[0:04] Good evening everyone.
[0:10] Thank you. So tonight I will be chairing the 
meeting as the mayor has delegated authority  
[0:15] to me to chair tonight's meeting as uh the mayor 
has an urgent family health matter and may need to  
[0:21] leave at any moment. We are calling this meeting 
to order at 6:30. Before we begin, I would like  
[0:29] to provide a few friendly reminders. Assisted 
listening devices are available for anyone who  
[0:36] may need one during tonight's meeting. Please see 
the deputy clerk who can help sign one out and get  
[0:43] you all set up. We kindly ask that all devices be 
returned at the end of the meeting or before you  
[0:50] leave so they can be collected and made available 
for future use. Ed, looking at you there, buddy.  
[0:57] Please also note that the washrooms 
are located down the hall to the left  
[1:03] and in the event of emergency, residents are 
asked to exit in an orderly fashion using the  
[1:08] stairs located outside council chambers. 
Should the staircase be unavailable,  
[1:13] residents are asked to proceed down 
the fire escape located at the back of  
[1:17] council chambers. If assistance is required, 
please see staff. Don't scream. All right,  
[1:26] moving on to a moment of silent reflection. 
Please join me in a moment of silent reflection.
[1:54] Thank you. Moving on to our land acknowledgement. 
The municipality of Port Hope exists on the lands  
[1:59] of the missagishabek traditional territories 
covered by the Williams treaties. We honor  
[2:04] and recognize first peoples as rights holders 
and stewards of the lands and the waters in  
[2:08] which we have the privilege to live, work, and 
play, including the Guaneresa forest and river.  
[2:14] We pay respects to elders past, present and 
emerging. We commit towards act we commit  
[2:20] to actions towards truth and reconciliation 
by recogniz recognizing the United Nations  
[2:25] declaration of rights of indigenous peoples 
strengthening ties with first nations matei and  
[2:30] inuit peoples especially those that make their 
home in Port Hope and learning from indigenous  
[2:35] ways of knowing and being. We do so by recognizing 
the past and working towards a shared future.
[2:45] Moving on to disclosure of pecuniary interest. 
Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest?  
[2:49] Noting that I received none in advance of 
this meeting. Still seeing none. Moving  
[2:55] on to correspondence 3.1 Ganaraska Region 
Conservation Authority regarding the Garden  
[2:59] Hill Dam class environmental assessment staff 
report update presented to the GRCA board.  
[3:05] And I will ask councelor Mink to introduce the 
matter, please. Thank you. So, I'm just bringing  
[3:12] this forward for information. I know that it is 
um a concerning topic for some residents in our  
[3:18] community. We received a staff report at the last 
GRCA meeting on on August the 19th. Uh there was  
[3:25] an RFP that went out uh for the environmental 
study of the Garden Hill dam and pond. SEMA  
[3:31] was selected with sub uh uh consultants 
called Geomorphics and Matrix Heritage.  
[3:39] They um SEMA has done work with both the GRCA 
and the municipality of Port Hope in the past. So  
[3:45] um we are very familiar with each other. I 
have a lot of confidence in that process. I  
[3:50] just wanted to inform the community as well that 
the discussions I've had with staff at the GRCA um  
[3:56] their intention is to have community involvement 
in this process and that will happen fairly soon.  
[4:02] Uh I don't want to speak too much about that 
because I don't know all the details yet but  
[4:07] um that is the intention is that community 
participation and voice will be a significant  
[4:13] part of that process and can I ask the chair can 
I just give an update on the amalgamation while  
[4:19] I'm talking about the GRCA? I think that would 
be perfect. Okay. So as some of you may know  
[4:22] uh the conservation authorities in Ontario 
are going through an amalgamation. They are  
[4:27] uh becoming seven uh conservation authorities. 
That process is starting. Uh, Guinaraska has been  
[4:34] amalgamated with um, uh, well, we're going from 
seven municipalities amalgamating to make the GRCA  
[4:42] into 43 municipalities that are amalgamating 
to call be called something called Alorca,  
[4:47] Eastern Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. Um, 
instead of 10 members, there will be 25 members.  
[4:54] um uh someone named Allison McDonald. 
She's currently the CEO of Raisin Region  
[5:00] Conservation Authority out near Ottawa. She has 
been selected to be the CEO and we're having our  
[5:05] first amalgamation meeting on September 14th 
in Belleville. So that process is starting.  
[5:11] And just because we're coming to an end of a term 
of council, I just wanted to inform the community  
[5:15] that the conservation authorities are a little 
different. Adam and I sit on the board. We will  
[5:20] continue to sit on the board until February. um 
even though the term of council has ended and then  
[5:26] I have been on selected to be on the conservation 
amalgamation board so I will continue to be on  
[5:30] that board until that process is complete. 
Wonderful. Thank you. Uh going back to the  
[5:36] correspondence, do any members of council have any 
questions or comments? Seeing none, um recommended  
[5:44] motion is to receive for information if I can get 
a mover and a seconder. Moved by councelor Claire,  
[5:50] seconded by councelor Ma. All in favor? And that 
has been approved unanimously. Moving on. So,  
[5:58] at this point, I'm just going to uh do a little 
bit of a rejig on the agenda. And I apologize  
[6:03] for anybody following along. As uh as the clerk 
and I have spoke, uh I can as uh the chair make  
[6:09] a change to the agenda. So, what we're going to 
be doing is we're going to be moving items five  
[6:14] and we're going to be moving that into item four. 
And that will give an opportunity for the mayor to  
[6:20] participate as long as possible. So, we're going 
to go through the notices of motion right now.
[6:28] U Mr. Chair. Yes, Council Lridge, please. Yeah, 
just a question. Uh, so appreciating the fact uh  
[6:35] you know, and I and um I'm sorry that the mayor 
is going through some family stuff and and I  
[6:40] value her time. Curious as to how we prioritize 
the nose as a motion. I'm looking at the agenda.  
[6:47] It's fairly heavy. There's a lot of stuff that's 
important to the community. I'm wondering why  
[6:50] we're using the time for those notices. Could you 
maybe give some context there? Yeah, absolutely.  
[6:55] Um, it was a request that came to me. I felt that 
it was uh appropriate. Uh, I believe that all the  
[7:02] movers uh through council, they probably want the 
mayor to be a part of those conversations. I would  
[7:07] assume. Um, so I decided that I would grant that. 
Okay. I'd be happy to I move two of them. I'd be  
[7:13] happy to wait on those. Um, but if the mayor feels 
that the uh agenda items that we have are are uh  
[7:19] less urgent than those, uh then that's fine. I 
believe that they're all uh they're all important  
[7:23] business matters, otherwise they wouldn't be 
noticed as a motion on the agenda tonight. So,  
[7:27] I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, moving to uh 
notice of motions. Um I guess 4.1 notice of motion  
[7:34] regarding establishing a rule advisory committee. 
And I will ask the mover uh that has been moved  
[7:41] by councelor Toms and seconded by councelor Hway 
Woodwani. And I'll ask the mover, councelor Toms,  
[7:46] if he would like to introduce this matter. Um yes. 
So um this idea come around through town halls  
[7:54] um last year and this year um just that la um 
more community involvement in the rural area.  
[8:01] The rural area is such a vast area uh with only 
two two counselors that represent that ward. Um I  
[8:07] think if we go from the other advisory committees 
we have it will only strengthen the rural voice  
[8:13] um in Port Hope and I think it will be an asset 
to the municipal politics going forward. So I am  
[8:19] h happy to introduce happy to bring it forward. 
Um Claire would like to add anything. Uh thank  
[8:24] you and councelor Claire. Yes thank you. Yeah 
I was really pleased uh to second this motion  
[8:29] uh with you councelor Daryl. Um this was something 
that we talked about a lot when I had the pleasure  
[8:34] of joining you at those Canton hub uh conversation 
meetings and especially as we started going  
[8:40] through the ward boundary review when it became 
clear that you know increasing representation at  
[8:45] this table was not something that was likely to 
occur. We talked about other ways of increasing  
[8:51] that rural voice in our decision- making and I 
know you know we've seen a lot of work this term  
[8:57] uh from some of the advisory committees playing a 
more active role including with council referrals  
[9:01] and I think this would give us a great opportunity 
uh to have that from the rural perspective as  
[9:06] well. So I I applaud you for bringing it forward. 
Thank you. I appreciate uh now I'll open it up to  
[9:12] council uh councelor Mink. Thank you. So um I have 
a very different perspective on this and I have  
[9:19] a little bit to say so please bear with me. So um 
I I want to start by saying that I support um our  
[9:25] rural community obviously I support agriculture 
and I support strengthening that rel relationship.  
[9:32] Um I spent the past eight years doing that 
as a rural counselor. Um so my opposition  
[9:39] in this motion is um not uh to be interpreted as 
opposition to those things. Um I'm opposed for a  
[9:46] few reasons. Um the most important question is 
what are we actually solving? Uh the Port Hope  
[9:52] currently does not have a standing advisory body. 
The motion says does not have a standing advisory  
[9:58] body through which rural and agricultural 
residents can coordinate input to council. I  
[10:03] think we need to be very careful about that what 
that statement means. I have been that standing  
[10:09] body for eight years. I have brought that voice 
forward to council. Uh we did do a word structure  
[10:15] review and it was determined that there is that 
voice. Um we already have our community has an  
[10:24] organized self-governing body of rural residents 
who come forward who provide delegations who are  
[10:30] available to offer that voice and have done that 
repeatedly. So adding an advisory committee adds a  
[10:37] layer of bureaucracy to that process. Um I'm 
particularly concerned that the agricultural  
[10:44] and rural communities that um that are it's being 
interchange used interchangeably. The motion is  
[10:50] called a rural advisory committee but much much of 
the justification is about agriculture. Those are  
[10:57] related communities but they are not the same. 
Agriculture is an industry with very specific  
[11:02] policy, economic and land use needs. The Ontario 
Federation of Agriculture makes that distinction  
[11:09] very important. And in the attached document, 
there was no mention of the Ontario Federation of  
[11:14] Agriculture or the North Thumberland Federation of 
Agriculture. Offa's municipal guidance says that  
[11:20] local, county, and regional federations provide 
grassroots agricultural leadership and should be  
[11:25] the first point of contact when municipalities 
are dealing with agricultural businesses. When  
[11:32] discussing agriculture advisory committees, 
OFA specifically says that municipalities  
[11:37] should discuss the idea with their local county 
federation first. I attended the North umberland  
[11:42] Federation Polyag tour this August. I do that 
every year. I was the only person from this  
[11:48] municipality that attended. This topic was 
discussed and this topic said very clearly  
[11:53] that you must consult the correct people before 
introducing a body. They encouraged an agriculture  
[11:59] agricultural committee. They specifically said it 
cannot be intertwined with rural. It would have  
[12:07] been great if either of you talked to me before 
you brought forward this motion. I would have  
[12:11] provided this guidance. Um the examples in the 
document are not comparable. You referenced Ottawa  
[12:17] and Hamilton which are major cities, significant 
cities with an agricultural area that is  
[12:23] distinctly different than Port Hope. You mentioned 
Prince Edward County which is a county structure.  
[12:28] You mentioned Brighton and North Bay. They are 
um elected at large. They don't have counselors,  
[12:36] rural counselors, and that's a rural body. You 
mentioned Clarington. I want to be very clear  
[12:41] about caring Clarington. They are an agricultural 
advisory committee that makes agricultural policy.  
[12:48] They deal with significant agricultural issues. 
Their municipality, I researched their terms  
[12:54] of reference. their municipality has invested 
significantly into agriculture and agra business  
[13:00] and I'm willing to go there but this motion that 
you brought forward is ahead of the game we need  
[13:07] to decide strategically as a municipality are we 
going there are we investing resources into there  
[13:13] and then the pol the advisory committee comes 
after the fact um and then last I I just want to  
[13:19] question why we're bringing this up now you had 
the town halls three years ago you It was three  
[13:25] years ago that three summers ago those town halls 
occurred. No, no, they're they're three years ago.  
[13:32] Um and and we're bringing this forward right on 
the heels of an election. And I personally don't  
[13:39] think it's fair to the incoming council to say 
that you must have this body. I don't think it's  
[13:44] fair to the candidates who are out there. They 
should be able to speak to this matter as well.  
[13:49] So, I am proposing um that we I have a motion 
here that I move that the Agricultural Advisory  
[13:57] Committee be referred to staff for consideration 
by the 2026 to 2030 council with staff directed  
[14:05] to consult with the North umberland Federation of 
Agriculture and where appropriate of the OFA and  
[14:11] OMAFRA resources and comparable municipalities. 
and the report should distinguish between a rural  
[14:18] advisory committee and an agricultural advisory 
committee and make that recommendation to the new  
[14:23] council. Thank you. I appreciate um maybe before 
we work on the motion, I'm going to give others  
[14:28] the opportunity as well as the opportunity for 
the mover and the second to speak to that. Um I'm  
[14:33] going to Yeah, I Yeah, councelor Clair, please. 
I I I won't I won't rebut or anything. I just But  
[14:39] to answer your question, why now? Uh, I'll I'll 
may a culp of that. Uh, Darl and I were working  
[14:44] on the language and it got lost in a team's 
uh message that got deleted because of the new  
[14:52] policy where our team's messages get deleted. So, 
we had to start over and rewrite the motion. Um,  
[14:58] and we missed the July deadline for the July 
cycle. And then because we didn't have committee  
[15:03] of the whole in August, we were told to wait and 
bring it forward in September so that we could  
[15:07] follow the normal notice of motion process. So 
the intention had had actually been to bring it  
[15:12] forward in July. I do also want to clarify that 
the town hall meetings went on for 2 years. So  
[15:17] the first one had 3 years ago. Um but then they 
did continue uh till not that you know it wasn't  
[15:24] yesterday but they did continue uh until more 
recently than that. And uh part of this really  
[15:30] came together after the completion of the ward 
boundary uh review which only happened in the  
[15:35] spring. So, it really has been something that we 
were working on and contemplating and discussing  
[15:39] for a while and you and I did have a conversation 
about it uh when we were first talking about it,  
[15:44] although that was probably closer to two 
years ago. Thank you, uh, Marilena, please.  
[15:52] Council M, thank you uh for bringing up some 
of those issues of process and I and I wonder  
[15:58] um just in terms of the the mover and secondary. 
Is there any uh conversation with the existing  
[16:05] group that has advocated here to town hall and 
I know that that group has since expanded but  
[16:12] uh had there been any kind of interface with 
them. I I recognize that wasn't part of what you  
[16:18] had brought forward in terms of process but I was 
just I was just curious. Uh councelor Toms. Yeah,  
[16:26] there was some conversation. Um it's just been 
a a work in progress. that unfortunately got  
[16:30] delayed bringing it forward. Um we did reference 
agricultural in in the motion but it is so it is a  
[16:37] lot more than that. It goes into road maintenance, 
drainage, natural heritage areas, different parts  
[16:41] of the hamlets, different community interests 
in in the in the majority of the of the ward. I  
[16:46] think I think we're focusing on the agricultural 
piece, but it's definitely a lot more than that.  
[16:52] Thank you. Um I did not see who put up their hand 
first. I'm going to start with councelor Todd.  
[16:59] Uh thank you. Question to councelor 
Mink. Are you suggesting then that we  
[17:03] should have two committees, agricultural 
committee and a rural committee? Is that  
[17:06] is that a better way of structuring this? Uh 
absolutely. If if we are going to to do that  
[17:12] um uh agriculture and rural matters uh they're 
different matters. Um ag if I wish somebody had  
[17:20] spoken to me before this. Um we did have an 
ag rural committee years ago. um and bringing  
[17:26] agricultural community into that and having 
that agricultural voice and it it didn't succeed  
[17:32] uh because it intertwined agriculture and rural 
um as I said Ontario Federation of Agriculture has  
[17:39] said that it should be specifically agriculture 
you should not intertwine them and it should be  
[17:44] done through the North umberland Federation 
your local Federation of Agriculture they are  
[17:49] the guiders through that process you referred to 
in in the motion um Clarington. Clarington has a  
[17:56] representative on their board from the Durham 
Region um Federation of Agriculture on it.  
[18:01] Everybody in that committee must be an active 
farmer. They must belong to an organization.  
[18:07] It's not a rural committee. It's distinctly 
different um than than just that rural voice.  
[18:15] So just as a followup, so with this particular 
motion then if this one was distinctly for rural  
[18:22] advisory that would that would hit the marks 
for what you're looking at and then at another  
[18:27] date an agricultural one would come forward. Uh 
well yes but it's still not hitting that for me  
[18:33] because I don't believe that we should be deciding 
what the incoming council's advisory committees  
[18:38] should be. They're committees of council and 
I think that we have a report coming about  
[18:44] advisory committees and I think that time for 
those committees should come in the new term.
[18:51] Councelor Claire. Yeah, just a comment 
on on the uh comparison with the  
[18:57] uh rural rural focus group that they had I think 
they had called themselves. Uh many of those  
[19:02] uh individuals participated regularly in the 
Canton uh town hall conversation. So in fact  
[19:08] many of those voices were part of shaping 
the idea uh that has now come forward in  
[19:13] the notice of motion. And I would also like to 
recognize that there's a big difference between  
[19:18] delegations who come and stand at that podium 
and advisory committees that are recognized in  
[19:24] our decision-m structures that we you know are 
appointed by council where we refer things to  
[19:30] those committees. It's it's inside the building. 
it's inside the process as opposed to advocating  
[19:36] from the outside which they're currently doing. 
So I mean I I would be you know thrilled to to  
[19:41] hear from them uh whether they you know would be 
interested in participating but certainly those  
[19:46] that participated in those Canton conversations 
uh indicated that and and you know helped to shape  
[19:51] the idea as it came forward. I would also invite 
and be quite happy to see a friendly amendment  
[19:58] to the wording of the last two clauses of the 
motion because you will say you will notice that  
[20:03] this doesn't actually establish it. It directs 
staff to bring forward recommendations for a to  
[20:09] that would be having to be adopted by the next 
council. But I think we have a duty. We've been  
[20:15] learning for four years and if we did all of 
that work over many uh multiple years meeting  
[20:21] with people and talking I think it behooves us to 
put recommendations forward based on what we've  
[20:26] learned. The next council would be the one that 
would have to approve the terms of reference and  
[20:30] actually establish the committee. Um and if you 
wanted to add some language around consulting  
[20:35] with the Federation of Agriculture or anything 
as part of that staff review process I that would  
[20:40] be very welcomed. Thank you. Uh, Mayor Lena. Oh, 
you're you're good now. Okay. Uh, councelor Les,
[20:52] in my opinion, there is more than one issue at 
stake here and it's not the rural area isn't only  
[21:00] about or the rural advisory group isn't only 
about agriculture in my mind. Um I think the  
[21:05] keynote uh phrase that was used here earlier was 
that when we looked at the ward boundary review,  
[21:12] it's quite obvious that the rural area was not 
going to get more representation on council. So  
[21:19] uh I see absolutely no harm in setting 
up a rural advisory committee. I think  
[21:26] to try and pigeon hole only agriculture is is 
wrong because there's other issues they have.  
[21:34] Thank you, uh, councelor Mink. So, as a rural 
resident myself, I would like to ask, what issues  
[21:39] are you going to talk about that are not already 
covered by our departments and our existing  
[21:44] advisory committees? I am a rural resident 
and I'm I'm thinking rural roads, garbage,  
[21:49] which is county. I'm thinking about tax. uh like 
what what other issues are you going to actually  
[21:55] cover that is different than what your counselor 
would bring forward than what the budget would  
[22:01] bring forward than what staff would bring forward 
and the existing committees. What are those  
[22:06] topics? Councelor Ley you want to answer? Exactly 
the same issues that urban councelor has to face  
[22:15] on a day-to-day basis. anything from taxations and 
roads and tourism everything. It's all it's all  
[22:22] part parcel. Uh sure. So then we should have 
an urban advisory committee too. Okay. Okay.  
[22:32] Uh councelor Atridge first. Yeah. I think um I 
think one of the things or the benefit of of this  
[22:40] uh that I see is that we're often hearing from uh 
rural residents um that the issues that they face  
[22:46] are very different and many of our policies 
especially when it comes to land use planning  
[22:50] and the way in which we're uh uh budgeting for 
roads and so on. We do have a tendency to paint  
[22:56] the rural residents with a similar brush. Uh 
recognizing that there are two distinct areas  
[23:01] out there between the hamlets and uh and the 
agricultural. Um I think to give them a voice  
[23:07] and be able to come forward and advise council 
um on the issues that they're dealing with um  
[23:13] is a really smart move. Thank you, Mayor Lennena. 
So I'm listening to to the conversation here and  
[23:22] hearing all the the different perspectives and 
uh one thing that strikes me is that um because  
[23:30] those issues are so important for the way in which 
this council table uh operates and back to your  
[23:36] point uh councelor Mink there's there's something 
that could be potentially be lost when when it's  
[23:42] focused in on a committee and not consistently 
mainstreamed through all of the processes and  
[23:48] discussions at the council table. So, it's almost 
like any policy that we would want to have is that  
[23:54] we would want to ensure that every single issue 
that comes to this table is weighed against those  
[24:02] particular interests and I want to hear about 
them always at the table from the folks that  
[24:06] are representing the area. Uh I am curious though 
to see whether or not there could be more specific  
[24:15] kinds of committees on more um I would say 
tailored issues in the rural area that are ones  
[24:23] that are coming up or ones that are important and 
agriculture I think is is definitely one of those  
[24:30] kinds of issues. So although I really appreciate 
what the intent is um in this in this motion um  
[24:38] I'm wondering if a little bit more investigation 
needs to happen in terms of the processes and in  
[24:43] terms of the issues and in terms of ensuring 
that just because there's a committee that key  
[24:50] issues aren't just delegated to that committee and 
not being brought forward on a regular and more  
[24:56] consistent and systematic basis at this table. 
So, um I'm a big fan of mainstreaming these kinds  
[25:03] of issues during uh discussions and potentially 
getting a little bit more information on some of  
[25:09] the concerns that uh councelor Mink is raising. 
Councelor Claire, I also uh I I I agree with your  
[25:19] uh comments uh Marilena around mainstreaming. I 
also would like to see environment mainstreamed  
[25:25] and accessibility mainstreamed uh and youth 
mainstreamed but we recognize that they're not  
[25:31] which is why we have advisory committees to make 
sure that those perspectives are in fact coming  
[25:37] forward and being considered when there may be 
gaps in our expertise or in our processes. So  
[25:44] I think the purpose of advisory committees is 
to help with that mainstreaming as opposed to  
[25:50] working against it. Um but again I would invite 
uh friendly amendments to the language especially  
[25:55] those last couple of paragraphs because these 
kinds of questions could be part of that review.  
[26:01] So the idea of creating some sort of advisory 
committee to cover the rural area and these issues  
[26:08] but maybe the recommendations come back from staff 
to suggest there should be more than one. Um,  
[26:13] I think that's exactly the kind of thing that 
could be contemplated through exact what this  
[26:17] motion is asking for. And if there's wording that 
we can word, you know, add uh to make that more  
[26:23] explicit, um, I'd be happy to, uh, receive those 
suggestions. Thank you. Um, councelor Mink. Is  
[26:30] this something new or Okay, please. Yeah, I just 
wanted to say that I was anticipating that comment  
[26:35] that we don't mainstream heritage and but we 
don't elect counselors. We don't elect a heritage  
[26:40] counselor. We don't elect environmental counselor 
and accessibility counselor there. That's why  
[26:44] they're in a committee and that's why North Bay 
and Brighton and those committee those communities  
[26:48] that elect at large have made in a committee. You 
are electing two rural counselors. So that's why  
[26:54] it's distinctly different. Thank you. Um is there 
anything new to come up? If not, uh councelor  
[27:01] Mink, you also had a motion there. Was it an 
amendment? I apologize. I don't remember it. Now,  
[27:06] it was a motion to refer this to the next term of 
council with some direction of staff to refer to  
[27:11] the Northland Federation of Agriculture as well 
as the OFA and Omafra as appropriate. Okay. So,  
[27:17] first I'm going to ask the mover in the secondary 
if they would like to discuss that yet. Go ahead,  
[27:21] councelor CL. Would you consider adding that 
clause to the notice of motion as printed on  
[27:26] the agenda that the review from staff include 
consultations with those two bodies explicitly?
[27:36] Sorry, I I don't I don't agree with the motion. 
Notice a motion as it's written. Okay. So,  
[27:44] I think we've had enough discussion. So, 
what we're going to do um is we're going to  
[27:49] look at the motion that's on here first. We are 
going to vote on it. If it does not go through,  
[27:55] then we will then uh look at Councelor Mink's 
motion. So, uh we're going to be work working on  
[28:01] this motion right here. I'm going to ask the clerk 
to read it all out for us. I'm just kidding. It is  
[28:06] really long. I'm just joking everyone. We're not 
going to do that. That motion is on the agenda.  
