[0:11] We're live now. Um before we start, I'd
just like to uh welcome uh Mark Langden
[0:17] to the parks and waterways. Um hopefully
uh you have a good three years with us
[0:21] or more. Thank you, Mark.
>> Um we'll start off by uh the opening of
[0:28] the meeting. Um,
Nathan, can you please play the
[0:32] recording?
[0:35] » Today's meeting is being streamed live
on the Township of Rome YouTube channel.
[0:40] Be advised that by attending a public
meeting of the commission, you are
[0:44] consenting to your image, voice, and
comments being recorded and will form a
[0:48] part of the public record. The chair,
CEO or secretary have the discretion and
[0:54] authority at any time to direct the
termination or interruption of live
[0:58] streaming in exceptional circumstances
where the content of the debate is
[1:02] considered inappropriate to be
published. Attendees are advised that
[1:06] they may be subject to legal action if
their actions result in unacceptable
[1:11] behavior or comments.
>> Thank you, Nathan. Um, one other thing I
[1:16] did want to say before we started was,
um, on our last parks and waterways
[1:20] meeting, um, we had people complaining
they couldn't hear what we were saying
[1:24] and that we had to get closer to the
mic. And when I went home, I went back
[1:28] and I watched the recording. I could
hear everything plain like didn't seem
[1:32] to be any issues at all. So, it seemed
more of the problem was in here. So, I
[1:36] think when there's people here, we got
to get closer to the mic. But other than
[1:39] that, I think it was fine back back when
they check it. So anyways, to start off,
[1:43] we'll start the adoption agenda and our
agenda additions. We're trying something
[1:47] new this time.
>> Oh, I did say that. I'm sorry. I could
[1:52] see my Rebecca was going to tell us. Go
ahead.
[1:55] » Yes. Through the chair. Yes. So, we do
have um an amendment to the motion that
[1:59] was on the agenda just to change the
order. Uh so, the amended motion would
[2:04] be that the Lagoon City Parks and
Waterways Commission agenda dated August
[2:07] 13th, 2026 be adopted as amended to move
item 8.2 to water mover study before
[2:13] item seven accounts and budgets to allow
for attendance by an external
[2:16] consultant. Uh so for the commission's
knowledge uh a consultant from TAM
[2:20] engineering is available on Zoom to
speak to this item. [snorts]
[2:25] » Thank you. Uh the mayor has moved it.
Second by the deputy mayor.
[2:32] All in favor? That's pass.
[2:43] So Rebecca, did you want to read that
the recommendation? [snorts]
[2:47] » Yes. So through the chair, the next item
will just be adoption of minutes. So we
[2:50] do have one vote for both sets of
minutes. If you'd like to talk about
[2:53] either of them separately, please let us
know. So it's just that the minutes of
[2:56] the following Lagoon City Parks and
Waterways Commission meetings be adopted
[2:59] as presented. LCPWC meeting minutes
dated July 9th, 2026 and LCPWC close
[3:05] session meeting minutes dated July 9th,
2026.
[3:09] » So I need somebody to put on the floor
each one. So we'll do um 3.1 first.
[3:14] » To the chairs just one vote for both
unless you'd like to talk about them
[3:18] separately. So if you're comfortable
adopting both without any changes, then
[3:21] we would just need one mover and one
second.
[3:24] » Um I guess five to five. Does anybody
have a discussion that before I put on
[3:29] the Okay. Um we'll put on the floor um
mayor second by uh councelor Hart or
[3:36] Commissioner Hart.
Um so any there's no discussion. Um
[3:43] all in favor
[3:47] um four disclose your appearing
interest.
[3:52] I don't see anybody. um open form
regarding agenda items only. Uh we don't
[3:57] have anything that just came. Um
[snorts] presentations and receiving
[4:03] petitions deputations. We don't have
anything. [clears throat]
[4:06] Um we'll move then right to 8.3.
[4:11] Um would you put that up please?
[4:28] uh through the chair. So we do have a
general manager Laura Pi and the
[4:32] consultant from Tate of Engineering on
the screen. We do have a draft motion.
[4:36] However, it is looking for direction
from the commission to be completed. So
[4:39] I'll read what we have, but my
suggestion would be that the commission
[4:42] discuss what you would like to do and
then if you have a preferred direction,
[4:46] we can put that on the floor and take a
vote on it at that time. So currently
[4:49] it's drafted as that report LC1426
regarding water mover noise study update
[4:54] be received and that the commission
provide direction to staff as to the
[4:58] requirement for operation and timing of
the water movers.
[5:02] So put on the floor deputy mayor second
by uh commissioner um
[5:09] um I think we have somebody to speak
from Tatum there. Um
[5:16] » yes my name is Along Guruhi and I'm from
Tatum Engineering. [clears throat]
[5:21] » Okay.
>> Go ahead. Can you just give us an update
[5:26] on the report is pretty lengthy. maybe
tell us a little bit about it.
[5:31] » Of course. Uh I I just add a little
background about the water movers noises
[5:36] study that Tatum completed. We started
the project in 2023 I believe. Uh at
[5:42] that time we um the township was
receiving complaints about the noise and
[5:47] we completed a noises study and uh the
results showed that one of the water
[5:53] movers noise is exceeding the limits and
and and the noise is tonal. Uh so 5 dB
[6:00] was added as like [clears throat]
to account for the tonal noise. Uh after
[6:07] that uh Tatum completed some u
study to offer some modifications to the
[6:14] water movers uh uh structure uh which
includes VFD uh uh variable frequency
[6:21] drives to to be able to control the
speed of the pump. However, the township
[6:28] uh due to co cost uh issues did not
install that and they they made some
[6:34] other modifications.
Uh Tatum Engineering completed another
[6:39] site visit in July 14 this year uh to
confirm uh if the modifications were
[6:46] effective. Uh we did the noise
measurements for both water meters. uh
[6:50] the uh we did noise measurements on the
shoreline and also uh uh we used barge
[6:57] to get closer to the water movers. Uh
once we did the measurements we
[7:04] completed the noise modeling at the
location of the sensitive receptors
[7:08] closest ones to the water movers. Uh the
sensitive receptors are the locations
[7:13] where people usually
use um uh it's um it is outdoor spaces
[7:19] and also the plane of window
representing their bedroom or living
[7:23] room spaces.
>> [snorts]
[7:26] » The measured noise were modeled at those
locations and the modeling results
[7:30] showed that uh both water meters can
meet MPC 300 and MECP noise requirements
[7:37] uh under all like all day conditions
like daytime, nighttime and evening
[7:43] times. Uh
uh yeah. So both are within uh with
[7:50] compliance within compliance uh at all
operating hours.
[7:57] » Okay.
Does anybody have any questions?
[8:05] » Um I I have a I I have a question. Um I
was just wondering when I'm reading that
[8:10] one like and like read it properly. Did
one pump sound a lot less and the other
[8:16] pump was louder? That's what I was
reading and then I was reading somewhere
[8:20] else that it seemed like both pumps were
too loud.
[8:24] » Uh originally I think the both pumps
were loud but uh this uh the south water
[8:31] mover was much louder
uh and tonal. Uh but when we did uh the
[8:37] revised measurement uh both were in the
same range.
[8:42] both in the same range.
>> Yes.
[8:46] » So the the like going over it all like
because um I know I was looking at that
[8:50] report and I'm not an engineer trying to
understand this. The noise really has
[8:54] not
backed off. It's it's still somewhat
[8:58] loud for people.
>> No, it is not. Uh it is within the um uh
[9:05] MECP limit. So, MECQ limit says that
daytime noise uh below 50 dBA noise at
[9:13] daytime and below 45 dBA at night time
is an acceptable level. Uh I think the
[9:19] water movers noise were all uh time
limit and night limit.
[9:29] of
>> I think it's it was around like highest
[9:35] level at was at one of the residents up
the living area was 40 40.9 dBA and it
[9:44] is below the daytime limit of 50 dBA and
nighttime limit of 45 dBA.
[9:51] » Okay. Um let's do the mayor first then
uh council.
[9:55] » Well, when I was looking at part of the
report here, it showed that they
[9:58] actually ran quieter in the evening. Why
is that? Are we reducing the load on
[10:02] them? Are we turning them down? Why? Cuz
at one time, like one of them was
[10:07] running 48 during the day, and I know
the limit's 50, but 48 is not
[10:11] acceptable. I I mean, that's what I read
in here. We'd have to do something. The
[10:15] quietest I've seen them run is is down
around that 40. And still I would
[10:21] consider that quite loud. So is there a
reason why the sound is different at
[10:25] night coming out of the motors? Not I
know the decibels must be lower at night
[10:29] so people can sleep but why is is the
level changing on some of them but not
[10:34] the other one.
>> Uh the sound level um at night is
[10:38] similar to the day but the limit is
lower because the nighttime is the
[10:43] sleeping time. uh and that's why the
MECP put a lower limit for nighttime. So
[10:49] if a water mover or or any other
equipment uh is to operate at night,
[10:54] they they must meet the uh nighttime
noise levels uh which is quieter and
[11:00] more stringent.
[11:04] » Um Commissioner Hart,
>> turn your mic.
[11:12] Chairman, I had the same kind of
questions that if so what what I
[11:16] understand so I'm clear because the
acoustics here is not not the best. Uh
[11:20] but and I but I've read the report but
so what what you're saying is that there
[11:25] are acceptable standards.
We're within the reason of acceptable
[11:30] standards at the present time. Is that
correct?
[11:35] » That's
sorry chairman. My my question was the
[11:40] the acoustics here is a bit difficult
for me but I I I have read the report
[11:46] and just so I'm clear that the the
standards uh that we have now are are
[11:52] are deemed acceptable
both day and night at at 45
[12:00] » this center. Yeah, go ahead.
>> Um Laura, would you like to say
[12:04] something? Yeah. So, yes, it both water
movers are currently um the noise coming
[12:11] from them are below the compliance
limits. However, to the commission's
[12:16] point, um it may still not be acceptable
to the people who are living nearby
[12:22] listening to them 247, which is why
we're also seeking direction on how the
[12:29] commission would like us to operate
these, if at all. Um, I can say that
[12:34] operationally we are seeing quite a bit
of duckweed um within that canal and
[12:39] these water movers are effective at
moving those. Uh, we currently have a
[12:44] timer um that's in the cabinet that
would allow us to have one cycle of on
[12:51] and off, which is what we were operating
on earlier this year. Um, however, we've
[12:56] looked and we can invest in a couple of
different timers um that would allow us
[13:01] to have up to six cycles per day. So, it
could be that we cycle them on for a
[13:07] duration and then have them off for a
duration as well. So, yes, the water
[13:11] movers are under the acceptable limits
for sound. However, the people who live
[13:18] nearby who have complained um may not
appreciate them running 24/7. And that's
[13:24] where we're seeking that direction from
the commission is do you want us to turn
[13:28] these on? And if so, how would you like
us to turn those on? Because
[13:33] understanding that they are meeting
those requirements for both day and
[13:37] nighttime uh usage.
[13:42] » Chairman, thanks for
thank you for the clarification. Um the
[13:48] so the the standards are are per
acceptable but but for for the residents
[13:52] of that particular area those st is
still is still considered to be um high
[13:59] or or nuisance or or or troubling for
them. So even though we do meet the the
[14:03] the standard based on
whatever premise that those standards
[14:08] come from obviously the engineering
standards um if we we can still can we
[14:13] still have some flexibility in terms of
of working with that? I like the idea of
[14:17] having a timer but are there other
options we can consider?
[14:23] Um is that a question too?
>> Yes, that's that's a question.
[14:28] » So
>> Laura, do you want to answer that
[14:30] question? Yeah, [snorts] through you,
Mr. Chair. Um, so again, the the
[14:34] commission may remember that the
original uh proposal from TAM
[14:38] Engineering was to install the variable
frequency drives. Uh, that would have
[14:43] the potential to reduce the speed of the
pump um in general and what it's
[14:48] operating at uh which could again
potentially lower the sound. We just
[14:54] don't know until that uh the VFD is
installed and operating. Um, however,
[15:00] that came with a fairly significant
price tag. I believe it was close to the
[15:04] $10 to $15,000 per mover, which is why
we tried to do this less expensive
[15:11] mitigation measure, which did reduce the
sound below to that acceptable level.
[15:16] So, we were successful in getting it
below the the the acceptable limit. Um,
[15:23] other than that, the other option we
could consider is uh leaving them off
[15:28] for now. Understanding that there's
going to be some uh duckweed um that the
[15:34] the harvesters do are challenged with
trying to pick it up through skimming
[15:38] activities. That isn't something that we
can easily achieve. Um however we as
[15:44] part of the budget consideration for
next year um referencing one of the
[15:49] other reports we'll be discussing in a
little bit there is a proposal for a
[15:52] study which could consider other
technologies but at this time we're
[15:56] limited to uh either the movers being
off or on um and having additional
[16:04] timers or potentially looking at
installation of VFDs which may or may
[16:08] not be um successful. Well,
>> uh, Deputy Mayor,
[16:14] » yeah, I it's just my opinion, but I do
think that we probably need to look at
[16:18] shutting these down and start to monitor
them weekly to see what the duckweed
[16:21] does. Um, and then we can reassess at
that point. But I think we need to give
[16:25] some of these folks a bit of the summer
that are having a hard time sitting out
[16:27] on their deck because I know in that one
condo where that mover is, there's been
[16:30] I've been over there, I visited them.
It's hard to just sit out there. At
[16:34] first, you don't notice it, but after
you sit there for 15, 20 minutes having
[16:37] a conversation, you just hear a constant
buzzing and it does get to you. And I
[16:41] know there's a lady there that did have
an accident that has a brain injury. She
[16:44] isn't even able to sit outside right now
because it just affects her that
[16:46] frequency. I think we should give them a
bit of a reprieve, do that, and then
[16:50] look at the the options for next year.
Laura,
[16:58] » uh through you, Mr. Chair, just to
clarify, the water movers have been off
[17:01] since the last commission meeting. So,
we have not had them on for the last
[17:05] couple of weeks. Um, they've been on or
off for the purposes of uh TAM finishing
[17:12] their um noise assessment and then a
couple of operational moments, so not
[17:16] extended periods. Um, and there has been
uh quite a bit of duckweed growth
[17:22] through there. Um, I will leave it to
the commission to determine if that's
[17:26] acceptable or not.
[17:29] Um, I I I have a question for um the
lady from Tatum. Um,
[17:34] do you know of pumps that are out there
that are quieter than these ones?
[17:39] Because I I remember when the old pumps
were there. The first time I You
[17:43] probably all heard this story, right?
The first time I went, I couldn't figure
[17:47] out if they were on. They were that
quiet. They were totally quiet. You
[17:51] didn't even know they were on. And I'm
and I remember back, this goes back, I
[17:56] don't know, 15, 18 years, when I looked
at the prices, the prices were like
[18:01] almost $100,000 for these pumps. And I'm
pretty sure the ones we just bought were
[18:05] like 4550,000.
So the the price difference tells me the
[18:09] quality. And I'm wondering whether or
not there are quality pumps out there
[18:13] that we should be looking at. Cut our
costs on this because we're wasting so
[18:16] much time and money on this. We all know
it works well. It's been working like
[18:21] that for like 15 years, 12 years. I
don't need a study. I've talked to the
[18:25] people that have lived over there for
years and years and they used to be
[18:28] after me when those pumps didn't fire up
in the spring. They were all over me.
[18:31] They wanted those pumps running because
they saw the duckweed and they saw the
[18:35] issues that were happening there. So, it
does help and we do need them there. We
[18:38] do need the water movement and we should
even be looking to look at other areas
[18:43] to move water around and maybe that's
what that study could do. But I I wonder
[18:47] could we just get some prices on like a
pump and if there's this pump out there
[18:51] because I know I googled and said
quietest pumps in the world and they
[18:54] bring me a whole bunch of pumps and
things. Well, we just go out and take a
[18:58] look and listen to it. And I know I
brought this idea to Laura when I was
[19:02] talking to her about it and her comment
was and I I appreciate what you're
[19:07] saying that it depends on the location
and where it is and so on and so forth
[19:11] vibrations, but I think if the pump's
that quiet, I can't hear it out there.
[19:15] it's going to work a lot better. Uh, I
agree 100% with what the deputy mayor
[19:20] said. I've been over there, too. I
couldn't put up with that noise. I I
[19:23] think it's too loud. I know it's legally
loud, but illegally allowed to be that
[19:28] loud, but it's just constant. And it's
not a nice feeling. It It's not really
[19:32] It's It's just I don't think it works.
And I wouldn't want to run them again,
[19:36] even if they're at 40. I I think they
got to be like under like 20. I think 15
[19:42] even, right? So that's something that I
would really like to look into and we'll
[19:46] I think we're going to be talking about
that later. Correct. Uh Laura, we'll be
[19:50] just Oh, no. We're talking about it now
because we have to make decision now. My
[19:53] apologies. Yeah. So, mayor.
>> Well, my Yeah, now I they're off, but if
[19:59] the duckweed builds up, I certainly
wouldn't be turning them on, leaving
[20:02] them on all day. If you've got the
capability of up to six times, you know,
[20:06] have them How long does it take to
establish the water flow? Like if they
[20:09] ran for two hours and shut off for two
hours, ran for two and then not on at
[20:13] night at all. Like is there a way do you
know roughly how long it takes to
[20:18] establish that water flow?
>> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Um I
[20:23] understand uh from Mr. Lenny who's
joining us today. Um he's our new
[20:29] operations manager that um last week
within five minutes we saw a noticeable
[20:34] change to the duckweed. So, I agree that
we could do it for short durations, um
[20:40] potentially on for even um 30 minutes
and then off for uh an hour and do that
[20:48] during some daytime hours. We can put a
break in there um as well uh and see if
[20:54] that's effective and we can kind of
adjust uh those timings as we see um how
[21:00] effective it is and if uh the commission
would give us direction uh delegation to
[21:05] be able to adjust them minimally to to
make sure that they're still being
[21:09] effective without uh um changing it
drastically.
[21:13] » That would be my suggestion if we have
to turn them back on so they're not
[21:16] running constant. U and just in in that
when um and this I quote back when I
[21:23] became a um a commissioner back many
years ago, one of my biggest complaints
[21:28] was the electrical bill with that and it
had been running for 24 hours. So we
[21:32] started experimenting on using it at
night where the electricity was cheaper
[21:37] and we found it did work. We were
running it in the morning and at night
[21:41] except in the spring. We left them on 24
hours because we really needed it
[21:46] because the p they were power hogs. The
old ones they used up so much power. So,
[21:51] uh, what the mayor is saying, I I agree
we can do that, but maybe pick an hour,
[21:56] say 11:00 or 12:00 during the day where
everybody's up and let them run for a
[22:01] little bit. But the key right now is
that we can pick up the duckweed with
[22:05] our harvesters now. We can get in the
area. The problem with the duckweed is
[22:10] when um we do and I do want to talk
about skimmers and that and that's
[22:14] something we're going to talk about
later I guess at capital but um to pick
[22:18] it up now and the reason I say we pick
it up now is if you go down and you pick
[22:22] up weeds and then you bring the weeds up
as you're bringing it you can draw the
[22:26] duckweed off the top of the water but
when we're just skimming during
[22:30] springtime we have a lot of problem with
the screen it falls right through but if
[22:34] we're taking weeds out we utilize the
weeds to help lift the duckweed Yeah,
[22:38] I've watched um them do it before. It
really works quite well. And and I do
[22:42] understand what you're I know what
you're about to say, Laura.
[22:45] Yeah. But you could say that if you
want, but that's how we we learned how
[22:48] to do it. Yeah.
>> Um definitely.
[22:52] » I think back in 2022, I had asked um
Josh Kavanagh, who was here with us, um
[22:57] to look at brushless motors. At that
point, they didn't they couldn't find
[23:00] any brushless pumps. I'm just don't know
if that's maybe something that's come
[23:04] about. I know I put him in contact with
a company called NCH in Barry on Wellm
[23:08] Road um and they specialize in in
specialty pumps. So maybe that would be
[23:12] somewhere to start when we start looking
at that study. But there there does I
[23:15] agree with Cal. We were actually looking
at rebuilding one of those. Um we had
[23:18] one left in the core. We were going to
rebuild it, but I don't know what ever
[23:22] happened to that.
>> I asked that. I [clears throat]
[23:25] Laura
>> uh uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we
[23:28] still have had one of the pumps.
However, getting parts for it was uh the
[23:34] challenge. So, those pumps were original
with the original water movers in 1999,
[23:39] early 2000. Uh and the the uh repair
parts are not available for those pumps
[23:45] anymore, which is why the decision was
made to replace those. Um and again, we
[23:50] can definitely consider options for
different pumps um going forward. I
[23:55] would say that that would be a request
for 2027 budget.
[24:01] I would like to see that in the budget
for sure that in the study I think we
[24:04] need to this has been gone going since
I've been on in 2022 and long before
[24:07] that I think how you and the mayor
probably remember how far back it's gone
[24:11] but previous people that lived there
have had the same issues so that we need
[24:15] to look at this and get a final
solution.
[24:19] Uh, Commissioner.
>> Yeah, Chairman, if I just may comment,
[24:22] it it it's so just to so I understand it
meets the acceptable standards, but it's
[24:27] not acceptable to the people uh of of of
that area and and
[24:34] we have to uh and the water moves big
plays a big important role in in proper
[24:39] uh canal maintenance as well as as
harvesting. But I think we have to move
[24:44] forward and and and examine what if
there is a cost look at other options.
[24:49] But this is something that we have to
take uh we are taking very seriously and
[24:53] we got to come to a a favorable
conclusion that we can have the water
[24:57] movers and still meet uh acceptable
standard for the people who live in that
[25:01] area.
I I think we all agree with that. Yeah.
[25:06] So I guess what we need to do now is
figure the direction that we're going to
[25:10] ask of staff. And I I would love to
actually look at new pumps. I really
[25:15] would. And see how much they are and
this could solve all our problems in one
[25:19] shot. Like, you know, we might have to
pay a little more for the pumps, but
[25:22] these pumps here, I I just think they're
cheap pumps. Actually, my my feeling
[25:26] with about it right now. Um Deputy
Mayor,
[25:29] » but I do know that's not in the budget
this year. So, that's something we need
[25:32] to add to the budget when we're talking
about the budget. But this year, I don't
[25:35] know. I think we need to let staff kind
of experiment a little bit whether it's
[25:39] every day or every other day and do the
timers and see if we can if that can
[25:43] kind of mitigate some of the complaints
and keep that duckweed down. I think
[25:46] that would be the direction I'd
>> Yeah, I think we've agreed that we can
[25:49] run it for an hour or two at lunch at
noon or something like that, right? And
[25:52] see how it works, right? uh it it does
help us and we do need it on. So we
[25:58] really know we have to get the pumps,
but I think really we should be giving
[26:01] direction also to be looking at new
pumps because we're going to be looking
[26:04] at budget today. We may want to get a
rough idea like what that's going to
[26:08] cost us too because we might want to
move something out that's in there, you
[26:12] know, to put it forward. And I I don't
we'll talk about the budget later now.
[26:18] So I I guess we're we're kind of done
with Tatum. I don't Do you guys have any
[26:24] more questions for Tatum? I guess
because we're gonna have to discuss it
[26:27] now or what are we going to do like um
would would if we're looking at getting
[26:32] an idea of new pumps and and exploring
that. Would you be doing that Laura?
[26:37] » Uh Laura?
>> Yes, we would be able to help with that
[26:40] and also uh the new pumps will have
manufacturer data on their noise levels.
[26:45] we can uh review all those manufacturer
data and model it uh if needed to see if
[26:52] they are meeting uh the requirement
levels for the residents.
[26:58] » Is that how you would do it Laura? Like
would you then go through Tatum or would
[27:02] you look like how would we what would be
our next steps?
[27:05] » I I think because this has been an
ongoing issue and the noise sensitivity
[27:11] is important. Yes, I would um I would
contract a consultant to assist with
[27:16] that procurement uh to determine which
path would be the best option. We could
[27:22] look at that being conducted as part of
the overall study that's proposed for
[27:27] 2027. Uh when we get to the budget
portion of that, um for the purposes of
[27:33] this report though, I need direction on
what you would like us to do with the
[27:39] water movers right now. And so we can
leave the other discussion for budget.
[27:44] Uh but for right now, what do we want to
do with the existing water movers? Uh
[27:48] and when do you want and if we're
running them, how would you like us to
[27:52] run them?
>> So that's discussion. Many people said
[27:56] that you want to run for a couple hours.
>> Yeah, I would say. But what what if we
[27:59] just gave you say three hours a day m is
the maximum we want to see them on Laura
[28:03] and let you decide when when it might be
the most effective to use those three
[28:06] hours with the less less least impact.
Is that enough direction
[28:12] » through you? Yes, that's fine. Um, I
would like also maybe uh a time frame of
[28:18] what would be acceptable hours to run
them in.
[28:22] » How many hours do you think would be
acceptable?
[28:25] » I believe an hour in the morning or an
hour in the afternoon, an hour in the
[28:27] evening. Just take an hour block out of
each each section. That gives people
[28:31] windows of those sections depending on
when they like to go and enjoy the
[28:34] water.
>> Can you do that, Laura? Like an hour in
[28:36] the morning, an hour in the afternoon,
an hour a day.
[28:39] Uh yes, we can. We'll we'll purchase
those uh different timers which will
[28:44] give us flexibility for that. Um it
should be able to be accommodated within
[28:49] our operating budget for this year for
us to get those purchased and installed.
[28:54] Um and then just to clarify, morning
would be anything beyond 8:00 a.m.
[29:02] between 8 and 12 noon. Afternoon would
be 12 to 4 and evening would be 4 to
[29:10] 8:00 p.m. That's where I I need to
understand
[29:13] what your distinction of the times are.
>> So really what they're saying is you're
[29:17] saying an hour. So 9:00 in the morning
till 10:00 uh 2:00 till 3:00 and 7
[29:23] o'clock to 8 o'clock. Is that all right?
And and before going forward, you're
[29:31] saying we're going to have to purchase
timers and labor to do that. Couple
[29:35] thousand dollars. Is that what we're
talking now?
[29:37] » Yeah, less than that. I would suggest
>> less than that. What about weekends?
[29:44] » You would keep it the same.
>> That's what I'm asking at. So,
[29:49] » all right. So, we'll do it seven days a
week then. Is that enough guidance?
[29:56] Yes, that's fine. Um, and I just want to
confirm with uh Madame Clerk that she
[30:02] has that for the motion uh to confirm
>> uh through the chair. I'm just getting
[30:07] that motion drafted. If I could just ask
for clarification. Uh, Commissioner
[30:11] Johnson, you had mentioned a time frame
for the afternoon. So, you had 9 and
[30:15] 10:00 a.m. for the morning, 7 and 8:00
p.m. for the evening. What was the time
[30:19] that you had noted for the afternoon?
>> I think we had initially said 2 to
[30:24] three. There is some discussion on the
floor right now though, Laura, just so
[30:26] you know. I think we're we're
questioning that time at night because
[30:29] people do like to go out and have a
coffee and watch the sunset. So maybe
[30:32] that that 8:00 is a bad one. Maybe we
need to do kind of 5 to 6 or 6 to 7.
[30:37] » 6 to 7 when people are eating dinner
maybe.
[30:39] » Yeah, [laughter] I'm thinking 9 to 10 in
the morning is better as well. They can
[30:43] have the coffee in the morning, but
that's just me. 9 to 10, 2 to three,
[30:47] » and then six to seven. And you do know
what we're doing now is we're making it
[30:51] louder when it goes on because people
are used to the silence. And when that
[30:55] turns on, they're going to hear the
noise. So they're going to hear it three
[30:58] times a day. And I noticed that with a
piece of equipment I had in my plant
[31:02] that as long as we left it running, we
had no complaints was when we turned it
[31:05] on and off at times it was off for a
couple hours complaints came.
[31:08] » I know. So be prepared for
>> one complaint at a time. That's all.
[31:14] » So anyways, so did you get that time up?
Yeah. Rebecca
[31:18] » to the chair. Yes. So, I do have a
motion drafted. If you'd like, we can
[31:21] put it on the screen and I'll read it
and if you have any changes, please let
[31:23] us know. Uh, so what we have drafted
currently is that report LC1 1426
[31:29] regarding water mover noise study update
be received and that the commission
[31:33] direct staff to evaluate variable timing
for the water movers to a maximum of 3
[31:37] hours per day, 1 hour in the morning
between 9 and 10:00 a.m., 1 hour in the
[31:41] afternoon between 2 to 3:00 p.m., and 1
hour in the evening between 6:00 and
[31:45] 7:00 p.m. 7 days a week. and assess the
impact for the remainder of the 2026
[31:49] season and that the purchase of new
water mover pumps be referred to the
[31:52] 2027 budget process for consideration.
[31:57] » Who was the um put it on who put it
>> I'll wear the heat for that one.
[32:02] » Did you put on the floor
>> through the chair? We did have uh the
[32:05] deputy mayor as a mover and commissioner
Langden as the seconder for the
[32:10] original.
>> So you all right with the changes then
[32:12] you guys?
>> Yeah, you're all right with the changes.
[32:15] Okay. So, uh, no more discussion on
that. All in favor?
[32:21] Thank you very much. Thank you very
much. Uh, I could I'm trying to see your
[32:25] name by the lady from Tatum. Thank you
very much.
[32:29] » No worries.
>> We're done. Um, next one we're going to
[32:35] go to 7.1.
Um, account vouchers dated July 31st,
[32:41] 2026.
uh through the chair. The motion for
[32:46] this is that the accounts vouchure date
at July 31st, 2026 be received as
[32:50] information. Let
>> me put on the floor for me, please. I
[32:54] see the mayor's looking at me and I'll
look over here to commissioner and you
[32:59] second it.
Um discussion.
[33:08] Okay, I have stuff on here. I just I got
to find it now.
[33:13] here.
[33:17] Bear with me while I find this. Thanks.
Yeah, I know. I think we're all firing
[33:21] up our computers now.
[33:54] Does anybody got something to say while
I'm looking here? I do have things. I
[33:57] just have to find it. I haven't found it
yet. Um,
[34:03] that's what happens without order, huh?
[34:13] There we go. I finally found my um I
have a couple questions on that. Um the
[34:18] scare tape, we're still using that
like we're selling it to residents.
[34:26] » Uh
>> sorry, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's correct.
[34:29] If if a resident um is requesting it, we
do sell it at the township office. Do
[34:35] you sell a lot of it? Like I I thought
we stop I thought we stopped um
[34:38] supplying it.
>> Uh no, we don't sell uh a lot of it. I
[34:44] think this was the first um that we sold
this year. Um it we may sell one or two
[34:51] uh a year. It is in our fees and charges
bylaw that we do have it available for
[34:55] them.
>> Now I know where the my neighbor got it
[34:57] from because I saw them with it. Um the
insurance is 16. Um the question I had,
[35:04] I guess the $6,614
to find the anchor for the um water
[35:08] moves. Are we going to identify where
because I think we've done this before.
[35:12] Uh can we identify where it is so that
or do you need them to dive down to tie
[35:17] onto it or can we put some sort of boy
on it or something so that we know where
[35:20] it is?
>> Uh through Mr. Chair, we'll we'll look
[35:24] at that for this year. Yes, that was the
challenge was that um with all our
[35:30] poking and proddding in the the lagoon,
we could not find the anchor block to
[35:34] tie the water mover to. So, we were able
to locate one ourselves, but the other
[35:38] one did require the diver. So, we'll try
and um even if we can't put a buoy in
[35:44] because generally it's going to be also
over the winter that we'll need to it's
[35:49] in the springtime, we'll need to be able
to identify it. Um, even if we GPS it,
[35:54] it'll give us a little bit better idea
so that we can uh try and locate it
[35:58] again in future years.
>> So, you don't need them to dive down and
[36:02] hook it all up. You just have to tie it
down with
[36:04] » Yes, it it was that we couldn't locate
the chain to connect it to it.
[36:09] » Um, the other one I had was the uh, and
anybody wants to jump in question what
[36:13] I've asked them is the compressor
repair. What was that compressor repair?
[36:18] Is that what the ones from over on
Paradise? Is that what you were
[36:20] repairing? false ones.
>> Uh it was the compressors in the bubbler
[36:25] shed. I don't recall. I thought it was
two of them that needed to be repaired
[36:30] and they are completed now. Um that had
been brought forward as a report from
[36:34] last year. We did do the expansion of
the bubbler system. Instead, we did the
[36:39] repairs to the compressors.
>> Right. Okay. Because I know the
[36:42] compressors over at Paradise, they're
the they're not the very they're not a
[36:46] good type. They wear out. So, I was
thinking that next time they wear out,
[36:49] we look at updating them or upgrade into
a better system.
[36:53] And my last one was the shed purchase.
What was the shed for?
[36:58] » Uh, the shed is located at our um
offload site and it was a capital
[37:02] project that had been approved for 2026.
>> Okay. Yes. That so that was the shed
[37:08] then at the actual removing removal area
to keep our equipment there. Okay.
[37:12] » Correct. Yes.
>> Okay. Um, the deputy mayor,
[37:16] » uh, I just had a couple questions from
residents. Something I don't see on the
[37:19] vouchers. Who does the cleaning? And is
there anybody who does a cleaning or
[37:22] maintenance, cleans the sand or picks up
garbage or empties garbage? What what
[37:26] line would that fall under? I don't see
it.
[37:29] » So that uh through you, Mr. Chair, that
is the contracted services for Summit
[37:34] Property Group. Um, Summit is the
contractor this year for one both the
[37:39] uh, lawn cutting as well as the garbage
pickup and um, and maintenance of the
[37:44] sites, the beaches.
>> Followup.
[37:48] » You have follow?
>> Yeah, I just had a followup. Uh, do they
[37:50] just do it when they come to cut the
grass, they just do a quick clean and
[37:53] empty the garbages once a week or do
they come back more often than once a
[37:56] week?
>> Uh, through you, Mr. Chair. I'd have to
[38:00] look back at the requirements of the
contract. Um, I do know that they're uh
[38:06] we've been working well with them and
they'll be following whatever we've
[38:10] requested them to be doing. Um, off the
top of my head, I don't recall what
[38:14] those requirements are.
>> Okay. Thank you. I don't I don't know.
[38:17] It may be something we need to ask the
public if they feel there's needs to be
[38:19] more cleaning. There may be something we
want to add to the next contract. That's
[38:23] » Thank you.
>> Well, to follow up on that, um, we had
[38:26] looked at getting a sinker to go in
there. We actually got went over to
[38:29] Barry and took a look at some of that
equipment and it's really expensive. We
[38:33] were hopefully trying to say tie into
council because with their public
[38:37] beaches and utilize something like that,
but that didn't seem to go anywhere. But
[38:40] it really works well. You go to most of
these beaches like Barry, desert, all of
[38:44] them, they have this piece of equipment,
they move it around and it cleans up
[38:48] everything. It just filters. It really
does a great job. Um, the one thing down
[38:53] there on that beach too is when they do
that plowing, what we have to do is make
[38:57] sure that they go from end to end
because we've probably lost over what 50
[39:01] 100 feet of our beaches because they
haven't pulled it out. I think they use
[39:05] like a plow or something that they pull
back and forth and they just really all
[39:09] they're doing is just moving the dirt
and turning it over. But what was
[39:13] happening was the sides were all coming
in. And you go take a look at the
[39:17] especially the North Beach. The North
Beach has lost maybe half of its beach.
[39:20] It's all gone and you can't go
afterwards as Laura has told me. We
[39:24] can't go in there.
>> Yeah. Um uh Commissioner
[39:30] Chairman Beach Security
[39:36] have
uh
[39:41] for
the beach the the beach security piece.
[39:48] I have uh
[39:54] for for uh the for 2025 it's 25 and then
for 2026 is 10. It's been reduced. Is
[40:02] there any consideration to having it
increased?
[40:08] » Uh sorry.
>> Yes. Yes. Thank you.
[40:11] » Uh through you Mr. Chair. That'll be
discussion at budget. So not at this
[40:15] report.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[40:19] Um, any other questions?
All in favor?
[40:25] Pass. And next one is uh 7.2
[40:32] uh through the chair. This motion is
that the budget to actuals report dated
[40:36] July 31st, 2026 be received as
information
[40:41] on the floor. Mayor, second by
Commissioner um Hart. Um, any
[40:47] discussion? Seems as we're all there on
point. Uh, mayor,
[40:51] » I'm just looking at uh I guess second
last page here. The harvester repair was
[40:56] 12,000. So that was over budget, but
every year we've always budgeted 15. Was
[41:00] that a typo when we only budgeted 5,000
this year or was it just 5,000 budgeted?
[41:12] » Um, Laura is there. Laura
>> uh through sorry which line was that Mr.
[41:18] » So we're on the well basically the last
page it like the totals are on and it's
[41:24] so it's under just above capital
vehicles and it's number 41 harvester
[41:31] 15,000 budgeted two years ago 12,000
spent last year we only budgeted five or
[41:35] is that a typo because it's always been
15 and we're budgeting 15 for next year.
[41:41] Yeah, through you. We were expecting
because um we had done the significant
[41:46] repairs that we weren't expecting to
have to do uh that much work on it this
[41:51] year. Um and so yes, that was a correct
uh we were
[41:55] » we had only budgeted 5,000 this year
recognizing the age and and the work
[42:00] that does need to be done and the
expectations of that vehicle. That's
[42:03] where for 2027 we've put it back in at
15.
[42:07] » Okay. But and if I may continue, three
lines below that, how do we make a
[42:11] profit on the harvester trailer? We
budgeted 300 and we've got in brackets
[42:18] 1,200. How do we did we get money back?
Was it moved to a different account?
[42:22] What happened there?
>> Uh through you there was um a correction
[42:27] that needed to be made. So it's I'm not
clear on why it's showing the negative.
[42:32] It should have been a zero. Uh there was
a charge that went to that line item and
[42:36] then was removed. Okay, I'll I'll
confirm with finance. It should be at
[42:40] $0.
>> Okay, that's fine. I just Yeah, we made
[42:44] a profit on a repair. I couldn't figure
it out.
[42:52] » Mayor.
>> Yeah. Um down on the last page as well
[42:56] under capital, there's capital weed
control. I just wanted to show find out
[43:00] like I I think people asked because
we're not spraying anymore there that's
[43:04] not in the budget, right? We've removed
that from the budget. They're not paying
[43:06] for it and not getting it. I just want
to clarify those things.
[43:10] » True, Mr. Chair. Yes, this capital
project, the name of it is a little bit
[43:15] misleading. Um it's actually uh a
consortium of a bunch of various little
[43:22] uh items including the um north uh beach
drainage uh work, the shed purchase. Um
[43:32] there's a couple of other projects in
there. So, uh, the name is just a little
[43:36] bit misleading, but it was all capital
works that was approved by the
[43:39] commission for 2027. And the spraying,
uh, was in a different in the operating
[43:45] budget, uh, line items, and that's not
part of the ongoing budget request.
[43:52] » And just one more comment on that, I
guess, is because we didn't do a lot of
[43:55] the skimming at the beginning of the
year, those things, do we have recognize
[43:58] the savings or did we put that savings
into overtime to get caught up in the
[44:01] weed harvesting?
um through you, Mr. Chair. The that is
[44:07] correct that there's not I haven't run
the numbers to be able to see uh we did
[44:12] do overtime. We were still out on the
boats and doing some work early in the
[44:17] season uh to get things ready to install
the water movers and stuff like that.
[44:21] So, there is still going to be some
labor costs associated with it. Um and
[44:26] that's where we'll have to wait till
we're further in the season to see how
[44:30] that all shakes out.
We're really not be able I know I was
[44:34] looking for that too. We're not going to
be able to tell till what October like
[44:38] what our costs once they all come in.
We'll be able to take a look at it
[44:42] and see what there is. I I'm assuming
there'll be a savings. And just saying
[44:46] all of that um watching what the what
your uh staff did out on the water. They
[44:51] did a phenomenal job when they jumped on
it that quick and I could not believe
[44:55] how fast they were taking those weeds
out and how fast they were moving. and
[44:59] that piece of equipment, the big one
that went out there. This was the first
[45:03] time. It really showed like last year we
were kind of breaking it in. It was kind
[45:07] of new, but this year it was phenomenal
what it did. And to thank all your staff
[45:11] from working the overtime. We did see
them there, you know, working and it
[45:15] made a big difference. It caught up so
quickly. And I'm assuming your um
[45:19] complaint calls must have dropped right
off because when I drove around my boat,
[45:23] I looked, it was amazing what what a
good job they've done. And they're still
[45:26] out there working way on. So yeah, thank
them from us. Great job done. Um, and I
[45:32] jumped in on there because I should have
said that at the beginning, but yeah.
[45:36] Um, any other questions here.
All in favor? That's what
[45:43] Okay, we'll move to the front one.
7.3.
[45:48] Um,
Rebecca. Oh, sorry. I see Laura put her
[45:53] hand up.
>> Uh, through you, Mr. Chair. I'll let uh
[45:56] the clerk read the motion and I just
have a couple of updates before we get
[46:00] into some discussion before we get too
far if after the motion is on the floor.
[46:05] » Okay.
>> Uh through the chair, the motion for
[46:10] this item is as follows. that report LC
1326 regarding draft Lagoon City Parks
[46:16] and Waterways Commission 2027 budget be
received and that the draft 2027
[46:20] operating and capital budgets for the
Lagoon City Parks and Waterways
[46:23] Commission attached to schedules A and B
to report LC 1326 be presented to
[46:28] council for consideration
>> put on the floor
[46:34] deputy mayor second by um commissioner
Lang
[46:39] discussion
got myself organized here now for this.
[46:45] » So, you Mr. Chair, um a couple of two
items. Um I did want to just give you a
[46:51] couple of small updates uh that I had
after I had submitted the report. Um
[46:57] first one is for staff wages and
expenses. Uh I believe it's showing
[47:02] $250,000.
Um that can come down to $230,000. I was
[47:07] waiting for some adjustments from our HR
department. Um, and then the other one
[47:12] is beach security. Uh, and yes, we would
like to increase that from 10,000 up to
[47:17] 15,000.
[47:24] So those two lines will be different
than what were submitted as
[47:28] » Sorry, Laura, could you The numbers were
>> Yeah. So staff wages would change to
[47:35] $230,000,
[47:41] » right?
>> And the line item for beach security
[47:44] would be 15,000
[47:52] » and then to have discussions. So, so
starting all this like and the one thing
[47:56] I've noticed and I'm not sure whether or
not you've noticed it too, mayor, deputy
[48:00] mayor, that normally when we get this
and when it's showing that it's a zero
[48:06] increase like this is what they're
recommending here, the zero increase
[48:09] when we look at that
like on this whole budget is that when
[48:15] it's all finished in the bottom line
dollars and I'm trying to find that too,
[48:18] is that recognizing a zero increase in
any capital cost now or anything new
[48:25] that we add, it's going to increase the
actual um um um possible increase
[48:32] like where where is all that? Like
normally you can see that here's where
[48:37] we're at. Here's what it's actually um
here's our budget and if we want to add
[48:41] something it means the the the actual
increase it goes up on that it and and I
[48:47] don't see any of that there. I don't see
how I can bring it back and forth.
[48:51] » So through you, Mr. Chair, this was uh
presented this way based on comments
[48:56] from last year's presentation that the
operating and the capital be separated.
[49:00] So that's what I have done this year. Um
in the body of the report, you'll note
[49:05] that there is a proposed transfer to
reserves of approximately I think it was
[49:10] 300 and um let me just pull it up uh
$350,000.
[49:17] That's an estimate because that's at
this point we are meeting our expenses
[49:22] are being met by the revenues and at
this point there's a proposal of
[49:27] $350,000 to go into the reserve. If
there's a change in the capital projects
[49:33] or in the operating budget as part of
the discussion, that number will adjust
[49:38] to bring it to that the the budget is
balanced. um it's difficult for us to
[49:43] present that when we aren't clear on
what that's going to look like. So when
[49:47] it goes to council, that's where that
will be presented as a a balanced
[49:52] budget. At this point, $350,000 is going
to be transferred into the reserve
[49:58] holding that levy at a 0% increase. So
if the commission so chooses, that
[50:07] number could go down, that number could
go up. We could still increase the levy.
[50:11] This is just the recommendation from
staff at this point.
[50:15] » So that's really my answer right there
that that you're at budget plus 350,000
[50:20] to go into reserves.
>> That's how that's how I have to read
[50:23] that then. Okay. So when I look at that
now and I guess my other question was I
[50:28] was just kind of curious. Um do you know
what our reserves are right now?
[50:35] » Um Miss Fischer is on and maybe she can
question for us.
[50:40] » Yes. Um through you Cal I've got um so
if you have referred to the 2025 uh
[50:47] financial statements the balance for
LCVW per the financial statements of
[50:50] December 31st 2025 was about 892,000.
We budgeted a transfer to reserves in
[50:58] 2026 of 178,400.
So our projected ending balance in
[51:04] December will be about 1,70,000
and that doesn't account for the
[51:08] interest on reserve funds yet. We're not
certain what the um percentage might be
[51:12] by the end of the year, but
approximately $20,000 increase there. Um
[51:16] given Laura's report, we've currently
got a um transfer to reserves of about
[51:21] 350,000,
which might be reduced uh or increased
[51:26] based on decisions today. Um but this is
looking at a projected December 2027
[51:31] balance of 1.4 million.
[51:37] » Okay, so that's our reserves now. So
um with our our income statement, what
[51:44] is what is the normal reserves that we
should have? Like just so everybody
[51:49] knows like um what should what because I
know there was a number that we were
[51:54] given that we should always try to keep
our reserves at a certain amount. Um do
[51:58] you know what that number is?
>> I don't recall a number being given. My
[52:02] best recommendation would do be to
maintain a reserve to meet future
[52:06] capital expenditures or anything that
you might need to pull from their
[52:09] reserves
um
[52:12] for future years. So if you have a
future plan um and you're anticipating
[52:17] additional expenses um a good reserve
would be to keep um to keep sufficient
[52:24] funds for future costs.
Um, deputy mayor,
[52:29] » I'm just wondering, would this benefit
us to create a 10-year capital plan like
[52:33] the township does, like most
municipalities does specifically for the
[52:36] commission? This would help us plan for
reserves and know exactly what we need
[52:40] in there, anticipate new purchase of
equipment or things we want to look at
[52:43] down the road.
>> I thought
[52:47] um we'll I guess with Laura first.
>> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Um, I do
[52:54] agree that we should be updating the
10-year capital plan. Um, I'm not sure
[52:58] if there had been one in the past, but
we would like to look at that. Uh, and
[53:02] the hope is that we'd bring that to the
September meeting so that we have that
[53:06] information.
>> Exactly. Because I don't want people to
[53:08] think that 1,100,000 is a fantastic
reserves when, you know, if a piece of
[53:13] equipment goes, you're you're talking a
half a million dollars like for the
[53:16] equipment that we have. So, you've got
to constantly be saving for. And that's
[53:20] something that we didn't have when we
first became parks and waterways and we
[53:23] needed this and I I just want to make
sure we stay with it and that's why I'm
[53:27] bringing it up right now. All right.
Okay. So, um I guess sorry did Lord do
[53:33] you need us to pass a motion to to
create that or are you good with that
[53:36] direction?
>> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. I'm good with
[53:41] that direction. We'll bring that at the
September meeting. That was part of our
[53:44] plan anyway. So,
>> perfect. Thank you.
[53:48] Did you want to just go through page by
page and go through this? Do you? Um I I
[53:52] can we go through it quickly like now
like go through the pages like
[53:57] well I was just like doing the prep at
the beginning like I'm not sure if you
[54:01] looked at I I know um commission Hart I
think the mayor
[54:04] » Why don't we just do it page by page and
then you're covering it and we can ask
[54:07] our questions is that's usually the
question.
[54:09] » Okay. So I'm going to do like and I'm
starting uh I think it's uh page one I
[54:13] got one to seven the way I did it but um
agenda 7.3
[54:17] um so the very first page it's a
background and discussion anybody have
[54:21] anything to talk about there
um
[54:27] the expan the only thing I had the
expansion of the bubbler system um I I'm
[54:32] not sure have we not finished the total
expansion and we are looking at the next
[54:36] expansion or do you have two in line
right Yeah, like you have another
[54:40] expansion
[clears throat]
[54:42] » through you, Mr. Chair. We deferred the
expansion for 2026 to do the compressor
[54:46] repairs. So, the proposal is to have the
expansion that was originally proposed
[54:53] for 2026 take place in 2027. Uh I do
believe we were still going to have
[54:59] further discussions um before that went
for procurement to determine exactly
[55:04] where the expansion was going to be. Uh
this is just an earmark for that project
[55:09] to continue.
>> And are we going to talk about that
[55:12] today?
>> No, not at this meeting.
[55:19] » Any other questions on the first page?
Second page.
[55:27] Um I guess my first question on it when
I'm going down is the concrete pad. Is
[55:32] that to put the bin on in the new uh
takeoff area that we have down by the
[55:35] mailboxes?
[55:39] Um through you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to
actually ask Mr. Lenny to address that
[55:43] question.
[55:47] » Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's
exactly um the proposal for the pad is
[55:51] to um have a bin area and then a safe
secure area for offloading. um at this
[55:58] time with the uh the weeds and the
gravel at this time it gets very um
[56:04] slippery and I guess messy for lack of a
better term. So looking to uh clean that
[56:10] area up and uh make it safer for the
operators and aesthetically um nicer uh
[56:15] for the area.
>> So the the actual concrete pad's not for
[56:19] the actual bin. It's just for the area.
>> No, it will encompass the it will for
[56:23] the bin to sit on as well. Yeah,
>> it will. Okay. It'll put the bin across
[56:26] and I guess we'll get that price after.
Um, also, was there an issue with the
[56:31] flooding there? Is that kind of why
we're doing that? From what I
[56:34] understand, you guys were underwater
there for a while, right?
[56:37] » Um, yes. I can't really speak exactly to
the flooding. Um, I have only been here
[56:41] four weeks, but by the time that I have
spent down there, um, every time I've
[56:45] been down there, there is, um, standing
water. Um, I wouldn't say it's flooded
[56:50] out, but it's definitely standing water
um, and mud.
[56:55] All right. Um,
do you want me to just keep going down?
[57:00] Like I've got another question. Um,
[57:10] so this I guess I'm talking about the
study. This is what Laura was talking
[57:14] about. This is the study that we would
be looking at doing the condition of the
[57:18] canals regarding depth, aquatic growth,
species, so on and so forth. We have
[57:22] done studies like that before. or do we
have that information that we can
[57:26] utilize
like I know there was a massive one done
[57:29] by the college uh back I don't know
eight years ago seven years ago
[57:35] » through you Mr. chair. Yes, we do have
those th that information. Uh what we're
[57:40] looking to do is make sure that it is up
to date. Uh like with most studies um
[57:46] and including uh the discussion with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans uh
[57:51] regarding our operations this year,
having that information that's up to
[57:55] date um is really important for us to be
able to show uh with evidence and data
[58:03] uh what we're looking at and what we're
proposing to do. and what the impact is
[58:07] going to be. Uh so there is information
available to us. it doesn't answer all
[58:11] of our questions that we're looking at
and that's where this study would be
[58:15] more of a comprehensive again giving us
targeting um monitoring programs so that
[58:23] we can benchmark um I know even thinking
about discussions that uh I've had um at
[58:31] various times about uh depth of the
lagoons and dredging operations and uh
[58:36] items like that. That's what I I want to
take that all into consideration into
[58:41] one one study. Um and also this is where
we would also consider
[58:48] uh what technologies are available for
pumps um for water movers um making sure
[58:55] that they're in the best locations and
doing um what we need to do. Uh I think
[59:00] it's also important to really
characterize with very specific
[59:05] information. for instance, you know, um
what what is the goal of um the the
[59:12] goals that we're trying to achieve? So,
for instance, with water movers, it's to
[59:16] manage and uh the duckweed growth. Okay.
Well, what does it take in order for us
[59:21] to do that? What does that look like? So
that in future years, we have that
[59:27] identifiable target. We can report back
to the commission and say we're meeting
[59:31] those targets or we're not meeting those
targets and here's why. um and also
[59:36] putting in a monitoring program so that
we're clear on
[59:40] um what what we're actually achieving.
So it's not just anecdotal. It's not
[59:46] just you know um yourself as the uh
chair walking down the road and giving
[59:52] anecdotal evidence. We have a way to
measure um and provide that evidence. So
[59:57] this study would be confirming all of
those pieces. I think the past studies
[1:00:01] have given components of that but have
not been that full breadth and it's
[1:00:05] important for us to make sure that this
is it stays up to date. So we'd be
[1:00:09] looking at targeting an update to this
moving forward probably every 5 years or
[1:00:14] so.
>> So so this study would be strictly
[1:00:17] Lagoon City like the the canals and so
on so forth water quality things like
[1:00:23] that or like that's what it's going to
include or
[1:00:27] » yeah through the chair. Yes, that's
correct. it would only be targeting
[1:00:30] Lagoon City, these canals and the
lagoons um and looking at all of the
[1:00:35] pieces that go into the maintenance of
those canals.
[1:00:38] » And how much input would the parks and
waterways have with all this? Like would
[1:00:42] we be you would keep us informed at all
times on this or uh I guess so because
[1:00:47] we have to pay for it, right?
>> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yes. And I do
[1:00:52] expect to have engagement as part of it.
That's where um we will be needing to
[1:00:57] set what those goals are. What are those
performance targets? What are we looking
[1:01:01] for um and then there'll be uh
recommendations that come back uh out of
[1:01:06] that. So there will be um ongoing
discussions as well as probably some
[1:01:12] community engagement as as what I see as
part of this study.
[1:01:16] » And when will we expect to see this?
>> So um I'm expect so this is an ask for
[1:01:22] 2027.
uh as soon as budget is approved for
[1:01:26] 2027, we can start that. I am expecting
that it will take at least three or four
[1:01:31] seasons dep because of the data that
we're asking for them to be collecting.
[1:01:36] Um and so that would be where it would
likely take the entirety of 2027 to do
[1:01:42] the work um and then come back in 2028
with uh recommendations.
[1:01:47] » Excellent. Okay.
Um Commissioner Hart.
[1:01:51] » Yeah. U thank thanks Laura. I think this
uh study is important. I I just missed
[1:01:55] the first part. Who's actually going to
be conducting the study? Uh how is that
[1:02:00] going to work out?
>> Uh through you, Mr. Chair, we would need
[1:02:03] to go through our procurement channels
for that. So, it's not um we haven't
[1:02:08] decided any of that yet. We would go out
to market and we would also be looking
[1:02:13] at leveraging some of those educational
institutions potentially uh for
[1:02:18] partnerships for some of the data
gathering as well. Um, but I do
[1:02:22] anticipate that there will be paid
consultants as part of this as well.
[1:02:26] » Excellent. Thank you. Anybody else have
anything on this page? Uh, mayor.
[1:02:30] » Well, I don't know if it's on this page,
but we were talking about the movers
[1:02:32] here. So, if we are looking at do we
need to increase the budget to look at
[1:02:37] new movers, quieter movers. Where do you
want to see that? because we did have
[1:02:41] that discussion earlier that rather than
just keep throwing money at these ones,
[1:02:45] we start researching for something
quieter.
[1:02:49] » Um through you, Mr. Chair, I would
suggest that yes, we do increase the
[1:02:54] budget specifically for those,
especially if the commission is looking
[1:02:59] to potentially purchase
>> um new pumps in 2027 as opposed to
[1:03:05] waiting for 2028.
Um my recommendation would be to
[1:03:10] increase the study budget by $25,000 or
sorry by $10,000.
[1:03:15] Um and potentially add another line item
for water mover pumps
[1:03:21] in an amount that the commissions these
appropriate um for the size of these
[1:03:28] pumps without looking what technology is
out there on the market. I would say
[1:03:34] somewhere between
um 30 to 50,000 per pump would be uh on
[1:03:41] par what I would expect to pay.
>> And I would expect as part of that would
[1:03:45] be loc because I don't know if there was
ever a study done on the location where
[1:03:48] they sit. I I think probably 20 30 years
ago they said, "Well, there's duckweed
[1:03:53] here, put a pump there, and there's
duckweed there. Put a pump there."
[1:03:56] » I asked that question, Kathy [laughter]
Wayman. She said there was
[1:03:58] » Well, there was a exactly where it was
supposed to go. I think it came from the
[1:04:01] engineers. Okay. I asked her, "Why don't
we just move it here? Do that." She
[1:04:04] said, "You can't do that."
>> All right. Okay.
[1:04:06] » That's what she told me. But I I wonder
your pumps. So, 30,000 to 50,000. These
[1:04:10] uh other pumps that don't work so well
were close to 50,000. Were they not
[1:04:15] » through you, Mr. Chair? I'm not sure
what those prices were. Um what the cost
[1:04:21] of those previous pumps were. I just
know the market for this type of pump is
[1:04:25] isn't around that area for that size.
Yeah.
[1:04:28] » Yeah. I would like to see it a bit
higher than that. Yeah. But yeah, it's
[1:04:31] cuz I'm almost puzzled. It's 45,000 when
I think about it. I
[1:04:34] » I think you're right. I would I would
air on the side of caution say 120 for
[1:04:38] the two pumps and then we can always I
mean it's a savings at the end of the
[1:04:41] day. It just goes
>> into reserves, right?
[1:04:46] » So $120,000
for water mover pump. Okay.
[1:04:50] » Yeah.
[1:04:53] » Well, I want to sort of stop spending
money on this. I think it's a lost
[1:04:57] cause. I think it's time that we cut our
col our and see if anybody's in the
[1:05:01] market for some uh hardly used used
pumps, right?
[1:05:06] Um does anybody else got anything on
this page two? Because that's where I
[1:05:10] was at there. No, we're all done there.
Um I got nothing on page three. Now I'm
[1:05:16] right into this um I guess the beginning
of the budget
[1:05:21] starting with revenues.
[1:05:27] Um,
[1:05:31] that's the last one thing. Anybody would
like to start, we'll do this page. You
[1:05:34] can start from the top and come down.
Um,
[1:05:38] I guess my question is there's something
here. Why why is this lower? Just trying
[1:05:43] to figure this number out. Hold on a
second.
[1:05:49] Here
[1:05:55] it is. Here the actual.
[1:06:01] Okay.
[1:06:04] Sorry, mayor. If you want to go. I just
have my head down.
[1:06:07] » I'm not in the revenues. I'm on the
expenses. I just
[1:06:09] » You're jumping ahead on us here.
>> Are you want the revenue? You want to
[1:06:12] stay there? I'm just on the same page.
Just uh
[1:06:15] » Yeah, just Yeah. On the page.
>> Yeah. on uh so legal expenses uh you
[1:06:19] know 20,000 in 2024 we used 19 uh 20,000
last year of course we went over budget
[1:06:26] uh last year we budgeted 20,000 we've
used close to eight so why are we only
[1:06:30] budgeting 2,000 for next year for legals
that seems right
[1:06:37] » through you uh Mr. Chair, the legal
budget has been proposed by our new the
[1:06:42] township's new in-house legal
department. He's uh reconfiguring how
[1:06:48] the legal will be um divvied up between
the different areas. And at this point,
[1:06:54] uh the expectation having cleared some
of the past legal matters that $2,000 is
[1:07:00] appropriate.
[1:07:04] I I guess my concern I don't want to be
the devil's advocate but we know we're
[1:07:08] doing the study and part of it and we're
going to have an open house I think in
[1:07:11] Lun City later this month and it'll go
off to a consultant who's going to bring
[1:07:15] back recommendations. We don't have no
idea what those recommendations are
[1:07:18] going to be. We have no idea what
council's going to do with those
[1:07:21] recommendations like council we we've
done efficiency studies in the past
[1:07:25] where yes we've put some of the things
in place but not others.
[1:07:30] We don't know if they're legal though.
>> Well, no. But would parks and waterways
[1:07:34] think they might want to get a legal
opinion on any changes that are
[1:07:38] proposed?
>> Well, just so you know, I actually am
[1:07:40] proposing that uh through [laughter]
parks and waterways people go speak to
[1:07:44] their own lawyer.
>> Oh, yeah.
[1:07:45] » So, yeah, you are. That'll be later on.
>> So, that's why I'm wondering just in
[1:07:50] light that there is an efficiency study
being done. Changes may be coming
[1:07:55] whether or not
>> we've always put 20,000.
