[0:08] We are broadcasting live. >> Good morning everyone. This is the

[0:12] meeting of Mono Council held on Tuesday, September 22nd, 2026. This meeting is

[0:19] being conducted both in chambers and by means of electronic participation as

[0:23] permitted by section 238 subsection 3.1 of the municipal act 2001 as amended and

[0:30] the town of Mono's procedural bylaw 2020-42.

[0:34] Uh this meeting can be viewed live uh or later on uh through the uh the website.

[0:40] Um residents of course can uh uh join the meeting uh virtually uh or in

[0:45] person. Uh we do have a quorum. Uh location of the emergency exits are in

[0:51] the rear of the council chamber. Um and uh I'll begin with the indigenous land

[0:57] uh acknowledgement. I would like to begin by respectfully uh acknowledging

[1:02] that the town of Mono resides within the traditional territory and ancestral

[1:06] lands of the Teotante, Adoralon, Hanachon, and Ashinabi peoples. We also

[1:12] acknowledge that the town of Mono resides within the treaty lands named

[1:16] under treaty 18 not saga purchase of 1818.

[1:20] These traditional territories upon which we live and learn are steeped in rich

[1:25] indigenous history and traditions. It is with this statement that we declare to

[1:29] honor and respect the past and present connection of indigenous people with

[1:33] this land, its waterways and resources.

[1:42] I have a motion uh that council approves the minutes of session uh 14. Pardon me.

[1:53] » I I don't have a an agenda here. Um so I'll I'll improvise. Um I there's a

[2:00] motion that council approves the agenda of uh session uh held on um

[2:07] » September 22. September 22nd, 2026. Uh moved by uh Councelor Cape, seconded

[2:14] by Deputy Mayor Nicks. Any objection to the agenda is published.

[2:20] Thank you. I have a motion uh that council approves

[2:24] the minutes of session 14 uh 2026 as circulated. Uh moved by councelor

[2:30] Magdalo, seconded by councelor Capes. Any opposition?

[2:34] And that motion is carried.

[2:42] Members are free to declare pecuniary interest at this point or at any point

[2:46] in the course of the meeting followed up in writing uh with the clerk. We have

[2:50] one proclamation today, cyber security awareness month. Whereas October is

[2:55] recognized as cyber security awareness month. And whereas cyber security

[3:00] awareness month is an internationally recognized campaign held each October to

[3:05] promote cyber security. And whereas digital technology plays a central role

[3:10] in our everyday lives and it can have far-reaching security, economic and

[3:15] social impact. And whereas there is an increasing threat of cyber attacks and

[3:20] risk risk to our privacy. And whereas the internet is a shared resource and

[3:26] securing it a shared responsibility. Whereas the town of Mono acknowledges

[3:30] its responsibility by taking a proactive and adaptive approach to data security.

[3:36] On behalf of council, I do proclaim October 2026 as cyber security awareness

[3:42] month in the town of Mona.

[3:49] And that brings us to question period. And uh uh I'm going to uh recognize

[3:55] anyone in the gallery uh first who has a question to ask.

[4:00] Mr. Sturgis, come on forward.

[4:06] And if you could uh just uh hit the button on the speaker there until it

[4:10] lights up red and if you can give us your name and address. I was just

[4:14] noticing that uh my name is James Sturgis. Um my wife and I live at 594438

[4:20] Blind Line in Mono and we've operated a cattle farm there for a little over 30

[4:25] years. Um I provided the clerk with a letter and the supporting emails

[4:30] regarding two farm files, AO3 2026 and AO126.

[4:35] These were sent to committee of adjustment on July 30th because staff

[4:39] incorrectly countered a principal barn as an accessory building and applied the

[4:43] house cap. In my case, I was asked twice I asked twice how a cattle barn met the

[4:48] accessory building bylaw test, i.e. that it's incidental, subordinate, and

[4:53] exclusively devoted to the house. The reply after the CEO was consulted did

[4:58] not apply that test. It just said this is how the town controls large

[5:02] structures. The bylaw already treats the dual use

[5:06] rural lot as two uses, each with a principal building and each with its own

[5:09] 600 square meter accessory cap. I'm not asking to remove the cap. I'm simply

[5:14] asking that it be applied to buildings that are actually accessory, not to the

[5:18] principal barn. So my question is, will council refer the letter that I provided

[5:24] to the town solicitor for a report to a name meeting setting out how the

[5:27] principal farm building on a dual use rural lot is to be classified under the

[5:31] bylaw and recommending whether to refund the feed deposit and sign cost on those

[5:36] two files, AO3 2026 and AO126. >> Thank you. Does staff have any comment

[5:42] on this before we turn it over to council?

[5:46] » No, I think that's a fair request from Mr. Sturgis. He has a concern with

[5:50] respect to uh um maybe from the the town planner to the town solicitor, but I

[5:56] think it's a fair request. >> Okay. Does any member of council have a

[6:00] a question, Fred? >> No, I I'm not sure I have a question. I

[6:05] I read Mr. the letter from Mr. Sturgeis and quite frankly, I I agree. I'm I

[6:11] admit I'm not a planner, but I did look up the definition of accessory in

[6:15] Webster's dictionary, and I don't think we're applying the word properly in our

[6:21] in in what we've been doing. But I'm I'm I'm unclear your worship on the the

[6:26] process here. We've had a a planner who's by by and large, you know, a good

[6:30] planner, a consultant planner, make a decision. We sent it to the committee of

[6:34] a um adjustment. Do do we what what do we as council have

[6:40] the authority to do in this case? We we can't we can't disagree with them or or

[6:44] I guess we can disagree. We can't can't override their decision, can we? I I

[6:49] guess the best we can do is >> what they found in they found in favor

[6:54] of Mr. Sturgey's application. >> I'm not asking to override it. Um my

[6:58] concern is that it went to the committee of adjust in the first place. Um, I'm

[7:04] I'm okay with the decision, but it was an unnecessary decision. It has cost me

[7:09] in terms of money um currently $7,500 and it has also cost me in time. It it

[7:17] added 4 months to the process of getting a barn repaired. Um the approach being

[7:21] taken right now ignores the fact that farms exist really and it has potential

[7:27] damage to the town of Mono. Um if litigation is placed on them, um I don't

[7:34] think the town of Mono would be able to defend the way that they've treated

[7:38] because it ignored certain parts of the bylaw. Um the other thing is it has

[7:42] pretty far ranging things in terms of farmers. It supported farmers in this

[7:46] area. Um, one of them is it creates another incentive and I think you

[7:50] mentioned preserving bank barns. It creates an incentive to destroy bank

[7:55] barns because they're put into that accessory by classifying them accessory

[8:00] not as the main building. They basically consume all of the accessory building

[8:05] space. So any farmer putting up a a silo, anything any kind of farm building

[8:11] » makes it so that you're over. >> Yeah. Do we do if I could just follow

[8:15] up? Do we >> Melinda and then I'll get back to you.

[8:17] » Okay. >> Thank Thank you very much for bringing

[8:20] this, but I think that council needs to remember that the reason why we're in

[8:23] this situation now is a decision that council made and and perhaps the the

[8:28] discussions that we were having, you know, in Chitty Chat before the meeting

[8:32] even started about large large structures. Council has placed in this

[8:36] term an an importance on large structures and we have turned to our

[8:41] staff and our and our um advisors in the planning department. How can we stop

[8:50] this from snowballing before we can get a handle on all of the official plan

[8:56] changes because the county keeps making changes so we're having to put off what

[9:00] we're doing and so on. And so you have you have brought to us a an an issue

[9:06] from your point of view that we we hadn't particularly looked at as um but

[9:11] the main crux of why we went with this and we ex specifically instructed

[9:18] Deborah to to come up with a way to be able to have it so that stuff h what

[9:24] stuff is happening we get to see it first. So so it works.

