[0:00] Going to call the meeting to order. We're looking for approval of the agenda

[0:02] for the special council meeting held July 28,2026

[0:06] to be approved as presented. May I have a mover, please?

[0:09] » I'll move. >> Thank you. Seconded. Moved and seconded.

[0:12] Comments or questions for members, please.

[0:15] » Call the vote. All in favor? It's carried. Thank you. Going to move on to

[0:19] disclosure of pecuring interest and general nature thereof. Does any member

[0:23] have a interest to declare and if so, what's the general nature of that

[0:26] interest? No declaration. So we'll move on to four

[0:30] motions for consideration that the council of the corporation of the

[0:34] village of America receive the motions for consideration documented as

[0:38] presented. May I have a mover please? >> I'll move.

[0:40] » Thank you. Second, please. Thank you. Comments or questions, members? None.

[0:45] We'll move on to the vote. All in favor? Carrie.

[0:50] Number five, Marville master infrastructure plan population growth

[0:54] projection summary. I will now invite Mark Buchanan from JL Richardson to

[0:59] provide a presentation on the population growth projection summary report. Mark,

[1:04] the floor is all yours, sir. Thank you. And thank you for coming in person.

[1:07] » Hey, welcome. Thanks for having me. Glad to be here to talk about I guess an

[1:12] important part of the infrastructure master plan. Um the population

[1:15] projections kind of undermine kind undermine but um are the foundation that

[1:21] the whole plan is based on. So it sets the table for like what we're going to

[1:24] assess from your water based water infrastructure. So I guess with that we

[1:29] put together a short presentation to kind of accompany the the memo we put

[1:32] together that summarized here was the growth projections and how we came up

[1:36] with them um for the village of Marville.

[1:42] » So starting it off some of the the key things like kind of

[1:46] our approach and our assumptions that went into it. Um these form the basis

[1:51] that we're going to use to assess the infrastructure master plan. These

[1:53] population projections um the data we're putting in here from

[1:58] the figures and the tables we we've summarized them from input from village

[2:04] staff. So I want to make it clear like JL Richards isn't coming up with this to

[2:08] say this is how Marville grows. It's being informed by what the community is

[2:12] hearing what's coming from developers interest in the area. It's not us saying

[2:17] it. It's this is this is your community telling us this is you know

[2:22] um where um I guess the other important

[2:27] piece is we're using the official plan to try and guide and steer where

[2:31] densities and unit developments will be going. We're not creating anything new.

[2:34] We're adhering to current um plans. Um where we didn't have any information um

[2:41] such as um unit d like people per unit the unit density we looked at statistic

[2:47] Canada for maru specific and it said well it's about 2.1 people per unit. So

[2:53] we use that to fill in a data gap. >> Um the other assumption that's in here

[2:58] for properties that are zoned are two. Um the official plan allows up to four

[3:03] units on that development. Feedback from staff is well we're planning for we're

[3:08] going to allow one one unit to go in there. So we've taken that assumption in

[3:12] the plan. Um for 10 to 20 year development

[3:18] timelines. So kind of the furthest timeline we were looking at for growth

[3:21] projections. Um the official plan allows for a range of

[3:27] unit densities. So what we were in talking with staff was well let's look

[3:32] at low and medium. So we took an average of of those two

[3:37] to come up with how many units would go on this vacant land.

[3:42] And then the final piece of the assumptions in here is we put this

[3:46] together based on the best information we have so far. Um as we work through

[3:50] the master plan and I some of the bigger items at the bottom um flood plane

[3:54] limits for any development that's along the river. we would update that to

[3:58] reduce what the developable areas is because we don't want to develop in a

[4:02] foot. So we'll shrink those areas accordingly. Um and if there's anything

[4:06] else but archaeological natural heritage say wetland we'll adjust those lands

[4:11] accordingly. That would adjust the development areas we're showing here.

[4:16] » Yeah that's the say the primary for what went into the the growth projections as

[4:22] next slide. So in going through them, we we broke

[4:26] them up into timelines. So our study, we're looking at a 20-year projection

[4:30] out for the village. So we broke it up into three timelines. The first one

[4:33] we're looking at is 0 to 5 years. These are areas that are um either approved

[4:40] for capacity and under construction um or they're approved for capacity, they

[4:45] aren't under construction or there's been capacity requested. So this is

[4:48] probably the most certainty in development because this is what this is

[4:52] everybody's aware of what's coming. So we've kind of thrown them on a map of

[4:56] the village and highlighted them in green. These are the development areas

[4:59] that would be looking um to grow in the next you know the near term 0 to 5

[5:03] years. Um [clears throat] in the table generally it sums up to it's about 205

[5:08] units or 475 people.

[5:15] » Do you want to introduce your >> Oh sorry.

[5:19] » I know. [laughter] Sorry. >> Oh good. [clears throat] So Shose from

[5:21] Aqua. um we're working with on this this important job she's served.

[5:25] » Welcome. >> Thank you.

[5:28] » Thanks, darling. >> Mayor,

[5:32] » absolutely.

[5:36] » So, the next timeline I guess is there any questions so far? Like I'll be uh

[5:42] » anybody have any questions? >> Wait till the end. Yes.