[1:07:58] I would not want to see it lowered at
this time. Again, I won't be here, but
[1:08:02] you may want to have a legal opinion on
suggested changes that council is
[1:08:06] deciding to make that that
>> I agree with you. Actually, I'd marked
[1:08:10] it.
>> So, what do you want to bring it up to?
[1:08:13] Back to what it was
>> back to the 20, I think.
[1:08:21] » Oh, yeah.
>> Okay. So, we're going to So, are you is
[1:08:27] someone going to track that for us then?
Okay, Rebecca. Perfect. So, we're going
[1:08:30] to increase that to 20 then. Um, I guess
I guess my question too was going back
[1:08:36] to staff wages and expenses.
The actual in 2026 is 130,000 and now in
[1:08:43] 2027 it's jumped to 250. That's a fair
jump. I was just c Oh, sorry. I got
[1:08:48] Laura's hand up. You're stepping ahead
of you time.
[1:08:52] The 2026 actuals are not on this
schedule. That's the 2025 actual. Um,
[1:08:59] and so 2026 budget was 20 225,500
and we're going to 230,000. So it's a
[1:09:08] small increase. Um, and the the actuals
for 2026 will be on the most recent
[1:09:14] report. You'd have to add up all the
wages and and staff, but I did do that
[1:09:19] as preparation. And we are on R for the
spend of 225,400.
[1:09:27] » Okay. I thought 20256.
>> It It says 2027 pro proposed is 250. Is
[1:09:32] that what you're talking about?
>> Oh, she did. Okay. I didn't miss that.
[1:09:36] » She corrected it back to 230 at the
start.
[1:09:38] » Okay. Gotcha.
[1:09:41] » Okay. Got that. All right. That was
good. That's good. Um the actual levy
[1:09:49] That's where I was on.
I just was curious why it bounces
[1:09:55] around. We should be almost dead on that
level, right?
[1:09:58] Okay. Doesn't matter then. Anything else
on that page for anybody?
[1:10:03] No. Okay. Let's go to the next page. If
you see we miss anything, Laura or um
[1:10:08] the I guess the treasure or not the
treasury but the other lady there. Um
[1:10:13] next [sighs] one.
[1:10:20] No, I'm good with that. With that
pontoon boat, that's
[1:10:28] um $3,500 for the pontoon. Laura, um
that is there something wrong with it or
[1:10:33] or it's just maintenance? 3500
>> uh through Mr. Chair. Yes, that's just
[1:10:38] maintenance. Um,
and I just realized that uh number 41,
[1:10:45] the harvester, uh, that should be at
15,000
[1:10:52] to match the other harvester.
>> 41, right?
[1:10:56] » Yes. Correct.
>> Okay.
[1:11:01] Again, you're getting that, Rebecca,
right?
[1:11:05] Anything
else on that page?
[1:11:12] No. There.
[1:11:21] » I'm at account subscription building.
[1:11:27] » Before we go on to account,
>> you want to go back to
[1:11:30] » Well, I just didn't see it. I thought we
continue on, but the one expense I'm not
[1:11:33] seeing Laura is drudging. So, are we
done judging now where there's no more
[1:11:37] planned or to do in the future?
>> Uh, through you, Mr. Chair, that is
[1:11:42] correct. At this point, there's no
planned judging. Um, we had completed
[1:11:47] the outstanding judging that had been
proposed from 2023, I believe. Um, and
[1:11:53] again, I'm hoping that that study that
we'd conduct next year would inform what
[1:11:57] future dredging would be required.
>> Thank you. So the dredging that um Bob
[1:12:02] had done many many well I guess you said
2023 right um are we still using that or
[1:12:09] is that now gone to the wayside or is it
is because he spent a lot of time
[1:12:13] measuring he we he measured everything
out and that's what we used for the last
[1:12:16] number of years
>> uh through you Mr. chair. No, and that's
[1:12:21] what my understanding is. So, finally,
uh, the last of that dredging was
[1:12:25] completed in 2025.
And so, I believe we had completed all
[1:12:29] of the required dredging. That
information would be provided to the um,
[1:12:37] whoever the consultant would be for the
study to make sure that it's taken into
[1:12:41] consideration going forward as well as
providing us with that plan for future
[1:12:46] judging.
[1:12:49] Did you have any more questions back
there? No.
[1:12:54] » Oh, no. No problem. Any anybody else has
have any here?
[1:13:00] Okay. So, I'm out on the last page now.
Oh, no. Second page before I get
[1:13:06] um
so does anybody have any question on
[1:13:09] accounts description, building
maintenance?
[1:13:13] Pretty straightforward there. Um,
[1:13:18] » no. Okay, we'll go to capital
>> before we go to capital. So, I'm showing
[1:13:24] we've changed the budget by 13,000. Is
that correct? Not counting the water
[1:13:28] movers. I assume they go under capital
because I believe you gave us a
[1:13:32] correction at the start of 15,000
and then you just added 10 to the one
[1:13:37] boat and we added 18 for the legal. So,
is that where we are? We've increased
[1:13:41] the budget by 13,000 I think. Does that
change
[1:13:46] uh our levy or anything that 13,000 or
is that just going to come out of
[1:13:50] transfers
>> through you? I believe that would come
[1:13:53] out of the transfer to reserve. That's
where we would balance from. We're still
[1:13:57] not in a significant expense that would
impact that we have a uh a balance going
[1:14:04] to the reserve for 2027.
>> We've changed at 13K that I could tell.
[1:14:08] [laughter]
>> Yeah, Rebecca's tracking that. Carly,
[1:14:11] did you have something you wanted to
say?
[1:14:13] through you, Mr. Chair. There was
discussion about $120,000 for water
[1:14:18] mover pumps. I didn't in my sheet. I
wasn't sure if that was already there or
[1:14:22] if there was a change, just that there
was discussion and I'm uncertain how
[1:14:25] that impacted the budget.
>> So, that would be a new ask, uh, Ms.
[1:14:32] Fischer. And so that would impact the
amount going to the reserve, but we
[1:14:36] would still have at this point it's
still a surplus that we would be
[1:14:40] transferring into the reserve, just a
smaller amount. Yeah. So right now I'm
[1:14:45] calculating a approximately $133,000
reduction to the transfer to reserves.
[1:14:52] So the existing 350
less 133 approximate. So then the
[1:14:57] existing transfer to reserves is
approximately 217,000.
[1:15:01] How how much we take off the 350 130. Is
that what you said?
[1:15:07] » I don't I I can try to review the
minutes um after the meeting's done, but
[1:15:13] based on what I've heard, it sounds like
$133,000
[1:15:17] reduction in the transfer to reserves.
[1:15:21] » We just did a $13,000 change here plus
120 for the water movers would be 133.
[1:15:27] » And those are all capital, right?
>> No, only the water movers. Would they
[1:15:30] not, Carly? [clears throat] Would the
water movers not be under capital or
[1:15:34] what line were we getting? Yes.
>> Uh, I I believe they would be under
[1:15:38] capital. Yes. Um, however, that would
still impact the net levy requirement
[1:15:45] from LCPW. It would have an impact on
LCPW's reserves.
[1:15:50] » Yeah.
>> Okay. So, did that come off our the
[1:15:53] transfer reserves 13? Did it go into
capital?
[1:15:57] » Yeah. Where are we putting water?
[1:16:04] Sorry, turn your mic on. I can't hear
the
[1:16:06] » Oh, sorry. I thought it was on. I shut
it off. Where did we put the 120 for the
[1:16:10] water movers? Is that going to go in
capital now as a new line?
[1:16:13] » Correct. Yes, that's what I've proposed.
It'll be a new capital project.
[1:16:17] » Right.
[1:16:26] » Okay. Okay, so now we're at the capital.
[1:16:32] So just just put my head down here. Look
at this one.
[1:16:45] So
[1:16:52] » Okay. So, um, deputy mayor,
>> what all has to be done with the kiosk?
[1:16:56] I I understand there's a quite a bit of
upgrades that had to be done to that
[1:16:58] Laura or through the chair to Laura. Um
is 165 going to be anywhere near what we
[1:17:03] need for that?
[1:17:06] » Um through you, Mr. Chair. That was the
proposal that we've put in. Uh we've
[1:17:12] earmarked for it. I believe there's some
electrical work and some door work as
[1:17:17] well as some structural repairs. Uh and
we do think that that's going to be
[1:17:21] adequate. We also suspect that there is
also an underground water line that
[1:17:27] needs to be repaired um that's providing
potable water to the kiosk. Um and that
[1:17:33] that will be a significant portion of
the 16,000 proposed. Um
[1:17:39] we're we're hopeful that that is
adequate for the repairs that are
[1:17:44] necessary. Uh we don't have any firm
quotes though on that.
[1:17:49] That's why we couldn't get Georgia
College carpentry or something to do
[1:17:52] bring some students and do some project
on it.
[1:17:56] It's pretty tough to do that though in
public.
[1:18:00] Um I I as far as I'm concerned the kiosk
we should just maintain it for now
[1:18:04] because we're not really using it. But I
think in the future it'll be used. It's
[1:18:07] not something we want to fall down. We
all agree with that.
[1:18:12] Um when I the clean flow system here,
this $55,000,
[1:18:17] right? That's what we had budgeted um I
guess 2026. You just want to increase it
[1:18:22] by another 10,000 and up to 65,000.
>> We we can if that's what the commission
[1:18:29] » No, it says here 65,000 your proposed
budget. So
[1:18:33] » I I I guess what I'm asking is
what what are actual what do we plan on
[1:18:38] doing like for $65,000? Like what's left
that we have to do?
[1:18:43] I'd have to pull the maps and I don't
have that um with me at this moment. I
[1:18:48] increased it to $65,000 just to account
for inflation over the time period from
[1:18:53] the original quotes from 2020
>> uh 4 or 2025 budget preparation in for
[1:19:00] 2026. So that was why I added 10,000 was
just to account for inflation.
[1:19:06] » Um Carly, did you want to say something
to that?
[1:19:10] No, when I see you appear there,
normally you want to say something
[1:19:13] [laughter]
>> through you, Mr. Chair. No, I I just
[1:19:15] turned my video back on. I didn't have
any additional comments at this time. Um
[1:19:19] I I guess really what we need to do is
um for the 65,000 we probably could do
[1:19:23] the extension from the um two pumps that
are on Turtle right now because that was
[1:19:28] our next step because um I was trying to
figure out why there was no um uh clean
[1:19:33] flow, no bubblers um across from the um
the the sailboats and I think that's
[1:19:40] what we've been waiting for. And that
expansion all that includes are pipes
[1:19:44] and diffusers. There's no pump houses or
anything we have to get. we can go on
[1:19:48] the existing um pumps that are there and
that would give us enough to connect to
[1:19:52] there and then connect back up towards
the inn and we would have that and the
[1:19:56] only thing that would be left would be
Gondola Lagoon from Popppler down to uh
[1:20:01] um the end um to South Island Trail to
the bridge. That would be it. And then
[1:20:05] the marina those only spots we have left
to really look at and I think you
[1:20:10] probably only need one more house maybe
if we're a little bit of luck or maybe
[1:20:13] another house along Gondola. So that's
really what we're looking at right now.
[1:20:18] But are we going to talk about that at a
later date then or uh more what we're
[1:20:23] going to do next
>> through you, Mr. Chair? Yes. That's the
[1:20:27] idea is that we'll put in $65,000 that
will allow for us to do some of the
[1:20:31] expansion work and we'll bring forward
what the plan will be um at a later date
[1:20:38] for it depicting exactly what we're
proposing for each year.
[1:20:42] » And I'm going to go backwards now. Um
what about the treatments that we've
[1:20:46] done with the um the the bubbler system,
the clean flow system? You're examining
[1:20:51] all of that. Do we have money built in
for that this year
[1:20:54] » if we decide to re renew our treatments
>> uh through you, Mr. Chair? Yes. That was
[1:21:00] still incorporated as part of the
budget.
[1:21:02] » Do you know when you're going to have um
that finished that we know if not we're
[1:21:06] going to continue treatments?
>> Uh it's still under review at this time.
[1:21:09] » It's under review. Okay. So you don't
have it's gone to the government. So,
[1:21:14] uh, to the ministry and so on and so
forth.
[1:21:16] » We're we're reviewing it internally
first and so and then we'll reach out to
[1:21:20] any partners that we need to. So,
>> okay. But again, did I don't know if I
[1:21:23] heard do we have money in for the
treatments or
[1:21:26] » we didn't adjust the budget to to not
treat for it? So, that should still be
[1:21:30] in the budget. Yes.
>> Okay. I just wanted to confirm that. Um,
[1:21:37] temple insurancees.
[1:21:42] Um, do we have a rough idea what the
labor charge is like the town like for
[1:21:47] what we're being built for everything
here on this? Is there rough numbers on
[1:21:51] that yet or do I see them? Because I
know it started off at around 220 and I
[1:21:55] know last year um Gail brought it up by
another 50,000 60,000. So I'm just
[1:22:01] curious where that number is at now.
It's our labor charges. Yeah.
[1:22:07] » Our staff wages and expenses are
proposed to be 230,000 for 2027.
[1:22:12] » It's 230 then.
>> Yes.
[1:22:14] » Okay. Because I know it was that and I
support Gail said it was be there was
[1:22:19] going to be an increase of almost
50,000.
[1:22:22] » So 2026's budget. So 2025's budget for
staff wages was 173,000.
[1:22:29] 2026 we changed it to 225,400
and for 2027 it's 230,000
[1:22:37] » 230 okay is that that does that include
that does include the um the harvesting
[1:22:44] people does it or does that include the
harvesting
[1:22:46] » that's all staff wages
>> everything yes
[1:22:50] » thank you
[1:22:56] » okay I'm actually pretty good with all
this So, I'm not seeing an increase yet
[1:23:01] for any I don't see an increase.
>> No, I'm I'm just wondering at some point
[1:23:06] in time if if there if would help Laura,
should the commission kind of give him
[1:23:11] some time to get some capital project
ideas for you for building this 10ear
[1:23:15] capital? What is should we have a
meeting specific to that? Right? Because
[1:23:18] if we're going to build a 10-year
planet, then we should be looking at do
[1:23:21] we want to add a beach cleaner to it at
some point? Start acrewing money so we
[1:23:24] can save up for it. I'm not sure. But
what what do the people want to see,
[1:23:28] right?
>> Well, we roughly did one. I remember
[1:23:31] doing it a few years ago. We roughly
did, but there's something out there
[1:23:34] because I remember sitting doing it
because we had never had it and we
[1:23:37] needed I can remember doing it. So, I I
don't know where it is.
[1:23:40] » But even for an updated NoCal, we should
have anything new that's coming about.
[1:23:43] » But what you're talking about is things
we already talked about, right? That
[1:23:45] same like we've been talking about that
since my first term we looked at.
[1:23:50] » I'm just not sure if Laura has something
specific that's actually been put
[1:23:53] together. I'm not sure. I'm assuming
she's going to wait for that meeting
[1:23:56] that we're going to talk about right
now.
[1:23:58] » Go ahead, Laura.
>> Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. The
[1:24:01] expectation will be that in September,
we'll bring it forward and absolutely at
[1:24:05] that point we can have the discussion
with the commission and determine what
[1:24:09] other items need to be added in. We'll
put in what we've already understood. Um
[1:24:15] and again with us being still uh with a
fairly short history of um what's been
[1:24:21] done in the past and what we need to do
uh we may be missing some things. But
[1:24:26] that's where that we're hoping um at
that meeting in September then we can
[1:24:30] bring that forward and and have those
filled in uh to then again go forward
[1:24:34] and with a full 10-year plan for
council's consideration.