[28:11] Uh so I'm going to call that to a vote. Uh all in 
favor and those opposed. And that has been passed.  
[28:22] Moving on to item 5.2. Notice a motion regarding 
approval of formal delegations to external  
[28:28] organizations or other levels of government. This 
has been moved by councelor Atridge and seconded  
[28:34] by councelor Holloway Woodwani. And if I could 
just ask the mover to introduce this please. Yeah,  
[28:42] thank you very much. I'd be happy to. So uh this 
motion came forward uh as a response to uh the  
[28:48] delegations that went to uh AMO earlier this year. 
So some folks would know that uh each year um the  
[28:54] association of municipalities of Ontario uh allow 
delegations to come forward u from municipalities.  
[29:01] These delegations are typically meant to be 
able to ask for resources and uh and support  
[29:07] um from the municipalities. It's a it's a great 
opportunity for us to be able to champion things  
[29:11] that are going on in the community. Um often 
times um communities will have policies around  
[29:17] these so that uh council is involved in those 
delegations. They know the delegations that  
[29:23] are going forward. We don't have uh one of those 
policies in place. The municipal act uh which it  
[29:29] governs municipalities um it provides that uh we 
should have you know the role of council is to  
[29:36] develop and evaluate the policies of municipality 
and uh and of course the municipality should be uh  
[29:42] representing and carrying positions that the 
council has adopted. So it's good governance  
[29:47] uh for the um for the council to be included 
in the delegation so that we know what is going  
[29:54] forward so we know what is being asked on our 
behalf um and it's also good governance to be able  
[29:58] to support that. So um this particular motion was 
brought forward uh by myself and councelor CLA um  
[30:06] really to establish the policy around that so that 
uh two things will happen. one when delegations  
[30:11] are going forward the public obviously will have 
some visibility to what those delegations are  
[30:16] uh and secondly council uh has also visibility to 
it um and can participate in that process. Thank  
[30:25] you the seconder. Yeah, thank you. Um and I yeah I 
appreciated uh councelor Todd that you uh reaching  
[30:33] out to ask me to second this one as well. Um and 
I do also want to acknowledge that um I did have  
[30:39] some uh brief exchange with Maril Lennena after 
the August uh council meeting as well where we  
[30:45] also contemplated uh as whether a policy of this 
nature uh would be helpful to avoid any future  
[30:52] confusion uh around uh these delegations. So I 
think to me it's fairly straightforward. Um I  
[30:58] think the idea uh makes sense. It's aligned 
with the municipal act. Um, and it's not  
[31:03] uh I just want to be clear like this is not to 
say staff talk with other levels of government and  
[31:07] stuff as part of regular course of operations all 
the time. It's not to say that council interferes  
[31:13] with any of that. But just when it comes to 
official policy positions of the municipality,  
[31:19] those per the municipal act are set by council. 
And so this just clarifies that that includes um  
[31:24] requests or positions taken through these sorts of 
uh delegation processes as well. Uh, Mayor Elena.  
[31:33] Uh, thank you, Councelor Claire, for acknowledging 
that because I do believe that I put into an email  
[31:38] to you right after we had a meeting that it would 
be a very good idea to create a policy on all  
[31:45] future AMO and Roma delegations. So, uh, good to 
see that that's a part of, uh, this motion coming  
[31:53] forward. But as I, as I read this motion, um, I'm 
reading that it's something far broader. I'm to to  
[32:00] be very clear, I'm I'm absolutely 100% supportive 
of a motion around delegations because I'm the one  
[32:08] that suggested it in the email. Um but there's a 
more broader conversation in this motion that um  
[32:16] I'd like to have a discussion about or to get some 
clarity on. Uh councelor lees. Okay. Yeah. I I I  
[32:25] find that uh this is very uh contradictory for the 
second part of the motion whereby we are limiting  
[32:34] the ability of our CAO or staff to conduct 
the business of the municipality and we say  
[32:43] uh we need council has to provide their input and 
approval before um the CAO or the municipality can  
[32:52] can can agree to any agreement, letter, position 
statement, advancing a position on a matter of  
[32:58] policy, planning, land use, finance or strategic 
direction. There is nothing else that they they  
[33:04] deal with except those things. So if we put the 
handcuffs on um that doesn't work, you know,  
[33:11] we govern they they they they're operational. 
But in the next paragraph down, you say and  
[33:18] further that the policy provide that advanced 
council approval is not required where the matter  
[33:23] falls within the authority already delegated. 
So are we black or are we white? You know,  
[33:28] like what's going on, council? Yeah, thank you for 
pointing that out because I can explain that. Um,  
[33:34] and it's exactly to deal with the issue that 
you were talking about about handcuffing people.  
[33:38] So uh obviously as a council we have already 
delegated authority on many many issues to  
[33:44] uh to the CIO. The CIO works on behalf of us in 
in other areas. Um it's not to handcuff them.  
[33:50] That's why that paragraph is in there. in the 
previous paragraph uh when we're talking about  
[33:55] what it actually does uh uh uh you know what what 
it actually does refer to part A of that which is  
[34:02] when making a formal delegation on behalf of the 
municipality to another level of government an  
[34:06] agency or crown corporation of another level 
of government or external organization so  
[34:12] it's really tight along that so it's only under 
those situations that this would actually uh come  
[34:17] into play anything else the CEO is welcome to go 
ahead and do because we delegated that authority  
[34:21] What we're saying is if you're going to make a 
formal delegation on behalf of this municipality  
[34:26] or another level of government, we should 
know about it and that is good governance.  
[34:31] Councelor Le, I'd be very happy with that. 
Leaving part A in and taking B out entirely.
[34:40] Thank you. Uh anything else from council right 
now? Uh I'm going to give staff an opportunity  
[34:45] as this also has a lot. So, I'm going to ask 
does staff have any questions or comments? I'm  
[34:53] seeing the clerk. So, thank you very much 
uh Mr. Chair and and thank you thank you  
[34:58] uh councelor Atridge for bringing this forward. 
You and I have had some discussions around it and  
[35:01] uh you know I have shared uh in accordance with 
our procedure bylaw when notices of motion are  
[35:06] brought forward by members of council they are 
circulated to staff for review and you know  
[35:11] which was which was done in this case and and 
you know staff did uh did flag some questions  
[35:15] that they had which I have shared with counselor 
as well. So um I also did want to provide some  
[35:21] information that uh I think staff are seeking 
just in terms of clarity because there are  
[35:26] um some outstanding questions with respect 
to how a policy like this would be would be  
[35:31] uh executed. So we are seeking some clarity 
there. So, um, we did also I also wanted to  
[35:36] advise council just due to the the nature of some 
of the wording that was in this uh in this motion  
[35:41] that I did consult with our integrity commissioner 
uh because we because staff had identified certain  
[35:48] questions to me related to whether the motion 
was intended to establish a process specifically  
[35:53] for formal delegations to organizations like 
AMO and Roma which is currently the primary  
[36:00] uh formal delegation that is being undertaken by 
the municipality. Um based on the feedback that  
[36:04] I received from our integrity commissioner, you 
know, one of the things that staff do recommend to  
[36:09] uh to council would be to potentially 
clarify what a formal delegation is,  
[36:13] which I think that you know, uh councelor Atrich 
has done through this motion. Um but also identify  
[36:18] what an external agency is, right? The other thing 
that uh staff have identified is that clause B  
[36:25] uh could be potentially problematic as it does 
go beyond the signing of any formal agreements.  
[36:30] Uh typically formal agreements are approved 
by council through a formal bylaw or through  
[36:35] a resolution. This has been our practice. It's 
that what's enshrined in the in the municipal  
[36:39] act and that is what we that is what we do when 
we need council to give us the authority to sign  
[36:45] any formal and binding agreements. There's one on 
the agenda tonight. Right. Um in this case uh with  
[36:51] respect to the particular motion as it is stated 
it states that prior council approval be provided  
[36:56] for any letter position statement advancing the 
position of the municipality on a matter of policy  
[37:03] planning land use finance or strategic direction. 
So this see to us when staff were reviewing seemed  
[37:10] contradictory to the language in the motion that 
states that the intention of the motion is for it  
[37:14] to be a policy related to formal delegations. So I 
I would say like there is just some confusion from  
[37:20] a staff perspective as to what the what would be 
what council would be seeking uh in terms of this  
[37:26] direction and I I perhaps the CEO could provide 
some more clarity about the discussions he's had  
[37:31] with the SLT uh to the CEO through your chair. 
Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you for  
[37:36] bringing this forward council councelor Aloyani. 
Um we understand the need for you know having  
[37:43] council going into delegations. I think the only 
two formal delegations that we actually do are  
[37:47] AMO and Roma. Um and I don't believe in the last 3 
years of the council's term that delegations have  
[37:53] ever come to council. Uh so this would be a new 
a new endeavor that we're undertaking. Understand  
[37:58] that. I think the senior leadership's team concern 
is the the broad definition that's on the table.  
[38:04] Deep broad if if the intent was formal delegations 
particularly AMO and Roma that would be the focus.  
[38:10] Um the the and I'm talking on all staff. I know 
there's comments about the CEO, but all staff  
[38:15] interact with levels of government. So, let's be 
clear, it's the entire senior leadership team. Uh  
[38:19] the intent is through the municipal solicitor 
is looking at the delegated authority bylaw,  
[38:23] which was last done in 2020. It's out of date. 
It was a time before there was even CEO in this  
[38:29] organization. uh we did not we made the decision 
to punch it to the new the new council because we  
[38:34] want to seek their input on that um and have their 
input before we craft a delegated authority bylaw  
[38:40] and update the one because it's extremely out of 
date right now. The other concern too I think is  
[38:45] the uh quarterly reporting as well which is if a 
significant staff time and it goes beyond it goes  
[38:52] it it requests as well to quarterly report when 
we executed something i.e. like a budget. If we  
[38:58] did if we had approval in the budget process and 
then staff signed off a director or CEO signed  
[39:04] off on a capital budget, we'd have to report 
that back that we used our delegated authority,  
[39:08] which seems that's sort of the way the language 
we're interpreting. I think that's the way the  
[39:11] integrity commissioners interpret as well. So I 
I think that's just staff's concern is getting  
[39:16] seeking clarity and tightening the scope and and 
not such a broad scope. Um Mayor Lennena first  
[39:23] and then councelor Atridge. So, uh, just going 
back to, um, some of the discussions, uh, here,  
[39:32] uh, and also just reflecting back on some things 
that we've talked about at this council table,  
[39:37] which is the use of really clear language and 
avoiding a lot of, um, detail or jargon that's  
[39:44] not understandable. So, if there's parts of this 
motion that are raising concerns for staff or not  
[39:52] understandable or vague to the point where we're 
needing to get some clarification, I wonder why  
[39:58] not just put forward a motion around Roma and AMO 
delegations in very simple language and if there's  
[40:08] other considerations that go beyond that. Again, 
I I would go back to something that councelor Mink  
[40:15] was saying. Uh this is something that I would not 
be comfortable um bringing to this table before  
[40:24] a new council had an opportunity to talk through 
these issues because it could fundamentally change  
[40:31] some staff council relations. And I'm I'm not here 
to comment on whether or not which direction that  
[40:40] should should go in, but I certainly don't think 
it's something that a we should be suggesting  
[40:45] for a new council. And I certainly don't think 
that a new council can get their legs under them  
[40:51] uh by January to be contemplating this. But I do 
very strongly believe that we need a policy on  
[40:59] delegations which we haven't had. And we haven't 
had it largely because the municipality has fallen  
[41:05] really short in previous years in bringing forward 
delegations and succeeding in delegations. So  
[41:13] we're a bit of a victim of our success this time 
around. I think it's a great opportunity to set  
[41:19] a policy on this and the rest of it raises a lot 
of questions and concerns and clearly also among  
[41:27] um senior leadership and I think we need to 
listen to those concerns. Council uh thank  
[41:35] you for that. Um Madame Mayor earlier in we were 
talking about this you had mentioned that there  
[41:40] was language in here you were concerned with. Um, 
which language or which paragraphs specifically  
[41:45] were you concerned with? And are there some 
friendly amendments you'd like to make? Uh, I'm  
[41:52] I'm suggesting my concerns with a extraordinarily 
long and wordy motion. Why not just put a motion  
[41:59] on the table around the delegations that are going 
to AMO and Roma and responding to the community's  
[42:07] ask of us to be more clear and less jargony and 
less detailed in our intent. Councelor Claire,  
[42:17] um I think I I I appreciate where you're coming 
from, but I think limiting it to just AMO and Roma  
[42:25] would be a mistake because the reason I believe we 
got 11 delegations at AMO this year is because of  
[42:32] the proposed OPG project at Wesleyville and the 
focus, the spotlight that is being shone on Port  
[42:38] Hope. And I think from what I can see there are 
more meetings happening uh with the provincial  
[42:44] government in particular but also with the federal 
government around PHAI. So this idea that we are  
[42:50] making having these meetings and having formal 
delegations to me actually is happening far beyond  
[42:56] uh just those two conferences. So I wouldn't want 
to narrow the scope down to just that. I think  
[43:01] anytime any member uh you know of staff or council 
is speaking with another level of government they  
[43:08] are speaking on behalf of the municipality and 
conversation and asking questions and seeking  
[43:14] information is one thing. I don't think the the 
motion contemplates restricting that. But when  
[43:20] a position a policy position is taken and it's 
printed on our letterhead with our logo on it,  
[43:26] it is assumed by I would by those stakeholders 
and those other levels of government that it's  
[43:31] the position of the municipality and according to 
the municipal act that can only be established by  
[43:35] council. So if it hasn't already been established 
by council, it should come to council for  
[43:40] council's consideration before that delegation 
is made. So, I I I'm okay with reducing it and  
[43:45] I'm certainly I would I won't speak for councelor 
Todd, but I have no issue with removing clause B  
[43:50] altogether because that seems to be where a lot 
of the uh concerns are focused and and thank you  
[43:56] councelor Les for for pointing that out as well. 
Mayor Lena, so just on on that point and uh and  
[44:03] look, I it's what I'm saying is uh I'm really 
comfortable getting that lowhanging fruit over  
[44:09] the line. I think there's a lot more here that's 
being raised that requires a lot of thoughtful  
[44:15] discussion, comment, report and consideration. 
And also just I want more clarity around the  
[44:23] position of of staff versus council because 
there is a clause here. We know it's it's it's  
[44:28] very difficult to say when a member of council is 
communicating in their own capacity on behalf of  
[44:33] the municipality just as much as for example it's 
difficult for me to distinguish when I'm at county  
[44:39] table uh speaking on behalf of North Humberland 
County or the municipality of Port Hope. And so  
[44:45] these are really really important issues. I think 
they require a lot of careful thought and we do  
[44:52] need to have absolute um clarity. I think this is 
a important motion in terms of the the idea that  
[45:00] that it's setting, but I think that it needs to 
be done in a careful step-wise way. And I think  
[45:07] that's going to require a little bit more time to 
make sure that there aren't any inconsistencies.  
[45:13] And also I really want to make sure that our 
senior leadership team is comfortable with what  
[45:20] is being laid out here and that full consultation 
and maybe maybe we should have a workshop on this  
[45:27] between council and staff for a future council. 
I think that that that um template has been  
[45:34] set into motion in a really positive way and it 
could be an opportunity for more of that kind of  
[45:40] um staff council conversation. Councelor Todd. Uh 
thank you and I appreciate those comments. Um now  
[45:47] the motion does uh state that um we are directing 
the CO to develop for council's consideration a  
[45:53] policy. So uh that will be discussed in 
the next term of council. Uh this is not  
[45:59] the policy. Um so I appreciate that you want 
to be able to give that to the next council.  
[46:03] I believe the motion's already pointing to that. 
Um you had some concerns about the paragraph of  
[46:10] uh member of council communicating in their own 
capacity. Um is there a friendly amendment that  
[46:14] you'd like to do on that paragraph uh that would 
satisfy you? And again recognizing that this is  
[46:18] not the policy. This is simply directing staff 
to come forward with that uh fulsome policy that  
[46:24] you're speaking of. And I think I I go back to 
my original concern um uh councelor Atridge,  
[46:31] which is I don't think that January 19th, 2027 is 
a realistic timeline to be asking for this kind of  
[46:39] report to come in, especially if there's going to 
be a significant turnaround in in council. I think  
[46:46] um at least I can speak from my own experience. It 
certainly took longer than a month and a half to  
[46:53] uh get the training and understanding of where 
things were mo moving and so I I don't think that  
[46:59] that is a realistic or wise uh timeline. Um so 
to that I appreciate that. Do you have a timeline  
[47:08] that you're suggesting? Well, I you know, I think 
realistically it probably should come somewhere in  
[47:14] Q2 of 2027 to allow new council to get their legs 
under them and also to have further, you know,  
[47:22] discussions and input on this to make sure that 
it comes out right. And having said that though,  
[47:29] I I'm also cognizant of the fact that 
there are Roma delegations in January,  
[47:34] which is why my comfort level was to start with 
the Roma and AMO delegations and then to punt some  
[47:41] of this for a later date that is more carefully 
contemplated. Councelor T. Yeah, thank you. I  
[47:47] think exactly what you're pointing to, Madame 
Mayor, is exactly the reason why we want to make  
[47:51] sure that this is coming out as soon as possible. 
the gravity of the uh projects that are coming  
[47:56] towards the future council. Um this is going to 
be able to ensure that they are involved in those  
[48:03] delegations. Um so I think urgency is a bit of a 
of a matter here. Um I appreciate you know you're  
[48:10] projecting that maybe the next council is not 
going to be able to comprehend it. Um but I think  
[48:15] uh you know if staff takes it through um they'll 
be able to look at it and put it into place. Uh,  
[48:22] mayor first I think I apologize uh to the CEO. 
So just just briefly um you know we keep talking  
[48:30] policy a policy and put in place. We are governed 
by the delegated authority bylaw and that is what  
[48:35] we are trying to bring back to council the future 
council not another policy write a policy and  
[48:39] then come back and do a delegated authority 
bylaw. The delegated authority by bylaw is  
[48:43] the author authoritative piece of document that 
that staff follows. I think we're feeling a bit  
[48:48] of redundancy here. I don't disagree with you if 
you prefer AMO Roma delegations or the two formal  
[48:54] delegations. There is concern among staff really 
the pinpointing the term formal delegations does  
[49:00] that mean desk uh director McAdams can't talk to 
an upper level government like the county to take  
[49:05] a position whether you know that's that's the 
ambiguity in the language that we're concerned  
[49:09] about. Council Claire, I mean, I'm struggling a 
little bit with that concern because the municipal  
[49:17] act is clear. Council sets policy. So, none of 
us should be taking a policy position that has  
[49:25] not been a council policy position at all. 
Right? So, it shouldn't matter whether it's  
[49:30] a formal delegation or which level of government. 
If it's not a policy of council, it's not a policy  
[49:36] of the municipality. And so, it shouldn't be 
communicated. And there's a as I said there's a  
[49:41] big difference between conversation and questions 
and conversation and working towards something. I  
[49:47] think we can recognize the difference between you 
know it is the policy of the municipality or it  
[49:53] is the the wishes of the municipality that we do 
something you know when you're speaking on behalf  
[49:58] of the municipality those policy positions should 
be set by council. Like that's not a delegation  
[50:03] of authority bylaw issue. That's a municipal act 
issue. So, I think if you if staff feel that the  
[50:10] delegation of authority bylaw is the correct place 
to accomplish this policy and it doesn't need  
[50:14] another document, I have no I have no issue with 
that. Um, but I think it is important given how  
[50:23] the frequency of those discussions and the, you 
know, implications of those discussions, right?  
[50:29] We're dealing with bigger issues now. Um, I think 
it's really important that we get this nailed  
[50:34] down and it's very clear for everyone and for the 
public uh to have that sense of of confidence. Um,  
[50:40] and I agree, you know, it January is very early 
for a new council uh to be able to contemplate  
[50:46] this, which is why I think it's our responsibility 
to do so today. Um, because we have learned a lot  
[50:52] over four years and it's taken us four years to 
realize that we needed such a policy. So, let's  
[50:57] not give make the next council have to do all of 
that learning before we actually take action on  
[51:02] this. Thank you. Um, Marilena, and and it's uh 
for those very reasons of getting it right that  
[51:12] uh I'm suggesting that due diligence is is done 
here. And I I do I am concerned when the clerk's  
[51:19] saying that the ethics commissioner has some uh 
observations about the overreach on this kind  
[51:27] of motion or the the uncleararity around some 
of this. So, uh, I I would like to see whether  
[51:34] or not we can get to a place a of clarity and 
b of realistic timelines on this and maybe an  
[51:42] interim timeline to deal with the delegation 
of Roma that comes early in January. Okay. Uh,  
[51:50] so before we continue on, um, as this discussion 
is starting to go quite long and almost repeating  
[51:55] itself at times, so I don't want it to continue 
to repeat itself. So if you have something new,  
[52:00] but otherwise I think that it's time for us 
to either call a vote on this one or we start  
[52:05] um you know condensing things down. So councelor 
Atridge. Thank you. Uh something new. Um question  
[52:11] of the clerk. Would you please point out what the 
integrity commissioner had challenges with? Um  
[52:16] maybe we can look at some of the passages in this. 
Uh the integrity commissioner specifically pointed  
[52:21] to clause B uh in terms of the the the it being 
uh contradictory to uh contradictory what the  
[52:29] original attention was with respect to the formal 
delegations and what their intention was from a  
[52:34] staff perspective. I think that there was some 
confusion uh related to some of the other items  
[52:38] that I had noted before. Okay. So uh so what I'm 
hearing here is that potentially for uh B. So, I'm  
[52:45] going to ask the mover and seconder. Are we okay 
with the crossing that one out? Okay. So, we're  
[52:49] going to do that right now. Okay. So, moving on to 
anything else. Does anything else is anything else  
[52:56] on here that uh anyone from council would like 
to speak to before I go back to staff? Uh, Mayor  
[53:01] Lena, and then staff will have their opportunity 
after. I think it's just the dates. Um, I think  
[53:06] I' I'd like to see a date that corresponds to the 
the Roma delegation in particular because we know  
[53:12] that's January, but I think that we need to have a 
a a longer timeline on this to do the the careful  
[53:19] due diligence that's u that's actually required. 
Okay, I appreciate that. Um, councelor Claire,  
[53:26] um, would it be possible I'm looking at the 
CEO, um, I mean, uh, to my question is to you  
[53:31] if you have a proposal for a more reasonable 
date or maybe it's for the solicitor, uh,  
[53:36] who's working on the delegation of authority 
bylaw, but we have done before is in these  
[53:41] cases where a piece of policy work isn't going 
to be completed before something else happens,  
[53:47] we have just had it sort of stated on the record. 
So would it be possible to just have it stated on  
[53:52] the record that for yes we council's concerns are 
heard and the ROM delegations will be presented  
[53:58] to the next council and then we can give ourselves 
a little bit more time uh to make whatever policy  
[54:03] changes uh staff would bring forward and I'll 
pass that over to the CEO chair. Yeah, I mean  
[54:08] in in my mind we've heard it loud and clear. I'm 
not sure necessary this motion this motion is even  
[54:12] necessary because we will 100% be coming back to 
council. There will be a you know a slight nuance  
[54:18] to that as well whether that comes open or closed 
because these are some of these are negotiations.  
[54:23] Uh we are competing for resources against 443 
other municipalities. We don't want to tip our  
[54:28] hand. We don't the province watches these videos 
and we really want to be in a good negotiating  
[54:32] position. Um I think I think the concern too 
and I thank you for striking clause B because  
[54:37] we that is our role is to advance the position of 
the municipality whether it's planning, finance,  
[54:42] strategic direction. Um that is the concern 
and you know part of my role in my extension  
[54:47] of staff in the municipal act is to do research 
and that research requires uh negotiating having  
[54:53] conversations taking a position. It may not be the 
position that we want council to land on. It might  
[54:58] be a preliminary position but we are well informed 
to come back to council and advise them properly  
[55:04] and and if we feel like our hands are tied not 
be able to do those conversations because we had  
[55:08] to get approval because this was our negotiating 
position it's going to hinder us. So appreciate  
[55:13] that portion of it. I do want to raise though 
I am I am staff are are very concerned because  
[55:18] it's not just the CO it will be by extension the 
senior leadership team the quarterly reporting of  
[55:23] the use of this that's extensive staff time that's 
going to be costly um to you know track that every  
[55:29] nuance that comes out of her mouth is that does 
that fit the bylaw does that not fit the bylaw  
[55:33] I think that is a big concern and the quarterly 
reporting I do provide CEO updates every 3 months  
[55:39] uh those last five to six hours never mind the 
several hours of prep that I I I I I bring forth  
[55:45] everything that's going on and that I've been 
working on all my activities. Uh it could be part  
[55:49] of that as well. So, um yeah, just a bit concerned 
about the reporting requirements of every quarter.  
