[9:22] Good afternoon, I'll call the meeting to order. I could have a motion to approve the agenda, please. Moved by Councillor Cheddar Chuck, second by- Sorry, there's an agenda. I'm sorry. Motion to approve the agenda with the agenda. Moved by Councillor Cheddar Chuck, second by Councillor Smith. Any discussion? All those in favor? Motion is carried. The purpose of this meeting is to provide council with updates and an opportunity for discussion with representatives from Lake Ed University and Royal Soldier Memorial Hospital regarding Lake

[9:52] The Medicaid University expansion plans and the hospital's redevelopment planning efforts.

[9:55] Are there any disclosures of interest on the topic?

[9:59] Now noted, if anything come up during the course of conversation, please advise.

[10:05] We'll deal with the report now, Ms. Pestic, could you put the motion in please?

[10:12] Thank you, Mayor McKisic.

[10:13] The motion reads as follows that as recommended in report, MC2618 dated August 4th,

[10:17] 26 from Mayor McKisic.

[10:19] The return fund transfer structure set out in the report be endorsed in principle as the city's preferred and

[10:24] constructive approach to the new hospital and the university Avenue lands comprising.

[10:28] One, the return of the 25 acres from Lakehead University to the city for

[10:32] nominal consideration of $1, consistent with the development agreement.

[10:36] The 2016 amendment and the registered right at first refusal.

[10:39] Two, a city and Lakehead campus partnership providing up to $15 million toward Lakeheads,

[10:44] are really academic building as milestone-based contributions with provisions and a covenant

[10:49] against any further disposition of the remaining lands and three, a city and a really

[10:53] soldier's memorial hospital site arrangement granting the hospital immediate site control

[10:57] to advance its stage 1.3 planning and conveyance of the site to the hospital at stage 2 of

[11:02] the ministry's capital process for $1 and a return of the land to the city if the hospital

[11:06] is not built.

[11:07] And that staff be directed to provide a copy of this structure to Lakehead University and

[11:11] really is Soldiers Memorial Hospital as the city's constructive proposal and that staff

[11:15] be directed to secret and confirmation from the Ministry of Health and Infrastructure

[11:18] Ontario that city provided site control satisfies stage 1.3 and that conveyance at stage

[11:23] 2 is acceptable and that staff be directed to obtain an independent appraisal of the 25 acres

[11:28] for which $9,000 is hereby authorized from the tax rate stabilization reserve and that staff

[11:34] be directed to liaison with representatives of Lake Head University and really is Soldiers

[11:37] memorial hospital to prepare heads of terms and as required draft agreements to give effect

[11:42] to the structure and to report back to council for its further consideration and approval.

[11:46] And then a coordinating working group with Lakehead University, Aurelia Soldiers Memorial

[11:49] Hospital and City of Aurelia Representatives be constituted to add details to the heads

[11:54] of terms and as required draft agreements to give effect to the structure and to report

[11:58] back to council board of directors of Aurelia Soldiers Memorial Hospital and board of governors

[12:02] of Lakehead University for further consideration and approval.

[12:05] Okay. Thank you for that. Could I have a mover and seconder, please?

[12:09] Moved by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Sepola.

[12:12] I have a quick introductory statement since of my report.

[12:17] And let me be plain because this deserves plain.

[12:21] Everyone in this room wants the same three things.

[12:25] The hospital bill, excuse me, the hospital bill, the campus grown and the public's rights respected.

[12:31] it. The proposal brought to us by our partners buys the first two by giving up the third.

[12:39] The constructed proposal before you tonight gets all three. Return, fund, transfer.

[12:48] Lakehead returns to 25 acres that never built on for $1.

[12:52] Exactly as our agreement always moved this land. The city funds Lakehead's building up to

[12:58] 15 million over ten years earn milestone by milestone. The partnership the

[13:05] county has already shown us and the city hands us this hospital its site for

[13:10] one dollar one dollar not 15 to 25 million of this community's donations spent

[13:20] buying back land we already gave away once one dollar so every dollar a

[13:26] Millions raised goes into beds and operating rooms, not into the ground beneath them.

[13:32] Some say the sale costs the city nothing.

[13:35] Friends, the hospital money is your money.

[13:39] The province pays for everything except land.

[13:43] The choice was never 15 million versus zero.

[13:46] It is the same money spent with the land gone forever, or invested with the land in your hands, and every dollar earned.

[13:54] I am not running again. There is no election for me in this room and nothing here I win.

[14:02] There is only what we leave behind. A hospital, a university, and the land deal that respects

[14:09] the intent of the initial transaction, all three. That is the motion before you. I request

[14:16] you to pass it.

[14:19] Now to the Willow Council, I understand that Dr. Siddhal has a statement.

[14:23] I'm not sure if you want to hear the statement first or you have questions or amendments.

[14:28] Statement first.

[14:30] Sure.

[14:31] Actually, why don't we deal with, are there any amendments to the motion at this point?

[14:35] Councillor Smith has a map.

[14:36] Let's deal with the amendment then we have the full motion before us.

[14:38] Councillor Smith.

[14:41] Thank you and through you, Christine, you have the amendment.

[14:45] For line item two, where we discuss providing partnership up to 15 million, I would like to see that change to 1 million.

[14:52] at the end of the day, the municipality and the really taxpayers are not responsible for funding.

[15:00] I believe growth should pay for growth, so I think that a $1 million contribution is more than fair.

[15:06] So are you moving that? Do we have a seconder?

[15:11] Councilor Spola, a second. Discussion or comments? Councilor Spola?

[15:19] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I seconded to get it on the table. I just want an explanation what this actually does to the motion. Are we taking away the $15 million from Lakehead? Or is that what this motion does? The amendment?

[15:34] Yes, through you. Yes, this is dealing with the gift to Lakehead, the funding of Lakehead.

[15:39] So what this motion does is not to give them the 15 million, correct?

[15:43] Correct. It's to replace it 15 million with 1 million.

[15:48] Okay. Any other questions?

[15:51] Okay, let's vote on the amendment is tabled. All those in favor?

[15:55] All those opposed?

[15:58] So let's count that again opposed to five.

[16:02] Okay, the motion is lost.

[16:03] Now, to the will of council, do you want to hear from Dr. Siddhal?

[16:07] Do you have questions?

[16:09] Dr. Siddhal?

[16:10] Dr. Siddhal, I understand if you have a statement you want to

[16:13] come forward and give it to us.

[16:17] That's fine.

[16:38] Good afternoon and thank you, Mayor and members of council for

[16:42] convening this meeting on August 5th, 2026 and for the

[16:46] opportunity to address you directly.

[16:49] The decision before council as I see it, the current

[16:53] motion, notwithstanding, is whether under the existing development agreement to consent

[16:58] to Lakehead University's proposed sale of approximately 25 acres of its arreality campus

[17:04] to a really a soldier's memorial hospital or OSMH, on-term satisfactory to Lakehead and

[17:11] OSMH.

[17:13] The subject lands our OSMH's preferred site for its future campus of care.

[17:18] layer. Lakehead proposes to sell the subject lands to OSMH and reinvest 100% of the proceeds

[17:26] in the Aurelia campus through the construction of a new academic building. That has always

[17:32] been Lakehead's intended use of the proceeds and we remain firmly committed to that.

[17:38] This proposal has the potential to create significant opportunity for Aurelia comprised

[17:44] of an integrated expanded campus where a new regional hospital and a growing university

[17:50] strengthen one another for generations.

[17:54] With the city's support, Lake Ridge University and OSMH can advance education, healthcare,

[18:01] research, community development, and employment well beyond either project on its own.

[18:08] We recognize that a proposal of this significance has generated broad public discussion.

[18:13] including public statements, media coverage and questions and concerns raised by members of council, city staff and members of the community.

[18:23] We respect that discussion and recognize the importance of public consideration.

[18:29] Today, however, the specific question is whether council will consent to the proposed sale under the development agreement.

[18:37] We are pleased to address any questions that will assist council in the decision before

[18:43] it today.

[18:46] Lakehead and OSMH have each invested in Aurelia and remain committed to long-term investment

[18:52] and growth in Aurelia.

[18:54] This proposal would allow that growth to proceed through a collaboration between Lakehead University

[19:00] and OSMH.

[19:01] When universities and hospitals grow together, students learn where care is delivered.

[19:09] Research becomes more connected to community needs.

[19:12] Employers gain access to a stronger workforce.

[19:16] Innovation accelerates.

[19:18] Communities become healthier, more resilient, and more attractive places to live and work.

[19:25] This is the opportunity before Aurelia.

[19:29] With Council's consent, Lakehead and OSMH can continue advancing the proposed transaction

[19:35] of purchase and sale of the subject lands.

[19:40] Without that consent, the proposal cannot proceed as contemplated.

[19:46] We respectfully ask Council to support the consent required under the development agreement.

[19:53] Thank you.

[19:56] Thank you, Dr. Siddell.

[19:57] I wonder two points, if I may.

[20:01] You mentioned that you wanted the sale to proceed on term satisfactory to the

[20:06] Lakehead University and Soldiers Memorial Hospital.

[20:09] The city is part of this.

[20:11] Did you purposefully omit that, or is that just a small oversight?

[20:20] Your microphone's not on.

[20:22] There we go.

[20:23] Mr. Mayor, it's not an oversight.

[20:24] Obviously, the city is a key player in this and that the consent of the city is required

[20:29] for this sale to proceed.

[20:34] You mentioned it's your intention to reinvest the proceeds in the community.

[20:41] That's not the same as an obligation.

[20:43] Would you have an objection to turning that into an obligation instead of an intention?

[20:48] We would be happy to write that into a settlement agreement that that is our commitment.

[20:54] Okay.

[20:55] And then your statement was that the proposal cannot proceed as contemplated.

[21:00] that's true. I think the only thing that can proceed is the one thing your deed was

[21:07] written to prevent and that's an unconditional sale. And everyone else, the planning,

[21:13] the site, the funding, the partnership can begin this afternoon if we agree with the proposal

[21:18] I have on the table.

[21:22] Any objection to the proposal?

[21:24] Yes, I have concerns about the proposal.

[21:27] It gives you, I mean, I wouldn't, soldiers can speak for themselves, but instead of spending $15 to $25 million on land, they get it for a dollar.

[21:37] I think they would find that attractive.

[21:39] They'll speak for themselves.

[21:41] And for the lake head, you get the money you need to build the building.

[21:47] And to protect Arilia, which is the third element here that you've admitted, we need to make sure we're protected in terms of conditions.

[21:57] What I would say in response to that is absolutely the hospital can speak to their own concerns

[22:02] about the proposal today.

[22:05] The proposal today is not something that's contemplated by the legal agreement between

[22:11] Lakehead University and the city of Aurelia.

[22:13] It proposes to engage in some kind of settlement outside that context.

[22:19] The land that Lakehead owns that is the issue at hand is an asset that the Lakehead University

[22:28] Board of Governors has a responsibility to steward and not simply to give away.

[22:36] And what we are proposing is that that asset would be converted from a land asset into a

[22:42] different kind of asset which would be a new building, which would very much be in the public

[22:47] But good, it allows a really campus to grow, to bring in more students, to expand the

[22:53] impact, the very positive impact that we know Lakehead has had on this city over 20 years.

[22:59] And it would allow us to do that immediately.

[23:03] Okay, I would note you're not the only party in the room that has a responsibility for

[23:08] stewardship over assets and not giving them way.

[23:11] The city's got that same responsibility,

[23:15] okay?

[23:16] Any other questions from council?

[23:17] Councillor Dernford. Thank you. Thank you. Through you, Mayor McKisic.

[23:25] So we have had a letter from Mayor McKisic this morning and he has also expressed his

[23:32] concerns with an unconditional sale. And I think all members of council would share

[23:38] that concern. And just for absolute clarity, is it, is Lakehead willing to accept conditions

[23:48] on the sale that would bind it to investing the proceeds of the sale only into a campus

[23:56] expansion in the city of Aurelia?

[23:59] Yes. In terms of agreement document, we would be willing to do that. I should be clear

[24:07] that the conditions, the kind of performance metrics that are entertained in the motion

[24:14] that's currently on the floor would not be something we would be open to, but we are

[24:20] very experienced in making these kinds of commitments to different funding bodies,

[24:26] the government for example, or donors.

[24:29] So yes, we're quite happy to write that into a settlement agreement because that is our

[24:36] intention. It has always been our intention. We need a new building on that campus or we cannot grow

[24:43] and this is a way for us to make that happen expeditiously.

[24:51] Council Member, go ahead.

[24:53] Thank you and I'm just looking at the schedule A which I believe is maybe what you're referring to

[24:59] but just maybe for all of us through you, Mayor McKisak, could you expand on the conditions that you

[25:07] referenced in terms of milestones and performance targets.

[25:14] Thank you. Through the mayor, the motion is currently defined as going to the details

[25:20] of those metrics, but there have been other documents shared with us by the CAO that

[25:25] go into a great deal of detail about those metrics, including control over academic programming.

[25:34] That's not something we can agree to, our Senate decides on academic programming.

[25:40] So we can't agree to things that are within the purview of our Senate or our board,

[25:46] but we can certainly agree to where the proceeds will go.

[25:52] Councillor Dernford.

[25:53] Thank you just as a follow-up.

[25:54] So you are saying that Lake Head has received details about metrics, proposed metrics that have not been shared with Council.

[26:02] Council.

[26:03] I'm pleased.

[26:06] Your Worship, I can answer that question.

[26:08] Every question that has been sent to Lakehead has been provided to Council through a CIP.

[26:18] Council Member, any more?

[26:20] Thank you.

[26:20] Yes.

[26:21] I'm aware of all of the questions that have been sent to Lakehead, but just asking for clarity

[26:27] around the milestones and the metrics that are proposed and what those are.

[26:36] Or I am not aware, and perhaps I've missed them, but I'm not aware of those details being shared with council.

[26:47] I'm on a trade.

[26:48] Through your worship, once again, every document that Leicad hasn't claimed confidentiality upon has been shared with council either to my report or through the subsequent CIPs.

[27:02] Just

[27:08] said, further, probably a bit, Dr. Sadell, just curious as to why you're not open to the conditions.

[27:16] I mean, I understand the academic conditions, we're not going to tell you to have a reading, writing, arithmetic class.

[27:21] I mean, that's your call, but to build the building.

[27:25] I mean, the governance that we initially, the city initially got 20 years ago, that's something changed there and that didn't happen.

[27:33] really has had with YMCA and other groups have had issues.

[27:40] I mean, we contract with a guy who's going to pay the roads.

[27:46] We say, here's the money and here are the conditions.

[27:48] I mean, that's standard, I would think.

[27:51] But you struggle with it?

[27:52] I wouldn't say I struggle with it, and I'm not sure that negotiating

[27:56] that level of what might go in a settlement agreement is helpful.

[28:01] In this context, certainly when we have, as I said, when we've received money from other

[28:08] bodies, there are expectations around the use of that money.

[28:14] I'm also, I guess, not clear whether we're talking about this in terms of the motion,

[28:19] a motion that would support what we are asking for or whether we're talking about it in the

[28:26] context of the motion that's on the floor.

[28:29] Those are two very different things in my mind.

[28:32] But the motion on the floor advocates getting a group together to define precisely what that is.

[28:40] The motion on the floor.

[28:43] Mr. Mayor, the motion on the floor proposes to give us up to $20 million over a 10-year period with certain performance metrics in place.

[28:54] Okay.

[28:58] No final so far?

[29:00] Well, it's very different from a motion that would allow us to sell the land to the hospital

[29:07] immediately and use those proceeds immediately.

[29:11] We're looking at the difference between us building a new desperately needed academic building

[29:16] within the near future.

[29:17] I just met with architects this morning that work is well underway to looking at building

[29:22] at 10 years from now.

[29:24] I'm quite sure, Dr. Selle, we could work with you on the timeline of the payments,

[29:28] but you couldn't possibly sit here expecting the city to give you $15 to $25 million and call a good,

[29:36] no conditions.

[29:39] Well, I'm not suggesting the city should give us any money.

[29:42] I'm suggesting that the city should approve the sale of the land from the university to the hospital.

[29:48] Well, the assist with you getting the money, I mean, it's the same thing.

[29:52] I mean, the city would like some sort of condition on the transaction so

[29:57] that we can make sure that the money doesn't.

[30:00] Go to Thunder Bay. It doesn't go to another location. Mr. Mayor have already committed to saying that we would agree to language in a settlement agreement that all of the proceeds would go to building a new building on the early campus. That's what the respect, Dr. Sidel, that's an intention not an obligation. And we're here about obligation. We want to make sure that what we say is what we do. With respect, Mr. Mayor, I think a settlement agreement is an obligation. I would agree.

[30:31] And therefore, I think the motion, as it stands, provides both of us and the hospital as well.

[30:38] The third party with what we need, I mean, the hospital gets a loan for a dollar, $1.

[30:43] You get what you need, and the city gets the conditions that we would naturally require.

[30:51] Any other questions from Councilor?

[30:53] Councilor Suppola, then Councillor Follas.

[30:57] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[30:58] I had a conversation with Mr. Kirby, Art Clerk, and one of the things I'm really concerned about is the disposition of the $15 million or $20, whatever that number may be.

[31:13] So my question to Mr. Kirby was, can we put that $15 million in a trust account for Lakehead, and as you progress, as you're building, you do the foundations, you need a million dollars, you write your check for million dollars.

[31:26] If this I as our mayor said I don't want the money to go to Thunder Bay or to bury I want the money as you know

[31:35] I was one of the first ones involved with trying to bring Lake head from Thunder Bay down here

[31:40] So I think it's really important that we work with Lake head and the hospital to make sure that both things happen

[31:47] But I'm concerned about the funds

[31:50] that the original tax payers will give. And that is, as your building progresses,

[31:56] you ask the city, send a bill to the city for a million dollars or two million dollars.

[32:00] So, Mr. Kirby, can you help me out a little bit and say, is that outlined in the motion

[32:05] that's on the table or do we need an amendment for it? That is, money being put in trust

[32:09] only for Lakehead.

[32:11] Through

[32:19] your worship, Councillor, I believe our conversation, what I advised was that that was in the report by the CAO that was heard at our last council meeting, that he had proposed escrow conditions as decision C as part of his report.

[32:43] I do not know at present how to modify this current resolution as it stands in order to introduce trust conditions into it.

[32:52] I have to say that it can't be done, but I can't speak to that immediately.

[32:56] Again, the context within our last conversation, I believe, was me referring to the CAO with report.

