[0:49] Good afternoon, everyone. Calling to order the council meeting for

[0:53] Monday, December 1, 2025. And we're going to start. By

[0:58] standing for the playing of our national anthem.

[2:07] Please be seated. Our land. Acknowledgment today will be read

[2:14] by Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you. Mayor Hamlin for more than

[2:17] 15,000 years, the first nations walked upon and cared for

[2:21] the lands we now caught home Anishnabek hod Nashoni Ajibway

[2:25] and many others who were families, friends and communities the

[2:28] way we are today. The town of Collingwood acknowledges the

[2:33] Lake Simcoe Natawa saga Treaty of 1818 and the relationship

[2:37] it establishes with the original inhabitants of Turtle island, we

[2:41] acknowledge the reality of our shared history and the current

[2:44] contributions of indigenous people within our community, we seek to

[2:48] continue empowering expressions of pride amongst all. Of the diverse

[2:52] stakeholders in this area, we seek to do better and

[2:56] to continue to recognize, learn, and grow in friendship and

[2:59] community, nation to nation. Thank you. Now, I have a

[3:04] motion to adopt the agenda. The motion as follows, that

[3:07] the content of the council committee of the whole agenda

[3:11] for December 1, 2025 be adopted as amended. There's two

[3:14] amendments, the addition of staff report for item 15.2.2, staff

[3:20] proposed budget and this is draft number two and. Secondly,

[3:23] we're going to switch the order in item 15.2. There's

[3:28] two. Items there and we're going to deal with the

[3:29] budget first, which is the second item. And then we'll

[3:32] deal with the master servicing plan contract as the second

[3:36] item. Could I have a mover in a second, please?

[3:39] Councilor Jeffrey. Seconded by councilor. Potts comments. Thank you, Mayor

[3:44] Hamlin, for a few reasons, including additional information I've got

[3:47] since the release of the draft agenda at this time,

[3:50] I'm going to withdraw the notice of motion. At 15.71,

[3:54] likely to bring something forward a later date after the

[3:57] pre consultations on provincial budget occur. Thank you, Councilor Jeffrey.

[4:02] Thank you, mayor. Hamlin and just heads up, I propose

[4:06] to pull from 8.3.1. C 2020 514 with respect to

[4:13] governance. For some input. Sorry, I'm just looking here. 8.3.1.

[4:19] And the committee of the whole and it's. C 2020

[4:24] 514 council governance structure. Got it. Thank you. Thank you.

[4:29] Okay. And with those other matters listed. All those in

[4:34] favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you. Are there any declarations

[4:38] of pecuniary interest? Today. If you find yourself in that

[4:42] position during the meeting, please let me know. The announcements.

[4:48] We're going to start by hearing from our youth mayor

[4:52] San v. Gupta. Welcome, Sandy. Hello. Thank you. Good evening,

[5:01] everyone. Being announced as the calling with youth mayor in

[5:09] late October was one of the biggest surprises and honors

[5:12] of my life. I filled out the application, hoping to

[5:15] learn about leadership, explore how our town works, and understand

[5:19] all the different jobs that keep this community running, and

[5:23] I got all of that and so much more. From

[5:26] speaking on the radio to shadowing the finance department to

[5:29] helping raise the pulley of flag, every experience to push

[5:32] me to grow. And made me proud to represent the

[5:36] youth of Collingwood. One of the biggest highlights was the

[5:39] Remembrance Day parade, where I had the privilege of laying

[5:42] the wreath on behalf of all young people in our

[5:45] community. Moments like that reminded me how meaningful this role

[5:50] truly is. I've also been really grateful for the recognition

[5:54] I've gotten from our community, including the article that was

[5:58] published about my work as a youth mayor. It's been

[6:02] amazing to hear from people in town who notice what

[6:05] I've been doing. And it made me realize how connected

[6:07] we all are. I've had so much fun meeting everyone

[6:11] here at council. And learning from each one of you.

[6:15] Thank you for welcoming me, supporting me and taking the

[6:18] time. To show me what real community leadership looks like.

[6:22] And a special thank you to Mayor Hamlin and the

[6:25] council members who chose me for this. Role. Thank you

[6:28] for believing in me and trusting me with this responsibility.

[6:32] A special thank you to Isabella as well for being

[6:36] beside me throughout. As this is my final council meeting,

[6:40] I just want to say how grateful I am for.

[6:42] This opportunity. This experience has been a huge part of

[6:45] my life and something I will always look back on.

[6:48] With pride. But I also know this isn't the end.

[6:51] It's just to start. Being a youth mayor has inspired

[6:54] me to take on more leadership roles involved in continue

[6:58] helping Collingwood in any way I can. Thank you again

[7:02] for everything. It has been an honor to represent the

[7:05] youth of this amazing community as a youth mayor.

[7:16] Well, thank you so much for being our youth mayor

[7:18] and for all your kind words today. Thank you. Thank

[7:21] you for having me. Thanks. Now back to the regular

[7:31] scheduled community announcements. How are you going to top that,

[7:33] Deputy mayor? Exactly. That's always a tough act. Of all

[7:40] of it, we've had such great use. Of marriage, and

[7:42] congratulations on all your hard work. On November 18, along

[7:47] with councilor Ring, we attended the first anniversary of the

[7:50] Campbell street support of rapid rehousing project that is operated

[7:54] by contact community services. As part of celebration of the

[7:57] very successful twelve months of operation. They've served about 28

[8:01] clients and have rehoused 13. To assist with senior homelessness.

[8:06] The complex was renamed the Rogers Way home after the

[8:10] very first. Person to move on to permanent housing. It

[8:15] honors. That very first client. And it's a ball about

[8:20] integrating into permanent housing for those over 55. The other

[8:27] announcement I was going to make is that we're very

[8:29] appreciative. Of the efforts of all the volunteers that are

[8:31] participating as part of the Christmas Day feast team. This

[8:36] is the return of a free community meal project that

[8:38] is open and welcoming to anyone who needs a place

[8:41] to go. Whether they are going to be spending a

[8:44] day loan, experiencing food insecurity or. Simply looking to connect

[8:51] with others. It's open to all denominations and ages. It

[8:56] will take place from 1230 to 02:00. P.m. at the

[8:59] legion on the 390 Ontario street. And so again, we're

[9:03] so grateful to the team for bringing together. These people

[9:07] in the spirit of caring community, wishing them all the

[9:10] best in their efforts, and if you want to reserve

[9:12] a seat, please just call our tremendous 2111 service. Thank

[9:17] you. Thank you. Councilor Jeffrey thank you. Mary Hamlin, the

[9:21] deputy mayor, just covered what I was hoping to bring

[9:23] up tonight and maybe I would only. Expand with one

[9:27] thing. To say that if you have the ability to

[9:29] become a sponsor of this great event. Please contact the

[9:32] organizers. I'm sure they can use all the help they

[9:34] can to deliver. This wonderful event. Thank you. Thank you,

[9:38] Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, mayor. Just a couple of items.

[9:42] The first is. Last week on November 25, I participated

[9:48] with you and members of council. In the raising of

[9:52] the flag for international day of elimination of violence against

[9:57] women. We do many flag raisings in this community, and

[10:02] I hope for the day when it is no longer

[10:04] necessary for us to do this one. This Wednesday, there

[10:09] will be a virtual open house where residents can receive

[10:12] an update on the waterfront. Development. It's between 630 and

[10:19] 730, and you can register online at Collingwood, CA. And

[10:25] then finally, are you a newcomer to Collingwood? You can

[10:30] find out virtually. Everything you need to know about your

[10:33] residency, including waste pickup, library, schools, building permits. And much,

[10:40] much more. All on the town website. Calling with ca.

[10:44] Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor Hamlin. Just

[10:49] a reminder that the outdoor Christmas market has returned. It

[10:54] will be each Friday evening, and we'll continue Friday evenings

[10:57] from 05:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m. Downtown until December 19.

[11:02] You can enjoy the magic of the dancers from Fleetwood

[11:04] Dance center in the store windows and strolling entertainers along

[11:07] the street, taking a free horse and wagon ride, leaving

[11:10] the town hall and visit with Santa's big red sleigh

[11:13] at the open space. At 84 here, Ontario street, across

[11:16] from town hall. And remember that Santa will also be

[11:19] returning each sat. Saturday from noon to 03:00 p.m. until

[11:22] December 20. And just on that I attended. The market

[11:27] Friday night and then followed up with the Blues game.

[11:30] And I just want to send an appreciation to director

[11:33] Cubit and her staff. The sound system was spectacular. And

[11:37] so it was with 1000 people in attendance, approximately. It

[11:42] was very well known that. It's been upgraded, so thank

[11:46] you. Counci. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. I just

[11:53] have one announcement to make about the. Calling with the

[11:58] affordable housing task force. Had another one other conversation. A

[12:04] community conversation in the series that we know the issue.

[12:07] Now let's talk solutions. This one was about how land

[12:11] trust. Are building affordable communities. And can they work in

[12:14] Collingwood? That was Wednesday, November 26, at the library as

[12:20] well attended. It was originally we had to cut it

[12:23] off because there's only so much room up there, so.

[12:27] We had breakout tables that deputy Mayor Friar and myself

[12:32] being on the affordable housing task force both facilitated a

[12:36] table. And also in attendance from our council was councilor

[12:39] Perry. The night went pretty well. There was a presentation

[12:44] and. I am sorry. The girl's name is escaping, but

[12:48] she's a representative of the canadian network of community land

[12:51] trust, and she gave a very good presentation. It stirred

[12:55] up a lot of conversation when we broke off into

[12:59] the breakout tables. And whether we got any solutions from

[13:04] this. There was a lot of good information and data

[13:07] that was tabulated. And I'm sure that when coordinator. Dasuza

[13:16] gets everything put together, we're going to hear about it.

[13:20] At the next affordable housing task force, and hopefully it's

[13:22] something we can look forward to. Helping. The crisis that

[13:27] we have with lack of affordable housing in this town.

[13:30] So that's all. I have. Thank you, Councilor Baines. Thank

[13:34] you, Mayor Hamlin. Two items. Today, tomorrow, December. 2 is

[13:39] giving Tuesday a global generosity movement. Celebrate by supporting the

[13:44] Collingwood Museum's mission to preserve and share stories that. Shape

[13:47] our community. Every donation, big or small, helps us care

[13:50] for Collingwood's collection, creating, engaging experiences and makes history accessible

[13:56] to everyone. This giving Tuesday. Your support helps us to

[13:59] inspire curiosity, connection and pride in Collingwood's past. Today and

[14:04] for years to come. You can donate in person at

[14:07] the Collingwood museum during regular operating hours Tuesday to Saturday

[14:11] from ten to four or over the phone by calling

[14:14] 705 4454-8111. Or. Going to their website at Collingwood causum.

[14:22] Donations of $20 or more are, of course, eligible for

[14:25] tax receipts. And the second item is that this morning

[14:28] at 1015. I and 45 other volunteers attended at the

[14:34] corner, actually at the Salvation army in a Congo line.

[14:38] Of gifts, if you will. We were able. And I

[14:42] know councilor Potts did this last year. We being members

[14:46] of the Optimus Club of Collingwood, the employees of reliability

[14:50] and the OPP. To unload two and a half trucks

[14:54] totaling 1210 items. I won't say what. Those items are

[15:00] for, but you can guess. This will go to make

[15:03] the Christmases of some 245 families in this community, up

[15:08] from. Up 40 families from last year, so the need

[15:12] is there. It took us about 90 minutes in the

[15:15] cold in this Congo line. Moving all of these items,

[15:19] 46 people. And in total. It was about $15,000 worth

[15:25] of items, shall I say 4000 donated from the Optimus

[15:29] club 12,000 from reliability. And I must say, shout out

[15:33] to Cliff and Terry Hollingshead. Who are extraordinary in organizing

[15:37] this year after year. And just to end it off,

[15:40] as Terry said. Or Jenny. Excuse me. From the Salvation

[15:43] army, the extraordinary. Generosity of this community. Continues to inspire.

[15:51] And amaze them. So on their behalf and everyone's behalf,

[15:54] thank you for all who participate. Thank you for that.

[15:59] Councilor Perry. Thank you, mayor Hamlin. I do have two

[16:03] library announcements. Genealogy club is a casual group for those

[16:07] wanting to learn more about genealogy and to share tips

[16:10] and information with others. New members are always welcome. The

[16:15] next meeting is Tuesday, December 9, at 10:00 a.m. also

[16:18] the library. Will be looking seasonal with winter. I spy

[16:23] you can pick up your game card in the children's.

[16:25] Area, and the search will take you through both floors

[16:27] of the library. Once you find all the items, submit

[16:30] a ballot for a chance to win your own board

[16:33] game. All ages are welcome to play. And it's from

[16:36] December 15 to the 23rd. I also will add that

[16:39] during councilor Potts. Announcement regarding downtown, et cetera. We did

[16:44] get an email that came in, and I'm sure he

[16:47] would have covered this. But I just want to share

[16:50] that the town of Collingwood is spreading holiday chair with

[16:52] free parking. In downtown and municipal parking lots from Saturday,

[16:57] December 6 to Sunday, January 4. Please note. Overnight. Parking

[17:03] restrictions remain in effect from 01:00 a.m. till 07:00 a.m.

[17:07] and for stays longer than 3 hours, please use the

[17:09] municipal parking lots. Take advantage of this festive offer while

[17:13] enjoying shopping, dining and seasonal activities in downtown Collingwood. Thanks

[17:19] for the reminder, Councilor McCullough. Thank you, mayor. I had

[17:22] two items, and they were very nicely covered by my

[17:24] colleagues on council. I hear you. So I'm going to

[17:31] just take a minute. To say how honored we all

[17:35] should be by having the number of people who were

[17:40] nominated for order of Collingwood this year. The committee. Had

[17:46] a tough choice picking who should be the recipients. And

[17:50] I'm just going to take a moment to say who

[17:52] these people are. So the order of Collingwood, just for

[17:56] those who need a little reminder. Is honoring those who,

[18:00] through exemplary volunteer efforts in the community. Enrich the well

[18:06] being. Social, natural or cultural environment of our community. And

[18:12] we also award at the same time if there are

[18:15] any nominated and worthy companion to the order of Collingwood.

[18:20] And these are people who already receive the Order of

[18:23] Collingwood award, but through their tireless volunteer efforts continue to

[18:28] further five years. So the 2025 recipients of the Order

[18:33] of Collingwood are these people? Barbara Kaiser Patterson, Deb. Pickett,

[18:38] Pearl Simons, Claire Tucker Reid and Paul Azubik, and the

[18:43] Companion to the order of Collingwood are Robert Graham and

[18:46] Larry Hogarth. So. These presentations of the awards will take

[18:52] place at the mayor's annual New Year's Levy, which will

[18:54] be Sunday, January 11, at the bear State, opens at

[18:58] 130. Everyone is welcome. We have three deputations

[19:08] today, and the first one is from the Collingwood climate

[19:12] action team. Welcome. Yeah, just a moment. Catherine, Clark

[19:22] has been okay. Thank you. Just to let the audience

[19:25] know. Through our gallery that we do have a room

[19:29] that's open just outside the council chambers. Called the brand

[19:33] of room, where the same information is being shared and

[19:36] displayed on a screen in there. If anybody who doesn't

[19:39] have a seat and wants to sit down, it is

[19:40] available. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Could you just state your

[19:48] name and why you're here? Thank you. My name is

[19:51] Catherine. Diam, the chair of the board for the Collingwood

[19:54] climate action team, and I'm here. To make a funding

[19:57] request. Good afternoon, everyone. Your honor, Mayor Hamlin, Deputy Mayor

[20:02] Friar, Counselor, staff, and those in the audience before we

[20:06] begin. I wanted to acknowledge the strong and trusting partnership

[20:11] we've built with the town of Collingwood. Since 2019. Partnerships

[20:15] like this just don't happen overnight. They take time, commitment,

[20:19] and two parties willing to show up equally at the

[20:22] table together. We've. Fostered a relationship, grounded and respectful dialogue,

[20:28] shared problem solving, and a clear understanding of what the

[20:30] climate crisis means for our community. We're also deeply grateful

[20:35] for the financial support the town has provided since 2020.

[20:39] The $20,000 contribution in 2022 gave us the confidence to

[20:43] take an important step hiring Laura. Vermander as our part

[20:47] time communications coronary. That role has since grown into our

[20:51] director. Of community engagement. A key position that strengthens our

[20:55] connection with residents. and we seriously appreciate the continued funding

[21:01] in 2024 and 25 Now, we are here today to

[21:04] request secure funding for the next three years as a

[21:07] community climate. Action plan moves into implementation in 2026. This

[21:13] is a pivotal moment, one where stable support will ensure

[21:17] continuity, capacity, and meaningful action as we work alongside the

[21:21] town and its citizens to deliver. On the goals of

[21:24] the plan. Next slide. Since 2019, the Collingwood Climate Action

[21:29] team has partnered closely with the town to advance climate

[21:32] action, build awareness and help create a healthy, resilient community.

[21:37] As Collingwood moves into implementation of its community climate action

[21:41] plan in 2026. Sea Cat's role, along with our volunteers,

[21:47] committees, and programs will be a core component of its

[21:51] capacity to make crow progress. Next slide. Today we are

[21:56] requesting. $40,000 per year for three years. $25,000 for core

[22:04] operational support, including partial funding of our director of community

[22:07] engagement and $15,000 to support CCAT's three core programs directly

[22:13] tied to the implementation. Of the Collingwood Climate Action Plan.

[22:17] We are suggesting that the funding could come from the

[22:19] Green Legacy Reserve fund with no impact on. The town's

[22:23] operating budget. Next slide. We have a track record in

[22:28] alignment with the town. Seeing Cat played an active role

[22:31] in developing the climate action plan. Our director of community

[22:35] engagement served on the town's project team through every stage.

[22:41] For five years, CCAT has delivered educational and action oriented

[22:45] programming that complements municipal climate work. And directly supports community

[22:49] participation. Our programs align closely with priority options within the

[22:54] town's plan and help ensure. A successful transition from planning

[22:59] to implementation. Next slide. While the town will take the

[23:04] role of facilitating the implementation of the community climate auction

[23:07] plan, It is a community wide responsibility requiring meaningful leadership

[23:14] from community organizations. CCAT is poised to be one of

[23:18] the primary leaders in community driven implementation, engaging residents, volunteers

[23:23] partners and businesses. Next slide. Our existing programs, climate connect,

[23:31] better homes, greener future, green Economy Canada and our annual

[23:35] community mobilization event Earthfest, along with our working teams and

[23:39] volunteers, will be important in supporting the planned success. These

[23:45] programs are a core element of our strategic plan and

[23:48] aligns with the initiatives that the Collingwood Climate community climate

[23:52] action plan outline and its implementation. We've also ensured our

[23:57] programming is easily accessible to all. We don't charge for

[24:00] attending workshops, seminars. We provide free access to resources, tools,

[24:05] and support, and we encourage members to join as volunteers

[24:08] and get involved. Along the way. I'm also proud to

[24:12] say that one of our volunteers has just become one

[24:14] of our board members. And she's in the audience. Bianca

[24:18] Creek, Earth's last. We'll be celebrating. Its fifth anniversary in

[24:22] 2026 and continues to grow annually. Annually, both in participation

[24:26] and programming, to meet a broad community audience. Next slide.

[24:32] Operational security strengthens our fundraising capacity. When our core operations

[24:37] are supported, we can focus external fundraising on program expansion,

[24:41] ensuring that donor and foundation dollars go directly to programs

[24:45] and have greater impact. Next slide. With town support. It

[24:52] strengthens our credibility with funders. A predictable municipal commitment signals

[24:57] that Collingwood recognizes CCAT as an essential partner in building

[25:01] the sustainable and resilient future. It aligns with how the

[25:05] town already supports other key nonprofits. Several community organizations such

[25:10] as Pride, GTHs, and Special Olympics have received multi year

[25:14] town support, providing similar stability to CCAT ensures climate auction

[25:20] is resourced as our other priority. Community initiatives next slide.

[25:27] It also reduces pressure on town staff to extend a

[25:30] higher level of effort. In the community plan. Stable cCAP

[25:36] funding allows the climate change spousalist another staff to focus

[25:39] on internal policy, corporate initiatives such as climate, lens integration,

[25:44] implementation across departments, and effective facilitation efforts rather than becoming

[25:49] involved with direct implementation efforts. While CCAT continues to build

[25:54] and lead key community. Engagement and mobilization. Next slide. CCAT

[26:00] respectfully asks the town of Collingwood to provide a three

[26:04] year commitment. Of $40,000 per year, which could come from

[26:10] the Green Legacy Reserve fund. This investment recognizes the town's

[26:14] commitment to their declaration of a climate crisis Ccat's. Essential

[26:19] role in implementing the community climate action plan and our

[26:23] shared vision of a safe, healthy and resilient future for

[26:26] everyone in Collingwood. Next slide. I'll take any questions that

[26:32] you have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Catherine. Would

[26:35] anyone like to ask questions? Go ahead, Councilor Dougherty. Thank

[26:42] you, chair. And thank you, Catherine. Our climate action team

[26:50] do such incredible work in our community, and I know

[26:53] how hard you all work at it, so congratulations. Thank

[26:57] you. Just wanted to be reminded as to what your

[27:01] funding was last year. Through the council grant, we received

[27:06] $7,984.14. Sure wasn't $0.15. No, it was not 15.

[27:17] Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Go ahead. Deputy

[27:25] MeL thank you, Mayor Hamillon, and thank you very much

[27:28] for the presentation and everything that the team is doing.

[27:33] I wondered if I could ask for you. Mayor Hamlin

[27:35] to the treasurer. Could she update us? On how much

[27:38] is in the green legacy fund that I guess at

[27:41] the end of 24. Would be last recorded. Thank you.

[27:46] Treasure. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin three you to the deputy

[27:49] mayor. I would be happy to at the end of

[27:51] 2024, there was 1 million. 82,513, and interest that was

[28:00] allocated to this reserve fund in 2024 was $35,833 thank

[28:06] you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlet. It's just good information to

[28:08] have. In regards to the presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

[28:12] Okay. Thank you for your presentation and taking. The time

[28:15] to come here today. Okay. Thank you. Do you still

[28:17] have something? not to catherine but thank you just through

[28:26] the process i'm assuming this is just going to go

[28:28] directly to the budget process then and we'll bring it

[28:31] up there okay thank you okay thank you very much

[28:33] everyone thank you The next deputation is Janet Carlyle. Objection

[28:34] to proposed motion on protest.

[28:56] It's a long time since I've done something like this.

[28:58] So if I stumble. I stumble. Thank you, everybody, for

[29:03] allowing me to have my time here. Madam Mayer, I

[29:06] don't know. Where to put this. Members of council. People

[29:11] in the assembly and people online. Thank you for hearing

[29:16] me out today. And thank you for the opportunity to

[29:20] be here. I am speaking collectively. For not just myself,

[29:25] quite a few people within the community and Simcoe County.

[29:30] Greater community and I will start out we object. This

[29:34] motion before you today was allegedly brought forth because five

[29:38] old white folks. I am one of those from this

[29:41] town stood on the boulevard at CCI, protesting the. Presence

[29:45] of the Friends of Simon Wesenthal Center, a group that

[29:48] many prominent groups, including independent jewish voices and Avi Lewis,

[29:53] who is the son of Stephen Lewis and Michelle Landberg.

[29:58] Have a criticized in recent months for its political ties

[30:00] to a foreign nation. That would be Israel delivering Holocaust

[30:04] education to students while muslim arab voices are silenced in

[30:09] Canada. However. Who is not what this is about. When

[30:14] I spoke to Madam mayor on Friday, and we had

[30:16] a great conversation at length, that was about an hour

[30:19] long. She indicated this rally was simply the straw that

[30:23] broke this camel's back and that the so to speak,

[30:27] that it was actually about the continued rallies that we

[30:30] had been holding downtown. Since May 10. This is about

[30:35] free speech. This is about our right. Our collective right

[30:41] as a community to be able to speak up. To

[30:45] about your free speech. It's about my speech? My free

[30:48] speech. And it's. About free speech for every other Canadian.

[30:53] So let's talk about the elephant in the room. We

[30:57] object. What this is really about, as stated earlier, is

[31:01] the weekly rallies near town hall and an attempt to

[31:04] shut them down. We object. I have been told that

[31:09] this is about businesses in this town claiming they're losing

[31:11] customers. Because of the rallies. Haven't heard from many customers,

[31:15] haven't heard from many businesses. I have reached out to

[31:18] the businesses. I have not heard anything back. What about

[31:22] the palestinian businesses? And there are a few in this

[31:25] town. Whose owners have been harassed at the farmers market

[31:30] and elsewhere. Nobody's speaking up for them. We object. I

[31:36] have been told that this is about excessive noise and

[31:39] or nuisance. At what point is a noise a nuisance?

[31:43] Is it during the summer when the pianos are out

[31:45] an unskilled players bang away at the keys. Is it

[31:49] when art crawl is on? And folks are singing with

[31:52] the bands. Is it when an amateur musician is playing

[31:56] at the farmers? Market. Is it when bagpipes practice at

[31:59] Sunset Park? What constitutes a nuisance and who gets to

[32:04] decide that? This is about free speech. We object. I've

[32:13] been told that this is about children's mental health. In

[32:17] fact, the headline from the recent Collingwood connection article reads,

[32:21] leave the kids alone. And according to the mayor and

[32:24] Ms. Feldman this is relative to the mental health of

[32:27] the children who are being affected by us being downtown.

[32:32] We object. We. Are all aware that mental health issues

[32:35] are growing, especially since the pandemic and lockdowns the data

[32:40] points to several reasons for this. Advocates say youth mental

[32:44] health has been in decline over the last decade. The

[32:47] pandemic certainly exacerbated these issues, leading to significant drops in

[32:53] physical activity and socialization, particularly among girls. Excessive screen time.

[33:00] Worries about the state of the world climate change have

[33:03] further added to the problem. We are sympathetic to all

[33:08] children's well being and concern that those who wish to

[33:11] put this motion to infect. Are inferring we somehow are

[33:16] responsible for the mental health of every child in this

[33:19] community. That's preposterous. This is about free speech. We object.

[33:26] I have been told that this is about us staying

[33:28] away from areas where someone might be offended. The law

[33:31] is clear. You do not have the right to not

[33:33] be offended. It is not illegal to be offended. A

[33:40] story. When I was getting treatment at Princess Margaret hospital

[33:44] during Covid lockdowns, there were rallies. Almost every day in

[33:49] the city. Some in front of PMH, some down at

[33:53] Sanofi. Square, some at the Eaton center, organized by Antivaxx

[33:58] folks, some directed towards staff trying to enter. The hospital,

[34:02] some directed toward patients trying to get our treatments. Some

[34:08] because of the masking up rules. Was I offended? Maybe.

[34:14] Did I call the mayor and the police and the

[34:16] papers and insist they shut it down. No. I do

[34:20] not have the right to not be offended. This is

[34:25] about free speech. We object? This motion was presented to

[34:30] town council on November 17. I was not advised of

[34:33] this. I am the founder of the Collingwood for Palestine

[34:38] rally group. Instagram social media did not hear anything about

[34:43] this. However, other people were notified. Several of us have

[34:48] been speaking with town counselors since then. From what I've

[34:52] been told not one was aware of why this was

[34:54] being brought up forward. And a few of them have

[34:57] said. They would have said yes without really thinking any

[34:59] deeper, because they didn't think. It was such a big

[35:02] deal. This is about free speech. We object. One of

[35:08] the counselors at the end of that meeting on November

[35:10] 7 said, I know we're not supposed to say anything,

[35:13] but I agree with this. He's referring to the issue

[35:18] of our rallies. How many other counselors had been influenced

[35:24] by his words. This is about. Free speech. We object.