[1:24:41] » Any other questions on this?
[1:24:46] So, Rebecca, have you got all those
numbers that we've talked about because
[1:24:49] that's what's going to come up next, I
guess. Right.
[1:24:51] » Through the chair. Yes. So, I do have an
amendment prepared for the motion uh
[1:24:54] that I we can put on the screen and then
we can go through and if the commission
[1:24:57] has any changes uh or if there's
anything that you would like um that you
[1:25:02] think I've
written down uh differently than what
[1:25:06] you had thought or you had said. So, let
me know. We can make any adjustments to
[1:25:10] it. But this is what we currently have
drafted.
[1:25:13] That the motion before the commission be
amended to make the following changes to
[1:25:16] schedules A and B. Schedule A,
housekeeping adjustments. Staff wages
[1:25:21] and expenses decreased to $230,000.
Beach security increased to $15,000.
[1:25:28] Schedule B, increase canal/ Lagoon City
Condition and maintenance study by
[1:25:32] $10,000 to include analysis of
technology for water mover pumps.
[1:25:36] Schedule Accreased legal fees $20,000.
Schedule A number 41 LCBW harvester
[1:25:43] increase to $15,000
and schedule B addition of $120,000 for
[1:25:48] new capital project for replacement of
water mover pumps.
[1:25:53] » What about what we're putting to
reserves? Do we do we need that there?
[1:25:58] No.
>> Uh through the chair, my understanding
[1:26:00] and if general manager PI or Miss
Fischer have anything to add, please
[1:26:04] feel free. But my understanding is that
that would be determined based on the
[1:26:07] budget. So it's not doesn't have to be a
direction of the commission because it
[1:26:11] would be resulting from your overall
direction for the budget.
[1:26:14] » But if there's any substantial change,
we'll be fully aware of it then. Okay.
[1:26:17] Yeah, we need to know that for sure.
Yeah. All right. Perfect.
[1:26:23] Any discussion? So
>> now I guess
[1:26:27] who I heard somebody talk.
>> Uh yes, sorry through you, Mr. Chair. Um
[1:26:32] I apologize, Miss Clerk. Uh was the
adjustment for the legal expenses on
[1:26:36] there as well?
the 18,000
[1:26:40] » through the chair. I do have Yes.
increase the legal fees line to $20,000
[1:26:44] total. So the $2,000 plus the 18. Yes.
>> So I guess my question now and this is
[1:26:50] probably to you guys like if there's an
election coming and you can't do your
[1:26:54] budget till after the election. Why are
we zipping in because this is not going
[1:26:58] to be okay after the election. Correct.
>> Well, it's
[1:27:03] kind of kind of going to do the same at
the county too. to try and get a
[1:27:06] preliminary budget to put it forward for
the new mayor to come in to look at,
[1:27:10] right? Because it's it's the mayor that
does the budgets now. So, at least
[1:27:14] you've presented it. Here it is. This is
what we'd want. There's something there
[1:27:18] for staff to organize the whole thing
and then it's presented to the mayor at
[1:27:21] that time. Right.
>> So, we have a doover right up till
[1:27:24] October then.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We could keep amending it.
[1:27:26] Yeah.
>> Oh, sorry, Laura.
[1:27:29] » Uh through you. Yes. I don't know that
finance appreciates us. keep amending it
[1:27:33] as we're going. But it is gonna it is a
living document. A budget is our our
[1:27:38] forecast and our best plan. Um the idea
that we're working on it now is so that
[1:27:43] it is still ready on the normal time
frame that we would have uh in a non
[1:27:49] election year so that whenever the new
um mayor is elected uh and we have this
[1:27:56] information available and ready to go as
soon as possible. We don't want to delay
[1:28:01] the approval of the budget um further
into the year as possible because that
[1:28:07] means projects are delayed uh
procurement is delayed and it can limit
[1:28:11] what we can purchase operationally. So
we want to have this uh all buttoned up
[1:28:15] and ready and again it's a typical
schedule for us to keep in a
[1:28:20] non-election year as well.
>> So then we if we have any issues with
[1:28:24] our budget then we have a last chance to
take a look at it. Um, I believe now
[1:28:29] that we're changing our meeting till a
October 6th or 7th or something. All
[1:28:34] right. So, I I'm going to probably ask
to take one more look at the budget
[1:28:38] then.
>> Yeah. We'll see it coming on, right?
[1:28:41] Yeah. Okay. All right.
Well, it makes I don't feel so like to
[1:28:47] me I gota like normally I like to go
home and think about this because this
[1:28:49] has been kind of rushed. I didn't see
this till Tuesday. So I was up late last
[1:28:53] night and uh when I hit that report from
the uh the engineers that that was it
[1:28:58] for me 11 o'clock my brain was fried. So
anyways if we could if I would suggest
[1:29:04] get the updated version even for the
next meeting so that it's just there you
[1:29:08] know as information because we do make
some changes here.
[1:29:12] » Okay. So with that all in favor
>> uh through the chair. So, I'll just need
[1:29:16] a mover and a seconder for that
amendment. If you were okay with those
[1:29:20] lists of adjustments, the schedules A
and B, and then we would have a final
[1:29:23] vote on the motion as amended. So, if
you're okay with that list, we can put
[1:29:27] it on the screen again. I'll just need a
mover and a seconder for this as an
[1:29:30] amendment.
>> So, I need a mover and a second or do I
[1:29:33] not just talk to the mover and a
seconder and see if they're okay with
[1:29:36] this?
>> Uh, no. Through the chair, we have an
[1:29:38] original mover and a seconder for the
original motion, but this is an
[1:29:42] amendment to the original motion. So, we
need another mover and a seconder for
[1:29:45] the amendment.
>> Okay.
[1:29:48] So, somebody to put that uh you want to
read it again or no, we already saw it
[1:29:52] or
>> Okay, we no need to put on the floor. Um
[1:29:56] somebody put on the floor for me. Um
deputy mayor, second by the mayor. All
[1:30:01] in favor?
[1:30:04] » Now, we'll go back to the other one. Um
I've already got a mover and a seconder
[1:30:09] » to the chair. That's correct. So, this
would just be a vote to adopt the
[1:30:12] original motion as amended.
>> Okay. And that's okay for whoever put on
[1:30:17] I guess whoever did it. All in favor?
That's pass.
[1:30:29] Okay. 8.1 Rebecca
[1:30:35] uh through the chair. So this is another
one where we would be looking for
[1:30:38] direction from the commission and this
is regarding the October uh 2026 meeting
[1:30:42] date. So currently we just have that the
commission provide direction on the
[1:30:46] scheduled meeting date for October 2026.
Um we did originally have this scheduled
[1:30:51] for October 8th and we are going to be
commentering the council chambers on
[1:30:55] that day for the voting period. Uh so
this was just seeking the commission's
[1:30:59] direction on how you would like to
proceed with the October meeting. If you
[1:31:02] would like to meet uh earlier uh or if
you have another direction, please let
[1:31:06] us know and we can make that happen.
>> I'll put on the floor. Um deputy mayor
[1:31:15] second by uh
>> we're county on the six both of us.
[1:31:20] Second by Mark. Uh I'm sorry,
Commissioner L.
[1:31:25] » It can't be first thing basis. I like
the six actually. You want to make it
[1:31:29] look cal.
>> Yeah, except both uh the deputy mayor
[1:31:33] and I are at county.
>> Well, one of you can skip. [laughter]
[1:31:38] » Well, I know I can't.
[1:31:50] Okay. I think we got to do it before.
Do you have dates for us to look at, um,
[1:31:57] Rebecca? Because I know we got to, um,
get this room right.
[1:32:06] » Uh, we do have a calendar. uh or if the
commission prefers we could if you give
[1:32:10] us direction during this meeting send
out kind of a calendar poll following
[1:32:13] the meeting and see if there's a
compatible date for all. If you prefer
[1:32:17] to check your calendars now we can do so
as well. We have a calendar for this
[1:32:21] room the council chambers. Uh it's
available
[1:32:25] uh various dates before October 7th. It
won't be available post October 7th
[1:32:35] » the 29th.
Well, I could come. Yeah, if it's a
[1:32:39] short meeting, that'll be
>> What about the first?
[1:32:45] » I can't attend the first time out of the
country.
[1:32:47] » That's a happy face. I don't want the
first, but I'm available the second,
[1:32:53] » but yeah, we can do the 29th.
>> What's What do you like?
[1:32:59] » 9th. The 29th. What about you? Actually,
everybody's nodding on the 29th. What
[1:33:04] about you're good with that
>> through the chair? Yes, we can make that
[1:33:07] work.
>> I can sorry
[1:33:09] » through the chair. Yes, we can make
September 29th work.
[1:33:12] » Um,
[1:33:16] » so they're looking direction. So, our
direction will be to um meet on the
[1:33:20] right at 9:30.
[1:33:29] No, that's
right after the election. I'm gone.
[1:33:37] Okay. Um, we'll let um Rebecca put that
up.
[1:34:01] through the chair. So, the motion um
before the commission is that the
[1:34:05] October 20 26 commission meeting be
moved to September 29th, 2026 at 9:30
[1:34:11] a.m.
>> Um the the people that put that on the
[1:34:15] floor, you're okay with that? Okay. All
in favor?
[1:34:20] That's all. Yeah, we did. Didn't Yeah.
I try to that first. I don't forget from
[1:34:27] now on. That's why I always do it first.
Okay. So 8 um two the we've already done
[1:34:34] that so we're going to skip to 8.3.
Um 8.3 would be our next one. Rebecca
[1:34:40] » uh through the chair. The motion for 8.3
is that report LC526
[1:34:45] regarding operations update for canal
maintenance be received as information.
[1:34:51] So on the floor, deputy mayor, second by
the mayor.
[1:35:17] Anybody want to start there?
>> Yeah, I see that. So, the review is
[1:35:22] valid. So, we're good now for 26 right
to 28 operating season. Is it just a is
[1:35:27] it an easier application to renew that
now, Laura, moving forward, or would it
[1:35:31] be the same process? We start all over
again for another three-year period.
[1:35:36] » Uh through you, Mr. Chair, my
understanding is we would we would need
[1:35:40] to continue Sorry, it would be similar
to what we did this year. So, we would
[1:35:45] start um that discussion with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans uh
[1:35:51] ahead of the 2029 season um in order to
get the uh approvals and the review
[1:36:00] completed ahead of that.
>> Okay.
[1:36:01] » And we weren't too late getting that
approval, but probably started earlier
[1:36:04] in the year just to put people's minds
at ease that it won't delay that start
[1:36:08] again. Okay. Thanks, Laura.
>> For sure.
[1:36:11] Um I what's the discussion over the
skimming? Like they're not saying yes,
[1:36:15] they're not saying no.
>> Uh three, Mr. Chair. So they've said
[1:36:20] skimming should not occur prior to July
15th window. Um so we are hoping to
[1:36:25] discuss with them as we move forward
ahead of the operating season of 2027
[1:36:31] uh to see if we would be able to do any
mitigation or any type of skimming
[1:36:36] activities prior to that. Uh but as it
stands right now um for 2027 skimming
[1:36:42] and harvesting would both initiate at uh
July 15th. Um and not none of the
[1:36:48] inwater work would begin prior to that.
>> What about turning on the water systems?
[1:36:54] They don't have an issue with that at
all. The the all our systems the
[1:37:00] » part of our discussion with them.
>> That's part of the discussion. So you
[1:37:04] still have all that to discuss that
before.
[1:37:08] Um,
[1:37:18] so they are open to discussion is what
you're saying because um the the thing
[1:37:22] I've noticed this year is a lack of fish
and minnows and we've we've stopped all
[1:37:27] these things and I got to tell you like
normally I got minnows swimming across
[1:37:32] the front of my place all the time and I
don't see any minnows. I'm as normally
[1:37:35] when you're in the lake, they're
nibbling away on your feet. I don't see
[1:37:38] them anymore and I'm I'm not sure what's
happened to them. Uh I I see a bunch of
[1:37:43] turtles actually, but then I don't see
but I'm just kind of curious. Was there
[1:37:48] any discussion about that? Like with the
lack of fish, do they are they noticing
[1:37:52] it or
>> you Mr. Chair, that's not part of the
[1:37:56] discussions with them. They're reviewing
when when we put forward our
[1:37:59] application. We're saying this is the
work that we're doing. this is the um
[1:38:04] status that we are observing um and then
they review that and determine where we
[1:38:10] go forward from it. So they're not
discussing current states or anything
[1:38:13] like that. This is the hope also though
that the study that we've proposed and
[1:38:17] it's part of the budget for next year is
that they're going to do some of these
[1:38:21] species counts and identify what is in
the canals and in the lagoons are likely
[1:38:26] to be um so that we can show a positive
or negative impact um of of the
[1:38:33] operations or of the conditions that are
outside of our operations just changes
[1:38:38] in general because again it's a living
ecosystem. So those are obviously going
[1:38:42] to change uh many different factors
influence that. So that's the idea is
[1:38:46] that we would be able to provide them
with a lot more evidence-based
[1:38:52] information to help potentially guide uh
what we'd be allowed to do or not to do.
[1:38:58] Um and to your comment about are they
open for discussions? We we they have
[1:39:04] said yes that we can discuss with them
whether it's going to change the outcome
[1:39:09] or not. that's where I wouldn't be able
to speak for another agency. So,
[1:39:14] » and the people that are discussing it
with them is yourself that's who's
[1:39:17] discussing it or do you need assistance
from um say experts in different fields
[1:39:22] that would help us?
>> So, through you Mr. Chair, we're
[1:39:25] starting with ourselves to determine
what they would want to see from us. um
[1:39:30] what information would be required, what
potential mitigations could we put in
[1:39:34] place and then we would go from there
and we would advise the commission if
[1:39:38] external resources are required but at
this point we don't we haven't
[1:39:42] identified that be
>> because I guess the argument can go is
[1:39:45] the fact that we are not dealing with
anything native in our lagoons
[1:39:48] everything we're dealing with is
invasive and there's nothing native in
[1:39:52] there at all and that's where I
sometimes think they don't look at what
[1:39:56] we're doing as an advantage like just
putting the oxygen in the water. It's
[1:40:01] got to be great for the fish, right?
That's you think for the habitat and
[1:40:04] everything that went on and that sort of
thing. And when the soldier weave gets
[1:40:09] there, the fish won't be swimming in
there till we cut out that stuff and get
[1:40:12] it out to allow them to get in there.
So, it's just I and I guess I see all
[1:40:16] that then I hear about the uh global
warming. Like, should that not be
[1:40:20] changing the fish when they have their
their babies? There's so many things
[1:40:24] going on here. I hope that our our
agencies out there are paying attention
[1:40:28] to this and they can work with us on
this and maybe we can help them with
[1:40:32] what we're doing. So that's my little
speech.
[1:40:37] But anyways, but good report, Laura. I
really liked it and I saw your question
[1:40:41] and answers there. I read all that.
Yeah.
[1:40:45] » Um does anybody else have any questions
for Laura?
[1:40:50] Um I guess all in favor.
[1:41:00] » Okay. Now this is the unfinished new
business.
[1:41:04] Um let's scroll first on that.
