[9:45] Start with other perks.
[9:49] » Okay,
[9:53] » getting water.
[9:56] Uh good evening everyone and welcome to
Perthy's Council on this first day of
[10:01] September. I'd like to call our meeting
to order. Uh before we get into our
[10:06] agenda, we do have a presentation
tonight and I'd like uh Bill Hunter to
[10:10] come to the front.
[10:20] » Whoops. Sorry.
>> Okay.
[10:22] » Sorry. You need to
>> No, I might. [laughter]
[10:27] » I lost my
>> Oh, you lost your
[10:28] » Oh my goodness.
>> Anyway, tonight we're here to honor
[10:33] Bill. He has a long service of 25 years
in the fire department and we're so
[10:39] lucky 12 of those years have been here.
So, in sincere appreciation of your 25
[10:44] years of courageous and dedicated
service to the residents of Ontario,
[10:48] protecting their lives and property from
the fire. And so behalf of uh council
[10:52] and staff, we congratulate you and thank
you for all that you do.
[10:56] » Thank you very much.
>> Welcome.
[11:00] » And we have a little pin for you.
>> Thank you.
[11:03] » And a medal.
>> Thank you.
[11:05] » And a certificate.
>> Yeah. The clerk's been doing some work
[11:08] behind our back.
[laughter]
[11:11] » No, I don't.
It's been a pleasure.
[11:46] Okay. Uh before we do our moment of
reflection, I also would I'd like to
[11:51] take a minute to acknowledge the passing
of Fred Nectto, a longtime Ellis
[11:55] resident. Fred passed away on August the
27th. Fred served as both deputy reeve
[12:01] from 1977 to 1980 and Reeve of Ellis
Township from 1981 to 1985.
[12:08] Fred took great pride in his community
and was committed to municipal service.
[12:13] His contributions to local government
and his dedication to the community will
[12:17] be remembered. In honor of his life and
service to Perth East, flags will remain
[12:22] lowered at municipal facilities until
the day of his memorial service. Please
[12:26] remember the Neto family in your moment
of reflection.
[12:40] Thank you.
Now we'll move on to confirmation of the
[12:44] agenda and Ashley has a couple additions
for us.
[12:48] » Okay. Thanks Mary. So there is two
additions that were miss being uploaded
[12:53] in the agenda. So the first one is item
number 6.2.2
[12:57] from Dietrich Engineering Limited
regarding the lit municipal drain report
[13:01] 2026 and the second item is 6.2.3
um also by Dietrich Engineering Limited
[13:07] for the Moch Municipal Drain 2026
report.
[13:13] » Okay, thank you.
So, we have a motion that says that the
[13:18] um that the agenda as prepared for
September 1, 2026 meeting of council of
[13:23] the township of Perth East be approved
as amended. Moved by Jerry, second by
[13:28] Amanda. All in favor? Carried. If you
have interest council, you can disclose
[13:34] that now or as our meeting goes along.
Under consent agenda, we have 11 items.
[13:39] Is there anything anyone has questions
on or would like pulled?
[13:46] Nope. Okay. We do have a motion that
says items 5.1.1
[13:52] to 5.1.11 as set out in consent agenda
for the September 1, 2026 regular
[13:58] meeting of council be received for
information and that the minutes of
[14:02] August 11, 2026 regular council meeting
be adopted. Moved by Bob, second by
[14:08] Andrew. All in favor? Carried.
Okay,
[14:15] we now move to presentations. We have no
public presentations. Under other
[14:20] presentations, we do have three. The
first one is uh Ben Lefort from the
[14:25] Ontario Federation of Agriculture and
he's going to talk about the fiscal
[14:28] impact of farmland on Ontario
municipalities and Ben is joining us on
[14:33] Zoom.
[14:36] » Good evening.
>> Good evening and welcome. and the floor.
[14:41] » Thank you very much.
Okay. Um just see if I can share my
[14:46] screen or if the presentation comes up
on the uh screen here. I'm not quite
[14:50] sure if the procedure.
[14:57] Let me see. Just try and
>> you should be able to
[14:59] » Oh, there we go. I do have it now. Yes.
Excellent.
[15:04] Okay.
So, thank you again uh so much for
[15:08] having me here today. Um, as
[clears throat] mentioned, my name is
[15:11] Ben Leaffort. I'm a senior economist
with the Ontario Federation of
[15:16] Agriculture and [snorts] uh happy to
share with you today uh some results of
[15:21] research we've done in the past and um
some policy implications um of which I
[15:28] think uh uh will be quite relevant to to
the work of Perth East Municipality. So,
[15:35] uh, we've done several of these types of
reports in the past which aim to look at
[15:42] answering the question, you know, what
impact does farmland have on municipal
[15:47] budgets? Um, we've done a number of case
studies through these cost of community
[15:53] services studies. And really, these were
studies where [clears throat] we
[15:56] partnered with municipalities that were
interested in answering that same
[16:00] question.
And we worked, pardon me, with uh
[16:05] municipal staff [clears throat]
to gather all, you know, the uh uh
[16:10] financial documents, year-end reports of
each department within the municipality
[16:15] and try best we could to allocate the
revenues and expenditures of the
[16:19] municipality to four different land use
categories of uh farmland, residential,
[16:24] commercial, industrial um uh properties
and see uh which uh what the results for
[16:31] in terms of the expenses and revenues
associated with each. Uh I'll move
[16:36] through some of these slides more
quickly. Some of this work has been done
[16:39] quite in the past about seven or eight
years ago.
[16:43] Um the main finding here was uh similar
to what results were in in studies we
[16:48] saw in the US which is often that uh
kind of non-residential properties
[16:53] commercial industrial and farm uh
brought in more revenue than they
[16:57] consumed worth of expenses from the
municipality. So this right here is the
[17:02] average results we saw from the US
studies with that red line there being
[17:06] kind of the break even point if you will
where expenses equal revenue. Um we
[17:11] wanted to then um update those to see
does this uh hold for um Ontario
[17:19] municipal um financial arrangements in
uh different states in the US is quite
[17:23] different from what we have here in in
Ontario. Um and these are some of the
[17:27] results of the the previous um US
studies I mentioned which we looked at
[17:32] before uh just to show you how much how
varying the results can be. These are
[17:37] some of the results of uh state of
Georgia done quite a number of these
[17:41] studies in the early 2000s.
>> Ben uh you're the slides aren't moving.
[17:47] I don't know if you
>> they're not moving. No.
[17:49] » Okay.
[17:52] » All right. Can you see them here? like
in this way.
[17:54] » We can see the
>> There we go.
[17:56] » There we go. Yep.
>> Okay. I'll just keep it down here for
[17:59] the this I won't go into full
presentation mode just for the sake of
[18:03] uh simplicity here.
>> Sorry. So, you probably were wondering
[18:06] what I was talking about that whole time
there. Okay. [snorts] I'll I'll pick it
[18:10] back up and I'll I'll jump more into the
the newer study that we uh we were
[18:15] looking at because these case studies we
were doing and we did a number of them.
[18:18] We did studies in BAM, Mr. Mapleton,
Lannarch County, Zora Township and
[18:23] Prince Edward County. Uh, and the
results, as I mentioned, they were
[18:26] similar to what we saw in the US. But
those types of case studies have uh, uh,
[18:32] pretty big limitations. One being it
gives average results. It can't tell you
[18:38] what is the impact of, you know, putting
one additional housing unit in a
[18:42] municipality. It says here's the average
of all the houses. Uh, it's subjective
[18:46] by nature. we were working directly with
municipal staff to come up with these
[18:49] allocations. Um, so by the very nature
of that, it's there's some subjectivity
[18:54] to it and it's static. What we were
looking at was one municipality in one
[18:58] year. So when we did BAM, it was uh the
results for BAM in the year 2016, I
[19:03] believe, right? Doesn't necessarily mean
that's what the results for BAM were in
[19:06] the year 2017 or for like Malhide is
similar, you know, another municipality
[19:11] in Alen County of the same year.
