[13:24] Great, I'm going to call the Council meeting of Monday,

[13:28] June 22nd to order. Madam Clerk, we do roll call,

[13:33] please. Thank you, your worship. I can certify the attendance

[13:35] of all members of Council Save and Except for Councillor

[13:38] Butt and all members participating are doing so electronically. Great.

[13:44] If members who are joining us could stand if they're

[13:48] able for playing a national anthem.

[15:32] Thank you all. As we begin our moment of personal

[15:35] reflection, I'd ask members of the Council to remember in

[15:40] your thoughts, our colleague Councillor But, who lost his brother

[15:45] - in - law. Very suddenly over the course of

[15:48] the last 24 hours and is a way attending to

[15:51] this family member. And the family. So with that, please

[15:56] join me in a moment of personal reflection.

[16:10] Thank you. Plant acknowledgement. We acknowledge the city of Pickering

[16:15] resides online within the 3D and traditional territory that Mississippa,

[16:19] the Scug Galan First Nation. And William is pretty signatories

[16:22] of the Miss Sagan Chippawa Nations. Pickreen is also home

[16:25] to many Indigenous persons and communities who represent other diverse

[16:29] distinct and autonomous indigenous nations. This acknowledgement reminds us of

[16:34] a responsibilities that are too relationships with the First Peoples

[16:37] of Canada. And to the ancestral lands at which we

[16:40] learn, share, work, and live. Any disclosure of interest. Robinson.

[16:53] Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. We'd like to declare a

[16:58] interest on 9. 1 correspondence from Jeffrey A. Abrams and

[17:03] Janice Iwood, co - principals, Principals and Chubby, Integrity Commissioner

[17:07] for the City of Pickering. I am well aware that

[17:10] I'm allowed to participate, but I am not allowed to

[17:14] participate in the vote. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Adoption

[17:18] of the Minutes. There are minutes of April 27th, May

[17:22] 2nd May 25th, June 8th, June 8th, June 8th, and

[17:26] June 17th. Movement Councillor Brenner, second by Councillor Pickles. Any

[17:32] corrections. Being done, all those in favor. Pose that item

[17:37] is carried. Councillor, we have three delegations for night. First

[17:43] one starting with Elena Nickel and Brett Gott, Alanna, or

[17:52] Lena, sorry, lead engineer projects, Ministry of Transportation. And Mr.

[17:56] Gotz, HDR Inc. in regards to the subject matter being

[18:01] the Highway 7 widening, Reese Rosa Road to Brock Road

[18:04] in Pickering, and they do have a slide deck. So

[18:08] welcome to our virtual council meeting, and you have 10

[18:12] minutes. Great, thank you very much. Thanks to Mayor and

[18:15] Council for giving us this chance to come in and

[18:18] talk about our project. If we could go to the

[18:20] next slide, please. And I will give a quick overview

[18:26] of the study we are doing a preliminary design and

[18:29] class environmental assessment study to widen Highway 7 to lane

[18:34] from two lanes to four lanes. From Resa Road to

[18:38] about Brock Road, that would be Markham to Pickering. And

[18:42] the total length of the study is about 10 kilometers.

[18:44] And that whiting is going to tie into the existing

[18:46] four lane sections of Highway 7 on either side of

[18:49] the study area and also connect with a couple of

[18:52] four lane sections that have been designed at intersections within

[18:54] the study area. The widening will ultimately support traffic growth

[18:59] and plan development such as the Pickering Innovation Corridor. And

[19:02] without any widening, the Highway 7 traffic demand will grow

[19:06] well beyond the highways capacity to handle it. And the

[19:10] scope of work for us includes replacing the little Rouge

[19:15] Creek bridge in Lucas Hill, widening of the West Stuffins

[19:18] Creek Bridge in Green River. And we are considering a

[19:21] grade separation at the CPK C crossing in Locust Hill.

[19:25] And to this point, we have developed a long list

[19:27] of alternatives and we have screened that down to a

[19:30] short list of alternatives, which is what we presented at

[19:33] our public information centre last month. And you can see

[19:36] there's a link to the project website that has all

[19:38] of that public information centre material and some other information

[19:41] about the project. If we could go to the next

[19:44] slide, please. So this is our study process. I'm not

[19:48] going to spend a lot of time on it, but

[19:50] we started off in the fall of 2025 to evaluate

[19:54] the planning alternatives. Since then, we've identified the long list

[19:58] of alternatives and we've screened that down to a short

[20:00] list of alternatives. That's what we presented at our PIC

[20:03] or public information centre. From this point, we're going to

[20:07] evaluate that shortlist cell of alternatives and identify our recommended

[20:11] plan. And from that, we will carry on and do

[20:14] preliminary design on the recommended plan. And we're going to

[20:17] present the recommendation for the preferred alternative at PIC number

[20:21] two. And that's going to be next year probably in

[20:23] the spring or summer. Next slide, please. So we've divided

[20:29] the study area into six different segments, mostly based on

[20:32] the posted speed of the segment. Three of those are

[20:36] in Markham, segments one, two, and three segments four, five,

[20:40] and six are in pickering. And I'm going to focus

[20:42] my presentation on the segments and pickering. Uh, segment four

[20:46] is through Green River, which is a hamlet with a

[20:51] number of private residences. Many of them are heritage buildings.

[20:54] Uh, many of them are located close to the highway.

[20:57] And the West stuffens bridge is also included in segment

[21:00] four. Segment five is where most of the pickering innovation

[21:04] corridor lies, uh, mostly to the south of the existing

[21:07] highway to the north of the Highway is mostly the,

[21:11] uh, pickering airport lands. And I'll add that, uh, city

[21:14] Pickering completed a highway access management plan or hamp through

[21:18] this area to help identify where future signalized intersections could

[21:22] go, uh, in support of the innovation corridor development. And

[21:27] segment six is, uh, The Hamlet of Brom, uh, which

[21:30] most of those properties, uh, near the highway are owned

[21:33] by transport Canada. There are a number of, uh, heritage

[21:36] features there such as Bentley House, The Pickering Standard Church,

[21:39] uh, and a number of residences and businesses, uh, in

[21:42] Broham as well. Uh, next slide, please. So in developing

[21:48] the long list of alternatives, we considered a couple of

[21:50] different things. One was different cross section alternatives. So we

[21:53] looked at whether we should keep shoulders in the hamlets

[21:56] or get rid of the shoulders. We looked at things

[21:58] like, uh, medians, um, and what the, what the, um,

[22:03] Highway should include in terms of active transportation, like a

[22:06] multi - use path or sidewalks and things like that.

[22:09] For the widening, we considered three basic alternatives, widening only

[22:12] to the north, widening only to the south or widening

[22:16] symmetrically about the existing highway centre line. So we've since

[22:21] conducted a screening on those alternatives and we've identified a

[22:23] shortly settled alternatives. And I'm going to present those to

[22:26] you, uh, in the following slide. So if we could

[22:29] go to the next slide, please. So this is segment

[22:33] four in Green River. We carried forward two alternatives to

[22:37] the shortlist of alternatives. The first one is alternative for

[22:41] S. And that is to widen to the south. And

[22:45] alternative for C, which is to widen to both sides,

[22:48] uh, we did not carry forward alternative for N, which

[22:51] would be widened to the north as it had the

[22:52] most, uh, residential impacts. Um, and if you look at

[22:57] the bottom, there's two different cross sections there. They're pretty

[23:00] similar. Uh, the one on the left shows a multi

[23:02] - use path on the south side of the highway,

[23:06] uh, and the one on the right shows a multi

[23:07] - use path on the south side of the highway

[23:09] plus, uh, sidewalk on the north side of the highway.

[23:12] So those are the two, um, cross sections that will

[23:15] consider. And I'll point out that we're using barrier curbs

[23:18] and we have, uh, removed the shoulders in this case

[23:20] to try to limit, um, the footprint impacts of the

[23:24] widening. And I think we can move on to the

[23:30] next slide, please. Segment five, that is through the innovation

[23:36] corridor. Um, we carried forward two alternatives here. The first

[23:40] one, I'll turn it to five N is to widen

[23:43] only to the north. We do like this one because

[23:45] it would use the transport Canada lands and mostly avoid

[23:48] development lands and the utilities that have been constructed on

[23:51] the south side. Uh, but the guarantee that we'll be

[23:54] able to, uh, acquire the lands from transport Canada. So

[23:57] we've also carried forward alternative five s, which is widening

[24:01] to the south, which would widen, um, obviously to the

[24:05] south, but it would impact, uh, more so the development

[24:09] lands, um, existing and proposed through the innovation court. Or

[24:12] so if the transport candida lands are not available to

[24:14] us, we would probably have to go to, uh, widening

[24:18] to the south. We did not carry forward whining about

[24:20] the centre line because that would still require, uh, acquisition

[24:23] of transport candida lands. And in terms of the cross

[24:27] section, we've only carried one cross section forward. Uh, the

[24:30] higher posted speed here. So it looks a little different

[24:32] than through the hamlets. Um, but the one that we

[24:34] carried forward has a wide median 5. 25 metres. What

[24:39] that allows is when the decision is made to construct

[24:44] a new intersection, say to support development, you don't have

[24:47] to reconstruct or realign the highway every time you want

[24:50] to put a new, uh, new intersection in. So we

[24:53] thought this was, um, most flexible for future, uh, for

[24:57] future work. If we could move on to the next

[25:01] slide, please. So this is segment six, which is in

[25:06] broom, um, I think as most of you know, it's

[25:09] a number of heritage properties here. And many of them

[25:11] are very, very close to the roadside. Um, and we've

[25:15] carried forward two alternatives here. We've got alternative six in,

[25:19] which is to widen to the north. And I should

[25:22] perhaps have explained earlier, but the orange dots are, are

[25:25] buildings that are likely to be displaced. The yellow dots

[25:28] are building, but we may be able to mitigate it.

[25:32] Uh, if we go to the north, there are a

[25:34] number of buildings on the north side that are likely

[25:36] to be displaced. And then alternative six S, which is

[25:40] the next one, which is widened to the south. It

[25:42] will display some of the buildings on the south side.

[25:45] We did not carry forward a centre line widening because

[25:48] that would displace the buildings on both sides of the

[25:50] highway. Uh, we only carried forward one cross section here.

[25:55] Um, and we've got a multi - use path on

[25:56] one side, uh, and a sidewalk on the other because

[25:59] they're sidewalks on both sides in some parts of Broom

[26:03] existing. And we want to replace, uh, in kind as

[26:05] much as possible. And if we could go to the

[26:08] next slide, please. So we've undertaken a bunch of consultation

[26:13] activities so far. Uh, we have met with a number

[26:16] of different agencies. We've met a couple of times with

[26:19] parks Canada. We've met with transport Canada. We've met with

[26:21] the city of Pickering a couple of times. And we've

[26:24] met with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. We held

[26:28] what we call a stakeholder agency meeting on April 1st,

[26:32] mostly to present the same materials that we showed at

[26:34] public information centre number one. And I believe he had

[26:36] 53 or 73 attendees from various, uh, ministries and municipalities

[26:41] and agencies, um, that meeting. So that was very helpful

[26:44] to us. And then we held public information centre number

[26:47] one, uh, on May 27th. We held that at the

[26:50] Cornell Community Centre in Markham. And we had 63 people

[26:55] attend that meeting. And if we could go to the

[26:58] next slide, please, um, and we've certainly received a lot

[27:02] of comments with that public meetings and through email and

[27:06] written comments, uh, chief among them might be, um, concerns

[27:09] about property and community impacts. We understand that we're going

[27:13] to be impacting, um, properties in the area. And that

[27:18] is certainly, uh, a concern for the community and a

[27:21] concern for us. We've had a number of suggestions to

[27:24] bypass the hamlets. Um, with new highway alignment in the

[27:29] study area, we've got a lot of concerns about impacts

[27:32] to heritage buildings or heritage properties in the study area.

[27:35] We've had suggestions that the province should repurchase Highway 407

[27:39] ETR as an alternative to widening the highway. We've had

[27:42] a lot of interest in improving active transportation throughout the

[27:46] study area. And a few other comments, but these are,

[27:49] these are some of the more common in key ones.

[27:51] Uh, that we've received. And we can go to the

[27:55] next slide, please. Um, so some of the next steps,

[27:59] um, for us, uh, first would be to respond to

[28:02] the comments that we've received as part of public information

[28:04] centre number one. We receive quite a few, uh, we're

[28:07] working on those responses and we'll be getting those out

[28:09] in the coming weeks. We'll then refine the shortlisted alternatives

[28:14] and evaluate them. We'll do a multi, multi, uh, factor

[28:16] evaluation of those alternatives. Um, we will be contacting potentially

[28:21] impacted property owners prior to the next public information centre.

[28:26] Um, and discussing potential impacts and potential mitigations. We will

[28:30] be selecting the preferred alternative, uh, either late this year

[28:34] or early next. And we'll be holding, uh, second and

[28:37] final public information centre to present the preferred alternative. We're

[28:41] saying summer 2027 right now. That could be plus or

[28:43] minus depending on, on how the process goes, uh, and

[28:47] lastly, we will file the transportation environmental study report for

[28:51] a 30 day review. Uh, we expect that to happen

[28:54] in late. 2027. And I think that takes me to

[28:58] the end. And I was speaking pretty quickly, I realised,

[29:01] but I hope I stayed in my 10 minutes. You

[29:04] were just over, but the information was very, uh, important

[29:06] to us the year. So, uh, questions of the delegate

[29:10] Councillor Pickles, you're the floor. Thank you. Just putting on

[29:15] my, uh, Mike Mayeresh. Thank you. Thank you for your

[29:18] presentation. Um, my questions are mostly going to pertain to

[29:24] Green River and Brom. So I did see, you noted

[29:29] the suggestions for bypassal communities, but I don't say any

[29:34] alternatives that suggest a bypass of those. So is that,

[29:37] uh, is that, uh, not, uh, not something you're going

[29:40] to pursue. Um, at this time, we're not considering bypasses.

[29:45] We're just considering this widening project. And that's just kind

[29:50] of how we started off with the project. And the

[29:53] reason being is that if we were to implement a

[29:56] bypass, the design for it would take much, much, much

[30:00] longer. And there'll be a lot more environmental impacts. Like

[30:04] it's, it sounds like it could be like an easy

[30:05] move, but it's actually like going, it would, it would

[30:08] be quite complicated. And the impacts, um, would be like

[30:13] pretty extreme where we need to address the issue of

[30:18] like traffic demand and like, um, expanding this highway, because

[30:24] especially with the pickering innovation corridor, like the new, um,

[30:28] the new developments like coming in, the current like Highway

[30:32] can't withstand like the, the traffic demand. So we kind

[30:37] of need to do focus on a widening because it

[30:41] can just be done much quicker. And it would like

[30:44] line up with the developments that are coming in. That's

[30:47] kind of like our process right now or a mindset.

[30:51] I appreciate that. So in Green River and Brom, just

[30:55] thinking about the existing residents and safety concerns. I've noticed

[31:00] you've divided this segment to highway up. With respective posted

[31:04] speed limits. So just focusing on that for a second.

[31:08] You're focusing on road widening. You're going to keep the

[31:13] post - its speed limits the same as they are

[31:15] now. Is that your suggestion through the hamlets. That's our

[31:23] attention right now. Yep. Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that. Um.

[31:28] I didn't see in the cross section. Maybe it was

[31:30] there. In my eyes. Just didn't see it. You can

[31:34] go with different Road widths. Would you be looking at,

[31:38] um, a narrower road width, uh, within the hamlets than

[31:43] you would between the hamlets. And I, I just know,

[31:47] for example, on some highways, uh, you're looking at 3.

[31:52] 75 metres. Others are 2. 75 metres. So are you

[31:56] looking at a narrower? I'm looking to have less of

[32:01] an impact on properties in the hamlet. So are you

[32:05] looking at a narrower lane width within the hamlets than

[32:10] you are outside of the hamlets. Uh, sort of. Um,

[32:16] the, the Lane widths and the cross section elements are

[32:18] really a function of the design speed, the traffic volumes

[32:22] and things like that. So because the posted speed and

[32:25] therefore the design speed is lower in the hamlets, um,

[32:28] it allows us to go a slightly narrower lanes. In

[32:31] this case, it allows us to go with, with curbs,

[32:34] typical curb and gutter. Um, versus a paved shoulder and

[32:38] flat grading and things like that. So compared to say

[32:41] the higher posted speed in, uh, the pickering innovation corridor,

[32:45] which has got wider lanes, wider shoulders, very flat grading

[32:48] on the, on the outside, we can compress it to

[32:52] a degree, um, through the hamlets. And that's, that's what

[32:55] you're seeing in our cross section. So we've, uh, we've

[32:57] done about as much as we can. We've, we've removed

[32:59] the shoulders, uh, and replace those with barrier curves. And

[33:03] we need some boulevard there for snow storage and things

[33:05] like that. Um, and we've got, you know, we're adding

[33:10] active transportation. So that has the effect of making it

[33:12] a little bit wider, but we've really tried to compress

[33:14] that in. And where, where it makes sense and where

[33:18] it's feasible, we may consider other measures like retaining walls,

[33:22] um, or things like that. If they're, if they're a

[33:24] really crucial, uh, constraints that we need to avoid. So,

[33:28] uh, but I don't think, you know, otherwise the standards

[33:30] are pretty prescriptive. I don't think we can get much

[33:32] narrow or then we're already showing. Obviously any. Mitigation to

[33:39] avoid impact on residential properties and safety in a hamlet

[33:45] would be top of mind for me anyway. Um, displacement

[33:49] of buildings, um, you had mentioned that in Brom, um,

[33:58] are there any ingredient river. Most likely. Most likely. Cause

[34:08] some properties in Brom are, I think much closer to

[34:11] the road. So. By displacement, you mean demolish. Potentially. There's

[34:20] a, there's a process. I mean, we'll do heritage impact

[34:23] assessment on, on potentially impacted properties. First thing we'll do

[34:26] is try to avoid the impact. We'll try to mitigate

[34:28] the impact failing a feasible way to do that. Um,

[34:33] there are a couple of, of different approaches. Um, in

[34:39] theory, we can look at moving a building, but that's

[34:42] not something that happens very often because it's a, it's

[34:45] very expensive and not all buildings can physically be moved.

[34:50] But I'll just say that that's something that we would

[34:52] do on a case by case basis. Um, and if

[34:58] you don't know the answer to the specific question, that's

[35:00] fine. But I guess in Brom, I think Bentley House

[35:04] is set back far enough from the road that it

[35:07] ought not to be impacted. But further to the East,

[35:10] on the other side of the road, there's the church

[35:12] there. And then there's a collet commercial house, the older

[35:16] Brook building with, I think, green, white, and green. Right.

[35:20] So are those two of the buildings that are. Marked

[35:26] is potentially being displaced. Um, yeah, you know, and there's

[35:31] heritage buildings on the north side of the road as

[35:33] well. And they're all very close. Uh, you're correct about

[35:36] Bentley house. It's far enough back that we wouldn't expect

[35:39] to directly impact. But the church and the commercial house,

[35:42] if we go with the South widening, um, those would

[35:45] be displaced. Um, if we go with the north widening,

[35:49] they would not be displaced, but the two or three

[35:51] buildings on the north side would be. I'd like to

[35:57] follow up with, with, um, you guys and have a

[36:01] further in - depth discussion and look at the maps.

[36:05] And that, I guess my, my final question that Mr.

[36:07] Mayor is, um, you referred to reaching out to prop

[36:13] owners having further discussions and then having a further public

[36:20] information centre, I would hope in the, in the communities,

[36:24] the Green River or Brom are somewhere there. But I

[36:28] was just concerned when you spoke about property owners because

[36:32] some of those properties are owned by the federal government.

[36:35] So you would be including and inviting the tenants, uh,

[36:41] the actual people who are residing in those properties as

[36:45] well as the property owner who may be the federal

[36:47] government. Uh, in terms of, of project notifications, we would

[36:52] generally include, um, all properties in the study area, which

[36:56] is what we've, we've been doing to this point in

[36:59] terms of directly reaching out to discuss potential property impacts

[37:04] and mitigations. We would be dealing with the property owners.

[37:09] Not the tenants in this case. So, um. So that's

[37:13] a concern to me. I think you, you ought to

[37:16] be reaching out to, to the tenants, the people who

[37:20] actually live there, if they're not the landowner. So that's

[37:24] not a question. Oh, well, I guess the question and

[37:28] Mr. Mayor is, will you be suggesting that the landlords,

[37:32] if they're the federal government be passing that notice along

[37:36] to their tenants? So they have an opportunity to attend

[37:40] these meetings or would the notice be sent out, uh,

[37:43] as a direct male so that the residents would, uh,

[37:48] receive the notice as well and then be informed in

[37:52] order to attend the meeting. If, if we're talking about

[37:56] the meetings with directly impacted property owners, we, we would,

[38:00] we would not normally engage with tenants in that case.

[38:04] It would be up to the property owner to, um,

[38:08] to pass that along if they so chose. I might

[38:14] bring that up again in discussion, Mr. Mayor, at some

[38:17] point. Okay. Anyway, thank you. Thank you very much. Uh,

[38:21] thank you for your presentation. Um, we have a very

[38:25] long night. Okay. Councillor Roberts, you have questions. Yes. I

[38:29] do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, just quickly, I have

[38:33] a couple of questions. Is the road being widened because

[38:35] of existing traffic that requires that today? Or is it

[38:42] being one to intended to facilitate future development of the,

[38:47] um, the federal lands, the federal airport lands, I'll say,

[38:50] and northeast Pickering. We use a travel demand forecast at

[38:56] the ministry has that has various horizon years, but we

[38:58] would be looking at existing conditions. And generally the horizon

[39:02] years that we look at now are 2041, 2051. Um,

[39:06] so it's really all of the above. Those background traffic

[39:09] growth and then there's growth associated with, uh, development. So,

[39:13] uh, that's, that's where the need really comes from. Okay.

[39:18] And then you so you also said that without the

[39:21] widening projected, the highway seven traffic demand will grow beyond

[39:24] the highways capacity. What exception, what assumptions were used in

[39:31] the traffic modelling? And for example, for what you were

[39:34] talking about, where do we get all the data from.

[39:38] Well, the ministry develops what they call the greater golden

[39:41] horseshoe model, which goes, you know, all around central region.

[39:45] Um, in the, in the, in the greater Toronto area,

[39:49] including Pickering. So it would be tied to, um, municipal

[39:52] official plans, uh, plan development, um, I'm not, I'm not

[39:57] an expert in that. We do have people that I

[39:59] don't have on this call, but, uh, it is something

[40:01] that is, it is tied to planned development. Approved development,

[40:05] I should say. Okay. And then so does that modelling

[40:09] assume that full development of the airport lands and of

[40:13] the Northeast Pickering lands. Is that. What it includes right

[40:19] now? I don't think the airport is in it any

[40:21] longer, but, um, the, uh, the development lands would be

[40:24] tied to. Oh, no, I'll just call it the federal

[40:26] ants. I'm sorry. Uh, I don't believe no. I don't

[40:28] believe it's tied to full development of that. I could

[40:31] take that back and get some more information on it.

[40:33] But certainly the, the, uh, innovation corridor lands, there'll be

[40:38] some timelines described to that in the, in the, uh,

[40:42] cities official plan and it would be tied to that.

[40:45] Yeah. Because I'm very curious if this highway widening is

[40:48] being advanced to support that future development of the federal

[40:53] lands or Northeast Pickering. And especially the federal lands because

[40:57] there hasn't even been a public decision on the future

[41:01] present yet. That's my question. That's not a question. Please

[41:05] my question was, is this highway? The question was posed.

[41:11] And the question was answered. Do you have another question.

[41:13] I sure do. Yes. Um, what impacts is, will the

[41:18] widening have on wetlands wildlife corridors and some species at

[41:23] risk. You want to speak to EAs, please? Uh, we'll

[41:30] be undertaking an assessment of, of impacts. Um, one of

[41:35] the things that we like about widening an existing corridor

[41:37] versus finding a new corridor is that generally those impacts

[41:40] are, are far fewer. Um, we have been doing field

[41:44] work to assess, um, existing conditions and identify species at

[41:50] risk as recently as I think we're going out this

[41:52] week. We've got people going out. We've got secondary source

[41:55] information that we've been using. We've been consulting with Parks

[41:58] Canada. Um, so that's how we'll be assessing species at

[42:02] risk and wood law impact and things like that. Okay.

[42:05] And then, uh, there we were just having a little

[42:07] bit of talk about building impacted or as you call

[42:11] them, um, displaced. Do we have a total number of

[42:16] how many buildings will be destroyed or displaced. Uh, we

[42:20] don't have a total number because we don't have a

[42:22] preferred alternative, um, at the moment. And there are a

[42:25] number of buildings where it's, it's too early to determine

[42:29] whether we can mitigate those impacts or not. Um, we

[42:32] haven't done enough of that design work yet. Um, that's

[42:35] something that's going to be forthcoming. And that's going to

[42:38] be part of our, our discussions with property owners to

[42:40] identify what is a, um, unacceptable or feasible, uh, mitigation

[42:46] measure. So I can't give you an exact number, but

[42:48] it's probably more than 10. Okay. That's okay. And the

[42:54] mentioning of bypassing the handlets is that off the table

[42:58] completely, that can happen. It's not completely off the table,

[43:02] but it's just not being considered right now. It's not

[43:06] being considered. Okay. And lastly, I think, um, you said

[43:09] that you match with some, well, you had some consultation.

[43:13] Have you had consultation like in brome or in like

[43:17] Green River with the residents that live there in those

[43:20] areas. No, not specifically our public meeting was the public

[43:26] information centre on May 27th. Yeah. And where was that

[43:29] one located again? Uh, Cornell community centre in Markham. Yeah.