[33:06] Any

[33:10] suggestions and ideas that council or members of council have if the motion before council

[33:17] proceeds, there's an avenue for that, which is through the Coordination Committee, which

[33:25] most likely will have members of council on there and also representatives of the other

[33:31] partner organizations, and the discussions that do what the specifics are, what the God

[33:37] Reels are, what the timing, I think that those sorts of questions are best answered through

[33:44] those collaborative discussions.

[33:47] Okay.

[33:48] Thank you, Julie.

[33:48] Noted.

[33:49] It comes small anymore.

[33:50] Yes.

[33:51] I'm just wondering if would you accept that condition in the agreement that the money we put

[33:57] of interest, and as you progress in the construction of your buildings, the money would be given back to you.

[34:05] If we're talking about the motion on the floor, I can't support the motion on the floor.

[34:12] Lake, I should just be very clear about that.

[34:14] Lakehead University is not going to support the conditions articulated in that motion.

[34:19] My board will not support them.

[34:22] So, I'm not sure how to answer, through the mayor, I'm not sure how to answer your question, Councillor.

[34:29] It's something we could talk about in the context of another motion, perhaps.

[34:36] I do.

[34:37] Do you want to define the conditions you would remove, Dr. Sitel?

[34:41] Pardon me, Mr. Mayor?

[34:42] Like you don't like conditions.

[34:43] You don't like them all.

[34:44] You don't like one of them.

[34:45] You don't like two of them.

[34:46] Which one?

[34:46] I would like to see this proceed through the mechanism of the existing development agreement

[34:53] and not a process that is completely outside of that agreement.

[34:58] This does not outside the development agreement.

[35:00] This abides by the development agreement because it respects that.

[35:03] Well, I respectfully disagree with that.

[35:05] You're entitled to your opinion.

[35:07] Councillor Sipola, any more?

[35:09] Councillor Follas?

[35:09] Not right now, Mr. Mayor.

[35:11] Thanks.

[35:12] And then Councillor the Chair, I did want to start by really saying thank you to the

[35:15] representative from Lakehead for joining us.

[35:18] We really appreciate the time and appreciate how big a

[35:23] deal this is. The question I guess I had for you, no problem. The question I had for you was,

[35:31] could you speak maybe a bit more in detail in terms of what you see as the potential benefit

[35:38] of having the hospital close to Lakehead University on campus? What are maybe some specifics that

[35:47] can be provided. I've had many residents reach out to me asking about the potential of medical

[35:54] school or nurse training. Any information would certainly be helpful. Thank you.

[36:00] Thank you. Through the mayor, happy to speak to that and I believe I spoke to this in a deputation

[36:05] that I presented to council back in June. I think that the synergies that will come from these

[36:13] to organizations being co-located are tremendous.

[36:18] So certainly in terms of programming, we can't, as I was saying earlier, I can't guarantee

[36:24] what programs will emerge, but our dean of health and behavioral sciences is very focused

[36:30] on this, looking at maybe having our Kinesiology program be offered down here.

[36:36] It would only make sense for us to continue to think about what health programming could

[36:41] be offered here in addition to what we already offer that would provide tremendous

[36:45] synergies with the hospital.

[36:48] There's also research opportunities which can be incredibly generative, and I see that

[36:54] being a wonderful opportunity, work placements, internships, I think it goes on.

[37:02] But then I think there's also the piece of what it would do to the Aurelia campus.

[37:07] So, we have always seen the Aurelia campus and the Thunder Bay campus as being community-oriented

[37:14] campuses.

[37:16] They, in Thunder Bay, it grew out of community just as it did in Aurelia because citizens

[37:22] of those cities saw the value of having a university in their city and it was transformational

[37:28] in Thunder Bay and it's been transformational in Aurelia.

[37:32] And so I think it's part of a greater vision of continuing to develop the campus in that way.

[37:42] So it's not an ivory tower university that's high up on a hill and that most citizens

[37:48] never go to.

[37:50] It is a bustling thriving campus where healthcare is co-located with higher education and at

[38:00] At some point we hope in the near future and the athletics facility, people will want

[38:05] to come on to campus, people will come on to campus, and it will be, it will be a

[38:10] tremendous thing that is going to outlive all of us in this room.

[38:15] Lakehead as a campus will continue to grow, the hospital will be built, and will thrive,

[38:20] and the synergies between the two will just grow and expand.

[38:30] Councillor Dernford is next, then Councillor Lauer.

[38:34] So it's sounding to me like the sticking point, the disagreement is in the manner of

[38:45] the transfer of the lands and that Lakehead and Soldiers maintain that they are in favor

[38:52] up a direct sale with conditions and that the city is

[38:59] positing to kind of broker that through this the city

[39:05] re-acquiring the land and then giving it to soldiers

[39:10] with a $1 agreement and contributing the $15 million.

[39:14] So two questions for you because I am hearing and I

[39:19] I understand that both Lake Head and soldiers are quite willing to have conditions on the sale.

[39:27] What do we get soldiers at the table to check that out?

[39:29] That's a supposition at this point.

[39:31] That would be great.

[39:33] If my question is,

[39:38] what is the sticking point?

[39:41] What is the advantage from the perspective of Lake Head and soldiers of a direct sale with conditions

[39:48] conditions over the mayor's proposal, and what are the conditions that Lake Head and

[39:55] soldiers are willing to agree to?

[40:00] Shall I begin through the mayor?

[40:04] The sticking point for us, first of all, I just think it's always better to use a legal

[40:11] agreement in hand rather than try to come up with ways to work outside of that agreement.

[40:16] And this process is, I think, cleaner for both organizations.

[40:25] The money is transferred directly from one to the other, not through a third party.

[40:31] We would be able to use the proceeds of the sale of the land immediately towards building

[40:36] a new building that is well underway, as I said, I met with architects this morning.

[40:42] That money would also put us in a strong position to apply for the built community's strong fund which would also help us build that building and so that is the sticking point if you like for us.

[40:57] But if you had access to the funds faster, would that resolve the sticking point?

[41:05] That feels like a hypothetical question.

[41:07] It's a question I mean.

[41:08] Mr. Mayor that I don't know how to answer.

[41:10] Sure. Well, you could say yes or no. I mean, at the end of the day, if we got to the money faster, does that help?

[41:17] You have suggested that's an obstacle. We're trying to deal with the obstacles. And if we deal with that obstacle and you pull up another one, then I mean, what are the obstacles is what I think was Councillor Durnford's question and what are they, if it's getting the money faster, if we resolve that, does that solve your problem? To me, it does. And I want you to agree to that or disagree.

[41:38] I can't agree or disagree to that, it's something we would be open to considering, depending on how that offer is put forward to us.

[41:46] Okay, fair enough. Councillor Verna, do you have any other questions?

[41:50] Go ahead.

[41:51] Well, yes, so I was hoping to hear from both Lakehead and OSMH, and then the second part of my question was, I believe that Lakehead and Soldiers have posited that they are willing to accept certain conditions.

[42:06] And I'm wondering if you could outline what those conditions would be, that you would be willing to accept.

[42:15] Through the mayor, absolutely, the hospital acknowledges that there is a covenant in place.

[42:20] And the spirit of that covenant would be something of the effect of the land being returned to lay catcher to hospital, not be built.

[42:27] I think that would be one of the primary protections that would be in scope for this conversation, we're certainly open to that.

[42:34] Mr. Roberts, just since you've joined us for the record, would your preference be to pay the

[42:40] city a dollar for the land or to pay Lake Ed the 20 or 25 million? Through the mayor, I think that's

[42:46] a misrepresentation of the funding formula and the way the House of Representatives would.

[42:50] I think the most important point of this conversation earlier you mentioned about the land being funded

[42:56] by the taxpayers of the city that is inaccurate. The funds for the purchase are currently in the bank

[43:01] I think account of the hospital.

[43:02] And where did those funds come from?

[43:05] They came through hospital operations, not doner dollars.

[43:09] The hospital has the money making machine at the base fund.

[43:11] I mean, these are taxpayer funds.

[43:14] They're the chair point of order.

[43:16] I go ahead, let Mr. Roberts answer first.

[43:19] Mr. Roberts, the question is fairly simple.

[43:22] It's, you've got 20 million, 25 million, pick a number in the bank.

[43:26] You want to spend that on the land, or do you want to spend a dollar?

[43:30] So through the matter, I think the inherent element missing here is the conversation

[43:34] of local share, which we clearly articulated in our deputation is part of our 1.3

[43:39] planning and work in front of us.

[43:41] So to talk about the value of the land in terms of net proceeds to the hospital and absence

[43:46] of local share, I believe is a misrepresentation of the total funding formula.

[43:50] Definitely not a misrepresentation of local share, which has not yet been discussed or determined.

[43:54] But the question is simple, and if you don't want to answer it, maybe we've got 68 questions

[43:58] You haven't answered either, so I guess this is 69.

[44:02] As we communicated to the CAO, we are happy to answer those questions.

[44:06] Why didn't you?

[44:07] We offered them in writing at least two times and didn't get a single response to any of

[44:12] the questions.

[44:13] Through the mayor, I think as we've heard in other comments today, the context is important.

[44:18] Active dialogue would be the best way to appropriately set that context.

[44:21] Do you want to go through the 60 questions right now?

[44:23] Would you like to answer them now or are you not going to answer them?

[44:27] Through the mayor, we are here at the will of council.

[44:30] We're good. Any other questions or comments at this point?

[44:34] Councilor Lauer.

[44:35] Thanks, Mayor Ocaizic.

[44:39] Miss O'Neill, thanks for coming, by the way, everybody.

[44:43] You mentioned earlier in your presentation or your preamble that this kind of arrangement is not new to a university.

[44:53] universities do this all the time. There's mechanisms internally, and I think that of...

[45:00] Certainly, listening to the general public, that's a huge concern for them. They have this, we've just had an experience with Georgian College that didn't go well and we've had other experiences. So, the folks I'm hearing from, or a lot of folks I'm hearing from are concerned with that. And the more reassurance we can, we can get the better. But could you just go over the mechanism, the internal mechanism that would govern these funds within the university and the restricted reserve?

[45:29] So I'm going to invite my VP Administration of Finance, Kathy Pazahun, who's on screen to respond to that because she's closer to those kinds of mechanisms than I am.

[45:40] Okay, go ahead.

[45:43] Thank you for the question and good afternoon everyone.

[45:46] Our Board of Governors will have oversight of restricted reserves within the university's financial systems and would impose restrictions for these of those funds.

[45:57] So that would completely satisfy the council's concern about whether these funds are directed towards

[46:04] really a campus extension. The Board of Governors would ensure that happens.

[46:11] Councilor Lara?

[46:13] So would that come out of this proposed or whatever ends up being proposed?

[46:23] Discussion with the three parties on how that's going to work.

[46:29] You mentioned, I don't know what you call it, not an illegal agreement, but an agreement.

[46:35] That process would define that clearly and people could take some comfort in there.

[46:43] Yes, that's right.

[46:44] So for example, when we get a pot of money from the government, say, to build a new barn for

[46:51] our veterinary partnership with the OVC in Guelph, and Kathy, again, can speak to this.

[46:59] There's lots of paperwork around that to make sure that those funds get spent as they

[47:03] should be.

[47:06] And Mr. Mayor, if Kathy could speak to that.

[47:09] I'm sorry, Mr. Lastenauds.

[47:12] Just asking if Kathy can add to my answer.

[47:15] Please.

[47:17] Well, I think in addition, as President Siddhal mentioned earlier, I think the university

[47:22] is very willing to negotiate a minutes of settlement of some sort that would then satisfy

[47:29] the councillors' concern that the funds that we would receive through the land transaction

[47:36] directly with soldiers would be protected for campus expansion only.

[47:46] Any other questions?

[47:49] Anybody?

[47:50] I have one further question.

[47:52] And Terry McKinnon's board chair, I'd ask you the same question I asked Mr.

[47:56] Robert, in terms of, you know, for the hospital and the communities, it better to spend the 15 to $25 million or spend the dollar.

[48:05] The board has not had a discussion since our last meeting with regards to the proposal that you have put forth.

[48:12] I think the terms under which that transfer of a dollar is important to know.

[48:18] For example, it is mentioned in the document that a long-term lease may be offered, and that something we are not willing to accept.

[48:27] So if the transfer for a dollar is the lease that you were referring to in the document, then I think that is a non-starter for our board.

[48:36] Well, I think the only condition the city would have, and I'm not speaking for council, I just speak for myself, but would be that you build a hospital.

[48:43] I mean, you don't decide to market that land to somebody else, and that, you know, you build it within a certain amount of time, 10-15 years, build a hospital and get yours to keep.

[48:53] I mean, those would be fairly simple conditions. I don't think anyone would have any difficulty with that. Is that something you want to check with your board with before you make a final determination in?

[49:02] As to whether we would accept ownership after the hospital has been built?

[49:07] No, you would have ownership immediately, we'd sell it to you for a dollar, and that would prevent, like right now, if you have to spend, pick the number 15 to 25 million, you have to spend it now, you could conserve that cash, you wouldn't have to spend it at all, you'd have ownership of the land, you can do all the planning you wanted to, you'd be able to proceed as necessary, and then if you did not build the hospital, then in some period of time, we'd agree to 15, 25 years, whatever, the land would have revert to the city because we wouldn't want to lose that, and that you wouldn't be able to sell it to somebody else, and I don't think you're intentional.

[49:36] would be to sell to anybody else, so I don't know those would be two arduous conditions.

[49:43] At this point, we need to move forward in order to continue our stage 1.3.

[49:48] So, you know, some type of agreement that delays or creates a reflection point in 10 or

[49:58] 15 years as regards to what happens with that land, I think, is problematic for us.

[50:02] Okay, I mean, the way this motion is, it gives you exactly that as it frees you to move forward.

[50:07] It frees the lake head to move forward and everyone can go about their business and do all the planning and necessary stuff you need to do, so I think we're fine any other comments Dr.

[50:18] Council falls thanks through the chair just on that note. Could we get just further explanation in terms of what the concerns

[50:28] Of the board would be around a long-term lease. Thanks. I'm going to ask Tom Robert's answer that question. Thank you

[50:45] The motion before council does not contemplate a long-term lease, it looks for a transfer, once the due diligence is completed, stage 1.3.

[50:57] Through the mayor, our primary concern with the motion on the floor is that it does not provide us the contractual assurance of the land that we would want to have at this point in time.

[51:08] I think what was referenced in another conversation was a comfort letter with transfer

[51:12] happening at a later point in time. Our legal counsel has been clear that in order

[51:17] for this to move forward, we require an act of counsel, and that is consent to the deal

[51:22] between Lakehead and OSMH, and that is what we are looking to pursue. I would also add

[51:26] just as clarification to the earlier communications regarding calling what's

[51:30] project. I don't believe anyone here has spoken to them outside the conversations

[51:34] I have had, they did establish a contract with the land owner at Stage 1.3.

[51:40] They gave them that assurance to transfer the land once they reach the appropriate

[51:45] stage. That is what we are looking to do with Lakehead.

[51:48] Have the assurance that should all the due diligence and planning come to fruition

[51:52] that we would then have access to the land.

[51:55] Anything short of Council consenting to the deal that we would like to put together,

[51:59] There is no deal at present, but any short of council consenting to the 25 acres of land being removed from the covenant impacts the work that we need to do.

[52:09] I'm on the pre-trainership, the motion before council actually removes all those obstacles, it actually looks to provide the land to the hospital for $1 rather than at fair market value of $15 to $25 million and the consent becomes irrelevant.

[52:31] I think that's exactly the point I was going to make as well.

[52:34] I mean, you have the land at this point for a dollar under those conditions.

[52:39] And there's nothing that stops you from proceeding.

[52:41] You do not require full ownership of the land at this moment.

[52:45] But if you have it for a dollar, you've got it and you move forward.

[52:47] And nothing would stop you except yourself.

[52:51] So through the mayor respectfully, that is not the advice we have of council.

[52:54] Well, could you share that advice with us?

[52:59] You said that's not the advice you have?

[53:01] Could you share it with us?

[53:02] That is not the advice we have of Council.

[53:06] I'm a little confused, could you share that advice with us so we know what you're talking about,

[53:13] Mr. Roberts?

[53:15] I've asked you the question.

[53:18] Could you share, you said you've got, that's not the advice you have.

[53:22] Would you like to have that conversation?

[53:24] Could, could you share that advice that you have with us?

[53:26] If, if you would like to have that conversation, we're more than happy.

[53:29] We're here at the will of Council.

[53:30] Okay, go ahead, we'd like to have that conversation.

[53:34] I'm asking Mr. Roberts and Mr. Fala-Shiro to order this one. Mr. Roberts, go ahead.

[53:41] So, sorry, you would like us to have legal counsel present for a conversation.

[53:45] Well, I don't know. Can you generically share what they told you?

[53:49] So, I mentioned it earlier. Our legal counsel has indicated that the act of counsel consenting

[53:55] to the release of 25 acres from the Covenant is the path in which this transaction

[54:00] move forward.

[54:01] That's one path.

[54:04] Did you ask your counsel if there are other paths or other ways to do this?

[54:08] I would just a quick follow-up if possible.

[54:10] Councillor Fala sure out of order.

[54:11] Through the mayor, so again, recognizing there is a agreement in place with Lake Head University,

[54:18] as Lake Head is clearly stated, the intent of working within that existing contractual framework,

[54:24] Leo counsel has indicated that is the path forward.

[54:26] Okay. On my brief, then, Councillor Follas.

[54:29] So, your worship, there have been several mentions of the development agreement, and I assume

[54:35] that is a reference to the amended development agreement of 2015, 2016, and how what needs

[54:43] to happen has to happen within the framework.

[54:47] That certainly is what staff advised in my report to council.

[54:53] Council. And I want to be very clear and precise about what the agreement says. The agreement

[54:59] provides lands to Lakehead University for one dollar, for university purposes. If there

[55:06] is anything, you counsel through your worship, I heard somebody had a laugh about it, so

[55:12] I invite that person to appear before council and let us know why that legal agreement is worth

[55:19] laughing at.

[55:20] Councillor Foss?

[55:25] Thanks. I just follow-up on previous question. I just didn't mention to the long-term lease

[55:31] that had been identified. I don't know if you're able to, can you identify kind of specific

[55:38] concerns with going down that road? Thanks.

[55:44] Through the mayors, I think there's a lot to be discussed around what would be the terms

[55:48] of the lease. What I can share is the one example provided in recent communication in the

[55:53] hospital. That is specific to an agreement with the crown. The land in which that hospital is being built is crowned land and to my understanding cannot be sold. And that is the rationale for the leases. It was the only permissible mechanism.

