[0:17] So, I think we're live. We're just um

[0:20] it's a hustle and bustle in downtown

[0:22] West Arash. Uh lots of construction. So,

[0:25] we have at least one counselor who's

[0:26] stuck in traffic. Uh so, there are three

[0:30] of us here, but um yeah, we've got

[0:33] somebody on their way. So, um we have

[0:35] quorum though, so we can start and get

[0:37] some of the formalities out. So, welcome

[0:39] everyone to this special meeting of

[0:42] council. Uh, we have a certain number of

[0:44] items on the agenda. Um, and uh, we'll

[0:48] begin with um, the CAO doing the roll

[0:53] call of counselors.

[0:55] » Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. District

[0:57] one, councelor Sean Samson,

[1:01] » Present.

[1:02] » District two, warden Lois Landry,

[1:04] » Present. District three, councelor Brian

[1:06] Nar Shaw is on route. Y

[1:10] » Uh district four, councelor Amanda

[1:12] Mrevette. We don't have her online

[1:13] either, do we? We have nobody online.

[1:16] And district five, Deputy Warden and

[1:19] Brent Samson

[1:20] » Present.

[1:21] » She may be in the same the same line of

[1:23] » She may be.

[1:24] » Yeah. Okay. So, uh while we're here, uh

[1:28] and we do have a quorum so we can uh

[1:30] dispense with some of these items. Um,

[1:33] the agenda is in front of you. It was

[1:35] circulated uh late last week, I believe.

[1:39] So, are there any errors or omissions or

[1:42] additions to the agenda? And if not, I

[1:45] would entertain a motion to approve.

[1:50] Moved by councelor Samson to approve the

[1:54] agenda as circulated. Oh, seconded by

[1:57] Deputy Worth Samson. Thank you. Um any

[2:00] discussion on that motion? Hearing none.

[2:02] All those in favor signify by saying I.

[2:04] I.

[2:05] » I. Those opposed. Motion carries. So

[2:08] there are three of us here. Um

[2:12] I know we have uh some items that are

[2:16] grant applications. Uh so we have four.

[2:20] We have a sponsorship request and um

[2:23] then we have a request for a letter from

[2:27] Dundy Hills Vacation Village and uh

[2:30] Richmond Arena report followup. So, uh

[2:33] I'm happy to begin with the Acadia Bill

[2:36] Community Center if you can go ahead and

[2:40] plug along with that. So, um in the

[2:45] I didn't even turn that on at all today.

[2:49] And there.

[2:51] » So in the

[2:53] in the package you

[3:00] we're good. Okay. So um council is just

[3:04] messaging that he will be walking in the

[3:06] door in about 2 minutes. So um while

[3:10] we're but we have a forum now. So, um,

[3:13] we can direct folks to if you're using

[3:16] the online package at home, uh, starting

[3:19] on page two, um, is the community grant.

[3:24] We had some technical difficulties and

[3:25] people in traffic, so we're just getting

[3:27] going. So, we're at the Acadiaville

[3:30] Community Center society has a grant

[3:33] application for the tier 2 community

[3:35] grant funds uh, requesting $7,500.

[3:41] um they are requesting um to provide an

[3:44] accessible method of transporting

[3:46] individuals with mobility challenges

[3:48] between the different floors. So I'm

[3:50] sure everybody's been to the Kadia Bill

[3:51] Hall. Um and so the project total is

[3:54] $37,242.35.

[3:57] They're requesting uh the maximum

[3:59] amount. So, I'll throw it out for

[4:01] discussion and possibly a motion and

[4:04] would entertain $1,000 from district two

[4:08] funds uh as part of that discussion if

[4:11] folks are open to that.

[4:20] So we have a further uh

[4:24] further discuss

[4:26] I would thousand from this district

[4:30] three I would go 500 from district one

[4:35] and whatever we feel we can afford to

[4:39] okay

[4:39] » Take out of our district fund. So that

[4:42] would leave uh so do you want to make

[4:45] the motion for the total amount plus

[4:48] from with a th00and from district 2 500

[4:50] from district 1 and then we can have

[4:52] some discussion on that motion.

[4:54] » Yes.

[4:54] » Okay. So the motion is uh to provide the

[4:59] $7500

[5:01] 6,000 from district funds,000 from

[5:03] district 2 and 500 from district 1. Can

[5:05] I have a second?

[5:06] » 6,000 from general

[5:08] » 6,000 from the Yeah.

[5:09] » Yeah. Can I have a second?

[5:11] » I'll second that.

[5:12] » Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor.

[5:14] Any discussion on the motion?

[5:16] [Music]

[5:24] » Is there anybody who has any comments,

[5:27] concerns on that matter?

[5:28] » No, I think it's a good project. I'm

[5:30] just trying to figure out We're all

[5:32] trying to figure out how to make a map

[5:33] for it tonight.

[5:34] » Yeah. Um I don't know if there's any

[5:37] appetite for any more in the district

[5:39] funds, but Um I Yeah, just worry. I got

[5:43] a couple of things I'll I'll I'll chew

[5:45] into mind later on.

[5:47] » Yeah. Yeah, fair enough. Yeah. Okay. So,

[5:51] um yeah, we're going to have to mind the

[5:53] numbers here. Um

[5:55] so, that is

[5:59] Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor.

[6:01] All those in favor signify by saying I.

[6:03] » I.

[6:06] I.

[6:07] » Those opposed.

[6:08] » Motion carries. Okay, moving on. Uh, and

[6:11] I think these are actually out of

[6:12] sequence in your package. So, um, the

[6:15] next, uh, item on our agenda

[6:19] is the Jolly Club. So, that's a little

[6:22] further down. The sponsorship is in the

[6:25] middle of this in your package, but on

[6:27] our we'll just follow the agenda. So, if

[6:29] you scroll down, you'll see that there

[6:31] is a request from the Jolly Club.

[6:33] They're looking for $6,726.

[6:37] Uh that is the total amount of the quote

[6:40] as well. Um so I'll throw that out to

[6:44] anybody who'd like to pursue that.

[6:51] » I'm still on this. Yeah. Um I like to

[6:56] put a thousand from the district funds

[6:57] on this, but I'm not sure if we really

[7:00] have anywhere to go in the regional

[7:02] funds based on what's coming up.

[7:06] So,

[7:07] for folks who are following along, we're

[7:09] actually on page 58 of our package. And

[7:12] so, what I'm hearing uh Deputy Warden

[7:15] say is that if someone or he himself

[7:19] would like to make a motion, there is uh

[7:22] an ask. I I know that we have had

[7:24] conversations about when groups ask for

[7:27] the full amount. Um so, we have $1,000

[7:31] from district five. um kind of

[7:35] committed. Uh don't if anybody else

[7:38] wants to speak to district funds or make

[7:39] a motion about um a grand total that we

[7:43] can debate, but I'd entertain a motion

[7:45] for some discussion.

[7:46] » Did you have something?

[7:48] » I'll make that motion. $1,000 from

[7:50] district five funds.

[7:51] » Okay. So, the motion

[7:54] the motion on the floor is for $1,000

[7:56] from district five funds. Um do we have

[8:00] a seconder?

