presentation answering all the questions. Who knew 10 minutes
would turn into 60? So I apologize for that. No, no, thank you
very much. Thank you so much for your time.
Please pull the vote through the chair. So I have as moved by
Councillor DeBoer and seconded by Councillor early as
displayed. Councillor DeBoer
in favor. Councilor early in favor.
Councilor Kiernan in favor.
Councilor Napoli in favor.
Councilor Rosa in favor. Councilor Russo
in favor. Councilor Sheen in favor.
Mayor Groves in favor. Chair Mascal in
favor. D the chair. The motion carries. Thank you very much. We'll take five
minutes, please.
Hear ye hear.
Yeah,
no, I think
that has slightly different wording for the noise of motion section.
So which one am I using then? If. If this one is okay for you.
Okay. But if not, I snuck some
snuck handwritten note in.
Okay. Okay,
thank you. We're ready to resume now. At this point
I don't believe there are any presentations.
So we're going to go to our
staff reports and I believe we have item 10.1
staff report 2025 0084,
2022 post election report.
Is there any discussion on the report? We have the
clerk here today to answer any questions from council.
Seeing the first questions. Councillor DeBoer,
thanks. The staff report does ask
us to make a recommendation or part of the motion and
I would like to have the motion written
that option three, the status quo with
respect to regional council representation be the
motion put on the floor.
Thank you. Thank you. And councelor
Early. Thank you chair. I'm happy
to second that. And do you want me to make comments
as well or how does this like? Well, we do have the opportunity for
councillors to make comments on the staff report. So I'd
like to make sure we have any comments be hopefully
before we proceed to a vote on a motion. Okay, thank you.
So I'm happy after reading this
and also going through last term of council and
I'll say that last term of council when we did the ward review, it was
on the table for us to vote at large for
regional council and actually it was myself and one other councilor
that did support at large voting.
But when I come into this term of council as the Ward
1, 2, 3 council counselor, I've replaced three
councillors. On the other side we added wards.
So it's a little bit different on the 456 because we added, you know,
Ward 6. It was a new ward. We really had one councillor on
the Bolton side for a very long time. And then we sort
of split 3 and 4. Notwithstanding the bigger piece
for me though, there's 10 associations on the 1, 2, 3 that
if we had a populated area and if we ran it large and
the populated area got two individuals and at this point
we are talking two regional councillors,
you're at risk of losing the rural voice,
you're at risk of losing the association voice.
And quite frankly, when you're running at large as a regional councillor
in the size of this municipality, it's like running like a mayor.
And I'm not confident that that would be the right direction.
I don't know if the regional composition is going to
change. There's certainly rumors, but rumors, you know,
are just rumors. So hard to understand whether that
will change in the near future. But I will tell
you that it's really important from a democratic perspective that all
voices are heard and that you share this position,
how you want to share it, whether you want to do one on the north
side, one on the south side. That's other things that you can decide.
But you need to make sure that everybody is going to be heard from a
democratic perspective. So those are my kind of immediate thoughts and thanks
for letting me ramble on for a little longer than I normally do. Thanks.
No, thank you, Councilor. This is why we're, we're here today. So I'm going to
go next to Councillor Russo and then to Councilor Kieran after
that. Councilor Russo, thank you. Through the chair. Firstly,
I think the report warrants a
fulsome probably perspective
from the, the clerk. I think there's so many variables in there and I think
they did a great job of isolating and going through post
election. And some of the questions I have down the road
will be or when we get to that is some of
the budget implications, some of the staff costing that was associated.
So there are some questions I'd like to go and
kind of dive into as well before getting into
any vote right now. But I guess in terms of
the options, fundamentally I have a different perspective is
truthfully sitting at that table,
we're often tasked with Understanding issues that are in
the other wards and we still have to vote on those issues.
So having a perspective of mayor
and regional councillors all working on the same issue,
you know, very similar to how the local councillor and the
regional councillor, from my perspective, work so that the represent
the citizen or the resident has two actual representatives.
In this case, I feel that you actually have four representatives
working on your behalf. So actually having more
ability and more democratic representation
I feel is warranted. Is the challenges on the
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is that
there's issues in the other wards that we need to always
be included in anyway. So having the
auspice of we're not privy to that is
challenging because when we're voting on whether it
be urbanization in Bolton or aggregates
in Ward 1, we still have to have the same perspective
of Caledon wide and we're not always included in those in
those conversations. And this is a perspective or an
ability to have mayor and regional councillors always
included in those conversations. So I would support
the option one and actually proceeding in that
direction so that we have several individuals
representing the resident themselves so that there's.
And then there'll be a natural ability of
the counselors working in that area that find that,
you know, in this case you're able to be more knowledgeable in
this, you'll take the lead. But we're always having to work with one another on
regional issues and vote on them as well. So I
feel having the at large just gives better representation to
our residents because we only have three people at the region.
So it's very important that the three of us that are there are very
well versed in all Caledon issues.
Thank you, Councillor Russo. I'm going to go now to
Councillor Kiernan.
Thank you. Through you, Chair,
I'm a little at a loss from that last comment because I'm not sure
how running at large gives you an advantage
to be better versed at the regional table. We have
all said around this table that the
councilors in their wards know their wards the best.
And as far as urbanization of Bolton and or
aggregates in Ward 1, I think the staff keep
us up to date from their expert reports.
So I'm wondering how we
would explain how it would play out
if, let's say option
one is chosen and two representatives from East
Caledon or Bolton are chosen, or two representatives
from Northwest Caledon are chosen, how would the people
in Bolton feel? Because I honestly feel that they
would believe that their representation was diluted.
And I would say that the Northwest Caledon would feel the same
way that their representation was diluted. And I don't think we want to do
that. So I would be
very keen on supporting the status quo. There's too many
unknowns here. There is zero benefit to
the community that we work for to go
with option one, in my opinion.
I say that again, I've said it before,
as someone who's lived here her whole life,
that would not go over very well. And my question, I have a question.
Clerk, through you, Chair to the clerk, please.