[55:54] I appreciate that. I'm glad that you just brought 
that up because it was going to be the next thing  
[55:57] that I asked everybody about is that because that 
was already brought up. So, um yes, absolutely.  
[56:03] the council right there. I I appreciate and 
thank you for raising that cuz you you not  
[56:08] only provide the quarterly uh reports on council 
direction that comes onto our agenda quarterly,  
[56:13] but you do also provide those reports. I'll admit 
I'm responsible for the quarterly language that  
[56:18] was not um in councelor Todd's original language. 
I I chose quarterly because my my thought was that  
[56:25] that would make it easier um because it could just 
simply be rolled into the quarterly updates that  
[56:30] you already do. But if that's too frequent um you 
know certainly amendable to amend that but that  
[56:36] was my intention. So through through your chair. 
Yeah. Yeah. It's remember it's not just the CEO  
[56:40] it's all the senior leadership team that this 
is pointing towards right. So that is a fairly  
[56:44] ownorous task for all of us. I appreciate that. 
Uh councelor Mink. Yeah. So just to wrap this  
[56:50] back up to what you said councelor Adam um are 
at this point are we ready to move forward with  
[56:56] a resolution? I do want to support what the mayor 
has said about at least Q2 at minimum. I looked at  
[57:03] the calendar. It came last council meeting I think 
uh for the new council. It's it's quite heavy um  
[57:08] just for the council alone um to understand what 
their role is. So Q2 at a minimum I think there  
[57:16] has to be some level of trust in our staff uh that 
they're hearing this conversation. Um so I mean  
[57:23] I'm ready to move forward with this. I'm ready to 
take out that clause B. Um, Q2 at minimum. I could  
[57:30] I could even go Q3 on this or Q2, sorry, end of 
Q2. I'm happy with that. I appreciate that and and  
[57:37] thank you for highlighting that you're confident 
in the staff. I'm also very confident in the staff  
[57:41] and I always appreciate everything they do. That's 
why I was kind of concerned about a few things. I  
[57:46] think we've addressed a bunch of that now. Um, so 
I'm going to ask the mover in the second, are you  
[57:50] okay with some friendly amendments? Uh, obviously 
we've already talked about getting rid of B. Are  
[57:55] you okay with the quarter two? And um and then of 
course the last part of the quarterly change. Is  
[58:03] that is is that good? Then we're going to have the 
clerk throw everything up there. And Madame Mayor,  
[58:07] please. I and I just wonder just because I I'm 
not sure if that the council piece needs to be in  
[58:14] here if you can strike that for now until there's 
more conversations that can come forward between  
[58:19] staff and council in the future to to sort this 
out because it sounds to me that this is more  
[58:26] looking at what what staff is doing unless I'm 
incorrect on that. It's it's not clear to me.  
[58:32] So is that the the one the further the policy 
make clear that member of council communicating  
[58:36] in their own capacity. I just think that's a bit 
of a slippery slope until that's really hashed  
[58:42] out with clarity that it's not subject to these 
requirements. Okay. Um councelor Claire really  
[58:46] quickly. Yeah. I mean I'm happy to take it out. 
I think it was there for clarity that the policy  
[58:51] doesn't apply when we are acting as individuals 
and not speaking on behalf of the council as a  
[58:56] whole. So I'm getting removed that as well. Okay. 
So, and the clerk is getting that right now for  
[59:02] us. Um, I would ask the clerk if maybe can scroll 
up once you're finished there so we can see it all  
[59:08] and make sure that everyone is okay with things 
because we are about to call the vote on this.
[59:16] It looks like everybody is okay and you've had 
your opportunity. So, I am going to call the  
[59:20] vote. All in favor and opposed? No. That has 
been approved unanimously. Thank you. Moving  
[59:26] on to item 5.3, notice of motion regarding chief 
administrative officer CEO performance evaluation.  
[59:33] This has been moved by councelor Atridge and 
seconded by councelor Mink. But before we do so,  
[59:39] I am going to uh pass this over to the clerk as 
this motion would require a reconsideration motion  
[59:45] prior uh as we have passed a motion already. So 
I'll pass this over to the clerk, please. Uh thank  
[59:51] you very much uh Mr. chair and I've already spoken 
to uh the mover regarding this issue as well  
[59:56] because we had had some discussions about it. Um 
so before council considers this motion, you know,  
[1:00:02] I do I do want to raise a procedural matter for 
your consideration. As part of my review of the  
[1:00:07] current notice of motion, I reviewed council's 
previous direction on the CAO performance  
[1:00:11] evaluation process, specifically a motion that was 
passed by council in May of 2023. That motion was  
[1:00:18] listed on our council direction list which came 
uh a few months earlier and will be will that  
[1:00:23] an updated list will also be coming uh in in two 
weeks. Now the 2023 motion directed three things.  
[1:00:30] It first directed that council select the KMA 
model as the preferred CAO performance evaluation  
[1:00:36] model. Second, that the mayor, deputy mayor, and 
counselor Andrews work with the CEO to populate  
[1:00:44] the KMA performance evaluation documentation for 
council's approval. And third, that the staff  
[1:00:50] undertake any necessary steps council required 
to formalize the performance evaluation process.  
[1:00:56] So that was what the 2023 motion stated. The 
motion that is currently before council proposes  
[1:01:02] a different process, right? In particular, it 
would direct the CEO to develop policy amendments  
[1:01:08] establishing an annual evaluation process, 
including the use of an external third-party  
[1:01:14] evaluator as well as confidential feedback 
from all council members. So, my concern is  
[1:01:20] that council has already provided direction on 
it on this matter through its 2023 resolution.  
[1:01:26] The current motion would effectively seek to 
establish a different direction and process  
[1:01:31] without first addressing the existing council 
direction. For that reason, based on my review  
[1:01:36] of the previous resolution as well as the current 
notice of motion, what I would advise this council  
[1:01:42] to do is that before considering this motion con 
do put forward a motion to reconsider the 2023  
[1:01:49] resolution that should be dealt with first and 
it should be passed before council considers uh  
[1:01:55] the substance of the current motion. Uh, I would 
also like to remind council that a reconsideration  
[1:02:01] motion would require a twoth3 majority vote. So 
for this council, that would be um five council  
[1:02:08] members which would need to vote in favor of the 
reconsideration motion prior to the consideration  
[1:02:13] of the notice of motion on the agenda today. 
Wonderful. Thank you. Um, Mayor Lennena, I I  
[1:02:21] just uh wanted clarification because not everybody 
is going to understand what KMA is. So, I wonder  
[1:02:27] clerk if you can just state for the record uh what 
what is KMA? Oh, thank you very much. I appreciate  
[1:02:35] that uh opportunity to clarify that. That's the 
Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators.  
[1:02:41] I believe it's the association for Yeah, most 
CAOs across Ontario municipalities at least are  
[1:02:48] a part of that. Oh, Canadian. My mistake. It's the 
Canadian. I'm not part of it, so I'm not. But no,  
[1:02:55] I I just I just think um when we're reflecting 
back on the motion that was already put forward  
[1:03:01] at this council table that we recognize that that 
that motion was in line with um best practices in  
[1:03:09] the industry around reviews and reviews are 
very important. they should be happening for  
[1:03:14] for everyone on a yearly basis. And uh you know I 
think uh the data tracker that was brought forward  
[1:03:22] here is really important for um making sure that 
these loss leaders are are accounted for because  
[1:03:29] this is not the first um motion that we made as 
a council that wasn't actioned. And I would say  
[1:03:36] that at least part of the explanation for why this 
wasn't actioned is because we had a great number  
[1:03:44] of CAOs that came and went and so this this truly 
did fall off the radar. So I am 100% supportive  
[1:03:55] of reviews. I'm 100% supportive of KMA informed 
reviews because that's the best practice in the  
[1:04:03] field. and uh I for one will not be voting for 
reconsideration because we already have a motion  
[1:04:10] and we know that the review has to happen now. 
It's just a matter of actioning it. I appreciate  
[1:04:16] that. Before I'm going to go to the other I'm 
just going to throw in my two cents as well if  
[1:04:20] you don't mind. Um yes, performance reviews to 
me are extremely important uh above and beyond  
[1:04:26] just for staff including for council. And I have 
asked directors and CEOs to give me performance  
[1:04:32] reviews throughout this term multiple times. I 
I always think that they're important because if  
[1:04:36] you don't know what you're doing wrong, you can't 
fix it either. So, it's always very important. Um,  
[1:04:42] I'm also going to say that I dropped the ball 
on this too because uh this is uh the direction  
[1:04:48] was for mayor, deputy mayor, and counselors to 
to do this. And in 2023, I was not the deputy  
[1:04:54] mayor at the time. and then we came through to 
here and I'm not going to lie, it didn't pop  
[1:04:57] into my head so I apologize for that and I am now 
going to pass it over to councelor Atris and then  
[1:05:02] to councelor Mike. Uh thank you very much and a 
question to the clerk uh if we don't reconsider  
[1:05:08] the original motion and uh no offense if councelor 
le is not sitting here in the next term um what  
[1:05:15] happens to that motion because it actually is 
calling upon him to be a part of that committee.
[1:05:23] I think that's a great question and I think the 
clerk is ready to answer that. Yeah, I I mean  
[1:05:27] at that point I think that uh likely there would 
need to be a a report back like the item is still  
[1:05:32] on the council direction list. So at that point 
I think staff would need to bring back a report  
[1:05:36] to council for further delegation and further 
further direction due to a change in in the  
[1:05:41] circumstances if the item has not been right. And 
we could resolve that tonight if we just you know  
[1:05:46] reconsider that uh that original motion and just 
move forward. The procedural advice is that if  
[1:05:52] this motion should needs to be considered then the 
reconsideration of the motion needs to pass first.  
[1:05:57] Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Um councelor Mink. Thank you 
and thank you for that information and I hearing  
[1:06:06] councelor Le the mayor and the deputy mayor and 
the responsibility that was the will of this  
[1:06:10] council. Um we don't know who the new mayor and 
the new deputy mayor is and and who may be here  
[1:06:16] making those decisions. So that that's the part of 
it that is problematic for me is that we actually  
[1:06:20] called specific people out. U this motion does say 
that that the amendments align with the Canadian  
[1:06:27] Association of Municipal Administrator performance 
evaluation toolkit standards within the motion. So  
[1:06:33] I think if we reconsider that original motion, 
we're still covering all bases. I think uh Mayor  
[1:06:41] Alena uh and just for clarification, it is my 
understanding from consulting with uh a number  
[1:06:47] of other municipalities that uh KMA evaluations 
are conducted internally by council um and do  
[1:06:56] not use external evaluators and is it not the case 
that using an external evaluator would also cause  
[1:07:03] additional expenses for the municipality? So, 
well, I appreciate what you're saying, councilor  
[1:07:07] mink, that specific folks were named. Um, even 
in the recommended motion, there is a timeline of  
[1:07:15] annually in September. So, there would be nothing 
technically stopping from putting together the the  
[1:07:21] terms of reference for such an evaluation based 
on the the former motion. I apologize. I'm going  
[1:07:26] to just kind of cut it off a little bit because we 
have not passed the uh motion to reconsider. So,  
[1:07:31] I don't want us to start talking about the motion 
yet because we're just not at that spot. So,  
[1:07:36] um I think that we should be just bringing it back 
to have it uh the discussion if for the motion to  
[1:07:41] reconsider. So, I was more or less talking 
about the motion that we had already passed,  
[1:07:44] maybe not the new motion potentially. Uh councelor 
Claire, you had something to that. Yeah. I mean,  
[1:07:50] I I I'm finding this one funny a little bit 
because, you know, we keep saying we're going to  
[1:07:56] do it and then we don't do it. And so, you know, 
I I see this motion as an expression of clearly  
[1:08:02] the last motion didn't work because we passed it 
and nothing happened and all of the individuals  
[1:08:07] who were supposed to be involved didn't action 
it. So, that's what I what I see when I read  
[1:08:12] this notice of motion. I'm not fussed about an 
external evaluator or using the KMA process, but  
[1:08:18] I do think we now do have a CEO in the chair who I 
I I I think all signs point to might be there for  
[1:08:26] a while. And I think that you know you are also a 
CIO, you are also an employee. You deserve to set  
[1:08:32] goals. You deserve to have this kind of uh process 
as do all of the other staff of this municipality.  
[1:08:39] So for me, it's just about whatever it's going to 
take to actually get this done. I also did go back  
[1:08:44] and look at the last um report on outstanding um 
directions and I noted that in the last report the  
[1:08:53] update was that it was expected to be completed 
in June. And here we are. It's now September and  
[1:08:58] again there's been no no progress. So for me, I'm 
not fussed about which direction we go, but please  
[1:09:05] let this be the last conversation and let's make 
sure that this does actually start happening. I  
[1:09:10] appreciate that. I'm I'm just kind of curious if 
you don't mind just give me a quick moment. I'm  
[1:09:14] just getting curious why didn't the mover and the 
seconder maybe kind of tap on the shoulder and say  
[1:09:19] don't forget before we got into this whole spiel. 
uh because we did have that motion there and we  
[1:09:24] probably could have actioned it uh immediately if 
we had that little tap on the shoulder and say did  
[1:09:29] you forget about this? I'm just kind of curious on 
the you know rationale there. Thank you. Um yeah,  
[1:09:34] go ahead. Uh I can speak to that. Um this motion 
obviously came forward uh at the very end of our  
[1:09:41] term. Um it uh is intended to and without getting 
into this motion because I know that's not what  
[1:09:48] we're talking about yet. Um but without uh this 
motion is to give a structure to it taking out  
[1:09:54] the players and the first one we had mayor deputy 
mayor we we named a counselor and so on. So this  
[1:09:59] gives a smart structure. If we had gone and just 
said hey there's a tap on it um we wouldn't have  
[1:10:04] got it done in time anyways. Uh so this sets up 
the the following term. Okay. Appreciate councelor  
[1:10:10] Mink. Uh so so to answer the question like 
everybody else it had fallen off my radar. So uh  
[1:10:15] the councelor Todd brought it to my attention and 
I was like yeah sounds good. and then it wasn't  
[1:10:19] until the clerk reminded me of that we passed 
it previously. Um, but I would like to before  
[1:10:23] the discussion continues, I think we're looking 
for a motion whether we're going to reconsider  
[1:10:27] the existing motion. So, I'm going to put that on 
the floor. I will move that motion then. Okay. So,  
[1:10:32] uh, so we have a motion to reconsider. Uh, 
and just uh again just for procedural when  
[1:10:38] it comes to motions to reconsider, it is 23. 
So, it'll be a 5 to2 and the clerk is going to  
[1:10:44] just Could we have a recorded vote, please? 
And at this point, uh, councelor Lees has  
[1:10:51] also requested a recorded vote on the um, thank 
you very much. Uh, I would just request that we  
[1:10:56] read the reconsideration motion so that we're 
all, um, so just we're all in agreement with  
[1:11:01] the language of the motion. I appreciate that. 
Thank you. So, the reconsideration motion uh,  
[1:11:05] moved by councelor Mink. We would we would need 
a seconder for that. But the motion as it reads  
[1:11:10] is that council reconsider its resolution passed 
on May 18, 2023 respecting the CAO performance  
[1:11:16] evaluation process which selected the KMA model 
as the preferred CEO performance evaluation model  
[1:11:21] and directed select council members and staff to 
formalize the evaluation process. So that is that  
[1:11:27] is the reconsideration motion. Madame uh you know 
um councelor Mink, if you're amendable, we would  
[1:11:32] uh Mr. chair, we would need a seconder and as 
councelor Andrews has requested a recorded vote,  
[1:11:36] I I will take I will. Yeah, absolutely. Um, so I'm 
going to ask councelor Mink. Are you c could we  
[1:11:42] for clar clarity when it says select that that 
could be interpreted as we can select whoever  
[1:11:49] we've actually named specific people. So could 
we include the people we named in that motion?
[1:12:04] Marilena and and just you know I I 
think it's important to understand  
[1:12:09] too that this is this is not rocket 
science. The Kama model is the KMA  
[1:12:13] model. There's lots of guidance here. Uh I 
agree with the deputy mayor. We hadn't had a  
[1:12:21] um a CEO in place long enough to do this and 
this did fall off. There's no reason why this  
[1:12:28] uh can't be put in place in in very short 
order. This is not rocket science. Thank  
[1:12:35] you. I appreciate and and I agree that maybe 
we still have time to get this done. You know,  
[1:12:39] there's still lots of time before the election. 
So, we are to work until the last day, right?
[1:12:46] Okay. So, we have a mover for 
motion to reconsider. I would  
[1:12:49] need a seconder. Seconded by uh the mayor. Okay.  
[1:12:56] and it is a recorded vote. So now I'm going 
to pass it back to the clerk. Great. Thank you  
[1:12:59] very much uh Mr. Chair. So councelor Andrews has 
requested a recorded vote with respect to item 5.3  
[1:13:05] which is regarding the CAO performance evaluation 
model. Um so it is a reconsideration motion. So we  
[1:13:11] do require uh a twothirds in the affirmative 
which would be five. Council members need to  
[1:13:16] vote in the affirmative for the reconsideration 
motion to pass. And I will start with councelor  
[1:13:20] Andrews. No. Councelor Atridge. Yes. Councelor 
Holloway Wadwani. Yes. Councelor Mink. Yes.
[1:13:34] Deputy. Mayor Pearson, no. Councelor 
Toms, yes. Mayor Henipsky, no. Uh,  
[1:13:45] Mr. Chair, that is four yes votes to 
three no votes. The motion fails. Okay.  
[1:13:51] Uh so at this point I'm going to call 
a 10-minute recess uh just for people  
[1:13:57] to use facilities if required. So we 
will be reconvening at 7:55 please.
[1:14:05] Okay. Thank you. Moving on. Item four items for 
consideration. 4.1 uh report LLS3426 advisory  
[1:14:18] committees and local boards initial review 
bylaw. And I'm just going to ask staff to  
[1:14:24] introduce this. Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor, 
and through you to members of council and the  
[1:14:30] community. This report represents an important 
step in updating the municipalities advisory  
[1:14:34] committees and local boards bylaw, as well as the 
related terms of reference. The current bylaw was  
[1:14:41] adopted in 2021. staff's review identified 
housekeeping and legislative updates as  
[1:14:46] well as opportunities to strengthen how our 
advisory bodies are structured and supported,  
[1:14:51] including directions received from 
council throughout this current term.
[1:14:57] It's my understanding that the work progressed 
in stages throughout the term of council  
[1:15:01] alongside other council directed priorities. 
And since joining the Porto team this October,  
[1:15:06] completing this review has been a top priority of 
mine. Um, and I'm pleased to bring this forward  
[1:15:11] um, at this time as approval of the new 
bylaw will help the next term of council  
[1:15:15] begin with a clearer and stronger framework. 
During this review, staff consulted advisory  
[1:15:21] bodies on their respective terms of reference. 
Staff also reviewed best practices from other  
[1:15:25] municipalities and spoke to staff leads 
and administrative staff to gain a complete  
[1:15:29] understanding of how to effectively manage 
the important work of these advisory bodies.  
[1:15:36] Uh the report itself outlines the specific 
changes, so I'm not going to get into detail  
[1:15:41] of those right now. However, overall, the changes 
provide a clearer and more consistent framework  
[1:15:47] while maintaining the flexibility advisory 
bodies need to carry out their mandates and  
[1:15:51] consider matters referred by council. They 
also reflect legislative requirements and  
[1:15:56] current municipal practices and remove inactive 
committees and outdated references. This is a  
[1:16:02] positive step in strengthening our advisory 
body framework. A broader review is planned  
[1:16:07] for the next term of council with opportunities 
to engage council, advisory body members, staff,  
[1:16:12] residents, stakeholders, and youth on long-term 
improvements to community participation. Um,  
[1:16:17] and with that, prior to taking questions, I will 
turn it over to the clerk for any additional  
[1:16:21] comments. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. And 
to the clerk, uh, thank you very much, uh, to  
[1:16:26] the deputy clerk and for all of her efforts in in 
bringing this over the finish line. So, you know,  
[1:16:31] I don't have much to add in terms of what uh what 
uh Devan has has already stated here today except  
[1:16:37] to say that this was a massive effort on the part 
of staff and that cannot be underscored. Um you  
[1:16:44] know, this was originally intended and I know I 
I've reported to this council on this. You know,  
[1:16:48] it was originally intended to be a housekeeping 
amendment and I was going to be bringing forward  
[1:16:52] housekeeping amendments to the advisory committee 
bylaw. And when we started delving deeper,  
[1:16:57] we identified that there were changes and there 
were some some systemic issues that needed to be  
[1:17:02] addressed in terms of what the deputy clerk talked 
about with, you know, outdated references and and,  
[1:17:07] you know, um some some issues with committees 
that were existing that weren't actually that  
[1:17:12] actually had not been functioning for a long 
periods of time, right? So, there were a lot  
[1:17:16] of things that we identified that really needed 
to be fixed and we wanted to bring that forward.  
[1:17:19] It was my commitment to bring it forward for this 
term of council. It took me a little bit longer,  
[1:17:23] took us a little bit longer uh to bring it than 
we had noted. Uh but it was a significant effort  
[1:17:28] to get the project across the finish line. Um 
you know, as you many of you know, our office  
[1:17:33] has had to deal with a lot of projects that fell 
outside of our work plan and were were definitely  
[1:17:38] more time-sensitive. The 2024 bi-election 
being one of them, right? And as a result,  
[1:17:42] we did need to shift our priorities to align 
with the council direction that we had received.  
[1:17:46] It is our opinion that the changes that staff are 
recommending will create a more agile, responsive  
[1:17:54] bylaw that will give advisory committees the 
flexibility they need to carry their mandate.  
[1:17:59] We are available to answer any questions that you 
may have and we will uh also rely on our staff  
[1:18:04] leads that are here today to answer any questions 
related specifically to the terms of references.  
[1:18:10] Thank you. Oh, wonderful. Thank you. And before I 
open it up to council, I'd just like to say thank  
[1:18:14] you. Thank you to not just the staff that have 
done an incredible amount of work and I'm talking  
[1:18:19] about every like every department as well and uh 
and to the deputy clerk but also uh a thank you to  
[1:18:26] all the committee members and all the volunteers 
throughout this municipality that really do help  
[1:18:30] shape the way that this municipality runs. So I 
just want to thank everybody first and now and  
[1:18:35] and I think that it's been an incredible amount of 
work too and and thank you. So I'm going to open  
[1:18:39] it up to council for any comments or questions. 
Councelor Mink. So I want to echo that too. Thank  
[1:18:44] you very much. Reading through it, it's very 
evident that there was a lot of work that put  
[1:18:48] in that was put into it. Um, so I I just have a 
couple of of comments or questions. Just reading  
[1:18:55] through it very carefully is that I noticed um 
the part where we're not limiting the number  
[1:19:01] of committee members that are sitting on it. Um, 
and I had mentioned this before, um, but I still  
[1:19:07] think it's it's not included, but I think it it's 
still a good idea that we not limit the number  
[1:19:11] of council members on a committee. It does say 
plus one council member. And I think that there  
[1:19:18] are some committee council committees that are 
bigger than others. Some has some subcommittees  
[1:19:23] and as we know on this council, there was some 
people that sat on three boards and committees,  
[1:19:27] some sat on one, some it was very unequal. So 
I think if um and councils can uh committees  
[1:19:33] can come and go within a term as well. So that 
way if we allow committee members to sit on more  
[1:19:40] than one committee member council member to sit 
on a committee then everybody could have sort  
[1:19:44] of like we're all sitting on three even though 
we may dupe up on some of them so to say. Um a  
[1:19:50] couple questions that I had. Um when we're talking 
about um electronic and hybrid meeting formats  
[1:19:56] um what provisions ensures that a member who does 
not have the technology or the skills necessary to  
[1:20:03] participate electronically are not excluded. So we 
it does say that provisions will be made. Um, but  
[1:20:09] I know specifically for the accessibility advisory 
committee, there are people who who wanted to be  
[1:20:15] on it but don't have access to a computer or the 
internet and we meet we meet electronically. Um,  
[1:20:21] so what what provisions are we making there? 
Um, as well as um um in 13.5 accessible formats  
[1:20:30] and reasonable accommodations. Um, and does that 
include um live close captioning or other types  
[1:20:37] of of, you know, if a if a if a chair decided at 
the last minute we're moving into an electronic  
[1:20:43] format, is it established that they now have that 
deaf and heart of hearing um accommodation to  
[1:20:50] make that sudden change? And I think that's that's 
really important. And then I guess the the last is  
[1:20:55] um public attending an electronic or a hybrid 
meeting would need those same accommodations.  
[1:21:02] Um if if council if it is the will of the chair 
that they could just call that and it does say  
[1:21:06] that in the document that they do have that will 
to change it. Um so that's my feedback and I guess  
[1:21:11] I just have one question that's outstanding and it 
it's sort of related. Um is the planning committee  
[1:21:17] and that that is a committee that we uh passed by 
resolution last term. We had a commitment we would  
[1:21:22] address it this term. I'm not seeing it anywhere. 
