[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.

Council Meeting

Transcript