[9:28] » I have I have no problem with that. my problem is violating the zoning bylaw

[9:33] which is being ignored. So, you know, you can basically say that about

[9:37] anything. We want them to do something, cross out those lines. There is a there

[9:42] is a legal agreement between the town of Mono and its residents which is being

[9:47] violated. >> Right. So, and I understand your point

[9:50] of view on that on that, but that this was the idea that the unfortunate part

[9:55] is that things take longer than we want them to. later on in our on our um our

[10:01] meeting today the the um unfinished business and the report and so on just

[10:05] shows that you know lots of things get done but there's also a lot of things

[10:08] that takes it takes seemingly years to to carry on so I am reassured that this

[10:13] that the what we implemented what um went through so that you got your

[10:18] variance and you got yes you had delays and so on and so to talk to our

[10:21] solicitor is exactly the next step no we should not be meddling in in changing

[10:26] anything nor is Mr. Sturgeis is asking us to, but the idea that um a a refund

[10:32] may very well may very well be the the absolute appropriate thing to do and

[10:37] that this should push things to the top for the next council cuz we're at the

[10:41] end here for the next council. This should be pushed to the top of the of

[10:46] the list to make sure. But it's not like we're completely offside. We have we

[10:51] have the the by my looking at all of the bylaws and things and the way that we do

[10:58] things differently than other rural municipalities is it's true. We're doing

[11:02] things a little bit differently, but it's not necessarily but our but I'm not

[11:05] legal. So to to get a legal opinion is is uh I think the appropriate thing to

[11:10] request. [clears throat] >> That's what I'm asking. I think and I

[11:13] think it it it also saves Mono from um a little bit of legal cost now may save

[11:20] Mono from a lot of legal costs later. In my p particular situation, it may have

[11:25] been a couple hundred,000 lawsuit against the town if this barn was not

[11:30] built. In a farmer, if you think of it from a farmer point of view, I would

[11:34] have to sit at the end of the year without a barn to put my cows in and I

[11:37] would have to sell my herd and shut down farming because they need a place in the

[11:41] winter with a destroyed barn. And you know, if something comes through mono,

[11:46] some kind of a disaster, and we have this situation where none of the farmers

[11:50] are allowed to rebuild their barns, it's it's not really very supportive of

[11:55] farming in this community. Well, and reading further into your letter, it was

[11:58] a damaged barn and you just replaced the same size or were was there, oh, let's

[12:03] take an opportunity as lots of people do. Well, if we're re renovating the

[12:06] kitchen, let's make it bigger, whatever. Did you

[12:08] » I'm replacing a damaged barn with a barn that has a smaller foot floor plan,

[12:12] » right? >> So, it's actually a smaller barn.

[12:14] » I thought I read that, but Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you,

[12:17] » Fred. And then uh >> I just want to check something councelor

[12:20] Davyy said it the decision council made was simply to refer to the committee for

[12:26] large residential structures. It had nothing to do it had nothing to do with

[12:31] other structures. It as I as I recall. Okay. So it it had

[12:37] nothing to do with Barnes. >> If if you look at all the definitions

[12:42] » Excuse me. Um, I'm going to defer to councilors who have not yet spoken if

[12:48] they would like to weigh in.

[12:53] » I am not a planner, nor am I technically qualified to address all of the concerns

[12:59] that you've raised. However, if it is an existing barn structure, why would we

[13:09] make people go through the committee of adjustments for variance if it's going

[13:14] on the same footprint? Like I I think there's some lack of clarity maybe and

[13:20] I'm not sure. I just read it. I got it late yesterday and um I think it's worth

[13:26] a good discussion. Um, but I I agree that a barn is a barn. It's not just

[13:35] some large accessory building on a property. So, I think we do need to

[13:40] remember that and recognize that and and treat it that way. So, that's what I

[13:47] will say in support of what you're saying.

[13:48] » Thank you.

[13:52] » Yes. >> Yeah. Go ahead.

[13:53] » Thank you. Thank you. Uh, thanks for coming here and presenting this. As I

[13:56] have a barn, I'm quite warm to you. I suppose the uh your point is that the

[14:02] barn is not an accessory building to a house. It's an a part of a land and the

[14:06] land is a farm. And I'd have to defer to planners to uh uh determine if that's

[14:12] correct. It sounds correct to me. Um uh the process is where we go from here

[14:19] as Fred has asked. And your honor, have you come with some suggestions?

[14:24] Well, I I have my own take on this and I I I'm going to keep it as simple as

[14:29] possible and that is that um I believe that you should have been able to to uh

[14:35] replace your damaged barn with a structure uh not larger uh without

[14:41] having to go through the committee of adjustment. I mean it's as simple as

[14:44] that. uh the analogy that you make to a situation where you have uh um you know

[14:50] a number of of barns or structure uh agricultural structures damaged as a

[14:55] result of a big storm uh and then all of a sudden there's a lineup at the

[14:59] committee of adjustment makes no sense to me. So I think the question we ask

[15:04] our lawyer uh or our planner or both uh is whether or not uh people such as

[15:11] yourself replacing an existing building not building a new building an existing

[15:17] building whether or not if it is uh of the same size same footprint possibly

[15:24] maybe next door to the to the old structure whether you have to go through

[15:28] the committee of adjustment yes or no and I don't think you should have to go

[15:32] through the committee of adjustment. A new building. Yes. Okay. A a brand new

[15:37] standalone uh building. I can see understand that one that is larger than

[15:43] 600 square m. Um I get that. This is not to be conflated with the large homes.

[15:50] This is a totally different issue. And the definition of accessory needs to be

[15:55] cleaned up. It absolutely needs to be cleaned up. It's become a catchall for

[15:59] everything. You >> know, I I

[16:02] that that addresses my situation, but there were two of these on the last

[16:07] committee of adjustment meeting. And the other one um basically showed that by

[16:12] considering that barn as an accessory, the main barn as an accessory, it

[16:18] consumed all that person's accessory room. So it's basically says

[16:24] that a farmer does not who has a bank barn does not have the ability that

[16:28] someone who just has a house and wants to build something.

[16:31] » Mhm. >> So I believe that there should be room

[16:34] within the bylaw which I believe it is there by treating it separately as a

[16:39] farm that a farm can build a building subject to approval by county of Duffren

[16:45] building department that is within that 600 m. Not that by reclassifying the

[16:51] main barn as a main building, it completely eats up all their ability. So

[16:57] a farmer sitting there, every farmer in Mono has to get a committee of

[17:01] adjustment to build anything if they have a bank barn. They've used it all

[17:05] up. And I don't think that's right. I don't think that offers the same

[17:09] advantage to people. And you know, it's I think it takes away from the idea that

[17:13] the farm is completely separate. And I think the the actual definition of

[17:18] accessory building is very good. Um to put it in very simple terms, um it

[17:23] implies a dependence accessory building dependent a dependence on a main

[17:29] building. >> Mhm.

[17:30] » That dependence if it's not there means it's not an accessory building. Um, so

[17:36] for example, if I go home tonight and my house has been blown over and it's not

[17:39] there, by deeming it as an accessory, the barn is accessory to my house, it

[17:44] implies that it needs that house. It doesn't. That farm completely functions

[17:48] unadulterated. And the bylaw actually divides it and this really only doesn't

[17:53] reflect somebody living on a property anywhere. It reflects something that is

[17:57] actually used for those dual purposes and it should be treated that way. The

[18:01] bylaw actually says that it says I have two lots and that's the way it was asked

[18:05] into planning. I have a residential lot and I have a farm lot. Each of those

[18:09] have a 600 meter and I should be able to use those and each one of those has a

[18:14] primary building and they're completely independent. They can both be completely

[18:18] separate and that preserves farming. So I think just looking at the idea of

[18:22] rebuilding and simplifying it down to a main building takes away the ability for

[18:28] farmers to actually produce on. >> So yeah, I think you know I think we're

[18:35] saying sort of the same thing, but I I don't think there should be any

[18:38] ambiguity in our official plan andor zoning bylaw uh that leads to this kind

[18:45] of of confusion quite frankly. And I think I think if the planning report had

[18:49] been done um that Deborah put together, if the started off with instead of

[18:55] saying this is an accessory building, it is like any planning meeting where she

[18:59] said for an accessory building there are three tests and this is how it meets

[19:03] those tests. >> Mhm.

