[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.