[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.