[0:42] Call the meeting to order. Please rise for the National
[0:45] Anthem.
[1:02] True. Patriot. Love. In. Our life has. Come in. Carton.
[1:10] Brasi. Porte le. Pay. Ton. Histoire est.
[1:21] Une épo. Brilla. Expl.
[1:38] Vol. We. Stand on guard. For. Thee.
[1:49] We. Stand on. God. For. Thee.
[2:03] Roll. Call will show that all members are. In attendance
[2:07] in their seat saving accepted deputy mayor who sends his
[2:10] regrets.
[2:24] We'll now read the land acknowledgement. We will begin by
[2:27] acknowledging that the land in which we gather is the
[2:30] traditional territory of the Three Fires Confederacy of First Nations.
[2:34] Comprising the Ojibway, the Odawa, and the Pottawatomi Peoples, and
[2:38] of the Huron - Wendat and Y - N. Peoples.
[2:40] We recognise the lenses and expression of gratitude to those
[2:43] whose traditional territory we reside on and a way of
[2:47] honouring the Indigenous people who have been living and thriving
[2:50] on the land since time immemorial. We value the significant
[2:54] historical and contemporary contributions of local and regional First Nations
[3:00] and all of the original people's turtle islands. Thank you.
[3:05] See, I'm trying to be too fast. I forgot, are
[3:08] there any declarations of pecuniary interest. Any declarations. Seeing none
[3:14] okay. Then we need to report out from the -
[3:19] in - camera session, Mr. Clerk. Thank. You worship. There
[3:25] is a report out from an in - camera session
[3:26] on March 9th. It was moved at the Council enter
[3:29] into an in - camera meeting of council pursuant to
[3:31] section 239 in municipal 2001 as amended for the following
[3:34] reason. Item C, employment matter regarding identifiable employee under section
[3:40] 239 - 2B, personal matters, but identified all individuals, including
[3:43] municipal or local board employees. And council received the matter
[3:47] for information. There's a report out being camera session on
[3:50] August 8th. It was moved the council enter into an
[3:54] in - camera meeting of council pursuant to section 239
[3:57] of the Municipal Act 2001 as amended for the following
[4:00] reasons. Item A, naming rights proposal for town Parkland, under
[4:04] section 239 - 2K, a position planned procedure criteria or
[4:08] instruction to be applied to any negotiation carried on or
[4:12] on behalf of the municipality or local board. And the
[4:15] following motion is before council for consideration. Or sorry. My
[4:20] apologies. And administration was directed to proceed on the verbal
[4:23] direction of council. Item B, lease agreement for community space
[4:27] was heard under section 239 - 2F, advice that is
[4:30] subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that
[4:33] purpose. And section 239 - 2K, a position plan procedure
[4:37] criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried
[4:40] on by or on behalf of the municipality or local
[4:43] board and administration was directed proceed on the verbal direction
[4:46] of council. Item C non - viable remnant parcel land
[4:50] disposition under section 239 - 2F, advice that is subject
[4:54] to this client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.
[4:58] And section 239 - 2K, a position plan procedure, criteria,
[5:02] or instruction to be applied to any negotiation carried on
[5:05] by or on behalf of the municipality or local board.
[5:08] And the following motion is before council for consideration. Got
[5:11] to write this time, that the land's legally identified as
[5:14] part of LOT 16 concession one, part OCN Beach Reserve
[5:18] Plan 941, now designated as parts one to five, 12R27426
[5:25] in the town of Ambersburg, being non - viable remnant
[5:28] parcels as identified in the town's disposition of surplus real
[5:31] property policy and through review. Therefore be declared surplus to
[5:37] the needs of corporation and by - law 2026 -
[5:40] 051 being a bylaw to Clairland surplus in the town
[5:43] of Ambersburg be read three times and finally passed, and
[5:46] the mayor and clerk be authorized to sign same. So
[5:49] looking for a mover and seconder on that motion. Move
[5:52] by Councillor - Alert. Second by Councillor Crane. Any discussion.
[5:57] Of those in favor. Opposed that's carried. And Three -
[6:01] year - worship, I believe I said the wrong date,
[6:04] it's August 10th, sorry. I said August 8th for the
[6:07] meeting. Now I do believe before we go any further,
[6:12] I do believe there are people here. We're wondering about
[6:17] the negotiations. The other, I think it was B. Can
[6:22] anything be said, because... Yeah, okay. Your worship members of
[6:25] council, I had correspondence with John Martin today, and he
[6:30] knows I will be contacting him tomorrow to give him
[6:32] an update. Okay, just so you don't have to stay
[6:36] here all night, unless you want to. Okay, alright. Okay,
[6:43] so minutes of the previous meeting, we have two. Can
[6:49] I have a motion to receive them both? Move by
[6:52] Councillor Lair, seconded by Councillor Crane. In the discussion, all
[6:56] those in favor. Pose that's carried. Okay, there are no
[7:01] recognitions, presentations. We have three of them. The first one,
[7:04] 9. 1 is the Invest Windsor Essex and Tourism, uh,
[7:09] Windsor Essex - Peely Island, and the floor - jars,
[7:13] Gordon. Thank. You very much for your worship. It's indeed
[7:21] a pleasure to be here. I am Gordon Or, I'm
[7:24] the CEO of Tours of Windsor Essex and Invest Windsor
[7:26] Essex, and members of Council, it's great to be here
[7:29] in the town of Amishburg. I'd like to acknowledge I'm
[7:32] not alone here tonight. I'm joined by a team that
[7:34] I have The Privilege to work with every day. I've
[7:37] got Wendy Stark, Sabrina DeMarco, Joe Gonzalez, and Ed Dawson,
[7:41] they're some of my leadership team Strongbench, and again, I'm
[7:44] privileged to work with them every day. So thank you
[7:47] for this opportunity to provide Council with an update on
[7:50] the work of Invest Windsor Essex and tourism wins -
[7:53] around, as well as present the alignment recommendations completed by
[7:57] North Guide Consulting. I'll begin with a brief overview of
[8:00] the performance of both organisations before discussing the recommendations that
[8:04] are before council tonight. Next slide, please. I'll begin with
[8:08] Invest Windsor Essex. Economic development continues to be much more
[8:12] than about just attracting new investment. It's about supporting existing
[8:16] businesses. Fostering entrepreneurship and positioning Windsor Essex for future opportunities.
[8:21] Next slide, please. These performance metrics highlight another strong year
[8:25] for 2025 economic development. Invest Windsor Essex facilitated more than
[8:29] 382 million dollars in new investment, 961 new jobs, 56
[8:34] business expansions. And 86 business startups. Next slide, please. During
[8:39] the year, the Invest Windsor Essex team through our small
[8:43] business and entrepreneurship centre delivered over 1, 200 one -
[8:47] on - one consultations and 105 business support sessions with
[8:51] more than 2, 200 attendees. Next slide, please. Our communications
[8:55] and marketing efforts continue to extend well beyond our borders.
[8:59] Top visitor websites, top website visitors come from Canada, the
[9:04] United States, China, Singapore, and Germany, reflecting the international audiences
[9:08] we're reaching through our investment attraction and marketing efforts. Next
[9:11] slide, please. Looking at some of our past highlights, we
[9:14] finalised the Invest Windsor Essex New 2025 through 2028 Strategic
[9:19] Plan, providing a roadmap focused on investment attraction, business growth,
[9:23] innovation, and stakeholder communications. The region also celebrated significant investment
[9:29] and advanced manufacturing. And at the same time, we continue
[9:32] expanding beyond automotive through targeted industry diversification initiatives. Next slide,
[9:37] please. So now I'll turn to tourism Windsor Essex -
[9:41] Peley Island. Tourism continues to be a critical component of
[9:44] Windsor Essex economy and quality of life. And the work
[9:47] of Torpedoes well beyond a tracking visitors. It supports local
[9:50] businesses, promotes our municipalities and strengthens community pride. Next slide,
[9:55] please. Last year, Windsor Essex and Peely Island. Welcome more
[9:58] than 5. 1 million visitors who generated approximately 816 million
[10:03] dollars in visitors spending Tourism is a vital industry as
[10:06] it remains a significant economic generator in job creator. Next
[10:10] slide, please. Those economic outcomes are supported by highly effective
[10:14] destination marketing 2025 showed record - breaking engagement, and we
[10:18] know that awareness creates interest and interests creates visitation. Next
[10:22] slide, please. This year, our official visitor guides that was
[10:25] launched on April 23rd includes 292 tourism partners. With over
[10:30] 40, 000 printed copies distributed, and in the first two
[10:34] months, 79, 000 digital views were conducted. Next slide, please.
[10:40] More than 550 partners were featured through programs, and those
[10:43] collaboration initiatives helped drive visitation across all newness pallies. Next
[10:48] slide, please. So now I'd like to turn to the
[10:50] purpose of today's report. To earlier this year, with the
[10:53] support of both invest Windsor Essex and tourism Windsor Essex,
[10:56] PLILE and Board of Directors, we retain North Guide, and
[10:59] independent consulting firm to undertake an objective review of how
[11:02] Invest Windsor Essex and tourism Windsor SXPLAN could better position
[11:06] themselves for long - term success. So over four months,
[11:09] North Guide reviewed governance models from across Canada, organisational financial
[11:14] information. Conducted stakeholder interviews, facilitated workshops with boards and staffs.
[11:19] And these recommendations are evidence - based, practical, and designed
[11:22] to strengthen regional service delivery while building on the success
[11:26] both organisations have already achieved. Next slide, please. This slide
[11:31] captures what I believe is to be the most important
[11:33] message in the report. North Guy concluded that both organisations
[11:36] are highly respected and performing effectively. This review was not
[11:40] initiated because of financial challenges organisational shortcomings. Rather, it's recognised
[11:45] as an opportunity to build on existing strengths. The opportunity
[11:49] lies in creating stronger government structure consolidating administrative functions were
[11:53] appropriate, improving operational coordination, and reinvesting those efficiencies into expanding
[11:59] capacity. So the objective is a stronger organisation, not a
[12:03] smaller one, and any efficiencies should allow us to do
[12:06] more for the region, not less. Next slide, please. North
[12:09] Guide's first recommendation focused on governance. They recommend replacing the
[12:13] current two boards with one unified skill - based board
[12:16] of approximately nine to 11 directors. Now that board would
[12:19] be selected using a Skills Matrix to ensure expertise in
[12:23] areas such as finance, governance, legal, marketing, communications, tourism, and
[12:28] economic development. Importantly, the mayor of Windsor and the Warden
[12:32] of Essex County would continue to serve, ensuring strong, municipal
[12:36] involvement. And the mayor and the warden may each designate
[12:39] a member of their respective councils as an alternate. This
[12:41] would ensure consistent, municipal representation, and accommodate scheduling conflicts and
[12:47] other official commandments. Separate advisory committees for economic development and
[12:51] tourism would also provide that sort of specialized sector expertise.
[12:55] Next slide, please. One of the most common questions we've
[12:58] received is whether either organisations brand would disappear. And the
[13:03] answer is no. North Guide specifically recommends maintaining both investments
[13:07] or Essex and tourism wins - r - 6 -
[13:09] p - i - l as distinct business units under
[13:11] one legal parent company. Both brands have built significant credibility
[13:15] with very different audiences, maintaining those identities, protects the equity
[13:19] that we've built in those brands over many years. And
[13:22] any future consideration of branding would have occur only after
[13:25] the organisations have successfully integrated operationally. Next slide, please. The
[13:30] next recommendation focuses on shared services. So rather than duplicating
[13:35] administrative functions across the two organisations, North Guide recommends consolidating
[13:40] areas such as finance, human resources, and information technology support.
[13:44] And by consolidating these services, we create operational efficiencies. And
[13:48] any efficiencies achieved will be reinvested directly into expanding services
[13:52] and regional growth and prosperity. Next slide, please. Integration is
[13:57] much more than just governance. It's also about creating a
[13:59] shared organisational culture. North Guide recommends beginning immediately by developing
[14:04] a shared vision, mission values between both organisations. And the
[14:08] report also identifies a long - term objective of eventually
[14:11] bringing both teams together into one shared location by 2029.
[14:15] Next slide, please. North Guide recommends a careful phased -
[14:19] in implementation. Phase one then would be begin with this
[14:22] year, focusing on governance, legal structure, shared mission, vision, and
[14:26] values, and establishing the foundation for integrated growth. A phase
[14:30] two would be introducing shared services, harmonized policies, formal referral
[14:35] pathways, and greater operational alignment. And phase three, which should
[14:38] be extended through 2029, would consider shared space, a future
[14:42] brand review, and governance assessment after three years. So this
[14:46] phased in approach minimizes disruption while allowing each milestone to
[14:50] build upon the previous one. Next slide, please. Successful integration
[14:55] depends on strong communication and staff engagement. And this report
[14:59] recommends direct communication from leadership, consistent messaging to funders and
[15:03] stakeholders like yourselves, and evolving staff and designing the future
[15:06] organisation. The objective is to build a stronger organisation by
[15:10] investing in people, not reducing capacity. Next slide, please. Ultimately,
[15:15] success will be measured by two outcomes. By these outcomes.
[15:20] Success means a unified board, providing stronger strategic oversight. It
[15:23] means a streamlined operation, allowing resources to be directed towards
[15:28] programs and services. And it means staff working collaboratively within
[15:31] a shared culture built around common mission and values. And
[15:35] most importantly, it means that the region continues receiving exceptional
[15:38] service from two - trusted brands that are now even
[15:41] working more effectively together. So in closing, I'd like to
[15:45] thank the mayor and counsel for your continued partnership and
[15:47] support of both Invest Windsor Essex and tourism Windsor Essex
[15:51] Peley Island. I'd like to thank in particular and recognise
[15:54] your administration, your CAO, your deputy CAO. We recognise that
[15:58] the tone is set at the top, and Ms. Critchley,
[16:01] Ms. Osborne, do that very well. Also give a shout
[16:04] out to Jennifer him and Myrtle Donnapad. Who have continued
[16:10] to work very closely with our teams on many projects
[16:13] and initiatives. Moving forward, invest Windsor Essex and tourism Windsor
[16:17] Essex Peely Island will continue attracting investment, growing businesses, supporting
[16:22] entrepreneurs, welcoming visitors, and strengthening the long - term prosperity
[16:26] of our region. The North Guide recommendations represent an opportunity
[16:30] to build on the success and deliver even greater value
[16:33] to our municipalities, businesses, residents, and visitors. So I want
[16:36] to thank you very much for your time tonight, and
[16:38] I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have
[16:40] your worship. Absolutely. Any questions of Mr. Oar, right away,
[16:46] Cosla McArthur, then Councillor Crane. Thank you, Worship. Just a
[16:50] quick question. So have these recommendations been approved by the
[16:53] city and the county, or is that still to come,
[16:55] or where's that? Good question. Three of your worship to
[16:58] the councillor. Thank you very much. The city has approved
[17:00] the recommendations. It's going to county council on September the
[17:03] 2nd with administrative support by Administration recommending acceptance as well.
[17:08] Okay, are there any cost savings with this merger? There
[17:11] are no cost savings identified at this juncture. 2027, both
[17:16] organisations will have two separate budgets. And again, any efficiencies
[17:19] that we find internally would then be used to build
[17:22] capacity. Uh, these organisations, as you know, Councillor have been
[17:26] flat - funded for over a decade. Uh, and the
[17:28] growth. So everything costs more now. So what we're trying
[17:31] to do is find operational efficiencies and use them internally.
[17:34] Okay, looks like you might be saving some on the
[17:37] Perdium. So like, talk with me through the board structure
[17:40] again, because currently the seven political representatives on the tourism
[17:44] Wessex, Peely Island Board, two from the city, two from
[17:47] the county, the head of each. And then one, of
[17:51] course, from Peeley Island. And it sounded like there's going
[17:53] to be a lot less. And political representatives elected representatives
[17:57] are the voice of the people. So justify that new
[18:00] structure for the people of Amortsburg, who may rightly wonder
[18:04] why, you know, mayor Pru, or Deputy Mayor Gibb, or
[18:08] county representation is not on that board like it was
[18:11] in the past. Sure, through you to your worship, back
[18:14] to the councillor. So right now, uh, the tourism board,
[18:17] uh, allows for three representatives from the city. One has
[18:20] to be the mayor. Three representatives from the county, one
[18:23] has to be the warden. Uh, the city does not
[18:25] receive per DMs to attend the meetings. Uh, the county
[18:28] does. Uh, those funds, those charges are not charged back
[18:31] to our organisation. Um, we do recognise the fact that,
[18:35] uh, invest Winds only has two politicians on the board,
[18:39] meaning the heads of both councils, meaning city and county.
[18:42] So the mayor and the warden, uh, we felt going
[18:45] forward that it would be more prudent to have more
[18:47] sector expertise, uh, in both economic and tourism to be
[18:51] on the board. But then we've established these two advisory
[18:54] committees, which is really where it's going to be funneled
[18:57] up, uh, to the board. The board will be looking
[18:59] more at strategy governance, finance, uh, legal HR, all of
[19:05] those things. So there still is room for council members
[19:08] on the advisory committees for sure. And county council would
[19:12] be able to elect the mayor or the warden rather.
[19:16] And also an alternate member of county council to sit
[19:18] on that board. Okay. I thank you in just a
[19:22] final one. Um, an easier one. Probably more fun for
[19:25] you. So we've got a big festival coming up cycle
[19:27] deburg this weekend. Cycling is going gang busters in this
[19:31] town and this region with the opening of the new
[19:33] bridge. And I'm surprised it wasn't in your presentation. But
[19:35] didn't Twepi just do something really cool for bikers in
[19:38] this region and launch a new website? Yes, I like
[19:40] that question a lot better. Um, uh, definitely. We've got
[19:44] bike the bridge. ca and the Gordy Howe International Bridge
[19:47] with the multi - use path. It just opened, as
[19:49] you know, last Wednesday. It's only open eight to eight.
[19:53] And there were over 3, 400 people that transported either
[19:56] by a foot or by a pedal. Uh, on that
[20:00] day, which is just phenomenal. We received some input from
[20:03] our hotel industry on here in line saying that they've
[20:05] seen an influx and people as far away as Indiana
[20:09] are driving here and then cycling across and coming back.
[20:12] Uh, so it's been a real strong growth potential force.
[20:15] We just launched our new Bike the Bridge, uh, website
[20:19] and the trails on both sides of the border. Tomorrow
[20:22] morning, actually the University of Windsor were going to also
[20:24] be having partnering with the Great Lakes cruising coalition. And,
[20:29] um, and the, um, The Great Lakes Waterfront Trail, I
[20:33] should say, and the trans - Canada Trail on bringing,
[20:36] we've got over 200 cyclists here in the region that
[20:38] are doing all of our trails, which is excellent. Thank
[20:41] you. Council Crane. Thank you, worship. Thank you, Gordon, for
[20:46] the presentation. Uh, as you know, Ambersburg lost its largest
[20:50] employer, Diagello, uh, are you able to speak to the
[20:52] focus Invest Windstix has on Amistburg now with that loss.
[20:57] Any work that's ongoing with the town that you can
[20:59] share just to give some assurance to residents that, uh,
[21:02] that property is, you know, consistently being marketed. Yes. Through
[21:07] your worship to the councillor. Yes. Absolutely. Keenly aware. I
[21:11] know that this council has put forward your recommendations to
[21:14] the folks at the province and Diagio. Uh, we've also
[21:17] supported your number one priority by giving some of our
[21:20] money if that is the chosen, uh, project, I guess
[21:24] that they deem appropriate. We have not heard from Diaz
[21:28] or the province what they've decided that this juncture. Uh,
[21:31] but what I can tell you is my investment attraction
[21:33] team led by Jo Gonzalez and his team have been
[21:36] through the facility. We're well aware now of what the
[21:39] facility looks like. Uh, we understand that, uh, it's been
[21:42] purchased or very close to being purchased. Uh, and we've
[21:45] connected with the possible owner of the company, uh, and
[21:49] we'll continue to help market it. And now that we
[21:51] know a lot more about it and what the internal
[21:53] operations are. So we're keenly aware and we're certainly in
[21:56] lockstep with your administration and our investment attraction team. Thank
[22:02] you and to follow up on that through, you worship
[22:06] to staff. Do we have any response back from the
[22:09] province. Regarding the funding? You worship of members of council.
[22:13] No, I have, I have not heard anything back. But
[22:18] now be the right time to send a follow -
[22:20] up. But do we need a motion or is that
[22:22] something that's deaf would be able to do. The worship
[22:24] members of council I have reached out to MPP Leardi's
[22:27] office on that. So they know that we're monitoring that
[22:29] closely, but I can certainly do that again this week.
[22:33] Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Oar. Any other
[22:38] questions. And thank you to you and your team for
[22:41] coming out. Sorry you had to wait. That's okay. It
[22:44] was well worth it. Thank you all very much. Good
[22:45] to see you. All right. I need a motion to
[22:48] receive. I moved by Councillor McArthur. Second to by Councillor
[22:51] Courtney. All those in favor. Bows that's carried. Have a
[22:56] safe drive. Actually avail yourself of one of our fine
[23:01] restaurants or bars. Spend some money here. Okay. Um, next
[23:09] presentation is McGregor Lagoon EA Stantek presentations.
[23:30] Good new meeting everyone. My name's Brook Salter and I'm
[23:33] here with Zhang Lee. We're both with Stantic, The Consultant
[23:37] for this project. Uh, tonight we will be providing an
[23:41] overview. Of the municipal class environmental assessment, uh, that was
[23:47] conducted for the McGregor sewage works. And we will be
[23:51] discussing the recommended solution. Next slide, please. Uh, so this
[23:58] project was, uh, completed as a schedule C class EA,
[24:03] which follows Byze planning process. Uh, so the first phase
[24:08] identifies the problem or opportunity. Uh, the second phase identifies
[24:14] and evaluates alternative solutions. Uh, the third phase identifies and
[24:18] evaluates alternative design concepts for the preferred solution. Uh, the
[24:24] fourth phase documents findings in an environmental study report and
[24:28] then makes it publicly available. Uh, and then the last
[24:31] phase implementation of the preferred design is not included in
[24:36] this study. Uh, but the purpose of this class EA
[24:40] is to determine the preferred solution in conceptual design required
[24:44] to support future wastewater servicing demands in the community of
[24:48] McGregor. Uh, next slide, please. So some background review on
[24:55] the McGregor sewing treatment facility. Um, it is located at
[24:59] 9, 420 Walker Road. Um, it was originally constructed in
[25:03] 1982 with a treatment capacity of 560 metres cube per
[25:09] day. And then it was later expanded and upgraded in
[25:12] the early 2000s. Increasing the treatment capacity to 1127 metres
[25:18] cube per day. Historically, this facility has had strong operating
[25:23] performance and produce good effluent quality. Uh, and as you
[25:28] can see in this table, uh, here that the average
[25:32] daily flow is have increased over the past several years.
[25:36] Uh, and even, uh, has reached 89 percent of the
[25:40] facilities rated capacity in 2024. Next slide, please. Uh, so
[25:47] the treatment process starts at the influent pumping station, uh,
[25:51] located on Walker Road, uh, where it pumps Rosumage to
[25:55] the influent chamber. Uh, influent chamber, then discharges the RASU,
[26:01] which to the North end of cell one, uh, cell
[26:04] one is the large pawn located on the right in
[26:06] this figure. Uh, so the facility has three way stabilization
[26:11] PONS which provide biological treatment and help remove suspended solids
[26:18] from the wastewater. Uh, the aerators, uh, located in cell
[26:23] one to provide or to supply oxygen to help break
[26:27] down organic material. Alum is also added to cell two.
[26:32] So the middle pawn there for phosphorus removal. Uh, and
[26:36] then following treatment, uh, Theflin is further polished, uh, through
[26:41] four intermittent sand filters. And then finally, the treated effluent
[26:45] is discharged to King Creek through the facility's outfall. Next
[26:51] slide, please. Uh, so this view here shows the sanitary
[26:56] servicing area for the McGregor sewage treatment facility. The sanity
[27:02] collection system was constructed in the 1980s and serves both
[27:06] the town of Ambersburg and the town of Essex. So
[27:09] the AMSBR is located west of Walker Road and then
[27:13] The Town of Essex is located east of Walker Road.
[27:18] The sanitary collection system consists of four pumping stations. So
[27:22] the first one is the Walker Road Meme Pumping Station.
