Grey County Committee of the Whole Meeting Transcript — February 12, 2026

00:00:05 Speaker 01: Okay, thank you very much. I'd like to call to order this committee, the whole meeting of February twelfth, twenty twenty-six. At this point in time, I will put out a call if there are any declarations of interest for today's agenda. Seeing no hands raised, we will carry on business arising for minutes.

00:00:26 Speaker 01: Next, we will move on to our delegations. We have one delegation this morning. regarding a county-wide stormwater management master plan, and we have three guests who are going to be participating online. So I'd like to welcome them to go ahead and put their cameras on at this point in time. Go. Okay. Good morning, gentlemen.

00:00:55 Speaker 01: So thank you very much for participating here online. we are we are here in the chamber. We have a few of our council members who are also online to follow along with you. So, at this point in time, I'd like to offer you the floor if you would like to make your introductions of who you are and who you represent, and then carry on into the content of your delegation. And typically, what we do at the county council level here is we'll hear the delegation. We don't do motions necessarily afterwards, but we will be taking in your information for contemplation. So, thank you very much. We appreciate your participation. with us this morning. The floor is yours. Good morning, Warden, and members of council. My name is Bradley Mulligan, and I am here today with my esteemed colleagues to speak about the critical importance of a cohesive stormwater master plan for Gray County and the direction Gray County and its nine municipalities choose to take moving forward.

00:01:39 Speaker 01: Stormwater is no longer a background infrastructure issue; it directly affects public safety, the integrity of our roads, bridges, private property, agricultural lands, drinking water sources, and overall health of our watersheds.

00:02:05 Speaker 01: Across Gray County, the impacts of more frequent and more intense rainfall events are being felt already, exposing the limitations of systems designed for past conditions and relying on legacy stormwater management practices that, in many cases, are contributing to the degradation.

00:02:24 Speaker 01: of our watersheds. The three of us here today are here to provide assistance, education, and insight into viable, best-in-class stormwater management techniques and practices. With increasing pressure from the provincial government to accelerate housing development, we have already seen in other municipalities within Grey County what appears to be a disregard for watershed protection.

00:02:52 Speaker 01: This. will result in adverse impacts to agricultural lands, tourism, groundwater, and drinking water quality, and both public and private property. And this is often stemming from good enough legacy dump and run stormwater management approaches. As a taxpayer in Gray County, I struggle to understand the disparity we see across this county. For example, Gray Highlands. rejected spending approximately a hundred and fifty thousand dollars on a stormwater management plan, while the town of Blue Mountains has invested over six hundred and fifty thousand in a progressive and forward-looking plan. As a taxpayer, are we to conclude one of two things: either some municipalities are unwilling to invest in protecting future generations, their constituents, and the environment, or there is such significant disparity in available tax resources among the nine municipalities that some simply cannot afford to do so. If the latter is true, then does it not follow that true taxpayer accountability would be better served by Gray County developing a best-in-class best practices countywide stormwater master management plan, one that would allow all.

00:04:18 Speaker 01: nine municipalities to adopt and tailor to their specific regional conditions and needs, rather than spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars on nine separate and potentially inconsistent plans and studies.

00:04:34 Speaker 01: Council now faces a clear choice: continue planning to minimum standards on outdated guidelines, or adopt a forward-looking, climate-resilient stormwater. Climate resilient stormwater master management plan template designed to reduce long-term risks and costs.

00:04:53 Speaker 01: A plan that merely meets historic standards will fail future councils, future residents, and will continue to damage our precious water sense. We recognize that ten minutes is not nearly enough time to address this issue in the depth it deserves. We would therefore welcome the opportunity to return for a full committee as a whole meeting. with a greater amount of time, as we have done with Gray Highlands, to take a deeper dive into both the challenges and the solutions. We here we are here today to urge council to commit to the creation of a countywide stormwater master plan that goes beyond compliance, prioritizes prevention over reaction, applies best-in-class practices, and treats stormwater as a critical asset.

00:05:44 Speaker 01: Water as a critical asset, not a liability. The decision made at this table will shape Gray County's resilience for decades to come. And the question for council is not whether Gray County can afford to do this; it is whether we can afford not to.

00:05:56 Speaker 01: Thank you for your time and consideration. I now hand this over to Andrew McCammon and Jack Imhoff, who will give greater detail in both policy and techniques. Thank you. Thanks very much.

00:06:46 Speaker 01: Could somebody confirm that my screen is? I'm sharing my screen because I'm trying to. Okay, so my screen, Mr. McCammon. At the moment, we can just see we can see your name, but your video's not turned on. You have we're not seeing the shared slides.

00:07:22 Speaker 01: Not seen the shared slides at this point in time. There we go. There, yeah, that's looking. There we go. So we've got your full screen, and you might want to one and two. Yes, yes. So you might want to move that that zoom one out of the way. There you go. Maybe try going to view slide deck instead, so that we can see it in greater size instead of your your ribbon up across the top. That might help. Oh, I'm technologically incompetent, so. Logically incompetent, so I'm afraid. I'm happy that I have sent you a PDF. It hopefully will be in your agenda package, and there's no changes. We do, and and yes, so you're welcome.

00:07:34 Speaker 01: Whatever makes you comfortable, go ahead and keep using this view. Thank you so very much, and thank Council for allowing us this opportunity today. The Ontario Headwaters Institute is a registered charity, and our mission, in our letters patent, with the Canada Revenue Agency are that we promote watershed security, healthy and resilient watersheds that protect regional ecological integrity, social well-being, and economic vitality.

00:08:47 Speaker 02: And oh, I am just so bad. This I won't read my slides. The first comment I want to make is the inserts of gray. Inserts of Great County's visuals into the national anthem video was highly water centric, and I think that speaks very highly to what I know of Great County and its residents, where people really care about water.

00:08:55 Speaker 02: So we've been working as a threesome for nine months in response to a number of site specific issues, where we are seeing that, unfortunately, in spite of what.

00:09:11 Speaker 02: Brad talked about with the town of Blue Mountains establishing a stormwater management master planning process, that some councils don't understand the difference in the terminology, and that a site-specific stormwater management plan is just that, and you can't appeal to common county-wide or municipal-wide standards without a consistent stormwater management master. Water Management Master Plan.

00:09:21 Speaker 02: It's been a fascinating odyssey to have to speak to some councilors who just don't understand the difference. So we're we think that there's a huge role for the county to step into that void and ensure that all of the water regionally has the same high level standards.

00:09:53 Speaker 02: A master plan would treat local development applications evenly, set men. Set minimum standards for site-specific plans. Avoid inconsistencies between costs borne by a developer and costs borne by the taxpayer. By that, I'm referring to what Brad mentioned in that when poor management stormwater management is implemented, you can wash out the footings for a bridge downstream, and then the taxpayers get to pick up the costs for restoring those footings.

00:10:30 Speaker 02: and it reduced the negative downstream impact on a full watershed basis. So that's why we see it's been a real odyssey to go through Gray County and see the the variances. And clearly, from our perspective, there's a need for a stormwater management master plan. The good news here is that yes, while it will be a short-term expense, there's a really long.

00:11:15 Speaker 02: There's a really long-term gain, and that is the fact that the provincial planning statement actually requires planning authorities such as municipalities to protect, improve, and restore the quantity and quality of water by using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for planning. You can't do stormwater on a site, but you can do it on a site-specific basis. But you really have to look downstream. and take a holistic approach. The secondary aspect of this, also in the PPS, is that municipalities are obligated to minimize the potential negative impacts of planning on water. So it's quite clear that it would help with your planning. It would ensure a consistent platform for proposals and ensure the residents who love the visual images in the in the old Canada summary. to make to protect that going forward for future generations. That's my time.

00:11:32 Speaker 02: Thank you very very much. Okay. Thank you very much to both of you, and I'll now look to Mr. Imhoff if you'd like to add to the delegation. Thank you, Madam Warden, and members of council. Thank you for the opportunity for all three of us to speak to you about the critical need for a cohesive stormwater management master plan for the county. My name is Jack Imhoff, and I am an aquatic ecologist and watershed scientist. First, for many years, with the Ministry of Natural Resources, and then as the director of conservation ecology for Freshwater Conservation Canada, a national NGO.

00:12:54 Speaker 02: Over my more than 50 years as an ecologist, I've spent a great deal of time in Grey County, as well as throughout Ontario and across Canada. It seems to me that. often those that live in an area don't often have a full appreciation of how special their area can be. It's home and familiar. Sometimes we need to go elsewhere in Canada and the world to see how special our land and waters are. I'm here to tell you what you have is special, unusual, and extremely sensitive to change, as well as sensitive to poor planning and design, whether from forestry, agriculture, or development.

00:13:01 Speaker 02: I often see your slogan. As a matter of fact, my wife and I were driving around the other day up in lovely Grey County, looking for snowy owls and a few other odds and sods, and I noticed your sign saying "Color it your way," and I'm here to urge you all to color it blue for water. Within Grey County, you have the last remaining high-quality water and watersheds found in southern Ontario. Largely, this is due to your local geology, which acts as like a sponge. holding, cleansing, and releasing clean water through the land into your wetlands and streams, and ultimately to the lake and often to your taps. These watersheds have, in the past, provided food, water for people and animals, and crops, as well as healthy, robust environments for people, whether they live, hike, fish, hunt, or just enjoy this special county, as I have.

00:13:35 Speaker 02: As my colleagues Brad and Andrew have stated, this quality can go up and smoke through. incremental one-off land use development and change, especially in sensitive headwater areas, which, once damaged, can translate that damage all the way down the system and ultimately to the lakes.

00:14:02 Speaker 02: I've spent my career working to develop better understandings of our watersheds, developing tools, technologies, and design protocols with fellow professionals in the engineering, hydrology, hydrogeology, and planning fields. I was also an adjunct at. the University of Guelph in the School of Environmental Design and Rural Development.

00:14:49 Speaker 02: The purpose, my purpose, in this work is to ensure sound development for people, while not creating a legacy of degradation, damage, and long-term cost to all of you, as Brad and Andrew have mentioned. We do know better.

00:15:18 Speaker 02: We simply seem to have forgotten. The land and waters are our most precious resources, and we need to plan far better to guide development that provides opportunities. without massive long-term costs, and this is why the county and its collective municipalities need to create a cohesive stormwater management master planning process. Perhaps targeting first of all for high-growth areas such as Markdale, Meaford, Thornbury, and so on. This would create uniform approaches, standards, and designs, and reduce the individual costs and variability of multiple municipal master plans. By coordinating this with your member municipalities, you would. both expedite sound development, ensure protection for the needs of both agriculture and new residents, while maintaining these healthy lands and waters for and saving money now and in the future. And to stress what Brad and Andrew said, we need to go beyond the minimum standards, which ultimately end in minimal environments. MECP's own documents urge us to go beyond the minimum, and I urge you to manage for excellence rather than mediocrity by supporting and encouraging By supporting and coordinating a master plan for all your growth municipalities, shared costs will provide cost savings and shared healthy lands and waters.

00:15:44 Speaker 02: And I really want to thank you all for the time and your consideration on this matter. Thank you.

00:15:59 Speaker 02: Okay, thank you very much to the three of you. I'm going to now put it out to see if there are any questions for clarification from any of our council members. Looking around the room, I'm not seeing any hands raised here. Just confirming on. Just confirming online, nor online. Okay, thank you. We very much appreciate both all three of your your inputs to be able to put together this delegation for us for our contemplation. And thank you very much for circulating the slide deck as well. Very helpful to see those additional details that are built into that. So we appreciate the time that you've had with us this morning. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So with that, then we are going to move on. to our consent agenda. We actually have ten items on the consent agenda, so I'll ask if there are any that wish to be that any committee, the whole member wishes to pull, and then that way we'll arrange for it towards the end of the agenda. We'll go to Councillor Gregg. Item six A, the correspondence from the City of Peterborough, please. Okay, thank you. That's six A. Anything else, Councillor Nielsen? Six I, please. Six I as an ice cream, and looking online, looking around the table, not seeing anything further. Okay, all right.

00:16:44 Speaker 02: So we will contemplate those two matters separately. So with that, then it is recommended that the following consent agenda items be received, and that staff be authorized to take the actions necessary to give effect to the recommendations in the staff reports, and that the correspondence. be supported or received for information, as recommended in the consent agenda.

00:17:42 Speaker 02: We ask for a mover and a seconder. Thank you. Move by Councillor Pringle, seconded by Councillor Carleton. Any discussion? All those in favor? And that motion is carried.

00:17:57 Speaker 02: Okay, that allows us to move on to our items for separate discussion. For discussion, we're looking at items. We're looking at item 7A, and Madam Clerk is making her way to the lectern to introduce that. But let me get it on the floor before we enter into discussion. It's recommended that CCRCW0126 regarding a draft updated council compensation bylaw be received, and that council compensation bylaw, as presented, be brought forward to County Council in the form substantially attached hereto for consideration.

00:18:29 Speaker 01: May I ask for a mover and a seconder? Got it. Moved by Councillor Hutchinson, seconded by Councillor Eccles. it's now on the floor for discussion. Welcome to the lectern, Madam Clerk. Thank you, Madam Warden. Good morning, County Council. Through you, Madam Warden, this bylaw here, proposed bylaw here today, is the first of a series of updated policies the Clerk's Department plans to bring forward this year, prior to the end of the council term. So, the current bylaw in place that governs council's paying expense and reimbursements is bylaw forty-seven hundred. two ten, and it requires some updating given its its age. Rest assured, just that your pay is being done consistently and by the same people each month, so it is accurate. But the policy itself does need some cleaning up. So we just thought we'd bring this forward prior to the end of the term.

00:19:18 Speaker 01: So there is a proposed bylaw attached to the back of the report, and the changes and highlights are summarized. in the report, but I'll just go through some of them of note here right now. The first one is just simply updating the per diem and salaries for both warden and counselor to 2026 rates, and then removing the prior increases, the reference increases being made by CPI. We've swapped that out to reflect cost of living adjustments instead of that previous practice to increase based on CPI. There is also a specification of what salary payment actually does cover, which is being the attendance, added preparation for regular and special convene council meetings, and social and community functions.

00:20:19 Speaker 01: A new section in the updated proposed bylaw is clarification that. you, if there is a subcommittee or task force meeting that happens on the same day as county council, that councilors are still eligible for a separate per diem. Your council meetings are you're paid by salary for those. So if you attend any subcommittee or task force meetings, you're eligible for a per diem. So that's just clarifying what could have been in the past an inconsistent practice where you are eligible for that per diem despite being at county council the same day. Also the same day. There is also a proposed amendment that will note that if you attend a meeting for less than thirty minutes, no per diem is paid.

00:21:05 Speaker 01: The current bylaw says that if you're in attendance for half the time of the total meeting length, you are not paid that per diem.

00:21:17 Speaker 01: So that's just making more of a clean threshold of thirty minutes. There is a the incorporation of the fifty dollars. technology allowance into the bylaw, that's just consolidating a current policy position into this bylaw as well, and then a new section noting that councilors are eligible to be reimbursed for expenses that are reasonable and your out-of-pocket expenses you incur while conducting county business.

00:21:47 Speaker 01: So, where you will likely see this most of the time is on your conference travel days, where you're not necessarily eligible for. a meal per diem, but you can submit expenses for reimbursement.

00:22:03 Speaker 01: And then a new process section at the end of the bylaw, which in the report it has a bit of an error here, so it's a new section that outlines that receipts must be submitted within sixty calendar days, but cannot be submitted past December thirty first of any year. Is what that that reference should stay in the report. So this is just to assist with accuracy of pay and making sure that we're paying all expenses within the year, and it helps with budget and reconciling numbers at the end of the year. And come twenty twenty seven, non union staff and council compensation will be reviewed again as part of the. I believe it's a five year four year five year cycle, so that's anticipated to take place next year. If council has any questions, I'm happy to. Councillors, any questions? I'm happy to try to answer those. Okay, thank you very much. I'll look around the room, and I've got a couple of hands here. So we'll begin with Councillor Greg, and then we'll go to the Deputy Warden. Thanks, Tara, for the report this morning. First question is, if you could expand a little bit more on the subcommittee meeting or advisory committee meeting for less than 30 minutes, no per diem will be paid. I potentially see that as a little bit problematic because. preparation for a meeting is being, I think, is is an oversight. There, I think the old older language. I mean, if it's if it's a meeting that was not longer than thirty minutes, and someone is only there for fifteen minutes, that doesn't sound to me like they had a lot of intention to to attend the meeting.

00:23:40 Speaker 01: I'm more comfortable, I think, with the older language as opposed to the new language, not allowing for any remuneration. because it dismisses the amount of time spent preparing for the meeting, that's a concern of mine.

00:23:56 Speaker 01: Second concern is, and I spoke to this in the past. This is another opportunity just for me to speak to it. I am opposed to the county including formal language to pay for alternate county councilors to attend. If the county, if the alternates want to be remunerated by their lower tier municipalities to attend, that's. fine. However, I don't think the county should be facilitating and or condoning an environment. We just recently had an in-depth discussion regarding a new 128 bed build at Greg Abel's and having paying alternate councilors to attend and participate in that debate that day without having the institutional background. and informed insights into what the ramifications of such a decision could have.

00:24:51 Speaker 01: I don't think the county should be facilitating formally remunerating at this end for those individuals to participate. So, first is a question. Second, I would be opposed to the alternate language. Thank you. And with regards to your your question, I'd. certainly we'd take council's direction on what your preference is, whether it's to introduce this new 30-minute threshold or to keep the remaining or something different.

00:25:23 Speaker 01: My thinking in changing it was that for meetings that are longer in length, if you had a three- or four-hour committee meeting and a councillor was attending for, say, they were there for an hour and 20 minutes or an hour and 15 minutes, that there's perhaps the way the current policy is written is that they wouldn't receive a per diem. or there'd be a deduction.

00:25:38 Speaker 01: So the thinking was that's still a somewhat significant amount of time and is worth consideration of a per diem payment. But I'm happy to adjust that with council's direction as you see fit. Okay, thank you. We'll carry on with the discussion. Then we'll look to the deputy warden.

00:26:00 Speaker 01: Thank you, Madam Warden, and this kind of discussion is always. fraught with danger for the elected official, but here we are, and here we go. Um, my question is, and concern somewhat is the definition of meeting per diems regarding full day or half day.

00:26:30 Speaker 01: The following paragraph says that the per diems shall be payable for preparation, attendance, so on and so forth. Does the half day or full day definition consider travel time? Some counselors, the drive is an hour.

00:26:51 Speaker 01: Sometimes the counselors, depending on where they're from, can take ten minutes, six minutes. Sorry, eighteen minutes. In any case, so if if the half day, for instance, meeting is less than six hours. So if the meeting is five and a half hours, it takes an hour to get here, an hour to get home. Now we're up to seven and a half hours. Really, half day. I'm thinking that's more like a full day. Knowing full well that there's going to be others that consider that a half day. I get that. Lots of days I have half days that are many hours as well, but. if you could just maybe clarify a little more on that one, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. I'll I'll certainly take a stab at it.

00:27:49 Speaker 01: The full day and half day, I can't speak to the rationale for why those those lengths of meeting times were originally put in. This is a carryover from the current bylaw. It's something that we didn't necessarily propose to change, but I do acknowledge that. that is perhaps a little bit long, but it does not incorporate travel time. Just for clarification, so if again, if Council would like to see the half day that threshold changed to four hours or five or something different, then staff will happily take that direction based on what your experiences as attendees of these meetings. Okay. Well, I'll put it out for any further discussion. We'll go to. Councillor Nielsen. Thank you very much, Warden Matrosov.

00:28:38 Speaker 03: Just one question I have, just in terms of your the timeline on review of the remuneration. County Council has the same timeline as municipal elections, and it always seems to be, to the Deputy Warden's comments, a difficult conversation to have when you're the sitting as elected official talking about your own pay.

00:29:15 Speaker 03: Where About your own pay, whereas reviewing remuneration prior to the election, for so that the incoming members of Great County Council or even our lower tier municipalities are understanding the remuneration itself, but also are not involved in talking about our own pay. So I'm just wondering if, like, the conversation about why we're not going to review till 2027, which will be after the next municipal election, and the the proposed date to review the actual salaries is 2027, just because that's the schedule that was established during the last review of non-union, and council was done alongside that review as well. So that's just keeping on that same schedule.

00:29:33 Speaker 03: Which, sorry, Jen, is it four years, five years? Sorry, which is, yeah. Oh, sorry. I'll defer that to Jen.

00:29:52 Speaker 03: I saw Director Morrow had raised her hand earlier, so I wanted to make sure she had a chance to address it as well. through you, Madam Warden. We performed the last non-union and council remuneration with our third-party expert Gallagher and Associates. We did that as quickly after the pandemic as we could, but that aligned to 2023.

