[0:32] There's another junior.
[0:37] » Thank you. So, we will call this special
[0:40] meeting of council for Tuesday, June
[0:43] 23rd to order. Please could I just
[0:46] remind everybody to silence their
[0:48] devices if they haven't uh done so
[0:50] already. And also just a reminder that
[0:53] uh today's meeting is livereamed on the
[0:56] municipal YouTube channel for members of
[0:58] the public to view either live as it
[1:00] says or at a at a later date right
[1:02] there.
[1:04] Uh adoption of the open session agenda.
[1:06] to be resolved that the council of
[1:07] corporation town of bankrupt is hereby
[1:09] approved of the open session agenda as
[1:13] amended uh dated June 23rd 2026. Uh it's
[1:17] amended just for the order today. So
[1:20] councelor Leman and councelor Lawrence
[1:22] all in favor please. Thank you.
[1:26] Is there any declaration of pecuni? Just
[1:30] seeing none. So today we have a
[1:33] delegation uh from Mr. Brian Lawrence
[1:36] over the walkway access over the
[1:38] municipal property being the prominad.
[1:40] So Brian, if you'd like to come to the
[1:43] front. Thank you.
[1:48] And you'll need to push the button there
[1:50] so you get a red light on on your mic
[1:53] there.
[1:55] >> That one.
[1:56] >> You got it.
[1:56] >> That puts me on.
[1:57] >> You're on.
[1:58] >> Perfect. Thank you very much.
[2:00] >> And just Sorry. You're going to Yeah,
[2:02] we're just going to put your sketches up
[2:05] so we can all see here.
[2:06] >> Great. Except that I have to make a
[2:10] comment on that. Okay. Um, so I want to
[2:13] start off with two apologies. One, I
[2:15] forgot my hearing aids. So if you have
[2:16] to yell at me, that's one thing. Uh, the
[2:18] other is, uh, we just found out about
[2:21] this whole thing about very short, not
[2:24] very long ago. I understand that the
[2:25] decision was made back in May, but we
[2:27] heard nothing about that. So, it wasn't
[2:29] until uh I met with Jake a few not long
[2:32] ago that I was presented with this. This
[2:34] was totally new to us. The reason I
[2:37] mention that is that we um have been
[2:40] making some I have Shannon with me too,
[2:42] Shannon Moore, who runs the spa. She's
[2:45] the one that's most affected by this.
[2:46] She's more affected by it than I am. And
[2:49] uh so if there's some questions that
[2:50] pertain to that, then she'd be here to
[2:52] answer them. But uh so we've been
[2:55] talking up until 10 minutes ago and
[2:57] making some changes. So Amber, I'm sorry
[2:59] that that's not the most upto-date. So I
[3:02] wasn't aware that I that that was going
[3:04] to be used as such. Um but anyway, so I
[3:07] have a handout that's got the update
[3:09] one. Is that okay?
[3:10] >> Sure.
[3:10] >> So I can hand that out. Okay.
[3:12] >> I have a few handouts.
[3:22] Take your time.
[3:24] I only have three hours. You just take your time.
[3:34] » Yeah.
[3:35] >> My fault. This is this sad.
[3:37] >> That's okay. Take your time.
[3:43] Right.
[3:53] » See, it always shows you who knows
[3:55] what's going on.
[3:57] >> That's why I brought her along, too.
[4:00] >> That's right. [laughter]
[4:03] » So, yeah. You don't mind taking one
[4:05] passing along because your face is what
[4:07] I I am. Okay. You're okay with that?
[4:10] >> Yep.
[4:12] Wow, that was
[4:16] [laughter] I tried to call you. That's
[4:18] right. Okay. So, uh yeah. So, I
[4:22] apologize that didn't get sent to Amber,
[4:25] but to say we've been just working on it
[4:27] up. They're both the same. They're just
[4:28] coming from two different directions.
[4:29] >> Yeah. I'm thankful. I think
[4:32] >> so. If I may folks uh give you a very
[4:35] Oh, the other handout I have is a
[4:37] written handout to uh text to go with
[4:40] that. Just a word of explanation because
[4:44] I think there are some things that uh
[4:46] many of you may not be aware of with
[4:48] respect to the project. Uh so I'm trying
[4:52] to make this as brief as possible but at
[4:55] your leisure there is um there is uh
[5:00] opportunity to to get a little bit of
[5:03] background. So if I may very briefly
[5:07] I would like to just address
[5:11] the the property. So the property we're
[5:13] talking about of course is 45 Hastings
[5:15] Street North. Royal Leage is in the
[5:18] front. Shannon has her spot at the back
[5:20] and we have an apartment upstairs.
[5:23] So we bought that shortly after my
[5:25] father passed away. We used some
[5:27] earnings to buy a rental property and uh
[5:32] so that's what uh what we have. So when
[5:36] we purchased that as you can see on that
[5:38] the text uh when we purchased 45 the
[5:41] eastern property line extended about 30
[5:44] ft past the neighboring property. So if
[5:48] you go to the diagram
[5:50] that I handed out, that 30 ft is that
[5:55] blue box.
[5:57] Why that property line extended that
[5:59] far, I don't know. I wasn't part of
[6:01] that. We we just bought the property.
[6:03] Okay. So
[6:06] forever since we bought it, we've had
[6:08] that that blue square. So it's about 30
[6:10] by 30, so about 900 square ft.
[6:14] And historically we got limited use of
[6:17] it. Uh the town would often put snow on
[6:19] there and that kind of thing. So but we
[6:22] did have parking behind it etc. Okay. So
[6:27] when uh we had that um when 41 collapsed
[6:33] when the um Victorian lady collapsed it
[6:36] was as you know it was sitting there for
[6:38] some period of time in a bad state of
[6:40] repair. So Tyler, my son, if you know
[6:42] Tyler Lawrence from Lawrence Electric,
[6:44] who was with at Dolia now, keeping your
[6:48] water and sewer together, um he and
[6:52] Jeremy and Jason White from Beacon
[6:54] Construction bought the property. They
[6:57] didn't want it, they didn't need it, but
[6:58] it was an eyesore and so they they
[7:00] elected to buy it
[7:03] and uh and tore it down. And I won't get
[7:05] into all the details, but they went
[7:07] through various phases with that. But
[7:09] they brought the property right off the
[7:11] bat. It was obvious that there was a
[7:13] storm sewer went through that property
[7:15] and that that storm sewer was in bad
[7:17] state of repair. It was all undermined.
[7:18] There was huge cavities. So they
[7:21] couldn't build while that storm sewer
[7:24] was in that condition.
[7:26] And uh so we had some discussions with
[7:29] various people over the time about about
[7:31] rerouting that uh because the main uh
[7:34] portion of that the largest portion of
[7:36] that water came from clique. There was a
[7:39] culbert that ran along the bell property
[7:42] and discharged uh right right uh to the south of us behind the
[7:48] neighboring property. And that huge
[7:50] volume of water went through there every
[7:53] spring.
[7:55] It also impacted us because at the back
[7:57] of 45
[8:00] uh with all that snow melting etc we
[8:02] ended up with huge quantities of runoff.
[8:04] So we end up with quite a pond at the
[8:06] back of 45 over a foot deep. And so it
[8:09] affected uh plowing, it affected
[8:12] parking, it affected everything. So we
[8:14] in the spring would have to my son and I
[8:16] would have to get in there with shovels
[8:18] and dig the ditch out that got filled
[8:21] with snow to get the water to run
[8:23] through and it ended up going through
[8:25] that culvert too. So we had two
[8:27] problems. The the the runoff gave us a
[8:30] big pond and the boys couldn't build.
[8:34] After the building was removed, there
[8:37] was a bell box on the side of the
[8:39] building and uh the boys put up a wooden
[8:41] stand and attached that box and it was
[8:44] there for some period of time. Suddenly
[8:47] one day out of the blue, if you look at
[8:49] the diagram that I handed out
[8:53] on the lower left corner,
[8:56] Belle put up a box, a standing box that
[9:00] stands about 2 ft high or whatever and
[9:02] foot square
[9:05] right in our driveway. As you can see,
[9:07] that's the driveway. We own that
[9:08] driveway. That's part of our property.
[9:11] We didn't normally use that pime that uh
[9:14] driveway because at that for a long time
[9:16] uh where the prominad's going was open
[9:18] to vehicular traffic. So we would just
[9:20] drive in there. When construction
[9:23] started uh then we no longer had access
[9:28] to drive there. So we ended up talking
[9:30] to Dwayne Sutherland at um at McDougall
[9:33] and Dwayne agreed to let us use his
[9:36] driveway to get back there. In exchange,
[9:39] we have since then given his staff
[9:42] several parking spots so that they are close to the building. So many of
[9:47] them park there every day now and walk
[9:49] to the business.
[9:52] In conjunction with that, their neighbor
[9:55] building, we call it the Henderson
[9:57] building, I believe it's number 51, has
[9:59] two apartments upstairs. When the
[10:01] construction fences went up, there were
[10:03] no parking for them. So, we were asked
[10:06] by them if we could provide them with
[10:08] two parking spots. When we had the blue
[10:11] square, there was no problem. They
[10:13] typically park behind there and and all
[10:16] was good. So, that's that's the uh the
[10:20] history.
[10:23] So,
[10:25] and uh [sighs and gasps]
[10:27] um I tried to get I tried to contact
[10:30] Belle to get them to move that box and
[10:32] they just kept dragging me and dragging
[10:35] me. Anyway, I finally got a hold of a
[10:36] Bell person on and uh I don't know his
[10:39] name off hand, but he said uh I I
[10:41] explained the situation and he says, "We
[10:43] don't have anything that you can drive
[10:46] over." Okay. [laughter] So I said,
[10:50] "Well, Tyler and I have been talking
[10:52] about it and it's something called a
[10:53] handwell. It's like a short piece of
[10:55] culbert with a steel top on it that you
[10:57] that's intended to be driven over." So
[11:00] [snorts] he said, so we said we would
[11:01] talk about doing that. He said, "Go
[11:03] ahead and do that, but don't tell me
[11:04] about it or whatever." [laughter]
[11:06] So at our expense, and it was in the
[11:08] neighborhood of $300 or $400, uh, we
[11:10] bought this handwell. It's sitting on
[11:12] the property now. If you look, it's
[11:14] sitting in behind the u the privacy
[11:17] fence there. So, it's sitting there
[11:18] waiting and Tyler hopefully in the next
[11:21] week or two will will be able to install
[11:24] that so that then we can open that
[11:27] driveway. So, the only access we have to
[11:30] the back of 45 is through McDougall
[11:33] parking lot. Okay. All right.
[11:36] [clears throat]
[11:37] A couple of winter before last, uh we
[11:41] went to Florida for a while and before
[11:44] we left the the uh tarp, the the
[11:48] insulated tarp was behind 51. Our
[11:51] understanding was that they the reason
[11:53] for that is to minimize frost so that
[11:55] you could dig in early spring. So when
[11:58] we left uh for Florida, that was the
[12:01] understanding the building was going
[12:02] there. The other thing I talked to hydro
[12:04] and if you look on the on the left side
[12:08] of the of the blue square you'll see
[12:11] that there's a hydro pole. Again this is
[12:13] uh please don't the the dimensions
[12:16] aren't necessarily accurate because uh
[12:18] it's for illustrative purposes only. I
[12:21] talked to a lady from Hydro and she said
[12:23] that they hydro was going to move that
[12:26] pole and move it further south on town
[12:30] property because the power was going to
[12:33] come from Clique Street because there's
[12:35] power coming to that from uh from the U
[12:38] pub area there now. So the that hydro
[12:41] line would have gone right into that uh
[12:45] through the had to be removed because of
[12:47] the building. When we were in Florida,
[12:49] Jake text me and and said, "Uh, we've
[12:52] moved the location of the uh the NIP
[12:55] that the the HIPP [laughter] the uh the
[13:00] uh library building to where it is now."
[13:02] And uh he wondered if we would be
[13:04] willing to sell the black the blue
[13:06] square. And I said I talked it over with
[13:09] Tyler. He said, "We would really like to
[13:11] keep it. We we like the we like the snow
[13:13] storage and we like the extra parking."
[13:16] Um anyway, then after a few discussions,
[13:19] I found out that Janet was the
[13:21] developer. I didn't know anything about
[13:23] that till that point. And so Jake turned
[13:25] me over to Janet because she was going
[13:27] to be dealing with with the issues at
[13:30] that point. Uh Jake and I talked about
[13:32] some other things that we can talk about
[13:33] later if you wish. But anyway, bottom
[13:34] line, we started dealing with Janet. So,
[13:39] she
[13:41] sent me
[13:43] a a offer to purchase
[13:46] the blue square
[13:48] for $2. [snorts]
[13:51] Okay, we still haven't seen the $2, but
[13:53] that's either here or there in exchange
[13:56] because we said, "Okay, if we if we uh
[13:59] agree to sell the property, and by the
[14:01] way, if we'd left that, that would have
[14:03] a major impact on the property. that
[14:05] would it wouldn't go all the way to the
[14:07] building, but it would sure have a big
[14:09] impact. Uh so there were we asked we
[14:12] ended up getting three condition three
[14:15] um things that she agreed to. One was
[14:18] that the sewer line would definitely be
[14:21] a realigned so that it went across the
[14:25] back of the properties and out through
[14:27] the prominad area which as we all know
[14:29] is has been done. The other thing was
[14:33] that she would agree to put a catch
[14:35] basin on behind 45 so that we would
[14:39] never have a ponding issue again. And
[14:41] the third thing she agreed to was that
[14:45] she would haul our snow for up to up to
[14:48] three times a month. So if you look at
[14:51] the diagram,
[14:53] the the yellow box is where presumably
[14:58] the snow would be piled. And Shannon
[15:01] looks after the snow plowing. Uh she uh
[15:04] that's one of her jobs. And so uh in our
[15:08] rental agreement, she looks after the
[15:09] snow plowing. So the snow would be
[15:12] stored there and up to three times a
[15:14] month hauled away at the developer's
[15:17] expense.
[15:19] So although the storm sewer through 41
[15:22] didn't affect me directly, it certainly
[15:23] affected my son and the boys so that
[15:25] they could build. By the way, they ended
[15:26] up buying a bunch of steel for that
[15:28] property because uh it was just about co
[15:31] time and they knew the price was going
[15:32] to rise. So they have stockpiled a bunch
[15:34] of steel at Tyler's place waiting for
[15:37] construction. So now that that cover the
[15:40] midarity of the water no longer passes
[15:42] through there, they would now be able to uh to build what their plans are uh
[15:48] and have been approved. Um commercial on
[15:51] the main floor, three apartments
[15:52] upstairs. Okay. So that pretty much
[15:57] brings us to uh uh close um back a few a
[16:05] while ago um we heard through the
[16:08] grapevine that the prominad was on hold
[16:10] until next year.
[16:13] So current or up until recently, the
[16:17] people that from 51 in the apartment in
[16:21] order to access access the apartment
[16:23] have to Oh, by the way, the privacy
[16:25] fence I opened it up a little bit too
[16:27] just so there's foot traffic so that uh
[16:30] spa customers and the people from 51 had
[16:34] better access. Otherwise, they also have
[16:36] to walk around and go down the McDougall
[16:38] driveway as well. So in order to get
[16:41] access to the back of the property, I
[16:43] moved the end of the fence just a couple
[16:44] of feet just so that there could be foot
[16:46] traffic. Although we can't have
[16:47] vehicular traffic obviously till the
[16:49] bell box is moved, foot traffic is
[16:52] possible.
[16:53] So when I had heard that that fence was
[16:56] going to be remain to the north of us
[16:59] for at least till next year, first of
[17:01] all, there was a couple of concerns. One
[17:03] was the garbage. Somebody left an old
[17:05] chair there and
[17:07] >> [laughter]
[17:07] >> uh there was a couple of real estate
[17:09] boxes that they used for the the
[17:11] pamphlets were there lying on the
[17:12] ground. There was there's still to this
[17:14] day a a a drum there with a garbage dome
[17:18] on the top. So I just saw a guy today
[17:20] putting garbage in there. So So
[17:22] [laughter]
[17:23] it looked it looked and and grass was
[17:25] growing up and and it was looking pretty
[17:28] ugly. So um I I contacted uh Janet and I
[17:33] said is there any way that that privacy
[17:36] sorry the construction fence could be
[17:37] moved so that first primarily the
[17:41] tenants from 51 it would be closer for
[17:44] them cuz that's their part that's where
[17:46] they park currently to bring their
[17:49] groceries to bring their luggage if
[17:51] they're going somewhere. It made it that
[17:52] much shorter. It clean gave us an
[17:55] opportunity to clean up the mess and
[17:57] we're not going to deny it. It did make
[17:59] it a little easier for people off the
[18:01] sidewalk to come to to Shannon Spa
[18:04] because that's where the main entrance
[18:05] is on that side of the building. Okay.
[18:10] [clears throat]
[18:11] So, uh, when, uh, Shannon, sorry, when
[18:14] Janet agreed to that, then the fence was
[18:16] moved and I brought in some gravel just
[18:19] to make it easy for on the short term
[18:21] to, uh, to walk from the sidewalk to the main entrance on the north of the
[18:27] building. Never intending it to be
[18:29] anything permanent. It was just to make
[18:32] it easier for the tenants and to and to
[18:34] clean up the area.
[18:37] So, that brings me to the point where we
[18:39] are today. So when Jake showed up, he
[18:42] called me and and said he wanted to meet
[18:44] me at 45 and he handed me the the lease
[18:47] agreement form. Well, this was a total
[18:48] shock to me as was the layout of the u
[18:52] of the prominad um so the sidewalk and
[18:56] the whole prominad area. So that's when
[18:59] we uh got in touch with um Amber and
[19:03] asked if we could be here. And thank you
[19:06] Amber.
[19:06] >> [laughter]
[19:07] >> We were pleasantly s we're very happy
[19:09] that when you agreed and and uh and so I
[19:12] immediately put those diagrams together
[19:14] that I emailed you so that you could as
[19:16] required to confirm that I wasn't aware
[19:18] that that was going to be they were
[19:20] going to be used here. I guess it makes
[19:21] sense but I understood we had to bring
[19:23] 12 copies so I didn't of whatever it was
[19:27] we were presenting. Okay. So now if we
[19:30] can go to the diagram please.
[19:33] So J Shannon and I had discussions
[19:37] ongoing but we had more discussions this
[19:41] morning and until we met at 45 before we
[19:45] came here. So we have so right off the
[19:49] bat she does not need the sidewalk. The
[19:55] sidewalk that it was proposed is not
[19:58] necessary at all for her business. the
[20:03] vast I'm a large person and she can um
[20:07] reply to this or comment many of her
[20:11] customers park at the back and walk from
[20:14] the back of the building down the side.
[20:17] So,
[20:19] currently, if you were to go there right
[20:21] now, the fence is moved away from the
[20:23] building, and I put in some patio
[20:26] stones. When we got looking at the um uh
[20:31] the uh stakes, the the the property
[20:34] stakes, we was we knew it. And on your
[20:38] on their diagram, if you notice there, I
[20:41] show the property line on the north side
[20:43] of the building. So the the property
[20:45] line is really close to the front part
[20:48] of the building. There is a little jog
[20:51] where the spa is and but the property
[20:54] line continues on past the building. I
[20:57] have one more handout for you
[21:00] now that I know where they are.
[21:11] This was taken
[21:14] this morning.
[21:24] So, this is the back of the spa, the
[21:27] norththeast corner of the spa.
[21:31] The current patio stones are what being
[21:33] used as the as the main
[21:37] uh entrance access to the side entrance.
[21:41] If you
[21:43] Yes.
[21:45] Looking towards the sidewalk
[21:47] >> towards Hasting Street.
[21:48] >> To lower tasting towards Hasting Street.
[21:50] Yes. Okay.
[21:53] So, as in front in the lower corner down
[21:57] here is the property
[22:00] marker, that little orange square.
[22:03] So, what Shannon and I discussed, and
[22:07] it's actually her suggestion, is that
[22:10] let's just move the patio stones right
[22:14] to the building. Now, we're on our
[22:16] property
[22:18] now. And by the way, if you want to
[22:20] bring up one of those other rooms,
[22:22] Amber, that I showed previously, I had
[22:25] suggested Oh, sorry, Jake.
[22:29] We got extra.
[22:31] Um,
[22:33] sorry. Do you have all three?
[22:37] Uh,
[22:39] keep going. Okay, that one. Yes.
[22:50] » She did move the patio stone back on
[22:52] another picture and it's real close.
[22:55] Sorry.
[22:56] No, no, less than that. That that's I
[22:58] think maybe I don't know what the size
[23:00] of that I could have measured that was
[23:03] going to
[23:06] >> No, that's only 6 in. basically 10 in
[23:12] >> um to the building
[23:18] » right here is is only about 10 in
[23:24] » the patio stone was about that much
[23:26] wider. I can show you the picture. Okay.
[23:28] Do you mind?
[23:28] >> Yeah.
[23:30] Um Shannon took another picture
[23:34] and um
[23:42] if anybody want to see sorry
[23:46] there's the
[23:49] » so what we have decided
[23:51] >> let let me just ask a question here for
[23:53] some clarification. So,
[23:56] um, sorry, uh, Jake, you made a comment
[23:59] there about that distance between the
[24:00] marker and the building was 10 inches.
[24:02] >> Yes.
[24:02] >> Yeah.
[24:03] >> Okay. So, 10 in is obviously not wide
[24:06] enough for a
[24:08] >> I don't know what that number is, Paul,
[24:10] but you're I hear what you're saying. I
[24:11] was there a few minutes ago. I cleaned
[24:13] that area. Okay. But here's the other
[24:15] thing too is that
[24:17] >> the gist of of this is sorry is
[24:21] >> and what we're governed by
[24:23] >> through our insurance companies is li is
[24:25] liability.
[24:26] >> Okay.
[24:26] >> We have I hear you
[24:27] >> we have to do everything to mitigate uh
[24:30] to to mitigate liability.
[24:31] >> Yes.
[24:32] >> We would in a case like this where even
[24:35] say you said you did not want to use
[24:36] that site at all. we would still
[24:38] probably be obligated to put up either a
[24:40] fence or something of that nature there
[24:43] to uh to prevent that access from
[24:46] happening
[24:46] >> at 10 in.
[24:48] >> Yes.
[24:49] >> Whatever. I mean, you obviously can't
[24:50] get beyond.
[24:50] >> So So again, 10 in I can't see is is not
[24:54] a probably a a safe walkway. Uh
[24:57] >> I believe accessibility is in
[24:59] >> Yeah,
[24:59] >> we're not concerned about accessibility
[25:01] because we have other instances, but go
[25:02] ahead.
[25:03] >> Right.
[25:06] » Oh, yeah. But it's not on your property.
[25:08] >> Nobody.
[25:08] >> I mean, as far as the the walkway, is
[25:09] that what we're talking about?
[25:10] >> Yeah. But bottom line, and I hear what
[25:12] you're saying, Paul, carry on if you
[25:13] wish.
[25:13] >> No, I'm just saying is that uh Hey, if
[25:16] this was at 2 ft, then you could make it
[25:18] fine. But I I don't believe you don't
[25:20] have enough you don't have enough room
[25:22] there. And to for anybody to access
[25:25] municipal property uh on a regular
[25:27] basis, we have to have an we have to
[25:29] have an agreement indemnifying us from
[25:31] liability. That's that's the the rules
[25:33] that we have to follow.
