[1:09] Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm going to welcome everyone to

[1:19] our 1st 2026 Standing Committee Day. And our first day

[1:26] back under the sustainability, Infrastructure and Development committee. On January

[1:32] 13. Oh, my goodness, it's the 13th already. I would

[1:35] like to acknowledge that the land in which we gather

[1:37] today is a traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the

[1:40] Anishnawbe and the Chonnonton peoples, we recognize the enduring presence

[1:44] of indigenous peoples on this land, and we honor their

[1:47] historic and ongoing contributions to our community. We honor the

[1:51] land, the water that sustains us, the air we breathe.

[1:55] And the mother earth, who provides for all living beings.

[1:58] As we move on these lands, may we? Do so

[2:00] with respect, recognizing the deep cultural and spiritual connections indigenous

[2:05] people have to this region. I would also like to

[2:09] acknowledge. Some days of significance. This month, January 4, was

[2:14] National Ribbon Shirt day, honoring the ribbon shirt as centuries

[2:19] old indigenous symbol of identity, adaptation and resilience for indigenous

[2:23] women, girls and gender diverse people. January 14 to 17th

[2:29] marks Taipongol, which is a multiday tamil harvest festival celebrated

[2:34] by tamil communities worldwide, traditionally observed as a time of

[2:38] gratitude and agricultural abundance. And leading up to January 29.

[2:43] The Green Square campaign symbolizes the remembrance and solidarity. The

[2:48] green square represents the mosques carpet where victims last stood

[2:54] to pray. By wearing a green square we stand in

[2:58] support of survivors, reject Islamophobia and commit to. Fostering a

[3:02] community where everyone feels safe and valued. I would now

[3:07] like to entertain a motion to enter closed session. Oh,

[3:12] yes. We didn't. Do roll call. How dare. Is that

[3:14] okay? I'm going to ask you to do the roll.

[3:17] Regional chair Redmond. Present we have. Regrets. From Councilor Craig,

[3:21] Councilor Erb, Councilor Foxton. Pleasant. Councilor Gowing here. Councilor Harris.

[3:27] We have regrets from councilor Harris as well. Councilor Huinink,

[3:30] chair. James, we have regrets from councilor Liggett. Councilor McCabe.

[3:34] Councilor. Nowak. Councilor Rodriguez? Present. Councilor Salonen Councilor Shantz.

[3:41] Present councilor. Vrbanovic and councilor wolf. Thank you. Chair. Thank

[3:47] you. Okay, so, moving along, item three on our agenda,

[3:51] I would like to entertain a motion to go. Into

[3:54] closed session. I will please note that the second item

[3:57] is meant to read proposed transfer of part three and

[4:00] part nine provincial. Offenses act prosecutions. Do I have a

[4:07] move or in a second for that, councilor? Gowing. And

[4:09] councilor Foxton. So we'll now start the vote in escribe.

[4:19] Where's your escribe, counselors?

[4:40] Okay, that is.

[1:51:48] Everyone here.

[1:52:00] Okay. All right. I am going to entertain a motion

[1:52:08] to reconvene and open. I need a mover. For that.

[1:52:11] Councilor Rodriguez. Councilor Vrbanovic, you will be prompted an escribe.

[1:52:49] Okay, that is. Carried. Are there any? Declarations of pecuniary

[1:52:59] conflict of interest. Okay, seeing none. There are no presentations.

[1:53:06] We'll now proceed with delegations as listed on the agenda.

[1:53:09] I would like to remind all delegations of some guidelines

[1:53:12] for participation. For those who are joining us in person,

[1:53:15] please proceed. To the podium. When you are called upon

[1:53:17] to speak, please press the button at the base of

[1:53:20] the microphone. If the light is green, that means it's

[1:53:24] on. And we can hear you for those. Who are

[1:53:26] joining us electronically, please leave your video cameras turned off

[1:53:30] and your microphone. Audio or audio? Muted until you were

[1:53:32] called upon. For the delegations who have registered before the

[1:53:38] due date and timeline. You'll have five. Minutes. Anyone who

[1:53:41] registered after. We'll have three minutes. If any of you

[1:53:45] conduct yourself in the following manners, it will result in

[1:53:48] immediate removal from the meeting, interrupting counselors, staff or other

[1:53:52] delegations derogatory statements about counselors, staff, or others turning your

[1:53:57] camera on at inappropriate times and any hate speech or

[1:54:00] defamatory comments. And one last reminder, if there are no

[1:54:06] counselor questions from counselors, we are also listening. And as

[1:54:10] you are all aware, for much of what's on the

[1:54:12] agenda today, there will be discussion around certain reports. So

[1:54:16] with that, I will call on Antonio Antonis. Paderis, you

[1:54:22] can correct me and tell me how to correctly pronounce

[1:54:25] your name. Once you get to the podium, the CEO

[1:54:27] of smart Crossing. Virtual. Okay. Yeah, virtual. Yeah. My name

[1:54:35] is Antonio Perez. Good morning. I'm Mike. Our associate, Nadia,

[1:54:40] will be starting. Us off with the presentation. Good morning,

[1:54:44] members of council, and thank you for the opportunity to

[1:54:46] present to you today. I'm Nadia, and these are my

[1:54:49] two colleagues, Mike and Antonio. And we're here on behalf.

[1:54:52] Of smart Crossing led a division of DNG Group, a

[1:54:56] canadian owned company specializing in innovative roadway safety solutions today.

[1:55:03] We are introducing a new highly visible in ground led

[1:55:07] gateway system designed to dramatically improve school zone safety. The

[1:55:12] objective is simple. Make school zones distinct and impossible for

[1:55:17] drivers to overlook. Even on busy and complex roadways. We'll

[1:55:22] be briefly outlining why this approach works, why is especially

[1:55:26] timely now and how it aligns with the provincial road

[1:55:29] safety. Initiative fund and how Waterou can lead Ontario in

[1:55:34] adopting next generation school zone safety infrastructure. Next slide, please.

[1:55:40] Research shows that drivers respond faster to visual cues that

[1:55:45] are integrated directly into the roadway. Traditional road signs and

[1:55:51] overhead flashers remain important, but in many environments they blend

[1:55:55] into visual clutter in ground led lighting sits directly on

[1:55:59] the driver's line of sight, making it far more noticeable

[1:56:03] by having the roadway itself communicate slow down. Driver attentiveness

[1:56:09] increases, particularly in high traffic. Low light or visibly busy

[1:56:14] environments. If we want drivers to understand that they are

[1:56:18] entering a protected space, the road weigh itself must deliver

[1:56:21] that message clearly and immediately. Next slide, please. Here's a

[1:56:26] view of the entering the scoo zone. Next slide, please.

[1:56:33] This is a view. With vertical lights on the ground.

[1:56:40] The previous ones was horizontal. Next slide. Twist. And this

[1:56:44] is the view of the opposite of the entranceways. That

[1:56:48] would be an exiting the screws on next slide, please.

[1:56:53] So in terms of why this matters, Ontario's ban on

[1:56:56] automated speed enforcement has created a gap in how school

[1:56:59] zone compliance is reinforced. Without ASE, municipalities must rely more

[1:57:04] on design and visibility infrastructure that prompts immediate slowdown rather

[1:57:09] than enforcement to introduce driver behavior. To influence driver behavior.

[1:57:15] The province anticipated this transition and introduced the road safety

[1:57:19] initiatives fund to. Support engineering based non enforcement solutions that

[1:57:26] improve safety through roadway design. This creates a timely opportunity

[1:57:31] to implement infrastructure that works continuously and without issuing fines.

[1:57:36] Next slide, please. Through the RSIF, the province has committed

[1:57:40] $210,000,000 to municipalities transitioning away from ASe. An immediate funding

[1:57:47] envelope is available now for shovel ready projects with additional

[1:57:51] funding. To follow. Waterloo is well positioned to access this

[1:57:55] funding by advancing. A visible, scalable and implementation ready solution

[1:58:01] that directly aligns with the province's stated objectives. Next slide,

[1:58:05] please. The smart crossing LED system uses high durability LED

[1:58:12] strips embedded directly into the roadway, extending curb to curb

[1:58:17] to form a continuous illuminated threshold. Key features include activation

[1:58:22] by schedule or synchronization with existing beacons. High visibility in

[1:58:28] daylight darkness, rain, snow and heavy traffic. A clear visual

[1:58:32] gateway that immediately alerts drivers they are entering protected school

[1:58:37] zone. The results is a consistent and unmistakable message to

[1:58:41] every approaching driver. Next slide, please. This system is engineered

[1:58:46] specifically for canadian conditions designed to withstand winter conditions. Snow

[1:58:50] plows, heavy traffic. And road salt. Slow maintenance, energy efficient

[1:58:55] and available in solar or low voltage configurations. It has

[1:59:01] minimal disruption. Installations can be scheduled on evenings or weekends,

[1:59:05] and it's fully aligned. With RSIS eligibility and funding priorities.

[1:59:10] Next slide, please. To let you know, Nadia have about

[1:59:12] 30 seconds. Okay. Okay. So we would recommend implementing this

[1:59:16] in a phased, in measurable way. That would identify key

[1:59:21] zones and school zones that we would then work with

[1:59:23] you to be able to. Implement. Within a very short

[1:59:28] time period. If this is something of interest. Ultimately, this

[1:59:33] is a great solution with funding available that we would

[1:59:36] hope. To work with you on in order to bring

[1:59:40] about more roadway safety in the absence of Ase. Okay.

[1:59:45] Thank you, Antonio and Nadia, we do have a few

[1:59:48] questions from councilors, so I will. Start with Councilor Hunich.

[1:59:52] Thank you, chair. Thank you, Nadia, for your presentation today.

[1:59:56] And your team as well. Could you clarify how much

[1:59:59] it would cost to implement your system? Into one crosswalk

[2:00:04] or into. All the crosswalk's eligible throughout the region. And

[2:00:08] then could you clarify if you have some understanding of

[2:00:12] how much of the provincial funds that waterloo region

[2:00:16] might be eligible for in 2026. I know you said.

[2:00:21] The large envelope, but I don't know that Waterloo Region

[2:00:24] is eligible for all of that. Funding specifically. Yeah. To

[2:00:33] give an exact price. It all depends with the infrastructure

[2:00:37] of the school zone. For example, if electricity is close

[2:00:41] by you. Have to run electricity if it's one. Lane

[2:00:46] Road. If it's a four lane road. All these adds

[2:00:51] into the cost and to the final price. So it's

[2:00:54] hard for us. To give an idea, but something like

[2:00:58] just to have an idea approximately, like what we see

[2:01:01] on the picture. A two lane road. Beacons. And everything.

[2:01:08] The light on the street installation could. $40,000. But again,

[2:01:13] I want to get in. It all depends a lot

[2:01:16] of factors. To give the final price, but approximately $40,000

[2:01:20] each is what year? Yeah. What was the. Idea. So

[2:01:26] what we would do is we would work with staff

[2:01:28] who identify the locations. They would like done. We would

[2:01:31] go out there, we would look at it, and then

[2:01:33] we would come back. With a more exact price. Okay.

[2:01:36] Thank you. Just a quick response to part B, Waterloo.

[2:01:42] We're not exactly sure what their portion of the $210,000,000

[2:01:46] would be, but whatever portion. That Waterloo would qualify for.

[2:01:53] This plan would qualify for whatever Waterloo wanted to use

[2:01:56] out of that envelope. Okay. Thank you, Councilor McCabe. Thank

[2:02:00] you. And thank you for the presentation. And starting this

[2:02:05] program because as we've had many conversations around this horseshoe

[2:02:08] and across the province, the safety of children, particularly our

[2:02:14] very youngest, and people with a variety of accessibility issues

[2:02:17] or just the ability of people to move safely around

[2:02:21] our community. It really is one of the top prior.

[2:02:23] Priorities of any elected official. And we know that. We

[2:02:27] know that speeding is a real problem. And yeah, we

[2:02:32] know that speeding is a real problem. That certainly was

[2:02:34] very clear in the reason why we were pursuing this.

[2:02:38] And again, I still remain disappointed that it's not something

[2:02:40] that we're able to do. But. Be that as it

[2:02:43] may. You're mentioning Waterloo. I just wanted to make sure

[2:02:48] you understand the distinction between. You're talking to the region

[2:02:52] of Waterloo right now. And there's the city of Waterloo.

[2:02:56] Obviously, two municipal governments are very confusing. You're talking right

[2:03:02] now to the region, and then there's also. The cities.

[2:03:08] As well. And so I guess my question is, could

[2:03:10] we just direct this information to go to commissioner spooner

[2:03:14] and his staff to take a look at. And if

[2:03:18] you want to provide this information. I'm not going to

[2:03:20] speak for other area municipalities, but to the city of

[2:03:22] Waterloo. I think we'd certainly be interested in taking a

[2:03:25] look at it. I would again just direct you to

[2:03:29] talk. To our transportation staff to see if this is

[2:03:36] something that might be viable. So could I just. Leave

[2:03:39] that with you, Commissioner Spooner. Okay. You can't see him,

[2:03:42] but he's nodding his head. Okay. Thank you, councilor. Just

[2:03:46] a quick response. We do recognize the difference. So just

[2:03:49] to let you know, we've approached the region and we've

[2:03:53] approached all the cities within the region separately. Okay. Thank

[2:03:58] you. And I just have a question. Nadia and Antonio.

[2:04:02] And that's regarding where this is being implemented. Are you

[2:04:05] in municipalities across the province or the country right now

[2:04:08] somewhere. That. In doing research, looking into kind of the

[2:04:15] way it is in other municipalities. So this technology has

[2:04:19] been used extensively in Europe. We just kind of brought

[2:04:23] it over now. In response to what happened when the

[2:04:28] province canceled the speed cameras. So we have been approaching

[2:04:32] a lot of municipalities. We've gone to, like, city of

[2:04:35] Vaughn, York Region, Peel region, Brampton, and we've, gotten a

[2:04:40] great response from them. But we don't have one in

[2:04:43] yet. We anticipate having a pilot project in or the

[2:04:46] first couple of projects in hopefully March or April. So

[2:04:50] not too far off. And we're also going to be,

[2:04:53] we're also in discussions with the Ministry of Transportation, just

[2:04:57] so that we can see if we can get. This

[2:05:00] facilitated so that any municipality wants to take part. They'll

[2:05:03] have a lot of the questions answered, the technical questions

[2:05:07] answered at the provincial level. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. I

[2:05:11] see no further questions. Thank you for joining us today.

[2:05:16] And sharing the information with us. I will now move

[2:05:18] on to thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. Our

[2:05:22] second delegation. It's Leslie Maxwell, student transportation services of Waterloo

[2:05:28] Region road safety program and school zones. Okay. And Leslie,

[2:05:32] you do have five minutes. When you get to a

[2:05:34] minute, I am told there is a light that's going

[2:05:36] to flash on the podium there for you so you'll.

[2:05:39] Know. You'll have a minute. Thank you, chair, James. And

[2:05:45] through you, I do have a presentation. If it is

[2:05:50] brought up. Thank you. I'm Leslie Maxwell. Most of you

[2:05:54] know me as the lead for school travel planning at

[2:05:56] student transportation services of Waterloo Region. I'm here to speak

[2:06:00] in favor of the motion for funding for road safety

[2:06:04] program to support the ultimate aim of what was our

[2:06:08] speed camera project that was terminated last fall. Second slide,

[2:06:13] please. If you drive around the region at Bell times.

[2:06:18] You will know that most or many school zones feel

[2:06:21] like they're made for cars. What? I mean by this

[2:06:23] is, it seems drivers assume that they need to be

[2:06:26] accommodated before children are. Next slide, please. In 2024, a

[2:06:33] provincewide survey showed that people are accustomed to witnessing illegal

[2:06:36] and dangerous behaviors. Within school zones in a variety of

[2:06:40] contexts. And I'm not going to spend too much time

[2:06:44] on this. It's small. You can't read it, but it

[2:06:46] is there for you to look at later. Slide four,

[2:06:49] please. STSWR observations in our region show that these behaviors

[2:06:55] are also happening here. At concerning rates. Next slide, please.

[2:07:02] When we look at the data by road type, we

[2:07:05] saw that. Higher volume roads tended to see greater numbers

[2:07:10] of incidents. So this is where we're talking. About regional

[2:07:13] arterial roadways, but mind you, those lower numbers there are

[2:07:17] still in the hundreds. Just. Pointing out that none of

[2:07:22] our roads are great, but the arterial roads do seem

[2:07:24] to be worse. Next slide, please. And in case it

[2:07:29] needs to be said, a study by Linda Rossman proved

[2:07:32] in Toronto in Toronto. Sorry. Proved that. It shows that

[2:07:37] a significant association between schools with dangerous driving and pedestrian

[2:07:42] motor vehicle collisions, so regional roads are a great place

[2:07:46] to focus new interventions that can reverse those trends. Next

[2:07:51] slide, please. Student transportation's family surveys are directed at caregivers

[2:07:57] across the region, and they show that many parents feel

[2:07:59] that the school zone is the single most dangerous area

[2:08:02] on the way to school. Fully impacting their choice to

[2:08:07] use active travel. We hope that these spaces can become

[2:08:11] more welcoming to children. Along with this new road safety

[2:08:15] fund. Next slide, please. Municipal government staffers across the province

[2:08:22] showed. In that survey mentioned earlier that they believe that

[2:08:27] school zones are for children. Ranking children's safety above any

[2:08:31] vehicular movement as the reason school zones should exist. The

[2:08:36] experts on your staff have been fully supportive of this

[2:08:38] notion as well. In our experience and they've been great

[2:08:41] to work with. Next slide, please. However, the Highway Traffic

[2:08:47] act doesn't necessarily make children's safety the focus, so. It

[2:08:53] requires funding, like the road safety plan that. You have

[2:08:58] in motion here? Outside of the norm to provide comprehensive,

[2:09:03] evidence based solutions to provide road security for children on

[2:09:07] their way to school. Next slide, please. Looks like we

[2:09:13] have time. I just want to highlight some of the

[2:09:14] things that the region of Waterloo has done for children

[2:09:17] in the past year alone. And our team proudly has

[2:09:22] been working to identify some of these spaces at Moffat

[2:09:27] Creek here. Sorry. On that last slide at Moffat Creek,

[2:09:30] a new ramp and crossing reduced the number of parked

[2:09:33] cars. Along the side of the road, and it provides

[2:09:35] access to houses across the street for children that used

[2:09:38] to have to walk close to a kilometer out of.

[2:09:41] The way to get to school. Next slide, please. More

[2:09:45] simply, the pedestrian crossover at Portland at Corland, PS had

[2:09:50] an immediate effect on speeds and aggressive driving. And then

[2:09:54] if the next picture shows ticket B Hills on Fairway

[2:09:57] Road, a new multi use path means students don't need

[2:10:00] to bike against traffic on the way home. In a

[2:10:03] bike lane and children are not passing each other on

[2:10:06] the bike lane. On foot either. Final slide, please. These

[2:10:12] are great improvements, and we hope that you will support

[2:10:15] ongoing funding for additional improvements on regional roadways. In the

[2:10:19] meantime, please look for our newest campaign to support these

[2:10:22] efforts. Coming to schools this spring. We're calling it school

[2:10:25] zones are for kids, too. Thank you. Thank you, Leslie.

[2:10:29] I do have a question from Councilor Rodriguez. Yeah, thanks,

[2:10:33] Leslie, for coming in. And really appreciate the data that

[2:10:35] you're able to share. That your team collects on a

[2:10:38] regular basis. I think making these types of data informed

[2:10:41] decisions is really helpful. In your experiences there are difference

[2:10:46] on sale quieter local road or a regional road. In

[2:10:52] terms of safety at those bell times that you spoke

[2:10:55] to. I know we saw it when we went out

[2:10:57] in November, but could you maybe just speak to that?

[2:11:00] This is a challenge. Across or where that challenge exists

[2:11:05] across the region. Yeah, that challenge is on all kinds

[2:11:09] of roads. And it really depends on the context and

[2:11:11] geometries, the volume of students at a school. And various

[2:11:19] attitudes towards traffic and towards driving. In neighborhoods across the

[2:11:25] region. And. In many cases. Speed isn't the only problem.

[2:11:31] I know. You and I. Witnessed. A lot of concerning

[2:11:36] behaviors. On a residential street just next to a school,

[2:11:41] but. On the arterial road that we were also facing.

[2:11:49] It had a problem, but a different problem. Speed was

[2:11:54] the problem. Maybe on the arterial roadway where uturns and

[2:11:59] double parking and letting children out in the middle of

[2:12:02] the street was the problem on the residential street. Thank

[2:12:06] you. Thank you, Councilor Schantz. Thank you. Thank you for

[2:12:11] the presentation. I know. That. There's forever been concerns about

[2:12:17] school loans and drop offs. So my question. Is how

[2:12:24] can the schools and the municipal governments, area municipalities and

[2:12:29] the region. Work together better. To make. And you've brought

[2:12:34] up some solutions here. I'm thinking maybe more specifically. Of

[2:12:39] drop offs because I know. We requested a long time

[2:12:43] ago that new schools have drop off zones, but then

[2:12:47] they're. Not being used, and so. How can we work

[2:12:51] together better to make something that's really usable? Thank you

[2:12:55] for your question and through you chair, James. We have

[2:13:00] observed school zones for years, and colleagues like me across

[2:13:05] the province and across Canada have observed in their own

[2:13:08] areas. And we all kind of come to the same

[2:13:10] conclusion. If you build it, they will come. So you

[2:13:13] build a drop off zone. More people drive, more people

[2:13:16] come to. That zone and we cannot possibly accommodate. The

[2:13:20] number of vehicles that show up. And that creates a

[2:13:24] focal point for cars instead of for children. So. When

[2:13:30] we can create spaces that are safer for children. They

[2:13:33] look like. Interventions. Like I just showed you. And the

[2:13:38] one at Courtland public School I'll bring to mind first.

[2:13:43] There's no drop off zone. At Courtland, cars do use

[2:13:47] side streets to drop off. And in front of the

[2:13:50] school, where that pedestrian crossover was introduced. The administrative team

[2:13:55] says that that pedestrian crossover immediately slowed traffic. Brought attention

[2:14:02] to children and actually gave them an opportunity to cross

[2:14:05] the street where there was none. Before. They say it's

[2:14:08] working like the speed cameras did. And so, depending on

[2:14:13] the context, depending on the geometry of the roadway, there

[2:14:17] will be different interventions. That can have those kind of

[2:14:19] effects. And my team is here to work to bring

[2:14:25] together the school boards and the municipal staff, so. That

[2:14:28] we can all work together on solutions that work, including,

[2:14:33] yes, the built environment, but also what we can do,

[2:14:36] bringing an education, bringing in encouragement and. Trying to shift

[2:14:41] that attitude. Starting to shift that attitude. I think it's

[2:14:45] the best way. It's the most proven way so far.

[2:14:48] Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Leslie, thank you for coming

[2:14:52] in today. There's no further questions from council. My pleasure.

[2:14:55] Thank you for your time. Okay, next. We will have

[2:14:59] Joseph Poobalo, co CEO of Paulo Corp. And urban initiatives.

[2:15:04] And, Joseph, you. Have five minutes. Thank you very

[2:15:13] much. Through you, the chair, and to the rest of

[2:15:16] my colleagues and people sitting around the horseshoe. Obviously, this

[2:15:20] is a pressing issue and it requires immediate action for

[2:15:24] us to address. It. I think there can be a

[2:15:26] lot of energy put into. How did we get here?

[2:15:30] Why is this a problem? I want to focus the

[2:15:34] majority of my presentation on trying to figure. A solution

[2:15:37] out of this problem and working collaboratively both between government

[2:15:41] and industry to make it happen. Next slide, please. I

[2:15:47] want to focus first on the impacts. If there is

[2:15:49] a delay in action and. I don't think that there

[2:15:56] can be. I recognize that there's multiple heads of council.

[2:16:00] Add here of the lower tier municipalities. My principal concern

[2:16:03] is that. If development is now frozen and development charges

[2:16:08] effectually dry up, this is going to have a huge

[2:16:10] chilling impact on the finances of not only the lower

[2:16:13] tier municipalities but also the region as a whole. All

[2:16:18] of the capital projects, all the capital budgets are built

[2:16:21] upon the notion of continuing development. So we need to

[2:16:24] move quickly and aggressively to address this issue. Secondly, we

[2:16:29] are already facing unprecedented economic situation in the industry due

[2:16:34] to external factors to now have an initial. Problem within

[2:16:39] is further complicating, and I'm worried that there's going to

[2:16:41] be a further exodus of talent and trades. Supporting the

[2:16:46] construction industry. And then when we are ready to build.

[2:16:50] We're not going to have the talent there to be

[2:16:51] able to build as we intended. On. Next is investment

[2:16:57] will be directed to other municipalities. This is a worst

[2:16:59] case scenario that I do not want to see whether

[2:17:01] it be public or private. I've had multiple financial institutions

[2:17:06] based out of Toronto and otherwise reach out. And. Understanding

[2:17:10] whether the quantum of the problem financiers are paying attention.

[2:17:14] This has a huge impact about how we grow the

[2:17:16] region, and it's going to have a huge impact on

[2:17:19] a go forward basis. On a middle to long basis.

[2:17:24] I worry that private investment will again further be directed

[2:17:27] to other municipalities and regions. And I think it's important

[2:17:30] to understand that taxes will increase to. The entire tax

[2:17:36] base. It's not just a stop in development. It's how

[2:17:39] those costs, how the capital budget plans get allocated across.

[2:17:44] The number of their growth is built into that equation

[2:17:46] and needs to be considered accordingly. So next slide. As

[2:17:51] probably some of you have done. I spent an inordinate

[2:17:54] amount of time over the holidays, going back through just

[2:17:57] about every regional water report and there and then spending

[2:18:00] an time understanding trying to understand the basics of how

[2:18:03] our water system works. Obviously. I'm not an engineer, nor

[2:18:09] claim to be one. And I like to work with

[2:18:11] engineers. On the solution, both public and private, but. We

[2:18:16] have two systems, but we have one region, and we

[2:18:19] need to look at how we allocate our resources and

[2:18:22] reallocate our resources to make sure the region as a

[2:18:24] whole is successful. So I want to jump quickly into

[2:18:27] an action plan, recognizing that I have limited time. To

[2:18:31] speak to. I think. Next slide, please. I think the

[2:18:35] most important thing from an immediate standpoint coming out. Of

[2:18:38] today's council meeting is clear. Direction from council the planning

[2:18:41] approval should be separate from water allocation and the appropriate

[2:18:45] comments on new applications should be given. This is a

[2:18:47] fundamental issue as many planning applications are already in very

[2:18:51] different stage of process. Are they necessarily going to develop

[2:18:54] right away? Not necessarily. Therefore. There should be appropriate comments.

[2:18:59] Given understanding the downloading and planning responsibilities to lower tier

[2:19:04] municipalities, I was heartened to see last night a kitchener

[2:19:08] council. Two proposals were approved, granted with a holding condition.

[2:19:13] But I think this is an important precedent and it

[2:19:15] needs to be looked at. All lower tier municipalities. Second

[2:19:20] is to initiate a plan to link the Middleton system

[2:19:23] in the pressure system, and they're looking at all the

[2:19:26] necessary equipment on that commitment to immediately started looking at

[2:19:30] new test wells. And then commitment to start the refurbishment

[2:19:33] of the Mannheim system immediately, which I understand that's. The

[2:19:36] most immediately. Capital. Good. On a 30 day basis. Immediate

[2:19:41] capital infrastructure being put in place and clearly defined. I

[2:19:47] would like to call a meeting between the industry and

[2:19:51] government. I think there needs to be some trust building

[2:19:53] exercises to understand. That recognizing we are in a problem.

[2:19:57] How do we get out of that? Industry and other

[2:20:00] consultants need to be at the table. We need to

[2:20:04] meet with the 50th biggest water users and look for

[2:20:06] opportunities. To conserve. On a go forward basis. We need

[2:20:13] to get an action plan. And an immediate plan to

[2:20:16] get the Mannheim refurbishment well underway. Detailed design transferring. Reserve

[2:20:22] from Mannheim to Middleton system needs to occur. Summer plans

[2:20:26] for conservation should be in place as soon as possible.

[2:20:29] And then we need to find additional candidate wells, recognizing

[2:20:33] that. The EA's take time. We need to clearly define

[2:20:38] them and have it publicly available. What EA's we want

[2:20:41] and we need to make appropriate steps to expedite the

[2:20:44] province. And then on six month to one year, we

[2:20:47] need to have construction well over the way for the

[2:20:49] Manheim Middleton transfer. New wells need to be identified. An

[2:20:54] additional conservation measures were appropriate and reexamination of existing capacity

[2:20:59] through. Detail unassigned capacity mapping so we can detach modeling.

[2:21:06] Of usage from further approved. I apologize for taking a

[2:21:09] long time, but I thought I'd have a long time

[2:21:11] to speak on this very critical issue. I was just

[2:21:14] about to stop you. Joseph. So thank you for wrapping

[2:21:16] up and coming in. And providing ways in which solutions

[2:21:23] can happen, although it's a bigger systems approach. But appreciate

[2:21:27] that we do have a few comments from questions from

[2:21:29] counselors. Councilor Verbanovic, thank you very much and thanks just

[2:21:34] for coming in. And quite frankly, The work that you

[2:21:39] and others in the industry and the discussions you've been

[2:21:42] having with many of us over the past few weeks.

[2:21:47] To address something. That's, I think, equally concerning for us

[2:21:51] both as regional counselors as well as those of us

[2:21:54] who have dual responsibilities with our area municipalities. A few

[2:21:58] questions I have from you. You talked about the exodus

[2:22:02] of trades and talent, and I think that is an

[2:22:04] important issue that hasn't been. Spoken about enough. This isn't

[2:22:09] simply about. The theoretical issues of putting projects on hold.

[2:22:13] This is like painters, electricians, plumbers. I mean. The list

[2:22:17] goes on and on and on of people who are

[2:22:20] involved in everything from. A potential rental project of a

[2:22:26] basement suite for in laws to. Large developments that will

[2:22:30] provide new housing. If you can talk a little bit

[2:22:33] more about how critical that is and the risk that

[2:22:36] we're exposing ourselves. To. Of losing these people to other

[2:22:40] communities. There's a huge. Thank you for the question, Mayor

[2:22:44] Vanwick. There's a huge risk right now that we're facing.

[2:22:48] We're already facing probably. The most unprecedented economic conditions for

[2:22:53] the building and construction industry, probably a generation since the

[2:22:56] 90s. So at the end of a 30 year cycle,

[2:23:00] there's already huge pressures that we're facing from an international

[2:23:04] standpoint, and it's causing people to be more conservative. If

[2:23:08] people. Are not seeing an immediate future. In being able

[2:23:13] to rely. Upon being able to do their job as

[2:23:16] a painter, plumber, electrician, There are people. Talent is needed

[2:23:21] greatly across Canada and internationally. People will look elsewhere if

[2:23:26] they see. Their opportunities and prospects drying up. Now, do

[2:23:30] I necessarily see that that's going to be the case,

[2:23:32] and it's a binary one and zero decision that. This

[2:23:36] will inevitably happen. No, I want to be hedged and

[2:23:40] nuanced in that, but. I think it really relies upon.

[2:23:43] The council working with industry to come up with solutions.

[2:23:48] In the short, medium and long term. At a pace,

[2:23:51] that's where it will seem uncomfortable. To government at times,

[2:23:56] in my opinion. But it will be extremely necessary in

[2:23:59] order to first all this outcome. Yeah. I agree with

[2:24:04] you because. This is fundamentally. I mean, folks, these are

[2:24:09] already challenging economic times, and these folks need to be

[2:24:12] able to pay. Their rent, pay their mortgages, put food

[2:24:15] on the table, all these kinds of issues. And if

[2:24:18] they can't do it here, they'll go elsewhere. And so

[2:24:20] that's a concern for me. You talked about taking investment

[2:24:24] elsewhere. Calls from financial institutions. I'm hearing this as well,

[2:24:29] and. It all speaks to. Messaging and one of the

[2:24:32] most significant concerns I've heard, whether it's from people. Who

[2:24:36] are looking to invest in the area, companies that are

[2:24:38] looking to, who are already here looking. To expand. Those

[2:24:42] in the construction industry is messaging around. Are we still

[2:24:47] open for business? And I'm wondering if you can talk

[2:24:50] a little bit about how important that. Is in terms

[2:24:55] of this overall situation. I think messaging and communication is

[2:24:59] extremely important, and I want to both commend staff and

[2:25:02] counsel to being open to taking calls and discussions during

[2:25:06] this time. It's only working together. That we're going to

[2:25:09] figure our way through that. That said, and this is

[2:25:13] the guidance that I want to offer, Council and staff

[2:25:16] is how we communicate back out to the industry will

[2:25:18] be mission critical for us. Also getting out, I think

[2:25:22] by us giving any sort of smell that we're not

[2:25:26] open. For business. Will invariably have huge impacts for years

[2:25:33] and years to come. I would like to. Figure out

[2:25:37] a more nuanced approach with better modeling where. We can

[2:25:41] still manage to keep some semblance of not only development

[2:25:44] approvals, but development in general going. While we try and

[2:25:49] solve this problem collaboratively. I think that's the safest way.

[2:25:52] To go specifically. One of the issues that place is.

[2:25:58] What the percentage rate is on capacity reserve and what

[2:26:03] is the appropriate thing. And then looking at real, actual

[2:26:06] modeling from a monthly timeline, specifically speaking. It looks like

[2:26:11] August to be our worst pinch point. In terms of

[2:26:14] water availability due to the seasonality. So it's like, how

[2:26:17] do we take advantage of that time. Between that to

[2:26:21] get as much available capacity and what available capacity could

[2:26:25] we bring online? In three months, six months, twelve months,

[2:26:29] and then plan collaboratively with not only industry but staff.

[2:26:34] Accordingly. I think there's solutions to be had, and I'm

[2:26:36] hoping for a nuanced. Approach. Great. Thank you very much.

[2:26:39] I appreciate that, madam chair. If others don't. Ask me

[2:26:42] other questions. I'll queue back in. Thank you. Okay, moving

[2:26:47] along. Councilor Hunich through. You, Chair James. Thank you, Joseph,

[2:26:51] for coming in. Today. I just want to reassure you

[2:26:53] that each of the concerns that you outlined are on

[2:26:56] the radar of regional council and we are doing everything

[2:26:59] that we can to mitigate them. Expediatly so. Thank you.

[2:27:04] Councilor McKabe. Thank you. And at the risk of. We

[2:27:10] know we have another number of other delegations, so I

[2:27:12] won't ask all my questions of you, Joseph. I'll save

[2:27:14] some for the others, too. But thank you for making

[2:27:16] time to be here today and coming with a solution

[2:27:20] focused. Presentation. And I do have a couple of motions

[2:27:25] that I'm going to table this afternoon. That speak to

[2:27:28] some of those. And particularly I have a lot of

[2:27:31] questions around the resiliency piece. And just with 20% the

[2:27:35] right number. Can it be phased in? Things like that,

[2:27:38] but. I was quite curious about, because one of the

[2:27:41] motions I have is around the conservation. Piece. And you

[2:27:46] referenced that you wanted to have 50 of the top,

[2:27:50] the largest water users together for a meeting. And so

[2:27:55] I'm curious if you have a sense of how many

[2:27:57] of those users or how much of our water. And

[2:28:00] I know you're not a water engineer. But. Are using

[2:28:05] potable water that could be using non potable water and

[2:28:09] how that might play into helping us address this capacity

[2:28:13] issue. I think the short answer to that is we

[2:28:16] don't know, but we need to know. Very quickly. Whether

[2:28:20] it be aging like data centers that are using, potentially

[2:28:23] using potable. Water that could use gray water or closed

[2:28:27] loop geothermal solutions. We need to get creative and. What

[2:28:32] we save will buy us some time to bring on

[2:28:35] additional capacity. So I think we just. Need to have

[2:28:38] very frank and earthy discussions. I think it's really going

[2:28:42] to come. One of the other things I would like

[2:28:44] to see in the motions, quite honestly, is the ability

[2:28:48] to start being able to access the reserve fund so

[2:28:50] that we can start implementing. It. I recognize. I'm not

[2:28:55] exactly sure of the appropriate budget actions that will be

[2:28:59] required in order to allocate funds, but. I would proffer

[2:29:03] to you that we need some sort of. Working mechanism

[2:29:07] to be able to access those funds outside of the

[2:29:09] typical. Capital cost budget, so that when we see an

[2:29:14] opportunity that has. An immediate potential benefits that we can

[2:29:18] move on it very quickly. Okay, thank you very much.

[2:29:21] I'll save the rest of my questions for other delegations.

[2:29:24] Thank you, Councilor Foxton. Thank you. And to you chair

[2:29:27] and welcome, Joseph. So the region is working very diligently

[2:29:32] and very hard and looking at funding to fix the

[2:29:35] problem and. They do have items that we should go

[2:29:38] through. Love your suggestion of finding the biggest, the 50th.

[2:29:42] Biggest users and working with them. But I think all

[2:29:45] of us should be very aware of the situation and

[2:29:48] work together, and I think that's exactly what the region

[2:29:50] plans to do. And keep the builders informed because we

[2:29:54] want the trades to remain. We want you to build.

[2:29:57] We want it to happen, but we have to be

[2:29:58] ensured that we can provide the water. You need, and

[2:30:01] that's our first priority right now, and that's what we're

[2:30:04] working for. Towards fullheartedly. I know that was a comment,

[2:30:09] but if I could just. Relay a quick comment in

[2:30:15] return. I think there's been very good examples of industry

[2:30:18] working with regional staff on large scale infrastructure projects. There's

[2:30:23] a few examples that come to mind. But having working

[2:30:26] groups not only informing the industry, but having them available

[2:30:30] at the table. To help craft solutions and better solutions,

[2:30:35] either that could be done quicker or cheaper, or help

[2:30:38] us hit our desired results. So I would like to

[2:30:41] use a whole region approach in terms of the solution

[2:30:43] I'd really like to see. Committee stood up so that

[2:30:47] people can open those lines of communication, us, to rebuild.

[2:30:52] That trust and look for the best and optimal solutions

[2:30:54] in a quick fashion. Totally agree. Working together. We're stronger

[2:30:58] and better. Thank you. Thank you, chair Redmond. Thank you,

[2:31:03] chair James. Joe, I want to thank you for coming

[2:31:05] in, too. And this is a blanket comment to everybody

[2:31:08] who's making delegation. I think the developers in the construction

[2:31:12] industry in Waterloo Region are second to none. To echo

[2:31:15] councilor chair James comment. Really appreciate the fact that everybody's

[2:31:20] rolling up their sleeves and coming with solutions, so thank

[2:31:22] you. Very much. Thank you, Councilor Shawns. Thank you. Thank

[2:31:28] you for being here today. Just a question that came

[2:31:32] to mind when councilor Foxon was speaking and. That is.

[2:31:39] To developers, and maybe you can help me with this.

[2:31:43] Are you starting to look more to using things like.

[2:31:47] Cisterns or sort of collecting water. And perhaps using gray

[2:31:53] water. I know. There's a lot of infrastructure involved with

[2:31:56] some of those pieces, but are developers starting to look

[2:32:00] at that as a way of helping. I think there

[2:32:05] can be a lot of practical solutions of the detailed

[2:32:08] design phase and that's really candidly where I want to

[2:32:11] decouple the notion of, okay, we're going to freeze development

[2:32:15] or slow development versus. We're going to look at development,

[2:32:19] but also look for opportunities, I think. This is a

[2:32:23] conservation piece. There's a redirection piece. There's also a larger

[2:32:28] overall capacity. And allocation of peace across the entire system.

[2:32:33] So I think there's lots of technical solutions. Can be

[2:32:36] brought to the fore. And that's why I don't think

[2:32:38] a one. In zero binary. Binary switch to do this

[2:32:42] is necessarily the right solution for us at this time.

[2:32:46] Thank you. I see no further counselors in the queue.

[2:32:50] Council for Banovic. I do want. To come back to

[2:32:51] you. If you do have one question, you're good. Okay.

[2:32:54] Thank you. Joseph, for coming in and speaking candidly with

[2:32:58] us. Thank you. I will now call on David Galbras,

[2:33:02] president and principal planner, up consulting. And David,

[2:33:12] you have five minutes. There will be a light that

[2:33:14] flashes when you're down. To about a minute, okay? Okay.

[2:33:17] Thank you. Good morning, chair members of the committee. My

[2:33:20] name is. Dave Galbrayth. I'm a registered professional planner and

[2:33:22] the president of upconsulting. Limited. I'm here today as a

[2:33:25] planner and concerned citizen with regard to the capacity constraint

[2:33:29] at. Mannheim in the service area. We've all read the

[2:33:34] report, and I suggest many of us have similar questions.

[2:33:37] How did we really get here? Why is this issue

[2:33:39] escalated so urgently to warrant? A complete halt in development.