[43:33] So that was in Mark. Um, okay. So nothing in

[43:36] the area here for Pickering. Well, presidents. Yeah. Sorry. It

[43:42] was not in Pickering, but we, you know, we, we

[43:45] certainly got some, um, feedback that there was a preference

[43:48] for holding the public information centre and pickering, uh, to

[43:51] that I'll respond with that this is a provincial project

[43:54] that is taking place in both Mark and Pickering. The

[43:58] closest suitable pickering site was in Claremont that was big

[44:01] enough and was accessible enough, which was significantly further away

[44:05] than Cornell was, uh, for the majority of the private

[44:10] property owners that would be impacted in Green River and

[44:12] Locust Hill. I understand there's a new community centre now

[44:15] in Pickering that probably is, uh, a good location for

[44:19] our PIC number two. Okay. So then you are anticipating

[44:23] that if you are to hold a meeting here and

[44:25] pickering or in close proximity to Pick Rain, that there

[44:29] is going to be, um, a big turnout. So you

[44:33] do need to have a bigger place in order to,

[44:36] um, have your consultation. Turn out and also just we

[44:39] have a lot of, uh, physical materials to display. So

[44:42] we need a big enough space for that. Okay. There

[44:45] were no, I know there were a number of community

[44:47] centres, but they were, they were pretty small, um, too

[44:50] small for us to work with. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[44:52] Those are my questions. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Thank

[44:57] you. Uh, no further questions. I want to thank you,

[45:02] Ms. Nickel and Mr. Gutz. Some on Council wish you're

[45:06] digging right now to, uh, enhance the travel for our

[45:10] residents and to support the expansion of our business along

[45:15] the Innovation Quarter. So thank you for attending today. Appreciate,

[45:19] um, your attendance and your attentive nature to the details,

[45:25] which are of importance to our residents. So I appreciate

[45:27] you attending tonight. Our next delegate is Ms. Marion Tom

[45:33] Thomas. Miriam. I see you're on the screen there. Miriam,

[45:39] you're here to speak to the Heritage Permit application. Aiden

[45:43] 12. 5 and Miriam, welcome back to our Council Chamber

[45:48] as a longtime resident and often contributor. Welcome back. You

[45:54] have five minutes. Okay. I'm here tonight to discuss the

[46:03] heritage permit application HP01 - 26. I'm certain that the

[46:10] closure of North Road has created incredible pressure on the

[46:12] city of Pickering to do something about the condition of

[46:15] White Bale Road. Everyone is aware of its condition and

[46:19] its need for repair. My concern is that the heritage

[46:23] committee has only seen the changes involved in the hundred

[46:29] percent plans would have been a minor nature. And I'm

[46:35] just covering that is not the case. I now understand

[46:38] the staff still has to review the plan and has

[46:42] an opportunity to comment and make changes. It's been quite

[46:47] difficult to obtain information on the drainage plan. And I'm

[46:50] certain that others would have issues. However, as long as

[46:53] the heritage committee, the city of Pickering, AE con and

[46:57] the construction, he adhered to the recommendations included with the

[47:01] Executive Summary included with the agenda for the Heritage Application.

[47:05] I'm certain that this could turn out all right. One

[47:09] would hope that the heritage committee and residents of the

[47:11] Hamlet of Whiteville at the very least are residents association

[47:15] would be able to see and comment on the latest

[47:18] plan. I've already submitted my concerns to staff regarding my

[47:22] particular property. But as you know, this is a large

[47:25] document, so I have not been able to review the

[47:27] situation regarding other residents. I look forward to a positive

[47:32] outcome. Thank you, Mary. Uh, questions of the delegate. Being

[47:42] done. Thank you. Um, we have one further delegate from

[47:45] Whiteville. Ms. Julie Chombre, Julie, welcome to our Council meeting.

[47:50] I know you're also have been in our chamber, not

[47:55] virtually, but a number of times. So welcome back. And

[47:58] you, you are also speaking about the Heritage Permit application.

[48:03] And Michambre, you have five minutes. Thank you. I just

[48:06] want to stay clearly from the outset that I fully

[48:09] support this project, my goal tonight is not to stall

[48:12] or slow down this process. Our villages endured years of

[48:16] infrastructure gridlock and multiple devastating floods. We want this done.

[48:21] However, precisely, because we have weighted so long. We must

[48:27] ensure the final execution is done well done correctly and

[48:32] respects our community's heritage. I speak to you tonight, not

[48:36] just as an interested resident, but as someone who has

[48:39] been actively involved in this drainage plan process for almost

[48:43] two decades. Over this time, I've attended multiple meetings with

[48:47] staff and council. I've sent scores of emails and navigated

[48:51] endless follow - ups. All too many of which were

[48:54] left entirely unanswered. Because city staff have come and gone

[48:58] over these last two decades. I frequently found myself holding

[49:02] more institutional knowledge about the backgrounds, engineering plans and history

[49:07] of this process than the current staff assigned to it.

[49:11] It shouldn't be this hard for a resident to track

[49:14] a project that directly impacts their home and their community.

[49:18] After almost 20 years of painfully slow movement, this report

[49:23] is suddenly being rushed straight to Council tonight, completely bypassing

[49:28] the planning committee rushing a decades - long project at

[49:31] the 11th hour is exactly how critical mistakes happen. I

[49:36] want to commend and applaud the Heritage Advisory Committee and

[49:40] for their hard work and dedication. However, we must acknowledge

[49:44] they're not working from the final plans. I've identified two

[49:48] major gaps of internal coordination that Council can and should

[49:52] rectify tonight without delaying the project timeline. There's discrepancies between

[49:57] the 95 percent and 100 percent plans. My understanding that

[50:02] the heritage assessment before you tonight evaluate the 95 percent

[50:06] design plans However, I've recently reviewed as they relate to

[50:12] my property. And there are substantial material changes between the

[50:16] two. When I raise this with city staff, they candidly

[50:20] share that although they are the hundred percent plans, they

[50:24] have not been finalised and have not yet been cross

[50:27] - referenced. They have not yet cross - referenced the

[50:31] hundred percent plans to ensure the heritage compliance. Secondly, I've

[50:36] learned from staff that an independent lighting study is currently

[50:40] underway to improve lighting in the hamlet. Shockingly, when I

[50:46] spoke with heritage staff, they were entirely unaware of the

[50:49] study was even happening until I brought this to their

[50:51] attention. We already have successful precedent and how lighting should

[50:56] be handled in Whiteville. In 2018, when our streetlights were

[51:00] switched from the original Century - Old Piplate fixtures, the

[51:05] city engaged in thorough, meaningful consultation with the residents. Together,

[51:10] we agreed on sympathetic radial fixtures and soft, warm LED

[51:14] lights to protect the hamlets historic night sky character. Lighting

[51:20] dictates the core character of a heritage conservation district, a

[51:25] separate lighting study should not be operating in asylum, completely

[51:29] divorced from heritage staff and the community standard we established

[51:33] in 2018. After decades of waiting, Council finally has the

[51:39] historic opportunity to break the gridlock, yet this right, and

[51:42] deliver a project that both the city and the residents

[51:45] of Whiteville can be incredibly proud of. To ensure equality

[51:49] result without halting our momentum, I respectfully ask that Council

[51:54] approve this report. Subject to the following direct operational instructions

[52:00] to staff. That you direct staff to immediately cross -

[52:04] reference the hundred percent engineering plans against the heritage report

[52:07] recommendations to ensure total consistency before any physical work begins

[52:14] and to direct staff to immediately loop the heritage team

[52:17] into the ongoing lighting study, ensuring that any proposed changes

[52:21] honour the 2018 community consensus and strictly conform to the

[52:25] White Bill Heritage Conservation District guidelines. Let's use this final

[52:30] step to close the communication gaps, protect Whiteville's heritage, and

[52:34] finally get the drainage plan done right. Thank you. Thank

[52:42] you, Julia. Sorry. Uh, questions delegate. Councillor Pickles, did you

[52:48] have a question. No. Okay, thank you. Uh, I don't

[52:55] see any questions, so I appreciate your submissions tonight, Marion

[53:00] and Julie. And we'll be dealing with this later in

[53:06] the agenda, and you're welcome to follow us or follow

[53:09] us on YouTube tonight. Uh, and we'll, uh, advise what

[53:12] the meeting is. So. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[53:17] So our next delegate is a correspondence, uh, and a

[53:22] presentation, and it's the, uh, Mr. Abrams, our integrity commissioner

[53:26] from principals integrity. And it's in regards to complaint against

[53:30] Councillor Robinson, respecting statements about staff corruption, as well as

[53:34] statements about residential school mass graves. Um, Mr. Abrams, welcome

[53:40] to our chamber. Um, are you here? Mine here, Mr.

[53:46] Mayor. Okay. Uh, do you want to introduce your report,

[53:51] sir. Thank you very much and good evening, Council. Thank

[53:54] you for the opportunity to provide some opening remarks on

[53:58] the report you have before you this evening. The report,

[54:02] of course, speaks for itself, but the summarize, there are

[54:05] two allegations addressed in the report. The first deals with

[54:09] a complaint about Councillor Robinson's claims about the veracity of

[54:13] statements about mass graves at a former residential school site,

[54:18] which we've declined to investigate on the basis that it

[54:21] is more properly dealt with under federal jurisdiction. We've received

[54:26] other complaints on that topic, and this will be the

[54:28] basis for a disposition of those complaints as well. The

[54:33] second deals with a repeated claim for which the Councillor's

[54:37] been previously found in breach of our code responsibility. Attributing

[54:42] negative characteristics to identifyable staff members and threatening their employment

[54:47] should she become mayor as Council's Wellaware staff have limited

[54:51] ability to challenge false assertions made about their character and

[54:56] performance. It is highly inappropriate to make such bald public

[55:01] statements. And the Councillor's been sanctioned on the very same

[55:03] statements in December of 2024. Because this portion of the

[55:10] complaint was filed by the CIO in relation to posting

[55:14] on YouTube, which we considered to be overtly harassing, unjustifiably

[55:19] critical and disrespectful to identifiable staff members in which improve

[55:24] staff's credibility and partiality or integrity. We initiated the complaint

[55:29] to Councillor Robinson with a preliminary findings report. As we

[55:34] recall, this was the process. Agreed to my Council in

[55:38] August of last year. The purpose of this process is

[55:41] Councillor will recall was to provide for a more rapid

[55:44] addressing of inappropriate behaviour towards staff. With all of that

[55:50] said, I want to remind Council that it is in

[55:53] a disciplinary mode this evening, regardless of your previous relationship

[55:57] with, views of Councillor Robinson, good batter indifferent. He must

[56:02] set them aside. He must form your judgment based upon

[56:05] how our recommendation relates to our findings on what you

[56:09] hear tonight and what you've heard and will hear from

[56:11] Councillor Robinson if she chooses to speak this evening. Recognising

[56:15] that the investigation is now completed. And that tonight is

[56:19] not a hearing or a rehearing of what led to

[56:22] our findings, as has been the case with our prior

[56:25] reports. We are in no position to answer questions into

[56:28] the details of our investigation. That investigation was conducted on

[56:32] a confidential basis as required by the municipal act. And

[56:36] it is complete. It would in any event be in

[56:39] property here only evidence elicited for example by Councillor Robinson

[56:43] and not the complainant or other witnesses. In other words,

[56:47] Council this evening lacks the competence to conduct its own

[56:50] inquiry into the matter. Our findings are our findings. As

[56:55] part of our investigation Councillo Robinson has had the full

[56:58] opportunity to present her position on the complaint to us.

[57:01] And we have reviewed her submissions and considered the matter

[57:05] with diligence. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. I'm available

[57:09] to any answer any suitable questions. Thank you, Mr. Abrams.

[57:13] Uh, questions of the delegate. Councillor Pickles.

[57:24] Thank you, Mirage. Um, this may be one of those

[57:26] questions, Mr. Abrams, where you say it's not a appropriate.

[57:31] If that's the case, that's the case. Um. And an

[57:35] earlier meeting, we addressed an issue with respect to Councillor

[57:41] Robinson and workplace harassment. And following that report, she made

[57:47] a number of comments, I would say disparaging comments about

[57:51] staff. Was that part of your investigation this time around,

[57:56] or it was not subject to your report in finding

[58:00] this time. Your report may have proceeded that meeting, or

[58:05] maybe you weren't aware of that meeting. In fact, the

[58:08] complaints preceded that meeting. And so the report focused on

[58:11] the complaints that were filed. Thank you. Thank you. Any

[58:18] further questions. Pastor Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I

[58:24] don't think he'd be privy too in camera meeting. Information.

[58:31] Um, my first question is, why does this report include

[58:34] cam loop's references when the complaint before Council Elizabeth staff

[58:37] - related conduct? Councillor, there's no finding or sanction in

[58:43] regards to your denialism. So I'm not going to allow

[58:46] the question. I understand that, but that's why I'm wondering

[58:49] why. Questions. They're not, they're not a part of the

[58:53] sanction and they're not a part of any infractions. So

[58:57] I'm not going to allow the questions. But Mr. Abrams

[59:00] just brought dive forward and talked about nihilism or camera.

[59:04] You're not getting penalized for it. There's no finding that

[59:06] you contributing the code of conduct. So I'm not allowing

[59:09] the questions. But why is Mr. Abrams alive to speak

[59:13] to that? But I'm not allowed to respond to that

[59:16] question. It was part of the complaint. He dealt with

[59:19] that and a number of other complaints in that regard.

[59:22] There's no finding that he contraven the code of conduct.

[59:25] And the sanctuary. So we're not spending time speaking about

[59:30] your denialism tonight. Speaking about my denialism. Yes. You're done

[59:39] all of it. Okay. So why in the report, um,

[59:41] did you include climate denial or bill related references that

[59:45] they were not necessary to these findings. Is that me,

[59:52] Mr. Mayor? The report, the issue of, uh, what's been

[59:57] described as denialism with respect to the burial sites was

[1:00:01] part of the complaint. And we adjust why we were

[1:00:03] not dealing with the matter in the report. So shouldn't

[1:00:10] a report, um, explain relevance, not just collect inflammatory material.

[1:00:15] And hope that it influences council. Well, I can explain

[1:00:22] why it wasn't included. And this is why we did

[1:00:24] not pursue a complaint. And that was, um, because the

[1:00:28] matter, we felt was better placed in federal jurisdiction. There's,

[1:00:31] there's an analogy here under the municipal act. We are

[1:00:35] compelled to refer to the police, for example, allegations of

[1:00:40] breach of the criminal code. And the reason for that

[1:00:42] is, I believe the reason for that is to, uh,

[1:00:46] prevent obstruction of a police investigation and also to provide

[1:00:52] fairness to the respondent because the, the, uh, procedural fair

[1:00:57] and a standard would be higher in a criminal investigation.

[1:01:00] In this case, we believe the matter is would be

[1:01:04] more properly placed under federal jurisdiction. And integrity commissioners aren't

[1:01:09] well placed to deal with the issues that were dealt

[1:01:14] with by the truth and reconciliation commission, uh, to do

[1:01:18] so. Would, I would think require a hearing. We require

[1:01:22] an inmorral enormous ugly expense on the part of the

[1:01:25] municipality. And we take quite a bit of time to,

[1:01:31] to complete. So that's a long answer to, uh, the

[1:01:37] question of why did we not pursue, um, making any

[1:01:41] findings with respect to those statements in this report. Right.

[1:01:48] Um, now I did talk about cam loops and I,

[1:01:53] in my rebuttal to you. And everything that I said

[1:01:57] about cam loops was directly taken from the nations up

[1:02:02] in Kamloops and from newspaper clippings. Councillor, I'm not allowing

[1:02:05] to see more. You've got, you pose your question, Mr.

[1:02:09] Abrams, Abrams has ably answered it. We're not going down

[1:02:14] the Robbitt hole of your denialism. It's done. We're speaking

[1:02:19] about the report and the sanctions that are recommended. So,

[1:02:24] uh, I'm not going to allow anymore. So if you

[1:02:26] want to get to your allegations about staff corruption, please

[1:02:29] do. If not, we'll move to the motion. Well, I

[1:02:32] do, Mr. Mayor, but you know, you sitting here and

[1:02:35] saying that, can I just finish what I'm saying before

[1:02:37] you cut me off, please? Because I think I have

[1:02:39] a right to. I'm not, I'm not debating. Please go

[1:02:41] on. I'm not debating either, but you know, you're sitting

[1:02:44] there calling me a saying that we're going down a

[1:02:46] rabbit hole when everything I took has been nationally in

[1:02:50] black and white. You're debating if you, if you want,

[1:02:53] if you, if you want to stop, uh, the questions,

[1:02:56] I'm not allowing any more on your denialism. Please continue

[1:03:01] creep and you keep on saying rabbit hole and denialism.

[1:03:04] That's perfectly okay. No, sir. That's fine. It's okay, Mr.

[1:03:08] Mayor. Everybody's watching. Yes, I'm, I'm delighted they are. This

[1:03:12] is on the record. The choices start and the choice

[1:03:15] is clear. Oh, that was the comment that you made

[1:03:20] after you told everybody that I was running for there.

[1:03:24] Council, sir. You just make the comment, Mr. Mayor. I'm

[1:03:28] just giving context. You're going to have five minutes of

[1:03:31] debate. Don't waste it now. No, I'm not. I'm just

[1:03:34] giving context to your remark. Is that that was what

[1:03:36] you posted on Facebook and when you made the announcement?

[1:03:41] You have questions of the. Thank you. Yeah. Um, why

[1:03:46] does a report treat that explanation as fresh wrong doing.

[1:03:53] Okay. Sorry. I'm going to go back a bit. I

[1:03:57] am being punished right now when you guys want to

[1:04:00] take my pay away once again for the ninth time

[1:04:04] for saying the comment that I said that I said

[1:04:09] back in, when was it did you say Mr. Abrams

[1:04:11] 2025. The comment 2024 I believe was the 2024. Right.

[1:04:17] So that was a comment when I said, if I

[1:04:20] was to become mayor, I would use this strong marriage

[1:04:22] powers for good. I go into city hall, get rid

[1:04:24] of this city solicitor CAO, a bunch of the directors

[1:04:27] because corruption does start at the top. I would tear

[1:04:30] it down the city hall, build it back up from

[1:04:32] the bottom and go back to the people. So my

[1:04:35] question, Mr. Mayor, preach the code again by calling a

[1:04:39] corruption. So do you have a question. And I didn't

[1:04:46] call it corruption. I said corruption starts at the top.

[1:04:49] Now I have already been sanctioned for this and I

[1:04:52] was. I was, um, I'm being punished. For something that

[1:04:59] I said before when I was, when I was talking

[1:05:02] about why I was punished before. So for me just

[1:05:08] saying that, Hey, I lost three months salary because I

[1:05:12] said what I just said, why am I you're debating.

[1:05:15] So my question is why am I you're debating. Hey,

[1:05:24] Mr. Marcus. Okay my question my question is why might

[1:05:27] be punished for explaining why I lost my paid the

[1:05:30] first time. The rebel news video is what where you

[1:05:36] said once again that our staff members are corrupt. You

[1:05:40] were found in against the code of conduct. You've done

[1:05:45] no proof to that. And you've done it again. You've

[1:05:48] done it again tonight. Um, we're not, we're not debating.

[1:05:54] So if you have a questions, please pose that. I

[1:05:56] did ask my question, but you just interrupted me again.

[1:05:59] My question is why am I being punished. For telling

[1:06:03] for telling people why I was punished in the first

[1:06:06] place. So you're telling me I've never allowed to talk

[1:06:08] about it again or every time I do I'm going

[1:06:10] to be punished. Councillor, when I speak, you stop. That's

[1:06:13] the rule. How about that works both ways when the

[1:06:18] chair speaks. You stop. Thank you. Mr. Abrams has spoken

[1:06:25] about that on the report. And I'll give Mr. Abrams

[1:06:28] the opportunity to respond if he pleases. If he doesn't,

[1:06:32] we'll move on. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. We

[1:06:36] certainly didn't take the remarks as an explanation. And even

[1:06:40] if they were, they were repeated verbatim words that, uh,

[1:06:46] as we've been discussing, the Council had already resulted in

[1:06:50] a finding a breach of the Code of Conduct. That

[1:06:54] occasional, not occasion, the sanction was not an entry fee

[1:06:59] for the ability to repeat the allegations. And so they

[1:07:04] were freshly made knowing that making them would be a

[1:07:08] breach of the code of conduct. And so that is

[1:07:10] why the sanction is at the level of this. Actually,

[1:07:15] no. Um, I would like to be because I was

[1:07:18] making the comment telling people why I lost my, you're

[1:07:23] going to have your five minutes of debate questions of

[1:07:25] the delegate. Well, the, the question to the delegate is

[1:07:32] why am I not allowed to tell people why I

[1:07:36] was sanctioned in the first place. I'm not allowed to

[1:07:38] repeat that ever again. The question has been posed. And

[1:07:42] the answer is been given. Do you have another question.

[1:07:48] Um, why does my response to the integrity commissioner not,

[1:07:55] why does the report not include my full response to

[1:07:58] council? So cancel could actually see both sides of the

[1:08:02] argument. They could see my rebel. They could see what

[1:08:06] the complaint is and like, you know, have both sides

[1:08:09] so they can actually make an informed decision. Council, sir,

[1:08:13] many of us saw the video. We know what you

[1:08:14] said. I think there's no debate about what was said.

[1:08:18] Uh, we found it very offensive. Um, so we don't

[1:08:22] have to re - litigate what you said. It's still

[1:08:25] on the internet. If you Google rebel news and I

[1:08:29] invite people to do that tonight, um, so councillor, do

[1:08:33] you have any further questions. Mr. Mayor, I do, I

[1:08:36] do think I need to respond to that. The Councillor's

[1:08:40] referring to her response to the preliminary findings report. And

[1:08:46] we did certainly consider her responses. Uh, as Council well

[1:08:52] knows, uh, the investigation of an integrity commissioner is obliged

[1:08:57] to be conducted in secret. That's the language of the

[1:09:01] statute. Uh, and it would not be, uh, possible, practical

[1:09:07] for us to publish their responses of a councillor involved,

[1:09:12] the respondent or of witnesses in order to present the

[1:09:15] Council, uh, the opportunity for, uh, full assessment of all

[1:09:20] of the evidence that was before us. It was our

[1:09:24] task to assess that evidence. That included the Councillor's submissions

[1:09:30] to us. And that was done at the end result

[1:09:33] of the publication of the report you have on your

[1:09:36] agenda this evening. So let me ask you this. Every

[1:09:43] time I say from now on, if I was to

[1:09:45] become mayor and finish off a dive sentence, will I

[1:09:48] be punished again with another 30 days pay. It's not

[1:09:53] the, uh, it's not your proposal to the electorate that

[1:09:58] has given offence to the Code of conduct. It's the

[1:10:02] allegations about staff. Staff who cannot fairly represent themselves in

[1:10:07] the same form. You're penalized. You're punishing me for saying

[1:10:16] the reason why I was punished in the first place.

[1:10:20] And earlier you mentioned that, um. You would hand off,

[1:10:25] you know, or like, you know, if it's not in

[1:10:28] your scope, you would like hand it off to the

[1:10:30] federal government for a denialism or whatever it was, but

[1:10:32] you'd made that comment. So my question is to you.

[1:10:40] If my speech and I talk about, let's say corruption

[1:10:43] lies, wasteful spending accountability. Why is that treated as misconduct

[1:10:50] rather than political criticism. Why do you keep on taking

[1:10:54] away my pay when I mentioned that. We make recommendations

[1:10:58] on sanctioned councillor. And in, and the remarks were particularly

[1:11:03] offensive because they were about identifiable individuals. This was not

[1:11:07] about a platform. This was about, um, allegations that we

[1:11:11] found to be without merit about identifiable individuals. Right. So

[1:11:18] then my question is why wouldn't you look into those

[1:11:22] allegations? Like why wouldn't you bring in a third party

[1:11:26] and say, okay, I'm Councillor, that's, that's not the integrity

[1:11:30] commissioner's role. You have, uh, you have other mechanisms, the

[1:11:34] ombudsmen, the police, which I know you've gone through. You've

[1:11:38] called out for an investigation by the premier. So you've,

[1:11:40] you've followed all those opportunities. It's not the integrity commissioner.

[1:11:44] Actually, Mr. Mariano said to the integrity commissioner, if they

[1:11:47] find something to be criminal or they think something might

[1:11:48] be criminal, it is their duty to contact, let's say

[1:11:54] a different authority. Like for example, the police, I mean,

[1:11:57] they did that when I did that poem that children's

[1:12:01] poem, sir, other report. Well, yeah, that is the question.

[1:12:06] Why do not pass up? You have not obligations to

[1:12:09] other authorities. Do you have any further questions. Of the

[1:12:12] report? That is my question. There's no keep going. Well,

[1:12:16] but Mr. Mayor, you just said there wasn't in their

[1:12:18] privy to do so, but it is in their privy

[1:12:21] to do so because they've done it before when you

[1:12:23] try to have me charge Mr. Abrams. You're a very,

[1:12:26] uh, smart guy a lawyer. Um, with decades of experience,

[1:12:32] if you wish to respond, you can. If not, I'll

[1:12:35] move on. Well, the, the allegations were, um, bear allegations

[1:12:42] with any supporting evidence, uh, and so there was nothing

[1:12:47] for us to pursue. The conclusion, the conclusion was that

[1:12:52] they were disparaging comments about staff who were not in

[1:12:55] a position to respond. Bear assertions about, we didn't, I

[1:13:01] didn't include this word in my opening remarks. I did

[1:13:04] that purposely, but bear assertions of a corruption. Um, it's,

[1:13:09] we regarded it as unfair. And in this instance, uh,

[1:13:14] matter that had already been result once before and was

[1:13:17] now being repeated. I have talked about extortion about corruption,

[1:13:22] about lies, wasteful spending, et cetera, et cetera. And not

[1:13:26] once had you tried to have this investigated by another

[1:13:29] party. Also, you've never, we, we've asked, I've asked the

[1:13:32] CAOs asked for any, not just proof, but actually outlining

[1:13:38] the allegation. You've never done that. So my delegations before.

[1:13:44] I've told you about the manipulation of the videos, the

[1:13:47] White Noise. Well, that was investigated. I talked about extortion

[1:13:51] and one of our in - camera meetings, Mr. Mayor.

[1:13:54] You were there. So why would I give you the

[1:13:56] evidence? It has to go to a third party to

[1:13:58] investigate. The time and White Noise was investigated and found

[1:14:04] to be false. And the extortion thing you're talking about,

[1:14:07] I have no knowledge of what you're talking about, which

[1:14:09] doesn't surprise me. Cause even Ms. Kimslor Brenner talked in

[1:14:14] the meeting about it being looking like extortion. We were

[1:14:16] all there. You can't deny it. Well, I can deny

[1:14:20] it. Do you have any other questions, Councillor? Okay. So

[1:14:23] now that I've mentioned that, do you think Mr. Abrams

[1:14:26] would bring in a third party to investigate so I

[1:14:29] could talk about my allegations? What is your allegation? You're

[1:14:33] making an allegation right now. Yes. What is eruption lies

[1:14:39] extortion. Miss you, the power breaching in FIPA. There's a

[1:14:44] whole list of them, Mr. Mayor. Oh, so manipulation of

[1:14:48] records, manipulation of documents. And you've outlined these allegations to

[1:14:53] who. I have all the allegations, but I'm sorry. It's

[1:14:56] like giving the criminal the evidence. No, I want to

[1:14:59] give the evidence to somebody else. I do not want

[1:15:01] to give it to you. Criminal. That's not part of

[1:15:03] entry. You can't - No, no, no, no. I never

[1:15:05] once called them criminal. Sorry. If it was taken that

[1:15:07] way, again, you are manipulating and changing my workout. I

[1:15:11] said you would not give 17 minutes of your brand.