Is the public going to be offered the opportunity
to have comment on this through
the chair to Councillor Kiernan with respect to whether
an option, a specific option gets selected or with respect
to the staff report. So there
is, yes, it's a little bit of a two parter. So the
first part was, would be that they have the opportunity to speak
to the staff report in response through delegating and
providing written comment. And the second one is if,
let's say option one is to proceed depending on
the will of counsel, there would be not a
legislative requirement, but we would embed
a public open house and we would be
available to do that even though it is not a legislative requirement with
respect to the passing of a bylaw if we are to proceed with an option
one. Okay, thank you. Through you,
Chair. I appreciate that answer, Clerk.
I have had people call me about the report, concerned with
the length of the report. So my question
or my consideration is of all the public
comments that we seek. This is very important.
This is representation. Okay. And I believe
this supersedes many things that we have gone to the public
for. And I would say that it should be
brought forward to the public and their opinions and their comments
sought, not just through delegation, but through a
public process. Because I do believe it would
be a very slippery slope to put a
situation in place that has the potential to
change the balance. Because I think that the residents of Caledon
would be very unhappy with that situation.
And so I will be supporting option three. I think it's
the best, most democratic way to go. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Kiernan. I see Councillor
DeBoer is back on the board, but I'm going to
Skip over Councillor DeBoer for a second and go to Mayor Gross, who we
haven't heard from yet. Thank you,
Chair, and through you, so listening
to the comments and I'm going to respectfully disagree with respect to
if we were to go to option one, that the residents
would not be represented. I think that's
a lot of assumptions that we are making. We have to,
you know, we've got to recognize that when we sit here,
every single one of us that sit here vote on every
issue, whether that's award one or two or three or four or five or six
issue, we all vote on those issues. I think we
all do our homework when we're going to vote. So this way we are.
We're well informed on whatever those issues are in
whichever ward they're in. And I
would only hope that anyone
that puts their names forward to
run for election and to serve the community would also do
the same thing and would be of the same mindset.
I sat here for many years and I'm tired,
very tired of hearing it was always east versus
West. I don't want to hear that because I think
we all live in the town of Caledonia. I think
that we all look at every
issue that comes to the table as issues that are
important to whatever ward it's
dealing with. And so I look at Caledon,
it's Caledon as a whole. We are one community.
So I don't agree with the
statement that any of the areas, whether the rural areas
or the urban areas are going to be. Are not going to be represented
if we go with option one. I also don't recall Councillor
early alluded to that earlier. I don't recall us going through any public
process when it was brought forward
to see, to have that discussion around voting
at large. I know that Orangeville, I believe
Orangeville, they vote at large. City of Vaughan, they're at large.
I think Durham is at large. If I'm. If I'm correct,
I'm not sure about Durham, but I know that Vaughan and Orangeville are at large.
So anyway, those are my comments. And again,
I think that when we sit at this table,
you know, we used to, in our prayers that we used to have the prayer
here, we always talk about parochialism.
And I think it's time that we do away with that and
look at Caledon as a whole and understand that we
have an urban area in Caledon, we have a rural area in Caledon,
and the needs are very different. Thank you.
Through you, thank you very much,
Mayor Groves. And I'm going to go to Councillor Rosa because
he hasn't spoken yet. Thank you. And through you,
Chair, yeah, the mayor addressed some of the things, same things I
was thinking. I've made some notes here. I would hope that anybody
at this stage of Caledon's, when we're looking
at the future of this municipality and what's going to happen here over
the next 10 years. I would hope that if you're putting your name forward for
regional councillor, that you would be prepared to represent Caledon
as a whole, that you understand the needs of the entire
municipality, that you understand that we are,
are a municipality made up of various hamlets,
villages, urban, rural areas. You need to have that understanding
of where we are and where we're going. And you need to represent everybody fairly.
So regardless of where you're living or where you are stationed
in this municipality, I would hope that you would
understand that what the needs are and that you would represent all
of Caledon. Since we've only got three votes,
since we've only got three members, I think a unified approach,
you know, when the mayor goes there, the mayor is representing the entire
municipality. I'm not sure that it's a requirement to
represent a ward at the region. I think we're representing the municipality
at the region. That's at least been my experience in watching
regional meetings and understanding how it functions as an upper
tier government. And I think the unified
approach might be the first step in
eliminating some of the divisiveness that I clearly see and I have experienced
personally and then try to combat myself over the
last six years. We are Caledon. We are not
Bolton and Calvin east and Calvin Village,
and we are one unified municipality. When we're
occupying three chairs at the region, that's. That's just the way
I approach it. And here I feel
the same way when I'm called to vote on something. Here, the majority of
time I'm actually voting on things that are not affecting my
ward personally. And I have to take the time to understand it, to research
it, to read, to understand the reports so that I'm making a
decision in the best interest of everyone.
I was called to do that today. Right. So I
think it's really, really important for us to understand that. I think when we're trying
to make local decisions, I understand the necessity of award
representation. But when we're trying to represent this
municipality at the region appeal, I think that, you know,
a unified approach, where the three individuals
are there to be the voice for Caladan, is really
what I think is where we're heading in the future,
especially with the growth that's anticipated. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Rosa and Councillor Sheen,
you're on the board now to speak for the first time.
Well, thank you, Chair Mescal.
I didn't expect to go next, but if you wish to defer,
I can do that. No, no, it's okay. I can put it together.
There's some very compelling arguments for option one and three.
And I think it was Councillor early that alluded to this conversation
or this issue being discussed last term of council when
they did the ward boundary review. And I just wanted to check back with
the clerk, as I'm sure he looked back at that process. Can you confirm whether
or not this question was discussed and analyzed and
debated? I suppose in the last term of council when the ward boundary
review was done, as I rec call, it, was a pretty extensive process that involves
some public consultation through
the chair to Councillor Sheen,
there was public consultation on the word boundary review there.
It was very extensive. The primary focus of that
discussion and that question to be answered was
focused on the specific word boundary, drawing of the lines
and the addition of award and proper representation amongst
the wards. Right. As outlined in the report,
it didn't appear as though this was largely
or broadly discussed or debated upon and served
as a basis for the rationale to discuss it now. Right.
So would it be fair to say that it wasn't largely
discussed or dwelled upon because there was
an assumption that there would be a regional councilor coming from Wards
123 and Wards 456. Is that
when you look back at how the ward boundary review was done, was it there
an assumption made that that's just how we were going to do versus a
regional councilor at large through
the chair to Councillor Sheen?
I don't necessarily wouldn't call it an assumption.
It just wasn't the focal point.
