Call a meeting to order. This is a temporary late regular meeting of the council. It is Tuesday, August 5, 2025, it is 6 p.m., and we're in the municipal offices in Chantry.
In my call to order, I'll just simply mention that I understand that we have a fire ban, in effect, and people need to respect that.
And also that we had a couple of great fares in the past a couple of weeks, and they were well-attended.
So I will move on to the land acknowledgement statement.
Don't relics acknowledges that we live and work and are meeting on the ancestral territories of indigenous people.
We do so respect with both the land and the indigenous peoples, and on to their past, present and future.
The temperature values and respects their cultural heritage and relationship to the land.
That is why the land acknowledgement will call medical clerk.
Councilor Paulard is running late. Council of Maxwell is absent with prior notice and everyone else's attendance.
Okay, item number four on the agenda, are there any emergency additions or amendments to the agenda?
Councilor Dunfield.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to put an addition under new under business arising.
It would be 9.2 and it would be required in the picture. It was held in Portland on Monday.
Okay.
Is that just pre-information purposes?
Or is that some action that you plan to do with that?
No action will be required.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other changes for the agenda?
Oh, Councillor of thanks, please.
Thank you, Mayor.
I would like to move up the notice of options to the new business.
And we need to change the procedural dialogue because if anything has a deadline or if it has anything
to do with your readles, the timelines for notice of options doesn't work.
So, I think we need to change the procedural dialogue.
I would like to move up.
Are you looking 14.1, 14.2?
All three, because there are timelines.
They won't make the next.
Yeah, we need the information prior to the next meeting.
And where would you like to move up to?
Wherever, Mary, I want to see a bit.
And then, so under proposed motion, so it'd be 13.4.
Okay.
And then I just have a new motion that I had sent just before Council.
And it is a notice of non-confidence due to the repetition of incorrect information in your veto.
And where would that go?
Is that a vote of non-confidence in your marriage?
Is that a vote of non-confidence in the mayor's advocacy?
Yes, due to the false information in your veto.
Yes, due to the false information in the veto, but you need to be no complaints.
But you'll need to be don't contains.
Okay.
And where would you like that?
A 13.3, more than a 10.6.
About 13.3?
More than 13.6.
point 6.
Yes.
Just the notice of the motion's gotten moved up.
The notice of the motion is caught in the top.
Yep.
And this is a notice of non-continent.
And this is a notice of non-confidence.
Okay.
So, normally at this point I would suggest that notice is a motion and we need to set aside
Okay.
So, normally at this point I would suggest the notice of the motion.
And we need to set aside the procedural dialogue.
the procedure by law and not to prepare to do that at this point because obviously that
I'm not going to do that at this point because obviously that would just simply delay the meeting for that.
would just simply delay the meeting for that.
So, any other changes to the agenda?
Okay.
Is it possible to bring the procedural by-law back at the September October because we do need to change it with the motions?
Is it possible to bring the procedure by law back at the September October because we do need
to change it with some solutions?
I believe the procedural by-law is on staff's list of things to update.
I believe the procedure by law is on staff's list of things to update.
So, again, they need to look at all of that, including how these strong mirrors powers might impact our procedural by-law as well.
So, again, they need to look at all of that including how these strong mirrors powers
might impact our procedure by law as well.
Okay.
So, that will happen.
I'm not sure it will happen in September, but it will happen in the future.
I'm not sure it will happen in September, but it will happen in May.
I'm sure it will be.
I'm sure it will happen in the future.
I'm sure it will be.
Thank you.
I'm sure it will be.
Question?
Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Question?
Do we not have to amend the procedural by-law in order to change the agenda today?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Do we not have to amend the procedure by law in order to change the agenda today?
That's what I think we do.
You would set it aside.
I can set it aside.
I think we can do.
I think we need to.
You would ask for a motion to set it aside.
Okay.
Do we have a motion to set aside the procedural by-law with respect to moving?
Do we have a motion to set aside the procedure by law to respect the moving?
Adding this item and moving three notices a motion up in the agenda.
Adding this item?
And moving three notices a motion, up in the agenda.
Move by Councillor Paul of A and second advice.
Move by Councillor Paula May.
Second advice.
Councillor Dunfield.
Any discussion?
Here and none will.
Here and nothing.
Just again, we did not change the procedural by-law's to match stone mayer powers.
Just again, we didn't change the procedure by law to match stone mayer powers.
So the timeline for the veto isn't for us to put it back in.
So, the timeline for the veto isn't for us to put it back in.
Then we disagree with the vetoes.
We disagree with the vetoes.
Do not match the procedural by-law's.
Do not match the procedure by law.
Okay.
Any other discussion?
Then I'll call a question.
Then I'll call the question of all the favor.
All in favor?
Over the penny?
Motion is carried.
So now I have a blue by Councillor.
So, now I have a move by Councillor.
Move by Councillor Paul of A and second advice.
Move by Councillor Paula.
Second advice.
I have a move by Councillor Paula.
Second advice.
I have a move by Councillor Paula.
Second advice.
Councillor Jeff Banks.
Thanks.
Be resolved with the agenda to be approved and adopted as amended.
Any discussion?
Then I'll call a question.
Then I'll call the question of all the favor.
All in favor?
Motion is carried.
Thank you, members.
We will now move to.
We will now move to the right.
The Declaration of Caratric and the General Nature there.
Declaration of Caratrice and the General Nature there are thoughts.
Are there any declarations?
I have declaration.
I have a declaration.
Have we?
What declaration?
Have the clerk who you might have a declaration.
I agree.
In other words, I have a declaration.
I're a Juicum bill so stay today's date of this fifth, two declare!
I agree who can go in?
So stated today's date of a specific clear.
A directed purinary interest in persons with municipal conflict of intercept and a conflict
Direct pecernary interest.
The importance of municipal consent, to venture act, and a conflict of interest-not pecurnary
of interest, not a purinary nature related to any other matter including matters under the
nature related to any other matter including matters under the tax earnings of a rifle
Tangent Global Life Code of Conduct.
title.
In regards to item number 18.2 and 18.8 and 18.9, namely the July 14th, 2025 last year at proposed
In regards to item number 18.2, 18.8 and 18.9, namely the July 14, 2025 in November.
is that's probably going to be擔ing selection.
So I work T, the 2025 LSE Minutes, and close matters under Section 239 to E and F on the
with 225 LSE minutes and closed matters under section 239 to E and F on the regular agenda
Roger agenda dated August 5th, 2025, declared inches of the following general nature, legal
data of the SPF 2025 declared inches of the following general nature legal action against
action against the mayor, and assigned by Gary Luford.
the mayor and assigned by Gary Lupon.
Hello.
Hi, have there any other declarations?
Hello.
Thank you.
You're in seeing none, there are allegations this evening, so we move on to number 8, a staff
Thank you.
report to 8.1, fire chief manager, command and protective protection, geo-rich or some
Thank you.
Fire Chief Manager, Command and Protected Protection, General Richard, some of the
replacement, fire vehicle and word of contact.
place of the fire vehicle and word of contact.
Chief, you have a report in the package?
Yes.
Is your name which the Highlighter had to find?
Is your name wish to highlight your add to that?
No, it's just fine.
Okay.
So I'll be right back.
So I'll let you read the motion.
Let me read the motion.
I have a move by Councillor Jeff Bank, second by Deputy Mayor Hutchins.
I have a move by Councillor Jeff Banks, second by Deputy Mayor Hutchins.
He resolved the council pass by, I'll authorize the mayor and clerk to sign an agreement
He resolved the council pass by law authorized in the very court to sign an agreement with
with Mike Fair, Cheryl A. Buick, GMC, Cadillac Limited for the purchase of a 2025 crew cab
Mike Fair, Cheryl A. Buick, GMC, Cadillac Limited for the purchase of a 2025 crew cab 4x4
for a truck and the amount of $50,227 dollars plus the township's portion of the HST and the
truck.
I found a fifty thousand two hundred twenty seven dollars plus the township's portion
of the HST and the applicable licensing fee as presented in council report, FIRE 2025-18.
applicable licensing fee as presented in council report, fire 2025-18.
I heard the motion?
Discussion.
Discussion?
What happened?
I don't know.
What happened?
I don't know.
What happened?
I don't know.
I heard all.
I don't know.
I will call the question then.
I will call the question then, all in favor.
All in favor.
Motion's carry.
Thank you, Chief.
Thank you.
Good job.
The move on 8.2, which is a report from Tom Fair, Manager of Health and Services,
The move on 8.2, which is a report from Tom Fair, manager of health and services.
3 land road allowance, concession 1, lock 26 to 28, bastard township and I believe Mr. Fair
Three-land road allowance, concession one, lock 26 to 28, bastard township, and I believe Mr. Fair is online.
is online.
If there are any questions, Mr. Fair is there any wish to highlight or add to your report?
If there are any questions, Mr. Fair is any wish to highlight or add to your report?
No, it was all I thought I didn't report, but I could answer any questions on that.
No, it was all out of line in the report, but happy to answer any questions on that.
Okay.
That's true.
So I have a move by Councillor Dunfield, the second of the Councillor Bullock.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I haven't moved by Councillor Dunfield, second by Councillor Bullock.
The result of the council pass, a by-law to authorize the mayor and clerk to sign the
Be a result of the council pass, a by-law to authorize the mayor and clerk to sign the purchase
purchase and sale agreement for $1 to accept the lands being offered by the owner of 38, 28,
and sale agreement for $1 to accept the lands being offered by the owner of 3828.
Big retail lake road is presented in council report, ds-2025-21.
big rental rate road as presented in council report, DS-2025-21.
You heard the motion?
Discussion?
Discussion.
Councillor Carver.
Is this going to be an addition to one of the properties on the side?
Going to be an addition to one of the properties on the side, Mr. Fair.
Mr. Fair?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Three-land road allowance, the what we're going to be transferred to us would be the land where it was
I know what we'll be transferring to us would be the land where it was believed that a township
believed that a township road allowance was.
road allowance was.
The land is currently being used for access to municipal train, so we would just be taking that land
The land is currently being used for access to municipal drain, so we would just be taking that
land as is a stand-alone person.
as is a stand-alone person.
We would be a road allowance or anything else.
It has become land that we don't.
It has become land that we own.
So how much work?
So how much work has there been some culverts and stuff in there that has to be repaired
Because there's some culverts and stuff in there that has to be repaired for something correct.
for something correct?
On the lands, believe to be the road allowance?
On the lands believed to be the road allowance?
Yes.
I'm not aware of any culverts on there.
I know the municipal drain runs along the part of these lands.
I know the municipal train runs along part of these lands.
However, we would have already been maintaining that message.
However, we would have already been maintaining that, but I said, we'd been a bit of a bit of
We'd be a bit of a bit of a sugary.
a civil drain.
Can we train in there?
Could be a drain is over there.
Any other questions?
This is a little bit complicated.
This is a little bit complicated, but I believe it's to correct a past error from many years
What I believe it's to correct a past error from many years ago.
ago.
Correct, Mr. Fair?
Correct.
Correct, yes.
Yes.
It was thought that there was a road allowance here, however, when bastard township was originally
It was thought there was a road allowance here.
One bastard township was originally surveyed.
surveyed, there was only a road allowance every other concession, so in this location there
There was only a road allowance.
What was that?
There are the stature of public health staff.
was an actual road allowance, and so that caused an inadvertent plan and a contravention
When across those activities there was a century higher
in one, two, one, three, 8, 8, 8, we don't think a road and another parcel and concession
and there was a administrative process.
And all of those activity是不是 belonged to a lot of individuals about the project.