So we uh wanted to uh improve this. We
[19:18] found a study that was done by
economists in uh the University of
[19:22] Florida uh that had looked at a way of
of compiling the kind of statewide
[19:27] municipal data and looking at how the
impact of removing uh farmland. So when
[19:33] you you lose farmland to development,
what impact did that have on on
[19:37] municipal budgets? So their study
finding in uh Florida again was similar
[19:42] to what they found in in the other
studies which is when they remove
[19:45] farmland it actually had a negative
impact on municipal budgets implying
[19:49] that having farmland is a positive on
municipal budgets. Uh so we wanted to to
[19:55] again adapt this for Ontario. What is
the what does the data say here for
[19:58] Ontario? So I gathered um for any
municipality uh that had um uh farm area
[20:06] score which meaning like uh of 10% or
more meaning of the land base in the
[20:11] municipality 10% at least of that is in
farmland. We included all those uh in
[20:16] the study. We obviously didn't want to
include like city of Toronto in the
[20:18] study that would throw everything off.
And we uh then built a model based on
[20:23] what we saw in the Florida study which
which measured that. So when you look at
[20:26] the percentage of the county's total
land mass that's in farming when that
[20:30] changes how does the municipality's
revenues and the municipalities uh
[20:35] expenses how does that change? Um, so
what we found was, uh, looking at this
[20:42] over a, uh, 15-year period, a 1%
decrease in in in farmland share,
[20:48] meaning a 1% reduction in the amount of
farmland in the municipality was
[20:53] associated with a 0.55%
decrease in revenue and a 0.51%
[21:00] in uh, decrease in expenses. So what
that's saying is when you're losing
[21:04] farmland, you're losing uh more revenue
than you are saving and and servicing of
[21:09] of the land. um revenues on average when
you when a municipality lost 1% of their
[21:17] um uh farm uh the farmland in their
county uh revenues decreased by 1.36
[21:25] million uh and sorry and again this is
through an average throughout all of all
[21:29] of Ontario and uh expenses decreased by
1.1 so there's actually uh the the
[21:36] operating surplus of the municipality
decreased by over $200,000 for every 1%
[21:41] loss of farmland. So losing farmland um
was associated with a reduction and
[21:48] smaller uh budget surplus and in in the
scenario where a municipality uh did not
[21:52] lose in in a given year but that kind of
um backs up and I I know we're quick on
[21:58] time and actually the main point I want
to make here is at the end in the policy
[22:01] piece here. So um on the the main
takeaway there is that we found
[22:05] consistent evidence that uh farmland um
is a net positive on on uh municipal
[22:11] budgets um which leaves some of the
policy pieces. A good implication of
[22:16] that is that you know there's a lot of
good reasons to want to protect
[22:18] farmland. We hope this is provides an
additional reason which is there's a
[22:22] fiscal benefit of protecting farmland
that developing it into say housing uh
[22:27] may bring in more revenue but will
certainly also bring in more expenses to
[22:30] service the new housing. Uh and that's
the main point on the farmland
[22:35] protection piece is something we've tied
to our our positions on development
[22:38] charges which is we believe uh farm
buildings, new barns and whatnot should
[22:42] be exempt from development charges
because that is for growth related
[22:46] infrastructure.
uh we are happy to see that threearters
[22:49] of municipalities in Ontario including
Perthies so thank you choose to exempt
[22:54] uh farms from their development charge
bylaws and I think for the same reason
[22:58] that we we point out here now the big
point here that I think from municipal
[23:03] perspective that's most interesting is
when you look at the results we have for
[23:08] these studies
why do we get a result where farmland is
[23:13] a net positive two reasons and it's not
ne One of them is uh municipalities over
[23:20] the last 15 to 20 years have had to rely
on an increasing share of their revenue
[23:24] from property tax while at the same time
firearm assessments uh the impact
[23:30] assessments and therefore their share of
the property taxes have gone up
[23:33] significantly. Uh so if we look here
even in just looking at numbers in in
[23:38] Perth East and in 2010 18% of uh tax
revenue came from farm properties in
[23:45] 2024 that was up to nearly 30%.
So that's one portion is is your um
[23:52] increasing share of municipal revenues
coming from property tax and and a
[23:56] bigger share of that's coming from
farmland.
[23:59] But the other point of that is what are
the services that we by we I mean the
[24:04] province um are asking municipalities to
deliver and in many ways those are
[24:10] becoming more disconnected from property
tax as a revenue source a lot more into
[24:16] um social uh housing and healthcare and
a whole bunch of social services and
[24:21] people's services that have increased is
a significant portion of uh of municipal
[24:28] budgets.
And the third thing for a small rural
[24:32] municipality similar like Perth East is
at the same time uh so the implication
[24:36] of a larger share of your revenue coming
from property taxes a smaller share of
[24:40] that is coming from grant revenue things
through like the Ontario municipal
[24:44] partnership fund. Uh so uh let me see I
have some actual numbers here on on
[24:51] earth's example of a municipal
partnership fund. So, um, in 2010, um,
[24:58] over three the amount of, uh, revenue
from that, uh, grant funding from the
[25:03] OMF in Perth East was $3.3 million. And
by 2024, we're less than half that at 1
[25:09] point uh, almost a third of that, just
over $1.1 million.
[25:14] more to the point in 2011
27% of the operating revenue of of Perth
[25:22] East came from the OMF in 2024 that was
less than 6%.
[25:27] So this is a big piece of what's driving
that result for farmland being a net
[25:32] positive. You uh in many ways there's a
lot less uh funding of this key funding
[25:37] program coming from the province to
rural municipalities and farmland values
[25:41] has been going through the roof. So it
is ob going to be a net positive to to
[25:45] have farmland in your in your
municipality. That doesn't mean that
[25:49] this is uh a good thing per se uh that
um a decreasing share of the revenue is
[25:55] is coming from uh provincial grants and
while at the same time there's all these
[26:00] other services municipalities are are
being asked to give. But one of his
[26:04] positions over the last year or so has
been to increase for the asking the
[26:09] province to increase the municipal
partnership funds annual funding
[26:12] envelope to $1 billion. It had been
sitting at 500 million for quite a
[26:17] number of years. Uh in the last two
years they've they've increased it to
[26:22] 600 million and that's that's welcome.
Uh but that's still significantly short
[26:26] on an inflationadjusted basis of where
it was in say 2005.
[26:32] Um [clears throat] so
we have crunched these numbers for every
[26:37] municipality of what would your funding
be uh if the OMF was of 1 billion. So in
[26:43] 2024 as mentioned before Perth East had
1.1 million in funding from the OMF
[26:50] um under the current formulas of the
program if that were to increase to a
[26:53] billion that would increase to over 2.3
million. Uh so an extra $1.2 $2 million
[27:00] of funding um directly to uh the
municipality of Paris if we were
[27:07] successful in a a uh OMF funding of of
$1 billion annually. Um and this fully
[27:14] aligns with uh you know OFA's long um
you know our primary um concern is
[27:20] advocating on behalf of farmers but
farmers need strong communities to have
[27:23] a strong business and a wellunded uh
municipalities that that can focus on
[27:28] the the infrastructure costs at hand and
have the funding to do so. So this fully
[27:32] is in line with um our our positions
over the years. Um we have done a lot
[27:38] more in the last year or so of of adding
some more data and some more research
[27:42] behind some of our um policies on rural
infrastructure funding and funding for
[27:47] rural municipalities and and this piece
of the OPF is going to be a big piece of
[27:52] our advocacy uh as we head into the uh
pre-budget submissions for for the
[27:56] province. Uh so I do hope um that we
have opportunity to work with not only
[28:02] municipalities like northeast but with
you know western eastern wardens
[28:05] caucuses and romas etc to find these
kind of policy areas where there is uh
[28:11] an overlap of of interest and potential
to work together. Uh so to sum up
[28:16] everything that I've been looking at
here, we've been looking at research in
[28:19] in Ontario at the municipal level for
the last um 10 to 15 years that have
[28:24] been showing kind of increasingly that
yes, farmland is a net positive on
[28:29] municipal budgets. And when we dive into
the details, a lot of that is driven by
[28:34] um how reliant municipalities have
become on property tax and the services
[28:39] and funding that's available to
municipalities. All of these dictate um
[28:44] what you know the the fiscal impacts of
of different land use uh types in a in a
[28:49] municipality. The more we're asking
municipalities to deliver so people
[28:53] services uh the more the nonp people
property of farming commercial
[28:59] industrial will have a net uh financial
positive and we do hope to be able to
[29:04] work together on issues like OPF and
rural infrastructure funding which again
[29:07] are going to be key pieces of our
advocacy moving forward. So, thank you
[29:11] so much. I know I've probably gone over
my time, but if you have any questions
[29:14] or comments or discussion, I'd be I'd be
very happy to uh review with you. Thank
[29:18] you.
>> Okay. Thanks, Ben. Any questions of the
[29:21] presenter?
[29:25] » Uh I have one. Um we keep talking about
uh saving farmland. We need to keep the
[29:31] farmland. Yet when someone goes to build
a house and because of the farms around
[29:35] it now they're have to build their house
in the middle of the farm which takes
[29:39] out farmland to get to it. So sometimes
the MDS
[29:44] um distances [clears throat]
cause more problems than they're worth.
[29:47] You know I know they draw a circle that
manure smell does not magically stop at
[29:52] the edge of the circle. [laughter]
>> Certainly not. I I uh thank you for that
[29:58] comment and uh I'll pass that back to uh
my colleague Duncan in our policy
[30:02] department who handles our land use
issues. Thank you.
[30:05] » Okay. Thank you, Bob.
>> I don't have any questions here for you,
[30:10] Ben, but I guess my comments are this uh
presentation is best suited to the
[30:17] members of provincial parliament. Um,
there's not a whole lot that I can do
[30:22] about OMF or land land use planning or
the fact that the province has frozen
[30:28] impacts property assessments. All these
things need to be done. We all know it.
[30:33] But I've been an OFA member for 30 years
and I've been hearing the same things
[30:37] over and over again and yet I never see
anything done. So rather than coming to
[30:42] small rural municipalities who are
immersed in all the problems that the
[30:46] province has downloaded, maybe you could
advocate to try and have some of these
[30:49] services uploaded to the uh province
like uh policing or social services or
[30:55] long-term care or health units. All
these things that we pay into uh that
[30:59] always are going up because of unionized
wages, etc. Um this needs to be taken on
[31:04] with a larger role, the members of
parliament. So coming here um is great,
[31:11] but I've heard it many many times over
the years and uh there's not a whole lot
[31:15] I can do as a sitting member of for the
East Council. So I wish you well
[31:20] wherever you take this forward. But uh
coming here to us, you're already
[31:24] preaching to the choir. So
>> yeah. Uh so I I appreciate that. I I
[31:29] would like to to address that that idea
though because well, first of all, we we
[31:33] do walk and chew gum. So this uh coming
here does not mean we're not also taking
[31:38] this to municipal to the provincial uh
MPPPS and to ministers. Um we absolutely
[31:44] uh are we we try to do both but um I do
think on something like the OMF
[31:51] uh you're right we've been hearing about
it for many years. I started off in in
[31:56] uh 20 uh when did I start off? 2013 and
it was an old issue then. Um, and I do
[32:04] though think that the only way that we
are realistically going to see any
[32:08] movement on these type of things is if
there is a a coalition of of rural
[32:12] voices of the municipalities,
particularly the municipalities and
[32:16] organizations like Offa and if there are
other rural voices that that have a
[32:20] similar strength. Um, and maybe not
particularly at the individual municipal
[32:24] level, but you never know. Sometimes
that can be um uh have an impact but uh
[32:29] really through your collective voice of
those groups like the Western Wardens
[32:33] Caucus, Eastern Wardens Caucus um we
have worked together uh early in my
[32:38] career when one of the the first files I
worked on was working with the Western
[32:42] eastern wardens to restore funding to
the connecting links program which is a
[32:47] provincial funding program that uh
essentially provides funding for roads
[32:51] and bridges that are kind of in that
gray area between municipal and
[32:54] provincial assets. sets um and working
all together. We did see some success in
[32:59] that and in over the years on certain
files the municipal voices and and offa
[33:04] have worked together in certain things.
Um I think there could be a more um
[33:10] orchestrated effort and more consistent
effort on all of our our parts to share
[33:14] our voices together on on those rural
issues at the provincial level. So,
[33:18] that's kind of uh another piece here is
is um these type of meetings, they may
[33:23] may not seem like it's moving the
needle, but the more of these type of
[33:26] meetings and getting everyone on the
same page on on positions, I think is
[33:31] the necessary groundwork that has to
happen before we could be realistically
[33:35] see any movement on these type of
issues. So, I do take your point and
[33:39] this would be one of many many many many
meetings at uh and presentations where
[33:43] we want to get the word out on this kind
of stuff.
[33:48] Okay. Anyone else?
If not, thank we thank you very much,
[33:53] Ben, for your presentation tonight. Very
informative and we hope you have a good
[33:58] rest of your evening.
>> Thank you so much. Have a great night.
[34:01] » Yep. Thank you. So council, we do have a
motion that the council of the township
[34:05] of Perth East receive the presentation
provided by Ben the Fort Ontario
[34:09] Federation of Agriculture OFA regarding
the fiscal impact of farmland on Ontario
[34:15] municipalities for information. Moved by
Amanda, second by Hugh. All in favor.
[34:23] Okay. Our next presentation is on the
lit municipal drain and we have Bill
[34:28] Dietrich with us tonight. So welcome
Bill. Good to see you.
[34:32] And the floor is yours.
[34:44] I think I'm wired up here. Am I Can you
Can everybody hear me?
[34:48] » Okay. We have two drainage reports going
to present this evening. We'll we'll The
[34:52] first one um is the lit municipal drain.
And um well there is a drawing attached
[34:59] to the uh at the back of the drainage
report and I'll be referring to it in my
[35:04] presentation.
Um
[35:08] oh it's up on the screen there. Now this
um this project uh was initiated under
[35:14] section 78 of the drainage act. Uh
council had asked us to prepare um a
[35:20] drainage report for improvements to the
main drain portion of the lit municipal
[35:24] drain.