>> I think Commissioner Hart's on 9.1
[1:41:10] with the South Bridge lighting. We
>> Oh, sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. I Okay. I'm
[1:41:15] sorry. Um Yeah. I'm sorry. My apologies.
Okay. Just so I can
[1:41:21] It's on the other sheet. It's the one I
printed didn't have that. Sorry. Sorry
[1:41:25] there, Commissioner. Um 9.1.
Um I don't think I have to put this on
[1:41:30] the floor, do I? Or should I?
>> Uh to the chair. There isn't a motion
[1:41:34] associated with it right now. If there
is any action to come out of it, we can
[1:41:38] consider that as a motion if needed.
>> Okay.
[1:41:43] Yeah. Uh chairman uh with regards to the
uh south uh foot bridge lighting u that
[1:41:49] that's been an issue for the resident of
16 South Island Trail for some time and
[1:41:55] uh as a result they uh that that
resident has submitted a report of
[1:42:00] concern on uh July 22nd and uh there has
been some action taken from the township
[1:42:08] so far. Uh but in the meantime, uh that
that light is is works is on and off. Uh
[1:42:16] there there's been times where it's is
not on at all. There's times where uh
[1:42:21] there's been uh some lighting between 2
am and 3:30 a.m. and then other times.
[1:42:26] So it it needs to be reviewed and when
it is working it is it is it is bright
[1:42:34] and it's to the point where it could
also be considered u a violation on
[1:42:41] bylaw in terms of
nuisance. the the light the light has to
[1:42:46] be examined and I see uh as a result of
uh uh report of concern followup two
[1:42:52] days ago that uh the uh the township is
is looking into review of this light. So
[1:43:00] I just want to get on on record chairman
that that we're we're looking at this
[1:43:04] and the township has taken some action
to uh get get this uh resolved.
[1:43:11] So do you want to put a motion forward
that we request something here?
[1:43:16] » Well, this is where I I need direction
by the by this by the commission is the
[1:43:23] the report of concern has been res has
been respon the resident had has had a
[1:43:28] response from their their inquiry to
report a concern and um the township has
[1:43:34] received the request regarding the south
footbridge light which has been
[1:43:38] forwarded to the appropriate staff for
review.
[1:43:43] That's what's taken place so far. I just
want to be ensured by the commission uh
[1:43:48] that that uh this this will be followed
up on and and and and it appears it is
[1:43:53] » also the town's following up on because
there's a lot of um u back like I know
[1:43:58] this was the same thing happened a
couple years ago and there was a full
[1:44:03] report done on it. there was pricing
done uh all different types of lights
[1:44:07] and everything and uh I think you were
here even in the mayor you guys were
[1:44:11] both there when we talked about that. So
maybe you should pull that information
[1:44:15] out because it could save you a lot of
time, right? Like that report and bring
[1:44:18] it all out, take a look and bring it
back maybe to the commission. Take
[1:44:22] another look at um I know when um
Commissioner Hart told me about I went
[1:44:27] over there, I could never find the
lights on and that's just a couple doors
[1:44:30] from I was down there and the lights
were never on. So I I have you ever seen
[1:44:34] the lights on, Commissioner? Uh yes,
chairman. I've been there uh when I've
[1:44:39] seen the lights on and it it is
definitely a nuisance for the resident
[1:44:44] of 16 South Southern uh trail and um I I
think if this gets reviewed, let let's
[1:44:50] take a take a look at it. It's action
has to be taken on terms of the
[1:44:54] intensity of the light, but it's got to
be consistent.
[1:44:57] » I just don't understand why the light's
not going on and off. That that's there
[1:45:00] that's a problem that's got to be out.
>> Yeah.
[1:45:05] » Okay. So, um, it's being looked after.
So, I don't have the motion on the floor
[1:45:08] right now. You want to bring it up the
next meeting?
[1:45:10] » We'll we'll follow up on this on on the
next meeting. If we can we can end it at
[1:45:14] that. Yeah,
>> I'd be happy with that. Thank you. Thank
[1:45:16] you, chairman.
>> The next one you got is nine. I'm going
[1:45:20] to leave you right on the hot seat now.
Uh, 9.2. That's your thought.
[1:45:23] » So, the other one [snorts] is is
regarding uh beach security. it it's
[1:45:29] come to my attention and and others that
that lack of security on certain dates
[1:45:35] and um I had the uh the benefit of of of
talking to the uh the manager of of
[1:45:45] uh Brian Brainer and uh Brian uh reached
out to me and offered an opportunity for
[1:45:51] me to meet with him and uh a
representative of 247 Guard. Uh we did
[1:45:58] this last Friday and uh uh I was happy
to uh have an opportunity to meet with
[1:46:03] Brian. Brian's already identified the
problem and has already created a
[1:46:08] solution and uh I'm satisfied as as a
member of the commission that that
[1:46:12] they're moving forward on this. So when
we did meet with the guard uh we were
[1:46:17] assured that he would be working as per
the contract and it's and it's also my
[1:46:22] understanding that we're not going to be
charged for those days. August 1 weekend
[1:46:27] for example where uh they uh July first
weekend they they didn't show up. So
[1:46:33] there are a few days that they they
didn't show up and that that's been
[1:46:36] that's been corrected. Um and as a
followup uh I I know that he was working
[1:46:44] on the Saturday and uh and one family
was approached where was the wristband
[1:46:50] and the wristband was in place and they
gave it up and they they allowed the the
[1:46:54] rest of the family to participate. So
sec beach security is important. it it's
[1:46:59] got to be uh used in proper patrols. And
uh when I met with with with Brian and
[1:47:05] the security guard, it was Brian's
clearly uh pointed out the the
[1:47:10] responsibilities and expectations that
uh that that uh we expect and and I'm
[1:47:15] I'm happy to report that they're they're
being met at this point. There was some
[1:47:19] discussion though of of having uh two
security guards and uh I guess that's
[1:47:26] for discussion some other time but uh as
long as we uh you know have one security
[1:47:32] guard meeting the contractual
obligations and uh I I think as a
[1:47:37] commission we're satisfied with that.
Um, the one thing I would tell you,
[1:47:42] you'd mentioned to me about the two. Um,
I I thought that we had two and we'd
[1:47:47] always went out like for two. So, I
phoned another commissioner who was like
[1:47:52] involved in all. He said, "Absolutely.
There's always two." He says, "This
[1:47:55] time's only one."
>> Well, chairman, if you look back at at
[1:47:58] the budget two years ago, it was
$25,000. Now, it was $10,000. So, that's
[1:48:02] why I raised it uh uh earlier during
this meeting. And uh that's something
[1:48:07] that's open for discussion. Even if we
had just but the one if we had one
[1:48:12] security officer back and forth with
each beach and uh uh and and and during
[1:48:18] the next contract agreement we we just
don't go for the the the the cheapest uh
[1:48:25] u sec security uh company available. So
u but I I I'm really impressed with what
[1:48:32] Brian's done so far. obviously
identified the problem, got ahead of it,
[1:48:36] and so far it's meeting a contractual
obligation.
[1:48:42] » Did you want to say something, Laura? I
saw it pop out. You just turn to your
[1:48:44] mind.
>> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I just
[1:48:47] wanted to remind the commission that we
are bound by our procurement policy and
[1:48:51] we do need to follow that um with all
purchases including beach security. We
[1:48:56] can look at um ensuring that there's
it's not just price that is part of the
[1:49:01] consideration. Um, and I did want to
remind you that we did increase that to
[1:49:05] 15,000 for 2027 as part of those
previous discussions.
[1:49:12] » Thank you.
>> Well, on behalf of what um, Commissioner
[1:49:15] Art was saying, the other issue is is
the the gate with all of that. And
[1:49:21] » yes, the so to follow up on on I think
there's been some correction on that as
[1:49:26] well. There's that the gate and the gate
we're referring to is what used to be
[1:49:30] pier one and it's a gate that goes on on
the on the south beach but leads along
[1:49:35] uh the canal path to the pumping
station. And it's my understanding
[1:49:39] talking to uh uh my understanding that
uh the gate is is open because people
[1:49:46] have to have access to the pumping
station and they're back and forth
[1:49:50] throughout the day and and sometimes
it's a little difficult to keep it
[1:49:52] locked. Uh I've been down there.
personally seen cars drive in and and
[1:49:58] park along the canal and and uh one last
two weeks ago on a Saturday there was an
[1:50:04] individual had his car parked and a lawn
chair out and and fishing uh and then
[1:50:10] two other vehicles came in and and and
uh decided to park there. This is before
[1:50:15] the bylaw officer was able to get down
there and and clear it out which I I'm
[1:50:18] grateful for that to happen. My concern
is if that gate is not maintained uh
[1:50:23] kept kept locked and and people get in
there, it could obstruct the the access
[1:50:28] for the uh fire and rescue people to get
to the boat if there is in need of an
[1:50:33] emergency. And and that's that's
important.
[1:50:37] But I also been assured and I and I've
witnessed uh bylaw officers doing their
[1:50:42] their routine there.
[1:50:46] So, so on that gate though, I I myself
notice it seems to be open more times
[1:50:51] than it's closed when I go by. Um, but I
have watched the awkward once come. He
[1:50:55] was parked the gate mocked all the way
up. He didn't bother unlock it. So, um,
[1:51:01] and saying that is that that is
something else I wanted to talk about
[1:51:04] too is where our gate is and they've got
the pole that runs to the lagoon. We
[1:51:08] never went that extra three feet. We
didn't think people would squeeze around
[1:51:12] it. They all do it now. Um, I know the
hotel, they shut it all down. So,
[1:51:16] something we have to look at is to shut
that down because that's the new way
[1:51:20] because there's nobody at the hotel.
They're all parking in the hotel now.
[1:51:23] It's a wall access coming around. Before
it was always safe there because the
[1:51:27] hotel didn't allow everybody to park.
But when you take a look, you see all
[1:51:31] the parked cars all the way along. And I
give the hotel credit because they throw
[1:51:35] all their garbage in the bin. It's all
piled there. I go by the next day, it's
[1:51:38] all cleaned up. So they're obviously
paying pay up all that because I we're
[1:51:43] not that's not ours, right?
Okay. So I I don't know that's something
[1:51:48] I'll probably bring up in the next
meeting. It's not something that has to
[1:51:50] be rushed, but I do think we should
cover that.
[1:51:54] » Yeah. Thank you. Uh thank you chair. And
one one other comment the last one is
[1:51:58] the
we can move on to the other uh new
[1:52:04] business goose. Is that
>> Yeah. So the goose management. The
[1:52:06] reason why I I I wanted that in there is
that I I' I've read and and received uh
[1:52:14] message that the uh the the geese uh the
the goose the goose treatment is is all
[1:52:23] over the place and it's a mess. And I I
I in my observation, I think the the
[1:52:27] gate goose population is is is down. And
uh of course this time of the year is
[1:52:33] not as a problem as it was a few months
ago, but I think the wildlife management
[1:52:38] under the direction of Michael Van Cass
is doing an amazing job and uh I just
[1:52:42] want to put it on that uh I think the
goose management system is working for
[1:52:48] uh for what the township is providing
and that's why I have that on there.
[1:52:52] Chairman, thank you.
Do you have anything else here? Huh? Or
[1:52:57] that's it. Um, I got I got a couple
things here. Um, first thing I want to
[1:53:02] talk about is this rafting party that's
happening down on the the beach the
[1:53:07] beach there. Do you know anything about
it? Does anybody know this whole rafting
[1:53:12] party that's happening in the marina?
No, nobody knows about it. Council,
[1:53:17] there's no permits, no nothing,
right? Um, the only thing I'm saying is
[1:53:21] I know there's a rafting thing there and
Parks Water was hadn't heard anything
[1:53:24] about it and I'm what I'm more concerned
about and I'm not trying to stop this
[1:53:28] and I think it's a great idea, but I we
don't know about it. If they're coming
[1:53:32] onto our beaches, I I guess there might
be an issue and I'm hearing that there's
[1:53:36] going to be a beer tent or something
along the um the area like up near their
[1:53:42] gas pumps. I don't know if that's all
true. I don't know. So I I I'm not
[1:53:47] getting involved in all this, but I just
want to make sure parks and waterways,
[1:53:50] if you guys were aware of what they do.
>> Anyways, chairman, I I I'm not
[1:53:56] completely sure, but I think they own
that property and uh that's their that's
[1:54:00] their discretion and uh I think what
what uh that business does is is is an
[1:54:06] enhancement to our community. and uh why
would we want to prevent a an
[1:54:11] opportunity for a business to do well in
our community and uh and just
[1:54:20] quality of our our Lagoon city. I'm not
trying to shut it down and I respect the
[1:54:25] fact that there's that's their property,
but if they're putting a tent there
[1:54:29] where the beer is on the rightway, if
the fire department needs to get out of
[1:54:34] there, there's a tent in the way of the
rightway and that's the only room that
[1:54:37] they have there. And it's not my issue,
but I'm just saying when I hear things
[1:54:41] like that from my life living and all
the permits and all the things that have
[1:54:46] to go on, these are the problems that
happen. Like I think it's a great idea.
[1:54:49] Enjoy it all, right? But I'm just saying
that there are like people think you
[1:54:54] could just do this stuff, right? And
there's ramifications like because that
[1:54:58] you know the the driveway, right, that
we're talking about where else would the
[1:55:01] tent go,
>> right? But it's not I and it's not my
[1:55:04] problem. I now that I know that it's not
included on parks and waterways. It's
[1:55:08] not my issue at all anymore. That's all
I wanted to make sure was that if the
[1:55:12] washrooms are being used or whatever,
we're going to have to deal with all
[1:55:15] that. We're gonna have to get them
cleaned earlier whenever. Well, let's
[1:55:18] have to make sure the individuals know
that they would have to get a permit for
[1:55:21] the tent. Any of those large tents for
functions, you do require a building
[1:55:25] permit. So,
>> but I'm not trying to stop this. I'm not
[1:55:28] being the guy. All I'm trying to say is
that I'm covering off the people the
[1:55:32] Lagoon City and what we stand for and
that's what our job is. The rest of that
[1:55:36] is not our job. It's not my job to do
that. And so, just so you know, I'm 100%
[1:55:40] behind it. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm not against it all, but I've
[1:55:44] just seen it when other people have
tried to set up other tents. I've seen
[1:55:48] the um the amount of paperwork and the
amount of permits that you need. There's
[1:55:51] so much people don't realize that,
right? You know, and then all hell break
[1:55:55] and then when something happens, that's
when all hell breaks, right?
[1:56:00] So, I think all the power to them.
They're out in the water. They're going
[1:56:02] to have a band on a like it sounds like
a lot of fun. They're gonna have a band
[1:56:05] on a raft out there the whole bit. So,
all the power to them. Great for going
[1:56:09] on.
>> All right.
[1:56:12] Um, the other thing I wanted to talk
about was this hiring prog process that
[1:56:16] happened over the parks and waterways.
I'm I'm sort of disappointed that we
[1:56:21] weren't involved in any of that. Like
because I've always looked at the fact
[1:56:24] on the parks and waterways and it's
nothing against you at all, just so you
[1:56:28] know, Mark, I think you're a great asset
to this and the whole bit, but it's just
[1:56:32] the whole process that went on.
