We're live now. Um before we start, I'd
just like to uh welcome uh Mark Langden
to the parks and waterways. Um hopefully
uh you have a good three years with us
or more. Thank you, Mark.
» Um we'll start off by uh the opening of
the meeting. Um,
Nathan, can you please play the
recording?
» Today's meeting is being streamed live
on the Township of Rome YouTube channel.
Be advised that by attending a public
meeting of the commission, you are
consenting to your image, voice, and
comments being recorded and will form a
part of the public record. The chair,
CEO or secretary have the discretion and
authority at any time to direct the
termination or interruption of live
streaming in exceptional circumstances
where the content of the debate is
considered inappropriate to be
published. Attendees are advised that
they may be subject to legal action if
their actions result in unacceptable
behavior or comments.
» Thank you, Nathan. Um, one other thing I
did want to say before we started was,
um, on our last parks and waterways
meeting, um, we had people complaining
they couldn't hear what we were saying
and that we had to get closer to the
mic. And when I went home, I went back
and I watched the recording. I could
hear everything plain like didn't seem
to be any issues at all. So, it seemed
more of the problem was in here. So, I
think when there's people here, we got
to get closer to the mic. But other than
that, I think it was fine back back when
they check it. So anyways, to start off,
we'll start the adoption agenda and our
agenda additions. We're trying something
new this time.
» Oh, I did say that. I'm sorry. I could
see my Rebecca was going to tell us. Go
ahead.
» Yes. Through the chair. Yes. So, we do
have um an amendment to the motion that
was on the agenda just to change the
order. Uh so, the amended motion would
be that the Lagoon City Parks and
Waterways Commission agenda dated August
13th, 2026 be adopted as amended to move
item 8.2 to water mover study before
item seven accounts and budgets to allow
for attendance by an external
consultant. Uh so for the commission's
knowledge uh a consultant from TAM
engineering is available on Zoom to
speak to this item. [snorts]
» Thank you. Uh the mayor has moved it.
Second by the deputy mayor.
All in favor? That's pass.
So Rebecca, did you want to read that
the recommendation? [snorts]
» Yes. So through the chair, the next item
will just be adoption of minutes. So we
do have one vote for both sets of
minutes. If you'd like to talk about
either of them separately, please let us
know. So it's just that the minutes of
the following Lagoon City Parks and
Waterways Commission meetings be adopted
as presented. LCPWC meeting minutes
dated July 9th, 2026 and LCPWC close
session meeting minutes dated July 9th,
2026.
» So I need somebody to put on the floor
each one. So we'll do um 3.1 first.
» To the chairs just one vote for both
unless you'd like to talk about them
separately. So if you're comfortable
adopting both without any changes, then
we would just need one mover and one
second.
» Um I guess five to five. Does anybody
have a discussion that before I put on
the Okay. Um we'll put on the floor um
mayor second by uh councelor Hart or
Commissioner Hart.
Um so any there's no discussion. Um
all in favor
um four disclose your appearing
interest.
I don't see anybody. um open form
regarding agenda items only. Uh we don't
have anything that just came. Um
[snorts] presentations and receiving
petitions deputations. We don't have
anything. [clears throat]
Um we'll move then right to 8.3.
Um would you put that up please?
uh through the chair. So we do have a
general manager Laura Pi and the
consultant from Tate of Engineering on
the screen. We do have a draft motion.
However, it is looking for direction
from the commission to be completed. So
I'll read what we have, but my
suggestion would be that the commission
discuss what you would like to do and
then if you have a preferred direction,
we can put that on the floor and take a
vote on it at that time. So currently
it's drafted as that report LC1426
regarding water mover noise study update
be received and that the commission
provide direction to staff as to the
requirement for operation and timing of
the water movers.
So put on the floor deputy mayor second
by uh commissioner um
um I think we have somebody to speak
from Tatum there. Um
» Yes my name is Along Guruhi and I'm from
Tatum Engineering. [clears throat]
» Okay.
» Go ahead. Can you just give us an update
on the report is pretty lengthy. maybe
tell us a little bit about it.
» Of course. Uh I I just add a little
background about the water movers noises
study that Tatum completed. We started
the project in 2023 I believe. Uh at
that time we um the township was
receiving complaints about the noise and
we completed a noises study and uh the
results showed that one of the water
movers noise is exceeding the limits and
and and the noise is tonal. Uh so 5 dB
was added as like [clears throat]
to account for the tonal noise. Uh after
that uh Tatum completed some u
study to offer some modifications to the
water movers uh uh structure uh which
includes VFD uh uh variable frequency
drives to to be able to control the
speed of the pump. However, the township
uh due to co cost uh issues did not
install that and they they made some
other modifications.
Uh Tatum Engineering completed another
site visit in July 14 this year uh to
confirm uh if the modifications were
effective. Uh we did the noise
measurements for both water meters. uh
the uh we did noise measurements on the
shoreline and also uh uh we used barge
to get closer to the water movers. Uh
once we did the measurements we
completed the noise modeling at the
location of the sensitive receptors
closest ones to the water movers. Uh the
sensitive receptors are the locations
where people usually
use um uh it's um it is outdoor spaces
and also the plane of window
representing their bedroom or living
room spaces.
» [snorts]
» The measured noise were modeled at those
locations and the modeling results
showed that uh both water meters can
meet MPC 300 and MECP noise requirements
uh under all like all day conditions
like daytime, nighttime and evening
times. Uh
uh yeah. So both are within uh with
compliance within compliance uh at all
operating hours.
» Okay.
Does anybody have any questions?
» Um I I have a I I have a question. Um I
was just wondering when I'm reading that
one like and like read it properly. Did
one pump sound a lot less and the other
pump was louder? That's what I was
reading and then I was reading somewhere
else that it seemed like both pumps were
too loud.
» Uh originally I think the both pumps
were loud but uh this uh the south water
mover was much louder
uh and tonal. Uh but when we did uh the
revised measurement uh both were in the
same range.
both in the same range.
» Yes.
» So the the like going over it all like
because um I know I was looking at that
report and I'm not an engineer trying to
understand this. The noise really has
not
backed off. It's it's still somewhat
loud for people.
» No, it is not. Uh it is within the um uh
MECP limit. So, MECQ limit says that
daytime noise uh below 50 dBA noise at
daytime and below 45 dBA at night time
is an acceptable level. Uh I think the
water movers noise were all uh time
limit and night limit.
of
» I think it's it was around like highest
level at was at one of the residents up
the living area was 40 40.9 dBA and it
is below the daytime limit of 50 dBA and
nighttime limit of 45 dBA.
» Okay. Um let's do the mayor first then
uh council.
» Well, when I was looking at part of the
report here, it showed that they
actually ran quieter in the evening. Why
is that? Are we reducing the load on
them? Are we turning them down? Why? Cuz
at one time, like one of them was
running 48 during the day, and I know
the limit's 50, but 48 is not
acceptable. I I mean, that's what I read
in here. We'd have to do something. The
quietest I've seen them run is is down
around that 40. And still I would
consider that quite loud. So is there a
reason why the sound is different at
night coming out of the motors? Not I
know the decibels must be lower at night
so people can sleep but why is is the
level changing on some of them but not
the other one.
» Uh the sound level um at night is
similar to the day but the limit is
lower because the nighttime is the
sleeping time. uh and that's why the
MECP put a lower limit for nighttime. So
if a water mover or or any other
equipment uh is to operate at night,
they they must meet the uh nighttime
noise levels uh which is quieter and
more stringent.
» Um Commissioner Hart,
» Turn your mic.
Chairman, I had the same kind of
questions that if so what what I
understand so I'm clear because the
acoustics here is not not the best. Uh
but and I but I've read the report but
so what what you're saying is that there
are acceptable standards.
We're within the reason of acceptable
standards at the present time. Is that
correct?
» That's
sorry chairman. My my question was the
the acoustics here is a bit difficult
for me but I I I have read the report
and just so I'm clear that the the
standards uh that we have now are are
are deemed acceptable
both day and night at at 45
» This center. Yeah, go ahead.
» Um Laura, would you like to say
something? Yeah. So, yes, it both water
movers are currently um the noise coming
from them are below the compliance
limits. However, to the commission's
point, um it may still not be acceptable
to the people who are living nearby
listening to them 247, which is why
we're also seeking direction on how the
commission would like us to operate
these, if at all. Um, I can say that
operationally we are seeing quite a bit
of duckweed um within that canal and
these water movers are effective at
moving those. Uh, we currently have a
timer um that's in the cabinet that
would allow us to have one cycle of on
and off, which is what we were operating
on earlier this year. Um, however, we've
looked and we can invest in a couple of
different timers um that would allow us
to have up to six cycles per day. So, it
could be that we cycle them on for a
duration and then have them off for a
duration as well. So, yes, the water
movers are under the acceptable limits
for sound. However, the people who live
nearby who have complained um may not
appreciate them running 24/7. And that's
where we're seeking that direction from
the commission is do you want us to turn
these on? And if so, how would you like
us to turn those on? Because
understanding that they are meeting
those requirements for both day and
nighttime uh usage.
» Chairman, thanks for
thank you for the clarification. Um the
so the the standards are are per
acceptable but but for for the residents
of that particular area those st is
still is still considered to be um high
or or nuisance or or or troubling for
them. So even though we do meet the the
the standard based on
whatever premise that those standards
come from obviously the engineering
standards um if we we can still can we
still have some flexibility in terms of
of working with that? I like the idea of
having a timer but are there other
options we can consider?
Um is that a question too?
» Yes, that's that's a question.
» So
» Laura, do you want to answer that
question? Yeah, [snorts] through you,
Mr. Chair. Um, so again, the the
commission may remember that the
original uh proposal from TAM
Engineering was to install the variable
frequency drives. Uh, that would have
the potential to reduce the speed of the
pump um in general and what it's
operating at uh which could again
potentially lower the sound. We just
don't know until that uh the VFD is
installed and operating. Um, however,
that came with a fairly significant
price tag. I believe it was close to the
$10 to $15,000 per mover, which is why
we tried to do this less expensive
mitigation measure, which did reduce the
sound below to that acceptable level.
So, we were successful in getting it
below the the the acceptable limit. Um,
other than that, the other option we
could consider is uh leaving them off
for now. Understanding that there's
going to be some uh duckweed um that the
the harvesters do are challenged with
trying to pick it up through skimming
activities. That isn't something that we
can easily achieve. Um however we as
part of the budget consideration for
next year um referencing one of the
other reports we'll be discussing in a
little bit there is a proposal for a
study which could consider other
technologies but at this time we're
limited to uh either the movers being
off or on um and having additional
timers or potentially looking at
installation of VFDs which may or may
not be um successful. Well,
» Uh, Deputy Mayor,
» Yeah, I it's just my opinion, but I do
think that we probably need to look at
shutting these down and start to monitor
them weekly to see what the duckweed
does. Um, and then we can reassess at
that point. But I think we need to give
some of these folks a bit of the summer
that are having a hard time sitting out
on their deck because I know in that one
condo where that mover is, there's been
I've been over there, I visited them.
It's hard to just sit out there. At
first, you don't notice it, but after
you sit there for 15, 20 minutes having
a conversation, you just hear a constant
buzzing and it does get to you. And I
know there's a lady there that did have
an accident that has a brain injury. She
isn't even able to sit outside right now
because it just affects her that
frequency. I think we should give them a
bit of a reprieve, do that, and then
look at the the options for next year.
Laura,
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair, just to
clarify, the water movers have been off
since the last commission meeting. So,
we have not had them on for the last
couple of weeks. Um, they've been on or
off for the purposes of uh TAM finishing
their um noise assessment and then a
couple of operational moments, so not
extended periods. Um, and there has been
uh quite a bit of duckweed growth
through there. Um, I will leave it to
the commission to determine if that's
acceptable or not.
Um, I I I have a question for um the
lady from Tatum. Um,
do you know of pumps that are out there
that are quieter than these ones?
Because I I remember when the old pumps
were there. The first time I You
probably all heard this story, right?
The first time I went, I couldn't figure
out if they were on. They were that
quiet. They were totally quiet. You
didn't even know they were on. And I'm
and I remember back, this goes back, I
don't know, 15, 18 years, when I looked
at the prices, the prices were like
almost $100,000 for these pumps. And I'm
pretty sure the ones we just bought were
like 4550,000.
