The business is at off the agenda, Deputy Warden Martin.
Thank you, Warden Ryan, through you, resolved, moved by myself, seconded by Councillor Peterson, resolved that the agenda be approved as amended by changing the order of business so that closed session and consideration of matters arising from closed session.
Be considered following item 5.3 consideration of report Cp2026-215.
Are there any other disclosures of pecuniary interest and the general nature of seeing any adoption of the council minutes of the previous meeting?
Results of the council minutes of the June 24-2026 be adopted.
Thank you. This is an application for official plan amendment for lands in the city of Woodstock. The lands affect two properties.
One, look at on the west side of the east side of the east side of the east side of the west side of the west side.
The proposal seeks to resonate the lands from the provincial to the median density residential to facilitate the townhouse development, with 44 units of west side and 20 units on the east property.
Since contain existing thrift store on the east side and the lands on the west side are
currently vacant, the proposal seeks to remove the existing building on the east side for
the proposed development, the lands on the west side would be proposed for two buildings
of stacked townhouses with the parking in a turnaround area, and the east side would have
a building located closer to Huron Street with parking areas in provision for continued access
easement that provides access to the properties to the north.
The applicant did provide a traffic impact study in support of the proposal, which assessed
that there was no intersection improvements required, and all of the intersections continue
to continue to function appropriately after the development, as well as there is good
site lines in the area.
At the city public meeting for the related zone change application, there was concerns raised
by the public relating to the driveway if it is adequate access for five emergency vehicles,
a continued provision for an access easement on the east side, and privacy impacts for
adjacent properties.
The city chief building official and the fire department confirmed that the proposed entrance
and driveway will accommodate emergency vehicle access, and it does meet the requirements
of the building code and fire code for access, and then for the west to the parcel, the
concept plan provides an increased interior side yard width, where three meters would normally
be required, an approval principle is granted to implement a five meter minimum to provide
some increased privacy for adjacent properties, as well the landscape plan proposed would
be implemented through the site plan process.
Overall staff of the opinion that proposed request to remove the neighborhood shopping center,
a designation is appropriate, as the lands really historically and currently haven't functioned
in that way due to the limited parking on the east side, and due to the proximity of other
neighborhood shopping centers in the area, including at spring break in Devon Shire, along
the English little avenue, and 700 meters to the south in the central area, so given this
staff are supportive of the request to redest need to land to medium density.
The proposed building type is three and a half to four story, it's three stories plus a basement
that's partially in and partially out of the average grade.
That does comply with the medium density designation criteria for appropriate building forms.
The lands also meet the Official Plan criteria as located on here in Street, which is a territorial
road.
In the city of Woodstock, access for the eastern parts that will be from Nightsbridge Road due
to the county road access by law requirements.
The proposed density of the site for the western area would be slightly above, or for both
sites we slightly above the medium density maximum of 70 units per hectare, however staff for
the opinion that despite the density exceeding the medium density requirements, the actual
buildings that are proposed, really are in medium density buildings to three and a half
stories, the OP permits up to four stories, and they really aren't representative of high
density development, which is what the actual density targets are.
However the actual range in this site, 91.2 units per hectare, is a lot closer to the medium
density max of 70 than the high density max of 150, so for those reasons staff consider
the proposed density in this case appropriate.
The proposed OP A that's recommended by staff would also limit the type of units to stack
townhouses for storage and height, just to ensure that what's being proposed is carried forward
through the planning instruments, and as noted, the proposed will be subject to site plan
approval, all other matters will be have to be addressed as a satisfaction of city and county staff.
The city council did adopt the resolution supporting the proposed official plan amendment, and
did approve the zoning in principle, overall staff are supportive of the proposal, and recommend
approval.
Thank you.
Questions from Councilor Beater?
Thank you.
We're in through you to planner and I go over question for you is just on that screen up there.
Is this one complete parcel, or is it two separate parcels of land with, like, this could
bind application or separate applications?
To the council's question, it's two properties.
It's one developer.
It's essentially one project, but encompasses two properties and both sides of the street.
Okay.
Just to follow up on that, why not two separate applications and if it's separate properties,
how do we apply one planning application to a single two properties?
In this case, given the unit type was essentially the same for the west and the side of the road,
and the policy tests were all the same.
And the application report addressed both, staff are comfortable addressing it through one
OPA, rather than having two separate designations.
And there has no implications later on for the separation of those properties that they were
for sale.
To the question, no, the proposal OPA would speak to the density of each site, and the already
are separate properties, so it wouldn't have any impact.
Thank you.
Councillor Mayberry and Councillor Scheefer.
Thank you.
First question, no is on the north side of the existing first door.
There's access of a fear on the street.
My understanding is that that will no longer be possible.
Is that right, or am I misunderstanding what I'm reading here?