[19:04] » The later part of the report came back and and actually had to do that to prove

[19:08] that it's a farm and it meets Mono's requirements. There are these tests and

[19:12] these tests have been met so therefore we prove it. So that's all that's

[19:16] required. If the beginning of it actually proves that it is actually

[19:20] accessory building according to the bylaw that's that works that works in

[19:24] both those situations a very simple thing and it doesn't affect somebody

[19:28] that just has a residential lot and is trying to put a building on it if that's

[19:31] what you're concerned with. So yeah any further comments

[19:35] thank you. I think a lot of our concern also or their the concern cuz it's not

[19:39] even when I said this term it's even from before before my time when there

[19:44] was somebody who had and wanted to build something and everybody wanted them to

[19:48] not build it. So it's it's just a matter of having controls and so when now that

[19:52] things are put to put to test of actual cases and we find that there's some

[19:57] things that need to be changed that's that's great. It would be nice if that

[20:02] had not happened for you and for the other farm to be able to to have

[20:07] foreseen this, but I I I do want to it stated or known that that this it was in

[20:13] good faith that the that the change was made and we we we we

[20:18] made it. But but if now we wanted to now that we've seen that there's a problem

[20:23] with it then then changing it again is or you know or modifying it again is is

[20:30] the appropriate thing to do >> and and maybe in conclusion if I can

[20:35] suggest that this should not wait until our comprehensive review of zoning or

[20:41] official plan. this is this is a big enough problem that I think it needs to

[20:46] be addressed um one off and I know that's maybe not uh to everyone's liking

[20:53] but I think that when something like this comes up uh we need to address it

[20:58] and not put it off until we you know we've been talking about a a review of

[21:01] our zoning bylaw now for for eight years and it hasn't happened yet. So, your

[21:07] worship, do we need a motion to direct staff to inquire with our lawyer about

[21:12] the definition of accessory >> or can we just give oral direction?

[21:16] » I think we can give oral direction that that and they've heard our back and

[21:20] forth on this and uh um I think the the question needs to be put both to the

[21:25] planner and to uh to council. >> Well, we know the planner's opinion. She

[21:30] she's told us >> well the planner is interpreting the

[21:33] existing zoning bylaw but if she had her if she had her brothers would she uh

[21:37] rewrite it that's I guess the question or take a different approach. Well, you

[21:42] know, and it's interesting because in part of the email conversation, you can

[21:47] see it. Um, it came up where in her first response, she did not realize it

[21:53] was a replacement barn to the existing one,

[21:56] » right? >> She said, "Wait a second." So, I think

[21:59] that, >> you know, which seemed like kind of a

[22:03] funny thing, but then it came back to, well, this instead of being an actual

[22:07] bylaw thing, it's more of a procedure. this is the way we do it, which

[22:12] I think that needs to follow the bylaws, right? I think it's I think

[22:18] you've still got a you've still got a zoning bylaw that

[22:21] » I don't want to say reigns supreme. I don't think you can change what's in

[22:24] there. >> Maybe later on you can change it and

[22:27] » you know, maybe the wish is to change the definition of an accessory building

[22:31] so it's anything but the house, >> which is not great for farming. um and

[22:35] to remove the idea of viewing it as two different lots, an agricultural lot and

[22:40] a and a residential lot. But, you know, I personally

[22:46] I just think it's simply how it's being interpreted. You know, I and I and I

[22:51] understand I I fully understand the reason for doing it. And I understand

[22:54] the reason that you want to control those buildings, but I I think the

[22:57] better way to do it is, as you say, is to rewrite the bylaw to actually allow

[23:03] that to be done according to the zoning bylaw.

[23:07] And and the default position shouldn't be, oh, just kick it over to committee

[23:10] of adjustment. That's an easy process. It's not an easy process. It's a costly

[23:14] process. It's a time-consuming process. And if we if we can agree that that

[23:22] replacement of an existing agricultural building with another building of equal

[23:27] size, not larger, uh shouldn't have to go through that process. It's just

[23:33] reduced one layer of red tape in my opinion.

[23:37] » Yeah. Mike, sorry. Uh you worship in the interest of keeping the flavor of

[23:42] question period. Um I answered very early that I would definitely look into

[23:47] Mr. Sturgis's concerns and and uh and continue that and uh and and I think

[23:52] we're we're turning this into a zoning bylaw review

[23:55] » as opposed to a question and answer. Thank you.

[23:59] » We have Okay, I'm fine. Thank you, Mr. Sturgis.

[24:03] » All right.

[24:08] Are there any other questions in the gallery,

[24:12] Sharon? Okay. Any questions submitted uh in advance?

[24:17] Is there anyone online?

[24:23] Okay, we have no delegations today. And that brings us to uh unfinished uh

[24:31] business and deferred items. And we have uh a report from uh the uh the clerk on

[24:37] that. >> The deputy clerk.

[24:39] » She's the clerk now, >> right?

[24:41] » She's been >> The report is from the deputy clerk. the

[24:44] » Okay, it is from the deputy clerk. We're going to be confused for a while, I

[24:48] think. >> Um, sure. If you'd like to do that.

[24:56] [snorts]

[24:58] » Are we all right? >> Yep.

[25:00] » Okay. Jessica, any uh any observations on uh your deputies report?

[25:06] » I don't have anything to add to the report. If council has any questions, we

[25:10] can uh certainly answer them. >> Okay. Um Elaine and then Fred,

[25:16] » I would just like to say thank you. I think this is a a brilliant summary

[25:23] report and it's very much appreciated. I think it's uh really good to see this

[25:30] and to appreciate the work that has been done. Yes, there's still more there, but

[25:35] there's always more. And so, um just thank you. Um, I'm I'm very grateful for

[25:42] the summary and I'm very grateful for the work that's been accomplished to

[25:46] date. It's all I have to say, >> Fred. And

[25:51] » I know the recommendation is well, they're basically saying the clerk's

[25:54] department needs more resources and we should wait until the new council takes

[25:57] its chair before we make that decision. But I'll go on record of saying as

[26:03] important as these bylaws that we've referred to the clerk's department are.

[26:08] These these are important things. Quite frankly, when it comes to budget time,

[26:12] if I'm have anything to do with it, I'm going to be looking more at what we've

[26:16] done to our roads than I am more resources for the the clerk's department

[26:21] because I think the some of our roads are in much greater need of more

[26:26] resources than our clerk's department. >> Okay. Sorry. Sorry, Jess.

[26:31] » Any other any other comments on the report? I'm just wondering whether we

[26:36] not we would be wise to add Mr. Sturgis' issue to our list. Um so that it it

[26:46] remains top of mind and and I don't mind moving that. Um we've traditionally had

[26:52] a mover and a seconder for the addition of an item to that list.

[26:56] Uh, I'm not clear if it needs to be there because it's already been stated

[27:02] by the CEO that he's going to take action. So, I'm not sure. I mean, if if

[27:08] there's something that comes out of the conversation from the CEO and others

[27:15] that needs to be addressed, I'm sure it will be taken to staff. I don't know

[27:19] that we need to necessarily add it to that list. Okay,

[27:23] » I'm I'm fine with that, but I just wanted to put it on record that it's not

[27:26] something we should >> we should lose track of and and part of

[27:30] the purpose of the list is to make certain we don't lose track of things.

[27:37] » Well, to [clears throat] me, and we've talked about this already, to me, the

[27:41] most important line in this is that the clerk's department feels that they're

[27:45] underst staffed and they're going to be asking for more help. And I think we

[27:49] should all be cognizant of that. Um that's a uh uh once the new term of

[27:55] council establishes priorities with respect to the unfinished measures,

[27:59] staff will include the ant anticipated impact as part of the 2027 budget

[28:04] deliberations. And this to me is an important uh uh idea. Um, I think we've

[28:09] felt that this was on the on the edges despite the fact there's other things as

[28:13] well, but that the clerk's department was having a problem with with dealing

[28:17] with this list and they're looking for some way to to deal with it more

[28:20] promptly, which I think we could all be pleased with.

[28:24] » Yeah, I I don't blame you for drawing our

[28:27] attention to the fact that there's a lot of work on that list that is uh uh

[28:32] referable to the uh clerk's department. Okay. Next uh item on the uh

[28:41] the um agenda is a um climate action committee uh resolution of advice. I'm

[28:48] going to read the motion and then uh we can debate it. Motion reads as follows.

