Great, I'm going to call the Council meeting of Monday,
June 22nd to order. Madam Clerk, we do roll call,
please. Thank you, your worship. I can certify the attendance
of all members of Council Save and Except for Councillor
Butt and all members participating are doing so electronically. Great.
If members who are joining us could stand if they're
able for playing a national anthem.
Thank you all. As we begin our moment of personal
reflection, I'd ask members of the Council to remember in
your thoughts, our colleague Councillor But, who lost his brother
- in - law. Very suddenly over the course of
the last 24 hours and is a way attending to
this family member. And the family. So with that, please
join me in a moment of personal reflection.
Thank you. Plant acknowledgement. We acknowledge the city of Pickering
resides online within the 3D and traditional territory that Mississippa,
the Scug Galan First Nation. And William is pretty signatories
of the Miss Sagan Chippawa Nations. Pickreen is also home
to many Indigenous persons and communities who represent other diverse
distinct and autonomous indigenous nations. This acknowledgement reminds us of
a responsibilities that are too relationships with the First Peoples
of Canada. And to the ancestral lands at which we
learn, share, work, and live. Any disclosure of interest. Robinson.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. We'd like to declare a
interest on 9. 1 correspondence from Jeffrey A. Abrams and
Janice Iwood, co - principals, Principals and Chubby, Integrity Commissioner
for the City of Pickering. I am well aware that
I'm allowed to participate, but I am not allowed to
participate in the vote. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Adoption
of the Minutes. There are minutes of April 27th, May
2nd May 25th, June 8th, June 8th, June 8th, and
June 17th. Movement Councillor Brenner, second by Councillor Pickles. Any
corrections. Being done, all those in favor. Pose that item
is carried. Councillor, we have three delegations for night. First
one starting with Elena Nickel and Brett Gott, Alanna, or
Lena, sorry, lead engineer projects, Ministry of Transportation. And Mr.
Gotz, HDR Inc. in regards to the subject matter being
the Highway 7 widening, Reese Rosa Road to Brock Road
in Pickering, and they do have a slide deck. So
welcome to our virtual council meeting, and you have 10
minutes. Great, thank you very much. Thanks to Mayor and
Council for giving us this chance to come in and
talk about our project. If we could go to the
next slide, please. And I will give a quick overview
of the study we are doing a preliminary design and
class environmental assessment study to widen Highway 7 to lane
from two lanes to four lanes. From Resa Road to
about Brock Road, that would be Markham to Pickering. And
the total length of the study is about 10 kilometers.
And that whiting is going to tie into the existing
four lane sections of Highway 7 on either side of
the study area and also connect with a couple of
four lane sections that have been designed at intersections within
the study area. The widening will ultimately support traffic growth
and plan development such as the Pickering Innovation Corridor. And
without any widening, the Highway 7 traffic demand will grow
well beyond the highways capacity to handle it. And the
scope of work for us includes replacing the little Rouge
Creek bridge in Lucas Hill, widening of the West Stuffins
Creek Bridge in Green River. And we are considering a
grade separation at the CPK C crossing in Locust Hill.
And to this point, we have developed a long list
of alternatives and we have screened that down to a
short list of alternatives, which is what we presented at
our public information centre last month. And you can see
there's a link to the project website that has all
of that public information centre material and some other information
about the project. If we could go to the next
slide, please. So this is our study process. I'm not
going to spend a lot of time on it, but
we started off in the fall of 2025 to evaluate
the planning alternatives. Since then, we've identified the long list
of alternatives and we've screened that down to a short
list of alternatives. That's what we presented at our PIC
or public information centre. From this point, we're going to
evaluate that shortlist cell of alternatives and identify our recommended
plan. And from that, we will carry on and do
preliminary design on the recommended plan. And we're going to
present the recommendation for the preferred alternative at PIC number
two. And that's going to be next year probably in
the spring or summer. Next slide, please. So we've divided
the study area into six different segments, mostly based on
the posted speed of the segment. Three of those are
in Markham, segments one, two, and three segments four, five,
and six are in pickering. And I'm going to focus
my presentation on the segments and pickering. Uh, segment four
is through Green River, which is a hamlet with a
number of private residences. Many of them are heritage buildings.
Uh, many of them are located close to the highway.
And the West stuffens bridge is also included in segment
four. Segment five is where most of the pickering innovation
corridor lies, uh, mostly to the south of the existing
highway to the north of the Highway is mostly the,
uh, pickering airport lands. And I'll add that, uh, city
Pickering completed a highway access management plan or hamp through
this area to help identify where future signalized intersections could
go, uh, in support of the innovation corridor development. And
segment six is, uh, The Hamlet of Brom, uh, which
most of those properties, uh, near the highway are owned
by transport Canada. There are a number of, uh, heritage
features there such as Bentley House, The Pickering Standard Church,
uh, and a number of residences and businesses, uh, in
Broham as well. Uh, next slide, please. So in developing
the long list of alternatives, we considered a couple of
different things. One was different cross section alternatives. So we
looked at whether we should keep shoulders in the hamlets
or get rid of the shoulders. We looked at things
like, uh, medians, um, and what the, what the, um,
Highway should include in terms of active transportation, like a
multi - use path or sidewalks and things like that.
For the widening, we considered three basic alternatives, widening only
to the north, widening only to the south or widening
symmetrically about the existing highway centre line. So we've since
conducted a screening on those alternatives and we've identified a
shortly settled alternatives. And I'm going to present those to
you, uh, in the following slide. So if we could
go to the next slide, please. So this is segment
four in Green River. We carried forward two alternatives to
the shortlist of alternatives. The first one is alternative for
S. And that is to widen to the south. And
alternative for C, which is to widen to both sides,
uh, we did not carry forward alternative for N, which
would be widened to the north as it had the
most, uh, residential impacts. Um, and if you look at
the bottom, there's two different cross sections there. They're pretty
similar. Uh, the one on the left shows a multi
- use path on the south side of the highway,
uh, and the one on the right shows a multi
- use path on the south side of the highway
plus, uh, sidewalk on the north side of the highway.
So those are the two, um, cross sections that will
consider. And I'll point out that we're using barrier curbs
and we have, uh, removed the shoulders in this case
to try to limit, um, the footprint impacts of the
widening. And I think we can move on to the
next slide, please. Segment five, that is through the innovation
corridor. Um, we carried forward two alternatives here. The first
one, I'll turn it to five N is to widen
only to the north. We do like this one because
it would use the transport Canada lands and mostly avoid
development lands and the utilities that have been constructed on
the south side. Uh, but the guarantee that we'll be
able to, uh, acquire the lands from transport Canada. So
we've also carried forward alternative five s, which is widening
to the south, which would widen, um, obviously to the
south, but it would impact, uh, more so the development
lands, um, existing and proposed through the innovation court. Or
so if the transport candida lands are not available to
us, we would probably have to go to, uh, widening
to the south. We did not carry forward whining about
the centre line because that would still require, uh, acquisition
of transport candida lands. And in terms of the cross
section, we've only carried one cross section forward. Uh, the
higher posted speed here. So it looks a little different
than through the hamlets. Um, but the one that we
carried forward has a wide median 5. 25 metres. What
that allows is when the decision is made to construct
a new intersection, say to support development, you don't have
to reconstruct or realign the highway every time you want
to put a new, uh, new intersection in. So we
thought this was, um, most flexible for future, uh, for
future work. If we could move on to the next
slide, please. So this is segment six, which is in
broom, um, I think as most of you know, it's
a number of heritage properties here. And many of them
are very, very close to the roadside. Um, and we've
carried forward two alternatives here. We've got alternative six in,
which is to widen to the north. And I should
perhaps have explained earlier, but the orange dots are, are
buildings that are likely to be displaced. The yellow dots
are building, but we may be able to mitigate it.
Uh, if we go to the north, there are a
number of buildings on the north side that are likely
to be displaced. And then alternative six S, which is
the next one, which is widened to the south. It
will display some of the buildings on the south side.
We did not carry forward a centre line widening because
that would displace the buildings on both sides of the
highway. Uh, we only carried forward one cross section here.
Um, and we've got a multi - use path on
one side, uh, and a sidewalk on the other because
they're sidewalks on both sides in some parts of Broom
existing. And we want to replace, uh, in kind as
much as possible. And if we could go to the
next slide, please. So we've undertaken a bunch of consultation
activities so far. Uh, we have met with a number
of different agencies. We've met a couple of times with
parks Canada. We've met with transport Canada. We've met with
the city of Pickering a couple of times. And we've
met with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. We held
what we call a stakeholder agency meeting on April 1st,
mostly to present the same materials that we showed at
public information centre number one. And I believe he had
53 or 73 attendees from various, uh, ministries and municipalities
and agencies, um, that meeting. So that was very helpful
to us. And then we held public information centre number
one, uh, on May 27th. We held that at the
Cornell Community Centre in Markham. And we had 63 people
attend that meeting. And if we could go to the
next slide, please, um, and we've certainly received a lot
of comments with that public meetings and through email and
written comments, uh, chief among them might be, um, concerns
about property and community impacts. We understand that we're going
to be impacting, um, properties in the area. And that
is certainly, uh, a concern for the community and a
concern for us. We've had a number of suggestions to
bypass the hamlets. Um, with new highway alignment in the
study area, we've got a lot of concerns about impacts
to heritage buildings or heritage properties in the study area.
We've had suggestions that the province should repurchase Highway 407
ETR as an alternative to widening the highway. We've had
a lot of interest in improving active transportation throughout the
study area. And a few other comments, but these are,
these are some of the more common in key ones.
Uh, that we've received. And we can go to the
next slide, please. Um, so some of the next steps,
um, for us, uh, first would be to respond to
the comments that we've received as part of public information
centre number one. We receive quite a few, uh, we're
working on those responses and we'll be getting those out
in the coming weeks. We'll then refine the shortlisted alternatives
and evaluate them. We'll do a multi, multi, uh, factor
evaluation of those alternatives. Um, we will be contacting potentially
impacted property owners prior to the next public information centre.
Um, and discussing potential impacts and potential mitigations. We will
be selecting the preferred alternative, uh, either late this year
or early next. And we'll be holding, uh, second and
final public information centre to present the preferred alternative. We're
saying summer 2027 right now. That could be plus or
minus depending on, on how the process goes, uh, and
lastly, we will file the transportation environmental study report for
a 30 day review. Uh, we expect that to happen
in late. 2027. And I think that takes me to
the end. And I was speaking pretty quickly, I realised,
but I hope I stayed in my 10 minutes. You
were just over, but the information was very, uh, important
to us the year. So, uh, questions of the delegate
Councillor Pickles, you're the floor. Thank you. Just putting on
my, uh, Mike Mayeresh. Thank you. Thank you for your
presentation. Um, my questions are mostly going to pertain to
Green River and Brom. So I did see, you noted
the suggestions for bypassal communities, but I don't say any
alternatives that suggest a bypass of those. So is that,
uh, is that, uh, not, uh, not something you're going
to pursue. Um, at this time, we're not considering bypasses.
We're just considering this widening project. And that's just kind
of how we started off with the project. And the
reason being is that if we were to implement a
bypass, the design for it would take much, much, much
longer. And there'll be a lot more environmental impacts. Like
it's, it sounds like it could be like an easy
move, but it's actually like going, it would, it would
be quite complicated. And the impacts, um, would be like
pretty extreme where we need to address the issue of
like traffic demand and like, um, expanding this highway, because
especially with the pickering innovation corridor, like the new, um,
the new developments like coming in, the current like Highway
can't withstand like the, the traffic demand. So we kind
of need to do focus on a widening because it
can just be done much quicker. And it would like
line up with the developments that are coming in. That's
kind of like our process right now or a mindset.
I appreciate that. So in Green River and Brom, just
thinking about the existing residents and safety concerns. I've noticed
you've divided this segment to highway up. With respective posted
speed limits. So just focusing on that for a second.
You're focusing on road widening. You're going to keep the
post - its speed limits the same as they are
now. Is that your suggestion through the hamlets. That's our
attention right now. Yep. Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that. Um.
I didn't see in the cross section. Maybe it was
there. In my eyes. Just didn't see it. You can
go with different Road widths. Would you be looking at,
um, a narrower road width, uh, within the hamlets than
you would between the hamlets. And I, I just know,
for example, on some highways, uh, you're looking at 3.
75 metres. Others are 2. 75 metres. So are you
looking at a narrower? I'm looking to have less of
an impact on properties in the hamlet. So are you
looking at a narrower lane width within the hamlets than
you are outside of the hamlets. Uh, sort of. Um,
the, the Lane widths and the cross section elements are
really a function of the design speed, the traffic volumes
and things like that. So because the posted speed and
therefore the design speed is lower in the hamlets, um,
it allows us to go a slightly narrower lanes. In
this case, it allows us to go with, with curbs,
typical curb and gutter. Um, versus a paved shoulder and
flat grading and things like that. So compared to say
the higher posted speed in, uh, the pickering innovation corridor,
which has got wider lanes, wider shoulders, very flat grading
on the, on the outside, we can compress it to
a degree, um, through the hamlets. And that's, that's what
you're seeing in our cross section. So we've, uh, we've
done about as much as we can. We've, we've removed
the shoulders, uh, and replace those with barrier curves. And
we need some boulevard there for snow storage and things
like that. Um, and we've got, you know, we're adding
active transportation. So that has the effect of making it
a little bit wider, but we've really tried to compress
that in. And where, where it makes sense and where
it's feasible, we may consider other measures like retaining walls,
um, or things like that. If they're, if they're a
really crucial, uh, constraints that we need to avoid. So,
uh, but I don't think, you know, otherwise the standards
are pretty prescriptive. I don't think we can get much
narrow or then we're already showing. Obviously any. Mitigation to
avoid impact on residential properties and safety in a hamlet
would be top of mind for me anyway. Um, displacement
of buildings, um, you had mentioned that in Brom, um,
are there any ingredient river. Most likely. Most likely. Cause
some properties in Brom are, I think much closer to
the road. So. By displacement, you mean demolish. Potentially. There's
a, there's a process. I mean, we'll do heritage impact
assessment on, on potentially impacted properties. First thing we'll do
is try to avoid the impact. We'll try to mitigate
the impact failing a feasible way to do that. Um,
there are a couple of, of different approaches. Um, in
theory, we can look at moving a building, but that's
not something that happens very often because it's a, it's
very expensive and not all buildings can physically be moved.
But I'll just say that that's something that we would
do on a case by case basis. Um, and if
you don't know the answer to the specific question, that's
fine. But I guess in Brom, I think Bentley House
is set back far enough from the road that it
ought not to be impacted. But further to the East,
on the other side of the road, there's the church
there. And then there's a collet commercial house, the older
Brook building with, I think, green, white, and green. Right.
So are those two of the buildings that are. Marked
is potentially being displaced. Um, yeah, you know, and there's
heritage buildings on the north side of the road as
well. And they're all very close. Uh, you're correct about
Bentley house. It's far enough back that we wouldn't expect
to directly impact. But the church and the commercial house,
if we go with the South widening, um, those would
be displaced. Um, if we go with the north widening,
they would not be displaced, but the two or three
buildings on the north side would be. I'd like to
follow up with, with, um, you guys and have a
further in - depth discussion and look at the maps.
And that, I guess my, my final question that Mr.
Mayor is, um, you referred to reaching out to prop
owners having further discussions and then having a further public
information centre, I would hope in the, in the communities,
the Green River or Brom are somewhere there. But I
was just concerned when you spoke about property owners because
some of those properties are owned by the federal government.
So you would be including and inviting the tenants, uh,
the actual people who are residing in those properties as
well as the property owner who may be the federal
government. Uh, in terms of, of project notifications, we would
generally include, um, all properties in the study area, which
is what we've, we've been doing to this point in
terms of directly reaching out to discuss potential property impacts
and mitigations. We would be dealing with the property owners.
Not the tenants in this case. So, um. So that's
a concern to me. I think you, you ought to
be reaching out to, to the tenants, the people who
actually live there, if they're not the landowner. So that's
not a question. Oh, well, I guess the question and
Mr. Mayor is, will you be suggesting that the landlords,
if they're the federal government be passing that notice along
to their tenants? So they have an opportunity to attend
these meetings or would the notice be sent out, uh,
as a direct male so that the residents would, uh,
receive the notice as well and then be informed in
order to attend the meeting. If, if we're talking about
the meetings with directly impacted property owners, we, we would,
we would not normally engage with tenants in that case.
It would be up to the property owner to, um,
to pass that along if they so chose. I might
bring that up again in discussion, Mr. Mayor, at some
point. Okay. Anyway, thank you. Thank you very much. Uh,
thank you for your presentation. Um, we have a very
long night. Okay. Councillor Roberts, you have questions. Yes. I
do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, just quickly, I have
a couple of questions. Is the road being widened because
of existing traffic that requires that today? Or is it
being one to intended to facilitate future development of the,
um, the federal lands, the federal airport lands, I'll say,
and northeast Pickering. We use a travel demand forecast at
the ministry has that has various horizon years, but we
would be looking at existing conditions. And generally the horizon
years that we look at now are 2041, 2051. Um,
so it's really all of the above. Those background traffic
growth and then there's growth associated with, uh, development. So,
uh, that's, that's where the need really comes from. Okay.
And then you so you also said that without the
widening projected, the highway seven traffic demand will grow beyond
the highways capacity. What exception, what assumptions were used in
the traffic modelling? And for example, for what you were
talking about, where do we get all the data from.
Well, the ministry develops what they call the greater golden
horseshoe model, which goes, you know, all around central region.
Um, in the, in the, in the greater Toronto area,
including Pickering. So it would be tied to, um, municipal
official plans, uh, plan development, um, I'm not, I'm not
an expert in that. We do have people that I
don't have on this call, but, uh, it is something
that is, it is tied to planned development. Approved development,
I should say. Okay. And then so does that modelling
assume that full development of the airport lands and of
the Northeast Pickering lands. Is that. What it includes right
now? I don't think the airport is in it any
longer, but, um, the, uh, the development lands would be
tied to. Oh, no, I'll just call it the federal
ants. I'm sorry. Uh, I don't believe no. I don't
believe it's tied to full development of that. I could
take that back and get some more information on it.
But certainly the, the, uh, innovation corridor lands, there'll be
some timelines described to that in the, in the, uh,
cities official plan and it would be tied to that.
Yeah. Because I'm very curious if this highway widening is
being advanced to support that future development of the federal
lands or Northeast Pickering. And especially the federal lands because
there hasn't even been a public decision on the future
present yet. That's my question. That's not a question. Please
my question was, is this highway? The question was posed.
And the question was answered. Do you have another question.
I sure do. Yes. Um, what impacts is, will the
widening have on wetlands wildlife corridors and some species at
risk. You want to speak to EAs, please? Uh, we'll
be undertaking an assessment of, of impacts. Um, one of
the things that we like about widening an existing corridor
versus finding a new corridor is that generally those impacts
are, are far fewer. Um, we have been doing field
work to assess, um, existing conditions and identify species at
risk as recently as I think we're going out this
week. We've got people going out. We've got secondary source
information that we've been using. We've been consulting with Parks
Canada. Um, so that's how we'll be assessing species at
risk and wood law impact and things like that. Okay.
And then, uh, there we were just having a little
bit of talk about building impacted or as you call
them, um, displaced. Do we have a total number of
how many buildings will be destroyed or displaced. Uh, we
don't have a total number because we don't have a
preferred alternative, um, at the moment. And there are a
number of buildings where it's, it's too early to determine
whether we can mitigate those impacts or not. Um, we
haven't done enough of that design work yet. Um, that's
something that's going to be forthcoming. And that's going to
be part of our, our discussions with property owners to
identify what is a, um, unacceptable or feasible, uh, mitigation
measure. So I can't give you an exact number, but
it's probably more than 10. Okay. That's okay. And the
mentioning of bypassing the handlets is that off the table
completely, that can happen. It's not completely off the table,
but it's just not being considered right now. It's not
being considered. Okay. And lastly, I think, um, you said
that you match with some, well, you had some consultation.