So, if someone could please speak to that.
[1:21:30] Um, clerk or deputy clerk. Okay. Clerk. Uh, so 
I Oh, boy. Okay. Let me see what I can uh So,  
[1:21:38] I I really do I do appreciate I I do appreciate 
all of the feedback that you've provided. Um,  
[1:21:42] one of the things I do want to say, let me 
answer the last question first. Planning  
[1:21:46] Advisory Committee. I think that the deputy clerk 
did did provide some feedback that we had received  
[1:21:50] from the planning department with respect to 
where that is at. Uh I would defer to our uh  
[1:21:56] you know director of development services who can 
provide an update on what the status of what that  
[1:22:00] uh what that committee where the committee is. 
The last motion that was passed by council was  
[1:22:04] that the terms of reference of the planning 
advisory committee be referred to staff for  
[1:22:08] further review. Uh so I would I would ask the the 
director to answer that question. Um, in terms  
[1:22:14] of your first comment with respect to, uh, more 
than one council member serving on a committee,  
[1:22:20] uh, that is definitely something that, uh, that 
we can contemplate. It could be a change to the  
[1:22:25] specific terms of reference of that committee. I 
do think that that comment requires some further  
[1:22:31] consideration. However, the reason for that is 
because our current procedure bylaw calls for the  
[1:22:37] mayor's designate to an advisory committee 
to serve as the head of that committee,  
[1:22:41] right? serve as the chair of that committee. 
So, if we have more than one council member  
[1:22:45] serving on that committee, I think that I 
would need to take a look at that from a  
[1:22:49] from a procedural bylaw perspective to see how 
that would work. So, what I would say is that,  
[1:22:53] you know, one of the things that the deputy clerk 
has has uh shared with this council is that there  
[1:22:58] will be a review taking place in the next term 
of council. And in fact, our intention is to  
[1:23:05] review this this kind of a bylaw every term 
of council because I think that every term of  
[1:23:09] council should have an opportunity to review its 
governance documents. Right. So, so in this case,  
[1:23:15] that could be a piece of feedback that we could 
we could bring to that one. Uh we would need to  
[1:23:19] review it as part of our procedure bylaw review, 
which was also going to take place in the 2020  
[1:23:24] uh6 2030 term of council as well. So, that 
could be something that we could do there.  
[1:23:29] Um in terms of accommodations, uh you know 
that is something that I think I would need  
[1:23:34] to discuss with our communications team in terms 
of the close captioning and those availabilities  
[1:23:40] uh only because it is also dependent on the type 
of technology that we are using currently. The  
[1:23:46] committees that we have uh are not live streamed. 
We do not have the technology nor do we have the  
[1:23:52] staff capacity to live stream those meetings. uh 
the committee meetings that are uh held completely  
[1:23:58] electronically have zoom links so people are able 
to view them if they wish and um and then if there  
[1:24:04] is any any sort of um ability through a close 
captioning process I have to be honest I that is  
[1:24:10] something that I may need to take back but but I 
don't think that that should in in in professional  
[1:24:15] our staff's professional opinion I don't think 
that should hold up this process because there are  
[1:24:19] things that we could do to ensure that we are we 
are addressing those concerns as they come forward  
[1:24:25] I appreciate. Before we do that, I'm going to ask 
uh the director just to answer unless Oh, was it  
[1:24:31] okay? So, yeah, go ahead. Go ahead first. Sorry. 
And there was the the just the piece about those  
[1:24:35] individuals that don't have access to computers 
and technology and internet if that committee  
[1:24:40] so decides is there accommodations. I don't 
think it really lays it out in here that that  
[1:24:46] the municipality will provide those resources. Is 
that the assumption if they're on that committee?  
[1:24:51] because we're really we got our we're excl 
we're saying we're an inclusive community  
[1:24:56] yet if you don't have internet you may not be 
able to participate I I would say that that's a  
[1:25:01] conversation we need to have with the particular 
committee that is has flagged those concerns  
[1:25:06] um I I was not aware that that that that's been 
that's been a concern so so thank you for sharing  
[1:25:11] that with me but absolutely I think that's a 
conversation we need to have but you know with  
[1:25:15] the current bylaw uh it provides for hybrid 
meetings right so for. So if somebody does  
[1:25:22] not have access to a computer in order to join 
a meeting um to join a meeting electronically,  
[1:25:27] they do have the option to to to do a hybrid 
meeting that that count that committee has the  
[1:25:33] option to do hybrid meeting. So then they 
can come to a spot where they can access  
[1:25:37] uh they can access um uh a committee room in 
order to to participate there. So we could we  
[1:25:43] could we could potentially look at that. But 
I think that when it comes to accommodations,  
[1:25:47] what we do need to do is get an understanding of 
what those accommodations need to be in order to  
[1:25:52] provide them the the the thing the accommodation 
that works best for that individual. I appreciate  
[1:25:57] that and I also appreciate that feedback about the 
hybrid. I know that uh myself I have one committee  
[1:26:02] that meets a Zoom but also I come here in person 
and there's been multiple times where I've been  
[1:26:06] joined by a committee member to give them access 
because they didn't have internet. So I'm going to  
[1:26:10] pass this over to the director please. Thank you 
for the question councelor Mink. uh to to address  
[1:26:16] a specific question relating to the planning 
advisory committee. So, we we know that there's  
[1:26:21] been a number of years that have passed since 
the council resolution to revisit the terms of  
[1:26:25] reference um for staff and for staff to report 
back to council on this matter. And so, that's  
[1:26:31] been outstanding for quite some time. And since 
that time, there's been a number of shifts in  
[1:26:36] provincial legislation again, um, which prompted 
the initial referral back to staff, I believe,  
[1:26:41] uh, for the planning advisory committee. Uh, and 
so it's taken staff some time to, uh, I think in  
[1:26:49] my opinion, it it the terms of reference needed 
to be completely revisited. So, not just minor  
[1:26:54] tweaks or adjustments, but a complete a complete 
revisitation of of what we expect from this  
[1:26:59] committee and how it would best serve Port Hope 
in 2026. moving forward. It's certainly been part  
[1:27:04] of the planning division's work plan uh for this 
year. There has been a shift in uh some priorities  
[1:27:10] and some things were elevated while other 
things had to be um uh deescalated in terms of  
[1:27:16] the priority list. However, um I can confirm that 
staff have full intention of bringing uh a report  
[1:27:22] forward to council in December. Unfortunately, 
it would not meet this term of council.  
[1:27:27] Um but there is full intention that a report with 
respect to the planning advisory committee with a  
[1:27:33] full recommendation on how to move forward with 
one uh would be coming forward before the end  
[1:27:38] of this this calendar year. Um that's where 
we're we where we are today. Appreciate that.  
[1:27:47] Thank you. Uh any other comments or questions from 
council? Uh councelor Claire? Uh yeah. Yeah. No,  
[1:27:53] I I really appreciate it all and I know um I'm 
sure the committees will be really thrilled to  
[1:27:57] see their terms of reference adopted uh formally 
um to keep uh pushing on with their work. Um I do  
[1:28:04] I do have a question and this is really a question 
for council about um the uh youth the provision  
[1:28:11] for youth because that was a resolution of council 
that that be considered as part of the uh advisory  
[1:28:17] committee bylaw review. So, I'm curious to hear 
from other members of council about whether we  
[1:28:22] feel that has been addressed to the, you know, 
to our liking, I guess, uh, or whether that's  
[1:28:28] something that we want to keep as an active uh, 
uh, directive to staff to be included in the more  
[1:28:34] wholesome review that they're going to conduct uh, 
next year uh, in the new term of council. And then  
[1:28:39] I also just want to um, say the one provision that 
I am concerned about in the current uh, proposal  
[1:28:46] is not an admin. I don't see as an administrative 
change. I think it's actually quite a substantive  
[1:28:51] change and that is to reduce the meeting frequency 
per the bylaw to bimonthly instead of monthly  
[1:28:58] meetings. Um, and I I do fully appreciate that 
there is built-in flexibility and committees can  
[1:29:04] choose to have a more uh more frequent meetings um 
by revising their bylaws. But I think when we when  
[1:29:12] we lower the bar to that standard, it becomes you 
have to make the argument to be more active. And  
[1:29:19] I would suggest that in a time when we're trying 
to make more use of community resources, we're  
[1:29:24] trying to encourage more participation in our 
decision-m structures. We shouldn't be lowering  
[1:29:30] the bar. We should be keeping that bar high. And 
for committees where that doesn't make sense,  
[1:29:35] let them use the flexibility to define in their 
own bi terms of reference uh a lesser frequency.  
[1:29:43] Um so that's my one concern and I and I really 
would like to see that addressed um before we  
[1:29:49] adopt this new bylaw and I want to for council's 
uh consideration. One of the main things I think  
[1:29:55] that that would interfere with is our ability to 
rely on committees and refer things to committees  
[1:30:02] for consideration because if committees are 
only meeting every two months that would just  
[1:30:06] simply bog down the process and delay staff's 
work unnecessarily and then I think what will  
[1:30:12] end up happening is we will stop doing that. So we 
will then lose that benefit of hearing from those  
[1:30:18] experts that we've taken the time to appoint to 
advise us because we're changing the bylaw to make  
[1:30:23] it more difficult for them to do so. Thank you. 
appreciate. So, uh to your first part, uh about  
[1:30:30] youth participation and you're asking council 
members about their different So, I'll let you  
[1:30:35] know if uh if you look through uh in this report, 
it does have the different terms of reference and  
[1:30:40] I'll just highlight the fact that the PRC advisory 
committee uh did change the terms of reference  
[1:30:44] to allow 16 plus uh so to actually have youth 
participation in there as well. Um I know that  
[1:30:51] and I'll speak uh on behalf of the um civic awards 
advisory committee. Um with the closed sessions  
[1:30:58] uh we didn't feel like that was maybe appropriate 
because there's a couple of different things with  
[1:31:03] that coming into closed sessions. But uh at least 
for the sorry uh for the PRC advisory committee we  
[1:31:10] uh we took that on and we changed the terms of 
reference to B16 plus. I don't know if any other  
[1:31:15] council members wants to speak to any of their 
committees. Councelor Atridge. Um, question for  
[1:31:21] the clerk. Um, strong mayors, how does that impact 
with committees and so on and and what would be  
[1:31:27] the influence on that? Sorry, I'm just going to 
Does anybody else have any questions or any other  
[1:31:33] input on the youth first? Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 
Yeah. Well, because then there's a second part to  
[1:31:39] Claire, so I just wanted to get that clarification 
first. I apologize. I'll go back. Yeah. Go ahead,  
[1:31:44] uh, councelor Claire. Yeah. I thank you uh 
councelor Adam uh for sharing that and I applaud  
[1:31:49] the PRC uh for doing that. Um I know that uh when 
that I think it was you and I actually who brought  
[1:31:56] forward that resolution about consideration of 
that after the delegation from vote 16 and I guess  
[1:32:01] the question I'm asking is are we saying it's a 
nice idea but we should leave it to the committees  
[1:32:07] to determine whether youth representation is 
something they want in which case we're sort  
[1:32:11] of outsourcing that policy decision around youth 
representation to the committees and that is a  
[1:32:17] choice we could make and I think that's what the 
current bylaw kind of contemplates or was it our  
[1:32:23] intention as a council to say youth representation 
is important and we would like to see that  
[1:32:29] incorporated into the bylaw in which case this 
would be the opportunity to request that that be  
[1:32:35] updated um before we adopt this bylaw at council 
two weeks from now. Understandable. Uh the clerk  
[1:32:42] had an answer on the second part at least. Yes, I 
I do have a a comment on the second part. I think  
[1:32:48] the first part wasn't directed towards me. So I 
I don't want to dain to answer that, right? But  
[1:32:53] uh but I do um I do want to uh speak to sort of 
the frequency of meetings because I I I appreciate  
[1:33:01] where you're coming from, councelor councelor 
Holloway Wadwani. So So in the draft bylaw,  
[1:33:07] the way that it is worded is says that advisory 
committees and local boards shall meet at least  
[1:33:13] six times a year and meetings shall be held 
on a bimonthly basis. Right. Unless otherwise  
[1:33:18] established through a terms of reference, 
additional meetings may be scheduled only  
[1:33:22] where necessary to address the time-sensitive 
matters. Right. And again and then 5.5.1 uh.1  
[1:33:30] of the bylaw also states that a meeting schedule 
shall be established at the first meeting or  
[1:33:35] first annual meeting of the advisory committee and 
provided to the legislative service department and  
[1:33:39] it goes through that. So our intention with this 
is actually not to curtail the work that that the  
[1:33:46] committees are doing but we did receive feedback 
from some committees that uh that you know they  
[1:33:52] they just weren't meeting enough just there was 
just not enough of work happening right so uh if  
[1:33:57] I were to uh we spoke to our our customer service 
assistant who serves as a recording secretary for  
[1:34:04] uh for some of the the committees and you know 
she noted for example that uh that some of the  
[1:34:08] feedback that she had received one was that 
you know from from committee one a particular  
[1:34:12] committee that stated that you know perhaps they 
didn't need to meet as often and they should only  
[1:34:16] meet when um when there is an item for them to 
consider right another committee where the many  
[1:34:23] meetings were were cancelled due to lack of quorum 
right so our intention with the wording as it was  
[1:34:28] stated was just to give a some flexibility so that 
those committees that that need that didn't need  
[1:34:34] to meet as as frequently had the ability to to 
to meet less frequently but then there should be  
[1:34:40] some a level established where there should be a 
minimum amount that committees should be meeting  
[1:34:46] in order to fulfill their mandate. We looked at at 
different uh municipalities to see what they were  
[1:34:51] doing and and six like six meetings a year tended 
to be the the norm uh as like a baseline. Um so  
[1:35:00] that so that was the the one thing that I that I 
did want to say to council with respect to that.  
[1:35:06] The other thing I I want to say and is that 
you know committees don't exist in a vacuum  
[1:35:11] right committees are supported by staff leads by 
the departments by the clerk's office to prepare  
[1:35:17] agendas to prepare memos to prepare you know 
correspondence and all of the minutes all of  
[1:35:23] those things that go into it right so we also 
need to be mindful of the fact that there is a  
[1:35:28] significant amount of staff time that goes into 
the management of these committees and that can  
[1:35:34] have an impact on resource uh on resources and 
can ultimately have an impact on on the way that  
[1:35:40] the committees function as well. So we're 
trying to balance obviously the important  
[1:35:44] work that the committees are doing along with 
ensuring that our staff are also you know not  
[1:35:50] um they don't have you know are able to support 
those committees to the best of their abilities  
[1:35:54] as well. So that was our intention with the way 
that the the language was wording. I hope that  
[1:35:58] that gives you some clarity on our intentions. 
Appreciate that and councelor Claire. Yeah I I  
[1:36:04] appreciate that. Um and I you know I was I read 
all those clauses and I completely understand how  
[1:36:10] they function. My point is that we are lowering 
the the number of meetings and we are basically  
[1:36:17] saying that committees have to ask permission 
through getting approved terms in their terms  
[1:36:21] of reference to meet more frequently. Right? So if 
you want to meet more often then that needs to be  
[1:36:26] established in your meeting schedule and in your 
terms of reference. And I'm saying why not just  
[1:36:31] do it the opposite way. say if you would like to 
meet less like ask permission to do less instead  
[1:36:36] of asking people to ask permission to do more and 
to do what I think these committees are supposed  
[1:36:42] to be doing. So I and I I also am concerned 
about making a change which I see as potentially  
[1:36:51] disempowering committees from the work and denying 
counsel from the ability to seek advice from those  
[1:36:57] committees on the basis of informal feedback. that 
is not even really do it's not documented in the  
[1:37:05] report like we're not being given that as evidence 
for making this change. It's anecdotal because a  
[1:37:11] comprehensive consultation of committees was not 
was not done as part of this review as we've all  
[1:37:16] acknowledged and I understand that is contemplated 
for the more wholesome review. So for me,  
[1:37:23] I would like to leave the meeting schedule 
issue unchanged until we have a chance to  
[1:37:28] actually formally seek feedback from committees 
and determine what's what's reasonable. And there  
[1:37:33] are things you can do with the language. There are 
clauses in there that allow you to cancel meetings  
[1:37:37] for lack of business already. Um, and there are 
um things you can do with the language to say,  
[1:37:43] you know, committees shall meet monthly um or, 
you know, less frequently per terms of reference,  
[1:37:49] but at a minimum of six. I agree having a minimum 
makes sense. I just don't want the minimum to be  
[1:37:54] confused with the standard because I don't 
think that standard will enable committees  
[1:38:00] to fulfill the function that I really hope to 
see committees fulfilling. Thank you. Um so  
[1:38:06] I'm going to ask staff um just for clarification 
on something. I can't think of it off the top of  
[1:38:12] my head. I'm sure that it's in the report. I just 
can't think of it. What was it before as a minimum
[1:38:21] uh through through you? I believe it was uh 10 
meetings that um individuals committee had to  
[1:38:27] have with the um the recess in that that August 
month and I think sometimes in December they  
[1:38:32] weren't meeting depending on um the holidays. 
Um but I believe it was 10 as a minimum. 10 was  
[1:38:38] the minimum before. Okay. Thank you. Do any other 
members of council have anything that they'd like  
[1:38:44] to bring up on this? No, I'm seeing none other. 
Well, oh, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So,  
[1:38:54] I do have one. Yeah. So, strong mayors. Uh, so 
back to that question. Thank you. Thank you for  
[1:39:00] that, Councelor Atridge. So, uh, so in accordance 
with the municipal act and the the strong mayor's  
[1:39:04] legislation, uh, particularly, uh, that refers 
to committees of council. So committees struck  
[1:39:10] of council members in this case uh strong mayors 
would not apply to advisory committees and the  
[1:39:15] and the mayor would not have the ability to 
um to change the structure of those of those  
[1:39:22] committees. Yeah. Wonderful. Thank you for that. 
Thank you. Sorry I if I may just add um however um  
[1:39:34] I I just I just uh you know this is relatively new 
legislation. and it is still being contemplated  
[1:39:40] by a lot of different municipalities and is 
unfolding with new case law coming forward on  
[1:39:46] um you know on a on a regular basis. My answer 
may change depending on um on what happens next.  
[1:39:53] Yeah. Great. So unless somebody has a different 
motion to put down, there is a recommended motion  
[1:40:00] and I'm looking at councelor Claire. Um, yeah, I 
would like to offer uh just um I'm gonna Sorry.  
[1:40:10] Um I I would like to pass a u bring forward a 
motion that the issue of youth representation be  
[1:40:17] considered open uh and included for more wholesome 
consideration in the force of another better word  
[1:40:24] wholesome review uh of the committee bylaw uh 
that you're planning for the next term of council.
[1:40:33] And I would also I'm just going to ask the deputy 
clerk really quickly. Uh through you uh deputy  
[1:40:38] mayor to the counselor. We are already looking at 
involving the youth engaging them in the upcoming  
[1:40:43] review in the next term of council. So I don't 
know if a motion specifically referring that  
[1:40:48] back to staff is necessary at that time 
when it's already incorporated in that  
[1:40:51] review. That's fantastic. I just I wouldn't 
want it to come in our directions to count  
[1:40:57] uh council directions list as being complete. 
like as long as that still says in progress  
[1:41:02] then I'm good with that. Um but I did also want 
to uh see whether there would be support at the  
[1:41:08] table uh for similarly referring the question 
of meeting frequency to that more wholesome  
[1:41:13] review so that committees can be consulted uh 
before we make that change at a bylaw level.
[1:41:22] So the clerk is just typing away over there 
and I will ask councelor mink. Um I think the  
[1:41:27] committees already went through that process of 
of giving their feedback. I know my committee did  
[1:41:32] um about the frequency of of meetings that I 
was in. So um at this point I I know one of  
[1:41:38] my committee meetings we did not have enough 
content to talk about and and we often didn't  
[1:41:43] have quorum or I had to cancel a meeting at last 
minute which wasn't wasn't fair. Um, so I think  
[1:41:50] that having the sixth committee meeting minimum 
requirement and the committee can decide based on  
[1:41:55] their agenda and their their goals and objectives 
can can determine for themselves if they want to  
[1:42:01] have more meetings. Councelor, uh, Councelor Ming 
actually raised a really interesting point in so  
[1:42:08] far as sometimes we actually don't have quorum. So 
if we're meeting less frequently and then we also  
[1:42:12] don't have quorum, then we're going to meet even 
more less frequently. And I know in my meetings  
[1:42:16] we've also uh come across some of that. So we 
could continue to diminish this to the point  
[1:42:20] where the meetings are very happening. Um I I just 
want to go back that in the terms of reference,  
[1:42:26] it's a minimum, not a not a maximum, right? So 
there is an opportunity to continue on doing it  
[1:42:30] monthly like many of the committees already have 
established in their terms of reference. Um I I  
[1:42:38] I think I'm looking at maybe the clerk first and 
then the deputy clerk and then councelor Clare or  
[1:42:42] would you Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. So I would just if 
I could just I apologize. Councelor Cla first. I  
[1:42:46] I apologize. I yeah, I and I appreciate that. But 
my what we don't know is perhaps your committee is  
[1:42:52] the one-off. So why change it for everyone when 
it would be far easier for you to just change  
[1:42:57] your terms of reference for the accessibility 
committee. And I will also say that this is  
[1:43:02] a bit of a chicken and egg situation. I don't 
think in previous terms of council committees  
[1:43:07] were really harnessed the way they should be. 
I think we've started to do that into this term  
[1:43:12] of council and I can speak for the environmental 
advisory committee. That's the committee that's  
[1:43:17] had the most teeth. It's been the most active. We 
even delegated leadership of the implementation  
[1:43:22] of the climate community climate action plan to 
them. We have never once not had quorum. In fact,  
[1:43:27] it's very rare for people to meet miss those 
meetings. We often go long and we often have  
[1:43:32] business that we don't get to at the monthly 
frequency. So, I'm going to suggest that the  
[1:43:38] issue is we are not making use of the committees. 
And when people don't feel like it's useful,  
[1:43:43] they're less likely to show up. they're less 
likely to raise things. We're less likely to  
[1:43:47] refer things. So, this is why I think it 
requires more wholesome contemplation and  
[1:43:52] something that should be a formal review process 
as opposed to just anecdotal feedback potentially  
[1:43:57] from just one committee. Appreciate. Uh so, I'm 
going to ask the clerk a question on that too.  
[1:44:03] Uh if we continue on with a 10 minimum and there 
are certain committees that don't need to meet  
[1:44:10] as often in their terms of reference, could 
they change it to be less than the 10 minimum?
[1:44:18] So if I understand the question correctly, so if 
the if the advisory committee bylaw states that  
[1:44:24] the amount of meetings should be 10 minimum and if 
a the committee decides to meet less, would they  
[1:44:31] have the ability to do that? Is that what you're 
asking? Correct. They still have a minimum. So  
[1:44:34] would they have would their terms of reference 
be able to be that they can still just state  
[1:44:38] that they were going to meet every other month? I 
mean realistically speaking the advisory committee  
[1:44:43] bylaw is the overarching framework, right? Which 
is why we try to keep it broad and we give uh more  
[1:44:50] um you know we give more flexibility in the actual 
terms of reference for for those committees to to  
[1:44:57] um you know set their own schedules based on those 
needs because again it's not just a it's not just  
[1:45:02] a conversation amongst committee members. It's 
also a conversation that has to happen between  
[1:45:07] the committees with their the departments that 
help support those committees as well as with  
[1:45:11] the recording secretaries. Right? it it is also 
dependent on that availability as well. So it  
[1:45:16] should really be a conversation that's happening 
at the committee level which is why we wanted to  
[1:45:20] provide some of that broader language to state 
that uh say you know it's a minimum of six uh and  
[1:45:25] then after that each committee can just set its 
own schedule. Okay, appreciate. Um so councelor  
[1:45:30] CLA are you uh are you wanting to put forth 
the motion just to bring it back up to the 10  
[1:45:35] I'm assuming? Is that right? Yeah, I'm actually 
not I I'm I'm suggesting that that piece not be  
[1:45:42] changed through this process, but be referred 
to the more wholesome review. I did also want  
[1:45:47] to add that there already is a section um that 
allows the chair to cancel meeting when there's  
[1:45:54] not enough business or if there's not going to 
be quorum. So in the in the case where there's  
[1:45:58] a a period here where there's an awkward minimum 
that's not working for a particular committee,  
[1:46:04] the chair of that committee does have the 
ability to reduce the number of meetings  
[1:46:08] through the discretion of the chair when there's 
no quorum or business to be advanced. Appreciate  
[1:46:13] um so you're just wanting that uh that brought 
out. So that would be uh that would be I guess  
[1:46:18] your motion. We would need a seconder unless the 
clerk is trying to Yeah. I just I just want to  
[1:46:23] get some clarity. Uh councelor Holloway Woodwani. 
