[0:03] all right welcome everyone to our February 7th North Middle sex council

[0:06] meeting roll call everyone is present uh disclose your pecuniary interest if you

[0:12] have any please forward it to our clerk uh minutes of the previous meeting any

[0:17] uh errors or omissions business arising from those

[0:20] minutes from the January 17th meeting seeing none we need a motion to approve

[0:25] councel Deo councel Nera all in favor carries thank you at this time we need

[0:31] to have a motion to adjourn to proceed to public meeting including Committee of

[0:36] adjustment counc Erwin Deputy Mayor hodgin all in favor Carri thank you and

[0:42] so our first item of business six o'clock notice of public meeting to

[0:45] consider application mv-1 d224 and

[0:51] mv-2 d224 located at the old uh 132 oill Street I believe our applicants are not

[0:59] attending this and so this time Abby go ahead who's speaking Abby are you doing

[1:03] this okay thank you your honor uh so the

[1:08] purpose and effect of application mv1 d224 is to seek relief from the north

[1:13] middlex zoning bylaw in order to satisfy conditions of consent b14 2023 for the

[1:20] retained parcel the following variances are proposed uh so the first one the

[1:26] applicants are requesting a minimum law area of 4 8 square met whereas the R1

[1:33] Zone requires a minimum lot area of 46 Square met uh the second variance being

[1:40] requested is a front yard setback of 4.7 m to the existing dwelling whereas the

[1:46] R1 Zone requires a minimum front yard back of six

[1:52] meters the purpose and effect of application mv2 d224 is to seek relief

[1:57] from the North Middle zoning bylaw also in order to satisfy conditions of

[2:02] consed b14 2023 for the severed parcel um so the following variance is proposed

[2:09] um they are requesting a minimum lot area of 418 square meters whereas the R1

[2:14] Zone requires a minimum lot area of 460 met the subject lands are located on the

[2:21] North northeast corner of Old Mill Street and George Street within the

[2:25] urban settlement area of alra the subject lands are within the

[2:29] res residential area land use designation of the north North Middle

[2:32] sex official plan and are zoned R1 within the North Middle sex zoning bylaw

[2:38] surrounding uses are predominantly residential in

[2:42] nature as Council may recall the applicants are not proposing to develop

[2:46] the lands to be severed at this time uh so I have evaluated the

[2:51] application against the for tests under the planning act and I am satisfied that

[2:55] each test has been met for the reasons outlined in my report in terms of agency

[3:01] comments received the County engineer advised no comments and the manager of

[3:06] infrastructure and operations for the municipality provided several comments

[3:10] uh that are capable of being addressed through the the development agreement

[3:15] that is required as part of the conditionally approved consent in terms

[3:18] of comments received from the public none were received prior to the

[3:22] preparation of my report it is therefore uh my recommendation that the

[3:27] application be approved subject to the reasons outlined in my report thank you

[3:33] thank you Abby at this time I invite anyone from the public who have comment

[3:37] on this application seeing none uh committee is

[3:42] there questions comments on this application none we have a

[3:47] recommendation in front of you I don't think I need to read it it's in writing

[3:52] moveed by Council dagel seconded by councelor Nera all in favor carried

[3:57] thank you all next item is a public meeting to

[4:03] application B1 d224 located at 25976 King Street and I believe uh

[4:10] that's Stephen and Paula Morrison are they here would you like to come

[4:17] up have your have your

[4:24] time thank you all right Abby go ahead thank you so the purpose of the

[4:30] subject consent application is to create one new residential lot along King

[4:34] Street from a property known municipally as 25976 King Street within the Hamlet

[4:40] settlement area area of carile the subject lands are are located

[4:45] on the east side of King Street north of Bruce Street and south of Neil Street

[4:50] within Carlile and are approximately 3,35 square meters in size the applicant

[4:57] is proposing to create a residential infill lot by way of consent for the

[5:01] purpose of constructing two future single dep patch dwellings one on the

[5:05] severed lot and one on the retained lot the lands proposed to be severed

[5:10] would have a frontage of about 30 m and a lot area of about 1,500 met squared

[5:16] and contain a detached accessory building and do not have connection to

[5:21] Municipal Water or private sanary system but they do have an existing

[5:27] access off of King Street

[5:30] the lands to be retained would have a frontage of 30 m a lot area of about

[5:35] 1500 met squared and they contain a single detach dwelling and a detached

[5:40] accessory building a Municipal Water connection

[5:44] and a private sanitary system and they also have an existing access off Street

[5:49] the subject lands are within the Hamlet settlement area land use designation of

[5:53] the North Middle sex official plan and our zoned Hamlet residential within the

[5:58] North Middle sex zon bylaw surrounding uses are residential

[6:02] in nature um so the provincial policy

[6:06] statement County official plan and the municipality's official plan generally

[6:11] permit residential lot creation within settlement areas subject to servicing

[6:15] and compatibility the subject lands again

[6:18] are located with this within the settlement area of carile which is

[6:21] serviced by Municipal Water and privately owned sep systems the subject

[6:26] lands have Frontage along King Street which is a year round maintain Public

[6:31] Road The Proposal is considered infilling as the subject lands are

[6:35] located within the existing builtup area of the

[6:38] Hamlet uh staff are of the opinion that the proposed area of the severed and

[6:43] retained lands is appropriate for the use of the lands which is residential in

[6:48] need um so provisions of Road access connection to Municipal Water Services

[6:53] storm water management lot grading and other standard development obligations

[6:58] are capable of being addressed addressed through a development agreement as per

[7:01] the conditions of the consent so in conclusion staff are of

[7:05] the opinion that the proposed development is appropriate it's

[7:08] consistent with the provincial policy statement and in Conformity with the

[7:11] county and North Middle official plans in terms of agency comments received um

[7:18] the asabo Bayfield conservation Authority uh had no concerns County

[7:22] engineer had no concerns and then um the manager of infrastructured operations

[7:27] for the municipality provided several comments related to water roads drainage

[7:32] storm water and waste water as outlined in my report no comments were received

[7:37] from the public prior to the preparation of my report um So based on the

[7:43] foregoing it is my recommendation that application for consent B1 2024 be

[7:49] granted subject to the conditions outlined in my report thank you thank

[7:53] you Abby at this time Stephen is anything you'd like to

[7:58] add

[8:03] oh sorry um not really I just we're just trying to there's a very the house

[8:11] that's there now is in very very poor shape and needs to be tore down and the

[8:17] lot was big enough to make two and that's just kind of what our thought was

[8:22] okay all right thank you uh there's no written submission so once again is

[8:26] there any comments from the public at this time on this application seeing

[8:31] none uh committee Council

[8:39] Irwin oh did you have a question councelor canel I do have a question

[8:43] okay thank you um my question is um for Abby and it's uh under conditions number

[8:49] 10 refers to the owner entry to development agreement mity is that the

[8:54] owner of the of the lot after sold or the current

[8:58] owner so thank you for your question um that would be the current owner however

[9:03] um there is we do have the ability to um add specific requirements into into the

[9:12] development agreement that would um apply to the Future owner of the

[9:17] separate parcel thank you okay any other questions seeing none a motion to

[9:22] approve Council Irwin second by Council K all in favor carried thank you thank

[9:28] you our next application is for B2 uh B2

[9:35] d224 located at 1069 West Corner Drive and I think we have Paul are you you're

[9:42] the only one here tonight for this application oh come come on up sorry is

[9:46] it joris joris yes thank you thank you sorry the sorry principle of the or the

[9:54] owner of the properties here as well okay thank

[9:58] you Abby as soon as you're

[10:04] ready thank you uh so the purpose and effect of the subject application is to

[10:09] sever a parcel of land consisting of approximately 40.2 hectares from an

[10:14] existing Farm parcel consisting of 80.9 hectares known municipally as um 1069

[10:22] West the subject lands are located on the Southeast corner of West Corner

[10:26] Drive and prance Road and are known municipally as as 1069 West Corner Drive

[10:31] the applicant is seeking consent approval to sever a farm parcel to

[10:35] reverse a merger of the land uh so the land to be severed would

[10:40] have a frontage of approximately 355 meters along West Corner Drive and be

[10:46] approximately 40.2 hectares in size the lands to be severed are used

[10:52] for agricultural purposes in the form of field crop production and contain no

[10:58] structures the lands are privately serviced and do not have access onto

[11:02] west corner or I guess there would be no

[11:05] services on the lands sorry correct that the land to be retained would have a

[11:10] frontage of 455 meters along West burner drive and be approximately 40.2 hectares

[11:16] in size uh the lands to be retained contain a single detach dwelling uh

[11:22] several out buildings 11 grain bins and eight smaller feed bins three barns a

[11:30] microfit solar panel and agricultural land in field Crop Production the lands

[11:35] are privately serviced and have two existing accesses off of West

[11:40] Corner the subject lands are designated agricultural within the North Middle SE

[11:45] official plan and are zoned General Agricultural and Environmental

[11:49] Protection within the North Middle sex zoning bylaw surrounding land uses are

[11:55] agricult so the provincial policy statement the county official plan in

[11:59] the north mle sex official plan generally permit lot Creation in

[12:03] agricultural areas for agricultural purposes where the lots are of a size

[12:09] sufficiently large to maintain productive and viable Farm

[12:13] units the minimum lot size requirement as outlined in both the county and North

[12:19] Middle official plan is about 40 hectares the county official plan also

[12:24] requires compliance with the minimum distance separation formula

[12:29] the lands to be retained contain three barns that are used for livestock

[12:35] Agriculture and would therefore trigger an MDS calculation as per omafra's uh

[12:40] minimum distance separation document so guideline number eight of

[12:45] that document um speaks to um the MDS requirements for lot creation um and

[12:53] specifically um to those that uh apply for situations uh where a farm split is

[12:59] being contemplated guideline number 41

[13:03] provides details with regards to how the mvs setbacks um that are required by

[13:08] guideline 8 are to be uh implemented so essentially

[13:13] um it requires for any new lot that is vacant and greater than one hectare in

[13:20] size that a hypothetical building envelope be uh determined for that

[13:27] parcel as I pr L mentioned the purpose of the subject consent is to sever a

[13:32] parcel of land to reverse an an inadvertent lot merger no change of use

[13:36] is being proposed for the severed or retained lands the applicants have

[13:41] indicated that they do not intend to construct a single detached dwelling on

[13:44] the severed lot and will continue to use the land in its entirety for field Crop

[13:49] Production while the MDS setbacks to the new lot line will continue to apply the

[13:55] applicants will be required to uh obtain a zoning by amendment that will prohibit

[14:00] future residential uses on the severed lands unless the owner is able to

[14:05] demonstrate MDS compliance for the uh new single detou

[14:12] dwelling um so the proposed lot line is intended to create two Parcels with

[14:18] identical lot areas so as not to create an undersized

[14:22] F person however staff are recommending that the lot line be straightened and

[14:28] moved to the East 30 m to ensure that the existing livestock Barn is wholly

[14:33] contained on the separate or the retain blot both the severed and retained

[14:39] Parcels are zoned A1 and EP and the north middlex zoning bylaw states that

[14:46] where a lot contains more than one zone category each portion will be evaluated

[14:51] by its own zoning standards for law area and frage and some of the other

[14:56] regulations as well so so as part of the conditions of consent staff recommend

[15:01] that the zoning bylaw Amendment account for the undersized A1 Zone portion of

[15:06] the severed and retained lands which is due to um the EP Zone that kind of

[15:11] traverses the rear of this property so in all um staff are

[15:17] satisfied that the size and configuration of the proposed Lots will

[15:21] not negatively impact the ability to farm the lands and the flexibility to

[15:25] adapt to Future farming practices will not be compromised

[15:30] so staff are in a position to support the proposed consent application as it

[15:34] will result in Parcels that meet or exceed the minimum standards set out in

[15:38] the policy documents in terms of agency comments received the County engineer

[15:43] had no concerns uh building a bylaw recommended uh a condition that confirms

[15:49] compliance with MDS and um the manager of infrastructure

[15:53] and operations uh provided several comments which are outlined in my report

[15:59] uh at the time of the preparation of my report I had received no written

[16:03] comments from members of the public uh So based on the foregoing it is my

[16:08] recommendation that application for consent B2 2024 be granted subject to

[16:14] the conditions in my report thank you thanks Abby uh Paul do you have comments

[16:19] on this as well thank you worship I um I don't have a lot of comments and I I

[16:26] thank um Abby the planner for her assistance in uh getting it getting us

[16:32] to this point um I did just want to flag um I understand from my client that

[16:38] there is an existing uh entry way that will be on

[16:42] the severed portion but I understand the the condition being there and in the

[16:47] past sometimes I've um just spoken to the the person in charge at North Middle

[16:53] sex and they assess whether we need to do a whole new entrance or if there's

[16:57] anything that needs to be done to the existing one so that would be the plan

[17:00] there um and as mentioned the intention is just to resear these properties that

[17:07] were inadvertently merged to title because they are held by the same person

[17:12] uh and it's a part of it is tax uh or state planning and tax uh issues related

[17:18] to that um and I've seen it in different municipalities different uh rules about

[17:25] whether we can submit the zoning application before we have the um the

[17:32] the sketch completed ideally we'd like to be able to submit the zoning

[17:36] application immediately so we can move this forward trying to follow within

[17:41] fiscal years um so I don't I don't know whether um the planner has any comments

[17:47] on that but that would be my own s okay thank you Abby does you respond to that

[17:52] yeah thanks so um currently we do require that we have the 33 R number so

[17:57] that we're able to legally describe the lands for the purposes of the zoning

[18:00] bylaw Amendment um otherwise like we can bring it forward for two readings um but

[18:07] we've kind of moved away from doing that just uh due to the planning fee refund

[18:12] Provisions in the planning act no I understand I've I've encountered that

[18:15] issue before so shock me I just thought I'd inquire if there's has to be two

[18:20] readings it does really move any faster anyway

[18:24] right okay that's not my phone that's all I

[18:29] care so there's no written submissions is there any comments from the public on

[18:34] this application seeing none uh the

[18:38] committee questions on the committee I I have just a comment to it every time I

[18:43] see these come forward I don't like them because people have to spend money that

[18:48] they shouldn't have to spend money on they should shouldn't be happening as it

[18:51] is and we've talked about this at am and different places and hopefully it gets

[18:56] corrected because uh I agree there money spent that

[19:00] shouldn't have to be spent yes I I agree and there have actually been some useful

[19:07] amendments to the planning act recently unfortunately none of them are trying to

[19:10] not to this deal with this hope hopefully that does get done though to

[19:16] agre to spend money no other questions or comments we have a recommendation to

[19:20] Grant this application Deputy Mayor Hollin

[19:24] councelor dagel all in favor carried thank you

[19:28] thank you

[19:32] Council our next application is for notice of public meeting for application

[19:37] 39t DNM 2303 and that is the lurry plum

[19:43] subdivision for information and do we have somebody

[19:48] coming in on Zoom okay so we can still get him in on Zoom

[19:54] okay and I think it's Matt lit Litwin Chu is that

[20:01] right that's correct okay so we have them here so I

[20:06] would remind if anybody wants to come up for public comments just to give your

[20:09] name when you come up to the to the chair just uh go ahead

[20:14] Abby thank you uh so the purpose of this report is to provide council with

[20:19] preliminary information on an application for a plan of subdivision

[20:24] for the subject lands municipally known as 3477 lurry wrote a recommendation

[20:30] will be given to council at a later meeting after feedback from the public

[20:34] meeting and the agency and Ministry circulation has been received and taken

[20:39] into consideration so the purpose and effect

[20:43] of the proposed draft plan of subvision is to create seven lots for single

[20:48] detached dwellings uh which would be accessed from a sawel drive and lurry

[20:54] Road the draft plan of subdivision has been attached for

[21:00] information in addition to the applications and the proposed draft plan

[21:04] the submission included the following supporting documents uh so there was a

[21:08] planning justification report a servicing capability study

[21:13] Transportation impact brief and a nitrate impact

[21:20] assessment so the subject lands are a 6.7 hectare parcel located on the

[21:26] northwest corner of a soble drive and Larry Road within the Hamlet of

[21:30] Larry the lands are vagant of any buildings

[21:34] instructs the subject lands are designated Hamlet settlement area within

[21:38] the North Middle official plan and the subject lands are zoned Hamlet

[21:42] residential within the North Middle sex zoning

[21:46] BYOD so my report provides a background on the applicable provincial County and

[21:52] local policy which generally direct new residential development to existing

[21:57] settlement areas where full or partial Municipal services

[22:01] are available the policy documents encourage

[22:05] a wide variety of housing by type size and

[22:09] T specific to the North Middle sex official plan the Hamlet settlement area

[22:15] policies Pro provide that approval for the development of New Lots above um

[22:21] five New Lots within or expanding an existing Hamet settlement area from the

[22:26] date of the approval of the official plan shall be supported by a settlement

[22:32] capability study um which was included in the servicing capability study that

[22:37] was submitted in support of the subject application the general housing policies

[22:45] provide that intensification and Redevelopment within the settlement

[22:49] areas will be encouraged to provide a greater mix and balance of residential

[22:53] housing ples um and

[22:59] that uh the municipality will be guided by Municipal service environmental and

[23:04] transportation issues in its consideration of such

[23:09] opportunities um so neighborhood compatibility will also be considered

[23:13] relative to the physical car characteristics in site design of

[23:17] intensification proposals uh notice of the application

[23:23] has been circulated to agencies as well as property owners in accordance with

[23:26] the requirements of the plan act and in terms of agency comments received uh the

[23:32] Assa be field conservation Authority indicated no concerns Bell Canada Canada

[23:38] Post Hydra 1 and emage gas submitted standard comments for plans of

[23:43] subdivision uh and those are outlined in my report uh the TS Valley District

[23:48] School Board uh indicated that they had no

[23:51] concerns um County of middle sex Emergency Services requested a number of

[23:56] conditions as outlin in my report um as did the County

[24:03] engineer and then the North Middle sex manager of infrastructure and operations

[24:08] has also provided a number of comments um related to documents to be submitted

[24:13] for review and approval and those are also outlined in my

[24:17] report um in terms of public comments so I had none that were received uh prior

[24:22] to the preparation of my report however staff um subsequently received the

[24:28] following written submissions so uh Julie and Andrew Canton um submitted a

[24:34] letter citing concerns uh related to a matter being considered under the

[24:39] drainage act as well as their preference for no further development within Hamlet

[24:44] area uh amber mlan and Mike sorton um shared similar concerns related to the

[24:52] matter uh being considered under the drainage act as well as concerns

[24:56] relating to uh life solution and more specifically exterior lighting on the

[25:01] homes and out buildings to be built within the proposed development so as I

[25:06] previously mentioned a more detailed planning analysis as well as a

[25:10] recommendation will be provided to council at a subsequent meeting um after

[25:15] all comments received from this public meeting as well as the agency and

[25:19] Ministry circulation have been taken into consideration thank

[25:24] you thank you Abby uh at this time Matt do you have anything you'd like to add

[25:28] from the applicant side yeah good evening members of

[25:33] council uh my name is Matt linchuk I'm a land planner with zelinka prmo and we're

[25:37] the planning consultants for the applicant and this draft plan of

[25:41] subdivision to facilitate as Abby said the development of seven lots for single

[25:46] detached dwellings Abby's done a great job with her presentation and we just

[25:49] want to note that uh we do not have a comprehensive presentation today but uh

[25:53] of course the purpose of this statutory public meeting is to hear from members

[25:57] of public public with respect to the proposed development it's our

[26:00] understanding as Abby mentioned there's only been a couple of comments to date

[26:04] we've had an opportunity to carefully review staff's report and we uh we note

[26:08] that staff are recommending the draft plan be uh taken in in principle we hope

[26:12] for a positive endorsement when this proposal comes to council there are any

[26:16] further questions I'd be happy to answer them okay thank you Matt at this time