Have you had consultation like in brome or in like
Green River with the residents that live there in those
areas. No, not specifically our public meeting was the public
information centre on May 27th. Yeah. And where was that
one located again? Uh, Cornell community centre in Markham. Yeah.
So that was in Mark. Um, okay. So nothing in
the area here for Pickering. Well, presidents. Yeah. Sorry. It
was not in Pickering, but we, you know, we, we
certainly got some, um, feedback that there was a preference
for holding the public information centre and pickering, uh, to
that I'll respond with that this is a provincial project
that is taking place in both Mark and Pickering. The
closest suitable pickering site was in Claremont that was big
enough and was accessible enough, which was significantly further away
than Cornell was, uh, for the majority of the private
property owners that would be impacted in Green River and
Locust Hill. I understand there's a new community centre now
in Pickering that probably is, uh, a good location for
our PIC number two. Okay. So then you are anticipating
that if you are to hold a meeting here and
pickering or in close proximity to Pick Rain, that there
is going to be, um, a big turnout. So you
do need to have a bigger place in order to,
um, have your consultation. Turn out and also just we
have a lot of, uh, physical materials to display. So
we need a big enough space for that. Okay. There
were no, I know there were a number of community
centres, but they were, they were pretty small, um, too
small for us to work with. Okay. Great. Thank you.
Those are my questions. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Thank
you. Uh, no further questions. I want to thank you,
Ms. Nickel and Mr. Gutz. Some on Council wish you're
digging right now to, uh, enhance the travel for our
residents and to support the expansion of our business along
the Innovation Quarter. So thank you for attending today. Appreciate,
um, your attendance and your attentive nature to the details,
which are of importance to our residents. So I appreciate
you attending tonight. Our next delegate is Ms. Marion Tom
Thomas. Miriam. I see you're on the screen there. Miriam,
you're here to speak to the Heritage Permit application. Aiden
12. 5 and Miriam, welcome back to our Council Chamber
as a longtime resident and often contributor. Welcome back. You
have five minutes. Okay. I'm here tonight to discuss the
heritage permit application HP01 - 26. I'm certain that the
closure of North Road has created incredible pressure on the
city of Pickering to do something about the condition of
White Bale Road. Everyone is aware of its condition and
its need for repair. My concern is that the heritage
committee has only seen the changes involved in the hundred
percent plans would have been a minor nature. And I'm
just covering that is not the case. I now understand
the staff still has to review the plan and has
an opportunity to comment and make changes. It's been quite
difficult to obtain information on the drainage plan. And I'm
certain that others would have issues. However, as long as
the heritage committee, the city of Pickering, AE con and
the construction, he adhered to the recommendations included with the
Executive Summary included with the agenda for the Heritage Application.
I'm certain that this could turn out all right. One
would hope that the heritage committee and residents of the
Hamlet of Whiteville at the very least are residents association
would be able to see and comment on the latest
plan. I've already submitted my concerns to staff regarding my
particular property. But as you know, this is a large
document, so I have not been able to review the
situation regarding other residents. I look forward to a positive
outcome. Thank you, Mary. Uh, questions of the delegate. Being
done. Thank you. Um, we have one further delegate from
Whiteville. Ms. Julie Chombre, Julie, welcome to our Council meeting.
I know you're also have been in our chamber, not
virtually, but a number of times. So welcome back. And
you, you are also speaking about the Heritage Permit application.
And Michambre, you have five minutes. Thank you. I just
want to stay clearly from the outset that I fully
support this project, my goal tonight is not to stall
or slow down this process. Our villages endured years of
infrastructure gridlock and multiple devastating floods. We want this done.
However, precisely, because we have weighted so long. We must
ensure the final execution is done well done correctly and
respects our community's heritage. I speak to you tonight, not
just as an interested resident, but as someone who has
been actively involved in this drainage plan process for almost
two decades. Over this time, I've attended multiple meetings with
staff and council. I've sent scores of emails and navigated
endless follow - ups. All too many of which were
left entirely unanswered. Because city staff have come and gone
over these last two decades. I frequently found myself holding
more institutional knowledge about the backgrounds, engineering plans and history
of this process than the current staff assigned to it.
It shouldn't be this hard for a resident to track
a project that directly impacts their home and their community.
After almost 20 years of painfully slow movement, this report
is suddenly being rushed straight to Council tonight, completely bypassing
the planning committee rushing a decades - long project at
the 11th hour is exactly how critical mistakes happen. I
want to commend and applaud the Heritage Advisory Committee and
for their hard work and dedication. However, we must acknowledge
they're not working from the final plans. I've identified two
major gaps of internal coordination that Council can and should
rectify tonight without delaying the project timeline. There's discrepancies between
the 95 percent and 100 percent plans. My understanding that
the heritage assessment before you tonight evaluate the 95 percent
design plans However, I've recently reviewed as they relate to
my property. And there are substantial material changes between the
two. When I raise this with city staff, they candidly
share that although they are the hundred percent plans, they
have not been finalised and have not yet been cross
- referenced. They have not yet cross - referenced the
hundred percent plans to ensure the heritage compliance. Secondly, I've
learned from staff that an independent lighting study is currently
underway to improve lighting in the hamlet. Shockingly, when I
spoke with heritage staff, they were entirely unaware of the
study was even happening until I brought this to their
attention. We already have successful precedent and how lighting should
be handled in Whiteville. In 2018, when our streetlights were
switched from the original Century - Old Piplate fixtures, the
city engaged in thorough, meaningful consultation with the residents. Together,
we agreed on sympathetic radial fixtures and soft, warm LED
lights to protect the hamlets historic night sky character. Lighting
dictates the core character of a heritage conservation district, a
separate lighting study should not be operating in asylum, completely
divorced from heritage staff and the community standard we established
in 2018. After decades of waiting, Council finally has the
historic opportunity to break the gridlock, yet this right, and
deliver a project that both the city and the residents
of Whiteville can be incredibly proud of. To ensure equality
result without halting our momentum, I respectfully ask that Council
approve this report. Subject to the following direct operational instructions
to staff. That you direct staff to immediately cross -
reference the hundred percent engineering plans against the heritage report
recommendations to ensure total consistency before any physical work begins
and to direct staff to immediately loop the heritage team
into the ongoing lighting study, ensuring that any proposed changes
honour the 2018 community consensus and strictly conform to the
White Bill Heritage Conservation District guidelines. Let's use this final
step to close the communication gaps, protect Whiteville's heritage, and
finally get the drainage plan done right. Thank you. Thank
you, Julia. Sorry. Uh, questions delegate. Councillor Pickles, did you
have a question. No. Okay, thank you. Uh, I don't
see any questions, so I appreciate your submissions tonight, Marion
and Julie. And we'll be dealing with this later in
the agenda, and you're welcome to follow us or follow
us on YouTube tonight. Uh, and we'll, uh, advise what
the meeting is. So. Thank you very much. Thank you.
So our next delegate is a correspondence, uh, and a
presentation, and it's the, uh, Mr. Abrams, our integrity commissioner
from principals integrity. And it's in regards to complaint against
Councillor Robinson, respecting statements about staff corruption, as well as
statements about residential school mass graves. Um, Mr. Abrams, welcome
to our chamber. Um, are you here? Mine here, Mr.
Mayor. Okay. Uh, do you want to introduce your report,
sir. Thank you very much and good evening, Council. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide some opening remarks on
the report you have before you this evening. The report,
of course, speaks for itself, but the summarize, there are
two allegations addressed in the report. The first deals with
a complaint about Councillor Robinson's claims about the veracity of
statements about mass graves at a former residential school site,
which we've declined to investigate on the basis that it
is more properly dealt with under federal jurisdiction. We've received
other complaints on that topic, and this will be the
basis for a disposition of those complaints as well. The
second deals with a repeated claim for which the Councillor's
been previously found in breach of our code responsibility. Attributing
negative characteristics to identifyable staff members and threatening their employment
should she become mayor as Council's Wellaware staff have limited
ability to challenge false assertions made about their character and
performance. It is highly inappropriate to make such bald public
statements. And the Councillor's been sanctioned on the very same
statements in December of 2024. Because this portion of the
complaint was filed by the CIO in relation to posting
on YouTube, which we considered to be overtly harassing, unjustifiably
critical and disrespectful to identifiable staff members in which improve
staff's credibility and partiality or integrity. We initiated the complaint
to Councillor Robinson with a preliminary findings report. As we
recall, this was the process. Agreed to my Council in
August of last year. The purpose of this process is
Councillor will recall was to provide for a more rapid
addressing of inappropriate behaviour towards staff. With all of that
said, I want to remind Council that it is in
a disciplinary mode this evening, regardless of your previous relationship
with, views of Councillor Robinson, good batter indifferent. He must
set them aside. He must form your judgment based upon
how our recommendation relates to our findings on what you
hear tonight and what you've heard and will hear from
Councillor Robinson if she chooses to speak this evening. Recognising
that the investigation is now completed. And that tonight is
not a hearing or a rehearing of what led to
our findings, as has been the case with our prior
reports. We are in no position to answer questions into
the details of our investigation. That investigation was conducted on
a confidential basis as required by the municipal act. And
it is complete. It would in any event be in
property here only evidence elicited for example by Councillor Robinson
and not the complainant or other witnesses. In other words,
Council this evening lacks the competence to conduct its own
inquiry into the matter. Our findings are our findings. As
part of our investigation Councillo Robinson has had the full
opportunity to present her position on the complaint to us.
And we have reviewed her submissions and considered the matter
with diligence. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. I'm available
to any answer any suitable questions. Thank you, Mr. Abrams.
Uh, questions of the delegate. Councillor Pickles.
Thank you, Mirage. Um, this may be one of those
questions, Mr. Abrams, where you say it's not a appropriate.
If that's the case, that's the case. Um. And an
earlier meeting, we addressed an issue with respect to Councillor
Robinson and workplace harassment. And following that report, she made
a number of comments, I would say disparaging comments about
staff. Was that part of your investigation this time around,
or it was not subject to your report in finding
this time. Your report may have proceeded that meeting, or
maybe you weren't aware of that meeting. In fact, the
complaints preceded that meeting. And so the report focused on
the complaints that were filed. Thank you. Thank you. Any
further questions. Pastor Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I
don't think he'd be privy too in camera meeting. Information.
Um, my first question is, why does this report include
cam loop's references when the complaint before Council Elizabeth staff
- related conduct? Councillor, there's no finding or sanction in
regards to your denialism. So I'm not going to allow
the question. I understand that, but that's why I'm wondering
why. Questions. They're not, they're not a part of the
sanction and they're not a part of any infractions. So
I'm not going to allow the questions. But Mr. Abrams
just brought dive forward and talked about nihilism or camera.
You're not getting penalized for it. There's no finding that
you contributing the code of conduct. So I'm not allowing
the questions. But why is Mr. Abrams alive to speak
to that? But I'm not allowed to respond to that
question. It was part of the complaint. He dealt with
that and a number of other complaints in that regard.
There's no finding that he contraven the code of conduct.
And the sanctuary. So we're not spending time speaking about
your denialism tonight. Speaking about my denialism. Yes. You're done
all of it. Okay. So why in the report, um,
did you include climate denial or bill related references that
they were not necessary to these findings. Is that me,
Mr. Mayor? The report, the issue of, uh, what's been
described as denialism with respect to the burial sites was
part of the complaint. And we adjust why we were
not dealing with the matter in the report. So shouldn't
a report, um, explain relevance, not just collect inflammatory material.
And hope that it influences council. Well, I can explain
why it wasn't included. And this is why we did
not pursue a complaint. And that was, um, because the
matter, we felt was better placed in federal jurisdiction. There's,
there's an analogy here under the municipal act. We are
compelled to refer to the police, for example, allegations of
breach of the criminal code. And the reason for that
is, I believe the reason for that is to, uh,
prevent obstruction of a police investigation and also to provide
fairness to the respondent because the, the, uh, procedural fair
and a standard would be higher in a criminal investigation.
In this case, we believe the matter is would be
more properly placed under federal jurisdiction. And integrity commissioners aren't
well placed to deal with the issues that were dealt
with by the truth and reconciliation commission, uh, to do
so. Would, I would think require a hearing. We require
an inmorral enormous ugly expense on the part of the
municipality. And we take quite a bit of time to,
to complete. So that's a long answer to, uh, the
question of why did we not pursue, um, making any
findings with respect to those statements in this report. Right.
Um, now I did talk about cam loops and I,
in my rebuttal to you. And everything that I said
about cam loops was directly taken from the nations up
in Kamloops and from newspaper clippings. Councillor, I'm not allowing
to see more. You've got, you pose your question, Mr.
Abrams, Abrams has ably answered it. We're not going down
the Robbitt hole of your denialism. It's done. We're speaking
about the report and the sanctions that are recommended. So,
uh, I'm not going to allow anymore. So if you
want to get to your allegations about staff corruption, please
do. If not, we'll move to the motion. Well, I
do, Mr. Mayor, but you know, you sitting here and
saying that, can I just finish what I'm saying before
you cut me off, please? Because I think I have
a right to. I'm not, I'm not debating. Please go
on. I'm not debating either, but you know, you're sitting
there calling me a saying that we're going down a
rabbit hole when everything I took has been nationally in
black and white. You're debating if you, if you want,
if you, if you want to stop, uh, the questions,
I'm not allowing any more on your denialism. Please continue
creep and you keep on saying rabbit hole and denialism.
That's perfectly okay. No, sir. That's fine. It's okay, Mr.
Mayor. Everybody's watching. Yes, I'm, I'm delighted they are. This
is on the record. The choices start and the choice
is clear. Oh, that was the comment that you made
after you told everybody that I was running for there.
Council, sir. You just make the comment, Mr. Mayor. I'm
just giving context. You're going to have five minutes of
debate. Don't waste it now. No, I'm not. I'm just
giving context to your remark. Is that that was what
you posted on Facebook and when you made the announcement?
You have questions of the. Thank you. Yeah. Um, why
does a report treat that explanation as fresh wrong doing.
Okay. Sorry. I'm going to go back a bit. I
am being punished right now when you guys want to
take my pay away once again for the ninth time
for saying the comment that I said that I said
back in, when was it did you say Mr. Abrams
2025. The comment 2024 I believe was the 2024. Right.
So that was a comment when I said, if I
was to become mayor, I would use this strong marriage
powers for good. I go into city hall, get rid
of this city solicitor CAO, a bunch of the directors
because corruption does start at the top. I would tear
it down the city hall, build it back up from
the bottom and go back to the people. So my
question, Mr. Mayor, preach the code again by calling a
corruption. So do you have a question. And I didn't
call it corruption. I said corruption starts at the top.
Now I have already been sanctioned for this and I
was. I was, um, I'm being punished. For something that
I said before when I was, when I was talking
about why I was punished before. So for me just
saying that, Hey, I lost three months salary because I
said what I just said, why am I you're debating.
So my question is why am I you're debating. Hey,
Mr. Marcus. Okay my question my question is why might
be punished for explaining why I lost my paid the
first time. The rebel news video is what where you
said once again that our staff members are corrupt. You
were found in against the code of conduct. You've done
no proof to that. And you've done it again. You've
done it again tonight. Um, we're not, we're not debating.
So if you have a questions, please pose that. I
did ask my question, but you just interrupted me again.
My question is why am I being punished. For telling
for telling people why I was punished in the first
place. So you're telling me I've never allowed to talk
about it again or every time I do I'm going
to be punished. Councillor, when I speak, you stop. That's
the rule. How about that works both ways when the
chair speaks. You stop. Thank you. Mr. Abrams has spoken
about that on the report. And I'll give Mr. Abrams
the opportunity to respond if he pleases. If he doesn't,
we'll move on. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. We
certainly didn't take the remarks as an explanation. And even
if they were, they were repeated verbatim words that, uh,
as we've been discussing, the Council had already resulted in
a finding a breach of the Code of Conduct. That
occasional, not occasion, the sanction was not an entry fee
for the ability to repeat the allegations. And so they
were freshly made knowing that making them would be a
breach of the code of conduct. And so that is
why the sanction is at the level of this. Actually,
no. Um, I would like to be because I was
making the comment telling people why I lost my, you're
going to have your five minutes of debate questions of
the delegate. Well, the, the question to the delegate is
why am I not allowed to tell people why I
was sanctioned in the first place. I'm not allowed to
repeat that ever again. The question has been posed. And
the answer is been given. Do you have another question.
Um, why does my response to the integrity commissioner not,
why does the report not include my full response to
council? So cancel could actually see both sides of the
argument. They could see my rebel. They could see what
the complaint is and like, you know, have both sides
so they can actually make an informed decision. Council, sir,
many of us saw the video. We know what you
said. I think there's no debate about what was said.
Uh, we found it very offensive. Um, so we don't
have to re - litigate what you said. It's still
on the internet. If you Google rebel news and I
invite people to do that tonight, um, so councillor, do
you have any further questions. Mr. Mayor, I do, I
do think I need to respond to that. The Councillor's
referring to her response to the preliminary findings report. And
we did certainly consider her responses. Uh, as Council well
knows, uh, the investigation of an integrity commissioner is obliged
to be conducted in secret. That's the language of the
statute. Uh, and it would not be, uh, possible, practical
for us to publish their responses of a councillor involved,
the respondent or of witnesses in order to present the
Council, uh, the opportunity for, uh, full assessment of all
of the evidence that was before us. It was our
task to assess that evidence. That included the Councillor's submissions
to us. And that was done at the end result
of the publication of the report you have on your
agenda this evening. So let me ask you this. Every
time I say from now on, if I was to
become mayor and finish off a dive sentence, will I
be punished again with another 30 days pay. It's not
the, uh, it's not your proposal to the electorate that
has given offence to the Code of conduct. It's the
allegations about staff. Staff who cannot fairly represent themselves in
the same form. You're penalized. You're punishing me for saying
the reason why I was punished in the first place.
And earlier you mentioned that, um. You would hand off,
you know, or like, you know, if it's not in
your scope, you would like hand it off to the
federal government for a denialism or whatever it was, but
you'd made that comment. So my question is to you.
If my speech and I talk about, let's say corruption
lies, wasteful spending accountability. Why is that treated as misconduct
rather than political criticism. Why do you keep on taking
away my pay when I mentioned that. We make recommendations
on sanctioned councillor. And in, and the remarks were particularly
offensive because they were about identifiable individuals. This was not
about a platform. This was about, um, allegations that we
found to be without merit about identifiable individuals. Right. So
then my question is why wouldn't you look into those
allegations? Like why wouldn't you bring in a third party
and say, okay, I'm Councillor, that's, that's not the integrity
commissioner's role. You have, uh, you have other mechanisms, the
ombudsmen, the police, which I know you've gone through. You've
called out for an investigation by the premier. So you've,
you've followed all those opportunities. It's not the integrity commissioner.
Actually, Mr. Mariano said to the integrity commissioner, if they
find something to be criminal or they think something might
be criminal, it is their duty to contact, let's say
a different authority. Like for example, the police, I mean,
they did that when I did that poem that children's
poem, sir, other report. Well, yeah, that is the question.
