[1:57] Are we good to go? Thank you. Councelor McRoberts and Councelor Burl, can you

[2:02] move us into camera?

[2:07] I move that Sarnia City Council move into close session persuant to section

[2:11] 2392B, EF, and K of the municipal act and to

[2:16] consider the following matters. Consideration will be given to a request

[2:20] to name municipal property. Consideration will be given to

[2:23] negotiations and advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege regarding

[2:27] a land lease at the airport. And consideration will be given to advice

[2:31] that is subject to solicitor client privilege with respect to a lease

[2:34] agreement. >> Second by councelor Burl. All in favor?

[2:38] Okay, we will go to in camera and we'll return back to report out at one

[2:42] o'clock. Thank you everyone.

[8:03] Audio test one, two. Audio test one, two. [cough and clears throat]

[31:59] Elsa, are we good to go? Thank you. >> In this peace, in the spirit of peace

[32:04] and friendship, we honor the Nishmeck of the Three Fires Confederacy on whose

[32:07] traditional territory we are gathered. The city of Sarnia has resolved to

[32:11] implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

[32:16] And with that, I will now ask if you can stand for O Canada and then a moment of

[32:20] silent reflection.

[32:33] [singing and music]

[32:36] our home and native land. [music] True patri love [music]

[32:46] in all of us. [singing]

[32:52] With glowing hearts we see the rise. The [singing] true north strong and free.

[33:03] [music] From far and wide of Canada, we [singing] stand on God for thee.

[33:13] [music] God [singing]

[33:16] keep our land. [music]

[33:21] Glorious [singing] and free. [music]

[33:27] Oh Canada, [music] we stand [singing]

[33:32] on guard for thee. [music]

[33:37] [singing] Oh Canada,

[33:42] we [music] stand [singing] on

[33:47] [music]

[34:03] Thank you.

[34:09] » Councelor McRoberts, can you move the report from the in camera, please?

[34:13] » The SNIA City Council rise and report. I report that we provided direction to

[34:17] staff regarding a request to name a municipal property at Kenwick Park. We

[34:23] also gave direction ready to a land lease for two years at um Chris Hadfield

[34:29] Airport and we provided direction to staff with respect to renegotiations

[34:35] associated with the lease agreement. That's my report that Sarnia City

[34:38] Council adopt the report of the closed meeting.

[34:40] » All those in favor? Are there any conflicts of interest?

[34:45] I'm not seeing any. We're going to move forward. We've got a

[34:49] number of delegations to deal with and listen to. Uh the first meeting is a

[34:54] public meeting on the draft economic development community improvement plan.

[34:59] » Do you want to say anything before I bring up the speakers?

[35:02] » Sure. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor Bradley and members of council. We're

[35:05] pleased to be bringing forward the draft economic development CIP program to you

[35:09] today. This project is being brought forward to you because the city

[35:12] recognizes the importance of supporting economic growth, encouraging investment,

[35:15] and ensuring our community remains competitive. The proposed ecdevcip is

[35:20] intended to help attract new employment opportunities, support existing

[35:23] business, and encourage tourism related investments. The EDCIP has the potential

[35:28] to strength the local strengthen the local economy, expand the municipal tax

[35:32] base, and enhance amenities and opportunities for residents and

[35:35] visitors. This meeting is meant to allow council and the public the chance to

[35:39] speak about the propo to excuse me to learn about the proposed plan, ask

[35:43] questions, and provide feedback on the draft plan. To guide us through the

[35:46] details of the proposed plan, I'd like to introduce Jay McGuffin and Eric Steel

[35:49] of Monteth Brown Planning Consultants to the podium.

[35:53] » Please come forward.

[36:03] » Good afternoon, Mayor Bradley. Uh members of council, uh thank you, Miss

[36:07] Provos, for the introduction. Um we're happy to be here this evening to uh

[36:12] introduce the draft economic development community improvement plan. Um as Kelly

[36:17] indicated, I'm also joined this afternoon with uh Mr. Steele, uh who has

[36:22] been intricately involved in the development of the plan. Uh and he'll be

[36:26] sharing some of the presentation responsibilities with me as we move

[36:30] through the uh slides this afternoon. If I could move to the first slide please.

[36:38] Um again just by um recap the purpose of the economic development community

[36:43] improvement plan was a key recommendation arriving from the city's

[36:47] economic development master plan as a tool to attract investment, retain

[36:52] businesses and support sustainable economic development uh for the benefit

[36:57] of the community and the public in in attendance. Uh community improvement

[37:01] plan is a tool used by municipalities to stimulate targeted growth,

[37:06] redevelopment, and revitalization. And it identifies areas that are eligible

[37:10] for additional support such as grants, incentives, and to help achieve

[37:15] community or development goals for redevelopment. Uh next slide, please.

[37:21] In terms of the project phasing and where we are today, uh phase one uh

[37:26] began end of 2025 as we started looking at background research and conducting a

[37:31] needs assessment, identifying gaps um that could be filled through an economic

[37:36] development community improvement plan. This included a review of a lot of the

[37:40] work that the city has already undertaken, including its economic

[37:43] development master plan, the master plan for the waterfront strategic plan, your

[37:48] official plan, your zoning bylaw, a variety of other strategic documents

[37:52] within the city, looking at research, as well as undertaking best management

[37:57] practice review for other municipalities that are also implementing economic

[38:01] development, community improvement plans. Um, as council and and the public

[38:06] are likely familiar with community improvement plans often targeted toward

[38:10] uh regeneration in downtown areas or in village areas such as Mitten Village

[38:14] here in the city of Sarnia. Um, oftentimes directed at me measures such

[38:19] as urban design improvements, facade improvements, uh, things of that nature.

[38:24] Um a more novel approach uh as the city of Sardia has undertaken is an economic

[38:29] development community improvement plan that is focused solely on attracting

[38:34] economic development into the community. That led into phase two, which was the

[38:39] um a fairly robust stakeholder and public consultation program that was

[38:43] undertaken uh where we went out to the community armed with the information

[38:47] that we had assembled through our analysis and background review of

[38:50] information and best practice review um to find out what was important to the

[38:56] community and the key stakeholders in Cernia with respect to economic

[39:00] development. Once we had undertaken that to that

[39:04] consultation, we then had some direction uh given to us from the key themes that

[39:10] were identified which led to phase three which is the development of the draft

[39:14] community improvement plan. Uh that is where we are today presenting that draft

[39:19] to the council and the public uh to seek input and direction uh to move to our uh

[39:24] fourth and final phase which will be bringing back a final community

[39:28] improvement plan for council's consideration and adoption. Uh next page

[39:33] please. So through that stakeholder and public

[39:38] consultation process, we received almost 400 online resident resident survey

[39:43] responses and 77 online targeted partner survey responses. We also undertook

[39:49] one-on-one interviews with members of council. One-on-one interviews with

[39:53] targeted partners throughout the community and targeted stakeholder

[39:56] workshop was held where we were given opportunity to sit down, roll up our

[40:01] sleeves and have discussions with targeted members of the industry.

[40:06] um uh to discuss what are some of the hurdles that need to be overcome and

[40:11] what things can we do better in terms of developing an economic development

[40:15] strategy for the city. Next slide please.

[40:20] So through that consultation process, the key themes that were identified and

[40:26] these are the themes that were identified and not necessarily all of

[40:29] these themes are wrapped into programs at the same level or intensity, but they

[40:34] formed the themes that were considered as we developed the plan. These included

[40:39] a desire for performanced incentives. It was very clear that those people that we

[40:45] interviewed wanted to tie measurable outcomes to ensure that projects

[40:49] actually benefit the community. That process streamlining needed to occur,

[40:55] that clearer communication, reduced duplication, and a single point of

[40:59] contact uh was preferable to lead them through the approvals process.

[41:05] Uh there was a strong sense that infrastructure and shovel ready land be

[41:09] uh identified. Improved servicing, road conditions and availability of Chevy

[41:14] shovelready industrial and employment lands were identified as key aspects of

[41:18] being able to attract uh economic development to the city. the

[41:24] diversification of economics within the city and identifying a an expansion from

[41:30] the historic prochemical industry into clean energy, green technologies,

[41:35] logistics, advanced manufacturing technology and tourism

[41:40] were all identified. It was also identified that opportunities within the

[41:45] waterfront and downtown had potential. Um the underutilized waterfront harbor

[41:51] and downtown represented major opportunities for development and it

[41:55] also brought forward an identification of a different measure of attracting

[41:59] economic development over and above a traditional employment land or

[42:03] industrial approach. And lastly, quality of life is a

[42:07] competitiveness uh factor. Amenities, recreation,

[42:12] familyfriendly offerings are all essentials for talent attraction and

[42:17] retention. And this was something that we heard over and over through our

[42:21] process. Next slide, please.

[42:28] After hearing the information come in, the next step in our process was to

[42:32] identify a community improvement plan area. This is the area within the city

[42:37] in which the plan would apply. And we've taken a novel approach that

[42:42] has been identified through our best management practices in other

[42:45] communities particularly in economic development and identifying the whole of

[42:50] the city as the project area and then identifying target areas within the city

[42:56] um on lands that are zoned and designated for development or identified

[43:01] as key strategic areas on the plan. This allows the plan to evolve as lands get

[43:09] designated or ddesated. The plan does not have to be updated. It still

[43:14] provides control over the location and direction and volume of projects that

[43:19] occur, but that looks to your official plan and your zoning bylaw to identify

[43:25] the key target areas. This city-wide approach provides

[43:29] flexibility in responding to the changing economic conditions and

[43:33] investment opportunities and again eliminates the need to continually amend

[43:38] boundaries as your development patterns evolve. Next slide please.

[43:45] And as I mentioned uh going through the community consultation two streams

[43:51] started to emerge. one was the key focal uh industrial um that an EDCIP would be

[43:59] anticipated focusing on. The other one given Sarnia's location um was a tourism

[44:05] stream and the way that we identified dealing with the the disparities in

[44:11] these two programs um was to create two different streams within the community

[44:16] improvement plan. Uh so we've divided it into an industrial development stream

[44:21] and then into a tourism development stream um in order to apply uh metrics

[44:27] for evaluation and an apply geographic areas for evaluation. At this time I'm

[44:32] going to turn the microphone over to Eric Steele who will finish the uh

[44:37] presentation. He's going to talk about the specific programs um and incentives

[44:42] and then we'll have a question and answer period. Thank you.

[44:50] Next slide please. As Jay mentioned, we've grouped the

[44:55] potential financial incentive programs into two separate streams uh based on

[44:59] the types of projects or applications that will come forward uh once

[45:02] implemented. So first focus on any kind of development within uh the city's

[45:06] employment areas, industrial lands and assets like its city-owned business

[45:10] parks. And this focus on a kind of um new construction investment uh that

[45:16] would increase employment or increase assessment. And it's evaluated based on

[45:20] a recommended scoring criteria to provide um transparency in terms of how

[45:25] these decisions are going to be made once applications are submitted as well

[45:28] as provide some guidance on um how to sort of evaluate um the benefits that

[45:33] may come forward through those applications. And these are based on

[45:36] metrics such as um the investment value being made, uh number of bros jobs that

[45:40] would be created, um whether or not these businesses are within targeted key

[45:43] sectors identified within uh city documents, as well as uh servicing

[45:48] status, physical location within the city, and whether or not recommendations

[45:52] for site improvements are being made through that uh application process.

[45:55] Next slide, please. proposed a range of suite of programs

[46:00] that uh could be uh offered uh to bring investment to the city. The first being

[46:05] a tax increment grant program. Uh what this does is offer a portion or all of

[46:10] an increase in tax assessment to be uh essentially deferred over time to

[46:15] provide that sort of leg between when a business starts and when uh those new

[46:19] increase in misal um or the city own city portion of the municipal tax

[46:23] assessment increase uh takes place. And the second is a development charge uh

[46:28] rebate program that would offer up to 100% of DC's based on again that

[46:32] criteria that' be used to evaluate applications. Um a planning fee grant

[46:37] program that would wave planning fees would be associated with the

[46:40] establishment of any kind of new business uh coming to Sarnia. And then

[46:43] finally a building fee grant program that would cover up to 50% of costs

[46:47] related to building fees uh for a project. Next slide please.

[46:53] Second stream uh focuses on uh areas that would meaningfully enhance starting

[46:58] as tourism economy and visitor experience. Again, as Jay noted, uh

[47:01] based on a lot of feedback that came forward through our background uh

[47:05] document review as well as consultation about uh really enhancing some of the

[47:10] city's assets and bring people to to Sarnia. And this would include uh

[47:14] developments such as large scale or certificate attractions, uh event

[47:18] spaces, large scaleo uh tourism or hotel accommodation and other tourism

[47:23] supportive uses and again based on criteria such as uh tourism impact, the

[47:28] amount of investment value being brought, job creation, uh placemaking

[47:31] and then geographic location criteria. Next slide please.

[47:37] So similar range of programs uh that would be offered and available again um

[47:42] uh programs that would offer uh funding for increases in municipal tax

[47:45] assessment uh cover costs associated with planning fees as well as building

[47:49] permit fees. Next slide please. So in terms of funding of these

[47:55] programs, the actual implementation, uh the inclusion of these um uh programs

[48:00] within the CP does not mean that the city has to automatically or immediately

[48:04] um offer them uh for incentives. Uh they can be brought in in any kind of um

[48:09] combination or all at the same time. Um and council may choose year-to-year

[48:14] discussion in terms of how much it's going to fund these applications on a on

[48:17] annual basis. uh planning fee grants uh would be done

[48:21] through uh just waving of fees and then taxing grant would offer a deferred

[48:25] collection of the municipal portion of um increases in applicable taxes. Um

[48:30] however we have included a recommended annual budget of approximately 185 to

[48:34] $365,000 uh for the implementation of development

[48:37] charge and building permit grant fees on an annual basis. Next slide please.

[48:45] Uh so in summary um based on all this the previous work uh through the

[48:49] previous phases of the project uh really the intent of this uh economic

[48:53] development CIP is really to drive private investment by reducing barriers

[48:57] that businesses may face when when locating here explain explain employment

[49:02] opportunities um strengthen the local economy by uh really sort of elevating

[49:06] the city's assets uh supporting business retention and expansion and stimuling

[49:10] tourism for attracting people to come to Sarnia. Next slide, please.

[49:16] As Jay mentioned, we'll be using any input today from council and and the

[49:20] public uh to inform further refinement of the econom economic development CIP

[49:25] and then bring forward a final version for adoption uh to be presented by city

[49:29] council uh later in July. Slide, please.

[49:36] And again, we're happy to answer any questions that council public may have

[49:39] today. Thank you. >> Okay, I one question to staff. You're

[49:42] talking about minor edits. What are minor edits to bring it back to the next

[49:45] meeting >> through the mayor? So, as indicated,

[49:49] this is an opportunity for feedback and questions from the public and from

[49:52] council. They may direct any sort of refinements or edits to the draft CIP

[49:57] that has been presented today and we would take those into consideration and

[50:00] bringing the final version forward. >> Thank you. Uh

[50:04] any questions? Go ahead, please, councelor Burl.

[50:07] » Uh yes. Uh thank you. um in the overall plan I I didn't see any or would be

[50:16] considered I think one of our major um develop uh

[50:23] things is like there's nothing here for agriculture

[50:27] that I could see anyways and also uh even though waterfronts and that were

[50:33] were mentioned there doesn't seem to be anything that um shows as your incentive

[50:40] areas for anything along the lake. Uh specifically like sort of in the Brights

[50:46] Grove area there is, you know, it's a bit of an economic area up there as

[50:51] well, but there doesn't seem to be anything in this plan that has to do

[50:55] with either Bites or anything within

[51:01] agriculture.

[51:04] Okay. Three, Mr. Mayor to the councelor. Uh so in terms of the agricultural our

[51:09] programs for agriculture um really yeah the focus of the eon development cap was

[51:14] bring sort of larger scale uh development within cities. So it focus

[51:18] on sort of key areas or key assets um that bring development that may

[51:22] otherwise not locate to Sarnia. Um so while uh the program may support things

[51:27] like um added agricultural processing or um other industries that are tied into

[51:32] that agricultural um supply chain. um yet the scope of it wasn't to include

[51:37] sort of rural areas of of the city. Uh in terms of um looking at sort of the

[51:42] waterfront areas, so within the tourism uh development stream, uh one of the the

[51:47] criteria is um uh geographic specifics. So whether or not uh the proposed

[51:52] project is within sort of the downtown waterfront area. So, uh projects that

[51:58] were submitted or an application were submitted for that are located in those

[52:00] areas would receive potentially higher incentive uh compared to other areas of

[52:05] the city. >> Councelor Dennis, councelor Gillis.

[52:10] » Uh thank you, Mayor Bradley through you, sir. Um thank you gentlemen for your

[52:15] presentation. Um I have a couple questions. My first question is about

[52:18] returns. Um what specific return on investment are we expecting? Basically,

[52:23] do we have estimates for how many jobs uh how much new assessment growth and

[52:28] how much investment um are we expecting? And my second question is about taxpayer

[52:32] risk. If a company receives grants through this program and the promised

[52:37] jobs, investment or economic benefits fail to materialize, what mech

[52:41] mechanisms exist for council to recover those funds? Are there any clawback

[52:45] provisions tied to actual performance or do taxpayers assume all the risk? Thank

[52:49] you.

[52:53] I'll respond to your first question, councelor Dennis, uh through the mayor.

[52:56] Um uh yes, we did we did we undertook an analysis uh of a variety of different

[53:01] programs, both the building fee, planning fee, and the development charge

[53:06] by looking at historic use of um each of those various uh application fees, the

[53:13] the volume of revenue that was received by the city within that time period. And

[53:18] then we correlated it back to the value of construction uh of new development

[53:24] that was related and then correlated that to the tax rate uh to identify um

[53:31] basically the return on the investment. Uh in a nutshell it was 7 to n times

[53:36] higher return on investment for the value that was uh provided. Um I don't

[53:40] have the specific numbers at my fingertip. Um,

[53:50] but I do recall 7 to nine times being the the amount. And and sorry I don't

[53:54] have my reading glasses on. So that's my other struggle. Um,

[54:00] just taking a look at one. This is a historic tax revenue from increased

[54:03] construction value. And you'll find this in the appendices of the draft CIP that

[54:08] was circulated. uh historic construction value of 40 million in 2022

[54:15] at a tax rate of 3.75% was an estimated tax revenue of

[54:21] $1.524,000 annually. Um and so when we took a look

[54:27] at that between 22 23 24 and 25 on average there was about a $681,000

[54:35] 236 estimated tax revenue annually that was brought forward. The valuation and

[54:41] the amount to the uh program was significantly less than that. So we had

[54:47] budgeted 185,000 to 365,000 or 85,000.

[54:54] See, see what concerns me is, as I should I'm sure you're aware, um the

[54:58] federal government has gotten burnt uh the last while. Um they invested quite a

[55:03] lot of money in in Honda. Uh well, you had identified through the survey that a

[55:10] number of residents wanted to see investments in in green technology and

[55:13] such. And as you're probably aware, uh Cammy uh committed to building uh green

[55:20] uh uh electric vehicles. uh Honda in um up north wanted committed to as well and

[55:27] they they spent billions of dollars uh building plants and then and they closed

[55:32] before they were even built and uh uh it seems that that direction uh is so

[55:38] yesterday now and and uh there these companies are seeing that these uh these

[55:44] investments aren't uh the uh they're not panning out like they they they hoped

[55:49] and um if if um our citizens are are pushing pushing for a green investment.

[55:54] SP I I think that that that isn't the direction. That might have been the the

[55:59] direction maybe uh 5 10 years ago, but it seems to me that that direction isn't

[56:04] the right direction anymore. That that's just my my observations. Um I I'm pretty

[56:09] well read on on on those types of things that have happened and that that just

[56:14] concerns me. >> That is an editorial comment. Uh

[56:18] councelor Gillis, you have a question. Uh thank you your worship and actually I

[56:23] think some of those projects were paused but not cancelled. So just

[56:30] well you have your opinion I have today which is the community plan not issues.

[56:34] » Thank you uh your worship. So coming back to the community improvement plan

[56:39] and it's in direct reference actually to uh what councelor Dennis was saying

[56:44] particularly from the industrial perspective and by the way I was very

[56:48] glad to see that you included the industrial um area in the overall plan.