[26:21] you've already made mention of I think Council you've all got a copy of those

[26:26] written submissions correct everyone's had those okay uh comments

[26:31] from the public on this application if You' like come forward

[26:36] sir I think the microphone's already on so you'd submit your name and

[26:42] just uh my name is Matt white I'm a resident of 34714 lury Roose uh your

[26:49] worship and council members thank you very much for giving us the opportunity

[26:52] to present um our case regarding the proposed subdivision in muray um to set

[26:58] the record straight I'm not a nimi as we would call them in England not in my

[27:02] backyard um lri actually is a great little Community I moved to lri about

[27:07] six years ago looking for a rural lifestyle um at no time did I believe

[27:13] when I moved to lri that there would be a increase in the size of the Hamlet um

[27:20] I have two objections to this first of all the fabric of lry um people get

[27:26] along everybody seems to know each other we say hi when we walk our dogs we like

[27:31] to feel that there is a small community up there um this whole subdivision

[27:37] basically blindsided the majority of the residents in we did not have any idea

[27:43] that this was happening and you know the good folks here we do not want to fall

[27:47] out with them whatsoever we want again want to maintain the fabric of our small

[27:52] community but in hindsight the delivery of this has been handled very bad it's

[27:57] going to divide our little Community had had these good folks literally come door

[28:03] to door and as you can see from the victorial there ain't many and just came

[28:07] to say hi um we're thinking of doing this do you have any objections and

[28:13] unfortunately that was not done so everybody now has put up a defensive

[28:17] guard around this potential subdivision so if the subdivision was to go forward

[28:24] I do believe that some of the residents in lri are looking at moving at

[28:29] significant cost to them myself personally I would consider moving

[28:34] because again it's ruining the fabric of the little community that I went into um

[28:39] but I do understand the need for advancement I do understand the needs

[28:42] for homes in ontaria I myself personally are involved in very large construction

[28:47] projects from New York City to Calgary Alberta so I make my livelihood on

[28:54] construction however the need for a affordable homes in this country is not

[28:59] going to be satisfied by the development in lri the development in L lury is

[29:05] purely for profit exercise and that brings me on to my second point about

[29:10] seven years ago again when I moved into lurry my welcome to Middle sex County

[29:15] was a nice Bill to do with um drainage so there were some drainage improvements

[29:21] about seven years ago and I thought you know what that's an improvement to the

[29:25] infrastructure I just had some very bad timing um I paid it and I moved on with

[29:31] my life my understanding now is the work required to accommodate this new

[29:36] subdivision will require more drainage works now that drainage works again is

[29:41] going to be build to the residents of lri probably through a direct tax

[29:46] Improvement um which our understanding maybe somewhere in the region of $1,500

[29:51] maybe as much as $2,000 we are not going to see any

[29:55] benefit you know the folks that are developing that area yes they'll

[29:58] probably see some Financial benefit but we as residents that's another $2,000

[30:03] potentially at the most out of our pockets and as you said your honor you

[30:08] don't like to see money being spent when it's really not necessary um you know

[30:13] one of my neighbors uh Pat White shares the same last name as Meely coincidental

[30:18] she's a retired nurse she lost her husband a couple years ago I don't know

[30:23] about her finances but I know she's probably struggling so a bill like that

[30:27] out the blue is probably going to hurt her and then her neighbor there's a

[30:32] there's a an old lady lives in that property she's blind her husband just

[30:37] went into a nursing home and her daughter suffers with a disability and

[30:42] she's also in a home you know those poor folks we never see them um obviously

[30:48] money is tight for them just from Optics and I wouldn't want to be in their

[30:52] position when they see a a bill potentially called a direct tax

[30:56] Improvement arrive on their doorstep um this is just a very unfortunate

[31:01] situation I I'm sure the intent here is very good but again had it been handled

[31:07] differently with the small community that we're in I think there may be

[31:11] overwhelming support for it but right now personally I'm objecting to it

[31:16] because I don't think it's been handled in the proper way and I don't want to

[31:19] pay essentially $2,000 out of my own pocket to help somebody else make some

[31:24] money I mean I would propose an amendment to the motion where

[31:29] essentially the increase in property taxes which North middlex will likely

[31:33] Levy against the improvements to those lots is paid back to the residents of

[31:39] lri who have had to pay a direct tax Improvement fee um that is just an

[31:45] amendment proposition I would like to put forward again I understand we

[31:49] probably can't stop this but if we are have to pay out of our own pocket I

[31:54] would propose that on the next tax year when when North Middle sex is collecting

[31:59] taxes from that new subdivision or the owners of the lots that that extra money

[32:03] is channeled back into a tax uh credit for the residents who have paid this

[32:08] money therefore equaling it out um but I again we don't want to divide our little

[32:14] Community we have a a great Community as I say but again this this um proposition

[32:20] has been made um honestly has divided our community um and this has been

[32:25] happening well this has been ongoing now for several months and um I just wish it

[32:29] had been handled differently so thank you your honor thank you council members

[32:33] for hearing me out I'm rather nervous I'm just recovering from a triple heart

[32:37] bypass so my heart is fluttering a little bit but um but I certainly

[32:42] appreciate the time that you've given us tonight thank you thank you I I would

[32:47] ask Matt do you have any response to that because I think it's a legitimate

[32:51] concern about the cost to the neighboring taxpayers about the cost of

[32:57] drainage do you have a comment to that yeah absolutely um I just want to I just

[33:01] want to thank the neighbor for coming out and um taking time out their day to

[33:05] provide comments that's what this is all about um so with respect to this

[33:09] drainage relocation uh of course it is considered that the relocation of the

[33:13] drain watch you serve to improve drainage in the area currently as it

[33:16] stands of course it could be a lot better um furthermore uh it is worth

[33:20] mentioning that as per the municipality the costs for this drainage relocation

[33:25] are going to be completely on the applicant so that would be on the uh the

[33:30] developer so I we don't believe that any other cost would be put on any neighbors

[33:33] in the area so no cost to Neighbors in the area

[33:37] uh Furthermore with respect to the um the anticipation that ly would not

[33:42] expand as a hamlet um as per the municipal op uh the lands are designated

[33:47] as Hamlet residential areas so residential development in the form that

[33:51] is proposed is contemplated here it is the plan vision of this community as set

[33:56] out by the the municipal

[34:00] op okay thank you I just want to clarify that comment you had said there's no

[34:04] cost from drainage cost to the neighbors correct okay this this

[34:09] development is completely uh developer L okay thank you thank you sir thank you

[34:16] very much other comments from the public on this application anyone else like to

[34:20] speak on this come on come on up Sir come on up

[34:26] he's two and just give your name please

[34:30] and how do I follow that um hi I'm Julie Canton um we reside at 34684 lry Road

[34:38] and we also own the bacon lot beside us it's the residential lot at

[34:44] 34688 um we've resided there for almost 10 years now and we from past

[34:52] um uh meetings we weren't able to go because it was during the week and 9:00

[34:57] a.m. I'm surprised that anybody was able to go to that meeting but anyways um I

[35:00] just wanted to make sure because as for the last meeting we were told that we

[35:05] may have been able we would we were told that we would have to pay for some of

[35:08] the costs and that was just something that I had up in my write up that we did

[35:11] not want to be responsible for the cost of rerouting the drain um and we also

[35:16] want to ensure that where um the moson or sign drain Branch b the first

[35:23] proposal that was set out was to be rerouted onto our second residential lot

[35:27] 34688 on lry road and we wanted to ensure that it does not hinder future

[35:32] development opportunities on that second lot if we were to sell or build on that

[35:36] lot so if there were a drain to go through it or partially on it we just

[35:40] wanted to make sure that it wasn't going to hinder future development for our own

[35:44] um what you want say yeah so is there a way of zooming in on your picture your

[35:50] image of the the map there at 34688 almost in the center of that Frontage of

[35:57] the property that's where the drain connects

[36:04] in see if we can get that bigger

[36:10] sorry that's not

[36:25] bigger yeah almost in the center of that front

[36:30] edge there okay yeah

[36:36] problem so where the drain ties in I'm not I'm not exactly sure as to where the

[36:40] drain continues from there so on the drawing that we have in an

[36:45] email it's a blue line going to the catch Basin we're not sure where it

[36:50] continues from there so if it goes across our properties to the South and

[36:55] then then goes down the road there or if it goes straight back towards um Denny's

[36:59] field there okay uh looking for a little more

[37:04] clarity Okay who wants to who wants to approach

[37:09] that Jen I can oh Matt go ahead yeah I can quickly provide some clarity on that

[37:17] as per our drawings the drain is supposed to run only along the west side

[37:20] of liry and then uh West on of sable so what's going to happen is it's going to

[37:25] go into the uh the in property 3477 through one of the proposed lots

[37:30] and then down to El so it really should there is no connection to any

[37:35] neighboring properties okay thank you so you said on it's going to run on the

[37:39] west side correct yep so down the west side of ly there into the site and

[37:46] then okay Jaden J maybe Jadon yeah thank you Mr Mayor through you just want to

[37:53] clarify our doin engineering Inc is current ly working on this and um they

[37:59] haven't prepared a draft report yet so it's preliminary to say which side

[38:04] it's on I'm just looking at the the meeting notes here so it hasn't been

[38:08] determined yet I know they were looking at the west side and that was looking

[38:11] more likely but it is uh that's not determined yet they're still working

[38:14] through that process okay so it's still in process at this point okay thank you

[38:20] thank you no um it's good I'm glad that we had the opportunity to come and

[38:24] obviously as stated in like my in the is that we all said we definitely have no

[38:28] qualms at all with any of our neighbors in L especially MOS we have no qualms

[38:32] whatsoever if I was in your spot I'd do the same thing um but obviously with

[38:36] four young children we've been there for 10 years and obviously if we could have

[38:39] a last say Obviously we wouldn't want more neighbors um and obviously l Road

[38:44] is very quiet so our kids learned how to ride their bikes on l Road so obviously

[38:48] if we had a choice we would say I don't want more neighbors but obviously um if

[38:54] this is what comes to but um yeah so any sort of notifications from here on out

[38:58] if we find more information I would totally love to learn about it as the

[39:02] days go on thanks all right thank you thank you thank you uh is there any more

[39:08] public comments on this

[39:12] application any more public comments on this time seeing none uh Council Council

[39:18] ke thank you mayor R Jaden any idea when that report for the drainage might be in

[39:25] place so that could maybe put neighbors Minds at

[39:30] rest yeah through the mayor we're expecting the the draft report in the

[39:34] next couple weeks thank

[39:38] you Council win thank you worship I have two

[39:43] comments or questions one is just to clarify and I think I got the answer

[39:48] would like clarification um any grinage work from this property uh would not be

[39:53] a cost to existing Neighbors the existing Community is that correct

[39:58] did I hear that correct Matt that is

[40:03] correct okay thank you my second comment goes back to the planner's report the

[40:08] planner was talking about neighborhood compatibility and her report and there

[40:13] was one of the respondents talked about outdoor lighting and light pollution

[40:18] would that be dealt with in terms of neighborhood

[40:25] compatibility so at this time um I don't believe that we have anything uh that

[40:31] speaks specifically to lighting um in the municipality's planning documents

[40:38] um that is something that could be considered through a future review of

[40:45] the municipality's planning documents but given that this is a standalone uh

[40:49] application for a plan of subdivision meaning that there's no Associated

[40:54] zoning bylaw Amendment attached to it um it's a little bit difficult um for us to

[41:00] consider that through this subject application

[41:06] specifically thank you just a second Ashley go ahead thank you your worship

[41:10] I'd just like to site that the municipality does not have an

[41:13] illumination bylaw at the time but we currently address concerns with lighting

[41:17] and between neighbors through our public nuisance bylaw and so it would be

[41:22] potentially covered under that Jaden were you to speak to this as

[41:27] well do you have something yes thank you through you just

[41:30] to add to the the main um the cost of the drainage Works

[41:35] um on page nine of the planner's report it does include the the comments from

[41:40] the um from the infrastructure and operations department and there was a

[41:44] comment there that prior to final approval the owner shall address all

[41:48] matters pertaining to the proposed relocation of the existing Municipal

[41:51] drain which currently runs through the property to be developed to the

[41:54] satisfaction of the municip and that the owner shall be responsible

[41:58] for all costs associated with the municipal drain relocation so that was a

[42:02] comment we put forward and we'd expect that to be carried into the subdivision

[42:05] agreement perfect thank you all right Council canel thank you Mayor Rob uh

[42:11] guess my question is for the developer maybe perhaps Matt um what's the time

[42:15] frame for this project to uh to

[42:23] begin um we don't have a we don't have a direct timeline at this stage um I could

[42:30] also my colleague Matt Campbell's partner with s link p is also on this

[42:33] call right now if he wanted to perhaps speak to

[42:39] that I don't know if he has speaking ability in this meeting although he

[42:44] should be in the zoom

[42:51] call good evening Council it's Matt Campbell here can you hear me yes

[42:56] wonderful uh thanks to my colleague Matt for passing that over so Matt is

[43:00] absolutely correct there's no defined timeline for this in this type of

[43:04] development scenario we typically see site development you know actual uh work

[43:09] proceeding on the ground you know probably within a year of the draft

[43:15] approval of the subdivision if the county sees to it that that's what uh

[43:19] the county would like to De with that there's quite a while uh and there's a

[43:23] lot of work that has to be taken into account

[43:26] engineering drainage so on and so forth that has to be done well in advance

[43:30] before any soil actually gets moved so I would estimate you know a year uh and

[43:36] that's probably on the shorter time frame usually it's a little bit longer

[43:41] than that but I know that there's uh some everyone has pushes to get things

[43:45] done quicker so probably plus or minus a year thank you okay Council irn you had

[43:51] a followup uh yes worship and that just follows the last comment we have a

[43:55] number members of the community here this evening I think they'd like to hear

[44:00] the the uh the process going forward timelines next meetings Etc so they have

[44:06] it in their they have it in their schedule what the next steps will be so

[44:09] if we could just take a moment under the uh our planner or the developers planner

[44:14] to talk about the next steps and timelines for the people of the

[44:18] community okay I would I would think that's up to the

[44:22] developer for timelines or Abby do you want to speak to that sure I'm happy too

[44:27] okay um so essentially um what we were planning to do with uh this subject

[44:33] application was bring forward a recommendation report at the March

[44:38] council meeting um so subsequent to that and um

[44:43] depending on um this council's um recommendation uh it will then be

[44:49] forwarded to the county of middlex um for the ultimate draft plan approval um

[44:56] which is generally subject to several conditions um and members of the public

[45:03] are able to uh request notice of that decision from the county um so yeah and

[45:09] so that would be on March 6th that's cor that's our planning meeting yes yep

[45:15] thank you anything else on that Council

[45:21] win any other comments questions Council dagel

[45:26] if we're looking at doing that on March 6 I'd like to see the engineering report

[45:30] from doin here at the same time aen is that

[45:36] possible through year worship um I know the the next step is the draft report

[45:41] which I think then there would be an informal meeting with um all the land

[45:45] owners um but I just have to confirm that with doin when that will be

[45:48] available and how that aligns the timeline

[45:53] okay all right so tonight we're here just it's strictly for information

[45:57] receive this for information and I know this is the first time it's come before

[46:00] Council as well Council hasn't seen this application I want to thank everyone

[46:04] from the public on that and I I hope they got clarification from the

[46:07] developer on the concerns that they had and I understand uh when there's only 13

[46:12] houses in the community and you're adding seven but uh just a comment I

[46:17] would make that there was two houses put really close to me that have no way

[46:20] they're put those in there's not enough room and I do have two new Good

[46:24] Neighbors on it so it's just want to make that comment do it that uh it isn't

[46:29] some hopefully it works out well if there's nothing else we have a

[46:33] recommendation to this for information councelor dagel councelor Nera all in

[46:38] favor carried thank you thank you thank you thanks

[46:44] mat uh our final application is a notice of public meeting for application zba

[46:51] 32024 located at 29463 Co Stream Road and Paul I believe

[46:57] you're if you're by yourself St actually your worship um the owner Hans Clan is

[47:03] here I it's a relativ application I don't know if we

[47:08] need to you know he's welcome to come up but if he wants to add something after

[47:12] he certainly can come forward and add sounds good go ahead

[47:17] Abby thank you your honor uh so the purpose and effect of the subject

[47:21] application is to implement a condition of consent uh associated with consent V8

[47:27] 2023 which conditionally severed a lot with an area of approximately

[47:33] 39.73 hectar in order to accommodate the disposal of a surplus Farm

[47:43] dwelling um so the application proposes to reone the severed lot of consent B8

[47:49] 2023 from the general agricultural A1 Zone to the agricultural small holding

[47:55] exception ag1 Zone to recognize the residential use of

[48:00] PLS application or sorry um the application also proposes to reone the

[48:06] retain lands of consent V8 2023 from the general agricultural A1 Zone to the

[48:11] general agricultural exception

[48:15] a1. 103 Zone to prohibit the establishment of new dwellings on the

[48:20] REM F so the lands to be severed uh contain

[48:27] agricultural out buildings to be removed and agricultural lands in Crop

[48:33] Production that's the lands to be retained

[48:36] sorry um and the lands to be

[48:41] severed okay so sorry I just need to correct myself here so the lands to be

[48:46] severed contain a single detou dwelling an accessory building a green Silo and

[48:51] are serviced by Municipal Water and private septic um

[48:56] and they have existing access off of Coldstream Road and then the um lands to

[49:01] be retained contain agricultural out buildings to be removed and agricultural

[49:05] lands in Crop Production uh so the subject lands are

[49:10] designated agricultural within the North Middle sex official plan uh and contain

[49:14] Hazard lands as for schedule a of the North Middle sex official plan anded

[49:18] Woodlands as for Schedule C of the north ex

[49:21] plan the subject lands are zoned General agriculture A1 within the North Middle

[49:27] sex zoning bylaw and a portion of these lands are regulated by the ass bfield

[49:32] conservation Authority so the provincial policy statement the county official

[49:36] plan and the municipalities official plan generally permit lot Creation in

[49:40] agricultural areas to dispose of a dwelling Surplus to a farming operation

[49:44] as a result of farm consolidation subject to evaluation

[49:48] criteria uh so the subject resoning was requested in accordance with Section uh

[49:54] 6.2 D3 three of the North Middle sex official plan um and it is noted that

[49:59] all other criteria from 6.2 D um has been met or is capable of being met

[50:06] through the conditions of the conditionally approved consent so in all

[50:11] uh staff are satisfied that the application of the Agricultural small

[50:15] holding ag1 zone is appropriate to recognize the residential use of the

[50:20] lands to be severed and that the application of the general agricultural

[50:24] exception a1103 Zone prohibit the establishment of

[50:29] new dwellings on the remnant Farm parcel is appropriate um and as such uh staff

[50:35] are supportive of the proposed zone changes in terms of agency

[50:41] circulation um the manager of infrastructure and operations as well as

[50:46] the County engineer had no comments at the time of writing the subject report

[50:51] no comments or concerns were received from the public um So based on the

[50:57] foring it is my recommendation that the subject application be approved for the

[51:01] reasons outlined in my report thank you thanks Abby oh thank you your worship I

[51:07] have no comments I agree with no comments at this time is there any

[51:11] asking there's no written uh comments is anyone from the public wants to speak on

[51:15] this application seeing no one Council

[51:20] questions comments mayor hodgin thank you Mr

[51:26] uh just a question to the some of the the um I'm just going to read it here

[51:32] the lands to be retained contain a single detached dwelling F accessory

[51:36] building f a green Sil and are just and our service by Municipal Water okay why

[51:44] are we keeping the gr we've

[51:48] asked taken down and I'm thinking it's probably a steel Greenery I'm not sure

[51:54] because the 91 the map I got the 9911 number is right over the thing and I

[51:59] can't just see the whole picture I'm just I I believe it has been taken down

[52:05] right it's it has been removed it's just an old uh

[52:13] photo absolutely okay so it's remov any other questions

[52:17] comments that was it no other questions we have a recommendation to approve this

[52:23] application move by councilor Ellison second by councel Nera all in favor

[52:28] Carri thank you thank you very much thank you worship thank you Council

[52:32] those are my matters uh just before the we're done

[52:36] with our planning for this evening but I just want to say thank you to Abby for

[52:40] uh a short time that you've been here but but uh the work you've done on all

[52:45] of these RS and at the same time I want to introduce Ashley I don't know if

[52:49] everybody had the opportunity to meet Ashley she'll be doing our planning

[52:52] going forward I believe Abby you will be working on official plan yeah that's

[52:57] correct so I'm going to be moving back to my policy Focus role but it does

[53:01] sound like I will be back later this year to get the ball rolling on the

[53:06] official plan review that's upcoming okay yes canelon I do have one question

[53:13] that is Ashley you continue to be here on Tuesdays for with the public and

[53:17] address any questions they may have great question thank you um so the days

[53:21] are going to be Wednesday going forward well will be here Thursdays of well

[53:24] start um so I'll be here two days instead of just one so that's Wednesdays

[53:28] and Thursdays not Tu yes correct okay because I told somebody yesterday you're

[53:32] GNA be here Tu have to change thank yes but that was that was a great question

[53:36] that was a great comment but thank you very much Abby and look forward to

[53:40] working thank you all right our next uh is the start of our department reports

[53:46] and I believe our first one up is oh sir we need a motion to go out of

[53:52] Committee of adjustment and rejoin regular meeting councelor

[53:55] C Nera all in favor carried thank you now our first item is uh AR's coming in

[54:02] person here to do the report that's the first one and your second one I believe

[54:06] is on the agreement correct the floor is yours when you're ready

[54:16] aren't I always lose the

[54:20] crowd I do I guess

[54:25] uh good evening mayor and Council thanks for having me today uh have two reports

[54:29] through take to council today for your consideration uh my first report is a

[54:34] fourth quarter and year end report uh to give Council an idea of building permit

[54:38] activity that we've seen for 2023 um so I'll I'll briefly step

[54:43] Council through through the report and I'll first start by saying that 2023 was

[54:48] actually a very decent year considering what we've seen uh in the southwest

[54:52] region uh some municipalities were hit very heavily uh with the residential

[54:57] decline middle sex Center being one L mid off as well we saw a great reduction

[55:01] in housing starts new dwellings um some of our neighbors Southwest Middle sex

[55:06] and Mecca have actually had very good years better than in previous so uh and

[55:11] North Middle sex really held its own so a good report really considering what

[55:16] what some of our neighbors and others in Southern Ontario seen so um we have a

[55:21] slight decrease in new homes uh this past year of 26 down from 30 in 2022 and

[55:28] the the cost of construction went I believe down from 46 million down to 42

[55:32] million or 41 million so generally uh a slight reduction in cost of construction

[55:38] as well but like I said it's it was a very decent

[55:42] year uh with my year reports I like to highlight a couple um couple of

[55:47] significant events that occurred each year so I can say

[55:51] for uh for last year I'm I'm happy to say that we brought a new building bylaw

[55:56] to council um we do building inspection for five municipalities and I'm pleased

[56:01] to say that each of those five municipalities all pass the same

[56:04] building byw that's very helpful for staff in processing building permits um

[56:09] things from inspections that we do uh some of the policies in the department

[56:14] and refund policy refund policies even they're all in that same building bylaw

[56:18] so there a nice level of consistency we can all work work from so uh it's nice

[56:22] to have that um a year prior we developed a consistent U fee bylaw with

[56:28] the three municipalities that joined our group so um again more consistency it's

[56:32] a it's another accomplishment when we brought on the program those were the

[56:36] two two things we wanted to set forth first is the consistent PES and a

[56:40] consistent building bylaw so I'm pleased to say we achieved that um also last

[56:45] year uh we were a recipient of an award at at Amo for our uh our shared service

[56:51] agreement for the five municipalities so thought I'd

[56:55] throw that out one more time to council and probably let it go after this oh

[56:59] yeah we're doing the agreement tonight aren't we

[57:04] that um so in my report I have a few tables here outlining a lot of

[57:08] Statistics I'm not sure if council's had a chance to look at it or not but uh

[57:12] it's a comparison table one is a comparison of permits and new dwellings

[57:18] uh and cost of construction at each municipality scene so you can kind of

[57:21] see how North Middle sex did compared to its neighbors and some po

[57:25] uh in total our Building Division issued 962 permits slightly down from

[57:31] 1146 in 2022 and we approved 268 new dwellings this is across the five mes

[57:38] not just North Middle sex uh 268 new dwellings in in this region down from

[57:43] 284 um and three apartment buildings um it's a slight reduction but um and

[57:49] Southwest Middle sex ad mcaf actually brought things up where middle sex

[57:53] Center look off kind of dragged it down so um all in all it's it was a good year

[57:58] we paid the bills and we H part of that storm but it was it was a much slower

[58:02] year than what we've seen

[58:06] previously um table two is a specific breakdown for the

[58:12] fourth quarter what we saw in the fourth quarter and the year-to date numbers and

[58:15] it's a breakdown with types of permits so it's how many singles we've seen how

[58:20] many garages T tools septic systems a lot of statistics here again what we saw

[58:26] in the fourth quarter what the year end numbers were uh as well as yearend

[58:29] numbers from the previous year so you can see you know how many pools we had

[58:33] last year compared to 2022 and the cost so it's again it's interesting

[58:39] information um looked at long term for the stat statisticians I

[58:46] guess the third table is a comparison of North Middle sex permits permit fees

[58:52] development charges collected and cost con construction over the past uh past

[58:56] six years so again it's a good comparator to see how how each year

[59:00] compares to the other um 151 permits is what we issued last year um building

[59:05] permit fees brought in were 222,000 uh development charges 300 over

[59:09] 300,000 in DCS and the construction value was over 41

[59:16] million um table four is a breakdown of new housing or new dwellings have been

[59:21] created again pretty consistent 2020 and 2022 with 26 and 30 those two years up

[59:27] from the previous couple years so um it's it'll be interesting to see how we

[59:31] do this year high hopes for what we're GNA see El Craig for example with the

[59:35] new subdivision there uh which leads to table five we have a breakdown um we

[59:40] like to break down by by settlement areas so you can see how much growth

[59:43] we've seen in Park Hill versus El parallel um so it's just some nice

[59:48] numbers to compare at over the over the next few years as

[59:53] well so that is my building report for the

[59:57] year end and I open any questions on that question Council Council

[1:00:02] Irwin just one question work on table five the rural areas is that any the

[1:00:08] other settlement area or is that strictly rural farm community yeah

[1:00:14] generally it's the rural farm community so if it's outside of Park Hiller

[1:00:20] car counc canelson AR my question has to do with

[1:00:24] the agricultural buildings and I noticed that that's still the the

[1:00:28] prevalant cost if you will or construction um are they primarily like

[1:00:34] livestock barns or they drive sheds or do you

[1:00:37] know uh through the mirror and shooting from the hip I can't really say but it's

[1:00:41] it's a combination of those whether it's a drive shed or a livestock building or

[1:00:45] a green bin or a silo they're all lumped in that one category of farm buildings

[1:00:50] uh if you want more information I can probably get that for you but

[1:00:55] I'm just curious if if this livestock building because like they tend to be

[1:00:58] more costly than any other structure going up on farm and a 23 million in

[1:01:02] change I'm assuming that there's a significant number of livestock

[1:01:06] buildings going up and I'm just wondering how many that's okay yeah

[1:01:10] through the mayor um I could probably get some more information for you um

[1:01:14] sometimes it's deceiving a building report we could have two permits that

[1:01:17] total 20 million um it's but we definitely have had agriculture has done

[1:01:22] very well over the last couple years and they haven't really been by the

[1:01:24] reduction that residential's been with it's not important okay thank you

[1:01:30] okay other questions counc ke thank you mayor up Arnie what would the turnaround

[1:01:35] time be on inspection uh should one be called in I actually had a rate figure

[1:01:39] just ask that day sure uh through the mayor so the building code requires an

[1:01:44] inspection within 48 Hours of notice uh our building bylaw we we've taken that

[1:01:49] down to 24 hours um and generally we meet that timeline so um what we'd like

[1:01:55] to is get the inspection requests in um I think by 8:00 the night before so when

[1:02:01] we come into work we know what our day is going to be that day but uh we should

[1:02:05] provide you an inspection the next day on

[1:02:08] request any other questions Council I did have one and it is on a smaller app

[1:02:14] permit and that would be a pool for example do you do inspections on the

[1:02:19] fencing being done and all through that or does that become a

[1:02:23] BYOD yeah uh to the mayor uh great question that's our primary inspection

[1:02:28] when it comes to pool permits is the safety of the yard including the fence

[1:02:32] and the gate uh we do look at you know how close the pool is to the property

[1:02:35] line and the pool equipment um but definitely we want to see the fence and

[1:02:39] gate there uh to close off a building permit we wouldn't leave that for by law

[1:02:42] enforcement perfect thank you no other questions we have a recommendation to

[1:02:47] receive this report Council dagel Council K all in

[1:02:51] favor carried and you're on again with agreement thank you mayor uh my second

[1:02:58] report uh is uh something that we've come up with regarding funding and U I'd

[1:03:04] like to just identify a typo in this report I apologize on page two at the

[1:03:09] very top we refer to since 2001 Building Inspections have been provided to North

[1:03:15] Middle sex from middlex center it's 2021 not 200 but the the intent of that was

[1:03:21] um where I'm going to start with so in 2001 middlex Center started doing

[1:03:26] Building Inspections for luk Mid and doing our inspections uh we build it out

[1:03:31] based on the kilometers that we drove and the hours that we spent on files for

[1:03:36] LOL and we did day-to-day hour tracking and we sent an invoice to Luc Midol

[1:03:42] quarterly um and we've been doing that for 20 years so when we took on self

[1:03:47] middle sex meaf and North Middle SE we continued with that time tracking we

[1:03:52] tracking our hours every day uh and also look the kilometers that we drive um we

[1:03:58] found that now to be fairly honorous for staff to continue time tracking hour by

[1:04:03] hour and we also found it very predictable that uh what we estimate

[1:04:09] right now is about two and a half building inspectors are used to inspect

[1:04:12] for the four municipalities and so rather than time

[1:04:16] tracking our hour hour by hour operations whether it's plans

[1:04:20] review uh time on the telephone or doing our inspections we like we've come up

[1:04:25] with a new for funding formula that we like the councils to approve uh so right

[1:04:29] now our agreement refers to time tracking by hour we like to revise that

[1:04:34] agreement to come up with a a formula that we've approved or or we've

[1:04:37] developed uh which is based on a combination of the assessment of the

[1:04:41] municipality so a larger municipality midle North Middle sex has a higher

[1:04:45] assessment than that uh so a combination of the

[1:04:48] assessment of the municipality as well as the construction U uh the fees

[1:04:53] collected by that municipality so it's it's it's 50% of each where each year

[1:05:00] we'll look at the previous year and a half to see compare the assessment and

[1:05:05] compare the uh the fees that have been generated by each municipality and we

[1:05:09] would juggle out the costing of Two and a Half building inspectors and a small

[1:05:13] portion of Chief Building official uh and we would approve we would provide

[1:05:18] that to your accounting team for budgeting at the beginning of the year

[1:05:22] so that's what we'd like to take to council today is that new process rather

[1:05:25] than SP time and just to get it documented into the

[1:05:29] agreement so will that be that would be a huge saving on time corre I would

[1:05:34] think on administrative time it is quite a bit administrative time for our

[1:05:38] building inspectors and also for building and things okay I was quite a

[1:05:41] bit involved okay I'll turn that over to council for

[1:05:46] questions I just one comment I would make it's just and it's just a typo on

[1:05:52] uh 4.1 and it is just it says in the in the

[1:05:56] event that uh that said of that there is an increase of 10% is that it says that

[1:06:03] three is increase could be it should be there instead of

[1:06:07] three okay okay that's on the last paragraph that's just it's just a type

[1:06:13] and Through the Mirror if I can add one one final thing our billing last year

[1:06:17] was $118,000 to North Middle sex and right now we're we're suggesting it be

[1:06:21] 129 for 2024 so that's we we've done the numbers for 2024

[1:06:26] that's what it would be in case council is wondering okay any other questions

[1:06:31] comments counc Kelis thank you may Rob AR I understand rationale for your

[1:06:35] argument in your presentation however should the construction industry slow

[1:06:40] down and then we're we're we're bearing the cross of these costs that may not be

[1:06:45] needed how how are we going to work with that yeah through the mirror that's a

[1:06:48] great question and there is that risk uh what we've seen over the previous five

[1:06:52] years that each has uh resulted or has come up with a still a decent Surplus

[1:06:59] that Surplus will go into a contingency fund or Reserve fund at the municipality

[1:07:05] that can be used for the slow years so this year we're budgeting based on the

[1:07:10] previous two years uh of what we've seen for activity over those years you have

[1:07:15] seen a surplus and some funds should have gone into a building building

[1:07:19] department Reserve fund to take care of those those light years um my hopeful

[1:07:24] that we won't see that if we do then we may be here having that conversation

[1:07:27] next year but right now our plan is to have it build out this way um and hopes

[1:07:32] that that will cover things I have one more question if I may

[1:07:37] and that's on the uh number three page three I believe building serves the

[1:07:42] calculations for building and uh if I look at the um

[1:07:48] permanent revenue and I look down there and I see

[1:07:53] North middle section at 27% and Southwest Middle SE at 32% and I'm just

[1:07:59] wondering how you we can come to the conclusion of the costing out and your

[1:08:09] proposal sorry just bear with me for a moment if you don't no problem it's yes

[1:08:14] the permit revenue is the middle graph yeah so through the mayor uh the middle

[1:08:19] table shows the permanent revenue of each of those municipalities in 2022 uh

[1:08:24] those four municipalities have come up with $760,000 in

[1:08:28] Revenue um below that is is a percentage I guess of each of those municipalities

[1:08:33] how much of that 760,000 was their cont was is there is their piece of that P

[1:08:39] and um so that's that's what that percentage

[1:08:43] refers to so sellus middle sex had a um had a significant permit Revenue um I

[1:08:50] guess that's your your 20% for North M sex oh sorry Southwest is 32% North

[1:08:56] Middle sex is

[1:09:01] 27 yeah if you look at the 2023 Revenue the totals um so the middle table third

[1:09:08] column over 2023 permit revenue is 276,000

[1:09:12] um in total I guess the total of that middle table is where we have that 32

[1:09:17] and the

[1:09:20] 27 if you see that yeah but but then it seems like when you go to the bottom

[1:09:24] graph the numbers are reversed right because then it goes to 27 and 32 and

[1:09:29] you slide over it goes to 32 and 26 so permit Revenue average is 27 for for 2%

[1:09:36] for us 32 for for Southwest and you slide over allocation pay municipalities

[1:09:41] the numbers are reversed so I'm just confused by that yeah and through the

[1:09:45] mayor those numbers reflect a combination of a waiting of the

[1:09:50] assessment column 2023 assessment column and the permit Revenue column so the the

[1:09:56] the First Column is 2023 assessment where North Middle sex is 37% and

[1:10:01] Southwest is 20 okay so assessment that's the value

[1:10:05] of the structures that are going no that's the assessment of the

[1:10:08] municipality so sex assessment is $2.1 billion I see okay and so it's it's a

[1:10:16] the waiting the allocation is half of it's weighted on the assessment of the

[1:10:20] municipality how large that municipality is the assess value so the over assess

[1:10:24] the overall assessed value of North middlex is 2.1 billion where the over

[1:10:28] assess the overall assess value of Southwest is two

[1:10:32] billion uh and that's the first category I guess that's you want to compare

[1:10:36] apples and apples I understand so we taken half the assessment weight and

[1:10:41] half of the uh Revenue this is similar to an agreement

[1:10:46] we had L Shores with the fire Services when it was assess based assessment

[1:10:51] based without representation correct very

[1:10:54] similar yeah very much we have the Tea Party in Boston on that it certainly is

[1:11:00] one of the challenges with a shared service agreement and we want to be as

[1:11:02] transparent as possible uh so we're still in the early stages of that the

[1:11:07] best way to to build out our time and to to C share this this serice thank you

[1:11:13] okay other questions uh just on that will this be a

[1:11:18] living document that's sort of at the end of the year it's renewed or it's

[1:11:23] checked and it's verified to see that it's that it's working yes great

[1:11:26] question thank you through the mayor um this document will change every year um

[1:11:31] and will B be based on the previous year's construction Value Plus the first

[1:11:35] half of the current year okay so and because we don't want to wait till the

[1:11:39] end of the year because we all do our budgets at different times middlex

[1:11:43] Center we want to get our budget set um in the third quarter so at the first

[1:11:47] half of this year we'll we'll come up with uh the total construction uh

[1:11:52] Revenue this year year plus last year so it'll be a year and a half and every

[1:11:57] year we'll recalculate it all right thank you any other

[1:12:01] questions counc just um TW a question to worship so this year's a pilot pardon me

[1:12:09] 2024 will be a pilot year correct first year pilot year so can we review the

[1:12:16] whole uh weighted uh formula before 2025 because after first year we might have

[1:12:21] some service considerations or some other issues that kind of speaks to the

[1:12:25] mayor's question as well a council's direction yeah we we

[1:12:30] certainly can make it just for one year see how this works for our member

[1:12:33] municipalities and then consider bringing it

[1:12:37] back if that's council's wish that's uh that's what's in front of

[1:12:43] council council carelis do we need to make a decision

[1:12:50] tonight what would you defer for what I'm just ask if we need to make a

[1:12:54] decision ton well we have a recommendation that's up to Council

[1:12:59] Deal

[1:13:03] okay what's your wish counc deel I'd like I'd like to see it for one year so

[1:13:09] we can see where how it's working you're making that a

[1:13:14] motion you're seconding it any discussion on that in favor of

[1:13:21] that carried okay okay thank you very much thank you

[1:13:27] we'll be here again in the year yes we will I'll reach out to I think I think

[1:13:33] that's uh the good side to that I believe is the fact that it gives a

[1:13:36] chance to see where everybody's at so okay and it's not a reflection on the

[1:13:40] services understood understood thank you okay thank you

[1:13:46] thanks our next report is uh manager of infrastructure and ELR Water Tower

[1:13:54] project update and Stuart come on

[1:13:59] up are you coming up as well Rod no he's just gonna

[1:14:05] let okay okay perfect thank you yeah all right go ahead Jaden all

[1:14:12] right okay um good evening your worship and members of council um as mayor Ro

[1:14:20] mentioned we're joined here tonight by Stuart Winchester of SEMA Plus

[1:14:23] um who will be available to provide any additional information as required and

[1:14:27] to assist with answering um any questions from Council on this report um

[1:14:33] so as requested at a previous council meeting I've prepared an information

[1:14:36] report for Council for the Ala Craig Water Tower

[1:14:39] project um the report includes a timeline of the project in table one and

[1:14:45] there's a financial summary of the project

[1:14:47] provided as summarized in table two the design phase was completed approximately

[1:14:54] $45,000 under budget the Construction contract is estimated to be completed

[1:14:59] approximately $27,000 under budget and the site

[1:15:04] inspection and contract Administration contract is estimated to come in

[1:15:07] approximately 63,000 over budget SEMA Plus Engineering is

[1:15:12] requesting that their site inspection and contract Administration budget be

[1:15:15] increased by $63,000 to cover additional engineering costs incurred as a result

[1:15:21] of unforeseen project delays which summarized in the report and in the

[1:15:24] attached letter um this report also provides council with some information

[1:15:28] about project efficiencies including a summary of some of the main project

[1:15:33] efficiencies um and as of the most recent Payment Certificate there was