[2:33:43] And how will this issue be resolved and what can

[2:33:45] be done to do so quickly. These are certainly all

[2:33:47] questions that need answer, but at this juncture, similar to

[2:33:50] Joseph, I think it's imperative that we focus. On what

[2:33:52] can be done right now to resolve the issue as

[2:33:55] soon as possible. The fallout of a prolonged clamp on

[2:33:58] water will have profound impacts on our community further. Stagnation

[2:34:03] of the development industry direct impacts on local economic development

[2:34:06] compromise project financing from private lenders as well as through

[2:34:11] CMHC. Direct impacts on the constructions and trade industry erosion

[2:34:16] of trust, functional elimination of development charges for the area,

[2:34:20] municipalities, the region, and school boards. Direct impacts on housing

[2:34:24] delivery, including affordable housing. Direct impacts on the ability of

[2:34:27] local municipalities to achieve their housing targets. And with that

[2:34:31] comes the risk of losing. Critical infrastructure monies. Impacts and

[2:34:36] then finally impacts on existing policy initiatives, including Kitchener's new

[2:34:40] op. This list may seem dramatic, but I want to

[2:34:43] be absolutely clear that the impacts of this matter are

[2:34:46] far reaching. And pronounced. This problem requires urgent action and

[2:34:50] resolution and collaboration between. Levels of government and the industry

[2:34:54] itself. I agree with the recommendations put forward by Joseph

[2:34:58] this morning, that short, medium and long term actions. Should

[2:35:01] be action straight away. As well as conservation messaging out

[2:35:06] to the General Republic. In addition, the slide before you

[2:35:09] today has several targeted recommendations. Recommendation one is focused on

[2:35:14] supporting development. Through this process, the region and its area

[2:35:17] municipality counterparts need to work collectively to ensure that projects

[2:35:22] can still move through formative. Approvals like. A four unit

[2:35:26] development that went to Kitchener Council last night. Likewise, local

[2:35:30] government should explore where allocation has been granted to date,

[2:35:33] but not acted upon. Engage with these owners of this

[2:35:36] allocation and see whether it can be reallocated on a

[2:35:39] temporary basis. Recommendation number two is that the region consider

[2:35:43] a phase in of the proposed resiliency target. As mentioned

[2:35:47] by member McCabe, while the goal of having a 20%

[2:35:50] buffer is great on paper and a good goal to

[2:35:52] strive for. Given the situation we're currently in, we should

[2:35:56] consider a phase in recommendation three is focused on working

[2:35:59] to protect existing infrastructure fund. Funding, grants and revenue sources.

[2:36:04] With regards to strong community grants and half funding, these

[2:36:06] are linked to housing starts, so there should be a

[2:36:08] focus on achieving these targets. Recommendation four recommends a review

[2:36:13] of planned capital projects being undertaken by the region this

[2:36:16] year and next. The region should ensure that this is

[2:36:19] priority number one and recommendation. Five proposes the establishment of

[2:36:23] a public and private sector working group, as also indicated

[2:36:28] by Joseph for constant communication throughout this process. The final

[2:36:33] recommendations on the screen focus on working with federal and

[2:36:37] provincial counterparts, which I understand has already been initiated. Final

[2:36:40] recommendation is just to review the situation and how we

[2:36:43] can avoid similar situations. Moving forward. I appreciate your time

[2:36:48] this morning, and I'm available for any questions you might

[2:36:50] have. Okay? Thank you, David. We do have a few

[2:36:53] questions. Councilor Rodriguez. Thanks for coming in, David. And trust

[2:36:58] a planner to pull together a great infographic for this.

[2:37:02] I guess a question for you is. I bleeds between

[2:37:07] the two of you. Have spoken about it in different

[2:37:08] ways, but would it? Be fair in your experience and

[2:37:10] what you understand from your colleagues, that there's the infrastructure.

[2:37:14] Issue. There's this hard engineering challenge that we need to

[2:37:17] overcome and sort of the math and the paper of

[2:37:19] it all. There are perhaps separate things that can be

[2:37:22] worked on. Separately, but together. Is that a fair characterization,

[2:37:28] perhaps, of how we might be able to go forward?

[2:37:30] In a good way. Through the chair. I think you've

[2:37:33] captured that pretty well. Certainly. Within a water model. You

[2:37:37] have to account for developments that have already been approved.

[2:37:39] But as we've seen certain projects get to this stage

[2:37:43] of approvals, even site plan approvals, but don't ever action

[2:37:47] the building permit. And there's economic reasons for why that's.

[2:37:50] Occurring. And other reasons for why that's occurring, general market

[2:37:53] conditions. So I think there really needs to be a

[2:37:56] deep dive into this issue, specifically to say, What's the

[2:38:00] paper issue? What's been approved? What could be potentially reallocated?

[2:38:04] And then again, as an industry, I think what I've

[2:38:07] been hearing, I've probably been on the phone about 60

[2:38:10] hours in the past week and a half on this

[2:38:11] issue, and. Much more in December as well. Is that?

[2:38:17] There's certainly a drive to work together to make sure

[2:38:20] that our trades are still busy. That projects that can

[2:38:23] move forward, that there is a business case right now

[2:38:25] that they can still advance. Thank you. I really appreciate

[2:38:28] that. Thanks. Chair. Thank you, Councilor Bennevic. Thank you very

[2:38:33] much. And thanks, David, for coming in and. To thumbs

[2:38:38] up on the infographic. I saw it on the weekend

[2:38:39] on social media and. It was great. So just further

[2:38:44] on those allocations, because I do think that this is.

[2:38:49] Certainly a step. In the solution going forward. My sense

[2:38:54] is that there's a few realities at play right now.

[2:39:00] There may be projects that have been on the books

[2:39:02] and maybe won't come forward for another five, six, seven

[2:39:05] years for a whole variety of reasons. So I think

[2:39:07] that's part of what you're talking about. But the other

[2:39:10] reality is there are projects because of the economics. The

[2:39:14] shift from, let's say, condo development to the rent. Rental

[2:39:20] market right now. In terms of projects that are density

[2:39:23] related. Folks. May have planning approval for 30 stories, but

[2:39:29] the numbers really only make 17 or 18 work, right?

[2:39:32] Now. And so is that the kind of stuff you

[2:39:35] think we need to really dig deeper with? Yourselves as

[2:39:38] an industry to understand and use that as a pathway

[2:39:41] to move forward in the short to medium term. Through

[2:39:45] the chair? Absolutely. I think. I don't really have much

[2:39:49] to add to that, but I think we need to

[2:39:51] have these types of conversations. Some will be easier, some

[2:39:54] will be more challenging. But again, as you noted the

[2:39:58] project financing that may have worked 2018 or 2017 might

[2:40:02] not be applicable anymore, right? And, yeah, I think there

[2:40:06] needs to be that kind of conversation with the industry

[2:40:09] as a whole. You reference a 20% buffer, and that's

[2:40:13] obviously something that we're going to need to talk about,

[2:40:15] and I know that that's a staff recommendation, but. In

[2:40:20] talking to others. And learning about sort of what exists

[2:40:24] in other parts of the province and everyone's water. System

[2:40:26] is different. But that buffer number seems to be different

[2:40:32] in different places. Some of them may be cities that

[2:40:36] for example, rely on the lake directly. And that's a

[2:40:40] different scenario, obviously, than us. Who rely on groundwater. Primarily

[2:40:46] in the river to a certain degree. But. Is there

[2:40:50] a question there both in terms of. What's the right

[2:40:54] number on a short term basis, and ultimately is 20%

[2:40:58] the right? Number on a long term basis. Is that

[2:41:00] a little bit of what we're hearing from you folks.

[2:41:03] Yeah, through the chair again. I think water is critical

[2:41:07] for everything, right? And I think as a region, we

[2:41:09] need to protect ourselves long term. So striving for this

[2:41:13] resiliency buffer. I'm not an engineer. I don't know what's

[2:41:16] commonplace between different municipalities, but again, If this is a

[2:41:22] long term goal, treat it as a long term goal.

[2:41:24] Accept a certain degree. Of risk in the short term.

[2:41:29] Just also recognizing the risks of a potential fallout of

[2:41:31] the situation. So, yeah, I think it's a great goal

[2:41:35] to work towards ensure that we have a resiliency buffer

[2:41:37] there. But I think from my perspective, given. The situation

[2:41:43] we find ourselves in. This is something that should be

[2:41:45] explored. And last quick question. Both you and Joseph have

[2:41:48] referenced the public private working group. Prior to today, has

[2:41:54] there been that request? Of our team here at the

[2:41:59] region. And any feedback on that, or is this sort

[2:42:02] of the first that it's being formally. Requested. Through the

[2:42:08] chair. So there's no existing working group, I think, in

[2:42:11] different forums. Regional staff are great with meeting with groups

[2:42:17] like build Urban, which I represent from a planning perspective.

[2:42:20] And they have met with the Home Builders association. But

[2:42:22] I think what the industry is really looking for is

[2:42:25] just. Clear, consistent messaging on this issue. It could help

[2:42:30] with situations like a bank that's knocking on your door.

[2:42:33] What's going on in this world? Where financing is in

[2:42:36] question. If we have consistent messaging that can be brought

[2:42:39] back, it can help. Mitigate some of those issues. So

[2:42:42] I don't think there's a formal working group on this

[2:42:44] specifically yet with the industry, but certainly something we'd look

[2:42:47] to see and because there's sort of a three way

[2:42:50] partnership on this issue. The region from water, municipalities, from

[2:42:55] planning, and then obviously the industry on this. Would it

[2:42:58] be helpful? That there's some representation from area municipalities on

[2:43:01] this working group as well. Yes, through the chair? Absolutely.

[2:43:05] Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilor McCabe. Thank

[2:43:09] you. And again, thank you, David, for spending. You said

[2:43:12] I think upwards of 60 hours over. The recent holiday

[2:43:16] season. Answering questions or seeking information. It sounds like we're

[2:43:20] in meetings. So thank you for doing that work. It's

[2:43:25] obviously not the way people want to spend their time.

[2:43:27] Generally speaking. I was going to save this question. For

[2:43:33] Melissa Durrell because I know she has communications background, but.

[2:43:37] Since you raised it, and you were talking about the

[2:43:40] need for consistent, clear communications, can I ask. Do you

[2:43:45] have concerns around that? The messaging. Has been inconsistent or

[2:43:50] unclear or maybe, I don't know, use another adjective. That

[2:43:55] you'd like. How has it sort of been landing? With

[2:43:59] the sector. Through the chair. I think this is a

[2:44:02] very quickly emerging issue, right? So we were first notified

[2:44:08] of this in early December. And limited information was provided

[2:44:13] at that time due to a lack of information at

[2:44:16] the time, right? There was a need for additional study.

[2:44:20] But I think there was a general concern that we

[2:44:22] just need improved messaging on this. So I think it

[2:44:25] is a new issue. It's not like this is a

[2:44:28] long standing thing that we've been aware of as an

[2:44:30] industry. So just moving forward, I think it would help.

[2:44:33] Both the region as well as the development sector. Just

[2:44:37] to understand. What's transpiring. Okay, thank you for that. My

[2:44:42] other question for you then is, and I realize I'm

[2:44:46] asking you to speak sort of. On behalf of the

[2:44:48] whole sector, but you're here, so I'm just wondering. If

[2:44:51] you could maybe articulate what you feel are the top.

[2:44:56] Short and medium term issues that the sector is facing,

[2:45:00] like for the next three months, the next six months.

[2:45:03] And really, in 2026, what are the. Key immediate issues

[2:45:08] that you want regional council and our staff team to

[2:45:11] be thinking about and taking. Action on. Yeah, through the

[2:45:15] chair. I think for most developer clients who are looking

[2:45:19] to break ground, whether it be a car wash or

[2:45:22] a high rise building. Maybe car wash is a bad

[2:45:25] example to be. Referencing right now. But. Certainly. It's just

[2:45:31] about how will development applications be processed? Are we going

[2:45:35] to be able to advance them to a certain point.

[2:45:37] We're looking for consistency between the affected municipalities on how

[2:45:41] these issues will be treated. I think in addition to

[2:45:45] that, I would say. Do we need to go towards

[2:45:50] a full halt, or can this be as I mentioned

[2:45:53] before, can this be phased in, monitored very closely throughout

[2:45:56] the process to allow for certain forms of development. It's

[2:45:59] obviously not 2018, when we were really in the thick

[2:46:03] of the big boom, but there are projects that. Are

[2:46:07] moving forward, and they're projects that are deeply needed in

[2:46:08] the community. So how can we facilitate advancing certain projects.

[2:46:12] Given the overall situation here and what types of projects

[2:46:16] are going to be prioritized. And then I'd say, third,

[2:46:20] we just need an understanding of what are the fixes.

[2:46:24] The short, medium, long term. We understand. There's that report

[2:46:26] coming. But it's raising hairs in the development industry they're

[2:46:31] anxious to understand is this going to. Be. How quickly

[2:46:36] can these things be actioned? Is this a three year

[2:46:38] EA process plus longer build? Out or what are the

[2:46:42] short term fixes? We just really need to understand what

[2:46:45] it means. And how quickly will they be able to

[2:46:47] get back to business? Okay, thanks for that. I really.

[2:46:50] Hear the need for urgency. And acceleration. Of that. The

[2:46:56] motion that I put forward was to accelerate that list

[2:46:58] of repairs so that we at least have a better

[2:47:00] understanding more quickly of what are the short, medium and

[2:47:03] long term as you just articulated the short, medium, long

[2:47:06] term actions that we need to undertake. Thanks very much,

[2:47:09] David. For coming in today. Okay. Thank you, David. I

[2:47:13] see no further questions. Appreciate you as well, coming in

[2:47:17] to speak with us today. Next. I think the next

[2:47:21] delegate has withdrawn. So we will move on to Melissa

[2:47:23] Durrell, executive officer Bill Derbyn.

[2:47:38] Melissa, you've got five minutes. And when that light flashes,

[2:47:42] you know you've got. About a minute left. Okay. Thank

[2:47:45] you very much. So, good morning, chair, regional counselors staff

[2:47:49] as well, as mentioned, my name is Melissa Durle, and

[2:47:52] I'm here on behalf of build. Urban, which is a

[2:47:54] coalition of about 17. Developers actively building housing, commercial mixed

[2:48:02] use projects across Waterloo region. So I want to be

[2:48:05] clear at the outset, we fully support the region's responsibility

[2:48:09] to provide a safe, reliable drinking water supply. Protecting water

[2:48:13] sustainability is essential, and the development industry does not dispute

[2:48:17] that what we're here to talk about today is clarity,

[2:48:20] coordination and timing. The reason is advised that it cannot

[2:48:24] support approval. Of new development applications in the Mannheim service

[2:48:27] area at this time, and it will not enter into

[2:48:29] new servicing agreements, and this has had significant impacts. For

[2:48:33] projects already in the planning and approval pipeline. Many of

[2:48:36] these projects were approved or advanced under previous growth assumptions,

[2:48:40] and developers have already invested heavily in land planning, design,

[2:48:45] engineering, and finance when servicing expectations change. Without clear timelines

[2:48:50] or path forward, uncertainty takes hold. An uncertainty is the

[2:48:55] real issue here. Every project depends on financing. Banks and

[2:49:00] lenders and institutional investors are deeply involved at every stage

[2:49:04] and their highly risk adverse when approvals, servicing and timelines

[2:49:08] become unclear, capital looks elsewhere. This is not speculation. This

[2:49:12] is already happening. And it's important to be precise here

[2:49:15] because the region is indicated, it cannot approve new applications

[2:49:18] at this time, but it is not issued an outright

[2:49:20] ban on development. So the current lack of clarity around

[2:49:23] what can proceed under what conditions and on what timeline

[2:49:27] is being interpreted by the market as an increased risk

[2:49:31] that perception alone can delay or redirect. Investment. Even while

[2:49:35] technical work continues behind the scenes, we are hearing inconsistent

[2:49:39] messages are on the ground. Some planners are suggesting projects

[2:49:42] may still move forward, while others are advising that applications

[2:49:44] cannot advance. That inconsistency creates confusion not just for builders

[2:49:49] but for municipalities, consultants, lenders who are all trying to

[2:49:52] interpret the same. Information differently. So the question our build

[2:49:56] urban members are asking is very simple, what can proceed

[2:50:00] and how quickly can this issue be resolved? Another important

[2:50:04] factor is the application of a 20% operational resiliency buffer.

[2:50:09] This is significant. Requirement with major implications for development. While

[2:50:13] resiliency is important, applying such a conservative threshold at this

[2:50:16] time, we believe, is premature. Projects in the planning and

[2:50:20] approval pipeline require clarity and stability. First so that. Necessary

[2:50:24] adjustments can be made without creating unnecessary risks or delays.

[2:50:28] So that brings me to the request. Which you've heard,

[2:50:30] and I'll reiterate it one more time, Bill Durban. Is

[2:50:33] looking for a creation, the immediate creation of an industry

[2:50:36] water capacity task force working alongside regional staff, municipalities and

[2:50:41] technical teams. This task force must. Include active builders and

[2:50:46] developers who can provide real world input on phasing, timing

[2:50:49] and feasibility. And we're also urging the region to continue

[2:50:53] advancing applications through planning and approval stages where possible. Where

[2:50:56] possible. While infrastructure challenges are being investigated and addressed, allowing

[2:51:02] projects to continue to move through formative stages. Helps avoid

[2:51:06] a future backlog and provides confidence to financial partners and

[2:51:11] the region that we are actively managing this issue. Finally,

[2:51:15] we're asking the region to be consistent in its public

[2:51:17] communications, language matters, technical statements. When not paired with clear

[2:51:22] next steps and timelines can unintentionally signal instability. To investors

[2:51:26] and employers. Clear, plain language communication will help maintain confidence

[2:51:32] while solutions are being developed. Builders matter to this region.

[2:51:36] And we're delivering the housing, employment opportunities and economic activity

[2:51:40] that. Communities depend on. As mentioned, there's thousands of people

[2:51:44] that are employed here, and we continue to invest because

[2:51:46] we believe in this region. But if this issue drags

[2:51:50] on without clarity, investment is going to slow. So, to

[2:51:53] summarize, first clarity. We would like clear answers on what

[2:51:57] can proceed now and how quickly capacity constraints can be

[2:52:00] resolved. Regional councilor McCabe has a motion to that effect.

[2:52:05] Second, direct industry involvement and immediate industry water capacity task

[2:52:08] force with real builder representation and access to data and

[2:52:12] assumptions that are driving the decisions. And third, urgency and

[2:52:16] consistency. Coordinated action and consistent messaging across the region and

[2:52:21] local municipalities while maintaining a safe and reliable water supply.

[2:52:26] This is a serious issue, but it's solvable. Build urban

[2:52:30] stands ready to work. With the region to find practical

[2:52:33] solutions and keep housing and employment development moving responsibly. Thank

[2:52:37] you. Thank you, Melissa. We do have a few questions

[2:52:40] from councilors. Councilor Bennevik. Thanks. Very much. And thanks, Melissa,

[2:52:44] for being here today. And I think. It's actually really

[2:52:48] helpful that you're here because not only are you bringing

[2:52:50] wearing your current hat, but you also sat around to

[2:52:53] council horseshoe before, and so. You kind of have. Lived

[2:52:57] experience in terms of. How all of this is playing

[2:53:00] out. My first question to you is you talked about

[2:53:05] the importance of clear language. How this is impacting financial

[2:53:10] market investors. The whole piece around being open for business.

[2:53:15] And that is probably the consistent message that I'm hearing

[2:53:18] from so many in different sectors. And I'm just wondering.

[2:53:25] Particularly. As someone who has sat on our side of

[2:53:29] the horseshoe, but also as a communicator. How important is

[2:53:32] that and how critical is that in order to make

[2:53:35] sure we're not jeopardizing future investment, not just in the

[2:53:38] short term, but in the longer term. We can manage

[2:53:42] what we're say around this horseshoe. But what gets set

[2:53:45] outside? Really? Really. Matters. And while no one in this

[2:53:49] room has said stop development entirely, that is what's being

[2:53:53] said in the comment sections, in headlines from other leaders

[2:53:57] in this community. They're talking about is Waterlooe region clothes

[2:54:00] for business. They're asking these kinds of questions right now.

[2:54:04] That is absolutely not the right kind of messaging. We

[2:54:06] want out about this community. I think we really need

[2:54:08] to be careful about how we're talking about. What this

[2:54:11] issue is and how we're solving it and being very

[2:54:14] proactive around that. And I think because. It's been so

[2:54:19] ambiguous that people are filling in the gaps. This is

[2:54:23] a million billion dollar issue. Like millions today, billions in

[2:54:27] the next decade issue. So, yes. People are looking for

[2:54:30] answers. And when we look for answers, we look all

[2:54:32] over. And what you're seeing out there in those headlines

[2:54:35] and in the comments are people trying to fill in.

[2:54:37] The gaps has to be really strong. Regional message we

[2:54:40] are open for business. We have enough water. We're working.

[2:54:43] On solutions to get more water available. That kind of

[2:54:46] language matters. Okay. Thank you. And I guess just elaborating

[2:54:51] on that. In terms of the messaging and no disrespect

[2:54:56] to the companies because they're an important part of this,

[2:55:00] but I think really how this hits home to people

[2:55:03] in the community. Is how this is or isn't addressing

[2:55:08] the housing crisis and. How it's in reality going to

[2:55:13] potentially impact the thousands of jobs in our community. And

[2:55:19] wondering if you can speak to the importance of really

[2:55:22] honing in on that from a community perspective. Yeah. I

[2:55:26] mean, I was at your council, Mayor Verbanovic, not too

[2:55:30] long ago. Where? Regional council here talking about the encampments.

[2:55:34] We know that housing is a massive issue here. And

[2:55:36] so I think. What we need to be talking about

[2:55:40] is how we open up capacity. Our eye is still

[2:55:43] on the number one goal, which is creating housing in

[2:55:46] this community along the housing continuum. And so what? Does

[2:55:49] that look like? We have small fixes that can happen,

[2:55:52] medium term fixes and large long term fixes. We are

[2:55:56] open for business in this community. And so my last

[2:55:58] question to you. Is a number of us. I think

[2:56:02] four or five of us have motions that we're planning

[2:56:05] on bringing forward as the day goes on. We're one

[2:56:08] of the ones that I'm focusing in on is the

[2:56:10] need. For the region to share its data. With both

[2:56:16] the area municipalities. And. The industry for two reasons. Number

[2:56:22] one, So that everybody has that access to that data

[2:56:27] and can really dig in and have a deep understanding

[2:56:30] of what's being talked about. But secondly, Just in the

[2:56:34] interest of full transparency. So that this is a big

[2:56:38] issue. And the more information that's there, reliable, trusted information.

[2:56:43] And you don't get any more reliable than good data.

[2:56:48] I'm wondering if, from an industry perspective, if you have

[2:56:50] a thought on the importance of that motion and sharing

[2:56:55] the sharing of that data. Thank you, Councilor thie chair.

[2:56:59] I really think that you've nailed it when you talk

[2:57:01] about the fact that transparency and having eyeballs on that

[2:57:04] data is important. There has been a little bit of

[2:57:07] a loss of trust over the last. I guess since

[2:57:11] December. 9th not doing just over a month. We don't

[2:57:16] have answers. We don't know what projects are moving forward.

[2:57:19] We don't know. We don't know. We don't know. The

[2:57:22] quickest way to start to remedy that is to have

[2:57:26] what we're proposing and this is one of the things

[2:57:28] we've talked about within the industry. What can we do?

[2:57:30] To start. To understand what's going on behind the curtain

[2:57:34] is to have eyeballs in there. We're not talking about

[2:57:37] a ton of people. This has to be efficient. We

[2:57:39] don't. Want to create another. Place where everybody's going to

[2:57:43] be sitting and wasting hours and hours of time. This

[2:57:46] cannot. Be done in an email. This is the kind

[2:57:48] of task force that's actually going to come up with

[2:57:50] solutions and move things forward and then be able to

[2:57:53] report back to the home. Builders build urban and the

[2:57:56] other organizations. I think it's imperative from this moment forward

[2:58:01] that. Moving on that the industry is involved and actually

[2:58:04] sees the data. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilor

[2:58:08] McKay. Thank you very much. And thank you again, Melissa,

[2:58:11] for coming in and. For the work that you do.

[2:58:14] With the build urban and the development community and the

[2:58:16] public service they've provided, and I just have to say

[2:58:18] it's great to see a woman up here as well,

[2:58:20] representing the development community, so don't want that to go

[2:58:23] unnoticed. I was going to ask you some communications questions.

[2:58:28] But councilor Verbanovic covered most of those. But just the

[2:58:33] one communications question I will ask you. Putting that hat

[2:58:36] of yours on. Like you're talking about. It sounds like

[2:58:40] the lack of clarity and the lack of consistency. In

[2:58:43] that. It sounds like. You're not getting the information that

[2:58:48] we think we're providing. So I'm just wondering if you

[2:58:52] had any specific comments on changes you'd like. To see

[2:58:55] to the communication and the key messages that we are

[2:58:59] sending or some advice. Yeah. There's really two parts to

[2:59:04] this. I think overall, our industry needs better insight into

[2:59:07] what's happening? In water management. In this region at this

[2:59:11] time. This. Has been a huge issue for my industry.

[2:59:20] For the development industry. Massive. And when things happen, people

[2:59:24] start to pick up the phone and what has happened

[2:59:26] is we're getting different information from different groups, from planners,

[2:59:31] from municipals, municipal staff or regional staff, so. I do

[2:59:35] think. There needs to be. A combined effort from the

[2:59:41] region and the municipalities to come forward and to say

[2:59:44] this is the plan going forward. We have projects, we

[2:59:48] don't know whether they're going to move forward or not.

[2:59:49] They've been approved. We do not know. Unbelievable in this

[2:59:54] community today. Yeah. Okay, so we need to know more.

[2:59:59] Something that has that task force that you're talking about.

[3:00:04] It is a real challenge, like in Waterloo, we've got

[3:00:07] around 4100 housing units for 2026. That we need to

[3:00:13] figure out an answer for. Multiply that by how much

[3:00:17] that's worth and think about the industry right now and.

[3:00:20] How stressed out. Yeah. So I can certainly do the

[3:00:23] multiplication effect of that. I'm just with the task force,

[3:00:28] and I understand. It needs to be nimble and we

[3:00:31] need to have decision makers at the table and all.

[3:00:34] That kind of stuff. I'm just wondering from the conservation

[3:00:37] side of it about having. Some representatives from reap green

[3:00:42] solution sustainable Waterloo. Representatives like that, if you'd be open

[3:00:47] to that, in addition to, I think, the reference was

[3:00:50] already made to having airy municipalities on that table, too.

[3:00:54] I'm conscious of not getting it too big. But also

[3:00:58] we've heard from David and Joseph around conservation methods and

[3:01:03] things that we need. To be considering as well. So

[3:01:06] I think I'm curious about the lens that they would

[3:01:09] bring to a table like you're suggesting, so just interested

[3:01:12] in your comments on that. I think that there's room

[3:01:16] for that in the future, but today. What I would

[3:01:20] like to see. Is. Would be one of our developers

[3:01:24] who would be a water engineer. I think the people

[3:01:27] around that table need to know what they're looking at

[3:01:29] when they're looking at those numbers. So that we can

[3:01:31] be lean, mean and nimble at the beginning. If in

[3:01:35] the future, as we move into the medium and long

[3:01:37] term goals, we expand to consumption, which I think. Is

[3:01:41] really a good idea around conservation. I think that that

[3:01:45] point, perhaps the task force could increase but I think

[3:01:49] today what we need to actually see is what does

[3:01:52] this well do? If we fix this, this will allow

[3:01:56] this much more development. I think we're at that. Micro

[3:01:58] stage right now, which the fewer people around that table

[3:02:01] to be able to make decisions to move and allow

[3:02:03] development to happen. Is the number one goal, and then

[3:02:07] we can move on to other ideas later. Okay, thanks

[3:02:10] for that. That's helpful information. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Rodriguez.

[3:02:15] You're next. Thanks for coming in, Melissa. I appreciate the

[3:02:19] beginning. You acknowledge the challenge that we're confronted with, right?

[3:02:23] There's this engineering challenge, and there's this. I'm happy I'm

[3:02:26] here. This real challenge that we have to grapple with.

[3:02:32] But acknowledging that and going forward. So what from now

[3:02:37] do you have a sense from your members and the

[3:02:39] folks that you're. Talking to that there is an openness.

[3:02:42] And a receptiveness to a nuanced approach to this, that

[3:02:45] this isn't. Normal times that. There may have to be

[3:02:49] some winners. There might have to be some things that,

[3:02:51] some tough conversations but that those conversations are important to

[3:02:55] have about what can happen right now, what can happen

[3:02:57] at the end of this year. What can happen for

[3:02:59] this construction season? Is that something that you're hearing as

[3:03:02] an openness, that there's different pathways? For different types of

[3:03:06] projects. Councilor, we are open. We don't know anything. We

[3:03:13] don't know what's on the table, who might have to

[3:03:15] say I'm. Going to. Take. I'll put my building on

[3:03:18] hold for two. We don't know anything. So at this

[3:03:22] point, I can't chris a ball to say what we

[3:03:25] can look at for the next bit. What we really

[3:03:28] want to know today is. What are those? Not Q

[3:03:31] one. But beginning, end of January, if that motion goes

[3:03:36] forward, what are those short term fixes that can allow

[3:03:39] growth to happen. I know my developers build urban members

[3:03:43] are open to having conversations 100% the region's success is

[3:03:48] our success, like we all are in this together. But

[3:03:51] at this point, I think that crystal ball thinking we're

[3:03:54] just not even there yet. We have to really dive

[3:03:58] into it. Really dive into it. I mean, we're at

[3:04:00] a point now where. We're talking. We need to stop

[3:04:02] talking and start doing. And I know that that's. What's

[3:04:04] part of today is about, but. That's. How big of

[3:04:08] a deal. This is tough. Really appreciate it. Thanks. Thank

[3:04:14] you, Chair Redmond. So, Melissa, thank you for coming in.

[3:04:17] And I just want to quote one of the things

[3:04:19] you said at the very beginning, and that is, this

[3:04:21] is a huge issue, but it's solvable the only way

[3:04:24] it's solvable is we all work together. One of the

[3:04:27] communication challenges. I think for all of us, and I've

[3:04:31] talked lots of people in this room and lots of

[3:04:33] developers outside of this room, and I'm sure other people

[3:04:36] around the horse. You have as well. I started out

[3:04:38] saying, we don't know what we don't know. This is

[3:04:40] a very iterative process. As we go along, we look

[3:04:45] at the measurement, and I'm sure, I'm confident. Everyone will

[3:04:47] stay here and listen to our staff report. In some

[3:04:50] of the motions that have been coming forward, but it's

[3:04:53] very difficult to give. Clarity of communication. When it's iterative,

[3:04:57] it harkens back to the Covid-19. Pandemic to me when

[3:05:02] science told us different things, when experts made it more

[3:05:06] clarified when we would be able to be more focused.

[3:05:08] We were then. Able to make different decisions. Every conversation

[3:05:13] that I've had with a provincial minister is that they're

[3:05:15] open to hearing what our solutions are, but how do

[3:05:19] we grapple with the fact that this is a moving

[3:05:21] target, and we know more every day, and we're sort

[3:05:24] of focusing in on what those. Solutions are, which clearly

[3:05:28] we all have to work in tandem. And I hear

[3:05:30] loud and clear from many of the delegations that involving

[3:05:33] the development community is a really smart way to move

[3:05:36] forward. But the message is going to change as it

[3:05:39] becomes clarified. And that's good practice. Don't say what you

[3:05:44] don't know, but at the same time. Be really careful

[3:05:49] about what you're saying, because when you say. That we

[3:05:54] are pausing all development. That has a massive implication. I

[3:06:00] mean, I question whether that was needed. Maybe the third

[3:06:04] party report where actually we understand what this actually looks

[3:06:08] like. That actually will give you answers. So that's something

[3:06:12] that we can talk about right now. All we know

[3:06:16] is that. We don't know what we don't know, and

[3:06:19] that's really hard. Again, thank you for coming in. And

[3:06:23] just know that you have our commitment that we will

[3:06:25] journey together because we all have to be part of

[3:06:27] the solution. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, councilor. Salanin thank

[3:06:32] you. Through you chair. Thank you very much, Melissa, for

[3:06:35] being here today and I really just want to say

[3:06:37] thank you for echoing a lot of the concerns that

[3:06:40] I know. I have had throughout. This process. But also

[3:06:44] I appreciate hearing that feedback. Because for me, I'm trying

[3:06:48] to reconcile what I thought had been shared or communicated

[3:06:51] effectively. And clearly it's not coming off the same way,

[3:06:54] so I really appreciate you highlighting that. Hopefully that will

[3:06:57] be reflected in the motions that I know myself and

[3:07:01] some of my other colleagues. Are bringing forward today. Thank

[3:07:04] you. Thank you, Councilor Shawn. Thank you. Thanks, Melissa, for

[3:07:09] coming in as well. One of the notes I put

[3:07:12] down chair Redmond spoke about was Covid. When we had

[3:07:18] information coming in and had to sort of put it

[3:07:21] all together and figure out what we're. Going to do

[3:07:24] with it. And then inviting the community. And I'm hoping

[3:07:29] that's the process that's going to happen here. You talked

[3:07:34] about it being a month. It was a month and

[3:07:37] a month over holidays and everything else, so I think

[3:07:40] we've been trying to move really quickly. And our planners,

[3:07:44] CIOs heads of council have been meeting and just trying

[3:07:48] to wrap our heads around it before we invite the

[3:07:52] community, but I really appreciate you pointing out that the

[3:07:55] community needs more and better information. And I, too, hope

[3:08:00] that that's forthcoming soon. Thank you. Thank you, Melissa. I

[3:08:06] see no further questions. Thank you for taking the time

[3:08:09] to come in this. Morning. Okay, next. We have Larry

[3:08:14] Katsuff, vice president, real Estate development, Solo Wave Investments Limited.

[3:08:20] You have five minutes, Larry. Chair James and members of

[3:08:30] committee. My name is Larry Kotsuff, and I'm the vice

[3:08:35] president of real estate development. For solar wave investments in

[3:08:39] the city of Waterloo. I'm here this morning on behalf

[3:08:42] of the company regarding the redevelopment of a former crowd.

[3:08:45] Carpet factory site at 65 Northfield Road west in the

[3:08:50] city of Waterloo. Madam chair. All of us, as community

[3:08:55] builders and leaders within Waterley Region, are yet again facing

[3:08:59] the challenge that needs to be addressed expeditiously and collectively.

[3:09:05] We are here as part of the solution as we

[3:09:08] move forward to advance ways and means to deal with

[3:09:11] the water capacity issue identified. At Mannheim. The solutions will

[3:09:17] be evolutionary. We realize that, but immediate action by council

[3:09:22] is necessary. I'm confident that the challenge. Can and will

[3:09:27] be dealt with appropriately. However. Madam Chair, we are seeking

[3:09:32] some clarifications and I will begin by. Setting the context.

[3:09:38] Our property. Is located immediately east of Highway 85 and

[3:09:43] south of Northfield Drive in the city and consists of

[3:09:46] 7.27 know that members are familiar with the property. The

[3:09:52] redevelopment of our site is divided into two stages to

[3:09:54] provide for residential and commercial uses. The respective planning instruments,

[3:10:01] official plan zoning bylaw, draft plan of subdivision are approved

[3:10:05] and in effect. I would like to focus on the

[3:10:08] first stage. Stage A. This stage. Will consist of six

[3:10:13] buildings that will accommodate approximately 1600 residential units. Located short

[3:10:18] walking distances from the Northfield and Conestoga LRT stations. The

[3:10:24] registration of stage A and approval of site plan application

[3:10:27] for the first building located at the corner of Northfield

[3:10:30] Drive in Conestoga Road are imminent also. We have met

[3:10:35] with city building staff. And are collaboratively working with them

[3:10:39] on our detailed drawings. We are hopeful to begin construction

[3:10:43] of our first building early this summer. Madam chair. Our

[3:10:48] request for clarification is regarding the statement on page eight

[3:10:51] in paragraph two of the staff report. That I quote,

[3:10:55] the region is not entering into new servicing agreements and

[3:11:00] how this statement applies to the crosslands that are already

[3:11:03] fully serviced. The analysis conducted by engineering consultants at Walter

[3:11:09] Fetty and attached to my letter of January 9. 2026.

[3:11:14] Indicates that the historic water demand of the cross carpet

[3:11:16] factory exceeds the demand proposed through the approval of residential

[3:11:21] development in stage a. The Walter Fetty report indicates that

[3:11:26] no new water capacity for development of stage a is

[3:11:29] requested and secondly, that stage a would be serviced with

[3:11:32] a lower demand. On water. Supply than the cross operations.

[3:11:36] Specifically, Walter Fetty. 's analysis indicates that the demand on

[3:11:43] water supply would be reduced as a result of the

[3:11:46] redevelopment. Further, the buildout of stage A is anticipated to

[3:11:52] occur over approximately 20 years. Which spreads water needs over

[3:11:57] a considerable time period. This net reduction in water supply

[3:12:02] is in line with recommendation number six of appendix V

[3:12:05] of the staff report. Here. The consultant. Agile infrastructure limited

[3:12:10] through its water supply. Peer review and assessment recommends a

[3:12:15] short term action to aid the region in better addressing

[3:12:18] immediate needs, including recommendation number six on page 42 of

[3:12:22] the report, which states. Working with industry experts to identify

[3:12:28] potential water supply opportunities that could be expedited. We feel

[3:12:32] that the redevelopment of stage a of our property is

[3:12:35] aligned with this recommendation as it reduces water supply requirements

[3:12:39] at our site. As stated in my letter of January

[3:12:42] the 9th, had it been clear that the historic servicing

[3:12:46] capacity associated with the site would not be carried forward

[3:12:50] through redevelopment. The 550,000 factory space. Would not have been

[3:12:56] demolished in 2024. At significant cost. Instead, the site would

[3:13:03] reasonably be operating today with new industrial tenants. By transitioning

[3:13:07] these lands from industrial use to a phased residential use

[3:13:11] of the project. Would first, reduce overall water demand. Second.

[3:13:17] Improve system flexibility in the near term and thirdly, support

[3:13:20] the region's stated objective of addressing immediate capacity pressures while

[3:13:25] enabling housing delivery. Larry, you have a few seconds left.

[3:13:29] I'll let you kind of wrap chair James, just. Timely

[3:13:32] clarification is important and I wanted to make mention to

[3:13:35] the committee that we've. Dealt with staff, commissioner Regir and

[3:13:39] his planning staff, who are now aware of the water.

[3:13:42] Supply circumstances as they relate to the site and that

[3:13:45] there are no additional supply requirements for. Stage a to

[3:13:49] proceed. Madam chair. That concludes my remarks, and I'm willing

[3:13:53] to answer any questions. Absolutely. Thank you. For coming in,

[3:13:55] Larry. We do have a few questions. Councilor McCabe, thank

[3:13:59] you and thanks. Larry for coming in. And thanks for

[3:14:02] your work on. This project. At the former crosslands. It's

[3:14:08] a pretty big project. I'm just wondering, just. For the

[3:14:12] rest of regional council because they're probably not as familiar

[3:14:15] as. I am because it's in the city of Waterloo.

[3:14:19] Can you just give us a sense. Of what the

[3:14:21] overall. Housing units. That are planned for that site in

[3:14:25] the fullness of time you said it'd be. About 20

[3:14:27] years, but. Then also. What you're looking to start in

[3:14:32] 2026. Like how many housing units. I've addressed stage a

[3:14:37] of two stages, which contemplates approximately half of the units,

[3:14:42] approximately 1600 units, residential units to be developed on the

[3:14:47] site. The second half would come much later. I've also

[3:14:50] specified that. The 1600 units proposed for six buildings would

[3:14:56] evolve over a period between now. And 2040 something. So

[3:15:04] we have been working diligently with city staff to, in

[3:15:08] fact, Move all these requirements forward from a registration site

[3:15:13] plan approval point of view to start construction of the

[3:15:16] first building at Northfield and Conestogo at that corner in

[3:15:21] the summer of this. Year. So. We're almost at the

[3:15:25] goal line, but need to just kick it across the

[3:15:28] goal line. So, from the perspective of registration, it's imminent,

[3:15:33] but there are certain conditions to be met. One of

[3:15:35] which I made reference to in the region staff report

[3:15:38] about servicing agreements with the region. Well, I hope I've

[3:15:43] made the case of the members of committee. That this

[3:15:47] was a service site. This is a service site. And

[3:15:51] it has been serviced for high water use. Which the

[3:15:55] crowd carpet factory was endearing over a period of time.

[3:15:59] So the capacity is there. It's use through the redevelopment.

[3:16:05] Will be a less and B extended over a long

[3:16:07] period of time. So that's really the point we're trying

[3:16:11] to make, and we really feel. That. Within sort of

[3:16:15] the situation we're discussing today. That it's a solution. To

[3:16:21] allow activity residential development to happen. And aspects that generate

[3:16:28] assessment for municipalities, which is important. So, yes. We're ready

[3:16:35] to go. I won't call them minor, but some aspects

[3:16:38] to kick over the goal line. Great. Thanks for that.

[3:16:43] I think that's helpful. I know. In the city of

[3:16:46] Waterloo. Like I was saying previously, we've got about 4000.

[3:16:49] Housing units. That are very imminent, right. In terms of

[3:16:55] going ahead, and this is one of them. But you

[3:16:57] could multiply that. This example that you're giving us is

[3:17:01] one of, I don't know. How many examples exist in

[3:17:05] the other area municipalities as well. So I really appreciate.