Why do not pass up? You have not obligations to
other authorities. Do you have any further questions. Of the
report? That is my question. There's no keep going. Well,
but Mr. Mayor, you just said there wasn't in their
privy to do so, but it is in their privy
to do so because they've done it before when you
try to have me charge Mr. Abrams. You're a very,
uh, smart guy a lawyer. Um, with decades of experience,
if you wish to respond, you can. If not, I'll
move on. Well, the, the allegations were, um, bear allegations
with any supporting evidence, uh, and so there was nothing
for us to pursue. The conclusion, the conclusion was that
they were disparaging comments about staff who were not in
a position to respond. Bear assertions about, we didn't, I
didn't include this word in my opening remarks. I did
that purposely, but bear assertions of a corruption. Um, it's,
we regarded it as unfair. And in this instance, uh,
matter that had already been result once before and was
now being repeated. I have talked about extortion about corruption,
about lies, wasteful spending, et cetera, et cetera. And not
once had you tried to have this investigated by another
party. Also, you've never, we, we've asked, I've asked the
CAOs asked for any, not just proof, but actually outlining
the allegation. You've never done that. So my delegations before.
I've told you about the manipulation of the videos, the
White Noise. Well, that was investigated. I talked about extortion
and one of our in - camera meetings, Mr. Mayor.
You were there. So why would I give you the
evidence? It has to go to a third party to
investigate. The time and White Noise was investigated and found
to be false. And the extortion thing you're talking about,
I have no knowledge of what you're talking about, which
doesn't surprise me. Cause even Ms. Kimslor Brenner talked in
the meeting about it being looking like extortion. We were
all there. You can't deny it. Well, I can deny
it. Do you have any other questions, Councillor? Okay. So
now that I've mentioned that, do you think Mr. Abrams
would bring in a third party to investigate so I
could talk about my allegations? What is your allegation? You're
making an allegation right now. Yes. What is eruption lies
extortion. Miss you, the power breaching in FIPA. There's a
whole list of them, Mr. Mayor. Oh, so manipulation of
records, manipulation of documents. And you've outlined these allegations to
who. I have all the allegations, but I'm sorry. It's
like giving the criminal the evidence. No, I want to
give the evidence to somebody else. I do not want
to give it to you. Criminal. That's not part of
entry. You can't - No, no, no, no. I never
once called them criminal. Sorry. If it was taken that
way, again, you are manipulating and changing my workout. I
said you would not give 17 minutes of your brand.
And it's about to come to an end. You're going
to have five minutes of debate. I'm asking questions. No,
you're not. You're debating. Um, you're making more false allegations,
unfounded. And I'm going to bring it to the end.
Do you have any other questions? You say that my
allegations are I founded and did not read. I warned
you, Councillor, thank you. We're going to answer into debate
now. Um, there is a motion. I understand it will
be brought on screen. And it's moved by Councillor Cook.
And it's second by Councillor Maggie. And each member of
Council will have five minutes. And the recommendation is to
support the commissioner's report calling for a 90 day patients
mentioned from June 22nd, ending on September 19th, 2026. Uh,
you could diminish that. Debate. Not debate Councillor Robinson. You
want your five minutes. Um, I do, but I have
a question about that. Um, wouldn't this start on my
next pay. On my first day of my next pay
period. I think we went over this before last time
when I was supposed to get paid. And we get
paid two weeks. Prior. It'll be 90 days. Let's worry
about that later. Do you have any other, do you
want to be? No, I like to worry about it
now when mortgages do. Well, perhaps that would have been
a thought you've had before you when I'm rebel news.
Uh, is the treasurer on the call. You worship, I
can actually provide some context for that prior to drafting
those motions. We always check with payroll. And those dates
were confirmed by our payroll supervisor. And that's how the
motion was written. Okay. Thank you. And then my other
question is how come this was, um. Motion first and
second by Cook and Daggy. And this was already done
behind the scenes, not in person right here. Well, Councillor,
I knew. So what kind of a meeting was done
behind the scenes? Were you emailing them again and asking
who wanted you being mover and who wanted to be
second or Mr. Mayor? Could you've done that before. We
have evidence of that. There probably would have been five
people wanting to move this and five more wanting to
second it, Councillor. But, uh, as a professional, I go
over the agenda with the, with our staff. And they
say what motions. And then I, I, I saw down
a mover in a secondary and Councillor Cook. And Councillor
Nagy rose their hand. So you have five minutes of
debate will start. There was nothing professional about this process.
Your five minutes have started. Okay. This process has been
weaponized against me. It does not a neutral integrity process.
It is a pattern of retaliation selective enforcement bad faith
decision making bias and abuse of power. The complaints have
come from the very people I am criticizing. And the
result has been repeated sanctions repeated financial punishment repeated attempts
to silence at a dissenting voice. Public silence, private avoidance.
And repeated punishments are not integrity, Mr. Mayor. My allegations
have been, have been serious and wide ranging lies loopholes,
corruption, extortion, racial spending, misuse of public funds misuse of
public office, manipulation of correspondence and video recordings, breaches of
amphippa, use of surveillance footage without proper procedures, breaches of
city policy, sexual harassment, procedural and fairness reprisal censorship suppression
of dissent and misfeasms. I've also raised concerns about attempts
to keep me out of in - camera meetings by
family to send links blocking access to city hall, removing
card access, cutting office resources and trying to isolate me
from normal councillor functions. I've also been targeted over speech.
This should never have been treated as criminal or hateful.
I have been pursued over reciting a children's poem and
over word said by someone else. While the actual speaker
was not even pursued. I've also been attacked for bringing
forward notices of motions for my constituents about bathrooms, flag
policies, age restrictions at part events. And whether people agree
with those views or not is really beside the point.
Elective speech should not be converted into punishment by political
opponents. That is not accountability. That is suppression. I also
want to make it clear that I've not given a
fair chance as everyone just saw. To be heard. Not
one councillor is ever genuinely come to me before sanctioning
me to aspermide side. My full responses had never been
included or considered witnesses on my behalf. I've never been
interviewed while the city side moves forward. That is procedural
and fairness. That is bias and that is selective enforcement.
I also sent to Cease and Assist letters and instead
of stopping or correcting the course, they ignore them and
doubled down. And that is not fairness, but just nothing
more than escalation. And now today I'm being sanctioned again
for telling people why I was sanctioned before. That is
the most revealing part of all of this. I'm being
punished for explaining the punishment. I'm being punished for defending
myself. That is circular. That is retaliatory. And that is
the conduct of a system try to get me one
way or another. This is now my Ninth station. I've
lost two years of pay. The mayor has tried to
take away my expense account. My car, my phone, my
internet, my allowance and my ability to function as an
elected member. I've been blocked from meetings excluded from functionings
cropped out of photos and treated as though my role
can be narrowed or erased whenever it suits those in
power. And that's not governance. That is nothing more than
reprisal. I also want to address the two judicial reviews.
My position is that they did not examine the underlying
evidence that would show integrity commission reports for bias based
on personal opinion and factually wrong. They focused on whether
the IC had the authority and whether the administrative threshold
was met, but they did not properly test the truth
of the reports themselves or the evidence that was ignored.
So those decisions do not answer the central question, whether
the reports were fair, accurate or unbiased. If the city
truly wanted the truth, it would investigate the allegations instead
of punishing the person who raises them. A councillor speaking
about corruption, waste, extortion, misuse of funds, the abuse of
power should trigger an independent inquirer, not retaliation. If the
mayor, the CAO or the integrity commissioner believed that I'm
wrong, then let there be a real investigation. Let the
evidence be tested. Let the witnesses be heard and let
the truth stand on its own. Until that happens, this
process will continue to look like censorship reprisal and abuse
of municipal power directed at the one dissenting councillor who
refused to be silenced. Counsel should not legitimize the abuse
of process. And I ask that you guys all reject
this report and refuse to punish me for speaking out
about the punishment that I've already suffered, but you've already
just shown that you all go ahead behind the scenes,
talk amongst yourself to bring these motions forward. And that
shows to your character. Thank you. That's all I have
to say, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Um. If, if no
one wishes Councillor Cook, you are the mover. I'm going
to offer my comments and then you as the mover
can close. Um, Councillor Robinson, I'm just going to start
my time around five minutes too. Cause I want to
make sure the rules are for everybody. Councillor Robinson just
talked about character. And we just saw it again. Uh,
lack of character. She used words like corruption. Extortion. She
said the mayor did X, Y, and Z, the mayor
did no such thing. I've never cut her expense account
or car allowance. Anything along that line. I said you
tried to. Councillor, I have the floor. I've never cropped
her on any picture. I've never disabled her card system
or anything along life. So those are false obligations. Her
litany of false allegations went on for some time there.
And they were kind of a litany of conspiracy theories.
We have to remind when we're talking about character. This
is a person who's now put her name in. To
be the leader of the city. And she has 23
breaches of the code of conduct. She has nine integrity
commissioners reports. She has seven pay strength sanctions. She now
has been found to contravene our work, our safe workplace.
She's found to harass staff. And after talking about that
and talking about correcting the course. After all those. Independent
reviews of status from our independent integrity commissioner, our independent
law firm, our independent harassment policy. After all that, she's
asked us questioning our character. Correcting the course. Um. I
think Councillor Robinson should look in the mirror. As she
talks about extortion and she talks about corruption and she
talks about tearing city hall down, that's not how we
heighten the level of debate during COVID policy and election
year. Her allegations, her demeanor, diminishes politics. It diminishes
our professional independent staff as well. And that's why she's
being sanctions once again tonight. Uh, so when she asked
about character, I hope 118, 000 pickering eights or pictonians,
whatever we're calling them, has a chance to watch this
video and watch what she just said and watch that
she asked about character. I want people to do that.
Um, and, uh, I think the, the outcome will be
very clear. So with that, I'm going to, uh, support
the recommendation and ask her recorded vote. Uh, that three
minutes. So I'm going to stop that, reset and turn
it over to Councillor Cook. Thank you, Mayor Ash. Um,
just to speak to this motion and for transparency since
this has been a question of how we arrived at
having a motion, um, available and presented for this evening's
proceedings. Um, I am the one who followed the IC
complaint. This is personal to me on multiple levels. I
work with staff. I support our city staff. I believe
in following rules of parliamentary discourse following the rules of
conduct. Our minister. I know in a personal privilege, please,
Mr. Mayor. No, it's personal privilege, Mr. Mayor? Yes. In
a report itself, it says it's a report was filed
by the CAO. Okay. I think Councillor Cook is meaning
in regards to. And you had also mentioned on, I
think, um, in a newspaper that you were going to
be bringing this forward to the Integrity Commissioner as well.
So I just want to show like, you know, this
is not true of what's happening here. And, you know
Councillor, you've mentioned your Councillor, stop. You don't have to
work. You've understand that you've just given your pointer privilege
and you're pointed privileges you wanted to correct the record.
I think record Councillor Cook has indicated that she filed
a complaint about, I think, the denialism. And in regards
to the - And the findings on the denialism. So
she shouldn't be talking about things. You don't have the
floor. But you wouldn't let me talk about it. Councillor,
you don't have the floor. All complaints in 23, I
mean, 24, 25, 26. You don't have the floor. Councillor
Cook, you of the floor. Thank you. It is also
what's in the report. Oh my lord. Go ahead, please.
I'm just waiting to make sure she's done or if
she's going to continue to interrupt. I'd like my time
reset. This is going to persist. We respect your time
council Robinson. You should respect mine. It is a matter
of public record that I made a statement that I
would be filing this IC complaint. So it's very transparent
and that was, it's public for anyone else who wishes
to look it up. All right. Back to the point.
We have a responsibility as members of Council. Elected speech
follows rules. Parliamentary rules. There's an oath of office. There's
a code of conduct. I will agree with Councillor Robinson
and her statement that this has become circular. It has
become circular. There's a repeated pattern that has been on
display through the 23 breaches of code. This is our
ninth IC complaint. Um, and it just persists. The coat
of conduct rules and regulations. Continue to be ignored. Um,
one of the things that I think we have not
addressed that we should be addressing with these complaints is
how this affects our work in relationship with city staff
and the trauma that it inflicts on them. And their
personal, uh, home lives, their employment standards, uh, and I'm
not just speaking about the indigenous staff members that we
have at the city of Pickering, but I'm talking about
all staff who have had to endure repeated media scrutiny
through rebel news and the interviews that are conducted. We
do have to follow safe workplace rules. And as a
member of Council, all of us should be setting a
standard for what a safe environment looks like for the
rest of the residents of the city of Pickering. I
thank you, Mr. Abrams, for conducting your investigation. Uh, I
am hopeful that the rest of, uh, my fellow colleagues
on Council will support the motion before us this evening.
And thank you, Mayor Ash, for calling for a recorded
vote. Appreciate it. Thank you. That concludes the debate. Uh,
Ben Clerk, we call the role, please. Councillor Brenner. Yes.
Cancer Cook. Yes. Councillor Nige. Yes. Cancer Pickles. Yes. Mayor
Ashe? Yes. You worship. That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Um,
Mr. Abrams, thank you for your report. And, uh, your
service to our city over the last four years. Um,
you've served with, uh, integrity and distinction. And I appreciate
the professionalism of your firm, both Massatwood and yourself. So
thank you for being there here tonight. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. Okay. The next item is 9. 2. It's a
request for municipal resolution supporting Expanded Deposit Return System in
Ontario. There's, there's no, uh, move or seconder. Sir, if
I may address that, I believe it was just moved
as correspondence. It was correspondence received, um, and it was
a, uh, request to receive for information. Well, no, the
recommendation talks to, uh, receive for information, but also advising
that we are supporting the request of the Canadian beverage
association. I don't have a mover of second or so.
I believe our clerk just came on to clarify that
Councillor. Okay. Ms. Castle. Thank you. Through you, your worship.
This is a matter of correspondence. So, uh, as we
ask members that are polling correspondence to provide us with
recommendations, this was the recommendation that was within the correspondence.
So it's now put here before Council, but it's not
a notice of motion, which is why we don't list
the mover in seconder already there. Okay. Um, I still
need a, we can do to be received or we
can, in essence, endorse the correspondence. So I do need
to move a mover in a second here. Uh, it's
second by Councillor Cook and second and sorry, move my
Councillor Cook and second because they're nagy. And you're moving
the recommendation as put in here. Yeah. Yes, sir. Okay.
Thank you. Debate. Councillor Cook. Uh, thank you, sir. Uh,
this was received by Council as part of our, uh,
communications package. We receive, um, with request we expanding deposit
return system, multiple provinces across Canada already operate a collection
system or a depot for lack of a better term
where any resident can return not just, um, common, uh,
bottles such as wine bottles or beer bottles. It's an
expanded process whereby beverage juice containers, um, items of that
nature could also be expanded. Um, and since we have
seen a drop off, um, with, um, access to return
your beverages, your adult beverages through the closure of certain
beer stores within our municipality, um, it's just an opportunity
to look at and encourage our government to find another
mechanism to encourage increased recycling. Um, not necessarily within pickering,
but somewhere within our region so that we continue to,
uh, remove bottles cans tetra packs, things of that nature
from our landfill. And that's essentially what this is. And
this was brought to us, um, by the Canadian beverage
association. Thank you. You're welcome. To third debate. Uh, I
want to interbate. I do not support this. I just
Googled how much is a water at Costco in a
40 pack is four dollars in 50 cents. If this
passed, uh, that 40 pack would be eight dollars in
50 cents. I'm an enthusiastic recycler. I have three bins
every week. I've been very busy household and lots of
beverages of all kinds are consumed in my house. Um,
a case of water, a quesadit Coke, et cetera, et
cetera. So, uh, I don't support this from affordability point
of view. Um, I don't think we should be adding
two dollars in 40 cents to a case of Diet
Coke. I don't think we should be adding four dollars
to the case of a water. And I don't think,
uh, we should be adding a dollar 20 to a
12 pack of, uh, orange juice that the kids take
to school every day. Um, I do, I think, um,
there are some merit in terms of looking at other
options. Uh, I don't think, um, a penalty of money
is the proper way. So I'm going to ask for
a recorded vote and I'm opposed to this Councillor Robinson.
I agree with you. Bowser, don't tell me you're going
to agree with me. I disagree with you, Mr. Mayor.
You have the floor sir. Ma'am. Yeah. So no, I
do agree with you in this respect because, you know,
we as a city, we have to do better with
our recycling. As we know, we don't have enough recycling
trucks. As we know, um, the trucks that pick up
are recycling a lot in our parks in that they
do not divide the recycling. So, you know, we might
have different receptacles in the cancer parks, but we all
know in reality, all of that just gets thrown into
the back of the garbage disposal and it goes straight
to landfill and none of it is recycled. So I
don't, uh, believe it increasing prices, but I do believe
that we could do better as a city. And that's
what we need to try and do is actually recycle
because we can't get the people to recycle. If we're
not recycling properly ourselves in our own parks. And at
the rec centre. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Councillor
Nagy. Sorry Frozen, Switch. Don't be there and I can
hit the mic. Um, I just want to flag that,
uh, to your comments about the cost going up. You
do get your deposit back so that two dollars and
40 cents comes back to you. Of course it doesn't
if you don't recycle it. But if you are an
avid recycler to your point, um, then you would get
your deposit back. And there are several provinces that already
do this, uh, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta all for
sure. I'm fairly certain Quebec as well. Um, although don't
quote me on that one specifically, uh, but there are,
there are several provinces, uh, cross our, our great and
vast country, uh, that have demonstrated that this is a
very doable thing. And from an affordability standpoint, you don't
lose that affordability piece because that money does come back
to you. If, if you return your bottle. So plain
and simple, you get your bottle. Deposit similar as to
the beer store, right? You get your 10 cents back
if you give the can back. Um, so that is,
that is, that is there. And if I know that,
uh, one of the comments that could come back is,
you know, not everybody drives. That is okay. There are
opportunities. It's what we are asking here is to open
the conversation. And then we can explore those options because
yes, that, for example, is a valid one, somebody who
can't, who isn't mobile, but still wants to partake. Yes.
There are ways around it, but we can't explore those
if we don't open the conversation in the first place.
Thank you. Any further debate? Sorry. And, and that it
expands beyond bottles and cans again, the tetrax and everything.
So anything that gets recycled, you'll get your money back
for it. Thank you. Elsie. I don't, I don't, I
don't return my beer bottles. I assure is heck not
going to return my water bottles. So, um, and I
think the people like that. If there's no further debate,
I'm going to call the question. Madam Clerk, can we
do a role please. Councillor Brenner. No. Councillor Cook. Yes.
Councillor Nike. Yes. Cancer pickles. Yes. Councillor Robinson. No. Mayor
Ashe? No. You worship that's tied and the vote is
lost. Okay. Thank you. Um, moved by Councillor Pickles and
second by Councillor Brenner consent on the Executive Committee. I'll
let people identify any poll. For the Executive Committee, which
is 101. Through 10, eight. Any pulls.
Councillor Robinson. Um, I would like to just have a
little bit of conversation around 10, three. And also 10
four. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So Brom Hall and then
the Council meeting schedule. Okay. Any other polls. Being none
on the remainder, all those in favor. Opposed. That item
is carried. Councillor Robinson, it's duly moved consecutive. Uh, and
you've pulled it for discussion or debate. Um, 10. 3
chief administrator officer Brom Holley's update. Councillor Robinski of the
floor. Yes. Thank you. Um, the last time we discussed
this, I believe, um, Councillor button myself. We were not
in favor of moving forward with this. So I do
have a couple of questions. The first one was is
that staff stated that transport Canada committed to a seamless
transition. Is that commitment in writing. And then can I
actually ask what does that look like? What kind of
a commitment are we looking at. Ms. Carpino. You've been,
uh, the front person on this. Certainly. The commitment is
not in writing in the form of an agreement. It
was communicated verbally. It was also communicated in a meeting
that, uh, also included Brome Recreation Society representatives as well
as Landover Landing Representatives. And the exact term by used
by transport Canada staff was seamless transition. They would essentially
be the point of contact for anyone that wanted to
use the facility. And they would issue what's considered what
they call a daily lease. And so how that's coordinated
and the discussions that would take place thereafter would retune
the individual that wants to use it and transport Canada.