[28:53] That council receives the climate action committee resolution of advice dated

[28:58] September 14th, 2026 regarding the Greenfest funding request. And the

[29:03] council approves the request to take uh $1,150

[29:09] from the climate change environmental budget reserve contribution corporate

[29:14] action plan section of the 2026 budget and that further any net proceeds of the

[29:20] greenfest event will go back uh to the climate change environmental budget

[29:25] reserve contribution corporate action plan. Do I have a mover for that?

[29:31] » Okay. Um, deputy mayor moves, seconded by councelor capes. Discussion.

[29:35] » Can I just say >> although it's not part of the motion, I

[29:39] think Ralph, we can report that the discussion of the climate action

[29:43] committee, there's a very strong feeling that that we're going to be charging

[29:48] some of the vendors fees and we're going to be earning some money in other

[29:52] places. We've already had one offer of a donation. So, I think the the request

[29:56] here is for a thou $1,150 from that reserve. I have strong expectations that

[30:02] in fact we're going to break even and maybe even have a surplus the so that

[30:07] that should be noted in the discussion. >> Any other questions, comments on this?

[30:14] I've been running into a number of people who are very excited about this

[30:18] event and in particular uh people from the farm community. I I'm very

[30:23] optimistic that this is going to be a great day.

[30:27] Any other questions? I'll call the vote. Uh, any opposed?

[30:34] Seeing none, the motion carries.

[30:41] Okay, that takes us to the Cardinal Woods drinking water system annual

[30:44] inspection report. And uh, Matt, would you like to take us

[30:50] through this? >> Sure. Thanks, Mayor Coleman. U, so

[30:54] overall, another good report. Uh uh we got a 9 about a 95% score. Um similar

[31:01] challenges as the the island lake report. Um the one sample we took or the

[31:07] operations took was about 30 minutes too soon. [laughter]

[31:10] Anyway, it gets noted. Um what's important to note though like the

[31:14] compliance uh of the sampling of the raw water compliance primary and secondary

[31:18] disinfection of the equipment compliance of the primary and secondary equipment

[31:22] analyzers were all in place and in conformance all microbi microbiological

[31:27] samples were uh taken well above what was required. So again um although

[31:33] there's a couple hiccups there with operators um we are still producing

[31:38] really good uh quality water. questions. Uh Fred,

[31:44] » I I think Matt knows what I'm going to say. Uh and for the for the sake of I

[31:49] I'm very concerned that we have two non-compliance issues again. Okay. And

[31:54] I've I've been on council for 16 years and in most of those years, we've had

[31:58] some non-compliance issues with our operator of our drinking water systems.

[32:03] Just just so the public understands, these non-compliance things are very

[32:06] minor. There there's no problem with the water. It's just either the paperwork

[32:11] isn't getting done properly or the samples aren't being taken done when

[32:13] they should. They're minor things, but [snorts] Matt, it disturbs me that we

[32:18] continuously have this problem with our operator. I I just want to say that by

[32:22] by the way, the law requires us to to ask these questions. That's why I have

[32:27] to do it every year. Matt, uh we don't have to be experts on drinking water

[32:32] systems, but we do have to read these reports and ask questions if there are

[32:36] issues. So, that's why I'm doing it. Yeah, thanks

[32:40] Meinda. [clears throat] >> Thanks very much. Thanks for the the

[32:43] report and the summary, Matt. But, uh, Deputy Mayor, they he did say that the

[32:48] samples were taken. It was 30 minutes too soon. So, it's not like it's not

[32:52] like stuff doesn't doesn't isn't happening. And so, why are they because

[32:56] it does on the say on the face of it, it's every report has a couple of little

[33:00] little blips in it. But, I think 95 is a is is good. there's never been any uh

[33:06] indication that our water is not. So I think I think yes we have to ask the

[33:10] questions but we also have to you know listen to listen to the answer that we

[33:13] got before we asked the question that that the wa they're doing a good job why

[33:18] they why they I don't know their clock is off like the the same thing happened

[33:23] on the other one that it was it was a little bit too late as opposed to too

[33:27] early. >> Yeah. Thank thanks Council Dy. So

[33:31] there's a lot of issu things that could come into play. Like they're they're

[33:34] being pulled. It's not everything doesn't run like clockwork every day for

[33:38] the operators. They're being they're going from one spot to the next and it's

[33:41] a challenge to be doing that. There's new operators. There's training. There's

[33:44] always SOPs. Like there's a lot of things to be cross, a lot of tees to be

[33:48] crossed, and a lot of eyes to be dotted regularly. The amount of work that the

[33:52] town of Orangeville operators and and management staff contributed to the

[33:57] header upgrades that are currently being wrapped up was unbelievable. Like the

[34:02] the assistance there and in getting the ministry satisfied with that. And uh I I

[34:08] spoke with Marth Martha, our uh MEC inspector, and she was, you know, she

[34:12] was happy with the with the collaboration there and uh and the

[34:17] being upfront and honest with her and and trying to work with these reports

[34:21] and try [clears throat] to get better. Right. We're going to we've set

[34:24] reminders in the calendar to follow up with Orangeville for the SOPs that she

[34:27] identified and uh this is constant communication and I'm I'm pretty happy

[34:31] with the relationship there. So, >> thank you. Out of out of curiosity, um

[34:36] Matt, uh does Orangeville itself get uh uh reports that have one or two very

[34:42] minor things such as the ones that we get.

[34:46] » Thanks, Mel Corman. Uh yeah, so they they they do um I think they had an AWQI

[34:52] in the last one. That's all public documents. Uh they're available and I

[34:56] encourage council to read all the Orangeville reports as well because they

[35:00] are online. But yeah, it also other other municipalities, right? See

[35:08] the report, compare them. You know, there's I don't doubt that there's

[35:11] issues in other uh drinking water systems that come up from time to time.

[35:15] Some are more severe than others, I imagine. Um but I would say we take

[35:19] great pride in our systems and Orangeville does as well and they do a

[35:22] great job for us. Um but yeah, thank you. Any other questions or

[35:28] comments before I read the motion? So, I have a motion that council for the town

[35:32] of Mona receive the 2026 2027 Cardinal Woods drinking water system inspection

[35:38] report and that the town continue its commitment to transparency by making

[35:42] these reports publicly available on the town's website and at town hall ensuring

[35:47] residents have ongoing access to information regarding the safety and

[35:52] reliability of the drinking water systems. Uh, councelor Capes moves

[35:56] seconded by councelor Davey. Any further discussion? Any opposed? And that motion

[36:03] is carried. And that takes us to the Orangeville

[36:08] Fire Services Agreement. Who would like to tackle that? Mike.

[36:16] » Um, yeah. So, Les put together this report for council and, uh, he's got it,

[36:22] uh, he's got it pretty well explained what happened. Uh 2026 was the end of

[36:26] our uh our agreement with Orangeville Fire and uh and they've offered a 1.04%

[36:33] increase. Less has identified that the uh current inflation is 2.4%. Um so Les

[36:40] is recommending that we enter into this one-year extension. Uh and it's a it's a

[36:45] reasonable cost increase. >> Thank you. Any questions of council?

[36:50] » Thank Thank you, Mayor. So, I noticed that this this same thing happened

[36:54] before. So, because we it it'd be it'd be interesting if we're going to it'd be

[36:58] interesting if we're going to stay with Orangeville Fire, which I think we are,

[37:01] right? That's the main supporter supplier of our fire services. And when

[37:05] you talk about how many calls and and so on, they're the biggest.

