Get Concerned Perth County

01/11/2026

💦Sebringville Test Well Update and the November 5 Public Meeting: The GOOD news

Most recent photos appear to show that the material applied around the base of the well last month to prevent contamination - as required by regulation, is cracked and disintegrating. Does this provde the seal necessary to protect groundwater from agricultural products and potential contamination in an active agricultural field?

At the September 15, 2026 Perth South Public Meeting, residents expressed concerns about risks to their wells, including the construction of the test well and the potential risks it introduced. The well is owned by the developer/land owner and their team was also present at the meeting.

To protect the groundwater existing Sebringville residents rely on from both private and the Boyce Street municipal well, the request was made for an independent hydrogeological evaluation and to:

1) Isolate the Dundee formation (shallow layer) to protect the integrity of the "layer" the community relies on.

2) Test the water to ensure it is safe to drink.

3) Monitor other wells in the community to understand impacts of the test well on resident wells.

NO ACTION HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED.

❓Has the matter appeared on an agenda since September 15? No.

❓Have residents been notified of any mitigation efforts? No.

❓Does the construction and maintenance of the test well reflect a commitment to protect the interests of current and future residents of Sebringville? No.

Why?

💧The test well effectively connects five water-bearing formations including the shallow Dundee formation relied on by local private wells and the municipal one Private wells are demonstrated to be "hydraulically connected" to the test well meaning the wells draw from the same source, and contaminants in one can impact others.

💧The water quality between formations can differ and the test well allows for all 5 to mix. These findings have not resulted in any mitigation measures to date as far as we are aware.

💧And the presence of the test well in an active corn field with no obvious surface protection is alarming. Pesticides, fertilizers, contaminants may have a pathway to our groundwater source with no back-up plan for the people living there.

There is a plan during the "design phase" to isolate the layers to prevent interference with the layer most people rely on, but the Ministry Hydrogeologists said this is not "field tested" and that claims of no negative impacts are "overreaching."

In the meantime residents risk potential impacts to their source water, and safe drinking water protections won’t be enforceable until it is converted to a municipal well.

💥Can the developer's team claim that the concerns of the May 9, 2026 hydrogeologist memo been resolved? That would require:

🔎Field testing to show whether sealing off the upper water layers works safely, and a camera can't do that.

🔎Running a proper, long-term pump test on the final wells to prove they won't run dry or interfere with the water supply.

🔎Collecting data on how much water can safely be pumped long-term, instead of estimates from modelling.

🔎Directly testing and measuring the impact on existing wells (like the Boyce Street well) rather than relying on math formulas from wells far away.

Have these been done? No, but Perth County Planning and the developer's team are asking Perth County Council to approve the proposal Thursday November 5, 2026 anyway - despite not being able to confirm the proposal is viable and that existing wells won't be impacted - and they will get to the testing later.

The community is, however asking that the questions be answered BEFORE permanent approvals are granted.

👍THE GOOD NEWS:

While pushing technical studies to the detailed design phase under Class EA guidelines may technically be acceptable practice, the Perth County Official Plan's mandatory language ("SHALL") doesn't allow approving subdivisions or land divisions if water supplies and servicing capacity are unproven, premature, or risk impairing existing community wells:

📕Mandatory Servicing Proof Before Approval: Section 4.7.8.1 (C) states that prior to approving development applications, the municipality must confirm the provision of required servicing capacity and ensure that an appropriate servicing agreement is in place.

📘Prohibition on Premature Subdivision Approval: Section 5.2 (B) dictates that proposed plans of subdivision must be reviewed to ensure they are not premature, explicitly instructing that consideration shall be given to the availability and capacity of required servicing.

📗Strict Prohibition if Water Disposal Fails: Section 5.2 (G) states unequivocally: "Where the proposed water supply and sewage disposal are not deemed acceptable, the proposed plan of subdivision SHALL not be approved."

📙Protection of Existing Water Supplies: Section 4.7.8 (E) requires that where new water sources are proposed, the proponent is required to demonstrate that there is sufficient water quality and quantity to serve the development without impairing the supply to any existing development.

What will Perth County Council decide Thursday? Will they grant the approvals requested to advance planning approvals, for a proponent who has left the test well in this state, or will they apply the policies intended to protect from premature approvals?