[1:15:37] still approximately $6,200 worth of uncompleted work and

[1:15:44] 7,750 of deficiency work remaining to be completed um the project is currently in

[1:15:50] the warranty um phase um it received substantial um performance in October

[1:15:57] 2022 so in October 2024 is when two-year warranty period comes to an end and the

[1:16:03] next steps on this project are going to be um working on addressing the

[1:16:07] outstanding deficiencies completing final testing and inspection and then

[1:16:12] final submittals um before total project completion so um I'm available and

[1:16:19] steuart's available to answer any questions Council ask question

[1:16:27] no questions c c k thank you mayor up uh Jaden and Stewart uh just reading

[1:16:34] through this here this afternoon um looking through the

[1:16:40] deficiency portion of this and uh it seems that we're almost being fed

[1:16:46] for uh adverse weather conditions um different uh ashphalt repairs top soil

[1:16:53] and that kind of stuff um why would we be why would that be on

[1:17:00] the municipalities back so through the mayor um those costs

[1:17:06] um you know those deficiencies identified those aren't items that we're

[1:17:10] we're paying for again um typically for deficiencies that's money that we'll

[1:17:16] hold back from the contractor um so when I covered the um that there's remaining

[1:17:23] um uncompleted work and deficiency work it's money we haven't paid to the

[1:17:26] contractor yet until we're satisfied that those deficiencies are addressed so

[1:17:31] um they did have to come back and and um address some of that the issues with top

[1:17:35] soil and the seed and they had to do a couple ashphalt um repairs when it

[1:17:40] wasn't satisfactory um so for those matters um

[1:17:45] we're not double paying or being penalized on

[1:17:48] them and that also like the calibration of that uh bulk water uh system that

[1:17:54] both you and I worked at to get that into play

[1:18:00] um okay I'll just leave it at that you CS thank you Jaden how was SEMA

[1:18:08] awarded this

[1:18:11] contract through the mayor um I wasn't here but I I believe that um

[1:18:18] the municipality information because I think

[1:18:21] he was here then but there was um an RFP process um so the project was put out to

[1:18:28] RFP and proposals were submitted by um multiple engineering firms and then they

[1:18:34] were selected um and recommended to be awarded the contract Council then so

[1:18:40] they submitted a bid correct and and Council accepted that bid yeah they

[1:18:46] submitted that proposal right and so now the the bid was not adequate to cover

[1:18:52] what these field are costs they're coming to us to increase the bid post

[1:18:59] taste that's correct um well is that not on on the bidder is it not on them then

[1:19:05] to be responsible to bid responsibly so maybe I'll open it up to steuart here as

[1:19:10] well provide comment I think what you're asking for is justification of the

[1:19:14] increas well absolutely because if they submit a bid like in my days as a

[1:19:20] contractor when I submitted a bid to construct the house I couldn't go back

[1:19:23] to the to the owner of the house say oh I had to hire an extra guy I got to

[1:19:26] charge more that's not how it works okay so I think but the question is you're

[1:19:30] what justification to the increase exactly I need to understand I need to

[1:19:35] understand what what promps you to come back and say well we had to do work that

[1:19:39] we didn't plan on what you should have planned on in your bidding

[1:19:42] process uh through you Mr Mayor uh the the bid process for the Els elevated

[1:19:50] tank identified um you know design requirements uh uh tendering

[1:19:56] requirements and a certain allowance for uh Services during construction uh as uh

[1:20:02] Jen has identified through the design phase we were uh somewhat efficient we

[1:20:07] were below budget uh and uh you know we're able to complete the design phase

[1:20:13] and the tendering phase within uh our budget uh the construction phase is

[1:20:20] somewhat uh contingent on the performance the contractor uh and the

[1:20:25] amount of time that it takes the contractor to finish the the work in

[1:20:29] this particular case and and as outlined in our letter I may I believe it was of

[1:20:36] 2023 uh there were a number of delays that

[1:20:39] uh realistically were beyond the the contractor control there was the uh the

[1:20:45] crane operators strike that uh extended the construction period by at least a

[1:20:50] month uh then there was uh issues with uh subcontractors doing codings and well

[1:20:57] first off the delay because of the the crane operators um strike uh put the

[1:21:04] codings uh application into adverse weather conditions so things got delayed

[1:21:09] got delayed delayed as a result there was through that delay there was

[1:21:14] additional uh engineering effort required to ongoing inspection uh for

[1:21:20] for the uh through that construction period

[1:21:23] and those are the costs that we're trying to uh you know make sure that

[1:21:28] we're you know we're uh compensated and I understand your point

[1:21:33] I I do I hear what you said but I guess my my thought is why should the rate

[1:21:37] pairs in North Middle sex be penalized for both oversight it's not their

[1:21:45] responsibility okay counc

[1:21:49] Hern thank you your worship through you um and thank you for the report at the

[1:21:54] bottom of page three of the report the last two paragraphs actually outline the

[1:21:58] delays and I'm curious uh you've mentioned two there's three here any of

[1:22:03] those delays um attributable to uh any actions on the

[1:22:08] municipality did we did we uh did we contribute to any of those delays any of

[1:22:14] our actions or activities uh through you Mr Mayor uh I

[1:22:19] do not believe that there was any actions by the ality that caused the

[1:22:24] delay uh you know the the as I indicated the um uh crane operator strike is

[1:22:32] something that is you know beyond anybody's control that in in in uh

[1:22:38] working on this particular project that that's certainly not something that's

[1:22:42] under the contractor's control nor our nor the municipalities control that

[1:22:48] you know that delay certainly uh contributed to overall cost over runs at

[1:22:53] least on our perspective uh as identified in uh Jaden's report we were

[1:22:59] still able to deliver the uh the construction of the project you know

[1:23:05] efficiently and we are still under the overall project budget great okay follow

[1:23:10] up on my second question the U the uh total of the additional costs is

[1:23:19] $63,800 per of the total are you suggest ing the municipality pick up 100% or is

[1:23:25] that a percentage part of the uh cost overrun is that 100% 50%

[1:23:34] 75% uh through you Mr Mayor and I I you know without having all the numbers in

[1:23:40] front of me uh that number would be uh the costs that have been incurred by

[1:23:46] SEMA for uh for the additional construction

[1:23:50] period but do not ref reflect the uh the design budget that was not

[1:23:56] utilized okay councelor Keel you you're good councelor

[1:24:03] Nera so is this the list the list here in your report the list of deficiencies

[1:24:09] are these these six things still have to be completed then Jaden J through the

[1:24:17] mayor um no those aren't the the remaining outstanding deficiencies I

[1:24:21] just wanted to provide some of the main deficiencies that that

[1:24:25] we had been working on just to sort of characterize the general of the

[1:24:29] deficiencies so is there still 60 outstanding or how many are outstanding

[1:24:35] because this has been going on for 16 months and we're still

[1:24:39] not full completion through the mayor there's certainly not 60 outstanding

[1:24:44] deficiencies um I believe that was the the total amount that was addressed and

[1:24:48] then they would be reduced over time um I don't have an exact count of the

[1:24:54] deficiencies um I want to say it's it's in the order of less than 10 um but the

[1:25:00] total value is identified um so there's $7,750 worth of uh remaining deficiency

[1:25:08] work just to follow up why isn't that work being done do we

[1:25:15] know through the mayor um it has been um challenging to I guess

[1:25:21] get the to get the contractor back to site to

[1:25:24] address some of these um the tower is operational so um some of these

[1:25:30] outstanding deficiencies I guess they're just um not being um prioritized quite

[1:25:36] as much as we'd like to see but I'm not sure if steart if you any add about um

[1:25:40] status of deficiencies or why not being addressed uh through you Mr Mayor I do

[1:25:44] know that the the contractor has been attempting to rectify certain

[1:25:49] deficiencies uh some of their equipment suppliers have been to the site to

[1:25:53] address uh a problem with one of the control valves and uh Rod can speak to

[1:26:00] that as well uh they have come with their forces to address it I understand

[1:26:05] that they did some work have left and have not resolved that is so that's why

[1:26:10] those items are remaining on the deficiency list we will make sure that

[1:26:15] those things are corrected before uh the final uh payments are being made to the

[1:26:21] the contractor the end of the the warranty um you know and if need be uh

[1:26:27] we can direct uh that those be corrected by the municipality and the cost

[1:26:32] deducted from

[1:26:35] the okay I think

[1:26:39] so you think so uh okay just to follow up on that so these are landmarkers

[1:26:46] respons to do the repairs at this point for you Mr Mayor yes that is correct and

[1:26:52] so but I am to your point Stuart is um how long do you wait uh it's one thing

[1:26:58] not to have saw put down or grass planted but it's another thing when I

[1:27:02] hear a valve is not what it should be Y and so I'm really at the to me it's like

[1:27:10] let's get it fixed and send them the bill or subtract it from their bill or

[1:27:14] whatever but I'm I agree that we've talked about these deficiencies and I

[1:27:19] know Aqua has been here and I think we ask every time about how they're going

[1:27:24] and it's a tough process and I would like to see I know this a little bit off

[1:27:28] topic but it isn't because we're hiring SEMA to look after that stuff right and

[1:27:33] I guess that's where I'm a little bit I'm a little off on it I understand what

[1:27:38] coun canelon was getting at and because you're you're working for our interests

[1:27:44] and U I'd like to see those deficiencies cleaned up I think that is Absolut as I

[1:27:49] said it's one thing when grass wasn't SE didn't catch or whatever when valves and

[1:27:54] things like that those are certainly important because if something goes

[1:27:58] wrong we're going to go talk to rod and say you know what did you do and if he

[1:28:03] tells us it's a valve that I've been complain or I haven't had fixed you know

[1:28:07] shame on us right so I think with part of this we need to get these

[1:28:11] deficiencies addressed one way or down and and um I know it's your report Jaden

[1:28:16] I don't mean to look just used to it but but that's where I think that's just a

[1:28:20] comment a followup to coun ner counc ke youe thank you Mayor Rob yeah actually

[1:28:26] it's just a comment and uh and I think all members of council Council are

[1:28:33] kind of the same thought that um it's a little Brash to come and want more money

[1:28:39] nothing repaired nothing resolved and then our next uh topic

[1:28:47] is another contract U yeah let's let's stay on this one

[1:28:53] it's the point I'm trying perhaps maybe there's there's a certain level of

[1:28:59] lightess but I guess I just getting to it is it's Brash to come want more it's

[1:29:04] not what's it going to take through you Mr May the the budget

[1:29:11] estimate that we provided back in May was to take the our component of the

[1:29:16] project to completion so everything that would be required through the the

[1:29:21] remaining remainder of the of the warranty period

[1:29:25] so ensuring that all the deficiencies are corrected uh completing the uh

[1:29:30] two-year warranty inspection making sure that you know if there are any defects

[1:29:34] that are found at the the two-year warranty inspection are addressed doing

[1:29:38] those inspections that would be included within that U uh additional fund request

[1:29:45] that's Within These that's in the scope of these parts okay thank

[1:29:50] you okay counc Q councelor D what

[1:29:57] happens if we get to October these things aren't

[1:30:01] done and so we build them or have to have it done and it costs more than the

[1:30:07] money we have left so I think that's addressed to you Jaden I I would think

[1:30:12] that's coming to what through the mayor I mean that's a

[1:30:17] bit of a contractual like wonder if Stuart might have more expertise with

[1:30:21] that

[1:30:26] I through you Mr Mayor the under the contract we have certain money set aside

[1:30:32] for deficiencies and uncompleted work but in addition to that we have a

[1:30:36] substantial amount of money that's held back as warranty hold back so anything

[1:30:40] that is identified at the end of the warranty and you know immediately prior

[1:30:45] to full completion of the project uh if there are Works to be done we have those

[1:30:50] funds available I don't recall the number uh or the value of the

[1:30:55] maintenance hold back off the top of my head but it would be well in excess of

[1:30:59] $100,000 that we' still holding on on the contractor

[1:31:05] on my fear would be if we get into valving and issues like that it come to

[1:31:12] $100,000 okay Irwin just a final comment you

[1:31:18] worship which may or may not be addressed goes back to my original two

[1:31:22] questions one is none of the cost overrun can be contributed to anything

[1:31:27] the municipality did and secondly 100% of the cost overrun in terms of

[1:31:34] fees are being asked by us to pay and I find that rather

[1:31:43] unfair okay that's more of a comment you're not

[1:31:47] really looking for an answer to that that's a comment

[1:31:50] me are you question I'll leave it up to

[1:31:55] whomever want are you putting a question in that was a question pretend there's a

[1:32:00] question mark at the end that is a

[1:32:06] St through you Mr Mayor I I certainly do understand uh you know the the

[1:32:11] perception of um you know we submitted a bid um and you know we should be

[1:32:16] complying with the bid however you know the during

[1:32:20] construction uh the amount of effort that uh as the engineering consultant

[1:32:25] that we have to provide is is somewhat unknown um that

[1:32:32] we you know on a typical project we will uh you know incur certain costs incur a

[1:32:37] certain amount of effort through the construction period uh however

[1:32:43] performance of the contractor uh certainly has an influence on it

[1:32:47] duration of the contract certainly has an influence on it we needed we need to

[1:32:52] provide inspection during the active construction period and you know the the

[1:32:58] efficiency of the contractor addressing defects and achieving final completion

[1:33:03] of the contract certainly impacts the level of effort we are required to

[1:33:09] provide you know throughout uh the you know this period uh no this will

[1:33:16] probably not sound the best we have put as much effort in as we reasonably can

[1:33:21] to make sure that the contractor is addressing all the works and all the uh

[1:33:26] the outstanding works but certainly you know if uh if

[1:33:32] there is non-performance there are steps we can take we have not taken those yet

[1:33:36] to uh Force the contractor to to jump uh but uh based on your comments Mr Mayor

[1:33:44] uh I think we have our direction to uh uh force uh Landmark to move forward

[1:33:50] quickly especially on that the Val isue yeah thank you that's that absolutely is

[1:33:56] the case because I do believe we ask uh Aqua every time they come in are the

[1:34:02] deficiencies being addressed and I know I believe the answer was it's a process

[1:34:08] to me that's that's a wait go ahead councel nerd I just have a followup to

[1:34:13] that so again we've been waiting 16 months how much longer are we going to

[1:34:20] wait through you Mr Mayor uh we will we will provide instructions to to Landmark

[1:34:26] to have that work completed within within a week if they are unable to give

[1:34:31] us a a clear answer or or let me rephrase that have the work completed

[1:34:37] within a week or submit a uh a schedu an acceptable schedule to North Middle sex

[1:34:42] within a week and if that's not done then we are free to move forward and

[1:34:47] have the repairs done on landmark's behalf thank you and I think having a

[1:34:52] schedule given is is a fair to say that have it all done in a

[1:34:59] week yeah the schedule of time any other questions on

[1:35:04] this you're better now okay oh you better not I thought you

[1:35:09] said you're better now so okay any other questions any other comments we have a

[1:35:13] recommendation in front of you what is the way of

[1:35:20] coun

[1:35:23] I would maybe agree to it when it's complete when it's this increase so

[1:35:31] 63,000 rise contract price

[1:35:36] $444,000 so you're so let me get the motion that you're making that you're

[1:35:42] saying you agreeing to the motion with the deficiencies uh looked after is that

[1:35:47] what you're saying I'm trying to get to increase when the deficiencies are

[1:35:52] looked

[1:35:56] after yeah that is deferring that's what you're saying till the correct sorry is

[1:36:02] there that's what I wanted to just get is there a seconder on

[1:36:07] that Council yes Deputy Mayor hodgin okay in

[1:36:14] favor of that motion okay yeah go ahead if I may mar I

[1:36:19] have a question so is your motion then we pay the full amount requested when

[1:36:22] the deficiencies are completed or that the the amount owing or what we're going

[1:36:27] to subsidize is open for

[1:36:33] negotiation my motion is agreed to the $63,000 increase upon full completion of

[1:36:41] the defic of the deficiencies this way it's SEC Cur front of the

[1:36:45] nose to get it done and and I think I heard steuart

[1:36:51] allude or make a comment that they're going to hold Landmark accountable for

[1:36:54] some of this is that did I hear that yes he's going the deficiencies

[1:37:00] SEMA is going to contact Landmark to get a schedule within a week to get a

[1:37:05] schedule for completion deficiencies and the steart going to go after Landmark

[1:37:10] for some of the costs associated with those deficiencies and the delays that's

[1:37:14] a question we'd ask uh through you Mr Mayor

[1:37:19] um under the under the contract the delays would be beyond the contractor's

[1:37:24] control uh and because of that there was an extension to the contract the and as

[1:37:31] such uh liquidated damages for late the completion would not be applicable there

[1:37:37] is no mechanism to go after Landmark for additional engineering

[1:37:42] costs and and how was that negotiated like who agreed to extend the contract

[1:37:46] time that was agreed to through the construction period sorry

[1:37:51] no go ahead go ahead okay was Miss P agree to

[1:37:59] that through the mayor I think that I don't have that information right handy

[1:38:03] I think that was before me but I think if it was related to the as Stewart said

[1:38:06] you know the cray strike and um as per the general conditions since acts like

[1:38:12] that they're permitted for contract extensions okay

[1:38:20] okay

[1:38:28] correct yeah the motion is deferral to but to pay the to pay the request upon

[1:38:33] comp successful completion of office yeah yes go

[1:38:40] ahead okay do you Mr Mayor bear with me here please me if I interpreted but the

[1:38:47] motion would be then that Council received this report for information and

[1:38:50] that Council increased the budget for the contract administrating Services

[1:38:55] contract with SEMA Plus Engineering for the LC Craig Water Tower project by $

[1:39:03] 63,64 for a revised total contract price of 40

[1:39:10] 444,000

[1:39:20] 448741166 one more not no late charges and no interest on that hold

[1:39:28] back no okay so we have that motion we have a second is there any more comment

[1:39:33] on none in

[1:39:37] favor in favor of that two

[1:39:42] three four oppos to that

[1:39:47] two it is passed

[1:39:51] okay thanks sir one one comment I will make to that project that was a good

[1:39:58] project it's a it's a good infrastructure in our community I do

[1:40:02] want to make that com that uh to that uh we do have I have been complaining about

[1:40:07] the deficiencies because I'm you know they need to be completed but it's a

[1:40:12] good piece of infrastructure and so I just want to make comment that okay we

[1:40:16] do have uh we have you doing your second report as well and that is for 5.8 that

[1:40:23] is for the Park Hill Main Street cost increases Jaden okay thank you Mr Mayor

[1:40:30] and through you um so the purpose of this report is um to request Council to

[1:40:37] approve the engineering budget for the Park Hill Main Street construction

[1:40:41] project um to approve increasing that budget by

[1:40:46] 9,545 for a revised total contract price of 63100

[1:40:53] 38150 um our engineering consultant see a plus provided their justification the

[1:40:57] cost increase in the letter which is attached to the

[1:41:01] report and to summarize the reasons they are um delayed project startup resulting

[1:41:09] in significant changes to the staging and progress of the work a significant

[1:41:13] number of unforeseen utility conflicts deficient granular road base

[1:41:18] required to be replaced uh very high level of effort

[1:41:21] required to deal with Excuse me combative nature of the

[1:41:26] contractor um two inspectors were inquired were required due to the

[1:41:30] revised construction staging um and then the last one was

[1:41:35] material and compaction testing not included in the original budget

[1:41:39] estimate um so in accordance with the municipality's procurement policy

[1:41:43] Council approval is required for capital expenditures which exceed the budget by

[1:41:50] more than 25 ,000 um and also just for council's

[1:41:54] reference included in the background of the report is just the uh reference to

[1:41:57] the previous reports for the um the award of the engineering uh contracts

[1:42:03] and the award of the construction and the contract Administration contract and

[1:42:07] a previous report um where there was a um an increase to the Construction