[56:54] I think it's very wise. U and we do know that the federal government right now is

[56:59] bringing forward incentives particularly for as you said shovel ready projects um

[57:06] all over the country but some of those project ready projects

[57:11] haven't directly related to heavy industrial other than the one that in

[57:16] the sue that I can think of. So when they went from the blast furnace to the

[57:20] electrical the electric arc furnace I uh do you envision anything along that

[57:26] lines that if companies are looking to reinvest in and upgrade uh their their

[57:34] properties within the the valley say let's use that as an example

[57:39] particularly when um energy is is all the buzz and we've got it in spades.

[57:45] Would you be would you pursue that that avenue um of marrying some of those

[57:51] together so that you could get a broader bang for your buck?

[57:55] » Uh through you, Mr. Mayor. Absolutely. The the community improvement plan has

[58:00] been devised to not only recognize the industrial powerhouse that fueled the

[58:07] city of Sarnia uh for decades past, but also to be available to respond to

[58:15] emerging technologies um that will inevitably be coming

[58:20] forward as Sarnia progresses. And in order to do that, it's the the

[58:26] evaluation and metric scheme is identified and includes bonusing for

[58:31] measures like redevelopment of existing properties, uh cleaning up of existing

[58:36] properties, point scores are awarded if the development includes those aspects

[58:40] and that has that is how the CIP has appro uh approached uh response to those

[58:46] measures. A followup if I may.

[58:51] Who is going to make this happen? Is it going to be uh are we going to have to

[58:55] hire more staff to imple or look oversee this because this is massive or have you

[59:01] gone that far in the steps? >> Uh we we have in terms of I mean you've

[59:07] got a uh an existing economic development group within your within

[59:12] your municipality who is very keen to see this program uh come to fruition.

[59:17] based on our interviews and discussions and they are looking at um opportunities

[59:24] to assist uh wherever possible in ensuring that this is a seamless

[59:29] approach and that they can work with city staff uh from beginning to end um

[59:35] within that approvals process. So, we're not envisioning uh through our uh

[59:40] initial uh element um that there's a requirement for additional staffing. Um

[59:47] I may have to turn it over to Miss Provos in terms of her position on that,

[59:51] but uh that was sort of the discussions that we had had internally

[59:57] » through the mayor to members of council. I'll just comment in addition to what

[1:00:00] Jay had indicated there is that we are expecting that the current complement

[1:00:03] within the economic development department can facilitate the the intake

[1:00:07] and the review of the applications and then they would be advanced to council

[1:00:11] for consideration. Each of the applications would come for decision to

[1:00:15] council. >> Well, thank you very much for the

[1:00:18] presentation. Uh Mr. Slinsky would like to come forward and from the economic

[1:00:23] partnership,

[1:00:37] Mayor uh members of council, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak

[1:00:41] here today. I I come with a great deal of enthusiasm uh for the uh city's

[1:00:46] efforts to explore new strategies to enhance Cernia's economic

[1:00:49] competitiveness and attract long-term investment. That enthusiasm comes with

[1:00:54] strong support for the draft economic development uh improvement plan uh which

[1:00:59] the Sarna lamp economic partnership believes will be a powerful tool to

[1:01:03] facilitate revitalization and stimulate both development and redevelopment.

[1:01:08] Today, I'm not here to suggest modifications to the draft. uh EDCIP,

[1:01:13] but rather to emphasize that its adoption will help position Sernia more

[1:01:17] effectively among the jurisdictions we compete with for investment. When we

[1:01:22] look at the criteria that site selectors use when evaluating locations for

[1:01:26] industrial development, access to a strong and effective CIP is an important

[1:01:31] component of the overall toolkit. After workforce, land availability, and

[1:01:37] infrastructure, incentives are consistently identified as one of the

[1:01:41] top considerations in location decisions. The site selectors guild

[1:01:46] actually ranks at fourth most important. That noted, local incentives play a

[1:01:52] critical role alongside those that may be available proincially and federally.

[1:01:57] When we engage with site selectors and prospective uh companies undergoing site

[1:02:01] selection processes, the question of local incentives is often raised at the

[1:02:05] time that sites are first being put forward are always raised once a

[1:02:10] prospect has identified interest in a site and are under considerable

[1:02:14] comparison with competing juris uh jurisdictions incentives by the time

[1:02:18] that a site visit has occurred. In many cases, the absence of competitive

[1:02:23] incentives can disqualify a location uh not only late in the process, but

[1:02:27] sometimes even before a community is uh is uh strong is uh seriously considered.

[1:02:33] And while the local incentives are just one of what may be anywhere from 10 to

[1:02:38] 150 or more uh factors impacting on investment location decisions, every

[1:02:43] unchecked box reduces competitiveness. This plan helps address that. In many

[1:02:49] comparable Ontario markets such as Windsor, London, St. Thomas, Hamilton,

[1:02:53] Niagara to name a few, local incentive programs are well established and

[1:02:58] frequently leveraged to attract investment and job creation, often cited

[1:03:02] by investments or by investors as having been a considerable

[1:03:07] uh having a considerable impact on the investment decision. Currently, this

[1:03:12] remains a gap not only for SNIA but across much of Lamp County. Adoption of

[1:03:17] the EDCIP would allow SNRA to close that gap and compete more effectively. This

[1:03:22] will have an impact on not just the city-owned industrial parks and economic

[1:03:27] assets uh but also vacant industrial land across the community.

[1:03:32] I'm particularly encouraged by the structure of the draft plan as it

[1:03:35] defines re uh relevant econ uh target economic sectors and draws upon several

[1:03:40] incentive programs that may function individually or in combination to

[1:03:45] attract that new investment. Uh most uh specifically, I'm encouraged

[1:03:49] by the inclusion of the tax increment grant program and development charges

[1:03:53] grant program, which reflects best practices across Ontario.

[1:03:58] Combined with the building fee and planning fee grant programs, the

[1:04:02] industrial development stream is diverse in its potential uh to be leveraged.

[1:04:07] Equally important is that point-based system uh that ties incentives to the

[1:04:12] factors such as sector alignment, servicing, investment value, and

[1:04:16] ultimately job creation potential. This ensures that the strongest incentives

[1:04:20] are directed where they're going to deliver the greatest benefit to the

[1:04:24] community. Lastly, it's encouraged that because of the diverse programs that

[1:04:28] exist in this plan, there's the potential to phase implementation should

[1:04:31] it be necessary, given that certain components such that such as the tax

[1:04:35] increment grant don't require upfront reserve uh funding allocations. In

[1:04:40] closing, I'd like to reiterate our strong support for the EDCIP. We see it

[1:04:45] as a meaningful and forward-looking uh step forward that strengthens Cernia uh

[1:04:49] Cernia's development toolkit and enhances its ability to compete for

[1:04:54] future investment opportunities. Thanks again for the time.

[1:04:57] » Thank you, Councelor White. You had a question.

[1:04:59] » Yes. Uh thank you your worship through you. Uh Mr. Slutwitzky, thank you for

[1:05:03] for uh coming and speaking today. You you answered every question I had. So

[1:05:07] well done. Um I'll I'll drill down on to uh one point then um that I was going to

[1:05:14] ask you about and that is for the general uh information of everybody. We

[1:05:19] we can talk about um uh generalizations where certain locations are implementing

[1:05:26] a program like this and having success. But uh is there anything anywhere in

[1:05:31] particular that is uh tangible that could come to mind that somebody driving

[1:05:36] down the highway can actually look at and say okay if we had that that might

[1:05:40] have been insia or that's too hypothetical

[1:05:44] if they hadn't had that plan that probably wouldn't be within our eyesight

[1:05:48] right now if I was driving down say the 401 or the 402

[1:05:55] » um thank you for the question absolutely and I I'll draw from an example of a a

[1:05:59] company that we know we had dealt with. There's a company that's announced a

[1:06:04] $300 million investment in Windsor. Uh up to a thousand jobs. Uh while they

[1:06:10] were looking through the site selection process, including uh sites in Sarnia

[1:06:14] and elsewhere in Lamp County, there was the direct question of what are the

[1:06:18] community incentives that are available that can match what Windsor just spoke

[1:06:22] to us about two hours ago. uh effectively at that time when we

[1:06:27] weren't able to draw upon a community improvement plan, the meeting ended. uh

[1:06:33] that company uh had recently announced that investment uh in Windsor about uh

[1:06:39] about a year ago at this point in time, a company called Minth

[1:06:42] and uh it really does uh point to the potential that community incentives uh

[1:06:48] uh have in forwarding the the total overall toolkit that we can draw upon to

[1:06:52] bring uh investment to the area. >> And followup please if I may. Uh thank

[1:06:56] you. Um, and so it it seems to me, and there was a question earlier about uh

[1:07:00] return on investment, which I was concerned about as well, which is why I

[1:07:03] want examples of where this works. Uh, your your assessment sounds to me like

[1:07:11] the uh the the return is a fairly immediate

[1:07:16] uh and obvious return on this investment if I'm not mistaken correct. And

[1:07:20] therefore, should uh this process be undertaken uh we or council at the of

[1:07:28] the day uh has the potential to perhaps withdraw the program at any given point.

[1:07:34] And and so what I'm trying to get at is it's very uh tangible to see the results

[1:07:39] in in a very immediate fashion because if I'm not mistaken, folks

[1:07:45] aren't coming to the table with a hypothetical. they're coming to the

[1:07:49] table with a shovel ready project. They're just looking for the best case

[1:07:53] scenario so that they can start almost immediately. So, it seems to me like the

[1:07:58] return on our tax revenue, employment in the area, the subsidi subsidiary

[1:08:05] opportunities uh and all of the other revenue streams

[1:08:09] that will benefit from uh a a cons concentration of employment and

[1:08:13] industrial capacity would be fairly uh quick. uh to receive those benefits. Is

[1:08:19] that is that fair to say? >> I I I think it would be fair to say that

[1:08:24] there's the opportunity for it to be fairly quick. It ultimately depends on

[1:08:28] the prospects that we're dealing with at the point in time uh that it is put in

[1:08:32] place. But I would like to draw upon one more example of of an effective plan and

[1:08:36] some of its community benefits. Uh the revitalizing Hamilton uh tax increment

[1:08:42] grant is a great example. This is one where we're looking a bit more longterm,

[1:08:46] but overall on the benefits that these such programs can have on a community.

[1:08:51] Over the course of about 18 years of that program being in place,

[1:08:57] they they granted about 1.7 million in over 40 projects over that time. So, uh

[1:09:04] you're seeing several projects a year. This represented uh more than $330

[1:09:09] million in construction investment in the community. But more importantly, uh,

[1:09:14] once once the, uh, components of the grant had been leveraged, it meant an

[1:09:19] annual tax increase permanently in the community of $10 million a year. Uh, and

[1:09:25] and that's something that I think has ultimately shows the long-term benefit

[1:09:30] uh, that exists in these cases. >> Thank you very much, Council McRoberts.

[1:09:35] » Thank you for your presentation. My question for all the cities that you've

[1:09:40] uh learned about and what they've got and what they're putting out in their

[1:09:42] CIPs, whereabouts is infrastructure on the

[1:09:46] properties that we're trying to have people come in and move into on a level

[1:09:51] of 1 to 10. Is that like a number one? They're really looking for readymade

[1:09:55] shovel ready properties or that'll come because the rest of the package will

[1:09:59] sweeten the deal where they're just buying a piece of dirt and they have to

[1:10:03] bring in the infrastructure themselves. Thank you very much for the question. I

[1:10:07] I'd suggest that ultimately land readiness as the total package of

[1:10:12] factors that impact upon investment decisions uh is right now the most

[1:10:18] critical uh that we're looking at especially uh early in the stages of

[1:10:24] trying to uh move through the site selection pipeline. uh but especially

[1:10:28] once uh once they're getting down to the nitty-gritty of uh what are the

[1:10:32] financial implications of their decisions uh land readiness will be the

[1:10:36] uh most important factor. So would we be better to invest our

[1:10:42] money right now in getting the infrastructure to these properties or

[1:10:48] development charges will be you know levied and would all of that matter

[1:10:52] compared to just having this beautiful piece of land that's ready to go which

[1:10:56] is where should we put our money into getting this whole program or run the

[1:11:01] program but still worry about the infrastructure because we're not and

[1:11:05] it's expensive. So that's my question. We get all of this together. Is it

[1:11:10] really going to make people move knowing that that check or the bill is going to

[1:11:14] be hefty to have water, gas, and electric come to their lands?

[1:11:19] » I think the joy of a program like this is that it can operate handinand with

[1:11:24] investing uh in site readiness uh as well as moving the program forward. So I

[1:11:29] I don't think it needs to be an eitheror. I think it can be a both.

[1:11:33] Investing in land readiness uh is critically important for all communities

[1:11:37] uh across Lamp County, Sernia included. Uh but there are the abilities to

[1:11:41] leverage aspects of this plan as presented uh that don't have uh a for a

[1:11:48] a forward cost on the municipality to be able to leverage them for the benefit uh

[1:11:53] of those investors considering the community.

[1:11:55] » Thank you, Councelor Dennis. >> Uh thank you, Mayor Bradley. Matthew, um

[1:11:59] you and I have talked privately before. Um as you know, I was in sales for 30

[1:12:04] years and you essentially are in sales. you're selling Sarnia lamp to potential

[1:12:09] uh businesses and industry. Um it's so important that you are on a level

[1:12:14] playing ground or playing field. Is it fair to say sir that when you are uh

[1:12:19] when you approach these uh prospective uh industries that uh we're sending you

[1:12:24] to uh we're sending you into uh a meeting, a sales meeting with your hands

[1:12:30] tied behind your back. uh that you do not have the same tools as maybe other

[1:12:34] other municipalities do to land the land the the the whale so to speak. Um uh you

[1:12:41] know the other other municipalities have a bigger toolbox than you do when it

[1:12:44] comes to uh uh landing the the big sale so to speak. And if you had uh more uh

[1:12:52] tools in your toolbox, you would be much more successful uh landing these big uh

[1:12:57] employers, these big uh um um uh companies uh in Sarnia Lamp. Well,

[1:13:04] particularly Sarna, but uh even in Sarnia Lampton, is is that a fair

[1:13:08] assessment, sir? I I I think the fair assessment in this

[1:13:12] case is that in the absence of a CIP like this, we

[1:13:17] are missing a critical tool in the toolbox. As I referenced, community

[1:13:21] incentives are one of the most important tools that is available in trying to

[1:13:25] attract uh new investment in job creation to a community. And by uh

[1:13:30] forwarding this plan as presented, we will have a significant tool to be able

[1:13:35] to leverage to bring new investment and job creation to Sarnia.

[1:13:38] » Okay. Mr. Sloinsky, you have to acknowledge also that we have something

[1:13:41] that no one else has which is the bluewater energy park and we are working

[1:13:46] on a very big plant to go there because of the behind the fence power rates and

[1:13:52] that does have a huge pack impact and as you know there's some activity there

[1:13:55] that's quite significant. So that I don't want it to be all negative is also

[1:14:00] there's some things here as a community that we have London doesn't have,

[1:14:03] Windsor doesn't have. we have the ability to put people into place with

[1:14:06] low power rates and with a lot of sharing of infrastructure and that's

[1:14:09] what's being looked at right now there. Is that that fair to say?

[1:14:13] » That's absolutely fair to say. Uh and along those lines uh with this item here

[1:14:19] uh it will be just yet another uh positive piece we can leverage in

[1:14:24] addition to uh assets like the blue water energy park that you just spoke

[1:14:29] to. >> Thank you very much for your

[1:14:30] presentation. Uh this is a public meeting on this particular plan. So if

[1:14:34] there's anyone else that wishes to speak, they indicate right now they wish

[1:14:37] to do so. I don't think we had anyone calling once, twice, and three times. So

[1:14:44] with that, I'm going to close this public meeting and look for a

[1:14:46] resolution. There's a recommendation to you to bring this back in a month for

[1:14:50] final council white, councelor Gillis. Any discussion? All in favor? That's

[1:14:56] unanimous. Thank you everyone. If we can move on to our next public meeting which

[1:14:59] is related to uh resoning on Cathgart. Uh Mr. Bradshaw, you're making the

[1:15:04] presentation. Thank you for the staff.

[1:15:18] » Thank you your worship and members of council.

[1:15:21] Sorry, hope you can hear me better. >> Thank you worship and members of

[1:15:24] council. Uh my name is Stephen Bradshaw. I'm a land use planner within the

[1:15:28] community services division here at city hall. Uh thank you for allowing me to

[1:15:32] present and speak to you today regarding the application received by BM Ross and

[1:15:35] Associates on behalf of the county of lamp for the lands addressed as 778

[1:15:40] Cathkart Boulevard in Sarnia. Uh this application requests permission to amend

[1:15:44] the city of Sarnney official plan and zoning bylaw to redesate those lands uh

[1:15:48] from M a mixeduse quarter 1 designation to a mixeduse quarter 2 designation and

[1:15:54] to zone the entirety of the subject lands to a sightsp specific urban

[1:15:57] residential 5-19 [clears throat] zone. Uh these requested amendments are

[1:16:02] intended to facilitate the development of a four-story apartment dwelling

[1:16:06] containing 94 apartment dwelling units with 68 provided parking stalls and to

[1:16:10] recognize the existing 42 apartment dwelling units with 11 provided parking

[1:16:14] stalls at the Jubilee Gardens on site. Uh the 94 proposed apartment dwelling

[1:16:20] units have been identified by the applicant and within the submission as

[1:16:23] being affordable. The lands at 7718 Cathkart Boulevard are

[1:16:28] currently designated within schedule one of the city's sarnio official plan as

[1:16:31] being located within a strategic growth area and are designated within schedule

[1:16:35] two as being mixed use uh being a mixeduse corridor 1 designation. The

[1:16:40] plan identifies these lands as being intended to be developed as mixeduse

[1:16:44] transit supportive corridors that support the development of mid-rise to

[1:16:47] high-rise buildings. The plan recognizes these lands as those intended to contain

[1:16:52] a broad range of commercial, residential, and institutional uses in

[1:16:56] those mixeduse buildings. Uh the applicant is requesting a down

[1:17:00] designation to a mixeduse corridor 2 designation which also permits and

[1:17:04] encourages mixeduse development along those uh primary corridors and along

[1:17:08] transit supportive corridors. Uh however, it does limit the scale of

[1:17:11] developments to be within low and mid-rise built form.

[1:17:15] Mixeduse corridor 2 designation encourages providing opportunities for

[1:17:18] residential intensification, infill redevelopment. Uh in review of the

[1:17:22] submitted application, there were no non-residential components identified.

[1:17:27] The application is uh further requesting an amendment to the city of Sarnnea

[1:17:30] zoning bylaw to permit a sight specific lot area for the combined 136 apartment

[1:17:35] dwelling units on the subject lands and to permit a combined parking rate of

[1:17:39] 0.58 spaces uh per dwelling unit for parking.

[1:17:46] Uh staff have reviewed the policies of the established planning framework at

[1:17:49] the provincial, county, and municipal levels. Uh that framework and policy

[1:17:53] support the intensification of vacant lands that are located on existing

[1:17:56] municipally serviced lands within an urban center as defined by the county of

[1:18:00] lan official plan. The city's official plan supports residential

[1:18:04] intensification and infill redevelopment that is located within a strategic

[1:18:07] growth area and defined as a mixeduse corridor designation.

[1:18:11] Maintaining the interest and goals of the official plan which outlined the the

[1:18:14] objectives of the city of Sarnia as a successful city. It is staff's opinion

[1:18:17] that the requested amendments are consistent with the direction of the

[1:18:20] provincial planning statement, the county of LAN official plan and the city

[1:18:24] of Sarnia official plan. The requested amendments support the city's

[1:18:28] established goal to provide for an increased stock of affordable housing

[1:18:31] units within the builtup area. Uh staff recommend that these amendments to the

[1:18:36] city's official plan and the zoning bylaw be approved. And I'm happy to

[1:18:39] answer any questions from >> any questions from council.

[1:18:43] » Councelor Burl. >> Uh yes, thank you your worship. Uh with

[1:18:47] regards to the parking spots, are they um generally available for any of the

[1:18:52] tenants or are they specific to units? >> Uh I would defer that more to the

[1:19:00] applicant to answer regarding how the parking is going to be allocated. But

[1:19:03] with regards to what is there and what is being proposed, there are 11 parking

[1:19:07] spaces on the site that are dedicated specifically to the Jubilee Gardens

[1:19:10] currently. And the applicant is proposing 68 new spaces uh on the site

[1:19:15] for a total of of 79 parking spaces. I'm not sure how that's going to be

[1:19:20] delegated between the two. >> We can put that question to the

[1:19:23] applicant. >> With that, thank you very much. Uh Mr.