[35:30] The mayor has said you can protest in front of

[35:32] me all day long, but leave. The kids alone. You

[35:36] know who else said that? Roger Waters. Pink Floyd. Is

[35:41] this the proposed bylaw? Just another brick in the wall.

[35:45] This is about free speech. What about the mental health?

[35:49] The Muslim Arab students? Did they not matter? No one's

[35:53] speaking up for them. We object. According to our next

[35:57] esteemed speaker, Michelle Feldman is quoted in a Collingwood connection

[36:00] article this week. I support freedom of expression, but there

[36:05] should be boundaries. Creating protocols and boundaries on how people

[36:10] express themselves is in the best interests of the community.

[36:14] We agree. That is why Collingwood has stringently enforced protections

[36:18] for marginalized folks and laws against harassment, hate speech and

[36:24] violence. That our children should feel protected and be safe

[36:28] is not in question. However, this is not about freedom

[36:31] of expression. This is about freedom of. Speech. Freedom of

[36:35] expression is a broader concept that includes all forms of

[36:39] communication, such as speech. Writing. Artistic work demonstrations. While freedom

[36:47] of speech is often used interchangeably, Can specifically refer to

[36:53] the right to voice opinions verbally. This is about free

[36:59] speech. We object. And if any of our esteemed members

[37:03] in this audience who are watching. Are. Of. Color? Indigenous

[37:13] members of the LGBTQ two s a community asian, south

[37:18] Asian, a pensioner standing on the side of the road

[37:21] in front of Park Bridge, protesting rent hikes. A farmer

[37:25] protesting for the rights of canadian farmers and rural communities.

[37:29] A person with disabilities. Who objects to the ODSP amounts

[37:34] or accessibility issues in this town, or if you are

[37:37] a person who speaks up for climate change. You're opposed

[37:41] to bill c nine or c. Five. Or if you

[37:43] have a person who's concerned about, just so you know,

[37:45] you have 1 minute left. Thank you. The watershed, the

[37:48] water treatment plant or the DND? Site. We object. To

[37:55] the community who enjoy Pride weekend. When Pride first started

[37:59] in this town, it was because of protests. Now it's

[38:02] a parade. I'll leave you with two quotes, one from

[38:05] a young lady who lost her life during the Holocaust.

[38:07] You will know her name. One who lost her life

[38:10] during the genocide in Gaza. You will probably not know

[38:13] her name. Anne. Frank. Whoever is happy will make others

[38:17] happy in the long run. The sharpest weapon of all.

[38:20] Is a kind and gentle spirit. Hindrajab, the six year

[38:24] old child in Gaza whose family was murdered in their

[38:27] car while she was even in it. Don't leave me

[38:30] alone, mama. I'm hungry. I'm. Thirsty. I am wounded. Her

[38:33] last words, recorded and spoken by the Red Crescent workers

[38:36] who were murdered trying to save her. I'm so scared.

[38:41] Please come. Come take me. Please. Will you come? And

[38:44] nobody could because they were silenced. This is about free

[38:48] speech for everybody in this town, not just some thank

[38:54] you for your time. Thank you. Should I be taking

[38:58] questions now? Would there be any questions?

[39:08] No, I think you're good. Thank you. Thank you.

[39:28] The next deputation this afternoon is Rochelle Feldman.

[39:42] Few breaths. Okay. Usually I have my husband flipping the

[39:46] slide, so I'm not sure how. This is working. Just

[39:50] say next slide. Slide, please. Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin

[39:54] and members of council. My name. Is Rochelle Feldman, and

[39:57] I'm the chair of the Southern Georgian Bay jewish community.

[40:00] I come before you today to speak both as an

[40:02] executive board member but also as a jewish mother and

[40:05] concern community member. That was slide one. And now we

[40:10] can skip to slide two. For those of you who

[40:13] may not know this. We have a vibrant, inclusive and

[40:15] peaceful group of jewish people and families living here. In

[40:18] Collingwood and the surrounding areas. Here are the kinds of

[40:21] things that the southern Georgian Bay jewish community have been

[40:23] doing in and around Collingwood, we believe and support Inc.

[40:27] Inclusion, equity and diversity and actively promote peace and community

[40:31] connection. We also happen to be local business owners, real

[40:35] estate agents, doctors, teachers, lawyers and therapists, just to name

[40:39] a few of our roles. I make mention of this

[40:41] to say that not only do we live in peace

[40:43] and togetherness, with our neighbors, but that we continue to

[40:46] play essential roles in the building. And the strengthening of

[40:49] the communities in which we live. Slide three would have

[40:53] been some antisemitic posts that you would find on the

[40:58] social media sites for Collingwood, for Palestine. And Simcoe for

[41:04] Palestine. But they referenced particular people, and so they won't

[41:10] be publicly shown. This is all despite the fact that

[41:14] there are geopolitical events occurring at this time that have

[41:16] caused an unprecedented rise in antisemitism not seen since 1940s

[41:21] in Europe. But we're not here today to discuss this

[41:24] or even to defend the truth. The geopolitical problems happening

[41:27] halfway around the world, or even people's opinions and perspectives

[41:30] on the matter. Living here in Collingwood. Are, in fact,

[41:33] irrelevant to the issue at hand. Slide four. There is

[41:38] no question that we're all in support and recognize the

[41:40] importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and the need

[41:42] to protect our freedom of expression, association and assembly in

[41:46] section two. B, C and D of the charter. We

[41:49] support council in upholding these rights. However, I'm here to

[41:52] discuss the absolute need to address the inappropriate and disturbing

[41:55] ways in which some of our neighbors, mainly members. Of

[41:58] Simcoe for Palestine and Collingwood for Palestine are choosing to

[42:02] exercise said rights under the guise of freedom of speech.

[42:06] What we're all entitled to freedom of expression and to

[42:08] associate with like minded individuals and. Organizations to assemble privately

[42:12] or publicly to do so. We do not have the

[42:15] right to violate our town bylaws while doing so, nor

[42:18] do we have the right to violate other people's. Basic

[42:21] human rights according to the Ontario Human Rights Code. Some

[42:24] jurisprudence has already found that leg. Legal measures affecting freedom

[42:27] of assembly through the reasonable regulation of public space and

[42:31] associated health and safety. Matters do not infringe on the

[42:34] charter right to freedom of expression. Section two C. Reference

[42:38] Canada's Department of Justice and the center for constitutional studies

[42:42] as a possible alternative to adopting a bubble zone by

[42:45] law, although I'm not opposed. To that, of course. It

[42:49] may be less labor intensive to consider amending our current

[42:52] public nuisance bylaw and actually enforcing it. Slide five. The

[42:58] town of Collingwood in 2013 attempted to address some of

[43:02] the possible concerns when they signed a public nuisance bylaw,

[43:04] 2013. that specifically indicates that no

[43:14] person shall loiter in any public place no person shall

[43:17] participate in a fight in a public place and no

[43:19] person shall engage with any type of disorderly conduct in

[43:22] any public place some of the definitions of disorderly conduct

[43:26] according to this bylaw means causing a public disturbance and

[43:30] without the limiting The generality of the foregoing includes yelling,

[43:30] screaming, shouting, singing, swearing, and interfaith fearing with reasonable enjoyment

[43:35] of someone else at a public place. I'd like to

[43:38] also note that newsin shall mean an activity that causes

[43:41] an unsafe environment and affects the well being of persons.

[43:43] Or enjoyment of a public place and shall be limited

[43:46] to the activities. Described in section 30. Slide seven would

[43:51] have been a video. That basically was a bit of

[43:55] a montage of some clips of some of the protests

[43:59] that have happened? Yes, at the school, but also downtown

[44:03] to show you sort of the yelling, the screaming. The

[44:07] swearing, the assaults that are occurring, the threats, but it

[44:11] apparently wasn't considered. Appropriate for counsel, which I totally support

[44:17] and understand, and I don't feel like that's. An infringement

[44:19] on my freedom of speech, but I will say that

[44:22] if it's not. Appropriate here in chambers. It's equally inappropriate

[44:26] outside of chambers. As the chair of the Southern Georgian

[44:30] Bay Jewish Community, I can report on some of what

[44:32] is actually taking place at these gatherings by our protesters.

[44:37] In the video, which I'm happy to share with anyone

[44:40] that contacts me directly. You will see unruly behavior, shoving

[44:44] of bystanders, antisemitic shouts calling. Jewish people, Nazis, disorderly conduct

[44:50] and nuisance activity in a public space, all in contravention.

[44:54] Of Collingwood's 2013 public nuisance bylaw. Slide eight. This is

[45:00] not peaceful assembly and has moved beyond the scope covered

[45:03] under the Charter of Rights and protected by the law

[45:05] according to Canada's Department of Justice. Now, let's talk about

[45:08] the impact this is having on our community. They've ruined

[45:11] our full enjoyment of the market. In downtown on weekends

[45:14] because of their theatrics and hostility. They have harassed, threatened

[45:18] and intimidated people shopping. And passing by the gathering on

[45:21] the sidewalk, whether they were jewish or not, with shouting

[45:25] and swearing. And yelling. Why? Banging on pots and pans.

[45:28] They've caused a security concern for a community such that

[45:31] we have to involve the police in all public events

[45:34] involving jewish people. Or jewish organizations because our members are

[45:37] afraid for their physical safety. Our children don't feel safe

[45:40] at school because the protesters behavior and harassment tourists are

[45:44] avoiding the downtown core because it's no longer a quaint

[45:47] town, but a town with unhinged and angry people projecting

[45:50] their instability and hate onto anyone that happens to challenge

[45:54] their facts. These protester. Protesters have disrupted, threatened to, and

[45:58] actually assaulted locals when questioned. Our elders are being retraumatized.

[46:03] By the open displays of hate against the jewish community,

[46:06] reminiscent of a time in history that resulted in entire

[46:08] families being wiped out. A time that none of us

[46:11] ever thought we would ever see again in our lifetimes.

[46:15] Kids are afraid. To go downtown or to the market

[46:18] for fear of. Confrontation, and jewish families are reporting that

[46:21] their children are afraid to place menorahs in windows. Or

[46:24] to visibly and publicly identifies Jewish in Collingwood for fear

[46:29] of the hate and harassment they might be met with.

[46:32] I've had to start a support group for people struggling

[46:35] with the increase. Of antisemitism, and 30% of the people

[46:38] in attendance are not even. Jewish, even the non jewish

[46:41] community is suffering with having to deal with the same

[46:43] harassment that we are. And yet not knowing how to

[46:46] stand up for what's right without becoming a target. Themselves

[46:50] as a mental health professional, I'll tell you that these

[46:52] types of disruptive and aggressive public gatherings. Absolutely are negatively

[46:57] impacting the sense of safety, actual safety, and certainly the

[47:00] overall well being of the community as a whole. Harassing,

[47:04] threatening, intimidating, scaring, retraumatizing, assaulting. Verbally attacking people in our

[47:11] community has caused anxiety, fear and depression. And when people

[47:15] become depress. Depressed, they withdraw and isolate, thereby increasing their

[47:19] risk of harming behaviors, all of which ultimately increases a

[47:23] person's risk of suicide. This is not peaceful assembly and

[47:27] association and how we exercise. Our right to freedom of

[47:30] speech. Slide nine. I would like to ask council to

[47:34] bring a motion. To make amendments to its current nuisance

[47:36] bylaw. To include specifically listing school zones in your definition

[47:39] of public places. I'd also like to see an update

[47:42] to the term violence that will now reflect the term

[47:45] adopted in the family law. Courts that would encompass a

[47:47] broader definition. This would include violence in all of its

[47:50] forms, physical, psychological, emotional and verbal examples of such might

[47:56] be. And include harassment, stalking, surveillance, and trolling a person

[48:00] or group or organization. Physical aggression, threatening, intimidating. Or verbally

[48:06] attacking a person or group with the use of swear

[48:08] words or derogatory terms. Slide ten. I come here today

[48:12] to ask on behalf of all members of the Collingwood

[48:14] community, to make it stop. Amend and strongly enforce your

[48:19] bylaws in a matter that achieves just balance while considering

[48:23] the interests of the rest of us who are just

[48:25] trying to live in peace and enjoy all that our

[48:28] town has to offer. And if making an amendment to

[48:31] your current nuisance bylaw, is not possible. Then consider a

[48:34] bubble zone by law, like the ones in Toronto and

[48:36] Vaughn, but. Most. Importantly, take back your power to protect

[48:40] and regulate public health and safety and well being of

[48:43] our community. According to Canada's Department of Justice, municipalities have

[48:48] the right to regulate or interfere with the activities the

[48:51] association, group, or protesters choose to pursue, including but not

[48:56] limited to behaviors Act. Actions and locations the group undertakes.

[49:01] I'm happy to provide any resources needed or references to

[49:04] any of these things, and I will state that these

[49:06] are not my opinions. I have sought legal counsel. That's

[49:11] it. Thank you. Thank you. Would there be any questions?

[49:17] No, I think we're good. Thank you very much for

[49:19] coming today.

[49:30] If anyone wants to leave now, feel free.

[49:58] The next item on our agenda is a public planning

[50:02] meeting, and there's quite a long intro. I have to

[50:05] read, so I'll get started here. Welcome to Collingwood's public

[50:13] planning meeting for proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendments

[50:17] for the property. At 11403 Highway 26, located on the

[50:23] south side of Highway 26. No decision will be made

[50:26] this afternoon. The purpose of this meeting is to introduce

[50:30] and obtain public comments on the proposed official plan and

[50:34] zoning bylaw amendments. The meeting will begin with presentations by

[50:38] staff and the applicant. Members of the public will then

[50:42] be invited to offer their comments or questions regarding the

[50:45] proposal. Once the public portion of the meeting has been

[50:49] completed. No more public comments or questions will be allowed.

[50:53] At today's meeting. I will then ask council. Members if

[50:57] they have any questions. Once all public and counselor questions

[51:01] and comments have been received, staff will have an opportunity

[51:05] to respond. Or provide clarification, if appropriate. All questions and

[51:10] comments specific to the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw

[51:13] amendments will be addressed in a future staff report. It

[51:18] is very important the town receives the correct names, email

[51:21] addresses and mailing addresses of. The individuals having an interest

[51:26] in this application. If you plan to speak to council

[51:30] at this meeting or if you want to be notified

[51:32] of any future council or committee meetings concerning the application

[51:36] being considered, you must provide this information. Public comment and

[51:41] feedback on development proposals are important to the town of

[51:45] Collingwood and are in a core part of a transparent

[51:48] and inclusive land use planning process. We encourage you to

[51:52] express comments, verbally or in writing. However, please note that

[51:56] the rights of third parties. To appeal official planning zoning

[52:00] bylaw amendment decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal have been

[52:04] restricted under the Planning act. If you do not make

[52:07] an oral submission today or a written submission to council

[52:11] before the council decision. You may not be added as

[52:14] a party to the appeal before the Ontario land tribunal

[52:17] unless in the opinion of. The tribunal, there are reasonable

[52:20] grounds to do so. This meeting is being recorded and

[52:24] streamed on the municipal YouTube channel. Your name, address, comments

[52:28] and other personal information are being recorded according to the

[52:32] municipal act and the municipal freedom of information. And Protection

[52:36] of Privacy Act. The minutes will be available to the

[52:40] general public on the town's website. I will ask the

[52:43] planning services also confirm the notification that the public has

[52:47] been given as required. By the planning act within their

[52:50] presentation today. Again, I would like to remind everyone that

[52:54] no decision will be made today and the official plan

[52:57] and zoning bylaw amendments will be considered by council. On

[53:00] a future date. I will now turn over the microphone

[53:04] to community planner Wainwright. Welcome. Staff and members of the

[53:09] public. My name is Jocelyn Wainwright, and I'm the community

[53:12] planner. Assigned to the file for the proposed official plan

[53:16] and zoning bylaw amendments for lands municipally addressed as one

[53:20] 1403 Highway 26, also known as Reverie. This public meeting

[53:27] is a statutory requirement under the Planning act. Next slide,

[53:31] please. The agenda for this afternoon will follow the town's

[53:36] standard public meeting format. Mayor Hamlin. Has already introduced the

[53:39] public meeting. The remainder of the meeting will consist of

[53:43] confirmation of public notice. Overview of the town's development review

[53:47] process, a summary of the applications provided by staff and

[53:51] a brief presentation by the applicants. There will then be

[53:54] time for public comments and questions, followed by council comments

[53:57] and questions. Next slide please. In accordance with the Planning

[54:02] Act, I confirm that a notice of public meeting was

[54:04] circulated to internal and external agencies on October 31, 2025,

[54:10] and was also published in the Collingwood today online newspaper

[54:14] on October 29. And amended notice was published on November

[54:20] 5. The amended notice was published to include legislatively required

[54:25] language that was absent from the original notice. This satisfies

[54:29] the statutory notice requirement under the Planning act. Additionally, as

[54:33] a courtesy, the notice and amended notice were mailed to

[54:35] the property owners. And condominium corporations within. 120 meters of

[54:40] the subject property. Next slide, please. Before getting into a

[54:45] discussion on the current proposal, I wanted to provide a

[54:48] high level overview of the property's development history. In 2022,

[54:54] council approved a vacant land condo for the entirety of

[54:57] the property. At that time, council also granted site plan

[55:01] approval and servicing allocation for the residences at Silver Creek

[55:05] which is the development located on the western half of

[55:08] the property and is comprised of three apartment buildings containing

[55:12] 187 rental apartment units. From the outset, a townhouse development

[55:17] has been contemplated for the eastern half of the property.

[55:21] However, when council made its decision in September of 2022,

[55:25] There was insufficient servicing capacity available to facilitate the approval

[55:29] of the entire development across the whole property. So only

[55:32] the apartments were approved at that time. With additional servicing

[55:36] capacity available in 2023. A site plan consisting of twelve

[55:41] buildings with a total of 60 bungalow townhouse units for

[55:45] the east lands was conditionally approved by the director of

[55:47] growth and development and servicing allocation was approved by council.

[55:52] Fast forward to December of 2024. The proponent. In light

[55:56] american conditions submitted a pre consultation application for official plan

[56:01] and zoning bylaw amendments to facilitate a revised development concept

[56:05] for the Eastlands. Which brings us to the current point

[56:08] in time. Next slide, please. This slide provides a general

[56:13] overview of the town's development review process. The steps highlighted

[56:20] in blue have been completed. As noted, the applicant had

[56:24] initiated pre consultation with staff. Last winter and formal official

[56:28] plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications were submitted in September,

[56:31] 2025. The submission was circulated to all internal departments, external

[56:37] agencies and peer reviewers for technical review and comment. The

[56:42] amended notice of public meeting was subsequently circulated and published

[56:46] on November 5, 2025. This brings us to step six,

[56:50] the statutory public meeting, and this afternoon we will receive

[56:54] comments from members of the public on the proposed official

[56:56] plan and zoning bylaw amendments. Next slide, please. The subject

[57:02] property is located on the south side of Highway 26

[57:06] and is located southwest of the town owned Carmichael Reservoir.

[57:10] The subject development is within the broader residences at Silver

[57:14] Creek development. Surrounding land uses include residential condominium developments, including

[57:22] lighthouse Point to the North Rupert's landing to the east

[57:25] and wild wood to the south. The proposed development includes

[57:29] twelve one and a half story stack townhouse buildings containing

[57:33] 124 dwelling units, 149 service parking spaces includ. Including four

[57:39] accessible parking spaces, an outdoor amenity area and site landscaping

[57:43] are also proposed. Next slide, please. The conceptual site plan

[57:49] shown on the screen was received from the applicant in

[57:51] support of the subject. Application submitted in September. The staff

[57:57] townhouse units are grouped within twelve buildings or blocks. The

[58:01] parking area contains 149 parking spaces, including four accessible spaces,

[58:07] and site landscaping is also provided. further cash in lieu

[58:12] of parkland was provided through the broader development application notwithstanding

[58:16] The development proposes an outdoor amenity area, shown here with

[58:19] a children's play structure. Next slide, please. This slide includes

[58:25] a conceptual rendering of one of the proposed one and

[58:28] a half story stack townhouse buildings. The building on display

[58:31] would include eight units, four of which would be partially

[58:34] below grade. And the remaining four units would be wholly

[58:37] above grade. Next slide, please. This slide shows the applicable

[58:45] land use designations in the 2024 official plan. The portion

[58:50] of the subject property where the development is proposed is

[58:52] designated existing neighborhoods. The intent of the existing neighborhood's. Designation

[58:57] is two, among other matters, provide housing in a variety

[59:00] of residential forms. Such as apartment buildings, townhouses, single, detached

[59:07] and semi detached dwellings. The existing neighborhood's designation permits residential

[59:12] units in both low rise and mid rise buildings. Built.

[59:17] Forums that are considered to be low rise include, but

[59:21] are not limited to single detached dwellings duplex and semidetached

[59:25] dwellings, streets, townhouses, and any other use that is accommodated.

[59:29] In a building that is a maximum of three stories

[59:32] or 11 meters in height, whichever is less. The new

[59:37] official plan permits mid rise buildings with a maximum height

[59:40] of eight stories or 27 meters. Whichever is less. As

[59:44] of right, however, the developer is maintaining the original low

[59:47] rise building form that was contemplated previously. Next slide, please.

[59:53] The proposed residential development includes one and a half story

[59:56] tall stack tone house buildings, which fall under the low

[59:59] rise building category. The official plan provides that low rise

[1:00:07] building shall have a minimum density of ten units per

[1:00:09] net. Hectare and a maximum density of 40 units per

[1:00:12] net hectare. The purpose of the proposed official plan amendment

[1:00:17] is to redesignate the subject lands. Sorry. Can you go

[1:00:23] back one slide? Thank you. The purpose of the proposed

[1:00:30] official plan amendment is to redesign. Redesignate the subject lands

[1:00:36] from existing neighborhoods to an existing neighborhood. Site specific designation

[1:00:41] to increase the maximum permitted density of 40 units per

[1:00:45] net hectare for low rise buildings to permit 68 units

[1:00:49] per hectare to facilitate the proposed one and a half

[1:00:52] story stack. Townhouse buildings. Next slide, please. With respect to

[1:01:01] zoning, the entirety of the property is owned residential. Third

[1:01:04] density exception 33 or r 33. However, the proposed zoning

[1:01:09] bylaw amendment would apply only to the portion of the

[1:01:12] property that is within the development area as shown in

[1:01:15] the figure on the right. Next slide, please. The provisions

[1:01:19] of the r 333 zone specify that the permitted uses

[1:01:23] shall be limited to single, detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings, apartment

[1:01:27] dwellings, and grouper cluster dwellings. As the zoning bylaw defines

[1:01:32] the term stack townhouse, dwelling separately from. A townhouse dwelling

[1:01:40] stack. Townhouse dwellings are not currently. At permitted use on

[1:01:43] the subject property. Therefore, the proposed zoning bylaw amendment would

[1:01:47] amend the r 333 zone to add site specific provisions,

[1:01:51] including that. A stack townhouse dwelling be a permitted use

[1:01:56] and that the stack townhouse development shall require. A minimum

[1:01:59] of 149 parking spaces, including four accessible parking spaces. Next

[1:02:04] slide, please. The town has received comments from Enbridge, Simcoe

[1:02:09] county and the Simcoe County District School board in response

[1:02:12] to the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendments. Planning

[1:02:19] services has also received comments from town divisions and peer

[1:02:23] reviewers who are identified on this slide. Further comments are

[1:02:28] anticipated as the technical review continues. Next slide, please. Today

[1:02:33] we have received comments from four members of the public

[1:02:36] with concerns. That primarily relate to the environmental impacts increased

[1:02:44] traffic and density, trespassing, relocation of the roads, on the

[1:02:47] subject, property and landscaping. I would note that two of

[1:02:51] the four comments were received after the publishing of this

[1:02:53] presentation. Concerns from members of the public have been noted

[1:02:58] and will be considered throughout the technical review process. And

[1:03:01] addressed in the future staff report. Next slide, please. The

[1:03:06] next steps for these applications are to review and address

[1:03:09] the public and agency comments and receive the results from

[1:03:13] the remaining peer reviewers. As previously noted, we have received

[1:03:19] landscape architecture peer review results, and we anticipate that comments

[1:03:23] from the town's peer reviewer for traffic will be provided

[1:03:26] through the course of the technical review. Staff will contemplate

[1:03:30] the technical review and provide the applicant. With a compiled

[1:03:34] package of comments. The applicant will review and address the

[1:03:37] comments and make changes. If any based on the comments

[1:03:40] received prior to advancing a staff report to the committee

[1:03:43] of the whole and counsel for consideration. Future applications required

[1:03:49] would include a plan of condominium or condominium exemption application

[1:03:53] as well as a site plan control application. Next slide,

[1:03:56] please. If members of the public have comments regarding the

[1:04:00] subject applications, they can be emailed to me. At jwainwright

[1:04:04] at Collingwood, CA, or mail to the town at the

[1:04:07] address on the slide. You may also voice your comments

[1:04:10] verbally at the public meeting today or at the committee

[1:04:13] of the whole meeting prior to. A decision being made.

[1:04:19] Next slide, please. If any members of the public wish

[1:04:23] to receive notice of council decision or of future meetings

[1:04:27] regarding these applications, please provide your contact details, including your

[1:04:31] name, email and mailing address on the forum. Provided in

[1:04:34] council chambers on the table this afternoon or send me

[1:04:37] an email. At the email address provided on the screen.

[1:04:43] Committee and council meeting schedules and agendas are posted on

[1:04:46] the town's website. Collingwood, Ca. Agendas are posted on the

[1:04:51] town's website Wednesday afternoon prior to a Monday meeting. Thank

[1:04:55] you for your time and attention as I outlined the

[1:04:57] technical details of the application. This concludes my presentation. The

[1:05:02] applicant's agent, Kristin Renney from Georgian Planning Solutions and Jeff

[1:05:06] Robinsons from Reed's heritage homes are here this afternoon and

[1:05:09] would like to. Make a brief presentation regarding this proposal.

[1:05:12] Thank you. Thank you. Community planner Wayne Wright. That was

[1:05:16] excellent. Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam

[1:05:25] Mayor, members of council. Staff and the public. My name

[1:05:33] is Kristen Rennie from Georgian Planning Solutions. We do have

[1:05:37] a presentation. Can I have it on my screen as

[1:05:41] well, please?

[1:07:08] Okay, I think we're ready. Thank you. Thank you. Next

[1:07:14] slide, please. I would like to introduce our project team

[1:07:23] that we have here with me this afternoon. I'm Kristen

[1:07:26] Renny from Georgian Planning Solutions, and I'm a registered professional

[1:07:28] planner. I also have Jeff Robinson from Reed's Heritage Home,

[1:07:31] who's a senior director of development and Rebecca from Crozia

[1:07:36] Rebecca Alexander Crozier from. Consulting, Crozier Consulting engineers who is

[1:07:44] a project manager with land development. Next slide, please. Read,

[1:07:48] heritage homes and Sherwood homes have been creating communities in

[1:07:52] this area for 20 years. In Collingwood notable projects include

[1:07:56] Royal Windsor and Balmoral, georgian meadows subdivision and silver Glenn.

