[0:11] We're live now. Um before we start, I'd just like to uh welcome uh Mark Langden

[0:17] to the parks and waterways. Um hopefully uh you have a good three years with us

[0:21] or more. Thank you, Mark. >> Um we'll start off by uh the opening of

[0:28] the meeting. Um, Nathan, can you please play the

[0:32] recording?

[0:35] » Today's meeting is being streamed live on the Township of Rome YouTube channel.

[0:40] Be advised that by attending a public meeting of the commission, you are

[0:44] consenting to your image, voice, and comments being recorded and will form a

[0:48] part of the public record. The chair, CEO or secretary have the discretion and

[0:54] authority at any time to direct the termination or interruption of live

[0:58] streaming in exceptional circumstances where the content of the debate is

[1:02] considered inappropriate to be published. Attendees are advised that

[1:06] they may be subject to legal action if their actions result in unacceptable

[1:11] behavior or comments. >> Thank you, Nathan. Um, one other thing I

[1:16] did want to say before we started was, um, on our last parks and waterways

[1:20] meeting, um, we had people complaining they couldn't hear what we were saying

[1:24] and that we had to get closer to the mic. And when I went home, I went back

[1:28] and I watched the recording. I could hear everything plain like didn't seem

[1:32] to be any issues at all. So, it seemed more of the problem was in here. So, I

[1:36] think when there's people here, we got to get closer to the mic. But other than

[1:39] that, I think it was fine back back when they check it. So anyways, to start off,

[1:43] we'll start the adoption agenda and our agenda additions. We're trying something

[1:47] new this time. >> Oh, I did say that. I'm sorry. I could

[1:52] see my Rebecca was going to tell us. Go ahead.

[1:55] » Yes. Through the chair. Yes. So, we do have um an amendment to the motion that

[1:59] was on the agenda just to change the order. Uh so, the amended motion would

[2:04] be that the Lagoon City Parks and Waterways Commission agenda dated August

[2:07] 13th, 2026 be adopted as amended to move item 8.2 to water mover study before

[2:13] item seven accounts and budgets to allow for attendance by an external

[2:16] consultant. Uh so for the commission's knowledge uh a consultant from TAM

[2:20] engineering is available on Zoom to speak to this item. [snorts]

[2:25] » Thank you. Uh the mayor has moved it. Second by the deputy mayor.

[2:32] All in favor? That's pass.

[2:43] So Rebecca, did you want to read that the recommendation? [snorts]

[2:47] » Yes. So through the chair, the next item will just be adoption of minutes. So we

[2:50] do have one vote for both sets of minutes. If you'd like to talk about

[2:53] either of them separately, please let us know. So it's just that the minutes of

[2:56] the following Lagoon City Parks and Waterways Commission meetings be adopted

[2:59] as presented. LCPWC meeting minutes dated July 9th, 2026 and LCPWC close

[3:05] session meeting minutes dated July 9th, 2026.

[3:09] » So I need somebody to put on the floor each one. So we'll do um 3.1 first.

[3:14] » To the chairs just one vote for both unless you'd like to talk about them

[3:18] separately. So if you're comfortable adopting both without any changes, then

[3:21] we would just need one mover and one second.

[3:24] » Um I guess five to five. Does anybody have a discussion that before I put on

[3:29] the Okay. Um we'll put on the floor um mayor second by uh councelor Hart or

[3:36] Commissioner Hart. Um so any there's no discussion. Um

[3:43] all in favor

[3:47] um four disclose your appearing interest.

[3:52] I don't see anybody. um open form regarding agenda items only. Uh we don't

[3:57] have anything that just came. Um [snorts] presentations and receiving

[4:03] petitions deputations. We don't have anything. [clears throat]

[4:06] Um we'll move then right to 8.3.

[4:11] Um would you put that up please?

[4:28] uh through the chair. So we do have a general manager Laura Pi and the

[4:32] consultant from Tate of Engineering on the screen. We do have a draft motion.

[4:36] However, it is looking for direction from the commission to be completed. So

[4:39] I'll read what we have, but my suggestion would be that the commission

[4:42] discuss what you would like to do and then if you have a preferred direction,

[4:46] we can put that on the floor and take a vote on it at that time. So currently

[4:49] it's drafted as that report LC1426 regarding water mover noise study update

[4:54] be received and that the commission provide direction to staff as to the

[4:58] requirement for operation and timing of the water movers.

[5:02] So put on the floor deputy mayor second by uh commissioner um

[5:09] um I think we have somebody to speak from Tatum there. Um

[5:16] » yes my name is Along Guruhi and I'm from Tatum Engineering. [clears throat]

[5:21] » Okay. >> Go ahead. Can you just give us an update

[5:26] on the report is pretty lengthy. maybe tell us a little bit about it.

[5:31] » Of course. Uh I I just add a little background about the water movers noises

[5:36] study that Tatum completed. We started the project in 2023 I believe. Uh at

[5:42] that time we um the township was receiving complaints about the noise and

[5:47] we completed a noises study and uh the results showed that one of the water

[5:53] movers noise is exceeding the limits and and and the noise is tonal. Uh so 5 dB

[6:00] was added as like [clears throat] to account for the tonal noise. Uh after

[6:07] that uh Tatum completed some u study to offer some modifications to the

[6:14] water movers uh uh structure uh which includes VFD uh uh variable frequency

[6:21] drives to to be able to control the speed of the pump. However, the township

[6:28] uh due to co cost uh issues did not install that and they they made some

[6:34] other modifications. Uh Tatum Engineering completed another

[6:39] site visit in July 14 this year uh to confirm uh if the modifications were

[6:46] effective. Uh we did the noise measurements for both water meters. uh

[6:50] the uh we did noise measurements on the shoreline and also uh uh we used barge

[6:57] to get closer to the water movers. Uh once we did the measurements we

[7:04] completed the noise modeling at the location of the sensitive receptors

[7:08] closest ones to the water movers. Uh the sensitive receptors are the locations

[7:13] where people usually use um uh it's um it is outdoor spaces

[7:19] and also the plane of window representing their bedroom or living

[7:23] room spaces. >> [snorts]

[7:26] » The measured noise were modeled at those locations and the modeling results

[7:30] showed that uh both water meters can meet MPC 300 and MECP noise requirements

[7:37] uh under all like all day conditions like daytime, nighttime and evening

[7:43] times. Uh uh yeah. So both are within uh with

[7:50] compliance within compliance uh at all operating hours.

[7:57] » Okay. Does anybody have any questions?

[8:05] » Um I I have a I I have a question. Um I was just wondering when I'm reading that

[8:10] one like and like read it properly. Did one pump sound a lot less and the other

[8:16] pump was louder? That's what I was reading and then I was reading somewhere

[8:20] else that it seemed like both pumps were too loud.

[8:24] » Uh originally I think the both pumps were loud but uh this uh the south water

[8:31] mover was much louder uh and tonal. Uh but when we did uh the

[8:37] revised measurement uh both were in the same range.

[8:42] both in the same range. >> Yes.

[8:46] » So the the like going over it all like because um I know I was looking at that

[8:50] report and I'm not an engineer trying to understand this. The noise really has

[8:54] not backed off. It's it's still somewhat

[8:58] loud for people. >> No, it is not. Uh it is within the um uh

[9:05] MECP limit. So, MECQ limit says that daytime noise uh below 50 dBA noise at

[9:13] daytime and below 45 dBA at night time is an acceptable level. Uh I think the

[9:19] water movers noise were all uh time limit and night limit.

[9:29] of >> I think it's it was around like highest

[9:35] level at was at one of the residents up the living area was 40 40.9 dBA and it

[9:44] is below the daytime limit of 50 dBA and nighttime limit of 45 dBA.

[9:51] » Okay. Um let's do the mayor first then uh council.

[9:55] » Well, when I was looking at part of the report here, it showed that they

[9:58] actually ran quieter in the evening. Why is that? Are we reducing the load on

[10:02] them? Are we turning them down? Why? Cuz at one time, like one of them was

[10:07] running 48 during the day, and I know the limit's 50, but 48 is not

[10:11] acceptable. I I mean, that's what I read in here. We'd have to do something. The

[10:15] quietest I've seen them run is is down around that 40. And still I would

[10:21] consider that quite loud. So is there a reason why the sound is different at

[10:25] night coming out of the motors? Not I know the decibels must be lower at night

[10:29] so people can sleep but why is is the level changing on some of them but not

[10:34] the other one. >> Uh the sound level um at night is

[10:38] similar to the day but the limit is lower because the nighttime is the

[10:43] sleeping time. uh and that's why the MECP put a lower limit for nighttime. So

[10:49] if a water mover or or any other equipment uh is to operate at night,

[10:54] they they must meet the uh nighttime noise levels uh which is quieter and

[11:00] more stringent.

[11:04] » Um Commissioner Hart, >> turn your mic.

[11:12] Chairman, I had the same kind of questions that if so what what I

[11:16] understand so I'm clear because the acoustics here is not not the best. Uh

[11:20] but and I but I've read the report but so what what you're saying is that there

[11:25] are acceptable standards. We're within the reason of acceptable

[11:30] standards at the present time. Is that correct?

[11:35] » That's sorry chairman. My my question was the

[11:40] the acoustics here is a bit difficult for me but I I I have read the report

[11:46] and just so I'm clear that the the standards uh that we have now are are

[11:52] are deemed acceptable both day and night at at 45

[12:00] » this center. Yeah, go ahead. >> Um Laura, would you like to say

[12:04] something? Yeah. So, yes, it both water movers are currently um the noise coming

[12:11] from them are below the compliance limits. However, to the commission's

[12:16] point, um it may still not be acceptable to the people who are living nearby

[12:22] listening to them 247, which is why we're also seeking direction on how the

[12:29] commission would like us to operate these, if at all. Um, I can say that

[12:34] operationally we are seeing quite a bit of duckweed um within that canal and

[12:39] these water movers are effective at moving those. Uh, we currently have a

[12:44] timer um that's in the cabinet that would allow us to have one cycle of on

[12:51] and off, which is what we were operating on earlier this year. Um, however, we've

[12:56] looked and we can invest in a couple of different timers um that would allow us

[13:01] to have up to six cycles per day. So, it could be that we cycle them on for a

[13:07] duration and then have them off for a duration as well. So, yes, the water

[13:11] movers are under the acceptable limits for sound. However, the people who live

[13:18] nearby who have complained um may not appreciate them running 24/7. And that's

[13:24] where we're seeking that direction from the commission is do you want us to turn

[13:28] these on? And if so, how would you like us to turn those on? Because

[13:33] understanding that they are meeting those requirements for both day and

[13:37] nighttime uh usage.

[13:42] » Chairman, thanks for thank you for the clarification. Um the

[13:48] so the the standards are are per acceptable but but for for the residents

[13:52] of that particular area those st is still is still considered to be um high

[13:59] or or nuisance or or or troubling for them. So even though we do meet the the

[14:03] the standard based on whatever premise that those standards

[14:08] come from obviously the engineering standards um if we we can still can we

[14:13] still have some flexibility in terms of of working with that? I like the idea of

[14:17] having a timer but are there other options we can consider?

[14:23] Um is that a question too? >> Yes, that's that's a question.

[14:28] » So >> Laura, do you want to answer that

[14:30] question? Yeah, [snorts] through you, Mr. Chair. Um, so again, the the

[14:34] commission may remember that the original uh proposal from TAM

[14:38] Engineering was to install the variable frequency drives. Uh, that would have

[14:43] the potential to reduce the speed of the pump um in general and what it's

[14:48] operating at uh which could again potentially lower the sound. We just

[14:54] don't know until that uh the VFD is installed and operating. Um, however,

[15:00] that came with a fairly significant price tag. I believe it was close to the

[15:04] $10 to $15,000 per mover, which is why we tried to do this less expensive

[15:11] mitigation measure, which did reduce the sound below to that acceptable level.

[15:16] So, we were successful in getting it below the the the acceptable limit. Um,

[15:23] other than that, the other option we could consider is uh leaving them off

[15:28] for now. Understanding that there's going to be some uh duckweed um that the

[15:34] the harvesters do are challenged with trying to pick it up through skimming

[15:38] activities. That isn't something that we can easily achieve. Um however we as

[15:44] part of the budget consideration for next year um referencing one of the

[15:49] other reports we'll be discussing in a little bit there is a proposal for a

[15:52] study which could consider other technologies but at this time we're

[15:56] limited to uh either the movers being off or on um and having additional

[16:04] timers or potentially looking at installation of VFDs which may or may

[16:08] not be um successful. Well, >> uh, Deputy Mayor,

[16:14] » yeah, I it's just my opinion, but I do think that we probably need to look at

[16:18] shutting these down and start to monitor them weekly to see what the duckweed

[16:21] does. Um, and then we can reassess at that point. But I think we need to give

[16:25] some of these folks a bit of the summer that are having a hard time sitting out

[16:27] on their deck because I know in that one condo where that mover is, there's been

[16:30] I've been over there, I visited them. It's hard to just sit out there. At

[16:34] first, you don't notice it, but after you sit there for 15, 20 minutes having

[16:37] a conversation, you just hear a constant buzzing and it does get to you. And I

[16:41] know there's a lady there that did have an accident that has a brain injury. She

[16:44] isn't even able to sit outside right now because it just affects her that

[16:46] frequency. I think we should give them a bit of a reprieve, do that, and then

[16:50] look at the the options for next year. Laura,

[16:58] » uh through you, Mr. Chair, just to clarify, the water movers have been off

[17:01] since the last commission meeting. So, we have not had them on for the last

[17:05] couple of weeks. Um, they've been on or off for the purposes of uh TAM finishing

[17:12] their um noise assessment and then a couple of operational moments, so not

[17:16] extended periods. Um, and there has been uh quite a bit of duckweed growth

[17:22] through there. Um, I will leave it to the commission to determine if that's

[17:26] acceptable or not.

[17:29] Um, I I I have a question for um the lady from Tatum. Um,

[17:34] do you know of pumps that are out there that are quieter than these ones?

[17:39] Because I I remember when the old pumps were there. The first time I You

[17:43] probably all heard this story, right? The first time I went, I couldn't figure

[17:47] out if they were on. They were that quiet. They were totally quiet. You

[17:51] didn't even know they were on. And I'm and I remember back, this goes back, I

[17:56] don't know, 15, 18 years, when I looked at the prices, the prices were like

[18:01] almost $100,000 for these pumps. And I'm pretty sure the ones we just bought were

[18:05] like 4550,000. So the the price difference tells me the

[18:09] quality. And I'm wondering whether or not there are quality pumps out there

[18:13] that we should be looking at. Cut our costs on this because we're wasting so

[18:16] much time and money on this. We all know it works well. It's been working like

[18:21] that for like 15 years, 12 years. I don't need a study. I've talked to the

[18:25] people that have lived over there for years and years and they used to be

[18:28] after me when those pumps didn't fire up in the spring. They were all over me.