[1:42:13] contract price with prex instruction council's

[1:42:17] reference I'll open it up for questions

[1:42:22] who wants to start questions on

[1:42:26] that I I'll start um since I don't see anybody's hand up right now Stuart in

[1:42:32] that is about two inspectors or two inspectors on site does that include

[1:42:39] having you hired someone to help carry the

[1:42:43] project and so does that does that include that being the second

[1:42:48] person uh Mr May no the we did have two physical inspectors we had hary matharu

[1:42:55] and arpet Patel providing Inspection Services in addition to Alisa vby

[1:43:01] providing contct Administration Services okay so and I will ask this

[1:43:07] because you brought in you brought her in to help with the

[1:43:14] project we shouldn't be responsible to have to pay for that part of the you

[1:43:20] know um she was brought in to to or to look

[1:43:24] after to head that project uh not in the beginning she was brought in partway

[1:43:28] through and to her credit this is not a knock on anyone um the work that she did

[1:43:34] but could is part of this because you had to bring her in to help with the

[1:43:39] project because of the extra cost and I struggle with us bearing the brunt of if

[1:43:45] that's the case so I guess

[1:43:49] so certainly um um Mr Mayor certainly you know we did uh pay a higher rate for

[1:43:57] leasa services that we would have uh with uh with the contract administrator

[1:44:03] we had originally anticipated uh carrying going forward uh

[1:44:08] however the original proposal uh assumed uh uh a fair amount of senior oversight

[1:44:15] on the contract administrator that would have also been included within our fees

[1:44:21] that uh through negotiations with uh uh with Jaden I agreed that our senior

[1:44:28] oversight would not be built to North Middle

[1:44:32] so maybe not dollar for dollar but uh you know Lisa's cost would have been

[1:44:38] built to North Middle sex the senior oversight uh that was provided to Lisa

[1:44:44] was not built in North me we've absorbed that internally okay that's that's one

[1:44:49] part the other part before I turn it over to council is all these extra

[1:44:53] billing has to do with the time it took the overruns and time all this stuff and

[1:44:59] and that's as you know the other side I'm really struggling with because there

[1:45:04] was five weeks where I saw two guys with a rake there at that other end and

[1:45:08] otherwise nothing happened and then we keep hearing from uh from everyone that

[1:45:15] delays delays delays and everybody seems to be blaming everybody but the

[1:45:20] taxpayers here are are the ones getting the brunt of this and

[1:45:25] so that five weeks I look at you know the rush to get asheva done all these

[1:45:31] things and how quick the sidewalk got done once they did it it seemed to take

[1:45:36] no time but we struggle for all that time I I would even say almost two

[1:45:41] months where not much was accomplished and yet we are on the hook for all this

[1:45:45] time I'm so I I gotta say I'm personally pretty angry about this whole that part

[1:45:51] of the project I mean I look on Main Street I like it I'm not happy it took

[1:45:56] this long to get a light fixed but that part and that extra cost and

[1:46:02] it's coming from everywhere all these extra costs and none of it was on North

[1:46:07] Middle SE that I know of unless you can CH change my thinking that

[1:46:13] way um Mr Mayor um I I can't disagree with you um you

[1:46:20] know the that five six week delay where the the contractor was off site and

[1:46:25] refused to Pro progress the work at any time uh was frustrating to all of us um

[1:46:32] you know we were constantly on on bra to proceed with work there was no reason

[1:46:38] that they could not proceed with work uh that we are actually aware of um and as

[1:46:47] as you say once they came back to you know proceed with the sidewalk work they

[1:46:52] were able to to get that completed very quickly there's no reason that that

[1:46:56] couldn't have been done at that time to just to one additional point in

[1:47:02] there during that period of that that five or six weeks there would have been

[1:47:07] costs for the contract Administration related to meeting with the contractor

[1:47:12] pushing on the contractor however our inspectors were not on site and there

[1:47:16] there would be no charges for the inspection during that period

[1:47:21] okay um and that doesn't even count about how much and I'll leave it after

[1:47:25] this I'll I'll turn over to council about how

[1:47:28] much staff North Middle sex staff time was eaten up because of all this extra

[1:47:35] time and uh and energy that was wasted I will say for that time like there's

[1:47:43] there's quite a there's a lot of stuff that weren't able to be done because

[1:47:46] focusing on on different things that we shouldn't have had to f up because

[1:47:50] that's why we hire SEMA to look after it right but it just seemed that we had a

[1:47:55] lot of Staff doing a lot of work on as well I'll leave it at that because I

[1:47:59] don't think there's an answer for it I better let it go um councilor Irwin you

[1:48:04] had your hand up thank you worship two points for for clarification the first

[1:48:09] point is the additional cost outlined here is

[1:48:12] $195 45 and 50 cents and this is a shared project with the county is that

[1:48:18] additional cost all for North Middle

[1:48:22] SE K mayor there is a there is cost sharing there with the county um for

[1:48:28] these additional costs as well as um overall for the project

[1:48:33] costs just just to clarify that point you worship so is this our portion of

[1:48:38] the additional cost or would this part of this be shared with the county I'm

[1:48:42] not clear through the mayor part of that will be shared the county the exact

[1:48:48] portion of it I can't say right now um but the part of that is their cost this

[1:48:55] includes the county portion as well right through the mayor yes it's

[1:49:00] still all the same taxpayers I'm now your worship that rais

[1:49:05] additional question before I ask my second one um has this been presented to

[1:49:10] the county yet through the mayor um we we're

[1:49:16] keeping in close communication with the county um so they they participate in

[1:49:21] our our regular meetings um so with respect to this um piece of additional

[1:49:28] cost I'm not sure if uh if we have shared that with them but we are in

[1:49:32] regular communication and uh so they'll be

[1:49:36] aware do you have a second question yes well I several more but I'll just ask

[1:49:41] the second when I originally had your worship and maybe I'll come back if the

[1:49:45] rest of the council doesn't ask um in terms of of identifying the

[1:49:51] contractor um um assessing their ability to do the

[1:49:55] work and and and then finally awarding the contract to the company was SEMA

[1:50:00] communication was SEMA communication sorry was SEMA involved in any of those

[1:50:04] in activities uh through you uh Mr Mayor um

[1:50:11] for the tender process for the the Park Hill Main Street waterm project um North

[1:50:17] midle sex went through a pre-qualification process

[1:50:20] to uh pre-qualify you know competent contractors um the successful contractor

[1:50:29] certainly presented uh you know very good information uh within the

[1:50:35] pre-qualification documents um North Middle sex staff did a uh reference

[1:50:42] check on the contractors and received very positive references from for that

[1:50:47] particular contract um our contractor uh I'm not certain where those references

[1:50:54] came from um certainly not seen I I just I do want to say here that

[1:51:02] I don't want to go down a road that we shouldn't go that we shouldn't go down

[1:51:05] and they certainly showed the capable capable of doing the work that's that's

[1:51:10] not the issue so I I don't want to make it look like we got you know I don't

[1:51:15] want to badmouth any contracts or anybody go

[1:51:19] ahead you only asked that question because I heard in the Preamble that um

[1:51:24] part of the reason for the additional cost is competitive the the the nature

[1:51:30] of the contract um they were not easy to so I just want to understand if SEMA had

[1:51:36] any part in in assessing or helping us um award to that contract so I I can

[1:51:44] answer that question I think the only way we can and that is that SEMA brought

[1:51:48] a recommendation after getting all all the tender process

[1:51:52] sea SEMA brought a recommendation to council uh for that company to do the

[1:51:58] work and Council approv that and and uh that's we'll let it go

[1:52:03] with that I mean it's okay through you Mr Mayor I if I can yes

[1:52:10] following uh completion of the pre-qualification uh process uh we ended

[1:52:14] up I believe with four or five pre-qualified contractors each one of

[1:52:18] those contractors was invited to submit a a detailed Bid And The Selection uh

[1:52:25] essentially once we were passed the pre-qualification the uh or contractor

[1:52:31] selection was basically based on price or they may have been disqualified if

[1:52:36] there is irregularities or informalities within the bid uh unfortunately or in

[1:52:42] this case there wasn't any so there was uh you know we select based on

[1:52:47] loc okay coun Nera this last

[1:52:52] 119,000 is this the last payment is this the last amount of money that you're

[1:52:57] going to be asking for an increase there any more I guess my

[1:53:01] question is is there any more cost going forward or will this be the last time

[1:53:05] you come to C asking for more uh through you Mr Mayor um uh assuming that uh the

[1:53:13] pro or the contractor proceeds finishes their uh or corrects any deficiencies

[1:53:19] outstanding works in a reasonable schedule that would be

[1:53:22] it unfortunately uh at this point in time we do have a a claim that is in

[1:53:29] negotiation with North mle sex and there is you know I'm not sure where that's

[1:53:35] going to go uh so I'm not going to commit that this amount would cover our

[1:53:41] assistance in the claim

[1:53:45] negotiations and that's something another so yeah that that I'm assuming

[1:53:49] is would not be here any other questions on

[1:53:56] this no other questions we have a recommendation we have a recommendation

[1:54:01] in front of us and is that Council increase the

[1:54:05] budget for the contract Administration Services contract with SEMA engineering

[1:54:10] for the Park Hill ban Street construction project by

[1:54:13] [Music] 9,545 for revised total contract price

[1:54:18] of 631 ,

[1:54:24] 38150 this this is for services rendered you have

[1:54:29] to how can we vote for that if we don't know if we're paying what percentage of

[1:54:34] 119,000 how can how can we vote for this motion I have no idea if it's 118,000

[1:54:41] we're paying or 50,000 we're paying or whatever number it is until I have an

[1:54:45] actual number I

[1:54:48] can't so that's on the whole project though we you know we're paying for the

[1:54:54] whole project and then it's being built to County as a a third party we're

[1:54:59] looking after the project like we're we're uh in charge of this project the

[1:55:04] county let North Middle sex do this project so that will be figured out

[1:55:10] after the fact but this is all part of the cost and so I'm not sure where we

[1:55:15] could go with that comment made I'm not sure where we could Jaden

[1:55:20] thanks Mr Mayor just through you to maybe provide some um some clarification

[1:55:25] on that um so the county is committed certainly to paying their share their

[1:55:30] share and we have a close working relationship with them we have met with

[1:55:34] them to go through the cost sharing um unfortunately that wasn't something that

[1:55:38] was um established prior to construction which um you know would have been would

[1:55:43] have been good but we basically go through the contract line items um line

[1:55:47] by line and agree on who who's paying for what um generally their scope is

[1:55:52] contained to the the roadway from the curbs in and um the road reconstruction

[1:55:58] that we had to do so um it it would be a bit of a dynamic number with um what

[1:56:04] their portion of this would be because our expectation would be that once we do

[1:56:08] that line by line um analysis to figure out what their portion is that would

[1:56:14] establish a percentage and then their percentage share they would pay that

[1:56:20] same percentage this cost overrun and just to give the counselor um some I

[1:56:26] guess Direction on what that um number would be it's less than half it's I

[1:56:32] would say it's around 15 to 30% would be the County's share

[1:56:44] approximately sorry Council canelon then Deputy Mayor thank you Mayor Rob Jaden

[1:56:48] wasn't a good deal of this cost run due to the uh the the road work that needed

[1:56:53] to be done to increase the base of the road that it could hold the pavment the

[1:56:56] new

[1:57:00] pavment through the mayor this this cost increases strictly for for sema's um

[1:57:06] extra work and effort on the project it'd be hard to determine how much that

[1:57:10] is certainly the road reconstruction piece of work did take quite a bit of

[1:57:14] time um there was an Associated contract extension um and we could get into the

[1:57:19] details with that but um certainly the county is committed to to you know

[1:57:24] working up the details with us um on the what that cost sharing is well I'm kind

[1:57:29] of with councel on this one because until we know what that is because if

[1:57:32] this if the cost overrun is significantly because of the road

[1:57:35] reconstruction that's on the county it's not on us

[1:57:40] right through the mayor um this the cost of overrun from SEMA um it's uh

[1:57:49] certainly not I wouldn't say that the the road reconstruction portion is

[1:57:53] really what's what's driving this um mostly like it's a there's a lot of

[1:57:58] factors to it it's just the overall construction project I'm not sure

[1:58:01] steuart G any

[1:58:05] that uh through you Mr Mayor I guess just where where do you begin with

[1:58:11] this particular project when when when when the when the

[1:58:16] project was originally tendered and envisioned uh uh we had previously held

[1:58:21] a public meeting with the the business owners along Park Hill Main Street and

[1:58:26] the direction that was given to staff and to to SEMA was to attempt to get

[1:58:32] this project done through the winter period so that Park Hill Main Street was

[1:58:37] opened through July and August uh for the summer season for vehicles driving

[1:58:43] to Grand vent so the the The Works were tendered with a an anticipated start in

[1:58:50] and I don't recall the exact dat but I believe it was August uh so the notice

[1:58:55] of award went out in time but unfortunately due to uh supply chain

[1:59:02] issues and difficulty with uh your Ontario one call and obtaining locates

[1:59:08] contractor wasn't able to commence work until I believe it was in November if I

[1:59:13] if I recall correctly regardless because of that um

[1:59:20] the the works could not be uh prosecuted as was originally anticipated the

[1:59:26] contract was originally set up so the works would be commenced at the North

[1:59:30] End of uh of the of Park Hill coming southernly to uh I believe just was it

[1:59:38] past uh M Street M and Hastings thereabouts and then completing uh full

[1:59:44] restoration of that to binder course ashal then moving to the South from

[1:59:49] there down to Broadway do the same thing and then or sorry I guess the first one

[1:59:54] was to Broadway second stage was from Broadway to Al Elgen Field Road last

[1:59:59] stage being the small portion on Elliot drive so that that was the original

[2:00:04] setup but because of the late start weather

[2:00:08] conditions and the in uh uh desire to keep the the project moving and trying

[2:00:13] to get the the project complete for the the businesses on Park Hill Main Street

[2:00:18] by July uh we uh the decision was made to permit

[2:00:24] the contractor to alter the staging and ended up uh going all the way

[2:00:30] through very shortly on after the after that decision was made we ran into some

[2:00:36] uh Municipal drains that were uh unknown to ourselves unknown so they weren't

[2:00:42] shown on the contract drawings so there was a lot of effort uh spent in

[2:00:47] investigating those drains uh a lot of effort dealing with a contractor and how

[2:00:52] we work around you know all of that just

[2:00:56] contributed to additional delays and additional effort certainly effort on

[2:01:01] our part but with with those changes we also

[2:01:06] then allowed the contractor to work on phase three while they're working on

[2:01:11] parts of phase one and that drove the need to have two inspectors on the site

[2:01:16] because I couldn't have one guy looking after both ends of the job at the same

[2:01:20] time so the decisions were made through the construction phase that drove

[2:01:26] additional costs at least for us so you know it it was decisions made the best

[2:01:33] based on the best information we had at the time uh and with the desire to get

[2:01:39] this job done as quickly as possible just as a followup to that given your

[2:01:43] significant experience in bidding these type of projects is that not to be

[2:01:48] expected the unknown concy that that you may encounter is that not to be

[2:01:53] expected there are there yeah and there there are allowances within the contract

[2:01:58] for certain unknowns you know that you know we do include uh provisional items

[2:02:05] within the contract force or you know have pricing for things that are

[2:02:10] unexpected um I would have to say that what we

[2:02:15] encountered down Main Street was Beyond just about everything that I have

[2:02:22] on a road Recon type job my final question and th $119,000 as

[2:02:29] you asked what are you willing to settle for what are you willing to

[2:02:34] negotiate I'm I'm not prepared to answer that question

[2:02:39] here Deputy Mayor hin s your hand up please um all that conversation kind of

[2:02:45] forget what I was going to I always was going to say it the long and short it we

[2:02:49] are being asked to pay 11 19,54 I expect that bill is come to

[2:02:56] 06 we do not know you're not sending out two bills you not send one to North Mill

[2:03:01] not send one to the county that the County's chunk is in that and that's I'm

[2:03:05] thinking up to Jaden and the County engineer to sit down and maybe cut it

[2:03:10] figure 30% 40% whatever the figure it is so we're still expected to pay the 119 ,

[2:03:19] 540 with a known fact that okay a third that we might

[2:03:23] get 40,000 or 30,000 40,000 back in the count so our kind of number that we're

[2:03:29] looking at is 80 or 990,000 somewhere in that just offer but we are expected to

[2:03:34] pay out of our thing the 119 whether we want to or not we're we're asked we

[2:03:41] expected to pay this 119 that's what I'm getting they're not sending O2 bills we

[2:03:45] are still the one going to cut the check and and instead of we're not going

[2:03:50] to send a bill to or talk with County just on this portion it's on the whole

[2:03:56] proo right it's going to be one one one uh agreement that it's going to be

[2:04:02] paid J thank you Mr May through you just just

[2:04:07] to remind Council to this this is a project that we did get grant funding

[2:04:11] through the investing Canada infrastructure program so um just with

[2:04:16] respect to the source of financing for this project I'm not sure

[2:04:19] um if our treasure has anything to add in that respect um just with respect to

[2:04:24] where you know the funding um comes

[2:04:29] from counc dagel I'm just looking at the table one the engineering breakdown

[2:04:35] material testing there was nothing in the approved

[2:04:38] budget and that uh other than 13,650 uh for additional material

[2:04:45] testing this material testing did it come about because of all of a sudden

[2:04:49] there was a need to re replace the road base because it was going to be accepted

[2:04:53] as it was originally and then it was found to be

[2:04:58] deficient Jaden or Stuart who's gonna answer Stuart go ahead on the hook again

[2:05:04] through you Mr Mayor um the original proposal that we provided to Jaden's

[2:05:09] predecessor uh outlined the what we anticipated for the scope of our work

[2:05:14] and identified that uh the cost of material testing would be in addition to

[2:05:19] that and carried through a separate budget whether we uh the material

[2:05:23] testing consultant was carried by North mle sex directly or uh as additional uh

[2:05:29] fees for semen so the the original proposal did

[2:05:33] not include material testing though we always understood that material testing

[2:05:37] would be required material testing is not

[2:05:40] something that's a service that SEMA

[2:05:45] provides okay is that good okay is there any other any other

[2:05:51] questions no other questions we still have a request here

[2:05:56] and a recommendation from staff that we pay

[2:06:01] $19,500 what's council's wish

[2:06:13] here deputy mayor

[2:06:17] hin you Mo you move you move I move the

[2:06:23] recommendation okay see where it goes all right a

[2:06:29] second no seconder on this what's council's wish

[2:06:36] then councel councel D is it possible to have a meeting with the county so kind

[2:06:42] of get this broken down before we agree to it because if

[2:06:48] the county box on it we're up up against it for

[2:06:52] $120,000 we should see what the C's come close to what the

[2:06:59] Count's going to be paying of this portion what's going to come out of

[2:07:02] grant funding so we know what the last dollars are coming to the

[2:07:10] tax Jaden do you do you have any comment to that or Carolyn I mean that's

[2:07:16] um the if if I remember it right we are doing the project and we're submitting

[2:07:23] their share to them overall not individual

[2:07:26] pieces um is that not right I'm just I'm just saying if we go

[2:07:32] to them just about this yeah through you Mr May that's

[2:07:37] correct um we have had a meeting with the county to go through do that line by

[2:07:42] line review um and we were generally in agreement with it um you know no issues

[2:07:48] at all working that out with them and I don't expect there would be any issues

[2:07:53] as we um you know work out the final numbers um with the County

[2:07:58] engineer um so it would just be I mean if that's council's wish we can um

[2:08:04] confirm that cost sharing it will take some time um so i' expect uh you know

[2:08:12] towards uh probably the first meeting in um March first meeting in March yeah to

[2:08:19] be able to bring that back that information back to Council on what what

[2:08:23] exactly that cost spit is

[2:08:28] County thank you Mayor Rob so I just want to quickly simplify this we had the