00:30:20 Speaker 03: We did the review, and in 2024, Council elected to add that to the budget if Council. would like to change that cycle and bump it up a year, because we do do it together, we would bump that up quickly. So you would consider it in the next year before you are no longer perhaps council members before the election, for lack of better words.

00:31:23 Speaker 03: Thank you very much for much stuff, and and thank you. for that answer, and and I do understand the convenience of cycling at the same time as we're doing other reviews. I'm just for myself, I think I'd be more comfortable if this council reviewed it for that next council. That's just my own position. I will leave it to the rest of council to see if there's anybody else on the same page. But if we just continue as status quo, that's fine too. But it just becomes a bit more of a tangled web we weave when it comes to talking about our own pay and the way. residents will respond to that. Okay, let me just see if there are any others up over there.

00:31:32 Speaker 03: We'll go to Councillor Mackey. Thank you, Warden. Good morning. Good morning, County Council. Just to want to respond to Councillor Millen's comments in regards to the half day. Unless you work in twelve-hour shifts, I don't see how six hours is a half day. So my typical day is eight hours, and if I'm at a four-hour meeting, then I can go to my other job for a half day. So, I think the six hours should be reduced down to four. I think that would make more sense in my mind because when you include some traveling time, you know, if you're up to five or six, your day is is bugged. So, in response to Councillor Greg, I completely agree that if we're having an alternate, that's a choice of each municipality. and if we're having an alternate member, that should be compensated by the lower tier municipality, not the council. I agree that you know when they're only here on a very limited basis, they're not able to you know fully participate the way they should be in some of the major decisions that we do have to make. So those are my comments. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to go to Councillor Dobrin next. thank you, and I concur with Councillor Mackey.

00:32:27 Speaker 03: the The language that we have at our one of our lower tier municipalities is anything less than four hours is considered a half day. Anything more than four hours is a full day. And I think I agree that six hours. I'm not sure how many committee meetings actually go beyond that, but that. But I would, I I think the language needs to be adjusted on that, and I don't have an objection to the alternate. I did have a question about the thirty minutes also, but I think you've clarified it. In that, if the meeting itself doesn't achieve quorum, you still are compensated.

00:33:28 Speaker 03: If the meeting goes beyond thirty minutes, but someone logs in or attends for five minutes, ten minutes, fifteen minutes. Clearly, they knew they had a conflict.

00:33:54 Speaker 03: They would not be compensated for that entire meeting. Yes, that's correct.

00:34:07 Speaker 03: And the it's just to confirm it's the way it's proposed in the new bylaw is to attendance less than thirty. minutes. As long as the meeting runs longer than thirty minutes, there's no there would be no per diem paid. That is arguably for meetings that are forty-five minutes.

00:34:29 Speaker 03: Maybe is will create some issues, but staff just felt we kind of had to draw a line somewhere, and thirty minutes seemed like a reasonable amount of time. It differs a little bit from the current policy, which is the fifty percent. but as you state, that is correct. And just to clarify, then, if you could confirm what the threshold is for determining quorum—if it's fifteen minutes or thirty minutes—because now you're you're achieving, you're you're asking that everyone be there in order to start the meeting on time.

00:35:06 Speaker 03: If quorum isn't achieved within that time frame, the meeting is adjourned or canceled. because it's never been called to order. It's the individual member.

00:35:19 Speaker 03: If the meeting, if you get the business done, and it happens to get done in 29 minutes, they're still compensated. They've made decisions. They've addressed the agenda items. But you're the way I read it is is that if a member isn't there for the entirety of the meeting, regardless how long it is, they would not be compensated. I may have to get you to repeat the last part of that question. I'm not sure I fully followed, but I quorum. We, I believe it's 15 minutes.

00:36:04 Speaker 03: We changed that from a very long 30 minutes that it was prior, so it's now 15 minutes to that we wait until we decide whether a quorum is achieved or not.

00:36:49 Speaker 03: And then, sorry, if you could repeat. your question, if I remember it, they, the fact, I think it's that thirty-minute. If the member isn't there for the meeting longer than thirty minutes, that member isn't compensated. But if the meeting only lasts twenty-nine minutes, the members are compensated. I think there's just some clarity. in the language. You're correct.

00:36:58 Speaker 01: In that circumstance, there would be no per diem paid to that member, and there's perhaps an equity or fairness issue that we might need to look at further.

00:37:28 Speaker 01: I have to think about that a little bit more. Okay. No, I do see Councillor Greg's hand. I'm just doing a scan to make sure that I'm going to take first comments first before we circle back to any follow-up. So we'll go to Councillor McQueen. Thank you, Madam Warden. And more or less in the sense of a question with regards to the IT allowance that has been since 2010, which is 16 years ago. And I I asked that question: Is that still fair? I I'm not debating that. Is it still fair? And is that $50 taxable?

00:37:37 Speaker 01: Dollars taxable because if you're paying tax on fifty dollars, or if it's you have to claim it, and that changes it from being compensated to it just being a stip on that you're just given and you're paying tax on it. That's a really good question. Okay, I think I'm going to look to Director Morrow. I think she may have a response for that. Through you, Madam Warden, I have half a response. I will ask our payroll coordinator and payroll manager whether or not the fifty-dollar stipend is a taxable benefit.

00:38:54 Speaker 01: But in regards to the IT stipend, that was part of the remuneration and was looked at by Gallagher and Associates and deemed to be acceptable at that point. We include all of the premiums per diem. All of the premiums, per diems, stipends, and an assessment is done when we do that remuneration survey regarding council pay.

00:39:05 Speaker 01: So I think if it's taxable, I think that's a little bit of a different look than it's just covering your cost because you know, like mileage or whatever, however. But that can maybe come back. I I don't know. I just I asked that question because then then it's not. really covering your costs. It's just giving an extra amount of money per month, right? So, which you have to pay tax on. Okay. What we'll do is I'll I'll keep a an eye out, Director Morrow. If you have any updated information as your your questioning to staff, but I'm going to go back over to the clerk. Thank you.

00:39:20 Speaker 01: And just with regard to the fifty dollar technology allowance, it is something that I think as staff we certainly would like your feedback on on whether that amount and number is still. relevant, or if the, the, if it is still a relevant thing to include, it's something that we plan to be looked at in 2027 when the compensation review is done, as well with the meeting per diems and if they are relevant as well, or if there's a case to be made for everything being a salary and all encompassing of everything. Not saying that's necessarily the case, but those are the things that we definitely would like the council to look at next year.

00:40:00 Speaker 01: Okay, and I do, I do see some people are are looking like they may have further questions with regards to that. And what we can do is we can continue the make sure that everybody's asked all the questions that they have raised, all the issues that they wish to contemplate in terms of of this motion that's on the floor. If if necessary to give payroll staff a chance to come back with some fruitful answers, what we could do is we can call a break before we actually come back and and. finish the vote on this. So I'll just leave that out there. Depending on how many others wish to add to the conversation, I'm not seeing any further hands. So, Councillor Greg, you had put your hand up for a second time. Go ahead, please. Thank you. And just a little further to Councillor Dobrin's comments, if I provide an example, perhaps you can provide some clarity back for me. But I'll use the Accessibility Committee for example.

00:40:42 Speaker 01: If there's a lack of quorum for eight minutes, and then quorums established, but then quorum is lost again after twenty minutes. That meeting it no longer functions. It's over. Is the individual remunerated under the new language if such an occurrence were to happen? And then I have a subsequent motion. Yes, in that circumstance, the member would be remunerated. The language in the proposed bylaw is that if quorum is lost partway through the meeting or it's never achieved at all, that that per diem is still to be paid to the member in recognition of the the preparation and the time and their plans to carry out the the meeting as planned. Okay, thank you for that. And I will make an motion that the language regarding the payment for alternate county councilors be removed from the Counselors be removed from the draft bylaw in place. That's just to show that I am steadfastly opposed to such an initiative. Okay. Just before it gets on the floor, if I call for a second and there is a second, I'm just going to look to the clerk for clarity because we are contemplating the bylaw at this point in time.

00:42:12 Speaker 01: We have discussed and approved our budget, which includes compensation. So could you? just please walk us through the process if this comes to the floor? If there are any implications in terms of the process and what it is that we're specifically considering today?

00:42:34 Speaker 01: Yeah, something that comes to mind just off the bat is we do have another a policy that specifically deals with alternate attendance and payment. So, staff would bring that forward based on whatever was to.

00:42:56 Speaker 01: On whatever was decided with regards to alternates, what I what I'm just not sure how to best handle is if the county does not compensate, but the lower tiers do not compensate either. Then there's a bit of a gap there for the alternates and what whether who there's to be receiving payment from. The Municipal Act allows local member municipalities to appoint an alternate to council to count. to the upper tier council is not required, but it is something we at as the upper tier wouldn't we don't necessarily invite or deny or we just accept whoever is appointed to attend the meetings, and we've been paying them for that since that was implemented in in 2018.

00:43:39 Speaker 01: So if this does if there is no provision for Gray County to pay their alternates, that I just would like to have. probably a conversation with the local municipalities just to make sure that that their intentions are clear on what they will do if an alternative tends council. Okay, so in that context, considering that we're just considering the bylaw at this point in time, I'll ask if is there a seconder to Councillor Gray's motion. I'll just ask if second. Oh, sorry, Councillor. Mackey is seconding.

00:44:28 Speaker 01: Okay, so Councillor Mackey has seconded, so it is on the floor for discussion, and I open it up to Council Members then for discussion on this particular motion that has been proposed by Councillor Gray. Councillor Nielsen, thank you very much, Board Master Staff. I'm just processing what Clerk Warder just said, which was the Municipal Act says they. can, but it isn't not a requirement. My position would almost be if we're not going to compensate, then we should just say that they're not brought up, and that it's it's up to the member to if you're if you can't make it, you can't make it. That we just don't accept alternates.

00:45:01 Speaker 01: Your argument for it is that an alternate doesn't have the background and the institutional knowledge, which I don't disagree with. There is challenges when you have a member who comes up and is trying to play catch up on six. months of reporting. So, if this motion carries to me, it would make more sense to have a further motion just adopting the idea that Gray County Council doesn't accept alternates and that we are the council that is appointed. Because, to me, that carries more to what your your argument is than the remuneration. I'm going to ask the CAO to come in.

00:45:36 Speaker 04: I have some thoughts in terms of what we can and can't do today in separation. from the actual policy, I'm going to look to the CAO. Thank you, Warden, and through you. Thank you for the comments and questions with respect to the alternate councillors.

00:45:50 Speaker 04: As as Clerk Warder indicated, lower tier council members legislatively can appoint an alternative alternate council member. It's up to the local municipal councils to appoint the alternate council member. In terms of the current bylaw that. Law that that exists, and I guess the bylaw is open to further amendments subject to council's approval.

00:46:38 Speaker 04: But section six deals with the compensation as it relates to the alternate council member per diems that are provided to those alternate councilors. So if there's based on the mover and seconder, I think again just trying to understand in terms of what the direction will be with respect to that, it would be amending. the per diem as it relates to alternate councillor doesn't prevent a municipality to appoint because legislatively that is protected in the municipal act. So the the local councils can still appoint an alternate councillor.

00:47:29 Speaker 04: It's just as Kirk Ward indicated, there will be then a gap potentially created in terms of who's paying any compensation for that alternate councillor to attend. If this gets removed, then county council wouldn't. be potentially then paying that per diem. It would be up to either the local municipality to support that alternate councilor per diem, or that council member wouldn't then receive any per diem. That makes sense. Okay.

00:47:40 Speaker 04: Thank you for that input, and I I do want to put the lens out that there there is a concern that if we if if we change tack at this point in time. midstream, mid midterm, and and we say okay, we're not. Yes, you can still send somebody, but we're not going to pay for it now. We've done our budget process. So have lower tiers. They've done their budget process based on the fact that they don't compensate their alternates when they need to go and do, um, put their hat on as as the alternate at county. So I do.

00:48:00 Speaker 04: I'm wondering, Madam Clerk, when would be the best time in in place when this might be a contemplation for the next term, for the next to to give fair warning to the lower tiers that if you want to refer, if you want to send an alternate, you will need to to allocate or not need to, but it'll be up to you to decide whether or not you as a lower tier are going to compensate. We we have the I I can think of I sat on two conservation authority boards in my past term. one compensated and one didn't. So my lower tier compensated for the one that was missing. So in one case, my per diem was paid directly by the conservation authority.

00:48:39 Speaker 04: In the other case, it was paid by the town equally to make sure that when I served in that role, I was being compensated equally depending on which conservation authority I was on. So this is part of a bigger picture.

00:48:56 Speaker 04: I, Madam Clerk, I'm going to look to you for just. contextual guidance in terms of the process and when we look at the policy versus when we look at the bylaw compen the the compensation, which is today's topic. Through you, Warden, and and I'll start. And if Tara has anything further to add, I'm happy to do that. With respect to the the budgets, as as you noted, we currently have budget.

00:49:45 Speaker 04: Budgeted with what we've seen in terms of alternate council compensation in the past, you're probably correct in that. And that right now the that's probably not in the local municipal council budgets, just because right now the bylaw covers per diem costs as it relates to alternate councils at the county level. So, if that is a concern amongst council, looking to Tara now, one option might be to if if subject to the mover and seconder, obviously would be to whether or not this is effective today, or as per when this bylaw comes back to council for consideration, which would be the next council meeting.

00:49:58 Speaker 04: I'm assuming, or making it effective into 2027, which would give opportunity for the local councils to adjust their budgets. We would obviously then adjust our budgets for for 2027 as it relates to that.

00:50:22 Speaker 04: So that's another potential option if that works procedurally and. that's where I'm going to be turning over to Tara if that works, I think it does work. There's nothing that jumps out at me to prevent that from happening.

00:50:39 Speaker 04: It would implementing a change to the alternate process would, from a staff perspective, just be probably tidier if it was done at the beginning or leading up to a new council term, and it would.

00:50:54 Speaker 04: just give the all the great county clerks to have a chance to talk about the policy and and decide or make so that they can make the appropriate recommendations to the incoming council about whether or not an alternate needs to be appointed to attend great county council.

00:51:15 Speaker 04: It does really it rests with the local municipality to both appoint and to ask actively ask a member to attend. The county doesn't. We don't involve ourselves in that at all. So it really does rely on the local municipalities to to do that. And it would allow some conversation to be had to just clarify and make sure that everyone's on the same page with how that generally operates. Okay.

00:52:23 Speaker 04: So with that, I'm going to look to the mover then to ask if you could define your timeline in your motion or or your thoughts at this point, Councillor Gray. At this point, Councilor Gray, because there was language in the report speaking to 27 Council review, it was my intention that it not be immediate; that it would be parallel or aligned with the new term of Council at the end of the year. Secondly, in response to Councilor Nielsen, I cannot make a subsequent motion because there was discussion earlier this term of Council about removing the. alternate altogether, so that would require a motion to revisit a topic that had already been spoken of at this at this table.

00:52:29 Speaker 04: So this is separate from that discussion, which is why there's no potential for a subsequent motion without getting into a motion to revisit and so forth. Okay, thank you.

00:52:43 Speaker 04: And I'll just ask, Madam Deputy Clerk, if you could just update that. Thank you. You've got that in in. That embedded into the motion. I'll look to the seconder, though, because it was seconded without that. Thank you, Madam Warden. You made some good comments, as did our CL. And I believe to do it midstream wouldn't be the right time, but I still fully believe that compensation should be by the lower tier municipality. But it will give the lower tier municipality a good bit of notice to know what their responsibilities are going to be going forward. So I support. Forward, so I I support this. Okay, thank you. We'll go to Councillor Keaveny. Thank you, Madam Warden, and I don't need data further complication. Although I may, I'm wondering about attaching a time frame to this. Thinking of our own experience in Neeford last term, when Mayor Clumpus was away for five months, and Councillor Kentner filled in for that extended time frame. So thinking then, five months gives someone adequate time to really. be up to speed with the activities of county council, and at that point, then you know I'm thinking could and should be paid by the county. So I'm wondering about again a time frame being attached to this, whether it is a number of meetings, four meetings, or or whatever might be appropriate for the lower tiered to compensate, but for an extended period of time coming back to the county.

00:54:15 Speaker 04: Okay, Madam Clerk, do we have something in a provision for that when it goes to an extended absence of a mayor or deputy mayor from the lower tier?

00:54:28 Speaker 04: I was just trying to pull it up here on the fly, and I won't probably be able to do that. But my understanding of the intention of Councillor Greg Greg's motion and Councillor Mackey's is these are alternates that were appointed to attend kind of one-off absences, which there's a separate. provision under the Municipal Act that speaks to those longer-term absences, and I believe the intention would be that they would be compensated as per usual, and this wouldn't apply to those circumstances. Okay, thank you. We'll go to Councillor McQueen. Thank you, Madam Warden.

00:55:04 Speaker 04: There was some mention here that from you, Madam Court, there's a separate policy on alternates. I think this should wait until you bring that policy.

00:55:14 Speaker 04: Shouldn't wait until we bring that policy back at the same time to to see the merit of why we do have an alternate, because it's in that report, I presume. Because we've had that discussion, right? And as far as an alternate having that ability to be brought up to speed, I don't know about you guys, but I read the reports before I came here. And if if if if the alternate can't understand the reports, how the heck is a public person going to understand the reports? So I don't think it's complicated that that individual who's sitting in a seat from that Mississippi. In a seat from that municipality, that's representing that municipality is here at the table, with one equal vote around the table.

00:55:47 Speaker 04: Who read the reports, or she read the reports, however it is, is it like am I missing something? Is it not clear when you read those reports? You read the reports, you see the staff recommendation. Our reports are great, so as far as the point, I think that they're they're not up to speed. I think that from even if there's in cameras, they get the information. So I sort of. take that to a little bit that I think I think they are well informed when those alternates are here because the reports are here, just like us today are reading those reports. So I sort of think that we should wait and have that other policy come back at the same time. Okay, thank you. Looking around the room for any further questions.

00:56:26 Speaker 04: Okay, I'm not seeing any, Madam Clerk, unless you see that we. it sounds like this is a viable motion. Then that the fact that we're looking at the compensation separately from the actual policy, we're not going to end up finding ourselves at odds with our own policy. Any concluding comments from you? So there is that the policy still will exist.

00:56:59 Speaker 04: So I think to be clear with the intention, we would work into the cement. Would work into this amending motion that the bylaw, the proposed bylaw, be amended to remove or deem compensation for lower tier municipal alternate council members, and rescind the alternate policy.

00:57:44 Speaker 01: So, because both of those are trying to achieve the same thing, they're doing the same thing. So, we should include the reference to the policy being rescinded effective at the with the beginning of the new council term. An alternative that we we could add that policy to. the list of ones that we bring forward for this council to review over the next few months, as well if that's if that's a wish.

00:58:14 Speaker 01: Okay, so it's your okay. So it's on the clerk's advisement that this be added to the motion in order to make sure that the two don't get out of lockstep. But as Councillor Greg had noted, because we had had a discussion about the existence of alternates, this is a separate issue. Then this is just simply saying no. There are still alternatives according to our policy. But as of 2027, we wouldn't be providing compensation. Do I interpret that correctly, Madam Clerk? Okay, I confer that Madam Clerk is nodding her head in agreement. Okay, we'll go to Councillor McQueen. Just a follow-up. I know this was asked a few years back. What are we talking in dollars? We're spending a half an hour here today, and it's going to go back, and I got to talk to all the clerks and how much time that's going to take. What are we talking about in dollars? A thousand bucks? Like it's like we're talking peanuts again. We got a bigger one coming up here a little later today. Anyway, that's just my comment. Okay. Well, I will say that we rarely have alternates here because we have excellent council, county council attendance. So this is a relatively small budget line, and today we're talking about the compensation. So today. we're talking about the the line and what it costs, not the existence or the the viability of having an alternate.

00:58:44 Speaker 01: Okay, we'll go to Councillor Kentner. Thank you, Madam Warden. I just want to make the point that it's my understanding that when we come to County Council, we wear a different hat, and it does not make sense to me that we can expect people to come to County Council. and vote on lines that are that the county is supreme.

00:59:35 Speaker 01: We we leave behind our local municipality, but at the same time we're going to expect the local municipality to fund their own representation. I'm I'm just not getting a clear view of the sense of of this motion. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I don't see any further hands. Oh, we'll go to Councillor Doberine.

01:00:04 Speaker 01: Thank you, and I'd like to speak to the additional clause, if that is appropriate. I'm not clear on why we would rescind a policy. Then we wouldn't have the policy at the beginning of the term to allow for them. Does the policy outlines more than just compensation? Would it not be beneficial to update the policy to reflect, if this passes, that to reflect the the payment of compensation to be in the hands of the lower tier, as opposed to wiping out the policy altogether? We're going to go to the CAA. Thank you for that question. And as we've been having this conversation, I've I pulled up the alternate member policy. just to refresh my memory of what what is, and it does contain some further provisions outside of compensation that we probably would want to to maintain.