[1:08:02] Additionally, they also have developments in Thornbury and Georgian Bluffs

[1:08:05] and other surrounding regions. Next sl. Slide, please. As mentioned,

[1:08:10] the purpose of the public meeting today is to consider

[1:08:13] an official plan, amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment to

[1:08:16] support a proposed development with twelve bungalow stack townhome homes

[1:08:21] that are one and a half stories in height and

[1:08:22] providing 124 dwelling units. Next slide, please. Actually, we'll just

[1:08:28] flip this slide because Jocelyn covered it. As part of

[1:08:33] our complete submission, the following support documents were submitted the

[1:08:37] planning justification report and architectural and urban design brief functional

[1:08:41] servicing and stormwater management report, a traffic opinion letter, a

[1:08:45] landscape plan parking, justification study and elevation drawings. Next slide,

[1:08:50] please. So the purpose of the official plan amendment is

[1:08:54] to redesignate the subject lands from existing neighborhoods. To existing

[1:08:58] neighborhoods exception. The exemption is to increase the density to

[1:09:01] permit 68 units per hectare for a low rise residential

[1:09:04] building. Only site specific amendment. This is the only site

[1:09:11] specific amendment required for the official plan. I just want

[1:09:15] to note there are other policies within the official plan

[1:09:17] that encourage and support this. Type of development we have

[1:09:20] to. Take the whole plan into consideration. Community priorities include

[1:09:24] the official plan within the official plan. Note that the

[1:09:27] town is to provide a full range of housing options.

[1:09:30] That the town will plan to provide housing options that

[1:09:33] meet the social, health, economic and wellbeing requirements of the

[1:09:36] current and future residents that the range and mix of

[1:09:39] housing options will accommodate. A full spectrum of housing promoting

[1:09:43] compact development and intensification. Intensification will be compatible with the

[1:09:48] existing development pattern patterns while supporting the evolution to a

[1:09:53] more compact, walkable and transit supportive urban structure to be

[1:09:57] a healthy community that is accessible, connected and inclusive, with

[1:10:00] a range of housing options. Next slide, please. The purpose

[1:10:06] of the zoning bylaw is to rezone the property from

[1:10:09] residential third density exception. 33 to residential third density exception.

[1:10:17] With an exception to permit the stack townhome dwellings to

[1:10:20] permit a minimum of 149 parking spaces, including 25 visitor

[1:10:25] and four accessible spots. But all other zoning standards have

[1:10:29] been met. And just on a side note, The ones

[1:10:33] that normally are spoken to are maximum lot coverage. Within

[1:10:38] the zoning bylaw, which is 45%. We are providing 30.6

[1:10:43] and. Related to the landscaping and the open space. The

[1:10:47] minimum requirement is 35%, and we're obtaining 38.1%. Next slide,

[1:10:53] please. This is the conceptual landscape plan that was shown

[1:10:58] earlier as well. So this plan includes the location. Of

[1:11:01] the buildings, the landscaping and the park area for the

[1:11:03] residents. As well, residents within this development have access to

[1:11:09] the broader amenities within the larger development in the area.

[1:11:13] There is also trails that connect to the Georgian Trail

[1:11:15] as well as the broader Collingwood Trail system. As mentioned

[1:11:19] before, it's cash and loofer. Parkland has been paid for

[1:11:22] the overall development, as most municipalities prefer to improve and

[1:11:26] maintain existing parks and trails and facilities rather than manage

[1:11:29] many small parks throughout the community. This plan also shows

[1:11:34] the landscaping proposed and the fencing that is along the

[1:11:36] perimeter of the property. The development to the south will

[1:11:39] have a retaining ball and a retaining wall and a

[1:11:43] privacy fence. And it is adjacent to an existing parking

[1:11:45] lot on that property. The northern property line will have

[1:11:48] the same fencing, and there will be a 2.4 meters

[1:11:51] high acoustic fence. Along Highway 26. At this point. I'm

[1:11:56] now going to pass it over to. Jeff Robinson from

[1:11:59] raids Heritage homes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Kristen.

[1:12:06] Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin, members of council, staff and residents.

[1:12:16] Thank you very much for taking the time today to

[1:12:18] hear our application again. My name is Jeff. Robinson. I'm

[1:12:21] senior director of development with Reed's heritage homes in Sherwood

[1:12:25] Homes. I really want to provide a little bit of

[1:12:28] context as to why we're here today. Given that this

[1:12:32] development. Had already gone through several planning approvals. We've done

[1:12:36] some site servicing works on the site, which you've likely

[1:12:39] seen if you've driven past it. So we're kind of

[1:12:42] midstream in our development. And we've taken a pause for

[1:12:45] a minute and are reinitiating some planning applications. Our updated

[1:12:51] plans for this community. That. Both staff and Kristen have

[1:12:57] just gone through. And the associated applications that are before

[1:13:01] you today are really a result of significant changes and

[1:13:04] challenges. That we've seen in the housing market over the

[1:13:07] last, I would say, year to two. Years. And as

[1:13:11] well to address some items that have come up on

[1:13:15] the town's updated official plan. With the challenges that we've

[1:13:19] seen in the current housing market. We looked at ways

[1:13:22] in which. We're able to offer homes for this community

[1:13:27] that are really attainable for members of the community. Whether

[1:13:31] they're first time home buyers. Young families that are just

[1:13:35] starting out in home ownership and potentially some retirees. And

[1:13:40] our goal with this was also to keep. The existing

[1:13:46] low rise development concept that we had initially proposed, and

[1:13:49] that was approved through site plan. Approval. And that has

[1:13:53] led us to the stacked bungalow concept that you're seeing

[1:13:56] today before you. As I mentioned, we are targeting first

[1:14:01] time home buyers, young families. And possibly retirees in a

[1:14:05] move down market. As you can see on the elevations

[1:14:09] on the screen right now. These are still bungalow townhomes.

[1:14:14] What we've done, basically, is added a lower separate. Unit,

[1:14:17] and that lower unit will be a completely separate dwelling

[1:14:21] unit from the unit above. It will be a half

[1:14:24] story below grade, it will have nine foot ceilings, and

[1:14:28] we've provided a lot of windows within those units to

[1:14:31] provide as much. Light and airy feel as possible for

[1:14:35] those units. This has allowed us to keep the look

[1:14:39] and the feel of our original community plan. And as

[1:14:43] Kristen had noted. With the stacked orientation. Now, we're only

[1:14:48] a half story higher than the previous plan, so. This

[1:14:51] is still. A very much. A gentle density community of

[1:14:56] low rise homes. These units are going to range in

[1:15:00] size from about 1100. All the units will have two

[1:15:08] bedrooms. The homes will also each have a parking space

[1:15:13] for their units. We do have some additional parking spaces

[1:15:17] on the site concept that you've seen. We are anticipating

[1:15:22] that there will be some purchasers that likely will have

[1:15:25] two cars, and we did want to have some additional

[1:15:28] spaces available for some of those units. We anticipate going

[1:15:33] on sale with these homes as early as next spring

[1:15:36] or summer, with starting prices in the high 400,000. This

[1:15:44] is a significant reduction from the selling prices that we

[1:15:47] were originally seeking on the bungalow townhomes. A year and

[1:15:51] a half ago. And really, the stacked orientation, the efficiency

[1:15:56] of building a stacked unit still within the same footprint

[1:16:00] for these buildings. Has allowed us to lower our construction

[1:16:06] cost per square foot significantly. Which is translated into a

[1:16:10] much lower. Purchase price that we can offer to home

[1:16:14] buyers. With. These planning applications that you see before you.

[1:16:23] The site works that have already taken place. And our

[1:16:27] ability to market and sell. These stacked townhomes at a

[1:16:31] much lower price point. We are confident that we can

[1:16:34] move forward. With this community and sell to residents within

[1:16:38] Collingwood and the greater area. Thank you very much for

[1:16:41] your time today. Kristen and I are both available to

[1:16:45] answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you

[1:16:49] so much. So at this time, we're going to ask

[1:16:52] members of the community who wish to address council to

[1:16:56] come forward. Yes, go ahead. I left all my stuff.

[1:17:04] Go ahead. Good afternoon.

[1:17:15] Your worship. Deputy mayor and town counselors. My name is

[1:17:19] Grace Ignitis, and I am the chair of the shared

[1:17:22] facilities committee at Lighthouse Point. Please excuse my slightly hoarse

[1:17:28] voice. This is as good as it gets. This time

[1:17:31] of year. I am here to present. Comments and concerns

[1:17:37] of the Lighthouse Point community that has been referenced in

[1:17:40] the prior presentations. My address is 562 Mariners way. Lighthouse

[1:17:48] Point is a large and a long established community of

[1:17:51] 576 units who have contributed significantly to the town in

[1:17:57] terms of a stable tax base for many years. As

[1:18:01] concerned residents of Collingwood, we respectfully request that town council

[1:18:06] reject the current application by the developer Sherwood Homes, requesting

[1:18:11] amendments to the official plan and town zoning bylaw to

[1:18:16] permit. A residential stack townhouse development of twelve one and

[1:18:21] a half story buildings totaling 124 units. And 149 onsite

[1:18:28] parking spaces on the reverie property. Our request is based

[1:18:33] on a number of concerns with the submitted application and

[1:18:36] how it will impact our neighborhood. The official plan, which

[1:18:41] has been referred to multiple times, is there to protect

[1:18:44] Collingwood, to take care of our environment to protect the

[1:18:48] town's current and future residents who are fortunate enough to

[1:18:53] be part of this community, as well as to define

[1:18:56] the boundaries and the limits within. Which developers are to

[1:19:01] build their plans and construct their projects. The developer's initial

[1:19:07] proposal was to build 60 bungalow townhouses on this property

[1:19:12] with a resulting density of 26 units per hectare currently

[1:19:17] under the existing neighborhood's designation. The maximum permitted density is

[1:19:22] 40 units per hectare. The developer is asking to increase

[1:19:27] density to 68. Units per hectare, a 70% increase about

[1:19:32] what the current designation allows, and a 260% increase over

[1:19:38] what the developer originally proposed. A short while ago. The

[1:19:44] developer made reference to a gentle density. A 260. Percent

[1:19:50] increase over what was originally proposed. Would not be my

[1:19:54] definition of a gentle density. This proposed density significantly higher

[1:20:00] than the density of other developments in the neighborhood, which

[1:20:03] range from a high of 48 units per hectare at

[1:20:07] Waterstone to. Wildwood cove 40. Rupert's landing. 34. Dockside 22,

[1:20:16] lighthouse Point 26 and Green tree 25. All those coded

[1:20:22] numbers were the density per hectare. The density that the

[1:20:26] developer is requesting for reverie. Is 40% higher than the

[1:20:30] neighborhood's highest density development, Waterstone, and 270% higher than that

[1:20:37] of lighthouse Point and green tree. Parkland is a required

[1:20:42] part of all developments, yet there is zero park land

[1:20:45] for reverie. The developer is making a cash payment in

[1:20:49] lieu of parkland on more than one occasion in recent

[1:20:53] past members of council have spoken about not allowing this

[1:20:57] practice to continue. Given the type of housing being planned,

[1:21:02] I. E. Townhouses, as well as the proposed starting price,

[1:21:06] point. This developer will appeal to young families. Excuse me.

[1:21:15] That was noted. In the developer's earlier comments, there was

[1:21:19] a single amenity being proposed, a playground structure in a

[1:21:23] small landscaped area on the northeast corner of the property.

[1:21:28] For the proposed 124 units. That is a minuscule amount

[1:21:32] of space for children, their parents and other reverie residents

[1:21:36] to enjoy. Parking is another issue. The town zoning bylaws

[1:21:41] requirement for townhoses is two parking spaces for dwelling unit,

[1:21:46] so 248 required parking spaces. The developers proposing a total

[1:21:52] of 149 parking spaces. One parking space per unit, plus

[1:21:57] 20. Five visitor parking spots. Some and possibly many of

[1:22:02] the proposed 124 units will be two car families. That

[1:22:08] is a fact. Of life. Where will they park? The

[1:22:12] access road. Princess of Wales Drive is a fire route

[1:22:16] and does not show parking being available. There is no

[1:22:19] street parking on Highway 26. Congestion will be an ongoing

[1:22:24] issue with the accompanying safety risks. The issues and risks

[1:22:28] will be compounded during the winter months when there is

[1:22:31] ongoing snow to deal with, not only on the roads,

[1:22:35] but piled up in piles besides the parking lot. This

[1:22:39] further reduces available parking space. Lighthouse Point residents are realistic

[1:22:45] and aware of the needs in their community. We recognize

[1:22:49] more housing is required that housing needs to be built

[1:22:52] in Collingwood and that higher density helps make housing more

[1:22:57] affordable. The developer also wants to make any project worth

[1:23:01] their while, but. New development needs to be balanced within

[1:23:05] the structure and needs of the existing community and. The

[1:23:10] impact on existing neighborhoods need to be taken into consideration.

[1:23:16] The developer's desire for more density should not override the

[1:23:21] existing community's environment. And safety. Place undue strain on local

[1:23:26] infrastructure, nor limit the new community's residents in the basic

[1:23:32] amenities that they are to be provided. For their everyday

[1:23:36] life. Things like parking, green space, a safe environment. We

[1:23:41] respectfully submit that the reverie application should not be approved

[1:23:46] as currently proposed. On behalf of the lighthouse Point community,

[1:23:51] thank you for your attention. And consideration this afternoon. In

[1:23:56] addition to these comments, Lighthouse Point has a petition underway.

[1:24:01] We've received currently over 300 signatures with comments additional comments

[1:24:06] attached. I assume the applicable process is that information should

[1:24:12] be passed on to the town clerk or should it

[1:24:14] go to the town planner. Yeah, either is fine. Thank

[1:24:19] you for your time. Okay. Thank you.

[1:24:35] Welcome. Madam Mayor, deputy mayor, councilor, staff, and our audience.

[1:24:42] This is completely unplanned. My name is Brian Vermander. I'm

[1:24:46] with the calling, the climate action team and. I'm here

[1:24:49] to provide a couple of quick comments. I happen to

[1:24:53] see this in the calling with today that was going

[1:24:55] to be here. And as you know, I've been here

[1:24:58] before for new developments, advocating for fossil free development. And

[1:25:03] I'm ecstatic. With my two comments from the perspective of

[1:25:07] the first one being, as you know, densification. As gentlemen,

[1:25:10] Reed mentioned, does reduce carbon footprint. So not only. Is

[1:25:15] it economical? On his part. But it's economical from a

[1:25:18] climate pollution point of view. And it also reduces costs.

[1:25:21] So we talked about affordable housing, the price on these,

[1:25:24] it kind of shocked me. My biggest comment is I

[1:25:27] happened to look at the architectural drawings. And. Was completely

[1:25:32] blown away that this development looks like it is a

[1:25:35] fully electrified, assuming your hot water heaters are electric and

[1:25:38] not gas because they have heat pumps. So I just

[1:25:41] wanted to do a shout out to Sherwood Reed. From

[1:25:44] the point of view, this looks like maybe a landmark.

[1:25:47] Gold. Standard development that's coming. That is actually providing heat

[1:25:52] pumps from an energy point of view. So I just

[1:25:54] wanted to give them credit for. Now, I don't have

[1:25:56] to advocate here. We've got one coming. Thank you. Thanks,

[1:26:00] Brent. Yes, please come up.

[1:26:10] Hello. My name is deborah eaton kent. I'm at. Ellison.

[1:26:20] Cfa 86 out hotmail ca. And I have low vision

[1:26:26] issues, so I'm a little bit nervous. Can't see. Any

[1:26:29] of your faces. But mayor, council, staff, members of the

[1:26:34] public, I am a condo owner at Rupert's Landing. And

[1:26:39] I am offering comments, of course. My own thoughts, et

[1:26:44] cetera, but with such short notice. We didn't have a

[1:26:49] whole lot of time to gather opinions, though we have

[1:26:52] spoken a couple of us with other members of Ruperts,

[1:26:56] and we're here as supporters of the previous presentation from

[1:27:01] our neighbor's lighthouse. And also as members. Of this community.

[1:27:08] And the concerns that are outlined by lighthouse representation. Really

[1:27:14] echo. Personally. My concerns, especially. The density of the project

[1:27:24] and the concern is about traffic is bad enough on

[1:27:28] Highway 26. The development along the corridor. I understand, but

[1:27:34] there is the traffic issue, there's the environmental impact. And

[1:27:39] also. The impact on the neighborhood. There has been unbelievable

[1:27:45] amount of development. From a personal viewpoint, thank the universe

[1:27:50] that I live on the side of the highway where

[1:27:53] there is a bus stop. I recently had two eye

[1:27:56] strokes. My vision. I could never cross that highway. And

[1:28:02] if anyone's listening, it'd be great to have a crosswalk,

[1:28:05] but that aside. I'm not in favor of this development.

[1:28:10] Thank you. Thank you. Yes, please come up.

[1:28:21] Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin, councilors, town staff, and members of

[1:28:25] the public. My name is Kevin. Marshman. I live at

[1:28:29] 19 Woodland Court. Which about Cranberry Marsh and I am

[1:28:33] a director of our condo association. I appreciate the opportunity

[1:28:43] to share my thoughts with you today. I will be

[1:28:46] brief and hopefully you can hear me clearly. If I

[1:28:48] had some dental surgery, this morning. So I will keep

[1:28:53] the pain to a minimum. The cranberry. And by the

[1:28:58] way, I would say that I echo. Some of the

[1:29:02] comments. Of the. Previous speakers. I will not reiterate those.

[1:29:08] My focus is around the cranberry marsh area. And as

[1:29:12] you know, Cranberry marsh has routinely been used as a

[1:29:17] watershed for drainage by developers in this area. And while

[1:29:22] 25 years ago that might have seemed appropriate, I would

[1:29:25] suggest that that is no longer the case, and I

[1:29:27] believe that the cranberry marsh is going to continue to

[1:29:30] be used. As a watershed for this development. Residential communities.

[1:29:37] As well as areas of the golf course surrounding the

[1:29:39] cranberry marsh, are already dealing with the consequences of flooding

[1:29:43] in the marsh area. And while I acknowledge that the

[1:29:46] drug conditions this past summer have reduced the water levels.

[1:29:51] As has been previously documented before council and presentations that

[1:29:55] we have made, Wood lots and neighborhoods are under pressure

[1:29:58] due to higher water levels. The cranberry trail West Road

[1:30:02] regularly floods at its entrance to Highway 26. And our

[1:30:06] small community of Woodland Court, which is a community of

[1:30:09] 22 homes. Two homes have already experienced basement flooding due

[1:30:14] to hydrostatic pressure from an increasing water table. And their

[1:30:19] cresity density increase, which I would confirm again is the

[1:30:23] 70% increase from 40 to 68 homes. Per hectare. Will

[1:30:30] only exacerbate the watershed issues. Into the cranberry marsh and

[1:30:35] generally. As well as in particular in peak runoff periods.

[1:30:42] In addition, that's been noted by other speakers. The increase

[1:30:45] in density will also add to the worsting traffic congestion

[1:30:48] on Highway 26. Presumably the developer had a positive business

[1:30:53] case. At the plan density prior to the requested increase

[1:30:57] and accordingly does not need a requested inquiry despite changing

[1:31:01] conditions to make the economics work. It is for these

[1:31:06] reasons that I recommend. Council reject the recommended increase, however.

[1:31:12] If it is council's view that the density increase will

[1:31:15] prevail upon appeal, then I would recommend that the town

[1:31:19] require the developer to revise their groundwater drainage plans to

[1:31:24] exit the property north across Highway 26 directly into Georgian

[1:31:28] Bay. Rather than using the cranberry marsh as. Its watershed.

[1:31:33] Thank you for your time. Thank you. Would anyone

[1:31:43] else like to address council? Who's in the chambers? Yes,

[1:31:50] gret. My name is Colin Inglass for 18 mariners Way.

[1:31:53] Good afternoon, your worship. Deputy mayor, councilors. Staff and the

[1:31:57] great unwashed. A little bit about economics. So I see

[1:32:05] any number of approved developments around town, but no shovels.

[1:32:08] In the ground. So it seems like economics is superseding

[1:32:16] the province's desire to build homes. So if we look

[1:32:19] at the economics of property development, every time we increase

[1:32:24] density, we add value to that property. So that allows

[1:32:28] the owner to bow against that increased value or to

[1:32:31] sell it. To somebody else. Which kind of tends to

[1:32:34] drive up the cost to the end user. So what's

[1:32:37] missing? From this equation is a guarantee that something will

[1:32:40] actually get billed. You can have platitudes. We hope to

[1:32:42] build immediately. We hope to be available next spring. But

[1:32:46] you have no teeth. So you have to be cautious

[1:32:49] about approving something that's a significant jump like this. Where

[1:32:54] it significantly increases the value, but doesn't guarantee that anything

[1:32:57] actually happens. A couple of comments about what the developers

[1:33:01] also tell you. They say, okay, this is a one

[1:33:03] and a half story above grade. But what we've already

[1:33:07] seen on this property of Skydev is the virgin grade.

[1:33:10] If you will before development has been raised by roughly

[1:33:13] 3 meters. So what they really should tell you is

[1:33:16] the height of the top of the building above sea.

[1:33:19] Level so it can be compared to what the surrounding

[1:33:22] buildings are at. That's a bit disingenuous. I also find

[1:33:28] it somewhat disrespectful that. This is proposed, development is already

[1:33:33] being marketed by a billboard on the property. And that

[1:33:36] would seem. To assume that this public process has no

[1:33:40] value, so. I'm not particularly fond of that particular tactic.

[1:33:47] So let's look at what we're doing. We've got. A

[1:33:51] community. Driven official plan, which presumably contemplates things like schools,

[1:33:56] parks, transportation, and now. We're about to throw a portion

[1:34:00] of that out the window. By doubling the density, we

[1:34:04] have a master transportation plan that's in the works that

[1:34:07] presumably is based on that official plan and the current

[1:34:10] bylaws we have contemplating a parks plan. In the next

[1:34:16] year or two. Parks master plan. Though I will say

[1:34:21] that the last master plan was full of altruisms. But

[1:34:23] nothing to actually put a park in this particular area.

[1:34:27] So we're contemplating a high density, much higher density development

[1:34:32] in this area, one that as the developer says will

[1:34:35] appeal to young families. So we've got no parks. We've

[1:34:40] got. No active transportation trails. Certainly not one that's winter

[1:34:44] maintained. We've got no primary school in the area. I

[1:34:49] suspect that the primary school that is. Closest is probably

[1:34:51] full. So we've got a number of no's. We just

[1:34:55] need two more no's. From you. No official planned amendment,

[1:34:58] no bylaw amendment. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:35:10] Would anyone else like to come forward? Clerk on is

[1:35:14] there anyone online? Yes, your worship. We have 50 people

[1:35:22] online. Yes. So I would like to ask at this

[1:35:25] time if there's anyone that would like. To address council

[1:35:28] regarding this application, please press or raise your hand at

[1:35:30] the bottom of the screen.

[1:35:43] Doesn't look like any further request to speak to this

[1:35:46] application at this time, your worship. Okay, so if there's

[1:35:51] no other comments from the public, I'll close the public

[1:35:55] portion of. This public meeting and turn it over to

[1:35:59] council should they have any questions or comments at this

[1:36:03] stage. Councilor Baines. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin, through you, if

[1:36:08] I may, to community planner wane. Wright. If she's there.

[1:36:24] We've heard some concerns expressed, and I didn't see the

[1:36:28] dimensions, if you will. Of the children's playground. Can you

[1:36:32] give us more details about the size of that and

[1:36:35] what percentage of the overall. Development is that. If you

[1:36:44] can estimate that, what that represents. Thank you for the

[1:36:48] question and through the chair. At this time. It's just

[1:36:51] a conceptual plan, so I don't have specific dimensions. But

[1:36:55] as we work through the technical review process, we can

[1:36:58] get that information and make sure it's in the staff

[1:37:01] report. Thank you. Thank you. One more question that presumably

[1:37:04] may go to director Valentine, though, and. That's about. The

[1:37:09] number of accessible parking spaces. I'm assuming it's the province.

[1:37:13] That either dictates or restricts the total number of parking

[1:37:17] spaces for 149 spaces. But only four accessible, it would

[1:37:22] seem to me. This is a comment, an editorialized comment,

[1:37:26] if you will, of our aging demographics. That. It might

[1:37:31] be a prudent to have more accessible parking spaces. But.

[1:37:37] Does the planning act allow the flexibility? Or perhaps it's

[1:37:40] our own bylaws for the condo corporation at some time

[1:37:43] in the future to grant more accessible parking spaces should

[1:37:48] the community want those. Go ahead. So the province does

[1:37:54] require a minimum number of accessible parking spaces. I don't

[1:38:00] believe there's a restriction on the number that can be

[1:38:03] provided as long as the minimum number is. So the

[1:38:06] maximum. There's no cap. Okay, one further question. On this

[1:38:10] point particularly. Would the owners of the condo corporation. Should

[1:38:14] they require accessible parking spaces, have the opportunity to get

[1:38:20] that. In front of their unit. Perhaps this is up

[1:38:24] to the condo board itself at some time in the

[1:38:27] future to decide. I'm just curious to know that. I

[1:38:31] would look to direct a Valentine. Thank you. Go ahead.

[1:38:34] Thank you. And through the chair, I think it's important

[1:38:36] to note that the accessible parking spaces are in relation

[1:38:38] to the visitor. Parking only. So for the parking, for

[1:38:41] the units, it's a driveway or parking like any. Other

[1:38:45] unit within town. So that's an important distinction. The other

[1:38:49] piece, as planner Wayne Wright. Mentioned was with respect to

[1:38:53] provincial requirements. So even if our zoning bylaw did have

[1:38:56] a higher requirement for accessible parking. It's essentially trumped by

[1:39:00] higher order legislation, so it's a bit difficult, but I

[1:39:02] think the applicants. Have heard the request and perhaps can

[1:39:07] take that back and think about whether additional parking would

[1:39:10] be required and have additional comments on the size of

[1:39:13] the individual. Parking spaces for the units and whether those

[1:39:17] meet the accessibility size or whether they're a standard parking

[1:39:20] size for, essentially, the driveway in front of these units.

[1:39:24] Thank you. And just one further comment. Also, I'm concerned

[1:39:28] in regard to. The drainage, if you will, of the

[1:39:32] development itself and where that would end up. And I'm

[1:39:35] assuming that we can discuss that further. At director Alcoca's

[1:39:39] report. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Cassor

[1:39:46] dougherty. Thank you, chair. And thank you for your presentation.

[1:39:50] Very thorough. I had a couple of questions. And actually

[1:39:57] following up on councilor Baines, I would be interested to

[1:40:01] know. What the percent. Of and the development space is

[1:40:08] being devoted to that park area, which right now, conceptually

[1:40:13] is a playground. And I also wanted to clarify what

[1:40:18] there was reference to. This development, having access to. Other

[1:40:24] amenities on the lands, and I'm just wondering what those

[1:40:28] are and where they're. Located. Go ahead. Thank you. And

[1:40:34] through the chair. So, in addition to the outdoor amenity

[1:40:37] areas on the subject lands residents from the townhouse. Development

[1:40:41] would have access to the amenity building and outdoor amenity

[1:40:44] areas. On the side of the property with the apartment

[1:40:49] buildings. And there's also some recreational improvements happening as well.