[37:10] » It's definitely our southwest quadrant. Southwest quadrant is controlled

[37:14] increased population, right? So, we're going to stay with them. And so it seems

[37:18] to me that the reason for the one-year extension is so that then we can have a

[37:22] re relook at it all for then another because this last one was 2019 to 2022

[37:29] and then an extension in 2023 and then comes to so it looks like there's like

[37:34] why are we not asking for something longer is my question when we finally

[37:37] get going. I appreciate now why when we're at the end of of a term to have

[37:42] some to have a a council make a decision going forward. I understand why you

[37:46] wouldn't necessarily go for that, but maybe shouldn't could the town ask for a

[37:51] longer um uh agreement when the next time so that it doesn't kind of need

[37:57] these cuz it's artificial, right? He's they've said they've said that it's a

[38:01] 1.4 and it's only a 1.0 basically, right? A 1% for for a year. um which is

[38:07] which is great, but is that really going to be going forward for the larger

[38:13] because all of our other all of our other fire services are increasing a

[38:18] whole lot more than 1% projected for 2027.

[38:23] » Less any thoughts? >> It's it's a fair comment. Um when it's a

[38:29] low ball in one one year, it's going to be a catchup for sure. Uh um this is

[38:35] just my assumption. I think because the election is in the way and they're

[38:41] probably thinking maybe two new councils uh come up with a new agreement and for

[38:45] the next term. Uh unfortunately it is you are correct

[38:49] counselor at the end of the term perhaps if this if Orangeville brought this to

[38:52] our attention at the beginning of the year we probably could have hammered

[38:55] something out but uh because of the election it kind of

[39:00] kind of messes things up. So, Les, I think I know the answer to

[39:04] this question, but for the benefit of anyone watching uh or or listening, um

[39:10] when do the costs of their new fireh hall get transferred or passed on to us

[39:18] in hopefully in proportion if at all? Are we are we currently

[39:25] paying for their new hall or is that what is that the penny that will drop

[39:31] next year? And if that's not a penny, [laughter]

[39:36] » uh we're not paying for a new hall at the moment, but it it is coming. You are

[39:40] correct, Mr. Mayor. >> Now, we do have in our development

[39:44] charges we could use as a contribution if there's a one-time hit

[39:49] » on the budget. So, that's something to keep in our back pocket.

[39:52] » Okay. Uh Mike and then Melinda. >> Um your worship just further on that.

[39:58] So, so the onetime fee that we do pay would be for maintenance and capital,

[40:02] right? So, that uh um so that's the way that that agreement has been set up is

[40:07] to cover off some of the capital. So, it is in there. I don't know if it takes

[40:11] into account the uh the cost increase that uh that Orangeville has been going

[40:17] through with respect to the design build of this uh this new station. So I think

[40:22] that's probably what they're uh what they're hinting at here with respect to

[40:26] renewing and looking at this agreement uh in 2027 2028. Um they also do note

[40:33] some collective bargaining agreements that need to probably be redone too cuz

[40:37] they run a union union shop, right? Um so they're uh they're in a union with

[40:42] respect to that. So, those are those are things that they're probably trying to

[40:45] get their head wrapped around before they put a uh a long-term deal as

[40:49] suggested by uh uh Councelor Davyy.

[40:54] » Okay. Okay. I have a motion that we introduce and give the necessary

[40:57] readings to a bylaw to authorize the town of Mono to execute an amending

[41:01] agreement uh with the town of Orangeville regarding fire protection

[41:05] services substantially in the form as attached as schedule A to the bylaw and

[41:10] that be signed by the mayor and clerk for the town of Mono sealed and

[41:13] engrossed in the bylaw book. Moved by councelor Davyy, seconded by councelor

[41:17] Mike Dau. Uh any further discussion? Any councelor Capes? Pardon me. Uh any uh

[41:24] any further discussion? Seeing none, uh the motion uh motion carries.

[41:32] That takes us to >> schedule a schedule A.

[41:37] And to get that on the floor, I have a motion that we accept schedule A to this

[41:41] agenda and then we'll open it up. Councelor Davey moves, seconded by

[41:44] councelor Capes. Uh any Let's uh open it up. Anyone submit

[41:52] anything from schedule A that they want to specifically address?

[41:55] » I did not receive any. >> Okay. So, let's let's go for it.

[42:00] Anything on there? >> No, I've always I always defer to you

[42:03] for the first. No, you don't have any. [laughter]

[42:07] » Okay, I've got a couple. >> Okay, go ahead.

[42:10] » Um, the first one then these are just comment ones, I think. Um the first one

[42:16] on my list is number 12. The um that the conservation is that

[42:24] right? No, the first one is number eight. Sorry. Sorry. Um the housing

[42:30] um what was this one about? I'm sorry.

[42:35] » Accountability.

[42:39] » Uh okay. Not nobody. This didn't ring anybody else's bell for anything cuz I'm

[42:45] not by right off the bat. I'm not uh integrity integrity and train. Oh, yeah.

[42:53] This was just this was was this the one that was just a thought of why are we

[42:58] needing why are we needing to say all of this to

[43:03] everybody and make it all of this training? And didn't we already have

[43:08] this? We have a We had training when I started on council. We did have a whole

[43:13] training with our um integrity commissioner, did we not?

[43:18] » Yes, I would assume that integrity commissioner training was part of a new

[43:22] council orientation, >> right? It was an orientation at Monura

[43:25] Park. It was an all day thing. It was it other other municipalities were involved

[43:29] and so on. So my my question just hanging out there is like are there

[43:34] actual municipalities that are that are functioning without this or is this all

[43:38] just again you know forcing a hand to make things happen to um spend more more

[43:45] money on stuff was my take on it didn't but nobody

[43:49] » well if you can if you can roll it into a um a a new council orientation that's

[43:54] the time to do it and and I just can't imagine that uh uh councils out there

[44:00] aren't doing it. I mean >> that that's what I thought. So So but at

[44:04] any rate, there it is. There's the letter that we all have to do something

[44:07] more now and diff and perhaps different though as I read all through the whole

[44:10] thing and the the uh the link to their their actual training idea. It was kind

[44:15] of like this is what we've already done. We we we we do this already. So thank

[44:19] you very much. Um and then number 12, the conservation um amalgamation

[44:26] um letter from North Hiron. I just thought, you know, it it uh it's

[44:32] something new, but um isn't this already a fedom plea? They're asking for it to

[44:39] not happen. And isn't it already happening? Like, is it worth endorsing

[44:42] yet again something? No. Deputy mayor is saying no.

[44:47] » Your worship, I could answer that. I think

[44:49] » Okay, you are right. It's a fat comply. and Credit Valley has also sent a motion

[44:55] in a couple of months ago asking for a slight change and forget it. There's

[44:59] it's it's a done deal, >> right? So, we just have to do the best

[45:03] with what we can when we're given an opportunity to be involved, right? And

[45:06] and uh on the way here today, I passed by some signs saying there was a

[45:10] volunteer event for the NVCA on uh on Mono Center Road.

[45:14] I might not like where they're doing it or whatever, [laughter] but but I do

[45:17] think that that to for us for us as residents to get involved with that kind

[45:21] of of activity that our conservation authorities are doing. Um it it's uh

[45:26] it's enlightening and and and um informative and so on. And it really I

[45:30] think makes a difference cuz we're going to be a little pee in the huge big bed,

[45:35] right? >> The sign you saw, the NVCA will be

[45:37] planting trees with volunteers on a property that they own.

[45:41] » That the NVCA owns. Okay. No, but Bruce Trail loans, which I would argue Bruce

[45:46] Trail should be paying for that. But anyway, the volunteers, I think it's a

[45:49] good thing that that the volunteers. >> Well, that's it. Volunt volunteers to be

[45:55] to be a corporation and be asking for volunteers. I think there's there are a

[45:59] lot of places where volunteers could be elsewhere, but that's just an aside. My

[46:04] other my my last one >> there's all kinds of corporate entities

[46:08] who are part of volunteer duffren who advertise there that they need

[46:12] volunteers. So I understand >> it's a good thing and it's probably

[46:16] people who are members who are volunteering.

[46:19] » That's right. No, I understand. I understand. Um uh and the last one was

[46:24] the number 13. Um

[46:29] the I'm I I was just saying to somebody the

[46:33] other day about how the on our tax our property taxes are based on 2016 and

[46:40] that it should be updated and so it's nice that that this letter is coming

[46:44] forward, but I'm nervous because the assertion that your actual taxes

[46:50] wouldn't go up is a very large assumption that so I was going to ask

[46:56] less about So that's 8.13 or 8.13

[47:01] uh less that was on my my list as well. Uh tell us what happens when the um

[47:07] unfreeze occurs.