[1:19:27] Forkens on behalf of the Sorry, Councelor Gillis. Go ahead. Sorry, Mr.

[1:19:30] Bradshaw. >> Here we are. Mr.

[1:19:32] just for one minute to come. So to clarify for that uh with regard to the

[1:19:36] parking at Jubilee Gardens um if it's been established that way since 1975

[1:19:43] and the people that are in that building or actually the building was built for

[1:19:47] senior citizens, uh how can we compromise that now?

[1:19:54] » I'm not sure I understand what you mean compromise. Well, the fact is that if

[1:19:58] you've got um one building requiring x number of of uh parking spots and an

[1:20:04] established building that has establish those parking spots since

[1:20:09] 1975, how are you going to square that circle

[1:20:14] that uh well, when the new kids come in town, they're taking over all of your

[1:20:17] stuff? So, what I'm saying is those 11 parking spots for Jubilee Gardens were

[1:20:23] specific to seniors with their needs and accessibilities.

[1:20:29] So, to just take that away, you're compromising that building in some way.

[1:20:35] » I would say, Mr. Bachel, that's a question really for the applicant, is it

[1:20:38] not to to address about how they're going to uh deal with the separation of

[1:20:42] the parking? >> I'm happy through you, Mr. Mayor. I'm

[1:20:46] happy to allow the applicant to answer that as well. Um I just know that those

[1:20:49] 11 parking spaces are registered on title under a site plan control

[1:20:52] agreement. Um this proposal would also be required to go through such a similar

[1:20:57] process to establish site plan control uh on the site and um that would be

[1:21:02] determined at that stage I believe. >> Mr. Fork, since you've heard the

[1:21:06] questions, perhaps you can address them when you're up here. I'd like to call

[1:21:08] upon the applicant's agent to come forward.

[1:21:21] you want to make your presentation then we'll deal with those questions after

[1:21:23] that. >> Certainly. Thank you uh your worship.

[1:21:25] I'll address the questions throughout my presentation. If there's any questions

[1:21:29] and afterwards for by all means. Uh thank you again for the opportunity to

[1:21:33] speak to you. Uh good evening your worship council members, staff, and

[1:21:36] members of the public. My name is Jordan Folkens. I'm a planning consultant at BM

[1:21:40] Ross and Associates Limited and I'm the planning consultant for the county of

[1:21:43] Lamson for this proposal. I'm also joined by several uh members of county

[1:21:47] staff here if there are any more detailed questions about the

[1:21:50] development. Next slide, please. I'd also like to thank Mr. Bachel for

[1:21:56] his presentation and for this that was written. I've read the report and the

[1:22:00] proposed recommendations to approve the official plan and zoning bylaw

[1:22:04] amendments. I concur with the the bylaw that was drafted. Um Mr. Bachel did give

[1:22:10] a great overview of this development. I'll concentrate more on the questions

[1:22:13] that were raised by council and highlight any other key points of this

[1:22:16] development. As Mr. Bradshaw noted, this uh site currently has Jubilee Gardens,

[1:22:21] which is a 42 unit uh multiple dwelling that contains affordable housing for

[1:22:26] senior citizens. It was also home of the St. Bartholomew's church which has

[1:22:30] recently been demolished from the property which uh provides an

[1:22:34] opportunity now to to do that sort of infill development with an intation.

[1:22:39] Next slide please. Looking at the surrounding area you're

[1:22:45] aware that this is in an area that has commercial uses. Others across the

[1:22:50] street from a grocery store and a pharmacy is on a transit route and has

[1:22:55] uh sidewalks in in close proxy. Slide please.

[1:23:02] Looking at the proposed development, it is for a 94 unit apartment building with

[1:23:06] four stories. The design of the building would somewhat mirror the existing

[1:23:10] Jubilee Gardens and frame what is Cathkart Boulevard. Uh increased

[1:23:15] setbacks both to the north and the east are proposed to to ensure that this is

[1:23:19] compatible with the surrounding development. Uh more specifically, I

[1:23:23] believe the setback is around 26 mters to the northern lot line and 8 mters to

[1:23:27] the side lot line, which again has a building that's owned by the county of

[1:23:30] Lamp. Now, this uh building uh placement was

[1:23:35] also meant to screen the parking area so that the building is uh contributing to

[1:23:40] the streetscape along Cathkar Boulevard and uh when pedestrians walk by, they

[1:23:44] see the building, the windows, the facade treatments, landscaping instead

[1:23:48] of a parking lot. Next slide, please.

[1:23:54] Speaking about the renderings, uh the building is proposed to be four stories

[1:23:58] in height and as I mentioned would screen that parking area. If approved

[1:24:03] today, it would be subject to a process under site plan control. So the the

[1:24:06] details of the landscaping and the site orientation would be would be changed at

[1:24:10] that time based on staff comments. Next slide, please.

[1:24:17] And there's floor plans. All the bedroom units would be onebedroom units. There's

[1:24:21] 94 of them split between the four floors. The blue areas on the floor

[1:24:25] plans there are for common amenity areas as well for residents. Slide please.

[1:24:31] So the reason that we're here today uh there's two applications in front of

[1:24:35] council. The first one is an official plan amendment with which Mr. Bradshaw

[1:24:38] went over. Generally what we're asking for if you look at the map we're

[1:24:42] changing the orange to a brown. So what does that mean really? So the orange

[1:24:47] allows for 12story apartment building development. It's one of the more

[1:24:50] intense land use designations in the city. As Mr. Bradshaw mentioned, we're

[1:24:55] down designating in this proposal. So instead of 12 stories, this would be

[1:25:00] brought down to six stories to allow for this four-story development. So we're

[1:25:03] not asking for an increase in height. We're asking actually for a decrease. So

[1:25:08] you may wonder why we're asking for that because we're removing some permissions

[1:25:11] on the property. And really the reason is um with that mixeduse one designation

[1:25:16] there are other policies that come into play. For instance, the height of the

[1:25:19] first story has to be 4.25 meters. Um for this development, we don't want to

[1:25:24] go that high. Um another reason is for non-residential uses to be at grade. So

[1:25:30] at least 50% of the uses under the current policies need to have

[1:25:33] non-residential uses and this development would have more than 50% as

[1:25:38] residential uses. So, for that reason, it really blends well. If you look at

[1:25:42] the map, the rest of the area is brown, which allows what the city calls low and

[1:25:46] mid-rise development. This would bring that down to the the permissions that

[1:25:50] are already in the area and not really add any permitted, uh, permissions on

[1:25:55] the property. Next slide, please. Now, now with that, um, it also requires

[1:26:02] an amendment to the zoning bylaw. There was talk before about the historical

[1:26:06] approval for Jubilee Gardens. Uh that's why you see a UR5-9 on the screen. The

[1:26:12] old St. Bartholomew Church has a UR1 which is a low density residential land

[1:26:17] use or land use zone. Now the reason why it's low density and not high density as

[1:26:22] I mentioned before council has not yet approved the implementing bylaw to

[1:26:26] implement the policies in their official plan. So, if you look at the bottom

[1:26:29] picture, what's being proposed in the most recent draft of the zoning bylaw

[1:26:34] was to change the site to a MU2, which would allow for highrise and mid-rise

[1:26:38] developments. Aside from that is the parking issue,

[1:26:41] which I can now address councelor Gills's question, um, as well as

[1:26:45] councelor Burls. In terms of the each unit having a designated parking spot,

[1:26:51] it's my understanding there there won't be the unit numbers painted on the

[1:26:54] space. Uh, so there won't be that. it'll be open to to everybody. Now, in terms

[1:26:58] of compromising the 11 spaces, Jubilee Gardens over the years has actually used

[1:27:03] some of the church's parking. So, part of this proposal is to actually increase

[1:27:07] the number of parking spots for Jubilee Gardens. And this would be dealt with

[1:27:10] through site plan and designation wise which spots would be available to them,

[1:27:15] but it' be more than the 11 uh but the details would have to be figured out

[1:27:19] later on down the road. Now in terms of the

[1:27:22] » worship your worship how can we guarantee that

[1:27:27] » uh through your worship I'll deal with the question right now as I mentioned

[1:27:30] this will be subject to a site plan review process um it could be identified

[1:27:34] on the on the plan potentially with uh wording in the agreement um it's just

[1:27:39] one avenue this is a discussion we can have with staff if it gets to that point

[1:27:43] through the more detailed review and that would actually be written into the

[1:27:46] agreement and registered on title if not posted on the site there's other ways to

[1:27:51] to recognize that too, right? >> Can I ask you, Mr. Fork, it's unusual,

[1:27:55] though? Is there not um people like to have a unit and have a designated spot?

[1:28:01] Why was that rejected over this type of system, which seems like

[1:28:05] everyone tries to find a spot every night?

[1:28:08] » Certainly. And through the chair, um and maybe I can direct that that question to

[1:28:11] county staff as well. Um but not every unit that's rented requires a parking

[1:28:16] space. It's a matter of internally how they figure that out. uh the specifics I

[1:28:20] don't know but maybe after my presentation uh county staff can come up

[1:28:23] and see exactly how they plan on dealing with that.

[1:28:26] » Okay. Thank you. >> Uh moving on again to the the parking

[1:28:29] reduction that's proposed. The reason for the 0.58 spaces per unit is to

[1:28:35] recognize the 11 units in Jubilee Gardens. Now that is written into the

[1:28:40] zoning bottle. The 42 units are allowed to have 11. Um what the affordable

[1:28:45] housing community improvement plan has is a ratio of 0.75. So once you

[1:28:49] recognize those 11 spaces, what we're proposing today is 0.72, which is a

[1:28:54] reduction of three parking spaces. So I just wanted to make that clear that it

[1:28:59] does have that historical approval. We're not considering Jubilee Gardens.

[1:29:02] We're considering this new apartment. Next slide, please.

[1:29:08] Uh there is a large amount of information that was provided with this

[1:29:12] submission. Uh we have taken a very close look at this. Uh there is a

[1:29:15] parking and transportation impact study that was submitted functional service

[1:29:19] reports as well as the visuals that you saw on the screen before in terms of

[1:29:22] architectural elevations and floor plans. Next slide please.

[1:29:27] There's also extensive correspondence with area residents. Uh back in February

[1:29:31] the county of Lson had an open house that was attended by about 160

[1:29:34] residents. Um I wasn't personally there but uh their consultant did do an

[1:29:39] extensive report to county council at the time that indicate a strong majority

[1:29:43] of those in attendance supported the proposal. Uh next slide please.

[1:29:48] » Truly. >> In conclusion, I agree with Mr.

[1:29:52] Bradshaw's uh report and recommendation to approve. This really is an ideal

[1:29:57] situation for this type of development to take place. It's on a transit route

[1:30:00] near grocery store and other services is near pedestrian infrastructure and

[1:30:05] housing infrastructure to accommodate it. Next slide, please.

[1:30:11] » Again, thank you for the opportunity to present this to you today. I'm here for

[1:30:14] any questions or elaborate on any of the parking discussion.

[1:30:18] » Council, >> but just for clarification, I was at the

[1:30:21] Sacred Heart meetings and I did not get the impression that people were in favor

[1:30:26] of the affordable. I think that people were upset because they didn't they

[1:30:30] didn't have an any other alternative. It was either you take you you can have

[1:30:35] supportive or you can have affordable and that's it. So um people were very

[1:30:40] upset that there wasn't even a third option put on the table or even one that

[1:30:43] was presented. So just for that clarification.

[1:30:47] » Thank you. And through the chair again I'm just going on the the council report

[1:30:50] that was provided to county council. >> Do the county staff council girl. Go

[1:30:55] ahead. Yes. Um, in part of your analysis,

[1:31:00] you're indicating that um, the his, you know, the historical fact that there's

[1:31:05] only been, I remember it was 10 or 11 parking spots allocated to the Jubilee

[1:31:12] Gardens park, but also my understanding is that

[1:31:16] the understand when that went in was that Julie Gardens was going to be a

[1:31:22] senior's residence. And I don't think that's the

[1:31:26] fact. I certainly know people who live there who are not seniors.

[1:31:33] I'm not sure how all that ties in. Um you're kind of leaning on the old rules

[1:31:39] for certain things and you're uh bringing in new rules, but if if it's

[1:31:46] not really the facts, what do we actually have when we look at this

[1:31:52] project as together? like it seems like we're going to be quite a bit short in

[1:31:57] terms of parking and especially if um

[1:32:03] they are having people there who are not seniors.

[1:32:09] What I'm assuming that it is a geared both facilities are geared to income. Is

[1:32:16] that correct?

[1:32:21] Um so through you your worship. Um that is correct. Both buildings the current

[1:32:26] one on the property and the proposed one are rent geared to income. Um so they

[1:32:30] will be deeply affordable. Um as such when we look at our current tenant

[1:32:34] complement amongst our 850 other geared to income units. Our car ownership rates

[1:32:39] are significantly lower than what you would find in the private market or even

[1:32:42] standard affordable units. So right now when we look at our car ownership rate,

[1:32:47] our parking utilization, we're at about.36 spaces per unit across our

[1:32:51] units within the city of Sarnia. Um so I hope that answers that question. In

[1:32:56] terms of the designated parking spots, um so out of all of our apartment

[1:33:00] buildings, we don't do designated spots again because we don't have one spot per

[1:33:04] unit based on the low car ownership. um it just creates issues if we have the

[1:33:09] parking spot right out front that everyone wants and that's designated to

[1:33:12] unit 101 but that unit doesn't have a car and the unit 410 wants that spot

[1:33:17] because of mobility issues then people are are fighting over it. So um we tend

[1:33:22] to do the non-desated spots and we don't have issues in our current parking again

[1:33:26] because of that car the ownership you um there's not the the fighting over

[1:33:32] spots. >> And could you just for the record for

[1:33:35] the public identify yourself? Sorry. Um, my name is Melissa Johnson. I'm the

[1:33:38] manager of housing services for the county of lamp.

[1:33:41] » So much. Thank you, Mr. Fus. Anything else you want to add or?

[1:33:44] » Uh, yeah. Thank you, I will just add on to that. Um, this is more parking than

[1:33:48] what's was approved for Kathleen Avenue. uh the county's most recent uh

[1:33:53] development as well as there was a parking utilization study uh that was

[1:33:57] brought forward with the application that looked at the county of sorry the

[1:34:01] county of lamp's needs for their housing developments and this is well over any

[1:34:05] of their other developments. So um they're still providing more parking

[1:34:08] than they feel they need but we still are asking for that reduction. Thank

[1:34:11] you. >> Thank you very much. I have Deb Willis

[1:34:14] if she like Willis if you'd like to come forward.

[1:34:33] then I have Reverend Murray after

[1:34:49] This is my first time. Bear with me. Good afternoon, city mayor and council

[1:34:55] of Sarnia. My name is Debbie and I have lived in the Cathkart Cobra neighborhood

[1:35:01] for 26 years. I am here today not as a public speaker

[1:35:06] quite the opposite or a member of an activist group but as a concerned

[1:35:11] citizen representing my neighborhood which has been low density which gives

[1:35:16] it its unique charm. We have two small buildings. Jubilee

[1:35:20] Gardens, which is in a government affordable housing that is a two-story

[1:35:26] building set back in from Cathkart and has some beautiful mature trees in

[1:35:30] keeping with our neighborhood aesthetics and Oak Acres Apartments, which is a 2

[1:35:35] and a half story building on the corner of Chem Culbrron. Next slide.

[1:35:42] I would like to share our perspective regarding the proposed highdensity

[1:35:47] development. How will how it will impact the character and infrastructure of our

[1:35:52] neighborhood and the lack of transparency input by us despite the

[1:35:58] fact that we'd be the ones that are directly affected by what the county

[1:36:04] proposes to do. The county we feel acted hastily in purchasing St. Barthol St.

[1:36:10] Bartholomew's property the Diosis of Huron which is located in

[1:36:16] London not Sarnia or lamp county made an internal decision to sell the property

[1:36:22] in Sarnia to the county at market value to understand this when St. Barts and

[1:36:30] the Diosis bought that property it's estimated between 15,000 to $30,000

[1:36:37] per land spot. Now they're selling it for 1 point or they've sold it for $1.95

[1:36:44] million.

[1:36:48] And um I said they built it oh sorry um they didn't take into consideration how

[1:36:54] the neighborhood would or would not feel. There was absolutely no

[1:36:58] involvement until February of 2026. After the purchase, the county decided

[1:37:04] to hold a pre-registered meeting on Tuesday, February the 10th with only 3

[1:37:10] days notice. Due to turnout, the county held two more

[1:37:14] meetings on February the 11th. Many residents in the neighborhood could

[1:37:19] not attend due to other commitments that could not be rearranged due to such

[1:37:24] short notice. Those who did attend voiced their

[1:37:27] concerns. Correct. Thank you to those residents who voice

[1:37:32] their concerns which can be extremely anxietyprovoking

[1:37:36] with the advocacy advocacy groups present who can make the neighbors

[1:37:42] concerns feel irrelevant. I heard after these meetings those advoc

[1:37:47] advoc advocacy groups labeling my neighbors as nimi.

[1:37:54] Nimi is an abbreviated form for not in my backyard.

[1:37:59] Did they forget we have affordable government housing in our neighborhood?

[1:38:05] Do they have affordable government housing as their neighbors?

[1:38:10] Next slide. Again, the county paid $1.95 million of

[1:38:16] our taxes and have and will use another million dollars to demolish the church,

[1:38:21] which they've already done, and for pre-planning with zero input from the

[1:38:25] citizens who paid the taxes. The only consistent excuse I could find

[1:38:31] for the county to rush the purchase was to secure time-sensitive provincial and

[1:38:37] federal funding. If government funding is time-sensitive,

[1:38:42] why did they not purchase 321 Divine Street? It was listed power of sale by

[1:38:48] Kolars Canada in midappril of 2024. I called Kolers.

[1:38:55] It is already zoned for multi-residential.

[1:38:59] The lot is vacant of any structures. The cost $2.5 million.

[1:39:05] Which is a taxpayer saving of $500,000. Cathkart property was not offered to the

[1:39:12] county until June 2024, two months after Divine Street was

[1:39:18] available and not finalized um the Cathkart property until April of

[1:39:23] 2025. And again, the residents not notified till February 2026.

[1:39:31] By going doortodoor in my neighborhood, I had the opportunity to truly

[1:39:36] understand how they felt about the Cathkart highdensity build with another

[1:39:41] possible build on the same site at a later date.

[1:39:45] That would be what they call the rectory that they're going to use to house the

[1:39:50] building people. And once it's done, they're going to look at another

[1:39:53] multi-residential. Over 95% of those home those um were

[1:40:01] homes sorry were opposed to the build due to the density, safety, aesthetics,

[1:40:07] infrastructure and lack of in of transparency and input.

[1:40:12] My young daughters who are here today and I took this opportunity to allow the

[1:40:18] immediate neighbors who would be affected by the county build to sign a

[1:40:22] petition so they felt like their voices were

[1:40:26] heard. We had five who did not sign out of fear of being called prejudiced

[1:40:31] uncaring and did not agree with the build.

[1:40:36] one who did not sign because she was blind

[1:40:39] and one person who declined to sign until they got more information and two

[1:40:45] who agreed with a build. Again, we are not nimi and we have

[1:40:51] government building that already exists in our neighborhood.

[1:40:55] Oh. Oh, yeah. He's with me. [laughter] Okay. Those who could make the short

[1:41:00] notice meetings were strongly in favor of affordable government housing for

[1:41:05] seniors who would blend nicely into our neighborhood of seniors and young

[1:41:10] families. The county rejected their

[1:41:14] recommendation. There was clear there was clear the

[1:41:18] opposition opposition to inddwell or supportive housing.

[1:41:23] The county said it would be rent geared to income affordable housing. Many did

[1:41:28] not know that this meant anyone in Lamp County, one to two and maybe even three

[1:41:34] people with the county set annual income of $27,000 for onebedroom unit

[1:41:40] irregardless of background or histories. According to the human Ontario human

[1:41:45] rights code, no applicant can be excluded from government affordable

[1:41:50] housing. This would exclude our minimum wage

[1:41:55] full-time jobs as their income annually would put them

[1:41:59] at 36,000. Their struggles will continue.

[1:42:06] Another vital piece not addressed to our neighborhood was that they, the county,

[1:42:12] can at any time, which we've just heard now, change existing affordable housing

[1:42:18] to supportive and according to my research, Sarna does not have specific

[1:42:22] bylaws to stop the county from doing so. When we the residents in the of the city

[1:42:29] of Sarnia address our neighborhood concerns, it is important that activists

[1:42:34] in county understand that we are not insensitive or unempathetic. Actually,

[1:42:40] we are quite the opposite. But forcing anyone into compliance and

[1:42:46] acceptance erodess the trust in our elected.