Through the circulation process, the comment from public works was that they would have to
have access from an eight-bridge road, and existing access would be stopped from here.
And so it's not grandfathered in?
No, it's a new development, so it would have to comply with the road access well.
That's, first on the second one, then, is around the easement, and just wanting to be assured that
we're not creating any kind of legal issue with infringing on someone's, the properties
of the north ability to access owed on to nature's bridge.
Because it's kind of looks like more of a parking lot than an easement.
That's just kind of what it is.
To the Councillor's question, so at the end of the day, I think once the development is completed,
it would be a better access than what's there today, it's relatively narrow, just giving
an access to the location existing building, so it would be wider, as well, like this driveway
will serve as an emergency or the fire route for all of further this development, so it can't
be blocked and it'll have to be signed.
And really, it is the only access for those 20 units, so they're not going to want to block that,
because it'll block access to their own development.
But they'll have to comply with the existing easement, that's on title.
Councillor Sheafer, then Councillor Petrie.
Thank you.
I think it wasn't for you.
My question was regarding easement as well, and it's been answered.
Thank you.
Councillor Petrie.
Yes, just to follow up, thank you, Warren, through you.
Is there any concern given the change in use from a commercial to a residential to have, again,
commercial traffic, traveling through a residential for easement purposes going forward?
And the second part of that question is the site plan that was shown is showing that entirety
of the property being fenced.
I know that's not probably an OP because that's probably a site plan issue, but is that complying
with easement?
Is that something that will be looked at in site plan to ensure that there's actual real access
and not just property access?
That's the word to Councillor's question.
So the two commercial uses that are served by the easement are fairly modest.
I believe one is a small insurance office.
Another is also a fairly limited scale.
The site plan here shows snow storage and landscaping that can occur, so that'll have to be amended
on the actual site plan submission.
But overall, I think through the site plan process, the provision for a continued access to
these properties will be maintained and likely will be requirement for a shared access agreement,
which would stipulate the requirements of each party with respect to that access easement.
Okay.
If I could just follow up on that, given has the full range of commercial uses that could,
I can understand that it's maybe light used now, but the full range of what's possible for
those commercial uses, been taken into consideration for that as seen as again, as a potential
conflict between residential and commercial uses.
That's the question.
The existing access easement does provide access to those properties.
It doesn't specify any limits on that.
So this property would have to accommodate access for those commercial properties no matter what
the use was there.
If they were redeveloped and, perhaps, through the site plan process for those commercial
properties, that applicant could reach out to county public works to see if alternate access
can be provided from your own street, just given with these existing buildings, there isn't
much space for a driveway access, but if that commercial properties were redeveloped, that
there might be opportunity for a direct access onto your own.
Sorry.
It could just sort of clarification.
My concern is right now there is low, right now the current uses are low in possible commercial
traffic traveling through the residential easement, but given that there is an opportunity for
those commercial properties, views for others that, if there is no limitation, how do we
guarantee safety within a residential development, whether you have commercial activity happening
through that area, where we are asking people to live and children and other items.
I have a concern about conflict happening between two different uses that maybe not be, I just
want to make sure that's been contemplated.
To the question, I think just given the size of those commercial buildings, staff don't have
a really big concern of commercial units going in, commercial units going in those two small
buildings, that generate a lot of traffic.
If those properties were redeveloped, that would be subject to site planning approval, which
then we could look at providing an awful
Alternate access or a new access directly to your own street to alleviate, and maybe they wouldn't need that access through this property.
But I think to the right now, given the size of the buildings, the use of them and where they are, the range of commercial uses that would be incompatible with this access through this residential property is, is probably, is, staffs depending on minimal.
Thank you.
One through you, just to go back to the access to, I believe it's 200 here on street.
So the property street to the north is the access then still going to be off that kind of alleyway off of here on street, or from in behind off of this new proposed access.
To the council's question, I think one of these properties, maybe has a driveway onto your own.
The other doesn't. So that one had to continue to use this access easement, but both of those properties are, or have rights to the access easement to use it for access.
Okay, that's where I was getting a little confused because I don't believe 200 here on has access from.
No, one of them does do the question of the house and how, or the building and how close it is to the, the lot lined there, there is no width for a driveway there.
So there is going to be something and writing no for that property owner to have access through, because I see there's a snow, snow storage is planned there. We just want to make sure they have access at all times for their property.
There is an existing legal easement for access that's already on title. So they have that right. This drawing will need to be amended to the site plan process to show how that's maintained.
Okay, good. Yeah, that's that's not of it in here. Okay, thank you.
Any other questions for the planner on the report?
All right, thank you. So that's going to hear into the wish to speak to their application.
When you're done, I'll just ask you to sign in. I think there's a sign in. Yeah, when you're done. Thanks.
Good morning council. My name is Matt Campbell. I'm a partner with Zelinka Priamo. We're the agent on behalf of the applicant, 190 year on ink.
I'd first like to thank staff for their excellent work on this application. So Mr. Gilbert and with the city, Mr. Miller, we've had an excellent process with the city. I just wanted to go on record and saying.
Those are gentlemen have been doing great work with this. We're very happy to bring this for this is now the fourth meeting that we're going to be having on this item.
There's been a lot of discourse with the public and if there's any members of the public here, I do want to thank those individuals.
We know that change in a community is not always easy and we certainly thank the public for providing any and all comments.
So this is obviously a stock townhouse development. We think this is going to be a great addition to the area increase the housing supply for the city of Woodstock and make use of vacant property.
There's already been quite a lot of discussion about the issue of access. So I can answer any other questions that may come up with that issue or any other questions about the development itself.
We believe this is in keeping with even though this is an official plan amendment. It's in keeping with the purpose and tent and objectives of the Oxford County official plan knowing that it is a document that can change and that's what we're looking to see here today.
So again, how can you answer any questions that that council may have. Thank you.
Thank you questions for the applicant from council council be treating. Thank you Warren through you.
I just one question is you are 100% committed to ensuring that access is maintained correct.
Yes, it's not so much a question of commitment, but rather that there's a legal easement on title.
So whether my client believes that they want to keep that or not, they are legally obligated to provide that.
So that is that is a legal instrument on title. They have no choice whether to do that or not. That's a civil law matter. So yes, absolutely.
Council.
Thank you, Warden.
This morning prior to this meeting, I stopped by the property.
How do you have access to this easement where it's a rubble?
The entire personal road.
I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty hearing the question. Would you be able to speak into the microphone a little bit more?
Yeah, I'll try.
The building has been demolished.
All the ground has been chopped up destroyed.
There's no roadway access.
How is this other property supposed to be able to access their property when the road is gone?
Through through the warden.
So there is a legal instrument on title that obligates our client to provide access.
So if and when the access to the other properties to the North becomes unavailable, our client has that obligation to provide that access.
So in the context of construction activities, we understand there should be a little bit of grace in order to allow for those construction activities to occur.
But if the landowner to the North takes issue with any lack of access at any time, that is a matter for civil litigation.
We certainly don't anticipate that to come to that point.
And from my knowledge, my client and the landowner to the North have been in communication.
And there shouldn't be any issues of access in the future.
Thank you.
Any other questions for the applicant from Council?
Not seeing anything.
Are there any members of the public either attending in person or virtually who speak to the application?
Not seeing any.
Can I have a resolution to adjourn the public meeting?
Councillor Gillazy.
Move by myself and seconded by Councillor Peterson.
Resolve that council adjourn the public meeting and reinconvenous.
Oxford County Council with the warden in the chair.
It's a rainy discussion.
All's in favor.
Opposed?
That is carried.
And consideration of report CP-2026-215 application for official plan amendment.
Thank you.
Through you.
Move by myself.
Seconded by Councillor Palmer.
Resolve that recommendation contained in report CP-2026-215 total application for official plan amendment.
OP-2602-8 for 190.
Here on street ink, be adopted.
Councillor Gillazy, the move ready.
We'll speak to that.
Yes.
I want to thank the developer.
There's been a lot of discussions going on throughout this entire process, starting from a lot more units to something that is a lot more palatable I think for the neighborhoods and still make it worthwhile as bringing it to market.
The units that are going to be there brings a really big addition of one and two bedroom as well as a few three bedroom apartments that's needed within the city of Woodstock.
So I just want to thank them, their patients and staff for working together as well as the neighbors for coming out and quite the numbers and talking about it.
And I think feeling a lot more comfortable about what is going on there now.
So thank Councillor Palmer's the seconder.
Anyone else?
Councillor Speaker.
Thank you very much to you.
I'll be supporting this.
I do wish it was two separate applications because I have no problems with the one to the west.
My issue with the one to the east is that I do believe we're creating a conflict between two different uses.
Being historically it's been commercial commercial.
There's a potential for conflict between commercial use and a residential use with more vulnerable population from a planning perspective being the residential use.
And the residents that live in that building.
But I'm hoping the commitments that are on from a legal perspective are honored before there's a need for any sort of legal action.
And that everybody is kept safe.
So I will reluctantly support it.
Just always wary of we do have usually we try to keep those different uses separated.
And yeah.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Councillor.
Deputy Warden.
Thank you, Warden.
I will fully support the application without hesitation.
I've been in contact with the developer for months now.
I have seen them react to feedback.
I have seen them draw cohesion amongst a neighborhood that perhaps didn't even know one another prior to this.
And have worked diligently to ensure that those two commercial uses to the north are accommodated.
And I recognize that their current use and future use may differ.
But I have the experience of working with the developer that is very committed to this neighborhood.
And seeing this project advance sometimes to their own concessions.
So I'll fully support the project recognizing that this is a great addition to housing in Otter County.
Councillor.
Yeah, just through the chair.
I didn't support this at Woodstock and I won't support it.
Now it was deferred for some changes and there was no changes.
There's going to be a major issue with going in and out of there.
There's a host right beside it on Rathborn.
It's almost impossible now to get in and out.
There's a lot of other issues to with it.
But I won't be supporting it.
Anyone else?
Not seeing any all those favor?
Opposed?
That is carried.
And per sew it to the amended agenda.
Can I have a resolution to go into closed now?
Councillor Petrie.
It's one through you.
Move on myself.
My council rise and go to close session to consider the following pursuant to the municipal act.
A delegation from southwest public health pursuant to section 239 to I.
B reports HRCSCS2020604 and a verbal report from the director of human resources and corporate
services.
The report is set to section 239 to D.
C report Pw2026-292.
Section 239 to C.
And report CACS2026-16.
Section 239 to A.
Sorry, discussion.
All's in there?
Opposed?
That is carried.
Section 239 to D. C.
What are you talking about?
I'm 11, and we are back from closed, consideration of matters arising from closed, 14.1 council upon her.
Thank you, Warden.
Move by myself and Secretary Elsa Martin, Deputy Warden Martin.
Resolved that the delegation from the Southwest Public Health Bureau seat is information.
Thank you.
Thank you, Warden.
Thank you.
Thank you, Warden.
Thank you.
Thank you, Warden.
17, I think it is. Post it on speak up Oxford, notwithstanding whether everybody will agree or disagree with all of the answers and how it's going to turn it the way they want, but everybody will be getting answers to their questions.
And when I attended the second pick meeting, which was immediately before this petition was circulated that in I would characterize in general the people at the pick meeting were in favor of that.
The improvements needed to be made to the Dundestry corridor, so we'll see how that response flies. Again, I emailed the petition writer yesterday, so we'll see.
Anyone else before I call the question? All is favor opposed. That is carried.
And the reports on the rooms dealt with already public walks 8.2.1, PWU 2026-24, speed reduction on Oxford Road 28, west of 31st line, township of Zora, director of Abercrombie, is there anything you want to highlight for council?
Thank you, Warden Ryan. So this report is to extend the 60 kilometer zone on Oxford Road 28 approximately 700 meters to the west.
This is a result of our recommendation as a result of a proposed sand and gravel pit development west of Harrington.
And it was identified in their traffic impacts that lowering the speed to accommodate this would be beneficial, so that's why it's in front of council today and happy to answer any questions.
Questions from council on the report?
Councillor Shafer.
Thank you, Warden, for you move on myself. Seconded by Councillor Mayberry, resolve the recommendations containing report PWU 2026-24, titled speed reduction on Oxford Road 28, west of 31st line, township of Zora, be adopted.
As the move ready to speak to that.
Yes, just briefly, I think considering to plan sand and gravel pit, I think this makes sense to implement this change. I'll be supportive.
Councillor Mayberry is the seconder? Any other discussion?
Yeah, similarly, obviously I was involved in my other role at the township Zora Council in approving the zoning by-law change there, and that this was one of the specific concerns addressed.
I raised by residents and addressed by the planning report. I need for this and based on recommendation from county public works that this kind of accommodation would need to be made if the if it was approved.
So given that it was given that the zoning by-law is approved, I'm not sure of the status of the license application of the I have high confidence that it will be approved that I think this is the right thing to do so supportive of this.
Anyone else before I call the question? All is in favor.
Opposed? That is carried.
8.2.2.Pw226-254's amendments to recognize the biogenic portion of municipal solid waste as a renewable energy source environmental registry of Ontario O26-0595.
Dr. Abercrombies, anything you want to highlight for council there?
Thank you. So through this environmental registry, we are the provinces proposing two additional changes regarding municipal solid waste.
As mentioned in the title, the first is regarding biogenic or the organic portion of municipal waste and allow it to be used as a renewable energy source.
The second is to create a new approval process that will allow energy from waste facilities to obtain a renewable energy approval through a streamlined one window approach.
Staff are supportive of the proposed change regarding allowing the energy or the waste the organic waste to be used as energy but we do have some concerns regarding this new streamlined approval approach.
And requesting the additional information regarding that and before the public consultation before any legislative changes is our proposed and happy to answer any questions.
Questions from council on the report?
Not seeing any council on the report.
Thank you.
We're going to move on to the second-by-councillor Shave for Results of the recommendations.
We're going to report.
202625 total proposed amendments to recognize the biogenic portion of municipal solid waste as a renewable energy source.
Environmental registry of Ontario O26-0595.
As the move ready, we'll speak to that.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
I have a.
More definitely more of a comment than a question but I do feel sometimes and I did talk to the CAO about this that.
You know, we I think the question the issue identified in the report of.
We have we have questions is as a good one but I think sometimes we undersell ourselves and more importantly our staff.
If we have questions but we know what we think the answer should be.
I think we should just tell them what we think the answer should be.
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case in this report.
But but I don't think we should be afraid of doing that in future.
If instead of asking the question waiting for the answer and then saying that's the wrong answer.
In other words we knew what we thought the right answer was.
I don't think we should be afraid from.
In these kinds of things where there's a posting like this of asking our staff to tell us what they think the answer should be.
And then just tell the province that rather than saying.
I think we have credibility with the province of some of these technical issues and you know specifically with respect to planning we have historically and I don't think we should be afraid of doing that of just telling them.
As opposed to asking.
If we if we think we know but anyway.
Anyone else.
All's in favor.
Opposed.
That is carried.
8.3.1 human services.
2026-04 family and children's services update director Smith, is
anything you want to highlight for council before asking questions.
Thank you, Warden.
I'll actually pass it over to كemie and Clairm, the manager for the division,
just provide some high level details on the report.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
We are in a number of council through the warden.
I'm pleased to present this information report highlighting
the work of the family and children services division.
and our continued commitment to supporting children, families,
childcare operators and community partners across the community.
The initiatives outlined in this report directly support the county's strategic plan by strengthening community well-being,
improving access to essential services, fostering collaborative partnerships,
and contributing to a strong local economy.
Through the childcare and early years plan, the division is focused on increasing access,
improving affordability, supporting inclusive and responsive services,
enhancing quality, and using evidence to improve outcomes for children and families.
This year, family and children services continue to make progress across several key priorities.
While we're on track to achieve the 2026 Canada-wide early learning and childcare space targets,
our ability to increase access to licensed childcare remains limited by the number of spaces allocated by the Ministry of Education.
We continue to advocate for additional spaces in funding to address
officers ongoing childcare access challenges and remain optimistic that a new agreement between the federal
and provincial governments will result in an additional expansion in 2027.
Beyond C-Walk, we have introduced a new special needs resourcing agency to increase inclusive
early learning environments and strengthen them.
We've expanded opportunities for collaboration through the Children's Services Planning table.
And we continue to see strong participation in the early on child and family center programs,
with nearly 17,000 visits in the first half of the year.
As a directly operated program, early on delivers high quality responsive programming and services to families
which children need zero to six. Unlike child care, these programs allow families to access
meaningful experiences together with their children.
That support child development, early intervention, initiatives, parenting supports, and school readiness programs.
Beyond early learning opportunities, these programs also connect families to a wide range of onsite community resources,
including pediatric care, speech and language services, therapeutic supports, parent education,
and specialized services for children with special needs.
Family and children services is also leaning deeper into integrated service delivery.
The introduction of specialized case workers dedicated to supporting Ontario works and housing clients,
with children under the age of six.
Create more seamless pathways to things such as child care, fee subsidy, early on program services, and other community resources.
We've also fully transitioned to an online child care fee subsidy application, which will make it easier for families to apply,
reduce administrative burden, and create more efficient processes for staff.
So these initiatives that are highlighted in the report contribute to what we hope will be an integrated earlier system,
that supports healthy child development, strength and families, and builds a thriving community.
Please to present the report and welcome any of your questions.
Thank you.
Questions from council? Councilor Petrie.
Thank you, Warden.
Approximately how many families are on the wait list for child care program?
So, in checking the current wait list, we have about 3,100 unique children on our wait list.
Yep.
So, thank you.
And I think the warden and all staff are advocating for that.
I don't know if people in the community, they see it happen through Oxford County,
but it's really that that pinch is from the provincial cutting back the spaces that were allocated to Oxford County,
and so our families in Oxford County are suffering without being able to contribute as much as they possibly could with that with 3,100 individual families or unique children.
Any children?
Any children in that?
No.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah.
If we have the councilor, I have to see if it's certainly not going to be the councilor,
but if you're following the case, it is purely a political issue.
I think between municipal, provincial and federal, all three together, we're sort of, you know,
Spider-Man's point and at each other kind of thing.
I, of course, think that they're wrong.
They, of course, think that, you know, whatever, right, that's how that goes.
But I think staff, I just want council to know that while there is this gap there,
like staff have done commendable work.
In first of all, in allocating all the spaces that we have available and making sure they actually get up and running and delivering the service.
But also, as I say, in harming me with all the information that I could have to go to the minister and talk about it,
and, and our MPP and trying to make the case that we, that we need more spaces.
I think we've made the case that we need more spaces politically for a variety of reasons that the province and the federal government cannot agree to get us more spaces.
Anyone else?
Councilor, you'll be easy.
Thank you, move by myself.
Seconded by Councillor Petrie was off at the recommendation Canadian Report,
HS-2026-04 titled Family and Child Services Update be adopted,
and can I add that the meeting be extended to 230?
I guess I.
Can we just deal with the one we're saying?
We can.
I can do it separately.
Yeah.
Okay, so all end up be adopted.
Any discussion?
All's favorite.
Opposed.
That is carried.
Thank you.
Councillor, go lazy.
Move by myself.
Self-insecated by Deputy Warden Martin, that the meeting be extended to 230 PM.
Sorry, discussion.
All's in favor?
Opposed?
That is carried.
Thank you.
For offering that leadership to Council, both of you.
8.4.1 financial services, FS-26-15, internal debt financing,
Zora.
Dr. King, is there anything you want to highlight for Council before ask them for questions?
No, nothing further.
Nothing further.
Go highlight.
Questions from Council?
Councillor Petrie.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Warden.
Through you.
Move by myself.
Say it by Councillor Peterson.
Result.
Recommendation.
Container report.
FS-2026-15.
Internal debt financing.
Zora.
Sorry.
Discussion.
I have a question on this.
I'm going to vote in favor of it to be clear.
Do we have at the Treasury level or at the CA level?
Do we ever have discussions?
Because the county, like finances, this, the county provides these loans.
Do we have any discussions with the area municipalities about?
Because it uses up our debt, right?
Our collective debt, but also the county's debt.
Do we ever have any discussions with them around, I don't want to say what's appropriate,
but basically I'm thinking what's appropriate.
We start using up our debt and re-risk our AAA credit rating and all that kind of stuff.
So, with the area and the Ms. Wiltransers, they do get provided a forecast of the debt that they
are looking to issue in the next 10 years.
That's part of our standards and poor credit rating review.
As for what debt they're going to issue, they are voted on by a separate Ms.
Council, so it's up to that Council to decide.
Each Ms. Pauity does have to adhere to their annual repayment limit, which is the ARL,
which is mandated by the province through their FIR.
So they do have to stay within that limit for issuing debt.
Any other comments?
All's in favor?
Opposed?
That's carried.
And at 8.4.2, FS-26-16, OILC, financing applications would stock well in FIR.
But I'm so pleased with what stocks were to ingress all county of Oxford, Dr. King's, or anything you want to highlight.
I will say so.
This is part of our annual process of submitting an application to OILC.
This process this year, because it is quite a large undertaking of the applications.
It's really important that we get these applications in today's meeting,
so that they can be issued by December 15th.
So, have you to answer any questions that you may have?
Questions for council?
I'm not seeing any council or tape.
We've got myself second to break council.
Councillor Petrie resolved that the recommendations continue to report FS.
2026-16 to FS-26-16, OILC, financing applications.
Listed up, lamp for blend and south west Oxford,
ingress all county of Oxford be adopted.
Sorry, discussion.
Councillor Petrie.
Yeah.
This is one of the highlight.
In some cases, you know, in an ingressless case, this was an up case.
This is not necessarily what we're boring.
This is the application amount for what it's needed.
So, hopefully, me above anybody else,
would hopefully that we're not going to actually need to actually maybe put that much on.
But I guess this is the process you have to go through.
It's like, you think it's going to go by a house?
With that planning for a mortgage first, right?
And yet, Deputywoman.
Thank you for you. My question was similar to the question that the warden had earlier in the very last
item. This is the annual debt repayment limit of each of the municipalities that are putting in
for this potential loan, not the counties annual debt repayment limit.
That's correct. It is an annual repayment for each area in this
poverty. However, the collective debt does get considered when we look at our
credit rating as the county.
Anyone else? All's in favour? Opposed? That is carried.
8.5.1 Human Services HRCS 206. There is a report council
compensation view director Smith is anything you want to highlight for council
before asked them for questions.
Thank you, Warden. Through you. I think I just briefly wanted to highlight that the process we
followed for this term's council compensation review is consistent with the one we
followed four years ago prior to your term of council commencing.
You will see in the report that there are adjustments recommended to all three positions,
warden, deputy warden and councillor position to maintain the 60th
percentile pay target. If those adjustments are approved,
like last time, they would become effective with the
commencement of the new term of council.
And then we are also recommending to keep the practice consistent of adjusting
councils pay based on whatever is approved for a non union adjustment in each
budget year. And then just lastly, as we went through this process,
we realized that we don't have a council re-neumeration policy.
So currently we rely on the various non union policies for things like
milder reimbursement, conference expenses.
So we thought we just thought it was important to bring forth a future meeting
a council re-neumeration policy, which would cover all of those other aspects of council
compensation, as well as would outline how council compensation is adjusted
on an annual basis.
Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from council?
Deputy one.
Thank you through you.
At the beginning of this term, the councillor re-neumeration was about
34,275, and now in this 2026, it's 27,492 in the proposals to go up to
41,336.
But if I just look at that non union adjustment or even cola,
we're actually, if you look at that year over year of year,
really isn't that far off the 41,336 that's being recommended here.
Like maybe $1,000 off is like this is a proposed salary to maintain the
60th percent of it.
But we're really not actually that far off of this just by using the non union
adjustment, correct?
Through the warden, if I'm understanding the question correctly.
Yes, so it's only about a 10.3% difference based on the increases that have been applied
since the last review.
Right.
And now the new review obviously has analyzed those compared to municipalities to
recommend the 41,336.
I just don't want the community to perceive this as a massive pay increase from where we
start, because it actually, when I use my calculator and where we were at the beginning
and if I apply cola year over year or if I apply the non union adjustment year over year,
we're actually not a huge difference from what this report is recommending for
2027.
Through the warden, without looking at the numbers specifically, I actually can't comment on that, but
my math was less than $1,000.
Any other questions?
Councillor Mayberry.
Thank you, Warden.
Move on myself.
Second, Deputy Warden.
My name is all the drug and agent in the report.
Each of our CIS, 20264, there's a council conversation review of be adopted.
As the move ready, we'll speak to that.
Deputy Warden is the seconder.
Any other discussion?
Councillor Petry.
I think it's important to, well, I'm not a fan of the
market review as much for staff, because staff can transfer to different
organizations.
I do think there needs to be a mechanism to keep the compensation current and
relevant to what the job is and make sure those
market, those increases do happen on a regular basis.
So you don't get the big jump after a long period of time.
A lot of councils don't look at it for years and all someone is
relevant to brought it up.
There's a big uproar over it when really it's just keeping up with where it
should have been.
So I appreciate that there's going to be a policy brought forward.
I'll type of line that and so there's clarity.
But again, I'm not always a fan of the market review in the council's
consideration.
Only because getting apples to apples is a lot harder to do, given that,
can't just transfer to another council and everybody's a little bit different.
And it's hard to get at 100% rates.
It's a little bit harder to take.
Just through the chair, I won't be supporting the motion.
I'm fine at being at the 50% I know our thing says 60%.
But times have changed and it's very hard on the residents right now with
all our increases we've had over the years and then, of course, the cost of living
is up.
But we're already tied to an increase automatically,
which I guess will be in the policy, but it's getting done now.
And there's going to be an increase in January already already.
So I cannot support this.
Councillor Atroning.
Thank you.
Through you, Warden.
I am also not going to support this.
I don't.
This is tough.
The pressures between doing an elected role in municipalities.
Everywhere has been tough, especially the social media.
I do believe there should be a fair salary that goes with us,
so that for those reasons it's been tough.
Because we have a mechanism already in place that I think is a fairly decent salary,
I won't be supporting this either.
Councillor Govassie.
Thank you.
Say I call those comments.
I won't be supporting it as well.
I'm also the comparatives throughout the 50th percentile,
and I'm not too concerned about being at the 60th percentile.
I do agree that this is a difficult job at time.
At times, but we also forget why we're here.
It's partly public service too, right?
We're not here to collect a paycheck or a wage or a salary,
but we're here for public service.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
I will be supporting this.
As I think publicly and well-known, I'm going at the door.
This is not a raise that I'm going to get, whether it's passes or not.
I think that in every other, not, and I fully agree with the comments of it
being public service, right?
But to be clear, the wage that counselors are paid,
almost everywhere, is significantly below already
what you would be paid in the private sector for similar work.
Significantly.
I think in every other sector and frequently residents will say to us,
you know, government should run like a business.
Well, in every other sector of the world, if people aren't doing a good enough job,
you do not get them to do a better job or you do not attract or retain better people
by lowering the compensation.
Presumably, people want a better warden in the future than I am now.
Whether they think I'm a great warden or a terrible warden,
I hope they want a better warden either way.
You are not going to attract more people to do that job by offering less money.
Like, that's just not the way the world works.
Whether you're Oxford County, whether you're a McDonald's,
whether you're a farm operator, no matter who your business is,
you only attract and retain better people by offering better compensation.
And in the case of us as counselors, that is generally pay only.
We don't get vacation time, we don't get pension, we don't get benefits,
we don't get any of those things.
As someone who, as of November 15th is not going to be on this council,
I very much want the best people from Oxford County sitting in this room
deciding how to spend my tax dollars on my services.
And I'm willing to pay to get more people interested in doing that.
So that as a voter, I will have more options to choose from in doing that.
And I think the extra dollar value in this in the context of an Oxford County budget
is trivial compared to the savings that could be there by having better people in this room
than me to decide how to do that.
In terms of the quality of service people get and the effect of use of dollars.
