[0:09] Good evening everyone. We'll call this meeting to order at 4 p.m.

[0:17] Adoption of the agenda. >> That West Elgen, Committee of the Hall,

[0:22] hereby adopts the agenda for January 8th, 2026 as presented.

[0:27] » Move, please. Councelor Denning seconded councelor Susa

[0:34] all in favor that's carried disclosure of any pecunary interest and

[0:40] general nature thereof.

[0:44] Seeing none, we move straight on to 4.1 infrastructure and development sidewalk

[0:52] and crossworks uh study.

[0:59] » Good afternoon. Um I I brought the this uh report to the committee pole to

[1:05] discuss the the need for a crosswalk study throughout the municipality of

[1:10] West Elgen. Um it was brought to our attention that we uh have some safety

[1:14] issues and to address these safety issues um we would need to bring in a

[1:19] consultant to look at at all the the two m the two towns and municipality of

[1:25] Rodney and West Lauren to see what needs we have within the community. Um the two

[1:32] areas that we look to get done in the the municipality is down Graham Street

[1:38] and down M down Main Street in West Lauren and down Fernal Road in Rodney.

[1:45] um in speaking with the consultants and reviewing the um their report that

[1:51] they've put together for me. Um we would be doing traffic counts throughout the

[1:56] two corridors to or traffic and pedestrian counts throughout the two

[2:00] corridors to determine how many um people we have crossing the street and

[2:04] to see what kind of needs that are going to be driven out of this. Um this is to

[2:10] uh enhance pedestrian safety and determine how traffic operations will be

[2:15] affected throughout these uh these areas. um to to do these studies, we

[2:22] would be um looking at the infrastructure that um would be needed

[2:27] to be put in with through PR uh provincial standards and the Ontario

[2:33] guidelines um warrantedness the that we will have to be able to follow when we

[2:39] get the counts in. Um we are going to be and the

[2:45] consultants would be reviewing the existing roadway conditions and posted

[2:48] speeds, collecting vehicle and data uh traffic counts and confirming pedestrian

[2:53] desire lines. Um so the desire lines are where people actually walk at and

[3:00] compared to where we would be directing them to walk at. um these desire lines

[3:05] sometimes where kids naturally walk when they cross the street or where people

[3:10] would cross the street um throughout our community and we can identify them

[3:15] through uh uh cameras that we put up and do the counts through that way. So um

[3:20] the outcome of the study would determine if we need any uh pedestrian crosswalks,

[3:26] any marked crosswalks or if anything's warranted at all at that at these

[3:30] intersections. Um we're looking for clear recommendations

[3:35] um in this uh from the our consultants and to identify suitable cross types um

[3:41] and we'll get uh concept level design ideas from the consultant as well in

[3:45] this study. So if anybody has any questions

[3:49] » yeah questions from council please stith.

[3:55] » Thank you very much Mr. Mayor and through you. Um thank you Dave for

[3:58] putting this together. Appreciate it a lot. I think $17,000 is a ridiculous

[4:02] amount of money to spend on um a study for crosswalks. That's well above what I

[4:09] would be comfortable uh looking at. My question is this. So, we're looking at

[4:13] revitalizing the West Lauren uh sort of downtown as a result of the county um

[4:19] replacing portions of Graham Graham Road and and

[4:23] Main Street. And that's coming up in the short term, I believe, in the 1 to

[4:27] twoyear cycle. Well, I I wonder what um how many of these studies would be

[4:34] concurrent with the studies that they're going to be doing uh when they replace

[4:39] those roadways. I [snorts] guess what I'm getting at is the pedestrian uh

[4:44] studies, the traffic studies. I'm assuming that if we're if we're redoing

[4:48] the downtown based on, you know, what the county is

[4:52] doing for the roadways, would that not be included in their studies as well?

[4:56] and and secondly, would we be able to sort of dovetail this into the work that

[5:01] is forthcoming in the next year or two uh on behalf of the county? And could we

[5:06] maybe look at doing I I think the crosswalks are important. I think it's a

[5:10] good thing. Um but 17,000 bucks is just it's astronomical and I that's just for

[5:15] the study. So if it's something that we can dovetail into existing works that

[5:19] are forthcoming, is that is that something [clears throat] that's uh that

[5:22] we can consider or or how would that fit in? Thank you.

[5:26] » Well, I think when the county does do the

[5:30] roads, when they're renewing all the services, sewages, and everything that's

[5:34] underneath that road and refurbishing, taking all the curbs out and putting new

[5:39] curbs and drop curbs wherever they need to be, I I'm sure if any crosswalk goes

[5:44] in, it's going to be a lot cheaper. >> Common sense.

[5:48] » That's my point, Mr. Mayor. I I agree with you 100%. And I mean, if we're

[5:51] already redoing the entire road, um, you know, Graham and sorry, Graham and

[5:56] Maine, um, that would be the time that I would think would be most appropriate.

[6:02] And also these studies that we're talking about with respect to pedestrian

[6:06] traffic and and vehicular traffic, if if they're redoing the roadways, I would

[6:11] suspect that they're already doing those studies. And it's something that we can,

[6:16] like I said, dovetail into that. And I'm I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I think

[6:20] it's a great idea. I' I'd like to see this happen, but you know, for an

[6:25] engineering firm to come in and do all of this work, and if we ask them to do a

[6:30] little bit of additional work to put in crosswalks, maybe the cost is going to

[6:33] be 2,000 bucks or $3,000 instead of $17,000 to do it separately right before

[6:40] we do a large uh you know, sort of revitalization of the downtown streets.

[6:45] So, that that's my question to you, Dave. Uh if you could comment on that,

[6:50] I' I'd appreciate it. Thank you. >> I I suggest that we go back to the

[6:53] county and ask and see if we can get some sort of timeline and so we so then

[6:59] we know what we're talking about. >> Yeah. Um in speaking with the county, um

[7:02] we have our um project that we're doing with the uh our grant where we're

[7:07] replacing the storm sewers from um in front of the this building here all the

[7:12] uh down to the east. And that's that's part of the the rebuttalization. So in

[7:18] our our work with the in my discussion with the county, they're only doing Main

[7:21] Street, not Gramp Street. So it'll just be Main Street and West Lauren. So it's

[7:25] really not included in that in that um development. So and when we do do Main

[7:31] Street though, it'll be looked at um what's what the needs are. But this

[7:36] study, what we're putting together here is more of a a community holistic

[7:42] approach. So when we do the holistic approach of the sidewalk study that

[7:46] would be required, it kind of outlays the sidewalks that um or the c

[7:51] sidewalks/carwalks that we have throughout the whole community and

[7:55] determines the needs for that. Um whether we do the crosswalks that are

[8:01] happening with the construction work that'll be just the crosswalks that'll

[8:05] get installed and but not the counts that really reflect that in that one

[8:10] area. we could suggest that those counts get done before um the commit the

[8:16] commitments of the work at the intersection get done. Um we can

[8:20] definitely move forward with that. That'll be a uh a lot less money to be

[8:25] able to move forward with that. But at the same time like these these areas are

[8:29] for setups in um and getting the the holistic approach of the whole street

[8:35] for Graham Road um down all the way down to the past a high school and all the

[8:40] way up past uh Tim Hortons um to Jane Street there to where the sidewalk ends

[8:46] and then from um at the intersection of Graham and Maine all the way out to the

[8:52] edge of the the town there. be approximately around Monroe Street. I I

[8:57] can't recall the name the street off the top of my head and all and past um into

[9:02] Wood Street going to the east. So, we get that that whole feel of how the flow

[9:06] works. That's where the the intent of the study was and on in Rodney as well

[9:12] from um where the pool access is um down through to Clark Street um to get the

[9:19] the downtown core figured out if what kind of crossings we need there. So, um,

[9:24] if we if we're going to move forward with that, um, that this is what this

[9:28] study would kind of entail. Um, I understand that there is exceptional

[9:33] cost to this, but that also kind of tells us what we what needs we have for

[9:38] this study. So, [clears throat]

[9:42] » Deputy Mayor Ellier, Die, >> thank you and through the chair to you.

[9:47] Thank you for this uh report. um really detailed and uh outlines everything we

[9:52] had questions about basically. Um I won't speak to the village of West

[9:57] Lauren as I believe councelor STM has echoed everything I was going to say and

[10:01] has the same I have the same sentiments. It seems like a lot we should uh work

[10:05] together with the county and look at that and maybe bring those costs down.

[10:09] [snorts] I will speak to my concern for the village of Rodney. So, um, the same

[10:14] week that councelor Susa was bringing this, I was trying to bring it as well.

[10:17] But, um, you know, we can't have two. That doesn't make sense. So, um, what I

[10:22] had for the village of Rodney was parents and, um, uh, some people some

[10:29] drivers that were concerned, you can't see around at Queen, uh, Queens Line and

[10:34] Vernal, and that's where a lot of people move in the summertime, uh, going back

[10:38] and forth to the pool, back and forth to the park, and, uh, just meeting from

[10:43] that area to uptown uh, into the village. So, what I'm wondering is if

[10:47] they did this study, could we look at it being around I know

[10:51] that's a long way off, but when the pool's open, because right now in this,

[10:55] you know, this time of year, this season, not a lot of people are going

[10:58] back and forth there where you can't see around the old, uh, form building there,

[11:03] um, when you're driving, and that's the concern parents are having is trying to

[11:07] see around that, uh, people driving, trying to see around that for

[11:11] pedestrians. Is there something that we could target for the season when

[11:15] children are at school, riding their bikes, going to the pool and the parks

[11:20] and the library?

[11:24] » Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. For the um for the study time,

[11:28] we're trying to get the the the approval process has to happen now. Um the study

[11:33] time would be in the spring summer. Um, we could easily adjust uh Rodney to be

[11:38] done closer to pool season to be able to get that done. Um, that's something that

[11:43] uh we could look to get done, but I I would like to get uh West Lauren done

[11:48] during like high school time where we have people walking around in the spring

[11:53] uh around between May and June to get the the numbers that were will be

[11:57] appropriate for when most crossings happen. So we we need to to build this

[12:02] out from this time now to when we actually get the study done. Um when

[12:06] speaking with the consultants through when we were getting this like planned

[12:10] out was that was the plan to have it done in the spring early summer time so

[12:14] that we can get the appropriate times done. I have to confirm about the pool

[12:18] timing and when that's open and how that's get affected but um I think

[12:23] that's more appropriate for Rodney. >> Okay. Just a followup if I may.

[12:26] » Yes. Um, just a thought. I can I've been sitting on council for seven or

[12:30] something years now and I can just hear parents saying, "Great, you did a study,

[12:35] but this is what I'm telling you. This is what I'm seeing. This is what like

[12:38] they're not going to accept a study if it says that there's not enough traffic.

