[0:23] Good evening everyone and welcome to our regular council meeting for August 24th,

[0:27] 2026. I'd look for a mover and a seconder to call our meeting to order,

[0:32] please. Moved by councelor Martin, seconded by councelor Crestman. All

[0:35] those in favor, that carries unanimously.

[0:38] We did not have a closed session today. So, I will invite councelor Wilkinson to

[0:43] introduce our territorial land acknowledgement, please.

[0:47] » Thank you. Uh we have gathered in Wilmont Township on the traditional

[0:50] territory of the neutral and hodni and missaga peoples. And we also want to

[0:55] acknowledge the importance of the dish with one spoon covenant, a peace

[0:58] agreement made between indigenous nations before the Europeans arrived. It

[1:02] characterizes our collective responsibility to each other and mother

[1:05] earth that we should take only what we need, leave enough for others, and keep

[1:09] the dish clean. By acknowledging this covenant and the First Nations, Inuit

[1:13] and Matei people, we are reminded of our important connection to this land where

[1:16] we live, learn, and work together as a community.

[1:21] » Thank you very much, counselor. Uh, I will now turn it over to CEO Wilmer to

[1:25] introduce a new face around horseshoe. >> Thank you very much, Mayor Salin. And

[1:30] we're very pleased to introduce Tracy Prince as the new treasurer and director

[1:33] of financial services for the the township of Wilmont. Tracy's joining us

[1:37] remotely tonight. Uh, and she's uh been on the job for about two weeks now and

[1:41] comes to us from the town of Ahmersburg and also has previous experience at

[1:45] Slair Region Conservation Authority as well as the city of London. Uh Tracy is

[1:50] a a chartered professional accountant, also has an MBA and brings a good

[1:54] combination of people leadership skills and technical skills. So we're very

[1:57] pleased to have Tracy join us as part of the team.

[2:01] » Thank you very much and welcome Tracy. Uh on to the adoption of the agenda. I

[2:06] believe councelor Dunstall uh wanted to move that with an amendment. I'll turn

[2:10] it over to councelor Dunstall. >> Thank you through you, mayor. Yes, I

[2:14] want to make an amendment to remove uh correspondence 12.2

[2:20] from the agenda. >> Okay, that's been moved by councelor

[2:24] Dunstall. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by councelor Cresman. Any

[2:29] questions or comments? So, the motion is to remove 12.2 and then adopt the

[2:35] remaining agenda as presented. Okay, seeing none, I will call the

[2:41] question. All those in favor? All those opposed. And that carries. On

[2:47] to Are there any disclosures of pecunary interest?

[2:52] Councelor Cresman. >> Yes. Uh I would like to de declare a

[2:57] pecunary interest on 16.4 the zone change along um Gingrich Road. Uh it's

[3:05] uh as a result of my uh oldest son uh G being CEO at Walter Fatty and uh they're

[3:14] uh doing the engineering work on the uh entire project.

[3:20] » Thank you. >> Sorry.

[3:22] » 14.6 I believe. >> Um it's for the Gingrich Road item,

[3:29] correct counselor? It's the Gingrich Road item.

[3:32] » Yes. >> Okay. So that is 14.6

[3:35] and that has been noted. Uh we do have our minutes from the July 27th meeting

[3:40] as well as the August 13th special council meeting to be adopted as

[3:44] presented. May I have a mover for that? Moved by councelor Sadu, seconded by

[3:48] councelor Cresman. >> Can I make a comment please?

[3:51] » Absolutely. >> Uh through you mayor Salin just uh I

[3:54] believe it's going to be changed but it's noted that I'm absent. Um, I guess

[3:58] I missed the opening on the 27th, but I was there for the closed meeting and so

[4:02] I was here for the whole meeting except the initial um motion.

[4:06] » Uh, I'm seeing clerks nodding to acknowledge that. So, that will be

[4:10] updated. Uh, thank you for making that note. Any other questions or comments on

[4:15] the minutes before us? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor? And that

[4:20] carries unanimously. We do not have any public meetings this

[4:24] evening, but we do have a presentation. We got to see Tova twice in I believe

[4:28] the last two months. So I will invite up Tova Davidson and um Stefan Nacho, I'm

[4:36] sorry if I've mispronounced that um to the podium to present on the new uh

[4:41] sustainability manager. So welcome to council. Thank you so much. Um it's

[4:46] really great to be here and to be back um after it's been I think six weeks or

[4:51] two months. So nice to be here. Um for those who don't know, I'm Toa Davidson.

[4:54] I'm the executive director of S SWR sustainable water region and I'm here

[4:59] just to introduce Stefan um a new partnership that has been formed between

[5:05] the township of Wilmont and Welssley where together we have hired a

[5:09] sustainability manager to support your own work towards um your operational

[5:16] sustainability and integration of community work through the climate

[5:19] action work etc etc as a staff person the support that SWR is bringing is our

[5:24] our own expertise to make sure that we are supporting the townships in this

[5:28] way. And it is a shared role with just a one-year idea of let's give this a try

[5:32] and see how we can make some real progress. So the idea today is to

[5:37] introduce Stefan, give him a moment to introduce himself and just to talk a

[5:40] little bit about what the priorities are at the very beginning and answer any

[5:43] questions the council may have. >> Correct. Thank you, Dova. Um, yeah, nice

[5:48] to be here and working with the townships of Wilmont and Wellsley on

[5:53] that project. I would call it. So, as you heard, my name is Stefan. [laughter]

[5:59] Um I'm an architect and certified passive house designer almost two

[6:02] decades experience in the field worked on numerous retrofits

[6:07] um energy efficient buildings like passive houses and um yeah the overall

[6:13] goal is to find um opportunities for optimization and performance

[6:20] enhancements at the facilities of WA Township. And um in the first 6 months

[6:26] we will well I will focus on the GHG emissions. See where we sit in terms of

[6:33] um emissions and water usage and um yeah find hopefully some good um areas to

[6:42] improve and um yeah reporting constantly to the council. The idea is to report

[6:51] like every every quarter to you guys and um yeah, if there's any questions,

[6:58] please let me know. [laughter] >> Wonderful. Well, welcome on board and

[7:04] thank you very much for coming today. Um I don't currently see any questions. Oh,

[7:09] sorry, Councelor Wilkinson. >> Thank you through the chair. Um welcome

[7:13] aboard. Um glad you're uh here. I'm just curious. I I realize it's very early

[7:18] going, but I'm wondering if uh in your past experience or even in maybe some of

[7:23] your research if there's any sort of um identifiable savings or operational um

[7:30] improvements that that you think you can find or if what you anticipate those

[7:36] could be. >> Yeah. Through the mayor to councelor

[7:40] Wilkins Wilkins. Um yeah. Um so I think we have good opportunities in the terms

[7:47] of water savings. That's that's my first assumption from seeing the data. Um and

[7:54] yeah, we will have to review the data, see the facilities and um then I can

[8:01] close to or can say more about if there's any things that we can do. I'll

[8:07] jump in as well just to say that the other focus for us is to look at that

[8:10] data and where the physical opportunities are and then to look at

[8:13] funding opportunities and to apply for those funding opportunities to enable

[8:17] some of those retrofits. So the capital cost could be mitigated by some of the

[8:21] funding opportunities the high energy efficiency increasing within the

[8:25] buildings then saving in operational as well.

[8:29] » Any other questions at this time council? Okay, seeing none. Thank you

[8:33] again very much Toba and Stephanie for joining us

[8:37] » this evening. We do have uh three delegations. You'll be called when we

[8:42] get to those appropriate parts in the agenda.

[8:46] Uh we do have one item of correspondence. Did anybody want to

[8:50] speak to that? Okay, seeing none. Um we do have multiple items on our consent

[8:56] agenda. We will be um pulling 13.3 to start as we do have two uh individuals

[9:05] who have registered to speak on this. So I will start uh just making sure I'm

[9:12] following my notes here properly. Um so just for a note 13.3 is the Petersburg

[9:18] drinking water system local improvement bylaw.

[9:21] And uh as I said we have two delegates who have registered. So our first one is

[9:25] Clive Wner. Thank you for joining us today, Clive. And you will have seven

[9:31] minutes.

[9:35] » Yeah, I want to talk about this uh this whole system. When it was originally

[9:39] brought up, it was to be a looped system. That was what we were told that

[9:42] needed to be because you couldn't have people at the end of a line. Now, the

[9:47] 2024 drawings show a loop system, but the 2026 drawings do not. And it's

[9:54] obvious to me and to most people that that's going to be connected to the

[9:59] regional water supply because otherwise it's a deadend system all the way from

[10:04] Deerfield Court all the way around to the end of Snider's Road. And I guess,

[10:10] you know, why were there no meetings after the system was redesigned? Why

[10:14] wasn't it discussed with us? Why weren't the 26 people who are being forced and

[10:20] slammed onto this system not shown as being possible on that? It

[10:26] didn't even show us. You want us to come out and engage? Hey, I'll come out and

[10:29] engage, but you know what' be nice? It would be nice if it wouldn't be hidden

[10:33] like it has been. And you can say, well, you know, it was on the 2024 drawings,

[10:38] but I would hope logic tells me the new revised drawings of 2026 drawings would

[10:45] be the most accurate, which they were not.

[10:51] And and you know, they're going to tie into that system. The second thing is

[10:54] this whole problem was brought on by the the NIPL water system, and it's been

[10:59] described as fair that these 26 properties pay. Well, what's fairness?

[11:04] you know, they had 40, 50, 60, 70 years of not paying maintenance on the system

[11:11] and I go out and spend 30,000 on a well and pump and treatment system and then I

[11:16] have to pay for them as well. I don't consider that fair, but that's

[11:20] mine. And I got to say, our counselor has been of no assistance because right

[11:24] from the get-go, his position has always been if it's going to go, you're going

[11:29] to pay for it. Period. No discussion, no nothing. I'm disappointed in that. I

[11:35] think it's a bad potential. And and there was no process, no time in

[11:40] this whole process was there any attempt to address the concerns of the 26.

[11:45] There's things that could have been done to okay, let's say we pay $10,000

[11:51] and then if we hook up in the next 15 years, we pay uh starting off at 15,000

[11:57] going down to zero. Uh and it would have cost the others more, but I mean it it

[12:02] The way it's done, the whole process of even trying to get peti petition

[12:06] together is impossible because there's 62 people who are saying, "Hey, if they

[12:11] pay, we're 10, we're saving $10,000." Now, that's not coming out. That's

[12:17] coming out of my pocket. And to me, this this is a service that

[12:22] has very little to no value to me because I I have a great source of

[12:26] water,

[12:30] you know. Since there's such a willingness to, you

[12:34] know, have this 26 people do this, I I would say, you know, Mr. Wilkinson,

[12:40] your honor, why don't you each throw 10,000 into it? Pay for it. We're paying

[12:45] for a service we don't need. Let you pay for it. Come on, let's everybody kick in

[12:49] some money. I guess it's a little different when it's not your money. I

[12:53] guess it's easy to spend other people's. I'm just saddened that there's been no

[12:58] attempt to address anything to do with these 26 people. And Chris,

[13:02] you've told people it's going to increase their property values and you

[13:06] told another person it wouldn't increase their property values. Which is it? I'm

[13:10] a I'm a home builder. My wife's a realtor. Okay. Yeah. Laugh. It's funny,

[13:14] isn't it? >> Point of personal privilege.

[13:17] » Yes. I was going to cut in. Um, I would just remind you that when delegating,

[13:24] certainly valid to hear your perspective and I appreciate your perspective, but

[13:27] please do not defam or call out council. That's part of our procedural bylaw when

[13:33] you're >> That's fine. I'm just I'm just telling

[13:35] it like it is. If someone says one thing and then says a different thing, if

[13:40] that's calling them out, I'm sorry. I apologize for that because at the end of

[13:44] the day, it shows certain things about what type of people

[13:49] they are. I I would like to say you don't do

[13:53] something about it, but given everything I've seen, the lack of communication,

[13:58] the lack of consideration for us, I have a feeling I've wasted my breath. Thank

[14:04] you. >> Thank you, Clive, for joining us this

[14:07] evening and sharing your experience. Were there any questions of councel at

[14:10] this point? Okay, seeing none, uh we also have Raul

[14:17] DGO who's joining us this evening. Is Raul online?

[14:24] Okay. Um I don't currently see Raul in our chambers or online.

[14:31] Um if he comes later, we can address at

[14:36] that time. Um, calling Raul just one more time.

[14:41] Okay. All right. Um, so the recommendation is

[14:46] that council dispense with item 13.3 separately as the uh recommended motion

[14:52] to be amended highlighted below. So it was the original circulated one and

[14:57] council has in front of them as well. Um, but that the report is-20226-9

[15:04] Petersburg drinking water system local improvement bylaw be received for

[15:07] information and that the local improvement bylaw uh 26-60 Petersburg

[15:13] local improvement be passed as and this is the new change as amended to include

[15:18] Deerfield extension in the description of the work. And then back to the

[15:22] regular motion and that the treasurer return with the special charges bylaw at

[15:26] the culmination of the Petersburg project currently anticipated early in

[15:30] 20128. Uh to get that on the floor moved by councelor Wilkinson. Is there a

[15:36] seconder? Seconded by councelor Martin. And councelor Wilkinson you have a

[15:39] question or comment. >> Uh thank you through the chair. Uh there

[15:43] was a couple questions I actually wanted to uh just address for um most of the

[15:48] residents in the affected area who did reach out and and I appreciate the

[15:52] correction on the bylaw to include uh Deerfield extension as that was missing

[15:56] initially but um uh director Vanderwal there was a question and I know we've

[16:02] chatted about this but for the public just to understand the difference in

[16:05] cost between the original 62 and then the additional um added homes I think it

[16:11] was 20 23 or 25 whatever it was. But um if you could just explain that

[16:16] difference in the costing please. >> Uh through the mayor for the original 26

[16:22] residents there was preliminary investigation studies. The original

[16:27] connection to the system including the water meters that were installed that

[16:31] was shared among the original 62. I believe it is

[16:37] the construction cost is what is being shared amongst I believe it is 80 is the

[16:42] final number. So that that is the difference.

[16:48] » Any other questions? Councelor Wson through the chair. No other questions. I

[16:52] appreciate that. That's just so it's those additional pieces in terms of the

[16:55] meter um that that is that cost difference between the two. So obviously

[17:00] if uh the homes that were added after the fact uh if they choose to meter that

[17:06] would be part of that cost that they would have to cover at the time

[17:11] through the mayor. It is anticipated that if a home would connect afterwards,

[17:15] yes, they would have to do the plumbing permit, put a meter in those components.

[17:19] Some of the components for the original study would not need to be redone, but

[17:24] that was the original 62.

[17:28] » Thank you. and uh through the chair just to to answer a couple other questions.

[17:32] So um one of the other things that that was brought up as I was discussing with

[17:37] some uh residents in the area. So uh the drawings itself are showing the full

[17:42] redesign system including the looping onto Snider's Road in Notre Dame. Uh

[17:46] phase one is to begin this year and that's for Sners Road in Notre Dame.

[17:50] Correct. And then phase two would be next year inside the traditional uh

[17:54] service area >> uh through the mayor. We've been having

[17:59] discussions with the contractor. They are now anticipating starting next year

[18:04] and they believe they can do the majority of the works next year. So it

[18:08] is probably 2027. Uh we do note that due to the uh

[18:15] requirements under the um local improvement we had delayed the

[18:20] contractor. So we are working with them to get a better schedule and sure what's

[18:24] going on. But that is what they have indicated at this time.