[1:40:57] The construction of a multi use trail along the south

[1:41:00] side of highway trick 26 between the termination of the

[1:41:03] vacation entrail to the west and Highway 26, Cranberry trail

[1:41:08] intersection to the east as planned for and this trail

[1:41:11] connection will be installed as part of the construction of

[1:41:13] the townhouse develop. Development, which would have been referred to

[1:41:20] as the phase two construction under the previous planning approval

[1:41:24] for the apartment buildings. Thank you. So, just as a

[1:41:28] follow up, As the site plan progresses, I would be

[1:41:34] interested to know what the total percentage of. Recreation or

[1:41:41] amenity space amounts to. And this would be potentially through

[1:41:47] you to the developer. These are condominiums. So. They just

[1:41:54] common area condominiums. Or total. Complete condominiums. I might look

[1:42:03] to the developers just to have that specific answer, if

[1:42:06] that's okay, Jeff. You chair to the

[1:42:14] councilor. This is proposed to be a standard condominium. So

[1:42:20] the homeowners would own their units and then all of

[1:42:24] the common in many areas. The roadways. Visitor parking areas

[1:42:30] would all be common element. So all homeowners would contribute

[1:42:33] towards. The maintenance of those areas. Right. Okay. Thank you.

[1:42:40] So where I was going with that is. The price

[1:42:44] that you have quoted certainly is. Lower than what we

[1:42:50] have seen in this market, which is a good thing.

[1:42:54] But. If the condominium fees. Are excessive. Then we're back

[1:43:01] at the same situation about affordability. Yes. Through you, chair

[1:43:06] to the councilor. Yes. And that's something we always try

[1:43:09] to balance. Obviously purchase price and then condominium fees as

[1:43:13] well to keep those as low as possible because you're

[1:43:17] right, councilor. That is part of the purchase price that

[1:43:22] home buyers do consider. When they're looking to buy a

[1:43:24] unit, so. We are looking to keep those condominium fees

[1:43:29] as low as possible. As you see on the plan.

[1:43:34] We do have the playground. We have some common in

[1:43:36] many areas, but I wouldn't say it's extravagant. There's not

[1:43:40] amenity buildings within our site to try to, in order

[1:43:45] to keep those fees to a reasonable level, right? And

[1:43:52] my next question is to do with the grading. And

[1:43:57] also councilor Baines did reference. The proposed grading. Will we

[1:44:03] be seeing? Substantially increased elevation on these lands, or will

[1:44:09] we be? Are you building on. What can be seen.

[1:44:14] Right now. If you drive by the land. Through your

[1:44:18] chair to the councilor. There certainly will not be substantial

[1:44:22] grading increases. The final grading plans do need to be

[1:44:27] done through the site plan approval process, which will follow.

[1:44:31] The official plan and zoning bylaw amendment process. That's when

[1:44:34] the detailed design, in terms of grading is done. But

[1:44:40] the site is rough graded at this time. There will

[1:44:42] not be substantial increases to it. Thank you. And then

[1:44:48] finally. As the proposed development been circulated. To the boards

[1:44:56] of education. Through you to our planner. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:45:07] Thank you for the question and through the chair. Yes,

[1:45:10] they have been included in the technical circulation. And we

[1:45:13] have received comments so far from the Simcoe County District

[1:45:16] school board. Thank you. Could you elaborate on what the

[1:45:20] comments are? Yes. They will be included. In the staff

[1:45:26] report. That's to come. But. The general sense of the

[1:45:32] comment is just noting that. Width of the internal roads

[1:45:37] are too narrow in the condominium, so the school board

[1:45:40] has asked for a provision that bus stop, pickup and

[1:45:43] drop off locations be cited outside the development. Thank you.

[1:45:49] Please make no noise, please. And those are my questions.

[1:45:56] Thank you, Mayor. Councilor mccawk here. Next. Thank you, mayor.

[1:46:02] And this one, I believe, will go to Mr. Robinson.

[1:46:04] Just a quick question. Not sure. You need to come

[1:46:07] forward. Discussion of accessible parking spaces. Just in a quick

[1:46:14] view of the townhouses. They're proposed they look to me

[1:46:17] to be upstairs, downstairs, so probably not accessible. Yeah, go

[1:46:23] ahead through. You, chair to the councilor. You are correct.

[1:46:27] There's a lower. Unit, which is a half story below

[1:46:29] grade, and then an upper unit. Which is a half

[1:46:32] story grade. At this time. There's not accessible units that

[1:46:38] have been contemplated. When we do get to. The site

[1:46:43] plan approval process and the detailed elevations. And floor plans

[1:46:49] are reviewed with staff. That level of detail will be

[1:46:54] addressed through the site plan process. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:47:02] Councilor jeffrey. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I think a lot

[1:47:05] of the important questions have already been asked. I just

[1:47:07] would really comment further with respect to traffic, I would

[1:47:11] be flabbergasted if there's not something that comes out of

[1:47:14] the traffic report because I think at some point we're

[1:47:16] going to have to tap out on the capacity of

[1:47:19] Highway 26 west, and I'm not sure where that happens.

[1:47:24] But. No clapping, please. I know from my personal experience

[1:47:29] right now, Some nights can feel like a parking lot.

[1:47:32] And we're not even at ski season yet. And I

[1:47:36] have to ask myself, what night of the week is

[1:47:37] it? And it's only Tuesday or Wednesday. I think that

[1:47:42] I'll be really interested to see what comes out of

[1:47:45] the traffic notes. Okay. Thank you, deputy mayor thank you,

[1:47:50] Mayor Hamlin. And I think just first off, I want

[1:47:52] to thank the presenters, all the presenters, the public. It's

[1:47:55] all good food for thought, for. Us to have. so

[1:47:59] I'm looking forward to the staff report. As a member

[1:48:02] of the Affordable Housing Task force, I do just want

[1:48:04] to comment that I appreciate the efforts as a developer

[1:48:07] in regards to. Coming up with some concept in regards

[1:48:11] to helping us with our working middle, which we've identified

[1:48:15] as a crisis situation in Collingwood. We have commented at

[1:48:20] the task force level about how cooperative our development community

[1:48:24] has been because. Municipality doesn't have an awful lot of

[1:48:29] tools to work on affordable housing directly. We rely. Completely

[1:48:35] on a cooperative effort by everybody involved. And so I

[1:48:39] do want to commend you for your efforts in that

[1:48:41] regard, and I look forward to the staff report because

[1:48:44] that gives us the meat of everything that we've been

[1:48:47] hearing today the impacts of it and that. When we

[1:48:51] get that, that, of course, we'll be in a public

[1:48:53] environment where people have an opportunity to also share their

[1:48:57] expressions of interest in regards to those reports. So I'm

[1:49:00] looking forward to that next stage. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:49:04] I'm sorry. The public portion of the meeting. Has been

[1:49:07] closed. But this council meeting is not finished yet. I'm

[1:49:11] just addressing a gentleman in the back. Who's got his

[1:49:14] hand up, but you can write in and let us

[1:49:17] know. Any other comments? Yes, go ahead. This part of

[1:49:25] the meeting is not over yet. If you're wanting to

[1:49:28] hear the rest. Of it. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I

[1:49:34] just wanted to springboard off of deputy mayor Fryer's comments

[1:49:37] to note that there is a sign up sheet at

[1:49:39] the front. And some members have found that on their

[1:49:42] way out. But community planner Wayne Wright will take that

[1:49:46] out with her, and we would appreciate those who would

[1:49:49] like to be updated when the staff report comes forward

[1:49:52] to include your name and email address on that sign

[1:49:55] up sheet so that you can continue to be informed

[1:49:57] on this project. And I have a few questions as

[1:50:01] well. I was wondering if there's just one parking spot

[1:50:05] or unit, where will people park? Who? Have two cars.

[1:50:11] I'll leave that in the ether, because I know this.

[1:50:17] Can be addressed in the staff report. I'd be grateful.

[1:50:20] I also would like to know if there's any amenity

[1:50:22] space, outdoor amenity space. Associated with each unit. Because that

[1:50:29] might influence how we see other things. And the third

[1:50:33] thing is, I'm a bit concerned about the private roads.

[1:50:38] I've expressed my view about private roads a number of

[1:50:39] times. At council. And it's really associated with the fact

[1:50:45] that. These owners, who presumably are buying more moderately priced

[1:50:50] homes. Are in the future going to be saddled with

[1:50:53] the cost of maintaining roads and the infrastructure. Under them.

[1:50:58] And it's a hidden cost. And we know, sitting here,

[1:51:02] how much it costs to repair. And replace. Services that

[1:51:07] are under the ground and the pavement and so on.

[1:51:11] So I do have a concern about that. And I

[1:51:13] also have a concern about the width of it. I

[1:51:17] heard the comment about the school buses, but also. I

[1:51:23] think it's important that we make sure that the width

[1:51:26] of any road is wide. Enough to accommodate. The garbage

[1:51:29] trucks from Simcoe County. We pay so much in our

[1:51:34] community to the county of Simcoe for garbage collection, and

[1:51:39] so. Many of our residents. I think it could be

[1:51:41] as high as a third. Get no garbage collection. Because

[1:51:45] their roads aren't wide enough or some other rule that

[1:51:49] we just didn't. Know about when these things were, when

[1:51:52] buildings were being built. And that is really an excessive

[1:51:56] cost for a community to have to look after its

[1:52:00] own garbage. Account. So those are my comments. And if

[1:52:04] there's none other here, I see none others. That's the

[1:52:08] end of this part of the meeting. Thank you. All

[1:52:11] right. So why don't we take a ten minute break?

[1:52:20] And then we'll come back. Thank you.

[1:52:34] Pat. Pathology.

[2:05:24] Okay, council, we'll get back to work. Next item on

[2:05:30] the agenda is 8.1. Our recommendation is that the minutes

[2:05:34] of the Special Council committee of the whole held November

[2:05:38] 12, 2025 excluding committee of the whole recommendations. Council committee

[2:05:45] of the whole meeting held November 17, 2025. Excluding committee

[2:05:49] of the whole recommendations. Special council meeting held November 19,

[2:05:54] 2025 and council meeting held November 24, 2025. The approved

[2:06:00] as presented. Could I have a move in a seconder,

[2:06:02] please? Councilor Baines? Seconded by councillor Perry. Comments? All those

[2:06:07] in favor? And that's unanimous. Is there any business arising

[2:06:15] from those previous minutes? Seeing none. The next is. Recommendation

[2:06:24] for approval from the committee of the whole recommendations and

[2:06:28] Councilor Jeffrey at the beginning. Asked if we could pull

[2:06:33] c 2020 514. So. Except for that one. Can I

[2:06:40] have a mover in a second to approve the recommendations

[2:06:44] from the committee of the. Whole meeting held November 12

[2:06:47] and November 17, 2025. Councilor McCullough seconded by councilor Dougherty

[2:06:53] comments. Jesus. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank

[2:06:58] you. And then item c 2020 514, can I have

[2:07:04] a mover in a seconder for that one, please. Councilor

[2:07:10] Dougherty, as seconded by councilor Perry. And over to you,

[2:07:13] Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. So in

[2:07:18] reviewing the meeting and the minutes and things. I was

[2:07:23] really quite surprised. I had expected a much more robust.

[2:07:28] Conversation in terms of. Our governance side of the decisions

[2:07:33] that were made or not made. And about the seriousness

[2:07:37] of, about being able to attract younger and more diverse

[2:07:41] candidates for council. And when you think of the complexity

[2:07:46] of our files that we have, As counselors and council

[2:07:51] members. I was explaining earlier to the clerk and the

[2:07:56] CAO that the absorption of information. In a much more

[2:08:00] shorter time. From the CAO as she oversees all of

[2:08:04] the departments that we have to take that on board.

[2:08:07] And digest it very quickly and responsibly to make really

[2:08:11] good decisions. So I thought there would have been a

[2:08:14] bit more conversation, with respect. To. The more demand that

[2:08:21] is occurring on council members as we move forward in

[2:08:24] different years and provincial policy that's been changing. And the

[2:08:28] other thing that didn't get discussed, I don't think was.

[2:08:31] A differential that has occurred now. With the county increase

[2:08:35] for our mayor and deputy mayors. So the differential between.

[2:08:40] The mayor. Who will. The mayor position will reach maybe

[2:08:43] one 2120 thousand a year going forward. By 2027, and

[2:08:50] the deputy mayor, who I think is maybe 80 and.

[2:08:53] These aren't for sure, but I think I'm pretty close.

[2:08:56] That we have council members at 28 five plus special

[2:09:01] meetings. So I think that brings us in. Around a

[2:09:04] base of 30,000. And it's difficult politically for an incoming

[2:09:10] council to vote increases. So I think it's, incumbent upon

[2:09:14] us as a council to take a really serious look

[2:09:17] at that, to make that decision now for the incoming

[2:09:22] council members. Given their responsibilities. And it won't impact the

[2:09:28] 2026 budget seriously, because that will only be about seven.

[2:09:33] Weeks at the end of 2026. But the impact that

[2:09:36] would come in and again, I don't think it's that

[2:09:39] much. Depending on what? If I were able to have

[2:09:43] council. Support an increase for council members in 2020. Seven

[2:09:47] wouldn't be a really overburdensome one. So I guess for

[2:09:52] the discussion. The other part of the discussion I thought

[2:09:55] was important. Is that I didn't see us talking about

[2:09:58] time of meetings, length of meetings, time of. Day, day.

[2:10:04] All of those things that can weigh on the people

[2:10:08] that you can attract around the table. To run this

[2:10:12] business. So I guess what I'm asking is, I'd like

[2:10:16] to refer to the budget. Process. The request for an

[2:10:20] increase for council members to be considered in that budget

[2:10:23] process. And I think the clerk agreed that that's the

[2:10:26] appropriate process. If there's a time at future that we

[2:10:31] can talk about all those other things, other than just.

[2:10:36] Remuneration. I'd be certainly pleased to be able to participate

[2:10:40] in that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So with that

[2:10:47] comment in mind, Did you want to speak to this

[2:10:50] as well? No. Yeah. I'm pretty sure. If I remember

[2:10:58] correctly, I did speak to some of the topics of

[2:11:01] the times and meetings and stuff. Through it. And the

[2:11:05] challenging of everything happened during the day. So it definitely

[2:11:08] was discussed. Deputy mayor thank you, Mayor Hamlin, and. I'll

[2:11:15] just note that I agree fully. It's a challenging environment

[2:11:18] to try to look, but I recognize. There's a real

[2:11:22] change. In the differential between the county council members. And

[2:11:29] the rest of council, and I don't see that being

[2:11:31] a positive situation. So I did look at my method

[2:11:36] for it was to reduce size and use the money

[2:11:40] to spread out, and that was defeated, and I'll accept

[2:11:43] that. The one question I was going to ask, and

[2:11:46] it has a little bit to do with I had

[2:11:48] been thinking of suggesting that putting a question on the

[2:11:52] ballot. And whether the public would be receptive to going

[2:11:57] down to seven, but. I know there was discussion from

[2:12:02] councilor Baines about ward, so I wondered if we could.

[2:12:05] Just my understanding of the situation. If you're going to

[2:12:09] put a question on the ballot. Is, if council decides

[2:12:13] there's going to be a question, it has to go

[2:12:14] through a public process, including a public meeting. And that's

[2:12:19] how you educate the public. In advance of answering the

[2:12:23] question. And I'll just through you if I could marry

[2:12:26] him. And just verify with the clerk that that's the

[2:12:28] situation. And perhaps what kind of timing. Would be kind

[2:12:32] of the last. Ability to do it. Yeah, go ahead,

[2:12:36] clerk Thomas. Certainly. Thank you, your worship. To deputy Mary

[2:12:39] Fryer's. Question. I don't have my specific notes up with

[2:12:43] me regarding that question, but. There is set deadlines, and

[2:12:48] I believe they're around the beginning of March. Processes have

[2:12:51] to be starting. Within generally mid January, and then there's

[2:12:56] certain notice period that's required for the public and then

[2:12:59] council has to pass a bylaw. But I can provide

[2:13:02] further detail on what. Those timelines are. Just to clarify,

[2:13:06] though, I believe the March 1 date is when it

[2:13:10] all have to be completed. By right. It's not educating

[2:13:15] the public. After March 1, you would still do that,

[2:13:19] but there's. A requirement you have to meet. And that's

[2:13:21] up to March 1, right? Yeah. Thank you. I'll just

[2:13:26] add I didn't find it. I know you found it

[2:13:28] surprising we didn't talk about councilor compensation. But. It's not

[2:13:34] been raised here while I've been married. I'm not opposed.

[2:13:38] To having a discussion. I know. Usually. We have a

[2:13:44] report done for us to show how comparative municipalities are

[2:13:47] done. So I guess we'll get into that more when.

[2:13:53] We talk about the budget, whether that's needed. The only

[2:13:56] thing I'll correct is. I think the compensation for the

[2:14:00] mayor. Once the county. Is fully integrated because there hadn't

[2:14:06] been an increase there for 20 years. County Council was

[2:14:10] the lowest paid of all the upper tier. Local government.

[2:14:17] So I think with that, My calculation is about 110.

[2:14:21] So it's close, but 110. But anyway, we'll look. Forward

[2:14:24] to discussing that during the budget. Mary Hamilton I guess

[2:14:29] I made the assumption based on the fact that. Management.

[2:14:32] Quag's report was in touched to the agenda which had

[2:14:36] all the comparators from. 21, 22. And so I made

[2:14:42] the assumption that the information was there and had the

[2:14:44] potential to be discussed. But I wasn't here to bring

[2:14:46] it up. Yeah, okay. Thank you. So we'll bring this

[2:14:50] to a vote then. This is with respect to that

[2:14:53] one item. C 20 514. All those in favor. And

[2:14:58] that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is. So this

[2:15:03] was dealt with. At the committee of the whole meeting

[2:15:05] and carried five to three. The recommendation is that staff

[2:15:09] report. C 2020 513 naming the new waterfront park twelve

[2:15:14] side launch wave you received and the Council endorsed the

[2:15:18] name Harbor Junction is the official name for the new

[2:15:20] waterfront park at twelve side launch. Way. As recommended by

[2:15:25] the naming committee in accordance with the facility naming policy.

[2:15:29] Could I have a mover in a seconder to get

[2:15:31] this on the floor? You have. Something to say before

[2:15:33] we get it on the floor. Okay, good. Anyone want

[2:15:38] to put this on the floor? For discussion. Councilor Dougherty,

[2:15:42] seconder. Okay, so this item goes off the agenda. Mayor

[2:15:49] Hammond, I was going to ask to sever so that

[2:15:51] we could receive first. Sure, but I feel like we

[2:15:54] have to get it on the floor first or this

[2:15:56] item will disappear. I'm just saying you have to bring

[2:15:59] it with another motion and notice emotion and. So on.

[2:16:02] I'll second. Thank you. Discuss. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And

[2:16:06] you would like the two items severed, so that's good.

[2:16:11] So let's just deal with the first one, which is

[2:16:13] receiving the report. All those in favor? And that's unanimous.

[2:16:18] Thank you. The second part. Who would like to. Speak

[2:16:21] to this. councilor beans Thank you, Mayor Hamlet. I

[2:16:30] respect greatly the process that came up with a name.

[2:16:35] And supported it at that time. However, subsequent to that,

[2:16:38] I've had discussions with various members. Of the community. And

[2:16:44] read with great interest the museum's article about. The. Dry.

[2:16:53] What am I thinking of? The name escapes me right

[2:16:56] now, but the dry talks. Yes, of course. And frankly,

[2:17:01] I must say, touched by my colleague. Councilor rings plea,

[2:17:05] if you will, for that name, actually, and I have

[2:17:08] changed my position on this. And now support. Dry dock

[2:17:14] junction, I think as an appropriate name at this point.

[2:17:19] I don't do this lightly, but I really do think

[2:17:21] it's the appropriate name. Upon reflection, so that will be

[2:17:25] my position. That. That name, I think, is appropriate at

[2:17:28] this time. Okay, so it's the name you're putting forward

[2:17:33] is dry docks junction. Is that. Correct. Dry dock junction.

[2:17:38] Dry dock junction. Got it. Okay. Anyone else like to

[2:17:42] speak to this councilor Perry? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I've

[2:17:47] pondered this for two weeks now. And written down my

[2:17:52] thoughts. So please bear with me because I don't want

[2:17:54] to forget. Anything. I've been thinking about this a lot

[2:17:58] and very uneasy about it. Dry dock junction is a

[2:18:02] strong name that reflects our shipyard heritage and past employees.

[2:18:07] My worry is that we have asked the public for

[2:18:09] input, and we probably had the best public response. We've

[2:18:13] had for anything. At least that I can remember. My

[2:18:17] concern is by changing the name that was chosen by

[2:18:19] the committee because. We perhaps don't like it or we

[2:18:23] don't feel it represents the area. What kind of message.

[2:18:27] Is it sending to residents who may want to have

[2:18:30] their opinions heard, but we just ignore them? And do

[2:18:33] what we want anyway. After careful consideration and conversations with

[2:18:39] councilor ring, councilor Baines and others. I fully support dry

[2:18:45] docked junction. As I said. It's a great name, but

[2:18:49] I think some thoughts should have been put into the

[2:18:52] junction. Or the yard. Both simplified names, and it removes

[2:18:55] any confusion over harborhouse. The junction was one of the

[2:18:59] top five that was chosen by the committee. And I

[2:19:02] venture to say that it will end up being called

[2:19:04] the junction if dry dock junction. Does become the name,

[2:19:07] just to shorten it up, as we always do. My

[2:19:10] thoughts are about trying to honor the process of public

[2:19:13] engagement, respect the important history and past employees of the

[2:19:17] shipyard, and I know there will be many references to

[2:19:20] dry dock and to the shipyards all through the park.

[2:19:24] As Director Cubit mentioned two weeks ago. Anyway, that's where

[2:19:28] I stand. Thank you. Deputy mayor. Thank you, mayor. I'm

[2:19:37] going to also say. I understand the facility naming process

[2:19:41] and appreciate the work that was done. And brought forward

[2:19:46] the recommendation. That council is the one who has to

[2:19:50] consider it. Council is the one who has to make

[2:19:51] the decision. Or it wouldn't be coming back to us.

[2:19:55] The committee would just decide what it is. And that's

[2:19:57] what it is. When Terminal's point was the name selected

[2:20:01] for the process, I didn't fully agree. With it. But

[2:20:05] I supported the choice of the committee in that case.

[2:20:08] In the case of Piazza, though. To a much greater

[2:20:12] extent. I don't agree with it and can't support any

[2:20:15] of the five names that were proposed, I do support.

[2:20:19] The dry dock junction name that has been proposed. Dry

[2:20:23] dock number one pioneered large scale shipbuilding in Ontario, as

[2:20:27] it was the first major dry dock. That was born

[2:20:31] from calling with success. With the advent of rail service,

[2:20:34] including the building of the original grain terminals. As a

[2:20:37] step forward. The initial name captured the significant step forward

[2:20:41] of dry dock one as it was Collingwood dry dock

[2:20:44] shipbuilding and foundry. Dry duck number one operated for the

[2:20:48] entire 103 years life. Of the shipyards. Regarding the harbor

[2:20:52] reference, I can see why some favorite, but just can't.

[2:20:56] Look past. The fact that Harbor House condo building is

[2:20:58] immediately adjacent, and I think it creates an appearance of

[2:21:02] the piazza being a private park for harbor house. Yeah.

[2:21:07] Signage will be in place and identify that it isn't,

[2:21:10] but I think there may be cases where people move

[2:21:12] on to another location because they're not unsure before they

[2:21:16] have a chance to see the signage, so I continue

[2:21:19] to support. Dry dog junction going forward, and I want

[2:21:25] to just explain the reasons why. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:21:31] Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, chair. I'm sort of. Of the

[2:21:38] same. View. As councilor Perry. That the public spoke. We

[2:21:47] put a committee in place. They came forward with a

[2:21:49] recommendation. I also appreciate the fact that. Ultimately, council does

[2:21:57] have the last say. So to that end, Through you

[2:22:03] to Director Cubit. Did dry dock junction even appear? On

[2:22:10] the list. Go ahead. Director Cuban. Sorry. Thank you. I'm

[2:22:14] going to refer back to clerk Almaz. As I was

[2:22:17] not part of the naming committee. Clerk Thomas. Ironically, I've

[2:22:25] just been doing a little search on that through to

[2:22:27] Councilor Dougherty. Dried out junction was not. however The reference

[2:22:34] to drydock was eight times. So out of the 160

[2:22:41] plus submissions, Drydock was noted. Eight out of harbor, it

[2:22:45] was noted 17. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor

[2:22:54] ring. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. And I, too.

[2:23:00] You know what? I've spoke quite a bit against. The

[2:23:06] proposed name of Harbor Junction at that last meeting and

[2:23:08] was one of. The three knee votes at that time.

[2:23:13] And I do appreciate the process. I still couldn't get

[2:23:17] over the fact that. When this all started, we said

[2:23:23] we were going to try to name the park that

[2:23:25] had some significance to our heritage, our history. Location where

[2:23:29] it is. And I just couldn't see. How we could

[2:23:34] not pick drydock over harbor and then. With the location

[2:23:40] of the park going to be basically on the same

[2:23:43] property as Harbor House. It's not going to have any

[2:23:47] special significance to the economy. Shipyards. It's been 40 years

[2:23:52] since it's been closed. But. If we keep not. Trying

[2:23:58] to carry the name on. At some point, we're going

[2:24:01] to forget what it is. Dry dock junction. Is exactly

[2:24:11] what it should be called. Because of deputy Fryer. Just

[2:24:14] give them a little bit of history there with the

[2:24:16] significance, with the railway railroad. And. The part. The two

[2:24:21] of them both play at the same time. I'm having

[2:24:24] a hard time because I'm a diehard supporter of this

[2:24:28] town. And the history of this town. I think. We

[2:24:37] all know that. Since I've been alive, we've had all

[2:24:41] kinds of. Manufacturing. Plants within the town of Collingwood that

[2:24:46] have closed. But the only one that still anybody ever

[2:24:51] talks about is a shipyard. I don't want that to

[2:24:55] ever end, so, I mean. This town was built on

[2:24:59] ship building, and I think just a little thing, like

[2:25:02] a significant name. That reflects that. Is worth the change

[2:25:09] to this suggested name today. Hey. Thank you, Councilor Dougherty.

[2:25:16] Wait, I should just see if anyone else. Spoken. Councilor

[2:25:21] JeffRey well, thank you very much, Mayor ham. And someone

[2:25:24] who was reading about this from afar. I have to

[2:25:27] say I'm relieved to get back and hear this conversation.

[2:25:32] Because. I was with some long the tooth Collingwood people

[2:25:35] as well, and we all had kind of the same.

[2:25:39] Feeling about it without knowing what was going on here

[2:25:41] in the background, so. I'm really relieved. And would really

[2:25:46] support. And again, I do understand we've had that process

[2:25:50] as long as we've had advisory committees. There's always had

[2:25:54] to be this understanding that as much of the work

[2:25:56] it's an evolution. And what they bring, they've already processed

[2:25:59] through to us, and we get it. At a very

[2:26:01] finite place, and then we do make that decision. And

[2:26:04] that's never going to change as long as we have

[2:26:06] advisory committees. And committees that support us in many ways,

[2:26:12] like facility naming. So very much a supporter of dry

[2:26:16] dog junction. Okay, thank you. Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor Hamlin.

[2:26:21] As I was one of the naysayers at the last

[2:26:25] meeting. Again, I would not support Harvard Junction. I do

[2:26:29] support the dry dock junction name. Even after last meeting,

[2:26:34] I spoke with a lot of residents in the municipality.