[12:44] Um, and they're going to be shocked that we spent how much money to put towards a

[12:49] study and something that they're visually seeing, knowing with their

[12:52] families and themselves when they are driving. So I'm just concerned about

[12:57] that. I I great studies are great, does our homework, all the background, but I

[13:01] just find we need to listen to our residents sometimes and not focus on an

[13:07] outer influence. >> I just wonder [clears throat]

[13:12] if um the consultant comes up with a solution that it doesn't justify one. So

[13:19] there's 17,000 gone down the drain. [clears throat] if we can do them

[13:23] cheaper through the county. Um I know for a fact it's going to be 40,000 plus

[13:31] each one and that was two or three years ago. I know that for a fact. So where do

[13:38] we keep where does all this money keep coming from?

[13:43] » Yes, please. >> Mr. Mayor, if I might. So the reports

[13:47] before you to provide um costing for a study and the purpose of the study is to

[13:51] make sure that we are meeting the conditions of the um Ministry of

[13:56] Transportation and Regulations Act and it's for council's awareness of the data

[14:01] that we collect. Council then can decide to take or not take the information that

[14:05] we are providing you. However, from a staff perspective, our recommendation is

[14:11] always to make sure you have the data so that you are making the best decision

[14:14] you can to direct the funds of the municipality. So, I think to answer the

[14:19] question, if the data comes back and uh the study does not support something you

[14:24] want to see, it is up to you to use that information and then make a decision.

[14:29] Then you I mean your decision may be based on this is what the community sees

[14:34] as a need. But council then you have to understand anytime we implement an asset

[14:39] we become responsible for the maintenance and insurance and liability

[14:42] of that asset. You can decide that this is still where we want one

[14:48] because you're using the support and information of the community but as

[14:53] staff what we are saying is we are just providing you with the data to say

[14:56] here's the most realistic place to put it or here's what the data supports to

[15:00] put it. You certainly can use information from outside sources in the

[15:04] decision- making. >> Thank you. Further questions, please.

[15:11] » Councelor Stith. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you,

[15:14] just a just a followup. I I'd like to reiterate I $17,000 is not uh an amount

[15:20] of money that I would be comfortable spending on the sidewalk crossing study.

[15:24] Having said that, is it possible to do a portion of that study or a significant

[15:29] portion of it on a in an in-house basis? Do we have the do we have the

[15:34] certifications necessary to communicate with the MTO and and do the traffic

[15:40] studies? I mean, I'm assuming it's, you know, vehicle counts and and, you know,

[15:45] maybe uh pedestrian counts and, you know, I'd like understand there's some

[15:48] work involved, but doing it inhouse, would that potentially decrease that

[15:52] cost? And again, understanding that there's staff time involved. Um, but is

[15:58] that something that we could do inhouse? Thank you.

[16:03] » Yes, please. Or for in-house um work, it's it's we don't have the staff

[16:09] available to do that. That's that's the issue is like we don't have traffic

[16:14] engineers [clears throat] on staff or we don't have I could have my public works

[16:18] guys go out there and count but at the same time that takes away from the

[16:22] services that we've already provided. So, it's it's where we want to direct

[16:26] our staff to to do that work. And then from after that counting is done, then

[16:33] where do we where do we look at be able to process that data? Cuz in in these

[16:37] studies, it's not just um the work that is involved in having the the data

[16:44] collected, but it's also be able to take the data and have a recommendation to

[16:49] move forward to council. So that's one of the the things that really takes that

[16:54] um we don't have the staff to be able to um move forward with. So I would love to

[16:59] say yes, but just don't. So I I wonder if we approach uh the county if they've

[17:05] got the means to be able to do that. I mean they look at junctions and know

[17:10] when that they've got reduced speeds and things for safeties, etc., etc. So

[17:15] they're bound to have something. I'm just wondering if they may have what we

[17:19] need to do that job at at a cheaper rate because we don't have to make a decision

[17:27] on this. This is not going to get passed until the 22nd and so we have time to be

[17:32] able to make those inquiries.

[17:37] » Councelor Susa, Mr. there. Um just I was doing a little

[17:42] bit of reading and I I read the new um transportation master plan or TMP. So if

[17:49] I'm I'm leaning [clears throat] towards like can we like you say can we not work

[17:52] with Alen County to clarify what is required to install crosswalks under

[17:57] their newly formed transportation master plan or TMP. I understand this is new

[18:03] and there will be new guideline policies in 2026.

[18:07] For example, I read there's a little section in in phase two and three of the

[18:11] draft report under page 52, action I1 states to develop clear and consistent

[18:18] decisionmaking framework for implementing pedestrian crossing

[18:22] opportunities across county roadways in collaboration with local municipal

[18:28] partners and where current pedestrian infrastructure exists.

[18:33] I I I I firmly believe we should be working with the county for future

[18:37] implementation like some of the newer updated policies. I think we should work

[18:41] with the county to find out the most cost effective way installing the

[18:45] crosswalks. >> Yeah, I agree.

[18:49] » Thank you. >> Thank you. Any further questions?

[19:00] Seeing none. >> Sorry.

[19:05] » So, Mr. Mayor, I believe the recommendation of this report was to

[19:07] move this forward to January 22nd, though I hearing a lot of sort of

[19:11] questions from council. So, I guess council needs to consider is do you want

[19:15] the report sort of in its structure right now to go forward or are you

[19:18] wanting us then maybe to return later in February answering some of the questions

[19:22] we've heard today?

[19:26] » Yeah. Can you say something? I am not comfortable spending $17,000 on a

[19:30] report. So, I would say hard hard [clears throat] no on on my part. I I

[19:34] think that we can work to councelor Seuss's point. I think we can work with

[19:38] the county. I think there are other alternatives. Um but $17,000 for a

[19:43] report and then $40,000 for every individual crossing. Mr. Mayor, if I

[19:48] heard you correctly, I think that's what you said. I we just don't have the we

[19:52] don't have the funds for that. So, you know, I would say let's put this off.

[19:55] Let's see if we can work with the county. Uh let's see if we can find a

[19:58] more reasonable solution and and go from there. That that would be my opinion.

[20:05] » I I personally think we should go try the county as best we can and then talk

[20:11] it over again and come back. >> I agree. C I agree.

[20:18] » So >> to our clerk, would you need then a

[20:21] motion to amend the recommendation? >> Yes.

[20:33] So, >> sorry. I still I still want I still

[20:36] wanted through you, Mr. Chair. Um, I just still want to thank Dave for all

[20:38] his work on doing this. Thank you.

[20:46] » Okay. >> So, do I have a motion to amend?

[20:50] » I'll put that motion forward.

[20:56] And your amendment being to return to the committee a whole with further to

[21:00] respond to questions or >> that we that we uh defer this until we

[21:06] uh have a chance to communicate with the county

[21:09] » and we get further information >> investigate and see if we can find some

[21:12] further information that's going to assist us in making this uh decision at

[21:16] a lower cost.

[21:21] Just give Terry a moment to try to draft them in.

[21:24] » Sorry, Terry. >> That's okay. [laughter]

[21:38] We just wait a minute or two and we'll have another resolution.

[21:49] about to return to the committee of a whole at a future date to discover

[21:54] funding >> alter

[21:57] » alternative sources of funding. >> I think it's important there to say to

[22:01] return the committee whole after conversations with the county exploring

[22:05] options and alternative funding. Great thing

[22:13] for the alternative funding but lower funding

[22:26] after exploring options. Thank you. Uh so return to committee of

[22:31] the whole after exploring options with the county of Elgen to discover

[22:35] alternative funding sources. >> I think it's not just the funding

[22:40] sources. I think the issue really is around speaking with working with the

[22:43] county of Elgen to explore um like engineering options so or consulting

[22:49] options alternative consulting options. Yeah.

[22:54] And I'm speaking include sources of funding too

[22:59] » and may maybe following their updated policies because I'm reading about this

[23:03] new the new policies that's coming out and I think some of the stuff is being

[23:08] more clarified and changed. >> I think there are investigating

[23:12] conversations with the county. We can make sure we lean into that and ask.

[23:16] » Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So motion to amend from councelor

[23:20] Stithm I have. So return to the committee of the whole after exploring

[23:25] options with the county of Elgen to discover alternative consulting options

[23:29] and funding sources. >> Okay.

[23:32] » Does that capture? >> I I think so. Yeah. The rest of

[23:36] council's in agreement >> that covers it.

[23:38] » Yeah. Is the rest of council in agreement with that?

[23:40] » So I think so. >> We have a move.

[23:42] » Yeah. So >> want to say

[23:44] » included in that motion. And I will I will include that the West Elgen

[23:47] committee of the whole hereby receives the report from Dave Sharon, manager of

[23:50] infrastructure and development and that the uh we return to committee of the

[23:55] whole after exploring options with the county of Elgen to discover alternative

[23:59] consulting options and funding sources. >> Yeah, that's fair.

[24:07] So I'm going to second it. >> Okay.

[24:11] Second mover seconded. All in favor? That's carries.

[24:18] Thank you. And we move to 4.1.2

[24:24] water connections by law. Dave, it's over to you again.

[24:30] » Thanks. Um the I brought I'm bringing this to the committee of pole to discuss

[24:36] um a bylaw that we that was passed by council um on uh in

[24:43] 2020 at the end of 2024 is regarding the um water connections uh

[24:50] for water services. Um I want to just to set this out there to clarify some of

[24:57] that bylaw that we have set out. Um there's connection fees um that are in

[25:04] the bylaw that uh indicate um connection fees that were

[25:12] not clarified to have

[25:17] the capital costs that were uh in that were laid out in bylaws to um the

[25:24] municipality that included by capital costs and connection fees. So those

[25:29] those fees were um in different bylaws that weren't weren't repealed in the

[25:34] bylaw that was set out in 2024. Um in in my report we it uh indicates the

[25:42] the issues of the the capital costs and property owners perceive that the fees

[25:49] could be unfair or inconsistent. Um the bylaw charges that will be updated

[25:56] will be um in the attached bylaw that I've have for draft in the in our

[26:01] report. Um [gasps] it there'll be just one fee or one fee plus um

[26:10] sorry uh one fee per connection size and then

[26:15] with additional cost of uh materials, labor and machine time that go along

[26:20] with it. Um this bylaw that is drafted has been sent to the county for uh

[26:27] review as well. Uh we're I'm in discussion with them. When we when I

[26:32] pull this to council at the next meeting, uh it will have any update or

[26:38] changes to that as well. I think there was some small um wording changes that

[26:42] I've discussed with them um to clarify. Um these

[26:49] these charges will ensure like transparency and fairness um for the uh

[26:56] const for the residents of West Alvin that are looking to connect

[26:59] [clears throat] and um there will be fair predictable costs and alignment

[27:04] with construction costs and support any future development to the system that we

[27:10] have. So if anybody has any questions. >> Thank you.

[27:15] Um, unfortunately, water's always expensive.

[27:20] I don't care which way you look at it. Um, but I always think that it's always

[27:25] been unfair when you you get different roads on different prices. And I think

[27:31] it's nice to get things stabilized quite a lot so people know exactly where

[27:36] they're going. Um, okay. On subdivisions, we know the price is down.

[27:42] There's a lot of houses close together, but you know when you get

[27:48] one side road which might be 9,000 and another one might be 15 and another one

[27:53] might even be a lot more than that and I think it's time we stabilized it so

[27:58] everybody knows what they're doing.

[28:03] » Councelor Denning, please. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Dave,

[28:06] thank you for the report. uh absolutely makes sense and and benefits the

[28:11] individual who's looking to uh take advantage of water services. But the

[28:16] current formula now being um being changed to benefit that [clears throat]

[28:21] individual um where does the municipality um um get that loss

[28:26] compensation is that going to be on the backs of the taxpayers in general? So

[28:31] what I mean is that if we do this, do we have to find that do we have to find

[28:35] that money somewhere else? And if so, where's that where does that come from?

[28:40] » The initial capital cost that came through before this bylaw was assessed

[28:45] was there was the capital cost of the water main that went through plus the

[28:49] connection fee. That connection fee was was $1,200 previously. Now that

[28:55] connection fee can be is basically for a 1 in for a urban field is $15,000. So

[29:02] that connection fee substantially went up so that all the people are paying

[29:07] appropriate fees to that fee. So it's it's there's a win some lose some um

[29:13] mentality to this cuz sometimes that connection fee would have been under

[29:16] that $15,000 value prior to this uh bylaw that got passed in 2024. So now

[29:23] it's it's more of a a lined fee rather than um a a capital plus a smaller

[29:31] connection fee that was in place prior to this fee going through.

[29:38] » Yes. Thank you. Thank you for that, Dave. So then um we had a gentleman in

[29:42] here um a month and a half, two months ago expressing his frustration with this

[29:46] very situation. It sounds like this is one of the things that we've done to to

[29:50] address that. But does that address it? Like if we move forward with this, does

[29:54] somebody like that gentleman who was in here a month and a half ago, will he now

[29:58] would he benefit from this? >> The the gentleman that was in here a

[30:03] month and a half ago, he actually was on a a water man that didn't have a capital

[30:07] cost. So he his connection costs would have been less in the in this case

[30:13] because the connection cost that got passed in the bylaw

[30:17] ramp them up to the $15,000 charge. since the water man that was in front of

[30:22] that road didn't have a capital charge because of the um the situation it was

[30:29] when the water man was installed. So some it was a it's a mismash of capital

[30:34] charges that were happening throughout the municipality. So some people um had

[30:40] a capital charge of 20 $30,000. Some people had a capital charge of $4,000.

[30:45] And then in this ca in this gentleman's case, his capital charge was actually

[30:48] zero because of where it was put in at the time. So that's uh it's it really uh

[30:55] sets a sets a bar across the whole municipality to have a an understanding

[30:59] of how much you're going to pay before you're going to put it in. So

[31:04] » thank you.

[31:08] Mr. Stathithm, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you. I I

[31:11] guess it's more of a in terms of fairness, the properties, I

[31:15] mean, rural properties in in this uh sort of scenario are are paying more uh

[31:22] you know, and that makes sense. Uh you know, because there's more

[31:25] infrastructure that needs to be installed. Uh I just wonder

[31:30] does that maybe feel slightly punitive to these people if the lines are ex

[31:36] extended in that area without their input and then they try to connect to

[31:39] that line. It's going to cost them more, but they weren't involved in the

[31:44] installation of the infrastructure to begin with. I I guess what I'm trying to

[31:47] say is are we are we fair across the board, especially

[31:52] rural properties, because the rural uh rural residents are going to pay

[31:55] significantly more for this than than people in the villages, for example. And

[32:00] I'm just I guess my question is you know if if a line is extended down you know

[32:05] whatever uh let's say silver clay you know for example and then you know have

[32:08] someone that wants to hook up onto it the line's already been extended there.

[32:12] They're going to pay more for that um but that line was extended there without

[32:16] their input. So you know you understand what I'm getting at.

[32:21] » Yeah. So to help you clarify this like a lot of these charges help us with when

[32:26] the water man has to be replaced as well. So water manes don't last forever.

[32:31] Um when when they have to go to repair the water man um if there's any problems

[32:36] on it helps um justify those charges when we do any repairs as well. So in if

[32:42] it is an urban setting there's um a repair that has to happen it will get

[32:47] spread around around more people rather than the limited number of people that

[32:51] would happen in a in a rural setting. So it uh it helps justify that these these

[32:58] um this bot was was approved already to with these prices back in 2024. Um so

[33:05] that um we're just in the in the update we're just trying to clarify um what

[33:12] capital charges versus what connection charges are. So

[33:17] » thank you. Other questions?

[33:25] looking at the number.

[33:29] [clears throat] >> I don't see any.

[33:34] » So, could we have the recommendation, please?

[33:38] The recommendation is that the West Elgen Committee of the whole hereby

[33:41] receives the report from Dave Sharon, manager of infrastructure and

[33:44] development, and that West Elgen Committee of the Whole hereby recommends

[33:48] that West Elgen Council at its January 22nd, 2026 regular meeting repeal bylaw

[33:55] 2024-75 and replace it with an updated version

[34:00] with the changes noted below as supported by the attached document.

[34:05] Could

[34:08] I have a mover for that please? Councelor Denning

[34:14] second deputy mayor tellier. All in favor

[34:18] that's carries.

[34:22] Thank you. And we go to 4.1.3

[34:29] verbal discussion landfill concerns.

[34:36] » And is it you? >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. About the

[34:39] conversation, Dave and I are looking at each other like who wants to start this

[34:42] off? So, council, during the um holiday break, we did notice some emails going

[34:47] around and some questions around the upcoming spring uh which we typically

[34:52] have, which is a large drop off at our landfill. And so, we wanted to bring to

[34:57] this to the committee of the whole to start hearing some of your questions and

[35:01] concerns so we can start to investigate how maybe we should be best proceeding.

[35:06] And if council remembers um sort of mid last year, we received a report from

[35:11] blue metrics which was talking about the general health of our landfill and the

[35:16] anticipated time of which we will be receiving re um achieving sort of

[35:21] capacity. And prior to that report, we were uh noting that we had about 20 25

[35:26] years and then last year's report indicated we have about five.

[35:31] And so we have limited time left within that landfill. Um in year 2025 budget,

[35:38] we were already starting to put down items and discussions on prepar

[35:42] preparations for the closure of that landfill and then our commitments going

[35:48] forward. showing what would be cost to cap the landfill and then our

[35:51] obligations to continue to um monitor and have consultants actually come in

[35:57] and monitor and report on the landfill sort of going forward which I believe is

[36:01] at least 25 years >> after

[36:04] » after closure. after closure. >> So council, I guess what we're wanting

[36:08] to do is start start a little bit of a conversation around

[36:13] how are we going to be proceeding knowing that what we really are is end

[36:16] of life and how do we best manage a landfill that has very limited capacity?

[36:22] How long do we sort of preserve the capacity we have and what sort of

[36:26] programs should we be continuing with, not continuing with or looking forward

[36:31] to continuing this? And by that I mean things like communication programs and

[36:35] starting having conversations with the community around reduce, reuse, recycle.

[36:40] Because not only are we looking at the closure of a landfill, we are also

[36:43] looking at the additional expenses because maintaining that as a transfer

[36:47] station means we then are going to be picking up the cost of anything that

[36:51] would have typically been dropped off there and put into our landfill now will

[36:55] be carded to um the landfill in Southorld and we'll be paying those

[37:00] tipping fees. And to add into the conversation, council, for your

[37:04] awareness, last year at Rome, I attended um

[37:08] a information session, I believe it was on the Ministry of Environment around

[37:13] overall capacity of landfills in Ontario. And at this moment in time,

[37:17] they're predicting we have at least or at the most, I should actually say at

[37:21] the most, 10 years of landfill capacity. And that wasn't even with the

[37:27] consideration of the impact of tariffs and the potential for the United States

[37:31] to reduce or overall refuse any of our garbage going across the border. So they

[37:38] do anticipate that to be an accelerated um sort of closure date for the all of

[37:44] our like that's capacity we have is 10 years and 10 years seems like such a far

[37:49] time away but it's not considering we need to also deal with how do we set up

[37:54] new landfills. So I'm I'm just putting that information there. Maybe Dave has

[37:58] more to add to this conversation, but to really have maybe something from

[38:03] counselor start the conversation about how should we look at proceeding knowing

[38:07] that this is the information in front of us.

[38:12] » Yeah, I think Robin hit the head on the nail on the head on a lot of that stuff.

[38:15] So, we just want to make sure when we do offer

[38:19] um any free days or or be able to track what we're doing and have an actual cost

[38:26] to it as well cuz if when we have these days, there is a a cost that's

[38:31] associated with it on our end that we're offering too. So, we just want to make

[38:34] sure that we can track and monitor all those as we move forward. So

[38:41] » yes, Steph, >> thank you through the chair and thank

[38:45] you so much for that discussion. Um, I'm the one that sent out the email in

[38:49] regards to wondering what what was going on with it. So what I'm worried about is

[38:54] great. We put education out there. We educate the public and the residents in

[38:58] regards to the lifespan of our landfill. Not sure what the lifespan of the South

[39:02] Landfill is, but that's probably also got a end date as well. Um,

[39:09] and we get a lot of calls for people that have, you know, there's been a

[39:13] couch on the side of the road for 4 months or, you know, things aren't

[39:18] looking so great. We already see dumped Christmas trees. We didn't announce our

[39:21] drop off. They already just said, you know, forget it. I'll just take it to

[39:24] Kur Road and dump it there. Um, so I'm just I mean, we offer leaf and garden

[39:30] pickup and people drive down the railway tracks and dump their leaves anyways.

[39:35] They don't even leave them at the side of the road um for pickup. So, I'm just

[39:39] worried about um our sidewalks, our roadways,

[39:45] uh side of the road, everything looking horrible. Um because as much education

[39:50] as we put out, there's always the people that say, "I didn't know that. I don't

[39:55] have the information. I don't know where these people are looking, but it's

[39:58] everywhere to educate people." when we're putting flyers out, putting things

[40:02] in with our tax bills, water bills, every time we put out education for

[40:05] anything like this, um there's always a blind eye to something. And I'm just

[40:11] really worried if we don't educate

[40:16] so much, just overdo it, um that that's what our roadways are going to look like

[40:21] with couches and garbage everywhere. um because it already is a little bit of a

[40:26] problem now that we don't have the at curb pickup when we eliminated that in

[40:32] 2022 fall uh I guess the winter of 2022. Um to not have it that spring and I'm

[40:40] worried that that's what's [clears throat] just going to look like

[40:42] uh landfill at our curb sides unfortunately.

[40:46] » Yeah, very unfortunately. Um,

[40:51] if we carry on collecting these large items,

[40:55] our streets are going to be full very quickly because once our landfills

[41:00] filled, we're done. So,

[41:05] it do you want it now or do you want it later? And that's what it's going to

[41:10] come down to. Councelor Stithm. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I [snorts]

[41:18] I think I might have asked this question in the past, but I I just want to be

[41:21] clear about it. Is there no capacity to expand the landfill? Like I understand

[41:26] that we can through through the ministry, we can apply for additional

[41:30] cells uh to be added to the landfill. Is that is that a possibility, Dave, or is

[41:36] that is that something that's out of the question? Is it a cost issue? Uh and and

[41:41] maybe what are those costs? or is this something that we should just uh you

[41:44] know we're going to shut it down and that's the end of it.