We're about and one of them was sold in that cause of planning on contraption.
How did that go to the молchette?
What does it mean to be able to do that?
Thank you for that.
Okay, thank you for that.
Deputy Mayor Hodges, you have a question in the comment.
Deputy Mayor Hodges, you have a question or a comment.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I am under the impression from the past.
There are culverts in there.
And there may well be that this is a relation to the ownership of the property that doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to be replacing or doing work on this, correct?
Or just bring it forward because if you end up flooding somebody because of all of this and these culverts don't get utilized.
Just bring it forward because if you end up fighting somebody because of all of this in these culverts, don't get utilized.
That's how I'm just going to make two sets for them.
That's all I'm just going to make two cents for it then.
Okay.
Yes, so we're just correcting for a wrong time.
Yes, so just to correct me for a long time.
But we thought that the U.R. allowance was ours.
But we thought that the yard allowance was ours.
And it was also through this process that we found out that it wasn't.
And it was all through this process that we found out that it wasn't.
So now that it will become our land again in Danchamp, we'll treat it the same.
So now that it will become our land again in Dan, Chan, we'll treat it the same.
Yes, yes.
Yeah.
There's work that requires you if you will go in and do that.
There's work that requires you to go in and do that.
Correct.
Okay.
You know.
Councillor Dunfield, please.
Councillor Donfield, please.
Thanks, Mr. Mayor.
We asked the CA to stand up and go over to the map and show us what he has for the loan.
May I ask the CAO to stand up and roll over to the map and show us various or allowances?
He says, I looked at this and found a very confusing.
I looked at this and found a very confusing.
Yeah.
So I'm just wondering if this is the best photo.
Very bold.
Or if I should use the, is it, is it that funny?
I'm just wondering if this is the best photo.
Or if I should use the, is it?
Is it that funny?
Is it back on the 29?
Is it that funny?
Is that the road that would their thoughts?
Is it that funny?
You know when you go down and the Beer.
Is it that funny?
It would be your doing a group of parents and pre-lipped.
Yeah.
I don't know if it's funny.
Yeah.
To go left down onto freedom of or open.
Yeah.
Yes.
We call that back in 29.
Yeah.
That's what I think.
I know where it is, so I have a 20-on perfect. Thank you.
We're talking.
I know where it is.
So I have a 20-on perfect.
Thank you.
You have a lot of techniques about him.
You have a lot of techniques back in.
Okay.
Tell sugar.
Councillor.
We did.
Tell sugar.
That's more techniques.
Tell sugar.
One.
Okay.
I'm okay.
So.
Okay.
Councillor.
Tell sugar.
Councillor.
Let's talk some more.
Okay.
So do all these people have the right to use this.
So do all these people have the right to use this right away?
Right away.
So as it would be conveyed to us, there'd just be a piece of municipal property.
Do you do what?
Okay.
So as it would be conveyed to us, there would just be a piece of municipal property.
It would not be a bold allowance in the traditional sense.
It would not be able to launch in the traditional sense.
The original rule allows the research to make when the geographic culture works.
The original rule allows the reserve.
When the geographical pouches were served as a time, and you can't create a new rule
It's served as a time and you can't create a new rule.
It allows and you can't create a new rule.
allowance.
And you can't create a new one.
So just be a piece of municipal property.
I know the rule allows it to just be a piece of municipal property.
I know right now that that is being used by farmers.
And there's two or three farmers that will be using that.
And also they take wood out of there in the wintertime.
I'm just, are you aware of that?
I'm just.
Are you aware of that?
Yeah.
So right now.
So right now, actually, crossing the metice property.
I'm actually crossing the metice property.
They're not on touch or property when they're driving along that road.
They're not on touch or property when they're driving.
A lot of that, bro.
They think they are.
And we thought it was.
But it wasn't.
No, I know there's a big, big, big, big profile here.
No.
There's a big, big, big, big, big, big.
I'm just making sure that everyone is aware.
Crafuffle here.
I'm just making sure that everyone is aware.
And if, and that floods sometimes too.
And if.
And that floods sometimes too.
So there is a problem in there.
So we have to make it make.
Why wasn't there?
Sure.
Sure, that we have our eyes dotted and our teeth crossed because this is going to cause a lot of problems.
That we have our eyes dotted and our teeth cross.
Because this is going to cause a lot of.
Problems.
Actually, I think the intent here is to fix.
And of course, we're working at that.
And of course, we're working at that the owner is willing to clean this up for a dollar.
The owner is willing to.
Clean this up for a dollar.
Rather than have a school through a long process of trying to do it.
Rather than have a school through a long process of trying to.
So who can I ask the name of the owner.
So who can I ask the name of the owner?
That's hypnotized.
Jim and Tyson is the owner.
Who's the owner.
It's.
Nice.
You like.
You're right.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
You like it.
Go ahead and start.
You like it, sir.
Yes.
I think they sold it.
I'd like to ask the owner.
All right.
Any further comment or question?
Any further comment.
Let me call the question.
All the favor.
I don't know.
I'll follow the defending.
I don't know.
I'll follow it.
That motion is still here.
Motion is still here.
Thank you.
I think it's going to be a problem here.
We'll move on to 9.1, which is the M hack.
We'll move on to 9.1, which is the M-hack.
Our recommendation number 25, 2025-30, statement to be included on the 2026 Real Lakes Road
Our recommendation number 2525-30.
The statement to be included on the 2026 Retail Lakes Road map.
Map, and the motion is this one, I have a little by Councillor Dunfield's second
And the motion is this one.
I have a little bit of my councilor done field, second of my councilor baller.
by Councillor Bullock, whereas the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee MAD meeting held July
Whereas the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee, M hack.
Meeting held July the 17th, 2025.
the 17th, 2025, recommendation number 2025-30, was passed recommending to Council that the
Recommendation number 2025-30.
It was passed recommending to council that the following statement be included in the
following statement be included in the 2026 Real Lakes Road Map.
2026 Retail Lakes Road map.
Early history of real lakes, archaeological evidence shows that indigenous peoples continue
lived in the real lakes area for at least 9,000 years.
Indigenous artifacts have been found around all of the lakes in this area.
Now, therefore, be it resolved.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Central
The council of the corporation of temporary lakes.
There's a whole bunch of stuff that's very sentimental and touching for read-a-lakes, North Crosby, and it really made me feel undisonged that they would do that to these past people who were a big part and history of the rank.
So that's all. I'm very, I just heard it over there. Other comments, councilor, please?
Thank you, Your Worship. I'm just wondering if we're going to get a similar response as we got in 2023, which was not really accurate.
Would it be worthwhile to us doing our own internal survey like setting it up to residents and asking them, why are you using recreational facilities in certain areas and maybe get, but trying to do a proper scientific survey so we can actually do some educated guessing as to what our numbers are if we're not able to get accurate numbers from the municipalities that we are paying to use their recreational services.
Again, if we're wanting to look at these agreements at any time in the future, it may be worthwhile as just doing our own survey to see what our residents have to say about it.
They might give us more accurate information than non-existent members that could be Southernness policy, just food for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We were at the meeting where they were talking about the development of the Recreation Center in Smith Falls and Stephanie's provided us with the consultants information and in it they had the numbers of all the people participating in all of the sports. So they have the numbers and I would like to have them provided to council.
Well, no, if that's the case then they should, they should present it to us if they have the numbers, but I was thinking if they don't have the numbers then we can go to the organizations that do that that ring and get numbers from them because I like the North needs to talk to you or whatever.
I don't know what they call this as well, but they would know, we have the Recreation Center.
And it's not that I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, not just this calls, but we need to know their numbers because there's a lot of people in Westport that play hockey but they're not from Westport.
That would be nothing.
Councilor Lloyd, second time, and Councilor make sure you have two options.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you, Richard.
I guess one little bit of context I would add to my just, I know, experience of family members that have been involved with minor hockey and some as well as minor hockey and some as well as often.
We're at the Recreation Center from Westport and Athens and other areas too.
So hockey teams, you may be registered in some as well as playing hockey and some as well as using some as well as right for games.
But you're practicing in Westport and you're practicing in Athens and they're moving around the area as well.
So there might be a little bit of gray areas to who's doing what is just because you're registered as well as we're not using the Recreation Center as well.
That's part of the association.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I just don't.
Just a context that there is a little bit of sharing of bodies moving around.
Thank you.
I just want to react.
It would be pointless for us to send it a letter to our residents because we just did that in one board and we only got 20% response and that was in the elections.
So I mean, I would suggest that we probably wouldn't get five percent response.
So they have the numbers.
You have to register.
You have to put your address down.
They've got the numbers.
They said it's been 16 years.
We've gotten one year and that was it.
Okay.
All right.
Let me just make a couple of comments here.
This is an ongoing discussion that's been the previous council statements as well.
It's it's it's very convoluted these statistics because.
How do we know how many people use the walking track?
How do we know how many people from real age to 10.
Bears games or or read those games.
You know like this.
These are all uses that you cannot track.
You can really track his perhaps organized sport.
Okay.
The time is hockey.
How many people from here?
How many people from there?
That type of thing.
And they provided some of that in the past.
The contract that we have expires in 2026.
So there is an opportunity to renegotiate.
I think we're asking a long question.
I think the question we need to ask is the contract that we have now is formula based.
It's based on distance to the closest arena and assessment based.
And I believe in in those areas.
And then it's based on the ability to pay.
So that that formula was was put together by our auditor at the time.
And that has not been updated for probably eight years or so.
So again, I think that's the sort of thing that we should be saying to Smith Falls.
Particularly because of the largest user.
You know, we expect you to update that information because if Smith Falls has grown faster than
Read Olegs or Merciful Wolford or some of the other partners.
Because I think five partners here with Smith Falls, for example.
Then their share will go up and our share will go down, of course, on one.
I believe we pay about 26% of operational costs only.
We do not contribute to any capital.
We've not been asked to contribute any capital existing or future.
So we did they didn't have a meeting where they they talked about doing new facilities.
And you know, if they ever make a decision on that, they will probably come to us and say, would you consider.
But we made no commitments on that.
But they have mentioned capital.
Just so we could have.
Yes.
Oh, they they mentioned capital and the past.
But literally we we've not agreed to any capital contribution.
So they take their operational costs and their net and they have been successful.
The last few years and reducing the overall operational costs.
Now the formula with Athens and West Park is a bit different.
But the big one of course is the Smith Falls.
But a lot of people to understand that.
And this motion I think is is.
It's going to be challenging for them to give us any sort of realistic.
Numbers that we can put any faith in sort of saying.
You know, if we're in this area.
Then you're likely going to get your recreation services whether it's public skating.
You know, figure skating.
Minor hockey.
Old timer's hockey.
You like to go Smith Falls.
Or you like to go to West Park.
You like to go to Athens.
Depending on where you live and what your assessment is.
So anyway, that's that's the context that I think we need to add.
Any other final discussion on this motion.
Culture politics.
I've stated from the beginning.
I get frustrated because they base it on the assessment in South
Elsley mainly, which are mostly retired waterfront people.
And if you went to the public meeting in Smith Falls.
There were very few people that attended it.
And their survey got less than our surveys.
So I don't think a survey is the answer.
I do believe that we look, we need to look at the formula and we need input.
You can say that it's well run.
I heard from people in the organization that it needs to be modified.
You could successfully say that there needs to be modifications.
So I'm not willing to support a lot of money going.
So I'm willing to support a lot of money going.
Okay.
All right.
I'm ready to call a question.
All favor.
Opposed today.
Opponent of Councilor Bollock to committees.
We're going to put them to work.
Yes.