[3:17:10] You explaining how this. Is a real solution, but. There's

[3:17:15] some nuance. There's a lot of nuance in this. And

[3:17:20] as Melissa was saying, just saying this heart, like the

[3:17:23] message that has gone out is that it's like a

[3:17:26] hard and fast stop, whereas. There are some solutions and

[3:17:32] places where the capacity already exists and is already accounted

[3:17:35] for that I think we really need to take a

[3:17:37] look at. And see. And work, as your colleagues have

[3:17:42] said. On an industry table and with regional and area

[3:17:45] municipality staff to say what is possible to move ahead.

[3:17:50] In a really responsible manner. And what do we need?

[3:17:53] Repairs to the system to do. To accommodate, so. Thank

[3:17:59] you for bringing that overview to us because I think

[3:18:02] it's really, really helpful because that's a really specific and

[3:18:06] really real time example of. What some of the industry

[3:18:09] are facing. So thanks, Larry, for that. Thank you, Councilor

[3:18:13] McCabe. Councilor Banovic, thank you very much. And thanks, Larry,

[3:18:17] for coming in. And I guess bringing more of. A

[3:18:23] micro level perspective to a specific project with some very

[3:18:27] interesting nuances. Versus some of the macro level issues that

[3:18:31] we've been hearing. From others. Specifically on the issue of.

[3:18:39] The water data and the fact that. The projects that

[3:18:43] you're talking about will be using less water than the

[3:18:45] old manufacturing plant. That was there. Have you had an

[3:18:49] opportunity in your discussions with staff to understand? How that

[3:18:55] has factored into. Their numeric analysis. Has staff looked at

[3:19:01] that property in the context of zero water consumption, future

[3:19:06] water consumption in terms of. The projects that you're talking

[3:19:10] about or past water consumption. In terms of the Krause

[3:19:16] plant. Because that data, that information obviously will impact the

[3:19:22] modeling. Sure. A good question. We met as recently as

[3:19:28] last Friday with regional staff, planning staff and had a

[3:19:32] discussion about this. We provided them with the analysis that

[3:19:35] Walter Fetty prepared on our behalf that we attached to.

[3:19:37] Our letter of last week. So. It's now being considered,

[3:19:42] it's now being looked at in more detail as to

[3:19:44] what it means to answer some of your questions. I

[3:19:46] don't have the immediacy. Of an answer. But it's part

[3:19:49] of the equation. It's part of the equation. And what

[3:19:52] we felt. It represents is an ability. To make something

[3:19:59] happen and move forward. Within the discussions we're taking, however,

[3:20:03] it's a good question, and I'm quite sure Commissioner Rodriguez

[3:20:07] is going to be assessing it from. That perspective. Sure.

[3:20:12] You actually touched on something, and you may not be

[3:20:16] in a position to sort of answer this. But a

[3:20:19] little more than 20 years ago, you sat around the

[3:20:21] inner horseshoe. As the commissioner, and obviously the community's changed

[3:20:27] a lot in that time. But in your role at

[3:20:31] that time, you would have considered things like the official

[3:20:34] plan amendments, water issues. And so on. Is there any

[3:20:39] insights or perspectives from that experience that you can offer

[3:20:43] up to us in consideration? Of. What we're looking at

[3:20:49] today, recognizing 20 years. I was in it 30 years

[3:20:52] ago, and the world's changed a lot since then. It's

[3:20:56] an interesting question, and I've been posed it by some

[3:21:00] of my colleagues. Again. If I was having to comment

[3:21:06] on it. A lot has changed. The pattern of development

[3:21:10] has changed with the LRT and intensification trying to take

[3:21:13] advantage. Of public transit versus automobile transportation for a number

[3:21:18] of reasons. So my view would be. Where can we

[3:21:23] find ways and means? To deal with the specificity of

[3:21:27] what I just described today for a particular development on

[3:21:30] a site within the larger context that we're trying to

[3:21:33] resolve. Versus taking a black or white view of the

[3:21:38] world and saying, We're going to stop this until we

[3:21:41] do this. As Melissa has indicated, by stopping what we're

[3:21:46] doing, it's not sending a message. Right to the community

[3:21:50] at the same time. We need housing supply. So this

[3:21:55] is what I feel our part in this development with

[3:21:58] the city of Waterloo to make. Something happen? Positively. While

[3:22:04] at the same time we're looking for a longer term

[3:22:07] solution and some of the questions we've asked from build

[3:22:10] urban's perspective with respect to. The issue at Mannheim we're

[3:22:16] talking about. Is this a today problem, a tomorrow problem,

[3:22:21] or a 2051 problem to accommodate a million people? And

[3:22:25] we don't have the answer to that. But that's a

[3:22:27] very important question. To answer because. We can't stop everything

[3:22:32] from happening here in the region. The region, I think,

[3:22:35] has been a leader over time. And has has to

[3:22:38] continue being a leader over time and not send the

[3:22:40] wrong message out there. To. Have our prosperity or whatever

[3:22:46] else, move somewhere else. Thank you. Those are helpful perspectives.

[3:22:52] Okay. Thank you, Larry, for coming in and providing your

[3:22:55] perspective. Thank you very much for committee questions from council.

[3:22:59] I will now call on Larry Masso, policy advisor. Water

[3:23:03] the Region Home Builders association. And you have five minutes,

[3:23:07] Larry. Thank you, chair James and members of the committee.

[3:23:12] My name is Larry Matthew, and I'm a policy advisor

[3:23:15] for the Waterloo Home Region Home Builders Association. My message

[3:23:22] today is going to be actually very similar to much

[3:23:25] of what you've already heard. So I'm going to kind

[3:23:29] of pare that back a bit so that I'm not

[3:23:31] as repetitive. But I do have. A few. Important matters

[3:23:38] to our members that I want to make sure I

[3:23:41] do highlight. And there's probably. A couple other things that

[3:23:46] maybe haven't quite been raised or raised in the right

[3:23:48] context. That I'd like to address as well. So, to

[3:23:53] begin, the water capacity constraints identified in the Mannheim system.

[3:23:59] Represent at this point an effective freeze on development. And

[3:24:05] has put our members. In, frankly, an untenable situation. The

[3:24:10] decision will trigger a cascade of severe, long lasting consequences,

[3:24:18] constraining housing supply. Driving up costs. Destabilizing municipal finances, exposing

[3:24:26] the region to significant legal risk, and undermining Waterloo's economic

[3:24:32] competitiveness for years to come. This moment requires clear, decisive

[3:24:39] leadership from regional council. And we think. Direct provincial oversight.

[3:24:46] This will help restore community confidence using transparent data and

[3:24:51] establish a credible path moving forward. WHBA is here today

[3:24:57] because we are the region's largest development and housing partner.

[3:25:01] And. We are here and we're ready to help both

[3:25:05] directly and constructively and also with solutions. But we really

[3:25:12] cannot accept a complete halt to development without sufficient credible

[3:25:17] evidence. And so far, We've really not seen. That evidence.

[3:25:24] So first I'd like to address. How the region is

[3:25:30] framing this matter. And we suggest that. This matter should

[3:25:37] be framed as an engineering challenge, and that will be

[3:25:41] addressed in a staged manner. And. With the least community

[3:25:45] impact possible. I'd also like to address some of the

[3:25:49] technical concerns that we've heard. First. This is not a

[3:25:55] water emergency. There is no water quality or public health

[3:25:59] crisis. And new development already meets strict water balance and

[3:26:04] infiltration requirements. Secondly, peer review relies on extreme. Highly unlikely

[3:26:12] scenarios, such as losing an entire treatment plant or multiple

[3:26:17] wellfields for years. Scenarios that, quite frankly, are not standard

[3:26:23] planning assumptions in Ontario. Thirdly, the 20% to 30% resilience

[3:26:29] buffer. Resiliency buffer is extraordinary. It's undefined and it double

[3:26:36] counts. Risks already addressed through the province's permit. To take

[3:26:40] water process. Fourthly, the region's own peer review notes that

[3:26:45] the Mannheim plant is operating at only 40% of its

[3:26:49] intended capacity. Due to asset limitations. If a public asset

[3:26:56] is underperforming, the solution is to repair that asset. And

[3:27:02] accelerate upgrades, not to halt housing development. Finally, I'd like

[3:27:08] to address some process. And business implications. Larry, you have

[3:27:14] about 1 minute left. Thank you. So. One of the

[3:27:20] biggest issues we have moving forward is what this may

[3:27:24] mean. To the well that the longevity of the freeze,

[3:27:28] what it might mean. To development approvals in the queue

[3:27:32] and our ability to meet. Housing targets as well as

[3:27:37] just, frankly, much needed housing in the community. And the

[3:27:41] other aspect is what impact this will have on the

[3:27:45] collection of not only regional but area municipal development charges.

[3:27:51] If this issue is with us. For six months or

[3:27:57] a year. There will be millions of dollars that will

[3:28:02] be delayed or in some cases, possibly foregone. Entirely in

[3:28:06] terms of collected development charges, and we question what impact

[3:28:10] is that going to have on municipal capital forecasts and

[3:28:16] development programs moving forward. Are the area municipal and regional

[3:28:21] council is going to be able to meet. The planned

[3:28:25] growth. And investments in the coming year. In the coming,

[3:28:30] perhaps five years. If those very important development charges are

[3:28:35] not collected or are substantially delayed. What does that mean?

[3:28:42] So thank you. Sorry for extending beyond. But we'll leave

[3:28:50] it at that. Thank you very much. Okay. We do

[3:28:52] have a few. Questions from councilors. Larry Councilor McCabe thank

[3:28:56] you, Larry, for coming in today. Appreciate you adding your

[3:29:01] perspective to this important topic as well because we've obviously

[3:29:04] heard from Bill Durban and some of. The companies that

[3:29:09] are building more. Intensified and taller buildings. So it's really

[3:29:15] important to hear from the Waterloo region home builders. And

[3:29:18] the members that you represent as well. I'm just wondering.

[3:29:24] If they've talked to you about this task force idea

[3:29:27] that. Has been recommended, and if that's something that. You

[3:29:33] would be interested in participating in and what your thoughts

[3:29:36] are from that perspective, from the members that you represent?

[3:29:39] Absolutely. That was actually in my presentation. Just didn't get

[3:29:44] said because I ran out of time. But absolutely. We

[3:29:48] ask that an industry focused technical working group comprising the

[3:29:53] WRHBA and other key partners be established to evaluate and

[3:29:58] guide specific actions and to ensure workable interim solutions that

[3:30:03] ensure new housing can be delivered as we move forward.

[3:30:08] Okay, well, that's good to hear because. Obviously. The type

[3:30:12] of housing that you build versus. The members of build

[3:30:15] urban and that are different, but obviously very important. And

[3:30:19] they meet needs of various residents and future residents of

[3:30:23] our community. But in my mind, it certainly makes sense

[3:30:27] to have you at the table as well, to have

[3:30:30] your perspectives and your input. Around that table as well.

[3:30:35] Because I'd ask Bill Durban, David, about the top priorities

[3:30:40] for Bill Durban. And what you're representing. I think it's

[3:30:45] over 200 or 300 members, so could you just share

[3:30:49] what your top priority of the membership is for. The

[3:30:53] immediate short term. Midterm, sort of six months, a year.

[3:30:59] So I think the immediate priority for our members would

[3:31:02] be. To. We need clarity. We need to fully understand

[3:31:09] exactly what the issue is. And how severe that issue

[3:31:14] is or isn't so that we can establish. Very firm

[3:31:20] and well understood. Ways forward in terms of. Can certain

[3:31:27] types of development continue to move forward? Or not. If

[3:31:31] not, why not? Because we need, quite frankly, the industry

[3:31:35] needs that clarity. Secondly, I think. We need to. Be

[3:31:42] assured that. We are devising and implementing. The correct solutions

[3:31:50] moving forward that are going to allow our industry. To

[3:31:55] continue to build homes and to allow this community to

[3:31:58] thrive, right? To the horizon of our current official plans.

[3:32:05] And I think, thirdly, I think we need to do

[3:32:13] this with. Some. Really fine tuned. Financial oversight because. Our

[3:32:22] suspicions is that this could be. Very expensive, and we

[3:32:28] got to understand. How any upgrades that are necessary are

[3:32:35] going to be funded. Are they within the capacity of

[3:32:38] the Regional Municipality of Waterloo two Fund. What is going

[3:32:42] to be the impact on development charges? There's considerable concern

[3:32:47] amongst our members in terms of development charges, for instance.

[3:32:50] So if you understand. Just over the last ten years

[3:32:54] alone, the regional municipality of Waterloo has. Collected in our

[3:33:00] estimation of load $150 to $160,000,000 worth of. Regional development

[3:33:07] charges just for water infrastructure. So we question. Was that

[3:33:13] infrastructure put? Are those funds put to the correct. Infrastructure

[3:33:18] and if upgrades are necessary. Is it essentially a double

[3:33:22] dipping if you try to finance those through development charges

[3:33:26] again? So. We're going to have a lot of questions

[3:33:31] going forward in terms of those. Kind of issues. And

[3:33:36] so I think. This council. Need to be very aware

[3:33:41] of. How? Any infrastructure upgrades are going to be funded.

[3:33:50] And hopefully the province. Is prepared to help. Right. Thank

[3:33:54] you very much for that. Your clarion call of clarity.

[3:33:59] I mean, we've heard that, I think, pretty clearly from.

[3:34:01] Everyone who's presented today, but also just your reminder of.

[3:34:06] What developers have paid through the development charge process into

[3:34:09] the system already. I mean, from what I understand, and

[3:34:12] I'm sure we'll talk about it later this afternoon. We

[3:34:14] do have a pretty healthy reserve for the water wastewater.

[3:34:19] Infrastructure, so. We'll have to cross that bridge when we

[3:34:23] get to that point of the conversation, but. I think

[3:34:25] it's really helpful for council and staff and anyone listening

[3:34:31] to really understand. Your members priorities and your concerns and

[3:34:36] the questions that you have. So thanks for bringing that

[3:34:38] today. With clarity. Thank you. Thank you, councilor Benavik. Thanks.

[3:34:44] And thanks, Larry, for coming in, and it's been really

[3:34:47] helpful for me. To hear the mix of people that

[3:34:51] have come in tonight. Across the sector. And while your

[3:34:55] membership is primarily those involved in Greenfield and missing middle,

[3:35:01] your membership is broad. But it sort of adds that

[3:35:04] voice into the discussion, and it is an important one

[3:35:08] because I think it does speak, particularly from a local

[3:35:11] perspective in terms of. The impact on the economy. And

[3:35:17] I touched on this with Melissa earlier today. And really.

[3:35:25] The impacts of messaging and how we handle these situation.

[3:35:30] On housing supply and affordability, as well as the impact.

[3:35:36] On. The tradespeople and so on, and I'm wondering if

[3:35:41] you can bring. More perspective and nuances, particularly to the

[3:35:46] sector you primarily represent. And how that will impact them

[3:35:55] on an ongoing basis. Sure. Well, first off, from the

[3:36:00] trade perspective, From what I've heard from a lot of

[3:36:05] the builders locally is because of the slowdown we've seen

[3:36:09] over the past year, year and a half. They're already.

[3:36:14] Seeing a reduction in the availability of some trades, and

[3:36:17] there's a lot of concern. That. You've already heard that

[3:36:21] once those trades leave. They often don't come back. So.

[3:36:29] That is a big concern. We also need to. Have.

[3:36:35] For lack of better words, I'll call it a pipeline.

[3:36:38] A pipeline of development, of. Land. Of building lots because.

[3:36:46] Our members don't operate on a six month or one.

[3:36:50] Year horizon. We've got members that are looking multiple years

[3:36:56] and decades ahead in terms of ensuring that they have

[3:37:00] the adequate supply. To meet what they see as the

[3:37:03] market. Their own business models. And they have to be

[3:37:09] also. Have the land and approvals. In place to give

[3:37:16] them flexibility to meet different challenges in the market, notwithstanding

[3:37:22] challenges like this. Thanks for that. The second question I

[3:37:27] wanted to ask. And you referred to it a little

[3:37:30] bit in terms of sort of getting at the data

[3:37:33] and the facts and so on. It's a question I

[3:37:35] asked Melissa as well. Amongst the various motions that different

[3:37:40] folks are bringing forward, one of the ones that, the

[3:37:43] one that I'm bringing forward later today is actually. A

[3:37:47] sharing of data. With the area, municipalities and others, which

[3:37:52] would include the industry, so that everyone can do. Their

[3:37:58] own assessment. Of everything. And ask questions where appropriate. And

[3:38:03] so that we're all working on a common understanding. Maybe

[3:38:08] we can just speak to how important that is. Yeah.

[3:38:12] Absolutely. So our members. And have spent a lot of

[3:38:17] time over the last month trying to figure out. On

[3:38:22] their own. What the extent of the issue is. And

[3:38:27] whether there is, in fact really an issue. And we're

[3:38:31] having trouble, frankly, determining that we have access. To. Previous

[3:38:38] water and wastewater monitoring report information that. Was available as

[3:38:43] of recently as 2023. So it's only a year, just

[3:38:49] a little bit more than a year old, but. The

[3:38:53] way. Some of the capacity. Such. As monitored. In the

[3:39:01] reports available to us is different in terms of. The

[3:39:06] way it's characterized in the consultant report. For this concern,

[3:39:11] and it's hard doing the math to try to figure

[3:39:14] out, well, what did we have then? What do we

[3:39:16] have now? It's difficult for us. To understand whether. The

[3:39:22] numbers before you and the staff report. For this matter.

[3:39:28] Reflect. The 20% to 30%. Operational. Capacity constraint or not.

[3:39:39] So we're really in the dark. We don't know and

[3:39:42] what we don't. Know. We don't know. But it's hard

[3:39:45] for us to participate. It's hard for us to advocate.

[3:39:50] Appropriately, and it's hard to for our members to manage

[3:39:52] their businesses. When they don't know. This fundamental information. Yeah.

[3:39:58] No, fundamentally, and I think that is true. I believe

[3:40:03] that the best way to start getting. To answers is

[3:40:06] actually being very transparent with the data so that everyone

[3:40:10] can be on the same page and make their evaluations.

[3:40:14] Thank you again for coming in. Again. You also brought

[3:40:19] the perspective of someone who's been in the private sector.

[3:40:22] The public sector and now in an advocacy role with

[3:40:26] your organization, and that's been helpful. Thank you, Chair Redmond.

[3:40:32] Larry, thanks for coming. And we've spent the last month

[3:40:35] figuring out what the extent of this issue is, too.

[3:40:37] So we're on the same page with that one. I

[3:40:41] just have to continually be impressed with the fact that

[3:40:43] people are coming here with solutions. And you mentioned advocating

[3:40:46] you may have meant on behalf of your membership, but.

[3:40:51] You're one of the delegations that's sort of zeroed in

[3:40:53] on the expense of this. And I'm wondering if you've

[3:40:56] turned your minds to being an advocate with us when

[3:41:00] we go to the provincial government to look for additional

[3:41:02] funds. To fund what we know are probably several remedies

[3:41:07] that are going to be needed and I'm sure if

[3:41:10] you haven't read already, that you'll stay around for. The

[3:41:12] staff report, but has your membership considered doing advocacy to

[3:41:17] the province on behalf of resolution of this issue. It's

[3:41:21] being talked about in real time. Absolutely. I think. Our

[3:41:28] association is prepared to step up in any way. We

[3:41:32] can. With constructive solutions, advocacy at the provincial level. Whatever

[3:41:39] we need to do. I mean, our members want to

[3:41:43] continue to do business and they want to stay in

[3:41:45] business, so. This is important. Thank you. Thank you, Larry.

[3:41:52] And Taco chair Redmond as well. Thank you for coming

[3:41:54] in and offering solutions. As many have as well this

[3:41:57] morning or afternoon now. We have two more delegations scheduled,

[3:42:03] and then we are going to take a short break

[3:42:06] and. Then come back with our agenda just for council

[3:42:09] in terms of process today. So, Sam, nabi I have

[3:42:13] you next, director. Hold the line. Wr. And you have

[3:42:17] five minutes, Sam. Thank you, chair James and members of

[3:42:27] the committee. My name is Sam Nabby, director. Hold the

[3:42:30] line, Waterloo region. Appreciate the opportunity. To address the committee

[3:42:38] today about this water capacity issue, which, frankly, I'm coming

[3:42:42] to you. With more questions than answers, about which I

[3:42:46] know. We're all working through in real time. When the,

[3:42:51] the news broke a month ago about, about. This capacity

[3:42:57] issue. It was a shock. It was shocking. In the

[3:42:59] context of regional growth management strategy that's been a core

[3:43:03] part of how we plan for growth over the last

[3:43:06] 20 years. In the context of. The regional official plan

[3:43:13] and the amendments, most recently a couple of years ago,

[3:43:16] where we had lots of in depth conversations about. The

[3:43:20] infrastructure capacity, the market conditions, the environmental constraints, and how

[3:43:25] we grow as a region. So to learn recently that.

[3:43:32] We don't have. An integrated urban system. That we have

[3:43:36] two separate systems. These are issues that for me, as

[3:43:42] an advocate for the last ten plus years and talking

[3:43:46] with planners. In that whole process that had never come

[3:43:50] up. I imagine that engineers making comments about water capacity

[3:43:57] issues for all the infill developments that. Have been happening

[3:44:00] in this region for the last couple of decades. I

[3:44:05] find it hard to believe. That. This last month and

[3:44:11] the news that broke. Was the first time that we

[3:44:15] had encountered one of these issues. Again. I'm coming with

[3:44:19] a lot of questions. In the public discussion around the

[3:44:23] regional official plan. Even if we look at the water

[3:44:25] supply management plan from 2015. They talk about an integrated

[3:44:32] urban system. It talks about new treatment plants. It talks

[3:44:36] about future investments. And what we need to keep our

[3:44:38] system resilient. The master plan from 2015 says that there

[3:44:44] are ways we can increase our supply to the system.

[3:44:48] And points out pumping stations and different types of infrastructure

[3:44:52] that we need to look at due to their location

[3:44:54] and the interconnectedness of this integrated urban distribution system. That

[3:45:00] interconnectedness is really in question right now. And what's most

[3:45:04] surprising is that any of this is a surprise. It's

[3:45:08] concerning that we've been using provincial modeling. That doesn't account

[3:45:13] for our local groundwater context. For the reason. To retain

[3:45:19] our local control and our local expertise as much as

[3:45:23] we can. As the province seeks. To combine conservation areas.

[3:45:31] I really don't think that the solution to this issue.

[3:45:35] Is to take away local control. And to impose provincial

[3:45:38] oversight. We have to work with the province, we have

[3:45:42] to work with airy municipalities, we have to work with

[3:45:44] industry. But this is a problem that is solvable. This

[3:45:48] is a big problem, and there are several urgent fixes

[3:45:52] that need to happen. But in the context of that

[3:45:57] big issue, I don't think the answer is to throw

[3:46:01] our hands up and say that the province should take

[3:46:03] over this process. We need to get back to full

[3:46:06] capacity with our ability to pump water from the grand

[3:46:09] to our manheim treatment plant. Adding new wells, which is

[3:46:14] an ongoing process to replace the wells that. Have been

[3:46:20] exhausted or less effective. That's an ongoing process, and we

[3:46:23] need to make sure we're keeping up with that. And

[3:46:26] recommitting to long term health of our water system. When

[3:46:29] we think about long term, we think about managing the

[3:46:32] permeable area. The way that we have been redirecting growth

[3:46:37] to infill rather than Greenfield has been a big reason

[3:46:40] why. Potentially. We're here today and we weren't here years

[3:46:44] ago. Infill development is less resource intensive, it helps us

[3:46:50] grow in a more efficient way, and nothing about this

[3:46:54] process in the big challenge that it is should. Give

[3:46:58] us pause or have us let up on our vision

[3:47:01] for regional growth. Management strategy that prioritizes compact development, transit

[3:47:07] supportive development. And the fact that infill development had not

[3:47:12] been counted in the way that we thought. Again, it's

[3:47:16] an engineering challenge, it's a policy challenge, but it does

[3:47:19] not mean that our approach has been wrong. You have

[3:47:24] about 10 seconds, Sam. I'll just finish with the issue

[3:47:27] of transparency and accountability. When we're sharing data. I would

[3:47:34] appreciate that environmental groups such as Grand river environmental network

[3:47:37] are included in that as well. As reap and some

[3:47:39] other organizations that have been mentioned. Thank you. For the

[3:47:44] opportunity to provide my comments. Okay, we do have a

[3:47:46] couple of questions. Councilor verbanovic. Thanks. And. Comment and questions.

[3:47:52] Just. Sam, I want to thank you. For coming in

[3:47:55] and for. In your groups and other groups. Involvement. Over

[3:48:05] the years. I think it's important that. We today heard

[3:48:08] from, I'll say, a representative of civil society. In terms

[3:48:13] of. This particular issue. I'm just wondering, from your perspective.

[3:48:20] We spend a lot of time talking about communication, the

[3:48:23] message. We've talked about. The impact. On freezing things, on

[3:48:30] housing supply and affordability. And impact across a wide range

[3:48:34] of jobs. Any thoughts and perspective on both messaging as

[3:48:40] well as. That broader community impact on everyday residents in

[3:48:45] our community. Thank you for the question through you, madam

[3:48:50] Chair. I believe the messaging so far has been. Appropriate

[3:48:57] to the scale of the issue that's evolving and that.

[3:49:01] We're being faced with right now. A pause on development

[3:49:07] comments is a logical conclusion. When we look at those

[3:49:13] numbers and we look at. The current population and the

[3:49:18] current capacity of the system really bumping up against that

[3:49:21] limit. When we think about that 20% buffer, which has

[3:49:26] been mentioned a few times today, but that's a long

[3:49:29] standing part of water management in this region and was

[3:49:32] included even back in the 2015 water supply master plan.

[3:49:37] So that I don't think the solution to an issue

[3:49:39] like this is to reduce regulation. Or just continue with

[3:49:42] business as usual, but really move quickly on fixing those

[3:49:46] issues that we know need to be fixed, and there

[3:49:48] are. Multiple improvements to our water infrastructure that really need

[3:49:53] action right now. And when we do get to those,

[3:49:56] we will be able to continue with that business as

[3:49:58] usual. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilor McCabe. Thank

[3:50:02] you, Sam, for coming in and bringing this important perspective

[3:50:06] as well. I just want to say. I absolutely agree

[3:50:09] with you that we don't need provincial oversight or we

[3:50:13] need the provincial. Dollars, there's no question. And we need

[3:50:15] to work with them in partnership. And I would also

[3:50:18] say. I haven't heard that there's any suggestion of any

[3:50:23] kind that we reduce any. Of the regulations or anything

[3:50:26] like that. So certainly agree on that point. And. My

[3:50:31] understanding, because I did have questions about the infill development

[3:50:33] and what was being reported. I'll ask this question of

[3:50:38] staff because it's not an appropriate time right now. But.

[3:50:42] That the infill piece? Actually, it has been being captured.

[3:50:47] There was just, I think, more of a misunderstanding. By

[3:50:52] the way it was explained. Or reported on. With all

[3:50:56] due respect to our media partners, it's a really complex

[3:50:59] issue. But because. Waterloo. Primarily, all of our development in

[3:51:05] the last ten plus years has been infill up. In

[3:51:07] and up and using pockets of land and things like

[3:51:10] that. My understanding is that those numbers have been included,

[3:51:16] but I'm curious about just. On the conservation side of

[3:51:21] things like if. You don't have to have things off

[3:51:24] the top of your head, but just I'd. Be interested

[3:51:27] to hear from your members of your organization as we

[3:51:31] get further into this around. Particularly conservation recommendations. And as

[3:51:36] you mentioned, The more permeable land we have, the less

[3:51:40] like, the less concrete, the less. Paving and things like

[3:51:44] that we have, the better it is for our overall,

[3:51:48] for our overall water. System. And infiltration, et cetera. So

[3:51:53] just wondered if you could comment on that or provide

[3:51:56] your input. In the upcoming month or so. Thanks. Yeah,

[3:52:02] absolutely. Infiltration is how our aquifers recharge. And we know

[3:52:07] that, especially on the west side of our region where

[3:52:10] we have the moraine, and it's a huge recharge area.

[3:52:14] We have site specific policies in certain neighborhoods along the

[3:52:17] west side of Waterloo, which I'm sure you know for

[3:52:20] a certain percentage of permeable land. And we need to

[3:52:25] continue to strengthen those policies to ensure that those wells

[3:52:29] are being replenished I know that Wells get decommissioned, and

[3:52:33] we need new wells. As time goes on, whether they

[3:52:36] get too salty or they get nitrates in them, or.

[3:52:41] Not. They don't have as much water as they need,

[3:52:44] and. We do need to be sort of moving to

[3:52:47] where the groundwater is moving over the years. And so

[3:52:53] as part of that, we also need enforcement. We need

[3:52:55] to make sure that in these neighborhoods. Where it was

[3:52:58] 30% permeable. Where when they were built. Is there oversight

[3:53:03] and enforcement happening on an ongoing basis? Are people paving

[3:53:08] their backyards. Is that something that we should be watching

[3:53:11] out for? This is a small thing, but small thing

[3:53:15] that could be multiplied over many, many properties. So every

[3:53:18] little bit helps. We talk about? Groundwater impact of mining

[3:53:25] as well, which I know is a provincial issue, and

[3:53:27] the fact that below water table mining. Is a thing

[3:53:31] in our region is concerning as well. Again, one more.

[3:53:35] Impact to our aquifers. So it's a lot of little

[3:53:39] things that all stack up together. Thanks for coming in.

[3:53:43] And I think certainly. We all certainly share the belief

[3:53:48] that. Water is water. It's vital and it's important, and

[3:53:53] we need to be really mindful of how we use

[3:53:55] it. And how we're building and. How we're building and

[3:53:59] how we design these buildings so that we are capturing.

[3:54:03] As much of that infiltration. And protection as possible. So

[3:54:07] thanks very much, Sam, for. Continuing. To work with us

[3:54:12] on this. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. I appreciate you

[3:54:15] coming in and providing your perspectives as well. We have

[3:54:18] Christian Lamana. Who's next? And I believe you have three

[3:54:22] minutes. Thank you. Madam Chair and members of committee, thank

[3:54:32] you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is

[3:54:35] Christian Lamana, vice president of development and Madison Group. Madison

[3:54:39] owns significant land holdings on the east side, including properties

[3:54:42] in both Cambridge and Breslow, which are directly. Impacted by

[3:54:49] the water supply issues recently identified by the region. I

[3:54:54] am here to address the confirmed water supply constraints in

[3:54:56] the Mannheim service area and to propose a balanced, risk

[3:54:59] managed approach that supports continued growth while long term water

[3:55:03] supply solutions are advanced. My delegation focuses on five key

[3:55:08] requests. Given the confirmed water supply constraints in the Manheim

[3:55:12] service area. We are requesting the council direct staff to

[3:55:16] evaluate and report on opportunities to temporarily utilize available capacity.

[3:55:20] In the Middleton service area to support Manheim. We're technically

[3:55:25] an operationally feasible. Distribution focus on short term and interim

[3:55:30] solutions intended to provide operational flexibility while permanent supply expansions

[3:55:36] are advanced. Secondly. Committee is also requested to have staff

[3:55:41] confirm that developments which are already registered. And executed servicing

[3:55:46] agreements in place are not impacted by these capacity constraints.

[3:55:51] These developments represent substantial good faith investment with public infrastructure

[3:55:56] already funded and advanced by reputable developers. In the region

[3:56:00] based on previously confirmed servicing, capacity, altering or suspending servicing

[3:56:06] or building permits for these projects would introduce significant. Legal

[3:56:10] and financial risk and. Would undermine the confidence in the

[3:56:15] region's growth management and infrastructure planning framework. Thirdly, have staff

[3:56:21] continue commenting on and supporting draft plan application approvals using

[3:56:25] holding provisions where appropriate. This would allow the planning process

[3:56:29] to move forward, maintain housing and employment momentum, and ensure

[3:56:34] construction only proceeds once water capacity solutions are in place.

[3:56:39] Fourth, engage a technical working group as soon as possible.

[3:56:45] Not only with the region's engineering team, but with other

[3:56:48] water resource engineers in the region. And fifth provide clear

[3:56:52] direction on existing registered and service development impacts. The intent

[3:56:58] of this direction is to avoid retroactive impacts on legally

[3:57:01] secured developments. To maintain investor and market confidence in the

[3:57:06] region and to ensure that any intern capacity measures are

[3:57:09] applied prospectively. While longer term water supply solutions are planned

[3:57:14] and delivered. This approach balances risk management, fairness. And operational

[3:57:19] reality while ensuring the region continues to protect public health.

[3:57:23] System resiliency and long term water security. Thank you. Thank

[3:57:27] you, Kristen. I do have a question from Councilor Verbanovic.

[3:57:32] Thank you. Thanks very much Christian for joining us virtually

[3:57:36] and sharing your perspectives. I agree with you that we

[3:57:40] need to look at things like how Middleton could potentially

[3:57:43] be used. And so on. But I want to get

[3:57:45] down to your fourth point, which was around engaging. An

[3:57:51] external technical working group. Now, I know part of it

[3:57:55] maybe is aligned with what we heard. From some of

[3:57:57] the others, like the industry, who would like a group

[3:58:00] that involves the industry regional staff area municipalities and so

[3:58:04] on. But it almost sounds like you're suggesting that maybe.

[3:58:09] There is. External expertise with some of the other engineering

[3:58:14] firms and so on in the region. Who have been

[3:58:18] involved with water issues for a long time, and perhaps

[3:58:21] we should engage them in part of this group? Is

[3:58:23] that what you're suggesting? That is exactly right. Councilor Verbanovic.

[3:58:29] We are recommending that potentially the development community. Provides key

[3:58:33] contacts with other engineering teams that can assist the region.

[3:58:38] To develop the appropriate solutions that are going to be

[3:58:40] required to bring. This solution to fruition, but. Yes, that's

[3:58:44] exactly what I'm saying. Okay, thank you. I just wanted

[3:58:46] to clarify that. Appreciate it. Thank you. Hold on a

[3:58:49] moment. There's Sandy. Councillor sean as well. Thank you. Thanks,

[3:58:54] Christian, for coming in and speaking to us. I know

[3:58:57] we've got a lot of growth on the east side.

[3:59:00] And that's an important area. Most of the things that

[3:59:04] you've brought up have been raised before, and so hopefully.

[3:59:10] When we look at the report later this afternoon. We

[3:59:14] can bring a little bit more clarity to you and

[3:59:17] the rest of the industry, so thanks. For coming today.

[3:59:21] Thank you, Marshmallow. Excellent. Thank you, Christian. I see no

[3:59:25] further questions from council. Thank you again for coming in.

[3:59:30] And. Providing solutions or things to consider. As we navigate

[3:59:34] this at the region. Okay. That concludes today's delegations. We're

[3:59:42] going to move to the consent agenda, but. We are

[3:59:44] going to take a half hour break. For lunch, and

[3:59:49] then we will come back and continue on with our

[3:59:52] agenda for today.

[4:36:38] Gone now. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you again. We

[4:36:46] are going to move on to the consent agenda. Regional

[4:36:51] transportation staff are delaying the report under 2.8.2 .1 per

[4:36:57] dose proposed pedestrian crossover at George Street Regional Road 42

[4:37:03] and Crescent Place in the city of Cambridge. In order

[4:37:06] to further address. Some concerns brought forward by the city

[4:37:11] of Cambridge staff and their local counselor. These proposed improvements

[4:37:16] relate to our recommended operational adjustments and associated bylaw amendments

[4:37:20] on George street and downtown gut. Okay. Staff's recommendations includes

[4:37:27] removing the existing stop control and providing addition of a

[4:37:31] level two type C pedestrian crossing design work is not

[4:37:34] yet underway. Okay, so I need a mover and a

[4:37:38] second. Okay. Are there any requests to remove items so.

[4:37:44] Councilor salon, thank you. Through your chair. If I pull

[4:37:48] item 8.2.2, please. The street design guidelines. Okay, so 8.2.2.

[4:37:55] We'll take that momentarily. And then, councilor Sean, same report?

[4:37:59] Same report. Okay, so we will remove eight. Point two.

[4:38:03] Point two. The remainder of the consent agenda. Do I

[4:38:05] have a mover, councilor? Wolf seconder councilor Hunich. Okay, you'll

[4:38:10] be prompted in East Greg and then we will discuss

[4:38:13] councilor Sullen and councilor Shaunce. You can speak to 8.2.2.

[4:38:16] Questions.

[4:38:34] Okay, that is carriage. All right. Councilor Salanand, who have

[4:38:38] questions regarding 8.2.2. Yes, thank you. Through your chair. Thank

[4:38:42] you, staff, for bringing forward the guidelines, and I know

[4:38:46] that it does accompany the later report. But in this

[4:38:51] particular guideline, and I appreciate it's just for information. I

[4:38:54] must admit I was a bit concerned at the rural

[4:38:57] Main street definition. Under the definition of typology. In particular.

[4:39:03] I don't agree with the underlying assumption. As it outlines.

[4:39:09] That rural main streets. Will have primary function of mobility

[4:39:15] with some place making, and I just don't agree with

[4:39:17] that assumption. The main streets in our downtown towns and

[4:39:21] villages are actually a huge place making space. And I

[4:39:26] would really like our future policy to acknowledge that priority.

[4:39:31] As well as I don't think it's a surprise. But

[4:39:35] I'm not. A fan of what we did to downtown

[4:39:37] baiton, and I don't ever want to. See that happen

[4:39:39] again in a downtown core with street design that the

[4:39:43] region is doing in communities. So I was hoping that

[4:39:48] staff could take back. The definition and revise in particular.

[4:39:53] I don't have issues with the other ones, but the

[4:39:54] rural main street definition. Revised the guiding assumptions so that

[4:40:00] it actually reflects our downtown cores, our primary center of

[4:40:03] place, making community identity and economic activity, and if they

[4:40:07] could report back. On the regular agenda to the February

[4:40:12] committee meeting, which is February the 10th, with that updated

[4:40:16] definition. Possible. Okay, Councilor Shawn. Thank you. Two things. If

[4:40:26] I could. First of all, I just want to clarify.

[4:40:28] These are guidelines. Not policy. And so. It's sort of

[4:40:34] a starting point, so if I can just. Have that

[4:40:37] clarified because. I had some discussions previously about policy that

[4:40:44] was very rigid. And I saw you nodding, so that's

[4:40:49] good enough. My real concern. Is really in this section

[4:40:58] on horse and buggies. And I guess I would ask.

[4:41:03] Who you were consulting with or who the author was

[4:41:07] consulting with. One of the things it says. Is preferred

[4:41:13] design approach has been informed by community feedback. And it

[4:41:18] talks about a two and a half meter wide shoulder

[4:41:22] consisting of one and a half meters paved asphalt to

[4:41:27] accommodate people cycling and a 1 meter unpaved gravel portion,

[4:41:33] and then. It just disappeared. But then it goes on

[4:41:37] to say that buggies are 1.65 meters. And they can

[4:41:41] straddle. A car can straddle as well. Do you want

[4:41:45] to drive half on Asheville and. Half on gravel. It's

[4:41:51] not good information, and so I question. A few of

[4:41:58] the pieces. Also, I didn't see any reference to farm

[4:42:02] vehicles which are wider than one lane. These days, many

[4:42:06] of them. I think at least the world where I

[4:42:10] spent the most time. That section. Needs some editing. Yeah,

[4:42:18] through your chair. Thank you both councilor salon and councilor

[4:42:21] Sean. So, first part is serve it at your pleasure.

[4:42:24] So we're happy to go back and have a look

[4:42:26] and. Update councilor salon and I think your thought on

[4:42:29] February 10 makes sense. Council Sean says you know we're

[4:42:31] about to. And Mike's going to tell us about the

[4:42:33] shortly launch. Into integrated mobility plan consultation. So ongoing engagement

[4:42:38] and learning. So we'll go back and take a look

[4:42:41] at both horse and buggy and the farm vehicles and

[4:42:44] just make sure that we've got those pieces. Right. And

[4:42:47] we've heard from our road users that that's what they

[4:42:49] want to see in it as well. And just to

[4:42:51] make sure, yes, guidelines, not policy. And this will become

[4:42:54] clear through Mike's presentation. What you're seeing there. Especially in

[4:42:57] the visuals, are an unconstrained cross section. We never get

[4:43:00] one of those. You never get the widest road. You

[4:43:03] always have constraints and things you need to do to

[4:43:05] kind of manage. So the key point being these will

[4:43:07] come back every single time, is project approval. On individual

[4:43:11] projects. But the guidelines are important for our team, so

[4:43:13] we'll make sure we've got the definitions and pieces right.

[4:43:17] Yeah, if I can say. I do appreciate that, but.

[4:43:22] I would also appreciate that the guidelines where they're not

[4:43:24] accurate be updated because. I've seen that staff rely on

[4:43:29] them quite a bit. And if, in fact, You have

[4:43:35] consulted with the community and they've come back to say

[4:43:37] that, yes, we like driving our horse and buggies half

[4:43:40] on gravel and half on Ashevolt. I would like to

[4:43:44] know who you've consulted, because the folks I've talked to

[4:43:48] don't. Councilor Foxton. Thank you. And absolutely beautiful. And I

[4:43:55] love all the lanes in that. How does anybody cross

[4:43:58] the street? With a walking lane, a bike lane, buggy

[4:44:03] lane, two lines of traffic LRT down the middle. How

[4:44:06] do you get across the street and how long will

[4:44:09] it take you through you chair? It's a really good

[4:44:13] question, Councilor Foxton, and it speaks to some of the

[4:44:15] challenges we have on regional roads, right where we move

[4:44:17] significant numbers of people. In freight and we need to

[4:44:20] do that in wider corridor. So, look, there's some pieces.