And that
basis for not having it as a focal point or
being overshadowed. Excuse me,
overshadowed by the larger,
broader, more intensive review of the word boundaries
would be why we should
kind of. This would be a bit of a concluding exercise to that word
boundary review to finally square off
and conclude this lasting aspect of
it. Okay, so my understanding is that the ward
boundary review received a lot of attention and participation from the public.
I found online that there were like over 3,000
unique visitors to the ward boundary review website and
there were lots of people participating in a couple of surveys.
Anyway, the town went to great lengths to get some feedback from the community
about how they wanted to be represented. And I think it was Councillor
Kiernan that made the point that this gets at the heart of representation
in our democracy. And I
don't think we've asked the public how they want to be represented on this issue.
And I think unless that's not fair to say.
Mr. Klingenberg, do you disagree?
Through the chair to Councillor Sheen I don't disagree that
the public has an opportunity to
or has yet for a fulsome opportunity to discuss and debate on this
matter. As outlined in
response to an earlier question, there is the opportunity for open
house if option one is selected and public
meetings to hear that that public perspective.
This current recommendation is to proceed with option
one. It's not to pass the bylaw, so there
would be that second. So let's say you get
an open house, public sway
council or influence counsel in their decision making,
then that would be reflected on the vote on the pilot
itself. Yeah. So I would advocate
for us receiving some public feedback.
I appreciate Councillor Rosa's opinions, everyone's opinions. Everyone's made
a very compelling argument for both options
we're discussing 1 and 3. I would just like some input from the public.
I'm not sure how we get there, but I'll leave it to my colleagues to
continue the discussion. Thank you. Thank you,
Councillor Sheen. And I'm going to weigh in for a moment and then
go back to the board for people who have a second opportunity to speak
to this. And I do concur with Councillor
Sheen and I just want to clarify with the clerk what the process
for public input would be regarding this. Because if we
do, it seems if we proceed with
option one today, that there would be an opportunity for
there to be some sort of public engagement
and then a bylaw would come back to this
council which would be voted on at that time
regarding that specific change to the
representation. Can I just get that clarified from the clerk
through the chair? Yes, that's correct. What your statement is,
there is that opportunity, if option one is selected today and
approved at March 25th council, then there
would be that open house or a public meeting opportunity.
It is not legislatively required. If option two were selected,
it would be legislatively required by the region to do it.
Option one does not have that. But we can go
above and beyond the legislative requirements to do the open house.
Just to clarify then. So is that something we can make
sure happens some sort of way that
is written in there that so it doesn't end up sort of
getting omitted somehow
that we were committing to that
public consultation piece through
the chair? Yes. Council can direct staff to an
open house as well. If option one is selected and
that open house, would we also be able to recommend that
something go through have
youe say Caladan. So there's a public commenting
piece there also through
the chair? Yes, that can be included, but that also
would be something that we would include as an implementation Component
that's definitely staff would do anyways. Okay, so this is a significant
change that we're. We're contemplating here. And I would feel
very, very uncomfortable making
a decision on this without specific public
consultation, because from what Councillor Sheen says,
when the, when we were. The previous council was
considering the changes to the ward boundaries and the ward review system,
there was apparently considerable civic
engagement in that process. And I think if we're going to be making decisions
about how people are represented and how people are governed, I think
that people should have the opportunity to express their opinions on this.
And we need to be taking that into account because, you know,
in the end, we are public servants, we serve the
public, and I really think we need to get a sense of what that is.
And also the fact is that, you know, we just went through a
ward boundary review where we ended up with six wards with
new boundaries drawn and then we ended up with a new
system in terms of. For regional councillors because they lost a regional
councilor at the region and had to redraw
and figure out how region would work. So, you know, we've only
really had one turn through this process. So.
And one of the things, even when we said, when we were debating whether or
not we were going to hire a consultant to look
at the ward boundaries coming up, we as a council
deferred. That said, we don't need this because the system's
still so new, we're still working our way through it. So from
my perspective, I really think if we do proceed with option
one, that we have,
that guarantees in there that we're getting public consultation and that
we're coming back as a council to vote on that before we
ever proceed any further with it. So I'm going
to leave it there and I'll let some other speakers come back on the board
now in the order in which they appear. Councillor DeBoer, your second
time to speak on the issue.
Thanks. Yeah, My first speak was to put
option three on the table. The reason I support option
three is primarily a lot of the comments here are.
Are interesting to say the least. Most of them focus around how,
once the individual is elected, how they should be acting, whether they're
representing all of Caledon or a specific board. The reality is,
as the mayor correctly pointed out, all six of us make decisions
based on all of Caledon. The mayor
and the two regional councillors make decisions at the region for all of
Caledon. What this is being asked is how
do the residents choose who they want to represent them
and what's going to happen. And you can use Orangeville and Orangeville votes at large,
but Orangeville is a community that's all urban,
so you can vote somebody that's at large because they're
representing a largely urban area. What's going to happen,
and we did have some preliminary discussions when we looked at the boundary review,
is that if we had a at large
system, the candidates will concentrate where
the votes are, because all you need is a number and be the
top numbers and have the numbers to be, because it starts
at who gets the most votes and then it's the second, third,
fourth, fifth. You're never going to get a candidate to
enter into the villages, you're never going to get a candidate to go to the
rural areas. The reality is the candidates will concentrate where
the numbers are. And what's going to happen is that rural Caledon
won't have the exposure to the candidates when it comes time to vote,
because the concentration of the activity will always be where the urban areas.
When we've got a community like this, and this comes for me,
comes as part of the same conversation we had with the previous
delegation, is that we've got a community that's urban and
we've got a community that's rural and they're very different.
And what we've got to do is come up with a hybrid plan and a
plan that will ensure that representation of both
the urban area and the rural area is well represented. And to turn
around and vote for your candidates,
regardless of whether they're local or regional at large will take
away the opportunity for the rural people and the rural
residents and the village residents to participate in
the process is where the concern was when we talked about it
before, and I still hold by that.
That same concern is, is that the candidates
and all the points made, that when the candidates do arrive there,
you do represent. And as the mayor says, you've got to do your homework and
you've got to do the homework in the other wards. You've got
to make a decision on air on other areas of Caledon,
even if it's not your ward. But what the question we're asking here is how
do the residents pick who they want to represent?
