[0:23] Good evening everyone and welcome to our
[0:25] regular council meeting for August 24th,
[0:27] 2026. I'd look for a mover and a
[0:30] seconder to call our meeting to order,
[0:32] please. Moved by councelor Martin,
[0:33] seconded by councelor Crestman. All
[0:35] those in favor, that carries
[0:37] unanimously.
[0:38] We did not have a closed session today.
[0:41] So, I will invite councelor Wilkinson to
[0:43] introduce our territorial land
[0:45] acknowledgement, please.
[0:47] >> Thank you. Uh we have gathered in
[0:48] Wilmont Township on the traditional
[0:50] territory of the neutral and hodni and
[0:53] missaga peoples. And we also want to
[0:55] acknowledge the importance of the dish
[0:56] with one spoon covenant, a peace
[0:58] agreement made between indigenous
[1:00] nations before the Europeans arrived. It
[1:02] characterizes our collective
[1:03] responsibility to each other and mother
[1:05] earth that we should take only what we
[1:07] need, leave enough for others, and keep
[1:09] the dish clean. By acknowledging this
[1:11] covenant and the First Nations, Inuit
[1:13] and Matei people, we are reminded of our
[1:15] important connection to this land where
[1:16] we live, learn, and work together as a
[1:19] community.
[1:21] >> Thank you very much, counselor. Uh, I
[1:23] will now turn it over to CEO Wilmer to
[1:25] introduce a new face around horseshoe.
[1:28] >> Thank you very much, Mayor Salin. And
[1:30] we're very pleased to introduce Tracy
[1:32] Prince as the new treasurer and director
[1:33] of financial services for the the
[1:35] township of Wilmont. Tracy's joining us
[1:37] remotely tonight. Uh, and she's uh been
[1:39] on the job for about two weeks now and
[1:41] comes to us from the town of Ahmersburg
[1:43] and also has previous experience at
[1:45] Slair Region Conservation Authority as
[1:47] well as the city of London. Uh Tracy is
[1:50] a a chartered professional accountant,
[1:51] also has an MBA and brings a good
[1:54] combination of people leadership skills
[1:56] and technical skills. So we're very
[1:57] pleased to have Tracy join us as part of
[1:59] the team.
[2:01] >> Thank you very much and welcome Tracy.
[2:04] Uh on to the adoption of the agenda. I
[2:06] believe councelor Dunstall uh wanted to
[2:09] move that with an amendment. I'll turn
[2:10] it over to councelor Dunstall.
[2:12] >> Thank you through you, mayor. Yes, I
[2:14] want to make an amendment to remove uh
[2:17] correspondence 12.2
[2:20] from the agenda.
[2:22] >> Okay, that's been moved by councelor
[2:24] Dunstall. Is there a seconder to that?
[2:26] Seconded by councelor Cresman. Any
[2:29] questions or comments? So, the motion is
[2:31] to remove 12.2 and then adopt the
[2:35] remaining agenda as presented.
[2:38] Okay, seeing none, I will call the
[2:41] question. All those in favor?
[2:43] All those opposed. And that carries. On
[2:47] to Are there any disclosures of pecunary
[2:50] interest?
[2:52] Councelor Cresman.
[2:54] >> Yes. Uh I would like to de declare a
[2:57] pecunary interest on 16.4 the zone
[3:01] change along um Gingrich Road. Uh it's
[3:05] uh as a result of my uh oldest son uh G
[3:09] being CEO at Walter Fatty and uh they're
[3:14] uh doing the engineering work on the uh
[3:17] entire project.
[3:20] >> Thank you.
[3:21] >> Sorry.
[3:22] >> 14.6 I believe.
[3:25] >> Um it's for the Gingrich Road item,
[3:29] correct counselor? It's the Gingrich
[3:31] Road item.
[3:32] >> Yes.
[3:32] >> Okay. So that is 14.6
[3:35] and that has been noted. Uh we do have
[3:38] our minutes from the July 27th meeting
[3:40] as well as the August 13th special
[3:42] council meeting to be adopted as
[3:44] presented. May I have a mover for that?
[3:46] Moved by councelor Sadu, seconded by
[3:48] councelor Cresman.
[3:49] >> Can I make a comment please?
[3:51] >> Absolutely.
[3:52] >> Uh through you mayor Salin just uh I
[3:54] believe it's going to be changed but
[3:55] it's noted that I'm absent. Um, I guess
[3:58] I missed the opening on the 27th, but I
[4:00] was there for the closed meeting and so
[4:02] I was here for the whole meeting except
[4:03] the initial um motion.
[4:06] >> Uh, I'm seeing clerks nodding to
[4:08] acknowledge that. So, that will be
[4:10] updated. Uh, thank you for making that
[4:12] note. Any other questions or comments on
[4:15] the minutes before us? Okay, seeing
[4:17] none, all those in favor? And that
[4:20] carries unanimously.
[4:22] We do not have any public meetings this
[4:24] evening, but we do have a presentation.
[4:26] We got to see Tova twice in I believe
[4:28] the last two months. So I will invite up
[4:31] Tova Davidson and um Stefan Nacho, I'm
[4:36] sorry if I've mispronounced that um to
[4:38] the podium to present on the new uh
[4:41] sustainability manager. So welcome to
[4:43] council. Thank you so much. Um it's
[4:46] really great to be here and to be back
[4:48] um after it's been I think six weeks or
[4:51] two months. So nice to be here. Um for
[4:53] those who don't know, I'm Toa Davidson.
[4:54] I'm the executive director of S SWR
[4:56] sustainable water region and I'm here
[4:59] just to introduce Stefan um a new
[5:02] partnership that has been formed between
[5:05] the township of Wilmont and Welssley
[5:07] where together we have hired a
[5:09] sustainability manager to support your
[5:12] own work towards um your operational
[5:16] sustainability and integration of
[5:17] community work through the climate
[5:19] action work etc etc as a staff person
[5:22] the support that SWR is bringing is our own expertise to make sure that we
[5:26] are supporting the townships in this
[5:28] way. And it is a shared role with just a
[5:30] one-year idea of let's give this a try
[5:32] and see how we can make some real
[5:34] progress. So the idea today is to
[5:37] introduce Stefan, give him a moment to
[5:38] introduce himself and just to talk a
[5:40] little bit about what the priorities are
[5:42] at the very beginning and answer any
[5:43] questions the council may have.
[5:45] >> Correct. Thank you, Dova. Um, yeah, nice
[5:48] to be here and working with the
[5:50] townships of Wilmont and Wellsley on
[5:53] that project. I would call it. So, as
[5:55] you heard, my name is Stefan. [laughter]
[5:59] Um I'm an architect and certified
[6:00] passive house designer almost two
[6:02] decades experience in the field worked
[6:05] on numerous retrofits
[6:07] um energy efficient buildings like
[6:10] passive houses and um yeah the overall
[6:13] goal is to find um opportunities for
[6:17] optimization and performance
[6:20] enhancements at the facilities of WA
[6:23] Township. And um in the first 6 months
[6:26] we will well I will focus on the GHG
[6:30] emissions. See where we sit in terms of
[6:33] um emissions and water usage and um yeah
[6:39] find hopefully some good um areas to
[6:42] improve and um yeah reporting constantly
[6:47] to the council. The idea is to report
[6:51] like every every quarter to you guys and
[6:54] um yeah, if there's any questions,
[6:58] please let me know. [laughter]
[7:01] >> Wonderful. Well, welcome on board and
[7:04] thank you very much for coming today. Um
[7:06] I don't currently see any questions. Oh,
[7:09] sorry, Councelor Wilkinson.
[7:11] >> Thank you through the chair. Um welcome
[7:13] aboard. Um glad you're uh here. I'm just
[7:16] curious. I I realize it's very early
[7:18] going, but I'm wondering if uh in your
[7:21] past experience or even in maybe some of
[7:23] your research if there's any sort of um
[7:26] identifiable savings or operational um
[7:30] improvements that that you think you can
[7:33] find or if what you anticipate those
[7:36] could be.
[7:38] >> Yeah. Through the mayor to councelor
[7:40] Wilkins Wilkins. Um yeah. Um so I think
[7:44] we have good opportunities in the terms
[7:47] of water savings. That's that's my first
[7:51] assumption from seeing the data. Um and
[7:54] yeah, we will have to review the data,
[7:56] see the facilities and um then I can
[8:01] close to or can say more about if
[8:04] there's any things that we can do. I'll
[8:07] jump in as well just to say that the
[8:08] other focus for us is to look at that
[8:10] data and where the physical
[8:11] opportunities are and then to look at
[8:13] funding opportunities and to apply for
[8:15] those funding opportunities to enable
[8:17] some of those retrofits. So the capital
[8:19] cost could be mitigated by some of the
[8:21] funding opportunities the high energy
[8:22] efficiency increasing within the
[8:25] buildings then saving in operational as
[8:27] well.
[8:29] >> Any other questions at this time
[8:31] council? Okay, seeing none. Thank you
[8:33] again very much Toba and Stephanie for
[8:35] joining us
[8:37] >> this evening. We do have uh three
[8:41] delegations. You'll be called when we
[8:42] get to those appropriate parts in the
[8:44] agenda.
[8:46] Uh we do have one item of
[8:48] correspondence. Did anybody want to
[8:50] speak to that? Okay, seeing none. Um we
[8:55] do have multiple items on our consent
[8:56] agenda. We will be um pulling 13.3 to
[9:01] start as we do have two uh individuals
[9:05] who have registered to speak on this. So
[9:08] I will start uh just making sure I'm
[9:12] following my notes here properly. Um so
[9:14] just for a note 13.3 is the Petersburg
[9:18] drinking water system local improvement
[9:19] bylaw.
[9:21] And uh as I said we have two delegates
[9:23] who have registered. So our first one is
[9:25] Clive Wner. Thank you for joining us
[9:28] today, Clive. And you will have seven
[9:31] minutes.
[9:35] » Yeah, I want to talk about this uh this
[9:37] whole system. When it was originally
[9:39] brought up, it was to be a looped
[9:40] system. That was what we were told that
[9:42] needed to be because you couldn't have
[9:44] people at the end of a line. Now, the
[9:47] 2024 drawings show a loop system, but
[9:50] the 2026 drawings do not. And it's
[9:54] obvious to me and to most people that
[9:57] that's going to be connected to the
[9:59] regional water supply because otherwise
[10:02] it's a deadend system all the way from
[10:04] Deerfield Court all the way around to
[10:07] the end of Snider's Road. And I guess,
[10:10] you know, why were there no meetings
[10:12] after the system was redesigned? Why
[10:14] wasn't it discussed with us? Why weren't
[10:16] the 26 people who are being forced and
[10:20] slammed onto this system
[10:23] not shown as being possible on that? It
[10:26] didn't even show us. You want us to come
[10:27] out and engage? Hey, I'll come out and
[10:29] engage, but you know what' be nice? It
[10:31] would be nice if it wouldn't be hidden
[10:33] like it has been. And you can say, well,
[10:36] you know, it was on the 2024 drawings,
[10:38] but I would hope logic tells me the new
[10:42] revised drawings of 2026 drawings would
[10:45] be the most accurate, which they were
[10:47] not.
[10:51] And and you know, they're going to tie
[10:53] into that system. The second thing is
[10:54] this whole problem was brought on by the NIPL water system, and it's been
[10:59] described as fair that these 26
[11:01] properties pay. Well, what's fairness?
[11:04] you know, they had 40, 50, 60, 70 years
[11:08] of not paying maintenance on the system
[11:11] and I go out and spend 30,000 on a well
[11:13] and pump and treatment system and then I
[11:16] have to pay for them as well. I don't
[11:18] consider that fair, but that's
[11:20] mine. And I got to say, our counselor
[11:22] has been of no assistance because right
[11:24] from the get-go, his position has always
[11:26] been if it's going to go, you're going
[11:29] to pay for it. Period. No discussion, no
[11:32] nothing. I'm disappointed in that. I
[11:35] think it's a bad potential.
[11:38] And and there was no process, no time in
[11:40] this whole process was there any attempt
[11:43] to address the concerns of the 26.
[11:45] There's things that could have been done
[11:47] to okay, let's say we pay $10,000
[11:51] and then if we hook up in the next 15
[11:53] years, we pay uh starting off at 15,000
[11:57] going down to zero. Uh and it would have
[12:00] cost the others more, but I mean it it
[12:02] The way it's done, the whole process of
[12:04] even trying to get peti petition
[12:06] together is impossible because there's
[12:08] 62 people who are saying, "Hey, if they
[12:11] pay, we're 10, we're saving $10,000."
[12:15] Now, that's not coming out. That's
[12:17] coming out of my pocket.
[12:20] And to me, this this is a service that
[12:22] has very little to no value to me
[12:23] because I I have a great source of
[12:26] water,
[12:30] you know.
[12:32] Since there's such a willingness to, you
[12:34] know, have this 26 people do this, I I
[12:36] would say, you know, Mr. Wilkinson,
[12:40] your honor, why don't you each throw
[12:42] 10,000 into it? Pay for it. We're paying
[12:45] for a service we don't need. Let you pay
[12:47] for it. Come on, let's everybody kick in
[12:49] some money. I guess it's a little
[12:51] different when it's not your money. I
[12:53] guess it's easy to spend other people's.
[12:56] I'm just saddened that there's been no
[12:58] attempt to address anything
[13:00] to do with these 26 people. And Chris,
[13:02] you've told people it's going to
[13:05] increase their property values and you
[13:06] told another person it wouldn't increase
[13:07] their property values. Which is it? I'm
[13:10] a I'm a home builder. My wife's a
[13:12] realtor. Okay. Yeah. Laugh. It's funny,
[13:14] isn't it?
[13:15] >> Point of personal privilege.
[13:17] >> Yes. I was going to cut in. Um, I would
[13:20] just remind you that when delegating,
[13:24] certainly valid to hear your perspective
[13:25] and I appreciate your perspective, but
[13:27] please do not defam or call out council.
[13:31] That's part of our procedural bylaw when
[13:33] you're
[13:34] >> That's fine. I'm just I'm just telling
[13:35] it like it is. If someone says one thing
[13:37] and then says a different thing, if
[13:40] that's calling them out, I'm sorry. I
[13:42] apologize for that because at the end of
[13:44] the day, it shows
[13:46] certain things about what type of people
[13:49] they are.
[13:51] I I would like to say you don't do
[13:53] something about it, but given everything
[13:55] I've seen, the lack of communication,
[13:58] the lack of consideration for us, I have
[14:01] a feeling I've wasted my breath. Thank
[14:04] you.
[14:05] >> Thank you, Clive, for joining us this
[14:07] evening and sharing your experience.
[14:08] Were there any questions of councel at
[14:10] this point?
[14:12] Okay, seeing none, uh we also have Raul
[14:17] DGO who's joining us this evening.
[14:21] Is Raul online?
[14:24] Okay. Um I don't currently see Raul in
[14:28] our chambers or online.
[14:31] Um
[14:32] if he comes later, we can address at
[14:36] that time. Um, calling Raul just one
[14:39] more time.
[14:41] Okay.
[14:43] All right. Um, so the recommendation is
[14:46] that council dispense with item 13.3
[14:49] separately as the uh recommended motion
[14:52] to be amended highlighted below. So it
[14:55] was the original circulated one and
[14:57] council has in front of them as well.
[14:59] Um, but that the report is-20226-9
[15:04] Petersburg drinking water system local
[15:06] improvement bylaw be received for
[15:07] information and that the local
[15:09] improvement bylaw uh 26-60 Petersburg
[15:13] local improvement be passed as and this
[15:15] is the new change as amended to include
[15:18] Deerfield extension in the description
[15:20] of the work. And then back to the
[15:22] regular motion and that the treasurer
[15:23] return with the special charges bylaw at
[15:26] the culmination of the Petersburg
[15:28] project currently anticipated early in
[15:30] 20128. Uh to get that on the floor moved
[15:34] by councelor Wilkinson. Is there a
[15:36] seconder? Seconded by councelor Martin.
[15:38] And councelor Wilkinson you have a
[15:39] question or comment.
[15:41] >> Uh thank you through the chair. Uh there
[15:43] was a couple questions I actually wanted
[15:45] to uh just address for um most of the
[15:48] residents in the affected area who did
[15:51] reach out and and I appreciate the
[15:52] correction on the bylaw to include uh
[15:54] Deerfield extension as that was missing
[15:56] initially but um uh director Vanderwal
[16:00] there was a question and I know we've
[16:02] chatted about this but for the public
[16:04] just to understand the difference in
[16:05] cost between the original 62 and then
[16:08] the additional um added homes I think it
[16:11] was 20 23 or 25 whatever it was. But um
[16:15] if you could just explain that
[16:16] difference in the costing please.
[16:19] >> Uh through the mayor for the original 26
[16:22] residents there was preliminary
[16:24] investigation studies. The original
[16:27] connection to the system including the
[16:30] water meters that were installed that
[16:31] was shared
[16:34] among the original 62. I believe it is
[16:37] the construction cost is what is being
[16:39] shared amongst I believe it is 80 is the
[16:42] final number. So that that is the
[16:45] difference.
[16:48] >> Any other questions? Councelor Wson
[16:50] through the chair. No other questions. I
[16:52] appreciate that. That's just so it's
[16:53] those additional pieces in terms of the
[16:55] meter um that that is that cost
[16:58] difference between the two. So obviously
[17:00] if uh the homes that were added after
[17:04] the fact uh if they choose to meter that
[17:06] would be part of that cost that they
[17:08] would have to cover at the time
[17:11] through the mayor. It is anticipated
[17:13] that if a home would connect afterwards,
[17:15] yes, they would have to do the plumbing
[17:16] permit, put a meter in those components.
[17:19] Some of the components for the original
[17:22] study would not need to be redone, but
[17:24] that was the original 62.
[17:28] » Thank you. and uh through the chair just
[17:30] to to answer a couple other questions.
[17:32] So um one of the other things that that
[17:35] was brought up as I was discussing with
[17:37] some uh residents in the area. So uh the
[17:39] drawings itself are showing the full
[17:42] redesign system including the looping
[17:43] onto Snider's Road in Notre Dame. Uh
[17:46] phase one is to begin this year and
[17:48] that's for Sners Road in Notre Dame.
[17:50] Correct. And then phase two would be
[17:51] next year inside the traditional uh
[17:54] service area
[17:57] >> uh through the mayor. We've been having
[17:59] discussions with the contractor. They
[18:01] are now anticipating starting next year
[18:04] and they believe they can do the
[18:06] majority of the works next year. So it
[18:08] is probably 2027.
[18:12] Uh we do note that due to the uh
[18:15] requirements under the um local
[18:18] improvement we had delayed the
[18:20] contractor. So we are working with them
[18:22] to get a better schedule and sure what's
[18:24] going on. But that is what they have
[18:26] indicated at this time.
[18:30] Thank you. Uh and through the chair, if
[18:32] I may one more time, uh just to sort of
[18:34] provide some context and explanation for
[18:37] uh anyone who may be unfamiliar, um
[18:40] traditionally and and I know that I've
[18:42] had this conversation with staff and
[18:44] residents, but when infrastructure uh at
[18:46] the municipal level passes in front of a
[18:48] home, um then it is traditionally paid
[18:52] for by the homeowner. and and a lot of
[18:54] new developments would typically see
[18:55] that in the form of development charges
[18:58] uh and would be paying essentially for
[19:00] these services to go in. Um so I know
[19:03] that in in many cases at least precedent
[19:05] setting in my opinion across Ontario we
[19:08] see a lot of this whether it be sewage
[19:10] or water uh hookups that essentially um
[19:14] existing homes now have access to a new
[19:17] service and they pay for it. uh whether
[19:19] or not they choose to hook up to it
[19:21] ultimately I guess is at the
[19:22] determination of the homeowner. So it's
[19:25] all saying that but thank you for your
[19:26] work.