[8:01] » I'll second it.

[8:02] » Okay. Seconded by uh councelor Marchon.

[8:06] Any discussion on that motion?

[8:09] » Go ahead.

[8:15] » We may have lost them again. Just go

[8:17] ahead.

[8:18] » Oh, you're there. Y

[8:21] » Um I just asking a question, Deputy

[8:24] Warden. What's your thoughts on it? Do

[8:26] you want to support it at half out of

[8:28] general or full the rest of a general?

[8:30] It's up to you. Um I'll support either

[8:31] way.

[8:33] I mean, if the circumstances were

[8:34] different, but I I just feel the next

[8:36] one is more important than this one at

[8:38] the end of the day.

[8:39] » So, you want to go 50%.

[8:41] » No, like I I I wouldn't take anything

[8:44] original.

[8:45] » Oh, you just want to leave it at the

[8:46] thousand.

[8:47] » Yeah, because I I don't like I think

[8:48] it's it's just not not as crucial as the

[8:52] other things on the list and I wish it

[8:54] » And it is 100% of the ask, right?

[8:56] » Yeah, exactly. So, it wouldn't have been

[8:57] something I would have considered to

[8:59] begin with for 100%. But, you know, it

[9:01] would have been nice to see it get to

[9:02] 50, but we just don't.

[9:04] » Yeah. Don't have it here.

[9:07] » So, we have a motion and we have a

[9:08] seconder. And I'll just remind folks,

[9:11] I'm going to ask you individually to

[9:13] keep track of your own district funds,

[9:15] but at this point, we have $4,349.50

[9:18] in the regional funds, right? So, um

[9:22] after that, Yep. Do my math right.

[9:25] » Yep. Okay. So, uh there's a motion on

[9:27] the floor for $1,000 out of district 5

[9:29] funds. Uh any other discussion on that

[9:32] motion? Hearing none. All those in favor

[9:34] signify by saying I.

[9:36] » Those opposed. Motion carries. The next

[9:39] um agenda item is the request from the

[9:44] Grand River Presbyterian Church. That is

[9:47] a request on tier 2 and it is for

[9:51] $7,500. they have a roof that is leaking

[9:55] uh and they have an ask that is uh

[9:58] included in your package. So again, I

[10:00] would uh entertain

[10:02] discussion or motion 85

[10:07] » Page 85 of your package if you're

[10:09] following up. Um,

[10:21] » It cycled and then went out. They all

[10:23] lit up and then heard quite

[10:28] » No, it's struggling.

[10:31] » Okay,

[10:31] » We're all done.

[10:33] » Okay, carry on. do our best.

[10:34] » Yeah.

[10:35] » Um like

[10:37] » Considering they're saying this is

[10:38] leaking a bit, it's I don't think I've

[10:40] seen this group come since we've been on

[10:42] council. Um I like

[10:46] I'd like to see if we could make a

[10:48] motion to 4,000 of the regional and

[10:51] 3,000 of the district funds, district 5

[10:54] funds, which should give it bring it up

[10:56] to 7,000 anyway and make a motion on

[10:59] that if anyone's open to second.

[11:01] » Okay. Okay. So, the motion on the floor

[11:04] is um 3,000 from district. There's it.

[11:07] So, 3,000 from district five and 4,000

[11:14] from district, sorry, from the regional

[11:16] fund.

[11:19] Uh do we have a second? Second.

[11:21] » Seconded by councelor Merchon. Any

[11:24] discussion on that motion?

[11:26] » Yes.

[11:28] » Oh, yeah. Right. Okay. So, um, so that

[11:31] will effectively deplete our regional

[11:33] our regional funds $349.50.

[11:37] » Yeah.

[11:38] » Okay. Um, and I'm just I just want to

[11:41] sober second thought kind of discussion

[11:43] and do we anticipate any like are we

[11:46] forgetting about something that's going

[11:47] to come up later in the year is what I'm

[11:49] wondering.

[11:50] » I Right. But I'm just like has staff had

[11:53] any conversations about that kind of

[11:56] thing that we might not be aware of? I I

[11:59] know of something in my own district

[12:00] that I have funds in my district funds

[12:03] to to provide for. Yeah. Uh and and you

[12:06] know, this does beg the question um when

[12:10] we revisit the advantages and

[12:12] disadvantages of some of the changes

[12:14] we've made to this policy. By going up

[12:16] to 7,500, we've likely decreased the

[12:20] number of projects that we can support.

[12:22] Right. But

[12:24] » They've all been important projects.

[12:25] It's not like we've given money that I

[12:27] regret giving out. Um, and at this

[12:29] point, one thing I am I do feel a little

[12:31] bit better about is that anybody who's

[12:34] planning to build this building season

[12:36] has clearly come to us.

[12:38] » Yeah.

[12:38] » So, it may be that we have to advise

[12:41] folks that look, you may want to

[12:42] consider waiting until March and and

[12:45] looking at the next fiscal year, but

[12:47] certainly this gets us through the the

[12:49] the building season.

[12:52] And I and

[12:54] sorry

[12:55] » Maybe that's working I saw the light.

[12:57] Yeah. And to be clear I can't think of

[12:59] anything either. I just wondered if

[13:00] » There was something maybe on the radar

[13:02] staff or

[13:04] » We're hearing but again come November

[13:06] people will start thinking about holiday

[13:08] things or things.

[13:11] » Yeah.

[13:11] » But nothing at this time.

[13:13] » Okay. That's great. And I do think this

[13:14] is an urgent one as well. You know the

[13:17] leaky roof is not a good not a good

[13:19] thing.

[13:20] » Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion uh on

[13:22] the floor to give uh 7,000 in total,

[13:25] 4,000 from regional fund, and 3,000 from

[13:29] district 5. Any other discussion on

[13:31] that? Hearing none, all those in favor

[13:33] signify by saying I. I.

[13:35] » Those opposed? Motion carries. The um

[13:39] next item on the agenda is a um village

[13:44] on the canal um grant application for

[13:49] tier three waterfront development grant

[13:51] funds and I

[13:53] » Yeah. So warden, I'm going to declare a

[13:55] conflict on that one right off the bat.

[13:57] » Yeah, we see your name on the on the

[13:58] list of directors.

[13:59] » Something I've been involved with. So

[14:01] I'll just step out of the room and you

[14:02] can

[14:02] » Good. So um this one is um one of our

[14:08] tier three which is waterfront

[14:12] development. This one is um a little

[14:16] different. Uh so we've just talked about

[14:18] how we've spent all our money but there

[14:20] is a budget line from CCBF.

[14:25] » Yep. CCDF waterfront development fund.

[14:28] So uh and and I think we've recirculated

[14:31] that. Just a reminder, I think the

[14:33] original um report that came out from

[14:35] the director of finance said that we

[14:36] hadn't spent any of those dollars. We

[14:39] actually did commit uh 10,000. Yep. So,

[14:42] but we still have a good chunk of money

[14:43] in there. So, um this one is for

[14:47] waterfront development grant tier three.