But they said the end user should experience no difference
in terms of how they use the facility. Those are
their words. Okay. So, but we don't have any like
legally binding agreement guaranteeing that Brom Hall is going to
remain open and be available to the public after the
city terminates this lease. Cause the only limit that we
currently have in place is a month by month lease
for the use of that property. So that would be
terminated and then transport Canada would take over. Any coordination
that involves the use of that property. The city would
no longer be involved. Okay. So then since we don't
have any, um, finding agreements or guarantees, is it possible
that after the city terminates this lease, transport Canada could
simply come in and say, no, we're going to close
the building to the public and close doors on us
on the people. It's their building. They can do what
they want. So they can do whatever they want, right?
That's what I thought. I just want to make sure.
Has the city ever formally requested the transport Canada contribute
financially. Towards any of the repairs or the capital improvements
for Bromhaul? As Carpino. So the negotiations included are concerns
regarding various clauses in the agreement. One of them is
that the tenant agrees that the tenant shall be responsible
for all maintenance and repairs of any kind whatsoever, including
structural and roof maintenance and repairs. That of course was
very concerning to the city. Uh, the facility is an
older building. We'll have increasing needs as it continues to
age. And it is not facility that we own. So
those were the discussions and they were not prepared to
materially change that clause. That would have them more responsible
for those repairs. Now, have they made repairs in the
past? Yes. Over the last few years, they have made
a repair to the roof, but they weren't under any
obligation to do that. And so the Element of risk
still existed. Right. Have we gone to them though, those
since that roof repair? Have we gone to them asking
for any monies to help with the Upkeep of Brom
Hall. Uh, perhaps Vince Plok could speak to it. However,
there are repairs that were made over the last two
years, year and a half by the city in excess
of 60, 000 dollars. And so, uh, those were the
repairs that we made to make sure that their facility
was in sufficient condition in order to be returned potentially
to transport Canada. I'm not sure, Vince, if you've got
any more information regarding individual dealings, you may have had
with transport Canada regarding specific repairs. Uh, we've spoken to
transport Canada a number of times over the years on
a number of different issues, uh, including the possibility of,
uh, exploring potentially moving the facility at some point and
any contributions that they could make towards, uh, those ends.
And the only contribution that transport Canada was able to
offer was the potential for covering, uh, the demolition costs
that might be otherwise, uh, assigned to that facility. It
was quite limited in funding. Uh, so while we have
explored over the years, that option, uh, transport candida simply
has no capital funds to commit to the facility at
this time that they have made us aware of. Okay.
Ben. So my question was actually for the, I think
it was, um, Ms. Carpino said it's approximately 60, 000
dollars in repairs did we go to transport Canada and
ask them to help fund that. Or did we just
go ahead and do the repairs. Ourselves. No, we were
exploring with transport Canada our obligations under the lease, uh,
and those were agreed upon partly through the city zone
investigations verified independently by transport Canada as to their own
estimate of what the costs were. We both agreed on
what those were. And the city under its existing lease
did comply and make those repair at its own cost.
Okay. So we didn't go outside of the lease and
say, Hey, I know we have a lease, but you
know what we really could use some help with the
funds. Is there a way that you can help us?
So that didn't take place. And the current circumstances? No,
but it had in the past. Right. Okay. And you
just mentioned that they would support funding if we were,
if there was going to be demolition. Can we talk
a little bit about that or have we thought about
demolition on Bromhault? A short version is no councillor. Um,
it was strictly put forward as that would be the
equivalent value of all that they could offer the city
at the time. And this was many, many years ago.
Um, there has been no discussion about the demolition of
Brom Hall, especially given its value to the community. Okay.
And I think, um, my final question, I hope so
my final question depending on your answer. Is. Is it
possible for us to not terminate the lease, stay with
our lease, but see if maybe we can get further
commitments from transport Canada regarding the future of Brom Hall,
see if they want to go in like a, um,
a partnership, let's say with us to help with any
repairs moving forward just to make sure that, you know,
they don't go in and just demolish the building or
they don't allow, you know, them to hold the functions
that they, all these different community groups hold there. That's
Corona. That has been the entire exercise you've undertaken for
two years. Those are the discussions we've had. What ways
can we work together? Where can you financially contribute? How
can we adjust the terms of the agreement that make
it more equitable in terms of responsibility? All those discussions
took place. Uh, can transport Canada, you know, assure the
city and the resins that enjoy the facility, that it'll
be continued to be accessible for community use. Obviously the
city has every interest to keep that facility in good
repair and beloved and used by the community. There is
no interest by the city to have it demolished and
transport Canada. Of course, they'll make decisions on their terms,
but there was no indication by the individual that we've
been working with that they would not make it available
to the facility or that they would be seeking to
demolish it. Yeah. It just seems literally odd though that,
you know, they wouldn't want to do a partnership and
share in the cost. But now they're going to end
up having the burden of paying all of the costs.
You know, I would think that they would rather take
the partnership than, than have the full burden of the
cause. And of course without us having an agreement saying,
you know what, we promise we're going to leave this
open. To, to the public, um, that's very concerning to
me. So those are my questions, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank
you. Um, debate on the recommendations moved in seconded. Councillor
Cook. Um, thank you, sir. Could I call for a
recorded vote, please? Absolutely. Thank you. Any further debate. Okay.
Wait a second. Councillor Cook, you wanted to debate. Um,
I actually just wanted to ask one question. Yep. Um,
I just wanted to make sure that I understood the
financial applications piece of what's being suggested. So the current
deferred maintenance cost, I'm directing this back to staff or
missed Carpino. It's approximately, let's just call it 800, 000
dollars. So what we are looking at is a financial
risk. To the city of approximately 100, 000 dollars. If
we do not terminate our existing lease with transport Canada.
Is that correct? That's the risk. That's correct. So we
would have to find an additional 800, 000 dollars in
order to preserve this building within our current leasehold. So
the recommendation is to release ourselves from this lease. It
says is the condition of the facility and the repairs
that would be necessary, not just on one day, but
over the next several years. Right. Understood. Okay. Thank you
for that. Appreciate it. Councillor Robinson debate. Councillor
Pickles had his hand up first, Mr. Murray. I recognise
you, you have this four. Okay. Um, regarding that. You
know, I understand that this is financial, um, but again,
you know, we haven't looked at other options yet. Now,
we haven't seen if we can get a partnership with
transport Canada, because obviously now they're going to have to
fill the whole bill. Right. And if we say, you
know, Hey, you know what, we're willing to be partnerships.
Also, you know, have we, if I might stop you
there, I don't want to be argumentative, but a miscarino
said the exact opposite that she's been working, um, forcings
for two years now. And without success. So I'm taking
your comments in The Good Nature, they're intended, but I
don't think they actually reflect what Miss Carpino said. So,
no, no, I understand that she said that she's been
working for years, but now it's down to the nitty
gritty and we are about determinate our lease. Can we
not have another conversation with them and say, Hey, we're
going to terminate our leash. And like, you know, wouldn't
you rather have a partnership with us instead of like,
you know, taking the full bill by yourself. We also
don't have an agreement. We've got nothing legally binding whatsoever.
We could pass this tonight. And then tomorrow, you know,
at Bromhaul, which cease to exist and they'll be locking
the doors. I mean, we have no control over that.
And I mean, I think that's something that we do
need to make sure does not happen. Also, you know,
Councillor Cook just mentioned about the money. You know, have
we looked at the possibility of possibly naming rights? You
know, we have naming rights on a couple of our
buildings now. Have we asked any of like, you know,
our friends of the community, if they would like to
have their name on Brom Hall to help supplement those,
um, the, the costs that's going there. I think that,
you know, if we could possibly defer this motion and
I'm going to ask for a deferral motion, um, so
we can maybe have some of those other conversations go
back to transport Canada and say, Hey, look, we want
to do a partnership. And so, and let them know,
like, you know, you're going to be doing the whole
bill if we don't do a partnership. And like, let's
reach out to some of our community friends and ask
them if they would like to put, have naming rights
for Brom Hall. I mean, there's investigated yet. So I
would like to see if we can have a deferral
motion and defer this until we get some of those,
either we get written confirmation from transport Canada that they
are not going to close the doors or demolish a
building. And till we can have like, maybe just until,
um, the next meeting, you're debating your deferral without properly
secondary. So Councillor Robinson has moved a deferral, uh, for
consideration until there's further conversations. Is there a second or
for that. No secondary. So, um, Councillor, you have two
and a half minutes left in your debate. Okay. Um,
well. I appreciate the financial concerns outlined in the report
in the city does not own Bromhaul. We know that.
And there are significant repair costs associated with the building.
However, my concern is not simply about cost. My concern
is about, you know, we're about determinate these agreements without
any kind of written guarantee. Or with regard to what
happens next. How's everyone going to feel if tomorrow they
go there and the doors are closed and the community
has nowhere to go, you know, I just brought up
suggestions of deferral naming rights and not any of you
are even willing to, to second that, um, Brom Hall
is more than just a building to the people. It's
like one of Pickerings oldest surviving Civic buildings. And it's
important part of the community's history. And before we walk
away from this community asset, I think Council deserves answers
and residents deserve certainty on the future of Bromhault. I'm
not comfortable terminating these agreements based solely on verbal assurances
from transport Canada. And I believe that we should first
obtain written confirmation from them regarding the future of the
building. Continued public access. And whether there is an opportunity
to preserve this facility through a partnership or post sharing
agreement or with naming rights with our community friends. So.
I will not be in favor of this. And we
are having a recorded vote. Yeah. Yes, Councillor. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Pickles. You have the four. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor. I haven't generated a prepared speech. But if
I could go back to, uh, to Marissa or to
Vince, how many years have we been talking with the
federal government? Cause I certainly recall it's been years. And
the other day we had a meeting with our MP
present Councillor Butt. All the federal agencies Brom representatives present
and we had a thorough discussion. So how long have
these discussions been going on for how many years have
we been talking about this. Lease of this building. I
would say approximately two years, this discussion has been an
ongoing. Okay. And you've looked at a lot of options,
a lot of concerns, a lot of opportunities. We've looked
at it from various angles, correct. That is correct. Um,
I don't know if you or Vince can answer this.
Um. Generally how many days out of the year is
this facility. Rented. Rant it out to another part. Didn't
they report. And so it ranges from as few as
12 to as many as, let's see here, 28. And
our paid uses. Some are unpaid uses and they generally
revolve around meeting rentals, private celebrations and on rare occasion,
a movie production. So 12 to 28 days out of
a 365 day year. Right. How much revenue would we
have generated out of those rentals? Although you said some
of the rentals were. No fee. It's also reflected in
the report. The revenue per year ranges from, this is
gross revenue from 2, 200 dollars. And that revenue is
collected by and retain by the Broom Recreation Society. It
doesn't come to the city. So two to four thousand
dollars. Per year. Vince, can you run me how much
we spent on capital, uh, improvements recently? I thought you
said 60, 000. On recent repairs. Yes. Approximately 60, 000
dollars. And Councillor Cook was correct in deferred capital works
of about 800, 000 dollars. That's correct. The facility condition
index noted in the report is 93 percent. That's basically
taking the, um, estimated, uh, five year period capital repair
cost over the replacement cost of the entire building. In
other words, it's 93 percent of 800, 000 dollars is
what we estimate we would need to invest in this
building over five years to keep it in a current
state of good repair. So, so the lease. That we're
working under has us responsible for all capital improvements to
the building. Whereas the landlord being the federal government, uh,
is not responsible for those capital costs. We're responsible. That
is correct. And if we were to make that investment,
we would be making that 800, 000 dollar investment in
an asset owned by another party, not by the city.
So we would be doing the lease. As the ones
leasing the building, we have beyond the hook. We've already
paid 60, 000 beyond the hook for 800, 000 dollars
of capital projects. To a building that we don't own
that is owned by the federal government. So, uh, Vince
and Marissa, you are in the same meeting I was.
I think Laura was also there too Laura Gibbs, our
MP. Was there a Councillor But was there? The various
federal agencies are there. I came out of there with
what I feel is a pretty clear direction that their
intention was if we, um, ended our lease that they
would continue to lease the facility to the Brom recreation
group. Or anyone else came along and that they would
keep the doors open and then they would do the
necessary work. Is that the sense you had walking out
of that meeting. Yes, very clearly. Okay. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor. You have the floor. Thank you
very much, Mr. Mayor. Three you to staff. The discussion
regarding naming rights. Am I correct that we would not
have any authority to do naming rights over a building
that doesn't belong to us as a tenant. That would
be my understanding. Correct. I would, I would, I would
not be recommending or suggesting to transport Canada that we
pursue as a city and naming rights per federal building.
Thank you. That was my first question. Um, a second
question. I recall after, I guess it was after COVID,
um, COVID - 19, um, the building was closed and
there was some question about not even reopening it because
of safety issues. And I thought it had to do
with, um, uh, I'm trying to remember, um, but there
were safety issues. Air quality. Air quality and asbestos as
well. That's correct. So the facility closed due to provincial
regulations in 2020, surrounding the COVID and the different mitigating
measures that were introduced by the province at that time.
And then in 2023, we're exiting out of COVID and
facilities are reopening. Uh, there is an air quality test
that we had to address and mitigate. And Vincent's team
were responsible to take care of, uh, returning the facility.
Uh, so that it could be open to the public
safely. And that work was undertaken. That allowed the facility
to be open to the public in spring of 2025.
And as I understand it and it's been reflected in
the report since spring of 2025 when it's been open
to the public, uh, through the support of the bro
migration society, it's been used once. Thank you. Um, this
perhaps maybe Vince, uh, you might be able to answer
it, um, it was just up there for a community
meeting, uh, land over landings hosted just about a week
or so, uh, back. Um, there is a cross beam
that has been that has been erected from wall to
wall. Is that a support beam that we put in
or is that a beam that was put in for
another purpose. Uh, it predates my time councillor, uh, but
I suppose that could be functioning for two purposes. The
first is that there is a stage, uh, at the
community centre. And I know that some of the volunteer
groups from the museum used to perform at that location.
So that brace may be there in part to provide
some lighting support. Structurally, uh, it may be just providing
a lot tie with tall masonry buildings of this nature.
It's not unusual to see that you see the upper
wall starting to display over time. Uh, I'm not particularly
aware of its unique nature, but it could be either
one or both of those. Thank you. Um, subsequent question,
if I might, Mr. Mayor threw you. Bromhaul being a
historical building as such as one of the first Civic
buildings, uh, meetings were held. And, um, is that a
federal designation or is it a municipal designation? And if
it's either or both, um, if there was to be
a consideration for demolishing by the federal government, um, would
they be reaching back out to the municipality in terms
of a demolition permit? And would it also, would they
also be reaching back to the municipality in terms of
our own heritage, uh, committee assessing its value. So I'll
speak to its status and then I'll refer it over
to Mr. Bentley or Matt Simmerville to speak to the
process by which that would be considered. So in the
report, it identifies that the property is recognised as a
federal heritage building and is also listed on the city
of Pick Rings Municipal Heritage Register. So now I'll hand
it over to the Planning Staff. We can speak about
the process that transport can. It would not undertake. Should
they consider that, uh, in the future? Thanks, uh, Marissa.
So yeah, um, as Mrs identified, it's identified as federal
significance. Uh, similar to what has been done in years
past by transport Canada. I would assume, uh, that they
would, uh, notify the city of their intentions to demolish
consistent with that approach. They would have applied for a
demolition permit at the appropriate time. Um, they don't have
to. Uh, because they're exempt from complying with a misspal
requirements. But as a courtesy, they have been doing that
in the past. So I would anticipate the same activity
at, at the appropriate occasion, should that ever be contemplated.
If I might subsequent, Mr. Mayor Kyle. So if they
did do that, um, then the release of the permit,
um, and we've had debates on other properties with private
landowners, um, with Council have the opportunity to debate it.
Um, and to recommend a refusal as an example based
on its heritage. So, uh, in years past, I'm recalling
properties on federal lands, uh, there was intention by the,
uh, transport Canada to demo the building, um, we certainly
notified Council of Fat intention. And I believe at the
time some councillors had, uh, reached out, uh, directly. And
I think there was maybe some meetings, uh, Council means
that this was discussed as well. And there were some
back and forth discussion with transport Canada. At the end
of the day, it's their authority to move forward with
demolition. With or without, uh, Council objections, um, so I
think again, it's a courtesy on their part to reach
out to us, and, uh, hear what we have to
say, uh, but then stopping them from proceeding with demolition,
uh, because they're, they're exempt from meeting city requirements. And
that's far the no inkling from transport Canada that they
would be taking down Bromhaul. Am I correct Kyle? Nothing
that I'm aware of. And I suspect Mursica can. Nagy.
Thank you. Uh, I just wanted to say that with
all of the questions and comments that have been made,
I will be in support of this motion tonight because
this absolutely is an important building to the community. It's
a longstanding building despite the lease. It's consistently remained. The
property of the federal government. And it has always been
Brom Hall. So I will be voting yes because I
would like to protect the Pickering Taxpayer from paying for
the repairs of the building. I would like to protect
the integrity of the location. And because frankly, I could
never imagine this building under something like a naming right
as being anything other than Brom Hall. So that's all
I was going to say. Thank you. What about Costco
Bromall. Uh, Councillor Robinson, you've asked questions, Anton, debate. But
horrible thing to say Costco Brom Hall. We could find
something better than that. Hey Walmart. Um, two things. One,
I just want to correct the record. I had said
earlier about Councillor, but second my motioning on this, but
no, he had second my motion to defer the 681
Pleasant Street, which is coming later on in the agenda
on 11. 2. So I just wanted to correct that.
I was just thinking about, I'm like, Oh no, talking
about heritage. Um, and then the second thing is, I
mean, there was talk about, um, not using the public
funds, not using the funds to, to pay into this
building because it is a federal building. But in saying
that, I think we're being very hypocritical. Because I mean,
we spent over 60, 000 dollars for a farmhouse for
seven people, um, to a property that is owned by
a developer. We also have done bathroom renovations for other
places that, um, are not owned by the city. So
I just want to put that into perspective as well.
You know, I'm really trying hard for this community to
have their own hall. So, um, yeah, that's all I
wanted to add is that they do seem very hypocritical.
So thank you. I don't think that's an appropriate word.
Um, I'm sorry. Okay. Well, where should I use? Cause
I don't want to get in trouble, Mr. Mayor. Well,
I got to tell you, Councillor, that you should maybe
do some research on the money that the taxpayers saving
because of DARs. A shelter bed in Durham costs between
38, 000 and 76, 000 dollars per year. So on
average 55, 000, under housed people there saving the taxpayers
over 350, 000 dollars a year of being out of
the shelter system. So. No, I think that's great. You're
absolutely right. It is a great thing. Darius is a
great thing. The thing that I don't like is that
we're using taxpayers dollars for a developer's property. That's the
problem. To save 350, 000 dollars. Okay, I get it.
No, no, the developers to be paying for that Mr.
Mary's The Landlord. See, you change everything around. When you
think about it and don't worry about what the place
is being used for. If you just think about who
owns the property, right? We don't own the property a
developer does. It has nothing to do with the Councillor.
We're off track here. All my point was that we're
saving money because of our supportive DARS to the taxpayer
about 350, 000 dollars per year. And you're also spending
taxpayers dollars on building that doesn't belong to us. To
save the taxpayer 350, 000 dollars, which is about a
half a tax point that you perhaps want to add
to the taxable. Okay. Uh, we have a requested vote
recorded for coat. Very immature. Council, you cost the taxpayers
a lot of money. You argue for extra money all
the time. So I don't know why you're so defensive.