[1:15:18] And it's about to come to an end. You're going

[1:15:19] to have five minutes of debate. I'm asking questions. No,

[1:15:22] you're not. You're debating. Um, you're making more false allegations,

[1:15:27] unfounded. And I'm going to bring it to the end.

[1:15:29] Do you have any other questions? You say that my

[1:15:32] allegations are I founded and did not read. I warned

[1:15:34] you, Councillor, thank you. We're going to answer into debate

[1:15:37] now. Um, there is a motion. I understand it will

[1:15:45] be brought on screen. And it's moved by Councillor Cook.

[1:15:48] And it's second by Councillor Maggie. And each member of

[1:15:53] Council will have five minutes. And the recommendation is to

[1:15:58] support the commissioner's report calling for a 90 day patients

[1:16:03] mentioned from June 22nd, ending on September 19th, 2026. Uh,

[1:16:08] you could diminish that. Debate. Not debate Councillor Robinson. You

[1:16:18] want your five minutes. Um, I do, but I have

[1:16:20] a question about that. Um, wouldn't this start on my

[1:16:23] next pay. On my first day of my next pay

[1:16:27] period. I think we went over this before last time

[1:16:33] when I was supposed to get paid. And we get

[1:16:35] paid two weeks. Prior. It'll be 90 days. Let's worry

[1:16:38] about that later. Do you have any other, do you

[1:16:40] want to be? No, I like to worry about it

[1:16:42] now when mortgages do. Well, perhaps that would have been

[1:16:45] a thought you've had before you when I'm rebel news.

[1:16:49] Uh, is the treasurer on the call. You worship, I

[1:16:56] can actually provide some context for that prior to drafting

[1:17:00] those motions. We always check with payroll. And those dates

[1:17:04] were confirmed by our payroll supervisor. And that's how the

[1:17:06] motion was written. Okay. Thank you. And then my other

[1:17:12] question is how come this was, um. Motion first and

[1:17:16] second by Cook and Daggy. And this was already done

[1:17:20] behind the scenes, not in person right here. Well, Councillor,

[1:17:24] I knew. So what kind of a meeting was done

[1:17:25] behind the scenes? Were you emailing them again and asking

[1:17:28] who wanted you being mover and who wanted to be

[1:17:30] second or Mr. Mayor? Could you've done that before. We

[1:17:32] have evidence of that. There probably would have been five

[1:17:34] people wanting to move this and five more wanting to

[1:17:38] second it, Councillor. But, uh, as a professional, I go

[1:17:42] over the agenda with the, with our staff. And they

[1:17:45] say what motions. And then I, I, I saw down

[1:17:49] a mover in a secondary and Councillor Cook. And Councillor

[1:17:51] Nagy rose their hand. So you have five minutes of

[1:17:55] debate will start. There was nothing professional about this process.

[1:18:03] Your five minutes have started. Okay. This process has been

[1:18:06] weaponized against me. It does not a neutral integrity process.

[1:18:09] It is a pattern of retaliation selective enforcement bad faith

[1:18:13] decision making bias and abuse of power. The complaints have

[1:18:17] come from the very people I am criticizing. And the

[1:18:20] result has been repeated sanctions repeated financial punishment repeated attempts

[1:18:24] to silence at a dissenting voice. Public silence, private avoidance.

[1:18:29] And repeated punishments are not integrity, Mr. Mayor. My allegations

[1:18:33] have been, have been serious and wide ranging lies loopholes,

[1:18:39] corruption, extortion, racial spending, misuse of public funds misuse of

[1:18:43] public office, manipulation of correspondence and video recordings, breaches of

[1:18:48] amphippa, use of surveillance footage without proper procedures, breaches of

[1:18:52] city policy, sexual harassment, procedural and fairness reprisal censorship suppression

[1:18:57] of dissent and misfeasms. I've also raised concerns about attempts

[1:19:01] to keep me out of in - camera meetings by

[1:19:04] family to send links blocking access to city hall, removing

[1:19:07] card access, cutting office resources and trying to isolate me

[1:19:11] from normal councillor functions. I've also been targeted over speech.

[1:19:16] This should never have been treated as criminal or hateful.

[1:19:19] I have been pursued over reciting a children's poem and

[1:19:22] over word said by someone else. While the actual speaker

[1:19:25] was not even pursued. I've also been attacked for bringing

[1:19:29] forward notices of motions for my constituents about bathrooms, flag

[1:19:32] policies, age restrictions at part events. And whether people agree

[1:19:36] with those views or not is really beside the point.

[1:19:39] Elective speech should not be converted into punishment by political

[1:19:43] opponents. That is not accountability. That is suppression. I also

[1:19:46] want to make it clear that I've not given a

[1:19:49] fair chance as everyone just saw. To be heard. Not

[1:19:52] one councillor is ever genuinely come to me before sanctioning

[1:19:55] me to aspermide side. My full responses had never been

[1:19:59] included or considered witnesses on my behalf. I've never been

[1:20:02] interviewed while the city side moves forward. That is procedural

[1:20:06] and fairness. That is bias and that is selective enforcement.

[1:20:09] I also sent to Cease and Assist letters and instead

[1:20:12] of stopping or correcting the course, they ignore them and

[1:20:15] doubled down. And that is not fairness, but just nothing

[1:20:18] more than escalation. And now today I'm being sanctioned again

[1:20:21] for telling people why I was sanctioned before. That is

[1:20:24] the most revealing part of all of this. I'm being

[1:20:27] punished for explaining the punishment. I'm being punished for defending

[1:20:31] myself. That is circular. That is retaliatory. And that is

[1:20:35] the conduct of a system try to get me one

[1:20:38] way or another. This is now my Ninth station. I've

[1:20:41] lost two years of pay. The mayor has tried to

[1:20:43] take away my expense account. My car, my phone, my

[1:20:45] internet, my allowance and my ability to function as an

[1:20:48] elected member. I've been blocked from meetings excluded from functionings

[1:20:52] cropped out of photos and treated as though my role

[1:20:55] can be narrowed or erased whenever it suits those in

[1:20:58] power. And that's not governance. That is nothing more than

[1:21:00] reprisal. I also want to address the two judicial reviews.

[1:21:04] My position is that they did not examine the underlying

[1:21:06] evidence that would show integrity commission reports for bias based

[1:21:09] on personal opinion and factually wrong. They focused on whether

[1:21:12] the IC had the authority and whether the administrative threshold

[1:21:15] was met, but they did not properly test the truth

[1:21:18] of the reports themselves or the evidence that was ignored.

[1:21:22] So those decisions do not answer the central question, whether

[1:21:25] the reports were fair, accurate or unbiased. If the city

[1:21:28] truly wanted the truth, it would investigate the allegations instead

[1:21:31] of punishing the person who raises them. A councillor speaking

[1:21:34] about corruption, waste, extortion, misuse of funds, the abuse of

[1:21:38] power should trigger an independent inquirer, not retaliation. If the

[1:21:42] mayor, the CAO or the integrity commissioner believed that I'm

[1:21:45] wrong, then let there be a real investigation. Let the

[1:21:48] evidence be tested. Let the witnesses be heard and let

[1:21:51] the truth stand on its own. Until that happens, this

[1:21:54] process will continue to look like censorship reprisal and abuse

[1:21:58] of municipal power directed at the one dissenting councillor who

[1:22:02] refused to be silenced. Counsel should not legitimize the abuse

[1:22:06] of process. And I ask that you guys all reject

[1:22:10] this report and refuse to punish me for speaking out

[1:22:12] about the punishment that I've already suffered, but you've already

[1:22:15] just shown that you all go ahead behind the scenes,

[1:22:19] talk amongst yourself to bring these motions forward. And that

[1:22:23] shows to your character. Thank you. That's all I have

[1:22:25] to say, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Um. If, if no

[1:22:32] one wishes Councillor Cook, you are the mover. I'm going

[1:22:36] to offer my comments and then you as the mover

[1:22:39] can close. Um, Councillor Robinson, I'm just going to start

[1:22:44] my time around five minutes too. Cause I want to

[1:22:47] make sure the rules are for everybody. Councillor Robinson just

[1:22:51] talked about character. And we just saw it again. Uh,

[1:22:56] lack of character. She used words like corruption. Extortion. She

[1:23:04] said the mayor did X, Y, and Z, the mayor

[1:23:07] did no such thing. I've never cut her expense account

[1:23:13] or car allowance. Anything along that line. I said you

[1:23:16] tried to. Councillor, I have the floor. I've never cropped

[1:23:23] her on any picture. I've never disabled her card system

[1:23:28] or anything along life. So those are false obligations. Her

[1:23:32] litany of false allegations went on for some time there.

[1:23:38] And they were kind of a litany of conspiracy theories.

[1:23:42] We have to remind when we're talking about character. This

[1:23:46] is a person who's now put her name in. To

[1:23:50] be the leader of the city. And she has 23

[1:23:53] breaches of the code of conduct. She has nine integrity

[1:23:56] commissioners reports. She has seven pay strength sanctions. She now

[1:24:02] has been found to contravene our work, our safe workplace.

[1:24:07] She's found to harass staff. And after talking about that

[1:24:13] and talking about correcting the course. After all those. Independent

[1:24:22] reviews of status from our independent integrity commissioner, our independent

[1:24:27] law firm, our independent harassment policy. After all that, she's

[1:24:35] asked us questioning our character. Correcting the course. Um. I

[1:24:42] think Councillor Robinson should look in the mirror. As she

[1:24:47] talks about extortion and she talks about corruption and she

[1:24:51] talks about tearing city hall down, that's not how we

[1:24:57] heighten the level of debate during COVID policy and election

[1:25:01] year. Her allegations, her demeanor, diminishes politics. It diminishes

[1:25:11] our professional independent staff as well. And that's why she's

[1:25:15] being sanctions once again tonight. Uh, so when she asked

[1:25:18] about character, I hope 118, 000 pickering eights or pictonians,

[1:25:26] whatever we're calling them, has a chance to watch this

[1:25:29] video and watch what she just said and watch that

[1:25:33] she asked about character. I want people to do that.

[1:25:37] Um, and, uh, I think the, the outcome will be

[1:25:40] very clear. So with that, I'm going to, uh, support

[1:25:45] the recommendation and ask her recorded vote. Uh, that three

[1:25:50] minutes. So I'm going to stop that, reset and turn

[1:25:54] it over to Councillor Cook. Thank you, Mayor Ash. Um,

[1:25:59] just to speak to this motion and for transparency since

[1:26:02] this has been a question of how we arrived at

[1:26:04] having a motion, um, available and presented for this evening's

[1:26:08] proceedings. Um, I am the one who followed the IC

[1:26:12] complaint. This is personal to me on multiple levels. I

[1:26:16] work with staff. I support our city staff. I believe

[1:26:20] in following rules of parliamentary discourse following the rules of

[1:26:25] conduct. Our minister. I know in a personal privilege, please,

[1:26:29] Mr. Mayor. No, it's personal privilege, Mr. Mayor? Yes. In

[1:26:32] a report itself, it says it's a report was filed

[1:26:34] by the CAO. Okay. I think Councillor Cook is meaning

[1:26:38] in regards to. And you had also mentioned on, I

[1:26:41] think, um, in a newspaper that you were going to

[1:26:43] be bringing this forward to the Integrity Commissioner as well.

[1:26:47] So I just want to show like, you know, this

[1:26:49] is not true of what's happening here. And, you know

[1:26:52] Councillor, you've mentioned your Councillor, stop. You don't have to

[1:26:57] work. You've understand that you've just given your pointer privilege

[1:27:02] and you're pointed privileges you wanted to correct the record.

[1:27:05] I think record Councillor Cook has indicated that she filed

[1:27:10] a complaint about, I think, the denialism. And in regards

[1:27:17] to the - And the findings on the denialism. So

[1:27:20] she shouldn't be talking about things. You don't have the

[1:27:22] floor. But you wouldn't let me talk about it. Councillor,

[1:27:25] you don't have the floor. All complaints in 23, I

[1:27:28] mean, 24, 25, 26. You don't have the floor. Councillor

[1:27:36] Cook, you of the floor. Thank you. It is also

[1:27:40] what's in the report. Oh my lord. Go ahead, please.

[1:27:44] I'm just waiting to make sure she's done or if

[1:27:46] she's going to continue to interrupt. I'd like my time

[1:27:49] reset. This is going to persist. We respect your time

[1:27:53] council Robinson. You should respect mine. It is a matter

[1:27:57] of public record that I made a statement that I

[1:27:59] would be filing this IC complaint. So it's very transparent

[1:28:03] and that was, it's public for anyone else who wishes

[1:28:06] to look it up. All right. Back to the point.

[1:28:08] We have a responsibility as members of Council. Elected speech

[1:28:14] follows rules. Parliamentary rules. There's an oath of office. There's

[1:28:18] a code of conduct. I will agree with Councillor Robinson

[1:28:23] and her statement that this has become circular. It has

[1:28:27] become circular. There's a repeated pattern that has been on

[1:28:31] display through the 23 breaches of code. This is our

[1:28:36] ninth IC complaint. Um, and it just persists. The coat

[1:28:40] of conduct rules and regulations. Continue to be ignored. Um,

[1:28:47] one of the things that I think we have not

[1:28:49] addressed that we should be addressing with these complaints is

[1:28:54] how this affects our work in relationship with city staff

[1:28:57] and the trauma that it inflicts on them. And their

[1:29:00] personal, uh, home lives, their employment standards, uh, and I'm

[1:29:06] not just speaking about the indigenous staff members that we

[1:29:08] have at the city of Pickering, but I'm talking about

[1:29:11] all staff who have had to endure repeated media scrutiny

[1:29:16] through rebel news and the interviews that are conducted. We

[1:29:19] do have to follow safe workplace rules. And as a

[1:29:23] member of Council, all of us should be setting a

[1:29:26] standard for what a safe environment looks like for the

[1:29:29] rest of the residents of the city of Pickering. I

[1:29:32] thank you, Mr. Abrams, for conducting your investigation. Uh, I

[1:29:36] am hopeful that the rest of, uh, my fellow colleagues

[1:29:39] on Council will support the motion before us this evening.

[1:29:43] And thank you, Mayor Ash, for calling for a recorded

[1:29:45] vote. Appreciate it. Thank you. That concludes the debate. Uh,

[1:29:50] Ben Clerk, we call the role, please. Councillor Brenner. Yes.

[1:29:58] Cancer Cook. Yes. Councillor Nige. Yes. Cancer Pickles. Yes. Mayor

[1:30:07] Ashe? Yes. You worship. That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Um,

[1:30:14] Mr. Abrams, thank you for your report. And, uh, your

[1:30:19] service to our city over the last four years. Um,

[1:30:23] you've served with, uh, integrity and distinction. And I appreciate

[1:30:29] the professionalism of your firm, both Massatwood and yourself. So

[1:30:33] thank you for being there here tonight. Thank you, Mr.

[1:30:35] Mayor. Okay. The next item is 9. 2. It's a

[1:30:40] request for municipal resolution supporting Expanded Deposit Return System in

[1:30:44] Ontario. There's, there's no, uh, move or seconder. Sir, if

[1:30:54] I may address that, I believe it was just moved

[1:30:56] as correspondence. It was correspondence received, um, and it was

[1:31:00] a, uh, request to receive for information. Well, no, the

[1:31:08] recommendation talks to, uh, receive for information, but also advising

[1:31:15] that we are supporting the request of the Canadian beverage

[1:31:21] association. I don't have a mover of second or so.

[1:31:24] I believe our clerk just came on to clarify that

[1:31:27] Councillor. Okay. Ms. Castle. Thank you. Through you, your worship.

[1:31:31] This is a matter of correspondence. So, uh, as we

[1:31:34] ask members that are polling correspondence to provide us with

[1:31:37] recommendations, this was the recommendation that was within the correspondence.

[1:31:41] So it's now put here before Council, but it's not

[1:31:44] a notice of motion, which is why we don't list

[1:31:46] the mover in seconder already there. Okay. Um, I still

[1:31:51] need a, we can do to be received or we

[1:31:54] can, in essence, endorse the correspondence. So I do need

[1:31:58] to move a mover in a second here. Uh, it's

[1:32:04] second by Councillor Cook and second and sorry, move my

[1:32:07] Councillor Cook and second because they're nagy. And you're moving

[1:32:11] the recommendation as put in here. Yeah. Yes, sir. Okay.

[1:32:16] Thank you. Debate. Councillor Cook. Uh, thank you, sir. Uh,

[1:32:22] this was received by Council as part of our, uh,

[1:32:26] communications package. We receive, um, with request we expanding deposit

[1:32:31] return system, multiple provinces across Canada already operate a collection

[1:32:37] system or a depot for lack of a better term

[1:32:41] where any resident can return not just, um, common, uh,

[1:32:46] bottles such as wine bottles or beer bottles. It's an

[1:32:49] expanded process whereby beverage juice containers, um, items of that

[1:32:54] nature could also be expanded. Um, and since we have

[1:32:58] seen a drop off, um, with, um, access to return

[1:33:03] your beverages, your adult beverages through the closure of certain

[1:33:07] beer stores within our municipality, um, it's just an opportunity

[1:33:11] to look at and encourage our government to find another

[1:33:15] mechanism to encourage increased recycling. Um, not necessarily within pickering,

[1:33:20] but somewhere within our region so that we continue to,

[1:33:24] uh, remove bottles cans tetra packs, things of that nature

[1:33:27] from our landfill. And that's essentially what this is. And

[1:33:31] this was brought to us, um, by the Canadian beverage

[1:33:34] association. Thank you. You're welcome. To third debate. Uh, I

[1:33:43] want to interbate. I do not support this. I just

[1:33:46] Googled how much is a water at Costco in a

[1:33:50] 40 pack is four dollars in 50 cents. If this

[1:33:54] passed, uh, that 40 pack would be eight dollars in

[1:33:57] 50 cents. I'm an enthusiastic recycler. I have three bins

[1:34:03] every week. I've been very busy household and lots of

[1:34:07] beverages of all kinds are consumed in my house. Um,

[1:34:14] a case of water, a quesadit Coke, et cetera, et

[1:34:17] cetera. So, uh, I don't support this from affordability point

[1:34:20] of view. Um, I don't think we should be adding

[1:34:23] two dollars in 40 cents to a case of Diet

[1:34:26] Coke. I don't think we should be adding four dollars

[1:34:28] to the case of a water. And I don't think,

[1:34:32] uh, we should be adding a dollar 20 to a

[1:34:36] 12 pack of, uh, orange juice that the kids take

[1:34:38] to school every day. Um, I do, I think, um,

[1:34:43] there are some merit in terms of looking at other

[1:34:46] options. Uh, I don't think, um, a penalty of money

[1:34:51] is the proper way. So I'm going to ask for

[1:34:53] a recorded vote and I'm opposed to this Councillor Robinson.

[1:34:58] I agree with you. Bowser, don't tell me you're going

[1:35:00] to agree with me. I disagree with you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:35:04] You have the floor sir. Ma'am. Yeah. So no, I

[1:35:06] do agree with you in this respect because, you know,

[1:35:09] we as a city, we have to do better with

[1:35:12] our recycling. As we know, we don't have enough recycling

[1:35:16] trucks. As we know, um, the trucks that pick up

[1:35:19] are recycling a lot in our parks in that they

[1:35:22] do not divide the recycling. So, you know, we might

[1:35:26] have different receptacles in the cancer parks, but we all

[1:35:30] know in reality, all of that just gets thrown into

[1:35:34] the back of the garbage disposal and it goes straight

[1:35:38] to landfill and none of it is recycled. So I

[1:35:42] don't, uh, believe it increasing prices, but I do believe

[1:35:46] that we could do better as a city. And that's

[1:35:48] what we need to try and do is actually recycle

[1:35:52] because we can't get the people to recycle. If we're

[1:35:54] not recycling properly ourselves in our own parks. And at

[1:36:00] the rec centre. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Councillor

[1:36:03] Nagy. Sorry Frozen, Switch. Don't be there and I can

[1:36:13] hit the mic. Um, I just want to flag that,

[1:36:17] uh, to your comments about the cost going up. You

[1:36:20] do get your deposit back so that two dollars and

[1:36:23] 40 cents comes back to you. Of course it doesn't

[1:36:25] if you don't recycle it. But if you are an

[1:36:29] avid recycler to your point, um, then you would get

[1:36:32] your deposit back. And there are several provinces that already

[1:36:34] do this, uh, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta all for

[1:36:39] sure. I'm fairly certain Quebec as well. Um, although don't

[1:36:43] quote me on that one specifically, uh, but there are,

[1:36:46] there are several provinces, uh, cross our, our great and

[1:36:51] vast country, uh, that have demonstrated that this is a

[1:36:53] very doable thing. And from an affordability standpoint, you don't

[1:36:57] lose that affordability piece because that money does come back

[1:37:00] to you. If, if you return your bottle. So plain

[1:37:04] and simple, you get your bottle. Deposit similar as to

[1:37:07] the beer store, right? You get your 10 cents back

[1:37:10] if you give the can back. Um, so that is,

[1:37:15] that is, that is there. And if I know that,

[1:37:18] uh, one of the comments that could come back is,

[1:37:20] you know, not everybody drives. That is okay. There are

[1:37:24] opportunities. It's what we are asking here is to open

[1:37:27] the conversation. And then we can explore those options because

[1:37:31] yes, that, for example, is a valid one, somebody who

[1:37:33] can't, who isn't mobile, but still wants to partake. Yes.

[1:37:37] There are ways around it, but we can't explore those

[1:37:41] if we don't open the conversation in the first place.

[1:37:45] Thank you. Any further debate? Sorry. And, and that it

[1:37:51] expands beyond bottles and cans again, the tetrax and everything.

[1:37:53] So anything that gets recycled, you'll get your money back

[1:37:56] for it. Thank you. Elsie. I don't, I don't, I

[1:38:00] don't return my beer bottles. I assure is heck not

[1:38:02] going to return my water bottles. So, um, and I

[1:38:05] think the people like that. If there's no further debate,

[1:38:09] I'm going to call the question. Madam Clerk, can we

[1:38:11] do a role please. Councillor Brenner. No. Councillor Cook. Yes.

[1:38:20] Councillor Nike. Yes. Cancer pickles. Yes. Councillor Robinson. No. Mayor

[1:38:30] Ashe? No. You worship that's tied and the vote is

[1:38:33] lost. Okay. Thank you. Um, moved by Councillor Pickles and

[1:38:38] second by Councillor Brenner consent on the Executive Committee. I'll

[1:38:42] let people identify any poll. For the Executive Committee, which

[1:38:47] is 101. Through 10, eight. Any pulls.

[1:38:58] Councillor Robinson. Um, I would like to just have a

[1:39:02] little bit of conversation around 10, three. And also 10

[1:39:08] four. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So Brom Hall and then

[1:39:12] the Council meeting schedule. Okay. Any other polls. Being none

[1:39:18] on the remainder, all those in favor. Opposed. That item

[1:39:22] is carried. Councillor Robinson, it's duly moved consecutive. Uh, and

[1:39:27] you've pulled it for discussion or debate. Um, 10. 3

[1:39:31] chief administrator officer Brom Holley's update. Councillor Robinski of the

[1:39:35] floor. Yes. Thank you. Um, the last time we discussed

[1:39:39] this, I believe, um, Councillor button myself. We were not

[1:39:43] in favor of moving forward with this. So I do

[1:39:46] have a couple of questions. The first one was is

[1:39:48] that staff stated that transport Canada committed to a seamless

[1:39:52] transition. Is that commitment in writing. And then can I

[1:40:00] actually ask what does that look like? What kind of

[1:40:04] a commitment are we looking at. Ms. Carpino. You've been,

[1:40:08] uh, the front person on this. Certainly. The commitment is

[1:40:14] not in writing in the form of an agreement. It

[1:40:16] was communicated verbally. It was also communicated in a meeting

[1:40:20] that, uh, also included Brome Recreation Society representatives as well

[1:40:25] as Landover Landing Representatives. And the exact term by used

[1:40:29] by transport Canada staff was seamless transition. They would essentially

[1:40:34] be the point of contact for anyone that wanted to

[1:40:37] use the facility. And they would issue what's considered what

[1:40:40] they call a daily lease. And so how that's coordinated

[1:40:46] and the discussions that would take place thereafter would retune

[1:40:48] the individual that wants to use it and transport Canada.

[1:40:52] But they said the end user should experience no difference

[1:40:56] in terms of how they use the facility. Those are

[1:40:58] their words. Okay. So, but we don't have any like

[1:41:03] legally binding agreement guaranteeing that Brom Hall is going to

[1:41:07] remain open and be available to the public after the

[1:41:10] city terminates this lease. Cause the only limit that we

[1:41:15] currently have in place is a month by month lease

[1:41:17] for the use of that property. So that would be

[1:41:20] terminated and then transport Canada would take over. Any coordination

[1:41:25] that involves the use of that property. The city would

[1:41:28] no longer be involved. Okay. So then since we don't

[1:41:32] have any, um, finding agreements or guarantees, is it possible

[1:41:39] that after the city terminates this lease, transport Canada could

[1:41:43] simply come in and say, no, we're going to close

[1:41:45] the building to the public and close doors on us

[1:41:47] on the people. It's their building. They can do what

[1:41:50] they want. So they can do whatever they want, right?

[1:41:52] That's what I thought. I just want to make sure.

