Good evening everyone and welcome to our
regular council meeting for August 24th,
2026. I'd look for a mover and a
seconder to call our meeting to order,
please. Moved by councelor Martin,
seconded by councelor Crestman. All
those in favor, that carries
unanimously.
We did not have a closed session today.
So, I will invite councelor Wilkinson to
introduce our territorial land
acknowledgement, please.
>> Thank you. Uh we have gathered in
Wilmont Township on the traditional
territory of the neutral and hodni and
missaga peoples. And we also want to
acknowledge the importance of the dish
with one spoon covenant, a peace
agreement made between indigenous
nations before the Europeans arrived. It
characterizes our collective
responsibility to each other and mother
earth that we should take only what we
need, leave enough for others, and keep
the dish clean. By acknowledging this
covenant and the First Nations, Inuit
and Matei people, we are reminded of our
important connection to this land where
we live, learn, and work together as a
community.
>> Thank you very much, counselor. Uh, I
will now turn it over to CEO Wilmer to
introduce a new face around horseshoe.
>> Thank you very much, Mayor Salin. And
we're very pleased to introduce Tracy
Prince as the new treasurer and director
of financial services for the the
township of Wilmont. Tracy's joining us
remotely tonight. Uh, and she's uh been
on the job for about two weeks now and
comes to us from the town of Ahmersburg
and also has previous experience at
Slair Region Conservation Authority as
well as the city of London. Uh Tracy is
a a chartered professional accountant,
also has an MBA and brings a good
combination of people leadership skills
and technical skills. So we're very
pleased to have Tracy join us as part of
the team.
>> Thank you very much and welcome Tracy.
Uh on to the adoption of the agenda. I
believe councelor Dunstall uh wanted to
move that with an amendment. I'll turn
it over to councelor Dunstall.
>> Thank you through you, mayor. Yes, I
want to make an amendment to remove uh
correspondence 12.2
from the agenda.
>> Okay, that's been moved by councelor
Dunstall. Is there a seconder to that?
Seconded by councelor Cresman. Any
questions or comments? So, the motion is
to remove 12.2 and then adopt the
remaining agenda as presented.
Okay, seeing none, I will call the
question. All those in favor?
All those opposed. And that carries. On
to Are there any disclosures of pecunary
interest?
Councelor Cresman.
>> Yes. Uh I would like to de declare a
pecunary interest on 16.4 the zone
change along um Gingrich Road. Uh it's
uh as a result of my uh oldest son uh G
being CEO at Walter Fatty and uh they're
uh doing the engineering work on the uh
entire project.
>> Thank you.
>> Sorry.
>> 14.6 I believe.
>> Um it's for the Gingrich Road item,
correct counselor? It's the Gingrich
Road item.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So that is 14.6
and that has been noted. Uh we do have
our minutes from the July 27th meeting
as well as the August 13th special
council meeting to be adopted as
presented. May I have a mover for that?
Moved by councelor Sadu, seconded by
councelor Cresman.
>> Can I make a comment please?
>> Absolutely.
>> Uh through you mayor Salin just uh I
believe it's going to be changed but
it's noted that I'm absent. Um, I guess
I missed the opening on the 27th, but I
was there for the closed meeting and so
I was here for the whole meeting except
the initial um motion.
>> Uh, I'm seeing clerks nodding to
acknowledge that. So, that will be
updated. Uh, thank you for making that
note. Any other questions or comments on
the minutes before us? Okay, seeing
none, all those in favor? And that
carries unanimously.
We do not have any public meetings this
evening, but we do have a presentation.
We got to see Tova twice in I believe
the last two months. So I will invite up
Tova Davidson and um Stefan Nacho, I'm
sorry if I've mispronounced that um to
the podium to present on the new uh
sustainability manager. So welcome to
council. Thank you so much. Um it's
really great to be here and to be back
um after it's been I think six weeks or
two months. So nice to be here. Um for
those who don't know, I'm Toa Davidson.
I'm the executive director of S SWR
sustainable water region and I'm here
just to introduce Stefan um a new
partnership that has been formed between
the township of Wilmont and Welssley
where together we have hired a
sustainability manager to support your
own work towards um your operational
sustainability and integration of
community work through the climate
action work etc etc as a staff person
the support that SWR is bringing is our own expertise to make sure that we
are supporting the townships in this
way. And it is a shared role with just a
one-year idea of let's give this a try
and see how we can make some real
progress. So the idea today is to
introduce Stefan, give him a moment to
introduce himself and just to talk a
little bit about what the priorities are
at the very beginning and answer any
questions the council may have.
>> Correct. Thank you, Dova. Um, yeah, nice
to be here and working with the
townships of Wilmont and Wellsley on
that project. I would call it. So, as
you heard, my name is Stefan. [laughter]
Um I'm an architect and certified
passive house designer almost two
decades experience in the field worked
on numerous retrofits
um energy efficient buildings like
passive houses and um yeah the overall
goal is to find um opportunities for
optimization and performance
enhancements at the facilities of WA
Township. And um in the first 6 months
we will well I will focus on the GHG
emissions. See where we sit in terms of
um emissions and water usage and um yeah
find hopefully some good um areas to
improve and um yeah reporting constantly
to the council. The idea is to report
like every every quarter to you guys and
um yeah, if there's any questions,
please let me know. [laughter]
>> Wonderful. Well, welcome on board and
thank you very much for coming today. Um
I don't currently see any questions. Oh,
sorry, Councelor Wilkinson.
>> Thank you through the chair. Um welcome
aboard. Um glad you're uh here. I'm just
curious. I I realize it's very early
going, but I'm wondering if uh in your
past experience or even in maybe some of
your research if there's any sort of um
identifiable savings or operational um
improvements that that you think you can
find or if what you anticipate those
could be.
>> Yeah. Through the mayor to councelor
Wilkins Wilkins. Um yeah. Um so I think
we have good opportunities in the terms
of water savings. That's that's my first
assumption from seeing the data. Um and
yeah, we will have to review the data,
see the facilities and um then I can
close to or can say more about if
there's any things that we can do. I'll
jump in as well just to say that the
other focus for us is to look at that
data and where the physical
opportunities are and then to look at
funding opportunities and to apply for
those funding opportunities to enable
some of those retrofits. So the capital
cost could be mitigated by some of the
funding opportunities the high energy
efficiency increasing within the
buildings then saving in operational as
well.
>> Any other questions at this time
council? Okay, seeing none. Thank you
again very much Toba and Stephanie for
joining us
>> this evening. We do have uh three
delegations. You'll be called when we
get to those appropriate parts in the
agenda.
Uh we do have one item of
correspondence. Did anybody want to
speak to that? Okay, seeing none. Um we
do have multiple items on our consent
agenda. We will be um pulling 13.3 to
start as we do have two uh individuals
who have registered to speak on this. So
I will start uh just making sure I'm
following my notes here properly. Um so
just for a note 13.3 is the Petersburg
drinking water system local improvement
bylaw.
And uh as I said we have two delegates
who have registered. So our first one is
Clive Wner. Thank you for joining us
today, Clive. And you will have seven
minutes.
» Yeah, I want to talk about this uh this
whole system. When it was originally
brought up, it was to be a looped
system. That was what we were told that
needed to be because you couldn't have
people at the end of a line. Now, the
2024 drawings show a loop system, but
the 2026 drawings do not. And it's
obvious to me and to most people that
that's going to be connected to the
regional water supply because otherwise
it's a deadend system all the way from
Deerfield Court all the way around to
the end of Snider's Road. And I guess,
you know, why were there no meetings
after the system was redesigned? Why
wasn't it discussed with us? Why weren't
the 26 people who are being forced and
slammed onto this system
not shown as being possible on that? It
didn't even show us. You want us to come
out and engage? Hey, I'll come out and
engage, but you know what' be nice? It
would be nice if it wouldn't be hidden
like it has been. And you can say, well,
you know, it was on the 2024 drawings,
but I would hope logic tells me the new
revised drawings of 2026 drawings would
be the most accurate, which they were
not.
And and you know, they're going to tie
into that system. The second thing is
this whole problem was brought on by the NIPL water system, and it's been
described as fair that these 26
properties pay. Well, what's fairness?
you know, they had 40, 50, 60, 70 years
of not paying maintenance on the system
and I go out and spend 30,000 on a well
and pump and treatment system and then I
have to pay for them as well. I don't
consider that fair, but that's
mine. And I got to say, our counselor
has been of no assistance because right
from the get-go, his position has always
been if it's going to go, you're going
to pay for it. Period. No discussion, no
nothing. I'm disappointed in that. I
think it's a bad potential.
And and there was no process, no time in
this whole process was there any attempt
to address the concerns of the 26.
There's things that could have been done
to okay, let's say we pay $10,000
and then if we hook up in the next 15
years, we pay uh starting off at 15,000
going down to zero. Uh and it would have
cost the others more, but I mean it it
The way it's done, the whole process of
even trying to get peti petition
together is impossible because there's
62 people who are saying, "Hey, if they
pay, we're 10, we're saving $10,000."
Now, that's not coming out. That's
coming out of my pocket.
And to me, this this is a service that
has very little to no value to me
because I I have a great source of
water,
you know.
Since there's such a willingness to, you
know, have this 26 people do this, I I
would say, you know, Mr. Wilkinson,
your honor, why don't you each throw
10,000 into it? Pay for it. We're paying
for a service we don't need. Let you pay
for it. Come on, let's everybody kick in
some money. I guess it's a little
different when it's not your money. I
guess it's easy to spend other people's.
I'm just saddened that there's been no
attempt to address anything
to do with these 26 people. And Chris,
you've told people it's going to
increase their property values and you
told another person it wouldn't increase
their property values. Which is it? I'm
a I'm a home builder. My wife's a
realtor. Okay. Yeah. Laugh. It's funny,
isn't it?
>> Point of personal privilege.
>> Yes. I was going to cut in. Um, I would
just remind you that when delegating,
certainly valid to hear your perspective
and I appreciate your perspective, but
please do not defam or call out council.
That's part of our procedural bylaw when
you're
>> That's fine. I'm just I'm just telling
it like it is. If someone says one thing
and then says a different thing, if
that's calling them out, I'm sorry. I
apologize for that because at the end of
the day, it shows
certain things about what type of people
they are.
I I would like to say you don't do
something about it, but given everything
I've seen, the lack of communication,
the lack of consideration for us, I have
a feeling I've wasted my breath. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Clive, for joining us this
evening and sharing your experience.
Were there any questions of councel at
this point?
Okay, seeing none, uh we also have Raul
DGO who's joining us this evening.
Is Raul online?
Okay. Um I don't currently see Raul in
our chambers or online.
Um
if he comes later, we can address at
that time. Um, calling Raul just one
more time.
Okay.
All right. Um, so the recommendation is
that council dispense with item 13.3
separately as the uh recommended motion
to be amended highlighted below. So it
was the original circulated one and
council has in front of them as well.
Um, but that the report is-20226-9
Petersburg drinking water system local
improvement bylaw be received for
information and that the local
improvement bylaw uh 26-60 Petersburg
local improvement be passed as and this
is the new change as amended to include
Deerfield extension in the description
of the work. And then back to the
regular motion and that the treasurer
return with the special charges bylaw at
the culmination of the Petersburg
project currently anticipated early in
20128. Uh to get that on the floor moved
by councelor Wilkinson. Is there a
seconder? Seconded by councelor Martin.
And councelor Wilkinson you have a
question or comment.
>> Uh thank you through the chair. Uh there
was a couple questions I actually wanted
to uh just address for um most of the
residents in the affected area who did
reach out and and I appreciate the
correction on the bylaw to include uh
Deerfield extension as that was missing
initially but um uh director Vanderwal
there was a question and I know we've
chatted about this but for the public
just to understand the difference in
cost between the original 62 and then
the additional um added homes I think it
was 20 23 or 25 whatever it was. But um
if you could just explain that
difference in the costing please.
>> Uh through the mayor for the original 26
residents there was preliminary
investigation studies. The original
connection to the system including the
water meters that were installed that
was shared
among the original 62. I believe it is
the construction cost is what is being
shared amongst I believe it is 80 is the
final number. So that that is the
difference.
>> Any other questions? Councelor Wson
through the chair. No other questions. I
appreciate that. That's just so it's
those additional pieces in terms of the
meter um that that is that cost
difference between the two. So obviously
if uh the homes that were added after
the fact uh if they choose to meter that
would be part of that cost that they
would have to cover at the time
through the mayor. It is anticipated
that if a home would connect afterwards,
yes, they would have to do the plumbing
permit, put a meter in those components.
Some of the components for the original
study would not need to be redone, but
that was the original 62.
» Thank you. and uh through the chair just
to to answer a couple other questions.
So um one of the other things that that
was brought up as I was discussing with
some uh residents in the area. So uh the
drawings itself are showing the full
redesign system including the looping
onto Snider's Road in Notre Dame. Uh
phase one is to begin this year and
that's for Sners Road in Notre Dame.