So the the price difference tells me the
quality. And I'm wondering whether or
not there are quality pumps out there
that we should be looking at. Cut our
costs on this because we're wasting so
much time and money on this. We all know
it works well. It's been working like
that for like 15 years, 12 years. I
don't need a study. I've talked to the
people that have lived over there for
years and years and they used to be
after me when those pumps didn't fire up
in the spring. They were all over me.
They wanted those pumps running because
they saw the duckweed and they saw the
issues that were happening there. So, it
does help and we do need them there. We
do need the water movement and we should
even be looking to look at other areas
to move water around and maybe that's
what that study could do. But I I wonder
could we just get some prices on like a
pump and if there's this pump out there
because I know I googled and said
quietest pumps in the world and they
bring me a whole bunch of pumps and
things. Well, we just go out and take a
look and listen to it. And I know I
brought this idea to Laura when I was
talking to her about it and her comment
was and I I appreciate what you're
saying that it depends on the location
and where it is and so on and so forth
vibrations, but I think if the pump's
that quiet, I can't hear it out there.
it's going to work a lot better. Uh, I
agree 100% with what the deputy mayor
said. I've been over there, too. I
couldn't put up with that noise. I I
think it's too loud. I know it's legally
loud, but illegally allowed to be that
loud, but it's just constant. And it's
not a nice feeling. It It's not really
It's It's just I don't think it works.
And I wouldn't want to run them again,
even if they're at 40. I I think they
got to be like under like 20. I think 15
even, right? So that's something that I
would really like to look into and we'll
I think we're going to be talking about
that later. Correct. Uh Laura, we'll be
just Oh, no. We're talking about it now
because we have to make decision now. My
apologies. Yeah. So, mayor.
» Well, my Yeah, now I they're off, but if
the duckweed builds up, I certainly
wouldn't be turning them on, leaving
them on all day. If you've got the
capability of up to six times, you know,
have them How long does it take to
establish the water flow? Like if they
ran for two hours and shut off for two
hours, ran for two and then not on at
night at all. Like is there a way do you
know roughly how long it takes to
establish that water flow?
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Um I
understand uh from Mr. Lenny who's
joining us today. Um he's our new
operations manager that um last week
within five minutes we saw a noticeable
change to the duckweed. So, I agree that
we could do it for short durations, um
potentially on for even um 30 minutes
and then off for uh an hour and do that
during some daytime hours. We can put a
break in there um as well uh and see if
that's effective and we can kind of
adjust uh those timings as we see um how
effective it is and if uh the commission
would give us direction uh delegation to
be able to adjust them minimally to to
make sure that they're still being
effective without uh um changing it
drastically.
» That would be my suggestion if we have
to turn them back on so they're not
running constant. U and just in in that
when um and this I quote back when I
became a um a commissioner back many
years ago, one of my biggest complaints
was the electrical bill with that and it
had been running for 24 hours. So we
started experimenting on using it at
night where the electricity was cheaper
and we found it did work. We were
running it in the morning and at night
except in the spring. We left them on 24
hours because we really needed it
because the p they were power hogs. The
old ones they used up so much power. So,
uh, what the mayor is saying, I I agree
we can do that, but maybe pick an hour,
say 11:00 or 12:00 during the day where
everybody's up and let them run for a
little bit. But the key right now is
that we can pick up the duckweed with
our harvesters now. We can get in the
area. The problem with the duckweed is
when um we do and I do want to talk
about skimmers and that and that's
something we're going to talk about
later I guess at capital but um to pick
it up now and the reason I say we pick
it up now is if you go down and you pick
up weeds and then you bring the weeds up
as you're bringing it you can draw the
duckweed off the top of the water but
when we're just skimming during
springtime we have a lot of problem with
the screen it falls right through but if
we're taking weeds out we utilize the
weeds to help lift the duckweed Yeah,
I've watched um them do it before. It
really works quite well. And and I do
understand what you're I know what
you're about to say, Laura.
Yeah. But you could say that if you
want, but that's how we we learned how
to do it. Yeah.
» Um definitely.
» I think back in 2022, I had asked um
Josh Kavanagh, who was here with us, um
to look at brushless motors. At that
point, they didn't they couldn't find
any brushless pumps. I'm just don't know
if that's maybe something that's come
about. I know I put him in contact with
a company called NCH in Barry on Wellm
Road um and they specialize in in
specialty pumps. So maybe that would be
somewhere to start when we start looking
at that study. But there there does I
agree with Cal. We were actually looking
at rebuilding one of those. Um we had
one left in the core. We were going to
rebuild it, but I don't know what ever
happened to that.
» I asked that. I [clears throat]
Laura
» Uh uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we
still have had one of the pumps.
However, getting parts for it was uh the
challenge. So, those pumps were original
with the original water movers in 1999,
early 2000. Uh and the the uh repair
parts are not available for those pumps
anymore, which is why the decision was
made to replace those. Um and again, we
can definitely consider options for
different pumps um going forward. I
would say that that would be a request
for 2027 budget.
I would like to see that in the budget
for sure that in the study I think we
need to this has been gone going since
I've been on in 2022 and long before
that I think how you and the mayor
probably remember how far back it's gone
but previous people that lived there
have had the same issues so that we need
to look at this and get a final
solution.
Uh, Commissioner.
» Yeah, Chairman, if I just may comment,
it it it's so just to so I understand it
meets the acceptable standards, but it's
not acceptable to the people uh of of of
that area and and
we have to uh and the water moves big
plays a big important role in in proper
uh canal maintenance as well as as
harvesting. But I think we have to move
forward and and and examine what if
there is a cost look at other options.
But this is something that we have to
take uh we are taking very seriously and
we got to come to a a favorable
conclusion that we can have the water
movers and still meet uh acceptable
standard for the people who live in that
area.
I I think we all agree with that. Yeah.
So I guess what we need to do now is
figure the direction that we're going to
ask of staff. And I I would love to
actually look at new pumps. I really
would. And see how much they are and
this could solve all our problems in one
shot. Like, you know, we might have to
pay a little more for the pumps, but
these pumps here, I I just think they're
cheap pumps. Actually, my my feeling
with about it right now. Um Deputy
Mayor,
» But I do know that's not in the budget
this year. So, that's something we need
to add to the budget when we're talking
about the budget. But this year, I don't
know. I think we need to let staff kind
of experiment a little bit whether it's
every day or every other day and do the
timers and see if we can if that can
kind of mitigate some of the complaints
and keep that duckweed down. I think
that would be the direction I'd
» Yeah, I think we've agreed that we can
run it for an hour or two at lunch at
noon or something like that, right? And
see how it works, right? uh it it does
help us and we do need it on. So we
really know we have to get the pumps,
but I think really we should be giving
direction also to be looking at new
pumps because we're going to be looking
at budget today. We may want to get a
rough idea like what that's going to
cost us too because we might want to
move something out that's in there, you
know, to put it forward. And I I don't
we'll talk about the budget later now.
So I I guess we're we're kind of done
with Tatum. I don't Do you guys have any
more questions for Tatum? I guess
because we're gonna have to discuss it
now or what are we going to do like um
would would if we're looking at getting
an idea of new pumps and and exploring
that. Would you be doing that Laura?
» Uh Laura?
» Yes, we would be able to help with that
and also uh the new pumps will have
manufacturer data on their noise levels.
we can uh review all those manufacturer
data and model it uh if needed to see if
they are meeting uh the requirement
levels for the residents.
» Is that how you would do it Laura? Like
would you then go through Tatum or would
you look like how would we what would be
our next steps?
» I I think because this has been an
ongoing issue and the noise sensitivity
is important. Yes, I would um I would
contract a consultant to assist with
that procurement uh to determine which
path would be the best option. We could
look at that being conducted as part of
the overall study that's proposed for
2027. Uh when we get to the budget
portion of that, um for the purposes of
this report though, I need direction on
what you would like us to do with the
water movers right now. And so we can
leave the other discussion for budget.
Uh but for right now, what do we want to
do with the existing water movers? Uh
and when do you want and if we're
running them, how would you like us to
run them?
» So that's discussion. Many people said
that you want to run for a couple hours.
» Yeah, I would say. But what what if we
just gave you say three hours a day m is
the maximum we want to see them on Laura
and let you decide when when it might be
the most effective to use those three
hours with the less less least impact.
Is that enough direction
» Through you? Yes, that's fine. Um, I
would like also maybe uh a time frame of
what would be acceptable hours to run
them in.
» How many hours do you think would be
acceptable?
» I believe an hour in the morning or an
hour in the afternoon, an hour in the
evening. Just take an hour block out of
each each section. That gives people
windows of those sections depending on
when they like to go and enjoy the
water.
» Can you do that, Laura? Like an hour in
the morning, an hour in the afternoon,
an hour a day.
Uh yes, we can. We'll we'll purchase
those uh different timers which will
give us flexibility for that. Um it
should be able to be accommodated within
our operating budget for this year for
us to get those purchased and installed.
Um and then just to clarify, morning
would be anything beyond 8:00 a.m.
between 8 and 12 noon. Afternoon would
be 12 to 4 and evening would be 4 to
8:00 p.m. That's where I I need to
understand
what your distinction of the times are.
» So really what they're saying is you're
saying an hour. So 9:00 in the morning
till 10:00 uh 2:00 till 3:00 and 7
o'clock to 8 o'clock. Is that all right?
And and before going forward, you're
saying we're going to have to purchase
timers and labor to do that. Couple
thousand dollars. Is that what we're
talking now?
» Yeah, less than that. I would suggest
» Less than that. What about weekends?
» You would keep it the same.
» That's what I'm asking at. So,
» All right. So, we'll do it seven days a
week then. Is that enough guidance?
Yes, that's fine. Um, and I just want to
confirm with uh Madame Clerk that she
has that for the motion uh to confirm
» Uh through the chair. I'm just getting
that motion drafted. If I could just ask
for clarification. Uh, Commissioner
Johnson, you had mentioned a time frame
for the afternoon. So, you had 9 and
10:00 a.m. for the morning, 7 and 8:00
p.m. for the evening. What was the time
that you had noted for the afternoon?
» I think we had initially said 2 to
three. There is some discussion on the
floor right now though, Laura, just so
you know. I think we're we're
questioning that time at night because
people do like to go out and have a
coffee and watch the sunset. So maybe
that that 8:00 is a bad one. Maybe we
need to do kind of 5 to 6 or 6 to 7.
» 6 to 7 when people are eating dinner
maybe.
» Yeah, [laughter] I'm thinking 9 to 10 in
the morning is better as well. They can
have the coffee in the morning, but
that's just me. 9 to 10, 2 to three,
» And then six to seven. And you do know
what we're doing now is we're making it
louder when it goes on because people
are used to the silence. And when that
turns on, they're going to hear the
noise. So they're going to hear it three
times a day. And I noticed that with a
piece of equipment I had in my plant
that as long as we left it running, we
had no complaints was when we turned it
on and off at times it was off for a
couple hours complaints came.
» I know. So be prepared for
» One complaint at a time. That's all.
» So anyways, so did you get that time up?
Yeah. Rebecca
» To the chair. Yes. So, I do have a
motion drafted. If you'd like, we can
put it on the screen and I'll read it
and if you have any changes, please let
us know. Uh, so what we have drafted
currently is that report LC1 1426
regarding water mover noise study update
be received and that the commission
direct staff to evaluate variable timing
for the water movers to a maximum of 3
hours per day, 1 hour in the morning
between 9 and 10:00 a.m., 1 hour in the
afternoon between 2 to 3:00 p.m., and 1
hour in the evening between 6:00 and
7:00 p.m. 7 days a week. and assess the
impact for the remainder of the 2026
season and that the purchase of new
water mover pumps be referred to the
2027 budget process for consideration.
» Who was the um put it on who put it
» I'll wear the heat for that one.
» Did you put on the floor
» Through the chair? We did have uh the
deputy mayor as a mover and commissioner
Langden as the seconder for the
original.
» So you all right with the changes then
you guys?
» Yeah, you're all right with the changes.
