[1:21] Good afternoon and welcome. I'll call
[1:24] this meeting to order. Uh, I'd like to
[1:26] welcome the public, my fellow council
[1:28] members, the media, and anyone who is
[1:30] joining us in person electronically for
[1:31] this committee, the whole meeting today.
[1:33] I'm councelor Phil Prrenen from W 2, and
[1:35] I will be today's chair. Today's agenda
[1:38] lists all the items before committee for
[1:39] consideration. The recommended motions
[1:42] on today's agenda are shown in boldface.
[1:45] It is important to note that any motion
[1:47] made at this meeting is not final until
[1:48] the council meeting of September 8th,
[1:50] 2026, at which time the council may
[1:53] approve, amend, defer, or otherwise
[1:55] change the motion made by this
[1:56] committee.
[1:58] The agenda has been published on our
[2:00] website and this meeting is being
[2:01] livereamed and any participation in the
[2:03] meeting proceedings will become part of
[2:05] the public record.
[2:07] The recording from the meeting will be
[2:08] live streamed on county's website and
[2:09] can be viewed by selecting live stream
[2:11] meetings on the bottom right of the
[2:12] county's homepage at the county.ca.
[2:16] Under agenda item six, I will be asking
[2:18] for comments from the audience on any
[2:21] item listed on the agenda. Today we have
[2:23] one registered comment from the
[2:24] audience. If anyone present would like
[2:26] to speak at this section of the agenda,
[2:30] you are welcome to do so for 3 minutes.
[2:32] A reminder that if you participate, your
[2:35] name will be included in the committee
[2:36] minutes and form part of the public
[2:37] record and posted on the county's
[2:39] website. In the event of a fire, please
[2:42] use the two applicable fire exits in
[2:44] Shire Hall or wherever you're tuning in
[2:46] from. For those in SH Hall council
[2:49] chambers, please mute and limit use of
[2:51] your cell phones.
[2:53] Now, could I get a motion to confirm the
[2:55] agenda, please?
[2:57] » Councelor Inglesfer, second by Councelor
[2:59] Roberts.
[3:00] » Uh, thank you. Thank you. It's an
[3:01] English store for Robert's motion that
[3:02] the agenda for the committee of the
[3:03] whole meeting of August 27th, 2026 be
[3:06] confirmed.
[3:07] » All in favor and that carries.
[3:10] Disclosure pecuniary interest in the
[3:12] general nature thereof.
[3:14] Seeing none, thank you. Uh moving along
[3:17] to presentations. So today we have Staff
[3:19] Sergeant Jeffrey McKennon, detachment
[3:22] commander and the honorable S. Casey
[3:23] Hill, chair of the OP Detachment Board,
[3:25] to address council to present the Prince
[3:28] Edward County OP Detachments Board's
[3:30] annual report to council. Welcome,
[3:32] gentlemen. Uh,
[3:34] you have 20 minutes
[3:37] and we'll when you start whenever you're
[3:39] ready.
[5:05] an April 2025 discussion paper, the
[5:09] board set objectives and priorities
[5:11] under section 68 of the statute
[5:15] uh specifically uh intimate partner
[5:18] violence or IPV, impaired operation of
[5:22] vehicles and uh vessels and the
[5:27] interdiction of prohibited drugs
[5:30] and we look toward evidence-based
[5:33] interdiction strategies. Who, when,
[5:36] where, and why were these offenses being
[5:38] committed? And how most effectively
[5:40] could these crimes be prevented or
[5:42] discovered and dealt with before the
[5:44] courts? On the subject of inter uh
[5:48] intimate partner violence, an ongoing
[5:51] societal epidemic, the board reviewed an
[5:54] intimate partner violence investigative
[5:56] report prepared by the detachment and OP
[5:59] analysts. This led to consultation with
[6:02] the detachment commander on a number of
[6:04] issues, including in 2025,
[6:07] the role of NSF or non-fatal
[6:11] strangulation in domestic abuse
[6:14] instances as a predictor of future
[6:17] domestic violence.
[6:19] On the subject of impaired operation,
[6:21] the Supreme Court of Canada has recently
[6:23] said, quote, "Each year in Canada, drunk
[6:26] drivers cause great suffering and take
[6:29] away lives. Impaired driving offenses
[6:32] unfortunately remain among the most
[6:33] prevalent offenses in this country.
[6:37] Death, injury, and damage to property
[6:39] caused by motor vehicle drivers impaired
[6:42] by alcohol are truly preventable
[6:45] occurrences.
[6:46] In 2025, with the board's specific
[6:49] encouragement and the support of the
[6:52] detachment commander, mandatory alcohol
[6:55] screening or MAS
[6:58] became a mainstay road safety
[7:00] enforcement initiative to remove from
[7:03] our roads in and out of county motorists
[7:08] floating impaired driving laws and
[7:10] selfishly endangering public safety. MAS
[7:14] had previously been an underutilized
[7:16] enforcement tool in the county. The MAS
[7:20] strategy has proven successful around
[7:22] the world in deterring and identifying
[7:25] impaired drivers.
[7:28] The board's priorities, as discussed
[7:30] here, did not, of course, detract from
[7:31] the detachment commitment to other
[7:35] crimes being solved. Property offenses,
[7:37] fraud, and highway traffic act offenses
[7:40] threatening public safety.
[7:43] The uh board during 2025 regularly
[7:47] reviewed detachment reports on uh
[7:50] enforcement matters.
[7:53] Prince Ed County remains a safe
[7:55] jurisdiction and you will see that I
[7:57] think from the statistics filed by the
[7:59] detachment commander in your materials.
[8:03] I will not go over the bullet points on
[8:05] slides nine and 10. You have them there
[8:07] showing some of the activities of the
[8:09] board. But I will uh turn to one matter.
[8:12] You may not all have met the detachment
[8:16] commander. Um John Hatch, as you know,
[8:19] retired in 2025, a popular and effective
[8:22] detachment commander under section 68 of
[8:26] the uh act. The board was a participant
[8:30] in hiring a new permanent detachment
[8:32] commander. Staff Sergeant Jeff McKinnon
[8:35] was an experienced detachment commander
[8:37] elsewhere in the east region and he also
[8:41] had served as a constable at one point
[8:43] in Prince Edward County before receiving
[8:46] promotions and policing outside the uh
[8:49] the county. He has worked effortless
[8:52] effortlessly and cooperatively with the
[8:54] board and we're fortunate to have him
[8:56] here as the permanent detachment
[8:58] commander. I would ask Jeff to present
[9:01] the second part of our 2025 annual
[9:03] report after which I'm available to
[9:05] respond to questions as is he. Thank
[9:07] you.
[9:12] » Your worship esteemed counsel. Um good
[9:15] afternoon everyone. It's my pleasure to
[9:16] present the Prince Edward County
[9:18] Detachment's 2025 annual report. The
[9:22] report provides an overview of our crime
[9:23] trends, traffic initiatives, community
[9:26] well-being efforts, and many
[9:27] accomplishments achieved by our members
[9:29] over the past year. It also serves as a
[9:31] final report on the progress made under
[9:34] the 2023 to 2025 Prince Edward County
[9:37] Detachment Action Plan. Before
[9:40] discussing our results, I'd like to
[9:41] recognize the dedicated members of the
[9:43] Prince Edward County Detachment. Every
[9:46] day they demonstrate professionalism,
[9:47] integrity, compassion, and commitment
[9:49] while serving the residents and visitors
[9:51] of this community. I'm extremely proud
[9:54] of their efforts and the positive impact
[9:55] they continue to have throughout Prince
[9:57] Edward County. While the detailed
[10:00] statistics are contained within the
[10:02] report, several key results stand out.
[10:04] In 2025, violent crime decreased, victim
[10:07] assistance referral acceptance
[10:09] increased, and our traffic enforcement
[10:11] efforts expanded significantly. Our
[10:14] members conducted more enforcement aimed
[10:16] at impaired driving, distracted driving,
[10:17] and seat belt compliance while
[10:19] continuing to support community
[10:20] well-being through anti-fraud education,
[10:23] mental health partnerships, and
[10:25] extensive community engagement. We also
[10:28] invested in our people through
[10:29] specialized training opportunities,
[10:31] helping ensure Prince Edward County
[10:33] detachment remains well positioned to
[10:36] meet the evolving needs of our
[10:37] communities throughout 2025. remain we
[10:40] remained committed to strengthening
[10:42] relationships within or with community
[10:44] organizations, municipal leaders, social
[10:47] service agencies, and residents. These
[10:49] partnerships are critical to effective
[10:51] policing and play an important role in
[10:53] promoting safer and healthier
[10:55] communities. One example of this
[10:57] collaborative approach was our work with
[10:59] local financial institutions to deliver
[11:01] anti-fraud presentations throughout the
[11:03] year. These sessions provided valuable
[11:06] information to residents and helped
[11:08] increase awareness of fraud trends
[11:09] affecting our communities. The positive
[11:12] response of these initiatives
[11:13] demonstrated the importance of
[11:14] education, prevention, and reducing
[11:16] victimization and building public trust.
[11:19] We also continued our active
[11:20] participation in the Prince Edward
[11:22] County Community Safety and Well-being
[11:24] Committee. By working collaboratively
[11:26] with our partners, we were able to
[11:28] identify emerging concerns, address
[11:30] community priorities, and develop
[11:31] solutions that improve safety and
[11:33] well-being for everyone.
[11:35] The detachment experienced a reduction
[11:37] in violent crime while also seeing an
[11:39] increase in the acceptance of victim
[11:40] referral assistance or victim assistance
[11:43] referrals. These outcomes speak to our
[11:45] commitment to providing compassionate
[11:46] victim- centered service and ensuring
[11:48] those impacted by crime receive the
[11:50] support they need. Our victim services
[11:52] partners continue to play a critical
[11:54] role in helping individuals and families
[11:56] navigate difficult situations and I
[11:59] would like to acknowledge and thank them
[12:00] for their ongoing contributions. While
[12:02] we did see an increase in intimate
[12:04] partner violence occurrences during
[12:06] 2025, our response remained focused,
[12:08] professional, and victim- centered.
[12:11] Through the efforts of our detachment
[12:12] abuse issues investigator and our
[12:14] continued partnership with alternatives
[12:16] for women along with other social
[12:17] service partners, we remain committed to
[12:20] supporting victims, increasing
[12:21] awareness, and holding offenders
[12:22] accountable. Intimate partner violence
[12:24] continues to be a significant community
[12:26] issue, and we remain dedicated to
[12:28] addressing it through education,
[12:30] prevention, enforcement, and
[12:32] collaboration with our community
[12:33] partners. Traffic safety also remained a
[12:36] key priority throughout the year.
[12:38] members conducted increased enforcement
[12:40] targeting seat belt compliance,
[12:41] distracted driving, impaired driving,
[12:43] and other dangerous driving behaviors. A
[12:46] continued focus on mandatory alcohol
[12:48] screening contributed to identifying and
[12:51] removing impaired drivers from our
[12:52] roadway, helping reduce risks to all who
[12:55] travel within Prince Edward County.
[12:57] Despite these efforts, we observed an
[12:59] increase in the severity of motor
[13:00] vehicle collisions. This highlights the
[13:03] ongoing need for education, enforcement,
[13:05] personal responsibility, and continued
[13:07] collaboration to improve road safety
[13:09] throughout our community. The detachment
[13:11] also remains strong a strong supporter
[13:13] of the impact program. This partnership
[13:15] has strengthened our ability to respond
[13:17] effectively to mental health related
[13:19] calls for service by combining police
[13:22] resources with specialized mental health
[13:23] expertise. Together, we are helping
[13:25] ensure individuals in crisis receive the
[13:27] appropriate support while maintaining
[13:29] community safety. Community engagement
[13:32] remains at the heart of everything we
[13:34] do. In 2025, our members increased their
[13:37] participation in community events,
[13:39] public outreach activities, creating
[13:41] opportunities to build trust, strengthen
[13:43] relationships, and engage directly with
[13:45] the residents. Investing in our me in
[13:47] our members also remained a priority
[13:49] throughout the year. Professional
[13:51] development opportunities, specialized
[13:52] training, and temporary assignments
[13:55] helped ensure our members continue to
[13:56] grow and develop the skills required to
[13:58] meet the evolving demands of policing.
[14:00] During 2025, one member had the
[14:03] opportunity to work with the human
[14:05] trafficking unit, while two members
[14:06] participated in temporary assignments
[14:08] with the community street crime unit.
[14:10] These experience bring valuable
[14:11] expertise back to our detachment and
[14:13] strengthen our ability to address
[14:15] complex investigations within our
[14:16] communities.
[14:18] We will 2026 will be an important year
[14:21] for the Prince County detachment. We
[14:23] will be introducing the 2026 to 2029
[14:26] detachment action plan. That's the first
[14:28] action plan developed under the comm
[14:29] community the new community safety and
[14:31] policing act. We have worked closely
[14:34] with the Prince Edward County Detachment
[14:35] Board, community stakeholders and
[14:37] residents to ensure the priorities
[14:39] identified in the plan reflect the needs
[14:41] and the e and the expectations of the
[14:42] communities we serve. In conclusion, as
[14:45] policing continues to evolve and new
[14:47] challenges emerge, one thing remains
[14:49] constant, the dedication of members of
[14:51] the Prince County Detachment. We remain
[14:53] committed to serving our communities,
[14:55] protecting our citizens, upholding the
[14:56] law, and preserving public safety
[14:58] through strong partnerships,
[15:00] professional service, and continued
[15:01] focus on community and well-being. We
[15:03] will work together to build a safer,
[15:05] stronger, more resilient Prince Ever
[15:06] County. Thank you for your continued
[15:08] support. Thank you for the opportunity
[15:10] to present the 2025 Prince Edward County
[15:13] Detachment Annual Board Report.
[15:16] » Thank you, gentlemen. Very much. Very
[15:18] well done. Very good report. I will turn
[15:21] it over to the committee to see if they
[15:23] have any questions. So, and looking like
[15:25] questions. So, you both might better get
[15:27] up to the microphone and then uh we'll
[15:29] start over here with councelor Brainy.
[15:31] Thank you, Chair Prince. And I thank
[15:33] you, Jeff. Um I just wanted people
[15:36] around the table to have an
[15:37] understanding of how fortunate we are
[15:40] here with this attachment, Prince
[15:42] County, to have someone of your caliber
[15:43] and also uh what Casey brings to the
[15:46] table. when you think about the
[15:47] transferable uh experiences both of you
[15:50] bring to this detachment, we're in great
[15:52] hands. And I I've certainly seen the uh
[15:55] the positive effects that uh that that
[15:57] that the board, the detachment uh it's
[16:00] probably one of the most professional
[16:02] ones I've ever served on. The
[16:03] collegiality is uh is through the roof.
[16:06] I think Council Roberts and I would
[16:07] agree. It's a it's a it's an honor, a
[16:10] privilege to serve on it, and I I thank
[16:12] both of you for all the work you do.
[16:14] » Thank you, Councelor Bry. Councelor
[16:16] Roberts.
[16:19] » Uh, Mr. Chair, I don't so much have a
[16:21] question. Well, like councelor Brainy, I
[16:23] have a just a an appreciation, I guess
[16:26] you could say. Um, I just want to
[16:29] express my appreciation for what I have
[16:31] witnessed is the incredible
[16:32] collaboration
[16:34] between our detachment commander and our
[16:37] board chair. It's impressive. I've been
[16:40] around a lot of private sector
[16:41] situations,
[16:43] public sector situations, but the way
[16:44] you two collaborate, you don't always
[16:46] agree, but you collaborate and you work
[16:49] through problems and it's deeply
[16:50] appreciated, believe me.
[16:53] Also, um I just want to say that when I
[16:58] stop our patrol officers and say hello
[17:00] in front of the regent, you know, where
[17:01] there's a parking space or uh you know,
[17:04] have encounters with patrol officers or
[17:05] whatever, go on a ride along.
[17:08] I have to say, I mean, I've had military
[17:12] exposure. I have to say that our
[17:15] police officers are terrific, cordial,
[17:18] professional, often a bit funny, which
[17:21] is always a relief. Uh, but they're
[17:23] great.
[17:25] It's a gold standard, I think, for the
[17:26] province of Ontario. So, I thank you for
[17:28] that.
[17:30] For folks that are interested in police
[17:33] services, I don't know how many
[17:34] [clears throat] people are, but um I
[17:37] attend the Ontario Association of Police
[17:39] Service Board meetings all across
[17:41] Eastern Ontario.
[17:43] And I think they have some kind of
[17:45] archive of the meetings and the papers
[17:47] that are uh tabled there and the
[17:49] discussions.
[17:50] And if the public is interested, look
[17:53] that outfit up because it is really, you
[17:56] mentioned intimate partner violence, uh,
[17:58] human trafficking, Casey, we've we've
[18:01] heard a lot of good presentations,
[18:02] including from the oversight body in
[18:05] Queens Park at at those meetings. So,
[18:07] it's it's worth looking up if you're
[18:09] interested in police services and our
[18:10] own community safety.
[18:15] The last thing I'll say,
[18:17] Commander, is please convey to your
[18:20] detachment and your officers a huge
[18:23] thank you for your service and be safe
[18:26] out there.
[18:28] » Thank you, Councelor Roberts. Uh,
[18:30] Councelor Panel,
[18:35] » Thank you for your presentation. And I
[18:38] kind of want to reiterate what a lot of
[18:41] people have said. I got to be honest.
[18:43] When uh
[18:46] Mr. Hatch left the department, I for one
[18:50] had serious concerns. Could anybody ever
[18:55] take his place? I'm happy to say so far
[19:01] I think you've filled the shoes and I
[19:04] see even newer ideas coming forth and I
[19:08] think that says a lot for the detach
[19:12] detachment
[19:13] and the board. So thank you very much.
[19:18] The only quick question I'd like to ask,
[19:21] I happened to be
[19:24] at a local bar
[19:26] recently,
[19:27] » Okay?
[19:29] » And uh I saw somebody taken away from it
[19:34] on a mobility scooter.
[19:39] I'm just wondering, have you ever had
[19:41] the opportunity?
[19:43] Can they be charged if they're impaired
[19:46] driving down the center of the street
[19:50] » On a mobility scooter?
[19:52] » Yeah. If it's motorized. Yes.
[19:54] » Yeah.
[19:54] » Same with a lawn mower, like a riding
[19:56] mower. Oh,
[19:57] » Okay.
[19:58] » Long as it's motorized. Yes.
[20:00] » Thanks. So, for those following along,
[20:02] Councelor Panel has a mobility scooter
[20:04] for sale. He's looking He's looking for
[20:07] a bicycle.
[20:10] » Opened up. [laughter]
[20:12] microphone. Councelor Panel. Uh,
[20:13] councelor McNotton.
[20:16] » Thank you. Um, and uh, I I'll join the
[20:20] choir and say thank you for the service
[20:22] that the necessary service that you
[20:24] provide. I am interested in um, a couple
[20:27] of things. One of which is Oh, and thank
[20:30] you for the in the uh continuation of
[20:33] that community presence, which I think
[20:35] is extremely valuable when we see police
[20:38] at local events where they can interact
[20:40] with children and they can interact in a
[20:42] really positive way to build trust. Uh I
[20:45] think that's uh it's wonderful to see
[20:47] that continuing. um community policing.
[20:50] I think that that presence is uh
[20:53] gratefully received certainly by me and
[20:55] I think by many of us and uh I think it
[20:58] goes uh it builds a a stronger
[21:01] relationship. So thanks. Um I did want
[21:05] to ask about so it looked like from your
[21:07] report that the um as um violent crime
[21:12] rates falling with the exception of
[21:14] domestic violence and that was very uh
[21:17] interesting to hear about the uh the
[21:19] program regarding
[21:21] um the [clears throat] program that you
[21:24] mentioned regarding uh the um indicators
[21:28] for future domestic violence uh
[21:31] worsening. Um I was it took me back to
[21:35] John Hatch's first report in this room
[21:37] eight years ago almost not quite uh
[21:41] seven and a half or we're going to split
[21:42] hairs in which um it it was hot on the
[21:45] heels of a report about um sexual
[21:50] assaults being dismissed before they
[21:51] went to investigation across Canada. And
[21:55] uh we talked at that time about that and
[21:58] he said, "Yeah, I think there are cases
[21:59] that uh across or across Ontario that
[22:02] have to be reopened and potentially we
[22:04] have to review our standards." I I don't
[22:06] remember the answer specifically, but
[22:08] you did mention um but you did mention
[22:12] the redu you did mention a reduction in
[22:14] sex assaults and I just wanted to
[22:16] understand if that was the reporting
[22:20] uh across the board or just the
[22:23] reporting that resulted in the cases
[22:26] being processed and whether there's like
[22:30] what what bar was being met, whether it
[22:33] was reporting at
[22:35] every single report, every single
[22:37] complaint that came in or complaints
[22:38] that we're moving forward.
[22:40] » I think it's a combination of both. It
[22:42] could be reporting. There's always that
[22:44] when it comes to sexual assaults, there
[22:45] could be a the disparity between
[22:48] reports. I mean, what we have dealt
[22:49] with, there's been fewer coming in,
[22:51] » Fewer so fewer complaints.
[22:53] » Yes. But that caveat is that could be
[22:56] lack of reporting. people still scared
[22:59] to come forward and that's why the
[23:03] partners you don't
[23:09] makes the proof
[23:13] » Approachable.
[23:14] » Yes.
[23:15] » D. So it's fewer initial complaints
[23:19] right from the getgo.
[23:20] » Yes.
[23:21] » It could be a good indicator. It could
[23:22] be what you've said is perhaps
[23:25] discomfort with the entire
[23:26] » Yeah. Yeah. I Well, I hope it's the
[23:29] former.
[23:30] » Thank you for answering that question,
[23:32] » Councelor Go.
[23:35] » Thank you. Can you guys hear me? Okay,
[23:36] » We can hear you loud and clear.
[23:38] » All right, fantastic. Um, thank you for
[23:41] this report. It's pretty good.
[23:42] Excellent. Love it. Uh, what evidence
[23:45] does the OPP have regarding um human
[23:48] trafficking and its connection to
[23:50] organized crime here in the county? and
[23:53] um what preventive measures are
[23:55] currently in place?
[23:57] » Well, each region has a human
[23:59] trafficking team.
[24:00] » Can I just get you just to speak into
[24:02] the mic just a little bit better?
[24:03] Thanks.
[24:04] » So, there's not much data from the
[24:06] county when it comes to human
[24:07] trafficking, although we can't be naive
[24:09] to think that it's not happening, but we
[24:10] do have a human trafficking unit and
[24:12] they're out of Kingston. That's our East
[24:15] Region unit. Um, I could go to them and
[24:18] see what we're getting in the county,
[24:19] but nothing's been brought to my
[24:20] attention regarding those numbers. And
[24:22] it is a very,
[24:24] I guess, secretive crime when it is
[24:26] happening. It's hard to identify and you
[24:28] have to have some specialized training
[24:31] to be able to deal with those types of
[24:32] occurrence and that's why we have the
[24:34] unit. But nothing off the top of my head
[24:36] right now is an issue right now in
[24:38] Prince Edward County.
[24:40] » Can I just get a quick followup?
[24:42] » Yeah, go ahead.
[24:44] Um, but there is a presence of
[24:48] biker gangs here in the county.
[24:51] » Yes, there is. There
[24:52] » Is. And you guys are aware of it. And
[24:54] » Yes, and we we do have a a biker
[24:57] enforcement unit and we have an officer
[24:59] that's assigned to this air like this
[25:01] area of the province and they that is
[25:03] monitored routinely
[25:05] » And any intelligence is covered off by
[25:08] that unit.
[25:10] » Okay. Thank you so much,
[25:12] » Councelor Maynard.
[25:14] » Um, thank you. Thank you for the uh for
[25:16] the presentation that um and just to um
[25:20] kind of expand on on some of the things
[25:22] that we uh spoke about after the last
[25:24] police services board meeting that I
[25:27] attended. I often watch them, but I
[25:29] haven't had really a chance to attend.
[25:30] But the um the you will be happy to know
[25:35] because you know that when we talk about
[25:37] a community presence right that um it's
[25:39] it's this is a big geography and we've
[25:40] got a large population that you know
[25:42] sometimes you know I will say feels a
[25:45] little underserved but I did drive uh
[25:48] yesterday from Rossmore to the bottom of
[25:51] the underdog hill at 60 kilometers an
[25:54] hour behind a line of traffic. So, you
[25:56] know, but um [laughter]
[25:59] um
[25:59] » And no scooters
[26:00] » And no [clears throat] and no scooters.
[26:02] » Um so that's, you know, it's good, but
[26:05] we, you know, I think we need um a
[26:07] little more, you know, a little more
[26:09] attention. Um the impaired driving, I
[26:12] think I mentioned this maybe too, but um
[26:15] we kind of uh bear the fruits of the
[26:21] um alcohol uh based tourism sector that
[26:24] we have. And as I said then uh
[26:29] what are the measures and how do we um
[26:31] how do we go about ensuring because it
[26:34] is the law that you are not to overserve
[26:36] someone and that you are they are
[26:39] actually responsible as well. So, how do
[26:42] we, you know, is there and I know,
[26:43] right, if they're going from place to
[26:44] place or if they're at a large venue
[26:46] that has multiple um multiple
[26:49] bartenders, but that's their
[26:52] responsibility, right? And I, you know,
[26:54] so I just um
[26:56] I mean, it's just ripe for the for that
[27:00] to happen in the environment that we
[27:02] have. So, I'd like to see that. uh you
[27:06] know because we know impaired driving is
[27:09] is a a big problem but I think there's
[27:13] issues other than just um you well I
[27:16] guess the person is always responsible
[27:18] but there's others that are responsible
[27:20] and legally responsible to make sure
[27:22] that they are not overserving and that
[27:24] the person either is not impaired when
[27:26] they come in and certainly are not
[27:28] impaired when when they leave. So if I
[27:31] you know maybe over the next year we can
[27:33] you know we can see some some movement
[27:35] uh some movement on that. And the other
[27:37] thing about the collaboration in the
[27:39] north and I spoke about that too is we
[27:40] do with our other um emergency services
[27:42] and our health units and stuff the
[27:44] collaboration with our um with our uh
[27:48] detachments either Quinny West. I know
[27:50] it's a little harder with a with a um
[27:52] with a with Balo, right? Because there's
[27:54] is a city force, but to uh to to make
[27:57] better use of that um of that friendly
[28:00] line that we that we share in uh in
[28:03] policing because you just can't be
[28:05] everywhere, right? I mean you cannot be
[28:07] everywhere and it's a huge geography
[28:11] » And those same impaired driving you know
[28:13] if I could if you talk about the other
[28:15] Belleville police service and Quinny
[28:16] West we do do joint force projects with
[28:19] them but they are seeing the same
[28:20] increase as impaired driving as as we
[28:22] are it seems across jurisdictions that
[28:26] those numbers are on the rise and is
[28:28] trying to figure out why
[28:30] » But even like even for some you know
[28:32] speeding enforcement or something right
[28:34] I mean because we do right with EMS,
[28:36] right? Like we pay into a fund that, you
[28:38] know, is run by Hastings, Hastings
[28:41] County. Somehow I would like to see more
[28:43] collaboration with our um with our
[28:46] partners, you know, in Brighton and and
[28:49] Quinny West and Bavville.