[27:26] The second one is the Du Charmling Pumping Station. Uh,
[27:29] third one, the Lucier Estates Plumpe Initiation. And then the
[27:32] last one is The Fox Glenn Pomping Station. Uh, The
[27:35] Fox Glenn Pompeon Station is located outside of McGregor. Uh,
[27:39] and therefore is not shown in this figure. But although
[27:44] Wastewater in the community is collected and directed to the
[27:48] Walker Roe main pumping Station, uh, which serves as the
[27:52] infant pumping Station for the treatment facility. Uh, next slide,
[27:57] please. So expansion is being considered because an analysis completed
[28:03] in 2018 and historical flow records indicated that the McGreer
[28:08] Sew Streetment facility was approaching its capacity limit. And also
[28:13] the town of Ambersburg and, uh, the town of Essex
[28:17] are both exploring options to accommodate future development within the
[28:21] community of McGregor, uh, so the figure here on the
[28:24] left, uh, shows potential development areas within the town of
[28:27] Ambersburg. And then the figure on the right, uh, shows
[28:31] potential development areas within the ton of Essex. Uh, next
[28:35] slide, please. So for this project, the projected feature flows
[28:41] were divided into two planning phases. Uh, the first phase,
[28:46] um, includes projected flows over the next 20 years. And
[28:50] this is estimated to be approximately 3, 252 metre cubes
[28:55] per day. And then for the second or ultimate phase,
[28:58] uh, it includes projected flows beyond the 20 year planning
[29:03] horizon. And as that's made to be approximately 5, 724
[29:08] metres cubic per day. And so the projective flows are
[29:12] made up of the existing flows, uh, flow from future
[29:16] developments within the ton of Essex and the time of
[29:18] Ambersburg. And it also includes flows from the Howard Industrial
[29:22] Area. Next slide, please. So as part of this class
[29:29] EA, um, The Feast BLG of servicing the Howard Industrial
[29:34] Area through the McGregor sewage treatment facility was evaluated. And
[29:39] based on this evaluation, uh, the preferred solution identified with
[29:43] a discharge flows from the Howard Industria to the McGregor
[29:47] sewage treatment facility. Uh, however, the servicing route remains subject
[29:51] to further review. And then the figure here on the
[29:55] right shows the lands that make up the Howard Industrial
[29:58] Area. Next slide, please. Um, so this figure here shows
[30:06] the preferred layout for the upgraded facility. Uh, so the
[30:10] influent compensation located on Walker Road, uh, would be decommission
[30:15] in a new inlet publing station would be constructed on
[30:18] site, uh, the flow would then enter new diversion chamber,
[30:24] uh, which would either direct flow to the screening and
[30:27] grip removable building or to sell one, uh, which would
[30:30] be repurposed as a wet weather flow retention PON, uh,
[30:34] to prevent overloading the treatment process during storm events, uh,
[30:39] and then, uh, The influent would then be treated in
[30:43] the new sequencing batch reactor tanks. Uh, and then any
[30:48] sledge generated during the treatment process, uh, would be handled
[30:51] in the new dewatering building. Uh, the Efflunt would then
[30:56] undergo additional treatment through the new cloth DISC filters, uh,
[31:01] followed by UB disinfection before being disturged to King Kreeka
[31:06] through the existing outfall. Next slide, please. So to account,
[31:14] uh, the future wastewater servicing demands in the community, collection
[31:18] system upgrades are anticipated. Sewer capacity, uh, analysis was completed,
[31:25] uh, to identify any sections of the collection system, uh,
[31:30] that may require upgrades, uh, as flows increase. Uh, so
[31:34] the analysis determined, uh, the upgrades are required for 18
[31:38] trunk sewers along Walker Road. Two sewers on 11th concession
[31:42] road and one sewer on middle side road. So you
[31:47] can see in the figure on the right here that
[31:49] the sewers highly didn't green have adequate capacity. Uh, the
[31:54] sewer is highlighted in yellow and orange have marginal capacity
[31:58] and the sewer is highlighted in red have exceeded their
[32:01] design capacity under ultimate flow conditions. Next slide, please. So
[32:10] pumping station upgrades are also anticipated to accommodate future wastewater
[32:15] serving demands in the community. So I've shown in this
[32:19] table, um, the walker road me compensation and the decerm
[32:23] lane pumping station, uh, do not have sufficient capacity to
[32:27] meet the 20 year and ultimate design flows. And as
[32:31] such, it's recommended that the Walker Road Pumping Station be
[32:34] replaced with a new inlet POMP station with the firm
[32:38] capacity 201. 2 litres per second and size to accommodate
[32:43] the ultimate design flow of three Enduring 22. 2 litres
[32:46] per second. And then as for the ducerm lane pumping
[32:50] session, the existing compensation is recommended to be upgraded to
[32:55] a firm capacity of 5. 6 litres per second. Next
[33:00] slide, please. Uh, so in summary, uh, the pineal probable
[33:07] cost for the proposed expansion of the McGregor sewage treatment
[33:11] facility is approximately 35. 5 million dollars. That's made cost
[33:18] for upgrade to them a great collection system is approximately
[33:22] 6. 1 million dollars. The McPumbi station is approximately 10.
[33:30] 5 million dollars. But please keep in mind that these
[33:34] are high level costs. And it would be further refined
[33:37] during detailed design or another future stage, uh, in the
[33:41] project. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, so as for next
[33:48] step, so the notice of completion was issued on June
[33:51] 25th. The next steps will include finalising the environment adult
[33:56] study report, uh, based on input received from review agencies.
[34:01] And then the report will be placed on public record.
[34:06] And then following completion of the class EA Council Direction,
[34:12] uh, will be provided as to whether, uh, implementation, uh,
[34:17] they will proceed with implementation of the recommended works. Um,
[34:21] and then next slide, please. It. Thank you for your
[34:28] time. Does anyone have been any questions. Questions. Okay. Okay.
[34:35] I was just going to say before questions. What is
[34:38] being requested here today. Is not to spend 52 million
[34:41] dollars. I heard some gasps out there. Uh, what is
[34:44] being requested is for us to approve this as a
[34:47] long - term goal. Leave it with staff and see
[34:49] if, uh, in the future some government or some somebody
[34:52] wants to assist us in paying. And also we have
[34:57] to negotiate with the town of Essex as well. So
[35:01] it's no gasp. Please. Okay. Uh, Councillor Courtney. A couple
[35:06] of questions. So we do this infrastructure provides for both
[35:10] residents on the AMSberg site and Essex. Do we know
[35:13] what percentage or stake in the game as it contributes
[35:16] to our existing lagoons and wastewater. Currently. I don't know
[35:22] the exact percentage. Off the top of my head. But,
[35:31] uh, Essex is proposing more for the future development. Uh,
[35:35] so that would, would be considered in the future. Um.
[35:42] Okay. I think rather than let's go right to Todd.
[35:47] Thank you, three, Mr. Mayor, to Councillor Courtney. Um, right
[35:50] now the town of Ambersburg manages and maintains the system
[35:55] as well as the Lagoon system as well as the
[35:57] sewer system. So the Essex residents, um, that are on
[36:02] that system pay the same sewage rates that all town
[36:05] of Ambersburg residents pay. And right now that, uh, Lagoon
[36:09] system is split about 50 - 50. It's evenly shared.
[36:13] Um, the town of Essex is a partner in this
[36:17] EA process. They are, we are splitting the cost of
[36:20] this EA 5050 with them as well. Um, and that
[36:24] gets to the point of at least, um, adopting the
[36:28] ESR as the possible, uh, forward path for future growth
[36:33] immigrer. Beyond that, any discussions of how that future growth
[36:38] is funded would be a discussion with the town of
[36:42] Essex at that time. Okay. Question, because I'm looking at
[36:45] the recommendation, it uses the word endors, not receive. That
[36:49] kind of made me ask. Why were endorsing, if we
[36:53] want to increase the ability to have more houses out
[36:57] there. But why can we not just receive this report?
[37:00] Because to me, receiving should be adequate. Your worship members
[37:05] of council, we need, um, an endorsed environmental class assessment,
[37:12] uh, for a variety of reasons. One reason is, uh,
[37:15] we need to have that if we wanted to go
[37:17] further for any grant funding. We have to have that
[37:20] endorsed by council that we have a plan and we
[37:22] have the plan on the books and ready to go.
[37:25] And what is our current capacity of our existing lagoons
[37:28] and treatment facility? What was the number? It's a big
[37:31] robust report. The existing capacity is 1127 metres cube per
[37:38] day. I mean, where are we at capacity for more
[37:40] houses right now to tie in a before we have
[37:42] to say no more houses can be built. Like what
[37:44] percentage of capacity are we at right now? We're close
[37:46] to maximum. Yeah. Yeah. I would say it's closer to
[37:50] like 80 to 90 percent of capacity right now. And
[37:53] what's the utmost threshold? Cause I know it's not 100.
[37:57] I think we talked about this a couple of years
[37:58] ago, Todd. So Todd's got the quote. Answer, okay. Through
[38:01] you, Mr. Mayor. I'll take this one, Brooke. So right
[38:03] now we have limited growth in McGregor. So, uh, in
[38:10] 2018, we did a capacity assessment that assessed that we
[38:13] had about 100 and I'll give it 140 lots of
[38:17] capacity. Those were distributed between the town of Essex and
[38:21] the town of Ambersburg at that time. Um, based on,
[38:25] uh, we did a calculation based on how many they
[38:27] had, how many lots Essex had built since the expansion
[38:31] in the 2000, which they had partnered in and how
[38:33] many Ambersburg had. And we distributed those lots. The town
[38:37] of Ambersburg right now, uh, has approximately 80 lots left.
[38:42] Those are currently committed to the, um, trails subdivision. And
[38:47] the town of Essex is pretty much used up all
[38:50] of their, uh, growth with, uh, The apartment building that
[38:54] they built behind the church as well as the expansion
[38:59] of the Ducharmelean subdivision. Okay. And looking at the mapping
[39:03] and the report on page 60, um, the rationale for
[39:07] the expansion. I'm looking at these, the red mapping here
[39:09] of future, uh, residential, what, what number of houses would
[39:14] that include by doing this kind of infrastructure? Well, redo.
[39:19] Like how many houses are we talking. Through you, Mr.
[39:24] Mayor, to Councillor Courtney. It's not, we try to do
[39:27] it based on, um, per hectar and designs of what
[39:32] we believe to be, you know, the future growth sizing
[39:35] of homes versus what, uh, some of them were built
[39:38] now. Um, the, uh, chart that was in the graphics
[39:44] earlier had a, so sort of the 20 year projected
[39:48] flows. And what it showed is that the town of
[39:50] Ambersburg feature development was about 30 percent. Of the future
[39:54] flow in the town of Essex future development was going
[39:57] to be about three three three percent. So they're, their
[40:00] growth rate is a little bit higher than ours. They
[40:02] have a little bit more land that is buildable. Um,
[40:05] but ultimately when you say 30 percent, to double the
[40:14] size housing wise of what Ambersburg has now in McGregor.
[40:17] Okay. So my last statement is obviously we got to,
[40:20] we, we had to move forward with this. And if
[40:22] it's for grant funny, you still got to figure out
[40:24] where you're going to get money. So 52 million, my
[40:26] jaw hit the floor when I looked at these numbers.
[40:27] And it sounds like it's all got to be put
[40:29] together because you need pumping stations to pump the new
[40:32] infrastructure to the lagoons, whatever. Um, is there any criteria
[40:36] for us to cap in these open lagoons right now?
[40:38] We're grandfathered with the existing system as is. Do we
[40:41] have to do anything? Are we mandated to move and
[40:43] advance this into facilities? Um, do you, Mr. Mayor, to
[40:48] Councillor Courtney, no, if we choose, if the town of
[40:52] Ambersburg or the chooses to move forward with no growth,
[40:55] future growth in McGregor, uh, depending on cost or, or
[40:59] those any other, uh, criteria, the lagoon system, as long
[41:03] as we continue to meet our effluent criteria, can operate,
[41:06] uh, imperpetuity. Uh, we have no issues out there currently
[41:10] with effluent quality. We would, in the end, we can't
[41:15] expand the lagoon system. It's at its maximum now. So
[41:18] the only really option with respect to expansion would be
[41:21] to go to, uh, treatment plant style as was identified
[41:26] in the, uh, OK. So again, I'm not, we'll endorsed
[41:29] it, I guess, based on the wording that the, not
[41:31] MCA. So we need, but we've got a capabilities of
[41:35] 50, 000 residents for our in town one. So expansion
[41:39] and growth to me, this would be irresponsible. I mean,
[41:41] if we have to stop growth in McGregor too expensive,
[41:45] the infrastructure, but, uh, I'll listen to the council members,
[41:47] but, uh, yeah. Anyhow, thank you. Councillor Pouge. Thank you,
[41:55] Mr. Mayor. Um, through you to, I believe it would
[42:00] be, uh, The planner. So, uh, why is there no
[42:05] other option offered other than the 52 million treatment plant.
[42:11] Like for example, the option for adding an additional settling
[42:16] pond. So we did consider adding additional, uh,
[42:25] lagoons. That was, uh, after an evaluation, it wasn't a
[42:29] recommended option because, uh, due to the required increase in
[42:34] capacity, um, there's not enough space on land to accommodate,
[42:40] uh, the number of pawns that we would need. To
[42:43] provide the required treatment. That scene is the ministry of
[42:49] environmental basically is another accepter, uh, pound only option. If
[42:56] you touch it upon, if we want to expand it
[42:59] has to be always more advanced treatment. Than other things
[43:06] as a broker mention is that is a limited space.
[43:12] That it is a restriction here for the, for the
[43:16] expansion options. Okay. Thank you. Is it true that it's
[43:22] just gene settling ponds have not been cleaned out since
[43:26] 2013. Three, Mr. Mayor, uh, Councillor Pouge. That is accurate.
[43:34] Um, the PONS were put in in the 1980s, early
[43:39] 1980s. Cell one, which is the main, uh, influenced cell
[43:44] was cleaned, I believe 2010 or 2007 maybe. And the
[43:48] SET PON2 was cleaned in 2013. Okay, thank you. So
[43:55] there was an additional settling pond. I understand, I guess
[43:59] you can't use that. If I'm correct, if that's correct.
[44:03] And the existing suddening ponds were cleaned. How long would
[44:09] the projected lifespan be for the ponds? And would they
[44:12] be able to accommodate, uh, residential expansion at the Howard
[44:19] Industrial Plant. Through you, Mr. Mayor, to Councillor Pouje, the
[44:26] PONS themselves, uh, with maintenance could be operated for as
[44:32] long as we can. I mean, we maintain them now.
[44:35] They've been there for closing in on 45 years and
[44:39] we would expect them to continue to operate. What we
[44:41] cannot predict is whether the Ministry of Environment will continue
[44:45] to allow it as we move forward, whether they try
[44:47] to change the effluent criteria that we currently have. Um,
[44:52] the reasoning one of the reasons why we struggle to
[44:55] add another POND for capacity is because once you, uh,
[45:00] as Dr. Lee mentioned, once you start to change your
[45:04] platform, so to speak out there, the MOE or the
[45:07] MECP, sorry, old school, the MECP will start to change
[45:11] the effluent criteria. So they want, once you look to
[45:15] expand, they're going to want to have better effluent criteria
[45:18] than you have now. And with an expanded lagoon system,
[45:21] we would struggle to meet even the criteria that we
[45:24] meet now. Um, with respect to, uh, cleaning them or
[45:30] the capacity. And I'm glad you brought up The Howard
[45:33] Industrial Zone because it was mentioned in the, um. In
[45:38] the presentation. Um, the capacity that would be required for
[45:43] the Howard Industrial Zone could not be accommodated in the
[45:46] PONS as they sit, even if we were to add
[45:49] another pond, even if it was possible. That would not
[45:51] be sufficient. Um, we estimated those flows to be in
[45:56] the range of, I think one to two thousand. I
[46:00] apologise for not knowing that number right off the top
[46:02] of my head. But in comparison, the flows that we
[46:05] would anticipate from the Howard Industrial Zone would be more
[46:08] than what the Lagoons treat now as a capacity. So
[46:13] we would almost, we would have to double the lagoons
[46:16] just to service the Howard Industrial lands. And again, with
[46:20] the land constraints that we have there, that's even if
[46:24] the MECP was favorable to that, uh, it's not an
[46:28] option for us in that area. Any other questions. Councillor
[46:35] McArthur. Just dead a question for Todd. So it's largely
[46:40] kind of flowing under the radar, what we've done over
[46:43] in golf you. But it's one of the most remarkable
[46:45] achievements, I think, like in terms of recreational infrastructure and
[46:49] livability for residents in that area. And everywhere. But those,
[46:52] when we decommissioned, you know, those lagoons, we turned it
[46:56] now into there's eucalyfer walk there and the birds from
[46:59] all over the world. It's a beautiful nature trail. I
[47:01] appreciate the two situations are a little bit different and
[47:05] that this one was going to have a treatment, you
[47:08] know, facility on site potentially down the road. But are
[47:10] there opportunities to decommission if and when those things get
[47:14] decommissioned to do what we did in golf you and
[47:16] give a little something back to the residence. Three, Mr.
[47:21] Mayor to Councillor McArthur. Yes. It absolutely would be a
[47:26] possibility to do that. Um, similar to Edgewater, we would
[47:31] save one of the cells for wet weather flow, which,
[47:35] uh, has been excellent for the edgewater system because it
[47:39] allows for that, um, the reduction of possibile flow into
[47:44] basements because it gives us that area to pump. The
[47:48] sewage, even when it can't be pumped to the main
[47:51] plant. And so we can store it. And this system
[47:53] would have the same. But if we were to decommission
[47:57] and with some fencing and other requirements, um, we would
[48:01] hopefully be able to achieve the same thing, uh, as
[48:04] we move forward with that decommissioning. Right as you say
[48:07] right now, we don't allow traffic there. But if we
[48:10] were to secure it in a similar way that we
[48:12] do at edgewater where it's fenced and that wet weather
[48:14] cell is there, but not accessible. Um, those options could
[48:18] be available in the future if this was to move
[48:20] forward. I just want to say this is, you know,
[48:24] editorializing and it's a lot of money. Uh, so I'm
[48:27] not even sort of considering it. But right there that
[48:31] land, I mean, it's adjacent to two conservation areas. I
[48:33] mean, there's already an active trail system there. Uh, the
[48:36] ATV club goes there. It would link Howard and Walker
[48:39] Road. So I mean, for the residents in that area,
[48:42] if at some point that would be a real added
[48:45] bonus, uh, to the addition of, you know, the expansion
[48:47] of infrastructure, water infrastructure for housing. But recreationally, and I
[48:53] know it's a way down the road. And it's a
[48:54] lot of money, but that could be a gem that
[48:57] comes out of all of this. Okay. Uh, any other.
[49:05] Go ahead. Real quick. Todd, it was mentioned about Howard
[49:10] Industrial. And we would have to link that within an
[49:13] ink if we started to go down this path for
[49:15] expansion. Where does the existing wastewater go with what's out
[49:18] at how our industrial right now? Mayor, do Councillor Courtney.
[49:23] There is no sanitary sewers in the Howard Industrial Area
[49:26] right now, uh, all the businesses and buildings that are
[49:29] there are on septic systems. Thank you. Any other questions
[49:35] of the presenters. Okay, well, thank you very much to
[49:40] the presenters. And I guess now I need a motion
[49:45] to, uh, to bring forward.
[49:57] Move by Councillor Crane, seconded by Kessler Pouger. We now
[50:01] have 13. 4 before us, which is the 600 pages.
[50:08] Oh, sorry. Uh, I need to vote. Yes. Okay. All
[50:11] those in favor bring it forward. Okay. Carried. Okay. Any
[50:17] questions of staff on any of this. Council Courtney. Real
[50:22] quick. Uh, endorsement. What does that require from our staff
[50:25] in regards to time efforts? We've got a lot on
[50:29] our plates right now. I don't see this happening anytime
[50:31] in the near future. So by endorsing what actively our
[50:34] staff going to be doing with grant seeking and things
[50:36] like that, or because again, dollar for dollar, we're going
[50:39] to have to find dollars to match. So is this
[50:43] worth endorsing right now? Yourship members of council. Absolutely. It
[50:47] is worth endorsing right now. Um, essentially so that should
[50:51] further grant opportunities become available. We will have that piece
[50:55] satisfied that we do have an endorsed and fully completed
[50:59] environmental class assessment. One of the steps as Ms. Psalter
[51:03] stated in her presentation was the next thing would be
[51:05] that it would all be filed appropriately with the MEC
[51:08] P and placed on the environmental register. And that's the
[51:11] final step. Um, in terms of staff time moving forward,
[51:15] um, essentially until, um, council gives us direction to move
[51:19] forward with this project. We won't be doing anything actively.
[51:22] Um, obviously whenever, um, big infrastructure grant programs are announced
[51:27] by the province or the federal government. We assessed all
[51:30] projects that are outstanding against them. And if we thought
[51:33] that this was a good match, um, that we could
[51:36] move forward with, obviously with the cooperation of the town
[51:39] of Essex, we would then bring that to council for
[51:42] consideration of further direction. And I will defer to Mr.
[51:45] Hugher, Ms. Osborne, if there are any further things I'd
[51:48] like to add. Through you, Mr. Mayor, to Council, thank
[51:52] you, CAO Critchley. Further to that, The Howard Industrial Park
[51:56] is included in this particular study as Council is aware
[51:59] we're currently in the middle of doing some work with
[52:02] our consultants to better understand how those lands can be
[52:05] developed, what sort of industry can be there. One of
[52:08] the questions that they need to provide is value for
[52:11] investment, which sanitary sewer is one of those things. If
[52:17] they come back with that information, that that can be
[52:19] value added in order for us to develop out the
[52:22] Industrial site. There are federal and provincial grants of a
[52:25] sizable nature that this being endorsed would position us to
[52:29] start to seriously look at going after those funds. Any
[52:37] other questions. Seeing none, they need a motion. Councillor McArthur.
[52:46] Recommendation. Second of my councillor Crain. Any discussion. All those
[52:52] in favor. Posed that's carried. Okay, then let's go back
[53:00] to the next. Presentation, which is number 9. 3 The
[53:06] Audited 2025 audited year and presentation.
[53:24] Go ahead, the floor is 7. 1. Hear me okay?
[53:36] So excuse me, what number are we on? It's number
[53:41] 9. 3. It's on the purple sheet.
[53:58] Okay, is there someone going to present this. Yeah, just
[54:01] confirm you can hear me, okay? Okay, sure. Go ahead.
[54:04] Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Um, so we have
[54:07] here a summary of our audit findings and the financial
[54:10] operations for the year. We had presented the full findings
[54:14] and statements to the audit and finance advisory committee on
[54:17] July 22nd. What you'll see here is a summary. The
[54:22] full audit findings and statements were included in the council
[54:24] package. So in terms of our engagement status, as I
[54:30] mentioned, we have presented the financial statements and findings to
[54:33] the audit and finance committee. Uh, we have substantially completed
[54:36] our audit procedures over the consolidated statements of the municipality
[54:41] and pending approval of our following subsequent event items. Um,
[54:45] anticipate being able to sign our independence report. So those
[54:49] items would be approval of the financial statements by cancel,
[54:52] uh, receipt of signed management representation letter that was provided
[54:56] to management today. Completion of our subsequent event procedures up
[55:00] until today's date. And then confirmation of, um, the remaining
[55:04] legal confirmations that we've sent out as of today's date
[55:08] to receive back. In terms of the scope of our
[55:13] audit, so I mentioned the full audit findings letter has
[55:15] been provided in the council package. We have audited the
[55:18] financial statements of the municipality, including the consolidated statement of
[55:22] financial position as at December 31st, 2025. They consolidated statement
[55:27] of operations accumulated surplus net financial assets and cash flows
[55:32] for the year ended, as well as the notes to
[55:34] the financial statement, including the significant encounting policies. Our audit
[55:39] was conducted in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards
[55:42] over the financial statements and financial information prepared by management.
[55:47] We have completed our procedures over the significant risk areas
[55:50] that were identified in our audit service plan and no
[55:53] issues were identified within the audit finding letter, uh, with
[55:56] respect to those procedures. We did not encounter any significant
[56:00] difficulties disagreements with management or any limitations on our audit
[56:04] work. So unless any unforeseen complications arise, our audit report
[56:10] will be an unmodified clean opinion that the financial statements
[56:13] are fairly presented in accordance with the Canadian public sector
[56:17] counting standards. Akin confirm that we remained independent throughout the
[56:21] engagement and we will issue a formal independence letter of
[56:24] the same. And then as I mentioned, we've requested that
[56:26] management provide representations of the work provided to us during
[56:30] our audit. So just some key financial statement highlights to
[56:35] make here. So you're looking at the consolidated statement of
[56:38] financial position, which is included within the financial statements that
[56:41] were uploaded. This is ASA December 31st, 2025. So a
[56:46] point in time snapshot at that date. Total financial assets.
[56:50] We're just over 90 million. Financial liabilities 75 million 545,
[56:56] 000, which led to net financial assets of 14, 548,
[57:02] 000. Non - financial assets, which consist of your tangible
[57:06] capital assets and prepaids was 300 million. Taking all that
[57:11] into account the accumulated surplus for the town was 315
[57:16] million for the year. There was a question coming out
[57:21] of the audit in finance advisory committee that I said
[57:24] I would get back to. So that will come back
[57:26] to their meeting, but just for councils, uh, understating as
[57:29] well. So the question in regards to one of the
[57:32] notes, note 17 with respect to the aging of taxes
[57:35] receivable given that that bucket was in the over 20
[57:38] days and kind of just coming back with, uh, an
[57:42] assessment of the typicalness of that presentation. So in looking
[57:46] at similar sized municipalities, um, based on similar billing cycles,
[57:52] I can confirm that anything kind of over that 90
[57:55] to 120 days, um, is consistent with a similar billing
[57:58] cycles and similar seis municipalities. Looking now at the consolidated
[58:07] statement of financial activities. So this is the operations of
[58:10] the municipality throughout 2025. Total revenues were 77 million 799,
[58:18] 000 expenses were 54 million six hundred eighty three thousand,
[58:23] which led to an annual surplus under the PSAS reporting
[58:25] standards of 23 million 116, 000. So taking that into
[58:31] account with your beginning accumulated surplus. We reconcile back to
[58:34] that same accumulated surplus we saw in the first statement
[58:37] of 315 million. The next statement is the statement and
[58:46] change in that financial assets. So this takes into account
[58:49] the annual surplus for the year and the changes in
[58:51] the non - financial assets to reconcile to the change
[58:54] in the net financial assets for the year. So starting
[58:57] out the year with 9, 174, 000 and ending the
[59:02] year with that 14, 548, 000, which we saw in
[59:06] the first page, which is your financial assets. Less your
[59:09] financial liabilities. The last statement in the package is the
[59:15] statement of cash flows. And this is a reconciliation of
[59:18] where the cash was provided or used in the year,
[59:21] taking into account your operations investing capital and financing activities.