Okay. So, uh, no more discussion on
that. All in favor?
Thank you very much. Thank you very
much. Uh, I could I'm trying to see your
name by the lady from Tatum. Thank you
very much.
» No worries.
» We're done. Um, next one we're going to
go to 7.1.
Um, account vouchers dated July 31st,
2026.
uh through the chair. The motion for
this is that the accounts vouchure date
at July 31st, 2026 be received as
information. Let
» Me put on the floor for me, please. I
see the mayor's looking at me and I'll
look over here to commissioner and you
second it.
Um discussion.
Okay, I have stuff on here. I just I got
to find it now.
here.
Bear with me while I find this. Thanks.
Yeah, I know. I think we're all firing
up our computers now.
Does anybody got something to say while
I'm looking here? I do have things. I
just have to find it. I haven't found it
yet. Um,
that's what happens without order, huh?
There we go. I finally found my um I
have a couple questions on that. Um the
scare tape, we're still using that
like we're selling it to residents.
» Uh
» Sorry, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's correct.
If if a resident um is requesting it, we
do sell it at the township office. Do
you sell a lot of it? Like I I thought
we stop I thought we stopped um
supplying it.
» Uh no, we don't sell uh a lot of it. I
think this was the first um that we sold
this year. Um it we may sell one or two
uh a year. It is in our fees and charges
bylaw that we do have it available for
them.
» Now I know where the my neighbor got it
from because I saw them with it. Um the
insurance is 16. Um the question I had,
I guess the $6,614
to find the anchor for the um water
moves. Are we going to identify where
because I think we've done this before.
Uh can we identify where it is so that
or do you need them to dive down to tie
onto it or can we put some sort of boy
on it or something so that we know where
it is?
» Uh through Mr. Chair, we'll we'll look
at that for this year. Yes, that was the
challenge was that um with all our
poking and proddding in the the lagoon,
we could not find the anchor block to
tie the water mover to. So, we were able
to locate one ourselves, but the other
one did require the diver. So, we'll try
and um even if we can't put a buoy in
because generally it's going to be also
over the winter that we'll need to it's
in the springtime, we'll need to be able
to identify it. Um, even if we GPS it,
it'll give us a little bit better idea
so that we can uh try and locate it
again in future years.
» So, you don't need them to dive down and
hook it all up. You just have to tie it
down with
» Yes, it it was that we couldn't locate
the chain to connect it to it.
» Um, the other one I had was the uh, and
anybody wants to jump in question what
I've asked them is the compressor
repair. What was that compressor repair?
Is that what the ones from over on
Paradise? Is that what you were
repairing? false ones.
» Uh it was the compressors in the bubbler
shed. I don't recall. I thought it was
two of them that needed to be repaired
and they are completed now. Um that had
been brought forward as a report from
last year. We did do the expansion of
the bubbler system. Instead, we did the
repairs to the compressors.
» Right. Okay. Because I know the
compressors over at Paradise, they're
the they're not the very they're not a
good type. They wear out. So, I was
thinking that next time they wear out,
we look at updating them or upgrade into
a better system.
And my last one was the shed purchase.
What was the shed for?
» Uh, the shed is located at our um
offload site and it was a capital
project that had been approved for 2026.
» Okay. Yes. That so that was the shed
then at the actual removing removal area
to keep our equipment there. Okay.
» Correct. Yes.
» Okay. Um, the deputy mayor,
» Uh, I just had a couple questions from
residents. Something I don't see on the
vouchers. Who does the cleaning? And is
there anybody who does a cleaning or
maintenance, cleans the sand or picks up
garbage or empties garbage? What what
line would that fall under? I don't see
it.
» So that uh through you, Mr. Chair, that
is the contracted services for Summit
Property Group. Um, Summit is the
contractor this year for one both the
uh, lawn cutting as well as the garbage
pickup and um, and maintenance of the
sites, the beaches.
» Followup.
» You have follow?
» Yeah, I just had a followup. Uh, do they
just do it when they come to cut the
grass, they just do a quick clean and
empty the garbages once a week or do
they come back more often than once a
week?
» Uh, through you, Mr. Chair. I'd have to
look back at the requirements of the
contract. Um, I do know that they're uh
we've been working well with them and
they'll be following whatever we've
requested them to be doing. Um, off the
top of my head, I don't recall what
those requirements are.
» Okay. Thank you. I don't I don't know.
It may be something we need to ask the
public if they feel there's needs to be
more cleaning. There may be something we
want to add to the next contract. That's
» Thank you.
» Well, to follow up on that, um, we had
looked at getting a sinker to go in
there. We actually got went over to
Barry and took a look at some of that
equipment and it's really expensive. We
were hopefully trying to say tie into
council because with their public
beaches and utilize something like that,
but that didn't seem to go anywhere. But
it really works well. You go to most of
these beaches like Barry, desert, all of
them, they have this piece of equipment,
they move it around and it cleans up
everything. It just filters. It really
does a great job. Um, the one thing down
there on that beach too is when they do
that plowing, what we have to do is make
sure that they go from end to end
because we've probably lost over what 50
100 feet of our beaches because they
haven't pulled it out. I think they use
like a plow or something that they pull
back and forth and they just really all
they're doing is just moving the dirt
and turning it over. But what was
happening was the sides were all coming
in. And you go take a look at the
especially the North Beach. The North
Beach has lost maybe half of its beach.
It's all gone and you can't go
afterwards as Laura has told me. We
can't go in there.
» Yeah. Um uh Commissioner
Chairman Beach Security
have
uh
for
the beach the the beach security piece.
I have uh
for for uh the for 2025 it's 25 and then
for 2026 is 10. It's been reduced. Is
there any consideration to having it
increased?
» Uh sorry.
» Yes. Yes. Thank you.
» Uh through you Mr. Chair. That'll be
discussion at budget. So not at this
report.
» Okay. Thank you.
Um, any other questions?
All in favor?
Pass. And next one is uh 7.2
uh through the chair. This motion is
that the budget to actuals report dated
July 31st, 2026 be received as
information
on the floor. Mayor, second by
Commissioner um Hart. Um, any
discussion? Seems as we're all there on
point. Uh, mayor,
» I'm just looking at uh I guess second
last page here. The harvester repair was
12,000. So that was over budget, but
every year we've always budgeted 15. Was
that a typo when we only budgeted 5,000
this year or was it just 5,000 budgeted?
» Um, Laura is there. Laura
» Uh through sorry which line was that Mr.
» So we're on the well basically the last
page it like the totals are on and it's
so it's under just above capital
vehicles and it's number 41 harvester
15,000 budgeted two years ago 12,000
spent last year we only budgeted five or
is that a typo because it's always been
15 and we're budgeting 15 for next year.
Yeah, through you. We were expecting
because um we had done the significant
repairs that we weren't expecting to
have to do uh that much work on it this
year. Um and so yes, that was a correct
uh we were
» We had only budgeted 5,000 this year
recognizing the age and and the work
that does need to be done and the
expectations of that vehicle. That's
where for 2027 we've put it back in at
15.
» Okay. But and if I may continue, three
lines below that, how do we make a
profit on the harvester trailer? We
budgeted 300 and we've got in brackets
1,200. How do we did we get money back?
Was it moved to a different account?
What happened there?
» Uh through you there was um a correction
that needed to be made. So it's I'm not
clear on why it's showing the negative.
It should have been a zero. Uh there was
a charge that went to that line item and
then was removed. Okay, I'll I'll
confirm with finance. It should be at
$0.
» Okay, that's fine. I just Yeah, we made
a profit on a repair. I couldn't figure
it out.
» Mayor.
» Yeah. Um down on the last page as well
under capital, there's capital weed
control. I just wanted to show find out
like I I think people asked because
we're not spraying anymore there that's
not in the budget, right? We've removed
that from the budget. They're not paying
for it and not getting it. I just want
to clarify those things.
» True, Mr. Chair. Yes, this capital
project, the name of it is a little bit
misleading. Um it's actually uh a
consortium of a bunch of various little
uh items including the um north uh beach
drainage uh work, the shed purchase. Um
there's a couple of other projects in
there. So, uh, the name is just a little
bit misleading, but it was all capital
works that was approved by the
commission for 2027. And the spraying,
uh, was in a different in the operating
budget, uh, line items, and that's not
part of the ongoing budget request.
» And just one more comment on that, I
guess, is because we didn't do a lot of
the skimming at the beginning of the
year, those things, do we have recognize
the savings or did we put that savings
into overtime to get caught up in the
weed harvesting?
um through you, Mr. Chair. The that is
correct that there's not I haven't run
the numbers to be able to see uh we did
do overtime. We were still out on the
boats and doing some work early in the
season uh to get things ready to install
the water movers and stuff like that.
So, there is still going to be some
labor costs associated with it. Um and
that's where we'll have to wait till
we're further in the season to see how
that all shakes out.
We're really not be able I know I was
looking for that too. We're not going to
be able to tell till what October like
what our costs once they all come in.
We'll be able to take a look at it
and see what there is. I I'm assuming
there'll be a savings. And just saying
all of that um watching what the what
your uh staff did out on the water. They
did a phenomenal job when they jumped on
it that quick and I could not believe
how fast they were taking those weeds
out and how fast they were moving. and
that piece of equipment, the big one
that went out there. This was the first
time. It really showed like last year we
were kind of breaking it in. It was kind
of new, but this year it was phenomenal
what it did. And to thank all your staff
from working the overtime. We did see
them there, you know, working and it
made a big difference. It caught up so
quickly. And I'm assuming your um
complaint calls must have dropped right
off because when I drove around my boat,
I looked, it was amazing what what a
good job they've done. And they're still
out there working way on. So yeah, thank
them from us. Great job done. Um, and I
jumped in on there because I should have
said that at the beginning, but yeah.
Um, any other questions here.
All in favor? That's what
Okay, we'll move to the front one.
7.3.
Um,
Rebecca. Oh, sorry. I see Laura put her
hand up.
» Uh, through you, Mr. Chair. I'll let uh
the clerk read the motion and I just
have a couple of updates before we get
into some discussion before we get too
far if after the motion is on the floor.
» Okay.
» Uh through the chair, the motion for
this item is as follows. that report LC
1326 regarding draft Lagoon City Parks
and Waterways Commission 2027 budget be
received and that the draft 2027
operating and capital budgets for the
Lagoon City Parks and Waterways
Commission attached to schedules A and B
to report LC 1326 be presented to
council for consideration
» Put on the floor
deputy mayor second by um commissioner
Lang
discussion
got myself organized here now for this.
» So, you Mr. Chair, um a couple of two
items. Um I did want to just give you a
couple of small updates uh that I had
after I had submitted the report. Um
first one is for staff wages and
expenses. Uh I believe it's showing
$250,000.
Um that can come down to $230,000. I was
waiting for some adjustments from our HR
department. Um, and then the other one
is beach security. Uh, and yes, we would
like to increase that from 10,000 up to
15,000.
So those two lines will be different
than what were submitted as
» Sorry, Laura, could you The numbers were
» Yeah. So staff wages would change to
$230,000,
» Right?
» And the line item for beach security
would be 15,000
» And then to have discussions. So, so
starting all this like and the one thing
I've noticed and I'm not sure whether or
not you've noticed it too, mayor, deputy
mayor, that normally when we get this
and when it's showing that it's a zero
increase like this is what they're
recommending here, the zero increase
when we look at that
like on this whole budget is that when
it's all finished in the bottom line
dollars and I'm trying to find that too,
is that recognizing a zero increase in
any capital cost now or anything new
that we add, it's going to increase the
actual um um um possible increase
like where where is all that? Like
normally you can see that here's where
we're at. Here's what it's actually um
here's our budget and if we want to add
something it means the the the actual
increase it goes up on that it and and I
don't see any of that there. I don't see
how I can bring it back and forth.
» So through you, Mr. Chair, this was uh
presented this way based on comments
from last year's presentation that the
operating and the capital be separated.
So that's what I have done this year. Um
in the body of the report, you'll note
that there is a proposed transfer to
reserves of approximately I think it was
300 and um let me just pull it up uh
$350,000.
That's an estimate because that's at
this point we are meeting our expenses
are being met by the revenues and at
this point there's a proposal of
$350,000 to go into the reserve. If
there's a change in the capital projects
or in the operating budget as part of
the discussion, that number will adjust
to bring it to that the the budget is
balanced. um it's difficult for us to
present that when we aren't clear on
what that's going to look like. So when
it goes to council, that's where that
will be presented as a a balanced
budget. At this point, $350,000 is going
to be transferred into the reserve
holding that levy at a 0% increase. So
if the commission so chooses, that
number could go down, that number could
go up. We could still increase the levy.
This is just the recommendation from
staff at this point.
» So that's really my answer right there
that that you're at budget plus 350,000
to go into reserves.
» That's how that's how I have to read
that then. Okay. So when I look at that
now and I guess my other question was I
was just kind of curious. Um do you know
what our reserves are right now?
» Um Miss Fischer is on and maybe she can
question for us.
» Yes. Um through you Cal I've got um so
if you have referred to the 2025 uh
financial statements the balance for
LCVW per the financial statements of
December 31st 2025 was about 892,000.
We budgeted a transfer to reserves in
2026 of 178,400.
So our projected ending balance in
December will be about 1,70,000
and that doesn't account for the
interest on reserve funds yet. We're not
certain what the um percentage might be
by the end of the year, but
approximately $20,000 increase there. Um
given Laura's report, we've currently
got a um transfer to reserves of about
350,000,
which might be reduced uh or increased
based on decisions today. Um but this is
looking at a projected December 2027
balance of 1.4 million.
» Okay, so that's our reserves now. So
um with our our income statement, what
is what is the normal reserves that we
should have? Like just so everybody
knows like um what should what because I
know there was a number that we were
given that we should always try to keep
our reserves at a certain amount. Um do
you know what that number is?
» I don't recall a number being given. My
best recommendation would do be to
maintain a reserve to meet future
capital expenditures or anything that
you might need to pull from their
reserves
um
for future years. So if you have a
future plan um and you're anticipating
additional expenses um a good reserve
would be to keep um to keep sufficient
funds for future costs.
Um, deputy mayor,
» I'm just wondering, would this benefit
us to create a 10-year capital plan like
the township does, like most
municipalities does specifically for the
commission? This would help us plan for
reserves and know exactly what we need
in there, anticipate new purchase of
equipment or things we want to look at
down the road.
» I thought
um we'll I guess with Laura first.
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Um, I do
agree that we should be updating the
10-year capital plan. Um, I'm not sure
if there had been one in the past, but
we would like to look at that. Uh, and
the hope is that we'd bring that to the
September meeting so that we have that
information.
» Exactly. Because I don't want people to
think that 1,100,000 is a fantastic
reserves when, you know, if a piece of
equipment goes, you're you're talking a
half a million dollars like for the
equipment that we have. So, you've got
to constantly be saving for. And that's
something that we didn't have when we
first became parks and waterways and we
needed this and I I just want to make
sure we stay with it and that's why I'm
bringing it up right now. All right.
Okay. So, um I guess sorry did Lord do
you need us to pass a motion to to
create that or are you good with that
direction?
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair. I'm good with
that direction. We'll bring that at the
September meeting. That was part of our
plan anyway. So,
» Perfect. Thank you.
Did you want to just go through page by
page and go through this? Do you? Um I I
can we go through it quickly like now
like go through the pages like
well I was just like doing the prep at
the beginning like I'm not sure if you
looked at I I know um commission Hart I
think the mayor
» Why don't we just do it page by page and
then you're covering it and we can ask
our questions is that's usually the
question.
» Okay. So I'm going to do like and I'm
starting uh I think it's uh page one I
got one to seven the way I did it but um
agenda 7.3
um so the very first page it's a
background and discussion anybody have
anything to talk about there
um
the expan the only thing I had the
expansion of the bubbler system um I I'm
not sure have we not finished the total
expansion and we are looking at the next
expansion or do you have two in line
right Yeah, like you have another
expansion
[clears throat]
» Through you, Mr. Chair. We deferred the
expansion for 2026 to do the compressor
repairs. So, the proposal is to have the
expansion that was originally proposed
for 2026 take place in 2027. Uh I do
believe we were still going to have
further discussions um before that went
for procurement to determine exactly
where the expansion was going to be. Uh
this is just an earmark for that project
to continue.
» And are we going to talk about that
today?
» No, not at this meeting.
» Any other questions on the first page?
Second page.
Um I guess my first question on it when
I'm going down is the concrete pad. Is
that to put the bin on in the new uh
takeoff area that we have down by the
mailboxes?
Um through you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to
actually ask Mr. Lenny to address that
question.
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's
exactly um the proposal for the pad is
to um have a bin area and then a safe
secure area for offloading. um at this
time with the uh the weeds and the
gravel at this time it gets very um
slippery and I guess messy for lack of a
better term. So looking to uh clean that
area up and uh make it safer for the
operators and aesthetically um nicer uh
for the area.
» So the the actual concrete pad's not for
the actual bin. It's just for the area.
» No, it will encompass the it will for
the bin to sit on as well. Yeah,
» It will. Okay. It'll put the bin across
and I guess we'll get that price after.
Um, also, was there an issue with the
flooding there? Is that kind of why
we're doing that? From what I
understand, you guys were underwater
there for a while, right?
» Um, yes. I can't really speak exactly to
the flooding. Um, I have only been here
four weeks, but by the time that I have
spent down there, um, every time I've
been down there, there is, um, standing
water. Um, I wouldn't say it's flooded
out, but it's definitely standing water
um, and mud.
All right. Um,
do you want me to just keep going down?
Like I've got another question. Um,
so this I guess I'm talking about the
study. This is what Laura was talking
about. This is the study that we would
be looking at doing the condition of the
canals regarding depth, aquatic growth,
species, so on and so forth. We have
done studies like that before. or do we
have that information that we can
utilize
like I know there was a massive one done
by the college uh back I don't know
eight years ago seven years ago
» Through you Mr. chair. Yes, we do have
those th that information. Uh what we're
looking to do is make sure that it is up
to date. Uh like with most studies um
and including uh the discussion with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans uh
regarding our operations this year,
having that information that's up to
date um is really important for us to be
able to show uh with evidence and data
uh what we're looking at and what we're
proposing to do. and what the impact is
going to be. Uh so there is information
available to us. it doesn't answer all
of our questions that we're looking at
and that's where this study would be
more of a comprehensive again giving us
targeting um monitoring programs so that
we can benchmark um I know even thinking
about discussions that uh I've had um at
various times about uh depth of the
lagoons and dredging operations and uh
items like that. That's what I I want to
take that all into consideration into
one one study. Um and also this is where
we would also consider
uh what technologies are available for
pumps um for water movers um making sure
that they're in the best locations and
doing um what we need to do. Uh I think
it's also important to really
characterize with very specific
information. for instance, you know, um
what what is the goal of um the the
goals that we're trying to achieve? So,
for instance, with water movers, it's to
manage and uh the duckweed growth. Okay.
Well, what does it take in order for us
to do that? What does that look like? So
that in future years, we have that
identifiable target. We can report back
to the commission and say we're meeting
those targets or we're not meeting those
targets and here's why. um and also
putting in a monitoring program so that
we're clear on
um what what we're actually achieving.
So it's not just anecdotal. It's not
just you know um yourself as the uh
chair walking down the road and giving
anecdotal evidence. We have a way to
measure um and provide that evidence. So
this study would be confirming all of
those pieces. I think the past studies
have given components of that but have
not been that full breadth and it's
important for us to make sure that this
is it stays up to date. So we'd be
looking at targeting an update to this
moving forward probably every 5 years or
so.
» So so this study would be strictly
Lagoon City like the the canals and so
on so forth water quality things like
that or like that's what it's going to
include or
» Yeah through the chair. Yes, that's
correct. it would only be targeting
Lagoon City, these canals and the
lagoons um and looking at all of the
pieces that go into the maintenance of
those canals.
» And how much input would the parks and
waterways have with all this? Like would
we be you would keep us informed at all
times on this or uh I guess so because
we have to pay for it, right?
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yes. And I do
expect to have engagement as part of it.
That's where um we will be needing to
set what those goals are. What are those
performance targets? What are we looking
for um and then there'll be uh
recommendations that come back uh out of
that. So there will be um ongoing
discussions as well as probably some
community engagement as as what I see as
part of this study.
» And when will we expect to see this?
» So um I'm expect so this is an ask for
2027.
uh as soon as budget is approved for
2027, we can start that. I am expecting
that it will take at least three or four
seasons dep because of the data that
we're asking for them to be collecting.
Um and so that would be where it would
likely take the entirety of 2027 to do
the work um and then come back in 2028
with uh recommendations.
» Excellent. Okay.
Um Commissioner Hart.
» Yeah. U thank thanks Laura. I think this
uh study is important. I I just missed
the first part. Who's actually going to
be conducting the study? Uh how is that
going to work out?
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair, we would need
to go through our procurement channels
for that. So, it's not um we haven't
decided any of that yet. We would go out
to market and we would also be looking
at leveraging some of those educational
institutions potentially uh for
partnerships for some of the data
gathering as well. Um, but I do
anticipate that there will be paid
consultants as part of this as well.
» Excellent. Thank you. Anybody else have
anything on this page? Uh, mayor.
» Well, I don't know if it's on this page,
but we were talking about the movers
here. So, if we are looking at do we
need to increase the budget to look at
new movers, quieter movers. Where do you
want to see that? because we did have
that discussion earlier that rather than
just keep throwing money at these ones,
we start researching for something
quieter.
» Um through you, Mr. Chair, I would
suggest that yes, we do increase the
budget specifically for those,
especially if the commission is looking
to potentially purchase
» Um new pumps in 2027 as opposed to
waiting for 2028.
Um my recommendation would be to
increase the study budget by $25,000 or
sorry by $10,000.
Um and potentially add another line item
for water mover pumps
in an amount that the commissions these
appropriate um for the size of these
pumps without looking what technology is
out there on the market. I would say
somewhere between
um 30 to 50,000 per pump would be uh on
par what I would expect to pay.
» And I would expect as part of that would
be loc because I don't know if there was
ever a study done on the location where
they sit. I I think probably 20 30 years
ago they said, "Well, there's duckweed
here, put a pump there, and there's
duckweed there. Put a pump there."
» I asked that question, Kathy [laughter]
Wayman. She said there was
» Well, there was a exactly where it was
supposed to go. I think it came from the
engineers. Okay. I asked her, "Why don't
we just move it here? Do that." She
said, "You can't do that."
» All right. Okay.
» That's what she told me. But I I wonder
your pumps. So, 30,000 to 50,000. These
uh other pumps that don't work so well
were close to 50,000. Were they not
» Through you, Mr. Chair? I'm not sure
what those prices were. Um what the cost
of those previous pumps were. I just
know the market for this type of pump is
isn't around that area for that size.
Yeah.
» Yeah. I would like to see it a bit
higher than that. Yeah. But yeah, it's
cuz I'm almost puzzled. It's 45,000 when
I think about it. I
» I think you're right. I would I would
air on the side of caution say 120 for
the two pumps and then we can always I
mean it's a savings at the end of the
day. It just goes
» Into reserves, right?
» So $120,000
for water mover pump. Okay.
» Yeah.
» Well, I want to sort of stop spending
money on this. I think it's a lost
cause. I think it's time that we cut our
col our and see if anybody's in the
market for some uh hardly used used
pumps, right?
Um does anybody else got anything on
this page two? Because that's where I
was at there. No, we're all done there.
Um I got nothing on page three. Now I'm
right into this um I guess the beginning
of the budget
starting with revenues.
Um,
that's the last one thing. Anybody would
like to start, we'll do this page. You
can start from the top and come down.
Um,
I guess my question is there's something
here. Why why is this lower? Just trying
to figure this number out. Hold on a
second.
Here
it is. Here the actual.
Okay.
Sorry, mayor. If you want to go. I just
have my head down.
» I'm not in the revenues. I'm on the
expenses. I just
» You're jumping ahead on us here.
» Are you want the revenue? You want to
stay there? I'm just on the same page.
Just uh
» Yeah, just Yeah. On the page.