[56:07] So again, we talked earlier, but taking the lease off the table so you'd be okay. The purchase option would work fine then without the leases. We're not worried about that.

[56:16] Any other questions from council councilor Dianford?

[56:19] Thank you.

[56:22] Through you, Mayor McKisak, there's been a lot of discussion back and forth about conditions.

[56:27] And it's sounding very much like if Lakehead and the city and soldiers were to sit down

[56:35] together to iron out the conditions that they could come to an agreement.

[56:43] I would note that there's been reference to a coordination committee, but that language

[56:52] is not in the report or the motion that we have in front of us.

[56:58] If there was an opportunity and a mechanism for the three parties to sit down together

[57:03] to discuss those conditions, which was my understanding that this was the intention of this meeting

[57:09] originally.

[57:13] would Lakehead and the hospital be willing to consider the city's proposal of the $1 land transfer and the 15 million contribution.

[57:27] If there was an opportunity and if it was written into the motion that the conditions would be determined jointly, would they be willing to entertain this proposal.

[57:39] Well, if those conditions were determined jointly.

[57:45] So I just speak on behalf of the hospital and through the mayor.

[57:49] In this scenario, it's unclear to me what the primary difference in the paths is other than the land being transferred from Lakehead to the city, then to the hospital.

[58:01] We commit to having conditions, which I believe is a common intent, the protection of the public.

[58:06] We commit to Lakehead receiving the funds and the hospital, the approach of the hospital purchasing the land.

[58:15] It sounds as though that is where both are landing.

[58:18] It is unclear to me at this point in time why the land has to transfer through the city.

[58:23] And given some of the lack of clarity here, we be open to better understanding how that differs from a partnership between OSMH and

[58:35] and Lakehead in alignment with the existing agreement that also provides the protection of the public that has been referenced here today.

[58:43] I'm afraid.

[58:47] I'll go back to the conversation about the development agreement and the amended development agreement once again.

[58:53] So what does that agreement say?

[58:55] The agreement says that the university cannot do a used deadline for anything other than university purpose unless they come back to the city for permission.

[59:04] which they are before the city.

[59:06] The other part of that agreement states that if there are lands that are excessed to

[59:12] the needs of the University, and it's a defined term within that development agreement,

[59:17] what that term excess lands means.

[59:22] From what I logically understand from this conversation is that Leicad is before Council, it is stating

[59:29] to council that 25 acres of those 85 acres are accessed to their needs.

[59:37] The development agreement and the amended development agreement provide a mechanism

[59:42] on how excess lands are to be treated.

[59:45] And it's a defined term.

[59:47] And what it states is that, you know, if Lakehead isn't able to develop those lands till

[59:52] 259 and I see that they've come to council a few years before 2059 and they have

[1:00:00] Defide those lands are excess to their needs. Then what the development agreement and the amended development agreement states about it, which seems to be we keep on talking about there's a mechanism under the development agreement. The mechanism is that at any such time, the land shall be returned to the city for dollar one. So that is enshrined within the development agreement. What the report before council and the motion before council does it?

[1:00:29] It actually works through the development agreement and the amended development agreement

[1:00:35] and does exactly as it requires, which is return of the land that was provided for one

[1:00:41] dollar back to the taxpayer for one dollar.

[1:00:45] At the very same time, it recognizes that Leigh Ked is an important strategic partner for

[1:00:53] the city of Aurelia, and it has shared with Council that it needs more money to develop

[1:01:00] and expand its operations.

[1:01:04] The motion before Council does both of those things.

[1:01:08] What it does is it honors the development agreement, the amended development agreement, without

[1:01:15] taking anything away from Leigh Kelly.

[1:01:19] Let us honor the agreement, and here is 15 million dollars that you absolutely require

[1:01:24] for your expansion.

[1:01:25] So it's not taken away from it.

[1:01:28] And the development agreement is registered on title.

[1:01:31] It is freely available.

[1:01:33] It talks about the lakehead lands, undeveloped lakehead lands, and I invite everyone to have

[1:01:44] have a look at the development agreement and see if what's proposed is in furtherance or

[1:01:47] not in furtherance of the agreement.

[1:01:52] Thank you for that. Dr. Selle, could you answer Councillor Dohern for his questions?

[1:01:59] Go ahead. Yes, go ahead.

[1:02:00] Thank you, Mayor McKisic. Through you to Omen Freak. The development agreement is a public

[1:02:08] document correct. Do you have a copy of it in front of you? I just wondered if you could

[1:02:16] share the via Zoom and have it up on the screen and point out the exact clauses that you're

[1:02:22] referring to as you make the statements that you're making just so that everyone can see

[1:02:28] what you're referring to, please.

[1:02:31] Thank you, Your Worship.

[1:02:32] If I could request that you move over to the next question, I'll pull the development agreement

[1:02:35] and head over to current even the meantime.

[1:02:38] Okay.

[1:02:40] Dr. Sadell?

[1:02:42] Yes.

[1:02:43] So Councillor Dernford asked a question earlier to both you and Mr. Roberts on whether you would

[1:02:51] agree to sit jointly discuss the conditions. Is that something that you could agree to?

[1:02:56] Is that your essence or what you're saying, Councillor Dernford?

[1:02:59] Thank you. I contextualized it. So I think yes, that is a question. Are you willing to sit jointly

[1:03:07] and discuss the conditions and come to a common agreement? But I had asked the question

[1:03:12] specifically with reference to the proposal that's before us, which would see the land transfer

[1:03:20] in the $1 and the $15 million from the city. But I think both those questions are worth answering

[1:03:27] for sure. Although I think we've heard clearly the answer from both Lake Head and the hospital

[1:03:34] that while they, and correct me if I'm if I'm wrong, while they are willing to sit down

[1:03:41] and discuss conditions and are very open to conditions that both Lake Head and the hospital

[1:03:46] would prefer to see this proceed with a direct sale between Lake Head and the hospital

[1:03:51] with conditions as defined by the three parties. Is that correct?

[1:03:56] That is correct. Thank you.

[1:03:58] So that would be contrary to the development agreement then which stipulates the direct sale to the city?

[1:04:04] Well, it would, it's not contrary to the development agreement if the city agrees to the

[1:04:10] conditions and to the sale.

[1:04:12] As the development agreement sits now, it's contrary to it.

[1:04:17] Okay.

[1:04:18] I don't think that it is.

[1:04:20] Mayor McCosic, but I would be willing to hear how it would be contrary.

[1:04:25] Councillor Dunford, I think you raised an interesting point here on the conditions jointly being discussed

[1:04:32] between certainly the University of Hospital and the City.

[1:04:35] Are you prepared to make an amendment to the motion to include that?

[1:04:38] I would certainly be prepared to make an amendment, but I don't see the value of an amendment

[1:04:47] when Lake head in the hospital have stated clearly that they are not willing to accept this.

[1:04:52] And so if council passes it, what I am hearing is that Lake head in the hospital will simply

[1:04:58] walk away, essentially, and not agree to the terms. And please correct me if that isn't correct.

[1:05:06] I'm also aware that there is an alternate motion that has been brought forward that is essentially

[1:05:14] the same conditions, but without the $1 land transfer and the $15 million coming from

[1:05:20] city coffers and is instead a proposal to allow a direct sale between like add and soldiers

[1:05:30] with conditions that are essentially the same as what the city is asking for.

[1:05:33] But I think Councillor Dernford would be fair, and if Dr. Selma, Mr. Roberts, if I mistake you, please advise, but you have agreed that there are some conditions you would agree to, is that correct?

[1:05:45] Mr. Roberts?

[1:05:46] I think we've both made it clear that there are conditions we would agree to if the land transaction were to occur within the mechanisms in the development agreement.

[1:05:59] which means return it to the city for a dollar. That's what the development agreement says.

[1:06:04] Well, we respectfully disagree with that interpretation.

[1:06:07] It's words written on the piece of paper.

[1:06:11] But I think, again, I'm trying to get a common ground here, if the hospital and lakehead would agree to discuss the conditions.

[1:06:19] Why wouldn't we move forward with that approach, Councillor Dunford?

[1:06:24] Like, they've agreed to, they don't agree to all the conditions, they agreed to some of them.

[1:06:28] We need to figure out which one those are and figure out where the common ground is.

[1:06:31] I'm not disagreeing and everyone has agreed that sitting in a room and discussing the conditions is an excellent way forward.

[1:06:39] But it is clear that the sticking point seems to be the interpretation of the development agreement.

[1:06:44] And the city is, Mayor McCosic is contending that the development agreement requires the city to transact the deal.

[1:06:54] and lakehead and soldiers are contending, as I understand it, that the development agreement does not require the city to be the intermediary essentially.

[1:07:07] So the agreement does not require one?

[1:07:11] My understanding of the stated position of lakehead and soldiers is that the development agreement does not require the city to be the intermediary here.

[1:07:21] that if the city is willing to sign off on the sale,

[1:07:26] that the development agreement accounts for that.

[1:07:30] That is my interpretation of what Lakehead and Soldiers

[1:07:33] have to take.

[1:07:34] I'll get on my sentence for your interpretation.

[1:07:37] Thank you very much.

[1:07:38] I'd be happy to provide additional legal interpretation

[1:07:40] to Council in closed session.

[1:07:42] Initial interpretation was also already attached

[1:07:45] in clause in schedule 7 of my report.

[1:07:48] What you have before you is the right of first refusal directly on the documents that are registered on title.

[1:07:58] And

[1:08:01] I'd be pleased to help provide an interpretation of anything in there that is not already clear.

[1:08:10] Mr. Campbell, any further questions?

[1:08:13] Sure, I'll be, yeah.

[1:08:15] Thank you, I'll say a bunch of things, sure.

[1:08:19] here. This has been an interesting experience for me as a council. I've been on council

[1:08:25] for seven and a half years now. Never been through something. Been through a lot of interesting

[1:08:32] things in my time and a lot of big developments during my time on council. But not that has

[1:08:40] gone the way this has gone. I think when this was initially brought up, I'll speak to my

[1:08:47] experience. When this was initially brought up to me, I thought,

[1:08:51] well, wow, this is terrific. The university is going to expand.

[1:08:55] We're going to get a new hospital. Fantastic.

[1:08:59] You know, we were told that the details were going to be worked out.

[1:09:03] We're going to be looked at. And then I believe at one point,

[1:09:09] we were going to have an external legal opinion on the development agreement,

[1:09:14] which we've yet to have. And then my experience through this has been, we have a meeting, for example,

[1:09:23] today and at 10 o'clock this morning, I get a copy of this motion. And I realize that it's my

[1:09:37] decision to be on council and I have a full-time job, but I have a full-time job and I'm working

[1:09:41] this morning, and I get a document at 10 o'clock.

[1:09:43] How am I going to read that and give it what it needs?

[1:09:47] Even if I didn't have a full-time job,

[1:09:50] even if I was sitting at home with my feet up on the couch,

[1:09:52] how am I going to give a document like this,

[1:09:56] the attention, the detail that it needs,

[1:09:57] and the research that it needs in order to come here,

[1:10:01] three hours later, and make a decision.

[1:10:03] That's not possible.

[1:10:04] That's not how I do things.

[1:10:06] It's not how I operate.

[1:10:07] Right. I think what we've seen today is through the discussions what the party's involved.

[1:10:16] And it hasn't been counseled quite often, the city is used, the word the city, the city.

[1:10:23] And people, I think in the public, take that to represent all of us at this council table.

[1:10:29] And I can assure you that has not been the case through this process, that this city,

[1:10:33] as it's referred to most often in this case, have referred to those that have been most

[1:10:38] involved in the discussions, which would be the mayor and on-and-preet.

[1:10:41] And I think what we've seen, what has been evidence this morning, sorry, this afternoon, is some,

[1:10:50] I hate to use this term, but animosity is something that's always a bad thing.

[1:10:55] Yeah, sure.

[1:10:56] Some animosity, some, there's a tension here that, in my opinion, shouldn't exist.

[1:11:02] this should be three parties that, so everyone claims, all want the same thing.

[1:11:10] It should be three parties working together to achieve that.

[1:11:13] And if there are differences of opinion, there should be external legal counsel that we get solid interpretations of that and come to an agreement so that we, you know, we've been working on this a long time.

[1:11:27] Well, we should be, we should have already been at the point where we've worked out the details where we've been able to come to an agreement that protects the tax payers, which we're obligated to do, and obviously we want to do gets us an expanded university, which certainly helps the city economically and gets us a new hospital that helps the entire region, so I'm so disappointed that we are where we are.

[1:11:55] But I will bring it back to the motion in front of us.

[1:11:59] I will not support the motion in front of us.

[1:12:02] I've seen other motions that have been presented that may be coming to the table.

[1:12:07] I'm not willing to support any of them.

[1:12:09] I think in each one there are pieces I agree with.

[1:12:14] And in this motion there are pieces I agree with.

[1:12:16] I think there are pieces that are important that will protect the interest of the taxpayers.

[1:12:20] And that's my job.

[1:12:21] But there are also pieces that I think I will put it this way, that I feel are perhaps unnecessary or worded in such a way that I won't go down that road.

[1:12:38] Anyway, my bottom line here is that I agree, I think the three parties need to sit down, agree to work together.

[1:12:47] And I think that perhaps how we get past the animosity is maybe we need to change the faces at the table.

[1:12:56] Maybe that's the answer so that we can talk openly and honestly and all work towards the same goals.

[1:13:05] Thanks.

[1:13:06] Councillor Campbell, thank you for that. Are you proposing like an amendment that we have a committee to discuss these issues then?

[1:13:14] Is that your proposal, or do you just want to defer the whole thing, or what do you want to do this?

[1:13:19] What I'm saying, myself, is that I'm not willing to support this motion, or

[1:13:24] and I'm not sure any other motions that are coming to the table.

[1:13:27] I've seen a couple that might be coming to the table, and I'm not willing to support any of them today.

[1:13:32] I think what needs to happen is, is the three parties need to sit down and figure this out.

[1:13:37] And I'd like to see it like a union negotiation where the lock them in a room,

[1:13:42] So they figure out the details and they all agree.

[1:13:45] So you would, I mean, defer this or get this out of the way, then you would propose that we get some group of people together to try and resolve whatever issues there are in terms of contingencies or conditions or whatever it's that here idea?

[1:13:59] That's the basis of what I'm suggesting, yeah, and perhaps today we could leave with a motion of who those faces might be and when that may occur.

[1:14:08] Sure.

[1:14:11] Anybody else have any comments on Councillor Campbell's idea?

[1:14:16] Councillor Lauer.

[1:14:17] Thanks, Mayor McKay's.

[1:14:18] I'm not in favor of prolonging this process.

[1:14:22] I think we've all got enough information.

[1:14:25] We all know what's at stake here.

[1:14:26] I think I cannot support the motion that's in front of us.

[1:14:31] I don't understand the logic of it.

[1:14:33] I don't know why we would ask the taxpayer of a really to bankroll this transaction when

[1:14:38] and we have two very mature, responsible proven partners

[1:14:42] that are looking to enter into a land exchange deal.

[1:14:46] They happen all the time.

[1:14:48] They can be done, Lakehead, and the hospital

[1:14:54] and both indicated that they're more than willing

[1:14:57] to put conditions in this.

[1:15:00] Negotiate and sit down as Davis kind of suggesting with a team or a group of the lawyers and come up to come up with some language and some parameters on how this is going to go. But I think we've had this table for three months, four months. We've had enough time to deliberate this. As I say, the motion before us does not satisfy

[1:15:29] by me, I do have another motion that I would gladly bring forward that I think addresses

[1:15:37] all the concerns that are trying to be addressed in this particular motion, but in different

[1:15:45] terms. And I think treating our partners like partners, like the responsible stewards

[1:15:55] that they've been. There's just no doubt and it can be proven over and over again

[1:16:02] with all kinds of facts and figures that Lakehead has performed admirably in

[1:16:10] this town, done wonderful things for this town. The same with the hospital.

[1:16:13] The hospital has always been a gem of this town and I think we should

[1:16:16] show it in some respect and look for them to take the lead in this project, not

[1:16:22] the city. But if we were partners that would presuppose we're at the table

[1:16:25] I don't know, the city.

[1:16:29] I'm sorry.

[1:16:32] Chairvership Councillor Campbell had asked a question about what the agreement states,

[1:16:37] the agreement is on the screen.

[1:16:40] This is the right of first refusal.

[1:16:43] I'd be very pleased to answer council's questions.

[1:16:49] The term excess lens is right there in the agreement.

[1:16:53] It talks about the treatment of excess lens, and it talks about the value of those excess

[1:17:00] lens.

[1:17:01] And I once again request Council to ask me any question about what's before Council

[1:17:07] and what the development agreement and the amended development agreement states about how excess

[1:17:11] lens will be treated.

[1:17:13] I also hear at least one members of Council's displeasure with how staff, or at least that's

[1:17:20] my what I heard this pleasure with how staff have discharged their responsibilities and

[1:17:26] duty of care and obligations as officers of this corporation and staff would very willingly

[1:17:32] step aside and council should allocate funds towards what this council might believe to

[1:17:42] be more adequate due diligence on council's behalf.

[1:17:51] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:17:55] As Council David Campbell indicated, this is really confusing and it doesn't take much

[1:18:01] these days to confuse me.

[1:18:05] I cast a question to you, Mr. Mayor, and to our, we have excellent lawyers here in the

[1:18:10] city of everybody that have looked at this and have focused on protecting the citizens

[1:18:17] of this community, and that's our goal.

[1:18:21] And also make sure that the hospital is brand new hospital is built, and that Lakehead expands.

[1:18:28] So my question to you and Aminpre is, which motion gives the hospital the land and gives the $15 million

[1:18:36] subject to its construction status to Lakehead?

[1:18:40] Is there a motion on the table that can do that?

[1:18:42] But it's so simple, I've been in construction and in business for 55 years and I've never seen anything like this where we can't agree on two things that really, really help the community, a new hospital, expanded Lakehead and everything else.

[1:18:57] So it's so simple, hospital, are you willing to take the 25 acres?

[1:19:02] The answer is yes, Lakehead, are you willing to let the city deal with the money?

[1:19:07] I think the answer should be yes, because we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this community.

[1:19:13] Not like it, not the hospital, we do.

[1:19:16] And that's why we get elected, and that's why I've been on council for over 30 years.

[1:19:21] Because I take the concerns of our citizens as a priority.

[1:19:27] And their taxpayers, and they don't need an increase of eight or ten or 12% in order to satisfy this particular thing.

[1:19:35] So, Mr. Mayor, is there a motion that does exactly what I just said?