[47:12] » Well, as evidently will >> the next reassessment is is a huge

[47:17] challenge for the province as you can imagine because they put it off too

[47:20] long. They originally put it off because of the pandemic which made sense. Uh and

[47:25] then they couldn't get their act together. Uh the with before this new

[47:30] reassessment process that started happening over the years uh assessments

[47:34] were based like in the 50s and it was a big process. Uh traditionally what Mono

[47:39] has done uh the tax rate is a formula assessment times the tax rate equals

[47:46] your tax levy. So the tax levy we generally we follow inflation or cost of

[47:52] inflation for the town. So you're looking at CPI roughly. So our tax le

[47:58] goes by 2%. The assessment say it goes up now they

[48:03] catch up on the assessment. Say it goes up by 50. I'm just throwing numbers out.

[48:06] Goes up by 50%. Well now if you take that assessment

[48:11] multiply the current tax rate. Well, you're leving 50% more taxes. So, what

[48:18] Mono has done in past reassessments, we reduce we reduce the tax rate because

[48:25] the assessment it's a balancing. So, if the assessment goes up by 50% as as an

[48:31] example, your tax rate is not going up by 50%. Because it is a formula and the

[48:36] formula is your tax levy. Yeah. So you're not taking advantage of

[48:41] a of a of a a new assessment to to as you say gouge people.

[48:47] » Now now the implications Oh, sorry to interrupt the premier. Now what does

[48:52] happen in reassessment assessments shift?

[48:55] » Yes. >> So certain types of homes will get

[48:57] assessed higher because they're in a certain market bracket that sell better

[49:02] than another type of home. There also may be a shift between commercial and

[49:06] residential. There are shifts within the assessment, but you're not going to see

[49:10] a huge tax rate increase. >> And that was going to be my point that

[49:14] yeah, the total tax levy can stay the same and we just divide it by a

[49:17] different assessment value, but there are shifts. We don't know what they're

[49:20] going to be. Hopefully, my house will go down. [laughter]

[49:26] » We all live in hope. Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you. So, so but I

[49:30] understand that except that we all we all know that one of the reasons why

[49:35] we're in a pickle with respect is because the cost of things have gone up.

[49:39] They haven't frozen in 2016. The cost of things have marched along and yet our

[49:45] input has been struggled with and increased more than than people would

[49:51] like, but nowhere near what what it should have or what it would be if you

[49:56] if you all of a sudden took 2026 from I mean 10 years, right? What was your

[50:00] house worth 10 years ago? Just think about what what is right. So how do you

[50:04] come up like is it arbitrary? What's the what's the formula that that makes makes

[50:09] it so that when they do say your assessment is because that's what they

[50:13] want, right? I mean, it does make sense that your assessment is what you can

[50:16] then say to a realtor, this is what I'm expecting to get when I sell when I sell

[50:20] the house. But but it >> Yes. But yes, but what I'm saying is in

[50:25] principle it should. It should and the fact that we have always thought that oh

[50:30] it shouldn't is what they were trying to fix back when they were doing it the

[50:33] first time back when they were trying to bring them up from the 50s that at least

[50:38] that was that was what you just said. So h how is it that we where's how does it

[50:44] get figured out? Okay. So the to figure out you go backwards because you usually

[50:50] ask in school what's 2 * 3? six. Well, the with the tax rate, we start off with

[50:57] six. Okay, that the answer is six. What's the

[51:03] assessment? The assessment goes up. Take that assessment value. How you take that

[51:08] assessment value and get to six. So, the tax rate currently would give us a

[51:13] bigger number than six. So, the tax rate then comes down to get to six. So, that

[51:18] that that's the formula. You start with the answer. what is the tax levy that we

[51:22] need to to operate in you know in 20 whatever year it's going to be. So then

[51:27] the assessment or the tax rate has to come down,

[51:31] » right? So that and that's what we do every year while we're you come. You

[51:34] come and you say that in order to pay make pay the roads and fix the culverts

[51:38] and do all the things we need to do. This is the amount of money that we need

[51:41] and the council says this is far too much to ask of our residents. So um

[51:46] let's do let's do 8% instead of 15. That's what we ended up with this year.

[51:50] And the year before it was let's do 6% instead of 13. And so, um, that's when

[51:56] you do the math. Okay. Thank you very much,

[51:58] » uh, Ralph. And then, uh, Elaine, >> I think this is a good idea, this

[52:03] letter. The longer we put this off, the Sorry.

[52:09] » Thank you. Uh, the longer we put this off, the harder it's going to be to deal

[52:13] with it. And I think the government should get their act together and

[52:16] restore the regular property assessments as requested here. And I think this is

[52:20] something that we as a town should support.

[52:23] Would you like to move a motion to that effect or have have us send a letter of

[52:27] support? >> Yes, I'd like to move a motion to uh

[52:31] send a letter of support from the Talimono for the call to

[52:34] » I don't know that we need a motion per se. I misspoke. But uh Jessica, can we

[52:39] » through you chair? Uh we wouldn't recommend um endorsing this resolution

[52:44] as we're not familiar with Ryan Ulc the company bringing forward the resolution

[52:51] of support. Um, if council would like to see a resolution of support on a

[52:55] following agenda, we can bring one forward. Yeah.

[52:59] » Unless a council member would like to do it under a notice of motion.

[53:02] » Mhm. >> Could you clarify that if this had been

[53:06] a municipality that come with this um resolution of support um to restore

[53:12] property assessments, you'd be comfortable with it, but you're not

[53:15] because it's a private entity. >> Correct. Okay. I I understand that. I

[53:19] think uh yeah, I'd support that. we come if you come forward with a resolution at

[53:23] the next or subsequent meeting I'd be quite happy with that

[53:28] » Elaine >> it's one of those be careful what you

[53:30] ask for >> or wish for um I read that and went

[53:36] great but who are they I I would rather this come from the

[53:42] ministry at whatever time is ready when they know

[53:46] what they're going to do and and so to say that a properties are not being

[53:51] reassessed. They are. Every time a house sells, that new value gets on the uh

[53:58] impact listing. So things get updated as properties turn over. So it's not like,

[54:04] oh, less is going to tell me I'm wrong. >> Um, [laughter]

[54:08] » is that not happening anymore? >> What they do is they take whatever your

[54:12] current value is and they go through some calcul. They have a formula. What

[54:16] would have it been in 2016?

[54:22] So they don't adjust it. >> No, they adjust it but the 2016 values

[54:28] » for example, >> they adjust backwards

[54:30] » because everything has to be based on the same base.

[54:34] » So >> at the same level,

[54:37] so say your house is worth million dollars in 2016.

[54:42] » If it was worth 500,000, that same house, they bring it back to 500. That's

[54:46] just to keep the assessment value at the same rate for everybody. It treats

[54:50] everybody equally. >> So that's that's the issue is when they

[54:54] come to do the reassessment, everybody now has to get updated.

[54:59] » Oh, okay. So it's all still everybody's at 2016, even those who sold and sold

[55:04] and sold. >> Wow. I I was told different. So that's

[55:08] great to hear. Thank you. That used to happen before we got to the

[55:12] holding at the 2016. But surely in today's world where they have

[55:17] electronics, they could arbitrarily pick, well, we're

[55:20] not going to do 2016. We're going to do 2020 dates. And you, right, you would

[55:24] hope that that would at least limit your number of how many millions of houses

[55:28] you need to look at. >> Crazy crazy work.

[55:31] » Mike, did you have your hand up? >> I did. Um I'm I'm I'm

[55:38] a little area as to respect uh to the uh the author of this uh of this writer tax

[55:44] consultant and a real estate agent who generally would work on commission. Um,

[55:49] so, so I'm not sure the I think councelor Mdalo has spelled it out

[55:54] pretty clear that, uh, if it was a municipality that we were dealing with,

[55:58] uh, um, that's fine. But, uh, I I don't have any recommendation for council to

[56:02] proceed any further with this.

