[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.