[18:30] Thank you. Uh and through the chair, if I may one more time, uh just to sort of

[18:34] provide some context and explanation for uh anyone who may be unfamiliar, um

[18:40] traditionally and and I know that I've had this conversation with staff and

[18:44] residents, but when infrastructure uh at the municipal level passes in front of a

[18:48] home, um then it is traditionally paid for by the homeowner. and and a lot of

[18:54] new developments would typically see that in the form of development charges

[18:58] uh and would be paying essentially for these services to go in. Um so I know

[19:03] that in in many cases at least precedent setting in my opinion across Ontario we

[19:08] see a lot of this whether it be sewage or water uh hookups that essentially um

[19:14] existing homes now have access to a new service and they pay for it. uh whether

[19:19] or not they choose to hook up to it ultimately I guess is at the

[19:22] determination of the homeowner. So it's all saying that but thank you for your

[19:26] work. >> Any other questions or comments on this

[19:30] council? Seeing none, I'll call the vote on that.

[19:33] It's been moved and seconded. So all those in favor that carries unanimously.

[19:39] And then we do have the remaining items on our consent agenda which are 13.1,

[19:44] 13, and 13.2. Uh, did anybody want to pull either of these items before voting

[19:50] on them? Not seeing that. May I have a mover and a seconder? Moved by councelor

[19:54] Cresman. Seconded by councelor Martin. All those in favor and that carries

[19:59] unanimously. On to our reports for this evening. The

[20:04] first report recommendation is that report CAO-2026-25

[20:09] strategic action plan update be received for information. May I have a mover for

[20:13] this? Moved by councelor Martin. seconded by councelor Sadup and I will

[20:19] now turn it over to CEO Wilmer to present this report.

[20:23] » Thank you very much Mayor Salonin. So uh this is uh the third update we've given

[20:29] on the strategic action plan over the last number of months and uh the number

[20:33] of complete actions is up to 24 now up from 16 when last reported we were

[20:38] reported to council. Uh and there are there are six items there that we've

[20:42] highlighted as having made significant progress. I'll just briefly touch on

[20:45] those. One is the communication strategy refresh. Another is the adoption of the

[20:50] official plan. There was also the approval of the Ontario transit

[20:54] investment fund, a grant of 3.4 million for for u improved transit to the four

[20:59] townships in water region. The service delivery review uh implementation plan

[21:05] and uh the naming rights and sponsorship policy. In addition to that, when the

[21:09] port report was written, it was our intention that the first phase of the

[21:12] long-term financial plan be presented tonight. Um, and after the report was

[21:18] written, but before the agenda was um was released, we determined that it

[21:22] really wasn't ready yet. And we thought that rather than bringing a not quite

[21:26] ready project for discussion, we would defer that until it's uh more fully

[21:31] ready. And uh we take responsibility for that. KPMG had done everything we had

[21:36] asked of them, but it was the township's inputs that were holding matters back.

[21:41] » Thank you very much. Are there any questions on this item?

[21:45] » Council Martin. >> Uh through you, Mayor Salon, this isn't

[21:48] so much a question as an affirmation. Uh when when I go through this and see the

[21:52] work that is being done and has been completed, um I appreciate that work.

[21:56] So, thank you. >> Any other questions or comments then?

[22:00] Councelor Wilkinson. >> Thank you through the chair. I

[22:03] appreciate the explanation uh and the update on the the long-term financial

[22:06] plan and capital plan. My my hope was is that we would see that before the end of

[22:10] this term, but uh under understand it is uh is difficult. You want to make sure

[22:14] you get it right. Um I did have a question regarding the ERP project. I I

[22:20] know we we've talked about this at length and uh we've already earmarked

[22:23] that 300,000 for it. So, um, just wondering what's driving that increase

[22:28] in cost, uh, up to half a million and and how we plan to tackle this in the

[22:33] future because I know this has been hanging over us for a number of years.

[22:38] » Uh, through you, Mayor Helen and Councelor Wilkinson. Uh, I can try to

[22:41] attempt an answer for you. Um, the ERP project, you may recall there was a

[22:47] pre-budget approval last summer actually for $500,000 for that software. Um it

[22:52] did go through uh the RFP process. Uh bids were received. Uh the bids

[22:58] indicated that the budget uh was not going to be sufficient. In addition, as

[23:03] you're aware, um there's some internal processes that need to be uh reviewed

[23:10] and refined prior to trying to implement new software. Implementing new software

[23:14] doesn't solve any problems if your your processes aren't ideal. So the first

[23:18] step that we're approaching um is is to uh refine those processes internally and

[23:25] then probably reissue an RFP. Uh through the budget process, you would receive

[23:29] additional information as to um the anticipated cost. But certainly that

[23:35] those monies, the 500,000 plus the the monies that were I I believe 130,000

[23:40] relative to project management of that project, uh those would remain in the

[23:44] capital budget. Some of them would have been spent on the project manager, but

[23:47] the the bulk of those funds would would retain uh until future report.

[23:54] » Any other questions or comments? Council >> Councelor Cresman,

[24:00] » it's through your merit. It's always dangerous to ask a question which you're

[24:05] formerly ignorant of, but that usually doesn't stop me. Um uh so the question

[24:12] relates to some of the discussion we've we had in Ottawa at the Association of

[24:20] Municipalities of Ontario about AI and whether we have uh systems and we are

[24:29] adapting to systems that are uh would work with AI

[24:34] uh into the future. And so you always worry when you adopt a certain uh

[24:40] software that it may be looking backwards rather than looking forward.

[24:45] And so I guess that's where the question I know you had discussions you

[24:50] understand that city of Kitchener's working with the software provider u

[24:55] with AI um streamlining streamlining answers to questions uh etc. So, as long

[25:04] as you have systems that mesh, again, my ignorance is showing, but uh obviously

[25:11] I'm just asking the question out of a a way of saving dollars to the future as

[25:17] compared to saying uh we have something that's obsolete.

[25:24] » Who wants to take that one? Wilmer can >> I'm tempted to ask AI to draft an answer

[25:30] for me so that I can quickly review that and and give you an something that's

[25:34] impressive that I I may or may not have created myself. Um it's early days yet.

[25:39] I think that's no surprise to anyone. Um we do have u co-pilot for our staff. The

[25:46] the take upon it is limited, but we're also aware that people either in their

[25:50] personal lives or related to work are starting to use other AI tools as well.

[25:54] And so, uh, it's something we want to, um, encourage people to use with

[25:58] caution. Um, and we'll, uh, we're we're working on a policy shortly that will

[26:04] give people guidance as to which are, um, platforms that are allowable and

[26:09] which ones are to be avoided. >> And I see uh, Tracy might want to jump

[26:14] in on this as well. >> For you, mayor, to members of council.

[26:20] Yes, that's always a consideration when we're looking at uh software is to make

[26:25] sure that it is agile enough to um manage what else is coming down the

[26:30] coming down the you know pipes with regards to technology. Um I think there

[26:36] is a lot of process of improvements available through AI but again we have

[26:40] to be very um cautious um with using it and which um which AI tools we use and

[26:48] which ones we um basically control as well.

[26:54] » Thank you Director Prince. Anybody wanted to add anything else? Nope. Okay.

[26:59] Um any other questions or comments? All right. Seeing none, uh, all those in

[27:03] favor in accepting the action plan update for information and that's

[27:08] carried unanimously. On to 14.2 and this is the work plan

[27:14] update for August 2026. Also to be received for information. If I could get

[27:18] a mover and a secondary for this moved by councelor Martin, seconded by

[27:22] councelor Cresman and I will turn it back over to CEO Wilmer.

[27:27] » Thank you again, Mayor Salin. Uh so in the uh the work plan for 2026 there are

[27:32] 71 initiatives. 24 are complete 39 are in progress. I I won't list the 24.

[27:38] They're they're in the report. But we've also um highlighted the report so that

[27:43] any matters that have changed since the last time we reported to council are are

[27:47] highlighted in yellow. So it u for for members of the of the community or for

[27:52] council, you can quickly see what's been updated since the last report. And with

[27:56] that um happy to answer any questions you may have.

[27:59] questions or comments on this one. We'll go to council 9 and I I guess I'm

[28:05] affirmative Steve tonight. But um I I would like to uh not a but and I would

[28:10] like to make an affirmation on this as well. I I really appreciate these charts

[28:14] and and how it shows uh the work and clearly outlines and things that aren't

[28:19] done or that have not been completed. It's clearly there. So I appreciate uh

[28:24] you being candid on that and the information. Thank you.

[28:29] » Thank you very much, counselor. And I don't think it's a bad thing that you're

[28:33] affirming considering when we started this term, we weren't getting these

[28:37] kinds of reports. So, I think it's good that they're valid and we're providing

[28:41] that information. Councelor Wilkinson, >> thank you through the chair. um to CEO

[28:47] Wilmer. Um given I know that uh we are approaching

[28:51] maybe the the end of your term sort of heading into next year is is the plan to

[28:55] sort of accomplish as much of this as possible and prioritize some of those

[28:59] pieces through the the upcoming bud budget process as well

[29:04] through the mayor in a word. Yes. Uh so u much of this work we believe will be

[29:11] completed in the calendar year. some projects will carry on through into 27.

[29:16] And in fact, there's there's a fair number of initiatives in here that that

[29:20] are maybe not so much project based. It is it part of our ongoing work. So, it's

[29:24] it's work that will continue on. So, I don't know that there's going to be all

[29:27] that many budget implications for this. This is mostly work that's underway that

[29:32] we're doing with in-house resources. >> Any other questions or comments on this

[29:38] council? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor? And that carries unanimously.

[29:44] Uh on to 14.3 and this is the budget level of service for management of IT.

[29:50] The recommendation is that this report uh be received for information and that

[29:55] council refer consideration of managed IT services to the 2027 budget process

[30:01] subject to the provision of a detailed assessment from staff. To get this on

[30:05] the floor, may I have a mover? Moved by councelor Cresman, seconded by councelor

[30:10] Martin. And I will now turn it over to deputy CEO and director of corporate

[30:15] services services, not services, Harold [laughter] Accraft.

[30:20] » Thank you, Mayor Salomon. Very briefly, this uh the purpose of this report is

[30:24] simply as a placeholder to the 2027 budget process, similar to other ones

[30:28] that you've uh seen over the last number of months. uh to highlight that we did

[30:32] move from a in-house supervisor of IT uh in 2025 to a managed IT service contract

[30:40] uh in the fall of 2025. Uh that contract is almost at the one-year mark. It was a

[30:45] two-year contract. And so prior to next uh fall, we will need to make a decision

[30:49] whether to continue with the contract and extend it, whether to modify that

[30:53] contract or whether to bring uh the management of IT services inhouse uh as

[30:58] it was prior to the contract. So it it's simply a placeholder report to identify

[31:02] that that will need to be a consideration. Um we will need to take

[31:06] an action in 2027 and budget accordingly. Hopefully the report at the

[31:11] budget time will provide you with all the details of pros cons of the managed

[31:16] surface versus in-house and the costing associated with that.

[31:21] » Questions or comments? Councelor Dunl.

[31:26] » Thank you through Mayor. uh deputy um CEO Okrafka

[31:32] um when the report comes back have we been able to or we will we be able to

[31:37] show the different service levels from having it done in house versus having it

[31:42] contracted out >> three yes

[31:52] » councelor Wilkinson >> thank you through the chair to even

[31:55] piggyback on councelor Dunstall's uh question. I'm I'm wondering if uh even

[32:00] off the top of your head, just for the sake of of folks knowing, has there been

[32:04] any measurable improvements or any deficiencies that you've encountered at

[32:08] all? Even just at a very high level through Mayor Selen and Councelor

[32:12] Wilkinson, I would say there's notable enhancements in our infrastructure

[32:18] requirements and identifying um best practices that we perhaps hadn't been

[32:23] following. So there's been a number of those highlevel things that that

[32:27] definitely have been beneficial. At the same time, I would suggest that at a

[32:32] staff level, the customer service, the in-house aspect of that is probably on

[32:40] the lower end of of staff expectations. So there's there's a balance. We're

[32:45] we're getting higherend needs met, but probably the day-to-day it's a bit more

[32:50] of a challenge uh by having only one person in house versus two people in

[32:55] house, but there's trade-offs and that's that's the trade-off that council will

[32:58] ultimately need to decide uh what the most important component of that is.

[33:04] » Any other questions or comments on this? >> Council Martin.

[33:07] » Uh through you, Mayor Salin. I I I have noticed with with this contract um the

[33:13] additional requirements for training. We we on council were also asked to

[33:18] participate in that uh training and that was comparable to um uh another

[33:24] organization that I work for where they do something very similar and and and so

[33:29] it seems like that was a a good move. I also know um there was a time I needed

[33:35] some help and I happened to be working late on a Friday night and I was able to

[33:39] make a phone call because of this contract. They have the 24-hour service

[33:43] that if we have uh full-time staff, we don't have access to that service.

[33:47] Having said that, when we had two full-time staff, I was very happy with

[33:51] their work. I'm not in any way complaining about that. But I but I do I

[33:54] do notice this with the larger structure, the benefits that that can

[33:58] bring. >> Very good. Any other questions or

[34:02] comments? Seeing none, all those in favor? And that's carried unanimously.

[34:09] On to 14.4. And this is the zone change application for 148 to 166 Pel Street in

[34:17] New Hamburg. The recommendation is that this report be received for information

[34:21] and that council approve the zoning change application 07-26

[34:26] as set out in the draft bylaw included as attachment E to this report. to get

[34:31] this on the floor. May I have a mover, please? Moved by Councelor Sadu,

[34:34] seconded by Councelor Martin. And I will turn it over to Director Martin to

[34:39] introduce this report, please. >> Thank you, Mayor Solomon. Um I'll

[34:44] explain briefly the report. Uh we did have an extensive discussion at the

[34:48] previous council meeting about this. Um the proposal continues to be the um

[34:53] adaptive reuse reuse of the uh Hamburg felt boot uh building in New Hamburg. Uh

[34:59] the proposal includes removal of a portion of the rear of the building,

[35:03] maintaining the three-story kind of heritage piece and reconstructing a uh

[35:08] four to six story edition um in the uh the rear of the building to accommodate

[35:14] uh commercial on the main floor and uh 49 residential um units. Um at the

[35:20] public meeting, the primary discussion points were regarding parking and the

[35:24] height of the building. Um so since that meeting staff did uh as we promised

[35:30] would go through and look at the uh the downtown parking availability compared

[35:34] to what we had noted in the 2016 study uh that we had undertaken. Um and the

[35:40] consensus in that in that count is that ultimately there was a mild a minor

[35:44] increase of about uh six spaces uh in the core. There were some losses in some

[35:49] area but uh the increase in parking in the Wilmont Street parking lot was the

[35:53] primary factor increasing that number. So ultimately um there is still ample

[35:59] parking available in the core is is the conclusion that we've drawn from that.

[36:03] Uh as we noted in the 2016 study uh a lot of concerns we hear from people is

[36:08] proximity right so can you see your destination from where you park and uh

[36:12] that seems to be the ongoing concern when we talk about parking in downtown

[36:16] New Hampshire. One of the advantages of this application is that you'll be able

[36:20] to see the Wilmont Street parking lot from this redevelopment. So the midpoint

[36:24] access that's proposed through this redevelopment will have line of sight to

[36:28] the Wilmont lot street parking lot. Um so we anticipate that better utilization

[36:32] of that facility will actually alleviate maybe some parking on Peele Street um

[36:37] that currently accesses the services at Pycom House but certainly will

[36:41] complement if nothing else. Um so there there continues to be ample parking

[36:45] available to service the commercial needs. Um from a residential

[36:49] perspective, the proposal provides one parking space per dwelling unit. Um

[36:54] which from a staff level, uh we feel is appropriate in this location. Um there

[36:58] is opportunity for walking to amenity areas. Um and ultimately the owner of

[37:04] the property dictates who lives in the building. So if they [snorts] don't want

[37:08] to sell or rent a unit to a property owner that has two cars, then they don't

[37:13] need to do that. and it may not be the appropriate place to be located if you

[37:16] do have two cars. So, there is that kind of fall back if we're wrong on our

[37:20] assumptions that the owner owner of the property has the ultimate authority and

[37:24] opportunity to control. Um, from a height perspective, um staff

[37:30] have noted previously that we feel that the design of this site does complement

[37:34] the core. um maintaining the current three-story building, having the taller

[37:38] buildings set back to the midpoint of the property um you know is somewhat

[37:43] reflective of of industry, right? The taller pieces of industrial buildings

[37:47] often were central to those site um evidenced by the taller stack on the

[37:52] felt boot factory right now. Um so certainly we feel the developer has done

[37:56] a good job in in u um providing a redevelopment that complements the core.

