[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.

Regular Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript