►
From YouTube: Committee of Revision – September 26, 2013
Description
Committee of Revision – September 26, 2013 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
All
right
so
we're
going
to
commence
the
committee
of
revision
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
declarations
of
interest.
I
do
have
to
declare
a
declaration
of
interest
on
item
number
one
local
approve
of
romantic
hillside
gardens.
My
brother
owns
a
home
there.
So
therefore
I
have
to
declare
in
that
case.
Seeing
is
that
only
leaves
us
one.
Member
of
the
committee.
That
item
has
been
deferred
to
October
30th
at
2:00
p.m.
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
alright.
A
B
A
Didn't
have
a
clear
vision
that
was
quarterly
okay
now,
but
anyways
anyways
confirmation,
it's
scary,
you
know
so
I.
Never
to
you
on
the
agenda
is
Manticore.
Welcome,
prove
it
I
just
want
quickly
before
I
presentation.
We
just
have
these
these
two
technical
members.
Do
you
want
to
do
these
after
the
presentation
or
just
a
matter?
Mr.
D
Thank
You
mr.
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
we
have
a
relatively
short
presentation.
This
one
is
specific
to
the
Corps
before
we
get
into
the
Corps.
I
just
want
to
touch
a
little
bit
of
both
overall
servicing
2
to
manitech,
because
it
has
some
obviously
some
relevance
to
the
Corps
specifically.
D
So
the
provision
of
central
wastewater
services
to
manitech
has
a
very
long
history,
we're
not
going
to
speak
to
that
today,
but
it
does
date
back
to
the
1990s.
The
more
recent
history
with
respect
to
the
City
of
Ottawa
as
it
currently
is
configured
dates
to
2002
in
2003,
when
a
master
plan
and
Trump
services
concept
study
was
completed
and
and
brought
to
the
committee,
and
it
talked
about
connecting
the
village
to
the
central
system.
D
The
village
mean
the
entire
magnetic
area,
providing
capacity
for
the
entire
village,
allowing
gradual
extension
and
putting
a
priori
if
you
will,
on
hillside,
gardens
and
the
core
area
in
2005,
a
report
on
that
extension
was
taken
to
Council
and
approved.
There
were
two
directions
to
staff.
One
was
that
staff
were
to
proceed
with
detailed
design
for
the
trunk
wastewater
services
and
the
local
source
for
the
two
priority
areas
being
hillside,
Gardens
and
the
Corps,
and
that
staff
were
to
help
facilitate
preparation
of
local
improvement
petitions.
D
D
The
design
obviously
would
have
to
be
undertaken
as
a
whole
to
respect
the
public
service
area,
but
there
are
two
distinct
petitions,
one
for
hillside
Gardens,
as
you've
heard
today,
that's
deferred
to
October,
30th
and
one
for
the
core
area
to
deal
with
that
supporting
infrastructure
or
the
major
infrastructure.
If
you
will
requires
a
main
sewage
pumping
station
and
about
6.6
kilometer
of
force
main,
there
is
approximately
220
metres
of
trunk
sewer
that
extends
from
the
pump
station
location
to
the
court
petition
area
and.
D
477
meters
of
outlets,
who
were
from
the
hillside,
gardens
petition
area
along
West,
River
Drive
to
a
river
crossing.
That's
approximately
270
meters
long.
So
this
is
the
overall
area,
the
green
being
the
service
area.
If
you
will
that
the
overall
design
had
to
consider
the
two
red
boundaries
are
the
petition
areas
that
were
confirmed
for
the
Corps
and
and
for
hillside
preliminary
indications
were
that
the
pump
station
was
going
to
be
located
approximately
opposite
Hill
size
garden.
D
D
With
respect
to
the
Corps
itself,
the
project
is
undertaken
under
provisions
of
the
Municipal
Act
regulation,
580
606.
It
was
a
petition
request
from
property
owners
to
specifically
provide
sanitary,
sewers
and
service
connections
up
to
the
property
line.
The
petition
limits
were
originally
set
up
to
obviously
within
the
public
service
areas.
D
It's
defined
for
generally
of
those
areas
that
had
access
to
existing
public
water
mains
and
because
of
topography
there
was
the
original
petition
area
was
looked
at
too
for
those
areas
that
could
be
served
without
having
to
build
a
second
pump
station
prior
to
the
petition
being
finalized.
There
were
some
slight
modifications
to
the
fringe
areas
that
were
requested
from
various
property
owners
within
the
community
and
reviewed
and
to
the
extent
that
they
could
be
accommodated
without
impacting
others.
They
were.
D
The
costs,
however,
that
made
affect
the
charge
are
no
1.
Although
the
work
may
still
be
ongoing,
the
legislation
permits
that
if
the
cost
of
the
project
has
reached
or
exceeded
a
level
of
75
percent
of
what's
estimated,
then
the
charge
can
be
assessed
at
that
point
in
time,
which
is
in
fact
the
case,
so
the
manticore
area,
what
pieces
of
the
major
supporting
infrastructure
has
supported.
D
Obviously,
the
sewage
pumping
station
and
6.6
kilometers
of
force
main
and
the
220
meters
of
trunk
sewer
between
pump
station
and
petition
area
are
necessary
in
order
to
get
the
sewage
from
the
core
area
to
the
central
system.
Within
the
petition
area.
There's
proximately
3.6
kilometers
of
sewers,
some
local,
some
trunk
size,
170,
sewer
laterals
that
were
installed,
petition,
also
covered
costs
associated
with
any
row
during
statement.
D
This
is
just
a
visual
again
showing
the
topography
or
a
photo
pump
station
to
the
west
of
the
core
area
with
the
220
meters
of
trunk
sewer.
This
is,
in
fact,
the
area
that
that
was
ultimately
serviced
for
the
core,
representing
the
3.6
kilometers
within
those
boundaries
in
terms
of
cost
and
portion
for
this
local
improvement.
D
When
the
approvals
were
sought
through
agricultural
and
rural
affairs
committee
as
well
as
council,
the
basis
of
cost
apportionment
was
that
when
it
came
to
supporting
infrastructure
and
in
fact
the
trunk
sewers
in
the
petition
area,
that
the
owners
property
owners
within
a
petition
area
pay
their
representative
share.
The
city
carries
the
balance.
If
there
was
coordinated
work
to
be
undertaken,
then
that
was
paid
100
percent,
but
the
city
owners
are
not
affected
by
that
expenditure.
D
Road
reinstatement,
as
I
mentioned,
only
those
areas
of
pact
impacted
by
the
sewer
construction
are
attributed
to
the
petition
area.
The
balance
is
picked
up
by
the
city
when
it
came
to
the
local
sewers
in
the
petition
area.
Those
are
a
hundred
percent,
a
trivial
to
the
benefiting
properties
as
well
as
service
connections.
Point
I
want
to
make
here
as
well
is
that
when
it
comes
to
the
local
sewers
and
the
service
connections,
the
city
treats
themselves
as
any
other
property
owner
with
respect
to
the
properties
that
we,
in
fact
on
them.
D
So
we
have
a
share
in
that
as
well.
A
few
special
considerations
and
adjustments
that
were
brought
forward
and
at
the
time
of
approval
and
have
carried
forward
to
establishing
the
charge.
All
of
these
provisions
in
fact
revert
back
to
a
an
additional
cost
on
this
a
share
the
first
one.
At
the
time
of
petition,
the
legislation
was
in
state
of
change.