[38:02] Uh we did circulate the heritage committee and at the previous heritage

[38:05] meeting uh the the committee did endorse the proposal uh as noted in the report.

[38:10] Um so we they have indicated they they would like to work with the owner to see

[38:15] if there's pieces that could be reclaimed from from demolition and

[38:18] certainly those conversations continue to happen but the important piece is the

[38:22] committee to take a perspective on on the uh on the development and we're

[38:26] supportive. Uh, I will leave my comments at that

[38:30] because I think those were the primary discussion points previously, but

[38:32] certainly uh I'm here to answer questions and uh the uh the owners of

[38:36] the property I I believe are also in in attendance as well.

[38:41] » Uh we'll go to councelor Cresman first.

[38:46] » Uh through you mayor to director Martin. Uh I was uh looking at the uh drawings

[38:53] especially of the parking and wondering if uh guests would come in Peele Street

[38:59] whether they could um go across the front of the proposed building uh drop

[39:05] off passengers and then exit onto Woman Street and park in the Woman Street

[39:12] parking lot because I was informed by someone this week uh that there wouldn't

[39:18] be exits. It's on uh either side of Jackson Square. So I I could interpret

[39:25] an exit in one of the drawings, I could not in the other. So I was just

[39:30] wondering whether that was blind on the side uh or whether was accessible to W

[39:37] Street. uh dear mayor Sal and certainly the

[39:41] design is conceptual at this point but as proposed uh there wouldn't the what

[39:45] was the Jackson plaza whatever would not have access to Wilmont Street directly

[39:49] um uh the this the felt boot site uh has two-way traffic so connecting both Pa

[39:56] and Wilmont Street so you would be able to come through um the plaza would be

[40:00] disconnected from from Wilmont Street though

[40:03] » that's mayor that's what I was I guess I understood that the uh Jackson Square on

[40:08] the north side of Jackson Square was not, but I was wondering on the south

[40:13] side of Jackson Square between that and the felt booth had access and I had the

[40:19] impression it was and somebody was trying to tell me it didn't.

[40:25] » Councelor Dunstall, >> thank you, Mayor. And um Director Martin

[40:31] and I have had many many a conversation about this and and uh and I don't think

[40:36] it's a big surprise where I stand on height and and how it impacts um how it

[40:42] impacts the downtown and how it impacts our skyline. I did also want to mention

[40:46] that, you know, afterthought and I and I understand that the parking is an issue

[40:49] and people like to see, you know, uh from the establishment that they go to

[40:53] where their vehicle is and vice versa, but having been to Kitchener recently um

[40:58] and having to park in uh an underground parking and then walk several blocks to

[41:02] where I wanted to go made me realize that it isn't uh quite so bad. So, I

[41:07] just wanted to share that. >> Thank you, counselor. Any other

[41:12] questions or comments? Councelor Watson. >> Uh thank you through the chair. Um I

[41:17] mean we we we've discussed this extensively at the public meeting as

[41:20] well and and generally very much in favor of what's being proposed here. Um

[41:25] one point of interest to me was reading the report when it was mentioned that

[41:28] there would be uh agreements to basically ensure that the parking that

[41:33] is designated at the 144 Peele Street site um would remain with the the

[41:41] residential development. So I'm just curious how that will play out given

[41:44] that it's not necessarily going to be severed as one and and combined.

[41:50] » Thank you through Mayor S. So there is opportunity through parking agreements

[41:54] andor site plan agreements to we have I can think of one other example where

[41:58] we've had site uh parking on an adjacent site through the site plan agreement

[42:03] registered on both properties. It it tied the use of that parking for for

[42:07] permanency. So ultimately an agreement registered on each property that says

[42:12] those spaces are available to you know X property uh and then vice versa so that

[42:17] it it basically ties them together but doesn't force them to merge the

[42:20] properties together so it it gives that permanency.

[42:25] » Councelor Stup, >> thank you. Just a comment. Uh overall um

[42:30] uh I like the project. I I think it's a overall positive investment to our

[42:35] community. I know parking has been uh a hot topic, but every time I've driven by

[42:42] on Wilmont Street and seen our municipal parking lot, I haven't encountered more

[42:47] than five, six cars off the top of my head. Um municipal parking is a public

[42:51] asset and if it's consistently underused, we're we need to support it

[42:56] by having nearby developments so we we can maximize that investment. And when

[43:02] comparing to other municipalities and downtown cores, whether it be Stratford

[43:06] or Myra, it's a catch 22. We want to have people downtown with the businesses

[43:11] want to thrive. But a sign of a good downtown is also if

[43:15] it's thriving and you're not finding good parking or you're not finding

[43:17] parking, that's a sign of people are down there and they want to be there.

[43:21] Um, just my own uh self owning a small business in town, having to do

[43:26] deliveries. I never once had an issue delivering pizzas downtown.

[43:31] Even if I need to park for a quick 30 seconds to get out and my drivers never

[43:36] never had an issue, but obviously when you're in a downtown core, it's never

[43:41] supposed to be easy to find parking, but I'm not necessarily saying it's super

[43:45] hard either. Um, as far as the the building heights go, I've always been a

[43:50] proponent of if they are placed in their proper areas, so along regional roads in

[43:55] the downtown settings. And if done tastefully like this uh uh property is,

[44:00] I think it can be bode well for the township.

[44:05] » Councelor Dunel. >> Thank you, Mayor. I actually did want to

[44:09] u just verify with uh Director Martin, and I've had a few people ask me this,

[44:14] and I'm 99.9% sure that this is correct, but all of the parking spots uh 39

[44:19] parking spots, whatever it is, 49, they are already owned. They are not

[44:25] municipal parking spots. They are already owned by the owners of this

[44:29] particular building. Correct. >> That is correct.

[44:34] » Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments on this?

[44:38] Counselor Councelor Cresman, >> this is anecdotal, but if you want to go

[44:43] to a Yankee Stadium and stay in the Bronx, the solution to parking Saturday

[44:49] night is double parking on the road, even if it's raining. So anyhow, it's

[44:55] just, you know, >> I'm not certain that we're approving

[44:59] double parking in downtown New Hampshire, but [laughter]

[45:04] thank you for the anecdote, counselor. [gasps]

[45:09] I think everyone has said what they'd like to on this matter. I just want to

[45:14] say I think this is a really exciting proposal and new chapter um both for the

[45:19] old felt boot factory and for downtown as we're continuing to see it be

[45:24] rejuvenated. Um and I think that this is also filling um the call for some people

[45:30] who want to be able to downsize but remain in Wilmont. I really think that

[45:34] uh the apartment component will speak to that and personally I look forward to

[45:37] the spa um granted should it be approved and built. So, I just wanted to note

[45:42] that I think this is a really great investment um for the community and

[45:46] thank you uh to the owners for bringing it forward. Councelor Martin, Mayor

[45:51] Salon, it looks like I was the only one that has not made a comment and I didn't

[45:55] want my silence to be seen as negative. I I I think it's a great project. I'm um

[46:00] very happy that it's coming. Um I know that there are people concerned about

[46:05] parking and I'm not in any way trying to reject their comments. As I stated in

[46:10] the last meeting, I'm happy to continue working with them on that. But thank you

[46:14] uh to this uh project coming forward. >> With that, I will call the vote all

[46:19] those in favor. And that carries unanimously.

[46:23] On to 14.5. And that is the zone change application 06-26

[46:30] Neville Street, New Hamburg, also known as Tri County Menanite Homes. The

[46:34] recommendation is that the report be received for information and that

[46:37] council approve the zone change application to reszone the subject lands

[46:41] from a zone 4 residential to a zone 11 sorry and zone 11 open space to a zone

[46:47] 12 institutional and zone 11 open space to get this on the floor. May I have a

[46:52] mover please? Moved by councelor Sadu. Seconded by councelor Cresman and I will

[46:56] turn it back over to director Martin. >> Uh thank you Mayor Solon. Uh again, this

[47:02] application was discussed at length the previous uh council meeting at the

[47:06] public meeting for the application. Um the proposal hasn't changed since then.

[47:10] Uh it uh proposes to change the zoning of a current zone 4 property which

[47:15] allows for residential apartment building uh to zone 12 institutional

[47:19] which would allow for uh a long-term care facility. That's proposed. Um there

[47:24] were certainly discussions about height uh on the application. Uh zone 12 does

[47:28] not have a maximum height requirement. So that's why that doesn't appear as

[47:32] part of the requests in the application. The sideyard setback increases with the

[47:38] height of a building and in this instance uh the sideyard setback exceeds

[47:42] what would otherwise be required for a building of the height proposed. Um that

[47:46] does not uh um leave doesn't say that there isn't an

[47:51] opportunity for consideration of redesigns through the detailed design of

[47:55] the property because height isn't being proposed one way or the other with this

[47:58] application. So it provides flexibility uh to the ultimate design of the site.

[48:03] Um and uh you know that's generally the way it works with an institutional zone.

[48:09] We have other properties that uh that that have those same flexibility uh for

[48:13] for height. Um ultimately the applicant did review opportunities for the site to

[48:19] look at modifying the footprint of the building uh and based on restrictions

[48:24] from the Grand River Conservation Authority for slope stability and flood

[48:28] uh issues on the site. Ultimately, uh there isn't sufficient building envelope

[48:34] to expand, uh the site and continue to meet the requirements of the province's

[48:39] long-term care home design manual that talks about residential home areas. So,

[48:44] there was some discussion about the previous meeting about that. Uh and they

[48:48] they had evaluated that through the design of the site. So, um, where

[48:52] they're proposing parking, uh, closer to Albert Street, um, ultimately to

[48:58] continue to provide ample parking for the site, there isn't a building

[49:00] envelope available on in that area to accommodate, um, kind of a a smaller

[49:05] building or a shorter building rather with with a bigger footprint. And so, so

[49:09] the applicant is here to speak to more of those technicalities as necessary.

[49:13] But it is something that was evaluated through the design and, uh, the

[49:17] application that's been brought forward is based on that. the work that they've

[49:20] undertaken to determine availability. Um the parking is more than what's

[49:25] requirement required for the site but even with reducing the parking it it

[49:30] doesn't create a new building envelope to support what's needed for the for the

[49:33] property. So um from a staff perspective uh we feel it is appropriate for the

[49:38] area. Um we think it is a is good for the community in terms of investment uh

[49:44] economic development uh job creation and supporting the continuation of of

[49:50] transition of of uh um uh of life stages in the community right giving

[49:55] opportunity for people to continue to live in New Hamburg. So um from that

[49:58] perspective uh we've don't have any concerns and certainly are recommending

[50:03] approval of the application. >> Thank you. Um, with that we do have one

[50:10] registered delegate. So I will invite them up to speak and then council can uh

[50:13] discuss and ask questions after. Our registered delegation is Brian Shots.

[50:18] Thank you very much Brian for coming today and I believe that you are

[50:22] representing the applicant. So you will have seven minutes.

[50:28] » Good evening. I feel I'll be repeating a lot of what uh Mr. Martin has just said,

[50:33] but I'll go through my notes anyway. I'm Brian Shance with FA Design Studio.

[50:37] We're located in Waterlue and I'm here as authorized agent for Tri County

[50:41] Menite Homes who own the property located at Neville and Victoria Streets

[50:46] in New Hamburg and I'm speaking to that zone change application 06/26.

[50:53] In the audience is Dr. Steven Harrison who is the CEO of Tri County Menite

[50:57] Homes. Also, Tri [clears throat] County Menite Homes

[51:01] is a nonprofit organization. It's been providing needed services in the

[51:05] township of Wilmont since 1968. Quite some time. Discussions have been

[51:12] had with township staff along with other commenting agencies related to this

[51:15] specific project with many usual questions having been considered or

[51:20] addressed in the previous application that was for a senior's apartment

[51:24] building. It puts us at a point of eliminating some of the questions when

[51:28] you come forward at this stage. We have an understanding, staff has an

[51:32] understanding of how and when and where this can go forward from here. Important

[51:37] to note that the region of Waterlue, Grand River Conservation Authority, and

[51:42] Anova have all confirmed they have no concerns with this application.

[51:46] Township staff are recommending approval, as you've just heard again, of

[51:50] this application. In addition to many construction jobs

[51:54] that will be created over four years, Tri County will also be creating between

[51:58] five and 600 new full-time permanent jobs with this facility in the

[52:04] community, which is considerable in a community of this size along with other

[52:08] economic benefits. The application to be decided tonight by

[52:15] council is to allow construction of a new 224 bed long-term care facility on

[52:20] this property. In 2019, zoning approval was given for by township council to

[52:27] construct a 97 an approximately 97 unit seniors apartment on this site. But

[52:33] since then, the direction of the board of Tri County Menite has taken to focus

[52:37] more exclusively on senior care facilities. There's a great need. It

[52:42] should be noted that the current site zoning permits multiple unit residential

[52:46] uses and the proposed zoning is also for residential use under institutional that

[52:52] permits the long-term care. This is all that's being applied for. No

[52:58] other zoning matters require changes to the current zoning township zoning

[53:04] bylaw. As noted in the township report, this

[53:08] application meets the current and new official plan requirements. There's a

[53:12] great need for more of these facilities as a significant percentage of the

[53:16] population continues to move into the latter stages of life. Tri County

[53:21] recognize that their current facilities will not meet the demand and as such

[53:26] this is a wonderful opportunity for Wilmont to add the fac to the facilities

[53:31] that will allow more senior residents to remain in their own community.

[53:36] The question is no longer, and I quote this uh from Dr. Harrison, the question

[53:40] is no longer whether the demand for long-term care will grow. The evidence

[53:46] demonstrates that it will. The real question is whether communities like

[53:50] ours will have sufficient, modern, highquality, missiondriven

[53:55] capacity to meet the need. Investments such as this NIFT view project ensure

[54:00] that Tri County Manite is prepared to serve the next generation of seniors

[54:05] while strengthening the sustainability of Ontario's health care system. End

[54:10] quote. Tri County Menanite and Wilma Township are both fortunate to have been

[54:17] awarded the bed aotment from the ministry for this use. Not everybody

[54:21] gets it. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration on this matter and I'm

[54:25] here to answer any questions that your council may have in this application.

[54:29] » Thank you very much, Mr. Shots. Are there questions of Mr. Shots while he's

[54:34] here? We'll go to councelor Dunall first.

