1. BUILDING BELONGING / IDEA (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity & Accessibility)

Overview

Consultant Kelly Paddon delivered a 2-hour workshop launching the Village’s “Building Belonging” initiative.
She emphasized that this phase does not implement policy — it only collects input to create a framework.

Key points presented

  • IDEA = Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility.

  • Accessibility added due to aging population, mobility barriers, and difficulty navigating Village processes.

  • Project funded by a grant — Village not paying directly.

  • Phase 1 ends in April with:

    • What We Heard Report

    • Draft IDEA Framework

  • Public input will occur through:

    • 3 surveys

    • In-person sessions

    • Business and community group consultations

What this work is — and is not

Not included:

  • Implementation

  • New programs

  • Policy changes

  • Hiring or restructuring

Included:

  • Identifying barriers to Village services

  • Improving clarity, accessibility, fairness

  • Understanding how residents actually experience the Village

Council’s issues raised

Council repeatedly shifted discussion from accessibility to social media criticism, expressing:

  • frustration with negative posts

  • belief that transparency is already excellent

  • concern that Facebook “harms the community”

Consultant responded that:

  • DEI cannot fix political disagreements

  • Loud voices online do not represent the whole community

  • This work is meant for unheard residents, not social media combat

2. COUNCIL MEETING ACCESSIBILITY & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Issues identified

  • Difficult meeting audio

  • Poor sightlines and distance from council

  • Question Period occurs after decisions, giving no meaningful input

  • Limited accessibility for working residents

KelIy suggested practical improvements such as improved captions, summaries, and meeting accessibility — but made no structural recommendations regarding democratic participation.

3. VISITOR EXPERIENCE, SIGNAGE & WAYFINDING

Council discussed:

  • maps

  • multilingual options

  • QR codes

  • updated signage

  • potentially adding braille

This section focused heavily on tourism optics, not governance or public-service accessibility.

4. MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE DISCUSSIONS

This is the most important portion of the meeting.
It covers the dyke project, flood mitigation, stormwater, water, sanitary, and long-term system capacity.

A. Dyke Project: Major Costs, Unknowns & Design Issues

Muscle-Wall Temporary Flood System

  • Village plans to use a plastic “muscle wall” barrier for emergency flood protection.

  • Storage costs and logistics were NOT included in project estimates.

  • Deployment requires:

    • filling with water

    • secure storage

    • labour and transport capacity

Impact on Hot Springs Source

  • Sts’ailes emphasized protection of the Hot Springs source.

  • Road-raising design is being shifted away from the springs, increasing cost and complexity.

Road-Raising Consumes ~42% of Budget

Nearly half the dyke project cost is road reconstruction, not flood protection.

Approval Still Pending

  • Province may delay approval.

  • Council asked whether they can buy the muscle wall before approval — engineers said yes, which risks

    premature spending.

B. Crosswalk & Safety Discussion

Council could not agree on:

  • location

  • whether to use a stop sign

  • whether a crosswalk would “mislead” pedestrians

The matter was returned to committees with no decision.

C. Water Master Plan

Identified issues:

  • Several water loops missing; future development needed to complete loops.

  • Fire flow reliability varies across the Village.

  • Some upgrades unfunded.

D. Sanitary Master Plan: The Most Serious Problem

Severe INI (Inflow & Infiltration)

Harrison’s sanitary system is overwhelmed during rain events due to:

  • illegal sump-pump connections

  • downspouts into sanitary

  • trailer parks with groundwater pumping

  • cracked clay pipes

  • unsealed manholes

This artificially inflates sewage volume and strains both lift stations and the treatment plant.

Miami River Drive Sewer Undersized

Despite nothing changing on the surface, the pipe is failing because:

  • the lift station upgrade increased flow into an old pipe

  • INI overloads the system

  • past councils deferred replacement due to cost

DFO Delays

Village cannot divert stormwater properly because of:

  • unapproved storm pipe connections

  • environmental restrictions
    Residents continue to send stormwater into sanitary lines as a result.

E. Stormwater Master Plan

Key findings:

  • Village stormwater flows untreated into the Miami River.

  • Missing bio-swales and modern treatment features.

  • Pump station upgrades required.

  • Past natural drainage corridors (Woodside ditch system) were ignored or lost.

F. Landslide Hazard

A landslide near the Miami River mouth could:

  • block the channel

  • compromise the screw pumps

  • impact flood-outflow capacity

This risk has not been fully assessed.

5. RESERVE LEVELS & FINANCIAL RISK

Current Reserves

  • Water: $1.16M

  • Sewer: $1.22M

  • Wastewater plant: $595k

  • Water DCCs: $1.84M

  • Sewer DCCs: $1.59M

Reality Check

These amounts are nowhere near enough to cover:

  • dyke upgrades

  • major sewer replacement

  • stormwater modernization

  • water looping

  • pump station overhaul

Yet several councillors stated:

“We should be proud; we’re in great financial shape.”

This does not align with engineering evidence.

6. GROWTH CAPACITY MISCOMMUNICATION

Council repeatedly claimed the Village can grow to just under 4,000 residents.

However:

  • staff stated clearly no capacity number can be given

  • wastewater plant assessment is incomplete

  • INI artificially inflates flows

  • stormwater system cannot legally divert water

  • sanitary failures persist in key corridors

The consultant and engineers offered no support for the 4,000 claim.

7. COUNCIL CULTURAL PATTERNS REVEALED

Across the meeting, several themes emerged:

1. Defensiveness toward criticism

Council frequently returned to complaints about social media.

2. Overconfidence in transparency

Despite ongoing issues, several councillors stated the Village is “highly transparent.”

3. Technical misunderstandings

Repeated confusion around:

  • ACC funding rules

  • hydrant standards

  • storm vs sanitary capacity

  • dyke design constraints

  • reserve adequacy

4. Resistance to acknowledging infrastructure deficits

Positive self-talk overshadowed serious engineering findings.

FINAL SUMMARY

This meeting revealed:

Major Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

  • Dyke cost gaps

  • Road-raising overruns

  • INI-driven sanitary failures

  • Undersized sewer on Miami River Drive

  • Missing stormwater treatment

  • Vulnerability of pump system

  • Lost natural drainage corridors

Uncertain Capacity for Growth

No technical basis supports expansion to 4,000 people at this time.

Financial Exposure

Reserves are insufficient for upcoming mandatory projects.

Governance Challenges

  • Public engagement structures remain inaccessible.

  • Council conflates criticism with “lack of belonging.”

  • DEI work risks becoming a communications shield rather than a service-improvement plan.