[1:19:39] Give the hospital of the land and give the money under certain conditions to Lakehead,

[1:19:44] under a trust fund or whatever that may be?

[1:19:47] I think there is through the development agreement.

[1:19:49] I think that's the agreement we are working through.

[1:19:52] I'm afraid to have any different opinion on that.

[1:19:54] I don't know.

[1:19:58] So, the city's solicitors and the city legal teams, legal opinions have been provided

[1:20:05] to Council in detail. Schedule seven has several questions. The city's legal teams answer

[1:20:14] on the interpretation is pretty simple. The architecture of the development agreement

[1:20:19] and the amended development agreement calls for one thing, transfer of land between parties

[1:20:25] at dollar one. That posed a problem for one of our partners, which was that they wanted

[1:20:33] to monetize the lands that they deem access to their needs.

[1:20:37] The motion before council takes care of that impediment.

[1:20:42] It provides them the $15 million.

[1:20:46] The third part, the motion before council does,

[1:20:50] is that it allows the hospital,

[1:20:54] the ownership of that land at the appropriate time for $1,

[1:20:59] rather than paying money for that.

[1:21:03] rather than paying whatever the fair market value, the praise market value is which could be between

[1:21:09] according to cities estimates $18 million and $30 million. So that is a choice between the parties.

[1:21:17] That is what's before council. Council wants different legal opinions. Council should make provisions for

[1:21:25] that. If council is not satisfied with the staff's duty of care and due diligence in responding to

[1:21:31] matters. Staff would be most pleased to take that feedback and provide well-researched answers

[1:21:40] to any questions that Council may have. Staff believe that staff have responded well

[1:21:49] to the duty of care and for obligations imposed on them as officers isn't of this corporation

[1:21:54] by providing responses to communications received from both parties, asking all the important

[1:22:02] questions that should inform Council's due diligence prior to making an answer.

[1:22:10] It is on the record that answers to those questions have not been received.

[1:22:15] If Council also wants to direct staff to not respond to the duty of care imposed on officers

[1:22:21] of this corporation, the staff will be pleased to receive that direction as well.

[1:22:28] Okay. Councilor Spul and Councillor Neill.

[1:22:30] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just wondering if we can defer this particular motion or whatever,

[1:22:34] and ask that staff meet with Lakehead and soldiers in order to come up with a proper motion that reflects.

[1:22:43] And I totally respect our legal, because I think it's a great motion, but I don't think everybody

[1:22:50] everybody understands it. So I'm just wondering if staff can meet with Lake Ed and soldiers

[1:22:55] and come up with a motion that satisfies them and helps the city of Aurelia, helps the

[1:23:03] taxpayers of this community. Okay. Is it possible to defer? That's the will of Council

[1:23:08] we can defer and have per Councillor Campbell's comment, that discussion. Any Councillor

[1:23:16] Mr. Darfur, I think you had your hand up in Councillor Smith.

[1:23:19] Thank you.

[1:23:20] Yes, I do, through you, Mayor McKisak, have some questions for the CAO with regards to

[1:23:25] the development agreement.

[1:23:27] So the portion that is highlighted here says all or any part of the undeveloped land, excess

[1:23:35] lands within the 49 year period.

[1:23:38] And so an earlier portion of the development agreement, which is not on the screen, 1.2 E&F,

[1:23:46] I believe specifies clearly that that first right of refusal begins during the period commencing

[1:23:57] on the 50th anniversary of the date of the registration of the transfer. So I believe that is

[1:24:03] 2059. So I'm not understanding the contention that city has clear first right of refusal at this time.

[1:24:12] And the other portion of the development agreement that I think I certainly am basing my understanding on is 1.2D, which says very clearly that transferring or

[1:24:30] otherwise disposing of any or all part of the Lakehead lands, that doesn't use the word access and it makes it clear

[1:24:41] that under the development agreement, the transfer of lands was considered with the

[1:24:48] prior written consent of the city. And so I believe that that is exactly the question

[1:24:55] that we are facing today. My understanding is that Lake Head is saying under the terms

[1:25:01] of the development agreement, 1.2D, the development agreement permits the city of Aurelia to provide

[1:25:09] written consent to a direct sale and that is what Lake Head and Soldiers are proposing

[1:25:16] with conditions whereas the city as I'm understanding is asserting the first rate of refusal

[1:25:25] but my understanding of the development agreement is that the first rate of refusal does not

[1:25:29] commence until 2059 and so just some clarity on some of that would be appreciated.

[1:25:40] So what I offer is a plain and unambiguous reading of what's before a council.

[1:25:47] I, as an officer of this corporation, will be unable to argue against the city's best

[1:25:53] interests. So if a council requires an interpretation of this agreement that doesn't further what

[1:26:00] the plain reading is, then I'm unable to provide that.

[1:26:07] Councillor Dunford, any more? Councillor Smith, I think Councillor Follas.

[1:26:13] Thank you, and through the Mayor. A few things here. I think there seems to be at least

[1:26:17] my interpretation here. There seems to be a misunderstanding of who's going after what

[1:26:23] here. They've clearly as two different organizations want to grow and they want to succeed in everything

[1:26:27] that you do, and I can fully appreciate that, but we have a responsibility to the taxpayers.

[1:26:31] So as much as I think there's fighting for ways that, you know, maybe council members can see that you get this forward, we have a responsibility to our taxpayers.

[1:26:41] And the proposal that's on the table is fair. It gives you an opportunity to get a hospital land for a dollar.

[1:26:48] Shake your head all you want, ma'am, but it doesn't change anything. It gives you the opportunity for a dollar to be able to proceed to next steps.

[1:26:54] And it gives you, like, a potential funding that you're going to need for whatever those steps are.

[1:26:59] And that's fair for the taxpayers.

[1:27:01] And I know you guys have mentioned what works between the two of you.

[1:27:04] But there was no partnership in the, you mentioned the two of your organization, OSMH and

[1:27:10] Lakehead.

[1:27:10] And it wasn't including the city of Aurelia and its taxpayers.

[1:27:13] And we're here to do as best for our taxpayers.

[1:27:16] And that is ultimately keeping these legal mechanisms in place.

[1:27:20] And I think the proposal on the table is fair.

[1:27:22] And it allows both of your organizations to move forward and grow and

[1:27:26] succeed how you want to and we want to see that happen. Everybody knows we need a hospital

[1:27:30] quickly and I don't think anybody is in any disagreement on that. But, you know, the proposal

[1:27:37] on the table, I can support because it keeps the taxpayers protected and it helps both of your

[1:27:42] organizations move forward. Okay, thank you for that. Councillor Fowles and Councillor

[1:27:48] Dafford. Thanks. Through the chair, a question to both the institutions.

[1:27:54] Curious around timing, and I know there had been some question marks around if this gets delayed, there was concern around what the implications would be.

[1:28:06] Could you maybe expand in terms of what are the concerns around delaying or extending the amount of time decision is taking?

[1:28:16] Thanks.

[1:28:16] So,

[1:28:19] through the Mayor, happy to start on behalf of the hospital, as we previously

[1:28:23] communicated, we were approved to proceed to Stage 1.3 of planning in the Ministry

[1:28:27] of Health Planning Manual.

[1:28:29] There are deliverables within Stage 1.3 that are site-specific.

[1:28:33] We were intending to complete that planning by the end of March in 2027.

[1:28:39] We have been advised by our architects that there's uncertainty within the site,

[1:28:44] and that comes down to contractual access to the site.

[1:28:47] We would anticipate a two-year delay, if required, to restart our site selection process and then proceed with our stage 1.3 planning.

[1:28:57] Bear in mind that I believe we launched our site selection process in 2023, so just to give contacts to the amount of time we're referencing.

[1:29:07] For us, the implications of a delay through the mayor are ability to build a new academic building on our campus,

[1:29:18] which we desperately need, we're turning hundreds of students away a year right now.

[1:29:23] I know there are faculty in the room today who are very, very eager to see a new space on campus.

[1:29:31] And unless we have the proceeds of the sale fairly quickly, we're going to lose the opportunity to apply for the Bill Community Strong Fund, which would be another $15 million we hope.

[1:29:46] and we're looking at potentially a ten-year delay in getting that building built.

[1:29:52] Thank you. Councillor Schmitt, quickly, if you have the saw in this, and then Councillor

[1:29:56] Thank you for you. Tom, did you say your architects said that?

[1:30:00] It could cause a two-year delay or the ministry.

[1:30:06] Through the mayor, that was our architect. The ministry does not get involved in the site selection process. That is the accountability of the hospital. They are certainly aware of the process. They are aware of conversations happening with the city. I believe members of the city have reached out to them. I reviewed our site selection process with them two weeks ago. They have zero concern with the work that was undertaken. And as we know with the premier's announcement and the Minister of Health's announcement, both at Lakehead in support of the site.

[1:30:33] So to clarify, so to clarify, the province has not said that there will be any delay, just your architect.

[1:30:39] So to clarify, through the mayor, the province does not participate in the site selection process, so they acknowledge the ongoing conversation and should the site be lost, the architects who specialize in healthcare planning and hospital redevelopment, have advised of a number of deliverables that cannot be completed.

[1:31:01] and should we be required then to go back to site selection, and then subsequently complete 1.3 with a new site that would be a two-year delay.

[1:31:11] But to summarize what you've just said, there's nothing, if the city were to give you an undertaking to sell it for a dollar, there's nothing that would stop you from planning today, there would be no two-year delay.

[1:31:22] Through the mayor, my understanding of what's on the table does not provide us the contractual assurance of the land that would warrant the stage 1.3 as referenced.

[1:31:31] As a project was brought up multiple times in correspondence from the city,

[1:31:35] when I reached out to Collingwood to understand their process,

[1:31:39] they did secure a contractual arrangement with the stand-owner at stage 1.3,

[1:31:43] which is what OSMH is looking to complete with Lakehead.

[1:31:47] But to be fair, one of the 69 questions we did ask was,

[1:31:51] what do you need contractual assurance today?

[1:31:56] And I think the answer is no, you don't need it today,

[1:31:58] But you do need it by say March and you could have it by June or sorry, you could have it by September and you'd be fine

[1:32:08] Through the mayor. We have deliverables under stage 1.3 today that we are holding on

[1:32:12] Given this conversation. So when we suggest that today

[1:32:16] Was an opportunity? We do mean that work that should be happening is delayed

[1:32:21] But again to my question if the city

[1:32:25] Agreed to provide you the land for a dollar today. He would be freed up ready to go

[1:32:30] So through the mayor, as we've talked about, there are concerns with the motion on the floor, both organizations have shared their concerns.

[1:32:38] I've asked you what the concerns are, and you've been suitably vague about changing them.

[1:32:42] I mean, if the city would say today you can have the land and there's only two conditions, one would be that you have to build a hospital in so many years, and two, you cannot sell it.

[1:32:51] I mean, that's fairly straightforward.

[1:32:53] Those are, I think, reasonable conditions you may disagree, but those would be conditions.

[1:32:57] And that would give you the ability to go ahead and plan and do what you need.

[1:33:01] Through the Mayor Apologies if I was vague.

[1:33:04] I was, I thought explicit that the desire of the organization is to work in alignment

[1:33:09] with the existing development agreement that requires consent from the city to a sale

[1:33:14] between OSM agent Lee Ked.

[1:33:17] Or the return for a dollar is the section on the on the screen shows us.

[1:33:21] Any other questions, comments?

[1:33:24] Councillor Dernford, I think was next.

[1:33:25] I think what I'm struggling to understand is that the assertion in the motion is the assertion

[1:33:37] rather that the motion on the floor is a better deal for the taxpayers of Aurelia.

[1:33:45] And the motion on the floor requires the city to, as we all know, what the agreement is,

[1:33:55] which includes the city contributing $15 million to Lakehead.

[1:34:01] But the deal or the proposal that Lakehead is bringing and the soldiers is bringing is that

[1:34:10] that they would do a direct sale between the two parties, which is explicitly accounted for and allowed under the development agreement.

[1:34:21] And that that direct sale would not require $15 million of the taxpayer's money.

[1:34:27] It would not require the city to take $15 million from its tax stabilization reserve.

[1:34:33] It would instead mean that the hospital would pay lakehead funds that they have indicated or not,

[1:34:45] that they are operational funds, they are not funds that they would fundraise, they are funds that they have secured.

[1:34:51] So I'm struggling to understand the assertion that a direct sale is not in the taxpayer's interest.

[1:34:58] If a direct sale is made with the conditions that Lake head and soldiers have explicitly said that they would agree to,

[1:35:08] the clause saying that the money must be invested in a really only for campus expansion and a clause saying that if the property is not developed for a hospital within a certain period of time, 15 years, whatever that period of time is,

[1:35:25] than those lands would revert back to either like head or the city or whatever the terms

[1:35:32] of that agreement would be. So as I am reading the development agreement, as I am listening

[1:35:39] to what we're hearing from our guests and as I am read everything, all of the documents

[1:35:45] that have been sent to us, it seems clear to me that the direct sale actually has less

[1:35:54] impact on the taxpayers of ruralia and I'm very aware of the the claim that the

[1:35:59] land was you know given to Lakehead it was donated to them but it's also

[1:36:06] clear from the development agreement and from that original gift of the land

[1:36:10] that the purpose was to create a university in the city of

[1:36:16] ruralia that happened and the university is now coming back and saying that they

[1:36:22] They need and want to expand that campus.

[1:36:25] They need the funds to do that.

[1:36:27] And they're proposing to use the lands, which are in their, they belong to Lakehead.

[1:36:34] They do hold the title.

[1:36:36] It is encumbered, but they do hold the title.

[1:36:40] Their proposal is for the public good.

[1:36:43] It results, in my opinion, it upholds the original purpose of the gift of those 85 acres.

[1:36:50] It allows for the campus expansion, and it allows for a new hospital, and it does not require the city to take $15 million from its coffers and contribute it to either organization.

[1:37:07] So I can't support this motion, I don't think we're there yet.

[1:37:13] And I don't think my understanding of this meeting was that all parties would talk through

[1:37:19] some of these conditions and have an opportunity to put their positions forward.

[1:37:25] That purpose of the meeting was changed by the presentation of this report, which we've

[1:37:34] seen very last minute.

[1:37:35] So I can't support this and I would be far more in favor of the direct sale with conditions that protect the taxpayers and protect all parties.

[1:37:49] Thank you Councillor Dernford. I think this is important and I think you're raising an interesting point, but I think we need to follow the money.

[1:37:57] Under the plan that you're proposing the hospital pay $50 million to the land or some such number, the hospital money is community money.

[1:38:04] The hospital doesn't invent money by itself, it gets from a tax base.

[1:38:11] Excuse me, when I'm speaking, you can speak when you have your turn.

[1:38:16] The hospital's money is the community counselor, Campbell, you're out of order.

[1:38:22] The hospital's money is the community money.

[1:38:24] The province pays for everything except the land, so the $15 million can only come from local donors.

[1:38:31] and the local share, plus you probably pay about $300,000 in tax, land transfer tax, and that leaves this city for the provincial treasury.

[1:38:41] So, we'd be buying back at $15 million that the city already gave, I mean, I don't understand that.

[1:38:48] I don't understand why the hospital would want to take $15 million out of the treasury when they could take a dollar out of the treasury.

[1:38:54] It's just straightforward and you would have tomorrow you'd have access the land right away, it'd be the same thing and the only two conditions

[1:39:00] I would think until the will of council would be that you actually build a hospital with a certain amount of time and you don't sell it

[1:39:06] And I don't think any of those conditions are arduous. Any other comments here? Councilor Smith

[1:39:14] Thank you and through you Mayor McCosic. So we do have the 68 questions that were sent to you guys and

[1:39:19] And ultimately you're both at the table.

[1:39:21] So I'd like to ask them and whomever is applicable to respond to them.

[1:39:27] So just for anybody to look it up, it's document 260731, it's the CIP from the CAO and it

[1:39:35] starts at page 10.

[1:39:36] I'm not sure if you're able to put that up on the screen just for people to be able to

[1:39:40] follow along.

[1:39:41] That might be a little bit easier and this is 68 questions, so I apologize.

[1:39:45] But for transparency sake, we do want to make sure that the public is able to get these

[1:39:49] answers. So, starting with question one, towards Lakehead, what does civic campus mean

[1:39:55] concretely in the Arulia proposal, which functions, which partners, which binding commitments?

[1:40:01] So, again, I think they're going to put that up on the screen.

[1:40:07] Thank you, through the mayor. A civic campus is a designation that has been used, excuse

[1:40:14] me, in the UK, for universities that are committed to serving the communities in which they're

[1:40:21] located. So they distinguish themselves from the Oxford's and the Cambridge's and the kind of

[1:40:27] Ivy League elite universities that have been around for hundreds of years, these tend to be

[1:40:32] newer universities that grew up in a community are very much supported by community and are

[1:40:38] committed to supporting a community. It's not a term that Lake head has formally adopted

[1:40:45] to talk about our campus. It's something we're talking about internally, but we very much

[1:40:50] support the notion of it, and that is how we're thinking about the development of the

[1:40:58] early campus and the Thunder Bay campus for the next 5, 50, 100 years, right? We're

[1:41:07] thinking way beyond today, way beyond the people in this room right now. But that is my answer

[1:41:14] to that question.

[1:41:15] Okay, and the next question is the civic campus model implemented at Lakehead's Thunder Bay campus

[1:41:20] or NOSOM, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, and the regional hospital sit adjacent to the university.

[1:41:26] What has 20 years of adjacency measurably produced and what is recable in Arilia without a medical school?

[1:41:33] So through the mayor, first of all, the medical school in Northern Ontario is no longer part of Lakehead.

[1:41:39] It became an independent university about five or six years ago.

[1:41:44] We nonetheless maintain a very important and close relationship with them as we do with the hospital.

[1:41:50] As I explained a moment ago, the campus, the civic campus idea is one that we believe,

[1:41:59] believes captures how we, the values with which we operate and envision development of our campuses.

[1:42:09] Okay. Next one, which Canadian examples does Lakehead consider successful implementations

[1:42:15] of the model and what published outcomes support them?

[1:42:19] I think people would consider the University of Water, due to be a successful example,

[1:42:24] McMaster University, I'm not able to point to published outcomes that provide you that

[1:42:30] evidence at this time.

[1:42:32] What specifically in the Phase I academic building is civic rather than conventional campus

[1:42:38] expansion. I think I've already answered that question by answering the first two questions.

[1:42:44] I think the way in which you're thinking about Civic is too contained. I'll say again,

[1:42:51] it is a concept that we're using to think about the values of our university, that we are a

[1:42:58] community-oriented university. Another common feature of Civic universities is a focus on wellness

[1:43:07] Yes, and often the co-location of a hospital.