[1:41:55] Has the city ever formally requested the transport Canada contribute

[1:42:00] financially. Towards any of the repairs or the capital improvements

[1:42:04] for Bromhaul? As Carpino. So the negotiations included are concerns

[1:42:11] regarding various clauses in the agreement. One of them is

[1:42:15] that the tenant agrees that the tenant shall be responsible

[1:42:19] for all maintenance and repairs of any kind whatsoever, including

[1:42:24] structural and roof maintenance and repairs. That of course was

[1:42:27] very concerning to the city. Uh, the facility is an

[1:42:31] older building. We'll have increasing needs as it continues to

[1:42:35] age. And it is not facility that we own. So

[1:42:37] those were the discussions and they were not prepared to

[1:42:41] materially change that clause. That would have them more responsible

[1:42:45] for those repairs. Now, have they made repairs in the

[1:42:48] past? Yes. Over the last few years, they have made

[1:42:51] a repair to the roof, but they weren't under any

[1:42:53] obligation to do that. And so the Element of risk

[1:42:57] still existed. Right. Have we gone to them though, those

[1:43:02] since that roof repair? Have we gone to them asking

[1:43:05] for any monies to help with the Upkeep of Brom

[1:43:09] Hall. Uh, perhaps Vince Plok could speak to it. However,

[1:43:15] there are repairs that were made over the last two

[1:43:17] years, year and a half by the city in excess

[1:43:20] of 60, 000 dollars. And so, uh, those were the

[1:43:25] repairs that we made to make sure that their facility

[1:43:27] was in sufficient condition in order to be returned potentially

[1:43:32] to transport Canada. I'm not sure, Vince, if you've got

[1:43:35] any more information regarding individual dealings, you may have had

[1:43:38] with transport Canada regarding specific repairs. Uh, we've spoken to

[1:43:44] transport Canada a number of times over the years on

[1:43:46] a number of different issues, uh, including the possibility of,

[1:43:50] uh, exploring potentially moving the facility at some point and

[1:43:54] any contributions that they could make towards, uh, those ends.

[1:43:58] And the only contribution that transport Canada was able to

[1:44:01] offer was the potential for covering, uh, the demolition costs

[1:44:05] that might be otherwise, uh, assigned to that facility. It

[1:44:09] was quite limited in funding. Uh, so while we have

[1:44:11] explored over the years, that option, uh, transport candida simply

[1:44:15] has no capital funds to commit to the facility at

[1:44:18] this time that they have made us aware of. Okay.

[1:44:21] Ben. So my question was actually for the, I think

[1:44:23] it was, um, Ms. Carpino said it's approximately 60, 000

[1:44:27] dollars in repairs did we go to transport Canada and

[1:44:31] ask them to help fund that. Or did we just

[1:44:33] go ahead and do the repairs. Ourselves. No, we were

[1:44:37] exploring with transport Canada our obligations under the lease, uh,

[1:44:42] and those were agreed upon partly through the city zone

[1:44:45] investigations verified independently by transport Canada as to their own

[1:44:49] estimate of what the costs were. We both agreed on

[1:44:52] what those were. And the city under its existing lease

[1:44:55] did comply and make those repair at its own cost.

[1:44:58] Okay. So we didn't go outside of the lease and

[1:45:01] say, Hey, I know we have a lease, but you

[1:45:03] know what we really could use some help with the

[1:45:06] funds. Is there a way that you can help us?

[1:45:07] So that didn't take place. And the current circumstances? No,

[1:45:11] but it had in the past. Right. Okay. And you

[1:45:14] just mentioned that they would support funding if we were,

[1:45:21] if there was going to be demolition. Can we talk

[1:45:23] a little bit about that or have we thought about

[1:45:27] demolition on Bromhault? A short version is no councillor. Um,

[1:45:30] it was strictly put forward as that would be the

[1:45:33] equivalent value of all that they could offer the city

[1:45:36] at the time. And this was many, many years ago.

[1:45:40] Um, there has been no discussion about the demolition of

[1:45:43] Brom Hall, especially given its value to the community. Okay.

[1:45:49] And I think, um, my final question, I hope so

[1:45:53] my final question depending on your answer. Is. Is it

[1:45:59] possible for us to not terminate the lease, stay with

[1:46:04] our lease, but see if maybe we can get further

[1:46:07] commitments from transport Canada regarding the future of Brom Hall,

[1:46:11] see if they want to go in like a, um,

[1:46:14] a partnership, let's say with us to help with any

[1:46:17] repairs moving forward just to make sure that, you know,

[1:46:21] they don't go in and just demolish the building or

[1:46:24] they don't allow, you know, them to hold the functions

[1:46:27] that they, all these different community groups hold there. That's

[1:46:32] Corona. That has been the entire exercise you've undertaken for

[1:46:37] two years. Those are the discussions we've had. What ways

[1:46:39] can we work together? Where can you financially contribute? How

[1:46:43] can we adjust the terms of the agreement that make

[1:46:45] it more equitable in terms of responsibility? All those discussions

[1:46:48] took place. Uh, can transport Canada, you know, assure the

[1:46:54] city and the resins that enjoy the facility, that it'll

[1:46:57] be continued to be accessible for community use. Obviously the

[1:47:00] city has every interest to keep that facility in good

[1:47:04] repair and beloved and used by the community. There is

[1:47:07] no interest by the city to have it demolished and

[1:47:09] transport Canada. Of course, they'll make decisions on their terms,

[1:47:13] but there was no indication by the individual that we've

[1:47:15] been working with that they would not make it available

[1:47:17] to the facility or that they would be seeking to

[1:47:19] demolish it. Yeah. It just seems literally odd though that,

[1:47:26] you know, they wouldn't want to do a partnership and

[1:47:29] share in the cost. But now they're going to end

[1:47:32] up having the burden of paying all of the costs.

[1:47:36] You know, I would think that they would rather take

[1:47:38] the partnership than, than have the full burden of the

[1:47:42] cause. And of course without us having an agreement saying,

[1:47:45] you know what, we promise we're going to leave this

[1:47:47] open. To, to the public, um, that's very concerning to

[1:47:51] me. So those are my questions, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank

[1:47:55] you. Um, debate on the recommendations moved in seconded. Councillor

[1:48:01] Cook. Um, thank you, sir. Could I call for a

[1:48:04] recorded vote, please? Absolutely. Thank you. Any further debate. Okay.

[1:48:14] Wait a second. Councillor Cook, you wanted to debate. Um,

[1:48:18] I actually just wanted to ask one question. Yep. Um,

[1:48:22] I just wanted to make sure that I understood the

[1:48:25] financial applications piece of what's being suggested. So the current

[1:48:30] deferred maintenance cost, I'm directing this back to staff or

[1:48:33] missed Carpino. It's approximately, let's just call it 800, 000

[1:48:37] dollars. So what we are looking at is a financial

[1:48:40] risk. To the city of approximately 100, 000 dollars. If

[1:48:45] we do not terminate our existing lease with transport Canada.

[1:48:49] Is that correct? That's the risk. That's correct. So we

[1:48:52] would have to find an additional 800, 000 dollars in

[1:48:56] order to preserve this building within our current leasehold. So

[1:49:01] the recommendation is to release ourselves from this lease. It

[1:49:06] says is the condition of the facility and the repairs

[1:49:08] that would be necessary, not just on one day, but

[1:49:10] over the next several years. Right. Understood. Okay. Thank you

[1:49:14] for that. Appreciate it. Councillor Robinson debate. Councillor

[1:49:23] Pickles had his hand up first, Mr. Murray. I recognise

[1:49:26] you, you have this four. Okay. Um, regarding that. You

[1:49:32] know, I understand that this is financial, um, but again,

[1:49:36] you know, we haven't looked at other options yet. Now,

[1:49:40] we haven't seen if we can get a partnership with

[1:49:43] transport Canada, because obviously now they're going to have to

[1:49:46] fill the whole bill. Right. And if we say, you

[1:49:48] know, Hey, you know what, we're willing to be partnerships.

[1:49:52] Also, you know, have we, if I might stop you

[1:49:55] there, I don't want to be argumentative, but a miscarino

[1:50:01] said the exact opposite that she's been working, um, forcings

[1:50:05] for two years now. And without success. So I'm taking

[1:50:10] your comments in The Good Nature, they're intended, but I

[1:50:15] don't think they actually reflect what Miss Carpino said. So,

[1:50:18] no, no, I understand that she said that she's been

[1:50:20] working for years, but now it's down to the nitty

[1:50:22] gritty and we are about determinate our lease. Can we

[1:50:26] not have another conversation with them and say, Hey, we're

[1:50:29] going to terminate our leash. And like, you know, wouldn't

[1:50:32] you rather have a partnership with us instead of like,

[1:50:35] you know, taking the full bill by yourself. We also

[1:50:37] don't have an agreement. We've got nothing legally binding whatsoever.

[1:50:41] We could pass this tonight. And then tomorrow, you know,

[1:50:45] at Bromhaul, which cease to exist and they'll be locking

[1:50:47] the doors. I mean, we have no control over that.

[1:50:50] And I mean, I think that's something that we do

[1:50:52] need to make sure does not happen. Also, you know,

[1:50:56] Councillor Cook just mentioned about the money. You know, have

[1:51:00] we looked at the possibility of possibly naming rights? You

[1:51:05] know, we have naming rights on a couple of our

[1:51:07] buildings now. Have we asked any of like, you know,

[1:51:10] our friends of the community, if they would like to

[1:51:13] have their name on Brom Hall to help supplement those,

[1:51:17] um, the, the costs that's going there. I think that,

[1:51:21] you know, if we could possibly defer this motion and

[1:51:25] I'm going to ask for a deferral motion, um, so

[1:51:29] we can maybe have some of those other conversations go

[1:51:33] back to transport Canada and say, Hey, look, we want

[1:51:36] to do a partnership. And so, and let them know,

[1:51:39] like, you know, you're going to be doing the whole

[1:51:40] bill if we don't do a partnership. And like, let's

[1:51:43] reach out to some of our community friends and ask

[1:51:46] them if they would like to put, have naming rights

[1:51:48] for Brom Hall. I mean, there's investigated yet. So I

[1:51:53] would like to see if we can have a deferral

[1:51:55] motion and defer this until we get some of those,

[1:51:59] either we get written confirmation from transport Canada that they

[1:52:02] are not going to close the doors or demolish a

[1:52:04] building. And till we can have like, maybe just until,

[1:52:09] um, the next meeting, you're debating your deferral without properly

[1:52:15] secondary. So Councillor Robinson has moved a deferral, uh, for

[1:52:20] consideration until there's further conversations. Is there a second or

[1:52:23] for that. No secondary. So, um, Councillor, you have two

[1:52:28] and a half minutes left in your debate. Okay. Um,

[1:52:33] well. I appreciate the financial concerns outlined in the report

[1:52:39] in the city does not own Bromhaul. We know that.

[1:52:42] And there are significant repair costs associated with the building.

[1:52:45] However, my concern is not simply about cost. My concern

[1:52:49] is about, you know, we're about determinate these agreements without

[1:52:53] any kind of written guarantee. Or with regard to what

[1:52:57] happens next. How's everyone going to feel if tomorrow they

[1:53:00] go there and the doors are closed and the community

[1:53:02] has nowhere to go, you know, I just brought up

[1:53:05] suggestions of deferral naming rights and not any of you

[1:53:10] are even willing to, to second that, um, Brom Hall

[1:53:14] is more than just a building to the people. It's

[1:53:17] like one of Pickerings oldest surviving Civic buildings. And it's

[1:53:21] important part of the community's history. And before we walk

[1:53:24] away from this community asset, I think Council deserves answers

[1:53:28] and residents deserve certainty on the future of Bromhault. I'm

[1:53:33] not comfortable terminating these agreements based solely on verbal assurances

[1:53:37] from transport Canada. And I believe that we should first

[1:53:40] obtain written confirmation from them regarding the future of the

[1:53:43] building. Continued public access. And whether there is an opportunity

[1:53:48] to preserve this facility through a partnership or post sharing

[1:53:52] agreement or with naming rights with our community friends. So.

[1:53:59] I will not be in favor of this. And we

[1:54:01] are having a recorded vote. Yeah. Yes, Councillor. Thank you.

[1:54:05] Thank you. Councillor Pickles. You have the four. Thank you,

[1:54:12] Mr. Mayor. I haven't generated a prepared speech. But if

[1:54:17] I could go back to, uh, to Marissa or to

[1:54:19] Vince, how many years have we been talking with the

[1:54:24] federal government? Cause I certainly recall it's been years. And

[1:54:29] the other day we had a meeting with our MP

[1:54:32] present Councillor Butt. All the federal agencies Brom representatives present

[1:54:38] and we had a thorough discussion. So how long have

[1:54:41] these discussions been going on for how many years have

[1:54:45] we been talking about this. Lease of this building. I

[1:54:49] would say approximately two years, this discussion has been an

[1:54:53] ongoing. Okay. And you've looked at a lot of options,

[1:54:57] a lot of concerns, a lot of opportunities. We've looked

[1:54:59] at it from various angles, correct. That is correct. Um,

[1:55:05] I don't know if you or Vince can answer this.

[1:55:08] Um. Generally how many days out of the year is

[1:55:13] this facility. Rented. Rant it out to another part. Didn't

[1:55:20] they report. And so it ranges from as few as

[1:55:26] 12 to as many as, let's see here, 28. And

[1:55:32] our paid uses. Some are unpaid uses and they generally

[1:55:35] revolve around meeting rentals, private celebrations and on rare occasion,

[1:55:41] a movie production. So 12 to 28 days out of

[1:55:46] a 365 day year. Right. How much revenue would we

[1:55:52] have generated out of those rentals? Although you said some

[1:55:55] of the rentals were. No fee. It's also reflected in

[1:56:00] the report. The revenue per year ranges from, this is

[1:56:05] gross revenue from 2, 200 dollars. And that revenue is

[1:56:14] collected by and retain by the Broom Recreation Society. It

[1:56:18] doesn't come to the city. So two to four thousand

[1:56:22] dollars. Per year. Vince, can you run me how much

[1:56:27] we spent on capital, uh, improvements recently? I thought you

[1:56:31] said 60, 000. On recent repairs. Yes. Approximately 60, 000

[1:56:36] dollars. And Councillor Cook was correct in deferred capital works

[1:56:42] of about 800, 000 dollars. That's correct. The facility condition

[1:56:47] index noted in the report is 93 percent. That's basically

[1:56:50] taking the, um, estimated, uh, five year period capital repair

[1:56:56] cost over the replacement cost of the entire building. In

[1:56:59] other words, it's 93 percent of 800, 000 dollars is

[1:57:03] what we estimate we would need to invest in this

[1:57:05] building over five years to keep it in a current

[1:57:08] state of good repair. So, so the lease. That we're

[1:57:13] working under has us responsible for all capital improvements to

[1:57:18] the building. Whereas the landlord being the federal government, uh,

[1:57:23] is not responsible for those capital costs. We're responsible. That

[1:57:29] is correct. And if we were to make that investment,

[1:57:31] we would be making that 800, 000 dollar investment in

[1:57:35] an asset owned by another party, not by the city.

[1:57:40] So we would be doing the lease. As the ones

[1:57:45] leasing the building, we have beyond the hook. We've already

[1:57:48] paid 60, 000 beyond the hook for 800, 000 dollars

[1:57:52] of capital projects. To a building that we don't own

[1:57:56] that is owned by the federal government. So, uh, Vince

[1:58:00] and Marissa, you are in the same meeting I was.

[1:58:03] I think Laura was also there too Laura Gibbs, our

[1:58:05] MP. Was there a Councillor But was there? The various

[1:58:08] federal agencies are there. I came out of there with

[1:58:13] what I feel is a pretty clear direction that their

[1:58:16] intention was if we, um, ended our lease that they

[1:58:20] would continue to lease the facility to the Brom recreation

[1:58:27] group. Or anyone else came along and that they would

[1:58:31] keep the doors open and then they would do the

[1:58:34] necessary work. Is that the sense you had walking out

[1:58:37] of that meeting. Yes, very clearly. Okay. Thank you. Thank

[1:58:44] you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor. You have the floor. Thank you

[1:58:49] very much, Mr. Mayor. Three you to staff. The discussion

[1:58:54] regarding naming rights. Am I correct that we would not

[1:58:57] have any authority to do naming rights over a building

[1:59:00] that doesn't belong to us as a tenant. That would

[1:59:04] be my understanding. Correct. I would, I would, I would

[1:59:09] not be recommending or suggesting to transport Canada that we

[1:59:14] pursue as a city and naming rights per federal building.

[1:59:17] Thank you. That was my first question. Um, a second

[1:59:21] question. I recall after, I guess it was after COVID,

[1:59:27] um, COVID - 19, um, the building was closed and

[1:59:31] there was some question about not even reopening it because

[1:59:34] of safety issues. And I thought it had to do

[1:59:37] with, um, uh, I'm trying to remember, um, but there

[1:59:42] were safety issues. Air quality. Air quality and asbestos as

[1:59:46] well. That's correct. So the facility closed due to provincial

[1:59:51] regulations in 2020, surrounding the COVID and the different mitigating

[1:59:56] measures that were introduced by the province at that time.

[1:59:58] And then in 2023, we're exiting out of COVID and

[2:00:01] facilities are reopening. Uh, there is an air quality test

[2:00:05] that we had to address and mitigate. And Vincent's team

[2:00:10] were responsible to take care of, uh, returning the facility.

[2:00:15] Uh, so that it could be open to the public

[2:00:16] safely. And that work was undertaken. That allowed the facility

[2:00:19] to be open to the public in spring of 2025.

[2:00:24] And as I understand it and it's been reflected in

[2:00:26] the report since spring of 2025 when it's been open

[2:00:28] to the public, uh, through the support of the bro

[2:00:32] migration society, it's been used once. Thank you. Um, this

[2:00:38] perhaps maybe Vince, uh, you might be able to answer

[2:00:41] it, um, it was just up there for a community

[2:00:44] meeting, uh, land over landings hosted just about a week

[2:00:49] or so, uh, back. Um, there is a cross beam

[2:00:53] that has been that has been erected from wall to

[2:00:56] wall. Is that a support beam that we put in

[2:01:01] or is that a beam that was put in for

[2:01:03] another purpose. Uh, it predates my time councillor, uh, but

[2:01:08] I suppose that could be functioning for two purposes. The

[2:01:11] first is that there is a stage, uh, at the

[2:01:14] community centre. And I know that some of the volunteer

[2:01:17] groups from the museum used to perform at that location.

[2:01:20] So that brace may be there in part to provide

[2:01:23] some lighting support. Structurally, uh, it may be just providing

[2:01:28] a lot tie with tall masonry buildings of this nature.

[2:01:33] It's not unusual to see that you see the upper

[2:01:35] wall starting to display over time. Uh, I'm not particularly

[2:01:39] aware of its unique nature, but it could be either

[2:01:42] one or both of those. Thank you. Um, subsequent question,

[2:01:46] if I might, Mr. Mayor threw you. Bromhaul being a

[2:01:52] historical building as such as one of the first Civic

[2:01:56] buildings, uh, meetings were held. And, um, is that a

[2:02:00] federal designation or is it a municipal designation? And if

[2:02:07] it's either or both, um, if there was to be

[2:02:12] a consideration for demolishing by the federal government, um, would

[2:02:17] they be reaching back out to the municipality in terms

[2:02:20] of a demolition permit? And would it also, would they

[2:02:24] also be reaching back to the municipality in terms of

[2:02:27] our own heritage, uh, committee assessing its value. So I'll

[2:02:33] speak to its status and then I'll refer it over

[2:02:36] to Mr. Bentley or Matt Simmerville to speak to the

[2:02:40] process by which that would be considered. So in the

[2:02:43] report, it identifies that the property is recognised as a

[2:02:47] federal heritage building and is also listed on the city

[2:02:51] of Pick Rings Municipal Heritage Register. So now I'll hand

[2:02:55] it over to the Planning Staff. We can speak about

[2:02:57] the process that transport can. It would not undertake. Should

[2:03:00] they consider that, uh, in the future? Thanks, uh, Marissa.

[2:03:05] So yeah, um, as Mrs identified, it's identified as federal

[2:03:09] significance. Uh, similar to what has been done in years

[2:03:12] past by transport Canada. I would assume, uh, that they

[2:03:16] would, uh, notify the city of their intentions to demolish

[2:03:20] consistent with that approach. They would have applied for a

[2:03:22] demolition permit at the appropriate time. Um, they don't have

[2:03:26] to. Uh, because they're exempt from complying with a misspal

[2:03:30] requirements. But as a courtesy, they have been doing that

[2:03:32] in the past. So I would anticipate the same activity

[2:03:35] at, at the appropriate occasion, should that ever be contemplated.

[2:03:41] If I might subsequent, Mr. Mayor Kyle. So if they

[2:03:44] did do that, um, then the release of the permit,

[2:03:50] um, and we've had debates on other properties with private

[2:03:52] landowners, um, with Council have the opportunity to debate it.

[2:03:58] Um, and to recommend a refusal as an example based

[2:04:02] on its heritage. So, uh, in years past, I'm recalling

[2:04:09] properties on federal lands, uh, there was intention by the,

[2:04:15] uh, transport Canada to demo the building, um, we certainly

[2:04:19] notified Council of Fat intention. And I believe at the

[2:04:23] time some councillors had, uh, reached out, uh, directly. And

[2:04:26] I think there was maybe some meetings, uh, Council means

[2:04:29] that this was discussed as well. And there were some

[2:04:31] back and forth discussion with transport Canada. At the end

[2:04:33] of the day, it's their authority to move forward with

[2:04:37] demolition. With or without, uh, Council objections, um, so I

[2:04:41] think again, it's a courtesy on their part to reach

[2:04:44] out to us, and, uh, hear what we have to

[2:04:46] say, uh, but then stopping them from proceeding with demolition,

[2:04:50] uh, because they're, they're exempt from meeting city requirements. And

[2:04:57] that's far the no inkling from transport Canada that they

[2:05:01] would be taking down Bromhaul. Am I correct Kyle? Nothing

[2:05:05] that I'm aware of. And I suspect Mursica can. Nagy.

[2:05:14] Thank you. Uh, I just wanted to say that with

[2:05:16] all of the questions and comments that have been made,

[2:05:19] I will be in support of this motion tonight because

[2:05:21] this absolutely is an important building to the community. It's

[2:05:24] a longstanding building despite the lease. It's consistently remained. The

[2:05:28] property of the federal government. And it has always been

[2:05:31] Brom Hall. So I will be voting yes because I

[2:05:34] would like to protect the Pickering Taxpayer from paying for

[2:05:38] the repairs of the building. I would like to protect

[2:05:40] the integrity of the location. And because frankly, I could

[2:05:43] never imagine this building under something like a naming right

[2:05:46] as being anything other than Brom Hall. So that's all

[2:05:49] I was going to say. Thank you. What about Costco

[2:05:53] Bromall. Uh, Councillor Robinson, you've asked questions, Anton, debate. But

[2:06:02] horrible thing to say Costco Brom Hall. We could find

[2:06:05] something better than that. Hey Walmart. Um, two things. One,

[2:06:09] I just want to correct the record. I had said

[2:06:11] earlier about Councillor, but second my motioning on this, but

[2:06:15] no, he had second my motion to defer the 681

[2:06:20] Pleasant Street, which is coming later on in the agenda

[2:06:22] on 11. 2. So I just wanted to correct that.

[2:06:25] I was just thinking about, I'm like, Oh no, talking

[2:06:27] about heritage. Um, and then the second thing is, I

[2:06:30] mean, there was talk about, um, not using the public

[2:06:37] funds, not using the funds to, to pay into this

[2:06:41] building because it is a federal building. But in saying

[2:06:46] that, I think we're being very hypocritical. Because I mean,

[2:06:48] we spent over 60, 000 dollars for a farmhouse for

[2:06:52] seven people, um, to a property that is owned by

[2:06:57] a developer. We also have done bathroom renovations for other

[2:07:03] places that, um, are not owned by the city. So

[2:07:07] I just want to put that into perspective as well.

[2:07:10] You know, I'm really trying hard for this community to

[2:07:13] have their own hall. So, um, yeah, that's all I

[2:07:18] wanted to add is that they do seem very hypocritical.

[2:07:21] So thank you. I don't think that's an appropriate word.

[2:07:25] Um, I'm sorry. Okay. Well, where should I use? Cause

[2:07:27] I don't want to get in trouble, Mr. Mayor. Well,

[2:07:29] I got to tell you, Councillor, that you should maybe

[2:07:31] do some research on the money that the taxpayers saving

[2:07:35] because of DARs. A shelter bed in Durham costs between

[2:07:39] 38, 000 and 76, 000 dollars per year. So on

[2:07:43] average 55, 000, under housed people there saving the taxpayers

[2:07:48] over 350, 000 dollars a year of being out of

[2:07:51] the shelter system. So. No, I think that's great. You're

[2:07:54] absolutely right. It is a great thing. Darius is a

[2:07:56] great thing. The thing that I don't like is that

[2:07:58] we're using taxpayers dollars for a developer's property. That's the

[2:08:04] problem. To save 350, 000 dollars. Okay, I get it.

[2:08:07] No, no, the developers to be paying for that Mr.

[2:08:10] Mary's The Landlord. See, you change everything around. When you

[2:08:13] think about it and don't worry about what the place

[2:08:15] is being used for. If you just think about who

[2:08:19] owns the property, right? We don't own the property a

[2:08:23] developer does. It has nothing to do with the Councillor.

[2:08:27] We're off track here. All my point was that we're

[2:08:30] saving money because of our supportive DARS to the taxpayer

[2:08:35] about 350, 000 dollars per year. And you're also spending

[2:08:39] taxpayers dollars on building that doesn't belong to us. To

[2:08:43] save the taxpayer 350, 000 dollars, which is about a

[2:08:46] half a tax point that you perhaps want to add

[2:08:49] to the taxable. Okay. Uh, we have a requested vote

[2:08:53] recorded for coat. Very immature. Council, you cost the taxpayers

[2:09:01] a lot of money. You argue for extra money all

[2:09:04] the time. So I don't know why you're so defensive.

[2:09:07] You should be proud of you and the CAO to

[2:09:10] keep on putting those complaints in you. So in fact,

[2:09:12] you guys are the ones wasting the taxpayers. Point of

[2:09:16] order. That's not the item on the floor. That's right.

[2:09:19] Councillor, uh, going to call the question Councillor Cooks ask

[2:09:23] for recorded vote. Answer Cook. Yes. Councillor Nige. Yes.

[2:09:34] Councillor Pickles. Yes. I'm so Robinson. No. Brenner? Yes. Mayor

[2:09:42] Ash. Yes. The worship that's carried five to one. Thank

[2:09:46] you. Councillor Robinson. You have pulled item 10. 4. The

[2:09:52] 2027 committee and Council meeting schedule. Yes. I did Mr.

[2:10:00] Mayor. Thank you. Um, I have a couple of questions

[2:10:03] here. There's only like four unless more come up as

[2:10:06] I'm speaking. But why is Council approving the meeting schedule

[2:10:09] for the next term of Council before New Council has

[2:10:12] been elected? Shouldn't the incoming Council have the opportunity to

[2:10:17] determine how and when it wishes to conduct its meetings?