[25:36] So this proposal that came forward to
[25:39] put the sidewalk on both sides because
[25:42] we have to treat all property owners the
[25:44] same. If we do want something for one,
[25:45] we have to do it for other. We have to
[25:47] treat all property owners uh the same
[25:49] because there's access, you know, as you
[25:51] pointed out on both sides here. So the
[25:54] plan that was came up which we thought
[25:56] was a fairly generous plan uh to provide
[25:58] you with good access to your uh to your
[26:01] door um to your side door from either
[26:03] the front or the back you know from the
[26:06] front or the back there. Um
[26:10] uh that's why the plan was developed in the form that it was in. And then as
[26:14] part of that again um we have to have
[26:18] some type of an agreement in place which
[26:19] is the lease document and and that it
[26:22] and insurance is you know is being
[26:25] provided etc. So I'm sort of having a
[26:28] hard time seeing how I I'm sort of
[26:30] thinking the sidewalk is of great
[26:32] benefit to you uh for access from both
[26:35] ways to the uh to the side of the
[26:38] building.
[26:39] >> Good point.
[26:41] So, we're I wouldn't say I was there
[26:43] today. I started cleaning that area
[26:45] because instead of putting patio stones,
[26:47] we were planning to go with gravel as I
[26:49] mentioned on on on the current one.
[26:51] Okay. It is tight. There's no question
[26:54] about that.
[26:55] >> But it puts all the all the access and and as you know, there is a sec a
[27:00] back door as is shown on here, right?
[27:02] That that is not the only access to her spa.
[27:05] >> I just have a quick question.
[27:07] >> Sure. On the diagram that was proposed
[27:09] to us, the sidewalk was only going at
[27:12] the front of the building and we were
[27:14] told that the fence is actually going to
[27:17] go down over and then back. So that
[27:20] means I have no access from the back of
[27:23] my building to my door. And and that's a
[27:26] point that uh we can look at again that
[27:30] part of that part of it
[27:31] >> because yeah I was told that the fence
[27:32] was going to be pretty much whatever 10
[27:35] inches or whatever that is from the back
[27:37] of my building or Brian's building. So I
[27:39] from the back of his building it was
[27:41] going to be right there. So none of my
[27:43] customers.
[27:44] >> Right. So as I sit here I I don't know
[27:45] what the implications of us trying to
[27:47] provide a little bit more room. So, I'm
[27:49] not going to say that I'm going to
[27:50] promise anything, but I'm just saying is
[27:52] that we could certainly look at that
[27:54] >> and and I appreciate what you're saying,
[27:55] Paul. On the other and on the other
[27:57] hand, too, as well, we would have really
[27:59] liked to have had this conversation
[28:01] before that got into print and then we
[28:03] could have been aware of some of these
[28:05] options. This was a total surprise to us
[28:08] the other day.
[28:09] >> Again, it's a tough one because
[28:10] technically it is our it's our property.
[28:13] you know, you know, it's it's our
[28:15] property that's being accessed and just
[28:17] with so many changes in insurance, etc.
[28:20] Uh, over the years, um, we're basically
[28:23] forced to do everything to mitigate risk
[28:25] to the municipality.
[28:27] >> I debated about whether reading this out
[28:30] or not.
[28:32] Property owners or their representatives
[28:34] on both sides of the prominade were
[28:36] aware of access encroachments before
[28:38] site development began. They
[28:40] participated in discussions
[28:43] uh where these challenges were discussed
[28:45] and interimm pathways were subsequently
[28:47] implemented when construction fencing
[28:49] was erected in 2024. These owners were
[28:52] aware of the development plans although
[28:54] the final prominad design had not been
[28:56] completed at that time.
[28:58] >> I don't remember that discussion.
[28:59] >> I've got emails between you and I where
[29:01] we've been talking about this you know
[29:03] about the whole development. But I'm
[29:04] saying I had no idea that that that the um the uh
[29:09] >> no sidewalk was
[29:11] >> as it says right what you've just read
[29:12] there the prominad design was not
[29:14] finalized
[29:15] >> right I I appreciate that but we knew
[29:16] nothing about that I would have I'd have
[29:18] loved to have these discussions before I
[29:20] even put all this effort into into
[29:21] making these things the other thing if
[29:23] you'll notice on the other ones for a
[29:25] long time people walked from the from
[29:29] the vehicle driveway into the site
[29:33] Right. Uh that was traffic constantly.
[29:37] People actually park there and walk in
[29:39] and that kind of stuff. So when I
[29:43] understood there was some liability
[29:45] issues. So if people walk through a
[29:48] garden
[29:51] as as part of the town
[29:54] and trip over a shrub, can they sue
[29:59] the the town over that? because I we
[30:01] talked now. The reason I asked is that
[30:03] because at one time I suggested a
[30:04] shorter sidewalk straight out, but I
[30:07] understand that's still a a uh
[30:10] >> liability
[30:10] >> a liability issue. So, uh the other
[30:13] thing and and Shannon and I just talked
[30:15] about a half an hour ago is the very
[30:19] real possibility
[30:21] of realigning her uh the business
[30:24] inside. and that door would strictly be
[30:27] a fire escape, making her reception area
[30:31] at the back door rather than the side.
[30:35] So, what what I had proposed on here,
[30:37] and I I totally understand if if this is
[30:39] a no, I I'm it is what it is.
[30:43] Um
[30:45] if there was any chance of moving the
[30:47] fence, as you can see on the diagram,
[30:49] say two options, moving the fence
[30:51] further north
[30:56] and and then that would mean that we
[30:57] would have have have space
[31:01] uh to to go down that path or if the
[31:05] path if if the fence has to stay where
[31:07] it is sorry in that alignment moving it
[31:10] a foot.
[31:13] So I think it's Shannon's respons
[31:15] Shannon's
[31:17] responsibility
[31:20] uh I assume now correct me if I'm wrong
[31:22] that she can tell her customers
[31:27] whether or not they want to walk down a
[31:29] 10 or 12 inch path or whether they want
[31:31] to use the other entrance. Is that
[31:34] correct or that gray? [laughter]
[31:37] >> Well again let's address your first
[31:40] question.
[31:41] >> Sure. Could we realign the fence at the
[31:44] back so that you could go from the
[31:45] parking lot and make your way around?
[31:47] That's what I'm gathering is the issue
[31:49] at the rear.
[31:51] >> So just just
[31:52] >> Yes. So I'm just saying we can look at
[31:54] that. You know, it might only be you
[31:56] need a couple feet to
[31:57] >> Exactly. That's more than
[31:59] >> Yeah. So we we could look at that. That
[32:01] still leaves in play uh the fact that 10
[32:07] in is probably is not going to do you to
[32:09] do have a walkway. Again, I believe it's
[32:11] more than 10, but I'm not going to swear
[32:13] to anything until we go out and measure.
[32:15] >> And I guess I'm having a hard time
[32:17] because I'm thinking this is a very
[32:18] generous offer by the town to provide
[32:20] you with a very nice walkway and access
[32:23] to the door. And the other thing too is that just for you to think about, you
[32:28] may not own this building forever. And
[32:30] to have that side access open, uh, you
[32:34] know, with an agreement is probably to
[32:36] your advantage as well. it uh it was not
[32:39] being used when I bought the building.
[32:40] It was a insurance at the time. They
[32:43] didn't use it. It wasn't until I rented
[32:46] out the front who then rented out the
[32:48] back unknown to me by the way. I said,
[32:50] "Here's your subtenant." Right. Okay.
[32:51] [laughter] Anyway, they started to put
[32:54] the spa in because the the original
[32:55] tenant rented the whole floor.
[32:58] >> Yeah.
[32:58] >> Um and again, as I say, you can see
[33:04] I I said from the from the photo. Yes,
[33:07] the the the the
[33:10] width is not as wide as that patio
[33:14] stone. I totally agree cuz we have a
[33:16] photo saying that.
[33:18] But when I started clearing there, I
[33:21] walked that and I could
[33:23] >> like how would you clear snow in 10 in?
[33:25] >> That's a Shannon's problem.
[33:26] >> Well, I know like a shovel is lighter
[33:28] than 10 inches.
[33:29] >> No. And she wants to in the winter use
[33:31] the rear entrance. That's her call.
[33:33] >> Yeah. So, the two options I was hoping
[33:37] for. Sorry, Council Wiggins has a
[33:38] question.
[33:40] >> Just uh
[33:40] >> Deputy Mayor, I'm sorry.
[33:41] >> No problem. Uh like your driveway on the
[33:45] uh side that you're dancing with, Belle.
[33:47] That's a that's an issue you're dancing
[33:48] with. How wide is that driveway? Is
[33:50] vehicular wide?
[33:51] >> Oh, absolutely. So, like if she moved
[33:53] her main entrance to the back and put
[33:56] signage here, you would not need that on
[33:58] the north side. You'd be able to walk
[34:00] down the driveway and in the back.
[34:01] >> That's what they're doing now.
[34:02] >> Perfect.
[34:03] >> Okay. However, uh people h want to
[34:07] normally park there and they're hesitant
[34:09] to use McDougall's driveway. There's a
[34:12] fair bit of traffic coming and going.
[34:14] The restaurant is there. Uh all that and
[34:16] then when F41 gets built, it's going to
[34:18] Well, by the we we hope to have that
[34:20] driveway open in weeks. Oh, yeah.
[34:21] >> If I can get Tyler at it. But I hear
[34:23] what you're saying. And people can do
[34:25] that now by walking.
[34:26] >> Yeah.
[34:28] >> They put a sign up on the on the privacy
[34:31] fence there to indicate that. Well, to
[34:32] me it just seems the simplest way to to
[34:35] solve all your problems was change the
[34:36] door they come into.
[34:37] >> Uh, sorry to come in the back entrance.
[34:40] >> Yeah, that that is is a is a
[34:42] possibility. The way it's set up now,
[34:43] the reception areas there that they're
[34:46] tanning beds and the controls are all we
[34:48] discussed
[34:49] >> an hour ago and that is within the
[34:51] realms of possibility.
[34:52] >> You only have to realize if you insisted
[34:54] on remaining with your 10 in that the
[34:56] town's probably going to have to put up
[34:57] some type of barrier.
[34:59] >> We if she does that, we wouldn't do
[35:00] that. We wouldn't bother with the 10
[35:03] inches,
[35:04] >> right? But
[35:05] >> we would just
[35:06] >> we would have to sort and I'm not again
[35:09] this would have to go to staff is that
[35:11] there would have to be some asurances
[35:12] somehow that that side door is not going
[35:14] to be used because when you step out of
[35:15] that side door, you're going to be on
[35:16] town property.
[35:17] >> Not quite.
[35:18] >> 10 inches.
[35:18] >> 10 in.
[35:19] >> Yeah.
[35:19] >> No. Is as I said, if you lose it, it'll
[35:22] be strictly fire.
[35:24] >> The fire exit. The second exit.
[35:29] » See?
[35:33] Yeah, I guess I guess I'm still at a
[35:35] loss. Why you would not want a nice
[35:38] walkway?
[35:39] >> Why would you walk on five feet when 10 ft over you about 20 ft?
[35:44] >> Well, that's our property. We can't have people accessing that
[35:48] through our property. This comes down to
[35:50] the liability issue again.
[35:57] » Yes.
[35:59] Yeah.
[36:00] >> My question, Brian, would be if we go
[36:03] back to the original plan where we
[36:05] offered the sidewalk and agreed to that
[36:08] lease um agreement that the town has
[36:10] proposed
[36:11] >> and we could short not necessarily move
[36:14] the fence in, but shorten a small piece
[36:17] off of it. And I'm again, I can't
[36:18] promise that we can do that. I'm not the
[36:20] developer. I have no part of the
[36:21] building of it. if that fence could be
[36:24] shortened a small amount to allow you to
[36:26] access there. [snorts]
[36:28] >> Trees are missing.
[36:29] >> That's basically what we were saying
[36:30] before about investing the rear fence.
[36:32] >> So rather than move the fence there,
[36:34] >> yeah,
[36:35] >> take a piece off the end.
[36:36] >> Well, yeah.
[36:36] >> So now you can access and get up, would
[36:38] you be willing to take the sidewalk?
[36:42] >> A different sidewalk. The back sidewalk
[36:44] is 10 times more valuable than the front
[36:47] side.
[36:48] >> But what's the issue with having a
[36:49] sidewalk? And I don't know if fire would
[36:52] if that would meet fire requirements
[36:54] even to have 10 inches of sidewalk. Yes,
[36:56] Jay.
[36:56] >> There's also two H5.
[37:02] » Oh, sorry.
[37:04] >> The coming in off the the main sidewalk
[37:07] off of Hastings. There are also two HVAC
[37:10] units that are on town property that
[37:12] supply Brian's building as well. So that issue still needs to be whether
[37:17] there's a lease for those units on our
[37:20] property or they're removed. That that
[37:22] that's another issue that needs to be
[37:23] addressed.
[37:24] >> But if we had the 5ft sidewalk with the
[37:26] lease and the indemnity, what he does
[37:28] with his units would be up.
[37:29] >> He could leave them there and and people
[37:31] have to walk around them or not, but
[37:33] because we would lease them 5T out from
[37:35] the building. Right now the the the
[37:37] units are on our property outside the
[37:39] building. So that has to be addressed
[37:40] one way or another.
[37:41] >> Can I ask a question? And you're exactly
[37:42] right, Jake. Um, if we mount them on the
[37:47] wall
[37:49] because the the top floor over like the property line is real close all it's less than 10 in I'm sure up there.
[37:56] If we mount them on the wall,
[37:59] does that have any difference? Because
[38:01] we say the the back sidewalk would be 10
[38:04] from the back is is as I think that's
[38:07] what you're referring to, Tracy. A
[38:08] sidewalk where the 10 inches are at the
[38:10] back be
[38:13] many times more valuable than the front.
[38:15] >> Right. But if you have these a if these
[38:17] units are still on the town property and
[38:19] somebody gets injured through them, they
[38:20] can sue everybody,
[38:21] >> right? So what if we mount them on the
[38:23] wall? Again, I'm not a I'm not a I'm not
[38:27] an expert on anything.
[38:28] >> Yeah. I I think I I think if you if if
[38:32] we were to look at it and do the the
[38:33] sidewalk from the back parking lot to
[38:35] the side entrance by just adjusting the
[38:37] fence a little bit, um I I think we we
[38:40] would still be in a lease agreement
[38:42] situation that we wouldn't have to have.
[38:43] >> Yes. I think um provided you know like
[38:47] we had talked like some kind of blind
[38:49] around these heater units and abandon
[38:52] the front sidewalk they could just stay
[38:54] where they are now and we include where
[38:56] they're located on the lease for the
[38:59] back area and leave them where they are
[39:01] and then put like a
[39:04] >> So would the cost of the sidewalk be
[39:06] borne by the project or
[39:09] >> Yes. Yeah. We we we were planning to
[39:11] include this the cost of the sidewalk,
[39:13] the installation.
[39:14] >> That's why I'm a little buffaloed here.
[39:15] You're going to have a great sidewalk
[39:17] that I can access it from either way. Uh
[39:20] we'll have a look at the rear fence and
[39:22] see if there's some adjustment we can
[39:23] make there to make the access from the
[39:25] rear parking lot better.
[39:27] >> And um at at that point, those units are
[39:31] your will be your responsibility that
[39:33] are sticking out onto the property that
[39:35] you're leasing from the tenure. Am I
[39:36] correct in that? Could we could the lease extend all the way along
[39:41] the whole building then rather than just
[39:43] to the door?
[39:46] >> I guess that would be something we'd
[39:48] have to look at.
[39:48] >> Then we would have wide open access all
[39:51] the way through. No. [laughter]
[39:53] >> Well, I mean it it could, but I mean
[39:57] uh
[39:59] like either you're going to have access
[40:00] from the front or access from the back.
[40:02] Um, now you're looking for access from
[40:05] the front and the back.
[40:07] >> As I said, the back is more interest
[40:08] more. We have virtually other than the
[40:10] HVACs, we've Shannon has we we lived
[40:14] without the front for forever.
[40:15] >> Well, and that's and that's what I'm
[40:16] saying with the compromise like I mean,
[40:18] you know, to what what you know has been
[40:20] offered um to do a sidewalk the whole
[40:23] distance doubles the cost essentially if
[40:25] not. Well, no, it's but but if we if we
[40:28] were to do a sidewalk like let's just
[40:29] say we could manage to get it from the
[40:31] back the side door and leave the HVAC
[40:34] where they were but include the HVAC in
[40:36] the lease that they're part of the lease
[40:37] agreement
[40:39] and so it's not
[40:40] >> double I'm going to have to interrupt
[40:42] here. Okay, sorry. Um we've got to get
[40:45] moving on. We got a lot of other
[40:46] business here. So, uh, we have a staff
[40:48] report that's coming right after this
[40:50] and then I I think then then staff can
[40:52] go back and have a look at a few things
[40:54] that have been mentioned here today and
[40:56] get back to you.
[40:56] >> That's my Sorry, that's my next
[40:58] question. Is there an opportunity to
[40:59] meet with decision makers like this
[41:02] before we finalize things? Is that a
[41:05] possibility?
[41:06] >> Yeah, we we most certainly can't. I'm
[41:09] not saying that we what we can do or
[41:10] can't do.
[41:11] >> No, no, I hear you. So I want to point
[41:13] out that's the only difference that
[41:21] » but the door is definitely closer to the
[41:23] back than it is to the front. Okay.
[41:27] >> Okay. Hang on a sec here.
[41:28] >> Sorry. And one more last.
[41:30] >> Yeah. Quickly.
[41:31] >> Yeah. Um I'm not adverse to leasing. All
[41:33] right. It's a little bit of a hassle
[41:35] with insurance. $600 isn't going to make
[41:37] us or break us. I just jack up Shannon's
[41:39] rent to cover that. But uh
[41:43] >> okay
[41:44] >> and I want to thank you for your time.
[41:45] >> Thank you. Okay. I'm I'll let you read
[41:47] it then. Okay. So we have sort of a bit
[41:50] of an amended resolution here. So I'm
[41:51] going to let uh Amber read it.
[41:54] >> So somebody will be in touch with us as
[41:56] a
[41:56] >> Yeah.
[41:57] >> Perfect. Thank you very much.
[41:59] >> Um okay. of the draft resolution is be
[42:01] it resolved that the council of the
[42:03] corporation of the town of Braftoft has
[42:05] hereby received the presentation from
[42:07] Brian Lawrence regarding their concerns
[42:10] related to the prominade development and
[42:12] the proposed walkway access adjacent to
[42:14] their property located at 45 Hastings
[42:18] Street North and their proposals as
[42:20] amended to remediate the walkway access
[42:24] concerns for information purposes.
[42:26] >> Can move her in a second, please.
[42:28] Councelor Lawrence, Deputy Mayor, all in
[42:30] favor, please. Thank you.
[42:33] Thanks.
[42:35] You You may want to listen to the second
[42:37] one part here. This is sort of a this is
[42:40] a staff report on this topic. So, yes.
[42:44] So, you may want to take just a couple
[42:46] minutes here.
[42:49] Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. Under
[42:52] six item a business, Hastings Street
[42:54] North Prominent delegation staff
[42:56] comments. The resolution before us says,
[42:57] "Be it resolved that the council of the
[42:59] corporation of town of Bangkok receive
[43:01] the staff comments regarding the
[43:03] Hastings Street North Prominadet
[43:05] delegation for information purposes."
[43:06] Kevin Mover and a second councelor
[43:08] Eastman and Councelor McGibbon and Andre
[43:11] I'll let you go. So this is basically a
[43:14] little bit of the background to this
[43:17] whole thing etc. And and again we've had
[43:19] some more discussion so that doesn't
[43:21] affect uh the fact that we'll get
[43:24] together again and chat about this.
[43:25] Anyway,
[43:26] >> I believe before I present my report, we
[43:29] need a mover and seconder for the motion
[43:31] that Amber read.
[43:33] >> Oh, you did get Okay.
[43:35] >> All right. We both missed that note. So,
[43:37] thank you. [laughter]
[43:40] » All right. My apologies. Uh, thank you,
[43:43] Mayor Jenkins. So, this was just um
[43:46] staff comments based on the initial
[43:48] delegation documents that um Mr.
[43:51] Lawrence provided for consideration.
[43:54] So, the purpose of the 5- foot wide
[43:56] walkway was to recognize that there are
[43:59] um HVAC units and access issues to the
[44:02] building. Um we didn't want to issue a
[44:05] letter that says you have to spend tens
[44:07] of thousands of dollars moving your HVAC
[44:09] equipment and and changing your exits
[44:12] and um re realigning your building. We didn't want to do that. So, um, since
[44:18] we were constructing anyway, we thought
[44:20] this was a a pretty good way to
[44:23] basically continue to do what you've
[44:24] been doing for the last two years with
[44:26] that that walkway provided. So, that was
[44:29] kind of the rationale. Um, the key need
[44:31] and driving factor, as Mayor Jenkins
[44:33] mentioned, is liability. So, when
[44:36] there's any kind of incident, accident,
[44:39] um, trip, fall, slip on town property,
[44:43] unless the town can demonstrate that it
[44:46] has, um, released relieved itself of the
[44:50] liability and responsibility, we are
[44:52] responsible.
[44:53] And um one of the sad things about
[44:56] municipal government is that if we're 1%
[44:58] responsible um we are 99% responsible uh
[45:02] in a court of law and end up paying 100%
[45:05] of the costs. So um that is really the
[45:08] driving intent of the agreement um is to protect the town from future
[45:13] liability uh when the access has no
[45:16] value or benefit to taxpayers. So that
[45:19] is the the purpose as far as the
[45:22] proposals that you just provided. Um we
[45:25] have
[45:27] um written in I guess to the the one on
[45:30] the other side because their access is
[45:31] at the back that it would go right to
[45:33] the back. So um we can we can look at
[45:36] pushing that fence a couple feet to give
[45:38] you enough room uh to bring that access
[45:41] all the way through. Um, but I think it
[45:44] would be difficult for both of us to
[45:46] officially um identify the exact
[45:49] pinpoints where those HVAC units are uh
[45:52] and and where they might pose a hazard
[45:55] for an insurance document. I think that
[45:57] would be a headache for both of us
[45:58] honestly.
[46:02] » But when she's done a report, okay,
[46:06] >> um but there is absolutely some room to
[46:08] discuss there. So, um, we have been
[46:12] working with the developer. We've been
[46:13] getting some costing and some design
[46:15] things. Um, as you noted, this is all
[46:18] moving pretty quickly. So, until council
[46:21] provided us with a preliminary approval
[46:23] of a design, um, we couldn't engage with
[46:26] other people about what council was
[46:27] going to do because council hadn't even
[46:29] seen the proposal. So, there is an order
[46:31] of operations that needs to occur when
[46:34] we're doing developments as well. So,
[46:37] um, that's that's basically where we
[46:39] are. As soon as that decision was made,
[46:41] the draft lease was floated through
[46:43] insurance and then, uh, Jake provided
[46:45] that to the, uh, affected properties.
[46:48] So, um, our proposal at this point would
[46:51] be to continue with some kind of lease
[46:53] arrangement to protect both you and the
[46:55] town, uh, from the liabilities that
[46:58] could arise and ensure that you can
[46:59] continue to use your property, um, the
[47:02] way that you have chosen to use it for
[47:04] the last couple years, uh, during the
[47:07] construction period.
[47:09] >> Thank you. So, one quick comment, do you
[47:11] guys?
[47:12] >> Sorry. I was under the impression that
[47:14] HVAC had to go from there either up and
[47:18] we did have one mounted on the wall.