So, so you are you suggesting that the language  
[1:46:31] that is currently in the draft bylaw remain? 
No. You're asking for that that language to  
[1:46:37] be removed and that the bylaw in the original 
uh draft bylaw remain and that uh and then that  
[1:46:44] item and then that item be further referred to 
the next the next uh review. Is that your Yes,  
[1:46:50] that's exactly it. And I because I think about 
when you think about when we get information  
[1:46:54] you get an we have anecdotal information that 
suggests that meeting frequency should be looked  
[1:46:59] at. So now let's look at it. Let's not change our 
bylaw on the basis of that anecdotal information.
[1:47:08] Yeah. Thank you.
[1:47:14] Oh, but the motion should also acknowledge that  
[1:47:18] that is an issue to be reviewed 
as part of the upcoming review.
[1:47:30] Councelor Holloway Adwani, I'm 
just going to put some sample  
[1:47:32] language here if you're satisfied with that. Um,
[1:47:39] yeah. Okay. I need a seconder for that, please.
[1:47:43] I'm seeing none and that is not seconded. 
Uh therefore it is defeated and we will  
[1:47:47] go back to the original and uh we have 
talked about this more than enough. So  
[1:47:52] it is time to come to a vote for that too. 
So the the recommended motion is on the  
[1:47:59] agenda. I need a mover and a second for the 
recommended motion. Moved by councelor Toms,  
[1:48:04] seconded by councelor Mink. All in favor 
and opposed. And that has been passed.  
[1:48:11] Moving on, item 4.2, report LLS 3526, records 
management program bylaw update. Does council have  
[1:48:19] any uh questions or comments about uh this item? 
Uh councelor Atri. Uh yeah, thank you. U maybe a  
[1:48:29] question of uh clarification on on this particular 
item. Um the the question I have is because it  
[1:48:38] allows the clerk to or designate to change the 
sections that govern retention and access of files  
[1:48:44] uh without uh council's oversight. Um are we 
going to be in a situation where records could  
[1:48:51] be disappearing early that we don't know like what 
what does that actually mean? Can you give us some  
[1:48:56] some understanding of that? I'll pass this over to 
the clerk maybe. So I mean the language that is in  
[1:49:05] in the in the bylaw is is very typical language 
that is included in most record management  
[1:49:11] bylaws. It gives certain authority to the clerk 
to to establish best practices in line with our  
[1:49:16] municipal recordkeeping systems. Right. uh anytime 
that you know there the bylaw itself includes a  
[1:49:22] schedule right for for for what the retention 
period looks like. Our our record staff follow  
[1:49:27] that that schedule diligently. We ensure that it's 
updated on a on a regular basis. Um if there were  
[1:49:34] any sort of amendment to any sort of retention 
schedule that would come forward to council for  
[1:49:39] contemplation prior to that happening. In fact, 
if I can be so bold as to say, we end up keeping  
[1:49:46] records far longer than um than we really need to. 
So, our our intention really is to become a more  
[1:49:53] agile organization, a more agile organization in 
terms of its recordeping practices so that when  
[1:49:58] records are requested from from uh you know, from 
whether it is staff or it is you know through the  
[1:50:04] FOI process, we're able to access them quickly. 
you know, that's that's a benefit not only to the  
[1:50:09] municip to the municipality, it's a benefit to the 
community that needs access to those records. So,  
[1:50:14] that is really what our intention was with 
bringing this forward. Greatly appreciate.  
[1:50:17] Does that answer your question? Okay. Okay. Any 
follow-ups? Any other questions or comments from  
[1:50:23] council? No. The recommended motion is on the 
agenda. If I can get a mover and a seconder moved  
[1:50:27] by councelor Le, seconded by councelor Manga. All 
in favor? And that has been passed unanimously.  
[1:50:33] Moving on to item 4.3, report LLS 3626, amendment 
to lease agreements with acco uh for the chapel  
[1:50:41] and caretakers cottage within the Union cemetery. 
Um do does council have any comments or questions  
[1:50:48] on this? No. I I would like to uh just thank uh 
thank the staff for this one. This was a very  
[1:50:55] quick uh turnover and uh I think they've done 
an incredible job getting this over the line  
[1:50:59] for the acco or Yeah, whatever it is now. Yeah, 
absolutely. So, thank you. I appreciate that. Um  
[1:51:06] I need uh the recommended motion is on the agenda. 
If I can get a mover in a second, please. Moved by  
[1:51:11] councelor Atred, seconded by councelor Mink. All 
in favor? And that has been passed unanimously.
[1:51:20] Moving on to item 4.4, Four. Report DS1326. 
Recommendation report zoning bylaw amendment  
[1:51:27] ZB05 2025 7773 Longear Lane Campbell. Does council 
have any comments or questions? Uh, councelor Les,
[1:51:45] I see there's a a provision in here for um 
an appeal for uh reduction in fees for the  
[1:51:52] zoning. Will that be coming forward to us? Uh 
I'll pass this over to the director. Thank you  
[1:52:00] for the question. I can answer that on 
on behalf of the planning division. So,  
[1:52:04] uh, there was a request for a reduction in 
planning fees. This report would contemplate,  
[1:52:09] uh, would ask council to contemplate 
that request. Planning has recommended  
[1:52:12] that that request be refused as part of the the 
motion for, uh, that's, uh, under consideration  
[1:52:18] today. Thank you. Thank you. And can you just 
remind us maybe what the fees uh, are total?
[1:52:28] Thank you for the question. I'm going to defer 
to the manager of planning for that answer.  
[1:52:34] Good evening through the chair. So every 
application has a fee and that is approved  
[1:52:39] by council and uh the applicant under the planning 
act has the right to request for the reduction and  
[1:52:48] we staff uh have provided our recommendation that 
it not be supported by council because this zoning  
[1:52:55] by law amendment came because uh the proponent did 
not follow the approved plans and build something  
[1:53:03] larger. I appreciate that. And now dollar amount. 
Do we have a dollar amount of what that is? It's  
[1:53:10] 5,500. Okay. Thank you, uh, councelor Clair. 
Yeah, I I support the recommendation from staff,  
[1:53:18] although I do appreciate where the owner was 
probably coming from and we've now updated our  
[1:53:24] our ARU provisions accordingly. But, uh, I do also 
just wanted to thank staff for making this work  
[1:53:30] because obviously we have, you know, additional 
housing now. let's find a way to make it work.  
[1:53:34] And so, thank you very much for for doing that. 
Appreciate councelor Mink. Yeah. So, I just want  
[1:53:41] to take a minute though, too. I'm I'm familiar 
with this file and I know that there's a history  
[1:53:46] here and maybe it's not the place to say this, 
but this is not a unique situation where rural  
[1:53:52] residents are have been trying to sever land, 
make multigenerational homes aside from ARUS.  
[1:54:02] um they're very I will say farmers are stewards 
of the land. They're very responsible with their  
[1:54:09] requests and often property owners are sensible 
with wanting to sever a lot. And I know that this  
[1:54:18] is one example where all sorts of alternatives 
were explored and denied um until we got to  
[1:54:26] this situation. And this is not isolated. This is 
common. It doesn't get this far, but the original  
[1:54:33] requests are common. So, I'm just hoping as we 
move forward with the official plan in the new  
[1:54:39] term, the council of the day of the day seriously 
considers what the community, especially the rural  
[1:54:47] community is asking to do and consider providing 
solutions so that we don't get into a situation  
[1:54:55] like this as well. Okay. Appreciate. Any other 
comments or questions from councel? I'm seeing  
[1:55:03] none. The recommended motion is on the agenda. If 
I can get a mover in a second or for that moved by  
[1:55:08] councelor Mink, seconded by councelor lees. All 
in favor? And that has been passed unanimously.  
[1:55:15] Moving on to 4.5 report DS1426, launch of the 
Port Hope BR&E and energy and manufacturing  
[1:55:24] supply chain readiness program. I'm going to ask 
council if they have any questions or comments  
[1:55:28] on this one. Uh councelor Toms. Yeah. Um can you 
explain a little bit maybe more of what what this  
[1:55:38] program is? To me it seems like it's a plan for 
the plan. Um like this is something that economic  
[1:55:43] development should be doing already. And my other 
question would be around the survey timing. Um,  
[1:55:48] typically our surveys don't do well and to throw 
this one right in the middle of election doesn't  
[1:55:53] seem like a wise wise decision to me. So, I was 
just wondering if there's a timing constraint why  
[1:55:58] we're going that path or you just explain that 
a little bit more uh to the director. Thank you  
[1:56:04] for the question. I will uh allow our our 
manager of economic development to speak  
[1:56:09] uh uh more specifically regarding the details 
of the program. Uh however, this was actually  
[1:56:14] a budget consideration. Um just to speak to the 
second part of your question first before Julian  
[1:56:20] uh is able to delve a little deeper into what 
this uh what this business retention and expansion  
[1:56:25] program actually is. Uh but uh the consideration 
for a business retention and expansion program did  
[1:56:31] uh was a part of a consideration of council's 
operating budget for 2026. Uh so as part of  
[1:56:37] the economic development division's budget 
proposal, we proposed a a jointly funded program  
[1:56:42] that we hoped to received grant funding for to 
endeavor into a business retention and expansion  
[1:56:48] um exercise for the entire municipality. This has 
not been done and we felt it was timely that that  
[1:56:54] this uh initiative was undertaken by economic 
development. uh we were successful in achie  
[1:57:00] achieving uh a grant through the rural Ontario 
development fund uh for 50% of the program's cost.  
[1:57:07] So that was um a successful grant uh application 
taken undertaken by economic development. So since  
[1:57:14] we were uh since we did receive that grant funding 
in coordination with the budget approval that was  
[1:57:19] considered by council in 2020 for 2026 we were 
able to move forward with the actual program. So,  
[1:57:27] what's coming forward today is a is more of 
a a an introduction to the start of of what's  
[1:57:35] going to be a fullear process. So, this 
is by no means a a decision that's being  
[1:57:39] made tonight with respect to business retention 
and expansion, but rather the kickoff of of an  
[1:57:44] exercise that economic development is going to be 
undertaking over the course of the next year. Um,  
[1:57:49] and Julian can speak more specifically to the 
program itself and what we hope to achieve.  
[1:57:55] Thanks for the question. Um, so it's a two-part 
project and the timeline in terms of when we're  
[1:58:00] doing the surveys is actually based on when 
the funding was approved and then a number  
[1:58:04] of things that happened um, subsequently. Um, 
so we do have the survey element of it. Um,  
[1:58:10] that's taking place from October to November. Um, 
we're trying to actually ensure that it's wrapped  
[1:58:16] up before the holiday seasons. So it might be 
into into early December. Um, but that is for  
[1:58:21] the general business retention and expansion. um 
surveys. So we've actually divided this this the  
[1:58:27] the study into two parts. So the first part is 
actually like engaging with the entire community,  
[1:58:32] business community um to understand exactly 
what's going on with them. So yes, some part of  
[1:58:37] that is regular day-to-day um um um um economic 
development activities. Um the scope of what we  
[1:58:43] actually undertaken is something that we don't 
would wouldn't normally have the resources to do  
[1:58:47] in house, right? And so that's one of the reasons 
why one we approached council and also we sought  
[1:58:53] um the provincial funding to do this because 
this is this is actually a a provincial program  
[1:58:58] um that most municipalities do. So it allows us 
to also benchmark against other municipalities  
[1:59:03] because we follow a standard um provincial 
template and then what we've done is expanded the  
[1:59:08] questions that we are asking to ensure that they 
align with the values and the priorities of the  
[1:59:12] of this municipality. Um so the this particular um 
BRN project will look at the existing businesses,  
[1:59:21] what's going on with them, whether or not they're 
growing, what issues they're facing and all of  
[1:59:25] that. But we also have two other elements to it 
um where we're looking at um the the the the the  
[1:59:31] work that's taking place throughout the region 
in terms of the corridor that we are in um and  
[1:59:36] what that means for our our our businesses and how 
we can actually help them to capitalize on on on  
[1:59:40] on the on the growth that we expect. not just the 
Westville but also in terms of what's going on at  
[1:59:45] Darlington and the entire corridor. Um how can 
we ensure that they participate in that in the  
[1:59:51] supply chain going forward. So that's that element 
of it. And then there's also an element looking at  
[1:59:55] isotopes. Um what does that mean and how can 
we also align um our local manufacturers to  
[2:00:01] be able to sell into that space as well like what 
capacities need to actually be in place and how do  
[2:00:06] we need to actually strengthen them in order for 
them to actually be able to participate. there.  
[2:00:12] The second element is a consultant study. So that 
is more technical where it will actually look at  
[2:00:18] um certification that the businesses might 
actually need um and and and it goes into some  
[2:00:23] depth in terms of what what what resources and 
it compares it to other regions. So what exists  
[2:00:28] within Dur uh the the the Bruce region and other 
regions and compare and what resources exist ex  
[2:00:34] um within the entire entire um um North 
umberland county. So the second part goes  
[2:00:40] beyond the municipality. The first part is 
very municipal focused and the second part  
[2:00:44] takes a broader a broader look in terms of 
um how do we build a regional supply chain.
[2:00:51] Wonderful. Darl just a follow. Yeah, 
please. So then it's it's more of a  
[2:00:55] nuclear initiative then. No, it's not. Um so 
the business retention and expansion program  
[2:01:00] um the the questions most of the questions are 
based on gen standard um or mafro questionnaires.  
[2:01:06] Um so those those are very standard questions. we 
do have an element that allows us to actually like  
[2:01:12] um delve more deeply into manufacturing 
the manufacturing sector u what's going  
[2:01:16] on with them in general and also then um 
see how best we can actually support them  
[2:01:21] in participating in the the in the nuclear 
in manufacturing so it actually goes beyond  
[2:01:26] the nuclear project so it's not framed 
as a nuclear project but more how can we  
[2:01:30] support the energy manufacturing and clean 
growth within within this particular area
[2:01:37] wonderful Uh any other comments or questions 
from council? No. Uh thank you. Uh incredible  
[2:01:44] work. And I'm going to now uh ask the council. 
We uh we have a a motion on the agenda. If I can  
[2:01:50] get a mover and a seconder for that. Moved by 
councelor Les, seconded by councelor Mink. All  
[2:01:57] in favor and opposed. Oh, you were good. Okay. 
Sorry. Thank you. Just I understand it. It's  
[2:02:05] becoming a late night and we are only on number 
six. So moving on to item 4.6 uh report DS1526  
[2:02:14] investment facilitation toolkit development and 
can export funding award council. Any questions  
[2:02:22] or comments? Uh councelor lees. Yeah, I I I maybe 
I just missed it, but I didn't see anything that  
[2:02:29] um indicated that would include uh real 
estate data for uh incoming uh potential um
[2:02:41] people coming into the to the area, 
new businesses relocating. So,  
[2:02:46] do we have a real estate plan as part of this? 
What lands are available? What will be available?
[2:02:57] Um so that's going to be a separate exercise. Um 
we are looking at a land a land strategy which is  
[2:03:03] which is actually somewhat which is separate um 
which we intend to undertake maybe in December or  
[2:03:08] January. We're working on right now. Um this one 
is actually to ensure that one the departments  
[2:03:14] are aligned um and that we have the necessary 
resources in order to engage with the the the  
[2:03:20] potential the investors that we are seeing right 
now. um ensuring that we have um all the tools  
[2:03:26] that they would normally need in order to be able 
to facilitate those and also how do we triage  
[2:03:30] right so it's ensuring that we develop a process 
in terms of how do we approach how do we how do  
[2:03:35] we handle these investors um and what resources 
are we providing to them and how do we how do we  
[2:03:40] um map out the entire development process um 
that they would need to actually go through  
[2:03:44] and what resources um they would need to take 
forward so some of this is actually marketing  
[2:03:49] marketing collaterals in terms of why how to 
invest in Port hope and then others will be in  
[2:03:54] terms of internal systems and ensuring that these 
are actually in place. Thank you. I guess my only  
[2:04:00] point is if we don't have any place to put them 
I don't know why they would come the intention  
[2:04:04] is that we're doing these things concurrently. So 
we are working on the land strategy at the same  
[2:04:09] time that we're as we're doing this one and 
the intention that they would be overlapping  
[2:04:13] um based on the timeline that these both are 
actually taking place right and there are some  
[2:04:19] questions that will be coming through um the other 
studies that would be speaking to some of the land  
[2:04:23] issues as well um in terms of the BR project that 
we're doing. Thank you. No problem. Thank you. Um  
[2:04:30] any other comments or questions from council? 
No. The recommended motion is on the agenda.  
[2:04:35] If I can get a mover and a seconder, please. 
Moved by councelor Lees, seconded by councelor  
[2:04:40] Atridge. All in favor? And that has been 
passed unanimously. Moving on to item 4.7,  
[2:04:47] report DS1626, Port Hope Tourism Strategy 2026 to 
2031. Incredible amount of work on this one. And  
[2:04:59] uh I will ask staff to introduce this, 
please. Thank you. and through the chair  
[2:05:05] I would ask Julian to uh return to the 
podium to introduce the tourism strategy.
[2:05:12] All right. Thanks. Um there through your chair. 
Um so today we're just basically um presenting  
[2:05:19] the the tourism strategy um the 2026 to 2031. Um 
this is intended to be the five-year framework for  
[2:05:28] tourism delivery within within within Port Hope. 
Um and they provide some context in terms of the  
[2:05:34] background. Um um this is the first tourism 
strategy for the municipality. Um we've we  
[2:05:40] were directed by by council in 2023 um to engage 
a consultant to undertake undertake this study. Um  
[2:05:48] a number of reports came forward to council and we 
made a decision afterwards um when I came on board  
[2:05:54] that we will take this in-house. Um, one because 
of changes in the the the council's priorities  
[2:06:01] with the strategic the strategic plan as well as 
after reviewing the feedback that we saw from the  
[2:06:08] stakeholders, we felt um there could be better 
alignment in terms of what the communities were  
[2:06:13] um felt was important um some of the issues 
that persons were speaking about around  
[2:06:18] um um environmental stewardship um about whether 
or not the community can manage the capacity. Um  
[2:06:24] so there are a number of issues that we felt were 
not um being adequately addressed and we wanted to  
[2:06:28] be able to ensure that um what is presented to the 
community reflected the views that we saw coming  
[2:06:33] forward. Um so that's where we were with that 
and um the intention is to provide a disciplined  
[2:06:41] um a disciplined approach to developing managing 
funding and measuring the tourism for the next 5  
[2:06:47] years. and the the core idea is that it's going to 
be authentic um well-managed and that that that it  
[2:06:54] benefits the community as a whole. Um so there's a 
lot of conversations um within the document about  
[2:06:59] community benefit. So we focus a lot on community 
benefit um meaning benefits to the businesses as  
[2:07:04] well as benefits to the to the to the residents 
and that tourism should be framed um from a  
[2:07:09] resident first perspective in terms of how does 
this benefit the residents and then therefore  
[2:07:14] the the the visitors can can can partake. Um so 
that's the intention um in preparing this as well  
[2:07:19] as how do we ensure that the we drive traffic to 
businesses. So measurements is based on how best  
[2:07:26] it impacts on the local businesses um and not so 
much in terms of the numbers that we see in the  
[2:07:30] community but how the the the benefits spill over 
economically for the local businesses. So that's  
[2:07:36] um some of the the core points around 
how the how the document was framed.  
[2:07:40] um we've built it based on um five priorities 
and four pillars trying to ensure that we cover  
[2:07:45] all aspects of the community. So there's a lot 
some emphasis on on on food um and the and the  
[2:07:52] farm where we try to bring in the rural element 
as much as possible. And then there's the the  
[2:07:56] downtown core in terms of the the artisans and 
stuff like that as well as we wanted to put some  
[2:08:01] attention on the on the on the lakefront and the 
work that was done previously um around the the  
[2:08:06] the waterfront strategy and potentially later on 
a marina. Um so the the idea was that we wanted to  
[2:08:12] explore all the different strategies that were 
already in front of council that came in front  
[2:08:16] of council and now we could actually bring them 
together under under this new tourism strategies.  
[2:08:21] Um there is no the document was done in-house 
so there there was no cost to to to council and  
[2:08:27] um right now we've initiated some activities but 
the intention was that we're holding off until we  
[2:08:35] got um approval by council before we we proceeded 
with with um most activities um during the summer  
[2:08:41] we we we started some initiatives we actually 
got um applied for and received um RTO a funding  
[2:08:48] um to develop a number of assets um to support 
the the tourism delivery going forward. So  
[2:08:54] um that is something that's currently ongoing and 
we also started um some initiatives to support the  
[2:08:59] local operators. Um a lot of audits being done um 
so we engage some students and we and that's the  
[2:09:06] initial part. The intention was that we'll keep 
it high level with the intention that once we get  
[2:09:11] um signed off or any direction from council 
then we know exactly how to proceed. Right.  
[2:09:17] So the the the today we're presenting this 
uh strategy for council's consideration  
[2:09:22] um and for you to direct staff as to whether 
we should proceed with year one implementation.  
[2:09:30] Wonderful. Thank you. So uh first off, thank you 
for the incredible amounts of work that you did  
[2:09:34] and uh the fact that that work was in house and I 
I I think you've done an incredible job. I'll get  
[2:09:40] to what I'm going to say a little bit later, but 
I'm going to open up to council really quickly.  
[2:09:43] So councelor M. Um so thank you very much. the 
document was fabulous. Thank you. Um, and you did  
[2:09:50] just explain and maybe answered a little bit of my 
questions. Um, and as a side note, too, I just and  
[2:09:54] I've said this before that I've noticed aside from 
this strategy that I'm getting more pop-ups now in  
[2:09:59] my phone about visiting Port Hope and stuff. So, 
I think that's that's great and and there's a lot  
[2:10:05] of traffic and so on downtown, which is fabulous. 
My question is um how do we make sure that this  
[2:10:13] tourism strategy is a municipal strategy and not 
just departmental and what I mean by that is as  
[2:10:20] you just explained tourism impacts so much and 
often when we're sitting here at council we get  
[2:10:28] other reports that come to us to make a decision 
about something not coming from the tourism  
[2:10:35] department and unknowingly council could make a 
decision that could impact our tourism product.  
[2:10:45] So, we may decide, you know, what affordable 
housing is is a priority, but council may decide,  
[2:10:50] you know what, that's a great location, which then 
may have a detrimental impact on the heritage or  
[2:10:57] or the the view of the lake or or or those type 
of things. So, how can we make sure that when  
[2:11:03] council is making decisions on other reports, it's 
pointing to our tourism brand and taking that into  
[2:11:09] consideration and not damaging that in the process 
of a different decision. That makes sense. Yeah,  
[2:11:15] good question. Um, councelor Mink. Um, 
that is something that was considered  
[2:11:20] um when we developed the the the structure of 
of tourism delivery in Port Hope. So within  
[2:11:26] this structure what we've actually proposed um is 
that we'd actually have a steering committee right  
[2:11:31] a tourism steering committee which is internal 
um so all the the various departments would be  
[2:11:36] part of this and throughout the document I refer 
to this as a cross departmental model and so even  
[2:11:41] with the development of the of this strategy it 
was circulated um internally um numerous times  
[2:11:46] um with these feedbacks being incorporated um 
that we've gotten from the other departments.  
[2:11:50] So um this was a collaborative effort in terms 
of pulling this together and the intention with  
[2:11:55] with the the the structure is that we'd have that 
steering committee that has representation from  
[2:12:01] the different different um departments and then 
there is a a a stakeholder table which is separate  
[2:12:08] where we'd have the key persons within the within 
the municipality the key the tourism related  
[2:12:13] operators being part of that and then some some 
more detailed subworking group that would break  
[2:12:18] get into some more nuances But but that the that 
that table that tourism table will ensure that one  
[2:12:24] the various voices are are incorporated but also 
this having that steering committee would have  
[2:12:30] representation from all different departments that 
they would actually know exactly what is being  
[2:12:34] spoken about and how the impact that it would 
actually have on tourism. So the intention is that  
[2:12:39] um every department sees themsel. Um I did um 
include a chart just in indicating where each  
[2:12:45] departmental uh department fell um in terms of 
their role within tourism to to demonstrate that  
[2:12:50] tourism did not belong to one department but that 
most departments touch on this in some in some way  
[2:12:56] um and that going forward for it to be successful 
that all the departments would need to be working  
[2:13:01] together. Perfect. Thank you. Wonderful. And I I 
appreciate that too. That was one of the things  
[2:13:05] that I loved about uh about this strategy is the 
fact that a lot of the different things like as  
[2:13:10] councelor Mink was bringing up is identified 
whether it's using different uh of our other  
[2:13:15] strategies that we already have different plans 
that we have but also the cross uh department  
[2:13:19] model which I think was on page 39 5.1 uh and I 
and I love the fact because the collaboration is  
[2:13:25] what makes things go forward in tourism. So, 
thank you. Appreciate uh councelor Les. Yeah,  
[2:13:31] Julian and I had a little bit of a conversation 
regarding this and basically my thoughts were  
[2:13:37] it's too bad that from 2023 to 2026 we had three 
different consulting firms that didn't move the  
[2:13:44] needle further than it has been moved. But that's 
water under the bridge. And the other thing is  
[2:13:50] that when you focus on cleanliness, safety, uh 
service and u quality, uh that really establishes  
[2:13:59] the brand that we should be promoting and then all 
the rest is sort of not fluff, but you got to have  
[2:14:07] your core values there first. Thank you. Thank 
you, Council. Wonderful. Uh, councelor Clair,  
[2:14:15] I think I always feel badly when there's been 
such tremendous work and then we pick at one  
[2:14:20] or two small things, but it is no way to diminish 
uh, yeah, tremendous uh, strategy and and awesome  
[2:14:26] to see it done in house, too. So, fantastic. Um 
my question is related to it was noted in the  
[2:14:33] report that the closure of the tourism um desk or 
was was still lamented. Um and I and I appreciate  
[2:14:42] that that's there. Um what I and I see I I do 
see sort of a reflection of ideas of how we're  
[2:14:49] going to address that gap through the ambassadors 
and and that I think that's great. What I haven't  
[2:14:54] seen and I couldn't find anywhere in there is the 
contemplation for what the balance is going to be  
[2:15:00] for digital resources versus print resources. 