[41:48] » Uh the issue with the landfill that we have is it's not located in the most

[41:53] ideal location. the landfill surrounded by gravel pits and it was in that was

[42:00] was one of the landfill before it was a gravel pit and having landfill be a

[42:04] gravel pit is not the ideal um land for it because as gravel runs water through

[42:12] the there's more chance for environmental concerns as we have that.

[42:17] So to expand the the landfill that we have, we could go up, but as we go up,

[42:23] we create more problems because it you you just limit yourself as you go up as

[42:27] well. So um the having the land have being in the business of garbage is is a

[42:34] difficult business because then we're we have to mon continue monitoring it for

[42:38] years and years after what we have. And it's it's um being being a municipality

[42:44] and not being a garbage not having a garbage expert, it's it's really tough

[42:48] to be able to run that run that forward. So

[42:53] » yeah, just thank you David. I appreciate it. So So the concern is that because of

[42:58] the location, it's it's on a limestone gravel pit. Um and we're concerned about

[43:02] the leech uh coming out of the the landfill. Are there not liners or other

[43:08] solutions that again I I don't I want to I don't want to keep harping on the the

[43:13] concept of expanding the landfill but if the concern is that we're going to close

[43:17] the landfill is do we have the option of expanding it or or no?

[43:24] » So I the landfill is going to get full. We can't expand it. If you if you did

[43:29] what you said, it would eventually fill up with surface water and everything

[43:34] else and spill over and it would pollute just the same.

[43:41] » Okay. So, well, that's that's the question I have. Like, are

[43:44] » we do have wells all the way around and some of them were were clean. We

[43:51] extended the the fill a little a little bit. We bought some land some years ago

[43:56] and it wasn't long before those clean wells started to get polluted. So where

[44:02] do you go? You just go bigger and bigger and bigger and we're just not allowed to

[44:07] do that. >> Yeah. No, I understand. I I guess my,

[44:09] you know, when you're looking at a 10-year time frame on on no more, you

[44:13] know, garbage being accepted in Ontario, I mean, there's going to have to be a

[44:16] solution. I feel like with the technology that exists, you know, maybe

[44:19] there's a there's a possibility of installing liners or, you know, I I

[44:24] don't know a lot about landfill. It's far beyond my area of expertise. But if

[44:28] if the landfill is at capacity and we can't expand it and that's not possible,

[44:31] then that's that's one thing. If there is the possibility of expanding it

[44:35] potentially, uh, you know, and I' I'd like to know if that's a possibility and

[44:39] and what the cost would be. I guess that's my question. But from what I'm

[44:43] hearing is it's just not feasible. Not really. No. If

[44:46] » I might, Mr. Mayor, please. >> We can start to investigate what the

[44:51] options might be at the existing site. We know they're limited due to the

[44:55] substrate that's there. So, the land that's surrounding it, but we can

[44:59] certainly investigate to see. Um, that's an option as to do we expand, are we

[45:04] looking at another landfill? The other question is what do we do in 5 years if

[45:09] we don't have a landfill, which is the other part of the question I think we

[45:13] have to make sure we're focused on. For sure. And if you look at some of the

[45:16] other landfills, I mean, 10 years, what's Ontario going to do with our And

[45:20] if we would stop trucking in garbage from Detroit, I mean, maybe that would

[45:24] help, but I mean, outside of the conversation, but

[45:29] we're going to have to come up with a solution one way or the other. And

[45:32] whether we're trucking it to Green Lane or we're taking it to Watford or taking

[45:37] it elsewhere in the province, we're still going to have to come up with a

[45:40] solution. >> Significant cost.

[45:41] » Well, it's going to be a cost no matter what we do.

[45:43] » Yeah. >> Right. So, one way or the other, we're

[45:46] gonna have to come up with a >> matellia.

[45:50] » Thank you through the chair and thank you for your thoughts. Councelor Stithm,

[45:52] um, kind of looking at a different gear. When we have someone who's dumped a I'll

[45:57] say a couch, dumped a couch somewhere, what does that cost us in staff time and

[46:02] then if someone also is collecting things on their property and it becomes

[46:05] a property standard concern, what does that look like for staff time? I wonder

[46:09] if I can get I don't know if that's a motion I need to make or what to just

[46:12] have a quick report back um looking in the future if we don't have

[46:18] the I call it anything day but you know the low fee day or whatever we want to

[46:22] call it um in the spring cleanup if we don't have that and people ignore or say

[46:29] there wasn't education um and start dumping things what does that look like

[46:32] for staff time and eventually down the road if someone decides to Sanford and

[46:37] Sun and collect 100 things on their lawn. What does that look like for the

[46:42] price? >> The price,

[46:45] » but we still have to take it somewhere. >> That's true. Yeah. So, what does that I

[46:49] think that's if I might, Mr. Mayor, that's something we probably Dave had

[46:53] actually beginning of the conversation was talking about running free days,

[46:57] picking up garbage like we really should be putting a a cost to that. Um, if it

[47:02] is property standards of which we have to go in, I believe the bill goes back

[47:05] to the property owner. Okay, that's what I just wanted to if it is if it is a

[47:10] random couch on the side of the road then I think currently we're we're we're

[47:14] cleaning it up. I mean we may also need to look at certain bylaws which you know

[47:20] look at both the carrot and the stick. How do you incentivize people to

[47:23] actually to become mindful and aware of the garbage we are producing as an

[47:27] individual and as society? What are our policies? So, you know, some

[47:32] municipalities limit, City of Toronto limits the amount of garbage, making

[47:36] sure we have programs in place that encourage recycling. So, whether that's

[47:40] your yard waste, your food waste, your um your lawn waste, so we're not putting

[47:46] grass clipping and and trees and things that can biodegrade into our landfill,

[47:52] but we're setting up programs that we have spaces of which we can accept those

[47:55] of which they can then decompose and not take up space. So there's I think

[47:59] there's many solutions we have to start looking at, but one also may be that,

[48:03] you know, we we have to look at charging the land owner if they put something out

[48:06] in front of their property >> for x amount of days kind of thing,

[48:09] » then we we pick it up, but we have to build back and and that's for council's

[48:12] consideration, right? I think there are many things this council needs to start

[48:16] or this municipality needs to start looking at because the clock is ticking.

[48:22] » Yeah. I'm just trying to not have uh a go back on all the taxpayers when

[48:26] someone >> That's correct. discard something um and

[48:29] what that looks like. So that would be great. Thank you.

[48:34] » Yes, Council Denn. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

[48:38] Important conversation. Last year, we we made the change to um

[48:43] be a little more limited into what we were going to accept into the landfill.

[48:47] and a couple of the uh community owners came out to that meeting and on the way

[48:51] out the door, two or three of them expressed the concern that um it would

[48:55] represent more garbage bags in the ditch. I don't think that that's

[49:00] necessarily occurred. I mean, I drive the gravel roads all the time. I haven't

[49:04] seen a big difference. And and yes, um we are in a predicament in the next 5 to

[49:09] 10 years. we are going to be at capacity with our landfill, but then so is pretty

[49:13] much every other municipality in Ontario and the province is going to have to

[49:17] step up and help uh be partners in in solving this problem. And I do believe

[49:22] that in the meantime um one of the the most proactive things that we can do is

[49:27] continue to be a place for people to to dump the things that they need to get

[49:32] rid of. Um, uh, Robin had a wonderful idea with, you know, diversion

[49:37] techniques for grass clippings and compost and all that. But the fact of

[49:40] the matter is is that we should be, uh, continuing to accept items and we should

[49:44] be charging appropriately and taking that money and putting into a reserve

[49:48] fund so that we have a fund in place in the future to maintain that landfill

[49:54] after it's closed for the next 25 years. So that's not on the backs of the next

[49:57] generation of taxpayers. I do believe that there shouldn't be anything for

[50:00] free at this point and that everything should have a cost because associated

[50:05] with that cost is responsibility and people will think twice about the things

[50:09] that they they bring out to the landfill. And at the end of the day,

[50:13] yes, everything has for the most part has a cost. I I think majority of people

[50:17] as long as they have a place to dump, they will be willing to pay the cost as

[50:20] opposed to putting couches on the sides of roads. I just haven't seen a whole

[50:24] lot of that. So, uh, having the the tipping fees, um, appropriate in

[50:30] cost does two things. It does make people take consideration and be

[50:35] responsible with the amount of things that they're bringing to our landfill,

[50:37] but at the same time, the things they do bring to the landfill will generate

[50:40] revenue to help uh, West Elgen in the future uh, financially maintain its

[50:45] responsibilities.

[50:48] » Thank you. Further questions? Yes, Councelor Stith.

[50:52] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um and through you again I I I echo those sentiments. I

[50:58] think that if we were charging appropriately, we could generate a

[51:00] reserve fund that would assist us in coming up with solutions down the road.

[51:04] And again, that could be revitalizing the existing landfills that we have.

[51:09] There are technologies out there, and I'm I'm sure Dave, I'm sure you're aware

[51:12] of these, but but certain uh leech collection and management systems, uh

[51:17] clay liners, uh geoexiles that we put underneath the land. There's no reason

[51:22] why we can't necessarily expand that landfill. It's possible. It's expensive,

[51:26] but it's possible. And if we were charging the correct amount for the

[51:29] trash that's being placed in those landfills, the technology exists to make

[51:33] that something that we can continue to do into perpetuity almost.

[51:38] » Um, you know, I don't think that it's it's unreasonable to say that we we

[51:41] can't keep that landfill open. I I know we were talking about closing it, and

[51:45] again, I'm not a I'm not a landfill specialist, but I I do think that

[51:48] there's solutions. And and maybe the one of the solutions is to charge

[51:52] appropriately and that will reduce the amount of trash that we're receiving at

[51:57] the landfill because people are going to, you know, not necessarily you're not

[52:01] going to take six bags to the garbage dump if you know that you're going to

[52:04] have to pay for them, right? Maybe you'll take four and the rest of it

[52:08] you're going to throw in your burn pile or whatever, right? But

[52:13] well, [clears throat] I don't know. I I guess

[52:15] what I'm saying is I I think it's a multifaceted approach that we have to

[52:19] take and I think, you know, saying that we're just going to shut down the

[52:21] landfill, you know, I don't necessarily think that that's the right solution,

[52:25] but I I think there's a number of things that we could look at here. Increasing

[52:28] costs, I think, is is one of the ones we have to look at for sure.

[52:31] » But when you look it, you know, we haven't ne neglected the landfill

[52:35] totally. You know, when you finish a landfill, they put a certain amount of

[52:39] clay on the top >> capping. Yeah. It's capped so the rain

[52:44] water runs off, doesn't leech in, and then then takes the pollutants out. You

[52:50] know, it's done for a reason. So, we've done the best we can in in the

[52:54] circumstances.

