[4:31] Good morning. We are live streaming and recording the August

[4:35] 25th, 2026 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Our building has

[4:39] a single stage fire alarm in the event of an

[4:42] emergency or activation of the fire alarm, please exit the

[4:46] building through the nearest safe exit, assemble in the East

[4:50] Parking area by the Georgian Trail and the Weaver Valley

[4:52] Outreach and await further instructions. For individuals requiring special assistance,

[4:57] please let a staff member know. Thank you. Oh, sorry,

[5:03] is there a technology issue? No. Yep, we're good. Okay,

[5:13] just making sure our audio is correct. Excellent, thank you

[5:15] very much, Madam Deputy Clerk. I'd now like to call

[5:17] to order this committee the whole meeting of Tuesday, August

[5:20] 25th, 2026. At this point in time, whether virtual or

[5:23] here in the chamber, please direct your attention to the

[5:26] Deputy Clerk who willed us in the traditional territory acknowledgement.

[5:30] We would like to begin our meeting by recognising the

[5:33] First Nations Meety and Inuit Peoples of Canada as traditional

[5:36] stewards of the land. The municipality is located within the

[5:40] boundary of Treaty 18, region of 1818, which is a

[5:44] traditional land of the Anishanobik on Deshunde - Ntt -

[5:48] Weindat Peoples. Thank you, Madam Deputy Clerk. And now, please

[5:52] join us for a moment of reflection.

[6:02] Thank you. Madam Deputy Clerk, could you please confirm our

[6:04] Council Members this morning? Certainly, Madam Mayor. I confirm that

[6:07] all members of Council are present today in Council Chambers.

[6:11] Excellent. So we'll move on to item A2. It's recommended

[6:14] that the Agenda of August 25th, 2026, be approved of

[6:17] circulated, including any items to be added to the agenda.

[6:21] May ask for a mover in a seconder. So moved.

[6:23] Second, Madame Mayer. Moved by the Dipney Mirror, seconded by

[6:25] Councillor McKinley. Any discussion. Okay, Madam Deputy Clerk, please call

[6:30] that vote. That vote is open.

[6:44] That. Boat is closed. And that motion is carried 7

[6:49] - 0. Item A3, note in accordance with the municipal

[6:51] conflict of interest Act and the Town Procedural Bylaw 2026

[6:54] - 44. Council members must file a written statement of

[6:57] the interest and its general nature with the clerk for

[6:59] inclusion on the registry. Madam Deputy Clerk, did you receive

[7:02] any declarations? I have not, Madam Mayor. Okay, seeing no

[7:05] hands raised. We'll move on to the recommendation of A4

[7:08] that the Committee of the Whole Minutes of June 30th,

[7:10] 2026 be adopted as circulated, including any revisions to be

[7:14] made. May I ask for mover in a seconder? So

[7:16] moved, thank you. Moved by Councillor Ardell. Second. Second and

[7:21] by The Deputy Mayor. Any discussion. Madam Deputy Clerk, please

[7:26] call that vote. The vote is open.

[7:45] Hopefully I assist. The affirmative, please. Thank you. That vote

[7:51] is close. And that motion is carried 7 - 0.

[7:54] At this point in time, we were able to direct

[7:56] our attention to Section B, which is Staff Reports Deputations

[7:59] and Correspondence. The First Portion of Today, which will be

[8:03] chaired for Operations by Councillor McKinley. Councillor McKinley, you help

[8:06] the chair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So item B1, we

[8:09] have no deputations for this section. We do have a

[8:12] written comment, so I'm gonna read the Public Comment period

[8:15] regarding matters, included in the Operations Portion of the Meeting.

[8:19] Each speaker is a lot of three minutes. Note, in

[8:21] accordance with the Town Procedural Bylaw 2026 - 44, 10

[8:25] minutes is allotted at the beginning and end of each

[8:27] section of the Committee of the Whole Meeting to receive

[8:29] Public Comments regarding matters included on the Agenda. Each person

[8:34] shall provide their name and address and is required to

[8:37] address their comments to the chair. Comments shall not refer

[8:40] to personal litigation or potential litigation matters, or be in

[8:45] response to matters that have been the subject of a

[8:46] Public meeting. It being noted that the verbal commenting period

[8:49] has ended. Written correspondence may still be received in response

[8:53] to matters that have been the subject of a Public

[8:55] Meeting. If a person is unable to personally attend the

[8:58] meeting or during any period, we're an emergency has been

[9:00] declared to exist in the municipality. They shall provide their

[9:04] Public comments and writing to the clerk in advance of

[9:07] the meeting for the clerk to read on behalf of

[9:09] the author during the Public Comment period. Now, Madame Deputy

[9:13] Clerk, you've indicated we have a written one, so I'll

[9:16] go to a written one first. And if anyone in

[9:18] the gallery would like to speak, we'll go to them.

[9:20] Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So these comments

[9:27] are from Scott Finley, Blue Mountains Rate Pairs Association. After

[9:33] reviewing The Most recent Staff Report, OPS 26035 regarding Craig

[9:38] Leith Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades. That staff are now proposing

[9:46] that the sourcing of debt so that the above project

[9:49] may proceed. As reserves are exceptionally low, and we have

[9:53] recently been turned down for grant application under the Provincial

[9:57] Health and Safety Water Stream Fund for the Combined Seven

[10:00] Projects Totally in 45 million. Based on recent history and

[10:04] the current state of our balance sheet, we expect that

[10:07] this will not be the last such request for financing,

[10:11] which leads us to the following questions. One, based on

[10:14] cost estimates using recently completed 30 percent design drawings combined

[10:20] project is now proposed to be 8. 2 million over

[10:23] budget. Where will the incremental funding come from and what

[10:27] is the final cost estimates for all seven components of

[10:30] the project? Two, currently we do not have a director

[10:33] of finance nor a director of operations. What is the

[10:36] timeline to replace these positions? And should we not wait

[10:39] until we have those senior resources in place before proceeding

[10:42] on any project whose money estimate is above plan? Three,

[10:46] The larger question is not borrowing capacity of the town,

[10:50] but whether we should be borrowing money at all. The

[10:53] BMRA believes this is, that should be answered by the

[10:59] newly elected town council and the decision to proceed on

[11:02] projects that require financing should be made by the newly

[11:06] elected Town Council supported by 10 - year debt projections.

[11:10] Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Madam Dekr. Now

[11:14] I'll look to the gallery. If the one in the

[11:17] chambers that would like to make a comment. Going once,

[11:22] going twice. Okay, I will close that portion. The agenda.

[11:27] Now, we have a correspondence. First piece of correspondence and

[11:30] item B 3. 1. We have the Blue Mountains Bay

[11:32] Street Reconstruction Project, dated August 14th, 2026 for the period

[11:37] of August 17th to 21st, 2026. We'll get that up

[11:44] on the screen, and I'll look for any hands. Oh,

[11:47] and I'll get my screen texture. Uh, Councillor Porter, go

[11:52] ahead. Yes, thank you through the chair. Um, so this

[11:56] is a project update. I also note, and I understand

[12:00] from residents during this time that there was a water

[12:03] break in the temporary water pipe. Which the contractor installed

[12:10] buried. And I certainly don't think was necessary. So I'm

[12:16] wondering what, um, I'm wondering why it happened. And how

[12:21] it won't happen again. Okay. Manager Kershaw, or do we

[12:27] have, um, our coordinator on the line? Or go ahead,

[12:32] Andrew Kershaw. That's who you, Mr. Chair. So we did

[12:35] have a break in the temporary water main. I can't

[12:38] guarantee it won't happen again. Uh, it's a water main.

[12:40] We have breaks in our water main, um, periodically throughout

[12:43] the town, whether they're buried or whether they're a temporary

[12:46] water main. Our water department was there on site, and

[12:49] it was repaired within 45 minutes. This was addressed quickly.

[12:54] There was, it was properly flushed. There was no consideration

[12:58] for water quality issues. It was addressed, it happens. And,

[13:04] uh, staff responded appropriately. I like a follow - up,

[13:08] please. Follow up. So please correct me, I understand from

[13:12] the residents I spoke to that was the contractor that

[13:16] broke the line. Of Gershaw. Therefore, and as I said,

[13:23] it is bright blue. It's raw and blue. It's fair

[13:26] size, and they installed the line. How will they not

[13:30] break it again? Manager Crowchelle, if you can answer that,

[13:34] I'm not sure. I wasn't there. Uh, through you, Mr.

[13:38] Chair, so you're correct. It was broken by the contractor.

[13:41] Uh, our water staff did respond, and they repaired it

[13:44] as quickly as possible. I can't guarantee it won't happen

[13:46] again. It is big construction. Uh, and big equipment, and

[13:52] it's a two inch line. We're doing our best. And

[13:57] there are no guarantees that a water main will never

[14:00] break in the town again. It's the nature of infrastructure.

[14:05] We do our best to maintain it. We monitor it

[14:08] quite quickly. So when there's a water main break, we

[14:10] will see pressures drop and our reservoirs start to start

[14:15] to drop quickly. We do have reserves that we enables

[14:19] free flowing water out of the pipe. So there is

[14:22] no water quality issues. Uh, we did maintain positive pressure.

[14:28] And Staff responded as quickly as they possibly could to

[14:30] repair the break. So I'm going to ask for another.

[14:32] CAO Smith. Yeah, through the chair, we just add that

[14:37] I think the key thing is, is it relates to,

[14:39] and I think when the grand scheme, the project as

[14:41] well, is that I don't think we've had too many

[14:43] breaks that have been associated with work, particularly when you're

[14:46] in such a tight space as it relates to bay.

[14:48] I do know that there's always that follow up or

[14:50] that those, those meetings that I occur with the contractor

[14:53] with respecting, you know, safe and effective work within that,

[14:58] uh, area as well. So the fact that it was

[15:00] repaired within that 45 minute time period is, I think,

[15:04] is definitely a credit to staff to be in responsive

[15:07] and demonstration of, uh, I think, uh, I think, uh,

[15:10] oversight of the project, uh, yeah, it is a challenge,

[15:14] I think, being on site and looking at some of

[15:16] the complexities that have to be navigated. I'm much more

[15:20] concerned if, uh, there was a major gap in service

[15:23] for an extended period of time. But the repair did

[15:25] occur in a timely way. And I do know Stafford

[15:27] were on that in a, promptly. Thank you, CAO Smith.

[15:32] Now Council Reporter, just to wrap up and we've got

[15:34] some more, uh, questions here from other members. Go ahead.

[15:38] Does the contractor reimburse the town for the time staff

[15:41] spent? CEO Smith or Andrew Kershaw? Or do you want

[15:44] to get back to us on that. Through you, Mr.

[15:51] Chair. So we do track time that we spend on

[15:54] capital projects. There's a lot of time that Staff time

[15:58] dedicated to capital projects. The cost of the repair was

[16:03] insignificant. But we, we do track our time. I'm not

[16:08] exactly sure if we're reimbursed, uh, by the, at the

[16:11] end of the day, it's one taxpayer. And we're paying

[16:15] for the entire construction as well as maintaining services as

[16:18] well as paying for staff time. But we do track

[16:22] our time for capital projects. The manager Kershaw. C. O.

[16:26] Smith, did you want to see your mic skewed? Yeah.

[16:28] To the chat, I would just add that this wouldn't

[16:30] be, say, the nature of the work because there was

[16:33] the break that occurred on behalf of the contractor that

[16:36] say the contractor build back the town as it relates

[16:38] to added costs as associated with the break. That's not

[16:41] certainly not the case in this regard. Thank you, C.

[16:45] O. Smith. So going to move on to Councillor Maxwell.

[16:49] Thank you, Chair. And, um, I guess, Allison, I'm not

[16:53] sure if this is in your wheelhouse or not, but,

[16:56] um, here's a resident sending some correspondence. And I don't,

[17:00] I'm not going to say her name right now. But

[17:03] it's on the corner of Elgan and Bay. And she

[17:09] was concerned about the entrance into her property. I don't

[17:15] know of all the entrances been addressed. But, um. If

[17:22] you could say answer that would be great. Okay. Okay.

[17:26] Mensch your Kershaw. Through you, Mr. Chair. I believe are

[17:29] we talking about a driveway that was essentially two tracks,

[17:34] two gravel tracks, uh, so the situation being there that,

[17:39] uh, when we reconstruct a street, especially when we put

[17:43] storm sewers in, we do pay the aprons. So the

[17:46] ends of the driveways, we do pave them. Uh, we

[17:48] don't leave them gravel. Being that when there's a storm

[17:51] system, a storm collection system, we don't want gravel in

[17:54] our storm systems. So it is necessary to pave the

[17:58] ends of the apron. So we'll pay from the edge

[18:01] of asphalt on the road up to the property line.

[18:04] And we maintain it driveways as they were like same

[18:10] width as they previously were prior to construction. We do

[18:15] have photos and we've taken measurements of every driveway, every

[18:19] entrance. And we are trying to maintain them, but it

[18:21] has been paved up until the property line. And there

[18:24] is a little buffer of gravel from the edge of

[18:29] Asphalt to where it returned to the two, um, gravel

[18:35] tracks. With a grass up the middle. Follow up Council

[18:41] Maxwell. No, that's, that's fine. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

[18:44] Councillor Hope. Thank you very much Chair McKinley. So this,

[18:52] I think this request comes under either of the two

[18:54] items that are in the, in the gene, so I'm

[18:56] going to raise it now. Residents are concerned about the

[19:01] safety of the, of the water. We're hearing from them.

[19:04] And they'd like to see the water tested. Some have

[19:07] fears about even swimming. Uh, some have fears about their

[19:11] drinking water. Um, we have heard from the neighbourhood, they

[19:15] have asked for that. And, uh, I'm wondering, uh, when

[19:18] that can be executed through Mr. Chair to Ms. Kershaw.

[19:23] And Ja Kershaw. So let's start off with something I

[19:28] want to make very clear here. Our drinking water is

[19:31] safe. Our drinking water goes The Drinking Watt through our

[19:34] water treatment plant. It's tested thoroughly and it is very

[19:37] safe. So there are no questions about the safety of

[19:41] our drinking water. That's off the table. There is no

[19:43] question about that. So when it comes to testing, direction,

[19:51] uh, we, the town has hired a second environmental company

[19:54] to oversee the works there. So the contractor themselves, clear

[19:58] way, they had hired an environmental company to monitor the

[20:01] construction in compliance with our permits. So the one company

[20:08] working on behalf of the contractor, ensuring that we're staying

[20:10] within the environmental requirements of our permits. The town is

[20:15] higher to second one on terrorists. And they are out

[20:17] there on behalf of, so it's a third party testing

[20:20] company. And they're out there, uh, we meet with them

[20:23] regularly. They have been out. They've tested. The testing that

[20:26] we're doing is turbidity, uh, suspended solids, water temperature, dissolved

[20:32] oxygen. We will not be testing for bacteria. It's a

[20:36] surface water. There is bacteria. There's micros. There's decoli. There's

[20:40] total coliform. We test our raw water coming into the

[20:43] drinking water plant every week. And we know it's existing.

[20:47] It's a surface water source. And the other request that

[20:52] we've had is for heavy metals. It's not warranted. It's

[20:56] not part of our permitting. We're following Georgia Bay is

[21:01] crown land. The lake bottom is crown land. The agency

[21:06] that gave us our permissions to do the work. They've

[21:09] asked us to test for turbidity. We have online turbidity

[21:13] monitors out floating in the water right now. They're recording

[21:17] a hundred percent all the time. And that data's being

[21:20] tracked. We've also been taking additional samples. They've been going

[21:24] in through the, uh, consultant for the contractor's environmental company

[21:30] and through the third party that we've also hired. So

[21:33] I think we're meeting the requirements of testing. Okay. Going

[21:36] to go over. Thank you, Major Khrushchev. I'm going to

[21:38] go over to OCAO Smith. You have your hand. Through

[21:41] the chair. Just a point clarity as well. Just I

[21:44] know with the corresponds being tied to Bang Grey, that

[21:47] question related to, uh, I think the water quality out

[21:49] in the bed. That's more so reflective of the outfall

[21:52] project. So just for an agenda standpoint, it's a bit

[21:55] of a delineation on the update specific to Bay and

[21:57] Grey versus what is the related to the outfall. So

[22:02] I do know we have some other, um, I think

[22:05] items speaking to that outfall project, which may be more

[22:08] of the time to further discuss some of the issues

[22:11] there. The next piece of correspondence is the fall. So

[22:15] yeah, so follow up. So we'll cover that later, like

[22:20] in five minutes. But, uh, first of all, then, uh,

[22:23] thank you very much. It's through you, Mr. Chair. Really

[22:27] appreciate the fact that no one questioned whether there was

[22:31] compliance. So I want to be very clear about that.

[22:33] We don't, no need to feel that that's being challenged.

[22:38] The point of the matter is communication with residents. She's

[22:42] been an ongoing issue with this project. So why can't

[22:45] they know exactly what we've just heard now? So if

[22:48] we have to wait till we talk about the outfall,

[22:50] then that's fine. But residents, they're living with this every

[22:56] day. And they're worried about whether their grandchildren or our

[23:01] safe swimming. I mean, these are all, whether they're fears

[23:05] to whether they're logical or not, doesn't make any difference.

[23:11] They need to have some kind of confidence. So I

[23:13] think that we need to be sharing this information. Um,

[23:17] that, that we're required to do anyway, uh, with the

[23:20] residents. So again, I hope that we consider that. And

[23:24] I guess we'll take it up under OPO. Thank you.

[23:27] C. S. Smith. Yes, sir. Terry. To your point around

[23:30] it coming up is more so to reinforce delineation between

[23:34] Bay and Grey and the Ofal, just a separate project.

[23:37] Just wanted to provide a little bit of that, uh,

[23:39] that clarity. Thank you, C. O. Smith. Okay. Um, so

[23:44] seeing no further hands, we have a motion to receive

[23:47] this piece of correspondence. So I moved. Moved by the

[23:50] Deputy Mayor Secondard. Second by Madam Mayor. And another question,

[23:56] uh, Councillor Hope? Yes. I was wondering if there's agreement

[23:58] that there will be some kind of sharing with the

[24:01] residents about the water reports that we're receiving as part

[24:05] of the process. I know that they are, oh, sorry

[24:12] CAO Smith. Yeah. Through the chair, we did, and I

[24:15] know we did provide some comms previously just with respect

[24:18] to the expanded scope of the water testing that was

[24:21] completed by also I'm aware of some further corresponds that's

[24:24] come forward around, uh, and I think getting a little

[24:27] bit more detail with respect to the scope of that

[24:29] testing, which we can do another round or at least

[24:32] some, some broader comms associate with that. So I think

[24:35] and actually I think what would be helpful is, is

[24:37] further to manage a Kershaw's point as well as the,

[24:40] the challenge on broadening it to such a degree where

[24:43] you're now looking at other factors beyond the outfall that

[24:46] influence water behaviour. So for example, things such as E.

[24:49] coli and other elements to which, um, is not so

[24:52] much, it's very difficult in such a grand or such

[24:55] a large scale as the bay as well as the

[24:57] other elements that impact that quality such as the beaver

[25:00] river, uh, and other matters as well. But, uh, yes,

[25:03] to, to your point, we will put something further out

[25:05] with respect to the scope of the water testing. And

[25:08] we'll share that, uh, uh, today. Appreciate that. An ongoing

[25:13] water testing as I gather from, um, uh, manager Kershaw

[25:18] that needs to be shared, I think with the residents

[25:20] that this is well in hand. And this is how

[25:23] it's well in hand. So that they, they can, uh,

[25:26] feel more comfortable about everything that's going on around them.

[25:29] Yeah. Through the chair, absolutely. We can reinforce that messaging.

[25:33] Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. CAO.

[25:36] Thank you Councillor Hope. Okay. We have The motion that

[25:39] council, The Tumble Mountains received for information, The Blue Mountains,

[25:42] Bay Street Reconstruction Project dated August 14th, 2026 for the

[25:46] period of August 17th to 21st of 2026. It has

[25:50] been moved by the Deputy Mayor and seconded by The

[25:53] Mayor. Signal further hands, Madam Deputy Clerk, can you call

[25:56] that boat please? The vote is open.

[26:10] Is closed. And that vote is carried with all present

[26:13] voting in the affirmative. When we vote 3. 2, the

[26:17] Blue Mountains Outfall Pipe Assembly and installation project dated August

[26:21] 14th, 2026 for the period of August 17th to 21st,

[26:24] 2026. Councillor Hope, you want to, I'll just go to

[26:29] you first. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Kindle. Carried over.

[26:32] Go ahead. Thank you. I appreciate that. So we have

[26:35] then, I think probably I'll just turn the chair over

[26:37] to chair. Excuse me. I'll turn, look to the CAO

[26:41] for his comment sent on the outfall. We have, he's

[26:44] referring to a different piece of correspondence, which is from

[26:47] all of the residents. And it's quite a, um, quite

[26:51] a serious request that I think we, you know, we

[26:53] would appreciate hearing what the CEO has to say about

[26:56] that. Thank you. Uh, C. A. Smith. Oh yeah. Through

[27:01] the chair, similar to just my, my prior comments with

[27:04] respect to that corresponds received as well, just in terms

[27:07] of the, uh, request to expand some of the scope,

[27:11] the testing, our position is. And I think is, is

[27:14] to look at providing that, uh, greater clarity with regards

[27:17] to what is being tested currently as part of that

[27:19] expanded scope that a manager Kershaw did note was a

[27:22] separate ad from on this, uh, on this project as

[27:26] well as I think recognising and providing that, uh, informationing

[27:30] on the limitations to what can be tested versus, uh,

[27:34] what we certainly can look at doing to ensure that

[27:38] what's directly relayed to the OFAL is being properly managed

[27:42] and being controlled for. So, uh, we will, as I

[27:44] mentioned, we will put that, uh, out today. And we

[27:48] do have a, uh, comedian information session that will be

[27:51] occurring on the, uh, later this week on the Friday,

[27:55] which will be another great chance here directly from the

[27:57] Consolants, which are the experts as it relates to doing

[28:00] these types of works, uh, to further explain, you know,

[28:02] those, uh, those measures to ensure that, uh, The Outfall

[28:07] is being carried out in a safe manner. Follow up

[28:11] Councillor Hope? Yes, thank you very much. So just looking

[28:14] at the correspondence, I see there is a concern about

[28:18] E. coli in total colder forms. And so. I think

[28:23] the residents in the correspondence or in the communication that

[28:27] you've been referring to, they should understand that we're talking

[28:31] about surface, uh, issues versus deeper in the water. Um,

[28:36] so I'm hoping that the full explanation. I understand that

[28:38] we've got the meeting and appreciate it very much. But

[28:41] I think that this letter is from all the residents.

[28:45] It's a pretty serious letter. And I think we need

[28:47] to get, we need to answer very specifically all of

[28:51] these concerns. So even though, um, from a water science

[28:56] perspective, some of the questions are handled differently in different

[29:01] ways. Uh, I think we need to explain that. Thank

[29:05] you. In the communication. Thank you. Okay. CEO Smith. Do

[29:10] you have a response to that or manage a crucial?

[29:12] No through the chair. That's, yeah, no, we can take

[29:14] that away. And that's good feedback. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[29:17] you. Uh, Councillor Porter, go ahead. Yes. Thank you. Yes.

[29:22] Thank you. And through the chair. So having been down

[29:26] there because I've been asked to go, um, you see

[29:32] the, um. The water changes colour as you go out.

[29:37] It does. And it's coming from the east and is

[29:40] coming from grey street and is now down to like

[29:43] at least the fourth house. And it is moving. And

[29:47] they're concerned. And it, um, the more detail, you know,

[29:55] supporting will Councillor Hope and you have set. The more

[29:58] detail they receive, the better. But I think it. Feel,

[30:04] and quoting what they say. So the front of their

[30:06] houses are all torn up. They haven't been to park.

[30:08] They're having to move. Some people have difficulty walking. And

[30:11] then they go out the back and they're scared to

[30:13] go out in the water. There's kids who have their

[30:15] children go out in the water. And this is actually

[30:17] the nicest weather for this type of activity that we

[30:19] have. So they feel a bit sandwiched in the middle.

[30:23] And they're concerned about the colour. This is new to

[30:26] their water. They haven't had this before. And there's been

[30:31] issues as a result of the work on grocery. I

[30:34] don't think this was anticipated. And people in the absence

[30:39] of information in the absence of reassurance, this is where

[30:43] people go. It is, it is natural. It's not uncommon.

[30:48] Um, because they don't know it's okay. They're being told

[30:53] we're doing everything we're supposed to do from a regulation

[30:56] perspective. Um, but they don't know, um, if that's good

[31:03] enough, if that's the minimum, like they just don't out.

[31:07] And, um, so I'm putting forward, I have made suggestions

[31:12] to you that is testing be considered. I would be

[31:16] interesting to know what the price of it is in

[31:18] the schema things. Like how big, how big of a

[31:20] price tag is this to maybe to provide these people

[31:23] with the reassurance that they need given that they've got

[31:26] stuff going on in the front door and the back

[31:28] door. So, um, perhaps this will be, this will come

[31:33] out on the meeting on Friday. Thank you. Okay. Um.

[31:38] Councillor Maxwell. Thank you Council Porter. Councillor Maxwell. Thank you,

[31:44] Chair. Just wondering. If. You know, the

[31:54] water, the water normally when it comes out of the

[31:57] beaver river. Moves from the Weber River down towards Collingwood.

[32:02] That's where the current's going. But we've had some significant

[32:07] rain events upstream in the Bieber River. And we've dam

[32:13] up there, uh, up around slab down that's been breached.

[32:18] And there's been a ton of silt has moved downstream.

[32:21] I'm not saying that totally it, but it may have

[32:25] been a factor in this as well. Um, so I

[32:29] just, you know, I don't know how it's very difficult

[32:31] to determine exactly where things come from. Um, we can

[32:35] do our best. But I just want to throw that

[32:37] in there because, uh, you know, we have to look

[32:40] at everything when we're looking at things. So anyway, Allison,

[32:45] I'll just leave that with you. Mensch your Kershaw. Do

[32:47] you have a response to that? Yeah. Three, Mr. Chair,

[32:51] uh, do you Councillor Maxwell? Um, there are impacts from

[32:55] the Beaver River. We live in an area where we

[32:58] have a number of fringe creeks that deposit in the

[33:02] bay when we have heavy rain events. We can see

[33:05] them clearly from one end of the town to the

[33:07] other, the impacts from heavy rain events. Uh, the dredging

[33:12] activity is disturbing the clay. There's no doubt about it.

[33:16] There is a clay layer within the lake bottom that

[33:22] is being disturbed through the dredging activity. Forms very, very

[33:30] fine particles and it forms like a colloidal. So it

[33:34] hangs in the water for a long time. It doesn't

[33:37] settle out quickly. Uh, we see that in different areas,

[33:41] but the dredging is affecting the turbidity of the water.

[33:45] We do have limits that we have to stay within.

[33:49] And we are working with our agencies to make sure

[33:51] that because they oversee the lake bottom and it's crown

[33:56] land to make sure we're not impacting beyond what we're

[34:02] allowed to, um, one of the biggest requirements, what our

[34:07] agencies are looking for is protecting habitat protecting fish populations

[34:13] protecting the, um, the life that does take place in

[34:17] the lake bottom. It's very difficult. It's a very challenging

[34:23] project. And there are a lot of impacts. We've got

[34:26] to remember that the beaver river runs through a number

[34:29] of areas of farmland. And we do spread manure. It

[34:35] is a pretty common practice throughout, uh, grey County. It's

[34:39] not uncommon for a rural communities across the province and

[34:44] across the country. Uh, that will have an impact on

[34:48] E. coli and total coliforms in your surface water intakes.

[34:53] Um, and that's why as a drinking water for managing

[34:55] or drinking water system, we have different requirements for, um,

[34:59] treating and measuring E. coli and total coliform in our

[35:04] drinking water system. Then if we were a groundwater system

[35:07] or treatment trains different. A surface water is impacted by

[35:11] a number of different inputs. Whether it be rain or

[35:15] coming through the valley, uh, but the dredging activity definitely

[35:19] is having an impact on the bay. Follow up Councillor

[35:23] Maxwell. No. Uh, thank you very much, Allison. Okay. Thank

[35:27] you, manager Kershaw. Signal for their hands. Do we have

[35:32] anybody would like to move to receive this correspondence? I

[35:36] will move. Move by the mayor. Oh, second. Second by

[35:38] Mr. Deputy Mayor that council of the Town Blue Mountains

[35:41] receives for information Blue Mountains, Oakfall Pipe, assembly and installation

[35:45] project update dated August 14th, 2026 for the period of

[35:50] August 17th to the 21st of 2026. It's been dually

[35:53] moved and seconded any further questions. Seeing none, Madam Deputy

[35:58] Clerk, you may call that vote, please. That vote is

[36:00] open. For me. Thank you, Councillor Maxwell.

[36:13] And that boat is closed. And that vote is carried

[36:16] with all present voting in the affirmative. We move on

[36:19] to item B 3. 3, Gary Tile, resident regarding reconstruction

[36:23] of appeal street. Mr. Deputy Mayor, go ahead. Thank you,

[36:29] Mr. Chair, through you. I guess a question for the

[36:30] CAO in place of the director operations. Uh, Mr. Towel

[36:36] raises some points of talking about infrastructure, much needed, um,

[36:41] upgrades. So that's not the argument point. I think the

[36:43] urban standard, and I know that, you know, we have

[36:45] certain mechanisms in place for ever standard in that. Um,

[36:49] but based on the topography and the historical areas of

[36:53] the town, when a new director of Ops is in

[36:57] const, Mr. CO, do you see opportunities to maybe take

[37:01] a look at project by project? I know we look

[37:03] at it project project, but not one size fits all.

[37:07] That would be my question to you. Mr. CAO. Uh,

[37:12] yes, through the chair. And I think even, uh, for,

[37:15] from any projects, they're based on the geography or based

[37:18] on this historical standards to which a lot of this

[37:20] infrastructure is designed to sometimes the natural impediments to, to

[37:24] make it to a standard of that we would, we

[37:26] would practice today. Uh, so I would say that, uh,

[37:29] I think there is a degree of that that goes

[37:31] into any, um, uh, project scope. But certainly when we

[37:35] do have onboard a new director of operations, that is

[37:39] something that is a theme. And I think a focal

[37:41] point relates to any initiative that I think will need

[37:44] to be top of mind, at least when it comes

[37:46] to even initially designing that scope is to have those

[37:49] conversations, particularly at the budget, be it a budget or

[37:54] in terms of getting to that initial design phase is

[37:57] to say, okay, what is really in terms of practical

[38:00] as it relates to making sure that, you know, it

[38:03] is to standard that can promote safety. It's going to

[38:05] promote reliability in the system versus what is something to

[38:08] which will be a standard that, you know, doesn't imperil

[38:11] the town's ability to have those, uh, reliable systems in

[38:15] place. But at the same time still kind of marry

[38:17] into, uh, that, uh, that character of that, uh, of

[38:20] that area. So it is, uh, yeah, it is a

[38:22] focal point as it relates to how we carry out

[38:25] these reconstructions moving forward. And sometimes it is also based

[38:30] on or where the influences are comments and feedback we

[38:34] get from external agencies such as MTO such as utilities,

[38:37] which we have limited control onto say that, uh, what

[38:41] they may request for. Because I know, for example, hydropoles

[38:44] is one case in point, which we don't necessarily as

[38:46] a town have much control as it relates to the

[38:48] placement of a hydropause or really on the design elements

[38:51] there. So, uh, but to the degree we can is

[38:54] to say to Council is around, you know, what this

[38:56] is an option, right? Is to look at, uh, modifying

[39:01] to reflect on that character. Follow up Mr. Deputy Mayor.

[39:04] Yes. Thank you. Um, this year I answered half my,

[39:07] my follow - up question with the utilities. You know,

[39:09] sometimes again, we've limited input with the utilities, but I

[39:12] think we need to further those conversations saying, is there

[39:15] an opportunity in this area to have larger lines, maybe

[39:22] buried cable? I think those conversations, even though they may

[39:25] not get the end result, at least we should have,

[39:28] I'm not saying we don't. We should be, that should

[39:29] be a focal point to have those conversations up front.

[39:32] And then we have to recognise too, if we do

[39:34] want a sidewalker, a trail, the road has to be

[39:36] that much wider or, or for drainage. We do need

[39:41] the curbs. So there's, it's just, I think it's just

[39:44] a matter of, you touched on it with character to

[39:46] neighbourhood. And then if we can get that tie in

[39:48] with the utilities, a little bit, um, more pressure. I

[39:51] think that would really help. Um, alleviate some concerns as

[39:55] we are doing some of these, um, fixes and reinfructure

[39:59] projects. So I'd appreciate that that's always a theme as

[40:02] we move forward. CEO Smith. No through chair. Thank you.

[40:05] That's good feedback. Thank you. Great. Okay. Thank you. Uh,

[40:08] Councillor Maxwell. Go ahead. Thank you chair. And yeah, Mr.

[40:16] Towell did bring up some interesting points here. Um, I

[40:19] took the opportunity on the weekend to walk down Peace

[40:24] Street North with a couple of retired landscape architects. And,

[40:29] um, you know, I was surprised to win and ran

[40:31] into some of the residents that, especially I've high bluff

[40:35] lane. They said they really like the wide sidewalks because

[40:38] of, uh, you know, for baby buggies and different things

[40:42] like that. So, but then, you know, and then I

[40:46] also took a walk down Bay Street East. And they

[40:50] have a different way of looking at things. So I

[40:53] think the conclusion was this. And I think, cause everybody

[40:59] brings up character all the time and we've never defined

[41:01] it ever. And I'm actually thinking about doing a notice

[41:06] of motion on that because we're, you know, after with

[41:11] the landscape architects, uh, look at soft landscaping for current

[41:16] and future infrastructure projects. That, you know, trying to preserve

[41:22] the character neighbourhood character and identity. So you may, I

[41:27] may bring that forward and see, okay, but I'll just,

[41:30] uh, leave it at that. Thank you. C. O. S.

[41:32] Smith, do you have a response to that. Yeah. Through

[41:36] the chair. I think, uh, one of the initiatives here

[41:38] is to ensure that when we look at capital projects

[41:41] as well or any project in general that there is

[41:44] an integration of various perspectives into the design of those

[41:47] elements whereby, for example, in Peel Street North, where you

[41:50] do have a park nearby, or you look at, you

[41:52] know, some of the other, um, other factors that may

[41:55] influence, uh, what that may look like or what those,

[41:58] uh, risks might be 20 years down the line, such

[42:01] as nearby developments. So I think that is always, I

[42:04] think the challenge when we look at say a green

[42:05] field type of development or green field type of project

[42:08] where you do not have the same. I think, uh,

[42:10] I think, uh, difficulties or challenges as you do in

[42:14] more of an existing type of, uh, redevelopment of a,

[42:17] of a space. But we always, and I think that's

[42:20] something that, you know, we continue this improvement in the

[42:23] sense of, uh, ensuring that we have those, uh, you

[42:26] know, to the point around landscaping is, you know, well,

[42:29] may not be, you know, they say the driver of

[42:31] the projects to get a water or sanitary pipe installed

[42:34] is to say, well, what are some of those, um,

[42:36] associated impacts and how do we modify that scope understanding

[42:40] budget's always going to be a limitation or do we

[42:42] say is this is part of a, this will influence

[42:45] a future plan. So we don't want to do anything.

[42:47] I think my, the Risk on my end is ensuring

[42:49] whatever we do basically shapes the course of what that

[42:52] park may look like in the future or what that,

[42:54] uh, how the limitations may be opposed on some other

[42:58] type of future development or community initiative that's being in,

[43:02] uh, moves forward. So I think that is definitely the

[43:04] ideal kind of state to which we have that type

[43:07] of fulsome perspective when it comes to these projects. Okay.

[43:15] All right. No. Follow up to that. Council supporter. Go

[43:20] ahead. Yes. Thank you. And through the chair, I would

[43:25] ask, um, it might be Miss Cameron to go down

[43:33] where it says, um, subject request for Council Meeting Agenda

[43:37] item. I want to look at the, um, pick slides

[43:40] first. Distinus comparison.

[43:51] So I think, no, not that way going too far.

[43:55] This. This is really what Peel Street look like before.

[43:59] You can barely count Powell. You barely see a pole.

[44:06] And this is what was presented at the PEC. And

[44:09] then if we, is it scroll up or scroll down?

[44:12] I get, so whatever. This is, okay, stop. And the

[44:17] next slides actually worse. This is what we have now.

[44:19] Uh, which residents are. You know, they do call, they'd

[44:25] like to rename the place polls right now. Um, there

[44:28] is so many pools. In comparison. And I mean, you

[44:31] don't even have to count. It's just on a visual.

[44:35] I did speak with Mr. Chile. I've spoken with a

[44:38] number of people down there. And so part of the

[44:43] conversation and trying to understand. And at the corner of

[44:45] high bluff and peel, there is four light fixtures holes

[44:51] of different sizes. There's four on a corner. Is. Knowing

[44:58] that you have ab cor on one side and hydro

[45:01] one on the other. And. I also, um, no alignment

[45:06] who works for Hydro One and they're given instructions by

[45:10] the example was the city of Hamilton where hydropulse goal.

[45:14] He actually just texted me the copy because he's aligned.

[45:16] That's what he does. Um, so taking that into account,

[45:21] I thought I'm going to call the Ontario Energy Board

[45:23] and distoss them the question. I asked them the question.

[45:27] And in this scenario where you have Ebcor and Hydro

[45:29] on different sides of the road as a provider. Do

[45:33] they have to have separate polls? The answer is no.

[45:36] Can they share polls? Yes. You can put anything on

[45:39] a pole. You can put a light, you can put

[45:41] rogers. You can put every on the pool. And while

[45:45] the municipality isn't required, nothing stops the municipality from talking

[45:52] to all the players and saying, and I reference the

[45:55] previous picture. This is what we have before. This is

[45:59] what we're going to do. Is there any way you

[46:01] guys can work together so it's least disruptive. And. There

[46:07] is, there's nothing stopping the town from doing that. So

[46:12] I want to ask, did any of that happen in

[46:14] this project? Because to say something can happen in the

[46:17] future projects is easy. And I think that's important that

[46:20] they do. But did anyone think about the ascetics of

[46:24] the street and how the volume of poles would change

[46:27] it so much. It looks like an urban street. So

[46:30] I'm just asking the question. Did that cross anybody's mind?

[46:36] CEO Smith. I don't know. Yeah. I believe we do

[46:38] have Mike Campbell on the line that might be able

[46:40] to speak to in terms of the coordination, uh, with

[46:43] the, uh, utilities. So perhaps Mike can able to provide

[46:45] some context in that regard.

[46:55] Yeah. It's do I want me to just dance this

[46:57] question. Go ahead, Mr. Campbell. Yes. Through you, uh, chair.

[47:04] Uh, designs were kind of separate. You've got poles for

[47:09] streetlights and you've got the poles for, uh, Rogers and

[47:13] Hydro. So we, we had the hydro poles upgraded. I'm

[47:21] not sure that like the polls that the new Hydro

[47:25] poles that are in are taller than they used to

[47:28] be. And they're not as brown as they used to

[47:32] be. So I could do a, I mean, we could

[47:34] do a, um, a review of this of where the

[47:38] polls were in the past where the poles are in

[47:41] the currently. But you had one design for hydro to

[47:44] get their hydro lines in place. And Rogers is also

[47:48] on the pole line. And we used, um, then you've

[47:51] got the lighting design for the street done. And they're

[47:54] done separately. And you have to have lights at certain

[47:59] locations. And we're possible we put lights on the new

[48:05] Hydra poles, but we also had to put some new

[48:07] lights in. So there was no, there was no lighting

[48:10] there before. Um, maybe just at the, I think there

[48:14] was, there was a light at Cameron Street. And then

[48:18] there were two lights at one at Timberlain and wanted

[48:21] high bluffling, but they were the smaller, um, uh, development

[48:26] lights rather than the Cobra heads that we're putting in

[48:29] on, on Peel Street. So there could be a marginal

[48:34] amount of overlighting at Timberlane and high bluff lane, but

[48:38] that would have to be assessed. So really it's the,

[48:44] we've got the new polls for Hydro and we've got,

[48:46] we had to put some poles in where the hydro

[48:49] poles didn't line up to where we needed. Uh, light

[48:53] installed. I mean, we can, if you want, we can

[48:57] go back and do a post mortem on this. But

[49:03] the designs were really separate parties designing things. One, the

[49:07] lighting design bar are consultant. And two, the, the hydro

[49:11] design by Appco. Councillor Porter, do you have a follow

[49:16] up? Uh, yes, I do. Cause I've been down the

[49:18] street one of the people complain there are no lights

[49:21] that work at night. That's what I've heard. Some lights

[49:25] are on pole. Some aren't. Some are on separate poles.

[49:29] Um, my question was though that at any time did

[49:35] the municipality say to Ebco or hydro with respect to,

[49:41] can we work together? Cause this is what the street

[49:43] looked like before. And this is, and we don't, we'd

[49:48] like you to look as close to this as possible.

[49:52] So we didn't have, um, cause the stark contrast in

[49:56] the number of polls. And they're on both sides. And

[50:01] they are, I mean, residents have counted the polls. They've

[50:04] counted this spaces between the poles there. And it really

[50:10] given all the vegetation, everything that was taken out. You

[50:12] go down that street and you just see these poles

[50:15] sticking out of the ground. And they don't understand why

[50:17] it happened that way. So as I said, the municipality

[50:23] is not obligated, but there is nothing stopping a municipality

[50:28] by working with Hydro One EP Corps to say, how

[50:31] can we work together. To maybe have it look like?

[50:35] As similar as it did before. And I'm asking, did

[50:38] that happen. And if it takes a post - mortem

[50:40] to get to the answer, then I'm happy to move

[50:43] a motion to Undertape one. Do you have a response

[50:47] to Mr. Campbell. Sure. Uh, through Mr. Chair. I don't

[50:51] think, no, we never had a meeting between Hydro, uh,

[50:55] between hardware, one EPCOR and the lighting designers. That wasn't

[51:00] done. It's, I'm not sure if it's, if it's commonly

[51:03] done anywhere. We've got a, the town has a lighting

[51:09] standard for the street. So you've got your lighting designers

[51:11] working with that. And you also had the hydro and

[51:15] Rogers. They've got to get their lines in place. And,

[51:19] you know, they, they did their design and put their

[51:21] polls in. Just as another follow - up, Madam, Mr.

[51:25] Chair. Is did MTE talk to them. Well, that's the,

[51:30] that's the lighting designer. That's the empty. Is who is,

[51:35] who is the engineer then for this? And. Through you,

[51:40] Mr. Chair, Vince Pugliese with the MTE is the, the,

[51:44] the lead designer for, um, The project. Council Porter, are

[51:50] you, excuse me, that's, I asked if MTE had had

[51:54] the discussions. You said they were the lighting people. You're

[51:57] saying now they were the engineers. Through your Mr. Chair.

[52:03] Yeah. MTE is the main designer and they had a

[52:09] subcontractor working on the electrical lighting.

[52:35] That. Aired anything.

[56:38] Test test test.

[1:03:01] Are we repaired? Okay, two minutes.

[1:04:21] All right, Madam Clerk or Madam Deputy Clerk, we are

[1:04:24] our microphone situation has been repaired. For now. We'll call

[1:04:30] the meeting back to order. We are reconvened. Council Supporter.

[1:04:34] Please finish with your comment or your question. Through the

[1:04:40] chair, I was just waiting for an answer. From Mr.

[1:04:43] Campbell as to how we ended up with all these

[1:04:46] polls. And did MTL have any conversations as they were,

[1:04:53] the designer? Did they have any conversations? Was there any

[1:04:56] thought put into it? Because I think what gets me

[1:04:58] is you have these pictures on the pick. This is

[1:05:00] the before. Then we have the after, and the Star

[1:05:03] Contrast, and really was that necessary. That's the bottom line.

[1:05:08] Mr. Campbell, do you have a response to that? Sir,

[1:05:17] Mr. Campbell, you are muted. Apologise. Sorry about that. There

[1:05:25] was an coordination between the Hydro design and MTE and

[1:05:31] their subcontractor that did the electrical design is Mighten Engineering.

[1:05:37] There wasn't a conversation between the two. Hydros got their

[1:05:42] mandate, which is to get power down that street. And

[1:05:44] the lighting designer has his mandate to light the street

[1:05:48] to the requirements of the Towns Engineering Standards. Where possible

[1:05:54] they put the Cobra heads on the existing, this new

[1:06:01] Hydropoles. And where they needed other lighting, they put them

[1:06:06] on, and it didn't line up with the Hydra Pole

[1:06:11] locations. They put in new polls for Cobra headlights. There's

[1:06:17] 16 lights that were installed. Six of them are on

[1:06:20] utility poles and tender on new poles. That's how we

[1:06:24] got to where we are today. Okay, thank you, Mr.

[1:06:27] Campbell. Councillor Porter, will you be alluding to a motion

[1:06:30] for an examination of the process on this? Yes, I

[1:06:35] will, but what I need, what I would just would

[1:06:38] like to understand through the chair is you say there

[1:06:41] was no coordination. Between the players. Through you, Mr. Chair,

[1:06:50] there wasn't a coordination meeting. How can we locate the

[1:06:54] hydropoles to best light the streets? They're two separate design

[1:06:58] exercise. The Hydro is, they're mandated is to get power

[1:07:02] down that street. And on the other side, the lighting

[1:07:06] design is separate, where they, where they could use a

[1:07:09] hydropol to mount a light they did. And other than

[1:07:13] that, but there's not a coordination between those two. They're

[1:07:19] two separate design exercises. Okay. So I just have one

[1:07:24] final comment, but I do understand that your title is

[1:07:28] Senior Project Capital Project Coordinator. Thank you. So I will

[1:07:35] be drafting, yes. Thank you. Okay, you're drafting a motion.

[1:07:38] Thank you, Councillor Porter. We're going to move on to

[1:07:41] Councillor Ardell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm just wondering,

[1:07:45] we've had this discussion at the beginning of this Council

[1:07:48] term from an area down in Craig Leaf. And they

[1:07:53] wanted their designs a little bit different, because now, and

[1:07:58] I think it was windfall, they wanted sidewalks they wanted.

[1:08:01] All the urban standards, whereas other places in Craig Leaf,

[1:08:06] like the rules standards. And now that more and more

[1:08:09] people are moving up and they have children, yes, they,

[1:08:12] and I ask that question many years ago, what happens

[1:08:15] when you start to age in place, and you want

[1:08:19] to go, and maybe you're on a walker, you're in

[1:08:21] a wheelchair, and you don't have a sidewalk, or you

[1:08:24] don't have outdoor lighting. So things are changing, and I'm

[1:08:28] just wondering if we could have different rule in urban

[1:08:32] standards designs so that different parts of the town, you

[1:08:39] know, like Craig Leaf is developing, and the development happening.

[1:08:44] But maybe we should have a, you know, different standards

[1:08:47] and ask the communities at that time, or the developers.

[1:08:50] What are we going to be designing here? Like, can

[1:08:52] we have down in Craig Leaf? Some of them have

[1:08:57] some really decorative lighting, some of them don't. Some have

[1:09:00] sidewalks, some don't, some have curves, some don't. So, um,

[1:09:04] I'm in rule, so I don't have anything. So, um,

[1:09:09] it's, everybody's to their own choice. I choose to live

[1:09:12] on an Apple farm. That's my life. So, um, you

[1:09:16] know, I don't have water and sewer either. So those

[1:09:18] are what happens when things get upgraded. And I think

[1:09:23] we should have, though, I'm just maybe to Mr. CO,

[1:09:27] Adam Smith, could we do some different designs throughout the

[1:09:31] different types of our community? Because, you know, we have,

[1:09:36] you know, Craig Leaf is changing down the Craig Leech

[1:09:41] Village, which goes along Highway 26 to when they start

[1:09:44] to develop some of those projects down there. Do they

[1:09:48] want all this urban standards with these huge poles and

[1:09:53] lights? And can we look at something different down there

[1:09:56] as opposed to, and Cameron Street, too, the same thing?

[1:10:00] Like, why do we have to have just, this is

[1:10:03] what's going to happen. And I think because we are

[1:10:07] a unique town. And we should be giving the town

[1:10:11] people opportunities to choose how they want to live. And

[1:10:15] I've been down cameras street. I have friends on camera

[1:10:17] street, and now I know I'm sort of looking at

[1:10:20] these poles, and maybe it is Hydro with these streetlights.

[1:10:27] They're pretty big. So, you know, it's sort of, I'm

[1:10:30] just wondering if we can look at two different types

[1:10:34] of design elements for this town. Thank you. Okay, thank

[1:10:38] you, Councillor Ardell, CAO Smith. Do you want to comment

[1:10:41] on the Urban Design and the rural designs that we

[1:10:45] have? For engineering standards? Yeah, through the chair. So we

[1:10:49] do delineate between urban and rural with our current standards.

