[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.