Correct. And then phase two would be
next year inside the traditional uh
service area
>> uh through the mayor. We've been having
discussions with the contractor. They
are now anticipating starting next year
and they believe they can do the
majority of the works next year. So it
is probably 2027.
Uh we do note that due to the uh
requirements under the um local
improvement we had delayed the
contractor. So we are working with them
to get a better schedule and sure what's
going on. But that is what they have
indicated at this time.
Thank you. Uh and through the chair, if
I may one more time, uh just to sort of
provide some context and explanation for
uh anyone who may be unfamiliar, um
traditionally and and I know that I've
had this conversation with staff and
residents, but when infrastructure uh at
the municipal level passes in front of a
home, um then it is traditionally paid
for by the homeowner. and and a lot of
new developments would typically see
that in the form of development charges
uh and would be paying essentially for
these services to go in. Um so I know
that in in many cases at least precedent
setting in my opinion across Ontario we
see a lot of this whether it be sewage
or water uh hookups that essentially um
existing homes now have access to a new
service and they pay for it. uh whether
or not they choose to hook up to it
ultimately I guess is at the
determination of the homeowner. So it's
all saying that but thank you for your
work.
>> Any other questions or comments on this
council?
Seeing none, I'll call the vote on that.
It's been moved and seconded. So all
those in favor that carries unanimously.
And then we do have the remaining items
on our consent agenda which are 13.1,
13, and 13.2. Uh, did anybody want to
pull either of these items before voting
on them? Not seeing that. May I have a
mover and a seconder? Moved by councelor
Cresman. Seconded by councelor Martin.
All those in favor and that carries
unanimously.
On to our reports for this evening. The
first report recommendation is that
report CAO-2026-25
strategic action plan update be received
for information. May I have a mover for
this? Moved by councelor Martin.
seconded by councelor Sadup and I will
now turn it over to CEO Wilmer to
present this report.
>> Thank you very much Mayor Salonin. So uh
this is uh the third update we've given
on the strategic action plan over the
last number of months and uh the number
of complete actions is up to 24 now up
from 16 when last reported we were
reported to council. Uh and there are six items there that we've
highlighted as having made significant
progress. I'll just briefly touch on
those. One is the communication strategy
refresh. Another is the adoption of the
official plan. There was also the
approval of the Ontario transit
investment fund, a grant of 3.4 million
for for u improved transit to the four
townships in water region. The service
delivery review uh implementation plan
and uh the naming rights and sponsorship
policy. In addition to that, when the
port report was written, it was our
intention that the first phase of the
long-term financial plan be presented
tonight. Um, and after the report was
written, but before the agenda was um
was released, we determined that it
really wasn't ready yet. And we thought
that rather than bringing a not quite
ready project for discussion, we would
defer that until it's uh more fully
ready. And uh we take responsibility for
that. KPMG had done everything we had
asked of them, but it was the township's
inputs that were holding matters back.
>> Thank you very much. Are there any
questions on this item?
>> Council Martin.
>> Uh through you, Mayor Salon, this isn't
so much a question as an affirmation. Uh
when when I go through this and see the
work that is being done and has been
completed, um I appreciate that work.
So, thank you.
>> Any other questions or comments then?
Councelor Wilkinson.
>> Thank you through the chair. I
appreciate the explanation uh and the
update on the the long-term financial
plan and capital plan. My my hope was is
that we would see that before the end of
this term, but uh under understand it is
uh is difficult. You want to make sure
you get it right. Um I did have a
question regarding the ERP project. I I
know we we've talked about this at
length and uh we've already earmarked
that 300,000 for it. So, um, just
wondering what's driving that increase
in cost, uh, up to half a million and how we plan to tackle this in the
future because I know this has been
hanging over us for a number of years.
>> Uh, through you, Mayor Helen and
Councelor Wilkinson. Uh, I can try to
attempt an answer for you. Um, the ERP
project, you may recall there was a
pre-budget approval last summer actually
for $500,000 for that software. Um it
did go through uh the RFP process. Uh
bids were received. Uh the bids
indicated that the budget uh was not
going to be sufficient. In addition, as
you're aware, um there's some internal
processes that need to be uh reviewed
and refined prior to trying to implement
new software. Implementing new software
doesn't solve any problems if your your
processes aren't ideal. So the first
step that we're approaching um is is to
uh refine those processes internally and
then probably reissue an RFP. Uh through
the budget process, you would receive
additional information as to um the
anticipated cost. But certainly that
those monies, the 500,000 plus the the
monies that were I I believe 130,000
relative to project management of that
project, uh those would remain in the
capital budget. Some of them would have
been spent on the project manager, but
the the bulk of those funds would would
retain uh until future report.
>> Any other questions or comments? Council
>> Councelor Cresman,
>> it's through your merit. It's always
dangerous to ask a question which you're
formerly ignorant of, but that usually
doesn't stop me. Um uh so the question
relates to some of the discussion we've
we had in Ottawa at the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario about AI and
whether we have uh systems and we are
adapting to systems that are uh would
work with AI
uh into the future. And so you always
worry when you adopt a certain uh
software that it may be looking
backwards rather than looking forward.
And so I guess that's where the question
I know you had discussions you
understand that city of Kitchener's
working with the software provider u
with AI um streamlining streamlining
answers to questions uh etc. So, as long
as you have systems that mesh, again, my
ignorance is showing, but uh obviously
I'm just asking the question out of a a
way of saving dollars to the future as
compared to saying uh we have something
that's obsolete.
» Who wants to take that one? Wilmer can
>> I'm tempted to ask AI to draft an answer
for me so that I can quickly review that
and and give you an something that's
impressive that I I may or may not have
created myself. Um it's early days yet.
I think that's no surprise to anyone. Um
we do have u co-pilot for our staff. The take upon it is limited, but we're
also aware that people either in their
personal lives or related to work are
starting to use other AI tools as well.
And so, uh, it's something we want to,
um, encourage people to use with
caution. Um, and we'll, uh, we're we're
working on a policy shortly that will
give people guidance as to which are,
um, platforms that are allowable and
which ones are to be avoided.
>> And I see uh, Tracy might want to jump
in on this as well.
>> For you, mayor, to members of council.
Yes, that's always a consideration when
we're looking at uh software is to make
sure that it is agile enough to um
manage what else is coming down the you know pipes with
regards to technology. Um I think there
is a lot of process of improvements
available through AI but again we have
to be very um cautious um with using it
and which um which AI tools we use and
which ones we um basically control as
well.
>> Thank you Director Prince. Anybody
wanted to add anything else? Nope. Okay.
Um any other questions or comments? All
right. Seeing none, uh, all those in
favor in accepting the action plan
update for information and that's
carried unanimously.
On to 14.2 and this is the work plan
update for August 2026. Also to be
received for information. If I could get
a mover and a secondary for this moved
by councelor Martin, seconded by
councelor Cresman and I will turn it
back over to CEO Wilmer.
>> Thank you again, Mayor Salin. Uh so in
the uh the work plan for 2026 there are
71 initiatives. 24 are complete 39 are
in progress. I I won't list the 24.
They're they're in the report. But we've
also um highlighted the report so that
any matters that have changed since the
last time we reported to council are are
highlighted in yellow. So it u for for
members of the of the community or for
council, you can quickly see what's been
updated since the last report. And with
that um happy to answer any questions
you may have.
questions or comments on this one. We'll
go to council 9 and I I guess I'm
affirmative Steve tonight. But um I I
would like to uh not a but and I would
like to make an affirmation on this as
well. I I really appreciate these charts
and and how it shows uh the work and
clearly outlines and things that aren't
done or that have not been completed.
It's clearly there. So I appreciate uh
you being candid on that and the
information. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, counselor. And I
don't think it's a bad thing that you're
affirming considering when we started
this term, we weren't getting these
kinds of reports. So, I think it's good
that they're valid and we're providing
that information. Councelor Wilkinson,
>> thank you through the chair. um to CEO
Wilmer. Um
given I know that uh we are approaching
maybe the the end of your term sort of
heading into next year is is the plan to
sort of accomplish as much of this as
possible and prioritize some of those
pieces through the the upcoming bud
budget process as well
through the mayor in a word. Yes. Uh so
u much of this work we believe will be
completed in the calendar year. some
projects will carry on through into 27.
And in fact, there's there's a fair
number of initiatives in here that that
are maybe not so much project based. It
is it part of our ongoing work. So, it's work that will continue on. So, I
don't know that there's going to be all
that many budget implications for this.
is mostly work that's underway that
we're doing with in-house resources.
>> Any other questions or comments on this
council? Okay. Seeing none, all those in
favor? And that carries unanimously.
Uh on to 14.3 and this is the budget
level of service for management of IT.
The recommendation is that this report
uh be received for information and that
council refer consideration of managed
IT services to the 2027 budget process
subject to the provision of a detailed
assessment from staff. To get this on
the floor, may I have a mover? Moved by
councelor Cresman, seconded by councelor
Martin. And I will now turn it over to
deputy CEO and director of corporate
services services, not services,
Harold [laughter] Accraft.
>> Thank you, Mayor Salomon. Very briefly,
this uh the purpose of this report is
simply as a placeholder to the 2027
budget process, similar to other ones
that you've uh seen over the last number
of months. uh to highlight that we did
move from a in-house supervisor of IT uh
in 2025 to a managed IT service contract
uh in the fall of 2025. Uh that contract
is almost at the one-year mark. It was a
two-year contract. And so prior to next
uh fall, we will need to make a decision
whether to continue with the contract
and extend it, whether to modify that
contract or whether to bring uh the
management of IT services inhouse uh as
it was prior to the contract. So it it's
simply a placeholder report to identify
that that will need to be a
consideration. Um we will need to take
an action in 2027 and budget
accordingly. Hopefully the report at the
budget time will provide you with all
the details of pros cons of the managed
surface versus in-house and the costing
associated with that.
>> Questions or comments? Councelor Dunl.
» Thank you through Mayor. uh deputy um
CEO Okrafka
um when the report comes back have we
been able to or we will we be able to
show the different service levels from
having it done in house versus having it
contracted out
>> three yes
» councelor Wilkinson
>> thank you through the chair to even
piggyback on councelor Dunstall's uh
question. I'm I'm wondering if uh even
off the top of your head, just for the
sake of of folks knowing, has there been
any measurable improvements or any
deficiencies that you've encountered at
all? Even just at a very high level
through Mayor Selen and Councelor
Wilkinson, I would say there's notable
enhancements in our infrastructure
requirements and identifying um best
practices that we perhaps hadn't been
following. So there's been a number of
those highlevel things that that
definitely have been beneficial. At the
same time, I would suggest that at a
staff level, the customer service, the
in-house aspect of that is probably on
the lower end of of staff expectations.
So there's there's a balance. We're getting higherend needs met, but
probably the day-to-day it's a bit more
of a challenge uh by having only one
person in house versus two people in
house, but there's trade-offs and that's the trade-off that council will
ultimately need to decide uh what the
most important component of that is.
>> Any other questions or comments on this?
>> Council Martin.
>> Uh through you, Mayor Salin. I I I have
noticed with with this contract um the
additional requirements for training. We on council were also asked to
participate in that uh training and that
was comparable to um uh another
organization that I work for where they
do something very similar and and and so
it seems like that was a a good move. I
also know um there was a time I needed
some help and I happened to be working
late on a Friday night and I was able to
make a phone call because of this
contract. They have the 24-hour service
that if we have uh full-time staff, we
don't have access to that service.
Having said that, when we had two
full-time staff, I was very happy with
their work. I'm not in any way
complaining about that. But I but I do I
do notice this with the larger
structure, the benefits that that can
bring.
>> Very good. Any other questions or
comments? Seeing none, all those in
favor? And that's carried unanimously.
On to 14.4. And this is the zone change
application for 148 to 166 Pel Street in
New Hamburg. The recommendation is that
this report be received for information
and that council approve the zoning
change application 07-26
as set out in the draft bylaw included
as attachment E to this report. to get
this on the floor. May I have a mover,
please? Moved by Councelor Sadu,
seconded by Councelor Martin. And I will
turn it over to Director Martin to
introduce this report, please.
>> Thank you, Mayor Solomon. Um I'll
explain briefly the report. Uh we did
have an extensive discussion at the
previous council meeting about this. Um
the proposal continues to be the um
adaptive reuse reuse of the uh Hamburg
felt boot uh building in New Hamburg. Uh
the proposal includes removal of a
portion of the rear of the building,
maintaining the three-story kind of
heritage piece and reconstructing a uh
four to six story edition um in the uh
the rear of the building to accommodate
uh commercial on the main floor and uh
49 residential um units. Um at the
public meeting, the primary discussion
points were regarding parking and the
height of the building. Um so since that
meeting staff did uh as we promised
would go through and look at the uh the
downtown parking availability compared
to what we had noted in the 2016 study
uh that we had undertaken. Um and the
consensus in that in that count is that
ultimately there was a mild a minor
increase of about uh six spaces uh in
the core. There were some losses in some
area but uh the increase in parking in
the Wilmont Street parking lot was the
primary factor increasing that number.