[5:48] » Okay. So, the next timeline 5 to 10 years. Um, so in the figure we tried to

[5:54] leave the green areas on there to show that was what the 05 was. And then

[5:58] anything that's 5 to 10 is kind of the the yellowy orange colors. Um, they're

[6:04] generally vacant lots that were available within the the urban boundary,

[6:07] the urban urban area of the rank. Um again it consists of approved capacity

[6:12] capacity requested um probably a smaller total um of 42 units 119 people for this

[6:20] timeline um which is less than what's in the 05 and the lowest of all of the

[6:26] projections.

[6:30] Thanks J. And then the last timeline we have is um 10 to 20 years. So the

[6:36] furthest out in the plan in here that's all of the blue areas um

[6:42] that are identified as being expected for growth. Um again a range of there's

[6:49] 89 lots have been requested capacity. Um 193 um there's no capacity approved or

[6:57] requested but they're available lands that is anticipated to grow in 10 to 20

[7:01] years. Um, and then there's some vacant lands that total up to about 886 units.

[7:08] Um, and I think the biggest projection on this timeline is growing across the

[7:13] RTO River um to those blocks that are 13 labeled 13 and 14 in the figure. Um, in

[7:20] total for 10 to 20 years, it's 1,168 units or just over 2400 people.

[7:30] And that's the short synopsis of the growth projections for the

[7:34] infrastructure master plan. Happy to take in the questions and discuss.

[7:39] » Any questions for members?

[7:45] » Go ahead, counselor. >> I guess when you're doing the growth

[7:48] projections, what factors do you take in consideration? Is it just what lots we

[7:52] have available and what sort of stage are development or do you look at the

[7:56] census scan and the trends of the population

[7:59] um federally? >> No. So there was no analysis on like a

[8:03] federal level of data. Um the only piece of stat scan data that we used was just

[8:08] to inform if there was an unknown on um how many people would be going in a

[8:13] unit. um

[8:17] what we took in trying to develop the the growth projections is what the

[8:20] public works department was getting um particularly in the near term uh 05 5 to

[8:24] 10 was like yeah there's requests for these lands to be developed there's

[8:27] requests for uh capacity on the water wastewater systems and then outside of

[8:32] that what is informing it is we're maintaining growth has to stay within

[8:36] the urban boundary

[8:40] go ahead >> so rather than talking about it as a a

[8:45] growth projection. It's really evaluating the capacity based on empty

[8:51] square footage, empty empty empty lots, empty acreage, and you're allocating

[8:58] [clears throat] x number of dwelling units based on the official plan for y

[9:03] number of acres or lots. >> Correct. So, so this is very different

[9:08] from a growth projection where we look at past historical trends. Uh people

[9:15] leaving the the municipality, entering, dying, retiring elsewhere.

[9:21] So, it's really just a capacity. How much land do we have? How many people

[9:25] can we put on it? [clears throat] So how

[9:31] how does that number whatever number we [clears throat] determine

[9:36] how does that number affect the plan or the master infrastructure plan?

[9:43] » So the numbers we have now we can take them and then we can start comparing

[9:47] them to as we go out in time. How much capacity

[9:53] does the water plant have or the wastewater plant? How does it affect

[9:57] your trunk wastewater sewers or pressures and fire flowability of the in

[10:02] your distribution system? We can take this information now and we can use it

[10:06] in the master plan to say well here's where we think there's going to be

[10:08] problems or none um moving forward in time with this um growth.

[10:18] [clears throat] >> Go ahead counsel.

[10:21] » Yeah. So to to build on that is essentially that it gives us um working

[10:27] on on this and like I'm I'm looking it's a little bit malleable too as we go

[10:31] forward because you're talking about taking flood plane um agricultural land

[10:35] that types of things into consideration as we go

[10:37] » not agricultural sorry >> although it was written up there I was

[10:41] just saying it was written up in >> we put it

[10:43] » yeah would be um so I mean like the five zero to five years highly likely uh the

[10:50] 5 to 10 is

[10:53] maybe likely depending on economics, that type of thing. And then the 10 to

[10:58] 20 is where we have room should we require it. And so what this is helping

[11:03] us to come up with plans going forward depending on how if if suddenly we

[11:08] saying the growth rate is um you know suddenly speeding up or something we we

[11:12] have a plan and um kind of options to consider going ahead versus um or if

[11:18] it's very stagnant and just stays really we have a plan but uh we're not locked

[11:25] into our >> I'd say absolutely um the timelines we

[11:30] use um they almost give it context that like we can all relate with because we

[11:35] all understand time >> 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years where it

[11:40] actually lands it from a technical standpoint on engineering it doesn't

[11:44] really make a difference to us the amount of like water waste water

[11:49] generated or required from the people that's what we care about and those are

[11:54] the numbers then that we start spitting out and comparing to what's available

[11:58] » and then the time just kind of gives you something that we can all understand of

[12:01] Well, based on this much growth in these areas, this is the the list of projects

[12:06] that would be anticipated that gives you a plan to make informed decisions as

[12:10] that growth happens. >> Okay.