Normally, I know as a counselor, I used
[1:56:36] to always talk to the people and I used
to talk to the people on parks and
[1:56:40] waterways, too, because what you're
looking for is to mix somebody in with
[1:56:44] the people um from park or from the
Lagoon City. And most of the people
[1:56:49] sitting sitting here know of the person
the people that put their names in
[1:56:54] because they've asked us, they've
touched base with us, they've asked us
[1:56:57] what the job is. And so, we kind of
already know who's put their names. We
[1:57:00] know who's going there. And I have never
been asked maybe a couple times by you
[1:57:05] but never by yourself about what's your
opinion or what you're feeling or
[1:57:08] anything like that. And I know when I
became a counselor the first thing I did
[1:57:12] I called every single person on parks
and waterways to talk with each
[1:57:15] individual and then I met with them just
to understand what was going to happen
[1:57:18] when I became a counselor. And I I just
sort of feel like we got left out of
[1:57:23] this whole process. I really did. I feel
like we got left out and I think it
[1:57:27] wouldn't have hurt to reached out and
spoke to us about it all. Uh, and I
[1:57:31] think a lot of us do have experience. I
question, and I'm going to say it in the
[1:57:35] nicest way on council, how many people
on council have an experience of what
[1:57:39] goes on in parks and waterways and the
experience of hiring somebody, what
[1:57:42] you're looking for. And just to finish
it, then I'll let you go. Is the fact
[1:57:46] that when somebody says to me, well, he
was an engineer, so he was a great
[1:57:49] choice. We have engineers here doing all
this information. If I was that
[1:57:53] engineer, I'd be very careful with what
I say because he could get himself in
[1:57:56] trouble, right, if we go by what he
said. So I I just wanted to make that I
[1:58:00] I I want to make the point that part
it's part part of I don't know where we
[1:58:04] stand as parks and waterways and that's
why I'd like to have the access that we
[1:58:09] can go to our lawyer like our own lawyer
not your lawyer like and and I say
[1:58:14] nicest way again but that is the lawyer
for the town and his job is to protect
[1:58:18] the town and any other lawyer that's
involved that's his job. Well, I'd like
[1:58:22] to get a lawyer that says, "Okay, parks
and waterways, this is what you have."
[1:58:26] And when I hear about this, you know,
um, thing coming up in two weeks from
[1:58:29] now, I I would like to get a heads up
with the lawyer where we stand on that
[1:58:34] or where this could be going, right? And
who knows where this could go, right,
[1:58:38] with what's about to be talked about.
And I I'll stop there because I want to
[1:58:42] continue to that, but you can speak
there. Uh, counselor, Commissioner.
[1:58:48] » Yeah. Uh, thank you, Chairman. I just
want to top up on on your point. You
[1:58:52] made a valid point. I I think it's it's
it's dismissive and uh irresponsible
[1:58:58] to not include the chairman in part of
the uh process of of of uh of that
[1:59:05] hiring.
But uh I'm I'm grateful that Mark is on
[1:59:10] and I think it's uh I had to uh ask Mark
three times to get his resume and I had
[1:59:18] had a look at it. is very very
impressive and and Mark is very humble
[1:59:22] and Mark is going to be a tremendous
value to to the parks and waterways
[1:59:27] commission. So I want to I want to thank
the committee uh the council to to
[1:59:32] electing Mark as a as a commissioner but
I I think uh it's it's disrespectful and
[1:59:38] dismissive for not to include the
chairman in that process. kind of
[1:59:42] leading back to uh your other comment
about independent council for us. I
[1:59:47] think it'd be uh it'd be the timing is
right now. I I I' I've witnessed things
[1:59:53] where uh
it would it would be in the best
[1:59:57] interest of the commission to have an
independent council as as we move
[2:00:01] forward and and and I I think that
having this meeting coming up in a
[2:00:05] couple weeks is great. having community
engagement is important uh especially
[2:00:09] this particular uh October that's coming
up uh but the the it more more just for
[2:00:16] a comment and I'll keep it fairly short
uh township Romero is unique in the
[2:00:23] sense it has 16 kilometers of canal uh
which I don't know any other township in
[2:00:28] Ontario has that so consequently you
know we have uh the lagoon city is is
[2:00:33] unique and uh each resident pays like
$900 to $1,000
[2:00:39] uh a year to to assist the township in
and uh m main maintaining the the canal
[2:00:47] system which is is unique and uh uh I
think we have an obligation to maintain
[2:00:53] the the commission and uh I'm looking
forward to this this meeting coming up u
[2:01:00] and that's just my my comment uh
chairman [clears throat] thank you
[2:01:04] » well that'll be a good suggestion when
the consultants here and we're when
[2:01:08] we're gathering the information that
because we like library board we appoint
[2:01:11] the members and we appoint the members
to our community center boards but
[2:01:14] sometimes throughout the year you and
you've seen it the board might say hey
[2:01:18] we'd like to add this member to our
board and they make the request so maybe
[2:01:22] one of the suggestions could be that the
commission recommends to council who
[2:01:27] they would like to see added to the
board whenever there's a new member but
[2:01:30] that would require a change in how we do
things but it's a good suggestion to put
[2:01:34] in like any of these these concerns, now
is the time to bring it to that
[2:01:37] consultant that the commissioner would
like more involvement in the appointees
[2:01:40] on the board with recommendations.
[snorts]
[2:01:43] » Yeah. So certainly go ahead.
>> Yeah. I just want to top up on that a
[2:01:46] little bit because I I don't want the
misunderstanding to ever feel that it
[2:01:49] was a slight or nobody wanted to reach
out because that's the bylaws that we
[2:01:52] have to follow, right? At this point in
time, bylaws are very clear that council
[2:01:56] choose those members from those
applications. It's also confidential. So
[2:02:00] we can't share that unless we change
those procedures. So that's the way this
[2:02:04] whole system's been designed. So part of
my reason for the engagement and why
[2:02:07] this consultation, I don't mind speaking
about that is because I believe that
[2:02:10] levy payers should be the voters who
actually vote in the commission decide
[2:02:13] in their community who they want to
represent them. And that's part of what
[2:02:16] I'm hoping comes out of this and I hope
people speak up because I think that's
[2:02:19] the best way to do it so that you have
the people you want to represent who
[2:02:23] want this commission. You'll still have
two members appointed from council, but
[2:02:26] you'll you'll be able to choose a
majority that can actually create the
[2:02:30] votes. But I I guess part of the problem
that we had with that is that the system
[2:02:35] way it worked is they reached out and
spoke to us. Nobody spoke to us. They
[2:02:39] first we heard that this whole
interviewing process was happening when
[2:02:43] it happened. Where did that decision
come from? Right? Like where how did
[2:02:46] that all happened? Like we had nothing
to do with it. Nobody told us anything
[2:02:49] about it. And going to this review
that's coming up. I'm 100% I asked for
[2:02:54] it. So like we asked for it. I I believe
we all asked for it. But I what I didn't
[2:02:59] like about it was when I I don't like
the wording. And when I look at the
[2:03:02] wording there, it's like it could turn
into a uh situation over the the
[2:03:08] people on parks and waterways. And
that's what kind of bothers me. I'd like
[2:03:11] to see I would like to know and I read
in there further. I like to know what
[2:03:16] you're we're telling the people to come
because if somebody says I've got no
[2:03:20] problems with the parks and waterways,
then they're not coming. But if they
[2:03:23] have ideas to make it better or they
have ideas on what we should do, like as
[2:03:28] you said about the election, I don't
have an issue with that. I said that
[2:03:30] eight years ago. That was one of the
ideas that we looked at. But I don't
[2:03:34] have a problem with that. But what I
think we got to do is make sure that
[2:03:37] it's not just going to turn into a
complaint session. And that's what it
[2:03:40] read. I handed to a couple people when I
received it yesterday and that's what
[2:03:43] they said to me. That's what they read
in it too because I wanted to make sure
[2:03:46] I wasn't being oversensitive over this.
And that's what I didn't like about it.
[2:03:50] So, I'm hoping that there's some sort of
guidance, not at the meeting, but before
[2:03:55] the meeting, so people can actually
prepare for it because it's in two
[2:03:58] weeks. And to me, I think it's one of
the most important things for parks and
[2:04:02] waterways. I really did. I really feel
it was an important thing. But if it's
[2:04:05] coming and there's just a complaint
session. Sorry. Um I think I'm stopping
[2:04:09] here. What's What's wrong?
>> Through the chair, um you're welcome to
[2:04:12] finish your thought. I just had a couple
things to add uh if able when when it is
[2:04:16] time.
>> What? Sorry.
[2:04:17] » Uh through the chair, you're welcome to
finish your thought. I just had a few
[2:04:20] things to add to clarify the process if
there is an opportunity to do so.
[2:04:24] » Okay. Um so that that was the point that
I was trying to make with that. I was
[2:04:29] going to lead into that next. I know um
commissioner wanted to speak. Uh but
[2:04:33] that that's what we really need to look
at. That that's I guess and that's where
[2:04:38] I would actually like to actually talk
to an independent lawyer so that we know
[2:04:42] where we stand on some of these things
like to come back out and he may look at
[2:04:45] and say no absolutely not. You can you
should be able to do this. you should
[2:04:48] have this rights, you should be able to
have this, right? And I think it would
[2:04:52] help all the commission. Um, and and not
sometimes I feel like it's you guys and
[2:04:58] us guys, right? And that's where
sometimes I don't like that feeling and
[2:05:01] I don't think it's right because we
never had that feeling before. We never
[2:05:05] we had a good relationship with council.
We had it worked out perfectly the way
[2:05:10] that we had the deputy mayor. We had me
as I guess the counselor and it was
[2:05:14] phenomenal. And the deputy mayor at that
time, he he did it correctly. He was a
[2:05:19] commissioner when he sat here and he was
a counselor when he sat as counsel. And
[2:05:22] he went both ways. And it's a hard thing
to wear two hats, you know.
[2:05:28] » Well, that's what I'm just saying.
There's got to be like a give and take,
[2:05:32] » huh?
[2:05:35] » Yeah.
>> Well, it's not like we're going to go
[2:05:37] consult them all the time. What I'm
saying is that it's just like there's
[2:05:40] some questions that we've had and you
know I don't think your lawyer really
[2:05:44] wants to speak to us on that, right?
He's representing you guys.
[2:05:49] » And I I do think just in clarification I
think going back it's important for
[2:05:52] people to understand the history because
I believe out of the PR11 it gave
[2:05:55] council the the ability to create a
commission based on a bylaw which was
[2:06:00] done in 2005 to delegate
responsibilities to the commission. So
[2:06:04] going back in history, that's how it's
kind of evolved through the time from my
[2:06:07] understanding of what it is. Uh but I'll
let uh maybe Rebecca want to jump on
[2:06:12] » I
>> um through the chair, I just wanted to
[2:06:14] clarify a bit about the legislation and
uh just note a few things for the
[2:06:18] commission's knowledge. So the power to
appoint and remove members of the
[2:06:22] commission is appointed to council
through bill PR11
[2:06:26] and that is included in the the MARA
act. Uh and then the commission
[2:06:32] responsibility would be to appoint a
chair of the commission andor designate
[2:06:35] a meeting chair. Um council can decide
what that process looks like for
[2:06:40] appointment and removal. So that was
what part of what occurred with the most
[2:06:44] recent uh appointment is that council
directed to do interviews. So that's
[2:06:48] what we proceeded with. Uh but
ultimately the bill is what gives that
[2:06:53] authority to council to do so. Uh, I
would just like to also note for the
[2:06:57] commission that a legal opinion uh was
secured by the commission in 2025 giving
[2:07:02] a summary of the roles and
responsibilities for the Lagoon City
[2:07:04] Parks and Waterways Commission and the
Township of Amara. This is available on
[2:07:08] our website at www.rra.ca/lcpwc.
[2:07:13] So, it's linked for anyone to review and
it does break down what the roles and
[2:07:16] responsibilities are for each under the
MARA act and under the uh establishing
[2:07:20] bylaw. So, if you haven't seen that, I
certainly encourage taking a look at it
[2:07:24] because it is a good breakdown. Um, the
commission is welcome to secure its own
[2:07:29] legal uh representative at any point. We
would just have to make sure that there
[2:07:34] is a budget approved for it as that is
one of the um requirements of the MARA
[2:07:39] Act is that the budget for the
commission needs to be approved by
[2:07:42] council. So, if it's not in our current
budget, then requests would need to be
[2:07:46] made to council to um approve that
budget. But it is within the
[2:07:50] commission's um purview if they would
like to seek independent legal advice to
[2:07:55] do so as long as it's within budget.
[2:08:02] » So I think it's tied in already. So it's
in the budget. The other thing to um I
[2:08:07] did read exactly what you what you read
there about what our job is because you
[2:08:10] sent it all to us. But what I guess the
point I was trying to make is the fact
[2:08:14] that nobody reached out from council to
us and kept us informed, even asked our
[2:08:17] opinions and that the way it always had
been and we did follow the rules like
[2:08:22] you know before but it was more of a a
input that came right in. It worked
[2:08:27] well. I I I never had an issue with it
like when we did it like and I'm just I
[2:08:31] was kind of disappointed with what I saw
right there. And um and I think um
[2:08:37] Commissioner uh like it's great. I think
you're gonna do a great job. I think
[2:08:41] you're a really good asset. So, it's
nothing against you. It's just that this
[2:08:44] all came up over this talking. So, but
anyways, that's what I'd like to do is
[2:08:49] like reach out and just talk to this
lawyer because as you know, talking to
[2:08:53] like Ryan, he works for you. That's
that's how simple it is. Okay. And I did
[2:08:58] not know that, thank you, Rebecca, that
we can get our own independent counsel.
[2:09:01] I just wanted to double check that.
>> So, basically the actual money that we
[2:09:05] put for legal is kind of for us too,
right?
[2:09:09] » To the chair. Yes, it's just dependent
on if the budget is available within the
[2:09:13] current year. Um, so if there is
availability remaining in that budget
[2:09:18] line, uh, the commission can direct how
that budget is to be used. If there
[2:09:22] isn't budget remaining, then a request
would need to be made to council for
[2:09:25] approval to have that budget allocated.
So if it if you're looking to transfer
[2:09:30] money from reserves, for example, that
would need to go to council to have that
[2:09:34] approved
>> if we had to transfer money.
[2:09:36] » Exactly. Yes. which I think we already
did for that massive amount of money
[2:09:39] that came right. So I don't remember
asking for permission. Do you
[2:09:45] » I believe there is money left in the
legal budget this year too.
[2:09:49] » And that was um
[2:09:56] process. Okay. So we are going there and
that's all I got. Do you have any
[2:10:08] » Does anybody else have any new business
or Okay. So, I don't have to put any
[2:10:14] motions forward, Rebecca. And nothing
here.
[2:10:16] » Uh through the chair, if there's no
action coming out of those items, then
[2:10:19] no, they'll just be listed on the
minutes as that they were discussed. Um
[2:10:23] if there are any actions you would like
to see or any direction for future
[2:10:26] meetings, please let us know and we will
put that on a future agenda if needed.
[2:10:33] Yeah, there's a couple other things I
think. Um, there's no close session. No.
[2:10:39] Um, adjournment. Um, going to put it on
the floor that we adjourn at 11:41.
[2:10:46] Um,
huh. Put on the floor of the mayor.
[2:10:49] Second by the deputy mayor. All in
favor? 11:41.