So ultimately um there is still ample
parking available in the core is is the
conclusion that we've drawn from that.
Uh as we noted in the 2016 study uh a
lot of concerns we hear from people is
proximity right so can you see your
destination from where you park and uh
that seems to be the ongoing concern
when we talk about parking in downtown
New Hampshire. One of the advantages of
this application is that you'll be able
to see the Wilmont Street parking lot
from this redevelopment. So the midpoint
access that's proposed through this
redevelopment will have line of sight to
the Wilmont lot street parking lot. Um
so we anticipate that better utilization
of that facility will actually alleviate
maybe some parking on Peele Street um
that currently accesses the services at
Pycom House but certainly will
complement if nothing else. Um so there continues to be ample parking
available to service the commercial
needs. Um from a residential
perspective, the proposal provides one
parking space per dwelling unit. Um
which from a staff level, uh we feel is
appropriate in this location. Um there
is opportunity for walking to amenity
areas. Um and ultimately the owner of
the property dictates who lives in the
building. So if they [snorts] don't want
to sell or rent a unit to a property
owner that has two cars, then they don't
need to do that. and it may not be the
appropriate place to be located if you
do have two cars. So, there is that kind
of fall back if we're wrong on our
assumptions that the owner owner of the
property has the ultimate authority and
opportunity to control.
Um, from a height perspective, um staff
have noted previously that we feel that
the design of this site does complement
the core. um maintaining the current
three-story building, having the taller
buildings set back to the midpoint of
the property um you know is somewhat
reflective of of industry, right? The
taller pieces of industrial buildings
often were central to those site um
evidenced by the taller stack on the
felt boot factory right now. Um so
certainly we feel the developer has done
a good job in in u um providing a
redevelopment that complements the core.
Uh we did circulate the heritage
committee and at the previous heritage
meeting uh the the committee did endorse
the proposal uh as noted in the report.
Um so we they have indicated they they
would like to work with the owner to see
if there's pieces that could be
reclaimed from from demolition and
certainly those conversations continue
to happen but the important piece is the
committee to take a perspective on on
the uh on the development and we're
supportive.
Uh, I will leave my comments at that
because I think those were the primary
discussion points previously, but
certainly uh I'm here to answer
questions and uh the uh the owners of
the property I I believe are also in in
attendance as well.
>> Uh we'll go to councelor Cresman first.
» Uh through you mayor to director Martin.
Uh I was uh looking at the uh drawings
especially of the parking and wondering
if uh guests would come in Peele Street
whether they could um go across the
front of the proposed building uh drop
off passengers and then exit onto Woman
Street and park in the Woman Street
parking lot because I was informed by
someone this week uh that there wouldn't
be exits. It's on uh either side of
Jackson Square. So I I could interpret
an exit in one of the drawings, I could
not in the other. So I was just
wondering whether that was blind on the
side uh or whether was accessible to W
Street.
uh dear mayor Sal and certainly the
design is conceptual at this point but
as proposed uh there wouldn't the what
was the Jackson plaza whatever would not
have access to Wilmont Street directly
um uh the this the felt boot site uh has
two-way traffic so connecting both Pa
and Wilmont Street so you would be able
to come through um the plaza would be
disconnected from from Wilmont Street
though
>> that's mayor that's what I was I guess I
understood that the uh Jackson Square on
the north side of Jackson Square was
not, but I was wondering on the south
side of Jackson Square between that and
the felt booth had access and I had the
impression it was and somebody was
trying to tell me it didn't.
>> Councelor Dunstall,
>> thank you, Mayor. And um Director Martin
and I have had many many a conversation
about this and and uh and I don't think
it's a big surprise where I stand on
height and and how it impacts um how it
impacts the downtown and how it impacts
our skyline. I did also want to mention
that, you know, afterthought and I and I
understand that the parking is an issue
and people like to see, you know, uh
from the establishment that they go to
where their vehicle is and vice versa,
but having been to Kitchener recently um
and having to park in uh an underground
parking and then walk several blocks to
where I wanted to go made me realize
that it isn't uh quite so bad. So, I
just wanted to share that.
>> Thank you, counselor. Any other
questions or comments? Councelor Watson.
>> Uh thank you through the chair. Um I
mean we we we've discussed this
extensively at the public meeting as
well and and generally very much in
favor of what's being proposed here. Um
one point of interest to me was reading
the report when it was mentioned that
there would be uh agreements to
basically ensure that the parking that
is designated at the 144 Peele Street
site um would remain with the the
residential development. So I'm just
curious how that will play out given
that it's not necessarily going to be
severed as one and and combined.
>> Thank you through Mayor S. So there is
opportunity through parking agreements
andor site plan agreements to we have I
can think of one other example where
we've had site uh parking on an adjacent
site through the site plan agreement
registered on both properties. It it
tied the use of that parking for for
permanency. So ultimately an agreement
registered on each property that says
those spaces are available to you know X
property uh and then vice versa so that
it it basically ties them together but
doesn't force them to merge the
properties together so it it gives that
permanency.
>> Councelor Stup,
>> thank you. Just a comment. Uh overall um
uh I like the project. I I think it's a
overall positive investment to our
community. I know parking has been uh a
hot topic, but every time I've driven by
on Wilmont Street and seen our municipal
parking lot, I haven't encountered more
than five, six cars off the top of my
head. Um municipal parking is a public
asset and if it's consistently
underused, we're we need to support it
by having nearby developments so we we
can maximize that investment. And when
comparing to other municipalities and
downtown cores, whether it be Stratford
or Myra, it's a catch 22. We want to
have people downtown with the businesses
want to thrive.
But a sign of a good downtown is also if
it's thriving and you're not finding
good parking or you're not finding
parking, that's a sign of people are
down there and they want to be there.
Um, just my own uh self owning a small
business in town, having to do
deliveries. I never once had an issue
delivering pizzas downtown.
Even if I need to park for a quick 30
seconds to get out and my drivers never had an issue, but obviously when
you're in a downtown core, it's never
supposed to be easy to find parking, but
I'm not necessarily saying it's super
hard either. Um, as far as the the
building heights go, I've always been a
proponent of if they are placed in their
proper areas, so along regional roads in
the downtown settings. And if done
tastefully like this uh uh property is,
I think it can be bode well for the
township.
>> Councelor Dunel.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I actually did want to
u just verify with uh Director Martin,
and I've had a few people ask me this,
and I'm 99.9% sure that this is correct,
but all of the parking spots uh 39
parking spots, whatever it is, 49, they
are already owned. They are not
municipal parking spots. They are
already owned by the owners of this
particular building. Correct.
>> That is correct.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions or comments on this?
Counselor Councelor Cresman,
>> this is anecdotal, but if you want to go
to a Yankee Stadium and stay in the
Bronx, the solution to parking Saturday
night is double parking on the road,
even if it's raining. So anyhow, it's
just, you know,
>> I'm not certain that we're approving
double parking in downtown New
Hampshire, but [laughter]
thank you for the anecdote, counselor.
[gasps]
I think everyone has said what they'd
like to on this matter. I just want to
say I think this is a really exciting
proposal and new chapter um both for the
old felt boot factory and for downtown
as we're continuing to see it be
rejuvenated. Um and I think that this is
also filling um the call for some people
who want to be able to downsize but
remain in Wilmont. I really think that
uh the apartment component will speak to
that and personally I look forward to
the spa um granted should it be approved
and built. So, I just wanted to note
that I think this is a really great
investment um for the community and
thank you uh to the owners for bringing
it forward. Councelor Martin, Mayor
Salon, it looks like I was the only one
that has not made a comment and I didn't
want my silence to be seen as negative.
I I I think it's a great project. I'm um
very happy that it's coming. Um I know
that there are people concerned about
parking and I'm not in any way trying to
reject their comments. As I stated in
the last meeting, I'm happy to continue
working with them on that. But thank you
uh to this uh project coming forward.
>> With that, I will call the vote all
those in favor. And that carries
unanimously.
On to 14.5. And that is the zone change
application 06-26
Neville Street, New Hamburg, also known
as Tri County Menanite Homes. The
recommendation is that the report be
received for information and that
council approve the zone change
application to reszone the subject lands
from a zone 4 residential to a zone 11
sorry and zone 11 open space to a zone
12 institutional and zone 11 open space
to get this on the floor. May I have a
mover please? Moved by councelor Sadu.
Seconded by councelor Cresman and I will
turn it back over to director Martin.
>> Uh thank you Mayor Solon. Uh again, this
application was discussed at length the
previous uh council meeting at the
public meeting for the application. Um
the proposal hasn't changed since then.
Uh it uh proposes to change the zoning
of a current zone 4 property which
allows for residential apartment
building uh to zone 12 institutional
which would allow for uh a long-term
care facility. That's proposed. Um there
were certainly discussions about height
uh on the application. Uh zone 12 does
not have a maximum height requirement.
So that's why that doesn't appear as
part of the requests in the application.
The sideyard setback increases with the
height of a building and in this
instance uh the sideyard setback exceeds
what would otherwise be required for a
building of the height proposed. Um that
does not uh um
leave doesn't say that there isn't an
opportunity for consideration of
redesigns through the detailed design of
the property because height isn't being
proposed one way or the other with this
application. So it provides flexibility
uh to the ultimate design of the site.
Um and uh you know that's generally the
way it works with an institutional zone.
We have other properties that uh that have those same flexibility uh for height. Um ultimately the applicant
did review opportunities for the site to
look at modifying the footprint of the
building uh and based on restrictions
from the Grand River Conservation
Authority for slope stability and flood
uh issues on the site. Ultimately, uh
there isn't sufficient building envelope
to expand, uh the site and continue to
meet the requirements of the province's
long-term care home design manual that
talks about residential home areas. So,
there was some discussion about the
previous meeting about that. Uh and they had evaluated that through the
design of the site. So, um, where
they're proposing parking, uh, closer to
Albert Street, um, ultimately to
continue to provide ample parking for
the site, there isn't a building
envelope available on in that area to
accommodate, um, kind of a a smaller
building or a shorter building rather
with with a bigger footprint. And so, so
the applicant is here to speak to more
of those technicalities as necessary.
But it is something that was evaluated
through the design and, uh, the
application that's been brought forward
is based on that. the work that they've
undertaken to determine availability. Um
the parking is more than what's
requirement required for the site but
even with reducing the parking it it
doesn't create a new building envelope
to support what's needed for the for the
property. So um from a staff perspective
uh we feel it is appropriate for the
area. Um we think it is a is good for
the community in terms of investment uh
economic development uh job creation and
supporting the continuation of of
transition of of uh um uh of life stages
in the community right giving
opportunity for people to continue to
live in New Hamburg. So um from that
perspective uh we've don't have any
concerns and certainly are recommending
approval of the application.
>> Thank you. Um, with that we do have one
registered delegate. So I will invite
them up to speak and then council can uh
discuss and ask questions after. Our
registered delegation is Brian Shots.
Thank you very much Brian for coming
today and I believe that you are
representing the applicant. So you will
have seven minutes.
>> Good evening. I feel I'll be repeating a
lot of what uh Mr. Martin has just said,
but I'll go through my notes anyway. I'm
Brian Shance with FA Design Studio.
We're located in Waterlue and I'm here
as authorized agent for Tri County
Menite Homes who own the property
located at Neville and Victoria Streets
in New Hamburg and I'm speaking to that
zone change application 06/26.
In the audience is Dr. Steven Harrison
who is the CEO of Tri County Menite
Homes. Also,
Tri [clears throat] County Menite Homes
is a nonprofit organization. It's been
providing needed services in the
township of Wilmont since 1968.
Quite some time. Discussions have been
had with township staff along with other
commenting agencies related to this
specific project with many usual
questions having been considered or
addressed in the previous application
that was for a senior's apartment
building. It puts us at a point of
eliminating some of the questions when
you come forward at this stage. We have
an understanding, staff has an
understanding of how and when and where
this can go forward from here. Important
to note that the region of Waterlue,
Grand River Conservation Authority, and
Anova have all confirmed they have no
concerns with this application.
Township staff are recommending
approval, as you've just heard again, of
this application.
In addition to many construction jobs
that will be created over four years,
Tri County will also be creating between
five and 600 new full-time permanent
jobs with this facility in the
community, which is considerable in a
community of this size along with other
economic benefits.
The application to be decided tonight by
council is to allow construction of a
new 224 bed long-term care facility on
this property. In 2019, zoning approval
was given for by township council to
construct a 97 an approximately 97 unit
seniors apartment on this site. But
since then, the direction of the board
of Tri County Menite has taken to focus
more exclusively on senior care
facilities. There's a great need. It
should be noted that the current site
zoning permits multiple unit residential
uses and the proposed zoning is also for
residential use under institutional that
permits the long-term care.