[54:38] » Thank you, Mayor. I'm not sure if you can answer this, Mr. Shots, but there

[54:43] are um 200 and I know that they touched briefly on this, but there are 253

[54:48] parking spots. Um, and I know it's easier to go up, but um, I'm just not

[54:54] quite sure. There was a mention about um, Grand River Conservation and uh,

[54:59] going out in with the footprint, but I'm just not sure that that has been

[55:04] answered uh, to my satisfaction because I do have a lot of residents that live

[55:09] in that area and they're concerned. And please understand that I I I totally

[55:13] understand the need and the economic uh, benefits. I get all of that uh, with a

[55:18] mother-in-law who's been waiting over two years. So I understand the

[55:21] importance but I still have an issue with that height. Um we have four

[55:27] townships in Wateroo region and I've double checked there isn't one of them

[55:31] that has a building that's even close to this height. Um and so I I was really

[55:37] hoping that you would reconsider or there would be something that we could

[55:41] do not to reduce the beds. I understand that. but to uh widen the footprint so

[55:46] that we could lower that um height by even one story

[55:53] » uh through the chair to to counselor. Um we we spoke about this in the last

[55:59] scenario. Um I want to try to make sure I answer your questions on it. The one

[56:04] was about height and height uh in other townships. I've been a resident of

[56:09] Woolwitch Township all my life. Elmmyra currently has a height

[56:15] provision for eight stories in the downtown area. There has recently been

[56:21] built um a six-story apartment building within the settlement of Ommyra. Um I

[56:27] think as we all grapple with what's changing in our society, it takes a

[56:32] little time to adjust to the fact of intensification versus sprawl. Uh this

[56:38] community is well aware about concerns about farmland. So this is one way that

[56:42] with the anticipated growth within a community going up is the choice and

[56:48] repurposing of buildings is the choice versus sprawling wider. So in this

[56:53] particular application as I explained in the last meeting

[56:57] the residential housing areas the 32 beds which is basically mandated um by

[57:03] the province and is the only efficient way to make it work from a staffing and

[57:08] administration standpoint. um that is what is taking us and and

[57:13] putting the number of stories on top of it. So the ground floor is in fact for

[57:19] the services for all of the building. The the basement, the lower level,

[57:24] that's this the background and and um staffing areas in this particular case.

[57:31] And then rising from level 2 to 8 is the actual residential housing areas times

[57:37] 32, which gets to your 224 for the number of beds. This is this is the

[57:43] minimum optimum thing that we're looking at. And I might add that um while it's

[57:48] not Wilmont um there is a proposal that isn't formalized yet and I'm not part of

[57:54] it but there's a similar application to my understanding that is forward coming

[57:59] in one of the other townships also. So

[58:04] we can't reduce we can't put it beside you spoke about

[58:10] the number of parking we exceed zoning minimums for parking and I tell all my

[58:16] clients for as you can tell by the white hair a lot of years zoning requirements

[58:20] for parking is minimums it doesn't mean it operates functionally so in this

[58:25] particular case with the staffing changes and multiple shifts they are

[58:29] staffed 24 hours a day you need to accomplish acccomodate your staff

[58:33] arriving before the other staff leave. So that creates more what we've shown

[58:39] with the 253 spaces that'll be fine-tuned through the site plan process

[58:44] and working with staff. We're not anticipating more if we can have less

[58:48] and still make sure we operate without having people parking on the uh street.

[58:54] Staff here would like to see their destination too as they've heard from

[58:56] the previous application.

[59:01] Councelor Dunstall again. >> Thank you. Um, and I did want to make a

[59:04] comment, but I don't want to hold him up. So, I will hold that um in case

[59:08] anyone else needs to speak. >> Okay. And yes, we'll go for questions

[59:12] for Mr. Shons first and then um we can go back to questions for staff and

[59:18] comment in general. Councelor Crestman moves first and then councelor Dens.

[59:22] » Uh through you, mayor. Uh to uh Mr. Sh. uh the 32 is the common the common

[59:32] number and it as I understand it and I again my knowledge base is Winston Park

[59:38] because uh my father-in-law was was in there and they have a hub in the center

[59:44] and the cafeteria and then they go out down down the halls and and in a wing

[59:51] type of format and again it creates efficiencies and each one tends to be a

[59:57] community name in Wilma Township uh as if I'm using the Winston Park approach.

[1:00:04] And the idea is [snorts] to have as many uh residents u uh aging uh in a facility

[1:00:13] close to to their home community as possible with familiarity with names

[1:00:19] that that that can resonate with them. And so, um, I look around the horseshoe

[1:00:26] here and I'm likely the one closest [laughter] to the to the age bracket

[1:00:32] that is is going to be looking for that type of service. And and unfortunately,

[1:00:38] there wasn't a spot available in New Hamburg when either of my parents

[1:00:43] required it. Um and so I guess the I you know all of us wish we can age in place

[1:00:50] at home but when the time comes depending on our uh medical uh

[1:00:56] challenges we would hope there's an opportunity if both of us as a couple

[1:01:02] walk in the front door. there's an opportunity for us to be at least in

[1:01:08] close proximity to one another that we don't have to drive 250 up to 250

[1:01:14] kilometers to a separate facility to visit a loved one and looking at the

[1:01:20] data in Ottawa um uh two presentations

[1:01:28] the waiting list that currently is existing and the projection of the

[1:01:34] curve. It isn't flattening down or going down with the baby boom generation. It's

[1:01:40] accelerating to 2050. There is going to be an extended need for facilities. And

[1:01:48] if we can provide those to people who built this community over time, I think

[1:01:54] it's a service well rendered. So maybe that's a comment rather than a question.

[1:01:59] I apologize, but I'm pretty passionate about this.

[1:02:03] Thank you, councelor. Councelor Wilkinson, was this a question for Mr.

[1:02:07] Shant? >> Thank you through the chair. Um, I will

[1:02:11] I mean, there's a lot that's already been said and I echo uh the same

[1:02:14] sentiments and thoughts as my colleague councelor Dunstall. I think I said it

[1:02:19] before and ultimately it it really comes down to the eight stories is the the

[1:02:23] biggest issue for me. I I I want the beds. I want the jobs. I want the tax

[1:02:27] revenue. I want to see the the long-term care opportunities for local residents

[1:02:33] and and everyone. Um but ultimately it's just looking at the scale of the

[1:02:37] building and and I I feel it's going to be um out of place as proposed and and I

[1:02:42] know you mentioned the design requires this and and you can't change it. Uh I

[1:02:48] would say that's a great challenge for this community and region as a whole to

[1:02:52] take on. I'm sure if we really tapped into the right areas, we'd be able to to

[1:02:56] come up with something that may be agreeable. But my

[1:03:01] my general um thought on this is that I'm very much in favor of what you're

[1:03:05] trying to do. I will definitely be in favor of the zoning change, but I'm just

[1:03:10] asking please find a way if we can to uh lower the the the height down to six

[1:03:17] stories and and make it more agreeable with what the rest of the community

[1:03:20] looks like. Um, my only fear is that approving eight stories here means the

[1:03:24] next one's going to be 10 to 12 or whatever it happens to be. I don't want

[1:03:28] to get into that at all. So, um, more more so a comment really no question.

[1:03:34] Just please try and find a way if possible.

[1:03:39] » Any other questions for Mr. Sha? Okay, I'm not seeing any. Thank you

[1:03:45] again very much, Mr. Sha, for joining us this evening. Um, now I can open it up

[1:03:49] for council if you have questions of staff or comments in general. Councelor

[1:03:54] Duntol. >> Thank you, Mayor. And again, please

[1:03:57] understand I I am really uh supportive of this uh and I and I get the need

[1:04:03] perhaps this is for director um Andrew, director Martin,

[1:04:10] having an eightstory building and I think it's nine stories when you're with

[1:04:14] the elevation changes. Um, what does that do for someone who comes in here

[1:04:19] and wants to put in an apartment? I understand that um zoned for

[1:04:24] institutional has no height limit. I get that. But do we run into an issue uh

[1:04:29] with the OOLT um with someone coming in and saying you're stopping me from

[1:04:34] building an eighth story when you already have an eighthtory building um

[1:04:39] in your township? Is that something that we're going to run into? because Lord

[1:04:43] knows we don't need a whole bunch of not 8ft sorry eightstory buildings. You

[1:04:49] know, one of the things that people said uh when we did the strategic plan was

[1:04:52] they said it was important to keep the rural field. They were very adamant

[1:04:56] about that. And again, we're not looking at sprawl here. We would not look at I I

[1:05:00] would never suggest that. So So suggesting that, you know, we don't do

[1:05:03] sprawl, we go up 100%. Yes. But that that that wasn't the case here. I mean,

[1:05:09] the land is there. It's yours. Um but uh director Martin if you could answer that

[1:05:14] question for me please and then I will not speak on this again. I will just

[1:05:18] vote. Thank you. >> All right. Three Mayor Solen. Um so a

[1:05:23] couple of points there. Um we have had discussions about this and ultimately

[1:05:27] one decision doesn't mean that the next one is looked at equally like it's um

[1:05:32] there discuss discussion needs to occur on the merits of the application and the

[1:05:35] location. Um, we did introduce policies within the new official plan that uh,

[1:05:40] council adopted uh, that do have provisions in there that speak to seven

[1:05:45] stories and above. The process by which you would need to go through to justify

[1:05:49] it makes sense. So, we have included additional language for applications

[1:05:53] going forward. Um, in terms of what may happen at the OOLT, I would expect that

[1:05:59] uh, the OOLT probably won't be concerned about what's happened already. they

[1:06:02] would probably suggest that eight stories isn't that tall and to prove it.

[1:06:06] Um, but regardless of that, it was when it comes to planning decisions, they're

[1:06:10] technically not precedent setting. So, they have to every application has to be

[1:06:14] to consider upon its in own individual merits. So, in theory, if the OOLT is

[1:06:19] considering an application, they may look at what's in the area and what's

[1:06:23] been approved before, but technically a decision that's made in one case uh is

[1:06:27] doesn't mean that the same decision has to be made in the second case. So there

[1:06:31] is there is uh no suggestion that because this is approved that uh should

[1:06:36] someone make an application it's not approved it would go go to the OOLT that

[1:06:41] would automatically happen because of that. Um but it could influence a

[1:06:45] decision for sure. But what I my suggestion is that it in in the scope of

[1:06:50] height and densities eight stories probably isn't um when we're dealing

[1:06:54] with an OOLT decision wouldn't be considered a tall building. Um so I I

[1:06:59] don't expect that uh that would really come up as a concern in that. Um but

[1:07:04] ultimately short story long the answer is any decision made here doesn't

[1:07:08] automatically may mean that the same decision is made in another location.

[1:07:15] » Councelor Wilkinson. >> Thank you through the chair. Um looking

[1:07:19] at Chief Pipe question for you. Um, and this is before your time, but there's

[1:07:25] been fire trucks that have been discussed for a long period of time. I'm

[1:07:28] curious, a building of this height, how does this affect your department and

[1:07:31] what's required on your end to uh satisfy the safety and other concerns?

[1:07:37] » Uh, through the mayor,

[1:07:41] one of the things I need to comment on is uh there are high buildings

[1:07:44] throughout the province and a lot of places don't have aerial devices that'll

[1:07:48] reach the top of their high buildings. We do need an elevated device as a

[1:07:54] municipality. Um, and I can give you a lot of really good reasons why we do,

[1:07:59] but we don't limit the height of our buildings based on the height of our

[1:08:02] elevated device.

[1:08:06] » Any other questions or comments, council? Councelor Sto,

[1:08:12] » thank you. Um, I've been debating this in my mind. Um, I've had a conversation

[1:08:17] with some residents who flat out told me, "You better approve this. I don't

[1:08:22] care how tall it is or how big it's going to be." Um, I did have the

[1:08:27] conversation with them saying, "Listen, it doesn't guarantee that if it is built

[1:08:31] here that you get to stay here, but they understand that." Um, overall, I think

[1:08:36] it is a it's a project that we need. It's it helps uh

[1:08:40] uh bring in jobs uh for subcontractors, etc., and ongoing. So, I don't know if

[1:08:48] the building height, and I do sympathize with the building height, and I do

[1:08:52] understand that it could be potentially a slippery slope, but I don't know if

[1:08:56] that is enough for me to vote down this uh report just because of the good it

[1:09:01] brings. Um, I hope there is potentially a compromise in the site select or site

[1:09:08] planning phase where maybe if we can get it uh one story lower or rejig it

[1:09:14] somehow, but uh at this moment in time, I would be in favor of it.

[1:09:21] » We'll go to councelor Martin >> through Mayor Salon. Um I echo councelor

[1:09:27] Sadu's comments. I I have uh residents telling me that uh it's a good thing.

[1:09:34] I've said that some people are concerned about the height and they're very

[1:09:37] surprised by that, wondering why people would be concerned about the height. I

[1:09:42] realize councelor Wilkinson and councelor Dunl are talking to people

[1:09:46] that are opposed to the height and there are people in the township who are not

[1:09:50] opposed to the height. Uh so I personally think it's a good thing.

[1:09:55] » Council Gresman. >> Yes. through you, mayor. And maybe I was

[1:10:00] remissed not asking the question uh when Mr. Sh was at the podium, but it's my

[1:10:08] understanding the current uh NITW home is going to be redeveloped into some

[1:10:15] type of apartments and uh and the 160 beds are going to be the long-term care.

[1:10:24] And then with this add additional facility, it becomes an integrated

[1:10:30] uh facility where hopefully um couples can walk in the front door and then as

[1:10:39] they age, and this happened with my father-in-law and mother-in-law, as they

[1:10:45] age, one required long-term care, the other didn't. And currently the the

[1:10:52] environment is such that uh they have they may be placed uh a distance apart.

[1:11:01] In my uh in-laws case, they had been at Fairview in in Cambridge. Uh my

[1:11:08] mother-in-law got placed in Kitner and at 88 my father-in-law drove every day

[1:11:15] to see her uh from uh Cambridge to Kitchener till she passed. So I guess I

[1:11:23] guess I look at this and say we have people who've decided to retire in

[1:11:27] Morningside. We have people who decided to retire in

[1:11:32] Stonecraftoft. uh and uh if one of them requires uh

[1:11:38] long-term care, this gives them an opportunity.

[1:11:42] Um if they both uh uh choose to downsize, they may go through the

[1:11:48] Cresman facility initially and then on to an apartment at NIT view and then uh

[1:11:54] eventually if one requires long-term care, you have an integrated system that

[1:12:00] hopefully with the additional beds will give them an opportunity here. So to my

[1:12:06] mind to have these additional beds to have the opportunity of having an

[1:12:12] integrated system. One of the first questions I asked at AMO in London years

[1:12:18] ago was this isn't rocket science. If you walk in the front door as a couple,

[1:12:25] it should be the goal to make sure that you can both age in place depending on

[1:12:32] your needs as a couple. And uh so I guess that's why I'm strongly in favor

[1:12:41] and I'm celebrating the opportunity uh that we have a nonprofit that's coming

[1:12:47] forward to take the lead on a project like this.

[1:12:51] Thank you, councelor. Um, I know a lot of that was a comment, but you did kind

[1:12:55] of have a question about beds. It would be up to council's discretion because we

[1:13:00] technically need to wave the procedural bylaw, but Dr. Harrison, who is the

[1:13:04] executive director, is in the audience and could probably speak to your

[1:13:07] question about the old beds. Um, but again, I'm in council's hands as to if

[1:13:13] you want to allow him to come up. Um, is there anyone opposed to that?

[1:13:20] No. Okay, with that, Dr. Harrison, not to put you on the spot, but if you'd

[1:13:26] like to speak to that.

[1:13:30] » Thank you, Mayor. Uh, never on the spot. Um,

[1:13:35] the board of directors hasn't decided, hasn't come up with a final decision on

[1:13:39] what we're going to do with the current NITU long-term care beds and the

[1:13:42] building that's there. Uh, we have determined a couple of things. One is

[1:13:46] that we're not tearing it down. It will be repurposed. We have invested in it

[1:13:50] over the last 10 years or so to ensure its engineering stability and you know

[1:13:56] the building has a lot of life left in it. So we're going to make sure we do

[1:13:58] that. To your comment about um couples living together or we call it a campus

[1:14:06] of care. Um it's okay. This is my world so I can use that language. Um the

[1:14:11] campus of care model we already have on the site. So we have independent living.