[4:44:23] In there about single lane roundabouts. As you know, we

[4:44:26] use pedestrian refuge islands or spots at halfway across the

[4:44:29] road. We've had a lot of discussions at this table

[4:44:31] about signal timing. And adequate signal timing for crossings. We're

[4:44:35] also running the roundabout safety pilot, as you know. Looking

[4:44:38] at raised crosswalk. So. Moving people and goods is the

[4:44:42] first challenge. And making sure that we can do that

[4:44:44] through intersections is part of that challenge. So I know

[4:44:48] it's not specifically referenced in there, but I think we've

[4:44:50] got a lot of work going on on intersections and

[4:44:53] roundabouts. Thank you. And I also thought about. A walkway

[4:44:58] over the roads, but people with disability can't get up

[4:45:01] the walkway to go. Across the wall, so, yeah. I'm

[4:45:05] just thinking. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Hunich. Thank you,

[4:45:10] chair. Mr. Spinner. In other countries in the world, the

[4:45:15] pedestrian crosswalks are located at least 400 meters from the

[4:45:20] roundabout, which to me seems safer for everyone and more

[4:45:25] effective for everyone. Do you know? Could you speak to.

[4:45:31] Why in Ontario? We're aspiring to crosswalk in the roundabout.

[4:45:38] Or pedestrian crossings within roundabouts. Yep. Pretty straightforward through your

[4:45:42] chair. So people like to get to main destinations and

[4:45:47] bus stops and other things that tend to exist. At

[4:45:49] intersections. And so to take a vulnerable road user, such

[4:45:53] as a pedestrian, and make them travel an extra 400

[4:45:56] meters on foot to get to their destinations is not

[4:45:58] how we like to approach it, so. It's the time

[4:46:01] challenge. And again, on roundabouts, we know we have better

[4:46:04] pedestrian safety. Than we do. In managed intersections. But again,

[4:46:08] it's really that time inconvenience and that time loss. And

[4:46:12] we feel like we are doing it at the roundabouts

[4:46:14] and we'll continue with the roundabout safety pilot to get

[4:46:17] that right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Acting commissioner

[4:46:24] Spooner. That concludes our consent agenda. That was a report

[4:46:28] for information. Councilor Rodriguez, you have something to add or

[4:46:31] a question? Yeah. Thanks, chair. Now that this is. Changing

[4:46:35] from for information item. I'll have to declare conflict on

[4:46:38] this item. So I'll file the necessary paperwork and get

[4:46:41] that over to the clerk. Thank you. Okay. Regular agenda.

[4:46:48] The first item we have is a report regarding the

[4:46:51] expropriation of lands for road improvements to Fisher home and

[4:46:55] road between Bleams Road and Plains Road in Kitchener. This

[4:47:00] does come with. A recommendation. I'm going to call on

[4:47:05] Fiona McCray, the regional solicitor, to provide an introduction for

[4:47:09] this report. Thank you. Chair, James. And through you. This

[4:47:16] report relates to the commencement of the application to expropriate,

[4:47:21] so. This is the first step in the process. And

[4:47:25] the lands identified are six temporary easements for construction purposes,

[4:47:30] grading restoration works. Phases one and two of this project

[4:47:35] were completed in 2021 and 2024, respectively. This is for

[4:47:40] the final phase that is commencing in the spring of

[4:47:43] 2026. Of the six temporary easements, four had previously been

[4:47:48] expropriated and had since expired. And so they need to

[4:47:52] be renewed through the expropriation process. The project in total

[4:47:57] will impact 14 properties. Five of which. Are owned by

[4:48:02] the city and city of Kitchener and the school board.

[4:48:06] And an agreement is anticipated there. There are three temporary.

[4:48:13] Consents to enter. That we will be negotiating. For smaller

[4:48:18] grading activities, and then. Two easement requirements have already been

[4:48:24] agreed to buy agreement with two owners to other owners.

[4:48:29] All of the affected owners or their representatives have been

[4:48:31] notified of this report coming forward, as well as the

[4:48:35] need for the property and have been in contact with

[4:48:38] real estate and legal services staff regarding the proposed acquisition.

[4:48:42] Thank you. I see no questions. But I do need

[4:48:44] to move her in a seconder for this. Is my

[4:48:50] counselor McCabe, seconded by Councilor Rodriguez. You will be prompted

[4:48:55] in Esgibe.

[4:49:14] Okay, that is carried. We are now moving on to

[4:49:17] item. 9.2. Equitable services and opportunities the integrated

[4:49:27] mobility plan project outline. This is for information, but I

[4:49:33] would. Introduce Doug Spooner, acting commissioner of transportations, to provide

[4:49:37] information. Thank you, chair James Council. I'm really excited to

[4:49:42] introduce and launch the integrated mobility plan. Today with you.

[4:49:45] As you know, in 2025, with your support, we confirm

[4:49:49] the advancement of two. Key transportation plans. Advancing ion late

[4:49:54] rail to Cambridge and the adoption of the GRT business

[4:49:57] plan. The integrated mobility plan will now consume those plans

[4:50:01] and incorporate them and then set our transportation priorities. For

[4:50:04] the region for the next 25 years. Since our last

[4:50:07] transportation plan in 2018, our region continues to change and

[4:50:11] grow. And as you know, transportation is also changing. Rideshare

[4:50:16] services, same day deliveries, autonomous vehicles and new mobility devices.

[4:50:21] Are all starting to ask for space in our roadways,

[4:50:23] in our corridors. It's important. That our new plan reflects

[4:50:26] these changes, but keeps us thinking forward towards growth while

[4:50:30] managing our own. Assets efficiently and wisely. Council, we're going

[4:50:33] to start with three themes. Safety for all users. As

[4:50:38] you know, we have an average of 15 deaths and

[4:50:40] 100 serious injuries. Each year in our shared roadways. This

[4:50:44] is a focus for our team today and every day.

[4:50:46] And will remain so in this plan. Performance. Now, this

[4:50:49] is about network performance and more accurately, networks plural. We've

[4:50:54] got networks of roads, transit, cycling, walking. Horse and buggy.

[4:50:57] Heavy freight. Local goods movement. And all of these have

[4:51:01] ever changing needs in our networks. In our overall network,

[4:51:04] but. It's how we get there, but also how the

[4:51:07] things that we want and need to get there. And

[4:51:09] finally, choice and affordability. So it's a critical element we

[4:51:12] talk about. This a lot. For the region in terms

[4:51:15] of our assets and operations maintenance into the future, but

[4:51:18] also for our residents. Some updated numbers the CAA reported

[4:51:22] that in 2025, the average cost of car ownership for

[4:51:25] a year was $16,000. Auto Trader reported that for 2025,

[4:51:30] the average cost of a new car is $64,000 and

[4:51:33] a used car is $35,000. Just because selling never stops.

[4:51:38] A GRT monthly pass for an entire year is roughly

[4:51:41] one $200 so if we are talking about affordability, we

[4:51:44] have some real options that we can provide. To residents

[4:51:46] of the region. Council. As you've seen in our previous

[4:51:49] transportation plans, we'll engage the community and stakeholders and will

[4:51:52] ensure that this plan reflects things that are important to

[4:51:55] our community while we align with the region's strategic plan.

[4:52:00] And I now like to welcome Mike Henderson, director of

[4:52:01] transportation services, to take us through the report. And presentation,

[4:52:04] and we will welcome questions following. Thank you. Thank you

[4:52:08] very much, Commissioner Spooner. I'll be brief on the agenda

[4:52:15] and through you chair James. Thank you very much, counsel.

[4:52:20] We're really excited. The transportation division is really excited to

[4:52:23] bring the first step of our integrated mobility plan and

[4:52:27] present that to council. I'll be brief. I know we

[4:52:29] have a lot on the agenda today. Those are the

[4:52:31] issues that I'm going to discuss in my presentation. Next

[4:52:34] slide, please. Today we are introducing the beginning of waterdew

[4:52:38] regions integrated mobility plan. Together. Sorry. Today we are introducing

[4:52:47] the beginning of Waterdew region's integrated mobility plan a. Long

[4:52:51] term framework that brings together transportation, land use, climate goals,

[4:52:55] and economic development into a single, coordinated vision for how

[4:53:00] people move across our region. As Waterdew region continues to

[4:53:03] grow, our transportation. Network must evolve to meet those changing

[4:53:07] needs. Residents and businesses require safe, reliable, affordable and sustainable

[4:53:13] ways to travel, whether it be by transit, walking, rolling,

[4:53:18] cycling, driving, goods movement, or any of the emerging mobility

[4:53:23] options. This plan recognizes. That no single mode can meet

[4:53:27] those needs alone. Instead, it focuses on equity and integration,

[4:53:32] connecting services and infrastructure and policy so that moving around

[4:53:37] the region is simpler, more efficient. And more inclusive for

[4:53:41] everyone. The integrated mobility plan will be grounded in solid

[4:53:46] transportation modeling, which is guided by extensive data analysis. Community

[4:53:51] input and collaboration across all of our municipal partners and

[4:53:56] agencies. It supports our commitments to climate action, equity, accessibility

[4:54:01] and economic competitive. Competitiveness while preparing the region for future

[4:54:05] growth and innovation. Today's introduction marks an important step forward

[4:54:10] for a more connected, resilient people focused transportation system for

[4:54:15] water new region next slide, please. Since 1999, Waterdoo Region

[4:54:20] has continued to advance our transportation network over the past

[4:54:23] three master plans. In 1999, integration of a municipal transit

[4:54:29] service created a unified regional system that improved connectivity in

[4:54:33] coordinated planning in. 2010. The rapid transit recommendation aligned transportation

[4:54:42] with growth and intensification, providing a high capacity backbone that

[4:54:46] supports economic development. Viable alternatives to driving by 2018. Road

[4:54:53] space rationalization shifted the focus from not only moving vehicles

[4:54:57] to moving people, enabling safer, more inclusive streets. A better

[4:55:02] use of our limited road space for all residents. Next

[4:55:05] slide, please. The integrated mobility plan is guided, as Doug

[4:55:10] stated, by three core pillars, safety, network, performance, and choice.

[4:55:14] And affordability. Safety prioritizes protecting all road users through improvements

[4:55:23] to street design and commitment to reducing serious injuries and

[4:55:27] fatalities. Network performance focuses on moving people goods efficiently by

[4:55:32] improving our road network condition, reliability, connectivity, and the effective

[4:55:38] life cycle planning of our existing infrastructure. Choice and affordability

[4:55:43] ensures residents have access to a range of convenient, accessible,

[4:55:49] and affordable transportation options that meet our community's diverse and

[4:55:53] ever evolving needs. Next slide, please. Getting into the street

[4:55:58] design guidelines. The regional Waterloo has updated the draft street

[4:56:02] design guidelines which prioritizes streets that are safe, inclusive and

[4:56:06] designed for people of all ages and abilities. They adjust

[4:56:10] the focus from moving not only vehicles to moving people

[4:56:13] by balancing space for walking. Cy. Cycling, rolling transit, goods

[4:56:19] movement and driving within our limited right of way space.

[4:56:23] The updated guidelines provide a consistent and flexible framework that

[4:56:28] supports safety, climate goals, vibrant communities while accommodating growth and

[4:56:33] changing mobility needs. The updated guidelines also provide. A decision

[4:56:38] matrix for our engineers and designers to consider the specific

[4:56:42] right of way constraints in order to tailor the design

[4:56:46] to the typology. 's key deliverable needs. Next slide, please.

[4:56:52] Discussing. The different and new typologies. First, we have a

[4:56:58] rural connector which primary focus. Primary function of. Is mobility

[4:57:04] with low level of place making low density built form

[4:57:07] with large setbacks, that is. Typically not street oriented. And

[4:57:12] have a high degree of access control. High speed, high

[4:57:16] vehicle speeds and volume is in this context, but it

[4:57:20] also serves to slow moving it also serves slow moving

[4:57:24] agricultural vehicles and horse and buggy traffic. No curbside activity.

[4:57:29] Low frequency of intersections. That's just a generalized context of

[4:57:32] the rural connector, the rural main streets. Primary function of

[4:57:37] mobility with some place making limited density large setbacks with

[4:57:41] modern degree of access. Control. Moderate vehicle speeds and volume.

[4:57:45] Context may also serve slow moving agricultural vehicles and horse

[4:57:50] and buggy traffic. Some curbside activity with low frequency intersections.

[4:57:55] Next slide, please. Onto the urban connector. Its primary function.

[4:58:02] Of mobility with a low level of placemaking, low density

[4:58:06] built form with large setbacks that are typically not street

[4:58:10] oriented and a high degree of access control, moderate to

[4:58:13] high vehicle speeds and volume, context. No curbside activity. Low

[4:58:18] frequency of intersections. Moving on to the urban avenue. Balanced

[4:58:24] functions of mobility. And placemaking mixed land use with varying

[4:58:27] setbacks that may become street oriented and moderate degree of

[4:58:31] access control. Low to moderate vehicle speeds and volume. Context

[4:58:36] limited curbside activity with medium to frequency. Medium frequency of

[4:58:41] intersections onto the urban main primary function. Is next. Slide

[4:58:47] or. No, stay on the side. Sorry. Primary function of

[4:58:50] access and placemaking, over. Mobility mixture of street oriented built

[4:58:54] form in varying size, with small or no setbacks with

[4:58:59] vehicle accesses provided via rear laneways low vehicle speed and

[4:59:03] volume context high frequency of cur. Curbside activity at intersections.

[4:59:08] Next slide, please. The region's 2018 moving Forward plan established

[4:59:13] a solid framework to optimize the transportation network by investing

[4:59:17] in projects that improve efficiency, reliability, and safety. It also

[4:59:24] promoted travel choice by prioritizing transit, active transportation. And strategic

[4:59:30] road investments that support diverse mobility needs. This approach helped

[4:59:35] to strengthen the regional economy. Economy while ensuring our transportation

[4:59:39] investments. Supported sustainable development and long term growth objectives. Next

[4:59:46] slide, please. The Imp's new model will reexamine the proposed

[4:59:52] schedules and needs for all major projects, including the Elmyra

[4:59:55] bypass and McQueen Shaver Boulevard, to ensure that these major

[5:00:00] projects continue. To align with the current transportation priorities, growth

[5:00:04] patterns. And evolving community needs. This review assesses their role

[5:00:12] in optimizing the regional network, supporting travel, choice and advancing

[5:00:17] economic and sustainable development objectives. Next slide, please. The engagement

[5:00:24] schedule, as seen in this slide for the integrated mobility.

[5:00:31] Plan is structured in three phases to ensure broad and

[5:00:33] meaningful input. Phase 1 March to July of 2026. This

[5:00:38] year focuses on gathering the resident's perspectives to identify priorities,

[5:00:44] pain points, and options. Phase two engages community groups, council

[5:00:49] and committees of council to explore these topics in more

[5:00:52] depth. While phase three allows for follows up the draft

[5:00:57] plan to validate feedback, identify gaps, and understand what stakeholders

[5:01:02] support or oppose. And with that, I would say thank

[5:01:06] you very much for the opportunity to present. Thank you,

[5:01:09] Mike. We have a number of questions for you. And

[5:01:14] staff who are here as well to help respond. So,

[5:01:17] Councilor Hunich, I have you up first through the chair.

[5:01:20] Thank you, Mike, for the report and for the accompanying

[5:01:24] excellent presentation. This is very exciting. My question is, with

[5:01:29] respect to. Safety. Or the perception of safety, so I'm

[5:01:35] sure. That our LRT ion station guidelines comply with the

[5:01:40] Anteriors with Disabilities Act. Yet when I go on Mallor

[5:01:46] tea platform, particularly when I have to pass by other

[5:01:49] customers. Or there's a shelter that's kind of occupied the

[5:01:53] middle space, I feel. Very unsafe, as though. A small

[5:01:59] misstep would cause me to fall off the platform and

[5:02:02] not get back on. So could you clarify? Is this

[5:02:06] a good stage? Would there be an option to widen

[5:02:10] LRT stations for these two? Are there other safety features

[5:02:18] we can introduce, such as? The railing or something? Something.

[5:02:23] I don't. Know, but improving perception of safety here. Through

[5:02:28] your chair, Councilor Hunich. I'll take that one. So I

[5:02:33] think you've hit something interesting, and I think it's a

[5:02:35] good thought. For council to have, which is the Aoda

[5:02:39] gives us a design spec. And so in some instances,

[5:02:43] it'll tell us you need to. Have a pathway that

[5:02:47] is 1.6 meters wide. Great. And then when we do

[5:02:53] engagement. Councilor Hunich, you and I have had this specific.

[5:02:55] Conversation with the community. 1.6 meters isn't wide enough for

[5:02:58] two power wheelchairs. To pass each other. And so while

[5:03:02] we would have built it to standard, and I would

[5:03:04] sit here and say yes. We've hit everything in the

[5:03:05] aoda. From a user perspective, we would not have. Designed

[5:03:09] spec are frequently inadequate. And that's not Grt's fault. I

[5:03:14] think the answer here is. Universal design is beyond the

[5:03:20] Aoda, but there's also a considerable. Bit of work for

[5:03:24] us to do on. What does that mean? More pavement

[5:03:28] is more expensive, both in terms of constructing, but also

[5:03:31] in terms of operations and maintenance. We think about stage

[5:03:35] two? Lrt we talk a lot about. The large median.

[5:03:39] That's down by sports world. There's a plan for all

[5:03:42] of that space. But, Councilor Hunich, I would. Say the

[5:03:45] plan that Mike and his team will put forward will

[5:03:48] address universal design. It will address accessibility. I don't know

[5:03:52] if it will get specifically into LRT platform wits. But

[5:03:57] we have another team that is happy to take a

[5:03:59] look at that, so we'll take that under advisement. Okay.

[5:04:03] Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Rodriguez. Yeah, thanks. Chair. And

[5:04:06] through you to Mike. Thanks so much for the presentation.

[5:04:09] Really excited to see this come together. A couple of

[5:04:12] questions on the last slide you spoke to. I guess

[5:04:14] some engagement with council. In the later half of the

[5:04:19] year. I think one thing that we see with this

[5:04:22] council is a lot of great conversation about transportation. Projects

[5:04:26] on an ongoing basis. And how can we funnel those

[5:04:28] into something like this? And so do you expect there'll

[5:04:32] be any workshops or anything in sort of small sessions?

[5:04:35] For us to have conversations and really talk. I think

[5:04:38] each counselor. Each person around this table has ideas to

[5:04:42] share and things that their community would like to see.

[5:04:46] Reflected in a plan. So could you maybe comment on

[5:04:49] when council will have those opportunities to weigh? In. Take

[5:04:53] that. Yes, it'll follow the original or to follow the

[5:04:58] first engagement with the public and we'll be following up

[5:05:01] at about the middle of the year and setting up.

[5:05:05] Some good discussions. Where. We'll get into the details of

[5:05:10] the plan and get feedback. So. It'll be, I think,

[5:05:14] as I alluded to, the middle of the year. So

[5:05:16] you'll start to see some emails from our transportation staff.

[5:05:21] Gathering and setting up these sessions. That's awesome. And I

[5:05:25] think my other question just relates to. The always evolving

[5:05:30] legislative context that we find ourselves now operating in with

[5:05:33] respect to transportation and this might be a little premature.

[5:05:37] But can you speak to how we can set up

[5:05:39] a plan that actually works for our region? And perhaps

[5:05:42] rises above some of the noise that we're seeing right

[5:05:45] now with respect to provincial legislation around our road space

[5:05:48] and provides your team the flexibility to do the work

[5:05:52] that you do. Allows us to meet provincial requirements. As

[5:05:59] those change, I suspect they'll change in the years to

[5:06:02] come. Over the life of this plan. Yeah. I think

[5:06:06] we can't get to a place where we're not doing

[5:06:08] things. Or at least thinking about how we want them

[5:06:11] to be in the future because of something that we

[5:06:14] may be locked in with right now. Yeah. Certainly agree

[5:06:18] that some of the recent provincial legislation. Has been difficult.

[5:06:25] For us in transportation. I think I talked a little

[5:06:29] bit about our new model. We are looking into an

[5:06:33] activity based model. That activity based model really. Changes from

[5:06:40] the existing model that we're using now, which is trip

[5:06:42] based, and the core of an activity based model, which

[5:06:46] we are very lucky in this region. To be able

[5:06:49] to get into the transformation tomorrow. Survey. Our data is

[5:06:54] based on that. What the new activity based model will

[5:06:59] do is really help us understand the existing travel patterns

[5:07:04] that are actually occurring in the region. It will break

[5:07:07] down. Why people are making those decisions. It will allow

[5:07:13] us to become more integrated with what is actually happening

[5:07:17] with the residents and the businesses of the region, so

[5:07:21] it's going to be much more reflective of the existing

[5:07:25] travel patterns that are happening. And provide us more focus.

[5:07:30] In specific and strategic areas with how we go about

[5:07:33] prioritizing some routes being more. Vehicle centric, some routes being

[5:07:39] more pedestrian centric, I would give an example of King

[5:07:43] street. In downtown or uptown? Waterloo. Excuse me. And University

[5:07:49] Avenue. Those are areas that have a much higher concentration

[5:07:52] of students. They travel differently than does a 50 or

[5:07:56] 60 year old man like myself. They make different transportation

[5:08:01] choices. So an activity based model is going to really

[5:08:03] help us understand. What's happening with our community and how

[5:08:07] they're traveling. It's much more focused on the adjacent land

[5:08:12] use, so it'll give us some great flexibility. Hopefully in

[5:08:16] understanding those patterns and understanding where we need to go

[5:08:19] in specific areas of the region. We, of course, have

[5:08:22] a mix of rural roads and urban roads. Those have

[5:08:26] very different needs and demands. People that live in rural

[5:08:30] areas need to drive, in many instances, to work where

[5:08:34] someone who is living in downtown Kitchener or downtown Waterdew.

[5:08:38] Might not even need to own a car. So an

[5:08:41] activity. Based model is really going to help us. Get

[5:08:44] a deeper understanding of those travel patterns and help grow

[5:08:48] along with our community. And matching those community needs. So

[5:08:53] again, of course, some of the legislation has been challenging

[5:08:56] lately, but we are finding solutions through understanding land use

[5:09:00] and understanding how our public is actually traveling and how

[5:09:03] they will travel that's. Great. And I think you touched

[5:09:07] on a really important point that I'm hoping as this

[5:09:10] process evolves is that these difficult and perhaps. Tacky conversations

[5:09:14] can happen with the community and council. But what we

[5:09:17] mean by when we say something like prioritizing. An active

[5:09:21] mode. That means deprioritizing other things, and I'm speaking in

[5:09:25] a very urban context right now, but I think. There's

[5:09:29] some trade offs that I think I'll come to light

[5:09:31] through this process. That the community can understand. And really

[5:09:35] see themselves in this plan of where they live or

[5:09:38] where they work, how they get between those places. I

[5:09:41] think this messaging came through a stage. One eye on

[5:09:43] where it was. Yeah. We want you to ride it,

[5:09:46] but we're not asking you to sell your car. This

[5:09:48] is an option for you should you choose and in

[5:09:50] fact will make your driving experience better as we take

[5:09:54] cars off the road and I. Think that message has

[5:09:55] to keep permeating our conversations to keep a set of

[5:10:00] culture war territory on this. So just some hopes for

[5:10:04] this plan, and I'm really excited to see it come

[5:10:05] together. 100% agree. Thank you. Thank you, councilor. Councilor Foxton.

[5:10:10] Thank you. And through you. Chair. Yeah. I love it.

[5:10:13] It's beautiful. My question is. So you want to change

[5:10:17] the existing road workers? This just for new roads? With

[5:10:22] the plan. Through you, Councilor Fox. We continue through our

[5:10:27] ten year capital plan to make adjustments to roads that

[5:10:31] need repair. In addition to new roads. And so then

[5:10:34] you would implement. Just because I was thinking about it

[5:10:37] and driving. Here today, and I was going up Weaver

[5:10:41] street, and I thought, well, if they did this plan,

[5:10:43] here. You'd have to remove all the houses. See a

[5:10:45] lot of the downtown. Downtowns or main communities have houses

[5:10:49] that are right at the sidewalk. So there's no room

[5:10:53] to put. A walking path, a bike path, the two

[5:10:56] lanes plus an LRT. If you recall the new street

[5:11:01] design guidelines, draft guidelines. Replace a document called the context

[5:11:09] sensitive corridor design guidelines and contact sensitive is important context

[5:11:14] in this instance, in that it provides the designers and

[5:11:18] the engineers a guide to consider exactly those kinds of

[5:11:23] scenarios. Councilor Foxton, where we have constraints, physical constraints, so

[5:11:29] it allows the designers to prioritize based on a decision

[5:11:33] matrix and have trade offs because we do not have

[5:11:37] a lot of unconstrained corridors. So our engineers are always

[5:11:41] working with the street design guidelines in pri. Principle to

[5:11:45] try to deliver the multimodal needs. And so one of

[5:11:48] the other differences in regional roads from local roads is

[5:11:51] we just have a lot more stuff packed into that

[5:11:54] corridor a lot more infrastructure, a lot more built up

[5:11:58] environment, a lot busier roads, more traffic. So we're certainly

[5:12:02] sensitive to that. And that's part of what the street

[5:12:04] design guide. Guidelines will help our engineering team decide. It's

[5:12:08] always with context of the built up environment. So would

[5:12:11] it be fair to say you'll do what you can

[5:12:13] where you can? Yes, while balancing all of. The transportation

[5:12:21] modes as equally as possible. Thank you, Councilor Salon. Thank

[5:12:28] you through you chair. And thank you very much, Mike,

[5:12:31] for bringing this forward and presenting it. Really excited about

[5:12:35] some of the stuff. I am going to loop back

[5:12:38] to some of the rural context I was talking about

[5:12:40] before. In particular, looking at the main street design, and

[5:12:44] I appreciate what you've said, that it's this kind of

[5:12:47] a representation, but contextually, it would depend on each area

[5:12:50] that we're looking at. But one thing that I noticed

[5:12:53] is no on street parking shown at all. Which is

[5:12:58] pretty important for our local. Businesses, especially because we have

[5:13:03] limited parking in our downtown cores. And as you said,

[5:13:06] most of us do rely on vehicles and rule. Actually

[5:13:10] looking at it. On Statscan data. The median of all

[5:13:14] of the townships, 92% of people rely on. A vehicle

[5:13:19] to get to and from work. So definitely wondering if

[5:13:22] you could speak to kind of how that element ties

[5:13:25] in and then also curious. And again, I get that

[5:13:28] these are just. Visualizing tools, but I'm going off of

[5:13:34] what I'm seeing. Is that we have pedestrians on one

[5:13:38] side of the street, but not pedestrian access on both

[5:13:41] sides. Of the street. Again, referring specifically to the main

[5:13:44] rule. Street design. And. Wondering if there were any assumptions

[5:13:52] made about the fact that, demographically speaking, we have aging

[5:13:55] populations. And so actually, there should be a bit more

[5:13:58] of a contextual need, in my opinion, on both sidewalks

[5:14:02] and vehicle access over the bike lanes. Not to say

[5:14:05] that we shouldn't have them, but maybe looking. At a

[5:14:08] pathway that's both for walking and for cycling and for

[5:14:12] mobility. Aid. So curious if you could speak to any

[5:14:16] of those points. Sure. Great question, Councilor Solomon. Yes, certainly.

[5:14:21] With I'll answer. The parking question first. As regional council

[5:14:27] is well aware, these are some of the challenges that

[5:14:29] we're facing on a project by project basis. So again,

[5:14:33] it's about context. We are never going to go into

[5:14:37] a project. And completely say we are removing all of

[5:14:40] the parking. That's a collaborative context, sensitive if you will

[5:14:45] decision that the designers are making to try to balance

[5:14:48] all mode shares. So. That will be a continuous discussion

[5:14:53] with the area municipalities. It'll be a continuous discussion amongst

[5:14:57] the engineers and designers again trying to balance the needs.

[5:15:02] That happens on every project. It's happened in Arthur street,

[5:15:04] in Elmira. It's happened in Anesley street in Cambridge, and

[5:15:09] we are working with. The local ams to try to

[5:15:13] find a resolution that suits both the businesses and the

[5:15:17] people. Of the larger community as a whole. So the

[5:15:20] second. Could you remind the second part of your question?

[5:15:25] Again, just. In the mockup drawing here. It has pedestrians

[5:15:30] just on one side and cyclists on the other. Side

[5:15:33] of the road. So, speaking to that, and looking demographically,

[5:15:36] how we have an aging population, and better suiting their

[5:15:39] mobility needs. So, again, in most of the rural contexts,

[5:15:44] in most contexts we would like to separate cycling and

[5:15:47] pedestri. Pedestrians. There are speed differences, so. As those facilities

[5:15:52] become more well used, you end up having more conflicts

[5:15:55] between the people that are cycling and the people that

[5:15:58] are walking. We try to build those as wide as

[5:16:01] possible to prevent those conflicts. But. In a rural context.

[5:16:06] Certainly the region is about providing. Active transportation facilities on

[5:16:10] both sides of the road where possible. And just another

[5:16:14] follow up. And then that's it. We got to keep

[5:16:18] this moving. And what about snow removal responsibilities? Because as

[5:16:23] I see those bike lanes that terrifying to me and

[5:16:27] I know in Bayden, on the regional road. They are

[5:16:29] not being plowed right now, so. Curious what that looks

[5:16:34] like in this plan. Yes. When we build new sidewalks

[5:16:38] or muts, those are transferred down to the area municipality

[5:16:43] and are the responsibility of the area municipality. That's why.

[5:16:47] It is so important that we get consensus. On these

[5:16:51] issues. I know. That through this last winter season and

[5:16:55] through this winter season, we do have challenges. In snow

[5:16:59] clearing and snow removal. Because when you add. Active transportation

[5:17:04] facilities and sidewalks. In some cases, where you have a

[5:17:08] confined environment, you actually take away some of the local

[5:17:11] snow. Storage. Ability. We have worked proactively with our active

[5:17:17] transportation committee. We will continue to do so to try

[5:17:21] to find solutions for snow removal. On both the muts

[5:17:28] and the sidewalks. But it's certainly a challenge when that

[5:17:31] snow needs to be lifted and removed. So we're conscious

[5:17:35] of that. The new street design guidelines. Draft guidelines have

[5:17:40] certainly had a significant impact from a maintenance point of

[5:17:43] view. So we have gathered impact from our maintenance. Team

[5:17:48] and the area municipalities maintenance teams, and we continue to

[5:17:51] work with the local area municipalities to understand their challenges

[5:17:55] for things like snow lifting and snow storage. In the

[5:18:01] really bitter cold winters that we seem to be having

[5:18:04] lately. And the massive amounts of snow that are accumulating,

[5:18:09] so it's definitely a challenge. With that added infrastructure, but

[5:18:13] not one that's not overcomeable. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

[5:18:18] Edmund. Thank you, chair. James, I really appreciate the presentation.

[5:18:23] I know that one of the pillars that we're looking

[5:18:24] at is a safety lens. I'm assuming when I look

[5:18:27] at. The street design, and I've tried to look at

[5:18:31] the little mockups, too, but is lighting part of this

[5:18:35] discussion because I know how things are lit is a

[5:18:37] huge contributor to safety. I'm just wondering if you comment

[5:18:39] on that. Thank you, Chair Redmond. Yes, we are certainly.

[5:18:46] Working. Certainly working proactively. Continue the evolution.

[5:18:57] Of the illumination policy. We have staff right now that

[5:19:00] are working on updating that illumination policy. Looking at things

[5:19:04] like pedestrian level lighting, looking at areas in roundabouts that

[5:19:09] traditionally have not been very well lit. So the illumination

[5:19:13] policy update is also happening this year. And will be

[5:19:18] included. In a presentation to council probably later this year

[5:19:22] or early in 27. As we work through those issues.

[5:19:26] So lighting is certainly a concern in the street design

[5:19:28] guidelines. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Gao. Thanks to you,

[5:19:34] chair. Most of my questions have been answered. I would

[5:19:40] fail at jeopardy on beeping in here. But I do

[5:19:43] like the design. I know. I've had some questions. From

[5:19:48] constituents along the Victoria street area. And if we had

[5:19:53] something like this, because. They don't like the mixed use.

[5:19:57] Cyclists and walking just because there's no real definition. And

[5:20:02] I know I've talked to commissioner spooner about certain things.

[5:20:07] So, just to reiterate, This isn't going to be. Here's

[5:20:13] a rubber stamp. We're going to put it all over

[5:20:15] the place. We are going to take into account different

[5:20:18] areas like the rural areas, because I know that, as

[5:20:22] it's been said, Most of the calls that I've received

[5:20:26] from. Constituents is do not get rid of my parking.

[5:20:31] Yes, always context sensitive, for sure. And. When these issues

[5:20:40] come up, we would bring. Those for regional council deliberation

[5:20:45] with the project approval report. So certainly understanding that there's.

[5:20:49] Challenges in implementing this infrastructure. As I said before, context

[5:20:54] sensitive. So it gives us a bit of a guideline

[5:20:57] while trying to meet these multimodal needs of the community.

[5:21:03] With understanding their reality that not every corridor is a

[5:21:06] wide open space, that we have unlimited space. To place

[5:21:10] that infrastructure, and so we're trying to make smarter decisions.

[5:21:14] That strategically focus on the areas that we're in and

[5:21:19] what those areas needs are. I spoke a little bit

[5:21:23] about that. Answering an earlier question, but certainly these street

[5:21:27] design guidelines are also a living document. Councilor galling as

[5:21:31] well that we continue to improve and reflect best practice.

[5:21:36] Thank you, Councilor Shant. Thank you. Two questions. Thanks for

[5:21:43] the presentation. My first question is one that I need

[5:21:47] to ask for my community because. You specifically mentioned the

[5:21:53] Elmyra bypass and also McQueen shaver in terms of Cambridge,

[5:21:57] so I. Know both of those were. Brought forward by

[5:22:02] council. And suggested to be a high priority. Where does

[5:22:09] that leave? These at this point. Through your chariot, councilor

[5:22:14] Sean said, I'm happy to take that one, so you

[5:22:16] can. See in the image that was up there? It's

[5:22:18] not up there right now. There was a number of

[5:22:20] projects in pink. Which were those beyond 2041. So the

[5:22:24] exercise we're going to do this year, and Mike had

[5:22:27] mentioned along with you, council is just to take a

[5:22:29] look at that. There's over. 70 projects on that list.

[5:22:34] So obviously. Plan and budget cycle we had advanced as

[5:22:38] a placeholder. The example of the Umayyer bypass. So then

[5:22:41] the question becomes, what will get displaced? Right? There's a

[5:22:44] PI to be. Divided. We need to do these projects,

[5:22:46] we know, for various reasons, but we'll do that. Activity

[5:22:49] together through the year. Okay. And if I can have

[5:22:53] a second question. I was really interested and happy to

[5:22:58] hear you describe activity based decision making in terms of.

[5:23:04] What happens. And again, thinking more specifically, in the rural

[5:23:08] areas, My question is related to that, but it's a

[5:23:12] little more general. And that. Is. I understand. As a

[5:23:19] region, we have certain roadways, certain lands that are ours

[5:23:24] to manage. But. How will you work with our municipalities

[5:23:32] and with other corridors? Because. I'm not convinced that every

[5:23:38] major corridor needs to have a cycling lane attached to

[5:23:44] it. Especially. In Arthur street, of course, comes to mind

[5:23:51] where there's a block, a half a block. Away. There's

[5:23:55] a road that would actually work better, but it's not

[5:23:58] a regional road. So how in the future will you.

[5:24:03] Sort of look at that. And is there a place

[5:24:05] for us? As a group of municipalities. To look at.

[5:24:13] I know someone who cycles occasionally. From Kitchener. To st.

[5:24:20] Jacobs and. They take the iron Horse trail. They take

[5:24:25] the trails and they prefer those. Did you want to

[5:24:29] take this? Yeah, if I could. Through your chair, councilor

[5:24:31] Sean's. Here. This is the discussion we were hoping to

[5:24:34] have today. A bit of detail about the plan. So

[5:24:37] just because you had mentioned the activity based modeling, I'll

[5:24:40] hearken back. To support that we've been given at this

[5:24:45] council around the implementation of the Myovision. Program. So as

[5:24:49] a reminder, that gives us the ability to manage signals

[5:24:52] dynamically. So we don't have to go out there. We

[5:24:54] can do that and help speed up traffic. The other

[5:24:56] thing it does, though, is give us data on each

[5:24:58] of the modes traveling through every intersection. In the region,

[5:25:00] and so our ability to get to an activity based

[5:25:03] model and. Predict the numbers of vehicles versus horse and

[5:25:06] buggies versus pedestrians. Actually, from the investment we've made together

[5:25:08] in Myovision, so I'm very excited to get into that

[5:25:12] and to see. Can we become a service provider as

[5:25:15] well? To our municipal partners when they say, hey, we'd

[5:25:17] like to know the impact of making a change or

[5:25:19] doing something that we can actually model out that impact

[5:25:21] and predict what it will look like next year in

[5:25:23] five years. And ten. Years as we grow. So that

[5:25:26] predictive capability is a big piece of this plan. You've

[5:25:28] posed two additional questions. That we will answer through the

[5:25:32] development of this plan. And the first one is, do

[5:25:35] we want all modes on all roads. And I would

[5:25:38] say you can see from some of this we do

[5:25:39] try to pursue opportunities for multiple people. But that question

[5:25:43] gets really interesting when you consider land use. So if

[5:25:47] I give you a really easy example we've all been

[5:25:49] talking about is the hospital and the emergence of the

[5:25:51] hospital in our planning. So up until a few years

[5:25:54] ago, before we started talking about the hospital and a

[5:25:56] location in North Waterloo, I would have told you I

[5:25:58] knew the function of Westmount and Fisher Holman. And King

[5:26:02] and Weber as north south travel opportunities. And I would

[5:26:05] tell you today we have a whole lot of work

[5:26:06] to figure out how our ambulance is going to get

[5:26:09] to the hospital. How? Are people and families going to

[5:26:11] get to the hospital? So this is one of the

[5:26:13] examples of change. But that question remains. Do we need

[5:26:15] all modes on all roads? The second part to that

[5:26:18] is your question about cycling specifically so as I. 've

[5:26:22] shared with you. I am in pursuit of a completed

[5:26:24] regional cycling network, whether or not that exists on regional

[5:26:27] roads. And so I would simply like to say and

[5:26:30] produce a map that is very easy for our cycling

[5:26:32] community of about 15,000 people. Here's how you get places.

[5:26:37] And then we've been having discussions about, what does that

[5:26:39] look like in a winter context? We struggle to keep

[5:26:42] cycling lanes clear. So could we develop a winter cycling

[5:26:44] network where we look at a slightly modified network and

[5:26:46] make sure we provide a really high level of service

[5:26:48] so those questions will come out. We're hopeful that the

[5:26:51] community brings forward more like that. And to your last

[5:26:54] piece about the role of the ams. Look, as I

[5:26:57] talk about all of the networks. It's one network. When

[5:27:01] I take the bus to work. I don't care if

[5:27:03] I'm on a regional road or a local, it doesn't

[5:27:06] matter. And so part of the role will be the

[5:27:09] integration of this plan, the reason we do it. Now

[5:27:11] is that we actually do our integrated mobility plans together

[5:27:15] so that they match and they meet. Each other and

[5:27:17] they achieve the same things. So you've hit some of

[5:27:20] the key questions, the role of every municipalities and the

[5:27:22] role of the modes in our network. We need to

[5:27:23] talk about that, and it's a pretty public conversation we're

[5:27:26] about to have. So excited for it. Thank you. Thank

[5:27:28] you, council, for Banavik. Thank you very much. And thanks

[5:27:33] to staff for all of the work on this. I

[5:27:35] think the one thing, and it gets into a lot

[5:27:38] of the questions, particularly as it relates to the rural

[5:27:41] areas, but it also impacts the urban areas. Is a

[5:27:46] change in terms of how we've handled projects of this

[5:27:49] scope, so. There was. A time going back up until

[5:27:54] a few years ago, when we created project teams that

[5:27:58] included regional and city staff, as well as. Elected representation

[5:28:03] both from regional council and the area council, and that

[5:28:07] often brought a lot of sort of the issues and

[5:28:09] concerns up early on so that they didn't bubble up.

[5:28:15] Regional and municipal councilors sometimes brought different perspectives from the

[5:28:20] kinds of things that they were hearing. From their constituents

[5:28:23] and so on, and I found that. Those committees were

[5:28:28] very helpful. And it's something that we stopped doing. I'm

[5:28:33] not sure if it was because. Of Covid or another

[5:28:36] reason, but it is something that. I think would be

[5:28:41] very helpful to bring back. I'm seeing some nods in

[5:28:45] that regard. And so I'm wondering if that's something that

[5:28:49] can be looked at as part of this process as

[5:28:51] we go forward. Through your chair. So on a project

[5:28:55] basis. I know today we have project teams. On stage

[5:29:00] two ion that include regional staff and area municipal staff.