[1:42:50] Next slide, please. This situation by the county has

[1:42:55] encouraged me to do a lot of research. I'm talking about 50 to 60 hours of

[1:43:00] research I've done. In my research, I found that according to the United

[1:43:05] Nations urban planning research and social studies that there was

[1:43:11] overwhelming favor in distributing government housing, scatter site they

[1:43:17] call it, rather than clustering them. Pathfart already has government housing.

[1:43:24] Many of Sarna's surrounding municipalities with transit, grocery

[1:43:27] stores, andarmacies have no government housing.

[1:43:32] Examples are Corona. Transit can be extended from Tashimu to Hill Street.

[1:43:38] Wyoming, Petroleia, they have one government affordable housing. It's

[1:43:43] seniors. Rights Grove and Point Edward

[1:43:48] they all have mayor representation in the county.

[1:43:53] Proincially there was I which is called inclusionary zoning.

[1:43:58] Thern decided to bypass I new build neighborhoods in favor of

[1:44:04] other affordable housing methods. Now, the Ontario government has paused

[1:44:09] and capped I requirements to avoid chilling new developments. That was

[1:44:15] quoted from government. To address our concerns over clustering,

[1:44:21] affordable one-bedroom government housing can have one to two occupants

[1:44:24] per unit, and I've since heard even maybe up to three.

[1:44:29] That means the population of Jubilees Gardens is between, this is only on one

[1:44:33] to two, 41 to 82 people. With the county proposed build, the

[1:44:40] population would be 94 to 188. Then the county said the rectory, the

[1:44:48] white house to the east side, that was in the very first slide, would be used

[1:44:52] for multi-residential units are sold. Upon researching, any property already

[1:44:58] owned has a 80 to 90% chance of being utilized instead of being sold.

[1:45:05] Currently, the population is is unknown as again the county has not been

[1:45:10] transparent. Here's what we do know.

[1:45:14] Uh two using two local examples when you cluster build instead of scatter site.

[1:45:22] Cluster build on Kathleen Street. Kathleen has seen higher instances of

[1:45:27] property crime, drugrelated arrests, and public safety issues which are

[1:45:32] concentrated around its government housing.

[1:45:36] Buster built on Roger Street. Roger Street has been the site of multiple

[1:45:40] high-profile police incidences, including armed standoffs, drug busts,

[1:45:45] and violent assaults. Can the county guarantee the safety of

[1:45:51] the neighborhood with their cluster built?

[1:45:55] I researched and found that municipalities and counties have

[1:45:59] immunity. So if there is any theft, property

[1:46:04] damage, burglaries, assaults, criminal activity, our only recourse course is to

[1:46:11] call 911 or a claim on our house insurance.

[1:46:16] As an FYI for our neighbors, you can make one to two claims every 10

[1:46:21] years without a rate increase. However, a second claim in a three to fiveyear

[1:46:28] window can double your rates or even lead to cancellation or refusal to

[1:46:35] renew. I looked up stat uh statistics Canada.

[1:46:40] Singles, mostly male, on the 2021 census stated

[1:46:47] that they tend to have in poverty clustering higher rates of crime within

[1:46:53] the neighborhood as it's their neighborhood. They know what's going on.

[1:46:58] So, this is a very real concern. Safety is a concern and should be

[1:47:03] acknowledged without passing judgment on us.

[1:47:07] I found through internet search that the municipality or for that matter Sarnia

[1:47:12] has the legal, ethical and human rights obligation to ensure our safety. Canada

[1:47:19] canada.ca. Next slide, please. Aesthetics.

[1:47:25] Affordable housing must comply with the same building restrictions and design

[1:47:29] standards as market rate housing and will be designed to fit in with the

[1:47:33] character of their neighborhood. Ontario Human Rights Commission.

[1:47:38] Many of us in the Coburn and Cathkart neighborhood have brought it to the

[1:47:41] county's attention that their new built does not reflect the character of our

[1:47:46] neighborhood and looks very much like an institution from the Cathkart road view.

[1:47:52] The height is also an issue which will make it tower over any other build. From

[1:47:57] the artist impression, there is no frontage between the citywalk and the

[1:48:01] building. Next slide, please.

[1:48:05] Parking. Zernia had a 1.5 to two parking spots

[1:48:12] per unit requirement. According to my internet search engine on parking bylaw

[1:48:17] locally in the spring of 2026, Sarnia amended the requirements to be 0.75

[1:48:23] spots per unit. The county has allotted Jubilee Gardens.

[1:48:28] I put down here it said 41 units but I guess it's 42 units. 11 parking spots

[1:48:34] not acknowledging they had parking that used of the

[1:48:38] churches. Uh and then uh

[1:48:44] okay with 11 and then um the 135 units uh will have 68 units. That's a total of

[1:48:53] 79 parking spots for 135 units in total. This will fall well short of the 0.75

[1:49:01] spots per unit by 31 spots. Without adequate parking, there is a

[1:49:07] high risk of spillover onto the road, nearby businesses, and residential

[1:49:12] streets.

[1:49:15] Transit Pathtart Route 7 is not a busy route and

[1:49:20] as such it only runs every 60 to 80 80 minutes. It stops early and if transit

[1:49:26] is needed the uter must use dryer dial a ride. Busier more frequent bus routes

[1:49:32] are route nine on Xmouth, route four on X Maxwell, route one on

[1:49:38] Divine and Confed and that's from the city of Sarna source.

[1:49:43] Next slide please. Some examples of how buildings have

[1:49:47] blended with our neighborhood aesthetics are the fire station. That's the second

[1:49:52] picture on M Coburn in Michigan. Oak Eager's apartment on Chemley and Coburn.

[1:49:59] Jubilee Gardens on Cathkart. And that's the third picture.

[1:50:03] And even the hydro building on Culver, which is I put their hydro.

[1:50:10] The old St. Barts blended in with our aesthetics of our neighborhood before

[1:50:13] the county tore it down. Next slide.

[1:50:19] In conclusion, Cathkart neighborhood property owners are deeply concerned

[1:50:24] with the lack of county transparency and how they went to transform, how they

[1:50:29] want to transform our lowdensity neighborhood to a highdensity cluster

[1:50:34] build despite what has occurred in other cluster builds in Sarnia. I also say

[1:50:40] this in support of Kathleen Street as well because they took away a park to

[1:50:45] build an apartment. We are concerned with the exclusion of

[1:50:49] those who will be directly impacted, safety concerns, parking, transit

[1:50:55] issues, aesthetics, and the loss of green space. As well, there was concern

[1:51:01] with the impact on the infrastructure with our water sewer lines dating back

[1:51:06] to post World War II. Again, that was on the city of Sarnia site.

[1:51:11] Due to all of the forementioned, we the property owners and residents are

[1:51:16] formally objecting to the planning application for the government

[1:51:19] subsidized lowincome housing development for 7800 718 Cathkart Boulevard.

[1:51:27] As such, I would like to present to the city of

[1:51:33] Sarnia a petition of 211 signatures of immediate residents

[1:51:40] in the neighborhood and that's all I could do because I've got bad knees.

[1:51:43] Otherwise, we would have covered the whole neighborhood. I only covered half.

[1:51:47] » Okay. Thank you for that and thank you for the presentation. The clerk will

[1:51:50] take your petition so it's on the record.

[1:51:54] Well, thank you very much for the presentation.

[1:51:57] And can I call on Reverend come up for come forward please?

[1:52:26] Your worship and members of council, thank you for this opportunity to speak

[1:52:30] to the recommended bylaw changes and amendments regarding the proposed

[1:52:34] affordable housing project on Cathkart Boulevard. For this opportunity to give

[1:52:39] voice to a silent majority of support for this work in general.

[1:52:44] My name is Kenji Marui. I use he him as pronouns and I'm part of the ministry

[1:52:49] team with Grace United Church also located on Cathkart Boulevard uh 1100

[1:52:54] meters east of the site in question. Our church has 400 people on its membership

[1:52:59] role the majority of whom reside in the north end of Sarnia.

[1:53:04] My understanding is that these motions address procedural impediments to the

[1:53:08] proposed building plan and I encourage their adoption so that progress might

[1:53:13] continue. Prior to the closing of St.

[1:53:17] Bartholomew's Anglican Church, I worked with their leadership on multiple

[1:53:20] occasions. Our congregations held mutual respect and regard for each other's

[1:53:25] ministries. As their ministry wound down and they

[1:53:29] imagined a future beyond their doors closing, I know they desired a legacy

[1:53:34] that would support the unhoused in Sarnia and had been frustrated by

[1:53:38] complicated processes required by their church cinnid, the uh dasis of Hiron,

[1:53:44] the city of Sarnia and the county of Lamp. What these official plan and

[1:53:49] zoning bylaw amendments seek to do appear reasonable, straightforward to

[1:53:54] me, and respectful of the vision of St. Barts, as well as the local residential

[1:53:59] context. Also having worked with family of

[1:54:03] parishes, Sacred Heart Roman Catholic, St. Giles Presbyterian, Redeemer

[1:54:08] Christian Reformed, and Dunlop Central United Churches specifically on the

[1:54:12] issue of the unhoused. I can attest to the support for this project and how it

[1:54:17] aligns with the values of our faith communities. We affirm that the

[1:54:21] provision of basic human needs affords respect to all and invests in our

[1:54:26] collective thriving by providing a stable and sustainable answer to the

[1:54:31] questions. Where am I going to sleep tonight? How can I afford a roof over my

[1:54:35] head? Where can I be safe? Affordable housing grants dignity to its residents

[1:54:40] as well as better physical and mental health. We value diversity and bringing

[1:54:46] people together of all backgrounds, cultures, abilities, social standing.

[1:54:51] We see far too, excuse me, we see far too often uh in the news locally and

[1:54:57] internationally that silos of sameness lead to distrust of others, inability to

[1:55:03] disagree constructively, and fear of change.

[1:55:07] I ask that city and county councils continue to demonstrate collaboration

[1:55:11] between independent bodies for a common good in the same manner as the disperate

[1:55:16] and different church denominations I just mentioned come together for common

[1:55:21] cause for the betterment and enrichment of community.

[1:55:25] Grace United Church has embraced efforts such as this affordable housing project

[1:55:29] in its past welcoming such endeavors into its backyard literally since 1997.

[1:55:35] and Grace United Church has provided its mance for the use of community living to

[1:55:40] offer respit care and housing for its clients. I look out of my office window

[1:55:45] across the back lawn and see a tangible representation of collaboration,

[1:55:51] connection, and community. Yes, in my backyard.

[1:55:56] Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much, sir. This is a

[1:56:00] public uh meeting and if there's anyone that wishes to speak, would they please

[1:56:04] come forward right now and identify themselves, their address? And I'd also

[1:56:08] ask you keep your remarks fairly succinct since we've had a number of

[1:56:11] delegations so far.

[1:56:25] » Thank you. Uh my name is William Scott, 35 Bradley Place.

[1:56:30] Had the honor of meeting uh meeting Deb Willis's uh two daughters yesterday. I

[1:56:34] hope they have a good future in uh public advocacy. I just wanted to point

[1:56:38] out uh three things. Not against affordable housing, and I don't mean to

[1:56:43] speak for uh the St. Bart's congregation, although I was a member

[1:56:47] there for 37 years until they closed. I think the proposed changes that Deb

[1:56:54] covered them to a certain extent. And I won't go into the traffic. Thought that

[1:56:57] was well covered. Too high at four stories compared to the standard twotory

[1:57:04] within a mile radius of St. Barts seems a bridge too far. The setbacks are

[1:57:11] insufficient. It'll be the closest building to Cathgart and will not fit in

[1:57:18] with the overall area. I would suggest affordable housing. I think we all

[1:57:26] support that, but a twostory building would seem to make much more sense for

[1:57:31] that location. And therefore, I would suggest or it would be my opinion that

[1:57:36] the uh proposed amendments to the bylaws uh not be allowed to go proceed.

[1:57:42] » Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. >> Okay, with that, I will I will close the

[1:57:47] public portion. I'm sorry, Mr. Folks, as the applicant, you have the right to

[1:57:51] come back to not reargue, but to rebut any factual things you think need to be

[1:57:56] addressed under the planning act.

[1:58:01] » Thank you, worship. I'll keep this brief. I'll just concentrate on the

[1:58:03] comments that I heard that I I don't necessarily agree with. I want council

[1:58:07] to give consideration to what should be considered. Um, first of all, um,

[1:58:11] council knows the documents that you need to consider. The provincial

[1:58:14] planning statement, the county of Lampson official plan, the city of

[1:58:17] Varnia official plan. Um those documents have been reviewed by myself as well as

[1:58:22] from Mr. Hyatt, Mr. Bradshaw and his team. We both agree that it is

[1:58:26] consistent with the PPS and conforms to those official plans. Second of all, I

[1:58:30] want to talk about exactly what council is voting on today. First of all,

[1:58:35] there's been talk about high density, increased density. I want to make it

[1:58:40] clear the official plan amendment is a reduction in height and a reduction in

[1:58:44] density. The only other changes are to allow a a smaller first floor and to

[1:58:49] allow more than 50% of the first floor to be used for residential space. The

[1:58:54] rest of it is a downward or a decrease in in intensification.

[1:58:59] Second of all, the zoning bylaw change here um I'll compare it to what is in

[1:59:05] the most recent draft. The changes for that is one parking which we've

[1:59:09] discussed. We're talking about a reduction in three parking spaces.

[1:59:14] Second change is the angular plane. So that is the setback a building needs to

[1:59:18] be from the property line in terms of its height. The building will be 14

[1:59:22] meters which is 2 meters taller than what can be built as of right anywhere

[1:59:26] in the neighborhood. And the setback is 8 m to a property line that doesn't even

[1:59:31] exist yet because it's owned by the county of lamp. the angler plane would

[1:59:35] be much or the setback to the north lot line which is the closest residential

[1:59:40] uses to the site is nearly double than what would be required. So I really just

[1:59:45] want to concentrate on those two items. Again, thank you for allowing me to

[1:59:48] adjust this and >> councelor McRoberts a question.

[1:59:53] » Thank you through the chair. I'm not sure if it would go to you or the county

[1:59:57] staff. If we're talking uh as a reference to

[2:00:01] only having a twostory building, what is the cost of having to build two twostory

[2:00:06] buildings in separate sites to house those that need it? And we're still not

[2:00:10] covering everyone that needs affordable housing at this point compared to the

[2:00:14] cost of one fourstory. >> Your worship to the to the question by

[2:00:18] the counselor. I'll defer to county staff on that the specifics of that. I

[2:00:22] do just want to highlight one more item that I think has been missed. In the

[2:00:26] official plan, the city strives to have 30% of all new units to be affordable.

[2:00:30] This would contribute a great deal to the city accomplishing that goal. Um,

[2:00:36] not only for affordable, but there's also targets for intensification. This

[2:00:40] intensification would help the city meet those goals as well.

[2:00:43] » Thank councelor Mc Roberts. >> Your workshop to councelor McRoberts. In

[2:00:48] terms of the cost of building two two-story buildings, I don't have those

[2:00:51] exact numbers, but we know in construction that the bulk of the cost

[2:00:55] comes from the foundation. It's the concrete, it's the rebar, it's the site

[2:00:58] work. Um, going higher is more cost effective than going uh longer or wider.

[2:01:04] It's that foundation work that is definitely the bulk. So, foreseeably,

[2:01:08] two separate buildings would be a sign cost.

[2:01:12] » Robert, follow up. As long as you're here, Melissa. Um,

[2:01:16] sorry, shouldn't have called you by your first name. Um, we are now

[2:01:22] train of thought. Give me one second. Oh, can we not just say and agree to

[2:01:27] that this will be deeply affordable and not supportive in its lifetime

[2:01:33] for this neighborhood and look for other sites for those builds?

[2:01:37] » Through your worship to councelor McRoberts. Um, as as you're aware,

[2:01:41] councelor McRoberts, at the March 44th county council meeting, council did

[2:01:46] declare the use of that property as RGI renting housing and not supportive

[2:01:50] housing. The intended use is to operate just like Jubilee Gardens is currently.

[2:01:55] Um, so that declaration has been made by county council.

[2:01:58] » Thank you, Councelor Dennis. And then >> Yes. Uh, thank you, Mayor Bradley.

[2:02:02] Actually, I have a question for both you folks. Um, are either one of you uh are

[2:02:07] uh Snee residents

[2:02:13] » uh through your worship? Again, I'm not sure if this is relevant to the whole

[2:02:16] application. I am a resident of Sarnia. Yes, I am.

[2:02:20] » Are you are you homeowners? >> I am. Yes.

[2:02:23] » Would you purchase a home right across from a facility like this?

[2:02:29] » I mean, that's a hypothetical question. you're here to present.

[2:02:32] » So, >> it's a relevant question.

[2:02:40] » I I don't think you would. >> I can I can comment on that in that the

[2:02:45] the build that's proposed is the same use that's already existing on the

[2:02:49] property. >> Well, no. My my question to you was as a

[2:02:54] SNI resident, as a a home own a homeowner, would you purchase a a home

[2:03:00] on a property or right across from a property like you were planning on

[2:03:03] building on Cathkart? Would you purchase a house next door or across the road?

[2:03:08] Yes or no? It's a simple question.

[2:03:13] » Through the chair again, I I don't believe it's relevant to this

[2:03:15] application. >> Oh, it's it's very re very relevant.

[2:03:18] » It's up to the council to make the decision. I appreciate your

[2:03:21] presentations and everyone else to present it on both sides of the issue,

[2:03:24] but it's up to the council to make a determination of this is good planning

[2:03:27] or not. So, thank you very much. >> One more question if I may, your

[2:03:32] worship. Um, and it could be to either either folks. Uh, with regard to

[2:03:39] I don't think there's been there's any argument that we need to build more

[2:03:43] affordable housing and rent gear to income is very similar to what's already

[2:03:47] there. You're correct in that statement. I think the biggest problem that people

[2:03:51] see from this is it's an overbuild on the site and the fact that it's going to

[2:03:55] be the dominant feature of this site. The second thing that they see is the

[2:04:00] encroachment more or less of the building to the sidewalk. So that it's

[2:04:06] it's just there all the like it's in your face as opposed to what was there

[2:04:11] which was there was no sidewalk at that point. So is there any um opportunity

[2:04:19] without going to the committee of adjustment to have this massaged a

[2:04:23] little bit more >> for your worship? Uh I'll address that

[2:04:28] question in terms of the setback from the street you're referring to. Um so

[2:04:32] what we planned on for this development is to comply with the standards in

[2:04:36] place. There is no reduction in the the setback from the street. Actually, it's

[2:04:41] going to be an increase from what the draft bylaw has for apartment building.

[2:04:45] As I mentioned in my presentation, this would be zoned to a MU2 according to the

[2:04:49] draft bylaw. And I believe the most recent draft had a 4.5 meter setback

[2:04:53] from the street. Mr. Hay can correct me if I'm wrong. What's being proposed here

[2:04:56] is 9 meters, so double what the city deems appropriate uh in their draft

[2:05:01] zoning bylaw. U there's also going to be sidewalk connections uh proposed along

[2:05:06] the street and to the the building itself. Um, again, I don't think that

[2:05:10] was mentioned in my presentation, but just to uh improve the the pedestrian

[2:05:14] infrastructure in the area, but in terms of the setback from the street, it would

[2:05:17] be double what was being proposed in the DR.

[2:05:20] » Thank you. >> Basically, what I'm looking for is that

[2:05:23] it can somehow um incorporate itself into the existing

[2:05:28] neighborhood without taking away from it.

[2:05:32] » I would hope that county staff would notice if there are adjustments that can

[2:05:35] be made that that could happen. With that, I'm going to close the public

[2:05:40] portion of the meeting and I'm going to look for a resolution of councel.

[2:05:45] Councelor White,

[2:05:50] you're moving the recommendation. Okay. Second. Councelor Kelner. Discussion.