And as far as I'm concerned, the best way is the current way that we're
doing it and that the individuals would represent
the three wards. Essentially, Airport Road is
the boundary, so you have one on the east and one on the west.
But I've never been a proponent of like.
Once again, the mayor made the comment of east and west as Being against each
other, Bolton being against the rest of Caledon. I've never
been a proponent of any of that. And that isn't the reason why we're.
Why I would say east and west. It's just three wards.
One, two, three. And all of the wards that the combination
is that some wards, some regional councilors have urban areas,
but there's regional councillors that would have both urban and
rural. When you look at the makeup of the actual wards,
we do have three, four wards that
will eventually largely be urban and we do have two wards
that will be largely urban. Rural and villages is
the way that it's set up. But to make sure that the representation
is across the board is that the regional councillors will have
both rural represent rural wards and urban wards on
both sides. And that's how we came to the conclusion. So,
you know, I'm still. I still think that
the current system, the way we have, you know,
we've gone through one election. I still think it's the best way
to get representation and ensure that every resident in Caledon feels
that they're being represented and participating evenly within the
current regional structure as well as the current Caledon structure.
So thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor DeBoer. And then I'm going to go
to Councilor early and then to Councillor Kew Kieran. Councilor early,
thank you. Thank you. Through Chair. First of all, it's really important,
if anybody is listening from the public, that every Mississauga
councilor on the region table has a ward. Every Brampton councilor
on the region table has a ward. It's not that we go to the region
table and we sit there and we talk about ward specific items.
It's a rare occasion, there is the odd occasion where somebody's advocating
for something in their ward, a motion is put on the floor or something from
a region perspective attacks a certain ward in Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon.
But it's not the norm. You go to the region, you go to the region
to do your job, whether based on water, waste,
roads. I know that's all changing. Social services,
you then have another job and the other job is back in your municipality.
For Mississauga and Brampton, that's their big job. It's their huge job. That's what they
get paid a ton of bucks for. Here. It's a little bit different,
right? We did a ward boundary. We're growing. We've got
six wards, we've got two regional councillors. We're a bit more split. Our job
became bigger this term. Because we had to take on all the extra wards.
But when you're back in this municipality, you're working on your
ward areas on their issues, you're going to your association meetings or
you're going to BIA in Bolton or you're going to some of the specific items
and to muddy the water is to say in Alton, well,
two regional councillors are going to come and a ward councillor is going to come
to the association. Just makes no sense. You are here working on specific
ward issues with the ward councillor and it works well.
It works very, very well. You know, for me I've got three and
obviously in some cases they don't all work the same, but it works
pretty good. And you're there as an assist for the minute for the ward councilor
in the area and you're there to help, but you're not. No one
should be saying that we're going with not going as
a unity to regional councillor because council, because we are.
And when the roads get downloaded or if they do, when this new bill comes
and if waste is coming and all that stuff's coming, I hope we're all fighting
for Caladan. But it's got nothing to do with wards,
it's got everything to do. And I will say that if the waste ever got
downloaded, someone better understand what kind of waste requirements are needed
in rural Caledon and I mean waste buckets at a community center, et cetera,
et cetera. So this has got nothing to do with going unified
or east or west or. And that's truthfully I'm quite
shocked that's even being spoke about tonight. So I'm going
to support Ward 3 and if it gets defeated.
Gets defeated. Thank you to Councillor Chair Mescal
for wanting to engage the public because I think we're going to need to engage
the public on this. But let's not get this mistaken. We have two jobs
here, one at the region table and one at at the council table and at
the council table that's working with your ward representatives and the
residents in each specific ward on their issues. Thank you.
Thank you Councelor early and thank you for your words of support. I do appreciate
that Councelor Kieran.
Thank you through you Chair Mel. So I
appreciate the opportunity to speak again and I think I started this with inquiring
about where was the public going to be engaged and
a few things. I think Councillor DeBoer said it so well.
We have spoken about through our discussions
regarding our official plan and committed to the fact that
we do have different Areas in Caledon that we are
committed to support, including our historic hamlets
and villages. And they have a different need. And Councillor
DeBoer is right. An at large candidate is
going to be focused on the concentration of doors to knock on.
And that's just logically not going to include the
side roads and lines and the great distances.
That's human nature. Having said that, my question
through you, Chair, again, to the clerk, please.
I think there seems to be a consensus here on
the table that, that the public need
to be engaged. I mean, the public were engaged in our word boundary review.
I am, you know, I am
very interested in seeing that happen. To the clerk, please.
Why would we not consider a deferral until we can have
the open house and the public
engagement on. Have your say Caledon and then bring
this back? We should not be making a decision today without
seeing what the. What the community says. I think this is premature.
I'd like to hear the clerk's answer for that, if that's okay.
Please, through the
chair to Councillor Kieran. Thank you for the question. So if
option three is passed, there will be no need for public consultation with the
status quo. So if option one is
selected, it's just to proceed with
that public consultation component included of it on it. That will provide the
opportunity and there will
be a subsequent vote on the bylaw when it comes forward to council.
So there will be that
public consultation component, assuming that there would be also
that requirement built into the motion for option one, and that
would allow for the public discussion to occur.
Option three, if passed, there would not be any public consultation.
Thank you. Thank you through you, Chair, and thank you for that.
So, one final question to the clerk, please. So what
would the timeline be between that? Will that give you enough
time to engage and get that set up?
I think that's an important component here because I can't
be at the end of March, Mr. Klingenberg, that's not
going to be enough time. You've got March break coming up and families
busy, you know, planning things. So what would that look
like, please, through the chair. Option one
would not bring forward the bylaw in March. I'd recommend
by the summer. So June.
I really appreciate that answer. And one
more, please. I'm sorry. And thank you, Chair. I just want to say I concur
with what the mayor said about this east west
thing that has been discussed many times. I concur with what she has said
and I believe that everyone on council does
not feel that way. But I think the important thing to consider is
that the community feels that way. And until the community
no longer feels that way, then we have
some work to do. And I don't want to foster that
narrative in the community in any way, shape or
form. And my concern is that this has the potential
to do so. So thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Councillor Kiernan. I'm going to go one more time to
Councillor Russo and then I have some instructions.