In fact, I think print resources I couldn't  
[2:15:05] find any reference to whatsoever. And I'm still 
really concerned that that's part of the tangible  
[2:15:11] in-person experience that people maybe are looking 
for when they're talking about the loss of the  
[2:15:16] visitors center. And it also occurs to me that 
that leaves out a lot of potential visitors. I  
[2:15:23] know it's not just and I'm not just talking about 
seniors who are not, you know, comfortable with  
[2:15:29] smartphones or that. I think it's not just them. 
I think it's also families. Children don't like  
[2:15:36] parents don't give their phones to their kids 
to read everything online. We're looking for  
[2:15:41] printed materials, a map that the kid can use to 
walk around. And then also, you know, the zenials  
[2:15:47] the young generation who are rejecting this kind 
of the you know uh smartphone technology and data  
[2:15:53] plans and that so I'm just concerned that without 
reference to to print materials that it means we  
[2:15:58] won't have any and maybe I'm wrong um thank you 
um councelor Aloway um through your chair um that  
[2:16:05] was addressed um where we when we spoke about the 
hybrid model um we did talk about about the the  
[2:16:11] the the network right so we we talked about um 
the hub that we're going to be having downtown  
[2:16:16] where it it is at these um we describe the the 
different locations that we'll actually be having  
[2:16:21] these materials, right? So that network of hub um 
of of of um of business operator that's part of  
[2:16:27] the tourism network um is where we actually have 
those station. And we did discuss um that we would  
[2:16:33] be having um some transient um stations as well. 
And so these that would actually h house the the  
[2:16:39] the physical the physical um brochures and flyers 
because we I agree they are very very popular  
[2:16:44] especially the it the it one is extremely hot. Um 
so those will continue. Um so you will be seeing  
[2:16:50] those those those popping up and we've been having 
some conversation about where we could actually  
[2:16:54] have um a physical um visitor center whether it 
be temporary or otherwise um stationed. But um  
[2:17:00] even with where we talked about some of some of 
the the roaming roaming hubs that we'll be having  
[2:17:06] um those will actually be housing both digital 
openly and and the physical physical as well.  
[2:17:12] Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Uh yeah to the 
director. Thank you. I just wanted to take a  
[2:17:20] moment um I wanted to do this at the beginning but 
I did want to extend a thank you to our manager of  
[2:17:26] economic development for taking on this work. Uh 
as mentioned we brought the tourism strate we made  
[2:17:32] a strategic decision to bring the tourism strategy 
in house. Um, when I came on board and reviewed  
[2:17:38] where we were at with this work, understanding 
that a significant amount of work had already been  
[2:17:43] done in relation to gathering information and very 
valuable input and feedback from our community  
[2:17:49] in relation to what they wanted from a tourism 
strategy and where we were. And it has taken some  
[2:17:57] time, but I I truly feel that it was important 
work and it was really important to um the tourism  
[2:18:03] business operators in our community and those 
that spent the time and gave the feedback uh  
[2:18:08] through those through that uh interview process. 
And I wanted something uh we wanted something as a  
[2:18:14] as a division that was meaningful and that could 
be best actioned uh through our municipal staff  
[2:18:20] department because at this time in terms of where 
we are in ter in tourism development is it's our  
[2:18:27] opinion that uh tourism service delivery should 
continue to be a municipal function. So I wanted  
[2:18:33] to take this time to thank um our manager because 
uh it wouldn't have been possible without without  
[2:18:39] without her. um really putting in the work and 
and developing this vision uh through lots of  
[2:18:46] meetings uh with us and also coming back to the 
community and making sure that we were still  
[2:18:52] uh understanding what needed to be done as time 
continued to to uh to move on uh throughout this  
[2:18:58] process and also take a moment to thank council 
for helping build capacity in our economic  
[2:19:03] development division. So, uh, acknowledging that 
our, um, our economic development division has,  
[2:19:09] uh, grown and has been invested in by this 
municipality, and I, I, I strongly feel that  
[2:19:14] we're able to, to be able to take on more work 
ourselves as we are better resourced to do so,  
[2:19:20] uh, moving forward through 2026. Wonderful. Thank 
you. Now, uh, because we were, uh, speaking about  
[2:19:27] committee so much today, I figure I'm going 
to bring up a little bit of correspondence. Uh  
[2:19:31] this was put out uh just the other day to the PRC 
advisory committee just to let them know that this  
[2:19:36] was on the agenda and we did get a correspondence 
back. I'm just going to very very quickly read  
[2:19:40] it. Um you know I spend time going through this 
report yesterday uh as this is the work that I do  
[2:19:46] in my professional life helping destinations plan 
for tourism. I am thankful every day that I step  
[2:19:52] forward to be a part of this committee. That's a 
shameless plug for the PRC advisory committee. So  
[2:19:56] sorry about that. Anyways, uh I am very impressed 
at what Port Hope is planning and investing into  
[2:20:02] as I get to work with many destinations around 
the world who have no idea how to move these  
[2:20:07] plans forward or even where to start in putting 
together a plan. Kudos to the team for such an  
[2:20:13] inclusive report. So, thank you to the team. I 
think it's an incredible job. Okay, we have a  
[2:20:21] recommended motion on the agenda. I would need 
a mover and a seconder for that. Please move by  
[2:20:26] councelor Mink, seconded by councelor Atridge. All 
in favor? And that has been passed unanimously.
[2:20:37] Moving on to item 4.8, report FES0326, municipal 
fireworks bylaw. Can ask councel and oh would  
[2:20:48] staff like to introduce the report? Just 
yeah if I if I could chair just uh through  
[2:20:54] you just like to take the moment to introduce 
Chris Gillis who's our chief fire prevention  
[2:20:58] officer. Chris oversees our fire prevention 
division with within our department and just  
[2:21:02] started earlier this year. In a short time 
with us he's been unable to he's been able  
[2:21:06] to undertake a number of significant projects and 
identify priorities within our department which  
[2:21:12] directly impact public fire safety which 
are going to include two of the reports  
[2:21:15] and bylaws that he drafted he's here to speak to 
today. So thank you. Thank you chief. Thank you,  
[2:21:20] deputy mayor, and um through you, chair, I'd 
like to introduce the revised fireworks bylaw.
[2:21:29] The proposed amended bylaw modernizes the 
municipality's approach to the sale, discharge,  
[2:21:35] permitting, and enforcement of fireworks. 
The revised bylaw remains and maintains  
[2:21:40] existing permitted dates and times for consumer 
fireworks while introducing a clearer requirement  
[2:21:48] for firework vendors, display fireworks and 
and pyroactic special events. Key changes  
[2:21:56] include restrictions during firebands and unsafe 
weather conditions, clearer enforcement authority  
[2:22:02] and integration with the municipalities recently 
adopted administrative monetary penalty system.  
[2:22:10] Overall, this bylaw provides a clear requirement 
for residents and vendors while giving fire and  
[2:22:16] emergency services stronger tools to promote safe 
fireworks and use and you and uses to address any  
[2:22:24] non-compliance issues. Thank you. Wonderful. 
Thank you. Uh any comments or questions from  
[2:22:30] council? I think councelor Claire. Uh yeah, 
I just wanted to uh acknowledge I've already  
[2:22:34] had my question answered, but just for for the 
public's information, my question had been around  
[2:22:39] uh whether there were provisions for people to 
seek an exemption or special permission connected  
[2:22:44] to cultural celebrations like Dvali for example 
and I was informed that the clause there that  
[2:22:50] there is that permission available through the 
chief uh who can provide that for anything. So,  
[2:22:55] I think that's just important information 
for the public in case anyone who celebrates  
[2:23:00] uh using fireworks to know that they can call 
the department and ask for that permission. So,  
[2:23:06] thank you very much for being so quick and getting 
back to me. Thank you, honorable. Thank you, uh,  
[2:23:11] councelor Atridge. Uh, yeah, thank you. 
Was any research done on the implications  
[2:23:15] this could have on small businesses? Uh, 
no research was done on the implications  
[2:23:20] um in regards to small businesses. Uh, the 
small businesses already do pay a fee. Um,  
[2:23:25] and I believe that fee is going to be reflected 
in the new um, fees and services bylaw. Um,  
[2:23:30] but we did not do any research regarding that 
because the existing fee was already there. Thank  
[2:23:36] you. Thank you. Uh, anything else from councel? 
Seeing none, recommended motion is on the agenda.  
[2:23:44] I would need a mover and a seconder, please. 
Moved by councelor Daryl, seconded by councelor  
[2:23:49] Claire. All in favor? And that has been passed 
unanimously. Thank you. Moving on to item 4.9,  
[2:23:56] report FES0426, open air burning bylaw. And 
I will ask staff to introduce this one, too.
[2:24:06] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Through you, chair, 
I'd like to introduce another bylaw and the  
[2:24:11] revised bylaw, the open air burning bylaw for 
council's consideration. This proposed bylaw  
[2:24:17] retains the existing burn categories, size limits, 
and setback requirements that are used by persons  
[2:24:24] that would like to do open air burning. This will 
be included and will strengthen the municipality's  
[2:24:29] administrative and enforcement framework. Key 
changes include the enhancement of fireban and  
[2:24:35] permit controls while prohibiting some dangerous 
uses of different types of um items. for example,  
[2:24:43] the flying lantern which has caused fires at other 
municipalities. It provides stronger inspection  
[2:24:49] and enforcement provisions and the integration 
of course with the newly adopted municipalities  
[2:24:54] um administrative monetary penalty system. The 
revised bylaw also introduces an annual burn  
[2:25:00] permit fee of $80 to help offset any costs of 
administering and maintaining the current and  
[2:25:08] new permit system. The revised bylaw also 
supports the municipality's wildland fire  
[2:25:13] management plan and our broader efforts to 
reduce and to reduce the risk of wildland  
[2:25:19] fires throughout the municipality. Overall, the 
the changes provide a clearer requirement for  
[2:25:25] residents and stronger tools for fire and 
emergency services to address unsafe and  
[2:25:30] unauthorized burning. Thank you. Thank you. So, 
I'm going to open up to council councelor Atridge.  
[2:25:38] Yeah, my uh I guess my concern on this one is 
really around the fee that we're charging. Um  
[2:25:43] uh my worry is that we're going to be charging 
a fee. People are then going to be reverting  
[2:25:48] into I'm just not going to ask for a permit. Um 
not entirely sure how we're going to uh enforce  
[2:25:54] any of that. Um can you maybe walk me through the 
justification of the fee other than it's going to  
[2:26:00] offset costs? um and what research or or what data 
do we have that show that that's even going to  
[2:26:06] uh you know re reduce some of the incidents 
that we're looking at. So, it's good questions,  
[2:26:12] of course. Um, in regards to the incidents, we 
find that um regardless if you have a permit that  
[2:26:18] people are always going to that want to report you 
will report any unauthorized burns um for variety  
[2:26:24] of reasons, whether they don't like it, they don't 
want to have um smoke in the area, they don't want  
[2:26:29] to see fires. Um, so I find that if um we are 
going to implement a permit process and charge a  
[2:26:38] fee and we're worried about people not um calling 
in and paying that fee that we're still going to  
[2:26:44] have um the same amount of people burning sorry um 
complaining uh when it comes to the burn permits.  
[2:26:52] In regards to people not actually paying the fee, 
we do have an enforcement aspect to that. Um,  
[2:26:56] and we do find that enforcement is through people 
calling into the department and complaining,  
[2:27:01] but also us doing proactive um, inspections around 
the municipality throughout the day. I have run  
[2:27:06] into people doing burns throughout the day that 
don't have a permit. I'll stop and get out and  
[2:27:09] talk to them. Um, but we have not been able to 
really address um, what we could what we will  
[2:27:15] think what will happen in the future. Um, but I 
do believe that people will still um, pay the fee.
[2:27:24] Uh, do you have a follow-up or different? Okay. 
Um, okay. Uh, Councelor Claire, as as you know,  
[2:27:31] I share that concern. Um, but we had a a 
conversation and an exchange of information  
[2:27:36] earlier today, and I appreciate that. I wondered 
whether um part of what could be done to address  
[2:27:42] the concern is what was proposed. I think it 
was you, uh, chief, uh, who said there could  
[2:27:47] be we could look at, say, having a fee for 
an annual permit, but maybe we could have a,  
[2:27:53] uh, a more affordable fee for, you know, a 
one-off or, you know, a shorter term. Um,  
[2:27:58] cuz I think the more affordable it is, 
the more people are likely to opt in. Um,  
[2:28:04] but when people are weighing, I know 
$80 sounds closer to 100 than to 50. Um,  
[2:28:08] I think people weighing that, you know, a 
lot of people will hedge their bets and say,  
[2:28:12] you know, the likelihood of getting caught 
is is not much. So, I'm going to, you know,  
[2:28:17] not bother with the permit. And I think the 
downside of that is that it undermines the whole  
[2:28:21] safety purpose here, right? Which is to know 
who's burning so that you can do inspections,  
[2:28:26] so you can do education. And so, you know, 
the more information the fire department has,  
[2:28:31] the better. So, I think I I'm just not sure that 
we've struck that balance between uptake and, you  
[2:28:38] know, the desire to offset the costs, which I 100% 
appreciate. So, I'm just I'm with Councelor Todd  
[2:28:44] on that. I'm concerned we don't have the right 
balance quite yet in terms of that that figure  
[2:28:50] to the chief. Thank you through the chair. Thank 
you for the questions and comments. There there's  
[2:28:54] obviously consideration for different approaches 
if council so desires for a short-term permit with  
[2:29:00] a reduced fee. Uh the proposed fee is directly in 
line with with comparators such as Claron to our  
[2:29:06] west. Um when we're taking a look at current our 
current system where we're not charging that was  
[2:29:12] implemented in 20123 when I first started with 
the department we introduced a new technology  
[2:29:16] at that point we didn't have capacity to um have 
a charge working with our finance team working  
[2:29:22] internally we do have that internal mechanisms 
in place as of now to actually charge. Uh prior  
[2:29:27] to 2023 we did charge for for open bear permits. 
This is not this is not new to the municipality.  
[2:29:32] Uh it's just been a hiatus for the past several 
years while we implemented our new technology.  
[2:29:38] It's now in place. Um it's providing good data. We 
have almost 600 residents applying for residential  
[2:29:44] permits. And uh with those numbers, we don't 
expect them to go down. Again, we do have a  
[2:29:49] variety of different permits. I think, you know, 
to speak to some anticipated questions that may  
[2:29:53] come up when it comes to land clearing or brush 
piles and different costs associated with that.  
[2:29:57] uh land clearing permits. Generally, we receive 
about a dozen a year. Uh those are regularly  
[2:30:03] obtained by uh farmers and those farmers will 
not be charged a burn permit fee if they have a  
[2:30:09] um a farmer's registration number. Um so hopefully 
that answers some of your questions. Like I said,  
[2:30:15] we did previously charge a fee. There's been a 
hiatus due to the introduction of new technology  
[2:30:20] and now we're in a position where we'd like to 
recost, you know, recoup our cost because not  
[2:30:24] only is there an administrative cost associated 
with the burn permit software, but our our fire  
[2:30:29] prevention team puts in hours in reviewing permit 
applications and for certain types of permits, we  
[2:30:34] have to actually conduct um burn plan reviews. We 
actually have to attend site locations throughout  
[2:30:39] the municipality. Um so there's a cost associated 
with that and generally I would suggest that $80  
[2:30:44] in line. and Clarington is a little bit more than 
that. Um that it speaks to where we need to be.  
[2:30:50] And just really quickly to that um you spoke that 
we used to charge. Do you remember what that fee  
[2:30:55] was? That was that was before my time. I'll be 
honest with you. It would be $20. $20. There  
[2:31:03] you go. Yep. Thank you. Uh councelor Mink. Thank 
you for that information. And so when you say 600  
[2:31:10] permits, are those unique residents or are they 
repeat? Those are when you say sorry through the  
[2:31:17] chair. So when you're saying repeat, we do have a 
variety of repeat every year. Yes. Those are 600  
[2:31:22] individual properties. 600 individual. Okay. 
And when when you mentioned 47,000 revenue,  
[2:31:28] where did that number come from? that it came from 
the permits we have thus far in 2025 multiplied by  
[2:31:34] the permit number depending on the type of permit 
with the proposed fees that we were uh proposing  
[2:31:39] to charge that would be the uh gross revenue. 
Okay. So my concern is um and I think everybody  
[2:31:49] knows how personal fire is for me. Um, Rural Port 
Hope doesn't have garbage pickup. And the reality  
[2:31:58] is people burn their garbage. It It is the truth. 
There are people who burn their garbage nightly,  
[2:32:05] every single night. There are huge piles of 
furniture every spring cleaning. Massive. Um,  
[2:32:15] if you were to go to the transfer station and take 
a survey of everybody who goes to the transfer  
[2:32:20] station, you're going to get a fraction of the 
rural properties. People burn it. What is the  
[2:32:27] solution to those residents now who who will 
not use the transfer station because some of  
[2:32:35] them can't. Some of them don't have a vehicle to 
actually go there. They don't have the time. They  
[2:32:40] work. Um and now we have more dumping, roadside 
dumping. Is that how are we going to handle that  
[2:32:49] problem? Are we prepared to handle that? Um, and 
is there a risk having wastes, the same waste  
[2:32:57] they would burn thrown in the roadsides? As far as 
obviously there is a risk, um, but fire risk, um,  
[2:33:05] flooding risk, all those other risks associated 
with roadside dumping if people can't burn their  
[2:33:10] garbage, and I don't condone burning garbage. 
I'm just saying that that is the truth. That's  
[2:33:14] that's the culture. That's that happens and 
that's the reality through through the chair.  
[2:33:20] Uh thank you for the question. I I understand 
that happens. I also live in the rural area not  
[2:33:27] of this municipality but of adjacent one. So I 
understand that that is common and uh that is  
[2:33:34] a common complaint that is called into us because 
it has never been permitted to burn garbage in our  
[2:33:40] municipality. Right? So the provisions of what we 
can burn are very strict and there's a variety of  
[2:33:45] health and you know health and safety reasons and 
fire life safety reasons why we why we would do  
[2:33:49] that. So to say how it's always been illegal. So 
this new bylaw I don't think would address what  
[2:33:56] your concern is. And because when it comes to 
the requirement not to be able to burn garbage,  
[2:34:04] nothing has changed. So So if we show up on a 
burn complaint or if you're burning garbage,  
[2:34:10] you're breaking the law. Now we actually have 
the we actually have the tools in place through  
[2:34:14] our administrative monetary penalty system 
for nos not only in the world but in the  
[2:34:17] urban uh to actually enforce that. Right. So 
yeah, and I agree with that. I just I just fear  
[2:34:24] that there will be a comments I hear and and I 
hear it's my god-given right to have a fire. I  
[2:34:33] hear that. That's what people say to me, right? 
And I'm not I'm not saying I'm not condoning this  
[2:34:38] conversation. And I just fear that more me more 
restrictions, more fines, more fees, there may be  
[2:34:47] a retaliation against that. That's my fear is that 
because I hear those words. Um and and we all know  
[2:34:54] that people don't get that permit. There's certain 
residents that have fires every day and they don't  
[2:35:00] get the permit. Right. So there there I agree 
there. We're already ignoring they're already  
[2:35:04] ignoring those rules. My fear is the retaliation 
of that rule and and how will we manage that when  
[2:35:11] that if that happens. Yeah. Thank you. And we 
always public education is always number one,  
[2:35:16] always has been. Now, we do have enforcement tools 
now in in enhanced enforcement tools for those  
[2:35:20] who are generally repeat offenders because you're 
not only putting your life and property at risk,  
[2:35:25] you're putting your neighbors property life 
at risk. And when with the development of our  
[2:35:29] municipal wildfire management plan and if you just 
watch the news, you can see the impacts especially  
[2:35:33] in the rural area of careless fires. So, we we are 
strict and there's a reason for it. So, thank you.
[2:35:45] Thank you. Um I've started with the municipality 
in January of this year and we have responded to a  
[2:35:51] variety of fires into W 2 in the rural area and a 
few of them have been um illegal open air burning  
[2:35:58] burning the garbage burning the I've seen um small 
tires. I've also seen um mattresses and of those  
[2:36:06] four to five um persons that we responded to 
or whether it was a complaint or a 911 call  
[2:36:11] um for a possible fire, none of them had burn 
permits. Um, so I do I do agree with the chief of  
[2:36:16] course um that you know we are strict about this 
and I think that um being more strict and being  
[2:36:22] more careful with the open air burning throughout 
the municipality will prevent um a catastrophic  
[2:36:27] wildfire. Um that could happen very very quickly. 
And I would I would just like to add just sorry  
[2:36:32] just on just on one note as well as the fact 
that we do have it's unfortunate but sometimes  
[2:36:37] enforcement may be a deterrent knowing that there 
were no real repercussions generally. Right now,  
[2:36:42] we're posing through our administrator monetary 
penalty system. If you have an illegal burn,  
[2:36:46] you may be charged first offense up to $350. 
Second offense 500, third offense $750. So,  
[2:36:52] there is some deterrence there. I would suggest 
um go. Yeah, I guess I'm losing track of some  
[2:37:01] of the logic. Uh so, the you you were talking 
about the incidents that you went to and they  
[2:37:06] had no permits. Charging $80, they're still not 
going to have a permit. Um, so I'm not I'm not  
[2:37:11] really following some of the logic. I'm not 
really seeing how the the fee is necessarily  
[2:37:16] going to solve anything on that. Like like I get 
it that it's going to offset some costs. I don't  
[2:37:21] see how it's going to change people's opinion 
on, you know, on those incidents. And in fact,  
[2:37:27] I agree with councelor Clare. I think we're going 
to drive more people into not having permits  
[2:37:32] than we had before. Um, I I don't see this as a 
benefit. Um I other than I hear that we want to  
[2:37:39] get some money back on some of the costs. I don't 
see how this is going to benefit anything else.
[2:37:46] Thank you. Um before I got councelor Leford 
first. Yeah, I'd be concerned um if I didn't  
[2:37:50] have a permit what my insurance company would 
say if I burnt my own house down. Absolutely. Uh  
[2:37:58] thank you for the comment uh through the chair. 
Hopefully this um could also um provide some  
[2:38:02] clarity. Uh there's a public education a public 
education piece that will go out to advising all  
[2:38:09] the residents. There's is going to be a new bylaw 
um fee for open air burning. Um also there's going  
[2:38:15] to be we're going to advise uh citizens through 
a variety of signage throughout the municipality.  
[2:38:20] Um but you're right there there is an aspect of 
the insurance piece. Um the bylaw as a whole in  
[2:38:26] addition to the fee um I I think is a good step 
forward to what the municipality needs especially  
[2:38:31] in the rural area because there is a significant 
risk um for wildfire in uh in ward 2 in the rural  
[2:38:38] areas. Appreciate um councelor mink. And so the 
last point I want to make is that the benefit  
[2:38:45] that I do see and I'm not opposed to this. I'm 
not I just see that there's that big gap and and  
[2:38:49] as we know and I'm going to go back to the garbage 
pickup issue is that for the rural community who  
[2:38:54] does not want garbage pickup. They I'm encouraging 
them to look at the risk and the of burning your  
[2:39:03] garbage. you're leaving your neighbors in that 
situation to burn garbage, pollute the air,  
[2:39:09] potentially wildfires, dump their garbage on the 
roadside. Those are the or their back fence line.  