I'm going to put a ties to you.
I need a mover and a seconder for this motion.
Moved by Councilor Paul of Banks.
Seconded by Councilor Paul.
We resolve that the Councilor Corporation, the Councilor relates hereby appoints Councilor
Dussman Bollock to the following committees.
Councilor Rocker, Regent Conservation Authority.
Friends of the Capital Trail.
Planning Advisory and Committee of Adjustment.
And the Warp and Area Community in Aspen Committee.
And further, the Councilor Cardby removed as an appointed Councilmember of St.
Here are the motion discussion.
Councilor Card.
I was never appointed, sorry.
So you did that last sentence.
No, I believe you were.
I would never counsel or do any of that.
You were put in temporarily.
But it wasn't rain.
No.
Then I know.
I think I did it.
It was done.
I didn't know that.
You're fired.
I didn't know.
Okay.
Oh, thanks.
You didn't know you were in black.
If she didn't know she was.
You're in black.
Oh, I'm in black.
Can I call a question?
All the favor.
Sure.
Question is carrying.
No.
Put them in black.
I'm not.
Okay.
I got them out.
So, okay.
Okay.
It was 14.
It was just 1.1.
14.1.
But she's not 13.1.3.
Imagine that.
13.1.3.
Now, Deputy Mayor Hutchings, would you please read this motion?
I'm not prepared to read this motion into the record.
I'll read it later.
Yeah, I'll share this.
Is there a conflict on this?
No conflict.
Where can vote on and over?
Okay.
Just curious.
Okay.
So, um,
resolution, whole of banks over the right of the mayor.
You don't read, come, come, come.
Burmatorium, I'm on 20, 25, 94 championships.
So, it's moved by public banks, and then we have second year.
Which one can I?
I want to thank you.
Do you speak?
Okay.
So, it's second by Jeff Banks, right?
We're at a section 284.11 of municipal act 20, 001 permits the head of council to be built,
a by-law only if it interferes with a prescribed provincial priority.
And we're asked by-law number 2025-94.
She does not interfere with any provincial priority.
I, but instead ensures that council and staff of the township of mutilates receive critical information
for which taxpayers have already paid $138,000 to support responsible transparent and evidence-based decision-making.
And we're asked section 224 of the municipal act 201 defines council's court responsibilities,
including 2 represent the public and consider the well-being of the municipality, 224,
brackets A, and to ensure accountability and transparency of municipal operations, 224, brackets D1.
And we're asked section 225, brackets C1, requires the mayor as head of council to provide information and recommendations to council and support
because responsibilities under section 224, and the failure to do so undermines these obligations.
And we're asked the mayor of Vito, in this case, is being used to withhold information from council
and the public obstructing transparency and pending council's ability to govern responsibility.
And violating possibility both the letter and the spirit of section 224 and 225 of municipal act.
And whereas any member of council who supports as Vito is by extension, maybe in reach of their legal obligations under section 224 by failing to represent the public
interest and support transparent governs.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the council would attach for me to links here by ORIs of our mayor orio.
Vito of by law number 2025-94, pursuant to section 284, dot 11, brackets 8, on the municipal act 20, 0, 1.
And further, that by law number 2025-94, shall be reading, reading past.
And further, that this resolution be forwarded to municipal, ministry, affairs, and housing in the Ontario opposite, and the information and privacy commissioner of Ontario,
for formal review, and to reaffirm that section 284, dot 11, is not to be used to obstruct law council oversight or public accountability.
Any questions about it?
First, I want to go to that actual motion itself.
It's the confirmatory by law that being Vito through strong mayor powers.
And it was a motion that was put forward, not a by law.
So, I'm kind of that losses to what the strong mayor power position is on this because it is actually a motion that's being built.
Also, this is also tack on on the democracy of the council.
The majority of council, because we voted for this, but this is, and let's get this very, very clear, this is to get a price stop, that's it, just to get a price.
We did the work, all we have to do is send it into tender. If we don't like the price, we don't have to do it, because if it came in at $82 million, we would not do the work.
If it came in at $1 million, we would have to answer some questions, but we don't know that.
So, why would anybody vote against us getting the information?
And we've always asked for apples, apples, and we have a motion on the floor for us to do a new build cost.
So, I'm at a loss as to what is it that the minority of council wants, because we're going to compare the two of these together and make a decision.
So, what is it that you don't want to build an office, if that's what it is.
And I heard the last video was because there was no public, what was a public input.
There was no, I guess, appetite for public to move forward on this office.
I don't know who anybody's talking about, what public, because there's a lot of people out there that are looking at the conditions in this building, they want to change.
This should be the input from staff, and we are not making a decision on changing this office until we have the plans for a new build also.
This is only for information. So, this is not in the flavor of the mayor of the Oto power.
At all, it's a blatant misuse of those powers. So, I'm going to support this.
We finished on a job.
Yes.
Thanks.
Can you have your hand up, Mr.
Yes.
Thank you.
Well, clearly I'm not going to be supporting this motion.
This motion has a number of false statements in it, as far as I'm concerned.
It is a repeat of the motion, where I vetoed earlier, the confirmatory biologist, which we have authorized to put a project out for tender.
And my view is not in system for prevention of priorities or municipal priority for household.
So, I will continue to veto this project.
As long as I'm there, and I feel it's rather pointless to continue to bring this back.
Again and again, because I believe council does not have the required six votes to overturn my view.
So, I will be calling for a record of vote on this, and as I say, it requires six votes to overturn my view.
Add it to simply, it's not going to happen.
Thank you.
Councillor Paul again, please.
As people will see once we get to the non-confidence vote, my biggest issue with the veto was the categorically false statements made in the veto.
And they weren't repeated from the first veto.
And we have given the mayor an opportunity to correct those, and instead of doing that, he copied and pasted them into the second veto.
So, the first thing I'd like to address is he says, a local citizen developer has offered three five acre parcel on a highway that would facilitate the development of a new adjacent subdivision in existing village.
This option was never or not properly considered by council.
That is categorically false, as the new Councillor will tell you, it has been discussed as all of council knows, it has been discussed several times.
And for it to be a copy and paste in a veto four days after those discussions, I feel it's an insult to us.
It's an insult to the public, pretending that we haven't hashed this property several times that the owner has not changed his conditions.
His condition several times is completely false.
So, in the non-confidence vote, or in one of the motions I sent today, I feel that all the information about the album property should now become public, including the original request of the gentleman for an MTO permit of highway 15, and the estimated cost of that.
The second thing that I found insulting in the veto was the copy and paste of the debt reason, because as Tony Fleming, I'm solicitor said, in a paper to again, not way mayor, we pay him a lot of money for his opinions, and he said that he doesn't feel that it would pass the test.
So, I'm sorry, and the other one, asking contractors to bid on a process of which was flawed, is not supported by citizen staff, hired architects or engineers.
The mayor, even though council's asked several times, has failed to show us any documentation from staff, architects or engineers about any flaws in this process, he either doesn't want to give them to us or just refuses.
So, I'm asking council based on the category of false statements in this veto that were copied and pasted from the first one that we've debunked to me supporting this veto is an insult when we all know that statements in it are categorically false, like the council has never looked at the album property.
So, that is why I asked for an opinion of someone that I respect and they feel that passing this veto based on false information is a breach of the municipality.
So, I'm asking council to not support this veto. Thank you.
So, do you have any questions?
Can you answer your questions?
It poses me why a motion to go get a price and we go for tender and people bid on it.
We have ten people bid.
The only one person gets the job, the other nine don't, so that means the other nine are never going to be on a project again.
Absolutely not.
The only one person is going to get the job if we did decide to get the job.
And for us to accept a tender price has to be done through a buy law.
Has the chance to veto that buy law.
So, my question to the mayors, why is he so afraid to get a price?
Or why we can't get a price?
We just want a price, that's only one.
You've asked for it, deputy mayor.
Council policy asks for it.
We want a price, so we can compare something to something.
We can't compare nothing to something because we are not even going to be allowed to get a price.
These contractors do this all the time.
You think Kevin only mids on one project.
They do 500 of them probably every month and they don't get them all.
That's what they have people hired for.
That's what they do.
They bid on projects.
They don't ask, are you going to do it?
We're not going to do it.
They'll keep that bid price for 90 days.
We were trying to get a new build in position so that we can do the two of them together.
And we've now moved to that position now.
And the mayor's veto is going to veto that.
So I don't understand what everybody is afraid of.
Trying to get a price.
People know exactly what it would be.
That's what we're supposed to be doing.
Isn't it?
We're supposed to be representing all the public.
And I'll tell you right now today not all the public is against us.
We're going to be changing or getting a price.
There's a lot of people that want to know about what it is.
You may get 100 phone calls, but there's 10,000 eligible voters in this township.
And if you get 100 phone calls about that office, you better let me know at least 10 of them.
Because I have not got one yet.
Not one.
So I think it's disgraceful that we can't even find the price.
Oh, and just the last question.
If the veto is it six of nine or is it five of eight?
It is six no matter who's in the room.
Okay.
Just want to make sure.
Anybody else?
Thank you.
Madam Deputy Mayor.
The comments that the mayor said regarding this particular motion being inaccurate.
Could he please point out what the enactor seems to have.
I'm asking you.
If I'm asked to respond to this, I'm simply going to say that I've heard this so many times.
I repeated myself so many times.
It says that it's not interfere with the provincial priority.
I guess you agree with that.
And many others agree with me.
So, I mean, and it talks about accountability and transparency from my perspective.
I'm being more accountable and transparent than other members of council are being respect to all of this action.
So, as I would say, I would say it might have been like that.
I'm going to sign up for a semester of banks and the floor.
No, go ahead.
Okay.
So, I'm going to...
I'm not going to continue to hammer away at this.
I will simply ask for the vote.
And if it's overturned, it's overturned.
But my position is that this project will not be put up to tender.
I'm finished and I would hope that you have observed the fact that people don't speak to the issue to us.
She's this chair.
This is my follow up.
Everybody's always spoke once and some people have me spoke yet.
So, anyways, see.
I'll slide down to you in your next slide.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
In this particular motion, it is identified that I am structuring the information to be brought
forward to the public to provide a cost for any potential renovations for this facility
is not being transparent.
Mr. Mayor, shame on you for not bringing this to the public.
Can I just comment?
I am bringing this to the public and the public is overwhelming and supportive of my position.
No, I disagree.
I disagree.
That's your third.
Well, if I'm being attacked, I can move this one.
No, you don't let us.
If I'm chairing this meeting, I want to chair this meeting.
And I'm going out where you come back here and you sit down.
Okay?
So, I'm sorry.
But that's it.
And if I, if Debbie comes out, it'll be, you know.
So, anyways, Councillor Jeff fakes your second time.
Well, again, in the comments in the paper, the mayor stated that he is not going to have
the renovation of Chantry, go to tender.
We have not asked for the renovation of Chantry to go to tender.
We are asking for a cost just to give it to the public.
Now, he's had overwhelming support from I, I'm not sure who, but I haven't got any calls
and I'm talking to people and everybody's saying, well, at least now find out what both costs are.
At least find it because then we have something that we can compare it to.
Because if you don't, we're doing a very large injustice to the public by keeping this hit.
And I don't know what the purpose of keeping information hidden has to do with building more homes.
It has absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever.
So, we need to see what that cost is going to be.
He still has a power to be a bit.
So, what's he afraid of?
So, all I'm asking, what is the mayor afraid of?
You done?
Yep.
Okay.
So, does he?
Has it gone?
Yes.
Thank you.
I really don't have a lot to say, I don't know.
I think I've made my position on the Chantry renovation pretty clear through my lecture.