[28:52] I I know we have one with the with the u
[28:55] with the Tindga Mohawk Reserve. So, um
[28:58] something similar.
[29:01] Thank you,
[29:03] » Mayor Ferguson. Thank you very much, Mr.
[29:05] Chair. Thank you very much for the um
[29:07] the clear, concise presentation. And um
[29:12] I just want to say we've had a we as
[29:14] council um have had a terrific
[29:19] relationship with the OP and as we're on
[29:21] the cusp of uh an election after which
[29:25] there are likely to be a number of new
[29:28] faces around the uh around the
[29:30] horseshoe. please um please come and
[29:34] introduce yourself as um you know so
[29:37] that relationship can continue because
[29:39] it it's really been terrific to remove
[29:42] some of the mystery and understand fully
[29:44] what the OP does for the municipality
[29:47] particularly given the um you know the
[29:51] budget consideration but well done
[29:53] today. Thank you very much for for
[29:55] attending.
[29:57] Uh, Councelor Roberts,
[29:59] » I saw Casey leaning into the microphone,
[30:02] so maybe he's going to address what I
[30:04] was going to say.
[30:04] » Believe of the chair. Could I add a
[30:06] couple of points?
[30:07] » Go ahead. on the issue of impaired
[30:10] driving and the county having perhaps up
[30:13] to a million tourists um come to this
[30:16] wonderful jurisdiction on an annual
[30:18] basis. One might think that the majority
[30:21] of those apprehended for impaired
[30:23] operation of motor vehicles are from
[30:26] away tourists they're not. And that was
[30:30] uh shown that it's locals throughout
[30:33] 2025. I can tell you that trend has
[30:36] continued in 2026.
[30:39] So it would be a misapprehension to
[30:41] think that it's others from out there
[30:44] who are visiting who are the primary
[30:47] problem when it comes to impaired
[30:48] operation.
[30:50] on the issue of uh intimate partner
[30:52] violence
[30:54] jumping out of 2025
[30:56] just to tell you about 2026.
[30:59] The detachment again has been looking
[31:01] hard at the uh intimate partner violence
[31:04] statistics.
[31:05] This is criminal law enforcement along
[31:08] with community partners. The Supreme
[31:09] Court of Canada this year has uh for the
[31:13] first time ever allowed civil actions
[31:16] for something called coercive control
[31:19] with in an intimate partner
[31:21] relationship. So now the civil courts as
[31:24] well will be turning their eyes toward
[31:27] this problem. And lastly um within the
[31:31] last month the federal parliament has
[31:34] added to the criminal code section
[31:36] 264.01 01, a new crime called coercive
[31:41] control within an intimate partner um
[31:45] relationship and it covers more than
[31:48] just physical. It need not be physical
[31:51] abuse. It can be manipulation,
[31:54] isolation,
[31:56] um threats. Um so again um Jeff's
[32:01] officers will be trained over the next
[32:03] uh few months on this and this
[32:06] particular provision is to come into
[32:08] force no later than 2028.
[32:11] So it like Ireland, England, Scotland
[32:15] and a number of the Australian states is
[32:17] going to continue to drill down on
[32:19] intimate partner violence. Thank you.
[32:22] » Thank you very much Coun. Yep. Go ahead,
[32:25] Councelor Roberts.
[32:25] » Thank you very much. Thank you, Casey.
[32:27] That's kind of what I was going to get
[32:29] at. And it's important for people to
[32:30] know that it's not tourists, although
[32:32] there are spikes at Sandbanks and there
[32:34] are situations, but overall it's county
[32:37] folks. And the fastest growing
[32:40] demographic when it comes to impairment
[32:43] either with any substance, drugs or
[32:46] alcohol, is our county youth, our young
[32:49] people. And that's where a lot of
[32:52] education needs to happen. The other
[32:54] thing
[32:56] uh but I'll just I'll just leave it at
[32:58] that. There are many other things but uh
[33:00] but that's an important thing to keep in
[33:02] mind as we go forward both with the
[33:04] police services board and with this
[33:05] council. So thank you.
[33:07] » Thank you councelor Roberts. Councelor
[33:08] St. Gene.
[33:10] » Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you for the
[33:12] presentation. It's always uh extremely
[33:16] interesting and informative uh
[33:18] particularly on the statistic side
[33:20] because I know that's how you have uh
[33:22] you use those statistics to manage uh
[33:24] what your next steps are, what you're
[33:26] going to do in the community, how you're
[33:27] going to how you're going to deal with a
[33:29] lot of things. So that brings me to the
[33:31] question and most of these numbers are
[33:33] fantastic. There's a few little few that
[33:36] that are up. Uh but uh now that we're
[33:39] eight months into uh 2026, I'm sure
[33:42] you're starting to see some trends that
[33:44] are that are maybe concerning. Um, so I
[33:48] guess I'm wondering based on 2025's
[33:52] occurrences and what you're seeing now
[33:54] in 2026,
[33:56] how is that going to to u help you to
[33:59] focus your next efforts for the
[34:03] remainder of 26 and then maybe moving
[34:04] into 27.
[34:08] What we worked on with the board with
[34:09] the partner violence, those statistics
[34:11] that you have, that's number one is
[34:13] focusing on that investigative
[34:15] excellence when it comes to driving.
[34:16] It's continuing to drill the mandatory
[34:19] alcohol screening with our officers. You
[34:21] know, was a tough update to start, but
[34:24] now, you know, we have two ride programs
[34:26] every shift per day, one in Sandbanks in
[34:28] the summer and then one somewhere else
[34:30] in the county. the the fruits of that
[34:31] labor. But we're continuously looking at
[34:33] data, whether it's if I get a a road
[34:36] that I get a bunch of speeding
[34:37] complaints, I'd rather put up some data
[34:39] gathering devices, gather that data, and
[34:41] then I can focus where the enforcement
[34:43] goes and what times the enforcement's
[34:45] done at. So, it's just an involving
[34:47] process. I'm constantly looking at that
[34:49] data, and I we've got very good, the OP
[34:52] has at real time data, getting that data
[34:55] to me quicker as a detachment commander.
[34:56] I'm not wait I'm not waiting. It's data
[34:58] from last month. It's genally
[35:01] across a myriad of
[35:04] offenses, issues, sexual assault. It
[35:07] could be
[35:10] traffic related incidents.
[35:12] » Yeah. Just follow up.
[35:14] » Um, one one of the ones that that did
[35:17] jump out at me was um under violent
[35:20] crimes, assaults, firearm related
[35:22] offenses seems to be holding fairly
[35:25] steady. and and and I guess I get a
[35:27] little concerned when I see over a
[35:29] hundred
[35:30] uh occasions where where that you know
[35:34] where that to me that's an issue
[35:37] because it seems to be fairly steady
[35:39] over time. Is is there any way we can or
[35:43] you I guess and the police services
[35:45] board uh uh is there any way to to focus
[35:49] more attention on that to try to get
[35:50] those numbers down because firearms
[35:53] issues as we know are you know they're
[35:56] not good that's that's not a good
[35:58] statistic to have in any community
[35:59] » And it's not and a lot of I [snorts]
[36:00] mean a lot of them what we have are
[36:02] actually threats not actually whip a
[36:03] firearm but maybe I have a firearm and
[36:05] that type of threatening behavior so it
[36:08] is actually education wise and really
[36:10] knowing the enforcement side of things,
[36:12] really pushing for proper case
[36:14] management, crown attorneys, and getting
[36:16] those cases before court to get some
[36:18] decent decisions.
[36:21] That's yes, there is some concentration
[36:22] we can put on them.
[36:25] » Okay, great. Thank you. Keep up the
[36:27] great work.
[36:28] » And on the imperative driving issue,
[36:30] there's been some preliminary
[36:31] discussions about a MAD Canada chapter
[36:35] here in the county, which doesn't exist.
[36:38] if in fact that comes to fruition, that
[36:40] will certainly raise the education
[36:43] um around this particular crime.
[36:46] » Thank you. Uh councelor McNottton, you
[36:48] had another question.
[36:51] » Thank you. Yes. I I just wanted to go
[36:52] back to something you said, Casey, about
[36:55] um whether uh you you were referring to
[36:59] the new legislation.
[37:01] » Yes. And I I wasn't sure what you meant
[37:05] uh or what you were talking about when
[37:07] you uh spoke of something remaining in
[37:09] force until 2028. That wasn't the the
[37:11] changes to the criminal code itself, was
[37:13] it? That was it was
[37:16] » Um
[37:16] » It was
[37:17] » The statute was proclaimed on June 15th
[37:21] and there's a 2-year window for police
[37:24] forces across the country to be educated
[37:27] uh in terms
[37:28] » For the education
[37:30] » Training as to how to enforce this
[37:34] particular crime. it'll raise the
[37:36] interviewing uh standards quite a bit
[37:39] because we're now talking about uh to a
[37:43] complainant and I'll use the gender her
[37:46] um because that's predominantly the case
[37:49] about um
[37:52] pets being killed isolation from
[37:55] neighbors and family destruction of her
[37:58] cell phone
[38:00] » Financial routine checks of the cell
[38:02] phone
[38:03] » Just dueling out a little bit of money
[38:05] at the time things she can and cannot
[38:07] buy. These are things that we've never
[38:10] policed criminally, but we understand in
[38:12] an intimate partner violence are all
[38:15] about control and this kind of control
[38:19] usually
[38:20] the longer it goes ends up in violence
[38:23] including sexual violence.
[38:26] » So, thank you. That's a relief. I just
[38:28] didn't tie it into the training
[38:30] programs. I thought you meant that there
[38:32] was like a criminal code timeout
[38:37] which didn't sit with Thank you for
[38:40] clarifying. I'm very relieved to hear
[38:42] that.
[38:42] » No, it's in force. It's been proclaimed
[38:46] but won't be in force until the police
[38:48] forces across the country are trained
[38:50] the way they are in the United Kingdom
[38:53] and a number of the Australian states as
[38:55] to how to really wrestle this crime of
[38:58] coercive control to the ground. No, very
[39:00] difficult. Thank you for explaining that
[39:02] and it I think that's a great uh
[39:07] » An a huge advance. Thank you,
[39:10] » Councelor Maynard.
[39:12] » Um thank you. I just guess I wanted to
[39:14] clarify when I said tourist economy, I
[39:16] was really just talking more about the
[39:18] the entertainment economy which is uh
[39:21] you know enjoyed by by both uh by both
[39:24] tourists and certainly by by by locals,
[39:26] right? that I think does um you know you
[39:30] can just see like you know in our local
[39:31] like what's popped up as a business it
[39:34] typically now has something to do with
[39:36] with alcohol. So the other thing I did
[39:39] want to touch on briefly was the um the
[39:42] OP billing projections for this year so
[39:45] that we can uh so that we air on the
[39:48] side of caution and not get into the
[39:50] situation that we were in last year at
[39:52] the last minute.
[39:54] Uh
[39:55] » I was particularly upset about this
[39:58] because under [clears throat] the
[39:59] statute the board is to send along uh
[40:02] estimates which we want to be reliable
[40:07] and which can be relied upon by council.
[40:10] And last year, the as you know, the
[40:14] Friday that you completed your budget
[40:16] discussions, late that day, uh,
[40:20] municipal policing services from OP
[40:23] Aurelia GHQ sent along a number. Um I
[40:28] specifically was it in May asked the
[40:31] inspector in charge of municipal
[40:33] policing
[40:35] uh about this timing issue and basically
[40:38] said it's just not good enough.
[40:42] We were informed that last year, for
[40:45] various reasons, was an anomaly and that
[40:48] the board can expect to hear from
[40:50] Aurelia late this month or early October
[40:55] with certain meaningful numbers. So, not
[40:58] the delay into December on top of your
[41:01] budget discussions.
[41:03] and Inspector uh Kenneth Key uh also
[41:06] said that there would be, and this is
[41:08] his words, less sticker shock this year.
[41:12] That remains to be seen. The current
[41:15] collective uh bargaining agreement or
[41:18] CBA with civilian staff and uniform
[41:21] staff
[41:23] ends December 31st this year. So
[41:27] bargaining uh will be going on in the
[41:30] fall. And so real numbers in terms of
[41:35] what the next contract looks like I
[41:38] doubt will be available by the time of
[41:39] the budget discussions of council. Um
[41:42] but certainly we'll get the best number
[41:45] we can this year in a timely way out of
[41:48] Aurelia and uh hopefully that'll be of
[41:51] more assistance to council certainly
[41:53] than what happened last year. And indeed
[41:55] our next board meeting will be uh of the
[41:58] meeting of the board will be addressing
[41:59] this issue before we send the 2027
[42:02] estimates on to you
[42:05] » Briefly.
[42:06] » Yes. Um so but but we do know that what
[42:09] they um you know what they predicted or
[42:12] what they guessed it would be you know
[42:13] what was out there at that 5% is exactly
[42:16] where it came in. So I would rather have
[42:18] them um estimate high than have us you
[42:21] know and then you know or not estimate
[42:24] but say okay like you know be prepared
[42:26] for this because it's um it's way more
[42:29] palatable to say oh it's not going to
[42:31] cost us that much than than to have that
[42:34] uh it was difficult on staff it was
[42:36] difficult on council and it was
[42:38] difficult on you know just uh it was it
[42:41] was really awkward. So I think whatever
[42:43] we do if I think that we should heir on
[42:45] the side of caution and um be as uh
[42:50] mindful that especially when we know
[42:52] that there's labor negotiations taking
[42:54] place
[42:54] » And the board very much appreciates that
[42:57] councelor Maynard and I think with the
[42:59] blowback that happened um over the 2026
[43:03] estimates and the delay in Aurelia
[43:05] getting meaningful information out to
[43:07] various boards that they are likely to
[43:10] heir on higher numbers they give us, but
[43:13] we shall see.
[43:14] » Thank you.
[43:15] » Okay, I got councelor McNutton. She said
[43:17] she's going to be briefly. Then I got
[43:18] councelor Roberts and final word will be
[43:20] Mayor Ferguson and then we're going to
[43:21] move on.
[43:22] » Council McDton.
[43:23] » So we were recently in Ottawa for the
[43:25] association of municipal uh of
[43:27] municipalities of Ontario and we did
[43:29] meet with the solicitor general who
[43:31] echoed October as a date uh or whose
[43:34] staff uh said we're aiming for early
[43:37] October as well. So coming straight from
[43:40] the horse's mouth, I'm very hopeful that
[43:42] that remains true. Um,
[43:47] and the solicitor general in that rather
[43:50] extraordinary meeting for a number of
[43:51] reasons uh did say plan for 11%.
[43:55] So, I I I mean, I think there were a few
[44:00] uh head jaws in the room that were a
[44:02] little bit dropped, but um I I thought
[44:05] that that was helpful information to at
[44:07] least have for planning purposes uh
[44:09] while I uh so I just wanted to share
[44:12] that because we haven't had a chance to
[44:14] we haven't reported to our colleagues
[44:16] yet. So, I wanted to share that with you
[44:18] all while we're talking about it.
[44:20] Anyway,
[44:21] » Thank That seems an overly high estimate
[44:24] to me given what I would predict the
[44:28] bargaining unit settlement will be for
[44:31] 2027.
[44:33] » But
[44:33] » Yes, considering cost of living,
[44:35] considering Yeah, I I thought so, too.
[44:38] » I mean, it was Yeah. So, I'm very I'm
[44:42] hopeful that
[44:43] » You're absolutely right. [laughter]
[44:45] » So, fingers crossed. It was an
[44:47] interesting meeting for a lot of
[44:49] reasons.
[44:49] » Thank you. Um but yeah uh
[44:52] » Counc
[44:55] » Very brief um just to remind folks that
[44:58] I moved in this council passed a motion
[45:01] that was circulated to all 444
[45:04] municipalities including uh some people
[45:06] with big offices in Toronto Queens Park
[45:10] and we have received dozens
[45:14] of motions of support from Ontario
[45:16] municipalities for amending that billing
[45:19] procedure and dealing with it in a way
[45:21] where there's no more sticker shock. So,
[45:22] just to let people know, we've making
[45:24] progress.
[45:25] » Mayor Ferguson, final word.
[45:26] » Thank you. Just to follow up on
[45:28] Councelor McNutton's comment about the
[45:30] meeting with the solicitor general last
[45:32] week. Um that follows correspondence
[45:35] from the solicitor general stating that
[45:40] any increase would be capped at 11%.
[45:44] Um, and I think that's what we're going
[45:47] to have to use, you know, for budgeting
[45:49] processes. If it comes in lower than
[45:51] that, it's a gift. But he was quite
[45:54] adamant at the meeting that uh they're
[45:57] going to cap it at 11 and
[46:00] to avoid that sticker shock. But that's
[46:02] still sticker shock.
[46:04] » Yeah.
[46:06] » All right. Thank you guys very very much
[46:08] for your time today. Um, very excellent
[46:12] presentation. Lots of good questions and
[46:14] comments. I will look to somebody to
[46:16] move the motion on to receive the
[46:20] presentation. Councelor Roberts,
[46:22] seconded by uh Mayor Ferguson.
[46:26] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. That the joint
[46:28] presentation by Staff Sergeant Jeffrey
[46:30] McKinnon, Detachment Commander, and the
[46:32] Honorable S. Casec Hill, chair of the OP
[46:34] Detachment Board, regarding the Prince
[46:36] Edward County OP Detachment Board's
[46:38] annual report to council be received.
[46:41] » Thank you, Councelor Roberts. All in
[46:42] favor? And that carries. [gasps] Okay,
[46:46] moving along. We have no deputation. No
[46:48] deputations
[46:50] and but we have one registered comment
[46:52] from the audience. Uh Cheryl Anderson.
[46:55] Welcome, Cheryl.
[46:57] Uh Cheryl speaking on 7.2.
[47:02] So Cheryl, you know the drill. Three
[47:04] minutes and you can start when you're
[47:06] ready.
[47:07] » I think I'm I'm on. Okay. Good
[47:10] afternoon. I'm Cheryl Anderson from the
[47:12] Southshore Joint Initiative. I'm here
[47:15] today to support the report of the
[47:18] Community Services Programs and
[47:20] Initiatives Department dated August
[47:23] 27th, 2026 regarding exploration of
[47:27] municipal support options for a dark sky
[47:30] preserve.
[47:32] Southshore Joint Initiative and the
[47:34] Royal Astronomy Society of Canada are
[47:37] working to promote a dark sky preserve
[47:39] for the Southshore of Prince Edward
[47:42] County as part of our work to conserve
[47:46] and preserve its biodiversity.
[47:49] I've read the report and congratulate
[47:52] Katon Zachariah on the thoroughess of
[47:54] its preparation. Key to the
[47:57] recommendations of the report is the
[47:59] assertion that the municipality will not
[48:02] immediately have to make any big
[48:05] changes. The process to establish a dark
[48:08] sky preserve on the southshore will be
[48:11] achieved through community education and
[48:14] development of a dark sky policy and may
[48:17] take several years.
[48:20] on the attractiveness of dark sky
[48:22] activities to visitors. It is
[48:25] interesting to note that on August 13th,
[48:28] approximately 160 campers attended the
[48:33] Rasque PERS meteor shower viewing event
[48:36] at Sand Banks Provincial Park. Other RAS
[48:39] events at the county libraries and at
[48:42] Mariners Park have also been very well
[48:45] attended.
[48:47] With council's acceptance of the report
[48:48] today and verification at council
[48:51] meeting on September 8th, Southshore
[48:53] Joint Initiative looks forward to
[48:55] signing a memorandum of understanding
[48:57] regarding the use of Mariners Park for
[49:00] dark sky viewing events. Thank you.
[49:03] » Thank you, Cheryl.
[49:06] Uh, any questions from committee?
[49:10] » Council McNutton.
[49:11] » No question. Just a comment for all
[49:13] those trying to watch the meteor shower
[49:15] this year. I'm so sorry for the weather.
[49:17] It was a [laughter] little bit overcast.
[49:19] We tried to
[49:22] » Okay. Uh, thank you.
[49:25] » Is there anybody else in the Do you have
[49:27] a question?
[49:27] » Yeah. Sorry.
[49:28] » Oh, sorry, Cheryl.
[49:29] » Just because in in the report it talks
[49:31] about budget considerations. So, you're
[49:33] just saying there won't be much upfront,
[49:35] but we'll have to Yeah. So, will there
[49:38] be um
[49:39] » I think in the report it says that the
[49:42] budget would be to put a switch on the
[49:45] lighthouse at Mariners's Park so that
[49:47] the light could be turned off on
[49:49] occasions when there's an event there.
[49:52] » Perfect.
[49:52] » Which is I don't know how much switch.
[49:55] » So, other than Yeah. Just some sign a
[49:57] bit of signage and some uh public
[50:00] awareness.
[50:01] » That's right.
[50:02] » Okay. Thank you.
[50:04] » Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else
[50:07] in the audience who would like to make a
[50:08] comment on today's agenda?
[50:11] Not seeing any, I will look for somebody
[50:13] to accept the
[50:16] comment. Council McNutton, seconded by
[50:18] Councelor St. Gene.
[50:22] » Motion to accept the comments from the
[50:24] audience.
[50:24] » Thank you. All in favor? And that
[50:27] carries.
[50:30] All right. Moving on to items for
[50:31] consideration. So, we have a report from
[50:33] the finance and IT department.
[50:36] Welcome Erin. It's my understanding you
[50:38] have a presentation you would like to
[50:40] walk us through. So when you are ready
[50:42] you're
[50:44] » You have a question.
[50:45] » Sorry.
[50:46] » Just
[50:49] » Welcome Sean Michael.
[50:53] » Uh so Aaron I'll turn the floor over to
[50:55] you and you can uh you can proceed.
[51:05] And while we're starting, I'll actually
[51:07] maybe get somebody to put it on the
[51:08] floor. So, councelor Hirs seconded by
[51:11] councelor panel.
[51:13] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hers panel. Motion
[51:15] that report FIN um 282026 regarding
[51:20] water wastewater financial strategy
[51:22] report be received that council endorse
[51:25] scenario 2B and its associated water and
[51:27] wastewater financial strategy as the
[51:30] basis for long-term financial planning
[51:32] and public engagement [clears throat]
[51:34] that staff be directed to incorporate
[51:35] the financial strategy into the upcoming
[51:38] water and wastewater rate study and
[51:40] development charge background study.
[51:42] that staff be directed to work with
[51:44] developers in Pectin and Wellington to
[51:46] identify and negotiate opportunities for
[51:49] development charge and/or connection
[51:50] charge, prepayment or front-end
[51:53] financing arrangements with the
[51:55] objective of reducing growth related
[51:57] municipal borrowing and the county's
[51:59] exposure to the timing of future
[52:00] development revenues with any agreements
[52:03] requiring council approval brought
[52:05] forward for consideration.
[52:07] and that staff continue to pursue
[52:09] available provincial and federal grant
[52:11] funding opportunities to reduce
[52:13] municipal financing requirements and
[52:15] impacts on existing water and wastewater
[52:18] rateayers. that the county's existing
[52:20] 15% internal debt servicing limit remain
[52:24] unchanged with future borrowing
[52:25] requirements to be considered as
[52:27] individual projects and financing
[52:29] arrangements are brought forward to
[52:31] council and that staff be directed to
[52:33] engage Infrastructure Ontario and other
[52:36] potential lenders as appropriate to
[52:38] confirm financing capacity terms and
[52:40] financing options for the water
[52:42] wastewater capital program with
[52:44] individual borrowing approvals to be
[52:46] brought forward to council as required.
[52:48] Thank you, Councelor Hirs. Erin, the
[52:50] floor is yours.
[52:52] » Uh, good afternoon and through the chair
[52:54] to members of the committee. Um, uh, I
[52:57] guess first off, I just like to briefly
[52:59] thank staff. It may say financial
[53:02] strategy. Uh, and it may appear as
[53:04] though finance, uh, had the sole role in
[53:07] this, but that is exactly opposite. Um,
[53:10] director Alansstra, director Kaza, uh,
[53:13] finance staff, we had a number of
[53:15] meetings. Um, and the amount of
[53:17] information we pulled together and sent
[53:20] through to Watson within a a month and a
[53:22] half uh long period is is absolutely
[53:25] incredible. So, it's a big thanks to uh
[53:28] to all of all the staff who who took
[53:30] part in supplying information for this.
[53:32] Um, Sean Michael uh Stevens from Watson
[53:36] is available for any questions. Um how
[53:38] we've structured uh this is the material
[53:41] similar to how uh development services
[53:43] did under 41 2026 and that um they did a
[53:47] PowerPoint presentation um that would
[53:50] provide sort of a a higher level um view
[53:53] of the of the problems. Uh then we have
[53:56] the report um which is a little bit
[53:59] deeper and then we have Shawn Michaels
[54:01] attachment which is about 40 pages uh of
[54:04] the math behind a financial strategy.
[54:06] So, there's sort of three layers there.
[54:09] Um, and he's available for any questions
[54:11] and and please feel free to uh ask any
[54:13] questions as we move along in the
[54:15] presentation.
[54:17] So,
[54:21] so why are we here? Um,
[54:24] I guess this could pro maybe take a
[54:26] while, but but I'll maybe uh be really
[54:28] really brief. Um uh a number of years
[54:32] ago uh staff determined that there were
[54:34] three fundamental problems. Uh first
[54:37] problem is capacity that we were running
[54:39] out of. Aging infrastructure is another
[54:42] problem. Uh and then the pictton water
[54:44] supply and intake issues was another
[54:46] problem. So staff uh stole Wi-Fi at
[54:49] home.
[54:56] » So staff uh ventured to uh determine a
[54:59] financial strategy a water wastewater
[55:01] financial strategy to um to sort of
[55:04] solve come up with a solution for this
[55:06] problem. They used 2.4% as a growth
[55:08] factor. Um fast forward to mid 2025 and
[55:12] there was some change over in staff and
[55:14] we started to look at some of the inputs
[55:15] into the water wastewater strategy. Um
[55:18] in the end development services brought
[55:20] forward uh DS9 2026 January 20
[55:26] uh January 25th or 2026. Um and what
[55:29] they did is they asked council for
[55:31] approval to uh investigate the uh
[55:34] implications of a 1% growth factor.
[55:38] staff went out, addressed these
[55:39] implications, brought forward another
[55:41] report with DS uh 412026. Uh it was in
[55:45] June. Um and then we uh received council
[55:48] approval for a 1% growth factor. Uh and
[55:51] then to move forward with uh water
[55:53] wastewater financial strategy to tie
[55:56] into that. Um so in the end development
[56:00] services brought forward uh um scenario
[56:03] 2B um which council determined and staff
[56:06] determined as the preferred water
[56:08] wastewater strategy to solve these three
[56:11] fundamental problems. Um that was a
[56:14] recommendation from the engineers as
[56:15] well as the external engineers. Uh and
[56:18] then we based the financial strategy on
[56:21] scenario 2B.
[56:25] Uh the financial strategy includes
[56:26] funding, rates, growth charges, debt,
[56:29] risk as well as next steps moving
[56:32] forward. Uh and again, it just mentions
[56:34] that council did previously uh um select
[56:37] a preferred servicing strategy, which is
[56:39] what the what uh the um reports based
[56:42] on.
[56:51] So uh next slide is what scenario 2B uh
[56:55] means and and uh I'm going to ask
[56:57] director Lancra to come up and sort of
[56:58] give sort of a a highlevel uh detailing
[57:01] of what scenario 2B consists of just to
[57:04] refresh everybody's uh memory.