[1:10:52] I think the challenge becomes is to what the perspectives,

[1:10:55] particularly in the community as it relates to what is

[1:10:58] rural versus what is urban. And I think that's what

[1:11:00] we were confronted with. I also are background study too,

[1:11:04] delineates on, you know, future state to say, Hey, this

[1:11:07] road, even though it says rural now, but in the

[1:11:09] future, based on population growth, based on, um, on those

[1:11:13] projections, that it is to be upgraded to an urban

[1:11:15] standard. So we have to be, particularly when we use

[1:11:17] DCs, we have to be cognizant of what's in our

[1:11:20] background studied, and sure, we're using that money with the

[1:11:23] intent of that study. And then in conjunction with our

[1:11:27] engineering standards. So there is a bit of difficulty to

[1:11:29] say that, you know, where, um, and that's, I think,

[1:11:32] the challenge we've seen a lot of these projects around,

[1:11:34] you know, noting the, for the engineering standards themselves. And

[1:11:38] when we start to go down the route as it

[1:11:39] relates to, um, picking and choosing a where these standards

[1:11:42] end up applying, right? Whereas it's just saying, you know,

[1:11:45] and that's the challenge, right? When you look at my

[1:11:48] one example around Greenfield versus Reconstruction is to say, you

[1:11:51] know, engineering standards that we apply quite rigorously pertaining to

[1:11:54] developments. When we uphold them to a certain standard, we

[1:11:57] also want to hold ourselves to that same standard in

[1:12:00] terms of applying it. But, uh, so we do have

[1:12:02] that language in our engineering standards, but I mean, made

[1:12:04] to that point is that the inception of projects can

[1:12:07] always consider as it relates to, you know, where are

[1:12:10] the risks is to say modifying that type of design.

[1:12:13] And maybe if it's to be incongruent with our engineering

[1:12:15] standards, which, you know, that could be council's right as

[1:12:18] it relates to modifying that, but where we have less

[1:12:21] wiggle room is to say, well, if it is inconsistent

[1:12:23] with the standards by, say, external agencies or by Jessica

[1:12:27] Engineering practice, we want to ensure we're not putting the

[1:12:30] municipality at risk. Um, so that is some, you know,

[1:12:33] good conversation as it relates to project scopes moving forward,

[1:12:36] particularly for capital. Uh, is to say, is, you know,

[1:12:39] how do we look at those modifications in a manner

[1:12:42] that, uh, at least when we know at early appointed

[1:12:45] time, or we've identified that those types of perspectives there

[1:12:48] is to say, well, can we do this a little

[1:12:50] bit differently? Or is there, you know, Hey, we do

[1:12:53] have, usually on annual basis, a reviewer of our standards

[1:12:56] to see what may need to change. But, uh, it

[1:12:59] does become difficult when you look at trying to pick

[1:13:02] and choose. And I think trying to marry against expectations

[1:13:04] on what is rural versus what is urban. Councillor Ardell?

[1:13:10] Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and for any

[1:13:13] new development, definitely. But for parts of our rural down

[1:13:17] towards Cameron Street down, you know, Bay Street, different things

[1:13:21] we should be looking at different ways of doing things.

[1:13:26] Or, you know, Orchard Park, we, you know, we did

[1:13:28] a design years ago on there and people didn't like

[1:13:31] it. So, um, yeah, I just think we should have

[1:13:34] different types of design. That's a Councillor Adele. Thank you.

[1:13:38] Yeah. Let's, uh, I'll just keep us on track for

[1:13:41] this correspondence to do with Peel Street North. Um, but

[1:13:45] I do Mr. Campbell, if you wanted to, uh, weigh

[1:13:49] in on this, I do recall that there was quite

[1:13:51] a bit of compromise that was, that was done on

[1:13:54] this street. Is that not correct, Mr. Campbell? Uh, three

[1:13:58] years, Mr. Chair, yes, there was a, there was an

[1:14:01] extensive process of coming up with, uh, this unique road

[1:14:05] cross section, uh, we went through the first process of

[1:14:09] select determining whether, um, a rural road cross section would

[1:14:13] work or as laid out in the development charges background

[1:14:17] study. This was supposed to be developed as a, uh,

[1:14:20] the town's urban standard, which at a 1. 5 metre

[1:14:23] wide sidewalk, uh, 8. 5 metre wide asphalt. Um, it

[1:14:27] is a unique situation because you're trying to fit, um,

[1:14:32] you might maybe call it a round peg into a

[1:14:34] square hole, but you're trying to fit a road into

[1:14:36] an existing, um, um, lay of the land. And the,

[1:14:43] the rural road cross section just wouldn't work because the,

[1:14:46] the resultant ditch depth to drain the road structure would

[1:14:51] have backslopes well on deprivate property. So this was a

[1:14:55] compromise of we went down to seven metre wide road.

[1:14:59] We looked at three different types of a sort of

[1:15:02] an urban rural. Feel of the road. And this was

[1:15:06] the one that was selected. So that this was, Oh,

[1:15:10] it added, uh, and I'm more than a year to

[1:15:12] the project and it was, uh, extensive consultation. And this

[1:15:17] was the road selection, the road section that was selected.

[1:15:22] Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Okay. Madam Mayor, go ahead. Thank

[1:15:27] you. Through you the chair to add to Councillor Adeles

[1:15:30] Remarks, I think when I look at the correspondence and

[1:15:34] I'm looking at the correspondence ask, it's simply to reflect

[1:15:37] on moving forward and how we might. So I think

[1:15:40] there are some good points raised by Councillor Adele that

[1:15:42] each and every scenario may be different and that we

[1:15:46] should have different options and choices moving forward. I think

[1:15:49] it's very helpful to have taken this in. This is

[1:15:51] now another example that can be demonstrated in the town

[1:15:54] when the next decision making happens. What is it that

[1:15:57] works here? What is it that doesn't? What would make

[1:16:00] sense in that particular occasion? I think the CAO has

[1:16:03] added some good details too that, um, above all as

[1:16:06] well, the reason we can't return to the way that

[1:16:09] things used to look is because standards have changed. Safety

[1:16:12] standards have changed. We need to be able to deliver

[1:16:15] securely minimize risk of the town that we're delivering everything

[1:16:18] we need, whether it's light at certain increments, whether it's

[1:16:21] the widened sidewalk, all of these things, the correspondent is

[1:16:25] simply asking that we take this into reflection of the

[1:16:27] future. So I can support a motion that would take

[1:16:30] that recommendation from the correspondence and keep it in place

[1:16:34] that we can deliver. Um, I have no problem with

[1:16:37] the way in which the staff has coordinated this project

[1:16:39] because there are so many moving pieces to this. And

[1:16:42] as we've heard examples about couldn't just take a cookie

[1:16:45] cutter example and make it fit here, everything had to

[1:16:48] be this. But what about if we did it this

[1:16:50] way? It's been a long Folsom, thoughtful process. And I

[1:16:54] appreciate the staff and being able to coordinate not just

[1:16:56] the decisions that we make, but also that there are

[1:16:59] entities with the utilities that we don't get to control.

[1:17:02] Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councillor Hope. Yes, thank

[1:17:07] you. You know, building on all parts of this conversation,

[1:17:14] Councillor Porter and I took a trip down to Southampton

[1:17:18] to see what they had done on what they called

[1:17:21] cottage roads. It was very impressive how they were able

[1:17:24] to take a street above the size of Bay Street

[1:17:31] and simply, uh, keep to the same size of street,

[1:17:35] keep to the same character being a big word in

[1:17:39] the Tom of Mountain Mountains. So that's really what we're

[1:17:41] talking about is maintaining our character. So when we have

[1:17:44] something like this where we look like Toronto or Mississauga

[1:17:48] or whatever, that's not what people came up here for.

[1:17:51] They, they came up, uh, for the character of the

[1:17:54] community. So there was an opportunity here to maintain the

[1:17:58] character didn't exactly happen. So I think what we want

[1:18:02] to do is to be very careful in future. So

[1:18:04] it might mean engineering standards for, uh, for cottage road

[1:18:08] style, which there is a prototype for that from, um,

[1:18:12] from Southampton. And I'm sure probably other municipalities have taken

[1:18:15] it as well. But, um, we've had a lot of

[1:18:19] learning between Bay Street and Peel Street. Let's take it

[1:18:23] and let's communicate well with our staff. And at the

[1:18:26] same time ask, but most importantly, communicate with the community.

[1:18:32] So if there's the right public consultation, then we don't

[1:18:35] have this after. Everything can come out before, which is

[1:18:41] what, uh, I think we should strive for. And it

[1:18:45] seems to be with reconstruction where it's most important because

[1:18:49] what was there before isn't looking like, what is there

[1:18:52] now? And that's the character part. That's why people move

[1:18:54] up here. And of course love being here. Thank you.

[1:18:59] So I guess what my follow - up would be

[1:19:01] is, um, can we look into this? And two. And

[1:19:06] I think we asked, I recall, um, after Councillor Porter

[1:19:10] and I must have gone a couple of years ago.

[1:19:13] So, um, what through you, um, Mr. Chair, uh, to

[1:19:18] the CAO, what can be done to explore what Southampton

[1:19:23] has done or what the cottage road, um, protocol where

[1:19:27] that is at the moment and how we might be

[1:19:29] able to, uh, take the learnings from other municipalities. Thank

[1:19:33] you. All right. Mr. CAO, with you can answer within

[1:19:37] the context of, uh, this is, this is a piece

[1:19:39] of correspondence to do with peel street north and reflecting

[1:19:42] upon our finished product. Please go ahead and we have

[1:19:45] a motion. We need to get on the floor. We

[1:19:47] have a lot of other reports to do to please

[1:19:49] go ahead. Yeah. Through the chair. And there has been

[1:19:52] previous direction with respect to that type of analyst and

[1:19:56] study. And just with some, some recent turnover, I would

[1:19:59] say. We're looking at shuffling some of that work as

[1:20:03] it relates to getting that going. We do have a

[1:20:05] proposal with respect to something similar to, uh, what was

[1:20:09] done in the Southampton area. And, uh, we are working

[1:20:12] out reviewing that with the new lead for that project.

[1:20:16] But, uh, I once say it's the solution to making,

[1:20:21] uh, everyone happy is with respect to some of these

[1:20:23] designs, but that is in flight. And, uh, we're just

[1:20:26] looking to get that, uh, that moving. I mean, I

[1:20:31] think this is a very important point. We're following what

[1:20:33] the community is looking for. So, um, well, this has

[1:20:36] been going on for a little while. Um, you know,

[1:20:39] for the last couple of years, this discussion has gone

[1:20:41] on. So I'm really hoping that, um, we can have

[1:20:47] a better car route than just that we're talking about

[1:20:50] it. You know, what, what, what is staff doing about

[1:20:56] bringing forward cottage road protocols, however you want to call

[1:21:00] it. And, um, getting council's busing on it. Thank you.

[1:21:05] Yeah. Through the chair, I think my expectation is associated

[1:21:07] with this project is BV atendendum or it'd be some

[1:21:10] type of, uh, as it relates to our engineering standards,

[1:21:13] which we bring back to council. So, uh, just working

[1:21:16] on get that once again, that project in flight, but

[1:21:18] I am keen to move on it before, before the

[1:21:20] end of the year, uh, and to what you'll be

[1:21:23] able to report back to council on what some of

[1:21:26] the results of that study. Thank you very much. Okay.

[1:21:29] Councillor Porter, do you have your motion into the Deputy

[1:21:32] Clerk? I see your hand Councillor Maxwell. You've had a

[1:21:36] question and a follow - up. We need to move

[1:21:39] along. I'll get to your question after the motions on

[1:21:41] the floor unless you'd like to second it. We have

[1:21:43] a motion from Councillor Porter that Town Blue Mountains receives

[1:21:48] for information on the July 17th, 2026 correspondence from Gary

[1:21:52] Tile. Resident regarding a reconstruction of Peel Street and that

[1:21:56] Council, or sorry, and that, uh, The Peel Street North

[1:22:00] Reconstruction Project has resulted in a significant increase in the

[1:22:04] number of utility poles and related streetscape infrastructure compared to

[1:22:07] the pre - construction condition. And that residents have expressed

[1:22:11] concerns regarding the visual impact streetscape character. And overall appearance

[1:22:15] of the Reconstructed Corridor and that it is important for

[1:22:19] both Council and residents to understand how the final design

[1:22:24] evolved, what decisions were made during the planning and implementation

[1:22:28] and whether alternative approaches were considered. Therefore, council direct staff

[1:22:33] to Undertake and Report back on a post project review

[1:22:37] of the Peel Street North Reconstruction Project, specifically addressing, one,

[1:22:41] the number and location of utility poles that existed prior

[1:22:44] to Reconstruction compared to the number and location installed as

[1:22:48] part of the final project. Two, the decision - making

[1:22:52] process that led to the final utility and streetscape configuration,

[1:22:56] including the roles of the town, utility providers, consultants, contractors,

[1:23:01] and regulatory agencies. Three, whether the alternative designs or utility

[1:23:07] arrangements were considered to minimize the number of poles and

[1:23:11] associated streetscape visual intrusion. And if so, why they were

[1:23:17] not pursued. Four, any changes made during detailed design or

[1:23:22] construction that resulted in additional poles being installed beyond the

[1:23:27] original state. Five, opportunities for reducing pole, proliferation and improving

[1:23:35] streetscape design on future road reconstruction projects. And six, recommendations

[1:23:40] for council consideration to ensure future projects better balance infrastructure

[1:23:44] requirements with community aesthetics, design, objectives, and resident expectations. And

[1:23:51] further that Staff Report back to Council before October 6,

[1:23:55] 2026 with the findings of the review and any recommended

[1:23:59] improvements, uh, to the town's project planning, design review and

[1:24:04] utility coordination processes for reconstruction capital projects. Oh, a second

[1:24:09] then. That has been moved by Councillor Porter and seconded

[1:24:12] by Councillor Maxwell. First and foremost, I'm going to go

[1:24:14] to, um, director, or sorry, not director, CEO Smith, The

[1:24:18] timeline, uh, that is something that can be worked with.

[1:24:22] That's what jumps out to me first. Yeah. Through the

[1:24:27] chair, I believe we do have a committee, The Whole

[1:24:30] that precedes on, is on the October 6th date, so

[1:24:34] which I think we should be able to have sufficient

[1:24:36] time to bring that report back. But I'll talk to

[1:24:40] following this meeting speak to the project team on that,

[1:24:42] uh, on that, uh, on the timeline. Okay. Thank you

[1:24:45] for Meek. You're not clear. Councillor Porter, go ahead. Yes.

[1:24:49] I am through the chair of two things I want

[1:24:51] to say. It can be on or before. I'm willing

[1:24:54] to extend it to October 6th. If it comes then,

[1:24:57] that's fine. Cause that's a cow. Second of all, through

[1:25:00] the chair, I'd like to build on what pouncer hopes

[1:25:02] it. The funding for the cottage streets project was in

[1:25:06] the 2025 budget. I did follow up with several times

[1:25:10] with the former Director of Operations. And so it's coming

[1:25:16] up because it was discussed before the 2025 budget. So

[1:25:21] I think, and I realised that there has been change.

[1:25:26] But before that, there had been a year. And this

[1:25:31] is kind of, um, it's quite important. There was an

[1:25:34] allocation of funny. It wasn't a budgeting concern. Um, I

[1:25:38] know they've had conversations with them. And they are an

[1:25:41] engineering firm paradigm that did them in Southampton that just

[1:25:44] seemed to have a different point of view. Um, and

[1:25:48] in Southampton has many similar characteristics to us in the

[1:25:52] sense of street layout. They have, um, similar or smaller

[1:25:56] right away. Their cottages get, you typically get demolished bigger

[1:26:00] homes built. Um, but they really maintained and kept that.

[1:26:05] And so I would like to see that wrapped up

[1:26:09] sooner than later because it's been something that's been hanging

[1:26:11] there. Um, and could benefit, um, reconstruction projects. Thank you.

[1:26:18] Ciosmith, do you have a response to that? Yeah. Through

[1:26:21] the chair, as I mentioned previously, we are, we are

[1:26:24] committed to working through that project and getting that going

[1:26:27] this year. Thank you. Councillor Maxwell. Go ahead. Thank you,

[1:26:34] Chair. And thank you, Councillor Porter, for this. What I

[1:26:38] was going to build on, uh, Mr. Campbell's, uh, comment

[1:26:43] that, um, the utilities job is to sell their product.

[1:26:49] Now I'm just wondering when they're selling their product, do

[1:26:54] they also offer the fact that you can maybe have

[1:26:57] underground or you can have poles. Cause I know when

[1:27:00] the private world, I can have an underground service or

[1:27:04] I can have a poles. So I'm just wondering if

[1:27:07] that option was ever brought up to the public and

[1:27:11] two council for us to consider as an option. For,

[1:27:16] uh, Peel Street. Or even bastard. Mr. Campbell, I'm sorry.

[1:27:22] Okay, Mr. Councillor Maxwell, Mr. Campbell, uh, do you care

[1:27:25] to comment on that? I'm sure it's wildly expensive, but

[1:27:28] go ahead wherever you went. You've disappeared for my screen.

[1:27:41] Uh. Mr. Campbell, you're having, uh, there you are. I

[1:27:44] think you're muted. Sorry. Uh, chair had turned things off.

[1:27:54] Um, we. Just did The Last Council. There was a

[1:28:00] question came up in the last Council about, um, hardening

[1:28:03] the town's infrastructure by burying existing, um, hydro and communication

[1:28:09] lines. Uh, and we looked at that at, uh, for

[1:28:13] Tharnberry West phase one. And the, uh, it's, it's something

[1:28:18] on the order of, it was more than a million

[1:28:22] dollars per kilometer to bury a hydro system. And there's,

[1:28:27] if there's things that come out of that as well,

[1:28:29] you've got houses that are going to have to rework

[1:28:33] their electrical systems because now they're having a buried service

[1:28:36] rather than overhead service. So it gets pretty complicated and

[1:28:40] it was at that time it was, um, basically we

[1:28:44] looked into it really expensive to do. And they said,

[1:28:48] thanks. I don't think we can add millions of dollars

[1:28:52] to our capital reconstruction projects. So specifically looking at the

[1:28:57] question was never asked on Peel Street, but it would

[1:29:01] cost to put things underground. That wasn't, that never came

[1:29:05] up. Because we'd just been through the exercise with Thornberry

[1:29:09] West. And it was, it's just impractical to consider that.

[1:29:13] So to answer the question, was it was putting the

[1:29:18] infrastructure, the utility infrastructure underground appeal street. That was never

[1:29:22] specifically done. Councillor Maxwell. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Yeah, no,

[1:29:28] I appreciate that. Uh, Mr. Campbell, uh, but I do

[1:29:31] believe it should be an option. To, for Council to

[1:29:37] consider. And the Public, that's all. It shouldn't be just

[1:29:41] flat bang. That's the way it is. I do, I

[1:29:44] would like to see it presented to the Public and

[1:29:47] to a Council. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Councillor Maxwell.

[1:29:54] Uh, Deputy Mayor Barneau, go ahead. Uh, thank you. Um,

[1:29:56] through the chair. And as we kicked off this conversation,

[1:29:59] I was talking about coordination with utility and then taking

[1:30:03] a look at, uh, different standards. Um, you know, we've

[1:30:06] talked about cottage roads and things like that. Um, I've

[1:30:09] read the guidelines over the past few years from soggy

[1:30:11] inshores, uh, where that's governed. In this case, the project

[1:30:14] scope changed. We did a seven metre, um, asphalt roadway.

[1:30:18] Cottage roads are 3. 3 each side to 3. 5,

[1:30:22] which is, you know, 6. 6 to seven. So we're

[1:30:25] almost within the cottage road. As much as, um, I

[1:30:29] think the issue is on the utility side of this,

[1:30:33] the extra polls we had to have for street lighting,

[1:30:36] uh, for hydros. So I think that coordination can go

[1:30:39] a little bit further. Um, but we had to, you

[1:30:42] know, adapt Georgia Trail parking in this. Um, many of

[1:30:45] the residents were worried about the safety. So remember we

[1:30:48] had to reprofile the peak of the road. So the

[1:30:51] lot that went into this, this design, all that being

[1:30:54] said, if we can coordinate better with the utilities, I

[1:30:57] think is key factor. And that is, that is buried

[1:31:01] within the, um, within the Carter George guidelines from Soggy

[1:31:04] Insures is a utility tie in. Cause I think if

[1:31:07] there wouldn't have been that many hydro poles, overall we

[1:31:10] did delay this project almost year and the Public Consultation

[1:31:13] was huge. And we tried to fit in everything that

[1:31:15] the Public wanted hence the seven metre road, the two

[1:31:18] point, you know, we looked at the malt, looked at

[1:31:20] multi - use trails at the time. We looked at

[1:31:22] the street lighting standards. Um, reprofiling the peak. And then

[1:31:25] restoration of, um, disturbed areas when there had to be

[1:31:28] some brush cutting. So a lot of those things have

[1:31:31] been addressed. But at the end of the day, are

[1:31:33] the residents happy. And I think the utility side of

[1:31:36] it, which is less at our control, but maybe a

[1:31:39] better coordination. We'll be able to, and maybe this report

[1:31:42] will be able to show us as we move forward

[1:31:44] in the future. Um, if we take something that's going

[1:31:47] to be an urban standard, but is there a mod

[1:31:50] in that section? So I think the CAO committed to

[1:31:53] that with his new director of Ops comes on board

[1:31:56] and we can look in each project as a silo

[1:32:00] as opposed to, um, just, just as a blanket brush.

[1:32:03] So I'd be able to support the motion because I

[1:32:05] think it will, um, reflect forward for next projects. Okay.

[1:32:10] Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. All right. We have had

[1:32:13] a Folsom discussion on that. Let's Staff wanted to respond.

[1:32:16] I'm not seeing any indication. We're going to, uh, call

[1:32:20] that boat, please, Madam Deputy Clerk. The vote is open.

[1:32:26] For me. Thank you, Councillor Maxwell.

[1:32:38] That boat is closed. That vote is carried with, uh,

[1:32:44] Councillor Hope, Councillor Maxwell, myself, Councillor Porter, Deputy Murgnon, and

[1:32:49] Councillor Ardell voting affirmative and Adam Mayer Matrosofts voting in

[1:32:54] the negative. Now we'll move on to item B 4

[1:32:59] points. Uh, sorry. B 3. 4. Acting recording secretary, the

[1:33:04] Blue Mountains OPP Detachment Board regarding solutions of support traffic

[1:33:07] calming and speed mitigation techniques. If you have any questions

[1:33:11] regarding this piece of correspondence. Deputy Mayor, please go ahead.

[1:33:18] Uh, thank you very quickly. This is an easy one.

[1:33:21] Just with the, um, removal of photo radar. They're just,

[1:33:24] uh, from what I've gathered, we're looking for additional funding,

[1:33:27] um, different misspellers, look at additional funding from the province

[1:33:30] to help with other mitigation measures. So I think it's

[1:33:33] just a matter of letter of support on this. And

[1:33:36] then, um, if that's what council's will is. So when

[1:33:39] you're ready to move, I'd move that we support this,

[1:33:41] uh, recommendation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jeff. A second. Seconded

[1:33:45] by Council Reporter. Thank you. Councillor Maxwell. Go ahead. Oh,

[1:33:50] thank you, Chair. I was just kind of wondering what

[1:33:53] counts are L1 does to do with this. But anyway,

[1:33:56] so anyway, um, so I was reading the correspondence, North

[1:34:00] Granville and Merrickville are pretty similar to our little town

[1:34:07] here. So, um, I can see what they're thinking about

[1:34:11] for tourism and speeding and all those kinds of things.

[1:34:14] So I support this. Okay. Now Councillor Adele, I didn't

[1:34:20] see if your hand went on. I saw The Mayor's

[1:34:22] hand go up. So I'll put her and I do

[1:34:25] sit on the board. So, um, I'll let The Mayor

[1:34:27] go first and then I can go second. Thank you.

[1:34:30] Madam Mayor, please go ahead. Thank you. Through you the

[1:34:33] chair. Yes. Um, Councillor Dela and I, uh, you know,

[1:34:36] had good reflection and thought and discussion and move these

[1:34:39] motions because, uh, what it's trying to do here is

[1:34:42] the province has said, okay, we get those of you

[1:34:45] that were using photo radar. You need some sort of

[1:34:47] financial compensation to do some other things. This ass that's

[1:34:51] come through the OPP boards, but also is being reflected

[1:34:54] in support from the appropriate municipalities those two municipalities that

[1:34:59] form that detachment Board have simply said, look, it makes

[1:35:03] sense then that those of us who don't use photo

[1:35:06] rate are also have access to funds to be able

[1:35:09] to improve safety and speed reduction program. So that is

[1:35:15] the simple asset. It's done in fairness that just because

[1:35:17] we didn't have photo radar. We'd still like to be

[1:35:20] able to have an opportunity to be able to pursue

[1:35:22] that. And I'd like to pass it to my colleague

[1:35:24] on the detachment Board Councillor Adele. Thank you Madam Mayor

[1:35:28] Councillor Ardell. Go ahead. Thank you Mr. Chair. And yes,

[1:35:31] I agree with everything. Madam Mayor has said. We thought

[1:35:34] this would be better circulated through our council and see

[1:35:38] if we could get support for this. So, um, yes,

[1:35:41] I was hoping that I could move this, but that's

[1:35:44] fine. It doesn't matter. It's been moved in duly seconded.

[1:35:47] So we will discontinue on. Thank you very much. Okay.

[1:35:51] Thank you, Councillor Ardell. So the motion is that count

[1:35:55] move by the Deputy Mayor and seconded by Council Reporter.

[1:35:59] That council, the Talboy Mountains received for information that July

[1:36:02] 18th, 2026 correspondence from the Acting Recording Secretary of the

[1:36:06] Blue Mountains OPP Detachment Board regarding resolutions of support, traffic

[1:36:10] calming and speed mitigation techniques. And that Council supports the

[1:36:14] recommended resolutions of support traffic calming and speed mitigation techniques.

[1:36:18] Any further questions on the motion on the floor. Seeing

[1:36:21] none. Madam Deputy Clerk, please call that hope. Is open.

[1:36:37] Councillor Porter, my I assist. I voted affirmative. Thank you.

[1:36:40] Thank you. That mot is post. A vote is carried

[1:36:45] with all present voting in the affirmative. Now we will

[1:36:47] go on to item B 4. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. B4.

[1:36:51] 1. Block 29 register plan 16m - 14 deeming bylaw

[1:36:57] recommendation OPS. 26. 046. Mr. Campbell, I believe you brought

[1:37:03] this report forward or is Mr. CAO taking it. Mr.

[1:37:07] Campbell. Uh, yes. 3U Mr. Chair. It's a fairly the

[1:37:15] report's fairly simple. We sold Glock 29 to 189 Peel

[1:37:22] Street. Uh, their entrance wasn't going to work. So this

[1:37:25] was, uh, this is discussed in multiple Staff Reports. Are

[1:37:34] there any questions that, uh, Council has on the, uh,

[1:37:37] on the report. I will pose that for you, uh,

[1:37:41] Mr. Campbell. We have a Councillor Maxwell. You have your

[1:37:45] hand up. Go ahead. Not really a question. It's kind

[1:37:48] of a bit of a request, I guess. Um, Mr.

[1:37:51] Campbell, could you put a map up there on the,

[1:37:54] uh, board forest. So the Public and C where this

[1:37:58] is. Just, I know we know, but perhaps they don't

[1:38:01] know. I don't believe it's part of the source materials.

[1:38:05] And Mr. Campbell is remote. Yeah. I can't. So. I'm

[1:38:15] sorry, I can't, I can't pull anything up for you.

[1:38:19] Okay. Okay. Then we know. Thank you. Any further questions

[1:38:25] regarding this report. All right. Well, we have a recommended

[1:38:30] motion that Council receive Staff Report OPS dot 26. 046

[1:38:35] entitled block 29 register plan 16M dash 14 deeming bylaw

[1:38:40] recommendation. And that Council and Act, a deeming bylaw pursuant

[1:38:43] to section 50 bracket 4 end bracket of the planning

[1:38:48] act to deem block 29 registered plan 16m - 14

[1:38:53] as not being a registered block within a plan of

[1:38:55] subdivision. Do I have a mover? So moved. It's moved

[1:38:59] by Councillor Ardell, seconder. I will second. Second by Madam

[1:39:02] Mayor. I don't see any further hands. Madam Deputy Clerk,

[1:39:05] you may call that boat, please. The vote is open.

[1:39:20] That boat. Is closed. That vote is carry with all

[1:39:23] President voting in the affirmative. We'll now move on to

[1:39:25] item B 4. 2, drinking water analysis for PFAS or

[1:39:28] PFAS PFAS OPS dot 26. 034 manager Kershaw. I will

[1:39:38] give you the floor. Go ahead. Drew, you Mr. Chair.

[1:39:43] So the town undertook some PFOS testing in July, uh,

[1:39:47] which, we tested both the treated and the raw water

[1:39:51] coming into our treatment plant. So just bear with me,

[1:39:57] sorry. Health Canada currently has a drinking water objective. So

[1:40:06] it's not a limit. It's an objective for PFOS of

[1:40:11] 30 micrograms per litre. So that's parts per trillion based

[1:40:15] on the sum of 25 specific people PFOS compounds to

[1:40:20] be detected in drinking water. Uh, this is not the

[1:40:23] objective is not a regulatory limit. However, it's a benchmark

[1:40:27] for drinking water systems. We found that through basically through

[1:40:31] both samples, most of the compounds were below the method

[1:40:36] detection limit. So we, uh, have no way they're below

[1:40:39] that they can actually analyse for. Uh, we had a

[1:40:43] total sum of about two parts per trillion of, of

[1:40:47] the identified 25 elements. Our compounds. If you have any

[1:40:51] questions, please let me know about this testing. Okay. Thank

[1:40:54] you manager Kershaw. Any questions to, manage your Kershaw for

[1:40:57] this report. Councillor Hope, go ahead. Yes. Thank you. Thank

[1:41:02] you for performing the test. Um, I think we want

[1:41:08] to be clear, like based on what the report is

[1:41:10] saying that under financial impacts, um, the concern here and

[1:41:15] the reason for asking for the PFAS, uh, has to

[1:41:19] do with the fact that there is the Mephritank range,

[1:41:22] which is just north of us. And the work going

[1:41:26] on there. And we know that it's one of Canada's

[1:41:29] most contaminated sites. So that's why we're checking for the

[1:41:32] drinking water, or sorry, looking for PFAS, which basically is

[1:41:37] often a byproduct always a byproduct from a military training

[1:41:42] unit. And it's, you know, the forever chemicals. They're very,

[1:41:47] very dangerous. So the fact that there's been an increase,

[1:41:50] I'm surprised that we now have two. And I don't

[1:41:54] know which ones they are, um, that are above the

[1:42:01] parts per trillion. So I'll ask for a clarification in

[1:42:05] a minute about that. I see you shaking ed. That's

[1:42:07] what I'd understood. That there's so, it seems to be

[1:42:11] an increase. Um, but as I said, that's my, one

[1:42:14] of my questions. Um, okay. Well, why don't we get

[1:42:17] into that? Manage your Kershaw. Would you clarify that? I

[1:42:20] heard two parts per trillion. Two parts per trillion. There's

[1:42:24] no really significant increase. There's, you're at the method detection

[1:42:29] limit. That's as low as you can test. So it's

[1:42:34] the same about the same as from the previous analysis

[1:42:37] that we did. So the health Canada objective is a

[1:42:42] total of 30 parts per trillion. And we're seeing about

[1:42:47] two for the total sum of the 25 compounds and

[1:42:52] only two of those compounds. We were able to test

[1:42:56] because they were above the method detection limit. So the

[1:42:59] method detection limit is as low as you can go.

[1:43:02] It's not, it's below 30. It's that's, that's the science

[1:43:07] that's available today to be able to analyse for that

[1:43:10] particular compound. We're very, very low. Really low. It's so

[1:43:18] low. It barely registers is what you're saying. It doesn't

[1:43:21] for most of the compounds. It didn't register. That's right.

[1:43:23] Right. Uh, and that was, thank you. Uh, but there

[1:43:28] is a trend because the last time when we had

[1:43:31] it done, it was even lower is my point. You

[1:43:40] know, it seems to be that there's been an uptick.

[1:43:43] And I guess that's my question. I'm not a scientist.

[1:43:45] I don't pretend to be. But at the same time,

[1:43:48] I'm very worried about a drinking water. And councillors are

[1:43:51] responsible for drinking water. Personally, responsible. So, uh, you know,

[1:43:56] this is not a concern to be blown off. This

[1:43:59] is, you know, this is PFSAs. They're PFAs are forever

[1:44:04] chemicals. We are located. We're located. And we want to

[1:44:07] watch very carefully. No matter what the cost is. For

[1:44:11] the testing. We want to be watching for any trends,

[1:44:13] especially since the boring holes being done right now by

[1:44:17] TCE. So we don't know what the impact is on

[1:44:19] the water. So as I understand it from the report

[1:44:23] that we did the year before, which I would have

[1:44:25] been great to have had a comparison then for those

[1:44:27] of us that don't have the knowledge. If you think

[1:44:30] that it's the same as it was before, then I

[1:44:33] think that's what needed to be said. So is it

[1:44:36] the same. Or is there an increase from what I

[1:44:39] read? Councillor Hope. To you, Mr. Chair. No, there has

[1:44:44] been no significant increase. No. Okay. Which wish it had

[1:44:49] said that. Secondly, because we're reading this is not, not

[1:44:54] easy. The second thing that concerns me about this report

[1:44:58] is under financial impacts, which is on page three, in

[1:45:01] which is written PFA's analysis and drinking water does not

[1:45:06] have a direct financial impact. However, if this becomes a

[1:45:09] regulated compound for a drinking water system, there will be

[1:45:12] financial impact due to the high cost of analysis. So

[1:45:16] when we have discussed the cost of analysis in the

[1:45:19] past, it was my understanding. It was 1400 dollars in

[1:45:22] total. Could you please confirm that that is the case?

[1:45:26] Managed Kershaw. Through you, Mr. Chair, the cost of this

[1:45:29] analysis was 1039 dollars for both samples. So if we

[1:45:34] were going to test this regularly, we'll have to increase

[1:45:36] our water testing budget. Oh, budget. I mean, I just,

[1:45:45] what can be more important right now than to be

[1:45:47] checking for forever chemicals in our drinking water. And to

[1:45:51] call this, uh, that this should get in our way,

[1:45:54] the high cost of analysis, Councillor Hope, I'm going to

[1:45:58] just jump in here and say that, uh, there's no

[1:46:01] indication that we're not checking it. We are checking it.

[1:46:05] We're mandatory. All right. Counter, manager, crucial. S misunderstood what

[1:46:09] I said. The chair is misunderstood. What I said. I

[1:46:11] am talking about that, that it's been put forward that

[1:46:14] it's a high cost of analysis. So should there be

[1:46:17] future analysis? So what, what that sentence is doing is

[1:46:20] discouraging future, uh, requests for, for PFA analysis because of

[1:46:26] quote, the high cost of analysis. Councillor. So I find

[1:46:29] it, I find it, uh, getting close to misleading. Thank

[1:46:33] you. Thank you for clarifying your question. Okay. I'm going

[1:46:37] to say that first and second manager Kershaw. I'm sure

[1:46:40] what this means is that it is raising the budget

[1:46:44] for what we normally allot for for testing. That's what

[1:46:48] the financial impact sessions for. Please go ahead. So this

[1:46:51] test is, is higher priced significantly higher priced than our

[1:46:55] average run of the mill testing E. coli total coliform

[1:46:58] heavy metals organics. It is higher. There will be an

[1:47:04] impact and we will increase as per the direction, uh,

[1:47:09] previously in the year to test this when we do

[1:47:12] our yearly samples. We will increase our budget for testing.

[1:47:15] Every line item in our budget is mapped out. We've

[1:47:19] done essentially a zero base budgeting and we, we know

[1:47:22] what the cost of our sampling is. It's a broken

[1:47:27] GL code. And we'll be raising it to cover the

[1:47:30] cost of this. So far. So what does that sound

[1:47:33] punitive? I mean, really what we want to do here

[1:47:36] is to protect our drinking water from a very obvious

[1:47:39] situation. So on a, on a budget as large as

[1:47:43] the water budget, fine. It's a thousand dollars a year.

[1:47:46] I want to be very clear. We're not talking about

[1:47:49] every month or every day. So we're talking about a

[1:47:52] thousand dollars. And so to, to position it as a

[1:47:55] high cost of analysis, certainly against the risk is something

[1:47:58] that I find concerning. And I'll, um, and, um, that's

[1:48:03] fine. Let's put it into the budget for next year

[1:48:07] then. And I hope that that is clearly made as

[1:48:11] a line item so that we're all clear that testing

[1:48:14] for PFSA in future is going to be a line

[1:48:17] item in the budget of a thousand dollars Thank you.

[1:48:20] CEO Smith. Through the chair. Just a couple pieces. I

[1:48:24] think one as it relates to obligations under the safe

[1:48:27] drinking water act. I know that even as staff too

[1:48:30] that we also have a fiduciary responsibility as it pertains

[1:48:34] to protecting the health and safety of our, of our

[1:48:37] water supply. So what are reinforced even on annual basis

[1:48:40] from a top management meeting. We do have those discussions

[1:48:43] are where the emergent risks as relays to water supply

[1:48:46] and talk about any type of mitigation measures that do

[1:48:50] need to take place. I think to the point around

[1:48:52] the, once the staff of recommended is that based on

[1:48:55] the testing to date based on the, uh, the, the,

[1:48:58] uh, mandatory requirements from the ministry health as well is

[1:49:02] to say that, you know, we don't necessarily recommend that

[1:49:05] testing, but to the point of the cost is to

[1:49:07] say depends on how the, the extent to which we're

[1:49:09] going to be doing this testing. If it's going to

[1:49:11] be something that we're doing on a monthly basis versus

[1:49:14] something that's more of an annual test. But the results

[1:49:17] today have not given those flags to say from a

[1:49:19] particularly from, you know, from my perspective is to indicate

[1:49:23] that no, no, we do need to test it on,

[1:49:26] say a monthly basis. And that's where we get into

[1:49:27] the, to the costs, right? Is to say each test

[1:49:30] relative to our other testing that's occurred, say even at

[1:49:33] that, uh, even just over a thousand dollars to get

[1:49:36] that done is that cumulatively over 12 months if we're

[1:49:39] doing it on monthly basis, that is more significant than

[1:49:42] safest annual exercise. So Council can direct as it relates

[1:49:45] to, uh, to, uh, to, uh, pursuing further testing. But

[1:49:50] the cost comes into play when it comes to the,

[1:49:52] uh, comes into the extent or to the, to the

[1:49:55] number of tests that we want to complete. Thank you,

[1:49:59] Mr. CAO. Follow up, please. You can have, yes, go

[1:50:02] ahead with your follow - up. I've got to move

[1:50:04] on to Councillor Max. Yes. So what we don't want

[1:50:07] to see anymore is hyperbolizing a yearly request. Nothing has

[1:50:12] gone to monthly at all. It's not been raised. But

[1:50:16] so, by putting that forward, this high cost when it

[1:50:21] hasn't been present or been requested seems to be not

[1:50:25] exactly a fair reaction to a very simple yearly request

[1:50:29] to have the forever chemicals tested in any waters. But

[1:50:35] certainly when we're at risk because of what's going on

[1:50:38] just north of us. So thank you for the explanation.

[1:50:44] And I certainly look forward to, uh, to the budget

[1:50:47] item. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Hope. Unless you

[1:50:50] had a response to that, CAO Smith. Go to Councillor

[1:50:53] Maxwell. Thank you, Chair. And thank you.

[1:51:05] Smith for that on the obligation under the safe water

[1:51:09] drinking act. I'm just wondering. Where do natural recurring elements

[1:51:17] and microplastics fit into this. That fall into the safe

[1:51:21] water drinking act. Do we know. Manager Kershaw. Uh, they're

[1:51:27] emerging contaminants. Uh, they're not regulated at this point in

[1:51:30] time. We meet our regulatory requirements. We test everything that

[1:51:35] is required under the safe drinking water act. Schedule 23

[1:51:39] and 24 are sent out every year. Uh, we do

[1:51:41] it March, April. Every year with a surface water intake,

[1:51:45] we're required to test that once a year. Had we

[1:51:48] been a well system. We'd be required to test it

[1:51:50] every five years. But we are a surface water intake

[1:51:54] and it's tested every year, uh, for scheduled 23, 24.

[1:51:59] So that's your inorganics and your organics. But the merging

[1:52:03] contaminants are not a requirement right now. We do address,

[1:52:07] we do review the emerging contaminants and additional risks to

[1:52:11] the drinking water system through our drinking water quality management

[1:52:14] system. And we do a risk review every year. And

[1:52:17] we look at what's coming down the pipe, what's being

[1:52:20] regulated through environment Canada. But the safe drinking water act

[1:52:25] does not require them at this point in time. Oh,

[1:52:28] up Councillor Maxwell? No answered perfectly. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[1:52:32] you. Seeing other hands. We have a recommended motion that

[1:52:36] council receive Staff Report OPS dot 26. 034 - Entitled

[1:52:39] Drinking Water Analysis for PFAS. Yeah. Pfas for their information.

[1:52:46] Do I have a mover. I will move. Move by

[1:52:49] Madam Mayor, secondary. I'll second. Second by Mr. Deputy Mayor.

[1:52:53] Seeing no further hands. Madame Deputy Clerk may call that

[1:52:56] vote, please. That vote is open.

[1:53:07] Affirmative, please. Thank you, Councillor Porter. Not vote is closed.

[1:53:14] That would have carried with all seven members voting in

[1:53:16] the affirmative. We'll move on to item B 4. 3

[1:53:19] 2025 water and wastewater capacity report OPS 26. 033. Manage

[1:53:26] your Kershaw. You have the floor. Through you, Mr. Chair.

[1:53:30] So this report is a report that's required by Grey

[1:53:33] County for, um, allocation for drinking water and wastewater systems.

[1:53:38] It's prepared every year. And it is available. The full

[1:53:41] report is on our website. And I'd like to highlight

[1:53:44] a few areas. If you could go down to, uh,

[1:53:47] where we talk about the water system, it's about. If

[1:53:53] you just don't mind slide scrolling down.

[1:54:05] Like this, actually, if you don't mind going all the

[1:54:07] way down to attachment one. I believe. Oh no, I'm

[1:54:12] sorry. I'm sorry we did miss it. I'm looking for

[1:54:16] the big pie chart here. It's on the top of

[1:54:22] page four. There we go. So our drinking water system,

[1:54:28] you can see that we have 11, 000, 110 units

[1:54:32] either allocated or connected to our drinking water system. There's

[1:54:38] 2, 800 units that are reserved and 2, 200 that

[1:54:42] are available for reservation. This includes both what we can

[1:54:46] produce at the water treatment plant and what we take

[1:54:49] from Collingwood for maximum day of 1250 cubic metres a

[1:54:53] day. We are getting a little tight on drinking water

[1:54:57] capacity. If we consider that we increase the units by

[1:55:01] about 200 units a year, year over year based on

[1:55:05] a 10 year rolling average, that gives us, uh, about

[1:55:08] 10 years, eight years for comfort zone, uh, before we

[1:55:12] have to be looking at an additional drinking water supply.

[1:55:15] Also identified through this report is the Aerohead water booster

[1:55:19] station that transfers water from the water plant to everything

[1:55:25] in Craig Leith. Uh, everything east of Aerohead Road must

[1:55:30] go through the arrowhead booster station with the current capacity

[1:55:33] of that station. We have availability for 86 more units.

[1:55:39] And that's based on everything that we know that is

[1:55:44] already allocated or, or reserved, uh, that's not a lot

[1:55:50] of water. It is tight. Can you actually urine wastewater?

[1:55:55] Now, can you please stay on the water. Thank you.

[1:55:58] Uh, I am concerned about the arrowhead booster station. It

[1:56:01] is undergoing a construction. We do not anticipate that's construction

[1:56:07] will be done until next year. Uh, that will take

[1:56:11] the firm capacity of that station up from 68 litres

[1:56:14] a second to 100 litres a second. However, our trans,

[1:56:17] our transmission main cannot support the 100 litres a second

[1:56:21] going into that station. The town has to look for

[1:56:24] every opportunity that we can to, uh, twin our main

[1:56:28] between our water plant and the east end. So every

[1:56:31] reconstruction, whether it be Bay Street, which we did thread

[1:56:34] in a secondary, uh, trunk main through Lakewood Drive, we

[1:56:38] are proposing to thread a secondary, uh, trunk main through

[1:56:41] that. We have to take every opportunity. We can to

[1:56:47] incorporate secondary trunk means to the eastern end. It is

[1:56:52] a challenging water system. We do know that during irrigation

[1:56:55] times of year, uh, this, we're just kind of coming

[1:56:59] off the shoulder of it now. Our water plant is

[1:57:02] running full out. And we are struggling to keep up.

[1:57:06] Our irrigation. Takes up a lot of our drinking water

[1:57:11] system. We'll go from about 5, 000 cubic metres a

[1:57:14] day up to almost 12, 000 cubic metres a day

[1:57:17] coming out of that plant. It's a hard push. I

[1:57:22] just want you to be aware that we are reaching

[1:57:24] our limitations. So if you can scroll down to the

[1:57:29] Thornberry Wastewater treatment, the Tarnberry wastewater treatment plant now.

[1:57:41] Right there. Yep. So the design capacity for this wastewater

[1:57:46] treatment plant is based on our newly expanded treatment plant.

[1:57:51] Although we will not be able to fully realise this

[1:57:53] capacity until we get this outfall built. The existing outfall

[1:57:57] does not permit the capacity of the plant. However, I

[1:58:01] did the calculations based on getting that done as it

[1:58:04] will be done this year. So as you can see,

[1:58:09] we're. I'm sorry, I can't read that for. About 3,

[1:58:16] 700 units connected or allocated to the Thornberry Wastewater Treatment

[1:58:20] Plant almost 1, 500 that are reserved and 1700 that

[1:58:24] are available for reservation. We have started in the design

[1:58:28] work for the phase 1B expansion of the treatment plant.

[1:58:31] However, we may take that design and shelf it and

[1:58:34] not undergo construction at this point in time, but it's

[1:58:37] good to have the design in our back pocket and

[1:58:40] ready to go should there be a funding available. So

[1:58:43] we are working through that design right now. Uh, some

[1:58:46] of the limitations within this treatment plant right now are

[1:58:49] the Meal Street Pumping Station, which is under construction. Uh,

[1:58:52] we've just signed the contract and we'll be construction. We'll

[1:58:56] be commencing shortly. Uh, and then we'll go down to

[1:58:59] the next one is The Craig Leth Wastewater Treatment Plant.

[1:59:03] Right there. This one we have lots of capacity. This

[1:59:08] is a big plant. So we have about 6, 000

[1:59:11] units connected or allocated 2, 500 that are reserved and

[1:59:16] almost 5, 000 that are available for reservation. We're running

[1:59:19] at about 42 percent capacity. One of our biggest limitations

[1:59:22] for this plant is our Craig Leith Main Lift Station.

[1:59:25] It is under construction right now. And we anticipate the

[1:59:28] construction to be reaching substantial performance by the end of

[1:59:31] the year. So, uh, in the Craig Leetheria, we're doing

[1:59:35] fairly well. So in order to maximize our, either our

[1:59:39] water system or our wastewater system, we need to address

[1:59:44] our drinking water leaks. Our leaks within our system and

[1:59:47] they can both be on the private side and on

[1:59:49] the Public side. We did have a new addition to

[1:59:53] staff. A water technologist who is focused on strictly leak

[1:59:58] detection and I and I reduction. So inflow and infiltration

[2:00:01] reduction into the wastewater treatment system collection system. We have

[2:00:07] had some really good successes in the last year. We

[2:00:11] have reduced our water loss by over five percent in

[2:00:14] the last year. And we are seeing a reduction, a

[2:00:18] small reduction in our INI. So our peaking factors are

[2:00:21] reducing. In the last year. And we will continue to

[2:00:25] move ahead. I do want to give a nice shout

[2:00:28] out to our drinking water operators. They did find a

[2:00:31] fairly significant leak in our drinking water system in the

[2:00:34] last couple of months. And it's equivalent to about 500

[2:00:38] cubic metres a day. So this was a really good

[2:00:40] find and it has been, has been repaired. So we

[2:00:44] are working towards that, but we are coming up against

[2:00:48] capacity in our water system, our wastewater. We have a

[2:00:51] bit of breathing room. Please let me know if you

[2:00:53] have any questions about this report or if you like

[2:00:56] the full actual capacity report. It is available on our

[2:00:59] website, but I don't usually provide that through, through the

[2:01:02] Council meeting. Thank you, manager Kershaw. Uh, we're going to

[2:01:06] kick it off with Deputy Mayor. Go ahead. Thank you

[2:01:09] Councillor McKinley. Yes. Chair, through you to Ms. Kershaw. Thank

[2:01:12] you, Allison. More focusing on the ILI. We're looking at

[2:01:17] the infrastructure leakage index. Uh, we're looking around 24 percent

[2:01:21] if my math is right when we look at non

[2:01:24] - revenue water versus, um, real leaks. So I see

[2:01:28] a significant reduction as we move forward both in brakes

[2:01:32] and in leaks detection. Do you attribute all that to

[2:01:36] the, um, to the scoping we've been doing to the

[2:01:38] new technologist. And will we see a trend continue to

[2:01:42] get within, um, even better standards than that 24 percent.