[59:26] So again, starting the reconciliation with the annual surplus and
[59:30] looking at those provided or uses of caches, uh, whether
[59:34] that's an investing pieces for capital side of it, the
[59:38] acquisition of tangible capital assets factors in. So that's a
[59:41] decrease in cash. And then any repayments of debt or
[59:45] receipts of any debts to finance those pieces as well.
[59:48] So take it into account. So during the year, there
[59:51] was a decrease in cash over all of five million,
[59:54] which led to the ending cash balance of 63, 667,
[59:58] 000. I'll note too that the policies and no disclosures
[1:00:02] are consistently applied from the previous year and a full
[1:00:05] copy of the financial statements was provided in the council
[1:00:08] package as well. When we look to our audit recommendations,
[1:00:14] there was no significant deficiencies in internal controls that were
[1:00:17] noted. We do have a couple of best practice findings,
[1:00:20] um, around treasury management. So just for the town to
[1:00:23] continue to review their cash management strategies, um, to look
[1:00:26] at any excess cache, again, looking at kind of future
[1:00:30] funding projects that are coming up or investing opportunities as
[1:00:34] well. And then on the reserve side, again, just to
[1:00:38] continue to monitor for sufficiency for upcoming projects, the funds
[1:00:42] that have been set away to finance those pieces. Um,
[1:00:45] so again, no significant deficiencies were noted, but just some
[1:00:48] best practice considerations around those pieces. In terms of our
[1:00:55] unadjusted differences, uh, there was three that were noted here
[1:00:58] that management has signed off as part of the engagement.
[1:01:02] These do not come to our bar of materiality so
[1:01:05] they don't impact our opinion given that they were approved.
[1:01:09] The first one is an estimate of potential matters that
[1:01:13] recovered by insurance or any deductibles in those regards on
[1:01:17] going operations within the normal course of business. The second
[1:01:21] tier just relate to the timing difference of when the
[1:01:23] Essex dividends is recorded on the cache basis. Whereas we
[1:01:26] would look to the accrual basis for, for PSA. But
[1:01:29] as you can see, those amounts are quite similar there.
[1:01:32] So overall, uh, the total impact of those unadjusted items
[1:01:36] that were approved by management is 165, 000. Lastly, just
[1:01:42] a piece that's update. So just providing more details around
[1:01:46] the update. The counting standard that is coming for fiscal
[1:01:49] year ends beginning, honour, after April 1st, 2026, early adoption
[1:01:54] is permitted, but we are expecting to see, um, it
[1:01:57] will be permitted when it, they come out with the
[1:02:01] fear there. Um, in terms of the changes, the financial
[1:02:05] statement of financial position, uh, is expected to have some
[1:02:08] presentation changes, but overall no significant changes to any of
[1:02:11] the anal surplus or accumulated surplus that's been reported. With
[1:02:17] that, I will open it up to any questions. Are
[1:02:21] there any questions. Any questions. Seeing none. So thank you
[1:02:27] very much for your report. Thank you. And, uh, I
[1:02:33] need a motion now to bring forward 11. 3. Moved
[1:02:38] by Councillor McArthur, seconded by. Councillor Pouger. Uh, any discussion.
[1:02:45] All those in favor. Opposed. That's carried. Okay. So 11.
[1:02:53] 3 is the year end. Reporting audited consolidated financial statements.
[1:02:59] Any questions of staff, uh, Councillor McArthur. Thank you. Deputy
[1:03:07] CAO or the CAO. You know, I was always a
[1:03:11] words guy. Not at not, not a numbers guy, but
[1:03:13] when I read that, I pull a lot of positives
[1:03:15] out of that, uh, net financial assets increased. From 9.
[1:03:19] 2 to 14. 5 million municipal that declined by about
[1:03:23] 2. 1 million or nine percent. Capital assets up. And
[1:03:28] despite all our capital investment, we still had reserves and
[1:03:31] reserve funds of about 45 million. So taken together, does
[1:03:37] that suggest our financial, uh, position is improving. Council. I'll
[1:03:43] certainly defer to, uh, the deputy CIO and also to,
[1:03:46] uh, Mr. Mancina, who is our, uh, financial consultant. Um,
[1:03:50] but yes, absolutely. Um, all of the indicators are moving
[1:03:54] in the appropriate direction. And I would say this is
[1:03:57] probably the strongest set of financial statements that we've had
[1:04:01] certainly in this term of council. I also think that
[1:04:03] the improved financial planning that we've implemented in terms of
[1:04:07] moving forward with the seven year capital plan has helped
[1:04:10] us to more appropriately plan and stage our projects and
[1:04:15] move slowly to a pay as you go model, as
[1:04:18] you all know, we've done that with, uh, the new
[1:04:20] fire truck that will be purchasing. It's also helped us
[1:04:23] to be able to fund some of our ongoing projects
[1:04:28] as they are ongoing. And we've delayed the need to
[1:04:31] issue debt. And until it was absolutely necessary. So that's
[1:04:35] also another positive. So yes, I would say that this
[1:04:37] is a good news story. And I will deter to
[1:04:41] the CIO or to Mr. Mancini if they have anything
[1:04:43] else to add. Through your worship, uh, to, uh, I
[1:04:52] would comment similarly to the CAO that certainly this financial
[1:04:55] statement and the results do demonstrate a very strong financial
[1:04:59] profile. I think I've seen in my work here, looking
[1:05:02] back at some of the financials. And I think Ms.
[1:05:04] Osborne did present a presentation a couple of meetings ago
[1:05:09] was relates to some other relevant financial indicators. And if
[1:05:12] you compare accumulated surplus, uh, total cash, total financial assets,
[1:05:17] net financial assets. And you compare, for example, 2017 even
[1:05:21] to 2025. You see dramatic improvements in the financial profile
[1:05:25] of the municipality. And so, yes, very much, uh, councillor
[1:05:29] McArthur, I think your comments are very much in line
[1:05:33] with what you're seeing in terms of these financial statements.
[1:05:35] The other thing that I would highlight as well is,
[1:05:38] um, we do get a financial indicators report from the
[1:05:40] province, municipality does get one every year. Uh, and in
[1:05:44] the last financial indicators report, uh, The Municipality had a
[1:05:49] low risk indicator, a low risk across all indicators, both
[1:05:53] financial and sustainability. And that is a market improvement from
[1:05:56] like 2017. So all things are moving in the right
[1:05:59] direction. Okay. Thank you. I've got a couple of follow
[1:06:02] - ups. So one, am I reading it correctly that
[1:06:05] because we sort of have cash on hand to internally
[1:06:08] finance, you know, some big ticket projects, fire station, water
[1:06:12] treatment plant that we saved between 1. 3 and 1.
[1:06:15] 5 million in interest. True, Mr. Mayor, two members of
[1:06:19] council. Yes. Our ability to fund those projects rather than
[1:06:24] issuing debt right from the start based on our cash
[1:06:27] flow and our reserve levels was projected at about a
[1:06:30] 1. 4 million dollar cost avoidance in interest charges. Okay.
[1:06:36] Um, and then we just heard the auditor talk about,
[1:06:38] they found no significant deficiencies and internal controls. No issues
[1:06:42] identified. Uh, in their testing of significant risk areas, um,
[1:06:48] so is it fair, I guess, for the public to
[1:06:52] take some, some reassurance from those findings. Through you, Mr.
[1:06:58] Mayor, two members of council, I would say yes, understanding
[1:07:02] that these audit procedures, uh, only go so far in
[1:07:06] depth when they do their audit for those litmus tests
[1:07:09] around those sorts of things. However, I certainly defer to,
[1:07:13] I believe she is still online. She is, Ashley, if
[1:07:15] you want to comment further around that. And certainly Mr.
[1:07:19] Mansina, based on your 40 years of municipal audits, what
[1:07:23] you have seen around those things as well. Yep. Happy
[1:07:30] to comment from our perspective there. Um, As Ms. Bourne.
[1:07:34] Osborne mentioned we do a RESPE audit targeted to the
[1:07:37] RESP - sections. No findings in that regard, no significant
[1:07:41] findings on the internal controls. Uh, we haven't done a
[1:07:44] deep dive on the internal controls more so from reviewing
[1:07:47] the processes and procedures, uh, but for what we're, we're
[1:07:50] seeing there. So I do think from that perspective, um,
[1:07:54] that we've looked at it with an independent lens, um,
[1:07:57] that there's assurance to be gained there. Okay. Thank you
[1:08:01] for that. And just one more. I've got one final
[1:08:03] question. And actually I would appreciate Mr. Mancina's perspective on
[1:08:07] this because he's been around the block. He's been in
[1:08:09] different missing paladies. And also, you know, our staff as
[1:08:13] well. But reserves, you know, it's a constant debate we
[1:08:16] have here, you know, a decade ago or a bit
[1:08:18] longer. We sort of didn't have many left. And, uh,
[1:08:22] or much in the bank and the way in reserves.
[1:08:24] So over time these past eight years, we've been prediligement
[1:08:27] about trying to stock them up again. And we just
[1:08:31] saw, we saved 1. 5 million in interest because we
[1:08:33] have some money. Now we have about 45 million in
[1:08:36] reserve and reserve funds. But I don't know if we're
[1:08:39] out of the woods yet. I mean, MNPs recommended that
[1:08:41] we continue reviewing our reserves to make sure they're sufficient
[1:08:44] for upcoming projects. And we just saw one 52 million
[1:08:48] dollars tonight. So, you know, I guess from an outsider's
[1:08:52] perspective, different municipalities coming at this town. How is our
[1:08:56] reserve level now? Because a lot of times people, they
[1:08:58] can perceive it as overtaxation. It's better in their pockets
[1:09:03] than in ours, but also we have some big ticket
[1:09:05] projects coming up. And, uh, you never know, uh, when
[1:09:09] it might rain. So how do you determine a healthy
[1:09:12] reserve balance and how is our town doing compared to
[1:09:14] comparator municipalities. Thank you for the question through you, Mr.
[1:09:20] Mayor, to Councillor McArthur. So in terms of the reserve
[1:09:24] fund balance, it's certainly looking at the history of the
[1:09:26] statements and looking at the reserve fund balances are absolutely
[1:09:29] has been a market improvement in that. I think what's
[1:09:32] really important is, um, your funding strategies, as CAO has
[1:09:38] indicated has changed over the last number of years. So
[1:09:40] rather than funding capital works through debt issuance on our
[1:09:45] regularized basis for sort of your routine and ongoing capital
[1:09:48] works, there's been a shift where you're funding those on
[1:09:51] a seven year plan and funding them from revenues that
[1:09:55] are generated and reserved funds that are available on an
[1:09:58] ongoing and sort of a pag as you go basis.
[1:10:00] So I think that's really an important element of it.
[1:10:02] So while the reserve funds do appear healthy and they
[1:10:05] are up here healthy, room to continue to build on
[1:10:07] that, recognising as well that, um, a number of those
[1:10:11] are also deferred revenue, which means there are certain legislative
[1:10:14] requirements around those deferred revenues that they must be spent
[1:10:17] for investments specific to development charges, for example. And so
[1:10:21] forth. And so to some extent, that limits your ability
[1:10:24] to leverage investing it in long - term investments that
[1:10:28] don't allow you to draw it based on looking at
[1:10:29] your capital works program. So I think the short answer
[1:10:33] to it is I think you have absolutely some healthy
[1:10:35] reserves. But I think it requires due diligence in the
[1:10:38] part of administration and council to continue to monitor those
[1:10:41] very closely on an ongoing basis to ensure that they're
[1:10:44] matched. Against your capital program. And to reserve sort of
[1:10:50] the dead issuance for those sort of long - term
[1:10:54] multi - generational projects that can't be funded perhaps through
[1:10:56] those reserves. But allowing further regular day - to -
[1:11:00] day capital works program leveraging grant funding to be able
[1:11:03] to draw on those reserve as much as you're able
[1:11:06] to. Just add to that a little bit. So, um,
[1:11:12] Mr. Mancina had spoken about some of your reserves being
[1:11:15] more dedicated. And you had commented councillor around some people
[1:11:18] thinking, well, these reserves are they not high enough. Can
[1:11:22] you stop taxing us? So in relation to what Mr.
[1:11:24] Mansina is saying, some of those reserves are made up
[1:11:27] of OSIP funding Canadian Community benefit DC's grants. They account
[1:11:31] for almost 22 million dollars worth of your reserves. So
[1:11:34] those are things that are not taxpayer - based funded.
[1:11:38] They are a third party and or developer charges. So,
[1:11:40] so taking those out of the equation leaves the rest
[1:11:43] of your tax sort of based ones, especially the general
[1:11:48] reserves. So your asset management program over the last several
[1:11:51] years, this council has been making appropriate investments in increasing
[1:11:56] those reserves. And the result of that is you have
[1:11:59] a seven year forecasted capital budget that you can execute.
[1:12:03] We've been able to fund the fire hall and the
[1:12:06] water reservoir project knowing they were coming within your existing
[1:12:10] dollars. We have been able to fund a three million
[1:12:13] dollar fire truck by planning it over those five years
[1:12:16] based on the funding that we need to pay as
[1:12:19] that. Unit gets built before it is delivered. And you're
[1:12:23] avoiding putting in Mr. Mincyna mentioned this. You're avoiding issuing
[1:12:27] debt for projects that are in the neighbourhood of 400,
[1:12:30] 000 dollars, 245, 000 dollars. 123, 000 dollars
[1:12:42] funded by issuing debt. You're now funding those directly out
[1:12:45] of your capital program leveraging the reserves that you are
[1:12:48] building and still sustaining appropriate reserves to pivot and move
[1:12:52] on new projects that you may want to deal with
[1:12:54] as well. So it may seem, um, and it's always
[1:12:58] that, that dangerous balance of how much is enough before
[1:13:02] we start increasing the taxes. However, at this point, these
[1:13:06] things have avoided the issuance of debt on many projects.
[1:13:10] That before we're quite small that you were issuing dead
[1:13:14] on. Any other questions, I saw Councillor Crane first and
[1:13:22] then Councillor Pouge. Do you want to mention the committee
[1:13:26] also met on this? Ashley mentioned a variety of the
[1:13:29] points as well. But the committee supported the presentation and,
[1:13:33] uh, the report. So I just want to let Council
[1:13:35] know that. Councillor Pouger. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
[1:13:46] Julie, I do find this report surprising because eight months
[1:13:50] ago, uh, we were told that we had the highest
[1:13:54] deck per capita and our reserves were at risk. This
[1:13:58] was when we were entering into, um, budget deliberations. And
[1:14:04] so does the, and at the time we were told
[1:14:08] that our fire hall was going to actually cost us
[1:14:12] 23 point some million with 30 years debentures. And that
[1:14:18] our proposed water treatment plant could cause us up to,
[1:14:23] um, for the expansion up to 35 million dollars. So
[1:14:29] why does it seem like it's so different now? It's
[1:14:33] a difference between night and day, eight months ago until
[1:14:37] now. But through you, Mr. Mayor, who provided those specific
[1:14:41] comments? Because I don't recall those statements being made by
[1:14:44] administration. Yes. They were made by administration. We were cautioned
[1:14:49] over and over again to be careful about taking money
[1:14:52] out of reserves. During budget deliberations. Taking money out of
[1:14:59] reserves in order to avoid tax increases potentially. However, the
[1:15:04] numbers that you're quoting with respect to how much the
[1:15:07] debt will cause for the fire hauler water reclamation, I
[1:15:10] don't believe where statements of administration, but other members of
[1:15:15] council and residents that based on the total cost associated
[1:15:19] with it once you factor in all of the interest
[1:15:21] over those years. But the project itself costs the 11
[1:15:25] point, whatever million we're issuing for dead. So I'm just
[1:15:28] trying to understand. So what is it with the debentures?
[1:15:34] How long are we going to be venturing and went?
[1:15:37] What is the total cost for it? So that is
[1:15:40] report is actually on the agenda this evening. If you'd
[1:15:43] like to save those questions for when we go to
[1:15:45] that report, I'm happy to answer them. Okay. Um, and
[1:15:48] then the other question is, um, for our building reserve,
[1:15:52] uh, building reserve fund is only, the interest is only
[1:15:59] 0. 36 percent. And the building reserve capital interests is
[1:16:05] only 0. 354 percent. And that appears to be, uh,
[1:16:12] far below the inflation. And I believe that was one
[1:16:16] of the questions from the audit and finance committee that
[1:16:20] they were concerned about this. So I do not recall
[1:16:23] that question being brought up at audit and finance. However,
[1:16:27] Councillor for clarity, your assertion is that there is no
[1:16:31] interest that is earned on the building operating fund reserve
[1:16:36] or the capital operating fund reserve. Is that what I'm
[1:16:39] understanding your. Comment is. Inflation. The interest on it.
[1:16:49] How is that calculated. I'm just curious as to your
[1:16:53] source. Well, I believe it was in the report. On
[1:16:59] what page. In front of me.
[1:17:16] All I can suggest you have the question. Can you
[1:17:19] get back to the councillor in a day or two
[1:17:20] if you can find it? Or if she can get
[1:17:22] back to you in a day or two, if she
[1:17:24] can find it. Yes, that would be helpful. I think
[1:17:26] that's the only thing we can do at this juncture.
[1:17:30] Okay. Any other questions. Councillor Courtney. Every year at the
[1:17:37] year end, just same question pops up. So we talk
[1:17:39] about reserve building as Council McCarth said how, where should
[1:17:42] we be? What's the threshold? I know capital. There's a
[1:17:45] lot of moving parts. And you always look at the
[1:17:46] final line, your surplus. And this year it was, uh,
[1:17:50] it was 2. 141 million dollars. That saving accept. So
[1:17:56] the 483, 000 dollar WSIB rebate that doesn't happen very
[1:18:00] often, correct? Well, my story I'm going to talk in.
[1:18:03] Are you referring to the urine surpluses, councillor? I think
[1:18:06] it's a different report that you're referring to. We're not
[1:18:09] an 11. 4. I got an 11. Foot. Oh, my
[1:18:13] bad. Okay. I'll see you on the way. Okay. Any
[1:18:16] other questions for 2025. In the other. Uh, Councillor is
[1:18:24] moving to staff recommendations. Seconded by Councillor Crane, any discussion.
[1:18:31] Seeing no discussions, all those in favor. Opposed. Well, I
[1:18:37] saw a majority vote for it anyway. Okay. I think
[1:18:41] discussion was going elsewhere. Okay. Which takes us to the
[1:18:44] only delegation 10. 1 has cancelled. So it's 10. 2
[1:18:51] is the only delegation. And that is Marco Gardonio on
[1:19:00] item 13. 5. So by 10. 1 being cancelled, are
[1:19:08] you referring to the delegate being here? Yes. It's Orin.
[1:19:15] Zorro and vasic informed the clerk that he's not coming.
[1:19:21] Okay. So the delegation is cancelled. But what we do
[1:19:25] have a delegation on the same, uh, matter. Yeah. On
[1:19:31] the same matter, um, Marco, um, Gardonio. Is Marco here.
[1:19:39] Come on up. Uh.
[1:19:51] Good evening Mayor and council. I'm here in regards to
[1:19:56] the McCurdy Drive. My name is Marco Gardonio. I'm the
[1:20:01] current heavy construction. Heavy construction association president of Windsor. And
[1:20:07] Dwayne Dawson director. Is with me. I'm here on behalf
[1:20:12] of that association who build our roads. Our water mains
[1:20:17] are sewers, our structures. Uh, to address the buy Ontario
[1:20:21] Directive. That has been included and has been brought on
[1:20:27] by the province onto municipalities buyers sellers of goods and
[1:20:34] services from the government. Over the last few days, our
[1:20:39] association has made contact with the, uh, town staff. And
[1:20:46] on the Bio, Ontario and how they are being applied
[1:20:50] on the construction tenders within the town of Amsburg. Those
[1:20:54] conversations have started to become more open and constructive. And
[1:20:58] staff have informed me that they are looking more at
[1:21:03] the commitment aspect when appropriate. I should also say that
[1:21:08] our association has nothing against biontario. We are the Ontario
[1:21:13] content. Our people live here are people work here. Our
[1:21:18] equipment is here. They aggregate the pipe. Everything is from
[1:21:22] here. The only question we have is the method that
[1:21:26] the province offers. And works best with this kind of
[1:21:30] work, the heavy construction. Uh, the province is given municipalities
[1:21:38] more than one way to do this, uh, requirement that
[1:21:42] they've put down on, onto us. Uh, there's the evaluated
[1:21:46] approach, which McCurdy used. And gives where each bidder puts
[1:21:53] a number that they, we feel sometimes. It's very hard
[1:21:58] to determine at time of tender sometimes. How much Ontario
[1:22:03] content is actually in. The project. So it's, it's an
[1:22:08] arbitrary number that the contractors are filling in. But this
[1:22:13] number gives an advantage. To when you're using that evaluated
[1:22:18] method. To the bidder who puts the most Ontario content
[1:22:22] in their price, in their form on your tender. Which
[1:22:29] can have real consequences. With costs and thing which it
[1:22:36] looks like based on the report. Happened at McCurdy. So
[1:22:43] our association. Thinks that price should always dictate the lowest
[1:22:47] price. And that the preferred method should be a commitment
[1:22:52] method rather than the evaluated method. The difference
[1:23:02] is between each bidder for Ontario content on these projects
[1:23:06] is very minimal. It's sometimes only one to two percent
[1:23:11] difference between each bidder. If they filled out the forms
[1:23:16] properly. Sometimes it gets, it's hard, it's brand new and
[1:23:22] it's very hard for contractors to figure it out. Both
[1:23:27] contractors then I think administration because it's brand new to
[1:23:30] all of us. So. The difference is that. There's no
[1:23:39] offshoring. There's no foreign bidders bidding on municipal contracts. Most
[1:23:45] municipal contracts. And using a scored method is just a
[1:23:52] separation of a few points. And no actual benefit. To
[1:23:57] Ontario in that sense. So going with extra money. To
[1:24:06] the municipality if they're using that method. And I want
[1:24:09] to be clear that I'm not criticizing counsel or not
[1:24:14] council administration. Uh, the method used was one, the province
[1:24:19] allowed for. It permits. And it's set out in the
[1:24:23] tendered arguments. To all the bidders. And they use that
[1:24:26] criteria. But what I want to ask is that going
[1:24:32] forward, the report that council received on McCurdy shows the
[1:24:39] 10 percent advantage. And how it was calculated. And how
[1:24:44] each bidder put it in. I don't believe that is
[1:24:47] in the report. For McCurdy right now. It just states
[1:24:52] who had the lowest Ontario content. And that would be
[1:24:57] useful for administration and council. For future contracts. Okay.
[1:25:07] Are you finished? I was just going to say the
[1:25:09] five minutes are up. Oh, is it? Okay. Do you
[1:25:11] need more time? I do. Okay. Then is there a
[1:25:14] motion to extend move by Councillor Layer seconded by Councillor
[1:25:17] McArthur. Posed? Go ahead. All right. Thank you. So the
[1:25:25] commitment approach avoids these problems. Of where the lowest bid
[1:25:30] does not win the project. And a threshold can be
[1:25:34] set. The town of Essex or the county of Esthix
[1:25:38] have this threshold that they've set the municipal, uh, associations
[1:25:45] of SET, other municipalities have set thresholds, the MTO have
[1:25:52] a threshold of 51 percent. It's, it's different. And it
[1:25:56] requires market research. Which, uh, our association could help with
[1:26:02] and are willing to help with. Applying. And.
[1:26:14] We want to counsel two, so our association wants counsel
[1:26:20] to align that the commitment method is. The standard. And
[1:26:26] when it has to get away from the commitment method,
[1:26:31] that they administration has a reason to go away from
[1:26:35] that commitment method because that's the simplest and the fairest
[1:26:40] method for contractors when they're bidding on projects. And with
[1:26:47] that. I'd like to, uh, thank you for your time.
[1:26:52] And thank you again to the administration for the discussions
[1:26:56] to date. And I'm happy to take any questions. Questions.
[1:27:00] Councillor Pouche. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Through you to Marco.
[1:27:10] Thank you for your presentation. So, um. It appears that
[1:27:15] we awarded construction company, a contract for 121, 800 dollars
[1:27:24] more than the lowest spitter. Is that bitch. I believe
[1:27:31] I believe that's what the report says. I didn't, I
[1:27:35] think that should be directed to. So it's 121, 800
[1:27:40] dollars more. For the same product. Same service. Local suppliers.
[1:27:47] Subcontractors. Uh, same pits, plants and materials. Is that a
[1:27:55] fair statement. Uh. Yeah, it's not, not directed that me
[1:28:02] more than that. I couldn't say that. Yeah. I feel
[1:28:05] like that's for administration. I think if to staff. Yeah.