[12:14] » Go ahead. >> So, as you know, it's it's in your

[12:18] report, the the United Counties have projected a very different number for

[12:23] growth um within the municipality as a whole.

[12:28] So, what happens if if their numbers are closer to being correct, but we've

[12:34] planned for 3,000 people to be on the system? I I don't want to see a plan

[12:40] that overestimates so much. And I agree with overestimating enough to

[12:46] accommodate some surprises so we're not cut caught short. But that seems like an

[12:52] extreme number to plan for if our growth actually turns out to be something that

[13:00] is what the county is telling us. >> Correct.

[13:03] » It gives versatility I would say in decision- making. um is what it what it

[13:09] allows for. Um it can be aspirational. It can be um if

[13:16] there is interest in an area, it can also give data to um this council,

[13:22] future council staff to inform those potential developers like here's what

[13:26] you're up against uh to try and service those lands.

[13:30] Um certainly as part of the the county's uh

[13:36] draft um [clears throat] county's growth projections um I think one of the lines

[13:41] in their report was also it would be beneficial to get backfed from this this

[13:46] work to say what is the capacity that is available to support growth and that

[13:50] they could refine their numbers >> more. Um but but yes it definitely is

[13:56] it's more than what is in the county.

[14:01] And and what happens if we don't pick 3,32

[14:08] for population projection,

[14:13] but if we pick a lower number,

[14:17] we plan for what the lower number will be. Okay. So, we, you know, we just need

[14:23] to be on the intent of this is we just want to be on the same page with this is

[14:27] what the community is interested in. This is what we're going to plan for and

[14:30] this is then what the master plan u infrastructure master plan will work

[14:34] towards um to give you information to make decisions. So, um we we by no means

[14:41] are looking to push what the growth projection is for the community at all.

[14:45] It's it's what do you want to plan for? Any

[14:51] other questions for members? >> Mine's been answered. Thanks.

[14:56] » Okay. Um, just for uh a little bit of clarification because we did discuss uh

[15:01] the county's approach and it's been brought back to the table here. Uh, Miss

[15:07] Plumbley, since the county was engaged with staff, how much of this information

[15:13] is provided to JL Richardson was uh supplied to the county? Because if if

[15:19] they had the same information, then I'm not understanding the

[15:23] difference. >> The what's presented here is what would

[15:27] be allowed under our current official plan.

[15:29] » It wasn't presented to the county. >> What was presented to the county was

[15:34] basically the one to five year or 0 to 5 years.

[15:38] » No, no, 10 years. What we knew for sure >> that's what was presented to the county.

[15:42] These are projections based on on land availability according to our official

[15:47] plan. >> Okay. So, as I know, the county was

[15:52] looking at long-term investments, and that's what the that's what the growth

[15:56] management plan was for the counties, including all 10 municipalities, was how

[16:00] was the county going to invest infrastructure dollars in the

[16:04] infrastructure in support of growth uh throughout the 10 municipalities in

[16:09] United, and Brenville. If they weren't supplied with this information,

[16:14] the long-term information, it's harder for them to start planning on what roads

[16:19] they're going to tackle. All the all the roads coming in are all county roads.

[16:23] So, it needs to be understood what the pressures may or may or may not be

[16:30] because we >> that's why this timing

[16:33] » it happens. It happens and depends on developers what they want to buy and how

[16:37] they want to develop it and so on and so forth. But that would be relative

[16:41] information for them to have. So at the county level, they know how much money

[16:46] they should be putting aside for county road 15, 16, and 43

[16:51] and 41. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So I I note in the appendix that

[16:57] um areas labeled 13 and 14, the blue hash marks

[17:03] in the staff listing of those two parcels. they staff sees those as being

[17:10] beyond 20 years. Um, and I know that the the growth plan

[17:14] at the county is kind of capped at 201. So, I can see why those two parcels

[17:22] would not be forwarded on to onto the county and and I'd like to understand

[17:28] why they show up in this report. >> Very good question. Because our scope or

[17:35] mandate was 20 years. became a question of are we including

[17:40] them in the plan >> or or not

[17:45] » I think beyond um it's labeled in the appendix

[17:51] as beyond 20 years for development according to village staff

[17:55] » correct >> and that be all relative to interest

[18:01] from the private sector so I mean we can say that might be

[18:07] something that's looked at 20 years from now. But if there's we all see small uh

[18:12] little rural villages and towns all of a sudden uh they go from zero to thousands

[18:18] of homes and that those um predictions are always long-term predictions but it

[18:24] depends on the interest and what's happening in around the other

[18:27] municipalities that border us as well. So I mean these things could could

[18:31] accelerate or they could take longer than what you're projecting. Is

[18:35] [clears throat] that correct? >> I'd say I'd say that's fair. It depends

[18:38] on the the social, demographic, economical conditions that exist that

[18:43] may bring a development area to become more

[18:46] attractive. What what may be insurmountable right now may become

[18:50] easier in the future depending on unknowns.

[18:53] » And another determining factor is that these are all u privately owned lands.

[18:58] So they're not within the municipality's uh scope to uh manage them what they'd

[19:03] like to do. It's all based on the official plan and the interest from uh

[19:09] the neighboring developers I would say. [sighs and gasps]

[19:13] » Correct or incorrect? >> I I generally would agree. I believe uh

[19:18] um there was a development charges bylaw was recently passed like that would help

[19:22] in informing well if you're going to connect to the system this is this is

[19:25] the cost that should be shared by uh potential developer to get capacity. So

[19:31] that would be a consideration uh that would go into a potentially business

[19:35] case of someone who wants to develop something.

[19:37] » Yeah. And and this is just basically for us to understand the possibility and

[19:42] when we do have available infrastructure monies uh that we're investing in in the

[19:49] right direction, the right space just in case uh these projections become truth.

[19:56] » Correct. Thank you. If it's your vote now, go ahead.

[20:01] Yeah, I just uh under the 20-y year um projection there, primarily the stuff in

[20:06] the blue, I know there's some that uh see one set of the 20 years, 193 units

[20:14] proposed, no capacity requested or uh granted. At the time, there's 886,

[20:20] I think, parcels that just are vacant. Um and that's just as potential uh on

[20:24] here. It's it's within our urban boundary, but it's potential, but it's

[20:29] there's not there's no movement on whatsoever. That's just uh what what

[20:32] what we're talking about.

[20:36] » I think that um if we didn't include the the lands on the north side of the

[20:42] river, um I think we'd have been asked why didn't you? So, if you if we don't

[20:48] put it in there now, the question would have been raised, well, why didn't you

[20:51] why didn't you consider that when you looked at this? Yeah, we need to to look

[20:55] at all the possibilities because that's how we plan long term.

[21:00] » Yeah. >> What the what the reality is and how

[21:03] they play out is is uh is um something that's in the control of uh the people

[21:10] that own the land and how they want to sell it or who wants to buy it and

[21:14] develop it. And the lands across north side are for sale now. [clears throat]

[21:19] So,

[21:22] Um, so I have to admit I'm a little bit ignorant as to what a master

[21:28] infrastructure plan looks like, what's what the what the content is. So I guess

[21:34] my my concern right now is if we use this larger number and we plan for that

[21:41] larger number, if that triggers that larger number triggers the need for a

[21:46] sewage treatment plant expansion, are we now committing to

[21:52] um expanding the sewage treatment plant with only, you know, the next five years

[21:58] of um user fees and development charges?

[22:02] is. >> So if we're planning on a really big

[22:05] scope of development and we don't achieve that,

[22:10] how much are we committed towards making that plan happen with a smaller resource

[22:16] base? >> Fair. Um [clears throat]

[22:18] say yeah, it's a it's a similar question most municipalities face.

[22:23] It doesn't commit you to you have to do this. The urban boundaries established,

[22:28] the official plans established. it technically allows for this type of

[22:32] growth. The infrastructure master plan is just giving you the road map of well

[22:36] if this actually happens the way that we're projecting it. Here's all the

[22:40] infrastructure projects you're going to need. here's the additional studies

[22:43] you're going to have to pursue and here's the designs that would have to go

[22:46] with them um in an approximate timeline based on the timelines we've outlined

[22:53] and I believe we would have no obligations uh to service lands that we

[22:57] don't have capacity within our plant so that would be uh if our if and when our

[23:04] plant reaches the maximum capacity and there's still lands to be developed and

[23:07] there's requests for that uh we're not obligated to increase the size of the

[23:12] plant to meet that uh demand or are we uh putting ourselves in a

[23:19] position when that plant reaches a capacity that we're going to have to

[23:23] upgrade it to continue to move forward? Is that something that we're we

[23:28] absolutely have to do or is that something we can decide to do as a uh as

[23:32] a municipality? >> I believe it would become a decision of

[23:35] municipality. Yeah, because you're obligated. you have to operate in

[23:38] accordance with the regulatory requirements and if you're at capacity

[23:41] you would be um reckless to continue to add capacity to it without understanding

[23:46] like no we need to grow it be able to treat it

[23:49] » I knew the answer to the question I just wanted to set publicly so we're under no

[23:54] obligation we we move as a municipality and create those opportunities within

[23:59] the capacity that we have financially and with within our resources so it's up

[24:05] to uh and that's why I guess you're projecting long-term 20 years plus. Uh

[24:11] so it's it's decisions and discussions around a council table on how and uh how

[24:18] we are going to move that forward and what we're going to at what speed we're

[24:22] going to move that forward because a lot of these a lot of these uh builds on the

[24:26] north side require a lot more input than just this is where uh growth is going to

[24:32] happen. There's environmental studies and so on and so forth that have to

[24:35] happen. There's infrastructure that has to be brought across the river. There's

[24:39] infrastructure that has to be installed on the north side. So it's uh that in

[24:44] itself is probably a seven to eight year project

[24:47] uh if we were starting yesterday. So these are all things just for us to

[24:52] consider these this is where the growth can happen. How that happens uh unfolds

[25:00] at the discussion at the state. correct statement or

[25:04] » Yeah, generally I agree with that. >> Thank you.

[25:09] So, any other questions or comments?

