[0:01] All right, everyone, welcome. I'd like to call the meeting to order for December 4th, and I know the time is now 10 a.m. I'd like to call upon I.t. to present O. Canada and the Land

[0:14] Ignolagement video. I'll ask everyone to stand for the scene of O. Canada, and then you may be seated for the Land

[0:18] Ignolagement.

[2:24] The municipality of Lake Shore is located on the traditional territory of the three fires confederacy, comprised of the Ojibwe, the Odawa, and the Padawatami

[2:34] people. And it's steeped in a deep and rich indigenous history. Today we acknowledge the people

[2:41] of these nations whose traditional territory we are meeting on, as well as our responsibility

[2:47] to continue the stewardship of the land with them. We also acknowledge all of the indigenous

[2:52] people who have called or continue to call this place home.

[3:03] Thank you. What a privilege it is to

[3:06] We do sit on both sides of the table today, so certainly when we move into our moment of reflection if we could all take a moment to think about what a privilege it is to work in service both administratively and on the council side a lot of work goes in today's like today behind the scenes where every department is is working feverishly to get to have the budget prepared in a way that presents for the public, that presents for members of council to make tough decisions.

[3:33] also at a time when our community is in a difficult spot, so it's brilliant to see that we've done that, we've had the budget before us for quite some time now, so as we reflect, I just want to reflect on the privilege it is to sit on both sides of the table and do this kind of work. So please join me in reflection.

[4:09] Thank you.

[4:11] Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest on today's agenda?

[4:16] Seeing none, should a member find themselves in conflict during the meeting, just bring it to my attention at that time.

[4:20] In the presentation of the 2026 draft budget, please note that the draft budget was presented

[4:26] for information only by the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer and Treasurer at the November

[4:31] 18, 2025 Council meeting.

[4:33] I'll call upon the clerk to provide a brief overview of the procedure prior to starting

[4:38] our deliberations.

[4:41] Thank you, Mayor Bailey.

[4:44] For Council is aware of this, but for members of the public who are watching today.

[4:48] This will be the first budget prepared under the strong mayor powers that were introduced

[4:56] under the Minnesota Act 2001, earlier this year.

[4:59] Mayor Bailey has tried to delegate as much of those powers as possible, however, strong

[5:05] mayor budgeting is not something that is able to be delegated.

[5:09] And so what Mayor Bailey did was provide direction to administration on how to prepare the budget,

[5:15] which has been presented today. In terms of what happens during this budget meeting, it will

[5:21] be mostly the same as regular budget meetings. Council is able to make resolutions to add or change

[5:29] or remove items from the budget. You will not do a adopting of the budget resolution at the end,

[5:38] although Council could do something like approve and principle or support the budget, anything like

[5:45] that. What will happen if there are no changes to the budget, it will just be adopted.

[5:51] If there are changes, the mayor will have a ten-day period after today's meeting to

[6:02] veto any resolution of council. Now that has to be done in writing and rationale has to

[6:09] added as to why the veto would take place. If that occurs, then Council will have 15 days to

[6:17] consider the veto, consider overriding the veto, and that must be done by a two-thirds vote.

[6:23] So I just want to provide that background to Council members of the public.

[6:29] The only other housekeeping item we just would like if you are bringing motions today,

[6:34] If you could include the budget number, which is consistent with both the budget app and the paper copy that comes lasting for you.

[6:44] Thank you.

[6:46] Thank you very much.

[6:47] I'll also note that we will pause for lunch at around 12.30 today and we will probably call for a break around 3 o'clock this afternoon.

[6:57] I'll call upon the CFO to present the 2026 draft budget for deliberation.

[7:02] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[7:05] If Council could turn to page 12 of your budget workbook, and that is the CAO administrative

[7:13] office, change request section will begin at heart, and will walk through the operating

[7:18] budget, then we'll move into the capital budget as we normally do.

[7:22] For our residents following along at home, that will be up on the screen for you.

[7:27] And as the clerk mentioned, if you could please reference the change request number that we're talking about

[7:36] during discussions, I will have that up on the screen for residents

[7:41] to know what council is discussing. So with that being said,

[7:47] you can start budget deliberations at the office of the CAO and I'll turn it over to council and

[7:52] and for questions.

[7:57] Councillor, sorry, Councillor Reston.

[7:59] I guess for me here, I'm going to start it off

[8:04] with a resolution I would like

[8:06] that we don't increase the expenses

[8:09] for the 2026 for conferences and that.

[8:13] I think it's important, Council goes to two,

[8:16] oh, item 2026-01.

[8:21] Council goes to two conferences a year

[8:24] and you've got to prioritize where we're at, we need, I think it's far more important

[8:29] to be in the office and working on all the stuff we've got going on here and taking

[8:34] Council's direction on what we've asked for, so I don't see the need to increase that.

[8:39] I think it's more important to be here and be strategic in the conferences we want to

[8:44] go to.

[8:44] So I'm moving out.

[8:45] We remove that.

[8:46] Thank you.

[8:47] So move, seconded by.

[8:50] Councillor Hoffman, comments, questions?

[8:52] Seeing none, we'll vote digitally for

[9:08] their comments, questions, resolutions,

[9:13] and the votes

[9:14] carried back to our CFO.

[9:19] Turn it over to Council if there are any other questions on the CAO admin section.

[9:23] If not, we can move on to page 15 of your budget books or for those following along at home.

[9:29] That is the Change Request section of Council Services, Budget Center, which we'll have on

[9:36] screen for you momentarily.

[9:50] We can move on if Council pleasure is to the—sorry, there are no change requests in committees

[10:00] of Council.

[10:01] So if there are no questions on that budget section, we can move fast that too, as well,

[10:06] if that's Council's pleasure.

[10:10] Please proceed.

[10:11] Okay.

[10:12] In that case, I would move to page 21 of your budget book.

[10:16] Oh, sorry.

[10:20] That is correct, it would be in there.

[10:26] And what is the proposed increase for council wages for this year?

[10:32] So council much like administration is set to get a COLA increase of 3.07% following our pay policies for council that equates to a budget center total, not each individual counselor.

[10:46] or of $10,527.

[10:50] Okay, thank you, Madam Mayor.

[10:52] I think we're in pretty tough economic times right now.

[10:55] I mean, we've unemployment rate in Windsor and Essex County

[11:01] and Windsor is the highest in the country.

[11:03] I believe it's almost 11%.

[11:05] So I think we should do our best to set an example.

[11:09] There's a lot of things in the budget that I think is

[11:12] are ongoing and will need to be addressed and need to be approved.

[11:15] but I think this is one where we could make a small change anyway with respect to it for that.

[11:22] So I'll make a motion that Council wage increase not

[11:29] approved for this year.

[11:33] Thank you, Simu. Seconded by?

[11:36] Councillor Vogler? Comments, questions? Seeing them, we'll vote digitally.

[12:13] And that's carried 8-0, back to our CFO.

[12:16] Thank you Madam Mayor. On page 21 is the change request for digital transformation and cloud

[12:24] services. And we have Mr. Martin here to answer any questions of any of the items in that section

[12:31] for Council. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Reston.

[12:36] So I look through this and a little bit frustrating

[12:40] for me with all this license and fees and upgrades to programming because we have spent

[12:46] a ton of money on computer software and updating how the municipality does their business.

[12:57] So I was looking the first two good, this the item number 2026-070 automation software.

[13:07] This, to me, looked like it's an expansion of services we have right now, and I would like

[13:18] to remove that expansion at this time.

[13:21] I think it's important we work with it with it and what we have right now.

[13:25] We've seen very little growth in the municipality in the last year, and with everything else we

[13:32] got going on, I'd like to remove that item.

[13:34] Thank you. So moved. Seconded by you related

[13:44] to 2026 070 looking for a seconder.

[13:48] Councillor Hoffman comments questions. Councillor Kerr.

[13:54] Yeah I understand the need to to curb our spending but I think that I find that the direction

[14:01] that we're going in the ease of operation that I've seen over the last seven years.

[14:07] I just think that it's not time to stop progressing forward and so I'm not going to support the motion.

[14:19] Councillor Santorosa.

[14:21] Thank you, Madam Mayor, for you. Can I ask a question on how some of this might

[14:24] apply and some of the services that we're providing to residents? Because we've seen in a couple of

[14:31] instances, for example, the way that by-law captures complaints is one piece, the way that things are

[14:36] happening and building is another piece.

[14:38] How are we working on some of these workflows in a way that's serving the resident specifically

[14:42] to make sure that either staff have visibility over multiple issues.

[14:46] I just want to get a better sense as to how this is actually applied when we're thinking about

[14:51] resident service and what this means for a level of service.

[14:55] Thank you, Mayor Bailey.

[14:56] So, the particular.

[15:00] In particular, a line item in question is an item that was approved last year by Council to provide the municipality with a platform that helps it create automated workflows and interconnect a lot of disjointed systems. That investment has paid off in spades, noting Council Rustin's concern about increasing costs. The increase here is meant to account for the continued investment council has made.

[15:29] in technology platforms and continuing to ensure that we can interconnect those and automate

[15:35] as many business processes as possible.

[15:40] Noting the desire to remove the increase, what that would practically do is limit the

[15:52] use of said platform to a certain task limit as an example.

[15:56] So, this budget request is looking forward to once we are live on our new finance and tax

[16:07] and utility billing platform, which is anticipated for June of this upcoming year.

[16:12] This will give us the ceiling space to continue to do those automations.

[16:18] What we could do, and this is an option for Council, you could remove this from the budget

[16:25] this year.

[16:25] it would not have an immediate impact to our ability to operate the platform,

[16:30] nor any of the existing business processes we've automated.

[16:34] What I can do is come back to you mid-year with a subsequent request that would further

[16:41] constrain, let's say, the amount of additional automations that need to occur in the new

[16:48] platform once it's online. So we could probably come up with an efficiency here to reduce the impact.

[16:54] So I think for Council's consideration and Councillor Kerr, I appreciate the vote of confidence in the direction that we've gone from a technology perspective.

[17:05] I think you guys can reasonably remove this service without significant fear or apprehension about the service level that would be reduced.

[17:14] I think we can manage this and I will come back to you likely in a May or June time frame with an additional ask that will be in a little bit more more detail for your consideration.

[17:28] Thank you, Councilor McNamara.

[17:32] And my one question then is if we did defer that as you are in the implementation phase of, you know, both the ERP and the taxation side, would it not be better to have this ahead right now?

[17:43] so you can work on those interconnections, or do you want to get those systems rolled out first before you look at that?

[17:53] Good question. There's naturally benefit to knowing what I have.

[17:59] Having said that, I have faith in Council that as those needs arise, I can build what this municipality needs,

[18:09] knowing that with a strong business case, representing this to Council in six months' time,

[18:14] particularly that I can phase the costs at that point as well, I think I can still manage this.

[18:21] So, if I was very concerned about this service level adjustment right now, I would let you know,

[18:30] but I think with the confidence I have in this group, we can still build forward and accomplish what we need to accomplish

[18:36] and revisit this topic in six months' time.

[18:40] Councillor Laker.

[18:44] What is the spend if, because we're going into an election, what, what

[18:49] is the spend level on a lane dot council?

[18:54] To a clerk?

[18:58] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, depending

[19:00] on the timing of this request, it may be in a lane dot situation, so we would have to talk

[19:05] about that more before it came forward. Further? To the mover and the second here, could

[19:12] We then knowing that there's a possibility that this couldn't go board could we put a six months just defer it for six months

[19:19] And then give give them the money at that particular time when he feels that it's ready to go online

[19:26] To the mover

[19:29] I'll leave it where it's at now

[19:30] I don't think it's that would be that substantial at that point

[19:34] I don't see an issue with us as a council being able not to approve something of that not nature at that point

[19:38] So I'll leave my motion as this

[19:40] Thank you.

[19:42] Further comments, questions?

[19:44] Seeing them, we'll vote digitally.

[20:02] That's carried 7-1.

[20:03] One opposed, Councillor Kerr.

[20:06] Further on this budget center?

[20:09] Deputy Mayor.

[20:11] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[20:14] Item 074 on page 22.

[20:20] Microsoft Office 365 licensing.

[20:24] It seems like an awful lot.

[20:26] I mean, my experience is just at home, right, with Microsoft and everything else.

[20:29] And once you buy the contract or whatever, you have it for a number of years.

[20:33] So is this an annual, an annual thing?

[20:37] And if we already have it, but is it based on the number of users, is that why the increase

[20:44] or this seems a bit off to me, thinking through you, Mayor Bailey, to the Deputy Mayor?

[20:51] That is exactly how the service contracts with most software providers are at this point.

[21:00] Approximately, don't quote me on this, I'm going to guesstimate, let's say about 10 years ago.

[21:04] A lot of software manufacturers shifted from capital expenses where you receive a perpetual license entitlement.

[21:12] And then in some cases, you would pay additional ongoing support fees or maintenance fees to maintain certain software standards.

[21:20] They've all shifted to a more operating-based model approach where you are essentially buying

[21:26] an annual entitlement to use them and their license structure is on a per-seat basis.

[21:34] So as you expand or as a municipality or any line of business grows, you have a per-user

[21:39] per month cost.

[21:41] Now the municipality does an annual contract which helps it minimize any potential increases,

[21:48] cases, but as that contract opens annually, you are subject to any increases. Now, Microsoft

[21:54] for many years kept their increases at zero, and they have, and that's why in past budgets,

[22:00] you haven't seen this line item increase. They have this year passed an increase noted

[22:06] in the budget of 5%. That will impact the municipality in the new year as our contract naturally

[22:14] reopens and we have to reprecure those services from Microsoft.

[22:23] Unfortunately not paying that bill

[22:26] would we would lose our entitlement to the entire Microsoft suite of services.

[22:33] Yes, they have arguably a legal monopoly on this service.

[22:41] Thank you.

[22:43] Thank you.

[22:44] Thank you.

[22:44] Councillor Huffman.

[22:46] Through you, Mayor Bailey.

[22:48] So, a question for you, Mr. Merton.

[22:50] Regarding item 2026-111, AI platform, the $20,000 attached cost.

[22:59] I'm familiar with AI and what my question to you is, what type of training is this going

[23:05] to be funding for, are we going to be running co-pilot, and how many people is this going

[23:11] to be training and what divisions?

[23:15] Excellent question, Councillor Hoffman.

[23:18] AI is both a bit of a buzzword and something that's mildly terrifying.

[23:25] The truth in most workplaces at this point, and for most of us in our daily lives, in one way,

[23:34] shape or form we are interacting with it, some people more so than others, but what this

[23:39] is created is challenges for most organizations because what you have is essentially shadow IT.

[23:45] You essentially have employees consuming a service online, whether it's chat GPT or Gemini

[23:52] or any of the other services, and they're doing so without necessarily the safeguards

[23:58] and organizational policy and restrictions in place. AI has the potential to drastically

[24:06] increase employee productivity and help create significant efficiencies within any organization.

[24:13] It equally introduces terrifying risks, particularly if it's not governed.

[24:21] This change request will be our implementation of an AI policy.

[24:28] So what the municipality or at least what administration I would suspect council doesn't want

[24:33] is unfettered, uncontrolled, unapproved access to digital platforms.

[24:39] As an example, if you do not have a commercial agreement with one of these providers,

[24:44] the data that you put in, the conversations you put in,

[24:47] become subject to their training models, so they can learn often and they can do things

[24:52] with that data.

[24:54] If you have a commercial agreement with one of these providers, you can control how and

[24:59] when, if at all, they're allowed to use your data.

[25:03] So the municipality and administration earlier this year worked on a policy that would apply

[25:08] to administration's use of AI and what is appropriate use of AI.

[25:13] I'm not a big fan of policy without actual controls in place because I find them difficult

[25:20] to enforce and to monitor.

[25:23] This line item is essentially that commercial agreement.

[25:27] We would be choosing an AI essentially partner.

[25:30] We would sign a commercial agreement with them so that we can protect and govern the use

[25:36] of AI by administration.

[25:38] It would equally allow us to create custom-developed chat assistance that are one for administration but ideally to also on our website for residents in the future where it helps them have an additional line of interaction with the municipality.

[25:54] The benefit to the platform that we are currently in a proof of concept with because I wanted to ensure that what we were choosing was one cost effective and also deliver the value it promised

[26:06] is actually a site license.

[26:08] It would allow us to license every single employee

[26:11] of the municipality to benefit from services.

[26:14] You mentioned co-pilot, not to throw shade

[26:18] at an organization we do benefit from, Microsoft.

[26:22] It's significantly cost prohibitive,

[26:24] and I could never justify a business case

[26:26] to counsel or to residents to enable a co-pilot service

[26:31] for an organization of this size.

[26:32] That expenditure with Microsoft would be approximately $75,000 a year, and I can't

[26:40] and good con just recommend that.

[26:41] We found a service that we believe would be very, very well suited to this.

[26:46] They are targeting specifically public sector agencies in Canada, and they've got their

[26:53] equally partnering actually with Windsor Police as well, and we believe there'll be a really

[26:57] strong fit for us, and they do so at a very cost-effective mark.

[27:02] So, long answer, it benefits everyone and it will give us a lot of capabilities to use AI effectively and provide safeguards and controls to the municipality and its data.

[27:16] Further, through you Mayor Bailey, thank you for that explanation and that that's why the number actually intrigued me that it was so low.

[27:24] It was in fact, I'm not trying to upset the card here and spend more.

[27:29] but that's a great number, and I'm sure it's going to have to adjust, but thank you for the clarification.

[27:38] Thank you. I have a couple of other speakers. Is it on this?

[27:43] Actually, yes, 1-11.

[27:44] Perfect. Okay. Councillor Cooke.

[27:47] I just want to, I guess, share and put out the cautionary word that AI is not, like I have a love-hate relationship with AI.

[27:53] I think it's the most amazing thing I've ever hated.

[27:56] it. But I worry because I'll give everybody a test. Go to your favorite AI, Gordel, and

[28:04] ask it who the first mayor laid sure was, and watch your answer. And so I worry about

[28:08] our employees getting that very same information. And when you're talking about ready versus

[28:14] not ready, I love the security part. I'm all in. But as far as everybody gets a license

[28:19] to start using it, and we start answering residents' questions, I'm very, very, very gun shy

[28:24] of that?

[28:26] With that, I am in line, Councillor Kerr with your thoughts, because I think we are skipping

[28:32] the step, and maybe administratively we are not skipping it, but certainly at this table

[28:35] in terms of confidence, we are skipping it, because we have not yet seen the policies on

[28:41] cyber security and the policies that are related to AI, and so I am not confident that we have

[28:47] the right foundation bill to begin the implementation of moving forward with the connection to a service.

[28:52] So, I was going to look for a motion from members of Council to remove this line item.

[28:59] And so, Councilor Kerr, seconded by Councilor Rustin, further comments or questions,

[29:04] I see them, further comments or questions from members of Council.

[29:09] And comments, Mr. Martin?

[29:11] Thank you, Mayor Bailey.

[29:13] When I noted, and perhaps incorrectly, that this provides all employee entitlement

[29:20] or potential for resident interaction. That's not our initial intent.

[29:25] In fact, it won't be something we roll out. It's simply a platform capability.

[29:31] This is the intent of this pilot program is that we can safeguard and monitor the uses that we do have internally today.

[29:43] Those could be somebody using an AI service to help do a document review or something along

[29:50] those lines, and without a platform to monitor and safeguard, we may have instances of

[29:58] of GII.

[30:00] Or personally identifiable information or private information that may inadvertently be sent to a third party service. This would allow us to create safeguards where we specifically scan for and redact or control those data types. And we retain the ability to limit within the municipality and all of our use cases how we interact with the platform. I would also absolutely support not rolling

[30:29] this out until Council has had the opportunity to see the AI policy that is currently gone

[30:37] through the senior leadership team for where your consideration and input and deferred

[30:43] the rollout until we have that. That would be an option as well.

[30:48] Thank you so much, Councillor Reston.

[30:51] No, just to add to that a bit, I hear what you're saying with kind of monitor and what's

[30:57] in there, but that kind of falls back on our employees with all due respect. I don't think

[31:03] big brother needs to, the babysitter, regardless of, they need to know what they, what's confidential

[31:11] or that or what's not. So to me, that would be more of a personal thing. So I just want to add that

[31:19] in on that. Certainly, the policy will help to safeguard that. I think, on the motion,

[31:39] we'll vote

[31:42] We had four opposed, Councillor McNamara, Hoffman,

[31:44] Central Roe set in Vogler.

[31:50] Councillor Reston.

[31:52] This is just a question for an item 2026-068.

[31:59] To talk, that's licensing renewal.

[32:02] It says in there, it used to be three years that it was licensed.

[32:06] However, they're moving to an annual subscription model.

[32:10] And it's just a question is, I'm guessing the provider obviously won't do three years.

[32:14] No more.

[32:14] And I was just curious, what kind of increase is this looking at compared to what was there before?

[32:23] Thank you, Mayor Bailey.

[32:27] The original purchase of the entitlement was through a digital modernization grant.

[32:35] And so we opted with the grant dollars that we had to pre-commit with them for three years.

[32:40] We can redo that three-year pre-commitment.

[32:43] I was uncomfortable executing a three-year contract without having taken this to council

[32:48] to have it added to the budget.

[32:51] With council support of including this in the 2026 budget and understanding that that

[32:57] will generally speaking carry forward into subsequent years, that would give me the flexibility

[33:02] to review and negotiate a three-year contract with the provider to lock in and reduce any

[33:09] annualized increases. So this is the ceiling of what that increase may be. And I expect with

[33:18] negotiations that we can reduce that and have a little bit of an efficiency as well for subsequent

[33:23] years. So this is just that one time to include it in the budget so that we can continue that service.

[33:29] But I will look to contract it further. Note that clarifies that's all it was. I just want some

[33:34] clarification, because I know generally the longer the better, so okay, thank you.

[33:39] Thank you. Councilor McNamara.

[33:41] I just want to go back quickly to the AI discussion. Obviously, since it is obviously a split council,

[33:48] my request to the administration would be that when the policy is complete, that we do a policy

[33:53] review with council before we look at the rollout and implementation. Thank you for that.

[33:58] Thank you, further on this budget center?

[34:02] I think they're clear.

[34:06] Thank you, back to our CFO.

[34:09] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[34:11] Seeing no further questions on that, a particular budget center.

[34:15] The next budget center we will review is communication and engagement, and that can be found

[34:20] on page 26 of your budget workbooks and is up for our residents online at this time.

[34:27] Thank

[34:37] you.

[34:38] Members of council.

[34:43] Off the hook.

[34:44] Back to our CFM.

[34:46] I thought that might be a quick one.

[34:47] It's a budget reduction.

[34:50] The next budget center is the public service unit.

[34:55] That could be found on page 29 of council's budget book and is available online for our residents

[35:04] following along.

[35:08] I have a question for comms after all.

[35:11] So, I was wondering about, we had a lot of pardon me, discussion about the implementation

[35:18] of the community of communities, and we've done amazing work.

[35:22] So, this just being mindful is this council's last budget, aligned with the strategic priorities

[35:29] that we brought forward.

[35:30] This is one of those areas where I think that this council's made significant advancement.

[35:35] And the feedback that I get from community is that we are seeing and feeling that overall

[35:40] sense of community no matter where you are. So I think I'd like to continue on and we had

[35:46] some pretty significant discussions about what it might look like to take that kind of

[35:50] brand implementation that we did at our corridor between manning and to come see and begin thinking

[35:57] about what additional signage might look like in terms of how we tell our story in each of our

[36:02] communities. Did we include dollars within the budget here to be able to do that work? So not a

[36:09] study, not just more to implementation to keep doing what we're doing.

[36:16] Through you, Madam Mayor.

[36:17] There is a capital project item for communications for the Amy Croft Manning Road.

[36:24] Certainly, you need to get a better idea of costs for expanding that to other communities.

[36:29] I think that we'd have to look at where the signers would go and then developing what that

[36:38] a question around being consistent with our current branding, not developing individual brands for

[36:42] each community. I think that would kind of be a tough to manage in terms of brand standards,

[36:49] logo usage. So how can we create a signage program, penance along streetlights? I think that would

[37:00] have to come with more of a significant budget request to develop that brand and then implementation.

[37:08] Okay, and in terms of just expanding where we're at,

[37:11] so continuing to change the signs that say town,

[37:15] the front of the municipality of Lake Shore's building,

[37:18] just had a new facelift and internally,

[37:21] it looks fantastic, you know, customers are saying

[37:23] how great it is to be able to come in

[37:25] and have customer service increases,

[37:27] but the signage out front doesn't match.

[37:30] So we did a renovation but didn't match the signage.

[37:32] So I think I'd like to see more of that soft stuff,

[37:34] the signage on polls, the way we tell our story, maybe a bio that says, you know,

[37:41] Comber, but we have on our website some further development around, you know,

[37:45] what it means to have a sense of community in Comber, what it means to have a sense

[37:48] of community in Woodsley, and so on and so forth. So I'm going to table the motion

[37:52] at this time just to permit dollars within the budget to at least begin that

[37:56] soft enhancement and continuation of the great work that you're already doing.

[38:00] Not really looking to a full brand analysis or for a full consultation, but the changes that I think so subtly happen that over time residents absolutely notice the town of Lake Shore, the municipality of Lake Shore and some of those things.

[38:15] So at this point I'm prepared to ask for $20,000 to be added to this budget center to allow that kind of work to continue and I'm looking for a seconder.

[38:25] Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[38:26] any comments, questions? Thank you. I'm just curious what reserve we would draw from because I know

[38:32] that we do have a significant amount of funding available in community benefits and also in the

[38:37] community improvement plan would CIP funding qualify for something like this because in that case,

[38:42] I would certainly support that to our CFO.

[38:47] It's an interesting concept. I certainly think that council

[38:50] Council could draw from its community benefit reserve to offset some of these smaller operating

[38:58] costs.

[38:59] That is well within Council's purview if it wants to fund the initiative that way.

[39:03] What we would include to the motion would be that it'd be funded by the community benefits

[39:08] reserve and that would have a zero impact on the tax rate.

[39:13] Councillor Muglia.

[39:14] Thank you.

[39:14] I guess my question is would it be better to be community benefits or would it be better to

[39:18] B-C-I-P and is it appropriate for it to be C-I-P as we look at community improvement plans?

[39:28] No, I think the answer is actually yes.

[39:31] Based answer before the words?

[39:32] No, no, no, I was thinking. Sorry about my facial expressions, but certainly signage throughout the communities is a C-I-P initiative.

[39:42] It's just normally C-I-P's are initiated by the business, by the business community, not by council.

[39:47] So that being said, though, if Council wants to earmark some of its CIP funding that is set out for a Council approved initiative, there's certainly nothing I believe in legislation that would stop that from happening.

[40:02] I just had to think it through.

[40:05] So if Council wanted to, they certainly could earmark some CIP dollars for a community-led initiative like this.

[40:14] for sure.

[40:17] Thank you. Councillor McNamara.

[40:21] All deferred to Councillor Santer was a first.

[40:24] Councillor Santorissa. Thank you. Of the timing. I love when we're all

[40:28] aligned. So I had a really great conversation with

[40:31] Nicole Anderson around the economic development piece and actually what's happening with the

[40:35] CIP implementation, particularly as I'm sitting on the BIA. So I'll back the bus up a little

[40:42] bit. Folks may not be aware. Back when the original CIP was BIA region specific

[40:49] there was a guiding CIP document that was prepared that basically spoke to all of the,

[40:56] you know, the façade improvement, the materials that could be used, that we wanted,

[41:00] you know, historic colors and all of these pieces used within the BIA area.

[41:04] And so the municipality had agreed using those guidelines that they would approve projects

[41:09] that aligned with that vision that the BIA had identified or that the municipality and the BIA had worked on together.

[41:16] We no longer have that, now that Council has approved and given direction to explore

[41:21] a municipal-wide CIP that will obviously have to make sure that we're enhancing branding

[41:26] in each of our communities within the municipality and so already you and I had this conversation

[41:32] I think a little while ago and you know Nicole kind of in tandem I think was seeing the

[41:37] same thing and trying to figure out when we go to approve the CIP you know asks in different

[41:43] communities, what is it that we're looking for to actually enhance the character in each of them?

[41:48] And so my understanding is some of that work is going to be undertaken naturally through

[41:52] the CIP implementation and potentially through that work. And so I'm supportive of the addition

[41:57] to the budget to provide that space to do that because it's not only going to happen through the

[42:03] CIP, I think naturally it happens through capital signage replacement and through, you know,

[42:08] some of the soft stuff in our own building and the communications department, whatever that looks

[42:12] like, so might ask them and I might have to direct a question to the CFO because I had asked it ahead

[42:20] around there's two economic there are two economic development funding reserves. There is

[42:25] an obligatory reserve, Invest Windsor Essex Economic Development, which I do not believe has been

[42:29] touched in years. And then we have the economic development reserve that we have pulled funding out of

[42:35] to align with the CIP implementation. I personally do not want to take any money away from

[42:40] implementing the CIP program because we've given that direction and I think to be honest,

[42:44] we'll need as much of it as possible. I would, if it was supported, make the recommendation that

[42:50] it actually come out of the $205,424, we have in the Invest Windsor Essex Economic Development Reserve

[42:58] and that it come from the capital side.

[43:03] I'm happy to take that at it. Thank you so much.

[43:05] Great idea. Thank you.

[43:09] Ken Sir McNair.

[43:11] I have nothing that actually was answering my questions.

[43:14] Wonderful. Deputy Mayor Wille's dead.

[43:17] Thank you. So this is, I'm hoping this is a start for the more identifiable of the communities.

[43:25] Because I know some of us on a one-to-one have spoke about having an audio type thing

[43:31] of, say, for Emeryville or Puce and, you know, Stony Point and Conver, kind of the history

[43:38] of how they got there, because there's been some excellent articles written on that in

[43:42] the local paper. So put those in kind of a verbal auditory thing that people can walk

[43:50] up and scan. One of them, you know, I forget what you call those funny little boxes anyway,

[43:54] with your phone. Yeah, there you go. Those and then can, you know, hear about the, hear

[44:00] about the founding of Comber, founding of Emeryville, all that type of thing.

[44:04] So I think that'd be really important.

[44:07] So hopefully this is kind of a start into that.

[44:10] And I'm not sure that it'll come back to Council for any additional funding that we would need.

[44:13] But I appreciate that.

[44:15] I think it's a good idea.

[44:19] There's another capital request in the budget that would be up for discussion later on around citizen satisfaction survey.

[44:28] So that would have been proposed to be after the 2026 election.

[44:33] So perhaps there's an opportunity to use to make it more of a community identity development,

[44:43] engaging residents in the development of vision for the community of communities branding that we've been working on.

[44:49] So perhaps it's a duplicate, not a duplicate, but a similar project, but expand the questions

[44:56] around, you know, how do residents identify with where they are?

[45:00] They live. What is important to them? And how can we reflect that within the branding that we roll out? Perfect. An opportunity to potentially overlap as we unfold the budget today. Great. Thank you. So on the motion, we'll vote digitally now. Oh, Councillor Kerr. Where is the funds coming from? The reserved to our clerk. Could you read it back out?

[45:22] The motion on the table is add. Yes. Thank you.

[45:28] He's a quick study. We'll vote digitally now.

[45:31] And

[45:45] that's carried 8-0.

[45:46] Thanks for coming back to that, members of Council.

[45:48] To our CFO.

[45:51] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[45:53] Yes.

[45:53] Back to page 29, or the public service unit division of the CAO's office with its change request.