[2:26:38] Some that were new to Collingwood, long term Collingwood, and

[2:26:42] it was all a common theme that. It was, I

[2:26:46] guess, the history that. The heritage in history that really

[2:26:50] should be displayed here. So again, I do support the

[2:26:54] dry dock name. I do appreciate the time that committees

[2:26:58] put in. And people put in for their efforts, but

[2:27:01] in something like this. The harbor name. I just. Right

[2:27:04] from the get go. I just do not think it

[2:27:08] justifies. What we're all about. So I would support the

[2:27:13] dry dock name. Thanks. Thank you. Clerk Thomas. Thank you.

[2:27:19] Just for reference. The yard was referenced 22 times. Okay.

[2:27:29] Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, chair. So. In the staff report,

[2:27:37] there was an alternative recommendation and. If the main motion

[2:27:44] fails, I'd like to put that forward and that is

[2:27:47] that, council. Would proceed with. A 15 day public consultation

[2:27:52] to receive comments on the recommended name. So if council

[2:27:56] feels strongly about the dry dock junction. Let's put it

[2:28:00] to our residents before we make a unilateral. Decision. Okay,

[2:28:06] so perhaps at this time I should be asking if

[2:28:09] there is an amendment to the main. Motion to change

[2:28:12] the name that's proposed. Because. It says right now, harbor

[2:28:19] Junction. So I think. I'm looking for an amendment. Is

[2:28:24] that correct, or do you think we should vote this?

[2:28:26] Down. Voted down. Okay. All right, so we'll do that.

[2:28:32] Or not, depending on how the vote goes. Is there

[2:28:35] anyone else who'd like to speak before we come to

[2:28:37] a vote on the. Second part of this motion, then

[2:28:40] the name. No. Okay. All those in favor of the

[2:28:46] Harvard junction. And those opposed. Hey, that's unanimous. Thank you.

[2:28:53] All right. Counselor ring. Oh, sorry. No, you got to

[2:29:01] add up. After you. No, after you. Okay, go ahead,

[2:29:07] Kelsey. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlet. Thank you very.

[2:29:10] Much councilor beans. I know you mentioned it and brought

[2:29:15] this topic up, but I'd like to make a motion

[2:29:17] to go with the name. Of the piazza park down

[2:29:22] at the waterfront there. The renamed. To dry, dark junction.

[2:29:30] Okay. Thank you. And Councilor Maines will second that. Any

[2:29:33] further discussion? councilor doherty Thank you, mayor. So just per

[2:29:41] my previous comments, I'd like to ask that. Should council

[2:29:45] agree on that name, that we would at least. Provide

[2:29:49] a 15 day public consultation. On the council recommended name.

[2:29:56] Okay, so I'll treat this as an amendment to councilor.

[2:29:59] Ring's motion. Would there be a seconder? Councilor Baines. Sir.

[2:30:15] Negligible. Thank you. Is there a seconder for Councilor Dougherty's

[2:30:20] motion? Yell second at. Okay, so we'll deal with the

[2:30:25] amendment. And deputy mayor. You'd like to speak to it?

[2:30:30] Amendment. Yes. I just wanted to ask councilor Dougherty if

[2:30:34] she wants to go first or last. In speaking to

[2:30:37] it. Deputy mayor Virtila one thing I had in mind

[2:30:43] over the two weeks was. It seemed to me that

[2:30:47] we hadn't had any input from the Heritage committee. So.

[2:30:53] I can certainly support the idea of putting the name

[2:30:56] out there and seeing what response we get. From the

[2:30:58] public. But. I would specifically ask that the Heritage committee

[2:31:03] be asked for their input. So would you accept that

[2:31:08] as a friendly amendment to the 15 day period? I

[2:31:13] believe they have a meeting coming up on Thursday the

[2:31:15] fourth. Thank you. Yeah. So. During that 15 day that

[2:31:23] it would go to the heritage committee and the public.

[2:31:28] Okay. All right. Anyone else like to speak to this

[2:31:32] councilor ring? Just a question through you. To clerk Almas

[2:31:36] what takes place in the 15 days? Go ahead. Thank

[2:31:43] you. Through Mary Hamlin to Councilor Ring. I'm not sure

[2:31:46] if we've. Had to undertake this. In this process, but.

[2:31:53] It would be using our social media channels, using engage

[2:31:57] Collingwood, putting a survey up, getting people to comment accepting

[2:32:00] email feedback. Any sort of way that we can solicit

[2:32:06] feedback on the name. We would undertake. Let me follow

[2:32:11] up with that. So then after the 15 days. Is

[2:32:16] just. To tabulate all the information that you've got from

[2:32:19] the public and who determines. Certainly. So, for clarification, we

[2:32:25] will put it back in a report, bring it back

[2:32:26] to council that this is the feedback that we heard

[2:32:28] and then council would make the final decision. Councilor Perry,

[2:32:33] I think. Clerk. The clerk just answered my question. But

[2:32:35] we'd be voting. On this again, just so I'm clear.

[2:32:38] Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'll come back to you. Councilor

[2:32:44] McCullough. Thank you, Merrick. Just a quick follow up to

[2:32:47] that question. What? If the answer comes back. No. The

[2:32:51] people who submit do not like that name. Where do

[2:32:54] we go from there? I think that's a good rhetorical

[2:32:56] question. Go ahead. And we can't answer it until we

[2:33:04] see. Right, but that's the type of information I think

[2:33:07] is being sought by. The suggested amendment, so I would

[2:33:12] just clarify if I could. Hoping that knowing that 15

[2:33:18] days after today would be. Past the release of the

[2:33:21] agenda for the 19th. Do you think it's doable to

[2:33:26] still get it on as an amendment where we have

[2:33:28] the information so that we can make a decision on

[2:33:30] 19th. Our next council committee. The whole meeting is the

[2:33:35] 15th. And no, we would not. It would come. Back

[2:33:38] in the new year, so. And we would extend it,

[2:33:42] allow additional comments as needed. I'll just weigh in with.

[2:33:49] Every counselor has to ask themselves in their heart, will

[2:33:53] they? Change their mind on the name that's before us

[2:33:57] today. Because don't forget, we had 166 people weigh in

[2:34:03] already on what they thought the name should be. And

[2:34:07] that has been the most who have ever weighed in.

[2:34:10] So our staff told us. So we can expect we're

[2:34:13] going to hear from quite a number of people. So.

[2:34:18] If you feel my view would be if you feel

[2:34:20] your mind is open. Then you would support Councilor Dougherty's

[2:34:24] motion. But if your mind is closed. Let's not put

[2:34:28] our public through this and agonize over this again at

[2:34:31] council. And. I'm not going to support it. Thank you.

[2:34:36] This is your last goal. And I'm just going to

[2:34:40] do what you suggested is state that I won't. Support

[2:34:44] it for that reason. I thought it was doable in

[2:34:46] the near future, and since it's not. I'm supportive of

[2:34:51] dry dock junction and going forward, thank you. Anyone else

[2:34:56] before I let councilor Dougherty have the last word. Go

[2:35:00] ahead, councilor Dougherty. Thank you, mayor. My rationale is, I

[2:35:07] think, very simple. The name that council have put forward

[2:35:12] is not a name that the public. Chose with any

[2:35:17] frequency. So why not just offer two weeks of additional

[2:35:23] consultation? Maybe they'll like the ring of it, and they'll

[2:35:26] all come back and say it's a great name. My

[2:35:30] mind is open either way. But. I think that. If

[2:35:38] we're going to offer people the opportunity. To weigh in

[2:35:42] on things like this. Let's listen to them. This is

[2:35:47] what really. Is sort of bothering me about. The alternative

[2:35:52] name. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So we'll bring this

[2:35:55] to a vote. So we're voting on the amendment. To

[2:36:03] the name. Which. Is the amendment to the motion to

[2:36:08] change the name. Which is if we change the name.

[2:36:12] That we would go to the public with it for

[2:36:14] a 15 day period to solicit. Further advice. And a

[2:36:18] report back from the clerk. I think I've captured that.

[2:36:22] Yes. Okay. All those. In favor. It's one. And those

[2:36:26] opposed? So that fails. Thank you. Okay, now, the main

[2:36:32] motion is. To name the Nukewaterfront park at twelve side

[2:36:37] launch, way to be dry dock junction. And we had

[2:36:42] a mover in a seconder, so I'm just going to

[2:36:44] bring this to a vote. All those in favor? And

[2:36:48] opposed. Okay, that carries with one opposed. Okay, thank you,

[2:36:53] everybody. That was a thing. All right. No staff reports,

[2:36:59] but we do have two bylaws here. The first one,

[2:37:02] and I'm looking for a mover and a seconder. That

[2:37:07] we enact and pass bylaw 2025. 82, being a bylaw

[2:37:12] to provide for the 2026 interim tax levy could have

[2:37:15] a mover and a seconder. Councilor Jeffrey send seconded by

[2:37:19] councilor McCullough. Comment all those in favor? And that's approved.

[2:37:25] The second one is to enact and pass bylaw 20

[2:37:29] 25. 83 being a bylaw to authorize the execution of

[2:37:34] a development charge exemption agreement between the corporation of the

[2:37:38] town of Collingwood and Simata Properties, Inc. For the property,

[2:37:42] address is 4726. 6th street could have him move her

[2:37:45] in a second. Councilor Perry, seconded by Counselor Dougherty. Comments.

[2:37:54] Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I threw you. Could

[2:37:58] we turn to the Cao or. To director Valentine. Or

[2:38:03] maybe director Graham, I guess. Can they give us a

[2:38:08] little bit of background on this? Just to refamiliarize myself

[2:38:13] on it. Yeah, I think director Valentine is happy to

[2:38:16] speak. To this. Or not? Yes. Thank you, chair. I

[2:38:21] can certainly start and had director Graham can layer on

[2:38:25] on. Top, I did anticipate that council would want some

[2:38:28] additional context with respect to this bylaw so with the

[2:38:32] assistance of coordinator D'Souza, we came up with some remarks.

[2:38:36] As background. Earlier this year, the owner and developer of

[2:38:39] this particular property. Thought land use planning approvals to sever

[2:38:43] the property into two parcels, and then they moved. Forward

[2:38:46] with plans to build four dwelling units on each of

[2:38:49] the resultant lots. So that's eight rental units that are

[2:38:53] part of their project. This critical infill project was enabled

[2:38:58] through the council's proactive passing of the quick wins support

[2:39:03] for affordable housing zoning bylaw update and that does allow

[2:39:06] up to four units as of right on. Residential properties

[2:39:10] with appropriate servicing. This project. In staff's opinion, will contribute

[2:39:16] to increasing the supply of rental housing within the community.

[2:39:19] The developer's meta properties has decided on top of this

[2:39:22] to make two of the rental units. Affordable, as per

[2:39:25] the definition of affordable rentals under the Development Charges act,

[2:39:29] and that does align with the town's own goals of

[2:39:33] target for affordable rent. Rents to middle income houses. This

[2:39:38] allows the project to take advantage of the legislative exemptions

[2:39:41] for affordable housing units under the Development Charges act, meaning

[2:39:45] that no dcs would be levied against those two affordable

[2:39:48] units and they'd be required to be remained at an

[2:39:51] affordable rent for a minimum of 25 years. In accordance

[2:39:55] with the agreement, that would be execute. Executed with the

[2:39:58] town. These are the first two affordable units that have

[2:40:01] been eligible for the DC exemptions in Collingwood that we're

[2:40:04] aware of. We do continue to hear consistent messaging from

[2:40:08] the development community. That high costs, including development charges, are

[2:40:12] a barrier to building affordable housing and housing supply more

[2:40:16] generally. The exemption before you today does demonstrate that reductions

[2:40:21] or exemptions in dcs that were put in place by

[2:40:24] the province can make a difference in project performas and

[2:40:27] can unlock affordable housing. In Collingwood. However, we're also compelled

[2:40:32] to remind council that the province has not yet committed

[2:40:35] to making municipalities whole with respect to DC exemptions and

[2:40:38] reductions, and any loss of DC revenue would need to

[2:40:41] be made up by other funding sources. Nonetheless, this marks

[2:40:45] an important step in our affordable housing work. To date,

[2:40:49] as you will recall, we have secured voluntary contributions from

[2:40:53] developers of 34 affordable rental units. Within our community. And

[2:40:57] although that seems modest, when we look at the overall

[2:41:00] shortfall, it sees incremental steps that make a meaningful change

[2:41:04] in our community. I'm not sure. Treasure. Graham, if you

[2:41:07] wanted to add further comments to that, I'm. Seeing a

[2:41:09] shake of the heads, so we will leave it at

[2:41:11] that. Unless there is questions. Okay. Thank you for that

[2:41:14] explanation. This is a follow up, then, Mayor Hamlin. I

[2:41:18] want to highlight the efforts of staff in this regard.

[2:41:23] We put some, what is called quickwind solutions in place.

[2:41:28] And again, it highlights that the development community is working.

[2:41:32] But the efforts of staff. These are nuances to the

[2:41:36] regular way we do things. And they have to put

[2:41:39] the extra effort in to make this all work. And

[2:41:43] it's not just one department, it's many departments, so. It

[2:41:48] is a pioneer approach that we've introduced. And are having

[2:41:55] success with it. It doesn't matter how many units it

[2:41:57] are that's. Successful, so. I do really want to express

[2:42:02] appreciation to staff. And do that on behalf of my

[2:42:06] colleagues, Councilor Dougherty and councilor Ring, who sit on the

[2:42:09] affordable housing task force because it's certainly discussions that we

[2:42:13] have regularly. At that meeting. So again, thank you for

[2:42:18] the extra information. And again, thank you to staff for

[2:42:21] all their efforts. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other

[2:42:26] questions or comments about this bylaw? All those in favor?

[2:42:32] And that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is 11.3.

[2:42:39] Perhaps I'll just say there's no updates for 11.1 or

[2:42:43] 11.2 so 11.3 is we're going to hear from manager

[2:42:48] Leo. About Crenberry marsh water level monitoring update. Please come

[2:42:56] to the podium. Yeah, sorry. I'll get it eventually.

[2:43:06] Good afternoon. I'm just here to introduce project engineer Stuart

[2:43:10] west to give an operational update. On the cranberry marsh,

[2:43:14] and I'll just let everybody know that Ian Auckenden from

[2:43:16] the NVCA is also online to answer any questions afterwards.

[2:43:20] Okay, thank you.

[2:43:30] Thank you very much, Manager Leo. It is hard to

[2:43:32] pronounce. Sometimes I get it wrong. Good afternoon, members of

[2:43:38] council, Madam mayor and members of the public. Next slide,

[2:43:43] please. So just to provide a bit of background. Following

[2:43:51] the council meeting on April 8, council provided a resolution

[2:43:54] for staff to report back on remedial steps to take

[2:43:57] to lure and maintain the water level within the cranberry

[2:43:59] marsh. On November 4. Staff. Provided an operational update to

[2:44:04] council on some of the initial steps taken. To date

[2:44:07] during the investigation, which include. Incorporating the marsh within the

[2:44:11] stormwater. Master plan. A partnership with the NBCA on water

[2:44:16] level monitoring within the marsh for a full year. Our

[2:44:19] public works and parks departments also assisted by cleaning brush

[2:44:23] and debris from the cranberry trail. East outlet channel. Or

[2:44:27] creek, and removal of a beaver by a licensed trapper

[2:44:29] retained by the town. Next slide. Please. Monitoring within the

[2:44:33] mersh started in august 2024. Three monitoring wells were installed,

[2:44:42] one near the marsh outlet at Cranberry Trail east, one

[2:44:45] near the boardwalk viewing platform. And a third near the

[2:44:49] northwest corner of the marsh. Next slide, please. Signage was

[2:44:54] installed near the lookout along the boardwalk, allowing the public

[2:44:57] to learn more about the purpose of the water monitoring

[2:45:00] stations and to participate in the ongoing monitoring of the

[2:45:03] marsh. The NBCA received excellent participation from the public reporting

[2:45:07] that they received 70 stakeholders. Sorry. Pictures from Stephanie stakeholders

[2:45:15] that submitted photos and water levels for verification. March, April

[2:45:19] and may receive the highest level of engagement each month,

[2:45:23] receiving twelve submissions. Each month. Excuse me. Beaver activity was

[2:45:28] also noted several times by NBCA staff and the public.

[2:45:32] And the picture here near the lookout, is an image

[2:45:35] of a beaver lutch. Next slide, please. These are the

[2:45:40] results over the last year of data collection. For some

[2:45:46] reference. Then, just to help explain what it is, we're

[2:45:48] looking at the elevations. On the left of the screen

[2:45:51] are elevations in meters above sea level. The green, yellow

[2:45:55] and gray lines are the three monitoring sites that were

[2:45:59] indicated on the map. And the blue vertical lines at

[2:46:02] the bottom of the screen are the precipitation events that

[2:46:05] occurred during the year. You will note that major rainfall

[2:46:09] events at the beginning of April this year. Where 80

[2:46:13] mm fell over the course of approximately four days. And

[2:46:18] then, however, it was also an exceptionally dry July. July

[2:46:22] with only 20 total precipitation over the month, and that

[2:46:27] caused water levels to decrease further below fall levels. Next

[2:46:31] slide, please. Water within the marsh travels about half a

[2:46:36] kilometer from the west end of the marsh to the

[2:46:38] east end. So the outlet levels are approximately 1ft lower

[2:46:45] than the levels within the main body of the marsh.

[2:46:48] However, both the outlet and the main marsh show pretty

[2:46:51] consistent trends. In that it reaches its highest elevation in

[2:46:55] the springtime after the winter thaw and the lowest levels

[2:46:58] after the warmer and drier summer that we witnessed this

[2:47:01] year. Next slide, please. And just finally, some statistics of

[2:47:06] the data that was collected. If we ignore the outlet.

[2:47:13] The main body of the Marsh saw maximum elevation of

[2:47:15] 179.24. The average level was 178.9. And the minimum was

[2:47:21] 178.66 meters above sea level. This means that if you

[2:47:26] take the average level as typical. The seasonal variation to

[2:47:30] the highs and lows were approximately zero. Point. 35 meters

[2:47:33] or just over 1ft. Next slide, please. Hydrologic study was

[2:47:40] completed in 2007 as part of municipal and NBCA development

[2:47:45] related approvals. The previous modeling report used a low elevation

[2:47:51] in the marsh as 178.8 meters, which is right in

[2:47:56] between the average and minimum elevations recorded in the March

[2:47:58] this year, the spring 2025 high of 179.24 is just

[2:48:05] slightly greater than what would be modeled during an expected

[2:48:09] one. In ten. Year storm event. Anecdotally as well, the

[2:48:12] April storms that we witnessed this year were also, coincidentally,

[2:48:17] approximately a one in ten year storm event. These preliminary

[2:48:21] results do not indicate that water levels are substantially higher

[2:48:24] than they were previously. There are seasonal highs and lows

[2:48:27] that occur over any given year. But there is risk,

[2:48:31] though, to arbitrarily just lowering water levels within natural habitats

[2:48:36] and ecosystems such as the Mersh. Approvals to undertake. This

[2:48:40] level of effort would also involve other authorities, including but

[2:48:43] not limited to the Department of Fisheries Conservation Authority, the

[2:48:47] NVCA. And potentially the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.

[2:48:54] Regardless, staff have extended the water monitoring into 2026 to

[2:48:58] provide additional background study for a potential study in the

[2:49:02] teacher. Next slide, please. Regarding next steps. Staff expect that

[2:49:09] council will receive the stormwater master plan in early 2026.

[2:49:11] And within it. It will include capital improvement recommendations and

[2:49:17] future studies that the town could undertake for council endorsement.

[2:49:24] In 2026. Staff will also continue to partner with the

[2:49:26] NVCA to collect further water levels within the marsh, which

[2:49:29] will provide. Information. Related to future studies in 2027. A

[2:49:37] site specific range study could be initiated, at which point

[2:49:39] it would make sense to involve community. Stakeholders further. And

[2:49:44] to initiate the study and ensure collaboration between the various

[2:49:47] parties. Longer term actions would be identified within the study

[2:49:51] if mitigation is required. Next slide, please. And just in

[2:49:57] closing, Marshes and swamps are complicated ecosystems. They are great

[2:50:05] at acting like sponges to absorb groundwater, stormwater, and even

[2:50:09] some pollutants. I do have Ian Okaton on the zoom

[2:50:14] call. For any questions on the ecological impacts that may

[2:50:21] also occur by lowering the wetland. And he'd be able

[2:50:25] to provide. Any answers on questions from an ecological standpoint

[2:50:31] as well. Thank you very much. Next slide. Thank you

[2:50:35] very much. And we're here for any questions that might

[2:50:37] arise, okay? Well, thank you very much. For this work

[2:50:41] and for bringing this update to us. Questions from council.

[2:50:46] Councilor Baines. Go ahead. Thank you. Manager Wes through you

[2:50:51] or perhaps to Mr. Auckland. Is that the proper pronunciation?

[2:50:59] Of Auckenden, I believe, but I could be mispronouncing it

[2:51:01] as well. Who should know, as a board member of

[2:51:04] NVCA, Is something such as this. You being an engineer,

[2:51:10] is there any need for this to be peer? Reviewed.

[2:51:12] I mean, I believe everything I'm reading, but I always

[2:51:16] see that peer review. Is a necessary part of the

[2:51:19] process because. As an amateur, sort of surprised 20 years

[2:51:23] of development around the cranberry marsh, and you're seeing the

[2:51:26] water level. Is basically still the same now as it

[2:51:30] was 20 years ago. It's more or less. I don't

[2:51:34] have the benefit. Of being around 20 years ago. Absolutely.

[2:51:41] Well, I was around, but not necessarily in Collingwood. But

[2:51:46] just having said that. We're basing that again, preliminary conclusion.

[2:51:54] On the information that's in front of us. And unfortunately,

[2:51:56] right now, all the information that we have is this

[2:52:00] previous hydrologic study that was prepared in 2007, likely the

[2:52:04] background data collection. Was prepared in 2006. And now fast

[2:52:09] forward 20 years later. We have a year of water

[2:52:12] level monitoring that was done this year. So. The in

[2:52:18] between and. The water level fluctuations that may have occurred

[2:52:21] over the the previous 20 years certainly are difficult to

[2:52:25] know, with. Any real authority, I guess, above how that

[2:52:29] may have changed over 20 years. Great. And if I

[2:52:32] may a follow up. Then the residents who. Last year

[2:52:37] or the year before were complaining. A one of them

[2:52:40] has had for the last five years. Essentially a river

[2:52:43] running under. His condo basement, which he's complaining about. And

[2:52:48] secondly, another landowner. Right at the edge. There by Cranberry

[2:52:56] east, by the big culvert, who complains about flooding to

[2:52:59] their property line and indeed, into their basement at one

[2:53:02] point. So the response to them would be because I'm

[2:53:06] sure these people will ask me. No, the marsh is

[2:53:11] essentially okay as it is, and that no remedial action,

[2:53:15] I. E. Particularly lowering of the marsh water level. The

[2:53:20] mean marsh water level is required. At least it would

[2:53:23] seem to me that that's at this point, with this

[2:53:25] preliminary study, the takeaway am I correct in that? Go

[2:53:30] ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Through the chair. I may defer

[2:53:34] to manager Lee Al if she has any further thoughts

[2:53:36] on it. But preliminary, though. And this wouldn't necessarily be.

[2:53:42] A full engineering study that's been conducted so far. It's

[2:53:45] just monitoring of the year and then hear the results.

[2:53:49] So. There's really nothing that we're seeing with the results

[2:53:54] that have been provided. Saying that water levels are higher.

[2:54:00] And that groundwater elevations. If residents basements are getting wets

[2:54:06] or flooded, certainly. That is a common challenge, I guess,

[2:54:11] that many residents are facing as well. Based on the

[2:54:15] information that we have so far today, there's nothing. That.

[2:54:23] Is really screaming that there's a problem that needs to

[2:54:26] be addressed immediately, but certainly with the level of interest

[2:54:30] in the Martian and. What's been the interest and feedback

[2:54:34] that we've received over the years? Certainly. We do want

[2:54:38] to keep an eye on it. And look to studies

[2:54:41] in the future about that. Does that make sense? Okay.

[2:54:44] Also, director Alcok, I'd like to just weigh in for

[2:54:47] a second. Go. Ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin, through to

[2:54:51] you, through you to council. Ben Stewart had answered some

[2:54:56] of the questions that this is not a complete engineering

[2:54:59] study. We definitely need to collect more information to add

[2:55:02] to the database so the analysis would be more thorough.

[2:55:05] So that's going to continue. Over next year. As well

[2:55:08] as the perception by the residents. Maybe. Require more analysis

[2:55:17] to a site specific because the marsh may not be

[2:55:20] the cause of this flooding. It could participate. It could

[2:55:22] have, but in it. But it may not be a

[2:55:25] full cost, so. We don't have enough information to make

[2:55:27] this determination, so that might be another approach to see

[2:55:31] if there's a specific site that they need to look

[2:55:33] at. It for those locations. But our best analysis is

[2:55:38] that information. We're collecting hard data that we can analyze.

[2:55:43] And so far, since the march is acting properly, Thank

[2:55:49] you. And follow the science, please. Also. I'll just say

[2:55:52] the residents you're speaking about with concerns about water. At

[2:55:57] the time, we were doing, I'll say, an open house

[2:55:59] for our stormwater management. Study. I connected them with a

[2:56:04] consultant doing that, and I think they were going to

[2:56:07] go visit. The residents. Hopefully out of all of this,

[2:56:12] looking at the water in the area. We'll come up

[2:56:15] with something. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Councilor

[2:56:22] Dougherty. Thank you. First of all, I would really like

[2:56:29] to express. Gratitude for this study. It's the residents in

[2:56:34] the area have had. Deep concerns. For this entire term,

[2:56:41] and I'm so glad that. We have taken this initiative

[2:56:45] to respond. To their concerns so thoroughly. I am surprised.

[2:56:53] When. I see the evidence that had been provided previously

[2:56:59] by the residents of photos that they had taken. And

[2:57:02] whatnot. I am surprised. With this, the findings of this

[2:57:07] study, but I am very happy that we're going to

[2:57:10] pursue it for another year. And I'm also glad that

[2:57:14] is going to form part of our stormwater master plan

[2:57:18] because. We continue to have more developments with higher grades.

[2:57:24] That are all ultimately going to be draining into. This

[2:57:29] swamp. So it's important for us to understand. The dynamics

[2:57:36] and ensure that our residents. Are safe and high and

[2:57:43] dry. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:57:50] See you. Thank you. I just wanted to add through

[2:57:57] the chair one comment around. Approving development applications. And I

[2:58:05] think that a lot of folks. Are not aware of

[2:58:09] some of the requirements that we have when a new

[2:58:13] subdivision, for example, is approved when that report comes to

[2:58:17] council and. The items that have been. Provided comment upon.

[2:58:23] By the public like you've seen today with one of

[2:58:25] the developments. What happens is that we have rules. For

[2:58:31] the stormwater and for Collingwood. One of the rules is

[2:58:34] that the flows shall not exceed. The Max flow prior

[2:58:37] to development. So there's different ways to look at how

[2:58:41] those flows. You can also look at the max amount.

[2:58:43] You can look at the max flow, but our requirement

[2:58:45] right now is the max flow. Shall not exceed. So

[2:58:48] I think that. I'm not positive exactly. When that rule

[2:58:52] came into effect, or if it was before all of

[2:58:55] the development around this particular marsh. But one thing I

[2:58:59] would say is that the newer developments, and potentially all

[2:59:01] but most likely all the newer developments. Would be required

[2:59:06] to mitigate the flows and how fast those flows would

[2:59:09] go into something like a receiving body of water. Or

[2:59:13] out into the bay. So I don't want to absolve

[2:59:16] us of having to do more study and. You'll see

[2:59:19] here that there's a strong recommendation that we continue with

[2:59:22] this work. And in fact, enhance it, as all the

[2:59:24] technical folks have just told you. That said, each development

[2:59:29] is monitored as it's approved to make sure that. The

[2:59:35] overall. Drainage ecosystem in Collingwood continues to work. And I

[2:59:39] just wanted to add that piece mostly for the people

[2:59:42] who are hopefully still listening online to know that there's

[2:59:45] a lot of thought as each development proceeds forward. Okay.