[2:10:22] Come here. I think, um, the answer as the clerk

[2:10:27] is already given to you. This calendar is put up

[2:10:30] by our concurrent procedural bylaw. And if the bylaws change

[2:10:34] by the new council, the calendar will be changed accordingly,

[2:10:37] but this is to plan for the future and for

[2:10:40] to make sure that the operation of government continues seamlessly

[2:10:44] during any transition. Right. Okay. Perfect. And, you know, I

[2:10:49] previously attempted to bring Freud the notice of motion to

[2:10:52] move our two o'clock Executive meetings to nighttime so we

[2:10:56] could improve our public engagements and accessibility. Was that suggesting

[2:11:02] ever reviewed or considered by staff before we brought forward

[2:11:06] this schedule. Are we just meeting studies quickly? The schedule

[2:11:11] is based on our current procedural bylaw. And Council will

[2:11:17] have every ability to change that, uh, procedural bylaw. Uh,

[2:11:22] at its first meeting and its second meeting or any

[2:11:25] meeting in between, but the, the reality is more and

[2:11:29] more councillors are going to daytime meetings. Okay. So.

[2:11:40] Stat has undertaken an analysis regarding that thing, Mr. Mayor

[2:11:44] regarding the public attendance and participation between the two o'clock

[2:11:48] meetings versus our evening meetings. Do we have data on

[2:11:51] that. For the city of Pickering? I'm not talking about

[2:11:55] anywhere else. I'm talking about here. You just made the

[2:11:57] comment. Do we have said was staff. Are doing the

[2:12:05] committee schedule based on our current procedural bylaw. There's been

[2:12:10] no analysis. There's been no changes. There's no, no, um,

[2:12:15] study and no recommendations to change it. That'll be up

[2:12:19] to the new Council if they want to make that

[2:12:21] determination. Madam Clerk, do you want to give a more

[2:12:25] Folsom answer than that. But sorry, Mr. Mayor, did you

[2:12:28] not say that that other municipalities are going to day

[2:12:31] meetings instead of nighttime meetings? Yes. I did. So that's

[2:12:34] just based on what you know, it hasn't been a

[2:12:37] study that's been done. That's correct. Okay. Madam Clerk, do

[2:12:40] you want to thank you, worship? I don't have a

[2:12:43] lot more to add than what you've already said. It

[2:12:44] is based on the current rules in the bylaw, which

[2:12:46] is subject to change with the new Council. There's a

[2:12:49] review of that bylaw done every term. Uh, and usually

[2:12:53] it is dictated by Council. It's not necessarily a stop

[2:12:57] driven. It is Council's bylaw. It's how we conduct the

[2:12:59] meetings. Uh, and I have not undertaken a study about

[2:13:03] daytime meetings versus nighttime meetings. I have not been directed

[2:13:06] by Council to do so if I was, then I

[2:13:08] would undertake that work. Okay. Great. So then by approving

[2:13:15] a schedule tonight, we're not binding or compelling the next

[2:13:17] term of Council to follow this particular arrangements. They're free

[2:13:21] to go in as soon as they're elected and change

[2:13:25] the schedule if they wish. And they could have mentioned

[2:13:28] it. Right. As soon as they take office. Yeah. Or

[2:13:31] change council to daytime meetings. Right. And even now Councillor

[2:13:35] through the provisions in that bylaw. It says, uh, the

[2:13:39] meetings are at certain dates and times unless otherwise approved

[2:13:44] by resolution of Council. So Council has the authority over

[2:13:47] their meetings. And should they wish to change one mid

[2:13:50] year, for instance? They have the ability to do that.

[2:13:53] Okay. That's great. Thank you very much for that. I

[2:13:56] appreciate it. Councillor Pickles question. Debate. I'm not sure it's

[2:14:05] a question. I'm not sure who I could direct it

[2:14:07] to. Maybe Mr. Holburn would know, but I don't think

[2:14:10] it would be the present clerk. Um, but Mayor Ash

[2:14:13] and Councillor Brunner may recall that over the years, we've

[2:14:18] looked at a few different. Structures and timing for committee

[2:14:24] meetings. And what I recall is that for Executive Committee

[2:14:29] meetings, uh, we've tended to have a great deal, a

[2:14:34] great number of staff present. But very few, if any,

[2:14:40] residents, uh, attended the Executive Committee meetings. Whereas planning meetings,

[2:14:45] uh, we tended to have fewer staff and many more

[2:14:50] residents, particularly when there was, uh, a development of some,

[2:14:56] um, general interest to the public. And so over the

[2:15:01] course of the years, we determined to have the planning

[2:15:05] committee meetings, uh, and council meetings in the evening as

[2:15:09] those were the ones that were most attended by resonance

[2:15:12] and have the Executive Committee meetings during the day as

[2:15:16] few, if any, residents, came to them. As well, since

[2:15:21] the, uh, recommendations of the Executive Committee meeting come to

[2:15:26] Council to be endorsed, uh, members of the public would

[2:15:30] have an opportunity to come to Council of the Wanda

[2:15:33] speak to Executive Committee members. And they would also have,

[2:15:39] uh, two or more kicks of the can, so to

[2:15:41] speak with respect to planning items since they would go

[2:15:44] to a statutory public meeting a planning meeting. And then

[2:15:50] again, to come to a council meeting for endorsement. So

[2:15:53] I think just a bit of history. That's kind of

[2:15:56] how we landed on the schedule we have for evening

[2:16:00] versus, uh, daytime meetings. That's, that's what I would call

[2:16:04] Councillor Brenner and Council Rash may, may recall some of

[2:16:09] those earlier iterations as well. Thank you. Thank you. Um,

[2:16:16] the motion is duly moved in seconded. We've had debate

[2:16:20] in questions. I'm going to call the question then. Unless

[2:16:24] there's a request for a roof quote a vote. Sure.

[2:16:29] We can have a recording vote. Sure. Recorded vote requested

[2:16:31] by Councillor Robinson. Madam Clerk, we call the rule, please.

[2:16:38] Councillor Robinson? No. Councillor Brenner. Yes. That's her Cook. Yes.

[2:16:46] Councillor Nike. Yes. Councillor Pickles. Sorry, yes. Mayor

[2:16:55] Ash? Yes. Worship that's carry five to one. Thank you.

[2:16:59] Uh, that concludes Executive. I have a consent motion moved

[2:17:03] by Councillor Pixel Councillor Brenner on 11 one, two, and

[2:17:07] three. I'll give anybody a chance to pull the debate.

[2:17:13] On either one, two, or three. Councillor Robinson. I didn't

[2:17:21] hear anyone ask for a consent motion. Put into something.

[2:17:27] Else or Pickles said yes. I seconded it. I moved

[2:17:31] it. Yeah. So do you have any polls council? No,

[2:17:35] you, you mentioned at first Mr. Meredith, but they're just.

[2:17:38] I'm sorry. It just isn't seem like the proper procedure

[2:17:42] on October 26, people decide who's going to run the

[2:17:44] meeting moving forward. So, uh, until then, I am. Do

[2:17:49] you have any, we're not going to call procedure. I'm

[2:17:53] falling procedure. I have a mover and a sectioner for

[2:17:55] consent agenda. I'm asking for any polls. Do you have

[2:17:57] any polls? Um, we're not following procedure. Yes, I'm going

[2:18:02] to pull 11. 1 and 11. 2. 3 is moved

[2:18:09] consecutive. Going to call the questionals in favor. I'll pose

[2:18:13] that aim's carry. Uh, motion 11. 1 is in regards

[2:18:19] to Seaton TFPM inc. Seaton community. It's moved in 2nd

[2:18:24] Councillor Robinson. You've pulled it for questions and or debate.

[2:18:29] You have the floor. Yes. I have pulled it for

[2:18:31] both and I'm surprised that everybody wanted to do a

[2:18:34] consent agenda on this. Yes, sir. Um, Executive Committee and

[2:18:39] planning meeting take hours. We've already dealt with these items.

[2:18:43] They are brought here not to read litigate, not to

[2:18:47] read debate, but to ratify the actions taken a committee.

[2:18:52] It's perfectly in your right to do it, but to

[2:18:55] suggest we're ramming things through at nine o'clock at night

[2:18:59] wouldn't be correct. So you have the floor on 11.

[2:19:02] 1. Okay. Just one question before I go to my

[2:19:05] questions, please. Mr. Mayor, you always seem to have this

[2:19:07] issue with time. That things are taken too long that

[2:19:11] I asked like, you know, 27 minutes of questions at

[2:19:14] the other meeting. Is it a time issue. Like it's

[2:19:19] a question. You constantly mentioning time. Like this is our

[2:19:22] job. Isn't this our job to sit here so people

[2:19:24] are aware of everything and ask questions. So they understand

[2:19:28] what we're talking about instead of just saying consent agenda

[2:19:31] done and nobody knows what was passed. There's 22 staff

[2:19:38] people on this call. All paid very handsomely. And you

[2:19:44] might suggest that's a good, uh, use of time. Uh,

[2:19:47] I'm suggesting it's not. We've already spent hours and hours

[2:19:52] debating these issues at committee. These are issues. If you

[2:19:57] want to waste time, um, continue to do so. I'm

[2:20:02] not suggesting you're wasting time by asking questions. Uh, but

[2:20:06] you spent 25 minutes asking about denialism today. So, um,

[2:20:11] I'm also going to ask, how do we know that

[2:20:13] all of our staff are here and present when all

[2:20:15] their cameras are turned off. Because they're meant to have

[2:20:19] their cameras off until they're called to be there. So

[2:20:24] we're paying them a lot of money, like you said.

[2:20:26] So I just want to make sure. So I'll go

[2:20:29] to my questions, Mr. Mayor. So my first question is

[2:20:33] exactly how many hectares of designated employment lands are being

[2:20:37] removed or redesignated through this mechanism to this amendment, I'm

[2:20:41] sorry. Uh, miss there Bentley or Mr. Rose. Do you

[2:20:50] want to speak to that? Yeah, I'd invite Catherine Rose

[2:20:53] to respond to that question. Through the mayor to Councillor

[2:21:02] Robinson, uh, unfortunately I, I don't have the exact number,

[2:21:07] uh, of hepterisit is being redesignated. Okay. Thank you. Mr.

[2:21:12] Rose. Um, do we, I had asked at the last

[2:21:16] meeting, do we know how many jobs were originally projected

[2:21:20] to be created on these lands and how many jobs

[2:21:24] now are projected to be lost as a result of

[2:21:29] this redesignation. Again, through the mayor to Councillor Robinson, uh,

[2:21:37] again, I don't have a specific number of jobs, but

[2:21:40] I can advise that we are retaining one block of

[2:21:44] employment land. And we are also identifying other, some smaller

[2:21:50] areas for commercial. So there will be some employment replaced

[2:21:54] through the commercial type activities, as well as we are

[2:21:58] retaining the one block of a larger block of employment

[2:22:02] lands. Okay. So we haven't done an analyst to determine

[2:22:07] how many jobs might be displaced as a result of

[2:22:10] this amendment. Okay. Councillor turned on his camera. Um, I'm

[2:22:16] an economic development perspective. Uh, and the, and the reasoning

[2:22:20] from a planning as well as an economic development perspective.

[2:22:24] We've heard from the planning perspective, Mr. Jodu, you want

[2:22:26] to speak to the shortcomings in this particular area of

[2:22:32] employment. Through you, myrrh Ash to Councillor Robinson. So there's

[2:22:36] various steps that were taken to understand how we came

[2:22:39] to this conclusion. When you look at the historical area

[2:22:43] of the era of the Brock 47, the Seaton, um,

[2:22:47] community plan that was done through the CPDP, the draft

[2:22:51] plan and highlighted employment areas that were right beside areas

[2:22:57] as such as schools or other areas such as residential

[2:23:00] areas. When we went through our analysis to understand how

[2:23:04] we could market these lands for users, we came to

[2:23:07] the determination that these lands would not be marketable for

[2:23:11] users that would yield higher employment. Now when we did

[2:23:16] their whole exercise with Ms. Rose, Mr. Bentley and their

[2:23:20] staff and some with some, uh, external assistance as well.

[2:23:24] We came to the conclusion that commercial also generates jobs.

[2:23:27] So your question regarding displacement of jobs, there's no displacement

[2:23:31] of jobs because there are no jobs there right now.

[2:23:34] Our responsibility as staff is to put forward the best

[2:23:38] options that we could put for towards end users. And

[2:23:42] that this, these are the best options. We do not

[2:23:44] want to have land that's going to sit idle for

[2:23:46] years and years when it does not provide any sort

[2:23:49] of benefit to any end user. We see that in

[2:23:52] many municipalities and you see that in many areas across

[2:23:55] other areas as well. So what we wanted to do

[2:23:57] is we wanted to have the area marketable, like you've

[2:24:00] done in the innovation corridor. And truth be told, even

[2:24:03] in the innovation corridor, there's some irregular shapes that are

[2:24:06] very hard to market. We're trying our best and this

[2:24:09] area did not provide us without option, which is why

[2:24:12] we chose to go through the route of looking at

[2:24:15] other options. And just, just, uh, just to let everyone

[2:24:19] know, commercial creates good jobs. It generates opportunities. And most

[2:24:24] importantly, it's creates amenities for our residents. Um, you know,

[2:24:28] residents don't necessarily want to drive into an employment park

[2:24:31] to get groceries or get gas. They want to be

[2:24:33] able to get it close to their home. And this

[2:24:35] opportunity provided that right off the 407. So I hope

[2:24:38] that answers your question. But if this is better planning

[2:24:42] now, then why are we the lands originally designated for

[2:24:47] employment in the first place? Like what, what is changed?

[2:24:50] Seaton plan was done through the province. Through the province

[2:24:53] of, yeah, sorry, go ahead, Marash. No, Seaton was developed

[2:24:57] through the province and didn't lack any municipal authority. The

[2:25:06] original plans of the, uh, Seaton area, uh, were done

[2:25:11] through a draft plan that were done through the central

[2:25:14] Central Pickgrin area Centra CPDP. And that was done years

[2:25:18] ago. So when we, when we, when we revisit areas

[2:25:22] through whether through an official plan or a sufficient plan

[2:25:24] amendment, this is, this is the exact purpose of that,

[2:25:27] looking at the opportunities and how the market has shifted

[2:25:30] and changed. Okay. Um, well, then talking about that just

[2:25:38] weeks ago, Council supported the report to Park's Canada and

[2:25:41] transport Canada that identified the federal lands as a future

[2:25:44] employment area. And we cited a growing demand for industrial

[2:25:50] lands in Durham region linked to Durham in the GTA.

[2:25:55] Can we then explain how that position is reconciled with

[2:25:59] removing employment lands and seeing tonight. Sure. I'd be happy

[2:26:04] to do that. When you look at the area that's

[2:26:06] been presented through this report by Ms. Rosen, Mr. Bentley,

[2:26:11] this area, while we, a lot of many of us

[2:26:13] call the TPFM area, the Brock 47 area, the large

[2:26:18] area, acreage of employment lens that are being removed. They're

[2:26:22] being redesignated for other purposes. When you look at the

[2:26:25] employment lands that were proposing for the federal government to

[2:26:28] put in front of, um, this community, those are contiguous

[2:26:32] large parcels of land. They're not four or five acres.

[2:26:35] They're not 11 acres. Those are large parcels of land

[2:26:38] that actually even are easier to market even in comparison

[2:26:42] to some of the irregular shapes we have in the

[2:26:44] innovation corridor. So it's a night and day difference when

[2:26:47] you're comparing the federal lands that we want the federal

[2:26:50] government to convert to employment lands compared to the lands

[2:26:53] up at the Brock 407 area. They're not comparable in

[2:26:56] size marketability and exposure. And more importantly access to employment

[2:27:02] for employers. And also people that are going to be

[2:27:05] able to work there. So there are two separate matters

[2:27:08] that don't even compare to each other. So because the

[2:27:13] lands are bigger up in the federal lands, we would

[2:27:17] rather pave over prime. Class A farmland as opposed to

[2:27:23] making the employment lands work in Seaton. Let me just

[2:27:31] clarify the, let's stop there for a second. Uh, I

[2:27:35] don't think that's appropriate to suggest we're paving over. We

[2:27:39] want to protect an agricultion. Well, with all due respect,

[2:27:44] Mr. Mary, three options. Report reports to go tonight. I'm

[2:27:48] not going, I'm not continuing with this. Finish your question.

[2:27:54] Again, Mr. Mayor with all due respect. We're not protecting

[2:27:57] all of the land up there. He only gave three

[2:28:00] officers to the people. There was no option for it.

[2:28:02] Time's up. You've got, you've talked for seven, seven minutes.

[2:28:05] So I'm going to cut you off. Any further questions

[2:28:08] on this. Councillor Brenner. You have the floor. Thank you

[2:28:13] very much, Mr. Mayor. Um, he has, um, am I

[2:28:18] correct that one of the, probably most important salient points

[2:28:22] in this is in fact the wording that has and

[2:28:26] to permit additional employment uses on lands. So am I

[2:28:30] correct in that interpretation? We have not decreased. The amount

[2:28:36] of opportunities or the lands for employment, but where in

[2:28:40] fact enhancing and looking at other creative uses to achieve

[2:28:44] employment within these lands. Would that be accurate. That is

[2:28:49] 100 percent accurate Councillor. Thank you. Councillor Pickle, Jibda for.

[2:28:58] Yeah. Uh, Mr. Mayor, um, just a similar comment. Um,

[2:29:03] so Fia's and Mr. Mayor, you raised as well is

[2:29:08] that the previous plan for Seaton wasn't developed by us.

[2:29:12] Wasn't approved by us. It was, uh, it was led

[2:29:16] by the provincial government. It was either approved or proved

[2:29:20] as a settlement through, I think at that time, the

[2:29:23] Ontario Municipal Board. The world has changed a little bit

[2:29:27] in the last several years. Fiazz has pointed out that

[2:29:31] the original. Planned development of these lots after going a

[2:29:38] refinement exercise no longer are viable for that purpose. They're

[2:29:44] being rezoned to a more suitable purpose. And the lands

[2:29:49] in the innovation corridor and or adjacent to that innovation

[2:29:52] quarter are more appropriate for those large development uses, uh,

[2:29:59] that we very much desire in the community. Would that

[2:30:02] be correct for us. Do you, Mayor Ash, the Councillor

[2:30:07] Pickles. Yes, that is 100 percent accurate incorrect. And this

[2:30:12] isn't the only change that has come along through the

[2:30:15] Seaton plans implementation, uh, again, the plan is several years

[2:30:20] old and a number of amendments changes, refinements have come

[2:30:26] forward, uh, as appropriate over the course of the time

[2:30:29] of the development Seaton. And this is another one. Would

[2:30:33] that be correct? That is correct. Yep. Thank you. Yep.

[2:30:37] Thank you. Okay. There's no further debate. Councillor, you have

[2:30:42] your, you've had your go at it. I'm going to

[2:30:47] call the question. Stuley moved in second elves in favor.

[2:30:53] So I'm going to ask for recorded vote. And are

[2:30:54] we not having debate? You're not going to let me

[2:30:56] debate either. You've already debated. Record a vote requested by

[2:31:00] Councillor Robinson. Councillor Robinson. Quinn of personal privilege, please. I

[2:31:06] have not debated anything. No, we're not doing this. You

[2:31:08] cut off the role. I call the role. You vote

[2:31:11] yes or no. Or I turn off your microphone. Mr.

[2:31:17] Mayor, you allow everyone else. Adam Clerk, please continue with

[2:31:20] the role. Councillor Brenner. Sorry. Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes.

[2:31:31] Council Nike? Yes. Councillor Pickles. Yes. Mayor Ashe. Yes. You

[2:31:40] worship. I'm confirming with you as chair that Councillor Robinson

[2:31:43] is not voting on this item. Her microphone's been able.

[2:31:49] She can vote now if she wants. I don't want

[2:31:50] any more debate. Councillor Robinson. Yes or no to the

[2:31:54] vote. The answer was no. And thank you for allowing

[2:31:57] me to speak Mr. Mayor. Thank you. The vulture is

[2:32:01] that carried five to one. The next item is in

[2:32:03] regards to 11. 2 mindful that we still have 18

[2:32:07] more reports to go. Not the time is of an

[2:32:11] issue for some of us. Uh, and this is in

[2:32:14] regards to motion duly with the second about notice the

[2:32:18] objection of designation of six, eight, one. Pleasant street. Councillor

[2:32:23] Rollins, you have the floor. I'm starting the clock. Starting

[2:32:29] the clock for what my questions. No, your debate. I

[2:32:32] want to ask questions. I don't, I don't have a

[2:32:34] debate. I'm going to ask questions first, please. I'll give

[2:32:36] you five minutes. For what? For questions or for to

[2:32:41] be five minutes total. That's the, that's their chair's ruling.

[2:32:46] Mr. Mayor, do you see how unfair you're being here?

[2:32:49] I have questions to ask and then I want to

[2:32:50] go into debate. You have five minutes. You've got now

[2:32:54] four minutes and 31 seconds. Well. Stop canning to answer

[2:32:58] my questions in that time. Well, you perhaps follow it

[2:33:03] should have fallen. The procedural bylaw, which instructs you to

[2:33:07] pose your questions to staff prior to the meeting. You

[2:33:11] haven't done it. You did not have everything in secret

[2:33:13] behind closed doors. The people don't know what's going on,

[2:33:16] Mr. Mayor. They know what's going on. They deserved and

[2:33:19] know it's going to. No, they don't. They know that

[2:33:20] you've been breached the code 23 times. Really, Mr. Mayor?

[2:33:25] You now have formers. And are they aware that you're

[2:33:28] the one that keeps on putting in the complaints against

[2:33:29] me? You know what? I'll just go into debate because

[2:33:32] this is absolutely ludicrous and disgusting how you are running

[2:33:35] this meeting. Well, people have a choice. Start. We're going

[2:33:40] to designate a property that designation should be based solely

[2:33:44] on the merits of the property and self and is

[2:33:48] genuine heritage value. I also believe that we must be

[2:33:50] fair to private property owners. This property was not designated

[2:33:54] when the unders purchase tent. Now years later, we may

[2:33:58] be imposing significant obligations of potential requiring the owner to

[2:34:02] spend hundreds of thousands of dollars restoring and maintaining a

[2:34:06] building that is already in a very poor state of

[2:34:10] repair. Heritage designation is not without consequences. It can impose

[2:34:16] additional costs, restrictions, approvals, delays and obligations on the property

[2:34:21] on earth that would not otherwise exist. And no one

[2:34:24] has really even spoken about the issue of insurance either.

[2:34:28] If you knew some insurance companies will not even ensure

[2:34:32] designated properties and others charge significantly higher premiums because of

[2:34:36] the potential requirement to restore original heritage features. Those are

[2:34:41] real financial implications that we are now putting on this

[2:34:43] homeowner because we decide that this decrepit old building that

[2:34:47] is falling apart. It is inhabitable. It has so much

[2:34:50] mold. But we are going to push those obligations on

[2:34:54] to this person. I also question whether we have heard

[2:34:58] all of the evidence necessary to make an informed decision.

[2:35:02] At the previous meeting, I do not believe the property

[2:35:04] owner was given a fair opportunity to fully present the

[2:35:08] heritage planning aspects of this manner. Respectfully, the owner's lawyer

[2:35:12] was not qualified to answer many of the heritage planning

[2:35:15] questions that were asked. And in some cases even answers

[2:35:19] appeared to be speculative. This is a highly specialized area.

[2:35:23] And I do not believe that gives the property on

[2:35:25] her a fair opportunity to fully present their case. In

[2:35:29] my opinion, a qualified heritage planner or heritage professionals should

[2:35:34] have the opportunity to speak directly to the issues before

[2:35:37] us before council makes a final decision. I'm also concerned

[2:35:40] about the building itself based on the current condition. It

[2:35:43] appears to be very side state of repair. We need

[2:35:46] to ask ourselves whether designation will truly preserve this building

[2:35:50] or whether we are simply delaying what may ultimately be

[2:35:54] its inevitable demise while imposing significant costs on a private

[2:35:58] property owner in the process. If the city believes preserving

[2:36:02] this property is in the public interest, then maybe it's

[2:36:05] fair to ask who should bear the financial burden of

[2:36:08] that decision? Should arrest entirely on the private property owner?

[2:36:12] Or should the community which benefits from preserving the heritage

[2:36:16] asset also be prepared to assist. I believe heritage preservation

[2:36:20] works best with property owners or partners in the process,

[2:36:24] not when significant costs and responsibilities are imposed on them

[2:36:28] without fully understanding the consequences that is going to bestow.

[2:36:33] For those reasons, I believe this matter should be referred

[2:36:35] back to allow the owner of the opportunity to obtain

[2:36:38] appropriate heritage expertise and to allow council to receive additional

[2:36:42] information regarding the financial implications. The insurance implications, the long

[2:36:47] - term viability of preserving this structure. It is inhabitable.

[2:36:54] I would like to ask for recorded vote, but first

[2:36:56] I would like to do a referral motion that this

[2:36:59] item be referred back to staff. So the stack can

[2:37:02] report back regarding the estimated financial impacts of designation on

[2:37:07] the owner and also the financial impact because we know

[2:37:11] that this will go to the tribunal. So the potential

[2:37:15] impacts of obtaining and maintaining property insurance and also the

[2:37:19] long - term structured viability and preservation potential of the

[2:37:23] building. Do I have a seconder? Yes, sir. So you

[2:37:27] can't, si Robinson's asked for referral back to staff. Or

[2:37:30] do I have a secondary. Being done? Thank you. Uh,

[2:37:36] and just to, this is where this is where Councillor

[2:37:41] Butt. Councillor, you're five minutes are up. Councillor Butt supported

[2:37:45] me on this on the last time. I just wanted

[2:37:47] to point a clear it. Thank you for correcting. Any

[2:37:51] further debate. Council Nagy five minutes. So I just got

[2:38:00] a couple of questions that I wanted to pose. Is

[2:38:04] particularly in regards to Councillo Robinson's debate, uh, did the

[2:38:10] owner attend the meeting on at playing development committee and

[2:38:17] not speak. So it's my recollection Councillor Nagy that, um,

[2:38:23] that the owner had legal representative, uh, at the most

[2:38:26] recent, uh, planning meeting where this was considered by Council.

[2:38:32] Okay. So to the best of our recollection, the owner

[2:38:35] was not given the chance to. To put their case

[2:38:39] forward. They chose not to attend. The owner, I don't

[2:38:42] believe how the proxy in their place. I understand they

[2:38:45] had representative in their place. Okay. And is the owner

[2:38:49] in attendance tonight at the meeting or this representative. Um.