We encourage you to attend the Public Meeting Thursday morning at 9:00 in Mitchell.

Details here: https://perthcounty.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Id=706

26/10/2026

🚨 IMPORTANT UPDATE 🚨

SUBJECT: FOI Request PS05-2026, The November 5 Public Meeting, & The Disclosure Gap at 123 Station Road

THE TIMELINE OF DISCLOSURE & DELAYS

📆On January 6, 2026, a formal access request under MFIPPA was filed with the Township of Perth South seeking all internal records, technical memoranda, draft reports, agency feedback, and correspondence regarding Phase 3 of the Sebringville Class EA created since February 4, 2025.

📆On February 5, 2026, the 30th day following the request, the Township Clerk issued a 30-day time extension notice.

📆On March 6, 2026, the final day of that extension window, the Township refused access under Section 15(a) of MFIPPA, citing a link to a December 2025 Council meeting portal. This decision did not address unreleased internal working drafts, agency feedback, or circulation notes.

📆 On March 11, 2026, an appeal was submitted to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) pointing out that published council links do not contain the requested internal technical communications or agency reviews.

📆 On May 14, 2026 to the CAO: Given the continuing revisions and outstanding questions surrounding the process, it would also be helpful if the outstanding January FOI requests and related records regarding agency consultation, comments, and process documentation could be completed prior to any future endorsement consideration.

📆 Today we learned, from the IPC mediator, that the Township of Perth South is "reconsidering" their decision and has weeks to decide.

❗THE DISCLOSURE GAP BEFORE NOVEMBER 5

A statutory Perth County Public Meeting under the Planning Act is scheduled for November 5, 2026, where Councillors are asked to grant planning approvals for a massive 265-unit urban-style subdivision in a village designated for "limited growth" despite 31 conditions that include fundamental uncertainties about water and environment.

Under provincial legislation (Bill 185), residents no longer have the right to appeal planning decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). The November 5 meeting represents the public's sole statutory opportunity to comment on the proposal before Council.

However, the Township is not legally required to release the reconsidered FOI records prior to the November 5 meeting. Releasing public records under MFIPPA is a statutory compliance requirement, not an act of municipal discretion or goodwill.

Withholding these internal Class EA technical records through procedural delay past the November 5 meeting leaves both residents and Perth County Councillors without access to material environmental information prior to the local planning vote. Without full disclosure of these records, County decision-makers are being asked to cast a binding vote without the complete technical context.

How is this good governance? And who does it serve?

🔎Fast-tracking planning approvals while slow-walking information that should be publicly available is the clue.🔍

❓QUESTION: Do you think that Township of Perth South should release the information before or after Council votes on November 5?

25/10/2026

Community Update: Fragmented Management, Unchecked Delays

UPDATE: Station Road Reconstruction

The large metal culvert parked on the west side of Station Road was meant to be installed under Flax Mill Road. However, whoever submitted the permit application - B.M. Ross & Associates or the Township of Perth South, apparently left out the Flax Mill culvert in filings sent to regulatory authorities (the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans or Upper Thames River Conservation Authority).

Because of this oversight, the culvert cannot be installed until proper approval is granted, which isn't expected until next year.

Environmental windows for fish spawning restrict work in the water to between July 15 and March 15, pushing installation out further. Meanwhile, sidewalk construction on the west side (from HWY 8 to just before the gravel road at the CNR tracks) is slated for next week. Station Road residents were not informed they would not have access to their driveways for a period of days.

❓How This Impacts Us

🕙Prolonged Disruption: Equipment and staged infrastructure sit unused in our neighborhood for months while piecemeal construction drags out hazards.

💸Financial Escalation: Stopping work, leaving equipment idle, re-submitting regulatory applications, and bringing crews back next season creates avoidable overruns, costs that likely land on taxpayers and residents.

❗The Real Issue: Fragmented Management & No In-House Accountability

This isn't an isolated mistake, but highlights how the Township operates. Perth South outsources virtually all core technical functions, including engineering, to consultants like BM Ross, water operations to OCWA, water financial plans to Watson & Associates, and basic maintenance to contractors.

When contractors and consultants finish their shifts, they pack up and go home. Because the Township lacks in-house engineering staff or internal technical capacity, there is no one on the municipal payroll capable of conducting independent peer reviews, auditing filings, or double-checking third-party claims before mistakes hit the ground.