[2:39:15] Those are the solutions because of that. And I 
think that it's an unfortunate situation. Like it  
[2:39:21] it really is. It puts them in a between a rock 
and a hard place. But that's the reality that  
[2:39:25] the they don't have garbage pickup and they're 
burning their garbage. that that's the that's  
[2:39:29] that's what it comes down to because I think the 
recreational person that wants to have a backyard  
[2:39:34] fire will will get that permit. Appreciate and 
uh and also a reminder to uh all the residents  
[2:39:41] that it is illegal to dump your garbage and 
do not do that please. Um I I put together  
[2:39:47] groups usually twice a year volunteers to just go 
pick up the garbage from individuals that decide  
[2:39:53] to uh leave it around. So just going to throw 
that out there really quick. Councelor Claire  
[2:39:58] Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that we're all 
clear though on the difference between I think  
[2:40:02] there is a big difference between the rural area 
and the urban area on this one in that before 2023  
[2:40:08] it's my understanding that there was no provision 
for permits to have a fire in W1 it was just not  
[2:40:13] allowed a blanket ban and yet not to get everyone 
I know in trouble uh pretty much everyone I know  
[2:40:20] had campfires in their backyard like it was a 
very common thing. So my understanding when we  
[2:40:25] were asked to pass that the the the bylaw as 
it exists uh that we passed in 2023 from this  
[2:40:32] table was that the idea was that we were trying to 
encourage people to register their fires so that  
[2:40:39] you would know when those fires were taking 
place. And if you're just having a campfire,  
[2:40:44] you're going to roast a couple marshmallows with 
your kids. $80 is a lot to pay for for such a  
[2:40:49] small thing, especially when it's not going 
to cause a a whole brush fire and a wildfire  
[2:40:55] uh across swast of the community. So, I think 
maybe the issue is that we're we're picking  
[2:41:00] one fee and we're applying it to all of these 
different situations and we need to be thinking a  
[2:41:06] little bit more carefully about, you know, what's 
reasonable on that on those different cases.
[2:41:15] Thank you. And just a quick question for um 
staff. How many wildfires have we had this year?
[2:41:24] I I'd have to I'd have to look it up. We have 
responded to multiple grass fires. When I say  
[2:41:29] wildland fires, I I include grass and agricultural 
fires as well. I don't have those statistics in  
[2:41:34] front of me, but we have responded to several 
this year and I can get that information for  
[2:41:37] you. Absolutely. Okay. Appreciate. Uh councelor 
Atrich. Yeah. I think um as we decide to wrap up  
[2:41:44] this conversation, I would like to refer this 
back to staff. Yes. For further consideration.  
[2:41:50] Okay. Um for the over for everything or were 
we talking more specifically to uh the fee  
[2:41:57] part? Uh which of course we could always put a a 
motion on the table to adjust that as well. Yeah,  
[2:42:02] I think I think as far as the fee goes, 
I I agree with councelor Clare. I think  
[2:42:06] there's some probably uh I would like to see 
more thought given on what the fee structure  
[2:42:11] would look like if there's going to be different 
fees, but I I just feel as though that component  
[2:42:16] um has not been fully fleshed out and I would 
hate to um see this not come to fruition because  
[2:42:23] the fee structure is is imposed in it. Um, so it 
may be an opportunity for staff to take it back  
[2:42:30] um and rebuild some of that versus us trying 
to do it from, you know, this table. Okay. So,  
[2:42:38] you have a motion to refer. Is that what you're 
saying? That would be my motion is refer back  
[2:42:42] to staff for further consider CEO chime in first 
and then sorry just for clarification for staff  
[2:42:48] on what council is seeking in direction. I think 
we need to be a little bit more specific and I'll  
[2:42:53] pass it off to the chief. Thank you through your 
chair with so there's two aspects of it. The the  
[2:42:57] next report up is our fees and charges bylaw for 
2027. So the fees that we recommended are included  
[2:43:04] uh in that proposed uh financial bylaw. So that's 
where those fees are. So if we're if we're okay  
[2:43:10] with the provisions of the bylaw as it stands 
other than the fees, I would suggest I would  
[2:43:16] seek direction and how how much should the fees 
be? because Clarington charges more and Hamilton  
[2:43:23] Town charges less. So, I I would just like some 
direction. I don't I don't have the numbers. We  
[2:43:29] I proposed $80 for a fee and then the other 
fees associated with land clearing and brush  
[2:43:34] piles due to the extra work that's involved 
with those and inspection process. Uh those  
[2:43:38] are in line again with Clarington who charges 
more. Um I'm just I can see direction you have  
[2:43:46] a number in mind case where you want us to choose 
the fee. I through the chair if that's if that's  
[2:43:53] the issue I don't want to bring back a report if 
if everything else is okay other than the amount  
[2:43:57] for the burn permit then I would just like some 
direction. Okay. Thank you. So unless uh unless  
[2:44:02] we're talking about something other than the fee. 
Are we talking about the fee? Go ahead. I'm just  
[2:44:10] like procedurally I'm I'm trying to uh brainstorm 
how we can get this done. So it it's not approved  
[2:44:15] until it comes to council in two weeks. Could 
council today instead of referring it back and  
[2:44:24] sort of missing a whole cycle and delaying the 
prescribed the the fees bylaw and all that,  
[2:44:29] could we not provide direction that you come back 
with a revision when you come to council in 2  
[2:44:35] weeks that addresses the concerns we've raised 
about the fees? Uh yeah, so correct me if I'm  
[2:44:43] wrong. What you're trying to say is that the fees 
are actually on the next item on the agenda. Uh,  
[2:44:48] so the the the fees that are prescribed in here 
are based off of what the recommendations are  
[2:44:52] on the next one. So that would be what we 
would be potentially adjusting, not this.
[2:44:59] Yeah, there's reference to the fees, but 
it's going back. So I'll allow the director  
[2:45:03] correct through the chair. The the fees that we 
recommended are included and they wouldn't start  
[2:45:08] until January 2027 as indicated in the report, 
which would be in line with the 2027 fees and  
[2:45:14] charges B, which is up next on the agenda. So 
we'd have to amend I would suggest the proposed  
[2:45:18] fees and charges bylaw which then then reflect 
what we're going to be charging for burn permits
[2:45:26] so a question for you um should we be reversing 
these like should we be talking about 4.1.0 4.10  
[2:45:33] 10 right now. Um, so that we can discuss the 
fees and then come back to this because I'm  
[2:45:39] not quite sure how we're going to vote on this 
one if there's fees attached to it and we're not  
[2:45:45] going to talk about the fees till the next issue. 
So, I feel as though we're we're stuck here. Yeah,  
[2:45:49] I understand exactly what you're 
saying. I'm going to pass it over  
[2:45:52] to the clerk really quickly. Um, an option, 
councelor Atridge, could be to defer report  
[2:45:57] uh fees uh fe0426 to the September 15th 
council meeting for further consideration.  
[2:46:03] That way you would have an opportunity to to to 
consider uh the next report that is on the agenda,  
[2:46:08] make any amendments as necessary and then 
that report could then um you know perhaps be  
[2:46:14] reflective of some of the changes and we could 
prepare some wording. It would give staff an  
[2:46:18] opportunity to to uh you know reflect on some of 
the comments made today. I'm looking to the to the  
[2:46:25] uh director to see if that's something that 
he would so through the chair we'd be we'd  
[2:46:30] require that for today for the purposes 
of passing the fees and charges bylaw we  
[2:46:34] have to amend the fees and charges bylaw. 
Yes. But that that that is happening at the  
[2:46:39] that is so so my so my understanding is that 
though so if I understand correctly director  
[2:46:44] uh those those fees are included in the fees and 
charges that is being proposed through report  
[2:46:52] uh report fit 1626. So if report FES0426, which 
is item 4.9, which is what we're considering  
[2:47:01] right now, was deferred to September 15th, they 
could still consider report FIT1626, which is the  
[2:47:09] prescribed fees and charges. Okay. Uh and I have 
a different suggestion for the clerk, so I'm just  
[2:47:14] going to ask chair, I can move things around in 
the agenda. Can I just move things so that we we  
[2:47:19] do 4.10 right now? We'll we'll discuss that. will 
make that decision and then we'll do um 4.9 after
[2:47:30] absolutely to the CEO
[2:47:34] or if you just need a moment I'm going to ask 
councelor Clare to chime in right now. Yeah,  
[2:47:38] I'm just sorry madam if I may if Mr. Clerk 
uh sorry Mr. Long long night okay uh so you  
[2:47:48] know the the director has has highlighted that 
the next report essentially is directing um is  
[2:47:54] directing is is seeking direction from council to 
post the fees bylaw for public comment and then  
[2:48:02] report back. Right. That is so it is not really 
passing the fees and charges bylaw. Understood.  
[2:48:08] Okay. Uh councelor Claire. Yeah. I was also I mean 
I guess they could change that before the fees and  
[2:48:16] service bylaw comes back but I think we do have 
precedent. We've done this before where it's like  
[2:48:20] a large piece and there's just one small thing 
and I remember with B manager of bylaw they just  
[2:48:27] amended that one part and it came back to council 
and it was approved within that c that cycle. So  
[2:48:33] that's sort of more of what I was imagining we 
could do here and you've already suggested during  
[2:48:38] the break what that could look like. Um, so it 
shouldn't be hard to to revise and then it's  
[2:48:43] all clean and done before end of our term through 
the chair. That's not an issue. Yeah. Thank you.
[2:48:56] My I mean it's really the will of council as to 
how how you wish to proceed. I think there's a  
[2:49:00] couple of options here. Uh obviously you can 
defer the item to to to uh September 15th.  
[2:49:06] you can make an amendment tonight to to change the 
fees and and and that would be then be reflected  
[2:49:12] in the in the next in the ne in in the fees 
and charges bylaw that would would go forward  
[2:49:16] for public comment. Uh there's a few options 
I think available to council tonight. Um you  
[2:49:22] know I I I may if I may be if I may suggest 
you know it may not be a bad idea to just  
[2:49:27] uh have a brief recess. It is it is 9:30. That 
was what I was going to do right after we did  
[2:49:31] this. But um yeah um so what I'm going to do is 
I'm going to ask would you like to have a defer  
[2:49:36] is that what you're asking to defer to this 
September 15th. Okay. Uh so I think I have a  
[2:49:41] I need a mover and a seconder for that moved by 
councelor Claire. Seconded by councelor Atridge.  
[2:49:46] All in favor of that and opposed. No. Okay. Um 
and that has been passed anyway. So we will defer  
[2:49:54] that and then right now we are going to take 
a 10-minute break. Uh so we will reconvene at
[2:50:02] All right. Thank you everybody. I realize that 
this is uh this is a very long night and I  
[2:50:08] appreciate and I'm hoping that everybody can make 
sure that they keep their voices down so we can  
[2:50:12] continue on. Moving on to item 4.10 report FIT1626 
uh 2027 prescribed fees and servicees. Uh does  
[2:50:24] staff want to introduce this or can we just start? 
Okay, perfect. Um and uh and I'll remind council  
[2:50:29] that it is getting a little bit late. So maybe if 
you do have something that you wanted to change  
[2:50:33] on it, uh feel free to just put forth the motion. 
We don't need uh too much dialogue on this. Uh and  
[2:50:38] I'm going to open it up to council at this point. 
Does council have anything that they would like to  
[2:50:42] uh speak to on this? Councelor Mink. Thank you. 
Um I I didn't notice and sorry I'm bringing  
[2:50:48] this up last minute. I didn't see anything 
about 911 signs on on the fees and services.  
[2:50:53] Um so um I mentioned that once previously when a 
resident asked about the cost of just the placard  
[2:51:00] and then we had a discussion about installing the 
entire pole as well as the placard and I don't see  
[2:51:06] it made its way onto this. So that was the first 
uh one that I noticed. The other one um is and I  
[2:51:13] I should have brought this up before because 
it's discussions that are ongoing is the fee  
[2:51:16] to rent the hub. Um we had the uh golden age club 
that played uker there um always since since well  
[2:51:25] before my time. Um and it's really the only um 
we don't offer any services recreational services  
[2:51:30] in the rural community as far as programming. 
So I'm just wondering why we started charging  
[2:51:36] that group and didn't grandfather them 
and is there any way that we could  
[2:51:40] uh amend that so that that one particular 
group can have that programming that they  
[2:51:45] kind of do on their own but it's the only thing 
that's available. Wonderful. Thank you. Uh so I  
[2:51:49] guess the first question would be the 911 signs. 
Does any member of staff want to speak to that?
[2:51:59] Uh we are currently looking into it and I thought 
that was changed. The intent was that was going  
[2:52:04] to be changed. Okay. So it may be an error it 
may have been missed. Appreciate that. And then  
[2:52:15] um pass it over to the director for the 
second question. Thank you through the  
[2:52:19] chair. Um my understanding was we were 
still grandfathering the previous group.  
[2:52:23] So I will have to take that back to my team 
to confirm. Great. So the question I guess  
[2:52:30] I have is that can this be amended when 
it comes back to council so we don't have  
[2:52:33] to defer it. It can just both issues can 
just kind of be updated. Is that possible?  
[2:52:40] So if I can highlight the previous um 
my understanding with bringing it back  
[2:52:44] um when it's ready to be presented to council for 
approval. The staffer report would highlight any  
[2:52:49] of those changes whether it's community feedback 
or direction from council. Okay. Great. Thanks.
[2:52:57] Any other questions, comments, any changes 
that anybody would like to make? Oh,  
[2:53:05] um Oh, mic good to the um if I may to the 
chair. Just a a question to councelor Mink.  
[2:53:12] Is the request for sign only a sign only fee for 
both? Some people want to just replace their sign  
[2:53:20] and I don't think we had a fee structure for 
that be in the past and then there was a bylaw  
[2:53:26] brought in last year earlier this year about 
replacing the whole unit. Um and I believe  
[2:53:31] uh the director of work said that they would 
like to do that because there's a lot of  
[2:53:36] specifics that need to be done. So that would be 
a separate fee. I think the average citizen can  
[2:53:41] just replace the sign but installing would be a 
different fee. Okay. I saw there was a sign only  
[2:53:47] fee and I wanted to make sure that what you're 
asking for wasn't already on here. Thank you.
[2:53:54] Okay. Anything else from anyone? See nothing. 
Okay. The uh recommended motion is on the discuss.  
[2:54:03] What am I missing? Yeah. I thought that's why 
we were going to be talking about it. Okay.
[2:54:11] Council, you know, we spent an hour on burn 
permits of $80 and $200. What happens if we  
[2:54:18] ever came across a serious issue where we had to 
spend more money? I mean, come on. We're capable  
[2:54:24] of making a decision one way or the other. 
I agree. So, that's why I had asked if we  
[2:54:30] did discuss it quite a bit. So, I thought that 
maybe you had a motion to change something. So,  
[2:54:36] I'm sorry. Say that again. What am I missing 
here? I'm missing something. Uh, to the clerk.  
[2:54:41] So uh you know we we did have we we did you 
know just based on the discussion that took  
[2:54:45] place just earlier earlier tonight I think 
that there is a motion that uh um a motion  
[2:54:51] to the like obviously the the report for fe fes04 
has been deferred for consideration at the next  
[2:54:58] meeting. A more wholesome discussion on that 
report can take place at that time. However,  
[2:55:02] there was a desire to look at the burn permit 
fee. Uh the you know the the director of emergency  
[2:55:08] services has requested some direction from council 
just based on that discussion. Uh you know if I if  
[2:55:14] I may share some sample language for council's 
consideration. Uh I have added an additional  
[2:55:19] clause to the recommended motion which there says 
that pending consideration of the report FS0426  
[2:55:26] at the September 15th meeting staff be directed to 
amend the fir burn permit fee to whatever council  
[2:55:32] wants it to be in the draft fees and charges 
bylaw. So that way that at least the the fees  
[2:55:37] and charges bylaw can move forward. Um and and of 
course the final consideration of that would be  
[2:55:42] at the September 15th meeting. I appreciate Isis 
for council consider councel cla okay sorry my  
[2:55:49] understanding was I I expected that we were going 
to refer this as well um giving the time for the  
[2:55:55] chief and our fire prevention officer to amend the 
report and come back with proposed dollar figures  
[2:56:04] that address council's concern I don't know if 
you want us to to do that or from the table or  
[2:56:12] have we've given you enough feedback that you 
can go and do that in the next two weeks through  
[2:56:17] the chair we can come back with a amended report 
for council and uh for your consideration. Yeah.
[2:56:27] Yeah. So you so motion to refer well that's 
and that's almost exactly what I was trying  
[2:56:34] to get from you is just give me the motion. So 
we have a motion to defer this one as well until  
[2:56:40] the September 15th meeting. I need a seconder 
please. That has been moved by councelor Clare.  
[2:56:44] I need a seconder, please. Councelor Atridge. 
All in favor, please. And opposed. And that has  
[2:56:50] been passed. Thank you. That's been deferred, I 
guess. Moving on to item 4.11, report FIT1726,  
[2:56:59] library board request for reserve funds for 
program room upgrades. Uh, and I'm going to  
[2:57:06] ask council if you have any questions or comments 
on this. and I'll pass this over to I'm just just  
[2:57:13] commenting because I'm on the library board. 
So, this is so that the programming room can  
[2:57:18] um be used um it just opens up the options uh 
for what it can be used for. There'll be um  
[2:57:25] sanitary semi-kitchen facilities in there uh basic 
kitchen facilities so that uh they can serve food.  
[2:57:32] It also will benefit the library where they can 
increase room rentals by having that as well.
[2:57:42] Thank you. Appreciate uh and I'm going to 
bring up uh one little thing on there and  
[2:57:46] that it's authorizing up to $20,000. I I 
feel like that is a little excessive for  
[2:57:52] uh what the upgrades are of a a microwave, a 
fridge, a sink, and a counter. Um as somebody  
[2:58:01] who runs a commercial uh kitchen, I feel like 
that is a pretty significant upgrade. Um,  
[2:58:09] I was just throwing it out there. 
Uh, I'm sorry, Councelor Les,  
[2:58:13] I know stainless steel is very expensive and 
if you're custom making it, it will cost.
[2:58:22] Thank you. Um, and I do realize that it's 
up to Okay. Uh, the recommended motion is  
[2:58:28] on the agenda. I just need to move her in 
a second, please. A move by councelor Mink,  
[2:58:32] seconded by Councelor Andrews. All in 
favor? And that has been passed unanimously.
[2:58:41] Moving on to uh item 4.12 report WWS1226 drinking 
water quality management system QMS commitment  
[2:58:50] reendorsement. Asking council any comments or 
questions? I'm seeing none. Recommended motion  
[2:58:56] is on the agenda. I need a mover and a seconder 
please. Moved by councelor Mink, seconded by  
[2:59:01] councelor Toms. All in favor? And that has been 
passed unanimously. Moving on to item 4.13 report  
[2:59:08] WWS 1326 designation of overall responsibility 
operator ORO and assignment of acting ORO policy  
[2:59:18] update. Does council have any questions or 
comments? Seeing none and uh call the vote.  
[2:59:24] All in uh the recommended motion is on there. 
Can I get a mover and a second please? Moved  
[2:59:28] by councelor Le, seconded by councelor Toms. All 
in favor? And that has been passed unanimously.
[2:59:39] Moving on to item six, uh updates and new 
business. Community advisory committee meeting. Uh  
[2:59:47] the inaugural meeting for the community advisory 
committee, the CAC, was held on August 25th,  
[2:59:52] 2026 here in council chambers. The committee 
was established to provide a transparent  
[2:59:57] forum for residents to raise community concerns, 
support meaningful dialogue with the project and  
[3:00:04] oversight organizations and track issues that are 
brought forward so the community receives updates  
[3:00:10] on their status. The CAC plays an important 
advisory role. It does not replace or direct  
[3:00:16] the responsibilities of the Atomic Energy of 
Canada Limited, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories  
[3:00:21] or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 
Council or partner organizations. Rather,  
[3:00:27] the committee considers matters raised by the 
community to make and makes recommendations to  
[3:00:33] council for consideration. The minutes for the CAC 
meeting held on August 25th, 2026 will be included  
[3:00:40] in the September 15, 2026 council agenda. The 
next CAC meeting is anticipated for November 2026  
[3:00:48] following the municipal and school board elections 
and before the inauguration of the new council.  
[3:00:55] Municipal staff will confirm the availability 
with AECL and CNL and will publish the meeting  
[3:01:01] date once that has been confirmed. Fish fishing 
regulations. A reminder to all residents and  
[3:01:08] visitors that provincial fishing regulations 
for seasonal sanctuary in Port Hope began today.  
[3:01:14] These regulations are in place until October 
14th when the extended fishing season begins.  
[3:01:20] This protected area extends from the south side of 
the Joselyn Street Bridge to the CNR bridge where  
[3:01:26] fishing will be prohibited during this period. For 
more information, please visit port.ca/fishing.
[3:01:33] Hydrant flushing. How exciting are these updates, 
right? Hydrant flushing. The 2026 hydrant flushing  
[3:01:39] will be underway in the urban area on weekdays 
starting September 8th until October 23rd.  
[3:01:46] This important upkeep to our hydrants ensures 
adequate water flow and pressure is available.  
[3:01:51] While the hydrant flushing, sorry, when while 
the hydrant flushing is happening in your area,  
[3:01:57] please avoid doing your laundry as the water 
may be at lower pressure than normal and rust  
[3:02:02] may occur. Rapley Park, very exciting. The new 
basketball court and multisport court on Rapley  
[3:02:11] Park is now open for all to enjoy. Uh as somebody 
who lives in that uh that area, I have seen people  
[3:02:17] already on the court. It's really nice and it is 
gorgeous. I highly recommend you getting out to  
[3:02:23] take a look at this. Recogn recognition by age 
friendly communities Ontario. Port Hope is proud  
[3:02:30] to be recognized by the province of Ontario 
for our commitment to creating a welcoming,  
[3:02:35] inclusive community that promotes active and 
independent living living for older adults.  
[3:02:42] We have received recognition from agefriendly 
communities Ontario for our efforts to support  
[3:02:47] the well-being, participation, and quality 
of life for older adults in our community.  
[3:02:53] This recognition reflects the important work 
being done to make Port Hope a community  
[3:02:58] where people of all ages can thrive. At 
this point, I'm going to pass it over to  
[3:03:05] uh the deputy clerk for some election 
updates. Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor,  
[3:03:10] and through you. The legislative services team 
continues to prepare for the upcoming 2026  
[3:03:15] municipal and school board election. And just 
a few updates to share with the community. Um,  
[3:03:20] in accordance with the municipality sign bylaw, 
election signs may be displayed beginning August  
[3:03:25] 31st, so yesterday. Residents will now begin to 
see election signs throughout the municipality.  
[3:03:30] Signs must be placed on private property 
and with the consent of the property owner.  
[3:03:35] Questions or concerns regarding election signs can 
be directed to elections at port.ca. Additionally,  
[3:03:42] the municipality will also be launching its 
meet the candidates web page shortly. Um,  
[3:03:46] it will happen this week. This resource will help 
voters learn more about the candidates running in  
[3:03:50] the upcoming election. So, please watch for that 
launch. Um, and it will be on the municipality's  
[3:03:54] website, which is portopvotes.ca. And lastly, 
uh, we encourage all eligible voters to confirm  
[3:04:01] that they are on the voters list. Residents 
may do so by calling town hall at 9058854544
[3:04:09] extension0. You can email us at electionsport 
hope.ca CA or you can drop in to our legislative  
[3:04:16] services department and one of our staff would 
be happy to look at the list for you. Thank you.  
[3:04:21] Wonderful. Thank you. And now I will open it 
up to council. Does council have any updates?  
[3:04:27] Councelor Mink. Thank you. So just an update 
that I touched on a little bit earlier. Um on  
[3:04:31] August 12th I attended the Northland Federation 
of Agriculture Polyag Tour. So, this tour is  
[3:04:37] um open to municipal employees, uh council, um 
Northland County, um employees as well. Our MP,  
[3:04:46] our MPP was there. Um it's a great great event 
as well as members of Northland Federation of  
[3:04:52] Agriculture. So, we take a bus uh we tour 
around to different uh farms. We pick a  
[3:04:57] different area. Well, they pick a different area 
every year. Uh this year we we visited um a family  
[3:05:03] um uh chicken operation out near Brighton. We 
visited a grain elevator and crop cash crop  
[3:05:11] farming. Uh we spoke about between destinations 
they spoke about taxation uh and spoke about of  
[3:05:18] course agricultural committees and um also talked 
about some uh things that other communities are  
[3:05:23] doing that North umberland is missing. So great um 
Agra business opportunities. So, um I just want to  
[3:05:29] thank Northrland Federation of Agriculture. It's 
always a great event and for any staff, um it's,  
[3:05:35] you know, if you want to do that networking and 
and learn a little bit more, it's it's definitely  
[3:05:40] a worthwhile uh morning out. So, I would recommend 
that uh in the future. So, that's all. Wonderful.  