[14:49] Maximum request can only be 50% of the

[14:52] project. It is um from the village on

[14:55] the canal uh association and it's

[14:58] regarding the splash pad. So, I'll throw

[15:01] it out for discussion if anybody has

[15:04] anything. You can find that package

[15:06] starts on page 101 in your uh online

[15:10] package.

[15:13] » So, are we saying that the total

[15:16] » Do you want to press your button there,

[15:18] counselor? Go ahead.

[15:20] » So, looking is the total of the project

[15:22] 480,000. Is that what we see there?

[15:24] » So, the project Yes. So, the provincial

[15:28] government contributed um 360,000.

[15:33] Thank you. Uh 360,000. There's been

[15:36] community fundraising all along. Uh and

[15:38] so the specifics of this one are are

[15:41] laid out there. I I I do want to just

[15:45] sort of say that I did some math on this

[15:48] and they don't appear to have included

[15:51] HST when they calculated the 40,000.

[15:54] they they I actually when I did the math

[15:56] it's actually more than 40,000 um

[16:00] » Commission

[16:01] » For yeah because all of the things that

[16:03] are there uh uh when you actually go to

[16:06] the actual quotes it includes plus HST

[16:08] so but um and and there is some you know

[16:13] we have been very clear that we expect

[16:16] projects not to begin until

[16:20] after approval has been granted and

[16:23] there are kids playing on the playground

[16:24] on the splash pad. We've seen video. I I

[16:26] went and saw them. Um this project is

[16:30] outlined as it's been described to us in

[16:32] phases. So, Deputy Warden.

[16:36] » Yeah. So, I'll make the motion that we

[16:37] support it to the tune of the 20,000. Um

[16:40] and it's partially because I' just like

[16:42] to officially get discussion started

[16:44] here if somebody wants to second that.

[16:46] » Would would I be able to say

[16:49] » That? Just is your motion 20,000? When

[16:53] we have done these in the past, we've

[16:55] always written them contingent.

[16:57] Actually, there's a kind of a draft

[16:58] here. Um,

[17:02] village on the canal um approved village

[17:05] on the canal association grant

[17:06] application for the tier three

[17:08] waterfront development to the amount of

[17:10] $20,000 to be allocated from the CCBF

[17:13] subject to assessment by staff as to the

[17:15] project's eligibility.

[17:17] » Is that is that what we've done with

[17:19] water? some of the questions.

[17:21] » Okay. And if that's how we

[17:25] » Yeah, it just Yeah, we wrote out the

[17:27] motion as similar to the others. So

[17:29] that's the motion. Uh and I'll read it

[17:31] again just because it it to be

[17:32] consistent with the others. So um moved

[17:35] by Deputy Warden Samson. I'm looking for

[17:38] a seconder. that council approved the

[17:40] village on the Canal Association grant

[17:41] application for the tier 3 waterfront

[17:43] development grant fund in the amount of

[17:45] $20,000 to be allocated from the Canada

[17:48] Community Building Fund subject to

[17:50] assessment by staff as to the project's

[17:53] eligibility.

[17:55] So that's the motion.

[18:03] » I'll second that motion

[18:04] » Seconded by Deputy S. So sorry by

[18:07] councelor Do we have any discussion on

[18:10] that? Council member,

[18:13] » Um they speak of getting a lease after

[18:16] the fact. Would we I don't know if we

[18:17] care that they own or lease this

[18:19] property or not. Uh the letter of

[18:22] support is not even signed and the

[18:24] project's already started as you

[18:25] mentioned. Those are issues I have. Uh

[18:28] the group in my community was they were

[18:30] told very clear if you start anything

[18:32] you're not getting it. So this seems to

[18:34] be something different. I know it's been

[18:36] creative with the phase one, two, and

[18:38] three, but the project is, as you

[18:40] stated, is being used. Uh, so I'm kind

[18:44] of confused as to what this

[18:46] commissioning and extra work is for.

[18:49] » Yeah, no question. And that may be

[18:52] something that the CCB folks say, hold

[18:56] on. I I I I've taken pictures of the

[18:59] sorry I've taken pictures uh because I

[19:02] was there with family and um I see that

[19:05] they're looking for armorstone and I

[19:06] believe there's actually armorstone

[19:07] already there. So it may very well be

[19:10] that some of the phase three things have

[19:12] started but maybe they're going to do a

[19:14] different thing. I on this matter it is

[19:17] subject to CCBF eligibility. So I I'm

[19:21] I'm happy to defer to that but but I I

[19:24] respect your wishes. to consider it a

[19:27] different way.

[19:27] » Yeah. Considering what happened

[19:30] » Considering what happened with the group

[19:32] in my community, I I couldn't support

[19:34] it.

[19:38] » Okay. So, uh we have a motion on the

[19:41] floor and a seconder. Is there any other

[19:43] discussion? Deputy Warden.

[19:48] » Yeah, just to confirm and I don't want

[19:50] not to put anyone on the spot, but I

[19:52] guess um maybe I am. Um yeah, is that

[19:55] criteria about not starting though? We

[19:57] generally the same thing with the like I

[19:59] know this the waterfront development has

[20:01] been kind of treated differently anyway.

[20:04] So is that like I I'm just trying to

[20:06] think if look up the uh the policy on

[20:09] it. Yeah,

[20:10] » The policy lists all three of them under

[20:12] » As the same thing umbrella. Okay.

[20:15] » But if they

[20:17] » But they've explained how they are

[20:20] justifying that as the NFAS three. So if

[20:23] that gets through staff through CCBF.

[20:27] » Yeah. And I I

[20:31] » I guess at the end of the day, it's not

[20:32] up to us to police it necessarily in the

[20:35] sense that if if if staff looks over

[20:38] this and feels that no, this is this

[20:40] meets the requirements, then then I'm

[20:42] fine with it. we're we're making a

[20:44] decision assuming that it meets the

[20:45] requirements because there are lots of

[20:47] times that there might be projects we

[20:49] don't know if they started or not

[20:50] because we may not have physically seen

[20:52] something you know. Yeah.

[20:57] » Yeah. I I I will say we did there was a

[21:00] previous version of this policy and

[21:04] through sort of conversations we came up

[21:07] with some things that maybe we wanted to

[21:10] change in our revision in our

[21:12] discussions about changing the policy. I

[21:14] don't think we ever once said it's okay

[21:17] with us if they've already started right

[21:18] and I mean I know that I told the hall

[21:20] and disuse you cannot buy a single

[21:23] thing. We've had conversation with

[21:25] people saying, "Look, I know your

[21:27] quote's going to expire, but you cannot

[21:29] buy that." You know, so we've been

[21:31] pretty clear about that and and I'm not

[21:34] because this is going to CCBF. I'm happy

[21:36] to to have them, you know, decide if

[21:39] they if that meets their criteria

[21:41] because it is it is phases whether that

[21:44] is a if that's okay to them. If not, it

[21:47] has to come, you know, some there'll be

[21:49] some other request to us.

[21:54] Does whether or not it started though,

[21:55] does that matter to as far as CCBF goes?

[21:58] Like in the sense that I don't know that

[22:00] they're going to consider that, right?

[22:02] » Sure.

[22:04] » Okay.