[2:01:48] Do you miss a truck go ahead. To you, Mr.

[2:01:50] Chair. Actually, we've taken some pretty aggressive action in the

[2:01:53] last year. Uh, we've started monitoring, uh, putting bulk metres

[2:01:58] at condo development. So before we, we didn't have bulk

[2:02:03] metres going into private lands where there are a number

[2:02:06] of residential units. And by doing this, we've been able

[2:02:13] to find some connections to irrigation systems that were not

[2:02:20] being metred or build, uh, so that's a significant find

[2:02:26] for us. These are challenging installations. We're digging up. We're

[2:02:30] putting a big chamber in the ground and installing a

[2:02:33] metre. But it's proving to be really worthwhile. And I

[2:02:37] really have to thank, uh, our previous director Quinlan who

[2:02:44] was instrumental and really providing as funds and the motivation

[2:02:48] to really get some of this done, uh, but the

[2:02:51] water team has been very aggressive. Our new position is

[2:02:56] working on it. But I wouldn't say he's fully up

[2:02:58] to speed in addressing all of the, uh, water loss.

[2:03:03] This is what we've saw that took place over 2025.

[2:03:07] And I'm hoping that we continue to see this trend

[2:03:10] of at our water loss reducing because that buys his

[2:03:13] capacity. And that's, that's what we need. So we do

[2:03:17] continue to work hard and reconstruction of Bay Street Thornberry

[2:03:21] West, all these old areas of town where the infrastructure

[2:03:24] is leaking is making a big difference. It's really helping

[2:03:28] us out. It's, it's really, uh, we're seeing some significant

[2:03:32] improvements. Follow up Deputy Mayor. Just thank you, Mr. Chair

[2:03:38] through. So do you see an opportunity to get us

[2:03:41] from, cause we're in the good range to get into,

[2:03:43] I think we're at 2. 5 in that range. I

[2:03:45] think the benchmarking is to an under, um, to move

[2:03:48] to the next category. Do you see that? Um, as

[2:03:52] possible taking, you know, the mitigation measures, uh, I think

[2:03:55] some of the recommended are better pressure management active leakage

[2:04:01] control practices. And of course, improve network maintenance. Do you

[2:04:04] see an opportunity to get to that number the next

[2:04:07] year or two. Manager Kershaw. I would definitely like to

[2:04:14] think that we do have the opportunity to get there.

[2:04:16] We are working very hard to improve our leaked detection.

[2:04:21] It is a challenging system. We do have a very,

[2:04:24] very challenging system. It's long. It's linear. We have a

[2:04:28] lot of estate type lots with long, uh, service connections.

[2:04:32] So from the main to the house where it's not

[2:04:34] metred, there's a big setback and the potential for a

[2:04:39] lot of loss within, within the private lands as well.

[2:04:43] Um, and we're right along a shoreline so that when

[2:04:46] we do have a leak in the water system, it

[2:04:49] can go away unnoticed. It just slips away into the

[2:04:52] bay. Being a shale type, uh, Terra firmer, it gets

[2:04:57] away quite quickly and doesn't surface. It isn't forced up

[2:05:02] where we are able to identify that. But we are

[2:05:04] using a lot of different technologies. We still are maintaining

[2:05:08] our, our leak detection contract or contractors being out. And

[2:05:12] he listens to every curb stop, every valve. And he's

[2:05:15] listening for leaks. Um, and additionally, we have PVC pipes.

[2:05:21] A lot of our pipes are PVC. The sound does

[2:05:24] not travel with a leak as well as like a

[2:05:26] ductile iron pipe. We have our challenges, but we are

[2:05:30] working hard at it. Yeah. Thank you for that, especially

[2:05:33] with the with the shale. It's hard to see water

[2:05:35] going into water. Maybe we can look for green grass

[2:05:38] on the driveways on the way in for that. But

[2:05:40] no, it's been a great job from getting to the

[2:05:41] number that we have been over the past few years.

[2:05:43] Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jepheni Mayor. Councillor Hope,

[2:05:46] go ahead. Yes. Thank you very much through you, Mr.

[2:05:49] Chair, uh, to manage your Kershaw for this really important

[2:05:53] information. Because I think it's going to be guiding a

[2:05:56] lot of our decisions for a long time. So we

[2:06:00] want to look at this capacity very, very carefully. And

[2:06:04] you'll remind it, we want to make sure we have

[2:06:06] our numbers right. I'm not saying they're wrong at all.

[2:06:08] We want to make sure we have our numbers right.

[2:06:10] So what's drawing my eye is allocated units. Because I

[2:06:15] know from a planning perspective, we're still counting in castle

[2:06:19] Glenn. And I think, um, and, and, and so, so

[2:06:23] we are. But I think there are certain ones. And

[2:06:26] I think there was some discussion even about some carsburg

[2:06:30] numbers in, but maybe I'm mistaken with budget. But, um,

[2:06:34] but I'd like to understand what allocated units means and

[2:06:38] to Ms. Kershaw's 200 units a year. I don't think

[2:06:42] we're going to reach that this year. I don't think

[2:06:44] we're going to get anywhere near 200 units. And maybe

[2:06:47] if the CAO would speak to that. So if we're

[2:06:50] at a hundred a year, that's going to mean we

[2:06:53] can, we can build the structure later on. Of course

[2:06:57] there's construction, the increase in construction costs that also is

[2:07:00] a part of all of this. So the longer we

[2:07:03] put it off, the more we have to pay for

[2:07:04] it. But what I think the Public is looking for

[2:07:08] because of what's happened in the past is a very

[2:07:11] carefully structured, uh, well - supported numerically accurate decision on

[2:07:17] what we actually need for particularly a water infrastructure. So

[2:07:22] through you, Mr. Chair, to the CAO as, um, the

[2:07:27] director of planning, at this point you're feeding the numbers

[2:07:31] I gather to the water group. So allocated units. Is

[2:07:37] that something that we could look at again, uh, or

[2:07:40] do you feel that you've done some betting on that

[2:07:42] number? Thank you. See you. Smith. Yeah. Through the chair

[2:07:45] can certainly start. And then perhaps manager Kershaw can add

[2:07:48] to it. So when it comes to, you know, for

[2:07:50] allocation and I think that something, you know, an example

[2:07:52] is a for, you know, Castle Glen whereby that's not

[2:07:55] been allocated. Right. So you want, that doesn't, that, that

[2:07:58] site also doesn't have reservation. And all you'll see in

[2:08:01] the Folsom reports was bound within our, our official plan

[2:08:05] policy is the staging that we do have. And that

[2:08:07] is where there is that work and coordination between planning

[2:08:11] and water wastewater to understand, you know, when we're compiling

[2:08:14] this report is to note, you know, what is, uh,

[2:08:17] what's, what's within this, this classification system. So, uh, we,

[2:08:21] but, you know, to the, to the point is that,

[2:08:23] uh, when we, we do need to look at tools

[2:08:26] as it relates to, to manage that managing that allocation.

[2:08:30] I do know I still have a, uh, draft allocation

[2:08:33] bylaw that I'd still like to move forward as, as

[2:08:36] an example of a tool to utilise, to, to support

[2:08:39] some of the, uh, the constraints we do have. Uh,

[2:08:42] and I would say that, you know, from these graphs

[2:08:44] as well is that, you know, and something that's within

[2:08:46] more of the Folsom report and maybe it's not so,

[2:08:49] uh, is so apparent visually here is around the constraints

[2:08:54] we have from the command side. So from magic Herschaw's

[2:08:57] point around, you know, this long linear system and the

[2:09:00] difficulties as it relates to, uh, having the necessary infrastructure

[2:09:03] being at pumping stations or otherwise, that's where we say

[2:09:07] even to say, whoa, we may have these number of

[2:09:09] available units at the plant, but we may not have

[2:09:11] the ability to actually get that, be it the water

[2:09:14] or the sanitary through the necessary pumping stations or through

[2:09:17] those pipes, uh, which creates a bit of a mercury

[2:09:21] story on where we actually stand in terms of providing

[2:09:23] that allocation. But when it comes to new developments, we

[2:09:26] always exercise is, and this report is utilised, but it

[2:09:29] needs to be taken its entirety to say that just

[2:09:32] because we have space or units at the plant, we

[2:09:35] do need to have that downstream analysis to say, Hey,

[2:09:37] well, how is it going to get to the plant?

[2:09:39] So when we look at constraints, be it, um, even

[2:09:42] at the Craig Leaf wastewater plant whereby, you know, we

[2:09:44] do have a report here talking about the long point

[2:09:46] reconstruction and the works there. Well, the corregly plant does

[2:09:49] have that available capacity. So once again, it's a challenge

[2:09:52] of actually getting it there, right? And to, to relieving

[2:09:54] some of those, uh, and that is certainly a major

[2:09:57] area of focus in terms of our own capital program

[2:10:00] is investing in that. On top of looking at things

[2:10:02] such as INI, looking at ways to address irrigation as

[2:10:06] another, uh, another pressure point to, to really maximize the

[2:10:10] space we have and hopefully mitigate that capital program as

[2:10:13] well. And as eliminated its entirety, but perhaps it allows

[2:10:16] us to defer certain projects or to, uh, to look

[2:10:19] at doing them in a, in a, in a different

[2:10:20] way. But maybe Andrew Kershaw may want to add a

[2:10:24] little bit more. Inter Kershaw. Strew you, Mr. Chair. So

[2:10:28] to answer your question allocated units, they're either connected units.

[2:10:32] So a unit that's already connected has water waste water

[2:10:34] to the house. Can't connect. So a parcel of land

[2:10:37] say you have a vacant lot services go right by

[2:10:42] a house. They can connect at any time. So that,

[2:10:44] that they're given allocation. So committed, um, subdivision, that they

[2:10:50] have, uh, achieved basic services. They're connected to the town

[2:10:53] system. They're committed. Uh, they're not turning back. So that's

[2:10:57] an allocation. And then we also have another category, uh,

[2:11:02] not, not fronting, not serviced, but an existing, um, building

[2:11:06] lot is there. And they do have the potential to

[2:11:09] connect. So that, that's what's in the allocation. So, and

[2:11:14] you did mention Clarksburg prior to doing the expansion at

[2:11:20] the wastewater treatment plant. The town had an agreement with,

[2:11:24] uh, The County of Grey, because the county is involved

[2:11:28] in the allocation when it comes to new developments that

[2:11:31] we were allowed to overallocate and not include the Clarksburg

[2:11:37] potential. We, we've now met that, uh, condition of the

[2:11:44] expansion. So now we have to include those into our

[2:11:47] numbers. So they are included when we look at the

[2:11:50] water and wastewater systems that they can connect. Because we

[2:11:53] have done EAs and we have considered connecting them. So

[2:11:57] they are, uh, not in the allocated, but I believe

[2:12:00] we do, uh, look at those numbers through the potential

[2:12:05] to connect to the system. Follow us. Follow up, uh,

[2:12:09] Councillor. Oh, thank you. Um, thank you to both of

[2:12:12] you for, for this, um, this is looking more like

[2:12:16] an art than a science in terms of trying to

[2:12:18] figure this out. I mean, I personally would like to

[2:12:20] see, um, where the allocated units are coming from with

[2:12:26] the numbers are. And, uh, The Reserved units I gather

[2:12:30] are by a certain portion that needs to be set

[2:12:33] aside. So we'll leave that alone. But we have things

[2:12:36] like developers who aren't necessarily going through with their commitments,

[2:12:41] uh, we've got a lot of things that could be

[2:12:43] happening right now that could have an impact on our

[2:12:46] capacity or on our allocation. Um, so, um, I just

[2:12:50] think that we need to look at this much more

[2:12:53] carefully. I'm not saying you aren't. I think more information

[2:12:57] available to council would be really, really important so that

[2:13:01] we can make a better call because the big difference

[2:13:04] between needing, uh, I think it was a planton eight

[2:13:07] years or versus maybe it's 12 years. Uh, because of

[2:13:12] the growth. And I'm just pulling out numbers. But that

[2:13:15] from a planning perspective, the numbers and building up a

[2:13:19] reserve fund and so on, it makes a big difference

[2:13:20] to have that time. And I think it's time that

[2:13:23] we need right now so that we can be putting

[2:13:25] money aside and be in a better position. So we're

[2:13:28] not borrowing, which is clearly not what the Public wants.

[2:13:32] So, um, I'm just wondering through you, Mr. Chair, if

[2:13:36] we could have more detail on the allocated units. Madden

[2:13:39] for Kershaw for drinking waters. So thank you. All of

[2:13:43] the units counts. I've worked tirelessly with our planning department.

[2:13:48] Jean Postman, I have worked very closely together with her

[2:13:51] GIS to determine who has allocation, who has reserved. So

[2:13:56] a development that's not moving ahead, they may have reservation.

[2:14:00] Until they actually get, so a development in process is

[2:14:04] in the reservation category. It's not in the allocated until

[2:14:07] they have basic services and they're connected and we have

[2:14:10] the, uh, subdivision agreement already confirmed. Then they move into

[2:14:15] allocation. The 200 units a year though, that's based on

[2:14:18] a 10 year rolling average. It's hard to take year

[2:14:21] over year. We had some years where we had 400

[2:14:24] units connected to our drinking water system. That's why we

[2:14:26] take a 10 year rolling average. We don't just look

[2:14:28] at the last year or, or the last two years.

[2:14:31] We look at what's coming, what has been historically increased

[2:14:38] year over year. Okay. So just to final, so thank

[2:14:41] you. Lots of good learning here. Um, so I see

[2:14:45] the point about needing to understand what's in the reserve

[2:14:48] as well. And it's very helpful to know the Clerksburg

[2:14:50] units are there, which is 400, 300, 400 units or

[2:14:55] more. Six. Or 600 units. And, um, so through you,

[2:15:00] Mr. Chair, could we, could we have a breakdown of

[2:15:03] where the allocated and the reserve units are designated so

[2:15:08] that we can start to make more informed decisions about,

[2:15:13] uh, what we need with costly infrastructure. Thank you. Manager

[2:15:17] Kershaw. Through you, Mr. Chair, the full breakdown, it's in

[2:15:20] a spreadsheet in the complete report that's posted on our

[2:15:23] website. It's on the second last page. There's a, we

[2:15:27] break it down by area. So it would be craig

[2:15:30] leaf. Clerksburg Castle Glenn Osler rural Thornberry, Thornberry West, Camper

[2:15:36] Down, I'm not sure if we break it. I don't

[2:15:39] think we break it down into Laura Bay. It's just,

[2:15:42] uh, Thornberry West, but they all are broken down. And

[2:15:45] it's additionally broken down into connected, allocated, reserved, future lands.

[2:15:53] And then the total amount that we need to service

[2:15:55] the primary settlement area of the town of Blue Mountains.

[2:15:59] Excellent. I look forward to going through those numbers. Thank

[2:16:01] you. Okay. Thank you. CEO Smith. I did see your

[2:16:04] hand or you're OK? Okay. Uh, we're going to move

[2:16:06] on to Councillor Maxwell. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Question for

[2:16:15] Alliston. So, you know, building on that, we're definitely in

[2:16:21] a period of saving and not spending. We all know

[2:16:25] that, I think. The question is, Allison, if we maximize

[2:16:34] strong maintenance programs. And conservation measures, can we hold off

[2:16:42] a new infrastructure in order to protect our taxpayers and

[2:16:46] their citizens until the economy turns around. Andrew Crewshaw.

[2:16:58] The answer is yes. It's, it's through Mr. Chair. So

[2:17:03] the answer is there is a potential to reduce, uh,

[2:17:07] some of the needed infrastructure needs. Um, but it would

[2:17:13] be something like in the order of no irrigation, no

[2:17:17] putting water on grass, no treated water going on grass.

[2:17:21] The city of Vancouver has done that. You can water

[2:17:24] your shrubs. You can water your flowers. You can water

[2:17:27] vegetable gardens. But a hundred percent ban on irrigation of

[2:17:32] treated water on grass. So there is a potential there.

[2:17:35] That would really increase our capacity at our water treatment

[2:17:38] plant. But it's not a pleasant, it's not a pleasant

[2:17:44] outcome. I, we do have a lot of irrigation systems.

[2:17:47] We have taken an aggressive approach this year to try

[2:17:51] to curb the peak with our bylaw. We do find

[2:17:56] that there are people that you're a gate a heck

[2:17:59] of a lot. And I mean, unbelievable. In the order

[2:18:03] of 42 or 48 cubic metres a day, which is

[2:18:07] an enormous amount of water to be putting on grass,

[2:18:10] um, so there are opportunities there. We have to remember

[2:18:15] though, infrastructure such as water and wastewater has to be

[2:18:18] built before houses can be built. We can't have houses

[2:18:22] with portaes. We need houses that are connected have available,

[2:18:27] uh, capacity at our water and wastewater systems. We can't

[2:18:30] wait to enlarge a wastewater treatment plant until the sewage

[2:18:34] is arriving at the door. It's too late. We're going

[2:18:36] to have sewers back up in basements. We don't want

[2:18:40] infrastructure that's too big. We don't want to do it

[2:18:42] too far ahead of time. We want our infrastructure sized.

[2:18:46] We'd like to be running in like that 60 percent

[2:18:49] zone, 50, 60 percent of the capacity of the plant

[2:18:52] We don't want a huge plant. They're hard to manage.

[2:18:55] There's too much work. We don't want to maintain pumps

[2:18:57] that we're not using. We want our infrastructure sized to

[2:19:01] meet the growth in the next 10, 15 years. And

[2:19:04] when we do build infrastructure, we want it built in

[2:19:07] a way that it can be enlarged easily so that

[2:19:10] we build platforms and pipes in pumping stations that we

[2:19:13] can throw another pump in when we need to. We

[2:19:15] don't have to reconstruct a wet well. We want our

[2:19:18] water plant to be able to put a bigger pump

[2:19:20] in, put another rack in of, uh, Paul membranes or

[2:19:24] whatever membrane we end up with. But build the concrete

[2:19:31] and steel to meet the 100 year mark, but build

[2:19:34] the pumps and the, uh, internal capacities that have a

[2:19:39] shelf life of 2025 years so that we're meeting that

[2:19:43] 2025 year deadline. And when the pumps are coming at

[2:19:46] the end of life at that point in time, our

[2:19:49] growth is keeping up that we can just replace the

[2:19:51] pumps to a bigger size pump. I'll answer your question

[2:19:55] Councillor Maxwell. You have a follow up. I do have

[2:19:57] a follow - up. Go ahead. Okay. So thank you

[2:20:01] for that answer. Okay. Cause that. Speaks to a lot

[2:20:04] of things even last night. Okay. So my question is

[2:20:10] though. Wood watering your lawn fall into a core service.

[2:20:20] Because I know water, delivery water and wastewater. But where

[2:20:26] do we want to do aesthetics here. What is the,

[2:20:30] what we deliver quarter services here in this town. Where's

[2:20:34] the magic line where we start saying to people, you

[2:20:39] know, what is core and not core here. And I

[2:20:45] shall you, Mr. Chair. I would say that, um, that's

[2:20:48] a nice to have, uh, it's, it's nice to have.

[2:20:51] It's not a must do. It's not an essential service

[2:20:54] to have irrigation on lawns. Uh, but it's, it's a

[2:21:00] something that we have provided for a number of years.

[2:21:02] And it's a nice to have. All right. Councillor Maxwell.

[2:21:07] Yeah. So I guess what I'm going to comment is

[2:21:10] that in this new world we're entering. We may not,

[2:21:16] it may not be a nice to do that we

[2:21:17] can no longer provide. Through you, Mr. Chair. We do

[2:21:21] have, uh, water conservation methods measures in place right now

[2:21:27] for our irrigation. And we can water every other day.

[2:21:31] I know, I believe it's orange field. They, they are

[2:21:34] watering. I believe once a day, I could be wrong,

[2:21:36] but I believe it's, so they're allowed to water one

[2:21:40] day a week. That's it. Not every other day. Just

[2:21:44] one day every week. So there are measures. And our

[2:21:48] next level of conservation measures that are within our drinking

[2:21:51] water, uh, bylaw would take us to that next level

[2:21:56] so that we could water once, once a week. Okay.

[2:22:00] Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I don't see any

[2:22:03] further hands. We have a recommended motion that Council receive

[2:22:06] Stafford for OPS 26. 033 entitled 2025 Water and Wastewater

[2:22:11] Capacity Report for their information. Do I have a mover?

[2:22:15] I will move. Move by the mayor. I'll second. Second

[2:22:18] by, uh, Councillor Ardell. I see no further hands. Madam

[2:22:22] Deputy Clerk, you may call that boat, please. The vote

[2:22:25] is open.

[2:22:46] No vote is closed. That vote is carried with all

[2:22:48] seven members present voting in the affirmative. Now we'll move

[2:22:51] on to item B4. 4 Craiglith Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades.

[2:22:59] 035. Manage your Kershaw. You have the floor. Through you,

[2:23:05] Mr. Chair. So the town has received the 30 percent

[2:23:08] design packages and the 30 percent design cost estimates for

[2:23:12] the long, uh, for the upgrades to the Craig Leith

[2:23:16] Wastewater treatment plant. And those upgrades include seven scopes of

[2:23:19] work. Uh, the linear works on long point road, of

[2:23:22] which I've already provided Council with the 30 percent design

[2:23:26] estimate. The construction of a lift station at the Craig

[2:23:29] Lethways Water Treatment Plant. Construction of Accepted to receiving station

[2:23:33] at the Craig Leth Wastewater Treatment Plant, screening and grip

[2:23:36] removal at the, at the plant replacement of the existing

[2:23:40] motor control centre. So the MCCs at the Treatment Plant

[2:23:44] and replacing an upsizing of the backup generator as well

[2:23:47] as replacing the existing blowers at the treatment plant. So

[2:23:50] if you scroll down to the bottom of page. I'm

[2:23:55] not sure. Three. We have the breakdown. As you can

[2:24:04] see, some costs went up a lot more went up.

[2:24:07] Some came down. So the linear works as you were

[2:24:10] aware. It had gone up almost 17 percent went up

[2:24:14] 51 percent. The septage receiving station almost 80 percent. The

[2:24:19] screening and grit removal 18 percent The motor control. It

[2:24:26] went down almost 70 percent The backup generator went down

[2:24:35] the estimate had increased about 20 percent design

[2:24:45] What we're dealing with and our consultants also reviewed other

[2:24:50] estimates that were coming in for similar type work and

[2:24:55] seeing what the market would bear If you have any

[2:24:59] questions, please direct them towards me Thank you manager crusha

[2:25:03] CEO Smith. I'm going to toss it over to you

[2:25:05] if you had any further comments. Now through the chair

[2:25:13] I just leave it to council if there's any questions

[2:25:15] and comments in between manage your Kershaw and I happy

[2:25:17] to address them Thank you all right. Thank you CEO

[2:25:19] Smith Councillor Ardell you have the floor. Thank you Mr.

[2:25:26] Chair and if we could scroll back down to page

[2:25:30] three. And four. If you add up all of the

[2:25:37] figures I get a different figure than 42 million I

[2:25:41] get 45 million. Is there an error there or what

[2:25:49] is that Major Kershaw is having a technical issue. Oh

[2:25:55] your mics are out. There you go.

[2:26:09] Uh Through you Mr. Chair. Actually that is a there

[2:26:12] is near and there when I put those numbers in

[2:26:14] they included The engineering. So that that's why they increase

[2:26:19] and the next column is just the construction costs That

[2:26:22] was my ear I'm sorry There was a lot of

[2:26:25] staff reports going through in a short time So it's

[2:26:29] 45 million then The next column is 30 percent design

[2:26:36] 50 million is The construction cost Just the construction cost

[2:26:40] We've already paid we've already got committed funds for the

[2:26:43] engineering and that's right through Uh The end of warranty

[2:26:47] for the engineering So what is our end figure then

[2:26:50] for increase or decreases Then it'd be different at 19.

[2:26:55] 5 now Well actually the 42 million is the construction

[2:26:59] cost Oh okay the 42 million does not include engineering

[2:27:03] The engineering was added in the individual line items So

[2:27:08] it is it's roughly a 20 percent increase. So 23

[2:27:12] cent increase. Okay so it's not decreasing its increasing Okay.

[2:27:18] On the total of the seven scopes of work Yes.

[2:27:22] Okay thank you. Do you have a follow - up

[2:27:26] Councillor Eidell I'm not right now I'll let other people

[2:27:30] I'm just still doing figures here Thank you Yep No

[2:27:33] problem I can come back to you Uh Councillor Porter

[2:27:37] go ahead. Yes thank you and through the chair and

[2:27:41] thank you Ms. Kershaw because I actually did the motion

[2:27:45] That resulted in this report. Because I had concerns about

[2:27:50] long point. Um, back then. Um. I have some questions

[2:27:55] Because I've gone back and I'm missing one page on

[2:28:01] the report that I had printed out What I'm going

[2:28:02] to go and find it here. Yes it's page five.

[2:28:11] When it talks about the wastewater. Existing units It actually

[2:28:16] states here that this The concrete and steel constructed to

[2:28:20] support The full build out of sewers of the sewer

[2:28:24] washed. Approximately 5500 units. Whereas I'm just going to go

[2:28:32] through all my concerns here So whereas. In one of

[2:28:39] the grant applications It talks about the full build out

[2:28:43] of the Craig Leaf Sewer shed. Would account for 17,

[2:28:49] 380. In another spot It counts that the full build

[2:28:57] out of the Craig Neeth wastewater surface area is 14,

[2:29:00] 016. And I realised it says here that. So

[2:29:11] The first number here, the 17, 380 came from The

[2:29:16] Water and Wastewater Capacity Assessment 2022 year report. And one

[2:29:24] of the grant applications was around The Hughes. Was full

[2:29:32] build - out of Craig Leth Wastewater Services 14, 116,

[2:29:37] and that there was already 5, 518 existing equivalent units

[2:29:41] currently connected. And then Mill Street Pumping Station within the

[2:29:47] Hughes had said about The full build - out Down

[2:29:50] of Blue Mountains. Um... Relating to Mill Street was 9,

[2:29:56] 100 units. When you even talk about The 14, not

[2:30:01] the 17 I mean we're getting up to 24, 025,

[2:30:04] 000 units And I don't think we have that many

[2:30:07] So if I go back to page 5 I want

[2:30:10] to know what the sewer watershed is Sewershed is that

[2:30:13] Sony's supporting 5, 481 units in the long - term

[2:30:18] and what long - term is in terms of years.

[2:30:21] Major Khrushchev. So you're talking about some different sewer sheds

[2:30:27] Uh... When we talk about The Craig Let's Wastewater Treatment

[2:30:30] Plant Sewer Shed We're including what's Coming in through The

[2:30:33] Craig Leth Wastewater Craiglyth Maine Lift Station and The Long

[2:30:37] Point Road Lift Station So the two separate entities Uh...

[2:30:42] So the long point road Sewer Shed Uh... Of which

[2:30:45] we're talking about The 5, 000 5, 500 will include

[2:30:50] Um... Windfall Uh... Coming down Grey Road 21 I believe

[2:30:55] some of Second Nature goes through there. Uh... And anything

[2:31:01] that we develop beyond Uh The Intersection of Grey Road

[2:31:05] 19 and 21 were Tease Pleases are the previous T's

[2:31:09] please So that will include Castle Glen It will also

[2:31:13] include Some servicing that we will be providing Uh... To

[2:31:19] Clearview Township We are looking at providing services Additionally to

[2:31:24] Clearview and a little tiny bit of Collingwood Um. Well

[2:31:29] when we're building this. Because... We may as well If

[2:31:32] we're building a pipe And we have the capacity at

[2:31:35] the plant Why not take their revenues. Like they're gonna

[2:31:38] have to pay for part of The cost of constructing

[2:31:41] everything that we're constructing When we talk about The Craig

[2:31:44] Leth... Wastewater Treatment Plants Sewershed We also include Everything That

[2:31:49] comes in through Craig Leaf Main Lift Station Which would

[2:31:52] be The Village at Blue And each one of those

[2:31:54] Hotel Units is equivalent to the residential unit So when

[2:31:59] we start talking about 24, 000 units That's not out

[2:32:02] of line Of what we anticipate in our full build

[2:32:05] - out. We review these every year through our wastewater

[2:32:10] capacity Assessment Report The report that just Uh... Our previous

[2:32:16] report That went to Council Uh... We look at every

[2:32:20] development lands and what potentially can be serviced in these

[2:32:26] lands We look at... The area of the land And

[2:32:32] we minus... The hazard lands that are on the lands.

[2:32:39] And then we look at what is buildable... What is

[2:32:42] a buildable area? And what is our Town density? Whether

[2:32:46] or not a developer comes in and builds to The

[2:32:48] full density That's what changes That's Where our numbers are...

[2:32:54] They're not concrete Because not every builder builds to the

[2:32:57] maximum potential density But that's what we design our systems

[2:33:01] for So between 2022 and 2026 or 2025 There have

[2:33:06] been some developments that were built That did not build

[2:33:08] to the full density But we allowed for that density

[2:33:13] through these studies And when we're building infrastructure But once

[2:33:17] it's built And we know what The density is That's

[2:33:19] when the numbers start to change. Follow - up So

[2:33:22] yes Because I will... I have more than a follow

[2:33:24] - up Because I wanted to know what long -

[2:33:27] term meant in terms of timing Because I didn't get

[2:33:32] it Because I guess I would like... I think that

[2:33:36] was on page 8 I wanted to know What does

[2:33:38] long - term mean. Mensch Crucial Go ahead In terms

[2:33:42] of years Like you have a series of You know

[2:33:46] short Medium whatever What do they mean in going out

[2:33:50] You never know if you're - 10 20 And then

[2:33:52] full build out of a primary Settlement area So I

[2:33:55] guess the question for me And I do have a

[2:33:58] motion I would like to put forward I'll just make

[2:34:00] that noted Okay Thank you. Because I have real concerns

[2:34:04] about this. I have more concerns than when I made

[2:34:07] The original motion. How far out are we building. How

[2:34:11] far out are we building And we know building is

[2:34:15] flat. A lot of builders say nothing's gonna happen We're

[2:34:20] in more uncertainty as of 1159 on Friday night than

[2:34:23] we've been in before. And The user fees come when

[2:34:30] it's done The development charges come when the houses are

[2:34:33] bailed In the meantime And I see from another chart

[2:34:36] here All the annual debt payment Which amounts to over

[2:34:42] 3700, 000. A rough estimate is for every 200... That's

[2:34:47] the annual servicing debt charge. If you have to pay

[2:34:51] And if I'm wrong someone can correct me as I

[2:34:53] go along. Approximately just short of a quarter of a

[2:34:58] million raises the tax levy by one percent. You're well

[2:35:02] in the double digits of attacks increase Just for this

[2:35:05] project And the hug's dead in there that I don't

[2:35:09] understand. And it's not about And the chart says The

[2:35:13] Town can have all the capacity in the world. To

[2:35:17] take debt on. It's The people in this room The

[2:35:22] people sitting around the table Anyone that lives in the

[2:35:25] Bloom Mountains are owns property It's 0 affordability. To service

[2:35:29] that debt There's very different questions That the Town's ability

[2:35:33] to have an amount of debt They get the line

[2:35:37] of credit Whatever you want to call it That's their

[2:35:39] financial measure. People fund in the bill The taxpayer They

[2:35:43] have what's called an affordability measure. And what I'm calculating

[2:35:48] when I look at that amount of debt Divided by

[2:35:52] is I'm hitting like 15 16 percent. So I'd like

[2:35:56] that clarified Because I wanted to know what the contingency

[2:36:01] was And there's some verbiage around that. Debt is also

[2:36:05] The cost of a project. The carrying charges to service

[2:36:09] the debt before it is used is in effect a

[2:36:12] cost. When you build a house The financing is a

[2:36:16] cost. Because you have to pay and you don't really

[2:36:19] get a lot forward Except for that you have cash

[2:36:21] flow So I'm extremely concerned about And I don't understand

[2:36:27] all the different numbers that have gone in the different

[2:36:30] application forms. They because the variety of them And just

[2:36:36] and by and saying this is in the long point

[2:36:39] Watershed Where we only know the numbers for the Quith

[2:36:42] Water Shad I think we need a lot more detail

[2:36:44] to know what we're doing And when it comes down

[2:36:46] to the other component of the motion So I'd like

[2:36:50] the numbers Um... That we have. Reconciled So we know

[2:36:54] the numbers we're working at Like how many houses are

[2:36:56] currently serviced? How many are going to get built. And

[2:36:59] when they're going to get built Because I'm not sure

[2:37:02] if the community wants to bankroll Infrastructure for 20 years

[2:37:06] out. That's a really good question I think And it's

[2:37:10] a difficult question. Because I know you're Alison. You can't

[2:37:17] manufacture sewer capacity on demand. So there has to be

[2:37:21] some give and take But that's subject to some conversation

[2:37:25] The other thing is the value engineering And I think

[2:37:28] there is... Staff appear to be willing to consider phase

[2:37:33] in. I think value engineering exercises needs to consider that

[2:37:37] What do we do to build now and what do

[2:37:39] we need to do to build later? Because they're very

[2:37:42] different Because the debt cost you put that annual debt

[2:37:46] cost on a tax levy is permanent for the length

[2:37:48] of the whatever mortgage you want to call it It

[2:37:50] doesn't go away. And it detracts some other things people

[2:37:53] might want to have in the town It's serious money.

[2:37:56] So and I'd like to do that And I want

[2:37:58] to know what the cost is going to be. Going

[2:38:02] out Like you say The engineering costs have been covered

[2:38:06] for the project Is that money that's already earmarked on

[2:38:10] a reserve Or is this money that is going to

[2:38:13] have to be funded by future debt? I don't know.

[2:38:16] But I have real problems with this And I cannot

[2:38:19] just receive this I have emotion I want to put

[2:38:22] it forward It can go for Council of Discussion But

[2:38:25] this is really a high stakes financial discussion Okay in

[2:38:29] my mind Excuse me Thank you council supporter I've heard

[2:38:31] your question We need to let manage your Kershaw answer

[2:38:34] some of the questions that you've put into your statement

[2:38:38] there So we're going to do that first and foremost.

[2:38:42] Andrew Kershaw Please go ahead. Three you Mr. Chair I'm

[2:38:46] sorry You're going to have to bear with me I

[2:38:48] can't remember all the questions Honestly I was trying to

[2:38:50] write them down But I'm doing the best I can

[2:38:53] So the engineering costs included in I believe in the

[2:38:56] 2023 2024 budget It was approved We're spending that This

[2:39:01] is how we got these estimates This is how we

[2:39:03] got to 30 percent design The money is has been

[2:39:07] It's in a BVR It's locked away So that The

[2:39:12] engineering is covered Number one. Bear with me I understand

[2:39:18] The costs are crazy We when we build When we

[2:39:22] build a Wet will say When we're building a sewage

[2:39:25] pumping station Sewage comes into a Wet well We have

[2:39:30] two choices We can put pumps down in the Wet

[2:39:32] Well Which is cheaper Or we can build a Wetwell

[2:39:35] Drywell Where the pumps sit in a dry area We

[2:39:39] get longer life out of the pumps When you get

[2:39:41] to bigger pumping stations. We look at what well drywall

[2:39:46] configuration But we only want to build that Wet Well

[2:39:48] once We only want to build that In the ground

[2:39:52] structure once So that will be built for full capacity

[2:39:56] We will put pumps in there that are sized for

[2:39:59] today. So that and to see that the next 15

[2:40:04] years worth of growth Uh. That is a cost saving

[2:40:10] measures Because as those pumps We don't want to put

[2:40:12] pumps in that are going to meet the full build

[2:40:14] out of the Of the shed Because by the time

[2:40:19] those pumps come to the end of life We will

[2:40:22] not have seen that capacity We will not have seen

[2:40:24] The flows that are required So and we don't want

[2:40:28] to have extra pumps there that we have to exercise

[2:40:30] and maintain Just in case we get that flow. I

[2:40:34] can't predict what's going to Who's going to build what

[2:40:36] today or tomorrow? This isn't We are in a little

[2:40:40] bit of an unusual situation The Town of Blue Mountains

[2:40:43] has seen Uh, slowdowns in growth for a year or

[2:40:47] two But then it picks right back up And this

[2:40:49] we're in that lull right now We're definitely in that

[2:40:52] lull. We're not the same We don't see the same

[2:40:56] growth and the same growth patterns that they do in

[2:40:59] Toronto We're a totally different dynamic And one of the

[2:41:03] things that goes through my mind is that We're at

[2:41:07] the stage where we're seeing a lot of the baby

[2:41:09] boomers Retire and relocate here Has that wave ended or

[2:41:15] will it continue? We are at the end of the

[2:41:17] baby boomer retirement phase It's the next phase that our

[2:41:22] retiring that is a much smaller amount of The population

[2:41:26] So will we see a growth return? I don't know

[2:41:29] I don't know I can only go on What I

[2:41:31] know we need And based on the past 10 15

[2:41:35] 20 years of growth. Is the best that we have?

[2:41:40] We don't have 2020 vision into the future to see

[2:41:43] what's coming down the pipe We do know that infrastructure

[2:41:46] projects such as these Do not happen overnight They don't

[2:41:49] happen in a year There's a lot of work A

[2:41:52] lot of work in these And I know the numbers

[2:41:54] have gone up But that's reflective of the type of

[2:41:57] engineering that we're doing We're doing a lot of background

[2:42:00] information We're doing legal surveys We're doing groundwater surveys boreholes

[2:42:10] to really understand What the conditions are so that we

[2:42:13] can put a really good solid tender out there Uh,

[2:42:17] for construction We're also very worried about tariffs And the

[2:42:22] fuel prices And that's why some of these numbers seem

[2:42:25] really escalated It's because of the state of the world

[2:42:28] right now We're seeing huge tariffs We're seeing oil prices

[2:42:31] going out through the roof There are some really serious

[2:42:34] concerns about projects like this I understand what you're saying

[2:42:38] about The debt load and the cost of this project

[2:42:43] It's... We have to be able though to accept growth

[2:42:48] If we look at our... Our mission statement Our municipal

[2:42:54] strategy One of the key pillars there is to ensure

[2:43:00] our infrastructure is resilient to accept growth And if we

[2:43:05] don't have the foresight to look ahead and to see

[2:43:07] where our limitations are We're going to be in trouble

[2:43:10] We're not going to meet one of our goals is

[2:43:13] to be able to accept growth. I'm sorry if I've

[2:43:18] missed some of your other questions. I Just like to

[2:43:22] have a follow - up Please And I know I

[2:43:23] spoke because there's a lot in here There's a lot

[2:43:25] of unanswered questions And thank you very much. I think

[2:43:29] what I'm looking for in this is that Uhzik Klee

[2:43:33] We need referring to the strategic plan It is about

[2:43:36] The financial health of the town It is about making

[2:43:40] evidence - based decisions We're at D - level and

[2:43:44] we're over A up. Ep We got three more to

[2:43:49] go I wouldn't be surprised if it's way more Even

[2:43:51] with the value engineering I'm just looking at can we

[2:43:55] sort of build as we grow and how you would

[2:43:59] do that You talk about The Wet Well That's the

[2:44:02] big infrastructure But it's how many pumps go in there

[2:44:04] at the time And how many you can do. The

[2:44:07] scenario But like nothing's happening right now And it is

[2:44:10] The burden then falls on the taxpayer. Not the users

[2:44:14] of the system The taxpayer Which is rural and urban

[2:44:17] rural people don't get to turn the top on And

[2:44:20] have the waist go down a waist pipe And I'm

[2:44:23] just saying In the sense of the different numbers we

[2:44:26] have of units When you look at the Hughes funding

[2:44:29] application You look at that Uh, water application You did

[2:44:34] last June And you look at The numbers here And

[2:44:37] the wastewater capacity They're all different And I think we

[2:44:41] need a reconciliation Like what are the numbers we're dealing

[2:44:45] with and we work with them And we project it

[2:44:49] out. Because that's the way it can be more evidence

[2:44:52] - based And what is the cost if we move

[2:44:56] So when you in that page 8 If you move

[2:44:59] from a short - term to a longer - term

[2:45:02] build Act What is the cost of the community to

[2:45:04] bankroll? What is the cost? We don't know And yes

[2:45:07] The 19 - point 1 million was a hit A

[2:45:11] burn And I learned quick And I just see this

[2:45:14] happening again and coming with a surprise And I'm not

[2:45:16] prepared whether I sit here or I'm a taxpayer You'll

[2:45:20] have me come do deputations Is the we need to

[2:45:24] make informed decisions that is transparent to the public So

[2:45:28] how much is each extra amount of build - out

[2:45:31] gonna cost us? And why? And that's what I want

[2:45:34] to see And I want to see not just value

[2:45:36] engineering as a blanket I wanted to have some direction

[2:45:40] And I also want to know The Public needs to

[2:45:43] know And this is maybe for Chickadee for finance to

[2:45:46] help you out It's how much is this going to

[2:45:48] cost in debt. And how long do we get locked

[2:45:50] in for the debt. And that's money that just is

[2:45:54] gone And it can't be used for parks and all

[2:45:56] the other. Things people want to do That's what I

[2:45:58] want to see And I have it all written down.

[2:46:02] Through Mentha Crushaw And then I have CAO Smith that

[2:46:06] would like to speak to you So some of this

[2:46:08] supports growth And some of this is asset replacement When

[2:46:11] we look at the blowers The backup generator The MCCs

[2:46:15] Although they're going to facilitate some of the growth They

[2:46:18] all We also need those to keep that plant running

[2:46:20] We need to stay in compliance We need to run

[2:46:23] good wastewater treatment plants We need to protect The natural

[2:46:26] environment in Public Health The MCC Sir Existing The Blowers

[2:46:31] Uh... The Grit Removal The Grip Removal is really a

[2:46:34] health and safety Uh... Consideration If you saw how we

[2:46:38] deal with grit and Debris collection at The Wastewater Treatment

[2:46:43] Plant It is not a pretty operation We have operators

[2:46:46] that go out twice a day And manually Rake Off

[2:46:49] screens. In all weather In the middle of winter And

[2:46:54] they're up on top of these basins And not very...

[2:46:58] Not a very pleasant Uh... Health Environment Health and safety

[2:47:02] environment.

[2:47:35] That is not good municipal planning to have a sceptage

[2:47:38] receiving station in the middle of a residential area. The

[2:47:42] oars and the issues that create for the residents is

[2:47:45] not very pleasant. This should be at the wastewater treatment

[2:47:48] plant. We're also considering, and I've had correspondence from residents

[2:47:53] about constructing an RV dumping station. We do have a

[2:47:57] huge tourist population that come into this town and they

[2:48:00] need somewhere to unload their RVs when they're coming. So

[2:48:04] we will be building that with the sceptage receiving station.

[2:48:11] Additionally, we have other counties, Simco County in particular, that

[2:48:15] have contacted us about delivering leachate to this wastewater treatment

[2:48:19] plant. We have the capacity at this wastewater treatment plant

[2:48:23] to deal with the lead sheet from Simcoe County. And

[2:48:28] it's a good revenue stream. And we should be banking

[2:48:30] that. The cost of the septage receiving station, we hope,

[2:48:34] will be revenue, will be revenue zero, because we will

[2:48:37] be increasing the revenues that we're collecting at the Wastewater

[2:48:40] Treatment Plant. Okay, thank you, Manja Kershaw. CAO Smith. Through

[2:48:46] the chair, I just, I think you need to reinforce

[2:48:49] as it relates to this report. And I think underpinning

[2:48:51] it is the evidence, right? And I think what, you

[2:48:55] know, when we look at projections themselves, and the only

[2:48:57] going to be so much in terms of a degree

[2:48:58] of confidence, when we look at those longer term projections,

[2:49:02] to the point earlier that was made as part of

[2:49:03] the Capacity Report is that a lot of this is,

[2:49:07] yeah, when we look at lands, our designated, or earmark

[2:49:10] has released density or what those lands potentially have the

[2:49:13] capability of housing as relations units. But we really don't

[2:49:17] know until there's an active development application that comes forward

[2:49:20] to embed within that design. I think what is an

[2:49:25] important piece to recognise and what this reports brought forward

[2:49:28] here in the prior report brought forward? Was the execution

[2:49:31] of a value engineering study in the design phase? So

[2:49:34] that's a reflection as it relates to the prior projects

[2:49:38] within the Bay Grey and Mill Street. There's a sense

[2:49:41] that we should never be new in these studies kind

[2:49:43] of after you've already have the design stud, design completed.

[2:49:47] Do it now while the design is ongoing. And a

[2:49:50] lot of the considerations, I think that Councillor Pores put

[2:49:52] forward. I'd like to embed within the scope of that

[2:49:54] exercise to understand. And I think to the point around

[2:49:57] phasing is to look at, and the combination between what

[2:50:00] is ASTRA replacement versus on what is driven by growth,

[2:50:04] into which there could be different time requirements for those

[2:50:06] different scopes in which they can be spread out over

[2:50:09] several years? Or does it all need to be done

[2:50:11] at the present time? We can also look in the

[2:50:14] deeper dive as a relationship material is to release to

[2:50:17] the types of pumps we use. So there is definitely

[2:50:19] going to be a comprehensive exercise in conjunction with the

[2:50:22] engineering that is ongoing. But to when we look at

[2:50:25] from a budget standpoint, that's kind of the intent with

[2:50:27] this report is to say that we're not proceeding to

[2:50:30] construction with the 50 million mark this year. That is

[2:50:34] something that we're going to need to consider as part

[2:50:36] of those future budget years or what we as Staff

[2:50:38] are prepared to bring forward a council is analysis around

[2:50:41] the options. I think we hear loud and clear, especially

[2:50:43] with some of the numbers and troubling numbers pertaining to

[2:50:46] how that may impact our debt capacity moving forward is

[2:50:50] we need to look at how can we modify this

[2:50:52] design to be within the means of both the taxpayers,

[2:50:55] as well as the rate users. But we also need

[2:50:57] to look at other tools as well, including a new

[2:51:01] wastewater rate study to ensure our rates are reflective of

[2:51:03] what those asset replacement needs are, as well as looking

[2:51:06] at through development charge front ending agreements. We know that

[2:51:10] DCs and one of the big issues here, we are

[2:51:12] not collecting them in a timely way, especially given the

[2:51:15] current environment. We also know the legislative changes that really

[2:51:19] look at back loading as it relates to the timing

[2:51:22] which makes even more difficulty in terms of a certainty

[2:51:25] of when this revenue is going to come forward. So

[2:51:28] through front ending agreements, if it is really dependent on,

[2:51:30] say, those growth needs is looking at the industry to

[2:51:33] come forward as it relates to using or providing credits

[2:51:36] for, uh, for that work that is so dependent on

[2:51:40] these projects embarking. So I think that's something to really

[2:51:44] just be clear for councils that we are in that

[2:51:47] we take heed of as a relations to the fiscal

[2:51:49] constraints. And we also know that there's more to come

[2:51:52] to modify that number because frankly, yes, to 50 million

[2:51:55] is creates anxiety. No one on the Stas end as

[2:51:59] it relates to how we are going to be able

[2:52:00] to afford it as well as how that impacts other

[2:52:03] projects and going into the more of the discretion items,

[2:52:06] which I think a lot of folks want to see

[2:52:08] done really to our parks recreational amenities and things like

[2:52:11] that when we're so focused. There's so much resources have

[2:52:14] to go into what is critical related to maintaining our

[2:52:17] assets or accommodating the growth that goes into our water

[2:52:20] wastewater systems. Thank you, CEO Smith. All right. Now I'm

[2:52:24] going to go on to Deputy Mayor Barneau. Thank you,

[2:52:29] Mr. Chair, through you. And, um, looking at this in

[2:52:34] its totality, looking at long - term debt when we're

[2:52:36] at 30 percent engineering is hard to do. Um, by

[2:52:41] a couple of questions I do have is, um, first

[2:52:45] and foremost, each year of projects delayed, we averaged three

[2:52:48] to five percent increases That being said, looking at the

[2:52:57] scope of the phasing of this, we have to look

[2:52:59] at the long - term financial roadmap as well as

[2:53:01] the infrastructure. We have over a billion dollars. In infrastructure.

[2:53:07] And then to maintain that, even if you take at

[2:53:10] a, between one and one five percentile dollars in infrastructure,

[2:53:18] because it's, say, two thirds of our equipment or our

[2:53:20] infrastructure, um, asset management's in great shape. The third, as

[2:53:25] we progress in age, we need to reflect that. So

[2:53:29] it's not all new build. It's also maintaining the asset

[2:53:31] management. So we need a good roadmap for each. So

[2:53:34] I guess my question, um, Ms. Kershaw is, um, number

[2:53:38] one is. At declass engineering, um, do we see that

[2:53:42] increase? We've seen that before. So are we comfortable with

[2:53:45] D - class or do we see that escalating number

[2:53:48] one? Number two is our, my percentage on construction increase

[2:53:53] on an analysed basis, um, by postponing a project accurate.