[57:09] » Thank you Director Mcnickl. Uh so
[57:11] through the chair to the committee. Uh
[57:14] so as shown on this slide, uh scenario
[57:16] 2B is based off of the 1% annual growth
[57:18] assumption uh previously endorsed by
[57:21] council which represents a projection of
[57:23] approximately the 150 residential units
[57:26] per year. So under this approach uh the
[57:29] county would proceed with a regional
[57:30] water treatment plant in Wellington to
[57:32] ultimately supply both Wellington and
[57:35] Pikton and Bloomfield with the
[57:36] infrastructure cons infrastructure uh
[57:40] constructed and expanded in phases as
[57:42] growth occurs. Uh so the existing Pikton
[57:45] water treatment plant would remain in
[57:46] service only until the regional plant or
[57:48] regional system is commissioned with
[57:50] investment limited primarily to
[57:52] essential life cycle and reliability
[57:54] work. wastewater treatment would remain
[57:56] separate in picked in Wellington with
[57:58] improvements and expansions phased to
[58:00] support projected growth.
[58:02] So I want to emphasize the
[58:04] recommendation for scenario 2B is not
[58:06] based solely on the financial analysis.
[58:08] Uh the financial results support the
[58:10] recommendation but there are also
[58:12] important infrastructure operational
[58:14] asset management and risk considerations
[58:16] that led staff to this preferred
[58:18] approach. Uh so this aligns
[58:20] appropriately when understanding that
[58:22] while being a corporation the
[58:23] municipality is bound by multiple
[58:25] sources of legislation and risk
[58:27] management for constituents that require
[58:29] assessment beyond just the financials.
[58:32] Uh so importantly the 1% still
[58:34] represents significant growth. So that's
[58:36] approximately 9,300 additional residents
[58:39] over the next 25 years. uh this this
[58:42] plan uh or this allows us to plan
[58:44] infrastructure differently. Rather than
[58:46] constructing very large facilities today
[58:48] based on growth that may or may not
[58:50] materialize, scenario 2B allows
[58:52] infrastructure to be phased and expanded
[58:54] as growth occurs.
[58:56] So for example, the regional water
[58:58] treatment plant can initially be
[59:00] constructed at a smaller capacity with
[59:02] treatment trains added over time.
[59:04] Similarly, the Wellington wastewater
[59:05] treatment plan can be designed so that
[59:07] components are brought online as
[59:08] additional capacity is actually
[59:10] required. That approach gives the
[59:12] municipality flexibility if growth
[59:14] occurs either faster or slower uh than
[59:16] projected and reduces the risk of
[59:18] operating oversized infrastructure for
[59:20] decades. Uh second scenario 2B reflects
[59:23] that we now know about the condition of
[59:25] our existing assets, particular the
[59:27] Pikton water treatment plant. Uh when
[59:30] council directed staff to investigate
[59:31] the 1% scenario, there was some thought
[59:34] that the existing Pictton plant might be
[59:36] rehabilitated and operated for another
[59:37] 15 to 20 years. Uh if that had been
[59:40] possible, there would have been stronger
[59:41] argument for delaying the regional
[59:42] system. Uh that condition assessment did
[59:45] not support that assumption. Uh so the
[59:47] Pikton plant dates back to 1928 has
[59:50] significant structural process and
[59:52] electrical deficiencies and further
[59:54] investigation which could prove costly
[59:56] uh is still required to fully understand
[59:58] the condition of some of its components.
[1:00:00] The assessment indicates that
[1:00:02] approximately 10 years is a more
[1:00:03] realistic planning horizon. So other
[1:00:06] scenarios considered would therefore
[1:00:07] require the county to make significant
[1:00:09] interimm investments in Pikton to keep
[1:00:11] that facility operating. Scenario 2B
[1:00:13] avoids making substantial investments in
[1:00:15] an asset that we already know is
[1:00:17] approaching the end of its useful life.
[1:00:19] Uh instead, we would undertake only the
[1:00:21] life cycle work necessary to safely and
[1:00:23] reliably operate it until the regional
[1:00:25] plant is commissioned. Uh further,
[1:00:28] there's also the significant operational
[1:00:30] advantages to regionalizing water
[1:00:32] treatment. Uh scenario 2B ultimately
[1:00:34] reduces the number of water treatment
[1:00:36] plants the municipality is responsible
[1:00:38] for operating, maintaining, staffing,
[1:00:40] rehabilitating, and eventually
[1:00:41] replacing. Maintaining separate plants
[1:00:44] means maintaining separate treatment
[1:00:46] processes, buildings, electrical and
[1:00:48] mechanical systems, regulatory
[1:00:51] requirements, and life cycle replacement
[1:00:52] programs. Over the life of these assets,
[1:00:55] consolidation provides operational
[1:00:57] efficiencies and reduces the county's
[1:00:59] long-term asset management burden.
[1:01:02] uh and previously discussed this is also
[1:01:04] a significant source water protection
[1:01:06] benefit. So the Pikton Bay bay intake is
[1:01:08] one of the most vulnerable drinking
[1:01:09] water sources in the Quinty source
[1:01:11] protection region. Uh the Pikton system
[1:01:14] has identified significant drinking
[1:01:16] water threats and requires ongoing
[1:01:17] monitoring and contingency planning.
[1:01:20] Additionally, recent source training on
[1:01:22] source water protection plan updates
[1:01:24] recognize Pikton as a location requiring
[1:01:26] additional applicable plan policies to
[1:01:29] further protect the drinking water
[1:01:30] source. Uh as these policies have yet to
[1:01:33] be implemented, it's difficult to
[1:01:34] quantify and qualify what the impact on
[1:01:36] the municipality and any new development
[1:01:38] in Pikton would be. Uh by comparison, no
[1:01:42] drink significant drinking water threats
[1:01:43] have been identified within the
[1:01:44] Wellington intake protection zones.
[1:01:46] Moving Pikton onto the regional water
[1:01:48] system therefore does uh more than
[1:01:50] replace an aging plant. It allows the
[1:01:53] municipality to ultimately eliminate any
[1:01:55] ongoing source water risk and the
[1:01:56] regulatory and operational challenge
[1:01:58] challenges associated with mitigating
[1:02:00] and managing that risk. Uh scenario 2B
[1:02:03] builds on work the municipality has
[1:02:05] already completed. The regional water
[1:02:07] solution remains consistent with the
[1:02:08] preferred servicing approach identified
[1:02:10] through previous master plans and
[1:02:12] environmental assessments. It allows the
[1:02:14] current design work to continue, retains
[1:02:16] the opportunity to use the provincial
[1:02:18] funding already secured and creates a
[1:02:21] regional system that can potentially
[1:02:23] provide servicing flexibility to other
[1:02:25] municipal drinking water systems in the
[1:02:26] future.
[1:02:28] So, while scenario 2B does require a
[1:02:30] greater upfront investment on uh staff
[1:02:33] are looking beyond the initial capital
[1:02:35] cost, we're providing some additional
[1:02:37] comparisons further in the pres
[1:02:38] presentation for your consideration as
[1:02:40] well.
[1:02:42] As
[1:02:44] So from an infrastructure management
[1:02:46] perspective, scenario 2B means investing
[1:02:48] in the long-term asset rather than
[1:02:50] making significant interimm investments
[1:02:52] in an aging asset. Uh we ultimately
[1:02:54] intend to retire and focus on
[1:02:56] construction of one water treatment
[1:02:58] plant instead of two plants. Uh it
[1:03:00] reduces the operational and source water
[1:03:02] risk, reduces the number of treatment
[1:03:04] facilities uh that we must maintain over
[1:03:06] the long term and allows infrastructure
[1:03:07] to be phased with actual growth.
[1:03:14] Thank you, Crystal.
[1:03:21] » Thank you, Crystal. [laughter]
[1:03:24] The um so what is council being asked to
[1:03:27] decide? Um and this is arguably one of
[1:03:31] the most important of the the the slide
[1:03:33] deck. Um so endorse a framework and next
[1:03:36] steps not authorize the entire program.
[1:03:38] today. I would maybe change the word
[1:03:41] framework to roadmap because basically
[1:03:44] it's uh telling us where we're going to
[1:03:46] go, what risks are going to be involved
[1:03:48] and then how are we going to manage
[1:03:49] them. Um, so there are seven
[1:03:51] recommendations that we're putting forth
[1:03:53] to council. Um, and so council is being
[1:03:56] asked to endorse scenario 2B. Um, uh, as
[1:04:00] for the reasons Crystal explained, um,
[1:04:02] keep the 15% internal internal debt
[1:04:05] servicing limit, which is in our policy.
[1:04:08] Um, that guard rail will continue. Uh,
[1:04:11] allow us to advance the water wastewater
[1:04:13] rate study, development charge
[1:04:14] background study as well as the asset
[1:04:16] management plan. Uh currently some of
[1:04:18] those different uh projects are on hold
[1:04:21] um just until next year and this year
[1:04:23] we're actually just sort of on hold for
[1:04:25] the modeling. Um and then these a lot of
[1:04:28] these
[1:04:30] different studies and and reports and
[1:04:33] plans end up feeding into the budget end
[1:04:35] up feeding into the master plan. So um
[1:04:38] so this is sort of a key input to not
[1:04:41] just those uh different studies and
[1:04:43] plans but also many many others. Uh
[1:04:45] we're also asking um council uh the
[1:04:48] ability to pursue uh developer financing
[1:04:50] and grants which there's a couple slides
[1:04:52] about that later on in the presentation
[1:04:55] uh as well as confirm financing capacity
[1:04:57] with IO and other lenders like Canada
[1:04:59] Infrastructure Bank uh RBC and some of
[1:05:02] the other banks. Um there could be uh
[1:05:05] definite savings there whether or not
[1:05:07] that is in terms of rates in terms of
[1:05:10] length of deenture repayment
[1:05:12] flexibility. Um, so that's sort of a a
[1:05:14] key metric as well. Um, what council is
[1:05:17] not approving today is the $255 million
[1:05:20] of borrowing. Um, every capital project
[1:05:24] in the program or any capital project
[1:05:26] within the program. Uh, final $47,900
[1:05:30] growth related charge. That was just an
[1:05:32] estimate. We are not done the
[1:05:33] development charge background study.
[1:05:35] This is just an estimate. Uh we're not
[1:05:37] approving the 5.5 annual water rate
[1:05:40] increase uh or the 2.1% wastewater
[1:05:44] increase. Um that will be completed uh
[1:05:47] when we complete the water wastewater
[1:05:49] rate study. Um uh we're not asking
[1:05:52] council to approve any of the uh
[1:05:54] agreements or prepayment agreements. We
[1:05:56] have $13.9 million uh that we received
[1:05:58] from Caitlyn in terms of a prepayment
[1:06:00] agreement. Um that is the only agreement
[1:06:03] in place at this stage.
[1:06:06] Again, all future capital projects,
[1:06:08] rates, charges, developer agreements,
[1:06:09] and borrowing will return to council
[1:06:12] through the proper approval process for
[1:06:14] each particular item.
[1:06:21] So, how much infrastructure is planned?
[1:06:23] Um, this is sort of the starting point
[1:06:25] uh of Watson's analysis. Uh, so it's
[1:06:28] $279 million. Um, that's the cost in
[1:06:31] 2026.
[1:06:33] Um and what Watson and staff did is they
[1:06:37] broke down the projects within the $279
[1:06:40] million and they determined what is
[1:06:42] benefit to existing benefit to existing
[1:06:44] and what is growth related and what is a
[1:06:47] post period cost. So after doing that
[1:06:50] they came up with 104 or roughly 105
[1:06:53] million was benefit to existing uh 103
[1:06:56] was growth related uh and then there was
[1:06:58] $31 million that were post period past
[1:07:02] 201. Um this allocation is important
[1:07:05] because it identifies it's the input to
[1:07:09] um to the $360 million
[1:07:13] um over the 10-year period that's
[1:07:15] increased by inflation uh as well as
[1:07:18] some of the life cycle management
[1:07:19] activities. So the $104 million would
[1:07:22] relate because it's benefit to existing
[1:07:24] to the water wastewater rate study. the
[1:07:27] $103 million uh growth related relates
[1:07:30] to uh development charges and connection
[1:07:33] charges. So that input is important in
[1:07:35] the in the future calculations. Um $279
[1:07:39] million is a just an estimate. Um and it
[1:07:42] also includes $39.5 million in grant
[1:07:45] grant funding.
[1:07:50] So how is the program funded? Um overall
[1:07:54] a project of this size and magnitude
[1:07:55] have a number of different funding
[1:07:58] sources. Um first off is the water
[1:08:00] wastewater rates. It's made up of
[1:08:03] operations. It's made up of life cycle
[1:08:05] management activities and it's made up
[1:08:07] of uh servicing the debt that doesn't
[1:08:10] relate to growth. Um as well as
[1:08:12] connection charges and some others. So
[1:08:14] that that's what ends up funding the um
[1:08:17] uh benefit to existing portion. Uh the
[1:08:20] development charges and connection
[1:08:21] charges relates to uh funding the growth
[1:08:24] related portions of the assets. Uh the
[1:08:28] reserves um are an allocation of surplus
[1:08:31] um and within our finance policy. Any
[1:08:34] surplus within water or wastewater goes
[1:08:36] into a reserve that can be utilized at a
[1:08:39] later time.
[1:08:40] uh the grants uh predominantly in this
[1:08:43] context relate to applicationbased
[1:08:45] grants not formuliabased grants although
[1:08:47] I don't think it's beyond the realm of
[1:08:48] possibility that in the future um there
[1:08:51] could be formula based grants that could
[1:08:53] you be used specifically for core
[1:08:55] infrastructure similar to water
[1:08:57] wastewater or an increase in that and I
[1:08:59] think there is a a resolution on this
[1:09:01] agenda related to OCIF that perhaps if
[1:09:04] there is an increase we can use some of
[1:09:06] those um uh OCIF funds for water
[1:09:10] wastewater infrastructure.
[1:09:12] The other is developer financing,
[1:09:14] pre-made payment and frontending
[1:09:16] finance. So, we do have a slide later uh
[1:09:19] within the slide deck that uh Sean
[1:09:20] Michael will speak to and he's got a
[1:09:22] couple um pictures just to an
[1:09:25] illustration just to walk through so it
[1:09:27] helps uh council and the public
[1:09:28] understand what it means. Uh and then
[1:09:30] the remainder is funded through through
[1:09:32] debt. So, the infrastructure is built,
[1:09:35] development occurs, growth revenues are
[1:09:37] collected. Um the the central risk
[1:09:40] associated with this is one of timing
[1:09:42] and I think uh uh the newspapers
[1:09:45] identified that staff have identified
[1:09:46] that it's you build the infrastructure
[1:09:49] um but then you have to collect the
[1:09:51] development charges uh and some of the
[1:09:53] funding in order to offset that. So
[1:09:55] there is a risk uh associated with that
[1:09:58] um which is why we are um advocating for
[1:10:01] uh front-ending and prepayment
[1:10:03] agreements further on in the slide deck.
[1:10:10] So what does this mean for existing
[1:10:12] customers? [sighs] Um so under the base
[1:10:15] case um currently right now the average
[1:10:18] cost of a water bill is about $1867
[1:10:23] uh per year. Uh and the water is in is
[1:10:27] forecast to increase by 5.5% year. The
[1:10:30] wastewater is forecast to increase by
[1:10:32] 2.1% uh per year which is roughly a 3.8%
[1:10:37] if you look at both of those per year.
[1:10:39] Uh so it would be a total uh combined
[1:10:42] bill moving from 1867 to 2724.
[1:10:47] And again these are forecasts we are
[1:10:48] done the water wastewater rate study. So
[1:10:50] these may change uh slightly. Um, and
[1:10:54] it's also important to note, and I think
[1:10:56] uh Crystal mentioned it as well, is that
[1:10:59] these rates um will increase no matter
[1:11:02] what scenario that we choose to go with.
[1:11:05] So whether or not it's 2C or any
[1:11:07] different scenario will result in a
[1:11:09] increase of the rates uh of various
[1:11:12] magnitudes.
[1:11:20] So what does growth pay for? So this is
[1:11:22] a slide um with some of the current
[1:11:25] development charges and what the
[1:11:27] estimate of where the development
[1:11:28] charges are going to go under the base
[1:11:30] case and where the development charges
[1:11:32] would be under full fin full front-end
[1:11:35] financing. Uh so the current Wellington
[1:11:37] area specific are about $26,000.
[1:11:40] Uh the current connection charge um is
[1:11:43] about $16,000.
[1:11:45] If we go with the base case, it will
[1:11:48] increase those to $47,000. So, it's
[1:11:51] about 184%
[1:11:53] increase on the connection charges and
[1:11:55] it's a 83.9%
[1:11:58] increase on the pure development
[1:11:59] charges. Um, if we were to get fullfront
[1:12:03] in financing, the overall increase would
[1:12:05] be about uh 30.1%
[1:12:08] on the development charge.
[1:12:11] Um, so again, it shows the importance of
[1:12:13] of uh uh getting either prepayment or
[1:12:16] front-end financing.
[1:12:18] Uh so what sits behind the preliminary
[1:12:20] charge? There's 103.3 million of
[1:12:22] infrastructure um related to growth
[1:12:24] through 2011. Um the base case charge
[1:12:27] includes associated financing costs and
[1:12:29] the final methodology and charges uh
[1:12:32] will be related to the background uh DC
[1:12:34] background study which will be completed
[1:12:36] um or is forecast to be completed next
[1:12:38] year. Uh 75 million of the growth
[1:12:41] related municipal boring is forecast in
[1:12:43] the base case. Um, so full front-end
[1:12:46] financing would eliminate the forecast
[1:12:48] growth debt and reduce the preliminary
[1:12:50] charge to about 33,800.
[1:12:58] So, how much borrowing is forecast
[1:13:01] um
[1:13:03] uh overall um over a 10-year period? Um
[1:13:06] uh it's forecast that we're we need to
[1:13:08] borrow $255 million. Um, non non-growth
[1:13:13] related is 180 million and growth
[1:13:16] related is 75 million. And I'm just
[1:13:19] going to go back to the $279 million and
[1:13:22] sort of reconcile that with the $360
[1:13:24] million and then the $255 million. So we
[1:13:28] started at $279 million which was made
[1:13:31] up of n number of projects and it was in
[1:13:33] 2026 values.
[1:13:36] That uh $279 million was brought uh
[1:13:40] distilled down to a 10-year period and
[1:13:42] it was increased by 3.5% inflation
[1:13:45] factor as well as certain life cycle
[1:13:48] costs which ended up being 360.8 million
[1:13:52] over the 10-year period. So we're moving
[1:13:54] from the 279 to the 360.
[1:13:58] of the 360 there isund forecast $105
[1:14:02] million worth of funding. So taking the
[1:14:06] $105 million from the 360 you end with a
[1:14:09] $255 million to be funded. Of that $75
[1:14:13] million growth of that $180 million of
[1:14:17] non-growth. Uh so again that 255 is
[1:14:20] forecast over multiple years not a
[1:14:22] request uh as of day one January 1st
[1:14:26] 2027.
[1:14:32] So what does the debt mean for uh the
[1:14:36] county? Um the the base case
[1:14:38] demonstrates that the scenario 2B can be
[1:14:41] financed within the statutory limit. Um
[1:14:44] so at the top line there you can see
[1:14:47] that the 25% of our own source revenue
[1:14:49] is the statutory limit that's set. Um
[1:14:52] the 15 which is right in the middle of
[1:14:55] our own source revenues is as per our
[1:14:57] policy. Um and this would under the base
[1:15:00] case scenario would take us over that
[1:15:03] for several years. Peak would be 17.4%
[1:15:06] under the base case. Um 15% as our own
[1:15:11] um policy rate and 25% is the provincial
[1:15:14] uh statute.
[1:15:16] Um debt capacity is corporate. Um so
[1:15:19] there are two risks here. one is the
[1:15:21] debt and servicing the debt and then the
[1:15:22] other risk is debt capacity is over it's
[1:15:25] corporatewide. So um there is an asset
[1:15:29] management plan that currently doesn't
[1:15:31] have um debt included in it and all the
[1:15:35] different service areas aren't utilizing
[1:15:37] debt in our current asset management
[1:15:39] plan. It's a pay as you go philosophy.
[1:15:42] So it does reduce the amount of debt
[1:15:45] that is available for other service
[1:15:47] areas moving forward. Um, how this is
[1:15:50] mitigated and I'll talk about that later
[1:15:52] again is through prepayment or or uh or
[1:15:55] full front-end financing which decreases
[1:15:58] the A arirl down to something that's
[1:16:00] palatable and can be utilized by the
[1:16:03] other service areas and worked into the
[1:16:04] asset management plan.
[1:16:10] So this is uh can developer financing
[1:16:14] change the picture and I'd mentioned it
[1:16:17] a few different times and it absolutely
[1:16:19] can. Um so Watson modeled two different
[1:16:24] scenarios. One was an accelerated
[1:16:26] prepayment and the other was a full
[1:16:28] front-end financing portion. So, under
[1:16:30] the accelerated prepayment, if we
[1:16:33] receive 60.1 million, um it will reduce
[1:16:36] 18.3 million less borrowing um and get
[1:16:39] to us get us to a debt servicing ratio
[1:16:42] of about 15.5%.
[1:16:45] If it's fullfront and then financing,
[1:16:47] other words, it's erasing the $75
[1:16:49] million in its entirety, we'd need $89
[1:16:52] million. Um these are growth related
[1:16:54] costs funded before they are incurred
[1:16:56] and after the 13.9 million DC reserves.
[1:17:00] Um again the county currently has 13.9
[1:17:03] million um prepayment DC's available. Um
[1:17:06] and that's through the Caitlyn uh the
[1:17:08] two Caitlyn agreements. Um, I would like
[1:17:11] to pass it over to uh Shawn Michael from
[1:17:14] Watson just to explain this a little bit
[1:17:16] further and he's got a couple
[1:17:18] illustrations and he'll walk through
[1:17:20] explaining how $61 million equates to
[1:17:24] 18.3 million less borrowing. Um, how the
[1:17:27] 89 million removes the 75 and then
[1:17:30] you'll explain a little bit about the
[1:17:32] differences between prepayment related
[1:17:34] to uh full front-end financing. So, I'll
[1:17:38] pass it over to you Michael and we'll
[1:17:39] we'll pull up the uh uh what you said
[1:17:42] earlier.
[1:17:50] » Welcome, Sean. You can go ahead and
[1:17:52] carry on whenever you're ready.
[1:17:54] » Great. Thank you very much and good
[1:17:56] afternoon everyone. Um as we just jump
[1:17:59] ahead to the following slide, please.
[1:18:03] So, I thought I'd I'd do first just
[1:18:05] maybe take a a step back and uh explain
[1:18:08] a little bit about how um how some of
[1:18:12] these numbers have been worked together
[1:18:13] in the forecast and planning for the use
[1:18:16] of um reserves versus debt as a funding
[1:18:20] source. And so why this is of principal
[1:18:23] importance is because of the nature of
[1:18:26] the water and wastewater infrastructure.
[1:18:28] The timing of the expenditures are
[1:18:30] required in advance of when development
[1:18:32] would occur and when development would
[1:18:34] pay connection charges or development
[1:18:36] charges. Um and the county would then
[1:18:39] have those revenues available to fund
[1:18:41] those needs. So because expenditures are
[1:18:43] occurring in advance, you're going to um
[1:18:46] naturally have if if you don't have
[1:18:48] additional [clears throat] front-end
[1:18:49] financing assistance from the
[1:18:51] development community, you'd have to
[1:18:53] enter into debt financing arrangements
[1:18:55] to fund those works. So that's fairly
[1:18:56] common across um all municipalities when
[1:18:59] it comes to these types of investments.
[1:19:02] Um and so the
[1:19:06] when we look at um the use of those
[1:19:09] available reserves over the forecast
[1:19:11] period um when you look at that annually
[1:19:13] those reserve funds um are first
[1:19:15] available to fund your annual debt
[1:19:18] financing costs associated with prior
[1:19:20] growth related expenditures. Then if you
[1:19:22] have additional um reserve funds
[1:19:24] available, those can be used to fund uh
[1:19:27] additional capital expenditures that you
[1:19:29] may have uh in any given year. Um that's
[1:19:33] uh that needs to be balanced against
[1:19:34] making sure though that um you're going
[1:19:37] to have sufficient reserve funds in the
[1:19:39] future to continue to honor those debt
[1:19:41] annual debt financing obligations that
[1:19:44] you'd have. Um otherwise you're going to
[1:19:46] have to look to other county financial
[1:19:48] sources such as rate or tax base
[1:19:50] supported reserves to meet those annual
[1:19:53] obligations which um is we're trying to
[1:19:55] avoid.
[1:19:57] Um and so there's obviously that
[1:20:00] knock-on effect of when you issue
[1:20:01] additional debt then it adds to your
[1:20:03] additional financing costs in future
[1:20:05] years. And so this is illustrated in the
[1:20:08] bottom left hand chart. And and so
[1:20:10] what's being shown there in the solid
[1:20:13] stacked bars is the makeup of the
[1:20:17] capital funding sources
[1:20:20] doing debt or transfers from the reserve
[1:20:22] funds in in any given year. And so in
[1:20:24] 2026, for example, we can see about $38
[1:20:27] million in cost. In the dark orange
[1:20:30] section, that is the share of the cost
[1:20:32] that be funded from new debt. And the
[1:20:34] dark blue section is the share that be
[1:20:36] funded from transfers from reserves. uh
[1:20:39] in the hatched bar to the right that's
[1:20:42] what draws would occur from the reserve
[1:20:44] fund in that year. So the there would be
[1:20:46] draws from the reserve equal to the
[1:20:49] amount um being funded directly from
[1:20:51] capital in the dark blue section.
[1:20:54] Then we can see when we look at 2027 is
[1:20:56] now we have in the halfs uh orange
[1:20:58] section we have additional debt
[1:20:59] financing costs associated with the debt
[1:21:01] that was issued in 2026. So an
[1:21:04] additional $1.6 $6 million in annual
[1:21:06] costs that would be incurred and then
[1:21:08] that continues uh in subsequent years um
[1:21:12] such as in um 2028 we have additional $9
[1:21:15] million in debt that then adds to those
[1:21:17] annual financing costs in 2029.
[1:21:21] Uh and so it's this balancing act of
[1:21:23] making sure that there are available
[1:21:25] funds to again meet those annual
[1:21:28] financing costs. As we can see in the
[1:21:29] top chart uh in the years 28 to 32 which
[1:21:33] shows the reserve fund balance we see
[1:21:35] that the reserve fund be completely
[1:21:37] utilized from meeting those uh debt
[1:21:39] financing obligations.
[1:21:42] Uh and as a a summary on on the right
[1:21:44] hand side and and this will be helpful
[1:21:46] for when comparing to the other
[1:21:48] scenarios just showing what the capital
[1:21:51] funding services are over the forecast
[1:21:53] period. Under this base scenario about
[1:21:55] 2/3 of the cost on the top pie chart
[1:21:58] would be funded from debt and about 1/3
[1:22:01] from reserves. And we can see that then
[1:22:03] the a the use of those reserves on an
[1:22:06] annual basis is a fairly even split
[1:22:09] between annual debt financing
[1:22:11] obligations and transfers to reserves
[1:22:13] for future capital needs.