[22:05] » We'll wait and see what they come back

[22:07] with.

[22:08] » Okay.

[22:12] » So, I was just going to say a lot of the

[22:13] federal and provincial funds you cannot

[22:15] start. You cannot put a shovel in the

[22:17] ground. I can't speak for certain that

[22:20] this one is the case.

[22:25] And I'm just going to their

[22:27] » I got right here

[22:30] and it has tomit one of their

[22:34] whether this falls in the recreation

[22:36] because this is earthworks

[22:38] around a recreational site. So hopefully

[22:41] that

[22:42] ticks enough of the boxes to fit that

[22:44] criteria. Right. So

[22:46] » Yeah. And and I'm also I'm just reading

[22:48] from what they wrote. In keeping with

[22:50] Richmond County's grant policy, we are

[22:52] applying for $20,000 from the Richmond

[22:54] County from Richmond County to support

[22:56] 50% of the final phase which is set to

[22:59] begin in July. So, you know, I'm hoping

[23:01] that we can get them the information

[23:03] that CCBF says yay or nay. And then you

[23:07] know I I mean we we did inquire like we

[23:09] did support for example the playground

[23:11] in Arashhat not through the construction

[23:13] but we did you know uh provide $1,000

[23:17] for uh grand opening that kind of thing

[23:20] like there may be something else

[23:23] » Did we

[23:26] » Oh many years ago. Yeah in the initial

[23:29] design phase. Y

[23:31] » Yeah before anything started. Yeah.

[23:34] » Yeah. Okay.

[23:39] » Yeah.

[23:39] » So,

[23:41] » Yeah, I'm fine with it if

[23:44] if it meets the criteria basically at

[23:46] the end of the day because it's not up

[23:47] to me to police whether or not this is

[23:49] exactly what started or not. If it it's

[23:51] I think it's like anything else though.

[23:53] If if we had you know it's something in

[23:55] our own district that they had started

[23:57] and staff says, "Hey, listen doesn't

[23:59] meet the criteria." Well, it is what it

[24:01] is. You know, that that's what's set

[24:03] out. So, I'm fine with making this

[24:05] motion assuming it's met the criteria.

[24:07] And if it comes back to us that staff

[24:08] determines that it hasn't, well, then,

[24:11] you know, it's not up to me to argue it.

[24:13] Yeah.

[24:15] » Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor.

[24:17] Is there any other discussion?

[24:20] Hearing none. All those in favor signify

[24:21] by saying I.

[24:23] » I. Those opposed.

[24:24] » Councelor Marshon. And can we have that

[24:26] recorded? And just uh reminder that we

[24:29] have quorum, but it's only four. So we

[24:31] can let councelor Mumbreet know that she

[24:33] can come on back in. Uh and so then it

[24:40] are you coming back? Are you you're not

[24:42] pirate association?

[24:43] » Nope.

[24:43] » Yeah. Okay, great. So we'll welcome

[24:45] counselor. Uh you're just a really good

[24:48] pirate.

[24:49] » That's right.

[24:50] » Yep. So um this is a little earlier in

[24:53] your package. So if you go to um

[24:58] uh second item in your package, you will

[25:00] see that there is a sponsorship request

[25:02] from the the pirate uh St. Peter's

[25:07] Pirate Association. Um, so I'll throw

[25:10] this out to So can you can I put the CEO

[25:14] on the spot a little bit to just give us

[25:16] an explanation about how this money sits

[25:18] separate

[25:22] » And and how much we have in this

[25:24] » Sure. Uh, within the approved budget for

[25:26] this year, uh, we have $7,500 put aside

[25:29] for sponsorships.

[25:31] uh sponsorships are outside the grant

[25:33] structure and we're working on getting

[25:36] this in September's or October's bylaw

[25:40] and policy meeting to put some framework

[25:41] around this but right now we don't have

[25:44] a framework. So, it's in front of

[25:46] council to determine at what level a you

[25:49] want these sponsorships coming to you

[25:51] and which ones would be fine to be dealt

[25:53] with by administration. And for this one

[25:55] in particular, where does council feel

[25:58] comfortable uh sponsoring this event for

[26:00] this year? and and as I recall we have

[26:04] sponsored the superport days this year

[26:08] and but I believe the um the one in

[26:12] » Okay Britain partnership

[26:14] » But was the oh the partnership

[26:16] » The summit this fall

[26:17] » But that's that was in the last fiscal

[26:19] year so this fiscal year it's just

[26:21] superport does that sound right

[26:22] » Super and Cape Britain summit the the

[26:25] summit that'll be this fall

[26:26] » Oh coming up this fall yes okay and the

[26:29] the one um

[26:34] Yes, maybe.

[26:36] » Yes.

[26:37] » Y

[26:37] » And then there's the U

[26:40] Aman conference because it's in Cape

[26:42] Breton this year. The municipalities.

[26:45] » So we have we have enough money that

[26:46] we're not in a panic at this point.

[26:53] » Superport has its own

[26:56] » Funding contribution.

[26:57] » Yes. under the grants is K Prattton

[27:00] Partnership Summit. Uh I want to say

[27:03] it's 1500 or 2500 if you recall. Shand

[27:07] it's 15 or 25. A man's is 2500. We're

[27:10] 25. Inesse is 25. Victoria is 25. CBRM

[27:14] is like 9,000 on their own.

[27:17] » Um

[27:18] » 6,000 already.

[27:20] » No, no. I think he was talking about the

[27:21] other municipalities.

[27:22] » 5,000 for us. Uh that's gone between

[27:26] Cape Breton Summit and the Aman's

[27:28] conference

[27:28] » Plus 1,000 takes you up to six. So you

[27:32] got 1500 left.

[27:34] » Okay. So we have $1,500 in our

[27:36] sponsorship. Yeah. Minimum case. Okay.

[27:38] So um we So for those folks following

[27:44] along on page 35, there is captain's

[27:47] chest level of sponsorship at 3,000.

[27:49] First mate is a,000. Quartermaster is

[27:51] 500. uh Buccaneer backer is 25 250 to

[27:56] 500 and donor under $250.

[28:00] » Madam Chair, if I may on your grant

[28:02] booklet now, the sponsorships are

[28:03] listed. There is only one there. Now

[28:05] it's 500 for the Aadian Festival of

[28:07] Betty Degra.

[28:09] » It's right at the very bottom all by

[28:10] itself.

[28:11] » Oh yes.

[28:11] » The most recent one

[28:13] » On on this one.

[28:14] » Uh it be on the most recent one that was

[28:16] like later today.

[28:17] » Yes.

[28:20] So then we would be at

[28:25] » 5,500.

[28:26] » Yeah.

[28:27] » 5,500 in total.

[28:28] » The absolute most at this point. So you

[28:30] have 2,000 left to play.

[28:32] » Okay. So I'm looking for a motion that

[28:35] would capture whether we are interested

[28:37] in uh sponsorship and if so how much.

[28:40] » Deputy

[28:41] » I'm sorry.

[28:44] » Don't believe we did. We look for

[28:46] previous and we didn't find one from

[28:47] pirates or

[28:48] » Councelor.