[2:53:58] Thank you, Crucial. Go ahead. After you, Mr. Chair, I'm

[2:54:02] going to answer your last question first because it's most

[2:54:04] president in my mind. Six years ago, we would have

[2:54:09] said we see both two percent increase. And tariffs. So

[2:54:16] I think three to five percent would be very low.

[2:54:19] I think we probably up around 10 percent increase when

[2:54:22] we consider what's going on in the world economy and

[2:54:25] we're supplies come from, uh, when we look at infrastructure,

[2:54:30] especially, uh, linear infrastructure, so much of it is dependent

[2:54:33] on hydrocarbons, whether it be PVC pipe or the asphalt

[2:54:38] or there's a huge impact based on the price of

[2:54:42] the oil, a barrel of oil. So I would think

[2:54:46] that we might be up around 10 percent per year

[2:54:51] and delaying, we'll drive the costs up. When we consider

[2:54:55] we're at 30 percent design, I will use an analogy

[2:54:58] from, um, a council reporter about being in health care.

[2:55:01] This is like walking into your emergency room. Uh, running

[2:55:10] tests. So we're at 30 percent design We've done a

[2:55:18] lot of pre - assessments, uh, like the, this is

[2:55:22] when we undertake all our studies and up to the

[2:55:25] 30 percent design My wishful, my, my heart, uh, hopes

[2:55:31] it doesn't increase, but my brain tells me it will.

[2:55:34] We always find more unknowns as we go, uh, what

[2:55:40] is the cost of that piece of equipment? Whoa, what's

[2:55:44] the pipe that we required to connect that piece of

[2:55:46] equipment to the rest of the system. We're tying in

[2:55:50] every piece of wire and everything else in the costs

[2:55:53] of every other component that's required. We get into the

[2:55:56] nitty gritty when we start getting into 90 percent So

[2:55:59] we really know what we're, what we're dealing with. But

[2:56:03] we are trying to be conservative and use a healthy

[2:56:07] estimate. We did look at the estimate that the tender

[2:56:11] bids that we received from Mill Street for the for

[2:56:14] the pumping station and we looked, because when we get

[2:56:17] a tender bid, uh, we look at everybody who submitted

[2:56:22] this a bid to do that job. And it is

[2:56:26] broken down into the different components, whether it be electrical,

[2:56:29] mechanical, concrete, uh, structural. And we did compare, uh, the

[2:56:35] costs of that and the volumes and the size of

[2:56:37] the pumps and everything else. So we are really trying

[2:56:40] to do a very good, a very thorough investigation at

[2:56:44] the 30 percent design. But I can't tell you it's

[2:56:48] going to go down. Follow up Mr. Predier. Yeah. Thank

[2:56:51] you for that. And you know, I see just that

[2:56:53] alone, The One Rock we're talking about and the 2.

[2:56:55] 2 million dollars just because physically what's there. Um, so

[2:56:59] if we go from, um, looking at the 30 percent

[2:57:03] design, am I right from memory that we'd be probably

[2:57:10] in the contingency 2025 percent at that level is that

[2:57:14] about right? I have read some papers where they say

[2:57:19] a D classes minus 25 percent plus 50 percent. But

[2:57:24] we run plus or minus 25 percent based on a

[2:57:28] D class. Thank you. Councillor Maxwell, go ahead. Thank you

[2:57:37] chair. Um, I have some questions. I guess there are

[2:57:42] more, cause I think everybody's been talking about finance here.

[2:57:45] I think I'm going to talk about is. Some illegal

[2:57:48] which translates into finance and the first question I'm going

[2:57:54] to ask is, are we legally mandated to grow by

[2:57:58] the province. Yes or no. And then I'll move on

[2:58:02] to this devil. Major Gersha or CAO Smith. You want

[2:58:07] to take a stab at that. Through the chair, yes.

[2:58:12] We do have obligations around accommodating growth. When we look

[2:58:16] at other tools at Municipalities had to employ when, uh,

[2:58:20] say there is not the necessary, the ability to look

[2:58:22] at expanding, say, capacity. There's been interim control bylaws and

[2:58:27] things like that. But they've always been tied to study

[2:58:30] or an analysis that would be required to further support

[2:58:33] that growth being, uh, to be enabled and to, to

[2:58:36] the future. So, uh, we, we cannot look at, uh,

[2:58:40] a practice as it relates to essentially, uh, not pursuing

[2:58:44] these expansions to supply and essentially looking at indefinite development

[2:58:48] freeze. We would be, uh, that would be a risk

[2:58:50] to the municipality. Follow up Councillor Maxwell. Yeah, I do.

[2:58:57] Okay. So. Um, yeah. What I'm looking at is, um.

[2:59:06] On the MTO, uh, refusing permission across I - 26.

[2:59:13] If we realign the water course. We're going to have

[2:59:18] to go meet a whole lot of regulatory compliance with

[2:59:22] agencies, whether it's conservation authorities or ministry of this and

[2:59:27] that. So that's going to add to some. Legal burden.

[2:59:33] The other one I'm wondering about too is. Some, uh,

[2:59:40] maybe ongoing agreements that we have currently with maybe subdivisions.

[2:59:45] Um, we have front ended. Have they funded any of

[2:59:49] the growth at all. Do we know. That's where you,

[2:59:54] Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Okay. So let's go back to

[2:59:56] the MTO intersection. Uh, we started, um, meetings with the

[3:00:01] MTO beginning of this year to figure out how to

[3:00:04] get the sewers across Highway 26 on grey road 21.

[3:00:10] The ministry came back, um, Ministry of Transportation, uh, came

[3:00:13] back and said, we are undertaking an EA and environmental

[3:00:16] assessment right now to determine how we're going to control

[3:00:19] that intersection, whether it be around about or signalized intersection.

[3:00:24] When we started our discussions with them, they said we

[3:00:26] have not come to a conclusion on how we're going

[3:00:28] to control that intersection. But however, we do it, the

[3:00:32] work will be done in 2027. And your sewer better

[3:00:36] not be in our way. If your sewer is in

[3:00:39] our way when we go to Reconstruction, you will pay

[3:00:42] for every day that we delay their construction. So MTO

[3:00:47] have made it quite clear that they do not want

[3:00:49] our infrastructure in their intersections. In order to accommodate that,

[3:00:53] we are taking this sewer up. We'll be travelling at

[3:00:58] West along the side of Highway 26. To get beyond

[3:01:03] their intersection. The sewer will dip down and go below

[3:01:06] the water course. And then once we're beyond their water

[3:01:09] course, it'll cross over, cross north, across Highway 26. And

[3:01:13] then we will travel back east along the north shore

[3:01:17] of Highway 26 and go underneath the water course again.

[3:01:20] And then start down Grey Road 21. Our long point

[3:01:24] road to ensure that our gravity sewer is not in

[3:01:27] their intersection. We also had some communications with calling wood.

[3:01:31] Callingwood have a water main that comes to an end

[3:01:34] at Silver Creek Drive on Grey Road 21. And we

[3:01:37] said, Hey, we're going to be crossing Highway 26. Do

[3:01:40] you want us to put in a sleeve for your

[3:01:42] water main? A long point road. Right now, the town

[3:01:47] of Blue Mountains provides water to the Collingwood residence on

[3:01:50] the end of Longpoint Road. And when we started looking

[3:01:53] at costs calling would say, no, I think we'll undertake

[3:01:57] that work at another time. We're not going to participate

[3:01:59] in that work. So that, that the cost of that

[3:02:03] work has increased. That was the most significant increase to

[3:02:08] the linear works. And I believe we added almost 1.

[3:02:13] 5 kilometers of water main or sewer main by having

[3:02:17] to do the jog round. So that was the significant

[3:02:20] cost to the linear works. Oh, I'm losing my mind

[3:02:24] today. I forgot in your second question. I'm sorry. Go

[3:02:27] ahead. I wondered if we had any agreements that were

[3:02:32] locked down that, you know, maybe a close session. With

[3:02:40] her. Through you, Mr. Chair. So we haven't done any

[3:02:43] pre - servicing agreements in the Craig Leith area for,

[3:02:46] for water sewer. We have been pre - building it

[3:02:51] for development to come in to support, uh, resilient growth.

[3:02:58] Cool. Yes. Councillor Maxwell. Yeah. Okay. So I just want

[3:03:01] to make a comment, I guess. So. The financial risk

[3:03:07] and the legal risk seemed to be fairly high on

[3:03:10] this project. Anyway, it looks like, you know, we're at

[3:03:16] 30 percent, but we have no idea what the cost

[3:03:19] will be at a hundred percent. We do not want

[3:03:21] another episode like the last time. And it looks like

[3:03:26] we're heading that direction. So, um, anyway, um, I'll have

[3:03:31] to have a look at see what Councillor Porter has

[3:03:33] her emotion here. Thank you. Uh, yeah, men's Turshaw in

[3:03:40] response. Uh, so I guess I want to comment through

[3:03:45] you, Mr. Chair. I'll provide a few comments. Um, this

[3:03:48] project we were proposing to go to a valued engineering

[3:03:51] at 30 percent design That should eliminate, uh, any extras

[3:03:56] or unnecessary costs. We will look at maximizing our design

[3:04:02] and being very conservative of what we install to make

[3:04:07] sure we're utilising the user rates dollars as best we

[3:04:12] can in the taxpayers, Money the best we can. So

[3:04:17] our next step with this project is to undertake a

[3:04:20] 30 percent design review. Additionally, we do have a risk

[3:04:22] registry going on with this project. And we understand the

[3:04:26] risks of the decisions that we're being made for this

[3:04:33] project. So, um, previous projects, I don't believe, uh, we're

[3:04:40] communicated 30, 60, 90 percent design estimates. This is a

[3:04:44] request of council and we're proceeding to make those publicly

[3:04:48] available and available to council to understand where we're at

[3:04:51] with projects. Final question Maxwell. We got to get to

[3:04:58] a mark. Thank you, Gerald. Okay. Thank you for that,

[3:05:00] Elsin. So when they do the value engineering and they,

[3:05:05] they're going to stand behind what they say that 100

[3:05:08] percent. Magiswalk. So valued engineering is an exercise where we

[3:05:14] look at what was designed. And this is, is this

[3:05:17] the best solution? Is this the best life cycle costing?

[3:05:20] Is this the best infrastructure to install to reduce risk

[3:05:25] of both construction issues and long - term issues to

[3:05:30] the town? It's not about, uh, examining this cost and

[3:05:37] saying that this cost is a hundred percent guaranteed at

[3:05:40] the end of warranty. Things do change during construction. When

[3:05:47] you're in this kind of construction, there are decisions that

[3:05:50] are made that change minor, the minutiae within the project.

[3:06:00] A fairly frequently. But we have contingencies that we roll

[3:06:05] with that because we haven't maybe identified every single light

[3:06:08] bulb or things like that. Valued engineering does not guarantee

[3:06:13] the price. Valued engineering tells us that we're getting the

[3:06:16] best value, the best life cycle costs, the best product,

[3:06:22] uh, or the most. Cost effective product for, for our

[3:06:27] taxpayers dollars. Okay. Thank you, manager Kershaw. So I don't

[3:06:35] see any further hands. Councillor Porter did indicate she had

[3:06:38] a motion. I'm going to look to Adam Deputy Clerk

[3:06:41] to put that motion up on the board so I

[3:06:42] can read it aloud for everybody to hear and absorb

[3:06:45] that council, receive Staff move by Council Reporter. That Council

[3:06:49] receive Staff Report OPS dot 26. 035 entitled Craig Leith

[3:06:54] Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades. And that Council Direct Staff to

[3:07:02] report back to Council with a reconciliation, validation and, sorry,

[3:07:09] consolidation of all existing approved committed allocated, reserved and future

[3:07:14] wastewater units associated with the Craig Leaf sewer shed and

[3:07:19] Craig Leith Wastewater Treatment Plant Service area. And that the

[3:07:23] report include a comparison of the unit counts equivalent unit

[3:07:27] count allocations. Servicing assumption, this growth forecast and a full

[3:07:34] build - out projections utilised in. One, The long point

[3:07:38] road, environmental assessment to the water and wastewater capacity assessments.

[3:07:45] Three, development charge studies. Four, health and safety water stream

[3:07:50] HSWS funding applications five housing, enabling, water, systems, HEWS funding

[3:07:58] applications. Six wastewater servicing studies. Seven growth management forecasts and

[3:08:04] eight all related infrastructure planning documents. And that staff identify

[3:08:09] and explain any discrepancies between these documents and provide a

[3:08:13] reconciled estimate of one existing service units to approved and

[3:08:20] committed units, three registered, but unbuilt units for allocated or

[3:08:26] reserved capacity. Five, future growth units. And six total full

[3:08:32] build - out units. Together with the anticipated realization timeline

[3:08:38] for those units in five - year increments, zero to

[3:08:41] five, five to 10 years, 10 to 15 years, 15

[3:08:44] to 20 years. And beyond 20 years, including the assumptions

[3:08:48] supporting each forecast. And that Staff specifically identify and quantify

[3:08:54] any overlap duplication or double counting of housing units, equivalent

[3:08:59] units, servicing allocations, growth forecasts or capacity assumptions across grant

[3:09:05] applications. Development charge studies. Servicing strategies, environmental assessments, infrastructure studies,

[3:09:12] and wastewater planning documents. And that Council Direct the Value

[3:09:17] Engineering and third - party review assignment to utilise the

[3:09:21] validated growth forecast servicing assumptions and build - out projections

[3:09:26] as the basis for evaluating build now versus build as

[3:09:31] growth accures scenarios. And further that no recommendation regarding ultimate

[3:09:38] infrastructure sizing, construction phasing, or long - term borrowing, B

[3:09:43] - brought forward to council until the growth forecast full

[3:09:47] - builded assumptions, implementation, timelines, and servicing allocations have been

[3:09:52] reconciled and validated, and that Staff provide a comprehensive financial

[3:09:58] analysis of the borrowing requirements associated with the Craig Leith

[3:10:02] Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades project. Including the validated growth forecast

[3:10:08] and face implementation options. And then the analysis include one

[3:10:15] total anticipated debt principle under each scenario to annual debt

[3:10:20] servicing payments three, total financing and interest costs over the

[3:10:25] life of the debt for impacts wastewater reserve funds five

[3:10:30] development charge funding assumptions and anticipated collection timing. Six. Sensitivity

[3:10:36] analysis for low growth, medium growth, and full build -

[3:10:40] out scenarios, and seven, The Impact on Wastewater rates and

[3:10:44] the equivalent impact of the municipal tax levy expressed in

[3:10:48] both annual percentage terms and dollar values, and that the

[3:10:53] report compare the financial implications of one, a full build

[3:11:00] - out scenario to a phased growth triggered scenario, three,

[3:11:04] a minimum infrastructure required today scenario, and for a build

[3:11:09] - out as growth scenario occurred, sorry, for a build

[3:11:13] - out, or build - as - growth occur scenario.

[3:11:17] And that the report clearly identified the financial exposure to

[3:11:21] existing taxpayers and wastewater rate pairs should projected growth, development

[3:11:26] charge revenues, or other growth - related revenues fall to

[3:11:30] materialize within the timelines assumed. And further that the Council

[3:11:34] require any future recommendation regarding Project Scope sizing, phasing, or

[3:11:40] borrowing to include a clear statement of the estimated annual

[3:11:44] debt payment total financing cost and corresponding impact on wastewater

[3:11:51] rates and the municipal tax levy. I'll suck at the

[3:11:54] motion. That has been seconded by Councillor Hope. Any further

[3:12:00] discussion on this motion? CEO Smith, go ahead. Through the

[3:12:08] chair, I don't necessarily have concerns with anything the section

[3:12:11] pertain to the financial analysis piece, which I think will

[3:12:13] be important for those future budgetary decisions. But I do

[3:12:17] struggle a little bit as it relates to the gross

[3:12:21] scenarios and the analysis tied to the various studies in

[3:12:23] terms of reconciling different amounts, because they think through what

[3:12:27] we rely on the comprehensive servicing analysis. Or, Dynajya Kershaw

[3:12:32] has privileged you provided, as well as the fact that

[3:12:35] when we look at elements such as even long point

[3:12:37] EA, that EA was done 20 years ago. So those

[3:12:41] numbers won't be reflective of the current realities. And I

[3:12:44] think that's the key piece is, that's my concern in

[3:12:46] terms of that Folsom information is that, of course, there

[3:12:50] will be caveats. So we'll be differences in the numbers

[3:12:52] we have, because all these studies are done at certain

[3:12:55] periods of time, and our forecasts are always revised based

[3:12:58] on developments that are ultimately allocated. Ultimately, we do have

[3:13:02] emerge, such as even in lands that maybe within a

[3:13:05] future secondary plan area. So I really struggle as it

[3:13:08] relates to how much definitive information we could provide beyond

[3:13:11] what's already portrayed through these servicing analysis report. Um, which

[3:13:15] is our most point in time analysis of where things

[3:13:20] are currently stand, even with the grant submissions themselves. Once

[3:13:23] again, they're point in time projections as it relates to

[3:13:25] where things stand. But I just struggle bringing that, you

[3:13:28] know, level of detail and degree of information and about

[3:13:32] whether that's really doable versus the, um, I think the

[3:13:36] other components on the financial analysis. And I'm going to

[3:13:39] go to Councillor Porter to clarify her motion. Yes, so

[3:13:42] just want to clarify in the sense of if the

[3:13:46] long point, as you say, road environmental assessment, all you,

[3:13:50] all I would expect as a result of this motion

[3:13:52] is, um, due to the age of it report is

[3:13:55] no longer relevant done. I'm not looking for you to

[3:13:58] explain things that aren't relevant. I do think the two

[3:14:02] funding applications are relevant, particularly one was only done a

[3:14:06] year ago. And the other one, I would say to

[3:14:09] some extent, got us in the mess we are. So

[3:14:11] they are relevant as to what was used. Um, if

[3:14:15] the study is relevant, it's fine. If it's too old,

[3:14:18] it's not relevant. An explanation one or two sentences is

[3:14:21] fine. The problem I had is that there are different

[3:14:25] numbers. There's different numbers. And we have to have one

[3:14:30] set of numbers that we use. And, um, that was

[3:14:37] my big thing. Is around the watershed numbers. And I

[3:14:41] had looked at the Excel spreadsheet that Ms. Kershaw reported

[3:14:46] to in that perhaps can be just put in there.

[3:14:49] I'm plunked in. This is what they are. But I

[3:14:51] think it's fair to say, you don't want to look

[3:14:53] it application forms for grants. And look at Staff Reports

[3:14:56] and the numbers are different. People know it should be

[3:15:01] what a number is. And the numbers don't change that

[3:15:04] drastically. That you're getting up to a future bill of

[3:15:06] 23, 000 and something. Like, and it's trying to figure

[3:15:10] out what are we funding to. And if you, um,

[3:15:16] the refurbishment of existing is seen as, um, that to

[3:15:21] me shouldn't get bundled because this is really a seven

[3:15:24] project bundle when we weren't going to bundle things anymore

[3:15:28] is what is actually the reconstruction and what is new

[3:15:31] construction? What is the cost. Because people have an easier

[3:15:35] time knowing that they need to have this to continue

[3:15:38] the service they have, but they're less likely to want

[3:15:41] to pay debt for services that are coming who know

[3:15:44] when. You know, I think there is some, you know,

[3:15:50] if you want any more clarification, it's fine. But, um,

[3:15:54] some things, if they're not relevant, they're not relevant. And

[3:15:57] ticket often, it goes. Okay. Thank you Council Reporter. Manager

[3:16:01] Kershaw. Some of the numbers change, uh, for things like

[3:16:07] campus of care. It was very high density on a

[3:16:09] small piece of property that we were incorporating at some

[3:16:13] point in time. And then we were not incorporating. Additionally,

[3:16:16] we see a huge development just in their secondary plan

[3:16:21] that has gone from 1200 units. And I believe it's

[3:16:23] come down a bit. When we look at, when I

[3:16:28] write the capacity report, when if there's certain new developments

[3:16:33] that are thrown in, uh, I believe in 2023, I

[3:16:36] included sites B E and F at the village. That's

[3:16:41] a huge amount of capacity change. And it changes from

[3:16:44] year to year. If you look at year over year

[3:16:46] of the, of the capacity report and you look at

[3:16:50] the allocations and the total amount of usage, it does

[3:16:53] go up and down. It does slide depending on the

[3:16:55] density of, of what builders actually build. And, uh, some

[3:17:00] of the special projects that come down, such as campus

[3:17:03] of care. And when we looked at the, the long

[3:17:06] point road sewer shed, we were also incorporating units from

[3:17:11] beyond our municipal boundaries within the town of Collingwood. And

[3:17:16] Clearview Township. Which we should be, we should be trying

[3:17:20] to reduce the cost on the individual users on the

[3:17:25] system. So our numbers are not always, we're not comparing

[3:17:29] apples and oranges and all these different studies. That's part

[3:17:33] of the problem is that when we look at a

[3:17:36] funding application, we're looking at how many users we're servicing

[3:17:39] within our municipality when we're looking at an EA and

[3:17:43] we're going to service beyond our municipal boundary. We incorporate

[3:17:46] those, those numbers as well. And they, they, the long

[3:17:50] point road did delineate the number of users per piece

[3:17:53] of property that could be serviced by the treatment plant,

[3:17:59] the lift station at the plant. Okay. Thank you, manager

[3:18:01] Kershaw. Um, going to go to Madam Mayor. Go ahead.

[3:18:05] Thank you. Three of the chair to CAO Smith. Um,

[3:18:09] thank you. You've already delineated some of the differences in

[3:18:13] the ask in terms of the financial side. Um, we

[3:18:16] are in the operations portion of Committee the whole. We

[3:18:18] don't have the benefit of, of the financial team being

[3:18:22] able to respond. My question through the chair is this

[3:18:26] list of ask how doable is it in the Staff

[3:18:29] workload that they currently have in Operations, but also with

[3:18:33] finance. I'll have to look to you as a CAO

[3:18:36] to think in terms of who would need to be

[3:18:38] involved in this. And knowing that every time we ask

[3:18:42] for a new report, we are prioritizing it and bumping

[3:18:45] something else down the road. So my question would be

[3:18:48] within that context, um, what is going to have to

[3:18:51] wait if this work, this, this package of work is

[3:18:56] completed ahead of other scheduled work. C. S. Smith. Yes.

[3:19:02] And through the chair, yeah, certainly wouldn't be a report,

[3:19:05] at least as a reads right now that I would

[3:19:06] be able to bring back next cycle. This would be

[3:19:08] something that, uh, I think to the point around in

[3:19:10] terms of even from a, uh, financial analysis standpoint, I'm

[3:19:14] really leaning on actually looking into the 2027 budget. I

[3:19:18] think to that most of my orderlier point, I think

[3:19:20] there's some, you know, the request made is say preclude

[3:19:24] that came after the more so the analysis on the

[3:19:28] unit counts would be a hundred percent a consideration when

[3:19:32] it goes into the 2027 budget process pertain to anything

[3:19:35] further advancing the long point road work. So I think

[3:19:38] we have the benefit of time right now as it

[3:19:41] relates to the existing budget that's been approved. The existing

[3:19:44] value engineering exercise that we still need to, uh, to

[3:19:47] complete on this, uh, on this project. And that'd be

[3:19:50] my hope is I'd be more so something that we

[3:19:52] would have to go into a new term at Council

[3:19:54] into 2027 in conjunction with any further ask that may

[3:19:58] be required as a relates to budgets. So I would

[3:20:00] not be able to bring anything back probably likely within

[3:20:03] this with term pertaining to it. Um, it would have

[3:20:06] to be something that we factor in as part of

[3:20:08] our 27 budget deliberations. Follow up, Madam Mayor. Yes. Thank

[3:20:13] you. Through the chair, if I may have a follow

[3:20:15] up then directed to manager Kershaw in terms of the

[3:20:17] operations portion of this ask, um, again, the same question,

[3:20:23] how much staff time would be involved in producing the

[3:20:25] answers to this given the acknowledgement from staff that so

[3:20:30] many of the pieces of the puzzle do move and

[3:20:32] some of the, it's not an easy. I think it

[3:20:35] was Apple's. You said it was an apples to apples

[3:20:38] that the comparison and what projects on our, on our

[3:20:42] operation staff are now going to have to be put

[3:20:44] on hold while this information gets bumped up the queue.

[3:20:49] Major Kershaw. Go ahead. First off the cue would be

[3:20:51] I'd have to delay the third party, the valued engineering

[3:20:56] assignment or the third party review. And one of the,

[3:21:00] I just want to note in here, uh, we were

[3:21:03] planning on doing a third party review or a valued

[3:21:07] engineering assignment, not both. I see you had and, uh,

[3:21:11] so it would be one or the other. So that

[3:21:13] would definitely be bumped. It's a heavy workload to produce

[3:21:19] this. Uh, and it's also planning Staff. I'll be spending

[3:21:22] a lot of time with planning staff. This is going

[3:21:24] to, to land on my shoulders. So I've got a

[3:21:28] few capital projects that are on the goal right now

[3:21:31] that, uh, we'll end up being delayed. And. It's not

[3:21:37] doable in the, in the next couple council cycles. To

[3:21:41] be honest. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Thank you, Madam

[3:21:47] Mayor. Uh, Mr. Deputy Mayor, go ahead. Uh, thank you.

[3:21:50] Just listen to the conversation. I think we're all, we

[3:21:52] all want the same thing. We want a financial roadmap

[3:21:54] that's going to give us good operational infrastructures. We move

[3:21:57] forward. That being said, to me, this, the motion is,

[3:22:02] this is some good elements here that we need the

[3:22:03] information on. But I think we're being far too prescriptive.

[3:22:06] And I haven't even had a chance to review it.

[3:22:07] It's hard to just looking at it on screen. We

[3:22:10] haven't had the benefit of reviewing it ahead of time

[3:22:12] or the Public reviewing it for that matter as well.

[3:22:14] So there's just too much in here for me to

[3:22:18] be able to support the full motion. We, if we

[3:22:22] could split dissections, but then we'd be here for another

[3:22:26] two hours. So it's, it's not a matter of putting

[3:22:29] extra work on staff because if it does, it takes

[3:22:32] the time. But this is something that's going to be

[3:22:34] looked at through the 2027 capital project anyways. Um, so

[3:22:39] having those, uh, true numbers on allocation, having the true

[3:22:42] numbers on asset management, uh, and the reserves, like even

[3:22:46] looking at the five year increments of five, five years,

[3:22:50] five to 10 years. That's usually community stretch out a

[3:22:54] little bit further than that beyond 25 years. They look

[3:22:56] to a 50 year Bilbo at the, at their end

[3:22:59] result. So I agree. We shouldn't have, you know, we

[3:23:03] shouldn't have any overlap duplication. It should be true numbers

[3:23:06] that we need to work with. But doing this report,

[3:23:09] pushing off the value engineering, um, or third party review

[3:23:12] of projects that are already approved in the queue for

[3:23:15] capital concerns me. Um, so I'd like to know, I

[3:23:21] guess from the mover. There's too much information here for

[3:23:25] Staff to be able to take it back digested, even

[3:23:27] for the Public and even for council right now to

[3:23:29] be able to give a true vote on this, from

[3:23:34] my opinion at this point. So I guess to the,

[3:23:37] through the chair to the mover is looking at this

[3:23:39] as a totality, was this something that you were looking

[3:23:42] at through the capital project and was it anticipated that

[3:23:46] the third party value engineering would be delayed. Council Porter.

[3:23:53] Through the chair, uh, to the Deputy Mayor, no, I

[3:23:56] wasn't anticipating it would be delayed. You can do whatever

[3:24:00] you want. I would personally think the value engineering would

[3:24:03] be, would be better. I purposely did not put a

[3:24:07] date for it to be returned because I respect that.

[3:24:11] It's just that I think when we do something like

[3:24:13] this, we have to work with a set of solid

[3:24:16] numbers. Solid numbers for what are we paying for that's

[3:24:21] required today. Within a year. And what are you wanting

[3:24:24] us to pay for that you're not looking that there

[3:24:27] isn't going to be, um, users for 20 years. It

[3:24:30] needs to be separated out. It needs to be separated

[3:24:33] out, as you say, what is, um, refurbishment versus new.

[3:24:38] And we don't know that right now. So, um, we,

[3:24:43] and we also, it just says there's no way is

[3:24:47] transparent to the public how that's going to hit their

[3:24:49] pocketbook. And that's not fair. I mean, I shouldn't have

[3:24:51] to figure it out using a spreadsheet. And think about

[3:24:58] how that, and it's put there. And it should come

[3:25:02] towards the budget because if that's what it's going to

[3:25:05] cost is going to be trade - offs because you

[3:25:06] can't have everything because you're going to be hitting 25,

[3:25:09] 30 percent tax increase. So it wasn't meant to delay

[3:25:13] the value engineering. As I see the value in that

[3:25:16] at this time as opposed to retrospectively. So, but we,

[3:25:22] and I'm happy, I think we need to know these

[3:25:25] things going in. The new council, whoever sits here, needs

[3:25:28] to know these things going into the budget. Because I

[3:25:32] think we sort of, in some ways I see it's

[3:25:35] from blind faith that it will be okay. Well, that

[3:25:38] went out the window last year on December 15th. So

[3:25:42] this is one way we have a set of numbers.

[3:25:45] If the numbers change, then that's a variance to the

[3:25:48] project. So that's what I'm looking at. And I purposely

[3:25:52] didn't put a date because the budget won't come to

[3:25:54] the new year. So it gives you lots of time.

[3:25:57] Pollo up, uh, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Uh, no, and I,

[3:26:01] and I, and I get that. And I, this is

[3:26:04] something that we'll be looked at through the 2027 capital

[3:26:06] budget. And we're using actual numbers. You need to, otherwise

[3:26:09] we can't do a true financial road wrapper who has

[3:26:12] ever, um, planning for the next four, eight, 12 years

[3:26:15] out. It's just there's, I think there's too much in

[3:26:18] this motion to be able to even, um, for Staff

[3:26:21] to tackle it. There's, there's a lot of great key

[3:26:24] points and numbers that we need to get. But I

[3:26:26] think the verbal doesn't need to be there or is

[3:26:31] confusing or contradictory. Or even at the, even looking at,

[3:26:35] um, financial long - term debt facilities is that on

[3:26:40] today's number, is that an assumption it won't be built

[3:26:43] for two years. And so we're adding 10 percent of

[3:26:46] your compounding per year. Once we get to 60 percent

[3:26:49] engineering with the scope of the project changed. So I

[3:26:51] don't, I want to make sure we have the right

[3:26:54] numbers in there. Of course, for the, um, allocation of

[3:26:56] houses, the allocations of water, um, looking at like some

[3:27:01] great key points. And here's where we go further down

[3:27:02] into the motion. There's just, I think too many things

[3:27:05] that may conflict with each other. If you pull down

[3:27:07] a little bit further, um. Even, uh, The Bill now

[3:27:13] versus Bilder's growth, as Allison said, you know, it's not,

[3:27:17] it's not an off the shelf plug and play situation

[3:27:20] when we're looking at trunk lines. You need to have

[3:27:22] that in place. Um, and then this, this section I

[3:27:27] think is going to be, um, is going to be

[3:27:29] greatly affected by timing. So we're, we're now seeing at

[3:27:33] August about the time you do the capital budget. Then

[3:27:36] you look at by the time this is actually built,

[3:27:38] I think the numbers won't be accurate. And then that,

[3:27:42] we're going to get ourselves into a scenario where we

[3:27:43] need to have the full at least 60 percent class

[3:27:47] engineering we're at as well as, uh, what scope and

[3:27:51] range. And then prioritization of those seven capital, uh, the

[3:27:55] scopes with, sorry, the seven scope priorities within that capital

[3:27:59] project. So I think the few things that we, they

[3:28:01] won't be able to do. And I don't want to,

[3:28:04] this to come back, especially to a new council. And

[3:28:07] with confusion, I think a well - rounded capital budget

[3:28:11] plan coming forward. I think Staffs heard everything we need

[3:28:14] to see or whatever council needs to see. So I

[3:28:18] think that is just a little bit too much in

[3:28:20] here. On a carryover basis going to this capital budget.

[3:28:25] It's just, just, just my opinion. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

[3:28:28] Deputy Mayor. I'm going to go to Councillor Maxwell. Thank

[3:28:34] you, Chair. Anyway, I'm going to give you the reasons

[3:28:37] why I support this. And I wish you actually had

[3:28:42] more in. But anyway, okay. So the reason I'm supporting

[3:28:47] this is I think we, a lot of us were

[3:28:51] at the, you know, all candidates meeting. And the Public

[3:28:56] and the taxpayers are asking, you know, for greater oversight

[3:29:05] on the delivery of projects. And they want to stress

[3:29:08] test on these things. They want us to put them

[3:29:11] under the maker scope and they do not want another

[3:29:16] boondoggle like the ice time. And so anyway, this is

[3:29:20] why I'm supporting this because this is putting everybody's feet

[3:29:24] to the fire. So that we can get. You know,

[3:29:30] a project delivered. That meet maximum stress test. That's really

[3:29:36] what it's about. This reminds me of the financial breakdown

[3:29:39] we had in 2008 when the feds brought in, this

[3:29:43] stress test on the banks. You know, you got to

[3:29:45] do these things. So anyway, I'm just going to leave

[3:29:47] it at that. But that's, I'm supporting this motion. Thank

[3:29:50] you. Thank you Councillor. Uh, Councillor Hope. Thank you, Chair

[3:29:56] McKinley. And thank you again to Councillor Porter for this

[3:29:59] motion. Um, and I'm certainly going to support it. I

[3:30:02] was the seconder as well. I'm wondering if, uh, it

[3:30:05] would be useful that since we're not far from lunchtime,

[3:30:08] that this motion be printed out. So that everyone can

[3:30:12] see it. Um, I listen very carefully because I was

[3:30:14] thinking there was a lot of boxes being ticked off

[3:30:18] for me. So, uh, as I heard the motion, I

[3:30:22] could roll along with it. So I think that for

[3:30:25] those, I don't think it's confusing when you have a

[3:30:27] chance to, to look at it, uh, and I don't

[3:30:30] think it, so the fact that it's long doesn't change

[3:30:32] the fact that it's meaningful and important. And I agree

[3:30:37] absolutely with Councillor Maxwell. We're all rightly so. You know,

[3:30:43] the Public wants due diligence oversight. And numbers that are

[3:30:49] real. So I see that what Councillor Porters put together

[3:30:53] is going to provide us with this with just that.

[3:30:57] So that's why I am on the motion and I

[3:31:01] hope that this has passed because I think it's a

[3:31:03] really important initiative to get things straightened out. Um, what

[3:31:09] I'm also, um, keenly aware of is the complexity of

[3:31:15] this project. Given the background of Bay Street and the

[3:31:20] fact that the KPMG review talked about the complexity of

[3:31:26] a three scope program, let alone a seven scope program.

[3:31:31] If I, if I've got the analogies right, and the

[3:31:34] fact that based on what KPMG has said, we really

[3:31:38] do need to up our game in a huge way

[3:31:43] on our, our ability to deliver capital projects. So we

[3:31:46] don't have a directive operations, which I know the CAO

[3:31:50] is carefully pursuing. How are we going to handle capital

[3:31:54] projects as even up in the air? There's, there's so

[3:31:57] much, uh, to consider, uh, in terms of the other

[3:32:01] side, on the implementation side. And we've been given, uh,

[3:32:05] through KPMG, we've been given a very close, um, review

[3:32:09] of what council needs to ask for and what staff

[3:32:12] needs to be pursuing in terms of stage gates and

[3:32:16] all the elements that they need to, uh, to be

[3:32:18] looking at. So in terms of looking at this project

[3:32:22] from a timing perspective, I would argue we're in basic

[3:32:27] team building process. And that takes time. As well. Um,

[3:32:33] so, and we, and as council and certainly under the

[3:32:37] gun from the Public, we need to follow that KPMG

[3:32:40] report. And whatever amount of time that takes, all the

[3:32:43] recommendations that have come from that report as well. So

[3:32:48] this motion, one part of the complexity, we've got, uh,

[3:32:52] number of elements to unravel, but I think that this

[3:32:55] is the next place to start by ensuring we have

[3:32:58] the right numbers. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Manager Kershaw.

[3:33:02] You indicated you'd like to respond. I did through you,

[3:33:05] Mr. Chair. So when we look at the breakdown between

[3:33:08] asset replacement and DC reserves, that'll come through the budget

[3:33:12] process. We do a fairly thorough investigation when we're looking

[3:33:15] at replacing assets, whether they're supporting growth or whether we're

[3:33:19] just replacing the asset. So that section as to what

[3:33:24] portion is asset replacement or our existing users are paying

[3:33:28] for what is for new users will be done, that

[3:33:35] that exercise is done through the budget process. That's all

[3:33:37] I wanted to add. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. C.

[3:33:40] A. Smith. Through the chair, just to be clear as

[3:33:45] it relates to, you know, as it relates to kind

[3:33:48] of a strong project management framework and methodology underpinning this

[3:33:51] project, I think my concern, and as I noted earlier,

[3:33:54] it doesn't really necessarily go into the analysis side on

[3:33:57] the financial piece, which a hundred percent agree as when

[3:34:00] we look at coming to budget and how this project's

[3:34:03] going to unfold. We're going to want to capture all

[3:34:05] that for, for council. And I think as I know,

[3:34:07] I think that is, that is good information. It's more

[3:34:10] so around the body of work going into all these

[3:34:12] previous studies to which I can definitively say right now,

[3:34:17] I don't believe the outcome is going to result and

[3:34:19] to say, Oh wow, you know, based on these assumptions

[3:34:21] that we are now looking at the fact that we

[3:34:23] don't need to look at the lift station or we

[3:34:25] don't need to do that gravity sewer. That's my concern

[3:34:28] with the body of it is to say it's not

[3:34:30] going to definitively change what this scope is, is looking

[3:34:33] like we have to rely on the current assessments that

[3:34:36] we have. And if the difference, even of say zero

[3:34:41] to a hundred units around those forecasts that once again

[3:34:44] will not be in the grand scheme of things, a

[3:34:47] major change as a relation to the overall overall design.

[3:34:50] So that's really what I just want to reinforce on

[3:34:53] what's, you know, practical or what could be done within.

[3:34:56] I think that's relevant for the purpose of moving this

[3:34:58] project forward in a, in a way that's reflective of,

[3:35:01] I think, our fiscal capacity, which I think the, the,

[3:35:04] the blow sections of the resolution do address. It's just

[3:35:08] more so, I think the, the deep dive around the

[3:35:10] various studies, which managed your Kershaw's point. It's going to

[3:35:14] require other staff, particularly in the planning side. And I'm

[3:35:16] just wary of what that outcome will ultimately be. Okay.

[3:35:21] Thank you, CEO Smith. Councillor Ardell. You have not spoken

[3:35:26] yet. So you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:35:31] And no. And, uh, and this is very complex. And

[3:35:35] I know when we started our term, there was some

[3:35:38] complex. Concepts that happened in the term before us. And

[3:35:44] then we were having to face them ourselves. And then

[3:35:48] we got criticized for them. And it wasn't our doing.

[3:35:52] So depending on who's going to be sitting at this

[3:35:56] table next could be nobody or it could be some.

[3:36:01] And I wouldn't want to have the same scenario roll

[3:36:04] out for them as well. So I think having this,

[3:36:09] this motion here, it is very complex. I would like

[3:36:12] to break for lunch soon and maybe have it read

[3:36:15] over it at lunchtime and then bring it back. So

[3:36:18] we get a thorough understanding of what it does do.

[3:36:22] But I, I wouldn't want to approve something that all

[3:36:26] of a sudden then we get blamed for it. Because,

[3:36:31] Oh, that was the old council or we didn't do

[3:36:33] our due diligence. And I want to make sure we

[3:36:36] are doing our due diligence because we are all taxpayers

[3:36:39] or we wouldn't be sitting at this table. So we

[3:36:41] want to make sure that we're going about it at

[3:36:45] the right way and timeframes. And when I read The

[3:36:50] Whole Thing, I quickly went down and reread it again.

[3:36:54] But there was no timeframe on it. So that's why,

[3:36:58] um, I think then we can give this some real

[3:37:00] good, um, thought. And, you know, really go over it

[3:37:05] with a fine - toothed comb. And then I know

[3:37:08] of that delays the third party or the value engineering.

[3:37:13] So it be. We brought in value engineering at the

[3:37:17] end of another project. So let's just get this right

[3:37:20] for the taxpayers in the town. And, uh, yeah, I,

[3:37:25] I will be supporting this as well. It's just that

[3:37:29] we need to make sure we're doing everything that we

[3:37:32] can for the taxpayers. Thank you, Councillor Del. Uh, CAO

[3:37:36] Smith. Through the chair, just being cognizant at the time.

[3:37:41] And we still have quite a heavy agenda on the

[3:37:43] PDS side of things too. It's a suggestion around potentially

[3:37:46] amending it to allow for at the Council meeting, give

[3:37:49] it a, you know, a bit of time and perhaps

[3:37:51] be it for, for the mover as well as with

[3:37:54] respect to amending it simply to allow for, for that

[3:37:58] motion, be brought forward at council versus having to further

[3:38:02] deliberate on this. Just ensure that we can keep on

[3:38:05] moving as a release. All the various items that we

[3:38:08] do need to address today. And that is next week.

[3:38:14] Sorry. The, the following week. Yeah. Two weeks. Sorry. Two

[3:38:17] weeks. Yes. Councillor Porter. I'm quite happy to bring the

[3:38:22] motion forward at Council as long as I, I'm able

[3:38:25] to do that. I, they say I get first refusals.

[3:38:29] So it will still be my motion. But I'm happy

[3:38:31] taking away and rework it. I'm happy to put it

[3:38:34] out so you can put it on the agenda. Okay.

[3:38:38] Thank you for that council reporter. I have no problem

[3:38:41] with that myself. Matt, I'm Deputy Clerk. Procedurally. How do

[3:38:46] we proceed procedurally? How do we proceed with deferring emotion

[3:38:51] this motion to, Pardon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So according

[3:38:57] to the procedural bylaw, motion or mending motion maybe withdrawn

[3:39:01] by the mover. Um, by the mover, sorry, with the

[3:39:04] consent of the seconder at any time before the amendment

[3:39:07] tour decision. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chair, sorry, Madam Deputy Clerk.

[3:39:15] Can we not just defer B - 4 - 4

[3:39:20] Craigli Water Treatment Plan upgrades represent design update OPS 26035.

[3:39:25] To be heard at the September 8th Council meeting? Nothing

[3:39:29] goes away. They don't pull back the motion. We're just

[3:39:32] deferring the whole topic. I think that, is that, uh,

[3:39:35] procedurally accurate. Um, I think it would work especially if

[3:39:39] Council Pat U unanimously passed a motion to that effect.

[3:39:42] Okay. So hearing that is the mover, does a mover

[3:39:46] approve the deferral of this to for your motion to

[3:39:50] carry over. Yes. And I can work with it. And

[3:39:53] I'll bring forwards any, um, modifications to simplify. Thank you.

[3:39:57] Okay. Thank you. And the seconder, I'm sorry, I can't

[3:40:00] remember who the secondary is now. Oh, secondary is Councillor

[3:40:03] Hope. Would you queue your mic and pontificate your acceptance

[3:40:07] of that. I'll share my acceptance that's for sure. Thanks.

[3:40:12] Okay. Thank you. So that being said, the motion will

[3:40:16] just be that we, uh, item B 4. 4. Sorry,

[3:40:20] Mr. Jarfeen, eh? I just have had some feedback from

[3:40:22] the clerk. Um, so she would suggest a motion come

[3:40:25] forward today for council for consideration at council. Otherwise it

[3:40:29] could be rewarded. That's right. So confirmation from the clerk?

[3:40:35] Yes. We have confirmation from Adam Clerk. So we have

[3:40:43] item B 4. 4, Craigli Wastewater treatment plant upgrades 30

[3:40:47] percent design update OPS dot three 035. That Council, the

[3:40:52] Town Blue Mountains agrees to defer Agenda item B 4.

[3:40:56] 4 until the September 8th, 2026 Council meeting. Do I

[3:40:59] have a mover. I'll move that. Move by Councillor Adele.

[3:41:03] Second by Councillor Porter. You further discussion on that. Seeing

[3:41:07] none. Adam Deputy Clerk, please call that vote. Thank you.

[3:41:12] That vote is open. Affirmative for me. Thank you, Councillor

[3:41:21] Maxwell. And that vote is closed. And that vote is

[3:41:27] carried with all seven present voting in the affirmative. Now

[3:41:31] it is seven after one. I'm going to call a

[3:41:35] lunch break until one 45. Is that enough time for

[3:41:38] staff. And everyone involved? Okay. Then we'll be on break

[3:41:42] until 145. Thank you. Turn your microphones off and your

[3:41:45] cameras.

[4:20:44] It is 146. Councillor Maxwell if you take your seat

[4:20:49] we'll be able to continue. We have a Corum.

[4:21:03] All right. Madam Deputy Clerk we have a quorum of

[4:21:06] council I will have you confirm that we have a

[4:21:08] quorum of Council and we will move forward Thank you

[4:21:11] Mr. Chair I confirm that we have a quorum of

[4:21:13] Council Thank you Madam Deputy Clerk So we will move

[4:21:17] on to item B 4. 5 which is extended work

[4:21:20] hours TWA WATP Outfall OPS dot 26. 047 Manager Kershaw.

[4:21:29] You have the floor. You Mr. Chair this report is

[4:21:34] coming to Council for their information So our contractor who's

[4:21:40] installing the outfall at the extension of grey road Grey

[4:21:47] Street in Thornberry. Has asked for extended work hours The

[4:21:53] extended work hours The municipal act permits bylaws to be

[4:22:03] enforced within our municipal boundaries if the contractor is working

[4:22:07] beyond our municipal boundary i. e. out in the water

[4:22:11] Our municipal bylaws do not apply therefore our noise bylaw

[4:22:15] does not apply Beyond the shoreline so the contractor will

[4:22:18] be working Extended hours so that'll be from seven to

[4:22:22] nine at night every night from Monday to Friday and

[4:22:27] full day on Saturday and the half day on Sunday

[4:22:31] as previously agreed. So this information this report is for

[4:22:36] Council Information Please let me know if you have any

[4:22:38] questions Thank you manager Khrushaw C. O. Smith did you

[4:22:41] want to add anything before I Throw it open to

[4:22:44] members of committee. No through the chair I decided to

[4:22:47] this report I think it just emphasizes the criticality of

[4:22:50] meeting that fisheries window and to ensure that At least

[4:22:53] to the extent possible that we were able to avoid

[4:22:56] having to extend this into another construction year where I

[4:22:59] think all eager to have this project concluded and And

[4:23:02] to have the site fully remediated into and to move

[4:23:06] forward Thank you Okay Thank you Mr. CAO. Do we

[4:23:10] have any questions for members of committee I don't see

[4:23:13] any hands yet. Oh Councillor Porter go ahead. Yes, thank

[4:23:19] you through the chair So just respect to The project.

[4:23:26] And The outfall and the concerns around this. I just

[4:23:32] want to guess no Is this the last ask. I

[4:23:36] mean I think I think Bay Street residents have had

[4:23:38] a lot. They have the road and there was the

[4:23:44] out of hours working There's been concessions made on that

[4:23:50] and yes I also understand The water is outside of

[4:23:53] our municipal territory But as the construction is and our

[4:23:59] The road construction is moving towards the intersection It's three

[4:24:02] houses down Uh, from grey street now that compound thing

[4:24:06] So I'm just wondering is there anything else that's going

[4:24:08] to come out that they're going to be asked to

[4:24:11] have to live with. That people can reasonably foresee. Yeah

[4:24:17] through the chair I can serve Start and then manage

[4:24:20] your Kershaw may be able to add on to it

[4:24:21] And it's difficult to predict I mean the window that

[4:24:24] we have right now to the to the September At

[4:24:27] least September 25th date is the windows to which Uh

[4:24:31] my hope is that Uh we would not need to

[4:24:34] come back to Council on any further schedule changes or

[4:24:37] anything of that nature But my commitment is more so

[4:24:40] around that transparency and ensuring that both Council and Public

[4:24:43] know if there are some other changes or any alterations

[4:24:47] to schedule or means Uh related to the to the

[4:24:49] project that we're fully communicating that and uh... Doing that

[4:24:53] in a transparent fashion But perhaps manager Kershaw want to

[4:24:57] add anything Uh... Further to those comments. Ministry you have

[4:25:01] anything to add. Oh. You're. Yeah.