🧩A Pattern of Dismissed Resident Concerns

We are already seeing the consequences of this model across our community:

💧Unaddressed Test Well Risks: When residents raised concerns regarding test well construction and explicitly requested mitigation measures for local impacts, those requests disappeared. They failed to make subsequent council agendas, no official written responses were provided, and no binding commitments were made. Residents were left to shoulder the environmental and financial risks alone.

⌛Failed Infrastructure Reporting: The Township previously relied on high-level age estimates rather than condition assessments for water assets, resulting in financial plans projecting zero capital needs, right before our municipal well suffered failure with a corroded hole through the casing.

📠The EA & Rubber-Stamping: Under By-law 57-2021, the Township made itself a co-proponent on the developer’s Municipal Class EA. However, the cost-sharing agreement strictly narrows B.M. Ross & Associates' scope to reviewing developer submissions rather than providing broad municipal oversight. Without internal engineering capacity, leadership accepts these narrowly reviewed external reports on faith.

👩‍👩‍👧‍👧Who Lives with the Consequences?

When municipal functions are fragmented and outsourced without internal oversight, consultants get paid, developers move on, and contractors head home. It is the residents who live with the consequences: the unmitigated risks to private wells, the delayed infrastructure, the chaos, and the long-term tax liabilities.

Our community deserves proactive governance, real technical oversight, and leadership that actually follows up on resident concerns, not piecemeal excuses and endless delays. We will keep monitoring the situation and share further updates as information becomes available.

14/10/2026

The Structural Contrast in Rural Infrastructure: Shakespeare vs. Sebringville 💧🏫

The recent grand opening of the new Shakespeare Water Treatment Plant offers an excellent example of how how municipal infrastructure should work. It also provides a stark, informative contrast to the servicing model currently being proposed by Azimuth and Baker Planning Group for the Sebringville development.

When you look past the technical engineering reports, the difference is WHO the infrastructure was built to serve.

🛑 Shakespeare: Built from Day One for the Entire Community

Azimuth and Baker Group compare their proposed servicing to Shakespeare's infrastructure. But their comparison skips the original purpose of the Shakespeare system:

• Shakespeare’s water network was not designed to serve a single development proposal. It was built to service the community.

• Driven by a public health necessity to meet updated provincial guidelines, the Township of Perth East successfully secured federal and provincial taxpayer funding via the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program.

• Because the goal was the greater good of the village, the new plant, its 345 m³ underground reservoir, and its high-lift fire pumps were constructed to elevate the safety and water quality of the entire community. No one was fenced out.

⚠️ Sebringville: An Exclusive Utility

In contrast, the standalone communal well system proposed for the Station Road development in Sebringville flips this:

• The Structural Contrast in Rural Infrastructure: Shakespeare vs. Sebringville 💧

• Despite using Shakespeare as a technical justification, the developers' consultants have engineered the Sebringville system to only serve the new subdivision.

• This system is financed by private corporate capital. Because a developer is only legally responsible for servicing the specific parcels of land they own to make their 265 high-density units viable, the infrastructure stops at their property lines.

The Result: The "Haves" and the "Have-Nots"

This creates a double standard in Perth County:

• The Haves: The new subdivision buyers will have a high-tech communal water network and dedicated fire protection built directly into the cost of their homes.

The political narrative in Shakespeare centers on the idea that every resident in a municipal cluster deserves equal access to advanced arsenic filtration and reliable fire protection, regardless of when their home was built.

• The Have-Nots: Existing Sebringville residents—who have supported the township for decades—are excluded. They are left on their own private bedrock wells and individual septic systems while bearing the unmitigated risks of a massive water project testing and eventually operating right next door.

🚨 By the Way—The Hydrogeological Threat and Council's Silence

The developer's consultants claim that existing wells won’t be impacted. But a Ministry of the Environment (MECP) Regional Hydrogeologist report stated that Azimuth’s conclusions that this well won't negatively impact the town are "overreaching" and based entirely on "assumptions that haven't been supported by field data."