[1:22:17] Um we jump ahead a slide then and look
[1:22:20] at the um the scenario two which is
[1:22:24] looking at having the the development
[1:22:27] charge or connection charge revenues
[1:22:29] that received in the 10-year period
[1:22:31] accelerated to 2027.
[1:22:34] That allows for more uh additional
[1:22:38] revenue to be available for funding
[1:22:40] capital versus having to issue debt. And
[1:22:43] so after assuming that the $31 million
[1:22:45] for the Wellington trunks would still be
[1:22:47] issued in or still be taken on in 2026,
[1:22:51] um the the remaining funds that are
[1:22:54] available for combination of financing
[1:22:56] that debt and any future debt as well as
[1:22:59] transfers to reserves.
[1:23:02] Um and so when we look at those summary
[1:23:04] pie charts on the right hand side again
[1:23:06] we can see now that the um the capital
[1:23:10] funding sources are an fairly even split
[1:23:13] between debt and reserves. So about 50%
[1:23:16] of the cost coming from debt versus 2/3
[1:23:19] in the prior scenario. And we look at
[1:23:21] the uh the annual draws from the
[1:23:24] reserve. Um we can see that uh the debt
[1:23:28] financing costs represent about $25
[1:23:30] million over that forecast period um
[1:23:33] versus about $34 million in the prior
[1:23:35] scenario. So by reducing the amount of
[1:23:37] debt we have that knock on effect of
[1:23:39] less debt financing costs in future
[1:23:42] years which helps me um produce
[1:23:44] additional funds available for
[1:23:47] uh for funding uh future uh capital
[1:23:50] needs as well. [sighs]
[1:23:52] And in the top chart, well, we can see
[1:23:54] the reserve fund being fully depleted
[1:23:55] over that forecast period. Uh this
[1:23:58] acceleration of funding would only be um
[1:24:02] for the 10-year period. So there would
[1:24:03] be additional growth related revenues
[1:24:05] thereafter that would be available to
[1:24:07] fund future debt financing costs and any
[1:24:10] further um growth related expenditures.
[1:24:14] » [gasps]
[1:24:15] » Then lastly on on the next slide
[1:24:18] um when we look at the scenario where if
[1:24:21] um the entirety of the capital program
[1:24:25] was funded um through front-end
[1:24:28] financing assistance from developers
[1:24:31] that would require um the way we sort of
[1:24:34] model that illustratively is that there
[1:24:37] would be these um developer funding
[1:24:39] contributions that would mirror the
[1:24:41] amount and timing of the capital
[1:24:44] expenditures. And so that would be about
[1:24:46] $98 million over that forecast period,
[1:24:49] which translates to about $89 million in
[1:24:51] 2026 values, which is the the number
[1:24:54] referenced in the report.
[1:24:56] Uh and so now we can see in the bottom
[1:24:58] left hand chart the um the transfers
[1:25:01] from reserves um are the same as the
[1:25:04] transfers to capital. So those capital
[1:25:06] needs being fully funded from reserves
[1:25:08] as illustrated on the right hand pie
[1:25:10] charts as well where the entirety of the
[1:25:12] $112 million in growth related uh needs
[1:25:16] would be funded from those reserves
[1:25:18] which have been contributed through
[1:25:19] those front-end financing arrangements
[1:25:22] um which uh mirrors the the money
[1:25:25] command of the reserve in the bottom
[1:25:26] right hand chart.
[1:25:29] So I I hope that sort of helps um
[1:25:33] hopefully sort of proactively address
[1:25:35] some of the questions that might have
[1:25:36] might have been around um how those
[1:25:40] front-end financing scenarios have been
[1:25:42] put together for your um for your
[1:25:44] consideration and sort of just
[1:25:46] illustratively guide the the future
[1:25:47] discussions uh and negotiations with uh
[1:25:50] the development community.
[1:25:54] » Perfect. Thank you very much.
[1:25:57] I think uh are you still got more?
[1:26:01] Okay. Well, I didn't know if we're
[1:26:03] getting into questions yet, so I was
[1:26:04] just
[1:26:05] I know my brain's going, so I was don't
[1:26:07] know how much more, but go ahead.
[1:26:29] uh through the chair. Um so just to
[1:26:31] follow up on Shawn Michaels uh a little
[1:26:33] presentation there, this is the impact
[1:26:35] of the full front end financing. Um so
[1:26:38] this is the strongest model um that
[1:26:41] mitigates uh the county's borrowing
[1:26:43] profile. Um so again, the base strategy
[1:26:45] is is uh $255 million ends up uh at
[1:26:49] 17.4% 4% of our uh own source revenues
[1:26:53] and it results in roughly a DC of 47,000
[1:26:58] under full front-end financing. That's
[1:27:00] the $89 million in today's values. Um
[1:27:03] would be only $180 million that we need
[1:27:05] to uh borrow. Um we'd go down to under
[1:27:09] um uh 15% uh on our ARIRL. Uh and it
[1:27:14] would reduce 33 development charges to
[1:27:17] 33,000. So the potential benefit of
[1:27:20] prepayment or full front end financing
[1:27:22] is significant.
[1:27:27] So this is uh some sensitivity
[1:27:30] assessment um and um Sean Michael from
[1:27:33] Watson can answer some of the detail
[1:27:35] questions around this but um we ran a
[1:27:38] number of different scenarios um with
[1:27:40] the base case. So we have our base case
[1:27:42] um related to debt servicing um but to
[1:27:45] councelor Branderhor's comment about
[1:27:47] what happens if we don't get the growth
[1:27:49] we also forecast 60% of forecast growth
[1:27:53] 40% forecast growth we modeled those or
[1:27:56] Sean Michael did um and then we had a
[1:27:59] what I thought was a really really good
[1:28:01] meeting with Wellington Community Group
[1:28:03] um and uh some of their concerns um one
[1:28:06] of them being uh cap what happens if
[1:28:08] capital costs increase. So uh we had
[1:28:11] Watson model if capital costs increase
[1:28:13] uh by 10% uh as well as 10% or 20%. Uh
[1:28:18] and then we also modeled uh the
[1:28:20] prepayment as well as the full front-end
[1:28:22] financing.
[1:28:27] So are the alternatives financially
[1:28:29] better? um the the the
[1:28:34] regardless of whatever uh scenario is
[1:28:36] chosen um there is significant uh
[1:28:39] funding pressure um debt pressure uh
[1:28:41] rate pressure um so under scenario 2C um
[1:28:46] there is 2.4 4 million more in debt um
[1:28:49] than the base case scenario 2B. Uh
[1:28:51] there's slightly higher forecast water
[1:28:53] rates. Uh the financial difference is
[1:28:56] relatively small small um but it doesn't
[1:28:59] capture the the operation environmental
[1:29:01] and uh servicing considerations uh that
[1:29:04] like the qualitative characteristics
[1:29:06] that were discussed um uh during 41DS
[1:29:09] 412026.
[1:29:11] And under the no growth scenario um we
[1:29:13] also ran this as well. Um uh there's
[1:29:17] some growth infrastructure and borrowing
[1:29:18] avoided. Um no new customers uh are
[1:29:21] added to the shared system. Uh the
[1:29:23] combined bill is around 685 or 25%
[1:29:26] higher than scenario 2B. Uh and it does
[1:29:30] uh does not reflect the county's adopted
[1:29:32] 1% planning assumption uh or the known
[1:29:35] uh development pipeline that we're aware
[1:29:37] of. Uh and I will ask uh Director Lansre
[1:29:41] if she wants to say a few words about
[1:29:42] this slide as well.
[1:29:45] Maybe not. [laughter]
[1:29:47] » I didn't see her run, but she's coming
[1:29:49] up slowly. Uh
[1:29:50] » Through the chair. Uh actually, Director
[1:29:52] McNickel, I was following through my
[1:29:54] notes. He hit on all of the points that
[1:29:56] I had to uh add. So, nothing further to
[1:29:58] add from development services.
[1:29:59] » That's why he gave you the opportunity
[1:30:01] of saying good job, Aaron. [laughter]
[1:30:05] » Well, actually, I thought when you were
[1:30:06] reading that in, I actually thought you
[1:30:07] were touching on those key points, but
[1:30:09] I'm like, well, maybe there's something
[1:30:10] in addition. So, thanks, Crystal.
[1:30:12] [snorts]
[1:30:12] » [clears throat]
[1:30:13] » Um okay, next slide is what are the key
[1:30:15] financial risks? Um the uh the overall
[1:30:18] strategy doesn't eliminate the financial
[1:30:19] risks uh but it gives us a framework to
[1:30:22] see it to manage it and make better
[1:30:24] decisions uh before they become
[1:30:26] commitments. Uh so I identified about
[1:30:29] six different risks not all the risks
[1:30:32] but six different risks within the
[1:30:33] report. Um debt capacity is certainly
[1:30:36] one risk and that is over several years
[1:30:38] we go above our policy of 15%. Um so
[1:30:42] some of the mitigating factors would be
[1:30:44] again getting developer financing
[1:30:46] prepayments always looking for grants
[1:30:48] because grants has the opportunity to
[1:30:50] reduce um the rates increasing uh as
[1:30:54] well as the the the development side uh
[1:30:57] and as well as the capital timing. Uh
[1:31:00] growth in timing is another um uh risk
[1:31:03] that we discussed earlier. Um so some of
[1:31:05] the mitigations are to monitor actual
[1:31:07] collections, stage the capital and again
[1:31:09] we're back to uh negotiating uh some
[1:31:12] developer funding to to utilize.
[1:31:15] Next risk is uh really is reserves and
[1:31:17] asset management. Um and that is as I
[1:31:20] spoke earlier about the um not having
[1:31:23] debt built in for the other service
[1:31:24] areas in our asset management plan. Um
[1:31:27] so this is to uh incorporate uh some of
[1:31:30] these items within the updated asset
[1:31:32] management plan and look at some of the
[1:31:33] life cycle costs associated with it. Um
[1:31:36] capital cost is another um risk. Um and
[1:31:40] uh we modeled that over a 10 and 20%
[1:31:42] increase. Um this is just keeping track
[1:31:45] of that refreshing estimates and
[1:31:47] contingencies before major commitments.
[1:31:49] Um, we now have a purchasing policy that
[1:31:52] was passed by council um that sort of
[1:31:54] mitigates the potential for overages on
[1:31:57] some of the uh some of the contracts
[1:31:59] that we have. Uh rate affordability is
[1:32:02] is another risk. um this is um to
[1:32:05] mitigate that we're going to constantly
[1:32:07] look for different grant opportunities
[1:32:09] which will have a potential to reduce
[1:32:11] the actual increase um over a number of
[1:32:14] years uh as well as look at the funding
[1:32:16] risk and uh and then financing
[1:32:18] availability is is another risk and
[1:32:21] that's why um we're seeking council's um
[1:32:24] approval to go out and talk to IO and
[1:32:26] the Canada Infrastructure Bank and some
[1:32:28] of the banks because this is a lot of
[1:32:30] money and I know the process I'm going
[1:32:32] through to get $31 million that council
[1:32:35] passed uh uh a few months back. So
[1:32:38] really it's to make sure that we are in
[1:32:39] a position where there will be an
[1:32:41] institution that will lend to Prince
[1:32:43] Edward County. Uh so that is to have
[1:32:46] those discussions and again um there is
[1:32:49] a there is a way where each each
[1:32:51] different institution will have um
[1:32:54] different interest rates, different
[1:32:56] programs, different um repayment uh
[1:32:59] flexibility. So that could be a key in
[1:33:02] some of those negotiations as well.
[1:33:07] So what happens after the endorsement um
[1:33:11] uh public engagement um that was
[1:33:13] identified earlier by council with the
[1:33:15] scenario 2B uh financial strategy um
[1:33:18] meet with developers and go through
[1:33:19] negotiations regarding prepayment um uh
[1:33:22] front-end financing um continue on and
[1:33:25] complete some of the supporting studies
[1:33:27] I had mentioned that were sort of on
[1:33:28] hold. We're doing modeling right now uh
[1:33:31] with our underground infrastructure and
[1:33:33] our uh belowground infrastructure, the
[1:33:35] roads and and water wastewater. Um so
[1:33:38] we'd like to continue on with that. That
[1:33:40] will be a key input to the water
[1:33:42] wastewater rate study as well as the DC
[1:33:44] background study.
[1:33:46] um financing discussions that is again
[1:33:49] having discussions with uh
[1:33:50] Infrastructure Ontario, some of the
[1:33:51] banks and Canada Infrastructure Bank. Um
[1:33:55] uh approval to move forward with our
[1:33:57] asset management plan and update some of
[1:33:59] the the costs associated with that. Uh
[1:34:02] and then future approvals which uh this
[1:34:05] ties into budgets, projects, borrowway
[1:34:07] agreements and and so forth. So actual
[1:34:10] project timing, procurement, cash flow,
[1:34:12] financing, retirement requirements will
[1:34:15] continue as refined with as the capital
[1:34:17] program advances.
[1:34:23] So when would the county actually
[1:34:24] borrow? Uh so financing would follow the
[1:34:27] actual project cash flow um after
[1:34:30] available funding sources have been
[1:34:31] applied. So there would be project
[1:34:32] approval uh construction capital uh cash
[1:34:35] flow grants reserves growth construction
[1:34:38] financing as as and then on do a
[1:34:40] long-term debenture uh which is another
[1:34:43] reason why we should engage with our
[1:34:45] lenders. Now I think I think it's table
[1:34:47] three which identifies uh when the
[1:34:50] projects are going to carry on and I
[1:34:52] think the two uh first two big projects
[1:34:54] is the uh the water treatment plant and
[1:34:56] the wastewater treatment plant in
[1:34:58] Wellington and I think if I remember
[1:35:00] correctly was 2026 to 2020 2030 and then
[1:35:03] there's some more infrastructure
[1:35:04] projects that that start in uh 2028. So,
[1:35:08] uh, staff would be coming forward likely
[1:35:10] early, uh, 2027. Uh, through the regular
[1:35:13] process to council, uh, to to get a
[1:35:16] construction loan for, um, those two
[1:35:19] particular projects. Those two projects
[1:35:21] we do have grant funding for, uh, and we
[1:35:23] would be looking for grant funding, um,
[1:35:25] for the projects after 2028. Uh but
[1:35:28] again that would be coming forward
[1:35:30] during in with the regular approval
[1:35:32] process that uh with with the with a new
[1:35:34] council and again individual boring
[1:35:37] approvals as I mentioned will still
[1:35:39] return to council as required
[1:35:41] uh and then engaging the lenders uh
[1:35:43] right now I think is extremely important
[1:35:45] to get uh everything in place.
[1:35:51] So this is um financial strategy in one
[1:35:53] slide. Um uh this is a significant
[1:35:56] amount of debt, a significant amount of
[1:35:59] capital and um a significant amount of
[1:36:02] increases on our rates. Um are they
[1:36:05] manageable? Um I think they are
[1:36:07] manageable moving forward. Um
[1:36:11] um and it is possible to mitigate some
[1:36:14] of the rates through grants and it is
[1:36:17] possible to mitigate um uh some of the
[1:36:19] debt uh through pre uh payment
[1:36:22] agreements as well as uh front end
[1:36:24] financing
[1:36:26] and overall um it certainly I'm a fiscal
[1:36:30] conservative and and certainly this
[1:36:32] amount of debt and the increase in rates
[1:36:34] um makes me uncomfortable but at the
[1:36:37] same time given that this is the the
[1:36:39] sort of the best case scenario. I think
[1:36:42] it is manageable through applying for
[1:36:45] grants. Um utilizing um upfront
[1:36:49] financing and managing the process as we
[1:36:52] move forward. Um so overall sort of
[1:36:55] scary numbers but uh I do think if
[1:36:58] properly managed uh it could it could
[1:37:00] work. Uh so again this is a recommended
[1:37:03] approach uh to endorse the financial
[1:37:05] framework maintain that guardrail of 15%
[1:37:08] um carry on with some of our our major
[1:37:11] plans and infrastructure studies um
[1:37:14] pursue developer financing um and then
[1:37:17] bring all of these future projects back
[1:37:19] to council for approval as well as the
[1:37:21] debt approval. Um with that that is all
[1:37:25] 18 slides. Thank you.
[1:37:28] » Thank you Director McNichol. Not seeing
[1:37:30] any hand. No, just I'm gonna start over
[1:37:33] there and we'll just work around. So,
[1:37:36] Council McNotton, you can start.
[1:37:38] » Thank you for round one. So, uh, thank
[1:37:41] you for this. Thank you all for this. Um
[1:37:45] it's a struggle to wrap your head around
[1:37:47] the financial implications and I thank
[1:37:50] you for trying to make it as clear as
[1:37:51] possible and I'm still sort of
[1:37:53] struggling to uh understand the risks
[1:37:57] [clears throat] and I understand based
[1:37:59] on the report the risk scenarios look
[1:38:01] this is the best scenario that we're
[1:38:03] looking at based on the risk to the
[1:38:05] rateayers of which I am one um
[1:38:09] and looking at you know my uh uh water
[1:38:14] bill, water waste water bills increasing
[1:38:16] over uh a relatively short period of
[1:38:19] time. Uh that much is concerning. Um I
[1:38:23] understand what you're saying about how
[1:38:24] [clears throat] to mitigate some of that
[1:38:26] impact on uh rateayers. Um and I am
[1:38:31] hopeful uh depending on the scenario we
[1:38:34] choose or the direction that we choose
[1:38:36] that there will be opportunities to do
[1:38:38] that. One thing I want to say right here
[1:38:39] at the outset is if we are going to be
[1:38:42] looking at such steep uh such steep
[1:38:45] increases to uh for rateayers. Um I I
[1:38:51] don't know how likely grants will be for
[1:38:54] just rate mitigation itself and I very
[1:38:57] much hope that there are possibilities
[1:38:59] to to receive more grants. We do have a
[1:39:02] couple in the pocket. Um, but I think
[1:39:05] we'll need to be looking at how we and
[1:39:08] and perhaps this needs to be factored
[1:39:10] into the rate study when it moves
[1:39:13] forward. Um, I think we are going to be
[1:39:16] needing to consider our lower income
[1:39:18] households even more on an even more
[1:39:21] concentrated manner than we currently do
[1:39:23] with our um with our relief program
[1:39:27] because I do see that there is potential
[1:39:29] risk for individual um for individual uh
[1:39:33] households to be put at more risk of
[1:39:37] disconnection um more risk of uh sinking
[1:39:40] into debt based on a necessary service
[1:39:43] that we have to provide and that they
[1:39:45] have to be able to access to ensure that
[1:39:47] their kids are watered or they
[1:39:49] themselves or you know uh or or am
[1:39:53] washed and um safe. So I just want to
[1:39:57] just make it just put an asterisk next
[1:40:00] to that as we go forward. I don't want
[1:40:02] to forget people that are going to be
[1:40:04] left uh sinking into deeper risk. we
[1:40:07] already have a lot of people in a rears
[1:40:09] um and we do have people who receive
[1:40:11] disconnection notices every single
[1:40:12] month. So I think we need to consider
[1:40:14] them and I know that your department
[1:40:16] does um I just want to you know have
[1:40:19] that asterisk. Um I also want to um wrap
[1:40:24] around my my head around the scenarios
[1:40:25] as presented uh back when we received
[1:40:29] them in June and again uh today which is
[1:40:34] the construction risks of potentially
[1:40:38] and in the light of recent experiences
[1:40:42] that we've had in this municipality
[1:40:43] where we had cost overruns for um for
[1:40:47] extensions
[1:40:48] uh or uh for the
[1:40:51] the um new infrastructure along the
[1:40:55] trail, the cost overruns and the risks
[1:40:58] that that project uh that we were
[1:41:01] blindsided by I think needs to be needs
[1:41:04] to inform anything we do to move forward
[1:41:07] because uh one of the things that was
[1:41:09] cited in the June report and I don't
[1:41:11] remember it from this report is the
[1:41:12] potential for it was the scenarios all
[1:41:15] had a risk of construction cost at being
[1:41:20] uh the range was like plus 50% or to
[1:41:24] minus 30% or something to that effect.
[1:41:28] That is a very uh large range and it is
[1:41:33] uh that in itself the risk that that
[1:41:35] poses uh could serve to create some
[1:41:40] untenable uh impacts on the budget
[1:41:43] itself. Um so I just I wanted to sort of
[1:41:48] think about that h how will that be
[1:41:51] included in the financial strategy going
[1:41:53] forward the the construction risk
[1:41:55] itself? Are there insurance
[1:41:58] um are there types of insurance that we
[1:41:59] can um that we can access to ensure the
[1:42:04] construction processes themselves for
[1:42:07] unknowns? I don't know. I'm just trying
[1:42:09] to think of how some of those risks get
[1:42:12] uh are mitigated. Um so I'll get to a
[1:42:15] question. I have several um but just
[1:42:19] this one for this round one is this
[1:42:22] first one is are there ways to lock in a
[1:42:26] as you're meeting with um with lenders
[1:42:29] are there ways to lock in interest rates
[1:42:32] as I as I think the the interest rate
[1:42:37] fluctuation depending on when you
[1:42:39] convert to debentures becomes a risk
[1:42:42] unto itself as well. And I don't want to
[1:42:44] find us in a scenario where uh we've
[1:42:47] that we've been in before which is
[1:42:49] suddenly you're looking at you have to
[1:42:51] move something over into long-term into
[1:42:53] a debenture and you're not prepared to
[1:42:55] and the interest rates are unfavorable.
[1:42:57] So um even if it's only a temporary
[1:42:59] fluctuation, you know, there's sometimes
[1:43:02] not the luxury of time to be able to sit
[1:43:04] on it until the rates are more
[1:43:05] favorable. So are there opportunities to
[1:43:08] lock in? Um and uh also uh so that is my
[1:43:13] main question. This was such a common
[1:43:16] scenario at AMO we that again it comes
[1:43:19] up in this meeting. Um at AMO it was the
[1:43:21] talk of the town and I heard from a lot
[1:43:24] of municipalities in the same boat. It's
[1:43:26] it's a lot.
[1:43:27] » Okay.
[1:43:28] » Um
[1:43:28] » Director McNichol
[1:43:31] in summary. She wants to know if there's
[1:43:32] a way we can lock interest rates in
[1:43:35] » Through the chair. Yes. For a certain
[1:43:36] period of time. Absolutely. And um
[1:43:39] interest rate risk is real and I didn't
[1:43:41] include it. Um you know Jane Lesley uh
[1:43:44] vice chair of the audit committee and I
[1:43:45] had a had a big discussion about this
[1:43:47] the other day at the committee. Um I
[1:43:49] would bring it forward in the interest
[1:43:51] rate risk and how to mitigate it um with
[1:43:54] the actual u report related to the
[1:43:56] debenture. Um but certainly each
[1:43:58] different lender whether or not it's IO
[1:44:00] or a bank or Canada infrastructure bank
[1:44:02] would hold a rate for a certain period
[1:44:03] of time. I can't give you that that
[1:44:05] amount of time. um but we would hold it
[1:44:08] and then in terms of once we get a
[1:44:10] construction loan um that ro that that
[1:44:13] rate would change and fluctuate through
[1:44:16] the length of the project. So um for
[1:44:18] example water wastewater uh plant in
[1:44:20] Wellington um if it was a fiveyear long
[1:44:24] plan there would be risk associated with
[1:44:26] that um if interest rates did rise. Um
[1:44:30] so certainly is something that we would
[1:44:32] mitigate moving forward and they would
[1:44:33] hold the rate um for a certain period of
[1:44:35] time and then the rate would fluctuate
[1:44:37] as the project continues on.
[1:44:40] » Thank you. Uh going around councelor
[1:44:43] Sanjene did you have anything this
[1:44:44] round? No. Councelor Bry.
[1:44:47] » Yeah. Thank you, Chair Prinsen. Um,
[1:44:50] I'm not going to ask any questions. I
[1:44:53] There's there's nothing that's going to
[1:44:56] compel me to approve this at this point
[1:44:59] in time. Uh, you said it yourself,
[1:45:02] Director Man. I rely on your your
[1:45:04] honesty and trust with that. And you
[1:45:05] said this makes you very uncomfortable.
[1:45:08] It makes me extremely uncomfortable.
[1:45:11] Not due to the fact that look at what
[1:45:13] we're dealing with. not only proincially
[1:45:15] but what we're dealing with in North
[1:45:17] America and globally. This is this is
[1:45:19] not the time for
[1:45:23] us to even endorse or make any any any
[1:45:26] anything close to an investment on this.
[1:45:29] We just went through a trunk line in
[1:45:31] Wellington to a development to nowhere.
[1:45:34] Um it it
[1:45:37] county residents are fatigued. I'm
[1:45:39] hearing this all the time. they're tired
[1:45:41] of the kind of spending that uh we're
[1:45:44] going through. We don't have we don't
[1:45:47] have the means or capacity to do it. And
[1:45:49] I think we really need to focus on
[1:45:52] what's ahead of us, what's going on uh
[1:45:55] around us right now. I think we're in
[1:45:59] I've been predicting this for for quite
[1:46:00] a while and it's my predictions are
[1:46:03] coming true. We are in a very perilous
[1:46:08] scenario that we need to be very careful
[1:46:10] and cognizant of. If this was my money,
[1:46:13] I would not make this uh investment at
[1:46:15] this point in time at all. I also think
[1:46:18] that I don't I'm also trying to be
[1:46:22] respectful of a new council. I I do not
[1:46:24] want to hold a new council hostage with
[1:46:27] a decision like this until they've had a
[1:46:29] chance to weigh in on it. I think we're
[1:46:31] in that stage now. We're a bit of a de
[1:46:33] facto council. I think we've we've heard
[1:46:36] that. I I I don't see that there's any
[1:46:38] rush to do this and I think we can wait.
[1:46:40] I don't uh I will not endorse this just
[1:46:43] due to those scenarios. Um it's uh it
[1:46:47] does not make any sense um to me at all
[1:46:49] to uh to move forward with this.
[1:46:52] » Thank you, Councelor Brainy. Uh
[1:46:53] councelor Hirs.
[1:46:54] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately,
[1:46:57] uncomfortable as it is, as Crystal
[1:47:00] mentioned uh briefly in her
[1:47:02] presentation, we do have legal
[1:47:04] responsibility to provide services for
[1:47:07] the growth that is that developers are
[1:47:09] coming at us with. So, you have to find
[1:47:11] a way to do it. I think Erin, you've you
[1:47:14] put together a very thorough
[1:47:17] plan, very thorough roadmap. It seems to
[1:47:20] me it's covered every base I can think
[1:47:22] of. uh and both the threats and the and
[1:47:26] the opportunities
[1:47:28] uh the big opportunity being um to get
[1:47:31] front-end payments from uh from the
[1:47:33] developers. In our discussions with them
[1:47:36] over the last few years, all of the
[1:47:37] major developers have indicated a
[1:47:39] willingness to to do frontending.
[1:47:43] But I have a question about timing and
[1:47:45] this might be more for for Crystal. At
[1:47:47] what point in a development application
[1:47:50] can we uh start that conversation with
[1:47:53] the developer about about front ending?