[1:28:12] Out director's just that. Okay. So my question was, why
[1:28:20] wouldn't we save our taxpayers? 121, 800 dollars. When we
[1:28:26] have one of the most. Who is the question too?
[1:28:32] I'll direct it to Todd. Well, we're not on that
[1:28:37] yet. We're still dealing with the, okay, so if you
[1:28:40] want to save that question, it's a good one. Um,
[1:28:43] but, uh, are there any more questions of the deputy.
[1:28:47] Councillor Aler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I just had
[1:28:51] a quick question because I was trying to type down
[1:28:53] the approaches you were talking about. You want to seize
[1:28:56] the commitment method. What was the other method that you
[1:28:59] stated we used? The evaluated method. Do you mean this
[1:29:04] palette or which the town of atmosphere had used on
[1:29:08] McCurdy. Thank you. Any other questions at the deputy. Okay.
[1:29:16] Then, uh, motion to receive the deputation. Councillor Crane seconded
[1:29:20] by Councillor Lair. Any discussion, all those in favor. Pose.
[1:29:24] Thank you very much for bringing this forward. Now questions
[1:29:28] of staff and I'll go right to. Oh, sorry. Yes.
[1:29:31] I have to bring forward 13. 5 so that we
[1:29:33] can do that. Motion to bring forward councillor McArthur, seconded
[1:29:39] bike, uh, Councillor Allaire, all those in favor opposed. That's
[1:29:42] carried. We now have 13. 5 in front of us.
[1:29:45] Questions of staff. Now I'm going to go to Councillor
[1:29:48] Pouger because she was trying to ask them, no, staff
[1:29:51] can answer these. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you to
[1:29:55] Todd. So why wouldn't we save our taxpayers 121, 800
[1:30:02] dollars. When we have one, like it just doesn't make
[1:30:06] sense to me. I know the By Ontario Act exists.
[1:30:12] But with this gentleman says it's really hard to determine
[1:30:16] if the second bidder will actually use one hundred percent
[1:30:23] of Canadian products. Okay. I think the question is to
[1:30:30] the deputy CAO. I know you're looking down to Mr.
[1:30:33] Huet, but I think the question is a financial one.
[1:30:37] Financial and purchasing related. So I'm going to start and
[1:30:40] then I will pass it over to our manager of
[1:30:42] purchasing Capitol and Reserves, Ms. Little, after, uh, my comments.
[1:30:47] So much in line with, uh, what was just said
[1:30:50] by the delegate, uh, The Construction Industry is also finding
[1:30:55] it difficult to determine what percentage of, uh, by Ontario
[1:30:59] content, they are actually putting forward when we deal with
[1:31:04] a submission much like The Purchasing Process that we followed
[1:31:07] in accordance with the Biontario. The other option of the
[1:31:10] commitment method, which when this particular tender went out, we
[1:31:15] had, um, consultants provide for us information to help us
[1:31:19] trying to determine whether or not the commitment method was
[1:31:22] something that the town could stand firmly on and be
[1:31:26] certain that if we were challenged by any of the
[1:31:28] bidders, we knew for certain X percentage of that tender
[1:31:33] could feasibly be by Ontario. And we have to have
[1:31:37] documented evidence and market research to confirm that we actually
[1:31:40] know that and can stand on that grounds. Otherwise, we
[1:31:44] face the risk of legal prosecution around it from anybody
[1:31:48] else. So much the same as the challenges that the
[1:31:51] construction industry is going through, we were faced with that.
[1:31:54] And we had one person at the time that was
[1:31:56] trying to figure it out. So we chose based on
[1:31:59] the consultants lack of recommended direction on which method they
[1:32:03] thought would be better. The one that would put the
[1:32:06] responsibility on the construction industry to firmly definitively state what
[1:32:11] their attestation was to Ontario content. The way the process
[1:32:15] works is the group that comes back with the highest
[1:32:19] Ontario content. And it didn't have to be a hundred
[1:32:22] percent. It's just the highest percentage, which I believe they
[1:32:24] were in the eighties in this particular case. They get
[1:32:29] a arbitrary 10 percent reduction from their price. To make
[1:32:33] them more comparable to everybody else. So in this case,
[1:32:36] they're 10 percent reduction resulted in their price being less
[1:32:40] than the lowest bidder. Which through the definition of the
[1:32:43] new legislation, we are required to then take that lower
[1:32:48] bid. Now, I want to clarify a couple of things.
[1:32:54] Because the entire tender, including the extra 122, 000 as
[1:32:58] a result of having to implement by Ontario came forward,
[1:33:03] this is over our budget. Council then has the ability
[1:33:06] to reject this tender. And we can revisit it at
[1:33:09] a later date. I will, however, strongly encourage that if
[1:33:12] council is going down that path, you should speak with
[1:33:14] Mr. Hewitt as to what those implications are in deferring
[1:33:17] this particular project. It's also important to understand that the
[1:33:21] project was over budget regardless. The 122 just put it
[1:33:24] that much further. So we should not expect that reissuing
[1:33:29] this tender under a commitment base would result in a
[1:33:33] tender price that would come in on the budget that's
[1:33:35] already defined. The other thing to understand is. You cannot
[1:33:41] reject. Had this come in on budget and had the
[1:33:47] second highest one actually been awarded because of the Biontario
[1:33:51] legislation. You are not allowed to reject it without ramifications
[1:33:57] against that legislative act. So had this all come in
[1:34:00] within budget, including the extra 122. Council would not have
[1:34:03] the option. You do have the option to cancel it
[1:34:06] because you came in over budget. And therefore that is
[1:34:09] a discretion that you have. We are working towards determining
[1:34:17] as much inventorium formation as we can in market research
[1:34:20] about when projects are actually confident that it is Ontario.
[1:34:27] And in many cases locally. The other tender before you
[1:34:30] this evening that closed last week was the sidewalk tender.
[1:34:33] We set that one as a commitment one. We knew
[1:34:35] that the material content, the major component of it was
[1:34:39] concrete. We know not only can you source it in
[1:34:42] Ontario. You can do it at our own backyard. So
[1:34:44] we were confident that was a definitive market research and
[1:34:47] we issued it that way. It's come in. It's before
[1:34:49] council tonight. There is another tender. Did it go out
[1:34:52] today? Um, which is also a large project. It's related
[1:34:56] to the southeast quadrant. And it is also commitment -
[1:35:00] based. We worked with our team, with other parties that
[1:35:04] we have been dealing with. And we are able to
[1:35:06] confidently say that we can defend a market research that
[1:35:11] a certain percentage of it can absolutely be bintario and
[1:35:14] therefore that is how that one was issued as well.
[1:35:17] So I just want to make clear to everybody. This
[1:35:20] is, this is not a simple process. As it was
[1:35:23] said from the delegation. It's not simple for the industry
[1:35:26] that does this every day. Um, you can fully expect
[1:35:29] that this legislation probably costs us more money. That is
[1:35:33] site unseen. The 122 is apparent. There are additional costs
[1:35:37] that the construction industry is bearing in order to generate
[1:35:41] this data do their own markets research and fill all
[1:35:43] of this out that most certainly is probably being passed
[1:35:46] along and not in all cases are we going to
[1:35:49] have this situation. Unfortunately, our first one out The Gate
[1:35:52] was not a commitment - based. We did not feel
[1:35:55] it was the right way to go in the first
[1:35:58] instance. Um, and this is where we are today, but
[1:36:02] it is Council's Perview to reject this and not proceed
[1:36:05] forward because you're over budget. The only caution I would
[1:36:08] give you is that Mr. Huet obviously put that tender
[1:36:11] out for a reason. And we should probably understand the
[1:36:13] implications of postponing it. And you should be aware that
[1:36:16] you were over budget anyways. Regardless of the 122 differential
[1:36:21] because of the different types of bio - Ontario. I
[1:36:24] will, however, defer at this point to Ms. Little, because
[1:36:28] I think council needs to understand how the legislation came
[1:36:32] down and what efforts our team have been doing and
[1:36:35] who they've been working with to understand this very complex
[1:36:38] legislation. It seems really high level and simple when you
[1:36:41] just say 51 percent whatever they submit. There's a far
[1:36:45] more nuances than that. Thank you, Ms. Elsborn. Three of
[1:36:52] you has to worship to Council and Members. Um, the
[1:36:56] directives have come through, as has been stated, um. To
[1:37:01] impact or to illustrate the opportunities available, as was mentioned
[1:37:05] by Marco. The two approaches are available to us. And
[1:37:10] we do, we will be using, um, an evaluation. We
[1:37:17] will be reviewing each on a case - by -
[1:37:20] case basis to understand, as Miz - Osborne has stated,
[1:37:23] which approach would best suit the project at hand. To
[1:37:27] identify that we would solely use or exclusively use the
[1:37:31] commitment - based over the evaluation - based may not
[1:37:34] be prudent of the legislation that's been brought forward. So
[1:37:39] we are all working together. We, you know, regional procurement
[1:37:43] specialists and professionals to best understand what the objective, how
[1:37:48] best we can deliver the objective of the new legislation,
[1:37:52] um, with each project that's presented. So as Ms. Osborne
[1:37:56] has shared with the first project, we, based on the
[1:37:59] resources that we had, the information that we had collected
[1:38:02] to that point, we had elected to use the evaluation
[1:38:05] approach within the evaluation approach, there are other options within
[1:38:10] that. So price only is one option rated criteria is
[1:38:14] a second option. Um, and as well, there's, you know,
[1:38:17] DSCPs with a 10 percent evaluation score you can factor
[1:38:21] in, um, construction schedules, et cetera, et cetera. So they
[1:38:24] do become more complex than there are some variables that
[1:38:26] we can follow. So first one of the gates, we
[1:38:29] have elected the evaluation approach. Um, as Miss Osborne has
[1:38:32] shared, we do have two tenders that are before you
[1:38:34] this evening that were confident based on the complexity or
[1:38:39] lack of complexity value, um, and subject matter expertise that
[1:38:44] we were comfortable to defend the commitment - based approach.
[1:38:47] Going forward, each case would be each procurement would be
[1:38:52] assessed on level of risk, level of resources to defend.
[1:38:57] The approaches selected. And information that we have from the
[1:39:03] market or from the industry. That said, um, since December,
[1:39:09] so the new by Ontario Act came into Royal Asset
[1:39:12] on December of 2025. There have been many surveys, many
[1:39:16] webinars, many, um, touch points sessions regionally across our province
[1:39:21] to better understand what the expectations will be. So it
[1:39:25] is, has been shared new policy, new directives evolving every
[1:39:29] day. We are all regionally staying connected to understand what
[1:39:34] the interpretations are, what changes could be seen, what opportunities
[1:39:39] are there to help streamline and be more definitive with
[1:39:42] the information that's put forth in each tender. Okay, questions
[1:39:50] of staff. Councillor Pouger. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know,
[1:39:55] at no time was I criticizing Todd for doing this.
[1:40:01] I understand the rationale for it. However, what I'm concerned
[1:40:05] about is that we have an overexpended show of 682,
[1:40:11] 872 dollars. And we had to take it from general
[1:40:15] reserve. And our wastewater reserve. And, um, I just believe
[1:40:21] that this is unacceptable for us. And I think we
[1:40:26] should correspond with the Ontario government because this bill only
[1:40:31] benefits the successful tender, but burdens are taxpayers. In this
[1:40:37] case, with an additional moan of 124, 045 dollars. And.
[1:40:45] I don't, I think it's going to require more work
[1:40:49] from our staff. To go in and ensure that every
[1:40:54] piece of equipment they use or any kind of material
[1:40:58] they use. Is purchased in Ontario. I think that's going
[1:41:03] to be really time consuming and very expensive for our
[1:41:08] staff. And I really do believe we should correspond with
[1:41:11] the government and tell them that we are concerned about
[1:41:14] this. Okay. That wasn't a question. So I don't know
[1:41:19] that there'll be an answer. Okay. Councillor Crane. Three to
[1:41:25] staff. Province has definitely made this very complicated and difficult
[1:41:29] to follow. Just so I can understand this in layman's
[1:41:33] terms. The second bidder, the more construction, after the
[1:41:44] evaluation saying that the lowest bidder without the 10 percent
[1:41:48] reduction, which is 1. 76 had less Ontario made. Products
[1:41:56] or like built into their bid. What we're seeing is
[1:42:00] that, and this is, this is what the, um, Marco
[1:42:04] had mentioned. The challenge is in this scenario, each of
[1:42:09] those construction companies that bid had to create their own
[1:42:13] determination of how much buy Ontario content is in their
[1:42:17] bid, subject to their interpretation of how they would come
[1:42:21] to that evaluative criteria. And then they submit that percentage
[1:42:25] into, uh, The tender. The challenge is there is no
[1:42:32] challenge on that. What they submit is there attestation. Ms.
[1:42:37] Little was on a call quite literally the very next
[1:42:39] day with the Ontario buyers. And specifically ask the question
[1:42:44] in that scenario whether or not the municipality can challenge
[1:42:49] whether or not those that put the largest Ontario content
[1:42:55] bid in and result in an overexpenditure such as this
[1:42:58] could be challenged. And the advice that was given was
[1:43:03] not to do that. Because we are waiting into waters
[1:43:07] where we do not have the market research. We do
[1:43:09] not have the depth or breath or knowledge to challenge
[1:43:12] them on what they have attested to. This compounds the
[1:43:16] challenge that the delegate Marco has brought forward to the
[1:43:21] community. And is what we are currently experiencing right now.
[1:43:26] It is why we are working collectively with other municipalities,
[1:43:30] um, in speaking with Marco and his associates. They've said
[1:43:34] the MTO is putting some market research and data out
[1:43:37] there, which we welcome and have told them as soon
[1:43:40] as they have it, please give it to us. Um,
[1:43:42] we are engaging with other larger municipalities that to Councillor
[1:43:47] Pouge's point will have the bench strength and experience to
[1:43:51] do some of these market research things. And obviously working
[1:43:54] with the heavy construction industry to understand when we put
[1:43:59] a bid forward, is there market research or something they
[1:44:02] can help us substantiate that we can put definitively in
[1:44:06] our bucket to say, if we're going to say it
[1:44:08] can be 51 percent, liable, if we can't defend our
[1:44:15] position. So legally the town cannot select major construction and
[1:44:22] apply, which would bring it down to 1. 5. So
[1:44:28] no, the way this tender worked is those were all
[1:44:31] the price bids. They all then gave us their percentage
[1:44:36] of buy Ontario, the one that said they had the
[1:44:38] highest level of biontario was D'Amor. They automatically get a
[1:44:42] 10 percent reduction, making them the lowest tender, which by
[1:44:48] default under this process under the Bioenterial Legislation. We are
[1:44:54] required to honour. However, because this tender in its entirety
[1:44:59] is over budget. It is up to Council's discretion if
[1:45:03] you choose to not award the tender, in which case
[1:45:07] we would have to revisit that and reissue it at
[1:45:10] some point in time, again, two cautions. One, it was
[1:45:14] over budget to begin with the differential of the 122
[1:45:17] is really what is debate here. Second, I do not
[1:45:21] know the implications, uh, Mr. Huet can speak to it.
[1:45:25] If this project is further delayed, given its importance in
[1:45:28] priority. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. To clarify as well,
[1:45:33] you can't take that 10 percent and then just put
[1:45:35] it onto The actual low bidder. You can't do that.
[1:45:40] That's not permitted. A lotsman said, Mr. Huet. Do we
[1:45:46] have to proceed with this. I mean, the easiest thing
[1:45:49] to say is we're not going to be, you know,
[1:45:51] we're not going to do it. But what will happen
[1:45:54] if we don't do it? We certainly will save a
[1:45:56] lot of money. Through you, Mr. Mayor, uh, well, three
[1:46:01] of them, to you, Mr. Mayor. That's always the option.
[1:46:05] So this project was budgeted in 2025. Um, due to
[1:46:09] some, uh, work from the consultant, and when he got
[1:46:13] the tender in 2026. What I would say is that
[1:46:17] the second phase, which will take us from lilac to
[1:46:20] friar is in the 2027 budget. For, um, to finish
[1:46:26] phase two. So the intention or basically because of funding,
[1:46:30] uh, in the, in the water sector, we couldn't do
[1:46:34] them in back to back years. So it was 2025
[1:46:37] and 2027. At this point, we're almost into September of
[1:46:42] 2026. And this project hasn't started yet. So to say
[1:46:47] that we could potentially postpone and tender it as one
[1:46:51] full project with the funding from 2025 and 2027 may
[1:46:55] give us a better bang for our buck is a
[1:46:58] bit larger tender. Whether that's going to save money or
[1:47:01] not is always a difficult thing to guess. Because oil
[1:47:07] prices change and inflation changes. The prices very rarely go
[1:47:11] down. So if this price was competitively bid in July
[1:47:17] of 2026 with seven bidders, that was the best price,
[1:47:21] well, the lowest price was the best price we could
[1:47:23] get. That's not what it ended up being with the
[1:47:26] buy Ontario Act that we would have to award. But
[1:47:29] those were competitively bid. So to say that if we
[1:47:32] were to tender it again in a month or two
[1:47:35] months that the price would be the same, we can't
[1:47:38] say that. Um, what you could determine depending on whether
[1:47:41] we could go to a commitment - based approach that
[1:47:44] perhaps we could alleviate ourselves of the 120 dollar additional
[1:47:50] costs. That's resulted from that by Ontario Act. That for
[1:47:57] sure, if we could go to a commitment - based
[1:47:59] approach, we could. Eliminate, for lack of a better term.
[1:48:03] Does that mean that the tender is going to be
[1:48:04] 120, 000 dollars less. At the time.
[1:48:14] Those are all pieces of the puzzle that add into
[1:48:17] that price. So certainly it's within councils purview to postpone
[1:48:23] this or to not award this tender. The town would
[1:48:27] then move forward to look at what our best options
[1:48:30] were, whether that would be to issue it again immediately,
[1:48:33] which then may result into winter work, which we wouldn't
[1:48:37] really look for. Or do we postpone it till 2027
[1:48:41] and look to combine it into a larger one project
[1:48:45] that would complete the entire length of McCurdy at once.
[1:48:48] So those would be options that the infrastructure services would
[1:48:52] look at if this, um, tender was not awarded tonight.
[1:48:58] But what I could never definitively say is whether it
[1:49:01] would be cheaper. Um, what I would say is that
[1:49:04] this water main needs replacement. It needs replacement now. It'll
[1:49:07] still need replacement next year. Okay. But nothing's going to
[1:49:11] cave in on this. Through Mr. Mayor, this waterme has
[1:49:17] had a number of breaks. People would know that in
[1:49:20] front of the subway, there was a fairly large break
[1:49:22] last year. Um, so it is due for replacement. Um,
[1:49:26] whether that's going to, whether we'll have one more water
[1:49:28] main break between now and then or two, I can't
[1:49:30] say. But again, we've been, uh, we aim to replace
[1:49:36] it. We, it needs to be replaced. If that's postponed
[1:49:39] for six months, I can't say that there'll be any
[1:49:42] imminent danger. We still have safe drinking water. Those residents
[1:49:45] will all still get safe drinking water. It's just a
[1:49:48] matter of whether there could be a water main break
[1:49:51] in that area between now and then. Perhaps. But that's,
[1:49:55] um, that could happen tomorrow. And we still haven't gotten
[1:49:59] that water main replace. So. Councillor McArthur. Thank you. Where
[1:50:05] should those? There's a lot to unpack there, but there's
[1:50:09] some, what I get out of that is there may
[1:50:11] be some real material benefits. To doing, to waiting a
[1:50:15] couple of months. And doing one tender. And I think
[1:50:18] Todd is right. I mean, costs generally only go up.
[1:50:22] So, you know, you waited a couple of months, that
[1:50:25] could happen. But there's also the opportunity for economies of
[1:50:29] scale, because now it's going to be one project. Uh,
[1:50:33] instead of two split over two years, I think what
[1:50:36] also give the next council an opportunity to issue, you
[1:50:41] know, an early tender. Right now they're all, you know,
[1:50:45] they're dockets full. So if they want to do work
[1:50:48] now, it's going to cost a lot of money. But
[1:50:50] if you can issue it late in the year or
[1:50:53] early in the new year, uh, when they're really hungry
[1:50:56] for, for jobs, you might get, uh, The opportunity for
[1:51:00] a lower bid. And also the sidewalk. I mean, one
[1:51:03] of the best things about this is we're finally going
[1:51:05] to put a sidewalk on the north side of McCurdy.
[1:51:09] I can't imagine what kind of world we lived in
[1:51:11] when we built that subdivision and didn't put a sidewalk
[1:51:13] in. It makes no sense. But it gives us the
[1:51:16] opportunity instead of having a sidewalk to nowhere, uh, that
[1:51:20] just ends at lilac. We could actually in one fell
[1:51:22] swoop, uh, put a sidewalk in that goes the whole
[1:51:26] stretch. And additionally, you're only going to disrupt the residents
[1:51:29] in that street once. Uh, as, as opposed to twice.
[1:51:35] So given everything I just said, I guess they're taught.
[1:51:37] I mean, did I say anything that was horribly inaccurate
[1:51:40] with my reasoning or is that about right? Oh, that
[1:51:49] definitely. Okay. I think generally, uh, Councillor, yes. One thing
[1:51:55] to bear in mind is we have to be careful
[1:51:57] that if we do rescind this tender, you'll have to,
[1:52:00] um, change it by about 20 percent. Otherwise you're seen
[1:52:03] as shopping around and you're not allowed to do that.
[1:52:06] Uh, so bundling it together with the larger project. Um,
[1:52:10] would allow for that change in the tender that we're
[1:52:13] not seeing as shopping it around. I will, however, say,
[1:52:16] uh, I do agree. We've seen often tendering projects in
[1:52:20] the fall or the winter for projects to start in
[1:52:23] the spring, uh, tends to be, um, better pricing. I
[1:52:27] don't know whether or not Mr. Huit would be even
[1:52:29] in a position to have the full scope of work
[1:52:32] ready for inclusion of the 2027 items. However, if council
[1:52:37] wishes to move in that direction, they will have to
[1:52:39] consider making a motion to approve the funds that are
[1:52:41] in the Capitol budget in 2027. Tonight in order to
[1:52:46] allow him to proceed with that tender. Otherwise, it will
[1:52:49] have to wait until the 2027 budget deliberations to confirm
[1:52:53] that that project funding is there before the tender could
[1:52:56] be issued, which will place us given we are in
[1:53:00] election season, the new council will not take place until
[1:53:03] end of November. Budget might most likely, depending on how
[1:53:07] the mayor, um, chooses to proceed forward, will be January
[1:53:11] to February timeframe. You'll still be tendering sometime. Spring that
[1:53:17] summer. Okay. This is taking a long time. Councillor Lair.
[1:53:25] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And, uh, thank you to our
[1:53:27] deputy CAL for that lovely explanation. I am willing to
[1:53:30] move the staff recommendation. As written. Forward. Okay,
[1:53:40] good. Thank you. Sorry. In all three parts. So. Okay.
[1:53:44] There was a motion to do all three parts to
[1:53:49] staff recommendation. Is there a second or to the motion.
[1:53:54] Well, I got to get a second or first if
[1:53:56] there is one. Thank you. For discussion. Okay. Okay. I
[1:54:03] think I've been asking both them McCurdy Road for three
[1:54:07] years. It's been in our capital budget since I got
[1:54:10] elected. It has been needed to be done. I agree
[1:54:15] with everyone that, yeah, when you bundle everything together, it
[1:54:20] makes everything a lot cheaper. This is done. We have
[1:54:23] to accept it now. We have to move forward. I'm
[1:54:26] going to say this. There is great explanations given by
[1:54:30] our administration. Gas goes up. Costs go up. Everything increases
[1:54:34] with price. We have seen it time and time again.
[1:54:37] We push something back one more year. It is like
[1:54:40] 200, 000 dollars more. Yes, it'll be cheaper that we
[1:54:44] bundle it together, but it will not get done. Uh,
[1:54:47] our first year elections are budget season was in February.
[1:54:51] And I'm going to be real honest. My first time
[1:54:53] at budgets newly elected. I didn't know what was going
[1:54:57] on. It was a whirlwind. So you're having a new
[1:54:59] council come in here. A lot of them might be
[1:55:02] new. And to make them make a huge decision like
[1:55:06] this would be, um, kind of silly on us, but
[1:55:09] we didn't take care of our town for the last
[1:55:11] four years. So to step back and not make this
[1:55:14] decision now after all this work has gone into it.
[1:55:18] Would be insane to me. This has been needed to
[1:55:20] be done multiple times. So now is the time. Councillor
[1:55:26] Courtney on the motion. I'm speaking to the motion. So
[1:55:29] I'm on the fence with this one. I hear some
[1:55:31] of the positive there. I hear some concerns from staff
[1:55:34] by delaine it. The government did this. They're downloading money
[1:55:36] again onto the municipalities. We are over budget. I understand
[1:55:39] that on the original. And now another 120, 000. I
[1:55:43] mean, I had a good sidebar with Mr. Mayor there
[1:55:45] last week and staff member. And, uh, we were trying
[1:55:48] to wrap our heads around this. And the best motive
[1:55:51] attack might be to record. Moving forward with their new
[1:55:54] legislation, how it's impacting financially. The municipalities that have to
[1:55:58] foot the bill by giving these reductions, you know, cause
[1:56:01] we're not seeing it. We're paying for it. So I'm
[1:56:04] not opposed to a councillor lair to move forward with
[1:56:07] these projects because it does backlog things. It doesn't sound
[1:56:09] like it's too compromising. At the same time, I'll wait
[1:56:12] to hear the rest of council. And I don't want
[1:56:13] to beat this thing. Um, it's already dead, I think.