[47:21] >> I think the bottom line is with the five
[47:22] foot lease, it's on you what you want to
[47:25] do.
[47:26] >> We didn't know that
[47:27] >> what you want to do.
[47:28] >> Yeah,
[47:29] >> that makes a big difference because
[47:32] >> Yeah, because then the liability is on
[47:35] you, not us.
[47:36] >> And the need to cover them for aesthetic
[47:39] reasons. That's
[47:40] >> Yeah. Okay.
[47:43] Thank you very much.
[47:45] >> Okay. Um
[47:49] so we have the um general manager's
[47:52] report. Is there any comments or
[47:53] questions on that from members of
[47:54] council?
[47:56] Seeing none, all in favor, please. Thank
[47:58] you very much. Okay.
[48:02] Item B, Municipal Waste Association
[48:05] annual workshop summary report.
[48:07] Uh I'll put the uh well I I'll just give
[48:10] you the floor. We'll do the motion at
[48:12] the end. So yes, please give us all the
[48:14] background etc. So and your push your
[48:16] button. Thank you.
[48:18] >> Afternoon council and Mayor Jenkins. Um
[48:21] I put together a report about the
[48:23] municipal waste association annual
[48:25] workshop that uh uh Christine and I
[48:28] attended in uh May. I've kind of
[48:30] summarized it was a really good
[48:32] workshop. Um from May 26th till the
[48:35] 28th, the waste department supervisor
[48:37] and myself attended the 2026 Municipal
[48:39] Waste Association annual workshop. This
[48:42] workshop focused on numerous areas of
[48:44] waste management included a trade show
[48:46] featuring the newest technologies in
[48:48] this sector. Over the course of two and
[48:50] a half days, the following workshops
[48:52] were attended which I listed uh all the
[48:54] workshops that we attended. Um while
[48:58] there are many topics to discuss there
[49:00] were four common subjects that were
[49:02] brought up in almost every presentation.
[49:05] Um these four subjects are also included
[49:07] in our optimization report. Uh the first
[49:10] one was waste uh waste diversion. The
[49:13] importance of waste diversion was
[49:14] emphasized throughout the workshop. Uh
[49:17] without focus on maximizing waste
[49:19] diversion the state of landfill capacity
[49:21] across a province will be depleted in
[49:24] record time. construction, renovation,
[49:26] and demolition waste is one of the
[49:28] biggest contributors to the depletion of
[49:31] landfill capacity.
[49:33] Surprising number is the average
[49:35] landfill in Ontario only has 8 years of
[49:37] capacity left. If you took all the
[49:38] landfills, that's what's left for
[49:39] capacity. Um, private landfills account
[49:43] for 51% of the uh remaining landfills uh
[49:47] capacity in the province is private.
[49:50] um Ontario waste, 73% of Ontario waste
[49:54] is ending up in our landfills and 27 is
[49:57] being uh exported to the US. If the US
[50:00] were to close the doors to that 27%
[50:03] uh the fellow said it would be by 2035
[50:05] we'd be completely out of room in
[50:06] Ontario for capacity. So it is important
[50:09] that we are still taking um diverting to the US. uh with the with the
[50:14] construction renovation and demolition
[50:16] waste um only 20% of it is being
[50:19] recycled recycled and 80% is ending up
[50:21] in landfills. With proper diversion 75%
[50:24] of that waste can be diverted. So it's a
[50:26] huge killer of landfills is the waste
[50:28] construction. Uh another big point that
[50:31] they brought uh up was it was stressed
[50:33] that the communication with stakeholders
[50:35] is an important part of operating an
[50:37] efficient successful landfill operation.
[50:39] The experience shared confirmed that
[50:41] clear communication resulted in cost
[50:42] savings for municipalities
[50:44] um because the time spent dealing with
[50:46] the complaints and inquiries was greatly
[50:48] reduced. The city of Kingston's
[50:50] presentation on implementing automated
[50:52] curbside
[50:54] um covered the communication mistakes
[50:56] during phase one, how they were
[50:58] corrected in phase two, and how much
[50:59] time was saved. They no longer had high
[51:01] volumes and inquiries and complaints. It
[51:04] was it was a it was a huge factor. So
[51:06] communication was was um was stressed.
[51:10] One of the one of the um points they
[51:13] brought up was using a digitalized
[51:14] platforms like apps or a website. But um
[51:18] they showed with the apps that you know
[51:20] if if we offered an app with people that
[51:22] you know our garbage truck broke down
[51:24] rather than having to try to get the
[51:25] radio to to advertise it or you know put
[51:28] it on Facebook Facebook plus um people
[51:31] could simply download the app and we
[51:32] could instantly update. they would get a
[51:34] notification garbage trucks broke down,
[51:35] you won't be getting picked up today.
[51:37] They'll know right away. Um, it's also
[51:39] good for reminding about hazardous place
[51:41] stays. Um, the the app is just a good
[51:43] communication tool. There's a there's a
[51:45] few companies out there that are secure.
[51:47] Um, so so that was one way. Um,
[51:52] it's um, good communication increases
[51:55] call volumes by 40 to 50%. And one thing
[51:57] they stress is communication should be
[51:59] short, clear, and concise, not long. and and with with longer messages it's
[52:04] better to spoon feed people. So that was interesting. Um a lot of a lot
[52:08] of the pres presentations
[52:11] uh reviewed the importance of scales. Uh
[52:13] the health and safety of workers is one
[52:15] strong reason for installing the scale
[52:17] system. The other reason uh for the
[52:19] importance of the scales is knowing
[52:20] exactly how much waste is being received
[52:22] every year. This allows for much more
[52:24] accurate volume calculations and ensures
[52:27] that future plans are made with accurate
[52:30] information to maximize cost savings and
[52:32] efficiencies. It uh they were we were we
[52:35] were uh the one landfill uh once they
[52:38] installed skull or uh scales uh they
[52:40] reduced the negative staff stakeholder
[52:43] interactions by 95%.
[52:45] Um accurate information for future
[52:47] planning and it ensures fair tipping for
[52:50] both stakeholders and the municipality.
[52:52] Everybody knows exactly what they're
[52:54] paying for. It's not a judgment call. Um
[52:57] it goes both ways. You might lose, you
[52:58] might win on some, but at the end of the
[53:00] day, it it gives an accurate um costing
[53:03] to the to our rateayers. Um and the
[53:06] other one surprisingly was waste audits.
[53:09] Uh many presidents spoke about the waste
[53:11] audits audits and the changes they were
[53:13] able to make to create more efficient
[53:15] diversion programs. By knowing exactly
[53:19] what is entering the landfill,
[53:20] municipalities can customize their
[53:21] diversion programs to ensure maximum
[53:24] capacity is achieved. Most
[53:26] municipalities are shocked after
[53:28] completing one of these programs at how
[53:30] much waste is entering the landfill that
[53:32] can be diverted. Um the importance of
[53:35] this is every area has different
[53:37] demographics. Therefore, what goes in
[53:40] the landfills is unique to each area.
[53:43] Diversion methods used in urban
[53:44] landfills may not be the most efficient
[53:46] for rural landfills. Um, knowing the
[53:50] exactly where is going going or exactly
[53:52] what is going into your landfill and
[53:54] adjusting diversion programs can can
[53:56] significantly extend the life of the
[53:58] dump. Overall, this was a very
[54:00] informative and educational workshop to
[54:02] attend. The networking and shared
[54:04] experience from other municipalities
[54:06] will go a long way to ensure that we can
[54:07] manage one of our most important assets
[54:10] in the most effect efficient manner. to
[54:12] ensure maximum longevity is achieved. Um
[54:16] the financial implications, we'll see
[54:18] that in the next report with the
[54:19] optimization and uh that's that's
[54:22] basically summary of what we learned
[54:24] over the course of three and a half days
[54:25] at the conference. So I'd be happy to
[54:27] answer any questions. Um, so I just from
[54:31] reading some of the other stuff in your
[54:32] report here, was there a lot of
[54:34] discussion on like what it crystal
[54:36] balling down the road or new things that
[54:39] might be coming or diversion things that
[54:41] might be happening or
[54:43] >> is are we still sort of walking step by
[54:46] step? It it was it were talking about
[54:48] like the auditing was a big part on how
[54:51] to do it like G did they do audits all
[54:53] the time now um because seasons change
[54:56] and that and um what they found was and
[54:59] that's where a lot of the construction
[55:00] debris and and what's being uh put in
[55:02] landfills and construction debris is is
[55:04] just filling up. So they've really
[55:06] intensified their their um um separation
[55:10] requirements for the construction debris
[55:12] and the recycling right up to 75% now.
[55:15] It's something they um but as as far as
[55:17] like new stuff like brand brand new
[55:19] stuff, it wasn't really covered. It was
[55:20] more sharing experiences of problems we
[55:23] face today.
[55:26] Um other questions or comments from
[55:29] members of council?
[55:31] Seeing [snorts] none, thank you. I'll
[55:33] read the motion. Be it resolved that the
[55:35] council of the corporation of town of
[55:37] bankrop is hereby recommend that council
[55:39] receive and file the municipal waste
[55:42] association annual workshop report as
[55:44] presented by the manager of
[55:45] infrastructure and capital projects for
[55:47] information purposes only. Could I have
[55:49] a mover in a second? Deputy mayor and
[55:52] councelor Miles. All in favor please.
[55:54] >> Yes. I'm not going anywhere.
[56:00] » I kind of just waiting for the motion to
[56:02] be on the floor. Um, was anybody else
[56:04] from here with you?
[56:05] >> Yes.
[56:06] >> Who?
[56:07] >> Uh, Christine was with me. Our operation
[56:09] supervisor was
[56:10] >> Okay.
[56:12] >> Oh,
[56:13] >> none of our counselors were there.
[56:14] Nobody
[56:14] >> before. Were you Could you just second
[56:16] that to put it on the floor?
[56:18] >> I'll second that.
[56:19] >> Yes. No. Yes. Now, go ahead.
[56:22] >> I just wondering if I I'm not sure what
[56:24] you attended. I just wonder if any of
[56:25] our counselors were there.
[56:27] >> No. No counselors attended this one.
[56:28] >> Thank you, Jake.
[56:29] >> Thank you.
[56:31] All in favor?
[56:34] Glad I remembered that. But okay.
[56:37] Um, next we have item C is the landfill
[56:41] optimation study. We also we have a
[56:43] staff report with this. So, I will uh
[56:45] let Andre present that and we'll put the
[56:46] motion on the floor at the end.
[56:51] » Thank you, Mayor Jenkins. Uh, what I
[56:53] will do is I'll go through my report.
[56:56] It's it's kind of section by section as
[56:58] each different topic comes up. So maybe
[57:00] we'll review a section and then if
[57:02] there's questions related to that
[57:03] section, we can address those then move
[57:06] on to the next section. Of course, we
[57:08] can come back to things at the end as
[57:09] well, but it it may flow better if we
[57:11] kind of deal with things in little
[57:13] snippets. So at the May 23rd, 2026
[57:17] council meeting, uh we all received a
[57:19] presentation from John Watson, our
[57:21] environmental engineer of record for the
[57:23] waste site from Cambian, Inc. uh to
[57:26] review his optimization proposals for
[57:29] the Dungan and waste site. Uh the intent
[57:31] of the study was to review the current
[57:33] operations, policies, processes and
[57:36] procedures at the Dungan landfill and
[57:38] provide recommendations for council's
[57:40] consideration which would address among
[57:42] other things potential health and safety
[57:44] risk to SA staff and visitors. Provide
[57:47] modernized waste site operations through
[57:50] improved layout and traffic flow to
[57:53] identify and capitalize on cost-saving
[57:55] operational efficiency opportunities.
[57:58] and to explore opportunities for revenue
[58:00] generation from site operations now and
[58:03] into the future to reduce the impact of
[58:06] escalating costs on taxpayers
[58:08] year-over-year.
[58:18] The report was also accompanied by a
[58:20] staff report that contained additional
[58:22] supplemental information for council to
[58:25] consider during that meeting. At the
[58:27] meeting, a number of questions were
[58:29] posed which I recorded and have
[58:31] attempted to provide explanations for in
[58:33] this very long, I apologize, staff
[58:36] report. Um, there was also an email that
[58:38] was sent to all of council 2 days after
[58:40] the meeting asking them to ensure that
[58:43] any questions they had were submitted
[58:45] for consideration by June 10th. I did
[58:48] receive a number of questions from Mayor
[58:50] Jenkins, some of which I understand you
[58:52] sent to him uh on your behalf. So all of
[58:55] those questions have also been answered
[58:57] in the report. Uh otherwise I did not
[58:59] receive any direct questions from other
[59:01] members of council.
[59:05] So the first part I want to address is
[59:06] the ongoing operational deficit for the
[59:09] waist site. As described in the initial
[59:11] report, the need to undertake the study
[59:12] was supported by the ongoing and
[59:14] increasing operating deficits associated
[59:17] with landfill activities.
[59:20] So um I've provided a graph in the staff
[59:23] report showing that uh each year our
[59:25] expenses rise significantly which is
[59:28] expected. Uh cost of living increases,
[59:30] cost to maintain equipment increases,
[59:32] cost of hydro increases, cost to procure
[59:36] services associated with the waste site
[59:38] increase. So our costs are going to go
[59:40] up year after year unless we can find
[59:43] ways to reduce them. and the majority of
[59:45] costs associated with the waste site are
[59:47] completely and totally out of our
[59:49] control.
[59:52] Nonetheless, um as a result of
[59:55] decreasing revenues uh of significant
[59:58] amounts between in 2024, we received
[1:00:01] $210,000 to support our recycling
[1:00:03] initiatives. In 2026, we received zero.
[1:00:07] So, in three calendar years, we lost
[1:00:10] over $200,000 of revenue, which helped
[1:00:12] support our landfill costs as a result
[1:00:15] of the province taking responsibility
[1:00:17] for recycling. For this year, we were
[1:00:20] able to capture that loss by eliminating
[1:00:23] the recycling truck and eliminating the
[1:00:26] recycling truck driver, reducing our
[1:00:28] staff complement by one permanent
[1:00:30] full-time person. That person is gone.
[1:00:33] That truck is gone. So those savings are
[1:00:35] not going to be recreated and and
[1:00:37] regenerated year-over-year. So the
[1:00:39] baseline for this year is the baseline
[1:00:41] moving into future years where all of
[1:00:44] those cost escalations from additional
[1:00:46] contract costs, additional gas costs,
[1:00:48] higher hydro costs, higher disposal
[1:00:51] costs that we have to pay all come into
[1:00:53] play.
[1:00:56] I also want to clarify the difference
[1:00:58] between an operational deficit and an
[1:01:00] unfunded deficit because there was some
[1:01:02] concern that we weren't properly funding
[1:01:05] our wayside operations. Our waste site
[1:01:07] operations are fully funded through
[1:01:10] earned revenues and through taxation. So
[1:01:13] there is no unfunded
[1:01:15] negative balance in our waste department
[1:01:17] at the end of the year.
[1:01:20] An anticipated and funded operational
[1:01:22] deficit is funded through taxation.
[1:01:24] That's why you pay taxes is to pay for
[1:01:26] the things that we don't get money to
[1:01:29] pay for otherwise. So the waist site
[1:01:31] doesn't work any different than our
[1:01:32] roads department or any of our other
[1:01:34] departments. What we know we aren't
[1:01:36] going to get for revenue, we generate
[1:01:38] through taxation.
[1:01:40] In contrast, an unfunded deficit means
[1:01:42] we spent way more money than we thought
[1:01:44] we would and now we owe ourselves. We're
[1:01:46] short 250,000 and where are we going to
[1:01:48] get it? So, we do not have an unfunded
[1:01:51] deficit. We just have an operational
[1:01:54] deficit which we pay for through
[1:01:56] taxation. And for clarity, when we
[1:02:00] budget taxes to pay for operations and
[1:02:02] we don't spend all of that money, that's
[1:02:05] why we generate a surplus. So, we did
[1:02:07] have a surplus in our waste department
[1:02:09] last year because our operational
[1:02:11] expenses were not as high as we thought
[1:02:13] they would be. So that excess tax
[1:02:15] revenue goes into the reserves to be
[1:02:18] used for future projects to offset
[1:02:20] future costs.
[1:02:22] Any questions about that? Perfect.
[1:02:26] There was a uh conversation at the May
[1:02:29] 26th meeting about the cost per
[1:02:31] household for our residents compared to
[1:02:32] the cost per household for non-resident
[1:02:35] users uh currently one neighboring
[1:02:37] township.
[1:02:40] While while it's true that per capita
[1:02:43] the neighboring township pays much less
[1:02:45] for waste services than our residents
[1:02:48] do, that's because our residents get a
[1:02:51] lot more waste services that that those
[1:02:53] neighboring municipalities don't have.
[1:02:56] Um h household hazardous waste days, for
[1:02:58] example, come with a price tag of
[1:03:00] between 25 and $30,000 for one day. Uh
[1:03:04] and we host we used to host three a day.
[1:03:06] We three a year. We've reduced it to two
[1:03:08] a year to try to manage that expense.
[1:03:11] Curbside garbage collection is estimated
[1:03:13] to cost between 150 and $200,000 per
[1:03:16] year. Our resident neighbors don't pay
[1:03:19] for that service. They don't get it.
[1:03:21] It's not part of their uh their costs.
[1:03:24] associated with bulky waste. We
[1:03:26] don't take bulky waste or construction
[1:03:28] and demolition debris from our
[1:03:30] neighboring municipality at this point.
[1:03:32] So, we have to pay to dispose of that.
[1:03:35] They don't have those costs. So the the
[1:03:37] cost discrepancies between neighboring
[1:03:39] users and our users are because our
[1:03:41] users are receiving many many more quite
[1:03:44] expensive services for their waste
[1:03:47] disposal.
[1:03:51] And there's a whole list of them.
[1:03:52] There's there's several more in there as
[1:03:54] well.
[1:03:56] We recover some of our costs through
[1:03:58] user fees, tipping fees, bag tag fees.
[1:04:01] Um, but many of the things that we do
[1:04:03] provide, we don't have a cost recovery
[1:04:06] model for, such as those household
[1:04:08] hazardous waste days or curbside garbage
[1:04:10] collection
[1:04:12] or the expenses that we do charge for
[1:04:14] those, like our $150 tag, are not
[1:04:16] sufficient to fund the full program just
[1:04:19] to help offset the costs of those
[1:04:21] programs.
[1:04:23] While it's recognized that the contract
[1:04:25] that we entered into with our neighbor
[1:04:27] in 2021 is not reflective of current day
[1:04:31] operational costs that would be
[1:04:34] reflected in a newer agreement with with
[1:04:36] a new partner should we choose to embark
[1:04:38] on that at some point. They were the
[1:04:41] fair market costs at the time. So very
[1:04:44] similar to many other things in the
[1:04:45] municipal world, COVID changed the face
[1:04:47] of waste management in Ontario. Waste
[1:04:50] sites filled up quicker. government has
[1:04:52] since enacted various pieces or proposed
[1:04:55] to enact various pieces of legislation
[1:04:58] uh to free up landfill capacities
[1:05:00] because landfills filled up much faster
[1:05:03] uh than we expected. So the agreement
[1:05:06] that we have right now was reflective of
[1:05:09] market costs and expectations at the
[1:05:11] time, but those are not reflective of
[1:05:13] today's costs. And when that agreement
[1:05:15] comes up for renewal this year, we will
[1:05:17] be looking at what current market costs
[1:05:19] are and have already put that
[1:05:21] municipality on notice that they should
[1:05:23] expect increases to their contract
[1:05:25] costs.
[1:05:28] >> If you're going to uh your mic, if
[1:05:29] you're your mic, please.
[1:05:31] >> Yes.
[1:05:31] >> When is the Boston contract expire?
[1:05:34] >> Year end.
[1:05:35] Okay. Thank you.
[1:05:41] » All right. Any other questions about
[1:05:43] that?
[1:05:45] Okay. Way scales. So again, we had a a
[1:05:48] very lengthy discussion about way
[1:05:50] scales. And although our tipping fee
[1:05:52] schedule is very descriptive, very
[1:05:54] comprehensive,
[1:05:56] it's multiple pages long, uh, I think it
[1:05:59] probably covers every possible scenario
[1:06:02] that someone could come to the waist
[1:06:03] site with. There is still a lot of room
[1:06:06] and requirement for our attendants to
[1:06:08] make a judgment call. So, we have a fee
[1:06:11] for a 40 yard bin, for example, but that
[1:06:13] 40 yard bin may come in and only be 2/3
[1:06:16] full. And the person hauling it says, "I
[1:06:19] don't want to pay for a 40-yard bin
[1:06:20] because I only have 20 yards of
[1:06:22] garbage." We create a conflict situation
[1:06:24] for our staff and for that resident
[1:06:26] because we force our attendants to make
[1:06:28] a decision on the spot about what's fair
[1:06:31] in that situation. The installation of
[1:06:34] waste scales will completely eliminate
[1:06:36] those conflicts. you have 1 kilogram of
[1:06:38] waste, you will pay for 1 kilogram of
[1:06:40] waste. If you have 1,00 kilograms of
[1:06:42] waste, you will pay for 1,00 kilograms
[1:06:44] of waste. And it will be a specific
[1:06:47] calculation. How that figures into um
[1:06:51] you know what someone what a resident is
[1:06:53] allowed to bring or not, like a bag of
[1:06:55] garbage or two bags will be determined
[1:06:57] in the final tipping fees that have to
[1:07:00] be determined uh to support the scales.
[1:07:03] But everyone will know exactly what
[1:07:05] they're bringing and exactly what the
[1:07:07] expectation will be before they leave.
[1:07:10] >> Is the plan to charge for waste uh yard
[1:07:13] waste? It'll be it'll be in a vehicle
[1:07:15] going down over the scales. Right now
[1:07:18] there's no charge.
[1:07:19] >> That is still the plan moving forward.
[1:07:21] So, there'll have to be a system where
[1:07:24] if you I'm making this up, that if you
[1:07:26] went to the burn pile, uh you might get
[1:07:29] a ticket that allowed you on the way out
[1:07:31] to, you know, to go in and get out free.
[1:07:34] So, it'll be a system developed to
[1:07:36] accommodate the things that are free now
[1:07:37] to be to continue.
[1:07:38] >> So, we're not going to increase
[1:07:41] the chargeable items
[1:07:44] >> at the present time. No,
[1:07:46] >> we we haven't looked at tipping, but
[1:07:48] >> the vehicle going in that's got scales
[1:07:50] that
[1:07:51] >> that would be this.
[1:07:51] >> We we'll have the same issue with scrap
[1:07:54] metal. Um what we'll know is how much
[1:07:56] scrap metal is coming in, but we we
[1:07:58] would
[1:07:58] >> they'll have to be given a ticket to get
[1:08:00] out at no charge.
[1:08:01] >> The trouble is it's usually going to be
[1:08:02] a mixed load. So, it's going to be quite
[1:08:04] a nightmare.
[1:08:05] >> Yeah. And that's a problem that we run
[1:08:07] into now even with some of the
[1:08:08] commercial operators is bringing mixed
[1:08:10] loads. So, uh then we have to charge
[1:08:11] them for sorting. So there'll be an
[1:08:14] education process uh required and people
[1:08:17] it'll have to maybe even within your
[1:08:18] trailer to separate it out.
[1:08:20] >> So I Yeah, there's obviously details to
[1:08:23] be
[1:08:23] >> Oh. Yeah, we just as long as we don't
[1:08:25] have to put bows on it. That's all.
[1:08:26] >> Yeah,
[1:08:28] >> you can.