And in past meetings, we've got about this.
I'm not supportive of overturning the veto because I don't believe that this project
as it currently stands in the best interest of the municipality.
That's my stance.
And that's all I'm going to make my decisions, whether I think it's in the best interest of the municipality.
I would remind residents that they are watching the meeting,
that we do have a 99% of our earnings to take this building to tender for renovation.
And we do have a cost with that, which is $4.5 million.
That's a class A estimate, which is what you get before you're going to your final ten.
I understand prices may change, things may change.
We've seen changes from class A to tender in the past.
But we don't have anything to really compare this to in terms of a new bill,
which I believe is the more appropriate approach.
We should be looking at future needs of the municipality.
I don't believe building here is taking that into consideration.
So, I mean, if we're going to discuss looking at another location and look at it
and going through the process of seeing what we're going to build on that location,
I think we need to go through that process.
We need to get to our class A estimate there.
We need to compare our class A to a clock set.
And after the same, there's your comparison.
When you go to tender, you're going to get to that final price.
But going to tender means you're intending to build.
It doesn't mean you're getting an estimate.
And estimate is the clock set that we have.
And at the moment, that's $4.5 million.
So just, that's where I say.
I see that.
I understand that it can change.
I understand where Councillor Banks is coming from in terms of it is only in estimate.
We could get a more accurate bill price.
However, that accurate bill price is only good for 30 days.
So that can change after we get that.
It's not really, I don't believe worth our time to go through that step.
We're not ready to do that yet.
I think we have a lot more bridges to cross and figure out what I believe would be a more appropriate approach.
It's going to look like, and what that is going to cost from a purely estimate class.
They estimate standpoint before we really take the cent.
And again, maybe let the public decide which way they want to go.
Again, I think there's been lots of words filled at this table about where people think we should go with this.
And I have said that I do not believe there's been enough public consultation on this.
And I think that that's that's been buried out.
And I hope you can, you know, replicate that in the future.
So anyway, just a wrap to summarize.
I will not be overheating the veto.
Thank you.
Okay, I'll start.
Thank you.
Deputy Mayor.
Again, I'll reiterate that my problem with the veto isn't whether it's over turn or not.
My problem with the veto is the category of false statements that are included in the veto.
That the mayor knows are not true.
For example, that we have not looked or hashed it.
The property in elegant and that is categorically false.
He says, we're not being transparent.
But he comes in with comments like Steve Clark supports his veto, which Steve Clark said was categorically false also. And he says the 12 mayors and leaps and grumble support him and do not support council yet. None of them supports strong mayor powers. So to me, this isn't about the office. This is about strong mayor powers. And supporting this veto is supporting strong mayor powers. When they reasoned in the strong mayor powers,
our categorically false, and I'm assuming when we get to the motion where I ask to bring the
outcome information, public, the public will see the mayor used categorically false information in his veto. So by supporting this veto, I and others believe, you are breaching municipal. It is based on categorically false information. Thank you.
When we send stuff at the tender, we can actually, we can actually, I got to be fair there.
So anybody else, I'm kind of confused because we're doing this to veto the mayor.
Are we going to basically because of the false information that's out there, or are we going to oppose going out for a price?
Can somebody answer me that? Are we going to a or is it both this? I can clarify one. It counsel votes in favor of the override.
That means that staff are issuing the tender for the chantry office.
That's what I mean.
Do you have a price?
It shows a tender.
So we do nothing with veto with guarding the mayor.
This motion is to override the mayor's veto and you direct that to issue the tender.
To your price.
Let's get a price, isn't it?
Yes.
To issue the tender.
We don't have to accept.
What counts in the side to do with it once the price is received?
Does that count?
It's to get a price.
Okay.
So I'm not familiar with construction people.
In other words, if I go and get a price, does that mean I'm going to build right now?
No.
Is everybody saying that?
Because I know if you go and you do a house, you may get three or four prices and you go like any money
And do your pricing.
So I can't really say when you work for a price, you're not really saying you're going to take that.
Because you're going to have then three or four money is coming from.
Then you have to go to bank if you're going to afford it.
So I think we're still thinking as to...
This is very getting very confusing as to whether it's the mayor or whether we want a price.
And I've been saying it all along.
I want a price.
That's all I want.
And I don't care about whether you made it with boo-boo or not.
Because we have said we need a price as to how much is going to cost.
So I don't think that's a line.
We just need a price.
And whether we go over your head or not, I don't care.
I don't care.
It's just whatever.
I want to raise it.
Okay.
Can I start pulling me as soon as I'm spoken with?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I said before, I think we're at a point with this feeling here that we got a price that is closer.
Well, I don't know.
I don't know.
And I also think we should be bringing the new outbreak decided that they both go to the public.
And we can look at the most of them at the same time of the year.
Yeah.
If you want to compare them, let's close you even get them and we should be side by side.
Well, that's.
Well, then you wait.
There's going to be time.
So, at this point, I was a part of theator that I asked.
Can you just finish?
Can you answer the call?
Do you finish?
Yes.
Councillor.
Thank you.
Just maybe to add some a slight follow-up to Councillor Kerr's question.
The class I asked him to do we have right now from our consultant is saying that it's going
to be 4.5 million.
That's that's the cost we currently want to do this building.
Now, when you go out and find a construction company that's actually going to get a bit on the specifics
of building that plan, they're going to give you a bit more specific to terms of the current.
Market and what their costs are and everything like that.
So, that price could change one way or the other.
We have seen in the last five years.
We've gone through a couple other bills here where the estimate price has been higher than what the
bill price is being, but we've seen major fluctuations in the building market and the construction
market, which isn't really there anymore to the same degree.
A couple years ago you had a lot of fluctuations with COVID, but we've kind of reached a bit of a
plateau now.
So, I think it's a lot safer to assume that our current estimate that we have received, which is a
class that it's about plus minus 10 percent.
I forget what it is.
It's pretty close.
It is relatively accurate and putting a tender out and getting going down that road is generally seen in that
industry as being your intention to move forward because you've done all the work.
You've done all the design.
You're going to find someone that's going to come and build that design that you've now gone through the process of doing.
And we have, we can budget based on $4.5 million.
So, if we want to compare this current, we have everything we have.
99 percent of drawings, we could go tomorrow and say, build us.
But we don't have anything to compare it to.
We can't compare it to another class A drawing.
So, we could go as we have discussed about looking at another property and what a new build, full new build would be on that new property.
And compare, once we get that up to the class A estimate standpoint, we could compare and say, look, we have this class A estimate of 4.5 million.
We could probably have the architect update that cost by the time this is a number of months from now that cost me fluctuate.
And we can compare those two together at the class A levels.
So, you're getting an apples to apples.
When you go to the tender after that, then you're going to get your final build, build price.
So, if this stage, when we're making these decisions, this higher level, going and getting a tender price is a level of detail that is not required.
And really, is it going to give us any more context that we already have to the current class A?
Is my stance on it?
So, 4.5 million, that's the class A, at this stage.
Thank you, everybody.
Okay, my second concept.
Thank you.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
I appreciate Councillor Bullock's comments.
One of the things that we can forget is that we will go out and get a price for a brand new build on a brand new lot.
But we still have a million approximately that we have to do with right here.
So, if we go and get a 4.5 million price over here on a brand new, we still have to add a million or a approximate that we're going to have to do here.
So, that new build is 5.5 million, 5.5 million, not 4.5.
That has to be under consideration.
I understand where Councillor Bullock is looking at the future and the growth of this building and the growth of the township and the growth of the public works department and everything else.
So, I agree, if we go and build somewhere else new, this would become perhaps the public works office.
But again, we have put money into this.
I would just like to find out what the actual cost might be.
And I would also like to identify that the estimate that we got
has been opened up.
There's lots of stuff in there that identify costs that were a lot higher than we know they would actually cost.
So, there was some cushioning provided in the class A estimate.
Let's get a real price.
Let's know what it's going to cost unless you're another estimate and find out what it's really going to cost and then make the decision.
And to be really honest, I have spoken to a number of people.
And they really don't care.
They just want us to have a healthy place for all our staff to work.
And that it...
Chantry is fairly close to being in the middle of this municipality.
We can't put it in cross because we're going to be in the middle of a circle now if we do that.
So, leaving it in chantry where people are used to it for the last 27 years isn't a bad thing.
But if we move to somewhere new, if we go to a different municipality or a hamlet or a village, those people will need to say,
I'm not sure I want all that traffic driving up and down my roads.
I'm not sure I want to have a three story building in my backyard.
There's going to be all kinds of different comments and attitudes and we have a talk to them about that.
So, by not going out to the public for a new build, I agree.
We should be doing that.
If, indeed, we feel that the price to do something here is going to be ridiculous.
So, understand that we haven't got just the cost of renovating here.
We have the cost if we renovate or we build new.
We still have to do something here.
And here...
Mary Ellen told me she was going to be retired before she ever moved out of this building.
And I want her to have something new before she retires.
So, I think it's very important for us to find out exactly what it is.
The class A estimate, when they did the class A estimate on the Portland Hall, and when it was actually built,
we had a lot of difference.
It was almost a half a million dollars in savings.
So, I'm thinking we have to get the actual price.
And then, go from there.
And, understand, our taxpayers don't want our taxes raised.
They don't want to be paying a lot more in taxes.
And if we go out and do another charge, Mahal, we will end up having a lot more taxes to be covered.
So, I'm just thinking, let's be frugal.
Let's do what's right and follow along in a professional and comprehensive and logical manner looking at this.
That's it.
This is good.
Well, I'm frustrated.
This can probably imagine.
Well, I'm going to have my turn.
Good.
So, I'm sitting here and I'm listening to everybody, right?
I'm trying to really listen and understand exactly where everybody is coming from.
So, number one, do we want a nice building?
This is just a question.
Do we want a nice new building or renovated building?
Do we want a building to put our stuff in and to have our council meetings in?
Yes or no?
Yes.
Okay.
Number two, I hear a lot of I think I, I, I.
Nobody once said, I want to know what the real price is so that I can do with right by the taxpayers money.
You got to know and with, in the past, I had some experience with contracts for building roads,
like 36 highway going up over the mountain and they weren't just little party roads.
So, people who get their class a thing, they have no, it's their word.
When it comes right down to it, it's cut-through, cut-through.
And they're going to try to get the most out of it and they're going to bang it up as much as it can.
Or if somebody wants, has any pole with anybody else, then they pole favors, then they do things.
I've seen it.
I've been there.
Watch that.
Listen to them.
In the count.
And when they're talking, they'll open up there before they put in their tenders.
There's kickbacks.
There's everything else.
So, to be able to, I'm not saying that some of these doing kickbacks.
I'm saying in that there is, you got to know what the real price is.
And the only real price is, is to, we both, we all want an estimate for a new build somewhere else.
I'm not against a new build.
I just want what's the best bang for the taxpayers money, with the nicest place, the most economical place for it to be sitting.
That's all that I've ever said.
But it's like, it's like pulling teeth to try to move forward with this.
So, what would happen?
Just a question.
What would happen if we got the same percentage on a new build somewhere else,
that we have for this one now, and we set them both out the same time.
And then we got to make a decision on that, whether the price or whatever.
And then go for the one that's the best deal for the people, not for us, for the people.
Like, I don't see how it's such a big thing.
And, like, I have stopped to bring out a crown of her whiskey, so I could get in line with my don't drop.
Okay, or else, you didn't get in line with your don't drop anything, so you had to suck up, suck up.
I don't want any of this sucking around here with this.
I want it to be fair, I want it to be transparent, and I want it to go forward.