[53:02] Further questions, council, we'll just take some of the

[53:07] information and comments we've heard today and we can start to explore. I

[53:10] think one of the things we'll have to do is either bring back to the committee a

[53:12] whole or to council is then around the question of free days. Well, I

[53:16] understand the concern is if there aren't free days, garbage pickup and

[53:19] pileup. Um though I heard councelor Jennings comment that saying when people

[53:23] have to pay for it, they become a little more responsible. Um last year we did

[53:27] have a concern on the free day the volume of people that were coming out to

[53:30] the landfill. Um to the point that I I did make comment to staff that if

[53:36] there's far too many people, you need to close the door. like there's only so

[53:39] much we can accept. Um, one of the things that was a little bit

[53:42] disheartening to me though was seeing what people were throwing taking to the

[53:46] landfill. Bikes that were in pretty good repair. Like these are things that can

[53:50] easily be recycled. Maybe you you can't repair it, but maybe we need to find a

[53:54] place where we can send them to be repaired and set up some industries

[53:57] around that. is it's so easy for people to dump when we don't have to think

[54:02] about the cost and we don't think about uh the impact the environmental impact

[54:06] that it has and the the future is coming a lot faster I think than than we

[54:12] anticipate it to. So thank you. We'll take that information back and we will

[54:15] start to bring another report back to this council about some of our

[54:18] recommendations on how to proceed. >> Thank you. A good good discussion anyway

[54:23] and we'll move on.

[54:29] Okay. So, we go to 4.2. Community services and clerks.

[54:36] » You wouldn't mind. Backyard urban hens end of pilot program.

[54:43] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, everybody's favorite subject here on this council is

[54:47] uh is our backyard chickens. Um, so the pilot project did come to an

[54:52] end and you'll see in in the report um I've given a little bit of information

[54:56] on how how the pilot project went. It I I wouldn't really call it successful. We

[55:01] only had the two applications. Um, and it was certainly a learning curve for

[55:06] for our bylaw enforcement officer too. A little bit of extra time on the first

[55:10] one. Lots of paperwork to go over just to ensure that everything was in place.

[55:14] Um, and then the second application, as you can see, it hasn't been finalized

[55:18] yet. There hasn't been a final inspection and the payment has not been

[55:22] received for it. So, again, I wouldn't really think that it's a very successful

[55:25] program that we that we did run. Um, so I've given some options on how to

[55:32] move forward with with this program. And I think that one thing to um to really

[55:39] keep in mind is the importance of having the the bylaw whether we move forward

[55:44] with a licensing program, feebased, non-feebased, however that looks. I do

[55:48] believe that it is very critical that we have the bylaw at least in place because

[55:52] that gives parameters for our bylaw officer when a complaint is received

[55:56] that he has he or she at the time um has something to go on where we did not have

[56:01] anything in the past. Um this year we did receive one complaint and the

[56:07] chickens were getting out and jumping on the neighbor's vehicle scratching the

[56:10] vehicle. So we [laughter] that actually did happen. So um our

[56:16] [gasps] our officer was able to use the bylaw

[56:20] and then also um have that owner of the chickens who didn't know about the

[56:25] program. They they were very good with it. they they came in and they worked

[56:29] with the the officer um to start working on the appropriate steps. So the options

[56:35] that I have uh given option one being implementation of a permanent program um

[56:40] with a licensing increase um as you'll see are our cost uh certainly outweighs

[56:47] the revenue that we are receiving in even with an increased cost uh to $300

[56:52] with a $100 annual renewal. Um again it just establishes the parameters that

[56:57] we're setting for um for the setbacks for the coups itself. How many how many

[57:03] hens can be kept uh no roosters so it's you know not we're not disturbing our

[57:08] neighbors. Um and then also it it allows for food security, educational

[57:14] opportunity, waste reduction, some mental health benefits and pest/insect

[57:18] control which was uh primarily the reason that we we implemented this pilot

[57:23] pro program. in the beginning. Uh, as you'll see with each option too,

[57:28] there is some some negatives that could could potentially come with it. We're

[57:32] not saying that they they will, but certainly they could um increase a

[57:37] number of them could be problematic. Uh, we've seen and it's been going through

[57:41] the news, the the bird flu, the aven flu, uh, it could happen. Again, not

[57:46] saying that it it will, but again, there's always cons there there is pros.

[57:51] Um, second option would be just to not proceed with the program or the bylaw.

[57:56] Um, [clears throat] this one again though that would go back to what we had

[57:59] a couple years ago where our bylaw enforcement officer if he were to get a

[58:03] call he he or she um would have nothing to go on without a a proper bylaw in

[58:09] place. And then the option three would be to allow the hens. Um so we would

[58:16] still implement the bylaw without the licensing requirements. Uh some of the

[58:22] challenges with the without having the licensing requirements. Um it it would

[58:26] eliminate the database on how many coups we do have within the municipality. Um,

[58:31] if you know, heaven forbid, there were to be some form of an outbreak of the of

[58:36] the bird flu, we would not know where these coups are located. Again, is

[58:42] that going to happen? I don't know. Um, it would in potentially increase the

[58:47] bylaws, um, permits us, we could have concerns

[58:53] of animal welfare, um, public nuisance, noise, odor, increased number of

[58:58] predators, public health risks. Um, again, each option has their pros and

[59:03] their cons. So, with the summary and recommendation,

[59:07] it is recommended that we implement a permanent bylaw to establish the

[59:10] parameters for raising our backyard hens in the urban areas uh with an initial

[59:15] fee of $300 and an inspection fee of $100. Uh, taking a look, I also linked

[59:20] our um we do have a kennel licensing program that we've had within the

[59:24] municipality. I'm not sure how long it's been placed in place. certainly longer

[59:28] than I've been with West Elgen. So, it is a comparable program and we don't

[59:33] have a lot a lot of it uh people that have the kennel licensing, but they are

[59:38] very diligent on every year making sure their inspection is done, making sure

[59:42] they're up to whatever codes need to be in place. Um, so with that being said, I

[59:48] am certainly open up to further discussion. Councelor Stithm. Well,

[59:52] well, I think [laughter] >> you blame it on me.

[59:56] » I think the price of $300 is extortionate.

[1:00:00] » I think that's that's crazy. No one's You know what's going to happen? If you

[1:00:04] charge people $300, they're just not going to do it. I mean,

[1:00:08] they're already not doing it. >> So, like that's never going to happen.

[1:00:13] » To understand some of the people that are are not standing up for anyone but

[1:00:18] knowing something about chickens. Um you some people only keep them six and seven

[1:00:24] weeks and they're gone for the rest of the year because they're doing meat

[1:00:28] birds for their family. And and so you're going to pay $300 for a license

[1:00:34] to keep chickens for six to seven weeks. That that doesn't make any sense to me.

[1:00:39] » Even for eggs. I mean, you pay 300 bucks a year or sorry 100 bucks a year, $300

[1:00:44] the first time. Even if you're just getting eggs, $300 buys a lot of eggs. I

[1:00:49] I think that those costs are just >> and no one's going to pay them. They're

[1:00:53] just going to do it anyways. >> Yes. To be fair, and I do some in front

[1:00:57] of me. Um other municipalities, some don't have a fee. Some range anywhere

[1:01:02] from I've got like $50 up to $400 for the initial permits. Some have a annual

[1:01:09] fee, some do not. So there is there's really no set parameters on what

[1:01:15] municipalities are doing. Um, South for instance, our close neighbors, they have

[1:01:20] a $150 licensing fee for R1 properties. Um, Chadam Kent has a $400 initial fee

[1:01:26] with $125 for renewal fee. So, again, big difference on different

[1:01:31] municipalities on on what they're doing. So,

[1:01:34] » and as regards the bird flu, unless they have a license and or you go around

[1:01:40] knocking at everyone's door and looking in their backyard, you have no idea

[1:01:44] because we got two there's probably 200 people got got chickens right now this

[1:01:49] minute and we got two licenses. Is that where we send the official people

[1:01:55] because of bird flu? It it it doesn't tell us one thing,

[1:02:00] » right? and bringing up the bird fluid. That's just I'm giving you all these

[1:02:04] » No, no, I realize that. I realize that you you do that and you know and you're

[1:02:08] right doing that, >> but I was just picking holes in it

[1:02:11] because >> they won't do that.

[1:02:18] » Yes. Councelor Sus, >> I just just wanted to for you, Mr.

[1:02:20] Mayor, I just want to say a lot of our constituents are are struggling. They're

[1:02:24] struggling to get by and they they they're struggling to put food on their

[1:02:27] tables. So, they they're doing these chickens and they're trying to get

[1:02:31] trying to get ahead of the game a little bit and then just this $300 is it's it's

[1:02:35] a lot of money for families. And I I I I like option three. I think creating a

[1:02:42] bylaw without licensing requirements may help. Personally, I know two or

[1:02:48] three families that have chickens, they're not in favor of this. Um they're

[1:02:54] they express their frustrations. I'm not going to name any name. They're they're

[1:02:58] not going to they're not going to pay it. They're just going to go about

[1:03:01] they're going to be breaking the rules and they're just going to and it's it's

[1:03:04] and if the flu happens and we're going to be tracking down where is it coming

[1:03:07] from and it's it's not going to solve anything.

[1:03:10] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:03:14] » Can I would I would suggest that the aven flu is something that happens in in

[1:03:19] large um large facilities. You know, realistically, when you're talking about

[1:03:24] chicken calls and that kind of thing, it happens in in industrial scale

[1:03:27] facilities where they're calling hundreds of birds. It's not in backyard

[1:03:31] flocks where you have six chickens. I mean, it's it's silly to even suggest

[1:03:35] that. Um, to Councelor Seuss's point, you know, if if we're charging 300

[1:03:40] bucks, no, no one's going to pay that. They're just going to do it anyway. I

[1:03:43] mean, they're already doing it anyways, and most of them aren't paying the the

[1:03:45] small fees that we already have. At least with a bylaw framework in place,

[1:03:50] if there is a comp I mean, Madam clerk, maybe you can tell me how many

[1:03:54] complaints there were in the last year. I think you said two.

[1:03:57] » One >> one complaint

[1:03:58] » in 365 days. So, you know, we're not really

[1:04:04] at least if we have the if we have the bylaws in place, it allows our bylaw

[1:04:09] officers to work within a framework. You know, realistically,

[1:04:14] it's not costing us a ton of money. We have we have families that are, you

[1:04:18] know, trying to put eggs on the table for their kids, you know, like I I just

[1:04:24] I feel like this is this is much to do about nothing. Honestly, it

[1:04:29] » Yes, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, council, um we

[1:04:33] hear your concerns and we also understand them as well. I just would

[1:04:36] like you to understand that the recommendation was before you because we

[1:04:39] just wanted to make sure cost recovery was in place. um if there is a licensing

[1:04:43] program then right now the cost to license is borne on the by the

[1:04:48] municipality um that cost you know the ease of doing

[1:04:52] it more frequently may bring it down. We certainly respect council's concerns

[1:04:57] that they have over the cost but I just want to make sure the understanding is

[1:05:00] that the recommendation was there due to the fact that we wanted to make sure

[1:05:03] cost recovery was in place. I understand 100% and you know it based on the small

[1:05:09] amount of people $300 makes sense. That probably is what it costs us to go out

[1:05:13] and and license all these individual properties. But the reality of it is

[1:05:16] nobody's going to pay that and we're just going to have people doing it

[1:05:19] anyways. So I'll leave it there. That's all I have

[1:05:24] to say about it. Thanks. >> Yes. Incident Denny.