You should be proud of you and the CAO to
keep on putting those complaints in you. So in fact,
you guys are the ones wasting the taxpayers. Point of
order. That's not the item on the floor. That's right.
Councillor, uh, going to call the question Councillor Cooks ask
for recorded vote. Answer Cook. Yes. Councillor Nige. Yes.
Councillor Pickles. Yes. I'm so Robinson. No. Brenner? Yes. Mayor
Ash. Yes. The worship that's carried five to one. Thank
you. Councillor Robinson. You have pulled item 10. 4. The
2027 committee and Council meeting schedule. Yes. I did Mr.
Mayor. Thank you. Um, I have a couple of questions
here. There's only like four unless more come up as
I'm speaking. But why is Council approving the meeting schedule
for the next term of Council before New Council has
been elected? Shouldn't the incoming Council have the opportunity to
determine how and when it wishes to conduct its meetings?
Come here. I think, um, the answer as the clerk
is already given to you. This calendar is put up
by our concurrent procedural bylaw. And if the bylaws change
by the new council, the calendar will be changed accordingly,
but this is to plan for the future and for
to make sure that the operation of government continues seamlessly
during any transition. Right. Okay. Perfect. And, you know, I
previously attempted to bring Freud the notice of motion to
move our two o'clock Executive meetings to nighttime so we
could improve our public engagements and accessibility. Was that suggesting
ever reviewed or considered by staff before we brought forward
this schedule. Are we just meeting studies quickly? The schedule
is based on our current procedural bylaw. And Council will
have every ability to change that, uh, procedural bylaw. Uh,
at its first meeting and its second meeting or any
meeting in between, but the, the reality is more and
more councillors are going to daytime meetings. Okay. So.
Stat has undertaken an analysis regarding that thing, Mr. Mayor
regarding the public attendance and participation between the two o'clock
meetings versus our evening meetings. Do we have data on
that. For the city of Pickering? I'm not talking about
anywhere else. I'm talking about here. You just made the
comment. Do we have said was staff. Are doing the
committee schedule based on our current procedural bylaw. There's been
no analysis. There's been no changes. There's no, no, um,
study and no recommendations to change it. That'll be up
to the new Council if they want to make that
determination. Madam Clerk, do you want to give a more
Folsom answer than that. But sorry, Mr. Mayor, did you
not say that that other municipalities are going to day
meetings instead of nighttime meetings? Yes. I did. So that's
just based on what you know, it hasn't been a
study that's been done. That's correct. Okay. Madam Clerk, do
you want to thank you, worship? I don't have a
lot more to add than what you've already said. It
is based on the current rules in the bylaw, which
is subject to change with the new Council. There's a
review of that bylaw done every term. Uh, and usually
it is dictated by Council. It's not necessarily a stop
driven. It is Council's bylaw. It's how we conduct the
meetings. Uh, and I have not undertaken a study about
daytime meetings versus nighttime meetings. I have not been directed
by Council to do so if I was, then I
would undertake that work. Okay. Great. So then by approving
a schedule tonight, we're not binding or compelling the next
term of Council to follow this particular arrangements. They're free
to go in as soon as they're elected and change
the schedule if they wish. And they could have mentioned
it. Right. As soon as they take office. Yeah. Or
change council to daytime meetings. Right. And even now Councillor
through the provisions in that bylaw. It says, uh, the
meetings are at certain dates and times unless otherwise approved
by resolution of Council. So Council has the authority over
their meetings. And should they wish to change one mid
year, for instance? They have the ability to do that.
Okay. That's great. Thank you very much for that. I
appreciate it. Councillor Pickles question. Debate. I'm not sure it's
a question. I'm not sure who I could direct it
to. Maybe Mr. Holburn would know, but I don't think
it would be the present clerk. Um, but Mayor Ash
and Councillor Brunner may recall that over the years, we've
looked at a few different. Structures and timing for committee
meetings. And what I recall is that for Executive Committee
meetings, uh, we've tended to have a great deal, a
great number of staff present. But very few, if any,
residents, uh, attended the Executive Committee meetings. Whereas planning meetings,
uh, we tended to have fewer staff and many more
residents, particularly when there was, uh, a development of some,
um, general interest to the public. And so over the
course of the years, we determined to have the planning
committee meetings, uh, and council meetings in the evening as
those were the ones that were most attended by resonance
and have the Executive Committee meetings during the day as
few, if any, residents, came to them. As well, since
the, uh, recommendations of the Executive Committee meeting come to
Council to be endorsed, uh, members of the public would
have an opportunity to come to Council of the Wanda
speak to Executive Committee members. And they would also have,
uh, two or more kicks of the can, so to
speak with respect to planning items since they would go
to a statutory public meeting a planning meeting. And then
again, to come to a council meeting for endorsement. So
I think just a bit of history. That's kind of
how we landed on the schedule we have for evening
versus, uh, daytime meetings. That's, that's what I would call
Councillor Brenner and Council Rash may, may recall some of
those earlier iterations as well. Thank you. Thank you. Um,
the motion is duly moved in seconded. We've had debate
in questions. I'm going to call the question then. Unless
there's a request for a roof quote a vote. Sure.
We can have a recording vote. Sure. Recorded vote requested
by Councillor Robinson. Madam Clerk, we call the rule, please.
Councillor Robinson? No. Councillor Brenner. Yes. That's her Cook. Yes.
Councillor Nike. Yes. Councillor Pickles. Sorry, yes. Mayor
Ash? Yes. Worship that's carry five to one. Thank you.
Uh, that concludes Executive. I have a consent motion moved
by Councillor Pixel Councillor Brenner on 11 one, two, and
three. I'll give anybody a chance to pull the debate.
On either one, two, or three. Councillor Robinson. I didn't
hear anyone ask for a consent motion. Put into something.
Else or Pickles said yes. I seconded it. I moved
it. Yeah. So do you have any polls council? No,
you, you mentioned at first Mr. Meredith, but they're just.
I'm sorry. It just isn't seem like the proper procedure
on October 26, people decide who's going to run the
meeting moving forward. So, uh, until then, I am. Do
you have any, we're not going to call procedure. I'm
falling procedure. I have a mover and a sectioner for
consent agenda. I'm asking for any polls. Do you have
any polls? Um, we're not following procedure. Yes, I'm going
to pull 11. 1 and 11. 2. 3 is moved
consecutive. Going to call the questionals in favor. I'll pose
that aim's carry. Uh, motion 11. 1 is in regards
to Seaton TFPM inc. Seaton community. It's moved in 2nd
Councillor Robinson. You've pulled it for questions and or debate.
You have the floor. Yes. I have pulled it for
both and I'm surprised that everybody wanted to do a
consent agenda on this. Yes, sir. Um, Executive Committee and
planning meeting take hours. We've already dealt with these items.
They are brought here not to read litigate, not to
read debate, but to ratify the actions taken a committee.
It's perfectly in your right to do it, but to
suggest we're ramming things through at nine o'clock at night
wouldn't be correct. So you have the floor on 11.
1. Okay. Just one question before I go to my
questions, please. Mr. Mayor, you always seem to have this
issue with time. That things are taken too long that
I asked like, you know, 27 minutes of questions at
the other meeting. Is it a time issue. Like it's
a question. You constantly mentioning time. Like this is our
job. Isn't this our job to sit here so people
are aware of everything and ask questions. So they understand
what we're talking about instead of just saying consent agenda
done and nobody knows what was passed. There's 22 staff
people on this call. All paid very handsomely. And you
might suggest that's a good, uh, use of time. Uh,
I'm suggesting it's not. We've already spent hours and hours
debating these issues at committee. These are issues. If you
want to waste time, um, continue to do so. I'm
not suggesting you're wasting time by asking questions. Uh, but
you spent 25 minutes asking about denialism today. So, um,
I'm also going to ask, how do we know that
all of our staff are here and present when all
their cameras are turned off. Because they're meant to have
their cameras off until they're called to be there. So
we're paying them a lot of money, like you said.
So I just want to make sure. So I'll go
to my questions, Mr. Mayor. So my first question is
exactly how many hectares of designated employment lands are being
removed or redesignated through this mechanism to this amendment, I'm
sorry. Uh, miss there Bentley or Mr. Rose. Do you
want to speak to that? Yeah, I'd invite Catherine Rose
to respond to that question. Through the mayor to Councillor
Robinson, uh, unfortunately I, I don't have the exact number,
uh, of hepterisit is being redesignated. Okay. Thank you. Mr.
Rose. Um, do we, I had asked at the last
meeting, do we know how many jobs were originally projected
to be created on these lands and how many jobs
now are projected to be lost as a result of
this redesignation. Again, through the mayor to Councillor Robinson, uh,
again, I don't have a specific number of jobs, but
I can advise that we are retaining one block of
employment land. And we are also identifying other, some smaller
areas for commercial. So there will be some employment replaced
through the commercial type activities, as well as we are
retaining the one block of a larger block of employment
lands. Okay. So we haven't done an analyst to determine
how many jobs might be displaced as a result of
this amendment. Okay. Councillor turned on his camera. Um, I'm
an economic development perspective. Uh, and the, and the reasoning
from a planning as well as an economic development perspective.
We've heard from the planning perspective, Mr. Jodu, you want
to speak to the shortcomings in this particular area of
employment. Through you, myrrh Ash to Councillor Robinson. So there's
various steps that were taken to understand how we came
to this conclusion. When you look at the historical area
of the era of the Brock 47, the Seaton, um,
community plan that was done through the CPDP, the draft
plan and highlighted employment areas that were right beside areas
as such as schools or other areas such as residential
areas. When we went through our analysis to understand how
we could market these lands for users, we came to
the determination that these lands would not be marketable for
users that would yield higher employment. Now when we did
their whole exercise with Ms. Rose, Mr. Bentley and their
staff and some with some, uh, external assistance as well.
We came to the conclusion that commercial also generates jobs.
So your question regarding displacement of jobs, there's no displacement
of jobs because there are no jobs there right now.
Our responsibility as staff is to put forward the best
options that we could put for towards end users. And
that this, these are the best options. We do not
want to have land that's going to sit idle for
years and years when it does not provide any sort
of benefit to any end user. We see that in
many municipalities and you see that in many areas across
other areas as well. So what we wanted to do
is we wanted to have the area marketable, like you've
done in the innovation corridor. And truth be told, even
in the innovation corridor, there's some irregular shapes that are
very hard to market. We're trying our best and this
area did not provide us without option, which is why
we chose to go through the route of looking at
other options. And just, just, uh, just to let everyone
know, commercial creates good jobs. It generates opportunities. And most
importantly, it's creates amenities for our residents. Um, you know,
residents don't necessarily want to drive into an employment park
to get groceries or get gas. They want to be
able to get it close to their home. And this
opportunity provided that right off the 407. So I hope
that answers your question. But if this is better planning
now, then why are we the lands originally designated for
employment in the first place? Like what, what is changed?
Seaton plan was done through the province. Through the province
of, yeah, sorry, go ahead, Marash. No, Seaton was developed
through the province and didn't lack any municipal authority. The
original plans of the, uh, Seaton area, uh, were done
through a draft plan that were done through the central
Central Pickgrin area Centra CPDP. And that was done years
ago. So when we, when we, when we revisit areas
through whether through an official plan or a sufficient plan
amendment, this is, this is the exact purpose of that,
looking at the opportunities and how the market has shifted
and changed. Okay. Um, well, then talking about that just
weeks ago, Council supported the report to Park's Canada and
transport Canada that identified the federal lands as a future
employment area. And we cited a growing demand for industrial
lands in Durham region linked to Durham in the GTA.
Can we then explain how that position is reconciled with
removing employment lands and seeing tonight. Sure. I'd be happy
to do that. When you look at the area that's
been presented through this report by Ms. Rosen, Mr. Bentley,
this area, while we, a lot of many of us
call the TPFM area, the Brock 47 area, the large
area, acreage of employment lens that are being removed. They're
being redesignated for other purposes. When you look at the
employment lands that were proposing for the federal government to
put in front of, um, this community, those are contiguous
large parcels of land. They're not four or five acres.
They're not 11 acres. Those are large parcels of land
that actually even are easier to market even in comparison
to some of the irregular shapes we have in the
innovation corridor. So it's a night and day difference when
you're comparing the federal lands that we want the federal
government to convert to employment lands compared to the lands
up at the Brock 407 area. They're not comparable in
size marketability and exposure. And more importantly access to employment
for employers. And also people that are going to be
able to work there. So there are two separate matters
that don't even compare to each other. So because the
lands are bigger up in the federal lands, we would
rather pave over prime. Class A farmland as opposed to
making the employment lands work in Seaton. Let me just
clarify the, let's stop there for a second. Uh, I
don't think that's appropriate to suggest we're paving over. We
want to protect an agricultion. Well, with all due respect,
Mr. Mary, three options. Report reports to go tonight. I'm
not going, I'm not continuing with this. Finish your question.
Again, Mr. Mayor with all due respect. We're not protecting
all of the land up there. He only gave three
officers to the people. There was no option for it.
Time's up. You've got, you've talked for seven, seven minutes.
So I'm going to cut you off. Any further questions
on this. Councillor Brenner. You have the floor. Thank you
very much, Mr. Mayor. Um, he has, um, am I
correct that one of the, probably most important salient points
in this is in fact the wording that has and
to permit additional employment uses on lands. So am I
correct in that interpretation? We have not decreased. The amount
of opportunities or the lands for employment, but where in
fact enhancing and looking at other creative uses to achieve
employment within these lands. Would that be accurate. That is
100 percent accurate Councillor. Thank you. Councillor Pickle, Jibda for.
Yeah. Uh, Mr. Mayor, um, just a similar comment. Um,
so Fia's and Mr. Mayor, you raised as well is
that the previous plan for Seaton wasn't developed by us.
Wasn't approved by us. It was, uh, it was led
by the provincial government. It was either approved or proved
as a settlement through, I think at that time, the
Ontario Municipal Board. The world has changed a little bit
in the last several years. Fiazz has pointed out that
the original. Planned development of these lots after going a
refinement exercise no longer are viable for that purpose. They're
being rezoned to a more suitable purpose. And the lands
in the innovation corridor and or adjacent to that innovation
quarter are more appropriate for those large development uses, uh,
that we very much desire in the community. Would that
be correct for us. Do you, Mayor Ash, the Councillor
Pickles. Yes, that is 100 percent accurate incorrect. And this
isn't the only change that has come along through the
Seaton plans implementation, uh, again, the plan is several years
old and a number of amendments changes, refinements have come
forward, uh, as appropriate over the course of the time
of the development Seaton. And this is another one. Would
that be correct? That is correct. Yep. Thank you. Yep.
Thank you. Okay. There's no further debate. Councillor, you have
your, you've had your go at it. I'm going to
call the question. Stuley moved in second elves in favor.
So I'm going to ask for recorded vote. And are
we not having debate? You're not going to let me
debate either. You've already debated. Record a vote requested by
Councillor Robinson. Councillor Robinson. Quinn of personal privilege, please. I
have not debated anything. No, we're not doing this. You
cut off the role. I call the role. You vote
yes or no. Or I turn off your microphone. Mr.
Mayor, you allow everyone else. Adam Clerk, please continue with
the role. Councillor Brenner. Sorry. Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes.
Council Nike? Yes. Councillor Pickles. Yes. Mayor Ashe. Yes. You
worship. I'm confirming with you as chair that Councillor Robinson
is not voting on this item. Her microphone's been able.
She can vote now if she wants. I don't want
any more debate. Councillor Robinson. Yes or no to the
vote. The answer was no. And thank you for allowing
me to speak Mr. Mayor. Thank you. The vulture is
that carried five to one. The next item is in
regards to 11. 2 mindful that we still have 18
more reports to go. Not the time is of an
issue for some of us. Uh, and this is in
regards to motion duly with the second about notice the
objection of designation of six, eight, one. Pleasant street. Councillor
Rollins, you have the floor. I'm starting the clock. Starting
the clock for what my questions. No, your debate. I
want to ask questions. I don't, I don't have a
debate. I'm going to ask questions first, please. I'll give
you five minutes. For what? For questions or for to
be five minutes total. That's the, that's their chair's ruling.
Mr. Mayor, do you see how unfair you're being here?
I have questions to ask and then I want to
go into debate. You have five minutes. You've got now
four minutes and 31 seconds. Well. Stop canning to answer
my questions in that time. Well, you perhaps follow it
should have fallen. The procedural bylaw, which instructs you to
pose your questions to staff prior to the meeting. You
haven't done it. You did not have everything in secret
behind closed doors. The people don't know what's going on,
Mr. Mayor. They know what's going on. They deserved and
know it's going to. No, they don't. They know that
you've been breached the code 23 times. Really, Mr. Mayor?
You now have formers. And are they aware that you're
the one that keeps on putting in the complaints against
me? You know what? I'll just go into debate because
this is absolutely ludicrous and disgusting how you are running
this meeting. Well, people have a choice. Start. We're going
to designate a property that designation should be based solely
on the merits of the property and self and is
genuine heritage value. I also believe that we must be
fair to private property owners. This property was not designated
when the unders purchase tent. Now years later, we may
be imposing significant obligations of potential requiring the owner to
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars restoring and maintaining a
building that is already in a very poor state of
repair. Heritage designation is not without consequences. It can impose
additional costs, restrictions, approvals, delays and obligations on the property
on earth that would not otherwise exist. And no one
has really even spoken about the issue of insurance either.
If you knew some insurance companies will not even ensure
designated properties and others charge significantly higher premiums because of
the potential requirement to restore original heritage features. Those are
real financial implications that we are now putting on this
homeowner because we decide that this decrepit old building that
is falling apart. It is inhabitable. It has so much
mold. But we are going to push those obligations on
to this person. I also question whether we have heard
all of the evidence necessary to make an informed decision.
At the previous meeting, I do not believe the property
owner was given a fair opportunity to fully present the
heritage planning aspects of this manner. Respectfully, the owner's lawyer
was not qualified to answer many of the heritage planning
questions that were asked. And in some cases even answers
appeared to be speculative. This is a highly specialized area.
And I do not believe that gives the property on
her a fair opportunity to fully present their case. In
my opinion, a qualified heritage planner or heritage professionals should
have the opportunity to speak directly to the issues before
us before council makes a final decision. I'm also concerned
about the building itself based on the current condition. It
appears to be very side state of repair. We need
to ask ourselves whether designation will truly preserve this building
or whether we are simply delaying what may ultimately be
its inevitable demise while imposing significant costs on a private
property owner in the process. If the city believes preserving
this property is in the public interest, then maybe it's
fair to ask who should bear the financial burden of
that decision? Should arrest entirely on the private property owner?
Or should the community which benefits from preserving the heritage
asset also be prepared to assist. I believe heritage preservation
works best with property owners or partners in the process,
not when significant costs and responsibilities are imposed on them
without fully understanding the consequences that is going to bestow.
For those reasons, I believe this matter should be referred
back to allow the owner of the opportunity to obtain
appropriate heritage expertise and to allow council to receive additional
information regarding the financial implications. The insurance implications, the long
- term viability of preserving this structure. It is inhabitable.
I would like to ask for recorded vote, but first
I would like to do a referral motion that this
item be referred back to staff. So the stack can
report back regarding the estimated financial impacts of designation on
the owner and also the financial impact because we know
that this will go to the tribunal. So the potential
impacts of obtaining and maintaining property insurance and also the
long - term structured viability and preservation potential of the
building. Do I have a seconder? Yes, sir. So you
can't, si Robinson's asked for referral back to staff. Or
do I have a secondary. Being done? Thank you. Uh,
and just to, this is where this is where Councillor
Butt. Councillor, you're five minutes are up. Councillor Butt supported
me on this on the last time. I just wanted
to point a clear it. Thank you for correcting. Any
further debate. Council Nagy five minutes. So I just got
a couple of questions that I wanted to pose. Is
particularly in regards to Councillo Robinson's debate, uh, did the
owner attend the meeting on at playing development committee and
not speak. So it's my recollection Councillor Nagy that, um,
that the owner had legal representative, uh, at the most
recent, uh, planning meeting where this was considered by Council.