[3:05:45] I appreciate that. Uh any other updates from 
council? Seeing none. Uh so at this moment we  
[3:05:52] will just take a brief break for staff to leave 
the room and then we will begin question period.
[3:06:00] Okay, moving on to question period. It is now 
time for question period. Remember the person the  
[3:06:05] purpose of question period is to make inquiries 
of council members related to matters of municipal  
[3:06:11] business. Please note that this is not to meant 
to be an avenue to ask questions of staff. If  
[3:06:17] you have questions specifically for your council 
members, you can ask them now. I will also remind  
[3:06:22] everyone that we are now in lame duck and we are 
in an election period. So tonight, uh, everybody  
[3:06:28] has the opportunity to come up and ask questions. 
We will not be answering them tonight. They will,  
[3:06:33] uh, staff will get back, uh, for those answers 
tomorrow. I apologize for that, but we still  
[3:06:38] wanted to make sure that we gave the opportunity 
for the questions to come forward. Uh, absolutely.  
[3:06:46] Is is that the proper procedure on this uh looking 
at you for for clerk or I know these folks have  
[3:06:53] been sitting for a long time. We didn't put it in 
the agenda as though they wouldn't be able to get  
[3:06:56] their answers uh tonight. Um can we maybe talk 
through the procedure on that? So the procedure  
[3:07:03] bylaw does state that uh that question period well 
it states a few things. The first is of course the  
[3:07:08] question period exists for questions to council 
directly. Uh the there is an ability for c for the  
[3:07:14] members of the public to ask questions of staff uh 
excuse me ask questions of council. Uh there is no  
[3:07:20] requirement for council to answer those questions 
but it is at so it is at I will leave it at  
[3:07:26] council's direction and and discretion as to which 
whether they wish to answer the questions or not.  
[3:07:30] They are questions directed at council. Okay. So 
we're allowed to do that. So Mr. Chair, how would  
[3:07:34] you like to deal with that? Is it okay for us to 
answer or are you preferring us not to? I never  
[3:07:38] mind answering questions. Uh I will just remind 
everybody that we are in uh an election. So uh  
[3:07:45] that we are not campaigning that that is uh that 
is the risk and I just wanted to make sure that  
[3:07:51] that we're not uh running that risk. So depending 
on what the questions are, I have no problems  
[3:07:56] with that. But I will continue on. Uh council is 
happy to speak to your decisions uh to decisions  
[3:08:03] policies and priorities. the why. I also want to 
highlight that if your questions are operational  
[3:08:08] in nature, the how and the when they may be 
best answered by a member of staff following  
[3:08:14] the meeting. Contact information for our senior 
leadership is available by the door. If you have  
[3:08:18] operational questions, please ensure that you do 
contact them. We ask that uh when you come to the  
[3:08:25] microphone that you please identify your name and 
uh our staff will turn on the microphone for you.
[3:08:33] I'll start with counselors. Does counselors have 
any questions for tonight? Seeing none. Okay.  
[3:08:38] Opening up uh for questions from the media. 
Obviously nothing. And uh we will move to the  
[3:08:43] public. If anybody has any questions, come up to 
the microphone and staff will have it on for you.
[3:08:53] Hi, Ed
[3:08:59] White, Mil Street. Um, uh, there was a lot of 
discussion tonight on uh um advisory committees.  
[3:09:08] I was a little disappointed um with some of the 
things that that were said. I'd like to know why  
[3:09:16] um if you have a problem um getting people 
to attend advisory committees or whatever. I  
[3:09:25] can remember when I was on on them, I had to 
retire from an advisory committee because of  
[3:09:33] they went to Zoom. I don't do Zoom. Okay. Um, 
there are a lot of people that older people  
[3:09:44] that maybe don't do Zoom who would have valuable 
information for these advisory committees and you  
[3:09:51] are turning them off. They won't join. You're 
losing that. Um I think it's that given your  
[3:10:02] um erra thing or what you know what whatever 
that is. Okay. There's a group that you're  
[3:10:09] discriminating against. So you know that's 
that's not fair. I I just wanted to bring  
[3:10:15] that up that that maybe you guys are all 
techsavvy and everything else like that,  
[3:10:21] but there's a lot of people that have a lot of uh 
information experience and could really help but  
[3:10:31] they get turned off by the fact that if there's 
Zoom meetings. Yeah, absolutely. Fully appreciate  
[3:10:37] that. Uh and you do have to remember that every 
committee they set up uh those type of things  
[3:10:42] too. So uh for instance I have committees that 
are both in person and some that are on Zoom and  
[3:10:46] it is up to the committee to make that decision. 
So if they would like to come in person that is a  
[3:10:52] possibility too and then as it was stated there 
are also the hybrid options uh as well and I  
[3:10:57] believe it was councelor Minka was bringing that 
up as well. Completely agree with you. So just  
[3:11:02] don't forget us. I would never actually it's very 
important my committee we I I so my committee even  
[3:11:08] our zoom one I do it here so that anyone that 
cannot can actually come here and we can do it  
[3:11:12] together. Cool. Thank you. Thank you. Uh does 
anybody else want to answer to that? No. Okay.
[3:11:22] That's a long night. Good evening Sarah 
Skelethorp. Um first thing I'd like to say  
[3:11:28] is not all ditch garbage comes from W 2 people. We 
sound like a bunch of hicks living out there all  
[3:11:37] burning our garbage and throwing it in the ditch. 
But anyway, we got a burn permit. So, um, my  
[3:11:45] question to council is, did you support a motion 
last year to defeat bill five in our municipality?
[3:11:56] Um, okay. Can you just uh state it again? Yeah. 
Did our council pass a motion to not support  
[3:12:07] Bill Five in the municipality of Port Hope? So, 
we uh we definitely passed a a motion uh to put  
[3:12:15] in opposition for Okay. Yes. Correct. But not 
not to defeat it. We we obviously don't get to  
[3:12:21] defeat it. So, Okay. At this time, is there 
a request to have a special economic zone  
[3:12:29] at Wesleyville? Not to my knowledge. Um, yeah, 
councelor Claire, there was language in a written  
[3:12:40] uh written material for a delegation at AMO that 
invited consideration of a special economic zone.  
[3:12:48] However, after the discussion at 
the council meeting in August,  
[3:12:53] um it was stated publicly uh by the CEO that 
that would not be part of what that what was  
[3:13:00] said at that delegation. And I can speak to 
uh both councelor Adam and I were in the room  
[3:13:05] at that delegation. No such request was made 
verbally as part of that meeting. Is it there  
[3:13:11] on paper? It was. There was language about that 
in the written document that was submitted to  
[3:13:19] the province requesting the delegation back in the 
spring. So, how can that happen when this council  
[3:13:26] has said you would not support bill five because 
the special economic zone is within bill five. So,  
[3:13:35] how can that language be in front of anybody 
when this municipality did not support bill five?  
[3:13:45] So, it's a it's a hefty question. It is 
a hefty question. It's a good one, too,  
[3:13:49] don't you think? Absolutely, it is. Uh and and 
we are accountable to uh to the motions that  
[3:13:53] we put forth at council and that we pass. Um and 
obviously, there are changes that happen as well.  
[3:13:59] There was also wording in there and and you got to 
remember that that motion was before it was even  
[3:14:04] approved, right? So, it wasn't passed through 
the provincial government at that point. It was  
[3:14:08] in opposition for their approval. So, there 
are a little bit of changes. There was also  
[3:14:13] um wording and of course I'm trying to remember a 
long time ago so you know maybe I'm I'm not fully  
[3:14:18] there but uh there was also wording in there on 
specifics of it as well um that that it uh things  
[3:14:24] that were legalities for um or endangered species 
that it was a very um well-worded uh motion as  
[3:14:34] well. So is there an opportunity for the public 
to see that wording? Everything is public. It  
[3:14:41] would be on the public. Are you talking about 
the wording of the delegation request or are  
[3:14:46] you talking about the wording of the council 
resolution? No, the delegation request. Oh,  
[3:14:49] the delegation request. I No, I've looked up 
bill five. Mhm. Um I appreciate this. Might  
[3:14:58] be something that we have to get back to you uh 
to tomorrow on. Okay. Just because some of it  
[3:15:03] is memory from like a year ago, too, right? So, 
uh yes, I I apologize. Councelor Cla, go ahead.  
[3:15:08] I think also in part to answer your question, I 
think the the notice of motion and the subsequent  
[3:15:14] resolution that we passed unanimously today um 
will ensure that if there is any confusion or  
[3:15:23] that that won't happen again. Uh so that so if 
there I don't know that we want to rehash there  
[3:15:29] was pretty contentious when we discussed it last 
month but that was what today's notice of motion  
[3:15:34] clarifies and I think that got support from the 
whole of council councelor mink uh so so at the  
[3:15:40] last meeting we had that was part of the whether 
we wanted to put the wording of that up on the  
[3:15:47] screen for people to read it was voted down by 
this not put it up there um So would like to  
[3:15:55] make a comment and then I'll ask a question. 
Um recently there was an article written in  
[3:16:03] the Globe and Mail. Um three were interviewed and 
mayor was interviewed. Mayor's words were we are  
[3:16:13] committed to ensuring local voices help inform the 
municipality as this process unfolds. And to date,  
[3:16:28] the of Port Hope not being given a voice. And 
I would hope that if any of you are on the next
[3:16:41] that you will in public meeting the residents
[3:16:51] vision what you're doing and what our 
doing. I think left out in the I mean  
[3:17:00] we other day with op for a couple of hours 
and we information from nothing from council  
[3:17:11] I'm hoping will be open us in the and 
let the people of know what's happening  
[3:17:19] I appreciate she started talking about 
the everything that's why I was thection  
[3:17:25] action any type things or I'm not asking 
campaign right now but much thank you
[3:17:39] more port committee uh this is a
[3:17:48] zone um any wording happen that would have 
put table in front of the or ministers up  
[3:17:59] Port Hope under theory. So I have in front 
of me the motion that was in June of 25
[3:18:12] and there was considerable word about how 
negative Bill 5 is, how much it tramples on  
[3:18:20] the rights of people, how much it launches over 
environmental laws and protections. And it was  
[3:18:31] moved by councelor Toms and seconded by councelor 
Holloway Wedwani and it was carried. There was  
[3:18:40] not a recorded vote. Is is there a question? 
There is a question. So, just to say that the  
[3:18:48] council resolved that it opposes all provisions 
in Bill Five that reduce environmental protections  
[3:18:56] and Ontario's proud legacy of protections of 
endangered species that override the rule of law  
[3:19:04] and that nullify municipal planning authority. So, 
this is within it's not not about the election.  
[3:19:11] This is within your term of office. that this 
almost happened or is happening or happen.  
[3:19:20] It's not clear to me yet how that happened, who's 
being held accountable for that and that it will  
[3:19:28] not happen in the future. I appreciate that. So I 
I think as uh councelor Claire was speaking to um  
[3:19:34] that was part of uh putting forth that motion to 
have a policy when it comes to doing delegations  
[3:19:40] with uh the AMO and um uh Roma. Uh absolutely 
councelor Claire. Um, just also want to clarify,  
[3:19:49] I appreciate in the minutes it does say that the 
motion was brought forward by councelor Toms and  
[3:19:53] seconded by myself, but I do want to credit uh 
councelor Mink uh because she was actually the  
[3:19:59] uh the drafter of the notice of motion. 
I worked with her on that. Um, but she  
[3:20:05] uh was chairing the meeting at and so councelor 
Tom was happy to step in as the mover just for  
[3:20:11] clarity because I know councelor Ming feels 
very strongly about that. No, that's that's  
[3:20:15] correct and thank you. Uh so the still is is 
this notion floating around here someone people  
[3:20:25] whether it's whether it's politicians are going 
to offer that to the province to make it faster  
[3:20:34] and easier and skip the cont differences 
of opinion. As you know, our committee is  
[3:20:43] against plan for Wesley. Yep. Appreciate that. So 
to your is that happening at all? Absolutely not.  
[3:20:51] The the uh direction from council to staff 
and they will follow that and again that is  
[3:20:58] why we are having a policy specific to making 
those delegations. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate
[3:21:13] Hello, Autumn. Um, a couple of comments. First,  
[3:21:17] uh, was going through the, uh, fire and the 
open burn permit. kind of looking the fireworks
[3:21:32] changes that they want to make seem to be that 
it's going to be restrictive to the community. Um,  
[3:21:40] local businesses, a lot more price tags are 
being added with that. Um, but it also does note  
[3:21:45] in there too that no person shall give away. That 
also means that someone's 60 birthday party for a  
[3:21:55] 60-year-old fireworks on their private property. 
They have to request a permit through the fire  
[3:22:02] um order to be able to do that. And it's it's 
seeming a lot of common sense and complicating  
[3:22:13] um this type of situ will not to have fireworks 
through the two designated that the municipality  
[3:22:22] allow. So definitely look is there a question 
with that just suggestion that over that okay  
[3:22:29] just reminder it is question period fire burn the 
fire burn I do the fire burn one thank you um up  
[3:22:38] until 2023 one was only allowed chimney it then 
switched to the open burn permit which was free  
[3:22:47] and now we're an $80 permit just just not that has 
not been approved. It hasn't been approved yet,  
[3:22:55] but it definitely does need to look be looked into 
into consideration because we're being compared to  
[3:23:00] Clarington, but yet alto township only pays 3975 
annually or sorry $30 annually and township only  
[3:23:09] pays $ 39.75. So an $80 fee. My question to is or 
council is that are you going to consider looking  
[3:23:19] at even a lower fee? understand there could be a 
fee possible reminder of what happened tonight we  
[3:23:24] did so that we could look at that um be at the 
September 15 meeting correct so appreciate yeah  
[3:23:31] and then my last question is in regards to the 
CAC um according to the legal the actual legal  
[3:23:39] agreement between the municipality and the 
government in section 5.2.3A 2.3A each CAC  
[3:23:45] shall be organized as decided by min byity with a 
mandate established by council in con with Canada.  
[3:23:55] Then going the report the recommend it was the 
third paragraph that said review is anticipated  
[3:24:06] to in quarter 1 2027. As part of the review, 
staff will assess whether any are required and  
[3:24:13] if appropriate whether the CAC should be brought 
under the broader framework of the committee and  
[3:24:19] local boards uh sorry bylaw or operate under 
its legis framework. Question to council is
[3:24:34] sorry just need to find it here.
[3:24:46] Will council motion to mandate staff that the CAC 
is to consist of local residents and that at least  
[3:24:54] one council member and one staff member are to 
sit on the CAC meetings to oversee the meetings  
[3:24:59] and that members of the public are able to sit 
in on the meetings and participate in discussion.  
[3:25:04] I don't know if this is something that you can 
answer as it is coming into the next sitting  
[3:25:11] council. Yeah, I was just about to tell remind you 
that um this is our last committee of the whole  
[3:25:16] and then uh in two weeks time that'll be our last 
council meeting for this term. So it it's it's  
[3:25:24] probably something for the future. But I believe 
that councelor unless would like to answer here.  
[3:25:29] But I was quite specific when I asked the question 
of um our uh our staff when it came up to mandate.  
[3:25:37] It is our mandate. It is council's mandate, CAC's 
mandate and we are allowed to bring on residents  
[3:25:46] and external resources. So it is our mandate. So 
that is the mandate of council and that does that  
[3:25:53] no that's mandate of CAC of or sorry of CAC 
to bring forward to um so does that then um  
[3:26:02] mean we're still governed by governing bodies 
or does that put it as a framework of where  
[3:26:08] um it's residents that it is completely led by 
the community residents um so that as residents  
[3:26:17] are coming forward with issues and concerns um 
that they can freely do so without feeling like  
[3:26:25] it's it's being governmently operated. Remember we 
are in an advisory committee. So now that advisory  
[3:26:31] committee of all those people whoever they may be 
report to council council is governed by rules,  
[3:26:38] right? Okay. So that's how it would flow upwards. 
Correct. Thank you. Uh councelor Claire. Yeah.  
[3:26:44] Yeah, I think I also just uh wanted to to clarify 
that you know the qu the question about whether  
[3:26:50] we would be governed by our legislative framework 
or the community advisory committees that refers  
[3:26:55] to the the feedback and I think a lot of 
discussion that happened at that meeting  
[3:26:58] about not wanting to meet here in this format 
which is the legislative framework whereas the  
[3:27:05] community advisory committees as you heard 
us discuss the new bylaw you know they meet  
[3:27:10] in a committee room it's not livereamed it is 
more you know opportunity for conversation. So,  
[3:27:15] that is one of the things that staff will be 
making recommendations on. Um, but I think that's  
[3:27:22] along the lines of what you're you're hoping 
to see. It sounds like ensuring that it's more  
[3:27:26] community-led versus being cuz I s we saw the 
confusion at count at that meeting at the CAC  
[3:27:31] meeting and the confusion between basically CAC 
is advising council and council is advising CAC,  
[3:27:37] right? So, there's it's quite a a backwards 
situation. So, okay. Thank you. Appreciate
[3:27:49] Jim Skullorp 1685. Um, I'd like 
to ask a question about 4.5. Um,
[3:27:58] I'm concerned about the um this division of our 
municipality. Um, Councelor Les made a comment.  
[3:28:12] We don't have any land. So why are we why 
are we looking at where we're going to put  
[3:28:16] all these all this industry if we don't have 
anywhere to put them? Now OPG has said they are  
[3:28:25] mandated by the provincial government to put 
everything they need on their existing land.  
[3:28:31] They are not looking for any other land. 
We have not got an official plan yet. So,  
[3:28:38] we do not have, I don't believe, any industrial 
land to put all these on and our counselor Les  
[3:28:46] just commented on that tonight. So who is 
looking for where this land is coming from
[3:28:58] to put this business that somebody is looking  
[3:29:02] for to support OPG which we don't 
even know is going to happen yet.
[3:29:15] Does anybody want to I I believe that this is 
something that we should get back to you uh  
[3:29:21] maybe tomorrow. Maybe not. Uh and we we do 
have to remember that the official plan um  
[3:29:27] review is being done and that would be identifying 
employment lands and everything too. Right. So,  
[3:29:31] but I I'm concerned that our staff is working on 
something that our municipality support and and  
[3:29:38] also county uh I'll pass this over to uh to the 
CEO. So through clarification through you chair,  
[3:29:44] we are working through the official plan starting 
the official plan review which dictates where our  
[3:29:48] employment lands which are our industrial lands. 
The county has control over that. We do not have  
[3:29:52] a municipality. The Wesleyville site is not part 
of that. It is it is a different area that the  
[3:29:58] county is dictating for us. It has nothing to 
do with staff. We're not promoting any lands in  
[3:30:04] Wesleyville at this point in time because right 
now we don't have any official employment lands,  
[3:30:10] but they are being designated by the county. 
Appreciate the input. Thank you. Is that good  
[3:30:16] for you, Jim? Um, I'm just interested that 
you're looking for expansion of energy and  
[3:30:26] manufacturing supply chain obviously for 
Wesleyville potentially. and we don't have  
[3:30:35] anywhere to put them. So maybe we're putting the 
cart before the horse. I will make a comment on  
[3:30:43] burn permits. I have had so many people ask me, 
"Do I need to get a burn permit for my backyard?"  
[3:30:49] And I always say yes. I said, "It doesn't cost 
you anything. It's simple. You get a permit,  
[3:30:55] you punch the numbers in, and you got a 
permit for 24 hours. No cost." Wow. They say,  
[3:31:00] "That's great. I'm going to get a burn permit. 
You throw $80 at it or whatever and those people  
[3:31:06] will just have their little backyard permit or 
backyard fire and roast their hot dogs without  
[3:31:12] that burn permit. Of course, the question is 
do we think that my question is have a good  
[3:31:19] look at the cost. I believe that you heard that 
discussion tonight and we will be looking at  
[3:31:23] that. I'm also an hour discussion over it. So, 
absolutely. I am also one of those people that  
[3:31:28] have the burn permit. I get one every year. Yeah. 
Never never burnt anything and it was $125 eight  
[3:31:35] years ago or something. It was pretty pricey, 
but I still bought my burden from Appreciate.
[3:31:49] Hi folks. Um my name is Anna Irwin. I 
hope this is appropriate question or  
[3:31:56] uh issue to bring up tonight. Um, I'm just 
going to read from my notes. On August 4th,  
[3:32:02] I submitted a formal uh request for council 
direction regarding my property at 151 Caven  
[3:32:08] Street, including the Port Hope Area 
Initiative remediation and the current  
[3:32:13] open space zoning. The town clerk confirmed 
that my documents were circulated to council.  
[3:32:20] I've been working on this for years to try to 
find a path toward resolving this issue so that  
[3:32:25] the property can move forward in a way that has 
a positive impact not only on me uh but also the  
[3:32:32] town and the community. Um just for a little 
perspective I I am&m electrical services which  
[3:32:40] is right beside the file factory. Um, so I had 
hoped that this matter might be brought forward  
[3:32:47] u tonight uh for council's consideration on the 
agenda. Um, anyway, what concerns me is simply  
[3:32:54] the timing. The remediation work is actively 
progressing as we speak and as it continues,  
[3:33:01] opportunities that may exist today may not exist 
tomorrow. My question is what is the process from  
[3:33:08] here given that um the PHAI remediation work is 
underway? How will this move forward and when  
[3:33:16] can I and the community reasonably expect 
this matter to be considered by council?
[3:33:24] Councelor Les. Well, I think I responded directly 
to you that it's not our property. So, it's my  
[3:33:32] property. No, I'm talking about the Cabin Street 
property that you were referencing and that's not  
[3:33:40] Oh, you own cabin. I I own 151 Cavin Street&M 
Electrical Services which is right beside the  
[3:33:47] file factory. Okay, I'm talking about the file 
factory. Yeah, that's not our property. Okay,  
[3:33:52] sorry that I misunderstood. I thought that you 
probably thought I was nuts. I I thought that in  
[3:33:57] the email. That's why I didn't respond. I believe 
the file factory is 121. So, I understand the  
[3:34:03] confusion there. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, councelor 
CL, hi Ann. Good to see you again. Thank you,  
[3:34:11] too. Um, I I think, you know, I I I think it is 
something that the municipality should look at.  
[3:34:16] We've I've been in communication with staff. I 
know counselor Todd has as well. I'm not sure if  
[3:34:20] you've been in contact with others who have also 
escalated to staff. Um but I think it's safe to  
[3:34:25] say that it will not be addressed under this 
term of council given that we are in our final  
[3:34:31] uh council cycle. But I do really appreciate the 
concern. Um and I think the official planning  
[3:34:36] process which is supposed to happen under the 
next term of council is the appropriate time  
[3:34:41] to to look at that uh designation because that's 
where the zoning flows from um and that's where  
[3:34:48] the designation that is restricting your use is 
is coming from. So, I think that the OP provides  
[3:34:54] a perfect opportunity for us to reconsider how 
we're looking at those uh those properties, yours  
[3:34:59] and and the others along Cabin Street. Councelor 
Atridge. Yeah. Hyenne, you and I have talked about  
[3:35:06] your property. Um is remediation underway right 
now? It is. It is. And what do they give you a  
[3:35:11] timeline? It's it's quite near done. Okay. Um 
so yeah I I guess you know the bigger concern  
[3:35:23] is is just that it is underway and um it is zoned 
open space and um which limits the use and uh that  
[3:35:35] zoning basically is clearly the intention to be 
uh park and it you know uh the timing right now  
[3:35:48] uh given the cleanup it's it's kind of an urgent 
situation. Um can uh I ask one other question.  
[3:35:58] Um were you all in receipt of my uh information 
that I had submitted through the clerk's office?  
[3:36:08] Did you all see all for everybody that that we did 
receive it was and and it was it didn't warrant  
[3:36:16] being brought to the agenda. Thank you. So I as I 
explained to you, I did not receive the first one.  
[3:36:22] I received it after the fact. So I don't know 
where it went, but I have internet issues. So  
[3:36:27] um it could still be up in cyerspace somewhere. So 
I got the second your second response though. Oh,  
[3:36:34] okay. Yeah. Yeah, it was in but I didn't get it 
to put together because I got it in the index  
[3:36:40] but not a direct email on August the 4th to me. I 
didn't get that. Oh, that's what I'm referring to  
[3:36:48] is the index. Oh, yes, I got that. Yes. Okay. 
Okay. Okay. So, anyway, I clearly it wasn't it  
[3:36:56] didn't warrant coming to council tonight um for 
discussion, but it was not elevated. Yeah. So,  
[3:37:05] and and you can't you can't give me any timeline 
on that until uh the new council. Are we talking  
[3:37:13] January? Like that is not an answer that 
I can give you right now. It might be an  
[3:37:18] answer that we're going to have to give to 
you after. Okay. All right. Sorry. Thank you.
[3:37:28] Any other members of the public?
[3:37:33] I'm seeing none. So, moving on to item 8, 
adjournment. Uh, this concludes the business uh  
[3:37:38] covered in today's agenda and I'm in a position to 
adjourn this meeting at 10:31. Thank you everyone.