[46:04] 2026-104.

[46:11] Okay.

[46:11] Members of Council.

[46:18] Seeing none, back to our CFO.

[46:20] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[46:21] page 32 of your budget workbook or the division setting of workforce development as a number

[46:28] of change requests here for Council's consideration and we'll bring it up on screen for our

[46:35] residents as well.

[46:40] Thank you.

[46:41] Can you outline 2026-005?

[46:47] Certainly, Madam Mayor.

[46:47] There, 2026-05 is workforce development has to do a member of HR investigations sometimes

[47:00] by a third party as we don't have perhaps sometimes the in-house background to conduct

[47:05] those investigations.

[47:06] What 2026-05 is outlining is that we average about three of those a year and this is actually

[47:13] not funded by the tax rate, we are proposing that we fund this from the employee related reserve

[47:19] because we are seeing an uptick in these type of investigations historically over the last three

[47:25] years. So we're using our reserve funds to mitigate some of those costs to our taxpayers but the actuals

[47:32] are dictating that an increase in the budget is warranted. Thank you, Councillor Kerr.

[47:39] Well, you just offered up a question. I have a comment. First, I find that, my first comment,

[47:44] I guess, I'll get that out of the way, is when I read that, I was very disturbed. I just thought,

[47:49] oh my God, really. So I just, I have to get that off my chest. And so on the, when you mentioned

[47:55] that it's coming, not from the taxpayer, but it's coming from employee-related reserves, which level

[48:01] of government is putting the money into that? Thank you, Councillor Kerr. That is coming from the taxpayer at

[48:08] a point in time. However, what I'm alluding to is that at this point in time it has no impact on this year's tax rate

[48:15] but those are funds that have been saved by taxpayer dollars into our reserves.

[48:20] Councillor Reston,

[48:24] it's good.

[48:27] I'd like to talk about item 2026-004,

[48:34] recruitment funding. So in here I see, yeah, I see it's coming from reserves, but these are also

[48:40] going to be permanent down the road.

[48:44] We are in the process, I think, of where our human resources

[48:52] department is going to be getting a new head and what not with recruitment that's going on.

[48:57] And it talks about 80 non-union seasonal hires, lifeguards, and stuff.

[49:03] To me, a lot of that's done internally by the division leads.

[49:06] And external dollars for that, to me, doesn't seem, seems astronomical there.

[49:13] So on this item, I'm proposing that we knock it down to 80,000 that we add, and we return

[49:22] the rest back to the contingency reserve where it came from because I think once we air a new

[49:28] division lead in there and that that's for them to reshape the division and move forward and

[49:33] and put a quarter million dollars into external resources to me is way too much so that's the motion

[49:41] if I get a seconder is we'll put 80 and return the rest of the reserve. Thank you so move second

[49:48] by Councillor Vogler, comments, questions?

[49:50] Councillor Santorissa.

[49:52] Thank you.

[49:53] Just a further question.

[49:54] And we did a little bit of back and forth on this one I think ahead of budget.

[49:57] I was surprised to see this amount come forward, particularly because if we were looking at some

[50:03] of the positions like the deferred, we saw two workforce development positions that would

[50:09] have been approved that could be at council's suggestion I guess approve at $262,000 a year

[50:16] which would keep those resources internally.

[50:18] I understand that internal staff may not have the same reach as external support,

[50:23] so I understand when we have some of those hard-to-fill positions,

[50:26] it's helpful to go out to community.

[50:28] I think what concerns me here is some of these annualized hiring

[50:33] sprees that we have to do, whether for volunteer fire, whether it's lifeguards,

[50:37] some of our seasonal staff and support.

[50:39] I would like to know that we have that capacity internally.

[50:42] And so, my question, I guess, in looking at this is, is the bulk of this to support with

[50:47] those Cs and all, or is it for those seven?

[50:50] Because I understand for the seven management roles, whether it's Team Lead, Division Lead,

[50:54] Corporate Lead, we have a number of those recruitment going out now, so I can't imagine we'll

[50:58] actually have a lot of the CL positions going out into next year.

[51:01] Hopefully, everybody's staying, you know, but just wondering where that kind of puts us.

[51:07] Certainly, I'll speak a bit to the numbers and then I'll actually turn it over to the CAO.

[51:12] to explain some of our challenges that we're having.

[51:18] With regards to this particular budget item, this is the cost of recruiting mostly high

[51:25] level senior senior staff that are difficult to recruit.

[51:29] Those contracts with our recruiting firms do come with a percentage of annual salary.

[51:33] So, to find in place a senior level executive can cost up to 10% of that executive salary.

[51:43] So, they are significant and that's why you see such a large number.

[51:48] Those recruitment costs may or may not go away if your HR division is fully staffed properly.

[51:55] Certainly, you would improve turnaround time for in-house recruitment's reference checking

[52:02] with the additional staff.

[52:04] However, if it is still our strategy to go out and vet and find the best people with

[52:10] nationwide searches to leave the organization, you will still continue to see significant

[52:16] recruiting costs.

[52:17] The idea behind using the reserve is so that once those positions are filled, this is

[52:25] a blip in the radar.

[52:26] You won't see this hopefully continue.

[52:28] You find an attractive talent for a long period of time, and this cost would go away.

[52:34] That's sort of the idea behind it.

[52:36] So most of this cost here is with regards to the larger recruitment, the difficult professions

[52:43] to place. Planning, engineering, managers and executive directors. So that's where most

[52:51] of that cost is. I do know the write-up speaks to all of the recruitment challenges and all

[52:56] of the pieces that WD does, but that money is primarily for executive recruitment.

[53:03] And then if the CO wants to add more, he can't. Further?

[53:06] there. So further, I mean, I can't imagine if Councillor Rustin's motion stands there,

[53:13] we've got $80,000 that would be retained here. So even if we're thinking at four positions

[53:19] at $200,000 a year, you're covered. I can't imagine that all of the positions under this

[53:23] are going to be within that. So I think if we're thinking about those seven

[53:26] management rules, I'd like to see this stick somewhere close to the 80. And then again,

[53:32] come back if it's needed, right? Let's get the department stood up, figure out what's

[53:35] needed, I recognize that there's a number here that, you know, would be returned back

[53:39] to that contingency reserve and we wouldn't have to draw on it this year, and the funding

[53:43] would be there if it was needed, and that would help Council, you know, get a better

[53:47] sense as to what the needs are going to be ongoing.

[53:50] Thank you, Council Reston.

[53:53] Yeah, I just want to add in, like, this isn't a one-time ask here is why I want to lower

[54:00] the number.

[54:01] This is a budget item to be year after year.

[54:03] We're paying from the contingency fund this year, but then it's going to be levy money.

[54:08] So that's why we're still going to add $80,000 next year's budget on the levy.

[54:14] So we've got to be mindful of that at this table, too.

[54:17] That's why I cut it substantially, but at the same time increase in it, because it is going

[54:22] to move forward.

[54:23] It's not a one-time ask, it's a budget item.

[54:26] So that's the reason why I'm doing what I'm doing, just to clarify that for anybody

[54:31] wondering.

[54:31] Thank you.

[54:32] Two questions from myself and then I'll turn it over to the CAO.

[54:37] Do we know what this budget line number was in 2022?

[54:43] And the second is, do these dollars also become gap dollars?

[54:49] Are they used in different ways as well as well?

[54:53] If there's a significant variance and it's not spent, yeah, it would be part of the close

[54:59] out of the year end, and any funds returned would be a council decision at that time.

[55:03] Or if the funds do not need to be drawn from the reserve, they are not drawn from the reserve,

[55:09] and the reserve remains intact. And internally, do these influence gapping

[55:13] where administration recognizes the need for increased staffing in a certain department?

[55:19] Would this be a pot that administration could go to for gapping?

[55:23] normally administration looks at total salaries and it would not look at this line when it reviews

[55:29] of salary gaping and then pieces of tracks during the year. Okay and do you have the answer on

[55:35] 2022?

[55:42] 30,500. Thank you. To our CAO. Yeah, through you Mayor Billy. Just a general comment is

[55:51] the you know acting head of HR over the last number of months. I think the question here is the

[55:56] is the size and the build-out of the Department of the Department's capability. Obviously,

[56:00] when we were the last year, we had a number of executive-level recruitments, two of which

[56:04] are ongoing. Currently, and I think it speaks to the need, and I agree with Councillor

[56:10] Reston to your point. We will have a new head of HR onboarded, likely in the first quarter

[56:16] of 2026. Interviews are ongoing in that respect, and I think it does make sense that it is prudent

[56:24] to allow that person to assume the role and then make a determination as to what kind of

[56:28] resources are required. My preference would be to have the majority of our recruitment done

[56:34] internally as opposed to turning to outside resources, but that would require a significant

[56:40] build out of the department in order to do that right now. We have a department of three approved

[56:45] FTEs and it's, you know, we are limited to the amount of work we can do with the amount of capacity

[56:51] that's available, so I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.

[56:54] Thank you.

[56:55] Thank you, Councillor Meckermann.

[56:57] Just a comment and actually a question for the mover for clarity. So obviously, we all

[57:01] know around this table and the administration, we've had struggles filling roles in a timely

[57:07] manner and I want to make sure we are giving our new head of HR the resources they need

[57:12] to fill up the staff and keep the momentum going forward. My question actually to Councillor

[57:18] the rest and on your motion is, I want to know, are you setting the 80,000 as a target

[57:25] or if 80,000 additional to the base because there's 30,500 in the base levy? So I want

[57:30] to see, are we just moving this to 80,000 total or an additional 80,000 of the base?

[57:36] It was an additional 80,000 as the request was for an additional 228. So I'll be 110,

[57:42] and 10.05.

[57:46] Thank you.

[57:47] And so with that, I think, you know, certainly,

[57:51] this council understands and we formed the executive committee.

[57:53] We understood that we were having some challenges,

[57:56] filling positions.

[57:57] I think that we've done the things that we needed to do to

[58:00] set us all at foundation.

[58:01] There's still 110,000 in there.

[58:04] In 2022, there was 30,000 in there.

[58:07] So it's a significant increase already.

[58:10] and I'm confident that these numbers will meet up just nicely.

[58:14] So on the motion,

[58:33] and that's carried 8-0, Deputy Mayor.

[58:37] Thank you. I've just back to 005 on page 32, same page.

[58:45] So, or 50,000. I just wanted to ask, what is our anticipated cost for 2025 on this item?

[58:54] So

[59:00] we'll look up the budget and the actual spend just a second.

[59:04] Thank you.

[59:58] Thank you. Actually, I believe I have it here.

[1:00:00] The budget is $10,000, but today we spent $32,000 in that particular area.

[1:00:09] So that's so far this year, but we have no idea what the total will be, I guess. That's correct, to the third. That's not what all the invoicing in. Okay, thank you.

[1:00:22] I'm just kind of curious, because I went to the employee related line on the contributions, and it's an additional $35,000. Is that coming from the taxpayer?

[1:00:32] fair that in reserves is coming from the shares.

[1:00:37] Yeah, that's correct.

[1:00:38] Yeah, okay, so that is tax penalty that's part of that 50,000 that from the share.

[1:00:42] So base budget always transfers about $35,000 into the reserve to complete the reserve funding

[1:00:49] that's been allocated, yes.

[1:00:51] So annually the budget is around 30, we're looking to increase it to 50.

[1:00:55] Right now, the actuals would dictate that it is at 32,000 right now, and we do have some

[1:01:08] invoices coming in. So, on average, last few years, we've done a three-year average and it

[1:01:15] does average about $50,000 in actuals.

[1:01:20] So, the request is for 50,000 period in this budget center,

[1:01:25] Or you're increasing by 50 increasing by and what would that total be then in this budget Senate 60 so 60. Thank you

[1:01:34] Councillor Reston further

[1:01:37] Yeah, I just want to again

[1:01:40] This is a contingency reserve we're funding this year, but it will become a full budget item levy item going forward

[1:01:47] So just just to be mindful of all that that

[1:01:51] But kicking the can down the road a bit, I just obviously it's for now, but I just want

[1:01:58] it to be aware to everybody if anybody's listening.

[1:02:04] Councillor Cooke.

[1:02:06] Hi, it's me again.

[1:02:09] Why the contingency fund when we have more excess money in the employee related fund at

[1:02:14] the end of this than we will have in the contingency fund?

[1:02:17] Why would we not just take it from the fund that's doing the work?

[1:02:24] Certainly, when we look at what has occurred in WD in the past year and a half, I like to think that this is an abnormal situation.

[1:02:38] And I like to think that the contingency reserve is reserved for dealing with abnormal situations.

[1:02:45] We could certainly change the funding source of council wishes and desires, but I like

[1:02:50] to believe that this is a moment in time that needs stabilization, so I chose the

[1:02:56] contingency reserve for that reason.

[1:02:59] Further?

[1:03:00] I would like to make a motion that we switch it to the employee reserve and why is because

[1:03:04] we use the contingency fund for things and surprises.

[1:03:09] And we have used it obviously this year to get us to the 4%, and I'm looking to get a little

[1:03:15] bit lower than the 4%, so we may, I may want to go back and maybe the rest of the council

[1:03:20] may want to go back to the contingency fund as I have every year since I've been on council.

[1:03:25] So that would be my motion to change the funding source.

[1:03:28] Thank you, Councillor Kerr. So, changing the funding source, leaving the total amount at 60.

[1:03:33] Okay, looking for a seconder, Deputy Mayor? Any comments or questions?

[1:03:41] And what about digitally? Oh, sorry, Councillor Reston.

[1:03:44] So, again, as with the previous with the recruitment, I'm assuming if some of them dollars are not needed, they're not going to be pulled from there just for verification.

[1:03:56] That is correct, Councillor Rustin.

[1:03:59] Okay, we'll vote digitally now.

[1:04:10] Anything else for this budget center?

[1:04:17] That's carried 80 back to our CFO.

[1:04:20] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:04:21] That concludes the office of the CAO.

[1:04:25] So we can move into the finance admin section on page 36.

[1:04:32] There are no change requests there, but I do want to give counsel the opportunity to

[1:04:38] ask in questions on the budget center.

[1:04:40] Comments, questions?

[1:04:42] Seeing none, back to our CFFL, Councillor Kerr.

[1:04:48] Yeah, I'll wait until we get to a different section.

[1:04:51] It's at the end when we get into the budget line.

[1:04:54] Okay.

[1:04:55] Thank you, Councillor Kerr.

[1:04:58] then we'll move to page 39, the corporate accounts change request.

[1:05:04] And I'll note for

[1:05:06] counsel in the corporate accounts change request, you'll see the balancing of the municipal

[1:05:11] levy. That number will change as we go through and make adjustments to the budget.

[1:05:21] Thank you. Can you speak to 2026-120, the decrease in OCIF, please?

[1:05:26] Thank you Madam Mayor.

[1:05:29] We did get confirmation that we'll be seeing a reduction in OCIF funding that does have

[1:05:36] a zero tax impact but it certainly does impact our ability to fund capital projects.

[1:05:43] So we've got confirmation that we'll be seeing a reduction in 2026 that money flows in through

[1:05:49] the corporate accounts as a revenue and then it's transferred out to our capital accounts.

[1:05:54] that is a formula that is formulated by the provincial government.

[1:06:01] Thank you. Has the province indicated the why?

[1:06:05] You said two hands up the same question.

[1:06:11] I am not aware of why the province has made an adjustment to that.

[1:06:16] The formula is calculated based on net assets that we own and population size, but

[1:06:23] but I'm not sure why there's been a reduction in funding from the province.

[1:06:26] Thank you.

[1:06:27] As we see across the province and provincial funding and as well as grant funding capital

[1:06:31] projects are harder and harder than ever to fund, unfortunately.

[1:06:36] So if my math is, that's like 30% reduction, 25% is that right, close to that?

[1:06:50] Just a second.

[1:06:51] I believe your math is correct though.

[1:06:53] No, it's just, it's kind of mind boggling that with what we got going on in there.

[1:06:59] change in some decimal points on the formula to not get that much, they're using their contingency

[1:07:09] fund.

[1:07:15] It's fine. We know it's considerably.

[1:07:19] I just, I just be in a, I guess, state in

[1:07:25] the facts of it.

[1:07:30] 28%. Thank you. Councillor Kerr.

[1:07:33] Thank you. On both items, number 106, the OMPF fund and the OCIF, I would like to make

[1:07:42] the motion that we send a letter to the province, letting through the mayor's chair, obviously,

[1:07:47] letting them know the disappointment that Lake Shore is because that is a huge amount of money

[1:07:52] and where it would best serve us as in our bridges and culverts and if that level of government

[1:07:58] continues to tell us we have to build more houses but more houses, that's going to put more cars

[1:08:02] on our bridges and our culverts, so you can't cut back the money we need for the bridges and

[1:08:07] culverts. So I think that a very strong word of letter to both of those fund ministers.

[1:08:15] Okay, so move seconded by Deputy Mayor Walston, comments, questions? Deputy Mayor?

[1:08:21] Yeah, and can that we put in big bold capital letters highlighted why?

[1:08:25] Like it's one thing we can come, we can say we're very disappointed a bit.

[1:08:29] You give us the particulars and why and let's send a copy of that to our two MPPs as well

[1:08:36] They need they need

[1:08:38] To know them because that's through there for us. Thank you

[1:08:41] You will vote digitally on the issuing a letter

[1:09:04] That's carried 80

[1:09:06] Did you have something further deputy mayor?

[1:09:08] No, it was on that.

[1:09:09] Thank you.

[1:09:12] Back to our CFO.

[1:09:14] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:09:16] Let us move to page 42 of your budget workbook and the accounting and revenue section.

[1:09:22] The change request will be up on screen momentarily.

[1:09:32] Okay.

[1:09:34] This is probably this is just part of the shell game question, but federal tax.

[1:09:38] The federal gas tax is there, but it's not on the back of the master.

[1:09:43] one that you sent me, and it's been there historically, and I was just wondering is there a reason why that $2 million is just going under just general revenue, and not under the gas tax?

[1:09:54] Because if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the gas tax come with its own set of rules for spending?

[1:10:01] It certainly does. There is a bit of probably some confusion in the reserve sheet. The gas

[1:10:09] tax has actually been renamed the, what's it called?

[1:10:14] The reserve has been renamed to

[1:10:18] align with the renaming of the fund name.

[1:10:20] Can a community benefit fund?

[1:10:22] That's the new name.

[1:10:24] The next question.

[1:10:26] Just pause for a moment, CFO. Can you name that fund, please, into your microphone, just

[1:10:30] or if I'm just watching at home? Canadian community, what?

[1:10:33] Thank you, thank you. Canadian community build fund.

[1:10:37] Thank you, Councillor Kerr.

[1:10:39] No, I'm good.

[1:10:43] Other comments, questions on this budget center?

[1:10:47] Seeing none, back to our CFO.

[1:10:50] Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next budget division section is financial

[1:10:54] of planning and analysis. There are no change requests in that particular budget center,

[1:11:00] but open for any questions from council. I am sorry, Deputy Mayor, let's page 45.

[1:11:14] Thank you, moving to page 49, Community Health and Safety Admin, back to our CFL.

[1:11:22] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Before council, on page 48, 49, is the Community Health and Safety

[1:11:30] the admin. There are no change requests to that budget center.

[1:11:44] All right. Seeing no questions,

[1:11:46] I'll move to page 51, the ATRC facilities. There are a number of change requests to that

[1:11:52] budget center.

[1:11:58] To our CFO, so I noticed in the preparation of the budget that there is some

[1:12:05] reaction to an increased and enhanced level of service that has happened in this area.

[1:12:11] And I know that we've spoke before that the level of service increase that was observed

[1:12:16] was not one that was tabled or discussed by Council, and Council sets the tone on level

[1:12:22] of service.

[1:12:22] So there was some disappointment in the increased costs and the increased service level that

[1:12:29] our residents have experienced. And now to claw those back would look like a service reduction.

[1:12:38] So I just want to put it on notice again and make sure that I speak for counsel in that regard.

[1:12:43] Can you highlight where through this budget center we are seeing that experience of

[1:12:50] it being the result of an increased service level? For example, keeping the ice in.

[1:12:57] Certainly, as you noted, Madame Mayor, the inclusion of summertime ice is an enhancement

[1:13:03] of service level.

[1:13:04] There is a significant revenue increase, however, there is also a significant, there's

[1:13:08] a staffing increase as when it comes to wages, and then there's also a utility cost increase.

[1:13:16] There is a significant utility cost increase in this budget.

[1:13:19] That is not all because of summer ice.

[1:13:21] that is also because of glitches with our accounting system and how it tracks inactive accounts,

[1:13:28] which didn't allow us to properly forecast utilities in the last year's budget. But there is a cost

[1:13:35] to keep the ice plant open in the summer months. I believe if we were to look at the dollars and

[1:13:45] sense of it. I believe I'll actually defer this over to Jessica as she's done a lot of the

[1:13:51] analysis here. We do have a significant revenue increase at the ATRC noted of $294,000, but that being

[1:14:02] said, we also have a cost increase on wages.

[1:14:11] Actually, let's just speak to Jessica. I'll turn this

[1:14:13] I just want to work to Jessica, she's done a lot of the analysis on this.

[1:14:16] Thank you.

[1:14:19] Through you, Madam Mayor, during our budget presentation, the overall service level

[1:14:27] impact was approximately $494,000 relating to increases in utilities revenue growth and wage adjustment.

[1:14:38] So about 1.16% of the levy.

[1:14:48] Thank you.

[1:14:48] and recognizing, as well, that we—I guess I will ask it as a question, instead—what

[1:14:54] is the cost recovery model that we currently have in place for?

[1:15:00] So the ATRC in terms of the revenue, because I do know that the revenue is increased as well, but is it increasing alongside of the policy for the recovery, which I think is 50%, but I'd rather ask it as a question so that you could tell me. Actually, it's less than that. And what we're looking to do is to build towards a 40% model of cost recovery. Obviously, the ATRC is our largest facility. It provides great service to our residents, but it is not

[1:15:29] not, you know, a break even piece.

[1:15:31] I know most people think you pay $200 an hour for ICE.

[1:15:35] If you were to look at the great details of the budget,

[1:15:38] the revenue and the utilities costs are almost the same.

[1:15:42] So just even running the building cost almost $200 an hour.

[1:15:47] So that doesn't factor in the staffing,

[1:15:49] the cleaning of the dressing rooms, all of those things,

[1:15:51] and the great programming that we offer.

[1:15:53] So significant dollars from taxpayer money is done is attributed to that asset for our community.

[1:16:06] Thank you. So residents certainly do ask that question. So they feel that it should be 100 percent.

[1:16:12] I paid to go to hockey and there for I'm paying it. What we know is that that's not the case.

[1:16:17] Our goal then is set at 40 percent. Where are we operating currently?

[1:16:25] It was in the, I know it was in the 30% range, but Jessica is going to confirm that for me just a second.

[1:16:32] Thank you, and I'll turn it over to Councillor Kerr, then Councillor Rustin, then Councillor Vogler.

[1:16:38] Hello, me again. Could you spend a little time talking about number 016?

[1:16:44] You did touch on it, but that's $500,000 in the way I see it if I understand it correctly.

[1:16:52] We lost $500,000 on one line of electricity and there's eight more throughout here, so it's

[1:16:57] like a million dollars or 890 I think was the total.

[1:17:01] So could you please speak to that to make me understand?

[1:17:05] Certainly, it's not a million dollars.

[1:17:08] The total cost that is not been factored into our budget, we've done a very detailed analysis

[1:17:16] of our actuals.

[1:17:17] The total cost that's not in the budget does total the $500 in $5,000.

[1:17:23] That includes electricity, natural gas, and water to that building.

[1:17:30] That's just one building?

[1:17:32] That's just the ATRC.

[1:17:33] Oh, for heaven's sake, so.

[1:17:34] Yes, for heaven's sake, indeed.

[1:17:40] And I know this council has supported the ERP change over and I couldn't be happier about it

[1:17:46] because what administration has to do is in reality if an account number or a GL account number

[1:17:57] is marked as an active, you would think you can't post that GL account number, right?

[1:18:02] Not only can you post to it, we were posting actuals to it. Therefore, all of our software is built

[1:18:10] to track is like manually built to actually track those costs.

[1:18:20] If the manual build between the budget software and the actual software doesn't occur properly,

[1:18:27] which is but is occurred here, you have costs that are being almost not on your books

[1:18:32] until you do a complete verification of all the GL details.

[1:18:37] That is what is occurred here.

[1:18:38] There were old GL accounts, the ATRC moved in a reorg, it's fun to count, and those accounts

[1:18:47] fell off.

[1:18:48] So when we started looking at the numbers, the things we were building the budget on,

[1:18:53] the actual accounting numbers and the actuals that we do review and determination to determine

[1:18:58] what's actually being spent, it's like they weren't there.

[1:19:02] So when we found how much that was, it was a significant amount of money.

[1:19:06] You add the fact that now instead of having the ice penalty close down in the summer, it's open, and you have to account for those amounts.

[1:19:16] That ice plant on average bill, what can the utilities be on that $50,000, $60,000 a month?

[1:19:24] You add that for three months, it doesn't take long data to a significant dollar amount that isn't in our base budget for utilities.

[1:19:32] So what we administration has done is correct the accounting issue and also right size the budget.

[1:19:39] Thank you further. This is the drop dead question. Would if council votes know

[1:19:45] to that $500,000 infusion because I'm still like where did it go? Where did it come from?

[1:19:52] Where did it go and why do I have to pay for it and this year's taxes? I can taxpayer myself.

[1:19:57] I'll sing in caught night Joe so we can just pause.

[1:20:04] Where did it come from? Where did it go? Where did it come from?

[1:20:08] CFO.

[1:20:10] This will be our humor for the day.

[1:20:13] So I love working for this council. You guys are a lot of fun.

[1:20:18] If council doesn't approve the budget increase, what will happen is we won't fund it.

[1:20:22] And we will run actuals that are greater than and you will have a budget deficit at the end of the year that hasn't been properly right size.

[1:20:32] So the risk is you don't put the right amount of dollars in the budget, you're going to have to spend them anyway.

[1:20:39] So either way, they're going to cost the taxpayer.

[1:20:43] So at some point you have to right size the budget.

[1:20:45] That's what you'll see a lot of administration doing in the ATRC, the fire department, all

[1:20:53] of those areas.

[1:20:54] We have done a detailed and thorough analysis of what is actually happening over the

[1:20:58] past few years and done a lot of print work on that.

[1:21:03] If council doesn't approve this, it doesn't mean this municipality is not going to spend

[1:21:07] a significant amount of money on utilities at the ATRC.

[1:21:10] We have to pay the bills.

[1:21:11] Or reduce the level of service and take out the heavy costs.

[1:21:18] Well, some are nice.

[1:21:20] Councilor resident.

[1:21:23] Yeah, I just want to make a quick comment here first.

[1:21:26] And then I got a question on one of the items here.

[1:21:29] With that being said, with the right size and in all these departments.

[1:21:33] And I think I speak for everybody up here.

[1:21:37] this is a one-time thing and that's what I expect it to be. I don't expect, well, I might

[1:21:42] not be here next time around, but I don't expect the next council to have to do this again.

[1:21:49] And it caught a lot of us off guard. I know with just the general spending of the increase, so I

[1:21:55] appreciate the right size in and let's hope going forward. I think we all expect it to be status

[1:22:02] quote at that point because it was disappointed and I'm going to say that and I think the

[1:22:08] mayor has expressed that for all of us here with with these costs that we started in a

[1:22:13] basically a 2% whole just offset operating that that was a current due to due to lack of accountant.

[1:22:21] Councillor Vogling. Oh sorry Councillor Viston. No I was just going to add that certainly

[1:22:28] The administration actually shares Council's frustration on this as well, but I'd like to thank Council for its endorsement of in past budgets of the FAs, the financial analysis, the support to actually be able to do this work without Council support in those areas, this analysis doesn't happen in this error continues for a number of years.

[1:22:53] So as much as yes, this does come at a cost to right size all of this, the fact that we have

[1:23:02] the tools today and we're invested in the tools in the future to do that and the fact that we now

[1:23:08] have a team that can help support those operating accounts or operating divisions to present to you

[1:23:15] those but business cases before these decisions are made is a step in the right direction and I don't

[1:23:20] I don't want that to be lost, and I don't want that to not be said, because without this council's support of financial management this type of work doesn't happen and that error continues to be to be made so I just wanted that to be said. Thank you very much for that.

[1:23:38] It was on a different item, as I said, if that's okay.

[1:23:42] An item 2026-0178, increased to the ATRC budget due to the agent infrastructure there.

[1:23:52] I just wondered, we've got an ask here for 121 to go year after year, but

[1:23:58] there's also a capital ask with the same statement written beside it of 40,000.

[1:24:04] I'm just wondering if that is there specific item that that's dedicated to because it just

[1:24:11] seemed odd to me that in the capital it wasn't attached to nothing.

[1:24:15] It was just literally written like this due to the ATRCV and 12 years old and another

[1:24:20] ask there after there's a 120 ask here.

[1:24:25] It's item 26-6791 in the budget, yeah, right there.

[1:24:31] Mr. Simmons.

[1:24:32] Through you, Madam Mayor.

[1:24:34] So the, I believe was it 40,000, that's dedicated to unforeseen breakdowns of substantial amounts.

[1:24:46] The operating costs are related to regular maintenance costs that were witnessing year

[1:24:52] over year.

[1:24:54] Oftentimes when we go from heating to cooling to heating, we'll have some major breakdowns.

[1:25:00] Having that $40,000 allocated to be able to make those capital repairs when those malfunctions happen versus an operation, it's the kind of go part and parcel to a degree where we have to make the determination whether it's an operational repair in a system failure or a capital repair and these are a kind of the smaller capital replacement that $40,000 is there for that purpose.

[1:25:31] We also have like building automation systems that will fail, so again, is it an operational

[1:25:40] repair or is it a capital replacement of something that has failed much larger scale?

[1:25:46] So I feel it's important to have it there.

[1:25:49] I think you'll see that in the non-ETRC facilities account as well.

[1:25:54] It really helps in an emergency situation or an unforeseen situation to react without

[1:26:03] having to seek approvals of a larger nature of having to go to council to see money for

[1:26:12] those repairs.

[1:26:13] So they're tied together but they're also different.

[1:26:16] If we use the $40,000 in the capital, might we see a reduction in operating potentially,

[1:26:24] but with what we're seeing year over year, the pool system is substantial.

[1:26:30] We have a Dectron that is costly to repair.

[1:26:34] That monitors or facilitates the air quality within the pool facility itself.

[1:26:40] We have a filtration system that requires regular maintenance that is obsolete as far as the manufacturer.

[1:26:50] So finding parts for it is difficult, oftentimes we have to have custom parts fabricated which is costly.

[1:26:57] So that's, it's not all related to the ice plant, it's the pool itself is intense to operate.

[1:27:06] So, yeah, that's my answer.

[1:27:10] Thank you, further.

[1:27:11] Yeah, just further.

[1:27:12] No, I appreciate that because I just, when I was going through both, and they kind

[1:27:16] of mimicked each other without an explanation that that is here now.

[1:27:20] And just a comment I got related back to the utilities, I'm wondering for facilities, if

[1:27:28] there's any way to do some analysis to see, to put air condition in there, if that would

[1:27:34] make a offset if that more efficient than using the ice to cool all that in the summer because

[1:27:40] there is no air condition in them. Ice rings, I know that and I know I've talked about it

[1:27:46] to different people off to the side. I just wonder if that's something we could possibly look at,

[1:27:51] do some analysis, say AC unit costs 20,000 to operate in the summer month, but the ice is only

[1:27:59] cost in 20 now. We got it in that savings and it will pay and enhance the service.