Okay. So to the best of our recollection, the owner
was not given the chance to. To put their case
forward. They chose not to attend. The owner, I don't
believe how the proxy in their place. I understand they
had representative in their place. Okay. And is the owner
in attendance tonight at the meeting or this representative. Um.
I don't, uh, I don't see any representative currently in
attendance in this meeting right now. I understand. So again,
an opportunity to defend their case or to make their
case is provided and they are not taking it. The
owner had their legal representative represent at the planning committee
meeting. Understood. And they're so, but my question, sorry, is
about tonight's meeting. So they're not here to speak to
this item representative in their head to speak to this
item, correct? I'm not, I'm not aware that they represent
it tonight. Okay. Um, in regards to the concern about,
uh, the, the representative not being suitable for that to
the best of our knowledge was the consultant on behalf
of the owner. Imposed on them where they freely, they
were freely selected to represent them correct. There was no
implication of, of that as far as we could tell,
correct? So Council may recall on the February report we
had spoken to, um, the owner did retain a heritage
consultant. They were not an attendance at the P and
D committee meeting earlier this either occasion, March or sorry,
February or earlier this month. Um, that I don't believe
the legal representative, uh, has the planning expertise or the
heritage expertise to speak to that to the best of
my knowledge. Okay. Um, was there any confirmation of mold
or of a quote sad state of affair? Or is
that merely an assumption or conjecture? To the best of
our knowledge. So I think what I said at the
previous meeting is that, um, assessment of mold assessment of
structural conditions requires expertise. That's in those, those respective areas.
So mold, the consultants that are qualified to speak to
the presence of mold. They would do appropriate testing, uh,
to determine if the mold spores, that sort of thing
and make a determination. I don't, I'm not aware of
a report. That speaks to that. Um, and, uh, and
likewise with structural, um, an appropriately qualified structural consultant could,
could address any structural concerns and any remedial steps required.
So that again, requires expertise. Um, I'm just, I'm just
to confirm. I'm just going to ask Matthew, who's in
attendance evening just to confirm if we've received reports of
that sort. I don't believe that we have, but Matt,
please confirm. Yes. I can confirm that we didn't receive
any reports about mold or, uh, anything like that. Okay.
So the, all right. So, uh, hard statement of that
there is mold and it is a not sound building
is not an accurate statement to make correct. Please, Mr.
Mayor. No, no, no. The representative did say there was
mold. They had pictures showing them old. They showed the
staircases. And we know that it was not a professional
heritage person speaking. It was speculating. Come to order. Well,
you know what you're making all these come to order.
Councillor Nike is supposed to question Mr. Somerville and Mr.
Bentley can answer the question they don't need your interjections.
I'm just making it fair because the way that Mara
is. I don't need you to run the meeting. Sorry.
Is Councillor Nagy while we're in Councillor Robinson. Councillor Nagy's
posed a question, Mr. Bentley. Do you have an answer.
Uh, so I think if I understood the question correctly,
you're asking about whether or not there is a presence
of mold or structural issues. And we don't from a
from someone who is qualified to assess that. So, so
again, we want to see there have been two weeks
since that initial planning and development meeting was held and
that this has been brought to ratification if there was
a desire for any of that, considering there have been
two weeks to provide any updated. Find a personal privilege,
Mr. Councillor. How can you say an owner is not
qualified to know what there's mold in the building? Please
come to order. You can sell pictures though. Sir, you're
debating. It's not. No, it's actually ridiculous ridiculous. Councillor Dagy
has the floor. No, sir. Just like to address that
that wasn't personal privilege because that was not anything. They
never are. I just wanted to correct the record on
that. For those of us who do understand procedure to
make sure that that is established. Yes. Thank you. Okay.
Any further debate. Sorry. So to the best of our
knowledge from everything that we have been given to read,
to understand, to analyse from the experts that we have
on staff, this building fulfills the heritage designation that has
been proposed for it. Question mark. And secondary question mark.
Is not considered an uninhabitable building. At the time at
this, at this point in time. So, uh, to the
second question, I'm not aware that we've received any subsequent
reports since the planning and development committee meeting. Um, so
I'm not aware of any change in status that way.
Um, and I think staff established in the previous report,
um, it staff's opinion that it meets sufficient criteria to
merit designation. Thank you. And just one more question, sorry
to, and I think this, this would be more of
a Nile's question if he's on the call. I just
wanted to confirm again, as was, uh, discussed in the
previous meeting, the timeline of the owners, um. What's what's
what I'm looking for? The owner's permits that were applied
for to the city. So there was, I wanted to
confirm, was there that demolition permit, um, that had been
mentioned that was in 2021 or 2022. Uh, through Mayor,
uh, it wasn't a demolition permit. They submitted a land
set application to sever the property. And if these land
severance was granted along with minor variances, uh, then it
would ultimately move towards, uh, paying a demolition permit to
demolish the building itself. But ultimately the variances were never
approved because of the status of the, uh, building itself.
Understood. Thank you. Um, thank you for correcting the record
and for correcting me on that. Um, so to the
best of our knowledge and feel free to comment if
I'm overstepping on this, but to the best of our
knowledge, the owner's intention was always to sever the land,
i. e. to move towards a demolition. And they were
not granted that. And so that was the, that was
the initial intention. The initial intention was a several Land
Creek to another additional lot with the intention to demolish
the building through that process, uh, we did flag it
as being of a heritage significance. We did complete heritage
evaluations. The owner did retain a qualified heritage consultant to
prepare to demonstrate that it didn't meet the requirements. Our
staff professionals, Matthew, Summerville, who is a qualified heritage professional
has also reviewed the findings and completed a detailed thorough
analysis of how it met the criteria for the heritage
qualification, which airs out thoroughly outlined in the staff report.
We've looked at contextual value with the historical value at
the architectural value. And it meets the requirements of the
Ontario Heritage. It designated the buildings. Through this process, the
owners have indicated whether the building is not structurally saved
or have any mold. No information has been given to
city staff from the owners to substantiate those claims they
have shown select pictures if you want to say it,
but there is no information that's saying here it is,
nor there's been any petition from the owner's forest staff
to visit the property interior to further verify that information.
So we are looking at this information from, uh, the
information that we have, the historical information, the structural view
of the building from outside. And we, in our professional
opinion, as well as Matthew's professional thing, it meets a
criteria under the Ontario Heritage Draculations. Understand. So to just
to touch on what you said, so Steph would have
made themselves available to view the property personally and make
those determinations if that had been, if that had been,
we could have been able to go in, but at
the same time, Mathie and I are not engineers in
any sort of way. So without qualified professionals who are
qualified engineers or qualified experts in detecting mold and doing
the necessary stage, we can't quantify statements if you want
to say it, saying that this is what's in there
at the end of the day. So NOR has the
owner's prepared. Qualified reports prepared by qualified experts in substantiate
that information either. So we can't just, on general comments,
say, Hey, the building isn't a structuring safe. So we're
therefore demolishing. There needs to be information. And the owner
just had ample opportunity through this process over the last
couple of years to provide that information to city stack
as well. Understood. Thank you so much. Um, I really
don't want to belabor the point. So, uh, my last
question would be to Matthew. Just if there's a reader's
digest version of what happens, what we lose if we
do not designate this building tonight. Um, well, the designation
will be going forward, but it's being contestant still. So
there will be an OLT hearing after this. So if
we don't designate, uh, the process ends here, uh, and
then the owner would be permitted to move forward with
the demolition application as he would for any other regular
building, uh, that's not listed or, or designated. Okay. And,
and, but historically is more where I was, what my
question was. So in terms of the history, hence the
reader is digest. Ample history to it. Yeah. It's, it's
the bill of the House represents kind of the core,
one of the two core buildings that remain of, of,
of, of Fairpoint. And so it's a, uh, it's at
the nexus of Pleasant and Commerce. And so there is
a story to be told. And it's kind of the
last little flame of that because it there's a, there's
a dialogue between the two, the old store and the,
and the house, um, but there's an opportunity there to
tell a story about Fairport. And I think that there's
a, that the building itself, um, could be interpreted as
part of that larger, um, arc around the growth of
that community in the 1870s. Um, but, uh, that would
be, uh, we still haven't does anything. We still haven't
moved forward with the designation for commerce street. So this
could still happen. Um, but every little bit that you
take away, it kind of lowers and reduces that, uh,
that ability to interpret. Understood. And so with every step
forward, we lose a bit more of our history and
a bit more of what brought us here today. Thank
you. Thank you so much. Those are all my questions.
Thank you so much for the live stream. You've already
had your five minutes. Uh, do you want to record
a vote councillor. Um, well, I'd like to do a
referral first and I would like to have a recorded
OBS. I think we've already had referral motion that was,
uh, not have a second or so. So we're not
going to this referral motion is something we can get
a qualified professional in there to check out the, the
mold and the structural. We've already dealt with your referral.
Should there was no. This is a different referral motion,
Mr. Mayor. You're not going to allow me to do
a referral motion. No, there's going to be a secondary.
We're going to have a vote. We're now. Well, no,
let's see this second or first. We've done 11 points
before. Mayor. This is important. This is somebody's life. This
is somebody's life in their over hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Councillor, I'm going to unfold, I'm voting on your
side. That doesn't mean I'm going to drag it out
all night. Well, no, you don't. But you want to
record a vote or not. I already said I would
like a roof for them clerk. Can we call the
role on the recommendations duley moved in seconded Councillor Robinson.
No. Sir Brenna. Yes. Cancer Cook. Yes. Councillor Nagy. Yes.
Councillor Pickles. Yes. Mayor Ashe. No. Brush it. That's carried
four to two. Okay. Thank you. We know move to
new and unfinished business. I have a motion from Councillor
Cook and seconded by Councillor Maggie to leave to introduce
a motion that will be dealt with under 12. 8.
Candidate parking restrictions that needs two thirds majority, which in
this case is four. I'm going to call the question
to leave to introduce all those in favor. Oppose that
item is carried. So we'll be added to 12. 18.
Okay. We have 18 reports here. I'm sure we're going
to have to extend our curfew. Not the Councillor, some
councillors don't care about the time, but I do. Um,
the first item is, um, chief administrator officer. I'm sorry,
appoint a personal privilege, Mr. Mayor. No, why do you
behave like that? What do you make these smart ass
comments. How, sir, you've been asked to come to order.
This is your last warning. My final 18 reports will
go much quicker if I excuse it from the meeting.
And this is your final warning. You will be excused
your next down burst. Do you understand. Okay. So, so
don't be surprised when it happens. The first 12. 1
point of personal privilege, Mr. Mayor. That's not quite one.
Second move by Councillor Pickles and second by Councillor Cook.
Uh, we also have a consultant here, Ms. Poole and
Ms. Wong, uh, from Nixon Poole. They're available for questions.
Ms. Carpino, please introduce subject. The motion's been duly moved
in seculted. Thank you, Mirage. Since beginning operations in 1971,
the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, or PNGS, has served as
a critical source of electricity currently supplying approximately 14 percent
of Ontario's power demands over the past 50 years, the
city has maintained a strong and productive working relationship with
OPG. As a supportive post community, our relationship has been
strengthened through agreements, arrangements, and the ongoing exchange and coordination
of information, resources, and support. All of which have delivered
important benefits to the residents of Pickering. For example, the
city has an MOU with OPG for fire protection and
community emergency management. The city has a license agreement with
OPG for the public recreational use of Kinsen Park and
Alex Robinson Park, Lan's owned by OPG. And the city's
economic development and public affair's teams were closely with OPG
to educate and form the community about strategic initiatives related
to PNGS. Consistent with this history of cooperation and collaboration,
Citi and OPG staff have been in discussion since early
2025 regarding the PNGS B refurbishment project. As Canada's largest,
clean energy and infrastructure project, it was important for staff
to understand the scope and timing of the project, as
well as the potential impacts on PNGS, the city, and
local residents and businesses. With an estimated project budget of
26. 8 million, the refurb project is expected to generate
significant benefits for figuring in the broader community, including 30,
000 jobs during the refurbishment period, 6, 700 jobs through
ongoing station operations, the strengthening of supply chain sectors. Investing
in high skilled trades. And most notably, securing 2, 100
megawatts of low carbon reliable electricity pound 2 million homes
and businesses across the province for another 30 years. Considering
that the refurable require on - site replacement, refurbishment, construction,
and modification activities between 2027 and 2034 staff recognise that
the refurb project would have local implications that would benefit
from a formal agreement to define responsibilities, contributions and coordination.
For this reason, the city and OPG staff negotiated a
municipal infrastructure and servicing agreement referred to as the MESA.
He deliverables in the MISA include, number one, OPG will
contribute with the design and construction of the city's new
fire hall number five to a maximum of 10 million
dollars. The new fire hall will be located the Corner
of Sandy Beach Road and Bailey just steps from OPG.
OPG has indicated that reconstructed fire hall will further enhance
local fire response and community safety and self - pickering,
including the refurbish PNGS. Number two, OPG will contribute 10
million dollars towards the acquisition of 591 Liverpool Road, which
forms part of the Pickering Harbour Company's landholdings. The city
is seeking to acquire from Frenchman's at Frenchman's Bay. This
financial commitment will be formalized through an agreement of purchase
and sale and terms for a licensed agreement. Both are
to be expected to be presented to Council in July
of 2026. The lands at 591 Liberal Road are currently
used for boat storage and supportive marina operations. And the
license agreement would permit the city to use these lands
for boat storage and public parking. OPG is seeking to
acquire these lands as they fall within the nuclear exclusion
zone. The obligations set out in the mesa will remain
in effect, even if the city is unsuccessful in acquiring
the PHC landholdings. Number three, OPG will invest approximately 60
million dollars to rehabilitate sandy Beach Road and reconstruct Montgomery
Park Road. While these road improvements will providing immediate benefits
to OPG, local residents and businesses and other users, they
will also defer the cities need to fully reconstruct CNB
dried by 10 years, resulting in an overall net benefit,
not neutral benefit to the city. OPG's financial commitment is
set out in the Road Servicing Agreement, approved by Council
in 2025. And OBG requires these roads to be rehabilitated
to support their reconstruction or refurbishment construction activities and deliveries.
Number four, OPG has confirmed its commitment to keep the
city financially whole from a property tax perspective during the
refurbishment period of 2027 to 2031 with annual indexing based
on the city's budget levy increases. This will help ensure
stable annual revenues in support of cities operating budget. Number
five, OPG has also confirmed its commitment to continue its
commute investment program through the power for change project for
the duration of this agreement. This initiative provides grants, awards,
and scholarships that support the broader community. And number six,
OPG has committed to providing information to local residence, businesses,
and stakeholders in a timely and transparent matter. Particularly with
respect to the refurbishment project. This includes two - way
communication with the city and PIC staff, uh, which will
be manning their information centre weekday. Every weekday, they'll have
a public telephone line, Project Updates via their website, social
media print media and outreach. It is staff's view that
the proposed MISA provides a necessary and appropriate framework that
supports a collaborative, transparent relationship with OPG. At this time,
staff are pleased to recommend to Council the endorsement of
the NISA to formalize this landmark agreement. Staff welcome any
questions Council may have. And we are also joined this
evening by Catherine Poole, partner with Nixon Kulaki LLP, and
Karina Wong, associate with Nixon Pool Locke LLP, who could
respond to questions specific to the PNGS property tax payments
during the refurb period as set out in the NISA.
Thank you. Questions of the report. Councillor Robinson. Do we
have a copy of that report? Pardon. Do we have
a copy of that report that Ms. just read out?
It's, uh, number 12 one.
It's nine pages long. With an attachment. Um, with the
agreement itself of 14 pages. Yes, thank you. Questions.
Any debate. Yeah, I do have questions. Can you just
give me just a moment.
Is this regarding the 591. Yes. Right. And how much
are they purchasing it for. Uh, 10 million dollars towards
the ultimate purchase price. And what is the actual purchase
price. Uh. I'm not quite sure. Is that, I mean,
it's publicly available. Uh, 30 million dollars for the total
offset. I think so. Yes. Now my question to you
is, I know that we were purchasing Frenchman's Bay at
what price. The total asset, including 591 Liverpool Road, including
the Lake house, including the spit, including the marina. Uh,
and the water lots is 30 million dollars. Right. That's
what I thought, but I, I, I was on MLS
just recently and I had actually back on May the
20th sent an email to, um, Ms. Carpino asking her
if five ninety one was included. In the, in the
sale price and the answer I got back was just,
um, yes, thanks. That was my, the only response that
I got back. But as looking on MLS. It shows
us two different listings. The one for 600 Liverpool Road
and then the other one for 591 liver pool road.
And I think the dates don't make sense in my
opinion when I look at the dates on MLF. Because
before it was all one unit. And I think they
were asking what was it? 60 million to start with
or something like that. And they started dropping the prices.
And then when we had decided to. Um, acquire it
at 30, 000 dollars. Into two parcels of land, not
one. So I'm really confused as to how come the
two different listings and they both show that their soul
conditional, but we're saying that it's one parcel of land.
So the little bit of confusion there. Okay. Well, let
me have Mr. Pajoni, who's our point on the transaction,
uh, maybe clear up something. Um, and Mr. Vijoni, I
don't want you to. Disclose anything that might be of
Social Client Privilege. And I'm not sure why the MLS
report or listings is relevant to the discussion today. But,
uh, Mr. Bentley or Mr. Bajoni, can you answer, please?
Well, I'll just tell you why I think it's relevant
is because the amount for the, for the 591 is
a lot more than 10 million dollars. And I understand
that we were going to acquire this, but we were
looking for federal and provincial funding to join into the
30, 000. So it was going to be 10, 000
from federal 10, 000 for provincial. And then we were
putting in 10 million dollars as municipal. The provincial government,
I believe said, no, we're not going to put it
in, but OPG could purchase it in their place for
the amount of 10 million dollars again to separate listings
that's listed for a lot more than 10 million dollars.
So I think the, and I just want to get
to the bottom of it. Okay. Mr. Pajoni. Again. The
transaction's not the subject to this report. So we're going,
we're colouring outside the lines here. Um, this is a
report in regards to contributions from OPG. But I'll allow
it because there is some crossover there. So, uh, Miss
Poole, do you want, you got your camera on or
Mr. Bajoni, if I may your worship, uh, Ms. Poole
is here with specific regard to the property tax assessment
provisions in the agreement that's before us. Um, not with
respect to the general business terms. Uh, and I like
to also signal a note of caution. Because the agreement
of purchase and sale for Frenchman's Bay is not on
tonight's agenda. And as, as Council well knows as a
subject of ongoing, uh, work on multiple fronts with multiple
stakeholders, uh, and it would be problematic indeed to hold
forth on that in this public meeting, especially since it's
not even on the agenda, but I can try, I
think, and address the Councillor's inquiries to perhaps put our
mind at ease so that she can consider the agreement
that is properly before her. Um, uh, the listings for
the property, or of no consequence, whatsoever to the city
and don't determine what the city must pay. And they
certainly don't determine the proper valuation or appraisal of the
different component parts of the Frenchmans Bay property. Um, so,
uh, the, uh, I'm trying to be careful here and
respect the confidentiality, the ongoing negotiations. But the MISA flags
the reference to up to 10 million dollars of OPG
funding, uh, four, five, nine, one. And it is, it
does represent, uh, the possibility of or the opportunity of
the provincial funding that will go to support the city's
overall purchase of the entire Frenchman's bay land holding from
Pickering Harbour Company. Um, so, uh, the intention of the
Misa is not to lock in those terms, but simply
to flag them and refer to them and cross -
reference them. Um, and the actual purchase terms for 591
liver pool will be the subject matter of a separate
agreement of purchase and sale between the city and OPG,
which is currently being negotiated. Uh, I should add finally
that, um, able to work with our colleague, our counterparts
at OPG to have content put into this, MESA making
it very clear that the MESA agreement that's before you
tonight has not conditioned along or terminates based on the
success or not of the negotiations with OPG for its
proposed purchase of 591 Liverpool. It's a separate and parallel
transaction. Thank you. I hope that that provides some clarity.