[1:56:16] But, uh, again, there might be something all we can
[1:56:19] do is record these things moving forward so we can
[1:56:21] show how much more it's cost us on our BIDS
[1:56:24] and tenders and let that start to build up and
[1:56:27] then build a case and let more studies happen where,
[1:56:30] because we're not the only ones that are facing this
[1:56:31] right now. It's every municipality in Ontario. So again, my
[1:56:34] only question was this, the staff is the onus on,
[1:56:38] oh, sorry, I'm speaking to her emotions, so I will
[1:56:39] stop. Thank you. Okay. On the motion, anyone else want
[1:56:44] to speak on the motion. Councillor McArthur. I'm. Going to
[1:56:49] vote. And just, I've talked myself into it. I think
[1:56:53] it makes the most economic sense. To bundle it together,
[1:56:58] do it right, do it once, uh, and so that's
[1:57:03] what I think makes the most sense given everything that
[1:57:06] I've heard tonight. Any other discussion. Mayor, I'm going to
[1:57:15] oppose it to, based on the fact that it's so
[1:57:20] much over budget over 600, 000 over budget. And I
[1:57:25] like the fact that it's very possible if we bundle,
[1:57:29] we will get cheaper rate. And to do it in
[1:57:32] the early spring. So I, I, although I appreciate the
[1:57:37] motion, I just, I can't support it. I'm going to
[1:57:42] pass the gavel. I likely won't get a vote here
[1:57:44] unless it's a recorded vote. I likely won't, but I
[1:57:49] can't support this. I want to county council, uh, both
[1:57:52] the deputy mayor and I spoke against this particular policy.
[1:57:57] We spoke in very strong terms. We spoke about the
[1:58:00] cost to the taxpayers. I reminded people that this, the
[1:58:06] lot of hare brain schemes come out of, uh, Queen's
[1:58:09] park. I know I was there for 13 years. I
[1:58:11] listened to a lot of it. I never was on
[1:58:12] the government side to make them. But a lot of
[1:58:14] them don't make sense. And this one does not make
[1:58:18] sense at all. I agree with counsellor Courtney that should
[1:58:22] this motion, uh, pass, uh, I would add an addendum
[1:58:26] to tally up all the money that we spend for
[1:58:30] the next, uh, to the end of the year and
[1:58:34] send a bill, uh, or not a bill, but a
[1:58:37] request to the Ontario government to make us whole because
[1:58:41] their policies do not, they don't work. They don't work
[1:58:44] for the taxpayer. And my number one thing is the
[1:58:48] taxpayer. If that, if that's, if the water main is
[1:58:54] not going to, you know, it's not going to be
[1:58:56] disastrous. I mean, we always have water main brakes. We
[1:59:00] have them all over the place all the time. Every
[1:59:02] winter. If it's not, if it's not absolutely obvious to
[1:59:07] me, it makes a whole lot of sense wait and
[1:59:10] do it all at once. And I know we're getting
[1:59:12] around. But the bigger issue in the long term is
[1:59:16] we cannot continue to abide by costing the taxpayers a
[1:59:22] fortune. Uh, even the 122, 000 dollars means that in
[1:59:27] terms of the population of Amortsburg, that's about six dollars
[1:59:33] for every man, woman, and child. They have to pay
[1:59:37] every six dollars from everybody just to satisfy something that
[1:59:41] makes no sense. Absolutely none. And if our best way
[1:59:45] out of this is to, uh, simply say no to
[1:59:49] all of it and go back, uh, that's where I'm
[1:59:53] going to go with all great respect to my colleague,
[1:59:57] Councillor Lara. I, I know, I know she wants to
[2:00:00] see it done. So do I. But if the spring
[2:00:02] of 2027, uh, is done, I'm willing to even put,
[2:00:07] put forward and say, uh, let's commit to getting it
[2:00:11] in 2027. Have it in the budget and have the
[2:00:14] new council look with an explanation as to why it's
[2:00:17] all there together at once. I think they would appreciate
[2:00:20] that. And I know the taxpayers would appreciate not spending
[2:00:24] too much money. And being gouged by a policy, uh,
[2:00:28] that is not of our making. Anyway, that's where I'm
[2:00:32] coming from, but, uh, I may not even get to
[2:00:34] vote. Okay. Recorded vote. There you go. Now you get
[2:00:40] to vote. Okay. I took the gavel back. And the
[2:00:44] first thing was a recorded vote. Is there anybody else
[2:00:46] who wishes to speak councillor a lair. Okay. Thank you.
[2:00:52] I guess I just need clarification on this. So we
[2:00:55] shut this one down and we do the tendering process
[2:00:58] again, but all at once. Is it not still the
[2:01:01] same process? Do we still not have this policy in
[2:01:04] place. So, uh, when they look at the next tender
[2:01:10] that is inclusive of the larger pictures sometime in 2027,
[2:01:15] they will determine and we will hopefully have better market
[2:01:18] research to know whether or not the commitment - based
[2:01:21] process can be defined for this project so that it
[2:01:24] can be released. I can't definitively say yes or no
[2:01:28] until we have that information before us. But to be
[2:01:30] clear, you won't even be tendering until spring of next
[2:01:33] year. Construction is not next year. Yeah, I understand that.
[2:01:37] Um, okay. So I'm just going to put it out
[2:01:39] there because I think we've mentioned about eight times today
[2:01:43] about how the higher tiers of government have totally screwed
[2:01:46] us over. I think everyone understands that. I have to
[2:01:51] vote in favor of this for the main reason of,
[2:01:55] yeah, we want to save our residents'money. I get it.
[2:01:57] They're the taxpayers. I'm a taxpayer as well. But also
[2:02:00] this is a service that, I'm sorry, if my watermeke
[2:02:04] broke like three times within four years, I'd be freaking
[2:02:08] losing it. So I'm just putting it out there. I'm
[2:02:11] voting for the residents. So they have the services. That
[2:02:14] municipality is supposed to provide for the residents. And I
[2:02:19] understand that it is a huge chunk of money. I
[2:02:23] don't think it's going to come in any cheaper. And
[2:02:26] I think I'm going to argue with the fact that
[2:02:27] this just pushes it back about a year. We've been
[2:02:31] fighting for this road for almost four. So that's all
[2:02:34] I got to say. Okay. Everybody's spoken. We have a
[2:02:39] motion on the floor on a recorded vote. Thank you
[2:02:44] worship. Councillor Lair support. Councillor Courtney. Opposed. Counsel crane. Post.
[2:02:54] Council McArthur. Bouger. And Mayor PrES Motion fails. All right.
[2:03:04] We need another motion. Councillor McCarthy, do you want to
[2:03:11] move that we, uh, not award, the contract. And that
[2:03:17] we recommend, uh, The Money's be put aside for the
[2:03:20] 2027 budget due the whole thing all at once. I
[2:03:23] think that. S so movie. Pretty much the motion. Mr.
[2:03:29] Kirk, can you make that into good language? I would
[2:03:37] put that, uh, Deputy CO just to understand whether or
[2:03:41] not the pre - commitment could happen, uh, with the
[2:03:44] strong mayor's budget. No, and I don't believe this council
[2:03:48] is looking to pre - commit the funds. But merely
[2:03:53] two defer this tender. And to. Bring forward the tender
[2:04:00] again. Once the 2027 Capitol budget is approved and to
[2:04:05] ensure that in that budget, the second phase of this
[2:04:09] project is included in 2027. Sage advice.
[2:04:24] How it has to be, then that's how it has
[2:04:25] to be bundling, uh, gives us opportunities to do save
[2:04:31] significant money. So
[2:04:41] alternatively, since it is, the mayor's budget. Pre - committing
[2:04:45] for 2027 would not work. However, if counsel so wish
[2:04:49] to commit the funds that are in the report. So
[2:04:53] that a minimum of 682, 2872, 000 is available to
[2:04:59] start, I presume, design work, Mr. Hewitt. What do you
[2:05:04] need to start your project. The full design was approved
[2:05:12] as part of the engineering. So that work has generally
[2:05:15] been completed. Um, we wouldn't really need any additional funds
[2:05:20] to move forward. The project now. Really the funds would
[2:05:24] be needed to move it to construction. So in order
[2:05:27] to tender, how much additional by the fall, how much
[2:05:30] additional funding would we need to know that we have
[2:05:32] before we put the tender on the street. Because I
[2:05:35] believe, Ms. Little, we have to have the funding before
[2:05:38] we issue attender. Is that correct? How much additional funding
[2:05:44] are we looking at, Mr. Hewitt? That would be a
[2:05:48] very difficult question for me to answer right off the
[2:05:51] top of my head. I would have to look at
[2:05:52] what our 2027 budget was for that. And I believe
[2:05:55] it carried into 2028. Uh, for phase two. And we
[2:05:59] would still need to consider that additional money, at least
[2:06:03] some of the monies that we were over budget because
[2:06:05] the work still has to be put in at that
[2:06:07] point. Up to phase two. So although we may say,
[2:06:12] there could be some economies of scale and certainly the
[2:06:14] buy Ontario money could potentially be saved. If we can
[2:06:17] go to the commitment - based approach. I would have
[2:06:20] to work through the budget number to determine what that
[2:06:23] is. What I would suggest would be that perhaps the
[2:06:27] best way forward, this money is in the budget now.
[2:06:32] This 2025 dollars will still be there waiting for this
[2:06:35] project to be completed. And when we can work on
[2:06:39] a capital budget issue paper that includes the phase two
[2:06:45] works as well so that we can have a comprehensive
[2:06:49] dollar value for the new council to look at in
[2:06:51] 2027 and be ready to tender once that's approved. For
[2:06:55] council's reference, um, I'm looking at the 2026 seven -
[2:07:00] year capital budget. And there's 600, 000 in 2027 and
[2:07:05] another 675, 020 - 28 that Mr. Hewitt's referring to.
[2:07:10] So it is a 1. 275 million dollar additional set
[2:07:15] of funding that I am happy to find the funding
[2:07:19] sources this evening should counsel wish to have this move
[2:07:23] forward and tender it this fall. Otherwise it would simply
[2:07:28] be that it remains in a recommendation for the next
[2:07:31] council. To approve those funds and bring them forward to
[2:07:35] 2027 for the next council to consider that so they
[2:07:39] can move the project in its entirety forward. Councillor McArthur.
[2:07:47] Can we. Get a report on this to come back
[2:07:49] to the next council meeting or is that council meeting
[2:07:52] against September 14th after Lameduk. Okay. So we have to
[2:08:01] make the decision tonight or never. So, so again,
[2:08:11] Mr. Huytt has advised that he's not confident the 1.
[2:08:14] 275 million will be sufficient particularly given the results of
[2:08:18] this individual tender. All I can tell you is 1.
[2:08:21] 275 is what's been identified for those other phases of
[2:08:25] the project that are being recommended to be bundled together.
[2:08:29] So at a minimum, the 1. 275 million would need
[2:08:33] to be essentially approved by this council to proceed forward
[2:08:36] with a tender that has meaningful funding associated with it.
[2:08:40] And that should those tenders also result in something about
[2:08:43] the budgeted amounts if council approves those additional funds this
[2:08:47] evening. Then they would have the responsibility of making that
[2:08:53] determination in their council term of modern or not to
[2:08:57] proceed or to uncouple the project or whatever they may
[2:09:00] choose at that point. Councillor Laird. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
[2:09:05] And just through you, just for a point of clarity.
[2:09:07] So it's, it's 1. 275 for future projects, but it
[2:09:11] is also 1. 7. Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted
[2:09:15] to make sure that I understood that fully. So it's
[2:09:17] about 3 million moving it up and trying to get
[2:09:20] it all together in the fall, which we weren't expecting
[2:09:23] this year. Okay. So, I mean, if it isn't sufficient,
[2:09:29] the next set of people sitting around this table can
[2:09:33] make that decision. Just have to put more money in
[2:09:36] the budget. And that's as simple as that. They're already
[2:09:40] starting with at 1. 2 million dollars. Yeah. Yes, exactly.
[2:09:50] So that's all they have to do. As soon as
[2:09:52] the funding's approved. They make the decision. They have 1.
[2:09:56] 2 to start. Put in whatever else they need, tender
[2:09:59] it. Yes. So, I mean, that's, you reject a tender
[2:10:08] tonight. You instruct staff to do the necessary preparation for
[2:10:12] the new council. Colour train. I'll move that recommendation. Okay.
[2:10:18] Second, if I councillor McArthur, any discussion on the motion.
[2:10:23] Council Allaire. Thank you. You don't want to go home
[2:10:27] tonight, right? No, never. I've been going since 6 AM,
[2:10:32] so why not? Uh, I just, I want clarity. So
[2:10:34] we're putting it forward for the new council. And then
[2:10:39] that tender would go out roughly. After that budget season
[2:10:43] or even later. So this project, just so everyone completely
[2:10:47] understands probably will not be done in 2027 either, right?
[2:10:52] Or maybe late. Mr. Mayor to councillor Lair, if this,
[2:11:00] the goal would be to get it done in 2027.
[2:11:03] If the additional funds were approved in the 2027 budget,
[2:11:08] which, uh, I believe the deputy CAO said would probably
[2:11:11] be in January or February. I'm not sure what that
[2:11:13] timing is. Once that budget would be finally approved. Uh,
[2:11:17] the goal from infrastructure services would be to tender that
[2:11:20] as quickly as we can. To get that, uh, to
[2:11:23] get our pricing for what would essentially be a summer
[2:11:27] of 2027 construct. And that would be if all the
[2:11:32] dollars aligned, that would be the full length of McCurdy
[2:11:36] as well as the four cul - de - sacs
[2:11:38] along there. And one of the items that, uh, when
[2:11:41] we talk about funding is the sidewalk as well. So
[2:11:44] we would have to also include the funding for the
[2:11:46] second half of the sidewalk, which wouldn't have been considered
[2:11:48] in the original budget. Okay. Everybody got it clear as
[2:11:55] mud now. Okay. We have a motion moved and seconded.
[2:12:01] To not award the contract to put the monies aside.
[2:12:05] Through all the things that have been discussed. Okay. All
[2:12:09] those in favor. Opposed that's carried. Okay. Which takes us
[2:12:15] back to the beginning, not the end. Back to the
[2:12:18] beginning of the agenda. Thank
[2:12:28] you. Okay. 11. 1 is the next item on the
[2:12:31] agenda, which is the changes to financial services department. Councillor
[2:12:37] Crane. I will move the staff recommendation. Okay. Is there
[2:12:42] a seconder. Councillor LAR. Any discussion or questions that came
[2:12:51] right off the top councillor Courtney. Mr. Mayor. As is
[2:12:58] transparent, because people have been asking me these scene changes.
[2:13:01] With our CFO not being present. And now I will
[2:13:05] state this. This was discussed. We had to figure out
[2:13:08] a game plan. So I will staff came up with
[2:13:11] this as the best way to proceed. Um, I do
[2:13:14] have questions. I don't like things done and move behind.
[2:13:18] Closed doors. Um, this to me is a budgeting item
[2:13:21] thing when we're bringing in new positions and we're bringing
[2:13:23] in different job descriptions. And we're bringing in new pay
[2:13:27] grids and we're bringing in all these things. And I
[2:13:29] know the financial is broken down here that it's not
[2:13:32] that significant. But if you do the math on it,
[2:13:35] you've basically downloaded work and increased work for three existing
[2:13:39] employees. You've created the job title to two other ones
[2:13:42] and in a 0. 5 position, um, so at the
[2:13:46] end of the day, financially, is I going to have
[2:13:48] an impact on our budget moving forward with legacy costs.
[2:13:52] Um, I understand the responsibilities of our finance department is
[2:13:56] probably the most important one. You got to keep us
[2:13:58] afloat. And sometimes times of the, uh, is this of
[2:14:02] the essence. But, um, my question to staff is this.
[2:14:07] Because of the change, with legislation and the, the, um,
[2:14:11] the frustrations and the extra work and all that stuff
[2:14:13] with our existing staff with the creation of these new
[2:14:15] positions. Is there other municipalities that have had have done
[2:14:18] like as well with this new job titles to, to
[2:14:21] take on that extra, uh, stresses of their municipalities. Do
[2:14:26] we know of anybody else that has restructured their financial
[2:14:29] departments in any capacity just because of the legislative changes,
[2:14:33] responsibilities? I'm going to ask, Madam CO. I don't know
[2:14:37] that the deputy CEO feels comfortable to any of these
[2:14:40] questions or not. Oh, she's fine. Okay. All right. All
[2:14:43] right. I just want to make sure, because okay, she's
[2:14:45] part of it. Mr. Mancina two way in when you
[2:14:48] need to. Madam CAO. You Weres members of council. I
[2:14:52] will start and I can defer also to the Deputy
[2:14:55] CAO and Mr. Mancine if they have other things to
[2:14:57] add. Um, I'm a huge believer in the concept that
[2:15:03] when any staff member leaves either by resignation or retirement,
[2:15:09] um, that you look at your organisational structure and that
[2:15:13] it is irresponsible to simply blindly repost something and go
[2:15:18] forward with the same structure because that's the way it
[2:15:20] always has been. I believe it's incumbent on us to
[2:15:24] look at the structure and see what works best in
[2:15:27] the current state with the skills that we have within
[2:15:31] our corporation. Um, so I'll preface it with that. Um,
[2:15:36] we organisations take place all of the time. Mr. Manzena
[2:15:39] can certainly attest to that having worked in a large
[2:15:42] municipality. Um, I worked in a large municipality as did
[2:15:45] Ms. Osborne. And this happens all of the time. Um,
[2:15:50] I don't have specific examples of, uh, those, uh, those
[2:15:56] reorganizations in a finance department, although I can tell you
[2:15:59] that large overhauls of financial services departments have happened. For
[2:16:04] example, the city of Windsor did it in, I believe
[2:16:07] it was 2002 where they totally went from a decentralized
[2:16:11] system to a centralized system and changed all their positions,
[2:16:14] et cetera. Um, so it does happen. Um, I would
[2:16:18] also, um, state that it happens in other departments. For
[2:16:22] example, prior to me becoming CIO, I was the director
[2:16:25] of legislative services when I became the CIO, that position
[2:16:28] was eliminated. And we simply went with a municipal clerk
[2:16:31] position, which is a different position because I could fulfill
[2:16:36] many of those director roles. And we didn't need to
[2:16:38] have a director position in that spot. So this happens
[2:16:43] all the time. And I believe it's the best way
[2:16:45] to look at the resources that you have within your
[2:16:49] municipality and the skill sets. We are a LEAN team.
[2:16:53] As you know, we're not, um, several layers thick of,
[2:16:56] of different, um, levels of non - union and union
[2:17:02] staff. Um, when we do projects, it tends to be
[2:17:05] all the same people around the table. And so we
[2:17:08] may be lean, but I think that we have an
[2:17:10] amazing skill set here. And so what we've done is
[2:17:13] look at, look at the skill sets that we have
[2:17:15] and how we can best put them to use and
[2:17:17] use the resources we have, um, most effectively, but I
[2:17:21] will defer to Ms. Osborne and to Mr. Mancina as
[2:17:23] well. So thank you. Specific to your question about whether
[2:17:27] or not other municipalities have done it. The short answer
[2:17:30] to your question is yes. Um, we have actually, uh,
[2:17:33] already met with the town of LaSalle around how they
[2:17:36] operate. Some of the efficiencies they have. They've recently added
[2:17:40] staff and a supervisor in order to accommodate their new
[2:17:43] workloads. One of the things several of those municipalities have
[2:17:47] that we do not are effective updated systems. And I
[2:17:51] referenced it in the report where I said quite often
[2:17:55] our systems are like looking up information on an encyclopedia
[2:17:59] instead of Google. They take more time. They're not as
[2:18:02] accurate and they're not as quick. And that is the
[2:18:04] type of systems we have. As I said in the
[2:18:06] report, we've got about 37 different business processes that are
[2:18:10] old and equated time consuming. And their key punching activities.
[2:18:14] When we have a skilled set of staff who can
[2:18:17] actually do more. They can get to those other things
[2:18:19] that people are asking us to get to. But right
[2:18:22] now we can't because we can't get out of our
[2:18:24] own way for keep punching information. So we've already identified
[2:18:28] 37 of them. We've put two in place already. One
[2:18:31] of them we will be able to action this evening
[2:18:33] provided council approves the policy change on the credit cards.
[2:18:37] That's going to save us four to five weeks of
[2:18:38] time of key punching. We've identified a couple others through
[2:18:41] the tax process that are going to also save us
[2:18:44] several weeks. And just to be clear, this isn't several
[2:18:47] weeks, Councillor, that all of a sudden we don't need
[2:18:49] resources. I've already been taking a look at the kind
[2:18:52] of overtime that the team has been putting in just
[2:18:54] to sustain these antiquated processes. And we've got 11 weeks
[2:18:58] of overtime in our union staff and non - union
[2:19:01] that get overtime from January to now. And your three
[2:19:07] non - union staff that don't get paid overtime, inclusive
[2:19:09] of me of putting collectively 23 weeks of overtime myself
[2:19:13] personally 11 weeks since January. So there's a lot of
[2:19:17] heavy lifting going on by this team. They absolutely need
[2:19:20] the resources. And it's one of the reasons why I
[2:19:23] agreed to take on this additional work in order to
[2:19:26] allow those new positions to be created at a net
[2:19:29] impact of this community of only 25, 000 dollars need
[2:19:33] to be. And that may be clear that this was
[2:19:36] impromptu throw on us really quickly. And with a solution
[2:19:40] that I've never heard of before with brand new positions,
[2:19:42] no job descriptions and really explaining exactly what everyone's going
[2:19:46] to be doing moving forward definitively on the fly. Where
[2:19:49] normal positions arise during budget sessions with a clear and
[2:19:52] concise explanation why we should do this and have that.
[2:19:55] So that was done behind there. And now we got
[2:19:57] to do a report out and it's happened. We had
[2:19:58] to action some of these things. And it was action
[2:20:01] done. I'm just going on record that I did not
[2:20:03] want to action on it. I wanted to figure out
[2:20:05] another solution. So that's where I'm at tonight. And it
[2:20:09] is what it is. Okay. Any other questions counsel Paje.
[2:20:18] Thank you Mr. Mayor. I too have very serious concerns
[2:20:22] regarding what happened and how it came up out. And,
[2:20:26] uh, I voted against it. Uh, so at the deputy
[2:20:31] CAO has been, uh, estates here in her report. The
[2:20:38] deputy CIO has been working with staff and observing the
[2:20:43] business practice of work and workload at the finance department
[2:20:48] for the past couple of years, including the added requests
[2:20:54] from council and the audit and finance committee. And so
[2:20:58] you are the author of this report talking about yourself.
[2:21:04] And then the deputy CIO that on the same report,
[2:21:08] you are now a deputy CAO chief financial officer, director
[2:21:14] of development service. So when did you get the promotion.
[2:21:21] And why is it this been made public. Your worship
[2:21:25] members of council, I believe all of council is aware
[2:21:27] that this happened in April at an in - camera
[2:21:29] session of council and Councillor Prusia, I believe that you
[2:21:31] were there. It happened March 9th, 2026. It did not
[2:21:37] happen on March 9th to correct the record. And I
[2:21:39] will ask the clerk. Council received information in camera on
[2:21:42] March 9th. And then the final, uh, organisational structure was
[2:21:47] brought to council in April. But it was sniffered by
[2:21:50] public. So through your ship. In the March 9th meeting
[2:21:56] was never reported out for definitively. Was this brought to
[2:22:00] Council on OpenSession? So, uh, when this was addressed initially
[2:22:04] in March, it was presented for information in April. It
[2:22:08] was brought back in direction was provided as part of
[2:22:10] that direction, a public report was requested. And that is
[2:22:13] what is before us tonight. Having followed all of the
[2:22:16] directions of council. We voted in camera on March 9th.
[2:22:22] Regarding this. Excuse me, not regarding the new structure. You
[2:22:28] received information. No, at that meeting, there was a determination
[2:22:37] about who was going to be put in that position.
[2:22:42] As a chief financial officer. And, uh, further shad, there
[2:22:47] was a mention of money. And other, um, benefits regarding
[2:22:53] that. So three year worship that's, I think what you
[2:22:58] were reporting is related to an in - camera dialogue.
[2:23:01] So I'm very cautious about how we discuss that. But
[2:23:03] certainly that was not what occurred in March. In March,
[2:23:06] it was provided for information, as has been reported out.