[19:28] >> Any other questions or comments on this
[19:30] council?
[19:31] Seeing none, I'll call the vote on that.
[19:33] It's been moved and seconded. So all
[19:35] those in favor that carries unanimously.
[19:39] And then we do have the remaining items
[19:41] on our consent agenda which are 13.1,
[19:44] 13, and 13.2. Uh, did anybody want to
[19:47] pull either of these items before voting
[19:50] on them? Not seeing that. May I have a
[19:53] mover and a seconder? Moved by councelor
[19:54] Cresman. Seconded by councelor Martin.
[19:56] All those in favor and that carries
[19:59] unanimously.
[20:01] On to our reports for this evening. The
[20:04] first report recommendation is that
[20:06] report CAO-2026-25
[20:09] strategic action plan update be received
[20:11] for information. May I have a mover for
[20:13] this? Moved by councelor Martin.
[20:15] seconded by councelor Sadup and I will
[20:19] now turn it over to CEO Wilmer to
[20:21] present this report.
[20:23] >> Thank you very much Mayor Salonin. So uh
[20:27] this is uh the third update we've given
[20:29] on the strategic action plan over the
[20:31] last number of months and uh the number
[20:33] of complete actions is up to 24 now up
[20:36] from 16 when last reported we were
[20:38] reported to council. Uh and there are six items there that we've
[20:42] highlighted as having made significant
[20:44] progress. I'll just briefly touch on
[20:45] those. One is the communication strategy
[20:47] refresh. Another is the adoption of the
[20:50] official plan. There was also the
[20:52] approval of the Ontario transit
[20:54] investment fund, a grant of 3.4 million
[20:57] for for u improved transit to the four
[20:59] townships in water region. The service
[21:02] delivery review uh implementation plan
[21:05] and uh the naming rights and sponsorship
[21:07] policy. In addition to that, when the
[21:09] port report was written, it was our
[21:11] intention that the first phase of the
[21:12] long-term financial plan be presented
[21:14] tonight. Um, and after the report was
[21:18] written, but before the agenda was um
[21:20] was released, we determined that it
[21:22] really wasn't ready yet. And we thought
[21:24] that rather than bringing a not quite
[21:26] ready project for discussion, we would
[21:28] defer that until it's uh more fully
[21:31] ready. And uh we take responsibility for
[21:34] that. KPMG had done everything we had
[21:36] asked of them, but it was the township's
[21:38] inputs that were holding matters back.
[21:41] >> Thank you very much. Are there any
[21:43] questions on this item?
[21:45] >> Council Martin.
[21:46] >> Uh through you, Mayor Salon, this isn't
[21:48] so much a question as an affirmation. Uh
[21:50] when when I go through this and see the
[21:52] work that is being done and has been
[21:54] completed, um I appreciate that work.
[21:56] So, thank you.
[21:58] >> Any other questions or comments then?
[22:00] Councelor Wilkinson.
[22:01] >> Thank you through the chair. I
[22:03] appreciate the explanation uh and the
[22:05] update on the the long-term financial
[22:06] plan and capital plan. My my hope was is
[22:08] that we would see that before the end of
[22:10] this term, but uh under understand it is
[22:13] uh is difficult. You want to make sure
[22:14] you get it right. Um I did have a
[22:17] question regarding the ERP project. I I
[22:20] know we we've talked about this at
[22:21] length and uh we've already earmarked
[22:23] that 300,000 for it. So, um, just
[22:26] wondering what's driving that increase
[22:28] in cost, uh, up to half a million and how we plan to tackle this in the
[22:33] future because I know this has been
[22:34] hanging over us for a number of years.
[22:38] >> Uh, through you, Mayor Helen and
[22:39] Councelor Wilkinson. Uh, I can try to
[22:41] attempt an answer for you. Um, the ERP
[22:45] project, you may recall there was a
[22:47] pre-budget approval last summer actually
[22:49] for $500,000 for that software. Um it
[22:52] did go through uh the RFP process. Uh
[22:56] bids were received. Uh the bids
[22:58] indicated that the budget uh was not
[23:01] going to be sufficient. In addition, as
[23:03] you're aware, um there's some internal
[23:06] processes that need to be uh reviewed
[23:10] and refined prior to trying to implement
[23:12] new software. Implementing new software
[23:14] doesn't solve any problems if your your
[23:16] processes aren't ideal. So the first
[23:18] step that we're approaching um is is to
[23:23] uh refine those processes internally and
[23:25] then probably reissue an RFP. Uh through
[23:28] the budget process, you would receive
[23:29] additional information as to um the
[23:32] anticipated cost. But certainly that
[23:35] those monies, the 500,000 plus the the
[23:37] monies that were I I believe 130,000
[23:40] relative to project management of that
[23:42] project, uh those would remain in the
[23:44] capital budget. Some of them would have
[23:45] been spent on the project manager, but
[23:47] the the bulk of those funds would would
[23:50] retain uh until future report.
[23:54] >> Any other questions or comments? Council
[23:57] >> Councelor Cresman,
[24:00] >> it's through your merit. It's always
[24:02] dangerous to ask a question which you're
[24:05] formerly ignorant of, but that usually
[24:09] doesn't stop me. Um uh so the question
[24:12] relates to some of the discussion we've
[24:15] we had in Ottawa at the Association of
[24:20] Municipalities of Ontario about AI and
[24:24] whether we have uh systems and we are
[24:29] adapting to systems that are uh would
[24:32] work with AI
[24:34] uh into the future. And so you always
[24:37] worry when you adopt a certain uh
[24:40] software that it may be looking
[24:43] backwards rather than looking forward.
[24:45] And so I guess that's where the question
[24:48] I know you had discussions you
[24:50] understand that city of Kitchener's
[24:52] working with the software provider u
[24:55] with AI um streamlining streamlining
[24:59] answers to questions uh etc. So, as long
[25:04] as you have systems that mesh, again, my
[25:07] ignorance is showing, but uh obviously
[25:11] I'm just asking the question out of a a
[25:14] way of saving dollars to the future as
[25:17] compared to saying uh we have something
[25:20] that's obsolete.
[25:24] » Who wants to take that one? Wilmer can
[25:28] >> I'm tempted to ask AI to draft an answer
[25:30] for me so that I can quickly review that
[25:32] and and give you an something that's
[25:34] impressive that I I may or may not have
[25:36] created myself. Um it's early days yet.
[25:39] I think that's no surprise to anyone. Um
[25:41] we do have u co-pilot for our staff. The take upon it is limited, but we're
[25:48] also aware that people either in their
[25:50] personal lives or related to work are
[25:51] starting to use other AI tools as well.
[25:54] And so, uh, it's something we want to,
[25:56] um, encourage people to use with
[25:58] caution. Um, and we'll, uh, we're we're
[26:01] working on a policy shortly that will
[26:04] give people guidance as to which are,
[26:06] um, platforms that are allowable and
[26:09] which ones are to be avoided.
[26:12] >> And I see uh, Tracy might want to jump
[26:14] in on this as well.
[26:18] >> For you, mayor, to members of council.
[26:20] Yes, that's always a consideration when
[26:22] we're looking at uh software is to make
[26:25] sure that it is agile enough to um
[26:28] manage what else is coming down the you know pipes with
[26:32] regards to technology. Um I think there
[26:36] is a lot of process of improvements
[26:38] available through AI but again we have
[26:40] to be very um cautious um with using it
[26:44] and which um which AI tools we use and
[26:48] which ones we um basically control as
[26:52] well.
[26:54] >> Thank you Director Prince. Anybody
[26:56] wanted to add anything else? Nope. Okay.
[26:59] Um any other questions or comments? All
[27:01] right. Seeing none, uh, all those in
[27:03] favor in accepting the action plan
[27:06] update for information and that's
[27:08] carried unanimously.
[27:10] On to 14.2 and this is the work plan
[27:14] update for August 2026. Also to be
[27:16] received for information. If I could get
[27:18] a mover and a secondary for this moved
[27:20] by councelor Martin, seconded by
[27:22] councelor Cresman and I will turn it
[27:24] back over to CEO Wilmer.
[27:27] >> Thank you again, Mayor Salin. Uh so in
[27:30] the uh the work plan for 2026 there are
[27:32] 71 initiatives. 24 are complete 39 are
[27:36] in progress. I I won't list the 24.
[27:38] They're they're in the report. But we've
[27:40] also um highlighted the report so that
[27:43] any matters that have changed since the
[27:45] last time we reported to council are are
[27:47] highlighted in yellow. So it u for for
[27:50] members of the of the community or for
[27:52] council, you can quickly see what's been
[27:53] updated since the last report. And with
[27:56] that um happy to answer any questions
[27:57] you may have.
[27:59] questions or comments on this one. We'll
[28:01] go to council 9 and I I guess I'm
[28:05] affirmative Steve tonight. But um I I
[28:08] would like to uh not a but and I would
[28:10] like to make an affirmation on this as
[28:12] well. I I really appreciate these charts
[28:14] and and how it shows uh the work and
[28:17] clearly outlines and things that aren't
[28:19] done or that have not been completed.
[28:22] It's clearly there. So I appreciate uh
[28:24] you being candid on that and the
[28:27] information. Thank you.
[28:29] >> Thank you very much, counselor. And I
[28:32] don't think it's a bad thing that you're
[28:33] affirming considering when we started
[28:35] this term, we weren't getting these
[28:37] kinds of reports. So, I think it's good
[28:38] that they're valid and we're providing
[28:41] that information. Councelor Wilkinson,
[28:44] >> thank you through the chair. um to CEO
[28:47] Wilmer. Um
[28:49] given I know that uh we are approaching
[28:51] maybe the the end of your term sort of
[28:53] heading into next year is is the plan to
[28:55] sort of accomplish as much of this as
[28:57] possible and prioritize some of those
[28:59] pieces through the the upcoming bud
[29:01] budget process as well
[29:04] through the mayor in a word. Yes. Uh so
[29:07] u much of this work we believe will be
[29:11] completed in the calendar year. some
[29:13] projects will carry on through into 27.
[29:16] And in fact, there's there's a fair
[29:17] number of initiatives in here that that
[29:20] are maybe not so much project based. It
[29:22] is it part of our ongoing work. So, it's work that will continue on. So, I
[29:26] don't know that there's going to be all
[29:27] that many budget implications for this.
[29:30] is mostly work that's underway that
[29:32] we're doing with in-house resources.
[29:36] >> Any other questions or comments on this
[29:38] council? Okay. Seeing none, all those in
[29:41] favor? And that carries unanimously.
[29:44] Uh on to 14.3 and this is the budget
[29:48] level of service for management of IT.
[29:50] The recommendation is that this report
[29:53] uh be received for information and that
[29:55] council refer consideration of managed
[29:58] IT services to the 2027 budget process
[30:01] subject to the provision of a detailed
[30:03] assessment from staff. To get this on
[30:05] the floor, may I have a mover? Moved by
[30:07] councelor Cresman, seconded by councelor
[30:10] Martin. And I will now turn it over to
[30:13] deputy CEO and director of corporate
[30:15] services services, not services,
[30:18] Harold [laughter] Accraft.
[30:20] >> Thank you, Mayor Salomon. Very briefly,
[30:22] this uh the purpose of this report is
[30:24] simply as a placeholder to the 2027
[30:26] budget process, similar to other ones
[30:28] that you've uh seen over the last number
[30:30] of months. uh to highlight that we did
[30:32] move from a in-house supervisor of IT uh
[30:35] in 2025 to a managed IT service contract
[30:40] uh in the fall of 2025. Uh that contract
[30:43] is almost at the one-year mark. It was a
[30:45] two-year contract. And so prior to next
[30:48] uh fall, we will need to make a decision
[30:49] whether to continue with the contract
[30:51] and extend it, whether to modify that
[30:53] contract or whether to bring uh the
[30:55] management of IT services inhouse uh as
[30:58] it was prior to the contract. So it it's
[31:01] simply a placeholder report to identify
[31:02] that that will need to be a
[31:04] consideration. Um we will need to take
[31:06] an action in 2027 and budget
[31:08] accordingly. Hopefully the report at the
[31:11] budget time will provide you with all
[31:12] the details of pros cons of the managed
[31:16] surface versus in-house and the costing
[31:18] associated with that.
[31:21] >> Questions or comments? Councelor Dunl.
[31:26] » Thank you through Mayor. uh deputy um
[31:29] CEO Okrafka
[31:32] um when the report comes back have we
[31:34] been able to or we will we be able to
[31:37] show the different service levels from
[31:40] having it done in house versus having it
[31:42] contracted out
[31:46] >> three yes
[31:52] » councelor Wilkinson
[31:54] >> thank you through the chair to even
[31:55] piggyback on councelor Dunstall's uh
[31:57] question. I'm I'm wondering if uh even
[32:00] off the top of your head, just for the
[32:02] sake of of folks knowing, has there been
[32:04] any measurable improvements or any
[32:06] deficiencies that you've encountered at
[32:08] all? Even just at a very high level
[32:11] through Mayor Selen and Councelor
[32:12] Wilkinson, I would say there's notable
[32:15] enhancements in our infrastructure
[32:18] requirements and identifying um best
[32:20] practices that we perhaps hadn't been
[32:23] following. So there's been a number of
[32:24] those highlevel things that that
[32:27] definitely have been beneficial. At the
[32:29] same time, I would suggest that at a
[32:32] staff level, the customer service, the
[32:36] in-house aspect of that is probably on
[32:40] the lower end of of staff expectations.
[32:44] So there's there's a balance. We're getting higherend needs met, but
[32:48] probably the day-to-day it's a bit more
[32:50] of a challenge uh by having only one
[32:53] person in house versus two people in
[32:55] house, but there's trade-offs and that's the trade-off that council will
[32:58] ultimately need to decide uh what the
[33:00] most important component of that is.
[33:04] >> Any other questions or comments on this?
[33:06] >> Council Martin.
[33:07] >> Uh through you, Mayor Salin. I I I have
[33:10] noticed with with this contract um the
[33:13] additional requirements for training. We on council were also asked to
[33:18] participate in that uh training and that
[33:21] was comparable to um uh another
[33:24] organization that I work for where they
[33:26] do something very similar and and and so
[33:29] it seems like that was a a good move. I
[33:32] also know um there was a time I needed
[33:35] some help and I happened to be working
[33:37] late on a Friday night and I was able to
[33:39] make a phone call because of this
[33:41] contract. They have the 24-hour service
[33:43] that if we have uh full-time staff, we
[33:46] don't have access to that service.
[33:47] Having said that, when we had two
[33:49] full-time staff, I was very happy with
[33:51] their work. I'm not in any way
[33:52] complaining about that. But I but I do I
[33:54] do notice this with the larger
[33:56] structure, the benefits that that can
[33:58] bring.
[34:01] >> Very good. Any other questions or
[34:02] comments? Seeing none, all those in
[34:05] favor? And that's carried unanimously.
[34:09] On to 14.4. And this is the zone change
[34:13] application for 148 to 166 Pel Street in
[34:17] New Hamburg. The recommendation is that
[34:19] this report be received for information
[34:21] and that council approve the zoning
[34:23] change application 07-26
[34:26] as set out in the draft bylaw included
[34:28] as attachment E to this report. to get
[34:31] this on the floor. May I have a mover,
[34:33] please? Moved by Councelor Sadu,
[34:34] seconded by Councelor Martin. And I will
[34:37] turn it over to Director Martin to
[34:39] introduce this report, please.
[34:42] >> Thank you, Mayor Solomon. Um I'll
[34:44] explain briefly the report. Uh we did
[34:47] have an extensive discussion at the
[34:48] previous council meeting about this. Um
[34:50] the proposal continues to be the um
[34:53] adaptive reuse reuse of the uh Hamburg
[34:56] felt boot uh building in New Hamburg. Uh
[34:59] the proposal includes removal of a
[35:01] portion of the rear of the building,
[35:03] maintaining the three-story kind of
[35:04] heritage piece and reconstructing a uh
[35:08] four to six story edition um in the uh
[35:12] the rear of the building to accommodate
[35:14] uh commercial on the main floor and uh
[35:16] 49 residential um units. Um at the
[35:20] public meeting, the primary discussion
[35:22] points were regarding parking and the
[35:24] height of the building. Um so since that
[35:27] meeting staff did uh as we promised
[35:30] would go through and look at the uh the
[35:32] downtown parking availability compared
[35:34] to what we had noted in the 2016 study
[35:37] uh that we had undertaken. Um and the
[35:40] consensus in that in that count is that
[35:42] ultimately there was a mild a minor
[35:44] increase of about uh six spaces uh in
[35:47] the core. There were some losses in some
[35:49] area but uh the increase in parking in
[35:51] the Wilmont Street parking lot was the
[35:53] primary factor increasing that number.
[35:55] So ultimately um there is still ample
[35:59] parking available in the core is is the
[36:01] conclusion that we've drawn from that.
[36:03] Uh as we noted in the 2016 study uh a
[36:07] lot of concerns we hear from people is
[36:08] proximity right so can you see your
[36:10] destination from where you park and uh
[36:12] that seems to be the ongoing concern
[36:14] when we talk about parking in downtown
[36:16] New Hampshire. One of the advantages of
[36:18] this application is that you'll be able
[36:20] to see the Wilmont Street parking lot
[36:22] from this redevelopment. So the midpoint
[36:24] access that's proposed through this
[36:26] redevelopment will have line of sight to
[36:28] the Wilmont lot street parking lot. Um
[36:30] so we anticipate that better utilization
[36:32] of that facility will actually alleviate
[36:34] maybe some parking on Peele Street um
[36:37] that currently accesses the services at
[36:39] Pycom House but certainly will
[36:41] complement if nothing else. Um so there continues to be ample parking
[36:45] available to service the commercial
[36:47] needs. Um from a residential
[36:49] perspective, the proposal provides one
[36:51] parking space per dwelling unit. Um
[36:54] which from a staff level, uh we feel is
[36:56] appropriate in this location. Um there
[36:58] is opportunity for walking to amenity
[37:01] areas. Um and ultimately the owner of
[37:04] the property dictates who lives in the
[37:06] building. So if they [snorts] don't want
[37:08] to sell or rent a unit to a property
[37:10] owner that has two cars, then they don't
[37:13] need to do that. and it may not be the
[37:15] appropriate place to be located if you
[37:16] do have two cars. So, there is that kind
[37:18] of fall back if we're wrong on our
[37:20] assumptions that the owner owner of the
[37:22] property has the ultimate authority and
[37:24] opportunity to control.
[37:26] Um, from a height perspective, um staff
[37:30] have noted previously that we feel that
[37:31] the design of this site does complement
[37:34] the core. um maintaining the current
[37:36] three-story building, having the taller
[37:38] buildings set back to the midpoint of
[37:40] the property um you know is somewhat
[37:43] reflective of of industry, right? The
[37:45] taller pieces of industrial buildings
[37:47] often were central to those site um
[37:50] evidenced by the taller stack on the
[37:52] felt boot factory right now. Um so
[37:54] certainly we feel the developer has done
[37:56] a good job in in u um providing a
[38:00] redevelopment that complements the core.