01:01:05 Speaker 01: If again, legislatively, municipal members could appoint alternate members, and so we want to still have voting provisions, orientation provisions, meeting preparation, things like that.

01:01:19 Speaker 01: There is a compensation section, so we probably would be. I'm assuming, updating and that policy versus rescinding.

01:01:27 Speaker 01: But again, I'm looking to clerk order in terms of what that, if that makes sense. Okay. Okay.

01:01:43 Speaker 01: So, Madam Clerk, do you want to just respond to that, and perhaps it needs further refined language on what what would be rescinded or updated, and then I did see a hand over here, so we'll go to another county council member afterwards.

01:02:01 Speaker 01: Thank you. We certainly could approach it in that way. I don't personally have concerns with the alternate policy being rescinded as a whole, because the compensation piece is really the big part of that. A lot of the things in that policy we would just do anyways, and the municipal act is really the authority that allows them to come here. So. repealing the policy wouldn't preclude that from happening, but we would have to bring an amended one back just for clarity. But it wouldn't have to be done necessarily with any urgency, and it would reflect whatever is decided by council in terms of compensation and structure and things like that.

01:02:41 Speaker 01: I wonder then if the wording instead of rescinded might be better aligned with the the. Aligned with the by bylaw at the new council term, because I'm I'm recognizing what you're saying, but at the same time, we always have to make sure our motion is standalone and people understand it the way that that it's written. So if somebody were to read it, the way that it it sounds, if this passes, it is not eliminating the alternates because, as you said, there's municipal act, there's there, but it could be read that way.

01:03:21 Speaker 01: So I just want to make sure that we're with absolute clarity on it. So, Madam Clerk, is that just? Am I just picking a word that doesn't work in in your clerical language? No, that that is good. Thank you. Okay, I believe there's a hand over here. We're going to go to Councillor Eccles.

01:04:11 Speaker 01: I'm in agreement with Councillor McQueen over there. it's a long time over a very minute spot. I don't even like the alternate policy be aligned. I don't think it even should be in there.

01:04:20 Speaker 01: And although it's up to the mover and seconder if they want that added in, because in my mind this is kind of stating that we're in agreement with what it is, and I'm not.

01:04:22 Speaker 01: If we're sending an alternate here. to participate in county council, they should be paid by county council. They're doing the work of county council.

01:04:31 Speaker 01: And yes, I have used an alternate a couple of times in this term of council, but I've sat and talked to that individual for an hour, two days before, after he's read the package, and is there anything that you need updated? Need be updated on anything to get here.

01:04:40 Speaker 01: The preparation should lie on the individual that's being replaced or represented by that alternate, and then they can make a good vote. I just wish we would have voted.

01:05:28 Speaker 01: Maybe when the other member of Bone Sound had gone out to the washroom a few minutes ago, and we probably would have got this passed by now. But anyways, they didn't have an alternate, so we waited till he come back. Thank you. Okay. Well, we will refrain from comments about personal matters. Thank you. Okay. Is there anything further? Then I'm looking at the mover.

01:05:50 Speaker 01: I'm not seeing an objection to the last line, but it is your motion. So, if you wish to to move it the way it was originally, it it will be up to you. I'm just trying to make sure there's clarity so that anyone who's looking at it can understand the implications. I was happy the way it was originally, because I'm concerned this now circles back to what I was saying. I cannot move a motion that this is now rediscussing something that this council discussed earlier this term of council. It's not a separate matter, and it needs a separate motion to revisit. So I don't think it should be there. That being said, I'm not the professional that the clerk is.

01:06:13 Speaker 01: So, if she feels it's requisite and has to be there, then I'll defer to her expertise. Personally, I don't think it needs to be included, and it might be in contravention to the earlier conversations that we had at this count at this table. Okay. Well, it's not in contravention to the discussion on whether or not there should or shouldn't be. alternates. So, but, Madam Clerk, if the mover has spoken that that that was not his intent to have that last line there, if it's taken out and then we realize that we're not aligned somewhere in terms of policy and bylaws, then I guess then it would be left to you then to bring it forward and say we now need to change this document to make sure that this document matches it. Is is it fair enough to leave it open? to your process. Yes, that's certain.

01:07:00 Speaker 01: That's my concern: is that just if the bylaw and the conversation is intended to remove the compensation for the alternates, that we still have that policy in effect. So, but given the bylaw change, it is something that we could just bring forward and just note to council that the policies now kind of or aspects of the.

01:07:33 Speaker 01: policy related to the compensation are have been addressed by council. They're redundant, and it does need to be changed. And would seek their support at that time to do that. So that is an alternative way we could we could go if that third clause is not, or sorry, the second clause isn't ideal from the mover and sectors perspective.

01:07:55 Speaker 01: Okay, well, having heard that and making sure that we're not going to put ourselves in a rock and a hard place, and that the clerk will. be able to navigate us out of that if that's where we find ourselves. Having listened to the mover who who has reaffirmed his intention the way he originally moved it without the extra the extra line, and I will I will respond to that and say that we should strike that off and we should just keep it there. We did clarify the timing, which I think is an important part of it because the mover did actually articulate that that was his intent. So with that, I don't see any further hands. I'm going to ask for the vote at this point in time. All those in favor? Okay, and that motion fails. Okay, thank you very much. What we'll do at this point in time is we're going to call a break.

01:08:48 Speaker 01: When we come back, we will work efficiently through because we have a number of items on discussion before we get to close session as well. Oh, oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're back to the original motion. Then we're going to do a break. Then we're going to come back efficiently and deal with the other five items that are on for discussion before we go into closed session. So, Madam Clerk, then we're back to the original motion. You know, is there anything further?

01:09:13 Speaker 01: Yes, Director Mora has a bit of an update on some of the questions that were asked on the original motion.

01:09:21 Speaker 01: Through you, Madam Warden, I did want to confirm that the fifty dollars flat fee allowance for tech. The allowance for tech is a taxable benefit, so it's taxed as income. I did have an opportunity to go back to the Gallagher report that we received in 2023, and of our 10 comparators that were used for county council, four provided a tech allowance, three were flat fee like ourselves, and one other county provided 50% reimbursement on an actual internet bill.

01:09:37 Speaker 01: Okay. Thank you. And yes, Councillor Eccles. Not to belabor this, but there was one other question. Or I had a question on four point two.

01:10:08 Speaker 01: Each member shall be reimbursed for the use of personal cell phone where the county device was elected to not, and not to be used up to a maximum permitted under the policy. So, if somebody's using a personal cell phone, and with all the spyware, everything else that we have, and how much we're, but we're allowing somebody to use a personal cell phone. I, I, that one just baffles me.

01:10:42 Speaker 01: And then the other thing is, up to the maximum permitted under the policy, but I have no idea what the maximum is. A two bucks, because we're given a fifty dollar fee for. technology, so it should. If that's what it is, I don't know why we're saying you can use your cell phone as well too and get paid for that, as well as fifty dollars for an internet connection. But I think it should be, if we're going to still allow people to use their personal cell phone and connect into our servers and whatnot, the fifty dollars should already. compensate that. Am I clear on that, or that's my point? I think we should eliminate that altogether. You don't want to use a thing?

01:11:22 Speaker 01: That's fine, but we're not paying you to use your own cell phone. I will go to Director Mordo. Through you, Madam Warden, the maximum allowable reimbursement for bringing your own device is thirty-five dollars. I do note my colleague Jody McCracken isn't in the room, but I'm not sure if he's online.

01:11:59 Speaker 01: But I know that we have an infrastructure and security system that prevents own devices causing security issues. Otherwise, the IT department would not allow that to happen.

01:12:12 Speaker 01: So those members of both council and staff that choose to bring their own device rather than having a council Rather than having a county-supplied device, are managed by our infrastructure and security through IT and deemed to be safe. Madam Clerk, just further to that, there are there are a list of requirements that do come along with using your own phone.

01:12:22 Speaker 01: I believe you need to do upgrades and have a newer phone and meet that standard to ensure that security. That Director Morrow is speaking. speaking to just just for additional information.

01:13:23 Speaker 01: Thank you, Councilor Eccles, for those comments, and those are the exact kind of conversations that we're in feedback that we're hoping to hear from from you on, with regards to that technology allowance, and when the time comes in 2027 to review the compensation as a whole. Those are the exact things that we we hope to hear from you on. Okay, so future discussion for 2027. Councillor Nielsen on the original motion. Thank you for my support, Microsoft.

01:13:36 Speaker 01: Just a question for clarity: Is the fulsome discussion we've been having on this one, staff are bringing it back and making any changes, or do we need an actual vote and motion on the concept of a half day being four hours, not six? Madam Clerk, I think you would need direction. from council. Okay, so I'm going to go to the deputy warden.

01:14:25 Speaker 01: So I will propose an amendment to the motion to to change the cutoff time, half day versus full day, to be a four hour period of time. And I'm and I'm pretty confident that we're going to make our full day meeting today. Yeah. Unless we really put the hammer down, we're going to make. a full day meeting today. Okay, thank you. That's been moved by the deputy warden, and I saw Councillor Mackie has raised his hand to second. So that is now on the floor for discussion.

01:14:41 Speaker 05: Let's make sure it's up on the screen. It is. Everything is the same except for the hours, the cut off hours from six to four. Any discussion, Councillor McQueen? The only reason I'm bringing this up is. clarity. Is I think it was maybe Councillor Millan said about you could have an hour driver or six minutes or 18 minutes, but if you had a meeting at 10 and you left at 9 and it went to 12:30 and there's like an hour there and an hour back, like where does that all fall in? Just just looking for clarity because I was it was brought. Because it was brought up, that's all.

01:15:14 Speaker 05: Okay, I'll look to the the clerk, but also Councillor Dobrin has a comment through you to the question. I don't think travel time factors into this. We get we get compensated mileage for you know the travel. We don't necessarily get travel time to conferences unless it's greater than a certain period of time.

01:15:38 Speaker 05: I do agree and support the less than four hour threshold, nor four hour threshold, so that that we are here for three hours fifty nine minutes, two hours, you're going to be paid the half day.

01:15:55 Speaker 05: I for someone who travels fifty fifty five minutes more, depending on the weather, maybe more. I do not anticipate being compensated for that. because we have the option of participating virtually. Okay, thank you. Follow up from Councilor McQueen. I don't disagree. All I'm saying is, if we start at ten, we're done at twelve thirty. Here, that's a half a day. Wait a minute.

01:16:30 Speaker 05: I'm talking about ten, eleven, twelve, twelve thirty. Is is two and a half. hour. That's a half a day. All I'm saying, I know. Councillor Millen said it might be a full day. All I'm saying, that's fine. It just, anyway.

01:17:15 Speaker 06: Okay, we have a follow up from Councillor Darine, and then I'm going to look to the clerk if there's anything that she needs to add to this, and then we should contemplate voting on this motion unless there is something new that needs to be added to the table. Councillor Tobin. Not to belabor it, we don't get paid per diems to be here at County Council; that's included in our stipend. Okay. Okay, Councillor McQueen.

01:17:43 Speaker 06: I don't want you speaking without the microphone, because for the benefit of all those who are hearing, if I can have a concluding comment, because we really do need to just contemplate the whole motion that's on the floor. This has been. one part of it. Everybody is free to add their their their thoughts on it. There is no right or wrong ability to be able to do so. So I'll accept that.

01:18:02 Speaker 06: But I can't I can't have us go back and forth. So Councilor McLean, anything? No. Okay. All right. So he has declined to to finish that thought. Okay. Anything else? Okay. So. Madam Clerk, I am ready to call the question unless you have anything else. Okay, so I'll call the question then on the motion that's on the floor. All those in favor? Okay, thank you. And I see that moved unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay, at this point in time, we will do a break until quarter two. Oh, sorry, that was an amendment to the the the main motion. Thank you.

01:18:28 Speaker 06: Okay, so. that one was was the amendment to the main motion to switch from the four from the six hours down to the four hours has been passed. We're now back to the main motion. Any further discussion on the main motion? All right, not seeing any hands. All those in favor? That is carried unanimously. Thank you. Now we're going to do a break.

01:18:37 Speaker 06: Still to quarter two because we have five more items for discussion before we even get to close session. So let's. see each other back at our seats at quarter to twelve. Thank you. Oh. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. we have the go-ahead from technology that we are ready to proceed. We have met. We have taken our break.

01:18:53 Speaker 06: We are back, and we are looking at item seven B. We do have a quorum sitting at council here, and we have our online participants as well ready to go.

01:31:15 Speaker 06: So the next one is item seven B, and it's recommended that report CCRCW. Report CCR CW O two twenty six regarding an update to the fees and service charges bylaw be received and that the proposed updates to the fees and charges schedule be supported as presented and staff prepare a bylaw to amend bylaw fifty ninety twenty being fees and charges a fees and service charges a charges bylaw for council consideration may I please ask for a mover and a seconder move by Councillor Mackie seconded by Councillor Carlton it's now. Seconded by Councillor Carleton, it's now on the floor, and welcome to the lectern, Manager Reed. Thank you, through the Warden. Good morning, County Council. Another bylaw proposal to be changed to be considered. This time, we're looking at our fees and services bylaw. Our current bylaw was in. Our current bylaw was enacted in 2020, and it was further amended in 2024. And staff are proposing to make further amendments in 2026.

01:32:25 Speaker 06: Currently, the structure of our bylaw is that our fees increase automatically every year based on the previous year's Ontario CPI, September to September. That automatically gets built in, and we roll forward our fees right away. That we always send out a call to the SMT team whether they believe the fees should continue with that, or whether we need to revisit this bylaw.

01:32:51 Speaker 06: And it was decided this year that that there are some fees that that we want to reconsider, and and different from the the inflationary increase, which for 2026 would be a 2.03% increase to all of our fees. The goal of these changes is to increase our fees where our costs have increased by by far more than 2.03%. Also adding. new fees where we we're looking to add new services, as well as just improve clarity within the bylaw, both for staff that are administering these fees, but then also for for the public.

01:33:24 Speaker 06: So, in the attachment to the report, we put the schedule to the bylaw that outlines all of our fees. Anything in black would be the the fees that are just using the two point zero three percent inflationary increase, and then we do do a little bit of rounding so that's that we're still using whole numbers where possible.

01:33:34 Speaker 06: is some is the numbers that are just being rolled forward automatically. Anything in red with a strike through are items that we're proposing to change.

01:34:05 Speaker 06: And I will note there are some fees that we don't increase with this bylaw, just because it really makes sense to keep them in in nice whole dollars. For example, we collect coin laundry in our housing buildings. It wouldn't make sense to increase it from two dollars to two dollars and five cents, and then we have to start worrying about about giving change or all of our tenants now coming in with nickels as well. So I will move to where the changes start. The first change is within paramedics. There we go. The first item that we're looking to do is to remove the line for the public access defibrillator program. The sorry, are you guys seeing? Let me see. Perfect. We're looking to remove the public access defibrillator program. This program will still run, but just improving clarity.

01:34:39 Speaker 06: So the two components. here are training, which would be captured in the line above, where we have a a licensed trainer that goes out and does CPR or pad training. That would be captured in line one.

01:34:52 Speaker 06: The other aspect of this program is the actual pad supplies, so batteries and and the actual sorry, I'm using the acronym public access defibrillator pad, but the actual pads that go on those machines are the other supplies. Those get funded by the county through our our own budgets and through that program. there's no cost to the users of this group. So, looking to clarify that. The other item we're looking to change is the cost recovery that we we record when paramedics are sent to are sent to private events. So, our our current bylaw states that would be just a cost recovery.

01:35:25 Speaker 06: This is a bit of an administrative nightmare because the cost recovery is dependent on each event circumstance, as far as who we're sending to those events. So, if it's a part time paramedic or a full time paramedic. or a full-time paramedic, there might be a slightly different cost. If that paramedic is act has worked all their hours and we need to bring them in at overtime, there's going to be a different cost. Or if it's a night event and there's incurring a shift premium, monitoring that and trying to figure out all those costs is quite difficult. So we're proposing to just set it at two hundred dollars, and then it'll increase with inflation every year.

01:35:53 Speaker 06: And we believe that two hundred dollars is enough to cover off the two paramedics that'll be at the event, as well as the recovery for the equipment and supplies that they're using while they're there. Next up, housing. We passed it. Housing. We're just looking to increase our our lock change fee by by quite a bit more than inflation.

01:36:32 Speaker 06: The cost to bring someone in to change these locks has gone up significantly, so we're just looking to recover our cost when we have to do this. Next up is Gray Roots, where the majority of the changes have happened. So thanks. Of the changes that happen, so thank you to to Savannah, Jill, and their team for their their help with this.

01:36:42 Speaker 06: But really, we're looking to change these fees in order to to modernize operations as well as strengthen the sustainability of Gray Roots. The the fees we're looking at changing the first would be to delete the the copy fee. We are no longer doing copies at Gray Roots.

01:36:51 Speaker 06: We have a scanner that can provide high quality digital images, and if someone wanted a physical copy, it would get sent to a a local company, but that that would be the responsibility of the person that wants the physical copy. We would just be giving a a scan back to them.

01:37:30 Speaker 06: The next is to add a fee into the bylaw for a theater technician. We've made some upgrades to the theater at Gray Roots, and the tech within the room is a bit complex. So we're looking that if you're booking that room, you also have the option now to to book a technician with that room to help you with all the AV side. and the fifty dollars proposed here, we believe would be enough to bring in a local technician.

01:37:53 Speaker 06: We would have a list of local vendors that we would use, and then it would also cover any administrative costs that the county is incurring to set up these fees or to set up the service. Next up, we're looking at changing a lot of the admissions lines to gray routes. These fees are ones that we have not increased with inflation.

01:38:22 Speaker 06: Again, keeping them to a nice whole round number, so they've been the same since 2020. Been the same since twenty twenty. So staff have done kind of a look at what other museums are charging, as well as other local attractions, and come up with with a proposed fee.

01:38:30 Speaker 06: The idea is also ensuring that Grayroot stays accessible, and you're you're not pricing out pricing out users where necessary, while also making sure that we are bringing in reasonable revenue. It's quite a large museum and and building with quite high cost to maintain. So we want to make sure that that we are recovering where we can.

01:38:52 Speaker 06: Then in the kids programs, looking to delete the option to have a four-week option. Staff are no longer are doing this program, as well as then add in a fee for special event weeks, where again the county will will put on specialty programming such as cooking arts, and we're incurring additional costs for it.

01:39:02 Speaker 06: So we're looking to recover those costs if if we're offering those deluxe program offerings. And then lastly, just looking at changing the definition of a child to four to. twelve years. This means that children three and under would would be free at Gray Roots, and this is to align with with other definitions from from local upper tier municipalities and their museums. Next is planning. No number changes here, but Scott thought we should be adding some better narrative to to make clear make sure things are clear, specifically around when when refunds are applicable. with our planning fees again, just to help our staff in administering this policy, but then also improve the clarity to to the public.

01:39:34 Speaker 06: Lastly, would be changes to the Economic Development Department, specifically within within the Sydenham Campus.

01:39:41 Speaker 06: The first would be to start offering a single desk suite to members of the public. Currently, you can rent a desk, but it's in an open space. This would offer you a an opportunity to close the doors. An opportunity to close the door as well, and we're looking at adding daily fees and weekly fees. But if we were to get into anything longer than that, we'd probably be looking at at leasing, and it would be captured under the square footage components of of our our fees and services. And then looking at adding an offering for for gym rentals.

01:40:32 Speaker 07: Currently, you can't rent for half a day, so just looking to add that option based on based on the demand that we're hearing. For the financial and resource implications, these. changes were not factored into the 2026 budget, partially due to timing, but also due to. I go back to my first year microeconomics. If you increase the fee of something, you often don't just increase the revenues by the percentage that you increase that fee by, because sometimes you'll see less demand on that service if you increase the supply. So finance and and budget managers will continue to monitor their actuals based on these updated fees if they're supported and put those updates into the 2026.

01:40:45 Speaker 07: Put those updates into the 2027 budget, and with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

01:40:56 Speaker 07: Okay, thank you very much, Manager Reid, for breaking that down for us. We'll begin with Councillor Nielsen. Thank you very much, Ward Microsoft. Just one quick question on the paramedic fee, the $200 flat fee. Is there a timeline associated with that? So it's for events, but I'm thinking if you're having a festival event where paramedic is coming out for six to eight hours, versus kind of similar to the conversation we just had. versus two-hour events like something different. Just wondering if there's a portion of that fee that calculates the time through the warden. That 200 is an hourly charge. We typically have a minimum of three hours plus one hour for setup. So at minimum, you're paying for four hours, whether that's a half day or a full day. I don't. Okay. Thank you. We'll go to Councillor Dobraine. Mr. Dobre, thank you. I have just one follow-up to that question. Was you answered? It was per hour, and there's two paramedics sent to these events. It's not $200 per paramedic per hour. It's $200 per hour for both. Thank you. That was an odd yes. The question that I have is with regard to the planning section. I note that we talk about if a full application. is withdrawn before or after circulation, are we also considering dormancy?