[18:31] They wanted those pumps running because they saw the duckweed and they saw the

[18:35] issues that were happening there. So, it does help and we do need them there. We

[18:38] do need the water movement and we should even be looking to look at other areas

[18:43] to move water around and maybe that's what that study could do. But I I wonder

[18:47] could we just get some prices on like a pump and if there's this pump out there

[18:51] because I know I googled and said quietest pumps in the world and they

[18:54] bring me a whole bunch of pumps and things. Well, we just go out and take a

[18:58] look and listen to it. And I know I brought this idea to Laura when I was

[19:02] talking to her about it and her comment was and I I appreciate what you're

[19:07] saying that it depends on the location and where it is and so on and so forth

[19:11] vibrations, but I think if the pump's that quiet, I can't hear it out there.

[19:15] it's going to work a lot better. Uh, I agree 100% with what the deputy mayor

[19:20] said. I've been over there, too. I couldn't put up with that noise. I I

[19:23] think it's too loud. I know it's legally loud, but illegally allowed to be that

[19:28] loud, but it's just constant. And it's not a nice feeling. It It's not really

[19:32] It's It's just I don't think it works. And I wouldn't want to run them again,

[19:36] even if they're at 40. I I think they got to be like under like 20. I think 15

[19:42] even, right? So that's something that I would really like to look into and we'll

[19:46] I think we're going to be talking about that later. Correct. Uh Laura, we'll be

[19:50] just Oh, no. We're talking about it now because we have to make decision now. My

[19:53] apologies. Yeah. So, mayor. >> Well, my Yeah, now I they're off, but if

[19:59] the duckweed builds up, I certainly wouldn't be turning them on, leaving

[20:02] them on all day. If you've got the capability of up to six times, you know,

[20:06] have them How long does it take to establish the water flow? Like if they

[20:09] ran for two hours and shut off for two hours, ran for two and then not on at

[20:13] night at all. Like is there a way do you know roughly how long it takes to

[20:18] establish that water flow? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Um I

[20:23] understand uh from Mr. Lenny who's joining us today. Um he's our new

[20:29] operations manager that um last week within five minutes we saw a noticeable

[20:34] change to the duckweed. So, I agree that we could do it for short durations, um

[20:40] potentially on for even um 30 minutes and then off for uh an hour and do that

[20:48] during some daytime hours. We can put a break in there um as well uh and see if

[20:54] that's effective and we can kind of adjust uh those timings as we see um how

[21:00] effective it is and if uh the commission would give us direction uh delegation to

[21:05] be able to adjust them minimally to to make sure that they're still being

[21:09] effective without uh um changing it drastically.

[21:13] » That would be my suggestion if we have to turn them back on so they're not

[21:16] running constant. U and just in in that when um and this I quote back when I

[21:23] became a um a commissioner back many years ago, one of my biggest complaints

[21:28] was the electrical bill with that and it had been running for 24 hours. So we

[21:32] started experimenting on using it at night where the electricity was cheaper

[21:37] and we found it did work. We were running it in the morning and at night

[21:41] except in the spring. We left them on 24 hours because we really needed it

[21:46] because the p they were power hogs. The old ones they used up so much power. So,

[21:51] uh, what the mayor is saying, I I agree we can do that, but maybe pick an hour,

[21:56] say 11:00 or 12:00 during the day where everybody's up and let them run for a

[22:01] little bit. But the key right now is that we can pick up the duckweed with

[22:05] our harvesters now. We can get in the area. The problem with the duckweed is

[22:10] when um we do and I do want to talk about skimmers and that and that's

[22:14] something we're going to talk about later I guess at capital but um to pick

[22:18] it up now and the reason I say we pick it up now is if you go down and you pick

[22:22] up weeds and then you bring the weeds up as you're bringing it you can draw the

[22:26] duckweed off the top of the water but when we're just skimming during

[22:30] springtime we have a lot of problem with the screen it falls right through but if

[22:34] we're taking weeds out we utilize the weeds to help lift the duckweed Yeah,

[22:38] I've watched um them do it before. It really works quite well. And and I do

[22:42] understand what you're I know what you're about to say, Laura.

[22:45] Yeah. But you could say that if you want, but that's how we we learned how

[22:48] to do it. Yeah. >> Um definitely.

[22:52] » I think back in 2022, I had asked um Josh Kavanagh, who was here with us, um

[22:57] to look at brushless motors. At that point, they didn't they couldn't find

[23:00] any brushless pumps. I'm just don't know if that's maybe something that's come

[23:04] about. I know I put him in contact with a company called NCH in Barry on Wellm

[23:08] Road um and they specialize in in specialty pumps. So maybe that would be

[23:12] somewhere to start when we start looking at that study. But there there does I

[23:15] agree with Cal. We were actually looking at rebuilding one of those. Um we had

[23:18] one left in the core. We were going to rebuild it, but I don't know what ever

[23:22] happened to that. >> I asked that. I [clears throat]

[23:25] Laura >> uh uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we

[23:28] still have had one of the pumps. However, getting parts for it was uh the

[23:34] challenge. So, those pumps were original with the original water movers in 1999,

[23:39] early 2000. Uh and the the uh repair parts are not available for those pumps

[23:45] anymore, which is why the decision was made to replace those. Um and again, we

[23:50] can definitely consider options for different pumps um going forward. I

[23:55] would say that that would be a request for 2027 budget.

[24:01] I would like to see that in the budget for sure that in the study I think we

[24:04] need to this has been gone going since I've been on in 2022 and long before

[24:07] that I think how you and the mayor probably remember how far back it's gone

[24:11] but previous people that lived there have had the same issues so that we need

[24:15] to look at this and get a final solution.

[24:19] Uh, Commissioner. >> Yeah, Chairman, if I just may comment,

[24:22] it it it's so just to so I understand it meets the acceptable standards, but it's

[24:27] not acceptable to the people uh of of of that area and and

[24:34] we have to uh and the water moves big plays a big important role in in proper

[24:39] uh canal maintenance as well as as harvesting. But I think we have to move

[24:44] forward and and and examine what if there is a cost look at other options.

[24:49] But this is something that we have to take uh we are taking very seriously and

[24:53] we got to come to a a favorable conclusion that we can have the water

[24:57] movers and still meet uh acceptable standard for the people who live in that

[25:01] area. I I think we all agree with that. Yeah.

[25:06] So I guess what we need to do now is figure the direction that we're going to

[25:10] ask of staff. And I I would love to actually look at new pumps. I really

[25:15] would. And see how much they are and this could solve all our problems in one

[25:19] shot. Like, you know, we might have to pay a little more for the pumps, but

[25:22] these pumps here, I I just think they're cheap pumps. Actually, my my feeling

[25:26] with about it right now. Um Deputy Mayor,

[25:29] » but I do know that's not in the budget this year. So, that's something we need

[25:32] to add to the budget when we're talking about the budget. But this year, I don't

[25:35] know. I think we need to let staff kind of experiment a little bit whether it's

[25:39] every day or every other day and do the timers and see if we can if that can

[25:43] kind of mitigate some of the complaints and keep that duckweed down. I think

[25:46] that would be the direction I'd >> Yeah, I think we've agreed that we can

[25:49] run it for an hour or two at lunch at noon or something like that, right? And

[25:52] see how it works, right? uh it it does help us and we do need it on. So we

[25:58] really know we have to get the pumps, but I think really we should be giving

[26:01] direction also to be looking at new pumps because we're going to be looking

[26:04] at budget today. We may want to get a rough idea like what that's going to

[26:08] cost us too because we might want to move something out that's in there, you

[26:12] know, to put it forward. And I I don't we'll talk about the budget later now.

[26:18] So I I guess we're we're kind of done with Tatum. I don't Do you guys have any

[26:24] more questions for Tatum? I guess because we're gonna have to discuss it

[26:27] now or what are we going to do like um would would if we're looking at getting

[26:32] an idea of new pumps and and exploring that. Would you be doing that Laura?

[26:37] » Uh Laura? >> Yes, we would be able to help with that

[26:40] and also uh the new pumps will have manufacturer data on their noise levels.

[26:45] we can uh review all those manufacturer data and model it uh if needed to see if

[26:52] they are meeting uh the requirement levels for the residents.

[26:58] » Is that how you would do it Laura? Like would you then go through Tatum or would

[27:02] you look like how would we what would be our next steps?

[27:05] » I I think because this has been an ongoing issue and the noise sensitivity

[27:11] is important. Yes, I would um I would contract a consultant to assist with

[27:16] that procurement uh to determine which path would be the best option. We could

[27:22] look at that being conducted as part of the overall study that's proposed for

[27:27] 2027. Uh when we get to the budget portion of that, um for the purposes of

[27:33] this report though, I need direction on what you would like us to do with the

[27:39] water movers right now. And so we can leave the other discussion for budget.

[27:44] Uh but for right now, what do we want to do with the existing water movers? Uh

[27:48] and when do you want and if we're running them, how would you like us to

[27:52] run them? >> So that's discussion. Many people said

[27:56] that you want to run for a couple hours. >> Yeah, I would say. But what what if we

[27:59] just gave you say three hours a day m is the maximum we want to see them on Laura

[28:03] and let you decide when when it might be the most effective to use those three

[28:06] hours with the less less least impact. Is that enough direction

[28:12] » through you? Yes, that's fine. Um, I would like also maybe uh a time frame of

[28:18] what would be acceptable hours to run them in.

[28:22] » How many hours do you think would be acceptable?

[28:25] » I believe an hour in the morning or an hour in the afternoon, an hour in the

[28:27] evening. Just take an hour block out of each each section. That gives people

[28:31] windows of those sections depending on when they like to go and enjoy the

[28:34] water. >> Can you do that, Laura? Like an hour in

[28:36] the morning, an hour in the afternoon, an hour a day.

[28:39] Uh yes, we can. We'll we'll purchase those uh different timers which will

[28:44] give us flexibility for that. Um it should be able to be accommodated within

[28:49] our operating budget for this year for us to get those purchased and installed.

[28:54] Um and then just to clarify, morning would be anything beyond 8:00 a.m.

[29:02] between 8 and 12 noon. Afternoon would be 12 to 4 and evening would be 4 to

[29:10] 8:00 p.m. That's where I I need to understand

[29:13] what your distinction of the times are. >> So really what they're saying is you're

[29:17] saying an hour. So 9:00 in the morning till 10:00 uh 2:00 till 3:00 and 7

[29:23] o'clock to 8 o'clock. Is that all right? And and before going forward, you're

[29:31] saying we're going to have to purchase timers and labor to do that. Couple

[29:35] thousand dollars. Is that what we're talking now?

[29:37] » Yeah, less than that. I would suggest >> less than that. What about weekends?

[29:44] » You would keep it the same. >> That's what I'm asking at. So,

[29:49] » all right. So, we'll do it seven days a week then. Is that enough guidance?

[29:56] Yes, that's fine. Um, and I just want to confirm with uh Madame Clerk that she

[30:02] has that for the motion uh to confirm >> uh through the chair. I'm just getting

[30:07] that motion drafted. If I could just ask for clarification. Uh, Commissioner

[30:11] Johnson, you had mentioned a time frame for the afternoon. So, you had 9 and

[30:15] 10:00 a.m. for the morning, 7 and 8:00 p.m. for the evening. What was the time

[30:19] that you had noted for the afternoon? >> I think we had initially said 2 to

[30:24] three. There is some discussion on the floor right now though, Laura, just so

[30:26] you know. I think we're we're questioning that time at night because

[30:29] people do like to go out and have a coffee and watch the sunset. So maybe

[30:32] that that 8:00 is a bad one. Maybe we need to do kind of 5 to 6 or 6 to 7.

[30:37] » 6 to 7 when people are eating dinner maybe.

[30:39] » Yeah, [laughter] I'm thinking 9 to 10 in the morning is better as well. They can

[30:43] have the coffee in the morning, but that's just me. 9 to 10, 2 to three,

[30:47] » and then six to seven. And you do know what we're doing now is we're making it

[30:51] louder when it goes on because people are used to the silence. And when that

[30:55] turns on, they're going to hear the noise. So they're going to hear it three

[30:58] times a day. And I noticed that with a piece of equipment I had in my plant

[31:02] that as long as we left it running, we had no complaints was when we turned it

[31:05] on and off at times it was off for a couple hours complaints came.

[31:08] » I know. So be prepared for >> one complaint at a time. That's all.

[31:14] » So anyways, so did you get that time up? Yeah. Rebecca

[31:18] » to the chair. Yes. So, I do have a motion drafted. If you'd like, we can

[31:21] put it on the screen and I'll read it and if you have any changes, please let

[31:23] us know. Uh, so what we have drafted currently is that report LC1 1426

[31:29] regarding water mover noise study update be received and that the commission

[31:33] direct staff to evaluate variable timing for the water movers to a maximum of 3

[31:37] hours per day, 1 hour in the morning between 9 and 10:00 a.m., 1 hour in the

[31:41] afternoon between 2 to 3:00 p.m., and 1 hour in the evening between 6:00 and

[31:45] 7:00 p.m. 7 days a week. and assess the impact for the remainder of the 2026

[31:49] season and that the purchase of new water mover pumps be referred to the

[31:52] 2027 budget process for consideration.

[31:57] » Who was the um put it on who put it >> I'll wear the heat for that one.

[32:02] » Did you put on the floor >> through the chair? We did have uh the

[32:05] deputy mayor as a mover and commissioner Langden as the seconder for the

[32:10] original. >> So you all right with the changes then

[32:12] you guys? >> Yeah, you're all right with the changes.

[32:15] Okay. So, uh, no more discussion on that. All in favor?

[32:21] Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Uh, I could I'm trying to see your

[32:25] name by the lady from Tatum. Thank you very much.

[32:29] » No worries. >> We're done. Um, next one we're going to

[32:35] go to 7.1. Um, account vouchers dated July 31st,

[32:41] 2026. uh through the chair. The motion for

[32:46] this is that the accounts vouchure date at July 31st, 2026 be received as

[32:50] information. Let >> me put on the floor for me, please. I

[32:54] see the mayor's looking at me and I'll look over here to commissioner and you

[32:59] second it. Um discussion.

[33:08] Okay, I have stuff on here. I just I got to find it now.

[33:13] here.

[33:17] Bear with me while I find this. Thanks. Yeah, I know. I think we're all firing

[33:21] up our computers now.

[33:54] Does anybody got something to say while I'm looking here? I do have things. I

[33:57] just have to find it. I haven't found it yet. Um,

[34:03] that's what happens without order, huh?

[34:13] There we go. I finally found my um I have a couple questions on that. Um the

[34:18] scare tape, we're still using that like we're selling it to residents.

[34:26] » Uh >> sorry, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's correct.

[34:29] If if a resident um is requesting it, we do sell it at the township office. Do

[34:35] you sell a lot of it? Like I I thought we stop I thought we stopped um

[34:38] supplying it. >> Uh no, we don't sell uh a lot of it. I

[34:44] think this was the first um that we sold this year. Um it we may sell one or two

[34:51] uh a year. It is in our fees and charges bylaw that we do have it available for

[34:55] them. >> Now I know where the my neighbor got it

[34:57] from because I saw them with it. Um the insurance is 16. Um the question I had,

[35:04] I guess the $6,614 to find the anchor for the um water

[35:08] moves. Are we going to identify where because I think we've done this before.

[35:12] Uh can we identify where it is so that or do you need them to dive down to tie

[35:17] onto it or can we put some sort of boy on it or something so that we know where

[35:20] it is? >> Uh through Mr. Chair, we'll we'll look

[35:24] at that for this year. Yes, that was the challenge was that um with all our

[35:30] poking and proddding in the the lagoon, we could not find the anchor block to

[35:34] tie the water mover to. So, we were able to locate one ourselves, but the other

[35:38] one did require the diver. So, we'll try and um even if we can't put a buoy in

[35:44] because generally it's going to be also over the winter that we'll need to it's

[35:49] in the springtime, we'll need to be able to identify it. Um, even if we GPS it,

[35:54] it'll give us a little bit better idea so that we can uh try and locate it

[35:58] again in future years. >> So, you don't need them to dive down and

[36:02] hook it all up. You just have to tie it down with

[36:04] » Yes, it it was that we couldn't locate the chain to connect it to it.

[36:09] » Um, the other one I had was the uh, and anybody wants to jump in question what

[36:13] I've asked them is the compressor repair. What was that compressor repair?

[36:18] Is that what the ones from over on Paradise? Is that what you were

[36:20] repairing? false ones. >> Uh it was the compressors in the bubbler

[36:25] shed. I don't recall. I thought it was two of them that needed to be repaired

[36:30] and they are completed now. Um that had been brought forward as a report from

[36:34] last year. We did do the expansion of the bubbler system. Instead, we did the

[36:39] repairs to the compressors. >> Right. Okay. Because I know the

[36:42] compressors over at Paradise, they're the they're not the very they're not a

[36:46] good type. They wear out. So, I was thinking that next time they wear out,

[36:49] we look at updating them or upgrade into a better system.

[36:53] And my last one was the shed purchase. What was the shed for?

[36:58] » Uh, the shed is located at our um offload site and it was a capital

[37:02] project that had been approved for 2026. >> Okay. Yes. That so that was the shed

[37:08] then at the actual removing removal area to keep our equipment there. Okay.

[37:12] » Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Um, the deputy mayor,

[37:16] » uh, I just had a couple questions from residents. Something I don't see on the

[37:19] vouchers. Who does the cleaning? And is there anybody who does a cleaning or

[37:22] maintenance, cleans the sand or picks up garbage or empties garbage? What what

[37:26] line would that fall under? I don't see it.

[37:29] » So that uh through you, Mr. Chair, that is the contracted services for Summit

[37:34] Property Group. Um, Summit is the contractor this year for one both the

[37:39] uh, lawn cutting as well as the garbage pickup and um, and maintenance of the

[37:44] sites, the beaches. >> Followup.

[37:48] » You have follow? >> Yeah, I just had a followup. Uh, do they

[37:50] just do it when they come to cut the grass, they just do a quick clean and

[37:53] empty the garbages once a week or do they come back more often than once a

[37:56] week? >> Uh, through you, Mr. Chair. I'd have to

[38:00] look back at the requirements of the contract. Um, I do know that they're uh

[38:06] we've been working well with them and they'll be following whatever we've

[38:10] requested them to be doing. Um, off the top of my head, I don't recall what

[38:14] those requirements are. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't I don't know.

[38:17] It may be something we need to ask the public if they feel there's needs to be

[38:19] more cleaning. There may be something we want to add to the next contract. That's

[38:23] » Thank you. >> Well, to follow up on that, um, we had

[38:26] looked at getting a sinker to go in there. We actually got went over to

[38:29] Barry and took a look at some of that equipment and it's really expensive. We

[38:33] were hopefully trying to say tie into council because with their public

[38:37] beaches and utilize something like that, but that didn't seem to go anywhere. But

[38:40] it really works well. You go to most of these beaches like Barry, desert, all of

[38:44] them, they have this piece of equipment, they move it around and it cleans up

[38:48] everything. It just filters. It really does a great job. Um, the one thing down

[38:53] there on that beach too is when they do that plowing, what we have to do is make

[38:57] sure that they go from end to end because we've probably lost over what 50

[39:01] 100 feet of our beaches because they haven't pulled it out. I think they use

[39:05] like a plow or something that they pull back and forth and they just really all

[39:09] they're doing is just moving the dirt and turning it over. But what was

[39:13] happening was the sides were all coming in. And you go take a look at the

[39:17] especially the North Beach. The North Beach has lost maybe half of its beach.

[39:20] It's all gone and you can't go afterwards as Laura has told me. We

[39:24] can't go in there. >> Yeah. Um uh Commissioner

[39:30] Chairman Beach Security

[39:36] have uh

[39:41] for the beach the the beach security piece.

[39:48] I have uh

[39:54] for for uh the for 2025 it's 25 and then for 2026 is 10. It's been reduced. Is

[40:02] there any consideration to having it increased?

[40:08] » Uh sorry. >> Yes. Yes. Thank you.

[40:11] » Uh through you Mr. Chair. That'll be discussion at budget. So not at this

[40:15] report. >> Okay. Thank you.

[40:19] Um, any other questions? All in favor?

[40:25] Pass. And next one is uh 7.2

[40:32] uh through the chair. This motion is that the budget to actuals report dated

[40:36] July 31st, 2026 be received as information

[40:41] on the floor. Mayor, second by Commissioner um Hart. Um, any

[40:47] discussion? Seems as we're all there on point. Uh, mayor,

[40:51] » I'm just looking at uh I guess second last page here. The harvester repair was

[40:56] 12,000. So that was over budget, but every year we've always budgeted 15. Was

[41:00] that a typo when we only budgeted 5,000 this year or was it just 5,000 budgeted?

[41:12] » Um, Laura is there. Laura >> uh through sorry which line was that Mr.

[41:18] » So we're on the well basically the last page it like the totals are on and it's

[41:24] so it's under just above capital vehicles and it's number 41 harvester

[41:31] 15,000 budgeted two years ago 12,000 spent last year we only budgeted five or

[41:35] is that a typo because it's always been 15 and we're budgeting 15 for next year.

[41:41] Yeah, through you. We were expecting because um we had done the significant

[41:46] repairs that we weren't expecting to have to do uh that much work on it this

[41:51] year. Um and so yes, that was a correct uh we were

[41:55] » we had only budgeted 5,000 this year recognizing the age and and the work

[42:00] that does need to be done and the expectations of that vehicle. That's

[42:03] where for 2027 we've put it back in at 15.

[42:07] » Okay. But and if I may continue, three lines below that, how do we make a

[42:11] profit on the harvester trailer? We budgeted 300 and we've got in brackets

[42:18] 1,200. How do we did we get money back? Was it moved to a different account?

[42:22] What happened there? >> Uh through you there was um a correction

[42:27] that needed to be made. So it's I'm not clear on why it's showing the negative.

[42:32] It should have been a zero. Uh there was a charge that went to that line item and

[42:36] then was removed. Okay, I'll I'll confirm with finance. It should be at

[42:40] $0. >> Okay, that's fine. I just Yeah, we made

[42:44] a profit on a repair. I couldn't figure it out.

[42:52] » Mayor. >> Yeah. Um down on the last page as well

[42:56] under capital, there's capital weed control. I just wanted to show find out

[43:00] like I I think people asked because we're not spraying anymore there that's

[43:04] not in the budget, right? We've removed that from the budget. They're not paying

[43:06] for it and not getting it. I just want to clarify those things.

[43:10] » True, Mr. Chair. Yes, this capital project, the name of it is a little bit

[43:15] misleading. Um it's actually uh a consortium of a bunch of various little

[43:22] uh items including the um north uh beach drainage uh work, the shed purchase. Um

[43:32] there's a couple of other projects in there. So, uh, the name is just a little

[43:36] bit misleading, but it was all capital works that was approved by the

[43:39] commission for 2027. And the spraying, uh, was in a different in the operating

[43:45] budget, uh, line items, and that's not part of the ongoing budget request.

[43:52] » And just one more comment on that, I guess, is because we didn't do a lot of

[43:55] the skimming at the beginning of the year, those things, do we have recognize

[43:58] the savings or did we put that savings into overtime to get caught up in the

[44:01] weed harvesting? um through you, Mr. Chair. The that is

[44:07] correct that there's not I haven't run the numbers to be able to see uh we did

[44:12] do overtime. We were still out on the boats and doing some work early in the

[44:17] season uh to get things ready to install the water movers and stuff like that.

[44:21] So, there is still going to be some labor costs associated with it. Um and

[44:26] that's where we'll have to wait till we're further in the season to see how

[44:30] that all shakes out. We're really not be able I know I was

[44:34] looking for that too. We're not going to be able to tell till what October like

[44:38] what our costs once they all come in. We'll be able to take a look at it

[44:42] and see what there is. I I'm assuming there'll be a savings. And just saying

[44:46] all of that um watching what the what your uh staff did out on the water. They

[44:51] did a phenomenal job when they jumped on it that quick and I could not believe

[44:55] how fast they were taking those weeds out and how fast they were moving. and

[44:59] that piece of equipment, the big one that went out there. This was the first

[45:03] time. It really showed like last year we were kind of breaking it in. It was kind

[45:07] of new, but this year it was phenomenal what it did. And to thank all your staff

[45:11] from working the overtime. We did see them there, you know, working and it

[45:15] made a big difference. It caught up so quickly. And I'm assuming your um

[45:19] complaint calls must have dropped right off because when I drove around my boat,

[45:23] I looked, it was amazing what what a good job they've done. And they're still

[45:26] out there working way on. So yeah, thank them from us. Great job done. Um, and I

[45:32] jumped in on there because I should have said that at the beginning, but yeah.

[45:36] Um, any other questions here. All in favor? That's what

[45:43] Okay, we'll move to the front one. 7.3.

[45:48] Um, Rebecca. Oh, sorry. I see Laura put her

[45:53] hand up. >> Uh, through you, Mr. Chair. I'll let uh

[45:56] the clerk read the motion and I just have a couple of updates before we get

[46:00] into some discussion before we get too far if after the motion is on the floor.

[46:05] » Okay. >> Uh through the chair, the motion for

[46:10] this item is as follows. that report LC 1326 regarding draft Lagoon City Parks

[46:16] and Waterways Commission 2027 budget be received and that the draft 2027

[46:20] operating and capital budgets for the Lagoon City Parks and Waterways

[46:23] Commission attached to schedules A and B to report LC 1326 be presented to

[46:28] council for consideration >> put on the floor

[46:34] deputy mayor second by um commissioner Lang

[46:39] discussion got myself organized here now for this.

[46:45] » So, you Mr. Chair, um a couple of two items. Um I did want to just give you a

[46:51] couple of small updates uh that I had after I had submitted the report. Um

[46:57] first one is for staff wages and expenses. Uh I believe it's showing

[47:02] $250,000. Um that can come down to $230,000. I was

[47:07] waiting for some adjustments from our HR department. Um, and then the other one

[47:12] is beach security. Uh, and yes, we would like to increase that from 10,000 up to

[47:17] 15,000.

[47:24] So those two lines will be different than what were submitted as

[47:28] » Sorry, Laura, could you The numbers were >> Yeah. So staff wages would change to

[47:35] $230,000,

[47:41] » right? >> And the line item for beach security

[47:44] would be 15,000

[47:52] » and then to have discussions. So, so starting all this like and the one thing

[47:56] I've noticed and I'm not sure whether or not you've noticed it too, mayor, deputy

[48:00] mayor, that normally when we get this and when it's showing that it's a zero

[48:06] increase like this is what they're recommending here, the zero increase

[48:09] when we look at that like on this whole budget is that when

[48:15] it's all finished in the bottom line dollars and I'm trying to find that too,

[48:18] is that recognizing a zero increase in any capital cost now or anything new

[48:25] that we add, it's going to increase the actual um um um possible increase

[48:32] like where where is all that? Like normally you can see that here's where

[48:37] we're at. Here's what it's actually um here's our budget and if we want to add

[48:41] something it means the the the actual increase it goes up on that it and and I

[48:47] don't see any of that there. I don't see how I can bring it back and forth.

[48:51] » So through you, Mr. Chair, this was uh presented this way based on comments

[48:56] from last year's presentation that the operating and the capital be separated.

[49:00] So that's what I have done this year. Um in the body of the report, you'll note

[49:05] that there is a proposed transfer to reserves of approximately I think it was

[49:10] 300 and um let me just pull it up uh $350,000.

[49:17] That's an estimate because that's at this point we are meeting our expenses

[49:22] are being met by the revenues and at this point there's a proposal of

[49:27] $350,000 to go into the reserve. If there's a change in the capital projects

[49:33] or in the operating budget as part of the discussion, that number will adjust

[49:38] to bring it to that the the budget is balanced. um it's difficult for us to

[49:43] present that when we aren't clear on what that's going to look like. So when

[49:47] it goes to council, that's where that will be presented as a a balanced

[49:52] budget. At this point, $350,000 is going to be transferred into the reserve

[49:58] holding that levy at a 0% increase. So if the commission so chooses, that

[50:07] number could go down, that number could go up. We could still increase the levy.

[50:11] This is just the recommendation from staff at this point.

[50:15] » So that's really my answer right there that that you're at budget plus 350,000

[50:20] to go into reserves. >> That's how that's how I have to read

[50:23] that then. Okay. So when I look at that now and I guess my other question was I

[50:28] was just kind of curious. Um do you know what our reserves are right now?

[50:35] » Um Miss Fischer is on and maybe she can question for us.

[50:40] » Yes. Um through you Cal I've got um so if you have referred to the 2025 uh

[50:47] financial statements the balance for LCVW per the financial statements of

[50:50] December 31st 2025 was about 892,000. We budgeted a transfer to reserves in

[50:58] 2026 of 178,400. So our projected ending balance in

[51:04] December will be about 1,70,000 and that doesn't account for the

[51:08] interest on reserve funds yet. We're not certain what the um percentage might be

[51:12] by the end of the year, but approximately $20,000 increase there. Um

[51:16] given Laura's report, we've currently got a um transfer to reserves of about

[51:21] 350,000, which might be reduced uh or increased

[51:26] based on decisions today. Um but this is looking at a projected December 2027

[51:31] balance of 1.4 million.

[51:37] » Okay, so that's our reserves now. So um with our our income statement, what

[51:44] is what is the normal reserves that we should have? Like just so everybody

[51:49] knows like um what should what because I know there was a number that we were

[51:54] given that we should always try to keep our reserves at a certain amount. Um do

[51:58] you know what that number is? >> I don't recall a number being given. My

[52:02] best recommendation would do be to maintain a reserve to meet future

[52:06] capital expenditures or anything that you might need to pull from their

[52:09] reserves um

[52:12] for future years. So if you have a future plan um and you're anticipating

[52:17] additional expenses um a good reserve would be to keep um to keep sufficient

[52:24] funds for future costs. Um, deputy mayor,

[52:29] » I'm just wondering, would this benefit us to create a 10-year capital plan like

[52:33] the township does, like most municipalities does specifically for the

[52:36] commission? This would help us plan for reserves and know exactly what we need

[52:40] in there, anticipate new purchase of equipment or things we want to look at

[52:43] down the road. >> I thought

[52:47] um we'll I guess with Laura first. >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Um, I do

[52:54] agree that we should be updating the 10-year capital plan. Um, I'm not sure

[52:58] if there had been one in the past, but we would like to look at that. Uh, and

[53:02] the hope is that we'd bring that to the September meeting so that we have that

[53:06] information. >> Exactly. Because I don't want people to

[53:08] think that 1,100,000 is a fantastic reserves when, you know, if a piece of

[53:13] equipment goes, you're you're talking a half a million dollars like for the

[53:16] equipment that we have. So, you've got to constantly be saving for. And that's

[53:20] something that we didn't have when we first became parks and waterways and we

[53:23] needed this and I I just want to make sure we stay with it and that's why I'm

[53:27] bringing it up right now. All right. Okay. So, um I guess sorry did Lord do

[53:33] you need us to pass a motion to to create that or are you good with that

[53:36] direction? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. I'm good with

[53:41] that direction. We'll bring that at the September meeting. That was part of our

[53:44] plan anyway. So, >> perfect. Thank you.

[53:48] Did you want to just go through page by page and go through this? Do you? Um I I

[53:52] can we go through it quickly like now like go through the pages like

[53:57] well I was just like doing the prep at the beginning like I'm not sure if you

[54:01] looked at I I know um commission Hart I think the mayor

[54:04] » Why don't we just do it page by page and then you're covering it and we can ask

[54:07] our questions is that's usually the question.

[54:09] » Okay. So I'm going to do like and I'm starting uh I think it's uh page one I

[54:13] got one to seven the way I did it but um agenda 7.3

[54:17] um so the very first page it's a background and discussion anybody have

[54:21] anything to talk about there um

[54:27] the expan the only thing I had the expansion of the bubbler system um I I'm

[54:32] not sure have we not finished the total expansion and we are looking at the next

[54:36] expansion or do you have two in line right Yeah, like you have another

[54:40] expansion [clears throat]

[54:42] » through you, Mr. Chair. We deferred the expansion for 2026 to do the compressor

[54:46] repairs. So, the proposal is to have the expansion that was originally proposed

[54:53] for 2026 take place in 2027. Uh I do believe we were still going to have

[54:59] further discussions um before that went for procurement to determine exactly

[55:04] where the expansion was going to be. Uh this is just an earmark for that project

[55:09] to continue. >> And are we going to talk about that

[55:12] today? >> No, not at this meeting.

[55:19] » Any other questions on the first page? Second page.

[55:27] Um I guess my first question on it when I'm going down is the concrete pad. Is

[55:32] that to put the bin on in the new uh takeoff area that we have down by the

[55:35] mailboxes?

[55:39] Um through you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to actually ask Mr. Lenny to address that

[55:43] question.

[55:47] » Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's exactly um the proposal for the pad is

[55:51] to um have a bin area and then a safe secure area for offloading. um at this

[55:58] time with the uh the weeds and the gravel at this time it gets very um

[56:04] slippery and I guess messy for lack of a better term. So looking to uh clean that

[56:10] area up and uh make it safer for the operators and aesthetically um nicer uh

[56:15] for the area. >> So the the actual concrete pad's not for

[56:19] the actual bin. It's just for the area. >> No, it will encompass the it will for

[56:23] the bin to sit on as well. Yeah, >> it will. Okay. It'll put the bin across

[56:26] and I guess we'll get that price after. Um, also, was there an issue with the

[56:31] flooding there? Is that kind of why we're doing that? From what I

[56:34] understand, you guys were underwater there for a while, right?

[56:37] » Um, yes. I can't really speak exactly to the flooding. Um, I have only been here

[56:41] four weeks, but by the time that I have spent down there, um, every time I've

[56:45] been down there, there is, um, standing water. Um, I wouldn't say it's flooded

[56:50] out, but it's definitely standing water um, and mud.

[56:55] All right. Um, do you want me to just keep going down?

[57:00] Like I've got another question. Um,

[57:10] so this I guess I'm talking about the study. This is what Laura was talking

[57:14] about. This is the study that we would be looking at doing the condition of the

[57:18] canals regarding depth, aquatic growth, species, so on and so forth. We have

[57:22] done studies like that before. or do we have that information that we can

[57:26] utilize like I know there was a massive one done

[57:29] by the college uh back I don't know eight years ago seven years ago

[57:35] » through you Mr. chair. Yes, we do have those th that information. Uh what we're

[57:40] looking to do is make sure that it is up to date. Uh like with most studies um

[57:46] and including uh the discussion with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans uh

[57:51] regarding our operations this year, having that information that's up to

[57:55] date um is really important for us to be able to show uh with evidence and data

[58:03] uh what we're looking at and what we're proposing to do. and what the impact is

[58:07] going to be. Uh so there is information available to us. it doesn't answer all

[58:11] of our questions that we're looking at and that's where this study would be

[58:15] more of a comprehensive again giving us targeting um monitoring programs so that

[58:23] we can benchmark um I know even thinking about discussions that uh I've had um at

[58:31] various times about uh depth of the lagoons and dredging operations and uh

[58:36] items like that. That's what I I want to take that all into consideration into

[58:41] one one study. Um and also this is where we would also consider

[58:48] uh what technologies are available for pumps um for water movers um making sure

[58:55] that they're in the best locations and doing um what we need to do. Uh I think

[59:00] it's also important to really characterize with very specific

[59:05] information. for instance, you know, um what what is the goal of um the the

[59:12] goals that we're trying to achieve? So, for instance, with water movers, it's to

[59:16] manage and uh the duckweed growth. Okay. Well, what does it take in order for us

[59:21] to do that? What does that look like? So that in future years, we have that

[59:27] identifiable target. We can report back to the commission and say we're meeting

[59:31] those targets or we're not meeting those targets and here's why. um and also

[59:36] putting in a monitoring program so that we're clear on

[59:40] um what what we're actually achieving. So it's not just anecdotal. It's not

[59:46] just you know um yourself as the uh chair walking down the road and giving

[59:52] anecdotal evidence. We have a way to measure um and provide that evidence. So

[59:57] this study would be confirming all of those pieces. I think the past studies

[1:00:01] have given components of that but have not been that full breadth and it's

[1:00:05] important for us to make sure that this is it stays up to date. So we'd be

[1:00:09] looking at targeting an update to this moving forward probably every 5 years or

[1:00:14] so. >> So so this study would be strictly

[1:00:17] Lagoon City like the the canals and so on so forth water quality things like

[1:00:23] that or like that's what it's going to include or

[1:00:27] » yeah through the chair. Yes, that's correct. it would only be targeting

[1:00:30] Lagoon City, these canals and the lagoons um and looking at all of the

[1:00:35] pieces that go into the maintenance of those canals.

[1:00:38] » And how much input would the parks and waterways have with all this? Like would

[1:00:42] we be you would keep us informed at all times on this or uh I guess so because

[1:00:47] we have to pay for it, right? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yes. And I do

[1:00:52] expect to have engagement as part of it. That's where um we will be needing to

[1:00:57] set what those goals are. What are those performance targets? What are we looking

[1:01:01] for um and then there'll be uh recommendations that come back uh out of

[1:01:06] that. So there will be um ongoing discussions as well as probably some

[1:01:12] community engagement as as what I see as part of this study.

[1:01:16] » And when will we expect to see this? >> So um I'm expect so this is an ask for

[1:01:22] 2027. uh as soon as budget is approved for

[1:01:26] 2027, we can start that. I am expecting that it will take at least three or four

[1:01:31] seasons dep because of the data that we're asking for them to be collecting.

[1:01:36] Um and so that would be where it would likely take the entirety of 2027 to do

[1:01:42] the work um and then come back in 2028 with uh recommendations.

[1:01:47] » Excellent. Okay. Um Commissioner Hart.

[1:01:51] » Yeah. U thank thanks Laura. I think this uh study is important. I I just missed

[1:01:55] the first part. Who's actually going to be conducting the study? Uh how is that

[1:02:00] going to work out? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair, we would need

[1:02:03] to go through our procurement channels for that. So, it's not um we haven't

[1:02:08] decided any of that yet. We would go out to market and we would also be looking

[1:02:13] at leveraging some of those educational institutions potentially uh for

[1:02:18] partnerships for some of the data gathering as well. Um, but I do

[1:02:22] anticipate that there will be paid consultants as part of this as well.

[1:02:26] » Excellent. Thank you. Anybody else have anything on this page? Uh, mayor.

[1:02:30] » Well, I don't know if it's on this page, but we were talking about the movers

[1:02:32] here. So, if we are looking at do we need to increase the budget to look at

[1:02:37] new movers, quieter movers. Where do you want to see that? because we did have

[1:02:41] that discussion earlier that rather than just keep throwing money at these ones,

[1:02:45] we start researching for something quieter.

[1:02:49] » Um through you, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that yes, we do increase the

[1:02:54] budget specifically for those, especially if the commission is looking

[1:02:59] to potentially purchase >> um new pumps in 2027 as opposed to

[1:03:05] waiting for 2028. Um my recommendation would be to

[1:03:10] increase the study budget by $25,000 or sorry by $10,000.

[1:03:15] Um and potentially add another line item for water mover pumps

[1:03:21] in an amount that the commissions these appropriate um for the size of these

[1:03:28] pumps without looking what technology is out there on the market. I would say

[1:03:34] somewhere between um 30 to 50,000 per pump would be uh on

[1:03:41] par what I would expect to pay. >> And I would expect as part of that would

[1:03:45] be loc because I don't know if there was ever a study done on the location where

[1:03:48] they sit. I I think probably 20 30 years ago they said, "Well, there's duckweed

[1:03:53] here, put a pump there, and there's duckweed there. Put a pump there."

[1:03:56] » I asked that question, Kathy [laughter] Wayman. She said there was

[1:03:58] » Well, there was a exactly where it was supposed to go. I think it came from the

[1:04:01] engineers. Okay. I asked her, "Why don't we just move it here? Do that." She

[1:04:04] said, "You can't do that." >> All right. Okay.

[1:04:06] » That's what she told me. But I I wonder your pumps. So, 30,000 to 50,000. These

[1:04:10] uh other pumps that don't work so well were close to 50,000. Were they not

[1:04:15] » through you, Mr. Chair? I'm not sure what those prices were. Um what the cost

[1:04:21] of those previous pumps were. I just know the market for this type of pump is

[1:04:25] isn't around that area for that size. Yeah.

[1:04:28] » Yeah. I would like to see it a bit higher than that. Yeah. But yeah, it's

[1:04:31] cuz I'm almost puzzled. It's 45,000 when I think about it. I

[1:04:34] » I think you're right. I would I would air on the side of caution say 120 for

[1:04:38] the two pumps and then we can always I mean it's a savings at the end of the

[1:04:41] day. It just goes >> into reserves, right?

[1:04:46] » So $120,000 for water mover pump. Okay.

[1:04:50] » Yeah.

[1:04:53] » Well, I want to sort of stop spending money on this. I think it's a lost

[1:04:57] cause. I think it's time that we cut our col our and see if anybody's in the

[1:05:01] market for some uh hardly used used pumps, right?

[1:05:06] Um does anybody else got anything on this page two? Because that's where I

[1:05:10] was at there. No, we're all done there. Um I got nothing on page three. Now I'm

[1:05:16] right into this um I guess the beginning of the budget

[1:05:21] starting with revenues.

[1:05:27] Um,

[1:05:31] that's the last one thing. Anybody would like to start, we'll do this page. You

[1:05:34] can start from the top and come down. Um,

[1:05:38] I guess my question is there's something here. Why why is this lower? Just trying

[1:05:43] to figure this number out. Hold on a second.

[1:05:49] Here

[1:05:55] it is. Here the actual.

[1:06:01] Okay.

[1:06:04] Sorry, mayor. If you want to go. I just have my head down.

[1:06:07] » I'm not in the revenues. I'm on the expenses. I just

[1:06:09] » You're jumping ahead on us here. >> Are you want the revenue? You want to

[1:06:12] stay there? I'm just on the same page. Just uh

[1:06:15] » Yeah, just Yeah. On the page. >> Yeah. on uh so legal expenses uh you

[1:06:19] know 20,000 in 2024 we used 19 uh 20,000 last year of course we went over budget

[1:06:26] uh last year we budgeted 20,000 we've used close to eight so why are we only

[1:06:30] budgeting 2,000 for next year for legals that seems right

[1:06:37] » through you uh Mr. Chair, the legal budget has been proposed by our new the

[1:06:42] township's new in-house legal department. He's uh reconfiguring how

[1:06:48] the legal will be um divvied up between the different areas. And at this point,

[1:06:54] uh the expectation having cleared some of the past legal matters that $2,000 is

[1:07:00] appropriate.

[1:07:04] I I guess my concern I don't want to be the devil's advocate but we know we're

[1:07:08] doing the study and part of it and we're going to have an open house I think in

[1:07:11] Lun City later this month and it'll go off to a consultant who's going to bring

[1:07:15] back recommendations. We don't have no idea what those recommendations are

[1:07:18] going to be. We have no idea what council's going to do with those

[1:07:21] recommendations like council we we've done efficiency studies in the past

[1:07:25] where yes we've put some of the things in place but not others.

[1:07:30] We don't know if they're legal though. >> Well, no. But would parks and waterways

[1:07:34] think they might want to get a legal opinion on any changes that are

[1:07:38] proposed? >> Well, just so you know, I actually am

[1:07:40] proposing that uh through [laughter] parks and waterways people go speak to

[1:07:44] their own lawyer. >> Oh, yeah.

[1:07:45] » So, yeah, you are. That'll be later on. >> So, that's why I'm wondering just in

[1:07:50] light that there is an efficiency study being done. Changes may be coming

[1:07:55] whether or not >> we've always put 20,000.

[1:07:58] I would not want to see it lowered at this time. Again, I won't be here, but

[1:08:02] you may want to have a legal opinion on suggested changes that council is

[1:08:06] deciding to make that that >> I agree with you. Actually, I'd marked

[1:08:10] it. >> So, what do you want to bring it up to?

[1:08:13] Back to what it was >> back to the 20, I think.

[1:08:21] » Oh, yeah. >> Okay. So, we're going to So, are you is

[1:08:27] someone going to track that for us then? Okay, Rebecca. Perfect. So, we're going

[1:08:30] to increase that to 20 then. Um, I guess I guess my question too was going back

[1:08:36] to staff wages and expenses. The actual in 2026 is 130,000 and now in

[1:08:43] 2027 it's jumped to 250. That's a fair jump. I was just c Oh, sorry. I got

[1:08:48] Laura's hand up. You're stepping ahead of you time.

[1:08:52] The 2026 actuals are not on this schedule. That's the 2025 actual. Um,

[1:08:59] and so 2026 budget was 20 225,500 and we're going to 230,000. So it's a

[1:09:08] small increase. Um, and the the actuals for 2026 will be on the most recent

[1:09:14] report. You'd have to add up all the wages and and staff, but I did do that

[1:09:19] as preparation. And we are on R for the spend of 225,400.

[1:09:27] » Okay. I thought 20256. >> It It says 2027 pro proposed is 250. Is

[1:09:32] that what you're talking about? >> Oh, she did. Okay. I didn't miss that.

[1:09:36] » She corrected it back to 230 at the start.

[1:09:38] » Okay. Gotcha.

[1:09:41] » Okay. Got that. All right. That was good. That's good. Um the actual levy

[1:09:49] That's where I was on. I just was curious why it bounces

[1:09:55] around. We should be almost dead on that level, right?

[1:09:58] Okay. Doesn't matter then. Anything else on that page for anybody?

[1:10:03] No. Okay. Let's go to the next page. If you see we miss anything, Laura or um

[1:10:08] the I guess the treasure or not the treasury but the other lady there. Um

[1:10:13] next [sighs] one.

[1:10:20] No, I'm good with that. With that pontoon boat, that's

[1:10:28] um $3,500 for the pontoon. Laura, um that is there something wrong with it or

[1:10:33] or it's just maintenance? 3500 >> uh through Mr. Chair. Yes, that's just

[1:10:38] maintenance. Um, and I just realized that uh number 41,

[1:10:45] the harvester, uh, that should be at 15,000

[1:10:52] to match the other harvester. >> 41, right?

[1:10:56] » Yes. Correct. >> Okay.

[1:11:01] Again, you're getting that, Rebecca, right?

[1:11:05] Anything else on that page?

[1:11:12] No. There.

[1:11:21] » I'm at account subscription building.

[1:11:27] » Before we go on to account, >> you want to go back to

[1:11:30] » Well, I just didn't see it. I thought we continue on, but the one expense I'm not

[1:11:33] seeing Laura is drudging. So, are we done judging now where there's no more

[1:11:37] planned or to do in the future? >> Uh, through you, Mr. Chair, that is

[1:11:42] correct. At this point, there's no planned judging. Um, we had completed

[1:11:47] the outstanding judging that had been proposed from 2023, I believe. Um, and

[1:11:53] again, I'm hoping that that study that we'd conduct next year would inform what

[1:11:57] future dredging would be required. >> Thank you. So the dredging that um Bob

[1:12:02] had done many many well I guess you said 2023 right um are we still using that or

[1:12:09] is that now gone to the wayside or is it is because he spent a lot of time

[1:12:13] measuring he we he measured everything out and that's what we used for the last

[1:12:16] number of years >> uh through you Mr. chair. No, and that's

[1:12:21] what my understanding is. So, finally, uh, the last of that dredging was

[1:12:25] completed in 2025. And so, I believe we had completed all

[1:12:29] of the required dredging. That information would be provided to the um,

[1:12:37] whoever the consultant would be for the study to make sure that it's taken into

[1:12:41] consideration going forward as well as providing us with that plan for future

[1:12:46] judging.

[1:12:49] Did you have any more questions back there? No.

[1:12:54] » Oh, no. No problem. Any anybody else has have any here?

[1:13:00] Okay. So, I'm out on the last page now. Oh, no. Second page before I get

[1:13:06] um so does anybody have any question on

[1:13:09] accounts description, building maintenance?

[1:13:13] Pretty straightforward there. Um,

[1:13:18] » no. Okay, we'll go to capital >> before we go to capital. So, I'm showing

[1:13:24] we've changed the budget by 13,000. Is that correct? Not counting the water

[1:13:28] movers. I assume they go under capital because I believe you gave us a

[1:13:32] correction at the start of 15,000 and then you just added 10 to the one

[1:13:37] boat and we added 18 for the legal. So, is that where we are? We've increased

[1:13:41] the budget by 13,000 I think. Does that change

[1:13:46] uh our levy or anything that 13,000 or is that just going to come out of

[1:13:50] transfers >> through you? I believe that would come

[1:13:53] out of the transfer to reserve. That's where we would balance from. We're still

[1:13:57] not in a significant expense that would impact that we have a uh a balance going

[1:14:04] to the reserve for 2027. >> We've changed at 13K that I could tell.

[1:14:08] [laughter] >> Yeah, Rebecca's tracking that. Carly,

[1:14:11] did you have something you wanted to say?

[1:14:13] through you, Mr. Chair. There was discussion about $120,000 for water

[1:14:18] mover pumps. I didn't in my sheet. I wasn't sure if that was already there or

[1:14:22] if there was a change, just that there was discussion and I'm uncertain how

[1:14:25] that impacted the budget. >> So, that would be a new ask, uh, Ms.

[1:14:32] Fischer. And so that would impact the amount going to the reserve, but we

[1:14:36] would still have at this point it's still a surplus that we would be

[1:14:40] transferring into the reserve, just a smaller amount. Yeah. So right now I'm

[1:14:45] calculating a approximately $133,000 reduction to the transfer to reserves.

[1:14:52] So the existing 350 less 133 approximate. So then the

[1:14:57] existing transfer to reserves is approximately 217,000.

[1:15:01] How how much we take off the 350 130. Is that what you said?

[1:15:07] » I don't I I can try to review the minutes um after the meeting's done, but

[1:15:13] based on what I've heard, it sounds like $133,000

[1:15:17] reduction in the transfer to reserves.

[1:15:21] » We just did a $13,000 change here plus 120 for the water movers would be 133.

[1:15:27] » And those are all capital, right? >> No, only the water movers. Would they

[1:15:30] not, Carly? [clears throat] Would the water movers not be under capital or

[1:15:34] what line were we getting? Yes. >> Uh, I I believe they would be under

[1:15:38] capital. Yes. Um, however, that would still impact the net levy requirement

[1:15:45] from LCPW. It would have an impact on LCPW's reserves.

[1:15:50] » Yeah. >> Okay. So, did that come off our the

[1:15:53] transfer reserves 13? Did it go into capital?

[1:15:57] » Yeah. Where are we putting water?

[1:16:04] Sorry, turn your mic on. I can't hear the

[1:16:06] » Oh, sorry. I thought it was on. I shut it off. Where did we put the 120 for the

[1:16:10] water movers? Is that going to go in capital now as a new line?

[1:16:13] » Correct. Yes, that's what I've proposed. It'll be a new capital project.

[1:16:17] » Right.

[1:16:26] » Okay. Okay, so now we're at the capital.

[1:16:32] So just just put my head down here. Look at this one.

[1:16:45] So

[1:16:52] » Okay. So, um, deputy mayor, >> what all has to be done with the kiosk?

[1:16:56] I I understand there's a quite a bit of upgrades that had to be done to that

[1:16:58] Laura or through the chair to Laura. Um is 165 going to be anywhere near what we

[1:17:03] need for that?

[1:17:06] » Um through you, Mr. Chair. That was the proposal that we've put in. Uh we've

[1:17:12] earmarked for it. I believe there's some electrical work and some door work as

[1:17:17] well as some structural repairs. Uh and we do think that that's going to be

[1:17:21] adequate. We also suspect that there is also an underground water line that

[1:17:27] needs to be repaired um that's providing potable water to the kiosk. Um and that

[1:17:33] that will be a significant portion of the 16,000 proposed. Um

[1:17:39] we're we're hopeful that that is adequate for the repairs that are

[1:17:44] necessary. Uh we don't have any firm quotes though on that.

[1:17:49] That's why we couldn't get Georgia College carpentry or something to do

[1:17:52] bring some students and do some project on it.

[1:17:56] It's pretty tough to do that though in public.

[1:18:00] Um I I as far as I'm concerned the kiosk we should just maintain it for now

[1:18:04] because we're not really using it. But I think in the future it'll be used. It's

[1:18:07] not something we want to fall down. We all agree with that.

[1:18:12] Um when I the clean flow system here, this $55,000,

[1:18:17] right? That's what we had budgeted um I guess 2026. You just want to increase it

[1:18:22] by another 10,000 and up to 65,000. >> We we can if that's what the commission

[1:18:29] » No, it says here 65,000 your proposed budget. So

[1:18:33] » I I I guess what I'm asking is what what are actual what do we plan on

[1:18:38] doing like for $65,000? Like what's left that we have to do?

[1:18:43] I'd have to pull the maps and I don't have that um with me at this moment. I

[1:18:48] increased it to $65,000 just to account for inflation over the time period from

[1:18:53] the original quotes from 2020 >> uh 4 or 2025 budget preparation in for

[1:19:00] 2026. So that was why I added 10,000 was just to account for inflation.

[1:19:06] » Um Carly, did you want to say something to that?

[1:19:10] No, when I see you appear there, normally you want to say something

[1:19:13] [laughter] >> through you, Mr. Chair. No, I I just

[1:19:15] turned my video back on. I didn't have any additional comments at this time. Um

[1:19:19] I I guess really what we need to do is um for the 65,000 we probably could do

[1:19:23] the extension from the um two pumps that are on Turtle right now because that was

[1:19:28] our next step because um I was trying to figure out why there was no um uh clean

[1:19:33] flow, no bubblers um across from the um the the sailboats and I think that's

[1:19:40] what we've been waiting for. And that expansion all that includes are pipes

[1:19:44] and diffusers. There's no pump houses or anything we have to get. we can go on

[1:19:48] the existing um pumps that are there and that would give us enough to connect to

[1:19:52] there and then connect back up towards the inn and we would have that and the

[1:19:56] only thing that would be left would be Gondola Lagoon from Popppler down to uh

[1:20:01] um the end um to South Island Trail to the bridge. That would be it. And then

[1:20:05] the marina those only spots we have left to really look at and I think you

[1:20:10] probably only need one more house maybe if we're a little bit of luck or maybe

[1:20:13] another house along Gondola. So that's really what we're looking at right now.

[1:20:18] But are we going to talk about that at a later date then or uh more what we're

[1:20:23] going to do next >> through you, Mr. Chair? Yes. That's the

[1:20:27] idea is that we'll put in $65,000 that will allow for us to do some of the

[1:20:31] expansion work and we'll bring forward what the plan will be um at a later date

[1:20:38] for it depicting exactly what we're proposing for each year.

[1:20:42] » And I'm going to go backwards now. Um what about the treatments that we've

[1:20:46] done with the um the the bubbler system, the clean flow system? You're examining

[1:20:51] all of that. Do we have money built in for that this year

[1:20:54] » if we decide to re renew our treatments >> uh through you, Mr. Chair? Yes. That was

[1:21:00] still incorporated as part of the budget.

[1:21:02] » Do you know when you're going to have um that finished that we know if not we're

[1:21:06] going to continue treatments? >> Uh it's still under review at this time.

[1:21:09] » It's under review. Okay. So you don't have it's gone to the government. So,

[1:21:14] uh, to the ministry and so on and so forth.

[1:21:16] » We're we're reviewing it internally first and so and then we'll reach out to

[1:21:20] any partners that we need to. So, >> okay. But again, did I don't know if I

[1:21:23] heard do we have money in for the treatments or

[1:21:26] » we didn't adjust the budget to to not treat for it? So, that should still be

[1:21:30] in the budget. Yes. >> Okay. I just wanted to confirm that. Um,

[1:21:37] temple insurancees.

[1:21:42] Um, do we have a rough idea what the labor charge is like the town like for

[1:21:47] what we're being built for everything here on this? Is there rough numbers on

[1:21:51] that yet or do I see them? Because I know it started off at around 220 and I

[1:21:55] know last year um Gail brought it up by another 50,000 60,000. So I'm just

[1:22:01] curious where that number is at now. It's our labor charges. Yeah.

[1:22:07] » Our staff wages and expenses are proposed to be 230,000 for 2027.

[1:22:12] » It's 230 then. >> Yes.

[1:22:14] » Okay. Because I know it was that and I support Gail said it was be there was

[1:22:19] going to be an increase of almost 50,000.

[1:22:22] » So 2026's budget. So 2025's budget for staff wages was 173,000.

[1:22:29] 2026 we changed it to 225,400 and for 2027 it's 230,000

[1:22:37] » 230 okay is that that does that include that does include the um the harvesting

[1:22:44] people does it or does that include the harvesting

[1:22:46] » that's all staff wages >> everything yes

[1:22:50] » thank you

[1:22:56] » okay I'm actually pretty good with all this So, I'm not seeing an increase yet

[1:23:01] for any I don't see an increase. >> No, I'm I'm just wondering at some point

[1:23:06] in time if if there if would help Laura, should the commission kind of give him

[1:23:11] some time to get some capital project ideas for you for building this 10ear

[1:23:15] capital? What is should we have a meeting specific to that? Right? Because

[1:23:18] if we're going to build a 10-year planet, then we should be looking at do

[1:23:21] we want to add a beach cleaner to it at some point? Start acrewing money so we

[1:23:24] can save up for it. I'm not sure. But what what do the people want to see,

[1:23:28] right? >> Well, we roughly did one. I remember

[1:23:31] doing it a few years ago. We roughly did, but there's something out there

[1:23:34] because I remember sitting doing it because we had never had it and we

[1:23:37] needed I can remember doing it. So, I I don't know where it is.

[1:23:40] » But even for an updated NoCal, we should have anything new that's coming about.

[1:23:43] » But what you're talking about is things we already talked about, right? That

[1:23:45] same like we've been talking about that since my first term we looked at.

[1:23:50] » I'm just not sure if Laura has something specific that's actually been put

[1:23:53] together. I'm not sure. I'm assuming she's going to wait for that meeting

[1:23:56] that we're going to talk about right now.

[1:23:58] » Go ahead, Laura. >> Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. The

[1:24:01] expectation will be that in September, we'll bring it forward and absolutely at

[1:24:05] that point we can have the discussion with the commission and determine what

[1:24:09] other items need to be added in. We'll put in what we've already understood. Um

[1:24:15] and again with us being still uh with a fairly short history of um what's been

[1:24:21] done in the past and what we need to do uh we may be missing some things. But

[1:24:26] that's where that we're hoping um at that meeting in September then we can

[1:24:30] bring that forward and and have those filled in uh to then again go forward

[1:24:34] and with a full 10-year plan for council's consideration.

[1:24:41] » Any other questions on this?

[1:24:46] So, Rebecca, have you got all those numbers that we've talked about because

[1:24:49] that's what's going to come up next, I guess. Right.

[1:24:51] » Through the chair. Yes. So, I do have an amendment prepared for the motion uh

[1:24:54] that I we can put on the screen and then we can go through and if the commission

[1:24:57] has any changes uh or if there's anything that you would like um that you

[1:25:02] think I've written down uh differently than what

[1:25:06] you had thought or you had said. So, let me know. We can make any adjustments to

[1:25:10] it. But this is what we currently have drafted.

[1:25:13] That the motion before the commission be amended to make the following changes to

[1:25:16] schedules A and B. Schedule A, housekeeping adjustments. Staff wages

[1:25:21] and expenses decreased to $230,000. Beach security increased to $15,000.

[1:25:28] Schedule B, increase canal/ Lagoon City Condition and maintenance study by

[1:25:32] $10,000 to include analysis of technology for water mover pumps.

[1:25:36] Schedule Accreased legal fees $20,000. Schedule A number 41 LCBW harvester

[1:25:43] increase to $15,000 and schedule B addition of $120,000 for

[1:25:48] new capital project for replacement of water mover pumps.

[1:25:53] » What about what we're putting to reserves? Do we do we need that there?

[1:25:58] No. >> Uh through the chair, my understanding

[1:26:00] and if general manager PI or Miss Fischer have anything to add, please

[1:26:04] feel free. But my understanding is that that would be determined based on the

[1:26:07] budget. So it's not doesn't have to be a direction of the commission because it

[1:26:11] would be resulting from your overall direction for the budget.

[1:26:14] » But if there's any substantial change, we'll be fully aware of it then. Okay.

[1:26:17] Yeah, we need to know that for sure. Yeah. All right. Perfect.

[1:26:23] Any discussion? So >> now I guess

[1:26:27] who I heard somebody talk. >> Uh yes, sorry through you, Mr. Chair. Um

[1:26:32] I apologize, Miss Clerk. Uh was the adjustment for the legal expenses on

[1:26:36] there as well? the 18,000

[1:26:40] » through the chair. I do have Yes. increase the legal fees line to $20,000

[1:26:44] total. So the $2,000 plus the 18. Yes. >> So I guess my question now and this is

[1:26:50] probably to you guys like if there's an election coming and you can't do your

[1:26:54] budget till after the election. Why are we zipping in because this is not going

[1:26:58] to be okay after the election. Correct. >> Well, it's

[1:27:03] kind of kind of going to do the same at the county too. to try and get a

[1:27:06] preliminary budget to put it forward for the new mayor to come in to look at,

[1:27:10] right? Because it's it's the mayor that does the budgets now. So, at least

[1:27:14] you've presented it. Here it is. This is what we'd want. There's something there

[1:27:18] for staff to organize the whole thing and then it's presented to the mayor at

[1:27:21] that time. Right. >> So, we have a doover right up till

[1:27:24] October then. >> Yeah. Yeah. We could keep amending it.

[1:27:26] Yeah. >> Oh, sorry, Laura.

[1:27:29] » Uh through you. Yes. I don't know that finance appreciates us. keep amending it

[1:27:33] as we're going. But it is gonna it is a living document. A budget is our our

[1:27:38] forecast and our best plan. Um the idea that we're working on it now is so that

[1:27:43] it is still ready on the normal time frame that we would have uh in a non

[1:27:49] election year so that whenever the new um mayor is elected uh and we have this

[1:27:56] information available and ready to go as soon as possible. We don't want to delay

[1:28:01] the approval of the budget um further into the year as possible because that

[1:28:07] means projects are delayed uh procurement is delayed and it can limit

[1:28:11] what we can purchase operationally. So we want to have this uh all buttoned up

[1:28:15] and ready and again it's a typical schedule for us to keep in a

[1:28:20] non-election year as well. >> So then we if we have any issues with

[1:28:24] our budget then we have a last chance to take a look at it. Um, I believe now

[1:28:29] that we're changing our meeting till a October 6th or 7th or something. All

[1:28:34] right. So, I I'm going to probably ask to take one more look at the budget

[1:28:38] then. >> Yeah. We'll see it coming on, right?

[1:28:41] Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, it makes I don't feel so like to

[1:28:47] me I gota like normally I like to go home and think about this because this

[1:28:49] has been kind of rushed. I didn't see this till Tuesday. So I was up late last

[1:28:53] night and uh when I hit that report from the uh the engineers that that was it

[1:28:58] for me 11 o'clock my brain was fried. So anyways if we could if I would suggest

[1:29:04] get the updated version even for the next meeting so that it's just there you

[1:29:08] know as information because we do make some changes here.

[1:29:12] » Okay. So with that all in favor >> uh through the chair. So, I'll just need

[1:29:16] a mover and a seconder for that amendment. If you were okay with those

[1:29:20] lists of adjustments, the schedules A and B, and then we would have a final

[1:29:23] vote on the motion as amended. So, if you're okay with that list, we can put

[1:29:27] it on the screen again. I'll just need a mover and a seconder for this as an

[1:29:30] amendment. >> So, I need a mover and a second or do I

[1:29:33] not just talk to the mover and a seconder and see if they're okay with

[1:29:36] this? >> Uh, no. Through the chair, we have an

[1:29:38] original mover and a seconder for the original motion, but this is an

[1:29:42] amendment to the original motion. So, we need another mover and a seconder for

[1:29:45] the amendment. >> Okay.

[1:29:48] So, somebody to put that uh you want to read it again or no, we already saw it

[1:29:52] or >> Okay, we no need to put on the floor. Um

[1:29:56] somebody put on the floor for me. Um deputy mayor, second by the mayor. All

[1:30:01] in favor?

[1:30:04] » Now, we'll go back to the other one. Um I've already got a mover and a seconder

[1:30:09] » to the chair. That's correct. So, this would just be a vote to adopt the

[1:30:12] original motion as amended. >> Okay. And that's okay for whoever put on

[1:30:17] I guess whoever did it. All in favor? That's pass.

[1:30:29] Okay. 8.1 Rebecca

[1:30:35] uh through the chair. So this is another one where we would be looking for

[1:30:38] direction from the commission and this is regarding the October uh 2026 meeting

[1:30:42] date. So currently we just have that the commission provide direction on the

[1:30:46] scheduled meeting date for October 2026. Um we did originally have this scheduled

[1:30:51] for October 8th and we are going to be commentering the council chambers on

[1:30:55] that day for the voting period. Uh so this was just seeking the commission's

[1:30:59] direction on how you would like to proceed with the October meeting. If you

[1:31:02] would like to meet uh earlier uh or if you have another direction, please let

[1:31:06] us know and we can make that happen. >> I'll put on the floor. Um deputy mayor

[1:31:15] second by uh >> we're county on the six both of us.

[1:31:20] Second by Mark. Uh I'm sorry, Commissioner L.

[1:31:25] » It can't be first thing basis. I like the six actually. You want to make it

[1:31:29] look cal. >> Yeah, except both uh the deputy mayor

[1:31:33] and I are at county. >> Well, one of you can skip. [laughter]

[1:31:38] » Well, I know I can't.

[1:31:50] Okay. I think we got to do it before. Do you have dates for us to look at, um,

[1:31:57] Rebecca? Because I know we got to, um, get this room right.

[1:32:06] » Uh, we do have a calendar. uh or if the commission prefers we could if you give

[1:32:10] us direction during this meeting send out kind of a calendar poll following

[1:32:13] the meeting and see if there's a compatible date for all. If you prefer

[1:32:17] to check your calendars now we can do so as well. We have a calendar for this

[1:32:21] room the council chambers. Uh it's available

[1:32:25] uh various dates before October 7th. It won't be available post October 7th

[1:32:35] » the 29th. Well, I could come. Yeah, if it's a

[1:32:39] short meeting, that'll be >> What about the first?

[1:32:45] » I can't attend the first time out of the country.

[1:32:47] » That's a happy face. I don't want the first, but I'm available the second,

[1:32:53] » but yeah, we can do the 29th. >> What's What do you like?

[1:32:59] » 9th. The 29th. What about you? Actually, everybody's nodding on the 29th. What

[1:33:04] about you're good with that >> through the chair? Yes, we can make that

[1:33:07] work. >> I can sorry

[1:33:09] » through the chair. Yes, we can make September 29th work.

[1:33:12] » Um,

[1:33:16] » so they're looking direction. So, our direction will be to um meet on the

[1:33:20] right at 9:30.

[1:33:29] No, that's right after the election. I'm gone.

[1:33:37] Okay. Um, we'll let um Rebecca put that up.

[1:34:01] through the chair. So, the motion um before the commission is that the

[1:34:05] October 20 26 commission meeting be moved to September 29th, 2026 at 9:30

[1:34:11] a.m. >> Um the the people that put that on the

[1:34:15] floor, you're okay with that? Okay. All in favor?

[1:34:20] That's all. Yeah, we did. Didn't Yeah. I try to that first. I don't forget from

[1:34:27] now on. That's why I always do it first. Okay. So 8 um two the we've already done

[1:34:34] that so we're going to skip to 8.3. Um 8.3 would be our next one. Rebecca

[1:34:40] » uh through the chair. The motion for 8.3 is that report LC526

[1:34:45] regarding operations update for canal maintenance be received as information.

[1:34:51] So on the floor, deputy mayor, second by the mayor.

[1:35:17] Anybody want to start there? >> Yeah, I see that. So, the review is

[1:35:22] valid. So, we're good now for 26 right to 28 operating season. Is it just a is

[1:35:27] it an easier application to renew that now, Laura, moving forward, or would it

[1:35:31] be the same process? We start all over again for another three-year period.

[1:35:36] » Uh through you, Mr. Chair, my understanding is we would we would need

[1:35:40] to continue Sorry, it would be similar to what we did this year. So, we would

[1:35:45] start um that discussion with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans uh

[1:35:51] ahead of the 2029 season um in order to get the uh approvals and the review

[1:36:00] completed ahead of that. >> Okay.

[1:36:01] » And we weren't too late getting that approval, but probably started earlier

[1:36:04] in the year just to put people's minds at ease that it won't delay that start

[1:36:08] again. Okay. Thanks, Laura. >> For sure.

[1:36:11] Um I what's the discussion over the skimming? Like they're not saying yes,

[1:36:15] they're not saying no. >> Uh three, Mr. Chair. So they've said

[1:36:20] skimming should not occur prior to July 15th window. Um so we are hoping to

[1:36:25] discuss with them as we move forward ahead of the operating season of 2027

[1:36:31] uh to see if we would be able to do any mitigation or any type of skimming

[1:36:36] activities prior to that. Uh but as it stands right now um for 2027 skimming

[1:36:42] and harvesting would both initiate at uh July 15th. Um and not none of the

[1:36:48] inwater work would begin prior to that. >> What about turning on the water systems?

[1:36:54] They don't have an issue with that at all. The the all our systems the

[1:37:00] » part of our discussion with them. >> That's part of the discussion. So you

[1:37:04] still have all that to discuss that before.

[1:37:08] Um,

[1:37:18] so they are open to discussion is what you're saying because um the the thing

[1:37:22] I've noticed this year is a lack of fish and minnows and we've we've stopped all

[1:37:27] these things and I got to tell you like normally I got minnows swimming across

[1:37:32] the front of my place all the time and I don't see any minnows. I'm as normally

[1:37:35] when you're in the lake, they're nibbling away on your feet. I don't see

[1:37:38] them anymore and I'm I'm not sure what's happened to them. Uh I I see a bunch of

[1:37:43] turtles actually, but then I don't see but I'm just kind of curious. Was there

[1:37:48] any discussion about that? Like with the lack of fish, do they are they noticing

[1:37:52] it or >> you Mr. Chair, that's not part of the

[1:37:56] discussions with them. They're reviewing when when we put forward our

[1:37:59] application. We're saying this is the work that we're doing. this is the um

[1:38:04] status that we are observing um and then they review that and determine where we

[1:38:10] go forward from it. So they're not discussing current states or anything

[1:38:13] like that. This is the hope also though that the study that we've proposed and

[1:38:17] it's part of the budget for next year is that they're going to do some of these

[1:38:21] species counts and identify what is in the canals and in the lagoons are likely

[1:38:26] to be um so that we can show a positive or negative impact um of of the

[1:38:33] operations or of the conditions that are outside of our operations just changes

[1:38:38] in general because again it's a living ecosystem. So those are obviously going

[1:38:42] to change uh many different factors influence that. So that's the idea is

[1:38:46] that we would be able to provide them with a lot more evidence-based

[1:38:52] information to help potentially guide uh what we'd be allowed to do or not to do.

[1:38:58] Um and to your comment about are they open for discussions? We we they have

[1:39:04] said yes that we can discuss with them whether it's going to change the outcome

[1:39:09] or not. that's where I wouldn't be able to speak for another agency. So,

[1:39:14] » and the people that are discussing it with them is yourself that's who's

[1:39:17] discussing it or do you need assistance from um say experts in different fields

[1:39:22] that would help us? >> So, through you Mr. Chair, we're

[1:39:25] starting with ourselves to determine what they would want to see from us. um

[1:39:30] what information would be required, what potential mitigations could we put in

[1:39:34] place and then we would go from there and we would advise the commission if

[1:39:38] external resources are required but at this point we don't we haven't

[1:39:42] identified that be >> because I guess the argument can go is

[1:39:45] the fact that we are not dealing with anything native in our lagoons

[1:39:48] everything we're dealing with is invasive and there's nothing native in

[1:39:52] there at all and that's where I sometimes think they don't look at what

[1:39:56] we're doing as an advantage like just putting the oxygen in the water. It's

[1:40:01] got to be great for the fish, right? That's you think for the habitat and

[1:40:04] everything that went on and that sort of thing. And when the soldier weave gets

[1:40:09] there, the fish won't be swimming in there till we cut out that stuff and get

[1:40:12] it out to allow them to get in there. So, it's just I and I guess I see all

[1:40:16] that then I hear about the uh global warming. Like, should that not be

[1:40:20] changing the fish when they have their their babies? There's so many things

[1:40:24] going on here. I hope that our our agencies out there are paying attention

[1:40:28] to this and they can work with us on this and maybe we can help them with

[1:40:32] what we're doing. So that's my little speech.

[1:40:37] But anyways, but good report, Laura. I really liked it and I saw your question

[1:40:41] and answers there. I read all that. Yeah.

[1:40:45] » Um does anybody else have any questions for Laura?

[1:40:50] Um I guess all in favor.

[1:41:00] » Okay. Now this is the unfinished new business.

[1:41:04] Um let's scroll first on that. >> I think Commissioner Hart's on 9.1

[1:41:10] with the South Bridge lighting. We >> Oh, sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. I Okay. I'm

[1:41:15] sorry. Um Yeah. I'm sorry. My apologies. Okay. Just so I can

[1:41:21] It's on the other sheet. It's the one I printed didn't have that. Sorry. Sorry

[1:41:25] there, Commissioner. Um 9.1. Um I don't think I have to put this on

[1:41:30] the floor, do I? Or should I? >> Uh to the chair. There isn't a motion

[1:41:34] associated with it right now. If there is any action to come out of it, we can

[1:41:38] consider that as a motion if needed. >> Okay.

[1:41:43] Yeah. Uh chairman uh with regards to the uh south uh foot bridge lighting u that

[1:41:49] that's been an issue for the resident of 16 South Island Trail for some time and

[1:41:55] uh as a result they uh that that resident has submitted a report of

[1:42:00] concern on uh July 22nd and uh there has been some action taken from the township

[1:42:08] so far. Uh but in the meantime, uh that that light is is works is on and off. Uh

[1:42:16] there there's been times where it's is not on at all. There's times where uh

[1:42:21] there's been uh some lighting between 2 am and 3:30 a.m. and then other times.

[1:42:26] So it it needs to be reviewed and when it is working it is it is it is bright

[1:42:34] and it's to the point where it could also be considered u a violation on

[1:42:41] bylaw in terms of nuisance. the the light the light has to

[1:42:46] be examined and I see uh as a result of uh uh report of concern followup two

[1:42:52] days ago that uh the uh the township is is looking into review of this light. So

[1:43:00] I just want to get on on record chairman that that we're we're looking at this

[1:43:04] and the township has taken some action to uh get get this uh resolved.

[1:43:11] So do you want to put a motion forward that we request something here?

[1:43:16] » Well, this is where I I need direction by the by this by the commission is the

[1:43:23] the report of concern has been res has been respon the resident had has had a

[1:43:28] response from their their inquiry to report a concern and um the township has

[1:43:34] received the request regarding the south footbridge light which has been

[1:43:38] forwarded to the appropriate staff for review.

[1:43:43] That's what's taken place so far. I just want to be ensured by the commission uh

[1:43:48] that that uh this this will be followed up on and and and and it appears it is

[1:43:53] » also the town's following up on because there's a lot of um u back like I know

[1:43:58] this was the same thing happened a couple years ago and there was a full

[1:44:03] report done on it. there was pricing done uh all different types of lights

[1:44:07] and everything and uh I think you were here even in the mayor you guys were

[1:44:11] both there when we talked about that. So maybe you should pull that information

[1:44:15] out because it could save you a lot of time, right? Like that report and bring

[1:44:18] it all out, take a look and bring it back maybe to the commission. Take

[1:44:22] another look at um I know when um Commissioner Hart told me about I went

[1:44:27] over there, I could never find the lights on and that's just a couple doors

[1:44:30] from I was down there and the lights were never on. So I I have you ever seen

[1:44:34] the lights on, Commissioner? Uh yes, chairman. I've been there uh when I've

[1:44:39] seen the lights on and it it is definitely a nuisance for the resident

[1:44:44] of 16 South Southern uh trail and um I I think if this gets reviewed, let let's

[1:44:50] take a take a look at it. It's action has to be taken on terms of the

[1:44:54] intensity of the light, but it's got to be consistent.

[1:44:57] » I just don't understand why the light's not going on and off. That that's there

[1:45:00] that's a problem that's got to be out. >> Yeah.

[1:45:05] » Okay. So, um, it's being looked after. So, I don't have the motion on the floor

[1:45:08] right now. You want to bring it up the next meeting?

[1:45:10] » We'll we'll follow up on this on on the next meeting. If we can we can end it at

[1:45:14] that. Yeah, >> I'd be happy with that. Thank you. Thank

[1:45:16] you, chairman. >> The next one you got is nine. I'm going

[1:45:20] to leave you right on the hot seat now. Uh, 9.2. That's your thought.

[1:45:23] » So, the other one [snorts] is is regarding uh beach security. it it's

[1:45:29] come to my attention and and others that that lack of security on certain dates

[1:45:35] and um I had the uh the benefit of of of talking to the uh the manager of of

[1:45:45] uh Brian Brainer and uh Brian uh reached out to me and offered an opportunity for

[1:45:51] me to meet with him and uh a representative of 247 Guard. Uh we did

[1:45:58] this last Friday and uh uh I was happy to uh have an opportunity to meet with

[1:46:03] Brian. Brian's already identified the problem and has already created a

[1:46:08] solution and uh I'm satisfied as as a member of the commission that that

[1:46:12] they're moving forward on this. So when we did meet with the guard uh we were

[1:46:17] assured that he would be working as per the contract and it's and it's also my

[1:46:22] understanding that we're not going to be charged for those days. August 1 weekend

[1:46:27] for example where uh they uh July first weekend they they didn't show up. So

[1:46:33] there are a few days that they they didn't show up and that that's been

[1:46:36] that's been corrected. Um and as a followup uh I I know that he was working

[1:46:44] on the Saturday and uh and one family was approached where was the wristband

[1:46:50] and the wristband was in place and they gave it up and they they allowed the the

[1:46:54] rest of the family to participate. So sec beach security is important. it it's

[1:46:59] got to be uh used in proper patrols. And uh when I met with with with Brian and

[1:47:05] the security guard, it was Brian's clearly uh pointed out the the

[1:47:10] responsibilities and expectations that uh that that uh we expect and and I'm

[1:47:15] I'm happy to report that they're they're being met at this point. There was some

[1:47:19] discussion though of of having uh two security guards and uh I guess that's

[1:47:26] for discussion some other time but uh as long as we uh you know have one security

[1:47:32] guard meeting the contractual obligations and uh I I think as a

[1:47:37] commission we're satisfied with that. Um, the one thing I would tell you,

[1:47:42] you'd mentioned to me about the two. Um, I I thought that we had two and we'd

[1:47:47] always went out like for two. So, I phoned another commissioner who was like

[1:47:52] involved in all. He said, "Absolutely. There's always two." He says, "This

[1:47:55] time's only one." >> Well, chairman, if you look back at at

[1:47:58] the budget two years ago, it was $25,000. Now, it was $10,000. So, that's

[1:48:02] why I raised it uh uh earlier during this meeting. And uh that's something

[1:48:07] that's open for discussion. Even if we had just but the one if we had one

[1:48:12] security officer back and forth with each beach and uh uh and and and during

[1:48:18] the next contract agreement we we just don't go for the the the the cheapest uh

[1:48:25] u sec security uh company available. So u but I I I'm really impressed with what

[1:48:32] Brian's done so far. obviously identified the problem, got ahead of it,

[1:48:36] and so far it's meeting a contractual obligation.

[1:48:42] » Did you want to say something, Laura? I saw it pop out. You just turn to your

[1:48:44] mind. >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I just

[1:48:47] wanted to remind the commission that we are bound by our procurement policy and

[1:48:51] we do need to follow that um with all purchases including beach security. We

[1:48:56] can look at um ensuring that there's it's not just price that is part of the

[1:49:01] consideration. Um, and I did want to remind you that we did increase that to

[1:49:05] 15,000 for 2027 as part of those previous discussions.

[1:49:12] » Thank you. >> Well, on behalf of what um, Commissioner

[1:49:15] Art was saying, the other issue is is the the gate with all of that. And

[1:49:21] » yes, the so to follow up on on I think there's been some correction on that as

[1:49:26] well. There's that the gate and the gate we're referring to is what used to be

[1:49:30] pier one and it's a gate that goes on on the on the south beach but leads along

[1:49:35] uh the canal path to the pumping station. And it's my understanding

[1:49:39] talking to uh uh my understanding that uh the gate is is open because people

[1:49:46] have to have access to the pumping station and they're back and forth

[1:49:50] throughout the day and and sometimes it's a little difficult to keep it

[1:49:52] locked. Uh I've been down there. personally seen cars drive in and and

[1:49:58] park along the canal and and uh one last two weeks ago on a Saturday there was an

[1:50:04] individual had his car parked and a lawn chair out and and fishing uh and then

[1:50:10] two other vehicles came in and and and uh decided to park there. This is before

[1:50:15] the bylaw officer was able to get down there and and clear it out which I I'm

[1:50:18] grateful for that to happen. My concern is if that gate is not maintained uh

[1:50:23] kept kept locked and and people get in there, it could obstruct the the access

[1:50:28] for the uh fire and rescue people to get to the boat if there is in need of an

[1:50:33] emergency. And and that's that's important.

[1:50:37] But I also been assured and I and I've witnessed uh bylaw officers doing their

[1:50:42] their routine there.

[1:50:46] So, so on that gate though, I I myself notice it seems to be open more times

[1:50:51] than it's closed when I go by. Um, but I have watched the awkward once come. He

[1:50:55] was parked the gate mocked all the way up. He didn't bother unlock it. So, um,

[1:51:01] and saying that is that that is something else I wanted to talk about

[1:51:04] too is where our gate is and they've got the pole that runs to the lagoon. We

[1:51:08] never went that extra three feet. We didn't think people would squeeze around

[1:51:12] it. They all do it now. Um, I know the hotel, they shut it all down. So,

[1:51:16] something we have to look at is to shut that down because that's the new way

[1:51:20] because there's nobody at the hotel. They're all parking in the hotel now.

[1:51:23] It's a wall access coming around. Before it was always safe there because the

[1:51:27] hotel didn't allow everybody to park. But when you take a look, you see all

[1:51:31] the parked cars all the way along. And I give the hotel credit because they throw

[1:51:35] all their garbage in the bin. It's all piled there. I go by the next day, it's

[1:51:38] all cleaned up. So they're obviously paying pay up all that because I we're

[1:51:43] not that's not ours, right? Okay. So I I don't know that's something

[1:51:48] I'll probably bring up in the next meeting. It's not something that has to

[1:51:50] be rushed, but I do think we should cover that.

[1:51:54] » Yeah. Thank you. Uh thank you chair. And one one other comment the last one is

[1:51:58] the we can move on to the other uh new

[1:52:04] business goose. Is that >> Yeah. So the goose management. The

[1:52:06] reason why I I I wanted that in there is that I I' I've read and and received uh

[1:52:14] message that the uh the the geese uh the the goose the goose treatment is is all

[1:52:23] over the place and it's a mess. And I I I in my observation, I think the the

[1:52:27] gate goose population is is is down. And uh of course this time of the year is

[1:52:33] not as a problem as it was a few months ago, but I think the wildlife management

[1:52:38] under the direction of Michael Van Cass is doing an amazing job and uh I just

[1:52:42] want to put it on that uh I think the goose management system is working for

[1:52:48] uh for what the township is providing and that's why I have that on there.

[1:52:52] Chairman, thank you. Do you have anything else here? Huh? Or

[1:52:57] that's it. Um, I got I got a couple things here. Um, first thing I want to

[1:53:02] talk about is this rafting party that's happening down on the the beach the

[1:53:07] beach there. Do you know anything about it? Does anybody know this whole rafting

[1:53:12] party that's happening in the marina? No, nobody knows about it. Council,

[1:53:17] there's no permits, no nothing, right? Um, the only thing I'm saying is

[1:53:21] I know there's a rafting thing there and Parks Water was hadn't heard anything

[1:53:24] about it and I'm what I'm more concerned about and I'm not trying to stop this

[1:53:28] and I think it's a great idea, but I we don't know about it. If they're coming

[1:53:32] onto our beaches, I I guess there might be an issue and I'm hearing that there's

[1:53:36] going to be a beer tent or something along the um the area like up near their

[1:53:42] gas pumps. I don't know if that's all true. I don't know. So I I I'm not

[1:53:47] getting involved in all this, but I just want to make sure parks and waterways,

[1:53:50] if you guys were aware of what they do. >> Anyways, chairman, I I I'm not

[1:53:56] completely sure, but I think they own that property and uh that's their that's

[1:54:00] their discretion and uh I think what what uh that business does is is is an

[1:54:06] enhancement to our community. and uh why would we want to prevent a an

[1:54:11] opportunity for a business to do well in our community and uh and just

[1:54:20] quality of our our Lagoon city. I'm not trying to shut it down and I respect the

[1:54:25] fact that there's that's their property, but if they're putting a tent there

[1:54:29] where the beer is on the rightway, if the fire department needs to get out of

[1:54:34] there, there's a tent in the way of the rightway and that's the only room that

[1:54:37] they have there. And it's not my issue, but I'm just saying when I hear things

[1:54:41] like that from my life living and all the permits and all the things that have

[1:54:46] to go on, these are the problems that happen. Like I think it's a great idea.

[1:54:49] Enjoy it all, right? But I'm just saying that there are like people think you

[1:54:54] could just do this stuff, right? And there's ramifications like because that

[1:54:58] you know the the driveway, right, that we're talking about where else would the

[1:55:01] tent go, >> right? But it's not I and it's not my

[1:55:04] problem. I now that I know that it's not included on parks and waterways. It's

[1:55:08] not my issue at all anymore. That's all I wanted to make sure was that if the

[1:55:12] washrooms are being used or whatever, we're going to have to deal with all

[1:55:15] that. We're gonna have to get them cleaned earlier whenever. Well, let's

[1:55:18] have to make sure the individuals know that they would have to get a permit for

[1:55:21] the tent. Any of those large tents for functions, you do require a building

[1:55:25] permit. So, >> but I'm not trying to stop this. I'm not

[1:55:28] being the guy. All I'm trying to say is that I'm covering off the people the

[1:55:32] Lagoon City and what we stand for and that's what our job is. The rest of that

[1:55:36] is not our job. It's not my job to do that. And so, just so you know, I'm 100%

[1:55:40] behind it. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm not against it all, but I've

[1:55:44] just seen it when other people have tried to set up other tents. I've seen

[1:55:48] the um the amount of paperwork and the amount of permits that you need. There's

[1:55:51] so much people don't realize that, right? You know, and then all hell break

[1:55:55] and then when something happens, that's when all hell breaks, right?

[1:56:00] So, I think all the power to them. They're out in the water. They're going

[1:56:02] to have a band on a like it sounds like a lot of fun. They're gonna have a band

[1:56:05] on a raft out there the whole bit. So, all the power to them. Great for going

[1:56:09] on. >> All right.

[1:56:12] Um, the other thing I wanted to talk about was this hiring prog process that

[1:56:16] happened over the parks and waterways. I'm I'm sort of disappointed that we

[1:56:21] weren't involved in any of that. Like because I've always looked at the fact

[1:56:24] on the parks and waterways and it's nothing against you at all, just so you

[1:56:28] know, Mark, I think you're a great asset to this and the whole bit, but it's just

[1:56:32] the whole process that went on. Normally, I know as a counselor, I used

[1:56:36] to always talk to the people and I used to talk to the people on parks and

[1:56:40] waterways, too, because what you're looking for is to mix somebody in with

[1:56:44] the people um from park or from the Lagoon City. And most of the people

[1:56:49] sitting sitting here know of the person the people that put their names in

[1:56:54] because they've asked us, they've touched base with us, they've asked us

[1:56:57] what the job is. And so, we kind of already know who's put their names. We

[1:57:00] know who's going there. And I have never been asked maybe a couple times by you

[1:57:05] but never by yourself about what's your opinion or what you're feeling or

[1:57:08] anything like that. And I know when I became a counselor the first thing I did

[1:57:12] I called every single person on parks and waterways to talk with each

[1:57:15] individual and then I met with them just to understand what was going to happen

[1:57:18] when I became a counselor. And I I just sort of feel like we got left out of

[1:57:23] this whole process. I really did. I feel like we got left out and I think it

[1:57:27] wouldn't have hurt to reached out and spoke to us about it all. Uh, and I

[1:57:31] think a lot of us do have experience. I question, and I'm going to say it in the

[1:57:35] nicest way on council, how many people on council have an experience of what

[1:57:39] goes on in parks and waterways and the experience of hiring somebody, what

[1:57:42] you're looking for. And just to finish it, then I'll let you go. Is the fact

[1:57:46] that when somebody says to me, well, he was an engineer, so he was a great

[1:57:49] choice. We have engineers here doing all this information. If I was that

[1:57:53] engineer, I'd be very careful with what I say because he could get himself in

[1:57:56] trouble, right, if we go by what he said. So I I just wanted to make that I

[1:58:00] I I want to make the point that part it's part part of I don't know where we

[1:58:04] stand as parks and waterways and that's why I'd like to have the access that we

[1:58:09] can go to our lawyer like our own lawyer not your lawyer like and and I say

[1:58:14] nicest way again but that is the lawyer for the town and his job is to protect

[1:58:18] the town and any other lawyer that's involved that's his job. Well, I'd like

[1:58:22] to get a lawyer that says, "Okay, parks and waterways, this is what you have."

[1:58:26] And when I hear about this, you know, um, thing coming up in two weeks from

[1:58:29] now, I I would like to get a heads up with the lawyer where we stand on that

[1:58:34] or where this could be going, right? And who knows where this could go, right,

[1:58:38] with what's about to be talked about. And I I'll stop there because I want to

[1:58:42] continue to that, but you can speak there. Uh, counselor, Commissioner.

[1:58:48] » Yeah. Uh, thank you, Chairman. I just want to top up on on your point. You

[1:58:52] made a valid point. I I think it's it's it's dismissive and uh irresponsible

[1:58:58] to not include the chairman in part of the uh process of of of uh of that

[1:59:05] hiring. But uh I'm I'm grateful that Mark is on

[1:59:10] and I think it's uh I had to uh ask Mark three times to get his resume and I had

[1:59:18] had a look at it. is very very impressive and and Mark is very humble

[1:59:22] and Mark is going to be a tremendous value to to the parks and waterways

[1:59:27] commission. So I want to I want to thank the committee uh the council to to

[1:59:32] electing Mark as a as a commissioner but I I think uh it's it's disrespectful and

[1:59:38] dismissive for not to include the chairman in that process. kind of

[1:59:42] leading back to uh your other comment about independent council for us. I

[1:59:47] think it'd be uh it'd be the timing is right now. I I I' I've witnessed things

[1:59:53] where uh it would it would be in the best

[1:59:57] interest of the commission to have an independent council as as we move

[2:00:01] forward and and and I I think that having this meeting coming up in a

[2:00:05] couple weeks is great. having community engagement is important uh especially

[2:00:09] this particular uh October that's coming up uh but the the it more more just for

[2:00:16] a comment and I'll keep it fairly short uh township Romero is unique in the

[2:00:23] sense it has 16 kilometers of canal uh which I don't know any other township in

[2:00:28] Ontario has that so consequently you know we have uh the lagoon city is is

[2:00:33] unique and uh each resident pays like $900 to $1,000

[2:00:39] uh a year to to assist the township in and uh m main maintaining the the canal

[2:00:47] system which is is unique and uh uh I think we have an obligation to maintain

[2:00:53] the the commission and uh I'm looking forward to this this meeting coming up u

[2:01:00] and that's just my my comment uh chairman [clears throat] thank you

[2:01:04] » well that'll be a good suggestion when the consultants here and we're when

[2:01:08] we're gathering the information that because we like library board we appoint

[2:01:11] the members and we appoint the members to our community center boards but

[2:01:14] sometimes throughout the year you and you've seen it the board might say hey

[2:01:18] we'd like to add this member to our board and they make the request so maybe

[2:01:22] one of the suggestions could be that the commission recommends to council who

[2:01:27] they would like to see added to the board whenever there's a new member but

[2:01:30] that would require a change in how we do things but it's a good suggestion to put

[2:01:34] in like any of these these concerns, now is the time to bring it to that

[2:01:37] consultant that the commissioner would like more involvement in the appointees

[2:01:40] on the board with recommendations. [snorts]

[2:01:43] » Yeah. So certainly go ahead. >> Yeah. I just want to top up on that a

[2:01:46] little bit because I I don't want the misunderstanding to ever feel that it

[2:01:49] was a slight or nobody wanted to reach out because that's the bylaws that we

[2:01:52] have to follow, right? At this point in time, bylaws are very clear that council

[2:01:56] choose those members from those applications. It's also confidential. So

[2:02:00] we can't share that unless we change those procedures. So that's the way this

[2:02:04] whole system's been designed. So part of my reason for the engagement and why

[2:02:07] this consultation, I don't mind speaking about that is because I believe that

[2:02:10] levy payers should be the voters who actually vote in the commission decide

[2:02:13] in their community who they want to represent them. And that's part of what

[2:02:16] I'm hoping comes out of this and I hope people speak up because I think that's

[2:02:19] the best way to do it so that you have the people you want to represent who

[2:02:23] want this commission. You'll still have two members appointed from council, but

[2:02:26] you'll you'll be able to choose a majority that can actually create the

[2:02:30] votes. But I I guess part of the problem that we had with that is that the system

[2:02:35] way it worked is they reached out and spoke to us. Nobody spoke to us. They

[2:02:39] first we heard that this whole interviewing process was happening when

[2:02:43] it happened. Where did that decision come from? Right? Like where how did

[2:02:46] that all happened? Like we had nothing to do with it. Nobody told us anything

[2:02:49] about it. And going to this review that's coming up. I'm 100% I asked for

[2:02:54] it. So like we asked for it. I I believe we all asked for it. But I what I didn't

[2:02:59] like about it was when I I don't like the wording. And when I look at the

[2:03:02] wording there, it's like it could turn into a uh situation over the the

[2:03:08] people on parks and waterways. And that's what kind of bothers me. I'd like

[2:03:11] to see I would like to know and I read in there further. I like to know what

[2:03:16] you're we're telling the people to come because if somebody says I've got no

[2:03:20] problems with the parks and waterways, then they're not coming. But if they

[2:03:23] have ideas to make it better or they have ideas on what we should do, like as

[2:03:28] you said about the election, I don't have an issue with that. I said that

[2:03:30] eight years ago. That was one of the ideas that we looked at. But I don't

[2:03:34] have a problem with that. But what I think we got to do is make sure that

[2:03:37] it's not just going to turn into a complaint session. And that's what it

[2:03:40] read. I handed to a couple people when I received it yesterday and that's what

[2:03:43] they said to me. That's what they read in it too because I wanted to make sure

[2:03:46] I wasn't being oversensitive over this. And that's what I didn't like about it.

[2:03:50] So, I'm hoping that there's some sort of guidance, not at the meeting, but before

[2:03:55] the meeting, so people can actually prepare for it because it's in two

[2:03:58] weeks. And to me, I think it's one of the most important things for parks and

[2:04:02] waterways. I really did. I really feel it was an important thing. But if it's

[2:04:05] coming and there's just a complaint session. Sorry. Um I think I'm stopping

[2:04:09] here. What's What's wrong? >> Through the chair, um you're welcome to

[2:04:12] finish your thought. I just had a couple things to add uh if able when when it is

[2:04:16] time. >> What? Sorry.

[2:04:17] » Uh through the chair, you're welcome to finish your thought. I just had a few

[2:04:20] things to add to clarify the process if there is an opportunity to do so.

[2:04:24] » Okay. Um so that that was the point that I was trying to make with that. I was

[2:04:29] going to lead into that next. I know um commissioner wanted to speak. Uh but

[2:04:33] that that's what we really need to look at. That that's I guess and that's where

[2:04:38] I would actually like to actually talk to an independent lawyer so that we know

[2:04:42] where we stand on some of these things like to come back out and he may look at

[2:04:45] and say no absolutely not. You can you should be able to do this. you should

[2:04:48] have this rights, you should be able to have this, right? And I think it would

[2:04:52] help all the commission. Um, and and not sometimes I feel like it's you guys and

[2:04:58] us guys, right? And that's where sometimes I don't like that feeling and

[2:05:01] I don't think it's right because we never had that feeling before. We never

[2:05:05] we had a good relationship with council. We had it worked out perfectly the way

[2:05:10] that we had the deputy mayor. We had me as I guess the counselor and it was

[2:05:14] phenomenal. And the deputy mayor at that time, he he did it correctly. He was a

[2:05:19] commissioner when he sat here and he was a counselor when he sat as counsel. And

[2:05:22] he went both ways. And it's a hard thing to wear two hats, you know.

[2:05:28] » Well, that's what I'm just saying. There's got to be like a give and take,

[2:05:32] » huh?

[2:05:35] » Yeah. >> Well, it's not like we're going to go

[2:05:37] consult them all the time. What I'm saying is that it's just like there's

[2:05:40] some questions that we've had and you know I don't think your lawyer really

[2:05:44] wants to speak to us on that, right? He's representing you guys.

[2:05:49] » And I I do think just in clarification I think going back it's important for

[2:05:52] people to understand the history because I believe out of the PR11 it gave

[2:05:55] council the the ability to create a commission based on a bylaw which was

[2:06:00] done in 2005 to delegate responsibilities to the commission. So

[2:06:04] going back in history, that's how it's kind of evolved through the time from my

[2:06:07] understanding of what it is. Uh but I'll let uh maybe Rebecca want to jump on

[2:06:12] » I >> um through the chair, I just wanted to

[2:06:14] clarify a bit about the legislation and uh just note a few things for the

[2:06:18] commission's knowledge. So the power to appoint and remove members of the

[2:06:22] commission is appointed to council through bill PR11

[2:06:26] and that is included in the the MARA act. Uh and then the commission

[2:06:32] responsibility would be to appoint a chair of the commission andor designate

[2:06:35] a meeting chair. Um council can decide what that process looks like for

[2:06:40] appointment and removal. So that was what part of what occurred with the most

[2:06:44] recent uh appointment is that council directed to do interviews. So that's

[2:06:48] what we proceeded with. Uh but ultimately the bill is what gives that

[2:06:53] authority to council to do so. Uh, I would just like to also note for the

[2:06:57] commission that a legal opinion uh was secured by the commission in 2025 giving

[2:07:02] a summary of the roles and responsibilities for the Lagoon City

[2:07:04] Parks and Waterways Commission and the Township of Amara. This is available on

[2:07:08] our website at www.rra.ca/lcpwc.

[2:07:13] So, it's linked for anyone to review and it does break down what the roles and

[2:07:16] responsibilities are for each under the MARA act and under the uh establishing

[2:07:20] bylaw. So, if you haven't seen that, I certainly encourage taking a look at it

[2:07:24] because it is a good breakdown. Um, the commission is welcome to secure its own

[2:07:29] legal uh representative at any point. We would just have to make sure that there

[2:07:34] is a budget approved for it as that is one of the um requirements of the MARA

[2:07:39] Act is that the budget for the commission needs to be approved by

[2:07:42] council. So, if it's not in our current budget, then requests would need to be

[2:07:46] made to council to um approve that budget. But it is within the

[2:07:50] commission's um purview if they would like to seek independent legal advice to

[2:07:55] do so as long as it's within budget.

[2:08:02] » So I think it's tied in already. So it's in the budget. The other thing to um I

[2:08:07] did read exactly what you what you read there about what our job is because you

[2:08:10] sent it all to us. But what I guess the point I was trying to make is the fact

[2:08:14] that nobody reached out from council to us and kept us informed, even asked our

[2:08:17] opinions and that the way it always had been and we did follow the rules like

[2:08:22] you know before but it was more of a a input that came right in. It worked

[2:08:27] well. I I I never had an issue with it like when we did it like and I'm just I

[2:08:31] was kind of disappointed with what I saw right there. And um and I think um

[2:08:37] Commissioner uh like it's great. I think you're gonna do a great job. I think

[2:08:41] you're a really good asset. So, it's nothing against you. It's just that this

[2:08:44] all came up over this talking. So, but anyways, that's what I'd like to do is

[2:08:49] like reach out and just talk to this lawyer because as you know, talking to

[2:08:53] like Ryan, he works for you. That's that's how simple it is. Okay. And I did

[2:08:58] not know that, thank you, Rebecca, that we can get our own independent counsel.

[2:09:01] I just wanted to double check that. >> So, basically the actual money that we

[2:09:05] put for legal is kind of for us too, right?

[2:09:09] » To the chair. Yes, it's just dependent on if the budget is available within the

[2:09:13] current year. Um, so if there is availability remaining in that budget

[2:09:18] line, uh, the commission can direct how that budget is to be used. If there

[2:09:22] isn't budget remaining, then a request would need to be made to council for

[2:09:25] approval to have that budget allocated. So if it if you're looking to transfer

[2:09:30] money from reserves, for example, that would need to go to council to have that

[2:09:34] approved >> if we had to transfer money.

[2:09:36] » Exactly. Yes. which I think we already did for that massive amount of money

[2:09:39] that came right. So I don't remember asking for permission. Do you

[2:09:45] » I believe there is money left in the legal budget this year too.

[2:09:49] » And that was um

[2:09:56] process. Okay. So we are going there and that's all I got. Do you have any

[2:10:08] » Does anybody else have any new business or Okay. So, I don't have to put any

[2:10:14] motions forward, Rebecca. And nothing here.

[2:10:16] » Uh through the chair, if there's no action coming out of those items, then

[2:10:19] no, they'll just be listed on the minutes as that they were discussed. Um

[2:10:23] if there are any actions you would like to see or any direction for future

[2:10:26] meetings, please let us know and we will put that on a future agenda if needed.

[2:10:33] Yeah, there's a couple other things I think. Um, there's no close session. No.

[2:10:39] Um, adjournment. Um, going to put it on the floor that we adjourn at 11:41.

[2:10:46] Um, huh. Put on the floor of the mayor.

[2:10:49] Second by the deputy mayor. All in favor? 11:41.

Lagoon City Parks and Waterways Commission - 13 Aug 2026

Transcript