[25:13] So, did you uh want to move on to the other part of the report if we're

[25:21] done with this slide or

[25:28] excuse me, is there an opportunity for us to uh for the public to comment on

[25:34] this? >> We'll we'll have uh we'll read through

[25:37] the master plan here and see what happens. There's a is there anything in

[25:42] here for the public to Julia or is this just for council public will have an

[25:47] opportunity at another time? >> The purpose of the meeting is for

[25:50] council to endorse projected. There's no other question period in special

[25:54] meetings. >> So not at this time.

[25:59] So uh are we moving on to the other part? I have another package here that

[26:04] has a lot of uh documentation in it. Is or is that just

[26:09] » part of this? as part of this. >> So that was the complete Okay. Cuz I've

[26:13] got another 20 pages on the other side here. So

[26:18] » there was a PowerPoint um summary and then there was the actual projections.

[26:22] » Yeah. Okay. So that's not we're not discussing that was just for us to

[26:26] review. So any questions or comments from

[26:32] members while we have does Aqua have anything that they would like to add to

[26:36] the conversation? Is there anything that you'd like to input or

[26:41] » cover everything that we have discussed? Sorry, I'm also new to this um project

[26:46] um as you're aware. So yeah, I just started working with JR. So we just uh

[26:52] » I agree what they've done. So >> So this uh what's the next step after

[26:58] this? So how are we going to proceed and how we're uh how we're going to get

[27:02] further input from the public? as you can see that or here there's interest

[27:06] for uh people to weigh in and have conversation on this. So can you perhaps

[27:12] give us a little uh guidance on what the next steps are and what the

[27:16] opportunities are moving forward? >> Absolutely. I'm happy to. So the

[27:20] infrastructure master plan um is we're coming with a framework for how growth

[27:25] will happen and then what the infrastructure that's tied to it in a

[27:28] clear and transparent way. >> Part of this project we have two public

[27:31] information centers that will be held The first one will be a conclusion of

[27:35] what we call phase one, which is our problem definition and opportunity

[27:38] statement. >> Okay. So, that'll be that'll be the

[27:42] first initial opportunity for the public.

[27:44] » Correct. >> And we're going to give them well

[27:46] advanced notice so that they have that opportunity to put in their schedule so

[27:50] they can attend if they wish to do so. >> Minimum two weeks notice.

[27:54] » Two weeks notice. So, you'll have a twoe notice period before that happens. Sorry

[27:58] for interrupting, but I just wanted to make sure we're clear. Go ahead. Timing

[28:02] for that currently would be a draft of that public information session as a

[28:08] project team we should have it in October targeting end of October to

[28:11] beginning of November first week. >> Okay,

[28:13] » that's when that will be out. >> Okay.

[28:15] » Um the second one conclusion of the master plan is currently going till May

[28:21] 2027. So be somewhere near the end there. Um April or May is when our

[28:26] second public information center will be held. That's where we'll take the

[28:31] findings from the problem opportunity statement. We'll develop alternatives.

[28:35] How do we service this? Rank them against each other, select what we

[28:39] believe to be the preferred, present it to the public for input on, hey, what

[28:43] what do you think of what we have here for feedback, collect that feedback, and

[28:48] then work it back into the final report that gets posted for 30-day review. And

[28:53] could you perhaps uh uh uh let us understand why uh that length of

[29:01] time is needed because I think we were we were hopeful that we would have

[29:05] something uh presented earlier than that uh sort of pre-budget for discussions

[29:12] for the next term of council so the next term of council understands what the

[29:15] investments are going to be needed moving forward. So, can you uh perhaps

[29:22] fill in some of the gaps of why there's such a long period from start to finish?

[29:27] » Yeah. Um, it's typically how long it takes us to get through all of the

[29:30] information. Um, growth projections, digest your infrastructure, take a look

[29:37] at the constraints, understand what the problems are.

[29:39] » Um, host a public information session, get

[29:44] the feedback to incorporate, and then advance to the next stage. um using

[29:48] we're going to develop um modeling tools of the water distribution system and the

[29:52] wastewater collection system, apply this growth um to those tools and

[29:58] then see where the problems arise and then give us time to think about okay

[30:02] well how could we um address this whether it's upgrades to pipes um

[30:10] redoing another street somewhere else discussions with public works if there's

[30:15] a street that's in need of renewal potentially dropped infrastructure could

[30:18] be located there. So you start aligning >> um your public works projects um in a

[30:24] clear kind of logical sense. >> Um yeah, this is typically the timeline

[30:29] that it takes us to get through u master plan.

[30:32] » And as you're moving through that timeline, is there an opportunity for

[30:35] [clears throat] the information that you've gathered to be in a position for

[30:40] staff to be able to apply for grants so that we can move these uh things along?

[30:46] uh in a more rapid pace potentially or do we have to wait?

[30:52] » We can we can work with staff um to help if there's grant opportunities that are

[30:57] arising while we're still working through the master plan.