Like, we got to do something with this place, doesn't mean we're going to do it.
Like, build a hair or do whatever, but we got to find out what it is.
Like, and do what's best for the people.
And if we have to have, you know, like, I don't know.
I just, I'm just so kind of, like, we're not going to go nowhere as we were going.
Like, why don't we just get boxing gloves on and take a roll?
Like, you know, like, I know you're looking at me kind of funny, but that's basically what we're getting to. We're getting to be very juvenile about all of this. And I just want us to look at what's best for the taxpayer. That's what I was putting here to represent the people, not what I think should happen.
So anyways, then that is my thing, and don't go twist around, but kickbacks and stuff, because I'm talking about past like, 40 years ago. Okay, not here to make this known, because I'm sick of people taking my words and twist them around, because if you want, like I'm saying it here, we've got to do something and we've got to move forward.
And we've got to put all our selfishness behind. And what we're so scared about all this, I do not know. So, and can I have everybody, because I'm here, can everybody have one more time of saying something, or is that against the big law?
Is that you? Is it against the law? No, it's not. It is. It is against the by law?
Yes. The procedure about that study from a household can speak twice, but the chair has a lot of to go.
Thank you.
I'm going to get and do you need me for doing?
I guess I can take it. Well, I'm giving everybody an equal chance to have another word, because like it's, you know, I just want everybody to have a say and to get this finished.
So, we'll do one more round, just one more, and I'll like, you get to say and once you're finished, you're finished.
Okay. So, seeing you in the new guy on the table.
I'm the guy.
No, I'm just, yeah.
Thank you.
I try to make it, like, not so serious, but anyways.
I just wanted to start by saying, I agree with what you had to say in terms of where we want to get to, in terms of being able to hear what people have to say about this.
So, I think that's where, I mean, we have these 99% drawings that we can take to the public, but we need to be able to present them against a backdrop of what a new bill is going to look like.
And I think if we can get to that, that to the 99% stage, we can take that to the public and say, what do you prefer?
And I mean, if the public prefers doing this, well, then we've allowed the public to give their feedback, and I think we would have to take that into consideration whether I personally agree with that or not.
I think that it's going to be up to the public in the end as to where we go with this.
I did want to add to some of what Councillor Dunfield had to say in terms of what we do with this facility, if we go to a new location, and I think we need to keep in mind, if we just renovate here,
then we are not using this facility as storage or archive or public works space.
So, we are not going to have that extra square footage of space if we build and renovate here.
If we build somewhere new somewhere else, this place is now vacant, whatever money we spend to make this into storage and public works is a new investment in this facility to give us more square footage of space.
So, if we really wanted to compare, let's say we are building new somewhere else and renovating this, if we wanted to compare what that price is all together with a renovation here and adding that new square footage is any build somewhere else,
that's a whole new can of worms we have to open, and we building a new garage and storage facility somewhere else, that's a similar square footage to this building to go along with the renovation here.
Because that's the option we would have if we go somewhere else, if we go somewhere else, this building is empty, we could renovate it, and we also have all of this extra square footage for public works and storage.
If we renovate here, you do not have that option.
We have to look at building new somewhere else if we did want that, because I don't believe this far as anywhere, but I based on the 90% of our experience here to be much more space here to add up.
In regards to this, even if there was, that still a cost of building that much new square footage.
So I just want people to keep that in mind.
4.5 million dollars is renovating this building.
The most of us keep it as it is, and add an additional to make more space for you.
So not as it is, adding office onto here and renovating this space.
Building somewhere new is going to get you what we need for a new facility that we could extend on in the future.
And then the meantime leaves us with the opportunity to do something here if we so desire.
If we find out that the cost of renovating this to be public works, garage and storage is more than Council wishes to spend.
Well, we can choose not to go down that road and look at new options down the road.
But in the meantime, if it is the desire of Council as a whole to see this renovated, we have that option available to us, whether it's a 500,000 or a million dollars.
It's an option we won't have if we renovate this as it is.
So thank you.
Appreciate it.
Okay.
Councillor Davis.
Well, I think this is to override the view of the July Council meeting.
The Conservatory by a lot of July and Mayor's already stated that he will not allow the
Chantry Office to go to attend or to be renovated.
And that's a false statement because we're just looking for the price.
For us to add onto this building, we're adding 4200 square feet.
We've seen, and I can council block, you have not seen the reports and the stuff that we've done.
I know you're new to this.
For us to do this, it will probably if we do do the renovation.
This would serve our needs for another 50 years.
The architect is already decided and told us that the buildings and the shapes that we can do that.
And I don't know why they only build for 50 years, but we need to straighten that out.
So the motion to do a new build, like Councillor Volcker said,
and do the renovation of Chantry at the same time.
The mayor's already vetoed that motion.
So we have to deal with that.
So this is not what we're trying to do.
We're trying to get a cost.
And if we do go to a new build, and we do have the price of this when we have all the diagrams,
is that going to be allowed to go to the tender for the two of them?
You cannot, and you say this again, you cannot go away what the architect said.
Because we sat in this room.
They're putting porcelain tile down for $27 square foot in auto watts, $20 square foot.
They talked about digging a ditch from here to the building, from the road to the building for the hydro of $50,000.
That's craziness.
The ditch is already there.
Why wouldn't you use the ditch to sare for the hydro?
It's underground.
So there's a lot of things that we're in that building that I love that on those plans that seem to be.
And the council, it looks like it's been patterned.
But let's get the real price.
Does it hurt?
People live there.
All the companies out there right now know that we probably won't build.
So they don't build?
Well, somethings.
It's...
I said we have to make sure it's not.
Yeah, I think it's been patterned.
I think that they got the estimates way to make too hard.
But at least let's find out what the cost is going to be.
And people out there that are going to build the contractors.
If they know we're not going to build, build, they won't build.
And if we don't get any build, then I'm fine with that.
It doesn't cost us anything to listen to.
Maybe just a bit of advertising a few hundred dollars.
So I think it's ridiculous that we keep this from the public.
I agree with Councillor Dunfield that we have to have both options on the table.
And we have to show the people that we're trying to be through.
We'll go through the best box.
So that's paying for the box.
Okay.
You done?
Yeah.
Councillor Hall of Fame.
Thank you.
I've definitely been.
To me, this motion wasn't about sending the chantry office to tender.
Because I really don't care if it goes to tender.
I will be unhappy.
I was unhappy to see the mayor moving the July 7th meeting.
Because I have a feeling he's going to be to let.
And that's the one that I really do wish could go full board.
Because it is comparing what that's said to the 90% drawings of both.
What this motion about is for me is the misuse of strong mayor powers.
The mayor used categorically false statements.
In his veto that we've already debunked from the first veto where he categorically said
Steve Clark supported it and that wasn't true.
So by not, by letting this veto go through with this false information in it.
When we, everyone that attended the closed meeting knows it's false.
To me, that's supporting strong mayor powers in the worst way.
So I don't care if someone puts a motion forward after this to not send the chantry office to tender
because I'll support that.
This veto is the epiphany or whatever word of the improper use of strong mayor powers.
It has categorically false and debunked from our attorney Tony Fleming.
Information.
And instead of finding new provincial priorities, they were copying pasted from the first veto after they were debunked.
And that's what bothers me.
So I'm hoping the people that said they do not support strong mayor powers seize this from what it is.
It is an attempt to stop the public and council from getting information.
That's all it is.
It's a misuse of strong mayor powers.
So I'm hoping that the people that say they don't support strong mayor powers support this.
And then hopefully the July 7th, where we're sending both to tender at the same time, will not be vetoed.
But if it is, I will be getting illegal opinion on that one as well.
Yeah, um, I would, if you would, councilor, if you would say you're two cents worth.
And of what you.
Well, I don't want everybody like to say it.
The first time that also say this building and property has nothing to do with whether we renovate guests or we build a new.
Because it is building new and this is a certain piece of property.
With a building on.
If it's valuable enough, it will need it for the country.
Equipment or workplace.
For that plus in archives.
Then okay, that's a separate cost.
Otherwise, we'd actually, we'd sell it and turn it towards a new building.
That we don't have the use for it.
And the construction companies would be glad to get it.
So, I don't think you should put the two together.
It's either a new building or renovate this one.
Okay, and then it'll all be up to the cost, but don't add in the cost of this building.
You're renovated when it's what you need it.
And it'll be needed, but it'll be paid out from.
But if we don't need this building.
Unless we're going to start brand new.
With the price and archives.
And we don't use Pinden.
So.
So that's it.
When did we decide what we're going to do with this building?
I don't think that would happen.
We haven't decided anything about this.
So how can you say we're going to do this?
Because it's like, no one said anything.
So.
So, like we've heard, it's going to be a crash.
No, it's going to be archives.
No, it's going to be torn now.
No, but I'm not torn down.
But like it's beyond knowing.
It's driving me crazy.
Somebody tell me what to do.
Or what.
They're doing.
Um.
Councillor.
Thank you.
Madam chair.
I think we should call the road.
Okay.
I just want to ask.
In honor of you.
Mr. Mayor.
You have something you want to say.
I'm not going to repeat your arguments.
I have a lot of statements in my view of our inaccurate.
One of the things that I would try to correct is the fact that there's suggesting that there's
a million dollars cost to benefit this to an archive of scratch.
The number we received from our engineer of architects was have none.
So I'm not sure why people would suggest that we need to double that number.
So, you know, I'm not.
I'm not a building contractor.
I don't know what those costs would be.
It was cost would depend on what we end up deciding to do.
And there's other people who mentioned to.
We don't yet know 100% what we're planning to do.
But we give not the engineer architect really on.
No.
That one of the options was an archive.
And to convert a portion of the building back into the base.
And there estimate at that time was half a million dollars.
So that's the number we should be using.
Not one million dollars or more.
So that's my comment.
Okay.
Can I ask you the real price?
We would all know what the real price is.
That's all.
And I think we should call the vote.
Yeah.
We're going to call the vote.
So, is it just going to be a vote?
Or is it going to be a...
Yes.
We'll record a vote.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Councilor Jeff Banks.
Yes.
Councilor Paula Banks.
Yes, please.
Councilor Carter.
Yes.
Councilor Paula.
No.
Councilor Gunn is guilty.
Yes.
Councilor Paula?
No.
Deputy Mayor Hutchings?
Yes.
Mayor.
No.
I'd love to be here to give you a stand.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
That's all we need to say.
I'll talk to you again.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
This is a question.
Yes.
This is a request for information to support submission on bill 9 and integrity commissioner framework.
So, I have a blue by Councillor Paula Banks.
I need a second to put this on a floor.
Councilor Linda Carter.
Where's the time for relates to preparing submission to the standing committee on heritage infrastructure and cultural policy regarding bill 9 and municipal accountability act.
2025.
And where's the time to pass it?
Experience 17 and integrity commissioner.
I see complaints raising concerns.
About the current framework on the need for reform. Now, there for bidres all the council direct staff to go out of detail, break down the cost, incurred for each of the 17 icy investigations by August 9th.
And further, that council of all of Acts prepare a summary of each complaint, including the date, general nature, outcome and duration, along with commentary, supporting the council to call for legislative reform and independent oversight.
And further, that the completed report is submitted to the August 11th MSC meeting for council review prior to submission to the Standing Committee by the August 18th deadline.
For the motion discussion.
Council of all of Acts, please.
This is in response to a couple of things.
The first one would be your staff directive to release raw integrity commissioner data during the buy election.
President and several of us counselors had warned you in emails, but released a raw integrity commissioner data,
without even findings of guilt and innocence would be used to target sitting counselors and possibly candidates in our election.