[1:43:11] What binding commitment does Lakehead offer that the sale and the proceeds will in fact

[1:43:16] produce the civic outcomes described and what is the remedy to the city if they do not?

[1:43:20] I don't have an answer to that question.

[1:43:25] List the specific synergies.

[1:43:27] The partnership will produce between the hospital and the campus for either of you.

[1:43:32] Sorry, say that again.

[1:43:34] List the specific synergies.

[1:43:36] the partnership will produce between the hospital and the campus.

[1:43:39] Again, through the mayor, I believe that both of us have talked about that already today.

[1:43:43] There are opportunities for complimentary academic programs, health programs,

[1:43:50] research partnerships, just the things that come from shared space,

[1:43:56] possibly shared services, Tom, anything you want to add to that?

[1:44:05] Through the mayor, I think, Dr. Siddhal, covered that incredibly well, and I believe it was included in her written comments for reference for each synergy, the objective measure, the baseline, the target, the date, and the data source.

[1:44:18] Wait a minute, Boarder.

[1:44:19] Through the chair, just if possible, I'm wondering just for the sake of time, because I see what's happening, I think we're going through each of the questions.

[1:44:28] And I don't know if it's the will of council and the will of the members of the public who are here to sit through all

[1:44:34] 68 questions. Well, I'm just wondering if maybe it might be most practical to identify, you know, here are five of the most relevant questions that you would ask.

[1:44:43] I'm asking all 68. Sorry. I'm asking all 68. You're asking all 68 questions. We did already ask. And they weren't answered. So the public deserves to know. So I'm asking.

[1:44:52] I just wonder if that's fair to everyone. What else do you want the information? I definitely welcome the information.

[1:45:00] I think you have to be fair to everyone and respect their time as well. So continuing B2 for each synergy, the objective measure, the baseline, the target, the date, and the data source.

[1:45:14] I'm not going to answer that question. Okay. For B3, who is acceptable for delivering each synergy and to whom do they report? I'm not going to answer that question. Okay. Where will these commitments be recorded and made binding, the MOU, the transaction documents, or elsewhere? Will the signed MOU be provided

[1:45:31] to the city in confidence if preferred.

[1:45:35] That question is too vague for me to provide a reasonable answer, so I'm not going to answer

[1:45:39] that question.

[1:45:40] Okay.

[1:45:41] B5, what happens and to whom if the synergies do not materialize?

[1:45:50] I'm not going to answer that question.

[1:45:52] That question means nothing to me.

[1:45:54] Okay.

[1:45:54] It means something to the taxpayers of Rulia.

[1:45:57] I'm.

[1:45:59] Okay.

[1:46:00] Moving on.

[1:46:01] C1.

[1:46:01] At what stage does the Ministry's capital process require completed site control in and in what form?

[1:46:08] Through the mayor, so we are in stage 1.3, which is a stage of which site-specific

[1:46:12] planning is required, and as I've indicated, certainty around the site is required at this stage.

[1:46:19] At the beginning or at the end?

[1:46:22] It's required now.

[1:46:23] We have work that we are actively delaying because we do not have clarity on the site.

[1:46:28] But if you had it for a dollar tomorrow, you could appreciate is that correct?

[1:46:32] Respectfully, I think we've covered off the concerns with the motion on the floor.

[1:46:37] C2, what amount, if any, has OSMH budgeted for the site acquisition and from what source?

[1:46:43] I example local sheriff foundation or other.

[1:46:45] So as we've shared previously, including in our deputation, a purchase price has not been set.

[1:46:50] No agreement exists at this point in time, and the funds are not coming from donor dollars.

[1:46:55] They are currently from hospital operations in our bank account.

[1:46:58] Have you done an appraisal?

[1:47:04] That's my question.

[1:47:06] I didn't hear the question.

[1:47:08] There's a doubt you've done an appraisal on the value.

[1:47:11] We had an appraisal done a number of months ago, but we would need to do, both parties would

[1:47:18] need to do an appraisal to get an up-to-date valuation of the market value.

[1:47:25] C3, when does OSMH anticipate needing the complete, to complete an acquisition or long-term lease?

[1:47:31] A stage 1.3 specific due diligence has just begun.

[1:47:35] So it's previously communicated we'd be looking for contractual assurance to the land

[1:47:39] hit now in 1.3 as we move into stage two is when you would look to then formally acquire

[1:47:44] the lands very similar to what has happened in calling wood.

[1:47:48] See four what conditions in a long-term lease at nominal rent preserving public ownership

[1:47:53] satisfy OSMH and the province's requirements.

[1:47:57] So it's previously stated, a long term lease does not satisfy our requirements.

[1:48:02] C5 has the Ministry of Health or Infrastructure Ontario communicated any requirement that OSMH hold titled two as distinct from site control.

[1:48:11] The really a site at stage 1.3 or any later stage.

[1:48:16] Through the mayors of the Ministry of Health does not oversee the site selection process.

[1:48:21] I can confirm a conversation with the Ministry of Health two weeks ago where they did want to better understand why members of the city were reaching out to them citing concerns around the site.

[1:48:31] We reviewed our site selection process.

[1:48:33] They have no concerns with the process we undertook.

[1:48:36] They did confirm that not having clarity of the site would result in delays to the work.

[1:48:42] C6, recent Ontario new hospitals average about 49 acres and every comparable regional build sits on 40 to 62 acres, calling what a smaller community built on 54.

[1:48:53] Why is 25 acres adequate for RILIA and what analysis supports it?

[1:48:58] Through the mayor, so our site selection process asked for a minimum of 25 acres.

[1:49:02] That's what was proposed by Lakehead, we're currently working through stage 1.3, which is the stage in which we do site specific planning.

[1:49:10] including test fits and massing of the hospital on a specific site.

[1:49:14] And so until we have clarity over the site in question, that work is impacted.

[1:49:20] Okay, D1, this is more towards Lakehead.

[1:49:23] The county commitment is 15 million over 10 years, beginning with a 1.5 million installment.

[1:49:27] Please provide the county instrument and are the installments unconditional and are any milestones or conditions attached?

[1:49:37] I'm going to invite Kathy to speak to that one.

[1:49:42] I'm not really sure how much I can say as the county commitment would be confidential

[1:49:51] to our board and our financing strategy, which I really don't believe is a question

[1:49:55] today.

[1:49:56] I think the land transaction is before you for decision, not necessarily the financing

[1:50:01] strategy.

[1:50:02] But the 1.5 over 10 years is public information, I think.

[1:50:08] Right, but I'm not sure about installments being unconditional in such.

[1:50:12] But you want the city's portion now, but you're willing to take the counties over 10 years?

[1:50:17] Yes, actually, we want the land transaction with a real, a really asolder's memorial to happen now.

[1:50:24] It happens now, and then you don't have the third leg of the store, which is a federal piece for the other 15 million.

[1:50:29] You don't yet have that because you've not yet applied, is that correct?

[1:50:34] We have not yet applied, but as we've expressed on a number of occasions, the financing

[1:50:41] strategy, including the sale of the land transaction, is very important to that application.

[1:50:47] Deep two, what bridges the gap between a three to four-year construction draw and a ten-year

[1:50:53] receipt schedule and that what cost?

[1:50:56] Kathy, can you take that one?

[1:50:59] Well, I don't think I can answer these questions because these are financing strategies

[1:51:02] these before our Board of Governors, and again, our very hypothetical.

[1:51:07] Okay, D3, the description of the university's $15 million has developed over time from confirmed April to a composition that will continue to evolve June 22 to a matter of institutional governments July 19th, while the 2025 announcement recorded a feasibility study still setting fundraising goals.

[1:51:24] What is the current source and status of the contribution, cash, pledges, financing, future revenues, and when is each expected to be in hand?

[1:51:35] Well, I think I can take that one, and it will be the same answer as Kathy has given this, these are financing strategies we discussed with our board, and we're not at liberty to share them here today.

[1:51:45] No problem.

[1:51:45] Defore, the project will require more than 45 million outlined due to 22 and the announcement described the county's 15 million as the first of many needed with fundraising goals set by a feasibility study.

[1:51:57] What is the current total estimate? What did the feasibility study conclude? And what is the fundraising goals and progress against it?

[1:52:06] The feasibility study is in progress, so we don't have the results of that yet.

[1:52:16] The current total estimate of the building, I think at the moment we're still at 45 million.

[1:52:25] As you probably know that as you move through phases you get class de-estimates, class c-estimates

[1:52:30] and so on and so the costing becomes more precise as we go, but that is our best estimate

[1:52:36] at this time.

[1:52:36] Okay, at this point you're building I think is 29,000 square feet which is like $1500 a square foot

[1:52:42] Is that a normal rate for that kind of building? I can't answer that question Kathy. Can you answer that question?

[1:52:50] Not not at the moment as the schematic design is currently underway, so we haven't been able to get to those estimates yet.

[1:52:58] Okay.

[1:52:59] D5.

[1:53:00] What is the current status and realistic timeline of any federal pursuit, E.O.I.

[1:53:05] filed or planned, stream-intended or decision horizon?

[1:53:09] We would like to be submitting an application for the federal funding through the Bill

[1:53:14] Community Strong Fund as quickly as possible.

[1:53:17] That portal has now opened and the longer it's open and we don't apply the less chance

[1:53:22] we have of succeeding.

[1:53:24] D6.

[1:53:25] When will design documents reach a construction-ready stage, and what is the earliest credible date for shovels in the ground?

[1:53:32] I'm going to ask Kathy to answer that one.

[1:53:35] I would say spring 2027 is our current goal.

[1:53:40] D7, on Lakehead's own figures, what is built and by when if no federal grant ever arrives?

[1:53:48] If no federal grant ever arrives, that would obviously slow down the process and put more pressure on us to find the funds internally and through fundraising.

[1:53:59] The university's stated need is 15 million towards its academic building.

[1:54:04] A sale of the 25 acres is one way to raise that sum and the only one that permanently alienates land the city gave in trust.

[1:54:11] Lakehead's own announcement describes a feasibility study to set fundraising goals and the county's $15 million as the first of many contributions needed.

[1:54:19] Is Lakehead open to meeting the same $15 million need without a sale, for example, through a multi-year contribution arrangement of the kind the county has already provided, philanthropy, grants, or financing against future revenue, and if a sale is nonetheless said to be the only acceptable route, why?

[1:54:43] As I've said before, there's a need to have the proceeds of the sale of the land as soon as possible, so that we can move quickly on the building and make that application for another $15 or $50 million from the federal government.

[1:55:02] Okay.

[1:55:03] E1 on this could go for both of you.

[1:55:05] Does either institution object to council obtaining an independent appraisal before any release of the city's registered interest?

[1:55:11] If objective, what is the basis of that objection?

[1:55:17] I have no objection to that.

[1:55:23] Through the mayor likewise, no objection.

[1:55:25] I'm not sure that it's covered in the development agreement, but no objection.

[1:55:27] Okay. This one can also go for both of you.

[1:55:30] E2, if a transaction ultimately proceeds, will the parties accept the safeguard architecture in the report?

[1:55:36] Proceeds in trust for the academic building, a commencement deadline, and a reverter.

[1:55:41] Through the mayor, I've already made it clear that we will not.

[1:55:44] Okay.

[1:55:46] F1, so this is to OSMH, what specific stage 1.3 deliverable cannot be completed unless

[1:55:53] the city transfers ownership of the land now as opposed to the city providing documented

[1:55:57] site control, like a comfort letter or a long term lease?

[1:56:01] Through the matter, so I believe we've covered off a number of the examples of stage 1.3 site

[1:56:05] specific work.

[1:56:06] We just acknowledge in the question it refers to the city transferring ownership.

[1:56:10] Lakehead is the landowner and we would be looking to work with them for that ownership.

[1:56:13] Okay, F2, calling with general and marine hospital advanced through stages 1.2, 1.3 and into stage 2.1 on the strength of a 2023 development agreement for its site and completed title only in April 2026, about 11 years after planning began in 2015.

[1:56:30] What distinguishes OSMH's position, such that it requires ownership now at the start of stage 1.3.

[1:56:37] Through the mayor, so in a letter that I sent to Councillors individually, I believe I actually clarified that it's not distinguished.

[1:56:44] Calling would went into stage 1.3 in 2021, and there was still back and forth around what their project scope was once that was solidified in 2023.

[1:56:56] They signed an MOU with the land owner that gave them the contractual assurance for the transaction that's then referenced here in the question.

[1:57:03] Again, that is a conversation I had with the organization.

[1:57:07] I don't believe anyone in council reached out to calling with a clarify the statement being made here.

[1:57:12] I do believe it's quite misleading around the need of access to land right now in 1.3.

[1:57:17] Okay, F3 would OSMH accept a long-term lease at nominal rent or the city's comfort letter as site control for stage 1.3 and beyond so that planning proceeds without interruption while the city completes its due diligence.

[1:57:28] Through the mayors, previously referenced, a comfort letter does not provide us the contractual assurance required to proceed with the work.

[1:57:37] F4, is there any date set by the Ministry or infrastructure Ontario by which the land transfer must close?

[1:57:45] If so, what is it and where is it reported?

[1:57:48] I present that date has not been set for the closing date of the transfer as I shared in the deputation.

[1:57:54] And now that we're moving into 1.3, we will begin a lot of our planning work, including the development of a project schedule.

[1:58:00] That's where we'll start to receive clarity over some of those dates.

[1:58:04] Okay. G1, this is towards Lakehead.

[1:58:06] Is the proposed sale of the 25 acres the entirety of the land Lakehead intends to convey from the 85 acres or the first of more than intended disposition?

[1:58:18] Before through the mayor, the proposal before council is for the sale of approximately 25 acres to OSMH.

[1:58:24] Lakehead has no current plans to dispose of any additional lands, and the remaining lands are intended to support the university's long-term growth in Aurelia.

[1:58:34] G2 will Lakehead agree to a binding guarantee registered on title that it will not sell lease for non-university use or otherwise dispose of any further part of the 85 acres beyond the 25 now proposed through the term of 2059.

[1:58:47] The existing development agreement continues to govern the balance of the University

[1:58:52] lands. Council is being asked to consider one specific request to permit the sale

[1:58:58] of approximately 25 acres. Any future proposal would remain subject to the existing

[1:59:03] agreement and would be considered if ever required on its own merits.

[1:59:08] G3 will laycut agree that the remaining approximately 60 acres are to be retained

[1:59:13] for and developed as a university campus consistent with the 2008 purpose with a

[1:59:18] reverter to the city if they are not.

[1:59:20] The development agreement remains in force for the balance of the property.

[1:59:24] Today's request is simply for Council's approval to permit the proposed 25 acre transaction

[1:59:29] under the existing framework.

[1:59:31] G4, if a future hospital expansion or any future purchaser sought additional land from the remaining

[1:59:36] acreage, will they commit now in writing that no such commands can ever proceed?

[1:59:41] The development agreement continues to govern the balance of the property.

[1:59:45] Council is being asked to consider a specific request regarding approximately 25 acres,

[1:59:51] not to make decisions today about hypothetical future circumstances that are neither proposed nor before council.

[1:59:59] H1, this is...

[2:00:00] You conveyed roughly 85 acres in the 2008-2009 for nominal consideration for university purposes. Does Lakehead accept that the land was placed in trust by a release taxpayers, not a purchase, and that it remains subject to the city's registered interest and to beyond 2059? That question contains legal characterizations of the 2008 transaction and development agreement that should be confirmed before I would respond.

[2:00:27] in terms of being held in trust, for example, so that's my answer to that.

[2:00:34] Okay, I won, this could be for both of you.

[2:00:35] On what basis was the price between Lakehead and OSMH set?

[2:00:39] An independent appraisal of the land, an armed length negotiation,

[2:00:42] or the amount Lakehead needed to complete its capital stack, please provide the basis?

[2:00:47] There is no agreed upon purchase price between Lakehead University and OSMH.

[2:00:51] Through

[2:00:57] the mayor, so I concur, there is no agreed upon price in May for sake of clarity for all of Section J.

[2:01:03] There is no MOU between the organizations pertaining to the land.

[2:01:07] Okay.

[2:01:08] I too, the city's comparator estimate places the 25 acres materially above 15 million and no appraisal exists.

[2:01:15] If the land is worth more than 15 million, who captures the difference?

[2:01:17] And is the city being asked to enable a below value transfer of land it donated?

[2:01:23] This could be for both of you.

[2:01:24] My response is the fair market value of the land will be established through independent

[2:01:31] appraisal and negotiation.

[2:01:33] The proceeds from any sale belong to Lakehead and will be reinvested in expanding the

[2:01:38] Orelia campus, creating the vision of the campus that I've already described to you and the

[2:01:45] long-term benefit to the community.

[2:01:49] Okay.

[2:01:51] OCEM-H, do you want to answer that at all?

[2:01:54] No.

[2:01:54] Okay.

[2:01:55] I-3.

[2:01:55] So this is the OSMH. If the city required fair market value for the release of its interest could OSMH pay it and from what source?

[2:02:03] Through the mayor is previously indicated. Yes, the hospital could I for does Lakehead accept that essentially all of the value

[2:02:10] Realized on a sale is created by the city's consent to release its registered interest and not by anything Lakehead has added to the land

[2:02:18] Through the mayor respectfully. We do not accept that premise and I might add at this point that

[2:02:24] But the gift of the land and the $5 million from the city to help establish the campus here was critical to doing that work.

[2:02:36] Lakehead itself has invested tens of millions of dollars to expand and build that campus.

[2:02:43] And that would not have been possible without Lakehead's own investment.

[2:02:49] This is to both of you. Please provide the signed MOU. Does it grant OSMH any option right or for

[2:02:55] refusal or expectation over land beyond the 25 acres? Through the mayors previously indicated there

[2:03:01] is no MOU pertain to the lake headlands. Okay, J2, does the MOU commit OSMH to acquire only the

[2:03:08] lakehead site and did it foreclose consideration of any alternative site?

[2:03:14] Through the mayor there is no MOU

[2:03:17] I thought that Mr. Roberts who responded there was no MOU, and then I think Kathy from Lake had responded.

[2:03:23] There is an MOU, but it's not public facing.

[2:03:25] Kathy, is that correct?

[2:03:28] No, that's not correct.

[2:03:30] I was referring to the County of Sanco agreement.

[2:03:32] So that was County of Sanco agreement.

[2:03:34] Thanks for the clarification.

[2:03:35] Okay.

[2:03:36] We will go to K1 on, and this is for both of you.

[2:03:39] On what dates did Lake Head Board of Governors and the OSMH Board formally approve this

[2:03:42] hearing's action, and on what terms?