[1:28:03] So it's just something, just a comment I'd like to make, because it was just terrible

[1:28:08] designed to begin with, but we can't change that. So thank you.

[1:28:11] The track users will love you, though, if there is some analysis for sure.

[1:28:16] Councillor Santorosa on this topic. Thank you. I was just curious. I have the exact same

[1:28:20] questions as Councillor Reston, so most of them have been answered there, but I'm just wondering

[1:28:24] where we're sitting now with this change request at 121,000. What's our annual maintenance

[1:28:29] and repair costs in operating currently for the ATRC.

[1:28:54] That would bring the total to $231,000 for that building.

[1:29:00] Good, further.

[1:29:02] We, again, back and forth in prep for a budget.

[1:29:06] You said that we're working on a couple of asset management plans right now.

[1:29:10] The ATRC is not really one of them.

[1:29:12] Do we have a timeline for when that may come to councils that we get a better understanding

[1:29:15] of what these forecasts may look like going forward?

[1:29:19] because my frustration is we know that this is coming, right?

[1:29:23] The facilities hit 12 years, hearing things like we have equipment

[1:29:26] that's functionally obsolete.

[1:29:28] These pieces around replacement or custom parts may get us only so far

[1:29:32] before those things need full-blown replacement,

[1:29:35] and we start seeing things in capital.

[1:29:37] So I'm curious as to whether this council or future council

[1:29:41] may have a better understanding

[1:29:42] of what the overall asset management plan will be for the ATRC.

[1:29:50] One of the things, Councillor Santorosa, that is included in the capital budget as a facility's needs assessment, that would look not just the ATRs.

[1:30:00] Let's see, but our major operating facilities. It is an area of weakness in our asset management plan, like data integrity weakness. To answer your question on when the asset management plan for 2025 is going to be brought before council, we're targeting late February to March at this point. We actually have our final meeting with consultants on it next Wednesday, so we're hoping to get that before council. But

[1:30:29] But having the asset management plan be compliant for legislation, and then having it be a working

[1:30:38] document that filters into our five-year capital forecast and funding all of that, a facility's

[1:30:44] needs assessment is certainly an area that if we were to get that data, we would incorporate

[1:30:52] that into our asset management and long-term forecasting.

[1:30:56] So working towards those goals, but certainly not 100% there yet.

[1:31:06] So I think what I'm hearing though is, and we'll get to it when we get to Capitol,

[1:31:09] but that facility's assessment will feed the AMP overall.

[1:31:12] So there will be those elements like at this granular level that we may see in those facility assessments,

[1:31:18] I think particularly related to the ATRC that will then show up in an AMP update after the fact.

[1:31:23] Correct.

[1:31:25] Major documents, facilities, needs assessment, roads, needs studies, bridging, culvert studies,

[1:31:30] finance takes all of that, loads it up into the AMP software and the AMP plans and those

[1:31:36] are areas of like data confidence.

[1:31:40] So yes, it would feed into that exactly.

[1:31:43] Thank you.

[1:31:43] Council Hoffman.

[1:31:47] Through you, Mayor Bailey, this would be a question probably directed to Bill or Terry.

[1:31:52] I'm actually going to focus on something a little bit more positive here, our revenue

[1:31:57] stream and that would be 2026-014.

[1:32:03] Do we have an active plan in place to increase that revenue stream?

[1:32:09] Have we looked at other facilities to see other ways to basically get into that?

[1:32:15] I know it could be in the capital section, but I'm just curious if we are operating costs

[1:32:23] are quite large.

[1:32:25] Is there something that we could do to, I don't know, talking about increasing user fees?

[1:32:30] Have we thought outside the box and put something together like that to increase revenue?

[1:32:36] Thanks.

[1:32:39] Through you, Madam Mayor, it's a complex answer.

[1:32:45] because a lot of like increasing the offerings, a lot of that has to do with the expertise of the staff.

[1:32:53] So like if we want to start improving there are adding programs that are unique or specific to like, I don't know.

[1:33:04] For instance, like gymnastics we require gymnastics offerings are very popular.

[1:33:08] We can continue to add them, but the availability of the instructors is challenging at time.

[1:33:13] So, currently what we offer is what we're able to from a staffing perspective.

[1:33:18] We certainly talk around the table of ways to improve that and what other centers are doing.

[1:33:23] We are adding daycare to Comber in hopes of being able to,

[1:33:31] or daycamps or a to Comber in hopes of adding that offering.

[1:33:36] It comes at a cost that we can't really offset the true cost of running it versus what we collect in revenue, but we're always looking at ways to improve that revenue stream offering possibly specialty skating courses in that, but again, that comes with having to have the staff that can can run that working with user groups maybe to partner with them to offer things like that.

[1:34:04] So, those are all things behind the scenes that we're looking into.

[1:34:10] I think just to redirect slightly, because I think where Councillor Hoffman was going was

[1:34:14] less on the service levels or service delivery and more on innovation in terms of revenue

[1:34:21] creation. So, solar panels on the property there that may bring in revenue and pardon,

[1:34:28] and advertising opportunities that may create a revenue stream that will increase that

[1:34:34] isn't tied to level of service.

[1:34:37] So I think probably as we unfold 2026, some of those conversations that we can begin having

[1:34:44] so that we can drive up to that 40 per cent goal or exceed it, I would like to see us get

[1:34:48] 50 per cent, so further?

[1:34:50] Further, it was without saying that advertising is the way of the future in sports, and it's starting at 10-year-olds playing soccer right through hockey jerseys, and I think it's something that if we really maybe put a report together, that says, hey, let's do some research on this from another facility, what are you bringing in for advertising?

[1:35:16] because we've got the ice, we've got the board, we have the fields outside and

[1:35:21] in jerseys, I just think it's putting on events sponsored by, I just think it's

[1:35:26] such a huge revenue stream that is doable right now if we have people on top of it.

[1:35:33] Thank you.

[1:35:33] It might be a nice opportunity to kind of earmark the page too in terms of strategic priorities

[1:35:39] for Council moving into the next strap plan. We may want to begin thinking about what revenue

[1:35:45] any generation looks like, because certainly the ones that we're looking at now on water

[1:35:50] and wastewater and all of those conversations, we've been very successful in terms of grant

[1:35:55] writing and bringing in the dollars the municipality needs, there may be an opportunity for us

[1:35:59] to ensure that this is also part of our strategy, or maybe not highlighting it.

[1:36:03] Agreed, Mayor Bailey, thank you.

[1:36:05] Thank you.

[1:36:06] Councillor Kerr.

[1:36:09] Thank you. I'd like to go back to what was just mentioned

[1:36:13] over the line 017 and the Atlas 26791. I guess it's part of the show game. Facilities

[1:36:23] is facilities, but in you decide that it's going to go here, it's going to go there.

[1:36:28] But my question, I guess, is more around the second one than I was going to wait until

[1:36:32] we got to that section, but here we are. The Atlas 2, the $40,000 for the Atlas 2 repairs

[1:36:39] that is marked there in the capital part, says it's coming out of the non-Atlas tube facilities.

[1:36:45] And so if the money's going to come out of there, it's going to give us a false total

[1:36:49] when we're trying to figure out losses and profits and revenues and streams and all that stuff,

[1:36:54] because there's $40,000 that the Atlas tube is taking from a different account.

[1:36:59] So if some retired Chrysler worker wants to go over the last 10-year history of all the spending on

[1:37:04] the Atlas tube, they would find that the numbers wouldn't jive with the reality.

[1:37:11] So I just wanted to point that out.

[1:37:13] And also, nowhere on here, since we're on the Atlas tube, could I find how much we're

[1:37:18] paying an interest on the loan to the Atlas tube?

[1:37:24] I think it just says Facilities, Reserve.

[1:37:29] On my paper, it says Facilities, Brackets, Non-Atlas, or ATC, you know, won't fire them.

[1:37:35] So I'm assuming that was like the Libros Center.

[1:37:38] I don't think we have a reserve called facilities on that, let's do so it could be a typo to be honest with the councilor that's a great question in a good catch, but it does come from the facilities reserve.

[1:37:50] Yeah, I know like it all comes from that, but if it's not labeled specifically if there's something other than at this to it makes me think it's the liberal center and not the office to so when I'm looking at how much have we spent over the last 10 years.

[1:38:02] just fixing and upgrading and, you know, disambones or not disambones, different brand

[1:38:08] name.

[1:38:08] But we won't be getting an accurate number because if this won't show up there, if you

[1:38:14] searched it, it will not show up under Atlas 2, but it will show up under none Atlas 2,

[1:38:18] how it's written here.

[1:38:19] So there's $40,000 that we're trying to make decisions on that, anyway, the second question

[1:38:25] is more important now.

[1:38:26] Can I just expand the first question just briefly?

[1:38:29] because is there an opportunity for us to code out within our facilities reserve where that's going?

[1:38:35] Because to your point, if council decides to set a strategy of 50 percent revenue,

[1:38:41] we would want to make sure that there aren't bits of the ATRC that are being subsidized by other

[1:38:47] budget centers. So is there a chance in ERP to be able to say, you know, coded at ATRC code?

[1:38:53] I know sage simply accounting. I don't know your system, but I speak your language.

[1:38:58] Certainly, actually, that is actually being designed as we speak. We are going through a chart field redesign.

[1:39:06] Actually, the manager of accounting and revenue is working on it right now and that's sort of the conversation.

[1:39:12] How do we use project codes to get the information at a building level?

[1:39:20] So, certainly, that can be incorporated into the future accounting system.

[1:39:24] But as of right now there is just there's two reserves for facilities, facilities new which is where a large amount is transferred into from this budget center to fund its replacement in future years in the facilities reserved.

[1:39:42] So there's two, but which buildings and how they're used for what normally is a decision at this budget time.

[1:39:50] But you're right, tracking all of that over the years would be difficult.

[1:39:55] Sure.

[1:39:56] And the answer to are we mapping our accounts currently for the new software?

[1:40:01] Will we be rolling out and implementing the new software with those mapped accounts?

[1:40:05] Yes, yes, we would, sorry,

[1:40:12] sorry, that is certainly the intention.

[1:40:16] And we're also looking to streamline and reduce the accounts.

[1:40:21] This municipality, as of today, has 2800 different chart field designs.

[1:40:27] That is a lot to put together.

[1:40:31] I'm not sure it actually needs that many, so we're going to screenline that, reduce it,

[1:40:36] and make it more user-friendly for our accounts and our internal management

[1:40:41] and counsel on the community as well.

[1:40:43] also.

[1:40:44] And do we believe the implementation of the MAPTO account centers would happen for 2027

[1:40:50] implementation?

[1:40:51] Yeah.

[1:40:51] That is the belief.

[1:40:53] I'll defer to Mr. Martin, who's chomping at the bit.

[1:40:56] He is leading that project.

[1:40:58] The class is on in order to read his expressions.

[1:41:00] Welcome.

[1:41:01] It's a good one.

[1:41:03] So, yes.

[1:41:04] Not only are we looking to—so it will be part of the implementation in 2020, meaning as we

[1:41:10] As we go live mid-year, not only will that level of detail be available to administration and subsequently to counsel in reports, we're equally going to do a transformation of our legacy data into that new standard.

[1:41:27] So to Mr. Russo's comment about streamlining and shrinking the chart of accounts, we will have fewer GLs.

[1:41:39] but we will equally have increased level of details where it's relevant.

[1:41:43] Thank you. Are we talking about the mapping of accounts? Is it Microsoft Dynamics?

[1:41:48] Microsoft Dynamics will be the the account existence.

[1:41:51] Okay, yeah, so we're speaking the same language. Councilor Kerr.

[1:41:54] Further well, Mr. Martin is still there. I will. Oh, sorry, don't move.

[1:42:01] The part two to the question, what is the amount of interest we are paying on the loan to the

[1:42:05] That was true this year.

[1:42:16] One moment that's on one of our handy spreadsheets.

[1:42:18] I go into the right.

[1:42:20] Yes, Councillor Kerr.

[1:42:22] On the $264,000, Councillor Kerr.

[1:42:26] 34, an interest. Okay.

[1:42:28] To Mr. Martin, thank you.

[1:42:30] The active net transaction machine software.

[1:42:35] With some of the other stuff we have, can that not just be incorporated?

[1:42:39] Like, and I'm just thinking our IT team is really good too.

[1:42:42] like that's to me is one of the the lower end of the of the apps if you will I don't know what

[1:42:51] you'd refer to it but it's just like I don't want to say I could do it but I think I you know I'm

[1:42:56] talking tough it's like I could make that anyway could you speak to that happy to the so as part

[1:43:03] of the ERP we will be rolling out and consolidating our payment service offerings the municipality right

[1:43:11] right now has no less than three different ones that we use,

[1:43:16] active net being one of them,

[1:43:17] Mineris being another, and Paymentis is what is currently

[1:43:21] processing online transactions.

[1:43:23] Three is exactly two too many for my liking.

[1:43:27] I prefer that we consolidate down to one.

[1:43:30] As part of the ERP implementation,

[1:43:32] we're gonna consolidate down to two initially,

[1:43:37] and then we can review what active net provides to us

[1:43:41] that is outside of our current scope. Active Net provides the registration website and

[1:43:47] that registration website is, let's say at no cost, thank you Bill, where Active Net

[1:43:55] recoups the cost of that registration portal and the programming that goes into that is

[1:44:00] on those transaction fees. So as the registration occurs or as the pinpad at the ATRC as an example

[1:44:07] is used, those are those associated transaction fees, and the reason you see it in that manner

[1:44:13] is so that it is passed on as a user fee rather than subsidized necessarily from the tax base.

[1:44:24] It's listed as a $21,000 out of expense, so there is a cost to us right now.

[1:44:30] And I, nothing to say, I just, yes, give rid of it if you can or one of them.

[1:44:39] I'm hesitant on your comments because it's an absolutely needed system, so that's one member of

[1:44:44] Council's comments in non-emotion, just so we're clear.

[1:44:49] No, there's three different ways of doing it, and now what I'm saying is, when he merges

[1:44:55] them into two, we just save $21,000.

[1:44:58] I'm agreeing with that.

[1:45:00] We're choosing which one gets eliminated. Also, at a high level, please evaluate our systems and where you can find efficiencies. Please do because I think that's what comes with the service trying to say. No, I was just going to ask and I don't want to beat on it. So what's the 21,000 for if it's added to the people's paid the service charge is already added? What's the 21,000 additional ask over and above for then?

[1:45:30] Through you Madam Mayor, part of the increase in an active net user fees is somewhat directly correlated to the increase in revenue that we're collecting at the facility.

[1:45:41] So it's a percentage of the revenue that we collect.

[1:45:44] So a portion of the 294,823 dollars of increased revenue offsets the expense that we pay to active net.

[1:45:57] I got you now. This is the expense, but we didn't see it in here.

[1:46:00] It goes into the general revenue for the ATRC. That comes back. All good.

[1:46:05] Thank you. Constable Vaughn.

[1:46:08] Thank you. The Atlas 2 remains a very difficult issue for residents of my ward.

[1:46:13] Many of whom don't even know where it is.

[1:46:16] So when we see that 1.16 percent of the levy is for, you know,

[1:46:20] overages, it's challenging. So my question I guess is regarding the revenue adjustments.

[1:46:27] And I know that we've allowed for a 4% increase. When will we look at that fee schedule?

[1:46:32] And is there an opportunity for us to further increase those revenues that an impact 2026,

[1:46:38] or are we locked in for 2026 in any action we take will benefit future years, especially the summer

[1:46:46] programming, which of course concerns all of us because of these higher levels of service.

[1:46:51] Certainly. I'll answer that. So it actually goes back to the mayor's original question,

[1:46:57] what is the cost recovery piece right now? So the cost recovery actually right now is 42% in

[1:47:03] this budget we're moving to 44. So I knew 40 stuck out in my head when I wasn't quite sure. We are

[1:47:09] trying to increase our margins on cost recovery, and the second part the user fee review will be

[1:47:18] in front of Council in January or February. The third part is when do those fees come into

[1:47:25] effect. The ATRC and the Marina do have staggered implementation dates of, believe April 1st, so that

[1:47:34] The hockey groups and the user groups can plan for increased ice rentals and the voters as well can plan for increases at the start of the season so they can build it into the registration costs.

[1:47:49] It's a phased in approach for those particular areas.

[1:47:53] So further, I guess for clarity, does that mean that those changes could impact this number for this year? Could we see growth to that number?

[1:48:01] We factored the changes into the budget, so we factored that revenue increased percentage cost recovery into that $290,000.

[1:48:11] I guess what I mean is when we meet in January, February, if we increase it further, will it impact this budget?

[1:48:19] If you were to increase the cost recovery margin further than 44%, yes, you could have a positive impact on this budget.

[1:48:27] I did appreciate the answer.

[1:48:31] Certainly as we move forward with some of our systems, then we begin linking at statistical

[1:48:35] data.

[1:48:36] I think it will answer some of the questions, Councillor Vaglio, that you bring forward

[1:48:39] because in my world, we would have the data collected in a pie and you'd be able to see where

[1:48:44] folks are coming from.

[1:48:45] Similar to the very successful breakfasts as well, Santa, that we had recently where you could

[1:48:49] absolutely see that overall sense of community happening in multiple communities.

[1:48:53] But that's a good example of, you know, 700 breakfasts that are completed and where our

[1:48:59] residents are coming from that take advantage of some of the things that we do, but certainly

[1:49:04] recognizing that our outlying areas also receive service delivery from Tilbury, or may

[1:49:09] receive service delivery from Takam sea and Essex and so forth, but certainly the bulk of where

[1:49:15] those users are coming from. Councillor Reston.

[1:49:19] Yeah, I just, to Councillor Volgler, we just approved the park in Stony Point for 5 million.

[1:49:28] I don't flush a toilet in Stony Point where we're spending a large amount.

[1:49:31] Don't attack institutions that we use.

[1:49:36] No, you're playing political games with it.

[1:49:39] So just my statement, because if you're going to say they don't know where the ATRC is, my

[1:49:50] So back to the opportunity to have statistical data that drives decision-making, I think that would be a fabulous thing because we begin seeing where folks are coming from back to our CFO on this subject.

[1:50:03] All right.

[1:50:05] If there are no other questions on the ATRC, I guess we could move on to the fire department.

[1:50:15] All right, we'll do that.

[1:50:18] Okay, the fire department is found on page 54 and 55 of the budget work that you're writing me.

[1:50:24] And we'll be up on screen for residents in a moment.

[1:50:30] Thank you.

[1:50:33] So this is a similar discussion around service delivery and where service comes from

[1:50:37] and kind of that pie of where the calls come from and all of that statistical data that we talk

[1:50:43] about in recreation facilities and fire services and EMS has this discussion all the time as well.

[1:50:51] Great. Comments, questions on this, Councillor Reston.

[1:50:55] Just a comment to you, Chief. In the position title, Conversion Rules, I see we have a conversion

[1:51:03] from to a full-time firefighter there. I was wondering, I'm assuming that's an assistant deputy chief

[1:51:11] roll that was turned over or how did that one come about or my memory might have a blank in it from

[1:51:19] before. I'm not sure. Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. So earlier this year, we had

[1:51:26] vacancy with our deputy chief position. We took that opportunity to reassess the organizational

[1:51:33] structural structure that we had, and so during that time we had myself a deputy chief

[1:51:41] to assist the deputy chiefs were our full-time staff. As we went through that process,

[1:51:46] we re-aligned consistent with other municipalities the same sizes, Lakeshore, and in growing medium-sized

[1:51:53] municipalities across the province, so we re-aligned to have two deputy chiefs. We eliminated

[1:51:59] the Assistant Deputy Chiefs, but changed the one position to a firefighters position so

[1:52:04] that they can assist with daytime responses. So that was the realignment that we had there.

[1:52:09] Further? No, thank you, Chief. I just want clarification.

[1:52:15] Councillor Kern? I guess the day has come. We've turned the corner. It's time to start with

[1:52:20] full-time staff, and this is ground zero, all right? The other comments, questions on this budget center.

[1:52:31] Seeing none. Thank you Chief.

[1:52:39] Thank you Madam Mayor. If Council would turn their attention

[1:52:42] to page 58 of their budget book that would bring us into the recreation division budget center.

[1:52:52] Thank you just a comment to kick us off. Very pleased to see 2026109 in the addition of the

[1:52:57] Comber day camp. We've been long after that so seeing that expansion is fantastic.

[1:53:05] Comments, questions from others?

[1:53:09] Councillor Kurn.

[1:53:11] This is just to put the seat out there.

[1:53:14] The City of Windsor offers a daytime service, I think it's called SERP or something, and

[1:53:19] I don't know if it's something we could do at this time because we're trying to get our

[1:53:22] money back, but just to put it into people's minds, it's basically where we send out a recreation

[1:53:29] employee and they do day camp style things and it's at no cost for the lower income residents

[1:53:35] of Lake Shore. So I just thought I'd put that in everybody's minds.

[1:53:40] Thank you, sir. There is an opportunity to apply pathway to potential to day camp.

[1:53:46] Is that what you're referencing? No, this is different. No, you're talking about, yeah,

[1:53:50] where you can get you can access money and that's that's a good program too. This is actually free.

[1:53:55] But it's just I'm just putting it in everybody's minds.

[1:53:58] You can all Google it later, and maybe it's something for next year.

[1:54:02] Thank you.

[1:54:04] Okay, further comments, questions on recreation?

[1:54:07] Seeing them?

[1:54:10] Thank you Madam Mayor.

[1:54:11] That'll bring us to page 61 of your budget workbooks or the Marina Budget Center for those

[1:54:16] following along at home.

[1:54:18] We'll put that up on screen.

[1:54:42] Have we been over the budget in terms of the necessary devices that are required?

[1:54:48] I remember a number of years ago being quite shocked when we performed an audit to find out that we

[1:54:53] didn't have the life-saving devices and things that we needed along the marina, and it didn't take

[1:54:59] me long to go for a walk-through and be able to see a number of things that were actually required,

[1:55:05] and they seem to be things that were removed from the budget prior to it coming to this point.

[1:55:10] And so that's stuck with me for a long time. And I just want to ensure that we have the

[1:55:15] the right things in the right places, and that we have inspected them.

[1:55:19] I remember taking a life-saving device out and it was connected to nothing, and therefore

[1:55:23] I wouldn't save a life down at the marina.

[1:55:26] I also know that we had a ladder installed, but the ladder was so far away that you wouldn't

[1:55:30] actually be able to get to it if you fell in the water.

[1:55:33] So recognizing those things, I just would like to know that current state and current budget

[1:55:38] is asking for the number of things that we may require.

[1:55:44] Through you Madam Mayor, yeah we make those improvements as we require them and as we notice them so if there are additional life-saving devices within our operations budgets we can always purchase those or replace aging infrastructure that's down there so those are all things that are consideration excellent so if that audit has not been completed if it could move to the top of our list so that we do complete a bit of an audit that would be appreciated.

[1:56:13] further comments, questions. I don't think I need a motion.

[1:56:20] Yeah, excellent. Good. I'm

[1:56:24] understanding that an audit was recently conducted, so that actually makes me feel good. Thank you.

[1:56:29] All right. Nothing more on this one, CFO? Well, thank you Madam Mayor. Let's move to page 64,

[1:56:37] which is the change request for parks and trails.

[1:56:51] Councillor Santorissa. Thank you, Madam Mayor, for you. Just a question on 26-047 at $139

[1:57:00] in utility costs. Is this a forecast knowing that we have stony point coming on live next

[1:57:06] year, that we have potentially, depending as long as it goes through, the splash pad upgrades

[1:57:12] at Lakeview Park. I'm just curious as to what this 139 is. Is this river bridge kind of stabilizing

[1:57:19] over time, and what's our total amount now annually?

[1:57:25] Certainly, I'm letting Jessica do a little bit of analysis, but certainly splash pads

[1:57:31] is a large adjustment.

[1:57:33] I spoke to some of those accounting weaknesses in our accounting system.

[1:57:38] One of them was the meter reads that were coming from the splash pad at River Ridge.

[1:57:47] There was a significant adjustment in our 2024 year end.

[1:57:53] We were showing actuals of 20,000 a year, but it's actually $60,000 a year as water is

[1:58:00] significant as it goes through a splash pad.

[1:58:02] So we have accounted for increased costs, I believe, for the Stony Point Park splash pad

[1:58:09] that's proposed.

[1:58:09] but a large portion of the $139,000 in utilities cost does come from splash pads.

[1:58:18] And that was a decimal point error on a meter read inside of our system.

[1:58:28] Thank you. A question related to 2026 110.

[1:58:32] This is a position that I think I started advocating for in 2014,

[1:58:37] noting the two seasonal positions converting into a full-time park operator.

[1:58:41] But what I do notice is that the position has been downloaded from what we've been asking

[1:58:44] for since 2014, and I know in collaboration with the corporate leader, the corporate

[1:58:49] leader really was thorough with me to understand why a team lead position would be requested

[1:58:58] and not a park's operator, and I drank that Kool-Aid a long time ago, and I began trying

[1:59:04] to build our systems in accordance with how we would deliver service in community.

[1:59:09] So I'm wondering why the reduction in that position from a team lead to a full-time parks operator.

[1:59:25] I'm not really sure why we chose to do the parks operator versus the team lead conversion.

[1:59:31] Certainly, if council would like to see the team lead conversion, we'd require a bit of an adjustment,

[1:59:36] but we could make that adjustment, but we will be moving to three full-time parks operators.

[1:59:43] Thank you. So, if you could look at that budget center and advise of what that number would need to be instead of the 3195, and I will carry on and you can come back to me with what that number is, I don't believe there's been a system.

[2:00:00] Change or direction change from wanting to do that now. Okay, so I'll carry on in the meantime. Yeah, we will figure that out. Okay, Councillor Reston. Just to that comment, I think it's more important to have a hand on the ground. So you're going to convert a leadership role and lose two seasonals on the ground to have another boss is what it is. No, it says it's a leadership role that from my understanding we went through this in pass budget.

[2:00:29] They're not out on the ground, they're supervising the workers.

[2:00:34] No, no, he's wrong.

[2:00:36] Through you, Madam Mayor, they would be working,

[2:00:38] they would be a working body.

[2:00:41] Just the understanding I think, and sorry, Mr. Simon's just to compliment what you're saying.

[2:00:48] The understanding is that it is a boots on the ground role,

[2:00:52] but what it does allow is some executive decision making so that they can independently also make decisions

[2:00:56] as well they're out in the field, which means that they aren't having to report back for low-level decision-making.

[2:01:05] No, and that was the misunderstanding with me and the past on it that it was just a, it was going to be a boss role where they weren't on the ground.

[2:01:15] That's why I was heavily opposed to that, so that was my misunderstanding and that's how I read even some of it in here in the, in the request.

[2:01:22] So no, if that's if they're boots on the ground, I'm fine with that because they're they're there the terminal. Yeah, the lead man. No, no, I know. I know it's a lead hand and and that's fine. I'm okay with that, but that that was the misunderstanding. I thought it was another boss and not so we're good.

[2:01:39] That's great. Thank you.

[2:01:45] I'll come back to you, Councillor Wallstead, and then Santa Rosa.

[2:01:49] Okay.

[2:01:49] Councillor Santa Rosa.

[2:01:50] Thank you.

[2:01:50] I just really quickly.

[2:01:52] I just want to jump in before the topic changes on this piece too, because that was my understanding

[2:01:56] going through the business case studies.

[2:01:58] So just from a language perspective, when we're taking a look at some of these reports that

[2:02:01] come forward as the business case for the, you know, for staffing, if you're looking at

[2:02:06] that lead hand role, there are several of these where it's provide information and

[2:02:11] recommendations to the team leader and division leader, provide information and recommendations

[2:02:14] to them as required to maintain efficiency.

[2:02:16] So it does very much feel like it's somebody doing some coordination and then reporting

[2:02:21] up and not necessarily speaking to the day-to-day on the ground activity.

[2:02:26] So in fairness, the parks operator section was really small there too.

[2:02:31] So my recommendation is just particularly in this space, we could have probably used a

[2:02:36] little bit more information to understand that.

[2:02:38] But understanding now, where the mayor is going kind of with this line of questioning

[2:02:43] here around whether or not we actually want the parks operator of the lean hands.

[2:02:47] So I appreciate the new info.

[2:02:49] Thank you and to our CAAO.

[2:02:51] You're good?

[2:02:53] Yep.

[2:02:55] No, just back to the park utilities.

[2:02:58] We said the run the splash pad was 60,000 in water.

[2:03:02] Is that water and wastewater or because what goes in goes out.

[2:03:06] What is that one 20 or is that 60?

[2:03:09] No, total bill, including water and wastewater is 60, so.

[2:03:13] Okay, no, yes, we said water, I just wanted to clarify.

[2:03:16] Correct.

[2:03:17] Okay, no, thank you.

[2:03:18] And to you, Madam Mayor, the additional monies that would be required are 28,462 to make that a lead hand.

[2:03:28] So the total change request would move from $3,194 in this area to 30.

[2:03:39] So the difference between $3,195 in terms of the budget impact would now be?

[2:03:47] It would now be an additional $28,462.

[2:03:52] Thank you.

[2:03:56] Deputy Mayor.

[2:03:59] Maybe a discussion for another time, but just then I made a note here.

[2:04:03] But so this is considered waste water goes in a sanitary sewer system.

[2:04:09] Any time there's a water bill, there is the water component for the actual usage and the wastewater component out.

[2:04:17] So the volumes, the metric volumes are charged both on water and wastewater.

[2:04:21] No, I just, where does it go?

[2:04:23] I just want those to go in the municipal drain because there's clean water.

[2:04:25] Just goes over somebody, they're not taking a bath.

[2:04:28] It's just, it's just water, playing water.

[2:04:31] But where does it go?

[2:04:32] I guess maybe this cable would know, but it's probably not a discussion for today.

[2:04:36] I'm sorry. I don't want to throw things off, but it really bothers me. That's a lot of money and a lot of water. So if it's, if we use a capacity in our

[2:04:44] sewage treatment plant, that's not good.

[2:04:46] Through you, Mayor, there is a sewer connection at the property. So when the water is running, a lot of it is captured in the sewer system.

[2:04:57] But most of it is overland and ends up in the storm sewer system or filled infiltrated.

[2:05:04] Thank you, Amber.

[2:05:08] Thank you for bringing me to go up for a start.

[2:05:10] Thank you. You're welcome. Further comments? Councillor Vogler.

[2:05:15] Thank you. I just have a question about this role conversion and just to the position that's actually being requested in 2610.

[2:05:22] The seasonal employees that we typically have used have these typically been students for those two roles.

[2:05:31] The seasonal employees are not typically students, some are, but the role runs from early April

[2:05:40] to November.

[2:05:43] I think my concern is, and again, I obviously know your department, and if you think that

[2:05:48] we're placing two people with one person will be as efficient, then I hope that that proves

[2:05:52] to be true.

[2:05:54] But I know that we've spoken about this before, and we've talked about park staff and the

[2:05:57] needs, and we've talked about the geography of Lakeshore, and how long it takes, you know,

[2:06:01] So you put somebody in a car and they're not to that park for an hour.

[2:06:05] So if we take two people and make it one, I'm concerned that the service level will suffer.

[2:06:10] And then what will ultimately happen is next year you'll be back asking for more people

[2:06:14] because we'll find that we can't physically service the geographical area.