Thank you. Through you, Chair. Yeah, so listen to
some of the comments. I'm a
little confused in terms of the train of thought is truthfully,
as it stands right now, if someone was of
the mindset that they wanted to focus on the urban and not
the rural, unfortunately they can do that. As it stands,
if I as Ward 4, 5 and 6 representative
did not take the time to focus on my word,
4 in terms of numeric is 5
and 6 would have the greater amount, no different than 1,
2 and 3. If you focused on only 2 and 3, you'd be
doing exactly that. The risk of someone not focusing on
the rural exists there anyway. However you
I, all of us when we're there and door knocking and trying
to, you know, is we are now as the regional
councilor, still tasked with rural
representation and urban representation.
The thing that I see here is all it would be is at
large encompasses or requires that the regional
councilor now just has a greater role in terms
of representing the entire town. Like the mayor.
The mayor, when they go to the doors, they're going to every
single door. Whether they live in Bolton or whether they live in
Terracotta or wherever they live, they represent
all Caledon. You're tasked to make the
voter feel like you're going to be their voice. And that's our
job, regardless. The way
I look at this is how I work with
my local councilor in Ward 5 or 6 or 4
is they focus on a day to day basis on the local issues.
But that doesn't negate that if a local issue comes to me that I
just pawn it off on my local counselor, I will still deal with it.
We deal with it collectively. So you have two
representatives dealing with this when you have
an issue along with the mayor. So fundamentally three,
I feel this would just give the resident four representatives
because having someone on your side that
understands the issues at large is
a fundamental plus. I pride myself,
and I think all of us do that. We actually, regardless of
If I represent 4 or 5 and 6, if there's an issue in Ward
1, 2 or 3 and I'm able to attend, I'M happy to attend.
And I feel like because when. When I wear this pin
that says Caledon. I'm a Caledon councillor. I may
represent 4, 5 and 6, but if an issue
comes before us, we're here to vote on it
overall. So how it changes the dynamic.
I feel that history teaches us something and why
some of the. The municipalities around us
have. Have the at large system is we were forced
to go into this and we only have one term
of knowledge base right now, two and a half years technically.
And we're learning as we go along. I feel that's what's super
important. Why we didn't have a full ward
review at this time is. It would be premature for that. We haven't given
it enough time. We haven't gone through the influx
of residents at this point in time to justify changing the wards.
But as we progress, there's a maturity that's going to have
to occur is the local councilors. In my mind,
this whole conversation of part time is going
to have to be gone in a few years from now.
But perhaps now is still not the time. The at
large is. I see it as a stepping stone of saying, okay,
we are different than Mississauga and Brampton and we will remain to
be different. How do only three
representatives do the best job possible for
the residents of Caledon? And I feel having us understand
every single issue thoroughly is only a benefit to the residents
of Caledon and say, hey, I don't only have one
regional counselor. I have two regional counselors I can go to. And if this one
is busy dealing with an item, I can go to the other. It happens
intrinsically now anyway. There's times that people don't even
understand their own wards and say,
hey, can you help me here? I'll say your regional
counselor is councilor early or whatever, but happy to help at this
point in time speak to staff about this or that. So we're doing it on
a daily basis, but it just creates a. There is
no, There is no boundary. You are representing
Kaladin. If you are a regional counselor or the mayor, it just gives
you more representation to the actual residents. So how I see.
I don't see that as a negative. I see it as a positive. The public
component is something that happy to include that
in the actual motion itself. And I feel that that can
actually be parlayed to actually lead us into the further
conversations of, hey, we made a decision not to
actually have a board award boundary review. What do you feel about
this? We can have further dialogues and reading the report,
there's an obligation to work with the region here anyway, so we're
going to have to have a lot of dialogue. This just gives the
resident an understanding of what their representatives are leaning
towards and why. Happy to have those
conversations with our residents. I think it's super important because if
at the end of this dialogue, the residents feel that it's
premature, then, hey, we will listen to our residents.
But if the outcome is that, you know what, that makes sense.
So why wouldn't we initiate the process as
opposed to status quo and not changing anything?
Thank you, Councillor Russo and Councillor Sheen.
You have your second opportunity to speak.
Thank you, Chair Maskell. Again, you know, people are making
some very convincing arguments for both sides of this conversation.
So going back to my original
concern, which really echoes Councillor Kiernan's concern,
I feel like this is something that is really kind of an
effort to tweak the results of our ward boundary
review in the last term of council. This is kind of sort
of a mini version of that. And I would like to propose
a referral motion where we don't.
That results in us not voting on these three options today,
refers it back to staff to conduct that consultation with
the community. It doesn't have to be long or extensive, but it
has to be extensive enough that
we get a good read from the residents on how
they want to be represented. I think a lot of good arguments have been made
here today, but I think probably
the way there are some firmly held feelings about it here,
probably there are some firmly held feelings about it in the public,
and I think we should tap. Tap into that public sentiment
and get a read on it before we're forced into making a decision here today.
So I'd like to refer it back to staff and give
them as much time as they need, a couple of months, probably,
to conduct that kind of consultation.
Thank you, Councillor Sheen. So we have
a motion on the floor and now we have a motion to refer.
So I'm going to defer to the deputy clerk
to. As to how to proceed,
not to speak on. On behalf of the municipal clerk. But I. I might
just ask Councillor Sheen for a point of clarification. If you're
move. If you're moving the motion as a whole or in part,
if you move the clause that pertains to
the option that's being sought from council today, if you
refer that back to staff as a.
If you split the question to refer just that portion back to staff,
it would allow staff to continue with the accessibility Advisory
Committee consultation that had been noted in the other clauses
of the staff report recommendation.
So what we're looking for, Councillor Sheena, is a split vote then on that.
So we don't want. We want to be able to proceed with the other pieces.
That makes total, total sense. I don't want to come up the works. I just
want to consult with the public. Thank you.
Yeah. Do we have someone
who would second Counselor Sheen's referral?
Councilor Early Councilor
Sheen, Would there be any timing on the referral? I would leave it
to the. I mean, I know the clerks are busy, they've got a lot
on their plate at any given time, but my sense
would be a couple of months. But I'd rely on the clerk to give us
his advice. Mr. Klingenberg,
through the chair. A couple months would be
required. If I can,
if I may. The referral to do public consultation
could also be alternatively done through selection of option one
and to add that council direct staff to,
as a component of that, complete public consultations
for that matter. And then the
bylaw could not be delayed as long and
it could still go forward in June. So my.