[4:25:14] Microphone's not. On. There. We go. That one works. That

[4:25:20] one. Through you Mr. Chair. No we will keep counsel

[4:25:27] abreasted of what's going on with The construction on a

[4:25:29] weekly basis However We don't anticipate any more ask So

[4:25:33] I don't think there's in the day they could potentially

[4:25:36] work We are having an information session of community information

[4:25:40] session this Friday in the chambers from one till 230

[4:25:45] And we'll be here to answer any questions The Public

[4:25:48] may have But other than that I don't have a

[4:25:51] crystal ball So I don't know what the future may

[4:25:54] hold But I hope that they're no more ass. Okay.

[4:25:58] Thank you. Manager Kershaw Follow - up Uh Council Reporter.

[4:26:03] Not at this time. Okay Councillor Maxwell. Oh thanks I

[4:26:08] just have a little question Go ahead Thank you Chair.

[4:26:12] Do we have a duty to consult with First Nations

[4:26:15] on this. Major Kershaw We have 3U Mr. Chair Through

[4:26:22] the design The design of this We did thoroughly consult

[4:26:25] with First Nations We sent out Notifications We shared within

[4:26:30] the Marine Uhreen Archaeological Assessment The Land Archaeological Assessment Part

[4:26:35] 1 and Part 2 We reached out to about I'm

[4:26:41] going to estimate about 15 First Nation Groups And that

[4:26:45] some that we know are more active We did send

[4:26:47] them registered letters And then additionally we did send out

[4:26:51] some additional communication Um... Because we knew that they would

[4:26:55] be interested in participating in some of the archaeological assessments

[4:27:00] So we essentially we sent them a blank invoice and

[4:27:04] said Tell us a cost for you to attend this

[4:27:07] So First Nations were here They did witness The archaeological

[4:27:10] assessments Uh stage 2 When we're doing the screening Um...

[4:27:15] We have met our obligation Uh... Consult with First Nations.

[4:27:20] Follow Up Council Maxwell No, that's fine Thank you Okay.

[4:27:25] I don't see any other hands So we have a

[4:27:27] recommended motion that Council receives Staff Report OPS 26. 047

[4:27:31] entitled Extended Work Hours TWWTP Outfall for their information Do

[4:27:37] I have a mover? I will move Move by the

[4:27:39] mayor. Secondar Second by the Deputy Mayor. Seeing go further

[4:27:44] hands Madam Deputy Clerk You may call that hope please

[4:27:47] The vote is open.

[4:28:05] Council Reporter Meiisist. Uh vote in the affirmative It hasn't

[4:28:10] popped up yet Thank you that vote is close. And

[4:28:14] that vote is carried with all seven members Present voting

[4:28:17] in the affirmative. Thank you now We will move two

[4:28:21] item B5 Public comment period regarding matters including The Operation

[4:28:25] Portion of the meeting Each speaker is a lot of

[4:28:27] three minutes These are Commons in response to what has

[4:28:31] transpired so far I see one Please come up to

[4:28:34] the microphone and state your name and address And you

[4:28:36] have three minutes. Oh.

[4:28:50] Momentarily.

[4:29:04] You were red You're ready to go. Go ahead. My

[4:29:07] name is Debbie Cross Gill and I'm from Clarksburg And

[4:29:10] I want to speak to B - 42 The Drinking

[4:29:14] Water. And B - 4 - 3 The Capacities Report

[4:29:20] Um... With regard to the Drinking Water I want to

[4:29:23] emphasize That this is a core service of this Municipality

[4:29:29] It is essential that we have to have drinking water.

[4:29:34] And that. In these days with climate change Et cetera

[4:29:40] Water is not going to be unlimited. And even in

[4:29:45] the report The Ms. Kershaw gave She was mentioning that

[4:29:49] there could be a time. That The limit is happening

[4:29:52] on that. Um. I also think it's very important when

[4:29:58] you were discussing The PFAs And that Councillor Maxwell brought

[4:30:04] up about The Microplastics Although it is not considered important

[4:30:09] to do that at this time I would far rather

[4:30:12] see money spent. On making sure that we were drinking

[4:30:17] healthy water. That wasn't filled with microplastics or PFAs or

[4:30:23] any other chemicals. Then spending it on some of the

[4:30:28] other things I've seen Being asked of council to invest

[4:30:32] money in. That's just My comment on that. Um I

[4:30:38] think you missed an opportunity. In the capacity report with

[4:30:42] regard to Ms. Kershaw mentioning about The irrigation. That is

[4:30:49] a huge number. Of water that is being used for

[4:30:54] something that is not a core service. Irrigation for lawns

[4:31:02] is a want. I have had a lawn that this

[4:31:08] year during this hot summer. I've never watered once. There's

[4:31:13] no need for it. You could do a whole Environmental

[4:31:20] Um... Component. Clover could be There are many drought resistant

[4:31:26] plants that could be planted If people want a green

[4:31:30] facade in front of their home Thank you. Thank you

[4:31:34] Ms. Carlscope And you would be saving us money. Thank

[4:31:38] you. From the other side of the room. To the

[4:31:43] back. Yes Come up. No problem.

[4:31:59] You're. Ready to go. You just have to state your

[4:32:02] name and your address And uh... You have three minutes.

[4:32:05] Alright My name's Aaron McLeod and I am from 200

[4:32:08] Bay Street East. And I just wanted to comment on

[4:32:11] the Grey Street Outfall pipe. So I have had a

[4:32:18] front row seat to all the construction that's happening in

[4:32:21] the water And there are definitely some concern I'm concerned

[4:32:24] about these new hours that they've asked for. The first

[4:32:27] time it was understandable because mistakes happened Projects fall behind

[4:32:33] That's understandable. But the new hours They're very late in

[4:32:37] the evening So 9 PM The Stark Wait What are

[4:32:40] they going to do at that point? I have a

[4:32:42] 6 month old We are living with very loud construction

[4:32:46] on both sides And he is not a fan We

[4:32:50] are not a fan And it's not just during construction

[4:32:53] hours Like the barge bangs against the waves during the

[4:32:57] evenings and is very loud. I get that this needs

[4:33:00] to happen We all want it done But at what

[4:33:04] cost I mean I'm kind of going insane And my

[4:33:07] baby's not liking it either. And also I think it's

[4:33:12] a little concerning The amount of mistakes that they've made

[4:33:14] Like I've watched them Like the silt barriers that failed

[4:33:20] the first time The deep six contractors came to our

[4:33:23] house and apologised And that was really nice But we

[4:33:26] watched them build them out again And then this past

[4:33:29] weekend fail again And now the styrofoam back on our

[4:33:32] beach again So that is a concern. And I think

[4:33:37] it's a little embarrassing for that company Because they are

[4:33:40] a company that specializes in work across The country and

[4:33:44] in oceans And they can't seem to understand Georgia M.

[4:33:47] Bay waters. So I think there are a number of

[4:33:52] problems And I just wonder if anyone's Uh, following up

[4:33:57] with these issues And if there's anyone on site That

[4:34:01] is monitoring The progress Because they are quite behind And

[4:34:06] I want to know why that is. And because we

[4:34:11] want it done. I mean And I don't want to

[4:34:13] listen to it anymore. Um Yes that's what I have

[4:34:18] to say. Thank you. Okay Thank you. Anyone else. In

[4:34:24] the gallery. In response. Going once. Going twice. I will

[4:34:32] close this portion and hand the chair back to The

[4:34:35] mayor Thank you. Thank You Councillor McKinley So we are

[4:34:38] now going to move on since we've just had our

[4:34:40] lunch We're going to move on to planning and building

[4:34:42] Uh which will be chaired by Councillor Hope and we

[4:34:46] will continue to sit until we can clear off this

[4:34:48] agenda We do not have the luxury of pushing items

[4:34:50] to further Committee The holes at this point in the

[4:34:54] end of term Because next The next committee The whole

[4:34:57] section Uh the agenda is already full from things that

[4:35:00] have been moved earlier So with that Let's get to

[4:35:04] it and The chair is yours Councillor Hope. Yes, thank

[4:35:08] you No pressure. Uh Welcome everyone to Planning and Building

[4:35:12] Services Uh, we're going to start with B6 Deputations B.

[4:35:16] 6. 1 Rick Crouch Broker South Beast International Reen update

[4:35:21] on the local housing market Um, Rick You have 10

[4:35:25] minutes There'll be a ring at nine minutes And then

[4:35:31] you'll know you have a minute left Plus the timer

[4:35:33] you can see as well Thank you Good afternoon Honourable

[4:35:37] Mayor and members of Kanzel Thanks for having me I'm

[4:35:39] Rick Crouch I reside at 1. 11 Faircrest Lane and

[4:35:42] Clerksburg And as the Council Remember mentions I am a

[4:35:47] broker Wrestle Beach International Realty And I'm here on behalf

[4:35:50] not only Sotheby's but of the one point association of

[4:35:53] realtors Normally I don't use Notes But Stay I'm going

[4:35:55] to make an exception Um Our members And first of

[4:35:58] all a clarify We have 2700 members Uh... They are

[4:36:01] not all local Our profession has gone through Um... Many

[4:36:06] mergers So we cover The area from Guelph Owe to

[4:36:10] here on Perth on the Lake Urin side Grey Bruce

[4:36:14] Own Sound Including Bruce Peninsula Rhonda Bottom of the Bay

[4:36:17] Here up through Midland Penetang all the way to Perry

[4:36:20] Sound and then over into The Muscokas and part of

[4:36:22] Halliburton Um... So our members in Aetymarket C housing every

[4:36:28] day at the street level Uh... They work with young

[4:36:30] families trying to enter the housing market the first time

[4:36:34] Seniors may be looking to retire to this area Or

[4:36:37] to perhaps downsize And we also work with local employers

[4:36:40] that are concerned about The housing Uh... The available to

[4:36:44] any workforce That they may have or are looking at

[4:36:48] setting up in the area As well as we help

[4:36:51] residents trying to continue to afford living in the community

[4:36:55] And maybe it's also to expand to a larger house

[4:36:58] or the elderly They're looking to downsize to something smaller

[4:37:02] Um... Today I'd like to provide counsel Which is the

[4:37:04] brief update on the local housing market Share some regional

[4:37:08] Public opinion research that we had conducted And identified several

[4:37:12] opportunities where we believe we can build on what The

[4:37:15] Township here has already done to approve Housing affordability Uh...

[4:37:20] So if I want to begin by just giving you

[4:37:22] a brief look at The local housing market To give

[4:37:25] you a better sense of where would the current market

[4:37:27] is And we really have to go back to Uh...

[4:37:31] Three or four years back to when Ontario went through

[4:37:34] significant change Not only locally here and no alian Ontario

[4:37:38] But across Canada And it basically started with the COVID

[4:37:41] - 19 pandemic Uh... You know that triggered the whole

[4:37:45] concept of working from home We saw mass influx of

[4:37:48] people that were able to leave the GT area Move

[4:37:52] up here Maybe it was to a home They already

[4:37:55] owned as a secondary property or a weekend condo Uh...

[4:37:59] And it also historically Uh had very low interest rates

[4:38:02] at the time Which allowed them to make a move

[4:38:05] Uh... In 19... In 2019 The median sale price for

[4:38:11] a single - family home in the town of Blue

[4:38:13] Mountains with 792, 000 By 2022 that number had reached

[4:38:19] over 1. 5 million So that's almost a doubling in

[4:38:24] a three - year time frame Now we compare that

[4:38:27] to the area in general And I cover from Midland

[4:38:31] Sorry Meford overthrew Grey Highlands Townlewoo Mountains Collingwood Clear View

[4:38:35] And with Sega Beach Uh... The median sale price today

[4:38:38] is 686, 000 So the 1. 3 million here in

[4:38:43] the Town of the Mountains is significantly higher Uh... Since

[4:38:47] then The market has clearly softened It's weaker Uh... Sales

[4:38:52] from compared to a couple years ago We're down about

[4:38:54] 35 percent And some of the area Hardished hit is

[4:38:59] in the higher end homes Um... At the same time

[4:39:03] while sales are down The inventory of property is listed

[4:39:06] for sale as about a 10 - year high. Just

[4:39:10] to compare in the town of Blue Mountains Sales last

[4:39:13] year were 187 homes Single family homes Na condos included

[4:39:18] Uh... Compared to 443 and 2020 367 - 2021 And

[4:39:27] basically on the sales that we've seen this year To

[4:39:30] the end of July We're sitting at 86 units I

[4:39:34] forecast We may end up somewhere 1 150 By the

[4:39:37] end of the year So they the local market data

[4:39:41] shows are considerably higher listing inventory And during the pandemic

[4:39:46] Then what we had during the pandemic era And it

[4:39:49] certainly signalling a return to a more ballast market There's

[4:39:53] buyers out there Uh... They have a lot more to

[4:39:56] look at They're constrained more by higher mortgage rates And

[4:40:01] that in turn has also impacted pricing During the pandemic

[4:40:05] sale prices were often triggered by multiple offers You know

[4:40:09] 10 or 15 people combating for the same house The

[4:40:13] ultimate sale price was off 103 to maybe 105 percent

[4:40:17] above their asking price Where back down now to the

[4:40:21] 95 to 97 percent range which pretty much signals a

[4:40:26] ballast market So as of as of now There are

[4:40:29] 257 active listings Single family homes Intown of Blue Mountains

[4:40:35] 160 of those are over 1 million dollars That's 62

[4:40:39] percent of what's on the market is over a million

[4:40:42] dollars And then from a million 5 to 2 million

[4:40:45] 2 million to 3 3 millimeter over You know those

[4:40:49] those make up the balance So you've got in the

[4:40:51] case of 27 listings over 3 million That's 11 percent

[4:40:55] of the market By comparison overall Uh right now in

[4:41:01] those six municipalities I mentioned there's about 66 listings over

[4:41:05] 3 million dollars Last year total sales were 15. So

[4:41:08] we're talking four years of inventory basically. Uh So this

[4:41:12] trend has continued as I mentioned into 2026 with more

[4:41:16] supply on The resale market The numbers I'm quoting do

[4:41:20] not include sales that builders do direct This is simply

[4:41:23] mls data Uh, but the key is that a more

[4:41:26] balanced market has not meant that we've returned to Uh,

[4:41:30] market affordability for most people So for many local workers

[4:41:35] young families First time buyers a 1. 3 million dollar

[4:41:38] house is completely beyond the realm of them buying Even

[4:41:42] if they're willing to pay it They're not going to

[4:41:44] get bank right dancing for an overpriced house So affordability

[4:41:49] remains a real central concern facing local residents when it

[4:41:53] comes to housing And then O council here is focused

[4:41:56] on finding solutions to that Uh challenge At one point

[4:42:00] we provide ourselves on supporting our elected officials and civil

[4:42:04] servants with expert advice guidance and data that I've just

[4:42:08] shared on Helping you address You know the local housing

[4:42:11] market and to help make and to also help consumers

[4:42:14] make You know sound You know policy and decision making

[4:42:20] as whether they're selling or buying. Earlier this year and

[4:42:24] I think you've received a copy of this We actually

[4:42:27] engage and partnered with nanos research one of Canada's largest

[4:42:31] research in polling firms Together information from residents across the

[4:42:37] one - point region now in in full disclosure Their

[4:42:42] documentation and the research they did was own sound Collingwood

[4:42:47] and concardin can curtain some within a different market But

[4:42:50] certainly you know anything that Collingwood shared from their perspective

[4:42:55] Really kind of dovetails with what we would expect to

[4:42:57] find in Town of Blue Mountains I mean let's face

[4:42:59] it where sistering municipalities So while the research did not

[4:43:04] include dedicated Public Opinion specifically from Town of Blue Mountains

[4:43:08] Nanos Research did serve a their survey did provide useful

[4:43:13] context of attitudes towards the housing market in the immediate

[4:43:17] area. So amongst the almost 800 people they surveyed Uh...

[4:43:30] Housing and housing cost was 11 percent dealt with health

[4:43:35] care So results really demonstrate kind of the common tensions

[4:43:45] or opinion shared amongst the various communities across Southern Georgian

[4:43:49] Bay So if we look at Collywood for example 10

[4:43:54] 9 of 10 Collingwood residents rated their community positively as

[4:43:58] a great place to live I think we would find

[4:44:00] the same thing here in that Town of the Mountains

[4:44:03] Great place to live great police to raise a family

[4:44:05] But only 12 percent of people in Collywood positively viewed

[4:44:11] Uh... The purchase of a home of being realistic founded

[4:44:17] being poor I think the same thing we would see

[4:44:20] the same results that we zeroed in just on Town

[4:44:23] of Blue Mountains But overall 84 percent are concerned about

[4:44:27] whether their kids The next generation or if their retirees

[4:44:32] an area whether they're their grandchildren would be able to

[4:44:35] forward a house And not necessarily in this area But

[4:44:37] elsewhere in Canada So housing affordability homelessness and infrastructure also

[4:44:43] emerged as leading Uh, municipal priorities So are these results

[4:44:47] should not be intended as polling of the Town of

[4:44:49] the Mountains residents They certainly provide some good regional contents.

[4:44:54] So similar to Public Opinion Research 1 point also worked

[4:44:57] in conjunction with looking at other solutions from other municipalities

[4:45:01] We did put forth a booklet at one point released

[4:45:05] on basic homes Strengthening communications Communities rather a review of

[4:45:10] administrable housing policy best practices across the one - point

[4:45:14] region This point reviewed about 10 minutes of Powell Dee's

[4:45:18] across the area Again Town of Blue Mountains was not

[4:45:20] one of them But it was based against the Canada

[4:45:23] mortgage and housing Corporations housing Accelerator fund best practices And

[4:45:28] we found in there You know a lot of what

[4:45:30] other municipalities had done Troy and at force and work

[4:45:34] on housing affordability So certainly the town has established and

[4:45:39] affordable housing at target here Developed a housing action plan

[4:45:43] Expanded permission for additional housing units created The housing within

[4:45:48] reach community involvement and is Advancing forward relative to admissible

[4:45:53] lands that may be available Planning modernization and streamlined approvals

[4:46:00] Mr. Crocher you almost done. Yep Okay thank you So

[4:46:05] I just like to like to just sum up by

[4:46:07] saying that. You know the challenge now is really about

[4:46:12] The delivery And that's it's you know The policies are

[4:46:15] there Some of the planning is there But without executing

[4:46:19] that It's nothing more than a wish list You know

[4:46:22] And so that's one of the key things that we

[4:46:24] felt was worth forth Bringing forth at this point in

[4:46:27] time Especially with emerging Municipal election coming upon us Um,

[4:46:31] thanks very much for having me And I'm certainly open

[4:46:33] to answer any questions you may have. Thank you Mr.

[4:46:37] Coach I see that we have one hand up Um

[4:46:42] Councillor Maxwell move The floor. Thank you sir for the

[4:46:47] deputation Much appreciated Um I got a question. Um because

[4:46:52] you're really close to the market obviously. Are you seeing

[4:46:57] buyers trying to offset their purchase cost by You know

[4:47:02] using a bed and breakfast model or STAs. And are

[4:47:07] some of them willing You know to create a maybe

[4:47:10] a granny flat or a basement apartment. Because I mean

[4:47:14] if the cost is high and then you may want

[4:47:16] to try to offset things So I got a follow

[4:47:19] - up after Yeah Certainly the question of STAs comes

[4:47:22] up particularly in the condo market Um, one of the

[4:47:26] issues there And I've had some involvement there because I've

[4:47:30] sold condos or even some single family homes in the

[4:47:33] past that some people bought as investments And I either

[4:47:37] tried to do short - term accommodations through like VRBO

[4:47:41] or Airbnb Uh that creates an issue with revenue Canada.

[4:47:46] Particularly with the condominium market So revenue CAD is basically

[4:47:50] taking the position that any property that is available to

[4:47:54] rent Never mind if it is If it's available to

[4:47:57] rent on a shirt as a short - term accommodation

[4:48:00] more than 50 percent of the time The sale of

[4:48:03] that property will be HST taxable. That has a big

[4:48:06] number You know Ice fold economy on behalf of a

[4:48:09] client who had bought it in 2003 Um, he used

[4:48:12] it himself personally rented it out a bit When we

[4:48:16] sold it back in I guess it was around 2021

[4:48:20] It sold for over 800, 000 That property was HST

[4:48:23] taxable. He ate the HST He had benefit from the

[4:48:26] rental income Um... But you know ADing HST onto anything.

[4:48:31] Adds a big price And so the tendency more is

[4:48:35] now people think looking at a basement Department or maybe

[4:48:39] building a unit in their backyard I had a contractor

[4:48:43] that did a kitchen renovation for us last year One

[4:48:46] of his working on a project for a client They

[4:48:49] had like a small kind of a large shed in

[4:48:52] the backyard They turned into a one bedroom apartment Which

[4:48:54] you know many municipalities are welcome The opportunity and allowing

[4:48:58] that to be done That was one way to address

[4:49:01] and create a good Affordable unit for somebody So we

[4:49:05] always encourage people if there's any kind of rental activity

[4:49:09] And I see listings all the time on You know

[4:49:12] where it's a house in the Tanabago Mountains Or it's

[4:49:15] a condominium And the agent is saying Oh it's easily

[4:49:18] rentable No it's not You have to be licensed And

[4:49:21] you may not get a license depending on how many

[4:49:24] other properties are around you So the real estate community

[4:49:28] has to be very cognizant about what the rules are

[4:49:31] and advise people Accordingly and above and be all We

[4:49:34] always advise them talk to your lawyer Talk to your

[4:49:36] account. Because you need to get especially The taxation issues

[4:49:41] cleared Especially when the raven UCA has taken such an

[4:49:44] aggressive posture. Even Even buying something and putting in a

[4:49:48] company name Even if it's resale real estate A company

[4:49:52] name will trigger it It's HST applicable. And I'll buyer

[4:49:55] doesn't want to pay HST You know But somebody has

[4:49:58] to. Thank you follow - up One follow - up.

[4:50:02] Go ahead Yeah thank you Um... Thank you Chair. So

[4:50:07] you know over the I don't know since maybe the

[4:50:09] 80s. Um house became an investment other than a place

[4:50:16] to live. It became a second income in a lot

[4:50:20] of cases. Are we starting to see that unravel now.

[4:50:26] I could probably relate that I moved here in 1985

[4:50:28] I was transferred up here by Goodyear Canada to work

[4:50:31] out of the Colley With Hose plant I lived in

[4:50:34] a new house that my wife and I at the

[4:50:37] time Owen for one year in Aurora We moved up

[4:50:39] here. There was no appreciable difference in housing price I

[4:50:42] mean We spend every dollar We took out of Aurora

[4:50:44] host to move up here And I was to buy

[4:50:46] a modest little host on Mountain Road And uh... We

[4:50:50] then moved to a larger home We lived in that

[4:50:53] for five years Uh Here's a good example of how

[4:50:56] The market can shift I had bought the house for

[4:51:00] 165, 000 It was a new house Young couple had

[4:51:04] built it They got in over their heads I bought

[4:51:06] the house for 165, 000 Living it for five years

[4:51:10] finished it built a deck Landscaped It at that point

[4:51:13] in time I was running a manufacturing business down in

[4:51:16] Barry But lived in Collywood Got transfer the US 1992

[4:51:21] Similar now Inter streets were higher The economy was uncertain

[4:51:25] I sold that house for 160, 000. 5, 000 less

[4:51:29] than what I paid The market value at the time

[4:51:32] was about 300, 000 I was moving back and forth

[4:51:36] between here and Chicago Weekly living in a company provided

[4:51:41] apartment And, uh, finally The President Company Sir Rick just

[4:51:44] blow the house off and we'll make up the difference

[4:51:46] So in reality I got a little over 200, 000

[4:51:49] for it But I lived in a house for five

[4:51:51] years put money into it Including sweat equity and solid

[4:51:55] of the 5, 000 dollar loss During the COVID period

[4:51:58] We never in a two - year period sought any

[4:52:02] price reductions go through our MLS system Right things were

[4:52:05] selling for over - the - asking price Now it

[4:52:08] is not uncommon to see 30 to 40 price reductions

[4:52:11] a week. And they're not 5, 000 dollar reductions They're

[4:52:19] 102 and 300, 000 dollars I'm aware of one property

[4:52:25] that's actually closing today It's sold for 1 million dollars

[4:52:29] less than they're asking price A million dollars. Well below

[4:52:33] the replacement cost. But that's what the willing buyers prepare

[4:52:37] to pay So that's the kind of market that we're

[4:52:40] in right now And you know It's fitting through The

[4:52:43] presentation earlier You know when you're dealing with water and

[4:52:46] wastewater. Don't be planning on any rap and growth. In

[4:52:50] the next I think 3 - 5 years I mean

[4:52:53] look at the economy right now Look at the... What's

[4:52:57] going on between CAD and the US on the economy

[4:53:00] We're not going to see a turnaround And the fact

[4:53:02] is we got to app where we probably never should

[4:53:06] have Where praises went from 790, 000 Town of Wild

[4:53:10] Mountains to a million 5 And now it's down to

[4:53:12] a million 3 Who's to say the 750 or 800

[4:53:16] is a more realistic price. And that's where we actually

[4:53:20] are seeing an increase in sales right now is kind

[4:53:22] of in that 5 to 800, 000 price range Yeah

[4:53:26] we're seeing a little bit of increase between 1, 5

[4:53:29] and 2. But we're talking two or three houses, not

[4:53:31] two or 300, you know But it was interesting having

[4:53:35] gone through that period of time where you saw no

[4:53:39] price reductions It was a seller's market There was competing

[4:53:42] buyers Limited inventory. And historically low interest rates. And I

[4:53:48] was cautioned people Look if you don't have to buy

[4:53:51] Don't. Because you're going to get a better deal And

[4:53:53] two or three years And you know Banks are extremely

[4:53:57] cautious right now They don't want to own a house

[4:54:00] That's that They're that they're underwater on because the seller

[4:54:03] over the seller overbought So We're still having an issue

[4:54:08] with sellers There's a lot of sellers that Well I

[4:54:10] need this It doesn't matter what you need This is

[4:54:13] where your house is valued based on the eyes of

[4:54:16] today's buyer As well as the lenders. Thank you Madam

[4:54:23] Mayor. Thank you through the chair Um thank you very

[4:54:27] much It was very interesting A very interesting read in

[4:54:31] an anticipation And you've shared some more details verbally I

[4:54:34] could appreciate that in some cases You weren't able to

[4:54:37] do an actual isolated View of the Blue Mountains and

[4:54:41] other times it's looking But what you describe is very

[4:54:43] much that South Georgia May area And it's a very

[4:54:46] comparable area So my question through the chair is Um...

[4:54:51] You reference workforce housing And How much of an insight

[4:54:55] or a lens And maybe it's part anecdotal talking to

[4:54:59] potential clients who are in the workforce age range Or

[4:55:02] how much of this data that you've been able to

[4:55:04] Uh, dissect is related to the location of that workforce

[4:55:08] housing So that it's close to the potential work Um...

[4:55:12] Especially in a date age when we're all encouraging Active

[4:55:15] Transportation For example Or if it's rental Um... Or even

[4:55:19] First - time buyers who are really trying to cut

[4:55:21] their monthly costs There may be only one vehicle between

[4:55:25] two people that are working Or perhaps no vehicle So

[4:55:28] do you have any further insight You can add to

[4:55:31] what you've already presented with us in terms of location

[4:55:34] of hosing And location of potential work. Yeah I think

[4:55:38] certainly And I gave it a couple of examples My

[4:55:41] younger brother retired from The Pulking The Glass Company back

[4:55:44] last fall So he had been the quality assurance Department

[4:55:46] for a number Years And uh... They hired a replacement

[4:55:49] for him It was a lady that was moving up

[4:55:51] from wealth Uh... They hired her She came up here

[4:55:55] Looked at housing in the air She was I can't

[4:55:57] afford to live here But she turned out in a

[4:55:58] position Uh... Certainly I think with the cost of transportation

[4:56:03] Even just from a fuel standpoint When I think Like

[4:56:06] I committed for five years from callingwood to Barry I

[4:56:10] wouldn't want to be doing it now I think I

[4:56:11] know what it caused me in gas then I wouldn't

[4:56:14] want to do it now Uh... I wouldn't want to...

[4:56:17] I never had an issue getting to work at home

[4:56:20] You know Even through the winter When some of my

[4:56:23] colleagues in my office couldn't get home and bury You

[4:56:25] know But I think certainly You know Public transportation is

[4:56:30] an issue Certainly I think when we see an awful

[4:56:33] lot of the people moving to the area If they

[4:56:35] don't currently reside here They're an elderly couple They won't

[4:56:38] They want to downsize They maybe want to cut one

[4:56:41] vehicle Uh... One of them still may be working You

[4:56:45] know I'm getting lots of rumbling these days But people

[4:56:49] that say Oh I'd love to apply for a job

[4:56:50] But the Costco and with Sega Beach It's too far

[4:56:54] You know I don't have a car There's no Public

[4:56:57] Trans Trans Transportation You know to get me there So

[4:57:01] that's a big factor When I think of When I

[4:57:04] lived on Mountain Road and drove to Goodyear There wasn't

[4:57:06] so much as a traffic light Never mind to stop

[4:57:09] So I know So it was a pretty easy commute

[4:57:12] You know it's not And I did I did participate

[4:57:16] in an economic roundtable in Collingwood back a couple of

[4:57:19] months ago And they were reaching out trying to figure

[4:57:21] out You know what kind of businesses Can we attract

[4:57:24] here. And their number one goal was a book manufacturing

[4:57:29] I said You're not going to attract manufacturing here I

[4:57:31] can't manufacturing brought me here Goodyear And at the time

[4:57:35] there was a shipyards It was Goodyear There was harding

[4:57:37] carpet There was Kaufman Front They're gone And regardless of

[4:57:41] what you do or what our government does or what

[4:57:44] Donald Trump claims The manufacturing is not only gone from

[4:57:47] this area It's gone from North America It's not Coming

[4:57:50] back And my point was what you should be trying

[4:57:54] to attract here is You know The type of job

[4:57:58] that can also afford the housing here Whether it's insurance

[4:58:01] companies Maybe it's people within the healthcare industry You know

[4:58:05] that sort of thing We're too far off of 400

[4:58:08] series highway for manufacturing There's no rail service And you

[4:58:12] know And then I said The other part of it

[4:58:14] was which coincided with what I've talked about You know

[4:58:17] any employment opportunities And this came up at the candidates

[4:58:21] meeting last night Which I was at at the Marsh

[4:58:23] Street Centre You know Any kind of employment - driven

[4:58:26] opportunities has to coincide with affordable housing. When I brought

[4:58:30] that up at the meeting I was told There's not

[4:58:33] much we can do about affordable housing That was the

[4:58:35] response of the town. I said Well you haven't gotten

[4:58:38] much hope Then of attracting employment when you can't do

[4:58:41] something to deal with the Affordable Housing issue. And you

[4:58:46] know you've got talentable mountain Blue Mountains Resort being one

[4:58:50] of the biggest employers in the area. They've got to

[4:58:54] create some of their own employment housing Because it isn't

[4:58:57] being done with the principal level And that's just You

[4:59:01] know That's the way our economy overall has happened over

[4:59:05] the years And uh... There's only four countries in the

[4:59:09] world where housing is escalated in the price the way

[4:59:12] ours is Canada. The UK New Zealand Where I've been

[4:59:18] in Australia Ironically four Commonwealth countries. Uh... You know I

[4:59:23] periodically go back on and I look up my house

[4:59:25] that I had outside Chicago I look at what I

[4:59:28] sold it for in 1996 when I moved back here

[4:59:31] to what is worth now It went up two or

[4:59:33] three percent of year. We went up with the Inflation

[4:59:36] Rate It didn't go up 50 percent in six months

[4:59:38] Like what we were seeing here during COVID Mr. Crouch

[4:59:42] Would you mind address addressing with The Mayor had asked

[4:59:45] Yeah sorry So so yeah the factors like that I

[4:59:50] do have one client He resides up here on The

[4:59:53] weekends I actually sold another property on Cleric Street He

[4:59:56] owns 11 condos in Cranberry They're all full - time

[5:00:00] rentals. Periodically I show them for him when he's not

[5:00:03] here Everybody that I've showed them to you know I

[5:00:06] say So what brings you the area? Well it was

[5:00:08] one couple She had gotten a job as a nurse

[5:00:11] at the Collingwood Hospital Uh... Often it's a younger couple

[5:00:15] of them got a job at Blue Mountain Or maybe

[5:00:17] one of the private ski cloves Uh... One guy had

[5:00:20] gotten a job Managing one of the fast food restaurants

[5:00:23] Another guy was actually got a two - year contract

[5:00:26] with The Town of Collywood to address some of the

[5:00:29] road infrastructure work So these are all people jobs is

[5:00:33] what drew them to the area Which got me into

[5:00:36] this area back in 1995 I'm a skier Uh... I

[5:00:40] jumped at the chance to get out of the Toronto

[5:00:42] But the even if the job opportunities are here They've

[5:00:46] got to find a place to live And that tends

[5:00:48] to be one of the bigger challenges. Thank you follow

[5:00:51] up Madam Mayor. Nope No thank you Also but it

[5:00:55] was a good point too About The Costa Commuting and

[5:00:57] how we can't just rely on people living in one

[5:00:59] community and fulfilling a job in another one Because of

[5:01:03] the escalating gas cost for example Thank you. Depumir Go

[5:01:08] ahead Thank you Madam Chair through you Thanks Rick for

[5:01:11] the update on the local market. You're from your point

[5:01:15] of view You're looking at this through a resale lens

[5:01:17] or development lens Because the couple different ask You know

[5:01:20] when we're building houses are building purpose built or having

[5:01:23] developers do that And you know things we can do

[5:01:25] with the CIP and Accelerant permit in that So to

[5:01:29] help with The Affordability Index Um... Because the province doesn't

[5:01:34] Classify a Table Housing under Provincial Policy Statement They do

[5:01:38] social housing Uh... And... But not attainable housing Affordable in

[5:01:43] that... So differently So from a resale I guess You

[5:01:46] know from a realtor resale point of view How can

[5:01:49] that market help get people in? What's the incentive there

[5:01:53] for somebody to I guess buying below market? Or what

[5:01:59] are your thoughts on how that resale market can help

[5:02:02] get people into attainable type housing. Yeah I mean I

[5:02:05] think certainly one of the things that's been faced over

[5:02:08] the years is Like the development charges Um I can

[5:02:11] think of years ago I sold a two - acre

[5:02:14] lot down on the 12 side road So nothing there.

[5:02:18] And the developmentaries is running over from 18 to 22,

[5:02:21] 000 Depending on what the individual was going to build

[5:02:24] So he still had to drill the well Put in

[5:02:26] a septic You know and drive away and everything else

[5:02:29] Okay his question was so what am I getting from

[5:02:33] my 20, 000 dollars Well the right to build a

[5:02:35] house was kind of it And uh... You know when

[5:02:39] you're faced with costs like that How can you build

[5:02:43] a reasonable dwelling Mead all the obligations You know whether

[5:02:48] it's paying the development fees and build something that's affordable

[5:02:52] Even there was something that you could rent out Because

[5:02:55] the way you necessarily charge The amount of money that

[5:02:58] you would need to generate that back So in a

[5:03:02] case with my client He gets he gets 18 or

[5:03:04] 50 dollars a month for a one bedroom That includes

[5:03:07] heat and air conditioning because it's not separately mated So

[5:03:11] the tenant pays their own hydro pays their own cable

[5:03:14] Whatever The two bedrooms he gets 2250 That's even a

[5:03:19] lot of money You know I was you know I

[5:03:21] was I remember the first time I took on a

[5:03:23] mortgage at 600 dollars a month and I were like

[5:03:25] Oh my god what have I done How am I

[5:03:27] ever going to pay for this? So somehow You know

[5:03:31] it's and I understand the need You know for the

[5:03:33] development charges from a revenue standpoint for the municipalities. But

[5:03:37] you know it ultimately affects You know the bottom line

[5:03:41] And I mean even today And I've got a good

[5:03:44] I got a good handle on construction We've done three

[5:03:47] projects at our own house here in Clarinsburg in the

[5:03:49] last four years I've gotten Billy permits from the mall

[5:03:52] So I didn't do anything illegally Uh So I know

[5:03:54] the costs And when I see You know I mean

[5:03:58] I can look at houses right now for sale on

[5:03:59] brewstreet I could build out for less I'm not gonna

[5:04:02] why would I buy this for a million dollars You

[5:04:05] know again often it's somebody got in over their heads

[5:04:08] and paid too much and now they're trying to get

[5:04:10] out And but I think overall and certainly we've seen

[5:04:14] material costs come down some since COVID But you know

[5:04:19] not ultimately probably where it should be. And you know

[5:04:23] it's interesting if you do follow the US real estate

[5:04:26] market And the television shows where you look at a

[5:04:29] house and it's 450 And they're well that host is

[5:04:32] here There'd be one in front of the four You

[5:04:34] know And so somehow I think there needs to be

[5:04:37] There needs to be an initiative certainly at the provincial

[5:04:41] level to make house building more More affordable for people

[5:04:46] at all price points And regardless of municipality they're in

[5:04:50] But I think especially at the level For the first

[5:04:54] time buyer And there's some younger generation that they don't

[5:04:59] care about owning a house There's a younger generation that

[5:05:02] doesn't care about driving a car So they're probably never

[5:05:04] going to leave down down Toronto Toronto Because they need

[5:05:06] that Public transit to get to work to get to

[5:05:09] the grocery stores. But for people up here Uh, you

[5:05:12] know my son and his wife bought one of the

[5:05:14] new townhomes over in that subdivision in Meford He works

[5:05:17] a known sound She works in Hollywood So it's kind

[5:05:20] of midway for both of them They go in at

[5:05:22] the ground level They got a great price Their first

[5:05:25] time buyers It'll by no means be their last house

[5:05:27] But it was a good entry - level point for

[5:05:29] them to get into a three - bedroom Townhouse with

[5:05:32] a garage full basement for just over 300, 000. Like

[5:05:37] that's a great deal Do you have a follow -

[5:05:39] up? Yeah Just very quickly So I do appreciate it

[5:05:41] again We're talking new there as well Right So I

[5:05:44] was just wondering in the resale market is one of

[5:05:46] the solutions you're thinking of is also Um... Purchase for

[5:05:50] rental as investment to help get people into a house

[5:05:54] as opposed to home ownership Is that part of your

[5:05:56] thought process? Yeah I mean certainly we get asked that

[5:06:00] and You know Because people often ask me are instructing

[5:06:04] colleagues get the same question Um... If I was to

[5:06:07] put a basement If I was put a basement apartment

[5:06:09] in or do a unit in the backyard You know

[5:06:13] how rentable would it be? And often the comment is

[5:06:16] we would need that rental income to afford this house

[5:06:18] To help make the mortgage payment, you know? So the

[5:06:21] fact that there's more opportunity to do that now As

[5:06:25] well as the demand there so that once you finish

[5:06:28] that basement apartment Even if it's maybe adding onto your

[5:06:32] house with a separate granny flout or whatever you want

[5:06:35] to call it The fact that they can do it

[5:06:37] Knowing that they can put it on the market and

[5:06:39] quickly get it rented. You know that's a bonus Because

[5:06:43] to invest that money and then to sit there for

[5:06:45] six months to a year When no rental income You

[5:06:48] know they really got to take a hard look at

[5:06:50] the math to see if that pays or not But

[5:06:53] certainly a lot of them Yeah the rental becomes a

[5:06:56] key item to make that house affordable for them just

[5:06:59] to buy You know. And that especially applies to the

[5:07:04] condominia market because they're often used only frequently and Cody

[5:07:09] rented out Well yes you can but then there's a

[5:07:11] mentioned earlier that triggers EHST issue. So yeah Thank you.

[5:07:15] Councillor Porter. Yes Thank you and through the chair And

[5:07:20] thank you very much for bringing this forward And I

[5:07:23] think The comment I most welcome is when I believe

[5:07:28] to be true myself is There's not a lot going

[5:07:30] to happen in the next three to five years. The

[5:07:33] one thing I wanted to ask as you're talking about

[5:07:35] residential homes is because where I live in the Town

[5:07:38] I know of I haven't checked the real estate lately

[5:07:41] But I go by for sales science on a regular

[5:07:44] basis There's two on landsdown one of the corner just

[5:07:48] by food land And I think the one that was

[5:07:50] a little bit green development still for sale Do you

[5:07:53] see any movement on development properties. From what I see

[5:08:01] No, it seems to be pretty slow Um, I mean

[5:08:04] I think for example of a good example might be

[5:08:07] like crigly thridge For example You know the roads went

[5:08:11] in and the streets are all layer and there has

[5:08:13] a shovel hasn't got in the ground since. Uh, another

[5:08:16] example And this is just outside the municipality But back

[5:08:19] about five years ago I sold large Acorage just the

[5:08:23] other side of Kirsty Beach Road was typically not as

[5:08:25] the Irwin property I sold that to Park Bridge Properties

[5:08:28] Yeah There's engineering science up there But you see them

[5:08:31] putting a shovel in the ground No The other day

[5:08:34] I was at a meeting at the clubhouse in Laura

[5:08:37] Bay I drove The subdivision I wonder with a fire

[5:08:40] West End Which is now owned by Gravegald Holmes. It's

[5:08:45] just gathering dust and growing weeds There The developers are

[5:08:49] smart enough to know that now is not the time

[5:08:51] to be embarking on a major project And I think

[5:08:53] that could be two or three years down the road

[5:08:57] Especially right now when the huge inventory of properties for

[5:09:00] sale That would have to be absorbed before it would

[5:09:03] be worthwhile for a developer to start on another major

[5:09:06] project And I think that would have to coincide with

[5:09:10] drug creation in the market Um... A lot of people

[5:09:13] that moved up here during the work from home transition

[5:09:17] Now they're required to go back to work And maybe

[5:09:18] not full - time But we've got to be in

[5:09:20] the office in Toronto One, two, three days a week

[5:09:23] I think that's one of the reasons why so many

[5:09:25] of the places on the market today were bought during

[5:09:29] 2021 And people overpaid And to me it's no coincidence

[5:09:33] that here we are three five years later Those mortgages

[5:09:35] are coming up for renewal Not at one point eight

[5:09:38] or two percent but five And we can't afford this

[5:09:41] and sorry We had a downsize to something else. Thank

[5:09:45] you. Farm - up Council Reporter. No, I'm fine Thanks

[5:09:49] Okay, thank you I'm going to go to cancer Ardell

[5:09:51] who isn't at a chance to ask a question And

[5:09:53] if Councillor Maxwell for going for a second pass. Do

[5:09:58] we really need to? Go for a second pass? Okay

[5:10:02] needs to be quick Okay Thanks Council Ardell Alright Madam

[5:10:05] Chair Thank you very much I think you answered my

[5:10:07] question I was going to ask was on the developers

[5:10:10] How do we get developers here to do affordable housing?

[5:10:13] Real affordable housing Um, and But if we've got an

[5:10:17] inventory of houses that people aren't getting rid of There's

[5:10:21] no way I know somebody who sat at this table

[5:10:24] Two councils ago And he put up the idea that

[5:10:27] maybe we should be buying some Townhouses that are already

[5:10:31] on the market And then turning them into rentals for

[5:10:34] people And that may be The Opportunity then to get

[5:10:37] some workplace housing But it's not really The Municipality's job

[5:10:41] to do workplace housing I'm in the Apple Industry I

[5:10:44] have to supply my own workplace housing And I have

[5:10:47] to build it And it's very expensive when you're housing

[5:10:50] 22 men Um, and I will say men only because

[5:10:53] we don't mix Um... But you know It's a lot

[5:10:56] of money to be able to do all that So

[5:10:59] I think now, you know, and Collingwood's done some great

[5:11:04] jumps and leaps of getting affordable housing But that those

[5:11:08] came to fruition You know about a year or a

[5:11:10] year and a half ago When they had already started

[5:11:12] to build Or there was some affordable housing or attainable

[5:11:16] housing That a developer, and I won't mention his name

[5:11:20] But when The price came in They're not attainable, like

[5:11:24] 2200, 2, 400 a month Who can afford that? People

[5:11:27] in Collingwood can't afford that So I think I've got

[5:11:30] the picture here of what we had in attainable housing

[5:11:35] that I sat on for a few years Um, but

[5:11:37] we couldn't come up with any ideas or solutions So

[5:11:41] I think, as you're saying, that there's out there right

[5:11:44] now So, and the developers are not ready to dig

[5:11:47] in But I did wonder I saw that price in

[5:11:50] Meford I'm wondering how they are managing who the developer

[5:11:54] is out there So if you have any ideas You

[5:11:57] can email us It's certainly, they're synchro EMIX I know

[5:12:00] my son's neighbours in there are a mix of younger

[5:12:03] people as well as retirees So they seem to be

[5:12:06] attracting both Um, I think the fact that it's a

[5:12:10] short distance for someone to commute to Owen Sound, the

[5:12:13] way my son does, you know, is easy But it's

[5:12:16] kind of a Catch - 22 situation You know There's

[5:12:18] no point in developing affordable housing if the jobs You

[5:12:23] know? And then, you know without the Affordable Housing How

[5:12:28] do you attract the jobs? This is why I said

[5:12:31] at the meeting I was out in Collywood How, you

[5:12:33] know, they have to work hand in hand And the

[5:12:35] answer I got from Mr. Howley was there's not much

[5:12:37] we can do But Affordable Housing And yet You know

[5:12:39] they're reaching out to me asking me How do we

[5:12:41] attract jobs? And more importantly, what kind of jobs can

[5:12:45] we attract here? And my point at the time was,

[5:12:50] you know It's again There's certainly - odd job opportunities

[5:12:54] out there And even to cite examples, like say what

[5:12:59] revenue of Canada has done in Sudbury. Where the OVP

[5:13:03] move their headquarters to Aurelia And it was interesting earlier

[5:13:07] You know during the break I was talking to former

[5:13:10] Mary Terry Geddes here And I recounted to him a

[5:13:14] meeting We had a number of years ago when John

[5:13:15] Tory was running for Premier and Terry called me late

[5:13:19] one afternoon to come to a meeting And they asked

[5:13:21] me what kind of jobs could we create here? And

[5:13:25] I turned to John Turry I said Why have you

[5:13:27] got thousands of Ontario government employees at Queens Park or

[5:13:31] in Toronto When they'd love to be up here They

[5:13:33] could be up here You don't have to move raw

[5:13:37] materials in off 400 series Highway and finish goods out

[5:13:41] And John turned to Terry and said What were we

[5:13:44] just talking about? An hour ago And I was what

[5:13:47] Derry 25 - 30 years ago. And nothing's happened since,

[5:13:50] you know? Uh... You know There's been different municipal campaigns

[5:13:54] talking about bringing back automotive Parts manufacturing And they're unattainable

[5:13:59] goals You know So somehow the two have to work

[5:14:02] hand in hand And I think I think municipalities You

[5:14:06] know personally can do more To attract... You know, jobs

[5:14:12] that allow the houses here that exist Even at some

[5:14:15] of the inflated praises. Are affordable Because the job They're

[5:14:19] coming in can afford to pay them, you know? Council

[5:14:23] Sardell? No, that's it Thank you very much Thank you

[5:14:25] very Councillor Maxwell very quick question Yeah I do, just

[5:14:29] a real quick one Okay. On the whole idea about

[5:14:34] for this workforce housing. How. Okay, I don't want to

[5:14:42] see a person just being a renter. How can they

[5:14:45] build up equity and workforce housing? Because when I hear

[5:14:49] The word work first Howosing I... Something comes up by

[5:14:52] my mind Like mining camps and logging camps You know?

[5:14:56] I don't think we want to go back to there

[5:14:58] And dentured servants So how do we allow young people

[5:15:02] That actually create equity and workforce housing. I don't think

[5:15:07] they can create equity to work for housing I think

[5:15:10] I think what allows them to do And again My

[5:15:13] son and his wife are a good example They moved

[5:15:15] up here They had no jobs They wanted to get

[5:15:17] out of the city Uh... For about 8 years they

[5:15:20] rented The Upper Floor of a Raised Bungalow in Collingwood

[5:15:23] They paid 1600 dollars a month They were both... They

[5:15:26] both secured Good jobs And you know that fairly affordable

[5:15:31] Housing that they rented A lot of them to put

[5:15:33] The money aside To make a 30 40, 000 dollar

[5:15:37] down payment on the Townhouse that they bought in Meford

[5:15:40] So So I think it's more of a... It's a

[5:15:43] stepping stone You know They can come here for the

[5:15:45] work They can find an affordable place to live Although

[5:15:49] renting is not... It's not inexpensive Uh... Barry is probably

[5:15:54] one of the highest rental markets in Canada And yet

[5:15:58] My steps under his wife Living a large house down

[5:16:01] there He has a good job She has a good

[5:16:03] job And hopefully with the rent They're paying They're putting

[5:16:06] money aside That they'll be able to eventually afford a

[5:16:09] house So I don't think a Sea Equity in that

[5:16:13] housing that's provided to them Often it's going to be

[5:16:16] affordable You know housing Uh... But hopefully it gets some

[5:16:21] of the marketplace Where they have a good job They

[5:16:24] attan You know good history in terms of You know

[5:16:27] their credit Uh... Maybe they advance from their through their

[5:16:30] jobs Maybe higher position at Blue Mountain Resort or wherever

[5:16:34] it might be And if they're smart enough They're not

[5:16:36] spending that money They're putting aside four down payment on

[5:16:40] a house Provided of course There's an affordable host They

[5:16:43] can put it down payment on down the road When

[5:16:45] they're ready And that seems to be the missing gap

[5:16:48] right now. Okay Thank you Thank you for your question

[5:16:52] Councillor Maxfall Thank you Mr. Crouch Even lots of information

[5:16:57] and lots of background Uh At this point We need

[5:17:00] to put up the motion Please Uh... That Council The

[5:17:04] Town Blue Mountains receives The Deputation of Rick Crouch Broker's

[5:17:07] Health Beast International Regarding an update on The local Housing

[5:17:11] Market may have a mover in the secondary. Council Reporter

[5:17:17] and second - at - bancer McKinley Any further discussion.