[2:03:44] Please provide the resolutions.

[2:03:51] Through the mayor, happy to start on behalf of the hospital, there is no transaction as previously indicated.

[2:03:57] Therefore, there is no resolution for the board to approve.

[2:04:02] The same is true for Lakehead.

[2:04:04] K-2, this is for Lakehead.

[2:04:06] The county of Simco committed 15 million toward Lakehead's Aurelia expansion.

[2:04:10] Has the county even advised that part of the campus land would be sold to the hospital?

[2:04:13] And does the county's funding agreement permit that?

[2:04:17] Yes, the county is aware of the proposed concept and Lakehead's expansion plans, and it is consistent with our commitment to expand their, expand their really campus, which is what the funding from the county of Sumco was for.

[2:04:35] Okay. L1, for both of you, who set the 25-acre minimum site requirement and on what date relative

[2:04:42] to the point at which Lakehead's land was identified as available? What was the criterion

[2:04:46] fixed before or after the Lakehead parcel was in view?

[2:04:49] Through the mayor. So OSMH has been playing for a new hospital for over a decade now and

[2:04:53] through those works. The LLAN requirements were identified. So it was our expression of

[2:04:58] interest to the community that stipulated a minimum of 25 acres.

[2:05:05] L2, this is for OSMH, was any analysis prepared to justify 25 acres as the entry threshold

[2:05:11] and will it be produced and none has been provided to the city?

[2:05:15] So it's previously indicated over a decade of planning we've identified minimum land requirements

[2:05:20] working with engineers and architects around the hospital lands as previously indicated.

[2:05:26] It is a more efficient use of space than other projects and we're looking forward to solidifying

[2:05:31] the exact design and massing as part of stage 1.3.

[2:05:34] Okay, L2A, this is for OSMH, was any downtown central or brownfield intensification site evaluated

[2:05:40] in the site selection process against the same criteria as a greenfield site.

[2:05:44] The interim CEO, sorry, Utah, has stated that no lands in the downtown area were submitted for consideration.

[2:05:49] How was that reconciled with the community's stated central access priorities?

[2:05:54] Through the mayor, so it's previously indicated no lands east of Highway 11 were submitted to the hospital for consideration.

[2:06:01] Okay.

[2:06:02] L3, for both of you, did any member of the site selection task force, the OSMH Board,

[2:06:07] or Lakehead hold an institutional or financial interest in Lakehead site selection, and

[2:06:12] how was any such interest identified and managed?

[2:06:15] Through the mayor, no, there was no conflict of interest identified.

[2:06:19] Okay.

[2:06:20] M1.

[2:06:21] A hospital is not a permitted use on the parcel is currently zoned.

[2:06:25] What planning approvals, zoning by law amendment, official plan amendment, severance site plan

[2:06:30] are required who bears the cost and the risk and what is a realistic timeline.

[2:06:36] Through the mayor, I believe in terms of a realistic timeline.

[2:06:39] I look to the city for the implementation of the new official plan, which does identify a new hospital on the Lake headlands.

[2:06:47] And two, this is for both of you, if is West or really a water and wastewater capacity sufficient for a hospital of this size, and who funds any offsite servicing upgrades and applicable development charges?

[2:06:59] Through the mayors, again, these become site-specific considerations and potentially work under the official plan that identifies a new hospital advocate.

[2:07:07] Okay, and three, this shows for the city and or both of you, both the University Land and a hospital are exempt from property taxation.

[2:07:15] What has been net municipal revenue effect of relocating the hospital, including any change in status at the existing downtown site?

[2:07:23] Through the mayor, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would reference the

[2:07:26] city for really economic impact study completed and I believe 2020.

[2:07:34] And one, OSMH, what is the OSMH's plan and timeline for the existing downtown site once

[2:07:40] a new hospital opens, sale, lease, repurposing or vacancy and who realizes its value?

[2:07:46] Through the mayor, so those are all considerations under what would be another capillary development

[2:07:51] So, once we can advance this one, we can start to formalize planning for the next.

[2:07:57] And two, this is Toeosamage, has the community been consulted on relocating the hospital from downtown,

[2:08:02] and on the fate of the current site, given the city's 2020 study, warning of the downtown employment impact.

[2:08:09] Through the mayor's I referenced in our deputation, specific criteria from the public related to the new hospital,

[2:08:17] did factor into our site selection process.

[2:08:20] Okay, oh one, OSMH, what are the planned bed, count, and gross floor area of the new hospital?

[2:08:27] And does the 25 acres accommodate the building, parking, a helipad, ambulance, and service access, utility quarters, and future expansion?

[2:08:35] Through the mayors, these are questions that will be answered through Stage 1.3, planning once the site's confirmed.

[2:08:40] Okay.

[2:08:42] 02.

[2:08:43] What does a 25 acre site force that is that a larger site would not, for example, structure rather than surface parking and at what additional capital and operating costs over the life of the facility?

[2:08:55] Through the mayor, we do not believe that there will be any forced, forced considerations on the 25 acres, but again the massing and layout of a hospital on a site occurs in detail in stage 1.3.

[2:09:07] Okay. Oh, three over a 50 year horizon. What expansion does OSMH4C and from where would that land come from when a 25 acre site through the mayor. So that does get factored into the planning process.

[2:09:21] Oh, four, OSMH has OSMH evaluated a compact or vertical hospital design that would require materially less land and could open central or brown field options. If an analysis exists, please provide it. And if not on what basis was 25 acres adopted as the entry threshold without it.

[2:09:38] Through the mayor, in the province, there's a standardization criteria around redevelopment.

[2:09:42] So it wouldn't be for OSMH to independently identify, we work with architects, excuse me,

[2:09:48] engineers and planners who specialize in healthcare redevelopment to provide guidance insight on that work.

[2:09:53] Okay.

[2:09:54] P1 for OSMH is any provincial funding, approval, or stage endorsement contingent on this specific lake site.

[2:10:01] As opposed to any adequate site or form of tenure, if so, please provide it.

[2:10:07] Through the mayor, so without a site, we cannot complete our stage 1.3 work and therefore cannot get approval of our 1.3.

[2:10:15] P2, this is also to OSMH, has OSMH modeled a long-term lease or land trust structure and what specifically does an outright purchase provide that a long-term lease at nominal rent preserving public ownership does not.

[2:10:27] Through the mayor, so that, I know, or sorry, long-term lease or land trust does not provide the organization with the rights that an outright purchase would offer.

[2:10:36] Okay, P3 also for OSMH is the ministry planning grant agreement excluded, excuse me, executed.

[2:10:44] And if so, what was the date?

[2:10:45] The planning project description provided to the city is a schedule to that agreement and bears no execution date.

[2:10:51] And the province's commitment of up to 3 million is only as is the only funding shown to this city to be in place.

[2:11:00] So yes, through the mayor, the planning grant agreement is executed, it is in place.

[2:11:05] It is for $3 million to advance the planning of a Greenfield hospital located at Lake Head University.

[2:11:12] Okay, Q1, this is to both of you.

[2:11:14] If council consents and the land is sold, and the new hospital is then not built, whether for funding,

[2:11:19] approvals, or a provincial decision, what happens to the 25 acres and will it revert to the city?

[2:11:24] Through the mayor as indicated earlier, the hospital is absolutely willing to accept a protection where the land would roll back to the university.

[2:11:35] Likewise, we would be willing to have that condition that it would, in the first instance, revert to Lakehead for first right of refusal and if we waive that right then to the city.

[2:11:46] Okay.

[2:11:47] Q2.

[2:11:48] This is to Lakehead.

[2:11:49] If the academic building is not built after the sale, what happens to the proceeds and to

[2:11:52] the land and will Lakehead accept a revertor and a trust over the proceeds to guard against

[2:11:57] that outcome?

[2:12:03] No, we would not accept a revertor and a trust.

[2:12:06] Okay.

[2:12:07] Our one.

[2:12:08] For both of you, the land lies within the Williams Treaty's territory acknowledged by both institutions.

[2:12:12] Has there been consultation with the affected First Nation or First Nations on the disposition

[2:12:17] the position of this land and the hospital project and what has been its outcomes, outcomes, excuse me.

[2:12:24] Through the mayors part of our site selection process, the hospital did have two members of the indigenous health council.

[2:12:30] One being a member of Ramah, who participated in site selection.

[2:12:35] S1, this is for both of you.

[2:12:37] The record shows Lakehead and OSMH advance site and sale plans in early 2026 before the city.

[2:12:43] The Coventy and the community steward was engaged on the substance.

[2:12:47] Why was the city not brought in earlier and how will the parties keep the community

[2:12:50] informed from here?

[2:12:54] Through the mayor, respectfully, I think there's a misrepresentation.

[2:12:57] I think it's important to note that the site selection process, while it was initiated in 2023,

[2:13:02] as I shared in our deputation, there was one criteria specific to the Lake Head site that warranted further work.

[2:13:08] The organization spent a considerable amount of time going through due diligence,

[2:13:12] understand appropriate parcels, support redevelopment, along with our architects and engineers,

[2:13:17] that assured us there was feasibility on the 25 acres, and at that point, I believe,

[2:13:21] It was on March 30th, Lake Head and OSMA to reach out to the Marin CAO for a meeting to begin what we would hope would be a win-win-win conversation.

[2:13:32] S2, this is for both of you, will both institutions commit to placing their answers to these questions on the public record?

[2:13:37] Okay, we can scrap that because it's here, it's public.

[2:13:39] T1, this is for OSMA.

[2:13:41] If I may, we did commit to that in advance.

[2:13:44] Okay, I think our response to the city was effectively that this form of active dialogue to ensure appropriate context would be the most appropriate.

[2:13:51] year approach.

[2:13:52] Sure.

[2:13:52] T1, under OSAMH, under Ontario's capital model, the hospital's community funds, a share

[2:13:58] of construction plus equipment, is the $15 million land cost part of the local share

[2:14:02] or in addition to it?

[2:14:04] Through the mayor, the $15 million is not part of the local share.

[2:14:08] And T2, this is for OSAMH.

[2:14:10] Ontario land transfer tax on a $15 million purchase of non-residential land is about $296,000 on

[2:14:16] standard rates.

[2:14:17] No general exemption applies to hospitals and the tax, like the land itself, is not ministry-sharable cost.

[2:14:22] Has OSMH budgeted that amount and from what source?

[2:14:26] Through the mayors previously indicated OSMH has the money in the bank to complete the land transfer.

[2:14:31] Okay, thank you.

[2:14:32] I appreciate the questions.

[2:14:33] I think ultimately the public wants to know.

[2:14:35] I think members of council we want to know, and I think at the end of the day we're all friends in the room.

[2:14:39] I think we, I want to see you guys grow and succeed, like we've said.

[2:14:44] But our duty at the end of the day here on council is first and foremost to the taxpayers

[2:14:48] of Rulia.

[2:14:49] So I will support the proposal on the table today.

[2:14:52] Thank you for that.

[2:14:53] I do have one further question for Dr. Sadellar as you can her Cathy could answer.

[2:14:57] My understanding and correct me if I'm wrong here is that-

[2:15:00] B, C, SF, grant application. I'm curious as to what stream and how much you're seeking. My understanding is there's only at this point one stream open and it's limited to $1 million and I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding based on the record. And Lake Ed doesn't qualify the stream that's currently open. Is that correct? Mr. Mayor, that's not my understanding. I don't know, Kathy, if you have different information. I've been advised by my team that there's a new deadline.

[2:15:29] That is fast approaching, and it is our intention if we have appropriate funding in place to apply for that fund.

[2:15:37] Okay.

[2:15:39] Kathy, is that about correct or anything to add before we?

[2:15:42] It is not, that is also my interpretation, yes.

[2:15:44] Okay. All right. Any other questions from Councillors or comments?

[2:15:49] Councillor Kemp?

[2:15:50] Thank you, Member Kaisik, and if Councillor Smith has finished, sorry, questioning our guests,

[2:15:57] I will make a couple of comments, you know, I've often said this that the worst thing about being a politician is the politics.

[2:16:08] And it's really unfortunate when it's been said many times, there's a lot of misinformation in the community about this issue.

[2:16:19] and it's really unfortunate when that happens and you know when folks try to use very serious

[2:16:27] issues for political advantage and that's really disappointing to me but one thing I will

[2:16:33] say in those questions being presented and the answer is being given.

[2:16:41] As stated, I take this

[2:16:42] job very, very seriously. I base all my decisions on facts. And what has been provided

[2:16:52] today are facts that have allowed me to get to a place where I feel that I am comfortable

[2:16:58] to make a decision, which is a little surprising to me to be honest, because I didn't think

[2:17:04] I would get there today, but I am at that point uncomfortable now. Thank you.

[2:17:09] Thank you, Councillor Campbell, any other comments?

[2:17:13] Any final comments from the hospital or Lakehead,

[2:17:22] Dr. Seville?

[2:17:22] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:17:24] I will, if I may, pick up on the point that Councillor Dernford was making about the

[2:17:30] text that was up on the screen and about which the CAO was questioned.

[2:17:36] It is my understanding that that section of the agreement refers to a time period that begins

[2:17:41] and 2059 and goes for a span of 49 years.

[2:17:47] So the language around excess lands and the city having a right

[2:17:52] to take that land back for a dollar does not apply to the current time period.

[2:17:57] And I think it's important for counselors to know that.

[2:18:01] Thank you for that. No one comes from us.

[2:18:06] Thanks. Through the chair and staff, please stop me if this is not possible to ask, but

[2:18:13] just curious if I know throughout the report we've kind of see Brownfield, Brownfield,

[2:18:19] Brownfield identified. I'm just curious if Lakehead could maybe speak to a Lakehead and

[2:18:25] soldiers. Maybe speak to, actually, now that I think about it, it would be more soldiers,

[2:18:29] not like it. Speak to the challenges of developing a new hospital on a brown field site. Is there

[2:18:39] a reason that that was not looked at further? Thanks.

[2:18:45] Through the mayor, so there's two elements

[2:18:46] to the redevelopment. There's on site versus new site and then is the new site brown field or

[2:18:51] green field. What has been clear through our planning is that a new hospital on a new site

[2:18:57] is in the best interest of continuity of patient care.

[2:19:00] It provides an improved staff and patient experience through construction.

[2:19:05] It is the fastest project timeline and the cheapest.

[2:19:09] Separate from that, so that is the decision for a new hospital which the ministry has clearly supported.

[2:19:15] We went through a comprehensive technical site evaluation process.

[2:19:19] All lands that met the minimum criteria, 25 acres of usable land,

[2:19:23] were assessed against a robust sub-criteria, and Lakehead was identified as a preferred site.

[2:19:30] So I wouldn't want to characterize it as a brownfield versus greenfield.

[2:19:34] We had a comprehensive technical evaluation that identified Lakehead as the optimal site for

[2:19:38] the hospital to be built.

[2:19:42] Councillor Chenette.

[2:19:45] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you so much, Lakehead and some H4, providing a lot of answers,

[2:19:51] engaging discussion.

[2:19:53] While this council meeting went a little differently than I had envisioned, I mean, I suggested

[2:19:57] several times over the years to sit down and meet, discuss, learn the facts, find a thing

[2:20:02] out before we move forward. I do think we got to a point where we heard a lot of great discussion

[2:20:08] in dialogue and to move forward. And that's what I'm interested in doing is find a way to

[2:20:12] move forward. As it stands, we have a motion on the table. We've heard concerns from both parties

[2:20:16] that there's peace in this motion that may not align with how they want to move forward.

[2:20:21] and we've heard from some Councillors, that's the same.

[2:20:23] My question is, how should we move forward?

[2:20:25] Should we sit down with Lakehead and the hospital

[2:20:30] and craft something that we can move forward on

[2:20:33] or should we make a moment to this current motion?

[2:20:36] Thank you.

[2:20:37] That would probably be the right thing at this point.

[2:20:40] I think there's conditions that Lakehead will accept

[2:20:42] and conditions that they won't.

[2:20:43] Same with the hospital, we need to find out what those are.

[2:20:46] And then craft those into motion.

[2:20:48] Councilor Darnford, through the chair,

[2:20:49] I believe that was a question directed at Lakehead in the hospital.

[2:20:53] He was looking at me when he said it.

[2:20:54] Oh, well, I believe we put the question to them as well.

[2:20:57] Yep.

[2:20:58] Lakehead, there are soldiers, any comments on Councillor Chetter's next question?

[2:21:03] Through the mayor, certainly an expedited process given the quantity of information and quality

[2:21:09] of discussion would be appreciated.

[2:21:11] I do believe that there's a path forward that some councillors have identified separate

[2:21:15] from this motion.

[2:21:17] Agreed.

[2:21:18] Councillor Dunford.

[2:21:19] Agreed.

[2:21:20] I think we've heard clearly from Lake Head and Soldiers that the path forward for them does not include the proposal that is on the floor.

[2:21:32] That they are not amenable to the $1 transfer and to the city providing the $15 million from its coffers with conditions.

[2:21:45] they have indicated that they are willing to accept conditions, they are willing to accept a

[2:21:55] revertor clause, they are willing to accept conditions that the funding must be spent only

[2:22:01] here in Aurelia for campus expansion. And my concern, if council adopts the motion on the

[2:22:10] floor is that lake it does not bind lake head and soldiers it binds council but it does

[2:22:18] not bind lake head and soldiers and so if we adopt this motion lake head and soldiers

[2:22:24] can and have indicated that they do not agree with this motion and I'm very concerned that

[2:22:33] that the next step would then be reconsideration of the site selection process.

[2:22:39] And I am very concerned that in that case, we may find that the hospital is not located

[2:22:47] in Aurelia.

[2:22:48] This, the hospital has conducted their due diligence.

[2:22:52] They have selected a site that works for the hospital, which has been preliminarily

[2:23:02] endorsed by the province, and so we have heard that there are no other potential sites

[2:23:11] in Aurelia that the hospital is willing to consider.

[2:23:17] So I'm very concerned that if we adopt this motion, we may see the hospital looking

[2:23:24] outside of Aurelia for locations.

[2:23:27] And I think that a direct sale with the conditions that protect the taxpayers of

[2:23:36] Arilia, that protect all parties, protect soldiers and protect Lakehead, we do have an

[2:23:44] alternative motion.

[2:23:46] It is that direct sale with conditions to my mind that makes the most sense.

[2:23:51] It does not require the city to pull $15 million from its coffers to give to Lakehead.

[2:23:59] It allows Lakehead to move forward immediately.

[2:24:02] It allows soldiers to move forward immediately.