[38:02] Uh we did circulate the heritage
[38:04] committee and at the previous heritage
[38:05] meeting uh the the committee did endorse
[38:08] the proposal uh as noted in the report.
[38:10] Um so we they have indicated they they
[38:13] would like to work with the owner to see
[38:15] if there's pieces that could be
[38:16] reclaimed from from demolition and
[38:18] certainly those conversations continue
[38:20] to happen but the important piece is the
[38:22] committee to take a perspective on on
[38:24] the uh on the development and we're
[38:26] supportive.
[38:27] Uh, I will leave my comments at that
[38:30] because I think those were the primary
[38:31] discussion points previously, but
[38:32] certainly uh I'm here to answer
[38:34] questions and uh the uh the owners of
[38:36] the property I I believe are also in in
[38:38] attendance as well.
[38:41] >> Uh we'll go to councelor Cresman first.
[38:46] » Uh through you mayor to director Martin.
[38:49] Uh I was uh looking at the uh drawings
[38:53] especially of the parking and wondering
[38:56] if uh guests would come in Peele Street
[38:59] whether they could um go across the
[39:02] front of the proposed building uh drop
[39:05] off passengers and then exit onto Woman
[39:09] Street and park in the Woman Street
[39:12] parking lot because I was informed by
[39:15] someone this week uh that there wouldn't
[39:18] be exits. It's on uh either side of
[39:21] Jackson Square. So I I could interpret
[39:25] an exit in one of the drawings, I could
[39:28] not in the other. So I was just
[39:30] wondering whether that was blind on the
[39:33] side uh or whether was accessible to W
[39:37] Street.
[39:39] uh dear mayor Sal and certainly the
[39:41] design is conceptual at this point but
[39:43] as proposed uh there wouldn't the what
[39:45] was the Jackson plaza whatever would not
[39:47] have access to Wilmont Street directly
[39:49] um uh the this the felt boot site uh has
[39:54] two-way traffic so connecting both Pa
[39:56] and Wilmont Street so you would be able
[39:58] to come through um the plaza would be
[40:00] disconnected from from Wilmont Street
[40:01] though
[40:03] >> that's mayor that's what I was I guess I
[40:05] understood that the uh Jackson Square on
[40:08] the north side of Jackson Square was
[40:11] not, but I was wondering on the south
[40:13] side of Jackson Square between that and
[40:15] the felt booth had access and I had the
[40:19] impression it was and somebody was
[40:21] trying to tell me it didn't.
[40:25] >> Councelor Dunstall,
[40:27] >> thank you, Mayor. And um Director Martin
[40:31] and I have had many many a conversation
[40:33] about this and and uh and I don't think
[40:36] it's a big surprise where I stand on
[40:38] height and and how it impacts um how it
[40:42] impacts the downtown and how it impacts
[40:43] our skyline. I did also want to mention
[40:46] that, you know, afterthought and I and I
[40:48] understand that the parking is an issue
[40:49] and people like to see, you know, uh
[40:52] from the establishment that they go to
[40:53] where their vehicle is and vice versa,
[40:55] but having been to Kitchener recently um
[40:58] and having to park in uh an underground
[41:01] parking and then walk several blocks to
[41:02] where I wanted to go made me realize
[41:05] that it isn't uh quite so bad. So, I
[41:07] just wanted to share that.
[41:10] >> Thank you, counselor. Any other
[41:12] questions or comments? Councelor Watson.
[41:15] >> Uh thank you through the chair. Um I
[41:17] mean we we we've discussed this
[41:18] extensively at the public meeting as
[41:20] well and and generally very much in
[41:22] favor of what's being proposed here. Um
[41:25] one point of interest to me was reading
[41:26] the report when it was mentioned that
[41:28] there would be uh agreements to
[41:31] basically ensure that the parking that
[41:33] is designated at the 144 Peele Street
[41:36] site um would remain with the the
[41:41] residential development. So I'm just
[41:42] curious how that will play out given
[41:44] that it's not necessarily going to be
[41:46] severed as one and and combined.
[41:50] >> Thank you through Mayor S. So there is
[41:52] opportunity through parking agreements
[41:54] andor site plan agreements to we have I
[41:57] can think of one other example where
[41:58] we've had site uh parking on an adjacent
[42:01] site through the site plan agreement
[42:03] registered on both properties. It it
[42:05] tied the use of that parking for for
[42:07] permanency. So ultimately an agreement
[42:10] registered on each property that says
[42:12] those spaces are available to you know X
[42:15] property uh and then vice versa so that
[42:17] it it basically ties them together but
[42:19] doesn't force them to merge the
[42:20] properties together so it it gives that
[42:22] permanency.
[42:25] >> Councelor Stup,
[42:27] >> thank you. Just a comment. Uh overall um
[42:30] uh I like the project. I I think it's a
[42:34] overall positive investment to our
[42:35] community. I know parking has been uh a
[42:39] hot topic, but every time I've driven by
[42:42] on Wilmont Street and seen our municipal
[42:44] parking lot, I haven't encountered more
[42:47] than five, six cars off the top of my
[42:48] head. Um municipal parking is a public
[42:51] asset and if it's consistently
[42:54] underused, we're we need to support it
[42:56] by having nearby developments so we we
[42:59] can maximize that investment. And when
[43:02] comparing to other municipalities and
[43:04] downtown cores, whether it be Stratford
[43:06] or Myra, it's a catch 22. We want to
[43:09] have people downtown with the businesses
[43:11] want to thrive.
[43:13] But a sign of a good downtown is also if
[43:15] it's thriving and you're not finding
[43:16] good parking or you're not finding
[43:17] parking, that's a sign of people are
[43:19] down there and they want to be there.
[43:21] Um, just my own uh self owning a small
[43:25] business in town, having to do
[43:26] deliveries. I never once had an issue
[43:29] delivering pizzas downtown.
[43:31] Even if I need to park for a quick 30
[43:33] seconds to get out and my drivers never had an issue, but obviously when
[43:39] you're in a downtown core, it's never
[43:41] supposed to be easy to find parking, but
[43:43] I'm not necessarily saying it's super
[43:45] hard either. Um, as far as the the
[43:48] building heights go, I've always been a
[43:50] proponent of if they are placed in their
[43:52] proper areas, so along regional roads in
[43:55] the downtown settings. And if done
[43:57] tastefully like this uh uh property is,
[44:00] I think it can be bode well for the
[44:02] township.
[44:05] >> Councelor Dunel.
[44:07] >> Thank you, Mayor. I actually did want to
[44:09] u just verify with uh Director Martin,
[44:12] and I've had a few people ask me this,
[44:14] and I'm 99.9% sure that this is correct,
[44:17] but all of the parking spots uh 39
[44:19] parking spots, whatever it is, 49, they
[44:22] are already owned. They are not
[44:25] municipal parking spots. They are
[44:26] already owned by the owners of this
[44:29] particular building. Correct.
[44:33] >> That is correct.
[44:34] >> Thank you.
[44:37] >> Any other questions or comments on this?
[44:38] Counselor Councelor Cresman,
[44:41] >> this is anecdotal, but if you want to go
[44:43] to a Yankee Stadium and stay in the
[44:46] Bronx, the solution to parking Saturday
[44:49] night is double parking on the road,
[44:52] even if it's raining. So anyhow, it's
[44:55] just, you know,
[44:58] >> I'm not certain that we're approving
[44:59] double parking in downtown New
[45:03] Hampshire, but [laughter]
[45:04] thank you for the anecdote, counselor.
[45:07] [gasps]
[45:09] I think everyone has said what they'd
[45:12] like to on this matter. I just want to
[45:14] say I think this is a really exciting
[45:16] proposal and new chapter um both for the
[45:19] old felt boot factory and for downtown
[45:22] as we're continuing to see it be
[45:24] rejuvenated. Um and I think that this is
[45:27] also filling um the call for some people
[45:30] who want to be able to downsize but
[45:32] remain in Wilmont. I really think that
[45:34] uh the apartment component will speak to
[45:35] that and personally I look forward to
[45:37] the spa um granted should it be approved
[45:40] and built. So, I just wanted to note
[45:42] that I think this is a really great
[45:44] investment um for the community and
[45:46] thank you uh to the owners for bringing
[45:48] it forward. Councelor Martin, Mayor
[45:51] Salon, it looks like I was the only one
[45:53] that has not made a comment and I didn't
[45:55] want my silence to be seen as negative.
[45:57] I I I think it's a great project. I'm um
[46:00] very happy that it's coming. Um I know
[46:03] that there are people concerned about
[46:05] parking and I'm not in any way trying to
[46:07] reject their comments. As I stated in
[46:10] the last meeting, I'm happy to continue
[46:12] working with them on that. But thank you
[46:14] uh to this uh project coming forward.
[46:18] >> With that, I will call the vote all
[46:19] those in favor. And that carries
[46:21] unanimously.
[46:23] On to 14.5. And that is the zone change
[46:27] application 06-26
[46:30] Neville Street, New Hamburg, also known
[46:31] as Tri County Menanite Homes. The
[46:34] recommendation is that the report be
[46:36] received for information and that
[46:37] council approve the zone change
[46:39] application to reszone the subject lands
[46:41] from a zone 4 residential to a zone 11
[46:45] sorry and zone 11 open space to a zone
[46:47] 12 institutional and zone 11 open space
[46:50] to get this on the floor. May I have a
[46:52] mover please? Moved by councelor Sadu.
[46:54] Seconded by councelor Cresman and I will
[46:56] turn it back over to director Martin.
[47:00] >> Uh thank you Mayor Solon. Uh again, this
[47:02] application was discussed at length the
[47:04] previous uh council meeting at the
[47:06] public meeting for the application. Um
[47:08] the proposal hasn't changed since then.
[47:10] Uh it uh proposes to change the zoning
[47:13] of a current zone 4 property which
[47:15] allows for residential apartment
[47:16] building uh to zone 12 institutional
[47:19] which would allow for uh a long-term
[47:22] care facility. That's proposed. Um there
[47:24] were certainly discussions about height
[47:26] uh on the application. Uh zone 12 does
[47:28] not have a maximum height requirement.
[47:30] So that's why that doesn't appear as
[47:32] part of the requests in the application.
[47:35] The sideyard setback increases with the
[47:38] height of a building and in this
[47:39] instance uh the sideyard setback exceeds
[47:42] what would otherwise be required for a
[47:43] building of the height proposed. Um that
[47:46] does not uh um
[47:49] leave doesn't say that there isn't an
[47:51] opportunity for consideration of
[47:53] redesigns through the detailed design of
[47:55] the property because height isn't being
[47:56] proposed one way or the other with this
[47:58] application. So it provides flexibility
[48:01] uh to the ultimate design of the site.
[48:03] Um and uh you know that's generally the
[48:07] way it works with an institutional zone.
[48:09] We have other properties that uh that have those same flexibility uh for height. Um ultimately the applicant
[48:17] did review opportunities for the site to
[48:19] look at modifying the footprint of the
[48:21] building uh and based on restrictions
[48:24] from the Grand River Conservation
[48:25] Authority for slope stability and flood
[48:28] uh issues on the site. Ultimately, uh
[48:32] there isn't sufficient building envelope
[48:34] to expand, uh the site and continue to
[48:37] meet the requirements of the province's
[48:39] long-term care home design manual that
[48:42] talks about residential home areas. So,
[48:44] there was some discussion about the
[48:46] previous meeting about that. Uh and they had evaluated that through the
[48:49] design of the site. So, um, where
[48:52] they're proposing parking, uh, closer to
[48:54] Albert Street, um, ultimately to
[48:58] continue to provide ample parking for
[48:59] the site, there isn't a building
[49:00] envelope available on in that area to
[49:02] accommodate, um, kind of a a smaller
[49:05] building or a shorter building rather
[49:07] with with a bigger footprint. And so, so
[49:09] the applicant is here to speak to more
[49:11] of those technicalities as necessary.
[49:13] But it is something that was evaluated
[49:15] through the design and, uh, the
[49:17] application that's been brought forward
[49:18] is based on that. the work that they've
[49:20] undertaken to determine availability. Um
[49:23] the parking is more than what's
[49:25] requirement required for the site but
[49:28] even with reducing the parking it it
[49:30] doesn't create a new building envelope
[49:31] to support what's needed for the for the
[49:33] property. So um from a staff perspective
[49:36] uh we feel it is appropriate for the
[49:38] area. Um we think it is a is good for
[49:42] the community in terms of investment uh
[49:44] economic development uh job creation and
[49:47] supporting the continuation of of
[49:50] transition of of uh um uh of life stages
[49:53] in the community right giving
[49:55] opportunity for people to continue to
[49:56] live in New Hamburg. So um from that
[49:58] perspective uh we've don't have any
[50:01] concerns and certainly are recommending
[50:03] approval of the application.
[50:06] >> Thank you. Um, with that we do have one
[50:10] registered delegate. So I will invite
[50:11] them up to speak and then council can uh
[50:13] discuss and ask questions after. Our
[50:16] registered delegation is Brian Shots.
[50:18] Thank you very much Brian for coming
[50:20] today and I believe that you are
[50:22] representing the applicant. So you will
[50:24] have seven minutes.
[50:28] >> Good evening. I feel I'll be repeating a
[50:30] lot of what uh Mr. Martin has just said,
[50:33] but I'll go through my notes anyway. I'm
[50:35] Brian Shance with FA Design Studio.
[50:37] We're located in Waterlue and I'm here
[50:40] as authorized agent for Tri County
[50:41] Menite Homes who own the property
[50:44] located at Neville and Victoria Streets
[50:46] in New Hamburg and I'm speaking to that
[50:49] zone change application 06/26.
[50:53] In the audience is Dr. Steven Harrison
[50:55] who is the CEO of Tri County Menite
[50:57] Homes. Also,
[51:00] Tri [clears throat] County Menite Homes
[51:01] is a nonprofit organization. It's been
[51:04] providing needed services in the
[51:05] township of Wilmont since 1968.
[51:10] Quite some time. Discussions have been
[51:12] had with township staff along with other
[51:14] commenting agencies related to this
[51:15] specific project with many usual
[51:19] questions having been considered or
[51:20] addressed in the previous application
[51:22] that was for a senior's apartment
[51:24] building. It puts us at a point of
[51:26] eliminating some of the questions when
[51:28] you come forward at this stage. We have
[51:30] an understanding, staff has an
[51:32] understanding of how and when and where
[51:34] this can go forward from here. Important
[51:37] to note that the region of Waterlue,
[51:39] Grand River Conservation Authority, and
[51:42] Anova have all confirmed they have no
[51:44] concerns with this application.
[51:46] Township staff are recommending
[51:48] approval, as you've just heard again, of
[51:50] this application.
[51:52] In addition to many construction jobs
[51:54] that will be created over four years,
[51:56] Tri County will also be creating between
[51:58] five and 600 new full-time permanent
[52:01] jobs with this facility in the
[52:04] community, which is considerable in a
[52:06] community of this size along with other
[52:08] economic benefits.
[52:10] The application to be decided tonight by
[52:15] council is to allow construction of a
[52:17] new 224 bed long-term care facility on
[52:20] this property. In 2019, zoning approval
[52:23] was given for by township council to
[52:27] construct a 97 an approximately 97 unit
[52:30] seniors apartment on this site. But
[52:33] since then, the direction of the board
[52:34] of Tri County Menite has taken to focus
[52:37] more exclusively on senior care
[52:40] facilities. There's a great need. It
[52:42] should be noted that the current site
[52:44] zoning permits multiple unit residential
[52:46] uses and the proposed zoning is also for
[52:49] residential use under institutional that
[52:52] permits the long-term care.
[52:56] This is all that's being applied for. No
[52:58] other zoning matters require changes to
[53:02] the current zoning township zoning
[53:04] bylaw.
[53:06] As noted in the township report, this
[53:08] application meets the current and new
[53:10] official plan requirements. There's a
[53:12] great need for more of these facilities
[53:14] as a significant percentage of the
[53:16] population continues to move into the
[53:19] latter stages of life. Tri County
[53:21] recognize that their current facilities
[53:23] will not meet the demand and as such
[53:26] this is a wonderful opportunity for
[53:27] Wilmont to add the fac to the facilities
[53:31] that will allow more senior residents to
[53:33] remain in their own community.
[53:36] The question is no longer, and I quote
[53:38] this uh from Dr. Harrison, the question
[53:40] is no longer whether the demand for
[53:43] long-term care will grow. The evidence
[53:46] demonstrates that it will. The real
[53:48] question is whether communities like
[53:50] ours will have sufficient, modern,
[53:52] highquality, missiondriven
[53:55] capacity to meet the need. Investments
[53:57] such as this NIFT view project ensure
[54:00] that Tri County Manite is prepared to
[54:03] serve the next generation of seniors
[54:05] while strengthening the sustainability
[54:08] of Ontario's health care system. End
[54:10] quote. Tri County Menanite and Wilma
[54:14] Township are both fortunate to have been
[54:17] awarded the bed aotment from the
[54:18] ministry for this use. Not everybody
[54:21] gets it. Thank you for your thoughtful
[54:23] consideration on this matter and I'm
[54:25] here to answer any questions that your
[54:27] council may have in this application.
[54:29] >> Thank you very much, Mr. Shots. Are
[54:32] there questions of Mr. Shots while he's
[54:34] here? We'll go to councelor Dunall
[54:35] first.
[54:38] » Thank you, Mayor. I'm not sure if you
[54:40] can answer this, Mr. Shots, but there
[54:43] are um 200 and I know that they touched
[54:46] briefly on this, but there are 253
[54:48] parking spots. Um, and I know it's
[54:51] easier to go up, but um, I'm just not
[54:54] quite sure. There was a mention about
[54:57] um, Grand River Conservation and uh,
[54:59] going out in with the footprint, but I'm
[55:02] just not sure that that has been
[55:04] answered uh, to my satisfaction because
[55:07] I do have a lot of residents that live
[55:09] in that area and they're concerned. And
[55:11] please understand that I I I totally
[55:13] understand the need and the economic uh,
[55:15] benefits. I get all of that uh, with a
[55:18] mother-in-law who's been waiting over
[55:19] two years. So I understand the
[55:21] importance but I still have an issue
[55:23] with that height. Um we have four
[55:27] townships in Wateroo region and I've
[55:29] double checked there isn't one of them
[55:31] that has a building that's even close to
[55:34] this height. Um and so I I was really
[55:37] hoping that you would reconsider or
[55:40] there would be something that we could
[55:41] do not to reduce the beds. I understand
[55:43] that. but to uh widen the footprint so
[55:46] that we could lower that um height by
[55:49] even one story
[55:53] » uh through the chair to to counselor. Um
[55:57] we we spoke about this in the last
[55:59] scenario. Um I want to try to make sure
[56:02] I answer your questions on it. The one
[56:04] was about height and height uh in other
[56:07] townships. I've been a resident of
[56:09] Woolwitch Township all my life. Elmmyra
[56:13] currently has a height
[56:15] provision for eight stories in the
[56:18] downtown area. There has recently been
[56:21] built um a six-story apartment building
[56:24] within the settlement of Ommyra. Um I
[56:27] think as we all grapple with what's
[56:30] changing in our society, it takes a
[56:32] little time to adjust to the fact of
[56:34] intensification versus sprawl. Uh this
[56:38] community is well aware about concerns
[56:40] about farmland. So this is one way that
[56:42] with the anticipated growth within a
[56:45] community going up is the choice and
[56:48] repurposing of buildings is the choice
[56:50] versus sprawling wider. So in this
[56:53] particular application as I explained in
[56:55] the last meeting
[56:57] the residential housing areas the 32
[57:00] beds which is basically mandated um by
[57:03] the province and is the only efficient
[57:06] way to make it work from a staffing and
[57:08] administration standpoint.