[5:17:21] Now let's call the vote then please The vote is

[5:17:24] open. There we go.

[5:17:37] Please Thank you Councillor Porter Nat vote is post. Thank

[5:17:42] You that motion is carried 7 - 0 with everyone

[5:17:44] in the chambers Thank you very much Mr. Crouch Thank

[5:17:47] you. No we'll move on to B. 6. 2 We've

[5:17:50] got Terry Getty's Project Coordinator in Chris Malms E... Excuse

[5:17:54] me Walmsley. Of The Biden Group Regarding The Grey Road

[5:17:59] 19 Workforce Uh... Housing So gentlemen You have 10 minutes

[5:18:03] And the one - minute warning I'll be watching Thank

[5:18:06] you Thank you. First of all Uh thank you. Chair

[5:18:11] Hope. Your worship Deputy Mayor and members of Council. I

[5:18:16] have listened intently To your presentation since 9 30 this

[5:18:21] morning And they brought back a lot of memories Some

[5:18:23] not good like crypto Spiridium Et cetera Councillor Ardell You

[5:18:27] remember Exactly Uh We're here today to basically ask you

[5:18:34] to Advance this MZO during this term of Council. I'm

[5:18:39] gonna start with that And then I'm gonna come back

[5:18:42] to that again at the end. First of all. Listening

[5:18:47] to your discussion today. You can't build anything until you've

[5:18:51] done the science on the land. And you can flush

[5:18:54] the toilet and drink the water. We've done that We

[5:18:58] have done working with your staff Intensive studies You can

[5:19:02] see and I won't belabor Our deputation file But you

[5:19:06] can see that. Uh Secondly Council Reporter You requested of

[5:19:11] us to work for the MV's work with the MBCA.

[5:19:14] We had an extremely positive day with them And then

[5:19:17] they came back and continued their studies Of course And

[5:19:22] to Chris Walmsley's credit We also had torrential rain that

[5:19:27] day. So we walk through The land that was water.

[5:19:33] And The land that wasn't And it was an excellent

[5:19:36] opportunity for them to see Uh... What actually would happen

[5:19:40] in such a circumstance. I Want to stress again and

[5:19:44] thank you for listening to our Deputation Uh... Earlier last

[5:19:48] year. This is an MZ 0 A ministerial zoning order.

[5:19:53] It does not take away the control of the municipality.

[5:19:57] The detailed planning process still continues The MZ O basically

[5:20:04] changes the zoning on the land. We would be looking

[5:20:08] to get that land zones so that we can build

[5:20:11] 612 units of workforce housing. Workforce listening to Mr. Crouch

[5:20:17] and understanding having grown up in this area How that

[5:20:20] term has changed greatly from industrial to now Uh... Recreational

[5:20:29] service And of course Uh... Young professionals. All of whom

[5:20:33] can't afford to buy home. I know young docks who

[5:20:37] currently are existing in our community You can't do that

[5:20:40] Young police officers Et cetera. So having said that. We

[5:20:47] believe very much so that this will be a phased

[5:20:50] project Stressing that again phased Rome was not built in

[5:20:53] a day Right now If you're kind enough to move

[5:20:57] this forward We're still looking at probably two years before

[5:21:01] shovel can go in the ground Councillor Ardell's point about.

[5:21:05] Municipalities It's not their obligation to build workforce housing is

[5:21:09] correct. Just like it's not your obligation to build social

[5:21:13] housing That's a county responsibility. We believe in the fact

[5:21:18] that Mr. Boris Byrne Who was the president of the

[5:21:22] Biden Group? We'll be paying for this The question Councillor

[5:21:27] Maxwell asked about equity Well there's definitely equity for him

[5:21:31] because he's insured in terms of his own businesses and

[5:21:34] the businesses and Thornberry and the So Georgian base Surrounding

[5:21:37] that area That they know that they'll have a place

[5:21:40] for their workforce to work. To live and then work.

[5:21:45] So my political experience asking you today When you come

[5:21:50] to consider. B. 6. 2. We're asking you to consider

[5:21:56] option one. Because what it comes down to if you

[5:22:00] direct option one It still must go forward to the

[5:22:04] minister and by experience I'm working with the hospital lands

[5:22:09] and Collingwood. Which we were successful. The bureaucracy at Queens

[5:22:15] Park still has to work with your Bureau of crats.

[5:22:19] In terms of determining whether or not we meet The

[5:22:22] need of what the municipality has stated. And I want

[5:22:25] to say very strongly Congratulations to your CIO and Mr.

[5:22:32] Posma and your engineering staff Because they were very difficult

[5:22:36] to work with because they held us to the metal

[5:22:40] And we believe we met those standards So by asking

[5:22:43] for you to move forward now. We are ensuring that

[5:22:47] at least it'll get to the minister probably for approval

[5:22:51] After Christmas Knowing the way things move if we're lucky.

[5:22:56] If we don't get it to the minister this year

[5:22:58] We're looking at at least another year And when I

[5:23:01] look at The fact that we are all discussing workforce

[5:23:05] housing. I think that's an important thing to keep in

[5:23:08] mind. So I'm going to close by letting Chris, who's

[5:23:11] the director of Operations He would also like to speak

[5:23:15] And then I'll come back quickly. Thank you. Um... I

[5:23:20] just wanted to tie together Uh... A lot of the...

[5:23:24] Comments, uh, pieces that I've heard all day Um... It

[5:23:29] seems like the... Competing... goals... And wanting to have workforce

[5:23:37] houses and kind of a chicken in the egg scenario

[5:23:40] Where... Where... Businesses are needed to support The local economy

[5:23:45] Um... Staffing is a difficult ask Um... And a lot

[5:23:50] of businesses are being forced to put large capital into

[5:23:55] buying And renting their own... Places to their own staff

[5:23:59] In order to staff their own businesses. It's exponentially more

[5:24:03] difficult when... It's seasonal. Um... And trying to have a

[5:24:09] business that's sustainable Uh... Year over year and deal with

[5:24:13] seasonal influxes with Staff and housing. And the point earlier

[5:24:20] that was made about multiple professionals Young professionals trying to

[5:24:24] come up to this Uh... And live up in the

[5:24:28] Blue Mountains area Um... Biggest Opportunity wasn't necessarily The jobs

[5:24:34] available It was whether they could afford to live here.

[5:24:37] Um... To speak to a couple of the points Uh...

[5:24:40] For getting their foot in the door Um... I think

[5:24:43] that having a workforce housing project build like this 600

[5:24:48] units roughly Uh... Proposed at this time would allow people

[5:24:53] Young professionals service industry Um... Doctors PSWs to come up

[5:25:00] and put roots into the community And accept the jobs

[5:25:03] that are available at the time. And then save And

[5:25:08] then as businesses are able to release some of their

[5:25:12] properties That they have and put back into the market

[5:25:15] It kind of fulfills Um... The next level of investment

[5:25:20] back into the community Once people are here and working

[5:25:23] I Don't think people really want to live this area

[5:25:26] I think that once we've established that Precedent and the

[5:25:32] lifestyle. Uh... I think it helps to fulfill not only

[5:25:36] the economic side But also the future growth of the

[5:25:38] community. The project As Terry mentioned Um... We'll be funded

[5:25:46] purely by private funds. So this is a solution and

[5:25:53] answer to a problem in a crisis That's currently ongoing.

[5:25:57] Um... And as he mentioned We're hopeful that... An MZO

[5:26:02] Um... Consideration Can move forward So we can look to

[5:26:07] provide a very targeted and specific response to this Uh...

[5:26:12] Ongoing issue and problem. Thanks. Thank You Chris. So just

[5:26:21] to reiterate again What we would like to do is

[5:26:24] to ask for you to look at Option 1 Which

[5:26:27] would ensure of course The Public Meeting... Which is all

[5:26:30] part of The Planning Process Where you get more Input

[5:26:32] back from The Public Uh... Just a reminder that we

[5:26:35] did hold a Public Meet Meeting in Thornberry And we

[5:26:38] did hold some of you attended And we also did

[5:26:41] hold one in The village itself. And... We had very

[5:26:46] positive response The only one question that came out of

[5:26:49] the village Which I think is important was some individuals

[5:26:52] thought It was social housing It's not social housing. It's

[5:26:57] workforce housing And defining workforce housing today It's anything from

[5:27:01] a young professional Uh... Right through to someone who's a

[5:27:05] young server at The Port Everywhere. Or Fabrica You name

[5:27:11] The Great Restaurants up here. So. Thank You very much

[5:27:14] Your Worship And... We're here to answer any questions. Thank

[5:27:18] You very much Thank you I apologise Councillor Colt Yes

[5:27:21] Chair Hope Chair Hope Yeah no problem So I see

[5:27:24] that we have some hands up So first of all

[5:27:26] Councillor Maxwell Then The Madam Mayor Go ahead Yeah Thank

[5:27:30] you Chair And thank you for the deputation. Um I

[5:27:36] have This question. Well two actually Um Have You did

[5:27:42] you read The Auditor General's Report On the recent... MZ

[5:27:47] O's... What their view of the myths But I'll leave

[5:27:50] it at that. I Never read The Audi The General's

[5:27:53] report But I can tell you that I do know

[5:27:55] that The minister Uh... It's very strong Minister. Clark started

[5:28:03] it. And our new current minister have very strong feelings

[5:28:07] about The fact that you as a council And we

[5:28:11] did in Collingwood Have The right to put in a

[5:28:15] checks and balance So I do know that in the

[5:28:18] beginning Some MZOs were abused. And I now know that

[5:28:23] The ministers, Minister Flack And previous ministers have Mr. Calandra

[5:28:30] have put very strict controls around that. So I'm very

[5:28:35] comfortable in saying that An MZ O is most definitely

[5:28:39] in the control of the municipality Okay That's fair I'm

[5:28:44] just going by what The Auditor General said Because I

[5:28:46] do believe that's another point of view And you as

[5:28:50] a Previous But I'm also admitting that I also know

[5:28:54] that some were not followed through on the way They

[5:28:57] should have and minister Calandra if you followed that government

[5:29:01] minister at the time Was very serious in directing that

[5:29:05] those should be rescinded And in the case of the

[5:29:08] Collingwood One For example We placed in line Which I

[5:29:12] was proud to do as a former mirror. That a

[5:29:15] division on those lands are not followed Then Council has

[5:29:19] the right to rescind those Have that MZ O rescinded.

[5:29:22] It's not about land speculation. Okay Well thank you on

[5:29:27] that point Thank you. Second question Yeah because it was

[5:29:31] just a lead into what I'm doing here Okay. So

[5:29:34] what controls could the municipality put in place. To guarantee

[5:29:40] That the Avellin won't become S - TAs or luxury

[5:29:46] apartment buildings Because a lot of people have asked that

[5:29:48] question It's an excellent question Council at Maxwell. Uh... First

[5:29:54] of all I want to go back to the fact

[5:29:56] that The MZ O only changes the zoning on the

[5:29:59] land. You then control what's going to happen in the

[5:30:04] site plan. And the detailed planning process that follows that.

[5:30:09] The one control that I personally would put on it

[5:30:12] And I've discussed this with The team. If the vision

[5:30:16] on the land is not followed through on And you

[5:30:19] will see that very early. And Council has a Opportunity

[5:30:24] to rescind that You can look at other opportunities too

[5:30:27] if you want. Before it's carried through on. Chair Hope

[5:30:33] used the term committed earlier in the discussion around water

[5:30:36] and development. We are committed to getting this done. Councillor

[5:30:46] Porter mentioned The term uncertainty and where we're at right

[5:30:50] now We are in very uncertain times. Mr. Crouch mentioned

[5:30:56] The fact that we are in a situation Whereby Chair

[5:31:01] Hope can we stick to the deputation. Sorry. Sorry Let's

[5:31:06] go on to thank you We'll go on to Madam

[5:31:08] Mayor. We're in a situation that Mr. Hold on I

[5:31:13] think we've been asked to move forward So I'm going

[5:31:16] to go on to the mayor Thank you Okay Thank

[5:31:18] you. Okay, then I guess I have two questions Um

[5:31:24] Thank you through the chair My first question is Um...

[5:31:28] I've appreciated very much all the background documentation that's available

[5:31:31] on the website Certainly the connection technologic development is there

[5:31:36] The answers are there to look at One question I

[5:31:38] have is with the recent visit Site visit of NVCA

[5:31:43] and the resulting Uh... Reporting that we've seen both from

[5:31:47] staff as well as what was submitted by you as

[5:31:50] the proponents Um... There was some... And maybe this was

[5:31:55] part of The Craig Leth The Craig Leaf Public Public

[5:31:57] Input Session... There was some discussion about You know What

[5:32:01] is The Community Impact in terms of it's a large

[5:32:04] property There's some beautiful areas there Which NVCA would have

[5:32:07] identified about which will not be built on But what

[5:32:10] kind of discussion or what have you learned since you

[5:32:14] last came forward to us about The Concept About a

[5:32:17] circular trail For example going around the property so that

[5:32:20] not just the 600 resins Not just the 600 units

[5:32:23] would be able to benefit But that it will become...

[5:32:26] A community impact imprint on The amenities that are available

[5:32:30] there to everyone that lives in a gut area. First

[5:32:34] of all trails were committed to any type of trails

[5:32:37] That's the connectivity that we have in So George and

[5:32:40] Bray I speak with great experience there. Do you want

[5:32:44] to answer any of the Harris question on what the

[5:32:48] buildings are going to be? Yeah So I think the

[5:32:53] good section that we've left for tree Uh... That we

[5:32:57] could look into doing different trails and connect to the

[5:33:01] greater trail system Um right on grey road 19 there

[5:33:04] So we've allocated quite a bit of amenity space Uh...

[5:33:09] As well as connecting to future trails. And as well

[5:33:12] as across the street existing trails. Okay Thank you Might

[5:33:17] also your worship Uh... There will be guidelines in terms

[5:33:23] of the architecture. And there will be a team managing

[5:33:27] team management to ensure that it is workflowsizing No BNBs

[5:33:31] Not Reynolds for skiers Et cetera. Mr. Byrne has made

[5:33:35] total commitment to that. Okay Thank you Second question Madam

[5:33:39] Mayor Certainly then I will ask a second question Because

[5:33:41] we did hear a very related deputation just prior to

[5:33:45] Bigger scope So to zero in on this particular deputation

[5:33:49] The material has been shared online But if... In response

[5:33:53] to The discussion that we've had about needing to have

[5:33:56] The workforce housing in the right location Uh... My question

[5:34:00] through the chair is could you please underscore the connection

[5:34:03] about what you're trying to do What you are what

[5:34:07] your group is trying to do specifically to fill a

[5:34:10] specific need We heard generalities earlier I'd like to hear

[5:34:14] that specifics Thank you Okay. Connectivity is everything. And as

[5:34:18] Mr. Crouch said a moment ago gas prices are up

[5:34:21] and has my mother told me they're not coming back

[5:34:23] down once they go up. Uh the reality is that

[5:34:27] we are going to be looking at Uh The whole

[5:34:33] opportunity A for parking for those who can't afford cars

[5:34:38] And most importantly for connectivity through Public Transit. And the

[5:34:43] location where they are the buildings will be located in

[5:34:47] the village There will be connectivity back to The workforce

[5:34:52] that's needed in the village through either a trail system

[5:34:55] or busing Uh... For those who have jobs up in

[5:35:00] Tharnberry or Collingwood or whatever That will be a parking

[5:35:03] situation. Thank you Alright, thank you Councillor Porter. Yes, thank

[5:35:11] you. So I sit on another West Saga Conservationist Yes

[5:35:15] I know. Okay. Anyways Thank you very much for your

[5:35:18] deputation And I'm actually glad that you have been here

[5:35:21] for most of the day So you would have heard

[5:35:24] The earlier conversations where I expressed my concern about how

[5:35:28] we're going to pay for The infrastructure Infrastructure that will

[5:35:32] support this MZO. It's going to be a big cost.

[5:35:36] So my question to you is because really The residents

[5:35:42] of this town through their tax levy would have to

[5:35:44] bankroll it. So with this development If you as you

[5:35:49] do You want an MZO Have you considered front loading

[5:35:53] any infrastructure costs to assist us in this process? Because

[5:35:57] the GCs are now not collectible to occupancy. My I'm

[5:36:02] known as the mayor who had The model that development

[5:36:06] pays for development Council Reporter Then I expect you That's

[5:36:11] a very fair question on your part But at the

[5:36:14] same time I think that's something that would have to

[5:36:16] be discussed with Mr. Burn The President I think is

[5:36:19] a very fair question It for me it is the

[5:36:23] question for me as far as I'm concerned because otherwise

[5:36:30] Because right now, because you heard today I have very

[5:36:32] big concerns about constructing in the event of planning. And

[5:36:36] I'm one of these that I didn't need to be

[5:36:38] told today that nothing's going to happen for a couple

[5:36:40] of years So it is a big ticket item for

[5:36:43] this town too I would and I'm going to use

[5:36:45] the word bankroll Because that's what it is dret Waiting

[5:36:49] for DCs to come in. And not knowing what's going

[5:36:51] to happen with them So I guess I'm just sort

[5:36:53] of saying with this development If you're asking for an

[5:36:56] MZO looking to have some skin in the game that

[5:36:59] if you need The infrastructure You play a role in

[5:37:01] helping that happen. I understand that I also understand The

[5:37:06] importance of workforce to a municipality. And I understand the

[5:37:10] tax roles Lots of experience around that But I also

[5:37:14] understand the essence and the spirit of community is still

[5:37:17] based on supporting the workforce So that is a very

[5:37:19] good question around the support financially That's one would go

[5:37:24] back to Mr. Byrne. I just want to go on

[5:37:29] I'd just like you to be made clear I'm very

[5:37:31] supportive of workforce housing. And I have worked with McPherson

[5:37:35] Builders as they have developed their concept I also introduced

[5:37:39] home opportunities to The Town for Workforce Housing for St.

[5:37:42] Louis Vis originally So I... These don't question my support

[5:37:47] for work Process No I wasn't questioning you I was

[5:37:49] uniting you and I together in the fact that we

[5:37:51] support workforce hosing Okay Thank you Thanks very much On

[5:37:55] to Council Sardell please Great Thank you Um and through

[5:37:58] the chair Just on the continuation of the infrastructure Mr.

[5:38:03] Getty's Um... When we develop five of those Um... Developments

[5:38:08] Windfall Um... It was in second nature Then it was

[5:38:12] something else And there was five developers that came And

[5:38:15] they contributed 20 million dollars to upgrade and get the

[5:38:20] infrastructure there So along with Councillor Porter I think that's

[5:38:25] what as a town I have that experience sitting here

[5:38:29] That maybe that's the other discussion So you would have

[5:38:32] to take that away as well And I think it's

[5:38:35] a very good point My second point would be If

[5:38:39] we put an MZ O on this We did that

[5:38:42] at 120... We didn't The Council Previous Put an MZ

[5:38:46] O on it Just before we came in And then

[5:38:49] they deliberated Then it went to a chia Then the

[5:38:52] chia came off Now it's an MZ0 But that M

[5:38:54] said Oh it's still on there And I was told

[5:38:59] that we cannot take this off And I had discussions

[5:39:04] Um... And... At AMO And I was just recently elected

[5:39:10] to The Caucus again at Amos So congratulations by the

[5:39:14] way I've got some experience in some connections over all

[5:39:17] these years with people there So that's where I'm a

[5:39:22] little confused with speaking with MPP Flak Um... Of how

[5:39:26] these MZOs are going to work Because how do we

[5:39:30] get that off? Because we've got a property out there

[5:39:33] that Well it must be shovel ready too That's the

[5:39:36] newest thing I agree But newest If I can't get

[5:39:39] ready Councillor Ardell Another extremely valid point One of the

[5:39:43] conditions that I know what I would put on It

[5:39:45] would be a timeline. Timeline to construction. Yes And if

[5:39:52] that doesn't work. Those were the old days Those conditions

[5:39:56] can be there now Timeline the construction Timeline to the

[5:40:00] vision Timeline to the commitment. Most important thing is that...

[5:40:05] I'm involved in this because of the passion for it.

[5:40:09] The reality is that Mr. Byrne is attempting to fulfill

[5:40:14] a need with private money. The municipality and share obligation

[5:40:20] as council to ensure that the community municipality has not

[5:40:24] put at risk. Put those conditions in. You can work

[5:40:28] with your staff to do that What we're asking today

[5:40:31] is you consider option one Which will allow that to

[5:40:36] happen Chris You want to see it? Sorry I just

[5:40:38] wanted to say one quick thing Just about Umfructure and

[5:40:42] additional Um of the places you're referencing are for quite

[5:40:46] larger homes and If it gets factored in, then I

[5:40:51] think that increases the cost the overall cost of the

[5:40:54] units The rental would increase with it Uh... Kind of...

[5:40:59] To scale. Um... So it is something we can consider

[5:41:03] However I think it'll increase the overall rent in the

[5:41:06] feasibility of the project remaining Workforce Housing Um... And also

[5:41:12] talking about Um... All day about The kind of flat

[5:41:15] and people not necessarily building right now Um... We're still

[5:41:19] proposing to build and move forward with it So earlier

[5:41:22] they had mentioned only 100 units roughly This year, a

[5:41:26] slight decrease over Uh... And... You know the... I apologise

[5:41:32] The First Women Forest The gentleman mentioned Correct Mr. Crouch

[5:41:36] Excuse me Um mentioned that Um... You know He doesn't

[5:41:39] see anything being flat for the next two to three

[5:41:42] years Um So we're proposing a solution Um... That would

[5:41:48] solve housing crisis for workforce housing Um... We can definitely

[5:41:53] look into the other piece But again I think it's

[5:41:55] just gonna inflate the overall cost of the project Um

[5:41:59] And if we don't have a need with the capacity

[5:42:01] If the capacity is down Uh... Maybe we can do

[5:42:04] it in a phased approach and allow us to slowly

[5:42:06] build in and structure as other things come online Towards

[5:42:11] the natural development of upgrades. Yeah And don't get me

[5:42:15] wrong I'm all about workplace housing Mr. Gettys You know

[5:42:18] that I had two daycares And my families needed You

[5:42:22] know They need a daycare And they needed workplace housing

[5:42:24] So it is in order Um... But I have to

[5:42:31] go back to the ministry and get some more of

[5:42:34] my questions answered from Mr. Flack Because I have a

[5:42:38] direct pipeline now So I can get some answers But

[5:42:41] yeah, it'll be interesting to see So thank you Okay

[5:42:44] On to the Deputy Mayor Thank you Madam Chair Through

[5:42:47] you Um In regards to you know when you People

[5:42:51] hear the initial MZO Those are scary three initials for

[5:42:54] people Um other residents and things like Um... Because they're

[5:42:59] not sure What happens because they feel all permissions come

[5:43:02] off the land We did declare a housing crisis in

[5:43:05] the community Um... We're nowhere near hitting any of these

[5:43:07] targets Everybody has talked about since Before my time on

[5:43:12] council Ray pairs You know housing Housing Housing So What

[5:43:17] And I won't get into the specifics of the report

[5:43:18] Because we're gonna be discussing that in the options available

[5:43:20] to us and what one does as leads to a

[5:43:23] Public Meeting and not make any commitments But I guess

[5:43:26] my question to you is in my concern is This

[5:43:29] is directly across from now What was going to be

[5:43:32] I think The original concept of the area I think

[5:43:38] people thought about secondary residents Um skiing And that's become

[5:43:41] a community now Similar to we have in Laura Bay

[5:43:45] Clarksburg Thornberry So this directly Um in that same area.

[5:43:50] How do you feel the fit into the community Putting

[5:43:54] 612 I think it is units into there with some

[5:43:58] height densities that are only seen at the village I

[5:44:01] know you said you're going to take it away from

[5:44:03] the road You're going to step the building But fitting

[5:44:06] into the I don't want to use it where character

[5:44:08] like we always do But fitting into the character of

[5:44:10] the community Which is now a school bus jobs and

[5:44:12] things like that And it's already a very busy intersection

[5:44:16] Yeah a lot of the structure and the design of

[5:44:18] the whole project is based around First of all Exciting

[5:44:23] place for people to live Uh they want to be

[5:44:25] passionate and excited about living there But also the surrounding

[5:44:28] community As well as creating its own little community Uh,

[5:44:31] as well So we're looking at doing commercial and stuff

[5:44:36] in there to try and create a kind of self

[5:44:40] - sustained Uh... Quick shops and stuff like that Um,

[5:44:45] but I think how it integrates in as far as

[5:44:47] look and appeal Um We're not looking for a drastic

[5:44:51] variance It's to go with the surrounding community and the

[5:44:56] appearance Uh... kind of everything around Um... And to try

[5:45:00] and integrate in as best we can. Thank you Just

[5:45:03] a quick follow - up Go ahead Yeah Thank you

[5:45:05] for that In a community with a community Another Committee

[5:45:07] is great So do you anticipate I could see people's

[5:45:11] fear saying Oh this is going to be You know

[5:45:13] dorm rooms And people work You know Just Where do

[5:45:17] you and not to get too far into the detailed

[5:45:19] minutiae of the design But do you see families living

[5:45:22] there Um... You know The server at the port I

[5:45:27] know virtually all of them So they are with families

[5:45:29] and married And children who will go to school and

[5:45:31] things like that So is that part of the anticipation

[5:45:34] you see of this community that you're going to build

[5:45:35] for the workforce housing? Correct Yeah so we're looking at

[5:45:39] one two and three bedroom units So different size families

[5:45:42] and different Different ability for each home to house each

[5:45:49] family. Thank you. And deputy Mayor There would also be

[5:45:53] amenities put in place for those families. Councillor McKinley Thank

[5:45:58] you for your patience Go ahead No problem Thank you

[5:46:01] Madam Chair and through you to the gentleman Thank you

[5:46:03] for your presentation I greatly appreciate the opportunity that you're

[5:46:07] bringing forward Uh So the At the end of the

[5:46:11] day at like As Mr. Crouch had said with real

[5:46:15] estate You know it's all location location location So to

[5:46:18] me this fits the bill It's right on a transit

[5:46:21] route It's not right beside a whole bunch of people's

[5:46:24] homes with five stories looking down into their Uh because

[5:46:28] I do recall an initial discussion about that This is

[5:46:31] a different design A different take Now I know it's

[5:46:35] there again Uh madam chair I'm going to stick to

[5:46:37] parameters of the request here Um, but do you propose

[5:46:42] that because for design wise I did read how it's

[5:46:46] or I reread really refresh my memory there that it's

[5:46:49] uh... To be The wedding cake or the staged Now

[5:46:53] is that in the same manner to mirror across the

[5:46:56] street at the corner of windfall with that That is

[5:46:59] a particular design that has several stories that you that

[5:47:04] is integrated so well that you can't really notice. Is

[5:47:07] that the intent You're a hundred percent correct The first

[5:47:11] building is along 19 would be three stories Right And

[5:47:15] knowing I was a situation and Collingwood with people that

[5:47:18] I know and love dearly Uh, they have an apartment

[5:47:21] building behind them where they can't vote on their own

[5:47:23] deck. We're not going to let that happen Right. Right

[5:47:28] I'm not here to pick the petunias to go into

[5:47:30] planters either Exactly Um, but Sorry through you Madam Chair.

[5:47:37] I'm not trying to be funny I'm just saying like

[5:47:39] I can appreciate Um I you know I appreciate what

[5:47:44] you're bringing forward and the fact that as we recall

[5:47:47] You're you know it's not a five story building That's

[5:47:49] that no matter what buffering or what kind of trees

[5:47:52] might be put in You'd still be looking right down

[5:47:54] into somebody's backyard or their back windows So this is

[5:47:57] not it Um just as a follow - up or

[5:48:02] quickly Madam chair Uh the Public Engagement you had with

[5:48:05] the couple of properties that are nearby Um, did they

[5:48:09] participate in the engagement process so far So far Yeah,

[5:48:14] we did a bunch of active surveys Uh in different

[5:48:17] communities So we did Collingwood Blue Mountain as well as

[5:48:20] Thornberry Uh, business owners and got their feedback on it

[5:48:24] Uh, as well as the home right in the middle

[5:48:27] that used to own the property as well Um, they

[5:48:31] sold it to us and our residing there. Once they

[5:48:38] passed It was their family home So they want to

[5:48:40] stay there But they know the idea and the scope

[5:48:43] and what the plan is And they're excited about it.

[5:48:47] Yeah Okay I appreciate that Uh very much that you

[5:48:51] know you've gone that extra mile to Engage the people

[5:48:55] that would be You know that are directly affected by

[5:48:58] any kind of a build Whether it's three stories, five

[5:49:01] more stories, five stories Or any kind of stories Uh,

[5:49:05] just a final one Madam Chair And I won't I

[5:49:07] won't belabor this But at the end of the day

[5:49:11] You know I appreciate what you're I appreciate what you're

[5:49:14] bringing forward And I'm all for it Because at the

[5:49:16] end of the day You're talking about You know We

[5:49:18] know that, you know along with agriculture is a tourism

[5:49:22] is our main driver Is like agriculture is one of

[5:49:26] the biggest drivers Um, but our tourism is what's going

[5:49:30] to carry us through these turbulent darkened lonely times And

[5:49:35] that's where in order to buffer or to facilitate that

[5:49:39] These folks need a place to stay So I'm all

[5:49:42] for it Thank you. Thank You Council McKinley Um that

[5:49:45] leaves me for questions Um first one is you mentioned

[5:49:51] busing And I'm going to add in services So is

[5:49:56] that a consideration that you'll be providing bussing services To

[5:50:00] the workforce or to specific members of the workforced So

[5:50:06] far right now we have proposed bus within the community

[5:50:09] like a stop Um, we have Bike racks and things

[5:50:14] like that as well Um Depending on we've had initial

[5:50:17] talks with different businesses and in the village And a

[5:50:25] lot of them are interested in quite large numbers I

[5:50:29] could foresee them doing something for a bus to connect

[5:50:33] Um, but it's still early in the planning But it

[5:50:36] has been discussed already, yes. Okay, thank you And that

[5:50:41] I'm hopefully integrated with other busing solutions Other transit solutions

[5:50:46] It would be integrated with the Collingwood Blue Mountain Lincoln

[5:50:49] Okay Thank you very much And the second one Normally

[5:50:52] we don't include Staff when it's a deputation But since

[5:50:55] I'm The chair I'm going to take advantage of that

[5:50:57] So through myself I'm going to ask C. R. C.

[5:51:01] A. O. I think it's very important that we have

[5:51:03] correct information about MZ O's So it is my understanding

[5:51:08] as it is out of Councillor Dell as well That

[5:51:12] once an MZO is granted on property It cannot be

[5:51:18] lifted That's been our experience And I'm just wondering through

[5:51:22] me to CAO Do you have a comment on that

[5:51:27] please. Uh Yes through the chair It would likely be

[5:51:32] at the minister's discretion In terms of if it was

[5:51:35] to be lifted to the point earlier There's been some

[5:51:38] changes governing Uh MZ O's to which Uh... And that's

[5:51:42] something We remain kind of in certainly the staff report

[5:51:45] Maybe could Outline this as well in understanding the conditions

[5:51:50] That could be applied Den Zedos Because that was not

[5:51:53] previously The Previously The case. Yeah then That's what we're

[5:51:59] living with right now So I think for our audience

[5:52:01] We want to make sure that they have the full

[5:52:04] background Uh... And look forward to the Staff Report Okay

[5:52:08] Thank you very much. Councillor Maxwell We're going We're talking

[5:52:12] second pass Do we really need it? Battery Snap Yeah

[5:52:17] Thank you It's very snappy. Okay Thank you Great Council

[5:52:22] Artel You have another one. I do too Okay Alright

[5:52:25] obviously then I need to accept a second No it's

[5:52:29] okay I'll accept a second Pass I have to offer

[5:52:31] to all members of Council Go ahead Thanks for Maxwell.

[5:52:36] So So you're going to be the owner The Biller

[5:52:41] of this building The product. Uh proponent of It's under...

[5:52:46] Yes. Yeah Okay. So and the idea is to create

[5:52:49] workforce housing for I'm assuming Blue Mountain and the Blue

[5:52:54] Mountain Village Is that correct? Uh The Community The Greater

[5:52:57] Community And we're planning on utilising it as well Yes

[5:53:02] Also it would include Collingwood Thornberry Instrounding Area. So the

[5:53:09] Workforce Housing is also going to serve as Collingwood. Okay

[5:53:15] The region I would hope that we all think as

[5:53:18] regionalists And we supported you. Know from day to time

[5:53:22] anywhere Okay. Thank you But the reality is is that

[5:53:28] you have a plant Agnora Which is beside basically not

[5:53:34] that far from where it's going to be built And

[5:53:36] I will guarantee you that a lot of residents who

[5:53:38] currently live in Thornberry Potentially work in that plant. It

[5:53:42] just like in Collingwood We have many people who work

[5:53:46] at the village in Blue Mountain and vice versa. So

[5:53:49] when it comes to housing I do not look upon

[5:53:52] that as a political issue I look upon it is

[5:53:54] something to provide for people And that's been the statement

[5:53:58] that I gave to Mr. Byrne. Okay Thank you Council

[5:54:00] Ardell Uh yes I'll be very quick So when we

[5:54:03] bring families into this workplace housing Uh Mr. Getty You

[5:54:08] being a principal previously How do we get the schools

[5:54:11] to even talk to us? Because we need a school

[5:54:14] in Craig Neef And if we're going to have lots

[5:54:16] more children with 615 homes We need a school So

[5:54:20] would you be willing to go to the board for

[5:54:23] us? You so deem that we would be there to

[5:54:29] support you with The increase that student population. Thank you.

[5:54:34] Thank you very much With no portables Uh I don't

[5:54:39] see any other hands I do want to grant everyone

[5:54:41] Oh Madam Mayor Go ahead. Thank you Well just I

[5:54:45] just would like to revisit just for clarity The comment

[5:54:49] So I am hearing through the chair to The deputance

[5:54:52] if you could just confirm What I'm hearing is that

[5:54:55] this is very much about residents of the Blue Mountains

[5:54:58] Finding something affordable to live in so that they are

[5:55:01] close enough to their workplace their workplace may be within

[5:55:05] the Town Blue Mountains It may be something that's on

[5:55:07] the outlie But here they are in our town trying

[5:55:10] to stay in our town and can't find a reasonable

[5:55:12] place to live Is that correct? Thank you. Okay Thank

[5:55:18] you Madam Mayor. Anyone else. Because I can see that

[5:55:22] we wanted The second pass Alright If we could please

[5:55:24] have the motion put up Thank you challenge Thank you

[5:55:28] very much Gentleman Both of you And the motion I'm

[5:55:31] looking for mover in a second Moment that Council The

[5:55:34] Town Blue Mountains receives the Deputation of Terry Gede's Project

[5:55:37] Coordinator Cold Coordinator And Chris Walmsley Director of Operations The

[5:55:41] Byte - em Group regarding Grey Road 19 Workforce Housing.

[5:55:45] Who's a mover in a secondary? So move Madam Chair

[5:55:47] Council Second And seconded by The Mayor. I Don't see

[5:55:52] any hands up for any further discussion So I'll call

[5:55:55] the boat Avote is open.

[5:56:16] The vote is closed. Thank you That motion is carried

[5:56:20] 7 - 0 with everyone in the chamber. Alright Thank

[5:56:23] you very much Now we're moving on to the Public

[5:56:26] Comment period I'm aware that there are some members of

[5:56:29] the Public Who would like to speak It's regarding matters

[5:56:32] included in the planning and building portion of The Meeting

[5:56:35] Before I read this Did we have a... We do

[5:56:37] our respect Um... Respectful behaviour. Um... Reeding earlier this morning

[5:56:42] Right We did not actually. Madam Jay We did not

[5:56:45] Okay I'm going to ask you to go ahead with

[5:56:46] that first Thank you. And then I'll do mine.

[5:57:01] Before we begin I would like to remind everyone The

[5:57:04] Town of The Blue Mountains is committed to maintain a

[5:57:06] safe Respectful and professional environment for all meetings and interactions

[5:57:10] involving Council, the Public and Townstaff And accordance with the

[5:57:13] Town's Respectful Public Interactions Policy PUL COR 2207 Courteous and

[5:57:19] Respectful Communication is required at all times Behaviour that is

[5:57:23] disruptive inappropriate or disrespectful will not be tolerated This includes

[5:57:27] any comments or conduct that is threatening harassing discriminatory or

[5:57:32] abusive All speakers are expected to address council and staff

[5:57:35] respectfully and keep comments focused on the matter before Council

[5:57:39] If these expectations are not met The chair may issue

[5:57:42] a warning direct the speaker to stop or take further

[5:57:45] steps to maintain order and ensure The meeting can proceed.

[5:57:50] Thank you Madam Deputy Clerk Um... Every speaker is allotted

[5:57:54] Three minutes and there'll be a bell when you've got

[5:57:57] one minute left Uh And this is The Pradyute In

[5:58:02] accordance with the Town Procedural bylaw 2026 - 44 10

[5:58:07] minutes is allotted at the beginning and end of each

[5:58:09] section of the Committee of the whole meeting To receive

[5:58:11] Public comments regarding the matters included on the agenda Each

[5:58:15] person shall provide their name and address and is required

[5:58:18] to address their comments to the chair Comments shall not

[5:58:21] refer to personal litigation or potential litigation matters Or being

[5:58:26] response to matters that have been the subject of a

[5:58:28] Public meeting It being noted that the verbal commenting period

[5:58:31] has ended. Written correspondence may still be received in response

[5:58:35] to matters that have been The subject of a Public

[5:58:37] Meeting If a person is unable to personally attend the

[5:58:40] meeting or during any period where an emergency has been

[5:58:43] declared to exist in the municipality They shall provide their

[5:58:46] Public comments and writing to the clerk in advance of

[5:58:49] the meeting where the clerk to read on behalf of

[5:58:51] the author during the Public Comment period So first of

[5:58:55] all Madam Deputy Clerk Have you received any comments? We

[5:58:57] have not for the station anymore Uh and in the

[5:59:00] chamber hands up those of you who would like to

[5:59:02] make a comment. Okay Just one member of the chamber

[5:59:06] Okay Alright thank you very much Uh If you'd like

[5:59:10] to come forward again three minutes with a little minute

[5:59:13] warning And if we could have your name and your

[5:59:15] address Please Um I'm Angela Greenway and I live at

[5:59:19] 135 Claire Glenn in The Town of Blue Mountains. Uh

[5:59:23] I'm a member of the South Glen Rate Pairs Association.

[5:59:28] As local residents we are expressing our concerns regarding The

[5:59:31] proposed MZO for grey road 19 housing development. To be

[5:59:37] clear We are not opposed for this property to be

[5:59:40] used for workforce or attainable housing. In fact our preference

[5:59:45] is to work closely with the developers To know what's

[5:59:49] going on from the ground up and see a successful

[5:59:52] outcome for all. What we are asking for is that

[5:59:56] any development proceed in a manner that is consistent with

[5:59:59] the standards and policies established by our official plan and

[6:00:02] bylaws Particularly as they pertain to height density setbacks and

[6:00:07] environmental protection The applicant is asking for an MZO on

[6:00:11] a proposal that can best be described as vague and

[6:00:16] lacking important details. The applicant appears to want to fast

[6:00:20] - track the process to avoid red tape which promotes

[6:00:24] a build now and plan leader approach to development. That

[6:00:27] should be raising red flags with everyone in this room.

[6:00:31] Specifically we would like counsel to address the following four

[6:00:35] items. Number one. This proposed disproposal represents a significant deviation

[6:00:40] from the official plan Staff note in their report that

[6:00:44] the proposed density is 65 units per hectare compared with

[6:00:48] the 10 units per hectare maximum Generally applicable to surrounding

[6:00:52] areas and that heights of up to six stories are

[6:00:56] proposed where council's general direction has been three stories with

[6:01:00] four or five stories contemplated only in very specific circumstances

[6:01:04] Because the proposal remains conceptual and illustrative in nature at

[6:01:09] a recent open house in Craig Leith in May Staff

[6:01:12] were unable to answer even the most basic questions Including

[6:01:15] the number of buildings anticipated to be four or five

[6:01:18] or six stories in height. Number two this is a

[6:01:22] future secondary plan area without a secondary plan Staff themselves

[6:01:27] identified the appropriateness of granting these site - specific permissions

[6:01:31] in advance of the future secondary plan process as an

[6:01:34] issue requiring further review We believe that broader planning work

[6:01:39] should inform a development of this magnitude rather than having

[6:01:42] one property established permissions in advance of that process Number

[6:01:46] three what about the unresolved infrastructure impacts staff have identified

[6:01:51] issues regarding well - in wastewater capacity Offsite infrastructure requirements

[6:01:55] traffic and access stormwater management parks emergency services and schools

[6:02:01] as all requiring further review Most importantly the NVCA has

[6:02:05] not formally commented on this project. Number four how does

[6:02:09] this proposal align with the First Pillar of the Strategic

[6:02:11] Plan to deliver transparent effective and evidence - based governance

[6:02:15] and decision - making? Not only do we see a

[6:02:17] decision being made here without much evidence I'm almost done.

[6:02:22] Not only do we see a decision being made here

[6:02:24] without much evidence and MZO has significant long - term

[6:02:27] and irreversible implications It can establish site - specific land

[6:02:31] uses and development parameters including density building height setbacks environmental

[6:02:35] protection boundaries and can prevail over conflicting municipal zoning provisions

[6:02:41] Giving these powers it is difficult to reconcile the pursuit

[6:02:43] of an MZO MZO with a proposal that is incomplete

[6:02:47] and does not conform to the town's official bylaws or

[6:02:51] Town's official plan and existing bylaws How is it possible

[6:02:54] that council could support or take any steps towards an

[6:02:59] extraordinary planning mechanism such as an MZO before the town's

[6:03:02] planning staff by their own admission have not even completed

[6:03:06] their review Bottom line is this application feels more like

[6:03:09] a project sketched on a napkin than a clear organised

[6:03:13] and detailed plan staff are being asked to seriously consider.

[6:03:17] As residents we deserve the opportunity to understand in detail

[6:03:20] what is actually being proposed How it conforms to the

[6:03:23] town's planning framework and what the implication will be for

[6:03:26] the surrounding community and environment This is especially important given

[6:03:30] that the MZO takes planning away from the community and

[6:03:34] council which gives people with no ties to this community

[6:03:37] the ability to make decisions for this community In addition

[6:03:41] in MZO is not something that can be appealed to

[6:03:43] the OLT so residents loof all loose all ability to

[6:03:46] ask for changes. We appreciate that Council has declined this

[6:03:50] request multiple times in the past with respectfully ask that

[6:03:54] is elected leaders and stewards of our community You choose

[6:03:57] option three at this time and until a detailed transparent

[6:04:00] and fully supported development plan is brought forward through the

[6:04:05] Mississippi Planning process In closing considering the vagueness of the

[6:04:08] proposal and the multitude issues still is unresolved We have

[6:04:12] one final an important question to ask What is it

[6:04:16] we are actually moving forward on. Okay, thank you very

[6:04:22] much There's no interplay Uh... with Public Comments There's no

[6:04:26] exchange with Council Any further members of the chamber who

[6:04:31] would like to speak at this time just checking again.

[6:04:35] Going twice. Going thrice and now I'm gonna close Public

[6:04:39] comment now and we'll move on to yes Sorry Madam

[6:04:42] chair We do have a member of the Public Virt

[6:04:45] Virtual He may Mr. Lampressofer But he may want to

[6:04:50] speak at the next Public Common period But I do

[6:04:53] want to mention he is on there. Thank but not

[6:04:56] I can still close the Public comment period Or does

[6:04:59] Mr. Lampresthorfer wish to speak. Um if he would raise

[6:05:02] his hand if he does. I'm sorry I can't see

[6:05:07] No So we could catch Oh there's his hand. There's

[6:05:12] a sand Okay Mr. Lamprestor for you have The floor

[6:05:14] for three minutes Go ahead. B turn on your camera

[6:05:19] too please.

[6:05:36] Is that a Richard you're muted. We can't hear you

[6:05:46] Mr. Lamper Sofer.

[6:06:02] Wonder if at this point Madam Deputy Clerk If you

[6:06:04] could Let Mr. Lampresurfer know that he has another opportunity

[6:06:09] Uh speak comment. Period at the end I'm sorry that

[6:06:17] That we haven't been able to connect. Okay I'm going

[6:06:20] to move on then. Um so on to B. 8

[6:06:25] correspondence there is none Now we're moving on to bean

[6:06:29] point nine Staff Reports And the first one is B.

[6:06:32] 9. 1 Recommendation report land exchange request Navy your street

[6:06:37] west and tenth line slash B. Restreet South PBS 0.

[6:06:42] 2 6. 061. And who in the staff would like

[6:06:45] to take that on. Ms. Marwa Go ahead. Thank you

[6:06:50] good afternoon Council members and everyone present My name is

[6:06:53] Deksha Marwaha Senior Planner with the Town This report is

[6:06:56] regarding the request to purchase Napier Street Rhode Alons The

[6:07:01] request was made by Mr. Lampresthorfer Who owns the adjacent

[6:07:04] property at the corner of the 10th line and B

[6:07:07] - Re streets south. If the proposed land exchanges approved

[6:07:11] the applicant would acquire the road allowance. In exchange the

[6:07:15] town would acquire the triangular parcel at the corner of

[6:07:19] 10th line and beaver street Um and information report on

[6:07:22] this matter was brought forward at the April 28th Cal

[6:07:25] meeting Where two options were presented to Council Council Directed

[6:07:30] Staff to proceed with option 2b which was to Initiate

[6:07:34] the process to declare the road allowance surplus And involve

[6:07:38] the Town's traffic technologist in the process. Following the information

[6:07:42] report a Public Meeting was held in June and no

[6:07:45] comments and objection were received as part of the Town's

[6:07:48] review process Staff received comments from Operations Division The Comments

[6:07:53] noted that the that exchanging the road allowance for a

[6:07:57] triangular corner parcel may provide benefit for future intersection needs

[6:08:01] Um There are no immediate improvements Um, to the Intersect

[6:08:05] There are no immediate improvements to the intersection Our planned

[6:08:08] and there are no projects identified But the land exchange

[6:08:12] would provide the town with an opportunity to secure the

[6:08:15] triangular parcel for potential future improvements rather than relying on

[6:08:19] a future purchase or negotiations. Following the closure the road

[6:08:27] allowance will be zoned development and open space in accordance

[6:08:30] with the towns zoning bylaw And any future development would

[6:08:34] have to comply with the applicable zoning Overall Staff are

[6:08:38] recommending that the road allowance be transferred to the applicant

[6:08:42] in exchange for the triangular parcel Um, we also have

[6:08:46] make the traffic technologies joining us virtually and that's it

[6:08:50] from a presentation Thank you and happy to answer the

[6:08:52] questions. Thank you Ms. Marowa I am looking for some.

[6:09:00] Comments or questions from council at this point. We do

[6:09:06] have the motion on the board Okay Councillor Porter go

[6:09:09] ahead I'll move the recommended motion Thank you cancer Porter

[6:09:13] and Second Madam Chair Second by Councillor McKinley And Madam

[6:09:17] Depe Clerk if you'd like to read out The motion

[6:09:19] please. Certainly madam chair The Council receive Staff Report PBS

[6:09:24] 26... oh sorry. 061 entitled recommendation report land exchange request

[6:09:31] Napier Street West and 10th line slash beaver street south

[6:09:35] And that Council enacted by a lot to stop up

[6:09:37] and close the Napier Street West road allowance and deem

[6:09:40] The land surplus to the needs of the corporation And

[6:09:43] that Council approved the transfer of the Napier Street West

[6:09:46] road allowance to the Applicant with the lands to be

[6:09:49] merged with the applicant's property in exchange for the transfer

[6:09:52] of the triangular parcel owned by the Applicant at the

[6:09:55] corner of 10th line and beaver street south to the

[6:09:58] corporation of the Town of Blu Mountains. Thank you very

[6:10:02] much I don't see any further hands for. Do you

[6:10:07] wish. I could make a comment on this page I

[6:10:12] just want I just wanted to ask The Planner Um

[6:10:17] normally we pay our costs in the applicant pays their

[6:10:22] cost Is that not correct? Or is it different in

[6:10:27] this case? Are we paying his costs or is he

[6:10:29] paying his gospel. Sorry the applicant will pay the cost

[6:10:34] Right yeah Yes that's what I thought Okay I think

[6:10:38] there was some discrepancies on that Thank you very much

[6:10:42] Okay Thank you very much I think at this point

[6:10:45] Uh fleet your hands down Okay Thank you I don't

[6:10:48] see any other hands So I'm going to ask Deputy

[6:10:51] Clerk to call the vote please vote is open.

