called. Councillor Donnelly.
Nate.
Councillor Hoye.
Yeah.
Deputy Mayor Murdoch.
Yeah.
Councillor Tamming.
Yeah.
Councillor Thompson.
Yeah.
Mayor Grace.
Yeah.
That's carried on five yeas, one nay.
Okay.
If I know it's late, we're going to take a five minute recess and we need to go into close
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 239-2-B,
D-F-I-N-K, and I ask at this time that the senior management team that would include the clerk, the director of operations, and
to the treasurer and myself to be present during that discussion with council.
Thank you five minute recess.
So I have a motion coming out of closed. There was some personal matters that were addressed by council. And I have a motion here. I need to move on a second or first of all. I would move that. Second, second, by Councillor Tammy. Can you read the motion? Thank you. The Goddard's Town Council approved the revised job description and pay bans for the director of operation position as well as the director of, or sorry, the deputy.
Sorry, so the deputy clerk, a health and safety and emergency preparedness coordinator
for the Corporation of the Town of Goddard.
The updated pay ban for the director of operation will be set up pay ban three.
Pay ban three is consistent with the treasure's position, and the deputy clerk's position
will be at pay ban seven, which is consistent with the current deputy clerk's administrative
assistance 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 Gotterge.
All in favor.
Carrie.
We need a mover and seconder for the first reading of the by-law, 14.
So moved.
All in favor.
Carrie.
Byline number 14 of 2020 being a by-law to appoint a deputy clerk, health and safety and emergency
per- sorry, emergency preparedness coordinator for the corporation, the town of Goddard.
The appointment will be for a- excuse me, Michaela, Johnston Schneiderberg and she will be fulfilling
that role immediately as effective January the 13th, 2020.
Seconded by Councillor Thompson.
Sorry.
By the number 14 of 2020 being a by-law to appoint a deputy clerk, health and safety and emergency
preparedness coordinator for the corporation of the town of Gauderge.
Take it as a second time.
Seconded by.
Seconded by Councillor Tammi.
Any questions on the by-law?
I'm sure it's at all in favor.
No questions on the by-law? All in favor, carried.
I would move that by-law 14 of 2020, be given a third and final reading, the mayor and
the clerk being here by authorized and instructed to sign the same place the corporate seal
are on to. Seconded by, Councillor Tammie. All in favor,
carried.
Okay, we'll have confirming by-law.
So moved by, Councillor Donnelly.
and Councillor Tamini seconds it all in favor.
Carried. A German.
Councillor Thompson.
Seconded by.
Seconded by Councillor Donnelly.
All in favor.
Carried.
Thank you, Councillor.
Good night.
Okay.