[2:38:56] I don't, uh, I don't see any representative currently in

[2:38:59] attendance in this meeting right now. I understand. So again,

[2:39:04] an opportunity to defend their case or to make their

[2:39:07] case is provided and they are not taking it. The

[2:39:12] owner had their legal representative represent at the planning committee

[2:39:15] meeting. Understood. And they're so, but my question, sorry, is

[2:39:20] about tonight's meeting. So they're not here to speak to

[2:39:23] this item representative in their head to speak to this

[2:39:27] item, correct? I'm not, I'm not aware that they represent

[2:39:29] it tonight. Okay. Um, in regards to the concern about,

[2:39:35] uh, the, the representative not being suitable for that to

[2:39:42] the best of our knowledge was the consultant on behalf

[2:39:45] of the owner. Imposed on them where they freely, they

[2:39:48] were freely selected to represent them correct. There was no

[2:39:51] implication of, of that as far as we could tell,

[2:39:55] correct? So Council may recall on the February report we

[2:40:00] had spoken to, um, the owner did retain a heritage

[2:40:04] consultant. They were not an attendance at the P and

[2:40:08] D committee meeting earlier this either occasion, March or sorry,

[2:40:12] February or earlier this month. Um, that I don't believe

[2:40:16] the legal representative, uh, has the planning expertise or the

[2:40:20] heritage expertise to speak to that to the best of

[2:40:22] my knowledge. Okay. Um, was there any confirmation of mold

[2:40:28] or of a quote sad state of affair? Or is

[2:40:31] that merely an assumption or conjecture? To the best of

[2:40:34] our knowledge. So I think what I said at the

[2:40:36] previous meeting is that, um, assessment of mold assessment of

[2:40:40] structural conditions requires expertise. That's in those, those respective areas.

[2:40:47] So mold, the consultants that are qualified to speak to

[2:40:50] the presence of mold. They would do appropriate testing, uh,

[2:40:53] to determine if the mold spores, that sort of thing

[2:40:56] and make a determination. I don't, I'm not aware of

[2:40:58] a report. That speaks to that. Um, and, uh, and

[2:41:03] likewise with structural, um, an appropriately qualified structural consultant could,

[2:41:08] could address any structural concerns and any remedial steps required.

[2:41:13] So that again, requires expertise. Um, I'm just, I'm just

[2:41:17] to confirm. I'm just going to ask Matthew, who's in

[2:41:19] attendance evening just to confirm if we've received reports of

[2:41:22] that sort. I don't believe that we have, but Matt,

[2:41:24] please confirm. Yes. I can confirm that we didn't receive

[2:41:30] any reports about mold or, uh, anything like that. Okay.

[2:41:35] So the, all right. So, uh, hard statement of that

[2:41:40] there is mold and it is a not sound building

[2:41:44] is not an accurate statement to make correct. Please, Mr.

[2:41:50] Mayor. No, no, no. The representative did say there was

[2:41:53] mold. They had pictures showing them old. They showed the

[2:41:57] staircases. And we know that it was not a professional

[2:42:00] heritage person speaking. It was speculating. Come to order. Well,

[2:42:04] you know what you're making all these come to order.

[2:42:08] Councillor Nike is supposed to question Mr. Somerville and Mr.

[2:42:12] Bentley can answer the question they don't need your interjections.

[2:42:16] I'm just making it fair because the way that Mara

[2:42:19] is. I don't need you to run the meeting. Sorry.

[2:42:22] Is Councillor Nagy while we're in Councillor Robinson. Councillor Nagy's

[2:42:30] posed a question, Mr. Bentley. Do you have an answer.

[2:42:35] Uh, so I think if I understood the question correctly,

[2:42:38] you're asking about whether or not there is a presence

[2:42:40] of mold or structural issues. And we don't from a

[2:42:47] from someone who is qualified to assess that. So, so

[2:42:50] again, we want to see there have been two weeks

[2:42:52] since that initial planning and development meeting was held and

[2:42:57] that this has been brought to ratification if there was

[2:42:59] a desire for any of that, considering there have been

[2:43:02] two weeks to provide any updated. Find a personal privilege,

[2:43:06] Mr. Councillor. How can you say an owner is not

[2:43:10] qualified to know what there's mold in the building? Please

[2:43:13] come to order. You can sell pictures though. Sir, you're

[2:43:15] debating. It's not. No, it's actually ridiculous ridiculous. Councillor Dagy

[2:43:19] has the floor. No, sir. Just like to address that

[2:43:25] that wasn't personal privilege because that was not anything. They

[2:43:30] never are. I just wanted to correct the record on

[2:43:33] that. For those of us who do understand procedure to

[2:43:36] make sure that that is established. Yes. Thank you. Okay.

[2:43:42] Any further debate. Sorry. So to the best of our

[2:43:50] knowledge from everything that we have been given to read,

[2:43:55] to understand, to analyse from the experts that we have

[2:43:58] on staff, this building fulfills the heritage designation that has

[2:44:03] been proposed for it. Question mark. And secondary question mark.

[2:44:08] Is not considered an uninhabitable building. At the time at

[2:44:12] this, at this point in time. So, uh, to the

[2:44:17] second question, I'm not aware that we've received any subsequent

[2:44:20] reports since the planning and development committee meeting. Um, so

[2:44:24] I'm not aware of any change in status that way.

[2:44:27] Um, and I think staff established in the previous report,

[2:44:31] um, it staff's opinion that it meets sufficient criteria to

[2:44:35] merit designation. Thank you. And just one more question, sorry

[2:44:42] to, and I think this, this would be more of

[2:44:45] a Nile's question if he's on the call. I just

[2:44:48] wanted to confirm again, as was, uh, discussed in the

[2:44:51] previous meeting, the timeline of the owners, um. What's what's

[2:44:59] what I'm looking for? The owner's permits that were applied

[2:45:02] for to the city. So there was, I wanted to

[2:45:06] confirm, was there that demolition permit, um, that had been

[2:45:11] mentioned that was in 2021 or 2022. Uh, through Mayor,

[2:45:18] uh, it wasn't a demolition permit. They submitted a land

[2:45:21] set application to sever the property. And if these land

[2:45:27] severance was granted along with minor variances, uh, then it

[2:45:31] would ultimately move towards, uh, paying a demolition permit to

[2:45:35] demolish the building itself. But ultimately the variances were never

[2:45:40] approved because of the status of the, uh, building itself.

[2:45:46] Understood. Thank you. Um, thank you for correcting the record

[2:45:48] and for correcting me on that. Um, so to the

[2:45:52] best of our knowledge and feel free to comment if

[2:45:57] I'm overstepping on this, but to the best of our

[2:45:58] knowledge, the owner's intention was always to sever the land,

[2:46:04] i. e. to move towards a demolition. And they were

[2:46:08] not granted that. And so that was the, that was

[2:46:13] the initial intention. The initial intention was a several Land

[2:46:17] Creek to another additional lot with the intention to demolish

[2:46:21] the building through that process, uh, we did flag it

[2:46:24] as being of a heritage significance. We did complete heritage

[2:46:28] evaluations. The owner did retain a qualified heritage consultant to

[2:46:33] prepare to demonstrate that it didn't meet the requirements. Our

[2:46:40] staff professionals, Matthew, Summerville, who is a qualified heritage professional

[2:46:45] has also reviewed the findings and completed a detailed thorough

[2:46:49] analysis of how it met the criteria for the heritage

[2:46:52] qualification, which airs out thoroughly outlined in the staff report.

[2:46:56] We've looked at contextual value with the historical value at

[2:47:00] the architectural value. And it meets the requirements of the

[2:47:03] Ontario Heritage. It designated the buildings. Through this process, the

[2:47:07] owners have indicated whether the building is not structurally saved

[2:47:11] or have any mold. No information has been given to

[2:47:15] city staff from the owners to substantiate those claims they

[2:47:19] have shown select pictures if you want to say it,

[2:47:21] but there is no information that's saying here it is,

[2:47:25] nor there's been any petition from the owner's forest staff

[2:47:27] to visit the property interior to further verify that information.

[2:47:31] So we are looking at this information from, uh, the

[2:47:35] information that we have, the historical information, the structural view

[2:47:39] of the building from outside. And we, in our professional

[2:47:42] opinion, as well as Matthew's professional thing, it meets a

[2:47:46] criteria under the Ontario Heritage Draculations. Understand. So to just

[2:47:52] to touch on what you said, so Steph would have

[2:47:55] made themselves available to view the property personally and make

[2:47:58] those determinations if that had been, if that had been,

[2:48:03] we could have been able to go in, but at

[2:48:05] the same time, Mathie and I are not engineers in

[2:48:08] any sort of way. So without qualified professionals who are

[2:48:12] qualified engineers or qualified experts in detecting mold and doing

[2:48:17] the necessary stage, we can't quantify statements if you want

[2:48:23] to say it, saying that this is what's in there

[2:48:25] at the end of the day. So NOR has the

[2:48:27] owner's prepared. Qualified reports prepared by qualified experts in substantiate

[2:48:32] that information either. So we can't just, on general comments,

[2:48:39] say, Hey, the building isn't a structuring safe. So we're

[2:48:42] therefore demolishing. There needs to be information. And the owner

[2:48:45] just had ample opportunity through this process over the last

[2:48:49] couple of years to provide that information to city stack

[2:48:52] as well. Understood. Thank you so much. Um, I really

[2:48:57] don't want to belabor the point. So, uh, my last

[2:49:00] question would be to Matthew. Just if there's a reader's

[2:49:05] digest version of what happens, what we lose if we

[2:49:09] do not designate this building tonight. Um, well, the designation

[2:49:16] will be going forward, but it's being contestant still. So

[2:49:19] there will be an OLT hearing after this. So if

[2:49:25] we don't designate, uh, the process ends here, uh, and

[2:49:29] then the owner would be permitted to move forward with

[2:49:32] the demolition application as he would for any other regular

[2:49:34] building, uh, that's not listed or, or designated. Okay. And,

[2:49:40] and, but historically is more where I was, what my

[2:49:44] question was. So in terms of the history, hence the

[2:49:48] reader is digest. Ample history to it. Yeah. It's, it's

[2:49:56] the bill of the House represents kind of the core,

[2:49:59] one of the two core buildings that remain of, of,

[2:50:03] of, of Fairpoint. And so it's a, uh, it's at

[2:50:07] the nexus of Pleasant and Commerce. And so there is

[2:50:11] a story to be told. And it's kind of the

[2:50:14] last little flame of that because it there's a, there's

[2:50:19] a dialogue between the two, the old store and the,

[2:50:22] and the house, um, but there's an opportunity there to

[2:50:26] tell a story about Fairport. And I think that there's

[2:50:29] a, that the building itself, um, could be interpreted as

[2:50:33] part of that larger, um, arc around the growth of

[2:50:36] that community in the 1870s. Um, but, uh, that would

[2:50:40] be, uh, we still haven't does anything. We still haven't

[2:50:42] moved forward with the designation for commerce street. So this

[2:50:45] could still happen. Um, but every little bit that you

[2:50:48] take away, it kind of lowers and reduces that, uh,

[2:50:51] that ability to interpret. Understood. And so with every step

[2:50:55] forward, we lose a bit more of our history and

[2:50:58] a bit more of what brought us here today. Thank

[2:51:01] you. Thank you so much. Those are all my questions.

[2:51:03] Thank you so much for the live stream. You've already

[2:51:05] had your five minutes. Uh, do you want to record

[2:51:08] a vote councillor. Um, well, I'd like to do a

[2:51:10] referral first and I would like to have a recorded

[2:51:13] OBS. I think we've already had referral motion that was,

[2:51:16] uh, not have a second or so. So we're not

[2:51:19] going to this referral motion is something we can get

[2:51:22] a qualified professional in there to check out the, the

[2:51:26] mold and the structural. We've already dealt with your referral.

[2:51:30] Should there was no. This is a different referral motion,

[2:51:32] Mr. Mayor. You're not going to allow me to do

[2:51:35] a referral motion. No, there's going to be a secondary.

[2:51:37] We're going to have a vote. We're now. Well, no,

[2:51:39] let's see this second or first. We've done 11 points

[2:51:42] before. Mayor. This is important. This is somebody's life. This

[2:51:46] is somebody's life in their over hundreds of thousands of

[2:51:48] dollars. Councillor, I'm going to unfold, I'm voting on your

[2:51:52] side. That doesn't mean I'm going to drag it out

[2:51:54] all night. Well, no, you don't. But you want to

[2:51:58] record a vote or not. I already said I would

[2:52:00] like a roof for them clerk. Can we call the

[2:52:05] role on the recommendations duley moved in seconded Councillor Robinson.

[2:52:10] No. Sir Brenna. Yes. Cancer Cook. Yes. Councillor Nagy. Yes.

[2:52:20] Councillor Pickles. Yes. Mayor Ashe. No. Brush it. That's carried

[2:52:25] four to two. Okay. Thank you. We know move to

[2:52:29] new and unfinished business. I have a motion from Councillor

[2:52:32] Cook and seconded by Councillor Maggie to leave to introduce

[2:52:38] a motion that will be dealt with under 12. 8.

[2:52:42] Candidate parking restrictions that needs two thirds majority, which in

[2:52:45] this case is four. I'm going to call the question

[2:52:48] to leave to introduce all those in favor. Oppose that

[2:52:53] item is carried. So we'll be added to 12. 18.

[2:52:59] Okay. We have 18 reports here. I'm sure we're going

[2:53:01] to have to extend our curfew. Not the Councillor, some

[2:53:04] councillors don't care about the time, but I do. Um,

[2:53:08] the first item is, um, chief administrator officer. I'm sorry,

[2:53:13] appoint a personal privilege, Mr. Mayor. No, why do you

[2:53:17] behave like that? What do you make these smart ass

[2:53:19] comments. How, sir, you've been asked to come to order.

[2:53:28] This is your last warning. My final 18 reports will

[2:53:31] go much quicker if I excuse it from the meeting.

[2:53:34] And this is your final warning. You will be excused

[2:53:36] your next down burst. Do you understand. Okay. So, so

[2:53:43] don't be surprised when it happens. The first 12. 1

[2:53:48] point of personal privilege, Mr. Mayor. That's not quite one.

[2:53:52] Second move by Councillor Pickles and second by Councillor Cook.

[2:53:55] Uh, we also have a consultant here, Ms. Poole and

[2:53:59] Ms. Wong, uh, from Nixon Poole. They're available for questions.

[2:54:04] Ms. Carpino, please introduce subject. The motion's been duly moved

[2:54:08] in seculted. Thank you, Mirage. Since beginning operations in 1971,

[2:54:16] the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, or PNGS, has served as

[2:54:21] a critical source of electricity currently supplying approximately 14 percent

[2:54:25] of Ontario's power demands over the past 50 years, the

[2:54:30] city has maintained a strong and productive working relationship with

[2:54:33] OPG. As a supportive post community, our relationship has been

[2:54:38] strengthened through agreements, arrangements, and the ongoing exchange and coordination

[2:54:44] of information, resources, and support. All of which have delivered

[2:54:49] important benefits to the residents of Pickering. For example, the

[2:54:54] city has an MOU with OPG for fire protection and

[2:54:57] community emergency management. The city has a license agreement with

[2:55:01] OPG for the public recreational use of Kinsen Park and

[2:55:05] Alex Robinson Park, Lan's owned by OPG. And the city's

[2:55:10] economic development and public affair's teams were closely with OPG

[2:55:14] to educate and form the community about strategic initiatives related

[2:55:17] to PNGS. Consistent with this history of cooperation and collaboration,

[2:55:24] Citi and OPG staff have been in discussion since early

[2:55:27] 2025 regarding the PNGS B refurbishment project. As Canada's largest,

[2:55:34] clean energy and infrastructure project, it was important for staff

[2:55:38] to understand the scope and timing of the project, as

[2:55:41] well as the potential impacts on PNGS, the city, and

[2:55:46] local residents and businesses. With an estimated project budget of

[2:55:50] 26. 8 million, the refurb project is expected to generate

[2:55:54] significant benefits for figuring in the broader community, including 30,

[2:55:59] 000 jobs during the refurbishment period, 6, 700 jobs through

[2:56:03] ongoing station operations, the strengthening of supply chain sectors. Investing

[2:56:09] in high skilled trades. And most notably, securing 2, 100

[2:56:14] megawatts of low carbon reliable electricity pound 2 million homes

[2:56:18] and businesses across the province for another 30 years. Considering

[2:56:23] that the refurable require on - site replacement, refurbishment, construction,

[2:56:28] and modification activities between 2027 and 2034 staff recognise that

[2:56:34] the refurb project would have local implications that would benefit

[2:56:38] from a formal agreement to define responsibilities, contributions and coordination.

[2:56:43] For this reason, the city and OPG staff negotiated a

[2:56:46] municipal infrastructure and servicing agreement referred to as the MESA.

[2:56:53] He deliverables in the MISA include, number one, OPG will

[2:56:57] contribute with the design and construction of the city's new

[2:57:04] fire hall number five to a maximum of 10 million

[2:57:07] dollars. The new fire hall will be located the Corner

[2:57:10] of Sandy Beach Road and Bailey just steps from OPG.

[2:57:13] OPG has indicated that reconstructed fire hall will further enhance

[2:57:16] local fire response and community safety and self - pickering,

[2:57:20] including the refurbish PNGS. Number two, OPG will contribute 10

[2:57:26] million dollars towards the acquisition of 591 Liverpool Road, which

[2:57:31] forms part of the Pickering Harbour Company's landholdings. The city

[2:57:35] is seeking to acquire from Frenchman's at Frenchman's Bay. This

[2:57:39] financial commitment will be formalized through an agreement of purchase

[2:57:42] and sale and terms for a licensed agreement. Both are

[2:57:47] to be expected to be presented to Council in July

[2:57:49] of 2026. The lands at 591 Liberal Road are currently

[2:57:54] used for boat storage and supportive marina operations. And the

[2:57:58] license agreement would permit the city to use these lands

[2:58:00] for boat storage and public parking. OPG is seeking to

[2:58:05] acquire these lands as they fall within the nuclear exclusion

[2:58:08] zone. The obligations set out in the mesa will remain

[2:58:11] in effect, even if the city is unsuccessful in acquiring

[2:58:15] the PHC landholdings. Number three, OPG will invest approximately 60

[2:58:21] million dollars to rehabilitate sandy Beach Road and reconstruct Montgomery

[2:58:26] Park Road. While these road improvements will providing immediate benefits

[2:58:31] to OPG, local residents and businesses and other users, they

[2:58:35] will also defer the cities need to fully reconstruct CNB

[2:58:39] dried by 10 years, resulting in an overall net benefit,

[2:58:44] not neutral benefit to the city. OPG's financial commitment is

[2:58:48] set out in the Road Servicing Agreement, approved by Council

[2:58:51] in 2025. And OBG requires these roads to be rehabilitated

[2:58:55] to support their reconstruction or refurbishment construction activities and deliveries.

[2:59:01] Number four, OPG has confirmed its commitment to keep the

[2:59:06] city financially whole from a property tax perspective during the

[2:59:10] refurbishment period of 2027 to 2031 with annual indexing based

[2:59:15] on the city's budget levy increases. This will help ensure

[2:59:20] stable annual revenues in support of cities operating budget. Number

[2:59:25] five, OPG has also confirmed its commitment to continue its

[2:59:29] commute investment program through the power for change project for

[2:59:33] the duration of this agreement. This initiative provides grants, awards,

[2:59:38] and scholarships that support the broader community. And number six,

[2:59:41] OPG has committed to providing information to local residence, businesses,

[2:59:45] and stakeholders in a timely and transparent matter. Particularly with

[2:59:50] respect to the refurbishment project. This includes two - way

[2:59:54] communication with the city and PIC staff, uh, which will

[2:59:58] be manning their information centre weekday. Every weekday, they'll have

[3:00:04] a public telephone line, Project Updates via their website, social

[3:00:07] media print media and outreach. It is staff's view that

[3:00:13] the proposed MISA provides a necessary and appropriate framework that

[3:00:16] supports a collaborative, transparent relationship with OPG. At this time,

[3:00:22] staff are pleased to recommend to Council the endorsement of

[3:00:25] the NISA to formalize this landmark agreement. Staff welcome any

[3:00:29] questions Council may have. And we are also joined this

[3:00:32] evening by Catherine Poole, partner with Nixon Kulaki LLP, and

[3:00:37] Karina Wong, associate with Nixon Pool Locke LLP, who could

[3:00:41] respond to questions specific to the PNGS property tax payments

[3:00:45] during the refurb period as set out in the NISA.

[3:00:50] Thank you. Questions of the report. Councillor Robinson. Do we

[3:00:59] have a copy of that report? Pardon. Do we have

[3:01:02] a copy of that report that Ms. just read out?

[3:01:06] It's, uh, number 12 one.

[3:01:26] It's nine pages long. With an attachment. Um, with the

[3:01:34] agreement itself of 14 pages. Yes, thank you. Questions.

[3:01:46] Any debate. Yeah, I do have questions. Can you just

[3:01:51] give me just a moment.

[3:02:01] Is this regarding the 591. Yes. Right. And how much

[3:02:06] are they purchasing it for. Uh, 10 million dollars towards

[3:02:11] the ultimate purchase price. And what is the actual purchase

[3:02:15] price. Uh. I'm not quite sure. Is that, I mean,

[3:02:24] it's publicly available. Uh, 30 million dollars for the total

[3:02:28] offset. I think so. Yes. Now my question to you

[3:02:32] is, I know that we were purchasing Frenchman's Bay at

[3:02:35] what price. The total asset, including 591 Liverpool Road, including

[3:02:42] the Lake house, including the spit, including the marina. Uh,

[3:02:49] and the water lots is 30 million dollars. Right. That's

[3:02:55] what I thought, but I, I, I was on MLS

[3:02:59] just recently and I had actually back on May the

[3:03:05] 20th sent an email to, um, Ms. Carpino asking her

[3:03:11] if five ninety one was included. In the, in the

[3:03:17] sale price and the answer I got back was just,

[3:03:20] um, yes, thanks. That was my, the only response that

[3:03:24] I got back. But as looking on MLS. It shows

[3:03:29] us two different listings. The one for 600 Liverpool Road

[3:03:34] and then the other one for 591 liver pool road.

[3:03:38] And I think the dates don't make sense in my

[3:03:43] opinion when I look at the dates on MLF. Because

[3:03:47] before it was all one unit. And I think they

[3:03:50] were asking what was it? 60 million to start with

[3:03:53] or something like that. And they started dropping the prices.

[3:03:56] And then when we had decided to. Um, acquire it

[3:04:02] at 30, 000 dollars. Into two parcels of land, not

[3:04:06] one. So I'm really confused as to how come the

[3:04:13] two different listings and they both show that their soul

[3:04:17] conditional, but we're saying that it's one parcel of land.

[3:04:22] So the little bit of confusion there. Okay. Well, let

[3:04:25] me have Mr. Pajoni, who's our point on the transaction,

[3:04:31] uh, maybe clear up something. Um, and Mr. Vijoni, I

[3:04:36] don't want you to. Disclose anything that might be of

[3:04:42] Social Client Privilege. And I'm not sure why the MLS

[3:04:47] report or listings is relevant to the discussion today. But,

[3:04:52] uh, Mr. Bentley or Mr. Bajoni, can you answer, please?

[3:04:57] Well, I'll just tell you why I think it's relevant

[3:04:59] is because the amount for the, for the 591 is

[3:05:02] a lot more than 10 million dollars. And I understand

[3:05:06] that we were going to acquire this, but we were

[3:05:08] looking for federal and provincial funding to join into the

[3:05:12] 30, 000. So it was going to be 10, 000

[3:05:14] from federal 10, 000 for provincial. And then we were

[3:05:18] putting in 10 million dollars as municipal. The provincial government,

[3:05:23] I believe said, no, we're not going to put it

[3:05:26] in, but OPG could purchase it in their place for

[3:05:29] the amount of 10 million dollars again to separate listings

[3:05:33] that's listed for a lot more than 10 million dollars.

[3:05:35] So I think the, and I just want to get

[3:05:37] to the bottom of it. Okay. Mr. Pajoni. Again. The

[3:05:46] transaction's not the subject to this report. So we're going,

[3:05:49] we're colouring outside the lines here. Um, this is a

[3:05:53] report in regards to contributions from OPG. But I'll allow

[3:05:59] it because there is some crossover there. So, uh, Miss

[3:06:03] Poole, do you want, you got your camera on or

[3:06:05] Mr. Bajoni, if I may your worship, uh, Ms. Poole

[3:06:11] is here with specific regard to the property tax assessment

[3:06:14] provisions in the agreement that's before us. Um, not with

[3:06:19] respect to the general business terms. Uh, and I like

[3:06:24] to also signal a note of caution. Because the agreement

[3:06:27] of purchase and sale for Frenchman's Bay is not on

[3:06:30] tonight's agenda. And as, as Council well knows as a

[3:06:34] subject of ongoing, uh, work on multiple fronts with multiple

[3:06:38] stakeholders, uh, and it would be problematic indeed to hold

[3:06:42] forth on that in this public meeting, especially since it's

[3:06:46] not even on the agenda, but I can try, I

[3:06:48] think, and address the Councillor's inquiries to perhaps put our

[3:06:51] mind at ease so that she can consider the agreement

[3:06:54] that is properly before her. Um, uh, the listings for

[3:06:59] the property, or of no consequence, whatsoever to the city

[3:07:04] and don't determine what the city must pay. And they

[3:07:07] certainly don't determine the proper valuation or appraisal of the

[3:07:13] different component parts of the Frenchmans Bay property. Um, so,

[3:07:19] uh, the, uh, I'm trying to be careful here and

[3:07:23] respect the confidentiality, the ongoing negotiations. But the MISA flags

[3:07:30] the reference to up to 10 million dollars of OPG

[3:07:34] funding, uh, four, five, nine, one. And it is, it

[3:07:42] does represent, uh, the possibility of or the opportunity of

[3:07:47] the provincial funding that will go to support the city's

[3:07:51] overall purchase of the entire Frenchman's bay land holding from

[3:07:55] Pickering Harbour Company. Um, so, uh, the intention of the

[3:08:00] Misa is not to lock in those terms, but simply

[3:08:02] to flag them and refer to them and cross -

[3:08:05] reference them. Um, and the actual purchase terms for 591

[3:08:11] liver pool will be the subject matter of a separate

[3:08:15] agreement of purchase and sale between the city and OPG,

[3:08:18] which is currently being negotiated. Uh, I should add finally

[3:08:24] that, um, able to work with our colleague, our counterparts

[3:08:30] at OPG to have content put into this, MESA making

[3:08:34] it very clear that the MESA agreement that's before you

[3:08:37] tonight has not conditioned along or terminates based on the

[3:08:42] success or not of the negotiations with OPG for its

[3:08:46] proposed purchase of 591 Liverpool. It's a separate and parallel

[3:08:51] transaction. Thank you. I hope that that provides some clarity.