And this was initiated under a request
[35:27] signed by Peter Van Ninatan and Bob
Greneste. Uh the existing drain um uh as
[35:34] you'll see on the plan here, which is
the green green line on the on the
[35:38] drawing there. This is an existing tile
drain that was installed back in 1930 by
[35:43] an engineer. Uh the engineers report was
prepared by John Roger. And uh back then
[35:49] there was 2500 ft of 10in and 14in
diameter tile installed to serve uh the
[35:55] upper portion of the lit municipal
drain. Uh the outlet for this um uh tile
[36:00] system is in uh the open portion of the
lit drain which is located in lot 17 of
[36:05] concession 2. Uh the open portion of of
the lit drain was recently cleaned out
[36:12] under the maintenance program in uh
2025. Our proposal here is to install a
[36:17] new drainage system to replace uh the
existing drain. Uh it will outlet at the
[36:23] upper end of the open ditch again on in
lot 17 of concession 2 with the upstream
[36:27] end of the d tile drainage system at the
east side of road 130. The the new drain
[36:33] will consist of the installation of 760
m of 450 mm tile at the upper end to 525
[36:40] mm tile at the outlet. It also includes
the construction of two new road
[36:44] crossings, one under Perth uh line 36
and the other under road 130. This um
[36:51] drainage system uh serves a drainage
area of approximately 133 acres and we
[36:55] used a 1 and a half inch drainage
coefficient for the design. The
[36:59] estimated cost of this project which
includes the construction costs uh
[37:02] allowances for right of way and damages
to lands and crops and the
[37:06] municipalities administration costs.
We've estimated the total um cost for
[37:11] this project at $192,600.
[37:15] So that's my presentation. Uh the
purpose of this meeting is to consider
[37:18] the scope of work for this project. So I
kind of outlined what we're proposing to
[37:22] do here and if there's any any questions
regarding the work that's being planned
[37:25] here, I'll pleased to answer those.
>> Okay. Thanks, Bill. Any questions from
[37:30] council?
Is there anyone here in the audience
[37:34] who's here in regards to the strain?
would like to question have questions?
[37:42] Nope. Okay. We do have a motion and the
motion reads that the council of the
[37:47] township of northeast receive the report
from Dietrich Engineering Limited
[37:52] regarding the lit municipal drain 2026
serving parts of lots 15 to 17
[37:57] concession 2 and part of lots 14 and 17
concession 3 township of Perth east of
[38:03] Lard County of Perth and further that
the quarterly revision for the lit
[38:07] municipal drain 2026 be held on
September 15 2026 at 6:30
[38:13] Moved by Amanda, second by Hugh. All in
favor? Carried. Okay. And the next drain
[38:21] we're going to do is a smoke municipal
drain. So, Bill, the floor is yours.
[38:26] » Okay.
[38:31] Uh, thanks um, Mayor Edg, uh, members of
council. This uh um drainage report that
[38:38] we've prepared here uh for the for the
municipality will be known as the Moch
[38:43] Municipal Drain 2026. The name rates uh
kind of reflects back to the original
[38:49] drainage system that is in place there
now. And it um it was constructed um as
[38:54] an award drain. um we were weren't able
to actually find the actual copy of the
[38:59] award, but it was um uh constructed
under uh a previous uh previous
[39:04] legislation under the ditches and water
courses act. This act no longer exists
[39:09] and this uh existing drainage system
basically is doesn't come under the
[39:13] control of the municipality any longer.
So the um the land owners um have
[39:18] petitioned under section four of the
drainage act to have a municipal drain
[39:22] constructed. the um the uh an on-site
meeting was held back in May of of this
[39:29] year to um discuss the area requiring
drainage. A survey was done to establish
[39:35] uh where the drain should be located and
also the the catchment or watershed area
[39:40] for this project. Um our proposal here,
you'll see uh uh it's on the up in the
[39:46] up on the plan up on the screen there.
It uh it will include uh a clean out of
[39:52] the open portion of the um the Wilhelm
drain which is known as C drain for
[39:57] approximately a little over 700 m to
provide a sufficient outlet for this new
[40:02] new tile system. We're um um going to be
removing two of the existing farm
[40:08] crossings that are in the open ditch and
one will be replaced with a 12 m length
[40:12] of 1500 mm pipe. Also, uh the drain the
drain itself is
[40:19] consists of a a pipe system. Um we'll be
installing 1,62 m of 450 mm to 600 mm
[40:27] tile and HTP pipe. Um from the outlet in
the Wilhelm drain in lot 29 of
[40:33] concession 4. This is on the Ghead
Ngrassi farm uh upstream to the um uh
[40:40] east half of lot 31 of concession 5. And
this also includes two road crossings,
[40:46] one under line 29 and one under road
109. We're also incorporating um the
[40:53] lower portion of the drain was installed
um by Mark Cook drainage in 2012 and
[40:58] we're going to be incorporating the
drain that was installed there as part
[41:02] of this project as well. And back then
there was a 416 m of 450 mm pipe
[41:07] installed. Uh the drainage coefficient
again we used to design this drain is
[41:11] the same as the last one and a half inch
drainage coefficient and we've estimated
[41:14] the cost of this project at $354,000.
So again that's kind of a brief outline
[41:21] of what what's being planned here. But
again if there's any questions regarding
[41:24] the the scope of work I'll I'll be
pleased to answer those.
[41:29] » Okay. Thanks Bill. Any questions from
members of council?
[41:34] Any questions from anyone in the
audience?
[41:39] Seeing none, may we have a motion that
council of the township of Peris receive
[41:43] a report from Dietrich Engineering
Limited, Moch Municipal Drain 2026
[41:48] serving parts of lot 29 to 30 concession
4 and parts of lots 30 and 31 concession
[41:54] 5, Township of Perth East, Southeast to
Ford, County of Perth, and further that
[41:59] the quarter revision for the Moch
Municipal Drain 2026 be held in
[42:03] September 15, 2026 at 6:30
Moved by Jerry, second by Amanda. All in
[42:10] favor? Jerry.
>> Thanks, Bill.
[42:13] » Okay, good.
>> And hope you enjoy the rest of your
[42:16] night.
>> Have a good evening.
[42:18] » Okay, now we're going to move on. We
have no delegations. We do have a public
[42:23] meeting.
I declare this public meeting to be
[42:27] open. This public meeting is being held
to consider a proposed zoning bylaw
[42:31] amendment affecting property currently
owned by Brando Farms Limited, part of
[42:36] lot 8 and 9, concession 1, 4330-4348,
line 34. This meeting is an opportunity
[42:44] for the township to advise the public of
the purpose and intent of the amendment
[42:48] and receive their input prior to the to
considering adoption of an implementing
[42:53] bylaw. If a bylaw is adopted to
implement the zoning amendment, a notice
[42:57] of passing will be forwarded by prepaid
first class mail to various agencies of
[43:01] interest and others who have requested
notice. An appeal to the Ontario Land
[43:05] Tribunal objecting to the adoption of
the bylaw may be efiled via the OOLT
[43:11] file service no later than the date
stated on the notice. Any persons
[43:15] attending this meeting who wishes to
receive written notice of a bylaw passed
[43:19] to implement the amendment is asked to
give their name and mailing address to
[43:22] the clerk following this meeting. No
written notice except as previously
[43:26] noted will be given unless requested in
writing following the meeting. All
[43:30] persons attending this meeting will be
given an opportunity to be heard or make
[43:34] a presentation. I will now call on our
planner Aubrey Ericson to present the
[43:38] planning report and recommendations. So
Aubrey, good to see you and welcome and
[43:42] the floor is yours. Thank you, Mayor
Eggets. Good evening, Madame Mayor and
[43:45] Council. Zoning bylaw amendment
application ZN12-2026
[43:51] has been submitted by Trevor McNeel of
MTE on behalf of Brandell Farms for the
[43:56] lands municipally known as 4330 to 4348
line 34.