» Yeah. on uh so legal expenses uh you
know 20,000 in 2024 we used 19 uh 20,000
last year of course we went over budget
uh last year we budgeted 20,000 we've
used close to eight so why are we only
budgeting 2,000 for next year for legals
that seems right
» Through you uh Mr. Chair, the legal
budget has been proposed by our new the
township's new in-house legal
department. He's uh reconfiguring how
the legal will be um divvied up between
the different areas. And at this point,
uh the expectation having cleared some
of the past legal matters that $2,000 is
appropriate.
I I guess my concern I don't want to be
the devil's advocate but we know we're
doing the study and part of it and we're
going to have an open house I think in
Lun City later this month and it'll go
off to a consultant who's going to bring
back recommendations. We don't have no
idea what those recommendations are
going to be. We have no idea what
council's going to do with those
recommendations like council we we've
done efficiency studies in the past
where yes we've put some of the things
in place but not others.
We don't know if they're legal though.
» Well, no. But would parks and waterways
think they might want to get a legal
opinion on any changes that are
proposed?
» Well, just so you know, I actually am
proposing that uh through [laughter]
parks and waterways people go speak to
their own lawyer.
» Oh, yeah.
» So, yeah, you are. That'll be later on.
» So, that's why I'm wondering just in
light that there is an efficiency study
being done. Changes may be coming
whether or not
» We've always put 20,000.
I would not want to see it lowered at
this time. Again, I won't be here, but
you may want to have a legal opinion on
suggested changes that council is
deciding to make that that
» I agree with you. Actually, I'd marked
it.
» So, what do you want to bring it up to?
Back to what it was
» Back to the 20, I think.
» Oh, yeah.
» Okay. So, we're going to So, are you is
someone going to track that for us then?
Okay, Rebecca. Perfect. So, we're going
to increase that to 20 then. Um, I guess
I guess my question too was going back
to staff wages and expenses.
The actual in 2026 is 130,000 and now in
2027 it's jumped to 250. That's a fair
jump. I was just c Oh, sorry. I got
Laura's hand up. You're stepping ahead
of you time.
The 2026 actuals are not on this
schedule. That's the 2025 actual. Um,
and so 2026 budget was 20 225,500
and we're going to 230,000. So it's a
small increase. Um, and the the actuals
for 2026 will be on the most recent
report. You'd have to add up all the
wages and and staff, but I did do that
as preparation. And we are on R for the
spend of 225,400.
» Okay. I thought 20256.
» It It says 2027 pro proposed is 250. Is
that what you're talking about?
» Oh, she did. Okay. I didn't miss that.
» She corrected it back to 230 at the
start.
» Okay. Gotcha.
» Okay. Got that. All right. That was
good. That's good. Um the actual levy
That's where I was on.
I just was curious why it bounces
around. We should be almost dead on that
level, right?
Okay. Doesn't matter then. Anything else
on that page for anybody?
No. Okay. Let's go to the next page. If
you see we miss anything, Laura or um
the I guess the treasure or not the
treasury but the other lady there. Um
next [sighs] one.
No, I'm good with that. With that
pontoon boat, that's
um $3,500 for the pontoon. Laura, um
that is there something wrong with it or
or it's just maintenance? 3500
» Uh through Mr. Chair. Yes, that's just
maintenance. Um,
and I just realized that uh number 41,
the harvester, uh, that should be at
15,000
to match the other harvester.
» 41, right?
» Yes. Correct.
» Okay.
Again, you're getting that, Rebecca,
right?
Anything
else on that page?
No. There.
» I'm at account subscription building.
» Before we go on to account,
» You want to go back to
» Well, I just didn't see it. I thought we
continue on, but the one expense I'm not
seeing Laura is drudging. So, are we
done judging now where there's no more
planned or to do in the future?
» Uh, through you, Mr. Chair, that is
correct. At this point, there's no
planned judging. Um, we had completed
the outstanding judging that had been
proposed from 2023, I believe. Um, and
again, I'm hoping that that study that
we'd conduct next year would inform what
future dredging would be required.
» Thank you. So the dredging that um Bob
had done many many well I guess you said
2023 right um are we still using that or
is that now gone to the wayside or is it
is because he spent a lot of time
measuring he we he measured everything
out and that's what we used for the last
number of years
» Uh through you Mr. chair. No, and that's
what my understanding is. So, finally,
uh, the last of that dredging was
completed in 2025.
And so, I believe we had completed all
of the required dredging. That
information would be provided to the um,
whoever the consultant would be for the
study to make sure that it's taken into
consideration going forward as well as
providing us with that plan for future
judging.
Did you have any more questions back
there? No.
» Oh, no. No problem. Any anybody else has
have any here?
Okay. So, I'm out on the last page now.
Oh, no. Second page before I get
um
so does anybody have any question on
accounts description, building
maintenance?
Pretty straightforward there. Um,
» No. Okay, we'll go to capital
» Before we go to capital. So, I'm showing
we've changed the budget by 13,000. Is
that correct? Not counting the water
movers. I assume they go under capital
because I believe you gave us a
correction at the start of 15,000
and then you just added 10 to the one
boat and we added 18 for the legal. So,
is that where we are? We've increased
the budget by 13,000 I think. Does that
change
uh our levy or anything that 13,000 or
is that just going to come out of
transfers
» Through you? I believe that would come
out of the transfer to reserve. That's
where we would balance from. We're still
not in a significant expense that would
impact that we have a uh a balance going
to the reserve for 2027.
» We've changed at 13K that I could tell.
[laughter]
» Yeah, Rebecca's tracking that. Carly,
did you have something you wanted to
say?
through you, Mr. Chair. There was
discussion about $120,000 for water
mover pumps. I didn't in my sheet. I
wasn't sure if that was already there or
if there was a change, just that there
was discussion and I'm uncertain how
that impacted the budget.
» So, that would be a new ask, uh, Ms.
Fischer. And so that would impact the
amount going to the reserve, but we
would still have at this point it's
still a surplus that we would be
transferring into the reserve, just a
smaller amount. Yeah. So right now I'm
calculating a approximately $133,000
reduction to the transfer to reserves.
So the existing 350
less 133 approximate. So then the
existing transfer to reserves is
approximately 217,000.
How how much we take off the 350 130. Is
that what you said?
» I don't I I can try to review the
minutes um after the meeting's done, but
based on what I've heard, it sounds like
$133,000
reduction in the transfer to reserves.
» We just did a $13,000 change here plus
120 for the water movers would be 133.
» And those are all capital, right?
» No, only the water movers. Would they
not, Carly? [clears throat] Would the
water movers not be under capital or
what line were we getting? Yes.
» Uh, I I believe they would be under
capital. Yes. Um, however, that would
still impact the net levy requirement
from LCPW. It would have an impact on
LCPW's reserves.
» Yeah.
» Okay. So, did that come off our the
transfer reserves 13? Did it go into
capital?
» Yeah. Where are we putting water?
Sorry, turn your mic on. I can't hear
the
» Oh, sorry. I thought it was on. I shut
it off. Where did we put the 120 for the
water movers? Is that going to go in
capital now as a new line?
» Correct. Yes, that's what I've proposed.
It'll be a new capital project.
» Right.
» Okay. Okay, so now we're at the capital.
So just just put my head down here. Look
at this one.
So
» Okay. So, um, deputy mayor,
» What all has to be done with the kiosk?
I I understand there's a quite a bit of
upgrades that had to be done to that
Laura or through the chair to Laura. Um
is 165 going to be anywhere near what we
need for that?
» Um through you, Mr. Chair. That was the
proposal that we've put in. Uh we've
earmarked for it. I believe there's some
electrical work and some door work as
well as some structural repairs. Uh and
we do think that that's going to be
adequate. We also suspect that there is
also an underground water line that
needs to be repaired um that's providing
potable water to the kiosk. Um and that
that will be a significant portion of
the 16,000 proposed. Um
we're we're hopeful that that is
adequate for the repairs that are
necessary. Uh we don't have any firm
quotes though on that.
That's why we couldn't get Georgia
College carpentry or something to do
bring some students and do some project
on it.
It's pretty tough to do that though in
public.
Um I I as far as I'm concerned the kiosk
we should just maintain it for now
because we're not really using it. But I
think in the future it'll be used. It's
not something we want to fall down. We
all agree with that.
Um when I the clean flow system here,
this $55,000,
right? That's what we had budgeted um I
guess 2026. You just want to increase it
by another 10,000 and up to 65,000.
» We we can if that's what the commission
» No, it says here 65,000 your proposed
budget. So
» I I I guess what I'm asking is
what what are actual what do we plan on
doing like for $65,000? Like what's left
that we have to do?
I'd have to pull the maps and I don't
have that um with me at this moment. I
increased it to $65,000 just to account
for inflation over the time period from
the original quotes from 2020
» Uh 4 or 2025 budget preparation in for
2026. So that was why I added 10,000 was
just to account for inflation.
» Um Carly, did you want to say something
to that?
No, when I see you appear there,
normally you want to say something
[laughter]
» Through you, Mr. Chair. No, I I just
turned my video back on. I didn't have
any additional comments at this time. Um
I I guess really what we need to do is
um for the 65,000 we probably could do
the extension from the um two pumps that
are on Turtle right now because that was
our next step because um I was trying to
figure out why there was no um uh clean
flow, no bubblers um across from the um
the the sailboats and I think that's
what we've been waiting for. And that
expansion all that includes are pipes
and diffusers. There's no pump houses or
anything we have to get. we can go on
the existing um pumps that are there and
that would give us enough to connect to
there and then connect back up towards
the inn and we would have that and the
only thing that would be left would be
Gondola Lagoon from Popppler down to uh
um the end um to South Island Trail to
the bridge. That would be it. And then
the marina those only spots we have left
to really look at and I think you
probably only need one more house maybe
if we're a little bit of luck or maybe
another house along Gondola. So that's
really what we're looking at right now.
But are we going to talk about that at a
later date then or uh more what we're
going to do next
» Through you, Mr. Chair? Yes. That's the
idea is that we'll put in $65,000 that
will allow for us to do some of the
expansion work and we'll bring forward
what the plan will be um at a later date
for it depicting exactly what we're
proposing for each year.
» And I'm going to go backwards now. Um
what about the treatments that we've
done with the um the the bubbler system,
the clean flow system? You're examining
all of that. Do we have money built in
for that this year
» If we decide to re renew our treatments
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair? Yes. That was
still incorporated as part of the
budget.
» Do you know when you're going to have um
that finished that we know if not we're
going to continue treatments?
» Uh it's still under review at this time.
» It's under review. Okay. So you don't
have it's gone to the government. So,
uh, to the ministry and so on and so
forth.
» We're we're reviewing it internally
first and so and then we'll reach out to
any partners that we need to. So,
» Okay. But again, did I don't know if I
heard do we have money in for the
treatments or
» We didn't adjust the budget to to not
treat for it? So, that should still be
in the budget. Yes.
» Okay. I just wanted to confirm that. Um,
temple insurancees.
Um, do we have a rough idea what the
labor charge is like the town like for
what we're being built for everything
here on this? Is there rough numbers on
that yet or do I see them? Because I
know it started off at around 220 and I
know last year um Gail brought it up by
another 50,000 60,000. So I'm just
curious where that number is at now.
It's our labor charges. Yeah.
» Our staff wages and expenses are
proposed to be 230,000 for 2027.
» It's 230 then.
» Yes.
» Okay. Because I know it was that and I
support Gail said it was be there was
going to be an increase of almost
50,000.
» So 2026's budget. So 2025's budget for
staff wages was 173,000.
2026 we changed it to 225,400
and for 2027 it's 230,000
» 230 okay is that that does that include
that does include the um the harvesting
people does it or does that include the
harvesting
» That's all staff wages
» Everything yes
» Thank you
» Okay I'm actually pretty good with all
this So, I'm not seeing an increase yet
for any I don't see an increase.
» No, I'm I'm just wondering at some point
in time if if there if would help Laura,
should the commission kind of give him
some time to get some capital project
ideas for you for building this 10ear
capital? What is should we have a
meeting specific to that? Right? Because
if we're going to build a 10-year
planet, then we should be looking at do
we want to add a beach cleaner to it at
some point? Start acrewing money so we
can save up for it. I'm not sure. But
what what do the people want to see,
right?
» Well, we roughly did one. I remember
doing it a few years ago. We roughly
did, but there's something out there
because I remember sitting doing it
because we had never had it and we
needed I can remember doing it. So, I I
don't know where it is.
» But even for an updated NoCal, we should
have anything new that's coming about.
» But what you're talking about is things
we already talked about, right? That
same like we've been talking about that
since my first term we looked at.
» I'm just not sure if Laura has something
specific that's actually been put
together. I'm not sure. I'm assuming
she's going to wait for that meeting
that we're going to talk about right
now.
» Go ahead, Laura.
» Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. The
expectation will be that in September,
we'll bring it forward and absolutely at
that point we can have the discussion
with the commission and determine what
other items need to be added in. We'll
put in what we've already understood. Um
and again with us being still uh with a
fairly short history of um what's been
done in the past and what we need to do
uh we may be missing some things. But
that's where that we're hoping um at
that meeting in September then we can
bring that forward and and have those
filled in uh to then again go forward
and with a full 10-year plan for
council's consideration.
» Any other questions on this?
So, Rebecca, have you got all those
numbers that we've talked about because
that's what's going to come up next, I
guess. Right.
» Through the chair. Yes. So, I do have an
amendment prepared for the motion uh
that I we can put on the screen and then
we can go through and if the commission
has any changes uh or if there's
anything that you would like um that you
think I've
written down uh differently than what
you had thought or you had said. So, let
me know. We can make any adjustments to
it. But this is what we currently have
drafted.
That the motion before the commission be
amended to make the following changes to
schedules A and B. Schedule A,
housekeeping adjustments. Staff wages
and expenses decreased to $230,000.
Beach security increased to $15,000.
Schedule B, increase canal/ Lagoon City
Condition and maintenance study by
$10,000 to include analysis of
technology for water mover pumps.
Schedule Accreased legal fees $20,000.
Schedule A number 41 LCBW harvester
increase to $15,000
and schedule B addition of $120,000 for
new capital project for replacement of
water mover pumps.
» What about what we're putting to
reserves? Do we do we need that there?
No.
» Uh through the chair, my understanding
and if general manager PI or Miss
Fischer have anything to add, please
feel free. But my understanding is that
that would be determined based on the
budget. So it's not doesn't have to be a
direction of the commission because it
would be resulting from your overall
direction for the budget.
» But if there's any substantial change,
we'll be fully aware of it then. Okay.
Yeah, we need to know that for sure.
Yeah. All right. Perfect.
Any discussion? So
» Now I guess
who I heard somebody talk.
» Uh yes, sorry through you, Mr. Chair. Um
I apologize, Miss Clerk. Uh was the
adjustment for the legal expenses on
there as well?
the 18,000
» Through the chair. I do have Yes.
increase the legal fees line to $20,000
total. So the $2,000 plus the 18. Yes.
» So I guess my question now and this is
probably to you guys like if there's an
election coming and you can't do your
budget till after the election. Why are
we zipping in because this is not going
to be okay after the election. Correct.
» Well, it's
kind of kind of going to do the same at
the county too. to try and get a
preliminary budget to put it forward for
the new mayor to come in to look at,
right? Because it's it's the mayor that
does the budgets now. So, at least
you've presented it. Here it is. This is
what we'd want. There's something there
for staff to organize the whole thing
and then it's presented to the mayor at
that time. Right.
» So, we have a doover right up till
October then.
» Yeah. Yeah. We could keep amending it.
Yeah.
» Oh, sorry, Laura.
» Uh through you. Yes. I don't know that
finance appreciates us. keep amending it
as we're going. But it is gonna it is a
living document. A budget is our our
forecast and our best plan. Um the idea
that we're working on it now is so that
it is still ready on the normal time
frame that we would have uh in a non
election year so that whenever the new
um mayor is elected uh and we have this
information available and ready to go as
soon as possible. We don't want to delay
the approval of the budget um further
into the year as possible because that
means projects are delayed uh
procurement is delayed and it can limit
what we can purchase operationally. So
we want to have this uh all buttoned up
and ready and again it's a typical
schedule for us to keep in a
non-election year as well.
» So then we if we have any issues with
our budget then we have a last chance to
take a look at it. Um, I believe now
that we're changing our meeting till a
October 6th or 7th or something. All
right. So, I I'm going to probably ask
to take one more look at the budget
then.
» Yeah. We'll see it coming on, right?
Yeah. Okay. All right.
Well, it makes I don't feel so like to
me I gota like normally I like to go
home and think about this because this
has been kind of rushed. I didn't see
this till Tuesday. So I was up late last
night and uh when I hit that report from
the uh the engineers that that was it
for me 11 o'clock my brain was fried. So
anyways if we could if I would suggest
get the updated version even for the
next meeting so that it's just there you
know as information because we do make
some changes here.
» Okay. So with that all in favor
» Uh through the chair. So, I'll just need
a mover and a seconder for that
amendment. If you were okay with those
lists of adjustments, the schedules A
and B, and then we would have a final
vote on the motion as amended. So, if
you're okay with that list, we can put
it on the screen again. I'll just need a
mover and a seconder for this as an
amendment.
» So, I need a mover and a second or do I
not just talk to the mover and a
seconder and see if they're okay with
this?
» Uh, no. Through the chair, we have an
original mover and a seconder for the
original motion, but this is an
amendment to the original motion. So, we
need another mover and a seconder for
the amendment.
» Okay.
So, somebody to put that uh you want to
read it again or no, we already saw it
or
» Okay, we no need to put on the floor. Um
somebody put on the floor for me. Um
deputy mayor, second by the mayor. All
in favor?
» Now, we'll go back to the other one. Um
I've already got a mover and a seconder
» To the chair. That's correct. So, this
would just be a vote to adopt the
original motion as amended.
» Okay. And that's okay for whoever put on
I guess whoever did it. All in favor?
That's pass.
Okay. 8.1 Rebecca
uh through the chair. So this is another
one where we would be looking for
direction from the commission and this
is regarding the October uh 2026 meeting
date. So currently we just have that the
commission provide direction on the
scheduled meeting date for October 2026.
Um we did originally have this scheduled
for October 8th and we are going to be
commentering the council chambers on
that day for the voting period. Uh so
this was just seeking the commission's
direction on how you would like to
proceed with the October meeting. If you
would like to meet uh earlier uh or if
you have another direction, please let
us know and we can make that happen.
» I'll put on the floor. Um deputy mayor
second by uh
» We're county on the six both of us.
Second by Mark. Uh I'm sorry,
Commissioner L.
» It can't be first thing basis. I like
the six actually. You want to make it
look cal.
» Yeah, except both uh the deputy mayor
and I are at county.
» Well, one of you can skip. [laughter]
» Well, I know I can't.
Okay. I think we got to do it before.
Do you have dates for us to look at, um,
Rebecca? Because I know we got to, um,
get this room right.
» Uh, we do have a calendar. uh or if the
commission prefers we could if you give
us direction during this meeting send
out kind of a calendar poll following
the meeting and see if there's a
compatible date for all. If you prefer
to check your calendars now we can do so
as well. We have a calendar for this
room the council chambers. Uh it's
available
uh various dates before October 7th. It
won't be available post October 7th
» The 29th.
Well, I could come. Yeah, if it's a
short meeting, that'll be
» What about the first?
» I can't attend the first time out of the
country.
» That's a happy face. I don't want the
first, but I'm available the second,
» But yeah, we can do the 29th.
» What's What do you like?
» 9th. The 29th. What about you? Actually,
everybody's nodding on the 29th. What
about you're good with that
» Through the chair? Yes, we can make that
work.
» I can sorry
» Through the chair. Yes, we can make
September 29th work.
» Um,
» So they're looking direction. So, our
direction will be to um meet on the
right at 9:30.
No, that's
right after the election. I'm gone.
Okay. Um, we'll let um Rebecca put that
up.
through the chair. So, the motion um
before the commission is that the
October 20 26 commission meeting be
moved to September 29th, 2026 at 9:30
a.m.
» Um the the people that put that on the
floor, you're okay with that? Okay. All
in favor?
That's all. Yeah, we did. Didn't Yeah.
I try to that first. I don't forget from
now on. That's why I always do it first.
Okay. So 8 um two the we've already done
that so we're going to skip to 8.3.
Um 8.3 would be our next one. Rebecca
» Uh through the chair. The motion for 8.3
is that report LC526
regarding operations update for canal
maintenance be received as information.
So on the floor, deputy mayor, second by
the mayor.
Anybody want to start there?
» Yeah, I see that. So, the review is
valid. So, we're good now for 26 right
to 28 operating season. Is it just a is
it an easier application to renew that
now, Laura, moving forward, or would it
be the same process? We start all over
again for another three-year period.
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair, my
understanding is we would we would need
to continue Sorry, it would be similar
to what we did this year. So, we would
start um that discussion with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans uh
ahead of the 2029 season um in order to
get the uh approvals and the review
completed ahead of that.
» Okay.
» And we weren't too late getting that
approval, but probably started earlier
in the year just to put people's minds
at ease that it won't delay that start
again. Okay. Thanks, Laura.
» For sure.
Um I what's the discussion over the
skimming? Like they're not saying yes,
they're not saying no.
» Uh three, Mr. Chair. So they've said
skimming should not occur prior to July
15th window. Um so we are hoping to
discuss with them as we move forward
ahead of the operating season of 2027
uh to see if we would be able to do any
mitigation or any type of skimming
activities prior to that. Uh but as it
stands right now um for 2027 skimming
and harvesting would both initiate at uh
July 15th. Um and not none of the
inwater work would begin prior to that.
» What about turning on the water systems?
They don't have an issue with that at
all. The the all our systems the
» Part of our discussion with them.
» That's part of the discussion. So you
still have all that to discuss that
before.
Um,
so they are open to discussion is what
you're saying because um the the thing
I've noticed this year is a lack of fish
and minnows and we've we've stopped all
these things and I got to tell you like
normally I got minnows swimming across
the front of my place all the time and I
don't see any minnows. I'm as normally
when you're in the lake, they're
nibbling away on your feet. I don't see
them anymore and I'm I'm not sure what's
happened to them. Uh I I see a bunch of
turtles actually, but then I don't see
but I'm just kind of curious. Was there
any discussion about that? Like with the
lack of fish, do they are they noticing
it or
» You Mr. Chair, that's not part of the
discussions with them. They're reviewing
when when we put forward our
application. We're saying this is the
work that we're doing. this is the um
status that we are observing um and then
they review that and determine where we
go forward from it. So they're not
discussing current states or anything
like that. This is the hope also though
that the study that we've proposed and
it's part of the budget for next year is
that they're going to do some of these
species counts and identify what is in
the canals and in the lagoons are likely
to be um so that we can show a positive
or negative impact um of of the
operations or of the conditions that are
outside of our operations just changes
in general because again it's a living
ecosystem. So those are obviously going
to change uh many different factors
influence that. So that's the idea is
that we would be able to provide them
with a lot more evidence-based
information to help potentially guide uh
what we'd be allowed to do or not to do.
Um and to your comment about are they
open for discussions? We we they have
said yes that we can discuss with them
whether it's going to change the outcome
or not. that's where I wouldn't be able
to speak for another agency. So,
» And the people that are discussing it
with them is yourself that's who's
discussing it or do you need assistance
from um say experts in different fields
that would help us?
» So, through you Mr. Chair, we're
starting with ourselves to determine
what they would want to see from us. um
what information would be required, what
potential mitigations could we put in
place and then we would go from there
and we would advise the commission if
external resources are required but at
this point we don't we haven't
identified that be
» Because I guess the argument can go is
the fact that we are not dealing with
anything native in our lagoons
everything we're dealing with is
invasive and there's nothing native in
there at all and that's where I
sometimes think they don't look at what
we're doing as an advantage like just
putting the oxygen in the water. It's
got to be great for the fish, right?
That's you think for the habitat and
everything that went on and that sort of
thing. And when the soldier weave gets
there, the fish won't be swimming in
there till we cut out that stuff and get
it out to allow them to get in there.