[2:06:19] So I'm assuming that all of that has been considered, but if you can just speak to that a little

[2:06:23] bit because I mean, will you be back next year asking for two more people?

[2:06:28] As we increase our levels to the, through you, Mayor, to Councillor Vogler, as we increase

[2:06:35] our parks and the number of parks and our services in the parks, we will ask for more

[2:06:41] service. We will ask for more people. I cannot say we will never ask for more people.

[2:06:47] Right now we feel like this is the best thing we can do for this budget to increase our service

[2:06:53] level in the parks.

[2:06:57] Councillor Kerr.

[2:06:58] I'm just looking for, I heard there's a bunch of numbers and a bunch of talk that.

[2:07:03] So right now, there is no changes to line 110.

[2:07:07] Right now as of this minute, we are moving forward, we're taking two part times and

[2:07:12] turning it into a bulk time.

[2:07:13] Am I following the bouncing ball correct?

[2:07:19] Is your question, is there a dollar impact?

[2:07:22] No, no, no, is that what's supposed to be, yeah, is that still what's happening?

[2:07:25] There's no motion. There's no motion. There's no motion. So that's fair. I'm going to stay as is as of this moment.

[2:07:31] Thank you.

[2:07:34] So the motion is on the table. I made the motion and it was seconded by Deputy Mayor and so I'll have the clerk read it.

[2:07:40] Okay.

[2:07:44] Madam Mayor.

[2:07:46] The motion that I have on the floor is to add an additional $28,462 to item 2026 dash 110 in order to allow for a lead hand position.

[2:08:05] So it's asking for a full-time parks operator, I'm changing the job title to a full-time

[2:08:11] lead hand.

[2:08:13] Oh, that's it.

[2:08:14] That's it.

[2:08:15] Thank you.

[2:08:17] Any other comments, questions on the motion?

[2:08:21] We'll vote digitally,

[2:08:56] and that's carried when a post comes to the Vogueler.

[2:09:06] Thank you Madam Mayor. If there are no further questions on parks, we can move to Facilities

[2:09:12] Non-ATRC on page 67 of our budget.

[2:09:37] Seeing none, moving back to our CFO.

[2:09:42] Thank you Madam Mayor. I'll take this time as we switch out of one department into another

[2:09:48] to update council on where the tax rate calculation is at this moment in time.

[2:09:53] Thank you.

[2:09:54] It is at, sorry, just a second, after all the adjustments, we are sitting at 3.96% at this

[2:10:02] time.

[2:10:03] Thank you.

[2:10:05] That being said, if council would like, we can move into the growth and sustainability

[2:10:10] the admin section on page 70 of your budget book, noting one request there.

[2:10:25] Councillor Santorissa, thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. Similar to the motion that

[2:10:29] was made earlier at the start of the budget, I'd like to move that we remove item 2026-013.

[2:10:41] So moved and seconded by, Councillor Reston, comments, questions?

[2:10:51] Seeing none, we'll vote digitally.

[2:10:52] That's

[2:11:03] carried 8-0 moving

[2:11:07] on there are no other questions. I'll move council to page 76 of the budget book the GIS budget center with one.

[2:11:18] Change request there.

[2:11:19] Thank you, Chancellor Kerr. I just want to point out you bypassed page 75.

[2:11:25] Correct. The economic development budget center no longer exists however to show the proper actual in our budget software.

[2:11:34] So that the numbers balance we had to include the the actuals from 2024.

[2:11:40] I believe in the budget we added $35,000 to that account and it's still sitting there.

[2:11:46] So could I make a motion then that we move all that money into the contingency fund?

[2:11:53] I'm not sure what $35,000 you're talking about.

[2:11:57] We've reallocated some of the budget, we've reallocated some of that budget out of that budget center, but I'm not.

[2:12:04] and the reserves. Yeah, yeah, reserves. Plus, hang on, give me one minute.

[2:12:13] Economic development,

[2:12:15] contributions 25,000 of opening balance, 394,000 to $15 plus we're adding another 15 for a year end

[2:12:22] of 419. So my motion would be to move that 419 into the contingency budget because we don't have an

[2:12:28] economic development of our budget.

[2:12:36] That's, we'll move it to get it out. We'll move it to

[2:12:39] see. It's changing today.

[2:12:44] That $25,000 transfer has been moved to the growth and sustainability

[2:12:49] admin section that used to exist in the economic development section. So that's in the previous,

[2:12:58] Yes, it's just a budget real allotment.

[2:13:00] So you're asking to cancel the $25,000 transfer to reserves, if I'm following you.

[2:13:06] I'm under the belief as to what I've read that we have an economic development department and

[2:13:12] an economic development fund of 416,000.

[2:13:16] I'm hearing from my fellow counselors that it is a CIP account.

[2:13:20] So I guess my question or my concern would be, then can we change the name to CIP and

[2:13:25] call it what it is because I'm under the impression that we have an economic development

[2:13:30] department with $400,000 and that's 1% reduction in the budget, if we give it back to the

[2:13:36] taxpayer.

[2:13:37] You want to eliminate the entire reserve, the economic development reserve, because there

[2:13:41] is no department, there is no operating dollars for that.

[2:13:45] I would like to move it to the CIP or to the contingency fund that, it's just a shell

[2:13:51] Okay, end that line, delete that line, move the money to contingency.

[2:13:56] If we don't have an economic development, if it's not CIP, now if it's CIP, by all means

[2:14:02] change the name to CIP.

[2:14:06] I follow you.

[2:14:08] So you are talking about a adjustment to the reserve balances, reallocating the reserve fund

[2:14:15] closing the economic development and reserve and transferring it to the contingency reserve.

[2:14:19] given that we decommissioned the economic development and mobility area.

[2:14:25] Okay. I understand. I'm not trying to take away the money. I'm just trying to put it where I believe it belongs.

[2:14:31] And so if administration can make a recommendation of the best place to put that for the utilization of CIP, et cetera.

[2:14:40] Sorry, I was trying to follow and figure out how I'm going to do the math. What was your question there, Madam Mayor?

[2:14:44] It is to say, could you recommend where? We might move that, too, so that we can complete

[2:14:53] the CIP work and things that we want to get done.

[2:14:56] Well, at this point in time, Council has a

[2:15:00] We'll approve the transfer 400,000 out of that reserve, which we show through the reserve. The balance of the reserve could be allocated anywhere council would like.

[2:15:13] At this point in time, I would, I would not, I'd hesitate to guess which council priority is the highest and best use. So perhaps putting it to the contingency reserve for a later day makes sense. So, McNamara.

[2:15:28] Well, I agree with Councillor Kerr, we did eliminate the role in the last budget for economic development.

[2:15:34] It does not negate the fact that we still have economic development happening within Miss Pality.

[2:15:39] Our CAO, our deputy CAO may be picking up some of those tasks.

[2:15:43] There's members of the Horizons team moving forward that we'll be picking up those tasks.

[2:15:46] And then if we take away the budget to do that, we then box them in.

[2:15:50] So I don't think we should be touching this.

[2:15:52] If you want to argue over the $25,000 contribution limit or addition that we're putting in this

[2:15:57] year to that reserve, I think we could talk about that, but to move the reserve to contingency,

[2:16:02] I think kneecaps us in the ability to work with the development community, the business community,

[2:16:07] the industrial community when they come in and ask questions and want us to do work.

[2:16:10] So I don't support moving that.

[2:16:12] Councillor Santorissa.

[2:16:14] Thank you.

[2:16:15] Dido?

[2:16:16] Councillor McNamara's comments just around the, I think the requirement for us to at least

[2:16:21] protects some of that funding. There is, as I had recommended, pulling that $20,000

[2:16:26] branding initiative out of the Invest Windsor Essex Economic Development Fund, which you'll

[2:16:32] find on page 181. It's about five up from the bottom. After that $20,000 branding piece coming

[2:16:38] out of reserves, there would still be a $185, 424 left in that reserve. Councillor Kerr, if that's

[2:16:45] where you'd like to reallocate that $25,000 from. I mean, I'd be more than supportive of seeing it

[2:16:51] come from there, for sure, to reduce the impact on the levy by that same amount.

[2:16:55] I could agree with that, but I think what's missing is, like, we can put them, it's a

[2:17:01] shell game.

[2:17:02] We can put the money anywhere you want.

[2:17:03] If you want to take that $400,000 and put it in the CAO's account for travels and expenses,

[2:17:08] so that's fine.

[2:17:09] We don't have, and I just think that it's a false sense of security having a $400,000 economic

[2:17:18] development fund.

[2:17:18] I just think that that if you want somebody like to put it somewhere out and the contingency

[2:17:25] fund is just our nice general bank account.

[2:17:28] We can move it from there anywhere we want and like I said, it's just the shell game.

[2:17:31] It's just that title that because we went to such lengths to eliminate the position and

[2:17:38] so I just think it just puts an end to that topic, I guess, but that's not even the right

[2:17:44] word because we do have economic development.

[2:17:46] And yes, Centers for Cities, they have their own budget.

[2:17:49] We just gave them, I don't know, two, three million dollars,

[2:17:51] or we're agreeing to give them millions of dollars.

[2:17:54] So I don't think that they're going to need that,

[2:17:57] but you know, if you want to put it somewhere else,

[2:17:59] but I'm just saying that line gets removed

[2:18:02] from all our budgetary process.

[2:18:05] Councillor Reston.

[2:18:07] I was just going to say, I'm going to agree

[2:18:09] with Councillor McNamara and Councillor Santa Rosa here.

[2:18:12] I do agree with taking that $25,000 from the Windsor Economic Development Fund to take that off the levy.

[2:18:22] To Councillor Kerr's point, we can move money from any reserve anywhere we want at any time, so I do agree just keep it there.

[2:18:29] We are going to have more, hopefully a lot more economic development stuff coming along where we might use some of those dollars and it might be a thing where in the next budget we might have to pull money out of there for something else if so choose.

[2:18:42] but again we can move money around it at any time so I won't support that I don't do you have

[2:18:49] the motion on the floor no that's not good not yet okay so yeah so yeah I would I would recommend

[2:18:56] that we take that 25,000 from Windsor Economic Development into there to reduce the levy by that

[2:19:01] that I'll make a motion if there's not one on the floor. Councillor Kerr your motion

[2:19:07] That was table I haven't called for a seconder yet, but that seems to be the easy path first.

[2:19:16] Okay, so we'll move to Councillor Reston's motion. Do you have that councillor?

[2:19:20] Okay, Councillor Reston.

[2:19:22] Yeah, to take the 25,000 contribution out of the Windsor Economic Development Reserve,

[2:19:32] instead of from the LaVie, I'm assuming that was coming from originally that into there.

[2:19:38] Seconded by?

[2:19:43] Councillor Santorosa?

[2:19:44] Do you want me to cancel it?

[2:19:48] Comments or questions?

[2:19:50] Councillor Vogler?

[2:19:51] Sorry, Councillor Vogler.

[2:19:52] I did have you down.

[2:19:53] That's okay.

[2:19:54] Thank you.

[2:19:54] I guess my question is, or maybe it's not a question, I think I'm trying to capture what Councillor

[2:19:58] Curz's effort here is to put it in the contingency so that we're using less contingency so that next

[2:20:03] year we're not starting from a place of a 4% tax increase because I'm looking at this

[2:20:07] and I'm saying there's 185 now, 210,000 in Invest Windsor Essex. There's 500,000 in the

[2:20:15] CIP and then there's 419,000 in economic development. So we have a hundred or a hundred. We have

[2:20:22] a million dollars of today's taxpayer's money sitting in a reserve for something that we're

[2:20:26] not doing. I agree with Councillor Kerr, I'd rather put it someplace where we're going

[2:20:30] actually impact this year's budget and in some maybe wanted to impact this year but it impacts

[2:20:36] next year because of our obligation to repay whatever we take from contingency. So I'm concerned

[2:20:42] that just moving 25 and leaving all these reserves here isn't accomplishing what I think Councillor

[2:20:49] Curz intention was if I'm understanding that correctly. So I will support the 25 but I'm also

[2:20:57] So, hopeful that you will bring that back because I understand the, if I understand

[2:21:00] the intent, I think it's important for us to do that.

[2:21:03] Okay.

[2:21:07] Any other comments on the motion?

[2:21:09] Seeing none?

[2:21:10] We'll vote digitally.

[2:21:35] My multi-tasking clerk who's capturing motions and answering my questions on the fly over

[2:21:40] here.

[2:22:34] Let's carry eight zero, Councillor Kerr.

[2:22:37] Yes, I would like to make a motion that we close off the whole economic development reserve

[2:22:45] of account and move it to the Consentious Accounts for a future allocation by Council.

[2:22:57] Thank you.

[2:22:58] Second by Councillor Vogler, comments, questions, seeing them, we'll vote digitally,

[2:23:36] motions

[2:23:36] lost, two to six, six opposed, Mayor Bailey, Councillor Santerosa, Deputy Mayor Wallstead,

[2:23:43] Councillor Busting, Councillor McNamara, Councillor Hoffman.

[2:23:45] Okay,

[2:23:50] to our CFO, moving on to GIS.

[2:23:53] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[2:23:54] GIS has found on page 76 of the budget's workbook,

[2:23:58] and we'll be up on screen for our residents very shortly.

[2:24:13] Can you walk us through 2026, 029?

[2:24:16] What type of conferences and training

[2:24:18] with the GIS technicians participate in?

[2:24:28] Mr. Martin, please.

[2:24:31] This line item is to create a training budget

[2:24:35] for the GIS technician. I believe if my history of the municipality is correct, GIS at one point fell within IT and it was separated from and its budget is not necessarily in full completeness in years past when the GIS technician has had to take training.

[2:24:56] The IT budget has actually gone ahead and covered some of those to support GIS as it transitions

[2:25:03] between new software packages.

[2:25:06] And as read the provider of the software package has made significant changes in capabilities

[2:25:11] and this would support our GIS technician in ensuring that they remain up to the standard

[2:25:19] that is expected of them as they continue to administer and advance future capabilities

[2:25:24] of our GIS system.

[2:25:27] Thank you.

[2:25:27] Can we speak to the position reallocation?

[2:25:30] This position I thought was in planning?

[2:25:34] It remains in planning.

[2:25:35] It remains in planning.

[2:25:37] Thank you.

[2:25:37] And so when it references the position reallocation or relocation,

[2:25:41] what is that?

[2:25:42] What is that referring to?

[2:25:47] I believe when it moved to planning.

[2:25:51] I believe that move predates me.

[2:25:53] So I'm going to take a yes.

[2:25:56] This is something that's already occurred.

[2:25:57] So this happened, I believe, in the last organizational assessment or review that was done.

[2:26:04] I think in 2021 or 2020, Brianna is nodding roughly in agreement.

[2:26:12] And so at that, I don't think at the time was, that budget center was completely

[2:26:17] and fully funded, and this is an attempt to do so. No change in reporting structure,

[2:26:21] or I'm simply offering to support in the absence

[2:26:25] of the Executive Director of Community Planning

[2:26:29] with the Budget Request.

[2:26:30] Thank you.

[2:26:31] That's great.

[2:26:32] Any other questions?

[2:26:34] Seeing none, we'll move on.

[2:26:36] I think I'll go ahead and call it.

[2:26:38] I'm sorry.

[2:26:42] I'll go ahead and call it.

[2:26:44] So we'll take a recess now for lunch,

[2:26:46] and we will be back at the table at 130.

[2:26:50] 130.

[2:26:56] We'll start, we'll be starting at community planning.

[2:27:01] It's all certain.

[2:27:03] My apologies. It is up to the mayor and council of how long you would like a recess.

[2:27:07] We had scheduled now, but it could be left.

[2:27:10] Okay, our folks around the table, okay, with a one o'clock start.

[2:27:15] All right, so one o'clock we'll be back at the table.

[2:27:17] We'll be starting with community planning and we'll be on page 79.

[2:27:21] Thank you.

[2:27:22] Yeah.

[2:27:23] That's easy.

[3:06:07] Everyone, I'd like to call the meeting back to order again. I do note that we're making really great progress through our budget, and we've certainly had good deliberations so far and good comments leading in. So welcome back to council chambers. Also welcome back to those folks at home that we're waiting on us for eight minutes. I appreciate the wave, but we're back now. We're starting at the top of our community planning on page 79.

[3:06:36] and I'll turn it right over to our CFO.

[3:06:38] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[3:06:41] One thing I'd like to do or bring to Council's attention

[3:06:43] before we start community planning is

[3:06:45] back when we were discussing corporate accounts.

[3:06:48] One of the motions of Council recently was

[3:06:50] to remove the community grants piece.

[3:06:55] That motion occurred after the budget was completed,

[3:06:57] so there is an additional $25,500 that can be removed

[3:07:01] from the corporate accounts to lower the tax rate.

[3:07:04] I think we'll make that adjustment because that's already been voted on and made by Council.

[3:07:11] So it'll have a positive effect on the tax rate.

[3:07:14] So I just wanted to make note of that, and we're going to put that in our cracking, okay?

[3:07:18] Thank you.

[3:07:18] 4%.

[3:07:19] Thank you so much.

[3:07:20] So recognizing that we were at 3.96, we're now at 3.85.

[3:07:25] That is correct.

[3:07:26] 3.85.

[3:07:27] Thank you.

[3:07:27] Okay, and with that, I'll turn it over to Council for review of the community planning area.

[3:07:34] I will note there are three positions here and those three positions are previously approved and funded by either the half-grant or the shift grant that Council discussed earlier in the year.

[3:07:48] So those are some big staffing additions, but they're all grant funded.

[3:07:59] Stephanie Mayer.

[3:08:02] Stephanie Mayer.

[3:08:03] Thank you.

[3:08:03] Why in the 020 on page just 79, 5 full-time planners, do we send, it looks like here that

[3:08:12] we send all the planners to the conference all at the same time?

[3:08:15] Is there just one conference?

[3:08:16] And I'm just wondering why we would send everybody, so there's nobody in the office because

[3:08:20] they know the pressure is on planning now, so, and how long is the conference, probably four

[3:08:24] or five days, is it or three or four?

[3:08:26] Through you, Mayor Belly, to Deputy Mayor.

[3:08:29] So the OPPI conference occurs once in a year, and it's usually a three day conference,

[3:08:34] and then there's also a committee of adjustment conference.

[3:08:36] Those are, I think, two to three days as well.

[3:08:38] So we do split the planners between the conferences, but majority of the planners do attend the OPPI

[3:08:45] conference.

[3:08:47] Thank you.

[3:08:48] So there's still someone, there are people are still here, though, and not everybody's gone

[3:08:51] at the same time.

[3:08:52] That's good.

[3:08:52] Thank you.

[3:08:54] Councillor Kerr.

[3:08:54] Thank you. It says full-time planners. Is that through these three plus two more that are the

[3:09:04] new ones? Is that the five that we're talking about? Through you, Mary, yes, that's correct.

[3:09:12] Further than could, why isn't the half funding paying for two to three fifths of that conference

[3:09:19] then? If they're paying, if it's their jobs and their people and they're on part time and they're not

[3:09:24] not going to be with us forever, so why would that money come from taxpayer, why would

[3:09:28] it not come from the funding, either a chip or half or whatever, how come, and that's

[3:09:33] not everything, that's going to be a reoccurring question with me on some of these jobs, because

[3:09:38] when we give our jobs to like an outside company, we don't have to provide them with desks and

[3:09:45] cars and laptops, that company does it with us.

[3:09:49] So once again, with here, if we ordered this work from an outside company, we wouldn't

[3:09:54] have to pay for their employees to go to conferences.

[3:09:56] So I'm wondering how come this isn't coming, three-fists isn't coming from the half fund

[3:10:00] or whichever each person is.

[3:10:05] Thank you for the question.

[3:10:06] We'd have to review what is deemed an eligible expense under the grant agreement.

[3:10:12] I don't recall, in my review, seeing that training in conferences was an eligible expense

[3:10:17] to be covered under the grant. However, temporary staffing was.

[3:10:24] So then we don't send them.

[3:10:26] Is that an option?

[3:10:33] That's, I suppose, that's up to Council. They want to invest in their staff.

[3:10:59] Any other questions from members of Council?

[3:11:04] Seeing them, we'll move on from community planning

[3:11:09] and into building. CFO? Thank you Madam Mayor. Building change request can be found on page 82

[3:11:16] of the budget. Book for Council, and we'll be up on screen for our residents.

[3:11:22] Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Harding.

[3:11:27] Questions for building?

[3:11:42] Seeing none, we'll move on, CFO.

[3:11:46] Thank you, Madam Mayor, that moves us into the next department, legal and legislative services,

[3:11:51] which begins with the general general council budget center, which can be found on page.

[3:12:00] I'm sorry, there are no change requests for that, but they can be found on page 85.

[3:12:05] If there are any other questions on the the admin center, Council feel free.

[3:12:18] My apologies, you directed us to page 85.

[3:12:23] Correct, there are no change requests for this budget center.

[3:12:28] That's a blank page.

[3:12:29] Thank you.

[3:12:29] And recognizing that you sent me to a blank page, this is in reference also.

[3:12:35] Did you say to Council's budget?

[3:12:37] No, this is general general counsel, like legal, general counsel.

[3:12:41] Perfect, thank you. Just were on legal. All right.

[3:12:45] I'm sorry, it's very confusing. That's on me.

[3:12:49] Yes,

[3:12:53] we may need to go back to that one. I did have a question for it, but I have no questions related to the blank page in my book.

[3:13:00] Fair enough. There are no change requests there.

[3:13:02] Thank you.

[3:13:03] What else?

[3:13:05] So let's move then, seeing noted no questions, let's move to legal services, which is on page 88.

[3:13:12] And there are a few reallocation keyed requests here.

[3:13:28] Seeing them, we'll move on with our agenda.

[3:13:31] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[3:13:32] Let's move on to page 91, legislative services, where you can find a change request to reallocate within departments

[3:13:42] and one change request to increase the transfer to the election reserve.

[3:13:48] Comments, questions?

[3:13:51] Seeing none.

[3:13:56] Okay, thank you Madam Mayor. Moving along quickly here, let's move to page 94, the by-law division of legislative services.

[3:14:04] Where you find some reallocation change requests.

[3:14:28] Seeing none, I'd like to direct members of council back with me just for a second to page 15, and while we go back to council services,

[3:14:36] I just wanted to ask some of the questions here.

[3:14:40] I note that although there hasn't been a giant uptake amongst this Council in terms of

[3:14:46] conferences and that sort of thing, I do want to make sure that the budget is adequate

[3:14:51] to be able to attend the conferences and the learning opportunities that are needed.

[3:14:55] And recognizing the overall budget, I think that the general

[3:15:00] General rule of thumb in the past has been that Councillors would go or be funded to go to two council conferences. Do we still have that allocation within this budget? Should members of council choose to go to two different conferences in one year times eight members of council? There's been no adjustments to the amount that council can undertake. I will note, as you've mentioned, historically, council is very much underspent in that regards.

[3:15:29] But the budget allotment exists very much in line with what was established years ago for each council member.

[3:15:37] So recognizing that council earlier on in this budget cut our own wages and recognize no wage increase next year.

[3:15:46] I do think that it is important though that we're setting the standard that if folks wanted to go, they could.

[3:15:51] And what will happen instead is if you say you'd like to go on a conference and there's no money left in the budget,

[3:15:56] that then the individual won't be able to go on a conference.

[3:16:00] So, do you know what this number would need to be

[3:16:02] or what adjustment would be required?

[3:16:04] Should members of council want to go on conference next year?

[3:16:08] So, through you, Madam Mayor,

[3:16:09] we have an allotment of $8,000.

[3:16:12] So, as you've done the math,

[3:16:13] it's approximately, you could attend probably two,

[3:16:16] maybe two and a half conferences with that.

[3:16:19] It depends on how, you know,

[3:16:21] which conferences they are if they're local,

[3:16:23] there's travel involved.

[3:16:24] but that is the amount set aside for each member of council?

[3:16:28] And does not mean that that's the all-in amount.

[3:16:31] Typically, the ones I'm signing off on are more than $1,000 for a conference.

[3:16:36] No.

[3:16:36] Probably more than that.

[3:16:38] So, I would say that it probably allows members of council to go to half a conference.

[3:16:43] 8,000 per person.

[3:16:44] Oh.

[3:16:46] Yes.

[3:16:47] Correct.

[3:16:47] 8,000 per person.

[3:16:48] Thank you.

[3:16:49] Yeah.

[3:16:49] Add a quick then.

[3:16:50] Thank you so much.

[3:16:52] All right. Carrying back on.

[3:16:58] All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Let's move

[3:17:01] back to page 97, Animal Control Budget. Now, I will note for Council here, it kind of

[3:17:10] got lost in translation a bit in the change of the manager of by-law who oversees this,

[3:17:17] but licenses and permits and related costs for dog tags should be removed from this budget

[3:17:24] center so the revenue should be removed and the and the related cost which has a budget

[3:17:31] impact of $22,800. So if we are going to right size the budget we should make that adjustment here

[3:17:38] at this time. It was just missed in budget review and budget submission but it's been

[3:17:45] No, it would increase the levy by 22800, so.

[3:17:51] Okay, I'm looking for a motion to proceed with those changes.

[3:17:58] Thank you, Councillor McNamara.

[3:17:59] Seconded by Deputy Mayor Wallstead.

[3:18:00] We're adding the 22k to right-size-the-budget comments, questions?

[3:18:10] One question from myself.

[3:18:12] Are we ensuring that the envoys are up to date for the participatory organization?

[3:18:19] for the dog pound?

[3:18:22] Animal control is actually separate than the dog pound.

[3:18:24] I know it's very confusing, but the dog pound books are obviously not in this budget

[3:18:32] as it's funded by the four different communities, but we have made some significant headway

[3:18:37] on accounting, reporting, and communications with our partners in that venture.

[3:18:43] Excellent.

[3:18:43] And so the dollars as they relate to even the incoming revenue that we're receiving from the participatory organizations,

[3:18:52] is that not flowing through a budget center somewhere?

[3:18:55] And if so, if not, why not?

[3:18:58] And if so, where do we expect to see it in the future once we're aligning with Microsoft Dynamics?

[3:19:04] So the dog pound is, it flows through the dog pound committee, the books flow through there.

[3:19:10] It is not tax payer-funded, it is funded by the contribution to the dog-pound for the dog days.

[3:19:21] It is almost like a separate legal entity from the municipality of Lakeshore, and it only gets reported up into our consolidated books.

[3:19:29] So they actually have their own audited financial statements, and their own complete set of books.

[3:19:34] Thank you. And so the employee wages associated would go also through that framework.

[3:19:39] That's correct, any staff hired flow through that separate organization or a cooperative organization between us and the other communities.

[3:19:49] Thank you.

[3:19:52] Okay, on the motion for the increase of 22k or animal control that is not dog pound will vote digitally.

[3:20:13] And that's carried eight zero.

[3:20:17] Thank you Madam Mayor, the next budget center is on page 100 and has the change request for the police budget center.

[3:20:24] I will note that this budget center sees significant increase to the OPP contract and I can confirm with council as of right now we do not have the budget estimate for 2026 from the OPP.

[3:20:39] I'm looking at my friend the general council but as of this morning that has not come in.

[3:20:43] We are estimated $5.8 million as the required amount to fund the OPP contract in 2026.

[3:20:58] I

[3:21:05] know the increase for policing is 2.1% of the municipal levy, but it equates to somewhere

[3:21:16] in the range of $750,000 from last year.

[3:21:22] Did

[3:21:26] he mayor?

[3:21:29] Recently heard that leaning in for example is 11% increase.

[3:21:33] I don't know if it's comparable for all other municipalities, or am I wrong?

[3:21:38] There was a communication put out by the OPP that it will not exceed 11%.

[3:21:44] But unless leaning has an email or something to the effect that all of the other municipalities that are on our police services board,

[3:21:54] We don't actually know at this time what it is going to be.

[3:21:59] So we forecasted to the best of our ability, noting that we will inform council when we

[3:22:06] get that cost estimate for the year, but as of this time, $5.8 million is our best guess.

[3:22:15] Thank you.

[3:22:16] Moving forward to crossing guards.

[3:22:20] Thank you Madam Mayor.

[3:22:22] Crossing guards can be found on page 103.

[3:22:23] One budget request there to add an additional two corners to the Recrossing Guard program.

[3:22:45] Thank you, moving forward.

[3:22:49] Thank you Madam Mayor.

[3:22:50] The next area is the Operations Service admin found on page 106 of the Budget Center.

[3:22:58] I will note that one of the shift funded positions falls into this budget category.

[3:23:04] And then there are a few additional change requests here.

[3:23:19] Thank you, moving along.

[3:23:22] Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next budget section is capital projects on page 109 of the budget.

[3:23:46] Thank you. Can you walk us through here which of these positions are shift funded?

[3:24:07] Through you, Madam Mayor.

[3:24:10] The CFO got a little mix up.

[3:24:14] CHIF is not funding the employees.

[3:24:17] The housing team is covered through the Housing Accelerator Fund.

[3:24:23] The grant that we received and anything else is going through the wastewater rates.

[3:24:31] The wastewater reserve.

[3:24:32] Thank you.

[3:24:33] Yes.

[3:24:39] Related to the implementation and approval of the charter.

[3:24:42] Correct.

[3:24:42] Yeah.

[3:24:43] Thank you.

[3:24:48] Councillor Santorissa?

[3:24:50] Just to the curiosity, for that line, the first one, 2026-057, the team leader for project

[3:24:55] management, why are we seeing such an overage in that revenue and could that not be reallocated

[3:25:00] elsewhere?

[3:25:01] Like we're looking at an expense of 147 with a revenue offset and then a negative budget

[3:25:05] impact of $29,000. I'm just curious as to how it got overfunded. And if that one in particular

[3:25:13] is half or or wastewater.

[3:25:20] Through you, Madam Mayor, she counsellors Santa Rosa. That $29,000

[3:25:28] is actually covering the vehicle lease that is going to be required for this position.

[3:25:39] So it's going to be funded through our vehicles reserve.

[3:25:51] Further comments?

[3:25:54] Hey, moving on.

[3:26:00] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[3:26:02] I'm sorry, but let's move on to page 113, the drainage budget center.

[3:26:09] We're the change request, our outline for council.

[3:26:25] Moving on to energy management.

[3:26:27] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[3:26:28] Energy management change request can be found on page 116 and will be available online for our residents to follow shortly.

[3:26:49] Engineering and infrastructure.

[3:26:50] Engineering and infrastructure can be found on page 119 and will be available on screen in just a second.

[3:27:00] Thank you. Can you walk us through 2026-031?

[3:27:09] Yes, Madam Mayor. 031 is the senior lead, a section leader engineering and project risk which is part of the program charter which is again funded through the capital projects to come such as the sanitary connection to the west.

[3:27:28] Thank you.

[3:27:31] Councillor Kerr.

[3:27:33] Another question kind of similar and probably end the same way.

[3:27:36] Some of these jobs on here are our chiff jobs and others.

[3:27:42] Is there money for their training for the chiff fund?

[3:27:47] Now I know understand there's not for the half, but what about the other two fundings?

[3:27:52] Can we do training, like again at the cell phones, the cars, the desk, the rent?

[3:27:59] Or is that all on us?

[3:28:01] We get the employee, but the rest is all on out, so we can't touch because there's a lot

[3:28:05] of money there. There's one's got 30 million, and the other one's got more. So I'm just thinking

[3:28:11] as a taxpayer, why would I pay for the phone when the chip fund is there?