[1:14:15] Uh we have independent living both in an apartment and in a tower as well as in

[1:14:20] um town homes and uh sixplexes already on the site. Independent living is just

[1:14:25] what it sounds like. It is housing for seniors. It has very limited services.

[1:14:29] They are welcome to join us for meals and be part of programming that's going

[1:14:32] on, but generally it's like renting an apartment. We also have a retirement

[1:14:36] home living and currently in our retirement home we have partners of

[1:14:40] individuals who are living in long-term care. So to your point, there is no

[1:14:44] kilometers to be driven. There are steps to be taken down a air conditioner

[1:14:48] heated hallway and you can spend time with your loved one. What we're looking

[1:14:52] to do is to continue to expand that model on our campus. It it's in my mind,

[1:14:57] my personal opinion, it is probably one of the best models of senior supports

[1:15:01] and care that you can have. Um and in addition to that, the green space that

[1:15:07] is down behind the building is uh down in the valley behind is a wonderful

[1:15:12] space for residents to view into enjoy the wildlife that's there, but also to

[1:15:17] um coll we're working collaboratively with the township on a couple of

[1:15:21] different ideas for creating walking pathways through there, not only for our

[1:15:26] residents, although it's on private land, but certainly opening it up for

[1:15:29] the community to enjoy. Um my desperate plea to everyone that I

[1:15:36] speak to is that uh when you see a long-term care home or you see a

[1:15:40] senior's care community, uh it is not a place to avoid. It is a place to

[1:15:45] embrace. It is a place to come to. It is a place to make part of your journey.

[1:15:49] Not just the destination, but part of where you go to. And our residents love

[1:15:53] it. have um child care groups in the area that come walking through our areas

[1:15:57] to talk to our seniors and use the paths that we have currently. We hope to

[1:16:02] expand that. So, the model of care that we're looking to implement on that

[1:16:06] campus is um expanding due to long-term care needs, but with the emphasis on

[1:16:13] more than just long-term care. It is about engagement with the community and

[1:16:16] bringing the community in as well as allowing our residents to go out into

[1:16:20] the community which they belong to. Thanks.

[1:16:23] » Thank you very much, Dr. Harrison. I do think Councelor Crestman has a question

[1:16:26] for you now that you're at the podium, though.

[1:16:28] » To that end, I believe on the 18th of September, you have a barbecue that we

[1:16:33] as council have been invited to to uh your facility. I saw it in my inbox

[1:16:39] today. So, >> you would have seen that. Yes. So, um

[1:16:43] thank you for that. Uh, and this is not a promotional plug, but on the 18th of

[1:16:47] September, uh, long-term care homes across Ontario are actually celebrating

[1:16:51] what we call long-term care day. And it is an opportunity for anyone,

[1:16:54] counselors, anyone in the in the audience, staff to come out and see all

[1:16:59] the wonderful things that we do at our home. Um, the details of what is being

[1:17:04] planned have not been shared with me, but it sounds like there's going to be a

[1:17:06] barbecue, so that sounds like fun. Um, but it is an opportunity to come out and

[1:17:10] engage and and see the new building that's going on right now. Get a idea of

[1:17:15] what's coming and that's only 10 11 months from now. We're supposed to be

[1:17:19] opening that building up. So, we're looking forward to that. And then, uh,

[1:17:23] engage with the seniors who live there. So, yes, keep your calendars open on the

[1:17:27] 18th if you can. >> Thank you very much. The only thing I'll

[1:17:32] warn folks, if you've never had apple pie with cheddar cheese, um, the

[1:17:36] residents will probably make you at least try it. That was my experience at

[1:17:40] the last community engagement. >> Yes.

[1:17:44] » Thank you very much, Dr. Harrison. >> Wow.

[1:17:48] » There you go. [laughter and gasps] Um, any other questions or comments on the

[1:17:54] zoning change application before us right now? Okay. I'm not seeing any

[1:17:59] more. I did just want to add some of my own final comments. Um I think this is a

[1:18:05] really exciting opportunity for the community for many of the reasons that

[1:18:09] council and delegates have expressed. I also think a really unique part and why

[1:18:15] I would justify this over any eightstory building

[1:18:20] because I'm not a huge fan of heights either um in terms of for planning um in

[1:18:27] our community. But we already well not we uh Tri County Menanite already has

[1:18:32] the beds approved and that is huge. Um when we talk to colleagues across the

[1:18:38] province they are desperately trying to get beds and I think it would be a huge

[1:18:43] missed opportunity when we already have a community partner who works in the

[1:18:48] community wants to expand on their campus of care and has the approved beds

[1:18:52] if we didn't approve this zoning because they're going to need to use their beds.

[1:18:56] that's tied to provincial dollars and funding. Um, so they're going to have to

[1:19:00] go somewhere and I certainly personally would rather see them in Wilmont. I also

[1:19:04] think as well the fact that they came forward um showing what the proposal was

[1:19:11] although it was only a zone change that they were seeking and as we know in in

[1:19:14] institutional zoning we don't have a height limit. Um, I think that that is

[1:19:19] really the uh partnership building and uh thoughtful growth that at least I'm

[1:19:25] looking for in our community. And I know that also they hosted um public

[1:19:29] consultation with the residents as we're aware because that was in the original

[1:19:32] report um to inform the potentially impacted residents around. I really

[1:19:38] think when we talk about aging in place and healthy whole communities, this is

[1:19:42] one step in that direction. Um, but also I can see this as completely different

[1:19:47] than somebody coming and asking for an eight-story building that's an apartment

[1:19:51] building. Um, even just in the use of it, there aren't going to be patios

[1:19:55] looking out on neighbors yards or anything as um, a long-term care

[1:20:01] facility. It will just be windows in the building. Um, and I think a lot of the

[1:20:05] things that people are concerned about can be discussed in the detailed design

[1:20:09] phase as well. Um, so I'm personally very supportive of this and think it's a

[1:20:14] really great opportunity. Also, pending that it gets approved. I look forward to

[1:20:18] seeing this uh happen for our community. Plus, 5 to 600 new full-time permanent

[1:20:22] jobs um is huge for a community like ours, especially when uh I think many of

[1:20:28] us and our residents don't want to see us become bedroom communities.

[1:20:32] Um, with that, I don't see any other questions or comments. So, I will call

[1:20:37] the vote. All those in favor and that carries unanimously.

[1:20:43] Um, now I did notice I believe our delegate from item

[1:20:50] 13.3 um has arrived

[1:20:56] and that is uh Ro um Durgo. So, I just want to let you know, Ro, we

[1:21:03] did already council did pass um the item that you were coming to speak on, but

[1:21:08] you are absolutely still welcome to speak if you would like to. I'm happy to

[1:21:12] give you your time. >> Okay. Thank you. Um for those online,

[1:21:18] he's declined his opportunity to speak, but you are of course welcome to reach

[1:21:22] out to council as well um if you have any further correspondence you'd like to

[1:21:26] share with us. >> Okay. Thank you. Um on to item 14.6

[1:21:33] and councelor Cresman does have a conflict. So just noting that uh the

[1:21:37] recommendation is that this report on the zone change application 05-26 Grich

[1:21:43] Road in Ben uh be received for information and that

[1:21:47] council approve the zone change application as set out in the draft

[1:21:50] bylaw included as attachment B to the report. To get this on the floor, may I

[1:21:55] have a mover, please? Moved by councelor Martin, seconded by councelor Sadu, and

[1:22:00] I will turn it back over to director Martin to present this report.

[1:22:05] » Uh, thank you, Mayor Solen. Very briefly, uh, this application proposes

[1:22:09] to change the zoning of lands that are already designated in the current

[1:22:13] official plan for employment purposes. Uh, this is the next step in uh,

[1:22:17] facilitating development of employment lands. Um, there was a delay from the

[1:22:21] time of designation to the zoning to allow for some of the work that was

[1:22:24] occurring on Gingrich Road. uh the twinning of a storm sewer under the road

[1:22:28] allowed for um alterations to the flood limits on this site which uh optimizes

[1:22:33] the development opportunity. So uh once that work was completed, they then

[1:22:36] proceeded with the zoning application before you uh and staff are recommending

[1:22:41] approval. >> Thank you very much. Questions or

[1:22:45] comments on this one, council?

[1:22:49] Councelor Wilkinson, is that a hand up? Okay, you may speak.

[1:22:55] through the chair. Um, I'm just curious, uh, Director Martin,

[1:23:00] if there's been any indication as to what types of, uh, what types of

[1:23:04] development we would anticipate here, uh, with this resoning. Just curious.

[1:23:11] » Um, through May, there is a lot of flexibility. One of the things the

[1:23:15] zoning does really um, restrict though is uses that would impact the plan

[1:23:20] residential uh, to the north. So heavy industry realist realistically wouldn't

[1:23:25] occur here, but um it could be any kind of warehousing, office, small shops. Um

[1:23:30] there's a there's there's multiple opportunities there. We have had people

[1:23:34] that have connected with us. We've direct them to the estate to uh to to

[1:23:38] see if there's opportunities there. So there's there's lots of interest. What

[1:23:41] lands there, I I I don't know for sure. >> Thank you. Any other questions or

[1:23:48] comments, council? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor?

[1:23:53] And that carries unanimously. And on to 14.7.

[1:24:00] Uh, this is the community improvement plan brownfield financial incentive

[1:24:04] program. The recommendation is that the report be received for information and

[1:24:08] that council designate the whole township of Wilmont as a community

[1:24:12] improvement project area for the purpose of establishing a community improvement

[1:24:15] plan and that council approve and adopt the township of Wilmont community

[1:24:20] improvement plan brownfield financial incentive program joint tax increment

[1:24:24] grant included as attachment A to this report to get this on the floor. May I

[1:24:28] have a mover? Moved by councelor Wilkinson, seconded by councelor Martin.

[1:24:33] and I will now turn it over to our senior policy planner, Rachel Green, to

[1:24:37] introduce this report. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor and

[1:24:41] members of council. Uh, as a quick recap, brownfield sites are typically

[1:24:46] formal former industrial or commercial properties with environmental

[1:24:50] contamination that can make redevelopment challenging and costly. So

[1:24:55] the proposed program um incentive is a joint tax increment or TIG um and will

[1:25:01] be de delivered in partnership with the region of water. Um the name has been

[1:25:05] adjusted slightly since this is last in front of you to ensure alignment with

[1:25:09] the region's program. Um so rather than providing upfront

[1:25:15] funding, the grant returns the increased property taxes generated after a site is

[1:25:19] remediated and redeveloped. So it's it's the same program. It hasn't changed.

[1:25:23] We've just made some tweaks to make sure that it aligns with the region's

[1:25:27] program. So, applicants must demonstrate eligibility as a brownfield site and

[1:25:31] complete remediation requirements, including obtaining a record of site

[1:25:34] condition. Um, and in response to a question at the public meeting um from

[1:25:38] council. Um, this would apply in a situation where contamination is

[1:25:43] discovered during construction um after a permit has already been issued,

[1:25:48] provided the applicant files a record of site condition. Um so staff worked

[1:25:53] closely with regional staff to align the program. This approach provides

[1:25:57] applicants with access to larger incentive creates consistency across the

[1:26:01] region and allows Wilmont to leverage existing regional expertise um and

[1:26:06] administrative processes. So following the public meeting uh held in July, no p

[1:26:11] further public or agency comments were received. Uh overall, the proposed cap

[1:26:16] provides a practical tool to encourage brownfield redevelopment by helping

[1:26:20] offset remediation costs and leveling the playing field between brownfield and

[1:26:24] greenfield development.

[1:26:28] » Thank you very much, uh councelor Dunstall.

[1:26:32] » Thank you, Mayor. I mean, I think this is great. It will uh help with economic

[1:26:37] development. My question to you is you had mentioned that um it applies if

[1:26:42] construction has has begun and they run into the issue. What about where there's

[1:26:46] a site where there is already knowledge that there is going to be an issue?

[1:26:51] Would it apply there as well encouraging someone to go and u to uh to build

[1:26:57] something uh that would help our community

[1:27:01] » through the mayor? Yes. So normally prior to development if it was a

[1:27:06] industrial or commercial property and it's going to be converted to say

[1:27:10] residential usually there'll be um an investigation to see if there's

[1:27:14] contamination at the outset and that's when they can start looking into the

[1:27:18] program and staff along with the region and township will hold a pre-conultation

[1:27:24] meeting and go through what requirements would be um part of

[1:27:30] um being qualified as elible ible and then

[1:27:35] once that process happens there's a form and then we would provide a letter to

[1:27:39] the applicant and then final approval would come to council.

[1:27:45] » Any other questions or comments? Council Martin.

[1:27:49] » Mayor Salin. I I'm not sure um uh Rachel if this question is for you or if it's

[1:27:55] for someone else and and maybe it can't be answered tonight because I didn't

[1:27:58] think of it until we were in this discussion. Um I I I was thinking about

[1:28:02] Sudbury uh and and in the past 40 years the uh significant improvement that has

[1:28:08] happened in that community and and environmentalists uh commenting uh about

[1:28:14] um uh how how uh environmentally uh uh the the great improvements that have

[1:28:20] occurred in the past 40 years. So by uh designating all of our township as uh um

[1:28:27] eligible uh for this, is that along the same line as what happened in Sudbury

[1:28:33] over the past 40 years? Is there a comparison? Does anybody know? And if

[1:28:37] nobody knows, it's not fair to spring on a question that uh I hadn't thought of

[1:28:42] in advance.

[1:28:48] I I your mayor son I think it's fair to say I don't think we're in a position to

[1:28:52] answer whether it's comparable to Sudbury but it in the case of Wilmont it

[1:28:56] does provide more flexibility so it's not a defined area it provide the same

[1:29:00] opportunity throughout the entire township.

[1:29:04] » Any other questions or comments? Councelor President.

[1:29:08] » Yes. Just ask add clarity. My interpretation of the entire township

[1:29:14] was That meant regardless of where the site was located, it would be eligible.

[1:29:21] And therefore, it wasn't specific to say my backyard is a brownfield site. But it

[1:29:27] means that, you know, if there is a brownfield site located anywhere in the

[1:29:33] township, it isn't ruled out in terms of eligibility

[1:29:40] through the mayor. That's correct. Any other questions or comments?

[1:29:45] Okay, seeing none, um I actually did have one question. I just wanted to make

[1:29:51] sure I know that you've mentioned if they find contamination after the

[1:29:55] permits that uh they could apply. This is not retroactive though, correct?

[1:30:01] Because we've not had a program in place. I just want to make sure we don't

[1:30:04] suddenly have an influx of people who have remediated Brownfield.

[1:30:09] » So through the mayor, we haven't put a date on. So if there has been a site

[1:30:13] that has been remediated but not yet started their redevelopment, they could

[1:30:18] be still eligible. >> Okay. But if the redevelopment is done,

[1:30:22] they cannot come for the T. Okay. Correct.

[1:30:25] » All right. Thank you for that clarity. Um with that, I will call the vote. All

[1:30:29] those in favor? >> And that carries unanimously. On to

[1:30:34] 14.8. And this is the salt site alteration background report. Uh the

[1:30:40] recommendation is to receive this for information and that staff be directed

[1:30:43] to return to council in February 2027 to seek direction on which option to pursue

[1:30:47] as outlined in the report. Do I have a mover for this? Moved by councelor

[1:30:52] Cresman, seconded by councelor Sadu. And I will turn it back over to Miss Green.