[2:24:06] And it is clearly allowed under the development agreement.

[2:24:10] Under that 1.2 D, I believe it was.

[2:24:14] So my preference would be to defeat the motion that is on the floor and to see the alternative

[2:24:24] motion, and then council and all parties can consider that alternative motion.

[2:24:31] And perhaps form this consultation committee or a tripartite committee that can determine

[2:24:40] in the terms that everyone agrees to, for a direct sale.

[2:24:46] Councillor Dernford, I think we've got a backwards.

[2:24:48] Could you explain to council how a direct sale would protect the city because if the soldiers

[2:24:53] provide tomorrow or sometime in the near future, $15 million to Lakehead, they're uncertain

[2:25:01] about the $15 million federal portion so they don't have the funds to do it.

[2:25:04] We'd have absolutely no control over what they did with that money or what they could spend

[2:25:08] and Thunder Bay, they could put another,

[2:25:10] they put STEM program in Berry without consultation,

[2:25:12] they could continue on that path,

[2:25:14] and we'd have no control.

[2:25:16] Go ahead.

[2:25:18] I'm very happy to answer that question,

[2:25:20] but really it is a question that has answered

[2:25:24] several times today, and that they are more than willing

[2:25:27] to accept a condition on the direct sale

[2:25:32] that would require them to invest the proceeds

[2:25:36] of the sale into the Aurelia campus and only into the Aurelia campus. And that is

[2:25:43] a condition that I think Council should expect, and Lakehead has agreed that they would

[2:25:48] be willing to agree to that condition.

[2:25:51] But the way the motion on the table is, if the Lakehead does not meet the conditions, there's

[2:25:56] a remedy, Council doesn't give them the money, but in this case they have the money, there's

[2:26:00] no remedy if Lakehead does not meet the condition. Council don't for it.

[2:26:04] But respectfully, we have not seen the alternative motion, so you are contending that there is no remedy, except that I am saying.

[2:26:14] Lakehead is saying that they are more than willing to have that remedy, to agree to a condition, and that those protections would be in place for the taxpayers of Aurelia.

[2:26:25] Yeah, but Lakehead's made commitments and for whatever reason they haven't been met, so what's the condition on the commitment?

[2:26:32] I mean, there's none. We have, there would be no authority.

[2:26:35] With respect, there's none, because that motion is not on the floor.

[2:26:39] Well, but you've seen a motion, so what do you speak to it?

[2:26:41] I'm not going to speak to a motion that's not on the floor in which the public cannot see.

[2:26:46] And it would require the defeat of the motion that is on the floor, and then we can table the other motion.

[2:26:51] Why would you just amend the motion that's on the floor?

[2:26:55] Because Lakehead has clearly indicated, and soldiers have clearly indicated that they will not support this,

[2:27:00] and that if counsel passes this, they are not bound by counsel's decision.

[2:27:06] We are. They are not. They can walk away.

[2:27:09] I think what Lake Head and the Soldiers have indicated is they don't support portions

[2:27:13] of it. They don't support the conditions, so why don't you adjust those conditions?

[2:27:20] I'm asking you.

[2:27:23] That's a question for Lake Head and Soldiers, but I think they have been abundantly clear

[2:27:27] that it's not just about the conditions. In fact, the conditions seem to be the thing

[2:27:32] that both, that all parties are agreeing on, everyone is agreeing on the conditions.

[2:27:39] What is, what the sticking point is, is the method of the conveyance of the property.

[2:27:45] And Aurelia has proposed their method, soldiers only kind of proposed their method, and they

[2:27:52] have every right to not accept the city's proposal.

[2:27:57] And they are asking for a direct sale with conditions.

[2:28:02] Just as we have a right not to accept that as I mean are we're protecting the tax fair and we need conditions

[2:28:09] Let's I think if there's no further discussion we should call a vote. I think I can just move forward here order, please order

[2:28:19] Any other comments before we call about any other comments before we call about

[2:28:24] Councillor Svola. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is there any reason why we can't see the alternative motion?

[2:28:30] Why we can't want to see the alternative motion that Council are done for.

[2:28:35] Mr. Kirby, could we see the alternative motion that allowed?

[2:28:39] I guess this part is germane to the argument and probably should be.

[2:28:43] Through your worship, we can absolutely display it.

[2:28:50] What's up for debate presently is the motion on the table, but there's no harm in presenting the alternative motion.

[2:28:56] You're in Dave. Do you have a copy of it? Is it lengthy? Or is it

[2:29:05] a giveaway or a stream?

[2:29:13] Let's give everybody a minute here.

[2:29:15] Do you want to read it, Christine? It's probably just as well.

[2:29:23] That for the trip or at MC2618, dated August 4th, 2026 from Mayor McKisic pursuant to the development agreement between the city of rebellion, Lakehead University, governing Lakehead University's Orville campus lands.

[2:29:34] Council agrees to remove the restrictions set out in the development agreement, including

[2:29:37] those in sections 1, 1.2, and D1 and 2, as they apply to the subject lands, comprising

[2:29:43] approximately 25 acres of vacant land, and that the disposition of the subject lands

[2:29:47] to a really a Soldiers Memorial Hospital for the development of the proposed campus of care

[2:29:51] with the final boundaries to be determined as part of the transaction be authorized and endorsed,

[2:29:55] and that City staff be directed to work with Lakehead University in a really a Soldiers Memorial

[2:29:59] real hospital.

[2:30:00] To take all legal and administrative steps necessary to implement this approval expeditiously, including preparing amendments to the development agreement to one, wave release and delete the city and conferences, including the restrictive covenants, and write a first refusal from the lands to be conveyed to really a Soldiers Memorial Hospital, to require Lakehead University to use all sale proceeds solely for the new academic building to be constructed by Lakehead University at the Raleigh campus. And three, provide that if the proposed campus of care has not been built on the subject lands by a really a Soldiers Memorial Hospital,

[2:30:29] Memorial Hospital by December 30th, 2046.

[2:30:32] Lakehead University shall have a right of first refusal to repurchase the subject lands on to which the covenant will be restored at that time, and if that right is not exercised or is otherwise forfeited, the city of a reliance shall have a right of first refusal to repurchase the subject lands.

[2:30:46] And that city staff be authorized to repair and execute any agreements or other legal documentation necessary to give effect to this approval without the need for further council approval to the extent permitted by law and to do all things, all such things necessary to give effect to the foregoing.

[2:31:01] Well, thank you for that. So, Mr. Mayor, if I may ask Lakehead and sorry, Lakehead and soldiers, is that acceptable?

[2:31:13] Yes, that is acceptable to Lakehead.

[2:31:17] Through the Mayor and the same, this would be acceptable.

[2:31:19] So, you've seen this before. You've been through this before, with legal and whatever?

[2:31:25] I've not been through it with legal, but-

[2:31:27] You've seen the motion that you've gone through. You're coming.

[2:31:29] I'm aware of the contents of the motion, yes.

[2:31:31] You saw before the rest of the council did. Interesting.

[2:31:34] any other questions, Councillor Spola? The Chair, I think she's suggesting she's well-washed.

[2:31:40] It just might. Any other comments on the motion that's on the table?

[2:31:50] Okay, let's call

[2:31:51] a vote. This is a recorded vote. Absolutely.

[2:32:01] I'm Mr. Kirby.

[2:32:02] You've worshiped again just for the benefit of Council. We're voting presently, not on what

[2:32:07] was just displayed, but on the original. No, we're voting on the motion as we initially

[2:32:12] The interduced by Councillor Smith and seconded by Councillor Poland.

[2:32:18] Ms. Croson. Thank you, Mayor McKenzie. Recorded vote has been requested.

[2:32:23] When I call your name, please indicate your vote by stating yes or no.

[2:32:26] I will begin with Councillor Lauer.

[2:32:30] No.

[2:32:32] Councillor Follas. No. Councillor Sepola. Yes.

[2:32:38] Councillor Campbell.

[2:32:42] No. Councillor Smith. Yes.

[2:32:45] Yes. Councillor Letterdale. Yes. Councillor Cheddar-Chuck. No.

[2:32:53] Councillor Dernford. No. Mayor McKisic. Yes. Mayor McKisic, there are four yeas and

[2:33:01] five knees. The motion is lost. Order, please. Order. If we don't have order, I will clear

[2:33:09] the room and that means you, Mr. Caldwell. Now we have another motion. Does anyone want

[2:33:37] Can we have consultation with our CAO and legal staff before we take this into consideration?

[2:33:45] Do you want to do a 10-minute recess or something, a biobrack, or have a motion for recess

[2:33:52] then?

[2:33:54] Moved by Councillor Sipola, seconded by Councillor Smith.

[2:33:56] Through the question.

[2:33:57] Sorry, just a point of clarification.

[2:34:00] Is Councillor Smith suggesting a closed session or open session still confused?

[2:34:06] Just a break so we can consult with our legal staff.

[2:34:08] This is ultimately a legal decision, and we do not have the due diligence that's required

[2:34:12] for this sale.

[2:34:13] So, this is, in my opinion, this would be dangerous to just accept something with no due diligence.

[2:34:19] On a treat, what's the point?

[2:34:20] On a treat.

[2:34:22] For your worship, if a council requires legal advice, we'd be happy to provide it in closed session.

[2:34:28] Should we move the closed session for this discussion?

[2:34:33] Okay, it looks like we should.

[2:34:36] Ms. Preston will then have that motion to move the closed, and let's take a ten minute recess as well.

[2:34:41] Well,

[2:34:43] recess then 10 minutes, sorry, 10 minute recess then closed.

[2:34:51] Yes, so then.

[2:34:57] That pursuant to section 239 for the Minnesota Act 2000,

[2:35:00] minus so 2001, C25 notices hereby given that special counsel intends to hold a closed session meeting in the Tech Hope Mac entire boardroom to deal with a matter pursuant to section 239 to F of the said act legal matter.

[2:35:12] here.

[2:35:13] Moving on.

[2:35:14] Seconded.

[2:35:14] Moving on.

[2:35:15] as well.

[4:06:18] We'll call the meeting back to order. Ms. Preston, do we have any motions coming out of closed session? Thank you, Mayor McKayezic. I believe council wants to bring forward an amendment to the motion that is on the floor. And Mr. Gil can place that on the display. But it's on the amendment. It's just approval and principle. I know it is an amendment, Mr. Mayor. So the motion reads as follows that the motion now before council be amended by adding the following before the first paragraph that the following be agreed to in principle, subject to the preparation

[4:06:48] of any draft, heads of terms, memoranda, and related documents required to give effect to the terms thereof, collectively the draft terms, with such draft terms to be provided to the city by Lakehead University and a really soldiers memorial hospital, and to include such assurances, protections, and other provisions as those parties are prepared to offer to the city, and that Lakehead University and a really soldiers memorial hospital be requested to provide the draft terms on a before August 26, 2026, and that city staff be directed to review the draft terms and report back to council

[4:07:18] on September 14, 2026, and that the balance of this resolution be deemed to be that which

[4:07:23] was adopted in principle, and the rest continues on, which is the main motion, Mr. Mayor.

[4:07:28] Okay. Thank you for that. So, if I give a mover and seconder, move by Councillor Spoules.

[4:07:34] Seconded by Councillor Dernford. Any discussion on that motion?

[4:07:37] Councillor Spoules, quickly, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just wondering, though,

[4:07:41] through Lakehead and Soldiers, if there's any changes to those dates.

[4:07:47] with that acceptable to you.

[4:08:02] Yes, okay. All right. It's called for a vote in the motion.

[4:08:05] Oh, hold it. Hold it.

[4:08:07] Oh, I'm sorry, please. I thought you were nodding your head. Yes.

[4:08:18] Go ahead, Mr. Charms.

[4:08:19] Thank you, through the Mayor. Just every curiosity, the report back to Council in September,

[4:08:26] wondering with the upcoming election if there would be any further delay due to a lame duck

[4:08:30] and when this may actually come into effect if there's any guidance that could be provided.

[4:08:35] around when we might actually see this past.

[4:08:40] There's no lame duck this session, because the number of Councillors who have signed back up for running it won't give us a lame duck.

[4:08:49] Is that correct? I'm appraising. You're understanding, you're Ms. Kirby?

[4:08:55] Your worship, it's always possible that people may withdraw from, but no one withdraws from that, Councillor Dunford.

[4:09:03] Thank you. I'm just as I'm reviewing it, my recollection is that and to Mr. Roberts' point,

[4:09:14] my recollection was that and the city staff shall be directed to review the draft turns and report

[4:09:19] back to council on September 14th. And I think we had agreed there would be a clause in

[4:09:24] And therefore, for final approval by Council on September 14th, is that possible?

[4:09:33] How do you presuppose that?

[4:09:34] I mean, it's the next steps that Council approves that it's done.

[4:09:41] You can't condition Council's approval, but you can say, you know, Council will take the next step, which is final approval.

[4:09:47] For consideration?

[4:09:49] Well, that's-

[4:09:50] On September 14th.

[4:09:51] Is that at anything to Ms. Preston or is it pretty, I may just refer to Council for the 14th, so.

[4:09:58] I'm just, what I'm hearing is that soldiers in, like, had are looking for some certainty around when Council will consider this decision.

[4:10:09] And I think that we can build that into the motion, quite simply saying that staff will report back to Council for Council's consideration on September 14th.

[4:10:20] So, you want to amend it then to add the word for consideration after on, for consideration on October, or September 14th, so we're proposing.

[4:10:33] Okay.

[4:10:35] Can we get an amendment for that then, please?

[4:10:42] Mr. Mayor.

[4:10:44] Councillor Follah.

[4:10:45] What happens if the gentleman is correct that a couple of three or four councils take their name off the list?

[4:10:53] Well then, we'll deal with that then, like, you know, what if I mean we can't, right now, that's what, you know, Councillor Campbell.

[4:11:01] Sorry to further complicate the situation, but the only way to eliminate that as an issue would be for the documents that are being requested come, you provide them, and we could have a special meeting prior to the 21st.

[4:11:22] of August. That would be the only way to ensure that Lane Dock is an issue here.

[4:11:28] Yeah, absolutely.

[4:11:33] I'm a brief.

[4:11:37] So I'm not sure if I understand the link.

[4:11:42] Like how does Lane Dock impact this question for Council?

[4:11:47] I don't think it does unless anyone has a-

[4:11:49] You're looking at this Council, looking at a disposition at more than $1.

[4:11:54] So if the Council is not looking at a financial disposition,

[4:11:57] then what is it that does not impact would, what financial threshold would council be crossing past the August 21st deadline?

[4:12:11] Anybody? I would agree with you. I don't think it has any. Councillor Follas.

[4:12:16] Through the chair, I guess my one thought being that it, the deadline's arbitrary, but more kind of the pressing nature of the subject.

[4:12:27] the fact that I think the desire of both soldiers and lake is to address it sooner rather than later.

[4:12:35] Okay. Anybody else? Do you have that amendment ready? When do you read that amendment, Miss Preston?

[4:12:43] First of all, before you read it, make sure Councillor Dernford is okay with that.

[4:12:46] That the motion now before council be further amended by adding the following after the word council and the third paragraph for consideration.

[4:12:52] Councillor Ferdinand. Councillor Ferdinand. Okay, you're going to move that. Secondor.

[4:12:56] By the way, the day I'll. Any discussion on the amendment? All those. In favor of the amendment?

[4:13:02] The amendment's carried back to the original motion is amended. Any further discussion? Any further discussion?

[4:13:09] Is there an amendment? If you're paying attention, you would know we just passed the amendment.

[4:13:14] That was one amendment, but there was an original amendment. You should pay attention, man.

[4:13:20] There was amendment to amendment that was just passed, so now we go back to the amendment for a vote.

[4:13:26] And then we'll go back to the same relation as an amendment.

[4:13:28] So we're voting on the amendment now.

[4:13:31] Okay, any further questions on the amendment?

[4:13:34] Sure.

[4:13:36] Go ahead.

[4:13:36] Thank you, Mayor McKisic.

[4:13:38] While we have the parties here, I feel it would have been valuable to have the parties involved in timeline discussions.

[4:13:46] but being as you are here and now, let's have those discussions and I'm certainly willing to put forward an amendment that shortens this timeline if you are comfortable with that being as it's your two parties that will have to be providing the documents required.

[4:14:03] Is that something you would like entertained?

[4:14:09] through the mayor may be beneficial for a five minute recess just so we could have a conversation with

[4:21:32] All right. Let's call the meeting back to order.

[4:21:39] Now, we're dealing with the order, please.

[4:21:45] Order. We're dealing now with the amendment. Any further changes? The amendment comes, Campbell. Thank you, Mayor McCusick. So I'm sorry. I just just occurred to me. So I haven't had a chance to talk to staff and hopefully we won't need a recess, but we may. What I would suggest is an amendment to modify the timelines so that these documents be provided by staff in advance.

[4:22:09] advance of our upcoming meeting on Monday for a counsel to consider.

[4:22:15] So you're going to make an amendment to add documentation for Monday's meeting?

[4:22:21] The documents be provided to staff prior to Monday's meeting and that the issue come back to counsel on Monday's meeting for consideration.

[4:22:30] Which recommendation do I invite the ones that the lake head would provide us and soldier provide us?

[4:22:34] that's correct. So they're going to have their legal do heads of terms and bring it back to us

[4:22:39] by Monday. Just they're here. Are you're both parties are comfortable with that? Okay.

[4:22:44] I'm seeing. No, it's yep. Okay, so it will be on or before August 10th and so the 26th,

[4:22:50] is that correct? That's good. That is correct. Okay, so we'll need an amendment for that.

[4:22:57] Quick, he's already done. He's already way ahead of it. Okay,

[4:23:05] one of your posts that

[4:23:06] on up and read it?

[4:23:17] Okay. Does that do it, Councillor Campbell?

[4:23:26] So then the September 14th date would be changed to August 10th.

[4:23:30] August what?

[4:23:32] August 10th.

[4:23:33] August 10th.

[4:23:35] Yeah.

[4:23:37] Sorry, just to be clear here, so what this means is that both parties would provide the documentation

[4:23:43] to staff in advance of the August 10th meeting and that this issue would come back to

[4:23:48] Council at the August 10th meeting for consideration.

[4:23:52] I'm afraid.

[4:23:54] So your worship, then, I would request respectfully that Council to delete the second part of that

[4:24:02] with respect to staff review, so those organizations can provide the information directly to Council

[4:24:08] by August 10th, and then staff will review after that.

[4:24:13] So because there's two working days between now and Monday, and I respectfully do not believe

[4:24:23] that I would be in a position, or the city's legal team would be in a position to do a meaningful

[4:24:30] review and report back to Council in an important legal issue within 48 hours.