[3:28:38] Through you, Mayor. Related to the Health and Safety Job Specific Training,

[3:28:45] It has been increased to accommodate new staff, also the increased to membership and training

[3:28:54] budget, so those will cover off their certification for the contract time that they're required

[3:29:00] to work with us in our office.

[3:29:02] They'll be required to take training related to job-specific project management, other things

[3:29:09] that would be required to do their job.

[3:29:10] So the concern more is what is the funding source, and is there an opportunity to pull

[3:29:16] those dollars from the same funding source that's funding the position?

[3:29:19] Through you, Mayor.

[3:29:21] The training was not included in the program charter when we brought it to council.

[3:29:26] So some roles were funded out of the water wastewater rates, and some will be funded out

[3:29:31] of capital projects costs.

[3:29:33] So council will see some of that moving forward after this year's budget.

[3:29:39] We didn't include the training or the job certification or the health and safety requirements.

[3:29:44] We would onboard them as a regular employee, but if you wish us, we can probably transfer

[3:29:50] some of those costs associated with that to the source of funding.

[3:29:56] I guess, could I make the motion then that any f***ing...

[3:30:00] The funds that could be put back on those bank accounts, you do that.

[3:30:15] Case to the motion is, can we realign the associated employee costs to the original source funder, which in this case would be the housing accelerator fund or the water rates? Or, chef? Or the other one is, no, chef?

[3:30:34] Just to clarify the shift and the provincial grant received does not cover off employee wages.

[3:30:42] So these will be funded out of the capital project costs and be recovered that way through council through the water rates as opposed to the general levy.

[3:30:54] Okay, anything you could go back and make a motion, anything you could go back, you look, somebody pick a look at it because I know it's coming at you fast and it's flying and it's like you always got to hear you got to do there.

[3:31:07] So I don't think you really have a chance to look at the fine print but I guess that would be good.

[3:31:13] We can we can do a review and report back to council as.

[3:31:20] We'll have someone run those numbers through the budget and report back to Council at a later point, so I'll get somebody working on that and we'll see what we could do.

[3:31:29] Okay, if the mayor says, then that's what it's going to be.

[3:31:31] So let's make sure there's a motion first. So to our clerk to read out, Councillor Kers motion.

[3:31:39] Thank you. I made needs of clarification on this.

[3:31:42] But I have direct administration to transfer any associated employment costs that can be allocated to the half grant account.

[3:31:51] I think it can't be, right? So it's the water rates that would end up picking it up.

[3:31:57] Oh, we could say that can be allocated to the half-grant or water rates.

[3:32:03] So moved by Councillor Kerr and seconded by.

[3:32:08] No seconders to save yourself the trouble.

[3:32:12] And we will no longer require that information. Thank you. Councillor Rustin.

[3:32:17] No, I just wanted to say just for clarification maybe for Councillor Kerr and I

[3:32:22] think I'm correct here, whether we take it from the Chiff or half funded or the capital,

[3:32:27] it all goes to the same spot at the end of the day, whether we have an extra $5 in

[3:32:32] Chiff or $5 in capital, it's going to come out of that pot eventually, anyhow when it

[3:32:39] all ends at the end of the day.

[3:32:42] So it doesn't save nothing, it's pay here, pay there, but it's still coming from the

[3:32:46] rate payer for the capital project.

[3:32:52] And Councillor McNamara.

[3:32:54] Just to add on to what Councillor Russen says, because you took the first part of what

[3:32:57] I was actually going to say.

[3:32:59] The second part that worries me a little bit about Councillor Kerr is when we do that, I

[3:33:03] think we're building in a false narrative to the taxpayer that, hey, we reduce the tax rate

[3:33:07] on this budget by this amount, by removing these things around.

[3:33:12] But then next year's capital, when we do have to actually put the shovel in the ground,

[3:33:16] that now is now $2,000 or $4,000 or $8,000 more expensive, so it's not a realistic cost-saving.

[3:33:23] So I think leaving it coming out of our center, we are hiring these staff as our staff, even though

[3:33:27] if it's temporary, I think that's irrelevant, they are our staff, and so their training should come

[3:33:32] out of it. And then the training budget will be reduced in the future when that stuff needs move

[3:33:36] away.

[3:33:39] Thank you. Further comments, questions? Seeing them, we'll move forward.

[3:33:44] Thank you Madam Mayor. Let's move into solid waste, which can be found on page 123 of the budget book.

[3:33:59] This is one of those blank pages, huh?

[3:34:02] No, no. There's a budget about 123.

[3:34:07] It's a $39,000 impact for the garbage rates are offset by what we build.

[3:34:14] So the residents, however, the tonnage that goes into the landfill is borne by the general tax rate, so they impacted the percentage increase on the tonnage is 39,052.

[3:34:30] I don't think there's an opportunity for us to say no thank you.

[3:34:35] Unfortunately, there is not.

[3:34:37] so less of blank page.

[3:34:42] There's unfortunately a lot of things in this budget that not much council can do to

[3:34:49] have service level impacts. Some of these are just escalating costs for the most part. So that being said, we can move to

[3:35:09] I'll defer that one to the executive director of operations.

[3:35:14] Thank you.

[3:35:42] Thank you.

[3:35:43] Through your show by the council.

[3:35:45] Yeah, the request for the new public works operator.

[3:35:50] Originally, this was a request for the,

[3:35:56] try to maintain a level of service with snow plumbing services.

[3:35:59] We have an average of, average route of 34 kilometers

[3:36:03] for each truck, which gets a little trying during a storm.

[3:36:09] You could take a assaulting event, could take you at least four hours to assault your out.

[3:36:15] A snow plowing event could take eight to 12 hours depending on the depth of the snow.

[3:36:20] This new operator, because we have a new truck that was approved by a council in 2023,

[3:36:26] that's currently getting built.

[3:36:28] We'll need a new operator for that route.

[3:36:29] But that will help alleviate the pressure on the trucks in the north end and hopefully

[3:36:34] get out with the guys helping the guys in the county.

[3:36:37] Also hooked to this is a new CLI program with the stormwater maintenance manual.

[3:36:47] A lot of stuff that we've acquired that under the ministry for maintenance of the storm

[3:36:52] sewer, storm pumps, a lot of obligations that we have to maintain and meet.

[3:36:57] So that's the, that's a request for the public groups with an operator.

[3:37:02] Thank you.

[3:37:03] Councillor Restan.

[3:37:07] I understand I read the request in that.

[3:37:11] However, I come back and I have a hard time with the additional us when

[3:37:17] without our levee going up in the sense of we hadn't added much of in terms of levee this year.

[3:37:24] So at this time, I can't support it, I get it, it's a hard load on them, but at the same time we need to start bringing in money to pay for these people and not tackle in the existing taxpayer with these.

[3:37:39] So I would say in the next year or two, as hopefully we get building in that additional levy money's coming in from new builds, then we can fill this.

[3:37:48] So, at this time, I'd like to make a motion to remove 2026-039 from the budget, if I got a second to.

[3:37:58] Thank you, some move, seconded by Deputy Mayor Wallstead, comments, questions.

[3:38:06] Councilor Santorosa, thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, recognizing we ordered the truck back in 2023.

[3:38:12] when they're their considerations and forgive me for not remembering for a report coming to council to add to that level of service at that time based on our growth rates because for me I see step one is you know you got to put the truck order in now we have a truck and we're not going to have an operator for it. So I don't know if that something that could be looked at seasonally recognizing there are some other components here but was it identified as a growth related need back in 23 when that order was placed.

[3:38:47] Thank you, Mayor Bailey, to Councillor Santorosa. There was not a report that came to

[3:38:55] council as far as a level of service. It was a request to budget, identifying the need,

[3:39:01] but there actually was not a report to the level increase. No.

[3:39:06] Further if I could, but I mean at this point, I think it probably came one with the other right,

[3:39:11] the request for the truck and then knowing that once the truck was available and on site,

[3:39:16] we'd have to have a driver for it. Is that accurate? Or was this more about asset replacement?

[3:39:20] Yes, that was included in the submission for the truck. I've required that.

[3:39:26] Yes, the rest in?

[3:39:28] You said the truck was still being built. Did you not? Or is it on site just for my clarification?

[3:39:35] Do we have the asset in our yard?

[3:39:38] Through you may be able to come to the rest in. It's being built right now, respecting it January.

[3:39:47] No, just with that being said, I think if it's expected January again by the time we get it and get it going, I would still like my motion to go to carry this maybe something next year when we actually have the asset because they say many of things on delivery dates and we know how that leads to so leave it at that. Thank you.

[3:40:12] So, Santa Rosa, just on that, we've done this in previous budgets. I'm wondering if Council

[3:40:17] Rustin would be amenable to taking a look at only a Q4 expense then, because my fear is next

[3:40:23] year, is an election year, so the actual budget will not get approved into 2027. And so we risk

[3:40:29] getting well into a winter season without the availability or the ability as a council

[3:40:35] to see that position be approved. And so my thought is, yes, there's some of the CLI work and some of

[3:40:41] the wastewater or the storm water management pieces that are in here, but recognizing you

[3:40:45] want to see the asset on site, I would love to see at least a Q4 approval and quarter

[3:40:50] that cost for 2026 and then realize the full, you know, the full position in 2027's budget.

[3:40:58] So ready for implementation, winter 202627?

[3:41:01] Correct.

[3:41:02] Thank you.

[3:41:03] Would be my ask.

[3:41:07] Yeah.

[3:41:08] I'm okay with that.

[3:41:09] We bring it as a Q4 expense and it's only a quarter of the year that you bring them on for

[3:41:14] next one, or I'm okay with that.

[3:41:16] Thank you.

[3:41:17] Advise us of what this number change will be,

[3:41:20] so it's 9-8905 currently.

[3:41:22] Can you stagger that for an implementation later?

[3:41:26] Councillor McNamara, is your comment on this?

[3:41:31] Councillor Curri yours is.

[3:41:33] Yeah.

[3:41:33] I just want to make sure I'm following about the ball again.

[3:41:36] We have a snowplow destined for January,

[3:41:41] like in four weeks.

[3:41:42] and we don't have a driver assigned to it.

[3:41:45] We don't have a driver hired for it.

[3:41:47] When I was in 1977, we had a three-foot snow thing

[3:41:50] in February of that year.

[3:41:51] So we could have a snow plow without a driver

[3:41:54] sitting in our yard waiting till next December

[3:41:57] till we hire a person.

[3:41:58] Is that what we're voting on?

[3:42:04] Three may be able to Bailey to Councillor Kerr.

[3:42:08] We do have backup drivers, the parks department

[3:42:11] and waterworks does backup.

[3:42:13] up, so the probability of its sitting is not likely, but the ideal position would be

[3:42:20] having somebody assigned to that truck.

[3:42:24] Thank you.

[3:42:25] Councillor Neckner-Meier.

[3:42:27] I do actually have one for that, for your comment you just made there.

[3:42:34] Our backup drivers in my understanding are there for give us flexibility when we do get

[3:42:38] into extended storm events, and we have a lot of excess overtime there to make up that

[3:42:43] slack.

[3:42:43] So if we're relying on them to do a primary route, how does that affect your ability in an extended storm event?

[3:42:52] To be met, Mayor, to Councilor McMory, it's not ideal.

[3:42:56] The water and parks have their own pressures, so backing up for public works is, again, you know, not an ideal situation for them.

[3:43:07] Generally, the backup has provided, that has provided has been worked really well.

[3:43:14] but it still does mean it's other works not getting done, right?

[3:43:20] Thank you. So I believe the motion is removing $73,000.

[3:43:27] $74,178.75.

[3:43:31] Did you capture that or would you like to do that?

[3:43:33] $74,178.75.

[3:43:37] Thank you. So we're removing $74,178.75 and rolling this out in.

[3:43:45] Q4.

[3:43:49] Did we get a second there?

[3:43:50] Deputy Mayor.

[3:43:51] Thank you.

[3:43:52] Further comments?

[3:43:53] Councillor Vogler.

[3:43:55] Thank you.

[3:43:55] I just have a question because we're focusing on driving a truck.

[3:44:00] And we haven't really added that many more kilometers of roads.

[3:44:03] But anyway, I'm not bogged down in that.

[3:44:05] What I'm bogged down is the second half of the position.

[3:44:07] The sore water management system and ensuring that somebody is properly trained.

[3:44:11] So what we're taking this away, we're pushing it to Q4.

[3:44:15] So we don't have someone dealing with that storm water management piece until cute.

[3:44:19] So again, we're getting stuck on the snow and the winter and all of that, but it looks

[3:44:22] like this position is much broader than simply dealing with snow plowing, et cetera.

[3:44:28] Can you speak to the, I guess, how that's weighted?

[3:44:31] You know, when we eliminate this person, how much is that impacting that piece of the position?

[3:44:37] Through you, Mayor.

[3:44:40] Council will see early next year, likely required compliance requirements for CLI.

[3:44:48] This year you'll see some of the costs associated with a lot of that work, line item 2026-038.

[3:44:55] We have the Ministry of Requirements.

[3:45:00] And now to meet on camera and flushing all of our sewer systems within a five-year period over and over every five years, including our storm water management facility cleaning. You would have seen come up recently. So these are getting implemented. And as part of that, you'll see a formal manual on what's required every year. What's what the province is heading towards is similar to water and sanitary.

[3:45:29] operators who are certified to also operate storm water management systems, which we haven't

[3:45:35] really seen in the past. So this is to try to get ahead of that. The province has not come

[3:45:41] out yet with the training program requirements. I believe we are going to see them shortly, probably

[3:45:47] within the next year. But we do have to do the work. Inspections, logging, a whole bunch of certain

[3:45:54] things. What will happen with that is that will fall on engineering. The engineering group

[3:46:00] and probably likely impact the level of service in certain areas if we do not have the staff,

[3:46:06] proper staff in the operations departments.

[3:46:10] Thank you. On the motion.

[3:46:47] Councilor

[3:46:48] Vogler, one more time.

[3:46:58] May I capture your vote?

[3:47:03] Support. Thank you.

[3:47:07] Okay, that's carried

[3:47:08] 8-6-2-2 opposed councilor McNamara, councilor Kerr.

[3:47:21] So we added 25, we took away 25 in community grants,

[3:47:25] we added 22 in animal control, we've removed 74, 7-178-75.

[3:47:32] Do we have a number?

[3:47:33] 3.72.

[3:47:35] Thank you.

[3:47:42] Councilor McNamara, then councilor Senator Roser?

[3:47:45] Yeah, it wasn't actually a question for administration.

[3:47:47] I just wanted to make a statement on item 2026-038.

[3:47:53] for the public's understanding of what that $200,000 is.

[3:47:57] I know our director of operation spoke to it, and if you watched our last council meeting when, or sorry, not the last to go back a couple when our CFO tabled the budget, was spoke to it is this is basically downloading of responsibilities from the province to the municipalities, which is not funded by the province is going to be funded by the levy.

[3:48:18] And so we don't have an opportunity to say yes or no to this.

[3:48:21] This is just thrust upon us.

[3:48:23] And we're also, as our executive director Cable just mentioned,

[3:48:29] we don't even know how we're implementing it yet

[3:48:30] because there are no guidelines around it.

[3:48:32] So I just wanted to make sure the people know

[3:48:34] that this is not a service level increase that we requested.

[3:48:39] This has just been thrust upon us.

[3:48:40] Thank you.

[3:48:41] Moving into roads in fleet.

[3:48:59] Okay, so let's move into water, which can be found on page 132 and 133.

[3:49:08] Thank you

[3:49:27] comments, questions in water, Councillor

[3:49:38] Reston.

[3:49:40] Just for my knowledge, employees under this category of water, are they funded from the

[3:49:51] water rates. Same with wastewater.

[3:49:55] Just further to that I'm assuming and I know that's not a good

[3:49:59] thing to do. Some of these positions are going to reflect some more of the testing and stuff

[3:50:05] that's going to fall back on us or is this an existing shortfall because we haven't expanded anything

[3:50:12] in terms of water. Were the positions asked here?

[3:50:18] Through the Mayor and Councillor Rustin,

[3:50:21] these positions are a shortfall at this time. The water treatment operator position

[3:50:25] has been deferred over the last couple of budgets, but we have due to vacation times,

[3:50:36] sick time, and different areas.

[3:50:37] We need that extra body to be able to operate the waste water treatment facilities.

[3:50:42] And with the team leader, the supervisor role of water distribution that we're looking

[3:50:48] at adding, right?

[3:50:49] Right now we have a vacancy in our team lead of water roll that has been vacant since June

[3:50:56] and we have been unable to find the operators or an employee with the proper certifications

[3:51:04] and experience to fill that role.

[3:51:07] So that's through our own recruitment as well as the external logic group.

[3:51:13] So, we've been unable to find an individual that has those qualifications with the Ministry

[3:51:20] requirements right now with certifications.

[3:51:23] It's harder for operators to gain multiple certifications and for our teams, it would

[3:51:30] be beneficial to be able to add a supervisor for both the treatment, which is the current

[3:51:35] position and then add the distribution and collection pieces and other supervisor to be able

[3:51:39] to be able to oversee those job duties as assigned to them.

[3:51:45] So with that job position that is open right now,

[3:51:49] it's still open, I imagine right now,

[3:51:51] is one of these a converted role,

[3:51:54] or how does that work, if we needed an,

[3:51:57] and part of, I don't know the qualifications,

[3:52:00] so that's why I'm asking,

[3:52:01] because we want two roles here,

[3:52:04] and that's fine if we need them,

[3:52:06] but if we have an existing one,

[3:52:07] Are we going to have challenges filling these to begin with?

[3:52:11] Through the Mayor to Councilor Rustin, this is an additional position.

[3:52:14] So the original position we are making right now is a supervisor of water,

[3:52:19] but that oversees both treatment distribution. That's the position we can't fill.

[3:52:22] So what we're looking at is removing the distribution portion from that original position

[3:52:26] and adding a supervisor of distribution and collection position.

[3:52:33] Thank you. Can you speak to the total increase overall for the water rates in

[3:52:40] In 2026 budget, the percentage increase.

[3:52:52] So the rates are increased based off the water and wastewater rate study, which we're

[3:52:58] completing a new one right now.

[3:52:59] But the last rate study, looking at our forecast in capital, dictated a 4% increase for water

[3:53:08] rates.

[3:53:09] So that is what you'll see here.

[3:53:11] And then on the wastewater side, that study also dictated a 9% increase for wastewater.

[3:53:16] water. Now those studies were based off of the capital plans at the time, but need to be updated

[3:53:21] for our water and wastewater master plan, which is significantly higher. But at this point in time,

[3:53:27] the rates are being based off the last rate study, so 4% for water, 9% for water.

[3:53:33] Thank you. Can you, I think, that the budget bucks are a compressed version, but can you outline for

[3:53:40] me where that means that we will sit at the end or coming into 2026 in terms of our positioning

[3:53:47] locally. Recognizing that our water systems are different, but recognizing that we're probably

[3:53:52] in the middle of the pack now.

[3:53:56] Certainly, Jessica's pulling up that. We did have it in the budget

[3:54:00] presentation. Thank you. In the region, we do sit in the middle when it comes to water and waste water

[3:54:08] rates. I just I'll confirm the position and I'll just need a second for that.

[3:54:13] Thank you. Thank

[3:55:18] you. Sorry, I just took a second there. For water we actually we have the highest

[3:55:21] in the region and then for wastewater we sit at fifth in the region.

[3:55:31] I will add that our geographic

[3:55:34] structure and the fact that we run our own water distribution would dictate that we would be the

[3:55:40] highest in the region. Only Amosberg and Lakeshore run their own distribution as a municipality

[3:55:47] on to itself. To come see in La Salle, share water costs with the city. Union water supplies

[3:55:54] Kingsville and Lake Shore. Well, it actually supplies part of Lake Shore, yes, but primarily

[3:55:59] Kingsville and Leamington are supplied by Union water. So we are the only municipality that

[3:56:04] has the fund, its own water rates and water distribution plants.

[3:56:09] Thank you. Does the study, did the previous study and does the study that we're conducting

[3:56:15] Now include the creation of efficiencies like do they complete an audit of our water systems

[3:56:22] and I know some of the things are similar and like opportunities so as we roll out similar

[3:56:30] systems it's easier in and create some efficiencies but does the study itself look to create

[3:56:35] efficiency and drive down the costs of what it costs to operate.

[3:56:42] Executive Director.

[3:56:43] Through you, Mayor. Council did fund a level of service review for both water waste water.

[3:56:50] I don't think that that rate study will quantify that or deal with that, but I think, you know,

[3:56:57] not going to lie, it's been challenging without a supervisor to even get some of the work out the door

[3:57:01] on the water side related to things that aren't mandatory, which is the level service review.

[3:57:07] And I also wanted to comment just to add to what Jay's manager, Barlow, was saying related to the team leader role and splitting it.

[3:57:17] Like, I think the problem with filling these roles is the compliance issue.

[3:57:21] So, this role, currently the way it sits as one supervisor, is required to fill an overall

[3:57:29] responsible operator position in both treatment and distribution and also waste water conveyance

[3:57:36] now.

[3:57:37] So, finding somebody who has all those qualifications and certifications is actually almost impossible.

[3:57:44] There is some people out there but they're very hard to find and training them really leaves

[3:57:49] the gap to those roles and responsibilities falls on other staff that are certified

[3:57:54] and qualified. And it's a 24-hour position, seven days a week, to be the responsible

[3:58:00] operator on call, able to answer questions and supporting operation staff whenever there's

[3:58:07] an issue on site. So what ends up happening when those roles are not filled, is it falls

[3:58:13] on the management role and in line with the amount of work and volume of management responsibilities

[3:58:21] it becomes problematic.

[3:58:23] So I just wanted to put that out there.

[3:58:26] Thank you.

[3:58:27] Thank you.

[3:58:27] Further comments?

[3:58:28] Questions?

[3:58:29] Seeing none?

[3:58:30] Moving forward.

[3:58:32] Thank you Madam Mayor.

[3:58:33] Let's move in to, I believe actually the last operating budget center, the wastewater budget

[3:58:39] center which can be found on page 134.

[3:58:56] I just had a question here. I think it was a misprint in the book, but on item 2026-094 and 2026-095, the Act

[3:59:12] these IAM maintenance program shows on both and I was just wondering on that because it shows up

[3:59:21] in the 3.5 and the 114 and I was wondering why.

[3:59:28] Through the Mayor to Councilor Reston I believe

[3:59:31] that is because the change request description for 094 is what Council approved

[3:59:38] from the report from last year, and the act design was already budgeted for last

[3:59:45] year's edition. And if you look at the act design in the Aqua O&M and maintenance,

[3:59:55] that is for a second application, if the first application doesn't take.

[4:00:01] No, I appreciate that. It just referenced the same time we approved, and I'm sure not. Thank you.

[4:00:10] Mr. Le McNamara. Just a comment, again, for anybody, any residents that are watching at home on item 2026-094. Obviously, everybody looks at a $3.5 million expenditure, and it's pretty eye-watering at this point in time. And I want everybody watching at home to understand that that's $3.5 million is the cost of doing nothing.

[4:00:31] So this was originally brought up in the 2012, sorry, yes, 2012 Eastern Communities Wastewater

[4:00:40] study, and it was punted down the road and punted down the road.

[4:00:44] If we would have addressed the issue back then, we wouldn't be sinking $3.5 million in cost

[4:00:49] today.

[4:00:50] That still doesn't get us to a solution to fixing the problem in the future.

[4:00:54] So that's all I wanted to say.

[4:01:00] Thank you.

[4:01:01] Moving into capital.

[4:01:07] Thank you, Madame Mayor. The capital budget begins on page 142 of your budget book, and I would

[4:01:17] Everybody got really excited here. I know it's everyone's favorite part of the budget.

[4:01:23] Thank you. Please, if you could, remember to reference the project number and code,

[4:01:32] And then for our managers and attendants who are here to assist council with this, please

[4:01:39] be on the ready to answer questions.

[4:01:42] Thank you.

[4:01:42] So I'm going to kick us off.

[4:01:44] I know I see lots of hands.

[4:01:46] I'm going to kick us off because I don't have a number that I can reference off to the side

[4:01:50] and I thought that maybe going first would be a good idea so that I don't confuse it.

[4:01:54] But we have such an amazing opportunity that I know I've spoke with the Executive Director

[4:01:59] about in also finance and some members of council and advance, but the EC way 100 that

[4:02:07] is very much a 161 kilometer cycling trail that happens through all of our region, 27

[4:02:15] percent of that amazing trail is in Lakeshore. Also, unfortunately, 1.8 kilometers of the 161

[4:02:23] 1 kilometers where there are deficits and low comfort in terms of writing are also in lakeshore.

[4:02:29] So I was disappointed to learn that it was our municipality that had the biggest gap.

[4:02:34] And 1.8 kilometers didn't seem to be too big a gap.

[4:02:38] So as we were moving through yesterday at county budget, I asked the county to support the spend

[4:02:46] And from the seawats resources that we have there, which becomes, I believe, a 60-40 split

[4:02:53] with the municipality.

[4:02:54] It passed at county, so thank goodness the region saw a value in our 27% worth of trails

[4:03:00] here in Lake Shore, and they had a $58 million reserve of which they could pull their share

[4:03:05] from.

[4:03:06] I understand that our share is somewhere around $300,000, and we also have a reserve that's

[4:03:12] sitting somewhere around 800,000 so we don't have the reserves that the county has to

[4:03:17] pull from but we certainly do have some so there'll be no impact to the levee.

[4:03:21] What it means is at the end of the day when we implement this work we will have completed

[4:03:26] as a region 161 kilometers of biking facility that goes through the entire region and you

[4:03:32] can cross the border and ride that one 61.

[4:03:36] So anyone looking to do that bike ride you have all winter to get in shape but the bike

[4:03:41] is ready to go and I invite you to come along. We don't have to do it all, but we can certainly do

[4:03:46] the Lakeshore portion of that, which is 27 percent. Yeah, Councillor Russell will join me on the 1.8

[4:03:54] kilometers. So I know that you have a number and also a reserve and so I'd like to defer to URCFO

[4:04:00] for where those dollars would come from and what I'm asking for in terms of resources.

[4:04:06] This will also come with some other asks that I'll be asking the county for the EC way 100

[4:04:12] it doesn't have signage, and it would make really great sense that there would be signage

[4:04:16] so that folks would know that you're on the right trail.

[4:04:18] When it's connecting county roads and pay shoulder programs throughout all of the municipalities,

[4:04:24] so I'll be tabling that shortly at the county.

[4:04:26] The other thing that I will be tabling at the county is the removal of Siwats signage, where

[4:04:33] it doesn't make sense.

[4:04:34] So Siwats, although we could boast, has some really great access ways.

[4:04:38] There's ways that are not safe or comfortable to travel.

[4:04:41] and some of them haven't been looked at in a long time.

[4:04:44] So one of the roads being Gracie's side road and our municipality,

[4:04:48] 12 foot ditches on both sides, gravel road.

[4:04:51] It's directing you as a seawatch trail,

[4:04:54] which tells me as a biker it must be safe.

[4:04:56] When I get there and not only don't have the right tire on my bike,

[4:05:00] you don't have a fat tire.

[4:05:01] You will blow both tires and land in the 12 foot ditch

[4:05:04] and have to ride in the middle of the road.

[4:05:06] So I'm going to be asking for them to also remove the seawatch

[4:05:10] sections that don't make sense anymore in our plan and I think our executive director

[4:05:15] Kabul sits as our seawats liaison. So I will be putting a lot of that probably on her shoulders.

[4:05:24] And so I'll circle back and see if you've managed the funder and then I'll come over.

[4:05:29] Certainly Madam Mayor, the request would be to add the missing link of 1.8 kilometers to the seawats

[4:05:36] trail at a total cost of $360,000 to be funded from the Trails New Reserve.

[4:05:45] Trails New?

[4:05:46] Correct.

[4:05:47] And is there a reference in our book already?

[4:05:51] No, this is a brand new account.

[4:05:53] That's right.

[4:05:54] Correct.

[4:05:57] $360,000 to come from the Trails New Reserve.

[4:06:01] Thank you.

[4:06:03] Deputy Mayor.

[4:06:06] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[4:06:07] Yes, it was nice to see all of county council except for one individual supporting this support it yesterday

[4:06:13] So I seconded the motion and thank you for raising it Madame mayor

[4:06:21] That's one other thing I was going to say with respect to it. Yeah, I think it's nice that we get it done finally

[4:06:25] So like it's important to people. I'm not a big bike rider. I just didn't have a motor on it

[4:06:31] And what's I do but

[4:06:33] But yeah, I think it's just get it let's get it done and get it and get it completed

[4:06:37] I think that's the main thing, and we have the money in the reserve, so if you're making the motion, Madam Mayor, I'll second it.

[4:06:44] Thank you, thank you very much for seconding it.

[4:06:46] I do know that my daughters and I did ride our bike to your house, along some very uncomfortable pathways.

[4:06:53] And so it would have been nice to be directed to the sections of the EC way that are safe and comfortable.

[4:07:01] Yes, those work the signage, but we could try that.

[4:07:06] That'll be extra.

[4:07:09] Yeah.

[4:07:10] Send second thought.

[4:07:12] However, as a region boy, it's been quiet, right?

[4:07:14] Because we do amazing work behind the scenes, all of the municipalities that have been paving their shoulders and doing other things.

[4:07:20] There's a ton of other benefits in terms of paved shoulders as it relates to the lifespan of the roadway as well.

[4:07:28] but there's at this point 161 kilometers and I don't know that anyone's been boasting about it or

[4:07:34] knows about it, but we've been quietly chipping along and we now have this amazing road in our

[4:07:39] community that you know 27% of which is in Lake Shore. So it was nice to see the county support to

[4:07:45] sort of jump the line as well to make sure that we can create these connections. So on the motion,

[4:07:51] I hope I have your support today after all that talk.

[4:07:56] You want to speak to this first? I'm sorry,

[4:07:58] I just have a finance question. Not that I can't, it could easily be paid because we started off with 479,000. But there is a contribution of 361,900.

[4:08:11] Where is that coming from?

[4:08:15] comes from the tax rate. Okay. Thank you.

[4:08:43] How about this?

[4:08:50] You can just tell the clerk if you'd like.

[4:09:09] I'm going in favor.

[4:09:16] Thank you very much. That's carried eight zero.

[4:09:20] Can you move into Councilor Reston?

[4:09:23] Yeah, I was going to start off and I guess I'll ask the manager, Mr. Simmons here,

[4:09:33] assignments, sorry, with the ice resurface and replacement.

[4:09:38] I know we just replaced one of the ice resurfacer's, I believe it was two budgets ago or one

[4:09:46] budget ago, I can't remember right now, but it was just recently, is this an item that we

[4:09:51] could put off for one more year, or that it wouldn't affect the services at the Atlas

[4:09:59] Tube right now.

[4:10:00] Thank you.

[4:10:01] We're on page 142, ATRC 2666790 at the top of the page.

[4:10:07] What the mayor said.

[4:10:09] I'm sure you can do it.

[4:10:13] Thank you, through you, Mayor, to Councillor Rustin.

[4:10:16] Sorry, I was hiding the weeds back there.

[4:10:19] Yes, we can push this to next year, next budget cycle if we have to.

[4:10:25] With that being said, I'd like to make a motion that we eliminate that and in a correspondant move eliminate the 220 that we were going to put into the vehicles and equipment reserves correspond into that.

[4:10:42] Thank you.

[4:10:43] Some move second to buy.

[4:10:45] If you may, I will stand.