[1:30:58] Thank you. So the report this evening was prepared in collaboration with

[1:31:02] infrastructure services. Um and it builds on council's previous direction

[1:31:05] to explore a site alteration bylaw. um provides an overview of the current

[1:31:09] regulatory framework, the township's existing tools and potential options

[1:31:13] moving forward. So site alteration involves the placement of fill, removal

[1:31:17] of soil, or changes to the grading. Um these activities can support development

[1:31:22] and improve site conditions, but they can also create impacts related to truck

[1:31:26] traffic, road damage, dust, noise, drainage, erosion, sedimentation.

[1:31:30] Um and so site alteration is already partially regulated through several

[1:31:36] existing provincial and agency frameworks. So the province regulates

[1:31:40] excess soil quality and reuse um with requirements generally increasing as

[1:31:45] projects become larger and more complex specifically for large projects over

[1:31:50] 10,000 cubic meters or 800 to,400 standard dump trucks that fill. Uh the

[1:31:56] GRCA also has regulations and they regulate uh fill placement over a

[1:32:01] thousand cubic meters or 80 to 140 dump trucks um within regulated areas such as

[1:32:07] wetlands, flood planes, and water courses.

[1:32:10] Uh the township has several tools available to address impacts associated

[1:32:14] with fill and grading activities. So for example, through the planning process,

[1:32:18] currently staff can already require technical studies and secure mitigation

[1:32:22] measures through development agreements. Um the township's existing noise bylaw

[1:32:26] can address concerns related to construction noise and equipment

[1:32:29] operation. Um there's an existing traffic and parking bylaw um that

[1:32:34] relates to heavy vehicle parking and truck restrictions. Um however, township

[1:32:39] can only regulate roads under its own or jurisdiction. Um so these wouldn't apply

[1:32:43] to regional or provincial roads. Um the township also has authority under the

[1:32:48] municipal act to consider additional nuisance related bylaws addressing

[1:32:52] concerns such as dust odors and vibration. And so the key considerations

[1:32:56] for council is determining the preferred municipal role in regulating the

[1:33:00] location scale and operational impacts of site alteration activities. Um so

[1:33:05] there's a few options um that we've kind of looked at. And so the first option A

[1:33:11] is maintaining the status quo and not introducing a site alteration bylaw. We

[1:33:15] would continue to rely on existing provincial soil quality regulations,

[1:33:19] DRCA permitting and municipal by bylaws. Um, this option has the lowest

[1:33:24] administration and financial impact. Um, however, the township would have limited

[1:33:29] ability to proactively oversee um impacts related to site alteration or

[1:33:34] require securities to address infrastructure impacts to roads for

[1:33:38] example. Um the second option we looked at option

[1:33:42] B would be regulating large fill sites only um which have the greatest

[1:33:46] potential to impact roads, infrastructure and the environment. Um

[1:33:50] it would allow the township to permit um have conditions security collect

[1:33:54] securities and enter into an agreements for large operations to mitigate impacts

[1:33:59] um and represents a balance between increased oversight and manageable

[1:34:03] resource requirements. And then third is option C um which is to regulate all

[1:34:08] site alteration activities um from small to large projects. Um this provides the

[1:34:14] highest level of m municipal oversight but would require significant commitment

[1:34:18] of staff time for permit review, inspections, compliance, monitoring and

[1:34:23] enforcement and could potentially require additional staffing resources

[1:34:26] and ongoing operating funding but may be offset by permit fees.

[1:34:31] So overall, this report is intended to help council determine the township's

[1:34:35] preferred role in regulating site alteration activities. Um, right now

[1:34:39] we're just recommending the that it be received for information and bring it

[1:34:43] back to a future council meeting in February. Thanks.

[1:34:48] » Thank you very much. Questions, council, councilman.

[1:34:53] » Yes. uh through you mayor uh to um manager green. Um I'm looking at

[1:35:02] at the two different options. I think uh certainly at this point in time B is the

[1:35:09] one that would catch my eye. Um I'm wondering 10,000 cubic meters. Um, given

[1:35:20] at least one active site here in the in the township, uh, uh, I would assume

[1:35:27] they surpass that and do they have an exemption because quote unquote they're

[1:35:33] looking at um, farming

[1:35:38] and so I thought, is that a giant loophole?

[1:35:43] I am a farmer, but is that a giant loophole that you could drive massive

[1:35:48] truck through? So, I'm just asking the question

[1:35:53] » and I'd maybe just tailor it not to that specific site, but in general, is

[1:35:58] agricultural activity like that a potential loophole? through

[1:36:04] the merit. The municipal act does allow exemptions or requires exemptions for

[1:36:09] agricultural specific

[1:36:12] uh site alteration. So we would have to look and ensure that it meets what is

[1:36:19] defined as agriculture in that respect and ensure that if it meets that then it

[1:36:25] would be exempt from getting a permit if we were to implement a program.

[1:36:31] » Thank you. I council Dunto. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you, uh,

[1:36:36] Miss Green. And I I think this is is very timely and I think we definitely

[1:36:40] need to have something put into place. My understanding is the abuing, uh,

[1:36:44] municipalities already have something. And so my concern is that there will be

[1:36:48] more dumping in Wilmont. We certainly don't need that. Uh, my question to you

[1:36:52] is how how many fill operations uh, are there currently operating? Do you know?

[1:36:59] » From my understanding, two. Um but I'll defer to management if they have any

[1:37:05] other knowledge of any others >> uh through Mana. No, I we're aware of

[1:37:10] two larger operations uh in the township and that's that's all we're aware of at

[1:37:14] this point. >> Any other questions or comments?

[1:37:19] Councelor Wilkinson. >> Thank you through the chair. I know um

[1:37:23] there's one particular site that comes up quite a bit, but I will say that you

[1:37:27] know there is a um I can't remember the exact body that that governs it uh at

[1:37:32] the moment, but there there is definitely tracking and information

[1:37:35] related to where that fill is coming from on um and if anybody's curious,

[1:37:40] they can email me. I'm happy to send it to them. Um it's just escaping me at the

[1:37:44] moment. Uh but with that said, I mean I I I concur with councelor Cresman.

[1:37:49] option B is is probably the the preferred option when we get there in

[1:37:53] February. Um but ultimately this will be a decision that uh we're not going to

[1:37:58] make tonight. So yeah, we definitely want to see it though.

[1:38:04] I did have one question and it's just on timing. Um I know right now the

[1:38:10] recommended motion is to refer back for February 2027. I'm just wondering does

[1:38:15] it make more sense to tie it in with budget and as we don't know with the new

[1:38:20] council when budget will be coming. The only reason I ask is because two of your

[1:38:24] options as you noted do have financial impacts. Um curious if that's an issue

[1:38:30] or if there was a particular reason that February was proposed. I just don't want

[1:38:34] it to come out of pace with the budget if there is if council in the future

[1:38:40] decides on B or C as the option to proceed with.

[1:38:44] » I'm going to defer to director Martin. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. So the the February

[1:38:50] date was more to allow for an opportunity for a new council to be

[1:38:54] adjusted. Um there would be public consultation requirements. So in in

[1:38:59] theory, we could tie it to a budget process, but um prior to February, there

[1:39:05] really won't be a significant opportunity to go to a public public

[1:39:09] meeting uh to advertise, you know, the proposal. So that's where we were uh we

[1:39:15] were looking at the later date. um you know initially depending on what the

[1:39:20] what what what uh what option is looked at um there there's components of that

[1:39:25] that could could come through without significant impacts initially um knowing

[1:39:29] that if you know next stages of that would have financial implications would

[1:39:33] allow for the opportunity to be considered at a future budget meeting as

[1:39:36] well. So, um, future budget, meaning 2028. Uh,

[1:39:41] but I guess we can, you know, it's up to council's direction on how they'd like

[1:39:45] us to proceed at this point. Um, but primarily the date was there to allow

[1:39:49] for public consultation with a new council after the election. Uh, and you

[1:39:54] know, new council settled in for a month.

[1:39:58] » Okay. Um, that answer satisfies my question. Councelor Cresman.

[1:40:03] » Yes. Through you, mayor. One further question. Uh anecdotally there was

[1:40:08] always the comment that you once a a um excess soil uh site had been initiated

[1:40:18] it couldn't be uh regulated. Uh and so I'm wondering is that a felicious

[1:40:25] assumption or is that uh if we had option option B that uh we could in fact

[1:40:33] regulate something that's existing >> through the mayor. So should we go down

[1:40:40] the path of implementing a site alteration bylaw, we'd probably look at

[1:40:43] some transition um policy to be put in there. there would likely not be an

[1:40:49] opportunity to regulate what's been done, but if there was an increase in

[1:40:53] the area or the increase in the volume of fill moving forward, that could

[1:40:58] potentially fall under a bylaw. >> Thank you. I'm not seeing any other

[1:41:04] questions or comments. Again, tonight, this is just to receive for information

[1:41:08] and then um have staff bring this back to council in February 2027. So, I will

[1:41:14] call the question. All those in favor? and that's carried unanimously. Uh on to

[1:41:19] report 14.9 and this is the Mannheim service area water allocation policy.

[1:41:25] The recommendation is that council receives this report for information and

[1:41:29] that council approve the bylaw and policy as attached um as attachment A to

[1:41:35] this report and that council delegate authority to the director of development

[1:41:39] services or in their absence the director of infrastructure services to

[1:41:42] be delegated delegated to make allocation decisions pursuant to the

[1:41:46] policy as in attachment A and that the director of development services or in

[1:41:51] their absence the director of infrastructure services be delegated

[1:41:55] um report to council when an allocation has been assigned pursuant to the policy

[1:42:00] which is noted in attachment A and that the mayor and the clerk be authorized to

[1:42:03] execute the allocation policy administrative agreement jointly entered

[1:42:08] into with the region of waterl city of Cambridge city of Kitchener city of

[1:42:11] water and township of Wulitch to implement the region of waterlue

[1:42:14] allocation policy to get this on the floor may I have a mover moved by

[1:42:18] councelor Sue seconded by councelor Martin and I will turn it back over to

[1:42:22] director Sorry. >> Uh thank you, Mayor Salin. Uh so this uh

[1:42:26] this report um was dealt with to a certain extent with other municipalities

[1:42:31] earlier. Um ultimately uh it looks at the water allocation to Wilmont within

[1:42:37] the Manahide service area which is a very small piece of the overall

[1:42:40] equation. Uh hence our late uh arrival to council with this. Um ultimately in

[1:42:45] May, the region approved a region uh water supply allocation policy that

[1:42:50] looked at assigning buckets of capacity to municipalities based on growth

[1:42:54] potential in those areas and and uh official plan designations where growth

[1:42:57] was going to occur. And then um in June of 26, they adopted an interimm risk

[1:43:02] management that looked at you know those buckets of of allocation what that

[1:43:07] number would be in the time frame. So ultimately in that uh Wilmet has

[1:43:11] allocated 0.01% 01% of the overall piece which um in the July uh bucket that was

[1:43:19] allocated would mean one person uh to Wilmont over the course of the uh the

[1:43:24] the risk management process to 2030 uh one that means 17 people. Uh so we're

[1:43:31] not talking a lot of allocation. We also don't have a lot of plan growth within

[1:43:35] the uh service uh the Manheim service area limited implications. Um but should

[1:43:41] those numbers change, should there be additional water, um that percentage

[1:43:44] could mean a larger number and could have some implications for for some

[1:43:48] potential areas in in your St. Agatha or Manheim areas. Um so we feel it's

[1:43:53] prudent to be part of that uh to enter into the agreement that the other

[1:43:57] municipalities have already entered into which is one part of the recommendation

[1:44:01] and then we've basically uh with some minor modifications to reflect Wilmont.

[1:44:06] We've uh the proposed policy is reflective of what Woolwitch has already

[1:44:09] passed uh to deal with allocation. Uh so it provides you know scenario what the

[1:44:14] priorities would be if we were to have a bucket. Again, we're dealing with 17

[1:44:18] people to 2031, so it's not a a significant piece to deal with, but it

[1:44:23] provides a framework on how you'd make decisions about allocation going

[1:44:26] forward. So, from that perspective, the the idea would be if if council were to

[1:44:30] support this, we would execute the agreement that the other municipalities

[1:44:33] have already, which would then mean that we would receive our small uh allocation

[1:44:39] and we would have an opportunity to hold on to that until there's a need to

[1:44:43] allocate. Council Gresman,

[1:44:48] » I would say this policy is a little bit dripping with iron irony, but I I would

[1:44:57] say uh the 19 LERs per second that they took serendip

[1:45:05] our knowledge 30 liters, sorry, uh from 2019. Um

[1:45:12] anyhow I I certainly support this but uh the question I have I guess to either uh

[1:45:21] director Martin or director Vanderwal is about the Ben well that we know has

[1:45:27] issues uh and they haven't got a clear uh it is

[1:45:33] indirectly connected I believe to the Mannheim system to supply some of our

[1:45:38] water is it not or it's being supplemented or how is that? Um, so I

[1:45:46] guess that's the question. >> Uh, and I'll attempt to answer if I've

[1:45:51] missed anything then Mr. Vanderwal would be able to respond. But we technically

[1:45:56] uh the system would be they're connected. It would be a matter of

[1:46:01] turning the tap in a different direction, but it's it's not it's not

[1:46:04] feeding the system at this point, but the infrastructure provides the

[1:46:08] opportunity that it could in theory, but uh that that isn't part of the current

[1:46:13] uh Ben and New Hamburg water system if those wells were to come online and be

[1:46:16] part of that. It isn't it isn't the way it works presently, but um there would

[1:46:21] be an opportunity uh for that to occur. Just just to through you may mer to

[1:46:28] clarify my question which uh is Mannheim currently serving Ben because of the

[1:46:36] challenges with that well uh I guess is what my question is. Sorry I missed the

[1:46:43] missed the part of that question there. So the answer is no. Ven is not serviced

[1:46:47] by man.

[1:46:51] » Any other questions or comments on this report? Okay, seeing none, all those in

[1:46:55] favor and that carries unanimously. On to 14.10 and the recommendation is to

[1:47:04] receive uh the tax aer status update for information to get this on the floor.

[1:47:09] May I have a mover, please? Moved by councelor Sedu, seconded by councelor

[1:47:12] Martin. And I will turn it over to our supervisor of taxation and revenue,

[1:47:16] Emily Woon, to introduce this report. >> Good evening, Mayor Salin and members of

[1:47:21] council. The tax rear status update report before you tonight provides an

[1:47:25] update on the township's property tax rears as of July 31st, 2026, together

[1:47:32] with an overview of the legislative framework, uh the collection processes

[1:47:36] used by finance staff and the current status of properties identified as being

[1:47:40] eligible for tax sale this year. Thank you.

[1:47:45] » Thank you very much. Are there questions or comments on this council? Councelor

[1:47:49] Wilkinson. >> [clears throat]

[1:47:51] » Uh thank you through the chair. Um I I guess uh

[1:47:57] more a comment I guess cause for alarm in reading this report when we start to

[1:48:01] see the numbers u uh of tax sales that could potentially be pursued and at the

[1:48:08] same time looking at the number of households that are in a rears. Um, you

[1:48:13] know, it's a rather large number and and I I guess I'm curious uh to the manager

[1:48:20] if if you've heard an overarching theme as to what's driving the arars or could

[1:48:25] you comment on that at all because this is a very high number obviously

[1:48:30] through you mayor to council. Um, so I do want to note that the properties that

[1:48:35] are identified as being inner rears are ranging in balance. So, anything greater

[1:48:41] than a $0 balance is considered an outstanding account. Um, there was no

[1:48:47] threshold used when when deciding to include balances in this report. So, we

[1:48:52] have a number of properties with balances less than $1,000 um spanning

[1:48:57] larger than that. Um, so I just want to note that of the properties that are

[1:49:02] identified as being inner rears, the 2,936

[1:49:06] properties, 1,487 of them have balances less than $1,000.