[2:23:09] Um, in April, as was reported out, administration was directed
[2:23:13] per sede on the verbal direction of council. And so,
[2:23:16] you know, those are the dates. And I can certainly
[2:23:19] provide you the in - camera minutes to substantiate those
[2:23:22] comments. Okay. So the report states that you supported
[2:23:34] and requests from audit and finance committee, it states that
[2:23:40] new tech required for overall financial management, the tools of
[2:23:47] finance are integrated. But, uh, this is, this hasn't been
[2:23:54] brought to counsel. And we, we haven't done anything to
[2:24:00] make sure that these statements are correct and that the
[2:24:06] financial management is being done properly. Through you, Mr. Mayor,
[2:24:12] um, with respect to the comments about the systems, that
[2:24:17] was raised certainly at the audit and finance committee by
[2:24:19] the former CFO. Okay. Uh, so did you ever advise
[2:24:24] counsel DRed and finance committee? We're concerned that there was
[2:24:28] a control breach. And I wasn't aware of it. And
[2:24:33] it appears counsel wasn't informed and no follow - up
[2:24:36] with this committee. This controlled breach is very concerning, yet
[2:24:42] it appears to have been downplayed. So three, first of
[2:24:46] all, what has that got to do with the issue
[2:24:48] before us? Well, it's all part of the plan where
[2:24:54] she states, and I'm not criticizing her, but she clearly
[2:24:58] states that she was working with the Binance Department and
[2:25:03] all these things were being dealt with. At audit and
[2:25:08] finance. But there was never any follow - up for
[2:25:11] them. True your worship. This question came up at audit
[2:25:16] in finance, and I corrected the record at that time.
[2:25:19] And I'm happy to send that information along to council
[2:25:21] as well. The auditors reported that there was, um, a
[2:25:25] dual level of approval that existed, uh, with the treasure
[2:25:29] several treasures ago several years ago at that time, there
[2:25:34] was no actual, um, wrongdoing that was identified. It was
[2:25:38] simply a process that needed improvements. It was identified. The
[2:25:42] treasure acknowledged it and corrected it. And it was closed.
[2:25:46] And that was fully disclosed to the committee. It was
[2:25:48] fully disclosed to counsel. And as part of the audit
[2:25:51] financial records associated with the town's audited financial statements of
[2:25:55] that year, the two accountants clearly stated that they were
[2:25:59] not informed. In fact, they had a meeting December 1st.
[2:26:06] And there was no follow - up until July 22nd.
[2:26:12] Of this year. So eight months later.
[2:26:22] I'm totally, I'm sorry. I thought I knew everything going
[2:26:25] on around here. I've never heard of this before. Can
[2:26:28] anyone elucidate this. Members of council and a former audit
[2:26:33] as the clerk has stated there was a note that
[2:26:36] the auditors made about a control. Um, it was a
[2:26:40] sign - off control. They noted it. There was no
[2:26:42] one toward action taken because of it. They made a
[2:26:45] recommendation that the control be changed. And that was done.
[2:26:48] And I believe that was reported to the audit and
[2:26:51] finance committee when those financial statements were presented to them.
[2:26:55] And I believe that would have been in the summer
[2:26:56] of 2024 or 2025. I'm sorry. I don't remember the
[2:27:00] year. It actually would have been prior to 2021. As
[2:27:04] it was when treasure Russo was here who left in
[2:27:07] 2021. So, um, it certainly very old. At the December
[2:27:12] meeting, what was discussed was that town budget deliberations, The
[2:27:17] Operating Capital Budgets were deliberated. And then the next meeting
[2:27:19] of the committee that took place was when the audit
[2:27:22] financial statements came back, which is their next regularly scheduled
[2:27:25] activity. Okay. Well, they raised it again on July 22nd.
[2:27:32] And the fact of the matter. On a point of
[2:27:35] order, can we keep the conversation focused on the, like
[2:27:38] the motion item on the floor? I tried. And I'm
[2:27:41] not, I'm not sure where all of this is going,
[2:27:45] except. Because this is in her report. That she was,
[2:27:48] uh, involved with the audit and finance committee and bringing
[2:27:51] this back to council. What about. Are you saying that
[2:27:56] this is Ms. Osborne's report says all of this. Well,
[2:28:00] he, she refers to the fact that she's been working
[2:28:04] with, uh, finance department and the audit and finance committee.
[2:28:09] It states it very clearly in the report that she's
[2:28:11] been doing is for the past, uh, months. But in
[2:28:17] reality, I only knew her to be the deputy CAO
[2:28:23] and involved with, um, economic development and tourism. But it
[2:28:30] states in a report. I was reading from it. Your
[2:28:34] worship members of council as the clerk has mentioned. We
[2:28:36] have to be careful what we say regarding in camera,
[2:28:40] uh, deliberation. However, all of council was aware of the
[2:28:45] changes being made in finance. Uh, in April and Councillor
[2:28:49] Pouge was at that meeting. So she should have been
[2:28:51] aware. Of the March 9th meeting to report out.
[2:29:03] Again, you know, I haven't dealt yet with Councillor Crane.
[2:29:08] I think your point is well taken. I mean, I
[2:29:10] don't know where all this is going Councillor Prusa. I
[2:29:14] don't know except you obviously are trying to dig up
[2:29:17] old things against either Ms. Osborne or the finance department
[2:29:23] or something. And I can't figure out why. I cannot
[2:29:26] for the life of me. It's not making any sense.
[2:29:32] Can you please tell me why you feel it necessary
[2:29:36] to do this. Or else I'm going to rule on
[2:29:39] his notice of motion. I mean, his point of order.
[2:29:44] I'm speaking on the report. I'm speaking to the report
[2:29:49] that's before us. And those things, big questions because it
[2:29:54] brings into effect the audit and finance committee. I just
[2:29:59] attended their last meeting. July 22nd. It's not before us.
[2:30:05] The minutes are not before us. Yet the accessibility committee
[2:30:10] meeting one day later, their minutes are before us. Okay.
[2:30:16] But what has that O ties together with the report.
[2:30:23] Sorry, I don't see it. Your point of order as
[2:30:26] well taken, um, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to
[2:30:28] ask Councillor Prugget that you desist from this line of
[2:30:32] questioning. Please deal with the new structure. That's what is
[2:30:38] before us. I look, I think it's, it's not fair
[2:30:42] to staff. It's not fair to counsel that you bring
[2:30:45] up things that go back five and six years and
[2:30:47] ask for reports and do things that none of us
[2:30:51] were even there or understand. The staff has made the
[2:30:54] explanation and Councillor Crane's position on this is correct. And
[2:30:59] I am ruling in his favor that the point of
[2:31:02] order as well taken. And please, please ask your questions
[2:31:06] on the establishment of the new finance department. We're raised
[2:31:14] at the audit and finance committee meeting on July 22nd.
[2:31:18] That's what my point. They were raised there. Okay. And
[2:31:24] to what did they pass. Where motions made that passed?
[2:31:32] Where motions made that past. The audit and finance committee.
[2:31:37] In the same question. And they were, I were not
[2:31:40] getting the same. The answers that they sought. I don't
[2:31:44] know. The clerk, were you there at that meeting? I'm
[2:31:46] not understanding what councillor Pouge is trying to do or
[2:31:49] to say. Three of you, your worship. I struggle this
[2:31:53] well. Um, unfortunately, you know, I was present for that
[2:31:55] meeting. If there was something substantive related to this report
[2:31:59] that came out of that meeting, we'd certainly have that
[2:32:01] before you. It'd certainly be part of this report. I
[2:32:04] do not see a connection between these, uh, items. There
[2:32:07] is a mention that she has worked with that committee.
[2:32:10] Um, but that really has no bearing on the financial
[2:32:13] services department or the restructuring. Okay. Council of Pouger, the
[2:32:20] floor is still yours. Do you have any questions about
[2:32:22] the new organisational structure. Which is what we're dealing with.
[2:32:29] And bring it forward because at that meeting, when they
[2:32:32] were very clear about, um, some very personal issues, they
[2:32:40] were told that's it. You can't ask those questions. Can't
[2:32:44] make this motion. And further to that, I do, uh,
[2:32:49] stop, uh, the meetings have all been cancelled. Well, I
[2:32:54] don't know whether I have no evidence of this. And
[2:32:58] I don't know, does council want to hear more questions
[2:33:01] of this. I don't think so. Councillor Crain. Are we
[2:33:07] able to call the question and vote. On the motion
[2:33:11] for us? And you know, the question can be called.
[2:33:17] It requires a two thirds majority. And, but if the
[2:33:22] members who other members who have questions, who have not
[2:33:24] had a chance. I'll hold off if the other members,
[2:33:26] but otherwise they. Okay. I will come back to you,
[2:33:31] Councillor Pouger. Later, if you have any questions related to
[2:33:35] the issue at hand. Councillor McArthur. Thank you. Worship, I
[2:33:42] just, I want to ask, uh, couple of questions and
[2:33:45] also just speak a bit, uh, to the report. I
[2:33:48] actually want to thank administration for, for bringing such a
[2:33:52] Folsom, uh, report forward sort of explaining, uh, this restructuring,
[2:33:59] um, why it was necessary. And what the benefits are
[2:34:04] going to be going forward. So what's pretty clear, I
[2:34:08] mean, two things I think need to be said. One,
[2:34:10] we had earlier tonight. Um, presentation, a third party presentation,
[2:34:15] you know, discussing our audited financial statements that said we
[2:34:18] have solid, we have robust internal controls in place. I
[2:34:22] think that's, that's important. Um, can they be better? Sure.
[2:34:27] Of course they can be better. If the one department
[2:34:30] that this town of all the towns in Ontario wants
[2:34:33] to be in tip top shape, given our history, it's
[2:34:35] finance. Right. Uh, we've made incredible strings. Um, over the
[2:34:40] past eight years, uh, but, uh, prior to that, uh,
[2:34:44] you know, they were, there were some issues. We all
[2:34:47] remember those headlines. So, uh, you know, reports from Deloitte,
[2:34:52] you know, recommendations, you know, on and on and on.
[2:34:55] We've done incredible work to get our financial House and
[2:34:58] order input solid internal controls in place. But what this
[2:35:01] report tells us pretty clearly is that two things it
[2:35:05] tells us one, the demands on finance staff are going
[2:35:09] in, they're increasingly more complex. We just had a huge
[2:35:12] debate about this with these Biontarial provisions. Um, and, you
[2:35:18] know, the whole workload has changed. There's multi - year
[2:35:20] capital planning, workaround reserves and grants, development charge requirements, procurement
[2:35:25] requirements, more transactions. There are busier now than they ever
[2:35:29] were. And this is the thing that should concern people.
[2:35:32] Not that we're restructuring, but this report says finance staff,
[2:35:39] they've worked in excessive overtime, having weekly meetings to decide
[2:35:41] what work has to be besponed. Sometimes for months, you
[2:35:45] know, these pressures have been building for 24 months. So
[2:35:50] it's pretty clear that when it comes to finance, we
[2:35:53] need more feed on the street. We need people crunching
[2:35:56] the numbers, reading the reports and getting things ready. So
[2:36:00] for a constant 25, 000 dollars, what this report has
[2:36:03] done, it's eliminated to, you know, a corner office to
[2:36:07] eliminate it a title. A director of corporate services and
[2:36:09] it's replaced it with people that can get to work
[2:36:11] done on the ground. There's a manager of purchasing capital
[2:36:14] and grants position and a senior financial analysts for a
[2:36:18] cost of 25, 000 dollars. So the one thing that,
[2:36:21] you know, administration, like how can we put, and one
[2:36:25] other thing I'm going to say too, there not only
[2:36:26] putting people in places where they need to be to
[2:36:28] get the jobs done to fulfill our obligation to be
[2:36:33] solid financial stewards of this town. They've identified already 37
[2:36:36] business process improvements. Some involving automation and technology. Okay. So
[2:36:42] they're getting that house. In order. Um, so I guess
[2:36:47] my question is that is this enough. So we can
[2:36:51] address these problems and be on a more solid financial
[2:36:54] footing going forward. Or what else does this council need
[2:36:57] to do to keep the steady shape of our fiscal
[2:37:02] ship on this forward trajectory that this report is putting
[2:37:05] us on. PETTON. Through you, Mr. Mayor to Councillor McArthur.
[2:37:09] And I would ask that Mr. Mancina chime in. If
[2:37:11] he has anything further to add at this point, these
[2:37:15] are the resources that we've identified that fill the gaps
[2:37:18] that are currently there. The business processes that we have
[2:37:22] identified were currently going through them. We're looking for all
[2:37:25] of the low - hanging fruit, the quick winds, the
[2:37:28] low cost options that we can get implemented quickly and
[2:37:31] efficiently. They give us gains, much like the one before
[2:37:33] council this evening to change the credit card policy so
[2:37:36] that we can stop processing Amazon invoices for 10 dollars
[2:37:40] through a very complicated AP process and just pay it
[2:37:43] on the credit card that has due diligence, processes. And
[2:37:46] it's far more efficient and does not waste manual labour
[2:37:49] for no reason. Once we get through all of those,
[2:37:52] we suspect there is quite likely going to be some
[2:37:55] software improvements that need to happen. This is not new.
[2:37:59] This has been stated to audit and finance when they've
[2:38:01] asked for different types of ways in which information can
[2:38:04] be communicated to them. We are limited in our systems.
[2:38:08] We are limited in our automation and our discussions with
[2:38:10] other municipalities have highlighted for us that we are behind.
[2:38:15] At this point until such time, as I've actually seen
[2:38:17] all those things implemented and that we are still overcapacity,
[2:38:21] which I do not suspect the situation will be. I'm
[2:38:25] not recommending any more resources. There is abundant opportunity to
[2:38:29] create space and abilities to take on more once we
[2:38:33] stop doing useless things. Any other questions.
[2:38:44] Any other statements. Okay, so. We have a motion on
[2:38:51] the floor. Could you read out the motion because that
[2:38:55] the report be received for information and that bylaw 2026
[2:38:58] - 042 being a bylaw to appoint a treasure and
[2:39:01] a deputy treasurer be taken as having been read three
[2:39:04] times and finally passed. And the mayor and clerk be
[2:39:06] authorized to sign scene. Okay, all those in favor. Opposed.
[2:39:15] Well, again, I got three in favor and nobody voting
[2:39:18] a post. So the motion carries.
[2:39:29] All right. Next is 11. 2 final approval for long
[2:39:37] - term debt. Evidence by debenture to be issued. To
[2:39:42] Ontario Infrastructure and Lens Corporation often referred to as infrastructure
[2:39:46] Ontario Deventure. Any questions or comments, Councillor Crane. I'll move
[2:39:53] the staff recommendation before us. Second, if I counsel a
[2:39:57] lair, any questions or discussion. Seeing none, all those in
[2:40:03] favor opposed. That's carried. Okay. 11. 3.
[2:40:14] Is done. 11. 4. Now before us, which is the
[2:40:22] year - end budget to actual summaries and transfers. Questions.
[2:40:33] Okay. Councillor Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A lot of
[2:40:38] financial statements and things. And we're in the positive, which
[2:40:40] is good, right? That's how businesses run. You should have
[2:40:42] a surplus. You don't want to be in a deficit.
[2:40:44] Um, so we ended what I'm seeing on the one
[2:40:46] page. We ended with 2, 141 taxation supported surplus. The
[2:40:52] question I had, and we had it at IRCA as
[2:40:54] well. WSIB rebate. Is that I'm just playing this as
[2:40:57] devil's advocate. Does that happen often? It was this one
[2:41:01] - off. And would we expect this again in a
[2:41:03] year or two? It was 483, 000 dollars for a
[2:41:05] rebate. Yes. Yes, we potentially could have a WSIB rebate.
[2:41:12] However, we won't know until the end of the year.
[2:41:13] It is a calculation that they provide us. And so
[2:41:16] when we start the budget year, they tell us what
[2:41:18] we should expect our expenditures to be. That is how
[2:41:21] we budget at the end of the year. They provide
[2:41:24] us information on whether or not there will be a
[2:41:25] rebate. In this year, it was a rather sizable one.
[2:41:28] Okay. My second question is, and I ask it again,
[2:41:32] what is considered a good, I mean, we try to
[2:41:35] figure out all the things that are happening throughout the
[2:41:37] year. And the things that happen employees come, employees go.
[2:41:40] Their savings here. There's over, overshoes on road projects like
[2:41:43] I'm McCurdy. Um, what's considered a good amount of surplus
[2:41:48] money because you don't want to go too heavy with
[2:41:51] it because then you've overtaxed inadvertently. Um, but at the
[2:41:54] same time, you want to be cautious and safe. So
[2:41:56] what would be, is this a good number, how high
[2:41:58] would we want this or low? So your worship members
[2:42:01] and council, um, when we got the final number, I
[2:42:04] did the calculation and our surplus is just about three
[2:42:08] percent of our total budget. And of course, the budget
[2:42:12] is a guest estimate. Best guesstimate, um, which is, you
[2:42:16] know, we, we try to get as close as we
[2:42:18] can. So I think on a, on the 65 million
[2:42:21] dollar plus budget being within three percent is a good
[2:42:24] number. And I would remind counsel too it's also in
[2:42:27] the report, um, that at budget last year, instead of,
[2:42:32] um, increasing your, your annual, uh, investment into the asset
[2:42:38] management program and raising, um, you know, putting a permanent
[2:42:42] increase in that amount onto the tax levy. You stated
[2:42:47] that, um, should we have a surplus? That would be
[2:42:49] a first charge against the surplus, so to speak. So
[2:42:53] that has, has panned out, um, as well. So, um,
[2:42:57] although we've got that two million dollar surplus, we do
[2:42:59] now have that savings, if you will, to put into
[2:43:01] our asset management program, which, um, I think is a,
[2:43:05] uh, good news item. Further questions. Further questions. Seeing none,
[2:43:15] motions. Crane saw your hand first. Recommendation. Second up by
[2:43:24] Councillor Lair. Any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all
[2:43:29] those in favor. Posed, that's carried. 11. 5, The Amended
[2:43:37] and New Financial Policies. Any questions. Councillor Larry is moving
[2:43:45] the staff recommendation. Seconded by. Councillor Crane. Any discussion. Seeing
[2:43:54] none, all those in favor. Pose that's carried.
[2:44:15] What's happening? Okay. Even with my hearing aids in, I
[2:44:23] can't, okay. Okay. Uh, 13, uh, point one, 2026 roads
[2:44:32] repair program tender results. Questions. Councillor Lair. Thank you, Mr.
[2:44:40] Mayor, through you. Uh, just a question. Is this where
[2:44:43] we repair sections of the road or is this a
[2:44:46] specific road that's going to be repaired. Mr. Mayor, Jesse's
[2:44:51] online. He can answer that. Oh, and Jesse, we can't
[2:44:56] hear you. Sorry. Just see if you can turn your
[2:45:01] mic on. Or. Lieu of just the answering. I can
[2:45:10] answer that. Okay. Thank you, Todd. Hopefully you can get
[2:45:13] his microphone fixed. So yes, this road repairs program is
[2:45:16] exactly that. These are where we repair larger sections of
[2:45:21] road, but certainly not the whole road where we see
[2:45:23] a pretty significant failure. Perfect. And do we have a
[2:45:27] road section that we're planning on or is it all
[2:45:29] throughout our town. It would be all throughout the town.
[2:45:33] It would be different areas. That over the course of
[2:45:35] the year that we would identify. And we would mark
[2:45:38] those areas out. And then as then we tender it.
[2:45:42] And as long as we have the money, those will
[2:45:43] be completed. Perfect. Thank you very much. I will move
[2:45:46] the staff recommendation. Okay. Is there a seconder. Councillor Crane.
[2:45:53] Any discussion. All those in favor. Of pose that's carried.
[2:45:59] Thirteen point two North side road Reconstruction, Acceptance and Infrastructure
[2:46:05] and Start of Maintenance. Uh, Councillor Courtney. Second of my
[2:46:13] councillor lair. Any discussion. All those in favor pose that's
[2:46:18] carried. Next one, 13. 3 bob low wastewater treatment plant
[2:46:24] decommissioning. I didn't declare this because it's a town facility.
[2:46:30] Okay. And okay. Uh, so, um, so I don't have
[2:46:33] one. 13. 3 any discussion questions. Councillor Lair. Staff recommendation
[2:46:41] seconded by. Councillor Pouger. All those in favor. Bose that's
[2:46:47] carried. There are 13. 4 is done. Yes. And 13.
[2:46:57] 5 is done. And 13. 6. Walk replacement program tender
[2:47:05] results. Questions or comments, councillor Lair. Do we just through
[2:47:13] you two back to Todd, please. Uh, do we have
[2:47:15] a section that we are specifically focusing on our wrote
[2:47:18] our town as well. Is it just for some code?
[2:47:24] That was my follow. Uh, let's see if Jesse's mic
[2:47:27] works this time. Hello. There's my network. You're there. Yay.
[2:47:34] So three YouTube missile three mayor to counsel lair. So
[2:47:38] this sidewalk tender is going to be, um, for, um,
[2:47:43] Cylok segments that are throughout the town. Uh, we are
[2:47:45] replacing, um, the along SIMCO where the, uh, high school
[2:47:51] is at. We are placing that replacing that stretch from
[2:47:56] the high school to George Street as of right now.
[2:48:02] Very much. And I will move this staff recommendation. Second
[2:48:06] of my councillor McArthur. Any discussion. See, none of all
[2:48:11] those in favor. Foes that's carried. 14. 1 amendment to
[2:48:16] the economic development community improvement plan. Questions.
[2:48:26] Moved by Councillor Lair, the staff recommendation seconded by Council
[2:48:29] of Crane. Any discussion on the motion. All those in
[2:48:33] favor. Pose. That's carried. Uh, 14. 2 Heritage Eastment Agreement
[2:48:40] 130 sandwich street south, just for clarity. That's the former
[2:48:45] high school councillor crane. Yes. Thank you, worship through you
[2:48:52] to staff. Um, personally, I'm comfortable with the Heritage Gisman
[2:48:57] Agreement, The Developer, uh, seems to be on board. It
[2:49:00] works as a happy medium for the town and also,
[2:49:03] uh, the development. I did have a question on, uh,
[2:49:06] the third part of the recommendation. Bylaw 2026 - 045
[2:49:13] being a bylaw to designate property of cultural heritage value
[2:49:16] or interest. And it goes on. Uh, outlines these specific
[2:49:21] lots. Is that designating the property in its entirety. Or
[2:49:27] is that just a follow - up motion to just
[2:49:30] the heritage easement agreement? Because if it's too designate the
[2:49:34] property, it's not something that I would support. And I'd
[2:49:37] rather see the motion split. Mr. Coates is here. If
[2:49:43] you could explain what the bylaw details? Through your worship,
[2:49:47] yeah. That is a designation of the property. The Heritage
[2:49:50] Easement takes precedent over the designation. So what is in
[2:49:53] the easement. Um, has higher priority over the actual designation
[2:49:59] of the property. Uh, usually when a Heritage Mint is
[2:50:01] brought forward, a designation does come with it. The easement
[2:50:04] sets the framework on a morph kind of finer grain
[2:50:08] detail of what the requirements are. Uh, either exceptions from
[2:50:12] the designation and or what needs to be done, uh,
[2:50:16] to satisfy the easement. So it is a common practice.
[2:50:19] Okay. So it supersedes the designation. Those are the only
[2:50:22] requirements. Correct. Okay. And the developer is on board with
[2:50:27] this based on my understanding. That's my information. I have
[2:50:30] not spoken directly with the developer, but my information from
[2:50:34] Mr. Coates is that he's on board. That is correct.
[2:50:40] I'll move to the recommendation in its entirety. Okay. Uh,
[2:50:44] seconded by, uh, councillor Courtney. Any discussion on this. Councillor
[2:50:51] Courtney first and then Councillor Pouger. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
[2:50:54] Um, I am second in it. I did, uh, quick
[2:50:57] talk with Mr. Valenti. So I want to thank all
[2:51:00] parties here. I'm glad that, uh, everyone was able to
[2:51:02] find a mutual agreement. This is such an important project
[2:51:07] to move forward. And I'm very confident that the Valente
[2:51:10] Development Court will get this. Our ink will get it
[2:51:13] done. Um, the right way with pride. And be able
[2:51:17] to do it without too many complications. So I'm glad
[2:51:20] that the Heritage Committee and everything was able to get
[2:51:22] rectified because the only reason why I'm getting behind this
[2:51:24] is because the developer can. Be okay with this. And
[2:51:28] that's the only reason why I'm supporting it because ultimately
[2:51:30] this is a lot at stake here. And I'm happy
[2:51:33] to see that we're at a point out where it'll
[2:51:35] be proceed. And I hope it's sooner than later. That's
[2:51:36] all I have to say. So thank you. Councillor Pouger.
[2:51:43] Mr. Mayor, I just want to make sure that, um,
[2:51:47] The developer is happy with all three of the recommendations
[2:51:52] on here. Okay. And, um. I guess I should be
[2:52:01] directing it to the Heritage Planner. So are there any
[2:52:05] other roadblocks in place. Right now? Arcan Mr. Valenti proceed
[2:52:11] with, um, continuing with these plans to build. Worship. Um,
[2:52:19] I can only speak currently to the, um, the Heritage
[2:52:21] Eastman Agreement, of course, that was negotiated with Valente Development.
[2:52:26] And what that did is it set up the very
[2:52:29] defined path forward. Uh, in order to get, uh, to
[2:52:32] the development he wants and ensuring that the level of
[2:52:35] comfort, uh, on his end where there won't be any
[2:52:37] surprises or surprise decisions. Let's say if the Heritage Committee
[2:52:41] changes or if the council changes, um, so it sets
[2:52:44] the framework for that. So I believe, um, that, that
[2:52:48] path is set. And everybody's currently happy with it. Um,
[2:52:53] I'm not sure with roadblocks what you might say, but
[2:52:56] I know this is a complicated development. Of course, there's
[2:52:58] other approvals that are going to have to come forward.