01:42:25 Speaker 07: We're looking at that at our lower tier in files that have no activity over a period of time, and whether or not that application is deemed dormant, and we no longer will maintain it or manage it.

01:42:42 Speaker 07: I just wondered if there was any consideration. being given to that, okay, we'll look to Director Taylor for that. Yeah, thank you for your question, through Madam Warden.

01:42:56 Speaker 07: It's not something that's being considered in this bylaw review. Certainly, we've been in discussions with with Southgate staff on on their process, and and they've recently adopted their official plan amendment.

01:43:21 Speaker 07: There, we have been looking into some legal aspects of that a little further, so it's something. that might find its way into a future fees and services file update, but it's it's not being considered at this time. At the county level, we do certainly have some files that are are long dormant. We we reach out to applicants to try to understand what the the hiccups might be in moving forward, or whether they're still looking to move forward, or maybe they're looking to withdraw. It's not a big part of what we do. It doesn't contribute a lot of time. Generally speaking, we have less file volume at the county than the municipalities, but the files we do have might be might be more labor intensive.

01:43:48 Speaker 07: So rather than all the consents and minor variances and zoning amendments, we have subdivisions which take a long time per subdivision, but we don't have a ton of subdivisions. So it's maybe not as labor intensive at the county level, but certainly something we can monitor going forward. Okay, and we'll go to Councilor Craig. There, thank you.

01:43:59 Speaker 07: And through your warden, two questions. The first on paramedics.

01:44:19 Speaker 07: It did say the language to remove the line is to reduce confusion, but then it says we currently do CPR training for organizations. Is the CPR training specific to the defibrillator program, or do we do CPR training in a broader sense?

01:44:43 Speaker 08: through the warden, we do offer CPR training outside of the the the the PAD program for local fire departments, companies that are looking to improve health and safety. And the reason that we're I'm saying it's we're deleting that line to improve clarity is all of that would be captured under the training line, which comes above, and it's also done at a cost recovery basis.

01:45:01 Speaker 08: So our paramedic services being funded fifty-fifty from the province is this a cost recovery on the gross cost to the organization or the net cost after the provincial contribution?

01:45:49 Speaker 08: And then subsequently, I guess my question is: Should we even be involved in that business? Is there opportunities for external organizations to be doing that work because paramedic services continues to escalate significantly? as a as a service cost. So, first question towards the fifty fifty funding.

01:46:24 Speaker 08: It doesn't factor into the fifty fifty funding calculation. It's in and out. So, if we're spending ten thousand dollars in paying the trainers and the textbooks and certification costs, then we build that back, and it does not hit the calculation. So, it doesn't hit your your gross expenditure line, which is what the grants. calculated on. As far as the resources, so although the the individual that we currently contract to do the to do the training for CPR is a Grey County paramedic, they are also licensed with Canadian Red Cross, and it's done outside of their working hours.

01:46:43 Speaker 09: So they come in and do it as as a as a third party contractor on their days off. They bill us the costs for their their time as well as any supplies that they've used, and then we bill that back to And then we build that back to the to the recipient of the the training. Okay, thanks for that. That makes me secure that there's no exposure for additional escalating overtime costs and so forth and pressures on on the staffing.

01:46:53 Speaker 09: Second question is: a couple years ago, through I think is the NRP program that's who funded the electric recharging stations. It was answered that those would have a mechanism to collect for usage by. the public by any members beyond staff vehicles.

01:47:00 Speaker 09: Do they have that, and should that be in the fees and charges? Because I don't see that. There we go. I'll remember how to press the microphone button eventually.

01:47:28 Speaker 09: Good morning, members of council, and to you. Members of Council, and through you, Madam Warden. So we've begun the installation of those those units. At this point in time, they are locked down to corporate use only. There is the potential in the future for us to open them up, and that would require charging. Probably would defer to the flow, who are the operators of the site for that charging. But those conversations haven't been happened at this point in time. We've come back before Council. Okay. Looking around the room, any further questions? Not seeing any online as well. Looks like we've answered all the questions. So it has been moved and seconded. We've had good discussion on it. I'll call the vote. All those in favor, and that motion is carried. Thank you very much, Manager Eadie.

01:48:20 Speaker 09: And next, we're going to bring Item C7C forward. It's recommended that Report CSR CW0920. RCWO926 be received, and that the Child Care Mitigation Reserve Fund be utilized to offset any 2026 funding shortfall that exists at the year end in the Early Learning and Child Care Operating Budget.

01:48:42 Speaker 09: May I ask for a mover and a second? Got a move by Councillor Nilsson, seconded by Councillor Dicker. It's now on the floor for discussion. Welcome Manager Cockrell. You have the floor. A lot that flashed on. My apologies. Good morning, Council.

01:49:01 Speaker 09: We're here to provide an overview of our 2026 early learning and child care funding changes, impacts to service delivery, and associated financial risks. I would like to clarify that we received our guidelines after we were well into budget procedures for 2026, so that's why we're providing an update after budget discussions happened. In the report, you'll see a variety of the required. services that we do provide, and a new provincial agreement is anticipated in 2027, which might require further budget discussions. For an overview in our C Vault cost-based funding, the 2026 allocation increased to 22.7 million dollars with a county contribution of 677. This increase, we also received a correlating increase in eligible spaces to enroll in the C Vault system, which has brought on 105 additional license.

01:49:49 Speaker 09: Hundred and five additional licensed child care spaces, which are currently operational already in 2026.

01:49:57 Speaker 09: So we move very quickly to implement that. Parent fees for children under six remain capped at twenty-two dollars a day, and again we will anticipate some additional revisions to that with the 2026 agreement agreement between the province and the federal government.

01:50:13 Speaker 09: Local priorities funding saw an increase to the workforce compensation, small waterworks funding, and a decrease to the flexibility funding, resulting in a net. loss of one hundred and thirty-one thousand four hundred and ninety dollars.

01:50:25 Speaker 09: This was offset by our ability to reduce our anticipated fee subsidy expenditures. The enrollment of those non-CWAC participating programs will reduce those fee subsidy costs because of that twenty-two dollar max. So we anticipate that will offset itself naturally. We will continue to monitor the expenditures and mitigation funding. Funding remains available if required. Our early on funding was reduced by $132,000 in 2026, reversing the one-time increase we saw at the end of 2025. Early on funding has not been regularly indexed, creating ongoing pressures, particularly for third-party providers. Savings of approximately $90,000 were by discontinuing, discontinuing, pardon me, an agreement for a position that is no longer considered core funding within the early on guidance. Early on guidelines from the province. At this time, there are no core early on services reductions anticipated for 2026.

01:51:26 Speaker 09: But without provincial funding adjustments in 2027, there will likely be some service impacts that we will need to put into council. New funding streams in 2026, including include the ECE promotional fund to support workforce awareness and entry into the profession, and an innovation fund to support recruitment, retention, retention, and inclusive childcare. And inclusive child care strategies, and we have a report coming to council in the future to outline what those will look like in Gray County.

01:52:23 Speaker 09: So overall, the financial impact is one thousand four hundred ninety dollars, and we anticipate that we'll be able to cover this with child care mitigation reserve funding. We would like to point out that in the chart in the report, there is an error. I can't remember which column it's in. My apologies. That we will provide an update to in the. final version of the report, and but the overall impact of one thousand four hundred and ninety dollars is correct.

01:52:50 Speaker 09: So again, at this time, we don't anticipate any service reductions. We have been able to bring on another one hundred and five spaces locally, which is amazing for our families and our community. And we continue to advocate to the province for additional seawall spaces as we continue to see more and more interested operators come to us in Grey County. And I will. take any questions if you have them.

01:53:23 Speaker 10: Okay, thank you very much for that interaction. So we're going to begin with Councillor Nielsen. I told everybody I was excited to be here. Thank you very much, Warden McIntosh. Just a quick question on the 105 spaces in the SeaWalk. My my question is: Are they actual new childcare spaces, or the operators that have transitioned over into the SeaWalk programming? Just because that's a difference. Thank you for the question, through you, Warden. They are operators that had not. previously been able to opt in that we have been able to bring in. So all the current zero to six spaces in the area that are operating are in the Seawall system. Okay. Additional questions or comments, Councillor Greg? Question on page four it states, however, staff anticipate that without adjustment to provincial early on support in 2027, service impacts may be unavoidable. Is there going to be a report that would go back through community services like during the year that would assess where we are? so that we're kind of out ahead of it instead of just getting a year in review, like we are, kind of today. Through you, Warden. Yes, we anticipate probably in Q3 we'll have a better idea of what our early on pressures are looking like, especially from our third-party providers and our own operational cost increases, and we'll be able to give Council an idea of what that could look like from a service delivery impact as well. Further. Any further questions? Not seen any.

01:54:04 Speaker 10: Looks like then we're ready to call a question. All those in favor? And that motion is carried. Thank you very much. All right, and we are going to carry on with our agenda and looking at doing our lunch break at twelve thirty. So we are going to move on to item seven D at this point in time. It's recommended that report T R C W zero six twenty six be received relating. to the review of the Gray Road Seventeen B Reconstruction Project scope and cost reduction, and that the Transportation Services continue to consult Georgian Bluffs working toward confirmation of maintenance in the Multi Use Trail if constructed, and that Transportation Services continue to finalize the design summarized as Alternative Five within the report. May I ask for a mover and a seconder? Got a move by Councillor Kevaney, seconded by Councillor Dobrin. It's now. By Councillor Dobrine, it's now on the floor, and I welcome you, Supervisor Potter, to the lectern. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Warden Council.

01:55:16 Speaker 10: Through you, Warden, we prepared this presentation to accompany the opportunities for scope reduction and costumification report for Grade Road 17B. This is our location.

01:55:32 Speaker 10: This portion of the highlighted in yellow is the connection effective. Connection effectively between Georgetown Bluffs, north of the Potawatomi River, and the Sunset Strip, and or the City of Long Sound. It's also used as a bypass to and from Highway Six.

01:55:49 Speaker 10: On October twenty ninth, twenty twenty five, Council directed staff via minutes from the Budget and Finance Committee to reevaluate the project scope for opportunities to scale back what was being proposed in the ten year capital plan, and report. on the change in cost.

01:56:37 Speaker 10: Prior to communicating the scope to Budget and Finance Committee or Council in 2025, this project had already gone through several iterations, as all of our projects do.

01:57:15 Speaker 10: For example, the first version focused on eliminating blind spots. Preliminary design was prepared, effectively straightening the road, which greatly improved sightlines. Greatly improve sightlines while being constrained by fixed points such as where we cross the river, the intersection at Alpha Street, and the intersection at Youngs Drive. This would be a significant improvement over the current road geometry. However, it would require significant earthworks at tremendous cost and negatively affect the existing driveways. The following alternatives are examples of further design philosophy and iteration. via the MCEA process. So that. Oh, sorry.

01:57:31 Speaker 10: And this photo or patent pairing of photos was later found, but generally the inspiration for what we're proposing in the first place. Alternative one is do nothing. Not very often, but sometimes this is actually the answer.

01:57:40 Speaker 10: It doesn't make sense in our case as. the road failure and significant maintenance needs point to rehabilitation, lacking in compliance with cycling and trails master plan and not providing facilities for safe active transportation modalities. Further, this stands.

01:58:22 Speaker 10: One A is a like for like, which sounds exactly probably what you think it would be, but what I wanted to do is be clear on. what actually is the existing condition. There is asphalt gutter and Nichols Gully, that portion of this project that corrals runoff, whether it be rainfall or snowmelt, to 17 different catch basins or inlets.

01:59:11 Speaker 11: I will be referring to this type of road section where gutter is on either side of the road as a semi-urban nature for the remainder of the presentation. alternative two. Oh, sorry. My apologies. This alternative was excluded from the consideration due to again the lacking of compliance with the cycling and trails master plan and not providing facilities for safe active transportation modalities. Alternative two, in an attempt. to add cycling accommodation, but refrain from the use of retaining walls, a rural section through both gully portion and north portion, including bike lanes on either side of the road, was reviewed.

01:59:23 Speaker 11: The removal of the storm system is necessary to create the narrow rural cross section that we are attempting to achieve in the state, but it creates a potential for unchecked storm or meltwater resulting in possible failures to the gully walls. on both sides of the road. This issue, in conjunction with the lack of pedestrian facilities, excludes this alternative for consideration. For your reference, we did cross sections for this, and you can kind of see what we're looking at there. There's no ability for us to catch any of the water through. This is a fill section. It doesn't really matter as much, but when you get into the cut section. when you're running through the valley, that's where the water would accumulate and possibly cause issue.

02:00:01 Speaker 11: Alternative three is to add bike lanes and a sidewalk. In order to combat the gully wall failure and still accommodate a sidewalk, two bike lanes, and two vehicular lanes, the existing storm sewer requires revision, and retaining walls are introduced to either hold back the valley from encroaching. onto the road in a cut condition, or support the road platform in fill conditions. The northern section reflects a similar layout. Obviously, not needing any retaining wall.

02:00:38 Speaker 11: This alternative is the most expensive and provides less than ideal conditions for cyclists, due to being confined by gutters and vehicular. movements have a tendency to infringe on the bike lanes due to the tight horizontal geometry. If you go through there right now, you'll actually see that the center line of the road in places is missing. That's from people leaving their lane and going across. If we create a wider section, including bike lanes or improved shoulders, the same thing will happen where people start using the insides of corners rather than the center line to to take the tenths of. seconds or whatever it is going to be that they they win out of that.

02:01:25 Speaker 12: So, as it is the most expensive, infringing on bike lanes, the cost and unsafe conditions provides provided to cyclists excludes this alternative from consideration.

02:01:42 Speaker 01: So this is kind of what this one looks like, very similar to the last of. Very similar to the last, other than you'll see that there is gutters on both sides, and retaining walls start to be required in order to hold the platform up, as we need a wider platform to accommodate these modes.

02:02:42 Speaker 01: Alternative four is the active transportation route. This alternative is very similar to alternative three, with the major changes being the sidewalk and the bike lanes are combined into a single active transportation route. Single actor transportation route or a multi-use path. It still requires replacement of the storm system and retaining walls are still required, but to a lesser extent. This alternative was the basis for the county's application to the federal government's actor transportation fund grant. This application was submitted in February of 2025. We do not have any update on that as of yet. There was, I think, it was November 26th of 2025. The 2025 was the last background that showed which projects had been chosen in Ontario.

02:02:51 Speaker 01: I'm sure that there's another batch coming out, but we don't know where we sit yet.

02:02:55 Speaker 01: This alternative is excluded as it does not take full advantage of the remaining useful life of the storm system or the river crossing culvert. In 2025, I would say very late in 2025, or when we were making our decisions to get to budget, the OSM report that we received indicates a remaining useful life of 20 years.

02:03:22 Speaker 01: Prior OSM reports had not indicated this, and our assumption was that this would not need to be considered under the cycle of these particular roadworks. Delaying the storm system replacement to be part of the structure replacement would make for a better product and make. better use of the money already invested in existing infrastructure.

02:03:45 Speaker 01: Through this, we would exclude this alternative from consideration. So again, very similar cross section.

02:03:56 Speaker 01: We can see that the road gets narrower, the sidewalk is eliminated, and we went with a three-meter wide multi-use trail or active transportation way. Alternative five.

02:04:10 Speaker 01: This alternative looks exactly the same as alternative four on the surface, including the needed for retaining walls. It does not replace the storm system, and it makes use of materials and construction methods that have a useful service life closer to the remaining life of the storm sewer and culvert.

02:04:31 Speaker 01: So we're using asphalt gutters and gabion baskets as examples in retaining walls. This alternative meets the desire for recycling and trails master plan compliance, reduces the scope and the cost, and still reflects the vision depicted in the ATF grant fund application. This is our return, our our recommended alternative.

02:05:01 Speaker 01: So, just repeating the recommendations from the report here. again, this is kind of the vision that we were going for.

02:05:15 Speaker 01: Any questions, comments, discussion, please. Okay, thank you very much, Supervisor Potter.

02:05:22 Speaker 01: So I will put it out to council members if they have questions, comments. Councilor Gray. Well, I'll kick it off. I do have some. You have some, not so many questions. More comments.

02:05:32 Speaker 01: One question, I guess I'll lead with is how many fatalities have occurred on that roadway in the last twenty-five years?

02:06:26 Speaker 01: To my knowledge, that number would be zero. Thank you. So we have areas all around the county, which safety is of the utmost concern. And I can think of just this winter. I was coming in on Gray Road Five, poaching. two people pulling a wagon at the top of Harrison Park Hill, on a blind bend, and I slowed down, which was good because coming up the hill right behind them, then on the curb was one of the city snowplows. Thirty seconds earlier, those individuals were. Who knows? There is an alternative pathway that goes up into the cemetery at that place. However, being winter, it's not fully accessible. We had a local cyclist, a family practitioner or a family doctor, who was struck by a vehicle on top of Creamery Hill last summer on Gray Road Five.

02:06:45 Speaker 01: We have safety issues that are paramount, and I'm not minimizing the concern for pedestrians through here. I am one of them. I'm part of run groups and active individuals going through there on a constant basis, and have been for years. but we cannot engineer our way to ensuring that there will always be zero casualties, zero fatalities.

02:07:11 Speaker 01: Ray Road One Nineteen had a terrible cycling accident years ago. The county's really aware of.

02:07:19 Speaker 01: Sometimes we can do the best with what we have for for funds. We have needs long term, capital wise, that are greater. Otherwise, that are greater than than what we have funds to provide for. I know, being in On Sound, we've doubled, in my time as councillor, our sidewalk snow removal fleet.

02:08:25 Speaker 01: Yet, sidewalk snow removal concerns might be the most prevalent concerns we get as councillors through four or five months of the year. It is a constant. I think. the alternative one A, as is, is the way that this council should be going. I do think that if we think that that alternative trail is going to be as well maintained as what we would like to hope or what we would see in that photo, I'm fearful that actually in reality, it's easy to pledge that.

02:08:45 Speaker 01: And but George and Bluffs, even as a municipality, is not in the business, like Owen Sound, of sidewalk removal. so I think we are underestimating the significance of how difficult it is to maintain a level of service. So, in actuality, you get fifteen centimeters of snow over four months of the year. People will not be using that trail because you cannot maintain it fast enough. And the city of Old Town will not, for one second, consider expending our equipment beyond our borders to to to do the work. The county is not. Do the work. The county's not in the business of of clearing snow.

02:09:21 Speaker 01: We're trying to get out of the business of urban responsibilities. That's coming up later. This is one where that would be wonderful, but we've got a grant here, and I question. And sometimes, yet the grants are great, but this is expending two point one seven three million dollars plus land acquisition costs to gain the benefit of a three hundred twelve. thousand grant.

02:09:30 Speaker 01: There's times when the grant process is well. Actually, it happens consistently in government when government offers you a grant and you walk into responsibilities or service levels that get more difficult to maintain long term.

02:10:05 Speaker 01: So I think this is one of those examples. We can never guarantee zero. We can try our very best. Eight hundred and twenty three thousand dollars is not a nominal. amount of money. This this reconstruction project behind us here last year, which you're going to drive through again this year, because it's extending up to Superior Street, reconstructing the water on the hill, was four point five million dollars. So eight hundred twenty three thousand dollars is not an insignificant amount of money in terms of what's going into the roadwork. I think that's what we should be looking at. I think it's what we can afford. in relationship to all the needs be before the county, which we are certainly underfunded. We're all aware of that. It's no different than our lower municipalities. There's more work that needs done than what we have the monies for. We can't just look at budget in December and then be wondering how do we get out of six or seven or eight percent. We had a great deputation earlier today. There's there's a reasonable ask for a countywide stormwater management plan, but there is no desire as of today to allocate dollars for such. And it's just there's lots of great ideas, there's lots of great need, but I will make an an amending motion at this time that alternative one a be the chosen chosen path for county council. Okay.

02:11:01 Speaker 01: I haven't seen either hands up so far for discussion. So, I'm going to look to Director Hoy before I I accept before I accept the amendment with the seconder. I'll look to Director Hoy. I just wanted to mention. Thank you, Warden. I just wanted to mention a few things here. Just one is that this is still in the design process as well. as information has come up. This, you know, recently since we were told to do this report with the OSim's, you know, George and Bluffs may possibly may not want any winter maintenance. We don't want to take on winter maintenance, as Councilor Greg said. So it is in that in that spot where it's still pretty fluid. Exactly, you know, if it's even achievable as far as some of those things. I guess just from from staff point of view. our thinking was just it was hard for us to go with the bare minimum because we're ignoring some major policies and we've got some safety concerns and we're ignoring the cycling and trails master plan. So it's hard for us to say. Actually, we're not going to do that. We're going to put it off. But there's, I mean, it's one of those. It's like every project. There's just pros and cons, and it's hard to know if if everything's worth it or not, right? We're we're constantly making you know assumptions or or sacrifices. from having everything perfectly the way we want.