[1:47:56] As I recall back in 2021 when we did the
[1:47:58] the uh the Caitlin agreements
[1:48:01] um they had draft plan approval
[1:48:06] and we were wanting to we were at the
[1:48:09] point of issuing uh tenders for the
[1:48:12] pipes and and so on in Wellington. And
[1:48:14] that agreement was based on the number
[1:48:16] of units that they were planning to
[1:48:18] build and had a condition that we did
[1:48:22] actually issue tenders for those
[1:48:23] projects. And that was the hold up in
[1:48:25] the in the actual check because we
[1:48:28] hadn't issued those tenders. So at what
[1:48:31] point in the process would we would we
[1:48:33] see the ability to to get those
[1:48:35] agreements from base 31 from from Port
[1:48:39] and so on?
[1:48:43] uh
[1:48:45] they do come from different pieces of
[1:48:47] legislation and potentially Sean Michael
[1:48:49] may have some insight into this as well
[1:48:51] and he is on the line. Uh but uh from my
[1:48:54] perspective I'm unsure whether we tied
[1:48:56] those together uh to ensure that
[1:49:00] developers continue to move forward uh
[1:49:02] because you often will put pieces of
[1:49:05] that into agreement. So whether we tied
[1:49:07] to the draft plan specifically because
[1:49:08] we wanted to make sure they moved
[1:49:10] together in that order uh or whether we
[1:49:12] did it because we have to uh from my
[1:49:14] perspective I'm not entirely sure
[1:49:16] because they do come from two different
[1:49:17] pieces of legislation. Uh whether they
[1:49:19] need to be a certain way through uh the
[1:49:22] line or whether uh council is allowed to
[1:49:25] authorize those pre and prepayment
[1:49:27] agreements knowing that development will
[1:49:29] be coming down the line. Uh also looks
[1:49:31] like Miss Director McNichol would like
[1:49:34] to speak as well.
[1:49:36] I was just concur going to concur that
[1:49:38] maybe Shawn Michael would have a comment
[1:49:39] on that.
[1:49:40] » Sean Michael, any comments?
[1:49:43] You're on mute. Thanks.
[1:49:47] » Um, yeah, I apologize. I was having a
[1:49:49] little bit of trouble hearing the
[1:49:51] entirety of the question, but if I if
[1:49:52] I'm understanding correctly about some
[1:49:54] of the the timing options around when um
[1:49:58] prepayment or other associated frontend
[1:50:00] financing agreements could be entered
[1:50:02] into.
[1:50:03] » That's That's correct.
[1:50:04] » That's right.
[1:50:06] Yeah. So it it it would re it really um
[1:50:09] depends. So the um certainly through um
[1:50:15] subdivision or the development
[1:50:16] agreements of for development
[1:50:17] developments
[1:50:19] that are actively coming through the the
[1:50:21] approvals process is an opportunity. Um
[1:50:25] but in addition to that there are um
[1:50:27] other opportunities with respect to um
[1:50:32] situations where um different land
[1:50:35] owners may form a um a larger developer
[1:50:39] group that that have um similar
[1:50:42] interests around making sure this
[1:50:44] infrastructure is in place to facilitate
[1:50:46] their developments. uh and entering into
[1:50:49] other specific um agreements that would
[1:50:53] relate to you know the specific timing
[1:50:56] of when um front-end financing would be
[1:51:00] or prepayments would be contributed and
[1:51:02] the mechanisms for how they would be um
[1:51:05] how they would be reconciled and how
[1:51:06] they'd be made whole in terms of the um
[1:51:09] the timing of the development and and
[1:51:11] the interests of of the different
[1:51:12] groups. So, um it could be done again
[1:51:15] individually or it could be done with
[1:51:16] with a larger um consortium if they're
[1:51:19] um if on their end there that that's an
[1:51:21] interest um of them to work together in
[1:51:24] that fashion.
[1:51:27] » Thank you. Crystal, did you have a
[1:51:29] comment?
[1:51:29] » Sure. Through the chair, I just wanted
[1:51:31] to to highlight if if the question is
[1:51:33] because you're concerned whether our
[1:51:34] only opportunity is those that are in
[1:51:36] the development approval process and are
[1:51:39] available for servicing allocation. I
[1:51:41] don't believe that's the case. I think
[1:51:43] we have more opportunities based off of
[1:51:45] whichever developments are within the
[1:51:47] municipality and are willing to enter
[1:51:49] into those agreements with us.
[1:51:51] » Well, that thank you. And just as a
[1:51:52] followup, that's very encouraging
[1:51:54] because you're right, there are certain
[1:51:56] things that we know, but there's other
[1:51:57] things that we we don't have detail on
[1:51:59] yet. And uh just to Shawn Michael's
[1:52:02] point, we do have in fact a developer
[1:52:04] group which is interested in us
[1:52:06] proceeding with the infrastructure and
[1:52:08] again they have all indicated a
[1:52:10] willingness to do this. So uh back to
[1:52:13] Erin I guess and does that mean it's the
[1:52:15] sooner we go at them the better to make
[1:52:18] to to try to reach these agreements so
[1:52:21] that we have some certainty and the
[1:52:22] corollery to that is um are they seems
[1:52:26] to me they're more they are more likely
[1:52:28] they are more likely to be prepared to
[1:52:31] sign on the dotted line for for
[1:52:33] prepayment or or or the full front
[1:52:35] ending if they see that we are actually
[1:52:39] formally proceeding down the line, which
[1:52:41] is what you're asking us to do now, was
[1:52:44] to endorse this road map. So, if they
[1:52:46] see this road map that council approves,
[1:52:50] they're going to be more inclined to
[1:52:51] make those agreements. Does that make
[1:52:53] sense?
[1:52:55] » Uh, through the chair. Absolutely.
[1:52:56] That's right. And that's why we include
[1:52:58] it as a recommendation within the actual
[1:53:00] report so we would act quickly and
[1:53:02] swiftly. Yes.
[1:53:04] » Thank you. Thank you, councelor Maynard.
[1:53:07] » Um, thank you. This is really difficult
[1:53:10] for me because it uh it it brings up um
[1:53:16] some things about water that I I have
[1:53:20] tried over the years to uh to put aside
[1:53:23] but I cannot in good conscience support
[1:53:26] something like this when a uh you know
[1:53:30] when and I'll say you know the consequ
[1:53:33] we started in the early 1990s right and
[1:53:35] I think by 94 95 it was it was complete
[1:53:38] and Yes, for the village of Kicon there
[1:53:41] was a substantial grant but there was no
[1:53:43] grant for carrying place, nothing along
[1:53:45] the highway, nothing to oversize the pi
[1:53:48] pipes. We on our own I think we had I
[1:53:51] think it was RV Anderson. We might have
[1:53:54] had uh somebody from the county and a
[1:53:56] few citizen reps and and uh took it to
[1:53:59] the people and we decided we oversized
[1:54:02] that pipe because we knew that the
[1:54:03] growth would happen and we had a good
[1:54:05] supply a good uh supply of um water from
[1:54:10] Quinny West. Um would have been nice if
[1:54:13] that Youngs Cove had have come along
[1:54:14] when you know in the in that 10-year
[1:54:16] period but that we thought but it
[1:54:18] didn't. So, we all paid a connection fee
[1:54:24] individually upfront. So, and those that
[1:54:28] um
[1:54:31] five to it was in that $5 to $6,000
[1:54:34] range. And so, some of us could, you
[1:54:37] know, grab the money together. The
[1:54:40] people that didn't, they took out their
[1:54:42] own damn personal loan so that they
[1:54:44] could uh so that they could fund their,
[1:54:47] you know, so it might have taken them 10
[1:54:49] years to do it. We had a good agreement
[1:54:52] with Quinny West. We still do. We
[1:54:54] oversized the pipes. They're, you know,
[1:54:56] they're going to last a good long time.
[1:54:58] And we came to this party with a reserve
[1:55:00] and knowing that we were going to we
[1:55:03] were going to have more development like
[1:55:05] look what's happened and know that
[1:55:07] entire area what we've collected that we
[1:55:09] would be self-sufficient
[1:55:11] and now I have to after all these years
[1:55:14] because it's still a sore point go back
[1:55:17] and tell my constituents
[1:55:19] and my water users my neighbors that
[1:55:22] what we did now we are we have to pick
[1:55:27] we have to pick up for what was not done
[1:55:30] in uh in other communities. So, if
[1:55:32] developers want to build the houses,
[1:55:35] then they're going to have to pay in my
[1:55:38] opinion. Like, it's got to be an
[1:55:39] upfront. Why would it be any different
[1:55:41] than what we had to do?
[1:55:44] I mean, ours was a little less
[1:55:46] speculative even than this, right? But
[1:55:48] we weren't sure what was going to happen
[1:55:49] like when we spent a lot of extra money
[1:55:51] to put a different type of pipe and a
[1:55:54] bigger pipe. I don't know, Adam, you
[1:55:56] probably heard those conversations going
[1:55:58] on at that time. And uh it like even
[1:56:02] when we got to the point of
[1:56:03] amalgamation,
[1:56:05] we had and it sat there for a long time.
[1:56:08] You know, we had a reserve because we
[1:56:09] knew the water tower would need to be
[1:56:11] painted. I don't know what it was, but I
[1:56:13] mean, it was more than enough to paint
[1:56:14] the water. And you know, Quinny West
[1:56:17] come out and did our service. Not that I
[1:56:19] have anything against our our staff
[1:56:20] doing it, but I mean it was it was
[1:56:23] really a self-sufficient
[1:56:26] system running a long distance. We don't
[1:56:29] have sewer, but uh so my opinion now is
[1:56:33] if if developers or people want to have
[1:56:36] the water, then I think that it should
[1:56:38] we should find a a template like what we
[1:56:43] did in Conse. You want the you want the
[1:56:45] service, show me the money. and they pay
[1:56:49] upfront if it why should we go get the
[1:56:52] loan? They should go get the loan.
[1:56:55] And if and if and if we can't get enough
[1:56:58] and that's what we had if we couldn't
[1:57:00] get enough to buy in then we weren't
[1:57:01] going to have the water. We had to get
[1:57:04] and that was part of it. We had to get
[1:57:06] the buy in from those from other people
[1:57:09] outside of the you know the ones that
[1:57:11] got a little more of the grant to to buy
[1:57:14] into that and Gary Rep bought in
[1:57:18] and uh you know that Elizabeth Drive
[1:57:21] they bought in all those areas and uh
[1:57:25] it's it's not fair and I just cannot and
[1:57:29] when I even now when I pull up the
[1:57:30] numbers like you know what they're
[1:57:31] paying for water in Quinny West and
[1:57:33] Valvo like It's not, you know,
[1:57:37] » Okay,
[1:57:37] » It's it's just not fair and I and I
[1:57:39] can't support it and I think we need to
[1:57:41] find a different financing mechanism or
[1:57:43] a different way of allocating or both.
[1:57:45] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:57:47] » I don't think there was a question in
[1:57:48] there that I heard.
[1:57:50] » No, I'm it's fine. I just want to make
[1:57:51] sure I get all questions answered.
[1:57:54] » Uh, councelor Engleser, do you have
[1:57:56] » Asked after?
[1:57:58] » Sure. Uh, yeah. One question I'd like to
[1:58:00] ask um on the on the nearly 90 million
[1:58:02] in in upfront financing that's
[1:58:05] identified in the report
[1:58:07] realistically is that funding actually
[1:58:10] even achievable um and if so what would
[1:58:13] it take to have that committed be in an
[1:58:15] agreement in an agreement before we even
[1:58:18] proceed with any endorsement because I
[1:58:20] think we need to know whether it's a
[1:58:21] realistic source of funding or just an
[1:58:23] assumption in the financial model before
[1:58:26] we even endorse any plan. So just your
[1:58:29] comment on that maybe
[1:58:32] » Uh through the chair. So I think that is
[1:58:33] the intent is to have council sort of
[1:58:35] give us the go-ahhead to go and talk to
[1:58:37] the developers and I think um I think
[1:58:40] it's hard to say whether or not it is
[1:58:41] realistic. Um um but there is a group of
[1:58:44] developers that certainly that is the
[1:58:46] ceiling which is the $89 million um to
[1:58:49] eliminate the $75 million in growth
[1:58:52] related debt in its entirety. So um s
[1:58:55] and certainly we would want to have that
[1:58:57] in place um prior to some of the
[1:59:00] construction that would move on. So we
[1:59:01] have three or four months I believe
[1:59:03] before um we would be coming back to
[1:59:06] council and when construction would
[1:59:08] start on the water wastewater uh to
[1:59:10] facilities but the that would probably
[1:59:13] have to be um the staging of that
[1:59:15] probably development service can speak
[1:59:17] to but certainly we'll move as quickly
[1:59:18] as possible to try to get this in into
[1:59:20] place before anything occurs so that we
[1:59:22] can see whether or not we can reduce
[1:59:24] financial risk from here to here. So at
[1:59:27] that meeting in June, the last motion, I
[1:59:29] think we already gave direction to go do
[1:59:31] that. So has any of that work happened
[1:59:32] yet? That was in the motion to go talk
[1:59:34] to the development community.
[1:59:37] » I don't believe it has.
[1:59:40] » So through the chair, uh, no, we haven't
[1:59:43] touched base with the developers other
[1:59:45] than our typical conversations that we
[1:59:48] have, which is again trying to make sure
[1:59:50] that they're up to speed in terms of
[1:59:52] what we're doing with this review, what
[1:59:54] we're bringing to council. Uh the main
[1:59:56] purpose of that is we needed to have
[1:59:58] information to be able to make the
[2:00:00] conversation make sense with them. And
[2:00:01] uh based on the tight timeline that we
[2:00:03] had of getting this in front of
[2:00:06] committee for August, uh we we didn't
[2:00:08] have that available until within the
[2:00:10] last week or so if I'm being completely
[2:00:12] frank. So we didn't have the ability to
[2:00:14] have those conversations with them,
[2:00:15] which is why we've reiterated again in
[2:00:17] this uh motion.
[2:00:19] » Okay. I just I don't know how in good
[2:00:21] faith we can put this level of debt and
[2:00:23] rate increases on the residents when so
[2:00:26] much of the strategy depends on future
[2:00:29] growth and funding uh that we don't
[2:00:31] have. Um I think we have a
[2:00:33] responsibility to plan, but we don't
[2:00:35] have to endorse a financial strategy
[2:00:37] that we don't believe is affordable or
[2:00:39] risktested. We're kind of in a lamed up
[2:00:42] period right now. So I don't want to
[2:00:43] lock a council into a decision today. I
[2:00:46] think we do some more work um test the
[2:00:49] assumptions but uh it's time for the I
[2:00:52] personally I think it's time for the
[2:00:53] development community to put their money
[2:00:54] where their mouth is. They keep coming
[2:00:56] here and saying that they want to enter
[2:00:57] into something. Uh we haven't seen it
[2:00:59] yet. I think that has to happen before
[2:01:01] we even discuss anything further. So
[2:01:05] » Thank you councelor Engleser. Councelor
[2:01:08] Roberts you're next in line if you have
[2:01:09] something. Yeah, just just a comment. I
[2:01:12] guess I my understanding is that um
[2:01:16] infrastructure Ontario and building the
[2:01:19] building building Ontario fund and uh
[2:01:21] the Canada Infrastructure Bank
[2:01:24] do provide fixedterm interest rate uh
[2:01:29] financial arrangements depending
[2:01:31] something between five and 30 years
[2:01:33] actually uh depending on the uh uh
[2:01:37] useful life of the ass capital asset
[2:01:39] under consideration. So just that's
[2:01:42] there. Um, and obviously that's at a
[2:01:46] lower interest rate than the commercial
[2:01:47] banks. Uh, although I wouldn't mind my
[2:01:50] RBC account interest rate. I could go
[2:01:53] there. Um, and I think that's really
[2:01:56] what you're asking to explore. Uh, Aaron
[2:02:00] and Crystal is what is the feasibility?
[2:02:04] um
[2:02:05] uh
[2:02:08] you know get the facts and then allow
[2:02:10] the facts and the feasibility results to
[2:02:12] determine the decisions that we
[2:02:14] ultimately make. I that's that's the
[2:02:16] sense of what your time here is trying
[2:02:19] to tell us, isn't it? That you want you
[2:02:21] if you know better, you do better. And
[2:02:23] that's what you're trying to get us to.
[2:02:26] And
[2:02:28] I think many folks remember the fiasco
[2:02:33] uh of the Pikton water uh development
[2:02:37] and upgrade
[2:02:39] some time ago where if ever the adage
[2:02:43] time is money
[2:02:45] uh came into play that ended up costing
[2:02:48] a lot more money because of the delay
[2:02:50] involved. So this
[2:02:58] Okay, councelor Nyman, do you have
[2:03:00] something?
[2:03:02] » Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I'll ask
[2:03:04] questions.
[2:03:05] » [clears throat]
[2:03:05] » I'm going to ask the questions, but I'm
[2:03:07] not supporting this on ways because I
[2:03:08] think
[2:03:10] a while back council said they're
[2:03:12] they're just not comfortable putting
[2:03:14] this kind of money for new plants, new
[2:03:16] infrastructure because we don't believe
[2:03:19] and and the numbers that I'm seeing, I
[2:03:21] still don't believe that we're having
[2:03:23] that kind of growth. It's just not going
[2:03:25] to happen. U and 150 homes a year. So
[2:03:31] the the first question is how many homes
[2:03:33] have we built in the last year and how
[2:03:36] many of those homes were in serviced
[2:03:38] areas?
[2:03:40] That's the question we need to know and
[2:03:42] we ask it every time. So today's the day
[2:03:45] to get that answer.
[2:03:47] » Anybody on staff have uh have an answer
[2:03:52] » Uh through the chair? I do not have that
[2:03:54] off the top of my head. However, I can
[2:03:56] get that information and provide it.
[2:03:57] » Thank you.
[2:03:59] So, we need that answer because I'm
[2:04:02] pretty sure there hasn't been too many
[2:04:04] homes built in the service area. So,
[2:04:07] it's nowhere near 150 homes
[2:04:11] and the state of the economy right now
[2:04:15] and the way things are going.
[2:04:18] People were buying houses
[2:04:20] uh through the CO era when they were
[2:04:24] down a bit. Now they're getting that u
[2:04:27] the interest rates are going to be a
[2:04:29] flood of homes coming on the market due
[2:04:32] to people can't afford them. So and then
[2:04:36] we're still saying we're going to have
[2:04:37] 150 homes to be built. So I I just don't
[2:04:42] think that we're at that point right
[2:04:45] now.
[2:04:46] But I want to know uh there's a couple
[2:04:50] questions if I if I could.
[2:04:51] » Yeah. I just I just uh Googled and we've
[2:04:54] had 96 permits in uh 2025, but I don't
[2:04:57] know how many were in each area for new
[2:04:59] homes. Uh 75 single detached and 21
[2:05:02] secondary suites, but that's that that's
[2:05:05] according to Google. So, if it's on the
[2:05:07] internet, it's true, I've been told. So,
[2:05:09] carry on with your questions.
[2:05:11] » Okay. Thank you. On page page eight of
[2:05:14] your um
[2:05:16] uh slideshow there,
[2:05:22] Yeah, I think that's the page that where
[2:05:24] you had the DC charges um the full front
[2:05:27] end loading
[2:05:29] connection charges and all that I think
[2:05:31] wasn't it or no?
[2:05:39] » That's correct.
[2:05:40] » Yeah. So, can you just explain and I I
[2:05:44] don't see the numbers up there, but I I
[2:05:45] wrote them down. I might have maybe I
[2:05:48] didn't write them down right, but so
[2:05:50] it's $16,000
[2:05:52] 484 for a connection charge to if you're
[2:05:56] building a house in the urban areas,
[2:05:58] right?
[2:05:59] » That's correct.
[2:06:00] » And and that's at this point right now
[2:06:03] » Today. Okay. And is that going to go up
[2:06:07] uh every year
[2:06:10] » Uh through the chair? So the intent is
[2:06:12] to when we go through the DC background
[2:06:14] study is to remove connection charges
[2:06:17] and go to just DC. Um so it'll be a
[2:06:20] development charge. There won't be any
[2:06:21] connection charges moving forward. So uh
[2:06:24] the development charge moving forward
[2:06:26] would be estimated to be 47,000.
[2:06:28] Connection charges wouldn't exist
[2:06:30] anymore. It would just be development
[2:06:32] charges. So it would move from 16,000
[2:06:35] right now and 26,000 [clears throat]
[2:06:38] on the DCs to 47,000 in any of the
[2:06:41] serviced areas. So um
[2:06:45] so the so the 16 and connection charges
[2:06:47] would increase roughly 184% to the
[2:06:51] estimated DC of 47,000.
[2:06:54] » Okay. So it's 47900 is what it is.
[2:06:57] » That's correct.
[2:06:58] » Okay. So then the 33800 DC with full
[2:07:01] front end loading explain can you
[2:07:04] explain that
[2:07:06] » Uh through the chair? So, that's if we
[2:07:08] receive the $89 million in front-end
[2:07:10] financing to completely eliminate the
[2:07:13] $75,000 worth of growth related capital,
[2:07:16] that's what the DC would decrease to
[2:07:19] $33,000. The the DC is made up of uh in
[2:07:23] a large part financing charges and by
[2:07:25] getting the front-end financing in
[2:07:27] place, it would eliminate a large
[2:07:29] portion of the financing. So that is the
[2:07:32] reason why it drops from 47,000 to
[2:07:35] 33,000 predominantly.
[2:07:38] » Okay. And then one other question, I
[2:07:40] didn't write it down, but I thought in
[2:07:43] in I don't think it was in that slide,
[2:07:45] but it was in one of your other slides.
[2:07:47] It uh it was 180 million was for um the
[2:07:53] rate based I think and uh 75 for
[2:07:57] capital. Is that is that right or no?
[2:08:00] » That's correct. Okay. [laughter] All
[2:08:01] right. So, I'm just wondering um so any
[2:08:04] new development um so somebody's making
[2:08:08] a subdivision, they pay for the pipes
[2:08:10] and the infrastructure in the ground. Is
[2:08:12] that correct?
[2:08:13] » Yep. Okay. So, then where is what why is
[2:08:16] it costing us 180 million? Where are we
[2:08:20] getting that money and why is it so
[2:08:22] high?
[2:08:24] » Uh I'll maybe try to answer this and
[2:08:26] then I'll pass it over to Shawn Michael.
[2:08:27] So the non non-growth related borrowing
[2:08:30] relates to um
[2:08:34] all of the non-growth related portion of
[2:08:36] the infrastructure. So there was $279
[2:08:39] million and current dollars um that's
[2:08:42] made up of a number of different
[2:08:44] projects. There is a a benefit to
[2:08:47] existing portion and a growth related
[2:08:50] portion. The benefit to existing portion
[2:08:52] is related to uh the capital parts that
[2:08:55] need to go on the rates.
[2:08:57] Those that capital needs to be purchased
[2:09:01] with a construction loan and debt in
[2:09:03] order to service that portion of the
[2:09:06] loan is what gets put on the ratebased.
[2:09:10] So the um so the rates are are increased
[2:09:14] as a result of the benefit to existing
[2:09:16] portions of the capital items that are
[2:09:19] going to be constructed over the next 10
[2:09:20] years, five years in a water wastewater
[2:09:23] rate study.
[2:09:28] » Uh quick followup or clarity.
[2:09:30] » Yeah. So
[2:09:33] I think I'm I think I'm following it but
[2:09:35] I'm not sure. So if we have a
[2:09:38] subdivision here
[2:09:41] and they're paying their portion,
[2:09:43] anything that we upgrade on ours goes,
[2:09:47] we have to cover some of that cost. But
[2:09:50] some of that cost have should go to the
[2:09:53] developer because if it's benefiting
[2:09:56] them, they should be paying some of that
[2:09:57] cost too. So we should not be paying the
[2:10:01] whole thing.
[2:10:03] This is just for our our cost associated
[2:10:06] with it. Just to our portion of the
[2:10:07] capital item, not for we're not paying
[2:10:09] for the developers portion.
[2:10:11] » So if we're upgrade if we have to do an
[2:10:15] upgrade on our system for the benefit of
[2:10:17] them, are they sharing that cost?
[2:10:21] » Go ahead, Crystal.
[2:10:22] » Uh through the chair. So your initial
[2:10:24] question of how come we have growth
[2:10:26] related costs because they're putting
[2:10:28] the infrastructure in the ground on
[2:10:30] their own property. Uh it's because
[2:10:32] based off of whatever they're designing
[2:10:33] on that property, it potentially
[2:10:35] requires us and uh requires upgrades to
[2:10:38] our systems. So it might be in the plant
[2:10:40] itself like you're outlining. They may
[2:10:42] need a new pumping station somewhere.
[2:10:43] They may need all of these
[2:10:44] infrastructure elements that we will
[2:10:46] take over uh and run. They will be
[2:10:49] municipal assets. So that final question
[2:10:51] you just asked that yes, when we have
[2:10:53] elements like that, that's what that
[2:10:55] growth related is. It's their portion of
[2:10:57] upgrading our assets.
[2:11:00] Would you
[2:11:02] Okay. Uh, Mayor Ferguson, do you have
[2:11:04] anything right now?
[2:11:06] » Yeah, a couple of things. Thank you, Mr.
[2:11:08] Chair. Um,
[2:11:11] just looking at the um
[2:11:14] the uh the motion itself.
[2:11:17] Um,
[2:11:19] Aaron, how much money are you asking for
[2:11:22] us today?
[2:11:24] » Nothing. Zero.
[2:11:26] » Okay. I mean, what you're asking us for
[2:11:29] is is basically to explore
[2:11:35] how the plan could be financed,
[2:11:40] were
[2:11:42] negotiations with developers
[2:11:46] um
[2:11:48] successful
[2:11:49] if Infrastructure Ontario or the Canada
[2:11:52] Infrastructure Bank came to play.
[2:11:56] Um,
[2:11:58] and I I that exploration would then lead
[2:12:02] to um further discussion with council
[2:12:05] about what the plan would involve, what
[2:12:08] the costs would involve
[2:12:10] um to inform
[2:12:13] how um
[2:12:16] this
[2:12:18] mammoth undertaking would be financed
[2:12:21] and how would proceed proceed over a
[2:12:25] decade. How how long do you figure what
[2:12:28] the timeline might be for this?
[2:12:31] I mean, this is not going to happen
[2:12:32] overnight.
[2:12:34] So, um but it's going to be a long-term
[2:12:38] project. Um and I'm I'm
[2:12:42] you know, I think what what you're
[2:12:43] asking for is sensible and entirely
[2:12:47] appropriate to do the the research and
[2:12:49] the due diligence to before any plan is
[2:12:53] actually finalized. Um,
[2:12:56] I'm assuming and I want to thank
[2:12:59] everybody that's been involved in
[2:13:01] putting this document together, the
[2:13:03] report and doing all the research and to
[2:13:05] Watson as well.
[2:13:08] Uh, I'm assuming that everybody that you
[2:13:11] in particular
[2:13:13] um believe in this approach.
[2:13:19] I as I know you're conservative.
[2:13:23] Um, but [clears throat] I believe you
[2:13:25] that what you're suggesting here is the
[2:13:28] appropriate thing to do to come up with
[2:13:30] the information that future council will
[2:13:32] be able to make appropriate decisions
[2:13:35] and either go or no go at that time. Am
[2:13:38] I am I right? Okay. Is there
[2:13:44] what are the implications if if that
[2:13:48] does not happen?