Time
petition.
D
The
local
improvements
were
governed
under
regulation,
one
one
903
that
particular
regulation
had
provisions
that
the
cost
of
work
at
street
intersections
was
to
be
borne
by
the
municipality
by
the
time
the
local
improvement
was
approved
in
2008
the
new
legislation.
Five.
Eighty
six,
oh
six,
no
longer
held
that
provision.
The
city,
however,
held
true
to
what
we
had
stated
that
the
time
of
the
petition
and
is
incurring
the
cost
of
street
intersections.
D
There
was
also
at
the
time
of
petition
recognition
through
functional
design
and
and
very
preliminary
design
stages,
that
there
were
six
properties
that,
although
they
could
avail
themselves
of
the
sanitary
sewer,
it
would
be
at
at
a
reduced
level
of
service.
They
would
have
to
install
grinder
pumps,
so
it
was
acknowledged
that
the
city
would
provide
reductions
to
those
properties,
and
that,
in
fact,
is
still
the
case.
D
There
were
our
reductions
to
two
properties
within
the
limits
of
the
petition
area,
where
the
floodplain
limits
infringe,
if
not
entirely,
on
the
property
or
to
a
significant
extent,
and
those
two
properties
have
been
provided
for
reduction.
I
was
also
known
at
the
time
of
petition
and
approval.
The
for
those
of
you
who
are
familiar
with
the
village,
mana
tick,
the
village
wok
development
had
an
on-site
treatment
facility
and
and
operating
for
quite
some
time
as
part
of
the
provision
of
Central
Services
that
on-site
treatment
facility
was
decommissioned
and
they
are
now
connected.
D
However,
the
any
costs
related
to
decommissioning
and
was
borne
by
the
city,
not
the
petitioned
area
and
the
last
item,
which
is
current
practice
for
the
city,
is
that
at
the
time
of
petition,
people
need
to
have
some
sense
of
cost
certainty,
so
the
city
provides
estimates,
and
that
translates
into
cost
caps
saying
that
if
the
cost
of
the
work
exceeds
those
caps
and
the
city
will
respect
the
cap,
if
cost
the
works
is
less
than
those
caps.
The
property
owners
receive
the
benefit
of
the
lower
costs.
D
All
of
those
provisions
were
part
of
the
approvals
and
and
are
in
fact
in
play
as
part
of
the
charge
in
front
of
you
today,
in
terms
of
calculating
charge,
there
are
two
components
to
it:
there
is
the
mainline
sewer,
which
is
essentially
the
the
main
pipes
in
the
roadway
or
easements.
If
you
will,
that
includes
whether
they're,
local
or
Trunk,
the
regulations
provide
that
the
the
assessment
of
that
mainline
charge
can
be
based
on
a
value,
an
area
which
is,
in
fact
what
our
practice
is.
D
That's
really
necessary
where,
if
you
simply
look
at
the
dimensions
of
a
lot,
it
really
isn't
representative
of
relative
benefit
from
property
property.
So
you
can
have
odd
shaped
Lots
that,
although
the
frontage
is
entirely
different,
one
larger
one
smaller,
they
may
in
fact
be
the
same
area,
and
that
is
why
that
provision
is
there
and
that's
the
provision
that
we
work
under.
D
This
again
was
part
of
the
approvals
or
made
it
made
aware
as
well
as
community
community
communicated.
Pardon
me
at
the
time
petition.
The
second
component
of
the
charge
is
for
service
connections.
This
is
the
short
section
of
pipe,
if
you
will,
that
runs
between
the
mainline
sewers
and
stops
up
the
property
line,
but
still
within
easements
and
Road
allowances.
D
The
lower
part
of
slide
is,
in
fact,
our
final
construction
estimates
to
to
completion
you'll
note
there
that
we,
we
have
reference
to
total
overall
project
cost
in
the
order
of
thirty-five
million
dollars.
That's
generally
consistent
between
when
we
sought
approval
and
what
we
see
is
the
final
cost
that
included
everything.
The
cost
of
servicing
is
approximately
twenty
six
point:
seven
million
dollars
final
estimates
and
that's
essentially
what
it
would
take
to
bring
the
servicing
to
the
village
as
I
mentioned
earlier.
There
are
two
local
improvements
combined.
D
The
final
estimates
place
those
at
about
ten
ten
point:
three
million
dollars,
some
two
million
dollars
less
than
we
had
estimated.
The
core
local
improvement
area
is
approximately
six
million
dollars
or
5.5
million
nine
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
is
what
the
final
estimates
are
for
the
core
local
improvement.
At
the
time
we
sought
approvals.
That
estimate
was
in
the
order
of
about
seven
point
five
in
terms
of
how
that
translates
to
the
charge.
D
Again,
there
are
two
components
if
I
relate
back
to
those
the
main
line
sewers
as
our
estimated
final
costs
with
the
core
area
are
looked
five
point:
four
million
dollars
the
sanitary
sewer
laterals,
the
final
costs
there
are
estimated
at
five
hundred
and
thirty,
three
thousand
roughly,
as
I
mentioned
the
city's
practice
at
the
time
of
petitions
to
provide
some
sense
of
cost
certainty.
I'm
petition
we
had
indicated
the
city
had
that
is
that
the
mainline
sewer
portion
of
the
core
area
would
not
exceed
three
point:
five
million
dollars.
D
From
the
city's
perspective
we've
taken
on
intersections
as
we
had
committed
in
our
very
communications,
we
have
properties,
we
have
frontage
and
a
number
of
special
considerations,
reductions
that
amount
to
another
1.1
million
dollars.
The
end
of
that
is
that
the
property
owners
other
than
the
city
are
looking
to
be
charged.
Two
point:
nine,
eight,
six
million
dollars
over
all
the
city's
costs
are
roughly
same
order.
D
Magnitude
slightly
less,
but
overall,
the
city
is
picking
up
two
point:
nine
six
million
dollars
just
shy
of
50
percent
of
the
overall
local
improvement
costs
for
the
core
area.
Just
a
short
note
here
in
terms
of
material
that
might
have
changed.
Since
the
notices
originally
went
out
to
property
owners,
there
has
been
a
change
at
the
time
the
draft
assessment
roll
was
provided
and
made
available
to
the
public
at
local
libraries
and,
in
fact,
the
City
Clerk's
office.
D
There
was
a
interest
rate
targeted
for
those
who
were
looking
to
extend
the
recovery
or
payments
over
a
longer
term.
At
five
point:
two
percent
of
that
draft
report,
the
interest
rate
has
been
confirmed
to
be
in
fact,
5%
the
role
that
was
included
with
the
report
to
the
committee
revision
and
reflects
the
5%
interest
rate.
A
A
E
Mr.
Cho,
the
reason
for
the
difference-
it's
actually
the
Navin
road
is
three
point.
Five.
The
difference
is
the
length
of
time
we
go
out
and
we
try
to
get
as
close
as
possible
to
what
we
would
pay
as
the
city
and
right
now
for
twenty
years,
which
is
what
this
one
is.
We
would
pay
five
percent,
and
for
ten
years
we
would
pay
around
three
and
a
half
percent.
So
it's
just
the
way
the
bond
market
works.
What
if
our
cost
of
borrowing
is.
F
Thank
You
mr.
chair
just
get
a
one
question
for
mr.
up
yeah
sorry,
Kelly
I
can't
see
it
mr.