[28:50] » Yeah, thank you Warden. Um so I would uh

[28:53] yeah I don't believe they were

[28:54] recipients in previous years. Um recent

[28:58] years anyways. Um so I would make a

[29:00] motion to support the request for uh

[29:03] sponsorship for the St. Peters Pirate

[29:04] Days for $500

[29:07] from our

[29:09] » Sponsorship budget line. So

[29:14] » I'll second that.

[29:16] » Any other discussion on that motion?

[29:19] » Hearing none. All those in favor signify

[29:21] by saying I.

[29:22] » Those opposed. Motion carries.

[29:26] Okay. And and I um we probably should

[29:29] have the on this we can keep track of

[29:31] the promised amounts too, not just the

[29:32] amounts that have gone out. Yeah. Okay.

[29:34] So, um, that takes us to a, uh, request

[29:39] for a letter or affidavit from Camp

[29:42] Samson, Dundy Hills Vacation Village.

[29:45] So, um, we

[29:49] » Page 124.

[29:50] » 124. Thank you. Okay. So, um, as you can

[29:54] see, if you've Sorry, go ahead. Oh,

[29:57] » Yeah. I'd just like to declare a

[29:58] conflict on this one. We've done work

[29:59] there recently, so

[30:07] Good. Okay. So, uh, Deputy Warden Samson

[30:10] has left the uh the room and um so you

[30:14] can probably read through uh and and

[30:18] read through the the number of emails

[30:20] that uh that go ahead here. He is

[30:22] requesting a um a letter which would

[30:26] form an affidavit um saying that uh they

[30:32] have met the criteria for zoning. So uh

[30:36] item six if you're looking on page 125

[30:39] uh registration requirements affidavit

[30:42] from the municipality consenting to the

[30:43] project and confirming that the project

[30:45] complied with zoning bylaws and building

[30:48] regulations at the time it was

[30:50] constructed. And so we had confirmation

[30:52] that um on page 126, the municipality

[30:56] can give a letter to support phases 1

[30:58] and three of the Bearland condominiums

[31:01] as a grandfathered campground. And then

[31:03] further, it speaks uh item number four

[31:06] on page 127, a letter of support in

[31:08] principle from staff for an expansion to

[31:11] the condominium phases 4 to 7 subject to

[31:14] amendments by the bylaw can be provided.

[31:16] There's a lot in there about things he

[31:18] doesn't need any letters about and what

[31:22] what uh but the the situation here is

[31:24] that he he got a building permit and

[31:26] actually started to build before zoning

[31:28] bylaws went in and so we just had to

[31:30] calculate figure out exactly what date

[31:32] shovels went in the ground, what date

[31:33] the building what the what the building

[31:35] permits at the time um the the bylaws

[31:38] were at the time. So uh we're looking

[31:41] for a motion. Should we re run this now?

[31:47] » Um,

[31:50] » Sure. So, I think we would I think we

[31:54] need I think one motion.

[31:56] » One motion.

[31:56] » It's one motion. We we'd be looking for

[31:59] um council to authorize the warden to

[32:02] write the uh letter um of support for

[32:08] phases one to three and a support in

[32:12] principle phrases 4 to 7 something to

[32:14] that effect.

[32:15] » I'll make that motion.

[32:16] » Okay. Seconded by uh so moved by

[32:19] councelor Mumbette and seconded by

[32:21] councelor Samson. So motion and

[32:23] seconder. Do you have some discussion on

[32:25] that motion?

[32:28] Okay. Uh, one of the emails, hard to

[32:31] tell what the date is because it says

[32:33] from Tro Troy on July 15th and from Cam

[32:35] on July on June the 5th. But it seems to

[32:38] be John Bane that wrote that. Uh the

[32:42] third last paragraph it says there's a

[32:44] there is however a possibility that you

[32:46] have some prejune 5 2024 approval for

[32:51] phases 4 to 7 in which case that area

[32:55] would also be grandfathered similar to

[32:57] one and three

[32:59] » If he can

[33:01] draw that submitted prior to the

[33:06] » Yeah but it's being grandfathered after

[33:08] the fact of the zoning coming in which I

[33:11] don't have an issue with uh I don't have

[33:14] an issue with that

[33:16] but is that the case for everyone

[33:19] » Cuz he didn't have a permit for this 4

[33:21] to7 before that he I think his initial

[33:24] plan way back was something different

[33:26] and I'm supporting you know giving the

[33:28] affidavit I just find in reading these

[33:31] emails you're grandfathering something

[33:33] there's a possibility you did this oh

[33:35] this zone allows this that zone allows

[33:38] that but the zone that you are in

[33:40] doesn't allow what you want to do, but

[33:41] we'll grandfather that in. It's just all

[33:44] confusing reading the three different

[33:45] emails

[33:49] permit, development plan, whatever he

[33:52] needed prior to the date, and I'm losing

[33:56] my notes here.

[33:58] » June 5th. So, the zoning bylaw came into

[34:01] effect June 5th of 2024. anything before

[34:04] that he can he can build do whatever

[34:08] based on the the the grandfathered

[34:11] bylaws of the day what or or lack

[34:14] thereof anything that he

[34:16] » Then there would be no question

[34:18] » Right so that's what he's asking for

[34:20] » The grandfather something if he got

[34:23] permit before

[34:24] » June the 5th of 2024

[34:27] all this discussion of of the RG zone or

[34:30] the commercial zone is not relevant so

[34:33] Why was there even a waste of time of a

[34:35] discussion about those things?

[34:36] » Probably to make him aware that things

[34:37] have changed now.

[34:39] » But it doesn't matter.

[34:40] » And he's just saying these are the

[34:41] things we need to make sure that they

[34:43] were submitted prior prior to the date

[34:45] of them changing. That's all.

[34:47] » But he's grandfathering them.

[34:48] » Yeah. But but anything that he wants to

[34:50] start now, I think the idea is they want

[34:52] to be very clear. anything you want to

[34:55] start now is subject to these rules as

[34:58] so if he's saying you know next year I

[35:01] might like to do XY Z just for the sake

[35:03] of clarity you are now

[35:07] » Required

[35:11] » That's only for 1 to three

[35:14] » The motion is 4 to 7 as well we giving a

[35:16] letter

[35:19] » That's all they were asking for

[35:23] Okay, good.

[35:26] » Number four on page 127, a letter of

[35:30] support in principle,

[35:31] » Right,

[35:32] » Subject to amendments,

[35:33] » But I'm not looking for that.

[35:35] » He's not looking for that.

[35:36] » No, we're only looking for amendment

[35:37] three at this point in time.

[35:39] » Well, that's the motion that's on the

[35:40] floor to provide a letter that says the

[35:42] two the two things. So, can we have a

[35:45] motion to amend? Hang on. Can we have a

[35:48] motion to amend to take out the second

[35:50] piece of that? So, what we'd be looking

[35:53] for is a letter that says he has

[35:57] um

[36:01] where am I at here?

[36:03] Uh I'm looking at page 125, item number

[36:07] six, that the project complied with

[36:09] zoning bylaws and building regulations

[36:11] at the time it was constructed related

[36:13] to um phase one through three.