[2:05:56] Councelor Dennis. Councelor Bar. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor Bradley. Um,

[2:06:01] » I'll record the vote for the record. >> I Yeah. Uh, yes. You're going to record

[2:06:05] the vote, sir? I just said that. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. It's a party

[2:06:09] hearing uh sitting here in my living room. I should be sitting in council

[2:06:12] right now. Anyhow, um I have had many many neighbors contact me uh over this

[2:06:18] uh development. Uh they are scared because there are no legal commitments

[2:06:22] to the neighbors regarding public safety, neighborhood stability, and

[2:06:26] long-term commitment or community impacts of this development. I have been

[2:06:30] told that even though this is not labeled supportive housing, there are no

[2:06:34] assurances or eligible elig eligibility requirements other than financial. Given

[2:06:41] the other situations we have in Sarnney regarding county h housing uh projects

[2:06:46] and neighborhood trauma, these concerns are very very real to some neighbors. If

[2:06:51] this were a traditional senior's housing development, my concerns would be

[2:06:55] significantly different. Senior housing has a wellestablished record and serves

[2:06:59] a clearly defined population. This is not what is being proposed here. This is

[2:07:03] an affordable housing project with eligibility criteria that have never

[2:07:08] ever been clearly explained to the surrounding community. Residents are

[2:07:12] being asked to take place uh to place their trust in a process without being

[2:07:17] provided the assurances they deserve. I have heard repeatedly from homeowners

[2:07:21] who are worried about the future of their neighborhood. And I understand

[2:07:24] why. Some neighbors have told me that people with severe drug addictions will

[2:07:29] be living there. that even though that even though it is not labeled supportive

[2:07:33] housing that no such eligibility criteria are in place to protect the

[2:07:38] neighbors from the devastation in other parts of our city. We do not have to

[2:07:43] look very far to find examples of neighborhoods in Sarna that have

[2:07:46] experienced significant challenges after a county housing was introduced. The

[2:07:50] reality is that many residents in Sarnia tell me their quality of life, sense of

[2:07:54] security, and enjoyment of their properties have been negatively

[2:07:57] affected. Those concerns simply uh cannot be dismissed. I see them as my I

[2:08:03] see them with my own eyes. The people living in this area have invested

[2:08:07] invested decades of hard work into their homes. For most, this their home is

[2:08:12] their largest financial asset and the foundation of their retirement security.

[2:08:16] They deserve more than vague assurances that everything will be fine. without

[2:08:20] clear answers, without clear eligibility criteria, without a neighborhood

[2:08:24] protection plan, without uh enforceable accountability measures if problems

[2:08:29] arise. I am not prepared to support a proposal that could put another

[2:08:33] established Sarnia neighborhood at risk. I said the same about the Inwell

[2:08:37] location because once a neighborhood is destabilized, it is extraordinarily

[2:08:42] difficult to reverse the damage. I am not prepared to ask the residents of

[2:08:45] this community to accept that risk without clear and credible safeguards.

[2:08:49] No neighborhood in any part of Sarnia at all should ever be subject to this

[2:08:54] disruption and I will be voting no to save this Cathkart neighborhood as I

[2:08:58] have consistently done with other neighborhoods in Sarnia. Thank you,

[2:09:01] » Councelor Burl. Councelor Burl, please. >> Uh, yes. Thank you, your worship. Um,

[2:09:08] I am going to be supporting this vote on the basis that I'm taking the word of

[2:09:15] the county that this is not going to be a support of housing, which I think was

[2:09:20] » Listen, I would just ask we've been being respectful to everyone that spoke

[2:09:24] and I would ask you to be respectful to the views that are being espoused by the

[2:09:27] council right now. the the um

[2:09:33] county has given the assurances that I've heard anyways

[2:09:38] that uh this will not be supportive housing. This will be primarily for

[2:09:42] seniors but mostly the criteria will be based on income.

[2:09:50] So on that basis and we certain we definitely need

[2:09:56] housing in our community for people who with lower incomes. Uh it's

[2:10:04] there are many people who are paying 20,000 a year for their apartments. So

[2:10:10] ordinary people definitely cannot not carry that. So

[2:10:17] um I will be supporting this. Okay, I've got Councelor White, Vandenberg, Gillis,

[2:10:23] and McRoberts. >> Uh, thank you uh, your worship and, uh,

[2:10:28] and again, just to extend a thanks to Mr. Folkins for continually reminding us

[2:10:33] what we're actually voting on here. Realistically, if this were to be

[2:10:38] defeated, the county would potentially have the right to build higher and put

[2:10:41] commercial space on the main floor, too. Um, we're not voting as to whether or

[2:10:46] not this is going to proceed. That's just the reality of the application

[2:10:49] that's in front of us today. Um, all of that said, I think it's also important

[2:10:55] to understand what the value is um that we're espousing as as a community and

[2:11:01] that uh ensuring that we have adequate and safe places for everybody to live is

[2:11:07] is top of mind. We're not talking about speculation here. We're talking about

[2:11:12] real evidence that indicates that when people are afforded the dignity, and

[2:11:16] we're talking about single bedroomedroom units here, uh, of having a safe place

[2:11:21] to lay down at night, that their lives transform

[2:11:25] for the net positive for everybody, themselves, everybody in their immediate

[2:11:30] relations, and of course for the community at large. When folks have a

[2:11:34] safe place to lay their head down and to store their personal belongings without

[2:11:39] fear that they're going to be stolen, they transform in ways that many of us

[2:11:46] will never have to truly understand. And and I'm grateful for that privilege that

[2:11:52] we don't have to make a choice whether or not we're eating or taking

[2:11:55] medications that we need. We don't have a choice uh as to whether or not we

[2:11:59] should consider going back to uh an abusive partner because we can't afford

[2:12:04] to live uh on our own in a safe environment

[2:12:09] uh or take uh a couch somewhere in a unit that is far too expensive for any

[2:12:14] single person to live in at their income level uh and find themselves in a

[2:12:19] situation where they are vulnerable for many reasons that I don't need to uh go

[2:12:24] into detail here. Let your imagination do its thing.

[2:12:29] Realistically, our community should be open to

[2:12:33] everybody. And we've got a brilliant opportunity here for people to walk to

[2:12:38] our most treasured parks or to use bikes in our bike lanes to go to our most

[2:12:43] treasured parks not even uh a kilometer away to provide access to uh businesses

[2:12:50] in the neighborhood to new clientele, new customers, right? as they get as

[2:12:56] they as they are suddenly able to spend more money because they're not blowing

[2:13:00] all their cash on an unaffordable unit somewhere perhaps with a landlord who

[2:13:06] doesn't consider their quality of life as the top of mind but rather continual

[2:13:11] rent increases. Having people with more disposable income such that it may be

[2:13:17] can be a significant bo to people who run businesses in the area and it's been

[2:13:22] demonstrated to be so. So, I'm not going to uh allow false um images of what may

[2:13:31] be in the hypothetical here when I know the evidence indicates otherwise. The

[2:13:36] county run stellar properties by and large and they've done a significant

[2:13:40] amount of work over the last number of years to restore the ones that have been

[2:13:44] damaged. Are there unfortunate realities that go with that? Absolutely. and look

[2:13:48] to any private uh privately owned property where they've subdivided either

[2:13:53] a house into multiple units inside illegally or otherwise or any privately

[2:13:58] owned apartment building and ask what their vetting process is as well for

[2:14:02] people to live in there whether they're living on a couch or whether they're

[2:14:06] actually the lease holder. It's unfair to paint people, you know,

[2:14:11] with this negative connotation without giving them the opportunity to thrive.

[2:14:16] And part of what we're doing here today is ensuring that people have safety and

[2:14:20] that's all people. >> I've got councelor Vandenberg, councelor

[2:14:24] Gillis, councelor McRoberts, and then I'll call the question and record the

[2:14:27] vote. >> Sorry. Go ahead.

[2:14:29] » Thank you, your worship. My my concern here today and the lady, the first

[2:14:32] speaker talked about it. Um, criminal activity. Um, how come we didn't get

[2:14:37] anything from the county on on the projects that they have that are

[2:14:41] underway right now or or that people are living in on criminal activity in those

[2:14:45] neighborhoods? Um, is there reports on that? Is there criminal activity even

[2:14:49] even occurring? So, I I think it would have been important, you know, to bring

[2:14:53] that material to us to uh understand that this might occur in their

[2:14:58] neighborhood. I don't know. But like I don't know what the criminal activity is

[2:15:01] around Jubilee Gardens or the other places and I just wish somebody had

[2:15:05] brought that to us today. So >> thank you. I've got councelor Gillis,

[2:15:08] councelor Mc Roberts, councelor Kner and you'll have the last word and then I'll

[2:15:12] call the question record the vote. >> Uh thank you worship. I'm looking at it

[2:15:16] from a planning perspective. I do understand that uh if we do not approve

[2:15:21] this, it opens the door for a larger building to be on on site if I

[2:15:27] interpreted that right. Is that correct? Where did Jordan go? Is that correct?

[2:15:32] Um, but one of the problems I do have is I think even this is an overbuild on

[2:15:37] this site. And I'm um I'm worried as well with the Mance that's right beside

[2:15:42] it and what that will turn into on that site. I'm not 100% sure that this is a

[2:15:48] county building. I don't believe it is. I think it's an an indwell run building

[2:15:51] if I'm correct. It isn't. It's specifically county

[2:15:58] that gives me a certain level of uh comfort again with the um what was what

[2:16:04] would be the um

[2:16:08] great evangelism and various um onward activity happening around the area

[2:16:13] currently. Um as a member of the police services board I would say from the

[2:16:18] information that I've gotten uh it's rather benign. it isn't as uh difficult

[2:16:23] as other areas um that have um a large conglomerate or clusters of people.

[2:16:30] I am concerned however from the setback. I'm really concerned about the setback

[2:16:35] and how it's going to impact on the community as well. And I I wanted to

[2:16:40] thank Roy Pard for um sending us a message

[2:16:46] where he is in support of um the actual build, but he is he's talking about

[2:16:53] what's there now. And I can attest to that because I go by the uh Cathcart on

[2:16:59] my way to to mass every Sunday. One of the things that I've noticed as well is

[2:17:04] the fact that there's no sidewalks. the sidewalks are not on the um north side

[2:17:10] of Cathkart, they're on the south side of Cathkart and there's no sidewalks at

[2:17:14] all. And that in itself gives a false security in one way but takes away the

[2:17:20] ability to walk down the street on the other. And for senior citizens

[2:17:24] particularly walking on the north side, and this has to do with us, nobody else

[2:17:29] on the north side of Cathkart, you can't walk on the north side of Cathkart. how

[2:17:34] people usually end up walking on the street. So for that, I think there's a

[2:17:38] definite upgrades that that we need to do as this all comes together to to

[2:17:44] ensure that it is a walkable neighborhood and a safe neighborhood and

[2:17:48] particularly when you've got the um businesses in that location as well and

[2:17:52] you've got the bus stop right there. So there are problems with it already and

[2:17:57] my concern is when I see more people coming into that area, it's going to be

[2:18:01] 10 times worse. So, I think there's a role for the city to play in this. Even

[2:18:05] though we've been largely um as a city councelor not involved in any of this, I

[2:18:11] think that the city has to take some ownership with its infrastructure

[2:18:16] when this goes in or if it goes in. You have to have someplace for people to

[2:18:21] walk. You have to have someplace for people to ride their bikes. You have to

[2:18:25] have a decent um transit system that will accommodate the number of people

[2:18:29] that you have coming in here. And that's pivotally important to the success of

[2:18:35] this building. The other thing I think is pivotally important is the setbacks.

[2:18:40] And I would argue with you and I do recall uh Jordan when you were working

[2:18:44] for the city you were very very >> distinct

[2:18:50] about the shadows of the building the um many many things that that would impede

[2:18:56] on the success of the community around with regard to the the height of the

[2:19:00] buildings and he's not wrong in that at all. Having said that though and

[2:19:06] realizing that there have been many many concessions made since I've attended

[2:19:12] Sacred Heart um the community meeting with regard to the height of the

[2:19:17] building that's definitive uh with the fact that it's being

[2:19:21] declared as a geared to income that's definitive and the fact that it's owned

[2:19:26] by and operated by correct by the county that in itself is definitive. So I will

[2:19:34] be supporting this. >> I've got councelor Mc Roberts and

[2:19:37] councelor Kner and then the question. >> Thank you through the chair. I've

[2:19:41] mentioned this out at the county before. Most folks that are having issues with

[2:19:46] funds or need to be on any type of social enterprise tend to come to Sarnia

[2:19:51] for help and now we're housing them. It's a small amount of people, but my

[2:19:57] question would be again, why are we not sourcing spots out in the county,

[2:20:02] specifically Wyoming, when we've got the county building right there and we could

[2:20:05] have some type of social service outlet there for them. There's a community

[2:20:10] there, there's shopping, there's church, there's everything that they could need

[2:20:14] except coming all the way back to Sarnia. So, those that could be out

[2:20:19] there, that's number one question. Second would be, and I've said this in

[2:20:23] council before, there have been all our homes didn't

[2:20:27] just start there in Sarnia. There was some neighbor, some business, somebody

[2:20:32] near you that didn't want your build to go there.

[2:20:35] » They Roberts to the chair. That way you keep the

[2:20:39] relationship better with >> my fault.

[2:20:41] » Right. >> We can't pick our own neighbors.

[2:20:46] And here we are. I work with people, lift them up, give them an opportunity.

[2:20:53] But the county, we have got to make sure that our buildings are looked after

[2:20:59] for the neighborhood and that has been falling to the wayside. The drop in

[2:21:03] centers and all of the sites, we have to do better than we are. Most buildings

[2:21:08] have some form of security or a manager on site that if there is an issue, it

[2:21:13] can be handled immediately and we are not doing that. So, let's not save that

[2:21:18] buck and make sure that it's looked after. Thank you.

[2:21:21] » Councelor Con, you have the last word and then we I'll call the question.

[2:21:25] » Thank you, Mayor Bradley. Um, one of the things that I think through a number of

[2:21:31] these discussions that has come up and it's it's hard for me to discern

[2:21:38] um anything other than um

[2:21:43] we repeatedly come across people who feel like the consultation periods are

[2:21:49] either not adequate or too quick. Um I don't know how we remedy that moving

[2:21:54] forward. Um the other parts uh to this conversation

[2:22:00] uh that have me thinking are some of the stuff that we've discussed before uh

[2:22:08] repeatedly. There's these are easily Google Google facts um about

[2:22:16] will property values go down. um the surveys we have in this country um uh

[2:22:22] you know have re repeated observations that that's not something that happens

[2:22:28] traffic will increase uh not necessarily we've had the discussion about parking

[2:22:33] uh and we've heard the 36 number from county staff I think it was.36

[2:22:39] I'm not allowed to look at them um I'm supposed

[2:22:42] » not that I'm trying to keep that um >> relationship [laughter] with the council

[2:22:46] and with the audience >> yeah yeah the strain on public services.

[2:22:50] Um the location to me in terms of walkability does seem uh you know writes

[2:22:57] family value mart and and and such being close by um or it's not rights anymore

[2:23:05] but anywh who um and lastly

[2:23:10] uh new residents won't fit into the neighborhood. uh that that remains to be

[2:23:15] seen because we don't know who the neighbors are and I tend to work on the

[2:23:20] Mr. Rogers, won't you please? Won't you please? Please, won't you be my

[2:23:23] neighbor? Affordable housing won't fit the character of the neighborhood.

[2:23:26] That's I think something that we do. I I think I I am discerning what um

[2:23:31] councelor uh Gillis has said about that uh in terms of the setbacks, but I think

[2:23:37] that's also a process that can emerge if if um we're honest and truthful with

[2:23:42] each other moving forward in the design and the plan. Uh crime will increase, so

[2:23:48] on and so forth. I I I just always do struggle

[2:23:53] um in here. And I also want to give kudos to um M. Ms. Willis for at least

[2:23:59] surveying the neighborhood. Uh thank you for doing that. Uh at the same point, um

[2:24:06] uh you know, um from my perspective, I I think we need to move forward with this.

[2:24:12] Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll call the question and

[2:24:14] record the vote. Those in favor of the uh proposed resolution which is to move

[2:24:19] forward on this project. Those in fi favor councelor Gillis Vanderberg White

[2:24:25] Bushie Ker McRoberts Burl and myself. Those

[2:24:29] opposed. Councelor Dennis and that passes. We have two more delegations if

[2:24:34] they're ready to come forward now to talk about renovations.

[2:24:39] Mr. Quan, would you like to come forward please? And

[2:24:45] Good afternoon, m uh Mayor Bradley and council. I'm the first delegate, but I

[2:24:49] humbly request that the sec second delegate proceed first. Mr. Bolter can

[2:24:53] provide the local context uh for council and its deliberation of the rental

[2:24:57] renovation bylaw and certainly I can provide the provincial context which is

[2:25:02] what we're my organization is more attuned to. Yeah, with all respect we we

[2:25:06] don't I don't allow that as chair like we we whoever's in the batting order

[2:25:10] bats and we we'll be able to raise any questions directly with Mr. Bolter. So

[2:25:15] with all respect that's what we do here because everyone wants to go last.

[2:25:20] » I'm sorry. >> Everyone wants to go last.

[2:25:21] » I see. Fair enough. Fair enough. >> Okay.

[2:25:24] » Please go ahead. >> Thank you very much. Uh my name is

[2:25:27] Douglas Quan, the director of advocacy and legal services at the Advocacy

[2:25:31] Center for Tent Ontario. We uh we are community legal clinic located in

[2:25:35] Toronto with the provincial mandate to advance tenants rights. We also operate

[2:25:39] the uh the tan duty council program that provides services for 20,000

[2:25:44] self-represented tenants of the landlord tent board each and every year. Next

[2:25:47] slide please. And next slide please.

[2:25:52] So I'm here to just to report to council on the success of the renovation bylaws

[2:25:56] in Ontario. Next slide. Hamilton was the f uh so it uh to give

[2:26:03] you some context all municipal bylaws have certain specific features. The

[2:26:07] renovation bylaws have a licensing process. They have ongoing obligations

[2:26:12] from the landlord throughout the life of the license. Usually the municipality

[2:26:16] requires a third party report that determines vacant possession is

[2:26:19] necessary for repair or renovation. There's also an education component for

[2:26:23] landlords and tenants after the N13 is served. Um, there are also significant

[2:26:28] fines applied to landlords circumventing the bylaw. Some bylaws required

[2:26:32] landlords to pay rent gap payments, which is the difference between what

[2:26:35] they're paying in rent in the former unit and what they're paying in the

[2:26:38] market, and moving expenses. Some bylaws also include a tenant support fund or

[2:26:43] office. And some municipalities have added an additional fine if the landlord

[2:26:47] receives a significant economic advantage as a result of the renovation.

[2:26:51] So, picture you renovate 300 units in your particular building. There's that's

[2:26:55] quite a windfall. Next slide, please. So, Hamilton's uh the first municipal

[2:27:02] off the bat to reports its first year success. They found that they there was

[2:27:06] an 80% drop in the number of renovation applications at the landlord tenant

[2:27:10] board. They also uh found that uh through their personal through their

[2:27:16] bylaw, it is a tenant compensation component in there that helped dissuade

[2:27:21] landlords from sitting on their hands from performing the actual repairs or

[2:27:24] renovations after the license has been uh um obtained.

[2:27:29] uh as well. Uh after reviewing the first year success of their bylaw, they

[2:27:34] recommended the staff recommended that moving expenses should be added. Uh

[2:27:38] throughout the life of that bylaw for the first year, landlords continue to

[2:27:42] perform necessary repairs and renovations on their particular units.

[2:27:46] Next slide. The city of London uh passed their bylaw

[2:27:52] uh in March of last year. uh their bylaw did not have a tenant compensation focus

[2:27:57] but nevertheless they also saw a similar uh success of over 65% drop in the

[2:28:03] number of renovations um uh that took place in London.

[2:28:08] The bylaw also allowed again landlords to continue with their repairs and

[2:28:13] renovations that were necessary for their units. [snorts] And next slide

[2:28:17] please. We're still waiting on Toronto's results. Their renovation bylaw was

[2:28:22] passed in July of last year that their bylaw includes a rent gap payment,

[2:28:27] moving expenses for the tenant, and an extraordinary profit fine. Uh legal

[2:28:32] clinics have already reported ever since the implementation of the bylaw that uh

[2:28:37] organizations that support tenants uh and established residents, they found a

[2:28:41] dramatic drop in the number of inquiries with respect to renovations, renovations

[2:28:46] I should say. Uh and again throughout uh the entire time landlords have been able

[2:28:51] to make necessary repairs and renovations to their units. Next slide.

[2:28:58] These are the other municipalities that are looking into u implementing or

[2:29:02] already have implemented their bylaws. Missaga passed their bylaw in April to

[2:29:07] start in September 1st. It includes a rent cap payment and moving expenses.