Martin.
Thank
you
in
terms
of
the
on
slide
number
twelve.
You
mentioned
the
six
properties
that
there
was
a
value
reduction
because
of
I
guess
the
extra
pumping
that
they
may
have
had
or
required
to
do
any
idea
what
the
value
of
that
reduction
was.
What
would
you
have
that?
Number
I?
Don't.
D
F
Thank
You
mr.
chair-
and
these
are
two
technical
motions-
amendments
moved
by
myself.
The
first
one
is
on
the
item
number
two,
that
the
special
assessment-
roll
for
lot
e
Maple
Avenue,
be
adjusted
to
show
property
owner
two
three
five,
three,
five:
zero
Ontario
Inc
is
in
place
of
property
owner
one
three:
zero
one:
nine,
six,
five
Ontario
Inc;
so
that's
just
a
reference
change
on
the
property
ownership.
The
second
motion,
mr.
F
chair,
refers
to
same
item,
and
it
is
that
the
special
assessment
roll
for
eleven
sixty
beaver
would
be
adjusted
in
accordance
with
the
following
roadway
frontage
of
four
four
four
four
point:
eight
three
adjusted
local
improvement
frontage,
which
is
no
charge
of
nine.
Eighty
six
point:
six:
seven
and
roadway
frontage
adjustment
of
five.
Forty
one
point:
eight
four
and
those
are
two
technical
amendments
that
need
to
be
made
on
the
item.
Thank
you,
mister,
sir.
So.
A
A
A
G
Chairman
I'd
like
to
also
introduce
rich
MacDonald.
It
was
the
treasurer
of
our
board
at
Rideau,
nonprofit
housing,
I'm,
the
secretary
of
the
board
and
our
Chairman
Brian
darling,
is
unable
to
attend
today.
We're
in
this
here
in
this
place.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
Kelly,
Kelly,
Martin
and
Rosemarie
Theriot
for
their
help
in
this
make
making
here
today,
the
the
one
the
the
really
only
one
point
we
want
to
make
is
that
oh
well,
I
want
to
Center.
G
One
point
is
that
the
assessment
against
the
nonprofit
housing
represents
about
sixty
percent
of
our
annual
income.
So
it's
it's
an
extremely
heavy
burden
on
a
nonprofit
organization
and
we
don't
have
profits
to
offset
it.
But
the
point
I
wanted
to
make
is
that,
whereas
our
property
is
on
the
the
yes
there,
five
five
eight
one
dr.
leach
drive
at
if
we
have
Eastman
drivin
you
on
the
east
side
and
dr.
leach
on
the
west
side
at
the
north
east
corner,
there
is
the
corner
of
our
property.
We
could
easily.
G
In
fact,
we
had
a
fully
functional
septic
field,
septic
system
which
was
working
well.
We
have
lots
of
property,
so
it
wasn't
the
problem.
We
have
thirty
units,
so
we
weren't
a
big
burden
on
the
local
environment.
We
could
easily
have
made
our
connection
from
that
point
where
that
pointer
is
to
our
property
to
our
building
and
the
sewer
could
have
terminated
there.
G
However,
the
city
decided
that
it
had
to
extend
the
sewer
along
the
eastern
border
of
our
property
to
the
southern
edge
so
that
it
could
extend
the
sewer
off
to
the
new
mental
development.
There
was
no
requirement
of
that
for
us,
so
basically
Aris.
We
believe
that
this
is
beyond
the
core.
The
extension
was
beyond
the
core
and
was
extended
to
provide
service
to
yet
undeveloped
area,
now
being
developed.
G
My
mental
as
a
result,
we've
been
charged
for
something
like
270
meters
of
sewer
length,
where
we
probably
could
have
been
been
perfectly
comfortable
with
something
less
than
maybe
20
meters,
and
this
the
difference
in
assessment
to
us
is
is,
is
really
untenable.
It's
it's
a
burden.
We
really
have
no
no
means
to
to
to
cover
so
we're
a
nonprofit
organization
and
are
many
of
our
tenants.
Are
there
under
rent
gear?
The
income
and
the
rest
are
at
a
very
modest
rate,
and
it's
for
for
independent
living
of
seniors.
A
Can
just
get
I
know
that
that
thank
you
first
for
coming
down
here
today
and
presenting
their
skits
mr.
Martin
I
know
you've
been
working
with
with
with
IQ
on
on
this
issue.
If
you
can
just
provide
the
court
or
the
committee
with
some
some
of
the
feedback
from
what
you've
received
some
of
the
potential
way
forward.
C
Mr.
chair,
the
local
improvement
regulation
that
the
committee
is
operating
under
subsection,
12,
subsection
6
of
section
12,
provides
that
council
can
allow
that
exempt
properties
do
not
have
to
pay
local
improvement.
However,
if
council
does
not
take
any
action,
the
default
is
that
they
pay
so
I
note
that
Rideau
nonprofit
did
sign
the
petition
they
signed
in
on
the
basis
of
a
cost.
That
I
think
mr.
Martin
can
confirm
is
similar,
if
not
more
than
what
there
are
now
being
asked
to
pay.
C
So
that
was
the
information
available
to
read
or
nonprofit
at
the
time.
Having
said
that,
the
decisions
with
respect
to
taxes
and
properties
and
whether
or
not
they
have
to
pay
the
local
improvement
is
a
council
decision
and,
as
of
this
date,
council
has
not
determined
to
exempt
taxes
and
properties
right.
A
So
I
wasn't
I,
wasn't
asking
that
it's
all
good
I
appreciate
it.
I
appreciate
the
book.
Is
it
then
I
don't
have
to
ask
you
the
future,
but
are
you?
Are
you
a
but
a
liberty
to
speak
about
any
any
correspondence
you've
had
with
with
I
feel
place
in
the
past
couple
weeks
about
how
you
can
come
to
a
agreement
about
how
we
can
go
forward.
D
Well,
in
terms
of
the
move
forward,
I
don't
have
any
specific
correspondence
directly
with
them,
but
I
can't
speak
to
the
the
dialogue
that
we've
had
with
respected
to
charge.
Mr.
Markey
is
correct
that
at
the
time
the
petition
was
being
prepared
and
the
information
provided
to
property
owners,
the
charge
that
was
estimated
at
that
time
is
slightly
larger,
but
basically
the
same
as
what
is
currently
being
charged
with
respect
to
the
the
the
charge
specific
to
the
property.
D
It
is
based
on
on
area
and
value,
as
I
mentioned,
prior
and
and
not
specifically
frontage
of
the
property.
The
extension
of
the
sewer
to
Eastman
is
in
fact
an
outlet
for
some
of
the
future
mahogany
lands.
I
believe
is
the
development,
so
that
would
have
occurred,
regardless
of
where
the
property
chose
to
connect.
D
I
I
do
know-
and
this
is
not
a
direct
discussion
with
with
the
Rideau
nonprofit
I-
do
know
that,
because
of
their
provision
of
social
housing,
that
the
nonprofit
does
have
at
this
particular
point
in
time
and
agreement
with
the
city
through
social
housing
to
for
a
number
of
items,
one
of
which
may
be
assistant
from
a
budget
perspective,
and
my
understanding
is
that
agreement
is,
is
currently
in
place
until
2017,
so
they're
there.
There
may
be
some
potential
there
for
interim
relief
until
the
term
of
the
agreement.