[2:59:50] Thank you. Any other questions? I think you're good. Thanks

[2:59:59] so much. Thank you very much. Item twelve is our

[3:00:05] consent agenda. And the recommendation before us is that we

[3:00:14] receive the general consent agenda and note that the information

[3:00:19] and opinions provided in the general consent agenda. Items are

[3:00:22] those of the authors and are not verified or approved

[3:00:25] as being correct. And there's two items. The first is

[3:00:29] Bradford west. Oh, that's. The one. We're deferring the west

[3:00:33] or you're withdrawing that I'm going. To read them in.

[3:00:35] Sorry, my head's going in a different direction here, so

[3:00:38] there's. Two items. The first one is Bradford West Williambury

[3:00:41] resolution re removing HStg GST. From new homes to support

[3:00:47] housing affordability, and the second one is Clearview Township. Resolution

[3:00:52] reupposing the use of agricultural lands for national defense. Aothr

[3:00:59] receive site. So could I get a mover in a

[3:01:02] second or please to receive. These? Councilor Dougherty, segmented by

[3:01:06] councilor Baines. All those in favor? Unanimous. Would anyone like

[3:01:11] to pull the steppie? Mayor in regards to 12.2 if

[3:01:15] I could. Mary Hammond clearviews letter. I'd like to submit

[3:01:19] the council that I will be putting a notice of

[3:01:21] motion forward. Later, and I will ask for waiving because.

[3:01:27] I think it can be handled today. And it's simply

[3:01:30] to request clerk services to issue a letter of support.

[3:01:34] On council's behalf to the minister in same contacts that

[3:01:36] Clearview's letter does. A major reason for the request is

[3:01:41] to support our immediate neighbor for their consideration. Of the

[3:01:45] concerns that are identified in their correspondence. It stands out

[3:01:49] that one of the key goals of the Department of

[3:01:51] Defense is to locate required protection projects such as the.

[3:01:57] Deputy mayor. Would you like to just introduce that now

[3:01:58] while you're speaking to them? Okay? Yeah. And again, a

[3:02:04] goal of the defense, Department of Defense is to locate.

[3:02:08] Required protection projects such as the article over the horizon

[3:02:12] receiving station within remote areas as much as possible. Clearview

[3:02:16] maintains, and I would support that. The current proposed location

[3:02:20] is not remote. And. Requests the federal government to. Continue

[3:02:26] or consider. In alternative sightings, such as on land within

[3:02:29] the nearby base, Borden. So it is in support of

[3:02:33] a neighbor, and it is a contentious issue that has

[3:02:37] become between the community and the federal government. So I

[3:02:41] would like to put on the floor then, now. A

[3:02:45] request to ask clerk services. To submitted a letter of

[3:02:50] support on council's behalf to the minister in the same

[3:02:53] context. And look to see if I have a seconder.

[3:02:59] Of course. Yeah. Are you bringing a motion to waive?

[3:03:05] Would you like to speak to that? We should get

[3:03:07] a mover in a seconder, so. You're moving that. And

[3:03:10] councilor Jeffrey will second that. So would you like to

[3:03:12] speak? To first, my comments have been made. Mayor Hamlet.

[3:03:15] Thank you. Thank you. Maybe I'll just ask if you

[3:03:19] have any thought of urgency about this. Or what your

[3:03:24] reasoning was. I had a conversation with mayor measures about

[3:03:28] it, and as you note, we weren't originally copied with

[3:03:33] their September 23 circulation. He thought that was a missed

[3:03:39] step on their part. So I said that. We would

[3:03:44] be considering it at this meeting coming up. So the

[3:03:48] only urgency is that. It probably would have been done

[3:03:52] sooner if we've been circulated, but. Whatever council wants. In

[3:03:57] that regard, I'm fine with. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone

[3:04:00] else like. To speak to the. Yes, Councilor Doherty. Thank

[3:04:06] you, mayor. First, I just like clarification. Are you going

[3:04:11] to be asking? For waiving notice or are you just

[3:04:16] going to put. Yeah, that's what's. On the floor right

[3:04:19] now. Okay. I can't support a waiving of notice when

[3:04:24] I don't even understand. The implications of approving or not.

[3:04:30] Approving. These radar sites, so I would not be prepared

[3:04:35] to vote for sure. Without getting some feedback from staff.

[3:04:41] Okay. Thank you, Councilor Baines. Thank you. On that actual

[3:04:45] point. I would love to hear back from the federal

[3:04:48] government as to. Why you couldn't put this on baseboarding,

[3:04:52] but presumably they have a response to that. But I

[3:04:55] like Councilor Dougherty. Sort of feel in the dark about.

[3:04:59] Blindly approving this as much as I might be in

[3:05:01] support of it, but I'd like to hear from somebody

[3:05:04] in the federal government as to why it couldn't be

[3:05:06] on baseboard. Or it has to be on this 4000

[3:05:09] acres that they want. Thank you. Okay. So I guess

[3:05:15] the question. So I might need the clerk almost to

[3:05:18] help me with this. We have a motion. To. Waive

[3:05:24] notice, but we also have a request I'm hearing, to

[3:05:28] refer this to staff. For a report. So how do

[3:05:33] you suggest we deal with this order?

[3:05:43] so for clarification if the motion to waive notice doesn't

[3:05:47] pass then it becomes A notice of motion, and the

[3:05:49] motion will appear on the December 15 meeting. However, if

[3:05:54] there's additional information that's being requested. Will require. Direction. To

[3:06:02] gather that additional information. Okay. Thank you. That's very good

[3:06:04] advice. Okay. Anyone else like. To speak to. The waiving

[3:06:09] of notice. Okay, so. We can. New spoke, and everyone's

[3:06:15] done. Okay, so all those in favor of waiving notice?

[3:06:19] 123456. Okay. And a post. One, two, three. So. Notice

[3:06:28] is waived. And then we have the motion now in

[3:06:31] front of us. Did you like to speak first or

[3:06:37] last? I haven't spoken, but I won't speak last in

[3:06:42] case there's any. Clarification that's needed, but thank you. All

[3:06:46] right. Would anyone like to speak to. This motion. Councilor

[3:06:50] Dort. Thank you. I'm just very surprised. That we would

[3:06:57] be considering. Supporting this motion without. Any background information. Particularly

[3:07:06] from federal government. And Department of National Defense, so. In

[3:07:13] my views, actually irresponsible for us to support this. Without

[3:07:17] that information, I will. Adamantly not support it. Hey. Thank

[3:07:22] you, Councilor Paynes. Councilor Doherty said it all, so I

[3:07:26] agree. Thank you. Anyone else? I'm sorry. I have spoken.

[3:07:36] Okay. To me, this is a really hard one, because

[3:07:39] if we're good neighbors, this is a good neighbor motion,

[3:07:43] right? Please be a good neighbor to me and support

[3:07:45] me. But we don't have any information other than wanting

[3:07:50] to be a good neighbor. I can tell you what

[3:07:53] I know, and you probably read the same things I

[3:07:55] do. This. Is sort of south and east of Stainer.

[3:08:02] Part of Clearview. There's many acres that are involved. There's

[3:08:08] going to be a lot of antennas. Set up. It's

[3:08:12] going to be one receiving site in Clearview that will

[3:08:15] have a companion site. I think it's in the corpus

[3:08:20] and between them they'll be able to identify. I'll say.

[3:08:25] Foreign objects in the Arctic. It's about our security in

[3:08:29] the Arctic. And Department of National Defense has said these

[3:08:33] are two good places that between them they can identify

[3:08:37] things in the Arctic. It will take. A lot of

[3:08:42] agricultural land out of production, and I think this is

[3:08:46] the basis of the concerns that Clearview has that they

[3:08:51] don't want that. I know that. I think it was.

[3:08:54] Spring water has done a good neighbor. Kind of motion

[3:08:57] and support. And that's about all I know. That's helpful,

[3:09:02] Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So I didn't feel

[3:09:06] completely in the dark. I felt on page two of

[3:09:09] two, they did explain the rationale in terms of the

[3:09:12] agricultural land being taken out of. Taken out of inventory,

[3:09:16] and I don't. Know how successful they will be with

[3:09:20] the appeal, given the technology that's requ? Required and the

[3:09:23] identification of the locations, but. I'm quite prepared. To support

[3:09:28] them in their quest to maybe push for the consideration

[3:09:31] of somewhere not chewing up agricultural land. Okay. Thank you.

[3:09:36] Would anyone else like to speak to this? Okay, so.

[3:09:41] Yes, go ahead. I will just say. That I don't

[3:09:45] think we're being irresponsible. I think that's. A little harsh

[3:09:49] of a term to be putting out there. It's simply,

[3:09:53] in my case, supporting our neighbor on the basis of

[3:09:58] don't use. Agricultural land. Plain, simple, right? Let's not complicate

[3:10:03] the issue there. They're saying? My understanding of it is

[3:10:08] that the receiving station will be temporary in nature, so

[3:10:12] to speak. It's not a 300 year thing. I think

[3:10:16] it's a 30 year thing, but. Once it leaves. The

[3:10:21] land is no longer usable for some period of time.

[3:10:25] As I said. I wasn't trying to complicate it. Claireview

[3:10:30] is the one who has to go through the hoops

[3:10:32] and the understanding this is simply just to support our

[3:10:35] neighbor. Thank you. Okay, well, with that said. All those

[3:10:40] in favor of the resolution put forward. 123-4567 and those

[3:10:48] opposed? That's two opposed. Okay, thank you. That passes. County

[3:10:54] report. Deputy Mayor Mayor Hallen I'm going to start out

[3:10:57] with. Saying on behalf of calling with council our condolences

[3:11:03] to the family of the simple county. Employee who was

[3:11:07] tragically killed today. At the Oral Madante landfill site. It

[3:11:13] sounds like a very unfortunate accident amongst. About coworkers are

[3:11:18] certainly the contractors who work very closely with the family

[3:11:22] of employees there. So. I'm saddened to hear of that

[3:11:27] tragic occurrence. I also wanted to inform council that the

[3:11:33] province introduced legislation last week. That they expect will be

[3:11:38] passed and it'll go for January 1 transition for the

[3:11:42] transfer. Of over 4000 acres to Barry from Springwater and

[3:11:46] Ora Madante. It impacts the county as well. It is

[3:11:50] being done on the basis of Barry has the capacity

[3:11:54] to service additional land, but not enough developable land. The

[3:11:59] townships lack the ability to do both. It is further

[3:12:04] contended that it will unlock new homes and therefore major

[3:12:09] economic investment continuing. And align with the key transportation infrastructure

[3:12:15] projects, notably Barry Go and the Bradford bypass for the

[3:12:20] province. And likely simple county transit implications as well. Issues

[3:12:26] such as financial compensation from Barry are still being discussed,

[3:12:30] and Minister Flack will regulate the transition in that regard.

[3:12:35] Until those terms are decided. It's difficult to fully report

[3:12:39] to council about the impacts on Simcoe. There has been

[3:12:43] terms put forward by simple county regarding other areas of

[3:12:46] the county. In regards to development of other areas of

[3:12:50] the county that could influence the outcome as well. So

[3:12:54] hopefully those will get accepted and provide the compensation that

[3:12:58] we've requested. And the last item? I'll update on. And

[3:13:03] unfortunately, no. Changes January 1. Recycling switches, so people need

[3:13:09] to be expecting to see two trucks. Don't take your

[3:13:13] one empty and one not empty. Bins back into your

[3:13:19] house. Make sure that both trucks are circulated. And again,

[3:13:26] no. Industrial. Small industrial, commercial or institutional. And I know

[3:13:34] staff, simply staff, are still working on trying to figure

[3:13:37] out if there's a way to continue some of the

[3:13:41] recycling services that we were doing over and above what.

[3:13:46] The government regulated us to. But unfortunately. I can't give

[3:13:51] you any more news than that. It's the same as

[3:13:54] what? You've heard before, but I'll repeat it again on

[3:13:56] the 15th because I am concerned about January 1 going

[3:14:01] forward, that people aren't going to realize the change. Is

[3:14:05] that the end of your report? Thank you, Councilor Dougherty.

[3:14:11] Thank you. We'll just say that. This is a matter

[3:14:16] of deep concern also for Amel and. They are working.

[3:14:23] Very closely with the ministry. Trying to find some resolution

[3:14:29] before January 1, because there's no question that this is

[3:14:33] going to have a myriad of. Negative fallout. So just

[3:14:39] stay tuned because it is. A very important pursuit right

[3:14:43] now. Speaking of the ways the change in recycling. Okay,

[3:14:47] thank you. So many things happening January 1. Yes, councilor

[3:14:51] Potts. Thanks, Mayor Hammond. Through you to W. Mer Fryer.

[3:14:56] So it's. My understanding now, when this happens for any

[3:14:59] of these facilities that want to take the recycling to

[3:15:01] the landfill. There's a charge for commercial and businesses to

[3:15:06] take it, but if you're residential, there's no charge. If

[3:15:11] you just clarify that, and I have a follow up.

[3:15:15] The responsibility of. The producer's responsibility as of January 1

[3:15:20] is to provide service. To residents who were using recycling

[3:15:27] depots that the county had. Because they didn't have curbside

[3:15:32] pickup. So it is their responsibility, the producer, to make

[3:15:38] sure that. Services made available free of charge. County has

[3:15:44] been trying to work out a way to do that

[3:15:46] and still maintain locations like the Collingwood. For the Collingwood

[3:15:49] residents. There's nothing in the regulation, though, that says that

[3:15:54] circular materials can't say that. Okay, well, you can deliver

[3:15:57] them to Barry, which would make it completely impossible to

[3:16:03] continue service in. All likelihood. So county is trying to

[3:16:08] work on that. They're still, unfortunately, negotiating with circular materials

[3:16:13] in that regard, but they're trying to make that available.

[3:16:17] For the ici. That we're getting service. Unfortunately, the producer

[3:16:24] does not have responsibility in that regard. I think it'll

[3:16:28] become clearer the time January 1 comes because, as the

[3:16:32] deputy mayor says, these are really important details, the questions

[3:16:35] you're asking, and I don't think they're quite shortage yet.

[3:16:39] Yeah, and just to follow up, but guess where I'm

[3:16:41] going? With this is until we really know what's going

[3:16:44] on. Does the county have any kind of internal solution?

[3:16:51] For the user to be able to drop stuff off.

[3:16:55] At no charge. Because when I go out to the

[3:16:57] sites, there's signs that say there's no charge. And when

[3:17:00] you hear there is charges. Understand. Nobody really knows. Are

[3:17:05] they willing to work with the transition, to work with

[3:17:09] the residents and business owners. I'm sort of wondering if

[3:17:13] we shouldn't ask if this is a matter for. Our

[3:17:15] staff, but we need a bit of a. Maybe I'm

[3:17:18] too right, but we need. A bit of a cheat

[3:17:21] sheet on exactly how this is going to work because

[3:17:25] we get hundreds of pages of reports at the county.

[3:17:29] But. Yes. Executive Director Peg, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor

[3:17:33] Hamlin through you twelve council so the county has been

[3:17:36] hosting information sessions. And a number of staff were able

[3:17:40] to attend those. They're also providing us with information. Pamphlets

[3:17:44] that we're looking to distribute locally throughout Collingwood, but happy

[3:17:49] to report back whether that's through our weekly operational update

[3:17:52] or at a council meeting on the plans that the

[3:17:55] county has for the rollout because we too are hearing

[3:17:58] some discrepan. Discrepancies in terms of fees, no fees. And

[3:18:02] we'd be happy to get that clarity and provide it

[3:18:04] with council. Okay. I think staff of the county know

[3:18:09] they've got, well now, 30 days to clarify this. In

[3:18:13] some fashion, and I don't know if it's an issue

[3:18:15] across the province. Or if it's just county of Simcoe,

[3:18:18] but it's not totally sorted, right? And again, I appreciate

[3:18:23] that. And I'll speak just from the downtown businesses in

[3:18:27] Collingwood. If I was a business, right. Now. What do

[3:18:30] I do on January 1? The problem is going to

[3:18:33] be there. We all know it's going to be there,

[3:18:35] but. In the meantime, what do they do? So if

[3:18:38] there's any kind of clarification. I think before it escalates

[3:18:41] on January 1 on the main street, I call you

[3:18:44] with eight foot snowbanks. I think it would be nice

[3:18:47] to know what do the businesses do? So, executive director,

[3:18:51] do you think you could report back? At our next

[3:18:54] council meeting on the 15th. On whatever the county can

[3:19:00] tell us, the county staff could tell us, as at

[3:19:02] that date. Yeah. Great. Thank you, mayor. I saw co

[3:19:06] skitter mover card turned over to our Cao. Yes, go

[3:19:09] ahead. Thank you. I have no concerns with us reporting

[3:19:14] back and to asking the county staff what the situation

[3:19:17] is. I think if there's items that might require county

[3:19:21] action that we might even want to have the county

[3:19:23] folks here or perhaps online to answer questions, if that

[3:19:26] could be arranged. Okay by that? I mean, the staff

[3:19:29] side. Yeah, that'd be awesome. Thank you. Deputy mayor. The

[3:19:35] reality is, though, The county is letting the public know

[3:19:41] that. There's fees for anybody bringing recycling as of January

[3:19:45] 1. The only thing that can happen different than that

[3:19:49] is it gets better. But right now that's the situation

[3:19:53] because. There's no change. It's producer responsibility. And the county

[3:19:58] does not have the responsibility. So they're advertising right now.

[3:20:02] That recycling will have a fee if you bring it

[3:20:05] to the fish. Hopefully something gets worked out. And permits

[3:20:09] get issued to those people who are using. It. Up

[3:20:14] now because they didn't have curbside serious and it wasn't

[3:20:16] being picked. Up by the county. And in regards to

[3:20:21] the ICi, It's being said that it ends on January

[3:20:26] 1. I hope that there's changes, but what they're saying

[3:20:31] right now. Is. What they're anticipating is going to happen.

[3:20:39] Go ahead, just quick. One of the big reasons I

[3:20:43] see this is I can see this adding large pressure

[3:20:46] on our public works operations, especially for garbage and recycling

[3:20:50] pickup on the mini street, too. So I think. It's

[3:20:54] going to be completely insane. And just knowing. What we

[3:20:58] deal with down here on the main street to begin

[3:21:00] with. It's certainly not going to be pretty. And I

[3:21:03] know it's out of our control. But January 1 has

[3:21:06] to be probably the worst date to start it, if

[3:21:09] anything. I can't advocate anymore, but the businesses just need

[3:21:13] to know what to do. I think that's what we're

[3:21:18] trying to do with getting staff to come back. To

[3:21:21] us. Because even though we can say it's not our

[3:21:24] responsibility, you know who's going? To be blamed. Right. So

[3:21:27] we want to make sure that. We're notifying the public

[3:21:30] of what it's going to be and that's. Your point?

[3:21:33] I'm trying to say the same thing right. We need

[3:21:37] to communicate it to the public. And again why they

[3:21:40] choose January 1 beyond me. Thank you. And even in

[3:21:46] a bit of a broader context, and this might be

[3:21:48] a set of questions I would be asking of the

[3:21:50] county staff. There's a provincial paradigm where the province has

[3:21:54] put in some new rules, including. Regulations related to. Suppliers

[3:22:02] taking accountability for more of recycling. But I don't understand

[3:22:07] myself why some of the recycling services that are not

[3:22:11] taken over. Wouldn't continue to live with the entities that

[3:22:14] have run them in the past. In this case, it

[3:22:17] could be the county. Or if there's provincial rules that

[3:22:20] require that they not be offered moving forward somehow. What?

[3:22:24] The basket of services. That arrived at the front door

[3:22:28] of residents and businesses in our town. Has been adjusted

[3:22:31] through. A trigger. That was a regulation. But it doesn't

[3:22:36] seem that that regulation would require the service at the

[3:22:39] front lines be changed, and I know that. I'm putting

[3:22:43] maybe a difficult task in front of county folks. So

[3:22:48] I would like to ask them a bit more about

[3:22:49] that at the staff level as well. Yeah, I think

[3:22:52] what I've heard. Is that? The county was getting. I'm

[3:22:58] going to call it a subsidy. From the province for

[3:23:02] the recycling. Every year, and I think it was $400,000

[3:23:06] of memory serves. And under this new system. They don't

[3:23:11] get any of it, any of that subsidy, because it's

[3:23:14] all now. To be collected by the producers. So if

[3:23:18] they continued offering a service because this, to me, was

[3:23:22] logical. You always been picking. What? We'd have to raise

[3:23:27] the taxes at the county to continue offering the same

[3:23:30] level of service. That was before. All the responsibility. Although

[3:23:36] it's not all the responsibility. Was given to the producers,

[3:23:40] so. I think that's where I understand it is, but

[3:23:44] you'll find it more about it. And that would be?

[3:23:47] Maybe we could all be writing the province. Municipalities to

[3:23:51] make some suggestions. Okay, let's bring this to a close.

[3:23:53] We have a lot to do if you have one

[3:23:55] quick more thing, just a continuation, because you're totally correct.

[3:24:00] What was identified in the staff report to us is

[3:24:02] the net impact on the county is $4.2 million going

[3:24:05] forward. So they didn't have an awful lot of room

[3:24:10] to look at continuing things that they didn't have a

[3:24:14] responsibility for. And I just wanted to add that to

[3:24:18] your comments. Okay. Thank you. All right. The next is.

[3:24:28] Motions. And we have two motions. The first one is

[3:24:32] mine, so I'll turn the chair. Over to deputy mayor.

[3:24:36] Thank you, Mayor Hammond. So we'll have you read in

[3:24:39] the motion. And look for a seconder, and then you

[3:24:43] can indicate. If you'd like to speak first or last.

[3:24:47] Okay. And I'm going to ask. Clerk almonds to put

[3:24:50] the motion up. There's been some relatively minor changes. Since

[3:24:55] it was put in the agenda, so he'll just read

[3:24:57] away. Is this okay? Protection. Whereas the town of Collingwood's

[3:25:05] community based strategic plan, that's 2024 to 2028. Commits to

[3:25:11] fostering a safe, connected and inclusive community that promotes well

[3:25:15] being, belonging and respect for all residents and visitors. And

[3:25:19] whereas recent protests near school properties have raised concerns regarding

[3:25:24] the safety, security and well being of students, staff and

[3:25:27] families and have the potential. To disrupt educational environments and

[3:25:33] community harmony. And whereas the strategic plan emphasizes the pillars

[3:25:38] of connected. Fostering, well being and belonging, responsible. Service, excellence

[3:25:43] and collaboration, and vibrant creating spaces that support positive community

[3:25:49] engagement. And whereas the town recognizes that the Canadian Charter

[3:25:53] of rights and freedoms guarantees everyone the right to freedom

[3:25:57] of expression, peaceful assembly. And association. And affirms that it

[3:26:02] is not intending to prohibit peaceful gatherings, protests or demonstrations,

[3:26:07] including those related to labor strikes, but rather to restrict

[3:26:11] nuisance demonstrations. And whereas section 128 of the Municipal Act

[3:26:16] 2001 authorizes municipalities to prohibit and regulate public nuisances including

[3:26:24] activities that in the opinion of council, are or could

[3:26:28] become or cause public nuisances. And whereas the town is

[3:26:32] committed to protecting vulnerable students, We're speaking about junior kindergarten

[3:26:37] to grade twelve. From nuisance demonstrations that compromise safety, disrupt

[3:26:42] the ability to learn and negatively impact the well being

[3:26:46] of student, staff, and families. Therefore, be resolved that council

[3:26:50] directs staff to prepare a bylaw. To prepare a draft

[3:26:53] bylaw. Or bylaw amendment to prohibit or regulate nuisance protests

[3:26:59] within a defined buffer zone around schools. In the town

[3:27:02] of Collingwood. With consideration for these items, a clear definition

[3:27:08] of nuisance protest. For example, protests that obstruct access creates

[3:27:14] safety risks or to cause significant disruption to school operations.

[3:27:19] Reasonable distance parameters for restricted zones, exemptions for peaceful lawful

[3:27:25] assemblies that do not interfere with school safety or operations.

[3:27:30] Enforcement provisions in collaboration with COP and lastly, compliance with

[3:27:35] charter rights and relevant legal standards. And further that staff

[3:27:39] consult with legal counsel Collingwood, OPP, and local public stakeholders.

[3:27:44] Public school stakeholders to ensure the proposed bylaw is enforceable,

[3:27:48] balanced and aligned with the town's values. Vision and strategic

[3:27:53] priorities and further that council request a staff report to

[3:27:57] be prepared to. Consider if there are other location types

[3:28:01] in our community that should be reviewed for additional protest

[3:28:05] related protection. Do we have a secondary? Councilor Perry. So,

[3:28:11] Mayor Hamlin, you'll speak first? I'll speak first. Yeah. Thank

[3:28:14] you. We all know we've had protesters in front of

[3:28:19] town hall for a long time, and the first deputy

[3:28:22] today spoke to those protests as a reason. She almost

[3:28:30] was suggesting, I think, that my motion was a back

[3:28:32] doorway of stopping the protests in front of town hall.

[3:28:37] But that's, in fact, not the case. My motion is

[3:28:42] specifically directed. To a vulnerable section of our community, children.

[3:28:49] For sure and I can't emphasize enough. That Collingwood. Clearly.

[3:28:57] Accepts the idea of. Democratic ability. To legally and peacefully

[3:29:04] protest. Nobody is at all speaking about that. Certainly not

[3:29:09] me. but i have heard so much and perhaps you

[3:29:15] have as well About these targeted attacks that end up

[3:29:19] affecting our children. I know that. Some of the kids

[3:29:25] at CCI have had things happen to their lockers who.

[3:29:32] Are of a jewish religion. I know. Things are scratched

[3:29:35] on sidewalks, in front of their homes. And. This latest.

[3:29:41] Effort of the protesters was because. A bus that was

[3:29:47] going from school to school. Primarily with the job of

[3:29:51] explaining what the Holocaust was. Caused them to run out.

[3:29:57] And. Protest this as well. What people are protesting about

[3:30:01] doesn't really matter. Lots of people are going to protest

[3:30:07] if they don't like the war. It's fine. In the

[3:30:11] Middle east, there's no end of wars to say we

[3:30:13] don't support. I can think of about ten right now.

[3:30:18] And. They're certainly entitled to be protesting that these wars

[3:30:22] are going on. But I feel that. The safety and

[3:30:27] security of our kids and how they feel intimidated. And

[3:30:32] the fact that people show up. To protest outside their

[3:30:36] school, who, by all accounts, and this was one of

[3:30:38] the slides that was. Pulled today. With swearing and so

[3:30:42] on going on. It not only intimidates the kids in

[3:30:46] the school, but I worry that it gives a license

[3:30:50] to those who are otherwise bullying to feel like, well,

[3:30:54] this must be okay if there's. Some adults out there

[3:30:56] who. think that this is a great thing to do

[3:31:01] So. I'm trying to straddle that line between. Not limiting

[3:31:07] anyone's right to protest, but making sure that the protests

[3:31:11] aren't in locations that cause harm, jeopardize safety, or target

[3:31:15] our kids. So that's the nature of my motion. Now,

[3:31:21] I did add on. The further request to staff report

[3:31:25] if there's other locations that should be reviewed. Because I

[3:31:30] have had, and again, perhaps you've had people reach out

[3:31:33] to you saying, well, Why just the schools? What about.