[5:29:04] I don't believe I have any that include elected officials.

[5:29:07] In fact, I do. On the Elmira bypass. Happy to

[5:29:10] take a look, councilor Ravanovich. I don't know that that

[5:29:12] change predates me. So happy to take a look. Yeah,

[5:29:14] that would be great. And happy to have a discussion

[5:29:16] with. You about it offline as well. Thank you. Okay.

[5:29:19] Councilor Foxton. Thank you. Something that you just talked about,

[5:29:22] Doug. Was. Figuring out the cycling and how it's happening.

[5:29:28] A few years ago, we did a master plan on

[5:29:30] cycling. And then we involved the region, and then we

[5:29:33] involved the province, and so we've got that all on

[5:29:35] a disk, so if you get a hold of Andrew,

[5:29:37] I'm. Sure he'll supply it for you because it's quite

[5:29:39] handy. Through chair if I just quickly respond so, yes,

[5:29:42] we will consume any preexisting integrative. Mobility plans, network designs.

[5:29:46] We've got them from each of our seven partners. We

[5:29:48] got to look at ours from 2018. We got to

[5:29:51] spin them all up into this big master. Plan, but,

[5:29:53] yeah, absolutely. Okay. No further questions. Commissioner Spooner, I just

[5:29:59] have something to comment on. You mentioned this very early

[5:30:01] on, and it was around the universal design. And honing

[5:30:05] in on that a bit because we often focus on

[5:30:07] Aoda, and I feel like that is just. A base.

[5:30:11] It's actually kind of flawed legislation. Can you just speak?

[5:30:16] To universal design and how that looks in terms of

[5:30:19] street design, just for an awareness piece, but also. Looking

[5:30:23] at things holistically. For everybody. Yeah, through your chair, James.

[5:30:29] So, council, the concept of universal design is that regardless

[5:30:33] of that design, we can all use it, and I

[5:30:36] use that we royally as to every single member of

[5:30:39] our community. And so if you think about the requirements

[5:30:42] of that, Councilor Hunich, I don't think you'll mind me

[5:30:45] sharing the story. Councilor Hunich and I were planning to

[5:30:47] have a coffee together, and part of our decision making

[5:30:50] around where we would get a coffee includes delicious coffee,

[5:30:53] delicious doughnuts and is there a step in front of

[5:30:56] the store that we can get in, and there was.

[5:30:59] And so we had to pick an equally delicious donut

[5:31:01] shop, but that's the idea. Is that we don't have

[5:31:05] to pre plan these things. We don't have to. Think

[5:31:07] through them. The design is the design, and it works

[5:31:09] for every member of our community, so we'll pursue that.

[5:31:12] As I mentioned, the standards that we have today don't

[5:31:15] always achieve that, so. That's part of that community conversation.

[5:31:18] This plan will obviously be consulted with Grac and our

[5:31:21] partners. From the accessibility community. But again, We're pretty excited

[5:31:26] to go back out. We had a busy year last

[5:31:28] year with the GRT plan engagement, and we'll plan to

[5:31:31] do a similar level of effort. Talking about the entirety

[5:31:34] of travel in the region. Excellent. Thank you, Doug. Universal

[5:31:37] design is used in planning, but also in education and

[5:31:40] other sector, so it's very broad. Okay. Thank you. That

[5:31:44] report was for information. We are now moving to item

[5:31:49] 9.2.2, the Mannheim service area water capacity constraint. And colleagues,

[5:31:58] before we begin, I want to acknowledge that the water

[5:32:01] issue capacity. It is deeply important and concerning to the

[5:32:07] public, to us, to our partners. Area municipalities to staff.

[5:32:14] And essentially everyone in this community. Who is impacted by

[5:32:18] water, and I think we all use it all ages.

[5:32:22] Today's report is intended to provide counsel in the community

[5:32:26] with clear information about the issue. As well as the

[5:32:30] actions staff have identified. As necessary to address it. There

[5:32:34] are many factors contributing to the current constraint and to

[5:32:39] why it is being identified. Now. These include the complexity

[5:32:43] of our water, our local water supply system. Improved data

[5:32:47] tackling and tracking and analysis. A more mature asset management

[5:32:52] program and increasing water demand. As owners of the water

[5:32:57] supply system, we should keep this context in mind. To

[5:33:02] allow staff to address the issue holistically while prioritizing their

[5:33:06] work effectively. So I ask that our discussion remain respectful

[5:33:11] and focused. We should refrain from assigning blame or public

[5:33:16] criticizing any individuals. If matters arise that involved. Identifiable individuals.

[5:33:23] Those discussions can and should take place in closed session.

[5:33:29] In accordance with our procedures, in order to go into

[5:33:32] closed again, we will require another motion with the reason

[5:33:35] to go into closed, clearly identified and set out in

[5:33:39] the municipal act. I will look to both legal and

[5:33:43] clerks. If this should occur. With that in mind, I

[5:33:48] ask that your questions and comments stay grounded in the

[5:33:52] content of the report of the content of the report

[5:33:55] before us. And if I feel that discussions are moving

[5:33:59] away from the focus, I will step in and redirect

[5:34:01] the conversation accordingly. So with that, I look forward to

[5:34:06] the discussion, the dialogue, the respectful dialogue amongst us as

[5:34:09] colleagues. And I would like to call upon. Matthew Getsky,

[5:34:13] acting CIO, to provide an introduction. In Nicole Zapata to

[5:34:17] then introduce the presentation. Thank you. Thank you, chair. So.

[5:34:26] This report is a foreign formation report, as you mentioned.

[5:34:30] It follows the capacity constraint that was identified by. Staff.

[5:34:35] In November of 2025. And this is the first report

[5:34:39] that we're bringing into the public realm on this issue.

[5:34:44] The report and the presentation will explain why a change

[5:34:48] in the methodology for assessing available capacity was required. And

[5:34:53] what were these changes? In order to adequately reflect how

[5:34:57] our water supply system actually works. The package that you've

[5:35:02] had today also includes. The full third party review that

[5:35:06] staff has commissioned to verify our findings at the end

[5:35:10] of last year. And so we'll be open to having

[5:35:13] some questions on that. So I'll pass. It over to

[5:35:16] the team to run you through this presentation, starting with

[5:35:19] Nicole, who's the senior engineer who has been leading this

[5:35:21] work within the water team. Thank you for the introduction.

[5:35:27] Good afternoon, council. And thank you for having me here

[5:35:29] to discuss this. Topic. The region of Waterleo's municipal drinking

[5:35:33] water system is unique and often referred to as one

[5:35:36] of the most complex in Canada. 80% of our drinking

[5:35:40] water supply comes from groundwater that is pumped from over

[5:35:43] 100 municipal production. Wells. The remaining 20% comes from the

[5:35:48] Grand river. Next slide. The purpose of this presentation is

[5:35:53] to provide information regarding a water capacity constraint that has

[5:35:57] been confirmed. For the Mannheim service area. While originally identified

[5:36:03] by staff, a third party review has verified staff's findings,

[5:36:07] and the revised methodology that identified this constraint. There are

[5:36:11] many factors contributing to why there is a constraint and

[5:36:15] why it is being identified now. These factors are related

[5:36:19] to the complexity of our local water supply system. Improved

[5:36:23] data tracking and analysis. A more mature asset management program.

[5:36:28] And a shift to increasing water demands. Next slide, please.

[5:36:33] The largest municipal water supply system within the region of

[5:36:36] Waterloo is referred to as the integrated urban system, which

[5:36:40] is shown in the green and blue shaded areas. While

[5:36:46] this system is integrated in the sense that there are

[5:36:48] connections throughout. There are limitations to how water can be

[5:36:52] transferred. Breaking the system up into the Mannheim service area

[5:36:56] and the Middleton service area is a more accurate representation

[5:37:00] of what can operationally be achieved for transferring water. On

[5:37:05] this map, the Manheim service area is shown in Blue

[5:37:08] and the Middleton service area shown. In green. Next slide,

[5:37:12] please. The annual water and wastewater monitoring report is one

[5:37:16] of the important tools used to monitor the water and

[5:37:19] wastewater system capacity. The report looks ahead ten years and

[5:37:26] provides a summary of recent water usage and the development

[5:37:29] expected to come online in the near term. This data

[5:37:32] is compared to the system capacity to determine how much

[5:37:35] capacity is remaining. The remaining system capacity is used to

[5:37:40] inform the reviewed development applications throughout the year until the

[5:37:43] next annual update. It provides an indicator of water and

[5:37:48] wastewater servicing needs based on the amount of remaining capacity

[5:37:52] reported if we have a large amount remaining, additional capacity

[5:37:56] may not be required. If there is a low amount

[5:37:59] remaining. It is a gate check for staff to ensure

[5:38:02] this is captured in the longer term. Planning processes. Similarly,

[5:38:06] the remaining capacity can also be used as an indicator

[5:38:09] for operational resiliency. Operational resiliency is a buffer amount that

[5:38:15] is required to ensure we have capacity in the system

[5:38:18] if infrastructure needs to go offline for repair or we

[5:38:22] need to respond to an emergency. Situation. Next slide, please.

[5:38:29] The previous methodology used in the annual water and wastewater

[5:38:31] monitoring report has been in place for many years. It

[5:38:37] follows guidelines developed by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation

[5:38:40] and Parks and is consistent with practices used by municipalities

[5:38:44] throughout Ontario. While this represented industry best practices, the region

[5:38:49] of waterloo system is complex and unique. It was determined

[5:38:53] that this methodology was not the best way to represent

[5:38:56] what can operationally be achieved to support development within the

[5:38:59] integrated urban system. There are three key changes that have

[5:39:03] been made. First, the previous methodology looked at the integrated

[5:39:08] urban system as a whole. As I discussed earlier, a

[5:39:12] better representation is to look at the Mannheim and Middleton

[5:39:15] service area separately. Second, the previous methodology looked at maximum

[5:39:20] system capacity to determine the remaining system capacity. While this

[5:39:25] may work well for lake based supply systems, it doesn't

[5:39:28] work as well for groundwater systems. For example, some wells

[5:39:33] can be peaked for short durations based on permits or

[5:39:36] how much groundwater is available. That they cannot operate that

[5:39:39] way on a continuous basis. A more accurate way to

[5:39:43] represent what can be done on a continuous basis for

[5:39:45] groundwater supply is the average sustainable system capacity. In addition,

[5:39:54] the region of Waterloo is a leader in water efficiency

[5:39:56] and conservation. This means that our peak water use is

[5:40:01] lower than other communities. As a result, a constraint and

[5:40:05] capacity will be evident for our average sustainable system. Capacity

[5:40:09] before it shows in our maximum system capacity. For the

[5:40:13] region system, it makes more sense to look at both

[5:40:16] maximum and average sustainable system capacities. When assessing remaining available

[5:40:21] capacity. The third change for the revised methodology is setting

[5:40:26] a minimum operational resiliency target of 20% we know that

[5:40:31] systems cannot be operated with everything at 100% all the

[5:40:35] time we take. Things offline to do preventative maintenance, or

[5:40:39] we may have unexpected things happen, like equipment failures. Operational

[5:40:44] resiliency is needed to be able to do this work

[5:40:47] to fulfill council's obligation under the safe drinking water act

[5:40:51] to maintain the water system in a state of fit

[5:40:53] repair. Next slide, please. There are several observations made by

[5:41:00] staff that led to the revised methodology. The first is

[5:41:06] an increasing frequency and duration of shutdowns for water facilities.

[5:41:11] Whether it was a planned project or an unexpected failure,

[5:41:14] things that were previously thought to be more isolated events

[5:41:17] became much more common. The second was observations of operational

[5:41:22] indicators that the water system may be operating under stress.

[5:41:27] These included indicators for both built infrastructure and the natural

[5:41:31] environment. For built infrastructure. Lower levels were being observed more

[5:41:36] frequently for our large treated drinking water storage tanks. For

[5:41:41] the natural environment. Key thresholds were being observed in the

[5:41:44] groundwater aquifer levels. Based on these observations, staff took a

[5:41:49] proactive step to do an in depth review and better

[5:41:53] understand the reasons behind them. The increased frequency and duration

[5:41:57] of shutdowns was straightforward. A maturing asset management program to

[5:42:02] proactively maintain our infrastructure, combined with aging infrastructure was leading

[5:42:07] to the increased shutdowns. And we have better tools and

[5:42:09] data tracking to monitor this. The operational indicators are more

[5:42:14] complex, and there are multiple factors to consider. As discussed,

[5:42:19] the integrated urban system has interconnections, but the Mannheim and

[5:42:23] Middleton service areas are a more accurate way to represent

[5:42:26] what can operationally be achieved. Another factor is the amount

[5:42:30] of water reliably available has changed. This was related to

[5:42:35] how much water was available from supply sources, changes in

[5:42:39] the quality of the water that required operational adjustments and

[5:42:43] a better understanding of what water treatment equipment could reliably

[5:42:46] do on a continuous basis. It is important to note

[5:42:50] that many of these changes happen over time. Where extensive

[5:42:54] study and multiyear trends are needed to confirm what supply

[5:42:57] can be relied upon. Despite efforts to expand and build

[5:43:02] new water supply capacity, the overall system capacity has been

[5:43:06] declining in the Mannheim service area, with one example being

[5:43:09] the Manheim water treatment plant, where our process constraint for

[5:43:13] one of the steps in the treatment process was noted.

[5:43:17] All of these pieces came together in a time we

[5:43:19] have shifted to increasing water demands. After years where water

[5:43:24] conservation and efficiency efforts outpaced the rate of population growth.

[5:43:29] And we experienced declining overall demands. We are seeing a

[5:43:32] transition. While water efficiency and conservation is still very important

[5:43:37] to maintain the gains that have already been achieved. The

[5:43:40] rate of growth is now outpacing the declining trends, and

[5:43:43] overall water usage is increasing. The last piece that I

[5:43:48] would like to highlight is this shift in type of

[5:43:50] growth the region. Is experiencing. As we have more growth

[5:43:55] occurring through intensification processes, there is an opportunity to update

[5:43:59] the methodology to better reflect these changing patterns. While the

[5:44:03] methodology for what development was included in the monitoring report

[5:44:07] followed the guidelines, it is recognized that a lot has

[5:44:11] changed since it was developed in the 90s as one

[5:44:14] of the fastest growing communities in Canada combined with. Strategic

[5:44:19] development through intensification. It makes sense that the region of

[5:44:22] Waterloo reassess the way. Development is tracked through the annual

[5:44:25] monitoring report. I will now pass the presentation over to

[5:44:29] Commissioner reguer. Thank you, Nicole. So here we have a

[5:44:36] slide which outlines. The nature of the relationship between development

[5:44:43] and the demand for water. In order. To qualify this

[5:44:48] constraint, we estimated the developments that will be coming online

[5:44:52] in the Mannheim service area. And I'd just like to

[5:44:56] walk you through the chart here very quickly. Row. A

[5:45:01] illustrates the existing. Connections and the issued building permits. In

[5:45:06] other words, We've included the figure of all current active

[5:45:10] building permits. In this figure. And we have water system

[5:45:16] supplying approximately 481,000 people. And delivering about 1356 liters per

[5:45:24] second. To these. Existing users. The next row, row b

[5:45:32] identifies the potential demand. That registered plans of subdivision which

[5:45:38] are expected to be developed over the next one to

[5:45:41] eight years. And here we're talking about a process where.

[5:45:47] It may take time for. Some of these particular subdivisions

[5:45:51] to actually move to full build out. They can accommodate

[5:45:56] approximately 14,000 people, and we'll draw an additional 40 liters.

[5:46:02] Per second. Column or row c refers to site plan

[5:46:07] applications that is primarily inside of the urban area. These

[5:46:10] are largely intensification locations. We have site plan applications underway,

[5:46:17] expected to be built out over the next one to

[5:46:19] six years. Which could accommodate up to 25,000 people and

[5:46:25] draw an additional 71 liters per second. And. Column row

[5:46:30] d talks about draft plans of subdivision, and these are

[5:46:35] in the early stages. Earlier stages of design and development.

[5:46:41] Probably taking in excess of ten years to achieve full

[5:46:44] buildout. But they're able to accommodate up to 44,000, 45,000

[5:46:50] people. And draw an additional 125 liters per second. So

[5:46:55] in combination. Population plus the anticipated growth. In these identified

[5:47:05] developments. Will draw. Approximately 1600 liters per second. The column

[5:47:13] f identifies the fact that our current system has a

[5:47:16] maximum capacity of 1455 liters per second, indicating that this

[5:47:22] is less than. The amount. Of that can be provided

[5:47:29] or that is going to be demanded by all these

[5:47:31] developments moving forward. However, if you incorporate the 20% operational

[5:47:38] resiliency factor, We have to reduce the total. Available. To

[5:47:45] 1164 liters per second. As you can see, the existing

[5:47:51] connections already. Show a shortfall in. A shortfall in

[5:48:00] our available capacity. When we factor in operational resilience, we

[5:48:05] can see that further developments. Further developments. Within this twelve

[5:48:15] year forecast will exacerbate this issue. And until new capacity

[5:48:20] can be brought online, we are working with our municipal

[5:48:23] counterparts to refine our timing. As it relates to commitments,

[5:48:28] because we know that each and every one of these

[5:48:31] developments is unique. In terms of. Its stage of development

[5:48:36] and. The planning conditions. For the developer. While plan development

[5:48:44] is going to take some time to draw on the

[5:48:46] water supply, Significant infrastructure and investment are required to be

[5:48:51] able to support. These future growth needs. Next slide, please.

[5:48:57] This means that. Until available water capacity is confirmed. Development

[5:49:05] applications within the Mannheim service area will receive advisory comments.

[5:49:10] These comments outline that there is a water capacity constraint

[5:49:15] within the Mannheim service area. And the region does not

[5:49:19] support approval for development applications at this time. The region

[5:49:25] is not able to enter into new servicing agreements that

[5:49:29] result in additional servicing capacity that being required. We anticipate

[5:49:35] that there will be further evolution on this approach to

[5:49:39] commenting as more becomes known. Building. An occupancy permit issuance

[5:49:45] seat falls within the jurisdiction of the area municipality. And

[5:49:50] I'd like to point out here that at this time

[5:49:53] the region has not asked area municipalities to withhold building

[5:49:58] or occupancy permits or revoke existing permits. And I think

[5:50:04] I'm going to pass it over to Amy here. We

[5:50:10] just might have to go back. It's just the bottom

[5:50:12] of the last slide. So the other piece that we

[5:50:17] are having to entertain is that. It's just not close

[5:50:22] enough. Sorry. Yes. So regional staff will need to evaluate

[5:50:25] any ministry. The environment, conservation and park form ones. When

[5:50:32] those are received for the addition, modification, replacement or extension

[5:50:36] of a regional owned water main. We will be evaluating

[5:50:40] those on a case by case basis, moving forward to

[5:50:43] determine if they will result. In additional servicing capacity being

[5:50:47] required and whether they can be signed right now. Next

[5:50:50] slide. So what everyone is wanting to know is what

[5:50:54] work is underway. I can assure you that staff have

[5:50:58] been diligently working on solutions to address this water constraint

[5:51:02] since it was identified. Some of the short term opportunities

[5:51:07] include repairs to existing infrastructure to regain lost operational resiliency

[5:51:13] so the parkway water treatment plant and the green broke

[5:51:15] water treatment plant work on these projects have been underway

[5:51:19] for some time with a goal of having both systems

[5:51:22] back online in 2026. We are looking at. Optimization of

[5:51:26] existing sources like wells. We're leveraging the work that's going

[5:51:31] on. On the water supply strategy update to identify opportunities

[5:51:34] to potentially expedite water supply projects. We have immediately created.

[5:51:41] An internal technical subtask force that began looking at innovative

[5:51:44] solutions opportunities like well optimization, pilot projects and technologies to

[5:51:50] increase water supply capacity. Staff. Have been fine tuning and

[5:51:55] evaluating the mid to longer term solutions, including designing and

[5:51:59] building new water infrastructure projects to add net new supply

[5:52:03] capacity. We also are in detailed design for a solution

[5:52:07] to resolve a technical constraint at our Mannheim water treatment

[5:52:11] plant to regain that lost treatment capacity that you heard

[5:52:14] about this morning. We are also working with the province

[5:52:16] to fast track any required approvals and have had several

[5:52:20] meetings with them to date. Next slide. So, next steps.

[5:52:27] Staff continue to work on potential opportunities. A technical working

[5:52:31] group including industry experts, regional and area municipal staff is

[5:52:36] being put together and will kick off this week. And

[5:52:39] we also are having. Two workshops put into the calendars.

[5:52:44] Already. Planning focused working group with regional and area municipal

[5:52:49] planning staff is also being established and the first meeting

[5:52:52] will be this week as well. We are bringing on

[5:52:55] external technical resources to assist. And we're continuing to work

[5:52:59] with our provincial and municipal partners for any streamlining infrastructure.

[5:53:04] Opportunities. Our ongoing updates will be provided as available, and

[5:53:09] we will continue to keep residents up to date. On

[5:53:11] our website. I will pass it back to Cao Gibsky.

[5:53:16] Thank you. Thank you, Amy and Rod and. Nicole for

[5:53:20] the presentation. So this concludes the presentation. We appreciate this

[5:53:24] as both very important and very complex topic, and we're

[5:53:27] happy to take questions. Some of those questions may require

[5:53:31] answers from multiple teams. I'll be there to help. As

[5:53:34] needed to ensure that we can direct the question to

[5:53:37] the appropriate staff member, and with that, I'll hand things

[5:53:40] back to you. Chair, James. Thank you. And again. Thank

[5:53:43] you to staff, who've been working tirelessly on this since.

[5:53:49] Everything has come to light. Okay? So I know that

[5:53:53] there are about six motions that are at some point

[5:53:57] going to come forward. We are conscious of time. Is

[5:54:02] not the barrier. But there is a time. We're under

[5:54:04] some time constraints. So how? We are going to move

[5:54:07] forward with this is. Questions specifically to the report. So

[5:54:12] clear, concise questions directly to staff regarding the report. One

[5:54:19] question, one follow up. And then after those questions are

[5:54:24] done, those motions that have been submitted will be introduced

[5:54:27] in order. That they came in. Okay, so for this

[5:54:32] portion, Questions of staff for clarification. And then we'll go

[5:54:37] into the motions. As I know, there are about six

[5:54:39] that we need to go through. Okay. And I will

[5:54:42] start with councilor McCabe. Is your question regarding. The motion.

[5:54:47] It's question perfect. I'm going to follow the rules. Chair.

[5:54:51] Thanks very much. And thanks for all the information. I've

[5:54:54] got a number of questions, but I'll start with the

[5:54:58] chart that you just referenced. It has. Housing developments were

[5:55:01] highlighted. But. Where in this process. Are. Water needs for

[5:55:09] businesses existing, expanding. And other uses. Where is that being

[5:55:14] captured? And then. I also just note that. This has

[5:55:21] come as an information report to regional council or regional

[5:55:25] committee. But I'm curious about what rural regional council has

[5:55:30] in setting the methodology, given that this is going to

[5:55:33] have very far reaching implications for us, for our area

[5:55:37] municipalities, for the development industry. For economic development, public health

[5:55:42] and safety, et cetera. And then just one quick comment.

[5:55:46] The comment that you made, I think it was Rod

[5:55:49] made about. Not telling air municipalities about. That. One of

[5:55:57] them was about not saying that we have to take

[5:55:59] back our building permits. I mean. We can't. So that's

[5:56:02] a bit of a non sequitur because we. Actually, by

[5:56:05] legislation, can't revoke a building permit unless there's some. Okay,

[5:56:08] so. It comes from a cave. We're good to get

[5:56:10] to your question, but that's. Important. For people to understand

[5:56:14] once the building permit's been approved, unless there's safety issues.

[5:56:17] We can't revoke it. But you've asked a question, so

[5:56:20] I want the commissioner to answer the question. And if

[5:56:22] you have a follow up comment, then, and then we

[5:56:25] can move on to the next person. Yeah, through you

[5:56:28] chair James. I will ask my colleagues in water services

[5:56:37] to speak about the heavy industrial users. We do accommodate

[5:56:42] heavy industrial or the industrial and large scale corporate users.

[5:56:47] In this model. My understanding is that. They account for

[5:56:54] a relatively small percentage or portion of the total demand,

[5:56:58] and that there's a relationship directly between population. And overall

[5:57:03] use. With the corporate sector as well. I'm sorry, I

[5:57:08] lost track of your second question. Well, there's a corporate

[5:57:13] sector, but there's also, like, other users, hospitals, universities, other

[5:57:17] large users as well. But then the other one was

[5:57:20] around council's role in setting this. Methodology. I think that

[5:57:25] might be more for Cao Getsky. Just through you chair

[5:57:31] just on the efficiency piece. There's a whole water efficiency

[5:57:36] team that works with all the large water users, whether

[5:57:39] they're industrial or corporate. And we're happy to expand on

[5:57:44] this if you're interested. Well, I just think. If you're

[5:57:46] giving us all the numbers and information about where our

[5:57:49] water capacity is and where our water uses that we

[5:57:51] should have that full picture, even though, like you said,

[5:57:54] rod, that. Some of the numbers that you just had

[5:57:57] there were much smaller than others, but still. I think

[5:58:02] we need to see the entire picture. But I mean

[5:58:05] up to council. Commissioner. Acting Ciosky. Do you want to

[5:58:13] just respond to that? And then councilor salon. And you're

[5:58:16] up next. I'll respond to the second. Question regarding the

[5:58:20] methodology. So I know we've looked at. What's the responsibility

[5:58:24] of council as the owner of the system versus what's

[5:58:27] the responsibility of staff in setting the technical parameters, whether

[5:58:30] they're through operations and the methodology and today. I would

[5:58:35] say the methodology piece is a highly technical document. It's.

[5:58:41] Informed. We don't bring it up to council very often.

[5:58:46] We usually see the water supply strategy to make any

[5:58:49] revisions to that methodology. So at that time, Council may

[5:58:55] be asked to work on the supply side of things.

[5:58:58] And we would inform of any changes to the methodology.

[5:59:01] But up to now, we've been considering this. Is a

[5:59:05] technical document. Informed by technical work. And they're because of

[5:59:10] the significant changes. We had it reviewed by that third

[5:59:13] party. Okay. Thank you, Councilor McKay. If you want to

[5:59:18] queue back in after, you can just want. To keep

[5:59:20] this dialogue going. Councilor salon, thank you. Through chair. I'm

[5:59:24] just picking back. Up on the methodology components. So will

[5:59:27] council ever see. What exactly? The new methodology is like

[5:59:32] I'm talking about the maths and the assumptions behind the

[5:59:35] maths. And what exactly has changed between the MECP one

[5:59:39] that we were using and now? This newly identified one.

[5:59:43] So. Chair, just to be clear, so. Both the methodologies

[5:59:49] that we were using and the one that we want

[5:59:51] to use, they're both compliant with MACP guidelines, so. There's

[5:59:56] broad MECP guidelines that kind of provide a framework within

[6:00:00] which we have the ability to determine which are the

[6:00:02] parameters that best reflect operations. In terms of the details,

[6:00:07] the three changes, and then I'll pass it to Amy,

[6:00:10] who will have a more detailed response, but. The three

[6:00:12] changes were those that Nicole underlined today, which are. To

[6:00:16] consider the service areas as separate to include a 20%

[6:00:21] operational resiliency buffer and you'll see. And we can go

[6:00:24] into more detail if you have questions on where it

[6:00:26] is this 20% come from? And there's a lot of

[6:00:28] information in the peer review. Report on this. And the

[6:00:32] third change is use of. The average sustainable capacity as

[6:00:36] opposed to the maximum capacity. These are the three parameter

[6:00:40] changes that we're introducing. But maybe through you, Cheryl, I

[6:00:43] can pass it to Amy, to any additional considerations. Through

[6:00:47] you, chair. I was just going to clarify that. When

[6:00:53] we decided that we were making this recommendation to move

[6:00:56] to a revised methodology, we immediately went and met with

[6:00:59] the Ministry of the Environment at the end of November

[6:01:02] to seek their clarification and or approval and or endorsement

[6:01:06] to change the methodology from the d five guideline, which

[6:01:09] is what we were following. As industry standard. The comment

[6:01:14] that came back from the ministry was that we have

[6:01:17] the authority to change it as the system owner. Regional

[6:01:23] staff have the authority to make changes to the methodology

[6:01:26] without their approval, and that it just needed to be

[6:01:29] technically sound and protective of the drinking water system, so

[6:01:32] I just wanted to clarify. That. Thank you for that

[6:01:35] clarification. Sorry. I may have not articulated what I was

[6:01:40] asking. Effectively. I understand. And I know that we are

[6:01:43] still sticking with ministry. Approved capabilities in our methodology. I'm

[6:01:49] more so talking about when are we going to see

[6:01:51] the mass behind the assumptions of that 20%, like I

[6:01:54] want to be able to understand. What is underpinning the

[6:01:57] decisions now that we are making in the methodology. So

[6:02:00] that's. What I was wondering. Not questioning that it's right

[6:02:03] or wrong, just curious about that. Additional context component. Through

[6:02:08] the chair. There is information that is available through the

[6:02:12] peer review report that gives specific details. On the recommendations

[6:02:16] from the technical experts. The operational resiliency I know has

[6:02:19] been the topic. Of a lot of discussion today in

[6:02:22] terms of. Is it justified or where did this come

[6:02:27] from? There are a couple of considerations that are really

[6:02:30] important when we're talking about operational resiliency. So one is

[6:02:34] that there wasn't in depth review of our specific supply

[6:02:37] facilities. And looking at each of those supply facilities and

[6:02:42] what are they contributing in terms of the overall percentage

[6:02:45] for the water supply. There are breakouts of graph. Graphs

[6:02:48] and information of that in the peer review report that

[6:02:51] can be referenced and you can see that when we

[6:02:54] look at our treatment facilities, and it wasn't just a

[6:02:57] broad, sweeping look. Like we looked at our largest facilities.

[6:03:00] Doesn't make sense for them to be offline. Not completely,

[6:03:03] but there's two treatment trains, so we consider one treatment

[6:03:07] train being offline. So. A lot of that information specific

[6:03:10] to the facilities, is there? Another consideration is. What have

[6:03:15] we been demonstrating that there is a need for? Based

[6:03:19] on our asset management programs and based on the unexpected.

[6:03:23] We know that we do have equipment failures, things that

[6:03:26] are unplanned. That are happening. So we looked back at

[6:03:28] this data trending, and there are graphs in the peer

[6:03:31] review report that speak to that on a monthly basis,

[6:03:34] and they say this is what. The demonstrated need has

[6:03:36] been so there has been some information sharing that is

[6:03:39] available in that report. And hopefully that supports the review

[6:03:43] to give everyone that level of confidence that this. Is

[6:03:47] an important aspect of our operations that we need to

[6:03:49] protect to maintain reliable water supply to the community. Okay,

[6:03:54] so you guys are carrying forward the assumptions from that

[6:03:56] peer reviewed activity, then. Okay, that was. The part I

[6:04:00] need to know so that information is sufficient. Thank you.

[6:04:03] My second follow up was has this methodology been applied

[6:04:06] to all of our service areas? I mainly referencing how

[6:04:10] new Hamburg and Baiden are not serviced by. The two

[6:04:14] identified ones in the presentation today. Is that new methodology,

[6:04:17] however, being applied across all of our well systems in

[6:04:21] the region. Through the chair. The constraint that was identified

[6:04:26] for the Mannheim service area was based on ongoing monitoring.

[6:04:29] And work through the water supply strategy update. So to

[6:04:32] date, the focus for the methodology has been the focus

[6:04:35] of the integrated urban system specifically because that's where. The

[6:04:40] challenges were noted. There hasn't been time yet to deal

[6:04:42] with the whole methodology review for the other service. Areas.

[6:04:46] Again, I think you can see through the information that

[6:04:48] shared in the peer review report there. Were a lot

[6:04:50] of considerations that were specific to the integrated urban system.

[6:04:54] So we'll need to look at those other systems and

[6:04:56] see if there's modifications that are warranted, okay? Thank you.

[6:04:59] Thank you, Councilor Hunich. Thank. You chair. James, thank you

[6:05:02] for presenting this very difficult report. This morning we heard

[6:05:07] from several delegations representing developers who offered. To work collaboratively

[6:05:13] and wanted to be involved or engaged in a meaningful

[6:05:16] way in the task. Force or the working group or

[6:05:19] the workshop. Or. Whatever it should be called. And so

[6:05:25] I'm wondering if staff have ideas in terms of how

[6:05:28] we can involve the developing developer community in a meaningful

[6:05:33] way. Through the chair. So, as I mentioned, we already

[6:05:36] have set up. Well, we had an internal working group,

[6:05:39] technical working group. And now we're expanding that to include

[6:05:43] industry experts and area municipal technical staff. And I think

[6:05:46] hearing that this morning, there's definitely an opportunity to bring

[6:05:49] in some of those individuals. Into our existing technical working

[6:05:55] group, depending on the topics that we're talking about, and

[6:05:58] start to information share and to troubleshoot. With a larger

[6:06:03] audience, so I think there's opportunities to expand that. Great.

[6:06:07] Thank you. Thank you, councilor. Councilor Foxton thank you. And

[6:06:12] to you chair. So excuse my ignorance if we could

[6:06:15] go to the graft on page eight, please. And basically

[6:06:20] line a. And while they're doing that, I'll ask the

[6:06:26] first part of the question. So it says on line

[6:06:32] a existing connections and issued building permits as of 2024.

[6:06:36] And we've been told that we can. Handle. What we've

[6:06:42] got today. So does that mean the permits that were

[6:06:44] handled in 2024. Which will bring us up to the

[6:06:49] 1356 liters per second. Like a lot of the 2024

[6:06:54] permits. Will not have been built yet. So are we

[6:06:57] saying they can go ahead because they fall under? That

[6:07:02] number and that rate, because that's already in the existing

[6:07:05] and we've told what's existing. Is fine. Through you church,

[6:07:10] James? That's correct, Councilor Foxton. We are considering. Issued but

[6:07:19] as yet unbuilt building permits to be the same as

[6:07:22] existing connections. So to be clear, Bill dos that filed

[6:07:27] and did all this in 2024 can go ahead. With

[6:07:31] their building, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, because I

[6:07:35] don't think that was made clear. Or wasn't. Sure if

[6:07:38] it was made clear, but I think we need to

[6:07:40] make that clear. Then if we haven't, and I apologize

[6:07:43] if you have, but if you haven't, and I. Think

[6:07:45] we need to make that very clear. Thank you. Thank

[6:07:49] you, Councilor Rodriguez. We're going to earth. Sorry. Just a

[6:07:56] bit of a qualifier on. We're fine. Because in that

[6:08:01] table, there's two lines, and what we're saying is today.

[6:08:05] With. The maximum supply that we can produce without that

[6:08:10] operational resiliency buffer is sufficient. But we are using. A

[6:08:14] significant part of that operational resiliency buffer today. I know

[6:08:17] the team earlier today said that today, January 13, we

[6:08:22] are using 16% of that operational resiliency buffer because of

[6:08:27] the number of wells that are offline or things that

[6:08:29] are parts of our capacity that we're not able to

[6:08:32] mobilize today, so that means out. Of that 20% buffer

[6:08:36] that was estimated. We only have 4% buffer left. If

[6:08:40] a piece of infrastructure that makes more than 4% of

[6:08:43] our water supply goes down. We're not able to supply

[6:08:46] the water. To these existing and issued building permits, so

[6:08:52] it's a bit qualified. So it's not exactly fine, because.

[6:08:56] We do not have that operational resiliency buffer, so it's

[6:08:59] a case by case. Basis for the permits for 2024,

[6:09:03] correct? Maybe so. Just going through you chair. I'm going

[6:09:08] back to. The. That was just here. That your statement

[6:09:12] on? We're fine for that. So I'll park that a

[6:09:16] little bit. With respect to authorizations, we have a specific.

[6:09:19] Role, and I think Rod clarified it, which is to

[6:09:21] comment on development applications. And form one connections and service

[6:09:27] agreements. So if these are in place today. We're not

[6:09:31] being consulted on those. So we'll continue to build. So

[6:09:35] maybe we shouldn't have put the 2024 permits in that

[6:09:37] line, because we're not sure. They can be dealt with

[6:09:41] because it's confusing. If I read the chart and I

[6:09:43] was a builder, I would say, hey, I'm good. As

[6:09:47] I have a 2024 permit. But you're saying possibly. Possibly

[6:09:51] not, which means it. Changes this. I need to know

[6:09:54] good information. Through you chair. So let me try again.

[6:09:58] And Rod, maybe you can help me out if it's

[6:10:00] not crystal clear. Developments that have a building permit or

[6:10:07] water servicing agreement and do not need another connection to

[6:10:11] a regional water main. Will continue to get built. And.

[6:10:19] We do not have an opportunity to comment on those.

[6:10:20] So they will continue to get built. Okay. Thank you,

[6:10:25] Councilor Rodriguez. Thank you. Chair. And through you. So I'm

[6:10:30] just going to pick up on that line of questioning

[6:10:32] veto in terms of. Smaller scale developments. If you're on

[6:10:36] a local street and you tear down your detached house.

[6:10:39] And you put up a triplex. There's no planning application.

[6:10:44] It just goes straight to building permit. Is that something

[6:10:47] we're. Going to be catching. And stopping. It's just not

[6:10:51] abundantly clear where the line is between requiring a permit

[6:10:54] and scaling up of a use on a property versus

[6:10:58] what's there today. Yeah. Thank you for the question. Through

[6:11:03] you chair, James. There are some nuances here, for sure.

[6:11:13] As you know, at this point. We are only a

[6:11:18] commenting agency on development applications. So. Where development is already

[6:11:26] serviced. There are no form ones to be signed. There

[6:11:31] are no development applications to be. Provided with advisory comments.

[6:11:40] We are not providing comments. And we are not advising

[6:11:44] the area municipalities. Okay, so I think this is where

[6:11:49] I get really, and I think what my motion that

[6:11:52] we'll see later tries to deal with is just these

[6:11:54] different pathways for different things, and I think it just

[6:11:56] needs to be really. Like I understand it a bit

[6:12:01] more than other people, and then you understand it a

[6:12:03] lot more. Than other people, but I think it really

[6:12:06] needs to be crystal clear. So I appreciate that. Clarification.

[6:12:11] Back to questions, a quick one. Just have we spoken

[6:12:13] to the school boards about this issue with respect. To

[6:12:18] their plans for building new schools capacity. Collection of educational.

[6:12:25] DCs or anything like that. Just curious if we've engaged

[6:12:27] with those partners. We have not had a formal meeting

[6:12:36] with the school boards at this point. It's certainly something

[6:12:42] that we're planning to engage. On and. We are also

[6:12:48] reaching out to the universities and colleges on their plans

[6:12:52] as well. But. We've been meeting primarily with the development

[6:12:57] industry over the last week. And have primarily focused on

[6:13:01] the development industry over the next week as well. Thank

[6:13:04] you, Trey. Queue, Becky. And if you have another question,

[6:13:07] Councilor Sean. Thank you. I appreciate. This is really complex,

[6:13:16] and there's a lot of pieces and moving pieces. I

[6:13:20] wonder if I can try to simplify it. I'm not

[6:13:25] sure I'll win, but let's give it a try. You

[6:13:29] said there's 100 wells and a river, and that's where

[6:13:33] we get our. Water from. So I see. There's three

[6:13:40] main pieces to this. One is the source, the aquifers.

[6:13:44] And the river. The second is that capacity of our

[6:13:48] treatment facilities, and the third is our storage capacity in

[6:13:53] our water towers and other places that we might store

[6:13:58] things so. If we were to break it down. Can

[6:14:02] you identify? That one of these. Is sort of the

[6:14:08] area. That's causing the constraint or. Can you simplify? How

[6:14:17] they're put together because there's a lot of people out

[6:14:19] there that look. At methodology, and it just sort of

[6:14:22] goes, wish. Through the chair. I may tag team with

[6:14:27] Nicole on this one, but one particular solution is not

[6:14:31] going to solve this capacity issue. I can say that

[6:14:34] clearly. One of the things we really want to do

[6:14:38] is get the Manheim water treatment plant a backup to

[6:14:41] full capacity. We have lost a significant capacity at that

[6:14:45] site, and so we are in detailed design right now.

[6:14:49] For a solution to try and repair that situation. So

[6:14:53] we're hoping that we will alleviate some of the stress

[6:14:57] on the system when we get Mannheim water treatment back

[6:14:59] up and running. With that said. We still need additional

[6:15:03] infrastructure to be able. To deal with some of the

[6:15:07] capacity constraints that we have. One thing I did want

[6:15:10] to point out is in that chart that we were

[6:15:12] showing. Those numbers assume that all of our systems are

[6:15:18] online and working, right? So we all realized, like, Nicole

[6:15:22] said we have to take things offline. We have some

[6:15:25] wells offline due to. Water quality concerns. We've got some

[6:15:29] wells offline due to infrastructure repairs, some down for planned

[6:15:33] repairs. So we rarely, if ever, have all of our

[6:15:37] well supplies online at any given time. As CEO. Getsky

[6:15:41] mentioned. Right now we have 16% of our Manheim service

[6:15:45] area water supply offline. For various reasons. If I can.