[31:00] » Um typically um in our experience like

[31:05] successful grants they're they're they're supported by having master plan

[31:11] class assessments like completed and here's the reference document. um that

[31:16] the approval besides are looking for like oh yeah there's there's a lot of

[31:18] thought has gone into this to understand that there's I guess less risk of this

[31:22] project um not proceeding >> and would this uh information you're

[31:28] gathering uh be able to be intertwined with the county as the countyy's moving

[31:32] forward because I know there's discussions going to be happening and

[31:35] the timeline for the delivery of this final package is not till next May as

[31:40] according to you but I think the county's planning on engaging with the

[31:44] municipality starting is it November uh Miss Plumbley? I think November or

[31:49] something >> that they're reaching out. So, is there

[31:52] an opportunity to sort of sh uh share that information as it develops uh with

[31:58] the county so that uh the two can better align?

[32:02] » I don't see why not. Um because that schedule itself like we be through the

[32:06] phase one component um using the growth projections to determine problems

[32:11] opportunities. um you could take it and yeah feed it

[32:14] back into the county to say well this is what we're anticipating for broke.

[32:18] » So you just need an invite from staff to do so

[32:20] » if that's something that uh yeah um the village is interested in our support on

[32:26] we can absolutely talk about accommodating that.

[32:29] » Okay perfect. Go ahead. Uh I think councelor girl had her hand up first and

[32:32] then we'll go to deputy mayor. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I was just in terms of

[32:35] public engagement as well, I was reading the uh little notice on our uh that

[32:39] showed up on our agenda yesterday is that they're also welcome to contact

[32:42] members of the team as well. You guys have your emails provided here.

[32:47] » Um that's my understanding. The way I'm reading it, um they can contact members

[32:51] of the city team listed below anytime uh with comments or questions as

[32:55] [clears throat] well. Okay. in in working uh to develop a public

[32:59] consultation plan, there's also a desire like we want to post anything that we're

[33:03] doing whether it's memos, reports, the findings

[33:07] » on um the township website. So all of this will be available for download and

[33:12] if there's any members stakeholders uh regulatory authorities that are

[33:16] interested in a project given its proximity where it is that means they

[33:20] can reach out to shar and we will add them to our stakeholder list but it's

[33:24] circulated on notices as well. >> Okay.

[33:27] » Yeah. I noticed that it was on the notice yesterday so it is available for

[33:31] it is publicly available. So, I'm I'm curious what alignment looks like

[33:36] between the the county growth projection and this growth projection. How would

[33:43] you see those two numbers aligning?

[33:48] » It's a difficult question to answer.

[33:54] » My understanding how the county comes up with their growth projections is they're

[33:58] getting them from the province. Treasury Department saying to all of the

[34:02] upper tier municipalities, this is what your growth is going to be.

[34:06] » And then they go and they diving it up amongst all of the lower tier

[34:09] municipalities. Um, and in practice, what we see in

[34:14] other communities is it's the larger urban centers get the lion share of the

[34:18] growth because they have the resources, the capacity built in to accommodate

[34:22] home. Um, that's typically how it's going. having this I think it gives

[34:28] opportunity to to facilitate a discussion to be like well there is

[34:31] interest here's what it is so far um and I think as we've discussed like the

[34:37] nearer term there's more certainty as you go longer it's becomes to a certain

[34:41] part aspirational this is what we could do

[34:44] » [clears throat] >> um so it can help advance that

[34:46] conversation >> okay

[34:49] » I [snorts] think perhaps beyond that with the interest that's [clears throat]

[34:52] happening in Chemville will uh and the connection with the county roads, uh

[34:57] we're going to have a lot of uh increased volume of traffic. So even if

[35:01] we're not growing at a at a large rate, investment through the county

[35:06] opportunity through county roads is uh an absolute for us because of that

[35:12] volume of traffic that we're going to see with the growth that's happening in

[35:16] North Grenville. And there's similar interest in Smith Falls. So we're sort

[35:20] of sandwiched in between two growth areas. Smith Falls is growing at a more

[35:25] normal pace and Campill seems to be on steroids and it's it's expanding uh its

[35:32] its growth uh exponentially. So, you know, in a perspective county, I think

[35:39] this information and projections along with the fact that we have a lot of flow

[35:45] through traffic. So, there's going to be some need and uh identification on what

[35:52] the county needs to do to support the smaller

[35:55] village area in [clears throat] terms of county roads because the county roads

[36:02] are essential to try and get that traffic moving forward and flowing out

[36:08] so we're not uh sitting in long traffic jams. So that's the interest that I

[36:13] would have at the county is to ensure that there's still that investment going

[36:17] on. Yes, we have some potential. Yes, we're going to grow, but we need support

[36:22] uh for other reasons as well. So I think that all that information should be

[36:27] relative uh in the conversation that we're having at the upper tier in my

[36:31] opinion. Yeah. Thank you.

[36:36] Anything further

[36:40] missing? Do you have anything further to add?

[36:42] » No, I think I I believe the clarification is if we proceed in this

[36:49] path, it does not commit us to >> moving forward with the growth

[36:53] projections that are here. It's just it's just a way for us to commence the

[36:56] study and use the data uh with the understanding that

[37:01] it is just they are just estimates and possibilities and whether we even want

[37:05] them or not, who knows? after we have the in public information sessions have

[37:10] a better understanding of of the next steps. Is that is that basically?

[37:15] » Yeah, it's it's just generally fair. Um I guess maybe a part I would add is like

[37:21] when it comes to like communal water wastewater infrastructure while our

[37:25] focus is a 20-year timeline, we typically don't bury this infrastructure

[37:29] to last only 20 years. >> It lasts a lot longer. Mhm.