[44:02] The applicant is proposing to reszone
both the severed and retained lands to
[44:05] satisfy the conditions of consent
application B18-26
[44:10] which was given conditional approval on
July 14th, 2026.
[44:14] The severed lands are proposed to be
zoned A-201 to permit the unders sized
[44:20] agricultural lot and reduced frontage
from 200 m to 110 m and the retained
[44:26] lands are proposed to be zoned A-202 to
permit the undersized agricultural lot.
[44:32] The Perth County official plan and the
provincial planning statement 2024
[44:36] require agricultural lots to be
appropriately sized for operations in
[44:39] the area and for flexibility to change
the type and size of the agricultural
[44:44] operation to meet emerging economic
conditions and trends in agriculture.
[44:49] The assessment of the size of the new
agricultural lot. Uh the official plan
[44:53] considers things including the
assessment of the amount of productive
[44:56] land, the amount of wood lot, the
presence or necessity for farm buildings
[44:59] and structures. So the area of workable
land on these severed and retained
[45:03] parcels is approximately 29.5 hectares
and 27.3 hectares respectively. The ACM
[45:09] lands, natural features and farm
residents and accessory structures are
[45:13] located outside of that calculation.
Further, the proposed lots do not remove
[45:18] any area currently in agricultural
production. It is the opinion of staff
[45:22] that the law area proposed for these
lands is appropriately sized to
[45:25] agricultural operations in the area and
that it is suitably large enough to
[45:30] maintain flexibility for future changes
in type and size of agricultural
[45:34] operations. Planning staff are
supportive of the zone change
[45:37] application and approval of the
application is recommended. Happy to
[45:41] answer any questions.
>> Okay, thank you. Is there anyone present
[45:45] who wishes to make a presentation or
speak in opposition of the application?
[45:51] Seeing no one, is there anyone present
who wishes to make a presentation or
[45:55] speak in support of the application
other than the applicant or the
[45:58] applicant's agent?
Seeing no one, does the applicant or the
[46:03] applicant's agent wish to make a
presentation or speak with respect to
[46:07] the application?
Trevor,
[46:11] » evening, council,
it's been a while since I've been up in
[46:15] the hot seat. Uh so the uh as Aubrey has
said the application was before council
[46:20] about a month ago for the seventh
approval and we're just here now for the
[46:24] zoning application which is a condition
of that so we have no other issues plan
[46:30] report is is well documented any
questions of council or anything.
[46:35] » Okay thanks Trevor. Are there any
questions for members of council?
[46:41] Nope. Council will consider a resolution
regarding the planning report
[46:45] recommendation following the conclusion
of the public meeting and bylaw 212-2026
[46:51] to implement the approval of the zoning
application will be considered later
[46:55] within the council agenda. The public
meeting is now concluded and we will
[46:59] continue with the regular meeting of
council.
[47:03] So, we do have a motion and the motion
reads that the township of Perth East
[47:07] Council receive a report dated September
1, 2026 for zoning bylaw amendment
[47:13] ZN12-2026
submitted by Trevor McNeel on behalf of
[47:18] Brandle Farms Limited affecting the
lands described as lot 9 less highway
[47:23] and North Park lot 8 concession 1 Ellis
Ward Township of Perth East municipally
[47:29] known as 4330-434
48 line 34 for information and that
[47:35] council held a statutory public meeting
pursuant to section 34 of the planning
[47:40] act with respect to zoning bylaw
amendment ZN12-2026
[47:45] and that council approve zoning bylaw
amendment 212-2026.
[47:50] I need a move and a second move by
Amanda, second by Jeremy. All those in
[47:55] favor
[48:00] » thank you. Okay, now we're going to move
to our public hearing
[48:05] and council will now temporary adjourn
to this as committee of adjustment
[48:08] pursuant to section 45 of the planning
act. I now declare this public hearing
[48:13] open. This public hearing is being held
to consider an application affecting
[48:17] property currently owned by Pauline
Hurst and described as plan 261 lot 107
[48:24] lot 108 lot 152 lot 153 part lot 154
part Victoria Street as RPS 44R704
[48:34] 44R 2887 part 1 Morningington Ward which
is 4069 Northro Street in Milbank. The
[48:43] purpose of this hearing is to give the
committee and the public an opportunity
[48:46] to hear all interested persons with
respect to the proposed application and
[48:51] receive their input and for the
committee to make a decision on the
[48:54] application. All persons attending this
hearing will be given an opportunity to
[48:59] be heard or make a presentation.
Committee members may ask questions for
[49:03] the purposes of clarifying the
application but are asked to withhold
[49:06] comments on this application until all
present have been given an opportunity
[49:10] to be heard. Any person who wishes to
receive written notice of the decision
[49:14] made by the committee of adjustment is
asked to email their name and mailing
[49:18] address to the secretary treasurer at
this time. An appeal to the Ontario land
[49:22] tribunal objecting to the decision made
at this hearing may be eiled via the
[49:27] OOLT eile service by the applicant, the
municipality, the minister or prescribed
[49:32] utility providers with the secretary
treasur no later than the date stated on
[49:36] the notice. No written notice except if
previously noted will be given unless
[49:41] requested at this time. I will now call
on our planner Aubrey to present the
[49:45] planning report and recommendation. So
Aubrey, the floor is yours.
[49:49] » Perfect.
>> Thank you, Mayor Eggets. The minor
[49:51] variance application MV7-2026
was submitted by Pauline Horst for the
[49:56] property at 4069 Norfolk Street in
Milbank.
[50:01] The applicant requires relief from
section 9.2.5 2.5 to reduce the exterior
[50:06] sideyard minimum from 7.5 m to 5.2
meters.
[50:12] The property is designated village and
zoned HVR. The intent of the village
[50:18] designation is to ensure that growth is
the focus of serviced settlement areas.
[50:23] The design of any proposed development
in village designations should
[50:26] complement the general form and density
of existing neighborhood development
[50:30] with access to a public road.
Development should occur outside of
[50:34] natural hazards and not generate
conditions which are hazardous to
[50:37] traffic movement and servicing capacity
and storm water management are
[50:41] appropriate to the proposed development.
The intent of the Hamlet Village
[50:45] residential zoning provisions are to
ensure that there is appropriate space
[50:48] available for private servicing and that
development is orderly and compatible
[50:52] with the area. The exterior sideyard
provisions are to ensure appropriate
[50:56] sight lines at intersections for
pedestrian safety.
[51:00] The proposed minor variance is an
expansion of a prevented use in both the
[51:03] Perth County official plan and the Perth
East zoning bylaw with no change to the
[51:07] settlement area boundary and the
development proposed is appropriate and
[51:11] similar to existing neighborhood uses.
There is no change proposed to the
[51:15] existing public road access and the
development proposed is outside of
[51:19] natural hazards. The proposal remains
well below the HVR lot coverage in the
[51:23] zoning bylaw with an appropriate area
remaining for storm water management.
[51:27] The lot is on private services and based
on the size of the addition proposed
[51:31] both septic and grading will require
review as a part of the building permit
[51:35] which satisfies the intent of the
official plan and zoning bylaw servicing
[51:38] requirements. The setback reduction is
not anticipated to interfere with the
[51:42] sight lines at the intersection as the
expansion is proposed to be located
[51:46] outside of the site triangle. All other
zone provisions are met. The application
[51:51] for MV7-2026
conforms with the official plan policies
[51:55] and maintains the general intent and
purpose of the zoning bylaw. The
[51:59] variance requested is minor in nature
and is desirable use of the land and as
[52:03] a result approval of the variance is
recommended. Happy to answer any
[52:07] questions.