[3:08:57] Thank you, Mr. Bijoni. Um, that's it for my questions

[3:09:01] for now. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions. Okay.

[3:09:09] Debate. I need to be. I'm going to turn the

[3:09:17] debate. Um, I want to, um, congratulate staff. For this

[3:09:24] groundbreaking commitment. Uh, and commend OPG for their partnership with

[3:09:32] the municipality. As a member of the, um, Canadian host

[3:09:37] nuclear communities, I can tell you that these, uh, negotiations

[3:09:44] are discussed at these meetings. Um, and, um, the, the,

[3:09:51] the municipality tried to call it one thing, um, and

[3:09:57] OPG resisted. And we've come up with a municipal infrastructure

[3:10:01] and servicing agreement. And the dollar figure is a 35,

[3:10:07] 36 million plus, which is remarkable partnership between OPG. As

[3:10:14] the CAO quite rightly pointed out, they've been a partner

[3:10:19] of ours in our city, uh, over 50 years, uh,

[3:10:24] providing clean, uh, carbon free power to the grid, uh,

[3:10:31] 14 for currently 14 percent of the power of the

[3:10:35] province is generated at Pickre Nicola. Uh, on the refurb,

[3:10:40] there will be enhanced inputs from about 2000 megawatts to

[3:10:44] about 2, 100 megawatts, which will at the time be

[3:10:47] about 10 percent of the power that's being generated across

[3:10:52] the province. And enough to power 2. 2 million homes,

[3:10:57] um, as we continue to grow as a municipality as

[3:11:00] a region, as well. So, uh, I, I, I, uh,

[3:11:05] full hardy support, uh, the remarkable achievement that we've been

[3:11:10] able to achieve. Um, and, uh, I, um, commend the

[3:11:15] CAO, the finance team, uh, our legal, um, team as

[3:11:20] well as our outside council in this regard. And, um,

[3:11:24] I fully support the recommendation. And I think we'll be

[3:11:27] the envious, some other host communities, uh, when this becomes

[3:11:31] public later today. So with that, um, I'm going to

[3:11:35] ask recorded vote, please. Madam Clerk, we call the role.

[3:11:41] Councillor Brenner. Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes. Councillor Nike. Yes. Answer

[3:11:49] Pickles. Yes. Councillor Robinson. This just has to do with

[3:11:58] the agreement, not with a sale or anything, right, Mr.

[3:12:00] Mayor? Correct. Then yes. They're asked. Yes. You worship that's

[3:12:06] carrot unanimously. Thank you. The next report is the milestone

[3:12:11] report number five on Dorsey Community Centre. It's moved by

[3:12:13] Councillor Pickles. Thank you. We cancer Cook. Questions or debate.

[3:12:19] Councillor Nagy. Good question. I was just going to, I

[3:12:24] was going to ask for five minute recess, but I

[3:12:26] can do that. Okay. Let's, let's do that after this.

[3:12:29] So we're going to call, call the, um, question all

[3:12:33] those in favor. That motion, um, is carried. And we're

[3:12:37] going to take a five minute recess.

[3:18:02] I can certify the attendance of all councillors saving except

[3:18:05] for Councillor Nagy and Councillor But. Oh, there she is.

[3:18:10] I can certify the time, so I'll remember that cancer

[3:18:13] button. Okay, folks, we still have 16 reports to go

[3:18:17] and our curfew is in 55 minutes. Next item is

[3:18:22] 12. 3. The accessibility advisory committee automatic door reliability is

[3:18:28] moved by Councillor Cook, second by Councillor Nicky questions. Be.

[3:18:37] That I'm going to call the question all in favor.

[3:18:39] Oppose that items carry. Next item is the appointment and

[3:18:44] lobbyist registered for the next term of office. Let's move

[3:18:47] by Councillor Brenner. And second of my Councillor Nagy. Questions.

[3:18:57] Robinson, you get the floor. My first question is, why

[3:19:06] is principles integrity not continuing on as the city integrity's

[3:19:09] commissioner? Did they choose to retire, close their municipal integrity

[3:19:13] practice, decline to continue, or were there other reasons where.

[3:19:18] They have to. Madam Clerk, can you speak to your

[3:19:24] recommendation and what occurred and what have occurred if they

[3:19:28] were still in the business. Thank you, worships, for you

[3:19:31] to Councillor Robinson. We did do a joint RFP with

[3:19:34] the region and the call out. We did receive a

[3:19:38] submission from principles integrity. And then as we were going

[3:19:41] through the process, we received notice that they would no

[3:19:43] longer be doing services in 2027 because they were retiring.

[3:19:52] Okay, so I mean, I had heard some rumours. Are

[3:19:56] they retiring or were they being asked to step down

[3:19:59] and retire? Do we know the answers to that? Because

[3:20:02] I know like a couple of the mayors, I can't

[3:20:05] remember where right now, but I know that he had

[3:20:07] mentioned that he would be retiring them as well. So

[3:20:13] I'm just wondering. Through your worship, that's a Robinson, the

[3:20:18] integrity commissioner is an independent body. They're not hired, they're

[3:20:22] not told whether to act or not. They decided to

[3:20:25] retire and provided written notice to their clients that they

[3:20:29] would no longer be providing integrity services. As of 2027.

[3:20:35] Okay, no, I was just wondering if like, you know,

[3:20:36] the abudsman, for example, had asked them to close their

[3:20:40] door or something if they knew of anything like that.

[3:20:43] Okay. Um, how much money has the city of Pickering

[3:20:46] paid integrity principles integrity over the last four years, including

[3:20:49] all the investigations, the reports, the training, the legal opinions,

[3:20:54] all related services? Do we have a final number. I

[3:20:57] do not have that final number with me tonight. Okay.

[3:21:01] Do we know what principles integrities hourly rates are? I

[3:21:07] believe 239 dollars an hour. 239 dollars an

[3:21:16] hour. And the new integrity commissioner, um, what are their

[3:21:22] rates for hour. It's within the agreement and the report

[3:21:25] councillor. I have to pull it up here and have

[3:21:27] a look at that. Yeah, that's what I was asking

[3:21:30] you to pull it up. So I didn't have to.

[3:21:34] I think it was like 350 dollars an hour and

[3:21:37] I think maybe if it was an assistant or somebody

[3:21:40] that was there, I think the issue is the nature

[3:21:46] of the services provided by the near integrity commissioner had

[3:21:51] different levels because they had senior partners junior partners and

[3:21:56] associates. So this, I remember that because it was discussed

[3:22:01] that, um, uh, at regional council as well. Okay. Um.

[3:22:09] So here my next question is why is, why are

[3:22:12] we as this Council of pointing the integrity commissioner for

[3:22:14] the next term of Council before for them? Like, and

[3:22:20] again, will they be able to get out of the

[3:22:22] agreement if they want to get out of the agreement?

[3:22:25] Will they be able to possibly interview and have an

[3:22:29] integrity commissioner that they might like since they will debut

[3:22:32] the ones who will be, you know, overseen the new

[3:22:35] council. Banker. Prior to me answering that question. I just

[3:22:40] want to go back to your prior question. Councillo Robinson.

[3:22:42] I just had pulled up here. Principal's integrity charged just

[3:22:46] 275 dollars an hour. And the contract that's in front

[3:22:51] of us tonight for the proposed integrity commissioners on a

[3:22:54] tiered schedule. Uh, for Mr. Bogozian, who is the main

[3:22:59] partner of the firm. It's 350 dollars an hour. Level

[3:23:06] employees. And depending on that level, some are paid at

[3:23:09] 260 dollars an hour. And as far as your question

[3:23:16] about, uh, The Entery Commissioner, the contract with our current

[3:23:19] integrity commissioner only goes until the end of the term.

[3:23:22] And under the municipal, we are required to have an

[3:23:23] integrity commissioner. So in order to fulfill those requirements, we

[3:23:26] have to do a new contract with an integrity commissioner

[3:23:30] now so that the gap there. However, there are clauses

[3:23:34] within the agreement, which is attached to the report that

[3:23:36] gives the city and the, uh, integrity commissioner themselves, the

[3:23:40] ability to get out of that contract. So Council would

[3:23:43] have that authority to do that in the new term

[3:23:44] if they chose to do so. Oh, okay. So there's

[3:23:47] not certain reasons that they can get out of the

[3:23:49] contract. Just if they feel that they want to be

[3:23:51] able to interview other integrity commissioners or get the contract

[3:23:56] for that, or what are the reasons that the city

[3:23:59] can get out of the contract. Uh, I don't believe

[3:24:03] that it is, uh, speculated, or sorry, stipulated. It says,

[3:24:08] unless it's terminated earlier in accordance with the terms of

[3:24:10] the contract. And under those terms, I believe it's just,

[3:24:15] um, mutual notice actually by either party. So they have

[3:24:19] the ability to get out of it. The city has

[3:24:21] the ability to get out of it. Okay. Great. So

[3:24:25] they shouldn't have a problem if they wanted to. Um,

[3:24:28] the report indicates that this firm also provides services to

[3:24:31] numerous municipalities, including some of the enduram region and also

[3:24:37] during region itself. Could you tell me what other municipalities.

[3:24:42] Are using? So we did it. We did this joint

[3:24:45] venture with the region so that we, um, undertake the

[3:24:50] process with them. It was a savings to the city

[3:24:52] to do that. Uh, so the region has appointed them.

[3:24:56] And as well as the city of Oshawa, the city

[3:24:58] of Whitby, uh, Ajax already is in midway through a

[3:25:01] different contract. So they didn't take part of the joint

[3:25:04] recruitment. Uh, and I believe municipality of Clarington was also

[3:25:08] looking to appoint them, but I don't have a confirmation

[3:25:11] that they've done that yet. Okay. Um, only a couple

[3:25:15] more questions. And I'm done. Does Stouff see any concerns

[3:25:17] at all regarding independence or perceive conflicts or public confidence

[3:25:22] with all of, well, a lot of Durham municipalities all

[3:25:27] using the same integrity commissioner. No, there's actually. Some benefit

[3:25:34] to that, especially when you have regional members. So you

[3:25:36] have the same integrity commissioner looking at codes and it's

[3:25:39] more consistent, if you will, for members to have the

[3:25:41] same integrity commissioner at both levels. Okay. When we put

[3:25:46] out the RFP, I guess how many firm supplied was

[3:25:50] it only three? Did I read in the report? Pre

[3:25:52] - commissions. That's correct. So the other one was principles

[3:25:55] integrity. And what did we base this integrity commissioner, um,

[3:26:02] getting our business? Or was it predominantly because we wanted

[3:26:06] to use the same and make it all uniformed with

[3:26:09] the region of Durham and the other Dura Municipalities. Well,

[3:26:14] the RP would have asked them to provide submissions based

[3:26:17] on experience based on, um. How long they've been doing

[3:26:21] it, things like that. So they would have been asked

[3:26:23] those questions and had to provide submissions as part of

[3:26:26] that RFP process, which all three firms did. And then

[3:26:30] they were scored based on their answers and the presentations

[3:26:33] that they had to provide. And as I, in the

[3:26:37] report, sorry, the principal's integrity and this particular firm being

[3:26:41] recommended was tied. So had we not received the termination

[3:26:45] notice from principles integrity, we would have recommended them again.

[3:26:50] Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, I think that's all of

[3:26:55] my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Nagy

[3:26:58] over. My only question was going to be, why not

[3:27:03] principles integrity? So thank you. Or why, why were they

[3:27:08] committed? I think they, that question's been asking in post.

[3:27:11] Absolutely. The motion's been duly moved in second. I don't

[3:27:14] see any further debate. So I'm going to call the

[3:27:16] question. All of them favor post that item is carried.

[3:27:21] Next item off 0. 5. Sorry. Can I ask for

[3:27:25] a recorded vote on the previous item. Sure. Um. That's

[3:27:30] an order. Um, Councillor Nige is asked for recorded vote

[3:27:34] in regards to the appointment of the integrity commissioner. Madam

[3:27:38] Kirkley called a role, please. Councillor Nagy. Yes. Councillor Pickles.

[3:27:45] Yes. Councillor Robinson? Yes. Councillor Brenner? Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes.

[3:27:56] Mayor Ash. Yes. You worship that scary unanimously. Thank you.

[3:28:02] Next item moved by Councillor Pickles. Second up by Councillor

[3:28:05] Cook. License agreement for space at the Dr. Tomlinson Community

[3:28:10] Centre between City Pickering and the Claremont Golden Age Seniors

[3:28:14] Club. Questions for debate. Being done. I'm going to call

[3:28:20] the question, Niles in favor. Opposed atoms carry. The next

[3:28:24] standard is moved by Caster Nagy and second by Councillor

[3:28:26] Cook in regards to a memorial plaque in the name

[3:28:29] of Stephen Stats at Lin Park's Lynn Heights Parks. Questions.

[3:28:40] Debate. Councillor Nagy. Thank you. Um, it was very important

[3:28:47] to me that, uh, that I moved this item tonight.

[3:28:50] I had the opportunity to work and talk extensively with,

[3:28:56] uh, with Steve all throughout my term of Council. He

[3:29:01] was one of the first people who, uh, who reached

[3:29:04] out to me to say, all right, let's, let's get

[3:29:06] moving. Let's get working on this. And it took a

[3:29:08] very long time for, uh, for him and I to

[3:29:12] get the sidewalks dealt with at Linnhytes Park. And Lynn

[3:29:18] Heights as well as other streets or sorry, other parks

[3:29:21] were part of a pilot project that we ran over

[3:29:24] the winter, um, just now. And, uh, to my H2,

[3:29:28] I understand was a very successful pilot project. And it

[3:29:33] was very upsetting and a real shock to me when

[3:29:37] Steve passed. And he was keeping me updated with his

[3:29:43] progress. And I was a big fan of Steve's. So

[3:29:47] I'm in, sorry, full support of this. And I sincerely

[3:29:51] hope that it passes unanimously. Thank you. Uh, seeing no

[3:29:56] for the debate. I'm going to call the question all's

[3:29:58] in favor. Opposed that I have secured the next item

[3:30:01] is 12. 7 supply and installation of audio visual systems

[3:30:04] at George and Community Centre moved by Councillor Pickles. Second

[3:30:08] and by Councillor Cook questions. Councillor Robinson. Yeah. I just

[3:30:17] have one question. Why is the cost so high for

[3:30:20] the audio visual system. Uh, Vince, you're still here. I

[3:30:28] guess that's up your. Mr. Poof. Thank you for the

[3:30:33] question councillor through the chair. Uh, it's a complex combination

[3:30:37] of different systems, not only including the projectors, uh, but

[3:30:41] the various components that tie into the connection of the

[3:30:44] speaker arrays, all the wiring and controls that go with

[3:30:47] that, uh, it's not simply a single projector. It's a

[3:30:53] full panoramic display on three walls in the art gallery

[3:30:57] at the new door state community centre. And so it's

[3:30:59] quite an elaborate system. Um, we had explored multiple avenues

[3:31:03] to see what we could do to bring that cost

[3:31:05] down. And this was the best approach. Did we have

[3:31:08] different proposals come in from different people? Or was I

[3:31:12] believe it's outlined in the, in the report as to

[3:31:14] how many proposals we actually received. We had attempted to

[3:31:16] go through as potentially doing this through the general contractor

[3:31:20] who's building the building. And we felt their cost was

[3:31:22] too high and chose to run a public process instead.

[3:31:29] Okay. And, and did we get a breakdown with that?

[3:31:33] Is there a breakdown of the amounts? Like how much

[3:31:35] is allocated for White to bring us up to that

[3:31:38] amount of money. Uh, no, it was a lump sum

[3:31:42] price. Lump sum price. Okay. So is there a possibil

[3:31:49] way to get the breakdown of how much everything is

[3:31:52] costing. Or we're finalised on this price. This is where

[3:31:57] we're going. We will itemize list. Uh, we can request

[3:32:03] that after award councillor, but, um, it wasn't part of

[3:32:07] the process that was included in the procurement to request

[3:32:11] that information. Okay. I just, I just find that odd

[3:32:16] that we wouldn't have an itemized list on how much

[3:32:18] things cost and we're just going by lump sums. And

[3:32:22] what is the total cost of this again? 394, 000

[3:32:26] budget 700, 000. So we're spending over 300. And what

[3:32:32] Mr. Mayor, how much 38, 000 under budget. That's an

[3:32:38] under budget. 394. Yeah. 394. That's, uh, that's a lot

[3:32:43] of money to be spending on a system without having

[3:32:46] an itemized list of what we're going to provide some

[3:32:51] clarification. For that. Gibbs. Sure. I just wanted to provide

[3:32:55] some clarification. We did receive four bids on this. So

[3:32:59] we, this is a competitive price. And the bidder did

[3:33:03] provide very detailed list of all of the equipment that

[3:33:09] they would be providing as, as, uh, as Vince mentioned.

[3:33:13] So, um, there is a comparison between what the different

[3:33:17] proponents we're offering. And so they offer different systems that

[3:33:21] were part of their bid. And so we believe that

[3:33:24] this system is the best quality, the best, um, for

[3:33:33] the bidding price. So it was a competitive process. It

[3:33:36] went through the full committee. And, uh, it is based

[3:33:40] on, um, a number of different criteria. So it is,

[3:33:44] it is quite a competitive bid. And, um, these systems

[3:33:48] will allow the gallery to be used for, um, rentals

[3:33:52] to be used by the community, be used by artists.

[3:33:57] And so it is, it was thoroughly, uh, thoroughly vetted

[3:34:01] before being brought before council. So we were giving that

[3:34:05] we were given an itemized list or we weren't giving

[3:34:08] an itemized list. We were given an itemized list, but

[3:34:12] each, each, uh, each piece of equipment wasn't given a

[3:34:16] specific price. So there we were able to compare the

[3:34:20] different bids based on what package would they provided to

[3:34:24] us and the exact equipment and has been, has Vince

[3:34:27] mentioned the services they would provide. So, you know, the

[3:34:32] wiring, the setup, all of that kind of thing. So

[3:34:36] it was, we were able to compare the different, uh,

[3:34:39] the different bits. Can you just go over what those

[3:34:43] would be in that. Councillor, you've asked a question. The

[3:34:51] question's been posed under our procedural bilefist. If you have

[3:34:54] questions, you're supposed to post them to staff. Uh, this

[3:34:57] is again, a delay in moving the items for, we

[3:35:03] still have an 11 reports in the next 39 minutes.

[3:35:07] So, uh, I'm sure that we can get through all

[3:35:10] those reports. I've only got questions for two, I think,

[3:35:14] but I mean, I mean, first we were told there

[3:35:16] was no itemized listing now. We have kind of an

[3:35:18] itemized list. So I just kind of wanted to know

[3:35:21] what, what is on that list. Cause it's not in

[3:35:24] the agenda. I mean, that's a lot of money. We're

[3:35:25] spending through over 394, I mean, almost, it's almost as

[3:35:29] much as we spend on the integrity commissioner. Again, Mr.

[3:35:32] Mayor. Ash. Wanted to make a clear point of clarification

[3:35:40] and a comment. Number one, the responses were not in

[3:35:44] dispute with each other. Vince indicated there wasn't a list,

[3:35:48] which I understood to include specific line item prices for

[3:35:51] each. And Laura Gibbs had essentially indicated the same. The

[3:35:55] list did not include line item prices for each. That

[3:35:58] being said, I do encourage members of Council who have

[3:36:02] specific material questions of this nature to provide them in

[3:36:06] advance to staff. So we can come prepare to the

[3:36:09] meetings to be able to provide responses to those questions.

[3:36:13] Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we're not prepared to

[3:36:18] answer what we're spending the money on. Is that report?

[3:36:23] The report is quite clear. It's a audio visual sound

[3:36:26] system. Uh, if you want to follow the rules of

[3:36:29] procedure, you would have had that opportunity to get that

[3:36:32] information given to you tonight. Invite you to follow up

[3:36:35] after the fact. But we're not keeping going on this.

[3:36:38] Um, so there's no to vote on. I'm going to

[3:36:44] have a recorded vote, please, Madam Clerk. I'm going to

[3:36:46] call a role Councillor Robinson vote. No, please vote no.

[3:36:53] Clerk. Do you really think that this is really becoming

[3:36:56] of a mayor the way that you behave, the way

[3:36:59] that you? Well, Councillor, I've asked you more than one

[3:37:03] account. So we're going to exclude you from the rest

[3:37:06] of the meetings. We won't have to worry about, uh,

[3:37:09] your debate moving forward. Well, I would like to. You're

[3:37:13] done. Clerk. Can we call the role excluding Councillor Robinson?

[3:37:19] She's then excluded for not following the rules. Councillor Brenner.

[3:37:24] Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes, please. Councillor Nike. Yes. Councillor Pickles.

[3:37:33] Yes. Mare Ash. Yes. Next item is a temporary license

[3:37:38] agreement for use of Rotary Referentius Bay. And Rouge Canoe

[3:37:44] Club moved by Councillor Brenner. Second by Councillor Pickles questions.

[3:37:50] Um, I have a comment. I want to thank staff

[3:37:56] for, um, quickly dealing with this issue, um, the Rouge

[3:38:00] Pickering Rouge Club lost their ability to have their camps

[3:38:03] at the mouth of the Rouge. And they approached us

[3:38:07] and we were able to do this on very short

[3:38:09] notice. So hundreds of kids in Pickering will be able

[3:38:11] to have their canoe camp, which starts in a couple

[3:38:14] of weeks. Councillor Brenda, did I see your hand. Uh,

[3:38:18] just very quickly, Mr. Mayor, if I might, uh, thank

[3:38:21] you and the staff for, uh, being able to pull

[3:38:23] this together, um, both myself, Councillor Pickles were working very

[3:38:28] closely with the club. Uh, and thank you again, being

[3:38:34] able to turn this around. Um, just one very quick,

[3:38:38] important note, if I might ask staff, um, I know

[3:38:42] we had a bad experience, uh, previously prior to the,

[3:38:47] um, Frenchmans Bay West Park Plan. The new temporary location

[3:38:53] and safeguards that are in place of staff can maybe

[3:38:56] just clarify. So if we do have any inquiries, um,

[3:38:59] what safeguards do we have in place that we don't

[3:39:01] have a repeat. Think Scounser Brenner. Um, so we will

[3:39:09] be entering into a license agreement with the Rouge Pickering

[3:39:15] Canoe Club. And, um, that license agreement details, um, first

[3:39:19] of all, a term of the agreement, which will be

[3:39:21] for one season. Um, and secondly, it would include some

[3:39:25] number of conditions at the club has agreed to so

[3:39:28] that they will be removing their garbage. They will be

[3:39:30] adhering to our noise bylaw. They will be ensuring their

[3:39:33] following their safety standards. Um, they'll be communicating with, uh,

[3:39:37] staff on, um, the programs they're going to run a

[3:39:42] number of members. They have, um, all of that kind

[3:39:46] of thing as well as we have some insurance requirements

[3:39:48] of them as part of this agreement. So, um, we're,

[3:39:53] we're formalizing the agreement so that we can both be

[3:39:55] very clear about expectations. And we've been meeting with the

[3:39:58] club, as you mentioned, it's a often to get this,

[3:40:03] uh, to get this agreement in place in time for,

[3:40:06] uh, June 29th start date. One final question. If I

[3:40:11] might through you, Mr. Mayor, um, and to avoid any

[3:40:15] misunderstanding with the community, the road still remains closed. Am

[3:40:19] I correct other than for setting up what they need

[3:40:22] to set up and taking it down at the end

[3:40:24] of the season? Um, there will not be vehicles travelling

[3:40:27] down that road, which is, uh, multi - use pathway,

[3:40:30] correct? That's correct, Councillor. They would only be setting up

[3:40:36] their, um, their equipment storage once. There will be no,

[3:40:39] uh, ongoing, uh, car access down the pathway. And our

[3:40:45] license agreement also stipulates that the, um, accessible, uh, kayaking

[3:40:50] canoe launch will remain, uh, accessible to the public. Well,

[3:40:54] the club's using it as well. Great. Thank you. And

[3:40:57] again, thank you for getting this resolved in the short

[3:40:59] time frame. And I'll ask for recorded vote. Thank you.

[3:41:03] Uh, the kids will be portaging in its real sense.

[3:41:09] Um. Uh, Swoop by Councillor Brenner, second bikes Councillor Pickles,

[3:41:12] Councillor Brenner's ask for recorded boat. Please exclude Councillor Robinson.

[3:41:18] Councillor Brenner. Yes. Cancer Cook? Yes. Councillor Nagy. Yes. Councillor

[3:41:24] Pickles. Yes. Maria Ash? Yes. That's carodynamously. Next item 12.

[3:41:32] 9 by Councillor Pickle. Second by Councillor Cook in regards

[3:41:38] to Plague Run equipment replacement of fitness centre construction with

[3:41:42] a value of 1. 427 million at the various parks

[3:41:47] is referenced as well as the funding questions. Councillor Nay.

[3:41:52] Uh, I just wanted to, um, ask about that cost.

[3:41:56] So I see in the report that, let me pull

[3:41:59] up the exact number that the city was successful in

[3:42:03] obtaining grant funding from the province of Ontario, uh, the

[3:42:06] grand will fund up to 50 percent of the eligible

[3:42:08] project costs. So those costs are out of that. 1.

[3:42:14] What was it? 1. 285. Yes. 1. 285, et cetera,

[3:42:18] et cetera. Correct? Ms. Treasure. Well, Mr. Holburn answered that

[3:42:27] question. Okay, Mr. Olburn. Yes. Thank you. Um, through the

[3:42:31] mayor to Councillor Nagy, the gross project cost of 1.

[3:42:36] 427 million includes all the funding sources. So that includes

[3:42:40] the amount from the grant. We were provided 762, 500

[3:42:46] dollars of the grant. Of which we will be using

[3:42:49] approximately 746, 000 of it. So leaving about 16, 000

[3:42:54] on the table. Now mind you that amount includes contingencies

[3:42:57] that we may not use as well. But the, the,

[3:43:00] to answer your questions specifically, the 1. 4 million includes

[3:43:04] the 700, 000 dollars of grant money. Okay, so then

[3:43:08] the actual cost that is coming out of our, for

[3:43:13] the city's pocket is less than that 1. 4, correct?