[37:32] » So looking at a we'll call it aspirational growth is is beneficial to

[37:38] help you align uh infrastructure projects to allow this.

[37:45] » Yeah. So just uh I think for further thought is

[37:52] just uh just add to what Miss Plumbing was saying a few minutes ago. I mean uh

[37:59] whether we have to, we don't have to, what have you, we do have a situation

[38:02] where we have a lot of infrastructure that needs to be renewed and uh we've

[38:07] collected an enormous [clears throat] amount of data that tells us this and

[38:11] downloading that to the current tax base is going to be extremely

[38:16] challenging for the tax base. So growth is necessary in some form. How we better

[38:21] how we manage that u will unfold as we move forward. But it also gives council

[38:28] and the next council and council after that ideas where the the limited

[38:33] infrastructure dollars that we're going to have should be invested so that we

[38:37] are meeting the possibility of uh that growth and uh we're ready for it and

[38:43] we're not overwhelmed by it. So I think uh

[38:49] some kind of a strategic focus on what you've identified here is

[38:55] is an absolute conversation that needs to happen at the table.

[39:00] So, uh, and Miss Plumbley, you have no problem moving that, uh, including them,

[39:05] uh, in conversations with the county so that we can get better

[39:09] » alignment to understand because we we need the county to start

[39:14] » putting infrastructure dollars on our county roads.

[39:17] » This this is why this meeting is very timely because they are looking for

[39:20] input. This is the kind of input that will be valuable moving forward.

[39:24] » Yeah. because it is important because of the growth happening in Campville

[39:27] because Campville will be absorbing a majority of that infrastructure growth

[39:33] money through the counties in their areas with all the county roads they

[39:37] have. So, uh I don't think uh we can afford to wait another 15 or 20 years

[39:43] for to have our county roads u looked at.

[39:48] So, if there's nothing further, I thank you for coming out making the

[39:53] presentation. We look forward to your next presentation. And when can we uh

[39:58] when are we going to receive you again? What was the October?

[40:02] » Yeah, the next opportunity would be um end of October, beginning of November at

[40:06] the public information center. >> Focus need.

[40:09] » Yeah. And as councelor Gur pointed out that if the general public has any

[40:13] comments or wishes to engage, they have the opportunity to that. All that

[40:17] information is on the website, right? So we don't have to wait for the actual

[40:20] public uh open house. you can uh pre-engage and and uh and move your

[40:26] questions and hopefully get the answers that you're seeking.

[40:29] » Deputy Mayor, go ahead. >> So, there is a motion to endorse

[40:33] » the number in this report. >> Not there yet.

[40:36] » Um once we get there, I would like to um first of all, I want to comment again

[40:44] on those two parcels 13 and 14. um 14 in particular is affected by the

[40:50] the flood plane. It's also affected by um required setbacks for the railroad.

[40:57] So the the number of available units in those two parcels are going to be

[41:04] lowered. Um and given that the report and the forecasts are for 20 years, I

[41:11] would like us to consider removing 13 and 14.

[41:16] um [clears throat] from the total so that it will be easier to align the this

[41:23] number with what the county is considering. Um it's still a high

[41:28] number. It would still demonstrate that we've got an enormous capacity for

[41:34] growth whether or not it becomes in effect or not. Um, but I

[41:40] would feel that those two parcels being so far out on the horizon that they

[41:48] shouldn't affect our plans right now. Quite frankly, I find the five and the

[41:53] 10-year plans to be pretty aggressive. Knowing the the background and the

[41:57] history of how development evolves in Meritville Wolfford, it is quite slow.

[42:03] Um, but I can I can appreciate that we want to do some planning a little bit

[42:07] earlier rather than too late. [clears throat] And so I would put it to

[42:13] council that we reduce um

[42:18] the 10 to 20 forecast by removing parcels 13 and 14 from this particular

[42:25] planning stage.

[42:30] » So you're putting that question out there?

[42:31] » I am. So thought is council.

[42:39] » I have thoughts but I'll you get to go first. [snorts]

[42:44] » Yeah. I would think by leaving it in there, it gives us a better opportunity

[42:48] to pursue grants from the government as far as showing that we are a location

[42:53] that has great growth potential and if we're going to expand that plant, um it

[42:59] looks like we need to at some point anyway. So, um they would be much more

[43:05] amenable to a grant to help us do that if uh it shows the projections are are

[43:12] higher.

[43:16] as a girl.

[43:20] » Um either way, I understand um where Deputy May is coming from because the it

[43:24] is more than 20 years. It's that's the cross-hatched [clears throat] ones are

[43:29] 20 years plus. Um and and uh we want to look at it. I personally have a problem

[43:36] with looking at a whole picture because once again this is not committing us to

[43:40] anything. This is just looking forward in 30 years from now. Um, you know,

[43:45] planners looking at least they have some kind of uh like there's plans and cities

[43:50] all over that go for decades. Uh, so going decades ahead and I don't see a

[43:55] huge problem with it, but I'm immunable either way.