[57:10] um that is what is taking us and and
[57:13] putting the number of stories on top of
[57:16] it. So the ground floor is in fact for
[57:19] the services for all of the building.
[57:22] The the basement, the lower level,
[57:24] that's this the background and and um
[57:28] staffing areas in this particular case.
[57:31] And then rising from level 2 to 8 is the
[57:34] actual residential housing areas times
[57:37] 32, which gets to your 224 for the
[57:40] number of beds. This is this is the
[57:43] minimum optimum thing that we're looking
[57:45] at. And I might add that um while it's
[57:48] not Wilmont um there is a proposal that
[57:52] isn't formalized yet and I'm not part of
[57:54] it but there's a similar application to
[57:57] my understanding that is forward coming
[57:59] in one of the other townships also.
[58:03] So
[58:04] we can't reduce
[58:07] we can't put it beside you spoke about
[58:10] the number of parking we exceed zoning
[58:13] minimums for parking and I tell all my
[58:16] clients for as you can tell by the white
[58:18] hair a lot of years zoning requirements
[58:20] for parking is minimums it doesn't mean
[58:23] it operates functionally so in this
[58:25] particular case with the staffing
[58:27] changes and multiple shifts they are
[58:29] staffed 24 hours a day you need to
[58:32] accomplish acccomodate your staff
[58:33] arriving before the other staff leave.
[58:37] So that creates more what we've shown
[58:39] with the 253 spaces that'll be
[58:42] fine-tuned through the site plan process
[58:44] and working with staff. We're not
[58:46] anticipating more if we can have less
[58:48] and still make sure we operate without
[58:51] having people parking on the uh street.
[58:54] Staff here would like to see their
[58:55] destination too as they've heard from
[58:56] the previous application.
[59:01] Councelor Dunstall again.
[59:02] >> Thank you. Um, and I did want to make a
[59:04] comment, but I don't want to hold him
[59:06] up. So, I will hold that um in case
[59:08] anyone else needs to speak.
[59:10] >> Okay. And yes, we'll go for questions
[59:12] for Mr. Shons first and then um we can
[59:16] go back to questions for staff and
[59:18] comment in general. Councelor Crestman
[59:19] moves first and then councelor Dens.
[59:22] >> Uh through you, mayor. Uh to uh Mr. Sh.
[59:28] uh the 32 is the common the common
[59:32] number and it as I understand it and I
[59:34] again my knowledge base is Winston Park
[59:38] because uh my father-in-law was was in
[59:41] there and they have a hub in the center
[59:44] and the cafeteria and then they go out
[59:47] down down the halls and and in a wing
[59:51] type of format and again it creates
[59:54] efficiencies and each one tends to be a
[59:57] community name in Wilma Township uh as
[1:00:01] if I'm using the Winston Park approach.
[1:00:04] And the idea is [snorts] to have as many
[1:00:08] uh residents u uh aging uh in a facility
[1:00:13] close to to their home community as
[1:00:15] possible with familiarity with names
[1:00:19] that that that can resonate with them.
[1:00:22] And so, um, I look around the horseshoe
[1:00:26] here and I'm likely the one closest
[1:00:29] [laughter] to the to the age bracket
[1:00:32] that is is going to be looking for that
[1:00:35] type of service. And and unfortunately,
[1:00:38] there wasn't a spot available in New
[1:00:40] Hamburg when either of my parents
[1:00:43] required it. Um and so I guess the I you
[1:00:48] know all of us wish we can age in place
[1:00:50] at home but when the time comes
[1:00:53] depending on our uh medical uh
[1:00:56] challenges we would hope there's an
[1:00:59] opportunity if both of us as a couple
[1:01:02] walk in the front door. there's an
[1:01:05] opportunity for us to be at least in
[1:01:08] close proximity to one another that we
[1:01:11] don't have to drive 250 up to 250
[1:01:14] kilometers to a separate facility to
[1:01:17] visit a loved one and looking at the
[1:01:20] data in Ottawa
[1:01:24] um uh two presentations
[1:01:28] the waiting list that currently is
[1:01:30] existing and the projection of the
[1:01:34] curve. It isn't flattening down or going
[1:01:37] down with the baby boom generation. It's
[1:01:40] accelerating to 2050. There is going to
[1:01:44] be an extended need for facilities. And
[1:01:48] if we can provide those to people who
[1:01:51] built this community over time, I think
[1:01:54] it's a service well rendered. So maybe
[1:01:57] that's a comment rather than a question.
[1:01:59] I apologize, but I'm pretty passionate
[1:02:02] about this.
[1:02:03] Thank you, councelor. Councelor
[1:02:05] Wilkinson, was this a question for Mr.
[1:02:07] Shant?
[1:02:08] >> Thank you through the chair. Um, I will
[1:02:11] I mean, there's a lot that's already
[1:02:12] been said and I echo uh the same
[1:02:14] sentiments and thoughts as my colleague
[1:02:16] councelor Dunstall. I think I said it
[1:02:19] before and ultimately it it really comes
[1:02:21] down to the eight stories is the the
[1:02:23] biggest issue for me. I I I want the
[1:02:25] beds. I want the jobs. I want the tax
[1:02:27] revenue. I want to see the the long-term
[1:02:30] care opportunities for local residents
[1:02:33] and and everyone. Um but ultimately it's
[1:02:36] just looking at the scale of the
[1:02:37] building and and I I feel it's going to
[1:02:39] be um out of place as proposed and and I
[1:02:42] know you mentioned the design requires
[1:02:45] this and and you can't change it. Uh I
[1:02:48] would say that's a great challenge for
[1:02:49] this community and region as a whole to
[1:02:52] take on. I'm sure if we really tapped
[1:02:54] into the right areas, we'd be able to to
[1:02:56] come up with something that may be
[1:02:58] agreeable. But my general um thought on this is that
[1:03:04] I'm very much in favor of what you're
[1:03:05] trying to do. I will definitely be in
[1:03:08] favor of the zoning change, but I'm just
[1:03:10] asking please find a way if we can to uh
[1:03:14] lower the the the height down to six
[1:03:17] stories and and make it more agreeable
[1:03:18] with what the rest of the community
[1:03:20] looks like. Um, my only fear is that
[1:03:22] approving eight stories here means the
[1:03:24] next one's going to be 10 to 12 or
[1:03:26] whatever it happens to be. I don't want
[1:03:28] to get into that at all. So, um, more so a comment really no question.
[1:03:34] Just please try and find a way if
[1:03:37] possible.
[1:03:39] >> Any other questions for Mr. Sha?
[1:03:43] Okay, I'm not seeing any. Thank you
[1:03:45] again very much, Mr. Sha, for joining us
[1:03:47] this evening. Um, now I can open it up
[1:03:49] for council if you have questions of
[1:03:51] staff or comments in general. Councelor
[1:03:54] Duntol.
[1:03:55] >> Thank you, Mayor. And again, please
[1:03:57] understand I I am really uh supportive
[1:04:00] of this uh and I and I get the need
[1:04:03] perhaps this is for director um Andrew,
[1:04:07] director Martin,
[1:04:10] having an eightstory building and I
[1:04:12] think it's nine stories when you're with
[1:04:14] the elevation changes. Um, what does
[1:04:16] that do for someone who comes in here
[1:04:19] and wants to put in an apartment? I
[1:04:20] understand that um zoned for
[1:04:24] institutional has no height limit. I get
[1:04:26] that. But do we run into an issue uh
[1:04:29] with the OOLT um with someone coming in
[1:04:32] and saying you're stopping me from
[1:04:34] building an eighth story when you
[1:04:36] already have an eighthtory building um
[1:04:39] in your township? Is that something that
[1:04:41] we're going to run into? because Lord
[1:04:43] knows we don't need a whole bunch of not
[1:04:46] 8ft sorry eightstory buildings. You
[1:04:49] know, one of the things that people said
[1:04:50] uh when we did the strategic plan was
[1:04:52] they said it was important to keep the
[1:04:54] rural field. They were very adamant
[1:04:56] about that. And again, we're not looking
[1:04:58] at sprawl here. We would not look at I I
[1:05:00] would never suggest that. So So
[1:05:02] suggesting that, you know, we don't do
[1:05:03] sprawl, we go up 100%. Yes. But that that wasn't the case here. I mean,
[1:05:09] the land is there. It's yours. Um but uh
[1:05:13] director Martin if you could answer that
[1:05:14] question for me please and then I will
[1:05:16] not speak on this again. I will just
[1:05:18] vote. Thank you.
[1:05:21] >> All right. Three Mayor Solen. Um so a
[1:05:23] couple of points there. Um we have had
[1:05:25] discussions about this and ultimately
[1:05:27] one decision doesn't mean that the next
[1:05:29] one is looked at equally like it's um
[1:05:32] there discuss discussion needs to occur
[1:05:34] on the merits of the application and the
[1:05:35] location. Um, we did introduce policies
[1:05:38] within the new official plan that uh,
[1:05:40] council adopted uh, that do have
[1:05:43] provisions in there that speak to seven
[1:05:45] stories and above. The process by which
[1:05:47] you would need to go through to justify
[1:05:49] it makes sense. So, we have included
[1:05:51] additional language for applications
[1:05:53] going forward. Um, in terms of what may
[1:05:56] happen at the OOLT, I would expect that
[1:05:59] uh, the OOLT probably won't be concerned
[1:06:01] about what's happened already. they
[1:06:02] would probably suggest that eight
[1:06:04] stories isn't that tall and to prove it.
[1:06:06] Um, but regardless of that, it was when
[1:06:08] it comes to planning decisions, they're
[1:06:10] technically not precedent setting. So,
[1:06:12] they have to every application has to be
[1:06:14] to consider upon its in own individual
[1:06:16] merits. So, in theory, if the OOLT is
[1:06:19] considering an application, they may
[1:06:21] look at what's in the area and what's
[1:06:23] been approved before, but technically a
[1:06:24] decision that's made in one case uh is
[1:06:27] doesn't mean that the same decision has
[1:06:29] to be made in the second case. So there
[1:06:31] is there is uh no suggestion that
[1:06:34] because this is approved that uh should
[1:06:36] someone make an application it's not
[1:06:38] approved it would go go to the OOLT that
[1:06:41] would automatically happen because of
[1:06:42] that. Um but it could influence a
[1:06:45] decision for sure. But what I my
[1:06:46] suggestion is that it in in the scope of
[1:06:50] height and densities eight stories
[1:06:52] probably isn't um when we're dealing
[1:06:54] with an OOLT decision wouldn't be
[1:06:56] considered a tall building. Um so I I
[1:06:59] don't expect that uh that would really
[1:07:00] come up as a concern in that. Um but
[1:07:04] ultimately short story long the answer
[1:07:06] is any decision made here doesn't
[1:07:08] automatically may mean that the same
[1:07:10] decision is made in another location.
[1:07:15] >> Councelor Wilkinson.
[1:07:17] >> Thank you through the chair. Um looking
[1:07:19] at Chief Pipe question for you. Um, and
[1:07:23] this is before your time, but there's
[1:07:25] been fire trucks that have been
[1:07:26] discussed for a long period of time. I'm
[1:07:28] curious, a building of this height, how
[1:07:30] does this affect your department and
[1:07:31] what's required on your end to uh
[1:07:33] satisfy the safety and other concerns?
[1:07:37] >> Uh, through the mayor,
[1:07:41] one of the things I need to comment on
[1:07:43] is uh there are high buildings
[1:07:44] throughout the province and a lot of
[1:07:46] places don't have aerial devices that'll
[1:07:48] reach the top of their high buildings.
[1:07:51] We do need an elevated device as a
[1:07:54] municipality. Um, and I can give you a
[1:07:57] lot of really good reasons why we do,
[1:07:59] but we don't limit the height of our
[1:08:00] buildings based on the height of our
[1:08:02] elevated device.
[1:08:06] » Any other questions or comments,
[1:08:08] council? Councelor Sto,
[1:08:12] >> thank you. Um, I've been debating this
[1:08:15] in my mind. Um, I've had a conversation
[1:08:17] with some residents who flat out told
[1:08:20] me, "You better approve this. I don't
[1:08:22] care how tall it is or how big it's
[1:08:24] going to be." Um, I did have the
[1:08:27] conversation with them saying, "Listen,
[1:08:28] it doesn't guarantee that if it is built
[1:08:31] here that you get to stay here, but they
[1:08:33] understand that." Um, overall, I think
[1:08:36] it is a it's a project that we need.
[1:08:38] It's it helps uh bring in jobs uh for subcontractors,
[1:08:44] etc., and ongoing. So, I don't know if
[1:08:48] the building height, and I do sympathize
[1:08:49] with the building height, and I do
[1:08:52] understand that it could be potentially
[1:08:53] a slippery slope, but I don't know if
[1:08:56] that is enough for me to vote down this
[1:08:58] uh report just because of the good it
[1:09:01] brings. Um, I hope there is potentially
[1:09:05] a compromise in the site select or site
[1:09:08] planning phase where maybe if we can get
[1:09:11] it uh one story lower or rejig it
[1:09:14] somehow, but uh at this moment in time,
[1:09:17] I would be in favor of it.
[1:09:21] >> We'll go to councelor Martin
[1:09:23] >> through Mayor Salon. Um I echo councelor
[1:09:27] Sadu's comments. I I have uh residents
[1:09:30] telling me that uh it's a good thing.
[1:09:34] I've said that some people are concerned
[1:09:36] about the height and they're very
[1:09:37] surprised by that, wondering why people
[1:09:40] would be concerned about the height. I
[1:09:42] realize councelor Wilkinson and
[1:09:44] councelor Dunl are talking to people
[1:09:46] that are opposed to the height and there
[1:09:48] are people in the township who are not
[1:09:50] opposed to the height. Uh so I
[1:09:53] personally think it's a good thing.
[1:09:55] >> Council Gresman.
[1:09:57] >> Yes. through you, mayor. And maybe I was
[1:10:00] remissed not asking the question uh when
[1:10:05] Mr. Sh was at the podium, but it's my
[1:10:08] understanding the current uh NITW home
[1:10:12] is going to be redeveloped into some
[1:10:15] type of apartments and uh and the 160
[1:10:20] beds are going to be the long-term care.
[1:10:24] And then with this add additional
[1:10:27] facility, it becomes an integrated
[1:10:30] uh facility where hopefully um couples
[1:10:36] can walk in the front door and then as
[1:10:39] they age, and this happened with my
[1:10:43] father-in-law and mother-in-law, as they
[1:10:45] age, one required long-term care, the
[1:10:48] other didn't. And currently the the
[1:10:52] environment is such that uh they have
[1:10:56] they may be placed uh a distance apart.
[1:11:01] In my uh in-laws case, they had been at
[1:11:04] Fairview in in Cambridge. Uh my
[1:11:08] mother-in-law got placed in Kitner and
[1:11:11] at 88 my father-in-law drove every day
[1:11:15] to see her uh from uh Cambridge to
[1:11:19] Kitchener till she passed. So I guess I look at this and say we have
[1:11:25] people who've decided to retire in
[1:11:27] Morningside.
[1:11:29] We have people who decided to retire in
[1:11:32] Stonecraftoft.
[1:11:34] uh and uh if one of them requires uh
[1:11:38] long-term care, this gives them an
[1:11:40] opportunity.
[1:11:42] Um if they both uh uh choose to
[1:11:46] downsize, they may go through the
[1:11:48] Cresman facility initially and then on
[1:11:51] to an apartment at NIT view and then uh
[1:11:54] eventually if one requires long-term
[1:11:57] care, you have an integrated system that
[1:12:00] hopefully with the additional beds will
[1:12:02] give them an opportunity here. So to my
[1:12:06] mind to have these additional beds to
[1:12:10] have the opportunity of having an
[1:12:12] integrated system. One of the first
[1:12:14] questions I asked at AMO in London years
[1:12:18] ago was this isn't rocket science. If
[1:12:22] you walk in the front door as a couple,
[1:12:25] it should be the goal to make sure that
[1:12:29] you can both age in place depending on
[1:12:32] your needs as a couple. And uh so I
[1:12:38] guess that's why I'm strongly in favor
[1:12:41] and I'm celebrating the opportunity uh
[1:12:44] that we have a nonprofit that's coming
[1:12:47] forward to take the lead on a project
[1:12:49] like this.
[1:12:51] Thank you, councelor. Um, I know a lot
[1:12:54] of that was a comment, but you did kind
[1:12:55] of have a question about beds. It would
[1:12:58] be up to council's discretion because we
[1:13:00] technically need to wave the procedural
[1:13:02] bylaw, but Dr. Harrison, who is the
[1:13:04] executive director, is in the audience
[1:13:06] and could probably speak to your
[1:13:07] question about the old beds. Um, but
[1:13:11] again, I'm in council's hands as to if
[1:13:13] you want to allow him to come up. Um,
[1:13:17] is there anyone opposed to that?
[1:13:20] No. Okay, with that, Dr. Harrison, not
[1:13:23] to put you on the spot, but if you'd
[1:13:26] like to speak to that.
[1:13:30] » Thank you, Mayor. Uh, never on the spot.
[1:13:33] Um,
[1:13:35] the board of directors hasn't decided,
[1:13:37] hasn't come up with a final decision on
[1:13:39] what we're going to do with the current
[1:13:41] NITU long-term care beds and the
[1:13:42] building that's there. Uh, we have
[1:13:45] determined a couple of things. One is
[1:13:46] that we're not tearing it down. It will
[1:13:48] be repurposed. We have invested in it
[1:13:50] over the last 10 years or so to ensure
[1:13:52] its engineering stability and you know
[1:13:56] the building has a lot of life left in
[1:13:57] it. So we're going to make sure we do
[1:13:58] that. To your comment about um couples
[1:14:03] living together or we call it a campus
[1:14:06] of care. Um it's okay. This is my world
[1:14:09] so I can use that language. Um the
[1:14:11] campus of care model we already have on
[1:14:13] the site. So we have independent living.
[1:14:15] Uh we have independent living both in an
[1:14:17] apartment and in a tower as well as in
[1:14:20] um town homes and uh sixplexes already
[1:14:23] on the site. Independent living is just
[1:14:25] what it sounds like. It is housing for
[1:14:27] seniors. It has very limited services.
[1:14:29] They are welcome to join us for meals
[1:14:31] and be part of programming that's going
[1:14:32] on, but generally it's like renting an
[1:14:34] apartment. We also have a retirement
[1:14:36] home living and currently in our
[1:14:38] retirement home we have partners of
[1:14:40] individuals who are living in long-term
[1:14:42] care. So to your point, there is no
[1:14:44] kilometers to be driven. There are steps
[1:14:46] to be taken down a air conditioner
[1:14:48] heated hallway and you can spend time
[1:14:49] with your loved one. What we're looking
[1:14:52] to do is to continue to expand that
[1:14:54] model on our campus. It it's in my mind,
[1:14:57] my personal opinion, it is probably one
[1:14:59] of the best models of senior supports
[1:15:01] and care that you can have. Um and in
[1:15:05] addition to that, the green space that
[1:15:07] is down behind the building is uh down
[1:15:10] in the valley behind is a wonderful
[1:15:12] space for residents to view into enjoy
[1:15:14] the wildlife that's there, but also to
[1:15:17] um coll we're working collaboratively
[1:15:20] with the township on a couple of
[1:15:21] different ideas for creating walking
[1:15:24] pathways through there, not only for our
[1:15:26] residents, although it's on private
[1:15:27] land, but certainly opening it up for
[1:15:29] the community to enjoy. Um
[1:15:33] my desperate plea to everyone that I
[1:15:36] speak to is that uh when you see a
[1:15:38] long-term care home or you see a
[1:15:40] senior's care community, uh it is not a
[1:15:43] place to avoid. It is a place to
[1:15:45] embrace. It is a place to come to. It is
[1:15:47] a place to make part of your journey.