[4:10:48] Comments, questions on 6790.

[4:10:51] Councillor McNamara.

[4:10:52] It's just a question on the average age of all of our I.C.

[4:10:57] Researchers and I want to make sure that when we bring this forward, we're keeping a consistent gap between them so that we get to the point where we're only renewing this once every three, four, five years, whatever their lifespan is so that we're not stacking.

[4:11:13] recommended industry practice is to replace them every 12 years.

[4:11:20] That being said, we have excellent facility staff right now that can maintain our equipment pretty good. I would I'm hoping to go every five years per machine.

[4:11:30] So if that answers your question.

[4:11:34] Yeah, what I'm looking for is then, as we come in like for next year's budget, present what the age of the other equipment is so that we understand there is going to be now consistent for five or six year gap between all of these requests through you may or to Councillor McNamara right now.

[4:11:54] Our most recent purchase is a 2025 and our last purchase was in 2020.

[4:12:00] I

[4:12:10] just want to make sure I understand Council's intention here.

[4:12:13] The intention is to remove the capital request and remove the reserve funding.

[4:12:19] I will draw Council's attention to the vehicle and equipment reserve forecast, which states

[4:12:24] that it is already negative 324,000 at the end of this year.

[4:12:28] So we would be increasing that by 220,000 that is a reserve that is, let's say it's long-term

[4:12:36] sustainability is problematic.

[4:12:39] That's the rest in.

[4:12:41] We would have been, it will be technically a wash on the percentage, though, is what

[4:12:46] I'm getting at, because if I don't buy the Zamboni or the Olympia or whatever it is,

[4:12:53] I'm not taking 220 out of there, but I'm also now not putting 220 in.

[4:12:57] So the end reserve amount of negative 354 or whatever, so at the end of the day, the percentage

[4:13:04] of negative is no different.

[4:13:06] It's the same.

[4:13:07] That's how I approach it.

[4:13:09] Correct. I just wanted to draw a council's attention that that is a high-risk reserve.

[4:13:14] We're not making it worse. We're just not making it better. All right.

[4:13:18] Okay, on the motion. Oh, sorry, Councillor McNamara.

[4:13:21] I just want to explain how I'm going to vote here. I'm not going to support you,

[4:13:25] Councillor Russell on this. I do support deferring this and I do support removing some of the capital,

[4:13:29] but given the fact that we are negative, I would be more supportive of taking half of those funds

[4:13:34] and putting it back into the reserve to try to get us back to a positive balance.

[4:13:39] Thank you. Did we expand? I thought that we expanded last year to three, or was the wish

[4:13:46] that we had three and we still only have two?

[4:13:51] We have three ice resurfaces currently.

[4:13:54] Thank you. Actually, we have four. I didn't trade in the last one just in case we

[4:13:58] didn't go through this budget. He also didn't make it better.

[4:14:04] Thank you very much.

[4:14:10] All right, on the motion,

[4:14:15] that level of service, though, is fabulous to be able to have.

[4:14:51] And that's carried 7-1, 1-opposed Councilor McNamara,

[4:14:58] Councilor McNamara.

[4:15:00] Question for Executive Director Koval. It's item, CAP26-6819. It's the Scott

[4:15:10] Side Road Waterming Connection, and I will preface this by apologizing that I was, I sent you an email.

[4:15:15] Well, I drafted an email last week for this, and it's sitting in my dress right now.

[4:15:21] So, what I was looking for is this is to connect the section of water service that is currently

[4:15:30] Supplyed by to Comsea on to our water service and I'm wondering if that was part of the contractual obligation in the agreement with to Comsea display water in that area that eventually we would connect back to our service or can we just leave it as is right now and still continue the connection with to Comsea through the mayor to council back America.

[4:15:51] This is not part of the agreement to connect but it is something that we want to do to be able to connect that service to stop using.

[4:16:01] the water from to come see in that area and have it all under our own water systems.

[4:16:05] We don't have extra reporting and other requirements that are through the Ministry regulations for

[4:16:11] that separate system.

[4:16:20] Moving on, Will, we process that new information.

[4:16:23] That's the rest in.

[4:16:25] I want to talk about CAP-19-6259, if I could.

[4:16:32] Page

[4:16:36] 142, fourth item now.

[4:16:42] Thank you, go ahead.

[4:16:45] So during this budget, a lot of these items that I've seen that, and this item here comes back to the first budget that I was on council.

[4:16:55] I did ask the corporate leader of finance to provide an updated version of what monies haven't been spent throughout standing on projects like these.

[4:17:05] and with this I'm just it's very frustrating because we're looking at an ask for 50% more over what we originally budgeted and that's frustrating and and I understand there was delays and stuff outside of our our realm that led to this work not happening in in years past so my question is with this is there areas of this that we could cut a little bit

[4:17:34] and I don't want to cut nothing with the trails

[4:17:36] or the actual main residential portion.

[4:17:39] I'm talking about by the tracks.

[4:17:41] As I know, there's about 80 feet there,

[4:17:44] I believe, of railway property that's currently

[4:17:46] not enclosed on the north side

[4:17:48] and about 80 or 100 on the south side.

[4:17:52] And I'm wondering if some of that we could leave off

[4:17:54] because it is frustrating and we have all this work to do.

[4:17:59] And we're adding 50%, 50% to this tender

[4:18:02] from what we originally approved.

[4:18:03] then I know I was very hesitant then on it so to see it come back was very frustrating.

[4:18:09] So I'm wondering, is there some stuff there that we could back off on?

[4:18:17] Thank you, Mayor. Yes, there actually is. I know you mentioned you didn't want to cut back on

[4:18:24] the trail. The trail at the south end of Wallace Line pretty much ends nowhere, ends at Canelo 22.

[4:18:31] and it does also go over the rail tracks there, and there's draining closure at the rail tracks.

[4:18:43] This is all fundamentally for long-term future work, so those items could and have been identified

[4:18:51] as provisional items under this contract, so they could be cut out of this,

[4:18:56] but they would ultimately be needed when development south of the Wallace Woods area would be developed.

[4:19:06] Okay, yeah, with that, I would like to see us do that. I'm going to make a recommendation here in a

[4:19:12] minute of what I'd like to see because I know Wallace Woods has been talked about probably since I was

[4:19:18] a baby. I don't know, but it's been a long time. So, with knowing that and just knowing the constraints

[4:19:24] We're under right now with the infrastructure and that I would like to see some of that being built out to help bring it in some more funding before we do something that's for way down the road, especially with the cost how much they've ballooned here.

[4:19:41] So with that being said, what I did here was we had originally put in for or approved $3.289 million.

[4:19:52] dollars. And what I did, I talked to CAO, CNAFO, RUSO, that we make roughly 5% on our

[4:20:01] money. So I did the compound over the last 3 years, which brings us up to 3.8 million.

[4:20:08] So with that being said, I would like to see us spend no more than 4 million on this.

[4:20:14] And if it does come in higher than that with the provisions out at that time, we have to

[4:20:20] approve the tender anyways and it's coming out of reserve we could approve the

[4:20:24] overages at that time if there is to make sure we get the portion of the

[4:20:28] road where all the residents are now complete if I got support to council on that

[4:20:33] with a seconder so that's what I'd like to move to cap that at 4 million and take

[4:20:39] some of them provisions out to make sure we get there if we have to.

[4:20:42] Hey, capping at 4 million so moved seconded by Deputy Mayor Wallstedt comes

[4:20:48] That's like a question to the mover before I so the extra 970,000 that goes back to the

[4:20:59] tax pair or does it go into an account.

[4:21:01] It goes back to the roadries, sir.

[4:21:07] Councillor Mackinamere.

[4:21:08] I have a question for division of your orm show on the provisional items with the pathway.

[4:21:16] How was that provision set up?

[4:21:17] Was it the entire pathway network, a long Wallace line was set up as a

[4:21:22] provision, or was it from Water Street south to 22?

[4:21:28] Thank you, Mayor. Through you, Councillor McMurray.

[4:21:32] Yeah, it's actually the section south of Water Street all the way to pretty much the

[4:21:39] stop sign at Canary 22.

[4:21:47] On the motion,

[4:21:50] clarification on the motion.

[4:21:51] Thank

[4:21:57] you Madam Mayor. It's more of a question for Mr. Rousseau. So the proposed motion that I have is to reduce item CAP 196259, the Wallace word reconstruction by a certain amount to spend no more than $4 million on the project with the proposed additional funds to be transferred back to the road's life cycle reserve.

[4:22:23] So

[4:22:27] the reduction would be 970, but the total budget line would be 710621.

[4:22:36] I don't know if that helps you, Madam Clerk.

[4:22:42] Councillor Kerr.

[4:22:44] Just for clarification, then.

[4:22:46] This will not put any improvement on the budget.

[4:22:50] will still be at 3.9 whatever and so we're just going to put it in the account and spend it later,

[4:22:55] just not spend it today.

[4:22:58] That is my understanding of the motion.

[4:23:05] Okay, on the motion.

[4:23:28] And that's carried 8-0.

[4:23:36] I just want to pull us over to ATRC 2658, the parking study at the ATRC.

[4:23:43] I'd like to eliminate the $20,000 for the parking study and the justification is that the study will

[4:23:49] evaluate the capacity, usage patterns, potential improvements, the community events,

[4:23:54] recreation, programming, how people are driving where they're parking.

[4:23:57] We just spent a lot of time there, and it's really, really obvious that we're parking

[4:24:00] on this side of the building.

[4:24:02] And I'd really love to pull out the $20,000 worth of studying it and ask instead for a report

[4:24:08] to come back on what the cost is to actually granular AB or asphalt that side of the building.

[4:24:15] So, I believe it's the south side, north side, north side.

[4:24:21] We've spent an awful lot of time there to not know what the community patterns are and

[4:24:25] where people are parking their car, and certainly we can see that when we have large scale

[4:24:28] community events, we've got things in the way.

[4:24:31] So I know that there's a further study in the future that will need to be done in terms

[4:24:35] of like we have curbs, you know, we have to jump the curbs to park on the side where we're

[4:24:40] not supposed to be doing that.

[4:24:41] But I think the first step is really just let's get some granular A or B done or asphalt

[4:24:47] on that north side of the building, and then we can worry about how can we further expand from there?

[4:24:51] So my motion, I don't need it, my motion is to pull it out and to bring back a report

[4:24:56] on the cost associated with completing the north side of the building, if I have support.

[4:25:06] Thanks, Kelsey. Okay, comments, questions on my motion?

[4:25:10] Where does the $20,000 stuff? Can you say pull it out and just cancel it off?

[4:25:14] Yep.

[4:25:15] It just goes back to the tax.

[4:25:16] Yep.

[4:25:18] No.

[4:25:19] Is the 20,000 currently coming from the Levy or the reserve?

[4:25:23] It's coming from the plans and studies reserve at this point in time.

[4:25:25] Okay.

[4:25:26] So maintaining the 20,000 in the reserve and bringing back a report.

[4:25:33] Okay.

[4:25:33] On the motion, we'll vote digitally.

[4:25:46] The point is, we don't need it.

[4:25:49] Yeah.

[4:25:57] Save it.

[4:26:00] We have so much work to do there that, honestly, let's move forward with getting some work done

[4:26:05] instead. Carried 8-0? Councillor Vogler.

[4:26:12] Sorry, Councillor Reston.

[4:26:15] I just had a question on page 143.cap-26-6849 with the drainage report there. I know there's

[4:26:27] been a lot of stuff done on KL over the years like reports and planning in this. And I just

[4:26:33] wondered, is this drainage report to actually finally do something there or just another report?

[4:26:40] Through you, Mayor, this is the road's portion of the drainage report to do the improvements.

[4:26:47] So the Miss Pallidy would file Section 78 to improve the drains and go forward with

[4:26:54] finalizing the drainage improvements. And then you'll see next year we'll be back with

[4:26:59] the design of the road and to reconstruct KL Avenue within probably the next two to

[4:27:06] three years.

[4:27:07] Okay.

[4:27:08] No, I just wanted to make sure it had a true purpose in that something that was just

[4:27:12] pie in the sky.

[4:27:13] That's all.

[4:27:14] Thank you.

[4:27:15] Councillor Santorissa.

[4:27:16] Just further to that.

[4:27:17] So seeing when we have the road report come back that KL was one of the ones that was going

[4:27:22] to be eliminated for, I would think full reconstruction to urban standard, just because of the financial

[4:27:27] pressures that we were seeing in the road's plan over the next five years. We're continuing

[4:27:31] with this drainage recognizing that the scope of the actual reconstruction may be reduced

[4:27:36] in terms of level of service, or are we still going forward with those kind of original

[4:27:40] plans?

[4:27:43] Through you, Mayor, I don't think we've

[4:27:45] totally agreed on what the cross-section of the road would look like at this point. When

[4:27:50] we bring back the drainage report to Council for design, we can probably provide some options

[4:27:57] and alternatives. I think within this area, looking at the adjacent roadways and waterfront

[4:28:05] trail requirements and pedestrian friendly facilities that should be along there, it's

[4:28:12] likely going to end up being an urban cross-section, being recommended, but Council can make

[4:28:16] that decision at some point.

[4:28:21] Thank you. Moving on to COM 266820. Can you tell me where the 5,000 is coming from?

[4:28:33] Sorry, page 145 at the very bottom, COM-26, 60, 20 communication and engagement, camera

[4:28:41] equipment, $5,000 is that a reserve or levy?

[4:28:44] That is coming from the technology office equipment reserve.

[4:28:48] Thank you.

[4:28:49] I'd like to make a motion at this time to increase that by 5,000 so that it's 10,000 so that

[4:28:54] we can get adequate equipment for the whole department looking for a seconder.

[4:29:00] Thank you, Councillor Bustin.

[4:29:02] Comments, questions?

[4:29:07] That's—is that to come out of the—I should have before I second it, but the same—

[4:29:11] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[4:29:11] Okay.

[4:29:11] Yay.

[4:29:16] We'll vote to do that on that.

[4:29:47] We can take it and we give it a way.

[4:29:50] We're carried at 7-1 Post-Councillor Kerr moving on to CLM 2668-21, Councillor Santorosa.

[4:30:00] Thank you. You saw that hand up. I appreciate it. I'd like to make a motion to remove COM 266821, recognizing that we put some money towards, you know, the community, hopefully community engagement to support the community branding. This cycle, I'm not in favor of seeing this move forward, particularly in election year. I think it, it distracts from what else is going on first and foremost, and I'd be happy to see this come back to the next council.

[4:30:27] So move, seconded by, Councillor Hoffman, comments, questions, Councillor Kerr?

[4:30:33] Where is happening to the $40,000? Is it going back to the taxpayer, just going back

[4:30:37] into the bank accounts that we call reserves?

[4:30:42] And be my suggestion that we put it back in the reserves as the plans and studies reserve

[4:30:46] is also negative, but if that is a decision of council, so no.

[4:30:55] Thank you on the motion.

[4:30:56] We'll vote digitally.

[4:30:57] I literally don't do it because now I'm taking notes apparently.

[4:31:22] And that's carried 8-0. Very pleased to seize UM-26, 68-86.

[4:31:27] We'll be dealing with I think the last part of our communities of communities that needs

[4:31:31] some branding work done in there. And I think community naming as well.

[4:31:36] Will that be incorporated into this? Hey, well, great.

[4:31:40] Councillor Buston.

[4:31:51] No, I just had a question here with CAP-26-6877, page 144, just a 4.34 million for the

[4:32:03] water treatment or the wastewater treatment plan on the east end. I'm just wondering

[4:32:09] with that all in compasses, I'm assuming detailed design. So it's a fair bit of money, so I was

[4:32:16] I was wondering with that 4.34 million and I see Ms. Cabal.

[4:32:27] To our director of engineering, it was stick the dealer I think.

[4:32:36] Sorry.

[4:32:37] Thank you, ma'am. Sorry.

[4:32:38] Would you mind repeating?

[4:32:40] The item there, we're allocating 4.34 million.

[4:32:47] It just as design costs associated with the Eastern Community Sanitary Treatment Plant.

[4:32:52] I'm just curious to what that all entails.

[4:32:55] It is a large sum of money, so I was wondering to what point does that put us at in terms of construction?

[4:33:06] Thank you, thank you, thanks for the clarification.

[4:33:11] Sorry, I thought the question was going to another.

[4:33:15] Yeah, this is actually just the design dollars right now.

[4:33:20] It's obviously a considerable investment.

[4:33:23] It is also a considerable item once constructed and this is the whole of the eastern sanitary

[4:33:35] pollution control and treatment identified in the water waste water master plan.

[4:33:45] Okay. So, that's just the design of the plan itself, not—

[4:33:50] Sorry.

[4:33:50] Wow.

[4:33:51] Sorry, I'm too through you.

[4:33:52] It also includes the conveyance from the Comber Lagoon to the treatment facility as

[4:33:59] well.

[4:34:00] So, the whole design of this whole system, okay, little better, still a big number, but

[4:34:06] little better.

[4:34:11] Hey, Torcea, can you give us a number where we're sitting, please?

[4:34:14] I

[4:34:17] love that you wait till the person who is tracking that walks out of the room to ask me if this is a test

[4:34:27] More that you want to pull out members account for 3.2

[4:34:38] 3.2. Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor.

[4:34:44] I think I want to zero in on page 146

[4:34:46] six, four, four, eight, six, four, four, eight, DTC, DTCS, whatever that means.

[4:34:57] I have no idea.

[4:34:59] It's halfway down the page.

[4:35:00] Right in the middle.

[4:35:04] Replacing $150,000, we have vulnerable equipment apparently or whatever.

[4:35:11] Like I don't understand that computer's last.

[4:35:13] That's quite a length of time and are we having a lot of trouble with the downtime because we have old computers or what's one of my missing.

[4:35:24] Thank you, Mayor Bailey and Deputy Mayor.

[4:35:26] This is in line with the life cycle of or the current life cycling policies or practices that we have for our technology equipment.

[4:35:37] So this is aligned with the capital asset replacement and the asset management replacement that the municipality currently operates and the equipment that is slated for replacement next year across both servers or any type of server equipment or workstations or cell phones all come under that single line item.

[4:36:02] and that's to execute annual life cycling.

[4:36:06] Not that necessarily any piece of equipment is vulnerable

[4:36:10] anymore so than anything else,

[4:36:12] but just to maintain the current service levels

[4:36:14] that the municipality has.

[4:36:16] Is there an annual amount that we put into this?

[4:36:18] Is that about 150 a year?

[4:36:21] The amount varies year to year depending on the number

[4:36:24] of assets that are due for replacement.

[4:36:27] So last year it was a significantly smaller amount.

[4:36:31] It's something we could look to smooth out, but because they're capital assets, I don't

[4:36:36] generally carry it as operating costs.

[4:36:40] So this year happens to be 150,000.

[4:36:43] Last year was only 50, or shouldn't say last year.

[4:36:46] This present year was only 50,000 because that was the scope of the assets that required replacement.

[4:36:51] So this upcoming 2026 is a larger replacement cycle than perhaps this year, and it varies

[4:36:58] year to year.

[4:36:58] But because they're capital assets, that's why it's carried in the capital budget so that they can be tracked, appreciated, and then planned for replacement.

[4:37:06] Okay, I guess when I hear things like we need to replace workstations and stuff, that kind of bothers me and even some of the equipment, if they can last another year, it can last another year.

[4:37:17] And workstations, I don't even want to ask what the life cycle is in a workstation because they can last a long time.

[4:37:23] time. So I'm just concerned about that. I think it was 50,000 last year. I'd be in favor

[4:37:30] of it remaining at 50,000 for this year.

[4:37:36] You see a huge problem with that? Are we going

[4:37:37] to compute? It's not necessarily that they would shut down.

[4:37:43] Their warranty and service coverage that we carry when we acquire workstations and equipment

[4:37:48] would expire, any increase or any additional repairs and maintenance would have to be absorbed by the operating budget.

[4:37:59] The current life cycle is a four year life cycle, which is one year longer, believe it or not, than the industry average.

[4:38:07] The industry average on workstations, cell phones, that type of equipment is three, we've pushed it to four.

[4:38:16] So, you could push it beyond that.

[4:38:20] What you enter is particularly on laptops and cell phones and those types of devices is

[4:38:25] performance degradation due to batteries, and it becomes more cost prohibitive.

[4:38:32] Not necessarily cost prohibitive, but it's good dollars into essentially depreciated assets

[4:38:37] to replace a battery in a out of support workstation or laptop.

[4:38:42] And that's why Council had the municipality and Council had adopted the four-year life cycle for those pieces of equipment.

[4:38:52] I think I may come back to that. So thank you.

[4:38:55] Thank you. Councilor Hoffman.

[4:38:57] Yeah, just through you.

[4:38:59] Mayor, really, this is just follow-up as to what our deputy was saying.

[4:39:06] Would you be willing to amend this to 75?

[4:39:08] and so I'll make the motion to bring it to 75,000

[4:39:21] off the levee, yeah.

[4:39:22] No, it'll be reserve.

[4:39:25] It's more reserve form.

[4:39:26] Okay.

[4:39:32] Okay, so the motion is to reduce DTCS-26448 annual computer life cycle from 150 to 75,000

[4:39:42] and maintain the rest of the dollars in the reserve.

[4:39:52] Comments, questions?

[4:39:57] is it so just to clarify so that's coming out of a reserve so I won't affect the levy.

[4:40:01] That's right.

[4:40:03] Okay, just see the CFO nodding his head.

[4:40:06] It'd be nice to know what maybe for future budgets, what affects the levy and what is

[4:40:11] what's in the reserve.

[4:40:14] I know well, everything that about the design is that everything in the capital budget

[4:40:21] is funded by the reserves.

[4:40:23] So we plan transfers into the reserve to try to ensure we have, you know, adequate funding.

[4:40:31] Again, this reserve, technology and office equipment is another reserve that I'm detecting.

[4:40:38] The trend here I keep saying is negative.

[4:40:40] These are core assets that are contributions into these reserves are not matching our spend out.

[4:40:48] So I do get a little nervous when we talk about reducing transfers to reserves to attract

[4:41:00] a lower tax rate.

[4:41:03] If we look at our deferred items from last year, there's about $800,000 of cuts from

[4:41:09] the year before to reserve funding.

[4:41:12] That is not sustainable.

[4:41:13] So, I just caution that as we go through this, I know it is Council's

[4:41:19] prerogative to set and determine how much funding goes into all of these reserves, but

[4:41:26] it seems to be areas where life cycle requirements are outweighing our contributions in.

[4:41:36] So, I just want to make that a comment.

[4:41:39] Thank you, Councillor Meckermatt.

[4:41:41] I just want to caution everybody on this.

[4:41:45] My corporation many years ago went through a fixed and variable overhead reduction program

[4:41:50] where we did move from three to four years on all of our IT hardware and the cost savings

[4:41:56] that they saw on the CapExide was directly attributed back to operations the following year.

[4:42:01] And then on top, so it wasn't a cost savings at all, but then we also had to get extra staff

[4:42:07] in to actually physically replace motherboards or hard drives or monitors or keyboards and so

[4:42:12] at the end of the day it was actually a cost increase in the corporation. We have now gone back

[4:42:16] to a three-year life cycle in my company. So there's caution here that we may be saving today,

[4:42:21] but we'll be paying it tomorrow. Councillor Reston. I just wanted to follow up on a little bit with

[4:42:28] CFO set there with the cuts to reserves and one of the examples that in the deferred operating here

[4:42:35] last year item two we paid for the skate park out of the Community Benefit Fund instead

[4:42:41] of out of the parks and furniture fixtures reserve but didn't transfer that and you have

[4:42:46] that as critical high. Well, we didn't do, we were going to spend 125 out of that, we

[4:42:52] used Community Benefit Fund. That didn't draw that reserve, that reserve, if it was going

[4:42:57] to be at $5, it's still at $5 as budgeted per last year. So that's all I'm saying. That's

[4:43:03] a little misrepresentation that we cut short,

[4:43:06] because we use the community benefit,

[4:43:08] which is not a levy or anything of that aspect.

[4:43:15] So I have a hard time with that one.

[4:43:17] Well, I understand what you're saying is

[4:43:21] that was a reallocation of funds in that particular piece.

[4:43:25] The motion as it read from last year

[4:43:28] was not like a one-time motion.

[4:43:29] So, when we go to start building the budget, that cut to the parks reserve was a permanent cut to the parks reserve.

[4:43:39] That is why it is highlighted as critical.

[4:43:42] But it wasn't because we were going to spend that money out of the parks reserve last year.

[4:43:47] We were putting in 125 to spend 125.

[4:43:51] I realized that, but the motion of council was to remove 125 from the base budget, and therefore I can't put it back in.

[4:43:59] No, it was to remove from the transfer to it because it might have been the intention, but the way the motion read was different.

[4:44:08] We went through a lot of this when we were building the budget.

[4:44:11] Those cuts from last year, well, they obviously could not meet within the 4% requirements as well.

[4:44:18] So what I'm saying is, as we make some of these cuts and we make adjustments, if we are intent to only do it for one year, it should be reflected in the resolution because it is very difficult to determine what is a one-time cut and what is not.

[4:44:38] And the wording of the resolution is very important when we go to prepare next year's budget.

[4:44:43] With that being said there for understand, and I think any time that we're deferring a reserve transfer because we're taken from somewhere else is not meant to be permanent.

[4:44:53] It's meant to be the one time thing for that, so that specific resolution last year should have just been for that.

[4:45:00] That, like, that it was paid from somewhere else, not that we were taking actual dollars. And that's what I want to say, because that really confuses me, because it's like, no, we did, we did not pull money out of the reserve. We didn't put the money in, that was coming from the levy to fund that. We funded it from another source. I think it goes both ways, because we certainly see both in budget. And, you know, if this reserve transfer was 50,000, and now you're asking for 150,000, and the deputy mayor says I'd like to reduce it to 75.

[4:45:29] If the permanent thing is actually I want it to be 75, I don't want it to be interpreted

[4:45:35] the other way.

[4:45:36] So I think it goes both ways depending, but we need to be very cautious in including

[4:45:40] if this is a one time or if this is something that carries on into the future.

[4:45:45] Also the other thing that this ties into is operationally how it's operationalized once

[4:45:52] we've set budget.

[4:45:53] So we can say, you know, this is what we've allowed.

[4:45:55] So there's 75,000 and you can say, well, I ran a deficit because I had to spend the dollars because equipment died, right?

[4:46:03] And so is it operational orders that say you had no more money to spend, you needed to come back to council, or can you run a deficit?

[4:46:11] And we've not had a level of service comfort discussion amongst council on how much running of a deficit, deficit budget discussions are real discussions we should be having about what is council's comfort in running a deficit budget?

[4:46:25] And how much in real time can we get our academic and financial softwares to have our end users

[4:46:33] knowing where they're at at the end of Q3, Q4, right?

[4:46:37] We seldom get to real time.

[4:46:38] We're looking for dollars to reconcile from 2023 and getting to 2024.

[4:46:45] I think as we're moving forward, we're doing fantastic work to bridge that distance, to bring

[4:46:51] in the right software to train the right people, to expand all of these kind of conversations,

[4:46:56] but they do dovetail in to bigger and more complex things, right?

[4:47:00] Certainly, the level of comfort of running a deficit budget isn't one we've had, and

[4:47:04] we should, because that's a real possibility moving forward.

[4:47:09] I had come from McNamara.

[4:47:12] Yes, actually there's a question for Executive Director Cable on ENG26-6833.

[4:47:19] It's the Bridges Need Study.

[4:47:22] I'm not looking to make any changes here.

[4:47:24] My question is actually this study is on a rolling two-year,

[4:47:28] where we do a two-year outlook for Bridges

[4:47:31] for repairs and rehabilitation.

[4:47:33] Would it not make us make more fiscal sense and maybe extend this out

[4:47:36] maybe to the three or four-year study where we can maybe get more bang

[4:47:39] for our buck and then better plan our capital?

[4:47:46] Thank you.

[4:47:47] Thank you very much.

[4:47:47] Councillor McMurray. The two-year plan for bridge and needs study, in short, is mandated

[4:47:56] under an act.

[4:48:00] Thank you. Recognize and I did have a motion

[4:48:02] on the floor. I'll have the clerk read it back and then we'll vote digitally on it.

[4:48:09] William, Madam Mayor, the motion I have is reduced item DTCS-26448 for the annual computer

[4:48:16] a life cycle replacement to $75,000 and transfer $75,000 back to the technology and office

[4:48:22] equipment reserve.

[4:48:26] And this is something, Deputy Mayor, that you are reducing that reserve fund to.

[4:48:34] That was the office vote, and I'm just supporting it.

[4:48:38] Correct.

[4:48:40] For one year?

[4:48:41] No, ongoingly.

[4:48:46] He didn't say it.

[4:48:48] I'm going to.

[4:48:49] All right.

[4:48:50] We'll vote digitally now.

[4:49:10] I think that particular wording may not agree with the intention.

[4:49:16] This is exactly what we were just talking about.

[4:49:19] Is the intention, then, to reduce the transfer to that reserve from the operating budget to

[4:49:25] lower the tax rate, if that's the intention of the motion?

[4:49:28] That's not the intent.

[4:49:29] The intent is to reduce the amount that's going to the reserve to $75,000 ongoingly.

[4:49:39] I think that's what I just said.

[4:49:47] Councillor Santorosa.

[4:49:48] Okay, so this one in particular, we're looking at 150 technology and office equipment reserve.

[4:49:54] The technology and office equipment reserve has a contribution this year of 251,000.

[4:50:00] Our capital draws are 655.

[4:50:03] This 150 doesn't make up that whole 655.

[4:50:06] So I would assume what you were saying is reduce the contribution from 251 to to whatever that

[4:50:14] is minus 75,000, I'm not going to do the math immediately.

[4:50:18] And then that helps, and then you're reducing the draw, so you'd be at 580, so that the

[4:50:25] capital draw would be sitting at 580.

[4:50:27] And so we would be sitting at 180, or sorry, 190 in terms of a deficit this year, is that

[4:50:34] correct?

[4:50:36] No, that math wouldn't work.

[4:50:38] If you reduced the contribution and you reduced the capital draw, you would still be at

[4:50:43] But negative 265,766 and you would be reducing your life cycle spend funding in perpetuity

[4:50:53] in your base budget by $75,000, which I would suggest won't line up very well with your

[4:51:01] asset management planning at all.

[4:51:03] Looking to Councillor Hoffman to withdraw your motion.

[4:51:06] Thank you.

[4:51:08] Thank you.

[4:51:09] Moving forward with our budget,

[4:51:12] Councillor Santorosa.

[4:51:13] Thank you, Madam Mayor, looking at page 147, ENG-26-6492, the Transportation Master Plan

[4:51:20] update.

[4:51:21] I was a little surprised by the Christ-Heg here.

[4:51:24] I know it's been sometimes since we've actually had the Transportation Master Plan officially

[4:51:28] done on the website.

[4:51:29] I think it's got something got off of, oh, yeah, 2008 on the website, but it hasn't been

[4:51:34] that long since our previous economic development officer had brought a mobility option study

[4:51:40] to council that we've never moved on and so I can't imagine and we have not seen significant

[4:51:46] development that would substantially change I think the options that were brought forward

[4:51:50] in that report. I've also had the time to take a look at some of the contents of the

[4:51:56] previous transportation master plan. So taking a look at things like road network development

[4:52:01] patterns forecast. We've done so much of this work previously under the housing needs assessment,

[4:52:07] under half to build those business cases.

[4:52:10] I'm wondering why this is coming in at a $400,000 ask.