[1:05:28] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh is there a formula for cost recovery based solely

[1:05:33] on fines? not licensing.

[1:05:39] » Uh certainly that would be something we'd have to look into and go through

[1:05:42] the fines individually. Uh they are attached to the like there

[1:05:47] is they are included in the bylaw but certainly that's something that we could

[1:05:51] look into. I might sort of add to that and I'm

[1:05:55] wondering sorry Mr. Mayor. >> No sure.

[1:05:57] » Uh um there are fines for violations of the bylaw. Um certainly as all of our

[1:06:04] bylaws are and our community is is a complaint driven meaning we do not

[1:06:09] actively drive around. We have 10 hours of bylaw a week. We don't actively drive

[1:06:14] around and look for those who are contravening any of our bylaws. So if

[1:06:18] there were to be a complaint and somebody did not come into compliance

[1:06:23] then certainly that fee would help to offset. I don't we would have to do a

[1:06:28] little more research and data to understand is it completely offset.

[1:06:32] Typically our bylaw officer doesn't just issue fines on the first occurrence.

[1:06:37] They tend to try to work with community members to bring them into compliance.

[1:06:41] fines tend to be sort of the last effort when communities choose or members

[1:06:46] choose to not meet the the bylaw. So there is a lot of time I guess I'm

[1:06:50] saying upfront and so that fine I think is more as a deterrent to doing

[1:06:55] something but it doesn't really cover the entire cost when we're looking at

[1:07:00] the repetitive times bylaw officer would go out

[1:07:08] anything further [clears throat and cough]

[1:07:12] I look at it personally and I think option three is the one that we can

[1:07:17] manage And I think that there'll be a way that

[1:07:21] we could recoup some money from our bylaw officer if he has to keep going

[1:07:26] out in one way, shape or form. I don't think we're number one is going

[1:07:31] to work. But [clears throat] anybody else with suggestions,

[1:07:36] I I think if we start seeing a ton of a ton of infractions and a ton of fines,

[1:07:40] maybe we relook at it. But given where we're at right now with one complaint

[1:07:45] over the last year, I I think we could probably just leave this one alone. But

[1:07:51] » yes, Council Susa. >> Yes. Option option three creates more

[1:07:54] transparency. More people will be willing to talk about it, come forward,

[1:07:58] and we can work together as a community, provide some rules, and like you said,

[1:08:02] like that the bylaw officer goes out, gives a warning, and they, hey, I didn't

[1:08:06] know that. And they get educate educated on the spot, and away we go. I think

[1:08:12] it's more communitydriven. Thank you.

[1:08:16] » Do I have a motion to amend to include option three instead of option one?

[1:08:25] » If I might sort of at this time um when you're looking at to amend

[1:08:31] this committee is get sort of giving direction. We're here to have a

[1:08:33] conversation. Council will make the decision ultimately on the report. So

[1:08:37] this report will go to council on the 22nd, but it maybe gives some direction

[1:08:43] for staff to look at the recommendations that are provided um to move this

[1:08:47] forward. And the reason I say that council is sometimes we as staff may

[1:08:53] still stand on our recommendation because we're providing you advice. You

[1:08:56] as council then accept that advice, but then you take in your concerns that

[1:09:01] you're hearing from the community and then you would make amendments then and

[1:09:05] the decision. But I I really want to make sure that that's clearly understood

[1:09:08] that staff at times it may not be this report, but at times may still have to

[1:09:13] stand on the recommendation they're providing you because that's the advice

[1:09:16] and what the data says. Council then has to accept that you would accept that.

[1:09:21] And I mean accept it as in you read what we deliver you, not accept as in you

[1:09:25] agree with us and then you make your decisions that way. So I just before we

[1:09:29] make a motion to go forward, I I just want to make sure there's some clarity

[1:09:33] sort of around that and that this really is just a motion to proceed to council

[1:09:39] with um I it'd almost say for for staff to look

[1:09:44] at the suggested amendments >> and our big decision comes on the 22nd.

[1:09:48] » Yeah.

[1:09:56] Just going to wait for a minute for a recommendation.

[1:10:10] » Sure. Yeah. >> After this.

[1:10:12] » Yeah, we can do that. So, as a as an amended motion, I have

[1:10:17] that West Elgen C committee of the whole hereby receives the report from Terry

[1:10:21] Toschuk, manager of community services clerk, and that council direct staff to

[1:10:26] look at the suggested amendments to option three to be approved at the

[1:10:31] regular meeting of council on January 22nd, 2026.

[1:10:36] » Move, please. Councelor Susa, seconded, councelor Staithm.

[1:10:42] All in favor? That's carried. Thank you. I'm going to call for a 5 minutes break.

[1:10:58] Okay, we'll start back at the meeting again and we go to 4.3. Chief

[1:11:04] Administration Officer, a verbal discussion. Roma delegations.

[1:11:10] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. uh council as you've been seeing some uh emails go

[1:11:15] into your inbox. I had put in several delegation requests at uh after

[1:11:20] council's discussion uh late last year uh to some of the concerns and we have

[1:11:24] heard back from the various ministries. So I wanted just to bring this here

[1:11:28] because as I'm subdrafting some of those documents for you to to support you in

[1:11:33] your discussion and your delegation I just want to make sure that I'm hitting

[1:11:36] some key points of your concerns at that time. So council, one of the delegations

[1:11:41] we have is with the associate minister for um mental health and addiction

[1:11:47] services. At the time I heard from last year, you did have some concerns around

[1:11:51] um sort of mental oop

[1:11:55] or my pull it closed. >> Um for you had some concerns around

[1:12:01] rural access to mental health support and particularly for mental health

[1:12:05] services and addictions. And so maybe I'd like to hear from council as to are

[1:12:09] there any key points that you're wanting to make sure that we're putting into

[1:12:12] this delegation request. Uh I have reached out to Andy Croker at uh West

[1:12:18] Elgen Community Health Center. He will be joining us in the delegation. So I've

[1:12:22] also asked him like what are the concerns or issues that the health

[1:12:25] center is seeing and some programs or needs that they would like to see in

[1:12:28] place. But just an opportunity to hear from council on that issue and topic.

[1:12:37] Yes, Councelor Denny, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, and Robin,

[1:12:42] thank you for that. I'm really, really glad to hear that Andy will be part of

[1:12:45] this delegation as a small community. Um, it's it's incredibly difficult for

[1:12:50] us to uh to find the resources to support those who need help. And the

[1:12:55] last thing I would want to see is duplication of services here in West

[1:12:59] Elgen. And if West Elgen Community Health Center is striving to uh take

[1:13:04] care of all of those those support services, I know that funding is a big

[1:13:08] part of it that what we should be doing is certainly supporting them and showing

[1:13:12] them that we have their back and advocating with West Elvin Community

[1:13:16] Health Center to make sure that they have the funding that they need to

[1:13:19] provide the services in our community as opposed to uh just uh trying to take it

[1:13:24] on ourselves. So, as long as I think that, you know,

[1:13:27] that's, you know, that we are pushing to make sure that the province understands

[1:13:32] how important West Elen Community Health Center and their services are, that's

[1:13:35] certainly the direction I think that we should be advocating in.

[1:13:39] » Yeah. Thank you,

[1:13:44] Mr. Susa. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Bill.

[1:13:46] Um, also just I remember that event we had at the community center and one of

[1:13:53] the topics was um trying to get specialized doctors in our community to

[1:13:57] stay within our community. What are the incentives to have them to remain in our

[1:14:02] community and service our constituents? It's hard to keep those specialized

[1:14:06] doctors here. Thank you.

[1:14:11] It's hard to keep them here because we haven't got enough money to to encourage

[1:14:15] them to stay here and that's one of the big problems. Deputy Mayor Talier,

[1:14:22] » thank you through the chair and further than that for councelor Susie. Yeah, if

[1:14:25] you work at the health center, you are um not you're doing it for the money

[1:14:29] obviously for a vocation and to support your family, but also

[1:14:34] you are doing it for the love of what you do. you are if you go into a

[1:14:37] hospital or clinical setting other than a CHC within Ontario, you are making a

[1:14:42] lot more um sometimes 30% more uh or higher in a different setting. So um

[1:14:49] they are in our communities to help us for the love of the community as well.

[1:14:55] Um because if they worked, like I said, in hospital clinical setting, they'd be

[1:15:02] much better in their bank accounts and helping out their families more. Um I

[1:15:05] think attracting people is a big thing. Attracting to our area what we have um

[1:15:11] space um the space within the uh CHC is limited at times and they're kind of

[1:15:18] doing a Jenga of Exactly. Is it Jenga? I don't know. Whatever. Shuffle of uh

[1:15:23] space to uh accommodate people and time. They're only open certain amount of

[1:15:28] times too. Um, I'd like to maybe look at like the

[1:15:35] youth. Um, I sat on the youth task team and that was a few years ago and saw at

[1:15:42] the end of when they were really really meeting. Um, they're struggling. They

[1:15:47] they know they may never own a home. They may never own a car. how hard it is

[1:15:51] to get to own a car if you don't have a supportive family or the monies or the

[1:15:56] means to get to um you know get to a driver center to

[1:16:04] even go through the process of the graduate related system. They all see a

[1:16:08] little hope and there weren't very many that were very hopeful and these kids

[1:16:12] came from all different demographics so it wasn't a demographic thing. Um, so

[1:16:16] yeah, just helping with the youth more, thinking more like grade six and up. Um,

[1:16:22] when they're starting to really really have to make decisions about their lives

[1:16:25] and what it looks like and when there aren't uh they're realizing at that

[1:16:29] point that there's not a lot um that they can control it sometimes that it's

[1:16:32] all out or they really get down and really their mental health suffers. So

[1:16:36] maybe a more youth perspective and bringing someone in and funding for

[1:16:41] CHC's um in the future from Ontario to help

[1:16:45] them uh look at that. Um, [clears throat] I do have the the

[1:16:52] ranges of ages in West Elgen in in numbers if that's any help

[1:17:00] like over 65s, you know, very I have that because I

[1:17:06] read it out and I still got the paper so I could bring that or bring it to you

[1:17:12] and and and if it's any good, we can use those figures because they're still

[1:17:17] they're still the right figures. Councelor

[1:17:23] Sathan. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and through you. I

[1:17:27] think I'm very pleased that we have the ability to go in and and have a

[1:17:32] delegation with with the honorable VJ uh I can't pronounce that last name. I'm so

[1:17:38] sorry. Uh >> it's our associate minister of health

[1:17:42] and his focus and portfolio is on mental health and addiction services.