G
Yes,
we're
aware
that
the
city
has
has
indicated
the
housing
people
have
indicated
they
could
provide
relief
to
our
agreement
ends
in
2017
thereafter
we
have
no
no
no
source
of
additional
income,
which
amounts
to
a
concern
mile,
for
we
have
30
units,
so
you
can
imagine
how
much
burden
this
will
be
on
on
seniors
over
there.
Yeah
very
limited
budget.
Well,
I
still
contend
that
that
line
would
have
gone
in
regardless
of
whether
we
agreed
or
not.
It
was
the
city's
decision
to
extend
at
the
end
of
the
property,
not
ours.
G
A
What
I
understand,
if
one
our
standing
with
mr.
Martin
saying,
is
that
they
wouldn't
necessarily
be
tearing
down
frontage
but
on
on
the
benefits
of
the
property
itself.
So
regardless
is,
if
you
just
tapped
in
or
if
they
ran
it.
2,200
metres
by
you'd
still
be
assessed
the
chain
the
same
based
on
the
based
on
the
benefit
of
the
property
receives
from
from
the
hook
up
from
the
ability
to
hook
up.
That's.
Why
that's?
Why
I
gathered
what
I've
heard
from
for
mr.
Martin
that.
C
D
Yes,
you
are
correct.
The
the
regulation
states
that
assessing
the
charges
to
be
on
the
basis
of
frontage
and
so
they're
to
impose
the
charge
we
have
to
relate
it
back
to
a
frontage
measurement
and
that
measurement
is
is
not
specifically
the
frontage
that
you
would
typically
associate
with
your
tax
bill.
Rather
it's
it's
the
it's
the
full
if
it's
the
length
of
the
property
of
budding
the
works
which
is
in
the
legislation,
and
that
frontage
is
then
adjusted
to
respect
aryan
value.
A
A
A
H
H
So
my
point
here,
there's
notice
objection
is
the
fact
that
if
the
city
had
measured
our
property
correctly
in
the
first
place,
we
would
have
voted
against
the
sewer,
like
our
neighbors
who
were
allowed
to
and
we
weren't
given
this
option
as
a
result
of
an
engineering,
error.
I
think
we're
the
hope.
H
I
mentioned
a
half
a
belief,
and
so
if
we
were
given
the
option
about
opting
out
like
our
neighbors,
the
sewer
line
would
have
only
gone
to
the
corner
of
Currier
in
Dickinson,
a
rather
than
extending
east
on
courier
dealt
towards
the
river
24
25
meters,
and
we
would
in
the
same
position
as
our
immediate
made
neighbors.
So
we
are
facing
a
tax
bill
for
service
of
that
we
were
not
given
the
opportunity
to
decline.
Given
the
pumping
issue
we
would
have
and
in
fact
did
decline
once
the
miscalculation
by
the
city
was
discovered.
H
F
D
D
The
only
involvement
there,
if
you
will
from
the
state's
perspective,
is
that
we
indicated
to
the
those
in
interest
of
changing
the
boundary
of
the
potential
local
improvement
was
that
we
would
entertain
that,
provided
that
it
didn't
put
somebody
who
was
in
in
favor
of
the
servicing
at
at
jeopardy
of
not
getting
it.
So,
in
other
words,
if,
if
a
collection
of
folks
wished
were
desiring
to
change
the
petition
area
to
not
be
included,
we
would
certainly
entertain
that,
provided
it
didn't
affect
somebody
who
did
in
that
collection
of
properties.
D
So
my
recollection
in
this
particular
instance,
is
that
wasn't
case
for
the
properties
that
the
individual
has
mentioned,
and
the
majority
of
them
indicated
that
they
did
not
have
any
interest
and
they're
by
virtue
of
not
extending
a
sewer.
If
you
will
to
service
them,
it
did
not
in
pate
impact
anybody
who
wanted
to
have
provision
of
the
service
in
the
case
of
this
particular
property,
as
was
mentioned,
I
believe
it
is
a
corner
lot
at
the
time
that
this
was
being
discussed.
There
was
a
property
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
street.
D
I
think
it's!
It's
courier,
our
currying
that,
to
our
knowledge,
was
still
interested
in
the
sewer
service
by
virtue
that
we
could
not
eliminate
the
sewer
fronting
that
property
across
the
street,
which,
by
virtue
of
frontage
or
abutting,
the
works
meant
that
5565
had
to
remain
in
the
petition
area.
D
So
it's
not
a
it
wasn't
a
case
of
5565
being
necessarily
the
same
circumstances,
the
rest
of
the
property
owners
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
he
was
on
a
corner
lot
and
a
property
opposite
him
on
the
other
side,
in
fact,
was
still
interested
in
the
sewer
I'm,
not
sure.
If
I
was
able
to
answer
your
question
or
not.
F
D
Property,
that's
that
abuts
the
work
and
is
in
the
petition
area
and
gets
assessed
a
portion
of
the
charge
and
that
charge
is
based
on
area
and
value
of
the
property.
So
the
property
across
the
street
from
5565
would
have
been
assessed
on
aryan
value,
as
would
of
5565
Dickinson.
The
initial
charge
would
have
been
based
on
aryan
value
for
the
property.
D
As
was
indicated,
it
became
apparent
at
the
time
of
construction
that,
to
take
advantage
of
the
service
5565
would
have
had
to
make
use
of
grinder
pump.
We
have
taken
that
into
account
in
the
charge
by,
in
fact
providing
the
reduction
to
the
property
as
a
result
of
a
reduced
level
of
service
and
I.
Believe
5565
is
being
reduced
by
60
percent
of
what
it
would
have
been
charged
had
it
been
serviced
by
gravity
so.
F
H
I
comment:
the
line
could
have
gone
to
the
corner
of
career
in
Dickinson
in
gone
West,
a
long
career
towards
Main
Street,
had
they
measured
our
property
correctly,
because
the
property
that
is
our
opposite
us
on
Dickinson
Street-
could
have
hooked
into
the
sewer
without
extending
the
sewer
down
courier
towards
the
river.
The
extent
of
the
sewer
down,
far
as
I
understand
from
the
corner
or
Dickinson
and
courier
down
towards
the
river.
In
order
to
hook
up
all
the
properties,
my
neighbor
on
dickinson
street
and
ourselves
had
they
measured
properly.
H
They
could
have
just
gone
directly
from
the
corner
of
dickinson
courier
to
main
street
without
extending
at
25
meters
towards
the
river.
That's
how
I
understand
it.
There
may
be
an
engineering
thing
somehow,
but
I
I
would
would.
My
point
is
that
if
they
connected
the
sewer
directly
to
the
corner
in
the
West
on
courier,
there's
no
way
that
we
could
have
hooked
up
so.
A
D
Would
suggest
who
would
change
nothing
because
the
the
design
of
the
sewer
network
is
intended
to
capture
as
many
properties
as
possible
within
the
public
service
area,
so
that,
coming
back
after
the
fact
to
install
a
short
piece
of
section
of
pipe
would
not
occur
without
getting
into
the
specifics
and
and
reviewing
an
entire
new
design
to
determine
whether
one
property
would
be
targeted
for
servicing
or
not
whether?
What
impact
that
would
have
I
ask
to
you
that
it
would
not
have
any
significant
change
in
the
in
the
routing
of
the
sewers.