So, it's just I and I guess I see all
that then I hear about the uh global
warming. Like, should that not be
changing the fish when they have their
their babies? There's so many things
going on here. I hope that our our
agencies out there are paying attention
to this and they can work with us on
this and maybe we can help them with
what we're doing. So that's my little
speech.
But anyways, but good report, Laura. I
really liked it and I saw your question
and answers there. I read all that.
Yeah.
» Um does anybody else have any questions
for Laura?
Um I guess all in favor.
» Okay. Now this is the unfinished new
business.
Um let's scroll first on that.
» I think Commissioner Hart's on 9.1
with the South Bridge lighting. We
» Oh, sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. I Okay. I'm
sorry. Um Yeah. I'm sorry. My apologies.
Okay. Just so I can
It's on the other sheet. It's the one I
printed didn't have that. Sorry. Sorry
there, Commissioner. Um 9.1.
Um I don't think I have to put this on
the floor, do I? Or should I?
» Uh to the chair. There isn't a motion
associated with it right now. If there
is any action to come out of it, we can
consider that as a motion if needed.
» Okay.
Yeah. Uh chairman uh with regards to the
uh south uh foot bridge lighting u that
that's been an issue for the resident of
16 South Island Trail for some time and
uh as a result they uh that that
resident has submitted a report of
concern on uh July 22nd and uh there has
been some action taken from the township
so far. Uh but in the meantime, uh that
that light is is works is on and off. Uh
there there's been times where it's is
not on at all. There's times where uh
there's been uh some lighting between 2
am and 3:30 a.m. and then other times.
So it it needs to be reviewed and when
it is working it is it is it is bright
and it's to the point where it could
also be considered u a violation on
bylaw in terms of
nuisance. the the light the light has to
be examined and I see uh as a result of
uh uh report of concern followup two
days ago that uh the uh the township is
is looking into review of this light. So
I just want to get on on record chairman
that that we're we're looking at this
and the township has taken some action
to uh get get this uh resolved.
So do you want to put a motion forward
that we request something here?
» Well, this is where I I need direction
by the by this by the commission is the
the report of concern has been res has
been respon the resident had has had a
response from their their inquiry to
report a concern and um the township has
received the request regarding the south
footbridge light which has been
forwarded to the appropriate staff for
review.
That's what's taken place so far. I just
want to be ensured by the commission uh
that that uh this this will be followed
up on and and and and it appears it is
» Also the town's following up on because
there's a lot of um u back like I know
this was the same thing happened a
couple years ago and there was a full
report done on it. there was pricing
done uh all different types of lights
and everything and uh I think you were
here even in the mayor you guys were
both there when we talked about that. So
maybe you should pull that information
out because it could save you a lot of
time, right? Like that report and bring
it all out, take a look and bring it
back maybe to the commission. Take
another look at um I know when um
Commissioner Hart told me about I went
over there, I could never find the
lights on and that's just a couple doors
from I was down there and the lights
were never on. So I I have you ever seen
the lights on, Commissioner? Uh yes,
chairman. I've been there uh when I've
seen the lights on and it it is
definitely a nuisance for the resident
of 16 South Southern uh trail and um I I
think if this gets reviewed, let let's
take a take a look at it. It's action
has to be taken on terms of the
intensity of the light, but it's got to
be consistent.
» I just don't understand why the light's
not going on and off. That that's there
that's a problem that's got to be out.
» Yeah.
» Okay. So, um, it's being looked after.
So, I don't have the motion on the floor
right now. You want to bring it up the
next meeting?
» We'll we'll follow up on this on on the
next meeting. If we can we can end it at
that. Yeah,
» I'd be happy with that. Thank you. Thank
you, chairman.
» The next one you got is nine. I'm going
to leave you right on the hot seat now.
Uh, 9.2. That's your thought.
» So, the other one [snorts] is is
regarding uh beach security. it it's
come to my attention and and others that
that lack of security on certain dates
and um I had the uh the benefit of of of
talking to the uh the manager of of
uh Brian Brainer and uh Brian uh reached
out to me and offered an opportunity for
me to meet with him and uh a
representative of 247 Guard. Uh we did
this last Friday and uh uh I was happy
to uh have an opportunity to meet with
Brian. Brian's already identified the
problem and has already created a
solution and uh I'm satisfied as as a
member of the commission that that
they're moving forward on this. So when
we did meet with the guard uh we were
assured that he would be working as per
the contract and it's and it's also my
understanding that we're not going to be
charged for those days. August 1 weekend
for example where uh they uh July first
weekend they they didn't show up. So
there are a few days that they they
didn't show up and that that's been
that's been corrected. Um and as a
followup uh I I know that he was working
on the Saturday and uh and one family
was approached where was the wristband
and the wristband was in place and they
gave it up and they they allowed the the
rest of the family to participate. So
sec beach security is important. it it's
got to be uh used in proper patrols. And
uh when I met with with with Brian and
the security guard, it was Brian's
clearly uh pointed out the the
responsibilities and expectations that
uh that that uh we expect and and I'm
I'm happy to report that they're they're
being met at this point. There was some
discussion though of of having uh two
security guards and uh I guess that's
for discussion some other time but uh as
long as we uh you know have one security
guard meeting the contractual
obligations and uh I I think as a
commission we're satisfied with that.
Um, the one thing I would tell you,
you'd mentioned to me about the two. Um,
I I thought that we had two and we'd
always went out like for two. So, I
phoned another commissioner who was like
involved in all. He said, "Absolutely.
There's always two." He says, "This
time's only one."
» Well, chairman, if you look back at at
the budget two years ago, it was
$25,000. Now, it was $10,000. So, that's
why I raised it uh uh earlier during
this meeting. And uh that's something
that's open for discussion. Even if we
had just but the one if we had one
security officer back and forth with
each beach and uh uh and and and during
the next contract agreement we we just
don't go for the the the the cheapest uh
u sec security uh company available. So
u but I I I'm really impressed with what
Brian's done so far. obviously
identified the problem, got ahead of it,
and so far it's meeting a contractual
obligation.
» Did you want to say something, Laura? I
saw it pop out. You just turn to your
mind.
» Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I just
wanted to remind the commission that we
are bound by our procurement policy and
we do need to follow that um with all
purchases including beach security. We
can look at um ensuring that there's
it's not just price that is part of the
consideration. Um, and I did want to
remind you that we did increase that to
15,000 for 2027 as part of those
previous discussions.
» Thank you.
» Well, on behalf of what um, Commissioner
Art was saying, the other issue is is
the the gate with all of that. And
» Yes, the so to follow up on on I think
there's been some correction on that as
well. There's that the gate and the gate
we're referring to is what used to be
pier one and it's a gate that goes on on
the on the south beach but leads along
uh the canal path to the pumping
station. And it's my understanding
talking to uh uh my understanding that
uh the gate is is open because people
have to have access to the pumping
station and they're back and forth
throughout the day and and sometimes
it's a little difficult to keep it
locked. Uh I've been down there.
personally seen cars drive in and and
park along the canal and and uh one last
two weeks ago on a Saturday there was an
individual had his car parked and a lawn
chair out and and fishing uh and then
two other vehicles came in and and and
uh decided to park there. This is before
the bylaw officer was able to get down
there and and clear it out which I I'm
grateful for that to happen. My concern
is if that gate is not maintained uh
kept kept locked and and people get in
there, it could obstruct the the access
for the uh fire and rescue people to get
to the boat if there is in need of an
emergency. And and that's that's
important.
But I also been assured and I and I've
witnessed uh bylaw officers doing their
their routine there.
So, so on that gate though, I I myself
notice it seems to be open more times
than it's closed when I go by. Um, but I
have watched the awkward once come. He
was parked the gate mocked all the way
up. He didn't bother unlock it. So, um,
and saying that is that that is
something else I wanted to talk about
too is where our gate is and they've got
the pole that runs to the lagoon. We
never went that extra three feet. We
didn't think people would squeeze around
it. They all do it now. Um, I know the
hotel, they shut it all down. So,
something we have to look at is to shut
that down because that's the new way
because there's nobody at the hotel.
They're all parking in the hotel now.
It's a wall access coming around. Before
it was always safe there because the
hotel didn't allow everybody to park.
But when you take a look, you see all
the parked cars all the way along. And I
give the hotel credit because they throw
all their garbage in the bin. It's all
piled there. I go by the next day, it's
all cleaned up. So they're obviously
paying pay up all that because I we're
not that's not ours, right?
Okay. So I I don't know that's something
I'll probably bring up in the next
meeting. It's not something that has to
be rushed, but I do think we should
cover that.
» Yeah. Thank you. Uh thank you chair. And
one one other comment the last one is
the
we can move on to the other uh new
business goose. Is that
» Yeah. So the goose management. The
reason why I I I wanted that in there is
that I I' I've read and and received uh
message that the uh the the geese uh the
the goose the goose treatment is is all
over the place and it's a mess. And I I
I in my observation, I think the the
gate goose population is is is down. And
uh of course this time of the year is
not as a problem as it was a few months
ago, but I think the wildlife management
under the direction of Michael Van Cass
is doing an amazing job and uh I just
want to put it on that uh I think the
goose management system is working for
uh for what the township is providing
and that's why I have that on there.
Chairman, thank you.
Do you have anything else here? Huh? Or
that's it. Um, I got I got a couple
things here. Um, first thing I want to
talk about is this rafting party that's
happening down on the the beach the
beach there. Do you know anything about
it? Does anybody know this whole rafting
party that's happening in the marina?
No, nobody knows about it. Council,
there's no permits, no nothing,
right? Um, the only thing I'm saying is
I know there's a rafting thing there and
Parks Water was hadn't heard anything
about it and I'm what I'm more concerned
about and I'm not trying to stop this
and I think it's a great idea, but I we
don't know about it. If they're coming
onto our beaches, I I guess there might
be an issue and I'm hearing that there's
going to be a beer tent or something
along the um the area like up near their
gas pumps. I don't know if that's all
true. I don't know. So I I I'm not
getting involved in all this, but I just
want to make sure parks and waterways,
if you guys were aware of what they do.
» Anyways, chairman, I I I'm not
completely sure, but I think they own
that property and uh that's their that's
their discretion and uh I think what
what uh that business does is is is an
enhancement to our community. and uh why
would we want to prevent a an
opportunity for a business to do well in
our community and uh and just
quality of our our Lagoon city. I'm not
trying to shut it down and I respect the
fact that there's that's their property,
but if they're putting a tent there
where the beer is on the rightway, if
the fire department needs to get out of
there, there's a tent in the way of the
rightway and that's the only room that
they have there. And it's not my issue,
but I'm just saying when I hear things
like that from my life living and all
the permits and all the things that have
to go on, these are the problems that
happen. Like I think it's a great idea.
Enjoy it all, right? But I'm just saying
that there are like people think you
could just do this stuff, right? And
there's ramifications like because that
you know the the driveway, right, that
we're talking about where else would the
tent go,
» Right? But it's not I and it's not my
problem. I now that I know that it's not
included on parks and waterways. It's
not my issue at all anymore. That's all
I wanted to make sure was that if the
washrooms are being used or whatever,
we're going to have to deal with all
that. We're gonna have to get them
cleaned earlier whenever. Well, let's
have to make sure the individuals know
that they would have to get a permit for
the tent. Any of those large tents for
functions, you do require a building
permit. So,
» But I'm not trying to stop this. I'm not
being the guy. All I'm trying to say is
that I'm covering off the people the
Lagoon City and what we stand for and
that's what our job is. The rest of that
is not our job. It's not my job to do
that. And so, just so you know, I'm 100%
behind it. Yeah.
» Yeah. I'm not against it all, but I've
just seen it when other people have
tried to set up other tents. I've seen
the um the amount of paperwork and the
amount of permits that you need. There's
so much people don't realize that,
right? You know, and then all hell break
and then when something happens, that's
when all hell breaks, right?
So, I think all the power to them.
They're out in the water. They're going
to have a band on a like it sounds like
a lot of fun. They're gonna have a band
on a raft out there the whole bit. So,
all the power to them. Great for going
on.
» All right.
Um, the other thing I wanted to talk
about was this hiring prog process that
happened over the parks and waterways.