[6:15:50] Just one more follow up and then we're moving on.

[6:15:53] Thanks. So the 16% was coming to mind as you

[6:15:57] were speaking. Because that chart. I understood that chart to

[6:16:04] be based on actual numbers. Of units that are out

[6:16:10] there and the actual water. You're taking. But if 16%

[6:16:16] is offline now. How are we even managing? So through

[6:16:23] the chair. And that's where we keep harping on the

[6:16:26] operational resiliency. So because we're using that, that is the

[6:16:30] buffer we like to call it, and. So as a

[6:16:33] result, we are pushing our systems harder than we would

[6:16:36] like to, and that's. Where we're starting to see some

[6:16:39] of these observations about lower storage. In our storage tanks

[6:16:44] and also the well fields seeing a decline in this,

[6:16:47] so we are managing. And our goal is to get

[6:16:51] some of that operational resiliency back as soon as possible.

[6:16:54] To give us a little bit of breathing room while

[6:16:56] we construct new infrastructure for net new capacity. So I

[6:17:02] don't know if that answered your question. Queue back in.

[6:17:06] Councilor Schaud. Councilor for Benevick. Well, thank you very much.

[6:17:12] And thank you to staff for all the work that's

[6:17:14] been done since this was first. Reported to council. I

[6:17:21] guess it was late November, early December. I think it's

[6:17:27] really important. As we sort of reflect on all this

[6:17:33] is to reflect. And answer these questions that we reflect

[6:17:36] on what we heard this morning and the importance of

[6:17:40] clarity. And consistency in terms of. Our answers. Where I'm

[6:17:46] really kind of struggling a little bit here is sort

[6:17:49] of the journey from where we've been. To where we

[6:17:53] are today. And we heard this morning, and I've heard

[6:17:57] this from numerous people and know it myself. I mean,

[6:17:59] going as far back as 2015, we talked about an

[6:18:02] integrated urban system. We never talked about two systems. And

[6:18:08] Mr. Nabi talked about that. We went through the whole

[6:18:11] Ropa six process. There were no flags raised or anything.

[6:18:16] We have for the last few years been talking about

[6:18:17] being 1 million ready. And. We continue to say that.

[6:18:26] We talked about. At the standing committee. At the provincial

[6:18:32] standing committee. That. Occurred back in. January 18, 2024. In

[6:18:41] fact, we said. There's no development right now that is

[6:18:45] being held up by a lack of water or wastewater

[6:18:47] services in the region. As a matter of fact, if

[6:18:50] asked, we could build another 120,000 homes in the region

[6:18:53] today. Yes, we have that capacity. And in Kitchener, we've

[6:18:58] gone, been going through our kitchener op pros, official plan

[6:19:01] process. And pre early December, there was sort of no

[6:19:04] mention of any of these concerns. Councilor Verbanovic. I'm just

[6:19:09] going to try and get you to streamline. This a

[6:19:10] little bit. Reconcile all that. With. What's being shared with

[6:19:17] us and how this impacts on housing affordability, impact on

[6:19:20] jobs. Being open for business and so on. Help me.

[6:19:25] Like I'm. I'm struggling. I'm struggling in terms of what

[6:19:28] do we tell people in terms of how we've made

[6:19:31] this jump in this leap. So before stuff answers. So,

[6:19:35] councilor Verbanovic. It's around the communication, I think. What? You're

[6:19:39] well. I have a separate question around communication. Okay. This

[6:19:44] is a big leap from where we were to essentially.

[6:19:49] We're commenting on things, saying we can't support new development.

[6:19:52] It's a big leap from where we've been the last

[6:19:55] decade to where we are today. So, essentially, how did

[6:19:58] we get here? Yes, how do we get here? Okay,

[6:20:00] so, Amy. And Matt, you want to start? Maybe I'll

[6:20:07] start, because I think. That was the purpose. Of what?

[6:20:12] Slide number seven in the presentation that talks about why

[6:20:15] did we revise the methodology? So. There's no aha moment

[6:20:20] or single event that is making the difference. It's an

[6:20:23] accumulation of a number of things. And every percentage. Point

[6:20:31] of our capacity counts. And so it's a multiplication of

[6:20:34] multiple factors there, that interface. With each other and that,

[6:20:38] when taken cumulatively, And put in perspective, as staff did,

[6:20:44] as we were preparing the work on the water supply

[6:20:46] strategy. Has come to. This realization that. Were beyond. That

[6:20:55] were using the system beyond its sustainable capacity to do

[6:20:58] so. So, with respect to the one example, maybe the

[6:21:02] Middleton service areas and Mennheim service areas. They're physically connected,

[6:21:07] we can use them for emergency purposes. In the right

[6:21:12] direction from a pressure standpoint. So from Manheim to Middleton.

[6:21:15] But we can't. Use it in the other way. So

[6:21:17] that's one example where these are actually connected. So there's

[6:21:22] some level of integration that can be used for emergency

[6:21:25] purposes, but it's. Not fully integrated. When you're looking for

[6:21:29] every little percentage point. That's a piece that. Becomes critical,

[6:21:35] and that needs to be looked at. I don't know,

[6:21:39] Nicole, if you want to add. For the chair. Maybe

[6:21:43] just one point that I'll add to that is that.

[6:21:47] There are fluctuations within the system. So if we have

[6:21:51] a change, that is something that might be. A one

[6:21:54] off or occurring less frequently, that we don't want to

[6:21:57] show that as a reduction in capacity. So the changes

[6:22:00] that are being reflected are something. That required multi year

[6:22:06] trend analysis that was often needed to truly understand what

[6:22:09] was happening and why and it was how all these

[6:22:12] pieces came together. And as was alluded to, there's multiple

[6:22:16] different factors. And when it's a small change here and

[6:22:18] there. Sometimes it can be hard to see. Just how

[6:22:22] much that's adding up to lead to this overall constraint.

[6:22:26] Okay. Well, thank you for that. I think there's a

[6:22:30] lot more to dig in there. And I'll leave that.

[6:22:32] For another day. But for my second question, I do

[6:22:35] want to get deeper into the communication piece. Because I

[6:22:38] did think we did hear a lot about. That earlier

[6:22:42] today. And I really want to understand two things. I

[6:22:47] look at what other cities have done. Different situation, different

[6:22:52] crisis. Broken water pipe in terms of Calgary twice now,

[6:22:57] but the way they've handled it has been through a

[6:23:00] large press conference. Everybody's together. All the media is hearing

[6:23:05] the same thing. They're feeding off each other in terms

[6:23:09] of the questions that get asked. It really creates for

[6:23:12] more transparency. In the whole issue. My understanding is that's

[6:23:18] not the approach that we took. We took the approach

[6:23:20] of one off meetings with individual media outlets. That really

[6:23:24] does not allow for that same. Treatment. And that has

[6:23:30] been a source of concern. It's a source of concern

[6:23:33] for me. I believe it's a source of concern for

[6:23:36] transparency and our local media. So I want to understand

[6:23:39] how we got there. And then on the second part

[6:23:41] of that is understand on the issue. There was a

[6:23:45] comment made, particularly as it relates to area municipalities, and

[6:23:51] somehow linking all this. To bill 23. And that the

[6:23:57] region no longer has a line of sight. On infill

[6:24:01] developments and detail. And yet I know that, for example,

[6:24:06] in Kitchener, we forward all projects and details to the

[6:24:11] regional account. I know there is an annual report that's

[6:24:14] shared. I am understanding that the same thing happens with

[6:24:17] other municipalities. And so to say. That reportedly, as was

[6:24:23] reported, and so it was incorrect. We should clarify that

[6:24:25] today to say that. There is no line of sight.

[6:24:31] It seems to me not accurate. So I'm wondering if

[6:24:33] we can get clarity on both. Those questions, the approach.

[6:24:38] And the issue. Of what's being shared from area municipalities.

[6:24:42] Okay, so, councilor rabanic, I'm. Just going to summarize your

[6:24:46] final two questions and have staff prepare for that, so.

[6:24:50] It's around the communication, so. How things were disseminated, and

[6:24:55] it seemed in a very desegregated way, as opposed to

[6:24:58] having everyone together, so just some of the thought process

[6:25:01] around that and then the other. Aspect was around that

[6:25:05] infill and clarification, around how information. Is getting between the

[6:25:09] area municipalities for some of that infill development. And how

[6:25:13] it's being shared. Okay. Hopefully that helps. Okay? Thank you

[6:25:18] very much for the question and through the chair. So,

[6:25:21] in thinking about how to work, best with our media

[6:25:23] partners to inform the public. This is a very highly

[6:25:31] technical issue, as I think many people have iterated today.

[6:25:36] And so, to use Calgary as an example, a water

[6:25:38] main break is a fairly simple. Infrastructure issue for people.

[6:25:44] To understand when we're talking about a very complex methodology.

[6:25:49] With a very large number of factors. We really wanted

[6:25:51] to be able to give media the time. To really

[6:25:55] in depth understand, to have a conversation. And also to

[6:26:00] recognize that different media outlets have very different needs. And

[6:26:05] so we know through working with our media partners that

[6:26:08] sitting down with a few fantastic reporters at the record.

[6:26:12] They want to have a very different conversation. That our

[6:26:15] friends at CTV or those who work at 570. And

[6:26:19] so we did take. A very intentional approach to work

[6:26:24] with our media on what would work best for them.

[6:26:27] We always take feedback and if there are other approaches

[6:26:30] that might be best in future but really wanted to

[6:26:34] take the time to have those in depth, lengthy conversations

[6:26:38] which took many hours. Of our acting CiO's time to

[6:26:43] explain to media. So that's just a bit of the

[6:26:45] thinking behind it. To sort of try to get the

[6:26:48] best. Information possible out there for residents. And to my

[6:26:54] second question. Through the chair. I'm going to defer to

[6:26:58] Nicole. Thank you. Through the chair. I think the second

[6:27:02] question provides a great opportunity for clarification in terms of

[6:27:06] that. There has been a lot of really great ongoing

[6:27:08] collaboration with air municipalities and data sharing. In terms of.

[6:27:13] Specifically with respect to intensification. And the discussion around that.

[6:27:18] I think it's important that. We clarify that there are

[6:27:22] ways that that data was being shared and was being

[6:27:24] tracked, and then we've identified where there is areas where

[6:27:27] we can enhance that trucking on the water. And wastewater

[6:27:30] monitoring our port. So in terms of development applications that

[6:27:34] are submitted for review by the region of Waterloo. Based

[6:27:36] on the Planning act. These are all assessed based on

[6:27:39] available capacity. In the water system at the time of

[6:27:42] the application. Through the Water and wastewater monitoring report. We

[6:27:47] do capture growth through a projection for the coming ten

[6:27:51] years in terms of what that maximum week demand looks

[6:27:54] like. And again, that projection is based on population growth

[6:27:58] that's intended to account for all development types. Where there's

[6:28:03] an opportunity to enhance, if there's a specific reporting mechanism

[6:28:06] for committed capacity. And committed capacity. Trucks, specifically development that

[6:28:12] follows the plan of subdivision process. So I think some

[6:28:15] of the narrative around that, and maybe some confusion is

[6:28:17] that there is that one opportunity for enhancement, and it

[6:28:21] was not meant to reflect there wasn't data sharing or

[6:28:23] collaboration. Yeah. I guess. What needs to go with that,

[6:28:29] then, is. It's out there publicly. I mean, Mr. Getsky.

[6:28:38] You had answered the question to the media and are

[6:28:40] quoted. And so are we asking the media. To correct

[6:28:43] that. If it was misquoted in terms of the response,

[6:28:48] okay. There's already been two questions and follow ups, Councilor

[6:28:52] Verbanovic. So. I think in the end, if we need

[6:28:56] to come back to that, especially with some of these

[6:28:58] motions that are coming forward. Opportunity to respond. To that

[6:29:04] whole media taking something. And. Making it seem like. It's

[6:29:10] more of a concern than absolutely it was in terms

[6:29:14] of. To close this out, though. Can Mr. Gutsky answer

[6:29:17] the question? Are we going to ask for a correction

[6:29:20] from the media. You can go ahead and answer that

[6:29:23] to the chair. I know we've asked for a couple

[6:29:25] of corrections from the media things that. Were not reported

[6:29:31] accurately. We've already said that on that specific point. Maybe

[6:29:37] I'll lean into Connie on what exactly was brought back

[6:29:40] to the media. Thanks, Matt. You. And with that, I

[6:29:43] think media have done a really great job reporting on

[6:29:47] what is a highly technical issue. We have had some

[6:29:50] reach outs today, and. We'll work with media to make

[6:29:55] sure that we've been as clear as possible. And that

[6:29:58] they're able to report the best information possible on this.

[6:30:03] And I think this discussion here with the answering with

[6:30:05] a question shows that. There should be some sort of

[6:30:09] correction. Recognizing the meteor, not technical engineers. And hydrologists. So

[6:30:17] there's an opportunity potentially, that should be corrected. Okay, moving.

[6:30:22] Along. Chair, Redmi. Thank you. I'm looking for some clarification

[6:30:27] from staff on some of the input that we got

[6:30:29] from the delegations this morning because we didn't go to

[6:30:32] staff questions because the report wasn't before us. And, Amy,

[6:30:35] I really appreciate the fact that you've already. Acknowledged that

[6:30:38] we can incorporate some representatives from the development community. On

[6:30:43] our working group as we go forward. There also was

[6:30:46] a concern. By existing capacity. It was Larry Kotsup that

[6:30:51] brought this up and that maybe. Their capacity is already

[6:30:56] in the system, but they're not building out, so I

[6:30:58] guess I would just look to have that clarified and

[6:31:00] that confirmed if we're going forward. With sort of drilling

[6:31:05] down to that level of detail and also. Just to

[6:31:10] reference that our water reserve. I believe Wayne has $100

[6:31:15] million in it. Through the chair. Let me clarify. We

[6:31:20] have water Capital reserve that has approximately $100 million that

[6:31:24] is linked to projects. We have a stabilization reserve that

[6:31:28] has $9 million. Okay, thank you. And I guess just

[6:31:34] if staff wanted to comment on some of the issues,

[6:31:38] The 20% resiliency. Has already been clarified. Really? Well, but

[6:31:41] that was the other issue that I heard delegations sort

[6:31:44] of questioning, so I'm glad that that's been clarified. Okay,

[6:31:49] councilor. So now we're going into the second round. Just

[6:31:55] maybe for the first question. Amy, do you want to

[6:31:59] respond to that one? The specific one about. Taking capacity

[6:32:05] from. About historical capacity and how that I'm not aware

[6:32:09] of a situation where we hold capacity. If an industry

[6:32:13] closes down. So I think we've looked at the numbers.

[6:32:17] Around 2017 2018, that facility started slowing its processes to

[6:32:23] almost a minimal amount of flow. Now. So all of

[6:32:26] our current data flow monitoring data would incorporate what's happening

[6:32:31] today and not what was happening seven years ago. So

[6:32:34] I'm not aware of a mechanism where we're. Holding previous

[6:32:38] industrial capacity when they were. Fully, fully full out functioning.

[6:32:43] For later use. Thank you. If I can just underscore.

[6:32:46] That's why these discussions are really important. And we wouldn't

[6:32:49] be talking about new methodology and capacity on a Goforward

[6:32:53] basis. If it wasn't for our staff. So please thank

[6:32:56] all of your teams for us. Okay, so we are

[6:33:01] now going into second round of questioning. And after that,

[6:33:06] we will go into the motion. So this is the

[6:33:09] last kind of second round. Of questioning, then we're going

[6:33:12] into the motion. So I have councilor McCabe. Thank you.

[6:33:18] I still have a number of questions, so I guess

[6:33:19] I'll just pick a couple of. Them. Just, I guess

[6:33:23] on the clarification piece that we were just talking about.

[6:33:28] With respect to the median that. Because one of the

[6:33:33] things that I spoke to you, Mitch, you about on

[6:33:36] Friday was comments that were made around infill development, because

[6:33:41] what I had read was that. Infill development hadn't been

[6:33:45] incorporated. But then, when I spoke to you, I understood.

[6:33:48] That that. Was. Actually, there was a bit of a

[6:33:51] confusion. Around a different report and that, in fact, infill

[6:33:56] development has always and continues to be captured in this

[6:34:01] data. In the water flow data and in the population

[6:34:04] projections and all of that. So could you just. Speak

[6:34:07] to that and provide some clarification around that. So, future

[6:34:12] chair. Maybe I'll start. And Nicole, who's. I think you've

[6:34:15] already responded to that to some extent. But just to

[6:34:19] be clear, Infill was that was part of a reporting

[6:34:23] mechanism on committed capacity where that was not calculated. But

[6:34:26] every year we look at water usage and we look

[6:34:29] at populations and we look at. The real system, not

[6:34:33] a theoretical one. So all of the info. Was used.

[6:34:39] In the way that we assess. The need for water.

[6:34:44] And in the forecast as well. Okay? But I don't

[6:34:47] know. Nicole, if you wanted to point specifically to what

[6:34:50] was missing, there. I think you did a good job

[6:34:53] of summarizing. Like you said, for existing water usage, any

[6:35:00] infill that happens throughout the year, that's. Captured. It transitions

[6:35:04] from something that is planned to something that is measured

[6:35:07] in our water use. And as alluded to the projection

[6:35:11] for that ten year maximum week demand forecast, that is,

[6:35:15] overall population, so it includes infill. And intensification as part

[6:35:18] of that forecast as well. Okay. Because there was some

[6:35:21] confusion, something was reported a bit differently than that. So

[6:35:24] again, I know it's really technical. In that, but just

[6:35:28] wanted to flag that. So my question to go back

[6:35:30] to the resiliency piece. Does the 20% resiliency factor, along

[6:35:38] with the move from peak to average sustainable capacity. Does

[6:35:42] it have to be so bluntly implemented, or can this

[6:35:46] be phased? Over from now over a few years. To

[6:35:53] mitigate the impacts on the current development pipeline. And as

[6:35:58] you've talked about how. We're going to fix things. We're

[6:36:02] going to bring some more capacity online and. So does

[6:36:06] it have to be so bluntly implemented? And then my

[6:36:09] other part of that is. I am concerned where it

[6:36:13] says the line about water conservation is plateauing. Well, we

[6:36:18] know there's lots of other opportunities for water conservation and

[6:36:21] using potable water. Versus non potable water and cisterns and

[6:36:26] gray water, and you name it, right? You would know

[6:36:30] certainly better than any of us sitting here. So how

[6:36:32] are those things working? Hand in hand? Go ahead, Nicole.

[6:36:37] So through the chair, I'll address the first part of

[6:36:40] your question, which was. Discussing. The change, and it feels

[6:36:45] abrupt. So the reason why this change is being proposed

[6:36:49] is because the system is indicating signs of stress. Now.

[6:36:52] So this is both inner aquifers and in our day

[6:36:55] to day operations. So the longer that we stay in

[6:36:59] a state of increased stress, then the higher. The risk

[6:37:02] is that something could happen where we may not. Be

[6:37:05] able to meet the water supply needs of the community,

[6:37:08] so I know it was already referenced. Many times today

[6:37:10] in terms of 16% of our capacity is offline now.

[6:37:15] If we were to say we're going to bring those

[6:37:17] facilities back online and we're, going to defer planned upgrades.

[6:37:23] We could choose to do that. But then when we're.

[6:37:25] Running that equipment in a more stressed day, we could

[6:37:28] then have unexpected failures, and then we could need far

[6:37:31] more than 20% based on what was unplanned. That happened.

[6:37:36] So in terms of the need for the change now

[6:37:39] it is because we are seeing signs of stress now,

[6:37:41] but before you answer the second half of that. But

[6:37:44] that's not what we're asking. We're not asking you to

[6:37:47] stop the repairs and the investigations. We're asking. Like as

[6:37:51] those are happening. And as we know, development takes. One

[6:37:57] of the gentlemen that was here today, he said, His

[6:38:01] development at former Crow slands is about. Ten towers in

[6:38:05] total. They're going to start with one, and it's going

[6:38:07] to take 20 years. Right. So it's like this phased

[6:38:10] approach, so we're not asking. You to stop some of

[6:38:13] that technical work that obviously needs to happen. And increase

[6:38:17] stress on the system. I'm just wondering. Why there can't

[6:38:21] be or a phasing of it, of this resiliency. Factor

[6:38:25] instead of going from one to 20, like, one to,

[6:38:29] I don't know, do it. In steps one to five,

[6:38:31] to ten to 20. Okay, Nicole, you can respond to

[6:38:34] that, and then. We're going to move on to counselor's

[6:38:36] unit because there's been, like, three or four questions within

[6:38:38] this question. But I do have other questions. But the

[6:38:42] question wasn't. With all due respect, you were answering a

[6:38:46] different question. But, Dorothy. Councillor McCabe, you interrupted to then

[6:38:50] ask another question. As a sidebar to that question. That

[6:38:56] is fine. But there is a process that I've established

[6:38:58] here, and I would expect respect with that process, everyone

[6:39:01] is given the same ability to speak with the follow

[6:39:05] up. So please. Go ahead and respond to that, and

[6:39:07] then we're going to move on to councilor. Hunich. So.

[6:39:10] Through the chair. I'll take that, if you don't mind.

[6:39:13] So, as Nicole said, 16% is offline right now. And

[6:39:17] so if we were to give away that capacity to

[6:39:19] development. Even if we get that back and we put

[6:39:22] Greenbrook back on. And parkway back on and get all

[6:39:25] our wells online, and we give that away. And something

[6:39:29] happens. We can't take things offline. I think that's what

[6:39:32] the point we're trying to make is. We have to

[6:39:36] be able to have that resiliency to take it offline,

[6:39:39] and if it's taken away or if we don't have

[6:39:42] enough, then we are not able. To. So even now

[6:39:45] we're peaking our wells, as we said, and in the

[6:39:47] summer, we can't do any. We're not doing any infrastructure

[6:39:50] repairs throughout the summer period, right? Now because of how

[6:39:54] stressed they are and that we have to wait. Till

[6:39:56] off seasons to do that when the water demand is

[6:39:58] not as high. That's not what I ask. Councilor McCabe

[6:40:04] I guess conservation piece was the other part of it.

[6:40:07] So. Councilor McCabe councilor Hunich been waiting as well as

[6:40:10] others. If councilor Funick wants to offer up some of

[6:40:13] her time for you to ask your question. You can

[6:40:15] have that conversation. With her, but we need to get

[6:40:18] through this. And you've asked three or four sidebar. Questions.

[6:40:23] These weren't sidebar questions I was getting to. What was

[6:40:26] being answered was not what I asked. Okay, councilor McKay,

[6:40:32] or councilor Hunich. Thank you. Through the chair. My understanding

[6:40:36] is that there's two water capacity methodologies in Ontario. Sorry.

[6:40:43] Thank you. My understanding is that there are two water

[6:40:46] capacity measurement methodologies in Ontario. There's the one that was

[6:40:51] recently developed in the basis of our unique water system.

[6:41:00] That was I'm given permission to use by MECP, by

[6:41:04] us in November because. Our water system is unique. And

[6:41:09] then there's a water capacity measurement methodology used by every

[6:41:14] other municipality in Ontario. Is that correct? Through the chair.

[6:41:21] Yes, it is. Much more common that municipalities throughout Ontario

[6:41:29] are using the guidelines that were established by the MECP.

[6:41:32] In the 1990s. I can't say definitively that all of

[6:41:35] them are using that methodology. But I can say that

[6:41:38] it was considered a best industry practice. What I can

[6:41:42] say in terms of the revised methodology and why the

[6:41:45] review was initiated to transition. To the revised methodology is

[6:41:48] because we were seeing signs of stress in our system,

[6:41:52] and that caused us to take a step back and

[6:41:54] look at whether this methodology made sense specific to the

[6:41:57] integrated urban system. And so, thank you. The reason why.

[6:42:02] I wanted to point that out is because. I think

[6:42:05] there is a community narrative that water Louisiana should have

[6:42:08] known sooner. And. This shouldn't be happening because of what

[6:42:12] we've been saying for the past ten. Years. But I

[6:42:15] would like to applaud the water team. Thor flagging what

[6:42:20] they've liked and developing. A new water capacity measurement methodology.

[6:42:27] As quickly as we could based on our unique water

[6:42:30] system, so thank you very much for that. Excellent. Councilor

[6:42:36] Hunich, Councilor Shawn. Thank you. And I'm

[6:42:46] just trying to understand the nuances of this. So I

[6:42:50] don't want you to think that I don't appreciate that

[6:42:53] we need to be very careful of our water and

[6:42:57] take good care of it, and I do appreciate this.

[6:42:59] Coming forward now before. It becomes a real emergency. But

[6:43:07] my question in trying to understand the resiliency piece. I'm

[6:43:12] going to try to come at it this way. Right

[6:43:15] now. If I understand it correctly, because. We've got some

[6:43:25] pieces of equipment that we're trying to fix. We're trying

[6:43:29] to make better. Things are offline. And that has taken

[6:43:33] up about 16%. Of that 20% resiliency that we had

[6:43:39] built. In previously. So if that's the case, are we

[6:43:45] looking for 16% plus? Another 20%. Or is that 16%

[6:43:53] actually part of the 20% that we're looking for? I

[6:43:59] can take it. So I just want to clarify. We

[6:44:00] have 16% of our mannheim service. Area offline, but that

[6:44:05] equates in this very confusing 11% of the operational resiliency.

[6:44:11] Is being used of the 20%, so we're actually using

[6:44:13] 11%. It's just 16% of our Mannheim supply is offline

[6:44:18] right now. It's very confusing. I. Apologize. So, yes, you're

[6:44:21] interpreting that chart correctly. What we would like to see.

[6:44:26] Is. Bring us below that sustainable capacity line and then

[6:44:31] bring back 20% as a buffer to get us below

[6:44:35] that operational resiliency line of the 20% to give us

[6:44:38] that room to. Breathe to be able to take things

[6:44:41] offline. Or if we have an emergency situation. Nicole.

[6:44:54] Through the chair. I'm just wondering if this would be

[6:44:56] helpful if we could pull up. A graphic because it

[6:44:58] is a little bit confusing. And if you just bear

[6:45:02] with me for one moment. We have quite a few

[6:45:05] slides here. Maybe I won't be able to get at

[6:45:12] the graphic fast enough. I think, in essence, The question

[6:45:21] is asking if the 16% is double counting, is that

[6:45:24] correct? Sure, yeah. So we have 100% of our system

[6:45:31] capacity, and then we're saying that we need. 20% of

[6:45:35] that system capacity for operational resiliency. So within that 20%,

[6:45:40] then that's where we're able to do work that is

[6:45:42] planned and to navigate situations that are unplanned when we

[6:45:46] talk about. The 16% reference. That means that. Not to

[6:45:50] get into a percentages too much and make it confusing,

[6:45:54] but we're using 16% right now. So there's 4% left

[6:45:57] of the 20% that we have. For new things to

[6:46:01] happen. So if we have additional planned work or something

[6:46:04] else unexpected happens, Does that help to clarify? That's more

[6:46:10] confusing. I apologize. Let's throw away the percentages.

[6:46:20] Are we at 100% capacity now? I just put a

[6:46:25] percentage in there. With the amount of

[6:46:34] water that we're using. Through. Yeah, go ahead. Through the

[6:46:40] chair. The amount of water that we're using right now

[6:46:45] to meet the community needs. Is less than 100% of

[6:46:49] our capacity when everything is online. But what we're using

[6:46:53] right now. Is more than what we have online because

[6:46:58] there's things that are shut down, so we are peaking

[6:47:01] some of our systems to compensate for the fact that

[6:47:03] we have things shut down for ongoing work. Councilor Shaw.

[6:47:08] Sorry to interrupt, but between your questions and councilor McCabe's

[6:47:12] questions. Around this resiliency piece and this percentage. I'm going

[6:47:17] to take a five minute break and have staff get

[6:47:20] a clear answer and you can speak to them about

[6:47:22] exactly what you mean when it comes to this resiliency.

[6:47:25] Just so there's clarity. And for Nicole, for you to

[6:47:27] make it as like cole's? Notes. Dumb it down as

[6:47:30] much as you need to for us, okay?

[6:54:49] Okay, we are going to get going now. I think

[6:54:51] there is clarity around this resilience. And percentages. And I'm

[6:55:01] going to call on staff. To state what the question

[6:55:05] is. That you've heard from a few counselors. And then

[6:55:10] explain the answer for us to continue on with the

[6:55:13] dialogue through the chair, I think. We're going to ask

[6:55:17] Julian Bell, who's the vice president of agile Infrastructure, Inc.

[6:55:22] Give us a little bit of a better overview than

[6:55:24] we can do, and he has a few slides. Welcome,

[6:55:27] Julian. An excellent report. Sorry. Go to slide seven. So

[6:55:35] there's been a lot of discussion and questions around this

[6:55:39] operational resiliency. The screens aren't working. Is that on your

[6:55:49] size? So it's just on my. Left. Okay. I thought

[6:55:58] I'd. Try to explain this operational resiliency and these percentages

[6:56:03] and all this discussion from a slightly different approach. So

[6:56:07] I'm going to use some of the graphs that are

[6:56:10] in the peer review report. So the concept of operational

[6:56:14] resiliency. Is fundamentally. It's the mechanism that we allows the

[6:56:20] region to do repairs and respond to the system. To

[6:56:26] maintain in a good state of repair. Or unexpected events,

[6:56:31] right? So there's a very complex system. Think of it

[6:56:35] like a machine. There's thousands of moving parts. Those parts

[6:56:39] where you need. To replace things constantly, just like you

[6:56:43] need to replace the oil in your car every couple

[6:56:45] of months. We need to take facilities offline. To do

[6:56:50] repairs. The electrical, we need to change the bulbs in

[6:56:52] the uv systems, we need to do maintenance on 1000

[6:56:56] different pieces of equipment throughout the entire system. So this

[6:56:59] operational resiliency. Isn't necessarily to say, what if something bad

[6:57:04] happens and we lose a facility? For three years and

[6:57:08] all that sort of stuff. It's how can we maintain

[6:57:11] what we have right now? So this graph here. Shows.

[6:57:16] The capacity that's been offline in the Mannheim system over

[6:57:19] the last four years, so. Every single week, the region's

[6:57:23] operation staff, they do an assessment of what facilities are

[6:57:27] going to be offline, which well is going to be

[6:57:28] offline, which water treatment plant is going to be offline.

[6:57:32] Why is it offline? For various different aspects. Is it

[6:57:37] planned? Is it unplanned? And they track it. And so

[6:57:39] this graph shows how much has been offline, on average,

[6:57:44] every single month. Since 2021, about midway through 2021. So

[6:57:50] what this graph is showing is, say, in January 2022.

[6:57:56] 20% of all the supply. So that would equate to

[6:57:59] 100% all of the 20% operational resiliency that we're suggesting

[6:58:04] be implemented in this process was being utilized in January.

[6:58:10] 2022 on that graph is showing in 2023, on average,

[6:58:14] for the whole entire year. 15% of all available supply

[6:58:18] in the Mannheim system was offline for one reason or

[6:58:22] another. So that is 15 of the 20% gone for

[6:58:26] that entire year, so it only left 5%. Left. To

[6:58:31] deal with the what if. What if a water main

[6:58:34] breaks and we lose this other facility? For a week.

[6:58:37] What if. There's a spill and we have to turn

[6:58:39] something off for a week or two to respond to

[6:58:42] it. So that gives kind of the historical context of

[6:58:47] the discussion of can we phase it in with 5%

[6:58:50] or 10% right now. While we're already utilizing. More than

[6:58:56] 5% on an ongoing basis today. We're using 1015 percent

[6:59:02] fairly regularly. So another element is the context of is

[6:59:08] 20% too much? Could we plan the works differently? I

[6:59:12] think if we go to slide 17, Sorry. Slide 18.

[6:59:29] Is that a 518? Average monthly sorry, the title is

[6:59:38] average monthly demands for the Mannheim service area compared to

[6:59:41] total available systems. Okay, there we go. So this graphic

[6:59:47] here is another way of looking at this operational resiliency

[6:59:52] concept as a whole, so. The top purple line. That's

[6:59:59] 100% of capacity. That's everything being online. Doing 100%. There's

[7:00:05] nothing down. There's nothing acting up. There's no spills, there's

[7:00:09] no outages. The dashed red line. That represents this is

[7:00:15] the 20%. That's the target we'd like to have. To

[7:00:18] be able to take things offline, do repairs, do the

[7:00:22] what if these colors in the background. What those represent

[7:00:25] is those are all the different water supplies in the

[7:00:29] Mannheim system. So the bottom gray one represents all the

[7:00:33] smaller ones. Combined together, and then the three top blue

[7:00:37] lines, those represent the three largest individual facilities in the

[7:00:41] Mannheim system. What's really trying to show is if we

[7:00:46] have an unplanned outage. Of any one of those three

[7:00:49] facilities. It doesn't quite count at up to 20%. Of

[7:00:55] that 20% target. But if we lose any one of

[7:00:58] those three facilities, There's more demand in the system today.

[7:01:04] As represented by those dashed black lines, then there would

[7:01:07] be available to supply. With all the other facilities. Available.

[7:01:13] So part of that 20% operational resiliency is not only

[7:01:18] that. First bet of allowing us to take things offline

[7:01:21] to repair. But it's also the second bet portion. Is.

[7:01:26] What if we lose one of these large facilities? For

[7:01:30] a week. We can lose it for a day. There's

[7:01:31] storage in the system to. Lose it for a day.

[7:01:34] If we have a large water main break and it's

[7:01:35] out. For a week. We don't necessarily have the capacity.

[7:01:41] To accommodate all of our supply. Because that one source

[7:01:45] that's providing 10% of our total supply isn't available. To

[7:01:48] us, and we don't have the buffer in our system

[7:01:50] to accommodate it, even for a week or a month.

[7:01:55] So those are the two rationales as to why we

[7:01:59] need an operational. Resiliency. We got to do all this

[7:02:03] planned work. We got to take things offline. Your car

[7:02:07] is never running. 100% of the time, it's in the

[7:02:09] shop when you lose it. It's not available to you.

[7:02:13] It's the same thing with all these. Different facilities. And

[7:02:15] the second one is if something catastrophic or unexpected happens.

[7:02:19] It's a big facility. We need to be able to

[7:02:22] react to it. The last slide, I believe, is slide.

[7:02:27] Move forward. Yeah. So this slide here is another graphic,

[7:02:31] and there's the table beforehand, but this is. Really to

[7:02:34] try to show a very simplified. We've got a couple

[7:02:37] of Colors. We've got again that top Line, that purple.

[7:02:40] Line. That's 100% of supply. The red line is. That

[7:02:47] 20% operational target the dashed line. That's the average demand

[7:02:52] throughout the entire system. For any given year, so we're

[7:02:56] already past the 20%. This is outside of peaking and

[7:03:02] other aspects. And then the orange line represents that's how

[7:03:07] much we actually had. So the purple is. What we

[7:03:10] would have in theory. And the orange is what we

[7:03:13] would have if we were operating everything at a sustainable

[7:03:16] rate and you can see. Essentially. We're using approximately right

[7:03:24] now, 11% of that suggested 20%. So over half of

[7:03:30] it just to meet current demands. So that means, although

[7:03:34] we would like to have 20% available to us, To

[7:03:38] do all these operational works, which we've been using, on

[7:03:41] average, ten to 16%. We only have five or so

[7:03:46] or. Sorry. Eleven. So nine left. Less than half. And

[7:03:51] so. We can't manage it that way. So what's actually

[7:03:55] end up happening is as opposed to operating a sustainable

[7:03:59] rate. We're pumping at a faster rate. So the analogy

[7:04:03] I would use is we're redlining their engine while we're

[7:04:06] driving down the highway and the engine light is on.

[7:04:10] So we can keep driving. Or we can slow down,

[7:04:13] right? And then. We can leave the engine light on

[7:04:19] and not incorporate an operational resiliency, or we can. Bring

[7:04:23] it in for repairs to make sure that things are

[7:04:27] going to be in a good state. Fit of repair,

[7:04:29] and that's the operational resiliency component. So as of right

[7:04:34] now, we talk about? If we implement a 5% or

[7:04:38] what have you. 20%. Is an appropriate number because all

[7:04:44] the other numbers below that we've already kind of are.

[7:04:47] Utilizing them completely or have surpassed those values. So that's

[7:04:53] hopefully my attempt to try to bring additional clarity or

[7:04:56] context to this 20% operational resiliency. And particular in the

[7:05:01] context. Of the existing system. And just for context, these

[7:05:05] black lines of these supplies that we're showing. They're not

[7:05:10] the theoretical. What would be. This is the actual measured

[7:05:14] of what is produced and delivered to the system. On

[7:05:18] an ongoing basis. From all the facilities within the region.

[7:05:23] Okay. Thank you, Julian. For providing some clarity. Councilor Sean,

[7:05:28] do you have a question? Follow up and then we'll.

[7:05:31] Move along to Councilor Rodriguez. Thank you. I appreciate the

[7:05:36] explanation. And. I was never suggesting that we don't need

[7:05:41] the 20%, but. What I'm hearing you say is we

[7:05:46] are using the 20%. Now. If there's an emergency. We

[7:05:55] could be. In really big trouble. Do we need more

[7:05:59] than the 20% is more of my question. Not that

[7:06:04] I want to go there, but. I'll defer this one

[7:06:08] to staff. So through the chair in terms of the

[7:06:13] amount of operational resiliency that we need to have reliable

[7:06:16] water servicing. We are looking at this as well through

[7:06:19] the water supply strategy update that looks at the community's

[7:06:23] water supply needs through to 2051, there was a higher

[7:06:26] target. That was established through the work for that ongo.

[7:06:31] Ongoing project, but it was recognized that it takes time

[7:06:35] to implement that desired target. The 2015 water supply master

[7:06:39] plan. It had something. It's very similar to operational resiliency,

[7:06:43] but it was referred to as the required surplus capacity.

[7:06:47] So that's something that was already in place. For the

[7:06:49] long term planning processes and really through the peer. Review.

[7:06:52] The question was. What is the minimum that we should

[7:06:55] be looking to protect versus what is the long term

[7:06:58] target? That we should be working towards. So when you

[7:07:01] say, do we need more than 20%, it would be

[7:07:03] beneficial to have more than 20%, and we will continue

[7:07:06] to work towards providing more. Operational resiliency. But the 20%

[7:07:10] was considered to be a minimum. Okay. Thank you. Councilor

[7:07:16] Rodriguez here. Thank you. Chair staff, I'm wondering if I

[7:07:20] could get an end. Through the chair. Just some insight.

[7:07:23] When I look around at each of the commissioners here,

[7:07:24] there's. Different regional projects that are impacted by. What we're

[7:07:29] talking about today in terms of. Housing, child care. Transit

[7:07:34] facilities. And I really think we need to have a

[7:07:38] big understanding of what the impacts are for these types

[7:07:41] of projects, and I understand you might not be able

[7:07:43] to provide immense detail right now, but. If we could

[7:07:46] get some information on that as we move through this,

[7:07:49] I think council really needs to understand it when we

[7:07:51] say we want to break ground on a major facility

[7:07:53] this year where we're talking about. New affordable housing projects

[7:07:57] coming online. And all of that. I think we need

[7:07:59] a full and honest conversation about. What the impacts are.

[7:08:05] How we're managing that. And how we communicate that to

[7:08:09] partners, ourselves and to the community. So I don't know.

[7:08:12] If there's any staff have to add now, but if

[7:08:13] we could get some information on that. Do you really

[7:08:15] appreciate it? I'm seeing some nods. Thank you, chair. We're

[7:08:22] good. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Benevict. Thank you very much.

[7:08:32] So today we heard from industry about the importance of

[7:08:34] access to data so everyone can do additional analysis and

[7:08:37] better understand the situation. I know that area municipalities have

[7:08:41] requested access to this data last week as well. And

[7:08:44] I think it's important for three reasons. One, clarity. Two,

[7:08:47] sort of. Regional partners, municipalities, industry and civil. Society can

[7:08:52] do their due diligence and most of all for transparency

[7:08:56] and the restoration of trust, which we heard today. Some

[7:09:00] people, quite frankly, have concerns around. Presumably this data is

[7:09:05] available as it has informed the work. Done by regional

[7:09:07] staff. I'm talking data. Such as? Well, flows, system capacities,

[7:09:11] and so on. Are all part of this, as is

[7:09:13] the impact of things like the plate settlers. In Mannheim

[7:09:18] that's referenced on page 28 of the report, as well

[7:09:22] as additional capacity planned. Within the twelve year window of

[7:09:26] the report. And so I guess. My question really is

[7:09:30] how quickly can we make this data available? There's a

[7:09:34] motion coming. Forward later on. How quickly could we make

[7:09:37] it available to municipalities and to the public? Through the

[7:09:43] chair. Maybe I'll start. So. And then I'll lean on

[7:09:48] Amy to give a timeline on this. We can share.