A
D
A
H
D
To
be
honest,
if
you
I'd
have
to
take
that
back
and
look
at
that,
I
have
the
the
label
and
topography
in
front
of
me,
but
what
I
am
trying
to
convey
to
you
is
that
the
sewer
network
isn't
designed
in
a
way
to
accommodate
as
many
properties
as
possible,
and
the
routing
is
based
on
that.
The
opting
in
or
out
of
a
singer
of
property
along
the
length
of
the
line
would
highly
unlikely
change.
That
routing
is
what
I'm
trying
to
convey
so
I.
Don't.
H
A
It's
an
interesting
part
of
town
right
because
his
career
are
about,
he
goes
downhill,
say
with
tie
same
with
O'grady.
They
go
when
they
after
they
go
over
when
they
go
east
of
Dickinson
Street,
they
head
downhill,
so
anyone
down
there
would
have
to
pump
it
up.
That's
why
we
don't
go
down.
That's
why
we
haven't
gone
down
there.
A
A
I
I
I
The
methodology
applied
by
the
city
incorporates
both
the
current
value
assessment
and
the
site
area
as
a
percentage
of
the
total
effective
properties
and
does
not
take
into
consideration
the
actual
frontage,
as
specifically
defined
in
Ontario
regulation
586.
Oh
six,
section
212,
subsection,
1
B
right
under
Section
12.
It
says
cost
of
improvement
under
be
specifically
charged.
The
owners
share
of
the
costs
by
imposing
an
equal
share,
a
special
charge
per
meter
of
frontage
under
1.
It
says
I.
It
says
on
the
Lots
that
abut
directly
on
the
work.
I
We
understand
that
section
16
allows
for
reductions
in
the
increases
to
special
changes
for
unique
property
parcels.
It's
also
our
understanding
that
all
properties
were
calculated
using
the
same
lab
methodology,
which
would
conclude
that,
in
this
instance
of
local
improvement
charges
no
situs
defined
as
being
equal
under
Section
16,
it's
pretty
specific
there.
It
says
that
sufficient
at
the
end
of
16
1,
it
says
sufficient
to
adjust
the
amount
charged
on
that
lot
on
a
just
and
equitable
basis,
as
compared
with
the
other
specialty
charge.
2
lots
in
this
sense.
I
In
this
instance,
the
charges
are
basically
there's
not
one
property
charged
according
to
the
act
of
base,
half
on
the
frontage.
It's
done
on
area
and
also
done
on
their
assessment
and
okay
number
for
the
site
area.
4.33
Hector's,
used
by
the
city
in
the
calculation
of
the
adjusted
local
improvement
frontage
is
not
reflective
to
the
actual
usable
area
of
the
subject
site.
I
The
appropriate
usable
area
of
the
subject
site
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
three
point:
five,
five
Hector's
the
difference
in
for
all
intensive
purposes
is
the
what
used
to
be
the
septic
beds
rate.
At
the
moment
there
you
can't
build
on
them
until
you'd
have
to
give
their
committee
of
adjustment
to
it
and
they'd
have
to
be
torn
out,
remedial,
work,
etc,
etc.
I
Basically,
my
previous
job,
before
being
this
consultant
here
was
I,
was
evaluation
manager
with
impact
and
evaluation
has
very
numerous
ways:
it's
not
an
exact
science
as
an
example
property
right
across
the
road
from
our
subject,
property,
where
the
I
guess
the
both
anything
owned
by
the
city
has
the
value
of
one
point:
seven,
eight
two
million
on
it.
Well,
a
lot
about
10
percent,
precise,
that's
owned
by
private
individuals
got
four
hundred
ninety
eight
thousand,
so
it's
a
nearly
exact
science
to
use
that
in
the
calculations,
in
our
opinion,
is
incorrect.
I
Based
on
the
above,
we
believe
the
actual
frontage
of
400
1.55
meters,
which
doesn't
necessarily
agree
with.
We
don't
necessarily
agree
with
the
furniture
but
we'd
like
to
thank
mr.
Martin
for
giving
us
the
information.
That's
what
this
has
been
calculated
and
I
believe
there
was
an
adjustment
made
earlier
on
today
on
that
we
believe
is
gonna.
Do
it.
You
should
be
doing
it
on
the
frontage
and
it
should
be
calculated
and
should
be
employed
in
calculating
the
local
improvement
charge
using
the
city's
actual
unit
cost
of
520
that
wasn't
per
meter.
I
The
estimate,
a
total
of
a
charge
to
be
applied.
This
property
would
be.
We
use
forearm
1
meters
at
520
bucks
came
up
two
hundred
eight
thousand
eight
hundred
and
six
adding
the
sewer,
lateral
Church
a
fifteen
thousand.
You
come
up
to
two
hundred
twenty
four
thousand,
if
they're
using
the
other
number
of
four
hundred
and
forty
it
be
two
hundred
and
forty
eight
thousand,
not
the
528,000.
I
Our
client
is
in
presently
assessed
again.
We
appreciate
the
assistance
we
receive
from
the
City
of
Ottawa
so
far,
and
at
this
time
it
may
be
appropriate
to
review
the
details
with
calculations
with
the
city
again
I'd
like
to
say
our
thanks
for
Kelly
Kelly
Martin.
He
has
been
super
helpful
for
us
to
get
through
the
numbers
and
figuring
out
exactly
what
was
apply.
Who
was
applied?
I'd
like
to
make
one
point
on
the
calculations
used.
I
The
effect
of
frontage
might
compare
off',
I
the
numbers,
but
by
using
the
effective
fun
age,
I
think
about
thirty
percent
of
the
properties
went
down
seventy
five,
thirty
percent
yeah.
Seventy
percent
of
the
properties
actually
went
down
and
thirty
about
thirty
percent
actually
went
up.
Our
client
went
up
significantly
from
401
to
nine
hundred.
E
A
First
of
all,
I
wanted
well.
Thank
you
for
coming.
I.
Also
commend
you
for
admitting
that
you
used
to
work
for
impact
I,
don't
know
many
people
that
would
would
readily
admit
their
impact
association
in
public
wouldn't
want.
The
impact
assessment
be
more
beneficial
in
this
kind
of
a
this
kind
of
a
charge
than
a
market
value
assessment.
Then
one
would
assume
that
that
take
into
consideration
a
property
of
that
size
with
full
full
hookup
to
to
missile
services
would
be
assessed
much
higher
in
terms
of
a
market
value
than
the
the
impact
value
not.
I
Necessarily
because
that
property,
actually
I
reviewed
their
property
from
the
clients
point
of
view,
I'm
hired
by
Limerick
and
it's
based
on
an
income
approach.
This
is
where
market
value
just
isn't
working
for
this
type
of
calculation.
They
use
an
income
approach
based
on
the
net
operating
income
of
that
property,
and
they
come
up
with
a
valuation
based
on
that,
while
the
rest
of
the
properties
for
the
most
part
of
residential
and
that
they
use
basically
a
model
of
cost.
So
the
two
systems
are
really
synonymous.
A
C
Respond
to
the
legal
point,
mr.
chair,
which
which
is
appropriate
for
me
to
do
at
the
outset
on
manitech
in
the
petition,
it
was
noted
that
the
city,
it
would
be
utilizing-
and
this
was
recommended
to
council-
would
be
utilized
in
16-5,
which
provides
that
a
reduction
or
increase
shall
be
made
in
the
amount
to
be
specially
charged
on
a
triangle
or
a
regulation
shaped
law
sufficient
to
adjust
that
amount
on
a
just
and
equitable
basis
as
compared
with
other
specialty
charge
law.