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone present
[52:11] who wishes to make a presentation or
speak in opposition of the application?
[52:16] Seeing no one, is there anyone present
who wishes to make a presentation or
[52:20] speak in support of the application
other than the applicant or the
[52:23] applicant's agent? Seeing no one, does
the applicant or the applicant agent
[52:28] wish to make a presentation or speak
with respect to the application? No.
[52:32] Okay. Are there any questions from
committee members?
[52:38] No questions. The committee will now
consider a motion regarding the
[52:41] application.
And we have a motion that the township
[52:45] of Peris committee of adjustment approve
application file MV7-2026
[52:51] submitted by Pauline Horst for lands
described as plan 261 lot 107 lot 108
[52:57] lot 152 lot 153 part lot 106 part 154 as
Victoria Street 44R704
[53:07] part 1 44R2887
township of Perth East municipally known
[53:12] as 4069 Norfolk Street as it relates to
number one, relief from section 9.2.5
[53:21] to reduce the minimum exterior sideyard
with from 7.5 m to 5.2 m to facilitate
[53:28] an 89 m squared addition to the existing
resident subject to the following
[53:33] condition. That condition is that the
owner obtains a necessary building
[53:37] permit within two years of the approval
of the minor variance. I need a in a
[53:42] second. Moved by Jerry, second by
Amanda. All in favor?
[53:48] I declare this public hearing closed.
Okay. You're welcome. Okay. Now, we're
[53:55] going to move to reports. And the first
report is we have planning uh and
[53:59] development. It's an application for our
zoning amendment uh by Steve Jefferson
[54:04] on behalf of Allan and Harriet Banker uh
for in Northeast Hope. And we have Jeff
[54:09] with us tonight for this. So, Jeff, good
to see you. and welcome to Perth East.
[54:12] The floor is yours.
>> Thank you. So, the property is located
[54:16] on the north side of Perth Line 43
between road 104 and 103 and it's
[54:21] municipally known as 1682 per line 43.
The proposed amendment to the zoning
[54:28] bylaw is intended to resone a portion of
the lands from an agricultural zone and
[54:32] a adjacent land overlay zone to an
adjacent land overlay zone with a
[54:37] special agricultural zone A-194
to facilitate the non-farm residential
[54:42] use uh without a farm use sorry
residential use without a farm use on an
[54:47] undersized lot with a lot of 6 meters
due to the proximity of the non-farm
[54:52] residence to the existing wood lot
across adjacent to the subject lands
[54:56] that submitted an environmental
screening report in support of the
[55:00] development.
Perth East Council approved ZN5205
[55:06] on April 8th, but withheld the final
reading in the zoning bylaw until the
[55:10] required field studies could be
completed, peer reviewed, and the
[55:13] recommendations of the final version of
the screening report are implemented.
[55:18] The field studies have now been
completed and the recommendations of the
[55:23] environmental study have determined that
a 30 meter building setback and a 10
[55:28] meter naturally vegetated buffer between
the house septic and amenity area and
[55:32] the significant woodland limit is
required. Existing driveway does not
[55:37] need to be relocated and a landscape
plan is necessary to detail the
[55:41] plantings within the vegetated buffer.
Recommendations of the environmental
[55:46] screening have resulted in changes to
the proposed zoning bylaw. As changes
[55:50] have been made to the mending bylaw that
was approved in principle, this staff
[55:56] report has been prepared to inform Perth
East Council of the changes being
[56:00] proposed to the approved in principal
zoning bylaw.
[56:05] applicant has submitted a signed letter
of undertaking
[56:08] to the township of Perth East which
provides asurances that the landscape
[56:12] plan will be prepared and implemented
prior to building occupancy. The letter
[56:16] of undertaking has been accept accepted
by staff. The proposed zoning bylaw has
[56:22] been updated to include building
setbacks in a vegetated buffer to the
[56:26] significant woodland limit and planning
staff are the opinion that policies of
[56:30] the provincial planning statement and
the official plan have been satisfied
[56:34] with the implementation of the
recommendations of the screening report.
[56:38] Planning staff have no further concerns
with the revised bylaw. Implementation
[56:43] of the zoning bylaw allows for a
non-farm residential use without a farm
[56:46] use on an undersized lot that is
compatible with the surrounding area.
[56:50] The applicant is consistent with the
PBS, conforms with the official plan,
[56:54] and represents good planning and
available to answer any questions.
[56:59] » Okay, thanks Jeff. Questions of the
report?
[57:03] Hugh?
>> Not necessarily a question, but uh I
[57:09] think people should be very careful
about making any kind of water on their
[57:13] farm in the state.
>> Also, Mr. Jefferson is joining us on the
[57:19] on Zoom. So, if anyone had any questions
for him as well, he is with us tonight.
[57:24] So if there's no questions and we do
have a motion that the township of
[57:29] Perthy's council receive the report
dated September 1, 2026 for zoning bylaw
[57:34] amendment ZN5-2025
submitted by Steve Jefferson on behalf
[57:39] of Allen and Harriet Banker affecting
the lands described as part 8 concession
[57:44] 7 northeast board township of Perth East
municipally known as 1682 Perth line 43
[57:51] for information and that council give a
third and final A reading to zoning
[57:54] bylaw amendment 2052-2026
as revised. I need a mover and a
[58:01] seconder. Moved by Hugh, second by
Jeremy. All those in favor carried.
[58:10] Thanks Jeff.
>> Thank you.
[58:12] » Excuse me.
>> Okay, moving on our agenda. We have no
[58:16] reports from the CEO uh from the clerk.
The first one is our meeting schedule
[58:21] for regular meetings of council for
2027. I'll turn it over to Ashley.
[58:26] » Okay. Thanks, Mayor Eggets. So, just in
the report, since the time of writing
[58:31] the report, we were able to figure out
the uh Ontario Small Urban Municipality
[58:36] Conference. That one's April 26th to the
28th and it's going to be hosted in
[58:42] Stratford this year. And then just a
couple of comments um moving forward
[58:46] with the daytime meetings. I've
suggested to not host any Wednesday
[58:51] meetings. Past practice was to move um
the Tuesday meeting if it followed along
[58:56] weekend to the Wednesday. So, this
proposal is to keep everything on
[58:59] Tuesdays. Um March 3rd on the agenda
should actually be March 2nd. It says
[59:04] Tuesday, March 3rd, but it's actually
Tuesday, March 2nd. And the only other
[59:09] day change is the April 8th Thursday
proposal. And that's just how the
[59:14] calendar fell with the um OGRA
conference. And I can try to answer any
[59:21] questions if there's any or suggested
changes. Um that's it.
[59:27] » Okay. Excuse me. Questions of the report
or comments?
[59:33] Andrew.
>> Thank you, Mayor. It's um I know we kind
[59:37] of hashed this out before, but was there
any consideration the the July and
[59:40] August meetings are very very busy? Is
there any consideration or do we want to
[59:45] make consideration for maybe having a
meeting? It might be better to cancel it
[59:48] rather than have two large agendas in
the summer. Just throwing that out there
[59:52] if there's any support for that. If not,
carry on.
[1:00:00] » Yeah, it is. Uh it's up to council if
they want to add one or not. We can
[1:00:04] certainly do that. One thing that has
historically happened and again it'll
[1:00:08] depend on the new mayor but there is
usually a budget visioning meeting
[1:00:12] that's in July. So just one thing to
consider too that there is not currently
[1:00:17] any budget meetings um in this schedule.
[1:00:24] Okay. Anyone else?