[56:07] » I only brought it up not cuz I was going to, and I know that, um, councelor

[56:10] Magdalo said he wanted to support it. I only brought this up for discussion for

[56:13] our residents so that if you're watching this, we're aware because the whole

[56:17] budget discussion and taxes, it's the big thing. Knock on a door. That is what

[56:21] everybody wants. You going to keep my taxes down? That is the big question.

[56:24] It's all about money. And so this one at least lays out for the discussion of,

[56:29] wow, it's still your 2016 value and so on. So, but um uh thanks for clarifying

[56:35] who he who the person is that wrote it. Well, and and it it has prompted a

[56:39] discussion that I think demonstrates that reassessment does not automatically

[56:43] mean tax increases. >> Uh and I think that's an important

[56:47] message to get out there. And also the issue of of the sale of a property does

[56:53] not automatically mean uh an increase in the assessed value simply because it

[56:59] sold at you know five times what it was previously assessed at. Am I correct in

[57:05] that Buzz? Yes, you are, Mr. Mayor. >> Good discussion. Anything else for

[57:11] Linda? >> Okay, anything?

[57:15] » No, I I'm a bit concerned by suggestion. >> Concerned by your suggestion, Mike. I

[57:21] think everybody knows that we have to change the assessment. We can't be

[57:24] basing basing things on an assessment value that was 10 years old. It has to

[57:29] be it has to be brought up to date. And um I don't know why the uh uh pro

[57:35] province is dragging their feet on this and I don't mind giving them a little

[57:39] urge uh to uh to get up to date

[57:45] and I I think some of us would would like to think about that because usually

[57:50] when you give them a little urge uh on anything they mess it up.

[57:56] » Any uh u Fred anything on >> No, I'm fine. Thanks.

[58:01] » Okay. Uh, >> no.

[58:02] » Elaine, I have I have a uh one and that's the resolution from the town of

[58:07] Perry Sound with request uh of um escooters.

[58:13] Oh, >> and this is a hot topic in uh in the um

[58:18] in parts of Mono. Um and uh it has gone a little bit crazy and I get asked why

[58:25] don't we opt into the province's ecooter pilot program

[58:33] and I think there's I think there's a um a sense out there that um uh this pilot

[58:39] program is not working terribly well. uh a very small number of municipalities

[58:44] have bought into it. Shelurn recently um turned down uh entering into it, but we

[58:50] were told something really interesting at the Police Services Board, and that

[58:53] is ecooters are not recognized at all under the Highway Traffic Act. They

[59:00] aren't there's no definition. There's no recognition of of uh their existence. So

[59:07] the police are taking the position that they can't charge anyone

[59:12] uh who is not wearing a helmet uh under the uh age of 16. Uh and uh they they

[59:20] just they they feel their hands are tied because the act itself which would be

[59:25] their charging vehicle uh makes no mention. Now the interesting thing is

[59:30] that if you enter into the e scooter pilot program that does give the uh

[59:37] police the option of charging under the highway traffic act.

[59:43] However, again it's ridiculous. I think that people can ride these things uh

[59:48] without a helmet uh over a certain age. Um, and the other pressure that the

[59:54] pilot program puts you under is is bylaw enforcement in terms of sidewalks.

[1:00:01] And the police are not going to police sidewalks. They'll police roads, but not

[1:00:06] sidewalks. So, this thing is a complete mess is I guess bottom line. Complete

[1:00:11] utter mess. Well, thanks for bringing what what

[1:00:15] happens at the at the uh police meeting because the police social campaign has

[1:00:22] been very clear to say that they're all illegal. They can't be on any private

[1:00:27] pro they can't be on any public property anywhere and um and and unless you you

[1:00:33] did opt in to unless your town did opt in and that no towns are opted in and so

[1:00:39] they are completely illegal. So, are they pulling all of that social

[1:00:43] campaign? I wonder. >> No, I think they their their use of the

[1:00:48] word illegal is to say that there is nothing in legislative framework that

[1:00:54] allows them to uh to address it uh apart from opting into the program. Um and and

[1:01:01] therefore in the absence of a definition in the Highway Traffic Act and

[1:01:06] provisions of the Highway Traffic Act that address uh things like helmets and

[1:01:11] and and speed and so forth, it it it's it's illegal in the sense

[1:01:17] that they they would be wrong to pre press charges because they would not

[1:01:23] they would not see the the light of day in a in a court. So they're they're

[1:01:28] using the word illegal in the broadest sense of of saying um they're not

[1:01:34] permitted. >> There's no allowance for them.

[1:01:39] » Okay. Right. So that that that's very interesting then

[1:01:42] » cuz it Yeah. Because it gives a it conotes a different

[1:01:46] » Yeah. I I mean I I think their use of the word illegal is they they would be

[1:01:51] far better to say to the government as I think municipalities ultimately will

[1:01:56] bring these devices under the Highway Traffic Act full stop period. And and I

[1:02:03] mean right now there's more in the Highway Traffic Act to deal with people

[1:02:08] on conventional bicycles than there is e- scooters which is incredible.

[1:02:15] Can I just also you when you commented that you've been hearing questions about

[1:02:18] how come we didn't embrace the the um pilot and and let everybody who's

[1:02:23] purchased these go around and everything. I think the answer is that

[1:02:26] they're they're they're unsafe. People are

[1:02:29] » being injured left, right, and center and some dying, right? And so why would

[1:02:33] why would a municipality say yay to something that is uh that's clearly

[1:02:37] unsafe for the residents? >> Jessica,

[1:02:39] » uh through you, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to remind council that we dealt with or

[1:02:43] council dealt with uh escooters and [clears throat] councelor Cape's

[1:02:46] resolution at the August 25th, 2026 council meeting.

[1:02:50] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:02:51] » Yeah. Anyways, I I think it was it was worth raising in light of the uh

[1:02:57] resolution from uh from that municipality and uh you know the growing

[1:03:02] concerns that I'm hearing um out there and the the actions of the town of

[1:03:06] Shelurn. I think speak volume. Okay. So I have a motion on the floor to

[1:03:12] accept schedule A. Do I have a mover to that? Councelor Cape seconded by

[1:03:16] councelor Davyy. Any opposed? Motion is carried.

[1:03:22] And that takes us to uh reports of members of council. Who wants to go

[1:03:27] first? Uh Fred.

[1:03:31] » Yeah. The only thing I have to report is that uh the county had arranged a tour

[1:03:37] of Duffren Oaks long-term care home in Shelurn, which I went to

[1:03:42] couple of days ago. I'd never been inside the building before. Um in fact,

[1:03:46] not being a resident, I you actually can't get through the front door. Um, so

[1:03:50] I I I just wanted to report the reason they organized the tour is being on

[1:03:55] county council, you in effect are a director of that of that facility and it

[1:04:00] was really worthwhile going that that is that that is an amazing building. Uh the

[1:04:06] the I I I guess what really struck me because we have other long-term care

[1:04:10] homes in Orangeville and the government sets the amount you can charge for that.

[1:04:14] It sets the amount of hours you have to spend per p per resident. So, it's it's

[1:04:18] really controlled and some long-term care homes do it on a for-profit basis.

[1:04:24] And in the case of Duffren Oaks, uh we actually put about $5 million of

[1:04:29] taxpayer money into it to run it. So, we're not doing we're not doing it on a

[1:04:33] a profit basis. Well, I understand why now after seeing [clears throat] that

[1:04:37] building and the care they take of their residents. It really is a magnificent

[1:04:40] facility.

[1:04:49] Um, thank you very much, Mayor. So, uh, there was a Rosemont Fire Board um,

[1:04:53] meeting this past this week. No, yes, what are we? Tuesday. last at the end of

[1:04:57] last week and we passed the um budget uh draft budget for 2027 and with a so with

[1:05:07] um operating and capital budgets there will be an increase for the town of Mono

[1:05:14] of about 7.7% coming which makes a total it's a total

[1:05:19] of 140 well 148,000 to contribute to the Rosemont Shelurn is having a meeting

[1:05:26] next week where the budget will be uh discussed. Orangeville, we've just um

[1:05:32] talked about how much it's going to be an increase and there's just uh the

[1:05:36] unknown of Kaledan, but everything's uh everything's

[1:05:41] increasing. Um, we also I also had a uh recreation advisory committee meeting

[1:05:46] which was a um very interesting meeting where we talked a lot about um what can

[1:05:52] we do to improve um recreation in the community and we

[1:05:57] also discussed the um the plan for who's doing what for the Halloween party. So I

[1:06:04] know it's the only the end not quite the end of September but Halloween's coming.