C
It's
having
regard
to
the
situation,
value
and
the
superficial
area
of
the
law,
and
so
staff
recommended
the
use
of
two
of
those
three
criteria
being
the
area
and
value.
This
was
reflected
in
the
report.
This
was
reflected
in
the
bylaw,
approving
the
works
and
I
know
to
gain
that
the
amount
that
is
being
sought
in
respect
of
these
properties
is
similar
to
similar
to
or
less
and
the
number
that
they
signed
on
to
when
they
signed
the
petition.
So
this
information
was
available
to
them
when
they
signed
the
petition
and
they
signed.
I
Today
address
that
to
where
we
were
heritage
to
review
the
fairness
of
it
all
acts
I've
dealt
with
in
that
dealt
with
assessment
at
Municipal
Act
all
for
the
fairness
of
distribution
of
costs,
and
in
this
case
it's
our
opinion
that
this
methodology
is
not
the
fairest
distribution
of
cost.
It's
as
simple
as
that,
the
actual
cost
of
these
pipelines
are
along
the
frontage
and
they
haven't
even
taken
the
frontage
into
consideration
in
their
calculations.
I.
A
Would
have
to
imagine
somewhat
difficult
when
you
deal
with
the
man
some
users,
it's
a
wholly
owned
insulated
property
with
limited
frontage
I
mean
that
the
frontage
is
really
only
on
on
what
career,
beaver
would
and
O'grady.
If
you
really
want
to
go
with
lunch,
but
the
roads
inside
the
Mews
are
all
wholly
owned
by
by
by
Lee
Merck.
So
how
would
I
mean?
A
Obviously
you
have
to
have
a
different,
a
different
formula
so
that
it
can
be
somewhat
acquittal
to,
let's
say
the
property
is
on
mansik
Main
Street,
which
are
single
properties
that
are
assessed
at
you
know,
anywhere
from
fifteen
to
twenty
thousand
dollars.
How
many
stores
are
in
the
Mews?
They
don't
have
that
same
frontage.
So
how
do
you
fund
come
over
the
formula
and
I
can
understand
why
it
would
be
different.
D
Yes,
well,
that
is
in
fact,
what
our
experience
has
been
with
local
improvements.
Is
that
when
you
look
at
and
the
core
is,
is
probably
a
strong
example
of
that
none
of
the
none
of
the
lots
there
are
particularly
regular
shape
and
size
when
it
comes
to
frontage,
you're,
correct
the
this
particular
property
would
have
limited
street
frontage,
if
that's
the
measure
that
that's
being
referred
to
relative
to
the
length
of
the
property
that
abuts
the
work.
D
There
are
this
property
about
sewer
on
beaver
pond
on
Beaver,
Wood,
sorry,
puree,
courier
and
Eastman,
as
well
as
a
full
length
of
the
easement
that
runs
between
beaver
wood
and
an
easement
and
the
easement.
So
I
guess.
The
short
answer
to
your
question
is
that
there
is
a
multitude
of
ways
that
you
could
try
and
come
up
with
formulas
and
reductions
in
length
and
and
whatnot.
But
there's
no
possible
way
that
we
could.
I
A
But
I
know
that
we've
guaranteed
all
the
estimates,
so
I
know
that
they
charge
today
that
we're
talking
about
would
be
lower
than
what
the
estimate
was
that
they
approved
I'm,
not
mistaken
I
mean
the
time
would
have
been
then
to
argue
the
church
I
mean
I.
I
know
you
can
do
it
now,
but
point
is
if
you
agree
to
a
charge
at
that
time,
it's
reasonable
to
expect
that
that
same
charge
is
going
to
come
forward
when
the
assessments
are
to
be
finalized.
D
D
I
Did
address
that
issue
of
getting
a
letter
back
of
2008
and
reviewing
it
and
that
point
in
time
I
think
the
purpose
of
my
own
statement
purposes.
This
meeting
is
also
to
do
is:
what's
the
fairness
involved,
they
never
knew
what
everybody
else
was
getting
either
they
knew
what
the
charges
by
then
might
have
been
applied
to
them.
I'm
saying:
is
this
the
fair
method
of
applying
it
I
mean
the
act
is
pretty
explicit.
It
says
all
the
other
people
should
have
been
used
on
frontage.
A
E
But
I
think
what
Dave's
trying
to
get
at
is
that
that
section
12
of
the
regulation
was
never
taken
into
account.
They
used
section
16
explicitly,
but
the
intent
of
the
legislation
was
for
all
normal
properties
to
be
based
on
frontage
and
special
cases
to
be
based
on
assessment,
and-
and
in
this
case
no
other
property
was
used
as
frontage.
So,
if
they're
treating
all
the
properties
the
same,
then
there's
no
special
or
unique
properties
in
this
instance
of
the
local
improvement
charge.
C
Mr.
chair,
it
is
true
that
16-5
has
been
consistently
applied
throughout
the
the
core
area,
that
staff,
in
all
cases,
looked
at
the
area
and
the
value
of
the
lot.
That
was
what
was
undertaken
to
do
in
2008.
That's
what
was
approved
by
council
and
as
you,
as
you
heard
from
mr.
Martin,
its
vast
view
that
considering
the
circumstances
of
magnetic
this
was
an
appropriate
way
to
come
up
with
a
just
an
ethical
basis
for
the
charge.
A
J
Number
of
years,
and
then
in
2007
we
finally
occupied
a
new
building.
Now,
as
part
of
that
process,
we
were
mandated
to
install
a
septic
system
to
last
to
serve
until
they
were
going
to
get
hooked
up
to
sewage,
because
these
two
projects
kind
of
went
pretty
close
back-to-back
and
coincided
to
a
certain
degree.
At
a
time
we
did
requested
it
could
please
hook
up
to
pumping
pumping
tanks,
which
is
what
we
had
before
before
the
place
burned
down.
J
It
was
a
part
and
parcel
of
the
permit
to
rebuild
is
that
the
septic
system
would
have
to
be
removed
within
six
months
after
getting
hooked
to
a
source
which
would
come
down
soon
after
completion
of
our
building,
and
this
is
exactly
what
happened.
I
believe
that
the
specific
reason
for
the
removal
to
set
this
septic
system
was
that
the
city
mandated
that
we
create
parking
parking
space
in
our
location,
and
we
did
that.
J
We
also
had
really
no
awareness
that
there
would
be
a
bill
coming
for
the
hook
up
hook
up
was
done
in
2006
or
the
2007
I'm,
not
too
sure.
The
time
frame
and
Legion
organization
is
here
meant
in
the
City
of
Ottawa,
don't
receive
an
annual
tax
bill.
We
are
thankfully,
exempt
from
city
taxes
so
when,
by
the
time
that
we
got
our
building
hooked
up
to
a
sewer
system,
the
parking
lot
was
in
place,
the
trees
were
up
and
the
landscaping
was
approved.
J
J
Now
we
know
that
these
specific
allergies
know
so
it's
totally
nonprofit
100%,
operated
by
volunteers.
No
doubt
you're,
aware
of
that.
Legion
members
do
not
derive
any
financial
benefit
from
the
Legion
and
the
reason
contributes
to
golfer
veterans,
their
families
and
our
local,
and
you
simply
can't
afford
it
guys.