And that was ultimately how it was used within hours and days of it being released.
And the other issue is that we have contacted a Rob Flack and people that attended Roma are well aware that the majority of this council feels the integrity commissioner.
Process has been misused in read-alikes.
We've had incidents where we have staff investigating counselors.
We had incidents where councils have investigated other counselors.
We spent $17,000 in the last term investigating counselor busy.
Basically because she said wow and called recorded votes.
We spent $16,000 investigating the majority of council because we turned our back on a delegation that has printed faults and defaming information about the majority of council.
And in all of those 11 coordinated I.C. investigations.
The one thing that came across in every single one was error unwillingness to build a new office.
So, with speaking to Steve Clark, the Angotsman Ministry of Natural Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing,
they all felt that the best approach would be to contact the Angotsman office with the confidential information.
And that we should make a submission to the bill line for the August 18 deadline.
Steve Clark said that it cannot contain confidential information, but it can contain all of the other issues that concern this council.
The reason for the costings, so I asked for a couple a guess a week ago.
And I was told I needed to put it in a motion.
So, I guess we don't need the cost for August 11 as long as I could get it for the 17th in order to submit it on the 18th.
Thank you.
Who else wishes to speak to this?
Councillor Bullock.
Thank you, Your Worship.
I guess I just said one thing concerned was just that when it comes to preparing a summary and some commentary,
maybe the best of that was based on advice from staff and with all of us being able to provide input.
In no respect to Councillor Banks, I just wanted to come from one council.
It would be better if it's coming from a collective approach and based on information provided to us from staff.
In terms of there, you know, expert opinion on this process and if you can kind of run from there.
I guess she's all in that.
No, it was just that.
My only concern was that if it's only coming from one of us, do we have an opportunity as a group to sort of agree that that's how we want to send this and how we approach it.
That's why it's still on view, but just to follow up on the staff.
I felt it was inappropriate to have staff to go through the technical issue reports to Deputy Mayor Hutchman's speech.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I agree with this going forward because I have been part of the intact and I.
It won't ever stop unless there comes to an in a professional and.
I have, you know, it's our, our life, our reputation and everything.
And I'm just glad that some of us have lived here so long.
Everybody truly knows us, but we, we've been, like, what happened with.
I'm, Paul and Jeff, the, us to lose their pay when they weren't guilty.
If it had went further, it was going to be me too.
And I didn't do anything wrong, and I was found not guilty.
So I take this very serious.
And to ask unless you've sat in our shoes.
And you have, you know, but it, it she wants, it's to be seen and talked about.
But I'm just saying, I, I have never been a part of anything even in public school as well.
I've been a part of here.
I just spit on public school too.
Thank you.
Yeah, I want this to go forward.
During that past episode of March the third, we were charged for something we did not do.
Well, we were found not guilty, and we were charged anyway.
And I think that after three.
I think that's the reason that you can't charge us for something we weren't guilty of.
Didn't, didn't take any weight with the, with the majority of the voting part of that council.
And then of course, then another week later, then you were specifically said that you can't charge somebody for something they didn't do.
And they found not guilty of them.
So I think it's pathetic that we had to go through that and press didn't cover it properly.
And they refused to cover it properly.
And that's a disgrace in this township because they're like Debbie says there's a lot of people that know who we are and what we do do.
And it's taking the face of the people that tried to railroad this stuff through.
So let's get it to the standing committee and hopefully.
I, you know, I say hopefully, but I know nothing's probably going to happen.
But I'm going to vote for it anyway.
I'm supportive.
And as for input.
I think council having input into it.
I think the review of the integrity commission's complaints and that should be in front of the minister.
And our MPP also.
Okay.
And what else?
If you're in politics second time.
I would just like to mention that this was the door was opened with the staff directive.
To do this research and the unwillingness to even add guilt or innocence knowing that this council found us guilty of things we were found innocent of.
So they were willing to spread that out in the public.
And the mayor even weeks later went to the press claiming that he didn't understand why we're upset.
And that we could have gotten a lot worse.
I'm not sure how worse you can get when you're found innocent and they tried it while they're not trying it.
They take 45 days pay.
So if people are wondering why there's so many integrity commissioner reports and why my guess it's going to cost us around a hundred thousand dollars under.
Mayor Hookman.
My guess is when they look at things a lot of these.
Like five of the 11 that were filed against the majority of council contained information that I said in a closed meeting.
And that is the only place that I said it.
So if people want to know why so much money is spent on integrity commissioner reports and reto likes.
I firmly believe and so do a lot of other people now.
If you oppose or if you support retrofitting this child building in any way you're targeted.
Sixteen thousand dollars because the majority of us got frustrated and turned our back on a delegation that again has spread false information about us.
They claim we broke the municipality which we did not.
As far as I know this council, well I shouldn't say this council is the majority.
The five of us did not break the municipality.
But yet this delegation has on their Facebook page and their website that we did break the municipality.
So we were investigated for turning our back on a delegation of people that spew this false information on what would have happened.
And it came from a closed meeting five of those investigations.
So if taxpayers are frustrated, so are we.
And we don't know how else to put an end to this.
But other than to make it public that these are being used as political weapons.
Like I believe that firmly believe it was used against council and car.
And I will to the day I do not sit at this table that it was a vendetta against women.
And it is a vendetta against Jeff and myself and the majority of council.
And the taxpayers and footed the bill for almost.
I'm going to guess a hundred thousand dollars and read a links for people that opposed building a new office.
And that's why I would like to get the accurate figures.
So we can be transparent.
Thank you.
Councillor Bullock.
I believe a second time.
Thank you.
Yeah.
So it is both that you may are hatchings and councilors banks have noted.
Of course I haven't been here and experienced this as a member of council in going through these processes.
And I can appreciate that there's.
You know a significant amount of.
Personal concern with how this this process is working.
My perspective or my what.
Thoughts weren't to under one what you were saying council remains.
It was more to add.
The context of is is there.
Staff perspective on if we're going to as a township submit.
Comments on on this on the amendments that are coming to the.
I see.
System.
Are there concerns that staff have that they want to see included in any kind of submission.
Is there any kind of thoughts of how this process works.
That are outside of the.
The personal experience of of of councilors.
Is there is there other things that need to be included in this.
In this submission that that's all I was looking to see is there other things that we could.
Could ask if there's not there's not and that's that's fine.
I just I was wondering if there's something.
I'm sorry, but the answer.
No.
He's asking me a question.
I'm going to answer please.
You asked you a question.
Yes.
What's your question?
If there's.
Sorry.
Can I answer.
I'm sorry.
My question was more just in terms of it's anything beyond.
What is what it's here.
Okay.
If you're unalctic.
Can I answer.
Go ahead.
We had.
Put motion forward.
That if there was ever a break.
In investigations that we would like the integrity commissioner to come and sit with staff and us to come up with the new procedure by law.
Code of conduct and submit with her.
The problem is there haven't been there hasn't been a break.
In investigations.
We have been under investigation since August.
I don't agree.
Twenty three.
So if there's ever a break.
There is a motion that asks the integrity commissioner to sit with council and staff to come up with the way to debacle exercise and.
May.
Changes to make the system.
Okay.
Quick.
Just a very.
Follow.
And then we're going to go on.
Thank you.
I guess there's some very specific things that are in the changes that are coming in the legislation perhaps that we may want to comment on that.
That's again, that's kind of where I was getting out.
If there's specific things the staff want to have a dress that we should be submitting is what I'd like to see.
Thank you.
I welcome that.
Deputy Mayor.
Audrons.
Making a.
I would say the I see system.
It's totally broken.
And I don't know.
I don't know.
Like it kind of.
I don't know.
How.
Some of these.
Investigations come to the conclusions and they come to you sometimes.
So.
I.
So.
It's broke.
Let's take it out behind the branching.
Drunk.
Like.
I.
The I.
It.
The.
They say.
That's well.
Thank you.
Uh.
I think they submission on of I agreed with to the.
With the.
Ex
I think that some of the statements that have been made around this motion, I would consider to be questionable.
And any submission that we put forward, any submission that we put forward is not going to be unanimously supported by this council.
Because people are very opinion on what is required to fix the integrity commissioner system.
So I think that I think submission should be either staff, generated or individual or both.
The problem is going to be that I have this motion as a fourth paragraph. I don't think it's a appropriate role for any councilor.
I've heard a summary of each complaint, because clearly, based a lot of heard, that summary would be very biased.
Whereas if it came from staff, it could be independent and it could state the facts.
So guilty. I'm sorry. I have a floor.
Your directive was biased, got guilty.
That's your opinion, and that's not my opinion. Thank you very much.
So I will not be supporting this motion, because I think that it puts an inappropriate role on an elected official.
And for us to scramble around and provide this to staff and ask them to come back within 10 days with a package that they think council might support or that more than council would support.
Not asking staff to do anything but provide pricing.
Well, I'm sorry. I'm reading the motion. The motion requires us to do a lot of things.
No. You're saying the only thing in the councilor.
Councilor Paula Banks, but I have the floor.
Please respect the chair.
If you will not respect the chair, then I will not acknowledge your ability to speak to the issue.
Okay. I get everybody the opportunity to speak multiple times to the issue.
I speak last to the issue, and now I'm prepared to suggest that we need to put this to a vote,
because we cannot keep going in circles here.
And I'll call for a court vote.
I don't want to call the vote, please.
Councilor Jeff Thanks.
Of course, yes.
Councilor Paula Banks. Yes.
Councilor Paula.
No.
Councilor Car. Yes.
Councilor Dunfield.
Oh, definitely. Kiss kiss.
Councilor Paula.
No.
Deputy Mayor Hutchings? Yes.
I have a move.
Absolutely no.
Motion's carried.
And what is next?
13.5.
Okay. I have a mover at the Councilor Paula Banks.
I have a seconder for this.
Councilor Jeff Thanks.
Where a strong mayor's powers have been extended to 216 untrained
municipalities with more expected by fall of 2025, and where a school
of 130 municipalities are formally opposed these powers due to concerns over
democratic accountability and local governments, and where is the voice
coalition and hosting an open advocacy session at the 2025 Animal Conference of Monday,
August 18 from 1 to 3 p.m. at Joey Rito in Ottawa.
Now there are for big resolve.
The Councilor relates to the Dorses and supports the voice event and encourages all
Ontario municipalities to attend, and further that the attached invitation to
the Senate law, with the resolution to all 444 Ontario municipalities, the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Animal and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing.
For the motion discussion.
Councilor Paul Banks.
As of yesterday, we're up to 131 municipalities that have passed options.
And I have a copy of all those motions.
I have now emailed the other 200 than some that are expected to get strong mayor
power sometime in the fall.
And I've gotten a couple of responses from them.
They have passed motions, but because they don't have strong mayor
powers yet, we haven't included them.
Mark Hunter will be the keynote speaker.
He has a lawyer and counselor from Stratford, and we possibly have another
mayor to be a keynote speaker.
I'm very happy with the resounding support that don't only cancel
members, but mayors are sending.
So I'm hoping that we haven't been turned out.
And I would appreciate Council support on this and just a reminder that we are
asked the motion that I could do some photocopying here.
Okay, another discussion.
Councilor Debt.
I've heard of maybe two or three mayors within like a good hundred
miles from here.
They're using strong mayor powers and they're using them.
And I don't want to understand what it is.
I mean, we have to face the camera and say, Mr. Ford, you're not listening.
And I don't want to know what else we have to say because he's not listening.
People don't want it.
You want it.
We don't want it.
It's a public don't want it.
Nobody wants it.
We're a democratic society.