[2:13:51] If we get out of here today and and
[2:13:55] we don't have agreement to you know
[2:13:58] basically go and get this information
[2:14:02] » Uh through the chair and I think I I
[2:14:04] think I had mentioned earlier that um
[2:14:07] there are financial pressures no matter
[2:14:09] what scenario we go forward with and
[2:14:12] we're at the stage where um the
[2:14:14] decisions that are made today are key
[2:14:16] inputs um to a lot of different things
[2:14:19] moving forward. It's it's no longer a a
[2:14:23] revenue uh or a revenue neutral
[2:14:26] proposition anymore. This there will be
[2:14:28] costs associated
[2:14:30] um with waiting 6 months, a year, a year
[2:14:33] and a half uh to start getting some of
[2:14:35] these things in place before we make an
[2:14:38] infrastructure decision. Um I think
[2:14:40] engineering has provided the best uh the
[2:14:43] best engineering solution um to this.
[2:14:45] There are costs associated with any
[2:14:47] solution. Um so it was my job to find um
[2:14:50] whether or not we could make this work.
[2:14:52] Uh I think um uh the base case is is
[2:14:55] certainly a tough pill to swallow. Um
[2:14:58] but if we can mitigate some of the other
[2:15:00] risks moving forward, I think uh I think
[2:15:03] this is is uh is is possible to uh uh as
[2:15:07] a solution. So certainly there would be
[2:15:09] a cost associated with I I don't think I
[2:15:11] could quantify that, but there would be
[2:15:13] a cost associated with u us not at least
[2:15:16] moving forward and putting the rest of
[2:15:18] the pieces of the puzzle in place to
[2:15:20] further bring back a report to council
[2:15:23] uh to determine whether or not this is
[2:15:25] going to make sense or not sense.
[2:15:27] » Okay. And then there just follow up that
[2:15:30] any implications of you know problems
[2:15:34] with the the province and securing other
[2:15:36] funding. But you did say a um a mouthful
[2:15:40] a second ago when you said find out if
[2:15:42] this can work
[2:15:44] and I I think it would be entirely
[2:15:48] appropriate to give you that opportunity
[2:15:50] to find out if this can work.
[2:15:52] » Thank you councelor Pal.
[2:15:57] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh to start it out
[2:16:01] with the estimated cost
[2:16:06] on the water going to Picton,
[2:16:10] is that does that have uh a contingency
[2:16:14] fund built into it? because that makes
[2:16:17] all the difference in the world on what
[2:16:20] the price could be because
[2:16:24] unfortunately pretty well everything the
[2:16:26] county has tackled in the past has been
[2:16:30] over budget.
[2:16:33] So who could answer that if a
[2:16:36] contingency
[2:16:36] » Crystal
[2:16:37] » Uh so through the chair uh 2B scenario
[2:16:41] that's before you does include the
[2:16:43] transmission uh for having water
[2:16:46] uh provided with the regional solution.
[2:16:49] Uh I I think an important slide just
[2:16:51] also for the record and anyone listening
[2:16:52] online, page 100 of the uh report or of
[2:16:57] the agenda points to the sensitivity
[2:17:00] analysis table and that includes all of
[2:17:02] the sensitivity analyses that uh
[2:17:04] director McNichol outlined as well as it
[2:17:07] includes the other two alternate
[2:17:10] scenarios because again to be frank
[2:17:12] we're choosing one of the three. we we
[2:17:15] don't really have an option of choosing
[2:17:16] nothing. So even de facto choosing
[2:17:18] nothing is pointing us in one of those
[2:17:20] directions. Uh they all do have costs
[2:17:22] associated with them. Uh the basis
[2:17:24] between scenario 2B uh it includes the
[2:17:28] transmission and uh water being serviced
[2:17:30] from the regional plant in Wellington.
[2:17:32] 2C investigates whether we keep separate
[2:17:35] plants, two plants in Pikton and two
[2:17:38] plants in uh Wellington. So that has
[2:17:40] been reviewed albeit with high level
[2:17:42] conservative estimates. uh but it does
[2:17:44] look at the comparison of what the cost
[2:17:46] difference would be between providing it
[2:17:48] through the regional and providing it uh
[2:17:50] separately here in Pikton and it does
[2:17:52] show through that analysis that it is
[2:17:54] slightly more expensive to do the four
[2:17:56] plants versus the three.
[2:17:58] » I appreciate the answer but it's not
[2:18:01] really answering the question I asked on
[2:18:05] the amount we were shown. Does that have
[2:18:10] a contingency fund built in or not? So
[2:18:15] » Through the chair
[2:18:16] » The there is in the sensitivity analysis
[2:18:19] a 10% and a 20% contingency for
[2:18:22] construction if costs would change. Uh
[2:18:24] we would when we do individual projects
[2:18:27] which we're not there yet because we do
[2:18:28] not have any direction from the
[2:18:30] committee at this point in time once we
[2:18:31] get the direction to put the work in.
[2:18:34] There is always a contingency built into
[2:18:36] our projects. So the cost we're seeing
[2:18:39] is actually just a guesstimate.
[2:18:44] If if we're got to wait until we send a
[2:18:48] tender out
[2:18:50] to know exactly where we're going, it's
[2:18:53] a guest on
[2:18:54] » CEO. You're
[2:18:56] » Mr. Chair. No, I would just comment just
[2:18:58] in how these projects come together. Uh
[2:19:00] at this time, we are we're doing a
[2:19:01] planning exercise. I want to remind
[2:19:02] everyone we are doing a long-term
[2:19:04] infrastructure planning exercise. And at
[2:19:06] this time those numbers that are in the
[2:19:08] in the scenarios are high level
[2:19:10] estimates and they're based on the
[2:19:12] consultants's best understanding of like
[2:19:14] projects all around and they do include
[2:19:16] a contingency. Now as we move toward
[2:19:18] detailed design and and further on down
[2:19:20] the the the the pro uh the project
[2:19:22] timeline we would have a much better
[2:19:24] estimate as that design comes together.
[2:19:25] But as of now they are high level I
[2:19:27] would argue fairly conservative
[2:19:28] estimates that it do include
[2:19:29] construction contingencies. Yeah,
[2:19:31] » Thank you. M
[2:19:32] » I got a question for Aaron as well and
[2:19:36] that is
[2:19:38] if we're looking within
[2:19:41] the 15%
[2:19:44] borrowing.
[2:19:46] Okay,
[2:19:47] we we keep saying that good development
[2:19:51] phase for development or that this falls
[2:19:55] on to the water rate people. But reality
[2:20:00] is
[2:20:02] when the municipality
[2:20:05] borrows the money, it's not the
[2:20:08] waterworks that owes the money. It's the
[2:20:11] municipality.
[2:20:13] the So therefore, if we don't have
[2:20:17] everybody
[2:20:18] that we're going to get from developers
[2:20:21] or that the people that are paying the
[2:20:24] bill can't afford it, what do you do?
[2:20:28] Every taxpayer in this county could end
[2:20:31] up
[2:20:33] paying
[2:20:34] for a water system that they'll never
[2:20:37] use. So that's one concern I got. The
[2:20:41] other thing is uh
[2:20:45] when we look at development charges, I
[2:20:48] can't imagine a developer coming in
[2:20:52] wants to build a thousand houses. We'll
[2:20:54] say that he's going to pay upfront for a
[2:20:58] th000 he's going to want to I would
[2:21:01] suspect to pay what he can build in the
[2:21:05] next year.
[2:21:06] uh otherwise it would get so expensive
[2:21:11] they might not even want to do those. So
[2:21:15] is it possible to ask if somebody's
[2:21:19] doing a whole subdivision everything up
[2:21:24] front even though it might take them 10
[2:21:26] years to build
[2:21:30] uh through the through the share? I
[2:21:32] don't think we're asking for uh
[2:21:33] developers to pay for the whole project
[2:21:35] up front. We're we're just um we just
[2:21:38] know we need to um uh collect $89
[2:21:42] million in order to remove the $790
[2:21:44] million. That may relate to one phase of
[2:21:47] a project. It may relate to more phases.
[2:21:50] It may relate to a methodology like
[2:21:52] capacity. Um it just depends. But uh
[2:21:55] certainly yes, I think you're right that
[2:21:57] a developer wouldn't pay for their whole
[2:21:59] development if it was 30 or 50 or 60 or
[2:22:02] 70 years out. The reason why I was
[2:22:04] asking that question is simple. If
[2:22:08] you're going to put a water line from
[2:22:10] Wellington to Pikton, it's got to be not
[2:22:13] only the size to do right now, it's got
[2:22:17] to be for the future. And if you have to
[2:22:21] oversize it and with the cost of putting
[2:22:25] it in,
[2:22:27] who's picking up that difference when
[2:22:30] developers are going to be down the
[2:22:32] road? Is that taxpayers?
[2:22:35] Is it water users? Is it developer?
[2:22:38] Somebody's got to pay for it.
[2:22:42] » Erin, do you take one more stab at it?
[2:22:45] » Sure. Through through the through the
[2:22:46] chair. So a portion of that would be
[2:22:48] related to the development charges. So
[2:22:49] if we received uh upfront financing,
[2:22:51] then we'd use development charges to pay
[2:22:53] for that or to pay for the penalties or
[2:22:56] or to pay for the interest in principle.
[2:22:58] Um and if there was a benefit to
[2:23:00] existing uh portion of that transmission
[2:23:02] line, then that would be on the the
[2:23:04] rateayers. So uh there would be no cost
[2:23:07] associated with that on on the taxpayer
[2:23:09] and that would be built into the water
[2:23:11] and wastewater rate study. And then we
[2:23:13] would utilize the the DC um upfront
[2:23:16] financing uh to offset the cost of the
[2:23:19] transmission line.
[2:23:20] » Uh thank you. We're going to keep
[2:23:22] rolling right now.
[2:23:23] » I I was just going to make one quick
[2:23:25] comment.
[2:23:26] » Quick comment. certain
[2:23:29] » When it comes to vote on this. I've got
[2:23:32] no question
[2:23:36] providing it just says to pick up more
[2:23:39] information,
[2:23:41] but I don't want to make any decisions.
[2:23:43] » That's Yeah. When we before we call the
[2:23:46] vote, we will confirm what it's what it
[2:23:48] is. Uh so, Council McDott, you told me
[2:23:50] earlier you had a second round, so I'll
[2:23:52] start over with you again. I mean, I
[2:23:54] might have a third, too, if you're gonna
[2:23:56] » We'll see.
[2:23:58] » This is an important topic. Um, so I
[2:24:02] kind of want to touch on a few things
[2:24:03] that I've heard around the table, and I
[2:24:04] and I have to say I agree with a number
[2:24:06] of uh concerns that have been brought
[2:24:08] up. One is the tariff situation, the
[2:24:11] cost of materials, the cost of
[2:24:12] construction that I think Chris alluded
[2:24:14] to. Um, I I have concerns about that
[2:24:18] too. And that ties into what council
[2:24:21] Roberts was talking about with the water
[2:24:23] wastewater or the wastewater plant that
[2:24:26] picked in sort of uh that there was a
[2:24:29] bit of a a time delayed trap based on
[2:24:32] opposition to plans that eventually came
[2:24:35] back around that ended up costing a lot
[2:24:38] more money. But I worry that we're
[2:24:40] already kind of in there right now um
[2:24:44] because of the uh trade situation and
[2:24:48] the cost of materials. Um and I'm very
[2:24:50] concerned about that risk. Um I I do
[2:24:54] understand the risk of doing nothing is
[2:24:57] is perhaps bigger and perhaps puts us in
[2:25:01] a position where we're not fulfilling
[2:25:03] our provincial obligations.
[2:25:06] Um, and that's come up in this
[2:25:08] discussion. Um, but and I also want to
[2:25:10] just correct debentures. Once
[2:25:12] something's debentured out, the the
[2:25:14] interest rate fluctuation risk
[2:25:15] disappears. It's the getting to the
[2:25:18] debenture that's the real risky zone.
[2:25:21] And we don't have a lot of control over
[2:25:22] that. Now, I did try to look at
[2:25:24] projections. I didn't have a lot of time
[2:25:26] and I don't understand them anyway half
[2:25:28] the time. Um, but the projections look
[2:25:30] modest and I'm not sure. I think
[2:25:33] actually interest rates there might be
[2:25:35] some um some uh sort of rate correction
[2:25:40] to look for public investment uh
[2:25:44] nationally in Canada but I don't know
[2:25:47] again that's like trying to predict the
[2:25:49] future. So I just wanted to kind of come
[2:25:51] back to those areas where I hear
[2:25:54] uncertainty and I just wanted to say I I
[2:25:56] share that uncertainty. I'm very
[2:25:58] concerned about those areas. Um and I
[2:26:01] and I worry that our uh capsule in time
[2:26:04] is very difficult right now. Um I I
[2:26:08] understand also the the risks of the no
[2:26:11] growth scenario and the risks of doing
[2:26:13] nothing which might not be permitted at
[2:26:15] all. But I want to understand if like if
[2:26:18] we do start embarking on an actual not
[2:26:22] not talking to developers and getting
[2:26:24] their understanding or uh you know a
[2:26:27] number of these clauses but if we do
[2:26:29] move forward with concrete plans um and
[2:26:32] considering there are many many
[2:26:34] municipalities in the same boat does
[2:26:35] that does that create another sort of
[2:26:39] soft risk of
[2:26:41] letting the province off the hook
[2:26:43] because we have to meet our obligations
[2:26:45] to them which are putting in part
[2:26:48] putting us in this position. So that's
[2:26:50] just sort of a question to leave hanging
[2:26:52] in the air. Um because as we absorb as
[2:26:57] rateayers in particular the financial
[2:26:59] risk of uh require provincial
[2:27:02] requirements
[2:27:04] there's there's some pain points in
[2:27:06] there that I struggle with. Um,
[2:27:09] additionally, and uh I this will be I
[2:27:13] would maybe want to hear your
[2:27:14] perspective on this. I I never want our
[2:27:18] financial plan to
[2:27:21] become dissuasive
[2:27:23] uh for us to continue to advocate for
[2:27:27] and encourage affordable components in
[2:27:29] every development because we um have a
[2:27:33] legislated
[2:27:35] requirement to reduce um to reduce
[2:27:38] development charges for affordable
[2:27:41] uh dwellings coming online. So, I don't
[2:27:44] know how much of that has been factored
[2:27:46] in. Um, and I don't ever want us to be
[2:27:49] in a position where we're actively
[2:27:53] feeling compelled to accept
[2:27:55] developments, even developments that the
[2:27:57] community doesn't necessarily find
[2:27:58] savory or that um are not um strongly
[2:28:04] encouraging and including affordable
[2:28:06] dwellings that would be able to um
[2:28:09] receive those um development charge
[2:28:12] benefits.
[2:28:14] Has that been considered or is it too
[2:28:17] early to con do you have any comments
[2:28:19] on? Yes.
[2:28:20] » Through the chair. There's a lot to
[2:28:22] unpack there. Um that's okay. Um
[2:28:25] » Uh regarding the tariffs, um Sean
[2:28:28] Michael and I from Watson did talk
[2:28:30] yesterday with an just about the
[2:28:32] implications associated with existing
[2:28:34] tariffs and potential tariffs. Um, so
[2:28:37] maybe I could have him potentially
[2:28:39] answer that or comment on that as well
[2:28:41] as the uh the affordable housing um
[2:28:44] piece as well. Um um and then I can
[2:28:49] comment on some of the some of the uh
[2:28:51] items that we have some of the controls
[2:28:53] we have in place so that there are no
[2:28:55] cost uh overruns. I was trying to sort
[2:28:57] of write down what you're saying.
[2:28:59] » I can break it down if if you need at
[2:29:02] any point, but they all kind of go
[2:29:03] together.
[2:29:04] » Yep.
[2:29:05] So Sean, Michael, do you have a comment
[2:29:08] on tariffs or affordable housing?
[2:29:14] » Certainly. So in terms of of tariffs,
[2:29:16] um, from my expertise, that's a little
[2:29:18] bit of an unknown at this point in time.
[2:29:20] I think uh as we have a better
[2:29:23] understanding of the specific industries
[2:29:24] affected by the tariffs, I I think that
[2:29:26] would be a question that um the county's
[2:29:30] engineering consultants would probably
[2:29:31] be better positioned to answer in terms
[2:29:33] of um what industries are um affected by
[2:29:38] that in relation to the the underground
[2:29:41] and facility infrastructure that's
[2:29:43] planned. Um
[2:29:45] » Totally get it. And in terms of the
[2:29:48] affordable housing, um the so there are
[2:29:54] legislated exemptions for affordable
[2:29:56] housing with respect to development
[2:29:58] charges that currently exist if they
[2:29:59] meet the um provinc's threshold for
[2:30:03] rental or ownership affordable housing
[2:30:05] in the um in the province's bulletin for
[2:30:09] those um development charge exemptions
[2:30:12] that they release annually. Um and
[2:30:14] further to that, uh council always has
[2:30:18] the ability through the passing of a
[2:30:20] development charge bylaw to um define
[2:30:23] other exemptions and could have more
[2:30:25] permissive uh exemption thresholds than
[2:30:28] the province is allowing as well. Um I
[2:30:31] would just think it's important to note
[2:30:33] that when you exempt development
[2:30:36] charges, you're making a decision to not
[2:30:38] collect that revenue and you're not to
[2:30:40] pass that on to other forms of
[2:30:41] development. That's a that becomes a
[2:30:43] county funding obligation.
[2:30:45] » Thank you. I'm going to give Crystal the
[2:30:47] opportunity for a second because
[2:30:48] » Sure
[2:30:49] » She might be able to answer your next.
[2:30:52] » Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, I just wanted
[2:30:54] to touch on your comment which I thought
[2:30:55] was interesting uh and relevant for the
[2:30:57] provincial like how does this impact uh
[2:31:00] proincially if we're approving this and
[2:31:02] moving forward. Uh and it is true
[2:31:04] there's often uh different strategies
[2:31:06] and different ways that the pro province
[2:31:08] decides where they give their granting
[2:31:09] money, things like that. However, what
[2:31:11] we have found is has been the most
[2:31:13] successful for us is when we do have
[2:31:14] these plans and we're able to bring as
[2:31:16] many projects to shovel ready as we can,
[2:31:19] uh, we look the best for granting
[2:31:21] opportunities. So, that does help us
[2:31:23] lower and that granting is what brings
[2:31:24] the entirety or the cost of the project
[2:31:27] down, which then does impact those water
[2:31:29] wastewater rates to make them look more
[2:31:31] affordable. So, that's the best way out
[2:31:34] of those three options that are listed
[2:31:35] there. one of the best ways for us to
[2:31:37] bring it down to make it uh more
[2:31:39] affordable.
[2:31:41] » Thank you. I I just wanted to try to get
[2:31:43] more clarity on the question about
[2:31:45] development charges because that I think
[2:31:47] what um and I appreciate Shawn Michael's
[2:31:50] answer. I think the information uh Shawn
[2:31:52] Michael that you provided was a given um
[2:31:55] that we have a responsibility for
[2:31:57] affordable dwellings to um within the um
[2:32:02] existing framework to provide uh support
[2:32:06] for development charges. What I'm trying
[2:32:09] to understand is if um affordable
[2:32:12] components have been taken into account
[2:32:15] in the financial strategy planning. So
[2:32:18] presuming because I don't want to be in
[2:32:20] a position to be um uh to have councils
[2:32:26] of the future say well we can't afford
[2:32:28] to encourage affordable dwellings
[2:32:32] because we have to offer or you know
[2:32:35] increases in affordable dwellings per
[2:32:37] development or as a policy because we
[2:32:41] have to uh be able to recoup our um
[2:32:45] we've got to be able to maximize our
[2:32:47] development charges. is received. So I I
[2:32:51] worry that we would if it's not factored
[2:32:55] in that it could become um dissuasive in
[2:32:59] the future to to encourage maximizing
[2:33:04] development charges or maximizing
[2:33:08] um
[2:33:10] are affordable um affordable components
[2:33:14] that people are bringing uh potentially
[2:33:17] willing to bring online in this
[2:33:18] community. I don't know if that's
[2:33:21] clearer.
[2:33:23] » Um,
[2:33:24] Mr. CEO,
[2:33:25] » Thank you. Oh, maybe Sean Michael wants
[2:33:27] » Sean Michael, do you want weigh in on
[2:33:28] that for a second?
[2:33:30] » Sure. Yeah, thank you for the
[2:33:31] clarification. So, um,
[2:33:34] so no, the additional financial impacts
[2:33:37] of incentivizing affordable housing has
[2:33:39] not been built into the financial
[2:33:40] strategy at this time.
[2:33:43] » Thank you.
[2:33:43] » I appreciate that.
[2:33:44] » Um,
[2:33:45] » Clarity, councelor St. Jean.
[2:33:49] Thank you, Mr. [clears throat] Chair.
[2:33:50] Uh, I think we're we're all well aware
[2:33:52] that there is no good scenario here. So,
[2:33:55] I'm not even going to dwell on that. Uh
[2:33:58] these are big numbers and we keep
[2:34:01] talking about uh the impact the impact
[2:34:04] or potential impact of growth
[2:34:07] and we all know that zero growth is not
[2:34:09] an option either because our current
[2:34:12] rateayers are going to have to pay
[2:34:13] through the nose to replace equipment
[2:34:16] infrastructure that we have not set
[2:34:19] enough money aside for that we have not
[2:34:23] prepared for. Uh, and when we look at
[2:34:26] those numbers in this financial plan,
[2:34:29] that's all it is. It's not a commitment
[2:34:30] to uh to to spending any money at this
[2:34:33] point, it's about getting the
[2:34:35] information. But there's what, $108
[2:34:37] million that is our share. How the heck
[2:34:41] are we going to pay for that if we don't
[2:34:43] have a plan to try to figure out how
[2:34:45] we're going to play pay for it?
[2:34:48] As the director stated that uh uh zero
[2:34:52] dollars. So now I'm hoping that
[2:34:55] reassures councelor panel. Zero dollars
[2:34:58] are being recommended to be spent, but
[2:35:00] it's identifying the needs and a
[2:35:04] potential way forward. And I0%
[2:35:08] agree developers need to pay money
[2:35:11] upfront. I have never said anything any
[2:35:13] different. They they need to show up
[2:35:16] with a check. how that gets sorted out,
[2:35:20] whether it's, you know, certainly the
[2:35:22] the building permit stage is not
[2:35:25] working. Doesn't work for any
[2:35:26] municipality and it's not going to work
[2:35:28] for us. So, we need to change that
[2:35:29] system. But you, if we don't pass the
[2:35:32] these motions, you're not going to have
[2:35:34] the conversation with the developers.
[2:35:36] We're not going to find out if they are
[2:35:38] willing to step up to the plate. If
[2:35:41] they're not willing to step up to the
[2:35:42] plate, then bye-bye.
[2:35:44] And then we have to figure this all out
[2:35:46] all over again. But right now, what I'm
[2:35:50] seeing, and I'm going to thank all of
[2:35:51] the staff for for bringing all of this
[2:35:55] together, being totally, brutally honest
[2:35:58] with us and the community,
[2:36:01] that we're in a mess and this is a
[2:36:03] possible way out. But if you don't ask
[2:36:05] the questions and you don't follow
[2:36:06] through on what's being suggested, we'll
[2:36:09] never know and we will end up with a
[2:36:13] debacle like the Pictton uh sewage
[2:36:16] treatment plant which ended up costing
[2:36:19] this municipality, if I remember the
[2:36:21] numbers, in excess of $5 million
[2:36:24] additional because we lost grants.
[2:36:27] I don't ever want to see this community
[2:36:29] ever go through that again. though when
[2:36:32] I see these motions I go let's keep
[2:36:35] moving forward let's keep getting more
[2:36:36] information let's do the right thing and
[2:36:39] plan for the future sticking our heads
[2:36:42] in the sand is not an option and saying
[2:36:44] oh no no no I don't like this I we we
[2:36:48] need to get more data we need to get
[2:36:49] more information and and and just move
[2:36:52] forward be open-minded as to what we can
[2:36:56] do possibly so I and There are so many
[2:37:01] other potential issues like the impact
[2:37:03] on affordable housing opportunities. If
[2:37:05] if you don't move forward, we'll get
[2:37:07] none of that. You know, there's so many
[2:37:09] pieces to this puzzle, but we won't know
[2:37:11] the answers. We won't be able to put the
[2:37:13] pieces together until we allow staff to
[2:37:16] continue doing the work that they are
[2:37:18] asking us to allow them to do. So,
[2:37:21] » Councelor H.
[2:37:22] » Thank you.
[2:37:24] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just to
[2:37:27] confirm with staff and councelor St.
[2:37:29] Gene mentioned it, but I just like this
[2:37:30] to be confirmed for the record. The do
[2:37:33] nothing option, if we don't proceed with
[2:37:36] any of this, the do nothing option
[2:37:38] increases rates to the rateayers even
[2:37:40] more than option 2B. And that's a yes
[2:37:44] from staff. So that's why that's
[2:37:47] absolutely not an option as as councelor
[2:37:49] S. Gene said. Uh second point I want to
[2:37:52] make can make three points.
[2:37:53] Phil,
[2:37:55] um the suggestion that no growth is
[2:37:57] happening is is nonsensical. Uh base 31
[2:38:01] is selling homes starting next month.
[2:38:04] They told us um last week uh about the
[2:38:08] timing for um the Hilltop Village and
[2:38:12] for the apartment building and those are
[2:38:14] hundreds and hundreds of units and uh
[2:38:17] that's not fiction. That's actually
[2:38:18] happening. Port Pikton is building homes
[2:38:21] as we speak in the Cold Creek
[2:38:23] subdivision.
[2:38:24] So growth is happening, folks. Uh
[2:38:27] Caitlyn's waiting for us to finally
[2:38:29] finish getting the pipes ready for them
[2:38:31] so they can start. So looking at past
[2:38:35] records of building permits has nothing
[2:38:37] to do with what uh what growth is
[2:38:40] expected. The third point and again
[2:38:43] councelor St. Gene mentioned this. If we
[2:38:45] don't have a road map, if we don't have
[2:38:47] a plan in place, the developers are not
[2:38:50] going to be interested in any kind of a
[2:38:52] conversation. They need to know that
[2:38:54] we're we have a plan at least to proceed
[2:38:58] with providing the services that they
[2:39:00] require for their expansions for their
[2:39:02] for their projects. So not approving
[2:39:06] this roadmap gives us nothing to talk to
[2:39:09] them about and leaves us with the do
[2:39:11] nothing option which will cost rateayers
[2:39:14] more and none of us want to cost the
[2:39:16] rateayers more so it's why I fully
[2:39:19] support this. Thank you
[2:39:20] » Councelor Mayard.