[4:52:16] And I'm doubling down on this because we know what we're up against over the next couple

[4:52:21] of years in terms of level of service, in terms of our water and our wastewater, talking

[4:52:26] about investments in fire.

[4:52:28] And I would not, you know, I don't envy the future council having to sit there and have

[4:52:34] a transportation master plan report come forward that says we recommend a transit system and

[4:52:38] also you need more full-time firefighters and trying to make that decision between where

[4:52:42] the money on the levee is going to go.

[4:52:44] And so I'm not a fan of spending 400,000.

[4:52:47] Go ahead and update it from a trails perspective, from a bike lanes in and beyond whatever sea

[4:52:53] watts covers.

[4:52:54] I'm absolutely in favor.

[4:52:56] But I can't imagine much has changed since that mobility option study unless now we're having

[4:53:01] a conversation about a regional service that the county's taking a lead on. So I'm in favor

[4:53:09] of reducing that by half at a minimum, but I'd love to hear some other comments, because I do think

[4:53:16] that there's some help in seeing sidewalks and pathways, pedestrian connectivity,

[4:53:20] some roadway classification is needed, and some of those other components maintained.

[4:53:25] But I think that there's been so much done that we don't need to give the full ask to a consultant.

[4:53:31] Yeah, I tend to agree with you and especially recognizing the regional work that the county is going to be taking the lead on to our executive director through you mayor.

[4:53:40] I think I think we're at the I have to agree with you the transportation master plan we have right now is useless. It's so outdated.

[4:53:48] There's a lot of errors in it in lieu of trying to fit a proper planning, transportation

[4:53:57] master plan, follows certain criteria.

[4:54:01] I would probably recommend deferring it, maybe a year or two, but we have to get it done

[4:54:08] before the growth that's happening.

[4:54:11] I think it's important for us to align with the counties, which they're going to be done

[4:54:16] some time this year. So I would instead of trying to scope a document to a value, it's not really,

[4:54:23] it doesn't really work in the master planning world. I would recommend a furl of it, at least for

[4:54:30] maybe another year. I think when we see that County Road 22 trunk main go in and you know,

[4:54:36] those growth applications coming in, we really want to see what the trail network looks like across,

[4:54:40] make sure and do some more planning related to roads and capacity assessments, so that's

[4:54:48] just my thoughts on that.

[4:54:52] Let them sit.

[4:54:55] I'll make a motion then that we defer the Transportation Master Plan.

[4:55:00] I know Councillor Kerr is going to ask question, it stays.

[4:55:03] The money just stays.

[4:55:04] We're only making a contribution of 34 in that reserve, and it's in a deficit position,

[4:55:09] so it's going to stay where it is.

[4:55:13] I'm not going to be prescriptive on timeline. I will leave that up to the next council.

[4:55:17] Yeah, I agree with you. I'd love to see this actually two years, right?

[4:55:20] Like I recognize that a new council walks in the door, is trying to absorb, you know,

[4:55:25] the sheer magnitude of everything, and then you're, they're going to approve a budget,

[4:55:30] and start implementing a transportation plan that they didn't ask for and don't understand.

[4:55:33] So I would love to see it stagger the election timing, you know,

[4:55:37] so that the new council is sitting for a year and has all of that knowledge before they're

[4:55:42] making these critical decisions. So thank you for that. Secondary on the motion.

[4:55:46] Deputy Mayor Wallstead.

[4:55:49] Comments, questions? We'll vote digitally.

[4:56:21] Good planning.

[4:56:30] I'm not.

[4:56:33] I'm not here for that.

[4:56:35] That's not why I got up this morning.

[4:56:44] Oh, bickering amongst council.

[4:56:46] That's carried eight zero.

[4:56:47] It's three o'clock.

[4:56:48] We've been at the table a long time.

[4:56:50] Do we need a stretch point?

[4:56:51] Break.

[4:56:51] I did say that we would take a break at three o'clock.

[4:56:54] Shall we take 15 minutes?

[4:56:55] Yes.

[4:56:56] All right.

[4:56:56] Recess for 15 minutes.

[4:56:57] Thanks, Simon.

[4:57:02] And thank you for that break.

[4:57:04] Break.

[4:57:05] We are on page 146 and 147.

[4:57:09] Moving to Councillor Reston.

[4:57:13] I just wanted to defer an item here, the tree plan and program for older subdivision.

[4:57:18] I want to defer it till we get information back from the motion that we had asked to deal

[4:57:24] with Erca to see what they got, because from my understanding, speaking to Erca, they haven't

[4:57:29] heard from anyone from us yet, so I'd appreciate it if we can come up with that.

[4:57:36] So that's just a deferral on the tree plan until we get that information back.

[4:57:41] Emotion.

[4:57:42] Thank you.

[4:57:43] Emotion to defer ENG26616, moved by Councillor Reston, seconded by Deputy Mayor Wallstead, comments, questions.

[4:57:55] Seeing then, we'll vote digitally.

[4:58:01] It's about an awful time.

[4:58:16] Where are you headed?

[4:58:18] It could actually think it always on.

[4:59:02] I'd like to move to page 148, if I could item ENG-26-680, the Comberstoney Point Force

[4:59:15] main fund in there. Is that covered in the 3.7 million or 4.7 as we talked about? I thought you said.

[4:59:23] Through you, Mayor, we can cut this item and fit it in the other budget. We've got confirmation on the level of class A now.

[4:59:30] Since the budget, I think we're fine.

[4:59:32] Okay, let's then I would like to put a motion to cut item number ENG-26-685, 5.0,

[4:59:42] and return that money to the wastewater reserve fund.

[4:59:46] Thank you.

[4:59:47] Some move.

[4:59:47] Seconded by Councillor Vogler.

[4:59:49] Comments, questions?

[4:59:50] Seeing no more vote digitally.

[5:00:58] And that's carried 8-0. Councilor Reston. Item on page 148, item ENG-26-6834, the consultant

[5:01:11] servitives to be retained for replacing the private water lines until very north. I think

[5:01:16] that was an item that we squashed in a regular council meeting if I recall with private water

[5:01:25] lines. Is that related to that?

[5:01:29] Through you, Mayor. I believe that was a report for information.

[5:01:33] I don't know if we cut the water main or the private road portion.

[5:01:40] I'm not sure from a, I mean, we could probably look at reducing it. I think for the, with respect to

[5:01:47] the private water lines, there's going to have to be some support we get to go out to the public to

[5:01:52] discuss with these people and coordinate and collaborate. We're likely going to have

[5:01:57] to do some field investigation and condition assessments. We have no idea because they're

[5:02:01] private.

[5:02:04] So I think there's two different ones in here as hoping to get clarification

[5:02:08] through this process.

[5:02:11] I just wonder in like what would be the, I know a lot of like, there's some private water

[5:02:16] lines that run through farms of mine that people put in themselves and are responsible for.

[5:02:21] or is that what this relates to because I think a lot of people on that front are satisfied

[5:02:28] because I don't think they're knocking down the door to want us to do that and I don't

[5:02:31] know why some are through

[5:02:37] the Mayor of Councilor Rustin.

[5:02:39] This is the Tilbury area of Bleak Shore and there's a lot of private water lines that are

[5:02:45] connected to the Chatham Kent utility services and there is concern from residents as well

[5:02:53] Chatham-Kent utilities on the condition of these private water mains and this is to start the process weeks so we can look at

[5:02:59] helping these residents out.

[5:03:02] Okay, note that clarifies. I just want some clarification there.

[5:03:07] Further.

[5:03:09] No.

[5:03:13] I'm just again here item ENG 26-6836.

[5:03:19] Consultant services, be retained to review and update development manual and provide recommendations to ensure it reflects current standards, best practice and municipal requirements.

[5:03:30] What are we talking about there unless it's a missing something, what department, what area?

[5:03:48] Sorry, can I get that repeated?

[5:03:50] It's item ENG-26-6836 on page 148 of the budget.

[5:03:59] So, through you, Mayor, to Council Reston, so we've been working on an updated development

[5:04:04] manual internally. We're doing a lot of the work ourselves. We are requesting a review

[5:04:10] of a third party to go through and assist and help us finalize it and do some reviews

[5:04:15] of other municipalities and recommendations from a consultant to finalize the development

[5:04:20] manual to bring back to Council.

[5:04:22] Council.

[5:04:25] Okay.

[5:04:25] Thank you.

[5:04:27] Councillor Mackinamatt.

[5:04:30] She's just a question for Director Cable on same page ENG266871, the Notre Dame First

[5:04:38] Street intersection.

[5:04:40] My question on this is does this funding also give the opportunity to have either some

[5:04:48] open houses and feedback from both Council and residents?

[5:04:54] Through you, Mayor, this will, well, the anticipation was coming, was to come back to council

[5:04:59] with some alternatives.

[5:05:01] We did not plan on doing a public open house related to this.

[5:05:06] Normally, we would bring it back to council, and then if there's concerns or issues, we

[5:05:10] could potentially look at doing that.

[5:05:12] Normally we do some kind of outreach before construction and some consultation with the impacted

[5:05:20] residents but we would do a full public open house. Councillor Santorissa?

[5:05:26] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councillor Russen got through my questions on

[5:05:29] 636, so that's great. So on this one, I think my hope here is just because we're seeing some

[5:05:35] of the language attached to this budget item around this site may be used to provide additional

[5:05:41] parking for relief you park in West Beach and that the project includes the concept plans

[5:05:45] and detailed design for the street intersection improvements, as well as the design of an additional

[5:05:50] parking area, including the 616 no Notre Dame Street parcel. My worry here is just being

[5:05:56] prescriptive in stating parking, like I would rather say the project budget includes concept

[5:06:03] plans and detailed design for the Notre Dame in first slash South Street intersection improvements

[5:06:08] as well as design alternatives, including the 616 no Notre Dame Street parcel. We've seen some great

[5:06:15] work particularly in some of the work that the BIA has done over the last little bit as to what

[5:06:19] that corner could look like, and I think it would be a great opportunity to work with

[5:06:23] the BIA, either in a place-making opportunity as you're thinking about the entrants into

[5:06:28] the community and what that could look like outside of just, you know, mill and pave it.

[5:06:33] So that would be my hope there is just looking for council support around that direction

[5:06:37] and hoping that that administration is hearing that language.

[5:06:40] The other piece that I want to ask is we have the $75,000 here.

[5:06:44] when we approved demolition of the law, we did, I think, have enough money there to kind

[5:06:51] of pave over what was there and hopefully see that fence removed. We're now heading, you know,

[5:06:56] start of December, are we going to be able to complete that work over the winter months or will any

[5:07:02] remaining funds be deferred into the work next year? So if you'll hold the question just for a second

[5:07:07] executive director, I'd like to caption it as a motion. I think it's important because your

[5:07:12] language changing away from maybe used to provide additional parking, and I quite

[5:07:16] agree that we shouldn't know yet, right? We need to look at it and understand what

[5:07:21] we could do there, and I too have seen some really brilliant ideas of what could

[5:07:25] happen, so I don't want to limit it. I'd like your, yeah, to be a motion. Seconded by,

[5:07:31] thank you, Councillor McNamara, and then let's just wait for the clerk to caption that,

[5:07:35] and then I'll return to your question.

[5:07:39] Through you, Madam Mayor. I mean, need some clarification on this. What I have so far

[5:07:43] There is Clarify Item ENG-26-6871, which is the Notre Dame and First Street intersection.

[5:07:50] Include the design of additional options.

[5:07:53] So the detailed design for the Notre Dame and First Street intersection improvements

[5:07:57] up until the comma is fine, as well as design alternatives for the remaining lands,

[5:08:04] including the 616 Notre Dame Street.

[5:08:12] Seconded by Councillor McNamara.

[5:08:14] question, Councillor Kerr.

[5:08:16] Could I ask that the words parking these remain in there, not exclusively, but as part

[5:08:22] of it, as Miss Kebel knows as well as I give, we have lost a lot of parking on Notre Dame

[5:08:28] Street through the changes, through the curving, through everything.

[5:08:32] So if you're driving your car down there, there's not going to be a lot of places to park.

[5:08:37] So when I saw the parking, I didn't think of it as exclusive, I just figured that this

[5:08:43] is what we're going to look at. But I would like them to continue to have parking on the

[5:08:48] brain.

[5:08:51] In response, I don't think I'm going to specify it. We said design alternatives.

[5:08:54] I recognize that's the original ask here. And so I think that will be well taken into consideration.

[5:09:01] So whether one of them is a parking alternative, another one is, you know, a garden or a public

[5:09:06] seating area or signage, you know, we'll wait for those to come back. But I do expect that parking

[5:09:11] We'll be one of them anyway.

[5:09:14] It doesn't matter where you take it off.

[5:09:16] Because that was exclusive.

[5:09:21] Yeah, the motion.

[5:09:22] Okay, on the motion, we'll vote digitally.

[5:09:39] And that's carried 8-0.

[5:09:40] I want to turn our attention to ENG266-6875-Private Rope Pilot Program.

[5:09:45] Page 149.

[5:09:47] This was kind of the other half, Councillor Rustin, that you were referring to earlier.

[5:09:51] I thought that Council's direction too was that we were going to move away from a pilot program.

[5:09:57] So, we could return this 100.

[5:10:02] So, if somebody wants to make that motion, Councillor Reston.

[5:10:05] Yeah, I'd like to make a motion that we eliminate that ENG-26-6875 and at the same time, one

[5:10:17] time reduction in transfer of 100,000 to the road life cycle reserve.

[5:10:31] I understand we made some changes and we did some things, but I did not know that we agreed to wipe it out because I think that the private roads is a heartburn thing that needs to be properly addressed.

[5:10:43] And I'm sorry that this is even a motion.

[5:10:47] I know what to change it but I didn't know what to work it out.

[5:10:50] There's nothing else for me to do the work.

[5:10:52] Just for the fine in the fit.

[5:10:53] To do the work.

[5:10:54] Just for the change.

[5:10:58] Yeah.

[5:10:59] We can ask some from the customer.

[5:11:03] Okay.

[5:11:04] On the motion.

[5:11:04] Yep.

[5:11:05] To our clerk.

[5:11:06] My apologies.

[5:11:07] Do we have a seconder on that motion?

[5:11:09] Thank you.

[5:11:12] We'll vote digitally now.

[5:11:36] And that's carried 7-1-1.

[5:11:38] Opposed Councillor Kerr.

[5:11:39] Councillor Rustin.

[5:11:41] It's on page 149, item FAC-24-6704, we have a budget of 225 there to do work in the Atlas

[5:11:53] Tube Park and Lot.

[5:11:55] What I'm asking here is we came in under budget by half last year, we had next, I believe

[5:12:02] it was 125,000 under budget, Jeff.

[5:12:16] Sorry to interrupt, just to your worship to Councillor Russen.

[5:12:22] That project turned into a lot bigger work than what we originally thought.

[5:12:29] The base on that parking lot was no base.

[5:12:33] It looked like they actually put stone on top of clay.

[5:12:38] Did we spend all the money then last year that we had allocated?

[5:12:41] Okay, then, note that if we, if we not, I was going to say let's add that to this years as all I was going to do because I didn't want dollars out where I allocated in a reserve, put them in the ground.

[5:12:54] So that answers my quick, because when it came to us, it was, the tenure was half, so once you got going.

[5:12:59] Okay, that, I

[5:13:12] think we have a walk through Mr. Merton of FIN 2064 24 as it relates to the implementation of the ERP 400,000.

[5:13:22] Absolutely, Mayor Bailey.

[5:13:24] Thank you.

[5:13:24] The request is for additional funds for the ongoing ERP, which is composed of the core

[5:13:34] financial system, as well as the tax and utility module.

[5:13:40] Broadly speaking, just a general project update for Council, it is going well.

[5:13:45] We have had a setback with staffing challenges that will delay the go live until roughly June, but our intent is still to be live for final tax bills of 2026.

[5:14:00] Through the discovery and the custom configuration and some custom modules within Microsoft Dynamics, we've noted that there will be some additional enhancements, particularly on some of the reporting.

[5:14:12] that is specific to taxation, along with some of the integrations we want to do with

[5:14:19] impact.

[5:14:20] So while not mission critical to our ability to go live with the product and deliver

[5:14:25] the service to residents, we do anticipate those are going to be needs that the municipality

[5:14:31] and particularly finance will want the system to be able to do.

[5:14:35] In addition to that, so part of it is for the consulting to implement the changes.

[5:14:41] When Council directed administration to proceed with this project, rather than modifying

[5:14:48] staffing complement, Council approved temporary staffing positions to support the delivery of

[5:14:55] It is to equally extend those positions through to

[5:15:00] To the slightly delayed go-live of the project, but not convert anything to permanent. So this

[5:15:06] would include no operational changes into budget 2027.

[5:15:13] Thank you. Councillor Reston.

[5:15:18] This is a small one, but it kind of odd one to me. Item FAC-26-6859 to install and upgrade

[5:15:28] Security cameras at the OPP station to enhance facility safety and security.

[5:15:33] This system is an improved monitor and a tier of vandalism.

[5:15:37] It's the police station.

[5:15:40] So with that being said, if I get a seconder, I'd like to cut that.

[5:15:44] And at the same time, I'd like to do a one-time cut to the facilities, 9ATC and property reserves

[5:15:52] by the same amount of $10,000.

[5:15:56] So move seconded by, definitely Mayor Walshden,

[5:16:08] comments, questions.

[5:16:14] You think that of a motion?

[5:16:16] I was just beached on and off, sorry.

[5:16:31] Time's out.

[5:16:35] Sorry, good.

[5:16:40] All right, just I guess a question on the motion, the cameras that are being put in there.

[5:16:50] Do we have a timing on the skate park installation?

[5:16:53] I understand just through conversation that we're going to be shifting that a little bit

[5:16:57] but more away from the, pardon?

[5:17:05] It's in our range.

[5:17:09] And so it's back further.

[5:17:10] The question really was related to the cameras that are being put in here.

[5:17:13] They won't have any governance or oversight at that duration to be able to see that end

[5:17:18] to the park where the skate park is.

[5:17:21] Or would they?

[5:17:24] No, they will not.

[5:17:26] They're like to see the, if we were to install cameras at the skate park, if they would

[5:17:32] catch the OPP properties that we were asking.

[5:17:35] The other way around these cameras that are being installed.

[5:17:37] It will be utilized, yeah, and it's too far away from where the new location of the

[5:17:43] skate park is.

[5:17:43] Okay.

[5:17:44] So that would, it's closer to where the existing parking lot is.

[5:17:48] Thank you.

[5:17:51] Okay.

[5:17:52] On the motion we'll go digitally.

[5:18:05] All the way to the end.

[5:18:09] Oh, that's awesome.

[5:18:10] That's awesome.

[5:18:11] 10,000.

[5:18:12] Yes.

[5:18:12] He is.

[5:18:13] It's 10,000.

[5:18:14] Not 200,000.

[5:18:16] Sorry.

[5:18:17] Too late, I voted.

[5:18:32] 10,000. Those are some expensive cameras.

[5:18:38] My apologies. I will cancel that and put the right one in.

[5:18:53] Those cameras would have reached all the way over to the skate park.

[5:18:56] I hope so.

[5:19:25] That's carried 622, Opposed, Councilmember, and Councilmember Hoffman.

[5:19:33] Councillor Santorosa.

[5:19:35] Thank you.

[5:19:35] I'm looking at page 151, item, M-AR, dash 26, dash 68, 61, the Marine Building and Launch

[5:19:41] Area Concept Design Plan.

[5:19:43] And I'm just wondering if that $40,000 contains sufficient funds to be able to go forward with public consultation.

[5:19:51] I recognize that this was not included when we actually did the Lakeview Park Master Plan.

[5:19:56] There are parts I think of the parking lot and things that were but

[5:20:00] that Marina building itself was not, so I'm just curious if that'll include any public consultation for

[5:20:05] whatever the future design concept will be.

[5:20:07] Through

[5:20:13] you, Madam Mayor, I'll have to get back to you on that, it was exactly what the 40,000 carry covers, apologies.

[5:20:24] Thanks, Lecker.

[5:20:25] On the same thing, could you, I guess, speak on future investment and development, what does that mean to you?

[5:20:34] Or what does that mean to, like if we're not going to go into the community and let them know, because I kind of have a nervous edge with the word development.

[5:20:44] and I have a nervous edge with the future investment words and

[5:20:48] and some of those things places we've been lately.

[5:20:55] Through you Madam Mayor, I believe it will look at opportunities too.

[5:21:00] I think there was some discussion at some point about some funding sources might be looking at

[5:21:07] something like that as an option for future development potentially.

[5:21:11] Could you explain what funding sources means?

[5:21:14] It's not coming from lakeshore, sponsors, land rentals, those types of things, potentially.

[5:21:26] Thank you. Looking at PRK 1863-62 at the top of the page 152, the garbage receptacles, 15,000,

[5:21:36] do we know roughly what that budget would cover, like how many, in terms of installation?

[5:21:47] to you, Madam Mayor. That will cover roughly 10 receptacles per year.

[5:21:57] Wonderful. In terms of a level of service at this point, do we have a deep receptacle now available

[5:22:03] in most of our parks? Yes, we're getting there. Now we're getting to the point where

[5:22:09] where we're able to get rid of the existing above-ground garbage receptacles.

[5:22:18] That's great news because the complaints that we get on the others are almost gone now

[5:22:24] and we have these deep receptacles now in all of the other spots.

[5:22:28] So those that are getting them net new, it's fantastic.

[5:22:31] So thanks to C, good investment.

[5:22:34] Councillor Kerr.

[5:22:41] I would like to add a little friendly amendment to that that says we will have full community

[5:22:52] engagement. We will go to the public. We will ask them. They will be involved. Could we

[5:22:57] We do that. I get a seconder on that.

[5:23:09] Seconded by Councillor Voglian.

[5:23:26] Any comments, questions? Seeing none.

[5:23:36] Councillor Sainte-Rosa.

[5:23:37] I'm in support of the motion for the concept of going out to the public and having this consultation.

[5:23:42] I think my big fear when we look at something like this is this is not a part of the overall,

[5:23:47] say Lakeview Park Master Plan. My fear is going out into public engagement.

[5:23:51] We will get an absolute laundry list of things that the public will hope to see.

[5:23:55] when the future council may really choose to put a limited budget into restoration of the current facility

[5:24:01] to make sure that the fire escape is compliant and that we can get back into, you know, maybe make it accessible by putting, you know, a lift or something like that in.

[5:24:11] But I really don't want to see this come back at millions of dollars unless we're going to see that public private partnership, which we weren't lucky enough to see in sparks.

[5:24:19] So that's my only concern and I just want to air it now knowing that if we're going into public consultation

[5:24:24] I think we need to be prepared as the municipality and and let the future council kind of talk about what some of those limitations might be

[5:24:32] And what our hopes are going into this is a municipality if it isn't demolition and full reconstruction because we know what's in the parks

[5:24:40] Reserve and new facilities

[5:24:42] Funds and we have a lot of competing priorities

[5:24:45] I think I tend to agree in terms of also wanting a good understanding of what the scope

[5:24:51] of work is that we're asking for because I think sometimes members of council get a surprise

[5:24:55] that we were asking for some of the things in the scope of work and we're not aware that

[5:25:01] we were asking for all of that, right, until the residents are coming and saying, what

[5:25:04] is all of this scope of work? And you're like, ah, it wasn't quite what I was looking for.

[5:25:08] And in this case, I think the conversations around the table have been, should we get a concept

[5:25:13] up design on what a building would look like that meets the needs of our staff, right?

[5:25:23] We are really not looking at, are we replacing a restaurant, are we replacing a community

[5:25:27] building, are we?

[5:25:28] The conversation has been around, how will we address our staff team that is there?

[5:25:33] And then at some point, how will we address the demolition of the building that is currently

[5:25:38] at the end?

[5:25:39] So we should also make sure that potentially the scope of work comes back so that the expectations amongst members of council are the same, because I don't know that all members are actually aligned in what we think we're asking for.

[5:25:53] Deputy Mayor.

[5:25:57] Yeah, I'm just concerned with it having a full and open process.

[5:26:00] I mean, we're representing the people now actually, but I've kind of fallen up on what you say and what Councillor Santa Rosa said.

[5:26:06] I think if we don't have some kind of a plan, then people are going to, you know, the

[5:26:13] skies the limit type thing, and then they're going to be, I think it could turn into something

[5:26:17] that we can't afford to begin with. I think we need to have some limits on it. So that's

[5:26:23] my concern with it until we get something back.

[5:26:25] If it's not going to be something we're actually going to fund, we shouldn't be saying that

[5:26:30] let's get a picture of something again that we aren't going to fund, and then knowing

[5:26:34] what that is. It's just a lot of false promises in the community.

[5:26:38] Councillor Santorosa. Thank you, and I recognize thank you. I recognize

[5:26:40] that Councillor Roglar had her hand up to you. I think what I'm hearing and we have a motion

[5:26:45] on the floor to go out and do the public consultation. I'm supportive of that. I'm wondering if the

[5:26:50] mover and seconder would be okay with making sure that scope of work comes back, potentially

[5:26:55] allowing the next council to dictate some design options and then consult on those pieces

[5:27:00] is to make sure that whatever the final approval is there before coming back to council is there

[5:27:05] so that we integrate some control around scope. We have some design funded and then we get that

[5:27:10] community consultation baked in as well.

[5:27:17] I just want us to go to the public. I was out of meeting

[5:27:20] a couple of weeks ago and it wasn't pretty over a park. This is another park and I just don't want

[5:27:25] to relive it.

[5:27:28] So we're saying the same thing but an opposite front, Mr. Simons.

[5:27:35] So, I did work early in the year with Alex and on Veld Communications team, so we did do a call out to voters and residents to do a survey.

[5:27:47] So, we have about 500 plus responses that we haven't fleshed out quite yet or went through.

[5:27:53] So that would likely be our basis for what we would do in directing a consultant to come in and help us look at what we can put together for potential public consultation.

[5:28:08] So I think in line with the clarity of the motion on the table with how that's identified or how that's described, I think we're kind of moving down that path.

[5:28:20] So we can certainly incorporate the survey, along with public consultation with any sort of design that we consider.

[5:28:31] So it won't hurt us to ask again.

[5:28:33] Thank you.

[5:28:36] Councilor Bogler.

[5:28:37] Thanks. I think my issue is, and I think it's maybe the larger issue, is the wording where it specifically says concept plan.

[5:28:43] And when you call something a concept plan once again, we don't want to repeat what happened with Oakwood Park.

[5:28:48] When we tell people, well, we will come to you when we have a concept plan, it feels like it's too late.

[5:28:52] So again, I think it has to be more prescriptive to say either we want the project to bring

[5:28:59] options, not develop, bring options, then community consult, and then do a concept plan.

[5:29:05] Like I think I don't know if maybe the whole thing needs to be deferred and further investigated

[5:29:09] because I think this language is problematic for a number of us for a number of different

[5:29:14] reasons.

[5:29:15] So if I can,

[5:29:18] I don't want to squash your motion, but it would be my recommendation that we

[5:29:22] We remove this, defer it, bring it to a regular council meeting, or we can have a more

[5:29:26] full-sum conversation about what we're actually looking for, and then go from there.

[5:29:31] Because to me, when you say concept plan, that's implying that we're throwing the baby

[5:29:37] out with the bath water and potentially starting over, and I think we're going to get in big

[5:29:40] trouble.

[5:29:42] Especially if what we're talking about is our staffing laundry facilities in some showers versus

[5:29:48] is a concept plan that is some type of new facility one moment to our clerk.

[5:29:54] Thank you Madam Mayor, I was just going to clarify and again council can make.

[5:30:00] The decision to remove or not. But if the mover seconder wanted to, you could clarify this to say, clarify that the item, M-A-R-2666860 include public consultation after preliminary scope of work is presented to council for consideration.

[5:30:24] Okay. I just worry the in between five. I worry about the in between time. Okay. I can I can live with that. But I just like I said, I just worry because I.

[5:30:35] I

[5:30:37] have an opinion on this.

[5:30:42] That's just silence.

[5:30:44] Could it be an option for administration to come back with a report outlining the details

[5:30:49] of the survey that's already been completed and then seek direction from there?

[5:30:53] Yes.

[5:30:57] I can go with what the clerk just mentioned in between.

[5:31:00] Because you already have that data and if we need to go back out it could be fine that there's

[5:31:04] a reason to go back out that's what she's basically opening that door to.

[5:31:07] So, what Mark just mentioned, I think that's workable, but that's, before we spend a lot of money, we will know what we're going to, who wants the sponsor, because I think there's a big difference, too.

[5:31:25] Nobody's going to sponsor a Marina laundry mat. I don't think that's what we're asking for. And yeah, you're shaking head and no as well.

[5:31:33] So, I think there's something, and it's just—anyway, I want the residents to be involved

[5:31:38] as much as possible.

[5:31:41] So, that motion, that change, I can do it with.

[5:31:44] So, second.

[5:31:45] Yes, the motion, sir.

[5:31:47] Definitely.

[5:31:48] Definitely.

[5:31:49] I can make it by the time I die.

[5:31:51] All right.

[5:31:51] So, Councillor Vogler, your second stays in place.

[5:31:54] Any comments, questions on the motion, specifically?

[5:31:58] Seeing none.

[5:31:58] We'll vote digitally.

[5:32:11] Councilor Rustin, I had you next as soon as I carry this vote.

[5:32:16] That's carried.

[5:32:17] It's your own, Councilor Rustin.

[5:32:20] Yeah, I want to move to page 152 item PRK-26-6865, replacement of multi-purpose utility

[5:32:31] trap there.

[5:32:35] What year is this?

[5:32:37] Are we having lots of trouble or is this something we can put off for a year or two?

[5:32:43] I'm not 100% sure what year the tractor is.

[5:32:49] Sorry, through you, Mayor and Councillor Rustin, I'm not exactly sure what year this

[5:32:53] tractor is. I know we are. It is going to the shop a lot for repairs these days.

[5:32:58] It is a, I believe, a 35-horse Massey Ferguson. It's just, it's not quite robust enough for what those

[5:33:05] guys are using it for.

[5:33:12] Thank you for that. I'm still going to, it's been working for what we need and

[5:33:17] And I think we can get one more year out of it, at least I'm hoping.

[5:33:23] So I am going to put a motion on the floor that we remove the placement of the tractor.

[5:33:29] And at the same time, we reduce the reserve transfer to vehicle equipment reserves for

[5:33:36] one year of the same total of $80,000.

[5:33:41] Okay, so move second by. Councillor Hoffman,

[5:33:51] comments, questions on the motion? Seeing none,

[5:33:55] we'll vote digitally when you're ready.

[5:34:08] Councillor Vogler?

[5:34:10] Okay, I'll wait for the vote. Sorry.

[5:34:14] And that's carried 7-1. One opposed, Councillor McNamara.

[5:34:19] Thanks. It's a small one, but PRK266864.

[5:34:24] I'm considering what we just discussed about the marina and potential scope of work, etc.

[5:34:32] It feels a little premature for me to spend $20,000 on a parking study for that particular

[5:34:37] space, so I would ask to remove that at this time and bring it back at future budget year.

[5:34:43] So move second and buy,

[5:34:47] Councillor Kerr.

[5:34:50] Question to administration.

[5:34:52] I know that we've had some pretty significant conversations that relate to parking and

[5:34:58] a thought of some real challenges in terms of the congestion of boats with trailers.

[5:35:04] I'm wondering whether or not this budget center is relating back to those boat and trailer

[5:35:09] discussions where there was a little bit of talk about potentially being able to shift

[5:35:14] the boats with trailers down towards the water treatment facility that's there.