I'm I'm sort of disappointed that we
weren't involved in any of that. Like
because I've always looked at the fact
on the parks and waterways and it's
nothing against you at all, just so you
know, Mark, I think you're a great asset
to this and the whole bit, but it's just
the whole process that went on.
Normally, I know as a counselor, I used
to always talk to the people and I used
to talk to the people on parks and
waterways, too, because what you're
looking for is to mix somebody in with
the people um from park or from the
Lagoon City. And most of the people
sitting sitting here know of the person
the people that put their names in
because they've asked us, they've
touched base with us, they've asked us
what the job is. And so, we kind of
already know who's put their names. We
know who's going there. And I have never
been asked maybe a couple times by you
but never by yourself about what's your
opinion or what you're feeling or
anything like that. And I know when I
became a counselor the first thing I did
I called every single person on parks
and waterways to talk with each
individual and then I met with them just
to understand what was going to happen
when I became a counselor. And I I just
sort of feel like we got left out of
this whole process. I really did. I feel
like we got left out and I think it
wouldn't have hurt to reached out and
spoke to us about it all. Uh, and I
think a lot of us do have experience. I
question, and I'm going to say it in the
nicest way on council, how many people
on council have an experience of what
goes on in parks and waterways and the
experience of hiring somebody, what
you're looking for. And just to finish
it, then I'll let you go. Is the fact
that when somebody says to me, well, he
was an engineer, so he was a great
choice. We have engineers here doing all
this information. If I was that
engineer, I'd be very careful with what
I say because he could get himself in
trouble, right, if we go by what he
said. So I I just wanted to make that I
I I want to make the point that part
it's part part of I don't know where we
stand as parks and waterways and that's
why I'd like to have the access that we
can go to our lawyer like our own lawyer
not your lawyer like and and I say
nicest way again but that is the lawyer
for the town and his job is to protect
the town and any other lawyer that's
involved that's his job. Well, I'd like
to get a lawyer that says, "Okay, parks
and waterways, this is what you have."
And when I hear about this, you know,
um, thing coming up in two weeks from
now, I I would like to get a heads up
with the lawyer where we stand on that
or where this could be going, right? And
who knows where this could go, right,
with what's about to be talked about.
And I I'll stop there because I want to
continue to that, but you can speak
there. Uh, counselor, Commissioner.
» Yeah. Uh, thank you, Chairman. I just
want to top up on on your point. You
made a valid point. I I think it's it's
it's dismissive and uh irresponsible
to not include the chairman in part of
the uh process of of of uh of that
hiring.
But uh I'm I'm grateful that Mark is on
and I think it's uh I had to uh ask Mark
three times to get his resume and I had
had a look at it. is very very
impressive and and Mark is very humble
and Mark is going to be a tremendous
value to to the parks and waterways
commission. So I want to I want to thank
the committee uh the council to to
electing Mark as a as a commissioner but
I I think uh it's it's disrespectful and
dismissive for not to include the
chairman in that process. kind of
leading back to uh your other comment
about independent council for us. I
think it'd be uh it'd be the timing is
right now. I I I' I've witnessed things
where uh
it would it would be in the best
interest of the commission to have an
independent council as as we move
forward and and and I I think that
having this meeting coming up in a
couple weeks is great. having community
engagement is important uh especially
this particular uh October that's coming
up uh but the the it more more just for
a comment and I'll keep it fairly short
uh township Romero is unique in the
sense it has 16 kilometers of canal uh
which I don't know any other township in
Ontario has that so consequently you
know we have uh the lagoon city is is
unique and uh each resident pays like
$900 to $1,000
uh a year to to assist the township in
and uh m main maintaining the the canal
system which is is unique and uh uh I
think we have an obligation to maintain
the the commission and uh I'm looking
forward to this this meeting coming up u
and that's just my my comment uh
chairman [clears throat] thank you
» Well that'll be a good suggestion when
the consultants here and we're when
we're gathering the information that
because we like library board we appoint
the members and we appoint the members
to our community center boards but
sometimes throughout the year you and
you've seen it the board might say hey
we'd like to add this member to our
board and they make the request so maybe
one of the suggestions could be that the
commission recommends to council who
they would like to see added to the
board whenever there's a new member but
that would require a change in how we do
things but it's a good suggestion to put
in like any of these these concerns, now
is the time to bring it to that
consultant that the commissioner would
like more involvement in the appointees
on the board with recommendations.
[snorts]
» Yeah. So certainly go ahead.
» Yeah. I just want to top up on that a
little bit because I I don't want the
misunderstanding to ever feel that it
was a slight or nobody wanted to reach
out because that's the bylaws that we
have to follow, right? At this point in
time, bylaws are very clear that council
choose those members from those
applications. It's also confidential. So
we can't share that unless we change
those procedures. So that's the way this
whole system's been designed. So part of
my reason for the engagement and why
this consultation, I don't mind speaking
about that is because I believe that
levy payers should be the voters who
actually vote in the commission decide
in their community who they want to
represent them. And that's part of what
I'm hoping comes out of this and I hope
people speak up because I think that's
the best way to do it so that you have
the people you want to represent who
want this commission. You'll still have
two members appointed from council, but
you'll you'll be able to choose a
majority that can actually create the
votes. But I I guess part of the problem
that we had with that is that the system
way it worked is they reached out and
spoke to us. Nobody spoke to us. They
first we heard that this whole
interviewing process was happening when
it happened. Where did that decision
come from? Right? Like where how did
that all happened? Like we had nothing
to do with it. Nobody told us anything
about it. And going to this review
that's coming up. I'm 100% I asked for
it. So like we asked for it. I I believe
we all asked for it. But I what I didn't
like about it was when I I don't like
the wording. And when I look at the
wording there, it's like it could turn
into a uh situation over the the
people on parks and waterways. And
that's what kind of bothers me. I'd like
to see I would like to know and I read
in there further. I like to know what
you're we're telling the people to come
because if somebody says I've got no
problems with the parks and waterways,
then they're not coming. But if they
have ideas to make it better or they
have ideas on what we should do, like as
you said about the election, I don't
have an issue with that. I said that
eight years ago. That was one of the
ideas that we looked at. But I don't
have a problem with that. But what I
think we got to do is make sure that
it's not just going to turn into a
complaint session. And that's what it
read. I handed to a couple people when I
received it yesterday and that's what
they said to me. That's what they read
in it too because I wanted to make sure
I wasn't being oversensitive over this.
And that's what I didn't like about it.
So, I'm hoping that there's some sort of
guidance, not at the meeting, but before
the meeting, so people can actually
prepare for it because it's in two
weeks. And to me, I think it's one of
the most important things for parks and
waterways. I really did. I really feel
it was an important thing. But if it's
coming and there's just a complaint
session. Sorry. Um I think I'm stopping
here. What's What's wrong?
» Through the chair, um you're welcome to
finish your thought. I just had a couple
things to add uh if able when when it is
time.
» What? Sorry.
» Uh through the chair, you're welcome to
finish your thought. I just had a few
things to add to clarify the process if
there is an opportunity to do so.
» Okay. Um so that that was the point that
I was trying to make with that. I was
going to lead into that next. I know um
commissioner wanted to speak. Uh but
that that's what we really need to look
at. That that's I guess and that's where
I would actually like to actually talk
to an independent lawyer so that we know
where we stand on some of these things
like to come back out and he may look at
and say no absolutely not. You can you
should be able to do this. you should
have this rights, you should be able to
have this, right? And I think it would
help all the commission. Um, and and not
sometimes I feel like it's you guys and
us guys, right? And that's where
sometimes I don't like that feeling and
I don't think it's right because we
never had that feeling before. We never
we had a good relationship with council.
We had it worked out perfectly the way
that we had the deputy mayor. We had me
as I guess the counselor and it was
phenomenal. And the deputy mayor at that
time, he he did it correctly. He was a
commissioner when he sat here and he was
a counselor when he sat as counsel. And
he went both ways. And it's a hard thing
to wear two hats, you know.
» Well, that's what I'm just saying.
There's got to be like a give and take,
» Huh?
» Yeah.
» Well, it's not like we're going to go
consult them all the time. What I'm
saying is that it's just like there's
some questions that we've had and you
know I don't think your lawyer really
wants to speak to us on that, right?
He's representing you guys.
» And I I do think just in clarification I
think going back it's important for
people to understand the history because
I believe out of the PR11 it gave
council the the ability to create a
commission based on a bylaw which was
done in 2005 to delegate
responsibilities to the commission. So
going back in history, that's how it's
kind of evolved through the time from my
understanding of what it is. Uh but I'll
let uh maybe Rebecca want to jump on
» I
» Um through the chair, I just wanted to
clarify a bit about the legislation and
uh just note a few things for the
commission's knowledge. So the power to
appoint and remove members of the
commission is appointed to council
through bill PR11
and that is included in the the MARA
act. Uh and then the commission
responsibility would be to appoint a
chair of the commission andor designate
a meeting chair. Um council can decide
what that process looks like for
appointment and removal. So that was
what part of what occurred with the most
recent uh appointment is that council
directed to do interviews. So that's
what we proceeded with. Uh but
ultimately the bill is what gives that
authority to council to do so. Uh, I
would just like to also note for the
commission that a legal opinion uh was
secured by the commission in 2025 giving
a summary of the roles and
responsibilities for the Lagoon City
Parks and Waterways Commission and the
Township of Amara. This is available on
our website at www.rra.ca/lcpwc.
So, it's linked for anyone to review and
it does break down what the roles and
responsibilities are for each under the
MARA act and under the uh establishing
bylaw. So, if you haven't seen that, I
certainly encourage taking a look at it
because it is a good breakdown. Um, the
commission is welcome to secure its own
legal uh representative at any point. We
would just have to make sure that there
is a budget approved for it as that is
one of the um requirements of the MARA
Act is that the budget for the
commission needs to be approved by
council. So, if it's not in our current
budget, then requests would need to be
made to council to um approve that
budget. But it is within the
commission's um purview if they would
like to seek independent legal advice to
do so as long as it's within budget.
» So I think it's tied in already. So it's
in the budget. The other thing to um I
did read exactly what you what you read
there about what our job is because you
sent it all to us. But what I guess the
point I was trying to make is the fact
that nobody reached out from council to
us and kept us informed, even asked our
opinions and that the way it always had
been and we did follow the rules like
you know before but it was more of a a
input that came right in. It worked
well. I I I never had an issue with it
like when we did it like and I'm just I
was kind of disappointed with what I saw
right there. And um and I think um
Commissioner uh like it's great. I think
you're gonna do a great job. I think
you're a really good asset. So, it's
nothing against you. It's just that this
all came up over this talking. So, but
anyways, that's what I'd like to do is
like reach out and just talk to this
lawyer because as you know, talking to
like Ryan, he works for you. That's
that's how simple it is. Okay. And I did
not know that, thank you, Rebecca, that
we can get our own independent counsel.
I just wanted to double check that.
» So, basically the actual money that we
put for legal is kind of for us too,
right?
» To the chair. Yes, it's just dependent
on if the budget is available within the
current year. Um, so if there is
availability remaining in that budget
line, uh, the commission can direct how
that budget is to be used. If there
isn't budget remaining, then a request
would need to be made to council for
approval to have that budget allocated.
So if it if you're looking to transfer
money from reserves, for example, that
would need to go to council to have that
approved
» If we had to transfer money.
» Exactly. Yes. which I think we already
did for that massive amount of money
that came right. So I don't remember
asking for permission. Do you
» I believe there is money left in the
legal budget this year too.
» And that was um
process. Okay. So we are going there and
that's all I got. Do you have any
» Does anybody else have any new business
or Okay. So, I don't have to put any
motions forward, Rebecca. And nothing
here.
» Uh through the chair, if there's no
action coming out of those items, then
no, they'll just be listed on the
minutes as that they were discussed. Um
if there are any actions you would like
to see or any direction for future
meetings, please let us know and we will
put that on a future agenda if needed.
Yeah, there's a couple other things I
think. Um, there's no close session. No.
Um, adjournment. Um, going to put it on
the floor that we adjourn at 11:41.
Um,
huh. Put on the floor of the mayor.
Second by the deputy mayor. All in
favor? 11:41.