This is all that's being applied for. No
other zoning matters require changes to
the current zoning township zoning
bylaw.
As noted in the township report, this
application meets the current and new
official plan requirements. There's a
great need for more of these facilities
as a significant percentage of the
population continues to move into the
latter stages of life. Tri County
recognize that their current facilities
will not meet the demand and as such
this is a wonderful opportunity for
Wilmont to add the fac to the facilities
that will allow more senior residents to
remain in their own community.
The question is no longer, and I quote
this uh from Dr. Harrison, the question
is no longer whether the demand for
long-term care will grow. The evidence
demonstrates that it will. The real
question is whether communities like
ours will have sufficient, modern,
highquality, missiondriven
capacity to meet the need. Investments
such as this NIFT view project ensure
that Tri County Manite is prepared to
serve the next generation of seniors
while strengthening the sustainability
of Ontario's health care system. End
quote. Tri County Menanite and Wilma
Township are both fortunate to have been
awarded the bed aotment from the
ministry for this use. Not everybody
gets it. Thank you for your thoughtful
consideration on this matter and I'm
here to answer any questions that your
council may have in this application.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Shots. Are
there questions of Mr. Shots while he's
here? We'll go to councelor Dunall
first.
» Thank you, Mayor. I'm not sure if you
can answer this, Mr. Shots, but there
are um 200 and I know that they touched
briefly on this, but there are 253
parking spots. Um, and I know it's
easier to go up, but um, I'm just not
quite sure. There was a mention about
um, Grand River Conservation and uh,
going out in with the footprint, but I'm
just not sure that that has been
answered uh, to my satisfaction because
I do have a lot of residents that live
in that area and they're concerned. And
please understand that I I I totally
understand the need and the economic uh,
benefits. I get all of that uh, with a
mother-in-law who's been waiting over
two years. So I understand the
importance but I still have an issue
with that height. Um we have four
townships in Wateroo region and I've
double checked there isn't one of them
that has a building that's even close to
this height. Um and so I I was really
hoping that you would reconsider or
there would be something that we could
do not to reduce the beds. I understand
that. but to uh widen the footprint so
that we could lower that um height by
even one story
» uh through the chair to to counselor. Um
we we spoke about this in the last
scenario. Um I want to try to make sure
I answer your questions on it. The one
was about height and height uh in other
townships. I've been a resident of
Woolwitch Township all my life. Elmmyra
currently has a height
provision for eight stories in the
downtown area. There has recently been
built um a six-story apartment building
within the settlement of Ommyra. Um I
think as we all grapple with what's
changing in our society, it takes a
little time to adjust to the fact of
intensification versus sprawl. Uh this
community is well aware about concerns
about farmland. So this is one way that
with the anticipated growth within a
community going up is the choice and
repurposing of buildings is the choice
versus sprawling wider. So in this
particular application as I explained in
the last meeting
the residential housing areas the 32
beds which is basically mandated um by
the province and is the only efficient
way to make it work from a staffing and
administration standpoint.
um that is what is taking us and and
putting the number of stories on top of
it. So the ground floor is in fact for
the services for all of the building.
The the basement, the lower level,
that's this the background and and um
staffing areas in this particular case.
And then rising from level 2 to 8 is the
actual residential housing areas times
32, which gets to your 224 for the
number of beds. This is this is the
minimum optimum thing that we're looking
at. And I might add that um while it's
not Wilmont um there is a proposal that
isn't formalized yet and I'm not part of
it but there's a similar application to
my understanding that is forward coming
in one of the other townships also.
So
we can't reduce
we can't put it beside you spoke about
the number of parking we exceed zoning
minimums for parking and I tell all my
clients for as you can tell by the white
hair a lot of years zoning requirements
for parking is minimums it doesn't mean
it operates functionally so in this
particular case with the staffing
changes and multiple shifts they are
staffed 24 hours a day you need to
accomplish acccomodate your staff
arriving before the other staff leave.
So that creates more what we've shown
with the 253 spaces that'll be
fine-tuned through the site plan process
and working with staff. We're not
anticipating more if we can have less
and still make sure we operate without
having people parking on the uh street.
Staff here would like to see their
destination too as they've heard from
the previous application.
Councelor Dunstall again.
>> Thank you. Um, and I did want to make a
comment, but I don't want to hold him
up. So, I will hold that um in case
anyone else needs to speak.
>> Okay. And yes, we'll go for questions
for Mr. Shons first and then um we can
go back to questions for staff and
comment in general. Councelor Crestman
moves first and then councelor Dens.
>> Uh through you, mayor. Uh to uh Mr. Sh.
uh the 32 is the common the common
number and it as I understand it and I
again my knowledge base is Winston Park
because uh my father-in-law was was in
there and they have a hub in the center
and the cafeteria and then they go out
down down the halls and and in a wing
type of format and again it creates
efficiencies and each one tends to be a
community name in Wilma Township uh as
if I'm using the Winston Park approach.
And the idea is [snorts] to have as many
uh residents u uh aging uh in a facility
close to to their home community as
possible with familiarity with names
that that that can resonate with them.
And so, um, I look around the horseshoe
here and I'm likely the one closest
[laughter] to the to the age bracket
that is is going to be looking for that
type of service. And and unfortunately,
there wasn't a spot available in New
Hamburg when either of my parents
required it. Um and so I guess the I you
know all of us wish we can age in place
at home but when the time comes
depending on our uh medical uh
challenges we would hope there's an
opportunity if both of us as a couple
walk in the front door. there's an
opportunity for us to be at least in
close proximity to one another that we
don't have to drive 250 up to 250
kilometers to a separate facility to
visit a loved one and looking at the
data in Ottawa
um uh two presentations
the waiting list that currently is
existing and the projection of the
curve. It isn't flattening down or going
down with the baby boom generation. It's
accelerating to 2050. There is going to
be an extended need for facilities. And
if we can provide those to people who
built this community over time, I think
it's a service well rendered. So maybe
that's a comment rather than a question.
I apologize, but I'm pretty passionate
about this.
Thank you, councelor. Councelor
Wilkinson, was this a question for Mr.
Shant?
>> Thank you through the chair. Um, I will
I mean, there's a lot that's already
been said and I echo uh the same
sentiments and thoughts as my colleague
councelor Dunstall. I think I said it
before and ultimately it it really comes
down to the eight stories is the the
biggest issue for me. I I I want the
beds. I want the jobs. I want the tax
revenue. I want to see the the long-term
care opportunities for local residents
and and everyone. Um but ultimately it's
just looking at the scale of the
building and and I I feel it's going to
be um out of place as proposed and and I
know you mentioned the design requires
this and and you can't change it. Uh I
would say that's a great challenge for
this community and region as a whole to
take on. I'm sure if we really tapped
into the right areas, we'd be able to to
come up with something that may be
agreeable. But my general um thought on this is that
I'm very much in favor of what you're
trying to do. I will definitely be in
favor of the zoning change, but I'm just
asking please find a way if we can to uh
lower the the the height down to six
stories and and make it more agreeable
with what the rest of the community
looks like. Um, my only fear is that
approving eight stories here means the
next one's going to be 10 to 12 or
whatever it happens to be. I don't want
to get into that at all. So, um, more so a comment really no question.
Just please try and find a way if
possible.
>> Any other questions for Mr. Sha?
Okay, I'm not seeing any. Thank you
again very much, Mr. Sha, for joining us
this evening. Um, now I can open it up
for council if you have questions of
staff or comments in general. Councelor
Duntol.
>> Thank you, Mayor. And again, please
understand I I am really uh supportive
of this uh and I and I get the need
perhaps this is for director um Andrew,
director Martin,
having an eightstory building and I
think it's nine stories when you're with
the elevation changes. Um, what does
that do for someone who comes in here
and wants to put in an apartment? I
understand that um zoned for
institutional has no height limit. I get
that. But do we run into an issue uh
with the OOLT um with someone coming in
and saying you're stopping me from
building an eighth story when you
already have an eighthtory building um
in your township? Is that something that
we're going to run into? because Lord
knows we don't need a whole bunch of not
8ft sorry eightstory buildings. You
know, one of the things that people said
uh when we did the strategic plan was
they said it was important to keep the
rural field. They were very adamant
about that. And again, we're not looking
at sprawl here. We would not look at I I
would never suggest that. So So
suggesting that, you know, we don't do
sprawl, we go up 100%. Yes. But that that wasn't the case here. I mean,
the land is there. It's yours. Um but uh
director Martin if you could answer that
question for me please and then I will
not speak on this again. I will just
vote. Thank you.
>> All right. Three Mayor Solen. Um so a
couple of points there. Um we have had
discussions about this and ultimately
one decision doesn't mean that the next
one is looked at equally like it's um
there discuss discussion needs to occur
on the merits of the application and the
location. Um, we did introduce policies
within the new official plan that uh,
council adopted uh, that do have
provisions in there that speak to seven
stories and above. The process by which
you would need to go through to justify
it makes sense. So, we have included
additional language for applications
going forward. Um, in terms of what may
happen at the OOLT, I would expect that
uh, the OOLT probably won't be concerned
about what's happened already. they
would probably suggest that eight
stories isn't that tall and to prove it.
Um, but regardless of that, it was when
it comes to planning decisions, they're
technically not precedent setting. So,
they have to every application has to be
to consider upon its in own individual
merits. So, in theory, if the OOLT is
considering an application, they may
look at what's in the area and what's
been approved before, but technically a
decision that's made in one case uh is
doesn't mean that the same decision has
to be made in the second case. So there
is there is uh no suggestion that
because this is approved that uh should
someone make an application it's not
approved it would go go to the OOLT that
would automatically happen because of
that. Um but it could influence a
decision for sure. But what I my
suggestion is that it in in the scope of
height and densities eight stories
probably isn't um when we're dealing
with an OOLT decision wouldn't be
considered a tall building. Um so I I
don't expect that uh that would really
come up as a concern in that. Um but
ultimately short story long the answer
is any decision made here doesn't
automatically may mean that the same
decision is made in another location.
>> Councelor Wilkinson.
>> Thank you through the chair. Um looking
at Chief Pipe question for you. Um, and
this is before your time, but there's
been fire trucks that have been
discussed for a long period of time. I'm
curious, a building of this height, how
does this affect your department and
what's required on your end to uh
satisfy the safety and other concerns?
>> Uh, through the mayor,
one of the things I need to comment on
is uh there are high buildings
throughout the province and a lot of
places don't have aerial devices that'll
reach the top of their high buildings.
We do need an elevated device as a
municipality. Um, and I can give you a
lot of really good reasons why we do,
but we don't limit the height of our
buildings based on the height of our
elevated device.
» Any other questions or comments,
council? Councelor Sto,
>> thank you. Um, I've been debating this
in my mind. Um, I've had a conversation
with some residents who flat out told
me, "You better approve this. I don't
care how tall it is or how big it's
going to be." Um, I did have the
conversation with them saying, "Listen,
it doesn't guarantee that if it is built
here that you get to stay here, but they
understand that." Um, overall, I think
it is a it's a project that we need.
It's it helps uh bring in jobs uh for subcontractors,
etc., and ongoing. So, I don't know if
the building height, and I do sympathize
with the building height, and I do
understand that it could be potentially
a slippery slope, but I don't know if
that is enough for me to vote down this
uh report just because of the good it
brings. Um, I hope there is potentially
a compromise in the site select or site
planning phase where maybe if we can get
it uh one story lower or rejig it
somehow, but uh at this moment in time,
I would be in favor of it.
>> We'll go to councelor Martin
>> through Mayor Salon. Um I echo councelor
Sadu's comments. I I have uh residents
telling me that uh it's a good thing.
I've said that some people are concerned
about the height and they're very
surprised by that, wondering why people
would be concerned about the height. I
realize councelor Wilkinson and
councelor Dunl are talking to people
that are opposed to the height and there
are people in the township who are not
opposed to the height. Uh so I
personally think it's a good thing.
>> Council Gresman.
>> Yes. through you, mayor. And maybe I was
remissed not asking the question uh when
Mr. Sh was at the podium, but it's my
understanding the current uh NITW home
is going to be redeveloped into some
type of apartments and uh and the 160
beds are going to be the long-term care.
And then with this add additional
facility, it becomes an integrated
uh facility where hopefully um couples
can walk in the front door and then as
they age, and this happened with my
father-in-law and mother-in-law, as they
age, one required long-term care, the
other didn't. And currently the the
environment is such that uh they have
they may be placed uh a distance apart.
In my uh in-laws case, they had been at
Fairview in in Cambridge. Uh my
mother-in-law got placed in Kitner and
at 88 my father-in-law drove every day
to see her uh from uh Cambridge to
Kitchener till she passed. So I guess I look at this and say we have
people who've decided to retire in
Morningside.
We have people who decided to retire in
Stonecraftoft.
uh and uh if one of them requires uh
long-term care, this gives them an
opportunity.