If public consultation is sought, then option
one would be the approach to take. If I may advise
council and then whether or not
to proceed with option one would be to vote
on the bylaw when it comes back after the public consultation is done.
So it would allow for a bylaw to come forward for a
council vote based off of the public consultation.
Thank. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to.
I kind of. I heard you say that a couple of times that if we
voted on option one, there would still be an opportunity
for public consultation. But I made my referral motion knowing
that anyway, because I think feel like it would help us all not
to tip our hand about how we each feel on this issue and
not provide a. Even a slightly biased view of where we
want to go with it and put it in the public realm. Let them provide
their input and then we'll make our decision when the time comes.
Thank you, Councillor Sheen. Councillor Deber, are you speaking to the referral?
Yeah, and I think.
I'm not sure what where the comment was that Councillor Sheen
had made, but I think that the council,
that the residents should be allowed to decide if we're
going, rather than going into having to support option one
and presenting that to the community. Allow the community to decide between 1,
2 or 3, then allow the community to make the decision that if
they want to stake with the status quo, rather than making a decision and saying
this is what we're doing and we're going to have a public meeting based on
this. If I'm understanding the clerk
correctly, I really think that, you know, we just defer
this whole option to a public meeting and to a public process.
Thank you. Councillor Boer, are there any other speakers to the referral?
Seeing none, I guess, Kurt, we would call the vote.
So through the chair, just to confirm,
I have a referral motion which we have a
draft of to be displayed, and it
would provide that the first clause as outlined
in the staff report and completed by council to reference option
three regarding the status quo, that that
selection be referred to consideration at a future meeting
and accompanied with some public engagement.
I think we've got some draft language coming up there.
I have it moved by Councelor Sheen and seconded by Councelor Early.
It's so
through the chair, this was the clause that will be referred.
I thought. I don't think this captures what we're looking for here.
From my feeling, I think we want to. My feeling
as the chair and hearing everyone speak today, that we don't
want to necessarily proceed with any option at this
point. If Councillor Sheen said tipping your hand one way or the
other, I think we want to make sure that we're putting it out that
all options are on the table. We want to hear from the public, and then
we're coming back to make a decision after that. So I don't really think
that captures what I think Councillor Sheen, you were saying, nor what
I heard from many people here today, too.
So through the chair, this represents
what was initially moved and seconded by Councilor Deborah in
Early when it was first tabled by the committee.
The language that Zach has drafted there provides
a little bit more for the discussion that's developed over
the course of the meeting to provide that staff
report back following some consultation and important. But.
So there's a little bit of a disconnect there between
what was initially tabled versus what is being referred and
sought back for some further work
by staff. So do we need to take that motion that was tabled off
the floor then? So the referral
takes precedence, but we've worked some language
into the referral to recognize counsel's
direction on the matter. Okay, Councillor Russo,
through the chair. I don't want to put words in to Councillor
Early's mouth, but I think what was being asked is,
can we get clause one put on the actual screen so
that. Because we're speaking to clause one in
of what we're referring. So let's be very clear on what clause one is.
So we're recognizing what's being referred.
So, Zach, they are looking for
clause one instead of the clause three that was,
that is incorporated to the motion there. I don't know if you might still have
that language.
I don't think that either, either option
should be identified. I think you can identify, you can ask for clarification
on what option one was. But I think the intent is to
refer the motion with no option.
Is the intent test all of a sudden turn an option into
the motion is the same thing as turning
option three in as part of the motion, then referring that back. I think
the intent was the motion that you had there without referring to
any of the three options, which is all I would support. If we're going to
identify an option that we're going to present to the, to the residents of
Caledon, that isn't the intent and that isn't anything that
I would support. Deputy Clerk, clarity through
the chair.
Option one provides that the town of Caledon exercises its
authority under the Regional municipality appeal Act 2005
to change the method of electing its regional council representatives
from voting based on ward to voting at large. Council is
correct that that's not explicitly provided for in the referral.
I want to reassure council that I think staff has
understood the direction here today to take
back the question as a whole about the method of
election with regard to the regional councils, not necessarily with
a specific recommendation in mind. I think that direction
has been well established through the
discussion here today. We are discussing
the referral a little bit more than the procedural bylaw might
like us to at this point point. But I
think that the referral C
captures that intention that has been expressed by council
for, for a future staff report and to
provide for some opportunities for that public engagement.
I would defer to the chair. I think that there's an additional question from
Councilor Sheen. Counselor Sheen,
thank you. I, I, I, I just wanted to
confirm that Councillor Maskell summarized what I was trying to do and Councillor
DeBoer also summarized what I was trying to do, which was refer the
whole question back to staff with the exception of
the proceeding with the consultation about
accessibility. But I realized the confusion now
that the Deputy Clerk has been explaining because there's already a motion
on the floor. Now, I understand what the problem is, but my intention was
to refer the entire staff report with respect to
having choices there and not tip our hands about what our preferences are.
So however we get to that, I don't know what you do with the Motion
that's on the floor, but I'm trying to refer this whole
question without tipping our hand. Thank you.
Okay, so I think if I proceeding
we need to vote on the motion and get
that cleared off the table and then we can. Then we can deal with the
referral. Is that correct? The referral
takes precedent through the chair. If, if we would
like to take a recess and staff can have further consultation
and refine the wording with the mover and seconder to make sure that we're all
on the same page, we would be very happy to do so. Perfect. Sure.
Let's take five. Chair. Chair. Can I speak first? My hand has
been up. Please. Councillor Kieran,
thank you very much. And through you. So I think this is getting
pretty convoluted and I
think Councillor Sheen said it right, as did you, chair,
that the intent is to have
everything referred back paused until we can
engage with the community. And I think we're getting
down a rabbit hole and it's getting convoluted.
But I have to agree with Councillor DeBoer, you, Chair and Councillor
Sheen. The intent is to not bring an
option forward, not do this, to refer the entire.
The entire report regardless of that option.
Require the public. Well, maybe it does. Maybe the public wants to
comment on option three as well, sir. So I really
do think that this is getting convoluted potentially
unnecessarily. And I think to simplify it, as councelor
Sheen had said, it's the entire report that we want
referred back. Thank you. Thank you,
Councilor Kieran. Mr. Klingberg, you have a comment through
the chair to committee. Yes. So I just wanted
to provide a little bit of perspective. I believe what
the intent here is is to refer the first clause
to determine which option 1, 2 or 3.