Thank you, Mr. Bijoni. Um, that's it for my questions
for now. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions. Okay.
Debate. I need to be. I'm going to turn the
debate. Um, I want to, um, congratulate staff. For this
groundbreaking commitment. Uh, and commend OPG for their partnership with
the municipality. As a member of the, um, Canadian host
nuclear communities, I can tell you that these, uh, negotiations
are discussed at these meetings. Um, and, um, the, the,
the municipality tried to call it one thing, um, and
OPG resisted. And we've come up with a municipal infrastructure
and servicing agreement. And the dollar figure is a 35,
36 million plus, which is remarkable partnership between OPG. As
the CAO quite rightly pointed out, they've been a partner
of ours in our city, uh, over 50 years, uh,
providing clean, uh, carbon free power to the grid, uh,
14 for currently 14 percent of the power of the
province is generated at Pickre Nicola. Uh, on the refurb,
there will be enhanced inputs from about 2000 megawatts to
about 2, 100 megawatts, which will at the time be
about 10 percent of the power that's being generated across
the province. And enough to power 2. 2 million homes,
um, as we continue to grow as a municipality as
a region, as well. So, uh, I, I, I, uh,
full hardy support, uh, the remarkable achievement that we've been
able to achieve. Um, and, uh, I, um, commend the
CAO, the finance team, uh, our legal, um, team as
well as our outside council in this regard. And, um,
I fully support the recommendation. And I think we'll be
the envious, some other host communities, uh, when this becomes
public later today. So with that, um, I'm going to
ask recorded vote, please. Madam Clerk, we call the role.
Councillor Brenner. Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes. Councillor Nike. Yes. Answer
Pickles. Yes. Councillor Robinson. This just has to do with
the agreement, not with a sale or anything, right, Mr.
Mayor? Correct. Then yes. They're asked. Yes. You worship that's
carrot unanimously. Thank you. The next report is the milestone
report number five on Dorsey Community Centre. It's moved by
Councillor Pickles. Thank you. We cancer Cook. Questions or debate.
Councillor Nagy. Good question. I was just going to, I
was going to ask for five minute recess, but I
can do that. Okay. Let's, let's do that after this.
So we're going to call, call the, um, question all
those in favor. That motion, um, is carried. And we're
going to take a five minute recess.
I can certify the attendance of all councillors saving except
for Councillor Nagy and Councillor But. Oh, there she is.
I can certify the time, so I'll remember that cancer
button. Okay, folks, we still have 16 reports to go
and our curfew is in 55 minutes. Next item is
12. 3. The accessibility advisory committee automatic door reliability is
moved by Councillor Cook, second by Councillor Nicky questions. Be.
That I'm going to call the question all in favor.
Oppose that items carry. Next item is the appointment and
lobbyist registered for the next term of office. Let's move
by Councillor Brenner. And second of my Councillor Nagy. Questions.
Robinson, you get the floor. My first question is, why
is principles integrity not continuing on as the city integrity's
commissioner? Did they choose to retire, close their municipal integrity
practice, decline to continue, or were there other reasons where.
They have to. Madam Clerk, can you speak to your
recommendation and what occurred and what have occurred if they
were still in the business. Thank you, worships, for you
to Councillor Robinson. We did do a joint RFP with
the region and the call out. We did receive a
submission from principles integrity. And then as we were going
through the process, we received notice that they would no
longer be doing services in 2027 because they were retiring.
Okay, so I mean, I had heard some rumours. Are
they retiring or were they being asked to step down
and retire? Do we know the answers to that? Because
I know like a couple of the mayors, I can't
remember where right now, but I know that he had
mentioned that he would be retiring them as well. So
I'm just wondering. Through your worship, that's a Robinson, the
integrity commissioner is an independent body. They're not hired, they're
not told whether to act or not. They decided to
retire and provided written notice to their clients that they
would no longer be providing integrity services. As of 2027.
Okay, no, I was just wondering if like, you know,
the abudsman, for example, had asked them to close their
door or something if they knew of anything like that.
Okay. Um, how much money has the city of Pickering
paid integrity principles integrity over the last four years, including
all the investigations, the reports, the training, the legal opinions,
all related services? Do we have a final number. I
do not have that final number with me tonight. Okay.
Do we know what principles integrities hourly rates are? I
believe 239 dollars an hour. 239 dollars an
hour. And the new integrity commissioner, um, what are their
rates for hour. It's within the agreement and the report
councillor. I have to pull it up here and have
a look at that. Yeah, that's what I was asking
you to pull it up. So I didn't have to.
I think it was like 350 dollars an hour and
I think maybe if it was an assistant or somebody
that was there, I think the issue is the nature
of the services provided by the near integrity commissioner had
different levels because they had senior partners junior partners and
associates. So this, I remember that because it was discussed
that, um, uh, at regional council as well. Okay. Um.
So here my next question is why is, why are
we as this Council of pointing the integrity commissioner for
the next term of Council before for them? Like, and
again, will they be able to get out of the
agreement if they want to get out of the agreement?
Will they be able to possibly interview and have an
integrity commissioner that they might like since they will debut
the ones who will be, you know, overseen the new
council. Banker. Prior to me answering that question. I just
want to go back to your prior question. Councillo Robinson.
I just had pulled up here. Principal's integrity charged just
275 dollars an hour. And the contract that's in front
of us tonight for the proposed integrity commissioners on a
tiered schedule. Uh, for Mr. Bogozian, who is the main
partner of the firm. It's 350 dollars an hour. Level
employees. And depending on that level, some are paid at
260 dollars an hour. And as far as your question
about, uh, The Entery Commissioner, the contract with our current
integrity commissioner only goes until the end of the term.
And under the municipal, we are required to have an
integrity commissioner. So in order to fulfill those requirements, we
have to do a new contract with an integrity commissioner
now so that the gap there. However, there are clauses
within the agreement, which is attached to the report that
gives the city and the, uh, integrity commissioner themselves, the
ability to get out of that contract. So Council would
have that authority to do that in the new term
if they chose to do so. Oh, okay. So there's
not certain reasons that they can get out of the
contract. Just if they feel that they want to be
able to interview other integrity commissioners or get the contract
for that, or what are the reasons that the city
can get out of the contract. Uh, I don't believe
that it is, uh, speculated, or sorry, stipulated. It says,
unless it's terminated earlier in accordance with the terms of
the contract. And under those terms, I believe it's just,
um, mutual notice actually by either party. So they have
the ability to get out of it. The city has
the ability to get out of it. Okay. Great. So
they shouldn't have a problem if they wanted to. Um,
the report indicates that this firm also provides services to
numerous municipalities, including some of the enduram region and also
during region itself. Could you tell me what other municipalities.
Are using? So we did it. We did this joint
venture with the region so that we, um, undertake the
process with them. It was a savings to the city
to do that. Uh, so the region has appointed them.
And as well as the city of Oshawa, the city
of Whitby, uh, Ajax already is in midway through a
different contract. So they didn't take part of the joint
recruitment. Uh, and I believe municipality of Clarington was also
looking to appoint them, but I don't have a confirmation
that they've done that yet. Okay. Um, only a couple
more questions. And I'm done. Does Stouff see any concerns
at all regarding independence or perceive conflicts or public confidence
with all of, well, a lot of Durham municipalities all
using the same integrity commissioner. No, there's actually. Some benefit
to that, especially when you have regional members. So you
have the same integrity commissioner looking at codes and it's
more consistent, if you will, for members to have the
same integrity commissioner at both levels. Okay. When we put
out the RFP, I guess how many firm supplied was
it only three? Did I read in the report? Pre
- commissions. That's correct. So the other one was principles
integrity. And what did we base this integrity commissioner, um,
getting our business? Or was it predominantly because we wanted
to use the same and make it all uniformed with
the region of Durham and the other Dura Municipalities. Well,
the RP would have asked them to provide submissions based
on experience based on, um. How long they've been doing
it, things like that. So they would have been asked
those questions and had to provide submissions as part of
that RFP process, which all three firms did. And then
they were scored based on their answers and the presentations
that they had to provide. And as I, in the
report, sorry, the principal's integrity and this particular firm being
recommended was tied. So had we not received the termination
notice from principles integrity, we would have recommended them again.
Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, I think that's all of
my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Nagy
over. My only question was going to be, why not
principles integrity? So thank you. Or why, why were they
committed? I think they, that question's been asking in post.
Absolutely. The motion's been duly moved in second. I don't
see any further debate. So I'm going to call the
question. All of them favor post that item is carried.
Next item off 0. 5. Sorry. Can I ask for
a recorded vote on the previous item. Sure. Um. That's
an order. Um, Councillor Nige is asked for recorded vote
in regards to the appointment of the integrity commissioner. Madam
Kirkley called a role, please. Councillor Nagy. Yes. Councillor Pickles.
Yes. Councillor Robinson? Yes. Councillor Brenner? Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes.
Mayor Ash. Yes. You worship that scary unanimously. Thank you.
Next item moved by Councillor Pickles. Second up by Councillor
Cook. License agreement for space at the Dr. Tomlinson Community
Centre between City Pickering and the Claremont Golden Age Seniors
Club. Questions for debate. Being done. I'm going to call
the question, Niles in favor. Opposed atoms carry. The next
standard is moved by Caster Nagy and second by Councillor
Cook in regards to a memorial plaque in the name
of Stephen Stats at Lin Park's Lynn Heights Parks. Questions.
Debate. Councillor Nagy. Thank you. Um, it was very important
to me that, uh, that I moved this item tonight.
I had the opportunity to work and talk extensively with,
uh, with Steve all throughout my term of Council. He
was one of the first people who, uh, who reached
out to me to say, all right, let's, let's get
moving. Let's get working on this. And it took a
very long time for, uh, for him and I to
get the sidewalks dealt with at Linnhytes Park. And Lynn
Heights as well as other streets or sorry, other parks
were part of a pilot project that we ran over
the winter, um, just now. And, uh, to my H2,
I understand was a very successful pilot project. And it
was very upsetting and a real shock to me when
Steve passed. And he was keeping me updated with his
progress. And I was a big fan of Steve's. So
I'm in, sorry, full support of this. And I sincerely
hope that it passes unanimously. Thank you. Uh, seeing no
for the debate. I'm going to call the question all's
in favor. Opposed that I have secured the next item
is 12. 7 supply and installation of audio visual systems
at George and Community Centre moved by Councillor Pickles. Second
and by Councillor Cook questions. Councillor Robinson. Yeah. I just
have one question. Why is the cost so high for
the audio visual system. Uh, Vince, you're still here. I
guess that's up your. Mr. Poof. Thank you for the
question councillor through the chair. Uh, it's a complex combination
of different systems, not only including the projectors, uh, but
the various components that tie into the connection of the
speaker arrays, all the wiring and controls that go with
that, uh, it's not simply a single projector. It's a
full panoramic display on three walls in the art gallery
at the new door state community centre. And so it's
quite an elaborate system. Um, we had explored multiple avenues
to see what we could do to bring that cost
down. And this was the best approach. Did we have
different proposals come in from different people? Or was I
believe it's outlined in the, in the report as to
how many proposals we actually received. We had attempted to
go through as potentially doing this through the general contractor
who's building the building. And we felt their cost was
too high and chose to run a public process instead.
Okay. And, and did we get a breakdown with that?
Is there a breakdown of the amounts? Like how much
is allocated for White to bring us up to that
amount of money. Uh, no, it was a lump sum
price. Lump sum price. Okay. So is there a possibil
way to get the breakdown of how much everything is
costing. Or we're finalised on this price. This is where
we're going. We will itemize list. Uh, we can request
that after award councillor, but, um, it wasn't part of
the process that was included in the procurement to request
that information. Okay. I just, I just find that odd
that we wouldn't have an itemized list on how much
things cost and we're just going by lump sums. And
what is the total cost of this again? 394, 000
budget 700, 000. So we're spending over 300. And what
Mr. Mayor, how much 38, 000 under budget. That's an
under budget. 394. Yeah. 394. That's, uh, that's a lot
of money to be spending on a system without having
an itemized list of what we're going to provide some
clarification. For that. Gibbs. Sure. I just wanted to provide
some clarification. We did receive four bids on this. So
we, this is a competitive price. And the bidder did
provide very detailed list of all of the equipment that
they would be providing as, as, uh, as Vince mentioned.
So, um, there is a comparison between what the different
proponents we're offering. And so they offer different systems that
were part of their bid. And so we believe that
this system is the best quality, the best, um, for
the bidding price. So it was a competitive process. It
went through the full committee. And, uh, it is based
on, um, a number of different criteria. So it is,
it is quite a competitive bid. And, um, these systems
will allow the gallery to be used for, um, rentals
to be used by the community, be used by artists.
And so it is, it was thoroughly, uh, thoroughly vetted
before being brought before council. So we were giving that
we were given an itemized list or we weren't giving
an itemized list. We were given an itemized list, but
each, each, uh, each piece of equipment wasn't given a
specific price. So there we were able to compare the
different bids based on what package would they provided to
us and the exact equipment and has been, has Vince
mentioned the services they would provide. So, you know, the
wiring, the setup, all of that kind of thing. So
it was, we were able to compare the different, uh,
the different bits. Can you just go over what those
would be in that. Councillor, you've asked a question. The
question's been posed under our procedural bilefist. If you have
questions, you're supposed to post them to staff. Uh, this
is again, a delay in moving the items for, we
still have an 11 reports in the next 39 minutes.
So, uh, I'm sure that we can get through all
those reports. I've only got questions for two, I think,
but I mean, I mean, first we were told there
was no itemized listing now. We have kind of an
itemized list. So I just kind of wanted to know
what, what is on that list. Cause it's not in
the agenda. I mean, that's a lot of money. We're
spending through over 394, I mean, almost, it's almost as
much as we spend on the integrity commissioner. Again, Mr.
Mayor. Ash. Wanted to make a clear point of clarification
and a comment. Number one, the responses were not in
dispute with each other. Vince indicated there wasn't a list,
which I understood to include specific line item prices for
each. And Laura Gibbs had essentially indicated the same. The
list did not include line item prices for each. That
being said, I do encourage members of Council who have
specific material questions of this nature to provide them in
advance to staff. So we can come prepare to the
meetings to be able to provide responses to those questions.
Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we're not prepared to
answer what we're spending the money on. Is that report?
The report is quite clear. It's a audio visual sound
system. Uh, if you want to follow the rules of
procedure, you would have had that opportunity to get that
information given to you tonight. Invite you to follow up
after the fact. But we're not keeping going on this.
Um, so there's no to vote on. I'm going to
have a recorded vote, please, Madam Clerk. I'm going to
call a role Councillor Robinson vote. No, please vote no.
Clerk. Do you really think that this is really becoming
of a mayor the way that you behave, the way
that you? Well, Councillor, I've asked you more than one
account. So we're going to exclude you from the rest
of the meetings. We won't have to worry about, uh,
your debate moving forward. Well, I would like to. You're
done. Clerk. Can we call the role excluding Councillor Robinson?
She's then excluded for not following the rules. Councillor Brenner.
Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes, please. Councillor Nike. Yes. Councillor Pickles.
Yes. Mare Ash. Yes. Next item is a temporary license
agreement for use of Rotary Referentius Bay. And Rouge Canoe
Club moved by Councillor Brenner. Second by Councillor Pickles questions.
Um, I have a comment. I want to thank staff
for, um, quickly dealing with this issue, um, the Rouge
Pickering Rouge Club lost their ability to have their camps
at the mouth of the Rouge. And they approached us
and we were able to do this on very short
notice. So hundreds of kids in Pickering will be able
to have their canoe camp, which starts in a couple
of weeks. Councillor Brenda, did I see your hand. Uh,
just very quickly, Mr. Mayor, if I might, uh, thank
you and the staff for, uh, being able to pull
this together, um, both myself, Councillor Pickles were working very
closely with the club. Uh, and thank you again, being
able to turn this around. Um, just one very quick,
important note, if I might ask staff, um, I know
we had a bad experience, uh, previously prior to the,
um, Frenchmans Bay West Park Plan. The new temporary location
and safeguards that are in place of staff can maybe
just clarify. So if we do have any inquiries, um,
what safeguards do we have in place that we don't
have a repeat. Think Scounser Brenner. Um, so we will
be entering into a license agreement with the Rouge Pickering
Canoe Club. And, um, that license agreement details, um, first
of all, a term of the agreement, which will be
for one season. Um, and secondly, it would include some
number of conditions at the club has agreed to so
that they will be removing their garbage. They will be
adhering to our noise bylaw. They will be ensuring their
following their safety standards. Um, they'll be communicating with, uh,
staff on, um, the programs they're going to run a
number of members. They have, um, all of that kind
of thing as well as we have some insurance requirements
of them as part of this agreement. So, um, we're,
we're formalizing the agreement so that we can both be
very clear about expectations. And we've been meeting with the
club, as you mentioned, it's a often to get this,
uh, to get this agreement in place in time for,
uh, June 29th start date. One final question. If I
might through you, Mr. Mayor, um, and to avoid any
misunderstanding with the community, the road still remains closed. Am
I correct other than for setting up what they need
to set up and taking it down at the end
of the season? Um, there will not be vehicles travelling
down that road, which is, uh, multi - use pathway,
correct? That's correct, Councillor. They would only be setting up
their, um, their equipment storage once. There will be no,
uh, ongoing, uh, car access down the pathway. And our
license agreement also stipulates that the, um, accessible, uh, kayaking
canoe launch will remain, uh, accessible to the public. Well,
the club's using it as well. Great. Thank you. And
again, thank you for getting this resolved in the short
time frame. And I'll ask for recorded vote. Thank you.
Uh, the kids will be portaging in its real sense.
Um. Uh, Swoop by Councillor Brenner, second bikes Councillor Pickles,
Councillor Brenner's ask for recorded boat. Please exclude Councillor Robinson.
Councillor Brenner. Yes. Cancer Cook? Yes. Councillor Nagy. Yes. Councillor
Pickles. Yes. Maria Ash? Yes. That's carodynamously. Next item 12.
9 by Councillor Pickle. Second by Councillor Cook in regards
to Plague Run equipment replacement of fitness centre construction with
a value of 1. 427 million at the various parks
is referenced as well as the funding questions. Councillor Nay.
Uh, I just wanted to, um, ask about that cost.
So I see in the report that, let me pull
up the exact number that the city was successful in
obtaining grant funding from the province of Ontario, uh, the
grand will fund up to 50 percent of the eligible
project costs. So those costs are out of that. 1.
What was it? 1. 285. Yes. 1. 285, et cetera,
et cetera. Correct? Ms. Treasure. Well, Mr. Holburn answered that
question. Okay, Mr. Olburn. Yes. Thank you. Um, through the
mayor to Councillor Nagy, the gross project cost of 1.
427 million includes all the funding sources. So that includes
the amount from the grant. We were provided 762, 500
dollars of the grant. Of which we will be using
approximately 746, 000 of it. So leaving about 16, 000
on the table. Now mind you that amount includes contingencies
that we may not use as well. But the, the,
to answer your questions specifically, the 1. 4 million includes
the 700, 000 dollars of grant money. Okay, so then
the actual cost that is coming out of our, for
the city's pocket is less than that 1. 4, correct?