[1:15:49] Not just the destination, but part of
[1:15:50] where you go to. And our residents love
[1:15:53] it. have um child care groups in the
[1:15:55] area that come walking through our areas
[1:15:57] to talk to our seniors and use the paths
[1:15:59] that we have currently. We hope to
[1:16:02] expand that. So, the model of care that
[1:16:04] we're looking to implement on that
[1:16:06] campus is um expanding due to long-term
[1:16:10] care needs, but with the emphasis on
[1:16:13] more than just long-term care. It is
[1:16:15] about engagement with the community and
[1:16:16] bringing the community in as well as
[1:16:18] allowing our residents to go out into
[1:16:20] the community which they belong to.
[1:16:22] Thanks.
[1:16:23] >> Thank you very much, Dr. Harrison. I do
[1:16:25] think Councelor Crestman has a question
[1:16:26] for you now that you're at the podium,
[1:16:27] though.
[1:16:28] >> To that end, I believe on the 18th of
[1:16:30] September, you have a barbecue that we
[1:16:33] as council have been invited to to uh
[1:16:37] your facility. I saw it in my inbox
[1:16:39] today. So,
[1:16:40] >> you would have seen that. Yes. So, um
[1:16:43] thank you for that. Uh, and this is not
[1:16:45] a promotional plug, but on the 18th of
[1:16:47] September, uh, long-term care homes
[1:16:49] across Ontario are actually celebrating
[1:16:51] what we call long-term care day. And it
[1:16:52] is an opportunity for anyone,
[1:16:54] counselors, anyone in the in the
[1:16:56] audience, staff to come out and see all
[1:16:59] the wonderful things that we do at our
[1:17:00] home. Um, the details of what is being
[1:17:04] planned have not been shared with me,
[1:17:05] but it sounds like there's going to be a
[1:17:06] barbecue, so that sounds like fun. Um,
[1:17:08] but it is an opportunity to come out and
[1:17:10] engage and and see the new building
[1:17:12] that's going on right now. Get a idea of
[1:17:15] what's coming and that's only 10 11
[1:17:18] months from now. We're supposed to be
[1:17:19] opening that building up. So, we're
[1:17:20] looking forward to that. And then, uh,
[1:17:23] engage with the seniors who live there.
[1:17:24] So, yes, keep your calendars open on the
[1:17:27] 18th if you can.
[1:17:29] >> Thank you very much. The only thing I'll
[1:17:32] warn folks, if you've never had apple
[1:17:34] pie with cheddar cheese, um, the
[1:17:36] residents will probably make you at
[1:17:38] least try it. That was my experience at
[1:17:40] the last community engagement.
[1:17:42] >> Yes.
[1:17:44] >> Thank you very much, Dr. Harrison.
[1:17:46] >> Wow.
[1:17:48] >> There you go. [laughter and gasps] Um,
[1:17:52] any other questions or comments on the
[1:17:54] zoning change application before us
[1:17:56] right now? Okay. I'm not seeing any
[1:17:59] more. I did just want to add some of my
[1:18:01] own final comments. Um I think this is a
[1:18:05] really exciting opportunity for the
[1:18:07] community for many of the reasons that
[1:18:09] council and delegates have expressed. I
[1:18:13] also think a really unique part and why
[1:18:15] I would justify
[1:18:17] this over any eightstory building
[1:18:20] because I'm not a huge fan of heights
[1:18:22] either um in terms of for planning um in
[1:18:27] our community. But we already well not
[1:18:30] we uh Tri County Menanite already has
[1:18:32] the beds approved and that is huge. Um
[1:18:36] when we talk to colleagues across the
[1:18:38] province they are desperately trying to
[1:18:41] get beds and I think it would be a huge
[1:18:43] missed opportunity when we already have
[1:18:46] a community partner who works in the
[1:18:48] community wants to expand on their
[1:18:50] campus of care and has the approved beds
[1:18:52] if we didn't approve this zoning because
[1:18:55] they're going to need to use their beds.
[1:18:56] that's tied to provincial dollars and
[1:18:58] funding. Um, so they're going to have to
[1:19:00] go somewhere and I certainly personally
[1:19:02] would rather see them in Wilmont. I also
[1:19:04] think as well the fact that they came
[1:19:07] forward um showing what the proposal was
[1:19:11] although it was only a zone change that
[1:19:12] they were seeking and as we know in in
[1:19:14] institutional zoning we don't have a
[1:19:16] height limit. Um, I think that that is
[1:19:19] really the uh partnership building and
[1:19:23] uh thoughtful growth that at least I'm
[1:19:25] looking for in our community. And I know
[1:19:26] that also they hosted um public
[1:19:29] consultation with the residents as we're
[1:19:30] aware because that was in the original
[1:19:32] report um to inform the potentially
[1:19:35] impacted residents around. I really
[1:19:38] think when we talk about aging in place
[1:19:40] and healthy whole communities, this is
[1:19:42] one step in that direction. Um, but also
[1:19:45] I can see this as completely different
[1:19:47] than somebody coming and asking for an
[1:19:49] eight-story building that's an apartment
[1:19:51] building. Um, even just in the use of
[1:19:53] it, there aren't going to be patios
[1:19:55] looking out on neighbors yards or
[1:19:58] anything as um, a long-term care
[1:20:01] facility. It will just be windows in the
[1:20:03] building. Um, and I think a lot of the
[1:20:05] things that people are concerned about
[1:20:07] can be discussed in the detailed design
[1:20:09] phase as well. Um, so I'm personally
[1:20:12] very supportive of this and think it's a
[1:20:14] really great opportunity. Also, pending
[1:20:16] that it gets approved. I look forward to
[1:20:18] seeing this uh happen for our community.
[1:20:20] Plus, 5 to 600 new full-time permanent
[1:20:22] jobs um is huge for a community like
[1:20:26] ours, especially when uh I think many of
[1:20:28] us and our residents don't want to see
[1:20:29] us become bedroom communities.
[1:20:32] Um, with that, I don't see any other
[1:20:35] questions or comments. So, I will call
[1:20:37] the vote. All those in favor and that
[1:20:40] carries unanimously.
[1:20:43] Um, now I did notice I believe our
[1:20:46] delegate from item
[1:20:50] 13.3
[1:20:53] um has arrived
[1:20:56] and that is uh Ro um Durgo.
[1:21:01] So, I just want to let you know, Ro, we
[1:21:03] did already council did pass um the item
[1:21:06] that you were coming to speak on, but
[1:21:08] you are absolutely still welcome to
[1:21:11] speak if you would like to. I'm happy to
[1:21:12] give you your time.
[1:21:15] >> Okay. Thank you. Um for those online,
[1:21:18] he's declined his opportunity to speak,
[1:21:20] but you are of course welcome to reach
[1:21:22] out to council as well um if you have
[1:21:24] any further correspondence you'd like to
[1:21:26] share with us.
[1:21:27] >> Okay. Thank you. Um on to item 14.6
[1:21:33] and councelor Cresman does have a
[1:21:35] conflict. So just noting that uh the
[1:21:37] recommendation is that this report on
[1:21:40] the zone change application 05-26 Grich
[1:21:43] Road in Ben
[1:21:45] uh be received for information and that
[1:21:47] council approve the zone change
[1:21:48] application as set out in the draft
[1:21:50] bylaw included as attachment B to the
[1:21:53] report. To get this on the floor, may I
[1:21:55] have a mover, please? Moved by councelor
[1:21:57] Martin, seconded by councelor Sadu, and
[1:22:00] I will turn it back over to director
[1:22:02] Martin to present this report.
[1:22:05] >> Uh, thank you, Mayor Solen. Very
[1:22:07] briefly, uh, this application proposes
[1:22:09] to change the zoning of lands that are
[1:22:11] already designated in the current
[1:22:13] official plan for employment purposes.
[1:22:14] Uh, this is the next step in uh,
[1:22:17] facilitating development of employment
[1:22:19] lands. Um, there was a delay from the
[1:22:21] time of designation to the zoning to
[1:22:23] allow for some of the work that was
[1:22:24] occurring on Gingrich Road. uh the
[1:22:26] twinning of a storm sewer under the road
[1:22:28] allowed for um alterations to the flood
[1:22:31] limits on this site which uh optimizes
[1:22:33] the development opportunity. So uh once
[1:22:35] that work was completed, they then
[1:22:36] proceeded with the zoning application
[1:22:38] before you uh and staff are recommending
[1:22:41] approval.
[1:22:43] >> Thank you very much. Questions or
[1:22:45] comments on this one, council?
[1:22:49] Councelor Wilkinson, is that a hand up?
[1:22:52] Okay, you may speak.
[1:22:55] through the chair. Um,
[1:22:58] I'm just curious, uh, Director Martin,
[1:23:00] if there's been any indication as to
[1:23:01] what types of, uh, what types of
[1:23:04] development we would anticipate here,
[1:23:08] uh, with this resoning. Just curious.
[1:23:11] >> Um, through May, there is a lot of
[1:23:13] flexibility. One of the things the
[1:23:15] zoning does really um, restrict though
[1:23:18] is uses that would impact the plan
[1:23:20] residential uh, to the north. So heavy
[1:23:23] industry realist realistically wouldn't
[1:23:25] occur here, but um it could be any kind
[1:23:27] of warehousing, office, small shops. Um
[1:23:30] there's a there's there's multiple
[1:23:32] opportunities there. We have had people
[1:23:34] that have connected with us. We've
[1:23:36] direct them to the estate to uh to to
[1:23:38] see if there's opportunities there. So
[1:23:39] there's there's lots of interest. What
[1:23:41] lands there, I I I don't know for sure.
[1:23:46] >> Thank you. Any other questions or
[1:23:48] comments, council? Okay, seeing none,
[1:23:50] all those in favor?
[1:23:53] And that carries unanimously.
[1:23:56] And on to 14.7.
[1:24:00] Uh, this is the community improvement
[1:24:02] plan brownfield financial incentive
[1:24:04] program. The recommendation is that the
[1:24:07] report be received for information and
[1:24:08] that council designate the whole
[1:24:10] township of Wilmont as a community
[1:24:12] improvement project area for the purpose
[1:24:13] of establishing a community improvement
[1:24:15] plan and that council approve and adopt
[1:24:18] the township of Wilmont community
[1:24:20] improvement plan brownfield financial
[1:24:21] incentive program joint tax increment
[1:24:24] grant included as attachment A to this
[1:24:27] report to get this on the floor. May I
[1:24:28] have a mover? Moved by councelor
[1:24:31] Wilkinson, seconded by councelor Martin.
[1:24:33] and I will now turn it over to our
[1:24:35] senior policy planner, Rachel Green, to
[1:24:37] introduce this report.
[1:24:40] >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor and
[1:24:41] members of council. Uh, as a quick
[1:24:43] recap, brownfield sites are typically
[1:24:46] formal former industrial or commercial
[1:24:49] properties with environmental
[1:24:50] contamination that can make
[1:24:52] redevelopment challenging and costly. So
[1:24:55] the proposed program um incentive is a
[1:24:58] joint tax increment or TIG um and will
[1:25:01] be de delivered in partnership with the
[1:25:03] region of water. Um the name has been
[1:25:05] adjusted slightly since this is last in
[1:25:07] front of you to ensure alignment with
[1:25:09] the region's program. Um so rather than
[1:25:13] providing upfront
[1:25:15] funding, the grant returns the increased
[1:25:17] property taxes generated after a site is
[1:25:19] remediated and redeveloped. So it's it's
[1:25:21] the same program. It hasn't changed.
[1:25:23] We've just made some tweaks to make sure
[1:25:25] that it aligns with the region's
[1:25:27] program. So, applicants must demonstrate
[1:25:29] eligibility as a brownfield site and
[1:25:31] complete remediation requirements,
[1:25:33] including obtaining a record of site
[1:25:34] condition. Um, and in response to a
[1:25:36] question at the public meeting um from
[1:25:38] council. Um, this would apply in a
[1:25:41] situation where contamination is
[1:25:43] discovered during construction um after
[1:25:46] a permit has already been issued,
[1:25:48] provided the applicant files a record of
[1:25:49] site condition. Um so staff worked
[1:25:53] closely with regional staff to align the
[1:25:55] program. This approach provides
[1:25:57] applicants with access to larger
[1:25:59] incentive creates consistency across the
[1:26:01] region and allows Wilmont to leverage
[1:26:03] existing regional expertise um and
[1:26:06] administrative processes. So following
[1:26:08] the public meeting uh held in July, no p
[1:26:11] further public or agency comments were
[1:26:13] received. Uh overall, the proposed cap
[1:26:16] provides a practical tool to encourage
[1:26:18] brownfield redevelopment by helping
[1:26:20] offset remediation costs and leveling
[1:26:22] the playing field between brownfield and
[1:26:24] greenfield development.
[1:26:28] » Thank you very much, uh councelor
[1:26:29] Dunstall.
[1:26:32] » Thank you, Mayor. I mean, I think this
[1:26:34] is great. It will uh help with economic
[1:26:37] development. My question to you is you
[1:26:39] had mentioned that um it applies if
[1:26:42] construction has has begun and they run
[1:26:44] into the issue. What about where there's
[1:26:46] a site where there is already knowledge
[1:26:49] that there is going to be an issue?
[1:26:51] Would it apply there as well encouraging
[1:26:53] someone to go and u to uh to build
[1:26:57] something uh that would help our
[1:26:59] community
[1:27:01] >> through the mayor? Yes. So normally
[1:27:04] prior to development if it was a
[1:27:06] industrial or commercial property and
[1:27:08] it's going to be converted to say
[1:27:10] residential usually there'll be um an
[1:27:13] investigation to see if there's
[1:27:14] contamination at the outset and that's
[1:27:16] when they can start looking into the
[1:27:18] program and staff along with the region
[1:27:22] and township will hold a pre-conultation
[1:27:24] meeting and go through what requirements
[1:27:26] would be um part of
[1:27:30] um being qualified as elible ible and
[1:27:33] then
[1:27:35] once that process happens there's a form
[1:27:38] and then we would provide a letter to
[1:27:39] the applicant and then final approval
[1:27:41] would come to council.
[1:27:45] » Any other questions or comments? Council
[1:27:47] Martin.
[1:27:49] >> Mayor Salin. I I'm not sure um uh Rachel
[1:27:53] if this question is for you or if it's
[1:27:55] for someone else and and maybe it can't
[1:27:57] be answered tonight because I didn't
[1:27:58] think of it until we were in this
[1:27:59] discussion. Um I I I was thinking about
[1:28:02] Sudbury uh and and in the past 40 years
[1:28:06] the uh significant improvement that has
[1:28:08] happened in that community and and
[1:28:11] environmentalists uh commenting uh about
[1:28:14] um uh how how uh environmentally uh uh
[1:28:19] the the great improvements that have
[1:28:20] occurred in the past 40 years. So by uh
[1:28:23] designating all of our township as uh um
[1:28:27] eligible uh for this, is that along the
[1:28:30] same line as what happened in Sudbury
[1:28:33] over the past 40 years? Is there a
[1:28:35] comparison? Does anybody know? And if
[1:28:37] nobody knows, it's not fair to spring on
[1:28:40] a question that uh I hadn't thought of
[1:28:42] in advance.
[1:28:48] I I your mayor son I think it's fair to
[1:28:50] say I don't think we're in a position to
[1:28:52] answer whether it's comparable to
[1:28:53] Sudbury but it in the case of Wilmont it
[1:28:56] does provide more flexibility so it's
[1:28:58] not a defined area it provide the same
[1:29:00] opportunity throughout the entire
[1:29:01] township.
[1:29:04] » Any other questions or comments?
[1:29:06] Councelor President.
[1:29:08] >> Yes. Just ask add clarity. My
[1:29:11] interpretation of the entire township
[1:29:14] was That meant regardless of where the
[1:29:17] site was located, it would be eligible.
[1:29:21] And therefore, it wasn't specific to say
[1:29:24] my backyard is a brownfield site. But it
[1:29:27] means that, you know, if there is a
[1:29:30] brownfield site located anywhere in the
[1:29:33] township, it isn't ruled out in terms of
[1:29:36] eligibility
[1:29:40] through the mayor. That's correct.
[1:29:42] Any other questions or comments?
[1:29:45] Okay, seeing none, um I actually did
[1:29:49] have one question. I just wanted to make
[1:29:51] sure I know that you've mentioned if
[1:29:53] they find contamination after the
[1:29:55] permits that uh they could apply.
[1:29:59] This is not retroactive though, correct?
[1:30:01] Because we've not had a program in
[1:30:03] place. I just want to make sure we don't
[1:30:04] suddenly have an influx of people who
[1:30:06] have remediated Brownfield.
[1:30:09] >> So through the mayor, we haven't put a
[1:30:11] date on. So if there has been a site
[1:30:13] that has been remediated but not yet
[1:30:16] started their redevelopment, they could
[1:30:18] be still eligible.
[1:30:19] >> Okay. But if the redevelopment is done,
[1:30:22] they cannot come for the T. Okay.
[1:30:25] Correct.
[1:30:25] >> All right. Thank you for that clarity.
[1:30:28] Um with that, I will call the vote. All
[1:30:29] those in favor?
[1:30:31] >> And that carries unanimously. On to
[1:30:34] 14.8. And this is the salt site
[1:30:37] alteration background report. Uh the
[1:30:40] recommendation is to receive this for
[1:30:41] information and that staff be directed
[1:30:43] to return to council in February 2027 to
[1:30:45] seek direction on which option to pursue
[1:30:47] as outlined in the report. Do I have a
[1:30:50] mover for this? Moved by councelor
[1:30:52] Cresman, seconded by councelor Sadu. And
[1:30:54] I will turn it back over to Miss Green.
[1:30:58] Thank you. So the report this evening
[1:31:00] was prepared in collaboration with
[1:31:02] infrastructure services. Um and it
[1:31:04] builds on council's previous direction
[1:31:05] to explore a site alteration bylaw. um
[1:31:08] provides an overview of the current
[1:31:09] regulatory framework, the township's
[1:31:12] existing tools and potential options
[1:31:13] moving forward. So site alteration
[1:31:16] involves the placement of fill, removal
[1:31:17] of soil, or changes to the grading. Um
[1:31:20] these activities can support development
[1:31:22] and improve site conditions, but they
[1:31:24] can also create impacts related to truck
[1:31:26] traffic, road damage, dust, noise,
[1:31:28] drainage, erosion, sedimentation.
[1:31:30] Um and so site alteration is already
[1:31:34] partially regulated through several
[1:31:36] existing provincial and agency
[1:31:37] frameworks. So the province regulates
[1:31:40] excess soil quality and reuse um with
[1:31:43] requirements generally increasing as
[1:31:45] projects become larger and more complex
[1:31:48] specifically for large projects over
[1:31:50] 10,000 cubic meters or 800 to,400
[1:31:54] standard dump trucks that fill. Uh the
[1:31:56] GRCA also has regulations and they
[1:31:59] regulate uh fill placement over a
[1:32:01] thousand cubic meters or 80 to 140 dump
[1:32:05] trucks um within regulated areas such as
[1:32:07] wetlands, flood planes, and water
[1:32:09] courses.