[7:09:52] I mean again? We've been working with a third party

[7:09:55] peer review, so. We can package all of the data

[7:09:58] that was provided to that peer reviewer and provide that

[7:10:02] to area municipalities. Before sharing all of the data with

[7:10:07] the public, I just like to make sure that. We

[7:10:12] have just some legal eyes. From freedom of information perspective

[7:10:16] before this has shared more broadly. But I would say

[7:10:20] to the area municipalities. We can definitely package all of

[7:10:22] the information. That was provided to their peer reviewer to

[7:10:25] be able to make their assessment. And maybe I'll ask

[7:10:28] Amy to give a bit of a timeline on how

[7:10:31] quickly we can do that. Through the chair. Was there

[7:10:35] a date in the motion that you were proposing? There's

[7:10:41] not a specific date at this point. Obviously. Yesterday would

[7:10:46] be great, but that's not realistic. I will consult with

[7:10:50] the staff. I don't think. It will be very difficult

[7:10:54] to package up what we've already sent to Agile Infrastructure

[7:10:57] limited. So it would just depend on if that ass

[7:11:01] kept getting larger. Then it may take longer, but. I

[7:11:04] would say a week or two probably would be doable.

[7:11:07] Okay. That's great. And just Mr. Getstick, you can clarify

[7:11:12] the bit about legal and the foi. It's numbers that

[7:11:18] have formed a report about usage and capacities. I'm just

[7:11:22] trying. To understand what the issue or concern might be.

[7:11:27] Through the chair. I'm not familiar with exactly. What was

[7:11:32] provided to agile. So just to be an abundance of

[7:11:36] caution in terms of releasing data, that we would just

[7:11:39] want to do a review to see. If. There are

[7:11:44] any pieces of information that are part of it. That

[7:11:47] perhaps should be retained. Okay, well, we can get it

[7:11:50] to the municipalities and maybe report back. In camera if

[7:11:53] needed. That would be great. And then the only other

[7:12:00] question. I have is. With respect to the infrastructure, and

[7:12:06] we heard a little bit about. A critical failure as

[7:12:10] an example. And so I'm thinking about. We know that

[7:12:17] the issue of the plates that I just referenced at

[7:12:19] Manheim and the work that needs to be done. To

[7:12:23] deal with that, but something like Greenbrook. If there was

[7:12:28] a critical failure. As an example. What does that mean?

[7:12:33] I guess what I'm trying to understand is. Are there

[7:12:38] mechanisms to bring in? On a truck pumps or whatever.

[7:12:43] That can keep things running. On an interim basis. If

[7:12:48] a critical failure. Were to happen because you often hear,

[7:12:52] like in areas where an earthquake happens or something, the

[7:12:56] military comes in with pumps and runs things. So I'm

[7:13:00] just wondering how that maybe fits into. Part of our

[7:13:03] planning. So through the chair. Greenbrook treatment plant is down

[7:13:09] right now, completely. So I'm not sure if you were

[7:13:12] referring to Mannheim water treatment plants. So that's. The one.

[7:13:16] We more specifically talk about the catastrophic failure of the

[7:13:19] plate settlers at the Mannheim water treatment plant. So that

[7:13:23] is the one I mentioned. That we act in are

[7:13:26] in detail design to have a solution for Mannheim right

[7:13:30] now so that is underway. We're hoping to regain that

[7:13:33] capacity. GreenBrook is one of those projects that we've been

[7:13:37] working on repairs there for some time, and that's the

[7:13:41] one that I mentioned that we are hoping to have

[7:13:43] online. Back in 2026. Is any of the challenge. We

[7:13:48] can just close up on this one on Greenbrook. A

[7:13:51] result. Of the explosion we had a few years ago.

[7:13:54] Because of chemicals, if I remember correctly. There was an

[7:13:58] incident there. I don't remember all the details. Through the

[7:14:00] chair. I might. Ask Ryan Snyder, who's the manager of

[7:14:05] water operations, to come down if you don't. Mind. Thank

[7:14:08] you. Yeah, through the chair. You picked a great example.

[7:14:18] That facility has had a lot of challenges over the

[7:14:20] years it was exploded due to a chemical mixing in,

[7:14:23] I want to say, 2016. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yes, it

[7:14:28] is. He's just tall. So the short answer is no.

[7:14:32] It's unrelated to the explosion. This was other infrastructure failures.

[7:14:37] Major reservoir failure there, and then several process equipment failures

[7:14:40] as well. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. I know

[7:14:44] there's a whole bunch of you here from the department.

[7:14:46] Thank you. For all the great work you're doing to

[7:14:48] try to help us through this situation. Thank you. Councilor.

[7:14:53] Thank you, Jared. James. I'm sorry, I don't have a

[7:14:57] motion to bring the numbers up to six. Or seven.

[7:15:02] And I'm not trying to minimize the importance of this

[7:15:05] at all, or the number of motions we're going to

[7:15:07] be dealing with. Hearing the delegations this morning, which. Were

[7:15:15] very convincing. We're going to be passing motions and asking

[7:15:20] for staff to collect more data, which is. Going to

[7:15:22] be shared with the development industry and the community at

[7:15:25] large. I hope we don't. Come back with competing data

[7:15:29] with different interest groups, and we're pitting one group. Against

[7:15:32] the other group, but against the region where we have

[7:15:35] different. Scenarios of what has to happen. I think staff

[7:15:39] have been working. Beyond expectations for the last six or

[7:15:45] eight weeks. To give us the information we need. The

[7:15:49] six or seven motions that are going to be for

[7:15:52] us today are going to be asking for more work.

[7:15:55] And if I remember, a week or two ago, We

[7:15:58] were yielding, I think, with the alternate tenting site, and

[7:16:02] we decided that one of the reasons we weren't going

[7:16:04] to do it because staff already had plates full. Well.

[7:16:08] If community services had. Plateful water has plates full as

[7:16:12] well and overflowing, so I want us to be sensitive

[7:16:17] to the workload, to what we're expecting, what the expectations

[7:16:21] might be, and we don't set up any competing interests,

[7:16:25] and the bottom line is to try and do good.

[7:16:27] For every region or every resident in the region. And

[7:16:31] so I don't want to minimize. The impact of the

[7:16:34] seriousness of this, what we're dealing with, but just to

[7:16:37] keep in mind. What the expectations might be and what

[7:16:40] we're asking for. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Herb. Okay with

[7:16:45] that, there are no more questions regarding this report as

[7:16:48] stated, there are. A number of motions that need to

[7:16:51] come forward. Clerks. We're going to post the motions in

[7:16:55] order that they were received. You've got the first one.

[7:17:06] Let the motions be consolidated. Okay. And this one's councilor

[7:17:15] McCabe's. They're all together. We have not combined them at

[7:17:21] all, okay? The operative part.

[7:17:32] I need to therefore be it resolved. There's a long.

[7:17:42] Way. I didn't.

[7:17:53] Okay, so with that. There is Councilor McCabe's motion.

[7:18:03] It's moved by Councilor McKaba. Need a seconder to put

[7:18:05] it on. The floor. Councilor Hunich. Okay, so, Councilor McCabe.

[7:18:11] In the interest of. Not everyone has seen this motion.

[7:18:13] Just us. The public has countercade did circulating it. Okay.

[7:18:22] Which is on the screen now. Councilor McCabe. Okay, so

[7:18:29] the motion is on the screen. Council McKay, can you

[7:18:33] read the. Therefore, be it resolved, and then your motion

[7:18:36] is on the floor. You can speak to the whereas.

[7:18:43] In a different way than reading it all out like

[7:18:45] that. Sure. Okay. Yeah. Happy to. So therefore, be it

[7:18:51] resolved that the timeline for a preliminary list of short,

[7:18:54] medium and long term plans for the necessary infrastructure repairs

[7:18:59] be made publicly available before the end of January 2026.

[7:19:04] Rather than in late q one 2026. Okay, so now

[7:19:09] speak to. The reasons why behind this is coming from

[7:19:14] your perspective. Sure. Thank you very much and thanks, everyone.

[7:19:17] For the questions. And the responses and additional information. From

[7:19:22] council and staff today and, of course, to the delegations.

[7:19:25] That has been really helpful and thank you, Councilor Irv,

[7:19:27] for your comments that you just made. It is important

[7:19:31] that we ground ourselves. In. That. But why? I put

[7:19:40] this motion forward is because. We've heard it today a

[7:19:44] lot about clarity, clarity, clarity. And is this a today

[7:19:48] problem? A tomorrow problem or a 2051 problem. And so.

[7:19:56] We keep robust. Waste asset management plans, and I've referenced

[7:20:00] the water supply strategy, and there's a lot of work

[7:20:02] that staff have done over the years. And up until

[7:20:07] 2025 that keeps track through our capital plan and our

[7:20:11] asset management plan about what's the state of our infrastructure,

[7:20:14] what needs repaired, et cetera. And what's coming up. And

[7:20:19] then today there was in the report that we just

[7:20:21] discussed, there was some additional information about. Work that staff

[7:20:26] is starting to say. Here's some things that we need

[7:20:28] to do. So I feel like. We have a lot

[7:20:33] of that information. In existing reports and through the work

[7:20:38] that Amy has been leading in. The past month, six

[7:20:42] weeks. And. Just thinking about the needs of the sector,

[7:20:47] the needs of the area municipalities, and just. This is

[7:20:51] a big, challenging problem, and the more we have information,

[7:20:55] and the sooner we have information. The better this will

[7:20:57] be for everyone involved. So that's why I was concerned

[7:21:02] when I read the report and saw that. This list

[7:21:05] of repairs wasn't going to come until the end of

[7:21:08] March. So that's why I've put this forward to say,

[7:21:12] can we get that information? At least a preliminary list

[7:21:15] by the end of January. Okay. I know we have

[7:21:20] a couple of questions from counselors. Matt, I want you

[7:21:22] to kind of weigh in on the feasibility of this

[7:21:26] and what that may look like. Thank you, chair. As

[7:21:31] you know, since the issue was identified, the staff have

[7:21:34] been working, and I think Amy has been explaining some

[7:21:37] of the ideas that staff are working on, both working

[7:21:40] at the same time on short, medium and long term

[7:21:42] solutions because we need to tackle all of these time

[7:21:45] horizons at the same time right now. A lot of

[7:21:50] these ideas and those that will be the faster, the

[7:21:54] fastest to deliver are either some specific repairs or those.

[7:21:59] Which were already in design because they're part of our

[7:22:01] tenure capital program. So a few of them are in

[7:22:04] there and then. The challenge is more about moving them

[7:22:09] forward in the timeline compared to the existing capital program.

[7:22:12] So. We can bring a preliminary list by the end

[7:22:16] of the month. The only thing that we will not

[7:22:18] be able to do. There's a couple of things. First,

[7:22:21] I know Amy's technical works up with industry. Experts is

[7:22:24] there to kind of vet these and the feasibility of

[7:22:27] doing that. So that's one thing. We won't have it

[7:22:31] vetted by the end of January. So it will be

[7:22:34] an unvetted list, so there's a bit of risk to

[7:22:36] that. The second thing is. Amy is also talking. With

[7:22:40] the Ministry of Environment about how to fast track some

[7:22:43] of these projects. So today. We're not able to really

[7:22:47] tell you what a fast track timeline looks like, so

[7:22:50] that's the other? I would say the other limitation to

[7:22:52] what we can bring. And the third one. And that

[7:22:56] was one of the reasons why in the report we

[7:22:57] had said at the end of Q one is we

[7:23:00] won't have the costs, we won't have the timeline, and

[7:23:03] the associated cost at this time so we can. Bring

[7:23:06] orders of magnitude at best, but it's going to be

[7:23:09] hard to cost it, so. I won't be able. To.

[7:23:14] Tie this preliminary list with a recommendation for an adjustment

[7:23:18] to the budget. So that's something. We will not be

[7:23:21] able to do at the end of January, but bringing

[7:23:23] forward a preliminary list is with these caveats, we can

[7:23:26] do that. Thank you very much for that response. So

[7:23:31] given that. I don't know if we then need to

[7:23:35] go forward with this motion. I mean, I'm satisfied if

[7:23:38] that's what comes forward. I don't know if anyone else

[7:23:41] on council wants to comment on that. We have three

[7:23:46] people that want to comment on this. I mean, this

[7:23:48] could be just seen as direction to staff, then. Yeah.

[7:23:56] I've tabled the motion. You've tabled the motion? You're going

[7:24:00] to refer it, but I think we should hear from

[7:24:04] the speaker. So, councilor. Hunich. So I think that. Thank

[7:24:07] you, chair. I think the delegations made it. Clear today

[7:24:10] that. The faster we can provide accurate information to them,

[7:24:14] the more. We can quell the long term negative impacts

[7:24:19] of this hopefully short term crisis. That being said, though,

[7:24:23] I'm not really interested in providing further tentative information or

[7:24:29] information that's not vetted, as Matthew has said. Yeah. Dorothy,

[7:24:35] if you want to do this direction to staff, if

[7:24:37] you think that's helpful. But. I would be concerned about

[7:24:43] providing unvetted information that yet requires further clarity. Okay, well,

[7:24:49] yeah, we're going to go through the speakers list. Councilor

[7:24:52] Foxton. I'm leaning towards doing it in three phases. The

[7:24:59] first one being the information we have. Now that we

[7:25:01] get it out there, that it's. Very clear and very

[7:25:04] focused. And then we also mentioned that part two will

[7:25:07] be coming and the timeline after Amy's talked to whatever

[7:25:12] she's doing in the second part, and. Then the third

[7:25:14] part was the province and the funding, right? And we

[7:25:17] do them in three phases, because if we wait too

[7:25:20] long, It only exasperates the frustration that's out there. But

[7:25:26] if we can give them a piece now. A piece.

[7:25:29] As we get it, they feel more like they're in.

[7:25:32] Partnership with us. Okay. Thank you, Chair Redmond. Thank you.

[7:25:40] Chair. James. I guess through you to Amy, that the

[7:25:43] fear that I have, I have. To say, Councilor McKab,

[7:25:46] I really do appreciate the fact that you were contemplating

[7:25:49] where this should be direction to staff. I've said this

[7:25:53] a few times. It's iterative, and I wonder the downside.

[7:25:57] Of putting forward a preliminary list that. May in three

[7:26:01] weeks change. I don't think there's anybody that didn't. Hear

[7:26:05] about this issue and go, oh, my goodness. Well, how

[7:26:07] do we fix it? And I think that's what we

[7:26:09] heard from delegations, but I don't. Amy, do you want.

[7:26:11] To talk about. Sort of if this would be a

[7:26:14] useful tool or maybe. Cause more angst than help, so

[7:26:19] through the chair. I appreciate the need for the information.

[7:26:22] I also think it may be an incomplete list because

[7:26:25] before we even have the industry experts or technical leads

[7:26:29] from the area. Municipalities weigh in. We may have additional

[7:26:32] solutions that need to be vetted. I would also say

[7:26:36] some of these solutions that. Are tentatively on our list,

[7:26:40] have not fully been through a risk assessment. Right. So

[7:26:43] I know we've talked about some of the options around

[7:26:46] moving water from Middleton service area to the Mannheim service

[7:26:49] areas. There are risks associated with that, so the risk

[7:26:53] piece will have to be evaluated as well, so I

[7:26:56] would hate to put out a list that thinks. Everyone

[7:26:59] thinks that we've solved the issue with a list, and

[7:27:01] then some of those may not technically be possible moving

[7:27:05] forward. So it's just a caution that if we do

[7:27:07] provide a preliminary list. That's all it is right now.

[7:27:11] It's not. A vetted list right now, and it may

[7:27:14] not be a complete list, and it will be. A

[7:27:17] lot of tentative information. Like Mitchi said, like a range

[7:27:21] of timelines, a range of. Financial costs. Can I just

[7:27:27] ask if. The direction was or if this motion goes

[7:27:31] and it was as soon as possible, what would that

[7:27:33] date look like to you? Through the chair. We have

[7:27:37] an in person meeting with the ministry the environment on

[7:27:40] the 27th. We tried to push for sooner. We've had

[7:27:43] a couple of phone calls and meetings with them. And

[7:27:46] they've said they're supportive of that, but that's the soonest

[7:27:48] they could get their EA and permission staff all in

[7:27:51] one room at one time. So we are meeting with

[7:27:54] them on the 27. Th, and I think we're creating

[7:27:57] that list of potential asks based on projects. So in

[7:28:01] the meantime, we're still proceeding with our technical working groups

[7:28:05] and trying to get more of that information. Solid. Thank

[7:28:10] you. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Verbanovic. Thank you very much.

[7:28:13] And I want to thank. Council mccabe. And the others

[7:28:19] for bringing a variety of motions forward because they think

[7:28:21] it is important, I think we heard this from. The

[7:28:25] delegations today. It is important that. Ultimately, the buck stops

[7:28:30] with council. And it is important, I believe, that. The

[7:28:35] community is looking to see leadership from around this horseshoe

[7:28:38] on these issues and provide direction and clarity in terms

[7:28:41] of the work that's being done and how we're moving

[7:28:43] forward. In a variety of ways to deal with it.

[7:28:47] I know we have a practice. Of giving direction to

[7:28:51] staff here, but that is not a decision of counsel.

[7:28:55] If there's no vote associated with it. It is simply.

[7:29:01] An informal understanding we have in terms of how we

[7:29:03] operate. I think considering the significance of this issue, the

[7:29:06] fact that it has the ability to influence. Tens, if

[7:29:11] not hundreds of millions of dollars of municipal and regional

[7:29:14] budgets. Hundreds, if not billions of dollars in development and

[7:29:18] thousands of jobs. I think it is important that we

[7:29:21] do things with motions. From council and give that direction

[7:29:24] that way. At the end of that. Okay. Trying to

[7:29:28] summarize in my head. Okay, so we have no further

[7:29:32] speakers on this. Okay, Councilor Wolf, go ahead. Through you,

[7:29:39] madam Chair. I was either going to suggest end of

[7:29:41] February or as soon as possible. As an amendment to

[7:29:50] this motion. Rather than. I think, frankly, that we have

[7:29:55] a choice of defeating it if you want it to

[7:29:58] be emotion. Or amending it, because the end of January.

[7:30:04] Is too close. Okay. Councilor Wilf, are you proposing an

[7:30:07] amendment to this? I propose an amendment. Would end of

[7:30:12] February. Okay? They're shaking their heads yes. So I would

[7:30:16] say end of February. For this motion. Okay, so is

[7:30:22] there a second or. For this amendment, and by end

[7:30:24] of February. You're speaking potentially, like the council meeting. Right

[7:30:29] in February. Okay, I will. Just time and place to

[7:30:32] be specific. So that council meeting in. February. There's second

[7:30:36] or for that. Okay, so right now then, we are

[7:30:39] going to vote on the amendment. And then I speak

[7:30:43] to the amendment. Yeah, absolutely. Well, I would just say

[7:30:49] two things. One. There's the reserve. That in one of

[7:30:55] the reports, staff indicated you'll be able to use some

[7:30:58] of that. To hire consultants and things like that, or

[7:31:00] bring on contract staff so that we do have the

[7:31:03] capacity. To add more staff. So that's there in terms

[7:31:10] of the workload. And the other piece that gives me

[7:31:13] greater comfort with my request to have this preliminary list.

[7:31:20] And completely understand. It's preliminary and it can be caveats

[7:31:22] can be put in place. That I think reinforces the

[7:31:27] need for it at the end of January is just

[7:31:29] what staff just indicated that they're going to have that

[7:31:31] list for the January 27 meeting. So if it's going

[7:31:34] to go to the meeting with whomever it is. At

[7:31:39] the province, and you have that preliminary list, and I

[7:31:42] think that that would be appropriate to then share it.

[7:31:45] Certainly. With us. And the community, so. I would just

[7:31:51] request that you turn down the February date and stick

[7:31:56] with the end of January. Date. Thank you. We're going

[7:32:00] to go in the queue. Okay, Councilor Wolf, since it's

[7:32:03] your amendment. I just like a point of clarification from

[7:32:08] staff, because staff seemed to think end of January wasn't

[7:32:12] okay. So. Are you saying that end of January is

[7:32:17] okay as opposed to end of February? So through the

[7:32:21] chair. We have the tentative list that we have now.

[7:32:26] We have not had the technical working group yet. The

[7:32:28] first workshop with our area municipalities and our industry leaders,

[7:32:32] so more could be. Added after the fact. I think

[7:32:36] I'd have to ask crew when the first workshop is

[7:32:38] we are meeting with them this week just to kick

[7:32:40] it off, but we're actually holding a workshop at the

[7:32:42] end of January, so I do think end of January

[7:32:45] is tight. I also know, I will likely not get

[7:32:48] a response from the ministry same day that we're meeting.

[7:32:51] With them or even the day after, so I'm just.

[7:32:55] Saying? We may not understand the timelines fully. We still

[7:32:58] can give estimates, but that's likely. The best it will

[7:33:00] be as an estimate by the end of January. Thank

[7:33:04] you. Councilor salon. Thank you. Through you chair just along

[7:33:09] the same lines as Councilor McCabe. I think the information

[7:33:16] is going to be collected that's going to be provided

[7:33:18] to the province and that. It's clearly articulated. I'm certainly

[7:33:22] understanding from what you're saying it's. Preliminary. There are going

[7:33:25] to be other things over time feeding into this list,

[7:33:30] in my opinion. That's totally acceptable. I think it's just

[7:33:32] getting something, and I think that with our comms team.

[7:33:35] We can make that very clear and articulated that this

[7:33:38] is preliminary. It has caveats. We're. Wait. Waiting on items

[7:33:41] x, y, z, but I would rather see information sooner

[7:33:45] rather than later. So I won't be supporting councilor Wilson.

[7:33:50] Councilor Foxton. Thank you. And to you, chair. The dates

[7:33:55] are really close because we're talking the last week of

[7:33:58] January. To provide it. And the committee day is February

[7:34:02] 10, so that would give the time to meet. With

[7:34:05] the promise and give even and with the committee that

[7:34:07] she's going to. And we would get a more complete

[7:34:10] picture rather than sending it out two weeks earlier. With

[7:34:15] not all the picture, and then two weeks later, we've

[7:34:17] got the almost full picture. Or a lot more information.

[7:34:21] I think we could afford to wait the two weeks.

[7:34:24] Because committee is February 10. It's for the council meeting

[7:34:30] in February. I think that's around February 24 or. 25th

[7:34:32] around there. But could we not bring it back to

[7:34:38] committee on the 10th? That's not the motion. Yeah. It's

[7:34:47] either going to be January, as per the original motion,

[7:34:50] or February if the amendment goes through. Then we're kind

[7:34:55] of getting in the weeds with either the 10th. We'll

[7:35:00] stick to this for clarity. And again, because it's a

[7:35:05] motion presented by councilor McCabe and amended by Councilor Wolf.

[7:35:12] We'll go with that there first. And if. It fails,

[7:35:17] we'll bring it back up for consideration. Councilor Bennevic. Thank

[7:35:21] you very much. And the question I'm going to ask

[7:35:23] Ms. Shaw is actually, I think, relevant to all of

[7:35:26] these because there is obviously some work that's associated with

[7:35:30] all of these and. Some of this. I'm cognizant that

[7:35:34] some of this can be done and. Best done internally,

[7:35:38] but. There's probably work either that you're doing or something

[7:35:40] that's going to be talked about today that maybe you

[7:35:43] need some additional resources. And so my question to you

[7:35:46] is. Do you need this council? To authorize. Additional resources

[7:35:52] either in terms of. Temporary staff, potentially, or contract partners

[7:35:58] that can help you deal with very complex and difficult

[7:36:02] but critical issue to the community. Through the chair. I

[7:36:06] can speak to part of that and maybe I'll defer.

[7:36:09] To CEO getsky or commissioner kanopka. We have started to

[7:36:16] hire some external consultants to assist with some of these

[7:36:20] asks. I think that was part of the report to

[7:36:23] lay out. That we do have a series of people.

[7:36:27] Like we were hiring a consultant to help us with

[7:36:29] the technical working group to help facilitate that. It is

[7:36:33] a consultant that's worked on our water supply strategy, so

[7:36:35] it makes sense we also are going to have some

[7:36:38] industry experts come in to assist with some of the

[7:36:41] solution pieces. And moving those forward at a quicker pace.

[7:36:44] So the consultant piece. Absolutely. We already have some of

[7:36:48] that underway. With hiring some of those consultants, and then,

[7:36:52] I don't know. If we want to speak to the

[7:36:54] other piece. Through you chair so high level, I think.

[7:37:01] Right now, we are evaluating. What the resource needs will

[7:37:05] be because. You don't want to make a joke on

[7:37:08] this, but the team has zero operational resilience. Here. Negative

[7:37:11] operational resiliency in terms of the amount of work that's

[7:37:14] being produced right now. Because we still have to continue

[7:37:18] to run the system. While we're fixing it. So we've

[7:37:23] started with a few consultants to fill in some gaps,

[7:37:26] but there are definitely some other needs. And today I

[7:37:30] know Kate is helping to assess what can be done

[7:37:33] through consulting. What can be done to temporary positions. So

[7:37:36] we're doing that evaluation right now. Some of it might

[7:37:39] be influenced by the timeline. On the capital side, for

[7:37:42] example, depending on what we're able to accelerate or not,

[7:37:45] because we don't want the staffing piece on capital projects

[7:37:49] to be. The bottleneck, but that will depend a little

[7:37:52] bit on how quickly we can fast track some of

[7:37:54] the capital projects, but that's something where we can definitely

[7:37:58] bring back to council. Well, I guess. What I would

[7:38:00] only ask then is that. You're absolutely right, Mr. Getsky.

[7:38:05] That should not be. The bottleneck. And I think. Two

[7:38:11] very different situations. One was a public health situation. This

[7:38:16] is obviously a significant issue in terms of our infrastructure

[7:38:19] and the provision of water, and so on, but there

[7:38:22] was a mode of operating that we operated in using.

[7:38:27] A certain kind of. Internal management structure event. Incident management

[7:38:36] approach to this, and I would encourage management to be

[7:38:40] taking that same approach on this. Issue. And coming to

[7:38:44] council and quite frankly, I'm of the view we need

[7:38:47] to have additional meetings. I would hope that staff would

[7:38:50] go to the chair and ask that those meetings be

[7:38:53] called. Because this is too important for the community and

[7:38:58] the messaging that's going out there. In terms of being

[7:39:01] open for business. In the future of our community in

[7:39:05] the short and long term, that I'd like us. To

[7:39:07] take a similar approach as we did in managing that

[7:39:10] other critical situation five years ago. Okay, so with that,

[7:39:14] I do have a question of clarification with staff, and

[7:39:17] it's. Just around the notion of having a list. That's

[7:39:25] made public, and I am all for transparency. But I'm

[7:39:29] also conscious of. Have we had, as the governing body

[7:39:33] been able to take a look at that list ahead

[7:39:35] of time, and I would ask if it would be

[7:39:38] appropriate for that list to come back to us. In

[7:39:41] a closed capacity for us as the governing body to

[7:39:44] review it, because I think if things are made public,

[7:39:47] the public seeing it before us, and we're the governing

[7:39:49] people are going to come to us for answers, so

[7:39:52] just some thoughts on that. In terms of this coming

[7:39:56] to council ahead of time. So through the chair. And

[7:40:01] when we provide the list, it will be in no

[7:40:04] particular order. I mean, that is part of the process

[7:40:06] we need to do is to prioritize these and part

[7:40:09] of the answer of that is how quickly we can

[7:40:12] expedite them. So if we cannot get an expedited process.

[7:40:19] Then that may not be one of the projects we

[7:40:23] proceed with right off the bat. So I also have

[7:40:26] a bit of concern about it, like a list of

[7:40:29] projects going out only from the sense that we want

[7:40:32] to make risk based decisions not based on where they're

[7:40:35] geographically located. And how that may assist. With. Certain projects

[7:40:40] moving forward. So we want to make the best decisions

[7:40:42] for all of the residents of the region of Waterloo.

[7:40:47] Holistically. Okay. So with that, I'd be more comfortable. I'm

[7:40:51] looking to. The main motion mover here that we have

[7:40:55] this list. We should be privy to this list ahead

[7:40:58] of time for risk factors. And I know Councilor McKabee

[7:41:02] vindicated to make it publicly available. But again, If there

[7:41:07] is avenue to say this comes to us as the

[7:41:10] governing body ahead of time for us to be. No,

[7:41:15] because as we know, when things go out there in

[7:41:16] the public, The stories, the narratives, all of that takes

[7:41:21] the shape of its own. Unfortunately, sometimes. Do you want

[7:41:24] me to respond to that? Please do. We're talking about

[7:41:27] the amendment. I'm amending the motion. Oh, my gosh. Well.

[7:41:35] I'm just cognizant that. There's an amendment to my motion

[7:41:39] on the floor, so. I just didn't know that this

[7:41:41] would be the time for me to respond to you.

[7:41:43] About that piece. Okay, you know what? I'm going to

[7:41:45] look to the. Amendment after amendment. Counsel. I think. The

[7:41:54] piece about whether or not it comes to council first.

[7:41:57] Generally, we have avenues of making things public that don't

[7:42:00] come to council in terms of coming on an agenda.

[7:42:04] I mean, we're very familiar with that process. Would generally

[7:42:08] be available to the public a week ahead of time,

[7:42:11] but at the same time that council would see it.

[7:42:14] So. This motion specifically just directs staff to make that

[7:42:18] list public. There's no mention of it. Coming to council,

[7:42:22] either as a part of that process or ahead of

[7:42:24] time. I will flag if the desire is to have

[7:42:29] it come on a council agenda that pushes everything. A

[7:42:34] week ahead of time in order to get it. So

[7:42:37] to bring anything for the January council meeting actually makes

[7:42:41] the deadline for staff. The 21st, which is next week.

[7:42:47] So the time crunch pushes up. Just if that's the

[7:42:50] desire, if the desire is to just make it public.

[7:42:54] Then that's an easier process for staff in terms of

[7:42:56] flexibility. Okay. All right. So, Councilor

[7:43:06] Verbanovic, can I just. Oh, sorry. I was going to

[7:43:09] say shouldn't. We vote on Councilor Wolf's motion first? Yeah,

[7:43:12] we're going to vote. On. People adding to the queue.

[7:43:16] So we're going to vote on the amendment for councilor.

[7:43:18] Wolf. Or January 21. Yes.

[7:43:29] As February. 24th. Yes. End of journey

[7:43:39] and yours at the end of January. I was just

[7:43:43] curious. About what? About? There is no council meeting at

[7:43:49] the end of January. It's the 21 January. Okay.

[7:44:02] Councilor Verbanovic, and then we're going to vote on council

[7:44:04] Rolf's amendment. Very quickly, I think. What clerks just indicated

[7:44:11] is true. We do have a meeting at the end

[7:44:13] of the month. If there's stuff to share with us

[7:44:16] to get any guidance, as has been suggested, that can

[7:44:19] happen at the council meeting. And quite frankly, those things

[7:44:24] often get sent to us in the addendum agenda. 36

[7:44:28] hours before. And then there's something coming out of that

[7:44:31] to share publicly. Then that can happen by staff sharing

[7:44:35] it publicly, either email or media release or whatever it

[7:44:39] doesn't need to be part of an agenda. Ten days

[7:44:42] earlier. Okay, chair Redmond. Sorry to prolong this.

[7:44:52] I don't disagree with what councilor Vervanovich has just said.

[7:44:55] I just. Have a concern when I think council should

[7:44:57] see it ahead of time to see it in closed

[7:45:00] I don't know that the justification would be there, and

[7:45:02] that was the only thing I was going to flag.

[7:45:06] Okay, so we are going to vote on the amendment

[7:45:07] for Councilor Wolf. And that is to change the date

[7:45:13] from the end of January to February. Do we have

[7:45:18] the council meeting date? 24th. I think that should be

[7:45:22] in there. 25th, 2026.

[7:46:36] So that is defeated. So we will now move on

[7:46:38] to the main motion, the original motion for end of

[7:46:41] January. Councilor mccabe. This may be an amendment

[7:46:51] or we're referring to stuff. You think? Get direction from

[7:46:55] clerks on this. But that council is provided with. The

[7:47:02] list. I don't know, 48 hours before. It is released

[7:47:05] to the public. And as chair Redmond said, we don't

[7:47:07] necessarily need to go and close, but as the governing

[7:47:10] body, I think we should have advanced notice of this.

[7:47:12] List. Yeah, I see that as friendly. Thank you. So

[7:47:17] we're voting on the main motion. If the main motion

[7:47:25] is supported, we will get it. 48 hours.

[7:48:26] That is carried, okay? Motion number two. Our way through

[7:48:33] this. This is good team building exercises. Okay, what is

[7:48:38] the next motion? Okay. Councilor McCabe, your second motion. Yeah.

[7:48:45] Thank you very much again, I think this is. Pretty.

[7:48:47] Do you want me to read the bottom part for

[7:48:50] councilor hunch? Okay, for everyone's. Sake. Yeah. Therefore, be it

[7:48:55] resolved that staff are directed. Sorry, I'm reading off the

[7:49:01] screen. Okay. Therefore, be it resolved that staff are directed

[7:49:04] to. Report back by the end of Q 1 June

[7:49:07] 2026 with water conservation policy options for the sustainability, infrastructure

[7:49:13] and development committees and regional council's consideration and further that

[7:49:18] input from relevant community partners. Including but not limited to

[7:49:22] reap green solutions sustainable Waterloo Region Bill Durban the Waterloo

[7:49:27] Region Home Builders association, the Grand River Conservation Authority, Grand

[7:49:31] river environmental network and area municipalities is sought and included

[7:49:36] in the water conservation policy options proposed. I'm happy to

[7:49:40] second. This motion. Oh, did I say Q one? Sorry,

[7:49:44] I mispoke. Q two. It does say Q two. Sorry.

[7:49:47] I misspoke. Okay, so, Councilor Hunich, you are seconding the

[7:49:51] motion? So it is on the floor. Councilor McCabe, do

[7:49:54] you want to speak to your motion? Now and then

[7:49:56] I'll go through the speakers list. Sure. I mean, we

[7:50:01] did hear quite a bit about the need for conservation

[7:50:05] options from the various delegations this morning as well, but

[7:50:09] I think this goes hand in hand with this resiliency

[7:50:13] piece that we need. And as I've said before, I'm

[7:50:16] concerned about. The line that we've seen in some reports

[7:50:20] that say water conservation efforts have plateaued. Because there are

[7:50:23] a lot of other options that we could and should

[7:50:26] be pursuing. With particularly some of our large. Water users.

[7:50:33] I think it was, yeah. Joseph Pupalo, first thing that

[7:50:36] today said about. Referencing data centers that use potable water.

[7:50:41] Right, like, probably not a great use. To really start

[7:50:46] looking at options like that that exist now. Technologies, whatever.

[7:50:52] So that we can start to try and get ahead

[7:50:54] of some of the conservation efforts, particularly. As summer starts

[7:50:59] to approach as well. So I'll leave that there. Okay.

[7:51:04] And before we get to a speaker list at Matthew,

[7:51:06] do you want to just provide some weigh in on

[7:51:09] this request? Motion. Just a bit of a capacity question.

[7:51:17] We don't have the staff capacity to do this, so

[7:51:21] we will have to get some. Consultant support. I don't

[7:51:24] know if. Amy, if you can, if you want to

[7:51:25] specify anything. I know the water efficiency team is well

[7:51:28] aware of the big water users, but for broader water

[7:51:31] conservation. We will need external support to be able to

[7:51:34] bring something back. And through the chair. I also had

[7:51:38] intentions to have this as part of the technical working

[7:51:40] group. Because I do know that Lee McDermott has been

[7:51:44] working on the one water supply strategy and he has

[7:51:47] reached out for volunteers from the region, so there's a

[7:51:49] lot of different options. That we want to talk about

[7:51:52] as part of the technical working group as well, because

[7:51:54] I think it's a combined. Effort between the area municipalities

[7:51:58] and the region. We do have the conservation bylaw in

[7:52:02] the region in existence. It is in place every may

[7:52:06] till September. So that will continue. But again, the point.

[7:52:10] To make is that that only deals with outdoor watering.

[7:52:13] We don't have a bylaw. That currently addresses. Industrial or

[7:52:18] residential conservation efforts. Like CAO Getsky said, we would just

[7:52:25] have to probably retain a consultant to be able to

[7:52:27] assist us with that because. The select technical staff we

[7:52:31] do have are going to be going full out on

[7:52:33] these solutions and these technical working groups. Thank you. Thanks

[7:52:37] for that additional clarification. I think, as we said, in

[7:52:42] the discussion discussing the previous motion. Yeah. We do understand

[7:52:47] that you're building the plane and flying it as the

[7:52:50] well worn analogy. Goes. And I do want to be

[7:52:54] clear that. To anyone listening that. We're not saying we're

[7:53:01] putting in conservation methods right now, tomorrow. That's not what

[7:53:05] we're talking about. We're talking about having options for us

[7:53:08] to consider. From a very large scale. To maybe very

[7:53:16] much smaller scales. So nothing is being decided at this

[7:53:19] point. This is just for staff to come back with

[7:53:21] some options. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor McCabe and Amy.

[7:53:27] Councilor Foxton, I thank you, and through your chair. I

[7:53:30] think this is really good. The one point I would

[7:53:33] ask that. It says further that input from relevant community

[7:53:37] partners. I think I'd like the input in writing so

[7:53:41] that we would have it to look back and create.

[7:53:44] Look at what they say rather. Than just come in

[7:53:46] and ask, trying to write and figure out, because it

[7:53:48] would be something we could draw back on, but I

[7:53:51] think it's excellent. And I think telling the people that.

[7:53:55] We wanted to conserve anyways, regardless of whether we were

[7:53:58] in this situation or not. So I think this is

[7:54:01] a great piece of work. As long as I don't

[7:54:04] want them to. Come and speak. I want. Just to

[7:54:07] speak to. That. The input wouldn't be as delegates. This

[7:54:13] would be as various groups and other appropriate partners. Working.

[7:54:19] At one of the tables. Councilor Hunich. Thank you, chair.

[7:54:24] James. For me, this is a critical piece of demonstrating.

[7:54:27] Our collaborative. And good faith toward our industry partners, et

[7:54:34] cetera. And as councillor Verbanovic has noted, if you need

[7:54:38] us to authorize. Funds for temporary staff or permanent staff

[7:54:44] or whatever the case may be. To solve this issue,

[7:54:48] we can do that. So if that's what it requires,

[7:54:51] then that's what it requires. Okay, I see no further

[7:54:55] speakers. Councilor Foxton just really quickly. I want to invest

[7:55:04] in fixing this, but I do want us to be

[7:55:07] due diligence. We just went through a budget process. So

[7:55:12] let's not just say, let's spend money right, left and

[7:55:15] center. Let's. Look at what we need and do it

[7:55:17] methodically. Thank you. Excellent. Okay. Councilor McCabe, thank you for

[7:55:24] bringing this motion forward. I will say that I support

[7:55:27] it. I think this is a workable motion. It shows.

[7:55:31] The need to emphasize collaboration and working together. In a

[7:55:36] solutions based approach that can come from clearly our experts,

[7:55:39] but also those that are in the community as well.

[7:55:43] And look at it as kind of modeling the way,

[7:55:45] because we don't want to ever get in this situation

[7:55:48] again. But if we do, we're creating the framework for

[7:55:51] how we move forward. And maybe other municipalities who may

[7:55:55] be in a situation similar. So with that, we've got

[7:55:59] to move her in a seconder and. I will call

[7:56:02] you on to vote and escribe.

[7:56:22] Okay, so that is Carrie. That motion passes, and. Okay,

[7:56:27] we're on to motion number three. Thank you. Thank you,

[7:56:32] madame Chair. And. I just a few moments ago forward

[7:56:39] at this staff some revised wording. And the wording is

[7:56:43] really only reflecting the timing that Misha. Provided earlier. In

[7:56:50] responding to questions and also the need to make sure

[7:56:53] that. Council. Also considers. The sharing of data with industry

[7:57:02] and other community partners. After staff have had an opportunity

[7:57:05] to report back on to us on the legal issue.

[7:57:08] So the motion now reads that region of, region of

[7:57:11] Waterloo staff make available to area municipalities no later than

[7:57:15] end of January. All raw data that informed and encompasses

[7:57:18] the agile. Water supply peer review and assessment report and

[7:57:24] also report to council by January 28 about also making

[7:57:27] that data available to industry and other community partners thereafter

[7:57:32] and further, that in sharing the data and existing information.

[7:57:36] Details also be provided of all budget approved and other

[7:57:38] planned infrastructure works along with their respective capacity gains in

[7:57:42] associated timing to be brought online for capacity purposes. Some

[7:57:47] of that. Part two, I mean, is already information that

[7:57:50] we know because it was approved in the capital budget.

[7:57:53] And so on. Some Italy is part of, actually. The

[7:57:57] answer. That pertains to. What? Councilor McCabe asked, and. It's

[7:58:05] really just providing information on budget gains and timing, where

[7:58:09] it's available and clearly, as was explained in that previous

[7:58:13] debate. This will be iterative, so it'll be shared with

[7:58:17] us based on. What councilor McKay best for, but there

[7:58:22] will be changes as staff meet with provincial counterparts and.

[7:58:26] Consider details going forward. Okay, so, Councilor Banovic, you've moved

[7:58:31] it. I have. Councilor gowing, I'll. Second it. Any questions

[7:58:35] regarding this motion? I am seeing none. Okay, we are

[7:58:39] going to pull this up on Esribe.

[7:59:00] Okay, that is carried. Moving along to the next motion.

