[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.