Um if they both uh uh choose to
downsize, they may go through the
Cresman facility initially and then on
to an apartment at NIT view and then uh
eventually if one requires long-term
care, you have an integrated system that
hopefully with the additional beds will
give them an opportunity here. So to my
mind to have these additional beds to
have the opportunity of having an
integrated system. One of the first
questions I asked at AMO in London years
ago was this isn't rocket science. If
you walk in the front door as a couple,
it should be the goal to make sure that
you can both age in place depending on
your needs as a couple. And uh so I
guess that's why I'm strongly in favor
and I'm celebrating the opportunity uh
that we have a nonprofit that's coming
forward to take the lead on a project
like this.
Thank you, councelor. Um, I know a lot
of that was a comment, but you did kind
of have a question about beds. It would
be up to council's discretion because we
technically need to wave the procedural
bylaw, but Dr. Harrison, who is the
executive director, is in the audience
and could probably speak to your
question about the old beds. Um, but
again, I'm in council's hands as to if
you want to allow him to come up. Um,
is there anyone opposed to that?
No. Okay, with that, Dr. Harrison, not
to put you on the spot, but if you'd
like to speak to that.
» Thank you, Mayor. Uh, never on the spot.
Um,
the board of directors hasn't decided,
hasn't come up with a final decision on
what we're going to do with the current
NITU long-term care beds and the
building that's there. Uh, we have
determined a couple of things. One is
that we're not tearing it down. It will
be repurposed. We have invested in it
over the last 10 years or so to ensure
its engineering stability and you know
the building has a lot of life left in
it. So we're going to make sure we do
that. To your comment about um couples
living together or we call it a campus
of care. Um it's okay. This is my world
so I can use that language. Um the
campus of care model we already have on
the site. So we have independent living.
Uh we have independent living both in an
apartment and in a tower as well as in
um town homes and uh sixplexes already
on the site. Independent living is just
what it sounds like. It is housing for
seniors. It has very limited services.
They are welcome to join us for meals
and be part of programming that's going
on, but generally it's like renting an
apartment. We also have a retirement
home living and currently in our
retirement home we have partners of
individuals who are living in long-term
care. So to your point, there is no
kilometers to be driven. There are steps
to be taken down a air conditioner
heated hallway and you can spend time
with your loved one. What we're looking
to do is to continue to expand that
model on our campus. It it's in my mind,
my personal opinion, it is probably one
of the best models of senior supports
and care that you can have. Um and in
addition to that, the green space that
is down behind the building is uh down
in the valley behind is a wonderful
space for residents to view into enjoy
the wildlife that's there, but also to
um coll we're working collaboratively
with the township on a couple of
different ideas for creating walking
pathways through there, not only for our
residents, although it's on private
land, but certainly opening it up for
the community to enjoy. Um
my desperate plea to everyone that I
speak to is that uh when you see a
long-term care home or you see a
senior's care community, uh it is not a
place to avoid. It is a place to
embrace. It is a place to come to. It is
a place to make part of your journey.
Not just the destination, but part of
where you go to. And our residents love
it. have um child care groups in the
area that come walking through our areas
to talk to our seniors and use the paths
that we have currently. We hope to
expand that. So, the model of care that
we're looking to implement on that
campus is um expanding due to long-term
care needs, but with the emphasis on
more than just long-term care. It is
about engagement with the community and
bringing the community in as well as
allowing our residents to go out into
the community which they belong to.
Thanks.
>> Thank you very much, Dr. Harrison. I do
think Councelor Crestman has a question
for you now that you're at the podium,
though.
>> To that end, I believe on the 18th of
September, you have a barbecue that we
as council have been invited to to uh
your facility. I saw it in my inbox
today. So,
>> you would have seen that. Yes. So, um
thank you for that. Uh, and this is not
a promotional plug, but on the 18th of
September, uh, long-term care homes
across Ontario are actually celebrating
what we call long-term care day. And it
is an opportunity for anyone,
counselors, anyone in the in the
audience, staff to come out and see all
the wonderful things that we do at our
home. Um, the details of what is being
planned have not been shared with me,
but it sounds like there's going to be a
barbecue, so that sounds like fun. Um,
but it is an opportunity to come out and
engage and and see the new building
that's going on right now. Get a idea of
what's coming and that's only 10 11
months from now. We're supposed to be
opening that building up. So, we're
looking forward to that. And then, uh,
engage with the seniors who live there.
So, yes, keep your calendars open on the
18th if you can.
>> Thank you very much. The only thing I'll
warn folks, if you've never had apple
pie with cheddar cheese, um, the
residents will probably make you at
least try it. That was my experience at
the last community engagement.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you very much, Dr. Harrison.
>> Wow.
>> There you go. [laughter and gasps] Um,
any other questions or comments on the
zoning change application before us
right now? Okay. I'm not seeing any
more. I did just want to add some of my
own final comments. Um I think this is a
really exciting opportunity for the
community for many of the reasons that
council and delegates have expressed. I
also think a really unique part and why
I would justify
this over any eightstory building
because I'm not a huge fan of heights
either um in terms of for planning um in
our community. But we already well not
we uh Tri County Menanite already has
the beds approved and that is huge. Um
when we talk to colleagues across the
province they are desperately trying to
get beds and I think it would be a huge
missed opportunity when we already have
a community partner who works in the
community wants to expand on their
campus of care and has the approved beds
if we didn't approve this zoning because
they're going to need to use their beds.
that's tied to provincial dollars and
funding. Um, so they're going to have to
go somewhere and I certainly personally
would rather see them in Wilmont. I also
think as well the fact that they came
forward um showing what the proposal was
although it was only a zone change that
they were seeking and as we know in in
institutional zoning we don't have a
height limit. Um, I think that that is
really the uh partnership building and
uh thoughtful growth that at least I'm
looking for in our community. And I know
that also they hosted um public
consultation with the residents as we're
aware because that was in the original
report um to inform the potentially
impacted residents around. I really
think when we talk about aging in place
and healthy whole communities, this is
one step in that direction. Um, but also
I can see this as completely different
than somebody coming and asking for an
eight-story building that's an apartment
building. Um, even just in the use of
it, there aren't going to be patios
looking out on neighbors yards or
anything as um, a long-term care
facility. It will just be windows in the
building. Um, and I think a lot of the
things that people are concerned about
can be discussed in the detailed design
phase as well. Um, so I'm personally
very supportive of this and think it's a
really great opportunity. Also, pending
that it gets approved. I look forward to
seeing this uh happen for our community.
Plus, 5 to 600 new full-time permanent
jobs um is huge for a community like
ours, especially when uh I think many of
us and our residents don't want to see
us become bedroom communities.
Um, with that, I don't see any other
questions or comments. So, I will call
the vote. All those in favor and that
carries unanimously.
Um, now I did notice I believe our
delegate from item
13.3
um has arrived
and that is uh Ro um Durgo.
So, I just want to let you know, Ro, we
did already council did pass um the item
that you were coming to speak on, but
you are absolutely still welcome to
speak if you would like to. I'm happy to
give you your time.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um for those online,
he's declined his opportunity to speak,
but you are of course welcome to reach
out to council as well um if you have
any further correspondence you'd like to
share with us.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um on to item 14.6
and councelor Cresman does have a
conflict. So just noting that uh the
recommendation is that this report on
the zone change application 05-26 Grich
Road in Ben
uh be received for information and that
council approve the zone change
application as set out in the draft
bylaw included as attachment B to the
report. To get this on the floor, may I
have a mover, please? Moved by councelor
Martin, seconded by councelor Sadu, and
I will turn it back over to director
Martin to present this report.
>> Uh, thank you, Mayor Solen. Very
briefly, uh, this application proposes
to change the zoning of lands that are
already designated in the current
official plan for employment purposes.
Uh, this is the next step in uh,
facilitating development of employment
lands. Um, there was a delay from the
time of designation to the zoning to
allow for some of the work that was
occurring on Gingrich Road. uh the
twinning of a storm sewer under the road
allowed for um alterations to the flood
limits on this site which uh optimizes
the development opportunity. So uh once
that work was completed, they then
proceeded with the zoning application
before you uh and staff are recommending
approval.
>> Thank you very much. Questions or
comments on this one, council?
Councelor Wilkinson, is that a hand up?
Okay, you may speak.
through the chair. Um,
I'm just curious, uh, Director Martin,
if there's been any indication as to
what types of, uh, what types of
development we would anticipate here,
uh, with this resoning. Just curious.
>> Um, through May, there is a lot of
flexibility. One of the things the
zoning does really um, restrict though
is uses that would impact the plan
residential uh, to the north. So heavy
industry realist realistically wouldn't
occur here, but um it could be any kind
of warehousing, office, small shops. Um
there's a there's there's multiple
opportunities there. We have had people
that have connected with us. We've
direct them to the estate to uh to to
see if there's opportunities there. So
there's there's lots of interest. What
lands there, I I I don't know for sure.
>> Thank you. Any other questions or
comments, council? Okay, seeing none,
all those in favor?
And that carries unanimously.
And on to 14.7.
Uh, this is the community improvement
plan brownfield financial incentive
program. The recommendation is that the
report be received for information and
that council designate the whole
township of Wilmont as a community
improvement project area for the purpose
of establishing a community improvement
plan and that council approve and adopt
the township of Wilmont community
improvement plan brownfield financial
incentive program joint tax increment
grant included as attachment A to this
report to get this on the floor. May I
have a mover? Moved by councelor
Wilkinson, seconded by councelor Martin.
and I will now turn it over to our
senior policy planner, Rachel Green, to
introduce this report.
>> Thank you. Good evening, mayor and
members of council. Uh, as a quick
recap, brownfield sites are typically
formal former industrial or commercial
properties with environmental
contamination that can make
redevelopment challenging and costly. So
the proposed program um incentive is a
joint tax increment or TIG um and will
be de delivered in partnership with the
region of water. Um the name has been
adjusted slightly since this is last in
front of you to ensure alignment with
the region's program. Um so rather than
providing upfront
funding, the grant returns the increased
property taxes generated after a site is
remediated and redeveloped. So it's it's
the same program. It hasn't changed.
We've just made some tweaks to make sure
that it aligns with the region's
program. So, applicants must demonstrate
eligibility as a brownfield site and
complete remediation requirements,
including obtaining a record of site
condition. Um, and in response to a
question at the public meeting um from
council. Um, this would apply in a
situation where contamination is
discovered during construction um after
a permit has already been issued,
provided the applicant files a record of
site condition. Um so staff worked
closely with regional staff to align the
program. This approach provides
applicants with access to larger
incentive creates consistency across the
region and allows Wilmont to leverage
existing regional expertise um and
administrative processes. So following
the public meeting uh held in July, no p
further public or agency comments were
received. Uh overall, the proposed cap
provides a practical tool to encourage
brownfield redevelopment by helping
offset remediation costs and leveling
the playing field between brownfield and
greenfield development.
» Thank you very much, uh councelor
Dunstall.
» Thank you, Mayor. I mean, I think this
is great. It will uh help with economic
development. My question to you is you
had mentioned that um it applies if
construction has has begun and they run
into the issue. What about where there's
a site where there is already knowledge
that there is going to be an issue?
Would it apply there as well encouraging
someone to go and u to uh to build
something uh that would help our
community
>> through the mayor? Yes. So normally
prior to development if it was a
industrial or commercial property and
it's going to be converted to say
residential usually there'll be um an
investigation to see if there's
contamination at the outset and that's
when they can start looking into the
program and staff along with the region
and township will hold a pre-conultation
meeting and go through what requirements
would be um part of
um being qualified as elible ible and
then
once that process happens there's a form
and then we would provide a letter to
the applicant and then final approval
would come to council.
» Any other questions or comments? Council
Martin.
>> Mayor Salin. I I'm not sure um uh Rachel
if this question is for you or if it's
for someone else and and maybe it can't
be answered tonight because I didn't
think of it until we were in this
discussion. Um I I I was thinking about
Sudbury uh and and in the past 40 years
the uh significant improvement that has
happened in that community and and
environmentalists uh commenting uh about
um uh how how uh environmentally uh uh
the the great improvements that have
occurred in the past 40 years. So by uh
designating all of our township as uh um
eligible uh for this, is that along the
same line as what happened in Sudbury
over the past 40 years? Is there a
comparison? Does anybody know? And if
nobody knows, it's not fair to spring on
a question that uh I hadn't thought of
in advance.
I I your mayor son I think it's fair to
say I don't think we're in a position to
answer whether it's comparable to
Sudbury but it in the case of Wilmont it
does provide more flexibility so it's
not a defined area it provide the same
opportunity throughout the entire
township.
» Any other questions or comments?
Councelor President.
>> Yes. Just ask add clarity. My
interpretation of the entire township
was That meant regardless of where the
site was located, it would be eligible.
And therefore, it wasn't specific to say
my backyard is a brownfield site. But it
means that, you know, if there is a
brownfield site located anywhere in the
township, it isn't ruled out in terms of
eligibility
through the mayor. That's correct.