[1:00:30] No. Okay. Well, we'll read this motion,
see where it goes, and if you want to
[1:00:33] change it. Uh that council of the
township of Perth East receive a report
[1:00:38] prepared by the manager of legislative
services/municipal
[1:00:41] clerk dated September 1, 2026 entitled
2027 meeting schedule for regular
[1:00:47] meetings of council CL-2026-32
for information and further that the
[1:00:53] 2027 schedule for the regular meeting of
council be approved as outlined in
[1:00:58] schedule A as amended.
We have a mover moved by Jeremy, second
[1:01:04] by Amanda. Any more questions? All in
favor?
[1:01:10] Carried.
Okay. And our next one is a petition for
[1:01:14] drainage work. Ashley. Okay. Thanks,
Margot. So, this is a request to add a
[1:01:21] new municipal drain. Um, it was received
by Gary Pletch and then there is other
[1:01:26] property owners in the area that have
signed the support um as well. It's in
[1:01:30] the southeast hope board just uh south
of the rail trail connecting into the
[1:01:36] central train branch A. And I will try
to answer any questions if there's any.
[1:01:42] Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the
report?
[1:01:47] Seeing none, we do have a motion that
council of the township of Perth East
[1:01:51] receive the petition for drainage works
section 4 of the drainage act by
[1:01:54] property owner Gary Pletch for
concession one north part Law 31
[1:01:59] southeast hope board township of Perth
East for information and that council of
[1:02:04] the township of Perth East appoint
Dietrich Engineering to prepare a report
[1:02:08] under section 4 of the drainage act and
that staff proceed to provide notice of
[1:02:12] the proposed drainage works to the
secretary treasure of the conservation
[1:02:16] authority. that is jurisdiction over the
lands in the affected area. I need a
[1:02:21] mover and a second move by Andrew,
second by Bob. Questions? All in favor?
[1:02:29] Carried.
Okay. Thanks, Ashley. We have uh nothing
[1:02:33] from finance,
nothing from public works, nothing from
[1:02:38] building bylaw enforcement. Under parks
and recreation, we have community sports
[1:02:43] and recreation infrastructure uh fund
stream one round two. And Mike's going
[1:02:47] to take that tonight.
>> Thanks, Mayor Ro. I'm pinch hitting
[1:02:51] tonight where Becky, she sends her
request regrets. She's under the
[1:02:54] weather, unfortunately. So, um, this
report recommends that council support
[1:02:58] an application to Ontario's community
sport and recreation infrastructure fund
[1:03:03] stream one round two for the
rehabilitation of the perk pool
[1:03:07] filtration system and related facility
upgrades. Uh, the deadline for
[1:03:11] application is December 22nd, 2026. The
project has an estimated total cost of
[1:03:17] 468,000 consisting of 36,000 for final
engineering and design work and 432,000
[1:03:24] for rehabilitation of the pool
filtration system and pump house post
[1:03:28] facilities. The existing filtration
system is nearly 30 years old and has
[1:03:32] been identified through multiple
technical reviews as approaching end of
[1:03:36] its useful life. Uh staff are proposing
a funding strategy that combines
[1:03:40] municipal reserves and external grant
funding. The township would contribute
[1:03:45] 36,000 from the pool reserve toward
engineering design work while
[1:03:49] applications would seek 216,000 from the
CSR
[1:03:54] and 216,000 from the build community
strong fund to fully finance the
[1:03:59] project. Uh council previously uh
authorized the submission to the build
[1:04:04] community strong fund application on
July 15, 2026.
[1:04:09] Um I'm happy to try to address any
questions.
[1:04:12] Okay, thanks Mike. Any questions of the
report? You
[1:04:18] » will like I know there was
bigger figure that we seen before about
[1:04:26] fixing up stuff like that. This go to
get up to speed.
[1:04:34] » Yeah, certainly this critical stuff that
needs to be done. Yeah, this is the most
[1:04:38] im imminent of the works at the pool and
the most critical as it relates to kind
[1:04:43] of um the filtration system is kind of
reaching its end. Some of the other pool
[1:04:48] items, decking, those type of things are
future needs, but I think from Becky's
[1:04:53] standpoint, she sees this as the most
timesensitive.
[1:04:56] » Okay. is a particular reason uh you
decide to do two funds and not just one
[1:05:03] » the the funds the way they're structured
are basically 50% max for each of the
[1:05:08] funds. Uh one of my first questions to
Becky was whether or not there would be
[1:05:13] eligible for stacking. One of the funds
is federal and one of them is
[1:05:17] provincial. So there would be potential
for stacking if we were successful with
[1:05:20] both. I would indicate the council that
because of the nature of the project and
[1:05:25] the imminent need, if we're not
successful with one or either of the
[1:05:29] applications, it's likely that Becky
will come to council and look for
[1:05:34] reserve um allocation in order to move
forward with the project. Perhaps not in
[1:05:39] 2027, but probably within the next
couple years.
[1:05:45] » Okay, any other questions?
If not, we do have a motion and that the
[1:05:51] council of the township of Perthies
receive a report prepared by the manager
[1:05:54] of parks, recreation, and community
services dated September 1, 2026
[1:05:59] entitled community sports and recreation
infrastructure fund stream one round two
[1:06:04] for information and further that staff
include 36,000 in the 2027 budget to
[1:06:10] obtain an engineer to complete the final
design drawings for the Perk Pool
[1:06:14] rehabilitation project and further that
council direct staff to submit an
[1:06:18] application for the community sports and
recreation infrastructure fund stream
[1:06:23] one round two for the pool
rehabilitation project. Moved by Amanda,
[1:06:28] second by Hugh. All in favor? Carried.
Okay, thanks Mike. Uh we have no reports
[1:06:36] from flyer. We do have one uh item under
correspondence and that's from the
[1:06:41] Legion here in Milton uh requesting
about uh the uh where the Senate is and
[1:06:47] the township owning the property and
they will still maintain it. There's
[1:06:51] still a lot of unanswered questions. So,
we're wondering if we should send that
[1:06:54] back to staff and they can uh figure out
some of the things that we need more
[1:07:00] stuff we need to know and bring it back
again.
[1:07:04] That work? Do you removing that?
>> Sure. travel comments first.
[1:07:08] » Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. This originally came to myself
[1:07:10] through President Dale. Um and Sunday
they did do the the announcement um at
[1:07:16] their 100th anniversary celebration um
for the Legion um Can Canadian Legion.
[1:07:22] And yeah, again, as as Mayor Rhonda
suggested, I think we should send it
[1:07:26] back to staff for report for a report
because this obviously is a very
[1:07:30] important part of our of our community.
Um and hopefully we can we can make make
[1:07:35] this work. to through to three three
parties with the AC society, the Legion
[1:07:40] and us. Yeah. I I would move that we
send it to staff for report.
[1:07:45] » Okay. So that the council of the
township of Perth East received the
[1:07:49] correspondence of Marilyn Dale,
president of the Royal Canadian Legion,
[1:07:52] Milbertton regarding a request for
Senate placement at 24 Tempered Street
[1:07:57] for information and at council direct
staff to prepare a follow-up report.
[1:08:02] Moved by Jerry, second by Amanda. Anyone
else with comments or questions? All in
[1:08:07] favor? Carried.
Okay. Now, we're going to move down to
[1:08:13] council and committee reports. My
mayor's meeting log will come next
[1:08:17] month. Uh, do we have any verbal reports
on any of the committees people sit on?
[1:08:22] Jerry,
>> thanks for you, Mayor. I guess not not
[1:08:25] from a committee. I did attend the AMO
conference August the 16th to the 19th.