[3:31:38] This kind of. Sensitive infrastructure, whether it's a hospital, a

[3:31:41] daycare, Whatever. There's a whole list. I've certainly had sent

[3:31:46] to me. So I haven't really got any opinions about

[3:31:50] that, but. I thought I would add on to the

[3:31:53] motion. For staff to report back to us. I so

[3:31:58] recognize that some communities have taken. A very big approach

[3:32:02] to this. VAUGHN in June, I think, did bubbles around

[3:32:06] all kinds of what they call sensitive public infrastructure. But

[3:32:10] my motion today is primarily to protect our kids, and

[3:32:15] with a side motion or a second. Part of the

[3:32:18] motion. That staff review and provide any advice they can

[3:32:22] give us on whether we need to think about this

[3:32:24] further. Thank you. Thanks. Debut mer Fryer. And. On the

[3:32:32] last part. Of your motion, Mayor Hamlin, when it talks

[3:32:35] with the other community spaces I received, which I believe

[3:32:38] you have to. Some correspondence from the bia. And maybe

[3:32:41] not so much directly from the BIA to you, but

[3:32:44] members of the BIA. And there was some incidents over

[3:32:47] the weekend that involved Santa. And I think in a

[3:32:51] case like this looking at understanding free speech, understanding out

[3:32:55] there that. I look at. The young kids that are

[3:33:00] on Santa's knee talking about what they want for Christmas.

[3:33:03] Really? Should not be involved in anything along these kinds

[3:33:06] of behaviors. And then to be harassing Santa on the

[3:33:10] main street of Collingwood, I think is out of line

[3:33:13] and. Not right. The one question I do have, and

[3:33:18] we can create bylaws and stuff, but. The enforcement piece

[3:33:22] of it. I haven't seen personally, but I've heard firsthand

[3:33:27] that these kind of options have had our own staff

[3:33:30] in tears. When speaking with members of the OBP at

[3:33:34] flagrazings to see if they were aware. And it doesn't

[3:33:39] seem to be enforced. Where does the enforcement piece come

[3:33:43] into this? And an understanding. I believe the police might

[3:33:46] have been. Present at the school. Are they actually going

[3:33:51] to step up and enforce it? Because. Or is this

[3:33:55] just time of hot air? So that's my question. I've

[3:33:59] had a few discussions with our detachment commander over the

[3:34:03] last year or so. About. These protests. What I think

[3:34:11] their job is to enforce the criminal law. And there's

[3:34:16] a really narrow definition of hate in the criminal code

[3:34:19] right now. As I understand it. The officers haven't seen.

[3:34:28] Any. Breaking of that law. But I think the motion

[3:34:34] here, part of it. Is going to be addressing enforcement.

[3:34:37] How will that be addressed? And I'm looking forward to.

[3:34:42] We'll have a further discussion on that as far as

[3:34:44] I'm concerned. Yeah, just a quick follow up. Absolutely. And

[3:34:47] again. I've had the opportunity to speak with my two

[3:34:51] kids who both attend CCI. And they were aware of.

[3:34:59] The bus and being there, however, didn't really know what

[3:35:02] it was all about. They hadn't been aware of any

[3:35:07] hostile environment. But at the same time, Talking to friends

[3:35:11] since there is a little bit of animosity in angst

[3:35:15] and anxiety. That goes along with it. So given the

[3:35:18] fact of the school areas and then obviously with what's

[3:35:21] happened downtown. I know for myself. Just attending the farmers

[3:35:26] market, just walking across the street. I've been approached in

[3:35:28] a very hostile manner. And again, speak all you want

[3:35:32] on what you believe in, but certainly the options I

[3:35:35] wouldn't. Support. Thanks. To deputy mayor. So

[3:35:45] understanding. The challenges in terms of enforcement and or. What

[3:35:52] as a municipality we can put in place. I think

[3:35:56] what I'd be asking is that the. Mayor's motion in

[3:36:00] its entirety. Go to legal before we go to all

[3:36:03] the other avenues. That we get legal advice on. Exactly

[3:36:09] what it is that we can do. We've been through

[3:36:13] this process before and other things. And I think it'd

[3:36:17] be really critically important to start out. I mean, you've

[3:36:20] put it as part, but I think you should just

[3:36:22] start with the whole thing right up front. And then

[3:36:24] we move to the other pieces, and I think that.

[3:36:28] That would satisfy a lot of our questions before we

[3:36:30] got into the details of where, how many places and

[3:36:34] those kind of questions, so. That would be maybe a

[3:36:38] referral back to staff to run our existing bylaw. Your

[3:36:41] motion. And everything through legal first, and then we can

[3:36:45] have an understanding of what exactly. We can do. Yeah.

[3:36:51] I thought that's, in fact, what would happen. The second

[3:36:54] part is that staff consult with legal counsel Collingwood Opp.

[3:37:01] Local public school stakeholders to ensure the proposed bylaw is

[3:37:04] enforceable, balanced and aligned with town's values. Vision and strategic

[3:37:09] priorities, but perhaps through. You chair. Could we ask the

[3:37:14] clerk if that's also her intention? We'll get clerk on

[3:37:18] us first, and then I'll come back to you. I

[3:37:21] don't think we should be putting through staff trying to

[3:37:24] draft something until we have a clear understanding from legal

[3:37:27] where we can go in terms of the drafting or

[3:37:29] if. There is. A shorter way to address, per one

[3:37:37] of the deputies requests through our existing bylaw, But. I

[3:37:42] don't want staff to go through a lot of work

[3:37:44] until we have a clear understanding from legal. We'll have

[3:37:48] the clerk respond, and then I'll look to you to

[3:37:50] see if you are looking to put an amendment on

[3:37:52] for. Thank you. Through the deputy mayor. We could easily

[3:37:57] just note where the LiNe says in further that stock,

[3:38:00] consult with legal counsel. First. We can just add the

[3:38:06] word first in there and then I think that so

[3:38:08] if the mover in seconder would be okay with that?

[3:38:12] I would be fine. I

[3:38:21] think that's all the clerk is going to add right

[3:38:23] now, but. Will that cover what you would like to

[3:38:28] cover? Yeah, I think that's fine. I think it's important

[3:38:33] that council understand the legal as well, not just staff.

[3:38:38] So I think there's kind of a couple of steps

[3:38:40] here where we go to legal. And then we come

[3:38:43] back, and then. Whether we direct staff further or not

[3:38:46] after that. I see it as two steps, okay? Further

[3:38:52] comment, councilor Ring had his card up first, and then

[3:38:55] I'll go to councilor. Dougherty. Thank you, deputy Mayor Fryer.

[3:39:02] Through. I guess. Kirk albus. I'm not doubting

[3:39:12] what was just mentioned. By. Councilor. Jeffrey. I guess what

[3:39:20] I'm trying to say is. I really thought that that's

[3:39:24] the way. This would pair out the way, the way

[3:39:27] it's worded here. But adding right in there, I always

[3:39:30] thought it was going to be two steps. Anyways, this

[3:39:32] isn't here. It's given direction to come back with a

[3:39:37] bylaw, so. I'm thinking that that's the second step, right?

[3:39:43] How they get the information would be the first step.

[3:39:46] And if it's not clear? I was like the mayor.

[3:39:50] I thought it was covered in that one paragraph, but

[3:39:52] adding the word write. Or I mean, first. Sorry, not

[3:39:55] right. Clarifies it, then I'm happy with that. But I

[3:40:00] think the second steps. It's going to be before they

[3:40:03] bring a bylaw back. They would have to consult with

[3:40:07] these people first, would they not? I'm going to turn

[3:40:11] to council, Jeffrey, but that's my understanding, too. We're adding

[3:40:14] the first. I think what it's meant to do is

[3:40:16] if there's any red flags? Then councilor Jeffrey expects that

[3:40:21] it would come back to council. I wouldn't have brought

[3:40:24] it up if I didn't think it wasn't. Clear, and

[3:40:26] I don't think it was clear that there was two

[3:40:27] steps and that we would have staff doing a lot

[3:40:29] of work before council was privy to the legal consultation,

[3:40:33] so I think it's important that we're all involved in

[3:40:36] this as we move it forward. Follow up councilor ring.

[3:40:42] Question. I thought it was clear. I can give my

[3:40:45] opinion too. So I thought it was clear enough, but,

[3:40:49] I mean, I guess apparently it wasn't. If that's the

[3:40:51] case. Then let's go with the third step then. I

[3:40:53] don't. Care. And Claire Thomas like to speak. Certainly. So

[3:41:01] for clarity, the report that's coming back is looking at

[3:41:05] other. Related or other locations for additional protest related protections.

[3:41:11] So as this is worded, we would do a consultation

[3:41:15] with these other parties if they have no concern in

[3:41:18] how the bylaw is drafted. But the intent is that

[3:41:21] it's not going to be an additional staff report. It

[3:41:23] will. Either be a bylaw or it will be a

[3:41:25] bylaw amendment. So when it comes back, But if legal

[3:41:28] says right off the get go. No, we don't recommend

[3:41:32] you doing it. Then we would report back if they

[3:41:34] said yes. You can do it. There are sample bylaws

[3:41:36] out there. We can move forward. Pending to further conversation

[3:41:41] too, with our detachment commander and their resources available. And

[3:41:45] what that would mean. For them. A bile could come

[3:41:49] directly back. Or additional information if it's not recommended. And

[3:41:55] before I turn to councilor Jeffrey, you said directly, and

[3:41:58] I'm just going to check this because it is a

[3:42:00] question I have. When the report comes back, it'll come.

[3:42:03] Through the community. The whole process, or is it coming

[3:42:08] back directly to council? So it is. At this point

[3:42:12] in time, it would come back directly to council. With.

[3:42:18] The only opportunity for public input. Is it written or

[3:42:21] asking for delegation? So, Councilor Ring, did you have any

[3:42:25] further follow up? Okay, so I'll turn to Councilor Dorita.

[3:42:31] Thank you. I'm very glad that Councilor Jeffrey made the

[3:42:36] suggestion that she did. Because. Although I understand. Totally the

[3:42:45] mayor's intent. I think that. This is the thin edge

[3:42:50] of the wedge. In terms of. Limiting. an ability For

[3:42:57] freedom of expression. And lawful gathering. And I do not

[3:43:06] think that it is the place of the municipality. To

[3:43:10] say. Where these demonstration. Demonstrations. Can be held. The

[3:43:19] issue, in my view. Is an issue of definition and

[3:43:26] enforcement. We don't have a definition of what a nuisance.

[3:43:32] Demonstration is we need one and we need it enforced.

[3:43:36] And I think that. Once. Our police services. Have. A

[3:43:43] proper definition of what a nuisance gathering might be. Then.

[3:43:49] We would have some tools to work. With. People in

[3:43:54] our municipality really, whether. Whatever side of an issue that

[3:44:01] they might be on. Oh, I had something else in

[3:44:04] my head. It just jumped right out. Okay, I'll leave

[3:44:10] it at that. Definition and enforcement. I know what I

[3:44:17] was going to say. Of all places. I think. That.

[3:44:26] Schools. And the students in those schools. Should have the

[3:44:32] ability to. See how our democratic. Process works and that

[3:44:39] they are free to express themselves. But again, the issue

[3:44:44] here is the definition of what is a nuisance. Demonstration.

[3:44:50] Not demonstration, per se. Comment from any other counselors. I'll

[3:44:58] just check with the others first, counselor. Councilor Baines. Go

[3:45:08] ahead, and then I'll come back to you. Counselor. Thank

[3:45:11] you. Deputy Mayor friar. I would just like to compliment

[3:45:15] the mayor, actually. On bringing forward. Unfortunately, it would seem.

[3:45:23] And I may disagree with my colleague here, Councilor Doherty.

[3:45:28] At least under. The certain circumstances now and necessary. But.

[3:45:33] Prudent, I hope. Response. It's unfortunate it has to be

[3:45:36] even considered. But. I'm sensitive to its limited scope of

[3:45:43] the bubble. As proposed here and look forward to the

[3:45:48] next step of this. Actually, from hearing a response back

[3:45:51] from staff. Thank you. Councilor McCullough. Thank you, chair. Just

[3:45:59] picking up on some of what councilor Dougherty had said.

[3:46:04] My feeling is it is more about. The nuisance. The

[3:46:08] definition of the nuisance. It's the conduct we're trying. To

[3:46:13] measure and contain when it's out of step with our

[3:46:17] norms, not the content it is the conduct, and I

[3:46:20] think once you've defined that, it can be applied anywhere

[3:46:23] in Collingwood. Not only at a school. Anywhere where a

[3:46:28] protest or a demonstration takes place that exceeds acceptable standards

[3:46:33] of conduct. So I think it's a fairly universal tool

[3:46:37] that can be used to deal with situations that become

[3:46:40] out of control or border on harassment or threatening behavior.

[3:46:45] Thank you. Any further, Councilor Perry. Okay, so councilor ring.

[3:46:55] It was just, again, going to say that I thought

[3:46:58] that. At what request of Councilor Dougherty is already in

[3:47:02] the motion. I'm seeing here a clear definition of nuisance

[3:47:06] protest. And that explains what? And then where the enforcement.

[3:47:11] Enforcement provisions and collaboration with the Ontario provincial police. So

[3:47:17] the two things she thought she'd like to see in

[3:47:20] this notice of motion are. Both there. Councilor Dougherty. Go

[3:47:24] ahead. What I'm not comfortable with in. This motion is.

[3:47:33] Reference to any defined buffer zone. Around any public. Entity.

[3:47:42] Like a school. Or a bia district. That's what I'm

[3:47:48] not comfortable with at this point in time. Thank you.

[3:47:54] Councilor Perry. Go ahead. Thank you. I wasn't going to

[3:47:57] comment, but I do believe. This motion covers everything. And

[3:48:03] as far as even going, what is a bubble zone?

[3:48:06] I think everything's covered in there. I'm totally comfortable with

[3:48:08] it. And I don't know if we need to make

[3:48:13] it anymore. I'm not saying it's complicated, but we don't

[3:48:16] need to make it more complicated. Don't see any more

[3:48:25] comments, so I'll make my comments. And. I feel the

[3:48:29] current nuisance bylaw outlines most of what's already been talked

[3:48:34] about. I've got no problem with supporting this going forward.

[3:48:39] But I'd be surprised if there's much change to the

[3:48:42] current nuisance bylaw that we have. I think it's being

[3:48:44] established. It says, nuisance shall mean an activity that causes

[3:48:47] an unsafe environment affects the well being of persons and

[3:48:50] where the enjoyment of public space and shall be limited

[3:48:53] to activities described in section three. And there's. Twelve activities

[3:48:58] that I think cover an awful lot of what we've

[3:49:00] just been talking about. So. It is a 2013 bylaw,

[3:49:06] and things have changed dramatically, so. I could be wrong.

[3:49:11] But. I do believe we have a good bylaw enforcement.

[3:49:16] Is always going to be the problem. With this. I'm

[3:49:21] concerned about trying to have one of our municipal officers

[3:49:23] do something enforcement wise. It is identified in the nuisance

[3:49:27] by law. That the police officer. Is also. An enforcement

[3:49:34] agent. But. As Mary Hamill explained, They're even hesitant to

[3:49:41] step into this. But anyway, so we've had good discussion

[3:49:45] of it. Is everybody comfortable that they understand the lengthy

[3:49:51] motion that's had a few amendments to it? Does anybody

[3:49:55] need to go ahead? Councilor Dory. Thank you. I'd like

[3:50:00] to request a sever. Severe, whereas recent. Protests near

[3:50:10] school property. And. The last and whereas, and therefore

[3:50:20] be it. Separate that out. So the second and the

[3:50:27] last, whereas, yeah. I'm not asking to sever that. Therefore,

[3:50:34] be it resolved as well. And that doesn't require a

[3:50:39] secondary. I need clarity and looking. I've just put the

[3:50:46] motion back up on the screen. So there's three pieces.

[3:50:54] So the main be it resolve line and then. Further

[3:50:57] that in another and further. Ad. Yeah. So. If you

[3:51:03] scroll to the top. Click on this. So moved. Seconded.

[3:51:09] Whereas. Okay, so. And whereas. Recent protest near school properties

[3:51:15] to separate that out. Please. The second. And then also

[3:51:23] sever. And whereas the town is committed to protecting. So,

[3:51:29] Councilor Dory, that is the preamble, right? We'd be voting.

[3:51:36] On. The therefore and the further that. The preamble. Isn't

[3:51:44] something that's being considered from a voting standpoint. Am I

[3:51:48] correct? It's a reference to specific locations that I have

[3:51:51] a problem with. But the staff report is to consider

[3:51:56] other location types. Would you like?

[3:52:07] That third part of the motion, which is the amended

[3:52:11] inclusion and further, that council request a staff report. Be

[3:52:16] prepared to consider if there are other location types in

[3:52:18] our community that should be reviewed. Would you like that

[3:52:21] severed? Actually. I think. If we could just sever.

[3:52:32] The therefore. And further that and what I would do

[3:52:36] is support just second part. We will vote separately. On

[3:52:43] the therefore. The first and further that and the second

[3:52:48] and further in that. So I'm going to call a

[3:52:50] vote to the. First. In case anybody else would like

[3:52:55] to say anything. And this is to therefore be it

[3:52:59] resolved at council direct staff. As highlighted by Kirkham is

[3:53:04] there for us on the screen. Everybody's okay with that?

[3:53:10] Go ahead, councilor. Ring terribly. Yeah, it was a gray

[3:53:15] highlight that I meant. Sorry. You need this to go

[3:53:20] with that. So that's what we'll do. We're? Voting on

[3:53:23] the yellow highlight. On the screen. Just that the

[3:53:33] second and further that. Is so much an integral part

[3:53:37] of the first part of this motion. I don't know

[3:53:40] if Councilor Dougherty needs that second one. What that suggests

[3:53:46] to me is that we are going to rely on

[3:53:48] legal counsel before we do. Another thing. And that's why

[3:53:51] I would support that. And further the staff consult with

[3:53:56] radio. Casting. Okay, let's keep going.

[3:54:06] For me, anyway. That's the only part of this motion

[3:54:13] that I would support. The request is for severing and

[3:54:16] that can be made. So we will vote on the

[3:54:18] yellow highlight. All those in favor? And opposed. And so

[3:54:24] noted. That carries on the blue highlight. All those in

[3:54:33] favor? And that is unanimous. On the fuchsia. Highlight.

[3:54:43] Ready to vote. All those in favor? And opposed. And

[3:54:53] so noted, but carries and I'll turn back to you.

[3:54:57] Thank you. The next item on our agenda is 14.2,

[3:55:02] which is. A motion concerning mandatory water safety and survive

[3:55:08] to swim training. And I'll turn it over. To you,

[3:55:10] deputy mayor, to read in your motion. Thank you, Mayor

[3:55:14] Hamlin. Whereas drowning is a leading cause of preventable death

[3:55:18] among children in Ontario and basic swimming and widow otter

[3:55:21] survival skills significantly reduced this risk. And whereas Collingwood's community

[3:55:26] based strategic plan emphasizes safety, well being, and active lifestyles,

[3:55:31] particularly given our waterfront in recreational. Amenities. Therefore be resolved

[3:55:36] at Council of Town of Collingwood endorsed and support the

[3:55:39] initiative to advocate for mandatory water swimming, water safety and

[3:55:43] swim to survive training in the Ontario elementary school curriculum

[3:55:48] and that this resolution be forwarded to the applicable government

[3:55:51] authorities. MPP, Saunderson, local school boards and the association. Of

[3:55:56] municipal municipalities of Ontario for their endorsement. And I look

[3:56:02] for a secondary. Oh, sorry. Forgot I was

[3:56:12] cheering already. Councilor Perry. Okay. Do you want to speak

[3:56:17] first or last? I'll just speak for. Mary allen. Somewhat

[3:56:24] similar. This is. A supportive motion to our neighbor. But

[3:56:30] in this particular case, It does involve a situation where

[3:56:34] we have an extensive shoreline as well, and therefore I

[3:56:37] went to staff and asked for their input before bringing

[3:56:41] this forward, and they were very supportive. Of asking for

[3:56:47] mandatory. Provincial mandatory. Directives. And that they would

[3:56:57] be prepared to. Help. The local schools be able to

[3:57:02] provide that if the prophets chose to go that direction.

[3:57:07] And I will leave it at that parahamela. Okay. Thank

[3:57:10] you. Any comments or questions. Seeing none. All those in

[3:57:16] favor? And that's unanimous? Okay, so what we're going to

[3:57:22] do is move into the community of the whole there's.

[3:57:26] Two primary things left on the agenda. The first ones

[3:57:29] are budget, and the second one is. Master servicing plan

[3:57:33] award of contract. And what I'm going to suggest we

[3:57:37] can move into committee of the whole as I mentioned.

[3:57:42] Earlier. We're going to deal with the budget first. And.

[3:57:47] I'll be chairing that part of the meeting. And then

[3:57:51] we'll. Switch seats. With what will then be chair Perry

[3:57:55] and he'll continue on with the rest of the agenda.

[3:57:59] And so before I'll get to our sean in a

[3:58:02] second, I also wanted to suggest. That we take a

[3:58:05] 40 minutes break before we pursue this. Yes, go ahead.

[3:58:28] Okay. CEO is raising the point that perhaps. If we

[3:58:36] dealt with the master servicing plan now. Then manager Lill

[3:58:42] could leave. How does that sound? Manager? I'd love to

[3:58:48] see it. Okay, that was a good request then. Co

[3:58:51] skinner. So we'll do the motion to go into committee

[3:58:57] as a whole, and maybe, councilor. Perry. You can share

[3:59:00] from there, all right? So the recommendation council move into

[3:59:04] the committee of the whole session move in a seconder

[3:59:07] deputy mayor. Seconded by councilor McCullough. All those in favor,

[3:59:13] and that's unanimous. Okay. Chair Perry, over to you. Thank

[3:59:18] you, Mayor Hamlin. I will go right to item 15.2.1,

[3:59:23] master servicing. Plan MSP award contract. Rpf 2025. And I'll

[3:59:31] hand it over to director Alcoca. Internal. Just. Okay. Manager

[3:59:40] to Elmel. Thank you. This is going to be a

[3:59:44] quick one. Good evening, council and staff. Thank you, Cao

[3:59:51] Skinner. That was super awesome. So let me just introduce.

[3:59:57] The staff report. I'm Amber Leal, the manager of development

[4:00:00] engineering, and I'm going to provide a quick and brief

[4:00:03] introduction for the staff. Report 20250. One two award of

[4:00:07] the RFP for the master servicing plan. Next slide, please.

[4:00:13] The strategic purpose of the MSP is to guide long

[4:00:16] term water and wastewater infrastructure planning. It aligns our servicing

[4:00:20] capacity with population and employment growth. Current regulations. And intermicipal

[4:00:26] obligations. It provides a defensible, future ready roadmap for infrastructure

[4:00:31] delivery. It incorporates our asset management planning, new official plan

[4:00:37] objectives, and municipal comprehensive review growth projections. And it feeds

[4:00:42] essential information to the upcoming wastewater treatment plant expansion, environmental

[4:00:47] assessment. Next slide, please. To provide a bit of a

[4:00:52] financial overview. Staff originally budgeted this project over three years.

[4:01:01] With an anticipated mid year start, staff allotted 75,000 in

[4:01:05] 2025, 150,000 in 2026, and a further 75,000 in 2027.

[4:01:12] Staff were delayed in issuing the RFP due to its

[4:01:15] complexity and further due to the project's. Complexity, staff extended

[4:01:19] the period of time that vendors had to prepare proposals

[4:01:23] upon completion of the review process, staff have had to

[4:01:25] prepare for council's approval of an additional budget request. To

[4:01:29] top up the original budget to support this project, follow.

[4:01:32] Following a length the intent technical procurement process. The company

[4:01:36] with the highest ranked score was WSP Canada and WSP

[4:01:41] Canada had a very thorough and detailed work plan covering

[4:01:44] everything the town has asked for, including a very detailed

[4:01:48] and extensive modeling calibration regime. Excuse me. The recommended proposal

[4:01:54] came in at $430,022.50. Including nonrebatable tax. The total shortfall

[4:02:02] being 130,022 dollarsfifty. Cents given the time of the year.

[4:02:10] It is not expected that any invoicing on this project

[4:02:13] will occur until the new year. And with that in

[4:02:15] mind, staff recommend sending the remaining funds left from 25

[4:02:19] back to source and fully funding the project through the

[4:02:22] 26 and 27 budget process to be funded through the

[4:02:26] development charges. Reserve funds. Next slide. Next steps would be

[4:02:31] that council endorse the contract award to WSP as recommended

[4:02:34] and approve the budget allocations and recommend. Recommendations. Finance would

[4:02:42] update the budgets accordingly, purchasing would award the contract and

[4:02:46] development engineering staff would take this project through project. Execution

[4:02:50] over the next 18 months. Next slide. Thank you so

[4:02:54] much. Any questions? Thank you, Manager Leal. I'll look to

[4:02:58] the gallery. Jessica, any comments? Okay. Co. Anyone online? The

[4:03:07] clerk announced that. The clerk. Thank you. We do have

[4:03:14] still a number of participants online, so if there is

[4:03:17] anybody that's. Participating remotely through zoom. Please press the raise

[4:03:22] your hand feature at the bottom of your screen. And

[4:03:26] not at this time. Chair Perry. Okay. Thank you. So,

[4:03:29] I'll read in the recommendation. That staff report in 2020,

[4:03:34] 512 Master Servicing Plan, award of contract be received and

[4:03:39] that council approves an additional 130,022. Dollars and be funded

[4:03:48] from the development charges reserves through the 2026 and 2027

[4:03:53] budget process. Can have a mover. Councilor Dougherty. Seconded, Councilor

[4:03:59] Ring and I'll put it in the floor. For discussion.

[4:04:03] Comments. Councilor jeffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question,

[4:04:09] I guess through to Andrew Le. I guess I wasn't

[4:04:13] here for the other conversation, but to me, a 43%

[4:04:16] increase. Is a pretty significant one. And I'm just wondering,

[4:04:21] are we really bad budgeters or did something really change?

[4:04:25] Value added. Within this. But, I mean, I read that

[4:04:31] from afar, and it was a bit of a shocker

[4:04:33] to me. I got my calculator out and one that's

[4:04:36] pretty serious. And Juliet to the chair, to the counselor.

[4:04:42] So at the onset of budgeting, sometimes you have to

[4:04:45] do more of a high level exercise. At this point,

[4:04:48] this contract contains not only a very robust calibration, Exercise

[4:04:54] for both the water and the sanitary models, but it

[4:04:56] includes a duplicate of that in three years. So that

[4:04:59] our information stays up to date in this very rapid

[4:05:02] growth period that we're experiencing. In addition. There's funds within

[4:05:06] this contract set aside for modeling requests that come through

[4:05:10] to staff. A certain percentage of that. And then we

[4:05:15] also have a small provisional allowance set aside for any

[4:05:18] additional work that might be needed through the EA process.

[4:05:22] Should there be any part 16 orders at the end?

[4:05:27] So I think that the project that we have now

[4:05:29] is very robust, and it helps to support the wastewater

[4:05:34] treatment EA expansion that's coming up. Councilor Jeffrey. No. Ouch.