[3:43:17] Because of this grant funding. Yes. Well, they're doing the

[3:43:21] math approximately 50 percent. Okay, awesome. I just wanted that

[3:43:24] on the record as well because that is a that's

[3:43:27] that's a good news story. So thank you. Thank you,

[3:43:33] Pastor Cook. Just one quick question back to staff. Because

[3:43:38] this may seem like a large amount of dollars being

[3:43:42] invested into our parks. I think it's important that staff

[3:43:46] talk a little bit about the fitness stations that are

[3:43:49] being added Uh, that's going into the park's. I know

[3:43:52] last year when we talked about this and met with

[3:43:54] Arnold and his team we were shown some of the

[3:43:57] materials that were going to this and I think it's

[3:43:59] exciting and I think it's modern and I think it's

[3:44:01] current that's been asked by resident. So I just wanted

[3:44:03] to give them the opportunity to talk a little bit

[3:44:05] about that portion of the expense Um, that's going into

[3:44:08] upgrading all of these park facilities. Whoever wants to take

[3:44:13] that no pressure. Mr. Holburn will remind us that this

[3:44:20] was a result of a public vote Uh, on the

[3:44:23] mayor's budget on priority items and this was the winning

[3:44:27] the winning submission So Mr. Holburn over to you. Yes,

[3:44:32] thank you Mayor Ash and that's correct in our 2025

[3:44:36] Um, budget there was a call out to residents Um,

[3:44:40] for them to select one of the five options to

[3:44:43] spend approximately 300, 000 dollars Equally as much as possible

[3:44:48] across the three wards for various items and the one

[3:44:54] that came to the forefront was the outdoor fitness equipment

[3:44:58] So we've put together equipment locations in Glengrowth Park Uh,

[3:45:04] East Woodlands Park and Alex Robertson Park And we have

[3:45:09] made them a little bit different so that if somebody

[3:45:11] wants to venture into all three parks They can have

[3:45:15] all different experiences The one at East Woodlands Park because

[3:45:20] it's close to the George Ashe community Centre where the

[3:45:22] lot of seniors programs that go on will have fitness

[3:45:26] equipment that is You know to a skill level for

[3:45:29] everybody, but also for seniors Um, that they can enjoy

[3:45:34] and somewhat accessible as well So if they have lockers

[3:45:38] or a cane or a wheelchair to get there Or

[3:45:41] even if they're able - bodied and can use the

[3:45:45] equipment It's meant for all types if you will, all

[3:45:49] people. And for Alex Robertson Park It's more of a

[3:45:55] circuit So as they walk along home place and along

[3:45:59] the trail there that leads to the waterfront trail They

[3:46:02] will come across many stations to which they can do

[3:46:07] their outside Exercise But it's more of a circuit And

[3:46:12] Glen Grove is basically a pod of several pieces of

[3:46:17] equipment together And, you know different experiences We're trying to

[3:46:21] put different types of equipment Uh, I don't have them

[3:46:24] all in front of me to explain what their names

[3:46:27] are. And, you know what each piece of equipment Uh,

[3:46:29] is, what I could get that information for you if

[3:46:32] you want different experiences in different parks is really the

[3:46:35] theme that we came across Right, that's wonderful I just

[3:46:39] wanted to make sure that our residents knew how thoughtful

[3:46:42] your team was being Um, in creating this experience across

[3:46:46] each of our wards So I just wanted to thank

[3:46:49] staff And thank you Mr. Mayor, appreciate it. Thank you.

[3:46:53] There's no further debate I'm going to call the question

[3:46:55] Niles in favor. Opposed that items cured Next item is

[3:46:57] 12 - 10. Uh It moved by Councillor Pickle Second

[3:47:02] Bing Councillor Cook It's The Diane Prince of the Whale

[3:47:05] Park license renewal agreement Council Councillor should also be aware

[3:47:09] that it includes a piece of land On the north

[3:47:12] side of Liverpool Road as well for our new skate

[3:47:15] park Questions. Being done, I'm going to call the question

[3:47:22] then, all those in favor. Oppose that items carried 12.

[3:47:27] 11 annual treasure statement report Director of Finance and Treasurer

[3:47:31] Uh... Is a report to receive for information Moved by

[3:47:36] Councillor Cook Second by Councillor Nagy. Debate. Being none's in

[3:47:44] favor. Opposed that I was carried Next I need to

[3:47:48] move by Councillor Pickles Um, director of City Infrastructure 6.

[3:47:53] And 2nd by Councillor Brenner Uh, 6 concession Road Reconstruction,

[3:47:57] and Greenwood Bridge Rehab 4. 3 million dollars. Questions. Councillor

[3:48:07] Pickles, you have to play. Thank you Mayor Ashen This

[3:48:10] is a great project, really a continuation of the work

[3:48:14] that was on the 6th concession Um, sorry, East of

[3:48:19] Greenwood Road earlier Of course, including a bridge always makes

[3:48:24] it more complicated and more expensive So my question's more

[3:48:29] on one of timing Um... When would we expect they

[3:48:35] would, um... What's the word? Get Out Out There and

[3:48:40] break Ground, I guess. Mr. Death Co. Thank you for

[3:48:47] the question through the chair to Councillor Pickles. If the

[3:48:52] report gets... Voted through and approved tonight Then we would

[3:48:57] start the process for... commencing The project, issuing a PO

[3:49:03] to the contractor Um, completing our pre - construction. Kick

[3:49:09] - off meeting, and then mobilising to site So. I

[3:49:13] would say within about a month, our intent was to

[3:49:16] get in there before The end of July Uh, but

[3:49:20] that will depend on the contractor's ability to mobilise Uh...

[3:49:26] So probably plus or minus a week or two around

[3:49:28] there And the work. That typically starts would, you know

[3:49:36] Resident should expect to see... The erosion sediment control Equipment

[3:49:41] and material mobilising to site... Uh... And things like that

[3:49:45] Now I will mention that This work is being phased

[3:49:48] out over two construction seasons Uh, so phase one work

[3:49:53] will include the bridge rehabilitation and Reconstruction work West of

[3:49:59] the bridge up to the entrance of Dorsey Community Heritage

[3:50:04] Centre And phase two work Uh, which will likely occur

[3:50:07] next year Unless the contractor has an aggressive enough schedule

[3:50:11] that can get it all done Um, will be the

[3:50:14] small section of work from The Bridge to Greenwood and

[3:50:20] just beyond And The main reason for that is The

[3:50:24] Deep Storm Seward Servicing That will be required to connect

[3:50:27] Uh... Where they left off in phase one to the

[3:50:30] outfall at Duffins Creek So that, you know, in order

[3:50:34] to complete that work in a timely manner And kind

[3:50:37] of phase access to the Hamilton Greenwood Um... That's The

[3:50:43] plan as of now. It mobilise was the word I

[3:50:48] was looking for, Mr. Eath Coat, so thank you Um

[3:50:51] Do we have any concerns, or can we check early

[3:50:54] on... I know we had an incident. A situation previously

[3:51:00] where a contractor sort of won more contracts than they

[3:51:04] were anticipating, and we maybe weren't the first on the

[3:51:07] list I wouldn't want there to be a delay Because

[3:51:11] they contractor Got another contract So built into our contract,

[3:51:19] or it'll be identified early in our meeting with them

[3:51:22] That we do want them to mobilise quickly We don't

[3:51:25] want them to wait or work half days on this,

[3:51:29] or half weeks because they got another project on the

[3:51:32] Go view any sense of that. Through the charity Councillor

[3:51:37] Pickles, thanks for the question The hour intent would be

[3:51:40] to get started as soon as possible And we set

[3:51:43] out timelines in the contract that The contractor is required

[3:51:46] to complete the work within certain dates And so because

[3:51:50] this is phased out into... Phases, we've set completion dates

[3:51:55] for both phase 1 and phase 2 to ensure that

[3:51:57] things aren't dragging into next year For the first phase

[3:52:00] of work, and that's also relevant to The nature of

[3:52:04] the work, The Bridge will require... Uh, in water work,

[3:52:09] some coffer dams around the embutments to complete some of

[3:52:12] the concrete repairs So that work in phase 1 has

[3:52:15] to be completed this year And we've laid out... Uh...

[3:52:19] Completion dates within The contract to ensure that The contractor

[3:52:24] is aware and ready and capable as they... They bid,

[3:52:27] and we're successful on this project So that would be

[3:52:29] the expectation from the city. Okay last question Mr. Mayor

[3:52:35] Kevin, so Will we be sending a notice? How do

[3:52:39] we... The contract to be sending out a notice to...

[3:52:42] Oh, residents, uh... Provide... Our construction plan, that is... The

[3:52:49] hours of work, dust control, NED tours... Uh... A number

[3:52:55] that they can call if they have any questions or

[3:52:57] concerns. That's Something We do standard, I want to make

[3:53:00] sure it's going to go out to... To residents... In

[3:53:04] advance to... Let them know at the timetable and other

[3:53:07] information is. Through the charity Council Pickles, you're absolutely correct.

[3:53:13] We'll be sending out a notice of construction That notice

[3:53:16] typically includes contact information, scope of work, anticipated duration Uh...

[3:53:22] So that will be contact information for our staff and

[3:53:26] or our consultant that is working on our behalf for

[3:53:30] the contract administration and day - to - day construction

[3:53:33] For this project. Uh, it will also outline any kind

[3:53:37] of detour paths that will also be covered through a

[3:53:40] service disruption Uh... For the area as well, as there

[3:53:44] will be due to a required during the bridge rehabilitation

[3:53:46] work So we, you know, upon a ward and approval

[3:53:50] This report tonight We can move towards issuing at PO,

[3:53:54] and at that time We try and get a notice

[3:53:55] out at least two weeks in advance Uh... Inform the

[3:54:01] residents, and start that communication with them. Well, thank you

[3:54:06] for the great work on this. I know this is

[3:54:09] one of the four or five that I pester you

[3:54:11] about on a regular basis, and I know you're doing

[3:54:14] your best to get them out the door, and we'll

[3:54:16] talk about White Veil Road in a little bit. Thank

[3:54:18] you. Thank you Any further questions or debate, being done

[3:54:23] I'm gonna call a Question, I was in favor, opposed

[3:54:26] that Items carried Next Item is Director City Development 2.

[3:54:30] 15 - inch tow behind Wood Chippers in the amount

[3:54:32] of 320... Moved by Councillor by Councillor Cook debate questions.

[3:54:41] Being not - That's good. I'm gonna call the question,

[3:54:48] although the favor. That motion's carried. Next item is from

[3:54:53] The Director of City Development CBO. In regards to an

[3:54:56] enterprise agreement. Second by Councillor Nagy Uh... In the amount

[3:55:04] of 246, 000 dollars Questions are debate. Being non -

[3:55:12] are gonna call the question I'll in favor. Opposed that

[3:55:15] an insecurity Next item is The Heritage Permit Application... Moved

[3:55:19] by Councillor Pickles. 2nd by Councillor Cook. Cather Pickles Do

[3:55:24] you have any questions? Yeah, thank you Mr. Mayor So

[3:55:28] this Item was the subject of a couple delegations earlier

[3:55:31] that I think Stouff probably listened. I want to be

[3:55:37] clear, I still have to be clear on... We're not...

[3:55:41] Unlike The Concession 6. Item We're not looking for the

[3:55:47] full tender and approval of the Road This is, say,

[3:55:51] one of the hurdles to get there, the Heritage Permit

[3:55:54] Application So I think the community had some broader questions

[3:55:59] about The Project, and some of them related to The

[3:56:02] Heritage Permit, but others did not... Could we go back

[3:56:06] to STAP and ask them... I know they followed Up

[3:56:10] with a response to a couple people in the White

[3:56:15] Veil Community today, but would they like to offer any

[3:56:18] other thoughts and responses to the two delegations they heard

[3:56:21] earlier, which by the way were both very strong in

[3:56:25] moving forward with the project They just had a few

[3:56:29] questions, comments, and were looking to receive some further information

[3:56:33] So perhaps Mr. Heath Coke could speak to that as

[3:56:36] well. Perhaps Councillor Pickles, I can just jump in... Um...

[3:56:43] Just to have a few comments broadly, and then I

[3:56:45] would certainly invite staff to add any details as appropriate

[3:56:49] Um... Just for clarity, this is regarding a Heritage Permit

[3:56:53] associated with this project, and really this is meant to

[3:56:56] be looking at those aspects Uh... Through that heritage lens...

[3:57:00] We recognise this is a long - time coming, and

[3:57:02] the project, and We had the opportunity earlier today Uh...

[3:57:07] To have an email crafted that we hope addressed most

[3:57:12] of the questions that we received in writing from The

[3:57:15] White Veil District Residence Association... Um... So we could certainly...

[3:57:21] Underscore some of the key points from that if that's

[3:57:24] helpful Uh... For the viewing audience tonight, and maybe Steph

[3:57:27] can jump in, but I'll try and be brief. Um...

[3:57:30] There was some concerns just regarding... The timing of this

[3:57:33] report, and not a lot of time And again, just

[3:57:36] to reiterate This is for The Heritage Components There has

[3:57:39] been a lot of extensive public consultation over many years

[3:57:43] Um... That's come to this point, and the more work

[3:57:46] to beat on, obviously Um... So this is just one

[3:57:49] aspect of that Uh... There's some questions about 100 percent

[3:57:52] design drawings, not being made available So there's some review

[3:57:56] to be done with those drawings, And Kevin might be

[3:58:00] able to speak to more detail of that, I'll just

[3:58:03] try and underscore some of the other points and come

[3:58:05] back to staff in that regard. Uh... Yeah, there's concerns

[3:58:12] about... Lighting... About White Street Lighting wasn't really captured in

[3:58:19] this. And the primary focus again is for The Heritage

[3:58:22] Permit Application Lighting isn't really Part of that, that The

[3:58:26] lens was looking... The Heritage Lens was reviewing Prophoro's Road

[3:58:29] Drainage Landscape, and Heritage Conservation... Components recognising that Whiteville is

[3:58:33] a Heritage Conservation District. And we do understand... The importance

[3:58:40] of streetlighting in Whitevale. Um... And a lot of the

[3:58:44] finishes, fixtures were originally selected with community consultation. Uh... And

[3:58:49] while the goal is to try and replace to match

[3:58:53] possible... Um... That's our goal to maintain that lighting colour

[3:58:57] and fixture style Um... But... Once we've completed that review,

[3:59:03] The Design Package, and reviewing what the need is for

[3:59:07] poll locations, and that... We'll continue to work with residents,

[3:59:11] and the project team, just to make sure that lighting

[3:59:13] design balances public safety Uh... And also... Maintains the character

[3:59:17] of Whiteville. Um... H - PAC, some questions about The

[3:59:24] Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, and their role, and Heritage Pickering

[3:59:27] Advisory Committee, um... There was a meeting earlier this year,...

[3:59:31] to run through this project, then... support from the committee

[3:59:36] to recommend approval of this Heritage Permit, so that's been

[3:59:39] addressed. And certainly, uh, uh... We consider them to be

[3:59:45] important. Group 2 Engages, prior this process, and continue to

[3:59:50] do so. We're appropriate. I think that covers the majority

[3:59:54] of things. There was a number of conditions that we've

[3:59:57] asked be put in from a Heritage Lens, again, to

[3:59:59] make sure certain things have been satisfied. And staff from

[4:00:03] C. Development are comfortable... With those recommendations, and those conditions,

[4:00:06] but I would certainly invite Perhaps Kevin if you want

[4:00:10] to add some detail from your perspective. Yeah, certainly Thanks,

[4:00:16] Kyle. Um... I guess, you know, back to The Delegations,

[4:00:21] Chambry Outlined a few...... requests or requirements upon approval of

[4:00:27] this report tonight, and I think that...... either we already

[4:00:32] would be doing it, or we can commit to providing

[4:00:35] information that's requested in probably both instances. Uh, recommendation to

[4:00:45] be includes the submission of the kind of final landscape

[4:00:48] restoration plan for the review by HPAC, and we committed

[4:00:51] to doing that at the HPAC meeting in May, and

[4:00:56] we are still committed to...... circulating that drawing to the

[4:01:01] Committee for Review. As Ms. Chamberry mentioned. We always will

[4:01:09] cross - reference our 100 percent design to previous design

[4:01:12] iterations, and that's part of The reason why we don't

[4:01:15] want to share the drawing until it goes through that

[4:01:18] internal review process. So where it seems like she may,

[4:01:25] some information has been made available, um... Directly related to

[4:01:29] a property. It's still under review, and we intend to

[4:01:32] ensure that The information is consistent and captures everything that

[4:01:37] we feel needs to be captured in the material changes

[4:01:45] between 95. We're really just fine - tuning the details.

[4:01:51] Uh, unless something, when it comes to the left field,

[4:01:54] which I'm not aware of, but the intent, um... As

[4:01:58] committed to the resident association is to share the final

[4:02:01] design package once the internal review has been completed online

[4:02:05] for information purposes, and respond formally to some of their

[4:02:09] original... Concerns... That was addressed through a letter to staff

[4:02:16] in 2023. Um. I think we've had a lot of

[4:02:20] meaningful consultation with the resident association with the residents, um,

[4:02:28] as a whole. Uh, and with the HPAC through this

[4:02:32] process, and we share the same excitement and commitment to

[4:02:38] get this project started. Um, and, uh, hopefully we'll be

[4:02:42] on the right path to doing that with the approval

[4:02:45] of this. Right? Thank you. So we heard through comments.

[4:02:49] If we're not already following up on those... We will,

[4:02:54] this is a milestone to the project. We need to

[4:02:57] move ahead on this. And Mr. Heath, goat, your best

[4:03:01] estimate then, as to one this will go out to

[4:03:03] tender, one will come back for tender to be awarded.

[4:03:06] And when it'll be mobilised. Uh, so our hope is

[4:03:13] for awarding it before the end of July. So, uh,

[4:03:16] contractors can get started by kind of end of July,

[4:03:20] start of August. We've already completed a pre - qualification

[4:03:22] process of contractors. Uh, so that's shortlisting contractors through competitive

[4:03:30] evaluation of their ability and experience doing work of this

[4:03:33] nature, uh, to ensure that we have the right contractor's

[4:03:38] in place. Um, to complete this type of work. So

[4:03:44] the actual tender itself is sent to the pre -

[4:03:48] qualified list of contractors, which, uh, slightly shortens the tender

[4:03:52] period as well, as opposed to going out to a

[4:03:55] typical four - week tender, because we've already pre -

[4:03:58] qualified the list on them. Um, so we are hoping

[4:04:01] to complete our review over the next week or so,

[4:04:07] and have a final package to finance, to kind of

[4:04:10] go through the supplying services process and get it on

[4:04:13] the street. So Mr. Mayor, just recognising this is a

[4:04:21] lot of work over many years. So congratulations to Kevin

[4:04:25] Latin for getting it here. And we look forward to

[4:04:29] the full tender coming for the Road Work, soon. Thank

[4:04:32] you. Thank you. I don't see any other debate. All

[4:04:37] the question moved by Councillor Pickles, signed by Councillor Cook,

[4:04:40] all those in favor, opposed that items carried. Next item

[4:04:44] is The Implantation of Minister Settlement, uh, from the Director

[4:04:47] of City Development 12. 16. I need to move on

[4:04:51] to seconder. Boop by Councillor Count by Councillor Nagy. Questions.

[4:05:00] Being done, I'm gonna call the question, then all those

[4:05:02] in favor. Opposed, that items carried. 12. 17 is the

[4:05:08] battery recycling agreement with call to recycle between Nick Pickering,

[4:05:14] moved by Councillor Nige, second by Councillor Cook. Debate. Being

[4:05:21] done, I'm gonna call the question. All those in favor.

[4:05:24] Oppose that items carry. The last item is moved by

[4:05:27] Councillor Cook, second by Councillor Nagy, who's added it, and

[4:05:31] it's in regards to parking restrictions are on Parkham Crescent

[4:05:37] Council Cook, you want to speak to it. Uh, actually,

[4:05:41] just for clarity, it was actually moved by Councillor Nagy

[4:05:44] and seconded by myself. That's all good. I just want

[4:05:48] to make sure that she gets to speak. And seconded

[4:05:51] by Councillor Cook in regards to Canada Day parking restrictions

[4:05:56] on Parkham. And any debate. Being nuts? I'd like to

[4:06:01] speak to my motion a little bit. Yes, Pete, please

[4:06:04] do. Thank you. Um, so Parkham continues to become more

[4:06:10] and more used on Canada Day. Myself and Steph have

[4:06:14] received, and continue to receive photos and videos from multiple

[4:06:19] residents of the area of the, on the danger of

[4:06:23] allowing idling and travel on the streets. Uh, I've been

[4:06:28] shown videos of father holding his young child that's had

[4:06:32] to quite literally jump out of the way of a

[4:06:33] moving car in order to not get hit. Um, and

[4:06:37] there is a continued inability to address just how overrun

[4:06:42] the street gets and the lack of adherence to the

[4:06:45] rules by folks who park on both sides of the

[4:06:48] road, despite the yearly on one side and the permanent

[4:06:52] on the other side, no parking signs. Um, and as

[4:06:55] Pickering grows, as well as the popularity of city events,

[4:06:58] and in particular, our candidate event, putting up no parking

[4:07:01] signs and having a periodic drive around, uh, just isn't

[4:07:05] enough anymore in order to protect both the local residents

[4:07:09] on the street, as well as anyone in the park

[4:07:11] in the event of an emergency or the need for

[4:07:13] a first responder. And so this motion is intended to

[4:07:17] provide more weight to staff, uh, since I've been working

[4:07:20] directly with members of staff, um, behind the scenes as

[4:07:24] we gear up to Canada Day for almost four years

[4:07:26] now. Um, and I'm consistently told that staff are just

[4:07:30] not able to make the changes in order to accommodate.

[4:07:34] Um, and so this motion seeks to provide direction of

[4:07:37] counsel in order to give staff that ability in order

[4:07:39] to give them the weight to be able to do

[4:07:42] this. Um, and to that end, I have spoken to

[4:07:44] a few members of the events team who understand the

[4:07:47] reason for the timing as well as the importance of

[4:07:49] what we're asking for tonight. And so while I apologise

[4:07:52] for the manner, uh, in which I'm bringing this motion

[4:07:54] to council, I appreciate the leeway, um, and I apologise

[4:07:58] for the tight timeline. Um, but you'll all understand the

[4:08:04] reason for the tightness of the timeline and the urgency,

[4:08:07] um, but I have made sure that this is not

[4:08:09] an ambush. And so with that, I'll ask for a

[4:08:12] recorded vote, and thank you. Thank you. Any further debate.

[4:08:17] Councillor Cook. Um, just one final comment to also, um,

[4:08:22] commend our local residents for working with Mara and staff

[4:08:25] to move this board. I think it's important that we

[4:08:27] note that this is also resident driven. Um, and it

[4:08:31] is their safety that is paramount and why this has

[4:08:34] been moved forward. So thank you for that, sir. Thank

[4:08:37] you, spoof by Councillor Nagy, second by Councillor Cook, I've

[4:08:41] always been requested by Councillor Nagy. Can you please exclude

[4:08:43] Councillor Robinson. Mr. Nigel. Yes. Councillor Pickles. Yes. Councillor Brenner?

[4:08:53] Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes. Mayor Ashe? Yes. That's Carrie, honestly.

[4:08:59] Uh, bylaws. Booba Councillor Cook, second be Councillor Brenner, 13.

[4:09:07] 1 through to 13. 8 in the bylaws, uh, for

[4:09:12] actions taken. Um, any polls. Being done, all's in favor.

[4:09:20] Opposed that item is carried. Prior to the regular meeting,

[4:09:24] an in - camera session was held at 6 p.

[4:09:25] m. and accords with provisions of municipal act and the

[4:09:27] procedural byha to consider a matter pertaining the Ontario Land

[4:09:31] tribunal appeals in northeast Pickrey, the secondary plan. The matter

[4:09:34] was discussed in closed session to receive advice subject to

[4:09:37] solicitor client privilege. And to consider moder pertaining to litigation

[4:09:41] or potential, including matters before administrative tribunals. Affecting municipality in

[4:09:47] a position plan procedure criteria and instructive to be applied

[4:09:50] to any negotiation carried on or to be carried on

[4:09:53] behalf of the municipality. Following motion needs to move on

[4:09:57] to sector that in order to support the planning and

[4:09:59] inflammation framework that will guide the creation of northeast Pickering

[4:10:03] Community staff, community staff, you directed respond to the appeals

[4:10:06] to the official plan amendment 54 and to retain loopster

[4:10:10] Nixon and other consultant resources as required to defend the

[4:10:15] Civic Council in this matter at the Ontario Land Trian.

[4:10:18] It's moved by Councillor Cook, second by Councillor Nagy. Boston.

[4:10:31] Debate. Being none. I'm going to call the question. All

[4:10:37] is in favor, opposed that items carried. Using signs is

[4:10:41] not allowed under. You've been excluded Councillor for a reason

[4:10:44] and then you push the rules even farther. It's against

[4:10:47] our procedural bylaws. Any regional Councillor updates.

[4:10:57] Any other business. Councillor Nagy. I just wanted to, uh,

[4:11:05] wish everybody a very happy summer. This is our final

[4:11:08] regular council meeting, um, before the summer recess. And also

[4:11:13] to remind all of our residents that it is the

[4:11:17] aforementioned Canada Day event, uh, next week. So please come

[4:11:21] on out and show your, show your pride where the

[4:11:26] red and white and happy candidate and happy summer, everybody.

[4:11:30] Thank you. Thank you for that, Councillor. I want to

[4:11:34] also, on behalf of all members Council, wish our residents,

[4:11:39] um, happy and safe summer. Uh, it is their intent

[4:11:43] to have a special counsel meeting sometime in July. We

[4:11:45] have number of items still ongoing. Also one of which

[4:11:48] the best to our staff. We're blessed to have a

[4:11:51] very, uh, professional staff who worked very hard for us.

[4:11:56] And here we are in our six, sorry, hour five

[4:12:02] of this particular meeting. Um, and, um, uh, you know,

[4:12:08] some of us have been here since I ended up

[4:12:10] this morning. So, uh, any other new business. Being done

[4:12:15] and confirming by love moved by Councillor Cook, seconded by

[4:12:19] Councillor Pickles being a buyer confirmed the proceedings it took

[4:12:21] place at the actions of the meeting of June 22nd,

[4:12:26] 2026 be approved. Although in favor. Opposed that Aiden's carry,

[4:12:32] motion to a dream of being order. Moved by Councillor

[4:12:34] Pickles, secondly Council Cope at We adjourned. All of them

[4:12:37] favor. That item was carried. Thank you. Good night. Go

[4:12:41] Canada.

Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 09-26 - Council

Agenda

Transcript