It's
a
big
list
over
16,000
dollars
is
a
lot
of
money
for
us.
J
So
that's
pretty
much
our
story.
You
don't
receive
tax
bills
from
this
city
now
I
would
ask
that
the
city
consider
extending
that
to
destroy
hookup.
Like
I
said
we
met
all
their
obligations
of
the
permit.
We
hooked
up.
We
did
everything
you're
thankful,
for
the
sewers,
we're
not
arguing
about
that.
All
that,
in
essence,
is.
E
A
All
right,
thank
you,
whoever
Shawn
I'm
sure
you
heard
at
the
start
that
it's
not.
This
committee
cannot
exempt
you
from
from
these
charges.
We
would
have
to
approve
the
charges
and
then
council
is
the
only
body
that
can
that
can
provide
an
exemption.
As
far
as
you
know,
there's
there's
at
least
five
properties
in
the
core
that
currently
have
tax
that
our
current
accident.
It's
just
the
two.
C
Mr.
chair
I
was
I'm,
certainly
aware
now
it
was
way
before
of
the
Legion
and
the
Reno
nonprofit,
and
then
I
also
took
the
opportunity
of
adding
up
all
the
the
assessment
for
the
churches.
I
think
they're,
all
in
the
core,
you
would
know
better
than
I,
and
that
was
another
churches
were
another.
Eighty
five
thousand
dollars
and
I'm
not
aware
of
any
other
taxes
have
properties
the
churches.
F
C
A
A
J
F
Never
dead
I
mean
do
we
have
to
go
back
and
review
the
cases
that
are
presented
this
morning
in
front
of
us
and
then,
as
a
committee,
would
come
back
and
render
a
decision,
and
at
that
point
you
know,
if
you
have
any
other
questions
based
on
that
decision,
then
you
we
can
give
you
some
direction
that
mr.
mark
may
not
have
clarified
so
far.
Thank.
F
A
E
E
What
we
are
seeking
today
is
some
forbearance
and
the
part
for
a
nonprofit
organization
that
has
been
exempt
from
taxes
and
we
don't
have
sewers.
But
now
I'm
going
to,
we
don't
have
any
washroom
facilities
at
all
in
the
building
I'm
going
to
turn
over
the
presentation
to
Jayme
where
he
reads
back,
and
he
will
outline
the
reasons
for
our
request.
B
Watson's
nanotech
is
really
one
of
the
ten
Ottawa
community
museums
and
it's
a
volunteer
volunteer,
led
nonprofit
charitable
organization,
with
the
mandate
to
preserve
Watson's,
know
as
a
working
historic
quest
and
flower
map
and
a
social,
cultural
and
educational
focal
point
for
the
community
and
visitors
as
an
operating
good
smell
on
a
popular
tourist
site.
Approximately
50,000
visitors
visit
the
mail
during
its
operating
season.
B
79,
because
of
its
architectural
and
historical
value,
it's
supported
in
part
by
at
the
annual
grant
provided
to
the
community
museums
through
the
museum's
sustainability
program
and
if
I,
ongoing,
fundraising
events,
our
funds
are
used
for
the
sole
purpose
of
keeping
the
new
museum
operational
and
open
or
open
for
the
enjoyment
and
education
of
the
public
to
protect
Watson's
know
and
keep
it
in
public
hands.
Watson,
small
Mattituck
incorporated,
became
the
sole
owner
of
the
mall
in
December
of
2008
by
purchase
purchasing
it
from
the
city.
B
B
Misstated,
it
is
a
nonprofit
organization,
limited
budget,
it's
heavily
dependent
on
continual
fundraising,
just
to
keep
the
doors
open.
Accordingly,
from
our
point
of
view,
the
city's
in
position,
sir
assessment
charges,
would
basically
constitute
only
an
additional
unnecessary
financial
burden
for
the
mill
for
which
we
can
see,
though,
can
see
the
profitable
use
or
benefit.
B
So,
basically,
our
conclusion
is
has
been
people
she
stated-
and
these
are
just
too
late,
but
relatively
simple,
simple
points
that
you
wanted
to
make,
and
we
ask
that,
in
the
consideration
of
these
points,
the
city
will
elect
to
exempt
himself
from
the
special
913
sewer
assessment
charges.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
A
E
A
K
Sisler:
okay,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
you're
speaking
here
today,
because
Oliver
was
here
earlier,
but
had
to
leave.
We
owned
a
property
together
not
far
from
Watson's
mail,
55/45,
Dickinson
Street
is
one
of
the
affected
properties.
Miss
Oliver,
followed
or
followed.
Sounds
formal
gave
an
affidavit
to
the
city
clerk
to
the
committee
members
provided
a
copy
of
the
affidavit.
K
K
Okay,
well,
the
Cole's
note
version
we
purchased
our
property
after
the
petitions.
After
the
votes
on
council,
the
first
we
heard
that
there
was
a
special
levy
was
exactly
one
month
ago,
August
26th,
on
a
letter
from
the
city
manager.
This
is
the
first
we
found
out
about
this
special
levy.
We
are
not
on
the
sewers.
We're
not
even
using
this
service
have
no
intention
of
using
the
service.
In
the
letter
from
the
city
manager,
he
says
that
relieve
law
court
read
from
the
letter.
K
The
city
has
recently
established
a
policy
for
relief
from
such
charges
for
owners
who
meet
the
following
criteria.
We
meet
criteria,
one
and
three
one
being
we
became
owners
of
the
property
subsequent
to
the
construction
or
the
commencement
of
the
local
improvement
and
we're
unaware
of
it,
and
the
owners
of
the
bargain
affidavit
or
statutory
declaration
stating
that
they
were
not
aware
of
the
pending
local
improvement
charges
at
the
time
they
required.
That
is
us.
The
issue
seems
to
be
number
two
which
I've
heard
raised
already
at
the
committee
today.
K
At
the
time
of
the
purchase,
attack,
certificate
was
requested
and
the
Tatra
certificate
did
not
indicate
the
pendant
position
of
costs.
We
did
not
request
a
tax
certificate.
We
have
title
insurance,
which
is
the
norm
for
real
estate
residential
real
estate
transactions
in
the
city.
We
did
the
standard
due
diligence.
I've
actually
heard
that
phrase
already
today.
We
certainly
did
the
standard
due
diligence
we
purchased
the
home,
went
through
a
lawyer
hired
a
lawyer.
K
We
certainly
were
not
expecting
a
hidden
tax
liability
roughly
equal
to
four
years
of
property
taxes,
and
that,
in
a
nutshell,
is
argument.
I
think
there
should
be
some
sort
of
effective
relief
and
is
done
from
speaking
with
mr.
mark
in
the
week
that
this
issue,
I've
heard
today
in
Navin,
was
raised
as
an
issue
and
as
far
as
I
know,
no
insurer
has
played
out
any
claim
and
now
they're
all
being
denied.
K
So
I
put
to
you
that
we
need
effective
relief
for
people
in
this
situation
that
bought
the
house.
We
were
not
delinquent,
we're
not
negligent
in
our
purchase.
We
were
finding
out
about
this
tax
bill
one
month
ago
and
I
think
there
should
be
some
way
for
the
city
to
offer
effective
relief
to
people
in
our
position,
and
we
put
you
that
the
effective
relief
would
be
setting
aside
those
special,
loving,
that's
my
presentation.
A
A
C
Sorry,
pardon
me
for
being
repetitive,
but
I'm
duty
bound
to
give
the
caution.