The technical details of what is currently sitting in an active cornfield at 123 Station Road are alarming:

1. The Open Borehole Risk: The 125-metre Test Well (Tag A409581) only has a casing extending down 30 metres. Below that, it is a wide-open hole cutting directly through limestone bedrock.

2. Aquifer Cross-Contamination: The MECP confirms that because of this construction, there is an active underground cross-connection between five distinct water formations (the Dundee, Lucas, Amherstburg, Salina, and Lockport formations).

3. Threat to Existing Wells: The MECP confirms a proven hydraulic connection between this deep test well and the rest of the village's water supply. This open borehole allows deeper layers to bleed into the shallow Dundee formation that nearly every existing home in Sebringville relies on for its drinking water.

Until recently, there wasn’t even a seal to protect the borehole from contamination.

At the standing-room-only Perth South Council Public Meeting on September 15th, residents raised many concerns including some about water- and the memo specifically.

BM Ross claimed the issues in the memo were addressed despite the planning report including conditions about water and completion of the Environmental Assessment.

We asked the Township to isolate the Dundee formation (the shallow formation most private wells draw from), monitor neighbouring private wells, and routinely test our water quality.

It has now been a month and the Township has made no commitment to address these groundwater risks. There is no "Plan B" if local private wells are contaminated by this cross-connected borehole or impacts if the well is converted to serve the proposed development.

The developers are replicating the Shakespeare system that has since been replaced while leaving out the purpose that makes Shakespeare a success. Sebringville's proposed setup suggests that when you let private funding dictate utility design, public safety becomes an exclusive real estate privilege.

If Shakespeare's residents are worth protecting with a state-of-the-art municipal infrastructure package, why are Sebringville’s existing residents left exposed?

📸 The image was taken today. It is the Eybergen drain joining the Black Creek. This is where treated sewage from 265 residences will flow if the proposal is approved. The concerns from 2012 that this is essentially a “dry ditch” without the capacity of the creek to mix and dilute the treated sewage appears to exist still.

How is it acceptable now, and to whom?

19/09/2026

WE ARE STILL WAITING...

Following the September 15, 2026 Perth South Council Public Meeting, Sebringville residents remain without formal commitments or official follow-up regarding groundwater safety requests surrounding the 125-metre test well (Tag A409581) at 123 Station Road.

Below the casing of 30 metres the well is an open borehole in a corn field that until recently, didn't appear to be sealed to prevent contamination.

As of Friday, September 18, 2026, no action or official timeline has been provided by local leadership.

WHY REQUESTS WERE MADE

During planning for the proposed subdivision, hydrogeological evaluations revealed that this test hole connects multiple distinct groundwater layers, creating concerns about cross-connection, aquifer degradation, and interference with local private wells.

At the public meeting, residents submitted formal requests calling for:

💧An independent hydrogeological evaluation.

💧Proper casing to seal off and isolate the shallow Dundee formation where most private wells draw from.

💧Comprehensive baseline testing and ongoing monitoring of neighbouring private wells.

The Mayor said they would try to get to all comments later.

FINDINGS & TIMELINE

🕙The test well was established, in an active agricultural field on the lands proposed for a 265 residential development, in April, 2025.

🕛Five Aquifers Connected: A May 9, 2026 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) memo noted that the test well effectively connects five water-bearing formations including the shallow Dundee formation relied on by local private wells. Private wells are demonstrated to be "hydraulically connected."

🕐Neighbouring Wells: The MECP indicated that claims of no negative impacts are "overreaching."

🕑Council Endorsement: Council received the MECP memo prior to endorsing the Environmental Study Report (ESR) in July 2026. The risks of the test well construction to existing wells was not discussed.

🕒Site Work: Photos show an annular surface seal was placed around the wellhead in September 2026 following resident inquiries to the Ministry under O. Reg. 903.

REGULATORY STANCE VS. TECHNICAL REALITIES

Prior to receiving the before and after photos, the MECP indicated that initial inspection data and sampling showed no immediate compliance violation or heightened contamination risk. That statement made no reference to the timing of the annular surface seal - a mandatory requirement under O. Reg. 903 to prevent surface runoff from entering the borehole.

Deferring testing and isolation of water formations to a future "detailed design phase" leaves long-term groundwater security unaddressed while the test hole remains in place.