02:12:26 Speaker 01: So there's some pros in doing the bare minimum, and that our you know that structure might have 20 years left, the storm sewer might have 20 years left. It would coordinate them better to maybe just you know limping along with a with the shaven pay for now. Like there is some merit to that. We see that too. I guess from staff point of view, the the kind of the positive of bringing this report today is we just didn't want to go down a pardon the pun. Go down the path of of this design. If council has no interest in ever getting to the, you know, the picture as shown, because that's a lot of work too.

02:13:23 Speaker 01: There's some certain things in this section like land acquisition. That's one of our nearest right of ways as the top of like near Creamery Hill that Council Greg mentioned. That land should probably be acquired anyway. You know, like it's not like we're you know we probably should acquire it just because our right of way is not. enough for facilities, fiber recently went in. It's kind of right where we're going to be doing the work. But I just kind of wanted to give some context that that's kind of where we're at as a whole. Just looking forward to if we need to work some more on the design, we'd be willing to do that, obviously. But again, we just don't want to spend years on end designing this thing for no result yet. Okay, thank you very much, Director Hoy.

02:14:11 Speaker 01: So it's been moved to switch it from alternative five to alternative one A by Councillor Gregg. Is there a seconder? I see it seconded by Councillor Nielsen. So that's now on the floor for discussion. I wonder, Supervisor Potter, I wonder if you might then just perhaps if we can get one one A put back on the screen so we can revisit that. And if you want to highlight differences, I've also lost the screen as well. Go ahead. Okay, so given that we're going to focus now back on 1A, did you want to? Is there anything further you you defined all of them for us?

02:15:15 Speaker 01: But now that we're going to focus in on the original move move for alternative five, and now we're we're being asked to consider 1A. I wonder if you could just focus a comparison between the two. Thank you, and Director Huayac there is ready to assist as well.

02:15:36 Speaker 13: Yeah, the only the only thing I would say about this option is it does it just continues, you know, generally substandard condition for the next twenty years. And in twenty years, you're going to do something anyway, some sort of full reconstruction or something.

02:16:23 Speaker 13: So you're you're you know you're saving twenty years of well, I don't know what you're saving because you got to pay for it anyway. But you know what I mean. It's just your delay. You know what I mean. It's just you're delaying the potentially inevitable. Okay, so it's on the floor for discussion. We'll go to Councillor Pringle. Yeah, thanks, Warden. There for that. It's quite an in-depth report, and there's a lot of valid points to all the different scenarios there too. But I did one. I was also that I did put my support behind the staff report on on number five, just for the fact that. it's going to be a design project that we're going to see where it goes.

02:16:34 Speaker 13: This isn't written in stone. This is how it's going to play out. Something has to happen on that piece of road. It is a bad piece of road, and and and to Councilor Greg's point there too, we got many bad roads in this township, but this is one of them too. So I think for us to go with number five gives us an opportunity to see what can be done. Do we need to go to the extent that what is proposed here? No, now we don't have to. But I don't think one A is going to give us anything either. To do a light for light for the next twenty years, we're just going to open ourselves up to problems down the road. It is a it is a bad piece of piece of road in the county, but I would love to see what an alternative plan could be. Whether going through number five and coming up with some different ideas, do we want to take over looking after a bike path and and sidewalks? That's probably a scenario we'd have to have that conversation. And we aren't set up for that piece of it in the township. That's that's a given. But do we do do we need to do better work on the roadway itself and the infrastructure for the stormwater? I think that has to be looked at. Just a comment. Okay, thank you. Other discussion, Councillor Nielsen. Thank you very much, Ward Matchessoff.

02:17:33 Speaker 13: I think for this one, for myself, it kind of comes down to what Councillor Greg said and what Councillor Woodside, Director Hoy said. If to give direction to staff to do. what will be a substantial amount of work to do a design. If council isn't supportive of the cost of that, or believes that the improvements outweigh that cost, we shouldn't direct staff to do that. We shouldn't waste resources, which is staff's time, if there is a thought that that's not going to be supported in the end. And for myself here, when we look at the way the road is now and the infrastructure that exists, get us. to where that full sum reconstruction needs to happen. You know, for me, it aligns with the costing. Now we know it's going to be significantly greater expense in twenty years to do the reconstruction. But then all the work's going to be done the same time, rather than doing, you know, a certain amount of work now that's going to have to be just to just to align with that timeline. So I look at the value and the use of staff's time and energy put into a project that I probably wouldn't. Do a project that I probably wouldn't support at the end, and so I find myself seconding Councillor Greg's motion and carrying through with status quo and resurfacing now. Okay, thank you.

02:19:05 Speaker 13: Looking around the room, confirmation online. Okay. Oh, yes, Councillor Eccles.

02:19:11 Speaker 13: Tell me again if we went with alternative five by the time we got all the design, everything else done, is it twenty twenty? Is it 2027 project, 2028, 2030? Currently, it's scheduled for 2027.

02:19:36 Speaker 13: And yet, we've got 20 years left in a in the culvert. that takes potomani across the road, and alternative five isn't going to do anything with that. But in eighteen years, fifteen years, twenty-two years, we're going to have to tear it all apart and replace the culvert, according to the OSM report. Right. Yes, that's correct. So in both. one A and five, we don't touch the storm sewer and we don't touch the culvert.

02:20:21 Speaker 14: Road life expectancy is eighteen to twenty years. That kind of aligns with when right now we're being told that the culvert is probably going to need massive refurbishment or replacement.

02:20:58 Speaker 14: So it's whether effectively we're going to add the retaining walls. and the bike lane, or sorry, the active transportation route in Alternative Five, or not, and effectively do a bike for bike in Alternative One A. But there's really not any retaining walls, and there wasn't retaining walls. It was gabion baskets. Gabian baskets, and I heard we were going to use here, which I'm not as much of a favor of having to deal with conservation and their ideas of where Gabian baskets are used, and you won't get 15 years out of them, 18 years out of them.

02:21:27 Speaker 10: If we were going to do it, I suggest we do it in walls. But my thought is this: I'm the alternative motion, or the is there?

02:21:44 Speaker 10: Go with one A. and do the big type construction when George and Buffs is ready to look after trails, sidewalks, because I don't, you know, I don't want to speak for George and Buffs, but you're going to be doing trail work.

02:22:05 Speaker 10: Have all the equipment to do that within a year's time. Um, I. just, as we said, it's eight hundred thousand to four million, sorry, three million.

02:22:21 Speaker 10: This gives us the time to get the maximum out of that system before we have to replace the culvert. That's what I'm looking at. The eight hundred thousand and alternative one A seems to be the best to get the most out of our infrastructure. Okay, thank you. We'll go to Councillor Carlton. Thank you, Warden Matriscos.

02:22:49 Speaker 10: I have to admit, I am conflicted on this one because I would love to see the trails going through there as a safety issue for the people using that road. The idea, though, of spending that kind of money and having to go back in twenty years to do that is what catches me. With one A, does it give an? expansion to the road surface to allow for any? There's really no width beside the actual road going through there for anybody that's walking, and there are a number of people using that daily, whether it's walking or cycling.

02:23:27 Speaker 14: Does it expand that road at all to give them a little more safe portion to go? And yes, I would agree. And Deputy Mayor Pringle said it. We don't. have the machinery to do winter maintenance in there, so we know that it would have to be an added expense on the township to look after that. I just five is that ultimate now, but spending the money now and then spending it again in twenty years is not a logical thing in my mind to do. If one A can give a little better experience for people using that road, I can be in. favor of that. Did staff have a response to that?

02:24:21 Speaker 14: One A, as it's proposed here, is literally replacing what's there, and the reason that we propose it that way is that the existing catch basins are in a gut. Catch basins are in a gutter. They have an alignment.

02:25:18 Speaker 14: That's where the water is going to go to. If you were to try to widen a road, say we could manipulate it in some way, and we got a meter on either side, just for this sake of the conversation, that would be beyond the gutter line. You want the water to come towards the catch basins, so you're actually tipping the outside of the road back towards the catch basins and back towards the road. that becomes a snow removal issue, as the blades will ride up on top of the pitched surface and is no longer in contact with the road surface.

02:25:23 Speaker 10: So I'm not saying that we couldn't look at again another alternative directed to do so, but fitting something in, especially in the gully where all those structures are, would be difficult.

02:25:36 Speaker 10: Through you, Warden, just further to what Supervisor Potter indicated, I think I think one of the key differences between 1A and Alternative Five, outside of the cycling and pedestrian path proposal improvements, is there's no geometric improvements to to that road.

02:25:46 Speaker 10: So it would literally be replacing, as as Supervisor Potter indicated. what's there today in terms of pavement, not not widening, not changing any of the geometric profiles, because as as has been indicated, it is a tricky section of road to not not just to navigate from a vehicle perspective, but also from a pedestrian cycling perspective. This would alternative one A would would just be a shave and pave essentially, and not from what I'm understanding, not wide. One understanding, not widening any platform, that'd be basically replacing what's existing today. Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the deputy warden, and then over to Councillor Nielsen. Thank you, Madam Warden. Has any consideration been given given to making it a one way road and providing a little more room for pedestrians, cycles?

02:26:56 Speaker 10: I mean, I don't use the road at all, but I from what what I understand, there's a lot of traffic coming into the city in the morning, going out in the afternoon. There's lots of places I'm thinking Burlington Bridge, the change lane designations depending on times of day, something like that, an option. Everything's possible.

02:27:28 Speaker 10: Yeah, it comes down to like the headache that could possibly be called for anybody that's local to the area that wants to use that back and forth at any time of day that they're used to now.

02:27:41 Speaker 10: Also, controlling that on the north end, you would need to control 13th Street, Summer Street, and 17B, possibly all the way back up to the highway or our 17 to kind of control the one-way flow. also controlling that at the intersection of 10th Street West, Highway 20, Highway 21, and Six, would probably be pretty difficult as well.

02:28:06 Speaker 10: But based on the fact that you had, like you said, a fairly decent peak number in the morning and a fairly decent peak number in the afternoon, we hadn't looked at it as a as a one-way configuration. Okay, thank. you. We'll go to Councillor Nielsen, and then we'll go to Councillor Carleton.

02:29:02 Speaker 15: Thank you very much, Ward Montesoffe. Just my comment here is, like, having attended a few Good Roads conferences and different speakers on traffic safety and such, a lot of it comes down to if a driver feels feels uncomfortable, they're typically going to reduce their speed.

02:29:16 Speaker 15: And so when we talk about widening the platform in a section or you know altering the geometrics at your your site. The geometrics that your your sight lines are better and such. To me, are we then talking about the potential for speed increases as drivers feel more comfortable in this stretch of road? I've been driven it a few times because of the narrow width, because of the houses that are really close to it.

02:29:38 Speaker 15: There's an instinct I found to drive, you know, pretty gosh darn closer, nearer, less than what the speed limit of the road is, and not to be flying up the road. and And so that's the kind of the other avenue where I'm thinking about the. the like for like currently is that ability to kind of maintain that pressure on the driver. Okay, thank you. Over to Councillor Carlton. Thank you. Just to comment on the idea of making it a one way at different times of the day. Young's Drive comes onto there, so you'd be trying to get people at that point and directing them one way or the other. I don't think the potential for one way exists there at all. As I said, I could live with one way. Could live with one A for twenty years if it was going to make it a safer road, but if we're getting like for like, I don't think that increases the safety measures. Okay.

02:29:57 Speaker 15: Don't see any further hands up. So the motion that we have on the floor is that the motion be amended to strike out alternative five in the third clause and insert alternative one A being a.

02:30:14 Speaker 15: 1A being a rural cross section with existing configuration. That is what we're voting on at this point in time. All those in favor? And those opposed? Okay, so that motion is carried.

02:30:37 Speaker 15: Okay, so Madam Clerk, we'll go back to the original motion inserting 1A. Okay, so we're back to the original motion. Just get that back onto the screen. Receiving the report. Continue to consult with George and Bluffs, and to confirm maintenance and multi-use if constructed, multi-use trail if constructed, and that the transportation services continue to finalize the design summarized as Alternative One A. within the report, that is what we're voting on now.

02:31:20 Speaker 15: We've got a question, Councillor Dobrin.

02:31:26 Speaker 15: Thank you, and through you, at one point, Director Hoy mentioned about expropriation or acquiring lands on either side at some point in time, and five alternative five included that as a as a cost estimate.

02:31:44 Speaker 15: It was indicated that land acquisition was going to be necessary regardless of options. Will the will staff be pursuing and bringing back more information in preparation for expansion of this road in twenty years? Just maybe we start looking at acquisition now, then instead of later. Yeah, through your word, that's a good question.

02:32:16 Speaker 15: There is a lot of spots in the in the county, as I said, Creamer Hill and some of those other ones, where we we don't have enough right of way, especially with utilities being the way they are. So, I know legal has been working on our new land acquisition policy. The next bunch of years, it would sure behoove us to start working towards getting the right of ways where they need to be. And some of the county policies, you know, where it says every county road should be 100 foot right of way, does that apply, you know, in Big Bay as much as, you know, on Gravel Road Three somewhere? Probably not.

02:32:47 Speaker 15: But again, we just haven't got to the point where we've kind of got a full land acquisition plan for the foreseeable future.

02:33:04 Speaker 15: My comment more implies is this decision to change the alternative. does not prohibit you from pursuing those land acquisitions if and when they make sense. Thank you.

02:33:20 Speaker 15: Just want to go over to the CIO as well. Thank you, Lorden, and through you. Just based on if if this motion obviously gets supported as per the previous motion, alternative one A that probably leaves the second clause no longer required.

02:34:02 Speaker 01: So I don't know if the mover and seconder would be open to just. a friendly amendment to remove that clause because it's a continuation of of alternate five, and and with it being alternate one a, we don't need to have further conversation with Georgia Bluff regarding the maintenance. Yes, I I did note when I was reviewing it and reading out the summary that it did say if constructed, so I don't think there's any harm in it staying, but for clarity purposes.

02:34:11 Speaker 01: Would all look to Councillor Carlton and Councillor Pringle?

02:34:13 Speaker 01: Would it make sense that we just strike that out? Okay. And the original mover was Councillor.

02:34:38 Speaker 01: Oh, well, that was the amendment. The original mover. It was Councillor Keaveny and Councillor Dobreen had moved the.

02:35:12 Speaker 01: Green had moved this original motion. Do you have any objection to that clause being struck out for clarity? Okay, and they are indicating they have no objection. Okay, thank you. All right, so we will look at the first clause and the second clause with the insertion of one a instead of five. That's what we're looking at voting on at this point in time. I'll call the question. All those in favor, and those opposed. and that motion is carried. Okay, thank you very much. We are going to move on to our lunch break at this point in time. Madam Clerk, what is a reasonable time for us to return? Right. Okay. So if we can keep it to a half hour and come back here to one twenty, then we'll be ready to carry on.

02:35:34 Speaker 01: We are back from our break, and we are going to continue then with our next item, which is 7E. And this is the joint regarding the joint municipal services meeting minutes. So it is recommended that the joint municipal service committee services committee meeting minutes dated January 28, 2026, be adopted as presented, and the following resolutions contained therein be endorsed.

02:35:58 Speaker 01: There are five of them that have been published within the agenda. and so with that, then I'll look for a mover and a seconder to get it on the floor before the deputy CAO comes forward. So we've got it moved by Councillor McKay and seconded by Councillor Fringle. It's now on the floor for discussion. Welcome, Deputy CAO. Good afternoon, members of Council, and and to you, Madam Ward.

02:36:33 Speaker 01: And I will keep my comments brief. We had this is a great committee to be part of, and and I really enjoy the conversations that we have around the table. So. thank you to the committee members for the the lively conversations that we have and the good conversations we have around the Joint Municipal Services Committee. We had a slightly shorter agenda for the last meeting. The primary, the two two two topics on the agenda. The first one was following on from a request by council that we consider library service provision.

02:37:16 Speaker 01: We had a review of the work that was done by former CAO Lance Lance Armstrong. He was a cyclist. and as far as I'm aware, not the last CAO or a previous CAO of Grey County. But the work that was done in 2013 in regards to the last time that library services were requested to be considered by Grey County and and and reviewed the work that had been done, noting that not much has changed in the grand scheme of things in terms of libraries. Libraries are governed under the Public Libraries Act. The Public Libraries Act appears to be one of the pieces of legislation the province. is left well and truly alone, and so there's not been any significant shifts in that. There's been no significant shifts in the way in which library services have been provided across Grey County in that period of time.

02:37:38 Speaker 01: One of the things that was raised by County Council in directing this back to joint municipal services was around costs, and so the the committee considered a report which included some of the updated costs and a review of the provision of library services across Grey.

02:38:18 Speaker 01: We noted that no two libraries in Grey are. one and the same, and they each provide a different range of facilities for communities that they serve. But generally speaking, Grey is served by municipal library boards that serve the municipalities that they're based in, and they do they provide a range of different functions, everything from the town of Blue Mountains library system that provides art galleries, museum space, as well as a library service and events programming, to the shared service that Chatsworth, Owen Sound, and the township of Georgian Bluffs use to the North Grey Union Public Library. Service. So there's there's different ways in which they're provided. Each one is unique to the communities it serves. When we're looking at the costs, on average across Grey County, our member municipalities are paying around about the provincial average in terms of small-scale rural libraries across Grey County.

02:38:43 Speaker 10: So whilst there is some variation of those costs, very much aligned on an average basis with what urban rural municipalities are paying in other space. Paying in other spaces. Indeed, our costs slightly less per resident than in the neighbouring Bruce County, which was drawn as a comparator.

02:39:30 Speaker 10: And we looked at a number of different ways in which library services are provided, and the costs that are provided associated to those. And the recommendation from staff at that point in time is: there's not been any significant shift in library service provision. And as our costs are roughly aligned with what we're seeing across the province, and there's a fairly broad feeling that. library services are underfunded across the province. At this point in time, there are probably no significant savings to be found from the efficiencies that would be gained by a county-wide system, and so the recommendation was recommendation as stood in 2013 probably stands today, and that was supported by committee at that time. We moved on and had a good secondary conversation around shared staff training opportunities. This was one of the priorities that was drawn out from committee in its early its early meeting. And its early its early meetings and endorsed by county council and it very closely echoes and mirrors part four of the existing strategic plan which talks about shared opportunities between member municipalities and grey county for looking for opportunities and so count the committee endorsed a recommendation that we we move forward with developing a bit of a program of staff training events in collaboration with member municipalities and that that where opportunities exist that we advertise and.

02:40:18 Speaker 10: share opportunities across a number of different sections of of training and professional development, from frontline training courses like if one of us is doing a chainsaw training course and has some spare spaces, how can we facilitate sharing those across the team? Or if operators are receiving some training, are there opportunities for sharing that across grey county member municipalities? Through to leadership development, change management courses, and and LIs like that, which which many of our member municipalities. are working through independently, through to the sharing of council training and council provision. So we really did look at the full gamut of training that's provided by both member municipalities and Grey County to look where the opportunities might be for sharing. And based on the direction of the committee, it's supported by county council today. We will be pulling together some promotional material to share with member municipalities around the opportunities that we've identified that exist. And with that, I'd be quite happy to take any. Without, I'd be quite happy to take any questions. Okay, thank you very much. I'll put it out to committee. The whole members, if they have any questions for the deputy CEO, I'm not seeing hands up here. More online. All right. Well, well explained. Thank you very much. In that case, then I will call the question. All those in favor, and that motion is passed. Next, we move on to item seven F, and it is recommended that the herb And it is recommended that the Urban Road and Road Exchange Task Force meeting minutes dated February 5, 2026, be adopted as presented, and the following resolutions contained therein be endorsed. It is to receive report TRU R 0126 be received, and that the draft road transfer template agreement be approved, and that staff be directed to customize the template for each member municipality and circulate the agreements for execution, and that the warden. and clerk be authorized to execute the agreements, and that the road assumption slash deletion bylaws be brought forward to county council with a transfer date of July six, twenty twenty six, both for urban and rural transfers.

02:42:21 Speaker 01: With the following exceptions being transferred on October twenty ninth, number one, Gray Road four within Fleshton; number two, Gray Road twelve within Markdale; number three, Gray Road fourteen within Southgate and.

02:42:42 Speaker 01: Then Southgate and Southgate Side Road 11, and number four Gray Road Nine within Dundalk, and that stop be authorized to proceed prior to council approval as per Section 26.6B of the Procedural Bylaw.

02:42:54 Speaker 01: May I ask for a mover and a seconder to get it on the floor for discussion? Moved by Councilor Gregg, seconded by Councilor Kieveny. It's now on the floor for discussion. Welcome, Director Hoy. Thank you, Warden. Seeing Niles' minutes go through so fast, I was going to get him to do this, but he didn't want to, so I'm stuck with it here. Rather than just go through the minutes, all the things that we went over with the road task force, the urban exchange task force, is is in this presentation. So we've added a couple slides to this, just because during the task force, some things came up, and it's it is a very you know would seem convoluted financial formula. simple if you know enough about it, but it's it's not intuitive. So the one thing I just wanted to say: we we started this task force in February 2023. So we've done multiple visits to all the municipalities. I think two to each, maybe three to Hanover. We had a couple individual meetings, but again, it is tricky in that it's been kind of going through the process. But some people, you know, we sent out. a lot of data. Some people reviewed it very thoroughly. Some not so much. But as it progresses forward, when it's finally starting to get to the end, people are starting to realize, you know, that it's coming fairly close to fruition here. And we had all our public meetings in March twenty-five. Again, big disparity in how many attendees we had. We had a lot of people in Durham. The warden was in Miford, and some. meetings with nobody. So we did get a general consensus. Although it's a big change, the public doesn't necessarily know that we have urban roads to begin with, and we still hear that. You know, when we say, "Oh, you gravel five and no one's sound," they're like, "What? There's a county road, no one's sound." Like people are still not totally aware of that. So I think that's why the public has has given us. There's been some feedback and a lot of staff feedback, but we're still kind of getting out there what this. what this means. So a lot of that in the PowerPoint. I'll start here through the PowerPoint.

02:45:17 Speaker 01: Okay, so on March twenty five, the county passed this motion that the twenty twenty six levy increase of one point two four million, which was in the twenty twenty six budget, for the municipal payment for the receipt of the urban roads.

02:46:04 Speaker 01: and that public information sessions be held, as I said, you know, a variety of people. Public meetings are typically not that well attended; some more than others. And begin the process of producing transfer agreements. I'll go through the agreements later in this this presentation. But of course, the county, as an upper tier in the municipal act, the county can download what it wishes. We, from the start of this project, we want to all work together. We didn't want to stick anybody with anything or leave. anybody holding the bag. We wanted to maybe get a better deal that MTO gave with us when they gave us Highway Four, which ran out. That money ran out pretty quick, so that's what the agreement basically. I'll go over a little bit, but that's really us trying to kind of work together on winter maintenance and figure out how to make the transition smoother. And then the staff would return the task force with a set agreement, so we brought a template back to the task force, and it's attached to your documentation today.

02:46:21 Speaker 01: So right now, this is our transfer dates that we're anticipating July 6th, and this is in the motion as the warden read. The transfer date for most of the approved roads, with the exception of those in Gray Highlands and Southgate, which are undergoing construction in the summer of 26.

02:46:59 Speaker 01: So in that case, because we didn't want a contractor on a road that our contractor on a road that they would own, we're keeping the ownership till the end of October for that, and then we'd follow them or transfer them following the construction. Following construction, so the next slide is added from the task force because there was a lot of very intelligent questions at the task force, and it's hard to get to the bottom of. So we've added this slide. This is that transportation services annual capital replacement funding. So our funding formula is that levy, that CCBF, the former gas tax, and the OSA funding. So that is our envelope, our 20 million this year, for example. Next year, you know, we have a projection. of 22 million. So from the start, we we took the assumption that we're already spending money in the urbans that we're in, and it just creates all all sorts of issues with communication and scopes of work and scheduling and those types of things. But we thought let's give rather than just leave somebody with a download and no no money to deal with it. We wanted to just take that money we were spending on urbans anyway, and then have the lower have the lower tiers have that money, and there was a variety of iterations we went through where we said, would it be something from the ten-year capital? Would it be a road condition, say, because some roads are in better conditions than others? But all those had their issues. There was always some some departments are maybe overrepresented in the ten-year plan that aren't actually going to happen. In general, with with our work, we can't ever recall when a municipality wanted to do some work, and we said we weren't going to pony up with the with the surface, it's usually the underground that is the barrier.

02:48:29 Speaker 01: It's expensive, sanitary and water main that that the municipality owns is usually the driver of the project. So that's where we thought you know if we could figure out what level of funding because we're all underfunded, we're going to remain underfunded. You're going to remain underfunded. So we just did it as a percentage of the total assets in the asset management plan, that way it was fair for everybody. Whether some of your roads were in slightly better condition or slightly worse, you would get that ongoing formula calculation. So we added this next slide because this was a very big discussion at the task force, and and it really just we kind of added this because we thought as the numbers change, we've kind of been going by the same formula.

02:49:20 Speaker 01: but all the numbers aren't the same. If you look back to that twenty-three report, it's slightly different than twenty-four or twenty-five. So this was kind of just us showing all that transfer funding for capital is based on that bucket of money we have from those three funding sources. So you'll see the on your left there that twenty-seven projection. That's what we, based on the twenty-seven projection of the of the budget, that's what we think is going to go next year into those transfers. It's going to be divided up by percentage of kilometers of urban roads. Now, if if the county decided that that bucket of money was going to go up by eight hundred and fifty thousand or or one percent of county levy, this is like the option that would never ever happen.

02:50:00 Speaker 01: I don't think because it's just hard to have that kind of money, obviously. But there would be there would be a corresponding increase in the money that would go for the urban transfers, as and if it was cut. And I think this was what came up with the task force because the the projection wasn't quite what it was at a previous meeting. That number going in the transfers went down, so people were relatively surprised by that. I think, and kudos to the committee for sifting through the explanation with a lot of good questions. And I think all of us benefited from getting to the bottom of exactly how this formula works. So that's just showing that as as the capital budget climbs, more money goes to the municipalities for the ribbon work. Municipalities for their urban work. So the next slide is the more updated urban transition funding, and I think the thing to notice here, this is through different meetings with the task force and things we've decided along the way, was those those five municipalities without the color at the top, Blue Mountain, Gray Highlands, Hanover, etc. They were mostly urban, and it was just thought that maybe for having a lot of urban capital needs, the funding formula. maybe could help them out a little more because they're not really getting rid of substandard rural those five.

02:51:22 Speaker 01: So at one point we had all the money after you know 2032 I guess the 20 yeah 2032 starting to drop off. So you would start getting towards no funding because it was always a 10 year program. In that case those five we've added since that they just keep going, and the other ones you'll see. the the pink kind of color there, orangey pink. Those ones are going to have the funding earlier. That those are those July fundings, and then you'll see the Southgate in the purple at the bottom. Southgate and Great Highlands, because of the late transfers, they're going to have kind of an equalization payment to make the full ten-year payment at the end, because they are kind of getting, they're you know. Kind of getting, you know, they're getting six months less of payment this year, for example, because those payments you'll see for twenty-six, it's prorated. Those have changed over time on when the when the transfer dates are. So right now, this chart is based on the October twenty-ninth for those two, and based on the July sixth for the others. So that's where that that's your funding going on. But again, the thing to remember is those numbers will change as the yearly budget goes through the county. So there it is. There, yeah. Municipal funding change from year to year, driven by the budget. The annual order placement funding. Those resources. This is kind of just summarizing what I've already said. When they those levels changed, and there's corresponding impact. And 2036 funding was the balance to make the 10-year contributions whole, which kind of came out of the task force. So, so then onward to our proposed dates. So the task force approval, February fifth. Today, of course, is the committee of the whole council approval. We have those transfer agreements, or working on those transfer agreements. We have the template, which the the committee has reviewed. The task force has reviewed. But there's a lot of specifics in that in those agreements that still need to be worked out as far as winter maintenance. I think pretty much every municipality we are going to continue to do the winter maintenance. on the urbans that are being downloaded, with the exception of Owen Sound, who already does their own anyway.

02:53:43 Speaker 01: It's just right now we pay them to do it. In the future, they would just keep doing it, but we wouldn't be paying them for it. And so those there's those two dates of the transfers: the July 6th and the October 29th. And then on to the template agreement summary. So this is the template is attached to your report. The report in the minutes as well. Schedule A is a legal description, which you know, just telling the the definite areas that is switching hands. Schedule B, the financial arrangements. Again, how much it has in the agreement because it's all dependent on county council anyway. But again, it's it's another source of information to anticipate for your ten year capitals which you're getting. And then schedule C would be the maintenance agreement. So, as I said, in most cases we keep doing winter maintenance. And I know there's a lot of cases where I'll I'll use Hanover as an example, they don't have to do any structure inspections. You know we do a whole bunch, so we would continue to do those. They would pay us their portion, and rather than have them have to tender for three or two bridge inspections. So there's a lot of various things like that. There's a lot of traffic signals. People don't necessarily have a traffic signal person, and we kind of work with them on sound on that anyway. So some of the signals would still be under their under the tender. They won't sound tender. They don't sound tender.

02:54:41 Speaker 01: So then you'll see in the one report there's a list of thirty-one or thirty activities. These are kind of the key ones. Finalize those municipal agreements. The civic addressing is a big thing where we had a big talk at the task force about the fact that there's kind of that drop dead date. It's not you know your your address changing is a big important thing, especially with an election coming from nine one one Canada Post. There's just you know we've got that July sixth that we. We've got that July six that we'd be putting up all these signs. We'd be probably putting them up and bagging them, and then on that day, nine one one is important. Obviously, it's you know, life changing decision if they can't get to your address. So we'd be going through and getting all that ready. So the the date that it happens, it happens for everybody. And we talked early on the process about a concierge service or a hotline number, just because there's so many things to change. Like you have six days to change. your driver's license. In some cases, it'd be quite easy for people who are, you know, pretty adept online. But in other cases, not so much. Maybe so. We don't want to leave anybody, you know, with a bunch of addresses to change and no idea how to do it. So whether that means we have to go to their house and help them out or go to their front door, we'd do that too. Like, you know, it is a big thing to have your address changed without any real say from you. It's a big impact for people. So, and then with the election, there's there's deeper is. Election, there's there's deeper issues that making sure everyone gets their election notices, etc. At the bottom of that page, updating the MTO signage on the King's highways. We've had engineering go out make lists of all the MTO signs, so we've got to make up new MTO signs, and we're going to have to put them in place. So you know, where Grey Road Nine is now isn't necessarily where Grey Road Nine is going to be, like off Highway Six anyway in the future because that was Concession Twelve. So there's a lot of signage to change.

02:56:36 Speaker 01: The management movement of historical information. We all have information yourselves, us. Things like municipal consents, just little property information. We've had little drainage issues over the years that you needed to look through those old files. So, we'd be making sure all those went in a in a package to make sure everyone had the updated information on the roads. They have some of it, of course, is quite old. But the legal reviews of each section. I know our legal department is. There is still a lot of kind of old outlier pieces of land or widening that might be in someone else's name, so that will continue to try to get that cleaned up. That transportation traffic bylaw, the old forty-seven eighty-eight that we bring with all the parking and the speed limits, community safety zones. There would need to be corresponding bylaws for yourselves. So, you know, all of a sudden in an urban, it wouldn't be a great county community safety zone. It would be you know community safety zone for the municipality. Community stages zone for the municipality. In some cases, I pointed out, like the task force concession five is a no passing zone. It is not in our bylaw, but it is in theirs. So we would be probably adopting the bylaws as that road right now until we get a chance to you know evaluate them. And just that last thing is all you know, GIS mapping. The bridge and road needs study. You have to update your asset management plans. It's a lot of big changes. You know, tender updates. All our tender updates are set for street sweeping, catch basin cleaning. If everything is just, you know, we'd be doing a lot of little agreements to make sure that things continued as is and that we were able to all get our work done yourselves and us. And then I said the franchise agreements with with gas, hydro, fiber has franchise agreements where we allow them to work in our right of way. Not every municipality has franchise agreements, I don't think. So of course we would be we were getting rid of the road, we would be passing those on, and then adopt a highway. That's that. Highway. That's that's the big thing you don't really think about. But like I said, there's more to the Adopt a Highway than people just taking a road. Usually, that road means something to them from a loved one, or or you know their history, something when they were a child or whatever. They are very emotionally attached to those sections of Adopt a Highway. In some cases, multi generational families have looked after them to clean them, and it's very important that we make sure that that no one is hard done by by changing some of these things.

02:59:18 Speaker 01: So then, back to our recommendation that the report be received, that the road transfer template agreement be approved, staff would be directed to customize the template for each municipality, which are in the works, and that those roads would change with the exception of those four, and that we would proceed prior to council approval with the work, looking for a summer exchange. Okay.

03:00:01 Speaker 01: Thank you very much for that introduction. So it is now open for discussion from our committee, the whole members. We'll start with Councillor Dobrin. Thank you, and through you. What communications have occurred with residents, affected residents, so far, if any? I mean, directly. I know we've had an open house. Perhaps no one showed up. And and what communications will be had directly with residents who are affected prior to the actual transfers? So I'm thinking a.

03:00:45 Speaker 01: Q and A. What to do?

03:00:48 Speaker 01: This is happening, and maybe a Q and A for us who are probably going to get the calls first, that we might be able to expedite their contacting the right individuals to seek guidance. Again, we haven't worked out all the logistics of that. I think direct contact of some sort is obviously the best. interest. I think the public sessions, you know, are hit and miss. There's people that don't necessarily they own the land, but they don't necessarily live here. So yeah, one way or the other, we'd be making sure that of all the the residents affected, we'd be contacting each one and making sure that they knew it was coming from a letter to a phone call or whatever. Like you want to make sure that they were aware. And thank you for that. I think it goes a long way in. outlining that you've thought about all of these things and are helping them work through the the steps. Thanks. Okay. Other questions?

03:02:01 Speaker 01: We'll go to Councillor Patterson. Thank you, Warden. I just want to say a few comments in Hanover's case. we're the current arrangement is working very well. Back in 1998, Hanover turned over 10th Street, which is our main street or County Road 4, and we paid the county for turning that road over to the county.

03:02:29 Speaker 01: And now here we are, a complete turnaround. So just a couple of comments, like I would have more confidence in this. arrangement.

03:02:40 Speaker 01: If we had the updated asset management numbers, so we can find out the implications for our asset management plan, and if we had the updated financial costs, so again we can work on that before we sign the MOU. And I know you said you're going to do this, but to me, we need to review this before we actually go ahead. Like, are we not doing this out of order? Shouldn't we have all the figures and the facts ahead of time before we do this?

03:03:17 Speaker 01: And I'd also like to see, once we get to the MOU, that we have a an opportunity or a clause in that MOU to allow us to review or renegotiate the term, the length of this arrangement, because five years or seven years. from now, it may not be what we say it is, and we'll be we'll be paying more money than what we are with the current arrangement. Thank you. The one thing I would say to that, just as far as the negotiation, like you know, we had that the agreements be made and we negotiate a little bit. There's really like from a staff perspective, we don't really feel like we have a lot to. negotiate, you know. Like if Hanover said, "Well, we want 10 more in funding," again, that is a task force decision. It's not really a staff decision. So, as far as our negotiating, other than the the three sections of these agreements, which you know they're kind of going through county council, other than you know a couple things like winter maintenance and those types of things, which we kind of have a set rate for.

03:04:30 Speaker 01: It's hard to know, you know, what exactly. people feel like they're not getting? You know, we we right through this process. We know we've all equally underfunded. There's a big upside that it's hard to quantify on getting out of these urbans, and I know you know you you feel like it's been working quite well, but it is an inordinate amount of work to have two people in the same spot working on two different two different assets in the same road for us anyway.

03:04:55 Speaker 01: So yeah, that's kind of where our struggle is: is that if if people aren't happy with the funding. which seems to be, you know, what the crux of people's issues are. It's hard for us as staff to negotiate anything, you know. That's kind of where we're at. That's where our struggle is. Okay, we'll go to we'll go to the CAO and then over to Councillor Craig. Thank you, Warden, and through you, just further to to what Director Hoy indicated, and what we noted at the task force were, obviously, we provided some. numbers at the time in terms of what the the numbers were in twenty twenty five. In terms of that set maintenance costs, as as Pat indicated, it's it's it's slightly increased a little bit in terms of some of those costs in in twenty twenty six.

03:06:29 Speaker 10: So again, I think Sean Anthony provided the task force with what those costs are, but we're still working out some of those details. We are happy to share that with the local municipalities. as part of these next steps, and and any asset management data as a as it relates, the numbers have been changed a lot between 2025 numbers and previous numbers that were shared to now.

03:06:53 Speaker 10: But we're happy to share any of that updated information numbers. And as as Pat indicated, you know staff will be working to package up all the information that we have for all these road sections, and sharing that information with with local municipal staff, so they have all that that information. We're also happy to have some further discussions, as Pat indicated, in terms of the the funding piece. If if that's still the question in terms of the funding piece, if there's still some assets that the municipality would be taking on, where there's still questions about some capital projects or improvements that would be initially potentially on the books, so to speak. Again, we're happy to have those conversations.

03:07:03 Speaker 10: We would. need requests to come back through the local municipalities on any of those those matters if there's specifics, in order for us to be able to have the discussions with the task force and council to get further direction. Based on what has been approved in the budget, we've we've set or based on what council has has directed in terms of what that budget request was. Based on again the information in 2025 of what that urban transition fund would be, as noted by Director Hoy, some of those numbers change slightly as depending on the total budget that's that's set for for transportation services, but it doesn't change drastically.

03:07:35 Speaker 10: But understanding that and having further conversations with local municipal staff or happy and local municipal councils, we're happy to do that. We're happy to help support that so that we can finalize some of those schedules, bring back hopefully. final signed EMUs and work towards that transfer date. What if based on you see the transfer dates as is currently recommended? We're we're also happy to have some further discussions if that's too quick.

03:08:07 Speaker 10: We're happy to have those conversations as well with with municipalities and bring that information back to to this council. But I think at this stage we would need some further direction and requests almost coming from those local municipalities if if. the funding is still, in their opinion, not adequate to support their needs during this transition period.

03:09:13 Speaker 10: Okay, we'll go to Councilor Greg. Okay, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this. We as a council have furthered this project for a solid year and a half, and staff have invested a lot of resources into where we are now. but I am going just to read back a little bit from March twentieth, two thousand twenty-five, and I'm going to do that because last Thursday at the meeting, the report published for the public, and I'm just saying this is not point and blame, but there was a technical glitch in the publishing of the agenda with all the hyperlinks within the report, and they didn't work. So no committee members had access through that. The only way you had access through it was if you had the old printed copy from March of twenty-five.

03:09:23 Speaker 16: Of 25, which stated discussions were held on the positive opportunity for member municipalities to make local decisions within their urban communities when the urban cross sections are transferred to them. The only significant concern came from those without a rural transfer component, noting a perceived inequity in the financial benefit provided compared to those who had one.

03:09:45 Speaker 16: They feel they would require additional funding to. manage the transferred urban roads. Specifically, funds would be needed for future infrastructure upgrades and to hire staff to manage additional maintenance. In response, Gray County evaluated the transition funding allocation, which was this document, which last March indicated thirty million seven hundred sixty-five thousand five hundred thirty-five hundred and three dollars be committed for supporting this endeavor, both the urban road download and the road exchange, and proposes to continue to provide winter maintenance within the majority of the urban transfer areas, with costs to be invoiced to each municipality on cost recovery basis. Other transition agreements or considerations can be considered with each municipality as part of the new road agreements. With that report, which adopted or received this new transition funding model of thirty million dollars, which was escalated from the previous one.

03:10:54 Speaker 16: I'm just going to use Owen Sound for example. We went from seven point two million dollars in funding over ten years to ten point one seven four million dollars. The recommendations from that meeting were: the report be received, the funding model presented for the urban road and rural road. transfers be approved, and the levy increase of one million two hundred forty thousand nine hundred one to support the funding model be included in the twenty-six draft budget for council's consideration, which I think from memory was supported by council seventy-five percent through levy and twenty-five percent through one-time funding reserve. That staff be directed to negotiate new road agreements with the affected municipalities in accordance with the activities in the report, and that the corresponding draft agreements come. forward for consideration. In the meeting, for the first time in the slideshow, then we were presented a new urban transition funding model. I'm going to use Oxnard for example again. It went from 10.174 million down to 9.187 million. Conversely, West Grey moved, and it was said suggested at the meeting that was proportioned across the board. Conversely, I'm just using. West Grey, not pointing it out. Went from three million nine hundred sixty-six thousand three hundred forty-eight dollars over ten years to three million seven hundred fifteen thousand six hundred seventy-nine dollars. In the moment, it's very difficult to understand how one municipality is approximately ten percent reduced, and another municipality is only reduced two hundred fifty thousand.

03:12:34 Speaker 16: Or Southgate goes from one point four million down to a million two hundred. eighty-seven thousand. There doesn't seem to be the equity again that was supposed spoken to in the March twenty-five report, and now we've got numbers again here in this slideshow that those numbers again have moved.

03:12:54 Speaker 16: It's very difficult for council to be able to respond. I think in real time. I don't think there's any direction other than a postponing motion. That's in. in that should be occurring here today. There's no way these minutes, as presented, should be adopted. There's too many questions. As Councillor Patterson indicated, there are municipal staff who do feel like that staff be directed to negotiate new road agreements with the affected municipalities and the corresponding draft agreements come forward.