We were elected democratic.
We all have a vote at this team.
When one person can override everybody else's vote, then there's a problem.
And I say, Mr. Ford, you're not listening.
Please, listen.
Nobody wants this.
Along with a lot of other things.
So I'm going to support this.
Yeah.
Anyone else wish to comment on this?
Then I'll call the vote.
Following the favor.
I'll call it Benny.
Motion is carried.
Now, let's see.
Again, I want readers' motion into the record.
I would like to ask you a question.
Do you have a question?
Please take a chair.
Wait, number.
Where are we at?
I don't know.
15.6.
It's the non-confidence.
We're going to go ahead.
15.
16.
Not in your agenda package.
No.
It was added.
Thank you.
Hold it on a corner for it.
It's in the mirror.
It's moved up.
Council, a few days.
Second, my hood.
And a jacket.
And I should put off.
I'll take a look at it.
And I forget to tie the back to you.
Where is the mayor orio decision MD-2025-02-8?
Issued on July 18th, 2025, contains multiple misstatements and misstantiated claims used to
justify the veto by law number 2825-94.
And whereas the mayor falsically claimed that council had not properly considered the offer
on the five-acre, personal, land, album, despite it being discussed in both open and closed
sessions, but the mayor doesn't fully aware.
And whereas the mayor continues to promote and mislead narratives about this property, presenting
it as the only viable option filed downpick claim or withholding important information, including
shifting conditions around the offer, such as the estimated cost of the MTO approved
entrance off-highway 15 originally requested, and new demands shared only with council.
All of which should now be made public and include it in the future public meetings.
And whereas the mayor previously in the mayor orio decision MD-2025-01-8, containing some
of the same inadequate reasoning, falsely claimed support from MVP Steve Clark for heaps of strong
mayor powers and assertion later shown to be untrue.
And whereas the mayor continues to cite the township's debt load as justification for vetoes,
despite clear and public legal advice from the township's solicitor, Mr. Tony, for me,
that that levels do not constitute ballot grounds for veto under Section 284.11 of the Municipal
Act.
And whereas the mayor has refused to provide specifics, documentation or professional evaluations
to support his repeated claim that the Chantry Project Tendering process is flawed, despite
ongoing requests for clarification from council.
And whereas these beables are based on vague and unapproved assertions rather than online
with prescribed provincial priorities, thereby undermining the intended use of strong mayor's
powers.
And whereas the mayor's veto has effectively only blocked council and staff from assessing the
actual costs associated with the Chantry Municipal Office Renovation Project, information
that is fundamental to fulfilling council's legal responsibilities under Section 224 of the
Municipal Act.
2-001, including number one, ensuring accountability and transparency and decision-making.
Number two, maintain the financial integrity of the municipality and three, developing and evaluating
the municipalities policies and programs, and whereas council and staff cannot carry up
these statutory duties with their access to accurate and to only cost information.
And whereas the mayor's ongoing obstruction of this information under the guise of strong
mayor of powers constitutes not only a misuse of authority, but also an unlawful and unauthorized
interference with council's legislative role representing a clear breach of both the
spirit and function of the Municipal Act 20-001.
And whereas strong mayor powers for granted by the province for the purpose of advancing a specific
provincial priorities, particularly housing and infrastructure, and not for bypassing
the council's oversight, misrepresenting the facts, for withholding critical financial
information necessary for transparent, responsible decision-making.
And whereas the communal commitment, thank you, big word, pattern on this information, selective
disclosure, unsupported details and interference with council's access to vital information
reflects a clear pattern of bad faith, governance on the part of the mayor, contrary to both
the letter and intent of the municipal act and the democratic responsibilities of elected
office.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the council would attach for real eggs, express emotion of non-confidence
and a mayor informally calls for immediate end to the misuse of strong mayor powers.
Any questions?
Okay, it was, you know, sir, Jeff, thanks first.
Yeah, I'm going to support this because there's continuing media tax against this, there's continuing
the tax on democracy and this township and the use of mayoral powers as my reason to support
this motion.
I'm going to read a quote from Abraham Lincoln, it says nearly all men can stand adversity, but
if you want to test a man's character, give him power, and that's the problem today.
And I'm going to support that.
You finished?
You can't serve.
How am I?
Please.
The reason I brought this no confidence, forward, was my frustration of reading about the free
held in property again.
It was false in the first veto and it is false now.
We have heard from this gentleman a varying counselor, what he wants, when he wants it, and we
have hatched this out in public meetings and enclosed meetings.
So to see this for a second time, it's really frustrating.
And then to see the debt there, it was literally a copy of paste of the first veto that the mayor
didn't have enough faith in, that he felt he needed to make the false statement, that not
only did Steve Clark support it in this specific instance that municipal affairs did.
So to have that, he had absolutely no faith in his own veto.
That's what it showed.
If you have to say someone else supports something, and it's based on a lie, that tells me you
have no faith in it, and then to see the copy and paste of the very same veto reasons that
do not tie into housing, that do not tie into valid reasons, and that aren't true, it's frustrating.
Then to go into the media and read these false comments about staff, council members, you know, it
is frustrating.
So every time I see a veto, or I see categorically false statements in the veto, or in the
media made by the mayor, I am going to bring forward an uncomfortable, because I don't want
to waste any more money on integrity commissioners.
And I have a staff to introduce the point of privilege, because it's frustrating as councillors.
The mayor just sat here and said to deputy mayor, if I'm going to be a type of attorney,
act, I'm going to defame myself.
He does not allow that opportunity for us.
He attacks us in the media, he attacks us at this table.
And then he calls that he's going to have the last word. And it's frustrating, especially when those statements are categorically false.
So, I do hope people support this. And again, it is a lot cheaper than hiring an integrity commissioner when the mayor consistently makes false comments, like idly closed information, information from a closed meeting.
Or as on July the 14th, when he accused all accounts of illegal activity, if we pass a motion that he didn't support.
So, to see that out in the public, or again, to hear him say to the media, why don't understand why the banks is upset?
And you took 45 days, okay. But then you said, we were lucky, because you would have taken a lot more if you had to do it over.
So, if you wonder why you're getting on confidence, false? It's not us attacking your reputation, it's your own behavior.
And each time you go to the media, or each time you bring up categorically false statements here, we have no recourse.
Our only recourse is to go to the integrity commissioner, have a non-confidence vote, or once staff had time to do the point of privilege, we can start using that. I don't know how else to stop these false statements.
So, I hope council supports us. Okay, so anybody else? Okay. Mr. Mayor, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the third time that this motion has been brought forward, like I said, probably passed again.
And I think that the intent here is to try to encourage me or convince me that I need to resign.
And I have to say that the issue is the same, then the veto rationale is going to stay the same.
And I want to stay categorically that in my view that the rationale is quite legitimate.
And a vote of non-confidence has absolutely no legitimacy in a municipal setting. It's just, it's just personal.
And I do not appreciate the lecture by another member of council, especially when they're busy pointing out all kinds of statements that I'm making false statements,
but the false statements are also coming from council events on a regular basis.
I'm not, I'm not going to get into that. I'm not more self-tapping.
Well, you've been providing examples which are not correct. So that is the end of that discussion from my perspective.
I'm going to turn the other cheek and let council do as it appears.
Okay, you were asked one time if you would just say you're sorry.
All of this wouldn't even go on if you would have been able to stay.
That'd be, I'm not going to get into specifics, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
Just what you just said. Just what you just said.
But you just ran out. You said that it's a attack.
It's an attack on me personally.
Because you have to go.
I have asked you to say sorry.
So anyways.
I don't know what else we can say to the mayor to show him that we have this pleasure with his comments and his videos and everything else.
Any normal person would not want to take that kind of power into their own hands.
I don't know what's going on with the conservative government.
It's not right. It's just wrong.
And I don't know what else to say to somebody that won't even listen or acknowledge that there's wrong doing going on.
Like the removal of our hate.
And that we benefited because there was a mistake me.
I benefited because it got raped across the coals in the media.
I don't know what else we have to say to say stop it.
We're not happy here and the majority of council.
And we still are the majority of council are not in favor of what is going on.
And it doesn't matter if it's strong we are powers are not.
The majority of council.
We have just as many and even more support in the general public than the mayor does.
So we can count up the votes and go through the whole process.
If that's what we want to do.
It's got to stop.
I don't know what else we have to say.
Look in the mirror and say I've done something wrong.
I think I've done something wrong.
People are telling me I've done something wrong.
Please acknowledge it.
I don't know what else we can say.
So I'm still going to support this.
We've done.
I'll just like to make a final comment.
Again, again, your behavior is what's ruining your reputation.
We just bring it to light.
You're the one constantly going to the media.
I'll give you another example.
Mary Ellen sent us all an email.
August 17, 2023.
After Mike specifically asked us not to speak about his resignation from this building.
Mary Ellen has to send us an email.
Well, the mayor's going to go on like it.
He talked about it.
That was you.
That did that.
That was your choice.
Same as your choice to go on April 7 and vote against an apology that would have cleaned up.
What you counseled Mike's will counseled Delaney and Councilor Paulard did by trying to take
our money when we were innocent.
You refused to apologize and you actually voted against it.
And now you're upset.
It doesn't seem to matter what we do.
We're in the wrong.
But all we're bringing to light is your behavior.
And then you say, well, we say things about you, but you can't give an example.
I say that you're a poor leader because you're a poor leader.
And that's why I'm coming up.
Okay.
So.
Thank you.
Is it recording vote?
Okay.
Councillor Jeff.
Thanks.
The last one we recorded vote.
I did.
Yes.
Councillor Paulard.
Yes, please.
Councillor Bullard.
No.
Councillor Carrard.
Councillor Bunfield.
Yes.
Councillor Paulard.
No.
Did you hear the jinx?
Yes.
Maryland.
No.
Okay.
Thank you.
It's okay.
It turns on my mayor's report on July 24th.
I attended Brockville the county council revenue meeting where we received our
2024 audit statements which had no recommendations for improvement.
Later that evening, I attended and helped open the Delta Fair.
Congratulations to Liz Creed, the Delta citizen of the year.
On Saturday July 26th, I attended a and spoke at the Lake Association AGMs.
First, at the Honor Lake AGM, where I was the guest speaker and spoke on the importance of tourism to read the links.
And that afternoon, I attended the Wolf Lake AGM and was obviously as well.
On Sunday, July 27th.
I participated in the Delta Fair parade.
On Monday, July 28th, I accepted an invitation from the President of the Wolf Lake Association to actually tour the Lake Wolf Lake.
That is one of the few lakes in our township that I've not had the opportunity to tour and it was quite interesting.
On Friday, August 1st, I helped open the annual one-body fair and commended the many volunteers that make our rural fairs such a great family event.
Questions from the media regarding agenda items?
Good evening, your worship members at Council.
Yeah, I do have just two very quick questions.
I'm not sure who to address this to the CAOs left in the room.
She just great, but addressed to me.
I think the CAO needs to answer the move.
Did we not have some line up here?
In terms of the budget.
On one line captures legal costs.
Is that contract status?
There are, every department has a budget line for a legal cost.
So planning would have a budget line, a administration would have a budget line.
Pressure would have a budget line.
So it's a matter of all those numbers being torn up to get in and determining where those legal expenses have been paid to get in.
And pay to get a true picture of all those costs.
Thank you.
Madam Clerk, if there's also no to add to that?
There's also a budget line for other professional fees.
So depending on what it was for.
So there's set rate in different points on the budget department.
Thank you.
Notice of motion in 14.1.
Notice of serious allegations in terms of members of Council and voted against that.
Notice of motion.