[2:53:04] Dr. Asple, do you have any, uh, ideas if Mr.
[2:53:10] Valenti can proceed rather quickly now.
[2:53:21] Mr. Mayor to members of council, Planning Act Improvals are
[2:53:24] in place. The official plan designation zoning by law amendment.
[2:53:29] Are both in place. As previously approved by council. Unless
[2:53:33] there's further changes to the proposal. It's in the developer's
[2:53:38] hands. Oh, he needs this building permit. In theory, he
[2:53:44] could play for building permits. Okay. All right. Councillor McArthur.
[2:53:52] Thank you. So I want to thank Mr. Valente for,
[2:53:57] uh, sitting here tonight. He's been here at least in
[2:54:00] six and it's 9. 30. So thank you for respecting
[2:54:02] the process. And respecting these chambers. And, uh, thank you
[2:54:08] for. The investment you've made in this town and that
[2:54:11] you're about to make in this town and even greater
[2:54:13] investment that's going to be, you know, dividends for, for
[2:54:16] generations to come. And thank you for working through this
[2:54:21] process with town staff to come to this agreement where
[2:54:26] everybody wins. I mean, at that meeting when we issue
[2:54:30] the notice of intent to designate, I mean, you can't
[2:54:33] really, you know, judge, uh, your council actions by the
[2:54:37] reaction on, on Facebook. But you can get a flavour
[2:54:41] and people weren't happy with us. And, um, and I
[2:54:44] understood why because your project is breathtaking in its ambition
[2:54:49] and its beauty and its potential to transform this town.
[2:54:53] I mean, I know they're only renderings, but it's a
[2:54:56] showstopper. And the corridor that leads right into downtown Amortsburg
[2:55:01] right next to Fort Mald, then I mean, just transformational
[2:55:05] is an understatement. And, you know, people said, you know,
[2:55:09] just, just his pictures are beautiful, you know, let them
[2:55:12] go, but, but we also have an obligation to protect,
[2:55:16] you know, the town and hope and handshakes, you know,
[2:55:20] is no way to, you know, to run an organisation
[2:55:24] of, of this size. And when we issued that notice
[2:55:26] of intent, the desk is named, all we did was
[2:55:31] actually give administration a pass to go to you and
[2:55:35] to talk and begin to negotiations. I know people like
[2:55:37] to think that administration is just running around sort of
[2:55:41] without cancel direction. But they're not. Like they were frozen
[2:55:44] until we actually, you know, introduced that mechanism for these
[2:55:48] negotiations to take place. You know, they couldn't do anything.
[2:55:52] So I said at the time that if you couldn't
[2:55:54] reach a deal and you came back, I was going
[2:55:56] to be supportive of your project regardless. But that conversation
[2:56:00] happened and I'm grateful that it did. And to me,
[2:56:04] one of the most exciting things that we're preserving is
[2:56:06] those murals. I mean, and look what we're doing here,
[2:56:09] our vision. It's a very vision statement preserving our past,
[2:56:13] well forging our future. This project is symbolic of that,
[2:56:16] emblematic of that. And the one thing that did sort
[2:56:19] of bother me is, uh, with some of the comments,
[2:56:24] is people saying those murals weren't worth protecting because they'd
[2:56:27] only, you know, been there since 1967. And they weren't
[2:56:30] 100 years old. Well, I mean, I was born in
[2:56:32] 1971. I'm almost 55. And like, I'm pretty archaic. So
[2:56:37] those murals are old. And if we run around, you
[2:56:41] know, chopping down everything that's 50 years old, 60 years
[2:56:44] old, 70 years old, it's never going to get to
[2:56:47] be 100. We're chopping down saplings because, you know, before
[2:56:50] they become towering oaks, we didn't do that in this
[2:56:53] case. We recognise something that was of value. To our
[2:56:56] past. To our future, and to everybody who said, you
[2:57:00] know, that Amortsburg is inhospitable to developers. We just proved
[2:57:04] them wrong because we're preserving our history. We're protecting our
[2:57:08] future. And we're doing it hand in hand. So again,
[2:57:12] it's 940. You want to go home. Thank you for
[2:57:14] everything you're going to do for this town. Anyone else
[2:57:21] before I give a couple of comments, I'm going to
[2:57:23] pass the gavel then. I want to thank Mr. Valenti
[2:57:27] and the staff. This is, I'm sorry, but this is
[2:57:30] what I felt was going to happen all along. I
[2:57:32] know the last meeting, the few tempers out there, but,
[2:57:36] but no, we have an obligation, as Councillor McCarthy said,
[2:57:40] to make sure that the heritage is protected. And it
[2:57:43] was. And Mr. Valenti has had the opportunity to make
[2:57:46] sure it was protected. What she said he wanted to
[2:57:49] by simply sitting down and talking. And that, uh, that
[2:57:52] resolves a lot of things. Um, some people run off
[2:57:55] the courts and lawyers and everybody else. But to my
[2:57:58] mind, the best way of making things happen is when
[2:58:01] two people reasonable people sit down, discuss and come to
[2:58:04] a compromise, which is exactly what happened here. Uh, from
[2:58:08] the minute that Mr. Valenti bought that property. And remember,
[2:58:12] we refused it because we didn't have the money and
[2:58:15] didn't probably know how to do it right anyway. Uh,
[2:58:17] but was from the minute he bought the property. I
[2:58:20] have been enamored at his proposals. He has a vision
[2:58:27] which will radically and brilliantly transform the downtown core. And
[2:58:32] many, many towns wish that they had something like this.
[2:58:36] I know Kingsville just had a high school and tore
[2:58:38] down Livington had a high school and tore it down.
[2:58:42] They're all, you know, they're just getting rid of the
[2:58:44] properties. But this one here is a gem. And from
[2:58:47] the beginning, uh, we recognised it as a gem. And,
[2:58:51] uh, to Mr. Code's benefit, the report, um, I think
[2:58:55] six out of the eight, uh, criteria were met. And
[2:58:59] people were saying, this isn't heritage. It met almost every
[2:59:02] single criteria set up by the Ontario government. If this
[2:59:06] isn't Heritage, then we don't have a Heritage building in
[2:59:08] this old town. Depending, nevermind what the age is. So,
[2:59:12] um, okay. I guess they've had enough. Okay. Uh, so,
[2:59:18] so I want to thank him. And I want to
[2:59:20] thank the town for bearing with us. I know there
[2:59:22] were some people not happy at The Last meeting, but
[2:59:25] I think everybody's going to go home happy tonight. And
[2:59:28] Mr. Valenti, all I can say is God's speed. Find
[2:59:32] somebody to fill those places. Build it, rent it, lease
[2:59:36] it, sell it. Do something to make sure that that
[2:59:40] is the, uh, architectural gem of Essex County because I
[2:59:45] am positive with your leadership it will be. Take the
[2:59:51] gavel back. Okay. We got a motion on the floor.
[2:59:59] All those in favor. Pose has carried unanimously. Okay.
[3:00:09] 15. 1 special events approval part five.
[3:00:19] Councillor Lair. Moved staff recommendation. Move the staff recommendation. Okay.
[3:00:26] Um, seconded by. Councillor Pouger. Any discussion on this. Seeing
[3:00:35] none, all those in favor pose that's carried. 15. 2
[3:00:42] RFP for integrity commissioner services. Any questions or motions questions.
[3:00:52] Councillor, do you have question or motion? Question, okay, well.
[3:00:55] Are we getting an annual report? They're already out. We're
[3:00:58] still waiting for our... Did we get the annual report?
[3:01:01] Did I miss it? In which report? So through your
[3:01:05] worship, yes, the report was provided. We sent an email
[3:01:08] to that effect, but I'll follow up on that. It's
[3:01:11] on the town website as well. Usually the report comes
[3:01:13] as a report to council so we can actually look
[3:01:16] at it and all that, like, why are we not
[3:01:18] doing like withdrawal? It's a suggestion from the entirety commissioner
[3:01:21] was to save us the expense and having him come
[3:01:23] and present. Even just presenting the report then, I mean.
[3:01:29] Yeah. Has he been remote anyways, so they can do
[3:01:31] it from wherever their office is. Okay, that was your
[3:01:35] question, Councillor Poje. Go ahead. And I support what councillor
[3:01:43] Courtney is saying. We had been advised that it was
[3:01:46] going to appear on council so that if somebody wanted
[3:01:51] to, they could speak to it or buy members of
[3:01:56] Council about their concerns about this. The report was very
[3:02:00] ambiguous. It did not have a breakdown of how many
[3:02:06] it cost us for investigations or anything like that. And
[3:02:09] I think this report should come back to council and
[3:02:14] be occluded on the agenda. Could I just make sure,
[3:02:24] if that's a motion, what will happen? Is this less
[3:02:27] than 50, 000, or do we have to leave this
[3:02:29] up to staff move this motion? Because we have to
[3:02:32] have an integrity commissioner. Yeah, so through your worship, I
[3:02:36] think what is being discussed is different than the report
[3:02:38] that's before us tonight, is this would be an RFB
[3:02:40] for new integrity commissioner services. I think that discussion is
[3:02:44] about the integrity commissioner who has provided his notice termination,
[3:02:48] and the report that he had provided as part of
[3:02:50] that. He intended not to be present to provide that
[3:02:55] and ask that been a doll of council. So that's
[3:02:57] what we did. If you'd like to request that he
[3:03:00] attend and pay the associated costs, we do have an
[3:03:04] agreement with him that's in effect until November 20th. And
[3:03:07] there are set fees for what it would cost for
[3:03:10] him to attend and speak to that report. You know,
[3:03:13] in my estimation, the report's been live now for two
[3:03:17] months. We haven't heard any feedback. Councillor Pouja, I want
[3:03:22] to be clear. You want the former or the about
[3:03:25] to be former Integrity Commissioner to become before council and
[3:03:29] pay his fees so we can hear why he quit?
[3:03:32] Well, no. Well, no, I'm trying to figure out what
[3:03:35] you want. I just want his report that he was
[3:03:37] supposed to report to us. And it's on the website,
[3:03:43] but it's never been on council document on an agenda.
[3:03:49] I'm all for, we have to appoint a new integrity
[3:03:52] commissioner. I'm all for that. But it's just that, I
[3:03:57] believe that report should be made public so that it
[3:04:01] can be seen by. And he doesn't have to appear
[3:04:07] before us. He just gave a report. Okay, so it's
[3:04:13] on the website, but you want it to come before
[3:04:16] council. Just request that you brought forward to the next
[3:04:23] or subsequent Council meeting. And it will, if it passes,
[3:04:28] it will. I mean, it is public, but if you
[3:04:30] want it for councils, edification and debate, you'd have to
[3:04:34] make that motion. So you can do that under new
[3:04:36] business. Okay, well. Because this one here is to authorize
[3:04:41] the new one. Yeah. Okay, Councillor Courtney. The recommendation. We
[3:04:48] need an integrity commissioner. I looked online. I tear you
[3:04:50] have to have when I get it. But it says
[3:04:52] in RFP. So with an RFP, we put a what
[3:04:56] we want. They give us a fee. And then, so
[3:04:59] I guess the RFP that we put out when principals
[3:05:01] took it on for Mr. Elman, what was inclusive of
[3:05:04] what we paid them? Like per report, per statement, per
[3:05:07] whatever. And then at the end of it, we get
[3:05:10] an annual statement. They come before us and they explain
[3:05:13] it. Was that part of the RFP? Because I've never
[3:05:14] seen the RFP with what exactly principles owes this town.
[3:05:17] And if it wasn't part of it, then... So again,
[3:05:20] I think we're dealing with two different things here. We
[3:05:23] know, you know, when we get to new business, you
[3:05:25] know, happy to have that discussion. The cost to have
[3:05:27] the integrity commissioner come for that report beats 1700 and
[3:05:32] 50 dollars. I'll move the recommendation for the new people.
[3:05:40] Okay. Any discussion on the recommendations that are before you.
[3:05:45] All those in favor. Posed. You opposed are just both
[3:05:50] of you late. Putting your hands out. I'm going to
[3:05:53] ask again, all those in favor. Okay, that passes. Okay.
[3:05:58] I wasn't sure whether it was... Maybe I was too
[3:06:00] fast with my question of opposed. Anyway, next go to
[3:06:05] Information Reports. The Three of them, B. Received. The Council
[3:06:10] requests for history at 208, saying our node. The quarterly
[3:06:14] fired department activity report and the building activity report. I
[3:06:19] have a motion to receive them all, and then we'll
[3:06:20] see if anyone wants to pull any of them. Move
[3:06:23] by Councillor Crane, seconded by Councillor Pouger. Okay, we have
[3:06:28] them all before us. Anybody want to question or speak
[3:06:33] about any of the three. Anybody want to? Okay, none.
[3:06:38] All those in favor. Opposed that's carried. Okay. The next
[3:06:48] one is the consent correspondence. We have three. Essex solid
[3:06:52] waste. Regulatory changes for improving Ontario's drinking water resources. And
[3:06:59] whether notification system letter from Chris Lewis MP, kind of
[3:07:04] a motion to receive all three. Moved by Councillor Crane,
[3:07:10] seconded by. Councillor Lair. Uh, okay. Any discussion on any
[3:07:15] of the three.
[3:07:27] No, you just, you voted for it. Everybody voted to
[3:07:30] receive all three. Well, that's why I asked. I was
[3:07:36] surprised when you didn't. So. Well, we'd have to go
[3:07:43] back. What we're in the motion on the floor for
[3:07:47] 17. 1 to 17. 3. Does anybody want to talk
[3:07:51] to those. Councillor Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just
[3:07:58] receive the an article from a resident that unfortunately Mr.
[3:08:01] Lewis attempt to try to get with his concerns about
[3:08:05] weather reporting an area specifically fell on deaf ears in
[3:08:10] Ottawa. So I don't want to let it die here.
[3:08:13] I wish Mr. Lewis lettuce know ahead of time so
[3:08:15] we could gather some steam as a municipality to all
[3:08:18] the municipalities. So can I move him? We're receiving these
[3:08:22] correspondence. Maybe I'll do it under a new business. I'll
[3:08:24] like to move a motion regarding this, but I just
[3:08:26] wanted to speak to it. Like, uh, it's, it's kind
[3:08:27] of important stuff here. And, uh, it got shrugged off.
[3:08:30] Um, by our other members of parliament and thought that
[3:08:33] the minister, everything her, the basis recovers. So. I want
[3:08:37] to thank Mr. Lewis for representing our area and sending
[3:08:40] this off because he's not the only one that has
[3:08:41] concerns with, uh, weather reporting and radar and things like
[3:08:44] that. So I just want to, I'll bring it up
[3:08:46] on a new business, but I just wanted to speak
[3:08:48] to that. Okay. I mean, I thank him for that
[3:08:51] too. But parliamentary system, somebody in opposition is not likely
[3:08:55] to get very far with a letter like this. So,
[3:08:57] but anyway, he tried. So that's, uh, okay. Uh, so,
[3:09:01] uh, so the motion is before us that they all
[3:09:04] be received. All those in favor. Pose that's carried. Now
[3:09:09] councillor Pouge has requested that the matter of 16. 1
[3:09:14] be reopened. So, uh, it would, uh, it would require
[3:09:19] a vote to reopen, which is, and we all voted,
[3:09:23] everybody voted in favor of it. So it would need,
[3:09:25] uh, vote would need mover a secondary and a vote
[3:09:30] to reopen it. And two thirds. Yeah. There would be
[3:09:37] reconsideration. Yeah. So it's two thirds. Okay. So, okay. Is
[3:09:44] there a motion to reopen at first. Yes. I almost
[3:09:49] said, yeah. To read. Consider to reconsider a motion to
[3:09:55] reconsider. All we did was receive them. Well, yeah, I
[3:09:59] know. But that's on other items before with less, less
[3:10:02] things. Can we just, can we go back? Yeah. Let's
[3:10:04] go back. That's not the procedure. Yeah. Well,
[3:10:14] it's not the correct way. If we've done it before
[3:10:17] I'm apologised, if I had any part in it, okay.
[3:10:20] So is there a motion to reconsider. Courtney, is there
[3:10:24] a second or to that motion. Okay. Councillor Pouge. Is
[3:10:29] there any discussion on the motion to reconsider. Seeing none,
[3:10:36] all those in favor of reconsidering. It passed. It's now
[3:10:42] before us.
[3:10:53] Lord is very concerning. Uh, uh, uh, uh. Firmly believe
[3:10:57] for administration to use excuse in this report because there
[3:11:02] were so many emails and complaints. It made it difficult
[3:11:06] for a timeline. It's inexcusable and totally unacceptable. The fact
[3:11:12] of the matter is there were numerous complaints with documentation
[3:11:17] to prove this building was an arena and not a
[3:11:22] warehouse. From the very first moment council and the residents
[3:11:26] were misled by the developer and administration. Committee of adjustment
[3:11:34] from the developer, I would whole early. I don't know
[3:11:38] you can say that about administration. Well, how did administration
[3:11:42] mislead? Well, the committee of adjustment gave approvals for variance
[3:11:47] for a warehouse, not an arena. At no time did
[3:11:53] the administration go back to them and say, Oh, you
[3:11:57] gave an adjustment variance. But by the way, it's not
[3:12:03] going to be aware how it's going to be an
[3:12:05] arena. And the accessibility committee was duped also. They approved
[3:12:13] a parking lot for a warehouse, not an arena. They
[3:12:18] were never allowed to show, be showing the site plan.
[3:12:22] For an arena. And, um. No one informed these committees
[3:12:30] of this betrayal. So there was numerous complaints by Law
[3:12:37] Us Building in March of 2025. By - law asked
[3:12:41] building department. To halt a project temporarily until actions were
[3:12:48] verified. Emails and documents from complainants that walls went up
[3:12:55] on two sides, drainage, continued and completed gravel poured coolant
[3:13:02] lines, lead and buried compressors and fans running constantly. Administration
[3:13:09] assisted. It wasn't an arena. Despite these complaints, the footings
[3:13:15] and foundations were inspected and approved. What was under the
[3:13:21] cement. Lines were they inspected. On May 2025, there was
[3:13:29] an order to comply. The building continued. Juni 11, 25
[3:13:36] Bill Pertuniak sent pictures, which I have, refrigerant units outside
[3:13:42] arena. I immediately contacted the chief building official. I was
[3:13:48] denied by right to speak to him about this arena
[3:13:52] and warehouse. June 12. 2025. There was a stop work
[3:13:59] order. Building continued. June 28, 2025, another complaint. Why woulds
[3:14:07] work continuing on this arena when there was an order
[3:14:10] to comply and a stop work order. Pictures were shown.
[3:14:17] And of the delivery of rink boards, delivery of San
[3:14:21] Boney, delivery of scoreboards, installation of plastic refrigerant lines, support
[3:14:28] system, appropriate delivery and manifolds. Plumbing installed and drained tie
[3:14:36] - ins. The pouring and installation of, um, mentioned concrete
[3:14:42] over the above finishing lines on what appears to be
[3:14:46] a rink - like oval. Day later, the rest of
[3:14:50] the floor was poured. The interior block was constructed with
[3:14:56] bay doors. Wide enough for a Zambodi. The building, they
[3:15:03] allowed the building to continue. On July 30th, 2025, building
[3:15:11] insulation inspected failed due to stop work order. Building continued
[3:15:18] to be completed. Why did administration allow them to continue
[3:15:24] to build and not present them, uh, with a summoned
[3:15:30] until November 20th, 2025 when in May, June, July. It
[3:15:37] was proven over and over again. They were building an
[3:15:40] arena. And they, it wasn't until November 20th, 2025 that
[3:15:48] has summons to appear in court when an order to
[3:15:51] comply and stop work order were issued six months earlier.
[3:15:56] The deceit continued March 12, 2026, The Structure was not
[3:16:02] in compliance. It required another setback. No one caught this.
[3:16:09] Not built according to plan. In closing, I firmly believed
[3:16:14] Council cannot simply receive this report for information. But must
[3:16:19] request a full investigation for allowing the structure to be
[3:16:23] completed as an arena while they were orders to comply
[3:16:28] and stop work orders issued. Um, right now, this poor
[3:16:34] gentleman and his family, they are living in hell. And
[3:16:40] I encourage everybody from council to go there and to
[3:16:43] witness it. There's continuous, mechanical noise. Fans and compressors. Just
[3:16:53] yesterday, the indoor, 45 decimal readings is evidence. Amrisburg uses
[3:17:01] the excuse that we don't have the proper equipment to
[3:17:04] measuring decibels. And we don't have, um, nighttime enforcement. In
[3:17:11] the meantime, this family is living a life of health
[3:17:14] with the 24 - 7 noise traffic, lack of privacy,
[3:17:19] and the knowledge that they were misled and deceived every
[3:17:24] step of the way for proposed warehouse that ended up
[3:17:28] being a commercial arena. Okay. That I take was just
[3:17:35] a statement. So I don't know whether you're expecting. I
[3:17:38] do. Well, maybe before anything happens, we now have two
[3:17:42] minutes to 10. I need a motion if people want
[3:17:45] to stay late emotion to extend the time. Otherwise we're
[3:17:49] finished. Councillor Crane. Until 1030. Okay. Is there a seconder?
[3:17:57] I don't think we'll finish at 1030, quite frankly. But
[3:17:59] go ahead. I'm optimistic. Okay. Uh, Councillor Lair seconds the
[3:18:04] motion. All those in favor. Opposed that's carried. We're until
[3:18:08] 1030. Okay. Now you made a number of statements. Is
[3:18:13] there any questions you want to ask or is just
[3:18:16] you just wanted to make the statement? No, I want
[3:18:18] to make a motion that administration goes there and investigates
[3:18:24] the complaints made by this family. And, um, and I
[3:18:28] know that there's a ways up for them. They haven't
[3:18:32] even mentioned how we could help them. But there has
[3:18:36] to be some municipal noise bylaw that's present. And if
[3:18:42] not, the NPC 300 or the Ministry of Environment should
[3:18:47] be called in. There's, there was never any mentioned to
[3:18:51] put buffers in there or any thing to ease the
[3:18:57] sound and to help this family. From what they're going
[3:19:01] through. All right. I'm going to ask the CAO. I
[3:19:04] know that she was written at least four emails on
[3:19:08] this very topic today, at least for. But go ahead.
[3:19:12] Your worship members of council, the initial noise complaint was
[3:19:15] investigated, um, and, uh, the manager of Bylaw is not
[3:19:19] here this evening. He's on vacation. Um, he sent a
[3:19:22] detailed email to the complainant explaining why, uh, that, that,
[3:19:27] uh, complaint was, um, found not to have enough evidence
[3:19:31] to move forward. The complainant was, uh, told that if
[3:19:35] he was not satisfied with that, he does have the
[3:19:38] option to go before the justice of the peace and
[3:19:41] provincial court and lay a private charge. If he feels
[3:19:44] he has enough evidence, um, bylaw certainly did not feel
[3:19:48] that we had the evidence to sustain that charge. Um,
[3:19:52] another complaint was made. And I believe, um, uh, that
[3:19:56] has to do with a second source of the HVAC.
[3:20:03] Again, Mr. Wilder, um, expressed to the complainant that when
[3:20:08] he went the first time, uh, there was no violation
[3:20:12] in his view. Um, and a second actual formal complaint,
[3:20:18] not an email, but a formal complaint through our portal
[3:20:21] was never filed again for the HVAC. Another complaint came
[3:20:25] in this morning with respect to a different noise. Bylaw
[3:20:29] will be investigating that. Um, and with respect to, um,
[3:20:34] the environmental guidelines, which are guidelines, um, those are, uh,
[3:20:39] actually enforced by the MECP. They are not enforced by
[3:20:43] municipal bylaw officers. And so the complainant is free to
[3:20:46] call the MECP. And if they feel that it's valid
[3:20:49] to come and investigate, I imagine they will do so.
[3:20:58] Further questions. No, Council of Courtney. Mr. Mayor. So, I
[3:21:02] mean, this file sloppy. It's been what we've all had
[3:21:04] concerns from the onset. I think staff did their best
[3:21:08] in regards to trying to rectify. Sean Arno is a
[3:21:12] very unique street in our town. It has got so
[3:21:15] many zoning things from residential to light industrial to heavy
[3:21:19] industrial to residential, to commercial. And it's very unfortunate that
[3:21:25] that blend ever came to be, but somehow it happens
[3:21:27] on St. Arnold. So I guess my question is for
[3:21:30] the resident that is a buddy this, uh, and, and,
[3:21:33] and whatever the zoning, staff says it meets the criteria,
[3:21:36] but there is cameras, the lights, the sounds after a
[3:21:40] certain times. What is the, um. What can be done
[3:21:44] in regards to hearing pucks banging off the boards all
[3:21:48] night long, potentially because it's, to me, it's not a
[3:21:50] public arena. I've never seen, it's private, in my opinion,
[3:21:54] because I haven't been, I'll see if I can get
[3:21:56] some ice time and then that'll verify it. But what
[3:21:58] can we do with Bylaw or, or what does the
[3:22:02] resident have available in their toolbox to push this owner
[3:22:07] that is right on the property line. With all of
[3:22:10] these exceptions to the rule to at least let their
[3:22:13] family be able to live comfortably in their backyard? I
[3:22:15] think that's where we got to go from here now.
[3:22:17] The arena is not going to get tore down. It's
[3:22:18] been approved. But that's, we're working, what can we do?