[1:32:10] Uh the township has several tools
[1:32:13] available to address impacts associated
[1:32:14] with fill and grading activities. So for
[1:32:16] example, through the planning process,
[1:32:18] currently staff can already require
[1:32:20] technical studies and secure mitigation
[1:32:22] measures through development agreements.
[1:32:24] Um the township's existing noise bylaw
[1:32:26] can address concerns related to
[1:32:27] construction noise and equipment
[1:32:29] operation. Um there's an existing
[1:32:31] traffic and parking bylaw um that
[1:32:34] relates to heavy vehicle parking and
[1:32:36] truck restrictions. Um however, township
[1:32:39] can only regulate roads under its own or
[1:32:41] jurisdiction. Um so these wouldn't apply
[1:32:43] to regional or provincial roads. Um the
[1:32:46] township also has authority under the
[1:32:48] municipal act to consider additional
[1:32:50] nuisance related bylaws addressing
[1:32:52] concerns such as dust odors and
[1:32:53] vibration. And so the key considerations
[1:32:56] for council is determining the preferred
[1:32:58] municipal role in regulating the
[1:33:00] location scale and operational impacts
[1:33:02] of site alteration activities. Um so
[1:33:05] there's a few options um that we've kind
[1:33:08] of looked at. And so the first option A
[1:33:11] is maintaining the status quo and not
[1:33:13] introducing a site alteration bylaw. We
[1:33:15] would continue to rely on existing
[1:33:17] provincial soil quality regulations,
[1:33:19] DRCA permitting and municipal by bylaws.
[1:33:22] Um, this option has the lowest
[1:33:24] administration and financial impact. Um,
[1:33:27] however, the township would have limited
[1:33:29] ability to proactively oversee um
[1:33:32] impacts related to site alteration or
[1:33:34] require securities to address
[1:33:36] infrastructure impacts to roads for
[1:33:38] example.
[1:33:40] Um the second option we looked at option
[1:33:42] B would be regulating large fill sites
[1:33:44] only um which have the greatest
[1:33:46] potential to impact roads,
[1:33:47] infrastructure and the environment. Um
[1:33:50] it would allow the township to permit um
[1:33:53] have conditions security collect
[1:33:54] securities and enter into an agreements
[1:33:56] for large operations to mitigate impacts
[1:33:59] um and represents a balance between
[1:34:01] increased oversight and manageable
[1:34:03] resource requirements. And then third is
[1:34:05] option C um which is to regulate all
[1:34:08] site alteration activities um from small
[1:34:11] to large projects. Um this provides the
[1:34:14] highest level of m municipal oversight
[1:34:16] but would require significant commitment
[1:34:18] of staff time for permit review,
[1:34:21] inspections, compliance, monitoring and
[1:34:23] enforcement and could potentially
[1:34:25] require additional staffing resources
[1:34:26] and ongoing operating funding but may be
[1:34:29] offset by permit fees.
[1:34:31] So overall, this report is intended to
[1:34:34] help council determine the township's
[1:34:35] preferred role in regulating site
[1:34:37] alteration activities. Um, right now
[1:34:39] we're just recommending the that it be
[1:34:42] received for information and bring it
[1:34:43] back to a future council meeting in
[1:34:45] February. Thanks.
[1:34:48] >> Thank you very much. Questions, council,
[1:34:51] councilman.
[1:34:53] >> Yes. uh through you mayor uh
[1:34:57] to um manager green. Um I'm looking at the two different options. I think uh
[1:35:06] certainly at this point in time B is the
[1:35:09] one that would catch my eye. Um I'm
[1:35:13] wondering 10,000 cubic meters. Um, given
[1:35:20] at least one active site here in the in
[1:35:24] the township, uh, uh, I would assume
[1:35:27] they surpass that and do they have an
[1:35:31] exemption because quote unquote they're
[1:35:33] looking at
[1:35:35] um, farming
[1:35:38] and so I thought, is that a giant
[1:35:41] loophole?
[1:35:43] I am a farmer, but is that a giant
[1:35:45] loophole that you could drive massive
[1:35:48] truck through? So, I'm just asking the
[1:35:52] question
[1:35:53] >> and I'd maybe just tailor it not to that
[1:35:56] specific site, but in general, is
[1:35:58] agricultural activity
[1:36:01] like that a potential loophole? through
[1:36:04] the merit. The municipal act does allow
[1:36:06] exemptions or requires exemptions for
[1:36:09] agricultural
[1:36:10] specific
[1:36:12] uh site alteration. So we would have to
[1:36:16] look and ensure that it meets what is
[1:36:19] defined as agriculture in that respect
[1:36:23] and ensure that if it meets that then it
[1:36:25] would be exempt from getting a permit if
[1:36:27] we were to implement a program.
[1:36:31] >> Thank you. I council Dunto.
[1:36:33] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you, uh,
[1:36:36] Miss Green. And I I think this is is
[1:36:38] very timely and I think we definitely
[1:36:40] need to have something put into place.
[1:36:42] My understanding is the abuing, uh,
[1:36:44] municipalities already have something.
[1:36:46] And so my concern is that there will be
[1:36:48] more dumping in Wilmont. We certainly
[1:36:50] don't need that. Uh, my question to you
[1:36:52] is how how many fill operations uh, are
[1:36:56] there currently operating? Do you know?
[1:36:59] >> From my understanding, two. Um but I'll
[1:37:02] defer to management if they have any
[1:37:05] other knowledge of any others
[1:37:08] >> uh through Mana. No, I we're aware of
[1:37:10] two larger operations uh in the township
[1:37:13] and that's that's all we're aware of at
[1:37:14] this point.
[1:37:17] >> Any other questions or comments?
[1:37:19] Councelor Wilkinson.
[1:37:21] >> Thank you through the chair. I know um
[1:37:23] there's one particular site that comes
[1:37:25] up quite a bit, but I will say that you
[1:37:27] know there is a um I can't remember the
[1:37:29] exact body that that governs it uh at
[1:37:32] the moment, but there there is
[1:37:33] definitely tracking and information
[1:37:35] related to where that fill is coming
[1:37:37] from on um and if anybody's curious,
[1:37:40] they can email me. I'm happy to send it
[1:37:42] to them. Um it's just escaping me at the
[1:37:44] moment. Uh but with that said, I mean I I concur with councelor Cresman.
[1:37:49] option B is is probably the the
[1:37:52] preferred option when we get there in
[1:37:53] February. Um but ultimately this will be
[1:37:56] a decision that uh we're not going to
[1:37:58] make tonight. So yeah, we definitely
[1:38:00] want to see it though.
[1:38:04] I did have one question and it's just on
[1:38:07] timing. Um I know right now the
[1:38:10] recommended motion is to refer back for
[1:38:12] February 2027. I'm just wondering does
[1:38:15] it make more sense to tie it in with
[1:38:18] budget and as we don't know with the new
[1:38:20] council when budget will be coming. The
[1:38:22] only reason I ask is because two of your
[1:38:24] options as you noted do have financial
[1:38:27] impacts. Um curious if that's an issue
[1:38:30] or if there was a particular reason that
[1:38:32] February was proposed. I just don't want
[1:38:34] it to come out of pace with the budget
[1:38:37] if there is if council in the future
[1:38:40] decides on B or C as the option to
[1:38:42] proceed with.
[1:38:44] >> I'm going to defer to director Martin.
[1:38:48] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. So the the February
[1:38:50] date was more to allow for an
[1:38:52] opportunity for a new council to be
[1:38:54] adjusted. Um there would be public
[1:38:57] consultation requirements. So in in
[1:38:59] theory, we could tie it to a budget
[1:39:01] process, but um prior to February, there
[1:39:05] really won't be a significant
[1:39:07] opportunity to go to a public public
[1:39:09] meeting uh to advertise, you know, the
[1:39:12] proposal. So that's where we were uh we
[1:39:15] were looking at the later date. um you
[1:39:18] know initially depending on what the
[1:39:20] what what what uh what option is looked
[1:39:23] at um there there's components of that could could come through without
[1:39:27] significant impacts initially um knowing
[1:39:29] that if you know next stages of that
[1:39:31] would have financial implications would
[1:39:33] allow for the opportunity to be
[1:39:34] considered at a future budget meeting as
[1:39:36] well. So, um, future budget, meaning
[1:39:38] 2028. Uh,
[1:39:41] but I guess we can, you know, it's up to
[1:39:43] council's direction on how they'd like
[1:39:45] us to proceed at this point. Um, but
[1:39:47] primarily the date was there to allow
[1:39:49] for public consultation with a new
[1:39:51] council after the election. Uh, and you
[1:39:54] know, new council settled in for a
[1:39:56] month.
[1:39:58] >> Okay. Um, that answer satisfies my
[1:40:01] question. Councelor Cresman.
[1:40:03] >> Yes. Through you, mayor. One further
[1:40:05] question. Uh anecdotally there was
[1:40:08] always the comment that you once a a um
[1:40:14] excess soil uh site had been initiated
[1:40:18] it couldn't be uh regulated. Uh and so
[1:40:22] I'm wondering is that a felicious
[1:40:25] assumption or is that uh if we had
[1:40:29] option option B that uh we could in fact
[1:40:33] regulate something that's existing
[1:40:37] >> through the mayor. So should we go down
[1:40:40] the path of implementing a site
[1:40:41] alteration bylaw, we'd probably look at
[1:40:43] some transition um policy to be put in
[1:40:47] there. there would likely not be an
[1:40:49] opportunity to regulate what's been
[1:40:51] done, but if there was an increase in
[1:40:53] the area or the increase in the volume
[1:40:56] of fill moving forward, that could
[1:40:58] potentially fall under a bylaw.
[1:41:01] >> Thank you. I'm not seeing any other
[1:41:04] questions or comments. Again, tonight,
[1:41:06] this is just to receive for information
[1:41:08] and then um have staff bring this back
[1:41:10] to council in February 2027. So, I will
[1:41:14] call the question. All those in favor?
[1:41:16] and that's carried unanimously. Uh on to
[1:41:19] report 14.9 and this is the Mannheim
[1:41:22] service area water allocation policy.
[1:41:25] The recommendation is that council
[1:41:27] receives this report for information and
[1:41:29] that council approve the bylaw and
[1:41:31] policy as attached um as attachment A to
[1:41:35] this report and that council delegate
[1:41:37] authority to the director of development
[1:41:39] services or in their absence the
[1:41:40] director of infrastructure services to
[1:41:42] be delegated delegated to make
[1:41:44] allocation decisions pursuant to the
[1:41:46] policy as in attachment A and that the
[1:41:49] director of development services or in
[1:41:51] their absence the director of
[1:41:52] infrastructure services be delegated
[1:41:55] um report to council when an allocation
[1:41:57] has been assigned pursuant to the policy
[1:42:00] which is noted in attachment A and that
[1:42:02] the mayor and the clerk be authorized to
[1:42:03] execute the allocation policy
[1:42:05] administrative agreement jointly entered
[1:42:08] into with the region of waterl city of
[1:42:10] Cambridge city of Kitchener city of
[1:42:11] water and township of Wulitch to
[1:42:13] implement the region of waterlue
[1:42:14] allocation policy to get this on the
[1:42:16] floor may I have a mover moved by
[1:42:18] councelor Sue seconded by councelor
[1:42:20] Martin and I will turn it back over to
[1:42:22] director Sorry.
[1:42:24] >> Uh thank you, Mayor Salin. Uh so this uh
[1:42:26] this report um was dealt with to a
[1:42:30] certain extent with other municipalities
[1:42:31] earlier. Um ultimately uh it looks at
[1:42:35] the water allocation to Wilmont within
[1:42:37] the Manahide service area which is a
[1:42:39] very small piece of the overall
[1:42:40] equation. Uh hence our late uh arrival
[1:42:43] to council with this. Um ultimately in
[1:42:45] May, the region approved a region uh
[1:42:48] water supply allocation policy that
[1:42:50] looked at assigning buckets of capacity
[1:42:52] to municipalities based on growth
[1:42:54] potential in those areas and and uh
[1:42:56] official plan designations where growth
[1:42:57] was going to occur. And then um in June
[1:43:00] of 26, they adopted an interimm risk
[1:43:02] management that looked at you know those
[1:43:04] buckets of of allocation what that
[1:43:07] number would be in the time frame. So
[1:43:09] ultimately in that uh Wilmet has
[1:43:11] allocated 0.01% 01% of the overall piece
[1:43:15] which um in the July uh bucket that was
[1:43:19] allocated would mean one person uh to
[1:43:21] Wilmont over the course of the uh the risk management process to 2030 uh
[1:43:27] one that means 17 people. Uh so we're
[1:43:31] not talking a lot of allocation. We also
[1:43:33] don't have a lot of plan growth within
[1:43:35] the uh service uh the Manheim service
[1:43:37] area limited implications. Um but should
[1:43:41] those numbers change, should there be
[1:43:42] additional water, um that percentage
[1:43:44] could mean a larger number and could
[1:43:46] have some implications for for some
[1:43:48] potential areas in in your St. Agatha or
[1:43:50] Manheim areas. Um so we feel it's
[1:43:53] prudent to be part of that uh to enter
[1:43:56] into the agreement that the other
[1:43:57] municipalities have already entered into
[1:43:59] which is one part of the recommendation
[1:44:01] and then we've basically uh with some
[1:44:03] minor modifications to reflect Wilmont.
[1:44:06] We've uh the proposed policy is
[1:44:08] reflective of what Woolwitch has already
[1:44:09] passed uh to deal with allocation. Uh so
[1:44:12] it provides you know scenario what the
[1:44:14] priorities would be if we were to have a
[1:44:16] bucket. Again, we're dealing with 17
[1:44:18] people to 2031, so it's not a a
[1:44:20] significant piece to deal with, but it
[1:44:23] provides a framework on how you'd make
[1:44:24] decisions about allocation going
[1:44:26] forward. So, from that perspective, the idea would be if if council were to
[1:44:30] support this, we would execute the
[1:44:32] agreement that the other municipalities
[1:44:33] have already, which would then mean that
[1:44:36] we would receive our small uh allocation
[1:44:39] and we would have an opportunity to hold
[1:44:40] on to that until there's a need to
[1:44:43] allocate.
[1:44:45] Council Gresman,
[1:44:48] >> I would say this policy is a little bit
[1:44:52] dripping with iron irony, but I I would
[1:44:57] say uh the 19 LERs per second that they
[1:45:01] took serendip
[1:45:05] our knowledge
[1:45:07] 30 liters, sorry, uh from 2019. Um
[1:45:12] anyhow I I certainly support this but uh
[1:45:17] the question I have I guess to either uh
[1:45:21] director Martin or director Vanderwal is
[1:45:23] about the Ben well that we know has
[1:45:27] issues
[1:45:28] uh and they haven't got a clear uh it is
[1:45:33] indirectly connected I believe to the
[1:45:35] Mannheim system to supply some of our
[1:45:38] water is it not or it's being
[1:45:41] supplemented or how is that? Um, so I
[1:45:46] guess that's the question.
[1:45:48] >> Uh, and I'll attempt to answer if I've
[1:45:51] missed anything then Mr. Vanderwal would
[1:45:53] be able to respond. But we technically
[1:45:56] uh the system would be they're
[1:45:58] connected. It would be a matter of
[1:46:01] turning the tap in a different
[1:46:02] direction, but it's it's not it's not
[1:46:04] feeding the system at this point, but
[1:46:06] the infrastructure provides the
[1:46:08] opportunity that it could in theory, but
[1:46:10] uh that that isn't part of the current
[1:46:13] uh Ben and New Hamburg water system if
[1:46:15] those wells were to come online and be
[1:46:16] part of that. It isn't it isn't the way
[1:46:18] it works presently, but um there would
[1:46:21] be an opportunity uh for that to occur.
[1:46:25] Just just to through you may mer to
[1:46:28] clarify my question which uh is Mannheim
[1:46:32] currently serving Ben because of the
[1:46:36] challenges with that well uh I guess is
[1:46:40] what my question is. Sorry I missed the part of that question there.
[1:46:45] So the answer is no. Ven is not serviced
[1:46:47] by man.
[1:46:51] » Any other questions or comments on this
[1:46:52] report? Okay, seeing none, all those in
[1:46:55] favor and that carries unanimously.
[1:46:59] On to 14.10 and the recommendation is to
[1:47:04] receive uh the tax aer status update for
[1:47:08] information to get this on the floor.
[1:47:09] May I have a mover, please? Moved by
[1:47:11] councelor Sedu, seconded by councelor
[1:47:12] Martin. And I will turn it over to our
[1:47:15] supervisor of taxation and revenue,
[1:47:16] Emily Woon, to introduce this report.
[1:47:20] >> Good evening, Mayor Salin and members of
[1:47:21] council. The tax rear status update
[1:47:24] report before you tonight provides an
[1:47:25] update on the township's property tax
[1:47:28] rears as of July 31st, 2026, together
[1:47:32] with an overview of the legislative
[1:47:34] framework, uh the collection processes
[1:47:36] used by finance staff and the current
[1:47:38] status of properties identified as being
[1:47:40] eligible for tax sale this year. Thank
[1:47:43] you.
[1:47:45] >> Thank you very much. Are there questions
[1:47:47] or comments on this council? Councelor
[1:47:49] Wilkinson.
[1:47:51] >> [clears throat]
[1:47:51] >> Uh thank you through the chair. Um
[1:47:55] I I guess uh
[1:47:57] more a comment I guess cause for alarm
[1:47:59] in reading this report when we start to
[1:48:01] see the numbers u uh of tax sales that
[1:48:06] could potentially be pursued and at the
[1:48:08] same time looking at the number of
[1:48:10] households that are in a rears. Um, you
[1:48:13] know, it's a rather large number and and
[1:48:16] I I guess I'm curious uh to the manager
[1:48:20] if if you've heard an overarching theme
[1:48:22] as to what's driving the arars or could
[1:48:25] you comment on that at all because this
[1:48:27] is a very high number obviously
[1:48:30] through you mayor to council. Um, so I
[1:48:32] do want to note that the properties that
[1:48:35] are identified as being inner rears are
[1:48:39] ranging in balance. So, anything greater
[1:48:41] than a $0 balance is considered an
[1:48:44] outstanding account. Um, there was no
[1:48:47] threshold used when when deciding to
[1:48:49] include balances in this report. So, we
[1:48:52] have a number of properties with
[1:48:54] balances less than $1,000 um spanning
[1:48:57] larger than that. Um, so I just want to
[1:49:00] note that of the properties that are
[1:49:02] identified as being inner rears, the
[1:49:04] 2,936
[1:49:06] properties, 1,487
[1:49:09] of them have balances less than $1,000.