[2:29:11] Waterloo passed their bylaw to uh this earlier uh this year with a 2027

[2:29:17] implementation. Again, a rent gap payment and moving expenses. Smith Falls

[2:29:21] has a draft bylaw that also includes a rent gap compensation. G uh two weeks

[2:29:27] ago passed their uh rent eviction bylaw to begin on October 2026. And Chad Kent

[2:29:34] tonight will be passing hopefully their bylaw which also includes a rent gap

[2:29:38] payment and moving expenses. Next slide.

[2:29:44] Uh so there's been a lot have been said about the province. Uh why doesn't the

[2:29:49] province step in? Don't they already protect tenants? Uh they province passed

[2:29:53] a legislation called bill 97 three and a half years ago that was um introduced to

[2:30:00] address the increasing scourge of renovations in Ontario. However, we've

[2:30:05] been waiting for three and a half years for its implementation. Next slide,

[2:30:09] please.

[2:30:12] And so we've heard that this summer there some of the pieces of bill 97 will

[2:30:16] go online. The pieces that will uh be enforced are uh provisions that protect

[2:30:23] hands after they've already been renovicted, which means they have to

[2:30:26] pursue their remedy at the landlord's hand board um afterwards.

[2:30:31] Next slide, please. A key component of what's not been

[2:30:35] enforced in Bill 97 is the requirement for a specialized report from uh an

[2:30:42] architect or an engineer or a third party that identifies the requirement

[2:30:46] that vacant possession is necessary for the unit. That important piece uh that

[2:30:51] could dissuade rent evictions from happening in the first place has not

[2:30:54] been enforced. Next slide.

[2:30:59] And that is why as an organization uh we want to recommend to this council that

[2:31:06] renovation bylaws are still necessary for several reasons. As I said earlier,

[2:31:10] bill 97 only helps tenants after they've been renovicted. The increase in fines

[2:31:15] in bill 97 only only occur when the ministry steps in and issues those fines

[2:31:21] is not instituted on behalf of any litigation uh initiated by the tenant

[2:31:26] themselves. as well. We all know the delays of the landlord tamp board which

[2:31:31] frustrates all the parties who are trying to seek redress at the board and

[2:31:35] on those orders where the landlord tampboard has issued orders against bad

[2:31:39] faith landlords. About 13 from 2020 to 2023, um only four of those 13 orders

[2:31:45] have been paid back in full. And all 13 of those orders issued fines of less

[2:31:50] than $10,000 which can be easily recouped from the next tenant uh that

[2:31:55] the landlord charges the new rent to. Comparably, look at the municipal

[2:32:00] bylaws. They what they do is they are preventive measure. They're like the

[2:32:04] smoke alarms to prevent the fires from happening in the first place. They offer

[2:32:08] a tenant compensation because they prevent landlords from sitting on their

[2:32:12] hands waiting for 8 months to a year to replace that kitchen faucet. Um they

[2:32:18] also protect a your existing affordable housing stock. And as you can see, a

[2:32:22] recent study of um of rents uh looks at how older buildings uh older than 2020

[2:32:29] are highly soughta in in the sense that rents are going up

[2:32:34] by far three times higher than newer units because of the fact that they're

[2:32:38] larger units. They're rent controlled. Um and it also helps protect your

[2:32:42] established residents who are often vulnerable from being displaced. Next

[2:32:46] slide.

[2:32:50] Next slide, please.

[2:32:54] So, I'm here to support staff's recommendation for the bylaw with two

[2:32:58] comments. Specifically, we're seeking council's recommendation

[2:33:03] support to suggest to staff a tenant compensation component be included in a

[2:33:09] renovation bylaw. As I said earlier, a tenant compensation component will

[2:33:14] prevent a landlord from just sitting on their hands and not doing the necessary

[2:33:18] repairs when uh when they have to. Uh it would follow in line with other

[2:33:22] municipalities such as Missaga, Toronto, Hamilton, Smith Falls, and Chattam Kent.

[2:33:27] And the second piece is in the staff report, it suggests an administrative

[2:33:31] monetary penalty system to be applied for those landlords uh who are behaving

[2:33:36] badly and wish to circumvent the bylaw. It's an unusual suggestion because when

[2:33:40] you look at other bylaws, they look they utilize the existing laws which is under

[2:33:45] the municipal act section 425 which already allows penalties of up to

[2:33:50] $10,000 for individuals and up to $50,000 for corporations. Such examples

[2:33:55] in G and Smith Falls and Champ, they use the existing uh uh laws and and and

[2:34:01] remedies that are available to municipalities. So these existing fines

[2:34:05] and offenses um you see them in play uh as you know in situations where someone

[2:34:12] doesn't cut the grass properly or or or they they leave all their garbage on the

[2:34:16] wrong day. Uh these are just standard fines that are contained within the

[2:34:20] municipal act and can be utilized uh uh in the service of this renovation or

[2:34:25] this rental uh uh rental and repair and renovation bylaw. Uh, thank you for your

[2:34:31] time and I'm open to any questions you might have.

[2:34:33] » Are there any questions? >> I'm not seeing but thank you again for

[2:34:37] the presentation. >> Thank you,

[2:34:38] » Mr. Boulder.

[2:34:48] » Mayor and Council Andrew Bolter. I work as the executive director of community

[2:34:52] legal assistance funded by legal aid Ontario and we have

[2:34:58] a mandate in the whole county. Uh a bulk of our clients however come from Sarnia

[2:35:03] for obvious reasons. Population density here. Um I'm going to

[2:35:08] talk about what's happening locally. Um what we're seeing locally is that aging

[2:35:14] buildings are being purchased by investors, out of town investors, out of

[2:35:20] town companies. Um and they are purchasing these properties. They are

[2:35:27] then doing an assessment of the property and they're making the suggestion or the

[2:35:34] claim that the entire building needs to be empty for them to do the necessary.

[2:35:40] Um tenants we're finding are either asked to leave

[2:35:45] uh encouraged to leave with what we call cash for keys, sometimes offered up to

[2:35:50] $5,000 to leave and not go through the N13

[2:35:54] process. Now the N13 pro process is a document that basically tells the tenant

[2:36:01] that uh you need to move out. You normally get a month's rent and um

[2:36:08] it's a process that goes through the landlord tenant board.

[2:36:12] Um there's a lot of tensions. I mean nobody's saying to a landlord, you can't

[2:36:18] repair a building, you can't maintain a building.

[2:36:21] What's happening is that for instance, I I'll give you some for

[2:36:26] instance, Village Green on Xmouth Street.

[2:36:31] But um what happened there? Uh tenants were given eviction notices tied to

[2:36:38] planned renovations. The landlord offered some of them $5,000

[2:36:44] early. And think to yourself, if you're in a rental unit, fixed income, low

[2:36:48] income, a lot of seniors have been there, live there, been there 30 plus

[2:36:52] years, these are their homes, and they're served a notice or they're off

[2:36:56] at $5,000 to leave. Some will take it because they're

[2:37:02] scared. they don't understand their rights and some will

[2:37:06] just freeze or some people will call the legal clinic and we say no you you you

[2:37:12] don't leave based on the notice. So what happened at village green was um the

[2:37:18] long-term tenant tenants felt pressured to leave. So we organized a tenants

[2:37:23] group or we didn't organize it there are advocates on the ground who did that

[2:37:27] which is amazing. Um what happened there is the landlord was claiming

[2:37:33] [clears throat] that the whole building needed to be empty because there was

[2:37:36] asbestous in the building. No evidence of that. In fact, a follow-up has shown

[2:37:42] that there's no asbestous in the building. That would be a safety

[2:37:44] concern. This company, this particular company that is doing this has done this

[2:37:50] in other parts of the province.

[2:37:55] They're doing exactly the same letter. In fact, they forgot to take the address

[2:37:59] off one of them and it was through residents. This is a unfortunately there

[2:38:05] are many good landlords out there who follow the rules.

[2:38:09] A pattern we're seeing with other landlords across the province. Um,

[2:38:15] wrenchly branchly that is another building that was emptied because of

[2:38:19] major renovations. Now in that case the renovations were necessary and and the

[2:38:25] tenants were required to move out for various safety reasons and they did but

[2:38:31] what's happened there is delay after delay after delay. And what happens when

[2:38:36] tenants move out is they have to make other arrangements. They either rerent

[2:38:40] or they sometimes leave town. We had one family actually from Earl's Court that

[2:38:47] had to abandon all their belongings and move back to Alberta so the guy could

[2:38:51] live with his dad with his wife and new kid because he could not afford any

[2:38:56] other way of living. Um

[2:39:00] so the branch it's just delay delay delay. Um and there's no teeth there's

[2:39:07] no teeth make the landlord move quicker and that's a problem. And the longer the

[2:39:12] landlord waits, the more the existing tenants who do have a right to return at

[2:39:17] the same rent disappear. They go away. They've made other arrangements. Their

[2:39:22] kids might be in other schools. Other things happen in life. So the longer the

[2:39:26] the delay, the better it is for the landlord and the more profit that

[2:39:30] particular out of town corporation can make on our most usually most vulnerable

[2:39:35] citizens. These old buildings have rent controls

[2:39:39] and the rents are relatively low. You know, some of the bu some of the rents

[2:39:44] in um Earl's Court was actually $700. Now they're renting between $1,500 and

[2:39:50] $1,700. Um

[2:39:55] we've had a number of situations where seniors are struggling on their fixed

[2:40:01] pensions. Like I said before, it's the fear they

[2:40:07] think the landlords have control. People think the landlords have the power and

[2:40:11] they don't realize they don't. Going to the landlord tenant board is um is slow.

[2:40:19] It's technical and it's it doesn't necessarily answer

[2:40:25] the immediate problem of an individual who is struggling with their families or

[2:40:31] to to pay the rent to find somewhere else to live.

[2:40:36] The shocking thing about the Earl's Court case, and it's incidentally still

[2:40:40] going on, we're going back to divisional court on it. We've already been to the

[2:40:43] court of appeal. The landlord appealed. We're now going back to divisional court

[2:40:48] on another appeal. Again, delay. Luckily, the tenants are back in. We had

[2:40:53] to get the sheriff to do the opposite of what the sheriff normally does, which is

[2:40:57] evict. We had to have the sheriff restore them to their units. The sheriff

[2:41:01] had to force the landlord. He went in. We had locksmiths change the locks so

[2:41:06] the tenants could go back into their units and the landlord fought to the

[2:41:09] bitter end to stop that happening. This is why I think you need to look at this

[2:41:15] bylaw in the in the context of give it some

[2:41:19] teeth because I think a lot of these landlords

[2:41:23] some landlords see their their operations as a service. We're providing

[2:41:27] homes. We protect the tenants in our homes. We make sure there's security. we

[2:41:32] repair things, those kinds of things. Other landlords, it's transactional.

[2:41:37] They just want to maximize profit per unit. And out of actually out of

[2:41:42] country, investors are investing in Canada to these organizations to buy up

[2:41:46] these buildings. It's it's bigger than you think.

[2:41:51] So, we would like penalties and compensation to be included in the bylaw

[2:41:55] if possible. Um, I think that's all I have to say. Thank

[2:42:00] you. Thank you very much. Thanks very much, council. The report's on the

[2:42:05] agenda for you. It's item number one. You've heard from the speakers. We've

[2:42:08] had this issue in front of us a number of times. I'm looking for a motion to

[2:42:12] send this back to staff to move forward. Councelor Gillis, Councelor Vandenberg.

[2:42:16] Any discussion? Councelor Burl, councelor Dennis.

[2:42:22] » Uh yes, your worship. Uh I will not be supporting this one.

[2:42:27] I um I feel we're taking on

[2:42:33] really a duty that is the duty of the province, not our duty.

[2:42:39] And it's just going to cause our folks have more work, more

[2:42:44] headaches. I I'm not aware of there being a big

[2:42:52] problem with this. there is as indicated here, but usually the

[2:42:57] people that are doing it are often the bigger corporations

[2:43:03] and um they have the monies to fight it and

[2:43:08] that's who the province should be taking on and uh I just feel that's not this is

[2:43:17] not work our people should be doing. Thank you. I've got councelor Dennis and

[2:43:22] councelor Vandenberg and I'll call the question.

[2:43:24] » Uh thank you, Mayor Bradley. Um I I do have a concern with the report before

[2:43:29] us. Um when council directed staff to review this matter, uh we specifically

[2:43:33] requested a cost an analysis that was not a minor part of the request. In

[2:43:38] fact, understanding the financial implications is essential if council is

[2:43:42] expected to make an informed decision. Why hasn't the CEO advised us before now

[2:43:47] that our request wasn't going to be met? How can council make decisions with the

[2:43:52] only part of the with only part of the information uh requested? As a reminder,

[2:43:57] my original motion on this matter was back in February. Let's face it, a plan

[2:44:01] without teeth is not worth the paper it's written on. Also, the proposal

[2:44:05] before us doesn't deal with the protection needed for good landlords as

[2:44:08] well as for for tenants who cause damage or play games which is needed to protect

[2:44:14] the good landlords. We need a plan which protects good landlords and good uh good

[2:44:19] tenants and penalizes the bad ones. How can we vote today on a on a part plan?

[2:44:24] When the exact timing uh uh when is the exact timing when this request will be

[2:44:30] met? Thank you. >> Thank you. I've got councelor Vanderberg

[2:44:33] and then I'll deal with the question. >> Uh thank you worship. Um maybe everybody

[2:44:37] already forgot about Mr. Quan's presentation, but he said as soon as

[2:44:40] they put the renovation bylaw in effect um applications, the N13s went way down.

[2:44:47] So, I think that that thing is working and I think we should be supporting it.

[2:44:51] » I'll call the question.

[2:44:56] » There was not an answer to the question posed by Mr. Dennis that there was

[2:45:02] supposed to be a financial cost in here. Unfortunately, the CEO is not

[2:45:07] here today, but um can someone on staff speak to uh that that question?

[2:45:15] » Go ahead. >> Sure. Through the mayor. Uh so

[2:45:19] through uh looking at the February motion, um staff understood that council

[2:45:25] um wanted a a report as soon as possible um on this issue. And as part of that um

[2:45:33] to expedite the process a licensing only bylaw was re recommended. Uh we can

[2:45:40] certainly explore the amps. Um it's just not a

[2:45:44] mechanism. It's it's not a system that we currently have in place. That's not

[2:45:47] to say that if that is council's direction that we cannot go in that

[2:45:50] route. Um we can certainly explore uh offenses under the municipal act as well

[2:45:55] as was suggested um to do with the uh cost analysis. Staff are still proposing

[2:46:01] that we do such an analysis. However, again, in the interest of time, we

[2:46:05] wanted to bring this back with the recommendation for the the bylaw. Um

[2:46:09] because if we were to bring both at once, it would have it would have meant

[2:46:12] we didn't have a report at this time. Thank you.

[2:46:14] » Thank you. Well, I'll call the question. Those in f counselor Gillis,

[2:46:17] » I'm sorry, your worship. Don't mean to interrupt, but uh picking up on Mr. Quan

[2:46:22] and Mr. Boulders, I don't recall seeing anything with regard to um any

[2:46:27] penalties. Uh this is simply redirect staff to

[2:46:31] draft a renovation licensing bylaw, but there's nothing in here about the

[2:46:36] penalties that should be um >> put with them. Does will that need more

[2:46:42] study? Uh so through the mayor uh if that is

[2:46:46] the direction of council we can certainly look to include the uh

[2:46:50] offenses through municipal act sorry um as well as any gap payments or moving

[2:46:56] expenses. >> If if the motion passes I'll take that

[2:46:59] as a friendly amendment to it if that's fine with moving sector. Okay.

[2:47:03] » Yes. >> All right. Let me call the question.

[2:47:05] I'll record the vote. Those in favor council Vanderberg White Bush Mc Roberts

[2:47:11] Kellner and myself. Those opposed? Council.

[2:47:17] Yes. Council Bro, you're opposed. Okay. So,

[2:47:21] the question passes. All right. Can we move that the regular agenda? We've got

[2:47:24] some people patiently waiting to deal with humane society issues. So, let's um

[2:47:29] uh first second item is reconstruction of Ontario Street.

[2:47:35] Councelor Burl, you're moving it. Second,

[2:47:38] councelor White. All in favor? That is done.

[2:47:44] Number three is the an upgrade significant upgrade of the Clearwater uh

[2:47:47] baseball diamonds, councelor Burl, Councelor White. All those in favor,

[2:47:54] » your worship, may I ask a question? >> Um

[2:47:59] who is this company that's uh put in this proposal? Because I can't find

[2:48:04] them. Um they're operating at at an address on

[2:48:08] Elgenfield Road out in Middle Sex County.

[2:48:13] uh there is no presence on the internet. They have no website and they show us

[2:48:17] TDS turf drainage systems. So, and then when you do do your search, it says that

[2:48:24] they've already got this contract. So, I'm a little concerned about this.

[2:48:28] » Can someone on staff address that question? Usually, we see there's some

[2:48:33] past history with the company

[2:48:38] » through to council. I would assume that would have all been handled through the

[2:48:41] procurement process.

[2:48:45] » Someone speak to that? I don't want council voting on this without a high

[2:48:49] level of comfort. >> Uh through the mayor? I don't have that

[2:48:53] information at the moment, but I can certainly um to that.

[2:48:55] » So, can I go back to the parks and wreck? Um how immediate can this wait

[2:49:00] till the next meeting?

[2:49:04] I'm tight because of the time of year.

[2:49:09] through the merit to council. I can look into it and report back.

[2:49:12] » I guess my question, Mr. McN, is a month going to delay it beyond it being a

[2:49:16] practical tender for this year? >> Could be.

[2:49:20] » I suggest we approve it with more information to come back that

[2:49:24] is to the satisfaction of council. Mr. counter.

[2:49:30] » Um, so like a simple Google search, it's VR, as far as I understand, it's VRC

[2:49:35] contracting and um, it's the first result that comes up on Google

[2:49:40] in Lucan. Now if you know our procurement policy which gets criticized

[2:49:45] quite a bit, it is so ex uh detailed and deep that I have to take a leap of faith

[2:49:51] and believe that this group has been vetted and

[2:49:56] » I would suggest we go ahead with it because it is a baseball thing and

[2:50:00] baseball season is only a certain length of time. So

[2:50:04] » well if the question passes I would ask councelor that we still get

[2:50:08] » a bit of a dive back to us and in the future that happens. It is a good point.

[2:50:11] We should make sure these people are upstanding people.

[2:50:15] » Yeah. >> So to the clerk, the motion is to

[2:50:18] approve it and information back to council on on on this company.

[2:50:25] » All right. All those in favor. That's done. Moving to um this is an

[2:50:31] agreement between OG which there's no money to attach to it right now, but

[2:50:35] councelor Bro, you're moving it. Um just move this forward. Councelor

[2:50:41] Gillis. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor?

[2:50:46] That's done. Uh item uh five is related to declaring a piece of land uh that the

[2:50:52] Humane Society was interested in a number of years ago. They're back to

[2:50:54] that site. I have put a notice of motion to you. Uh it's an unusual one because I

[2:50:59] normally wouldn't do it, but since we've been dealing with them for about six

[2:51:02] years and we need to bring this to an end for their sake and our sake, I'm

[2:51:06] suggesting that you uh give them the first right of refusal if there are any

[2:51:09] other interested parties. Councelor Ker, you're moving that. Councelor White, any

[2:51:14] discussion. >> What is the motion? Because you're

[2:51:18] talking two different things. >> Uh the motion is the one that I sent to

[2:51:22] you last week. Uh surplus declaration. Uh council proceeds to the declaration

[2:51:27] as a of a portion of Centennial Park as suggested surplus that the Sonia

[2:51:32] District Humane Society be given first right of refusal and that be

[2:51:35] incorporated into the public notice.

[2:51:41] » Councelor Dennis. >> Uh I do have some comments if that's

[2:51:44] okay. Sir, >> you have a second.

[2:51:51] » Do we have a mover and second? I think the motion goes.