So I would suggest some
the referral language to reflect it being the first clause
without referencing a specific option.
And also for consideration if a
referral does carry, I would request a
shorter turnaround because this there is option to still at
play and options two will require some time and
it has to get done by the end of the year before the
election year. And there would be the regents requirement
to also do a public
meeting at their composition if
option two is selected. And that would be what the public input does.
So we would need if we are going to refer this entire clause
back for public for a public meeting,
it would require a shorter turnaround and I would request May the
6th General Committee for that report back. Thank you.
Thank you. Clerk Klingenberg for the Clarification So,
seeing no speakers now,
do you want to take five minutes to get this all figured out
and then we'll come back and. Yes, proceed. That would be great. Perfect.
Thank you very much. We'll take five.
Okay, let's. Let's try to get back at this and
maybe we can. We can move this out of the way by
5:00. All right, so let's
start to proceed here. So, Deputy Clerk, you want to give us some advice
as to how we're going to proceed here? Absolutely. Thank you. Through you, Mr.
Chair, if Council would permit me the opportunity,
what we have prepared in front of you today and displayed on screen
is the initial staff report recommendation
with the clause in question. And I
think there was some confusion there with regard to a reference to an option
versus a clause. I'm referring to that first paragraph highlighted
in yellow there as a clause. It's my understanding that
following the staff report recommendation being tabled by
councillors DeBoer and Early, that there was
a request from Councillors Sheen and
Early to refer the portion of the
staff report with respect to the regional councilor
composition to a future meeting following public engagement.
So if we can scroll down a little bit, Zach,
we have before you what we understand that proposed partial
referral language to be that that first clause of
the staff report recommendation be referred back to staff to prepare
an additional report following that public consultation and engagement
process. And so we differentiate that language
there without an option indicated, as was kept council's
preference through the discussion here today.
And it provides a May 6,
2025 return report, which I believe
was to the satisfaction of the clerk.
And so then what we also have before you proposed
is the balance of that staff report recommendation
as initially moved and seconded by councillors
DeBoer and Early, which provides that staff are able
to proceed with the consultation to the
Accessibility Advisory Committee and the
additional consultation pieces noted within the staff recommendation of
the report. It is my understanding that this
captures the direction and discussion from Council
here today, but I would be happy to answer any question, questions of clarification,
if I can, about where we might have
missed an element. Thank you,
Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. Thank you. A lot of
work there. So thank you very much. And so
I guess the first thing we would do is proceed with the vote on the
partial referral. Okay,
so I guess we would. At this point, we would need to be calling the
vote on the partial Referral, please.
Councillor DeBoer in favor.
Councilor early in favor.
Councilor Kiernan in favor.
Councilor Napoli Opposed.
Councilor Rosa? Opposed.
Councilor Russo? Opposed.
Councilor Sheen? In favor. Mayor Groves?
Opposed. Chair Mascel?
In favor.
Through the chair. The motion carries.
And so if it please the chair, we can move to
the balance of that staff report recommendation. Okay, moving to
vote on the balance of the staff report recommendation.
Councillor DeBoer? In favor.
Councilor Early? In favor.
Councilor Kiernan? In favor.
Councilor Napoli? In favor.
Councilor Rosa? In favor.
Councilor Russo? In favor.
Councilor Sheen? In favor. Mayor Groves?
In favor. Chair Mascal? In favor. Through the chair.
The motion carries.
Okay, so we all finished with that? Okay, great. Thank you very much.
I guess the next item would be item 10.3,
staff report 2025 0108,
Palgrave Tennis Club, State of good repair.
And I did hold this motion,
sorry, staff report, not necessarily
regarding the contents of this, of the staff report itself,
but what I really wanted to do was follow up on discussions that
were had by this council during our budget deliberations
regarding the stewardship agreements with
the tennis clubs in the town of Caledon.
And I brought that up during the budget talks where we were trying
to figure out how we could get better town
access, public access to the courts. I understand that there's very
limited access, and we've been engaged in numerous repairs over the
years where we provided up to 50% of the funding for
repairs to these courts, but we don't have adequate
public access. So I'm really just wondering if there's been any, Any follow
up to that discussion that was held in December and
where we're at with that and when we can expect something coming forward. I'm sure,
Mr. Ahoy, if you're able to. To deal with that at this time, but I
just want to make sure was on the record this evening, that we need to
make some progress with that. Thank you to you,
Chair. Yeah, so staff have initiated
discussions internally. I think I'm meeting on Friday with recreation
staff who lead that process to discuss our approach to how
we will move forward with these service or stewardship agreements with tennis
clubs. Okay, so that's coming up to this Friday.
Internally, staff will be discussing how we're going to move forward in discussing
with the tennis clubs, their stewardship agreements. Okay. Do you think was that something
that would come back to this council in the form of some
sort of a memorandum? Because it was part of our discussions here
at budget time, and I know a number of councilors were very interested in seeing
where those discussions would go.
You. Chair? Yeah, I. I believe through those discussions,
we will Come up with proposals of how we want to move forward. And I
think that would be better if we. We had council support for how we would
move forward with that. Okay. To the. So will that be in the form of
a staff report or memorandum, do you think?
I would probably choose a. A staff report. So at least it has some recommendation
and some teeth behind it, as opposed to a memorandum. Okay.
Councelor. Oh, sorry, is that. Who's that?
No, that's. That's that Jason there. Mr.
Shield Roth, you have your hand up? Yes,
through the chair. I just wanted to reiterate what Mr.
Hoy was suggesting. So we are in the process, as well as working on a
council workshop to discuss tenants agreements, options and some deeper
information for council. So we are looking at a date in either April or May
for that as part of the follow up. Perfect. Thank you very much,
Mr. Child. Roth. Much appreciated. Councillor Russo, you're on the board.
Thank you. Through you, Chair, happy to move the report as you indicated.
I think the report itself is very supportable.
I appreciate you bringing up the stewardship agreements. I think it's something
that every hamlet is dealing with.
So I appreciate staff's actually taking the bull by the
horns and figuring that out quickly so that we can
get something decided on. Because I think the lack
of clarity breeds problems for both the
public and members of the actual tennis clubs themselves, which a lot
of people there are volunteers and they're doing great work.