Any other questions or comments?
Okay, seeing none, um I actually did
have one question. I just wanted to make
sure I know that you've mentioned if
they find contamination after the
permits that uh they could apply.
This is not retroactive though, correct?
Because we've not had a program in
place. I just want to make sure we don't
suddenly have an influx of people who
have remediated Brownfield.
>> So through the mayor, we haven't put a
date on. So if there has been a site
that has been remediated but not yet
started their redevelopment, they could
be still eligible.
>> Okay. But if the redevelopment is done,
they cannot come for the T. Okay.
Correct.
>> All right. Thank you for that clarity.
Um with that, I will call the vote. All
those in favor?
>> And that carries unanimously. On to
14.8. And this is the salt site
alteration background report. Uh the
recommendation is to receive this for
information and that staff be directed
to return to council in February 2027 to
seek direction on which option to pursue
as outlined in the report. Do I have a
mover for this? Moved by councelor
Cresman, seconded by councelor Sadu. And
I will turn it back over to Miss Green.
Thank you. So the report this evening
was prepared in collaboration with
infrastructure services. Um and it
builds on council's previous direction
to explore a site alteration bylaw. um
provides an overview of the current
regulatory framework, the township's
existing tools and potential options
moving forward. So site alteration
involves the placement of fill, removal
of soil, or changes to the grading. Um
these activities can support development
and improve site conditions, but they
can also create impacts related to truck
traffic, road damage, dust, noise,
drainage, erosion, sedimentation.
Um and so site alteration is already
partially regulated through several
existing provincial and agency
frameworks. So the province regulates
excess soil quality and reuse um with
requirements generally increasing as
projects become larger and more complex
specifically for large projects over
10,000 cubic meters or 800 to,400
standard dump trucks that fill. Uh the
GRCA also has regulations and they
regulate uh fill placement over a
thousand cubic meters or 80 to 140 dump
trucks um within regulated areas such as
wetlands, flood planes, and water
courses.
Uh the township has several tools
available to address impacts associated
with fill and grading activities. So for
example, through the planning process,
currently staff can already require
technical studies and secure mitigation
measures through development agreements.
Um the township's existing noise bylaw
can address concerns related to
construction noise and equipment
operation. Um there's an existing
traffic and parking bylaw um that
relates to heavy vehicle parking and
truck restrictions. Um however, township
can only regulate roads under its own or
jurisdiction. Um so these wouldn't apply
to regional or provincial roads. Um the
township also has authority under the
municipal act to consider additional
nuisance related bylaws addressing
concerns such as dust odors and
vibration. And so the key considerations
for council is determining the preferred
municipal role in regulating the
location scale and operational impacts
of site alteration activities. Um so
there's a few options um that we've kind
of looked at. And so the first option A
is maintaining the status quo and not
introducing a site alteration bylaw. We
would continue to rely on existing
provincial soil quality regulations,
DRCA permitting and municipal by bylaws.
Um, this option has the lowest
administration and financial impact. Um,
however, the township would have limited
ability to proactively oversee um
impacts related to site alteration or
require securities to address
infrastructure impacts to roads for
example.
Um the second option we looked at option
B would be regulating large fill sites
only um which have the greatest
potential to impact roads,
infrastructure and the environment. Um
it would allow the township to permit um
have conditions security collect
securities and enter into an agreements
for large operations to mitigate impacts
um and represents a balance between
increased oversight and manageable
resource requirements. And then third is
option C um which is to regulate all
site alteration activities um from small
to large projects. Um this provides the
highest level of m municipal oversight
but would require significant commitment
of staff time for permit review,
inspections, compliance, monitoring and
enforcement and could potentially
require additional staffing resources
and ongoing operating funding but may be
offset by permit fees.
So overall, this report is intended to
help council determine the township's
preferred role in regulating site
alteration activities. Um, right now
we're just recommending the that it be
received for information and bring it
back to a future council meeting in
February. Thanks.
>> Thank you very much. Questions, council,
councilman.
>> Yes. uh through you mayor uh
to um manager green. Um I'm looking at the two different options. I think uh
certainly at this point in time B is the
one that would catch my eye. Um I'm
wondering 10,000 cubic meters. Um, given
at least one active site here in the in
the township, uh, uh, I would assume
they surpass that and do they have an
exemption because quote unquote they're
looking at
um, farming
and so I thought, is that a giant
loophole?
I am a farmer, but is that a giant
loophole that you could drive massive
truck through? So, I'm just asking the
question
>> and I'd maybe just tailor it not to that
specific site, but in general, is
agricultural activity
like that a potential loophole? through
the merit. The municipal act does allow
exemptions or requires exemptions for
agricultural
specific
uh site alteration. So we would have to
look and ensure that it meets what is
defined as agriculture in that respect
and ensure that if it meets that then it
would be exempt from getting a permit if
we were to implement a program.
>> Thank you. I council Dunto.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you, uh,
Miss Green. And I I think this is is
very timely and I think we definitely
need to have something put into place.
My understanding is the abuing, uh,
municipalities already have something.
And so my concern is that there will be
more dumping in Wilmont. We certainly
don't need that. Uh, my question to you
is how how many fill operations uh, are
there currently operating? Do you know?
>> From my understanding, two. Um but I'll
defer to management if they have any
other knowledge of any others
>> uh through Mana. No, I we're aware of
two larger operations uh in the township
and that's that's all we're aware of at
this point.
>> Any other questions or comments?
Councelor Wilkinson.
>> Thank you through the chair. I know um
there's one particular site that comes
up quite a bit, but I will say that you
know there is a um I can't remember the
exact body that that governs it uh at
the moment, but there there is
definitely tracking and information
related to where that fill is coming
from on um and if anybody's curious,
they can email me. I'm happy to send it
to them. Um it's just escaping me at the
moment. Uh but with that said, I mean I I concur with councelor Cresman.
option B is is probably the the
preferred option when we get there in
February. Um but ultimately this will be
a decision that uh we're not going to
make tonight. So yeah, we definitely
want to see it though.
I did have one question and it's just on
timing. Um I know right now the
recommended motion is to refer back for
February 2027. I'm just wondering does
it make more sense to tie it in with
budget and as we don't know with the new
council when budget will be coming. The
only reason I ask is because two of your
options as you noted do have financial
impacts. Um curious if that's an issue
or if there was a particular reason that
February was proposed. I just don't want
it to come out of pace with the budget
if there is if council in the future
decides on B or C as the option to
proceed with.
>> I'm going to defer to director Martin.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. So the the February
date was more to allow for an
opportunity for a new council to be
adjusted. Um there would be public
consultation requirements. So in in
theory, we could tie it to a budget
process, but um prior to February, there
really won't be a significant
opportunity to go to a public public
meeting uh to advertise, you know, the
proposal. So that's where we were uh we
were looking at the later date. um you
know initially depending on what the
what what what uh what option is looked
at um there there's components of that could could come through without
significant impacts initially um knowing
that if you know next stages of that
would have financial implications would
allow for the opportunity to be
considered at a future budget meeting as
well. So, um, future budget, meaning
2028. Uh,
but I guess we can, you know, it's up to
council's direction on how they'd like
us to proceed at this point. Um, but
primarily the date was there to allow
for public consultation with a new
council after the election. Uh, and you
know, new council settled in for a
month.
>> Okay. Um, that answer satisfies my
question. Councelor Cresman.
>> Yes. Through you, mayor. One further
question. Uh anecdotally there was
always the comment that you once a a um
excess soil uh site had been initiated
it couldn't be uh regulated. Uh and so
I'm wondering is that a felicious
assumption or is that uh if we had
option option B that uh we could in fact
regulate something that's existing
>> through the mayor. So should we go down
the path of implementing a site
alteration bylaw, we'd probably look at
some transition um policy to be put in
there. there would likely not be an
opportunity to regulate what's been
done, but if there was an increase in
the area or the increase in the volume
of fill moving forward, that could
potentially fall under a bylaw.
>> Thank you. I'm not seeing any other
questions or comments. Again, tonight,
this is just to receive for information
and then um have staff bring this back
to council in February 2027. So, I will
call the question. All those in favor?
and that's carried unanimously. Uh on to
report 14.9 and this is the Mannheim
service area water allocation policy.
The recommendation is that council
receives this report for information and
that council approve the bylaw and
policy as attached um as attachment A to
this report and that council delegate
authority to the director of development
services or in their absence the
director of infrastructure services to
be delegated delegated to make
allocation decisions pursuant to the
policy as in attachment A and that the
director of development services or in
their absence the director of
infrastructure services be delegated
um report to council when an allocation
has been assigned pursuant to the policy
which is noted in attachment A and that
the mayor and the clerk be authorized to
execute the allocation policy
administrative agreement jointly entered
into with the region of waterl city of
Cambridge city of Kitchener city of
water and township of Wulitch to
implement the region of waterlue
allocation policy to get this on the
floor may I have a mover moved by
councelor Sue seconded by councelor
Martin and I will turn it back over to
director Sorry.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor Salin. Uh so this uh
this report um was dealt with to a
certain extent with other municipalities
earlier. Um ultimately uh it looks at
the water allocation to Wilmont within
the Manahide service area which is a
very small piece of the overall
equation. Uh hence our late uh arrival
to council with this. Um ultimately in
May, the region approved a region uh
water supply allocation policy that
looked at assigning buckets of capacity
to municipalities based on growth
potential in those areas and and uh
official plan designations where growth
was going to occur. And then um in June
of 26, they adopted an interimm risk
management that looked at you know those
buckets of of allocation what that
number would be in the time frame. So
ultimately in that uh Wilmet has
allocated 0.01% 01% of the overall piece
which um in the July uh bucket that was
allocated would mean one person uh to
Wilmont over the course of the uh the risk management process to 2030 uh
one that means 17 people. Uh so we're
not talking a lot of allocation. We also
don't have a lot of plan growth within
the uh service uh the Manheim service
area limited implications. Um but should
those numbers change, should there be
additional water, um that percentage
could mean a larger number and could
have some implications for for some
potential areas in in your St. Agatha or
Manheim areas. Um so we feel it's
prudent to be part of that uh to enter
into the agreement that the other
municipalities have already entered into
which is one part of the recommendation
and then we've basically uh with some
minor modifications to reflect Wilmont.
We've uh the proposed policy is
reflective of what Woolwitch has already
passed uh to deal with allocation. Uh so
it provides you know scenario what the
priorities would be if we were to have a
bucket. Again, we're dealing with 17
people to 2031, so it's not a a
significant piece to deal with, but it
provides a framework on how you'd make
decisions about allocation going
forward. So, from that perspective, the idea would be if if council were to
support this, we would execute the
agreement that the other municipalities
have already, which would then mean that
we would receive our small uh allocation
and we would have an opportunity to hold
on to that until there's a need to
allocate.
Council Gresman,
>> I would say this policy is a little bit
dripping with iron irony, but I I would
say uh the 19 LERs per second that they
took serendip
our knowledge
30 liters, sorry, uh from 2019. Um
anyhow I I certainly support this but uh
the question I have I guess to either uh
director Martin or director Vanderwal is
about the Ben well that we know has
issues
uh and they haven't got a clear uh it is
indirectly connected I believe to the
Mannheim system to supply some of our
water is it not or it's being
supplemented or how is that? Um, so I
guess that's the question.
>> Uh, and I'll attempt to answer if I've
missed anything then Mr. Vanderwal would
be able to respond. But we technically
uh the system would be they're
connected. It would be a matter of
turning the tap in a different
direction, but it's it's not it's not
feeding the system at this point, but
the infrastructure provides the
opportunity that it could in theory, but
uh that that isn't part of the current
uh Ben and New Hamburg water system if
those wells were to come online and be
part of that. It isn't it isn't the way
it works presently, but um there would
be an opportunity uh for that to occur.
Just just to through you may mer to
clarify my question which uh is Mannheim
currently serving Ben because of the
challenges with that well uh I guess is
what my question is. Sorry I missed the part of that question there.
So the answer is no. Ven is not serviced
by man.
» Any other questions or comments on this
report? Okay, seeing none, all those in
favor and that carries unanimously.
On to 14.10 and the recommendation is to
receive uh the tax aer status update for
information to get this on the floor.
May I have a mover, please? Moved by
councelor Sedu, seconded by councelor
Martin. And I will turn it over to our
supervisor of taxation and revenue,
Emily Woon, to introduce this report.
>> Good evening, Mayor Salin and members of
council. The tax rear status update
report before you tonight provides an
update on the township's property tax
rears as of July 31st, 2026, together
with an overview of the legislative
framework, uh the collection processes
used by finance staff and the current
status of properties identified as being
eligible for tax sale this year. Thank
you.
>> Thank you very much. Are there questions
or comments on this council? Councelor
Wilkinson.