[1:08:31] » Yeah, I was just I was going to say,
[1:08:32] yeah, there's no plan to change our
[1:08:35] tipping fees and what we charge for.
[1:08:36] It's just a a system to allow us to be
[1:08:39] more accurate of, you know, you actually
[1:08:42] are paying for what you're bringing in
[1:08:44] rather than a judgment call. It's it's
[1:08:46] not about changing the costing that
[1:08:48] we're doing on what we're taking in now.
[1:08:50] We wouldn't charge for tires or steel or brush as well. Like that's not the intent of the scales.
[1:08:59] » Yes, Council Lawrence. uh in other
[1:09:02] municipalities that have moved to this,
[1:09:05] does this mean an increase in waste
[1:09:08] coming to the facility or essentially a
[1:09:12] net decrease or is there any way of
[1:09:14] knowing?
[1:09:15] >> Well, there there isn't really a way of
[1:09:17] knowing that um because we don't know
[1:09:19] exactly how much is coming in now. We
[1:09:21] use estimates based on an average 40
[1:09:24] yard bin contains this much waste and
[1:09:27] that's how we calculate volumes of what
[1:09:29] are coming in right now. So um it's
[1:09:32] possible that the amount of waste could
[1:09:34] decrease but still be exactly the same
[1:09:37] as it is right now because right now we
[1:09:39] say it's 40 metric tons and it's
[1:09:40] actually only 36.8 metric tons. Um it
[1:09:44] could go the other way too. We could be
[1:09:45] saying that bin weighs 40 tons and it
[1:09:48] actually weighs 43 tons. Um, so it it'll
[1:09:51] probably balance out pretty much in the
[1:09:53] end, but we'll have an exact number to
[1:09:56] know what's going in instead of
[1:09:58] estimates based on average volumes.
[1:10:03] The report also contemplated a two-scale
[1:10:06] system. uh staff are recommending that
[1:10:08] we implement a single scale system but
[1:10:12] build it in such a way provide the power
[1:10:14] and the infrastructure for it so that if we determined in the future a second
[1:10:19] scale was required we could bring that
[1:10:21] back to council for consideration. At
[1:10:24] this time we don't feel there's enough
[1:10:26] traffic in volume at our waist site to
[1:10:28] warrant a two scale like a dedicated in
[1:10:31] andout. We think we can manage traffic
[1:10:33] with a single scale. Um the report also
[1:10:36] contemplated the construction of a full
[1:10:39] fully built fully equipped scale house
[1:10:41] which we don't think is required either
[1:10:43] in further discussion. Um we may be able
[1:10:46] to what our preference is and what's
[1:10:49] reflected in the report is to look at a
[1:10:50] fully automated system first. Uh similar
[1:10:53] to what you would have when you go to a
[1:10:54] parking lot at a hospital. You know you get your ticket when you go in, it
[1:10:58] would give you your weighin amount. You
[1:11:00] stick it in the machine when you leave.
[1:11:01] It tells you what your way out amount
[1:11:03] is. And if you only had brush and tires,
[1:11:06] the attendant gave you a get out free
[1:11:08] parking card like they sometimes do at
[1:11:10] the office when you know your machine's
[1:11:12] taking their money or or whatever. So
[1:11:16] >> booth,
[1:11:18] >> no, the booth will be automated.
[1:11:21] >> Automated charge.
[1:11:24] >> When you go to the location,
[1:11:26] >> you would still the the attendant would
[1:11:27] still be down at the the house at the
[1:11:29] bottom to tell you where to put your
[1:11:31] brush and where to put your recycling.
[1:11:32] So, you're going to weigh in and it'll
[1:11:34] give you the total weight for your
[1:11:35] vehicle when you weigh in. On your way
[1:11:38] out, it'll give you the tear weight of
[1:11:41] your vehicle. But if you only had stuff
[1:11:43] that there was no charge for, the
[1:11:45] attendant would have given you a ticket
[1:11:46] when he saw you at the bottom that you
[1:11:47] feed in instead of putting your credit
[1:11:49] card in or your debit card in or or
[1:11:51] paying for your your waist.
[1:11:54] >> Same as we do now. if you have a mixed
[1:11:57] logo like
[1:12:02] » so if an automated system wouldn't work
[1:12:05] or would be cost prohibitive because
[1:12:07] that is a potential that we need to
[1:12:09] flush out then we would be looking
[1:12:11] probably more at a construction trailer
[1:12:14] as an interim um uh scale house as
[1:12:18] opposed to a fully built with water heat
[1:12:21] hydro service. I mean, we'd still have
[1:12:23] hydro and heat, of course, but rather
[1:12:25] than having a fully built, fully
[1:12:27] constructed building, we would have a
[1:12:29] small construction trailer that would
[1:12:31] solely function as the take your ticket,
[1:12:33] leave your ticket, admin piece of
[1:12:35] things, remembering that in the report
[1:12:38] it was noted that on quiet days there
[1:12:40] are less than 20 vehicles a day
[1:12:42] accessing that site. So, um, having the
[1:12:45] attendant work with those folks, uh, who
[1:12:48] are the ones that typically have those
[1:12:49] mixed loads or those bigger volumes, um,
[1:12:52] is not as ownorous as it may seem like
[1:12:56] it might be. And then if for some reason
[1:12:58] there is absolutely no reason we
[1:13:00] couldn't scale back the scale house, the worst case would be a full built
[1:13:05] scale house. But that is not our
[1:13:06] intention.
[1:13:10] » Yeah. Most way scales do not have a
[1:13:12] fully built house. It's always a
[1:13:14] trailer. And um now with this automated
[1:13:18] system, if that doesn't work and we have
[1:13:20] to go the other route, are we looking at
[1:13:22] more staff members or are we able to
[1:13:24] manage this as we are with with the two
[1:13:27] full-time staff that are at the site? We
[1:13:30] believe it's quite manageable. They're
[1:13:31] already looking at every building or
[1:13:33] every load and every trailer and
[1:13:35] checking people in on the tablet to make
[1:13:37] sure they're town residents and telling
[1:13:39] them where to go. So instead of doing
[1:13:41] that at the bottom of the hill, one of
[1:13:42] them would do it at the top of the hill.
[1:13:43] It
[1:13:44] >> we could do that with existing staff.
[1:13:46] >> Perfect.
[1:13:48] >> And then I also provided a bit of a site
[1:13:50] sketch about um where staff and and the
[1:13:54] consultants have contemplated uh putting
[1:13:56] that scale house and it would kind of be
[1:13:58] at you know as you enter the waist site
[1:14:00] kind of at the top of the hill on that
[1:14:01] bit of a plateau. So there's lots of
[1:14:03] room once you're on the site to move
[1:14:05] around. It wouldn't impede drive aisles.
[1:14:08] Um there there was conversation about
[1:14:10] putting it right down at the existing
[1:14:12] garage building, but then somebody's got
[1:14:14] to figure out how to turn around and
[1:14:15] come back around and and we saw some
[1:14:18] challenges with traffic management by
[1:14:20] having it right down on the site. But if
[1:14:22] we have it at the top, it eliminates
[1:14:24] that bottleneck and that gooseseneck uh
[1:14:26] and keeps those open drive paths so
[1:14:29] people can move around to the different
[1:14:30] spots of the tipping face where they
[1:14:32] need to be. And trucks would appreciate
[1:14:34] that. So I think up above is definitely
[1:14:36] the best way to go for sure.
[1:14:38] Um on this because we're there, I've
[1:14:40] also noted the proposed new location of
[1:14:43] the burn pile, um which is up to the top
[1:14:47] in the yellow boxes.
[1:14:50] So folks would be able to drive straight
[1:14:52] down there from the current existing
[1:14:55] pathways um to to get rid of brush on
[1:14:58] days that were not burning without
[1:15:00] having to drive across the tipping face
[1:15:02] and risk getting nails and whatever else
[1:15:05] in their tires. On days that we are
[1:15:07] burning, the second yellow bubble to the
[1:15:09] left would be the location of a bin or drop spot. Um, so if we were burning
[1:15:17] a controlled uh allowable burn, people
[1:15:20] would not be able to put their brush in
[1:15:22] that burn area. They would leave it
[1:15:23] further up. And once the fire was
[1:15:25] extinguished and the ashes were all
[1:15:27] cool, staff would move that burnable
[1:15:30] debris down to the pile uh to be
[1:15:32] disposed of once there was enough
[1:15:34] accumulation for the next controlled
[1:15:35] burn.
[1:15:38] That addresses the health and safety
[1:15:39] issue of exposing our our visitors and
[1:15:43] staff to um potential smoke if the wind
[1:15:46] is blowing the wrong way on one of those
[1:15:49] um controlled burn days.
[1:15:52] >> Question about the burns. Do we post
[1:15:54] when we're burning so that the public do
[1:15:56] know that we are burning on a certain
[1:15:58] day?
[1:15:58] >> We don't know when we can post. The
[1:16:00] weather conditions have to be right. It
[1:16:02] has to be damp. There can't be any wind.
[1:16:04] The wind can only come from a certain
[1:16:05] direction. And
[1:16:07] >> I mean a minute from now the weather can
[1:16:09] change. Sometimes we light a fire put it
[1:16:11] out because the wind the weather changed
[1:16:13] and we weren't expecting it. So
[1:16:14] >> that's perfect. Um, we did talk about
[1:16:16] having designated burn days and staff
[1:16:19] did observe as things were coming in if
[1:16:21] we couldn't burn on that day and and we
[1:16:24] would very quickly run out of capacity.
[1:16:26] Um, if you know if we said it was every
[1:16:28] Thursday we're going to burn and we
[1:16:30] missed three Thursdays, we wouldn't have
[1:16:32] any left and then we'd be turning people
[1:16:34] away and we don't want to do that
[1:16:35] either.
[1:16:37] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:16:39] >> Any other questions about scales or
[1:16:41] burning?
[1:16:43] All right, moving on to remaining
[1:16:45] landfill capacity.
[1:16:47] So, there were some concerns expressed
[1:16:49] about the long loss of long-term
[1:16:51] landfill capacity if we accepted
[1:16:53] additional waste from other sources. Um,
[1:16:56] the report clearly demonstrated the
[1:16:58] impact to the town of AC accepting
[1:17:01] 5001,500
[1:17:04] uh metric tons of waste per year uh as
[1:17:07] three different scenarios.
[1:17:09] Looking at the 1500 metric tons per
[1:17:11] year, which is three times more than
[1:17:13] what we're taking from Wallist right
[1:17:15] now. Um our gross revenues based on
[1:17:18] current pricing would be approximately
[1:17:20] $300 or $300,000 per year. Um now that
[1:17:25] is straight like for like. If we
[1:17:28] continue doing exactly what we're doing
[1:17:29] today at the higher $200 per metric ton
[1:17:34] cost, then we would have $300,000 of
[1:17:37] revenue and we would lose over the
[1:17:39] remaining life in the current cells 22
[1:17:41] years of time.
[1:17:43] That doesn't consider any of the other
[1:17:45] things proposed in the report like
[1:17:48] improving diversion, like improving um
[1:17:51] other options uh for recycling,
[1:17:55] looking at um better hazardous waste
[1:17:58] management, um better public education,
[1:18:02] food cyclinger campaigns, all of those
[1:18:04] kind of things. So all of those will
[1:18:06] reduce the volume going in which
[1:18:08] increases life. You may recall that last
[1:18:11] year's report, I believe we had 57 years
[1:18:14] of remaining life. And this year, we're
[1:18:16] up to 63 because we did a really great
[1:18:18] job of getting rid of bulky waste and
[1:18:21] reducing the amount of construction and
[1:18:22] demolition debris coming in from um
[1:18:26] different locations. So, um as a result
[1:18:30] of those things, we actually increased
[1:18:32] our capacity by eight years with a full
[1:18:34] year of landfilling with our waist and
[1:18:36] wallist from one report to the other.
[1:18:38] Those numbers don't include the
[1:18:40] additional capacity that we have.
[1:18:41] >> They do not,
[1:18:42] >> which is roughly 100 years,
[1:18:44] >> another 100 years over and above what
[1:18:46] we're currently working in right now are
[1:18:48] already approved at the site. So, um, we
[1:18:51] currently have, you know, 150 to 160
[1:18:54] years of life. If you look at the whole
[1:18:56] site, the implications of taking 1,500
[1:19:00] metric tons reduce that initial phase by
[1:19:03] 22 years and then the secondary phase
[1:19:06] probably by about the same. Um so we
[1:19:08] still would have more than 100 years of
[1:19:10] capacity in the site uh even if we
[1:19:13] implemented a 1500 metric ton per year
[1:19:17] um approval. And of course all of this
[1:19:19] is assuming that the ministry will even
[1:19:21] allow us uh to look at or do any of
[1:19:25] these things.
[1:19:29] We would also propose that a portion of
[1:19:31] every invoice include a search charge
[1:19:34] for future cost and postclosure
[1:19:36] responsibilities. Uh we currently carry
[1:19:39] a postclosure expense liability as a
[1:19:42] result of ARRO legislation of $166,000
[1:19:45] a year in addition to estimated
[1:19:48] postretirement and postclosure cost
[1:19:50] obligations of $730,000
[1:19:53] a year. Um, if we stopped landfilling
[1:19:56] today with just what's in the ground
[1:19:58] today, those would be the costs that we
[1:20:00] would have uh over the next couple of
[1:20:02] decades, uh, if we just stopped taking
[1:20:04] waste today and shipped it all away and
[1:20:06] closed our landfill. Um, we have no
[1:20:09] money in the bank to pay for any of
[1:20:11] those expenses right now. We do not have
[1:20:13] a future closure or postclosure and post
[1:20:15] monitoring uh, reserve. We do have
[1:20:18] landfill reserve funds, which we're
[1:20:20] going to talk about a little later in
[1:20:21] this report. So, I don't want it to
[1:20:23] sound like we haven't done any planning
[1:20:24] at all, but we have not specifically
[1:20:26] allocated funds for postclosure and
[1:20:29] future monitoring costs. So, staff would
[1:20:31] propose that there be a search charge on
[1:20:33] every invoice to reflect those future
[1:20:36] costs based on the the amounts of waste
[1:20:39] that we're taking from someone else,
[1:20:41] which alleviates them of that future
[1:20:43] cost because they're not putting it in
[1:20:45] their landfill sites. and that that
[1:20:47] money go to a dedicated reserve
[1:20:49] specifically for postclosure and
[1:20:51] monitoring.
[1:20:54] Questions about landfill capacity.
[1:20:59] All right. Waste audit options.
[1:21:02] So Cameian provided two options. A
[1:21:05] single event in one three-month period
[1:21:07] or a one season event or four events,
[1:21:11] one in each season of the year. staff
[1:21:14] feel that initially a one season audit
[1:21:17] will give us a much better understanding
[1:21:19] of what's going into our way site than
[1:21:21] we have right now which is just what we
[1:21:23] see with our eyes. Um, while there is
[1:21:27] probably benefit to doing a four-season
[1:21:29] audit in the future, we think initially
[1:21:31] the single season audit will give us a
[1:21:34] ton of information to work with and
[1:21:36] implement to make improvements. And then
[1:21:39] later once we maximize those potentials,
[1:21:41] we could look at doing another season
[1:21:43] audit, a different season to see if
[1:21:45] things have changed and see if there are
[1:21:47] tweaks required uh to any of those
[1:21:49] diversion programs. But we feel that the
[1:21:52] biggest bang for our buck, so to speak,
[1:21:54] is with that single season audit because
[1:21:56] right now we have no baseline to work
[1:21:58] from to know what's actually going in
[1:22:00] our trash beyond what our attendants see
[1:22:02] at the gate.
[1:22:05] Uh each audit is approximately $25,000.
[1:22:08] Um and that is actually people taking
[1:22:11] samples of garbage. I believe it's 100
[1:22:13] households. They collect the garbage
[1:22:15] from directly. They physically open
[1:22:18] every bag and sort everything. This is
[1:22:21] green. This is recyclable. This is just
[1:22:24] garbage. This could be diverted. And do
[1:22:27] an audit and calculate, you know, how
[1:22:30] much of what was in that bag that still
[1:22:32] goes in the dump when they're done. Uh
[1:22:33] we don't keep any of it. We're not
[1:22:35] looking at personal identifiable
[1:22:36] information if someone threw it in their
[1:22:38] waste. It just is to sort the different
[1:22:41] streams. And if we find that, you know,
[1:22:43] 50% of household garbage is actually
[1:22:45] recyclable, then we target an education
[1:22:48] campaign about, hey, did you know that
[1:22:50] those Tim Hortons cups actually are
[1:22:52] recyclable now? Please don't put them in
[1:22:54] your garbage anymore. Uh to reduce that
[1:22:57] volume and reduce the amount that we're
[1:22:58] landfilling.
[1:23:03] Does season virtually mean spring,
[1:23:05] summer, fall, winter? And uh have you
[1:23:07] sort of navigated what feels like the
[1:23:09] best season? I mean,
[1:23:11] >> we we haven't we haven't had that. I
[1:23:14] mean, there's values to different ones.
[1:23:16] Christmas, there's a lot of paper waste.
[1:23:17] It was something that uh John initially
[1:23:20] mentioned. He said in the spring, people
[1:23:21] are spring cleaning and throwing out
[1:23:23] things that could potentially be
[1:23:25] repurposed. So, each season has its own
[1:23:28] intricacies.
[1:23:29] >> Yeah. A lot of our non-permanent
[1:23:31] residents contributed in the summer,
[1:23:32] too, right? So, yeah, each one of them
[1:23:34] does. I just wonder if you navigated
[1:23:36] what was the best choice. haven't and we would take the guidance of the
[1:23:39] municipal engineer um if we embark on on
[1:23:43] an audit in the future.
[1:23:46] >> Mayor, that's you.
[1:23:47] >> Okay. Sorry. [laughter] Sure. Kev,
[1:23:49] that's a a question on that was like so
[1:23:53] if we have to do an audit that means
[1:23:55] that we don't feel they're doing a good
[1:23:57] job uh uh sorting their garbage. So that
[1:24:01] means that our bag tags really haven't
[1:24:03] done what they were supposed to. and the
[1:24:05] employee that picks the garbage up to
[1:24:07] put it into the bag isn't looking at to
[1:24:08] see what's in it because if there's
[1:24:10] recycle in it, he's not supposed to take
[1:24:12] it. So that's to me is $100,000 that
[1:24:15] we're just throwing up in the air. The
[1:24:17] other thing is is it our employees going
[1:24:19] to do the audit or is it some company
[1:24:22] comes in?
[1:24:23] >> No. Is the waste engineer that would do
[1:24:25] the audit? Go ahead.
[1:24:26] >> Just to clarify, it's not 100. The
[1:24:27] recommendation is the $25,000 option.
[1:24:30] >> The single season.
[1:24:31] not the four season.
[1:24:34] What's uh in your resolution read or not
[1:24:36] saying 343,000
[1:24:39] >> that's
[1:24:39] >> you'll see that at the end
[1:24:41] >> the end but the this section here on the
[1:24:44] um this particular audit
[1:24:47] >> one shot by
[1:24:49] >> yeah Jay yeah they Wayne what they do is they come in and they take the 100
[1:24:55] households and they go through it and we
[1:24:58] may find that food waste is 50% of
[1:25:00] what's going into our our landfill and
[1:25:02] it may justify by opening a composting
[1:25:05] green box program here. Um,
[1:25:08] and and you know, putting it on our guys
[1:25:11] to to look in every bag, the thousands
[1:25:13] and thousands and thousands of bags that
[1:25:15] they're they're throwing in those trucks
[1:25:17] every day. Um, it's just it's not
[1:25:21] realistic for our guys. I mean, if they
[1:25:23] get a a garbage bag full of water
[1:25:26] bottles, of course, they would be able
[1:25:27] to identify that. But I mean, if
[1:25:29] somebody dragged a bag out and there's a
[1:25:30] water bottle in the side of it, I
[1:25:32] wouldn't expect our guys to leave it on
[1:25:33] the side of the road. We don't know if
[1:25:35] that's been contaminated or what. Um,
[1:25:37] this would just give us a lot better
[1:25:38] idea on on the diversion that we can we
[1:25:42] can make most efficient with our dump
[1:25:45] site and the the type of garbage that
[1:25:46] we're receiving. And you were mentioning
[1:25:49] from your conference that when they did
[1:25:51] this, there was lots of surprises or
[1:25:54] >> that Yeah, that's that's everyone were
[1:25:56] just astonished by what they thought
[1:25:58] would be normal garbage on what they
[1:26:00] found was just it was incredible and
[1:26:03] they were able to make the adjustments
[1:26:05] to their diversion programs and they've
[1:26:08] actually um the one municipality out of
[1:26:10] uh mil I believe it was um are doing it
[1:26:13] yearly now just because it changes with
[1:26:15] the seasons like and and it's just It's
[1:26:17] just about making your landfill as
[1:26:20] efficient as possible and by knowing
[1:26:23] exactly what's going in is the only way
[1:26:26] to do that.
[1:26:31] » Yeah. So that's that's all we had for
[1:26:33] the audits is that we would propose one
[1:26:35] and then build on a program from there
[1:26:37] depending on [clears throat]
[1:26:38] what that looked like. Um, on the green
[1:26:40] bin, I do also want to mention that
[1:26:43] while we are not legislated to have a
[1:26:46] green bin program right now, if our
[1:26:49] population grows a whole lot more, we
[1:26:51] will be required to have a green bin
[1:26:53] program. Um, so it it would be good to
[1:26:56] have some baselines to know what we may
[1:26:59] encounter in the future in that regard.
[1:27:04] Moving on, this was included in the last
[1:27:07] report and I did just do a cut and paste
[1:27:09] because I thought it was important to
[1:27:10] mention again that there are proposed
[1:27:12] provincial legislation legislated
[1:27:15] changes to municipal waste operations
[1:27:17] which streamline a lot of the processes
[1:27:19] that we're talking about today. Right
[1:27:21] now, we are looking at, you know, tens
[1:27:23] of thousands of dollars for an ECA
[1:27:25] application to change our design and
[1:27:27] operation plan and get amendments
[1:27:29] approved to an ECA if we move forward
[1:27:31] with these recommendations.
[1:27:33] However, under several of the proposed
[1:27:36] changes, um those costs would be
[1:27:38] significantly reduced and the processes
[1:27:40] would be streamlined as the province
[1:27:43] recommends that um you know, we are good
[1:27:45] stewards and we are doing a good job and
[1:27:47] if they've approved a 100red years of
[1:27:49] landfilling capacity, what they found is
[1:27:52] that changing the ECA to allow you to
[1:27:54] take 500 tons from a neighbor, you're
[1:27:58] still managing a 100red years of
[1:28:00] capacity. it it doesn't change how how
[1:28:03] well you're doing or what your
[1:28:04] requirements are to manage that waste.
[1:28:07] So the the getting approval doesn't
[1:28:08] affect the outcome is is ultimately um
[1:28:11] what they found in in some of those
[1:28:14] legislative positions. So, I just wanted
[1:28:16] to reiterate that the province
[1:28:18] recognizes that things need to change in
[1:28:20] landfill worlds and we can either manage
[1:28:23] that change on our own proactively the
[1:28:25] way that works for our community or we
[1:28:27] can have them tell us that you're going
[1:28:29] to do XY Z. Uh, and we've been on the
[1:28:32] receiving end of that in the past as
[1:28:34] well.
[1:28:36] So, proposed summary of actions,
[1:28:38] timelines, and expenses. So, in the
[1:28:41] optimization report, there was a request
[1:28:43] to pull all of the costs together into a
[1:28:45] consolidated framework um because they
[1:28:48] spread over I believe it was eight pages
[1:28:50] in the report and each one contained a
[1:28:52] fairly detailed explanation. Basically,
[1:28:55] what I've done is pulled those eight
[1:28:56] pages together into a couple of smaller
[1:28:59] charts without the explanation. If you
[1:29:01] want the explanation, go back and look
[1:29:02] at the original one. Um so the the first
[1:29:06] costs are costs that we believe can be
[1:29:09] uh covered through the operating budget
[1:29:11] that don't require reserve allocation
[1:29:14] and the timelines or years when those
[1:29:16] things would happen. So disposal ban on
[1:29:19] some items um you know the the one that
[1:29:22] comes to mind uh most often is the uh
[1:29:25] the binding and the twines and the the
[1:29:27] tarps. um you know not accepting those
[1:29:30] and using the existing recycling
[1:29:32] programs uh in place to help commercial
[1:29:35] generators of that waste that is not
[1:29:38] manageable at the landfill site um get
[1:29:41] rid of that waste. Public education
[1:29:43] campaigns uh textile drop off program
[1:29:46] establishing a reuse center with lots of
[1:29:50] guidelines. Um we've done some research
[1:29:52] and and have some guidelines in that
[1:29:55] others are using for those. They don't
[1:29:57] accept any electronic appliances, for
[1:29:59] example. Those all go to the electronic
[1:30:01] recycling bin, and it eliminates the
[1:30:04] risk of a electrical hazard or a short
[1:30:06] or a fire. Um, it would only be for
[1:30:09] things that could be easily and safely
[1:30:12] reused. So, no dirty mattresses, um, no
[1:30:15] pillows, no blankets, that kind of
[1:30:17] stuff. It would be, you know, dishes or
[1:30:20] windows that could be repurposed for a
[1:30:23] shed or a greenhouse or a screen door
[1:30:26] that doesn't fit the aesthetic of the
[1:30:27] cottage anymore and is just going or
[1:30:30] those types of reusable items that still
[1:30:33] have lots of life in a different
[1:30:34] application. Um, that don't pose a risk
[1:30:38] or a safety liability concern for the
[1:30:40] town.
[1:30:42] >> I always understood once through the
[1:30:44] gates couldn't remove it. That's how it
[1:30:46] is because we don't have a reuse center.
[1:30:48] If we had authorization for a reuse
[1:30:51] center with parameters about what could
[1:30:53] go there, then it could leave. It could
[1:30:55] go to that center and leave.
[1:30:58] That would be one of the changes that we
[1:31:00] would put into our ECA is for approval
[1:31:02] to do that. But you're absolutely right.
[1:31:04] If it comes through the gate right now,
[1:31:06] it's garbage. Even if it's perfectly
[1:31:08] useful. Yeah.
[1:31:11] So, total costs are between5 and $10,000
[1:31:14] a year. the $10,000 a year in 2027 is
[1:31:18] the highest because that would include
[1:31:21] the establishment of that reuse center
[1:31:24] if the ECA amendment to allow that is
[1:31:26] approved. And that's just the cost of a
[1:31:29] uh a prefab shed or a shipping container
[1:31:32] um that would house those things uh in
[1:31:34] the short term. So that's a one-time
[1:31:36] expense. So, it's roughly $5 to $6,000 a
[1:31:38] year for operational things to continue
[1:31:41] with our food cyclinger program, to
[1:31:43] continue with our composter program. Um,
[1:31:46] all of those things would fit into that
[1:31:51] costing. So, that's specific to the
[1:31:53] three Rs, the reduce, reuse, recycle,
[1:31:56] all of which would be covered by
[1:31:57] operations. site operation
[1:31:59] recommendations included um both
[1:32:03] operating and reserve allocations. So
[1:32:06] improving on-site signage. We currently
[1:32:08] do have a line in our budget for
[1:32:10] signage. Um a small increase to that
[1:32:12] would allow us to cover these expenses
[1:32:14] as part of the operating budget. Moving
[1:32:17] the brush pile and burn pile, we can use
[1:32:19] our own resources to do that once
[1:32:21] approved. Um so there is no capital
[1:32:23] allocation for us to be able to do that.
[1:32:26] installing a single way scale as per the
[1:32:29] recommendations here is estimated to be
[1:32:31] about 138. We did put the 140 in for the
[1:32:37] scale house as a worstc case scenario
[1:32:40] with the note that we would first look
[1:32:42] at um an automated system and then a
[1:32:46] trailer and then go to the scale house
[1:32:49] if all other options failed. Um, to be
[1:32:52] frank, I don't know why a construction
[1:32:54] trailer would not work. So, I I don't
[1:32:57] ever see us building this. Um, but it
[1:33:00] was the proposal contained in the
[1:33:01] original report. So, we've reflected
[1:33:03] that here as a worst case scenario.
[1:33:07] Um, and then a construction and demol
[1:33:10] demolition waste diversion recycling
[1:33:12] strategy won't cost us anything. We just
[1:33:14] need to change some processes that we
[1:33:16] follow to do things. and then
[1:33:19] construction of a household hazardous
[1:33:20] waste containment structure. So, uh I
[1:33:24] want to chat just a bit about the
[1:33:25] household hazardous waste. So, we
[1:33:26] currently run two events per year, one
[1:33:28] in the spring, May, I think, and one in
[1:33:31] the fall, September. Cool.
[1:33:35] They are extremely well attended. Um as
[1:33:38] I mentioned, they do we we pay to the
[1:33:41] hauler for the cost of the materials
[1:33:43] they the hazardous materials they take
[1:33:45] away. That includes paint, aerosol cans,
[1:33:49] old gas, um light bulbs, um you know,
[1:33:54] batteries, uh like car batteries,
[1:33:57] uh yeah, all of those kind of things
[1:33:59] that we generate through our daily life
[1:34:02] that shouldn't go on the tipping face.
[1:34:05] What happens is household hazardous
[1:34:07] waste day is May 20th, and on May 25th,
[1:34:10] somebody comes in with a half a can of
[1:34:11] varnish and says, "I don't want this
[1:34:13] anymore." more and we say, "Oh, you have
[1:34:14] to take it home and keep it till
[1:34:16] September and then bring it back." And
[1:34:18] they come back tomorrow with a bag of
[1:34:21] garbage with that wrapped up in a bag
[1:34:23] inside the bag and they throw in the
[1:34:25] landfill site. Those are the chemicals
[1:34:27] that cost us hundreds of thousands of
[1:34:29] dollars to manage 20 years from now. So
[1:34:32] having the containment facility to put
[1:34:34] that can of paint in safely that's
[1:34:36] fireproof and uh weather resistant and
[1:34:40] rodent proof so that when that day comes
[1:34:43] around in September we can safely
[1:34:45] dispose of it and keep it out of our
[1:34:47] landfill provides a convenience to our
[1:34:49] residents and ensures that we're not
[1:34:51] putting long-term hazardous substances
[1:34:54] into the ground that we're going to have
[1:34:55] to manage for decades to come. It's a
[1:34:58] onetime expense of create building that
[1:34:59] shed. It's actually already approved in
[1:35:01] our ECA. So that is something that we
[1:35:03] could move forward with without an
[1:35:05] amendment.
[1:35:07] >> Yes, council
[1:35:14] » didn't take I'm concerned about spillage
[1:35:16] like I
[1:35:18] we start collecting the stuff and if
[1:35:21] they're going to only collect it every six months per se. Um, and by the
[1:35:26] way, I was there in in the May day they
[1:35:28] had it and they did an excellent job.
[1:35:29] Like very efficient. But if we start
[1:35:33] collecting it ourselves, I'm really
[1:35:35] concerned about spillage and what
[1:35:37] hazardous problems we'll have with that.
[1:35:41] And that's why it needs to be
[1:35:43] constructed in the building that is very
[1:35:45] specifically outlined the the
[1:35:47] characteristics of the building, how it
[1:35:49] has to be constructed. Um what the
[1:35:51] containment is and the sealants and
[1:35:53] stuff so that if a can of paint does tip
[1:35:55] over, it doesn't create a problem is is
[1:35:58] clearly laid out and identified in the
[1:36:00] existing ECA requirement.
[1:36:02] >> Good. Thank you.
[1:36:04] >> And just as uh Andre mentioned, we
[1:36:07] actually have approval to do that right
[1:36:09] now. we just haven't done it. So, it
[1:36:11] isn't our current ECA.
[1:36:14] >> Are our staff uh trained to handle
[1:36:17] hazardous waste on a continuous basis?
[1:36:20] Cuz when they come in, uh I know our
[1:36:23] staff helps them, but we have experts to
[1:36:25] come and take it away. It causes 25,000
[1:36:28] run for the day. I'm assuming that's our
[1:36:30] staff wages also. So, that word is 25.
[1:36:35] So what would the savings be if we've
[1:36:37] already got it collected? So they only
[1:36:39] need to be here for a half a day instead
[1:36:41] of a day.
[1:36:43] >> We would collect it if someone brought
[1:36:45] it to the site on a day that wasn't the
[1:36:48] hazardous waste collection day. So if
[1:36:51] they missed it and they were going to
[1:36:52] throw it in the garbage and they already
[1:36:54] brought it and they were throwing it
[1:36:55] over the hill and we said, "No, no, you
[1:36:57] can't do that. That's what we collect.
[1:36:59] We wouldn't be advertising that you
[1:37:00] could bring your waste here every day
[1:37:02] and we'll we'll take it every day." Fair
[1:37:04] enough. Um, all of our operators have
[1:37:07] C12, I think it is, training, which
[1:37:09] allows them to handle and haul hazardous
[1:37:12] waste and we have a CBOR that allows
[1:37:15] that to be in our vehicles and and all
[1:37:18] that kind of stuff as well. And that is
[1:37:19] a requirement of the environmental
[1:37:22] u approvals that we have in place to
[1:37:25] operate a municipality as well.
[1:37:27] >> Councelor Mouse,
[1:37:28] >> I think you've half answered my question
[1:37:30] in some of the conversation there. So we
[1:37:32] would still have our two hazardous days
[1:37:34] of the year that company would arrive.
[1:37:36] We could still do all of our drive-thru
[1:37:38] everything, but all the rest of the days
[1:37:39] we collect and then on those days they
[1:37:42] remove that hazardous waste. So we're
[1:37:44] not accumulating it nec we're we're
[1:37:46] storing it, but then they take it away
[1:37:48] from there. Do we have any financial
[1:37:51] benefit whatsoever or we're just happy
[1:37:52] that somebody's taking it all away and
[1:37:54] it doesn't go into the landfill? That's
[1:37:56] the financial benefit is the tens of
[1:37:58] thousands or hundreds of thousands of
[1:37:59] dollars we'll save in the future not
[1:38:02] monitoring for mercury poisoning and and
[1:38:05] uh those those toxic hazardous
[1:38:06] substances. Do those companies have a
[1:38:09] process of to councelor Eastman's point?
[1:38:12] Um, do they have I mean, if something
[1:38:15] happens to be spilled over, and I'm
[1:38:16] assuming some type of a metal building
[1:38:18] is what we're looking at, or some type
[1:38:19] of containment, do they go through a
[1:38:20] cleaning process of that actual building
[1:38:22] when they take away all the hazardous
[1:38:24] waste? So, we start fresh each time they
[1:38:26] empty it, do you know?
[1:38:28] >> Uh, no. They're they're responsible for
[1:38:30] anything that they do while they're on
[1:38:31] the site. Um, so they would take it away
[1:38:35] if the building needed to be cleaned and
[1:38:37] we probably would give it a quick clean
[1:38:38] after we emptied it out. We would we
[1:38:40] would do that.
[1:38:45] » Okay.
[1:38:48] » All right. Emerging trends in waste
[1:38:50] diversion. So, if you're into some
[1:38:52] interesting reading, just Google um new
[1:38:56] and groundbreaking waste diversion
[1:38:58] activities. There's some stuff that you
[1:39:00] would expect to see there, but there's
[1:39:02] some really cool, awesome stuff that
[1:39:04] people are working with as well. Um,
[1:39:06] mining is becoming more and more of a
[1:39:09] thing, but not in the traditional way
[1:39:10] where you bring in and you dig up your
[1:39:12] whole site and then you have to uh
[1:39:15] reprocess all of the waste that's there
[1:39:17] after you take out recyclables.
[1:39:19] um they have ground radar machines that
[1:39:22] will identify that that's a tire and
[1:39:24] here it is and automatically plot it on
[1:39:26] a map and you just go dig up the tire
[1:39:28] and now you have another two feet that
[1:39:30] you can fill. Um so there's there's some
[1:39:33] really cool stuff out there in the
[1:39:35] future. So these calculations, this
[1:39:38] report, these estimates are based on
[1:39:39] what we know and what we do today. You
[1:39:41] know how quickly the world of technology
[1:39:43] changes 10 years from now. some of the
[1:39:45] technologies that'll be available to
[1:39:47] manage what's already in the ground and
[1:39:50] get capacity back. Especially since we
[1:39:52] know that in the 2030s we're going to
[1:39:54] run out of landfill capacity as a
[1:39:56] province and and subsequently as a
[1:39:58] country. Those technologies are going to
[1:40:00] be developed super fast and that the
[1:40:03] chances of us being able to utilize some
[1:40:05] of those at some point to get back
[1:40:07] capacity we've already used also exists.
[1:40:09] So this report is contemplating status
[1:40:12] quo, what we do today, what we know
[1:40:14] today, how we've always operated. It
[1:40:16] doesn't consider any of those future
[1:40:18] technologies or efficiencies. So if
[1:40:20] you're into some interesting reading,
[1:40:21] just uh Google that. There's some pretty
[1:40:23] cool stuff out there. Um already talked
[1:40:26] about the year- round hazardous waste.
[1:40:30] So financial implications. So this is
[1:40:33] your summary, Wayne, of your $343,000
[1:40:37] uh summary. So for 2026, we don't expect
[1:40:40] any costs. In 2027, we would have site
[1:40:44] preparation and improvement um that we
[1:40:46] would fund um you know to to make to
[1:40:50] make the site ready to accept all of
[1:40:52] these changes to operations. If we're
[1:40:54] moving forward with our ECA, we would
[1:40:57] also have the costs of the ECA and the
[1:40:59] design and operation plan application as
[1:41:03] detailed on page 27 of the report. And
[1:41:06] then the $10,000 to construct the
[1:41:08] hazardous waste storage building
[1:41:11] in 2028. site preparation and and
[1:41:14] alterations is going to be ongoing as we
[1:41:16] implement all of these changes and
[1:41:18] diversion activities along with the
[1:41:20] single way scale and only if required
[1:41:24] which I don't expect the scale house
[1:41:27] construction uh for 288,000 that year to
[1:41:32] a maximum and then $10,000 in 2029 for
[1:41:35] final site preparation and improvement
[1:41:38] and then it's just regular maintenance
[1:41:39] beyond there and those totals altogether
[1:41:42] including that scale house that pretty
[1:41:46] confident to say we don't need um are
[1:41:48] $343,000.
[1:41:51] We propose that those funds would come
[1:41:53] from the reserves which have a balance
[1:41:56] today of $71,47260
[1:42:01] as needed though. So they wouldn't all
[1:42:03] come out in 2026 or all come out in
[1:42:05] 2027. it would be as those activities
[1:42:08] were implemented and we would continue
[1:42:10] contributing to that reserve through our
[1:42:12] regular budget activities uh each year
[1:42:15] as well to to keep that balance up. So
[1:42:18] um the total balance wouldn't bring the
[1:42:20] reserve to 350,000 because we would have
[1:42:22] additional several years of additional
[1:42:25] contributions to that reserve as well to
[1:42:27] support other and ongoing not yet
[1:42:30] identified activities that may need to
[1:42:32] occur at the site.
[1:42:34] So when all of these factors are
[1:42:36] considered and the subsequent
[1:42:38] modifications and proposals and
[1:42:40] clarifications from this report, staff
[1:42:43] recommend that we be provided with
[1:42:44] direction to engage Cambian to
[1:42:47] immediately maximize site efficiency by
[1:42:50] introducing new or amended diversion
[1:42:52] programs and policies that are not
[1:42:54] subject to an ECA amendment.
[1:42:57] that they compile and submit an
[1:42:59] application to amend the ECA and the
[1:43:02] design and operation plan to implement
[1:43:04] the recommendations above and contained
[1:43:07] in this report. To implement revenue
[1:43:10] generation tools as described in the
[1:43:12] report to reduce the annual operating
[1:43:14] deficit and begin to prepare for future
[1:43:16] closure costs. Investigate and bring
[1:43:19] forward the required policies and
[1:43:20] procedures as recommended in this report
[1:43:22] for council approval to reduce risk and
[1:43:25] liability to the town while maximizing
[1:43:27] site life and providing public
[1:43:29] information and education as well as
[1:43:31] improve communications.
[1:43:34] implement new revenue generation tools
[1:43:36] and sources, including acceptance of
[1:43:38] waste from other municipalities as
[1:43:39] outlined in the Cayman report to offset
[1:43:42] continuing annual cost escalations and
[1:43:44] future closure and post-closure
[1:43:46] monitoring cost as required by approvals
[1:43:49] as they are granted and install a single
[1:43:52] waist scale to create efficiencies and
[1:43:54] provide uniform, consistent, and fully
[1:43:56] transparent waste disposal services as
[1:43:58] approvals to do so are received from the
[1:44:01] Ministry of the Environment and Parks.
[1:44:04] And I just want to point out the the the
[1:44:06] summary note in the Keian report because
[1:44:07] I I do think it's really reflective of
[1:44:09] the whole thing. So the Dangan waste
[1:44:12] disposal site is a vital municipal asset
[1:44:14] that plays a central role in supporting
[1:44:16] the town of Braftoft's long-term waste
[1:44:18] management needs. With substantial
[1:44:20] remaining capacity and strong regular
[1:44:23] regulatory foundation, the site presents
[1:44:25] an opportunity not only to ensure
[1:44:27] environmental stewardship, but also to
[1:44:29] unlock greater potential and financial
[1:44:33] value for the community.
[1:44:37] >> Thank you for an excellent report and an
[1:44:39] excellent presentation. And you actually
[1:44:42] did breathe once in a while in there.
[1:44:44] So, thank thank
[1:44:45] >> did I?
[1:44:46] >> Yeah. Uh I'm just going to put this
[1:44:48] first. We've already done this, but I'll
[1:44:50] put the resolution forward. The first
[1:44:51] one was, be it resolved that the council
[1:44:53] of the corporation of town of Bankro
[1:44:55] receives a supplemental information
[1:44:58] staff report regarding the landfill
[1:44:59] optimization study report for the Dunan
[1:45:02] landfill for information and discussion
[1:45:04] purposes, which is what we have done.
[1:45:06] Yes, sorry. Um, I just I just want to
[1:45:09] mention in in the report there, um, and
[1:45:11] I believe we can do it within the
[1:45:12] 343,000,
[1:45:14] we didn't mention doing an audit, a
[1:45:16] waste audit in that report. I think we
[1:45:18] need to include that wording in there so
[1:45:21] we can move forward with that. I don't
[1:45:22] believe we have to increase 343 because
[1:45:24] we have so much in there for the scale
[1:45:26] shack which I've never seen a scale
[1:45:29] house actual concrete. It's always a
[1:45:31] construction trailer. So I believe we
[1:45:33] can do do it within that money. I just
[1:45:35] think that we should add that verbiage.
[1:45:37] >> Yes. Okay.
[1:45:38] >> In the resolution. That's all.
[1:45:39] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh so that's the motion
[1:45:42] to do the discussion which we've already
[1:45:43] done. Could I have a mover and a
[1:45:44] seconder for that please? Deputy Mayor
[1:45:47] and Councelor Lawrence. All in favor,
[1:45:49] please. Thank you. The second
[1:45:52] resolution, be it resolved that the
[1:45:54] council of the corporation, the town of
[1:45:55] Bankro, hereby direct staff to engage
[1:45:57] Cambium, Inc. to implement all the
[1:46:00] recommendations contained in the
[1:46:01] landfill optimization study report as
[1:46:03] amended by the modific modifications
[1:46:06] contained in this report, including the single waste audit. Thank
[1:46:13] you, Jake.
[1:46:16] and further the capital allocations
[1:46:18] outlined on page 11 of this report be
[1:46:21] approved up to a maximum of 343,000
[1:46:24] if required and further the council the
[1:46:27] corporation the town of Bankro direct
[1:46:29] staff to execute a service contract with
[1:46:32] Camian Inc required for this purpose
[1:46:34] because I have a mover and a second
[1:46:36] please councelor Lawrence and councelor
[1:46:38] Miles all in favor is
[1:46:50] » you can make a motion to amend that
[1:46:52] resolution. Um, you would need a
[1:46:54] secondary for the amendment.
[1:46:58] >> Can I have your mic, please?
[1:47:00] >> Sorry. Yes, I would like to amend that.
[1:47:03] Uh let me just find
[1:47:06] amend it to say be it resolved that the
[1:47:08] council of the corporation of the town
[1:47:10] of Braftoft hereby direct staff to
[1:47:12] engage Cambium Inc. to implement all but
[1:47:17] accept waste from other municipalities.
[1:47:19] So that's the only one I want pulled
[1:47:21] from that.
[1:47:23] >> So that's your motion needs to be sorry.
[1:47:26] Yes.
[1:47:29] >> If I can just make a comment um
[1:47:31] excluding that or
[1:47:32] >> sorry excluding that. Yeah,
[1:47:33] >> excluding that and moving forward with
[1:47:35] everything else would duplicate your ECA
[1:47:37] fees. If there was a decision to move
[1:47:39] forward with that in the future, you
[1:47:40] would have to submit yet another design
[1:47:43] and operation plan and another ECA
[1:47:45] amendment to make that change later if
[1:47:48] it wasn't included with the first
[1:47:51] suite of changes.
[1:47:54] Just a
[1:47:58] » So, the motion's on the floor. Looking
[1:48:00] for a seconder.
[1:48:03] Council Eastman seconds. Um,
[1:48:07] >> can I just speak to why I want to do
[1:48:09] that?
[1:48:10] >> Uh, it's pretty evident. Do you want to?
[1:48:14] >> Well, I would like to say something if I
[1:48:15] can.
[1:48:17] >> I'm not saying that I'm opposed to it. I
[1:48:19] mean, at the end of the day, it's a
[1:48:20] $700,000
[1:48:22] operational cost to all of our
[1:48:24] taxpayers. Now, when you take off, like
[1:48:26] Andrew made a good comment about
[1:48:28] curbside. So, when we're bringing in
[1:48:29] revenue from other municipalities to
[1:48:31] bring to offset our costs, so we're
[1:48:34] going to bring in bring in other dollars
[1:48:37] from them, um our costs that our people
[1:48:40] incur that anybody from other
[1:48:42] municipalities wouldn't, such as
[1:48:43] curbside and um our hazardous waste and
[1:48:46] such, they don't benefit from that.
[1:48:48] That's our our people only. But still,
[1:48:50] when you look at the difference, you're
[1:48:52] still looking at a $450,000 difference.
[1:48:55] So, yes, it would be great if we could
[1:48:58] bring in enough revenue from other
[1:49:00] municipalities so that we run it
[1:49:04] where we don't have to like there's not
[1:49:05] a big chunk coming off of our taxpayers.
[1:49:08] But at the end of the day, I really
[1:49:09] don't want to see the lifespan of our landfill um lesson. I think back of
[1:49:15] when we were, this is a positive note
[1:49:18] though, when we were first elected in in
[1:49:20] 20 uh 2014, there was an expected life
[1:49:24] expectancy of 160 years and we're still
[1:49:27] sitting at that. So over 12 years, we
[1:49:29] haven't lost, we've gained, which is
[1:49:31] great, but I just think we need to do a
[1:49:34] little more exploring on that. Um, we've
[1:49:36] got our residents who are dead set
[1:49:39] against it. many are and I just
[1:49:43] I don't want to see the greatest asset
[1:49:45] that we have deplete. That is one thing
[1:49:48] that every municipality,
[1:49:51] you know, we're we're one of the rare
[1:49:52] ones that have that kind of life
[1:49:53] expectancy. And yes, the $700,000
[1:49:57] that we we incur the cost of our
[1:50:00] landfill, we bring in a little bit of
[1:50:02] revenue from elsewhere, but we're look
[1:50:04] that's a 10% in our taxes. If we can
[1:50:06] eliminate that by half, then that's 5%
[1:50:10] off of our taxes. So, I I get that and I
[1:50:13] understand that and I understand the
[1:50:15] money part of it and how wonderful that
[1:50:16] would be. But at the same time, I just
[1:50:19] why do we have to make this decision
[1:50:21] right now? Can it not wait? I mean, a
[1:50:24] few months later, we've got potentially
[1:50:26] a new council coming in and I just think
[1:50:28] that it could sit on that council table
[1:50:32] as opposed to right now.
[1:50:35] comments from the floor.
[1:50:38] Councelor Miles,
[1:50:40] >> um I'm not in support of the amendment
[1:50:42] because I feel that the opportunities
[1:50:46] here, well, first of all, the extra cost
[1:50:48] to going back to the ECA again. That
[1:50:50] does make some sense. We are already
[1:50:53] accepting garbage from another
[1:50:54] municipality. We're just not getting
[1:50:56] enough for it, but we're going to
[1:50:57] correct that. I don't see this as a
[1:51:00] floodgate um uh presentation. I think it
[1:51:04] will be managed clearly. I think I could foresee a future where we we
[1:51:12] don't we have we can't cut off our noses
[1:51:14] despite our face. uh you know so the
[1:51:16] report does sort of talk about what are
[1:51:18] some limitations about how much we
[1:51:19] should accept
[1:51:21] and I think
[1:51:24] I have a responsibility to say to every
[1:51:27] constituent you are the highest taxpayer
[1:51:31] almost in the province based on our mill
[1:51:33] rate and if I could say to you I can
[1:51:36] find a way to generate like what's
[1:51:39] $300,000 5% of tax base
[1:51:43] >> if I can say we're We have found a
[1:51:45] program that, you know, it's not going
[1:51:46] to happen tomorrow, but maybe over the
[1:51:48] next 5 to 10 years, we know we can
[1:51:50] generate some revenue to help with that
[1:51:52] with proper control. I think we should
[1:51:56] be taking those opportunities while
[1:51:57] they've been presented to us by the
[1:52:00] people who do garbage best. Um I I think
[1:52:03] they're they're the pros. They're the
[1:52:04] ones who've paid attention to what is
[1:52:06] here. And so I think missing that
[1:52:08] opportunity to stay to say to a
[1:52:10] constituent, I can help find some
[1:52:11] revenue for the taxes here because we're
[1:52:13] already so high. I have a responsibility
[1:52:16] I feel to a constituent to find a way to
[1:52:18] do that. That that's that's why I would
[1:52:20] be opposed to the amendment.
[1:52:22] >> Any other comments on that, Council
[1:52:24] Lawrence?
[1:52:27] I guess I see the length of time that
[1:52:30] the um landfill can operate as an
[1:52:35] opportunity and an asset like you you
[1:52:38] pointed out, but uh an asset that
[1:52:40] remains in the ground and doesn't
[1:52:43] generate revenue for us. Uh I would not
[1:52:47] support. I see this something like the
[1:52:52] excess capacity we have with the sewage
[1:52:55] treatment plant, you know, uh treating
[1:52:57] leech from other municipalities.
[1:53:01] Um now in that case, I don't think it's
[1:53:05] something that goes away. It it
[1:53:08] um but I I would welcome the opportunity
[1:53:13] to reduce taxes of our taxpayers and
[1:53:15] make us more affordable.
[1:53:19] So comment that I have is is that um to
[1:53:22] delay this to another council, this
[1:53:25] council has has a lot of uh education
[1:53:28] and expertise on this matter that
[1:53:29] they've acquired and there's going to be
[1:53:30] a large turnover. So to put this to a
[1:53:32] new council who have really no
[1:53:34] background information is going to
[1:53:35] extend this out far enough. And we were
[1:53:38] elected to make decisions, you know, we
[1:53:40] were elected to make decisions as
[1:53:41] councelor Miles said in the best
[1:53:43] interests of our taxpayers. we don't
[1:53:44] have very many opportunities
[1:53:47] uh for revenue generation and I think
[1:53:50] that we know that there are a whole
[1:53:51] bunch of other costs that are uh on the
[1:53:53] horizon uh for um that we have no
[1:53:57] control over you know every we've seen
[1:53:59] 10 plus% in the last few years I think
[1:54:01] it was 18 one year for the policing etc
[1:54:04] we still don't know where that's going
[1:54:05] so there are a lot of other expenses the
[1:54:07] only thing that we can do to offset them
[1:54:09] and still be responsible with the way
[1:54:11] site and I think 100 plus years of
[1:54:12] capacity
[1:54:14] uh with upcoming changes probably of
[1:54:16] technology uh that it's our duty to uh
[1:54:20] in the best interest of our taxpayers to
[1:54:22] move forward with this. Uh deputy mayor.
[1:54:24] >> Yeah, just a couple of comments if I
[1:54:26] might. Uh uh first of all, the these
[1:54:30] other municipalities have as far as I
[1:54:31] know have not approached us about
[1:54:33] coming. It's all hypothetical. And if if
[1:54:37] it came back to the local council at the
[1:54:39] time uh to accept or reject each an
[1:54:42] individual uh proposal uh as a revenue
[1:54:47] base, there might be other ones. There
[1:54:48] might be other municipalities uh that
[1:54:51] are out there that are uh really
[1:54:53] desperate. We might be able to uh uh
[1:54:56] generate a whole lot of money in a hurry
[1:54:57] and and even less garbage. But that
[1:54:59] that's part of it.
[1:55:01] The one thing I don't like about I'll
[1:55:03] speak to the to the resolution is that
[1:55:05] we accept all all his recommendations
[1:55:10] and I'm afraid I don't agree with them
[1:55:11] all. I agree with some but not them all.
[1:55:14] So if we have to accept them all, it's
[1:55:16] going to be difficult.
[1:55:18] >> Council Miles,
[1:55:19] >> uh just one more uh followup comment. I
[1:55:22] have some thoughts also that we put
[1:55:24] ourselves in a really good standing with
[1:55:26] the province. I think that when we start
[1:55:28] talking about how the the the the
[1:55:30] condition of dumps throughout the entire
[1:55:33] province, the province is going to start
[1:55:35] having problems and they're going to be
[1:55:37] municipalities going to the province and
[1:55:38] saying, "Help us, help us, save us, save
[1:55:40] us." If we are super proactive about
[1:55:43] finding ways to help some of our
[1:55:46] municipalities, it wouldn't shock me if
[1:55:48] when the time comes and we're ready to
[1:55:50] put this way scale in that we send for a
[1:55:53] grant to the province and say, "Oh, and
[1:55:55] by the way, we've taken every step
[1:55:57] that's been reported by the people that
[1:56:00] know this best. So why don't you help us
[1:56:02] because we're trying to put our foot
[1:56:03] forward to be able to maybe help with
[1:56:06] this massive garbage problem that's
[1:56:08] coming down the chute." And so I wonder
[1:56:11] this if taking the resolutions from or
[1:56:14] the recommendations also puts us in
[1:56:16] really good standing with the province.
[1:56:20] >> Council Eastman,
[1:56:22] >> I I guess my my concern is that are we
[1:56:24] committing future councils to accept
[1:56:28] automatically this or will will they
[1:56:30] have a say on who they accept and when
[1:56:33] uh what the scales is of the time? like
[1:56:36] a like I mean we're we're putting it in
[1:56:40] out there uh not knowing what one of our
[1:56:42] neighbors that we have pending uh
[1:56:46] decisions on. Um so again I I just have
[1:56:50] a concern that that so so the study
[1:56:53] doesn't specify the who's all it's
[1:56:56] specifying is a quantity
[1:56:58] >> but it says all.
[1:56:59] >> Pardon me.
[1:57:00] >> It says all.
[1:57:01] >> Sorry but what's the all part?
[1:57:04] I understand it says all
[1:57:07] the motion is to accept all
[1:57:08] municipalities garbage.
[1:57:10] >> No, no, no, no. All all the
[1:57:12] recommendations in the report, not all
[1:57:14] municipalities garbage. There's a cap on this of 150,500
[1:57:21] metric tons. Whether that comes from our
[1:57:24] neighbor X, Y, or Zed, um is to be deter
[1:57:28] is to be determined. So, no, not all
[1:57:30] municipalities.
[1:57:32] So,
[1:57:34] Jake, you had a comment.
[1:57:35] >> I I just I think I need like I'm
[1:57:37] listening to everybody's questions. I
[1:57:39] think what the resolution is is like
[1:57:41] what Andre had mentioned that moving
[1:57:43] forward is to get to permission to do
[1:57:45] this. Um whether future councils decide
[1:57:49] to accept ways from other municipalities
[1:57:52] will be up to them, but this just puts
[1:57:55] us in a position in the future if that
[1:57:57] is an option. It wouldn't be
[1:58:00] >> is that is that the way I understand it?
[1:58:02] No, this is to take 1500 metric tons.
[1:58:05] >> Okay. Then I was I thought this was just
[1:58:08] for the ECA
[1:58:08] >> up to a maximum 1500 metric tons. That's
[1:58:11] what this resolution Okay.
[1:58:13] >> And that's because we need to identify
[1:58:16] that volume for the ECA amendment. The
[1:58:18] ECA is very specific about how much
[1:58:21] waste we can take from outside of our
[1:58:22] municipal boundaries. So, um we're we're
[1:58:26] saying 1500, but you know that that may
[1:58:28] not happen all at once. it it could be
[1:58:30] 500 the first year and maybe somebody
[1:58:33] else comes forward with another 500 and
[1:58:35] will we get to 15? I I think there's
[1:58:37] absolutely um no doubt that the demand
[1:58:40] is there. Um but that won't happen in
[1:58:43] 2026 or 2027 and is probably um you know
[1:58:47] not even something we would start to
[1:58:49] implement until 2028 once we had the
[1:58:52] ECAs and the design and operation
[1:58:53] approvals in place to do so.
[1:58:57] >> So I forgot what I was going to say. Oh,
[1:58:59] you got your hand up. Sorry.
[1:59:01] >> So, I was just thinking
[1:59:03] >> Oh,
[1:59:03] >> sorry. I just very quickly I did
[1:59:05] remember you you only want to do one ECA
[1:59:07] amendment because
[1:59:08] >> Right. Yeah. So, you you don't want to
[1:59:11] keep going peace meal because it's very
[1:59:12] expensive. Sorry. Thank you.
[1:59:14] >> It would it would allow like what what
[1:59:16] Tracy's concern is is is allowing the
[1:59:18] next count, but
[1:59:19] >> you're still you're still capable of
[1:59:21] >> Well, you're still capable. What I'm
[1:59:22] saying is you're putting it as a rider
[1:59:23] basically that's gonna if in the future
[1:59:26] you want to. Was that not?
[1:59:27] >> No, this is to accept the 1500 tons in a
[1:59:30] manner that staff probably sees fit and
[1:59:32] from who in the future.
[1:59:35] >> Yeah. Sorry, Tracy.
[1:59:37] >> So, yeah. So, it's not that we're
[1:59:39] capable and ready to do it if we choose
[1:59:42] to. We have to do it.
[1:59:45] >> No, it gives us the license to do it
[1:59:47] over.
[1:59:49] >> So, we have the license to do it. We
[1:59:51] could have a a a shop that has a license
[1:59:53] to do whatever we're licensed to do, but
[1:59:56] then if nobody ever brings that in or we
[1:59:58] choose not to do that, we're still
[1:59:59] licensed to do it, but we just choose
[2:00:01] not to at that time. So that's all I'm
[2:00:03] saying. It's not like we're like, "Oh,
[2:00:05] yeah, we're we're licensed to do it, so
[2:00:07] therefore we absolutely have to bring in
[2:00:09] all of that." No, we don't have to. We
[2:00:11] can just be licensed and set up for the
[2:00:13] future, but we don't have to do it.
[2:00:15] >> That's why the
[2:00:16] >> Go ahead.
[2:00:19] I I think you just spoke for voting
[2:00:21] against your amendment. Well,
[2:00:23] >> I was thinking more
[2:00:25] >> this gives us the it's a cost a partial
[2:00:28] cost recovery model, you know, as
[2:00:30] outlined in the report. We know our
[2:00:32] costs today, but they're going to
[2:00:33] continue to escalate. We got closure
[2:00:35] costs coming. We have many other costs
[2:00:37] coming and this is a manner to uh to
[2:00:39] address some of these and hopefully even
[2:00:41] reduce our operating deficit. Yes. If I
[2:00:44] can, I can give you two examples from
[2:00:46] our existing ECA on the shelf right now.
[2:00:48] One is that municipal hazardous waste
[2:00:50] collection depot. We are already
[2:00:52] approved to do that. We just haven't
[2:00:54] yet. And we've had that approval for
[2:00:57] upwards of 10 years now. I think that
[2:00:58] was the 2018 approval. Um, and we just
[2:01:01] haven't yet. We also have approval to
[2:01:04] run a full composting facility at the
[2:01:06] site right now, but we haven't looked at
[2:01:09] doing that and the costs associated with
[2:01:11] doing it and the infrastructure
[2:01:12] required, but it's already approved
[2:01:14] because when we open that ECA, we put it
[2:01:16] in there because it might be something
[2:01:17] we want to do. Um so so the approvals
[2:01:20] can be there but like you said it
[2:01:22] doesn't mean absolutely the minute you
[2:01:24] get the approval you have to start doing
[2:01:26] something anything but you can that's
[2:01:31] but you can and I and and I guess my my
[2:01:34] other part B to that question is so yes
[2:01:37] right now we have roughly 160 years
[2:01:39] which could be depleted down to 100 but
[2:01:42] Jake in your professional opinion and I
[2:01:45] know that you can't say like I know we
[2:01:47] can't end up at a net zero where we can
[2:01:50] bring in all this and not deplete our longevity of our dump by by
[2:01:56] anything. But do you think if if we do
[2:02:00] diversion properly and our our taxpayers
[2:02:03] who don't want to lose the longevity of
[2:02:06] our dump do their part to make sure that
[2:02:08] they're not throwing stuff in our
[2:02:10] landfill that shouldn't and they step up
[2:02:11] and do what they should. Do you foresee
[2:02:13] that 100 years being more than 100?
[2:02:18] >> 100%. I believe that. I believe that um
[2:02:21] you take, you know, you take say we have
[2:02:24] 150 years. Go back in time to 1875 from
[2:02:27] now and how far we've come. Think think
[2:02:29] of how far we're going to be ahead in a
[2:02:30] 100 years. Uh diversion methods, methods
[2:02:33] to to break down garbage to to do
[2:02:36] everything. And I I believe the future
[2:02:38] holds lots of opportunities for us to
[2:02:40] regain capacity and um and I I I'm full behind all these
[2:02:46] recommendations because um they're just
[2:02:49] going to lead to extending the lifespan.
[2:02:50] Look what we've done in the last few
[2:02:52] years. We've brought life back to that
[2:02:54] landfill just by better practice with
[2:02:56] our operations and and and I do believe
[2:02:58] we can that that [clears throat] 22
[2:03:00] years um that they're saying that we
[2:03:02] would lose. I I believe we can shave
[2:03:03] that down with better diversion models
[2:03:06] 100%.
[2:03:09] » Sorry, somebody take their mic off. Try
[2:03:11] now.
[2:03:13] >> So, further to that, I'm going to pedal
[2:03:14] backwards. I just felt we needed to have
[2:03:16] that discussion and that conversation.
[2:03:18] Um, my my big thing is, hey, at the end
[2:03:22] of the day, yes, we are responsible to
[2:03:23] our rateayers. Um, and if we can lower
[2:03:26] our taxes and not decrease the longevity
[2:03:31] of one of our greatest assets by too
[2:03:33] much and I don't want to close the door
[2:03:36] in an opportunity for the future. Um, so
[2:03:40] I will pull my
[2:03:44] >> and I think you're right. The the goal
[2:03:46] is and I you know I think this report
[2:03:48] was very conservative. I and to Jake's
[2:03:51] point and other discussions I've had, I
[2:03:53] think we still want to try to achieve
[2:03:55] more capacity and uh and through all of
[2:03:58] these programs. So that would be the
[2:04:00] ultimate goal is exactly what you said
[2:04:02] and I would
[2:04:03] >> we can't sit here and guarantee.
[2:04:04] >> No, no, but but even to cap it. Okay. So
[2:04:06] that's what that's what is in the report
[2:04:09] suggested cannot be capped. We're not
[2:04:11] going to take any more than this.
[2:04:12] >> That's the cap.
[2:04:13] >> That's the actual cap.
[2:04:14] >> That's what's going to go forward in the
[2:04:15] ECA and you cannot deviate from the ECA.
[2:04:18] Okay.
[2:04:23] » On the first motion,
[2:04:28] » but I I don't think it was seconded, was
[2:04:29] it?
[2:04:30] >> Yeah,
[2:04:30] >> it was. Yes.
[2:04:31] >> Oh, I'm sorry. I I missed that. I missed
[2:04:33] that. Okay. So, we have to vote on the
[2:04:36] uh on the amendment. So, all in favor of
[2:04:38] the amendment, please raise your hands.
[2:04:41] All opposed.
[2:04:43] Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You sure
[2:04:47] can.
[2:04:48] uh on these proposals that we're saying
[2:04:51] that we're going to accept all of them
[2:04:52] on this report.
[2:04:54] Will they come back to the existing
[2:04:56] council at that at that time for new
[2:04:59] plans or is this just letting staff go
[2:05:02] wild to do what they want?
[2:05:04] >> As far as what?
[2:05:05] >> Well, for example, like the hazardous
[2:05:07] building, I I don't personally think we
[2:05:09] should be into that. So, that's part of
[2:05:12] the uh scenario. So like if they come
[2:05:14] back will staff come back and say the
[2:05:16] hazardous buildings don't cost us
[2:05:18] assist. This is how it's all planned
[2:05:19] out. Uh we got into this with the uh
[2:05:22] workshard we had a a Taj Mahal idea and
[2:05:26] they just kept growing and growing and I
[2:05:27] got a feeling that the same thing could
[2:05:29] happen here quite readily unless they
[2:05:32] come back with individual like for
[2:05:33] example the scales and so yeah okay the
[2:05:36] scales are this is what's going to cost
[2:05:37] da da da go for it or we saying today go
[2:05:41] for it and not worry. So there is a
[2:05:44] budget cap in this report of the 343,000
[2:05:48] that anything in exceeding in excess of
[2:05:51] that would have to come back for sure.
[2:05:52] You you can't go over that. That's what
[2:05:55] the recommendation is.
[2:05:57] So
[2:05:58] >> is that budget cap now at 363
[2:06:01] with 38?
[2:06:02] >> No. Um um no. But
[2:06:06] >> Jake's comment was is that uh we can do
[2:06:09] it right within I think the big thing in
[2:06:11] that report is 140,000 for the scale
[2:06:13] house. I don't think anybody thinks that
[2:06:14] we're going anywhere near that, but that
[2:06:16] was what was in the consultants report.
[2:06:18] So
[2:06:18] >> yeah, that that that's what I meant was
[2:06:20] the the waste audit. I believe we can
[2:06:22] contain it within that 343,000.
[2:06:25] Um I just wanted to make sure it was in
[2:06:26] the verbiage that
[2:06:28] >> that we were going to do that as well,
[2:06:29] but there's no price increase with that.
[2:06:31] We can work within that budget.
[2:06:33] >> Okay. Um, okay. I have a second
[2:06:36] recommendation. I make sure I'm on the
[2:06:37] right item here.
[2:06:40] Second resolution. Be it resolved the
[2:06:42] corporation of the town of Bankrop here
[2:06:44] by direct staff to engage Cambium Inc.
[2:06:46] to implement all of the recommendations
[2:06:49] contained in the landfill optimization
[2:06:51] report as amended by the modific
[2:06:53] contained
[2:06:56] in this report being the staff report.
[2:07:01] » Yes. including a single season waste
[2:07:03] audit. Thank you.
[2:07:07] And yes, and further the capital
[2:07:11] allocations outlined on page 11 of this
[2:07:13] report be approved up to a maximum of
[2:07:16] 343,000 if required. And further the
[2:07:20] council of the corporation of town of
[2:07:22] bankrooft direct staff to execute a
[2:07:23] service contract with Cambium Inc. as
[2:07:26] required for this purpose. Could I have
[2:07:29] a mover in a seconder, please?
[2:07:32] No, this is a separate motion.
[2:07:36] Oh, I do.
[2:07:41] Well,
[2:07:43] it's a long
[2:07:47] >> Yeah. long. Okay. All in favor, please.
[2:07:55] Okay. So, we have four. One, two, three,
[2:07:58] four. Yes. So passed.
[2:08:03] Let's have everybody put their hand up
[2:08:05] so that the clerk can please say it for
[2:08:07] approval. Thank you.
[2:08:10] Okay. Thank you. So So pass. Thank you.
[2:08:16] Let's take a 10-minute prayer.
[2:08:20] Thank you.
[2:18:48] Okay, thank you. We'll reconvene at this
[2:18:50] time. Next on our agenda, item D,
[2:18:53] ventilation and thermal load assessment
[2:18:54] reports addressing uh identified worker
[2:18:58] health and safety issues. And this is
[2:18:59] for portions of our uh current
[2:19:01] workshard. Uh the motion before us is be
[2:19:04] it resolved that the council of the
[2:19:05] corporation of town of bankrock receives
[2:19:07] this staff report and the associated
[2:19:09] attachments for information and
[2:19:10] discussion purposes and further that
[2:19:13] council direct staff uh to procure and
[2:19:16] install components for a compressed air
[2:19:18] system for the trucks in the cold
[2:19:19] storage bay and to engage the services
[2:19:22] of a wildlife management pest control
[2:19:24] company to remove the pigeons from the
[2:19:26] cold storage truck bays and complete
[2:19:29] remediation of the space as a result of
[2:19:31] pigeon activity. ity to a maximum amount
[2:19:33] of $30,000 $30,000 total cost with funds
[2:19:37] to be allocated from the corporate
[2:19:38] services reserve health safety and
[2:19:41] accessibility initiatives fund. Could I
[2:19:42] have a mover and a seconder please? Uh
[2:19:45] councelor Eastman and councelor Miles
[2:19:48] and Andre I will call on you again to
[2:19:51] present this please.