[2:39:23] » Um thank you. I well we have to consider
[2:39:28] the times we're that that we are in. I
[2:39:30] mean what we started like we didn't when
[2:39:32] we started writing these reports we had
[2:39:34] no idea what was going to be happening
[2:39:36] and there is just so much uncertainty
[2:39:38] right now like who knows right they're
[2:39:41] not like the who knows what might happen
[2:39:44] to the markets people are going to be
[2:39:46] you know without a job so they're not
[2:39:48] going to be buying a house like I mean
[2:39:49] we this could be we could be in some you
[2:39:52] know critically serious times and I was
[2:39:54] never um you know unless you can get a
[2:39:58] lot of money up front unless this is
[2:40:00] pre-inanced from those that are going to
[2:40:02] benefit from it
[2:40:04] except for I will say and and this is
[2:40:07] not to be this is not uh because I mean
[2:40:10] it's done it's done but
[2:40:13] obviously the rates in Pikton were never
[2:40:14] high enough to uh to set some money
[2:40:16] aside for their because I don't know how
[2:40:19] old's that plant 70 80 70 years old
[2:40:22] something like that so you know so there
[2:40:25] has been was there ever a reserve fund
[2:40:28] for for that replacement or was it just
[2:40:30] to fix things up? Because that's what we
[2:40:32] had to do, right? And and we didn't
[2:40:34] those people, they didn't get they
[2:40:37] didn't get their money from the county
[2:40:39] that they weren't the ones that were
[2:40:40] lending them this money or fronting this
[2:40:42] money. They had to go get it from the,
[2:40:44] you know, from a bank or a lender or
[2:40:46] whatever. So I just cannot I I can't I
[2:40:49] can't support this first because I think
[2:40:52] we are in times that are way too
[2:40:55] uncertain
[2:40:56] and I really think that u areas like
[2:41:00] ours will will feel the crunch um likely
[2:41:04] harder and sooner than others just
[2:41:08] because of our u you know of our economy
[2:41:10] and our age and I just and um so
[2:41:16] So, $108 million in Pikton
[2:41:20] and we know that that plant has to be
[2:41:22] replaced. So, if there's no growth,
[2:41:24] where is $108 million coming from?
[2:41:28] » That's a very good question.
[2:41:29] » Okay, let's
[2:41:32] I think we just need to uh I mean, we we
[2:41:34] can pick a way and keep it going, but I
[2:41:37] do not think this is the time to jump
[2:41:38] off of this cliff in these uncertain
[2:41:41] times and put a whole bunch of people at
[2:41:43] risk. I will not support
[2:41:47] my my water users
[2:41:50] having to uh you know
[2:41:53] » Okay
[2:41:54] » I I can't and and you know we haven't
[2:41:57] seen a room full of people from in
[2:41:59] Millionsburg in a long time but this is
[2:42:01] this is not what this is going to do is
[2:42:04] is not fair and it I don't think it's
[2:42:06] logical at this time. Councelor Nyman.
[2:42:12] » That's Councelor Nyman.
[2:42:14] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So,
[2:42:16] » Sorry, Don. You're next. I forgot about
[2:42:18] you standing there.
[2:42:19] » You want me to wait?
[2:42:19] » No, go ahead. Cuz he you might be a he
[2:42:21] might be able to answer your question,
[2:42:23] too. Let's try and keep it to questions.
[2:42:24] We're kind of getting into stuff. We're
[2:42:26] getting long. We got to uh keep it to
[2:42:29] questions to get clarity before we're
[2:42:31] going to call the vote, okay?
[2:42:33] » Instead of giving our opinions and
[2:42:34] trying to persuade everybody else. So,
[2:42:36] » No. No. Wells. That's what I'm asking.
[2:42:39] Thank you.
[2:42:39] » I guess I could ask.
[2:42:40] » No, Janice.
[2:42:41] » Okay.
[2:42:43] » Councelor Nyman.
[2:42:44] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, people are
[2:42:48] having a hard time paying their water
[2:42:49] wastewater bill now and and so we're
[2:42:52] having it go up another $900.
[2:42:55] You know, their their wages are not
[2:42:58] going to go up because a lot of them are
[2:43:00] working um part-time jobs because we
[2:43:04] don't have full-time jobs here. But what
[2:43:06] what I want to ask I want to go to the
[2:43:09] uh and it's on page 10 of your uh slide
[2:43:12] deck and I believe I think it was page
[2:43:15] 10 but it wasif 15% of the county debt
[2:43:19] that's the county debt policy is 15% of
[2:43:21] our own revenues 25% of the provincial
[2:43:26] uh threshold that's statutory. So we we
[2:43:28] hit the 25 they're going to step in
[2:43:31] basically.
[2:43:33] So, and what we're looking at, uh, and I
[2:43:36] don't have it written down, but I think
[2:43:37] I seen 17.7%.
[2:43:41] » 4. Okay. So, my my question is now,
[2:43:47] we've set a policy for 15
[2:43:50] statutory 25. We're two% 2 and a half%
[2:43:54] over our own policy, and that's just for
[2:43:57] this. So
[2:44:00] if we have to go in debt on something
[2:44:02] else for roads or anything else,
[2:44:06] we're not going to do that. Uh so what's
[2:44:09] going to suffer and how are we going to
[2:44:11] cover that? Because that's a
[2:44:13] » That's a that's a pure finance question
[2:44:15] for you, Director McNug. I can see you
[2:44:17] smiling.
[2:44:17] » Yeah, through the chair to councelor
[2:44:19] Nyman. Um absolutely it is over our 15%
[2:44:22] threshold for a number of years and I
[2:44:24] think that in part is a risk and the
[2:44:26] other is that the debt is corporatewide.
[2:44:29] Um so it does have an effect on debt we
[2:44:31] want to take out for roads uh uh
[2:44:34] facilities any of the other debts. So I
[2:44:37] think uh the way to mitigate that risk
[2:44:39] as identified in the report is to get
[2:44:41] upfront financing uh reducing us below
[2:44:44] the 15% threshold and dependent on how
[2:44:48] much we get in frontend financing giving
[2:44:50] us enough leeway uh to um to get debt uh
[2:44:55] for other service areas. And I think one
[2:44:58] other thing uh to mention is as
[2:45:00] development occurs um we get more
[2:45:03] taxation revenue in um on the new homes
[2:45:06] that is uh additional revenue that we
[2:45:10] have for the different service areas
[2:45:11] that we can budget for. So uh to your
[2:45:14] first point about the um the the debt
[2:45:17] ceiling um the intent is to leave it at
[2:45:20] 15%. Um we're not requesting council
[2:45:23] increase that threshold above 15%. the
[2:45:25] guard rail still remains. We go
[2:45:27] negotiate with developers, get as much
[2:45:30] as we can um to reduce that to still
[2:45:33] give us the flexibility to go out and
[2:45:35] get debt for other service areas and at
[2:45:37] the same time as development occurs, we
[2:45:39] get additional taxation revenue that can
[2:45:41] be spread to the other service areas.
[2:45:44] » Quick followup for clarity. Yeah.
[2:45:46] » So if we don't get that upfront
[2:45:48] financing and we go to 17 and a half%
[2:45:51] that's what it is, 17.4, before, you
[2:45:54] know, something's going to suffer. So,
[2:45:57] what's suffering? Because that's what I
[2:45:59] want to know. I'm just not prepared to
[2:46:01] go that way.
[2:46:03] » Okay. Do you have a followup
[2:46:06] » Or just go ahead
[2:46:08] » Through the through the chair? And yeah,
[2:46:10] and that's that's I think the reason why
[2:46:12] um we're recommending to council the
[2:46:14] ability to go and u find out how much
[2:46:17] money we can get um look at look at the
[2:46:20] rates associated with the lenders, pull
[2:46:22] together the information to determine
[2:46:24] whether or not this is is possible and
[2:46:27] then bring it back to council and then
[2:46:29] council would would make a decision as
[2:46:31] you council says well maybe you know
[2:46:33] there there isn't enough to for
[2:46:35] different service areas so we don't want
[2:46:36] to go through with this we need more
[2:46:37] upfront financing maybe there will be
[2:46:39] grants at that stage of the game, but
[2:46:41] certainly we would bring back that to
[2:46:42] council and negotiate with the different
[2:46:45] developers to see how much money we
[2:46:46] could we could bring in to decrease that
[2:46:48] to something palatable.
[2:46:50] » Thank you, Erin. Don, welcome. Nice to
[2:46:53] have you.
[2:46:53] » Thanks. Yeah, thanks for the [snorts]
[2:46:55] opportunity to speak. I I sat through uh
[2:46:57] hearing all the conversation today. I
[2:46:59] sat through an internal audit yesterday
[2:47:00] for our drinking water quality
[2:47:02] management system and it you know part
[2:47:04] of uh that conversation sitting with the
[2:47:06] auditor was uh kind of quickly going
[2:47:09] over what I'm supposed to share with
[2:47:11] council in terms of risk and and uh
[2:47:14] things that go along with that and
[2:47:15] hearing this conversation and I'm not
[2:47:17] here to sell on a scenario. Uh I have
[2:47:19] the utmost faith in the team that and
[2:47:21] the engineers and everybody outside
[2:47:22] that's narrowed us down to that 2B. But
[2:47:25] I I want to just maybe touch a little
[2:47:26] bit on the do nothing option. Um work
[2:47:29] backwards a little bit just in case
[2:47:31] anyone had any questions. Um we know
[2:47:34] through condition assessment we have a
[2:47:35] picked and water plant that as max 10
[2:47:37] years left. We know we still have some
[2:47:39] capacity left in it. We know there are
[2:47:42] parts of that plant are like 100 years
[2:47:43] old and we don't fully know if how well
[2:47:46] the structure is going to last. We're
[2:47:48] going to put more strain on that same
[2:47:50] plant as we add the remaining growth. I
[2:47:53] don't know how many units you guys
[2:47:54] probably know it's like a thousand units
[2:47:56] left or something. Um that probably
[2:47:59] falls into the developments that we and
[2:48:01] developers that we have left around
[2:48:02] here. We know that historically we've
[2:48:05] had situations where we've had spills in
[2:48:07] our bay. Uh it's a very vulnerable
[2:48:09] intake. Uh even more threats now than we
[2:48:12] had before. Uh somewhere around 300
[2:48:14] threats. It's one of the most threatened
[2:48:17] intakes and source sources of water uh
[2:48:20] for a treatment plant in in Ontario.
[2:48:23] We know these things. So if we have a 10
[2:48:27] a 10-year clock and we have to count
[2:48:28] that backwards just from a standard of
[2:48:31] care perspective, council and anybody
[2:48:32] who's been through the training know
[2:48:34] that we have certain responsibilities
[2:48:35] for planning for these risks. Um I just
[2:48:39] wanted to make sure that you know
[2:48:40] everyone's aware of that. Um at some
[2:48:43] point we have to make a decision. It's
[2:48:45] not going to be an easy decision. Uh I I
[2:48:48] bear a lot of uh uh communication with
[2:48:50] people about rates and rate studies.
[2:48:52] Yes, we have some high rates. Sadly, we
[2:48:55] have just over 5,200 customers that are
[2:48:57] paying for our water systems. Um, yeah,
[2:49:00] there is a chance that growth uh may not
[2:49:03] uh give us the units that we that you
[2:49:05] know, whatever that outcome could be,
[2:49:07] but the more people we have paying on
[2:49:09] the system, the more it's going to share
[2:49:11] out those costs. Um, so I just, you
[2:49:14] know, quickly wanted to highlight that,
[2:49:17] you know, and as you add the remaining
[2:49:18] units to that plant, it's like having an
[2:49:20] old car. You know, more stuff's going to
[2:49:22] go wrong. We have more risks. It was a
[2:49:25] few months ago, we had another spill in
[2:49:26] Delhigh and it almost shut our plant
[2:49:28] down again. You know, these things could
[2:49:31] happen. And through the most recent
[2:49:33] source water protection work, um there's
[2:49:35] something now we know there are other
[2:49:36] contaminants that are making their way
[2:49:38] to to where our intake is and we're
[2:49:40] going to have more stringent sampling
[2:49:42] that goes along with that. Uh we don't
[2:49:44] know exactly what that's going to be yet
[2:49:45] or what that's going to show, but I'm
[2:49:48] sure the province is expecting that
[2:49:50] we're going to have plans and under our
[2:49:52] legislative responsibilities, we're
[2:49:53] going to have to be able to uh deal with
[2:49:55] these things. So, you know, we have a
[2:49:57] clock. I understand if uh you know none
[2:49:59] of the scenarios are great but um you
[2:50:02] know under our responsibilities uh you
[2:50:04] know as owners of the system we we are
[2:50:07] going to have to do something and um I I
[2:50:09] I wouldn't be fulfilling my
[2:50:11] responsibilities if I didn't come and
[2:50:12] share that if if stuff does happen u
[2:50:15] because we're running something old I
[2:50:17] don't think the province can be very
[2:50:18] favorable on us for for not making some
[2:50:21] decisions and my understanding of what's
[2:50:23] being brought forward today is that
[2:50:25] we're not making decisions We're trying
[2:50:28] to figure out how to finance an option
[2:50:30] that seems to be the the best out of the
[2:50:33] options. So, I just I just want an
[2:50:36] option to
[2:50:36] » Thanks. Thanks, Don. Council Engles
[2:50:38] Dorfer.
[2:50:40] » Yeah, [clears throat] two questions. Uh
[2:50:41] the first one, uh the word endorse, this
[2:50:44] is probably to the CEO. What does that
[2:50:47] do to the municipality in terms of a
[2:50:50] legal standpoint? Does it give the
[2:50:51] development community leverage if we end
[2:50:53] up changing course? because as we've
[2:50:55] seen in the past on other files, I think
[2:50:57] wording like that becomes very
[2:50:58] important.
[2:51:02] » CEO,
[2:51:02] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um on off the top
[2:51:05] of my head, I don't think so. Uh I I
[2:51:07] think that uh council endorsing a
[2:51:09] scenario um actually might give the
[2:51:11] development community a bit of level of
[2:51:12] comfort that we council is decisive in
[2:51:14] this matter and that we have a plan, but
[2:51:17] future council can unravel uh even this
[2:51:20] council could unravel any any of these
[2:51:22] decisions that you make. Um, so it's not
[2:51:24] locking you into anything, but we to me
[2:51:27] it signals that council is being
[2:51:28] decisive on a on a path forward. Okay.
[2:51:30] » At this time,
[2:51:31] » My worry is we've tried to unravel other
[2:51:32] things and it hasn't gone so well. Um,
[2:51:35] so there's that. And then the other one,
[2:51:37] do you not already have what you need to
[2:51:40] go forward? We already passed a motion
[2:51:42] in June. It's the exact same wording
[2:51:44] that's in clause 4 to go talk to the
[2:51:45] development community. Now you have the
[2:51:47] numbers you need. Why do we have to pass
[2:51:49] anything today? And that would be a
[2:51:51] question to the CEO too I believe.
[2:51:55] » Sure. Uh as Dr. McNichol has mentioned
[2:51:58] um these the work that's been done
[2:52:00] leading up to today is in are inputs
[2:52:01] into other studies and and some of these
[2:52:04] are I think are pretty important for us
[2:52:05] to get moving on and if this gets you
[2:52:07] know if we are only let's say directed
[2:52:09] to you know pursue th those
[2:52:11] conversations with the detail we have
[2:52:12] today. I recognize that we did ask for
[2:52:14] that. We had preliminary conversations
[2:52:16] as director Lansstra said, but we could,
[2:52:18] you know, if we if we just come out of
[2:52:19] here today with that direction to go to
[2:52:20] the developers and find out whether as
[2:52:22] you say they they've got skin in the
[2:52:23] game, that that's that's okay. Um, but I
[2:52:26] just I fear that uh if this gets um some
[2:52:29] of this gets sort of punted to the
[2:52:30] future that there will be into the
[2:52:32] middle middle of next year before we're
[2:52:34] we have direction to move forward on our
[2:52:35] DC background study, our water
[2:52:37] wastewater rate study, any future
[2:52:38] budgeting that that the department has
[2:52:40] had heads have to do. So, um, not to
[2:52:42] mention, uh, strong risk of losing our
[2:52:44] our funding from the HUD program and
[2:52:46] potentially not being successful in our
[2:52:48] federal, uh, grant application. Um, and
[2:52:50] and and you know, hopefully that answers
[2:52:52] your question, but the I I want to add
[2:52:54] that, uh, at the AMO conference,
[2:52:56] typically the the province will signal
[2:52:57] certain things every year. Last year it
[2:52:59] was development charges, and we've seen
[2:53:01] the push to development charge reduction
[2:53:03] and and, uh, and the undertones there
[2:53:05] [clears throat] are pretty serious in in
[2:53:06] the DC world. Um but this year it seems
[2:53:08] to me and I get bit a bit concerned
[2:53:10] about the province um sort of looking at
[2:53:12] water wastewater utilities throughout
[2:53:13] the organiza uh throughout the province.
[2:53:15] And I'm I have a bit of concern that if
[2:53:17] again council doesn't show decisiveness
[2:53:18] on our longer term plan at least to
[2:53:20] allow us to go ahead with some of these
[2:53:22] these um studies and and other
[2:53:24] activities that the province may take a
[2:53:26] bit of a close eye to us. And I I really
[2:53:27] don't I want want the control to stay
[2:53:28] with Prince Edward County. Want the
[2:53:30] control to stay with uh the council of
[2:53:32] Prince County.
[2:53:34] » Thank you CEO. All right. We're gonna
[2:53:37] one quick one. We're just going to go
[2:53:39] and then we're gonna have a vote before
[2:53:42] we we're not taking a break till we
[2:53:45] vote. So, Council McNutton,
[2:53:48] » Thank you. So, um I
[2:53:52] uh I I just want to clarify. So, we've
[2:53:55] we've heard well there this is not uh a
[2:53:59] um a yes no moment. We're we're moving
[2:54:04] forward. uh and it's going to be hard to
[2:54:07] take an off-ramp. So, that's that's what
[2:54:10] we're hearing. I want to be clear that
[2:54:11] that's the the absolute truth because I
[2:54:15] I feel like when we're embarking on a
[2:54:17] water and I'm inclined to support this
[2:54:19] under this particular strategy and it's
[2:54:21] because of the risks to the victim plant
[2:54:23] that I am supporting it and knowing what
[2:54:27] what the future could look like um with
[2:54:30] a lower risk scenario. And again, we're
[2:54:33] back to something. We're back to every
[2:54:35] scenario includes a a very unpalatable
[2:54:39] amount of risk. And this is our reality
[2:54:41] and this is our job. And we also, as as
[2:54:44] Dom pointed out, we all bear uh under
[2:54:47] the Walkerton rules, we all bear
[2:54:49] personal risk to and we are required to
[2:54:52] provide clean drinking water. So the
[2:54:54] reason I supported the last scenario was
[2:54:58] cuz I I think I felt uh trapped um by uh
[2:55:03] the extraordinary costs of doing
[2:55:06] nothing. So um and also the key concern
[2:55:10] of providing um proper drinking water
[2:55:13] for Pikton which is getting increasingly
[2:55:15] difficult to protect and also
[2:55:17] increasingly more expensive to um to
[2:55:21] maintain uh because the source isn't
[2:55:24] great. Um so that has always been a
[2:55:27] factor. It's a factor for me today. Um I
[2:55:30] just want to leave a couple of things
[2:55:33] that I want to clarify when if we went
[2:55:36] forward with this and if there's a green
[2:55:38] light after that and after that when do
[2:55:40] when we get to the design phase
[2:55:43] um when could we conceive of that
[2:55:47] happening after a water wastewater rate
[2:55:49] study and development charge background
[2:55:51] study because I would have additional
[2:55:53] comments to to to provide preliminary to
[2:55:58] that any design undertaking.
[2:56:01] » Crystal, that might be a design phase
[2:56:04] question. I think it's kind of a total
[2:56:06] shot in the dark.
[2:56:08] » I I wonder if that too, but I think
[2:56:11] » Well, I'm going to say it's not even
[2:56:14] close to that. So, we shouldn't even
[2:56:16] like So, what I'm going to say is follow
[2:56:18] along. If you're back around the
[2:56:20] horseshoe, wonderful. If you're not,
[2:56:21] follow along and we'll take your
[2:56:23] comments because who knows when it's
[2:56:24] going to be.
[2:56:25] » Hopefully, we're all still around. Um,
[2:56:28] so is there any questions for detail
[2:56:30] that like we I just feel we're starting
[2:56:32] to repeat each other and it's just going
[2:56:35] in a in a in a circle and I don't want
[2:56:38] to. So any other questions? Councelor
[2:56:41] Panel has a question for clarity.
[2:56:46] I've got two question. One is when are
[2:56:49] we going to get the information that has
[2:56:52] been asked for by several people,
[2:56:55] rural versus urban for amount of housing
[2:57:00] in a year.
[2:57:01] » She she said they said they were going
[2:57:03] to look into that and let us know. So,
[2:57:05] » Okay, as long as we know, but we've
[2:57:08] asked that in the past, never found out.
[2:57:11] The other thing is,
[2:57:13] and I don't know whether I should be
[2:57:15] asking Sean Michael or or yourself, but
[2:57:21] as Watson's were so wrong on their
[2:57:24] prediction of how the county was
[2:57:26] growing, how can we be positive now that
[2:57:30] everything they're putting before us is
[2:57:35] right? I think it's a fair question.
[2:57:38] » That sounds like a Shawn Michael
[2:57:39] question.
[2:57:43] Um just to clarify with the audio was
[2:57:46] the question about um the prior 2.4%
[2:57:49] growth projections.
[2:57:50] » Yeah. Then in summary his question was
[2:57:53] how can we be confident when
[2:57:56] in his words you were so wrong on your
[2:57:58] first projection.
[2:58:01] How can we be confident in Watson's
[2:58:03] projections now? So um
[2:58:07] this comes back to um unfortunately a um
[2:58:12] that our our prior growth um work was
[2:58:16] not used correctly in the master
[2:58:18] planning work. So our prior growth
[2:58:20] projections were consistent with what
[2:58:22] they are the 1%
[2:58:24] um that had been previously forecast.
[2:58:26] The growth work that looked at a 2.4% 4%
[2:58:29] projection was um
[2:58:32] specifically done at the behest of
[2:58:34] county staff at the time to show what
[2:58:37] the growth rate would be if all of the
[2:58:39] available supply was taken up within
[2:58:42] that time period. And it was um not
[2:58:45] intended to be a demand-driven growth
[2:58:48] projection that was done um within the
[2:58:51] same report and it was the 1%
[2:58:53] projection. So, um, our our growth
[2:58:56] projections are consistent with what
[2:58:57] they have been in the past.
[2:58:58] » Thank you, Sean Michael.
[2:59:01] Okay, so
[2:59:04] » The motion is on the floor.
[2:59:07] » Councelor Hirs has just asked asked for
[2:59:10] a recorded vote. Sorry, Councelor Panel,
[2:59:12] he beat you. Um, so, Madame Clerk, I
[2:59:15] will turn it over to you for a recorded
[2:59:18] vote.
[2:59:31] Councelor Hirs
[2:59:32] » In favor.
[2:59:34] » Councelor McNottton
[2:59:36] » In favor.
[2:59:37] » Councelor Brainy
[2:59:39] » Opposed.
[2:59:40] » Councelor Maynard
[2:59:42] » Opposed.
[2:59:44] Councelor Groso.
[2:59:52] Councelor Groso,
[2:59:55] » You're on mute if you're still there.
[2:59:58] » Okay, we'll come back to him. Councelor
[2:59:59] Nyman.
[3:00:01] » Opposed.
[3:00:04] » Councelor Roberts
[3:00:06] » In favor.
[3:00:08] » Councelor Prinsen
[3:00:09] » Opposed.
[3:00:12] Councelor Staintine
[3:00:15] » In favor.
[3:00:18] » Councelor Panel
[3:00:20] » Oppose.
[3:00:23] » Councelor Brand Councelor Englesorfer
[3:00:26] » Opposed.
[3:00:29] » Mayor Ferguson
[3:00:30] » In favor.
[3:00:32] » Councelor Groso said his screen's fro
[3:00:33] frozen, but he's in favor. He texted me.
[3:00:36] I don't know if that works or not, but
[3:00:37] he said his screen's frozen.
[3:00:40] I'm just
[3:00:44] You can I'm
[3:00:46] » Could he put
[3:00:52] » Um
[3:00:53] » Either way it fails on a die?
[3:00:56] » Yeah.
[3:01:00] » So, he texted you. He said he's in
[3:01:03] favor.
[3:01:04] » My screen is frozen. I'm in favor.
[3:01:09] the new age.
[3:01:10] » If you agree, Mr. Chair, to include his
[3:01:14] » Either way, it loses on a 65 or a 66
[3:01:16] tie. So,
[3:01:17] » It loses on a tie.
[3:01:19] [snorts]
[3:01:25] » Just a Are we counting his vote or we're
[3:01:28] not?
[3:01:29] » It doesn't matter.
[3:01:29] » It doesn't It doesn't matter.
[3:01:32] » I will say no because it's still won't m
[3:01:35] change the outcome of the vote. Uh, at
[3:01:37] this time I'll look for a motion to
[3:01:38] extend.
[3:01:40] McNotton Nyman. Thank you. And now I'm
[3:01:43] calling a 10-minute recess. All in
[3:01:45] favor? 10-minute recess.
[3:01:48] 10 minutes tops.
[3:10:09] If I could get council members to come
[3:10:10] back, that would be great. Please
[3:10:57] All
[3:11:10] right, we have quorum again. So, we are
[3:11:13] going to call this meeting back to order
[3:11:15] and start. We are on 7.2.
[3:11:18] Uh, I will ask that somebody puts this
[3:11:20] on the floor and then we will get into
[3:11:22] discussion. Councelor Hirs seconded by
[3:11:25] councelor McDnottton.
[3:11:27] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is I guess
[3:11:29] this is logically my uh my motion.
[3:11:32] Sorry, who was the second?
[3:11:33] » McDottton.
[3:11:33] » McDton. Handton motion that report CSP
[3:11:37] 132026
[3:11:39] regarding the exploration of municipal
[3:11:40] support options for a dark sky preserve
[3:11:42] be received. that the mayor provide a
[3:11:45] letter of support for the Southshore
[3:11:46] joint initiative and Royal Astronomical
[3:11:48] Society of Canada in support of their
[3:11:51] efforts to pursue a dark sky preserve
[3:11:53] designation along Prince Edward County
[3:11:55] Southshore. The council directs staff to
[3:11:57] develop a dark sky policy aligned with
[3:12:00] the principles of the Canadian
[3:12:01] guidelines for outdoor lighting for
[3:12:04] consideration by council at a future
[3:12:05] meeting. And the council direct staff to
[3:12:08] work with the Southshore joint
[3:12:09] initiative to establish a memorandum of
[3:12:11] understanding regarding the use of
[3:12:14] Mariners Park Museum lands for astronomy
[3:12:16] related programming, public education,
[3:12:18] and dark sky viewing activities.
[3:12:21] » Thank you, councelor Hirs. Welcome.
[3:12:24] Would you like to give an overview of
[3:12:26] your report?
[3:12:27] » Thank you. And through your chair. My
[3:12:29] name is Katon Zachariah. My pronouns are
[3:12:31] they them. And I'm very happy to be here
[3:12:32] this afternoon to share about the dark
[3:12:34] sky preserve. Uh and this is also my
[3:12:36] first report. So I'm very honored to be
[3:12:38] here.
[3:12:40] » Thank you. Uh this report responds to
[3:12:42] council direction following a deputation
[3:12:44] from the Southshore Joint Initiative and
[3:12:47] the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
[3:12:49] regarding a dark sky preserve along the
[3:12:51] southshore of Prince Ed County. Staff
[3:12:54] are directed to explore opportunities
[3:12:55] for municipal support and report back.
[3:12:58] The recommendations before council today
[3:13:00] are intended to support this
[3:13:01] community-led initiative through
[3:13:03] partnership, education, and gradual
[3:13:05] improvements to municipal practices
[3:13:07] while minimizing impacts on residents,
[3:13:09] businesses, and municipal operations.
[3:13:11] I'm happy to take any questions that you
[3:13:13] have today.
[3:13:14] » Perfect. Thank you very much for the
[3:13:16] overview. I think we'll go a little
[3:13:18] easier on you than we did on Aaron. So,
[3:13:20] uh, do we have any do we have any
[3:13:22] questions? Councelor
[3:13:25] Hirs. Thank you.
[3:13:26] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, not a
[3:13:28] question, but just two comments. Great
[3:13:31] report, Kaden. I thought uh it was well
[3:13:33] analyzed and and coming up with options
[3:13:36] that don't cost any money are always
[3:13:38] very favorable things. Um and and just a
[3:13:41] shout out to um uh Steve Burner. Some of
[3:13:44] you may remember that Steve from the
[3:13:46] Royal Astronomical Society presented to
[3:13:48] us a year or so ago, something like
[3:13:51] that. and he worked with Katon on on
[3:13:54] producing this uh this document um
[3:13:57] behind the scenes. So, shout out to
[3:13:59] Steve and um great job. Thank you.
[3:14:02] » Thank you, Councelor Harris, Councelor
[3:14:03] McNutton.
[3:14:04] » Thank you. And also great timing because
[3:14:06] it's nice to have something that's easy
[3:14:08] and wonderful to talk about after our
[3:14:09] last item which was very uh um which is
[3:14:13] a difficult
[3:14:16] uh topic of conversation. So, thanks and
[3:14:18] great report. Any further
[3:14:22] questions, comments? Not seeing any.
[3:14:24] I'll call the vote. All in favor?
[3:14:30] And that carries? I think.
[3:14:33] Can I see hands up, please? All in
[3:14:35] favor?
[3:14:40] » I'm up.
[3:14:42] » So, that carries. And Groso's up. He's
[3:14:45] back up. Thank you.
[3:14:47] » Thank you. Thank you very much.
[3:14:55] » All right, moving along. 7.3 report of
[3:14:58] the housing department. Uh, regarding
[3:15:00] Nicholas Street Homes Limited
[3:15:01] Development WA fee waiver request. Could
[3:15:04] I have somebody put this on the floor?
[3:15:06] Councelor McNutton, seconded by
[3:15:08] Councelor Roberts.
[3:15:10] » Thank you, McNutton's Robert. Um motion
[3:15:13] that council receive report HD uh 062026
[3:15:18] that council direct staff to return with
[3:15:20] a bylaw and development charges act
[3:15:22] development agreement with Nicholas
[3:15:24] Homes Limited to secure a 25-year
[3:15:26] commitment of 31 of the 120 rental units
[3:15:30] in building E for the Nicholas Street
[3:15:32] Homes development and that council
[3:15:34] direct staff to bring forward an
[3:15:36] amendment to bylaw um uh 4019-207
[3:15:41] being a bylaw to impose
[3:15:42] water and sanitary sewer connection
[3:15:44] charges upon the owners and occupants of
[3:15:46] land within the county of Prince Edward
[3:15:48] for all connections to municip
[3:15:50] municipally operated water and sanitary
[3:15:53] sewer works to align with the municipal
[3:15:56] definition of affordable housing.
[3:15:58] » Thank you councelor McNotton.
[3:16:01] Welcome Alice. You can uh would you like
[3:16:03] to give an overview of your report?
[3:16:06] » Uh thank you uh through the chair. Um, I
[3:16:09] think the best way to to bring um break
[3:16:11] this down is into uh the three parts of
[3:16:15] the 180 uh 94,000
[3:16:19] uh 890 that was requested in um
[3:16:23] resulting in the the motion to bring
[3:16:26] this back. Um so there are three uh
[3:16:32] incentives essentially that um Nicholas
[3:16:35] Street Homes has asked for. One is for
[3:16:38] uh development charge reduction for
[3:16:40] market uh purpose-built market uh rental
[3:16:44] housing. Uh that's an automatic
[3:16:46] reduction under provincial legislation.
[3:16:49] The second is a uh development charge
[3:16:53] exemption for affordable units also
[3:16:55] under provincial legislation. And the
[3:16:57] third thing that was requested was a
[3:16:59] sitewide water wastewater connection
[3:17:01] charge uh refund under an existing
[3:17:04] bylaw. Uh so just covering the
[3:17:07] development charge first um you'll see
[3:17:10] that uh there's a breakout on the first
[3:17:12] page um in the background of uh the
[3:17:15] amounts requested and coincidentally um
[3:17:19] uh director McNichol and Shawn Michael
[3:17:22] Stevens Watson um
[3:17:25] uh who was here earlier calculated based
[3:17:28] on uh current data uh that those two
[3:17:33] were skewed slightly lower than what was
[3:17:35] requested.
[3:17:36] Um and the connection charge waiver
[3:17:38] itself um requires as the as the bylaw
[3:17:43] stands that it's a 30%
[3:17:48] refund to the developer after occupancy
[3:17:51] for the portion of affordable units
[3:17:53] only. That's the way the the current
[3:17:55] bylaw uh is structured um on how it's
[3:17:58] paid out. How it's eligible is what
[3:18:01] needs to be amended. So essentially the
[3:18:05] the development charge reduction is uh
[3:18:08] automatic. The development charge
[3:18:11] exemption requires an agreement between
[3:18:13] the municipality and the developer for
[3:18:16] 25 years. And the connection charge
[3:18:19] bylaw would apply after it was amended
[3:18:21] and after it was determined that those
[3:18:24] um affordable units existed. So um
[3:18:30] all of it um assumes that those units
[3:18:33] will be um developed at the at the rent
[3:18:37] amounts provided in the report um in
[3:18:39] section one. Um so that's
[3:18:44] essentially where it stands.
[3:18:48] » Perfect. Thank you. Uh open the floor to
[3:18:51] committee. Councelor Panel.
[3:18:54] » Yeah. I I'm in favor of legally anything
[3:19:00] we can do
[3:19:02] as far as legislated by the province.
[3:19:06] But when it comes to looking at the
[3:19:09] overall thing and uh connection charges,
[3:19:12] I'm not in favor of that for the simple
[3:19:15] reason as we move ahead with housing,
[3:19:20] we're hopefully going to be
[3:19:24] dealing with other developers
[3:19:28] to get affordable housing. And if we
[3:19:30] start giving away things right now, it's
[3:19:33] only going to get worse. And I I
[3:19:36] honestly think that they should pay the
[3:19:40] regular charge on that.
[3:19:42] » Thank you. Councelor Panel, do you want
[3:19:43] to follow up or
[3:19:45] » Uh through the chair only to say to
[3:19:47] councelor Panel that to to do that you'd
[3:19:49] have to resend the bylaw altogether. Uh
[3:19:52] there the bylaw currently stands that
[3:19:54] that 30% refund u after occupancy is
[3:19:58] provided. So that could be something
[3:20:00] that council could consider.
[3:20:05] on
[3:20:07] » Everything or just on
[3:20:10] the affordable
[3:20:12] » The through the chair the developer has
[3:20:14] requested that it be sitewide uh but the
[3:20:16] bylaw as it stands says it's only for
[3:20:18] affordable units.
[3:20:19] » Yeah, that's what I
[3:20:20] » Councelor Nman.
[3:20:22] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, they want it
[3:20:25] for 25 years, but um if it's an
[3:20:29] affordable housing, uh then it's only
[3:20:32] good for 20 years, then they put the
[3:20:34] rent up. Is that not correct? So, I'm
[3:20:36] just wondering why they want the extra
[3:20:37] five years.
[3:20:39] » The 20 uh through the chair, the the 25
[3:20:41] years is a development charge um
[3:20:43] agreement requirement. um they would be
[3:20:46] able to put the rent up by statutory
[3:20:48] guideline every year regardless
[3:20:51] which is usually around 2% but that's
[3:20:53] outside of the scope of this report.
[3:20:55] » Okay. I just Yep. Okay.
[3:20:57] » Councelor Mayard.
[3:20:59] » Um thank you. This is at least better
[3:21:02] some some better news. So if if um in
[3:21:05] that one paragraph executive summary it
[3:21:08] says that the definition of affordable
[3:21:09] housing in the bylaw is outdated and
[3:21:11] requires review but is that's not like
[3:21:15] in the third bullet point there like
[3:21:18] what are we are are we going to do the
[3:21:21] review after we give them the after we
[3:21:24] pass the like just clarify for me.
[3:21:27] Sorry. the connection charge uh refund
[3:21:32] bylaw as it stands is based on data uh
[3:21:34] that no longer exists. So because we
[3:21:37] have the municipal capital facilities
[3:21:39] bylaw that defines what affordability
[3:21:42] is, we just need to update that portion
[3:21:44] of the bylaw to say that um that so it's
[3:21:48] consistent with the definition of
[3:21:49] affordability that we have.
[3:21:55] change the money.
[3:21:57] » You're the chair. Did I answer the
[3:21:59] question?
[3:22:00] » Yeah. Well, I I guess I'm just trying to
[3:22:02] get it after we just get my head wrapped
[3:22:05] around like what
[3:22:09] So, they're getting what they want and
[3:22:11] then we're going to change the bylaw. Is
[3:22:13] that what we're doing? Sorry.
[3:22:16] » Through through the chair. No, we need
[3:22:17] to to change the bylaw first because
[3:22:19] that definition
[3:22:21] essentially doesn't exist. So the the
[3:22:24] bylaw needs to be changed and then the
[3:22:27] developer if those 31 units um are
[3:22:30] affordable by that definition would get
[3:22:32] the 30% waiver on the connection charge
[3:22:35] after occupancy.
[3:22:37] » So then we're aligning it with a re what
[3:22:39] will be a revised municipal definition.
[3:22:45] » Yes, except that it has to happen first.
[3:22:48] So the byon the by line needs to be
[3:22:50] revised in order for the application to
[3:22:52] be made for the refund. So the the
[3:22:54] refund is after the fact.
[3:22:57] » Yes.
[3:22:59] » Okay. Um I just have one quick question.
[3:23:02] Um we're waving fees, correct? The
[3:23:06] development charges or fees, however you
[3:23:09] and what just for the public, how many
[3:23:11] total dollars is that?
[3:23:14] the uh through the chair, the total
[3:23:16] would be um listed under the budget
[3:23:18] considerations. So 201,000 for uh the 31
[3:23:21] affordable units um exempted under
[3:23:23] agreement and then 136,000 for the 89
[3:23:26] market rent units.
[3:23:29] » Okay. So, so my question is actually
[3:23:32] probably not to you but to the CEO. Are
[3:23:35] we not making financial decisions over
[3:23:37] $50,000 during restricted acts now that
[3:23:40] we shouldn't be doing because we are
[3:23:42] essentially
[3:23:43] taking money from the next council.
[3:23:46] Where's this land out for us? I'm I'm
[3:23:48] worried about I'm worried about making
[3:23:50] decisions. So So just being honest with
[3:23:52] you, I reread your email you sent about
[3:23:55] restricted acts. It says over 50,000
[3:23:57] here. We just talked about well over
[3:23:59] 50,000. So no matter I guess how you
[3:24:03] answer when we get to it, I'm going to
[3:24:04] break this apart and not support number
[3:24:05] three because I think we're tying next
[3:24:07] council's hands. So I'd just like to see
[3:24:09] what you're
[3:24:12] Okay, madame clerk,
[3:24:14] » Through the chair, members of committee.
[3:24:17] So I thought about this as well and
[3:24:20] obviously this agenda was unfortunately
[3:24:22] published before we were confirmed to be
[3:24:24] in restricted acts. So lame duck status.
[3:24:27] So the point about the statutory
[3:24:30] development charges discounts that's
[3:24:32] permitted because that is permitted
[3:24:34] under provincial legislation in the
[3:24:37] development charges act. So you can
[3:24:39] proceed with processing that portion of
[3:24:41] this to your point about supporting
[3:24:43] recommendation number two.
[3:24:44] Recommendation number three granting um
[3:24:47] it is just a update to the bylaw. So,
[3:24:50] you're only doing um a policy change to
[3:24:54] update the definition to comply with
[3:24:56] what the definition what the municipal
[3:24:57] definition is of affordable housing. It
[3:25:00] has been made clear to me by um uh the
[3:25:04] supervisor of housing that the um what's
[3:25:07] outlined in the report about granting
[3:25:08] connection charge relief that the
[3:25:11] $88,917
[3:25:13] uh dollars that would be something that
[3:25:15] the new council would make a decision
[3:25:17] on. So right now what you're being asked
[3:25:20] to do is to do the development charges
[3:25:21] portion of this report and then update
[3:25:24] the bylaw to comply with the new
[3:25:25] definition of affordable housing. The
[3:25:27] actual relief of the connection charges
[3:25:30] will come forward to the new council.
[3:25:32] » Perfect. So that's good clarity I think
[3:25:34] for us all.
[3:25:37] » Uh councelor Nyman.
[3:25:39] » Thank you. I I'm just uh thank you Mr.
[3:25:42] Chair, but I'm just want to go back to
[3:25:43] the affordable units. I know it's
[3:25:45] development charges, but the affordable
[3:25:47] units is 20% below market rent. That
[3:25:52] that's what affordable is. So, and I
[3:25:55] think after 20 years, it goes back up to
[3:25:59] market rent. Is that not correct?
[3:26:03] » Through the chair, I don't believe so
[3:26:05] because the statutory increases would
[3:26:06] apply. So, you can't just arbitrarily
[3:26:09] change the units.
[3:26:10] » No, no, no. I I know what I'm saying.
[3:26:12] for 20 years it stays at uh affordable
[3:26:15] housing which is 20% below
[3:26:18] » Right is it 25
[3:26:21] » Is it used to be 20 so I'm just
[3:26:23] wondering when that changed
[3:26:27] » Through the chair I don't believe that
[3:26:29] it does it just commits them to that and
[3:26:33] the the 20 it's using provincial um
[3:26:36] bulletin provincial policy statement uh
[3:26:39] tables so they have to meet that at the
[3:26:42] time that they apply.
[3:26:44] » Yeah, I I know. But what I'm what I'm
[3:26:46] trying to understand is sorry, Mr.
[3:26:49] Chair, but I'm trying to understand
[3:26:51] because what everybody I talked to and
[3:26:53] it was the developers, it's good for 20
[3:26:54] years. They they keep the market or the
[3:26:57] » The affordable housing rate
[3:26:58] » Rate at for 20 years. After the 20
[3:27:01] years, and yes, they get their increase
[3:27:04] or whatever, but after 20 years, they
[3:27:06] can put it back up to market value. So
[3:27:09] what I'm asking is if that is the case
[3:27:11] then why are we agreeing to 25 years
[3:27:17] » Through the chair I I the the
[3:27:19] development charges act requires 25
[3:27:21] years so that's that's what's required
[3:27:24] for the exemption and if that flipping
[3:27:28] it flipping
[3:27:30] » Sorry it doesn't necessarily have to be
[3:27:32] 31 specific units but as long as there's
[3:27:34] 31 units over the 25 years and that's
[3:27:36] assuming that people move in and out um
[3:27:39] that 31 years what 31 units would remain
[3:27:42] but after that 25 years um it's
[3:27:46] theoretically possible. Yes.
[3:27:49] » Okay. So you you've explained it the DC
[3:27:52] reduction it has to be 25 years
[3:27:54] irregardless if it's 20 years but I'm
[3:27:57] just having a hard time of giving them
[3:27:59] the reduction on the affordable units if
[3:28:01] after 20 years they're able to put it
[3:28:03] back up to market value. That's what
[3:28:05] that's what I'm where I'm going with it.
[3:28:07] Council McNutton.
[3:28:08] » Oh, no. I was just gonna
[3:28:09] » Okay. Just
[3:28:10] » Say similar that there's there's no
[3:28:12] 20-year restriction.
[3:28:13] » That's good. Council H, did you have
[3:28:16] another? No. Councilor Mayard,
[3:28:19] » Thank you. So, just for clarity, and I I
[3:28:22] did read through this, but not as
[3:28:24] thoroughly maybe as I should have
[3:28:26] because there was something else taking
[3:28:27] my attentions. Um so that affordable is
[3:28:32] that is that rate of affordability is
[3:28:35] that set as of when we make this
[3:28:37] agreement because we don't know right I
[3:28:40] mean it it it could go up but you know
[3:28:42] in the next 10 years
[3:28:45] I I'm really worried about what's
[3:28:47] happening. So if the if you know if
[3:28:49] landlords you know if all of a sudden
[3:28:51] the average rent or the market rent goes
[3:28:53] down what happens to the affordable? Do
[3:28:56] they slide with it? on a scale or is it
[3:28:59] set when we do this? Like say say
[3:29:03] regular rent is, you know, two grand and
[3:29:06] whatever that works out to for the
[3:29:07] affordable, but if that rent goes down
[3:29:09] to 1,500 or a,000, you know, like we
[3:29:14] don't know what's going to I just uh I
[3:29:16] mean, we wouldn't have known anyways,
[3:29:18] but I just think now in these times we
[3:29:20] have to recognize that
[3:29:24] » We could well be in a worldwide
[3:29:26] recession. you know, it could be we
[3:29:28] could be in a worldwide recession. So,
[3:29:30] how
[3:29:30] » And they won't get, you know, they won't
[3:29:33] get that money for their
[3:29:34] » Through the through the the chair. Um,
[3:29:37] and the rent will be set the the
[3:29:39] affordable units will be set at the the
[3:29:41] rents at the time that they apply in
[3:29:43] order to get the exemption. So, there
[3:29:46] though any rent can go up at statutory
[3:29:48] guideline every year. if they end up
[3:29:50] having to scale down the market rent
[3:29:52] units they may but um I don't know that
[3:29:56] rents have declined in in with economic
[3:29:58] decline I think that's just that's
[3:30:00] supply and demand and free market
[3:30:02] capitalism
[3:30:03] » Y
[3:30:07] um
[3:30:08] » So the any further
[3:30:11] counc
[3:30:13] [clears throat]
[3:30:16] um so I just want to get a little more
[3:30:17] clarity around the connection charges
[3:30:19] introduction because and I thought I had
[3:30:21] it on my my iPad the actual bylaw uh
[3:30:25] which isn't attached here uh but it's
[3:30:28] pretty clear that there's uh a reduction
[3:30:31] that's the bylaw says that that you must
[3:30:34] do it. So how does that and and I'm
[3:30:36] going to your question about the the
[3:30:39] lame duck thing. I'm not sure that that
[3:30:42] applies in this case
[3:30:45] because it's a bylaw that's currently
[3:30:46] existing.
[3:30:48] through the chair. I think yeah, I think
[3:30:50] that's what we clarified is that the the
[3:30:52] connection bylaw requires it. Yeah.
[3:30:55] » But how to determine the eligibility for
[3:30:58] the 30 uh 30%
[3:31:00] » Rebate after occupancy.
[3:31:03] » Um that definition is what's incorrect
[3:31:06] and needs to be amended. It doesn't
[3:31:08] apply to this particular development or
[3:31:10] any future development that wants to
[3:31:12] come forward before the bylaw is is
[3:31:14] amended.
[3:31:15] » Yeah. Okay. I'm good. All right.
[3:31:17] [snorts] Councelor Pal,
[3:31:21] » If that went back to them guaranteed 20
[3:31:26] years, then they would have to pay the
[3:31:29] development charges, would they not?
[3:31:34] » Through the chair, they would, but I
[3:31:36] don't know. And the reason why he asked
[3:31:39] that question, you know, it's kind of
[3:31:41] like looking into a crystal ball, but
[3:31:44] hopefully
[3:31:46] as we move along through the years,
[3:31:49] there's going to be other places that
[3:31:52] come into that. So to give one developer
[3:31:56] that are we going to do that with
[3:31:58] everyone in the future so they don't
[3:32:00] have to pay development fees because as
[3:32:04] you go along and rentals go up in price
[3:32:10] theirs will go up on the affordable when
[3:32:14] they move out somebody else takes I I
[3:32:18] sort of think we should be sticking with
[3:32:21] a 20-year unless let them pay the
[3:32:24] development charge. I think we're given
[3:32:26] a big break as it is. Alice, go ahead
[3:32:30] » Through the chair. The the development
[3:32:31] charges come under provincial
[3:32:33] legislation. So they that's the way it's
[3:32:36] stipulated in the act. Uh and the
[3:32:40] municipality then has to for an
[3:32:42] exemption of development charges for
[3:32:44] affordable units have that 25-year
[3:32:46] agreement. As for reduction for the
[3:32:49] market rent, that's that's uh that's a a
[3:32:52] provincial matter. Um the connection
[3:32:55] charges are unless, as I said, you
[3:32:59] choose to to resend the bylaw together
[3:33:01] is available to any developer with um
[3:33:05] purpose-built affordable rental housing.
[3:33:07] » So whether they sign for 20 or 25, it
[3:33:11] doesn't matter what you're saying.
[3:33:13] » Through the chair, that's correct.
[3:33:14] » Councelor Hirs.
[3:33:15] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to
[3:33:17] quickly say 25 is better. And Mr.
[3:33:19] Hersfield's prepared to guarantee
[3:33:21] affordable rent for 25 years, not 20.
[3:33:24] All the better. And he is. So, okay,
[3:33:27] let's go.
[3:33:28] » I'm going to uh call the vote. All in
[3:33:31] favor?
[3:33:36] » That carries. Thank you.
[3:33:39] Um, Mayor Ferguson
[3:33:43] Dundee, your resolution. I will turn the
[3:33:45] floor over to you.
[3:33:46] » And do you want to turn off councelor
[3:33:47] Panel's mic while you're there?
[3:33:50] » Thank you, [clears throat] Mr. Chair.
[3:33:52] I'll um the dire
[3:33:54] » Councelor McNutton wants to second it
[3:33:55] for you.
[3:33:56] » Okay. Yeah, I was going to get to that
[3:33:59] director. Um McNichol is here um who may
[3:34:02] be able to provide some questions. This
[3:34:05] refers to a letter that's contained on
[3:34:07] page uh 230 of today's agenda
[3:34:12] um seeking support for the uh OSF
[3:34:16] funding.
[3:34:18] I'll read the um read this rather
[3:34:21] lengthy
[3:34:23] rather lengthy document. But um
[3:34:29] uh whereas recent municipal
[3:34:31] infrastructure funding programs by the
[3:34:33] government of Canada and the province of
[3:34:35] Ontario have tended to prioritize growth
[3:34:38] related or housing enabling
[3:34:40] infrastructure projects over
[3:34:41] infrastructure renewal needs.
[3:34:46] Um and whereas the government of Ontario
[3:34:49] has regulated municipal infrastructure
[3:34:52] asset management through Orag 588 uh-17
[3:34:58] asset management planning for municipal
[3:35:00] infrastructure under the infrastructure
[3:35:02] for jobs and prosperity act 2015 and
[3:35:06] whereas
[3:35:08] municipal asset management plans and the
[3:35:10] financial accountability office of
[3:35:12] Ontario have identified that
[3:35:13] municipalities have significant state of
[3:35:16] good repair backlogs and renewal needs
[3:35:18] for infrastructure.
[3:35:20] And whereas the government of Ontario
[3:35:22] doubled the Ontario Community
[3:35:24] Infrastructure Fund, OSF, from 200
[3:35:28] million per year to 400 million per year
[3:35:31] for 2021 to 2026,
[3:35:34] but has not publicly committed to
[3:35:37] maintaining this level of funding beyond
[3:35:39] 2026.
[3:35:41] And whereas the OSF has become a vital
[3:35:44] indispensable resource for
[3:35:46] municipalities, assisting them with
[3:35:48] improving their asset management
[3:35:50] programs and meeting community
[3:35:52] preserving infrastructure renewal needs.
[3:35:55] And whereas increased geopolitical
[3:35:57] uncertainty is threatening economic
[3:35:59] prosperity of Canada, Ontario, and every
[3:36:03] municipality.
[3:36:05] And whereas municipal infrastructure is
[3:36:07] a key enabler and preserver of economic
[3:36:09] prosperity. And whereas the Municipal
[3:36:12] Finance Officers Association of Ontario,
[3:36:15] MFOA, has heard from its members and
[3:36:18] their municipalities concerns regarding
[3:36:20] the potential erosion of existing
[3:36:23] municipal infrastructure and thus
[3:36:25] service levels in light of the ongoing
[3:36:27] focus on housing enabling infrastructure
[3:36:30] by grant funding programs.
[3:36:32] Now therefore, be it resolved that the
[3:36:35] Council of the Corporation of the County
[3:36:37] of Prince Edwards supports MFOA's letter
[3:36:40] to the Ministry of Infrastructure
[3:36:42] requesting that the doubling of the
[3:36:44] Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund be
[3:36:46] made permanent in advance of the
[3:36:49] allocations for the 2027 calendar year,
[3:36:53] helping municipalities to continue
[3:36:55] building housing enabling infrastructure
[3:36:57] while preserving the economic value
[3:37:00] provided by existing infrastructure.
[3:37:02] ffstruure and that a copy of this
[3:37:04] resolution be circulated to the
[3:37:06] honorable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario,
[3:37:09] the Honorable Todd McCarthy, Minister of
[3:37:11] Infrastructure, the Honorable Rob Flack,
[3:37:14] Minister of Municipal Affairs and
[3:37:16] Housing, the Honorable Peter Bethan
[3:37:19] Falvi, Minister of Finance, Bay of
[3:37:22] Quinty MPP, Tyler Alop, the Executive
[3:37:25] Director of MFOA, Donna Herage, the
[3:37:28] Association of Municipalities of
[3:37:30] Ontario, AMO,
[3:37:32] the Rural Ontario Municipal Association,
[3:37:35] Roma, and all municipalities in Ontario.
[3:37:39] And I'd also add the Eastern Ontario
[3:37:41] Wardens Caucus to that list. And
[3:37:44] Director McNichol is um a member of the
[3:37:48] association
[3:37:50] and um thinks this is a prudent move and
[3:37:52] I agree. And B, what was the um
[3:37:57] magnitude of the funding in 2026?
[3:38:03] and provide that.
[3:38:06] » Now I gota turn mine on. Thanks
[3:38:11] » Adelina. Um I I it is significant. I
[3:38:14] can't remember off the top of my head. I
[3:38:15] did ask Ann if she could give me the
[3:38:17] number and um really this supports
[3:38:19] MFOA's advocacy and it lends the intent
[3:38:22] is to lend the county's voice uh behind
[3:38:24] the the resolution and send that
[3:38:26] through. So, um, we definitely need
[3:38:28] more, um, money for our core
[3:38:30] infrastructure, um, and we need stable
[3:38:32] funding. So, I, uh, I support, uh, this
[3:38:36] resolution 100%.
[3:38:38] » Thank you. Any further questions or
[3:38:40] comments? Not seeing any. Motion's on
[3:38:44] the floor. All in favor?
[3:38:46] And that carries. Perfect.
[3:38:49] No closed session. So, motion number
[3:38:52] nine, St. Gan Nimman motion.
[3:38:58] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. St. Gene Nimon
[3:39:00] motion that this meeting now adjourn at
[3:39:02] 4:38 p.m.
[3:39:04] » All in favor? And that carries. Thank
[3:39:07] you, everybody.
[3:39:20] » Yeah.
[3:39:23] Um, nature.