[5:35:19] Is this part of what that thought process could look like?

[5:35:22] Through

[5:35:26] you, Madam Mayor, the idea would be part and parcel, I think, with the potential of what the Marina property itself could potentially turn into in the layout of it as well as the existing use of the park there and the demands down there in season.

[5:35:47] and I think it's all kind of part and parcel to each other is kind of the idea behind it.

[5:35:53] One focus is on the parking for the trail, which would incorporate what modifications we might

[5:35:58] potentially be able to make to the Marina parking and challenges we have there. So I don't know if

[5:36:06] that answers your question, but I think they are tied together. Thank you. I suspect that this also

[5:36:12] ties into some of the other discussions about how we could realize things like different

[5:36:17] different types of food networks and food utilities that go in there as well.

[5:36:21] So there may be some challenges to realizing some great opportunities if this is removed.

[5:36:29] So, okay.

[5:36:29] Thank you.

[5:36:31] Other comments or questions?

[5:36:34] Councillor McNamara.

[5:36:35] I'm not going to support this because of the fact that this has been a multi-year issue with

[5:36:40] parking in the region.

[5:36:41] I think we need to actually put some work ahead to finding a solution there.

[5:36:49] I was going to support it, but I've had some second thoughts.

[5:36:54] The question I ask here as part of this, would it be something that we also with the study look at possible pay for park down there some because I would like to see that.

[5:37:04] I know I've said it before, so just something.

[5:37:12] So I guess I just will ask whether or not that will be something that is observed within that study then.

[5:37:19] Through

[5:37:22] you, I believe that could be something that we ask in review.

[5:37:27] All right.

[5:37:28] Motion's withdrawn.

[5:37:30] Can you walk us through, please, PRK266866, top of page 153 as it relates to Lakeview Park

[5:37:38] upgrades funded by the Community Benefit Reserve.

[5:37:52] Through you, Mayor, to council.

[5:37:53] So this is to update Lakeview Park, the splash pad is outdated, we would put a new above

[5:38:04] ground feature on the splash pad, we're using the existing drainage, we'll also replace

[5:38:12] the place structures, improved safety accessibility, the restrooms are also in need of upgrades

[5:38:21] and replacements. They need to be more vandal proof just to increase the service ability.

[5:38:33] Thank you. I'm happy to see this work in the budget. I think it's great. My question was

[5:38:40] really going to be around the vandal proofing because I think that we were under a wrongful assumption

[5:38:45] when we rolled out some of the digital abilities to be able to lock the doors and that kind of stuff

[5:38:50] at a certain time. I think some of us thought that the doors would close. They would be locked up

[5:38:55] at a certain time and that would help with the vandalism that we've experienced. But the reality

[5:39:01] is is that somewhere along the way that gets blocked and my understanding, you know, back at

[5:39:06] implementation was somebody got a message somewhere that said, you know, the door is still a jar

[5:39:11] and we would take care of it mysteriously. But that was a false dream because really they can

[5:39:16] maintain the door by putting a pebble in it or something like that and returning later to

[5:39:22] the bathroom facility and causing some some vandalism in there. So I hope that there is

[5:39:26] something that will help us to address once the doors are locked, they're locked and vandalism

[5:39:30] window narrows down a little bit.

[5:39:36] Yes, we'll definitely look into monitoring the locking system on

[5:39:39] those bathrooms.

[5:39:42] Everyone knows the struggle we've had maintaining those bathrooms. The guys will go

[5:39:47] We'll fix a stall door and fix it again the week following week.

[5:39:52] Thank you.

[5:39:53] That's the rest in.

[5:39:57] On page 152, item PRK-26-6603, the tree planning program, I'd just like to see that deferred

[5:40:06] until we get the information back from ERCA as well if I got a seconder.

[5:40:11] So move seconded by,

[5:40:16] Councillor Kerr.

[5:40:19] Motion to defer.

[5:40:23] I think I like the idea that you brought forward a couple of meetings ago or last meeting.

[5:40:29] And I actually thought it was good use when you mentioned one of the parks that could

[5:40:33] possibly be used.

[5:40:34] And I think it's a fantastic idea.

[5:40:36] So that's the reason why I second this because I think that we could be right on top of it.

[5:40:41] Windsor has its own little area that they grow and they do their own stuff.

[5:40:45] And I think, you know, I just think it's a great idea if we could do it, especially if

[5:40:49] Ergo's going to work with us.

[5:40:55] Well, vote digitally when you're ready.

[5:41:14] And that's carried eight zero.

[5:41:17] Councillor Santorosa, thank you Madam Mayor, three U. Can I just have administration walk

[5:41:21] us through RDS-196456, the Amy Croft intersection improvements at Manning Road, please?

[5:41:28] You know, high price today.

[5:41:30] We're looking at $1.8 million, and I'm just looking for a little bit more detail.

[5:41:33] That's all.

[5:41:41] Thank you, Mayor.

[5:41:41] through you to Councillor Sensorosa. So, just maybe a bit of a long story unusual

[5:41:49] from me. The Amycroft design and budget for this project was set in 2020, as we know,

[5:42:02] co-heated us just around the time of the budget. So, cost of increase as a result of that.

[5:42:07] and I know that that's kind of an old story and we keep using it. However, the project

[5:42:14] was put on hold pending the commercial boulevard extension, which is what was called

[5:42:19] lignage during the work. However, during that period, until we finalised the design, we

[5:42:29] went ahead with some utility relocations. One of the major items was Hydro is now underground all

[5:42:35] the way to the SPAR. I forget the name of the SPAR there. So a considerable amount

[5:42:40] of dollars has been spent, obviously, on prepping for some of this work. The work to

[5:42:47] be done there is to convert the intersection to maybe wrong, but I think it's four lanes

[5:42:55] out, two lanes in, which is obviously going to be a huge improvement at that location,

[5:43:02] as well as sidewalks which we don't have in some of the north sides.

[5:43:09] So, this budget that we're looking at right now is to not only recover the costs of the increase

[5:43:16] since we set this budget in 2020, but it's also to recover the costs of some of the work that has already been done

[5:43:25] and eaten away at that budget.

[5:43:27] Thank you. I just want to return quickly to PRK266603, the deferral for the trees. I just wanted to return to you, CFO.

[5:43:40] That one we can't take a base budget reduction. As even though it says at one time, there's actually no funding that goes from the base budget in, so you can't cut something that doesn't exist.

[5:43:51] I just wanted to be clear on that.

[5:43:53] So there can't be a $10,000 reduction.

[5:43:57] The motion, I know the wording didn't say one time reduction,

[5:44:00] but what council voted on did.

[5:44:03] The clerks motion was that.

[5:44:05] So the last one we just voted on,

[5:44:10] there's no contribution to cut.

[5:44:13] So it's just a deferral.

[5:44:15] So the motion as presented,

[5:44:17] that the council voted on was incorrect.

[5:44:21] So it's just a deferral motion.

[5:44:23] So we're going to capture it as such.

[5:44:25] I just wanted to make sure we're clear on that.

[5:44:27] Yes, so we will change those on us to say defer only.

[5:44:31] It is getting late.

[5:44:32] So let the records show that the minutes

[5:44:36] will reflect a deferral only.

[5:44:38] Thank you.

[5:44:39] I just want to make sure I'm saying it out loud.

[5:44:44] Councillor Restan.

[5:44:44] On page 154, the item is RDS-21-6551.

[5:44:55] The annual gravel roads converge.

[5:45:00] I'm seeing here that in this budget, we're doing a lot of work on previously tart and chip roads, and that we're only going to look at spending $305,000 this year on them. I would like to do one time reserve cut of $440,000 into the gravel roads conversion fund. It will still leave 1.7 million roughly after we do this year's work in there to reflect us not spending that money each.

[5:45:29] year on that. So just a one-time reserve reversal of 440 and it hurt me a lot to do that.

[5:45:38] So moved second by Councillor Vogler.

[5:45:42] Councillor Kerr. Sorry, the same question. Where does that 440 go? Does that go back to the taxpayer?

[5:45:48] Is that the back reserve?

[5:45:52] Not the levy, the reserve. No, it was a reserve transfer.

[5:45:55] Oh, it's just transferring it back. Just leave it all on that instead of doing it.

[5:45:59] You said yes in his over-excitement told me he thought, lovey.

[5:46:02] Well, no, it actually added confusion.

[5:46:04] Like the world said, we're going to give it back to the taxpayer.

[5:46:08] Maybe, but we're not.

[5:46:10] Further comments, questions on that one?

[5:46:19] Councillor Santa Rosa?

[5:46:21] Yeah, I'm just looking for clarification.

[5:46:22] Is Councillor Rustin looking?

[5:46:24] We have a contribution to the gravel road conversion reserve of 845.

[5:46:28] you're reducing that to 440 or by 440.

[5:46:32] Sorry, it's reducing by 440.

[5:46:34] Okay.

[5:46:34] Because with what we're spending and like it will offset it.

[5:46:38] So that contribution, the remaining contribution,

[5:46:41] so 405,000 would go back to the levy now.

[5:46:45] Yes, one time reversal of 440.

[5:46:49] Sorry.

[5:46:50] I'm reducing the reserve transfer by 440 for one time.

[5:46:56] That goes back to the levy, the 440.

[5:46:59] The levy, the tax rate.

[5:47:00] Yes.

[5:47:00] Okay.

[5:47:01] The budget, today's budget.

[5:47:02] Yes.

[5:47:02] Today's number.

[5:47:03] There's my confusion now.

[5:47:05] Does that help?

[5:47:07] Councilor McNamara.

[5:47:10] I might have a motion after.

[5:47:13] Okay.

[5:47:14] Let me pause this for a second.

[5:47:16] So I want to put forward a motion.

[5:47:18] If depending on what happens here,

[5:47:20] but my motion was to take the,

[5:47:23] there's a $305,000.

[5:47:24] all is going to be spent on the gravel road conversion program this year. My motion was

[5:47:29] to pause the gravel road conversion until we can come up with a gravel road conversion policy

[5:47:36] and take that 305,000 and add it to the life cycle for surface treatment programs so that we can

[5:47:42] catch up on the roads that we've already converted. So I don't know, I wanted to put that out there.

[5:47:48] If you want yours to stand, that's fine. We can just leave mine to stand and then we'll talk about

[5:47:52] years if that's okay.

[5:47:56] Okay on the motion. We'll vote digitally now.

[5:48:25] Just an update while we're

[5:48:26] waiting for the vote to carry that right now we are at 2.75 and that's carried 80. And now you're

[5:48:35] at 1.72, that's after growth, yeah, 1.72 after growth.

[5:48:45] Councillor McNamara.

[5:48:47] So I would like to, on, I'm sorry, on item RDS21-6551, the 305,000 that would be going

[5:48:55] into grab-road conversions this year, I would like to pause that and move that 305,000 into

[5:49:01] to the life cycle surface treatment program, so with adding an addition, so backing out

[5:49:08] that money and putting it into the surface treatment road program and then the reason

[5:49:15] why I want to do that is I think we need an actual gravel road conversion policy moving

[5:49:19] forward, especially looking at our roads need study that came out and we need to be putting

[5:49:24] more money into the surface treated roads so we can bring them up to a relatively decent

[5:49:29] and standard before we started adding additional roads to the network.

[5:49:33] Thank you, seconded by,

[5:49:38] Councillor Hoffman.

[5:49:41] CFO?

[5:49:43] No concerns.

[5:49:45] Thank you.

[5:49:45] Councillor Kerr.

[5:49:47] Yeah, thank you.

[5:49:48] This, I can't support the motion.

[5:49:51] And the reason why I can't support the motion is because this is actually part of last

[5:49:55] the five year road program that we just we put into and this is coming to the final year.

[5:50:00] So this is the last year and then the new program we're going to learn about

[5:50:04] in January February and we're going to move forward. So we need to continue. We need to have

[5:50:11] do at least one road every year and that's what the 305 is. It's to at least do one road. So I'm

[5:50:17] not interested in stopping the program for a one year breath of air just to find out

[5:50:23] that we're going to do it the next year when this is part of the old plan.

[5:50:28] Councillor Reston. I'm in echo those comments of Councillor Kerr there.

[5:50:34] As for me, this is a big, this is like a pause for me doing one road because I've been

[5:50:39] very much an advocate for this. So I'd like to at least like Councillor Kerr said do one

[5:50:45] road still and continue with whatever our 3005,000 gets us. It gets us. So that's, that's

[5:50:52] Thank you. Councillor Vogler. Thank you. I just like to know what the executive director

[5:50:57] has to say because she has her hand up and I know she's going to have an opinion.

[5:50:59] Good, Director. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm the road's needs study identified

[5:51:04] the $305,000 per year. It doesn't mean that a road is going to get converted every year.

[5:51:11] The cost of some of the roads to convert are higher, but it keeps putting the money in there to fund

[5:51:17] the plan. So, I just want to confirm that, and that was clear in the road's neat study.

[5:51:24] When I say roads, it's the continue the process of what we're doing until we get a grasp

[5:51:31] of it.

[5:51:33] Councillor McMahon.

[5:51:35] Well, the reason why I bring this up is if you go through the road's neat study, what

[5:51:38] we've been doing on surface treatment roads is not been adequate, and it's why the roads

[5:51:42] are deteriorating faster than what the expected life cycle was. And so, I think we need an

[5:51:47] actual policy in place to look at what we're doing, the actual cost to convert the roads

[5:51:53] and I don't think it's been fully captured, as well as we don't have a life cycle management

[5:51:59] plan to maintain those roads that we've already treated, and the additional cost is just

[5:52:05] putting us further behind.

[5:52:06] So I do think we need an official policy moving forward for us to do this, and that's why

[5:52:12] I think we need to pause this.

[5:52:15] Any other comments, questions on the motion?

[5:52:21] A plea maired.

[5:52:23] Just been flying the face of the motion that we just passed the Councilor Rustin made,

[5:52:27] like was that 305?

[5:52:29] That was 440.

[5:52:31] This is what we budgeted.

[5:52:34] So it didn't, your motion didn't deal with the 305?

[5:52:37] No, that's still there for us to do grab a road conversion this year.

[5:52:40] It was a transfer to the reserve.

[5:52:42] We were transferred in 845 and only spent in 330.

[5:52:45] So I did the difference.

[5:52:47] Thank you.

[5:52:48] Okay, on the motion we'll vote digitally now.

[5:52:55] I apologize.

[5:52:56] Could I just clarify?

[5:52:58] Did we have a seconder on that motion?

[5:53:00] Absolutely.

[5:53:01] Thank you.

[5:53:03] Oh, it was Hoffman.

[5:53:22] Different.

[5:53:25] That motion's lost 4-4.

[5:53:27] 4 opposed Councillor Vogler, Deputy Mayor Walsheg, Councillor Kerr, Councillor Reston.

[5:53:39] I'd like to look at item RD720-6478 on page 154.

[5:53:46] or the life cycle at fault in resurfacing program.

[5:53:50] I would like to add the 970,000 that we cut off of Wallis line taken out of the road's

[5:53:59] life cycle reserve and use that in addition to the 1.6 million.

[5:54:10] Seconded by Councillor Sainte-Rosa, read back by our clerk for the benefit of our CFO.

[5:54:19] Yes, it is. So if you could just say it one more time.

[5:54:24] So what I want to do, so on item RDS-20-6478, add $970,000 to the 1.630-374.

[5:54:38] five, taken from the road's life cycle reserve.

[5:54:42] As we cut that off of the Wallis line one,

[5:54:47] I want to use that money to put it back in the ground.

[5:54:59] We'll just add on one time so it doesn't become a level of reserve.

[5:55:03] One time.

[5:55:04] We'll change our level of service.

[5:55:08] This is just a short.

[5:55:16] Seconded Director.

[5:55:18] Through you, Mayor, I have to say this.

[5:55:21] Right now, the increase is great.

[5:55:24] I'm all for putting money in the roads.

[5:55:27] You know me, I'd love it.

[5:55:29] But we don't have the resources to do this work.

[5:55:33] We keep putting forward a new supervisor of roads,

[5:55:36] like this road's program, takes almost, you know,

[5:55:40] probably 40% to 50% of our supervisor's time to manage the road's program.

[5:55:46] and we do a lot of our own inspection works too.

[5:55:50] Related to these, we don't hire a third-party consultant,

[5:55:53] therefore the costs are lower.

[5:55:56] But we keep putting forward the team leader for roads,

[5:56:00] the second one to support all of these increases

[5:56:02] and maintenance programs, and we're running really thin,

[5:56:07] so I don't know if we can actually get this work done this year.

[5:56:10] It may go into the following year,

[5:56:12] so I just want it to.

[5:56:14] Thank you, Councillor Rustin.

[5:56:17] Yeah, it was the same thing we talked about last year, but I want to put it there.

[5:56:21] I've got great faith, faith in Mr. Wilson.

[5:56:24] He did a heck of a job last year because our tender did come in way under and we added

[5:56:29] to it.

[5:56:30] So I'm hopeful that we can do it and continue moving forward hard at this.

[5:56:35] But no, I understand what you're saying there, but I'm sure we'll do our best to get what

[5:56:39] we can.

[5:56:40] Thank you.

[5:56:42] Councillor Vogler. Thank you. Again, a question for the Executive Director because Councillor

[5:56:48] Reston is putting all of this into all of this. Into asphalt resurfacing and I wonder if

[5:56:54] it wouldn't have been better split between asphalt and surface treated.

[5:56:59] Yeah, but still. I mean, so I guess the question is, where is the,

[5:57:02] I understand we have a higher amount for surface treated, we also have significantly more service

[5:57:06] treated roads. So my question is, where would the money, would the money better benefit

[5:57:10] at asphalt and great, would it be better benefiting if it was split? What is your opinion of

[5:57:17] the distribution of funds?

[5:57:35] Okay, through you, Madam Mayor Tula, Councillor Vogler. So right now we got 3,831,000

[5:57:42] in the life cycle surface treatment and 1.6. The 1.6 according to the road need study was reduced

[5:57:50] from the 2.9, that was current, that was in the previous budgets.

[5:57:56] So that has a reduction on the, on the ashtable part of it.

[5:57:59] The 3.8, it should, should, should move us forward on the surface treatment.

[5:58:04] So I think we're okay that way.

[5:58:06] So I think the balance, the balance is, is, is pretty close.

[5:58:11] And with that, we'll vote digitally now.

[5:58:17] Make it a fancy one.

[5:58:37] That's carried 8-0, Councillor Kerr.

[5:58:39] I just have a question in the

[5:58:41] miss call. We're about to get the

[5:58:43] brand new updated, you know, this day forward roads need study.

[5:58:48] If would any of these, will this list come forward?

[5:58:52] Be ready. If there's any money left over that we could start on those roads.

[5:58:56] And the reason why I'm asking is because I don't know if everyone on council knows that

[5:59:00] eight of the worst ten roads on that list are in my ward.

[5:59:04] So I'm kind of looking for the money.

[5:59:08] Through you. Thank you, Councillor Kerr.

[5:59:12] Yeah, you'll get the updated report once the Roads Need Study is supported. We'll come

[5:59:16] up with a five-year plan, which we'll define what roads we're doing this year, and I'll

[5:59:20] share that with Council. I do want to note that the report that went to Council for the

[5:59:25] Roads Need is coming back on Tuesday. It also in the report notes that we do need a supervisor

[5:59:31] of roads, we cannot keep the level of service up, I'm going to say that three or four times.

[5:59:37] We cannot deliver these programs and keep the level of service up in the department.

[5:59:42] And it was noted in the road's needs study as well, the report to council, so just to-

[5:59:51] Why does it differ?

[6:00:00] Thank you. Page 155, Councillor Meckermar. Just want to be preemptive since we're already

[6:00:06] over time and I have a physical hard stop. I want to put forward a motion.

[6:00:14] I'm going to

[6:00:14] draw on a blank right now. Motion to adjourn at 4.30.

[6:00:20] Okay.

[6:00:22] On that, I'm going. Or recessed. Yeah.

[6:00:29] So let's carry on then anything on page 155, Councillor Reston.

[6:00:35] Item RDS-23-662, the Firmide Elimination Program, I'm just wondering, would we be beneficial

[6:00:44] to bump that up to 40,000?

[6:00:47] I know it has been working and I have been getting the comments from people about it, would

[6:00:51] would it be beneficial with your guys planning if we bump that by 20?

[6:01:01] Through your worship to Councilor Russin.

[6:01:04] Actually, the program's working fairly well.

[6:01:08] We're only spending, we're not quite spending a full 20,000.

[6:01:13] There is a component afterwards about mowing that might be able to talk about afterwards,

[6:01:17] but yeah, that's a good road carry now.

[6:01:19] Okay, no, we'll leave it at that.

[6:01:21] I just wanted to make sure because people haven't commented how good it's been working.

[6:01:24] Great.

[6:01:25] Councilor Kerr.

[6:01:25] Hi, me again, Jeff. Are we doing it every year now? I believe the counties switched to every year. Have we joined them with the every year or are we still doing every two years?

[6:01:37] Through your worship. Yeah, we've got a county group, like everybody in the minister in the Esk County's into it now.

[6:01:44] So yeah, they've actually actually applying for more grants again this year, 2026. So yeah, everybody's involved in it.

[6:01:52] It's a group effort for sure.

[6:01:55] Further on page 155.

[6:02:02] Seeing none on page 156.

[6:02:15] And page 157.

[6:02:26] One page 158.

[6:02:34] See, I knew that your conversation over there was overruling my numbers.

[6:02:38] I'm on page 158.

[6:02:40] I want to go back.

[6:02:41] I'm on 157.

[6:02:42] All right.

[6:02:43] Just item RDS-26-6838.

[6:02:49] I believe it said in here we were going to do half of them this year, if I read it right.

[6:02:56] Would it be more beneficial to take the money from the reserve and complete all of them this year?

[6:03:17] Through you, Mayor, to Councillor Reston. Yes, actually, it would, because we're going to tie it into the other improvements we have to do along the corridor.

[6:03:25] and I'd like to move that, we double that item and take the money out of the tree replacement reserve one time.

[6:03:47] Thank you. Seconded by Councillor McNamara. Questions, comments?

[6:03:52] Councillor Cintrosa, can we just pull that and keep drawing down all mad and bust Windsor Essex economic development? Reserve, please, and pull it from there.

[6:03:58] 100% for one time amazing council we have here right complete alignment everybody's able to communicate so great

[6:04:11] Hours and hours worth of work

[6:04:13] All right on the motion when you're ready and

[6:04:20] then right. Yeah

[6:04:42] That's carried six sorry eight zero

[6:04:45] On page 158, on

[6:04:55] page 159, happy to see that Conver Alleyway service in there.

[6:05:01] On page 168, Councillor Santorosa.

[6:05:09] Thank you. Just a quick, I guess, note and question to administration.

[6:05:12] RDS 26, 68, 79, for the Notre Dame Street traffic improvements.

[6:05:17] The language in here still says, and the conversion of certain streets to be one way traffic,

[6:05:21] which Council voted against. I just want to make sure that that $250,000 is for the existing work and not also that inclusion.

[6:05:28] Yes, through you, Mayor. It is correct. This was done, RIVOR.

[6:05:32] Thank you.

[6:05:37] 161.

[6:05:43] Councillor Vogler.

[6:05:45] Thank you, item UEM266825. I would like to eliminate that budget item, please.

[6:05:53] and we can take that money and reduce it one time, the hundred thousand.

[6:06:04] Thank you.

[6:06:05] You have a seconder.

[6:06:06] Councillor Rustin.

[6:06:22] Councillor McNamara.

[6:06:24] Given that we would be looking at getting grant funding towards this, as well as some

[6:06:32] of our municipal vehicles, given their usage, it actually lends extremely well to being

[6:06:37] an EV.

[6:06:38] I wouldn't be supporting this.

[6:06:45] Councillor Kerr.

[6:06:47] To administration, how many EV vehicles do we own to date?

[6:06:53] Yes.

[6:06:54] Thank you.

[6:07:01] Further comments, questions?

[6:07:03] Seeing them, we'll vote digitally.

[6:07:07] Yes.

[6:07:10] It's not broke.

[6:07:12] Give it to Michael.

[6:07:23] That's carried.

[6:07:24] 8.62, there's two Opposed Conflict of McNamara Councilor Santa Rosa,

[6:07:30] 162,

[6:07:35] 163,

[6:07:43] 164,

[6:07:49] 165,

[6:07:53] 166,

[6:07:55] 166, somebody's Scream Spingo. All

[6:08:00] right, on our deferred capital on 167,

[6:08:13] is it here

[6:08:14] to.

[6:08:19] And so at this time on page 177, I'm just cross referencing to see if the position on 177 is

[6:08:28] also, I guess it wouldn't be here because it was deferred, right, on the new position request.

[6:08:34] All right, I'll carry on. Under deferred operating 169.

[6:08:40] No,

[6:08:44] the number is not that one, so I'll do the three by hand, you know?

[6:08:50] Oh, I'll clean that one, six by hand.

[6:08:55] Page 170,

[6:09:01] 171,

[6:09:08] 172,

[6:09:13] 173.

[6:09:20] Oh, I see the park's late hand here now inside this deferral list.

[6:09:24] So I see here that it was risk level high.

[6:09:27] So good decision made amongst council, 175,

[6:09:33] 176.

[6:09:34] All right. On page 177, an item number 16 deferred team leader roads in fleet. I'd like

[6:09:42] to make a motion at this time that we proceed with this position as a one-year contract.

[6:09:48] So a one-time cost.

[6:09:53] Correct. Seconded by Councillor Kerr.

[6:09:56] Comments, questions? Councillor Vogler?

[6:09:59] Thank you. I just wonder by the time the person is up and running and trained

[6:10:02] is a year too short. Should it be a slightly longer contract? I mean, I don't think I'm not

[6:10:08] interested in a permanent position at this time, but I would be more inclined to say a two or

[6:10:12] three-year contract just because of the large amount of work that we have upcoming and the

[6:10:16] roads need study, etc. So if you would amend that to a, let's even say meet in the middle and say

[6:10:20] two, and we could talk about extending it later, but one doesn't seem like enough to me.

[6:10:25] Okay, so I'm hearing two across the table. So they'll support two. Let's do a two-year contract.

[6:10:31] If we go for them out in there, the next council could choose to keep it or let it go, and all those other projects are going to be good.

[6:10:38] They're going to be able to do that in two years.

[6:10:43] I'm just going to have that.

[6:10:45] Is there appetite among, I just don't want to rush through emotion because I'm trying to get a position here.

[6:10:51] If there's appetite amongst council to make this a permanent position now, I'm happy to table the motion to bring it in.

[6:10:57] And so I'm seeing next.

[6:10:58] So I think I'm on the right path with a contract.

[6:11:01] I'll amend the motion to three years in hopes that I haven't lost just a, okay, two years.

[6:11:07] I'm going to stay with my gut because I think I was right in the first place.

[6:11:10] So yeah.

[6:11:11] Thank you.

[6:11:12] We won't fund both years right now.

[6:11:13] We'll fund it annually.

[6:11:15] So we're going to pay for $119,000 today.

[6:11:17] That's right.

[6:11:17] And I'll ask in a moment the impact.

[6:11:19] We're at 1.72.

[6:11:20] We'll be adding in this position as a one time.

[6:11:23] And you'll be able to tell me where we're at very shortly.

[6:11:26] On the motion.

[6:11:29] Well, 1.95.

[6:11:31] It's been a lot to tap in less a little bit, but you are 1.76 now.

[6:11:35] If you add this, if you add this, if not, um, oh, can we add the job?

[6:11:40] Yeah, that's correct.

[6:11:44] Just mention, one for one for eight, if you do not.

[6:12:06] Okay.

[6:12:10] So on the motion, we'll vote digitally now. Second. Thank you, and the seconder, Councillor

[6:12:42] Okay,

[6:12:50] so that passed 8-0. Recognizing the time, I think we can hammer through here. We're really close to the end. So we're going to keep going even though it's 4-30.

[6:13:00] page 178. If we get into large debate, we'll recess and we'll come back in the morning folks,

[6:13:06] but if we can get through it now, we might as well. 179.

[6:13:15] One-time changes on 180.

[6:13:18] Does anybody have anything further for this budget today?

[6:13:22] Chancellor Santorosa, thank you Madam Mayor. I'm hoping I can get an updated number in that

[6:13:28] the Invest Windsor Essex Economic Development Fund Reserve now that we've drawn it down a couple

[6:13:32] times. What's the remaining balance? That was not something we were tracking throughout, but

[6:13:40] I tracked two reductions there. One of 60,000 and the original one of 30,000. Sorry.

[6:13:53] I think I had originally a $25,000 piece under economic development, but then we added community

[6:14:01] Branding so it was a net five and then I believe to your point we had that was at 60 after that so I do

[6:14:08] 60 after that yes okay so we're only at 65 a 65 reduction right so we should have a hundred and forty four two four

[6:14:16] if we move one sounds about right which is about two okay I'd like to make a motion that we draw down

[6:14:22] that reserve and its entirety so that hundred and forty thousand four hundred and twenty four dollars

[6:14:29] give me a second here. John's happy to second it. Oh my gosh, where was I going with this? Hold on.

[6:14:42] Yeah,

[6:14:47] give me a second here. So I'll just mention that that reserve was created when those funds

[6:14:54] were returned back from Invest Windsor Essex to the municipality.

[6:15:00] And the earmark of those funds was to be for economic development and like activities. So, if you're considering a transfer to a different reserve or another drawdown, it should be for those specific criteria or the municipality may face criticism on how those funds were used. I mean, I'll take the criticism. It's probably been a number of years. It can change its defense. I understand it. It's been a number of years, but I just, I do know the history on that one, not from my time here in Lachor.

[6:15:29] But the contingencies fund would nicely position the next budget.

[6:15:35] If we do the contingency fund, I'm okay with that so that we can reduce the operating

[6:15:39] draw accordingly is my hope there so that next year we're in a better net position.

[6:15:44] So, if we can put thank you, so that 14424, and if we can do, if Council's happy to support it,

[6:15:51] I'd love to lump them together, but to do the same thing with that OCLIF cannabis legalization fund

[6:15:57] of the 37. It's been a long time since we received those funds. We're not attributing

[6:16:01] them to by-law or anything related to it at this point either. So I'd also like to add

[6:16:06] the $37,782 from the OCLIF. Put that towards the contingency and draw down the operating

[6:16:15] draws as well.

[6:16:16] You have the seconder's support? Well, vote digitally now.

[6:16:20] Well, that's a great idea.

[6:16:22] Thank you.

[6:16:25] I'm going to get your phone

[6:16:36] number.

[6:16:44] I don't know if it's OK.

[6:16:47] Did it?

[6:16:53] I'm not going to bother you.

[6:16:57] That's carried eight zero at this time.

[6:17:00] I'd like to note that the budget deliberations have resulted in a 1.76% I want to thank

[6:17:07] everybody across the council table and across administration for the hard work that we've

[6:17:12] done today.

[6:17:13] And if there's nothing further from members of council this afternoon, I'll look for a

[6:17:17] motion to adjourn.

[6:17:18] Councillor McNamara seconded by Deputy Mayor Wallsted all in favor of adjournment by a show

[6:17:22] of hands.

[6:17:24] Thank you.

[6:17:24] We're adjourned.

[6:17:25] Thank you very much for all your hard work today.

Dec 04, 2025 Regular Council Meeting - Lakeshore. ON

Agenda

Transcript