[43:58] M >> I I guess the main reason that I'd like

[44:01] to leave it in is when you're looking at big picture and when the United counties

[44:05] are looking at this big picture when they're trying to get their through

[44:08] roads if they're ever going to re-evaluate how we're going to get

[44:11] traffic around Marrickville. I think it would be beneficial to have that left in

[44:15] there so they realize there is a potential there could be residential

[44:18] areas over there as well. >> Okay. And I just want to remind council

[44:22] that uh leaving the lands in doesn't mean we're developing it. that you

[44:26] wouldn't be moving forward with that until you have secured infrastructure on

[44:31] the north side. And that's in reality, I know there's some people

[44:35] that don't want to hear that, but it's it's decades or so out. And you need to

[44:40] have identified potential

[44:44] uh within the municipality if you're going to go after uh provincial grants.

[44:49] So provincial grants are based on what the cap what your possibilities are. So

[44:55] if you remove your possibilities, you remove remove your opportunity for

[44:59] grants. And I think this is an identified urban area, nothing's going

[45:04] to happen there until the infrastructure actually goes across the river. And when

[45:09] that does go across the river, it could be decades before anything happens. So

[45:14] it's it's nothing that is going to be developed tomorrow. We're not going to

[45:17] see all kinds of uh hi ho out there digging holes. It's uh decades away. and

[45:23] and uh a master plan is an opportunity for councils to understand what the

[45:29] future are going to be and where infrastructure dollars should be

[45:33] invested for that future. So I I think we should leave it in.

[45:40] » I I just want to address the fact that this plan has a a shelf life of 20

[45:45] years. So we would be looking at the lands all over again

[45:52] probably 10 years down the road. Um so why build a plan now for things that

[46:00] aren't going to happen is is my only concern. Um given the time span that

[46:07] both the county and this report is looking at. [clears throat]

[46:12] » Appreciate it. But I don't think it it's necessarily committing us to build a

[46:16] plan. It's giving identity to what the possibilities are

[46:22] in infrastructure needed in the future. And if those possibilities are still

[46:28] there, it's like everything else. Every document is uh is uh comes up for

[46:32] renewal and redisussion. We don't know what's going to happen 5, 10, 15, 20

[46:37] years out, but this this is what you do. You put a plan out. You look at

[46:43] projections and possibilities and opportunities and that guides council

[46:48] [clears throat] in how it's going to move forward. There's a lot of lands

[46:53] that are already been given capacity. We're doing a lot of work on the system

[46:59] to uh tighten up the system because it's

[47:02] leaking. We know that. And as we move forward, uh we're going to need that

[47:07] growth to help pay for that infrastructure uh renewal and upgrade.

[47:13] So nothing's going to happen overnight. And

[47:17] these projections are long-term as we've discussed a lot at the table here. It's

[47:22] some plan that needs to be developed. We've asked JL Richardson to make those

[47:26] projections for us. That's the I guess the gist of a of a master plan is to

[47:34] make councils aware of where they should invest and what the possibilities are

[47:38] for the future pretty much.

[47:42] » Yeah. Okay. [sighs] So, I think everybody's still satisfied

[47:46] with the way we're we're moving forward. So if there's nothing new or further to

[47:51] add, I think what we'll do is uh uh we'll go in and and we'll read the

[47:57] motion that the council of the corporation of

[48:00] the village of Marville Wolfer received for information the master plan master

[48:04] infrastructure plan population growth projection summary from JL Richardson

[48:09] and that council endorses the growth uh projections as listed in the population

[48:13] projection report prepared by JLR in con in consultation with the village

[48:20] aqua staff dated July 22, 2026 for the use in advance of infrastructure master

[48:27] plan. May I have a mover, please?

[48:31] » Okay. >> No, we haven't we haven't done that yet,

[48:33] council. So, you're going to move it? >> I'll move it.

[48:35] » Second, please. >> I'll second.

[48:37] » Moved and seconded. So, do we have any com further comments or questions from

[48:42] staff or sorry, from uh members? None. So, I'll call the vote. All in favor?

[48:48] All opposed. Scared. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. We

[48:54] appreciate you coming out. So, um, looking forward to our next engagement

[48:58] and conversation. Thank you. >> Thanks for having me.

[49:00] » You're welcome, sir. Uh, we're going to move on to confirming bylaw 47, 2026

[49:05] that the [clears throat] council of the corporation of the village of Merville

[49:07] Wolfer give first, second, third, final reading of bylaw 47, 20226 being a bylaw

[49:11] to confirm the proceedings of council for the special meeting of July 28,

[49:14] 2026. and further that authorization be given to the mayor clerk to sign coal

[49:18] and place in the bylaw book for the municipality bylaw 47206.

[49:22] May I have a mover please? Move. Thank you. Second, please.

[49:26] » Second. >> Thank you. Call the vote. All in favor?

[49:29] Carried. And we'll go on to adjournment that the council the corporation of the

[49:32] village of meritable adjourn at birth please.

[49:35] » 349. >> 349.

[49:38] May I have a mover? >> I'll move it.

[49:40] » Thank you. [clears throat] Second. Thank you. Call the vote. Call in favor.

Special Council Agenda

Transcript