[2:52:00] » Is it okay to go ahead, sir? >> Well, well, you can do it. There's a

[2:52:03] couple here that the um the motion should be that we declare the land

[2:52:07] surplus and then you put in my motion if you agree with it into the overall

[2:52:11] motion. >> Um yeah, I I I agree with

[2:52:15] » I have a move in second. Do I have a move? We got a move here. Yeah. But I

[2:52:17] want also understand you agreed to the first right of refusal. Okay. I I I want

[2:52:22] to make a friendly amendment to it, sir. >> Well, we already have a motion on the

[2:52:26] floor. Moved and seconded. >> But I'd like to make a friendly

[2:52:29] amendment to your motion, sir. which is >> um well that um that uh um given the uh

[2:52:38] given the uh history uh with the uh um the humane society um the city in my

[2:52:45] opinion and the opinion of a lot of others is that the city hasn't uh been

[2:52:50] uh the the best to deal with and the the city the humane society um is a very

[2:52:57] important community partner. Um I uh naturally I agree that we should deem

[2:53:03] the lands surplus and I would like to direct staff to immediately negotiate a

[2:53:09] transfer of the property to the uh Sarnia and District Humane Society for

[2:53:14] zero uh sale price but cost only. So, uh I don't uh I want to skip uh declaring

[2:53:22] it well, we declared it uh um surplus, but I want to go one step further and

[2:53:27] just uh donate the land to them uh uh for zero price whatever we have it

[2:53:32] whatever we have it on on on the books and and uh and and uh uh uh for costs

[2:53:39] only. That's that's what I'd like to do. >> Yeah. I don't see that as an amendment.

[2:53:43] Um because this is really the first part of it kicks off the process of the

[2:53:46] surplus land for 21 days. It will come back to you. Uh this just says you're

[2:53:52] going to exclusively deal or give them a first right of refusal and when it comes

[2:53:56] back you then have the right to determine what you're going to do with

[2:53:59] the uh sale of that land. Councelor McRoberts. I don't have a do I

[2:54:03] have a seconder on the amendment? I'm not seeing it. Okay. Councelor Mc

[2:54:08] Roberts. Uh, I would like to suggest can we not just make a hundredyear

[2:54:16] rental agreement with the Humane Society?

[2:54:21] » My understanding from previous discussions is that that's one reason

[2:54:24] the surplus land declaration was made. They did not want to go back into

[2:54:27] another land lease. >> Then if we follow that, that we would

[2:54:30] get the first right of refusal. If they purchase it, they win it. They move on.

[2:54:34] if they ever want to sell it that the city would get the first opportunity to

[2:54:37] purchase it back. >> That would probably be part of the the

[2:54:40] agreement that we make. We always have that

[2:54:43] » that obligation. I just want to make sure it's understood here what's going

[2:54:46] on. It's quite quite important. Please can you read the back what the

[2:54:48] resolution is? So, so the motion is a combination of

[2:54:52] the recommendation set out in correspondence number five, which is

[2:54:55] that Sarnne City Council declares surplus a portion of Centennial Park as

[2:55:00] identified in this report along with notice of motion number two, which reads

[2:55:06] that if council proceeds with the declaration of a portion of Centennial

[2:55:09] Park surplus, that the Sarnian District Humane Society be given first right of

[2:55:13] refusal and that bec incorporated in the public notice.

[2:55:19] So I will call the question. >> Councelor Burl.

[2:55:25] » Yes. I will speak against the first Briter refusal part. Um if you recall

[2:55:31] there was quite a kurufflele many years ago with the town of

[2:55:38] Clearwater and uh a school board with regards to playing with a first rate of

[2:55:44] refusal. And I think we should learn our lesson and don't do that. I think

[2:55:51] declaring it surplus should be done as a that should be the motion and then if

[2:55:58] they want to buy it they should buy it and if they don't want to buy it they

[2:56:02] should not buy it. But the first right of ethusal situation really just

[2:56:10] oils the value of the of the property. They don't ever have to do anything.

[2:56:15] City just has to sit there and twirl twiddle their thumbs. It's not a good

[2:56:20] idea in my opinion to put that in there. We declaring it

[2:56:25] and expecting them to buy it. I I have no problem with that if they decide they

[2:56:30] want to buy it. But to immediately give them the first right of refuse

[2:56:36] refusal without even having anything official for them that they were even

[2:56:41] officially interested in it or of having a value on the property uh as determined

[2:56:49] like I believe we're supposed to do and how we find this that or give it to them

[2:56:54] or whatever. But I don't think we're following the correct procedures and I

[2:56:58] think we can get ourselves into a jackpot by running too fast.

[2:57:03] » Okay. What I'll do is I will split the question. I will deal with the declar

[2:57:08] declaration of surplus of land and then the second question will be do you wish

[2:57:11] to have the first right of refusal? And in reference to your uh the former clear

[2:57:15] water land deal which I thought about a lot before I propose this that was done

[2:57:19] in the middle of the night with a private company. We've been dealing with

[2:57:23] this group now for five to six years and I just for this council's sake and the

[2:57:26] humane society I want to bring it to a conclusion. So I will split the question

[2:57:30] councelor Gillis and I'll move I'll call the questions.

[2:57:34] » I would appreciate the fact that you do split that. Um, but I think it's it's

[2:57:38] interesting to note that uh the Sarnia Humane Society has been on that site for

[2:57:43] 43 years and um there's an old saying possession is 9/10en of the law and even

[2:57:50] though they have been renters for 43 years, the property itself is considered

[2:57:56] um loosely interpreted though, but to be a part like they are the the owner

[2:58:04] operator I guess you could call it that there's uh probably a different type of

[2:58:08] legal term that I'm seeking and I'm sure Miss Nicholson would have that but there

[2:58:13] is a certain precedent around someone who's been there for 43 years. Obviously

[2:58:18] their intent is well determined. The other thing too is they are they have uh

[2:58:24] done a phenomenal uh service to the city because the city under the municipal act

[2:58:29] is supposed to have a pound. We don't have a pound. The Sarnney Humane Society

[2:58:34] is our pound and if we didn't have them, we would be in trouble. So, I mean,

[2:58:41] they've done us a great service to do what they've done over the past 43

[2:58:45] years. Um, and I think this is something that is going to be very beneficial, but

[2:58:51] I do have a a question when the next one you're the right of refusal comes up

[2:58:56] with regard to the EOI. So um >> I I want to make it clear we're not

[2:59:01] talking about the existing site. >> Yes, I I understand that. But you can

[2:59:07] give right refusal to the adjacent site. And the one of the reasons can be

[2:59:12] because of the fact that they've been long-term residents for 43 years. And um

[2:59:17] yes, they are I believe they are entitled to have the first right of

[2:59:21] refusal, but I'm I'm sure that um the legal will work through or can can speak

[2:59:26] to that. though. Sorry, I need to be clear here that

[2:59:30] existing site will be subject to f future negotiations depending what the

[2:59:34] humane society wants to do with the existing site. Is that not correct?

[2:59:38] » Uh yes, that is correct. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, let me come back

[2:59:42] here. I'll split the question. And the first is to declare the land surplus.

[2:59:48] » Yeah, sure. Um all those in favor?

[2:59:54] I think I've got got everyone that's unanimous.

[2:59:58] Okay. And the second one's do you wish to have a first write a refusal for the

[3:00:01] humane society in the tender call? Councelor McRoberts,

[3:00:05] » can I add my if they do accept and they own the land that we have the first

[3:00:11] » standard but I it's not a bad idea to have it there. So you're moving that if

[3:00:16] we do put this right of refusal in uh that if they exercise their option then

[3:00:22] there would be we would have the first right on the property.

[3:00:25] » Correct. They could have an anon donor come in and give them millions and they

[3:00:29] want to move elsewhere just so that we can retain that frontage of this.

[3:00:32] » Take that as part of the resolution. Okay. Let me get to that resolution.

[3:00:36] Okay. Uh if I may, I just want if the EOIs are going to come to the next

[3:00:43] meeting,

[3:00:46] can uh the expression of interest, will they be brought forward to the next

[3:00:51] meeting? >> Yes.

[3:00:52] » Okay. So July 20th, >> no, no, the this just starts that

[3:00:56] process through our land bylaw. That means um the the call will go out.

[3:01:01] » Yes. And the EOIs can come back. We can put a

[3:01:05] time limit on that, can we not? >> So through the mayor, the proposed

[3:01:11] timeline um if as council directed um the surplus lands decoration at this

[3:01:16] meeting would be to post public notice following this meeting as was required

[3:01:20] under the policy for 21 days uh to host the public meeting um under the policy

[3:01:25] as it's uh public parkland and then to seek direction to solicit EOIs for um

[3:01:30] six to eight weeks. That would be um what our proposed timeline is uh for the

[3:01:34] July meeting. >> Thank you. That's understood. All those

[3:01:39] in favor. Sorry. >> Sorry. I would like to motion that it is

[3:01:43] not understood what's happening. I would like to to hear the actual motion that

[3:01:48] we're voting on >> about the

[3:01:55] » uh I actually didn't capture the friendly amendment that was introduced

[3:01:58] by councelor McRobert. So, I would need some clarification on that. What is

[3:02:02] before council right now is uh notice of motion number two, but I believe there

[3:02:09] was a friendly amendment that was specified by councelor McRoberts.

[3:02:13] » Yeah, the the the motion I put forward was that it uh that we move forward,

[3:02:17] give them the right first right of refusal. And what councelor McRoberts is

[3:02:20] suggesting, which makes sense, that also the city would have the same privilege

[3:02:23] if they exercise and purchase the land that if they decided to leave it five,

[3:02:27] 50 years from now, the city would have that chance first.

[3:02:32] A first right of refusal on a first right of refusal. Oh,

[3:02:35] » okay. >> All right.

[3:02:39] Let me call the question. [sighs]

[3:02:43] All those in favor >> Oh, David, I'm trying.

[3:02:49] Let me do it again for the clerk. You're the recording

[3:02:53] secretary. >> Um the the motion is that um the Sarnian

[3:03:00] District Humane Society be given first right of refusal and that be

[3:03:04] incorporated in the public notice and that the city of Sarnia be given the

[3:03:10] first right of refusal should Sarnian District Humane Society wish to sell the

[3:03:15] property in the future. That's exactly it. Let me call the

[3:03:18] question. All those in favor.

[3:03:22] See everyone in councelor Burl, you're not. So, everyone's in favor except

[3:03:25] council burrow. Thank you. All right. Kenwick on the lake. Um, so we move to

[3:03:29] that report on Kenwick on the lake which is to uh advance uh the investments in

[3:03:34] Kenwick on the lake. Uh, and I will say to staff again just in the last few

[3:03:38] days, we need to have more dialogue with the neighborhood. And I think Mr.

[3:03:41] McDonald, you've started that because there's some concerns about the impacts

[3:03:45] and all that. So if you could move the recommendation,

[3:03:49] councelor White, councelor Bushie, any discussion? All in favor? That is done.

[3:03:55] The draft audited financial statements. Uh this is straightforward. Do we have a

[3:04:00] movement on that? A motion on that. Councelor Gillis, you're moving it.

[3:04:06] » But there is correction that needs to be made.

[3:04:08] » Sure. Uh let me get the second uh the motion there. Um, seconder on the motion

[3:04:13] on the audited statements, councelor White, councelor Gillis,

[3:04:19] » the u the audited statements are for 2025, but when I look at uh the

[3:04:25] representatives of um of the police services board and their titles and the

[3:04:31] people that are listed to be on it, they are the police services board of 2026.

[3:04:36] They're not the police services board of 2025.

[3:04:39] That that'll be I don't know. >> So that needs to be corrected.

[3:04:43] » Yeah, that'll be corrected. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:04:45] » All right. All those in favor. That is done. Uh the strategic asset to

[3:04:49] management policy annual review. It's here for you to

[3:04:53] even file adopt. I need a motion. Councelor

[3:04:58] Vandenberg, Councelor McRoberts. All in favor? That is done. Uh hanger land

[3:05:04] lease at Chris Hadfield Airport, which is coming to you on the public agenda.

[3:05:12] Councelor McRoberts. All in favor? >> Can I comment on that, please?

[3:05:17] » Go ahead, please. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, regarding the

[3:05:20] recommended 20-year airport lease, we need to remember that we are in the

[3:05:24] middle of fundamentally restructuring the future of the airport. We are

[3:05:27] evaluating evaluating governance, operations, long-term investment, and

[3:05:31] what the airport should look like for decades to come. to lock up uh airport

[3:05:36] lands for 20 years before the work is complete is simply putting the cart

[3:05:39] before the horse. What makes this even harder to understand is we are talking

[3:05:43] about less than $900 a year in lease revenue. We are being asked to

[3:05:47] potentially restrict future options for airport lands for two decades in

[3:05:51] exchange for a revenue stream of $900. Quite frankly, the idea that we would

[3:05:56] lock in a 20-year commitment while uh sim simultaneously discussing the future

[3:06:02] of restructuring the airport is beyond comprehension. I will strongly be voting

[3:06:06] against this. Thank you, >> Ro. Can you talk to those concerns

[3:06:11] for >> the mayor to members of council? So,

[3:06:13] with regards to the location that is being proposed for this land lease, it

[3:06:18] is in an area that has been identified in the airport master plan as suitable

[3:06:22] for this exact purpose. It is encouraged that we expand the general aviation

[3:06:27] hangar development in this exact area. And that's why working with the the

[3:06:30] applicant who is seeking this land lease, we have selected this location as

[3:06:34] the most viable location because it has already been evaluated to serve well for

[3:06:39] the future needs of the airport. >> Let me call the question. Those in

[3:06:42] favor, >> those opposed. That is passed.

[3:06:48] There's a noise by exemption. It's I think fairly regularly we do this one.

[3:06:52] Councelor Burl and Roberts. All in favor?

[3:06:58] Next is the $3.5 million request for the base recreation campus. Looking for a

[3:07:03] motion. And I will record this vote to councelor

[3:07:07] White. Councelor Vandenberg. >> Councelor Burl.

[3:07:11] » Yes. I thought we were going to get back sort of a

[3:07:15] a better write up of what actually is happening with this organization.

[3:07:21] And I don't see that like uh it sort of talks about the money that the city is

[3:07:27] putting in but it really doesn't tell us uh who's running the organization, how

[3:07:34] the board of directors are selected, what funds are available from that

[3:07:41] organization. Uh the only thing that seems to be talked about is what the

[3:07:45] city's kicking in and there was some talk about the fact that they received

[3:07:50] a donation from a family of certain properties. Uh but um really there's to

[3:07:57] me this is a you know considering the major monies and the fact that we're

[3:08:02] borrowing this monies there should be a lot better report than this one as to

[3:08:07] what is going on with this organization. What are the legal structures? Who uh

[3:08:13] you know who runs it? Who owns it? Uh what are the what is the participation

[3:08:18] by the city in the running of the organization?

[3:08:21] What is uh who is who is eligible to participate? What are the costs of

[3:08:28] membership? Who can be a member? Like all that kind

[3:08:32] of stuff. There's just nothing here that I could see that substantiates. And all

[3:08:37] I see here is well, yep, the city's given them some money, but they the, you

[3:08:44] know, the overall in and I I have no reason to really believe there's any

[3:08:48] real problems, but it's not laid out. What is we need a much more

[3:08:55] uh greater explanation to the good folks of the city of Sarna why we're spending

[3:09:01] this money because there's just almost nothing. Councor, if you wanted to table

[3:09:07] move to table this for that to come back that would be appropriate.

[3:09:11] » Certainly I I would I would move that this be come for a report back on the

[3:09:17] structure of the operation uh and other funding available to the organization.

[3:09:24] Now some of it they may want to just give it to us in camera or whatever that

[3:09:28] I mean that's fine by me if they don't want everything to be out in public. But

[3:09:32] » I'm sorry. I If you're moving the tableabling, I can't let you continue.

[3:09:36] » Oh, sorry. Yeah. And that's that's why I'm tableabling you.

[3:09:40] » Look to the next meeting for report from the CEO. Seconder. Councelor McRoberts.

[3:09:44] All those in favor.

[3:09:49] That's uh I'll record the vote. Council McRoberts, Burrow, Dennis, Bushi White,

[3:09:55] myself. Those opposed?

[3:10:00] That's just a table to have further information back here until

[3:10:05] » the next meeting. >> Okay.

[3:10:06] » Okay. So, councelor Kiner and and Vandenberg

[3:10:11] are on board, too. So, the motion passes. Thank you, Council Burough. Uh,

[3:10:15] Bryce Grove Library Project. There's been a lot of work here trying to bring

[3:10:18] this um project to fruition and this is a bunch of motions that would move this

[3:10:23] forward and put in protection for the city. Councelor White. Councelor

[3:10:26] Vanderberg. Councelor Burl. I hate to sound like a uh broken record or a but I

[3:10:33] [clears throat] just again find um

[3:10:39] uh the way this is all sort of playing out again it's just

[3:10:44] seems to be all city money um even to the extent of going into debt and uh

[3:10:53] even into going into money from a fire

[3:10:59] fire truck reserve. U and there doesn't to me seem to be a

[3:11:06] good solid analysis here as to what all the money

[3:11:11] is going to be used for. Um and the the continuing here is is that they're

[3:11:17] saying well there's a little bit of money it goes into the future. Well, I

[3:11:21] don't know. It seems to me if there's excess money, it come should come back

[3:11:24] to the city. And uh because you know in these kind of things, there's usually

[3:11:32] onethird is raised by subscription from people uh one-third is

[3:11:38] provided by higher level governments and one-third by the city. But in this

[3:11:44] particular program, it seems to be all city money. again. Um, I don't know. I

[3:11:50] just don't see this particular project, you know, it it seems as though they're

[3:11:56] wanting more and more when it's not obvious that a lot has been provided by

[3:12:02] others other than the city and that's what that's all. And and you're saying

[3:12:07] even if there is a little bit of money, it goes into future funding for there as

[3:12:11] opposed to um trying to work out you know, a better split on the costs as

[3:12:20] far as I'm concerned. And and beyond that, I again, there's no message in

[3:12:24] here about what's happening with that supposed $5 million from the Liberal

[3:12:31] government that they committed to. But again, no no talk of that here either.

[3:12:38] » My understanding is, and you know, I brought a motion to you a few months ago

[3:12:41] to put a cap on this at 6 million. Since it started at three, it's at six. I

[3:12:45] think what's in here is actually bring some control to the project. Uh

[3:12:50] particularly that if the and there are efforts underway to get the federal

[3:12:53] money that four million that was promised if that happens that will

[3:12:56] decrease on our side go back into our infrastructure particularly for the one

[3:13:00] fire truck that was removed and and that expenditure. So um you know I've been a

[3:13:06] strong advocate on taking control of this project but I think this here at

[3:13:09] the end is a really good wrapup of the project.

[3:13:12] But I understand your concerns, councelor Burl. So it's been moved and

[3:13:16] seconded. Any other speakers? Councelor Gillis

[3:13:20] » was before me. Your >> Oh, you go first. Simply because of your

[3:13:23] I'm you might answer some of my questions.

[3:13:27] » Uh I want to clarify that this recommendation is not asking council to

[3:13:30] increase the approved budget for the Brits library project or commit

[3:13:34] additional tax dollars. The construction tender was approximately 5.45 45

[3:13:39] million, but the total project cost is higher because it also includes the

[3:13:44] approved contingency and project management costs. The project has an

[3:13:48] approved funding envelope of 6.35 million with a remaining uncommitted

[3:13:52] balance within that approved amount. The proposed fundraising and donor

[3:13:57] recognition budget of up to 50,000 would come from the existing approved project

[3:14:03] capacity. It is intended to support the practical work required to run an

[3:14:08] effective campaign engaging the community, preparing sponsors and pledge

[3:14:12] materials, administering donor agreements, recognizing contributors

[3:14:17] appropriately, and creating a permanent donor recognition feature within the

[3:14:22] library. This is not simply an expense for a donor wall. It is an investment in

[3:14:26] the fundraising and donor stewardship program that helps encourage community

[3:14:31] participation and supports the overall campaign target. Any funds raise help

[3:14:36] offset approved project costs and increase the resources available. I also

[3:14:42] supports reserving any net fundraising proceeds that remain after approved

[3:14:46] project requirements have been met. That does not authorize additional spending

[3:14:50] today. It protects donor supported funds for future council approved capital

[3:14:55] needs at the Brits Grove Library. And I have to emphasize that when this um when

[3:15:01] we were putting this together and uh uh kudos to um our clerk uh Amy Burkhart

[3:15:09] because there was a a a lot of misgivings by people in the community of

[3:15:13] donating any money for a specific project to the city because they were

[3:15:17] afraid that once um the project was done that the city would take their money and

[3:15:23] use it for whatever the city wanted to do. Uh she was pivotal in in calming

[3:15:28] those fears, writing a finance uh uh finance uh sorry donation policy so that

[3:15:34] people would encourage or are are going to be encouraged to invest in this

[3:15:39] particular project but other projects that we've talked about within the

[3:15:42] community because they want to make a donation directly to that project and

[3:15:47] that's what this does as well. This does not authorize additional spending today.