But the ambiguity creates confusion.
So I appreciate this being a priority. So thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Russo,
seeing no other questions or comments from
council, I guess we at this point, we can
proceed with the vote. Do we have a
seconder who's moved it?
Move. Councillor Russo.
Councillor deboer. Thank you.
Moved by councillor Russo and seconded by Councilor DeBoer.
And will I have the motion display. Slade.
Councilor DeBoer in favor.
Councilor Early. In favor. Councilor Kiernan.
In favor. Councilor Napoli.
In favor. Councilor Rosa. In favor.
Councilor Russo in favor. Councilor Sheen.
In favor. Mayor Gross. Yes.
Chair Mascal. Chair in favor. Through the chair. The motion carries.
Next on the agenda is notices of.
Oh, sorry, note. The Canadian
suppliers. That was held on consent. Right. So we're good. Okay. So the next
would be notice of motion. There have not been any notices of motion received
for today's meeting. If any notices of motion are received,
they will be Presented at the March 2020. 25th,
2025 Town Council Meeting. Are there any notices
of motion to be presented at today's meeting?
Seeing none, we'll move on correspondence.
We will now move on to correspondence. Are there any
comments or items that require action in the correspondence?
Package for memorandums 24.
Statement of remuneration expenses 2025
Roma conference summary. Purchasing biannual
report for July 2024. December 2024.
I was on. Oh, good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I did
want to talk about the Roma Conference summary and
more of a query. And it's fine that we do
the summary. I think it was a motion that was put forward by Doug
Berd years ago and then re brought forward by somebody this term.
I'm not sure who, but I'm more wanting to get some
information. We had about eight staff members come
with us to Roma, which is great. I think there's a lot of goodwill
there, not only from a team perspective and obviously for
some assistance, but in many cases, the counselors
themselves were not allowed to attend delegations
of their choice. So they were asked to attend four delegations.
In one of the delegations, I think it was the last one with transportation,
we had all eight staff members in that room, and yet there
was a counselor that wasn't allowed to attend.
So I guess I'm wanting to get some comfort level. I certainly have talked to
a lot of municipalities. It's not a practice the councillors
are not led into a delegation if they choose to be there.
There is a practice that sometimes there's a counselor that
has more awareness of a certain topic and they take
the lead on the conversation. But if we're being
asked as councillors to do a report on
our activities, I guess I would sort of like to understand the
activities of the staff, some who arrived on the Saturday. I am a Roma
board member, so. So it was very different in my capacity in that I had
a Roma board meeting on the Saturday and a zone hookup on the Sunday
morning where I presented. And then we had multiminister delegations
as a Roma board. And then I had, you know, the delegations that
I was allowed to go with this and the conference. So not
sure who that question is geared to, but I did want to query
that, especially as we head into Amo for the summer months.
Thank you, Councillor Early. That Cao Hyde would
be something you would be able to address. Well, thank you. Through the chair.
I guess my question back to Councillor early is, do you want that in the
form of a staff report? I don't certainly want to put staff who are in
the room on the spot right now. It's a very straightforward
answer. I would think that they could Take offline. But unless you want something that's
more public, we could look towards a staff report. So I would just maybe ask
for some clarification on that.
Thank you. Thank you. I think a staff report is fine. I don't think
we need to do anything public. I think it's more just an issue as we
move into amo, that I think that we want to make sure that
all of our counselors, our sitting councillors that choose to be part
of these delegations, I mean, AMO and Roma FCM to some small point
as well, they're created so that these elected officials
have, you know, an opportunity to learn from their colleagues,
but also an opportunity to have facetime with the ministers. And I just
want to make sure moving forward that we get that opportunity 100%.
Understand, not everybody can do the talking at these delegations. They're 15 minutes long,
but everybody should have the opportunity. But I will say it just for
me, very concerning when there are various
levels of staff taking the seats of counselors that could be in
the room. So I'll leave it at that. And I'll leave it to your leadership
to decide how you'd like to handle it with the staff report.
Thank you. Thank you. CEO Hyde, anything to add?
Well, thank you. Through the chair, I think how we might handle that is simply
a memo to council. I think it's pretty straightforward. I know that the team implemented
a new process for it this year that all counselors were prepped on. We can
certainly articulate that. I don't think it's a matter of anybody taking
up seats of, but I know there was a process that was developed by the
team, and certainly we can articulate, and I think the memo is probably the most
effective means by which to do it. Thank you very much,
CEO. High Councillor Russo, you have a comment?
Yeah, I just actually want to draw attention to 1313, the purchasing
BI annual report. I think Chair,
you alluded to this at one of the previous meetings. This is
just a helpful tool for members of the public and council in general
to just go over things and costing that
were absorbed throughout the year or that
time frame from the town. So just bringing attention
to it, because sometimes in
correspondence, this is just kind of gone over.
But any members of the public that like to look at that, I think it's
a very useful tool. And for council in general,
it's a very useful tool, and I appreciate staff doing it on a
biannual basis. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Russo.
Okay, going forward. Oh, Councillor Sheen.
Thank you, Chair Masc thank you, Councillor Russo. I wasn't going
to speak to this, but since you brought it up,
I read this biannual
report with some interest and noted that the
topic we talked about in some length, at some length last week, I think it
was around non standard procurements. I noticed
that there's about 3, 6, 10, 8,
maybe 10 non standard procurements on
page 4
of 5, and all of them were relatively low dollar amounts,
nothing more than $50,000, which I thought was pretty interesting
considering the high amounts we were talking about last
week or the week before. So I just wanted to draw attention to that as
well. Thank you. Thank you,
Councillor Sheen. And I think that's germane to our topic last week where
we were speaking about this. And really in the area
of procurement, you know, the one you least want
to engage in is the non, non standard ones.
So that's why those purchases are so low, I would believe. And would
that be the case, Commissioner Cummings? That's probably
the least preferred method of procurement out there. So you're kind of
reserving it for small things or timely matters.
You're absolutely correct, Chair Mescal. It's very
specific situations. Thank you very much.
At this time, we do not have a closed session.
So at this point, I would believe this is time for our
adjournment and that this would conclude
the March 4, 2025 general committee meeting.
I declared the meeting adjourned. And just so the public's aware, there is a public
meeting tonight for planning and development. So we'll see you at
7:00.