He
is
well
advised
to
seek
his
own
legal
advice.
My
it
will
take.
The
staff
have
committed
to
coming
forward
with
the
position
by
the
end
of
the
year,
the
local
improvement.
If,
if
the
committee
revision
were
to
approve
the
local
improvement
today,
a
bylaw
has
to
go
to
council
to
formalize
it,
it
would
probably
be
on
the
agenda
the
second
meeting
in
October
and
that
would
lead
to
that
is
going
out
from
finance
at
some
point.
C
I
don't
know
if
the
treasurer
wants
to
say
when
the
letters
will
go
out.
What
I
would
the
the
option
I
threw
out
was
choose
the
annual
payment
option,
which
means
that
there'd
be
no
payments
for
before
June
2014
and
await
the
outcome
of
what
the
city's
position
is.
But
people
will
be
well
advised
to
seek
the
wrong
legal
advice.
I.
K
Quickly,
here
you
can,
you
can
provide
the
comments,
yeah
yeah,
just
responding
again
in
the
city
on
the
letter
from
the
city
manager.
Mr.
Kilpatrick
is
very
clear
that
there
is
a
possibility
of
relief
for
people
to
meet
these
criteria,
that
you
know,
purchase
a
property
after
the
local
improvement
and
gathering
for
being
at
the
committee
today
that
local
improvements
are
an
issue
in
various
areas
of
the
city.
K
I
think
the
issue
of
title
insurance
is
something
that
the
committee
and
the
city
should
look
into
because
I
don't
see
this
offers
being
real
relief
from
speaking
to
mr.
mark
earlier
this
week
everyone
has
been
denied
everybody
who
puts
in
a
claim
to
insurers
being
denied,
so
my
only
relief
is
to
put
in
a
claim
that
is
being
denied.
That's
not
effective
and
real
relief.
It's
not
a
real
offer
from
the
city.
I
think
that
factor
early.
If
you
may
want
to
consider
Claus
to
leading
that
attack
certificate
was
requested
attached.
A
I
do
know
a
staffer
there
to
look
into
how
we
can.
We
can
show
that
up
and
make
sure
that
we
are
capturing
those
who
who
who
were
trying
to
help
out
put
two
can
on
the
issue
of
not
using
the
service.
That
would
not
be
a
good
reason
for
relief,
because
that
property
it
does
have
the
ability
to
connect
which
it
never
had
before.
If
you
wanted
to
go,
get
a
new
septic
system
on
that
property.
First
lay
them
on
our
time,
because
the
property
is
small.
A
K
Suggestion
would
be,
and
that's
my
second
suggestion.
My
first
suggestion
is:
the
relief
should
be
the
other
top
certificate
or
your
insurers
turn
you
down
because
it
is
the
norm.
This
is
the
tricky
part
about
this.
It
is
the
norm,
the
city
manager's
letter
as
much
as
says
this
and
I'll
quote
from
mr.
Cooke
caucus
letter.
The
city
understands
that
it
is
a
practice
of
many.
If
not
I
would
put
to
you
that
it
is
indeed
real
estate
lawyers
and
home
purchases
to
obtain
title
insurance.
K
When
you
get
title
insurance
you
where
to
get
a
time
certificate,
so
you
know
that
is
one
possibility.
You
can
praise
in
such
a
way
as
the
special
levy
is
not
payable
until
we
hook
up
to
the
sewer
at
such
time
as
we
look
up
to
the
sewers,
then
repair
special
levee
I
think
real
relief
would
be
if
your
insurer
has
turned
you
down.
That
would
be
effective
relief.
What.
A
I
said
there:
you
have
the
commitment
of
staff
to
look
at
this,
and
the
intent
is
that
we
come
up
with
the
solution
by
the
end
of
the
year
and
you
won't
be
assessed
until
next
year.
We
will
not
be
assessed
until
next
year.
So
how
is
this
rated?
This
assessment
will
take
effect
until
the
14th
acts.
It's
a
text
yeah!
Yes,
until
the
fall
in
here
yeah
so
see.
We
intend
to
try
to
have
a
solution
for
this
by
the
end
of
by
the
end
of
2013.
Ok,
so.
A
K
A
We
don't
want
I,
think,
there's,
there's
time,
see,
there's
time
needed
to
be
able
to
to
bring
these
assessments
and
make
sure
they're
on
the
2014
tax
roll
there's
been.
You
know,
countless
residents,
semantics
of
asking
for
this
for
the
past
several
years
to
get
on
with
it.
I
don't
want
to
run
the
risk
of
delaying
that
any
further
I
think
we
have
some
isolated
system,
isolated
cases
that
can
be
addressed
regardless.
Even
if
we
approve
this
I
think
we
can
still
address
some
of
the
concerns.
So
if.
K
C
C
A
K
C
Believe
I
could
have
this
discussion
with
mr.
Corbett.
Unlike
the
court
of
revision,
you
are
the
final
decision-making
body.
There
is
no
appeal
from
the
committee
and
provision
to
the
Ontario,
Municipal
Board
and
so
the
the
relief
there
is
always
the
the
ability
to
go
to
the
courthouse
next
door
and
seek
to
quash
a
municipal
decision,
and
that
is
the
the
legal
relief
that
there
would
be
so.
C
A
K
K
A
E
F
D
A
I
A
A
We
think
that
there's
you
know
what,
if
they've
made
six
issues
that
came
forward,
maybe
less
only
one
of
which
can't
be
dealt
with
in
a
different
way,
so
you
look
at
in
regards
to,
let's
say
the
Legion
in
the
mill
and,
of
course,
the
churches
weren't
here
to
represent
themselves,
but
the
churches
are
kind
of
involved
in
that
mix
can
will
have
to
be
adjust
in
a
decision
of
council.
If,
if
that's,
if
that
takes
place
with
regard
to
55:45
dicket's
the
street,
we
spoke
with
that
one.
A
That
said,
that
has
to
be
worked
with
with
staff
and
5565
tickets.
The
street.
We
need
more
information
on
that
one,
at
least
in
order
to
make
a
decision
and
will
prove
the
assessment
on
that
property
today.
But
we
need
to
know
more
about
the
courier,
the
curler
connection
and
whether
or
not
5560
was
yeah,
so
whether
5561
could
have
been
connected
from
Dickinson.
A
A
C
C
If
the
committee
were
to
reduce
the
assessment
for
that
special
assessment
for
that
property
to
zero.
That
has
an
impact
on
all
the
other
properties,
so
it
is
with
some
regret
than
I
note
that,
while
that
particular
property
is
outstanding,
the
committee
the
committee
cannot
leave
cannot
approve
the
special
assessment
role
and
leave
that
property
outstanding.
If
the
committee
wishes
to
look
at
that
further,
the
only
option
that
has
come
into
my
mind,
mr.
chair,
is
that
you
would
have
to
return
these
proceedings
to
a
subsequent
date.
Yeah.
A
A
B
A
Charismatic,
so
on
incomes,
obviously,
there's
none
notices,
a
motion,
non
inquiries,
none
other
business,
none
German,
so
the
next
meeting
will
be
on
October
30th
2
p.m.
to
deal
with
mansik
hillside,
Gardens
I
won't
be
attendance,
but
it
will
be
chaired
again
by
the
regular
chair
councillor,
harder
and
council
contributions
as
well.
Thank
you.