[1:17:46] » Right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um

[1:17:49] Thank you, Madam CEO. So, I I I think this is really important. I I come at

[1:17:53] this from I have young children. They are young enough that they have not had

[1:17:58] any, you know, sort of issues with addiction

[1:18:03] or mental health. But I know that those days, one day, they're going to be

[1:18:06] exposed to that. And that terrifies me. It terrifies me as a father. And I want

[1:18:12] to make sure that we have in our community the support networks that are

[1:18:16] available. uh should that become and and again I I want to I want to believe that

[1:18:20] it never will and I hope I hope to God that it never does.

[1:18:24] But right now I can say that when we're looking at our our high school uh and we

[1:18:28] have overdoses at the local high school uh it is an issue and it is an issue in

[1:18:32] our community and it's something that we have to confront and the the resources

[1:18:37] are just not here. They're not here. They're not available. uh and if we can

[1:18:42] have an impact with the province and are able to express the need for support, I

[1:18:48] think that would go a long ways. And even if we had, you know, some sort of

[1:18:53] um assistance with the the local health center to provide those support

[1:18:58] networks, addiction is a terrible thing and it

[1:19:02] affects everybody and it affects everybody in different ways. And I've

[1:19:04] seen it throughout the community. And I know especially around here with with

[1:19:08] youth, they don't have anything to do. It's not the same as uh being in a city

[1:19:12] where they can they can go and play sports. So, I mean, they can play sports

[1:19:14] at the arena, sure, but you know, there are not the the outlets that there are

[1:19:20] in a city. And I think that that means that we need to be that much more v

[1:19:23] vigilant in our community to provide those those support networks.

[1:19:27] » I agree. >> I feel strongly about it. So, thank you.

[1:19:30] » That and the time for health for help is when they're young, too. If we can, you

[1:19:36] know, if you can sort of nip it in the bud before they go too far, it's

[1:19:40] obviously going to be easier to cure. So we should start at the beginning.

[1:19:45] » Absolutely. Absolutely. >> Yes. Deputy May I tell you?

[1:19:50] » Thank you the chair. So we tried to years ago, this is kind of going on this

[1:19:54] I'll get there. Um having a youth group in our area and uh myself and Greg

[1:20:02] Simpson were leading that in the area and um

[1:20:06] we had all the kids that are already going in the right direction show up,

[1:20:09] not the ones that were having issues. and it was difficult but a lot of them

[1:20:13] we redirected to services that we could or or made you know a connection with

[1:20:18] their their family or their grandparents or whatever to redirect them. So maybe

[1:20:23] looking at um resources of how to like you're saying

[1:20:28] catch those kids earlier on that they would come to the resources that

[1:20:33] councelor Stathithm was referring to in the area. I also totally an aside, but

[1:20:37] it's bothered me since the OP officer was here. His stats telling us there are

[1:20:42] no opioid deaths. I'm sorry I'm shaking. Make me so angry. He is incorrect. I was

[1:20:48] at one we had in the area actually on this road. I the

[1:20:54] lockone has been given to so many people in this area recently.

[1:20:58] It it angers me. And it angers me cuz they want to just throw it under the rug

[1:21:03] that it doesn't happen. And it does happen. Talk to the teachers in the

[1:21:06] community. Talk to the educators in the community that aren't just teachers that

[1:21:09] are administrated in this community. The parents, the clergy, the health center,

[1:21:15] anybody. It is happening. And it's not just youth as well. It's seniors and

[1:21:19] older people. >> Yeah.

[1:21:20] » And it's >> Yeah, we know each

[1:21:24] and that was so not a happy camper. Um cuz saying that you have to have an OP,

[1:21:30] an ambulance, whatever on they were all there for all of those. We've all We all

[1:21:35] drove by. We know. We witnessed it all. And saying that it's not happening is

[1:21:38] just not okay. Not okay to make your stats look like

[1:21:43] » That's right. >> what you want them to look like. That's

[1:21:44] » I think everybody in this room realizes that it's happening and it's happening

[1:21:48] around us.

[1:21:58] » I'm glad that we have the opportunity to have the delegation. I think it's going

[1:22:02] to be I think it's going to be great. I'm looking forward to being there. Um,

[1:22:06] councelor Susa, you're going or? >> Yes.

[1:22:10] » Perfect. So, there'll be at least the the three of us. Richard, you're

[1:22:13] attending as well, I believe. >> Pardon?

[1:22:15] » You're you're attending as well, Roma. >> Mhm.

[1:22:17] » Yeah. I was going to say likewise. >> So, council, I have one more u we have

[1:22:22] one more de well I have a couple listed, but one more delegation that has been

[1:22:25] confirmed is with the minister uh ministry of rural affairs. I confirmed

[1:22:29] it's with the parliamentary assistant, Steve Pinino, who is your MPP. uh

[1:22:33] neighboring MPP. I know Steve is a counselor from Chadam Kent. Um last year

[1:22:38] we also spoke with parliamentary assistant uh Bob [clears throat] he's

[1:22:44] from Sarnia. >> Yeah.

[1:22:45] » Bailey. Thank you very much. Uh council my recommendation though I'm willing to

[1:22:50] want to listen here. Council's concerned. Uh last year at AMO councelor

[1:22:53] Stithm took a delegation and we spoke to both the minister of um agriculture.

[1:23:01] It's not rural affairs anymore. our agriculture and farm and then the the

[1:23:05] parliamentary assistant for rural affairs. And we did present concerns of

[1:23:10] our small uh farming industry and making sure that they understood from a rural

[1:23:15] perspective the concerns of having access to land, having access to the

[1:23:19] infrastructure that can support and expand trade. uh having access to or

[1:23:25] further developing um education programs so that there is a connection to those

[1:23:31] learning and those who are already producing. And then we had another one.

[1:23:37] » Yeah. >> At the end of our conversation, we

[1:23:40] councelor Stathithm did invite both the minister of from OMFA and parliamentary

[1:23:46] assistant to please come to West Elgen. And so my concept this is to return with

[1:23:50] that similar conversation that we already have put forward but instead of

[1:23:55] just it being a general you should come visit us have an actual invitation to

[1:24:01] extend to them. So my op my thought was to be working with economic development.

[1:24:06] We've already had a bit of this conversation and set a date um of which

[1:24:10] we would do a farm tour and invite our ministers um Rob Black, our neighboring

[1:24:17] ministers to join us. The minister of rural affairs, minister um of Mafa who

[1:24:22] is Mr. Lonardi from Leington. um if we had that date ready as opposed to just

[1:24:28] making it a generalized offer, making sure we have a set date ready and then

[1:24:33] working with economic development to further de develop and build out what

[1:24:36] that agricultural small farm agricultural tour would look like,

[1:24:41] but willing to hear from council any concerns that they want to make sure.

[1:24:45] And remember, when we do go to delegations, they do recommend we keep

[1:24:48] it short to, you know, the maximum of three concerns.

[1:24:52] If you get to you have 15 minutes. So for those who have not been in 21, you

[1:24:56] have a 15-minute conversation and they knock on the door at 10 minutes. So

[1:25:00] » we keep our um we keep our ask and our focus very very very focused um and very

[1:25:06] concise so that we can at least deliver what our askers.

[1:25:09] » I'm just talking around the tables now, but you know, West Elgen is generally

[1:25:15] agriculture. >> Yeah.

[1:25:17] » And so it's our biggest thing. Okay. So, we're getting more less and less and

[1:25:22] less people in agriculture, although it's still agriculture because

[1:25:27] the farms are getting larger and larger and larger. So, in the finish, we're

[1:25:32] going to finish up with about half a dozen that runs West Elgen.

[1:25:37] And it's it's high time that if you didn't come from a farming community

[1:25:42] where that was your life and soul and your dream, why shouldn't you have the

[1:25:47] opportunity to be able to do that? And you can't do that for the simple reason

[1:25:53] you can't even buy 50 acres anymore. They won't let you se sever and things

[1:25:57] like that. and and so I think it's only fair that people that are not in

[1:26:02] agriculture can get into agriculture or there is a

[1:26:06] way to get into agriculture as at the moment it's absolutely no no

[1:26:16] » yes >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. And

[1:26:19] and this was something that we discussed at AMO and and I think Robin and I at

[1:26:23] that meeting. I think that was successful. I think we did a great job

[1:26:26] in expanding upon those exact, you know, ideas. And and the idea of cooperative

[1:26:30] education programs and procurement streams to support small farms, I think

[1:26:34] is is critical. And it's something that I feel very passionately about coming

[1:26:37] from a, you know, a farming uh background myself. Um

[1:26:43] to to your point, agriculture will not continue on a small scale in

[1:26:49] southwestern Ontario and the bread box of Ontario will not continue

[1:26:53] on a small scale without support. It it's going to disappear. And and I see

[1:26:58] that every day. We are transitioning to larger farms where our transitioning

[1:27:01] outside of the family farm business is becoming corporations. And unless uh we

[1:27:07] put some effort into preserving those small family farms, it's going to slip

[1:27:11] away. And once it's gone, it's gone. And I agree with you 100%. I think and and

[1:27:16] this is a good opportunity to expand upon what we said at AMO. And to Robin,

[1:27:19] uh your point, if if we could bring again, we're this is the bread box of

[1:27:23] Ontario. We live in one of the best agricultural

[1:27:26] centers of the province and and to bring some representatives from the province,

[1:27:32] some of the ministers down here, and give them a tour and link that in with

[1:27:36] the economic development committee and and bring it all together as one

[1:27:39] package. I What else could you ask for? Showcase some of the small businesses.

[1:27:44] Showcase the lamb producers, the blueberry farms, showcase our our our

[1:27:51] breweries that are sourcing local local uh products. Showcase what we have here.

[1:27:56] I I I think that we could do a phenomenal job. The wineries, the the

[1:28:00] grape growers, the housecaps, all the different crops, the the carrots, you

[1:28:05] know, we we could do a great job of putting this.

[1:28:08] » Even small farmers can help the grocery bill. Yeah.

[1:28:11] » You do not need 10,000 acres. >> Yeah.

[1:28:15] » To support your family. But what you do need is the ability

[1:28:19] to sell your product. >> That's right.

[1:28:21] » And if we don't have access to these procurement streams and we don't have

[1:28:26] access to um cooperative education programs that allow people to learn

[1:28:30] about agriculture and get into the business, then then we're lost. So I

[1:28:35] think Robin, I agree 100%. I I read your email. I I think it's it's wonderful. I

[1:28:40] think that we should focus on those uh concepts at at Roma and I think we would

[1:28:45] have a strong delegation and hopefully we can get the ministers down here and

[1:28:49] and show them what it is to live in southwestern Ontario specifically in

[1:28:52] West Elgen. Well, I I know my wish. We just a new warden at at the county and

[1:28:58] my wish I only put my wish forward only the other day and that was trying to

[1:29:04] introduce people that wanted to go into farming to get into farming and find a

[1:29:09] way.