[1:49:12] So that's about 51 almost% of those properties with balances less than

[1:49:17] $1,000, which would be considered lower balances. Um, I do also want to note

[1:49:24] that there are a number of properties identified that are currently enrolled

[1:49:29] into a pre-authorized payment plan with the municipality with the expectation

[1:49:33] that by year end balances that are outstanding would be collected through

[1:49:38] those payment arrangements. Um so as of now yes there are properties in a rears

[1:49:44] but when we look at the amount of the rears and also the plans that are in

[1:49:49] place we are in moving in a direction for those rears to be mostly paid by the

[1:49:54] end of the year. Um now in respect to the properties eligible for tax sale

[1:49:59] there are 67 properties identified as being eligible for tax sale. Um when we

[1:50:05] compare to prior years last year tax sale efforts weren't um conducted and

[1:50:11] from what I can see from prior years properties 3 years and greater in a

[1:50:16] rears seemed to be what was used as the benchmark for eligibility. Um in 2017

[1:50:22] legislation changed under under the municipal act to allow properties two

[1:50:27] years in a rears to become eligible for tax sale which is what I have used as

[1:50:31] the benchmark for determining eligibility. So we we're seeing an

[1:50:37] increase in number this year but from what I can see from prior years it's

[1:50:41] different criteria that's being identified in the current year. Um, I do

[1:50:46] also want to note on the 67 properties that have been identified, the deadline

[1:50:50] for property owners to contact the municipality is August 31st. Um, as of

[1:50:56] this past Friday, we've already received almost $200,000

[1:51:01] towards the tax sale balance uh or the tax arers eligible for tax sale. Um and

[1:51:08] so that represents about 22 properties that have either paid their rears in

[1:51:12] full um have entered into a payment plan or have paid sufficient balances to

[1:51:17] remove themselves from tax sale eligibility for this year. So we are

[1:51:21] making really great progress already on collecting on those arars just through

[1:51:25] our standard collection process without escalating to registration for tax sale.

[1:51:32] » Councelor Wilkinson. >> Thank you through the chair. Uh,

[1:51:35] appreciate the the depth of that response. I just want to clarify one

[1:51:39] item. Um, when you say the the properties in a rears that are less than

[1:51:44] $1,000, but you mentioned um the pre-authorized payment plan. So, are you

[1:51:50] suggesting that there are a number of houses here that would be in regular

[1:51:54] compliance making regular monthly payments um but they're considered in a

[1:51:58] rears because they're not paying in their quarterly installments. Is that

[1:52:01] fair >> through Mayor Saladin? Yes, that would

[1:52:04] be correct. So, as per the way our system reports, these balances would

[1:52:09] technically be considered outstanding. However, they are properties are entered

[1:52:15] into payment arrangements provided that they are fulfilled would bring them into

[1:52:20] good standing by the end of the year. >> Through the chair, just a quick

[1:52:24] followup. Do you know off top of your head how many properties are part of the

[1:52:28] pre-authorized payment plan? through you, Mayor Salin. Uh, yes, we have

[1:52:33] approximately 2,000 properties that are enrolled into a pre-authorized payment

[1:52:38] plan across the different uh, classes of taxation.

[1:52:45] » Thank you. An additional follow. So, through the chair, so basically what

[1:52:48] you're saying is those 2,000 should come into compliance by the end of the year,

[1:52:51] which means in reality it's probably 936 properties that are truly in your rears

[1:52:56] not making their payments. Is that a fair statement?

[1:52:59] through you, Mayor Salin, and into council. Yes, I would agree, provided

[1:53:06] that those payment plans are fulfilled. Um, we do, you know, there there are

[1:53:11] circumstances where maybe residents move. Um, the payment plans are

[1:53:15] cancelled. We do have residents occasionally default on payment

[1:53:19] arrangements. Um, so that's yes, I would hope that those 2,000 properties would

[1:53:24] come into uh good standing by the end of the year. Councelor

[1:53:30] Martin. >> Uh through you, Mayor S. I I guess I'm

[1:53:33] I'm following up on councelor Wilkinson's questions because if I've

[1:53:37] understood this explanation and and I appreciate that, uh manager, um then I

[1:53:44] guess I would be in a rears. I'm in a monthly payment plan. So I wonder if we

[1:53:49] should change this because it doesn't make sense to me to call something in a

[1:53:52] rears when we have a plan in place that uh has a monthly payment plan. and I've

[1:53:58] been doing the monthly payment plan for years. Um, so I I guess I'm wondering if

[1:54:02] we should consider making a change on that.

[1:54:06] » I'd maybe look to Supervisor Wound just in terms of

[1:54:11] the ability to functionally do that with the reporting technology. I'm not

[1:54:15] against the proposal. I just kind of want to know the logistics what that

[1:54:18] would look like on the back end. >> Yeah. and through you mayor Saladin to

[1:54:21] can to council. Um the financial software that we have is limited in the

[1:54:27] reporting structure that is available. Um

[1:54:33] we say it I mean it's categorized as outstanding because if a property owner

[1:54:38] was to contact the municipality tomorrow and say I would like to disenroll from

[1:54:42] my pre-authorized arrangement um any amount that is owing would immediately

[1:54:47] become past due and subject to penalty and interest. So, it it is a balance

[1:54:51] that it's a courtesy that we offer the

[1:54:55] pre-authorized payment plan as a way to help residents um budget their their

[1:54:59] taxation over the year. It is a great collection um tool that we use and I

[1:55:05] know a lot of property owners are in favor of it. I certainly am as well. Um

[1:55:09] but it does not take away from the fact that you know we are still required to

[1:55:14] make our payments to um the region and the school boards on a quarterly and

[1:55:18] monthly basis and these are balances that we are not collecting at time that

[1:55:25] they are due. We are collecting them by year end. So in that aspect they would

[1:55:30] be considered technically outstanding balances.

[1:55:38] Does that satisfy your question, counselor?

[1:55:41] » Uh, thank you for asking, Mayor Salin. To me, it doesn't make sense. I wouldn't

[1:55:46] call it a rears if we have a bonafide plan and we're not the only

[1:55:49] municipality, city of Kitchener. I mean, throughout the province, uh, monthly

[1:55:54] payment plans are a regular occurrence. So, it doesn't make sense to call it a

[1:55:58] rears from my point of view. So maybe I would suggest

[1:56:05] um and this could either be just direction to staff or if somebody wanted

[1:56:10] to formalize it, but maybe that staff bring back a different language. Um I

[1:56:16] would say I'm still interested personally to know

[1:56:20] um even if people are on a monthly payment plan from the perspective of we

[1:56:24] do collect actually the largest portion of our taxes as we know go to the

[1:56:28] region. We collect on their behalf. So technically we are carrying as

[1:56:32] supervisor Wound just noted we are carrying um that cost and covering it

[1:56:36] going to I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I just think having that

[1:56:41] information is a valid thing for us to be aware of. But I don't disagree with

[1:56:45] changing the terminology because I was also a little shocked at first when I

[1:56:49] read the report going wow that's a lot of households um in our community. So

[1:56:55] maybe if council's open to it, we could ask um and I would look for staff

[1:57:00] comment, but if staff could bring back um enhanced language to better

[1:57:05] articulate that and not have it as a rears if people are on payment plans,

[1:57:10] would that are there issues from council on that? Councelor Sue,

[1:57:17] » a quick question before that. Um, so we're paying our taxes to the region

[1:57:23] quarterly, I believe. So, are we paying any interest? Are we acrewing any

[1:57:29] interest by paying the region and not collecting our uh taxes from the

[1:57:34] residents in the meantime? I would turn to supervisor woon but I

[1:57:40] know if people are in a rears the township is the one who takes the hit

[1:57:45] and we can charge I believe it's 15% um is what the deal is and that's why

[1:57:51] the region claims it's beneficial for us um but we have to pay them outright

[1:57:58] regardless of if we get paid but supervisor woon if you have anything you

[1:58:02] wanted to add to that >> through you uh mayor Salon into council.

[1:58:07] That is correct. We are still required to remmit to the region. We remit

[1:58:11] monthly. Um and we are still required to remit to the school boards. That is

[1:58:16] quarterly regardless of if we have collected taxes that have been levied.

[1:58:21] And yes, we do charge um penalty and interest. It is 15% annually.

[1:58:29] So just before we move on, did we want to give direction to staff then to bring

[1:58:33] back updated language for this report? Councelor Wilkinson

[1:58:37] » through the chair. Um I'm not opposed to it. Maybe there is a different way to

[1:58:43] mention it if they are on a pre-authorized payment, but ultimately I

[1:58:45] think is this report is not one that we've regularly seen over the term. Um,

[1:58:51] but I think ultimately the the the truer rears is the one that it presents itself

[1:58:55] at the end of the tax collection cycle. Um, so you know, I I mean I pay monthly

[1:59:01] on a pre-authorized plan, so technically I'd be in the same boat as council, but

[1:59:05] uh I'm certainly not hearing about it or seeing anything about it. So I mean I'm

[1:59:09] not overly concerned. Um, but I think it it it would be interesting to see what

[1:59:14] this looks like at the end of the tax collection cycle truly to see what the

[1:59:18] real number is of who's in a rears and then I don't know, but I also wouldn't

[1:59:22] be opposed if there's a different way to classify just this segment as in this

[1:59:27] section. I'd be fine with that. >> So, Supervisor Boon, I think you've been

[1:59:32] following the conversation. Is that something that you feel confident you

[1:59:35] can bring back to council at a future date?

[1:59:38] » Yes. uh through you mayor Sal and to members of council. Yes, I can

[1:59:42] absolutely understand your perspective and I don't disagree. Um from my

[1:59:46] understanding, this is the first report of this types that has come forward to

[1:59:50] this council and um I would hope it is my intent to provide a year-end update

[1:59:57] as well. It is something that we should be reporting to council on ideally like

[2:00:05] every 6 months, year end and then partway through the year. And I do

[2:00:08] anticipate that year end will be in a very different situation. Um, but I

[2:00:14] certainly can take your feedback, um, address the the verbiage and the

[2:00:18] language that's been used and also rework what has been written to provide

[2:00:23] you maybe a clearer, um, uh, update as to what you're looking for.

[2:00:29] » Thank you very much. And we do have a list, Councelor Stew, and then Council

[2:00:32] Presman. >> Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to make a

[2:00:35] comment. I would be in favor of uh, uh, changing the language or the way we

[2:00:40] report it out. um I know when you buy a home you have the option of do you want

[2:00:45] to do it quarterly, do it monthly. Um just doesn't sit well with me. I I agree

[2:00:51] with um councelor Martin that if you have the option to do it monthly and

[2:00:55] then you see this report and then you see you're looped into a pool that says

[2:00:59] technically you're in a rears. Um, so I would be in favor of changing the

[2:01:04] reporting so we can see that as uh it was mentioned I think 2,000 homes are in

[2:01:11] the pre-authorized. So the number looks a lot more favorable. So we can actually

[2:01:15] break it down and see that no they are not technically in a rears but the 900

[2:01:20] some homes are. So it makes the number less staggering. I know when I looked at

[2:01:25] it, I almost fell out of my chair to think, "Holy moly, that's almost one

[2:01:29] full ward worth of uh homes that are in a rears." So, it is reassuring that it

[2:01:34] isn't actually at the moment in a rears, but uh I think

[2:01:39] uh an enhanced language around the reporting would be great.

[2:01:44] » Council Chrisman. >> Yes, through you, Mayor. I think the

[2:01:48] headline that two of the council members of WA Township were interveners would be

[2:01:53] the one I would be thinking would be important to have. But that's just me

[2:01:59] cuz I pay quarterly. [laughter] But

[2:02:04] uh the question I have uh is related to the other end of the spectrum about uh

[2:02:12] personal bankruptcies, mortgage sales. Where do we stand in

[2:02:17] line as a township in terms of residual value in a home sale? Uh do we stand

[2:02:26] behind the mortgage holder and we get the sweeping so to speak or do we stand

[2:02:32] ahead uh in terms of priority payment >> through you mayor Salin to council? Um

[2:02:41] yes, if a property was in tax arars and ended up in a position of either

[2:02:46] bankruptcy or um you know [clears throat] the property was

[2:02:49] repossessed through the bank, yes, property taxes do um equate to a lean

[2:02:55] and a rears would be paid out through those processes. So it doesn't happen

[2:03:01] very often that we receive bankruptcy notice. Um but in the event that we do,

[2:03:06] they are reviewed as received um to ensure that our interest is identified

[2:03:11] in those documents as well. Any other questions or comments on this

[2:03:17] council? I did just have one question. Um, in

[2:03:23] terms of if we do unfortunately get to the stage of tax sales. Um,

[2:03:30] this council did have one almost tax sale I think early on in our time. Um,

[2:03:36] but it was brought forward to council. I think it was the week before it was

[2:03:40] supposed to go um on sale. And so at that point, the property was actually

[2:03:47] identified um to council and it actually resulted

[2:03:50] in a good news story in that somebody watched the council meeting, contacted a

[2:03:55] family member of the property owner and their riggers were addressed and the

[2:03:59] property was able to be kept. To me, that's a good news story. I don't want

[2:04:02] to see us having to sell properties for taxes. Um, so I guess I'm just curious

[2:04:07] going forward recognizing that we've had a different shift in the financial

[2:04:13] department and um, to your point, this is the first time we've really seen a

[2:04:17] comprehensive report even on this, which I think is great. But yeah, I guess I

[2:04:21] want to understand what does that look like going forward if that process were

[2:04:25] to happen with any of the properties you've identified?

[2:04:29] » Uh, through or to you, Mayor Salin, and to council. Um so [clears throat]

[2:04:33] currently I am working diligently with property owners to try to find ways to

[2:04:39] avoid moving forward in the process. Um we have about a week left for property

[2:04:44] owners to still make arrangements with the municipality and I think you know

[2:04:49] the fact that we've seen 22 property owners come forward so far is is great.

[2:04:54] Um, in the event that a property owner was not able to satisfy one of the

[2:05:00] options available, uh, a tax or rear certificate would be registered against

[2:05:05] the property. That would likely be happening end of September, early

[2:05:09] October. And from that date of registration, property owners have a

[2:05:14] 1-year cancellation period in which they can pay the sum of all aars to cancel

[2:05:21] the tax sale process entirely. Um if the arars are not paid within that one-year

[2:05:26] cancellation period, we would would be moving forward to the next phase which

[2:05:30] would be um public tender and um the process is is long. There's

[2:05:37] advertisement requirements, deadlines, but uh [clears throat] property owners

[2:05:41] would realistically be looking about a year and a half out from now, maybe even

[2:05:46] a little bit longer before it came to the point where a property was listed

[2:05:50] for for public sale. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or

[2:05:55] comments on this report? Again, it's just for information this evening. All

[2:05:59] those in favor and that carries unanimously.

[2:06:03] On to uh 14.11 and this is the Ontario Community

[2:06:09] Infrastructure Funding Advocacy Beyond 2026 report. The recommendation is that

[2:06:15] we receive this report for information and that council endorses the resolution

[2:06:20] supporting MFOA's letter to the Ministry of Infrastructure and requesting the

[2:06:24] province maintain the current enhanced OSF funding level beyond the 2026

[2:06:28] allocation year and that council direct staff to forward the endorsed resolution

[2:06:33] to the Minister of Infrastructure, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

[2:06:36] Housing, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Finance Officers Associates

[2:06:41] of Ontario and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Local

[2:06:47] Member of Provincial Parliament, and any other parties deemed appropriate to get

[2:06:51] this on the floor. May I have a mover? Moved by Councelor Wilkinson, seconded

[2:06:54] by Councelor Martin, and I will invite our treasurer, Tracy Prince, to

[2:06:59] introduce this report. >> Good evening, uh, Mayor and Counselors.