>> [clears throat]
>> Uh thank you through the chair. Um
I I guess uh
more a comment I guess cause for alarm
in reading this report when we start to
see the numbers u uh of tax sales that
could potentially be pursued and at the
same time looking at the number of
households that are in a rears. Um, you
know, it's a rather large number and and
I I guess I'm curious uh to the manager
if if you've heard an overarching theme
as to what's driving the arars or could
you comment on that at all because this
is a very high number obviously
through you mayor to council. Um, so I
do want to note that the properties that
are identified as being inner rears are
ranging in balance. So, anything greater
than a $0 balance is considered an
outstanding account. Um, there was no
threshold used when when deciding to
include balances in this report. So, we
have a number of properties with
balances less than $1,000 um spanning
larger than that. Um, so I just want to
note that of the properties that are
identified as being inner rears, the
2,936
properties, 1,487
of them have balances less than $1,000.
So that's about 51 almost% of those
properties with balances less than
$1,000, which would be considered lower
balances. Um, I do also want to note
that there are a number of properties
identified that are currently enrolled
into a pre-authorized payment plan with
the municipality with the expectation
that by year end balances that are
outstanding would be collected through
those payment arrangements. Um so as of
now yes there are properties in a rears
but when we look at the amount of the
rears and also the plans that are in
place we are in moving in a direction
for those rears to be mostly paid by the
end of the year. Um now in respect to
the properties eligible for tax sale
there are 67 properties identified as
being eligible for tax sale. Um when we
compare to prior years last year tax
sale efforts weren't um conducted and
from what I can see from prior years
properties 3 years and greater in a
rears seemed to be what was used as the
benchmark for eligibility. Um in 2017
legislation changed under under the
municipal act to allow properties two
years in a rears to become eligible for
tax sale which is what I have used as
the benchmark for determining
eligibility. So we we're seeing an
increase in number this year but from
what I can see from prior years it's
different criteria that's being
identified in the current year. Um, I do
also want to note on the 67 properties
that have been identified, the deadline
for property owners to contact the
municipality is August 31st. Um, as of
this past Friday, we've already received
almost $200,000
towards the tax sale balance uh or the
tax arers eligible for tax sale. Um and
so that represents about 22 properties
that have either paid their rears in
full um have entered into a payment plan
or have paid sufficient balances to
remove themselves from tax sale
eligibility for this year. So we are
making really great progress already on
collecting on those arars just through
our standard collection process without
escalating to registration for tax sale.
>> Councelor Wilkinson.
>> Thank you through the chair. Uh,
appreciate the the depth of that
response. I just want to clarify one
item. Um, when you say the the
properties in a rears that are less than
$1,000, but you mentioned um the
pre-authorized payment plan. So, are you
suggesting that there are a number of
houses here that would be in regular
compliance making regular monthly
payments um but they're considered in a
rears because they're not paying in
their quarterly installments. Is that
fair
>> through Mayor Saladin? Yes, that would
be correct. So, as per the way our
system reports, these balances would
technically be considered outstanding.
However, they are properties are entered
into payment arrangements provided that
they are fulfilled would bring them into
good standing by the end of the year.
>> Through the chair, just a quick
followup. Do you know off top of your
head how many properties are part of the
pre-authorized payment plan? through
you, Mayor Salin. Uh, yes, we have
approximately 2,000 properties that are
enrolled into a pre-authorized payment
plan across the different uh, classes of
taxation.
» Thank you. An additional follow. So,
through the chair, so basically what
you're saying is those 2,000 should come
into compliance by the end of the year,
which means in reality it's probably 936
properties that are truly in your rears
not making their payments. Is that a
fair statement?
through you, Mayor Salin, and into
council. Yes, I would agree, provided
that those payment plans are fulfilled.
Um, we do, you know, there there are
circumstances where maybe residents
move. Um, the payment plans are
cancelled. We do have residents
occasionally default on payment
arrangements. Um, so that's yes, I would
hope that those 2,000 properties would
come into uh good standing by the end of
the year. Councelor
Martin.
>> Uh through you, Mayor S. I I guess I'm following up on councelor
Wilkinson's questions because if I've
understood this explanation and and I
appreciate that, uh manager, um then I
guess I would be in a rears. I'm in a
monthly payment plan. So I wonder if we
should change this because it doesn't
make sense to me to call something in a
rears when we have a plan in place that
uh has a monthly payment plan. and I've
been doing the monthly payment plan for
years. Um, so I I guess I'm wondering if
we should consider making a change on
that.
>> I'd maybe look to Supervisor Wound just
in terms of
the ability to functionally do that with
the reporting technology. I'm not
against the proposal. I just kind of
want to know the logistics what that
would look like on the back end.
>> Yeah. and through you mayor Saladin to
can to council. Um the financial
software that we have is limited in the
reporting structure that is available.
Um
we say it I mean it's categorized as
outstanding because if a property owner
was to contact the municipality tomorrow
and say I would like to disenroll from
my pre-authorized arrangement um any
amount that is owing would immediately
become past due and subject to penalty
and interest. So, it it is a balance
that
it's a courtesy that we offer the
pre-authorized payment plan as a way to
help residents um budget their their
taxation over the year. It is a great
collection um tool that we use and I
know a lot of property owners are in
favor of it. I certainly am as well. Um
but it does not take away from the fact
that you know we are still required to
make our payments to um the region and
the school boards on a quarterly and
monthly basis and these are balances
that we are not collecting at time that
they are due. We are collecting them by
year end. So in that aspect they would
be considered technically outstanding
balances.
Does that satisfy your question,
counselor?
>> Uh, thank you for asking, Mayor Salin.
To me, it doesn't make sense. I wouldn't
call it a rears if we have a bonafide
plan and we're not the only
municipality, city of Kitchener. I mean,
throughout the province, uh, monthly
payment plans are a regular occurrence.
So, it doesn't make sense to call it a
rears from my point of view.
So maybe I would suggest
um and this could either be just
direction to staff or if somebody wanted
to formalize it, but maybe that staff
bring back a different language. Um I
would say I'm still interested
personally to know
um even if people are on a monthly
payment plan from the perspective of we
do collect actually the largest portion
of our taxes as we know go to the
region. We collect on their behalf. So
technically we are carrying as
supervisor Wound just noted we are
carrying um that cost and covering it
going to I'm not saying it's a bad
thing. I just think having that
information is a valid thing for us to
be aware of. But I don't disagree with
changing the terminology because I was
also a little shocked at first when I
read the report going wow that's a lot
of households um in our community. So
maybe if council's open to it, we could
ask um and I would look for staff
comment, but if staff could bring back
um enhanced language to better
articulate that and not have it as a
rears if people are on payment plans,
would that are there issues from council
on that? Councelor Sue,
>> a quick question before that. Um, so
we're paying our taxes to the region
quarterly, I believe. So, are we paying
any interest? Are we acrewing any
interest by paying the region and not
collecting our uh taxes from the
residents in the meantime?
I would turn to supervisor woon but I
know if people are in a rears the
township is the one who takes the hit
and we can charge I believe it's 15%
um is what the deal is and that's why
the region claims it's beneficial for us
um but we have to pay them outright
regardless of if we get paid but
supervisor woon if you have anything you
wanted to add to that
>> through you uh mayor Salon into council.
That is correct. We are still required
to remmit to the region. We remit
monthly. Um and we are still required to
remit to the school boards. That is
quarterly regardless of if we have
collected taxes that have been levied.
And yes, we do charge um penalty and
interest. It is 15% annually.
So just before we move on, did we want
to give direction to staff then to bring
back updated language for this report?
Councelor Wilkinson
>> through the chair. Um I'm not opposed to
it. Maybe there is a different way to
mention it if they are on a
pre-authorized payment, but ultimately I
think is this report is not one that
we've regularly seen over the term. Um,
but I think ultimately the the the truer
rears is the one that it presents itself
at the end of the tax collection cycle.
Um, so you know, I I mean I pay monthly
on a pre-authorized plan, so technically
I'd be in the same boat as council, but
uh I'm certainly not hearing about it or
seeing anything about it. So I mean I'm
not overly concerned. Um, but I think it it would be interesting to see what
this looks like at the end of the tax
collection cycle truly to see what the
real number is of who's in a rears and
then I don't know, but I also wouldn't
be opposed if there's a different way to
classify just this segment as in this
section. I'd be fine with that.
>> So, Supervisor Boon, I think you've been
following the conversation. Is that
something that you feel confident you
can bring back to council at a future
date?
>> Yes. uh through you mayor Sal and to
members of council. Yes, I can
absolutely understand your perspective
and I don't disagree. Um from my
understanding, this is the first report
of this types that has come forward to
this council and um I would hope it is
my intent to provide a year-end update
as well. It is something that we should
be reporting to council on ideally like
every 6 months, year end and then
partway through the year. And I do
anticipate that year end will be in a
very different situation. Um, but I
certainly can take your feedback, um,
address the the verbiage and the
language that's been used and also
rework what has been written to provide
you maybe a clearer, um, uh, update as
to what you're looking for.
>> Thank you very much. And we do have a
list, Councelor Stew, and then Council
Presman.
>> Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to make a
comment. I would be in favor of uh, uh,
changing the language or the way we
report it out. um I know when you buy a
home you have the option of do you want
to do it quarterly, do it monthly. Um
just doesn't sit well with me. I I agree
with um councelor Martin that if you
have the option to do it monthly and
then you see this report and then you
see you're looped into a pool that says
technically you're in a rears. Um, so I
would be in favor of changing the
reporting so we can see that as uh it
was mentioned I think 2,000 homes are in
the pre-authorized. So the number looks
a lot more favorable. So we can actually
break it down and see that no they are
not technically in a rears but the 900
some homes are. So it makes the number
less staggering. I know when I looked at
it, I almost fell out of my chair to
think, "Holy moly, that's almost one
full ward worth of uh homes that are in
a rears." So, it is reassuring that it
isn't actually
at the moment in a rears, but uh I think
uh an enhanced language around the
reporting would be great.
>> Council Chrisman.
>> Yes, through you, Mayor. I think the
headline that two of the council members
of WA Township were interveners would be
the one I would be thinking would be
important to have. But that's just me
cuz I pay quarterly. [laughter]
But
uh the question I have uh is related to
the other end of the spectrum about uh
personal bankruptcies,
mortgage sales. Where do we stand in
line as a township in terms of residual
value in a home sale? Uh do we stand
behind the mortgage holder and we get
the sweeping so to speak or do we stand
ahead uh in terms of priority payment
>> through you mayor Salin to council? Um
yes, if a property was in tax arars and
ended up in a position of either
bankruptcy or um you know
[clears throat] the property was
repossessed through the bank, yes,
property taxes do um equate to a lean
and a rears would be paid out through
those processes. So it doesn't happen
very often that we receive bankruptcy
notice. Um but in the event that we do,
they are reviewed as received um to
ensure that our interest is identified
in those documents as well.
Any other questions or comments on this
council?
I did just have one question. Um, in
terms of if we do unfortunately get to
the stage of tax sales. Um,
this council did have one almost tax
sale I think early on in our time. Um,
but it was brought forward to council. I
think it was the week before it was
supposed to go um on sale. And so at
that point, the property was actually
identified
um to council and it actually resulted
in a good news story in that somebody
watched the council meeting, contacted a
family member of the property owner and
their riggers were addressed and the
property was able to be kept. To me,
that's a good news story. I don't want
to see us having to sell properties for
taxes. Um, so I guess I'm just curious
going forward recognizing that we've had
a different shift in the financial
department and um, to your point, this
is the first time we've really seen a
comprehensive report even on this, which
I think is great. But yeah, I guess I
want to understand what does that look
like going forward if that process were
to happen with any of the properties
you've identified?
>> Uh, through or to you, Mayor Salin, and
to council. Um so [clears throat]
currently I am working diligently with
property owners to try to find ways to
avoid moving forward in the process. Um
we have about a week left for property
owners to still make arrangements with
the municipality and I think you know
the fact that we've seen 22 property
owners come forward so far is is great.
Um, in the event that a property owner
was not able to satisfy one of the
options available, uh, a tax or rear
certificate would be registered against
the property. That would likely be
happening end of September, early
October. And from that date of
registration, property owners have a
1-year cancellation period in which they
can pay the sum of all aars to cancel
the tax sale process entirely. Um if the
arars are not paid within that one-year
cancellation period, we would would be
moving forward to the next phase which
would be um public tender and um the
process is is long. There's
advertisement requirements, deadlines,
but uh [clears throat] property owners
would realistically be looking about a
year and a half out from now, maybe even
a little bit longer before it came to
the point where a property was listed
for for public sale.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or
comments on this report? Again, it's
just for information this evening. All
those in favor and that carries
unanimously.
On to uh 14.11
and this is the Ontario Community
Infrastructure Funding Advocacy Beyond
2026 report. The recommendation is that
we receive this report for information
and that council endorses the resolution
supporting MFOA's letter to the Ministry
of Infrastructure and requesting the
province maintain the current enhanced
OSF funding level beyond the 2026
allocation year and that council direct
staff to forward the endorsed resolution
to the Minister of Infrastructure, the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing, the Minister of Finance, the
Minister of Finance Officers Associates
of Ontario and the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario, the Local
Member of Provincial Parliament, and any
other parties deemed appropriate to get
this on the floor. May I have a mover?
