Taken from the roll call in the town’s own minutes. The minutes record who was not there and almost never why.
What was decided (7 motions)
7 carried, 0 recorded otherwise. Every motion below is printed as the minutes print it.
Resolved that section 7.7(1) of the Procedural By-law be temporarily suspended, as per section 12.1, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds to add Councillor Davoli's Notice of Motion to the agenda and discuss tonight.
Moved by Councillor D. Davoli, seconded by Councillor L. Vardy
Carried
Resolved that the Finance Committee minutes of August 22, 2024 and the GEDAC minutes of September 5, 2024 be received.
Moved by Councillor J. Korstanje, seconded by Councillor D. Howe
Carried
Resolved that the presentation from James Brennan be received.
Moved by Councillor D. Howe, seconded by Member A. Scandinavo
Carried
Resolved that report FIN-24-27, Consolidated Financial Statement Report, dated October 3, 2024 be received; and 1. That the Finance Committee recommends Council approve the 2023 Draft Audited Financial Statements.
Moved by Councillor J. Korstanje, seconded by Member B. Thomson
Carried
Resolved that report FIN-24-28, 2024 Second Quarter Financial Update, dated October 3, 2024, be received.
Moved by Member A. Scandinavo, seconded by Councillor D. Howe
Carried
Resolved that the memorandum on the Peach King Centre Update be received.
Moved by Councillor L. Vardy, seconded by Councillor J. Korstanje
Carried
Whereas the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has introduced a proposal which would create a new regulation under the Planning Act that would enable developers to use of pay-on-demand surety bonds to secure land-use planning obligations under Section 70.3.1 of the Planning Act; Whereas municipalities need an effective method to ensure developers meet their financial obligations as established through their respective development agreements; Whereas a Letter of Credit provides a guarantee directly from a certified financial institution (i.e. Bank, etc.) which allows the municipality to draw on the funds as needed; Whereas pay-on-demand surety bonds used a third-party surety (insurance company) rather than a financial institution to provide these guarantees, financial institutions are subject to more stringent financial regulations, which introduces additional risk to the municipality and the tax payer; Whereas the process to call on these funds is more complex, and may involve significant legal fees, and the proposed regulation does not adequately address downgrading of credit ratings of these insurance companies, renewals and defaults, related thereto; Whereas it is estimated that the costs for developing, implementing, and maintaining these surety bonds could have significant financial impact to the municipality; Whereas the proposal takes the decision for the type of guarantee being provided out of the municipalities hands, and into the developer’s hands; and Wherea
Moved by Councillor D. Davoli, seconded by Councillor L. Vardy