[6:11:02] That. Boat is closed. Thank you that motion is carried

[6:11:07] with all members of Council or of the committee Present.

[6:11:10] Moving on to the next Staff Report V. 9. 2

[6:11:14] Assumption report Second nature phase 3 PBS. 26. 046 Thank

[6:11:20] you. And if you could state your name and remember

[6:11:28] our stuff Go ahead. My name is Ahmed Khalil I'm

[6:11:31] a development engineering reviewer I'm here today to present the

[6:11:35] Assumption Report for Second Nature Phase 3. The Report recommends

[6:11:39] that cancel Act Byla to approve full acceptance and assumption.

[6:11:43] Of the Public Works Constructed and installed within Oh sorry

[6:11:47] Sir Could you speak up a little more Thank you

[6:11:50] Yeah within registered plan of subdivision 16 M - 69

[6:11:54] And that cancel in Acta byla to assume the streets

[6:11:57] of registered plan 16 amp - 69 for Public Use.

[6:12:03] As an overview The subdivision agreement between Skyline Blue Mountain

[6:12:08] Developments and the Town was stated September 23 2019. And

[6:12:14] it provided for the assumption of the subdivision. Upon review

[6:12:18] by development engineering staff and by consultation with other Town

[6:12:22] Departments The agreement terms have been satisfied for assumption. Development

[6:12:29] engineering staff have determined that all developer applications have been

[6:12:32] met. As noted in the certificate of final acceptance Under

[6:12:37] the subdivision agreement. The second nature subdivision was developed in

[6:12:43] three phases Phase one and two were previously assumed by

[6:12:47] the town in 2022. For the analysis I'll highlight that

[6:12:54] the certificate of final acceptance was issued on July 23rd

[6:12:58] 2026 and Consultation with other town departments Uh, that all

[6:13:04] works have been completed as set out Um, on the

[6:13:07] attached assumption Acceptance checklist. Um, choose attachment 2. The quantities

[6:13:15] of Public Works infrastructure to be assumed Uh, are provided

[6:13:19] in the report Uh, that's page 3 for reference. And

[6:13:24] also the subdivision agreement provided for a road guarantee which

[6:13:28] will expire on July 23rd 2031. Um The road guarantee

[6:13:34] security will continue to be retained beyond assumption Until the

[6:13:38] road guarantee period expires and the term is satisfied. A

[6:13:43] draft bylaw has been prepared to initiate the following and

[6:13:46] is provided as attachment 4. Number 1 All the Public

[6:13:50] Works Constructed and installed in accordance with the subdivision agreement

[6:13:55] for registered plan 16 m - 69 Including the traffic

[6:13:59] control devices shown on that proved drawings. And trail within

[6:14:04] land subject to walkway eastment Registration number GY180991 are hereby

[6:14:11] accepted and is humed. Number 2 Springside crescent Cattail Crescent

[6:14:17] Stonely Drive Readway and Silwater Crescent as shown on registered

[6:14:21] plan 16 amp. 69. Are hereby ACM for Public Use

[6:14:26] And number three that the town assumes all dedicated blocks

[6:14:29] within registered plan 16 and. 69 S - listed there.

[6:14:36] Finally for Public Engagement in Advance of the Staff Report

[6:14:40] being brought to the Committee of the Hall Development Engineering

[6:14:43] has provided a notice of assumption Uh... Two residents within

[6:14:48] development being assumed This notice of assumption is included as

[6:14:52] attachment 3 and was posted on the Town's website. On

[6:14:57] July 15 2026. Um. Thank you. That's all happy to

[6:15:04] take any questions. Thank you Mr. Kyle. Questions from council.

[6:15:14] Uh. The Dippy Mirror Go ahead Thank you Madam Chair

[6:15:18] through you Uh. Thank you for the report Just an

[6:15:22] assumption checklist It didn't list The trail and the connectivity

[6:15:27] through Montre That even though it's not in the assumption

[6:15:30] list because we're not assuming it That has been done

[6:15:33] and completed to development engineering's standard. Through the chair Yes

[6:15:39] The Walkway was constructed through the golf course Um... As

[6:15:42] pedestrian connection between The second nature phase 3 and Plateau

[6:15:48] e - subdivision And the land is not part of

[6:15:52] the registered PS 16 M69 And that's why Um... That

[6:15:57] walkway is meant was registered and conveyed to the town.

[6:16:03] Okay great Thank you. Thank you Councillor Porter. Yes Thank

[6:16:09] you Um I just like to thank you for a

[6:16:11] very comprehensive and complete report. Thank you council Porter. Uh

[6:16:19] I don't see any other hands I don't know if

[6:16:22] we could have the motion put on the screen Please.

[6:16:25] That would be great. Thank you And the motion reads

[6:16:29] that Councillor receive Staff Report PBS. 26. 046 entitled Assumption

[6:16:34] Report Second Nature Phase 3 The Council Act a bylaw

[6:16:38] to approve full acceptance and assumption The Public Works Constructed

[6:16:42] and installed within registered plan of subdivision 16M - 69

[6:16:47] And the Council and Act of bylaw to assume the

[6:16:49] streets of registered Plan 16M - 69 Republic youth namely

[6:16:54] Springside Crescent Cacktail Crescent Stonely Drive Readway And still water

[6:16:59] crescent Could I have a mover in a seconder please?

[6:17:01] So move Okay I heard Councillor Ardell and I heard

[6:17:06] Uhr McKinley. Thank you very much. Any further discussion. At

[6:17:13] this point Alright then I'll ask the Deputy Clerk to

[6:17:15] call the vote Please vote is. Thank you. Ne vo.

[6:17:24] Is closed. And the motion is carried with all members

[6:17:27] of the Committee Present Thank you very much Mr. Khalil

[6:17:31] B. 9. 3 Recommendation Report Application for zoning bylaw amendment

[6:17:37] People care long - term care And McPherson rental housing

[6:17:40] PBS. 26. 063 And who's going to be taking that

[6:17:45] Alright Mr. Posma Madam Chair I asked her why don't

[6:17:48] we can we take a break because we have just

[6:17:50] two reports to go Sure. Back at 5'2 or... Okay

[6:17:57] Alright Thank you So we'll all be back at 355

[6:18:01] Thank you very much Turn your cameras off Please and

[6:18:03] your microphones. That was really cool.

[6:18:29] Testing. Testing. No.

[6:30:10] Okay, Madam Deputy Clerk, it is 355, and we do

[6:30:13] have a quorum sitting at the table. Thank you. Madam

[6:30:22] Mayor.

[6:30:38] Thank you for that break, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Sorry,

[6:30:43] Madam Chair. Moving on to our next section, which is

[6:30:52] B. 9. 3, recommendation report, application for zoning bylaw amendment,

[6:30:57] people care long - term care and McPherson rental housing

[6:31:00] PBS - 0. 26. 063, and Mr. Postman, as I

[6:31:05] recall, is taking that. Go ahead. Thank you. Yes, thank

[6:31:08] you, Madam Chair. So my name is Sean Postma. I

[6:31:11] am the manager of Community Planning here with The Town

[6:31:13] of Blue Mountains, and I'll be providing an overview of

[6:31:15] today's report. So this report does consider two coordinated zoning

[6:31:21] bylaw amendment applications located in Craig Leith and Grey Road

[6:31:25] 19 area. The first application is for 192 - bed

[6:31:29] three - story, long - term care home proposed by

[6:31:33] people care. This project is located, obviously, on Town Lance,

[6:31:38] directly adjacent to the Craig Leaf Fire Hall that is

[6:31:40] currently under construction. At the same time, we're also considering

[6:31:44] an application for zoning bylaw amendment from McPherson Home Farm

[6:31:48] that is proposing purpose - built rental units, which consists

[6:31:52] of 112 units on block 238, which is adjacent to,

[6:31:57] directly adjacent to the fire hall and long - term

[6:31:59] care home site, and is located on block. 238, which

[6:32:02] is part of the home farm, original subdivision lands. By.

[6:32:10] Home farm. So yeah, this report does deal with these

[6:32:14] two applications. There was a separate Public meeting that was

[6:32:16] considered at the same time for a telecommunication tower on

[6:32:19] the fire hall lands. However, that will be reviewed under

[6:32:22] a future staff report. So these applications, these two applications

[6:32:27] are being considered together, because since we first started this

[6:32:31] process, both the proponents, their project teams in the town

[6:32:34] have been working collaboratively together to advance both these projects

[6:32:38] forward. We've been having joint recurring regular occurring meetings, as

[6:32:45] well as prompt and quite coordinated responses between all parties.

[6:32:49] So there has been full cooperation between all the groups,

[6:32:52] and it has led to an extremely efficient file review

[6:32:55] while still maintaining our minimum requirements in standard requirements as

[6:32:59] part of our planning review process, Planning Act requirements, and

[6:33:03] the detailed analysis that's involved with reviewing these types of

[6:33:06] applications. These two particular sites, as described in the report,

[6:33:11] our link through much of the infrastructure, the long -

[6:33:15] term care project does rely on elements that will be

[6:33:17] delivered through the broader home farm development. And this includes

[6:33:20] things like sanitary sewer, municipal water, stormwater infrastructure, future Public

[6:33:26] Road. And in turn, the home farmlands will also accommodate

[6:33:30] certain servicing and stormwater connections also needed for the long

[6:33:33] - term care facility. Both of these properties are currently

[6:33:37] zoned development D. So they both do require a zoning

[6:33:40] bylaw amendment in order to permit the use. The People

[6:33:44] Care Long - Term Carolina's, the recommendation before you today

[6:33:47] is to rezone the property to an institutional eye zone,

[6:33:51] as well as implementing an exception and holding provisions in

[6:33:55] addition to that institutional zone. The proposed zoning, which is

[6:34:00] included as attachment to the report, would permit the long

[6:34:03] - term care home. And we'd also include site -

[6:34:06] specific provisions addressing a maximum building height of 12 metres

[6:34:10] and three stories, reducing the loading space requirement down to

[6:34:14] two, providing modified barrier - free parking dimensions, flexibility for

[6:34:21] retaining wall if required through the detailed engineering design, as

[6:34:25] well as relief from the usual requirement for frontage onto

[6:34:28] an open and maintained municipal road. For the McPherson Rental

[6:34:32] Housing Lance, the recommendation here is to rezone those lands

[6:34:35] from the development D - zone to the residential R2

[6:34:39] zone, as well as providing similar exception in holding provisions.

[6:34:43] In addition to that, residential zone, there's also a proposal

[6:34:46] to put these lands in an open space zone to

[6:34:49] recognise the OpenSpace lands associated with the remainder of block.

[6:34:53] 238. The zoning that's attached to this report here also

[6:34:59] recognises some site - specific exceptions. The first is to

[6:35:04] require that these lands be used for purpose - built

[6:35:07] rental tenure. So tying in the purpose - built rental

[6:35:11] model into the zoning. Also establishing the maximum 112 units,

[6:35:16] as well as site - specific parking and road frontage

[6:35:19] provisions. Similar to the People Care site. For both properties,

[6:35:25] there's also a holding symbol that is proposed. And the

[6:35:28] holding symbol, they do mirror each other for both sites.

[6:35:31] Essentially what it does is it prevents the construction of

[6:35:35] the principal buildings until the town is satisfied that certain

[6:35:38] works and matters are resolved and secured. So these are

[6:35:41] essentially conditions that are applied that would need to be

[6:35:44] satisfied before construction could begin. The holding provision would allow

[6:35:50] for certain limited site works, including things like pre -

[6:35:54] servicing, some early grading, and things like that. But essentially

[6:35:57] no building construction could start until that holding H is

[6:36:00] removed. I also want to note as well that both

[6:36:03] proponents McPherson and, people care, are actively working to satisfy

[6:36:07] those holding each provisions. There are two requirements. One is

[6:36:12] for a road access agreement. Uh, this is to cover

[6:36:16] off the fact that both these properties do not have

[6:36:19] frontage onto an open and maintained municipal road. So this

[6:36:22] road access agreement would just be a temporary measure to

[6:36:25] fill that void until those public roads are constructed as

[6:36:28] part of the home farm subdivision. So they are in

[6:36:31] the long term. They will be provided, so this is

[6:36:33] just a temporary fix for that. The second component to

[6:36:37] the Holy Nage is just to ensure that the necessary

[6:36:39] services are available. Uh, so there is current work going

[6:36:44] on right now. We do expect conclusion on this within

[6:36:47] the next couple of weeks, and that is just to

[6:36:49] confirm that available municipal water and sanitary sewer capacity will

[6:36:54] be available to both those sites. So as I had

[6:36:58] said, uh, both these proponents are actively working to satisfy

[6:37:01] those two requirements. And should they be satisfied before council

[6:37:04] would enact the bylaw on September 8th. Staff can bring

[6:37:08] forward a revised bylaw, removing those holy needs requirements, and

[6:37:13] provide that update to council at that time so that

[6:37:15] the most up - to - date and relevant bylaw

[6:37:18] is enacted at time of approval. Uh, The Elimination of

[6:37:23] that Holding H provision would also support a faster approval

[6:37:26] time rhyme, as it would remove the need for a

[6:37:29] future staff report, as well as Council Enactment of a

[6:37:32] holding H bylaw to lift the holding age bylaw. So

[6:37:39] the Staff Report does contain our policy review. I'm not

[6:37:42] going to go through it in a lot of detail,

[6:37:45] uh, but we have reviewed provincial policy statement Niagara Scarpman

[6:37:48] Plan, The Great County Plan, and the Town of Blue

[6:37:49] Mountains official plan. We do note that the people care

[6:37:53] site is already designated institutional, so there is no need

[6:37:56] for any official plan amendment. Uh, the key planning considerations

[6:38:00] in this review, uh, mostly deal with the compatibility with

[6:38:03] the Craig Leaf context. The proposed three - story 12

[6:38:06] - metre building is a modest increase over the general

[6:38:09] 11 - metre framework that otherwise applies to the remainder

[6:38:12] of the recreational resort area. Uh, and in this case

[6:38:16] as well, Stafford satisfied that the institutional designation, uh, the

[6:38:19] building's community serving, uh, function, the ability to address landscaping

[6:38:24] buffering and building placement through site plan review, do provide

[6:38:28] an appropriate basis to support this zoning bylaw amendment at

[6:38:31] this time. For the McPherson proposal. Um, one of the

[6:38:36] key questions that we looked at was whether block 238

[6:38:39] should be assessed as an isolated parcel, or whether it

[6:38:42] should be considered as part of the home farm broader

[6:38:45] subdivision lands. Uh, in the report, you will find that

[6:38:48] Staff's opinion is that it should be considered, uh, that

[6:38:52] block 238 should be considered within the larger home farm

[6:38:54] land base. Uh, this is because the original OLT decisions

[6:38:58] that implemented this development did anticipate development on these lands.

[6:39:03] However, no formal approvals were provided at that time. However,

[6:39:07] that block does remain part of the draft approved subdivision

[6:39:09] framework and also relies on the broader development for roads,

[6:39:13] servicing, stormwater, parks, trails, and open space. Staff also did

[6:39:19] a fresh calculation on the density. Uh, the home farm

[6:39:23] lands can accommodate up to 438 units through those calculations.

[6:39:27] Uh, so the original home farm development consists of 215

[6:39:30] units. So those units are already approved. Uh, the rental

[6:39:34] housing would increase, or provide an additional 112 units for

[6:39:38] a total of 327. And it is noted that home

[6:39:42] farm does own some additional future development lands, particularly down

[6:39:45] below the Ridge, um, that haven't been under any consideration,

[6:39:49] uh, at this time. Uh, we did have a Public

[6:39:52] Meeting on June 30th. Generally, it was positive reception, uh,

[6:39:56] to this proposal. Uh, there was a general acknowledgement for

[6:39:59] the need for both rental housing and long - term

[6:40:01] capacity within the town. Uh, a lot of questions and

[6:40:04] comments that came forward. We're focused on parking snow storage

[6:40:07] drainage access connectivity landscaping and other built form considerations. Uh,

[6:40:14] there's questions with regarding the rental housing operation and also

[6:40:18] with regards to the overall building height of the long

[6:40:20] - term care. Uh, so we have reviewed these matters.

[6:40:24] Uh, and we still continue to review a number of

[6:40:26] these matters through our site plan review process. Um, these

[6:40:30] on site considerations are generally implementation matters. Um, particularly with,

[6:40:35] uh, with regards to servicing and required onsite work to

[6:40:38] implement the project, uh, so these are continuing to be

[6:40:43] reviewed through our active site plan approval, um, submission. I

[6:40:47] can report at this time that that site plan application

[6:40:50] has been submitted and it has already completed its first

[6:40:53] round of review. Uh, so there is some additional information

[6:40:56] that has been requested by Town Staff as well as

[6:40:59] outside agencies. Uh, the primary issue still revolve around the

[6:41:03] water and sanitary capacity. And again, uh, those will be

[6:41:06] reviewed in the next couple of weeks and hopefully it

[6:41:09] can be concluded. Um, and as well, next steps after

[6:41:15] that, after the site plan would be a site plan

[6:41:18] agreement to be entered into to identify the actual works

[6:41:21] that are going to occur on those sites. Uh, and

[6:41:23] from that agreement, authorization will be available for that development

[6:41:27] to proceed to building permit and to allow construction to

[6:41:30] begin. Uh, so in summary, uh, we are of the

[6:41:34] opinion that these two coordinate applications are appropriate. They represent

[6:41:37] sound lane use planning and advance important community objectives related

[6:41:41] to long - term care. Rental housing supply, uh, and

[6:41:44] general development for the, um, Craig Leaf community. So staff

[6:41:48] do recommend that committee support this proposal in bylaw amendment

[6:41:51] for both people care as well as the McPherson home

[6:41:55] farm rental housing sites, subject to the site - specific

[6:41:58] provisions and holding conditions that have been identified in the

[6:42:01] Staff Report. I'm happy to answer any questions that committee

[6:42:05] may have. Thank you very much, Mr. Posma. Our manager

[6:42:13] POSMA and questions, okay, first of all, it looks like

[6:42:16] the Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Through Councillor Hope

[6:42:20] as chair, Sean, just to be clear on section, paragraph

[6:42:24] two of the recommended motion. Site - specific exceptions to

[6:42:28] building height, loading space retaining, all that applies to holding

[6:42:33] H54 symbol. It permits only limited site work until you're

[6:42:37] satisfied of the town satisfied. So the limited scope of

[6:42:41] work is prescriptive, I would assume, until, um, those improvements

[6:42:46] have been addressed and have been approved by, uh, satisfaction

[6:42:49] of the town. Can you just extrapolate that a little

[6:42:50] bit for me. Yes, certainly. So, uh, The Holy Nate

[6:42:55] symbol would not allow any construction of the new buildings

[6:42:57] to occur until such time as those holding age conditions

[6:43:00] are met. Uh, so those two conditions were one, confirmation

[6:43:03] of available water and sewer capacity. And number two was

[6:43:06] that temporary road access agreement in order to access that

[6:43:09] site. Uh, so those two things are currently under review

[6:43:13] and hopefully should be wrapped up shortly. Uh, if they

[6:43:16] aren't, uh, the holding H is recommended to be included

[6:43:19] as part of the bylaw. And it would allow only

[6:43:22] limited site works to occur. So this would be things

[6:43:24] like rough grading, uh, installation of, uh, some of the

[6:43:28] pre - servicing. So underground pipes, curbs load lift of

[6:43:32] asphalt. Some of those preparation works in order to get

[6:43:35] the site ready for construction, uh, by no building permits

[6:43:38] would be available until that holding H is those conditions

[6:43:42] are met in a bylaw is lifted to lift that

[6:43:46] holding H symbol. Just a quick follow up. And thank

[6:43:51] you. Thank you. Thank you to the chair for that.

[6:43:54] Um, and the confidence of Town Staffing discussions on the

[6:43:57] boots on the ground level. Do we see this based

[6:43:59] on seasonality. Being an issue or do we see it

[6:44:03] coming to fruition enough in a very near future. Like

[6:44:07] the conditions that we're talking about. Like I said, the

[6:44:12] proponents in the town are working quite quickly to try

[6:44:15] to satisfy these conditions. And if they can be satisfied

[6:44:18] before September 8th, when this, you know, potentially a bylaw

[6:44:21] could be, um, enacted by council. Uh, we would update

[6:44:25] council at that time whether they were, uh, they were

[6:44:28] completed. But in terms of time frame, yes. Things are

[6:44:31] pointing in the direction that these could be completed. Thank

[6:44:34] you. Thank you. Uh, on to Councillor Ardell. Thank you,

[6:44:40] Madam Chair. And just we've talked a lot about water

[6:44:44] and sewer, so, um, I know here that, uh, they

[6:44:48] were given written confirmation that was provided by the town.

[6:44:53] And the, oh my goodness, what's going on. Here? And

[6:44:58] so how long will that finalise then? That's my basic

[6:45:05] question. When can we get this finalised, the water and

[6:45:09] sewer? Because it's been the capacity has been allocated to

[6:45:12] them, but any works requiring, um, provided such capacity or

[6:45:17] secured through the appropriate approvals. So what other approvals are

[6:45:21] we waiting for? Go ahead, manager Cosma. Guys, thank you.

[6:45:25] So, uh, there's two components to this. One is plant

[6:45:28] capacity and available for the plant to actually receive those

[6:45:32] flows. Uh, so that piece has been confirmed. The second

[6:45:35] piece though is the conveyance system. So how do you

[6:45:37] actually get the water from the plant to the site

[6:45:40] and the sanitary from the site back to the sewage

[6:45:43] treatment plant? So it's that second part that's currently under

[6:45:46] review right now with the engineers and we're anticipating results

[6:45:49] in the next couple of weeks. Uh, so that's a

[6:45:52] critical piece that we do need to make sure, uh,

[6:45:54] is, is in place in order to be able to

[6:45:56] service, properly service both of these, uh, developments. Uh, and

[6:46:01] then to the second part of your question, the remaining

[6:46:03] pieces is the site plan approval. So this is the

[6:46:06] technical engineering design to ensure that these lands can accommodate

[6:46:10] the design that's being proposed for both of these report

[6:46:14] before you today is only dealing with the zoning framework.

[6:46:19] So establishing the land uses and some of the parameters

[6:46:22] that's related to it, but it's the site plan stage

[6:46:24] that's still active, still under review, uh, needs to be

[6:46:28] completed. Oh, so just to follow up to that then.

[6:46:34] So would they go over the ridge and then down

[6:46:39] or would they go out to 19. To Councillor Ardell.

[6:46:48] The servicing strategy is to bring both the water, uh,

[6:46:52] and the sanitary to the connections available on Grey Road

[6:46:54] 19. Thank you. Thank you Council Sardell. Now any further

[6:47:00] questions. Well, Councillor Maxwell, go ahead. Thanks. Chair.

[6:47:10] Sean, just asking something about where Councillor, Ardell, was asking

[6:47:16] about water allegations. I would assume that the fire department

[6:47:22] is prioritized above most people, most anything in order to

[6:47:27] obtain water, correct? It would be both, uh, obviously both

[6:47:36] sites will ensure that there's adequate water supply to service

[6:47:40] the sites as well as all the other related, uh,

[6:47:43] works such as firefighting and all the other water requirements

[6:47:46] that would be necessary. But, um, both sites would have

[6:47:49] to be met. As it stands right now, the fire

[6:47:51] hall commitments are already there. They're already recognised. So that's

[6:47:54] not being proposed to be taken away. Uh, the modelling

[6:47:57] work that's being done now is to make sure that

[6:47:58] in addition to the fire hall and everything else that's

[6:48:01] existing, uh, The long - term care home and the

[6:48:03] rental housing site can both be serviced. Okay. Thank you.

[6:48:11] Um, we have the motion on the screen. Are there

[6:48:13] any other questions. Printed? Thank you very much. And seconded

[6:48:19] by, sorry, now I understand why you watch me. Thank

[6:48:23] you. Um, if you could please read out the motion,

[6:48:26] um, Madam Deputy? Sure thing, Madam Chair. That Council receive

[6:48:30] Staff Report PBS 26. 063 entitled recommendation report application for

[6:48:37] zoning by law amendment, people care long - term care

[6:48:41] and McPherson rentalhous. And that Council and Actazoning bylaw amendment

[6:48:45] for the people care long - term care lands that

[6:48:47] reazones the subject lands from development de - zone to

[6:48:51] the institutional i - 161 - H54 zone provides site

[6:48:57] - specific exemptions to the building height, loading space, retaining

[6:49:01] wall, road frontage, and barrier - free parking requirements and

[6:49:05] applies the holding H. 5. 4 symbol that permits only

[6:49:09] limited site works to incur until such time as any

[6:49:13] necessary servicing and or road access improvements have been addressed

[6:49:17] to the satisfaction of the town. And that council enact

[6:49:20] is owning bylaw amendment for the McPherson slash home farm

[6:49:23] rental housing lands that rezones the subject lands from the

[6:49:27] development D zone to the residential R2 - 162 -

[6:49:31] H55 and open space OS zones, provide sites - specific

[6:49:35] exemptions to recognise purpose - built rental housing, total unit

[6:49:39] counts, minimum parking and road frontage requirements, and applies the

[6:49:44] holding H. 5. 5 symbol that permits only limited site

[6:49:48] works to occur until such time has any necessary servicing

[6:49:52] and or road access improvements have been addressed to the

[6:49:55] satisfaction of the town. Thank you. That's been moved in

[6:49:59] seconded. I see no further comments, so let's call the

[6:50:01] vote, please. Madam Deputy Clerk. That vote is open.

[6:50:24] My assist. Uh, affirmative police. Thank you. That vote is

[6:50:29] closed. Thank you. The motion is carried with all members

[6:50:32] of the committee present. We're on to the last Staff

[6:50:38] Report of this section, B. 9. 4. Information report, request

[6:50:42] for minister, zoning order, residential workforce slash rental housing 796.

[6:50:48] 060 grey road 19 PBS - 0. 26. 066, and

[6:50:53] that is manager P. S. well. Take it away, thank

[6:50:57] you. As think about it, uh, so once again, my

[6:51:00] name is Sean Postwell. I am the manager of Community

[6:51:02] Planning here with the Town of Blue Mountains, and I

[6:51:04] will be giving a brief overview on this report. Uh,

[6:51:07] so this report is with regards to a request for

[6:51:10] Council Support of a minister zoning order, or MZO for

[6:51:14] lands municipally known as 796. 060 grey road 19. Uh,

[6:51:19] the report is provided for information and direction on process.

[6:51:23] Uh, right now it does not request a decision today

[6:51:26] on whether Council supports or not support the MZO. It

[6:51:29] is really just set up what the next steps are

[6:51:33] and to receive council direction. Uh, the purpose of this

[6:51:36] report really is to provide an outline of the request

[6:51:40] that's been received, summarized Council's previous direction, provide an update

[6:51:44] on the engagement, uh, that has been completed so far

[6:51:47] with Nada Osaga Valley Conservation Authority. Identify matters requiring further

[6:51:52] review and to present five options for Council's consideration in

[6:51:56] terms of being able to move forward. Um, it's already

[6:52:00] been described. This subject property is about 9. 95 hectares

[6:52:07] in area. It's located in Craig Leith immediately south of

[6:52:11] the cross winds Boulevard Great Road 19 intersection, just south

[6:52:16] of Windfall. In the applicant is requesting Council Support for

[6:52:19] an MZ O to permit a purpose - built rental

[6:52:23] housing community intended to contribute to the supply of rental

[6:52:26] and workforce housing serving the Blue Mountain Village area, as

[6:52:29] well as the surrounding community. Uh, The Summitted Concept Plan

[6:52:34] does show approximately 612 rental apartment units at a density

[6:52:38] of 65 units per hectare. Uh, the proposal does include

[6:52:42] apartment style buildings ranging from three stories along Grailroad 19,

[6:52:47] stepping up to six stories further into the site. And

[6:52:50] also anticipates some limited resident - serving commercial uses as

[6:52:54] well as accessory uses. It is important to emphasize that

[6:52:58] the current concept plan that's been submitted with this proposal

[6:53:01] is illustrative only. Uh, if an MZO were issued, the

[6:53:05] final layout building placement, site servicing, landscaping access, parking, uh,

[6:53:10] grading and other detailed matters may change within the limits

[6:53:12] of the MZO and would further be subject to subject

[6:53:16] approvals. So Council had previously received a deputation on this

[6:53:21] request back in November of 2025. It was at that

[6:53:25] time that council directed staff to return with the Staff

[6:53:28] Report regarding potential conditional support and to engage with the

[6:53:32] NVCA before bringing that report forward. So this report is

[6:53:36] really to address that last council direction. Uh, since that

[6:53:40] time, the applicant has submitted a substantial package of technical

[6:53:43] studies. This includes planning justification, uh, draft MZO, concept plans,

[6:53:49] servicing stormwater studies, transportation, parking materials, environmental studies, housing archaeological

[6:53:55] geotechnical and other reports and studies. Uh, so full details

[6:54:00] on this application submission, including all these studies reports and

[6:54:03] plans. They have been posted to the town website. Uh,

[6:54:06] notice has been provided to the general public, uh, through

[6:54:10] the project subscribers list. Um, so anyone that's been subscribed

[6:54:13] to that, uh, webpage, uh, would have been received notice

[6:54:16] of this report in the additional information that's available on

[6:54:19] the website. Uh, at the same time, we have also

[6:54:22] just circulated all the materials to all town internal departments

[6:54:25] as well as external agencies so that they can begin

[6:54:28] their, their review. I wanted to talk a little bit

[6:54:32] in terms of, uh, The MZO itself in terms of

[6:54:35] what it does and what it does not do. Uh,

[6:54:37] so administer zoning order is a provincial zoning regulation made

[6:54:41] by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing under Section

[6:54:43] 47 of the Planning Act. So this is a zoning

[6:54:47] or a provincial regulation. So I know the question had

[6:54:50] come up earlier in terms of kind of municipality simply

[6:54:53] rescind or eliminate an MZO. And the answer is, is

[6:54:56] it can't, uh, because it's an issued provincial regulation, it

[6:55:00] does require ministers approval to rescind that MZ O. However,

[6:55:04] if the municipality, um, no longer supports that MZO or

[6:55:08] wishes to have it rescinded, a request can be made

[6:55:11] to the province, but the decision ultimately rests with the

[6:55:13] province on that. If an MZO is issued, it could

[6:55:18] establish site - specific development permissions, such as permitted uses,

[6:55:23] uh, density, building heights, setbacks, as well as the environmental

[6:55:26] protection areas. And an MZO would prevail over top oficial

[6:55:32] plan policy and other zoning bylaw requirements. Uh, so an

[6:55:36] MZ O can really accelerate the establishment of zoning permissions.

[6:55:39] However, it is not an approval for construction. All right,

[6:55:42] so even if an MZ O is issued, the project

[6:55:45] will still require a number of downstream approvals. So things

[6:55:49] such as applications for subdivision of LAN to actually, you

[6:55:52] know, divide the lands up, uh, may be required site

[6:55:55] plan approval, uh, including all the details and the technical

[6:55:57] design. Uh, so these applications, some rest with the county,

[6:56:01] some rest with the town, uh, but would still require

[6:56:04] those local approvals after an MZ 0, um, would be

[6:56:08] enacted. Uh, part of those processes as well include the

[6:56:11] detailed engineering review. Any other agreements that may be required

[6:56:16] serving agreement, uh, site plan agreements, things of that nature.

[6:56:20] Plus any other applicable permits, uh, that may be required.

[6:56:23] So these would include things like NVCA permits, uh, great

[6:56:26] County Transportation permits, as well as your standard building permits.

[6:56:32] Now the MZO decision, that ultimately rests with the province

[6:56:37] of Ontario. So the municipality, uh, does not have the

[6:56:40] authority to enact an MZO. That does rest ultimately with,

[6:56:45] with the province. However, as part of the revised MZO

[6:56:48] process, uh, municipal consultation, Public Consultation is now a requirement.

[6:56:54] Uh, so if Council were to support or not support,

[6:56:58] uh, the MZO, a Council Resolution would be required just

[6:57:02] to inform the province in terms of the municipalities position

[6:57:09] and would be taken under consideration in a provincial decision.

[6:57:13] Now we have reached out to the province regarding sort

[6:57:16] of some of the more specific details on the MZ

[6:57:19] O process. And we're looking to hold meeting shortly on

[6:57:22] that. Uh, and depending on council's direction today as well,

[6:57:25] that'll help us inform some of the questions that we

[6:57:28] will have for the province, um, sure, this application proceed

[6:57:31] forward. With regards to the NVCA engagement, that was a

[6:57:35] critical piece to Council's direction back in November. Uh, so

[6:57:39] Town Staff has been working with the NVCA as well

[6:57:42] as the county, the applicant, and as well as the

[6:57:44] applicant technical teams. Uh, so there has been substantial work

[6:57:49] that's been done now to deal with some of the

[6:57:51] NBCA matters. Some of the environmental constraints on that site.

[6:57:57] Uh, that primary focus of that work has been identifying

[6:58:00] and refining wetland boundaries, natural hazard boundaries. In order to

[6:58:07] establish a defined building envelope. Because the site does have

[6:58:10] a number of constraints on it. I was really critical

[6:58:13] to be able to complete that science on those lands

[6:58:15] in order to be able to define those, uh, lot

[6:58:18] development boundaries. Uh, The current submission does identify areas for

[6:58:23] proposed environmental protection as well as those areas that are

[6:58:27] available for development. I can report that based on the

[6:58:31] technical discussions with the NVCA and the county and the

[6:58:34] applicants team, uh, that those, uh, environmental and hazard boundaries,

[6:58:40] as shown in the current materials, generally reflect the constraints

[6:58:43] that were identified through that technical review. So those boundaries

[6:58:47] have substantially been pinned down, uh, and agreed to. Although

[6:58:51] these boundaries have not been signed off by the NBCA,

[6:58:55] uh, we will be requesting their formal review and sign

[6:58:58] off through our technical review process. And that's the normal,

[6:59:01] uh, way to get those, that final confirmation. Uh, so

[6:59:05] that confirmation will come with the review of all the

[6:59:08] other technical reports and studies that have been provided. If

[6:59:11] there are any outstanding environmental requirements, mitigation measures, permit requirements

[6:59:16] or other changes, uh, they would be identified through that

[6:59:19] circulation process. And we'll also be, uh, included as part

[6:59:23] of a future staff report to this, uh, to this

[6:59:25] council. Uh, so the Staff Report does identify some key

[6:59:29] issues requiring further review. Uh, this includes the planning framework.

[6:59:35] Just taking a look at the appropriateness of establishing these

[6:59:38] permissions by way of MZO in advance of a future

[6:59:43] secondary plan process. Uh, I'm not going to go through

[6:59:45] all of these in great detail. They are all included

[6:59:48] here, uh, on page six of the Staff Report, um,

[6:59:52] but these are sort of the critical things that we'll

[6:59:54] be evaluating as part of that, that first review. Uh,

[6:59:57] obviously looking at, uh, compatibility, uh, and community character, environment,

[7:00:02] natural hazards, uh, municipal infrastructure servicing transportation, connectivity, uh, and

[7:00:10] as well, uh, reviewing some of the housing and community

[7:00:12] benefit components. And a lot of this came out of

[7:00:16] the Public Meeting as well, but just getting, uh, further

[7:00:18] information on rental tenure, how the rental arrangements are going

[7:00:22] to work. Workforce housing objectives, long - term affordability arrangements,

[7:00:27] things of that nature. In terms of next steps, we

[7:00:31] are looking to provide notice of application. Uh, that it

[7:00:35] has been received. All the submission materials have been uploaded

[7:00:39] to the town website. And we have initiated their development

[7:00:43] review process. So all the materials have been circulated and

[7:00:48] are currently under review. Uh, following this, we are looking,

[7:00:52] uh, to confirm council's next steps, uh, in terms of

[7:00:55] the available five options. I'll discuss in a second here.

[7:00:58] Um, and that includes proceeding to a Public meeting collection

[7:01:02] of final review comments, collection of Public Input. And then

[7:01:06] ultimately preparing a recommendation report. Uh, so if we can

[7:01:10] go to the next page, uh, just to outline the

[7:01:12] five options that are available to Council. Uh, so option

[7:01:16] one is essentially to proceed on an expedited review and

[7:01:19] consultation schedule. Uh, so we have heard from the deputation

[7:01:23] today that they are looking to try to get a

[7:01:25] recommendation report within this term of council. It is a

[7:01:29] very aggressive schedule to try to achieve that as we

[7:01:32] have just received all the materials now. And, uh, we

[7:01:35] don't know yet just what may come out of that

[7:01:38] technical review of those, uh, those materials. However, having said

[7:01:41] that, there are requirements for things like a Public Meeting

[7:01:44] that could be expedited and information reports can follow after

[7:01:47] that. Um, and, um, uh, but that really would look

[7:01:53] at trying to prioritize this, uh, over any other project

[7:01:56] within the town and in the planning department's workload, uh,

[7:01:59] to be able to achieve some of these, uh, these

[7:02:01] targets. Option two is to receive the request into defer

[7:02:06] the Public Meeting to the incoming Council. So we could

[7:02:10] receive the request and defer that, uh, Public meeting to

[7:02:15] the next council. So it would be the next council

[7:02:17] that would be here in the comments that come in

[7:02:21] and be, and receive the information from the applicant and

[7:02:24] as well receive the Public comments. Um, that would delay

[7:02:29] the Public Meeting until likely December or perhaps early 2027

[7:02:33] for the earliest Public Meeting Date with the next, uh,

[7:02:36] next available council. Option three is to not support the

[7:02:41] MZO request and to not proceed with a town led

[7:02:44] public meeting. Uh, so this would communicate council's preferred process.

[7:02:51] However, would not prevent the applicant from making a request

[7:02:53] directly to the province. Uh, a resolution of Council providing

[7:02:57] the reasons for this position would be requested and can

[7:02:59] be forwarded to the province for further consideration. If an

[7:03:03] MZO request is still submitted to the province for, for

[7:03:05] consideration. Four is to proceed with a Public Meeting now,

[7:03:12] likely within this term of council and to continue to

[7:03:15] process, uh, this request for MZO through our normal planning

[7:03:20] review timelines. Likely we could hold a Public Meeting with

[7:03:24] this term of Council. However, recommendation report would likely come

[7:03:29] early 2027 at its earliest just to be able to

[7:03:32] follow our normal processing timelines. An option five, we've put

[7:03:37] in here as well, uh, is to receive additional feedback

[7:03:40] from council. If there is further direction to invite a

[7:03:44] revised phase or more limited request, uh, obviously there's some,

[7:03:48] um, there's a lot in the request that's being proposed

[7:03:51] here. Uh, so option five does allow for some council

[7:03:54] feedback at this time. Um, which we could then return

[7:03:57] back to the applicant for consideration in terms of a

[7:04:00] revised proposal. So that pretty much sums up my, my

[7:04:06] report. Um, again, we're just hoping that this report provides

[7:04:09] a clear understanding of the scope and significance of the

[7:04:12] request before our four councils'consideration. Uh, and planning staff really

[7:04:18] are seeking direction at this time from council and the

[7:04:20] preferred option in order to advance the review of this

[7:04:23] project. So that wraps up my presentation. I'd be happy

[7:04:26] to answer any questions. Thank you very much, manager Postma.

[7:04:30] I've got lots of the borders all lit up, but

[7:04:33] I think we have to do an administrative. We have

[7:04:38] to extend our working hours to, I'm going to suggest

[7:04:41] till five o'clock. And if we're shorter on time, then

[7:04:44] that's even better. So if I could place have a

[7:04:46] motion, I'll work on that. Yes. Okay. So I, okay.

[7:04:51] So I can proceed or, okay. So the first hand

[7:04:57] that was that was. Cancer porter, but she, something that's

[7:05:02] happened with my numbers. Cause it's now showing. Oh, okay.

[7:05:06] So it's Councillor McKinley then. It's first. Okay. Excuse me.

[7:05:11] Thank you, Madam Chair. It's through you to the clerks.

[7:05:15] If we could go to the bottom of page seven,

[7:05:18] I think that what is really, really, really important for

[7:05:22] all of us that are here in the chambers and

[7:05:24] those that are watching is the bottom paragraph that says

[7:05:27] Council may consider any of the following options respecting the

[7:05:30] timing and process for the MZO request. And it should

[7:05:34] be bold and metallic and big letters. No decision on

[7:05:39] support or non - support of the MZO is requested

[7:05:42] through this information report. I think that's a very key

[7:05:46] element to this. And it also is referred to again

[7:05:50] in option one, which if we can just roll down

[7:05:54] to option one, please. It says it again that this

[7:06:00] option would not bind counsel to support the MZO. So

[7:06:05] it gives us a measure to be able to carefully

[7:06:08] move forward with a planning of Public meeting or Public

[7:06:12] or us leading a Public meeting. I think it's a

[7:06:15] great idea. We can get all the input from everyone

[7:06:18] else involved. So I support that a hundred percent. Thank

[7:06:21] you. Thank you. Then I see that Council Reporter is,

[7:06:27] I'm sorry, excuse me, Madam Mayor, you're next. Thank you.

[7:06:31] Through you the chair, I have some questions for Mr.

[7:06:33] Posma in regards to the presentation that he's just made.

[7:06:37] Um, so yes, of course, we are creatures of the

[7:06:40] province. So the minister could decide to go ahead and,

[7:06:42] um, carry on with NMZO without our participation. But we

[7:06:48] can also provide conditions so we could, if I can

[7:06:52] confirm with Mr. Posma then that we could, should we,

[7:06:57] and I concur with the reading of Councillor McKinley, none

[7:07:01] of this is actually asking us to bind ourselves to

[7:07:04] a support of the MZO. But if we get through

[7:07:06] the process, whenever that is, whatever that is, when the

[7:07:10] information is in front of us, when we've heard the

[7:07:12] Public comment, if we were to outline conditions in our

[7:07:17] letter of support for the MZO, then the MZO, the

[7:07:23] minister could then reflect those conditions in the MZO. And

[7:07:27] then if those conditions were not met, would that then

[7:07:31] null and void the MZO. So let's say the minister

[7:07:36] hears there are some certain conditions that are important, like

[7:07:39] retaining the vision and it not turning into, um, chalet

[7:07:43] rentals, but that it stays true to the workforce housing

[7:07:46] that's being proposed. Um, that's just an example. Then we

[7:07:50] get down the road and something is not met in

[7:07:54] the conditions. What happens then in the minister's office at

[7:07:58] that point with the MZO. That's my question to Mr.

[7:08:02] Prosmo. Go ahead. Um, as an excellent question, it really

[7:08:08] depends on how the conditions are set up. Um, we

[7:08:11] want to make sure first and foremost that the MZO

[7:08:15] that's developed, uh, would be able to implement that proposed

[7:08:18] development. Um, because it essentially reads similar as a zoning

[7:08:21] bylaw, uh, in terms of how those lands are to

[7:08:24] be developed. So things like boundaries can't shift and some

[7:08:28] of the provisions can't shift. Uh, with regards to the

[7:08:30] conditions themselves, yeah, they would be required to be met

[7:08:33] before building permit would be, would be available. However, once

[7:08:37] those conditions are met construction can begin. That MZO does

[7:08:40] stay with those lands. However, once the construction is completed,

[7:08:44] um, you can't have conditions that would retroactively try to

[7:08:47] pull those permissions away. Um, so really the timing piece,

[7:08:52] we have to meet sort of those, those stages where

[7:08:56] either before the MZ always issued or before construction. Okay.

[7:08:59] Thank you. May have a follow up. Go ahead. Uh,

[7:09:02] thank you. Uh, that answers that provide some clarification. Thank

[7:09:06] you very much. Um, I am on the same wavelength

[7:09:10] as Councillor McKinley who is supporting option one. I would

[7:09:14] very much like to hear what members of the Public

[7:09:16] think at this point. There's been a phenomenal amount of

[7:09:19] information that's been, that's been, um, provided by both the

[7:09:24] proponent and the response of a report that's come through

[7:09:27] staff since the last time they came forward to us.

[7:09:30] And I think it was December 2025. We asked questions.

[7:09:33] I heard answers today. Yes, there will be more questions

[7:09:37] and more answers, but that's why I'm very interested in

[7:09:39] the process of Option 1 is to get to that

[7:09:41] next steps of questions and answers and input. Um, because

[7:09:46] this is a private entity that is offering to meet

[7:09:50] a community need, a desperate community need in our community.

[7:09:54] They're not asking us to build this. They're not asking

[7:09:57] us to put money into this. They're asking to walk

[7:09:59] with us in terms of the process of enabling and

[7:10:03] allowing this to happen. So I would not expect somebody

[7:10:06] to have, I would not expect somebody to have absolutely

[7:10:11] everything down on the dotted line at this point because

[7:10:15] they're at risk. They're spending time and money preparing all

[7:10:18] this documentation because they see the need in it as

[7:10:21] much as we see the need in affordable housing for

[7:10:23] workforce. So I would very much like to be able

[7:10:26] to continue this process and this dialogue. And hear from

[7:10:30] members of the Public hear more information from the proponents

[7:10:34] hear more reflection from staff and to be able to

[7:10:37] have a fulsome plate in front of us to make

[7:10:39] a decision. So that's why I'm in favor of Option

[7:10:42] 1. Thank you. Thank you Madam Mayor. On to then

[7:10:46] Council Reporter. Yes. Thank you. And through the chair. And

[7:10:53] thank you very much, Mr. Postma for this. Staff Report.

[7:10:58] So I'm undecided right now which option because I take

[7:11:03] the thing they are asking us to spend money. The

[7:11:06] infrastructure needs to be there. The infrastructure is not there.

[7:11:09] I mean, it says it's further review, but there is

[7:11:11] no, the infrastructure is not there to support 612 units.

[7:11:16] Uh, hence I asked the question today, you know, what's

[7:11:19] their skin in the game with front loading. So, um,

[7:11:24] and I went to one of the meetings. Actually, it

[7:11:27] was at the LE Shore and there was, um, maybe

[7:11:30] five people there. That were the Public. I can, I

[7:11:33] can even name who they were because there was that

[7:11:35] few. I'm not sure. I would actually, and sitting on

[7:11:39] the board member as a board member of MVCA, I

[7:11:42] want to see what they have to say. Um, cause

[7:11:45] this is, this is an interesting piece of land. And

[7:11:49] I want to make sure what's built there is done

[7:11:52] right. Um, and I have been, um, monitoring that because

[7:11:59] I go to the board, I ask, you know, have

[7:12:02] they have, has there been any discussions? Um, so, uh,

[7:12:06] regarding NBCA. So that, so there's a number of things.

[7:12:10] Because we get one public meeting, correct? Mr. Posma, right.

[7:12:15] And this is big. And I don't want another campus

[7:12:18] to care that, you know, people don't wake up one

[7:12:21] day and figure out what's going on. And I said

[7:12:23] that before when they were here, when they talked about

[7:12:26] the infrastructure and sewer, I don't want people to kilometers

[7:12:29] away realising their street's going to get ripped up because

[7:12:31] they have to put a pipe down there. Because certainly

[7:12:35] Bay Street didn't see it coming peel or Peel Street

[7:12:38] South. Nobody saw that coming, even though they were very

[7:12:41] supportive of the long - term care there. I would

[7:12:44] like to have a Public Meeting where there's less questions

[7:12:49] that still remain in this report. So the Public can

[7:12:53] ask. More questions about other things. I don't want to

[7:12:57] go and there's unknowns and the proponent is there still

[7:13:00] doesn't know. That's what I'd like to see. It is

[7:13:04] getting close to the end of term. Um, so, and

[7:13:09] I'm not sure what the delays were. Because they were

[7:13:12] here a long time ago, first time. Um, but I

[7:13:15] would like them to come and be able to be

[7:13:17] in more of a position to inform the Public. As

[7:13:20] to what's going to happen. As opposed to the Public

[7:13:23] asking them questions, which the report hasn't still been able

[7:13:26] to answer. I'm not against it. I'm just thinking there

[7:13:31] isn't just much transparency. From the proponent as I feel

[7:13:35] there needs to be. This is a big ask. And

[7:13:38] part of me that's driving this is, is this a

[7:13:40] big infrastructure ask? And we've already talked about that extensively

[7:13:43] about how much it's going to cost in debt. And

[7:13:47] everybody pays. So, um, so I would actually, I want

[7:13:55] to make sure some of these key issues are tidied

[7:13:59] up. Um, if they, I want to know if they're

[7:14:02] going to front load some of the servicing. I want

[7:14:05] it to see what MBA has to say. So people

[7:14:08] know what land is and isn't going to get built

[7:14:10] on. And, um, the environmental concerns. Cause we do. We

[7:14:15] have environment as well as housing in the strategic plan.