[1:49:12] So that's about 51 almost% of those
[1:49:16] properties with balances less than
[1:49:17] $1,000, which would be considered lower
[1:49:21] balances. Um, I do also want to note
[1:49:24] that there are a number of properties
[1:49:27] identified that are currently enrolled
[1:49:29] into a pre-authorized payment plan with
[1:49:31] the municipality with the expectation
[1:49:33] that by year end balances that are
[1:49:36] outstanding would be collected through
[1:49:38] those payment arrangements. Um so as of
[1:49:42] now yes there are properties in a rears
[1:49:44] but when we look at the amount of the
[1:49:47] rears and also the plans that are in
[1:49:49] place we are in moving in a direction
[1:49:51] for those rears to be mostly paid by the
[1:49:54] end of the year. Um now in respect to
[1:49:57] the properties eligible for tax sale
[1:49:59] there are 67 properties identified as
[1:50:02] being eligible for tax sale. Um when we
[1:50:05] compare to prior years last year tax
[1:50:09] sale efforts weren't um conducted and
[1:50:11] from what I can see from prior years
[1:50:14] properties 3 years and greater in a
[1:50:16] rears seemed to be what was used as the
[1:50:19] benchmark for eligibility. Um in 2017
[1:50:22] legislation changed under under the
[1:50:24] municipal act to allow properties two
[1:50:27] years in a rears to become eligible for
[1:50:29] tax sale which is what I have used as
[1:50:31] the benchmark for determining
[1:50:33] eligibility. So we we're seeing an
[1:50:37] increase in number this year but from
[1:50:39] what I can see from prior years it's
[1:50:41] different criteria that's being
[1:50:42] identified in the current year. Um, I do
[1:50:46] also want to note on the 67 properties
[1:50:48] that have been identified, the deadline
[1:50:50] for property owners to contact the
[1:50:52] municipality is August 31st. Um, as of
[1:50:56] this past Friday, we've already received
[1:50:59] almost $200,000
[1:51:01] towards the tax sale balance uh or the
[1:51:04] tax arers eligible for tax sale. Um and
[1:51:08] so that represents about 22 properties
[1:51:10] that have either paid their rears in
[1:51:12] full um have entered into a payment plan
[1:51:14] or have paid sufficient balances to
[1:51:17] remove themselves from tax sale
[1:51:19] eligibility for this year. So we are
[1:51:21] making really great progress already on
[1:51:23] collecting on those arars just through
[1:51:25] our standard collection process without
[1:51:28] escalating to registration for tax sale.
[1:51:32] >> Councelor Wilkinson.
[1:51:34] >> Thank you through the chair. Uh,
[1:51:35] appreciate the the depth of that
[1:51:37] response. I just want to clarify one
[1:51:39] item. Um, when you say the the
[1:51:42] properties in a rears that are less than
[1:51:44] $1,000, but you mentioned um the
[1:51:47] pre-authorized payment plan. So, are you
[1:51:50] suggesting that there are a number of
[1:51:52] houses here that would be in regular
[1:51:54] compliance making regular monthly
[1:51:56] payments um but they're considered in a
[1:51:58] rears because they're not paying in
[1:51:59] their quarterly installments. Is that
[1:52:01] fair
[1:52:02] >> through Mayor Saladin? Yes, that would
[1:52:04] be correct. So, as per the way our
[1:52:07] system reports, these balances would
[1:52:09] technically be considered outstanding.
[1:52:12] However, they are properties are entered
[1:52:15] into payment arrangements provided that
[1:52:17] they are fulfilled would bring them into
[1:52:20] good standing by the end of the year.
[1:52:23] >> Through the chair, just a quick
[1:52:24] followup. Do you know off top of your
[1:52:26] head how many properties are part of the
[1:52:28] pre-authorized payment plan? through
[1:52:31] you, Mayor Salin. Uh, yes, we have
[1:52:33] approximately 2,000 properties that are
[1:52:36] enrolled into a pre-authorized payment
[1:52:38] plan across the different uh, classes of
[1:52:41] taxation.
[1:52:45] » Thank you. An additional follow. So,
[1:52:46] through the chair, so basically what
[1:52:48] you're saying is those 2,000 should come
[1:52:49] into compliance by the end of the year,
[1:52:51] which means in reality it's probably 936
[1:52:54] properties that are truly in your rears
[1:52:56] not making their payments. Is that a
[1:52:58] fair statement?
[1:52:59] through you, Mayor Salin, and into
[1:53:01] council. Yes, I would agree, provided
[1:53:06] that those payment plans are fulfilled.
[1:53:08] Um, we do, you know, there there are
[1:53:11] circumstances where maybe residents
[1:53:13] move. Um, the payment plans are
[1:53:15] cancelled. We do have residents
[1:53:17] occasionally default on payment
[1:53:19] arrangements. Um, so that's yes, I would
[1:53:23] hope that those 2,000 properties would
[1:53:24] come into uh good standing by the end of
[1:53:27] the year. Councelor
[1:53:30] Martin.
[1:53:31] >> Uh through you, Mayor S. I I guess I'm following up on councelor
[1:53:35] Wilkinson's questions because if I've
[1:53:37] understood this explanation and and I
[1:53:39] appreciate that, uh manager, um then I
[1:53:44] guess I would be in a rears. I'm in a
[1:53:46] monthly payment plan. So I wonder if we
[1:53:49] should change this because it doesn't
[1:53:50] make sense to me to call something in a
[1:53:52] rears when we have a plan in place that
[1:53:55] uh has a monthly payment plan. and I've
[1:53:58] been doing the monthly payment plan for
[1:53:59] years. Um, so I I guess I'm wondering if
[1:54:02] we should consider making a change on
[1:54:03] that.
[1:54:06] >> I'd maybe look to Supervisor Wound just
[1:54:08] in terms of
[1:54:11] the ability to functionally do that with
[1:54:13] the reporting technology. I'm not
[1:54:15] against the proposal. I just kind of
[1:54:17] want to know the logistics what that
[1:54:18] would look like on the back end.
[1:54:20] >> Yeah. and through you mayor Saladin to
[1:54:21] can to council. Um the financial
[1:54:25] software that we have is limited in the
[1:54:27] reporting structure that is available.
[1:54:30] Um
[1:54:33] we say it I mean it's categorized as
[1:54:35] outstanding because if a property owner
[1:54:38] was to contact the municipality tomorrow
[1:54:41] and say I would like to disenroll from
[1:54:42] my pre-authorized arrangement um any
[1:54:45] amount that is owing would immediately
[1:54:47] become past due and subject to penalty
[1:54:49] and interest. So, it it is a balance
[1:54:51] that
[1:54:53] it's a courtesy that we offer the
[1:54:55] pre-authorized payment plan as a way to
[1:54:56] help residents um budget their their
[1:54:59] taxation over the year. It is a great
[1:55:02] collection um tool that we use and I
[1:55:05] know a lot of property owners are in
[1:55:07] favor of it. I certainly am as well. Um
[1:55:09] but it does not take away from the fact
[1:55:11] that you know we are still required to
[1:55:14] make our payments to um the region and
[1:55:16] the school boards on a quarterly and
[1:55:18] monthly basis and these are balances
[1:55:21] that we are not collecting at time that
[1:55:25] they are due. We are collecting them by
[1:55:27] year end. So in that aspect they would
[1:55:30] be considered technically outstanding
[1:55:33] balances.
[1:55:38] Does that satisfy your question,
[1:55:40] counselor?
[1:55:41] >> Uh, thank you for asking, Mayor Salin.
[1:55:44] To me, it doesn't make sense. I wouldn't
[1:55:46] call it a rears if we have a bonafide
[1:55:48] plan and we're not the only
[1:55:49] municipality, city of Kitchener. I mean,
[1:55:52] throughout the province, uh, monthly
[1:55:54] payment plans are a regular occurrence.
[1:55:56] So, it doesn't make sense to call it a
[1:55:58] rears from my point of view.
[1:56:01] So maybe I would suggest
[1:56:05] um and this could either be just
[1:56:08] direction to staff or if somebody wanted
[1:56:10] to formalize it, but maybe that staff
[1:56:12] bring back a different language. Um I
[1:56:16] would say I'm still interested
[1:56:18] personally to know
[1:56:20] um even if people are on a monthly
[1:56:22] payment plan from the perspective of we
[1:56:24] do collect actually the largest portion
[1:56:26] of our taxes as we know go to the
[1:56:28] region. We collect on their behalf. So
[1:56:30] technically we are carrying as
[1:56:32] supervisor Wound just noted we are
[1:56:34] carrying um that cost and covering it
[1:56:36] going to I'm not saying it's a bad
[1:56:39] thing. I just think having that
[1:56:41] information is a valid thing for us to
[1:56:43] be aware of. But I don't disagree with
[1:56:45] changing the terminology because I was
[1:56:47] also a little shocked at first when I
[1:56:49] read the report going wow that's a lot
[1:56:51] of households um in our community. So
[1:56:55] maybe if council's open to it, we could
[1:56:57] ask um and I would look for staff
[1:57:00] comment, but if staff could bring back
[1:57:02] um enhanced language to better
[1:57:05] articulate that and not have it as a
[1:57:08] rears if people are on payment plans,
[1:57:10] would that are there issues from council
[1:57:14] on that? Councelor Sue,
[1:57:17] >> a quick question before that. Um, so
[1:57:20] we're paying our taxes to the region
[1:57:23] quarterly, I believe. So, are we paying
[1:57:27] any interest? Are we acrewing any
[1:57:29] interest by paying the region and not
[1:57:31] collecting our uh taxes from the
[1:57:34] residents in the meantime?
[1:57:37] I would turn to supervisor woon but I
[1:57:40] know if people are in a rears the
[1:57:43] township is the one who takes the hit
[1:57:45] and we can charge I believe it's 15%
[1:57:49] um is what the deal is and that's why
[1:57:51] the region claims it's beneficial for us
[1:57:55] um but we have to pay them outright
[1:57:58] regardless of if we get paid but
[1:58:00] supervisor woon if you have anything you
[1:58:02] wanted to add to that
[1:58:04] >> through you uh mayor Salon into council.
[1:58:07] That is correct. We are still required
[1:58:09] to remmit to the region. We remit
[1:58:11] monthly. Um and we are still required to
[1:58:14] remit to the school boards. That is
[1:58:16] quarterly regardless of if we have
[1:58:19] collected taxes that have been levied.
[1:58:21] And yes, we do charge um penalty and
[1:58:24] interest. It is 15% annually.
[1:58:29] So just before we move on, did we want
[1:58:31] to give direction to staff then to bring
[1:58:33] back updated language for this report?
[1:58:36] Councelor Wilkinson
[1:58:37] >> through the chair. Um I'm not opposed to
[1:58:41] it. Maybe there is a different way to
[1:58:43] mention it if they are on a
[1:58:44] pre-authorized payment, but ultimately I
[1:58:45] think is this report is not one that
[1:58:48] we've regularly seen over the term. Um,
[1:58:51] but I think ultimately the the the truer
[1:58:53] rears is the one that it presents itself
[1:58:55] at the end of the tax collection cycle.
[1:58:58] Um, so you know, I I mean I pay monthly
[1:59:01] on a pre-authorized plan, so technically
[1:59:03] I'd be in the same boat as council, but
[1:59:05] uh I'm certainly not hearing about it or
[1:59:07] seeing anything about it. So I mean I'm
[1:59:09] not overly concerned. Um, but I think it it would be interesting to see what
[1:59:14] this looks like at the end of the tax
[1:59:16] collection cycle truly to see what the
[1:59:18] real number is of who's in a rears and
[1:59:20] then I don't know, but I also wouldn't
[1:59:22] be opposed if there's a different way to
[1:59:24] classify just this segment as in this
[1:59:27] section. I'd be fine with that.
[1:59:30] >> So, Supervisor Boon, I think you've been
[1:59:32] following the conversation. Is that
[1:59:33] something that you feel confident you
[1:59:35] can bring back to council at a future
[1:59:37] date?
[1:59:38] >> Yes. uh through you mayor Sal and to
[1:59:40] members of council. Yes, I can
[1:59:42] absolutely understand your perspective
[1:59:43] and I don't disagree. Um from my
[1:59:46] understanding, this is the first report
[1:59:48] of this types that has come forward to
[1:59:50] this council and um I would hope it is
[1:59:54] my intent to provide a year-end update
[1:59:57] as well. It is something that we should
[1:59:59] be reporting to council on ideally like
[2:00:05] every 6 months, year end and then
[2:00:06] partway through the year. And I do
[2:00:08] anticipate that year end will be in a
[2:00:11] very different situation. Um, but I
[2:00:14] certainly can take your feedback, um,
[2:00:16] address the the verbiage and the
[2:00:18] language that's been used and also
[2:00:21] rework what has been written to provide
[2:00:23] you maybe a clearer, um, uh, update as
[2:00:26] to what you're looking for.
[2:00:29] >> Thank you very much. And we do have a
[2:00:31] list, Councelor Stew, and then Council
[2:00:32] Presman.
[2:00:34] >> Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to make a
[2:00:35] comment. I would be in favor of uh, uh,
[2:00:38] changing the language or the way we
[2:00:40] report it out. um I know when you buy a
[2:00:43] home you have the option of do you want
[2:00:45] to do it quarterly, do it monthly. Um
[2:00:49] just doesn't sit well with me. I I agree
[2:00:51] with um councelor Martin that if you
[2:00:53] have the option to do it monthly and
[2:00:55] then you see this report and then you
[2:00:57] see you're looped into a pool that says
[2:00:59] technically you're in a rears. Um, so I
[2:01:01] would be in favor of changing the
[2:01:04] reporting so we can see that as uh it
[2:01:08] was mentioned I think 2,000 homes are in
[2:01:11] the pre-authorized. So the number looks
[2:01:13] a lot more favorable. So we can actually
[2:01:15] break it down and see that no they are
[2:01:18] not technically in a rears but the 900
[2:01:20] some homes are. So it makes the number
[2:01:24] less staggering. I know when I looked at
[2:01:25] it, I almost fell out of my chair to
[2:01:26] think, "Holy moly, that's almost one
[2:01:29] full ward worth of uh homes that are in
[2:01:32] a rears." So, it is reassuring that it
[2:01:34] isn't actually
[2:01:36] at the moment in a rears, but uh I think
[2:01:39] uh an enhanced language around the
[2:01:41] reporting would be great.
[2:01:44] >> Council Chrisman.
[2:01:46] >> Yes, through you, Mayor. I think the
[2:01:48] headline that two of the council members
[2:01:50] of WA Township were interveners would be
[2:01:53] the one I would be thinking would be
[2:01:56] important to have. But that's just me
[2:01:59] cuz I pay quarterly. [laughter]
[2:02:03] But
[2:02:04] uh the question I have uh is related to
[2:02:09] the other end of the spectrum about uh
[2:02:12] personal bankruptcies,
[2:02:14] mortgage sales. Where do we stand in
[2:02:17] line as a township in terms of residual
[2:02:22] value in a home sale? Uh do we stand
[2:02:26] behind the mortgage holder and we get
[2:02:29] the sweeping so to speak or do we stand
[2:02:32] ahead uh in terms of priority payment
[2:02:38] >> through you mayor Salin to council? Um
[2:02:41] yes, if a property was in tax arars and
[2:02:44] ended up in a position of either
[2:02:46] bankruptcy or um you know
[2:02:48] [clears throat] the property was
[2:02:49] repossessed through the bank, yes,
[2:02:51] property taxes do um equate to a lean
[2:02:55] and a rears would be paid out through
[2:02:58] those processes. So it doesn't happen
[2:03:01] very often that we receive bankruptcy
[2:03:03] notice. Um but in the event that we do,
[2:03:06] they are reviewed as received um to
[2:03:09] ensure that our interest is identified
[2:03:11] in those documents as well.
[2:03:15] Any other questions or comments on this
[2:03:17] council?
[2:03:20] I did just have one question. Um, in
[2:03:23] terms of if we do unfortunately get to
[2:03:25] the stage of tax sales. Um,
[2:03:30] this council did have one almost tax
[2:03:33] sale I think early on in our time. Um,
[2:03:36] but it was brought forward to council. I
[2:03:39] think it was the week before it was
[2:03:40] supposed to go um on sale. And so at
[2:03:44] that point, the property was actually
[2:03:47] identified
[2:03:48] um to council and it actually resulted
[2:03:50] in a good news story in that somebody
[2:03:53] watched the council meeting, contacted a
[2:03:55] family member of the property owner and
[2:03:57] their riggers were addressed and the
[2:03:59] property was able to be kept. To me,
[2:04:01] that's a good news story. I don't want
[2:04:02] to see us having to sell properties for
[2:04:04] taxes. Um, so I guess I'm just curious
[2:04:07] going forward recognizing that we've had
[2:04:10] a different shift in the financial
[2:04:13] department and um, to your point, this
[2:04:16] is the first time we've really seen a
[2:04:17] comprehensive report even on this, which
[2:04:19] I think is great. But yeah, I guess I
[2:04:21] want to understand what does that look
[2:04:23] like going forward if that process were
[2:04:25] to happen with any of the properties
[2:04:26] you've identified?
[2:04:29] >> Uh, through or to you, Mayor Salin, and
[2:04:31] to council. Um so [clears throat]
[2:04:33] currently I am working diligently with
[2:04:36] property owners to try to find ways to
[2:04:39] avoid moving forward in the process. Um
[2:04:42] we have about a week left for property
[2:04:44] owners to still make arrangements with
[2:04:46] the municipality and I think you know
[2:04:49] the fact that we've seen 22 property
[2:04:51] owners come forward so far is is great.
[2:04:54] Um, in the event that a property owner
[2:04:57] was not able to satisfy one of the
[2:05:00] options available, uh, a tax or rear
[2:05:03] certificate would be registered against
[2:05:05] the property. That would likely be
[2:05:07] happening end of September, early
[2:05:09] October. And from that date of
[2:05:11] registration, property owners have a
[2:05:14] 1-year cancellation period in which they
[2:05:17] can pay the sum of all aars to cancel
[2:05:21] the tax sale process entirely. Um if the
[2:05:24] arars are not paid within that one-year
[2:05:26] cancellation period, we would would be
[2:05:28] moving forward to the next phase which
[2:05:30] would be um public tender and um the
[2:05:35] process is is long. There's
[2:05:37] advertisement requirements, deadlines,
[2:05:40] but uh [clears throat] property owners
[2:05:41] would realistically be looking about a
[2:05:43] year and a half out from now, maybe even
[2:05:46] a little bit longer before it came to
[2:05:48] the point where a property was listed
[2:05:50] for for public sale.
[2:05:53] >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or
[2:05:55] comments on this report? Again, it's
[2:05:57] just for information this evening. All
[2:05:59] those in favor and that carries
[2:06:02] unanimously.
[2:06:03] On to uh 14.11
[2:06:07] and this is the Ontario Community
[2:06:09] Infrastructure Funding Advocacy Beyond
[2:06:12] 2026 report. The recommendation is that
[2:06:15] we receive this report for information
[2:06:17] and that council endorses the resolution
[2:06:20] supporting MFOA's letter to the Ministry
[2:06:22] of Infrastructure and requesting the
[2:06:24] province maintain the current enhanced
[2:06:26] OSF funding level beyond the 2026
[2:06:28] allocation year and that council direct
[2:06:31] staff to forward the endorsed resolution
[2:06:33] to the Minister of Infrastructure, the
[2:06:35] Minister of Municipal Affairs and
[2:06:36] Housing, the Minister of Finance, the
[2:06:38] Minister of Finance Officers Associates
[2:06:41] of Ontario and the Association of
[2:06:45] Municipalities of Ontario, the Local
[2:06:47] Member of Provincial Parliament, and any
[2:06:49] other parties deemed appropriate to get
[2:06:51] this on the floor. May I have a mover?
[2:06:53] Moved by Councelor Wilkinson, seconded
[2:06:54] by Councelor Martin, and I will invite
[2:06:57] our treasurer, Tracy Prince, to
[2:06:59] introduce this report.
[2:07:02] >> Good evening, uh, Mayor and Counselors.