[2:19:53] >> Thank you Mayor Jenkins. So you have a a
[2:19:56] number of reports in front of you. Um, I
[2:19:59] did reattach the building envelope
[2:20:01] assessment summary from last uh last
[2:20:04] fall for the initial assessments of the
[2:20:07] buildings. We've also attached a summary
[2:20:10] document uh compiled by our manager of
[2:20:13] infrastructure and capital projects with
[2:20:16] regard to the newest ventilation and
[2:20:18] thermal load assessment reports. Um
[2:20:21] we're still working through the details
[2:20:23] of those for longer range things and and
[2:20:26] there is some information in them that
[2:20:29] um would have required a significant
[2:20:32] amount of redacting to be included on
[2:20:34] this agenda. Um serial numbers and
[2:20:37] identifiers of critical equipment for
[2:20:39] example. So um we we didn't get that
[2:20:43] process complete and that's why those
[2:20:44] reports aren't attached but the summary
[2:20:46] is there so that you at least have that
[2:20:48] information to refer to uh until we can
[2:20:51] get the reports in a publicly
[2:20:53] presentable uh fashion. So the intent of
[2:20:57] those reports was to evaluate the
[2:21:00] ventilation um and heating and cooling
[2:21:03] systems in the two buildings the parks
[2:21:06] and wreck building and the public works
[2:21:07] building. I'm probably going to refer to
[2:21:10] cold storage. That's the parks building.
[2:21:13] Um, that's where we park our snow plows
[2:21:15] in the winter to keep them out of the
[2:21:17] snow. It's an unheated, unserviceed
[2:21:19] building with the exception of hydro.
[2:21:22] Um, but it does keep the snow off the
[2:21:24] vehicles in the ambient temperature in
[2:21:26] the bay. Keeps the temperature close to
[2:21:29] zero, which makes starting the trucks a
[2:21:31] little bit easier than they would if
[2:21:32] they were parked outside at minus40. We
[2:21:35] also can't park our snow plows outside
[2:21:37] because they are ready to plow when
[2:21:39] weather starts. So, they're filled with
[2:21:41] uh sand or sweet mix or salt or a
[2:21:44] combination thereof. And if those are
[2:21:46] outside and they get wet, they turn into
[2:21:48] cement in the box and then we can't uh
[2:21:50] actually spread anything. So, we do need
[2:21:52] to keep those vehicles inside so they're
[2:21:54] ready to roll. So, if you have questions
[2:21:57] about the actual report findings in
[2:22:00] detail, I'm sure Jake would be happy to
[2:22:02] entertain them. The main purpose of
[2:22:04] today is to get approval to uh complete
[2:22:07] some immediate uh remediation to the
[2:22:11] spaces to ensure that our workers are
[2:22:13] safe in those spaces while future
[2:22:14] decisions about public works and parks
[2:22:18] uh continue to be contemplated.
[2:22:20] So both buildings miserably failed
[2:22:23] ventilation assessments. There is
[2:22:25] inadequate ventilation uh for staff in
[2:22:28] both buildings when there are vehicles
[2:22:30] running in those buildings particularly
[2:22:32] in cold startup conditions.
[2:22:36] The uh public works building or the
[2:22:38] garage uh does have a ventilation system
[2:22:41] although it is not appropriately sized
[2:22:44] for the use that we have in the
[2:22:46] building. uh and a couple components of
[2:22:48] that system have failed. But there is a
[2:22:51] ventilation system there which can
[2:22:53] safely allow workers to work in that
[2:22:55] space providing that a number of other
[2:22:57] procedures are put in place such as
[2:23:00] keeping certain doors closed at all
[2:23:02] times. So um exhaust fumes from one area
[2:23:06] can't get into another area of the
[2:23:08] building because of the door stops and
[2:23:09] the and the seals around the doors. So
[2:23:11] we will be working with our joint
[2:23:13] occupational health and safety committee
[2:23:15] to uh identify those business procedures
[2:23:19] to ensure um that staff can safely work
[2:23:21] in that building and we aren't
[2:23:23] recommending any immediate remediation
[2:23:25] in that building beyond those procedure
[2:23:27] procedures at this time. However, the
[2:23:31] cold storage building has zero
[2:23:33] ventilation and there is absolutely no
[2:23:35] way that we can put enough worker
[2:23:37] controls and safety procedures in place
[2:23:40] to allow trucks to run in that space in
[2:23:43] the cold to um air up so that they can
[2:23:46] be moved, which is the practice now. You
[2:23:48] have to start a diesel truck and let it
[2:23:50] run for a number of minutes um to en to
[2:23:54] allow the air tanks to build up enough
[2:23:56] pressure so that you can engage the
[2:23:57] drive system and move the vehicle out of
[2:23:59] the garage. Um so while that's happening
[2:24:02] all the exhaust from those trucks is
[2:24:04] accumulating in that building um with no
[2:24:06] ventilation.
[2:24:08] So, our proposal for that issue is to
[2:24:12] install a a self-contained um or not a
[2:24:15] self-contained, but an air system um an
[2:24:19] independent air system independent of
[2:24:20] the building. Um, that will allow us to
[2:24:23] hook each of the trucks to an air
[2:24:25] compressor system through a through a
[2:24:28] hose and a connection to the air tank to
[2:24:30] keep the air tanks in the truck full
[2:24:32] enough that someone can get in, turn the
[2:24:34] key, put it in, drive, and drive out of
[2:24:36] the building and close the door,
[2:24:38] minimizing the amount of exhaust that
[2:24:40] accumulates inside that building to keep
[2:24:41] it at a safe level for workers. Once the
[2:24:44] trucks are out of the buildings, then
[2:24:46] workers can complete any remaining
[2:24:48] safety check things, um any adjustments
[2:24:51] that they might need to make, um any
[2:24:54] improvements that can all be done
[2:24:55] outside the building safely where there
[2:24:57] is fresh air, which provides adequate
[2:24:59] ventilation and uh minimizes or
[2:25:02] eliminates exposure to um diesel
[2:25:05] emissions uh from those trucks. So, the
[2:25:08] cost to do that includes a compressor, a
[2:25:12] large compressor, as it will have to
[2:25:13] service a number of trucks, the hose
[2:25:15] reels that will allow the hoses to uh be
[2:25:19] pulled out and retract when they're not
[2:25:21] needed so they aren't in a way causing
[2:25:23] another health and safety issue, and
[2:25:25] then the fittings that those hoses
[2:25:26] connect to the vehicles to to allow the
[2:25:28] air to remain in those tanks. This is
[2:25:31] not a new system. It's not something we
[2:25:33] made up. Uh the fire departments use
[2:25:35] those to keep those fire trucks so that
[2:25:37] when they get a call, they can jump in
[2:25:39] them and hit drive and go. They don't
[2:25:41] have to wait 10 or 15 minutes for the
[2:25:43] trucks to warm up before they can
[2:25:44] respond to a call. So basically, we're
[2:25:46] going to implement the system that fireh
[2:25:48] halls use to make sure that those trucks
[2:25:51] are ready to roll as soon as someone
[2:25:52] gets in them and turns a key.
[2:25:55] Uh the other issue is our pigeons and we
[2:25:59] love our pigeons and we don't want any
[2:26:01] harm to come to the pigeons but they
[2:26:03] cannot reside inside the building. Um
[2:26:06] the pigeons pose a significant health
[2:26:08] and safety risk not because of the birds
[2:26:12] themselves but because of the things the
[2:26:14] birds leave behind. Um so we need to
[2:26:18] remove the birds from the building.
[2:26:20] however, a pest control company does
[2:26:23] that and then clean up the mess that the
[2:26:26] birds have left behind and cover the um
[2:26:30] points of entry. So, there are some
[2:26:32] windows up high that are broken or
[2:26:35] accessible that will need to be closed
[2:26:36] in. Um, we'll probably need to put some
[2:26:38] kind of bird stopper devices on the
[2:26:42] ledges and the sills so they can't land
[2:26:44] and sit there and and basically do
[2:26:46] everything that we can to encourage them
[2:26:49] not to come back once we evict them. Uh
[2:26:52] so again that will [clears throat]
[2:26:54] require the services of a professional
[2:26:57] pest control company and we would like
[2:26:58] to engage that immediately to get the pests out of the building uh as
[2:27:03] quickly as we can uh in the most
[2:27:05] appropriate manner to do that. So those
[2:27:08] are the two recommendations in my
[2:27:10] report. I am happy to answer questions
[2:27:12] if you have any. We have met with our
[2:27:14] joint occupational health and safety
[2:27:16] committee um and shared these health
[2:27:19] concerns or worker risks with them as we
[2:27:22] are obligated to do when we become aware
[2:27:24] of a risk. They are aware of these two
[2:27:26] recommendations coming forward today and
[2:27:28] are supportive of these interim measures
[2:27:30] until we can identify a permanent
[2:27:32] solution for the um myriad of challenges
[2:27:35] that those buildings are providing right
[2:27:37] now. Just a point of clarification, this
[2:27:40] compressor can be relocated in the
[2:27:42] future to another facility. Okay.
[2:27:44] >> It can. It's not installed as a fixture
[2:27:47] in the building. It's a standalone
[2:27:49] component. So, it's as simple as taking
[2:27:51] the screws out of the hose reels and
[2:27:53] putting the compressor on a probably
[2:27:56] heavy duty dolly. It'll be a big
[2:27:57] compressor and moving it out of the
[2:27:59] building.
[2:28:00] >> Councilman, you had a question.
[2:28:01] >> Not a question, but a comment. I I just
[2:28:03] think the health and welfare and safety
[2:28:05] of our staff is utmost.
[2:28:07] I think that's a no-brainer.
[2:28:11] All in favor? So pass. Thank you very
[2:28:14] much. Yeah, many things.
[2:28:15] >> Just a a sidebar comment on this is that
[2:28:18] we uh have been working with our MPP
[2:28:22] uh and with staff from um Infrastructure
[2:28:25] Ontario to try to finalize something
[2:28:28] with either we have potential to stay
[2:28:31] here under favorable circumstances or to
[2:28:34] uh to leave the building. Um and it's
[2:28:38] been a very long drawn out process. Um
[2:28:41] even um our MPP thought there was a
[2:28:44] resolution and it didn't uh turn out
[2:28:47] quite the way it didn't even turn out
[2:28:49] never mind turn out the way there was a
[2:28:52] some communications error. So uh we're
[2:28:54] still dealing with that on that front
[2:28:56] there. And part and parcel of the
[2:28:57] original report that came through was on
[2:29:00] the uh uh the fire side as well. And uh
[2:29:03] currently the uh fire service review is
[2:29:06] underway and I would imagine that it'll
[2:29:10] come sometime before the end of third
[2:29:14] hopefully in August council. So we'll
[2:29:16] have a bit a bit bigger picture on that
[2:29:18] as well. So yes,
[2:29:21] >> what has the cost of all these
[2:29:22] assessments been to date?
[2:29:25] >> Was it in there? I missed it.
[2:29:30] Um
[2:29:31] >> I don't have it handy. I do think that
[2:29:33] uh the initial costs of this one were in
[2:29:36] the 2025 report when you approved moving
[2:29:39] forward with them.
[2:29:44] Uh $13,350
[2:29:47] for the first building envelope
[2:29:49] assessment summary reports. I don't have
[2:29:52] the amount of these newest uh reports
[2:29:56] in the report. So, um I I I can't
[2:30:02] confidently
[2:30:02] >> No worries. I just was curious if we
[2:30:04] were kind of within
[2:30:08] » Yes.
[2:30:08] >> Okay. Yeah. That but I mean all the
[2:30:10] >> in the report he keeps referring to
[2:30:13] 2025.
[2:30:14] >> Did they do this study a year ago? I
[2:30:16] thought they just did the initial. I
[2:30:18] believe
[2:30:19] >> the building assessment reports were
[2:30:21] done in 2025 and the ventilation reports
[2:30:24] were completed this year based on those
[2:30:26] 2025 building condition assessment.
[2:30:28] >> Yeah, after we got the first report, we
[2:30:29] asked them to go back and provide us
[2:30:31] with further information on the air
[2:30:33] quality. Okay, we did vote on that.
[2:30:36] >> Okay, thank you. Item E, recreation and
[2:30:38] data project community survey results.
[2:30:41] So the resolution before us is be it
[2:30:43] resolved the council of the corporation
[2:30:44] town of bank for office by received this
[2:30:46] report and presentation for information
[2:30:48] purposes only. Could I have a mover in a
[2:30:50] secondary to put it on the floor please?
[2:30:51] Deputy mayor and secondary councelor
[2:30:53] Eastman Sarah the floor is yours.
[2:30:56] >> Good afternoon your worship and members
[2:30:58] of council.
[2:31:00] I'll just wait until uh our clerk can
[2:31:02] get the presentation up on uh on the
[2:31:05] wall here.
[2:31:07] So, I'm here today to provide you with a
[2:31:09] summary um the initial summary of the
[2:31:12] recreation and data project that we put
[2:31:13] out to the community. Um the
[2:31:16] presentation that we're going to go
[2:31:17] through uh undertake undertake kind of
[2:31:19] the key findings, community input and
[2:31:21] outlines and next steps and supports and
[2:31:24] directing staff to advance
[2:31:25] implementation, further engagement and
[2:31:28] priority actions.
[2:31:30] So, we took this on as part of I think
[2:31:33] it was uh Andrea's in February 2026 when
[2:31:36] she kind of brought it forward to kind
[2:31:37] of undertake sort of initial data
[2:31:40] collection around our park and rec
[2:31:42] facilities and culture plan. Um we're
[2:31:44] kind of in phase one of collecting the
[2:31:46] information. So, we launched the public
[2:31:47] anonymous survey um to gather input from
[2:31:50] residents, seasonal residents, visitors,
[2:31:52] anyone who would scan our QR code and do
[2:31:55] the survey. Um, so if we can flip to the
[2:31:58] next one and our five key insights that
[2:32:00] we found from our 206 survey respondents
[2:32:04] were
[2:32:06] I know thank you councelor Miles it was
[2:32:09] very good that we did get engagement um
[2:32:12] that our system is widely used and it
[2:32:15] matters in our everyday life. Our
[2:32:17] strongest assets are our parks, our
[2:32:19] gathering spaces, events, trails and
[2:32:22] outdoor experiences. The public is not
[2:32:25] calling for wholesale change. It they're
[2:32:28] asking it asking the town to strengthen
[2:32:30] what we already have. The biggest
[2:32:32] barriers are practable, solvable, cost,
[2:32:36] communication, seasonal limits, and
[2:32:38] program availability. And that our
[2:32:40] recreation and culture system serves
[2:32:42] more than our town residents. It
[2:32:44] functions as a broader regional asset.
[2:32:46] And I'm sure nothing there surprises
[2:32:48] anyone around the table or anyone behind
[2:32:49] me. Um, it's just nice to hear it from
[2:32:52] the community that everyone's kind of on
[2:32:54] the same page. So, this was exciting for
[2:32:57] myself who normally has been doing
[2:32:58] surveys and normally our demographics,
[2:33:00] we usually get a lot of response that
[2:33:03] matches our regional demographics, which
[2:33:05] would be our senior population, but we
[2:33:06] took a very targeted approach and
[2:33:08] ensured that we emailed it out to our
[2:33:10] partner agencies, emailed it out to our
[2:33:12] user groups, making sure that we got
[2:33:14] some responses. So you will see that the
[2:33:16] majority of our responses have come from
[2:33:18] our 25 to 50 year old age range which we
[2:33:21] definitely got a great response cuz
[2:33:23] those are the people with family with
[2:33:25] children. So that was a great response.
[2:33:29] So you'll see kind of we did um kind of
[2:33:32] broke it up around who is here. Most
[2:33:35] respondents were year-round residents,
[2:33:37] 63%,
[2:33:39] but 33% did live outside of Braftoft,
[2:33:42] but use our parks regularly and our
[2:33:44] cultural spaces and showing that's just
[2:33:46] showing that we're using both the local
[2:33:48] and regional users. So, we also asked to
[2:33:51] break it down by our regional townships
[2:33:53] and around the area. So, um nonraftoft
[2:33:57] residents, the largest shares, no
[2:33:59] surprise, came from Hastings Highlands,
[2:34:01] 45% and Faraday, 32%. So, we all know
[2:34:05] how close those are as our neighbors.
[2:34:07] Um, so of course they're utilizing our
[2:34:09] assets on a regular ongoing basis.
[2:34:14] Pardon?
[2:34:17] [laughter]
[2:34:19] >> So, this was another great one that we
[2:34:21] got. We got some information around
[2:34:23] families and children with children with
[2:34:25] youth or caregiving. So, it was a nice
[2:34:27] kind of cross range of information. um
[2:34:30] basically a 50% breakdown of who had
[2:34:32] children, who didn't and we also
[2:34:35] captured around whether there was doing
[2:34:36] we were doing the people were doing
[2:34:38] caregiving within their household to
[2:34:39] capture that different demographic.
[2:34:43] So the why people are coming to
[2:34:46] Braftoft, why are they coming to our
[2:34:48] area? Um basically was like people come
[2:34:52] every day for living, events,
[2:34:54] recreation, and access to the facilities
[2:34:56] and programs that we offer within our
[2:34:58] community. This shows that our community
[2:35:00] serves both local daily life and as a
[2:35:03] destination for activity, connection and
[2:35:05] experience.
[2:35:08] So why are people using our places? Why
[2:35:11] are they coming here? Why are they using
[2:35:14] our parks, recreation and culture
[2:35:15] spaces? Our spaces are most used for
[2:35:18] events and festivals, specific
[2:35:20] facilities, and time outdoors. The
[2:35:23] strongest reason that came out on top
[2:35:25] was events, facilities, and our outdoor
[2:35:28] experiences, which shouldn't surprise
[2:35:30] anyone either. So, what spaces are used?
[2:35:33] Our community parks and gathering spaces
[2:35:36] are used most. We have a fair amount of
[2:35:38] them. So, those would be things like
[2:35:39] Millennium Park, our community center,
[2:35:42] any of those type of community areas.
[2:35:44] Um, and then followed by a strong use of
[2:35:46] trails. Um, I will at some point present
[2:35:48] the data compared to other
[2:35:49] municipalities, but I will let you in
[2:35:51] that we have a higher proportion of
[2:35:53] trails than any other municipality of
[2:35:54] Ontario. So, multi-use trails, just the
[2:35:57] amount of kilometers that we have and
[2:36:00] waterfront spaces. So, frequency of use.
[2:36:03] Um, I think this one kind of surprised
[2:36:05] me that people were actually using our
[2:36:06] spaces like weekly, like a lot weekly
[2:36:10] and monthly. That's a lot of people
[2:36:11] using them every day in whatever whether
[2:36:13] that's Millennium or Eagle's Nest um the
[2:36:16] arena any of those kind of location
[2:36:18] active and everyday part of life.
[2:36:24] So we also looked at kind of um events
[2:36:27] and event attendance. Um we know that
[2:36:29] we've been there's been many more events
[2:36:31] happening in our local parks in our
[2:36:32] local areas and they're attending
[2:36:35] frequently occasionally. They love to
[2:36:36] come for the farmers market, um,
[2:36:38] community markets, things like that.
[2:36:41] They also like to come for our seasonal
[2:36:42] events, indigenous expo, jamberee, rally
[2:36:45] of the top lines. They're a major draw,
[2:36:47] but also Canada Day and Santa Claus
[2:36:50] parade. Definitely something else that
[2:36:51] our residents and beyond our residents
[2:36:54] attend.
[2:36:57] So, we also asked why, like what would
[2:36:59] make you come out more? Um, of course,
[2:37:02] everyone's saying more variety. we can't
[2:37:04] keep everyone happy. So, more variety,
[2:37:06] also more rear
[2:37:08] year yearround options. Um, a few
[2:37:11] comments kind of like why can't Eagles
[2:37:12] Nest be open in the winter and all those
[2:37:14] types of things. Better affordability
[2:37:16] would drive higher event attendance.
[2:37:20] So, I did do one on the trails cuz we
[2:37:22] asked specifically because we do have a
[2:37:24] very high proportionate amount of
[2:37:26] kilometers. Um, you know, most people
[2:37:29] are walking on them or hiking on them,
[2:37:31] running, cycling. Um, what I will worry
[2:37:34] about in this particular slide is I
[2:37:37] launched this in the summer. So, I maybe
[2:37:40] didn't get those winter snow, you know,
[2:37:42] snowshoeing or winter ping. So, it is
[2:37:44] kind of not really confident in this
[2:37:47] when they weren't here. I mean, it'd be
[2:37:49] neat to kind of launch it again in the
[2:37:50] winter season. I mean, I did send it out
[2:37:52] to our partners that, you know, snow
[2:37:54] riders and those types of things, but
[2:37:56] they're not as active in June. Yes,
[2:37:58] >> I actually think
[2:37:59] >> Oh, Mike. Um the the stewards for the
[2:38:03] Eagles Nest actually did a survey I
[2:38:05] don't know 10 or 12 years ago. Chris
[2:38:07] Durst has all that information and I
[2:38:09] think that that would be the same
[2:38:12] >> even in the winter. I don't know that
[2:38:15] there that we there's there's a belief
[2:38:17] that the ATV and snowmobile would drive
[2:38:18] those things up because of wintertime. I
[2:38:21] don't actually think that's the case and
[2:38:22] maybe not. Right. And that would be
[2:38:23] interesting. I mean people still walk in
[2:38:25] the snow, right? So we don't know that
[2:38:27] for a fact but I just wanted to throw
[2:38:28] that out there.
[2:38:30] And
[2:38:32] yes, the Eagle's Nest, they have some
[2:38:33] great data that I'll be able to share in
[2:38:35] another council meeting of kind of what we're seeing in those those areas.
[2:38:39] So, next was the experience that our
[2:38:41] users have. So, how well they function.
[2:38:44] Let's look at the half happy happiness
[2:38:46] there. Over half are saying mostly well.
[2:38:49] We're doing okay. Then we have another
[2:38:51] 25% are doing very well. So, if we're
[2:38:54] looking at 75%, we're doing above board.
[2:38:56] Let's let's let's give ourselves a pat
[2:38:58] on the back. But some are also saying
[2:39:00] that we're doing adequate but we could
[2:39:02] with some limitations. So I think that's
[2:39:04] a very proud thing we can say especially
[2:39:06] without a recreation committee
[2:39:08] especially without any kind of extra
[2:39:11] information. I mean yes we have an
[2:39:13] amazing team of staff here that look
[2:39:15] after these spaces but not a dedicated
[2:39:18] person organizing events. overall
[2:39:21] experience
[2:39:22] functional but aging system with a
[2:39:26] strong foundation clear opportunities
[2:39:28] for targeted improvement. So as I said
[2:39:31] in the beginning we have a great base
[2:39:33] here we just need to maintain it
[2:39:35] increase it and we will have more usage
[2:39:37] and more happiness I guess or
[2:39:39] contentment
[2:39:41] barriers um were practable practical and
[2:39:45] solvable. So yes, user fees came up of
[2:39:48] course, um cost, there was also limited
[2:39:52] program time, lack of awareness, all the
[2:39:56] common um themes that normally come up
[2:39:58] around barriers came up. Transportation
[2:40:00] came up as well and access
[2:40:03] um and another thing it was the winter
[2:40:04] use piece. Um I wasn't sure since I
[2:40:06] launched it in the summer whether the
[2:40:08] four season thing wasn't captured in
[2:40:10] there. So just a thing that you know put
[2:40:13] away in the back of your mind.
[2:40:16] So um the priorities we asked the users
[2:40:18] that did the survey you know where you
[2:40:21] know what input could they give around
[2:40:23] um you know what where should we invest
[2:40:25] our money. So in top top investment pro
[2:40:28] were maintaining what we have looking at
[2:40:30] yearround um use and increasing or
[2:40:34] maintaining our trails and water access.