Very supportive of this and very supportive of the policy coming back in future as well.
Councillor T.
Just a final comment and just with your comments.
That's my concern is the people that maybe are doing it for the money.
You're not getting the best people to serve the community.
And I've seen it over terms, over terms, over terms.
So you're in it for public service.
I completely disagree with your comments.
We're not the public, we're not the private.
And it's not a job, it's public service.
So ask for a recorded vote.
Councillor Petrie.
Yeah, I'm going to say that the amount that entails to do the role to do the reading.
Because nobody here is just here.
They have another council as well.
You know, with a lot of responsibilities as well.
And so one of those things is, you know,
I have no problem saying that like a community my size.
There is no reason why it's not a full-time position.
I treat it like a full-time position.
I don't know how someone would not treat a full-time position.
And be able to say that you're giving all that you could give.
Yes, it is public service, but the same time you're there to represent.
And as we grow and all the things need, you need to be able to give the time that it deserves.
You see the size, the agenda is in the amount of reading that it takes in the research.
There's a lot of things going on.
I don't think that this increases the extravagant whatsoever.
I think that, you know, it's, you're certainly not just doing this county role.
And I'll put it out there.
You know, I wouldn't be able to serve the residents.
If I didn't have the county role and the mayor role combined.
It wouldn't be able to do it full-time and be able to give the hours that I feel required
if they had to give it a second job to be able to afford housing and everything else.
So I think that's where everybody treats it differently.
But I personally want to have someone sitting in my seat, whether it's me or someone else,
that can give a hundred percent of their time to the roles that they're being asked to by the residents.
And I think they can, with what's being proposed.
Anyone else?
The truth is, I take exception to that.
Somebody is allowed to have a job and run for public office.
They don't have to have not, another job that they have to make it.
So you're limiting people.
You use your time wisely.
And it should be anybody that wants to come forward, whatever they do.
I think that's a terrible comment to say that you can't be employed to be a mayor or something.
That's incorrect.
It's public service.
Share my opinion.
Anyone else before I call a question?
I'm going to turn it over to the clerk for a quarter vote.
Thank you, Warden Ryan.
Councillor Mayberry.
Yes.
Councillor Gilbezi.
No.
Warden Ryan.
Yes.
Councillor Schaffer.
Yes.
Councillor Peterson.
Yes.
Councillor Palmer.
Yes.
Councillor Atchione.
No.
Deputy Warden Martin.
Yes.
Councillor Petrie.
Yes.
And Councillor Tate.
No.
Sorry.
The motion is carried 73.
8.6.1.
CAO26-15.
Most of your accessibility plan of policy update.
Clerk Man's Bridge.
Is there anything you want to highlight for council before?
I like for council before I ask the questions.
Thank you, Warden Ryan.
This report seeks council's approval of updates to the county accessibility policy, formerly known as the multiyear accessibility policy.
And endorsement of a new multiyear accessibility plan.
These changes reflect current best practices and the contents maintain compliance with audit and legislation.
The policy amendments are primarily administrative and nature.
And there are no financial impacts associated with any future accessibility initiatives requiring funding.
And they will continue to be considered through future annual business plan and budget processes.
The plan has also been reviewed by the county's accessibility advisory committee.
And I'm happy to answer any questions that council may have.
I should suggest you just hear as well.
Questions from council?
Not seeing any council are peaturing.
Move by myself.
Thank you, Warden.
Move by myself.
Second by council.
Good.
Second by council.
Good.
I'm pleased.
And that's seeing any inquiries of staff.
Not seeing any close session has been dealt with.
Myraas.
All 12 of them counts their take.
Uh, by themselves.
Seconded by council your喜欢 to the following,
by-loris keinervisor.
Could red a first and second time.
6 8 4 6 dash.
26 to six 8 5 7 dash 26 inclusive.
3 discussion.
All in favour?
post that is carried and Councillor T.
We move by myself, seconded by Councillor Palmer.
I'll let the following by us be given a third and final reading 6846 dash,
2026 to 6857 dash, 2026 inclusive.
It's ready to discuss.
All is a favor? Post, that is carried. And adjourned, Councillor Peterson.
Just before I read that adjourned, I just want to make a quick comment if it's okay. I spent the last three
weeks in Eastern Canada. And I just want to remind everybody here and I'm sure you all know how beautiful
our country is. And I think we should all be traveling across our country instead of going somewhere else.
And I just thought I'd throw that out there was absolutely beautiful a great time. And I just thought I'd say that before I adjourned.
Thank you, Ward.
Who'd buy an assault? Secondly, Deputy Ward, Morton, Resil, the Council.
Be in of July 8th, 2026. Be adjourned until the next meeting is scheduled for August 12th, 2026.
Sir, any discussion? All's a favor? Post.
That is carried.
That's it.
Thank you.