[2:08:35] estimate a bid a bid awarded County agrees to X numbers of

[2:08:41] dollars we're the other portion of that question I'm raising is they have agreed

[2:08:48] to to that will they agree to this overrun

[2:08:54] proportionately that's I that's what I'm getting I think that's what all and

[2:09:01] that's the same thing with the $1.8 million we approved from Brix when was

[2:09:05] that to add on to this whole project wasn't I think it was 1.8

[2:09:10] million 1.5 oh maybe it was 1.58 okay but we we

[2:09:16] approved that here uh because it was services rendered it's it's much the

[2:09:21] same thing I mean it is an overrun uh Council just I'm not trying

[2:09:26] to say Direct on it but let's just move forward on this one way or another like

[2:09:32] let's let's make a decision here tonight Mr May if I could just make one one

[2:09:36] addition go ahead and and maybe this will help clarify to council the

[2:09:41] original bid that SEMA provided to North ble sex for services during the

[2:09:46] construction phase uh was was predicated on the original contract that uh um uh

[2:09:53] considered completion of the project by June of

[2:09:58] 2023 um through changes that were reviewed negotiated argued about and

[2:10:04] ultimately approved by North Middle sex the completion date was then extended to

[2:10:09] I believe it was November 10th November yeah so through those changes North

[2:10:13] metalx has agreed to the additional uh construction period and what we are

[2:10:19] asking for is for compensation for the additional surfice during construction

[2:10:23] for that

[2:10:26] period uh we did through the through that period we did repeatedly ask the

[2:10:33] the contractor when they were going to achieve completion on the project but we

[2:10:37] were unable to uh get you know firm commitment from them as to when they

[2:10:41] were actually going to get there so you know in in terms of estimating what our

[2:10:46] over overruns were going to be it was impossible until such time as they

[2:10:50] actually got I know raises the question that if the contractor was absentee for

[2:10:59] five weeks or there was no business being done what were you

[2:11:04] doing to incur costs if they aren't working you're not

[2:11:09] working through you Mr Meritt as as I did indicate previously during that

[2:11:14] period we did not have our inspectors on site there is no inspection ch we did uh

[2:11:19] hold a number of meetings with the contractor trying to get them to come

[2:11:23] back uh we did you know try to respond to all their uh numerous R requests for

[2:11:30] information that were repeated and uh frivolous uh from in my perspective but

[2:11:37] we we tried to work with the contractor to get them back to get them on site to

[2:11:41] finish the job okay counc Nera but at a cost of

[2:11:46] almost 120,000 not just for that just for that no not

[2:11:52] just not just for so for the whole period from June to November corre

[2:11:58] that's corre yeah all right that's a better way of phrasing for June to

[2:12:04] November but there was about two two months of zero work being done of

[2:12:10] those five months by the

[2:12:15] contractor okay right councelor thank you your worship um comment for

[2:12:20] you and Council I don't think council is saying a hard go here I think what

[2:12:24] council is saying is we'd like a little bit more information and defered

[2:12:27] decision get and if that's March that's only a

[2:12:35] month are you making that a motion we're we're circling around here

[2:12:40] and let's I would be happy to make that a m

[2:12:44] work I I don't have the complete list of all the other information council's

[2:12:47] looking for but I think most of us been captured in the uh in the discussion

[2:12:51] here this evening uh so I'll turn that before I

[2:12:55] ask for a second Jaden is that possible to get some additional information for

[2:12:59] Council for that for March through your worship uh yes and I

[2:13:04] I just want to clarify with with Council then is the additional information

[2:13:09] required what the cost split is for this engineering overrun with the

[2:13:15] county correct is that correct I think it is your worship and I think

[2:13:20] council is still seeking some clarity in some of the uh actions Behind These

[2:13:24] numbers maybe we can submit them after we had a chance to think about it a

[2:13:28] little bit more but I I as I said I don't think council's making a hard no I

[2:13:33] think they're just wanting some more information before and I'm putting words

[2:13:37] in other counsel's mouths of course before we make a decision this evening

[2:13:41] okay so you you've made a motion to defer this to the march to

[2:13:46] March yes worship and I and I would I would ask our our our manager here what

[2:13:51] um which meeting in March would be the best

[2:13:56] one through the mayor personally just because some

[2:14:00] vacation time coming up it would be the second one second meeting in March it's

[2:14:04] council's okay okay so is there a second there for

[2:14:09] that okay we we got many councel Nera seconded by Council more discussion on

[2:14:16] that so question for councelor Irwin is is that then to deter you're agreeing to

[2:14:21] pay the full 119,000 subject to what the county is

[2:14:25] willing to compensate this

[2:14:29] one my motion simply said we would make a decision on this with more information

[2:14:34] whether it's the full amount a partial amount I'm not sure until we get the

[2:14:38] information obviously thank you okay in favor of that

[2:14:46] motion car

[2:14:49] okay before we go on to our next report we're going to take a five minute

[2:14:54] break might even be six minutes but we'll take a short

[2:15:03] break all right we'll call the meeting back to order and we will go back

[2:15:09] into 5.5 to report from manager of

[2:15:13] infrastructure on the Northern uh El Craig Northern drainage issues

[2:15:31] uh 5.4 pardon me uh the drainy superintendent but I believe Jaden

[2:15:35] you're going to be presenting that Municipal drain tender results in

[2:15:38] contract award for the Hutcheson Eagles drain

[2:15:42] a thank you your worship yeah item I have 5.5 um so this is the the

[2:15:48] Hutchinson or sorry Municipal drain tender results and contract award for

[2:15:54] the Hutchinson eagleson drain a um so the purpose of this report is to award

[2:16:00] the tender um for contract MD 01 2024 for the Hutchinson Eagles and drain a to

[2:16:09] jlh Excavating Inc in the amount of $222,900

[2:16:16] and 90 um excluding

[2:16:21] hsd only one bid was received on this project however the price came in well

[2:16:27] below the engineers's estimate of

[2:16:46] $297,700 this contractor seems relatively new to me has he worked with

[2:16:50] us before in dream through the mayor yes I do believe

[2:16:55] we have worked with this contractor before is he local where's he

[2:16:59] from through the mayor sorry I don't have that information okay right but he

[2:17:04] he has work he has done work for AR Arona yeah he work for okay any other

[2:17:12] questions any other questions on this train seeing no other questions I have a

[2:17:17] recommendation in front of you move by councel Irwin seconded by councel Nera

[2:17:22] all in favor carried all right now we'll go to

[2:17:27] 5.5 and that's Hills Craig North drainage

[2:17:34] issues um your worship I'm afraid the the item was moved around on the agenda

[2:17:39] that some Council might be looking at to move the matter we dealt with last to we

[2:17:46] have it as 5.8 but the rest of account4 so we're we're using different

[2:17:51] slightly different

[2:18:00] numbers you had the correct item just the different numbers are

[2:18:04] reflected okay so uh this is the El Craig

[2:18:09] northage so change the numbers okay through you yourip this report is a

[2:18:17] follow up to previous reports and discussions with Council regarding

[2:18:20] drainage issues which have been occurring in the Northeast area of Al

[2:18:24] Craig um around Queen Street Church Street and rabbitwood Court area the

[2:18:29] report provides background on the issues and complaints as well as staff's

[2:18:34] assessment of the cause of the issues and steps taken to address

[2:18:37] them um so we were able to confirm that an old storm sewer on Church Street was

[2:18:43] clogged with tree roots and uh we have some photos there that we'll be able to

[2:18:48] share with Council um was clogged with tree roots and debris resulting in um we

[2:18:56] believe water backing up um we believe that this was the cause of the issue

[2:19:00] that some residents on Church Street were having with their water backing up

[2:19:03] into their basements um you can just see some photos there of the repair being

[2:19:08] undertaken by by a contractor um so the contractor was

[2:19:13] hired to complete the repair which was done on January 23rd and the storm sewer

[2:19:18] is now functioning properly um a separate uh a second

[2:19:23] separate issue was um encountered involving ponding water and flooding in

[2:19:30] the rear yards of properties on Church Street and rabbitwood Court and at the

[2:19:34] December 6th council meeting Council directed staff to complete an an

[2:19:40] assessment of the drain andu so we had our drainage engineer our doin Inc

[2:19:45] complete an assessment on December 13 and their findings are summarized in the

[2:19:50] report um so to summarize arin's findings um they there is a small

[2:19:56] Channel which is an old abandoned CN Railway ditch uh in the rear yard of

[2:20:01] these properties um with a hicken bottom Outlet at the East End which is

[2:20:06] approximately 0.84 meters higher than the West End of the channel the

[2:20:12] abandoned ditch was filled in years ago by Downstream residents to the East and

[2:20:17] um with the hick and bottom being at a higher elevation than the rest of the

[2:20:21] channel the water does not currently drain from that ditch um so um the

[2:20:28] there's also the development property to north um the new Lots on Queen Street um

[2:20:34] and and those have provided their grading certificates the municipality

[2:20:38] that verifies that the site drainage is in accordance with the design approved

[2:20:42] by the municipality and um additionally the

[2:20:46] southern most lot on Queen Street um did add some additional catch basins along

[2:20:53] their southern property line to capture drainage in that area um so the drainage

[2:20:59] for those New Lots should be contained within the rear yards and not spill onto

[2:21:03] the existing properties of the South our doin engineering did identify a

[2:21:09] potential solution to address the lowly ditch area in the rear yards that

[2:21:13] currently don't have a drainage outlet and that would be for Property Owners

[2:21:18] owner or owners requiring the drainage they could petition for a new Municipal

[2:21:25] drain um therefore staff is recommending that Council direct staff to inform the

[2:21:31] residents experiencing drainage issues in their rear yards of their option for

[2:21:37] petitioning for a municipal drain through the drainage

[2:21:42] act

[2:21:46] questions CN just a comment in a question

[2:21:51] appreciate the report and appreciate the professional opinion here but boy was

[2:22:00] there a lot of water back so I I'm not sure where it all came

[2:22:06] from because it wasn't there in the past that being said I did ask this question

[2:22:10] previously uh in anticipation of council tonight what would be the cost of a

[2:22:15] municipal drain to the residents

[2:22:19] through your worship I did inquire with our Dobbin um thank you for providing

[2:22:23] the question counselor um and they provided a very um preliminary estimate

[2:22:28] they they think it could be in the order of 30,000 to

[2:22:32] $80,000 um you know it's very early they didn't do a very thorough assessment um

[2:22:37] so there's just a lot of variables um to that so 30,000 to 80,000 is the range

[2:22:42] they provided thank you uh can I ask for

[2:22:46] claric councelor irn you said there was a lot

[2:22:49] of water when are you referring to um we worship I was there both in the spring

[2:22:55] and the and the fall and uh the backyard were very flooded um so there was a lot

[2:23:02] of water there in both occasions um I've never seen that much water in those

[2:23:07] backyards so yeah I just wanted to clarify I wanted a

[2:23:11] clarification um any other questions from counselor comments I have one in

[2:23:18] because it's all private property could the residents just not agree to put in a

[2:23:22] drain themselves if they wanted to and not make it a municipal drain just to

[2:23:28] private through the mayor yes I do believe that they can do that you can

[2:23:33] they can do a private drain um or a mutual agreement drain is also another

[2:23:38] one that would go through the drainage act but certainly Property Owners can

[2:23:41] can work together to to find a solution to do I I think that should be part of

[2:23:46] the part of the uh options to to the residents you know

[2:23:52] if they could if they could meet and just get together it would

[2:23:55] certainly I'm sure save them a lot of money and be done more reasonably if

[2:23:59] they could agree to something like that and uh it'll be interesting uh

[2:24:04] interesting is a wrong word but I wait to see what happens when they start to

[2:24:08] do the back of that property the uh East Side East End of that property with the

[2:24:15] tow houses uh to to help mitigate that water and of course right from the

[2:24:21] beginning you know to help mitigate that water so I think that's another another

[2:24:25] thing to make sure to make uh people more comfortable with what's happening

[2:24:30] back there but I think if I I agree to to give those the results of this to the

[2:24:36] residents but also if private drain is another option I think that's something

[2:24:40] that should be to S as well other other comments questions from

[2:24:46] you have a recommendation in front of you what's your

[2:24:49] wish move the recommendation by Council Irwin

[2:24:53] seconder councelor canelon in favor carried thank you thanks

[2:25:03] Jaden all right yours is the next one again it's the Queen Street gas main

[2:25:10] relocation all right through you your worship um this is just a um report for

[2:25:16] Council information um Council may recall that

[2:25:20] um we arranged for embridge to relocate the gas main on the North End of Queen

[2:25:26] Street in Elsa Craig and that um was to be completed in advance of our planned

[2:25:32] water main construction project and I just wanted to give this information to

[2:25:36] council and how the final costs came in um enbridge's cost did come in quite a

[2:25:42] bit higher than they had estimated um they estimated the cost to be

[2:25:49] $42,000 sorry $

[2:26:02] 42,73318 7,000 and under the standard

[2:26:08] 3565 cost split um our share of that overrun would have been around $62,000

[2:26:17] um after discussing that further with embridge we were able to get them to um

[2:26:24] cut that in half to to evenly split our share of the cost overrun so um the our

[2:26:31] share of the total overrun is approximately

[2:26:35] $31,000 so therefore the total um final cost to the municipality of North Middle

[2:26:41] sex for the gas main relocation is

[2:26:47] $940 excluding HST um and this does fall within staff's

[2:26:54] delegated approval so um Council approval is not required but just wanted

[2:27:00] to bring this for council's information is there any questions on Deputy Mayor

[2:27:04] hodin quick question Jaden to you m mayor uh where where are they re

[2:27:09] relocating

[2:27:13] it through the mayor it was just relocating it from the west side of the

[2:27:19] road the West Boulevard to the East Boulevard just flipping it to the other

[2:27:22] side so we have a clear running line for that

[2:27:26] water any other any other questions on that no other questions we need a motion

[2:27:31] to receive this for information counc Nera Council dagel all in favor carry

[2:27:37] thank you uh you're up again oh this lagoons okay so uh on the Park Hill Su

[2:27:43] Lagoon bridging update and Wastewater uh waste water servicing

[2:27:50] capacity your worship um we have a report report here an update on the Park

[2:27:56] Hill sewage Lagoon dredging project um and also some information about um a

[2:28:02] proposed Wastewater servicing capacity allocation um we wanted to get this

[2:28:06] information into Council in advance of the um of our budget process so um just

[2:28:14] going through the background we have had previous reports to Council on this

[2:28:18] matter in July of last year we brought a comprehensive update report back to

[2:28:25] council about where we stand with the with the current lagoons and the

[2:28:28] capacity of the lagoons uh as well as the the plans for the future wastewater

[2:28:33] treatment plants um we basically uh found that the lagoons are at capacity

[2:28:40] and we can't really proceed with development at this time um in December

[2:28:46] we um got council's approval for pre-budget

[2:28:51] approval to move ahead with um an engineering contract with RV Anderson

[2:28:58] Associates limited to get the design going for the Lagoon dredging project um

[2:29:06] so since that time in December we've been working with RBA on this project um

[2:29:10] they have prepared a capital cost estimate for Lagoon dredging and they

[2:29:14] provide a range for moving the total quantity of sludge and

[2:29:20] that range is $2.8 million to $3.2 million

[2:29:26] um it's estimated that by removing the the full quantity of sludge um we could

[2:29:32] free up approximately the equivalent of 180

[2:29:38] single family equivalent units of development um we are recommending that

[2:29:44] we proceed with this with proceed with the project um and proceed the full

[2:29:49] Sledge cleanout however um Council may also want to consider partial clean out

[2:29:55] which would free up a lesser um quantity of wastewater treatment capacity for

[2:30:01] development um within the report provide a table with the current active

[2:30:07] development files in Park Hill for council's reference

[2:30:10] and um and then we go into uh

[2:30:17] we do want to recommend that Council direct staff to put together a a

[2:30:23] Wastewater servicing capacity allocation policy um and that would help us ensure

[2:30:31] that when we create wastewater treatment capacity at the lagoons should be

[2:30:36] proceeded with the d sledging project that that capacity is allocated in a

[2:30:40] fair efficient and transparent manner um that would be uh done through Council as

[2:30:46] well so that would be a policy we'd put together in House at no

[2:30:52] cost and that is the report okay questions Council irn thank you worship

[2:30:58] just one uh question if we do go ahead and dredge the lagoons what's the

[2:31:05] increased life capacity of

[2:31:10] them uh through the mayor just to clarify when you talk about life back

[2:31:13] you mean how long would it be good for

[2:31:20] with respect sorry just for clarification again with respect to

[2:31:23] would it add another 10 years life would it add another 15 years to the usability

[2:31:27] would it add another five years 25 years how long would it add to the

[2:31:31] usability so um I don't have I don't have the exact information on that it'

[2:31:38] be something we'll be working with with rvy rvy Anderson on um as we continue to

[2:31:43] develop the design um we do know that the the Lagoon has been accumulating

[2:31:49] sludge since it was built in the the late 70s I believe it was and that

[2:31:55] there's now you know around 45,000 cubic meters so um you know we

[2:32:01] could determine but it's I guess complicated or complex um processes in

[2:32:07] that the Sledge how it accumulates and how it would displace capacity um but I

[2:32:11] can certainly get some information back for Council on that okay

[2:32:19] there is also added to that is the thought that if you did some maintenance

[2:32:25] on the lagoons um that uh may have not been done on nearly

[2:32:31] as regular basis that it could have been done with the lagoons in the past that

[2:32:37] we could prolong that now how much I don't know um but there is some there's

[2:32:43] some potential opportunity there as well

[2:32:48] okay other questions Council canel thank you Mayor Rob I have two questions Jaden

[2:32:54] the first one for you is that um there's some indication that by doing the

[2:32:59] sledging here we could accommodate up to an additional 185 single family homes is

[2:33:04] there any guarantee of

[2:33:09] that to the mayor um we do know that like based on our current capacity um

[2:33:15] analysis that we've done we do know that the sludge it's basically taking up

[2:33:20] space like it's occupying space there that would could be used um by by raw

[2:33:26] waste water so um provided that the the Sledge is removed yes it does create

[2:33:32] capacity okay it's just that I wouldn't want to be disappointed by an

[2:33:36] engineering report again and my other question for you is you you make a

[2:33:42] reference here to 37 3759 to 436 tones if we went with a higher limit to

[2:33:49] 436 tones is that all of the sledges in these lag or just still a portion of

[2:33:58] it the mayor that is the that's total quantity of of sludge um like that's

[2:34:05] that's kind of a theoretical dry ton quantity of it it comes out um you know

[2:34:10] as kind of more of a a slurry or a certain um solids percentage but um

[2:34:16] that's a total F I just did some quick calculations I just for in FYI it works

[2:34:20] out to $750 per tone to remove it which is pretty

[2:34:28] steep coun Nera Jaden this is just a temporary measure I mean we'll still

[2:34:33] have to set aside some funds for a wastewater treatment plant

[2:34:39] correct through the mayor that's um correct like the wastewater treatment

[2:34:43] plant is still our our ultimate goal it's just

[2:34:46] um you know with the inability to fund that project and see it move forward um

[2:34:52] this is certainly uh I guess to say it's temporary it is a thing that we have to

[2:34:58] do regardless should we proceed with the wastewater treatment plant we still do

[2:35:01] have to dredge these lagoons at some point so it's a matter of time for when

[2:35:06] we have to and do we have a timeline on when

[2:35:10] they're going to be cleaned out and dged or is that all contingent

[2:35:15] on getting um the report back from the

[2:35:21] engineer through the mayor um we would leave it um open to the potential

[2:35:28] contractors that would do the work um it could be as early as say end of March

[2:35:35] should the should it be approved um the budget um RV is working towards having

[2:35:41] the tender documents ready um they recommend keeping the time line for when

[2:35:46] the work would happen flexible with the contractor so giving them a window say

[2:35:51] March till um later in the year for them to do the work and then they can make

[2:35:57] arrangements to do it at their time and then just one more question Jaden um

[2:36:02] once we get this D sludged is that the green light for the developers then to

[2:36:06] go ahead and start their project that they've been

[2:36:10] waiting through the mayor that's the that's the Hope like we want to get this

[2:36:14] D sludge to help some of these developments that you know are

[2:36:18] essentially waiting and ready to go um to be able to proceed with their

[2:36:24] projects thank you

[2:36:27] Jaden I just wanted to add to that so what Jaden mentioned a few minutes ago

[2:36:31] though it should be subject to a sewage allocation strategy so that um all the

[2:36:38] capacity isn't used up by one developer uh it needs to be done on a process that

[2:36:44] allocates it uh often it's done in other places based on performance so a

[2:36:49] developer that actually is building and gets building permits and moves ahead um

[2:36:55] would be allocated first rather than someone who for instance might sit on it

[2:37:00] U waiting for sales or something that nature so it'll be allocated based on a

[2:37:04] strategy that would be developed and brought to to council for

[2:37:08] approval councel you had your hand up any idea how long it would take to do

[2:37:13] the full feed up

[2:37:19] through the mayor I'm just looking at some notes here from our meeting with

[2:37:22] the consultant but I believe it's it's a um it's a pretty short uh duration I

[2:37:30] believe it's only two or three weeks I may ask um we've working very closely

[2:37:34] with aqua on this and we do have Rod here who's been kind enough to be

[2:37:39] sitting through the meeting maybe I don't know R if you anything to add or

[2:37:42] maybe you know those specific information how long it takes the dredge

[2:37:47] again yeah um thank you so um to go with councelor Irwin's comments and counselor

[2:37:54] uh narrative the the dredging of this Lagoon that we're talking about in

[2:37:58] particular it is also in relation to the wastewater treatment plant design so

[2:38:05] this isn't this isn't money that's going to be spent one time this is actually

[2:38:09] going to help us in that new plant design so I want to make sure that

[2:38:14] everyone is aware of that so uh we're going to be able to maintain this Lago

[2:38:19] or do any type of upgrades as it's being taken down and

[2:38:23] dredged uh in relation to our future project so that's that's number one U

[2:38:29] normally these uh processes that RBA is is working on you have a number of

[2:38:35] different processes to dredge it so I guess it all depends on what process is

[2:38:39] being picked or chosen so yes two three weeks maybe a month Maybe two month tops

[2:38:47] uh just depending on the process how we're going to dredge that

[2:38:52] legon okay just to follow up we're talking to lagoons here are we

[2:38:58] not um the the one cell that we're talking about that dredging from my

[2:39:04] understanding is the so cell uh first um but the total project of three million

[2:39:11] or four million or whatever it is is both being

[2:39:14] done

[2:39:17] yeah

[2:39:20] yeah that is a firm yes that is right that is the scope of the project is both

[2:39:26] cells correct okay that is correct I mean the way we answer I just want to

[2:39:31] make okay is that is that all coun canel thank you Mayor Rob the

[2:39:37] question I have for either one of you gentlemen is that we've have quite a bit

[2:39:40] of funds invested in the design and build of the plant itself the mechanical

[2:39:45] plant if we go ahead with this and delay that plant indefinitely what happens to

[2:39:50] that

[2:39:53] design the design is going to stay as is because that cell is tied to that design

[2:40:01] so you're not you didn't lose U that design you know of when we do get our

[2:40:07] funding because I believe we are we're going to be successful we're going to be

[2:40:10] able to move with that build so again dredging this Lagoon

[2:40:16] is is something that we're going to have to do regardless and maintain our our

[2:40:20] system okay so even if it's 5 years down the road that sign be correct okay thank

[2:40:27] you you said you were good any other questions but I have one and that is if

[2:40:34] we approve this because nothing happens overnight with Building Homes and

[2:40:39] everything else if we approve this and we know this is the case can we start

[2:40:44] that process then of allowing the start of you know construction of 180 units or

[2:40:51] do we have to wait are we going to wait till it's completed and

[2:40:55] then and then uh allocate I mean are we going to start that process as we start

[2:41:01] to work in conjunction through your worship um I

[2:41:06] think that that ties into this this Wastewater servicing capacity alloc

[2:41:11] allocation policy and that's really going to give us the procedures and the

[2:41:15] process for how it gets allocated and when they can start um but certainly um

[2:41:22] yeah once we get the the go-ahead I think we want to be sure that you know

[2:41:25] it is successful and we have created capacity but um yeah there more detail

[2:41:31] to come when we get there I just want to make comment that this is good to get

[2:41:35] real numbers and to get real information uh because over the past few

[2:41:41] years I will say or at least the last two or three years the information's

[2:41:46] been all over the place and I think having Anderson having that sewing our

[2:41:50] down and all that stuff and actually getting to right where we need to be

[2:41:54] where's the best way to spend money I commend you for that we're getting to

[2:41:59] that point is there any more questions on

[2:42:02] this because we have a recommendation in front of us oh sorry sorry John sorry P

[2:42:08] K thank you I guess I'll pass this on to Estelle how are we going to pay for

[2:42:18] this save the egg

[2:42:23] money that will be determined upon budgets and budget presentation cancel

[2:42:30] thank you it has been it has been a come to the budget committee no no

[2:42:36] recommendations made yet to go to council but it has been talked about it

[2:42:40] has been brought forward as a any other questions on

[2:42:46] it seeing none um let uh Council received this report for information the

[2:42:53] council direct staff to develop a Wastewater servicing capacity allocation

[2:42:57] policy for review and approval by the policy committee and Council you're

[2:43:02] moving that move by councelor Nera seconded by councelor Irwin all in favor

[2:43:08] carried thank you thanks Jaden uh we are now is this now the

[2:43:14] William Street SE pumping because I think br's going

[2:43:19] last right okay William Street sewage pumping station in Elsa Craig sorry I

[2:43:26] should said that where are you

[2:43:34] going can't get away that

[2:43:38] early all right thanks Rod I do appreciate you being here tonight we do

[2:43:43] I mean to help with these These are big report report and there's we're talking

[2:43:46] a lot of money and a lot of impact on the community so do appreciate you my

[2:43:51] pleasure okay go ahead Jaden okay thank you your worship the last one so um

[2:43:57] thanks for your your patience um so I just want to acknowledge that we are

[2:44:02] joined here um we do have thanks um we're joined by Dylan Consulting um we

[2:44:08] do have them on the line so also thank you Jason um Johnson for your patience

[2:44:14] and we also have bander um the design engineer or maybe he's maybe he's not in

[2:44:19] the call um but uh Jason can you hear us yep loud and clear Jaden great okay

[2:44:28] thanks a lot for joining um so this report um is on the William Street

[2:44:34] sewage pumping station uh an update on the project the design work that we've

[2:44:39] been working on um and an update on the engineering cost um um so as Council may

[2:44:47] recall um we did bring a report to Council in July 2023 on the William

[2:44:55] Street pumping station forcan um engineering and design contract and we

[2:45:01] did award that contract to Dylan Consulting um to design the upgrade of

[2:45:07] the pumping station and the Force main um that were nearing capacity and we

[2:45:11] needed to um get upgraded to support all the growth that's coming up to Elsa C

[2:45:16] and naron um so Dylan was awarded the engineering contract at a total cost of

[2:45:24] 125,000

[2:45:27] h7220 and then since awarding that contract we've been working with

[2:45:30] Consulting on the design of this project um we've made some good progress on the

[2:45:36] project um the design has been um Advanced to a 50% design level and we've

[2:45:42] received um a submitt package including a design report cost estimate and

[2:45:47] preliminary design drawings um so that information is provided within the

[2:45:51] report um

[2:45:54] the um as as Dylan's been working on the project the the engineering scope has

[2:46:00] expanded somewhat um and there's been some additional engineering design work

[2:46:06] that we did not originally anticipate having to do as we got into the details

[2:46:13] um so that is summarized within the report and um the two primary items

[2:46:19] there are the design of a new Equalization tank or an EQ tank and the

[2:46:25] purpose of the EQ tank is to address capacity limitations at the wastewater

[2:46:31] treatment plant itself and the purpose of that tank is to store Wastewater

[2:46:37] during Peak flow periods um to control it and discharge control the discharge

[2:46:43] the plant at a rate that can handle um and there's also um we've

[2:46:49] decided to complete electrical upgrades at the William Street site um to provide

[2:46:55] a dedicated power feed uh and and backup power to that site it's currently it's

[2:47:01] actually fed from the wastewater treatment plant through a conduit that

[2:47:05] runs under the Sao River um uh so Dylan Consulting has provided

[2:47:11] an updated cost estimate with the design package as I noted um and the

[2:47:16] construction cost estimate has increased significantly um to $6.8

[2:47:23] million um based on Dylan's Class C cost estimate which is provided in table one

[2:47:29] of the report um and I just wanted just talking

[2:47:34] about the uh the cost a little bit more this project was previously identified

[2:47:39] in our development charges background study because it's certainly a growth

[2:47:44] related project that development charges pay a large portion of um so in the 2022

[2:47:50] study this projects included the capital cost of 1.16 million and we are

[2:47:58] currently working on a 20123 2024 update to the DC background study with Watson

[2:48:05] Associates and with the information we had available at that time we increased

[2:48:10] the project cost to 2.97 million um however

[2:48:15] as the designs developed the cost has obviously went up substantially since

[2:48:19] then so um moving forward with this project we we are um going to continue

[2:48:26] to develop the detail design building Consulting um we're going to review the

[2:48:30] cost increase with Watson Associates now as we're still going through the DC

[2:48:35] study to see if there's possibility to update that to make sure we're capturing

[2:48:40] the proper development charges towards this upgrade based on the current cost

[2:48:44] estimate and we're going to continue to work with Dillan Consulting to confirm

[2:48:47] where we're at with capacity here um you know how many more homes we can get out

[2:48:50] of this pumping station um and then we are also looking at a um funding

[2:48:56] application through the the province's housing enabling Water Systems fund um

[2:49:02] which funds these types of projects um and then just the um Dillan Consulting

[2:49:10] has requested a a budget increase for their engineering contract of

[2:49:16] $50,000 to address the additional design scope as outlined in the report and in

[2:49:22] the attached scope change document so that 50,000 increase would bring the

[2:49:27] total contract price to 175,000

[2:49:31] $722 excluding HST and um we will I'll turn it over to council thank

[2:49:43] you

[2:49:47] I was going to repeat John's question from the last one how are we going to

[2:49:51] pay for

[2:49:57] this I I think uh Jaden did touch on that and we've applied for a grant to

[2:50:04] this we haven't applied yet but there is should say we're apply uh I'll be

[2:50:09] bringing a report or Jaden or I will be bringing a report there is a a funding

[2:50:14] opportunity out there right now through the province and Jaden alluded to it the

[2:50:19] housing enabling Water Systems fund U they

[2:50:23] fund um 67% of a project up to 35 million um so

[2:50:31] our portion will be the 20 it's 27% um and uh we would make that

[2:50:39] application by April the 18th uh I don't know the turnaround time but it's all

[2:50:43] related to to housing that would be directly um housing opportunities that

[2:50:50] would be directly related to doing the works so we know that we have a variety

[2:50:55] of housing opportunities happening and Ela Craig and there's a new one on the

[2:51:01] Verizon for n as well so hopefully uh with that and in light of all of that

[2:51:08] and making application we might be successful but there's no

[2:51:13] guarantee okay so so I just wanted to I I asked Jon this question and maybe this

[2:51:21] is for Jason I believe this question and that

[2:51:24] is can this project be split up into two or three different sections like the the

[2:51:33] William Street actual pumping station and then I know there's the part in the

[2:51:37] plant as well the tank you're talking about also the line this is also

[2:51:43] including a new line that goes under the river so is can this be split like can

[2:51:48] the cost and the the project be split

[2:51:53] out if I if I may your your worship I I could answer that if you'd like yes

[2:51:59] please yeah so um I I maybe just want to step back one step before I answer the

[2:52:05] phasing question and just maybe part of the reason why this scope change came

[2:52:09] about um initially we had made the assumption that the waste water

[2:52:14] treatment plant would be equal to or greater than the capacity of the William

[2:52:20] Street Pump Station which is generally sort of you know industry standard uh

[2:52:25] when when a a collection system drains to a pump station that Outlets directly

[2:52:30] to a wastewater treatment plant generally they're upgraded designed in

[2:52:35] tandem uh they should sort of meet uh one another's capacity and unfortunately

[2:52:41] as we dug into the details of this project we found out that that the uh

[2:52:45] wastewater treatment plant capacity is actually less than the pumping station

[2:52:52] and uh there's some some complexities there as it relates to average day flows

[2:52:58] and Peak flows and so that's essentially where we're running into some issues

[2:53:03] with uh trying to upgrade the pump station but it's it's already capable of

[2:53:09] pumping more than the treat treatment plant can handle but the Force main is

[2:53:14] is not the correct size and it's

[2:53:19] um it's a bit complicated but I guess the short answer is that it could be

[2:53:24] phased probably into I would say roughly two major phases the first phase would

[2:53:31] have to include the new pumping station and the Force

[2:53:36] main um out of the entire cost it would probably shave maybe two two and a half

[2:53:42] million off of the total to do that first piece

[2:53:47] um and then the second phase I would say you could do the EQ tank in the vve

[2:53:53] chamber which is sort of the site work on the wastewater treatment plant um to

[2:53:59] and basically this is sort of a a medium-term

[2:54:03] uh solution that that buys you time before you have to do a full-blown

[2:54:09] wastewater treatment plant uh expansion um

[2:54:15] I don't know if that answer your question mayor

[2:54:18] um well it it does uh you're telling me it could be could be two phases it could

[2:54:24] be two phases but the first phase unfortunately like no matter what has to

[2:54:29] include the force man and the pumping station yeah okay and I do know that uh

[2:54:35] a few years ago we did have a leak on that Forest main uh down in the flats

[2:54:40] before it went through the uh to the river so we certainly want I have

[2:54:44] another question before I turn it and that

[2:54:47] is if we did another Force main going through there could that that force mean

[2:54:53] that's there now be used as a I'll call it a backup or whatever

[2:54:58] to you know if there was a problem or is that or you better just to decommission

[2:55:02] it and forget about if if I can your mayor um the

[2:55:09] existing Force main was leaking unfortunately uh it it was replaced um

[2:55:15] but with the same size diameter unfortunately I I just it was before my

[2:55:21] time I don't know that there was any engineering or design behind that I mean

[2:55:26] if a 250 or 12 in would have been put in you you would have been laughing here

[2:55:32] but unfortunately it was replaced with a newer material but it's only 6 in it's

[2:55:37] it's drastically undersized so even if we increase the horsepower and the

[2:55:42] pumping rate we can only Jam so much flow through there so yeah it's it's

[2:55:47] it's I would suggest it's uh abandoned and replaced like upside yeah all right

[2:55:52] thank you I just was trying to figure out what options you know what options

[2:55:55] do we have and that type of thing this this one of course hurts because none of

[2:55:59] us were aware until recently about uh about this particular project but um so

[2:56:06] other questions from Council on this councelor Tio thank you Mayor Rob

[2:56:12] Carolyn on our grant application it would only be a one-time Grant is that

[2:56:17] correct or sorry not a grant but funding we couldn't do that in two parts it

[2:56:22] would be a one time or one offer right if we applied for it um we would be

[2:56:28] doing it all at once um we could maybe phase it within the time frame of the

[2:56:33] grant but it would have to be completed within the time frame of the grant which

[2:56:37] is by 2027 so basically all at once so what it be advantageous

[2:56:43] to wait to hear back before we make any move on this to see if we are eligible

[2:56:48] for any type of

[2:56:51] funding and the ask here tonight is to uh in increase the engineering fees

[2:56:57] correct that is the ask here tonight through your worship yeah the just to

[2:57:02] bring an update on the project Council and um to present council with dillings

[2:57:08] scope than Caroline and if I can add to that to be successful with the grant

[2:57:13] they're looking for projects that are ready to go so completing the

[2:57:17] engineering work would make us more more eligible for funding they want

[2:57:23] things that are ready to go follow up would the engineering be done by the

[2:57:29] time this application is submitted or I guess would have to

[2:57:35] be through your worship that the engineering does not have to be done um

[2:57:40] in time for the applications my understanding we had the opportunity to

[2:57:43] sit in a webinar get some information about it um so it's good the engineering

[2:57:47] is underway but it doesn't have to be done um prior to the application yes

[2:57:52] what I meant by that was that the more we could keep continue to move it ahead

[2:57:57] the better it is for us um and uh and in fact with this grant the uh engineering

[2:58:05] that we've already done I think up until forget what the date was um the

[2:58:10] pre-engineering some of that cost will actually be covered by the grant

[2:58:15] question okay Council Irwin uh again two questions your

[2:58:19] worship through you um I'll ask the easy one first uh the $50,000 additional

[2:58:24] engineering cost will that come through development charge

[2:58:34] fund an answer we don't have an answer to that right now maybe we'll have to

[2:58:39] look that up for you certainly we'd have to Ure that this is directly related to

[2:58:44] to uh increase development um I think that that could certainly be suggested

[2:58:49] that the upgrades are part of that but I'd have to look at our development

[2:58:54] charge B I'm not sure um how much related to the dillian

[2:58:59] street pumping station was put in there so it's my reluctance well okay I'll

[2:59:04] wait for the answer but it makes sense to me but anyways the second one is a

[2:59:07] little more difficult and a little more political what's the impact of this um

[2:59:13] project in terms of the assol

[2:59:20] subdiv um you may recall that um in

[2:59:27] 2023 we did tell them there was certain amount of capacity available for them

[2:59:32] and they have gone ahead based on that but there is not enough capacity to

[2:59:37] complete their Project without doing this

[2:59:41] work I I think I'll I'll go we have to keep the project moving there's no

[2:59:46] question with the engineer we have to keep this project

[2:59:49] moving to get to where we need to be but that's any more questions

[2:59:54] Council any more Council

[2:59:59] Deo when the current plant was engineered that land was all taken into

[3:00:05] account as development

[3:00:09] land why and and assigned to all along Queen Street out to naron to different

[3:00:18] properties why all of a sudden have we got

[3:00:25] nothing I I we don't have have an answer for what is being thought of at that

[3:00:30] time [Music]

[3:00:38] um what was that oh Jason

[3:00:44] if you'd like I could take a stab please take a stab at that um the the the work

[3:00:51] that was done bit prior uh I Believe by kmk was close to what 20 years ago close

[3:00:59] to 20 years ago so it looked at a 20-year growth Horizon and what where

[3:01:04] we're at 20 years later it it just doesn't seem to jive with the new

[3:01:11] numbers we're coming up at so like where the exercise that we went through was

[3:01:15] all of the proposed development that's currently on the table in front of

[3:01:21] council or that we feel would be upcoming or very highly likely to be

[3:01:26] developed and both naron and Elsa Craig was all uh considered and that's

[3:01:31] essentially what we're working towards for the ultimate design of the new

[3:01:36] William Street pumping station but the current capacity of the plant is is

[3:01:44] um drastically less than that

[3:01:53] um okay I will I guess I I I will add that as part of these improvements um at

[3:02:00] whatever point the municipality does proceed and and the new pump station

[3:02:05] gets uh constructed uh in the initial stages

[3:02:10] um there will only be sort of a minim amount of capacity

[3:02:16] granted uh or made available but this still has to happen because the pump

[3:02:22] station Force main and wastewater treatment plant sort of all need to be

[3:02:26] Apples to Apples orange to oranges and they're not right now it's all three

[3:02:30] components that don't work well together they're not really designed to be

[3:02:35] compatible so the new pump station would be enough capacity and pumps and wet

[3:02:42] well to be good enough for the next 75 years same for the forest main um but