[3:15:52] It protects donor supported funds for future council approved capital needs at

[3:15:56] the Bites Grove Library. And I want to emphasize this as well. When people, and

[3:16:01] this is something that's coming up, it's been recommended by AMO. It's been

[3:16:05] recommended by the FCM. Whenever you have a donation coming in for a specific

[3:16:10] project, you also have to put monies aside and you can get it inclusive of

[3:16:16] the donations for the management and the repair of the buildings or whatever

[3:16:22] thing that you are donating because what always happens is someone will donate

[3:16:26] something to us and I'll use the uh the new splash pad as a perfect example. We

[3:16:31] have to maintain the upkeep of that in order for it to be a viable splash pad.

[3:16:37] And if we decide that oh in five years we don't have the money to fix it then

[3:16:42] it is no longer a viable splash pad and the donor is left with like what did you

[3:16:48] do? So this is over uh taking this to a new another tool as Mr. Um, McGovern was

[3:16:57] talking about any further funding that people want to donate to the Brights

[3:17:01] Grove project will go to any improvements in that project and in the

[3:17:05] building itself such as restoration, accessibility and improvements,

[3:17:09] landscaping, finishing features or future lifestyle work sorry life cycle

[3:17:15] work. This is a sound asset management plan. We are investing in a public

[3:17:21] building that will serve the community for decades and it is responsible to

[3:17:25] ensure that any surplus community contributions remain dedicated to that

[3:17:30] particular project. >> Okay, councelor White and councelor

[3:17:33] Dennis and then I'll call the question. >> Sorry, I was just pointing to councelor

[3:17:38] Dennis. >> Actually, you know what? Um, councelor

[3:17:41] Gillis did a fantastic job of uh and probably a much better job than I would

[3:17:46] have done saying what I wanted to say. Thank you.

[3:17:48] » Okay. Thank you, Councelor White. You have the last word and I'll call the

[3:17:51] question. Okay, thank you. I'll call the question now. All those in favor?

[3:17:56] Those in favor? Those opposed? Uh, everyone uh except council bro was in

[3:18:02] favor. All right. The uh last or second last item is the territorial

[3:18:06] acknowledgement. It is here for your consideration.

[3:18:10] Council to adopt. Councelor White. Secer councelor Gillis. Councelor Burl.

[3:18:18] Uh yes. Uh I understand what they're attempting to

[3:18:23] do, but it as I've mentioned before, I think that the acknowledgment should

[3:18:32] include all First Nations that were here before

[3:18:38] and not just the ones that are mentioned here. And I don't know why we don't do

[3:18:44] that because when the certainly when the first uh I think it was Leel was the

[3:18:52] first white that came up this way up the St. Clair

[3:18:59] first into Lake Sinclair then to the into the Slair River.

[3:19:04] There were different First Nations people around than just the ones that

[3:19:10] were acknowledging. And I don't think it's fair

[3:19:14] to only acknowledge some and not others. So I will not be supporting this. When I

[3:19:22] first brought this to council a number of years ago, the suggestion at the time

[3:19:25] was that each of us would read it just like we do the rules of order to move

[3:19:29] the meeting forward. I'd like to suggest that, and no one has to do this, but in

[3:19:33] the future if this is adopted, that it would go to a member of council to read

[3:19:36] it at the start of each meeting. And if anyone doesn't want to do it, that's

[3:19:39] fine. But I think it's more meaningful than the chair each time reading it. And

[3:19:43] I think that would have a very agreement with that and that's part of the motion.

[3:19:47] Okay. All in favor? >> I'm I want to speak to it. Go ahead,

[3:19:50] please. >> Uh thank you, Mayor Bradley. Um for the

[3:19:55] record, I remain strongly opposed to the revised land acknowledgement. The legal

[3:19:59] opinion does not conclude that there is no risk. In fact, it very clearly states

[3:20:04] that this territorial acknowledgement could be cited in future litigation that

[3:20:09] any value would ultimately determine be determined by a court that should give

[3:20:15] every member on council great concern. We are being uh asked to adopt language

[3:20:20] declaring that rights and relationships to these lands have never been

[3:20:24] extinguished. I am not prepared to expose the city to very clearly outlined

[3:20:29] potential legal uncertainty. Even beyond the legal concerns, I believe this

[3:20:34] proposal is unnecessary and divisive. Council should be focused on bringing

[3:20:39] people together and addressing challenges facing our communities today.

[3:20:42] In my view, this is a symbolic gesture that creates division, invites

[3:20:47] uncertainty, and serves little practical purpose beyond virtue signaling in and

[3:20:52] is uh and this is on top of opening every resident and he and and the city

[3:20:59] itself to legal risk. Council should never support this and I will certainly

[3:21:03] not be. Thank you, >> Councelor White. Councelor Kelner.

[3:21:06] » Uh thank you, Mayor Bradley. Uh I want to thank the uh members of the committee

[3:21:10] for their deep dive uh and ongoing commitment um to providing accurate

[3:21:17] historical information. Uh we have some pretty deep uh deeply rooted folks in

[3:21:22] the committee and those who they have access to as well who've contributed to

[3:21:26] this to ensure uh ultimate accuracy uh and clarity over the words that are

[3:21:33] being presented today. Um, an extensive thank you as well to uh chair uh Brad

[3:21:40] Brownley uh for his continuous efforts and work long into the uh evening hours

[3:21:46] and beyond uh to bring together all of the thoughts and ideas uh into this

[3:21:53] particular presentation that you're seeing today. Um

[3:21:57] it's clear like there's there's zero risk. I don't know why we're rage

[3:22:02] farming, but there is zero risk. This is not what it's about at all. And uh this

[3:22:08] is bringing community together. I don't know what else to say. Thank you.

[3:22:12] » Okay. Councelor Ker. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mayor Bradley.

[3:22:16] Um uh just to follow up on Councelor White's uh comments. um

[3:22:23] uh council um having the capacity to um number one the the the first thing that

[3:22:31] this this statement does um it's a ceremonial duty first and foremost not a

[3:22:39] property property rights issue there uh we I do not believe that we have

[3:22:43] entitlement as counselors or city council over um uh the land titles act

[3:22:50] or anything like that. So these are explicitly understood across this

[3:22:54] country as ceremonial aspects of that point to a deeper harmony that we're

[3:23:01] supposed to be moving toward. Um I I think that anybody who is kind of

[3:23:08] articulating that people are going to lose their properties because of this.

[3:23:11] It's already been demonstrated in BC, I believe, in recent weeks or months, um

[3:23:17] that uh that is not what the purpose of these um uh of these acknowledgements

[3:23:24] are. And uh so I will be supporting it because I do um uh this weekend was a

[3:23:32] great example being at at Omnang First Nation and seeing people just warmly

[3:23:38] receive me and friends and and so on and so forth. So, um I do want to thank them

[3:23:44] for their hospitality and I hope that we would uh as people in this council

[3:23:50] chamber continue to steward uh that relationship in the good way that um

[3:23:55] that we have the opportunity to. Thank you,

[3:23:58] » Council and Councelor Dennis. I'll call the question. Record the vote.

[3:24:02] » Uh yes. Uh actually, I was at the POW as well on the weekend, but the facts are

[3:24:08] the facts. the the First Nations Walpo Island for sure has a land claim against

[3:24:17] the Canadian half of the river bottom of the St. Clair River.

[3:24:23] And the reason that exists and doesn't exist on the US side is that when the

[3:24:29] treaties were measured on the British side, they

[3:24:34] always measured to the W's edge. Whereas on the US side, they measured to

[3:24:42] the middle of the like to the boundary line to the middle of the river. So that

[3:24:47] leaves the Canadian half river bottom of the St. Clair River as being eligible

[3:24:57] for a land claim and a land claim is there by the Walpo Island First Nations

[3:25:03] for that. So what we're talking about uh that would that means Sarnia Harbor

[3:25:09] would probably be included in that land claim. So some of these things that

[3:25:16] people say are frivolous are not frivolous. They are facts. So I will not

[3:25:22] be supporting this. >> Okay. Let me councelor Dennis I'll call

[3:25:24] the question. >> Yeah. Um, right now in the city of

[3:25:27] Toronto, they begin their meetings with three uh uh uh uh uh three uh um uh

[3:25:38] claim or not claims but three uh acknowledgements and um one is an

[3:25:43] indigenous one, one is uh uh African Canadian one uh and the other one is has

[3:25:49] to do with people that are that are suffering from addiction. this woke

[3:25:54] nonsense has to stop. And quite honestly, there was nothing wrong with

[3:25:58] our land acknowledgement that we were saying before. Why even change it? This

[3:26:02] is getting absolutely ridiculous and the people of Sarnia can see right through

[3:26:07] it and and they're going to express their opinion in in October. Um I can I

[3:26:12] can guarantee you that. So that's all I have to say.

[3:26:16] » Well, there's no need for a point of order. We've heard this before. Um, all

[3:26:20] those in favor and I'll record the vote. All those in favor,

[3:26:25] councelor Gillis, Vanderberg, White, Bushie, myself, McRoberts, and Kilner.

[3:26:30] Those opposed Earl and Councelor Dennis. Uh, the next

[3:26:34] item is the last item on this is the um it's an agreement. You were aware this

[3:26:39] is the negotiations with the sting to look at the operation and the sharing of

[3:26:42] revenue at the uh at the passes center and looking for you to endorse this.

[3:26:47] Councelor Burl seconder. All right. All in favor. Thank you.

[3:26:52] Moving in. We got a couple motions here. One we already dealt with. Uh the first

[3:26:56] one's from myself to you. It's um looking at the feasibility of u a tax

[3:27:01] relief for deferral program for low-income seniors. And this came from a

[3:27:05] senior citizen. We did look at it about a number of years ago and it didn't work

[3:27:10] out being a practical uh thing to do, but I think it's worth taking a look at

[3:27:15] and some communities started doing this. So, councelor Gillis is moving.

[3:27:18] Councelor White seconding. Any discussion?

[3:27:23] That's all. That's all because I'm, as I said before, we looked at it and it

[3:27:26] didn't it wasn't very feasible. >> Councelor Dennis,

[3:27:29] » I'd like to speak on it, please. >> Go ahead, please.

[3:27:31] » Thank you, Mayor Bradley. Um, let me be clear. I fully support our seniors and I

[3:27:36] fully support looking at ways to help our seniors who are struggling. Many are

[3:27:40] are on fixed incomes and are facing real uh financial pressures and they sure do

[3:27:45] uh deserve our respect and sincere consideration. The timing of this motion

[3:27:50] seems a little suspect. Um if this was truly a a priority, why wasn't this

[3:27:54] brought forward? Why was this brought forward in election year rather than the

[3:27:59] beginning of of this term? Uh as a matter of fact, why would why didn't why

[3:28:03] wasn't it introduced in uh 2009 or 2020 when Canada was in an official

[3:28:08] recession? Um, I do support helping people in need, but why are we only

[3:28:13] talking about one group? What about the working poor? What about young adults

[3:28:17] who can't afford to leave home? What about families struggling with

[3:28:20] mortgages, groceries, and utility bills? What about small businesses that are

[3:28:24] barely keeping themselves open? What about residents facing serious health

[3:28:28] challenges who are falling through the clock cracks? To be clear, if

[3:28:32] eligibility continues to expand to everyone facing financial hardship, we

[3:28:36] could quickly reach a point where an exceptionally large portion of taxpayers

[3:28:41] qualify. With nearly half of households living paycheck to paycheck, the impact

[3:28:45] on those left paying our taxes could be up to and over well over 50% of an

[3:28:51] annual tax increase. I wish to make a friendly amendment to be fair to all

[3:28:55] citizens struggling. Uh my proposed amendment is that that staff be directed

[3:29:00] to expand and the the review to include the working poor residents facing

[3:29:05] significant financial hardship and that includes an estimated tax burden

[3:29:10] transferred to non-qualifying taxpayers. Thank you.

[3:29:13] » Is there a second for the amendment? Not seeing it. I remind you this is a

[3:29:18] request for report and what I'll have the office do tomorrow because I do not

[3:29:21] like anyone questioning our ethics. This came from a citizen. We will not

[3:29:26] identify the name, but we'll give you all the background of why this came

[3:29:29] forward in the last two or three. >> I've had lots of requests from uh people

[3:29:33] that you probably don't give the time a day to that are hurting, that are

[3:29:37] suffering, people that you mocked during COVID that lost their businesses. I have

[3:29:42] all sorts. So, I'm on the I'm on the the streets every day. I I'm not stuck in

[3:29:46] the uh uh Oval Office that's squared. I'm I'm out with the real people that

[3:29:51] are working. >> Well, this is unfortunate. This is one

[3:29:54] of the first council terms we've had to deal with electioneering in the chamber.

[3:29:58] I will call the question. I will call the question. I'm looking forward to all

[3:30:01] those in favor. All those in favor >> that is passed for a report from staff.

[3:30:06] It'll come back to you and to the council. If you have other motions,

[3:30:09] bring them forward in the future to council. Councelor Ker,

[3:30:12] » I'll I'll do it as mayor. So I I so um I think it's very important for for

[3:30:19] anybody around this table um uh to remember how we go about processes

[3:30:27] such as putting forward notices of motion. Um uh we've already dealt with a

[3:30:33] number of items this uh today that actually help people's lives including

[3:30:37] the the the Brights Grove Library project. We've talked about um bus pass

[3:30:42] options uh in the past. So, uh I just want to just reiterate uh people bring

[3:30:48] up motions when they think it's the appropriate time and our work as council

[3:30:53] is to choose to approve that, have a discussion about it or not approve it.

[3:30:58] Thank you. >> Thank you. So, that that's moved and

[3:31:01] done past. All right. Um Council Bro, you have the last motion here.

[3:31:06] » Uh yes. Thank you, your worship. Um yes uh as we can see we're probably facing a

[3:31:12] quite a contentious set of votes this fall. So, in order to help that, I think

[3:31:19] I hope I'm moving that in order to help substantiate the [clears throat]

[3:31:23] integrity of the 2026 municipal election in the city of Sarnia that the city of

[3:31:30] Sarnia publish the poll bypole results as soon as possible after election day.

[3:31:39] I can get a secondary like to speak to it.

[3:31:42] » There a second council. >> Uh, yes. I think the reason this is

[3:31:47] important and I believe it can be done just by contact. My my research shows

[3:31:52] that uh the firm that does our um software for the voting uh it's just one

[3:32:03] of the options. Uh the reason I think it's going to be important is that

[3:32:08] because we're gonna I think have a quite a u

[3:32:12] contentious election this fall. The more statistics that we can publish and show

[3:32:20] uh and always has been an important one is the poll bypole results. That way

[3:32:25] people can actually say, "Oh yes, well at least from my poll there were votes

[3:32:30] counted and we haven't missed a whole area of the city or something like

[3:32:35] that." So I think this will go a long way to help substantiate the integrity

[3:32:41] of our votes. >> Ask a question to the clerk. Is this

[3:32:45] feasible? Is it possible? >> Um for the internet voting system, there

[3:32:51] are no polls associated with that. Uh we do report poll bypole results for our

[3:32:56] in-person uh voting method. So at each voting location, we have a vote

[3:33:01] tabulator. At the close of voting on voting day, those those reports by

[3:33:06] voting location are publicly reported. We report internet ballots cast as a

[3:33:11] whole. Um but there is no such functionality within the internet voting

[3:33:16] process to establish voting subdivisions and report by poll because there is no

[3:33:22] such thing poll within an internet. >> I believe if you check with the people

[3:33:29] who do the software it is an option. It's certainly my understanding because

[3:33:35] other communities do it. So and we've done it ourselves. So

[3:33:42] it's it's just one of the options that's available. Has to be because everybody

[3:33:46] is recorded. That's how he the everybody is recorded. Everybody's in there. They

[3:33:52] have a word and a poll. Everybody does. If you don't have a word and a poll, you

[3:33:57] aren't in the list. >> So my I guess um thanks Mayor Bradley. I

[3:34:03] think my big question is so number one, the internet itself is a poll.

[3:34:09] Um, but it's not a geographic poll like the in person. Um,

[3:34:15] so my question is whether this motion actually changes

[3:34:19] anything functionally.

[3:34:24] » Well, the one way to find out is to pass it and let the clerk deal with what

[3:34:28] happens in other communities if it's functional. We'll find out.

[3:34:32] That seems fair enough to me. All those in favor of the motion.

[3:34:38] That has passed. All right. Uh, Councelor McRoberts, if you can move us

[3:34:41] um through the minutes. >> I move that the minutes of May 11th,

[3:34:45] 2026 special meeting and May 25th, 2026 regular meeting and May 25th, 2026

[3:34:52] closed meeting as printed be adopted. >> All in favor?

[3:34:56] Any urgent matters? Not seeing council. >> Uh, it's not really an urgent matter.

[3:35:02] Your worship is just a community happenings this weekend. And if you if

[3:35:06] you don't mind if I just read a couple things in.

[3:35:09] » Well, please go ahead. But I just have to say I was councils have gotten away

[3:35:13] from doing that. Like I was all over the place on the weekend. So

[3:35:15] » Well, I know this past weekend was pretty busy, but there there's two

[3:35:19] things that come to mind. One is on Saturday the Soore event at Sarnney

[3:35:23] Airport. >> Well, I see. I'm sorry. You're talking

[3:35:25] about future events. >> Yeah, future event. And the other event

[3:35:27] the other >> You're going to give us an accounting of

[3:35:29] your weekend. >> No, no, no. You don't know what you

[3:35:33] don't want to know where I was. [laughter]

[3:35:35] In any event, uh on Sunday the 28th of June at Canetara Park in the Central

[3:35:42] Park, um we have the annual cruise in the park that's hosted by the Sarna

[3:35:46] Street Machines. And I just want the public to be aware it's a it's a it's a

[3:35:51] wide openen event. Uh entrance is by way of donation. It's the 21st year that the

[3:35:57] Sarnia Street Machines is hosting this event um in support of Pathways and we

[3:36:03] know how goods Pathways is. And I just want to be aware of I have to read it.

[3:36:09] $350,000 to date in 21 years has been raised by

[3:36:12] the Sing Street Machines in support of Pathways. So if you can folks uh please

[3:36:17] come out on Sunday, enjoy the day and donate.

[3:36:21] » Thank you. Councelor McRoberts, if you can move us to Sorry, Councelor Keller.

[3:36:26] » Uh, thanks, Mayor Bradley. Uh, just to to um follow this up on uh in in July

[3:36:35] 2026, and for some reason, I don't have the exact date. Uh we have that uh uh

[3:36:41] Justin Barasa Memorial Tennis Tournament. Um

[3:36:46] uh you can find out the date online. I I I can't remember. The other thing I also

[3:36:50] wanted to do was just um uh celebrate our our um our economic development

[3:36:57] coordinator, Kelly uh Provost on uh her achievement uh her achieving the

[3:37:06] highest cumulative grade for this past year upcoming completing the AMCTO

[3:37:11] Executive Diploma of Municipal Management. That has made our our city

[3:37:16] incredibly proud. Um, the AMCTO are the managers and clerks. Um, I can't

[3:37:24] remember what it totally exactly uh stands for, but it's our our municipally

[3:37:28] trained uh staff and leadership. Uh, so uh just huge congratulations uh to Miss

[3:37:35] Provost. And lastly, the the last thing I had a question about just was I know

[3:37:41] in some of this stuff we've seen the words fair wage policy and I didn't want

[3:37:45] to connect it with any of the the proposals, but um it did come up just a

[3:37:51] question on when we're going to update those policies

[3:37:55] um uh how contractors and subcontractors work and that sort of thing. I you know

[3:38:02] there were just questions about that came into my

[3:38:06] » Mr. Stockdale. Could you get back to us on that or can you speak to it right?

[3:38:09] » Yep. Through your worship. It's intended to be reviewed this year. We should be

[3:38:12] able to get back around Q4. The work's underway in Q3.

[3:38:15] » Good. Good to hear that. Councelor McRoberts, move us forward.

[3:38:19] » I move that items A to C listed in the consent agenda be introduced.

[3:38:24] » All those in favor? I move that items A to C listed in the consent agenda as

[3:38:29] recommended or approved by this council be adopted.

[3:38:32] » All those in favor? That's done. >> I move that bylaws 1 through eight is

[3:38:37] printed be introduced and taken and read for the first and second and third time

[3:38:41] and finally passed. >> All in favor?

[3:38:43] » I move that Sarna City Council adjourned to its next regular meeting to be held

[3:38:47] on July 20th, 2026. >> Thank you very much. All in favor?

[3:38:50] Unanimous. Thank you everyone.

Regular Council Meetings - 22 Jun 2026

Transcript