[2:07:04] Um so the report in front of you is
[2:07:06] really just to support the advocacy of
[2:07:09] MFOA
[2:07:10] uh to the province to continue the
[2:07:13] increased increased um
[2:07:16] in the increase introduced in 2022 and
[2:07:21] beyond. So it ends the end of 2026 and
[2:07:25] if it's decreased OSA funding for next
[2:07:29] fiscal year it could result in about a
[2:07:31] 4.67% six 7% increase on the tax levy
[2:07:34] just to make up that portion of it. Um
[2:07:37] and then or it looks at or we'd be
[2:07:40] looking at further reducing potential
[2:07:42] capital investment to offset that loss.
[2:07:50] » Okay. Thank you. Are there questions?
[2:07:53] Councelor Wilkinson.
[2:07:55] >> Thank you through the chair. Um,
[2:07:58] more comment, maybe a question in there,
[2:08:00] but I think obviously it it's uh it
[2:08:03] makes sense to to sign on to this
[2:08:05] advocacy and send uh the message uh
[2:08:08] upward in hopes that we can continue to
[2:08:10] see this investment in our
[2:08:11] infrastructure specifically uh given
[2:08:14] that we have uh quite a bit to address.
[2:08:17] Um, you know, the one concern is hearing
[2:08:20] that it would result in a 4.67 uh levy
[2:08:24] increase. I don't necessarily share the
[2:08:26] same perspective. I think my hope would
[2:08:28] be that when we are looking at our
[2:08:30] 10-year capital plans uh that there
[2:08:33] might be multiple options and that could
[2:08:35] be one where it's maintained, one where
[2:08:39] maybe it looks at uh a 2% increase uh or
[2:08:43] one that um potentially spreads out the spending that was taking place over
[2:08:48] the course of time. those to avoid uh a
[2:08:52] rather large increase um just related to
[2:08:55] the loss of this funding. I mean, we
[2:08:56] knew that it had an end date. So, the
[2:08:57] hope is is that we would hopefully plan
[2:08:59] for that. Um but that would just be my sort of brief comment as we head into
[2:09:04] budget season. Um you know, I I guess we
[2:09:07] should probably anticipate that this is
[2:09:09] gone and then spread out the spending
[2:09:11] appropriately. But that's all I would
[2:09:13] say on it.
[2:09:15] >> Any other questions or comments? Council
[2:09:18] Densall. Thank you to you, mayor. The
[2:09:20] $736,000
[2:09:22] shortfall, which is what we've been used
[2:09:24] to getting in addition to what we're
[2:09:25] used to get. Uh, Director Vanderwal,
[2:09:28] when you when we are looking at our
[2:09:30] infrastructure projects um for next
[2:09:33] year, has have you planned um those uh
[2:09:38] that spend based on what we were
[2:09:41] receiving
[2:09:46] » uh through the mayor? Yes, we would be
[2:09:48] anticipating similar spending with minor
[2:09:51] increases to keep up with our
[2:09:53] infrastructure deficit as we have.
[2:10:00] » Any other questions or comments?
[2:10:04] >> Okay. Um I just wanted to say uh thank
[2:10:07] you very much Treasurer Prince for
[2:10:09] bringing this forward. Um one positive
[2:10:12] thing is we are not the only
[2:10:13] municipality in this boat. Um, and AMO
[2:10:17] and Roma are continuing to advocate as
[2:10:19] well as when uh, councelor Cresman and I
[2:10:22] were up in Ottawa last week at AMO. I
[2:10:24] did have some conversations with uh, the
[2:10:26] Minister of Municipal Affairs and
[2:10:28] Housing in particular on this as well as
[2:10:29] the Minister of Finance. Um, have had
[2:10:32] other conversations with his team about
[2:10:35] this and
[2:10:37] what they are currently saying, but take
[2:10:39] it with a grain of salt because I have
[2:10:41] yet to see anything in writing. Um but
[2:10:43] currently they are stating that they are
[2:10:45] well aware of this and it is something
[2:10:47] that they are um hoping to look to make
[2:10:51] municipalities whole. Again, not holding
[2:10:54] my breath because they've also said that
[2:10:56] we'll be made whole on other funding. Um
[2:10:58] but I do appreciate you bringing this uh
[2:11:01] forward and I do believe that this is a
[2:11:04] part of the long-term financial planning
[2:11:06] works that uh will be coming forward in
[2:11:08] the budget for the next council as well.
[2:11:10] Um so with that again this is to receive
[2:11:14] for information tonight to endorse a
[2:11:16] resolution supporting MFOA's letter and
[2:11:18] then to circulate to uh the appropriate
[2:11:20] parties. I will call the vote all those
[2:11:23] in favor and that carries unanimously.
[2:11:27] Uh on to our bylaws for this evening and
[2:11:31] the recommendation is that they be read
[2:11:33] a first, second and third time and
[2:11:34] finally passed an open council. I would
[2:11:36] look for a mover.
[2:11:39] Moved by councelor Martin, seconded by
[2:11:41] councelor Chrisman. And all those in
[2:11:44] favor. And that carries unanimously. Um
[2:11:48] I am going to turn it over to councelor
[2:11:50] Wilkinson to chair while I introduce my
[2:11:52] motion.
[2:11:56] » Uh so we move to notices of motions.
[2:12:01] Um, I will call on Mayor Stalin to bring
[2:12:06] forward her notice of motion, please.
[2:12:09] >> Thank you. Um, so this notice of motion
[2:12:11] council's had for a while now because it
[2:12:13] was originally on our July never ending
[2:12:16] council meeting. Um, but really what I'm
[2:12:20] why I'm bringing this forward is noting
[2:12:23] that we have a lot of amazing local
[2:12:26] businesses in our community, including
[2:12:28] agricultural operations that are
[2:12:30] essential to our economic um vitality
[2:12:34] really of our community. And I think
[2:12:35] it's important to note the great things
[2:12:38] that are going on. Um, some other
[2:12:40] municipalities do have recognition
[2:12:42] programs and I'm really just hoping that
[2:12:45] council uh ask staff or direct staff to
[2:12:49] prepare a framework for business
[2:12:50] appreciation program. Uh, this would
[2:12:53] include eligibility criteria and
[2:12:54] nomination processes and recognition
[2:12:57] methods. I'm not looking for this to be
[2:12:59] a makework project or a financial um
[2:13:03] implication. I'm really looking for it
[2:13:05] to be more of a good news opportunity
[2:13:07] and a way to acknowledge um our local
[2:13:10] businesses. Right now, we do things like
[2:13:13] produce scrolls um of recognition for
[2:13:16] businesses, but it's really on a request
[2:13:19] basis and they would even need to know
[2:13:21] that that exists. I think this takes a
[2:13:23] more proactive approach and is a good
[2:13:26] community building opportunity. Um, but
[2:13:29] like I said, not looking for it to be a
[2:13:31] make work or um add any cost. So, I'm
[2:13:35] not looking for compensation or getting
[2:13:37] into making big plaques or anything
[2:13:39] really. Uh, just looking for an
[2:13:41] opportunity to celebrate the great
[2:13:42] businesses that make uh Wilmont a
[2:13:45] fantastic place to live and work. So,
[2:13:47] I'd be looking for a seconder. Um,
[2:13:51] I think councelor Dunstall there, but uh
[2:13:54] I'll turn it back to the chair. Seconded
[2:13:56] by councelor Dunstall. Uh there any
[2:13:59] questions for Mayor Sal on this
[2:14:04] or councelor Dunstall.
[2:14:06] >> Thank you through you
[2:14:09] chair. Um the only comment I have is
[2:14:13] that I'm really upset that I didn't
[2:14:14] think of this. Um and I support it
[2:14:17] wholeheartedly.
[2:14:22] » Councilman.
[2:14:25] Yes. Uh just uh through you chair. Um
[2:14:30] the question I had was is there a time
[2:14:32] of year you would like to see this uh
[2:14:35] award be made?
[2:14:40] » Thank you through you chair. Um
[2:14:43] so I'll be honest what brought on the
[2:14:45] thinking about it was the citizen of the
[2:14:47] year awards which are at the fall fair.
[2:14:50] Um so every September. However, I am
[2:14:54] open to um really what staff find or if
[2:14:58] council or the community has a
[2:15:00] particular um interest. There are some
[2:15:03] communities, for example, that every
[2:15:05] month in their council meeting recognize
[2:15:08] um a local business. Some municipalities
[2:15:12] um do it per ward. So, each counselor
[2:15:14] gets to bring forward and propose. So, I
[2:15:17] don't have a set defined um idea. I
[2:15:20] really just more so want to get some
[2:15:22] framework and understand what could be
[2:15:24] feasible and will want.
[2:15:29] » Any additional questions?
[2:15:31] Okay. So, calling the vote all those in
[2:15:34] favor
[2:15:36] and that carries unanimously and I will
[2:15:39] uh see the chair back to Mayor Sullivan.
[2:15:42] >> Thank you very much, Councelor
[2:15:44] Wilkinson. Um on to we do have another
[2:15:48] uh notice of motion in front of us from
[2:15:51] councelor Crestman. It would require a
[2:15:53] twothirds vote of councel to be
[2:15:55] entertained. So um I'm assuming
[2:15:58] councelor Cresman's going to move waving
[2:16:00] the notice of motion seconded by
[2:16:03] councelor Wilkinson. Uh so this vote is
[2:16:06] just on waving notice and then I'll let
[2:16:08] councelor Cresman speak if the notice is
[2:16:10] waved. So all those in favor that
[2:16:12] carries unanimously. I will now turn it
[2:16:15] over to councelor Cresman to introduce
[2:16:16] his motion.
[2:16:19] >> So, um, this motion, uh, is a result of,
[2:16:24] uh, what happened in Mannheim on August
[2:16:27] 8th and 9th. I was brought to my
[2:16:30] attention on the 9th at about 4:30 in
[2:16:33] the afternoon of uh, issues happening in
[2:16:37] Mannheim. So I will go through the
[2:16:40] whereases here. Whereas the township uh
[2:16:43] received more than a dozen noise
[2:16:45] complaints related to an unsanctioned
[2:16:48] event that occurred on Ble Road in
[2:16:50] Manheim area on August 8 and 9. And
[2:16:53] whereas the incident highlighted
[2:16:55] concerns regarding the township's
[2:16:57] ability to respond to noise complaints
[2:17:01] occurring during week nights and
[2:17:03] weekends when regular bylaw enforcement
[2:17:07] services are not provided. And whereas
[2:17:09] the township current noise by bylaw only
[2:17:13] is applicable between the hours of 11:00
[2:17:16] p.m. and 8:00 a.m. limiting the
[2:17:18] township's ability. And I would say as
[2:17:21] well Waterlue Regional Police Services's
[2:17:24] ability to address certain noise
[2:17:27] [clears throat] related complaints
[2:17:29] occurring outside of those hours. And
[2:17:32] whereas uh residents have expressed
[2:17:35] concerns regarding both the hours
[2:17:39] which the noise bylaw applies and the
[2:17:42] township's ability to respond to noise
[2:17:45] complaints when they occur out of
[2:17:47] outside of regular uh business or bylaw
[2:17:51] enforcement hours. Therefore, be it
[2:17:53] resolved to that a uh to investigate
[2:17:58] staff to investigate and report back to
[2:18:01] council on options and alternative for
[2:18:04] providing uh bylaw enforcement to noise
[2:18:08] complaints during weekends during week
[2:18:11] nights and weekends in con including
[2:18:15] potential service delivery models
[2:18:18] in-house or contracted
[2:18:21] uh response protocols with the Waterl
[2:18:24] Regional Police Service Services and
[2:18:26] associated costs. And B, that staff
[2:18:30] review the township's noise bylaw and
[2:18:33] report back to council with options for
[2:18:35] amendments that would provide the
[2:18:37] township with the ability to regulate
[2:18:40] unreasonable
[2:18:41] noise throughout the day and evening.
[2:18:45] and C that as part of the staff review
[2:18:49] the noise bylaws and enforcement
[2:18:52] practices of neighboring municipalities
[2:18:55] to identify best practices and provide
[2:18:59] recommendations for potential amendments
[2:19:02] to the township's uh noise bylaw and
[2:19:06] enforcement approach and that a report
[2:19:09] uh to council no later than Q1 of 2020
[2:19:14] 27. So I'm I guess I I'd look to move
[2:19:18] that and
[2:19:20] >> councelor Wilkinson is seconding.
[2:19:23] Councelor Wilkinson, did you want to
[2:19:24] speak it as speak to it as a seconder
[2:19:28] >> through the chair? Uh I I I like the
[2:19:30] spirit of this and and where councelor
[2:19:32] Cresman is going. Um, this is something
[2:19:34] I've heard and and even in just having
[2:19:36] discussions um with our bylaw
[2:19:40] department. I think there's one thing
[2:19:41] that I'd like to see even uh in addition
[2:19:44] to this while they're they're looking,
[2:19:45] not that we need to make an amendment to
[2:19:47] it, but um we as I've become aware do
[2:19:50] not have the tools to even measure noise
[2:19:53] um which is of concern. So I hope that
[2:19:56] we can uh in addition to this look at
[2:19:59] making sure that we acquire the
[2:20:00] equipment in order to uh measure
[2:20:06] » uh councelor Cresman.
[2:20:08] >> Yes. Uh I responded on the uh Sunday the
[2:20:12] 9th was informed that this has happened
[2:20:17] uh on subsequent occasions in previous
[2:20:20] years. Only this year uh it went all
[2:20:23] night. previous years it stopped at 11.
[2:20:26] Uh certainly we as the township hadn't
[2:20:29] been informed of previous year
[2:20:32] complaints. Um I actually uh sat in the
[2:20:37] li in the kitchen of uh an individual I
[2:20:41] knew right across the road from where
[2:20:42] this was all happening. Uh people were
[2:20:45] walking in from Kitchener or that
[2:20:47] direction and walking up the driveway.
[2:20:51] Um and uh the police uh responded after
[2:20:57] they received numerous complaints. Uh
[2:21:00] the police officer uh was um very
[2:21:04] responsive. He went in on site and said,
[2:21:08] "Uh, I can't do anything now, but if
[2:21:11] this goes on beyond 10:30," he gave that
[2:21:16] as a line in the sand, knowing that
[2:21:18] 11:00 was the only time that he could he
[2:21:22] could do anything. Uh, you will receive
[2:21:26] a fine for every minute the noise is is
[2:21:29] beyond uh 11. But he was very concerned
[2:21:34] with the number of residents that were
[2:21:36] so upset after two nights of this and uh
[2:21:42] restarting at 3 in the afternoon on
[2:21:45] Sunday that he was expressing concern
[2:21:49] that residents would not try to walk up
[2:21:51] the driveway because they didn't know
[2:21:54] what reception they would receive from
[2:21:56] what was happening. People were camping
[2:21:59] out in the adjoining fields. Uh wheat
[2:22:03] had been harvested, wheat stubble was
[2:22:05] there, people were camping. Um so
[2:22:09] regardless to say uh there was a lot of
[2:22:12] upset residents and uh I see this as an
[2:22:17] important initiative uh to indicate that
[2:22:20] we're addressing and that we're going to
[2:22:23] have something uh that will ensure not
[2:22:26] just this but other situations can be
[2:22:29] addressed into the future.
[2:22:33] >> Any other questions or comments on this?
[2:22:36] All right. Um, seeing none, I would just
[2:22:39] say thank you counselor for bringing
[2:22:41] this forward because uh I don't know if
[2:22:43] I got as many complaints as you, but I
[2:22:45] know that I did as well. And I
[2:22:47] appreciate that we're looking to close
[2:22:49] the gap on uh this service that we
[2:22:52] didn't quite realize was a problem. Um,
[2:22:54] and hopefully that will make residents
[2:22:56] pleased as we go forward and give bylaw
[2:22:59] and our WRPS uh the opportunity to
[2:23:02] actually enforce what we have in place.
[2:23:04] Uh, with that, I will call the vote. All
[2:23:06] those in favor and that carries
[2:23:08] unanimously. Uh for announcements, I do
[2:23:11] have a few. I wanted to note uh the New
[2:23:14] Hamburg Fall Fair is happening September
[2:23:17] 17th to 20th and that is down at the
[2:23:21] fairgrounds at Norm Hill Park in New
[2:23:23] Hamburg.
[2:23:25] I also want to wish best of luck to
[2:23:28] those headed back to school uh in the
[2:23:31] next few weeks. And with that, a
[2:23:33] reminder that um the speeds in front of
[2:23:36] Saratam Beck and Waterlue Oxford do go
[2:23:38] back to the school speed times. So
[2:23:41] starting September 1st um I think it's
[2:23:44] between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. it will
[2:23:46] be a 40 km zone and then after those
[2:23:49] hours it will be 60 km and 60 km on
[2:23:52] weekends. But just remember that because
[2:23:54] I'm sure WRPS will be out ticketing. Um,
[2:23:58] I also wanted to note that the
[2:24:00] township's official plan is now posted
[2:24:02] on the provincial website um for the EO
[2:24:05] posting for comment. So, if people
[2:24:07] wanted to add additional comments to the
[2:24:09] province, they can do so. Um, and other
[2:24:12] than that, just a reminder that our next
[2:24:13] regular council meeting is to be
[2:24:16] scheduled on Monday, November the 9th at
[2:24:18] 6:00 p.m. And I will turn it over to
[2:24:21] councelor Dunl, I believe, also has some
[2:24:23] exciting news.
[2:24:25] >> Thank you, Mayor. I am excited. I'm very
[2:24:28] pleased to announce that our veterans
[2:24:30] crosswalk uh is scheduled tentatively. I
[2:24:34] don't want uh director Vanderwal to um
[2:24:37] lose his mind, but it is scheduled for
[2:24:40] the first week of September or
[2:24:42] thereabouts and we will certainly be
[2:24:43] publicizing that. And I have to say this
[2:24:46] has been a true community event. Um we
[2:24:49] or community effort. We have been
[2:24:51] working with the board of trade, of
[2:24:52] course, with the New Hamburg Legion,
[2:24:54] with the township, and especially with
[2:24:56] all of those who contributed to make
[2:24:57] this happen. You know, my father-in-law
[2:25:00] or my father-in-law, my husband's uh
[2:25:02] grandfather got the Kuad Gad for
[2:25:05] capturing 200 enemy soldiers at the end
[2:25:07] of the war, and he was just a kid
[2:25:09] himself. And when I think of those
[2:25:10] things, uh those young uh men uh going
[2:25:13] out to war and women, um it uh is an
[2:25:17] honor to be involved in this initiative.
[2:25:19] So, I just want to make sure keep an eye
[2:25:21] out. We will be publicizing it and it
[2:25:23] will be installed on uh Hiron Hiron Road
[2:25:27] and uh looking forward to it. So, thank
[2:25:29] you.
[2:25:30] >> Thank you, counselor. Are there any
[2:25:31] other announcements?
[2:25:33] Okay, seeing none, uh we did not have
[2:25:36] closed, therefore we have no business
[2:25:38] arising from it. So, I'd look for a
[2:25:40] mover and a seconder for the
[2:25:41] confirmatory bylaw.
[2:25:43] Moved by council Martin, seconded by
[2:25:44] councelor Sue. All those in favor? That
[2:25:47] carries unanimously and adjournment
[2:25:50] councelor Crestman seconded by councelor
[2:25:53] Sadu. All those in favor and that
[2:25:56] carries unanimously. Thank you and have
[2:25:58] a great night.