[7:59:13] Okay, councilor salon. Do we have a seconder for your

[7:59:20] motion? Councilor Salonin. Councilor Foxton. Okay. Councilor Sullen. And do

[7:59:25] you just want to read that? Therefore, be it resolved,

[7:59:27] and then. Speak to your motion. Thank you. Not a

[7:59:30] problem. And just one update. I had asked clerks if.

[7:59:33] We could just strike out. The part a. Just because

[7:59:38] staff satisfied that answer today. So that doesn't need to

[7:59:42] be reiterated. So updated that. Would be actually have no

[7:59:47] preamble so that regional staff be directed to provide a

[7:59:51] clear written definition of what activities are currently paused or

[7:59:54] restricted, including but not limited to servicing agreements, allocations registrations,

[7:59:59] redevelopment scenarios and planning approvals no later than noon on

[8:00:02] Friday, January the 16th. 2026 to regional council area. Municipal

[8:00:07] councils and the public. And that regional staff be further

[8:00:12] directed to report back to council no later than February

[8:00:15] 10, 2026. With a decision ready information package related to

[8:00:19] the Mannheim service area water capacity constraints, including a summary

[8:00:25] of. Intern operational and or engineering measures considered to mitigate

[8:00:30] capacity constraints, including feasibility, estimated cost, regulatory requirements. And indicative

[8:00:36] timelines. An example of. Sorry. An explanation of how the

[8:00:40] region intends to address and resolve water supply capacity. Constraints

[8:00:44] while respecting the planning authority of area municipalities, including how

[8:00:48] the region, regional water and wastewater infrastructure planning, investment and

[8:00:52] operational decisions will support area municipalities in carrying out their

[8:00:56] legislated land use planning. Responsibilities, how growth related servicing decisions

[8:01:01] will be aligned with approved area municipal official plans and

[8:01:05] provincial planning policy rather than used as a mechanism to

[8:01:08] direct or prioritize growth outcomes and what actions the region

[8:01:13] will take within its jurisdiction to restore system capacity and

[8:01:16] reliability so that the area municip. Municipalities are able to

[8:01:19] proceed with planning and development in accordance with provincial legislation.

[8:01:24] A detailed work plan, identifying specific dates and milestones rather

[8:01:26] than quarter based timelines for further analysis, decision recommendations requiring

[8:01:32] council considerations. One little caveat on that. I'm open. Now

[8:01:37] that we've had other motions. That are essentially asking for

[8:01:40] that work. That part can also be struck because councilor

[8:01:43] McCabe's yes. Section D. Councillor McCabe's motion covered that clear

[8:01:48] identification of matters requiring council direction versus those with administrative

[8:01:53] authority, and further, that. Regional staff be directed to bring

[8:01:56] forward a communications plan that includes public messaging, stakeholder outreach

[8:02:00] plans or external communications related to the Manheim service area

[8:02:04] water capacity constraint for council to review and approve in

[8:02:08] advance of release or implementation, recognizing that this matter has

[8:02:12] significant policy, economic growth. And intermissible implications. Such communications reflect

[8:02:18] council direction and council accountability, and these issue extend beyond

[8:02:22] regular routine administrative communications, so I would be looking for

[8:02:26] council support. Okay, so before we get to the speaker

[8:02:30] list, Matu, can you just speak to this motion? Capacity.

[8:02:35] It just provides some context from an administration side. Through

[8:02:39] you. Chair. I'll try my best. I don't know if

[8:02:43] it's because we're. Past five. And it's getting a little

[8:02:48] bit harder. I'm not sure what the scope of the

[8:02:52] ask might be. For me, it feels like bring back

[8:02:55] a report on February 10 that says how we're going

[8:02:58] to solve the problem. Sorry. That's not exactly the intent.

[8:03:08] It's provide what you can given the information that you

[8:03:10] have at this time. I appreciate we're not solving the

[8:03:13] problem today or on February the 10th. But this information

[8:03:18] is the end goal of what I would like to

[8:03:21] see, but essentially bring back what you can at this

[8:03:23] time so that council better understands what decisions are coming

[8:03:27] forward or before. Them. And again, I appreciate the caveats

[8:03:30] that we've already established under the other motions. Questioning. Okay.

[8:03:36] Councilor Hunich, Councilor Solomon, like you, I want to expedite

[8:03:41] timelines. But did I hear you correctly that you want

[8:03:44] one of the reports by January 16, which would be

[8:03:47] this Friday. If I may answer that. It's not a

[8:03:53] report. That is literally just a memo. From, it would

[8:04:00] be commissioner Regira's department. Just saying what exactly they are.

[8:04:05] Not allowing to happen right now on planning, it seems

[8:04:07] like based off of the commissioner's comments today. They already

[8:04:10] know what that is, but there seems to be confusion

[8:04:12] amongst area municipalities in the community at large as to

[8:04:16] what that is. So that should not be labor intensive.

[8:04:19] And if his staff are currently not commenting on planning

[8:04:23] projects. I would imagine that they would. Be able to

[8:04:26] summarize what they are or are not commenting on. It's

[8:04:29] not a formal report. To be reviewed, though. It's FYI,

[8:04:33] this is a clear definition of what we are not

[8:04:36] doing. Thank you. Chair. James, could I ask a question

[8:04:39] of commissioner gear? Yeah, go ahead, commissioner. Commissioner Rigiri,

[8:04:49] is there a reason that. You haven't opted to provide

[8:04:54] this information to council so soon. And what would this

[8:04:58] mean? For you in the next. 72 200 hours. Through

[8:05:05] you chair James. Yes. The information that we would provide

[8:05:14] in response to this question would be. To outline the

[8:05:21] advisory comments that we are providing to our air municipal

[8:05:24] colleagues. In response to development applications. And the information that

[8:05:30] we presented today. In this session. Perhaps we could add

[8:05:37] a little bit of additional detail with regard to. Our

[8:05:43] statements. On the various stages of development applications. But it

[8:05:50] wouldn't be much more than what we have today. Provided

[8:05:54] to the committee. Okay, and so. I guess my final

[8:06:01] comment then is that I'm for the spirit of this

[8:06:04] motion, but. I wonder if the timeline is too tight.

[8:06:07] I'm open to what other colleagues will say. Thank you,

[8:06:12] Councilor Hunich. Amy, did you want to weigh in it?

[8:06:15] Thank you. Through. The chair. I was just before you

[8:06:17] vote. I'm still looking for some clarification. With respect to

[8:06:22] specifically what you're asking for, because there's some pieces in

[8:06:24] here. About regulatory requirements, and I know we haven't met

[8:06:28] with the ministry yet. There's also pieces around estimated cost,

[8:06:31] which I think we've clarified we won't have in this

[8:06:34] time frame. Also, a lot of the report that we've

[8:06:39] put forward has kind of outlined. Where we are to

[8:06:43] date. I think today we've talked about the technical working

[8:06:45] groups and the planning focused working groups that will be

[8:06:48] proceeding, as well as the meeting with the ministry and

[8:06:51] getting this list, so. I'm just struggling a bit to

[8:06:55] understand specifically what more than that. Would be required. Thank

[8:07:00] you, Councilor Slon. And you want to respond? Yes. So,

[8:07:04] yes. I mean, it's evolved slightly from the conversations of

[8:07:07] the other motions as well. As this was written prior

[8:07:09] to the responses to committee today as well. But really

[8:07:13] looking for all of that information to be aggregated into

[8:07:17] one location and really help council and the community to

[8:07:21] understand. What still needs to be done, who's under what

[8:07:24] authority, in terms of what will be. Council decisions and

[8:07:27] what just remains decisions of staff proceeding. So. It would

[8:07:33] be the best that you can. And as there is

[8:07:35] updated information for February 10 and in some cases, it

[8:07:39] would be summarizing what was verbally said here today. If

[8:07:43] that makes sense, but again, still fully appreciate the context

[8:07:46] of you will not have this fully hashed out or

[8:07:48] the problem fully resolve a bowl. But again, kind of

[8:07:53] what was being discussed. In the other motion conversations of

[8:07:56] give us timelines, we understand caveats, and things are going

[8:07:59] to change. So through the chair. Could I ask them

[8:08:03] that it be modified because when I see. Sure. And.

[8:08:05] Maybe d. I think maybe we did say D was

[8:08:07] removed. Okay, so it's just anytime. It says detailed or

[8:08:12] specific? Again. It won't be. I'm fine with that language

[8:08:17] being changed. To. Where it exists to saying the most

[8:08:25] up to date. Detail. Available. Okay. Can clerk

[8:08:34] staff make necessary changes. So anywhere there is, like detail

[8:08:37] there specific, we want that removed. Either. The language can

[8:08:44] be a general understanding as it is right now. That

[8:08:50] staff are going to produce the best of what they

[8:08:52] can to accommodate this. It's just to reflect essentially what

[8:08:56] Amy has asked. Okay. I don't know the most effective

[8:09:00] way. As emotion is on the floor. Okay. I'm going

[8:09:06] to take a five minute break. I want to make

[8:09:08] sure this motion is exactly the way it is supposed

[8:09:10] to be. Clear. And come back.

[8:14:44] Okay. So we have an updated motion. Steph, I want

[8:14:50] to thank you for the time taken to do this.

[8:14:54] And given the time constraints and the busyness that you

[8:14:58] all are under. So with that, we do have a

[8:15:01] motion. I've got councilor wolf. You are up next in

[8:15:07] the queue. We're speaking to the main motion now. Sir.

[8:15:11] You, madam chair. I'm speaking against the motion, I think.

[8:15:19] We are overworking, overstressing staff. We do not have a

[8:15:23] director, we do not have a commissioner. We asking them

[8:15:27] to run. The whole water system. We're asking them to

[8:15:33] solve this problem. We're asking them to create a task.

[8:15:37] Force for asking us to meet with the province. We're

[8:15:40] asking them to do so many. Things. The first two

[8:15:42] motions that we've passed, all are asking them for reports.

[8:15:47] And time. And time. Everything. Is they want as counselor.

[8:15:53] Ronavick said, we want things yesterday, but we're giving them,

[8:15:58] I think, way too. Much pressure. Most of this information

[8:16:02] can be found in various reports. It might be nice

[8:16:06] to have it all in one space, but at this

[8:16:08] point, I think. We should let staff do their jobs.

[8:16:13] Let them breathe. And then when they have the information,

[8:16:17] they'll bring it to us. When they're ready, when it's

[8:16:21] done properly, when there's not the risks. And things that

[8:16:25] they're not comfortable putting out. And I do think that.

[8:16:31] We're responsible for the wellness of our staff and. I

[8:16:36] don't think. This. Is a good way of handling the

[8:16:42] business right now. So I'll be voting against this motion.

[8:16:47] Thank you. Chair Redmond. Thank you. Chair, James. This is

[8:16:56] a huge issue, and I understand that everybody wants to

[8:16:59] be part of the solution. But I have to tell

[8:17:02] you, and we just have received this motion, and it's

[8:17:05] a lot. And the point was already made earlier in

[8:17:08] today's meeting that there's a difference between a direction to

[8:17:11] staff and emotion, and I find this motion very prescriptive,

[8:17:14] so. I'm sure it was well intended. And I do

[8:17:17] appreciate the councilor salon and is willing to sort of

[8:17:20] amend. It in real time, but I won't be supporting

[8:17:24] it either, because I think a lot. Of this information

[8:17:26] is already available. And as things unfold and we get

[8:17:30] a more focused view on the path forward. There may

[8:17:34] be a point in time when. This kind of accounting

[8:17:39] about the processes is appropriate, but I don't feel that

[8:17:42] we're at that juncture at this point in time. Okay.

[8:17:46] Councilor. Councilor Hunick is not here. Okay. All right. We

[8:17:55] have quorum, so I'm going to call the vote with

[8:17:58] this. You'll be prompted in Escrib.

[8:18:18] Not in escrow, but I'm in favor.

[8:18:38] Okay. That motion was defeated. We are moving on to

[8:18:41] the next motion. Councilor Selena, okay?

[8:18:52] We have a seconder for Councilor Salanand, Councilor Bennevic, and.

[8:18:55] Okay. Councilor salon, you can speak to your motion. Thank

[8:18:59] you. And this one I would just change. The timeline

[8:19:02] again. This was written prior to committee day today. I

[8:19:06] think it can be end of. Q two. Instead of

[8:19:10] the February 10 date, but this one. Is asking about.

[8:19:16] Ontario permits to take water. Just wanting to. Get context

[8:19:21] for what is currently taken out of our watershed. And

[8:19:26] what are those parameters? Just thinking again, bigger picture as

[8:19:29] we're changing our methodology. That I'd like to understand this

[8:19:34] and then perhaps advocate to the province for potential changes.

[8:19:37] On these, but again, would need to know and understand

[8:19:40] who's even currently taking water out. Of our area, but

[8:19:45] I think that it all kind of links together as

[8:19:47] it is all part of one watershed. So this is

[8:19:50] just information. Exploratory and I think is a part of

[8:19:54] the much bigger picture of having a sustainable water system,

[8:19:57] including. Our own water needs being taken care of before

[8:20:01] the province. Continues to grant permits on others drawing. Amy,

[8:20:07] do you want to just speak to this? So through

[8:20:10] the chair? I did just want to. Point out that

[8:20:12] the region does not have a role with respect to

[8:20:15] permit to take water other than when they request their

[8:20:18] own. So the ministry, the Environment, conservation and parks is

[8:20:22] the government agency. Responsible for the review and the issuance

[8:20:26] of all permit to take waters. They also are responsible

[8:20:29] for ensuring that. The permit holders are complying with the

[8:20:33] permit conditions, including how much water is being taken that

[8:20:38] information is available on the province's website. So you can

[8:20:42] just click on the map and I actually have the

[8:20:44] link that I can share. I just wanted to point

[8:20:47] out that staff currently do not have a role in

[8:20:50] the tracking or the enforcement of any permit to take

[8:20:53] water or what conditions go into them. You want to

[8:20:58] respond to councilor salon? Yes, and that I totally understand.

[8:21:06] And that was kind of where the next steps was,

[8:21:08] is that if this council then decides that we want

[8:21:11] to do advocacy work to the province. Again, this is

[8:21:14] recognizing that we're switching to methodology. From how we look

[8:21:19] at our own water systems. So if we're switching, maybe

[8:21:22] there is. Warrant for the province to be switching or

[8:21:24] considering their methodology differently in water taking permits. So just

[8:21:29] wanting to have this information aggregated for all of council

[8:21:32] to see to then be. Able to consider if we

[8:21:34] want to do advocacy work. But I completely appreciate and

[8:21:37] already understand that we do not have. Any actual jurisdiction

[8:21:42] over Ontario water taking permits. Just to clarify, through the

[8:21:47] chair. Because we have a small hydrogeological. Geology group who

[8:21:54] would probably be the ones having to do this. They're

[8:21:58] very focused on. The solution problem again. So I might

[8:22:02] have to suggest again that we may have to hire

[8:22:05] a consultant to do this. Work, depending on the amount

[8:22:08] of work this entails, because I can imagine. There's probably

[8:22:12] tens of thousands of permits to take waters that have

[8:22:14] been issued in the region of Waterloo, and so it

[8:22:17] would depend on the type of information you're looking for.

[8:22:21] How that would be aggregated. I mean, I'm just saying,

[8:22:23] I don't think. That. That's a priority for the staff

[8:22:27] in the moment, but I appreciate that it's an ask

[8:22:29] that you're interested in. Matt. Okay, so I'll move through

[8:22:34] the speakers queue. Councilor Foxton. Yeah. We should be able

[8:22:38] to get the list from the ministry for the amount

[8:22:42] that is taken. And I believe I'm meeting ministry. I

[8:22:47] think on Monday. So you got a meeting with the

[8:22:50] Natasha. Okay, but we can even maybe pull them aside

[8:22:56] at room and talk to them and see if we

[8:22:59] can get the list and then advocate on that behalf,

[8:23:01] because I also want to advocate on not going below

[8:23:04] the water table for aggregate. Especially at this time. So

[8:23:11] maybe we'll hit them up for both of those. Okay,

[8:23:15] chair Redmond. Just further to Amy's comments. I guess sort

[8:23:21] of the flag went up for me. It's not our

[8:23:24] jurisdiction, and I understand that. How would we assess the

[8:23:27] impact? Because that's where I went with this motion and

[8:23:30] just wondered who would do that and how would we

[8:23:33] do that? So every time a permit to take water

[8:23:36] goes in, it's their technical staff that are doing the

[8:23:40] evaluation. Of. The risks and they categorize them. As category

[8:23:48] one, two or three based on risk. So they are

[8:23:50] the ones developing the conditions based on the risk. But

[8:23:53] again, they're not looking at the system as a whole

[8:23:56] when they get a permit to take water application. They

[8:23:58] look at each individual application versus the overall impact. Of

[8:24:04] as many. Permanent take water disease as they're approving. And

[8:24:09] I guess maybe it's to councilor salon. And then is

[8:24:12] that the kind of. Impact that you were looking at?

[8:24:14] Are you looking at sort of a system impact? So

[8:24:18] really I'm preempting. I think we should be advocating to

[8:24:22] the province. For them to consider take water permits differently

[8:24:27] in the region. Considering that we've just updated our methodology.

[8:24:30] They should also be updating theirs. But I didn't want

[8:24:33] to preempt. It without having. Information to then, actually. Properly

[8:24:38] speak to the province about. So I'm really looking for

[8:24:42] high level data. And then staff suggestions because, again, it

[8:24:46] impacts the water system that they are serving. People drawing

[8:24:50] and not putting back in. Like, for example, I know

[8:24:53] Nestle has a lot of draw permits, and this isn't.

[8:24:57] To point them out in particular. But when water is

[8:25:00] bottled and taken out of our jurisdiction, it's not going

[8:25:02] back into our watershed. So just high level, what then?

[8:25:06] We can advocate and the reason for the q two

[8:25:08] ending is so that if we so choose at AMO,

[8:25:11] we could start this advocacy work with the province on

[8:25:14] getting them to change. So I'm hearing you say the

[8:25:17] impact is on our water system that's in this motion.

[8:25:20] Thank you. Sorry. Through the chair. I have my group

[8:25:25] messaging me saying we comment on permit to take waters.

[8:25:28] Near our supply wells. Province allows us to provide input

[8:25:31] for consideration. It is provincial responsibility, though, to require proponents

[8:25:35] to complete cumulative impact assessments. Just so we're clear. Are

[8:25:40] you saying? No, it's okay. I was just wondering if

[8:25:48] Jeff wanted to provide more information on that. Jeff hasn't

[8:25:53] spoken yet today. Better late than never. Sure

[8:26:02] the chair. The region of Waterloo is given the opportunity

[8:26:06] to comment on private water takings. Proposed through Ontario Water

[8:26:10] Resource act applications through the permit to take water process.

[8:26:14] These are typically applications that are in relatively close proximity

[8:26:18] to our well fields and generally larger water takers in

[8:26:21] that category. Three type of territory. In terms of study

[8:26:25] requirements. Historically. When there's a change in land use required.

[8:26:31] There were study requirements that could be requested. And can

[8:26:35] still be requested as part of a zoning bylaw amendment

[8:26:37] or zone change application. That's for those technical studies can

[8:26:41] be provided with the local context in terms of actually

[8:26:44] providing the approvals to take water. That's still the province's

[8:26:47] jurisdiction. So any cumulative impacts related to other private water

[8:26:51] takers in the area. Municipal water takings, private supply wells

[8:26:56] for domestic residences that falls. Within the purview and the

[8:27:00] jurisdiction of the province. So in terms of that cumulative

[8:27:04] impact, assessment piece. I haven't seen very much of that

[8:27:07] in my career. Reviewing these types of applications at the

[8:27:11] region. To actually assemble all of that information and then.

[8:27:16] Try to make a detailed assessment of cumulative impacts would

[8:27:19] be quite a substantial undertaking, for sure. That I totally

[8:27:25] appreciate, and I'm not necessarily looking. Saying all of these

[8:27:33] water permits are causing x, however. Do you think? In.

[8:27:38] Would it be fair? For. Large scale, like high level

[8:27:44] assumptions to me made of these will have impacts on

[8:27:47] our water system. Again. I'm looking for information for council

[8:27:52] to understand that we could. Then should we choose. Go

[8:27:55] and advocate to the province that they undertake the actual

[8:27:58] work and change their methodology to better suit how we're

[8:28:01] updating our methodology. Yeah, through the chair. There are opportunities

[8:28:07] under the Ontario Water Resources act to define areas of

[8:28:10] high stress for water use. In areas where you have

[8:28:13] significant water takings and where you see mutual interference between

[8:28:17] pumping that's certainly an opportunity. It would require advocacy to

[8:28:21] the province for sure, to look into something like that,

[8:28:25] technical information would have to be provided. But it's an

[8:28:30] option under the Ontario Water Resources Act. In areas where

[8:28:34] we've seen mutual interference from private water users, we have

[8:28:38] been able to bring forward concerns to the province, particularly

[8:28:41] where we've seen interference with our supply wells and they

[8:28:45] do listen to those conversations, so it's not a bad

[8:28:48] idea for sure. And something that perhaps the ministry. Should

[8:28:53] potentially contemplate as they're issuing permits to take water. To.

[8:29:00] Private water takers. Okay, moving through the list, Councilor wolf.

[8:29:06] Through. Madam chair. I guess I'm just concerned about the

[8:29:12] scope of the work, and I'm not sure if we

[8:29:14] should be hiring a consultant at this point or seem

[8:29:17] to be hiring quite a few. And I guess I

[8:29:22] would question. When we with staff, if we've had a

[8:29:27] concern over. A private. Company person taking water new oh,

[8:29:34] well, how is the province reacted? Through the chair. We've

[8:29:41] typically, I'd say over the course of my career, I've

[8:29:43] only encountered one situation like this, and. For one of

[8:29:47] our well fields in the Cambridge area. And generally the

[8:29:53] problems required. Additional monitoring is completed for their investigation to

[8:29:57] be completed. I'd have to take that question back to

[8:30:01] staff. Exactly. If there was any action that was required

[8:30:04] by the ministry of the private water taker. I know

[8:30:07] up to that point where enhanced monitoring requirements were kind

[8:30:10] of required under the permit. Okay. I would hope that

[8:30:17] maybe we could talk to the. Minister. Without necessarily having.

[8:30:25] All the facts and figures. Since they have all the

[8:30:28] facts and figures. And just express our concern. Given our

[8:30:33] situation and that. Should they be looking at? The effect

[8:30:39] of these private companies. Taking water from us at this

[8:30:44] time. And do that to me, that conversation. If they

[8:30:50] want the facts and figures. You can refer them to

[8:30:52] their website. So anyway, that's my comment. Okay. Thank you,

[8:30:59] councilor gowing. Thanks, sir, you chair. I have to echo

[8:31:05] the comments. I think this is a lot of work,

[8:31:08] but if we can get staff to shrink it down

[8:31:11] and give it a high level. I'm okay, but I

[8:31:13] am a huge proponent. In support of the advocacy for

[8:31:18] this annuity article just came out today. That said, in

[8:31:22] the last five years, the provincial government has given out

[8:31:25] hundreds of permits for drawing water within our region. So

[8:31:31] I think that they need to start looking at it,

[8:31:34] and we need to advocate to. Find. Support of that

[8:31:39] portion. I just don't want to make a make work

[8:31:41] project, so if this could be. Streamlined to just the

[8:31:45] advocacy part. I would support that. So, chair, I'm happy

[8:31:51] to remove this motion today and then come back with

[8:31:55] something more. In the scope of what people are saying.

[8:32:00] I just wasn't certain I was going to get the

[8:32:01] advocacy. Go ahead. Without the numbers. So I will remove

[8:32:06] my motion. Okay, so I need unanimous consent for that.

[8:32:13] We have that. Okay. We are good. Okay, so, yes,

[8:32:15] and then something will come back, councilor. Salon around the

[8:32:17] advocacy piece. Love it. Perfect. Okay. Moving on. I think

[8:32:22] we have one more motion. Yes. Okay. And chair. Before

[8:32:29] it pulls up, could I just ask, before we pull

[8:32:30] it up, could I ask. Questions. And just give staff

[8:32:34] a minute to refine the wording. Okay. You need to

[8:32:39] change the wording in this. It's underway. I just want

[8:32:41] to give them a second to digest it. Okay, well,

[8:32:44] we'll give them 30 seconds. Yeah, okay. So chair, I

[8:32:51] think one thing that we heard today and want to

[8:32:52] thank staff for all the events work on this. I

[8:32:54] think the agile report is really great. And I think.

[8:32:59] Paints a really good picture of where we're at from

[8:33:00] an engineering perspective, but I think what we heard loud

[8:33:03] and clear today is that. We need to find some

[8:33:06] pathways and have some deeper conversations in the details about

[8:33:09] how we can. Get. And how development proceeds over the

[8:33:15] immediate and short term, recognizing that there's a lot of

[8:33:17] work that needs to happen to get. There. And so,

[8:33:22] Commissioner Regira, are you comfortable with the wording that. We

[8:33:27] just landed on. Sorry to put you on the spot.

[8:33:30] Yeah, through you chair James. Yes. I'm reasonably comfortable because

[8:33:36] I think that. A good bit of this work is

[8:33:40] work. That's contemplated already. I do have not certain of

[8:33:47] the outcome that we'll be able to get to in

[8:33:49] that time frame, but. I'm reasonably comfortable with the direction.

[8:33:57] Okay. Thank you. And so I'll just send this to

[8:34:01] swap out the second part. I'll just send it to

[8:34:03] clerks to swap at part two and we'll speak to

[8:34:06] it.

[8:34:18] Is it up? Just give me a second. Okay. Okay,

[8:34:23] great. So motion in front of us today really is.

[8:34:29] I think the first part is work. That is. Underway,

[8:34:33] but I think what I'm looking to have staff undertake

[8:34:37] here is. What have deep conversations about what types of

[8:34:40] developments might be able to be moved around in the

[8:34:43] pipeline and to help free up spaces in the interim

[8:34:47] and where we can get creative. With finding capacity in

[8:34:51] the short term, and again, there'd be a lot of

[8:34:52] work there. So there's no timeline associated to that. But

[8:34:55] I think those conversations are really important. Both. With development

[8:34:59] partners. And staff at the area municipalities and then. The

[8:35:08] second. Part really just relates to having some more clarity

[8:35:11] at our February committee meeting about which types of developments

[8:35:14] and applications are subject to regional advisory comments. I think

[8:35:18] today I had asked a question about different types of

[8:35:20] development. I think if it's just really clear for the

[8:35:22] community, we understand. That certain things actually can go ahead,

[8:35:25] certain types of applications, certain types of developments that the.

[8:35:29] Region has no say on can actually happen and. Nothing's

[8:35:32] happening at all, ever. So I think it's just putting

[8:35:36] information about how we go forward. And clarity for the

[8:35:40] community. Thanks, chair. Okay, so it is moved. I need.

[8:35:46] A second or. Absolutely. Okay, so the motion is that

[8:35:50] regional staff engage with development partners and area municipal staff

[8:35:54] to validate development pipeline and timeline assumptions to identify where

[8:35:59] additional capacity can be found to support immediate development opportunities,

[8:36:04] including the reallocation of currently. Unused capacity. And two that

[8:36:10] regional staff report to the sustainability, infrastructure and development committee.

[8:36:16] In February 2026 on the types of developments and applications

[8:36:19] subject to regional advisory comments. Okay, so, Councilor Hunich, you'll

[8:36:25] second that? Okay. Staff. I think. Acting CEO gets key.

[8:36:35] And amy. And commissioner Regir, if there are comments that

[8:36:38] you want to make in terms of the feasibility with

[8:36:41] this and support. Three chair James. Yes. We've put in

[8:36:50] requests for. Our continuous conversation with Arie municipalities about the

[8:36:56] status of various development applications. Across all segments. And so

[8:37:04] I think if I understand the first. Motion correctly. This

[8:37:09] is to make sure that we have a good understanding

[8:37:12] of where there may be opportunities to refine our forecast

[8:37:16] for future water demand. And that will allow us to

[8:37:20] be much more detailed in the way that we respond.

[8:37:24] In terms of managing risk. In the approvals process. Through

[8:37:30] the chair. That's correct, yeah. So I'm reasonably comfortable with

[8:37:36] that. And I've lost the thread on the second. One.

[8:37:40] Just with respect to applications that are. Developments that are

[8:37:44] subject to. And we've already committed. To bring additional detail

[8:37:48] forward on projects that will be, or the various types

[8:37:52] of applications and how we'll be responding to them, okay?

[8:37:57] Just. A little setting expectations on the first part about

[8:38:02] identifying more additional capacity can be found. Today we're in

[8:38:06] a capacity deficit, so I want to make sure that.

[8:38:09] I think we ought to be very careful about saying

[8:38:12] additional capacity can be found, because at this time. We

[8:38:14] have a deficit and we're trying to catch up on

[8:38:16] the deficit. Understood. Thank you. Okay. Councilor Shunich, I have

[8:38:24] you next in the queue. Thank you, Councilor James. I

[8:38:28] was just so that I could have it read so

[8:38:30] that I. Knew what I was doing. We're good. Thanks.

[8:38:33] Okay. Councilor McKay, thank you. And thanks, Councilor Rodriguez, for

[8:38:39] putting this forward. I actually have some concerns about this,

[8:38:43] just in terms of your references to the water allocation

[8:38:46] piece. Because. Water is water. We all know we need

[8:38:50] it for our various developments in our various communities, but

[8:38:54] I'm very curious and I guess concerned about what kind

[8:38:58] of criteria you'd put. In place where you could say,

[8:39:00] well, This project can go forward, but that one can't.

[8:39:07] Because I feel like we're going to set ourselves up

[8:39:09] as area municipalities for a bit. Of a dog fight,

[8:39:12] right? Like, how are you going to decide what Waterloo

[8:39:15] gets versus what Woolich? Gets versus what kitchener gets. And

[8:39:19] so I just worry that this is going to lead

[8:39:21] us down that path. In the middle of us trying

[8:39:26] to work collaboratively to figure out this issue. So I

[8:39:31] have some real concerns about that. And then in addition

[8:39:34] to. As CEO, Getzky said, we're actually trying to work

[8:39:39] ourselves out of a deficit. So I don't know how

[8:39:43] we would square that circle. And without really understanding that,

[8:39:47] I don't think I can support this. Okay, councilor. Actually,

[8:39:55] this isn't specifically related to this motion, so it's a

[8:39:59] question I have. At the end, maybe. Okay. Seeing. No

[8:40:05] further questions. Oh, Councilor Verbanovic. Sorry, I was having problems

[8:40:09] getting it to. Click in. Maybe. I'll just ask. Councilor

[8:40:16] Rodriguez for some clarification, because. I think what you're meaning

[8:40:22] by. Your motion. Is not to pit municipality against municipality,

[8:40:29] but more you're looking at. There may be a project

[8:40:33] that's approved that's out there. That the developer has no

[8:40:38] plans to build for another five, seven, eight years. But

[8:40:42] it's taking up space right now when we might need

[8:40:45] that space in order to move something forward, perhaps? In

[8:40:50] water lure. Cambridge or one of the townships? Is that

[8:40:52] what you're getting at? Because that's my read of it.

[8:40:56] Through the chair. I think that's the intention of it,

[8:40:59] that it would stay within a community. I don't want

[8:41:02] a situation where we're pitting communities against each other, but.

[8:41:04] If there's a subdivision. Or approval. That's not happening for

[8:41:08] five more years. How can we have a conversation and

[8:41:11] engage with development partners. To reassess where that timing is

[8:41:16] so that when we're in a position in six months

[8:41:18] to start bringing development online. We can do so. Yeah,

[8:41:22] I guess. On that note. I will support your motion

[8:41:26] because I think it's trying to look, it's part of

[8:41:29] this discussion around looking. For helpful solutions. Recognizing that we're

[8:41:34] going to need to do some infrastructure improvement that's going

[8:41:37] to have some capacity implications which may limit what we

[8:41:40] can do. But we also are hearing that we can't

[8:41:43] shut down the industry and people's livelihoods. And so if

[8:41:47] we can achieve some of these goals by actually. Recognizing

[8:41:51] that some people aren't moving forward. Then why wouldn't we

[8:41:56] consider that as part of the mix of solutions? So

[8:42:00] at this point, I see this as information gathering, quite

[8:42:03] frankly, through the chair, there's no timeline associated with the

[8:42:07] first part as well. Just really to start those conversations.

[8:42:10] Yeah, I will. Support it based on those understandings. Chair

[8:42:14] Redmond. Just really quickly. I don't want to pit developer

[8:42:19] against developer either, and that kind of worries me, so.

[8:42:22] I'm not going to be supporting this. And again, I

[8:42:24] think it's very well. Intentioned and we may get there.

[8:42:28] But I think there's been so much goodwill from the

[8:42:30] development community, and we heard people coming forward delegation after

[8:42:34] delegation this morning, talking about they want to be part

[8:42:37] of the solution. And this may or may not sort

[8:42:40] of put the cat amongst the pigeons, so I'm. Not

[8:42:42] going to support it, even though. I think triaging is

[8:42:46] where we're going to have to go. I think this

[8:42:48] is where we need to be. But I would rather.

[8:42:52] See people come forward and volunteer to be part of

[8:42:55] this bigger solution. Okay, Councilor Foxton. Thank you, chair. Yeah,

[8:43:04] I sort of was thinking along the same lines as

[8:43:06] you initially, and then. Listening to councilor McCabe and then

[8:43:10] chair Redmond. And listening mostly to acting CEO Mattu. When

[8:43:18] I asked the question about. That graft. And I said,

[8:43:22] well, it looks like the 2024 applications can go ahead.

[8:43:25] And they said, no. That's not true. We're in a

[8:43:27] deficit. I don't think maybe this is the right way

[8:43:32] to go at this time. I think. At some point.

[8:43:35] We may be able to say to certain ones, come

[8:43:36] forward. And others maybe take it back. But, yeah. I'm

[8:43:41] sorry. And I don't know if I can support this.

[8:43:45] Okay, Councilor Wolf. And then we're going to. Okay, call

[8:43:50] the question. Three, madam. Speak. Chair. I'm losing it. Could

[8:43:58] we take this motion in two pieces? Yes, we can.

[8:44:03] Thank you. Okay. All right. Since. That. Yeah, well, clerks

[8:44:12] will need. Sometimes Julie will separate. The two will vote

[8:44:15] on each piece separately. Thank you. So the first part

[8:44:20] that regional staff engage with development partners in area municipal

[8:44:23] staff to validate development pipeline. And timeline assumptions to identify

[8:44:30] where additional capacity can be found to support immediate development

[8:44:34] opportunities, including the reallocation of currently unused capacity. I'm thinking

[8:44:39] of something commissioner or acting CEO Getsky said. And that

[8:44:45] is the assumptions to identify where additional capacity can be

[8:44:48] found. I think we are operating in a deficit. To

[8:44:55] get rid of it. Yeah. I don't know. Just better

[8:45:01] worded. There's lack of assumption that we're. Trying to find

[8:45:04] more when we're just trying to meet the capacity. To

[8:45:09] counselor Rodriguez. I would ask that. Where it says additional

[8:45:16] capacity to remove that and just say where capacity can

[8:45:20] be found. Judge. That's fine. Okay. Everyone is out. Unanimous.

[8:45:26] Is that okay? So it's just capacity. It's just capacity.

[8:45:30] Okay. All right. Clerks, if you could please update. That.

[8:45:43] Okay, so you'll be prompted in escribe.

[8:45:56] My thing is not working. Okay, see this?

[8:46:15] Councilor gowing, I'm in favor. Okay, so that was defeated.

[8:46:25] The part one. Okay, so next we'll vote on part

[8:46:30] two. I'll read that out so, everyone. Is aware. That

[8:46:34] regional staff report to the sustainability, Infrastructure and Development committee

[8:46:38] in February 2026 on the types of developments and applications

[8:46:42] subject to regional advisory comments. That was kind of

[8:46:52] motherhood.

[8:47:04] Councilor Gawie, I'm in favor. Okay, so that carries.

[8:47:17] Okay. We're cutting to that. There are no more. Okay,

[8:47:27] so we are done with the motions. Councilor Herb, do

[8:47:30] you have a question related to. The water. We've been

[8:47:33] talking a lot today about outside consultants. This issue wasn't

[8:47:38] around when we did our budget. So is this money

[8:47:42] that we use for consultants, is that being charged to

[8:47:45] the water reserve fund? Or where's the money coming from?

[8:47:49] Through the chair. So part of what the report. Discussed

[8:47:54] today was we have estimated about $1.3 million in additional

[8:47:59] costs. So part of how we handle that is through

[8:48:04] our Q one reporting process. So. This would be incurred,

[8:48:08] it would be a variance we'd look at ways to

[8:48:11] mitigate. It. And then we have the water stabilization reserve

[8:48:15] that would fund it. So that would fall under that

[8:48:18] same procedure and report back through our quarterly. Financial reports.

[8:48:24] Thank you. Just a reminder to my colleagues that while

[8:48:27] we outsource things to consultants, Staff need to supervise it,

[8:48:32] set the guidelines. And so the consultants can do some

[8:48:35] of their work. But staff also have to be involved

[8:48:37] in it and considerable amount of time of supervision for

[8:48:41] them as well. Okay. Councilor McKay, do you have a

[8:48:48] question? I do. And thank you. I just was cognizant

[8:48:52] of the fact that a number of the delegates today.

[8:48:57] Asked. There was a specific request from them. About their

[8:49:00] participation in an industry task force. So I just wondered

[8:49:03] if staff maybe. I don't. Know. If. That's Matu or

[8:49:08] Amy or someone wanted to comment on that. I just

[8:49:11] doesn't. Feel right to leave today. Not that we're done.

[8:49:15] But without having specifically addressed that question from them. So

[8:49:18] I was just wondering if someone could respond. To that.

[8:49:23] Thank you. Through the chair. I think Amy responded to

[8:49:27] that earlier, saying that we would extend that technical work.

[8:49:32] Group. Today we have some industry partners that we're mobilizing,

[8:49:37] but that we'd extend it further to representatives of the

[8:49:40] development community. Okay. Apologies. I must miss that. Thank you.

[8:49:43] Thanks. Very much. Okay. Thank you. So I'm just going

[8:49:46] to get to other business. I know. There's another question,

[8:49:49] but just some of the formalities here. So for information

[8:49:52] and correspondence, The council committee tracking list. Is there and

[8:49:58] has been received. You've also received information. From Pauline Miller,

[8:50:04] citizens for safe groundwater, John Perks and Loughler. Kristen baristale

[8:50:12] and ian mcclain. And we're going to go to other

[8:50:16] business. However, councilor Rodriguez, we're going to move your motion

[8:50:19] to council. Deferred to council. And. Okay, Councilor Verbanovic. Thank

[8:50:28] you. I'm sorry. For some reason, I'm. Not getting able

[8:50:31] to queue in. I'm guessing this is a non issue,

[8:50:35] but I think it's probably best to just raise it

[8:50:37] like normally, because we're in committee right now. All the

[8:50:39] motions we just. Passed technically wouldn't take effect until after

[8:50:43] the ratified it council, but a number of the dates

[8:50:45] that we're talking about. Of work being completed will actually

[8:50:51] happen sooner than that. So I'm wondering if we can.

[8:50:53] Just get confirmation from Mr. Getsky. That the directions that

[8:50:57] we've passed today will, in fact, proceed. I'm assuming that's

[8:51:01] the case, but just want to make sure that. We're

[8:51:06] not. Mr. Gibson. I'm flexible. I mean, if the clerk

[8:51:10] told me we're good, we're. Good to go. So through

[8:51:15] the chair, all of these motions will be listed. In

[8:51:21] the Sid summary on council. I would assume that staff.

[8:51:26] Would be acting on it. On the ones that are

[8:51:29] appropriate, but they will be there for council. Ratification. No.

[8:51:34] I understand that, but I just want to make sure

[8:51:35] the work is proceeding. If that's not the case, then

[8:51:39] maybe we need to have a special counsel meeting in.

[8:51:41] 24 hours. So I'm hoping that the response is that

[8:51:46] staff can proceed. With it. Lots of authority that the

[8:51:53] acting CaO has. I'm sure this probably fits in with

[8:51:56] it. Thank you, Councilor Verbanovic. No, we will not wait

[8:52:01] for counsel on the 27th to start working on material

[8:52:07] that's due for the end of January. Thank you very

[8:52:09] much. Thank you, Councilor Selenan. Yes. This is where I

[8:52:16] was heading next, okay? Well. The next meeting is February

[8:52:22] 10, 2026. I'm now going to ask for a mover

[8:52:27] and a second or two adjourn. Councilor Salonin, councilor Foxton,

[8:52:31] do I have unanimous consent that we can adjourn. Yes.

[8:52:37] We have an update to our schedule. We are going

[8:52:40] to be moving our administration and finance. To 04:00. On

[8:52:47] January. What's the date? January 28. So ANF will be

[8:52:51] moved to 04:00 p.m. january 28. So that is the

[8:52:56] same night as council, but. We will start earlier. Yes,

[8:53:03] the ANF agenda is fairly light, so. It should. Knock

[8:53:10] on some woody. Okay, so with that, I think we

[8:53:12] have the mover in the second, or it was unanimous.

[8:53:14] We are adjourned for today. Thank you very much, everyone,

[8:53:17] for being here.

Untitled meeting

Transcript