[2:40:37] Um they want improvements that maintain
[2:40:39] our core while enhancing four season and
[2:40:42] outdoor access. And then the other one
[2:40:45] was strengthen what we have and targeted
[2:40:47] new additions. So don't create anything
[2:40:50] new big and bold just work with what
[2:40:52] we've got.
[2:40:54] So I do have um it was great that half
[2:40:58] of the respondents left comments. Some
[2:41:01] from very simple comments to very
[2:41:03] lengthy comments um very passionate and
[2:41:06] engaged as we found in the last survey
[2:41:08] that we did. Um they reinforced the
[2:41:10] survey findings around facilities, more
[2:41:12] youth and family programs, stronger
[2:41:13] trails, waterfront access,
[2:41:16] um and emphasize making assets work
[2:41:19] better, more affordability and
[2:41:21] accessible year round.
[2:41:24] So I put the uh the foundations kind of
[2:41:26] around the comments and the passion of
[2:41:28] the pe of the people. Um, so we can look
[2:41:31] at removing practical barriers to build
[2:41:33] confidence in our public spaces, unlock
[2:41:36] forces season use and program for all
[2:41:39] ages. Let's just not focus on one
[2:41:41] demographic here. Um, and you'll see
[2:41:43] some of the comments around the outside
[2:41:45] pulled exactly and directly from the users are, you know, kind of
[2:41:49] back those up.
[2:41:51] And the last page is the feeling. Um,
[2:41:54] I'm all about the feeling. the feeling
[2:41:56] about the feedback and the you know who
[2:41:58] filled these out because we don't know
[2:41:59] it's anonymous but there was concern
[2:42:02] there was hope
[2:42:04] there was passion and there was caring
[2:42:06] and I think that echoes um who sits
[2:42:09] around this table who sits behind me who
[2:42:11] works with us every day but it also
[2:42:12] reflects our community that we're
[2:42:14] engaged in what we're doing and that
[2:42:16] they see hope for the future.
[2:42:20] So next steps um would be first off
[2:42:23] sharing with you guys and see where we
[2:42:24] go from there. Um and close the feedback
[2:42:27] loop. So report back um because proper
[2:42:29] engagement in you know is not one way.
[2:42:32] It needs to be two ways. So we need to
[2:42:33] report this back to our partners. Report
[2:42:35] this back to the community um of what's
[2:42:39] needed. Use these to see where we need
[2:42:42] to move forward. So as I said youth and
[2:42:45] family we don't usually get a lot of
[2:42:46] feedback from youth and family but nice
[2:42:47] to reach out and go what does that look
[2:42:48] like? reach out to our senior
[2:42:50] population, reach out to those targeted
[2:42:51] partners that we have. Engage so no one
[2:42:54] can say, "I didn't know." Even though
[2:42:56] they will. [laughter] Um, and ask kind
[2:42:58] of more detailed, deep diving questions.
[2:43:01] Look at comparing our results with other
[2:43:03] recreation plans, how they look. You
[2:43:06] know, Val said we got great at 206, but
[2:43:08] what does that mean? Did West get 500?
[2:43:11] Did we do about right? See what see what
[2:43:14] other communities are doing. And then
[2:43:16] also um I've done a kind of a quick look
[2:43:18] over our comments for quick wins, things
[2:43:21] that we can improve in communication.
[2:43:23] Couple parent I didn't know there was a
[2:43:25] free summer camp. I didn't know that
[2:43:27] Millennium Park was open every day. I
[2:43:29] didn't know. So we can kind of come up
[2:43:32] with those practical fix the foundations
[2:43:35] things. Um people don't know that you
[2:43:37] can, you know, use our sites and for you
[2:43:40] know low or limited cost. Yes, we got
[2:43:41] the money cost, but could be directed to
[2:43:44] one particular asset and other assets we
[2:43:47] have in our community.
[2:43:50] So, I know it's been a long meeting, but
[2:43:53] does anyone have any questions or
[2:43:54] comments?
[2:43:56] >> A comment.
[2:43:57] >> Oh, excellent. Okay. Um back in 2018 we
[2:44:02] did our economic development uh
[2:44:04] strategic plan of making our future
[2:44:08] >> and from the the part that was sort of
[2:44:11] absent from that was on the recreation
[2:44:13] side it wasn't really part of it but it
[2:44:15] was sort of the thing. So when Andre and
[2:44:17] I started this discussion about having
[2:44:20] uh an you know recreation master plan um
[2:44:24] we we grabbed a few examples from other
[2:44:26] municipalities etc. And that's what led
[2:44:28] this backing up this is the first step
[2:44:31] is that survey. So uh I would like to
[2:44:34] see us um you know think about moving
[2:44:37] forward with that sort of master plan
[2:44:39] and a master plan is what it is. It
[2:44:41] doesn't mean you do it tomorrow etc.
[2:44:43] Like we have 35 35 acres up at the
[2:44:45] arena. We have 35 acres up at the arena.
[2:44:48] I believe sometime way in the past there
[2:44:50] might have been one done but nobody can
[2:44:51] find a copy of it because I've been told
[2:44:53] that there was there was
[2:44:55] >> I've searched I haven't found one yet. I
[2:44:56] haven't been able to find it, but I
[2:44:58] think based on this information, it
[2:45:00] targets where you might want to go, but
[2:45:02] uh that would certainly be my desire to
[2:45:04] see that. And uh hey, maybe there's even
[2:45:06] some money out there to do it under some
[2:45:08] stream of uh the provincial government,
[2:45:10] etc. So anyway, that's my comment, but
[2:45:12] excellent. Um I saw it online. It looked
[2:45:15] really great and it invited you to
[2:45:16] participate, which I did. So thank you
[2:45:19] very much.
[2:45:19] >> Thank you, Council Miles.
[2:45:22] um your survey uh results were sort of
[2:45:25] perfect timing because the eagle's nest
[2:45:27] met for the first time last night in
[2:45:29] quite some time and so having data that
[2:45:31] showed us exactly that walking was
[2:45:33] important and that the eagle's nest is
[2:45:35] important and that you know and then the
[2:45:37] I I don't want to talk too much because
[2:45:39] I don't we don't it's not part of the
[2:45:40] agenda and we don't have the actual
[2:45:41] minutes here but uh having that
[2:45:45] information I think will help guide us
[2:45:48] to decide to make decisions regarding
[2:45:50] any of our parks parks or our arenas or
[2:45:52] our our events and things and it it
[2:45:55] already has used the data in a meeting
[2:45:57] last night. So that's it was great the
[2:46:00] timing of having this because it'll then
[2:46:03] allow the eagle's nest to sort of maybe
[2:46:05] bring some recommendations forward and
[2:46:06] hope that council has an opportunity to
[2:46:09] look at how do we improve the eagle's
[2:46:10] nest. It's had lots and lots of
[2:46:12] improvements already, but we know we
[2:46:14] we've we're working towards that piece
[2:46:16] that is the expansion getting done. I
[2:46:19] also want to say the engagement on our
[2:46:21] Facebook if you haven't noticed. Well,
[2:46:24] maybe you're not on Facebook, but I
[2:46:26] really appreciate um what is happening
[2:46:29] in that piece. I think there's lots
[2:46:31] there. There's lots of information being
[2:46:34] posted. There's lots of reminders of
[2:46:35] what's going on and the Eagles Nest will
[2:46:38] be looking to complete part of that our
[2:46:41] project and we will be asking for help
[2:46:43] from the town of Bankrooft's Facebook
[2:46:45] site looking for some volunteers. So
[2:46:47] when those dates come, I'm hoping I just
[2:46:50] forward to you, you share that out. And
[2:46:52] if these pieces that you say are
[2:46:54] important to you, then maybe you have
[2:46:56] the capacity to volunteer because it
[2:46:58] will it meant you didn't have to spend 5
[2:47:00] cents. You just needed to be there,
[2:47:01] enjoy your day of walking, and maybe cut
[2:47:03] some roots and rake. So uh banks, I
[2:47:06] think it's fantastic. Feedback loops are
[2:47:09] extremely important and engagement, and
[2:47:10] that's what proper partnership and
[2:47:12] collaboration looks like. Um, and I'm
[2:47:14] hoping with the next stage of presenting
[2:47:16] user data, usage data that I've
[2:47:19] collected from the partners and we can
[2:47:20] exchange back because yes, you're going
[2:47:21] to apply for grants. KMM might apply for
[2:47:23] grants. We might apply for grants. The
[2:47:25] more we can collate and work together,
[2:47:28] we can do more with less. That's what
[2:47:30] we've always said in this community. Do
[2:47:32] more with less. And if we all take a
[2:47:34] little piece, we'll be able to do a lot.
[2:47:36] So Andre perhaps I could ask you how you
[2:47:38] see us moving forward from here or what
[2:47:40] the practicality is of engaging in a
[2:47:43] master plan etc etc.
[2:47:46] >> So um I I do think that a master plan
[2:47:50] proposal could be something that we
[2:47:51] could look at potentially under a rural
[2:47:53] economic development grant stream uh for
[2:47:56] some strategic design on a higher level.
[2:47:59] Um, I do think Sarah is very capable of
[2:48:03] taking this data though to the next
[2:48:06] stage of data collection and having
[2:48:08] those focus groups and breaking out what
[2:48:10] does low cost mean to the kids with
[2:48:13] families at the daycare center for
[2:48:15] example. what what are the barriers that
[2:48:17] you reflected in your comments and how
[2:48:19] do we make that more cost-effective for
[2:48:21] you and your children or you know
[2:48:23] talking to the seniors to say you know
[2:48:25] there's a lot of feedback that we need
[2:48:27] to improve our spaces what isn't working
[2:48:29] for you in our spaces specifically and finding those quick things one of
[2:48:34] the things while I was reading through
[2:48:35] the comments that I noted is that as
[2:48:38] much as we're sharing sharing sending
[2:48:40] out newsletters posting putting things
[2:48:42] in the newspaper getting radio coverage
[2:48:45] a lot of People said things like, "Well,
[2:48:47] I didn't know that happened. I didn't
[2:48:49] know that existed. I've been here 20
[2:48:52] years. I never heard of this." Um, so
[2:48:55] finding other ways to get those messages
[2:48:57] out, particularly if we can identify
[2:48:59] that specific user groups are missing
[2:49:02] those,
[2:49:03] >> if you can solve that problem because we
[2:49:04] have that issue with everything that we
[2:49:06] do even around this table that because
[2:49:09] news dispersion is so fragmented these
[2:49:12] days. So,
[2:49:12] >> one step at a time.
[2:49:13] >> Yeah. And and I think being able to
[2:49:15] identify some of those challenges like
[2:49:18] kids with or families with children
[2:49:20] communicate this way and seniors tend to
[2:49:24] prefer this communication and maybe it's
[2:49:27] you know instead of just a Facebook post
[2:49:30] we do the Facebook post but we print 20
[2:49:32] copies of it and take it over to the
[2:49:35] active agent center so the people who
[2:49:37] don't have Facebook still have the same
[2:49:39] information and see the same post in a
[2:49:41] format that's comfortable for them. So I
[2:49:43] think just from what we have here, we
[2:49:45] can significantly improve communication
[2:49:49] and connection to the policies or to the
[2:49:52] programs and resources we already have.
[2:49:54] Uh to Val's point, I think this will go
[2:49:57] a long way um to helping identify where
[2:50:01] do we get the biggest bang for our buck.
[2:50:04] And then yeah, I do think there is merit
[2:50:06] to looking at some grant funds for
[2:50:08] strategic development, a strategic
[2:50:10] development plan to put that that real
[2:50:13] long-term what what's the long-term goal
[2:50:16] and how do we get there? And most of the
[2:50:18] plans have done a background what's
[2:50:19] called a background report. Um so there
[2:50:22] are some comparative data that's been
[2:50:23] done. Most of the communities that been
[2:50:25] working with have background reports and
[2:50:27] then that feeds their feeds their
[2:50:30] recreation and master plan and it's
[2:50:32] broken into three phases. So, we're in
[2:50:33] the phase one section.
[2:50:35] >> Great.
[2:50:35] >> And moving forward, phase one. And I
[2:50:37] mean, it's completely all done probably
[2:50:39] could be done with in-house staff, but
[2:50:40] as we move forward, we might want to
[2:50:41] move to phase two with with a grant or
[2:50:43] those types of things, but
[2:50:44] relationships, engagement, and feedback
[2:50:47] loops, treating your partners with
[2:50:49] respect and collaborators.
[2:50:51] >> Great. Thank you. Is there any other
[2:50:52] comments or questions from anybody?
[2:50:55] >> Just a quick comment. I I think the uh
[2:50:57] percentages you uh gathered from in
[2:50:59] town, out of town and using our
[2:51:01] facilities, I think that is the whole ball of wax that pertains to
[2:51:06] employment, recreation, the arena, all
[2:51:09] the rest of it. So, uh if uh I guess I
[2:51:13] don't if something happens at the arena
[2:51:16] uh has to take a little rest, but I
[2:51:19] think your uh numbers are going to jump
[2:51:21] sideways on you. Well, and that data is
[2:51:23] very important and that's one of the
[2:51:25] reasons why we wanted the survey to
[2:51:26] capture a lot of data because it may be
[2:51:29] used for other purposes in the future.
[2:51:32] >> Thank you. That was great.
[2:51:33] >> Thank you.
[2:51:36] >> So, item seven, bylaws. We're Oh, yes.
[2:51:39] All in favor. Did I proceed there
[2:51:41] before? Thank you. It's a long day. So,
[2:51:44] we're bylaws. We're near the end.
[2:51:47] Bylaw's first, second, and third reading
[2:51:48] be resolved that the following bylaws be
[2:51:51] introduced and read a first, second, and
[2:51:53] third time be finally passed at the
[2:51:56] mayor and clerk do sign and seal the
[2:51:57] same any rule of this council to the
[2:52:00] contrary notwithstanding. Bylaw number
[2:52:02] 43, 2026, being a bylaw to authorize the
[2:52:05] corporation of the town of Bankrop to
[2:52:08] enter into a professional service
[2:52:09] agreement with Highland, Inc. Uh, bylaw
[2:52:12] number 44-2026
[2:52:14] being a bylaw to amend bylaw number
[2:52:17] 182024 being a bylaw to support a person
[2:52:21] to perform civil marriage. What is that?
[2:52:24] Solomonizations.
[2:52:26] My good my eye job isn't quite working
[2:52:28] yet. And provide guidelines for such
[2:52:30] services. Could I have a mover and a
[2:52:32] seconder, please? Councelor Miles,
[2:52:35] that's you. And councelor Lawrence, all
[2:52:36] in favor, please. So, uh, because we had
[2:52:40] a question at break and it's not
[2:52:42] formally in our agenda, I will just ask
[2:52:44] if anybody out there has a general
[2:52:46] question that they would, uh, like to
[2:52:48] ask. Um, and if not,
[2:52:52] yes, young man, you can come. You can
[2:52:54] come right. Yeah, you can come up and
[2:52:56] hit the button
[2:52:59] so we can hear you. You may have to bend
[2:53:01] it.
[2:53:03] >> Thank you, worship. Um I just here is a
[2:53:06] uh just a tax uh rate payer and I just
[2:53:10] was curious the tax increment equivalent
[2:53:13] grant program.
[2:53:14] >> Yes.
[2:53:14] >> For new businesses in town or anybody
[2:53:16] that kind of attaches to I think it's
[2:53:18] the municipal water system or sewer
[2:53:20] system. Is that being promoted a lot?
[2:53:24] I've never heard of it. I've just done a
[2:53:26] little bit of research on it, but I'm
[2:53:27] just wondering if it's being promoted to
[2:53:29] assist in reducing the
[2:53:31] uh I guess helping people uh make the
[2:53:34] town look better and add nice things to
[2:53:37] their house and obviously it would help
[2:53:39] reduce the tax uh to the to the
[2:53:42] >> business. So the the one program we have
[2:53:45] which is the tax differential program is
[2:53:47] to encourage new growth because we've
[2:53:49] long identified that to get our tax rate
[2:53:52] down we need to utilize our facilities
[2:53:55] you know we have excess capacities and
[2:53:58] water and sewer etc. So and we we
[2:54:02] recognize for various reasons that we've
[2:54:04] gone over 100 times why our tax rates
[2:54:06] are higher than everybody else. um we do
[2:54:11] promote it to all of the developers and
[2:54:12] builders and who then you know try to uh
[2:54:17] inform their um uh their customers of
[2:54:20] this to try to get them to entice. But
[2:54:22] you do make a good point you know um I I
[2:54:25] was at a conference earlier this year
[2:54:27] and I explained this to EMPAC our
[2:54:29] program and they were really quite
[2:54:31] surprised and uh because I was
[2:54:32] complaining about their assessment
[2:54:35] process etc. So, it it is a a really
[2:54:38] good point and it's like everything
[2:54:40] else. You think everybody knows about
[2:54:42] it, but then you find out that uh that
[2:54:44] they don't. I'm not sure if there's any
[2:54:46] other sections of our CIP that we have
[2:54:48] not fully utilized at this time.
[2:54:50] >> So, we do have a brownfield section and
[2:54:52] a facade uh section as well to increase
[2:54:55] the physical look of buildings, but
[2:54:56] those are currently unfunded. We we
[2:54:59] don't have funds uh available to support
[2:55:02] those things at this time. So would that
[2:55:04] be more like the beautifification bylaw
[2:55:06] so the town kind of flows better as you
[2:55:08] look down the main street that okay
[2:55:10] >> and over time we have implemented
[2:55:12] particular parts of it you know we did
[2:55:13] have facade improvement uh there was
[2:55:16] some uptake but it wasn't really what we
[2:55:18] hope for where we were actually paying
[2:55:19] 50% of some improvements and for some
[2:55:22] reason businesses were not up taking up
[2:55:25] on it. Having said that over the years
[2:55:27] we have seen a number of businesses that
[2:55:28] have done great improvements to their
[2:55:30] property. We've seen it very recently,
[2:55:32] you know, between the brew pub and the
[2:55:33] IDA, etc. And we applaud those folks for
[2:55:36] doing that. And I think it leads to
[2:55:38] their next door neighbor thinking, I
[2:55:39] better get my, you know, up to speed.
[2:55:41] But, um, but yeah, as more funds come
[2:55:44] available then and and we saw a
[2:55:47] necessity and we also in the past have
[2:55:50] worked through with the BIA on certain
[2:55:52] programs as well to to increase that.
[2:55:55] Yes,
[2:55:56] >> I just had one last question u with it's
[2:55:59] a little bit with reference to EMPAC but
[2:56:01] not answering from an EMPAC perspective
[2:56:03] but uh in discussions with EMPAC on on
[2:56:06] my residence I'm currently paying $8,600
[2:56:10] a year and it's to the point where it's
[2:56:12] almost depressing slash unaffordable and
[2:56:15] uh you know having uh doing things all
[2:56:18] above board having a permit go in and
[2:56:20] then getting a phone call from EMPAC and
[2:56:22] you know more discussions um I guess I
[2:56:24] was curious um I can hold on for a
[2:56:27] second. Yeah, I was curious. Um, they
[2:56:30] talked about we're still on the 2016
[2:56:32] rates and when the 2026 rates come
[2:56:35] around, uh, in discussions with some of
[2:56:37] the EMPAC people, they said, "Well, if
[2:56:40] the towns are managing their budget
[2:56:42] right, then you shouldn't actually see
[2:56:44] an increase potentially, but they said
[2:56:46] if your house was to double and go from
[2:56:49] [clears throat] say its value of 500,000
[2:56:51] to a million, then you're going to
[2:56:52] double your your budget." I said, or
[2:56:54] double your taxes. I said, "Well, that
[2:56:56] would mean that the town of Brooft would
[2:56:57] have to increase major capital spending
[2:57:00] and and put forward all these new
[2:57:01] projects." So I guess my question is
[2:57:04] from an affordability slash
[2:57:06] >> I don't know what the right word is
[2:57:07] depressive standpoint of a of a home of
[2:57:10] a taxpayer these new 2026 potentially
[2:57:12] they haven't announced yet but when they
[2:57:14] come out
[2:57:15] >> is the town of Braftoft looking at all
[2:57:17] that to go okay we need to just even
[2:57:19] though houses have went up and
[2:57:21] potentially double or they've increased
[2:57:22] a third like that's pretty scary as a
[2:57:25] homeowner to go I can't even afford them
[2:57:27] now let alone they go up to 11,000 I'd
[2:57:29] have to just
[2:57:30] >> so if everybody's assess value went up
[2:57:33] the percentage- wise the same and the
[2:57:35] town's budget didn't change our mill
[2:57:37] rate would drop down and your taxes
[2:57:38] would not change. Okay. Um so yes the
[2:57:42] fact that they come out with new
[2:57:43] valuations when they whenever they do it
[2:57:46] uh and nobody knows really why they
[2:57:47] haven't done it. Um now there could be
[2:57:50] some because of over as you say 2016 or
[2:57:53] 10 years later now uh they may realize
[2:57:56] that some were terribly underassessed
[2:57:59] which you know we have a feeling that
[2:58:00] there are a lot of those and anybody as
[2:58:02] you said who built new or has permits
[2:58:04] tends to pay the full pay the full
[2:58:07] brunt. So hopefully and theoretically
[2:58:10] there will be some adjustments there.
[2:58:12] But your general question, no, because
[2:58:13] your assessment doubles. If the world,
[2:58:16] if it went equally and our budgets
[2:58:18] didn't change, your taxes should not
[2:58:20] change, you know, so you can sleep a
[2:58:23] little better now. [laughter]
[2:58:24] >> Thank you. Yeah, those are just my
[2:58:26] couple questions. Thank you very much.
[2:58:27] Thank you for today. It's great.
[2:58:29] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:58:31] >> Um,
[2:58:33] where am I here now? Confirming by
[2:58:37] >> Oh, Andre like to say something. Excuse
[2:58:40] me.
[2:58:42] I know there is not a section on this
[2:58:45] agenda for community announcements. Um
[2:58:48] but since it's not a formal action item,
[2:58:50] I'm going to pop it in there anyway. Um
[2:58:53] I learned last week that Harvest Moon
[2:58:56] will be closing on July 1st after almost
[2:58:58] 40 years in our community. So I want to
[2:59:01] wish the owners of Harvest Moon well in
[2:59:03] this next chapter and adventure and
[2:59:05] thank you thank them for providing 40
[2:59:08] years of service. Um, those of us who
[2:59:10] have been here all of those 40 years
[2:59:12] will definitely notice that they're not
[2:59:14] here anymore. So,
[2:59:15] >> great. Thank you. Confirming bylaw,
[2:59:18] first, second, and third reading. Be it
[2:59:19] reserve uh resolve that a bylaw to
[2:59:21] confirm the proceedings of the meeting
[2:59:23] council held on June 23rd, 2026 be
[2:59:26] hereby given a first, second, and third
[2:59:28] reading be passed final and be finally
[2:59:31] passed, signed, sealed, and numbered
[2:59:32] bylaw 45-2026.
[2:59:36] Could I have a mover in a second,
[2:59:37] please? Councelor Eastman seconded by
[2:59:40] Councelor Lawrence. All in favor,
[2:59:42] please. So, pass. Next uh meeting of
[2:59:46] regular council scheduled for August 11,
[2:59:48] 2026, commencing at 300 p.m. We were
[2:59:52] thinking there was going to be a special
[2:59:53] meeting in July, but we were waiting for
[2:59:55] a zoning amendment uh application to
[2:59:57] come through, and it has not as of this
[2:59:59] time. So, there's still a a very slim
[3:00:02] but far-fetched chance that may happen.
[3:00:04] And um potion to a turn,