[3:02:47] that doesn't do anything for the wastewater treatment plant but after

[3:02:53] that is done I would highly recommend that the municipality uh look at an ey

[3:02:59] and I study because there's approximately six liters a second that

[3:03:04] we're seeing um come into the wastewater treatment plant as rainwater or inflow

[3:03:10] and infiltration so um it once the municipality does phase one I I would

[3:03:17] highly recommend that in that same time you address or try to address the inii

[3:03:22] issues and the more inii that you can get out of the system before you decide

[3:03:28] you know or move forward with a Final Phase that might be a treatment plant

[3:03:32] upgrade you could find by pulling catch basins and you know roof water leaders

[3:03:37] out of the sanitary um will be a much more economical way to find

[3:03:44] capacity I think that's a great Point Jason and we hadn't talked about that

[3:03:48] here at Council yet but uh we did talk about it at committee that we have a lot

[3:03:53] of rainwater coming into our system and it really shows council's seen that on

[3:03:58] the uh the peak flows and stuff after a heavy rain event when Aqua brings a

[3:04:02] report so I think that's a great Point made that we have to address that as

[3:04:07] well is there any other questions here if not we have a recommendation in

[3:04:13] front of uh to receive it as information but also

[3:04:16] to increase the uh engineering $50,000 to the L price of

[3:04:23] $175,700 moveed by councelor D seconded by councel heel all in favor carried

[3:04:31] thank you thank you thanks Jason thank you

[3:04:37] mayor okay I think that's your last

[3:04:42] report you got one

[3:04:46] more yeah no no but I mean that's your last okay Brandon you have a

[3:04:53] report thanks thanks Rod thanks for coming

[3:04:58] Rod Mar members of council the uh report in front of you is to do with the score

[3:05:04] clock project that was approved December of 2023 to move forward with council's

[3:05:10] wish at that time was for staff to come up with a sponsorship method to try and

[3:05:14] fund the score clock um at least a large portion of it um myself and Felicia have

[3:05:21] come up with a sponsorship campaign to try and fund that score clock as you can

[3:05:26] see in the report um there are multiple options that we've come up with

[3:05:32] including the most lucrative one the title sponsorship which would provideing

[3:05:37] rights to the arena as Council may be aware we have

[3:05:41] rfpd for naming rights in the past and been successful in attaining anyone for

[3:05:46] that service um with the Platinum sponsor the

[3:05:50] Olympia ice resurfacer WP is included this is also a project that has been

[3:05:56] rfpd in the past and been unsuccessful staff's belief is that

[3:06:02] going into a blind tender process May deter some businesses from going after

[3:06:07] these these opportunities so putting a value on it which they know will make

[3:06:14] them more likely to take that sponsorship most of the sponsorships

[3:06:20] were designed um with what's included in them and then having a certain margin

[3:06:26] over top like a board sign for five years versus a sports field for f Sports

[3:06:31] field signed for five years in silver sponsorship if you take the numbers on

[3:06:36] those actual sponsorships you and add both uh percentage just it's pretty much

[3:06:42] in with each other so the added added sponsor will be a public skate and then

[3:06:49] having your name on a plaque as you enter the arena we already have a donor

[3:06:52] board for the arena so a separate plaque on there that basically indicates our

[3:06:57] scoreboard was brought to you by title sponsor X Platinum sponsor y gold

[3:07:02] sponsor ABCDEF silver sponsor abcdf Etc so if there's any

[3:07:09] questions happy to answer questions for Brandon

[3:07:14] counc irn then counc Nera did I hear you correctly you're going to put an RFP out

[3:07:18] for fundraising uh no it's not an RFP it it

[3:07:22] is the sponsorship package indicated in the I heard the term rfps so in the past

[3:07:29] when we wanted a a naming right sponsor it wasn't a fundraiser it was just for

[3:07:34] naming rights of the Arena we put out an an art like a request for tender for the

[3:07:38] highest bidder would get their name on The Arena so RFP because it would be a

[3:07:43] proposal this is what I would like to name the arena at this cost across this

[3:07:47] many years this is what I would like in and we were unsuccessful just just

[3:07:51] through your work certainly we're not going to try that again no what I'm

[3:07:55] suggesting is this is this is a package that would be approved and we would try

[3:07:59] and sell that sponsor thank you okay councelor Nera

[3:08:04] and Brandon what happens if we don't get the the money to for the scoreboard how

[3:08:10] will you be securing funding for that through grants

[3:08:13] through uh certainly I would plan on bringing a report back to council

[3:08:17] probably at the end of April to identify where we're at in this campaign and then

[3:08:22] test council's appetite if we've if we fundraised

[3:08:25] 40,000 um I would bring that back and see where councils appetite to proceed

[3:08:30] the project is my belief is that we will be successful in fundraising more than

[3:08:35] that just a follow-up comment and Brandon I just want to thank you for

[3:08:39] coming up with ideas to get money and not for ask Council for

[3:08:47] money counc canelon thank you Mayor Rob well Brandon I'm excited about this uh

[3:08:52] the pro proposal you have brought forward and I think I think you will be

[3:08:55] successful and I look forward to hearing positive

[3:08:59] updates and just one final note on it any title sponsor um will come back to

[3:09:05] Council in in the form of an agreement that outlines um the naming rights

[3:09:09] agreement which is quite common for other municipalities rights

[3:09:13] there okay any other any other questions on that okay we have a motion in front

[3:09:18] of us to approve the sponsorship methods outlined in the report moved by

[3:09:23] councelor Nera seconded by Deputy Mayor hodgin all in favor carried thank you

[3:09:29] thank you we're already at passing of

[3:09:39] accounts that's the liveliest council's been for a while when I said

[3:09:44] okay passing of accounts thank you your worship the

[3:09:49] report in front of you outlines the municipality's expenses for the period

[3:09:53] of January 12th through to February 1st for a total of $780,000

[3:10:01] 18379 I have received um questions from members of council that I would like to

[3:10:06] share with all of council so the first question is the payment of

[3:10:11] 176,000 894 to middlex Center for the cul is

[3:10:17] that the total cost to the municipality so this is the total cost

[3:10:22] to the municipality so the total cost for the project was $

[3:10:29] 313,50 so the 50% share to the municipality is the

[3:10:34] 15654 and that is the total cost for the project the second question is um the

[3:10:43] payment to Elgen County um for I'll I'll read the exact question

[3:10:50] for the exact same thing hasmat operations awareness um for 452 both on

[3:10:56] December 31st um why did we pay them twice for

[3:11:00] the same service uh the there is the second part of the question um is that

[3:11:07] we are paying for two personnel as well um help me understand this expense so uh

[3:11:15] basically uh the expense here is for training for some of our

[3:11:21] firefighters um that was done through Elgen County um there were one two three

[3:11:28] four different courses that some of our firefighters attended um the first one

[3:11:35] is a fire instructor one course that was attended by one of our firefighters

[3:11:40] Casey wall uh the second second one is public information officer course that

[3:11:46] was attended by Scott dones and Victoria Constantine and then this this one here

[3:11:52] in regards to the Hazmat awareness operations um yes there were two

[3:11:57] payments um the reason that there was two payments and they were not all

[3:12:01] included in the same payment was because it was on two different dates two

[3:12:06] different dates so we had one firefighter attend one session and a

[3:12:12] different firefighter attend with the other session and Elgen County invoices

[3:12:16] per course and then the third one is for uh

[3:12:21] Fire officer 4 and Scott Jones uh attended that um course as

[3:12:30] well the next question is regarding the payment to Anderson

[3:12:37] electronic um it says the description says annual inspections to what so this

[3:12:43] is the annual inspection of the fire alarm and emergency lighting at 11

[3:12:49] different facilities within the municipality so the Elsa Craig Community

[3:12:53] Center the Elsa Craig Library the Elsa Craig Medical Center this building the

[3:12:59] Carnegie Library the Park Hill medical center the Leisure Club the Park Hill

[3:13:03] Community Center the Park Hill Arena the West Williams Hall as well as the old

[3:13:08] town

[3:13:10] hall and the last question question um is not regarding um these accounts but

[3:13:17] it was a question that was brought up at the last meeting in January and it was

[3:13:22] regarding uh the additional dollar amount for the fire hall um so was that

[3:13:27] amount included in your previous project cost report or is it over and above what

[3:13:33] we saw previously I will let Brandon speak to

[3:13:37] that

[3:13:40] question so the last two bills would have been the November progress payment

[3:13:44] as well as the December progress payment um portions of it are included

[3:13:50] in the contract others would be over and above such as um you do ashalt you pay

[3:13:54] an AC adjustment um that cost is never

[3:13:59] budgeted for because they don't know what the adjustment is going to be

[3:14:01] typically if you pay in November it's a little bit higher um some of the other

[3:14:06] costs were over the allowances already so our testing allowance we kind of blew

[3:14:11] out of the water with the contaminated soils so any testing for ashalt

[3:14:15] compaction we were already over but they needed to be done um there's also some

[3:14:20] that were credits back towards the contract um we had about $30,000 saved

[3:14:25] on the fencing by delaying to the end of the project so that was a credit coming

[3:14:29] back there are a couple outstanding items as well um we do have Hydro

[3:14:34] Seating to be done still as well as top coat on the rear side of the fire hall

[3:14:40] so those will come with an AC adjustment on that but the um Hydro seing will be

[3:14:45] included in the contract and we have about 50,000 in allowance on that we're

[3:14:49] expected to get back as well so hope that

[3:14:57] helps is that all your questions that you had to

[3:15:02] you yes your worship those were all the questions that I received I now open the

[3:15:07] floor to any other questions other questions councelor K thank you mayor

[3:15:12] Estelle was that last question one I earlier yes it was okay

[3:15:21] um do we know do we have any idea how many more dollars we need to finish this

[3:15:30] with I would estimate that since I would say since the November

[3:15:36] progress billing now that contract value that I brought you in the last report

[3:15:41] will be higher than what we

[3:15:48] okay other questions no other questions we need a

[3:15:53] someone to make a motion to receive this for Council Irwin councel Nera all in

[3:15:57] favor Carri thanks

[3:16:01] Estelle uh committees so Lake here in

[3:16:07] primary ABCA uh sorry primary just received notice that may or sorry

[3:16:15] March 7th is the next meeting okay ABCA Blue Water recycling for

[3:16:23] information okay um Economic Development nothing to report but we did

[3:16:30] have an our first North Middle sex business associating meeting on the 25th

[3:16:35] of January and it was very

[3:16:40] well uh local school advisory

[3:16:45] meeting tomorrow night your worship and we have some additional information

[3:16:48] we'll be presenting including enrollment numbers for local schools um and

[3:16:56] including a report from the school board on the review of School boundaries which

[3:17:01] would be interesting when we bring it forward thank you I'm hoping to

[3:17:06] attend uh Rec

[3:17:09] committee okay policies policies same yeah policy we don't meet

[3:17:16] until we kept you busy last week fire

[3:17:21] committee budget committee uh so we're working on it and we have another

[3:17:26] meeting Friday which I'm sure will be all day but uh we have been meeting and

[3:17:32] um thanks Estelle for getting us to this point but yeah we do have another

[3:17:37] meeting but that process is happening uh Community Development

[3:17:42] we can say that that has been we've met and the results will be coming to counc

[3:17:48] for the next meeting correct okay for the next February meeting the results

[3:17:53] will be coming to council look Aqua advis um still have not received a date

[3:18:02] for a meeting okay uh so correspondents the first one is a or skills Development

[3:18:08] Fund to re and to receive and consider support not going to read that whole

[3:18:14] motion uh I don't think I need to I'm sure you have all looked at

[3:18:19] it is there a motion to support

[3:18:24] that seeing none it's receive and

[3:18:30] fil um Municipality of Tweed the license plate renewal i' like to support that M

[3:18:38] up going to be tougher to do now that they've got rid of their service

[3:18:41] matarial it okay you would make a motion to

[3:18:45] support that is there a secondary for that councelor K in favor of that

[3:18:50] carried okay thank you uh city of sna the carbon

[3:18:56] tax I support that one as well although I know it's pah but I was support okay

[3:19:00] peer counc Nera all in favor

[3:19:06] carried uh Township of ler Lake occupational health and safety act

[3:19:12] receive and

[3:19:15] file letter from Enbridge of gas uh rebasing application

[3:19:22] receive and file uh mlhu Board of Health meeting

[3:19:28] summary receive and file city of Stratford Civic night invitation

[3:19:33] everybody's received that

[3:19:37] invitation okay we'll see file it other energent business

[3:19:43] Council ke thank you Mayor Rob um just as of

[3:19:47] today I've received three uh phone calls from residents of w for wanting to know

[3:19:52] when they may expect to see a road grader on argal street they have called

[3:19:57] they have witness road graders being everywhere else but on oural so maybe

[3:20:03] like to see some activity there within by the weekend would maybe save me on my

[3:20:08] phone Bell hopefully before the weekend right so okay go ahead Jaden do you have

[3:20:13] something to add to that I know they've been on that road when it was too wet

[3:20:17] like when it was very wet they've been on AR I don't know if they were the

[3:20:20] whole length and I know they were doing they did the North End here yesterday

[3:20:26] but they only the North End to naron road so could we get a a an answer from

[3:20:31] staff to send that through the Council on that maybe to all of council because

[3:20:34] I received some as well if I could actually just have an email sent to me

[3:20:39] or a message that's what I mean but if you don't mind sending it to all the

[3:20:43] council think I've been getting some of those same questions in order to cool

[3:20:47] the conversation I said I would be in touch with them tomorrow yeah okay you I

[3:20:51] think that's reasonable um other business councelor

[3:20:55] canel you had some yes I do uh I would Echo councelor ke's concerns I also got

[3:20:59] a call today about the road has been but when you drive over it once the pootles

[3:21:04] magically reappear the other issue that I wanted to bring up is I had a call

[3:21:08] today from someone who uh got their tax bill

[3:21:12] but they asked if with the new format if the still automatic withdrawal still

[3:21:21] applies uh thank you through your worship uh yes they do uh there was a

[3:21:26] button that was not clicked in printing the paq notes on the tax notices but

[3:21:32] rest assure all residents if you were registered in a p program you are still

[3:21:38] registered in a p program as a followup to that and this is and I've already

[3:21:43] sent an email to the chair of the policy committee uh I've got a couple of calls

[3:21:48] from rate payers who attempted to contact the municipality and we're

[3:21:52] unable to connect with anyone or leave a voice message because the mailbox is

[3:21:57] full and I and I know we have a policy in terms of returning TOS to rirs I

[3:22:02] believe was 40 but if mailboxes are full then we

[3:22:06] need to do something about it and unfortunately this particular case I

[3:22:09] believe it's uh someone who's not been available work because Illness but then

[3:22:14] we have we have to make some accommodations for that we have to

[3:22:17] address the issue so that people know what to do when they need to get a hold

[3:22:22] of go ahead go ahead Estelle true your worship um you are correct it is the

[3:22:28] mailbox of the individual who has uh been away on an extended leave we did

[3:22:34] have a a short-term contract individual in that seat and like you I am now

[3:22:42] finding out that uh those voicemails were still in the mailbox and have not

[3:22:47] been returned um we are working on it um the information now is for individuals

[3:22:55] to contact myself and I am returning CS great but anyway as a followup can I get

[3:23:02] a report back what our policy is on returning

[3:23:07] costs as chair we'll take it look up with the policy and see what it is and

[3:23:12] you'll get hear from me okay is that it councelor Nera I've

[3:23:18] gotten a couple emails from R pairs regarding the parking on the Boulevard

[3:23:22] on Hasting streets um maybe this question for you Ashley can we add some

[3:23:28] more signage that says no parking or um tell the the parish members where they

[3:23:35] could park so they don't park on the neighboring uh

[3:23:40] Lawns thank you and worship uh staff have been in contact

[3:23:45] with that parish and and that church in general we have tried to connect them

[3:23:50] with neighboring businesses in the area to resolve parking conflicts as to

[3:23:55] provide them alternative sources also we have um mentioned and tried to persuade

[3:24:01] to use the available Municipal parking lots such as um like our parking lots

[3:24:07] here our side street parking where it is permitted and uh the parking lot behind

[3:24:12] the post office staff have also uh

[3:24:18] been we've been working with public works department to get increased

[3:24:22] signage in the area to add signage that explicitly States the no parking on that

[3:24:27] Boulevard and we've also U Been in conversation that it might end up in

[3:24:32] site plan or having um is it called sorry an increased

[3:24:39] parking space for disability parking that also has to be done through a

[3:24:44] process with infrastructure I believe thank you

[3:24:49] Ashley any other Business Council wiwin thank you worship I've had some

[3:24:55] constituents um share with me their concern that since we removed the

[3:24:58] electronic speeding sign on Queen Street coming south into Elsa Craig speed has

[3:25:04] begun to increase and I'm wondering if we're going to consider replacing that

[3:25:09] sign or putting a temporary sign back in place

[3:25:12] um because that is quite a busy road and traffic has started to increase

[3:25:18] again Jaden through your through you your

[3:25:22] worship um we would we're C we're planning on bringing back another report

[3:25:26] to council um we look at doing this on a six Monon rotation approximately just to

[3:25:32] to keep you guys updated sorry keep Council updated on the um on the data

[3:25:37] we're getting and then suggesting new locations keep rotating those signs

[3:25:41] around so um thank you for the comment we'll take that under consideration for

[3:25:45] the next report okay any other business I just

[3:25:50] have one uh it's it's come out at the budget committee and that is to um

[3:25:56] because we apply for a lot of Grants is to have a have it on paper what grants

[3:26:01] we've all applied that came up at committee

[3:26:04] because we're talk about not everybody knows about all the grants so just to

[3:26:08] increase communication to have that come up that's something counc ke um can we

[3:26:14] also have uh an indicator as to what ones we have been successfully granted

[3:26:19] just or for interesting yes certainly what I could

[3:26:23] put on on a regular basis is maybe other every other meeting what grants were

[3:26:28] applied for and which ones and on the list show which on be successful

[3:26:31] certainly if we're a successful one I would immediately let Council know

[3:26:34] anyway but it'll go on the list as well perfect thank you yeah just so that

[3:26:38] everybody has is aware okay any other business seeing

[3:26:43] none we'll move on deferred items I don't think we have well we did

[3:26:49] talk about the Surplus Farm Severance education uh that we'd have that before

[3:26:54] a council meeting we're not sure which council meeting yet yes I spoke to the

[3:26:59] planners today about that your worship and so they're suggesting coming to the

[3:27:04] planning meeting either in March or April depending on um availability

[3:27:09] starting an hour early starting the meeting at 5 with a a uh educational

[3:27:14] session with Council uh the presentation and the time for questions prior to the

[3:27:19] regular meeting starting okay uh Communications including uh

[3:27:25] County Council you've got the highlights in front of you there has not been

[3:27:28] another meeting since that we meet next Tuesday reading of the

[3:27:35] bylaws thank you your worship through you we have bylaws 6 to 10 of 202 four

[3:27:41] for first and second reading first and second Council canelon

[3:27:46] counc ke all in favor carried and third and final please counc dagel Deputy

[3:27:54] Mayor hjin all in favor carried thank you uh need a motion to go

[3:27:59] into close just and that is for advice that is subject to client solicitor

[3:28:04] privilege including Communications necessary for that purpose winter

[3:28:08] maintenance contract move by councelor Nera section by Council Irwin all in

[3:28:12] favor thank you and I want to thank Council for staying with us I know it's

[3:28:17] a big agenda and to staff as well Council and

[3:28:21] staff for going through this so we'll move to close

[3:28:30] yeah we are back in open Council we have no report at this time coming out of

[3:28:35] council uh at this time I would just ask move to

[3:28:40] ajour Nera and counselor ke all in favor Carri thanks everyone very

[3:28:46] much

North Middlesex Council Meeting - February 7, 2024

Transcript