03:14:03 Speaker 16: That the order of operations is somewhat. There's a little bit of miscommunication has occurred. So. I'm not in support of furthering it yet because in furthering it, it is furthering a funding model that hasn't adequately been spoken to as to how we truly have got there.

03:14:13 Speaker 11: How do you have those inequities seemingly resolved in March of 25, and now there's once again there seems to be inequities again as you go down through our municipal partners.

03:14:36 Speaker 11: If you want the project. to work, and this is an outcome of the transportation plan, and I'll support staff here, there is an objective. We have done a lot of work. There was never a goal of going project by project by project and severing them all out and building it out from there. We have come to certain agreements, but there is, I think, some discomfort in where we're at now in terms of moving forward. and I think we need to ensure that we're all again back on the same page, back together because we we were somewhat removed again from where we were. I think in March when we had more comfort as municipal partners, we're not all happy with the amount of download. I know no one's down, but speaking for staff, they're really not happy. Kudos to county staff. When I reviewed the twenty twenty three to twenty Twenty-three to twenty, ten-year budget, twenty-three to thirty-two. To date, county staff have checked off almost every project for twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, and on on in line for twenty-six, except for thirty, which has been delayed, delayed, delayed, and Gray Road nineteen because of the partnership with Simco and four-laning. But those monies are set aside in reserve; they're not just spent somewhere else. Those are protected for. when the time is is right. Same as a Bruce County partnership on ten. There's other ones locally where Harrison Park Hill was on the books for 2023, and now it's not there. So there are concerns locally that any reduction to certain municipalities is more injurious to others, and there has become a little bit of a walking away from I think that commitment. that we had in March of 25 to our partners. So I think some are looking to get back on the table, back through more conversation, to getting these agreements in draft form and back in front of council. But I think what's appropriate today is that council is considering a postponing motion for the minutes and where we're at right now. Okay, thank you. I'll look to Director Hoy or the CEO or if anybody. WCO. Okay, CEO is going to start. Through you, Warden. Thank you for for those comments. With respect to the the the model, the funding model, as as Director Hoy indicated, the model, the funding model hasn't changed. The numbers to calculate the funding have changed.

03:16:53 Speaker 11: Council may also recall to the there was the recommendation to remove some of the what I call the phase phase down steps for some of those those municipalities that where there is a rural exchange versus those that are just having an urban exchange.

03:17:13 Speaker 11: So there were some changes that were done in 2025, as per the direction from council to move forward with based on the funding model. those numbers have been put into today's into the 2026 budget that was supported by council. So again, staff would need some further direction in terms of what those numbers look like.

03:17:35 Speaker 11: If there's anything different than what council is looking for, again, if it's a if the local municipalities are concerned with the with the the funding model, the numbers we would need requests back from those local municipalities so that we can have those discussions with the task force and council. In terms of though the models and the basic principles, those haven't changed. And in terms of the numbers, in terms of the technical glitches, again from staff staff perspective, we apologize. We didn't. We weren't aware that some of those links were not working. Those those reports were still available through our website. You'd have to go digging for some of those dates. But thank you for for making us aware of those links, and we've since corrected that. technical glitch, in terms of the funding model, and this is why we wanted to, based on the discussion from the task force, we wanted to put forward, based on again the the same funding model.

03:18:32 Speaker 11: Here's the numbers as as we see it, based on the table that's in today's presentation that was shared with committee the whole in advance of today's meeting. That's the numbers as we know it, based on what has been agreed to as the funding model. Again. with this, we're happy to share this further information with local municipal staff. We're happy to have further conversations with local municipal staff to answer any questions that they may have with respect to the various assets, the conditions of the assets. That information was provided to staff back in late 2024, I think it was. Some of it has changed slightly, so again, we can we can provide some further information. We're here to again support. council's direction in terms of how you want to move forward with this project, as as noted by Councilor Greg, a lot of work has gone into this project to get it to this stage.

03:19:30 Speaker 11: We would, as staff, we still feel it's the right thing to do, so to speak. We think the principle of of of the transfers still has a lot of merit. So we would be looking for direction in terms of still to move this, hopefully. forward in a positive way, but if there's more time required, we're happy to take that time to make sure we get this right. So we're open to further direction from council. If the transfer dates that are being recommended by the task force are too soon, we're happy to push those and look at different dates to push those back. We're happy to again take further direction from council on what to do next. If if some of the parts of the motion are deferred, what it does is it delays any further than conversations and discussions about finalizing the MOUs and and having some further conversations and sharing of information back to the local municipality. So so so I just wanted to to note that from a deferral perspective. But again, we're happy to take direction from council on what what you're looking for in terms of what you want to do based on making sure we get this right from a timing perspective.

03:20:46 Speaker 17: Okay, I'll just lift to Director Foy. He has anything to add to that? Yeah, as CEO said, yeah. I we just it's one of those things where our original timeline. We just wanted to make sure this was within this term of council, because if we get far enough down the line, you know, we're introducing it to new council. It's a whole new thing. It took us three years to get here, so we do have that concern. And as far as the funding, we felt like it was the. fairest funding model we could get. Like if you look, you know, so you look back to the past, you say, "Oh, Gray County took on all those zone sound rows in 2002. It said there was nine million in needs. We've already spent nine million, fixed about half of them. Now we're going to give them back and going to give them nine million back. So it's hard to look at funding from 20 years ago and figure out if you got a good deal or not. You know what I mean? Like, so we're we are trying to do the best funding that we can do to try to give basically the urbans what we. were going to spend there anyway—that was kind of the whole crux of our finance. But whether you know, not this has to go at any given time. It's just we would like to figure out exactly if it's going to happen or not. And I would hate to have to reboot this thing again, just because it was so much work the first time. And and there's natural things in just the way it goes. In that, if you say, "Oh, let's go have another meeting with staff," it's just there's nine sets of staff, and the staff is for.

03:21:53 Speaker 17: And the staff is four or five people each, so the meetings, like even just a quick set of meetings with everybody, it does seem to take it takes a lot of time. And you got to get organized, and it's good we want everyone to be comfortable, and it's hard to necessarily do that when something drags on over three years. Like in a few cases, the people we met with the second time were not the people that were there the first time. You know, the turnover in the public sector can be quite quite big. There's lots of people retiring, that type of thing. So in a few cases, we've sent the information out again.

03:22:39 Speaker 17: Send the data information out again. A new person started, so we send them the information. Another new person started, we send them the information. So, as as Randy said, we would like everyone to be comfortable. We don't want to feel like people are getting pushed in. But there is there is a bit of a time sensitivity here in that we would really really like to get it done before we get in a position where we can't do it with the stem accounts.

03:23:14 Speaker 17: Okay, thank you for that. We're going to move on to other. I I have questions about timing and process. That but I'll reserve my questions until I've I've. kept the floor open for all of our committee, the whole members. So I see Councillor Bally has raised his hand. So we'll go to him next. Good. Thank you very much. I'm going to start off with saying this. Yes, under the Municipal Act, the upper tier can hand these down without any input. That's not Grey County. That's not the people around this room. It's certainly not the legacy that Ward Matrasovs wants to have for this term. That you've jammed something down the lower tier's throat. so we have. So that's the first thing we're going to work this out because this is the way we do it in Gray County. This is the way we've always done it. We've put together a task force to try and share services and do things. We're going to do it the way we do it in Gray County. Number one, back and may repeat stuff that's already been said. But back in March 27th, the direction from council was to direct staff. to go and negotiate. Mr. Scherzer has talked about our funding model, but our funding model has not received feedback from the lower tiers. It's based on what we have to offer. Mr. Hoye has said that there's not much to negotiate on, but we have not actually negotiated with the lower tiers. We've actually not got lower tiers writing reports to their own council to be approved. to send back the response to this level of government to say this is our position on this.

03:24:13 Speaker 17: The funding model may not work for the lower tiers; it may fall apart. But we need to do that. We need to do that. Reach, reach out, do the negotiations. That information from negotiations should have come back or should come back to to the committee to look at. So they're not looking at it in a vacuum, but looking at it with feedback from. from lower tiers, something I've never heard. I'm I'm pretty confident the Gray County has collected development charges on on some of these projects. Are they included in that? I don't know where the development charges are. Did the county just plan to keep them and not pass them down? I don't know. That information isn't here. I'm hearing from our clerks that when they learned at an all clerks meeting that this was coming, there was some heart attacks. That they don't know how they're going to. get the stuff that's on their desk that they're working on right now. Dealing with what's coming in the election that they have to do for the election, and then having to do these address changes as well. I know I've heard from other places that there's a lot of clerks that are saying this needs to be put off to January of 2027. I have supported and believe that this, principally in principle, is the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do. I have believed and supported that it needed to be done this term, but it doesn't really need to be done this term.

03:26:06 Speaker 01: If we can get it set up and keep negotiating, then it comes back in January 2027. Come on, it was 2012 when Duncan McKinley started this project. It's been 10 or 12 or 14 years, whatever it is. It does not have to be done right away. It has to be done right. It doesn't have to be done in a hurry. If we can get it done this term, that's great. But when I hear the clerk saying we don't know how we're going to do it, we're saying we don't have enough information. We haven't presented it to our own councils to be able to react and give a feedback back to back to the upper tier. I still so many unanswered questions that I don't think we can possibly move ahead. I'm still confused about even what is. before us, Mr. Schertzler. You seem to indicate that now we'll go out to the municipalities and get the feedback. If that's the case, I think we need to say that we're starting negotiations now. That should probably be in what the motion is. The way this is written is that it's sort of a done deal, and here they are, and we're just going to fill in the blank. So I'm really confused about all of it. But I don't see how we can go ahead. Certainly, from the city of Onsound, you're not getting a signature back based. on the information that we have. I would. I will hear from others. I would support putting this down the road towards a meeting towards the end of March to be able to get feedback from lower tiers, and leave that drop dead date in July until we get that feedback and see what everybody everybody thinks. And maybe we do put it off till January, but the. bare minimum, I think we should be tabling what we're doing today for at least four to five to six weeks, so we can, Lord Tier, have a good look at it. Thanks.

03:28:04 Speaker 01: Okay, we'll go to Councilor McQueen next.

03:28:10 Speaker 01: Thank you, Madam Warden and County Council. Yeah, I'm just going to communicate to this body that I've added this item, or basically added the report to our. Basically, edit the report to our council meeting next week to our council because our council hasn't had that opportunity to have that conversation. So, so I'll have a better idea of introducing this. I talked a bit about it as as a mayor through our committee, but we haven't sat down and talked about it. I do have a letter here that was from our staff back in January of twenty twenty five with their concerns. That's probably echoing the same thing from Lone Sound, and it says thank you very thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the urban road. exchange based on the funding model proposed. It is staff's opinion that the compensation is nowhere close enough to offset the maintenance and capital reconstruction required to assume county road network and associated assets. The municipality already has a large infrastructure deficit. This alone compound the situation. Now, to add that, that may not include Ray Road 12. That's being done. That's being scheduled. So that is being scheduled for this this coming season. So, but I know from talking. to staff and that letter from last year, there is concern as well of the compensation. So I'm not trying to muddy the water too much. Other than I need to have this meeting with our council next week to have that to have that further discussion and set those things up. So. Okay. Other questions, comments? Okay.

03:29:40 Speaker 01: A number of my questions have been already posed by by some of my colleagues. but I am also aware of the intent to come around to the various lower tier councils to present this.

03:29:55 Speaker 01: I am going to ask about that time. Perhaps the CEO would like to fill us in on that. Given that so far the conversations have been staff to staff, so that that's been happening. There's been a lot of background work to provide the right kind of data to be able to present to the lower tier. councils, but we heard also that things were tweaked. Very, very, you know, it seems like the numbers are still landing. The dust is still settling on those numbers. So, in order to have fruitful contemplation at the lower tiers, we need to have the right information in front of us so that we can then move forward on what I read in this proposed motion, customizing the template. To me, that indicates that there would be some back and forth with. the the lower tiers to be able to land on something that was suitable to help make everybody whole. So, can I just ask that question to begin with for the CAO? Because I'm hearing from my colleagues as well that nobody is disputing the fact that the staff to staff conversations have been going for a long time, and a lot of work has been invested into this. Because you need that. We can't just start with a blank page and have a conversation in the air. We need to know exactly what it is that we're looking. at to see how it fits, but there is the sense that how do we do that next step of visiting the municipalities, the councils, and being able to say this is what it's looking like and this is how we come to these calculations between now and some of them being scheduled for July six. So, CAO, thank you through you, Warden. So we have there's a number of projects that we're working on together. between Gray County and the member municipalities, and and through that we put out the the offer through the CO group to come to each year local municipal councils to talk about a variety of topics, including this one. This is this this one is one of the important topics as well. There's other things that we're working on together because as as council body noted, we that's what we do in Gray County is work together on a number of things and initiatives with. that, again, we're happy to support that. The timing of those we've suggested probably be towards the end of March into April. The the absolute drop dead date, if based on the the the motion, I guess that's would be support today. Is is this allows the next step to be able to have those conversations with each of the municipalities to hopefully support them and bringing their staff reports to each of your local municipal councils as it relates.

03:32:10 Speaker 01: to the MUs, and we anticipate that would happen between now, if if the direction is today to to happen, and to at least May, May Fourteenth is when, as we noted through the discussions through the task force report, would be when we would have to bring the bylaw forward back to council in order to make sure that the July six date works.

03:33:50 Speaker 01: That allows us that two month. window to make sure that we have enough time to do all the things that Director Hoy indicated earlier in terms of changing of signs, address changes, notifying members of public, working with them to navigate all the address changes, etc., etc. So, so that's when the I get I would say the absolute drop dead date would be May 14th.

03:34:04 Speaker 01: But between now and May 14th, we're happy to have further conversations, attend council meetings to present. any information, answer any questions, work with your local municipal staff to be able to work through and finalizing the MOLUs and the the schedules to those MOLUs. If there's questions still on the assets that you'd be taking on and concerns about the funding, that's that's I've been identified. Again, we're happy to take those those requests. We would bring those back to the task force and council for. further discussion in between the window of February and May 14th. So that's that'd be the windows we're talking about. And and and I see Niall's hand up. So through you, Warden, if if you're okay, pass over to Niall.

03:34:36 Speaker 01: So through you, Madam Warden, thank you, thank you, Randy. The only thing I'd add to to that is we don't need the agreement signed by May 14th. The May 14th deadline is for us to start the process of transferring the roads, so that we can hit that July 6th, and and in the case of four four areas, October 29th.

03:34:46 Speaker 01: We do not need the agreement signed by that time. So there's there's two processes that are running. This is incredibly complicated. I it's taken me a long time to get my head around it. There's two processes that running. Process one is the agreement to transfer the roads. Process two is how we are transferring Is how we transfer the roads and the finances that go back, and the maintenance that goes back, and forth, so on and so forth. So the agreements do not need to be signed in advance of the bylaw. If we're signing agreements with member municipalities next year, that's absolutely fine. There's no reason that the agreements need to be signed before the bylaw is signed. So you've we've got two decisions wrapped up in front of you. The first one is we would like to transfer the roads on July the sixth. That's that's the timing that. would work for us to get that done and dusted this year. We'd also like to start the process of sharing the agreements and the cost schedules with your member municipalities, so that you can take those up to your councils and have the conversations. If the conversation that comes back is there's not enough money in that, then that comes back to county council as part of a budget request, as part of the budget process to see whether the county council is able to support more, or indeed perhaps less. If you all think we're giving you too much money, then. maybe we can reduce the county council budget. And so there really are two two slightly separate processes, and there is no rush on signing the agreements. What we're essentially asking for through the the the recommendation and discussion at task force is the ability to say this agreement, this model, is what we're happy with. Let's share it out with member municipalities, put it in front of member municipal councils, have those conversations. Then we can start that conversation around the funding. which which is slightly separate to the actual transition of the roads. So there's there's the two pieces there. Thank you. Okay. So may I just ask a question? I think maybe there will be others around the circle to the Deputy CAO. Then you've just said that that the the the road could still be transferred next year. No, the MOU could still be finalized by next year, but you want to transfer the road. But you want to transfer the roads ahead of the MOU. Is is that what you're saying? Through you, Warren, and just to clarify, and and and I can also jump in on this. So, as it relates to actually the transfer of roads, an MOU is is not required, and in fact, in speaking with some of our our other neighboring counties, when going through this process.

03:37:23 Speaker 01: there hasn't been an MLU for that. It's it's done through bylaw in terms of transferring those roads. No doubt the agreements would be providing some of the details that we've been talking about in terms of who's going to maintain what come winter time, who's going to what those transition funds would look like.

03:37:45 Speaker 01: But as as it currently stands, those transition funds, at least for 2026. are in in the budget for 2026. Council has supported those funds being in the budget. Be obviously subject to further budgets being approved to to transfer those funds. But we we technically do not need the MOUs signed by July 6. Those can be finalized and signed post July 6, or or whatever transfer date is recommended by council.

03:38:54 Speaker 01: Okay, I'm gonna open it to the. We'll go to Councillor Body next. I'm basically adopting your question after 30 years. 33 years has passed. Ah, Sunday, break, break, break. I've been practicing law, and I could putting my lawyer's hat on. I'm not likely to accept the goods without an agreement of how we're going to do it. It. I. get your point, but I just don't see it working that way. Thanks. Okay, we'll go to Councilor McQueen. Thank you, Madam Warden.

03:39:03 Speaker 01: Just on the side of of, and we talked about this at the committee, that after it's downloaded, the urban roads that the county would still continue to plow those roads.

03:39:28 Speaker 01: But I think did did you share that that cost today? I don't know if you did or not. Yeah, good question. I think we talked about that. The committee we're like nine thousand to ninety five hundred per kilometer. That's that's how much our winter maintenance is. But you hear that number, and I know at the time it seems not a huge number. It only turns into a big number when you have eight hundred and something kilometers of road, right? So yeah, it's a good deal. The reason I bring it up. it could be a bargaining tool.

03:40:18 Speaker 17: Could be a bargaining tool. It could be something that maybe you plow it for five years. I'm just saying it could be something that gets you over the hump. I'm just leaving it at that. But I have had no conversation with our staff on that. But it is something that, because soon as it becomes our road, then we have to pay either to plow it or I guess the lower tier plows it themselves. But that doesn't make sense if you're.

03:40:54 Speaker 17: Make sense if your county plow is driving through, right? So I just throw it out there, but that could be something that could make the negotiation go over. Okay, thank you. Other comments, Councillor Gray.

03:41:21 Speaker 17: This be a question to the CAO. The last recommendation on the floor. Well, I mean, this is presented here. Previous to this, bullet four stated that staff. be directed to negotiate new road agreements with the affected municipalities in accordance with the activities in the report from last March.

03:41:35 Speaker 17: What precludes staff from going right about that endeavor right for the next few weeks? And and it was mentioned by the director at the committee meeting. He will avail himself and staff to be able to attend council meetings to support the work of council and staff to this point.

03:42:14 Speaker 17: At this point, that to me gives you the opportunity to be able to further those agreements over the next. And I'm going to say, I'll make a motion to postpone. Well, I'll hold on for your reply. But I would look at March 26th as an opportunity to bring these back, if that's enough opportunity for staff to be able to get out to the municipalities. Through you, Warden.

03:42:47 Speaker 10: Thank you for that question. With respect to again, in terms of finalizing the the MOUs and the agreements, we're happy to support those conversations. As noted, in terms of getting out to each of the nine local municipalities by March 26, probably is is not possible.

03:43:02 Speaker 10: Just just based on other calendars and other commitments, to just be honest. So that's where we're looking at probably between starting in probably mid March at the earliest to April, even into early May, would be those conversations.

03:43:12 Speaker 10: Again, that the way we're perceiving this this this motion, although we're we're identifying a transfer date as part of.

03:43:19 Speaker 10: sections of this motion to get the to move forward with the the the transfer agreement and finalizing those agreements that would be subject to the direction from council today or committee the whole today we'd be moving forward with those discussions and and having those conversations to finalize those those schedules so the question about maintain those roads and going back to councilor McQueen's question about From a Queen's question about, do we want the county to maintain for five years, and then we'll maintain for the five years?

03:43:40 Speaker 10: Those are the details to be worked out in the schedules to the MOU. Each one will be unique to each municipality, and so we've already had some conversations with each of the municipalities. We anticipate, we think we know what will likely be the outcome based on those conversations, but we want to finalize those details.

03:43:49 Speaker 10: Again, support your staff to bring those forward to each local municipal council to. have those conversations, and this these motions would allow that to occur in terms of bringing those matters forward. Here's here's what I would suggest. I I could make this as a motion, but I want your your feedback, Randy. I'm going to motion to table or postpone, whichever is proper wording this report to March twenty six twenty. twenty six. B to provide the lower tier with the asset plans and asset financials within ten days, which was what Sue asked for. Ten days from now would give lower tiers the chance to look at them, and then to forward the content in the report, which would have been forwarded if we had moved ahead to the lower tiers and asked for their consideration and replied back by March fifteenth.

03:44:31 Speaker 10: that gives us a month from today for lower tiers to be able to get their staff to write a report, put it in front of their council, and reply. Versus having to go out and talk to staff, you know, there has been talks. This puts it. Your your thoughts on that? If if you think there's a consensus there, I'd move it. Yeah, just a point of clarity. We had sent all the or the asset. I'm not going to say all. We had sent the asset details. what they are, some condition ratings, that type of thing, but not all the details of the asset management plan, as you alluded to. So that is one thing that has not been sent yet. Is all the asset management plan data that relates directly to the assets. Through you, Gordon. Before I answer the the full question in terms of the timelines, the 10 days to be able to provide all that information to each local.

03:45:27 Speaker 10: To each of the local municipalities, I'm just looking to Director Hoy because that'll be Director Hoy and his team supporting that timeframe. And before I respond to the remaining remaining points, sorry, that would be I get finances the asset management plan. I guess maybe finance.

03:46:14 Speaker 10: Madam Warden, there was a requirement to have our asset management plan updated for July first last year to include service level information. As a result of our asset management coordinator being on leave, we are still in the midst of doing that. So while we have the asset management plan that was prepared. for the previous year. We don't have the one for that was due July first.

03:47:02 Speaker 10: We anticipate bringing that forward to committee of the whole in April. So again, just back to staff because I apologize. We're doing this on the fly. In terms of ten days of what asset data we do have now for all the assets and road sections, is that doable?

03:47:11 Speaker 10: Yeah, as I said, they have everything except the asset management plan. So we were already given all the data that we have as far as condition ratings and that type of thing.

03:47:20 Speaker 10: So, so based through your warden, sorry. So based on that, I I think we can share any data that again the local municipal staff would be looking for. to help support their conversations back to your local councils.

03:47:42 Speaker 10: To be honest, I I don't want to put the CAs the local municipal CAs in a in a situation where March fifteenth might be too soon for for them to bring forward those reports. We're happy to work with the CO group and the local municipal staff to try to hit those dates though, and make sure that they have the data and information in order to support bringing those reports forward. with, again, the draft MLU and what we think will likely be the draft schedules to be part of those those discussions.

03:48:32 Speaker 10: So we're happy to try to work towards those dates. They are tight because I respect that each local municipality is busy with other things, and so so I just want to make sure that there there will be that time. But based on what I'm hearing from this end, anyways, is we can commit to those dates.

03:48:41 Speaker 10: Thank you, Warden, and thank you, Randy, and thank you, Pat, and thank you, everyone else that just participated.

03:49:29 Speaker 10: I'm not sure if we're looking. Yeah, the asset management. I'm looking at Councilor Patterson. The asset information on the hills. I would have thought that the quality of them, where they're at, all those types of things. I just assume we're in the in the engineering department already. I will. move that we table this report to March 26, 2026, and to provide laurateers with the asset financial information available, maybe as soon as possible, and then I won't frame that in along with the information that would have been contained in this report to laurateers for their consideration period.

03:49:40 Speaker 10: And I won't put a date on the end of that. Okay, so while the clerks capture that, and is it being seconded by the deputy warden?

03:49:49 Speaker 10: It's being seconded by the deputy warden. Okay, so that motion is now on the floor. Yes, yeah. Okay, so it is that the motion be deferred to the March twenty-six, which is six weeks, pending further information being provided to member municipalities on the financial information and asset management plan information, requesting each municipality's consideration.

03:50:12 Speaker 10: and reply to Gray County as soon as possible. I think it's wise to state as soon as possible because all of us have different different cycles. Of one reports have to be in the hopper before they can actually get there, and also recognizing that already in play was the plan to come and visit each of the municipalities. Like that, this is not a new a new step. This was already planned, and I understand how complex it is to talk to nine different municipalities and. schedule the right council meeting and make sure that the right people from the county can be there present in person.

03:50:49 Speaker 10: So it does require some time to to go through this, but I do want to stress that that was always the next step. I really commend all the work that the staff have done, both at the county and all their lower tier counterparts have been doing every step of the way.

03:51:19 Speaker 10: While the task force is doing its hard work of making decisions with our county hats on. Here, here they are. They've been spending all that time. We don't want to lose that work. We want to keep moving forward, but it should be clear that there was never an intention not to bring it in front of the nine lower tier municipalities, councils.

03:51:28 Speaker 10: That was always part of the process. The question is now the timing and the concerns that we've heard about the timing to make sure that we get it right.

03:51:38 Speaker 10: And it should be stressed too, as Stress too, as the CIO has mentioned, we're not required, obligated to do it this way. But as Councillor Body has mentioned, we're Gray County, and that's what we're doing. We're trying to make sure that we have this very important intermediary step, rather than it looking like it's a done deal and it's just meant to be an FYI. It's not an FYI. It's a here's what we're looking at. Here's the accurate information that we've now pieced together. What do you think? And how? do we continue to walk forward to make sure that in the end of the day we have an infrastructure of roads that works well for each and every member of our communities? Okay.

03:52:09 Speaker 10: So, is there any further discussion? Okay. We'll go to Councillor McQueen, then over to Councillor Mackie, and then to Councillor Dobrée. Two things. It probably makes sense, though, it to have a bit of a draft agreement in place that will make it go quicker. or or easier. Number two is we have a council meeting next week, and we can change it and have you guys come.

03:52:19 Speaker 10: Absolutely, yes, and that's the intent of the draft template is to make sure that it's not a blank page; that it's somewhere where you can have a fruitful conversation. Councillor Mackey. Thanks, Warden.

03:52:52 Speaker 18: It seems like we've been going through this stuff for well, it has been twenty years or sixteen years since it first started, two thousand and ten.

03:53:02 Speaker 18: Started 2010, I think, when the first Nasher plan came forward. We're never going to have an agreement that's going to make everyone completely happy.

03:53:20 Speaker 01: My my issue today is I'm hearing more lower tier hats on than I'm hearing county hats on. Like this is a county. It made sense for the county, and we need to be focused on what's in the best interest of the county. The concerns I'm hearing about certain funding models for individual municipalities. So that's I think that can get worked out. The county's been trying hard to work these things out through the entire process. You know, our staff have been great here, working with the lower tiers. I don't want this to get bogged down. I certainly don't want to get bogged down to a another term of council. To I'm just afraid, you know, where that would end up. There's been too much work and time put into this to let it fall fall dead now. So if it takes a little bit of time for someone to feel feel better. then maybe we need to do that. But we need to keep this process going because it is in the interest of the county and the master transportation plan, and that's what we need to focus on.

03:53:43 Speaker 10: Was the the the role of the county transportation moving goods and services across the county? You know that was the focus at the beginning. So we need to get back to that. Why this made sense at the beginning? If it didn't make sense at the beginning, we should have stopped at that. But we, you know. But we've, you know, put 16 years into this, and we're getting caught up in new shit now. So, thank you. Okay, thank you. We're over to Councillor Debrine. Thank you, and through you, Warden, with the motion that's on the floor here, and that this motion, this report will come back to County Council for consideration on March 26, asking our each of our municipalities.

03:55:15 Speaker 10: Are each of our municipalities to reply to Gray County as soon as possible? Will they be informed that this is going to be reconsidered at March 26? Because as soon as possible for Owen Sound may be different for Georgian Bluffs is different for Southgate, and I think to the point that's been made earlier today, Gray County doesn't download like the province does.

03:55:42 Speaker 10: We work with our nine municipalities. and for what's in the best interest of the entire county. So I appreciate all that's gone into this. I'm not on the task force, so I appreciate all the work that's gone into for the past fourteen, sixteen, however many years. But the details now are what's going to make it go through to the finish line. So thank you. I just my my question, Madam Warden, is is as soon as possible specific enough. Okay. I don't know. We'll go to the CAO. Thank you, and through you, Warden. I think I think with the motion still noting deferral to March 26, I think it sends a message, and we will we'll be. I'm meeting with the CEOs next week, so we can have some further discussions with the CEO group and try to make sure we align the timing as best as we can with that March 26. Councillor Eccles.

03:56:01 Speaker 10: If I could, thank you. The motion to defer, and in there says to provide financial information, asset management information, and requesting each municipality's consideration.

03:56:21 Speaker 10: The motion, as it was presented today. was to direct staff to customize, you know, a template on the information, from what I understood and what I know has come to West Gray.

03:56:38 Speaker 10: I'm just not certain what we're deferring, because we're deferring this motion to March 26, so that the municipal, the lower tier municipalities, can bring back.

03:56:53 Speaker 15: what they want in a template for the agreement, because the way I read this motion is that we're taking all of this information, staff to go out to the municipalities to come back with an agreement, and what this is saying is we're deferring this motion to March 26, so we can go to the municipalities with all the information.

03:57:23 Speaker 15: and get their feedback on what the template is. Is that? Is that?

03:57:30 Speaker 15: I guess that's Mr. Body on what his motion is. Is that what you're requesting? Because I see it just as a continuous repeat. Because in what I see in the seven F is exactly what you've got here.

03:57:51 Speaker 15: Only we're just turning this off and. Turning this off until March twenty sixth. To do this. Okay, Councilor, Councilor Body. We approve this today.

03:58:05 Speaker 15: It could never go back to without a change of two thirds of us go back to the committee to be reviewed. If we get different feedback from the lower tiers after we do this, it is open that when it comes. back to council, if we wanted to tell the committee to have another look, we could do that. Keeps the options open.

03:58:24 Speaker 15: So we're providing it to the lower tiers before we sign and stitch things up.

03:58:31 Speaker 15: We're all going to vote on it. We can vote against it or for it. It really doesn't matter. Okay. Thank you. We'll go to Councilor Gregg. If I can speak in support of the motion. The reason to support the motion is we all were just presented another slide on funding models earlier in this presentation that I don't think anyone can tell me, as counselors, how we went from this funding spreadsheet to this funding spreadsheet last Thursday at committee, and now to another funding spreadsheet today.

03:59:29 Speaker 15: Sheet today, that's the benefit, or part of the benefit, of having more time to sit back and try to understand how these numbers are moving. Because are the numbers moving? They certainly are. Because the spreadsheet that was present presented in the slideshow today was not the one presented in the committee meeting. The funding model, the formulas, and so forth may not be changing, but the numbers are bouncing around, and we don't have a good fulsome understanding of how that's occurring yet. And that's another benefit of March 26 being a date where we come back and we review the the feedback that we garner over that time period.

04:00:02 Speaker 15: Okay, we'll go to the CAO.

04:00:18 Speaker 15: Thank you, through you, Warden, and and on that financial table again, as staff apologized, there was a calculation error into the the table that was presented at the task force. I think the staff were able to pull up the numbers in an Excel spreadsheet and walk through that with the task force.

04:01:07 Speaker 15: And as as Pat indicated through those discussions, there was the what about the the remaining half year? Because if the transfer happens in July six, twenty twenty six, what does the remaining half year look like in twenty thirty six? And that's what the the addition to the table that was shared with the committee whole prior to the meeting. So just to clarify, and so. just to clarify in some of those pieces, just so I'm clear in terms of if if this motion were to get support before it gets voted on, the way that staff are interpreting this motion is that we would still we would have those conversations still with with each of the municipalities.

04:01:18 Speaker 15: We there'd be comfort in sharing at least the draft MLU as it stands right now, all those schedules, all the information and data and information that we have in order to support. those conversations with each of the local municipal councils, is that? And I just want confirmation, I guess, prior to that motion being discussed, if that's the direction. So, heads nod. Okay, so let's first go to the the mover and seconder, if that was the intention. Yes, that's fully the intention. Yes, thank you. And the seconder, the deputy warden, has also confirmed that. Okay, and yes, when I'm reading this, I don't see anything there that stops that process that you've already been negotiating about coming to councils and speaking to councils. That still continues.

04:02:12 Speaker 15: That this motion does not prevent that from happening. Okay, is there any other discussion? All right, then it looks like we're ready for the vote for that. Then I will ask all those in favor. Okay, and Madam Clerk, come on. Okay, thank you.

04:03:16 Speaker 15: And that motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, ten, three. Okay, so that concludes all of our section. Section seven. We do have. We did pull two items from section six. and normally we would do those at the very end.

04:03:23 Speaker 15: But given that the remaining open session to consider, 7G, is in relation, as you can see by the reason for going into closed session, it is recommended that we go into closed session ahead of that open session report. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. I'm getting there. I'm getting there.

04:03:33 Speaker 15: So normally we. would do all of that before we went back to the consent items, but given the fact that the last two remaining items are related to each other, I think it would be more appropriate, in conference with the clerk, that we go to items 6A and 6I in order to tidy that up, so that we we know we've completed everything on the agenda with the remaining two that have to do with the board of health together at the very end of this agenda. So with that, then, if you could please turn your attention. over to item six A. Okay, so it is recommended that the resolution received from the City of Peterborough regarding sustainable police funding be supported by Grey County Council. I will have the CAO speak to it once it's moved and seconded and on the floor. So let me just look for a mover and per. It's moved by Councillor Kentner, seconded. by Councillor Greg, and we'll hear from the CAO, and then Councillor Greg, you're the one that pulled it, so I'll look to you for comments to begin discussion after the CAO has spoken.

04:04:18 Speaker 15: Thank you, through you, Warden. So this is a a letter that's been circulated around requesting the province to provide some sustainable funding for police services. This this aligns with some of the discussions that we've had amongst council in terms of seeing some some sustainable funding models and requesting some some funding and also the Roma requests in terms of looking at some of their their fine revenues and everything else that goes with with all that to make sure that there's sufficient funding to to be provided to support not only our police services but also with our discussions around court security and other.

04:05:30 Speaker 01: things, but I know it doesn't get into that. It's more specific to police in this case. But happy to hear the question, and then we can try to respond if there is one. Okay, Councilor Great. No, glad to see the correspondence being supported. My only question was, and as part of the delegation at the time, and I hope it was very positive. It seemed to be very positive. Was is this the first correspondence like this that we have supported, or has there been others? This is a really well worded piece of correspondence from Peter. But I just couldn't remember if this is the first action item that we've supported or or if there's been others. Thanks. Thank you. Through you was making sure with the clerk. Yes, this we believe this is the one of the first correspondence similar to or based on the messaging that's being put forward that would be brought forward for councils to consideration. Okay.

04:05:56 Speaker 10: Any other discussion, Councillor Katner? Thank you, Madam Warden. Through you, I just wrote that Meaford has had a 33% increase from the OPP in the last 24 months. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Not seen any.

04:06:18 Speaker 01: Then I'll call the question. All those in favor? And that motion is carried. Thank you.

04:06:24 Speaker 01: We'll then tidy up section C with C six I. It's recommended that report PDR CW O five twenty six regarding a University of Wells student project entitled "Best Practices in Rural Rural Event Venues" be received for information. They ask for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Nielsen, and seconded by Councillor Dobrine.

04:06:53 Speaker 01: And we can have Intermediate Planner Dilman speak to the. Speak to that, and then I will look to Councillor Nielsen, who had pulled it. Welcome.

04:07:35 Speaker 01: Is that at a better height now? I always have to move this out. Thank you very much. So I'm pleased to share that we are partnering with students at the University of Welf, who are completing their Masters in Rural Planning. They'll be undertaking a best practice review for us of rule event venues. So this will include a scan, like a jurisdictional scan, and then providing some best practice recommendations. So really, a key intention of this work is to take on some of that in-depth research that goes into crafting and building policy that's then used to inform local decision making.

04:08:13 Speaker 01: So the report will be shared with council and member. municipalities, and I should add here, I am a graduate of this program, so I am very happy to now come full circle on this.

04:08:23 Speaker 01: I completed as part of my coursework some work with Huron County, so it's really nice to lead this now as part of the county team. Thank you.

04:08:52 Speaker 01: Excellent, thank you very much, and so we'll go to Councilor Nielsen. Thank you very much. Ward, Microsoft. For me, I pulled it because just to receive information didn't seem to give enough excitement or interest into what is actually happening here. Gray Highlands has had a few controversial and non-controversial files regarding this exact space. Our rural landscape being challenged with event spaces coming in. How does that affect neighbors who are used to the quiet rural lifestyle? How does that affect farm operations with animals? And so the. opportunity here was too exciting for me not to actually say this is a good thing to have happen to have students come and to do some background work to help provide insight on future policies that exist throughout Gray County and our lower tier municipality.

04:09:38 Speaker 01: I think is worth making sure that is brought to our fulsome attention and not just received for information. Thank you very much to Planner Dilman for coming and sharing that little bit of extra sauce to the motion. But very excited to see this happen. Can't wait and look forward. to the discussions that happen in the report that comes back after. Okay, thank you. Any other comments? All right, great. Thank you very much.

04:09:53 Speaker 01: I'll therefore call the question. All those in favor? That is two hands from Councillor Nielsen. You can't vote twice. You know that. Okay, that motion is carried. All right. Thank you very much. So as I mentioned, what we'll do now is we'll enter into closed session and we'll save item seven G. Save item 7G for afterwards, and what I will do now is put out the recommendation that the committee, the whole does now go into closed session pursuant to section 239.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, to discuss information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by Canada, a province, a territory, or a crown agency on any of them, and this is of any of them, and this is regarding board of health governance.

04:10:22 Speaker 01: may ask for a mover, moved by Councillor Patterson, seconded to go into closed session. Moved by Councillor Dicker. All those in favour. Okay, thank you. We'll give a moment to structure the room for closed. Oh, oh, sorry. Come out of closed session. Thank you. We have come out of closed session, and I can report that the committee, the whole, proceeded into closed session to discuss information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by the Province of Ontario, regard Province of Ontario regarding the Board of Health governance, and with that, we would like to entertain in open session now a motion that it is recommended that Grey County's Board of Health members appointed through Resolution CW13224 be rescinded, and that staff be directed to commence the application process for appointment of the municipal members using the skills-based matrix, with the application forms being sent to all of the county council members, and that action. be taken prior to the council council approved as per sections 26.6B of the procedural bylaw. May I ask for a mover and a seconder? Move by Councillor Body, seconded by Councillor Mackie. It's now on the floor for discussion. So I will just slip to the CAO if you would like to provide any background on that. Through your warden and thank you for for that. So as per the open session report, the skills based matrix was.

04:11:57 Speaker 01: Skills-based matrix was which was endorsed by Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Moore and supported by both counties is intended to be used as part of the application process to support appointments to every constituted board. As noted in the February fourth communique issued by the special advisors to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the board's appointing bodies were asked to use the skills-based matrix tool to assess and appoint board members over the coming weeks. The communique notes that no one member of the board is expected to. possess all sixteen competencies. Rather, these competencies would collectively present on a reconstituted board of health.

04:12:32 Speaker 01: The application process would consist of interested county council members completing an application form and providing information using the skills-based matrix as a reference tool. The deadline for the application submissions is currently scheduled for February 27th. Initially, we were proposing a meeting to be held in March to consider the appointments, but we will need. some further time to complete the application process and to assess and package all the applications that are submitted. So we're likely looking at April now for that meeting, and we'll continue to work with Bruce County to coordinate and align the application and appointment process.

04:13:12 Speaker 01: So we have the motion that was in the report, the the open session report, to be received that report for information, and then this report before you as as County Council to consider as well. Okay. Thank you. So we'll vote on this one first that has come out of closed session, and then we will then return to item 7g. Okay. So with that, then any discussion? Seeing no hands. All those in favor? And that is unanimously carried. Thank you. So next, we'll move to item 7g. It's recommended that report CAOR CW 0426 regarding the application process for appointing board of health municipal members using the skills-based matrix be received for information. I ask for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Dobraine, seconded by Councillor Gregg. It's on the floor. We'll look to the CAO for an introduction. Yeah, I just provide a brief summary prior to that last motion. I don't have anything further to add at this stage. Happy to answer questions if there are any, but just recommending to receive that for information. Okay. Thank you. Any comments? Seeing no hands. All those in favor?

04:14:05 Speaker 01: And that is carried unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay. Well, with that, then we're now back on task, just to finish off the last of our few items. We have other business, Councillor Body.

04:14:23 Speaker 01: Very quickly, the Ontario government announced this morning six point four billion to colleges and universities. We hope that fares well for Georgian College. Thanks. Here, here. Thank you. And notice is a motion. Any, Councillor McQueen. Thank you, Madam Warden. And this notice of motion is for March twelfth because I will I'll be away at the next County Council meeting. And my it will be dropped to ex to say that to explore the option of a joint RFP for insurance coverage. that would include Gray County and up to the nine lower tier municipalities.

04:15:07 Speaker 01: That's a great way to shut me up. I was just going to say I'm sure lots of people would love that button, and this could also go to the joint municipal service meeting group as well. But anyway, I will be drafting that. Okay, thank you. Any other notices of motion? See no hands. We'll look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councilor Patterson, seconded by Councilor Nielsen. All those in favor? And this motion, this committee, the whole is adjourned. Thank you very much, everyone.