✅STEPS FOR LOCAL PRIVATE WELL OWNERS

Most Sebringville residents rely on private wells that draw from the shallow Dundee aquifer. Because the burden of proof is placed on private well owners in cases of suspected well interference, residents can establish baseline protections today:

✔ Establish Baseline Water Testing: Sample tap water for bacterial and chemical parameters to document current pre-development quality.

✔ Verify Well Records: Confirm well construction logs and records are filed in the MECP Well Records Directory under O. Reg. 903 (Wells Regulation).

✔ Report Interference: Report any sudden drop in water level, pressure, or quality directly to the MECP Spills Action Centre and local Council under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

While developers and consultants design projects, ultimate legal and regulatory accountability for protecting public groundwater and local drinking water supplies rests with Perth South Council.

By looking to the developer's team and BM Ross to address these hydrogeological risks rather than requiring independent verification, Council is replacing municipal oversight with applicant. Deferring required testing to future design stages allows the project to move forward while shifting long-term risk and the legal burden of proof onto existing private well owners.

Township of Perth South Township of Perth East Perth County

18/09/2026

🚨 TRAFFIC CONCERNS: Mayor’s Assurances vs. The Official Public Record 🚨

How will traffic from more than 300 homes be accommodated on Station Road with potentially thousands of trips a day? Work, school, shopping, appointments, activities, Amazon deliveries, and school busses in a car-dependent village?

As Perth County Council prepares to vote on the 265-unit Station Road development, residents have raised urgent, common-sense questions about traffic safety on Station Road & Highway 8.

In a recent email response following the September 15, 2026 standing-room-only Perth South Public Meeting where Council approved "in principle" countless zoning amendments to permit a massive proposal that would effectively double the population in Sebringville, Mayor Orr offered assurances that the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Township peer reviewers are satisfied with the 2023 Traffic Impact Study.

It SOUNDS good...

When you compare these verbal assurances to the official public planning record, however, major gaps emerge between procedural paperwork and verified field safety.

🛑 1. MTO is Satisfied vs. The Written MTO Record

🗣️ The Claim: Assurances suggest the MTO has signed off on the current traffic and intersection layout.

📄 The Public Record: The undated MTO correspondence in the official Agency Consultation record explicitly states:

"A resubmission of the TIS is required."

⚠️ The Missing Requirements: The MTO required a formal signal warrant analysis for all stages of development, certified functional engineering designs, and confirmed that no direct construction access will be allowed off Highway 8, forcing all heavy equipment onto Station Road. No dated MTO clearance letter waiving these directives exists in the public file.

📉 2. Traffic Data is Current vs. The 2022 Pandemic Counts

🗣️ The Claim: No additional traffic work is required at this time.

📄 The Public Record: The baseline traffic counts were collected on February 8, 2022 during peak COVID travel restrictions and mid-winter.

⚠️ The Missing Requirements: Under Section 2.1 of the MTO General Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments, baseline traffic counts must represent typical, unsuppressed traffic conditions, and material changes to a site plan require an updated assessment reflective of current conditions. Conditions in 2022 were not "typical" and there have been changes to the site plan too.

As well, there have been hundreds of residential units added to Perth East and West Perth since 2022 that could reasonably impact HWY 8 traffic too.

📄 3. Thoroughly Vetted vs. Peer Review Admissions

🗣️ The Claim: Assurances point to engineering firm B.M. Ross as having fully reviewed and endorsed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS).

📄 The Public Record: At timestamp 1:51:57 of the public meeting transcript, B.M. Ross stated on the record:

"Um, and then on top of that, we took a look at it, but we aren't traffic engineers either."

It was said that other experts reviewed the 2023 report but no peer reports appear to be available in the draft ESR package.

…but not ONE questioned if the one-day pandemic-era data collected represented “typical” conditions?

⚠️ The Planning Fact: Managing an EA process under a cost-sharing agreement is not an independent specialized audit. A high-level document check by non-traffic engineers does not replace an independent, certified traffic engineering review.

🎨 4. The "Painted Turn Lane" Theory

The developer’s study proposes re-striping paint lines on Huron Road to create a left-turn lane onto Station Road.

🛑 The Reality: Paint is cheap, but it is not physical road infrastructure. Squeezing a turn lane out of existing asphalt narrows shoulders and little room for transport trucks and farm equipment that regularly travel through Sebringville on HWY 8.