[1:06:09] So, if you've got any little kitties or any any little grandchildren or

[1:06:12] neighbors or whatever, um don't miss out on uh this event. At the end, we've got

[1:06:17] big posters. You should see the find the black and purple and orange posters

[1:06:22] posted all sorts of places. Um and I think that's it. I have a CDRC meeting

[1:06:28] uh tomorrow. There's um the pool's closed up, the re the rink is open. Um I

[1:06:34] did just as a as an aside just to put it out there for for a little snippet of

[1:06:40] information for people. I did ask now that now that the um complex for the

[1:06:45] last year and a bit um has been well no we were 26 for the last couple years um

[1:06:51] we've been collecting electronic data because we had do pay all the bills

[1:06:55] electronically. You you sign up for things electronically. We still have

[1:07:00] some drop in where you can pay some cash, but so there's some stuff still

[1:07:04] not counted, but generally speaking, we have the ability now electronically to

[1:07:08] say, "So, you're a user. Where are you from when you're coming to the complex?"

[1:07:13] And it was very interesting. We had the total numbers from 2024 to 2026 showed

[1:07:18] that there were 1648 users from Shelburn, which is, you know, a lot of

[1:07:24] people over the two two and a half years or whatever. And there were 66 from

[1:07:29] Mono,

[1:07:32] which is a telling number, I think, a very telling number.

[1:07:36] So, my vote would be to say, you know, use it, we've got it. Uh, but I also

[1:07:42] need to add the use it before we lose it um situation because if I can see things

[1:07:48] from the other angle now, when I get that kind of information, you know. So,

[1:07:53] that's my report. Yes, thank you your honor. Two items.

[1:07:59] One is the um the pulinary garden has um as you know established a a pergola with

[1:08:05] the help from uh family and friends of Laura Ryan and the town. Um this is um

[1:08:12] has been almost completed. We're going to have a plaque placed on it and

[1:08:17] eventually a bench eventually uh some roses that are going to go up the

[1:08:21] trelluses. Uh we'll have sort of a um a an event surrounding this sometime like

[1:08:28] likely in the late late fall. Um and I'll give you a full report in when the

[1:08:34] financial situation is all uh finalized and I think it's going to be good. Uh

[1:08:40] the u um what else? I had one other thing.

[1:08:46] Go ahead. It'll Oh, Greenfest. Screenfest is coming up on the October

[1:08:50] the 18th as Fred's mentioned there. Uh this is really coming together very

[1:08:54] well. Uh we got a very gung-ho committee subcommittee and the CAC itself is very

[1:09:00] supportive. Um I think it's going to be a really good um uh festival. Um and I

[1:09:06] think the hopefully that the uh aspirations are to provide useful

[1:09:12] educational material to the people of Mona that the these will be met.

[1:09:27] So, yes, as Melinda mentioned, we had a fireboard meeting. Uh the other thing

[1:09:31] that um we had uh a little bit of an update from our tech specialist up at

[1:09:37] the fireh hall talking about because the question is coming about what are the

[1:09:42] 2028 um

[1:09:47] re-calibrated uh compliance uh requirements for training. And so they

[1:09:53] explain there's three levels and there's awareness, operating, and technical. And

[1:09:58] so with all the other fire chiefs, they're getting together to make sure

[1:10:01] they have the technical training covered for each topic like water and ropes and

[1:10:08] confined spaces and things like that, but that we're not duplicating that

[1:10:12] across everywhere. So they're figuring that all out. And um so they're figuring

[1:10:18] out who does what. And uh yeah, there's a new rescue truck that

[1:10:25] we're going to be having to purchase soon. And they did say that the 911 EMS

[1:10:30] dispatch change has made a difference to the calls that they get. So

[1:10:36] that's interesting. And I guess we need to make sure we keep connecting the

[1:10:39] paramedics with the fire service so that they each know what's happening.

[1:10:45] Um, we also had a DEI meeting and there will be some

[1:10:52] things coming forward to council, I hope, before our term is done. And uh,

[1:10:58] there is a pen hack meeting coming up to deal with large rural homes so that we

[1:11:02] can hopefully wrap that up. And I do have to say, Ralph, that that pergola

[1:11:08] was a very clever build because the poles that are around the bottom of the

[1:11:12] structure at the right height for me to sit on. So I don't need a chair. So

[1:11:17] thank you for that. [snorts] And the green festival, I just wondered, did you

[1:11:21] get a grant for that? One of the festival grants

[1:11:25] uh next year. >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:11:28] » I think Fred has mentioned it and I I just support it. I think that um we we

[1:11:34] didn't want to put in um expenses and income because income is not there yet.

[1:11:38] Well, I think $100 is there. Uh but uh it's quite expected that we'll acquire

[1:11:45] most of the expenses and cover them with the income from the festival. And we're

[1:11:49] not charging uh particip we're not charging um uh people who come uh to

[1:11:54] enjoy the festival. We're just charging some of the participants. But I think

[1:11:58] it'll probably cover the expenses pretty well.

[1:12:04] to consider. >> Thank you. I don't think I've got

[1:12:08] anything to to report. >> Police.

[1:12:13] » I did. I mean that was the highlight of of the uh of the police board meeting

[1:12:17] was was the and and and you could have heard a pin drop as the uh uh detachment

[1:12:23] commander was explaining how their hands are tied in terms of of uh of escooters

[1:12:28] and and that they wish that that issue was dealt with uh more appropriately.

[1:12:33] [snorts] Okay. Um any notices of motion?

[1:12:41] Okay. Seeing none, why don't we have a a 10-minute break and then we'll u go in

[1:12:46] camera to address two matters. So, we'll take a 10-minute

[1:28:09] We're back live.

[1:28:16] » John, your mic. I have a motion that council moves into

[1:28:21] a close session pursuant to section 239 of the municipal act 2001 as amended at

[1:28:27] 10:28 a.m. or number one, Cedar Springs Trailer Park, section 239, subsection 2,

[1:28:35] subsection E, litigation or potential litigation including matters before

[1:28:39] administrative tribunals affecting the municipality or uh local board. And

[1:28:45] number two, CAO performance review section 239 subsection 2 subsection B

[1:28:50] personnel matters about an individual identifiable individual including

[1:28:55] municipal or local board employees. Do I have a mover for this? Councelor Capes,

[1:28:59] seconded by councelor Magdalo. Any opposition? Motion carries. So we'll go

[1:29:05] in camera. >> We need to close that door.

[1:29:08] » Does it matter? >> The other one's closed.

[1:29:12] » The one into the kitchen is closed. >> Okay.

[1:29:15] » Yeah.

[3:17:42] We are back live. >> Thank you. And I have a motion that we

[3:17:46] rise from an inc camera session at 12:17 p.m. Mover Councelor Cape, seconded by

[3:17:53] Councelor Magdalo. Any opposition? Seeing none, motion passes. I have a

[3:17:58] motion that we introduce and give the necessary readings to a bylaw to confirm

[3:18:02] the proceedings of council of the town of Mono in session 15 uh 2026 held on

[3:18:07] the 22nd of September 2026 that it be signed by the mayor and clerk sealed and

[3:18:12] engrossed in the bylaw book. Councelor Capes moves. Councelor Davey seconds.

[3:18:17] Any opposition? Seeing none passes. Uh finally, I have a motion that we adjourn

[3:18:22] this meeting at 12:18 p.m. uh to meet again for a regular council meeting on

[3:18:28] October 6, 2026 or at the call of the chair. Moved by deputy mayor, second by

[3:18:33] uh uh councelor Magdalo. Any opposition? Seeing none, motion passes.

[3:18:39] Thank you everyone.

Council Meeting 15-2026 | 22 Sep 2026

Transcript