Breach the municipal act under 2.1.
Is that.
Was that run by Township legal Council independently?
I would ask.
Just under a notice of motion 14.1.
There's some serious allegations that were outlined in that motion in terms of Council.
Members of Council have already gets that.
It was noted they breached the municipal act under.
I think section 2.2.5.
Now I may be wrong.
That was not reviewed by legal Council.
It wasn't noted they breached.
So it's possible.
And that was the.
I'd like to sign up.
Not the Township legal Council.
No.
Not the Township.
That was.
That was the advice you got.
But I'm just saying it doesn't say they breach.
Yeah.
I said in the motion it says it's possible breach.
And we have.
Thank you.
Thank you for clarifying that.
My final question.
And because I'm left somewhat confused.
We're just not unusual.
I had a clock.
After meeting like this.
What specifically under the motion that.
That aligns the integrity commissioner is the information that will be coming forward.
I understand costs.
And that makes sense.
But our actual incidents of the.
Integrated commissioners report.
Who in involves.
And the details of that will not be part of the report.
There's simply a dollar and sets.
My.
My understanding is the motion that Council passed would include some of that detail.
And I believe that's the motion that.
We're a counselor.
Paul Banks was going to provide.
That level of detail.
And which.
I injected.
That.
I think we passed motion that you can ask council.
Question.
Yes.
I saw that.
So basically.
When.
Now the motion was not asked to you.
Council.
Banks is the.
Is the question being asked.
The.
I would ask that question off her.
Thanks.
The reason I brought the motion forward, what's when I spoke to Steve Clark about the misuse.
The integrity commissioner systems and some of the complaints about the individual integrity commissioner.
He said this approach.
I counsel would be.
He is on the told me about this and he gave me the deadline the simple to the C.A.
I'm going to include who is investigated, the costs, what the original complaint was, what
the outcome was, the timeline, because many of the investigators ignore our procedural
violence. Many of the past councils ignored our procedural violence. For example, Carolyn
for Z was not dealt with at the next council meeting within seven days. It was decided
to bump it back so it would be an evening meeting. And that was not passed through a change
of the procedural violence. Just to follow up, I could catch a rent. How do you ensure neutrality
if you're doing all that work? How did the mayor ensure neutrality when you release
grad data? I'm not, no, I'm just wondering how that's done. That's why that information
be afforded to somebody to take a look at. Well, that's why I must be in council to review it.
So, for example, if there's integrity commissioner reports on there about a specific council
and they want to change the wording, I'm fine with that. Thank you very much. Your worship
just to be clear, the information that I released was based on information strictly that I received
from staff. Was there any information that I'm listening to?
Okay. It did not include guilt or innocence. Thank you. Thank you. That's not part of what the
question was. You remember thinking worship members council again, late 8 a.m. has mentioned
real news review here. Please take up the paper. All right. We know where like the questions from
the public regarding agenda items. Do you see the written one? Yes. Did we see the written one?
No, I have a copy of that. No need to know. Okay. We did it out loud. It's kind of a kind of
lengthy, but it comes down to customs. Oh, colleagues, I have a point to say correspondence from Mr.
Birdie? Yes. Okay. My response to that was simply that we asked staff to review for some of
these issues that I don't feel comfortable trying to answer. If staff could review that and provide
a written response, that would be an agenda item. I'd like to see the questions before staff respond.
Okay. Seven and a seven days burial. Well, I'm trying to open it and it doesn't want to open now.
Was it circulated? No, I think I saw it once before, but I don't know if I don't think you only indicated that you were going to put on your agenda.
No, no. How did you see a busy schedule? I don't know. Just a minute. Just a minute.
You got the money. 50 one a a n. You know what's on the money and I actually know this.
Okay. Would you like me to read it?
I don't know, it's a lie here at all.
I hate the one staff responding to anything unless we've read it.
Good.
Okay.
Mr. Mayor, I spoke to person for the late grassroots group.
We have washed recently until I made his concerning the tantrum offices with interest.
to the minutes from those meetings, we would like to submit this letter for questions to Council
the regular Council meeting on August 5th, 2025.
Several Council members have repeatedly stated the cost for Chantry to be conferred back
to a garage and into a township or archives center must be considered for any new build
elsewhere, related to cost, qualified, call out, and Jeff Banks are stated to be in the range
of $1 million.
Yet, any level of detail on a, the garage and b, especially archives are missing from that
discussion.
Specific to the archives, we are assuming they are speaking one document archives and b artifact
dark archives, as these are typically what municipality store in archives for both legal
and historical purposes.
These questions go to procedure and strategy, perhaps there is a by-law or township
procedures document that covers all these questions or perhaps not.
Where not no documents we are hoping for the Council to answer, where covered please identify
the reference documents.
So under one these are document archives, these are typically, which are class as public access
and controlled access.
What types of documents would be deemed as controlled access, what is the retention period for
each class, what are the plans, policies for public access, what are the site and access controls
for both classes, is there an intent to undertake a museum approach to some, all documents,
what is the township's digitization strategy, as relates to archives, so as to reduce physical
retention costs and increase accessibility, and then under artifact archives, which are covered
public artifacts and which are private, what is the purpose and intent of the retention of
these artifacts, what are the access controls and securities needed.
We presume that all of these questions have been answered in relation and answered in reasonable
detail, in order to come up with $1 million cost estimate for chantry to be returned to a garage
and archive site, hence we look forward to Council providing these details, the details are not available
we look forward to Council's efforts to define and create them with public consultation, but also
would then like to understand the basis by which Councilor Paul and Jeff Banks have come up with
the $1 million cost estimate, they have repeated regulatory for the chantry garage and archives,
thank you for your attention to this matter, Dan Birdie.
I would like to go first.
Okay.
No, go ahead.
I would like that to go ahead.
Is that the questions to the chair?
No, no.
Please ask me, Jeff and Paul Banks.
Did you just answer that?
Did you know?
Mr. Birdie.
The correspondence was directed to the chair.
Mr. Birdie.
That's Jeff and Paul Banks specific questions.
Can I answer them please?
Yes, but they need to call me in front of me.
Okay.
I think earlier we spoke about the $1 million versus the half a million dollars and I think there's
no level of detail as we've not decided to get exactly what we're going to be doing with this building
if we're not converting it.
So, it's premature.
I think some of these questions are premature.
The type of archives that we're looking at, I mean, this is, as I say, this is just something
that I think generally the staff might be capable of wanting a generic type of answer and
leave it at that.
Because I don't think we can get into that detail to the debate about what's type of archive.
Well, we haven't even decided if it's going to be in archive.
So, I would suggest that we need to leave it at that.
Those are my comments.
Councillor Paul Banks, you wish to comment on it.
Any questions when our types should go down that they are the professionals and they are
the ones that support an archive.
They have people working from all the different heritage committees.
I do believe that the best use for this building is a public archive and the way I come up
with the million dollars is through the reports.
I spoke to Chris.
He did say it was around $500,000 to convert it back to a garage.
That did not include all of the work set out in the report.
It is a report called.
Thank you.
It also did not include the new problems that we've had since the pension report done was done.
And I also sit on accessibility.
So as soon as we make this a public building and we start to renovate it, we have to make it accessible.
So that's how I come up with million dollars.
I have talked to that, thank you with people and they seem pretty fine with it.
Two years off said, in December 4, before 2022, that this building would be used for public
works, waste disposal, recycling, and it staff would be left here.
So that must have been the plan from the last council.
So I'm assuming I don't know where all of the sudden that people are saying we're going to
sell it because that's been decided to no goal.
We have only ever talked about changing it to a garage or some other type of archive.
And that bill you know it figured was from staff, from reports.
So if Mr. Birdie needs further detail, you can attend the next public meeting that hopefully
will happen in the next month or so as long as you don't veto the July 7th minute.
Councilor Jeff, thanks.
You wish to comment on this as well.
Yes, the person that gave us a high level costing of redoing this bill in said in the working
group committee that Debbie, yourself, myself and Sue Dunfield, that it would be at least $500,000
to turn this back into a garage.
It was right in the minutes of that, well, it wasn't in the minutes, it was right at that
meaning.
Also when the pension report, there was $527,000 of high-metifiable things that need to be fixed.
That's outside of ideas.
There was no costing for an archive person or moisture control for the artifacts that are
going to be in this building that idea did not consult with.
There's a septic system fixed that needs to be done.
I think it was $25,000 that Steve said was going to be.
So we're at a bit about $1.1 million, so if that's a good enough answer for Mr. Birdie, we can actually
give him those numbers and four councillors can verify it.
All right.
I would just like to know why we're discussing it.
I brought this up a bit an hour ago.
We had no plans for this building.
And now here we are.
We're discussing something.
We don't even know what it's for.
This should be completely tabled and taken away.
I do understand.
And my response was that these questions are premature.
Well, we shouldn't even discuss it.
Well, there's nothing.
We haven't even discussed it there.
So why are we just, I don't understand this.
This is detail.
It isn't necessary yet.
I'm absolutely not a swan on your hand.
I'm going to call it another question.
No questions for Steve.
Okay.
We do have a closed meeting.
Now I do note that I have declared a conflict on one of these sets of minutes.
Was it 18.2?
Correct.
Okay.
I'm going to ask the 18.2 to be moved down to be after eight.
18.7.
So that I can really push the chair because I have a conflict on 18.8, 18.9 and I will
then leave the chair and the deputy mayor will assume the meeting.
So if that's acceptable to people, otherwise I go in and I come back in.
Okay.
So let's go to the court for a year.
Okay.
And then we go to the end of that first.
Thank you.
We need a break.
I was just going to suggest that.
Open the window.
Read the most in person.
Resolution?
Yes.
I have a move against the court.
Second of accounts are down here.
Be it resolved.
Accounts are in the preparation.
Accounts are ready.
Close the meeting end.
Eight.
Twenty.
The financial litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local ward and two items under Section 239, Subsection 2F, advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.
For the motion and discussion, all of favor, now move into closed and we will take a
Okay, we are back in.
Okay, we are going to do the report regarding the closed meeting.
It's moved by who will move this?
Because it's me.
And second by Councillor Paul.
Okay.
This is not really strange for me.
Not saying anything.
Okay.
Okay, who is for a second?
I can't say anything.
Down here.
It's just second to open the meeting.
Yeah.
This is the report.
I don't have a session.
Okay.
Be it resolved that by-law 2025-105 being a by-law to authorize the mayor and clear to sign a bill of sale.
And general advance regarding the E.D. boat house on the road allowance located in the village
in New York.
The entaken has read it a first and second time.
The short way this fifth day of August 2025.
Any questions about it?
All in favor?
It's carry.
Okay.
Reporting regarding the closed meeting.
I can't say card.
Second, I can't say non-field.
Here is all that by-law 2025-105 being taken.
As read a third time and finally pass this fifth day of August 2025.
All in favor?
Okay.
So by-law, I'm never too.
Okay.
So this is by-law 2025-106 government proceedings of council.
August 5, 2020.
Moved by Councillor Maxwell.
Who's now here?
So we're going to go who?
Who's going to move this?
Okay.
All right.
I got it.
And second by Councillor Pollard.
So you can do that one?
Okay.
Be it resolved that by-law number 2025-106 being a by-law to govern the proceedings of the council
of the corporation of the township of Rita Lakes.
It's meeting how August 5, 2025 be taken.
As read a first second and a third time, this fifth day of August 2025.
Everybody who's in favor?
Okay.
It's clear.
Okay.
It's clear.
Is everybody in favor of that one?
Yeah.
At 95.
We're going to put that on.
You don't.
We just need to see it.