Because of this grant funding. Yes. Well, they're doing the
math approximately 50 percent. Okay, awesome. I just wanted that
on the record as well because that is a that's
that's a good news story. So thank you. Thank you,
Pastor Cook. Just one quick question back to staff. Because
this may seem like a large amount of dollars being
invested into our parks. I think it's important that staff
talk a little bit about the fitness stations that are
being added Uh, that's going into the park's. I know
last year when we talked about this and met with
Arnold and his team we were shown some of the
materials that were going to this and I think it's
exciting and I think it's modern and I think it's
current that's been asked by resident. So I just wanted
to give them the opportunity to talk a little bit
about that portion of the expense Um, that's going into
upgrading all of these park facilities. Whoever wants to take
that no pressure. Mr. Holburn will remind us that this
was a result of a public vote Uh, on the
mayor's budget on priority items and this was the winning
the winning submission So Mr. Holburn over to you. Yes,
thank you Mayor Ash and that's correct in our 2025
Um, budget there was a call out to residents Um,
for them to select one of the five options to
spend approximately 300, 000 dollars Equally as much as possible
across the three wards for various items and the one
that came to the forefront was the outdoor fitness equipment
So we've put together equipment locations in Glengrowth Park Uh,
East Woodlands Park and Alex Robertson Park And we have
made them a little bit different so that if somebody
wants to venture into all three parks They can have
all different experiences The one at East Woodlands Park because
it's close to the George Ashe community Centre where the
lot of seniors programs that go on will have fitness
equipment that is You know to a skill level for
everybody, but also for seniors Um, that they can enjoy
and somewhat accessible as well So if they have lockers
or a cane or a wheelchair to get there Or
even if they're able - bodied and can use the
equipment It's meant for all types if you will, all
people. And for Alex Robertson Park It's more of a
circuit So as they walk along home place and along
the trail there that leads to the waterfront trail They
will come across many stations to which they can do
their outside Exercise But it's more of a circuit And
Glen Grove is basically a pod of several pieces of
equipment together And, you know different experiences We're trying to
put different types of equipment Uh, I don't have them
all in front of me to explain what their names
are. And, you know what each piece of equipment Uh,
is, what I could get that information for you if
you want different experiences in different parks is really the
theme that we came across Right, that's wonderful I just
wanted to make sure that our residents knew how thoughtful
your team was being Um, in creating this experience across
each of our wards So I just wanted to thank
staff And thank you Mr. Mayor, appreciate it. Thank you.
There's no further debate I'm going to call the question
Niles in favor. Opposed that items cured Next item is
12 - 10. Uh It moved by Councillor Pickle Second
Bing Councillor Cook It's The Diane Prince of the Whale
Park license renewal agreement Council Councillor should also be aware
that it includes a piece of land On the north
side of Liverpool Road as well for our new skate
park Questions. Being done, I'm going to call the question
then, all those in favor. Oppose that items carried 12.
11 annual treasure statement report Director of Finance and Treasurer
Uh... Is a report to receive for information Moved by
Councillor Cook Second by Councillor Nagy. Debate. Being none's in
favor. Opposed that I was carried Next I need to
move by Councillor Pickles Um, director of City Infrastructure 6.
And 2nd by Councillor Brenner Uh, 6 concession Road Reconstruction,
and Greenwood Bridge Rehab 4. 3 million dollars. Questions. Councillor
Pickles, you have to play. Thank you Mayor Ashen This
is a great project, really a continuation of the work
that was on the 6th concession Um, sorry, East of
Greenwood Road earlier Of course, including a bridge always makes
it more complicated and more expensive So my question's more
on one of timing Um... When would we expect they
would, um... What's the word? Get Out Out There and
break Ground, I guess. Mr. Death Co. Thank you for
the question through the chair to Councillor Pickles. If the
report gets... Voted through and approved tonight Then we would
start the process for... commencing The project, issuing a PO
to the contractor Um, completing our pre - construction. Kick
- off meeting, and then mobilising to site So. I
would say within about a month, our intent was to
get in there before The end of July Uh, but
that will depend on the contractor's ability to mobilise Uh...
So probably plus or minus a week or two around
there And the work. That typically starts would, you know
Resident should expect to see... The erosion sediment control Equipment
and material mobilising to site... Uh... And things like that
Now I will mention that This work is being phased
out over two construction seasons Uh, so phase one work
will include the bridge rehabilitation and Reconstruction work West of
the bridge up to the entrance of Dorsey Community Heritage
Centre And phase two work Uh, which will likely occur
next year Unless the contractor has an aggressive enough schedule
that can get it all done Um, will be the
small section of work from The Bridge to Greenwood and
just beyond And The main reason for that is The
Deep Storm Seward Servicing That will be required to connect
Uh... Where they left off in phase one to the
outfall at Duffins Creek So that, you know, in order
to complete that work in a timely manner And kind
of phase access to the Hamilton Greenwood Um... That's The
plan as of now. It mobilise was the word I
was looking for, Mr. Eath Coat, so thank you Um
Do we have any concerns, or can we check early
on... I know we had an incident. A situation previously
where a contractor sort of won more contracts than they
were anticipating, and we maybe weren't the first on the
list I wouldn't want there to be a delay Because
they contractor Got another contract So built into our contract,
or it'll be identified early in our meeting with them
That we do want them to mobilise quickly We don't
want them to wait or work half days on this,
or half weeks because they got another project on the
Go view any sense of that. Through the charity Councillor
Pickles, thanks for the question The hour intent would be
to get started as soon as possible And we set
out timelines in the contract that The contractor is required
to complete the work within certain dates And so because
this is phased out into... Phases, we've set completion dates
for both phase 1 and phase 2 to ensure that
things aren't dragging into next year For the first phase
of work, and that's also relevant to The nature of
the work, The Bridge will require... Uh, in water work,
some coffer dams around the embutments to complete some of
the concrete repairs So that work in phase 1 has
to be completed this year And we've laid out... Uh...
Completion dates within The contract to ensure that The contractor
is aware and ready and capable as they... They bid,
and we're successful on this project So that would be
the expectation from the city. Okay last question Mr. Mayor
Kevin, so Will we be sending a notice? How do
we... The contract to be sending out a notice to...
Oh, residents, uh... Provide... Our construction plan, that is... The
hours of work, dust control, NED tours... Uh... A number
that they can call if they have any questions or
concerns. That's Something We do standard, I want to make
sure it's going to go out to... To residents... In
advance to... Let them know at the timetable and other
information is. Through the charity Council Pickles, you're absolutely correct.
We'll be sending out a notice of construction That notice
typically includes contact information, scope of work, anticipated duration Uh...
So that will be contact information for our staff and
or our consultant that is working on our behalf for
the contract administration and day - to - day construction
For this project. Uh, it will also outline any kind
of detour paths that will also be covered through a
service disruption Uh... For the area as well, as there
will be due to a required during the bridge rehabilitation
work So we, you know, upon a ward and approval
This report tonight We can move towards issuing at PO,
and at that time We try and get a notice
out at least two weeks in advance Uh... Inform the
residents, and start that communication with them. Well, thank you
for the great work on this. I know this is
one of the four or five that I pester you
about on a regular basis, and I know you're doing
your best to get them out the door, and we'll
talk about White Veil Road in a little bit. Thank
you. Thank you Any further questions or debate, being done
I'm gonna call a Question, I was in favor, opposed
that Items carried Next Item is Director City Development 2.
15 - inch tow behind Wood Chippers in the amount
of 320... Moved by Councillor by Councillor Cook debate questions.
Being not - That's good. I'm gonna call the question,
although the favor. That motion's carried. Next item is from
The Director of City Development CBO. In regards to an
enterprise agreement. Second by Councillor Nagy Uh... In the amount
of 246, 000 dollars Questions are debate. Being non -
are gonna call the question I'll in favor. Opposed that
an insecurity Next item is The Heritage Permit Application... Moved
by Councillor Pickles. 2nd by Councillor Cook. Cather Pickles Do
you have any questions? Yeah, thank you Mr. Mayor So
this Item was the subject of a couple delegations earlier
that I think Stouff probably listened. I want to be
clear, I still have to be clear on... We're not...
Unlike The Concession 6. Item We're not looking for the
full tender and approval of the Road This is, say,
one of the hurdles to get there, the Heritage Permit
Application So I think the community had some broader questions
about The Project, and some of them related to The
Heritage Permit, but others did not... Could we go back
to STAP and ask them... I know they followed Up
with a response to a couple people in the White
Veil Community today, but would they like to offer any
other thoughts and responses to the two delegations they heard
earlier, which by the way were both very strong in
moving forward with the project They just had a few
questions, comments, and were looking to receive some further information
So perhaps Mr. Heath Coke could speak to that as
well. Perhaps Councillor Pickles, I can just jump in... Um...
Just to have a few comments broadly, and then I
would certainly invite staff to add any details as appropriate
Um... Just for clarity, this is regarding a Heritage Permit
associated with this project, and really this is meant to
be looking at those aspects Uh... Through that heritage lens...
We recognise this is a long - time coming, and
the project, and We had the opportunity earlier today Uh...
To have an email crafted that we hope addressed most
of the questions that we received in writing from The
White Veil District Residence Association... Um... So we could certainly...
Underscore some of the key points from that if that's
helpful Uh... For the viewing audience tonight, and maybe Steph
can jump in, but I'll try and be brief. Um...
There was some concerns just regarding... The timing of this
report, and not a lot of time And again, just
to reiterate This is for The Heritage Components There has
been a lot of extensive public consultation over many years
Um... That's come to this point, and the more work
to beat on, obviously Um... So this is just one
aspect of that Uh... There's some questions about 100 percent
design drawings, not being made available So there's some review
to be done with those drawings, And Kevin might be
able to speak to more detail of that, I'll just
try and underscore some of the other points and come
back to staff in that regard. Uh... Yeah, there's concerns
about... Lighting... About White Street Lighting wasn't really captured in
this. And the primary focus again is for The Heritage
Permit Application Lighting isn't really Part of that, that The
lens was looking... The Heritage Lens was reviewing Prophoro's Road
Drainage Landscape, and Heritage Conservation... Components recognising that Whiteville is
a Heritage Conservation District. And we do understand... The importance
of streetlighting in Whitevale. Um... And a lot of the
finishes, fixtures were originally selected with community consultation. Uh... And
while the goal is to try and replace to match
possible... Um... That's our goal to maintain that lighting colour
and fixture style Um... But... Once we've completed that review,
The Design Package, and reviewing what the need is for
poll locations, and that... We'll continue to work with residents,
and the project team, just to make sure that lighting
design balances public safety Uh... And also... Maintains the character
of Whiteville. Um... H - PAC, some questions about The
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, and their role, and Heritage Pickering
Advisory Committee, um... There was a meeting earlier this year,...
to run through this project, then... support from the committee
to recommend approval of this Heritage Permit, so that's been
addressed. And certainly, uh, uh... We consider them to be
important. Group 2 Engages, prior this process, and continue to
do so. We're appropriate. I think that covers the majority
of things. There was a number of conditions that we've
asked be put in from a Heritage Lens, again, to
make sure certain things have been satisfied. And staff from
C. Development are comfortable... With those recommendations, and those conditions,
but I would certainly invite Perhaps Kevin if you want
to add some detail from your perspective. Yeah, certainly Thanks,
Kyle. Um... I guess, you know, back to The Delegations,
Chambry Outlined a few...... requests or requirements upon approval of
this report tonight, and I think that...... either we already
would be doing it, or we can commit to providing
information that's requested in probably both instances. Uh, recommendation to
be includes the submission of the kind of final landscape
restoration plan for the review by HPAC, and we committed
to doing that at the HPAC meeting in May, and
we are still committed to...... circulating that drawing to the
Committee for Review. As Ms. Chamberry mentioned. We always will
cross - reference our 100 percent design to previous design
iterations, and that's part of The reason why we don't
want to share the drawing until it goes through that
internal review process. So where it seems like she may,
some information has been made available, um... Directly related to
a property. It's still under review, and we intend to
ensure that The information is consistent and captures everything that
we feel needs to be captured in the material changes
between 95. We're really just fine - tuning the details.
Uh, unless something, when it comes to the left field,
which I'm not aware of, but the intent, um... As
committed to the resident association is to share the final
design package once the internal review has been completed online
for information purposes, and respond formally to some of their
original... Concerns... That was addressed through a letter to staff
in 2023. Um. I think we've had a lot of
meaningful consultation with the resident association with the residents, um,
as a whole. Uh, and with the HPAC through this
process, and we share the same excitement and commitment to
get this project started. Um, and, uh, hopefully we'll be
on the right path to doing that with the approval
of this. Right? Thank you. So we heard through comments.
If we're not already following up on those... We will,
this is a milestone to the project. We need to
move ahead on this. And Mr. Heath, goat, your best
estimate then, as to one this will go out to
tender, one will come back for tender to be awarded.
And when it'll be mobilised. Uh, so our hope is
for awarding it before the end of July. So, uh,
contractors can get started by kind of end of July,
start of August. We've already completed a pre - qualification
process of contractors. Uh, so that's shortlisting contractors through competitive
evaluation of their ability and experience doing work of this
nature, uh, to ensure that we have the right contractor's
in place. Um, to complete this type of work. So
the actual tender itself is sent to the pre -
qualified list of contractors, which, uh, slightly shortens the tender
period as well, as opposed to going out to a
typical four - week tender, because we've already pre -
qualified the list on them. Um, so we are hoping
to complete our review over the next week or so,
and have a final package to finance, to kind of
go through the supplying services process and get it on
the street. So Mr. Mayor, just recognising this is a
lot of work over many years. So congratulations to Kevin
Latin for getting it here. And we look forward to
the full tender coming for the Road Work, soon. Thank
you. Thank you. I don't see any other debate. All
the question moved by Councillor Pickles, signed by Councillor Cook,
all those in favor, opposed that items carried. Next item
is The Implantation of Minister Settlement, uh, from the Director
of City Development 12. 16. I need to move on
to seconder. Boop by Councillor Count by Councillor Nagy. Questions.
Being done, I'm gonna call the question, then all those
in favor. Opposed, that items carried. 12. 17 is the
battery recycling agreement with call to recycle between Nick Pickering,
moved by Councillor Nige, second by Councillor Cook. Debate. Being
done, I'm gonna call the question. All those in favor.
Oppose that items carry. The last item is moved by
Councillor Cook, second by Councillor Nagy, who's added it, and
it's in regards to parking restrictions are on Parkham Crescent
Council Cook, you want to speak to it. Uh, actually,
just for clarity, it was actually moved by Councillor Nagy
and seconded by myself. That's all good. I just want
to make sure that she gets to speak. And seconded
by Councillor Cook in regards to Canada Day parking restrictions
on Parkham. And any debate. Being nuts? I'd like to
speak to my motion a little bit. Yes, Pete, please
do. Thank you. Um, so Parkham continues to become more
and more used on Canada Day. Myself and Steph have
received, and continue to receive photos and videos from multiple
residents of the area of the, on the danger of
allowing idling and travel on the streets. Uh, I've been
shown videos of father holding his young child that's had
to quite literally jump out of the way of a
moving car in order to not get hit. Um, and
there is a continued inability to address just how overrun
the street gets and the lack of adherence to the
rules by folks who park on both sides of the
road, despite the yearly on one side and the permanent
on the other side, no parking signs. Um, and as
Pickering grows, as well as the popularity of city events,
and in particular, our candidate event, putting up no parking
signs and having a periodic drive around, uh, just isn't
enough anymore in order to protect both the local residents
on the street, as well as anyone in the park
in the event of an emergency or the need for
a first responder. And so this motion is intended to
provide more weight to staff, uh, since I've been working
directly with members of staff, um, behind the scenes as
we gear up to Canada Day for almost four years
now. Um, and I'm consistently told that staff are just
not able to make the changes in order to accommodate.
Um, and so this motion seeks to provide direction of
counsel in order to give staff that ability in order
to give them the weight to be able to do
this. Um, and to that end, I have spoken to
a few members of the events team who understand the
reason for the timing as well as the importance of
what we're asking for tonight. And so while I apologise
for the manner, uh, in which I'm bringing this motion
to council, I appreciate the leeway, um, and I apologise
for the tight timeline. Um, but you'll all understand the
reason for the tightness of the timeline and the urgency,
um, but I have made sure that this is not
an ambush. And so with that, I'll ask for a
recorded vote, and thank you. Thank you. Any further debate.
Councillor Cook. Um, just one final comment to also, um,
commend our local residents for working with Mara and staff
to move this board. I think it's important that we
note that this is also resident driven. Um, and it
is their safety that is paramount and why this has
been moved forward. So thank you for that, sir. Thank
you, spoof by Councillor Nagy, second by Councillor Cook, I've
always been requested by Councillor Nagy. Can you please exclude
Councillor Robinson. Mr. Nigel. Yes. Councillor Pickles. Yes. Councillor Brenner?
Yes. Councillor Cook. Yes. Mayor Ashe? Yes. That's Carrie, honestly.
Uh, bylaws. Booba Councillor Cook, second be Councillor Brenner, 13.
1 through to 13. 8 in the bylaws, uh, for
actions taken. Um, any polls. Being done, all's in favor.
Opposed that item is carried. Prior to the regular meeting,
an in - camera session was held at 6 p.
m. and accords with provisions of municipal act and the
procedural byha to consider a matter pertaining the Ontario Land
tribunal appeals in northeast Pickrey, the secondary plan. The matter
was discussed in closed session to receive advice subject to
solicitor client privilege. And to consider moder pertaining to litigation
or potential, including matters before administrative tribunals. Affecting municipality in
a position plan procedure criteria and instructive to be applied
to any negotiation carried on or to be carried on
behalf of the municipality. Following motion needs to move on
to sector that in order to support the planning and
inflammation framework that will guide the creation of northeast Pickering
Community staff, community staff, you directed respond to the appeals
to the official plan amendment 54 and to retain loopster
Nixon and other consultant resources as required to defend the
Civic Council in this matter at the Ontario Land Trian.
It's moved by Councillor Cook, second by Councillor Nagy. Boston.
Debate. Being none. I'm going to call the question. All
is in favor, opposed that items carried. Using signs is
not allowed under. You've been excluded Councillor for a reason
and then you push the rules even farther. It's against
our procedural bylaws. Any regional Councillor updates.
Any other business. Councillor Nagy. I just wanted to, uh,
wish everybody a very happy summer. This is our final
regular council meeting, um, before the summer recess. And also
to remind all of our residents that it is the
aforementioned Canada Day event, uh, next week. So please come
on out and show your, show your pride where the
red and white and happy candidate and happy summer, everybody.
Thank you. Thank you for that, Councillor. I want to
also, on behalf of all members Council, wish our residents,
um, happy and safe summer. Uh, it is their intent
to have a special counsel meeting sometime in July. We
have number of items still ongoing. Also one of which
the best to our staff. We're blessed to have a
very, uh, professional staff who worked very hard for us.
And here we are in our six, sorry, hour five
of this particular meeting. Um, and, um, uh, you know,
some of us have been here since I ended up
this morning. So, uh, any other new business. Being done
and confirming by love moved by Councillor Cook, seconded by
Councillor Pickles being a buyer confirmed the proceedings it took
place at the actions of the meeting of June 22nd,
2026 be approved. Although in favor. Opposed that Aiden's carry,
motion to a dream of being order. Moved by Councillor
Pickles, secondly Council Cope at We adjourned. All of them
favor. That item was carried. Thank you. Good night. Go
Canada.