[36:16] » Perfect. So

[36:18] » Before we go amending a motion, um is

[36:21] this is this not going to just come back

[36:23] to us from on four to seven phases four

[36:26] to seven that he's so then why are

[36:28] » In my email the very first email it said

[36:30] there's work to be done on phases.

[36:32] » So why would we not agree to support it

[36:35] to provide a letter of support and

[36:36] principle at this time?

[36:37] » Like are we are we just dragging out the

[36:40] conversation?

[36:41] » You could unless you see something

[36:43] that's really contentious that you're

[36:45] not comfortable with. But again, I

[36:47] haven't heard from my planning

[36:48] department. The four to seven is fine

[36:50] and

[36:50] » We're providing it in principle. You

[36:52] are, you know, and we could make the

[36:53] word

[36:55] » Exactly what John Bane says.

[36:56] » Exactly. John Bane,

[36:58] » I don't see a need to amend this.

[37:00] » A letter of support in principle from

[37:01] staff for an expansion to the

[37:03] condominium phase 4 to 7 subject to

[37:06] amendments to the bylaw can be provided.

[37:10] » So is it an opportunity to say both

[37:13] things?

[37:14] » Yes. and therefore not not have to come

[37:16] back if need be.

[37:18] » I wasn't trying to make it bigger than

[37:19] it needed to be.

[37:20] » Yeah. And and Morton, I think too, you

[37:23] know, this is one of those projects that

[37:25] began at a time where there were not

[37:27] really a set of rules there. The project

[37:30] begins now, you know, it's phases. Now

[37:34] there's all kinds of rule well what

[37:37] feels like all kinds of rules now

[37:39] compared to what there was before. So, I

[37:41] think this would just be one that we

[37:42] want to maybe try to provide that kind

[37:45] of a little bit of handholding. Um, if

[37:47] there's anything that we can do in

[37:48] advance, like this seems preemptive to

[37:51] to provide a letter of support in

[37:52] principle. Maybe that'll solve some

[37:53] problems for for Cam, you know, and and

[37:56] I think that development will be good

[37:57] for everyone. So, that's kind of what

[37:59] I'm thinking.

[38:00] » Okay. So there's a motion on the floor

[38:02] and a seconder about writing a letter

[38:05] that says go ahead one through three and

[38:09] exactly as it's worded here um

[38:12] construction

[38:13] B was uh subject to amendments uh to

[38:17] bylaws. So using this language that's

[38:20] the motion on the floor with the

[38:21] secondary. Is there any other

[38:22] discussion? Go ahead.

[38:23] » So 1 3 4

[38:25] » Yes.

[38:29] one to three

[38:31] is moved.

[38:34] » So

[38:34] » That the motion that I would have made

[38:38] is that we provide a letter of support

[38:40] for phases one to three of the Bearland

[38:42] condominium as a grandfathered

[38:43] campground use and further to provide a

[38:45] letter of support in principle from for

[38:48] an expansion to the condominium uh

[38:50] phases four to seven subject to

[38:52] amendments

[38:54] to the bylaw.

[38:58] Okay. So

[39:01] what I read earlier, the paragraph above

[39:04] that says your next phase, second phase

[39:06] 4 to7 does not appear to predate the

[39:08] zoning and therefore will be subject to

[39:10] a reszoning to permit the use. So what

[39:13] is it? It does or doesn't. The planning

[39:16] should know. So what's he going to get

[39:19] that's going to be any different than

[39:20] what planning? as planning is saying it

[39:23] does not appear to predate the zoning.

[39:26] So all of this stuff is just slowing

[39:28] down this project on a whole.

[39:32] I don't understand what

[39:33] » Speed it up is

[39:34] » What you're doing,

[39:36] but my thing is we're obviously

[39:38] grandfathering or allowing this project

[39:40] to go ahead. I have no issue with what's

[39:42] happening. Let it go ahead. I have issue

[39:44] with how this is kind of written. It

[39:47] doesn't. And then it says there is

[39:48] however a possibility that you have some

[39:50] pre-june approval for phases four to

[39:53] seven. Well, you're saying it doesn't

[39:56] and then you're saying ah there's a

[39:58] possibility all subjective.

[40:01] I have no issue with this thing.

[40:07] I think you're saying,

[40:08] » Right? I I think

[40:11] » The three units he has built

[40:13] » And the campground is something

[40:14] different.

[40:15] » Is that unless you have some

[40:17] documentation that says that you started

[40:19] before July June 4th, then you are

[40:23] subject to the new zoning bylaws and if

[40:25] you would like to move forward on phases

[40:27] 4 to 7, you are going to have to request

[40:30] a change to zoning. and he's opening it

[40:33] up to say if you have something that

[40:36] shows that you started and that you

[40:38] qualify for grandfathering in by all

[40:40] means let me know but it doesn't appear

[40:42] to me that you have. That's what I'm

[40:44] taking from that.

[40:48] So we have a motion on the floor which

[40:50] is to write the two letters as outlined

[40:53] here and Cam Samson and it can be two

[40:58] separate letters. But I think I'm happy

[41:00] to do it in two separate letters. That

[41:02] way he can use them as he see sees fit.

[41:04] Any other discussion on that

[41:07] hearing? None. All those in favor

[41:09] signify by saying I.

[41:10] » I. Those opposed.