[7:14:20] Um, I want to have a better idea. So that's

[7:14:22] where I'm Coming from, not just a public meeting. Okay.

[7:14:24] We'll arrange it. Get it over with. I think it

[7:14:26] has to be very meaningful to the full - time

[7:14:29] residents for a variety of reasons that have been said

[7:14:32] today. So it's because in this sense, a lot of,

[7:14:38] and I'll go back to the campus of care. A

[7:14:39] lot of the visioning everything was down behind a closed

[7:14:41] door and we all know it. Because it was advertised

[7:14:43] on the presentation. It's already being done. This is an

[7:14:47] opportunity to do this one right. Have everything open, transparent

[7:14:51] questions us. So you and it's a way of managing

[7:14:54] change as well. This is changed to potential, um, part

[7:14:58] of the town. And people sometimes need to be taken

[7:15:04] through the change, but through that process, they have questions

[7:15:06] they want to have answered. And without, with the things

[7:15:11] still being vague and the Staff reported a Public Meeting,

[7:15:13] depending on when it's called, I don't think that's fair

[7:15:16] to the Public. Especially as they may have to bankroll

[7:15:19] some of the infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you, Council Reporter.

[7:15:23] And onto the Depu Mayor. Thank you, Madam Chair, through

[7:15:28] you. Uh, a couple of questions. One, has there on

[7:15:32] the 612 units, we have to remember these are be

[7:15:35] added to the tax role. And I'm not saying whether

[7:15:36] it's going to go through or not. But, um, has

[7:15:39] already been, um, requested discussion on development charges from the

[7:15:45] proponent. Uh, this time, no, there have not been any

[7:15:50] discussions on development charges. Uh, we do know that development

[7:15:54] charge Act has changed substantially in the last little while.

[7:15:57] Um, so there may be rebates or discounts, uh, based

[7:16:01] on the rental housing tenure. Thank you. And then the

[7:16:05] follow up question is I'm trying to be careful with

[7:16:08] this because we need to hear from the public, um,

[7:16:11] more than anybody on this, um, so. All the options

[7:16:15] listed just for clarity purposes. Do not bind this council

[7:16:19] or next council to support an MZO. You're looking to

[7:16:22] take it to a public meeting. Is that there are

[7:16:28] opportunities here. There's five different options, but the ones that,

[7:16:31] um, would go to a Public meeting, none of them

[7:16:34] buying. It's just, it's just having a public meeting for

[7:16:36] clarity purposes. Yeah. So three of the options are to

[7:16:43] move to a Public meeting. Uh, so that would be

[7:16:45] the next step in this, in this process. Um, option

[7:16:49] three does recognise not to support that MZO request and

[7:16:53] do not move to a Public meeting. Um, so if

[7:16:56] Council wants to take a position now in terms of

[7:16:59] not supporting that MZO, uh, there's no need to sort

[7:17:02] of continue on those, those next steps. And then option

[7:17:05] five, was the consideration for any other, um, Council sort

[7:17:11] of directed changes to the proposed plan, uh, prior to

[7:17:16] sort of finalising it and moving to a Public meeting.

[7:17:19] Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And on to Council Sardell.

[7:17:28] Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to see a

[7:17:33] Public Meeting, but I would definitely like to hear from

[7:17:36] NVCA as well. Being past chair of NVCA and sat

[7:17:39] there for eight years. I have lots of environmental concerns

[7:17:46] and different things. And we notice that on another property

[7:17:49] close to there. So, you know, we were told we

[7:17:52] couldn't do anything. So, um, I'm, I'm still, you know,

[7:17:56] hoping that we won't have those concerns, but I really

[7:18:01] would like to hear from NVCA. I really would. Um,

[7:18:05] and then have it there. So I'm surprised they've been

[7:18:07] dealing with this for a while, but sometimes the board

[7:18:10] doesn't get to hear some of the things. I've learned

[7:18:13] that from being there for eight years. Um, so that

[7:18:16] they would just proceed. But I think in this case,

[7:18:20] um, representative as Councillor Porter, I'm just wondering, are you

[7:18:25] on bi - monthly meetings now? Or sorry, Madam Chair,

[7:18:28] if I could ask that. Go ahead. If I could,

[7:18:32] if you were on bi - monthly meetings or when's

[7:18:34] your next meeting at MVCA. Next meeting is the end

[7:18:37] of September. We have two meetings. Uh, we didn't meet

[7:18:40] in July in September. And it wasn't. In the sense

[7:18:48] it's been a considerable period of time since they were

[7:18:50] here before. And I know I asked a board meetings

[7:18:56] have they been in contact and it wasn't maybe I

[7:18:58] would say until somewhat more recent. Right. Okay. To continue?

[7:19:02] Yeah. So I'm just wondering, you know, they've had this

[7:19:06] for a while. There's, you know, they do have planners

[7:19:09] and I would just like to hear from their planners

[7:19:11] because if they found something else or whatever, we need

[7:19:15] that piece of the puzzle. First. And definitely we could

[7:19:19] be going ahead with a Public meeting, but we really

[7:19:22] need that. I would just not enjoy being on the

[7:19:26] 11th hour and go, Oh, well, we found something else.

[7:19:30] And that's what really concerns me here. So, um, yeah,

[7:19:36] I'm, you know, with the Deputy Mayor, we could proceed

[7:19:39] to a Public Meeting. And I call it prices subdivision

[7:19:43] still. Sorry. I'm old school. Um, but, um, and hear

[7:19:47] what the, you know, get a Public Meeting. We need

[7:19:49] to hear what the people down there want or see

[7:19:52] or whatever. But we do need workplace housing as well.

[7:19:55] It's, everybody needs it. Um, and maybe, you know, like

[7:20:00] the way it's going to like mountain house is all

[7:20:02] step back. And, you know, the way that was developed,

[7:20:06] you know, you get some development like that. And you

[7:20:08] wouldn't see it at prices subdivisions. So, you know, and

[7:20:11] then it's a great fix for the municipality is a

[7:20:15] great fix for everybody. I'm just concerned within VCA. Not

[7:20:18] getting back to us. So those are my comments. So

[7:20:21] thank you. And I see Mr. Posma's hands up. Thank

[7:20:24] you. Go ahead, Mr. Postma. Yeah. I just wanted to

[7:20:28] clarify sort of the position of the NVCA. I can

[7:20:32] report that, uh, both the town, uh, the county, the

[7:20:35] applicant and their team and the NVCA have done substantial

[7:20:39] work right now to actually serve a. So the physical

[7:20:42] stakes in the ground delineating, you know, the wetland features,

[7:20:46] the natural hazard areas. The areas for environmental protection. So

[7:20:50] a lot of that work has already been completed. We

[7:20:54] don't receive formal sign off until a formal submission is

[7:20:57] made. And that circulated for final comment. So, you know,

[7:21:02] to try to get an NVCA formal sign off at

[7:21:04] this point, uh, is likely not going to occur. It's

[7:21:07] not until we go through the former circulation process, but

[7:21:10] I can report that in principle the NVCA is satisfied

[7:21:14] with the boundaries, uh, and a lot of the work

[7:21:17] that's already been completed. Council. Did you? Um, yes, I'm

[7:21:22] just trying to, okay. So it's a 9. 95 Hector's

[7:21:26] in how many actors is there for wetlands, sorry. Was

[7:21:30] it two? I saw it somewhere in here.

[7:21:41] I just can't find that again. Um, yeah, I just,

[7:21:44] as long as if it's been mapped out and surveyed

[7:21:48] and they've given that in principle, do we have it

[7:21:51] at writing. Do we need an MOU. At this stage,

[7:22:00] it's really to refine those boundaries, right? It is to

[7:22:03] do the science, to do the site visits, to actually

[7:22:06] stake and do the survey work to confirm those boundaries.

[7:22:09] Uh, so that work has been done. Um, it's some

[7:22:13] of the mitigations from the compensation, uh, and if there's

[7:22:16] anything else that may come out of the final site

[7:22:18] plan as well, right in terms of, the opportunities to

[7:22:22] square off things that may impact environmental protection areas, like

[7:22:26] there's some flexibility. Uh, there's opportunities for compensation. So the

[7:22:30] number of different factors that could be implemented before that

[7:22:33] final design, but all of those would require formal sign

[7:22:37] off as well as permits from Nawasaga before construction could

[7:22:41] begin. So Madam Chair, just one more question to Mr.

[7:22:44] Postman then. So price is subdivision was flooded many, many

[7:22:48] times. Um, and we've all, and we did have a

[7:22:50] lot of problems going way back. So that's been resolved.

[7:22:55] So at the back of this property, is there that

[7:22:58] much flooding back there or is it not as bad

[7:23:01] as what price of subdivision went through. Go ahead, Mr.

[7:23:08] Posma. Yeah, I don't have any of the technical details

[7:23:11] in terms of the flooding constraints. I know it has

[7:23:13] been evaluated. Price is subdivision is located. It's not directly

[7:23:18] adjacent to this site. It is a slightly removed, uh,

[7:23:21] but the flooding concerns definitely have been evaluated. Thank you.

[7:23:26] Councillor Maxwell. Thanks, Madam Chair. Well, okay. So anyway, the

[7:23:35] doubt that we need like workforce housing. I'm just trying

[7:23:41] to understand this Public Meeting. When we say Public Meetings,

[7:23:48] Sean, do we. Is it just the general neighbourhood that

[7:23:53] we invite or is it, um, all the commenting agencies

[7:23:58] and those that we have a duty to consult with.

[7:24:03] Or do consultation with me. Uh, yeah, so there's, there's

[7:24:09] a couple components to the Public Consultation. So the province

[7:24:12] has their own notice requirements on as an ERO posting.

[7:24:16] So it'll be posted there. Um, we also have Air

[7:24:19] Town Notice policy as well that we would follow. Um,

[7:24:23] so advertising in the, uh, Blue Mountains review, um, we

[7:24:27] generally would do a circulation within, uh, 400 feet of

[7:24:31] the property to adjacent landowners. Uh, as well, we do

[7:24:34] the e - blast. So we get noticed out on

[7:24:37] many, many different fronts. And again, we've got all information

[7:24:41] posted to the website. So anybody that has any interests,

[7:24:44] uh, all the information is there. They can subscribe, um,

[7:24:48] to get regular updates, uh, so we will reach out

[7:24:51] through those, those channels. Go ahead. Second question. Okay. Okay.

[7:24:57] So I'll just get a question there. Sean, what makes

[7:24:59] this property uniquely different than T's, please. And would we

[7:25:06] be able to apply for an MZ O in her

[7:25:08] own property. To the first question with regards to differences

[7:25:17] from the T's police, um, I think the similarities in

[7:25:21] terms of some of the natural hazards, it's definitely wet

[7:25:24] in that general area. Um, they are separate properties, uh,

[7:25:29] so they would have separate issues that, that would need

[7:25:31] to be reviewed based on, you know, the sites themselves.

[7:25:35] In terms of applying for an MZO on our own

[7:25:37] lands, um, it's a good question. I've never considered that

[7:25:42] one before, um, but the town does have multiple tools.

[7:25:46] Right. Uh, Council can enact bylaws itself. Um, bylaws must

[7:25:50] conform to the official plan, uh, but in MZ O

[7:25:55] has applied for by the town. I wouldn't rule it

[7:25:59] out. Well, I just, we just seem to have a

[7:26:05] little bit difficulty doing something on T's, please. So that

[7:26:08] might help us. That's all. Thank you. So before we

[7:26:12] go to a second class, if you don't mind second

[7:26:15] past, Madam Chair, I was just going to indicate a

[7:26:17] motion. I like, no, no, I like to sweep. Yeah.

[7:26:21] I'd like to speak, um, from my, for the first

[7:26:23] pass. And then we'll, we'll look at a motion. I

[7:26:26] know we have to think about time. So. As many

[7:26:30] people in the room know we had, we had a

[7:26:33] tough evening last night with the Public. There were some

[7:26:35] very clear messages that were given. And that's what's resonating

[7:26:38] with me right now. And I'm thinking that, uh, we've

[7:26:42] got some really interesting, strong components. So we first of

[7:26:46] all have the workforce housing, which of course the town

[7:26:51] wants to be working with. We have very willing and

[7:26:54] interested neighbours who want to, who want to work together,

[7:26:59] which is something that should not be taken for granted.

[7:27:02] But we have not much money. The town does not

[7:27:06] have much money, uh, for this. So we've exhausted our

[7:27:12] reserves. Uh, so as the third party of this whole,

[7:27:17] uh, project, if we want to expedite it, we've got

[7:27:22] to have help. We've got to have participation. I don't

[7:27:25] see how we can be moving forward for 612 units.

[7:27:30] And all that would be involved with the infrastructure without

[7:27:32] participation from the proponent. So to my mind, I think

[7:27:36] that has to be worked on first. And I think

[7:27:39] that that's what the public wants us to do. We

[7:27:42] before we spin the money before we move forward. Let's

[7:27:47] make sure that we have the infrastructure capability. However, that

[7:27:50] is delivered. So I'm interested in, and I want to

[7:27:55] be, first of all, very encouraging, because I think the

[7:27:58] opportunity here. But I think first of all, we need

[7:28:01] to know how much is this going to cost. So

[7:28:04] how much is it going to cost to connect to

[7:28:07] the 612 units? How much it will be proponent be

[7:28:11] willing to participate. And then from there, we get a

[7:28:16] confirmation letter from NVCA. At the same time, that doesn't

[7:28:20] stop, of course, uh, conversations going on with a proponent.

[7:28:25] Um, so I would tend to be looking at option

[7:28:29] five, which we invite a revised phased, um, not necessarily

[7:28:34] limited request, but we have a different conversation than we've

[7:28:37] had before. And I realised that there's a planning protocols.

[7:28:42] And I don't know where this one fits in. But,

[7:28:45] um, I do think that it's the only way that

[7:28:48] we can move forward. Uh, and I do, I would

[7:28:51] love to see Public Meeting, but I take Councillor Reporters

[7:28:54] point, I think a couple of members here have said

[7:28:58] we want to see what the proponent is looking to

[7:29:00] do. We've learned that the hard way. So we'd really

[7:29:05] like to see what, what, what they have in mind.

[7:29:07] So these conversations, um, need to happen. I think before

[7:29:13] we can move forward, even to a Public meeting. Because

[7:29:16] the Public is going to want to know, how is

[7:29:18] this going to be paid for. So I'm wondering how

[7:29:21] does this suggestion fit into planning protocols. Through me too.

[7:29:28] Manager Postma. Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of our

[7:29:32] planning protocols, MZ O's, there's less requirements than a traditional

[7:29:40] planning approval or planning application. However, the problem does look

[7:29:44] for, um, the municipalities direction and resolution on this matter

[7:29:50] and does suggest things like public consultation should, should take

[7:29:54] place. How that's done, uh, is up to Council in

[7:29:57] terms of how they want to complete that, that process.

[7:30:01] So to have an inform, an information meeting beforehand to

[7:30:05] have a public meeting, these are all options that are

[7:30:08] available to council. At a minimum, we would recommend a

[7:30:12] Public meeting, but it can be built on from there.

[7:30:17] Okay. I certainly didn't bring MZ Owen to my conversation.

[7:30:20] I certainly think that the MZO should be something for

[7:30:23] the new council. So whereas I'm concerned and I'm ZO

[7:30:26] lines up with the limitations on a lame council in

[7:30:29] any case. I don't think we should be making that

[7:30:31] kind of call for the next council. Uh, what I

[7:30:34] want to know is can we have these kinds of

[7:30:36] conversations that we haven't had before with proponents? So how,

[7:30:40] how, you know, we want to expedite this project. How

[7:30:42] can you help us? Otherwise, we're going to be saving

[7:30:45] for years to try and make this work, uh, because

[7:30:49] we don't have the resources to do otherwise. So is

[7:30:52] that the kind of conversation, I guess, to make it

[7:30:54] more clear. Is that the kind of conversation that the

[7:30:56] planning department would have with the proponent? And, uh, and

[7:31:01] I have no problem with the Public Meeting, but let's

[7:31:03] bring some meat to the Public Meeting. Let's bring information

[7:31:07] about the plans and how, uh, what is required for

[7:31:10] the infrastructure. So it means the town needs to say

[7:31:13] how much this is going to cost as much as

[7:31:16] it can. And at the same time, what kind of

[7:31:18] participation can be expected from the proponent in the interests

[7:31:23] of trying to move this forward as much as we

[7:31:25] can. Thank you. Team Madam Chair, I do see two

[7:31:32] potential options here. Uh, one is the standard Public meeting.

[7:31:36] Uh, it does give an opportunity for the proponent to

[7:31:39] come and present their materials, um, and, and, you know,

[7:31:43] an overview of their project, the vision, all those components.

[7:31:46] That's our normal Public Meeting process. Uh, but it kind

[7:31:50] of puts counsel in Public on the spot to be

[7:31:52] able to respond at, at that time, uh, second option

[7:31:55] is to request, um, from the developer, perhaps a deputation

[7:31:59] beforehand to provide some of that information, um, earlier on

[7:32:03] in the process, either in conjunction with a Public meeting,

[7:32:07] um, or ahead of Council deciding whether to proceed with

[7:32:10] a Public meeting. Um, but all of those of course

[7:32:13] come with their own timeframes and their own requirements. And

[7:32:18] we'll proceed as Council Cease Fit. So that wasn't quite

[7:32:22] an option. Then basically have the proponent prepare first bring

[7:32:29] the information and then have the Public Meeting? Is that

[7:32:32] where you were going? Yeah. So the two options. One

[7:32:35] was just to go straight to a Public Meeting allowing

[7:32:38] the proponent to present their materials and to receive Public

[7:32:41] comment at the same time. Or option two was to

[7:32:44] request that the applicant make a deputation beforehand allow the

[7:32:50] materials to be presented. That informing stage to occur. Uh,

[7:32:56] have the Public Meeting. Okay. Um, thank you. I know

[7:33:01] we've got a list here, but I think the second

[7:33:04] option is one of interest where we then have, um,

[7:33:09] uh, we get the information through the deputation. We can

[7:33:12] have the kind of exchange that we head today. Uh,

[7:33:15] and then from there, we can then move on to

[7:33:18] a deputation. But those are my thoughts onto my colleagues.

[7:33:21] Um, uh, Councillor McKinley. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I didn't

[7:33:28] have my glasses on. CAO, go ahead. Yes, through the

[7:33:31] chair. And just maybe some, uh, context as well. Cause

[7:33:33] I think what we've been attempting to do through this

[7:33:35] project as well is to apply or mirror as much

[7:33:38] as we can as it relates to how any other

[7:33:40] general application under the planning Act would be, uh, would

[7:33:43] be handled. So I think when we look at, especially

[7:33:46] what's available or the, the studies and the available information

[7:33:50] that we already have publicly displays on our web portal

[7:33:55] is, uh, I think we're getting pretty close as it

[7:33:57] relates to what we generally expect from a proponent, um,

[7:34:00] in terms of a complete application. I mean, that trigger

[7:34:03] point to going to a Public meeting. But that might

[7:34:05] be my question over to, may Mr. Postman can add

[7:34:08] a little bit further to that to say based on

[7:34:10] assessment of what's been submitted thus far in comparison to

[7:34:13] any other application at the town that, you know, generally

[7:34:16] speaking, we be in the place here where there is

[7:34:19] at least enough information to go to that, uh, Public

[7:34:22] meeting or if there would be a risks that Mr.

[7:34:26] Postman may identify at this point in time. Go ahead,

[7:34:30] Mr. Postman. Yeah. Just to add to that, um, I

[7:34:33] would agree. Uh, in terms of the technical studies, uh,

[7:34:36] the submission that's been made, it appears that this would

[7:34:39] be the equivalent of a complete application on a similar,

[7:34:42] you know, traditional planning application. So we do have all

[7:34:45] the information through that traditional planning route, uh, the next

[7:34:48] step would be to move to a Public meeting. Um,

[7:34:51] so that would be the normal course of action. Okay.

[7:34:57] Um, not. But I think injecting, um, somewhere along the

[7:35:03] line and they're here today. What's the offer in terms

[7:35:08] of helping us expedite the project together, uh, by assistance

[7:35:12] financial assistance with, with the infrastructure. That's my, my comment.

[7:35:20] And I actually, I think we're going to have to

[7:35:22] extend this. Yeah. So let's extend to 515, maybe 530.

[7:35:29] And if we end early. Is that OK with everyone

[7:35:31] here? I'll move that. Okay. Thank you from the Depu

[7:35:34] Mayer and I think second in a daisy council reporter's

[7:35:37] hand. And so did you say 530? Yes, 530 please.

[7:35:42] And the motion is that Council waves, the provisions of

[7:35:45] the procedural bylaw to allow the meeting to continue beyond

[7:35:48] the seven hour limit to 5 30 LPM. Moved by

[7:35:54] the Depumier, seconded by Councillor Porter. Any further discussion. Okay.

[7:36:01] Uh, let's call the boat, please. Vote is open.

[7:36:14] The vote is close. Thank you. That motion is carried

[7:36:18] 7 - 0 with all committee members present. Now Councillor

[7:36:22] McKinley. Returned. Is it okay there we go. Uh, yeah.

[7:36:29] So thank you, Madam Chair. I was just, if I

[7:36:32] put my hand up because it's getting on on the

[7:36:34] day and we needed to get to a motion, I

[7:36:36] was going to move to getting emotional on the floor.

[7:36:40] But if the more discussion going to happen, then there'd

[7:36:42] be more discussion. I just wanted to indicate that. We

[7:36:45] need to get moving on this. Certainly. And thank you.

[7:36:48] I think if we could, um, see what evolves for

[7:36:51] a motion. Appreciate that we want to get this. We

[7:36:54] want closure. Are you open for a motion or are

[7:36:56] you since you would have a discussion? I'd like more

[7:36:59] discussion. And then I'll come back to you for a

[7:37:01] motion. How's that? Um, then I've got Madam Mayor. Thank

[7:37:07] you. Um, I, well, when Councillor McKinley moves, I will

[7:37:12] second the motion for option number one. Um, my question

[7:37:15] through the chair, um, Mr. Postma or, or the CAO.

[7:37:20] But, um, is if we proceed to Public Meeting, the

[7:37:25] proponents have been sitting here all day listening to all

[7:37:27] of this input and all of this questions. They will

[7:37:31] make a presentation at the Public Meeting. It is up

[7:37:34] to their prerogative to be able to answer as many

[7:37:36] questions as early in the game as possible. So is

[7:37:42] there anything preventing them from doing that? I don't see

[7:37:44] the point of waiting for it to come back in

[7:37:47] another deputation than go to Public Meeting when they're hearing

[7:37:51] the concerns. They're hearing the questions. They're hearing the comments.

[7:37:54] They're hearing the support. They're hearing everything. Leave it up

[7:37:57] to them to be responsible to bring those answers forward

[7:38:00] in the Public Meeting. Is there anything preventing them through

[7:38:02] the chair to Mr. Potsma from doing that. Uh, the

[7:38:09] preventing them from, from doing that, no. Um, it's actually

[7:38:12] an expectation that we put on applicants that they do

[7:38:15] provide their vision, uh, and they present their, their proposals

[7:38:19] in great detail to the public and to council. Thank

[7:38:23] you. And one follow - up, please. Go ahead. Um,

[7:38:27] then also at Public Meeting, um, in the, when we've

[7:38:31] had other public meetings following the process, if between now

[7:38:37] and that Public meeting, the MVCA puts a letter and

[7:38:41] confirms what you've shared with us verbally, we can hear

[7:38:44] that at the Public Meeting as well. The agencies, will

[7:38:48] they make a presentation or will they submit? Cause I

[7:38:51] know usually we hear these agencies have responded with X.

[7:38:55] Thank you. Uh, yeah. So once a Public meeting is

[7:39:00] confirmed, we do circulate notice. And we do request comments

[7:39:03] ahead of time of that Public Meeting. Comments can come

[7:39:06] in at or after the Public Meaning as well. Uh,

[7:39:09] however, definitely with the Nautilus Saga Valley Conservation Authority. It's

[7:39:13] will be working with them to try to get those

[7:39:15] comments in time for that meeting. Thank you Madam Mayor

[7:39:19] onto Kill Supporter. Yes. Thank you. And through the chair,

[7:39:24] I just really want to go through a few logistics

[7:39:27] here. So the next council meeting is September 8th. I'll

[7:39:32] just differ to the Deputy Clerk. And the last Council

[7:39:35] meeting of this term is October 13th. October 19th. 19th.

[7:39:45] Okay. If you have a Public Meeting, you're required to

[7:39:49] give notice of 20 days. 20 days won't start till

[7:39:53] after the September 8th. And that depends how fast it

[7:39:55] gets out. Do you really think logically and given the

[7:39:59] timeframe that a report has to be in to the

[7:40:03] clerk's office in advance of an agenda release. Logistically, just

[7:40:08] looking at the math, can it be done? Because I

[7:40:12] don't think so. Staff members would like to answer that.

[7:40:18] Thank you. I can take a stab at that one

[7:40:24] because we have a quick, sorry. We have looked quite

[7:40:27] closely at the calendar in terms of what it is

[7:40:29] that we can achieve, uh, with our notice requirements. Uh,

[7:40:32] it is extremely tight. And it would mean essentially that

[7:40:35] the application as submitted is perfect and ready to go.

[7:40:39] Uh, however, depending on the scale and the number of

[7:40:42] issues or concerns or comments that we receive back on

[7:40:45] that, um, depending on how long it takes to address

[7:40:48] those, we'll obviously add to that, uh, to that timeline.

[7:40:51] Um, and really we don't know what those comments are

[7:40:53] going to be until after, uh, after we receive all

[7:40:56] the comments through that, uh, Public Meeting Notice. Okay. Thank

[7:41:02] you very much. Um, just like to have a follow

[7:41:06] - up. It appears the last Council Meeting is October

[7:41:10] 13th. Yes. Which is you've got five weeks from the

[7:41:13] next Council meeting five weeks and you have 20 days

[7:41:16] to get public notice. I don't think you can do

[7:41:20] it and get it out and get all the questions

[7:41:23] asked. And it's, and I, um, it's too tight. It's

[7:41:30] a shame the proponent come earlier. Thank you. Okay. I

[7:41:36] just want to confirm I'm hearing from my colleagues that

[7:41:40] October 13th is the day, the last date before the

[7:41:43] election. And, um, and we're hearing from the Deputy Clerk,

[7:41:47] it's the 19th. So just confirming that it's, sorry, what

[7:41:51] was it? It used at October 16th. 13th. It's not

[7:41:56] on our calendar for the 19th. 19th is empty. Is.

[7:42:03] The 11th. 12th. So we've deposed the. Time.

[7:42:14] My apologies, this, what I am looking at is incorrect.

[7:42:18] Okay. So October 13th then. So to Councillor Porter's point,

[7:42:23] there's even less time. Okay. Just to be clear, there's

[7:42:27] five weeks. To be clear. Yes. And you require 20

[7:42:30] days to release the Public Notice. 20 days. Five weeks.

[7:42:35] Is 35 days. So the, just wondering, um, nothing would

[7:42:41] stop the proponent from doing another deputation. No, I'm just

[7:42:45] saying you hold a Public meeting by timing the notices

[7:42:48] get out after September 8th Council meeting, which is 20

[7:42:51] days. Yes. Then minus the time for the next council

[7:42:55] meeting, you have 15 days to hold the Public Meeting,

[7:42:58] do the poor, get it on the agenda. Right. So

[7:43:01] the Public Meeting may be certainly a problem. Um, but

[7:43:06] if the proponent wishes to communicate with Council, they can

[7:43:09] always do that through deputation. Just want to make that

[7:43:13] clear. Okay. The Depumir. Madam Clerks on the line. No,

[7:43:18] The Clerk Clerk. Oh. Madam Clerk. Oh, yes. Oh, go

[7:43:22] ahead, Madam Clerk. Madam Clerk in the office. Yeah. In

[7:43:27] the office. You can hear me. Okay. Yes. Great. Uh,

[7:43:31] thank you through you, Madam Chair. I thought I would

[7:43:33] chime in, um, to the discussion if, okay. I'm just

[7:43:37] looking at the calendar. And yes, uh, they're the meeting

[7:43:40] date of October the 19th Council meeting date was adjusted

[7:43:43] to the 13th because it fell within the voting period.

[7:43:46] So, uh, that the Deputy Clear kid, uh, correctly corrected

[7:43:50] that date. And with respect to notice, so any recommendations

[7:43:55] made today will be considered by council at the September

[7:43:58] 8th Council meeting. So the notice policy does provide that

[7:44:03] 21 days notices required of a Public meeting. So the

[7:44:07] next Public Meeting, following September the 8th, um, is September

[7:44:11] the 29th. So that is 21 days from the eighth.

[7:44:17] So if, if today the Committee of the whole, um,

[7:44:21] recommended that Public Meeting Beheld, I'm certain that the, uh,

[7:44:26] planning department would have the notice ready to go. And

[7:44:30] as soon as if council endorsed that on the eighth

[7:44:33] of September, that notice would be released to the Public

[7:44:36] on the eighth of September. Uh, thus providing the 21

[7:44:39] days notice. And the Public Meeting could be held. Again,

[7:44:43] this is all with Council's approval. I just want to

[7:44:45] provide the information. Um, so the 21 days notice could

[7:44:49] be achieved for a September 29th Public Meeting. Following that

[7:44:55] there would have to be some grace because the next

[7:44:59] committee of the whole cycle falls the very following week.

[7:45:02] So there would have to be, um, concessions made there

[7:45:06] as to whether Council, uh, would allow the planning department

[7:45:10] to provide their follow - up staff report to that

[7:45:12] Public meeting, um, on the revised agenda. I can answer

[7:45:17] any further questions if you'd like. Thank you. I think

[7:45:21] the next question is probably for the planning department. Can

[7:45:24] you handle that schedule if it were set on September

[7:45:29] the 28th or 29th. It's a special meeting. We're set

[7:45:33] then. How would you manage that? Thank you. Uh, I'll

[7:45:39] be first to admit that it's a very, very aggressive

[7:45:42] schedule. Um, I know what the experience that we've had

[7:45:45] with even the long - term care home and the

[7:45:47] McPherson Project, which we have expedited as quickly as possible.

[7:45:52] Um, you know, it's still taking us four to five

[7:45:54] months to get through, you know, to the point where

[7:45:56] we are today. Uh, so trying to have all the

[7:46:00] cards fall exactly in place, uh, on the day is

[7:46:05] it's not impossible, but it's the closest thing. Too. Well,

[7:46:11] thank you. I'm going to continue with the thoughts from

[7:46:14] other members of the committee. So Defumir, you're up next.

[7:46:19] Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, going to Public Meeting is

[7:46:24] paramount to me because number one, the town keeps on

[7:46:27] turning, who's ever read these seven seats. It doesn't matter.

[7:46:31] The budget still goes Operation still go. Planning still goes

[7:46:34] everything still goes on. So even the Public Meeting and

[7:46:37] even we might hear the Public Meeting 200 people saying

[7:46:39] this is the worst idea in the history of the

[7:46:41] world. It's easy to make a decision. It may be

[7:46:43] more information is needed, maybe more, um, investigations. It may

[7:46:47] be more, um, input or consultation with the development team.

[7:46:53] But I see nothing wrong with going to Public Meeting

[7:46:55] because questions may arise from that Public Committee. That's the

[7:46:58] whole point of having Public Meeting is not to be

[7:47:00] prescriptive ahead of time is to get the input from

[7:47:02] the meeting saying, I'm the neighbour. I'm worried about flooding.

[7:47:05] I'm worried about the SNC or I think it's a

[7:47:07] great idea because, you know, my kids work at Foodland

[7:47:11] and they could, they could live here. And, you know,

[7:47:14] just drive 15 minutes to work. So having a public

[7:47:16] meeting, um, depending, I'm not worried about the timing because

[7:47:22] the Poeting of the Public meetings to get the Public

[7:47:24] comments. And the questions. And then you guys take them

[7:47:28] like we do every Public meeting circulate them and you

[7:47:31] might say, listen, we got a lot of concerns here

[7:47:33] or a lot of people think this is a great

[7:47:34] idea, but that's the whole point of a Public Meeting.

[7:47:37] Not what we can think of, what the Public wants

[7:47:38] to tell us. So I'm all for going to the

[7:47:41] Public Meeting. And if it, you know, in the timelines

[7:47:43] may be tight. And it may be pushed into the

[7:47:45] next Council. I don't know. But having a Public meeting

[7:47:48] without any bind you in MZ O whatsoever, just getting

[7:47:50] the input on people, whether they think that's a good

[7:47:52] idea. That's the most democratic thing I could think of.

[7:47:55] And that's the most, um, community - based thing I

[7:47:57] can think of. So I'd be in favor of scheduling

[7:48:00] the Public Meeting going ahead and see what people think

[7:48:02] and what questions they want answered to bring back in

[7:48:04] as part of the follow - up report. Is that

[7:48:06] option one then you can? That's an option one. That's

[7:48:08] option one I was thinking of. Okay. Thank you very

[7:48:10] much. Uh, and then I see Councillor Maxwell. So I'm

[7:48:14] getting ready for a motion after cancelar Maxwell. Thank you.

[7:48:17] Thank you. And yes, I'm all for Public Meeting. Um,

[7:48:21] I just like to understand something Mr. Poesmo. So when.

[7:48:27] How many comedy agencies and organisations and studies will be

[7:48:32] involved or have made available. To the Public. So they

[7:48:37] can actually have a look at this and say, Oh,

[7:48:39] I didn't know that. Oh, I'm for that. Oh, I

[7:48:42] didn't know that. Like, I think all the information has

[7:48:45] to be on the table on every site, whether it's

[7:48:48] the people who want to build or whether the agencies,

[7:48:52] the Public. So we can have an honest look at

[7:48:55] the whole thing. And the Deputy Mayor said so that

[7:48:58] everybody can make, have an opinion. With a good or

[7:49:02] bad. That's the way it works. Okay. Thank you very

[7:49:08] much Councillor Maxwell. So then, um, Councillor McKinley has expressed

[7:49:13] a wish for a motion. Madam Chair, I would like

[7:49:16] to move option one. Thank you. Okay. Option one. So

[7:49:24] that would read then direct Star. So it's option one

[7:49:28] is proceed on an expedited review in consultation schedule. Okay.

[7:49:33] So we're not going to repeat it. So is there

[7:49:36] a seconder? I think Madam Mayor, you yes, I indicated

[7:49:39] that I would second. Yes. Madam Mayor did indicate that.

[7:49:42] I think we should read out the option. Um, I

[7:49:45] will direct staff to proceed with an Accelerated review scheduled

[7:49:49] a special Public Meeting at the earlyest available opportunity. And

[7:49:53] if necessary schedule special committee of the whole and or

[7:49:56] council meetings to accommodate the applicant's requested timelines. Staff would

[7:50:00] complete circulation in return with a recommendation report and intend

[7:50:04] on completing this process before the end of this term

[7:50:06] of council. This option would not bind council to support

[7:50:10] the MZO. That's what option one reads. Um, comments on

[7:50:15] the motion. No comments. Um, I have a comment on

[7:50:20] the motion. I'm wondering if, um. As part of Staff's

[7:50:26] recommendation report that they provide some kind of estimate or

[7:50:32] a breakdown of what the infrastructure requirements would be. Uh,

[7:50:37] and, and if possible, the costs. Or, you know, roughly

[7:50:41] the costs as part of the recommendation report. I don't

[7:50:44] think it has to be enshrined in the motion. Is

[7:50:48] the mover okay with that addition. It's not in the

[7:50:51] motion. So I guess I'm, I guess I'm just suggesting

[7:50:53] it. I'm sorry. I'm, I'm, I'm trying to follow what

[7:51:00] you're making an amendment to this motion? No, I'm not

[7:51:03] doing anything like that. I'm just saying as without putting

[7:51:07] it into the motion, I'm just adding the request that

[7:51:11] the recommendation report from staff include some kind of estimate

[7:51:16] of what needs, what is required from an infrastructure perspective

[7:51:20] to, to create the subdivision or of the development. And

[7:51:28] if we could get an approximate cost. I would post

[7:51:33] that to staff if that's. OCL Smith. Oh, go ahead.

[7:51:40] Yes. Thank you, CO Smith. Through the chair. I can

[7:51:43] take a crack at the response and then maybe lean

[7:51:45] on Mr. Postman to provide any further information. But I

[7:51:48] think really, you know, with going into the Public meeting,

[7:51:51] I mean, generally when we would do is that we

[7:51:53] compile all the comments. And we'd also, and when it

[7:51:56] comes to servicing analysis, that's really fundamental to the, to

[7:51:59] the recommendation report that Staff ultimately do bring. We do

[7:52:02] know when it comes to, and this is where we're

[7:52:05] going to need to say for further understand as it

[7:52:08] relates to conditions that could be applied to any MZO

[7:52:11] is to know, you know, where are the bounds to

[7:52:13] it? And to say, I think through that recommendation report,

[7:52:16] there would always be a section pertain to water and

[7:52:19] sanitary capacity alongside, uh, any constraints that the municipality may

[7:52:23] have. And we would need to look at what the

[7:52:25] options exist as what. And one of them could be

[7:52:27] saying that it may be premature as it relates to

[7:52:30] the analysis based on what those constraints are. Or it

[7:52:33] could say that there are some further works that are

[7:52:35] required, but that's why we have a condition related to,

[7:52:40] um, certain works being completed until such a time in

[7:52:43] which permits could be issued or anything of that nature.

[7:52:45] But perhaps Mr. Postman can, can provide a little bit

[7:52:48] more, more detail to that. Now, I think that essentially

[7:52:56] covers it. It's really, um. Yeah, actually, I don't have

[7:53:00] anything else to add. Sorry, I didn't hear you. I'm

[7:53:07] sorry. I didn't have anything else to have. Thank you.

[7:53:11] Selemith provided. Okay. Thank you. Uh, and I see that

[7:53:16] the premiere has a santa through the chair, just a

[7:53:19] question. We already have a scheduled Public Meeting Set in

[7:53:22] our calendars for the 29th. So are you anticipating doing

[7:53:26] another meeting or incorporating that day? Because there's a lot

[7:53:30] luck going on with us trying to get information done.

[7:53:33] And cow meetings and that. So we already do have

[7:53:35] one. Is that the date you were shooting for? For

[7:53:37] clarity. Yes. That is correct. September 29th. Okay. And can

[7:53:42] I just have a follow - up question of something

[7:53:44] that you started? To the, this is to, through the

[7:53:47] chair to the CAO. CAO, we have 11 zones of

[7:53:49] DC availability. Um, so I guess my question would be,

[7:53:54] even if, uh, some of this in a secondary plan,

[7:53:57] but it's within the zone. I believe it's in the

[7:53:59] Craig Leith area boundary. Still, even though it's a secondary

[7:54:04] plan, it's still within one of our zones, correct? Through

[7:54:09] the chair, that's correct. Thank you. Uh, Councillor Porter. Yes.

[7:54:16] Through the chair, just building on what the Deputy Mayor

[7:54:18] said, I don't really feel an option one. We need

[7:54:20] to say if necessary schedule, special meetings. No. I can't.

[7:54:25] And if that remains, I will not vote for this.

[7:54:27] There is set dates and timelines. I'm just not going

[7:54:30] to have something else. Just pop up. Option one is

[7:54:35] for Town Clerk has confirmed it can be held on

[7:54:37] that day. So I think it's redundant to have that.

[7:54:42] Okay. Um, so then, um, so the motion itself just

[7:54:47] refers to option one. And so the gym one says,

[7:54:51] if necessary schedule is special committee of the whole and

[7:54:53] our council meetings. Okay. So you want that removed? I

[7:54:56] want it removed because it's not necessary. All right. Uh,

[7:55:00] Councillor McKinley, you're the mover. Do you agree to that?

[7:55:04] If everything is lined up fine. I'm sure that was

[7:55:07] just intentionally indentated whenever the report was written and processed.

[7:55:11] So having not known this being the second day back

[7:55:15] from the summer break. I'm sure that was just a

[7:55:17] clerical for administrative addition, correct? I'm just asking that quickly

[7:55:22] through you, Madam Chair, to the staff. Microphone. Oh.

[7:55:32] There we go. Okay. Uh. Yeah, no, that was essentially

[7:55:35] just a placeholder in case we needed that flexibility. Then

[7:55:39] that being said, Madam Chair, yes, I'm fine to remove

[7:55:41] that. Strike that small portion as it was just a

[7:55:45] placeholder. So. I'm just wondering not to take any more

[7:55:49] time, but if we're going to be winnowing things down,

[7:55:52] direct Staff to proceed with an Accelerated review, schedule a

[7:55:55] special, uh, schedule Public Meeting for September 29th.

[7:56:05] To accommodate the applicant's requested timelines. In other words, take

[7:56:10] out that whole reference. That's fine with me. Better mayor.

[7:56:15] Do you understand? Secondary, it says if necessary. So it

[7:56:18] doesn't say that it's required. So I actually don't see

[7:56:20] a problem with the wording the way that it's worded.

[7:56:24] And we've heard that the process is quite possible to

[7:56:27] do within the normal timeframe. Great. It was just, if

[7:56:31] necessary. And it's specifically says that. So a secondary, you

[7:56:35] want to keep the current wording. Yes. Okay. All right.

[7:56:40] So the motion reads, um, the official motion, I read

[7:56:44] out the entire option one, but the motion itself moved

[7:56:47] by Councillor McKinley seconded by, um, Mayor Makrosoft that Council

[7:56:52] received Staff Report PBS 0. 2, 6. 066 entitled Information

[7:56:56] Report, Request for Minister Zoning Order, residential workforce slash rental

[7:57:01] housing 796 060 grey road 19. And that Council Direct

[7:57:07] Staff to proceed with option one as identified in planning

[7:57:10] staff report PBS 0. 26. 066. So the motion stands,

[7:57:16] uh, with Councillor McKinley in The Mayor. And I see

[7:57:20] that the comments can't supporter. Yes. I have two comments.

[7:57:26] Um, one is so the wording stands that special meetings

[7:57:29] can be convened. Cause that's what option one says as

[7:57:33] identified in the report. Yeah. That's, that's how, that's how

[7:57:38] the mover, well, I don't know where the mover. The

[7:57:41] seconder is not willing to change. Okay. So I asked

[7:57:45] him, I also heard Madam Clerk say that it made

[7:57:48] the report may need to go on a revised agenda.

[7:57:52] So what I want to see when it's a revised

[7:57:54] agenda, the Public get less notice to provide written comments

[7:57:56] which are available after a Public Meeting. Which means they

[7:58:00] get it on Thursday, but legally they're not allowed to

[7:58:04] submit correspondence or a reputation or anything that's written. So

[7:58:07] I'd like that waved. So that they can submit some.

[7:58:11] Yes. Thank you. Go ahead. Start creating all that. Okay.

[7:58:19] Um, Clerk in the office. Go ahead, Ms. Giles. And

[7:58:25] my apologies, uh. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought that

[7:58:28] was directed at me. Sorry for jumping in. So yes,

[7:58:31] the Public does have an opportunity to provide correspondence in

[7:58:36] response. Um, Council Reporter is correct in that those correspondences

[7:58:42] would not be included on a revised agenda, but keep

[7:58:46] in mind that correspondence or comments in response to a

[7:58:49] Public Meeting, the comments are to be made at the

[7:58:52] Public Meeting. All of the comments are to be attached

[7:58:55] to that follow - up staff report for Council's consideration.

[7:59:01] So through the chair, I accept that, but it's always,

[7:59:05] you can always submit a written comment. And the people,

[7:59:09] if it's on the revised agenda, they would not be

[7:59:10] able to provide a written comment potentially in time. I,

[7:59:17] correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that

[7:59:19] it's ever in anywhere that the Public comment can't be

[7:59:23] submitted as correspondence to be put on the agenda. Clerk

[7:59:27] just says it has to be written and not verbal.

[7:59:30] Clerk Drows, what are your comments on that. Thank you.

[7:59:33] Um, Madam Chair. So yes, the correspondent Public comments cannot

[7:59:37] be made. That's correct. Um, verbal comments cannot be made

[7:59:40] in response to a Public Meeting Notice. But correspondence can

[7:59:43] be submitted. Now keep in mind the follow - up

[7:59:46] Staff Report, if planning is able to achieve meeting that

[7:59:50] October 6th Committee of the Whole Meeting, there is also

[7:59:54] an opportunity to provide the comments to the October 13th

[7:59:57] Council meeting when the final decision is made by, by

[8:00:01] Council, again, if we're able to meet that October 6th

[8:00:04] Committee of the Whole meeting. So the follow - up,

[8:00:07] to be clear, correspondences, Deputations, et cetera, can be submitted,

[8:00:12] but, um, it would be late for the October 6th

[8:00:16] Committee of the Whole, but there is always the October

[8:00:18] 13th Council meeting. So just to follow up through the

[8:00:21] chair regarding correspondence. So if correspondences submitted and it's on

[8:00:25] the Council agenda and it's related to the Public Meeting,

[8:00:28] can it be pulled for discussion? You're making the point

[8:00:33] that it can be. Excuse me through the chair. I'm

[8:00:36] asking in advance. Oh, I'm sorry clerk Charles. Thank you.

[8:00:42] Thank you. So in response to the question, the correspondence,

[8:00:48] the decision needs to be made through the consideration of

[8:00:50] the staff report. So if there are corresponden to the

[8:00:56] agenda regarding the Public Meeting, uh, response to the Public

[8:00:59] Meeting Notice and the follow - up Staff Report, the

[8:01:02] decision is made. When council discusses the Staff Report. Now

[8:01:09] the correspondences can be pulled and discussed, but there'd be

[8:01:12] no decision made and response to those. They would basically

[8:01:15] be received for information. Through the chair, that's fine. I

[8:01:19] just wanted to know if they could be pulled for

[8:01:20] discussion. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So we have a

[8:01:23] motion on the floor. It's been moved in seconded. I

[8:01:26] don't see any hands for any further discussion. So shall

[8:01:29] we call the boat, please? My vote is open.

[8:01:58] And that boat is closed. Thank you. That motion is

[8:02:01] carried seven nothing with all members of the committee. Here.

[8:02:05] Um, now I think we, um, are at the end

[8:02:10] of our section with the exception of Public Comet. And

[8:02:15] we hands up to if there needs to be public

[8:02:18] comment anybody wants to make a public comment at this

[8:02:20] point. Anything received, Madam Deputy Clerk? No, and I confirm

[8:02:26] that Mr. Lampre Stoffer has confirmed he does not want

[8:02:29] to provide anymore. Right. Okay. Thank you. So going once,

[8:02:35] and nobody wishes to speak confirming that going twice, going

[8:02:38] thrice. So I'm going to close Public comment and turn

[8:02:41] the agenda over to Madam Mayor. Thank you very much,

[8:02:45] Councillor Hope. So item C, new and unfinished business. We

[8:02:48] do not have any committee of Council Reports to entertain

[8:02:50] it. Item C2 is a call for any notices of

[8:02:53] motion. Are there any notices in motion? Very, very quick.

[8:02:57] I've already set them into the clerk. Okay. Uh, number

[8:03:01] one Public Safety and Public Trails. Number two, the use

[8:03:06] of soft landscaping within current and feature infrastructure projects to

[8:03:11] assist and reconstructing neighbourhood character and identity. Number three, regular

[8:03:18] inspections and maintenance of roads, bridges, and culverts to improve

[8:03:23] Public Safety, snow, assault management. The overall infrastructure preservation. And

[8:03:31] wildlife management within rural and urban areas. Okay. Thank you.

[8:03:38] Council Reporter, did you have your Andres? Yes. I just

[8:03:41] have a notice of motion regarding Bay Street Reconstruction. I'll

[8:03:44] submit it on Thursday. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else. Okay.

[8:03:50] We will continue on then. And we do not have

[8:03:53] any items added to the agenda. Our next meeting dates.

[8:03:56] The next Public Meeting is September 1st. The next Council

[8:03:59] meeting is September 8th. And then Madam Deputy published in

[8:04:02] the Agenda, it refers to the 28th and 29th. But

[8:04:06] actually our next committee, The Whole Cycle is September 14th

[8:04:08] and 15th, correct? Yeah, we do have, yeah. Metropologist. Okay.

[8:04:17] So September 14th is the next committee. The whole cycle

[8:04:21] and September 15th, which means that the emotion to adjourn,

[8:04:24] it's recommended that this committee, the whole does now adjourn

[8:04:27] at 529 p. m. to meet again on September 15th,

[8:04:31] 2026 Town Hall Council Chambers in virtually or at the

[8:04:34] call of the chair. So move, Madam Chair. Thank you.

[8:04:37] Move by Councillor McKinley. Secondary by Council Saradell. Any discussion

[8:04:42] on a German, seeing none, Madame Deputy Clerk, please call

[8:04:45] that vote. No vote is open. Please. You. Can't, sir.

[8:04:55] McKinley. Affirmative. Thank you cancel reporter. Oh, there it goes.

[8:05:06] My boa. Is closed. And that motion is carried 7

[8:05:09] - 0. Thank you very much, everyone.

COW - Operations, Planning and Building Services

Agenda

Transcript