[3:22:21] So those types of sounds would be the type that
[3:22:26] are regulated or that not regulated, but for which the,
[3:22:31] um, Environmental guidelines are in place. And that will be
[3:22:34] something MECP can come and investigate if they feel it's
[3:22:37] warranted. Our noise bylaw has already been investigated and it
[3:22:41] was not found to have, um, enough evidence to proceed
[3:22:46] with any kind of a charge. On the HEVEC and
[3:22:50] excuse me, sir, I am speaking. If there is another
[3:22:56] complaint, a formal complaint can be made, not an email,
[3:23:00] but through the portal. And the complaint with respect to
[3:23:03] the PEX, our By Enforcement officers are going to attend
[3:23:08] to investigate that. But that would be more for the
[3:23:10] MECP. I understand there was a light complaint. That was
[3:23:15] dealt with. And I believe there may have been complaints
[3:23:17] about the cameras, which were also dealt with. No opportunity
[3:23:25] for the public to speak. Nobody put a name down.
[3:23:28] It was here. Nobody put a name down from the
[3:23:31] entire town to speak. You know, you can't. It's just,
[3:23:35] you can't do it unless there's unanimous consent. Let's follow.
[3:23:44] Your own time. To rely on. It. No, that's the,
[3:23:50] no, that's not in the procedural bylaw. It is there's
[3:23:53] somebody on council who wishes to, to allow DeputNut who
[3:23:59] is not, uh, registered to speak. I do. All right.
[3:24:03] Is there a second or to this. Well, by seconded
[3:24:08] by Councillor Allaire, again, it must be unanimous. All those
[3:24:13] in favor of allowing the gentleman to speak. Could we
[3:24:17] have a recorded vote, please? No, it's procedural. You know
[3:24:20] that you cannot ask for a recorded vote. On a
[3:24:23] procedural matter. Okay. All those in favor of allowing him
[3:24:27] to speak. All those opposed. Counsellor Crane said no. He
[3:24:33] cannot speak. Okay. Now, okay. You want to do the
[3:24:38] same thing. Okay. All right. Councillor Pouger moves that a
[3:24:44] second deputy allowed to speak. Seconded by Councillor Lair. Well,
[3:24:51] we know who it, okay. I don't even know his
[3:24:54] name. Do you worship the first motion was to wave
[3:24:59] the rules of border to allow a delegation to speak.
[3:25:02] It did not indicate the individual. So I think based
[3:25:04] on that, a second motion will have the same result.
[3:25:07] There's no procedural reason to go back through that's emotion.
[3:25:10] Okay. Well, it was, it was generic. The clerk is
[3:25:15] right. It was generic to allow someone to speak. And
[3:25:17] it did not pass. So that means everybody in the
[3:25:20] room. I thought I was
[3:25:30] pretty familiar with the bylaw. I do not believe that
[3:25:32] that's what the bylaw says it needs to be unanimous.
[3:25:35] It was not unanimous. Now we know the gentleman with
[3:25:38] the beard was the one. I don't have any problem.
[3:25:41] Saying that we can, if you want, but you have
[3:25:44] to name the individual this time. I'm sorry about that.
[3:25:50] His name is Nate Aroic. For the record. Council. Okay.
[3:25:56] But that's who I thought it was. But I didn't
[3:25:57] want to was denied the right in Ukraine. It's been
[3:26:01] denied. Yeah. Okay. So who do you want to speak
[3:26:03] next? I'm asking to wait the rules of order to
[3:26:06] allow Alice and Baldwin to speak. Okay. Is there a
[3:26:10] seconder. Councillor Lair. Okay. Is it just a vote on
[3:26:18] a procedural matter. Well, it's a procedural motion. You don't
[3:26:22] usually speak. I mean. If you want to get into
[3:26:27] a big discussion, let's go. Well, no, it's not going
[3:26:30] to be a big discussion, but, uh, I'm with Councillor
[3:26:33] Crane on this one. I was prepared to hear the
[3:26:35] homeowner because I think that sort of serves that the
[3:26:40] public good to give them the opportunity to speak, but
[3:26:43] just to, you know, other people putting up their hands
[3:26:45] randomly. I want to hear from the homeowner. And, uh,
[3:26:49] and that's not going to happen. That's fine. But, but
[3:26:52] I'm not going to support Ms. Baldwin speaking on this
[3:26:54] issue. It's not her house. Okay. So, so anybody else
[3:27:03] want to speak to the issue. The reason I, uh,
[3:27:07] was suggesting Alison speak is because she has been there
[3:27:10] on several occasions. And she has witnessed. There may be
[3:27:15] many good reasons, but it has to be, uh, Councillor
[3:27:19] Crane, do you want to speak to this? Yes. I
[3:27:21] have many times, uh, I'll keep it short. There's an
[3:27:24] opportunity to register as a delegate. Anyone from the public
[3:27:27] could have registered to speak on these items. That did
[3:27:30] not take place. The process was not followed. It's almost
[3:27:33] 1030. This is a meeting of council, not a meeting
[3:27:37] of the public. We had that during the planning meeting
[3:27:39] session. Um, and for another, a number of other reasons
[3:27:42] that I've mentioned every time I'm the big bad wolf
[3:27:45] saying no, uh, but we have a procedural bylaw that
[3:27:47] needs to be followed. So thank you. All right. So
[3:27:51] we have a motion moved and seconded everybody who wants
[3:27:54] to speak has spoken. All those in favor of letting
[3:27:58] Alice and Baldwin speak signify all those opposed. There are
[3:28:02] two in opposition that fails. Okay. So. Where are we
[3:28:12] at Mr. Clerk? Is there anything on the. S nothing
[3:28:16] else? Okay. There's no motions. There's nothing. Well, it's been
[3:28:23] reopened. Yes. So there have to be another motion. Councillor
[3:28:27] Larry, you're moving motion to receive it. Is there a
[3:28:31] seconder. Councillor Crane, any discussion on the second motion to
[3:28:36] receive. All those in favor. Posed. That's carried. It's received
[3:28:43] again. Okay. Next is a
[3:28:53] proclamation request for National Disability Employment Awareness Month Ontario Disability
[3:28:59] Employment Network. And they are requesting that we declare October
[3:29:04] National Disability Employment Awareness Month and that we light up
[3:29:08] the town in purple and or blue on October 16th.
[3:29:17] Councillor Lair. I will move the staff recommendation and could
[3:29:22] we let it up in blue. Okay. Is there a
[3:29:29] second or to that. Councillor Crain. Okay. So this is
[3:29:36] specific. We proclaim it and we light it up in
[3:29:38] blue. And he discussion, councillor Courtney. I shouldn't have the
[3:29:44] tread lately. I think city of Windsor did it right.
[3:29:46] Um, the proclamations continue to come in and they're very
[3:29:50] widespread. And the months and the weeks and the days
[3:29:52] and there's going to be years soon that we're going
[3:29:54] to proclaim a whole year for something. And no disrespect
[3:29:57] to any of these entities, but we are a corporation.
[3:30:01] We are a talent in the province of Ontario flags
[3:30:04] and town hall buildings really were delving into things that
[3:30:07] have nothing to do with the town of Ambersburg. We
[3:30:09] don't have to proclaim stuff. It should be given. But
[3:30:12] whatever this council wants to do, but it's just every,
[3:30:16] they're coming in all the time. And the list is
[3:30:18] growing. I'd be curious to know the number of requests
[3:30:20] for proclamation days and months. And see where it's at.
[3:30:23] I'm just curious. I mean, Windsor did away with it
[3:30:26] for a reason. I've seen it and I followed along
[3:30:28] and I kind of agree. Do you want that before
[3:30:34] we deal with this item or do you want this
[3:30:36] deal with this item? And as for it later. All
[3:30:40] right. Okay. So anybody else to speak to the item.
[3:30:45] Okay. Then all those in favor. Opposed. Okay. Now under
[3:30:51] new business, if you want to ask for that report,
[3:30:54] you can get it. All right.
[3:31:04] Okay. We now have consent other minutes. There's the, uh,
[3:31:09] regular board meeting minutes. The committee of adjustment meeting minutes
[3:31:13] Heritage Committee meeting minutes and the Amortsburg accessibility advisory committee
[3:31:17] meeting minutes. Motion to receive them all. Councillor Allaire, seconded
[3:31:23] by Councillor Courtney. Anybody want to pull any or discuss
[3:31:27] any of these. Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor.
[3:31:36] Opposed. That's carried. Other minutes, The Drainage Board meeting minutes
[3:31:41] of July 7th, 2026. Is there a motion. Councillor Lair.
[3:31:54] Just at the recommendations. Approved, received and approved. Okay. Is
[3:31:59] there a seconder. Councillor Crane. Any discussion. Seeing none, all
[3:32:06] those in favor. Pose. That's carried. Unfinished business. And anything
[3:32:14] an unfinished business. No. Okay. Then over onto the page.
[3:32:23] We now have new business. This is an opportunity. There
[3:32:26] was a number of things discussed already tonight that could
[3:32:29] go here. Councillor Larry, see you first. Thank you, Mr.
[3:32:33] Mayor. I will try and keep this super quick. Um,
[3:32:37] just to calm every resident that might be still somehow
[3:32:40] tuning in. The weeds, uh, on the sidewalks in town,
[3:32:45] it was explosive on the internet this week. And everyone
[3:32:47] thinks that the town does not care about our sidewalks.
[3:32:50] Can we just get confirmation as a whole from administration
[3:32:55] that we are taking care of this. Through you, Mr.
[3:33:01] Mayor, to counsel a lair, The weeds will be no
[3:33:05] longer. So it just is a little explanation. We have
[3:33:08] to get approval from the MECP to do our wheat
[3:33:12] spraying programs. Uh, we had the one for the rural
[3:33:16] sections a long time ago. And the one for the
[3:33:19] sidewalks took us almost three months to finally get that
[3:33:21] approval. Once we get the approval, then we put it
[3:33:24] into the newspaper, which it was two weeks ago. And
[3:33:28] that, uh, weed spring program did start last week. So
[3:33:31] even if, uh, unfortunately, we'll take about a week for
[3:33:33] them to die as well. So it may have already
[3:33:35] been sprayed, but it'll take a little bit of time.
[3:33:37] And just to confirm, it is throughout our entire town,
[3:33:41] correct? If it's a curb, we spray it. Yes. Okay.
[3:33:45] Perfect. Thank you. And then the next hot topic this
[3:33:49] week was Accessibility in our parks. Um, I do know
[3:33:52] that, uh, our director of Parks and REC Heide took
[3:33:55] very good response to many of the emails. Could you
[3:33:59] enlighten us on some of the actions that we are
[3:34:02] capable of taking from those emails and what could be
[3:34:05] effective. Thank you for the questions through Mr. Mayor. Remembers
[3:34:10] of council, we have reviewed the request that have come
[3:34:12] in and all the emails that have come in regarding
[3:34:14] some of the accessibility, um, suggestions for some of the
[3:34:18] playgrounds, uh, we are looking into those with the playground
[3:34:21] vendor that supplied the equipment. Some of the suggestions I
[3:34:24] will, uh, caution if we implement those, um. Compromise the
[3:34:32] passing of the unit. So if there are any compromises
[3:34:34] like that, we will not make those adjustments. We will
[3:34:37] also be sourcing additional panels perhaps that we might be
[3:34:40] able to put out there. There will be a cause
[3:34:42] to that as well. Um, and we're also looking at,
[3:34:45] um, other adjustments within the parks where we can perhaps
[3:34:49] pour one section of sidewalk to make that accessible. We're
[3:34:52] also ordering signs for the accessible parking spots that was
[3:34:55] recommended. You guys worked really quickly. So I appreciate that.
[3:35:01] Um, one of the small suggestions that this resident made
[3:35:05] was painting the strip at Jack Purdy Park, um, to
[3:35:09] prevent parking in front of the ramp. Can we get
[3:35:13] that done this year? That's not a cost. Thank you
[3:35:17] for the question councillor to you. Mr. Mayor to all
[3:35:19] of council. Everything comes at a cost, but we are
[3:35:21] working on that. So we will be painting that area
[3:35:24] in front of Jack Prairie Park and the signs are
[3:35:26] on order. So, um, we do have signs. We are
[3:35:29] looking at all of the parks. Um, I would like
[3:35:31] to notify council that in all of these things come
[3:35:34] at a cost. And we do have in our regular
[3:35:36] program and accessibility budget where we can do bits and
[3:35:39] pieces of these things. So as capital budgets move forward,
[3:35:43] we can do these additional little pieces that we know
[3:35:45] need to happen. So we will take into consideration all
[3:35:48] the accessibility improvements that need to happen across our parks.
[3:35:51] We know that there are a lot in terms of
[3:35:53] connectivity. And we will work on those as budget permits
[3:35:56] little by little. Perfect. And then just the final follow
[3:35:59] - up with Parks. The Port of Johns. So we
[3:36:02] do have accessible porta - johns and a lot of
[3:36:04] our parks, which I appreciate. However, they were originally placed
[3:36:09] some not inaccessible areas. Can we just ensure that that
[3:36:12] is taking care of and they are improper placement. Thank
[3:36:17] you for the questions to you, Mr. Mayor to members
[3:36:18] of council. Um, they were placed inaccessible locations. Unfortunately, the
[3:36:22] storms that we've had when the companies come out sometimes,
[3:36:25] they don't know. We know where to put them back
[3:36:27] or they get turned. Or if they're not actually anchored
[3:36:30] down kids tip them over and they get spun around.
[3:36:33] But we did do a thorough walkthrough of all the
[3:36:36] parks. Um, I personally went out there with our parks
[3:36:39] manager. Um, to look at some of the areas where
[3:36:42] they were in the wrong location. So our staff are
[3:36:45] addressing that. Thank you. Um, I have other, can I
[3:36:49] do one more. Oh, do you want to speak to
[3:36:54] we only have 11 minutes. I want to give everybody
[3:36:55] a chance, but go ahead. Okay. Uh, well Councillor Courtney
[3:36:59] wanted to speak to Parks, but I guess it's kind
[3:37:01] of environmental. So we're going to go with it. Uh,
[3:37:03] I just wanted to give everyone an update on the
[3:37:05] amalgamation of IRCA to Willerca, the Western Lake Erie Regional
[3:37:10] Conservation Area. Um, I sent Council on email, but just
[3:37:14] to let everyone know on August 5th, uh, that we
[3:37:16] got an update from the MECP. And they did change
[3:37:19] our structuring. So now what we'll be different is all
[3:37:23] of Essex region will be represented by three representatives, uh,
[3:37:27] Windsor will also get three representatives and Peely will get
[3:37:30] one representative. And Wallerca will consist of 22 representatives. So
[3:37:35] I just wanted to get that out there. Um, and
[3:37:37] then Tim and I are on the transition team. That's
[3:37:41] effective until February 1st. Apparently. And, uh, we've been trying
[3:37:44] to get this so - called playbook to explain what
[3:37:47] is going to happen to our area. Um, it's out
[3:37:50] there, but they are not showing us. So we basically
[3:37:53] get to learn. As it comes. So I just wanted
[3:37:56] to give the update. Thank you. Okay. Other new business.
[3:38:04] Councillor Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Real quick too. Just
[3:38:09] a follow up to, um, the resident reached out to
[3:38:11] all of us. And you were very good. Staff was
[3:38:13] very good with, uh, in regards to the accessibility. Namely,
[3:38:17] the one that she referenced was Boldway Park. Again, just
[3:38:19] looking for signage, just a sign dedicated near the path
[3:38:22] closest to, to me, I don't think it's a significant
[3:38:25] dollar amount, but whatever parks that we have, if it's
[3:38:29] new or there should be, I agree with her just
[3:38:32] a sign in a post. And whatever funding, we're going
[3:38:35] lame dunk, but I mean, hopefully we got some, something
[3:38:38] in a reserve somewhere because this is something that I
[3:38:40] think is the only real request to make sure that
[3:38:42] available parking spot or two is closest to that path
[3:38:45] to let that child, at least quickly as possible, get
[3:38:48] to, even if it's the gravel trails right now. And
[3:38:51] she's aware that it's going to be a phased in
[3:38:53] approach. You did that very well. But just putting up
[3:38:55] a simple sign, just to mark it off. And then
[3:38:57] the ramp access or the, uh, path access. A little
[3:39:01] bit of paint. I'll go and paint the lines. I
[3:39:03] don't care. I got paint. So let's, I hope we
[3:39:05] can move quickly on that. That was the request. Um,
[3:39:08] my second thing is I brought out up earlier MP
[3:39:11] Lewis. It fell on deaf ears. The ministry environment says
[3:39:14] that no, no, they're doing their due diligence with exeters
[3:39:17] radar station. And it went down. But that's not enough
[3:39:21] in my opinion. It was his letter that came in
[3:39:23] and he was his that he brought forward. I don't
[3:39:26] know what kind of, uh, support he got from the
[3:39:28] area. I wish he kind of let everyone know. But
[3:39:30] I'd still like to send a letter off to this
[3:39:32] minister stating that we as the town of Amsburg do
[3:39:35] support, um, P. Lewis'concerns. And we feel it won't go
[3:39:41] anywhere. And also CC, other municipalities and maybe county council
[3:39:45] can bring it up in support of, uh, MPUS because
[3:39:47] he shouldn't be left high and dry when he's trying
[3:39:49] to take care of this area and the safety, uh,
[3:39:51] for bad weather. And again, we just had a rock
[3:39:54] and storm last night. Power was out at my house
[3:39:56] for 12 hours. Um, generator's been in use. I've had
[3:39:59] to pay for generator. Like things are happening here. And
[3:40:02] we try to alert people as soon as possible. We
[3:40:04] have to. And we got to stay on top of
[3:40:06] the government and okay is not, is not adequate. You
[3:40:10] know, we got to make sure that, and he has
[3:40:12] a concern and I want to support him. So I
[3:40:14] put a motion forward that we sent a letter of
[3:40:16] support to the minister in regards to M. P. Lewis's
[3:40:21] letter that he submitted. NCCA copy to the area. Is
[3:40:27] that signifying you want to speak or that you want
[3:40:29] to support this? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Your second to
[3:40:36] get any discussion. All those in favor. Pose that carries.
[3:40:40] And I got one more thing real quick. Um, new
[3:40:43] fire hall. Shingle roof. We're looking for, uh, rate reductions
[3:40:47] for that thing. And I remember this council did shingle.
[3:40:50] I'm seeing metal things going up signifying a metal root.
[3:40:52] Like what are the metal girders and things going up
[3:40:54] on the roof of the fire hall? I've seen it.
[3:40:56] Other people seen it and they've made comments. So what
[3:40:59] roofing material are going is going on the roof. I'll
[3:41:04] take that one through you, Mr. Mayor, to Councillor Courtney.
[3:41:07] It is a shingle roof. What you see up there
[3:41:09] are the girders that will support the insulation. So what
[3:41:12] hasn't gone up yet is the insulation that I'll go
[3:41:14] between those girders. Uh, so those girders will ultimately be
[3:41:18] covered with plywood and shingles, uh, when the final product
[3:41:21] is complete. So with two layers from the outside for
[3:41:25] insulation for the roof versus normally that's interior and you
[3:41:28] see that. So that's the correct. Okay. Thank you. Other
[3:41:35] new business. Councillor Pouger. Mr. Mayor. I just wondered if
[3:41:43] we can write to the Diagello and Premier Ford to
[3:41:49] find out where we are with the 500, 000 dollars
[3:41:52] that we are supposed to be given. Oh, I don't
[3:41:57] see why not. So, okay. That's a request that staff
[3:42:02] do that. Or did I do it? Whoever can do
[3:42:07] it. Do you want it to come from the mayor's
[3:42:09] office or do you want it to come from staff.
[3:42:11] Okay. Would it be more effective coming from the mayor's
[3:42:15] office? All right. Is there a second or to that
[3:42:17] motion? Okay. Uh, second, I saw Councillor Crane's hands first.
[3:42:22] Any discussion on this. All those in favor. Pose. I
[3:42:27] hope staff will help me prepare a nice letter. Thank
[3:42:29] you. And I will gladly sign it. Okay. Other new
[3:42:33] business. Councillor Fouger. Yes. Um, so I'd been receiving some
[3:42:39] emails about Minnesota and other places that are being, their
[3:42:44] water treatment plant is being hacked. I just wondered if
[3:42:49] we could receive an update. From administration to tell us
[3:42:55] all the, um, criteria that they have put in place
[3:42:59] to prevent that in the town of Amorsburg. Worst members
[3:43:06] of council would be happy to bring that report in
[3:43:08] camera, but to bring it publicly would expose all of
[3:43:12] the precautions that we've taken, but we would be happy
[3:43:15] to bring you that in camera. No objection to be
[3:43:18] abroad in camera. It just said, I know it's very
[3:43:21] concerning for a number of people because it's happened in
[3:43:26] Minnesota 55 times. So. People are concerned. A good request.
[3:43:36] Is there a second or to that. Councillor or letter?
[3:43:40] Any discussion. All those in favor. Pose that's carried. Anymore.
[3:43:48] Go ahead. Um, regarding Bill 72, the Bio Ontario Act.
[3:43:56] Would it be not be in our best interest to
[3:43:59] send a letter to the province. Um, asking, telling them
[3:44:04] how it's affecting us dramatically and giving the example of
[3:44:08] what happened tonight. No seconded by Council
[3:44:18] Ukraine. I did, I did have a motion. Or do
[3:44:23] you want any statistics? Cause this, what we did tonight
[3:44:25] did not cost us any money. So we don't have
[3:44:28] anything to, we can say we don't like the act.
[3:44:33] No. I can't find my notion I had. So do
[3:44:38] you want the motion just to say we don't like
[3:44:39] it? No. How it affects us. Well, we went around
[3:44:46] it. Process more money. Well, I'm just trying to find
[3:44:50] my, my motion. That I had made. Until. It does.
[3:45:01] While you're looking forward, I'll see if anybody else has
[3:45:03] any other motions. Off.
[3:45:16] Yeah. Well, I mean, but okay. We can send it
[3:45:22] could have cost us money, but we decided to, okay.
[3:45:30] The scenario tonight to them that it was going to
[3:45:33] cost us 120, 000 dollars more than one of the
[3:45:36] primary reasons why it was deferred. And it was an
[3:45:38] option available on our toolbox. But moving forward, if this
[3:45:41] is going to be a trend, which it sounds like
[3:45:43] it's going to be. That's why we've got concerns. I
[3:45:45] think it's fair. All right. Mr. Mayor, my motion probably
[3:45:50] is not a might not be appropriate. It was to
[3:45:54] direct administration to correspond with the province of Ontario. To
[3:45:58] request compensation for 124, 045 dollars. But because we didn't,
[3:46:07] uh, proceed with it. I guess we can't. No, we'll
[3:46:11] have to go with the first motion. Okay. But it
[3:46:14] makes sense. Okay. All those in favor of the first
[3:46:16] motion. Okay. Pose. Okay. Um, I had a few, but
[3:46:23] we're not going to get there because, uh, we've got
[3:46:26] other things to do. I had a couple of motions.
[3:46:29] I thought, uh, one of the councillors was going to
[3:46:32] do what reg nemeth asked and asked for a report
[3:46:36] on the North of Alma, but nobody did. He said,
[3:46:39] you were going to do it. He said, Diane was
[3:46:41] going to do it. And nobody did. Like that. Were
[3:46:46] you asking a report from. Council games doing everything? Is
[3:46:50] Councillor Crane doing it right now? Yes. Um, so I
[3:46:53] don't have to do it. So I'll move a motion.
[3:46:56] I spoke with Kevin about perhaps council receiving a watershed
[3:47:01] update in a report. Uh, when I spoke to Mr.
[3:47:04] Nemeth, he did not explain what he was looking to
[3:47:07] talk about. So I'm hoping that a general reporter about
[3:47:10] watershed will give him the chance to do that. Yeah.
[3:47:13] I think specifically around the big creek signage that was
[3:47:16] put in there in the environmental provisions and how they're
[3:47:18] working. Um, may speak to the area that he has
[3:47:21] concerns with. That would be great. And then some move
[3:47:26] around a seconder. Not yet. Secondary. Councillor Pouger. Okay. Just
[3:47:34] may I speak on it. Well, very quickly. You got
[3:47:38] two minutes to wrap up everything. I'll be so, uh,
[3:47:41] the other part that they're concerned about is if there
[3:47:44] was a frag mite's mapping, I know we spent 20,
[3:47:48] 000 dollars to do it. And I think that's a
[3:47:51] part of the concern is how successful have we been
[3:47:57] with phragmalities control. Okay. So, okay.
[3:48:07] But that doesn't have to be in the. Okay. Uh,
[3:48:11] any other discussion, all those in favor. Pose that's carried.
[3:48:15] Um, I did have one item, but I'll deal with
[3:48:19] staff later. Okay. Uh, anything else. Yes. I got one
[3:48:25] minute. We've got, uh, three bylaws, 24. 1. It is
[3:48:30] the bylaw, uh, to the shoel line drain. We'll move
[3:48:36] them all. Can I do that? Yeah, you can. Okay.
[3:48:39] I'll do it. Perfect. That includes the confirmatory bylaw moved
[3:48:43] by Councillor Crane, seconded by Councillor Lair, all those in
[3:48:47] favor. Opposed that's carried adjournment. Okay. Councillor
[3:48:57] Courtney, seconded by Councillor Lair. All those in favor. Opposed.
[3:49:01] And the meeting concludes that. 1029.