Moved by Councelor Wilkinson, seconded
by Councelor Martin, and I will invite
our treasurer, Tracy Prince, to
introduce this report.
>> Good evening, uh, Mayor and Counselors.
Um so the report in front of you is
really just to support the advocacy of
MFOA
uh to the province to continue the
increased increased um
in the increase introduced in 2022 and
beyond. So it ends the end of 2026 and
if it's decreased OSA funding for next
fiscal year it could result in about a
4.67% six 7% increase on the tax levy
just to make up that portion of it. Um
and then or it looks at or we'd be
looking at further reducing potential
capital investment to offset that loss.
» Okay. Thank you. Are there questions?
Councelor Wilkinson.
>> Thank you through the chair. Um,
more comment, maybe a question in there,
but I think obviously it it's uh it
makes sense to to sign on to this
advocacy and send uh the message uh
upward in hopes that we can continue to
see this investment in our
infrastructure specifically uh given
that we have uh quite a bit to address.
Um, you know, the one concern is hearing
that it would result in a 4.67 uh levy
increase. I don't necessarily share the
same perspective. I think my hope would
be that when we are looking at our
10-year capital plans uh that there
might be multiple options and that could
be one where it's maintained, one where
maybe it looks at uh a 2% increase uh or
one that um potentially spreads out the spending that was taking place over
the course of time. those to avoid uh a
rather large increase um just related to
the loss of this funding. I mean, we
knew that it had an end date. So, the
hope is is that we would hopefully plan
for that. Um but that would just be my sort of brief comment as we head into
budget season. Um you know, I I guess we
should probably anticipate that this is
gone and then spread out the spending
appropriately. But that's all I would
say on it.
>> Any other questions or comments? Council
Densall. Thank you to you, mayor. The
$736,000
shortfall, which is what we've been used
to getting in addition to what we're
used to get. Uh, Director Vanderwal,
when you when we are looking at our
infrastructure projects um for next
year, has have you planned um those uh
that spend based on what we were
receiving
» uh through the mayor? Yes, we would be
anticipating similar spending with minor
increases to keep up with our
infrastructure deficit as we have.
» Any other questions or comments?
>> Okay. Um I just wanted to say uh thank
you very much Treasurer Prince for
bringing this forward. Um one positive
thing is we are not the only
municipality in this boat. Um, and AMO
and Roma are continuing to advocate as
well as when uh, councelor Cresman and I
were up in Ottawa last week at AMO. I
did have some conversations with uh, the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing in particular on this as well as
the Minister of Finance. Um, have had
other conversations with his team about
this and
what they are currently saying, but take
it with a grain of salt because I have
yet to see anything in writing. Um but
currently they are stating that they are
well aware of this and it is something
that they are um hoping to look to make
municipalities whole. Again, not holding
my breath because they've also said that
we'll be made whole on other funding. Um
but I do appreciate you bringing this uh
forward and I do believe that this is a
part of the long-term financial planning
works that uh will be coming forward in
the budget for the next council as well.
Um so with that again this is to receive
for information tonight to endorse a
resolution supporting MFOA's letter and
then to circulate to uh the appropriate
parties. I will call the vote all those
in favor and that carries unanimously.
Uh on to our bylaws for this evening and
the recommendation is that they be read
a first, second and third time and
finally passed an open council. I would
look for a mover.
Moved by councelor Martin, seconded by
councelor Chrisman. And all those in
favor. And that carries unanimously. Um
I am going to turn it over to councelor
Wilkinson to chair while I introduce my
motion.
» Uh so we move to notices of motions.
Um, I will call on Mayor Stalin to bring
forward her notice of motion, please.
>> Thank you. Um, so this notice of motion
council's had for a while now because it
was originally on our July never ending
council meeting. Um, but really what I'm
why I'm bringing this forward is noting
that we have a lot of amazing local
businesses in our community, including
agricultural operations that are
essential to our economic um vitality
really of our community. And I think
it's important to note the great things
that are going on. Um, some other
municipalities do have recognition
programs and I'm really just hoping that
council uh ask staff or direct staff to
prepare a framework for business
appreciation program. Uh, this would
include eligibility criteria and
nomination processes and recognition
methods. I'm not looking for this to be
a makework project or a financial um
implication. I'm really looking for it
to be more of a good news opportunity
and a way to acknowledge um our local
businesses. Right now, we do things like
produce scrolls um of recognition for
businesses, but it's really on a request
basis and they would even need to know
that that exists. I think this takes a
more proactive approach and is a good
community building opportunity. Um, but
like I said, not looking for it to be a
make work or um add any cost. So, I'm
not looking for compensation or getting
into making big plaques or anything
really. Uh, just looking for an
opportunity to celebrate the great
businesses that make uh Wilmont a
fantastic place to live and work. So,
I'd be looking for a seconder. Um,
I think councelor Dunstall there, but uh
I'll turn it back to the chair. Seconded
by councelor Dunstall. Uh there any
questions for Mayor Sal on this
or councelor Dunstall.
>> Thank you through you
chair. Um the only comment I have is
that I'm really upset that I didn't
think of this. Um and I support it
wholeheartedly.
» Councilman.
Yes. Uh just uh through you chair. Um
the question I had was is there a time
of year you would like to see this uh
award be made?
» Thank you through you chair. Um
so I'll be honest what brought on the
thinking about it was the citizen of the
year awards which are at the fall fair.
Um so every September. However, I am
open to um really what staff find or if
council or the community has a
particular um interest. There are some
communities, for example, that every
month in their council meeting recognize
um a local business. Some municipalities
um do it per ward. So, each counselor
gets to bring forward and propose. So, I
don't have a set defined um idea. I
really just more so want to get some
framework and understand what could be
feasible and will want.
» Any additional questions?
Okay. So, calling the vote all those in
favor
and that carries unanimously and I will
uh see the chair back to Mayor Sullivan.
>> Thank you very much, Councelor
Wilkinson. Um on to we do have another
uh notice of motion in front of us from
councelor Crestman. It would require a
twothirds vote of councel to be
entertained. So um I'm assuming
councelor Cresman's going to move waving
the notice of motion seconded by
councelor Wilkinson. Uh so this vote is
just on waving notice and then I'll let
councelor Cresman speak if the notice is
waved. So all those in favor that
carries unanimously. I will now turn it
over to councelor Cresman to introduce
his motion.
>> So, um, this motion, uh, is a result of,
uh, what happened in Mannheim on August
8th and 9th. I was brought to my
attention on the 9th at about 4:30 in
the afternoon of uh, issues happening in
Mannheim. So I will go through the
whereases here. Whereas the township uh
received more than a dozen noise
complaints related to an unsanctioned
event that occurred on Ble Road in
Manheim area on August 8 and 9. And
whereas the incident highlighted
concerns regarding the township's
ability to respond to noise complaints
occurring during week nights and
weekends when regular bylaw enforcement
services are not provided. And whereas
the township current noise by bylaw only
is applicable between the hours of 11:00
p.m. and 8:00 a.m. limiting the
township's ability. And I would say as
well Waterlue Regional Police Services's
ability to address certain noise
[clears throat] related complaints
occurring outside of those hours. And
whereas uh residents have expressed
concerns regarding both the hours
which the noise bylaw applies and the
township's ability to respond to noise
complaints when they occur out of
outside of regular uh business or bylaw
enforcement hours. Therefore, be it
resolved to that a uh to investigate
staff to investigate and report back to
council on options and alternative for
providing uh bylaw enforcement to noise
complaints during weekends during week
nights and weekends in con including
potential service delivery models
in-house or contracted
uh response protocols with the Waterl
Regional Police Service Services and
associated costs. And B, that staff
review the township's noise bylaw and
report back to council with options for
amendments that would provide the
township with the ability to regulate
unreasonable
noise throughout the day and evening.
and C that as part of the staff review
the noise bylaws and enforcement
practices of neighboring municipalities
to identify best practices and provide
recommendations for potential amendments
to the township's uh noise bylaw and
enforcement approach and that a report
uh to council no later than Q1 of 2020
27. So I'm I guess I I'd look to move
that and
>> councelor Wilkinson is seconding.
Councelor Wilkinson, did you want to
speak it as speak to it as a seconder
>> through the chair? Uh I I I like the
spirit of this and and where councelor
Cresman is going. Um, this is something
I've heard and and even in just having
discussions um with our bylaw
department. I think there's one thing
that I'd like to see even uh in addition
to this while they're they're looking,
not that we need to make an amendment to
it, but um we as I've become aware do
not have the tools to even measure noise
um which is of concern. So I hope that
we can uh in addition to this look at
making sure that we acquire the
equipment in order to uh measure
» uh councelor Cresman.
>> Yes. Uh I responded on the uh Sunday the
9th was informed that this has happened
uh on subsequent occasions in previous
years. Only this year uh it went all
night. previous years it stopped at 11.
Uh certainly we as the township hadn't
been informed of previous year
complaints. Um I actually uh sat in the
li in the kitchen of uh an individual I
knew right across the road from where
this was all happening. Uh people were
walking in from Kitchener or that
direction and walking up the driveway.
Um and uh the police uh responded after
they received numerous complaints. Uh
the police officer uh was um very
responsive. He went in on site and said,
"Uh, I can't do anything now, but if
this goes on beyond 10:30," he gave that
as a line in the sand, knowing that
11:00 was the only time that he could he
could do anything. Uh, you will receive
a fine for every minute the noise is is
beyond uh 11. But he was very concerned
with the number of residents that were
so upset after two nights of this and uh
restarting at 3 in the afternoon on
Sunday that he was expressing concern
that residents would not try to walk up
the driveway because they didn't know
what reception they would receive from
what was happening. People were camping
out in the adjoining fields. Uh wheat
had been harvested, wheat stubble was
there, people were camping. Um so
regardless to say uh there was a lot of
upset residents and uh I see this as an
important initiative uh to indicate that
we're addressing and that we're going to
have something uh that will ensure not
just this but other situations can be
addressed into the future.
>> Any other questions or comments on this?
All right. Um, seeing none, I would just
say thank you counselor for bringing
this forward because uh I don't know if
I got as many complaints as you, but I
know that I did as well. And I
appreciate that we're looking to close
the gap on uh this service that we
didn't quite realize was a problem. Um,
and hopefully that will make residents
pleased as we go forward and give bylaw
and our WRPS uh the opportunity to
actually enforce what we have in place.
Uh, with that, I will call the vote. All
those in favor and that carries
unanimously. Uh for announcements, I do
have a few. I wanted to note uh the New
Hamburg Fall Fair is happening September
17th to 20th and that is down at the
fairgrounds at Norm Hill Park in New
Hamburg.
I also want to wish best of luck to
those headed back to school uh in the
next few weeks. And with that, a
reminder that um the speeds in front of
Saratam Beck and Waterlue Oxford do go
back to the school speed times. So
starting September 1st um I think it's
between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. it will
be a 40 km zone and then after those
hours it will be 60 km and 60 km on
weekends. But just remember that because
I'm sure WRPS will be out ticketing. Um,
I also wanted to note that the
township's official plan is now posted
on the provincial website um for the EO
posting for comment. So, if people
wanted to add additional comments to the
province, they can do so. Um, and other
than that, just a reminder that our next
regular council meeting is to be
scheduled on Monday, November the 9th at
6:00 p.m. And I will turn it over to
councelor Dunl, I believe, also has some
exciting news.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I am excited. I'm very
pleased to announce that our veterans
crosswalk uh is scheduled tentatively. I
don't want uh director Vanderwal to um
lose his mind, but it is scheduled for
the first week of September or
thereabouts and we will certainly be
publicizing that. And I have to say this
has been a true community event. Um we
or community effort. We have been
working with the board of trade, of
course, with the New Hamburg Legion,
with the township, and especially with
all of those who contributed to make
this happen. You know, my father-in-law
or my father-in-law, my husband's uh
grandfather got the Kuad Gad for
capturing 200 enemy soldiers at the end
of the war, and he was just a kid
himself. And when I think of those
things, uh those young uh men uh going
out to war and women, um it uh is an
honor to be involved in this initiative.
So, I just want to make sure keep an eye
out. We will be publicizing it and it
will be installed on uh Hiron Hiron Road
and uh looking forward to it. So, thank
you.
>> Thank you, counselor. Are there any
other announcements?
Okay, seeing none, uh we did not have
closed, therefore we have no business
arising from it. So, I'd look for a
mover and a seconder for the
confirmatory bylaw.
Moved by council Martin, seconded by
councelor Sue. All those in favor? That
carries unanimously and adjournment
councelor Crestman seconded by councelor
Sadu. All those in favor and that
carries unanimously. Thank you and have
a great night.