[4:24:38] Councillor Gammal. Thank you. If I may respond to that, with all

[4:24:42] due respect, Mr. Sidhu, we were provided with the motion we discussed earlier, three

[4:24:51] hours before this meeting. And we've been provided with other documents,

[4:24:57] for example, your 300 page report, with little time to digest it before meetings.

[4:25:03] So, I feel that it's a fair request.

[4:25:09] With the 300 page report that we decided to defer on it to a digested it.

[4:25:13] Um, breathe.

[4:25:15] To your worship, you know, my respectful submission is that staff are at council's direction.

[4:25:23] It is, in my view, impractical and onerous to expect to short-line the timelines that

[4:25:36] we had discussed in closed session that were four weeks to essentially 24 working hours.

[4:25:45] If that is what diligence that Council requires, then, you know, will provide an

[4:25:55] un-exhaustive review.

[4:26:00] That's, that's entirely Council's prerogative. It's, if you want

[4:26:04] in-depth review and comments, then provide us with the time, if you want cursory remarks,

[4:26:16] I think it requires a proper review, and I could accept a cursory review.

[4:26:20] Anybody else?

[4:26:25] All right.

[4:26:26] All right.

[4:26:27] Sagan, what dates do you have in there?

[4:26:32] No, the August 10th doesn't work, I think I'm afraid I said that, and I wouldn't accept August 10th as the date for final review.

[4:26:37] Yeah.

[4:26:37] That's sorry, respectfully.

[4:26:39] I'm putting that amendment forward and up to the will of council.

[4:26:49] We need to so when you read it and then Councillor Campbell can move it.

[4:26:54] That the motion now before council be amended by deleting the following from the second paragraph,

[4:26:58] August 26, 2026 and replace with the following August 10, 2026 and that the following paragraph

[4:27:04] be deleted?

[4:27:05] Are we doing that Councillor Campbell?

[4:27:08] No.

[4:27:08] Okay.

[4:27:08] Sorry.

[4:27:08] All right, thank you.

[4:27:10] Okay.

[4:27:11] All right.

[4:27:11] Is that your amendment?

[4:27:12] Councillor Campbell?

[4:27:14] Yeah.

[4:27:14] Mover?

[4:27:16] Mover?

[4:27:16] Councillor Campbell.

[4:27:17] Thank you.

[4:27:18] Seconder.

[4:27:19] Councillor Flores-Lauer.

[4:27:20] Any discussion?

[4:27:21] Councillor Chichac.

[4:27:23] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[4:27:25] What I'm hearing from staff and members of the council and from our partners is we do want

[4:27:29] to get this take care of in a timely manner.

[4:27:32] There's concerns around the lame duck possible period.

[4:27:34] I mean, as a currently standard right now, I believe council is currently lame duck.

[4:27:38] unless my calculations are wrong, as we have six possible positions to be filled, we need seven.

[4:27:45] So with that being said, I will propose an amendment to the amendment and so forth.

[4:27:52] That's, if we receive the documents by August 10th, maybe we do a special meeting council by August 20th.

[4:27:58] Good staffed on a review, it's just over, you know, a week and a half, is that amenable for other members to council?

[4:28:13] I'm sure the timelines would work for the parties. I'm just concerned about AMO happens, and some folks are away, and some staff are away, so I'm just concerned about that timeline.

[4:28:45] I think this is going to prove to be pretty simple exercise.

[4:28:54] I'm quite willing to go to the 10th, receive these, if staff can give us some sort of comment

[4:29:00] on it, then fine. If we see some red flags, then we can at that meeting decide when we

[4:29:06] can have a special meeting to deal with it. But I think if we all just agree to work

[4:29:11] on the August 10th deadline, I think we might be surprised that we can get this done.

[4:29:16] Okay. All right, Councillor Campbell, you're going to move this amendment.

[4:29:20] No, I'm a priest.

[4:29:21] No, we had. It's moved in. Sorry, Gary. I'm a priest.

[4:29:26] Your Worship, what I'm hearing is that Council is comfortable with receiving the draft.

[4:29:32] So, my request is that it be provided directly to Council and the staff review condition be

[4:29:37] removed. If on review, on August the 10th, Council wants staff review, staff will be pleased

[4:29:43] to provide that review. So, it appears from the conversation that I'm hearing this Council

[4:29:47] is quite comfortable in receiving.

[4:29:48] I don't mind it being provided the Council at the same time, but I want to staff review.

[4:29:52] I'm not going to go forward with this, whether I've sat for you, there's too much to say here.

[4:29:57] Somebody's got to protect the citizens of earlier if it's wrong.

[4:30:01] Now, we've got the amendment on the table. Let's vote in the amendment if there's no further discussion. All those in favor of the amendment?

[4:30:10] The amendment's passed. Okay. Now, back to the original amended motion.

[4:30:18] Yeah. Back to the amended motion. Any further discussion on that?

[4:30:24] Yeah.

[4:30:37] All right. Let's call for vote on the amended motion. All those in favor?

[4:30:43] Are we calling for a vote?

[4:30:49] This is on it before August 10th.

[4:30:51] The

[4:30:56] one? Councillor Campbell told her to take that out.

[4:31:00] The

[4:31:05] review to stay in, but obviously the date had to change.

[4:31:09] No, but you didn't change it on your amendment.

[4:31:12] Councillor Campbell, the amendment you proposed is here.

[4:31:16] I asked you if that's okay.

[4:31:17] You said it was okay.

[4:31:19] No, not so much.

[4:31:21] Mayor McKisic, with all due respect, I know you don't like to show much to the rest of us,

[4:31:27] But with all due respect to you,

[4:31:32] I thought that I was being asked to remove the staff review portion of this, which I did not want removed.

[4:31:44] The date being changed to the 10th obviously has to be changed in both sections.

[4:31:50] And I understood that that's what the amendment was doing.

[4:31:54] I understood that what I was being asked was to remove the staff review.

[4:31:59] Councillor Campbell, if you're going to amend this, let's just amend it.

[4:32:01] Do you want the September 10th, the consideration to say August 10th, instead of September 14th?

[4:32:07] Is that what you're now amending?

[4:32:08] Yes, please.

[4:32:09] Okay, you're sure.

[4:32:12] Because we just got to throw one more dig in there.

[4:32:14] No, I mean, you're wasting the council's time.

[4:32:16] Shall I ask respect?

[4:32:17] We will show where you're going to stand.

[4:32:18] I'm trying to show you.

[4:32:19] You're out of order, Councillor Campbell.

[4:32:20] I'm trying to show you.

[4:32:21] I'm out of order. You've been out of order for four years, and I'm out of order.

[4:32:25] Excuse me. Order. I will clear the gallery the next time I hear clapping.

[4:32:31] Councillor Campbell, you had the motion in front of you. You said it was okay.

[4:32:36] Now you're good to come back again. I just want to make sure we're good so we don't go through this again.

[4:32:40] Is this okay? I have explained this. As you've said previously, perhaps you should pay attention.

[4:32:45] I am paying attention. I explained how we arrived here. Yes. I would like an amendment to change that

[4:32:51] to the 10th. Okay, so you're moving this, I'll have Ms. Pressure to read this and you can move it.

[4:32:56] I'm sorry.

[4:32:57] Before you hold on, I'm very sorry. Go ahead.

[4:33:00] The Worship has previously requested. I would request that the condition for staff review be also removed.

[4:33:07] Council can receive the terms directly on August 10th and provide, either approve them as received,

[4:33:13] or provide staff the time it legitimately requires for a full sum review.

[4:33:19] So, if Council wants to proceed on August 10th, there is a very easy path to it.

[4:33:24] The partners will provide the drafts' heads of terms.

[4:33:27] Two Council will consider them on August 10th.

[4:33:30] If Council is satisfied, Council can proceed.

[4:33:33] If Council requires a full sums review by staff, then Council, I respectfully request Council

[4:33:39] to provide staff the time required for their review.

[4:33:43] Okay.

[4:33:44] Okay. So, Ms. Preston, if we then have to have an amendment to remove the staff portion, do we have to amend this?

[4:33:55] Go ahead.

[4:33:57] That the motion now before council be amended by deleting the following paragraph, and that city staff be directed to review the draft terms and report back to council for consideration on September 14th, 2026.

[4:34:12] Okay, whose motion is this?

[4:34:22] Through the mayor, whose motion is that? The CAO? The CAO can put motions on the floor?

[4:34:27] No, he's suggesting.

[4:34:27] That's an interesting turn of events.

[4:34:32] I'm a preacher.

[4:34:34] Chairvership, that is staff's respectful request to council.

[4:34:37] That if council requires staff to provide a full-sum review, that staff be provided

[4:34:44] time to conduct that full-sum review, and the alternative, our partners are going to provide

[4:34:49] terms to council for August end.

[4:34:52] And if council is satisfied with the terms, then council would be able to approve those

[4:34:57] terms right there and then.

[4:34:58] Okay. Can we get this move then seconded for discussion?

[4:35:02] Councillor Dermford. Thank you. So there was a suggestion of a special meeting on the

[4:35:08] 20th and we've heard from members of Councillor that doesn't work. So in respect of staff being

[4:35:16] able to provide feedback, is there a date that all parties can agree on prior to September

[4:35:24] for a special meeting specifically for the consideration of these terms with feedback from our staff that meets everyone's concerns.

[4:35:37] Should we wait and see what happens on the 10th to determine that date?

[4:35:41] I would be more comfortable if we set a date for that meeting and I would suggest perhaps the August 24th.

[4:35:56] Or the week of August 10th, yeah, any time.

[4:36:00] What do we just decide on the 10th?

[4:36:01] I mean, that way we'll have the information.

[4:36:03] We'll know how arduous it is, how we might not need any time.

[4:36:05] We've heard from our staff that staff need time to review

[4:36:08] and we have respect for staff, so we want their feedback.

[4:36:13] So, yes, a date in that week of August 10th may work for everyone.

[4:36:23] So, then, Councillor Duhn, for what are you suggesting in terms of discussion?

[4:36:30] I'm suggesting an amendment to schedule a special meeting on August 13th or 14th, if the staff

[4:36:40] feel that they would have time to provide feedback by that time.

[4:36:43] I'm pretty to your worship, so a couple of things when this matter was discussed in the time

[4:36:52] guidelines for being discussed. The opportunity that was afforded to staff was about three

[4:36:59] weeks. I think that is fair and reasonable. If Council wants does not think that that

[4:37:06] is fair and reasonable, we'll leave it up to Council to determine what the determine

[4:37:11] is fair and reasonable for staff to provide a full-sum review and report back to Council.

[4:37:17] Okay. Anybody else?

[4:37:19] It's

[4:37:24] on the table.

[4:37:26] No.

[4:37:26] Okay.

[4:37:27] That's not it.

[4:37:28] So let's go back to, are we going to put this on the table in?

[4:37:33] The request by staff for you to be removed.

[4:37:38] Let's put that motion back up if you would, Karen Deeb.

[4:37:42] Could we get a mover and seconder on this for discussion?

[4:37:45] To remove the staff for you?

[4:37:48] Anybody?

[4:37:51] So we're going to have a staff review of the staff, it's not going to do.

[4:37:54] All right. Let's move to the next one.

[4:38:09] That's already done.

[4:38:10] We're back to the motion is amended, right?

[4:38:15] Okay. Go ahead.

[4:38:18] Okay.

[4:38:19] And now we're back to the motion amended motion.

[4:38:22] Uh, uh, uh, three new member, Kaiser. We have one final amendment where we, the motion now before council be amended by deleting the following from the third paragraph, August 26, 2026 and replace with the following August 10, 2026.

[4:38:33] Okay. So that's a motion on the table to move to the seconded. Any further discussion?

[4:38:36] Sorry, Mr. Mayor. We need a mover and seconder.

[4:38:38] Okay, mover by Campbell's second by Lauer. Any discussion? All those in favor? That motion is carried.

[4:38:45] Now back to the amended motion. Okay, we'll just need a minute to populate it.

[4:38:49] He's got it. Any further discussion on this amended motion?

[4:38:56] None noted? We'll call for a vote. All those in favor?

[4:39:01] Oh, Geoff, do you have a question? Are you voting?

[4:39:05] No. Go ahead.

[4:39:22] Councillor Dernford.

[4:39:23] Thank you. One more kick at the can.

[4:39:25] And so in respect to what staff have communicated that they need time to provide direction and

[4:39:33] that we look forward to that direction, I would and I'm hearing a period of about two

[4:39:41] weeks.

[4:39:42] So if council is amenable, I would propose a special meeting on August 21st to dispose

[4:39:49] those of this and I seem to be hearing that we have time that would give staff a time

[4:39:57] to provide us with a review.

[4:40:01] Do you want to propose that now versus a wait to money to clarify it?

[4:40:05] If it's the will of council, if it isn't, I would throw that out to two council.

[4:40:10] I'd just rather wait to Monday to see what we have.

[4:40:12] I mean, it could be all done Monday.

[4:40:15] Anybody else?

[4:40:16] Okay.

[4:40:17] Let's go back to the, so this is a motion as amended.

[4:40:19] All right.

[4:40:22] Through your worship, I just saw that the record states what staff, staff respectfully

[4:40:29] submit that this is not sufficient time, a 24-hour, 48-hour turnaround, is not sufficient

[4:40:39] time for staff to do a full-sum review.

[4:40:42] That is staff submission for the record, staff have to proceed with council direction.

[4:40:50] Councillor Dern for the last point.

[4:40:52] Yeah.

[4:40:53] In light of that, I would like to move a motion for a special meeting on August 21st.

[4:40:59] And specifically to consider this question and to receive staff feedback and to settle

[4:41:10] the matter, make our final decision.

[4:41:12] And I would like to move that motion, see if we have a second or if we don't and if it

[4:41:17] It doesn't pass.

[4:41:18] It's the will of council, but I would like to move that.

[4:41:20] Please.

[4:41:23] Go ahead.

[4:42:04] Did you see it?

[4:42:09] Yeah.

[4:42:10] Yeah.

[4:42:15] Where do you ask the council?

[4:42:18] County is it?

[4:42:48] Okay.

[4:42:48] Mr. Preston.

[4:42:49] How about that amendment?

[4:42:50] That the motion number four council be amended by adding the following

[4:42:52] out to the third paragraph and that a special meeting of council be scheduled on August 21st,

[4:42:56] 2026 to receive staff feedback and consider the matter.

[4:42:58] Councillor Dernford, is that me here? I can get you to move that.

[4:43:02] Seconder, I have a discussion.

[4:43:06] Chair to check.

[4:43:09] Okay, I'll call the vote. All those in favour? All those opposed? Most is defeated.

[4:43:16] You had two in favour? And that was it?

[4:43:22] It's defeated, sorry. Okay, let's move on again to the emotion as amended.

[4:43:30] Any further discussion? Call for vote on that. All those in favor? That motion is carried.

[4:43:38] Back to the main motion.

[4:43:44] I bet you do.

[4:46:01] Okay, no. I think we've got, let's just make sure council are comfortable with it. And then we're going to call a vote on the main motion as amended.

[4:46:07] provided by the city by Lake Head University and a really soldiers memorial hospital.

[4:46:11] And to include such assurances, protections, and other provisions as those parties are prepared to offer to the city.

[4:46:16] And that Lake Head University and a really soldiers memorial hospital be requested to provide the draft terms on a before August 10, 2026.

[4:46:22] And that city staff be directed to review the draft terms and report back to Council for consideration on August 10, 2026.

[4:46:28] And that the balance of this resolution be deemed to be that which was adopted in principle.

[4:46:32] and that further to report MC-2618 dated August 4th, 26th from Mayor McKisic,

[4:46:37] pursuant to the development agreement between the City of Arrillian Lakehead University,

[4:46:40] governing Lakehead University's Arrillian campus lands.

[4:46:43] Council agrees to remove the restrictions set out in the development agreement,

[4:46:46] including those in sections 1, 1.2 and D1 and 2, as they apply to the subject lands comprising

[4:46:51] out approximately 25 acres of vacant land, and that the disposition of the subject lands

[4:46:55] to Arrillian's Soldiers Memorial Hospital for the development of the proposed campus of care

[4:46:59] with the final boundaries to be determined as part of the transaction be authorized and endorsed and that city staff be directed to work with Lakehead University, and a really soldiers memorial hospital to take all legal administrative steps necessary to implement this approval expeditiously, including preparing amendments to the development agreement to one way of release and delay the city and conferences, including the restrictive covenants and right of first refusal from the lands to be conveyed to building a soldier's memorial hospital to require Lakehead University to use all sale proceeds solely for the new academic building to be constructed by Lakehead University.

[4:47:29] at the really campus, and three provide that if the proposed campus of care has not been built on the subject lands by your really soldiers Memorial Hospital by December 31st, 2046, Lincoln University shall have a right of first refusal to repurchase the subject lands onto which the covenant will be restored at that time and if that right is not exercised or otherwise forfeited the city of a really should have a right of first refusal to repurchase the subject lands and that city staff be authorized to prepare and execute any agreements or other legal documentation necessary to give effect to this approval without the need for

[4:47:59] for further council approval to the extent permitted by law and to do all such things

[4:48:03] necessary to give effect to the foregoing.

[4:48:06] Okay. Anybody? Councillor Smith?

[4:48:08] I would like a recorded vote.

[4:48:10] Okay. Let's have a recorded vote. Call the vote. Go ahead.

[4:48:17] Thank you, Mayor McKisic. When I call your name, please indicate your vote by stating yes

[4:48:21] or no. I will begin again with Councillor Lauer.

[4:48:23] Yes.

[4:48:25] Councillor Follas.

[4:48:29] Mr. Mayor, can you turn your mic off?

[4:48:31] Yes. Councillor Sipola.

[4:48:34] Yes.

[4:48:34] Councillor Campbell. Yes. Councillor Smith. No. Councillor Leatherdale. Yes. Councillor

[4:48:42] Cheddar-Chuck. Yes. Councillor Dernford. Yes. And Mayor McKisic. Yes. Mayor McKisic,

[4:48:51] there are 8 yeas and 1 a. The motion is carried. Can I think of that? Can we have a confirmatory?

[4:49:10] That by-law, number 26-66, the viola to confirm the proceedings of council, that it's a special

[4:49:15] National Meeting held on August 5th, 2026 be enacted.

[4:49:18] Mover in seconder, please.

[4:49:20] Moved by Councillor Lodra.

[4:49:21] Seconded by Councillor.

Sp Meeting of Council re Lakehead University Expansion and OSMH Redevelopment Planning – Aug 5, 2026

Transcript