📐 The Missing Requirements: Conceptual line-painting text in a report is not a civil design. The file lacks actual pavement measurements, topography, and ditch/drainage cross-sections to prove a dedicated lane physically fits safely.

⚖️ THE BOTTOM LINE FOR OCTOBER 1

It is a common misconception that developers are responsible for ensuring long-term community safety. A private developer's job is to meet minimum regulatory thresholds at the lowest cost.

Ensuring public safety is the statutory responsibility of Municipal Council. Under Section 44 of the Municipal Act and Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, municipalities hold the legal duty of care for our roads.

Council cannot outsource that duty to a developer or a peer reviewer.

On October 1, 2026, Perth County Council must defer Draft Plan Approval until the developer provides what the MTO originally requested: a fresh post-pandemic traffic audit and complete, certified functional highway designs.

❓Is a development that conforms to the Perth County Official plan, the PPS, and follows the requirements under the Planning Act and planning policies too much to ask?
Township of Perth South Township of Perth East Municipality of West Perth Perth County

11/09/2026

💥Tuesday, Sept 15th at 6:30 PM.

The Township’s post presents this as a routine council meeting.

▶However, it is important for residents to know that this is ALSO the statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act for the major 265-unit subdivision proposal at 123 Station Road (File No. ZN 3-2023).◀

While the Township technically met its bare-minimum legal requirement by issuing a notice by mail and posting on Station Road- a closed road due to construction- presenting it as a routine council meeting fails to meet with the intent of the Planning Act, which is to encourage robust, transparent community involvement on major local issues.

👀This is a significant and controversial proposal for Sebringville that if approved as is, doubles the population, introduces communal water and wastewater servicing for the development-that remains unproven-exclusive of the community, and is at odds with provincial or Perth County policies for land use and growth.

❓Why this meeting is a critical step:

The Township’s notice contains standard legal language stating that you will "lose your right to appeal" if you do not participate. It is important to clarify that under the province's recent Bill 185, third-party appeal rights for the general public have been eliminated. That OLT appeal warning applies strictly to the applicant (the developer), who retains the right to challenge Council if they do not get their approvals.

Because the community no longer has the option to appeal Council's final zoning decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal, this Tuesday night meeting is the only formal opportunity for residents to voice their positions directly to Council before a vote takes place.

🚨Key issues that remain on the public record include:

❗️Water Resource Safety: A formal Ministry of the Environment memorandum by Regional Hydrogeologist outlines significant data gaps in the project's groundwater assessment.

🚩They said the developer’s claim that this project will not negatively impact existing community wells is "overreaching" and based on "assumptions that haven't been supported by field data".

⚠️And the review warns that the current test well setup creates a potential cross-connection across five distinct underground water formations, risking local water quality.

Mayor Orr and Councillors approved the Environmental Assessment anyway.

❗️Premature Zoning Approvals: The original notice for this project promised an integrated planning approach where environmental data would justify final land-use decisions. By advancing a permanent Zoning By-law Amendment while critical evaluations including long-term aquifer yields and cross-contamination risks are deferred to future, post-approval design phases, Council is locking in high-density development rights before the underlying infrastructure capability is proven.

❗️Impact on Private Wells: Over 90% of Sebringville relies on individual private wells, meaning any long-term impacts on the shared aquifer affect residents across both township borders.

Mayor Orr quoted in Stratford Today June 1, 2025:

“As the Sebringville water and wastewater servicing project progresses through the class environmental assessment process, we wish to reaffirm our dedication to transparency, collaboration, and community well-being,”

Do actions speak louder than words?

⏳Important Deadlines:

The Meeting: Tuesday, September 15th at 6:30 p.m. at the Perth South Council Chambers (3191 Road 122).

🗓The Deadline:

📣To speak at the meeting or ensure your written comments are included in the official council package, you must contact the Municipal Clerk, Lizet Scott ([email protected]), before 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 15th.

Please share this information with your neighbors to ensure the community is fully informed of the meeting's true purpose and the deadlines involved.

A Council Meeting will be held on September 15, 2026 at 6:30pm at the Perth South Municipal Office (3191 Road 122, St. Pauls).

The agenda is available online at: https://perthsouth.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Id=191