[41:12] » Motion is carried. Can you just yell out

[41:14] to Brent there? Thank you. Okay. So then

[41:16] the last item is the uh Richmond Arena

[41:20] report. Um so uh that is to bring people

[41:26] kind of up to snuff. that is are up to

[41:29] speed. This is a report that was

[41:33] requested by council. Um, so there was a

[41:36] motion made at some point through um

[41:39] last year uh last this past winter where

[41:42] we said we wanted um to put money in

[41:45] reserve for the repair of the arena

[41:50] floor, but we wanted to get some

[41:53] assurance that the items that had been

[41:55] flagged in a 2019 report, we just wanted

[41:58] some eyes on the structure of the

[42:00] building. And and I certainly would like

[42:02] to start by saying that it does appear

[42:05] through much of this that this building

[42:08] is in much better shape than it should

[42:09] be for a 50-year-old building. And that

[42:12] is no doubt a result of the caliber of

[42:14] the staff that have dealt with this

[42:16] building since it opened going all the

[42:18] way back to when there was a volunteer

[42:20] board. So I I I think there is

[42:21] recognition here that there is uh you

[42:24] know humidity control is something that

[42:25] they clearly were on top of and

[42:27] understood the importance of that

[42:28] because there is clearly almost a sense

[42:31] of surprise that the building uh a lot

[42:34] of the the issue here is is uh is as

[42:36] good as it is. But there are a series of

[42:39] recommendations. Um and um

[42:44] for all of my uh we all have other jobs

[42:48] and other lives, but in my previous

[42:50] life, if I read the sentence um there is

[42:53] obviously risk in continuing to operate

[42:55] the facility with this reduced

[42:57] structural capacity as it pertains to

[42:59] the life safety of building occupants is

[43:02] not something that we uh as owners of

[43:04] that building can ignore. So there are a

[43:07] list of recommendations that speak about

[43:11] um some work that needs to be done and

[43:13] the recommendation is that it needs to

[43:15] be done before November of 2025

[43:18] which I assume rightly so means before

[43:21] we open the arena and some of those

[43:23] things include um things items that I

[43:28] believe are actually

[43:30] department of labor who who flagged some

[43:34] of that work

[43:36] » Some of the work we already have planned

[43:38] » Department of labor right so there were

[43:40] already some items that we have

[43:43] » I thought he said Chris said I think

[43:44] that there's some of these that are

[43:46] going to be fixed anyway as part of the

[43:47] work that was already planned

[43:49] » Yeah

[43:51] so um you know we we are um so the

[43:56] maximum what they're suggesting what

[43:58] they're not suggesting this is stated it

[44:00] is recommended that if the build that

[44:01] the building be closed to the public if

[44:03] the snow load on the roof reach reaches

[44:05] 24 lbs per square foot. Um, and that

[44:08] that represents whatever 3 and 1/2 ft of

[44:11] life fluffy snow or 1.2 ft of wet heavy

[44:14] snow. Um, and that um, real life

[44:18] monitoring uh, by maintenance staff or

[44:21] equipment. And it also speaks to cutting

[44:23] down trees on property that we don't

[44:25] own. So quite a lot to to to go through

[44:28] here, but you know, we are responsible

[44:31] for uh the residents of the county who

[44:34] go into that building. We're also

[44:35] responsible for our, you know, any

[44:38] liability we would incur in the event

[44:40] of, you know, the worst case scenario.

[44:42] So opening this up for discussion about

[44:45] anything we would like to and I

[44:47] personally would like some more

[44:48] information about what's it like. Do you

[44:50] get this real time

[44:53] um

[44:54] » Snow

[44:54] » Snowload monitoring system? Do you just

[44:57] Is that like 50 bucks a Canadian Tire or

[44:59] is that tens of thousands of dollars? I

[45:01] I don't know. But I think and and is

[45:03] there anything on this list that our

[45:05] director of public works says uh oh,

[45:07] can't do this by November or is this all

[45:09] just stuff that we can easily do? So I

[45:11] you know I think there's some questions

[45:13] before we make any big decisions but we

[45:15] cannot ignore a sentence that says um

[45:19] you know life safety of building

[45:20] occupants.

[45:21] » Chair if I may

[45:22] » Go ahead.

[45:25] » As was discussed before budget that you

[45:28] guys wanted to talk about this midsummer

[45:30] uh your director of public works is

[45:32] pulling together what things will look

[45:34] like for you guys in September. But this

[45:37] was an opportunity since we were having

[45:39] the meeting that if u you in the review

[45:42] of the same documents had other things

[45:44] that you wanted us to dig into, just let

[45:47] us know. Like uh the uh

[45:52] you know that that the statement about

[45:54] uh

[45:56] um putting people at risk. Uh we're

[45:59] asking that to be qualified by the

[46:01] person who wrote that as well. just uh

[46:03] because the whole rest of the document

[46:05] talks about how well the building is and

[46:07] what good a shape it is and

[46:09] » However what

[46:10] » Stress

[46:11] » Right and however what he put in there

[46:14] in that one sentence is quite

[46:16] inflammatory. So we need that qualified

[46:18] uh against what all the other data in

[46:21] the report is telling us. So, uh, Chris

[46:24] has pulled stuff together for you guys

[46:26] to have in September, but if you saw

[46:28] anything else in the documentary or you

[46:30] had other things you wanted us to dig

[46:32] into while we're digging into this,

[46:34] again, he's looking at what does the

[46:36] live monitoring look at, what are the

[46:38] solutions, and having a couple options

[46:39] for everybody to look at. So, we'll have

[46:42] some answers for you in September. So,

[46:44] hopefully we can acquire in September

[46:46] and October and be ready to go when we

[46:48] want to open the doors this fall.

[46:52] So, I'll I'll go around and see if

[46:55] anybody has any um additional questions

[46:58] you want to make sure are provided. You

[47:00] know, information is provided for our

[47:02] September committee of the whole report.

[47:05] So, councelor Mumb.

[47:06] » Thank you, Warden. Um so, I guess for me

[47:09] a couple questions spring to mind

[47:11] because we've had this since I think

[47:12] May. um the the life I agree CEO that is

[47:17] that is inflammatory language and it's a

[47:19] little bit out of context with the rest

[47:21] of the report but it's also one of those

[47:24] situations where once this cat is out of

[47:26] the bag and this has been brought to our

[47:27] attention we must act um to to mitigate

[47:31] any risk um I I you know and we're

[47:36] talking about some of the work needing

[47:37] to be done in November if we're only

[47:39] seeing information in September

[47:42] like and we've had since this since May.

[47:44] Like I'm I'm a little concerned about

[47:46] how tight a timeline that's going to be

[47:49] because if you know if it comes to

[47:51] council and we're making budgetary

[47:52] decisions

[47:54] um in September that's going to take

[47:57] Okay, that'll be a couple weeks. So

[47:59] it'll be the end of September before our

[48:01] regular council meeting. So then October

[48:03] the work's getting done.

[48:05] » I think some of the work is starting

[48:06] this summer. I should say like the metal

[48:08] work that's mentioned in here that's all

[48:10] being done over the summer as soon as it

[48:12] was identified that stuff's being done

[48:14] » Because like I think at the end of the

[48:16] day what we really need is okay we have

[48:18] this assessment

[48:20] there's something being done that we're

[48:22] not necessarily aware of as counselors

[48:24] not our job to be you know to know that

[48:26] but what we need is in the context of

[48:28] this assessment what's the work that

[48:30] we've done to address some of these

[48:32] risks in a timely manner and what are

[48:34] the next pieces and what would they cost

[48:37] » And and to your point on monitoring snow

[48:39] load, what does that mean for our staff?

[48:42] Like I I have visions of our staff

[48:44] members in a you know in after a

[48:47] snowstorm on the roof of that building

[48:48] and it doesn't sound very safe to me. So

[48:50] I'm Anyway, that those would be my

[48:52] comments. So thank you.

[48:55] » Pretty similar to

[48:56] » Yeah. No, I I don't think there's

[48:58] anything else. I mean, yeah, these

[49:00] things can be dealt with um manually, I

[49:03] guess, if need be until a more permanent

[49:06] solution may be up there. I mean, tie

[49:07] downs could be placed on the roof, and

[49:09] that's not unusual for commercial

[49:10] buildings to have, you know, somebody

[49:12] clear snow if need be um when you get

[49:14] really high snow loads, but it's not

[49:16] necessarily, as the director of public

[49:18] works said, he had reached out one time,

[49:20] it's not necessarily easy to find

[49:21] someone on short notice. So, it may be a

[49:23] matter of planning ahead or contacting,

[49:26] you know, companies that might do that

[49:28] this time of year and, you know, having

[49:30] something set up with them. Um, not

[49:32] saying it's a long-term solution, but it

[49:34] may be at least for for this year. Um,

[49:37] no, I'm happy to hear we'll we'll get

[49:38] some more information on it, and I'm

[49:40] fine with that.