[2:07:04] Um so the report in front of you is really just to support the advocacy of

[2:07:09] MFOA uh to the province to continue the

[2:07:13] increased increased um in the increase introduced in 2022 and

[2:07:21] beyond. So it ends the end of 2026 and if it's decreased OSA funding for next

[2:07:29] fiscal year it could result in about a 4.67% six 7% increase on the tax levy

[2:07:34] just to make up that portion of it. Um and then or it looks at or we'd be

[2:07:40] looking at further reducing potential capital investment to offset that loss.

[2:07:50] » Okay. Thank you. Are there questions? Councelor Wilkinson.

[2:07:55] » Thank you through the chair. Um, more comment, maybe a question in there,

[2:08:00] but I think obviously it it's uh it makes sense to to sign on to this

[2:08:05] advocacy and send uh the message uh upward in hopes that we can continue to

[2:08:10] see this investment in our infrastructure specifically uh given

[2:08:14] that we have uh quite a bit to address. Um, you know, the one concern is hearing

[2:08:20] that it would result in a 4.67 uh levy increase. I don't necessarily share the

[2:08:26] same perspective. I think my hope would be that when we are looking at our

[2:08:30] 10-year capital plans uh that there might be multiple options and that could

[2:08:35] be one where it's maintained, one where maybe it looks at uh a 2% increase uh or

[2:08:43] one that um potentially spreads out the the spending that was taking place over

[2:08:48] the course of time. those to avoid uh a rather large increase um just related to

[2:08:55] the loss of this funding. I mean, we knew that it had an end date. So, the

[2:08:57] hope is is that we would hopefully plan for that. Um but that would just be my

[2:09:01] my sort of brief comment as we head into budget season. Um you know, I I guess we

[2:09:07] should probably anticipate that this is gone and then spread out the spending

[2:09:11] appropriately. But that's all I would say on it.

[2:09:15] » Any other questions or comments? Council Densall. Thank you to you, mayor. The

[2:09:20] $736,000 shortfall, which is what we've been used

[2:09:24] to getting in addition to what we're used to get. Uh, Director Vanderwal,

[2:09:28] when you when we are looking at our infrastructure projects um for next

[2:09:33] year, has have you planned um those uh that spend based on what we were

[2:09:41] receiving

[2:09:46] » uh through the mayor? Yes, we would be anticipating similar spending with minor

[2:09:51] increases to keep up with our infrastructure deficit as we have.

[2:10:00] » Any other questions or comments? >> Okay. Um I just wanted to say uh thank

[2:10:07] you very much Treasurer Prince for bringing this forward. Um one positive

[2:10:12] thing is we are not the only municipality in this boat. Um, and AMO

[2:10:17] and Roma are continuing to advocate as well as when uh, councelor Cresman and I

[2:10:22] were up in Ottawa last week at AMO. I did have some conversations with uh, the

[2:10:26] Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in particular on this as well as

[2:10:29] the Minister of Finance. Um, have had other conversations with his team about

[2:10:35] this and what they are currently saying, but take

[2:10:39] it with a grain of salt because I have yet to see anything in writing. Um but

[2:10:43] currently they are stating that they are well aware of this and it is something

[2:10:47] that they are um hoping to look to make municipalities whole. Again, not holding

[2:10:54] my breath because they've also said that we'll be made whole on other funding. Um

[2:10:58] but I do appreciate you bringing this uh forward and I do believe that this is a

[2:11:04] part of the long-term financial planning works that uh will be coming forward in

[2:11:08] the budget for the next council as well. Um so with that again this is to receive

[2:11:14] for information tonight to endorse a resolution supporting MFOA's letter and

[2:11:18] then to circulate to uh the appropriate parties. I will call the vote all those

[2:11:23] in favor and that carries unanimously. Uh on to our bylaws for this evening and

[2:11:31] the recommendation is that they be read a first, second and third time and

[2:11:34] finally passed an open council. I would look for a mover.

[2:11:39] Moved by councelor Martin, seconded by councelor Chrisman. And all those in

[2:11:44] favor. And that carries unanimously. Um I am going to turn it over to councelor

[2:11:50] Wilkinson to chair while I introduce my motion.

[2:11:56] » Uh so we move to notices of motions. Um, I will call on Mayor Stalin to bring

[2:12:06] forward her notice of motion, please. >> Thank you. Um, so this notice of motion

[2:12:11] council's had for a while now because it was originally on our July never ending

[2:12:16] council meeting. Um, but really what I'm why I'm bringing this forward is noting

[2:12:23] that we have a lot of amazing local businesses in our community, including

[2:12:28] agricultural operations that are essential to our economic um vitality

[2:12:34] really of our community. And I think it's important to note the great things

[2:12:38] that are going on. Um, some other municipalities do have recognition

[2:12:42] programs and I'm really just hoping that council uh ask staff or direct staff to

[2:12:49] prepare a framework for business appreciation program. Uh, this would

[2:12:53] include eligibility criteria and nomination processes and recognition

[2:12:57] methods. I'm not looking for this to be a makework project or a financial um

[2:13:03] implication. I'm really looking for it to be more of a good news opportunity

[2:13:07] and a way to acknowledge um our local businesses. Right now, we do things like

[2:13:13] produce scrolls um of recognition for businesses, but it's really on a request

[2:13:19] basis and they would even need to know that that exists. I think this takes a

[2:13:23] more proactive approach and is a good community building opportunity. Um, but

[2:13:29] like I said, not looking for it to be a make work or um add any cost. So, I'm

[2:13:35] not looking for compensation or getting into making big plaques or anything

[2:13:39] really. Uh, just looking for an opportunity to celebrate the great

[2:13:42] businesses that make uh Wilmont a fantastic place to live and work. So,

[2:13:47] I'd be looking for a seconder. Um, I think councelor Dunstall there, but uh

[2:13:54] I'll turn it back to the chair. Seconded by councelor Dunstall. Uh there any

[2:13:59] questions for Mayor Sal on this

[2:14:04] or councelor Dunstall. >> Thank you through you

[2:14:09] chair. Um the only comment I have is that I'm really upset that I didn't

[2:14:14] think of this. Um and I support it wholeheartedly.

[2:14:22] » Councilman. Yes. Uh just uh through you chair. Um

[2:14:30] the question I had was is there a time of year you would like to see this uh

[2:14:35] award be made?

[2:14:40] » Thank you through you chair. Um so I'll be honest what brought on the

[2:14:45] thinking about it was the citizen of the year awards which are at the fall fair.

[2:14:50] Um so every September. However, I am open to um really what staff find or if

[2:14:58] council or the community has a particular um interest. There are some

[2:15:03] communities, for example, that every month in their council meeting recognize

[2:15:08] um a local business. Some municipalities um do it per ward. So, each counselor

[2:15:14] gets to bring forward and propose. So, I don't have a set defined um idea. I

[2:15:20] really just more so want to get some framework and understand what could be

[2:15:24] feasible and will want.

[2:15:29] » Any additional questions? Okay. So, calling the vote all those in

[2:15:34] favor and that carries unanimously and I will

[2:15:39] uh see the chair back to Mayor Sullivan. >> Thank you very much, Councelor

[2:15:44] Wilkinson. Um on to we do have another uh notice of motion in front of us from

[2:15:51] councelor Crestman. It would require a twothirds vote of councel to be

[2:15:55] entertained. So um I'm assuming councelor Cresman's going to move waving

[2:16:00] the notice of motion seconded by councelor Wilkinson. Uh so this vote is

[2:16:06] just on waving notice and then I'll let councelor Cresman speak if the notice is

[2:16:10] waved. So all those in favor that carries unanimously. I will now turn it

[2:16:15] over to councelor Cresman to introduce his motion.

[2:16:19] » So, um, this motion, uh, is a result of, uh, what happened in Mannheim on August

[2:16:27] 8th and 9th. I was brought to my attention on the 9th at about 4:30 in

[2:16:33] the afternoon of uh, issues happening in Mannheim. So I will go through the

[2:16:40] whereases here. Whereas the township uh received more than a dozen noise

[2:16:45] complaints related to an unsanctioned event that occurred on Ble Road in

[2:16:50] Manheim area on August 8 and 9. And whereas the incident highlighted

[2:16:55] concerns regarding the township's ability to respond to noise complaints

[2:17:01] occurring during week nights and weekends when regular bylaw enforcement

[2:17:07] services are not provided. And whereas the township current noise by bylaw only

[2:17:13] is applicable between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. limiting the

[2:17:18] township's ability. And I would say as well Waterlue Regional Police Services's

[2:17:24] ability to address certain noise [clears throat] related complaints

[2:17:29] occurring outside of those hours. And whereas uh residents have expressed

[2:17:35] concerns regarding both the hours which the noise bylaw applies and the

[2:17:42] township's ability to respond to noise complaints when they occur out of

[2:17:47] outside of regular uh business or bylaw enforcement hours. Therefore, be it

[2:17:53] resolved to that a uh to investigate staff to investigate and report back to

[2:18:01] council on options and alternative for providing uh bylaw enforcement to noise

[2:18:08] complaints during weekends during week nights and weekends in con including

[2:18:15] potential service delivery models in-house or contracted

[2:18:21] uh response protocols with the Waterl Regional Police Service Services and

[2:18:26] associated costs. And B, that staff review the township's noise bylaw and

[2:18:33] report back to council with options for amendments that would provide the

[2:18:37] township with the ability to regulate unreasonable

[2:18:41] noise throughout the day and evening. and C that as part of the staff review

[2:18:49] the noise bylaws and enforcement practices of neighboring municipalities

[2:18:55] to identify best practices and provide recommendations for potential amendments

[2:19:02] to the township's uh noise bylaw and enforcement approach and that a report

[2:19:09] uh to council no later than Q1 of 2020 27. So I'm I guess I I'd look to move

[2:19:18] that and >> councelor Wilkinson is seconding.

[2:19:23] Councelor Wilkinson, did you want to speak it as speak to it as a seconder

[2:19:28] » through the chair? Uh I I I like the spirit of this and and where councelor

[2:19:32] Cresman is going. Um, this is something I've heard and and even in just having

[2:19:36] discussions um with our bylaw department. I think there's one thing

[2:19:41] that I'd like to see even uh in addition to this while they're they're looking,

[2:19:45] not that we need to make an amendment to it, but um we as I've become aware do

[2:19:50] not have the tools to even measure noise um which is of concern. So I hope that

[2:19:56] we can uh in addition to this look at making sure that we acquire the

[2:20:00] equipment in order to uh measure

[2:20:06] » uh councelor Cresman. >> Yes. Uh I responded on the uh Sunday the

[2:20:12] 9th was informed that this has happened uh on subsequent occasions in previous

[2:20:20] years. Only this year uh it went all night. previous years it stopped at 11.

[2:20:26] Uh certainly we as the township hadn't been informed of previous year

[2:20:32] complaints. Um I actually uh sat in the li in the kitchen of uh an individual I

[2:20:41] knew right across the road from where this was all happening. Uh people were

[2:20:45] walking in from Kitchener or that direction and walking up the driveway.

[2:20:51] Um and uh the police uh responded after they received numerous complaints. Uh

[2:21:00] the police officer uh was um very responsive. He went in on site and said,

[2:21:08] "Uh, I can't do anything now, but if this goes on beyond 10:30," he gave that

[2:21:16] as a line in the sand, knowing that 11:00 was the only time that he could he

[2:21:22] could do anything. Uh, you will receive a fine for every minute the noise is is

[2:21:29] beyond uh 11. But he was very concerned with the number of residents that were

[2:21:36] so upset after two nights of this and uh restarting at 3 in the afternoon on

[2:21:45] Sunday that he was expressing concern that residents would not try to walk up

[2:21:51] the driveway because they didn't know what reception they would receive from

[2:21:56] what was happening. People were camping out in the adjoining fields. Uh wheat

[2:22:03] had been harvested, wheat stubble was there, people were camping. Um so

[2:22:09] regardless to say uh there was a lot of upset residents and uh I see this as an

[2:22:17] important initiative uh to indicate that we're addressing and that we're going to

[2:22:23] have something uh that will ensure not just this but other situations can be

[2:22:29] addressed into the future. >> Any other questions or comments on this?

[2:22:36] All right. Um, seeing none, I would just say thank you counselor for bringing

[2:22:41] this forward because uh I don't know if I got as many complaints as you, but I

[2:22:45] know that I did as well. And I appreciate that we're looking to close

[2:22:49] the gap on uh this service that we didn't quite realize was a problem. Um,

[2:22:54] and hopefully that will make residents pleased as we go forward and give bylaw

[2:22:59] and our WRPS uh the opportunity to actually enforce what we have in place.

[2:23:04] Uh, with that, I will call the vote. All those in favor and that carries

[2:23:08] unanimously. Uh for announcements, I do have a few. I wanted to note uh the New

[2:23:14] Hamburg Fall Fair is happening September 17th to 20th and that is down at the

[2:23:21] fairgrounds at Norm Hill Park in New Hamburg.

[2:23:25] I also want to wish best of luck to those headed back to school uh in the

[2:23:31] next few weeks. And with that, a reminder that um the speeds in front of

[2:23:36] Saratam Beck and Waterlue Oxford do go back to the school speed times. So

[2:23:41] starting September 1st um I think it's between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. it will

[2:23:46] be a 40 km zone and then after those hours it will be 60 km and 60 km on

[2:23:52] weekends. But just remember that because I'm sure WRPS will be out ticketing. Um,

[2:23:58] I also wanted to note that the township's official plan is now posted

[2:24:02] on the provincial website um for the EO posting for comment. So, if people

[2:24:07] wanted to add additional comments to the province, they can do so. Um, and other

[2:24:12] than that, just a reminder that our next regular council meeting is to be

[2:24:16] scheduled on Monday, November the 9th at 6:00 p.m. And I will turn it over to

[2:24:21] councelor Dunl, I believe, also has some exciting news.

[2:24:25] » Thank you, Mayor. I am excited. I'm very pleased to announce that our veterans

[2:24:30] crosswalk uh is scheduled tentatively. I don't want uh director Vanderwal to um

[2:24:37] lose his mind, but it is scheduled for the first week of September or

[2:24:42] thereabouts and we will certainly be publicizing that. And I have to say this

[2:24:46] has been a true community event. Um we or community effort. We have been

[2:24:51] working with the board of trade, of course, with the New Hamburg Legion,

[2:24:54] with the township, and especially with all of those who contributed to make

[2:24:57] this happen. You know, my father-in-law or my father-in-law, my husband's uh

[2:25:02] grandfather got the Kuad Gad for capturing 200 enemy soldiers at the end

[2:25:07] of the war, and he was just a kid himself. And when I think of those

[2:25:10] things, uh those young uh men uh going out to war and women, um it uh is an

[2:25:17] honor to be involved in this initiative. So, I just want to make sure keep an eye

[2:25:21] out. We will be publicizing it and it will be installed on uh Hiron Hiron Road

[2:25:27] and uh looking forward to it. So, thank you.

[2:25:30] » Thank you, counselor. Are there any other announcements?

[2:25:33] Okay, seeing none, uh we did not have closed, therefore we have no business

[2:25:38] arising from it. So, I'd look for a mover and a seconder for the

[2:25:41] confirmatory bylaw. Moved by council Martin, seconded by

[2:25:44] councelor Sue. All those in favor? That carries unanimously and adjournment

[2:25:50] councelor Crestman seconded by councelor Sadu. All those in favor and that

[2:25:56] carries unanimously. Thank you and have a great night.

Council Meeting

Transcript