[1:29:13] » Yes, councelor Susa. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. But all very good

[1:29:16] points. I one of my concerns was the the better build home act and then I'm I I'm

[1:29:21] worried about West Elgen Dton like all of our farming and we're going to we're

[1:29:27] going to lose it. They're they're pushing pressure to build more homes. I

[1:29:30] I really want to make a point that we need a balance. Not saying no to

[1:29:34] building homes saying we need a a good balance. We we can't lose our farmlands.

[1:29:39] And if they're pressuring us for better build homes, more homes, we need to we

[1:29:43] need to have a limit. >> We need to say, "Hey, we have to protect

[1:29:45] our farmland. Let's find the right balance. Let's get the small population

[1:29:49] growth and let's let's keep it let's keep it real rural like keep our

[1:29:53] community small and and and and growing. So, thank

[1:29:58] you. >> That's right.

[1:30:00] » Yes, deputy may tell you >> through the chair. Maybe a talking point

[1:30:03] would be that tell me if I'm wrong. Um 20 minutes outside of our community is

[1:30:09] University of G RGtown campus that has agricultural

[1:30:14] links. Richtown >> RGtown campus has agricultural links and

[1:30:18] agricultural programming that could be brought into the compass of this

[1:30:22] conversation. It's not far for people from our community to go and be educated

[1:30:25] about agricultural and what that looks like for them. So something maybe just

[1:30:30] an idea for a talking point. Also, are we concentrating on like all farming or

[1:30:35] are we just doing a big talk on like I know it all connects but like mega

[1:30:41] farms, micro farming, macro like are we >> the smaller farmers getting left by the

[1:30:48] larger farmer? That's what literally as I see it. I mean now 5,000 acres isn't

[1:30:54] big anymore, you know, and and all and a lot of the houses that are in between in

[1:31:00] in the country are also going because their big combines won't go around that

[1:31:04] that little acre plot anymore. So all we're getting is like a desert of

[1:31:09] farming. That's what we're going to finish up with. And if anything happens

[1:31:12] to the farming industry really bad and somebody goes broke when he's got 7,000

[1:31:17] acres going to leave great some great gaps in our community.

[1:31:22] » If I might, Mr. Mayor. So last year's direction, our focus was to look at the

[1:31:25] small farmer and it [clears throat] was around the concerns of rural farming and

[1:31:29] small farmer. What we did in our research to understand is actually 60%

[1:31:33] of the farming industry is small farmers. And so to make sure that the

[1:31:37] ministry understands that while we know that there we respect that there is a

[1:31:41] spectrum of farming from the large industrial uh agricultural farms down to

[1:31:46] micro farming. Um but we want to make sure the rural voice is being heard and

[1:31:51] that the voice of the small farmer who may not have the funding behind it for

[1:31:54] the lobby groups is continuously at the table. And so the focus of that then was

[1:31:59] around education providing links between those who are um learning farming and to

[1:32:04] work on actual farms understanding that when procurement is being set up that

[1:32:09] the small farmers being considered so where they're being situated you're not

[1:32:13] having to drive hundreds of kilometers in order to produce your food because in

[1:32:18] order and councelor stith probably knows best on this but in order to sell your

[1:32:22] farm your your wares um even cross proincially you have to be in federally

[1:32:27] regulated facility and so access to those facilities so that when we can

[1:32:31] access interprovincial trade because right now with tariffs that is a concern

[1:32:35] so how do you broaden your base um and then I believe we also said we were

[1:32:39] looking at sort of the land and access to land and so what are those policies

[1:32:43] that we're putting into place to make sure that there is a balance across the

[1:32:46] spectrum of large and small farming >> yeah and I would add to that thank you

[1:32:53] Robin you summed it up perfectly I think when you're looking at uh some of the

[1:32:57] larger larger operations that have thousands of acres. I think that they

[1:33:02] they need our support as well uh in the sense that you know we have to be

[1:33:06] advocating for Canadian agriculture um and Canadian products. However, they

[1:33:11] face different challenges and their the challenges that they face are more on,

[1:33:15] you know, the cost of the cost of production and what they're receiving

[1:33:20] for their outputs and that's dictated on a on a market level and there there's

[1:33:25] little that we can do about that. the small farms uh you know under sub 500

[1:33:29] acres you know that are supporting a single family those are the farms that

[1:33:34] really need support and need assistance because those are the farms that are

[1:33:38] disappearing and they're being swallowed up by larger corporations and they're

[1:33:41] that way of life is is going by the wayside

[1:33:44] » the abattoars etc everything went >> well what abbittoars

[1:33:48] » I know >> there's there's there's

[1:33:50] » so it's no encouragement really is it >> yep

[1:33:54] » so yeah no I think I We're on the right track. I I think this is a very um

[1:34:00] it's a great delegation. I think, you know, we we should get somewhere with

[1:34:04] this hopefully and if we can get them down here and get them to tour our

[1:34:07] community, I think they'll understand. >> Yeah, I it would be excellent.

[1:34:12] Yes, deputy. May I tell you, >> just further to that, just thinking uh

[1:34:16] recently it came out that um forgiveness for tuitions for healthcare ECS and such

[1:34:22] came out. I mean, could be a oneliner. Could we have a break for people uh

[1:34:28] young people, old whatever going into an agricultural field um for their tuition

[1:34:33] fees to learn about farming and to connect to that industry? Just an idea

[1:34:38] to have a oneliner within there.

[1:34:43] » So council um I also heard from the ministry of infrastructure.

[1:34:46] Unfortunately, we were not successful with um a meeting with them during Roma,

[1:34:51] though they did extend that we could possibly have a meeting after Roma. Um

[1:34:54] the focus was really around to understand uh the needs for particularly

[1:34:59] around our wastewater and wastewater development. This is kind of counter

[1:35:02] though to what we were just saying because wastewater is needed for the

[1:35:05] expansion and growth of residential homes. Um so we could touch on that one

[1:35:10] later. I as of today heard from actually the solicitor general that if we'd like

[1:35:14] to have a meeting, I haven't confirmed this yet. Um we have a possibility for a

[1:35:19] meeting on Tuesday morning, but we're I have to see if that's fine. uh what I

[1:35:24] had put in what my your concerns from this council were around sort of the

[1:35:29] repeat offenders and um sort of limitations on being able to address

[1:35:37] repeat offenders and repeat offenders in our community in rural communities. So

[1:35:41] if this council would like me to also reach out and have a conversation or set

[1:35:45] up a meeting to have a conversation at Roma with the solicitor uh it would be

[1:35:49] the deputy parliamentary assistant to the solicitor general. I can certainly

[1:35:53] do that though like to hear some expansion of thought on that from from

[1:35:57] council. Last year your concerns were around

[1:36:01] repeat offenders within our communities and the ability for rural communities to

[1:36:06] address those concerns.

[1:36:11] We can go with the two that we have or we can I can

[1:36:18] repeat offenders is something that's happening everywhere.

[1:36:21] » It is. Yes, >> absolutely everywhere.

[1:36:25] And uh it's it's cause it causes a whole bunch of problems

[1:36:30] because a lot of them don't learn their lesson. They just come out and do it

[1:36:33] again.

[1:36:38] So, one of the concerns, Mr. Mayor, when you're looking at repeat offenders and

[1:36:41] knowing that it's a sort of a nationwide issue, um, as I structured all of the um

[1:36:49] requests for delegations, it was always about presenting the rural voice. So the

[1:36:54] rule voice concern of having shared services of OP across the county means

[1:36:59] we have limited access to police services. Meaning that the the times of

[1:37:04] which police are able to respond to issues within our community some kind

[1:37:08] can be delayed by the volume that might be occurring across a region not just an

[1:37:14] area. It can be delayed by the large expanse of land of which our op has to

[1:37:18] travel. So if they right are situated in central elegant it's a 45minute delay.

[1:37:23] So those are some of the concerns we can address to say municipalities then end

[1:37:28] up bearing um some of the the cost to repair or end up addressing some of the

[1:37:33] concerns and wanting to make sure that uh at a provincial level the supports to

[1:37:40] in order to to provide for that. One of the concerns right now is the cost of

[1:37:44] OP. We've already seen 11% increase. I'm going to guess that we're always going

[1:37:48] to see 11% increase because that's the ceiling.

[1:37:52] Um and so the cost for small municipalities to um be able to support

[1:37:58] the cost of policing services um with limited resource or limited services

[1:38:04] received for that increase of cost >> the general safety of our community too.

[1:38:09] » Yeah. Do do you want me to proceed with in confirming uh a meeting a delegation

[1:38:14] with them at this time or are you fine with the two that we have that

[1:38:20] we've developed around? >> Yes, deputy. May I tell you?

[1:38:24] » Well, I'd love to speak on the have a delegation on that. I think maybe

[1:38:29] concentrating on our two we already have and putting our resources into that

[1:38:33] would be best at this time. Okay. >> I would agree with that.

[1:38:38] Okay, I'll focus on the two that we have and then also the the third one with

[1:38:43] Ministry of Infrastructure, but that would occur after after. So, thank you.

[1:38:47] Okay, thank you council for your comments and it'll help me um sort of

[1:38:51] restructure and structure the one certainly for health services.

[1:38:56] » Okay, thank you. a good conversation

[1:39:03] and we're going to go actually we're going to go to a close session.

[1:39:10] If you would do the recommendation, please

[1:39:13] » that the council of the municipality of West Elgen hereby proceeds into close

[1:39:17] session at 5:46 p.m. to discuss matters pursuant to the municipal act section

[1:39:21] 2392K being a position, plan, procedure,

[1:39:25] criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be

[1:39:31] carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. Port

[1:39:35] Glasgow trailer park seasonal contracts. Move, please. Councelor Susa

[1:39:42] seconded Councelor Stithm. All in favor? That's carried.

[1:39:56] » Okay, we're moving back into open session.

[1:40:00] return to open session at 6:11, sorry, 6:12 p.m.

[1:40:06] West Elgen Committee of the Whole received one item and received the

[1:40:09] following recommendation. That West Elgen Committee of the Hole

[1:40:12] receives the 2026 Port Glasgow trailer park contract details from R. Greenall,

[1:40:17] CEO, and that the committee of the whole recommends that 2026 Port Glasgow

[1:40:23] trailer park contract be amended and proceed to January 22nd West Elgen

[1:40:28] Council meeting for final approval.

[1:40:33] » You need to move. >> Yes, please.

[1:40:36] » Moved by councelor Stathithm, seconded deputy mayor Talier.

[1:40:43] All in favor? That's carried.

[1:40:50] And that takes us to adjournment. >> That West Elgen Committee of the Whole

[1:40:54] hereby adjourn at 6:12 p.m. to meet again at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, January

[1:41:00] 22nd, 2026 or at the call of the chair. >> Move, please.

[1:41:06] Councelor Susa seconded. Deputy Mayor Talier. All in favor? That's carried.

[1:41:11] Thank you.

Committee of the Whole, January 8th 2026

Transcript