[49:45] Yeah, just a further add to

[49:49] your comments, warden, and and the

[49:51] comments of council member kitten,

[49:53] deputy warden Samson. Uh, for me, it's

[49:55] hard to ignore when people talk about

[49:57] the safety of occupants. So, that's the

[50:00] number one priority in my opinion. Um

[50:02] secondly to voice uh what councelor

[50:04] murket said if we're looking at

[50:06] September meetings and looking come back

[50:09] in September to discuss what has to be

[50:10] done. Uh I think all the residents know

[50:13] there's been delays the last couple

[50:14] years with the opening of the arena.

[50:16] Right. So what kind of time frame and

[50:18] how tight of a time frame are we looking

[50:19] at if something serious has to be done

[50:21] from September to November. Right.

[50:23] That would be my only concern

[50:30] » For the lifetime monitoring. I think

[50:32] that's something you can install on the

[50:33] beams anyway at any point. Uh maybe it's

[50:37] not a bad idea, but

[50:40] I don't think in November, December

[50:41] we're going to have snow loads we're

[50:43] going to have to worry about. So I think

[50:45] that'll give us some time anyway. Uh and

[50:48] the fact Yeah.

[50:51] » Yeah. The with our souls closed.

[50:54] » That's all.

[50:55] » Yeah.

[50:55] » Uh

[50:56] » The cons the concern is if any of the

[50:58] buildings locally would be assessed by

[51:02] the same person. I would would imagine I

[51:04] mean you're putting quite

[51:07] I guess uh you know a stress on the

[51:09] person looking at any of these buildings

[51:12] to say. So he's at least quantified some

[51:14] numbers and he would like the building

[51:16] closed. He's not saying the building's

[51:18] going to collapse if it has that. He's

[51:19] going to say this is what he thinks

[51:21] based on the size of those beams what it

[51:23] can handle and if there's loads higher

[51:26] than that then shut it down. Uh and

[51:29] that's fine. I think the public wouldn't

[51:31] be against us, you know, for that. Uh I

[51:35] don't maybe Chris can find out what the

[51:36] live monitoring is going to cost and we

[51:38] can look at putting that in. Yeah, we

[51:40] can look at getting that

[51:43] problem.

[51:43] » Yeah. And I I I think it's not a bad

[51:46] idea to to do that. and uh all the other

[51:50] necessary work that needs to be done. Um

[51:52] I think he needs to get that done. He's

[51:54] aware of that. I think he's working on

[51:55] that as well. So I think the report, you

[51:58] know, it states that over 50 years

[52:01] doesn't look like the building has been

[52:02] stressed. I think that's something

[52:04] because when I was when I was a kid with

[52:07] snow all the time, so I'm sure that

[52:08] building had quite a bit on it.

[52:12] » Thank you, Warden. There are, you know,

[52:14] I know in my prior life if we lost our

[52:17] fire alarm systems, we had to do fire

[52:19] watch and there's very particular things

[52:21] and, you know, we it could be that

[52:23] there's just protocols that our legal

[52:26] department says, yes, this meets all the

[52:28] criteria for appropriate real time

[52:30] monitoring or some sort of mechanical

[52:33] thing. And like you said, it's not every

[52:34] day, it's when there's snow load. My my

[52:37] only other concern when I was reading

[52:38] through this is I and I'm not an

[52:41] engineer, but I I would like for

[52:44] somebody to go through this in

[52:45] tremendous detail to make sure that

[52:48] everything in the report is included in

[52:50] the recommendation. So on page five, it

[52:55] says the misalign and I am not an

[52:57] engineer. So it may be that it says this

[52:59] in different engineer words, but the

[53:01] this misalignment is noted in the items

[53:04] below and should be rectified even

[53:06] though the system appears to be so rod

[53:08] bracing and so on. So and I I don't know

[53:10] if that's captured in the

[53:12] recommendations. Same for page six. Um

[53:16] it talks about C figure one. So noted

[53:19] damage and missing items. Um just to

[53:22] make sure I I'm not clear that that is

[53:24] captured in the recommendation. So just

[53:26] to make sure that you know all the items

[53:29] even if it's because one of the things

[53:30] about this is that you're you're reading

[53:33] along and then there's a sentence about

[53:35] you know this is

[53:36] » Yeah so just to make sure that

[53:38] thoroughess and I'm not an engineer so

[53:40] but just to make sure all the necessary

[53:42] fixes have been captured. Deputy Warden,

[53:45] I see you. Or Councelor Marshon, you

[53:46] have your

[53:48] » Yeah, there if I remember correctly,

[53:50] there was also some other discussions

[53:52] about some of the plland that may have

[53:53] been on an angle. A bolt or two wasn't

[53:56] in the right spot. So, yeah, I don't

[53:57] think any of those things are in the

[53:59] recommendations because I don't think

[54:00] they're really serious. He noticed some

[54:02] of the the uh cross bracing wasn't

[54:05] didn't look like it was in the right

[54:06] spot because looking on the opposite

[54:09] side. Yeah. So, I mean

[54:11] » Oh, I'm sorry. Press your button again.

[54:13] Sorry. If Chris feels that those things

[54:15] need to be looked at, get them look get

[54:17] them done. You know, there's some plland

[54:19] that there may have been some damage

[54:21] because the garage door was put in the

[54:22] back end, could have been hit or

[54:23] something. Uh those kind of notes were

[54:26] in there. Uh it's been like that for

[54:29] quite some time. Uh there hasn't been no

[54:31] renovations. You know, this door was put

[54:34] on many, many, many years ago. Uh but

[54:36] yeah, if anybody feels they should be

[54:38] done and they've been brought to our

[54:40] attention, get them done. Don't have an

[54:42] issue with that.

[54:45] Go ahead.

[54:45] » Just ask one more thing. Um, so yeah,

[54:48] and I I totally I totally agree with

[54:50] Councelor Marshand. Um, I would say

[54:52] though that even if they are fairly

[54:55] minor because they showed up in a

[54:57] report, could we just at least have them

[55:00] listed in whatever status update that

[55:02] Chris brings forward just so even if

[55:04] it's just complete complete whatever. I

[55:06] just think because they've showed up in

[55:08] the report, it' be nice. I think I think

[55:10] it's it's important for us to do that

[55:12] due diligence. Yeah. Thank you.

[55:15] » Yeah. You know how I like a list.

[55:17] » And and I appreciate I'm not an

[55:19] engineer. So, as I was reading this, I

[55:21] thought there may be times where it's

[55:22] described here and I'm not capturing the

[55:24] connection, but I think we need to make

[55:26] sure that we've there's been an

[55:28] exhaustive review of all the points here

[55:30] on a on a go forward basis.

[55:32] » Okay. Any other uh and I I think do we

[55:37] need a motion of counsel? I think we've

[55:38] directed staff, so I think we're fine.

[55:40] Okay. So, um, seeing that there are no

[55:44] other items on the agenda, uh, this

[55:46] meeting is adjourned. Thank you,

[55:48] everyone.

Council - Special Meeting 2025-07-22 Richmond County

Transcript