[1:08:30] a number of good uh sessions. Uh was
able to also uh have a attend a couple
[1:08:36] of delegations. One was with the uh the
minister of um transportation, the PA um
[1:08:43] to that uh portfolio in regards to our
our the OP per county attachment.
[1:08:49] Looking for some clarification on some
of those um road closure signage and
[1:08:53] some of the the parameters around that.
That was well received. Looking to have
[1:08:57] some feedback after that. also sat in on
the county's um session with the
[1:09:04] Minister of Finance PA Dave Smith in
regards to the OMF funding um through
[1:09:10] the the farms and um treasurer um Corey
um kind of headed that but they weren't
[1:09:18] quite as receptive to that um indicating
that hey if we give money here we have
[1:09:22] to take it elsewhere. So, um that that
was that was always a good always a good
[1:09:27] um um thing to to sit in on. Also, the
uh the premier board was there as was
[1:09:32] all the other leaders. Um they elected a
new president. Again, the the sport fund
[1:09:37] that Becky's applying to was announced
at that conference. So, overall, another
[1:09:42] great conference. I there was over I
don't know how they organized it all
[1:09:46] amongst the provincial people, 3,000
delegations that they got to get in over
[1:09:51] that time. Um so yeah, all in all
another great informative um conference
[1:09:57] and appreciate the I was able to attend.
[1:10:02] » Okay, thank you. I know you were there
too.
[1:10:07] » I was at a better place. I was at the
Wilson fair. So thank you for being
[1:10:11] away. I enjoyed that. And like you know
Mr. West got me by to buy a very very
[1:10:17] expensive pie which I'm enjoying. And at
the conference and it was uh fairly
[1:10:25] interesting. The uh uh one thing is the
professional planners uh unfortunately
[1:10:30] not for next year for the new term of
council but uh they're going to have a
[1:10:35] lot of uh information
uh sessions that they'll be able to put
[1:10:39] on for counselors and other people. uh
impact. They uh they had
[1:10:48] a session and in the future uh
unfortunately they're no longer going to
[1:10:53] be sending somebody out to assess your
property. You're going to have to take
[1:10:56] your phone and go around and do it. So I
know a picture is worth a thousand
[1:11:00] words, but somebody on the ground is a
whole lot uh a whole lot better. And uh
[1:11:07] and there was an awful lot of uh funding
announcements. I hope can keep up with
[1:11:13] all the different streams and it's
always interesting at these conferences.
[1:11:18] It's seems interesting more interesting
to be talking to people from other
[1:11:23] municipalities and their problems and
how they're trying to solve their
[1:11:27] problems. But it seems that doesn't
matter whether you come from almost
[1:11:32] James Bay or Windsor urban or rural it
seems that the vast amount of properties
[1:11:39] are the same. I know homelessness is not
qu
[1:11:42] problem for us, but we buy that service
through Perth County buys it through
[1:11:47] Straford. So, in a way, it affects us
like it affects everybody else. And
[1:11:51] everybody is short on money for
infrastructure and and again, it was it
[1:11:57] was quite a work.
[1:12:02] » Okay. Thank you, Jerry.
>> Yes. said I almost forgot they attended
[1:12:06] the Moonlight Madness on behalf of the
business association
[1:12:09] presented the pillar of the community to
uh in memory of Carly Schneider. So that
[1:12:14] was accepted that night at the Moonlight
Madness was happy to um present that.
[1:12:21] » Okay.
>> Sorry, just forgot one thing too.
[1:12:26] They were talking about the reassessment
cycle and things like that and uh I
[1:12:31] wouldn't hold my breath on that. They
awful lot about fairness and uh uh it
[1:12:37] seems like they were looking more
towards uh industrial and commercial
[1:12:42] taxes, not other taxes. So, I just it
didn't seem like they were they said
[1:12:49] they were working on it, which I'm sure
they are, but we all know that when the
[1:12:54] assessment happens, there's going to be
quite a spike. And so, I'm sure they're
[1:12:59] busy trying to figure out how to massage
that.
[1:13:05] Okay. Anyone else?
If not, uh, what do we need? We just We
[1:13:12] receive the verbal reports for
information. Moved by
[1:13:18] Q, second by Andrew. All in favor?
Carried.
[1:13:23] Okay, we're down to bylaws. We have uh
one bylaw for first and second reading,
[1:13:28] and that's by bylaw 212-2026.
And that's a bylaw to amend uh 30-1999.
[1:13:36] And that was item 7.1.1
tonight. So I need a motion to receive
[1:13:41] it for first and second reading. Moved
by Amanda, second by Hugh. All in favor?
[1:13:46] Carried. And then we
[1:13:50] » addition.
>> Oh, sorry.
[1:13:56] » They need to be added.
>> Yeah.
[1:13:58] » Okay. So, we need to add the true uh
drains that we did tonight and then do
[1:14:04] we have the numbers for them?
[1:14:08] » 119
>> 119 and one and 120
[1:14:14] » 2026 for both of them. So, we're going
to add them to that. So,
[1:14:19] » only first and second reading. And that
was by Amanda and Hugh. All in favor of
[1:14:23] that?
Harry. Okay. And the drains in third.
[1:14:27] No. Okay. So third and final reading we
have bylaw 205-2025
[1:14:32] a bylaw to amend uh bylaw 30-1999
and that was 8.1.1 tonight bylaw 212
[1:14:40] 20226 bylaw to amend bylaw number 30-199
and that was 7.1.1 tonight and then the
[1:14:48] third one is bylaw 103-2026
being a provisional bylaw for the
[1:14:53] Hawthorne municipal drain and that these
bylaws be read a third and final
[1:14:58] I need a move in a second. Moved by Bob,
second by Jerry. All in favor? Carried.
[1:15:05] Okay. Do we have any notice of motions?
Any other business?
[1:15:12] Any announcements?
[1:15:16] » Oh, sorry, Amanda.
>> Hi. Yes. Just wanted to put in a plug
[1:15:20] for the Octopus Club of Ellis is hosting
their sixth annual dinner in the country
[1:15:26] smoked chop barbecue. It is Friday,
September 18th from 5 to 6:30 at the
[1:15:32] Rosstock Hall. Um they've been promoting
it on Facebook, so you can get your
[1:15:38] tickets and they're always looking for
volunteers to help um with the
[1:15:42] drive-thru. So hope to see many of you
there.
[1:15:46] Okay. Anyone else? Just on when we're
talking about dinners, the twinning
[1:15:50] committee is putting on a schnitle
dinner on October the 1st here in
[1:15:55] Milbertton at the Perk, I believe. I'm
not sure what time the supper is. I
[1:15:59] don't want to I'll find that out for the
next meeting, but tickets, you can get
[1:16:03] tickets from Patrick Miner and I'm not
sure who else has the tickets, but uh
[1:16:08] it's
going to be held and it's something
[1:16:12] different that we've never had. So, uh
hopefully
[1:16:15] I'm sure it will go well. So, just keep
that in mind. I'll have more information
[1:16:19] at the next meeting.
Okay. We do not have a need for a closed
[1:16:24] session. We have no business in when we
don't have a closed session. We have our
[1:16:28] confirmatory bylaw. And we have a motion
that bylaw 41-2026,
[1:16:33] a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of
council of the township of Perth East at
[1:16:37] its regular meeting held in September 1,
2026 be read at first, second, and third
[1:16:42] time. Moved by Jeremy, second by Hugh.
All in favor carried. And the last
[1:16:49] motion of the night is that we adjourn
at 8:07.
[1:16:53] Moved by Amanda, second by Harry. All in
favor carried. Thanks everyone. Enjoy
[1:17:00] the rest of your night. Bye.