[4:05:44] Any other questions or comments? Deputy mayor friar. Yeah. And

[4:05:53] also, thank you for the presentation. And totally understand the

[4:05:57] need for it. For sure, but it did jump that

[4:06:02] substantial amount. So you mentioned about. Because I was going

[4:06:07] to ask what was the amount of contingency? Built into

[4:06:09] it. And you did say small amount. So can you

[4:06:14] elaborate just how much contingency is built? It's not a

[4:06:17] contingency. Sorry. Through the chair to the counselor. It is

[4:06:20] a provisional amount set aside for modeling, and it is

[4:06:23] 25,000. To be used over the course of. Three years.

[4:06:31] And the 2051 horizon that's being used. Is that something

[4:06:38] that changed along the way as well? Just thinking of

[4:06:42] some of the things that have happened that the county

[4:06:44] specifically in regards to the annexation debate about. Barry all

[4:06:49] of a sudden? The number of years that was being

[4:06:53] projected out changed in that, but. The horizon was always

[4:06:57] 2051. For as long as I've been involved with this

[4:07:01] project. Yeah, I thought that might be to align with

[4:07:05] the official plan. I just thought that might have. Been

[4:07:07] another reason why it might have bumped up the way

[4:07:09] it did. But to your belief, it was always projected

[4:07:13] for 2051. Thank you, chair. That's. Okay. Any other. Councilor

[4:07:20] Baines. It looks like you're okay anyway. I'll call the

[4:07:26] motion to or the recommendation to a vote. All those

[4:07:28] in favor? And that's unanimous. Mayor, do I hand it

[4:07:34] back to you, or do we just take a break?

[4:07:38] Okay. So. You recommended 40 minutes. Okay, 40 minutes break.

[4:07:43] So we'll be back here. At. 650, I guess. Thank

[4:07:50] you.

[4:50:57] Welcome back, council. The next item on our agenda is.

[4:51:05] 15.2.2. It's our draft. Two of the budget. And the

[4:51:09] recommendation before us is that staff report t 2025 20.

[4:51:15] Staff. Proposed budget draft two be received. Could I have

[4:51:18] a mover in a seconder, please? Councilor McCullough, seconded by

[4:51:22] councilor Baines. And now we'll open. This up for discussion.

[4:51:29] Go ahead, councilor Potts. Thanks for your hamlet. This is

[4:51:32] where we can start. To talk about adding stuff. Go

[4:51:39] for it. Absolutely. I wanted to bring up, and I

[4:51:43] know. I asked just the question last meeting regarding? The

[4:51:49] open space across the street from Town hall at 84

[4:51:52] here, Ontario and. Again. I recognize there's $25,000 in the

[4:51:58] budget. For some testing and some studies, and I was

[4:52:04] curious to see. If we could. Not even so much

[4:52:08] a wish list, but something as far as moving it

[4:52:11] forward, knowing that it was one of the priorities. On

[4:52:15] the downtown master plan that. We could go low hanging

[4:52:18] fruit. I was curious to see if there was a

[4:52:21] chance I'd. Like to add some additional. Funding. For. On

[4:52:27] top of the funding for studies and stuff, but even

[4:52:30] as far as into the design work, for 2026. So

[4:52:33] that way 2027 was kind of. Ready to go as

[4:52:39] far as the next steps, and I didn't know if

[4:52:41] there was. The ability. And again, looking at potentially, I

[4:52:45] don't know what the costs are, maybe. You guys can.

[4:52:48] Maybe staff has an idea, but I was thinking somewhere

[4:52:50] along with the 80,000 mark. I know there's 25,000, so

[4:52:53] it would be that difference, and I was wondering if

[4:52:55] it could be potentially taken into. The mat funding, so

[4:52:59] I think I'll start there. Thanks. Okay. So would you

[4:53:04] like Director Cubit to comment on this? If possible, I

[4:53:10] think the starting would be. Is there any idea of

[4:53:12] what. Costing. We would need to get it to. I

[4:53:17] guess beyond even. Shovel ready? Shovel ready would be. The

[4:53:23] best start. And maybe for the rest of us if

[4:53:26] you could start with what's planned for 26. Already. Okay.

[4:53:31] Thank you. Thank you. Through you. The plan for 26.

[4:53:37] In reference to 84 here on Tarot street, was to

[4:53:39] invest funds. Into. Some engineering studies to see what it

[4:53:44] is we are working with and what is happening below

[4:53:46] grade. At that site and then also conduct some public

[4:53:50] engagement. To see what the community feels should be done

[4:53:54] with that space as an open space, as so directed

[4:53:57] by council because there could be various different treatments and

[4:53:59] various investments. I would hesitate to. Give an idea of

[4:54:06] what that could look like or pricing without going back

[4:54:09] to the team to get a sense, but I am

[4:54:12] happy to return with some information if needed. Through you,

[4:54:16] mayor ham. As a follow up. I think we can

[4:54:21] probably all agree 25,000 won't go far. I wouldn't imagine

[4:54:26] it would go far. I'd be shocked if it did.

[4:54:28] And. I'm just looking at if we can get it

[4:54:31] to a point of get it out. To the public

[4:54:33] consultation and design and all that stuff. I just think

[4:54:37] that as we see. The area has been quite activated.

[4:54:42] Given with the winter festivities. And the weekend with the

[4:54:46] menorah lighting and the large crowd that was there for

[4:54:49] that. i think we're just running on such a Positive

[4:54:54] note with that facility that while it's there, and it's

[4:54:58] a low hanging fruit of the master plan. I would

[4:55:01] hope that if we could. My next question would be

[4:55:03] if we could get the funding. From the mat tax.

[4:55:06] Would that be something that would qualify for that? Okay,

[4:55:10] treasure. Graham, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I'm happy

[4:55:14] to comment on this. At this point, cancel has already

[4:55:20] pre approved 215,000 from the MAT funding to go towards

[4:55:24] the initiatives from the downtown master plan. And deterrismaster plan.

[4:55:30] We could make that a priority in those initiatives. And

[4:55:35] use that part of that 215,000. Yeah, I think that's

[4:55:40] through you, Mayor Hamlin. Thanks, Jekard Graham. I think that

[4:55:43] makes a lot of sense. So at this point, we

[4:55:46] probably wouldn't even need to label a dollar amount. It

[4:55:49] would just be that we would direct funds from there.

[4:55:51] Okay, awesome. So I don't know, do we need to

[4:55:54] do a recommendation on that, or is this. Just all

[4:55:56] I think. Sounds like it's good. Okay. All right. Sorry.

[4:56:02] Hold on. Okay, co skinner. Okay. I just wasn't clear.

[4:56:12] Around. The funding intentions. I know council has asked directed.

[4:56:18] That what is estimated to be 50% of the 2026

[4:56:21] mat income, or about $250,000. Exactly $250,000. Be put into

[4:56:28] the budget as a funding source for 2026. Right now.

[4:56:33] It hasn't been allocated. It's just used to reduce. The

[4:56:38] overall need for taxes or fees or other income. So

[4:56:43] if, in fact, you wish to use some of that,

[4:56:46] I think a vote would be warranted. If you. Wish

[4:56:50] to. Allocate the money. To this item. Now, if you

[4:56:57] wish to wait until 2026 is partway through and look

[4:57:02] at what has actually come in, potentially after the initial

[4:57:06] work is complete, then that might be a different. I

[4:57:09] think if I can just help clarify. In the report

[4:57:12] now, it says from draft two, The 390 from the

[4:57:17] 25 mat tax. 215,000 would go to implement downtown master

[4:57:23] plan, and I think that was the thought. That. As

[4:57:29] I assumed from the treasurer, we would give some priorities

[4:57:33] within that spending to 84 year Ontario. Street, if that's

[4:57:37] possible. Okay. Yeah. In addition to the 25,000 that's already

[4:57:44] allocated in the budget. Yes. So, Karen. Sorry. Thank you.

[4:57:50] Through the chair. Just for clarification, for the minuteing. Purposes.

[4:57:53] I'm thinking a motion might be required because we want

[4:57:56] to make sure. We're prioritizing what you want to be

[4:57:59] included. In addition to that 25,000. So I'm thinking a

[4:58:03] motion might be better to make sure it's clear. Otherwise.

[4:58:07] I just don't want to the work not meet what

[4:58:10] council's expectations were. Okay. And I think one other thing

[4:58:15] that's on my mind as part of this is. what

[4:58:22] the 215,000 has been allocated for just in case we

[4:58:27] don't want to take away anything that's really important Maybe.

[4:58:28] Anyway, does this make sense? Okay, so who can speak

[4:58:32] to that? What? The 215,000? Was identified for some. Director

[4:58:38] Valentine. Go ahead. Thank you, chair. And through you. The

[4:58:44] 215,000 was essentially a placeholder. The thought was, that should

[4:58:49] counsel endorse a staff or consultant or a contract position

[4:58:55] to drive forward the tourism master plan and the downtown

[4:58:58] master plan, that that individual would come back to you.

[4:59:02] With a fully costed and timed work plan for 2026

[4:59:05] and beyond, similar to what we do with the affordable

[4:59:08] housing master plan. So certainly a council's direction was to

[4:59:11] prioritize 84 here on street as part of that work

[4:59:14] plan. That could be communicated. To the staff person, the

[4:59:18] consultant or other resource that council determines is appropriate to

[4:59:22] drive forward those plans. Okay, that's clear. Do you want

[4:59:24] to make a motion? Yeah. Just for clarification on that,

[4:59:28] though. Again. I guess I'm looking at. Do we need

[4:59:33] a staff or a consultant or a new staff resource

[4:59:37] to drive? That implementation over the next year. I don't

[4:59:44] know. If you understand what I mean, but. If we

[4:59:50] allocate this money, boat is still on the hands of

[4:59:53] having a resource or. A consultant stuff. It's just going

[4:59:56] to drag into 27 and probably into 28 anyways. So

[4:59:59] I'm just wondering if there's any chance. Basically, my motion

[5:00:03] would be. Along the lines, with some help from the

[5:00:07] clerk on some wording, would be that. We use funding

[5:00:12] from the MAT to get the 84 here interior shovel

[5:00:15] ready for 2027. That would include public consultation studies, environmental

[5:00:23] studies services, all that kind of whatever goes with that.

[5:00:27] I fear when I hear that we have to wait

[5:00:29] for consultants or stopping because we'll be halfway through next

[5:00:32] year before we even see anything, so in house would

[5:00:35] be best. Thanks. Can I have a seconder for that

[5:00:41] motion? Councilor Jeffrey and I know you're dying to say

[5:00:44] something. Go ahead. This is one of those unique situations

[5:00:49] where we got money and we don't know what. We're

[5:00:50] going to do with it. My understanding from our conversation

[5:00:54] last meeting was we recognized what staff had broken out

[5:00:58] here for the 390 from 25 from 2025. Was.

[5:01:09] Their 30,000 level look at the funds they need to

[5:01:13] start to implement. And we knew that that would mean

[5:01:16] that they would be probably coming back at some point

[5:01:18] in time to us. And saying kind of. This is

[5:01:20] the layout of it to me. If I remember correctly,

[5:01:23] the downtown master plan. One of the low hanging fruit

[5:01:26] was 84. I think it was one of the first.

[5:01:29] Things. That. So to me, it would be something that.

[5:01:33] Would be taken to that level that you're talking about

[5:01:36] as quickly as possible. And may not need a resource

[5:01:39] for that reason. Just go through to your studies and

[5:01:42] things like that. So I'm very supportive of putting the

[5:01:46] direction there so it's there. But. I did believe that

[5:01:51] it was part of that 215,000 mayor Hamlin talked about.

[5:01:56] Is to do that. And the money is there for

[5:01:58] 25. We decided not to allocate. The town or that

[5:02:03] tourism kind of portion of the 26 amount. In what

[5:02:08] we're doing right now. But that 25. The money is

[5:02:14] there, as I said. And I'm happy to support. Given

[5:02:19] that extra direction. If that's what staff want us to

[5:02:21] do. Okay. Anyone else like. To comment on this. Bring

[5:02:26] it. Two of all those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.

[5:02:32] Okay, next. Elsa. Dirty. Thank you. I am certainly not

[5:02:39] the mathematician. As my colleague. Is to my left, however.

[5:02:49] We have some funding that has come available. From the

[5:02:56] sale of the Culbert. Property. That is 280,000. Dollars, so.

[5:03:08] As a suggestion. I was going to propose that. That

[5:03:14] be allocated to the affordable housing. Task force. Instead of.

[5:03:25] And against the 400,000 that is currently. Been allocated to

[5:03:30] that budget. So. If it's 400,000 -280. Which would be

[5:03:37] coming from Culvert, would free up. $120,000. And out of

[5:03:45] that. I was going to propose that we increase. The

[5:03:52] contribution to the merf. And to the art center reserves.

[5:04:00] Increase each by 50,000. So a total. Of $100,000, which

[5:04:07] would leave. 20 out of that budget. For some other

[5:04:13] purpose. Is that clear? As mud. Let me try and

[5:04:20] paraphrase. That the $280,000, which is from the Culvert estate

[5:04:28] and some bird street. Funding. Would go into the affordable

[5:04:33] housing reserve. And since council wanted 400,000 in that reserve.

[5:04:41] As a total amount if we put this 280 in,

[5:04:46] because those funds should go to affordable housing. As our

[5:04:49] staff report suggests, it means. We have 120 that we

[5:04:54] could notionally take out of the affordable Housing Reserve fund

[5:04:58] that we've put in in a previous meeting. And that

[5:05:02] the 120 would then. Get split between the Merf reserve

[5:05:07] fund and the r reserve fund. Okay, so that's. The

[5:05:10] concept. Is there a seconder for this? Councilor Baines comments.

[5:05:16] Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So I really believe

[5:05:20] that that commitment. From the Calberta state should not. Be

[5:05:27] netted with our other commitments. I think it was always.

[5:05:31] Intended that it would go there over and above what

[5:05:33] we're doing. And I just don't think. We should. Be.

[5:05:39] Watering it down. It's like it got washed out. And

[5:05:44] I don't like that it was given to us for

[5:05:46] a specific purpose. Over and above our other commitments, and

[5:05:49] I think that it shouldn't be part of that $400,000.

[5:05:54] Okay, who else would like to comment on this? Deputy

[5:05:58] mayor. I'm going to have to get some clarity because

[5:06:01] I feel that 280. Is freed up and not 120.

[5:06:05] And maybe I'm just following this incorrectly. But. Right now

[5:06:12] we have 400,000. As an impact on taxes. And part

[5:06:20] of that is actually operational cost. Costs, and then whatever

[5:06:25] the net is at the end of the day goes

[5:06:26] into the reserve. So if we've got 400,000 in taxes

[5:06:30] and we're going to put 280,000 against it. Then I

[5:06:35] think you've got $280,000, not 120. To distribute. Us the

[5:06:41] treasure. Is this hard question? Go ahead, treasure. Thank you.

[5:06:46] Mary Hamlin, the deputy mayor, is correct. It would be

[5:06:50] the 280,000 to allocate. yes I just wanted to add

[5:06:58] as well. The 280 represents funds from two sources. It

[5:07:05] is the culprit estate greatly appreciated. And the net. Of

[5:07:12] what was left in the accounts. From the Birch street

[5:07:16] housing, so the individual amounts are not yet available and.

[5:07:22] There'll be some announcements. On the Culbert amount to come,

[5:07:26] but that there is two sources in there. So that's

[5:07:31] what I was going to touch on next, because I

[5:07:34] knew it said social. Housing under 24 reserves that there

[5:07:37] was 100,000. In that town. And I thought, that's what

[5:07:42] I recollected as well as. The 280 was a combination

[5:07:45] of that 180 roughly from Culvert and then the 100

[5:07:49] from social that could both end up in affordable housing

[5:07:52] because certainly both are applicable to affordable housing. But anyway.

[5:07:58] I just wanted clarity on that. And then I'll listen

[5:08:01] to everybody else and go from there. Councilor Paynes thank

[5:08:07] you, Mayor Hamlin, through you, I think, to councilor Jeffrey

[5:08:11] in regard to the potential top up or if you

[5:08:14] will, assignment to the affordable housing fund. Would it not

[5:08:20] be? Within the intent of the Culbert. Estate stipulations to

[5:08:27] the town. Would it not favor what we're attempting to

[5:08:31] do in affordable housing, do you think? As to the

[5:08:36] beneficiaries wishes. Well, you should just comment, I think. That's

[5:08:42] your comment? Anyway, go ahead. Do you want to say

[5:08:45] it again? Sure, I'll say it again. Whatever the amount

[5:08:49] is, understanding now that it's not 280. I think that

[5:08:54] that amount should be committed over the top of what

[5:08:56] we're doing. I don't think we should be netting it

[5:08:58] out and watering it out. We were already committed. To

[5:09:02] doing that. 400,000 a year, and I don't think we

[5:09:04] should be washing. It out with money from other places.

[5:09:07] I think we need to stay committed and add that

[5:09:10] to the coffers. It has struck me that we're not

[5:09:14] committed to 400. It's been suggested that we put 400

[5:09:17] in this year. I think we've been putting in 300,

[5:09:21] if memory serves. What was it, 350? Okay, 350. All

[5:09:30] right. Okay, who else? Wants to speak to this. Okay,

[5:09:38] bring it to a vote. So do you want to

[5:09:40] divide this into a couple of things? Here or. Yeah,

[5:09:42] go ahead. Can I just close before we call

[5:09:52] it to the vote? The 280.

[5:10:02] Was non tax. Related funding. So, in effect, what we're

[5:10:08] doing is we're just reducing the taxation commitment to affordable

[5:10:13] housing and allocating the funding elsewhere. As I said the

[5:10:20] last time we discussed. Allocations to the reserve for the

[5:10:27] Merf and for the art center at $50,000 commitment. We

[5:10:32] will never get there. We need to make. A decent

[5:10:37] commitment to reserves, to both of. These projects. Council. Has

[5:10:46] already declined to support $150,000 per reserve. I'm suggesting. A

[5:10:55] reduced amount to a 100,000, which is 50,000 more than

[5:10:59] what was voted. On.

[5:11:13] Okay, so the clerk has just asked if she could

[5:11:16] have clarification on the motion. So perhaps I'll let you

[5:11:23] ask the questions you have. Go ahead. Sorry. Certainly through,

[5:11:28] you, worship. I started with. Council. Council, okay?

[5:11:40] Sorry. I'll just confirm to you I was doing multiple

[5:11:43] tasks here at the same time, so. The ask team

[5:11:45] that was before the court for the Culbert estate indicated

[5:11:49] that. The money would go to affordable housing initiatives. So.

[5:11:59] That was clear with the intention. That's what it was

[5:12:01] going to go towards. So right now. You're looking at

[5:12:06] utilizing the combined amount of 280,000 from the culvert. Estate

[5:12:10] in the birch street department to go towards. The 400,000

[5:12:15] that council has allocated. Out of taxation revenue to affordable

[5:12:22] housing task force. So I'm suggesting we reduce that taxation.

[5:12:26] Commitment. Which would leave us with a balance. Of 120,000.

[5:12:35] And I'm suggesting we split that. Between.

[5:12:46] The multi use recreation facility. Reserves. And the art center

[5:12:52] reserves. Sure? Yeah. We'll do them as two separate motions.

[5:12:57] That's okay. All right. So the first part may be

[5:13:03] Clark Thomas. You could just tell us what it would

[5:13:06] be. Certainly. Thank you, you, worship. The council allocate the

[5:13:11] combined 250,000 from the culvert. Estate and Birch street apartment.

[5:13:17] Allocations to the affordable housing initiatives. Going towards the total

[5:13:21] of the 400,000. For the affordable housing initiatives. Basically, we'll

[5:13:27] deal with that one first and then we'll vote on

[5:13:29] the splitting of that. Okay. All right. Councilor ring. Thank

[5:13:35] you very much. So then. We've got. Is it 252

[5:13:44] 80? Okay, so we've got 280,000 this year between Murphy.

[5:13:48] Yeah. Okay, because. The second most time you spoke about

[5:13:52] it, you didn't specify. No. We wouldn't have 280. No,

[5:13:57] 140 for each one. Because the 280. Would be. Allocated

[5:14:06] to. We have 400,000 in. Affordable housing right now, so

[5:14:12] I'm suggesting. That's based on taxation. Let's reduce it. By

[5:14:19] the 280,000 from Culbert and Birch. Which leaves us with

[5:14:26] $120,000. You got 400, you put 280 and so you

[5:14:31] take a 280 and you'll still have 400, so you

[5:14:33] got 280,000 out. Councilor Dougherty. Maybe the treasurer could just

[5:14:40] explain that. I think that you're not quite right. Okay,

[5:14:44] treasure, go for it. Thank you. Pardon me. I'll try

[5:14:50] and explain it. So 400,000 right now is what's been

[5:14:53] allocated to the affordable housing reserve. The source of that

[5:14:56] funding is taxation. With this motion, we'll be using 280,000

[5:15:03] from other sources of funding. To still equal 400,000, so

[5:15:08] we're only needing 120,000 raised by taxes. If we were

[5:15:12] to maintain our current tax rate that's proposed in the

[5:15:15] draft report. Which uses the full 400,000. We would therefore

[5:15:20] then have 280,000 to allocate. Out to the two different

[5:15:24] reserve funds. Should that be council direction? I hope that

[5:15:27] helps explain. It. Would. Yeah. Okay. I am such a

[5:15:36] numb skull when it comes to numbers, I'll tell you.

[5:15:41] It's as the treasurer stated. Okay. That's a good decision.

[5:15:51] So I just want to go back then, so. The

[5:15:55] motion that we'll vote on. Is. I think you have

[5:15:58] to tell us again. The council allocate 280,000 from the

[5:16:04] Culvert State and Bert street apartments. To the affordable housing

[5:16:08] initiatives, going against the total of $400,000, reducing the allocation

[5:16:13] from taxation. Right. Okay. You'd like to speak.

[5:16:23] I didn't get any clarity because the clerk's saying 280.

[5:16:28] From Culvert and the way I understood it when the

[5:16:32] CEO spoke about it is there's. 100, roughly in social

[5:16:36] housing for Birch street in reserve at the end of

[5:16:40] 2024. So I'm just going to seek clarification. With the

[5:16:45] clerk. Was the proceeds from Culvert. $280,000. Thank you. As

[5:16:55] noted by the CAO, we're not disclosing the Culbert estate

[5:16:58] amount, right? Now. We're doing a joint press release once

[5:17:01] the money has been received. I totally can understand that.

[5:17:09] And I will say, though, that. I'm looking at the

[5:17:13] 280 that we've been talked about as including the social

[5:17:17] housing reserve too. I think our treasurer would just like

[5:17:20] to have a work here. Okay, go ahead. To make

[5:17:24] things. Thank you, madam mayor. Just to make things a

[5:17:26] little bit more complicated, the deputy mayor is referring to

[5:17:29] social housing in the reserve in 2024, and that's accurate.

[5:17:32] There was about 97,000 added to it in 2023, and

[5:17:36] that was from when the town took over from the

[5:17:38] rotary, and they had a small capital reserve fund for

[5:17:42] the Burt street apartments. We transferred that. Into. The affordable

[5:17:46] housing reserve fund. This amount that's part of the 280,000

[5:17:51] is a separate amount. We had a management service. Managed

[5:17:58] first street apartments for us, and it was the amount

[5:18:00] owing from rent that they had collected. Since they took

[5:18:03] over from the rotary department. So it's separate from that

[5:18:06] amount that's? Already showing in the reserve fund. It's additional

[5:18:10] amount. I hope that helps provide some background. Yeah, thank

[5:18:13] you for explaining that. The motion is about. Putting covert

[5:18:20] into affordable housing. If I don't support that. Any funds

[5:18:28] from culprit should be going into affordable housing anyway. As

[5:18:31] a matter of our typical reserve allocation, right? Will it

[5:18:38] be the same for the social housing amount we just

[5:18:40] talked about? That sitting in for Birch Street. It just

[5:18:46] would essentially move in. To affordable housing. I think that's

[5:18:53] our. We'd have that. Sorry. We have the flexibility. Okay.

[5:19:01] I'm not going to support the motion because I think

[5:19:04] it will end up in there. Anyway. Okay. Thank you.

[5:19:10] Okay. All in support of the motion. 234. Okay.

[5:19:21] And there's a post. And that passes. Okay. And then

[5:19:29] the second part of the motion was, we now have

[5:19:32] 280,000 that we didn't have before. And. What was your

[5:19:39] recommendation, Councilor Dougherty? Did that be split to the break

[5:19:43] facility and arts? Facility reserve funds. It's about twice as

[5:19:48] much money sorry? It's about twice as much money as.

[5:19:52] What I had estimated. But my proposal was to allocate

[5:19:59] $100,000 in total, so $50,000 to the MERF and $50,000

[5:20:07] to the art center, giving us a total of $100,000.

[5:20:17] Allocated to each of those reserves. Okay, so secondary for

[5:20:21] that. Councilor Baines. Okay. Do you want to speak first

[5:20:25] or last? I will speak last.

[5:20:38] Falls to me. If I originally proposed the 50,000. But

[5:20:42] if council is of the opinion. again that This is

[5:20:47] an appropriate allocation to make to keep the momentum going

[5:20:52] for this, which is what I think it will do.

[5:20:55] I would hope they would support this. I'm not going

[5:20:58] to support it because I think it should be the

[5:21:00] full amount. I honestly am of the view that if

[5:21:07] we have these funds, we know our community wants a

[5:21:10] recreation complex we know our community would like in our

[5:21:13] complex, and I realize. Those. Aren't always the same people,

[5:21:19] but sometimes they are. And if we don't start putting

[5:21:23] money into this, we'll never get there. So I'm not

[5:21:27] going to support this, but when we're finished, if it

[5:21:29] doesn't. Pass, I'll be suggesting 140. Go to each of

[5:21:33] those two reserve funds, okay? Any other comments?

[5:21:43] Councilor rain just. To. I'm not going to support it

[5:21:48] for that reason. If we've got the money. To put

[5:21:51] in those two reserves, I would put the whole amount.

[5:21:54] So I'll be the same way. I won't support it,

[5:21:56] hopefully. We can have another motion to put it. 140

[5:22:00] in each one. And with a 50 that we're already

[5:22:04] there, we'd get. 190. Each because. I think the draft

[5:22:10] budget two has 50 in there. Okay, let's bring this

[5:22:14] to a vote. All in favor? Sorry. Oh, yeah, sorry.

[5:22:17] Thank you. So. I was trying to be conservative. Because

[5:22:27] of the original vote. However, if it was the will

[5:22:31] of counsel to split it and put it in each

[5:22:34] of those reserves. Then I would happily withdraw my motion.

[5:22:40] You could amend it. And move that instead. Okay. How

[5:22:46] does the secondary feel? Okay. Comments on this deputy mayor.

[5:22:55] So we have money going into affordable housing that was

[5:22:58] going to go into affordable housing anyway, and now we're

[5:23:01] going to turn around and use it to fund. Recreation

[5:23:06] facility and art centers. So I can't accept that. What

[5:23:11] I was going to be proposing. If this was defeated

[5:23:15] because I wasn't going to support it was consideration of

[5:23:19] the Mat. For 2026. Because I look at that as

[5:23:22] more appropriate for Murphy, for an art center, because of

[5:23:27] the tourist. Based part of it, but. I can't support

[5:23:31] money that was going into affordable housing in the first

[5:23:33] place, and then saying, oh, that gives us money to

[5:23:35] give to something else that I won't be supporting. I

[5:23:40] think our challenge is we all want more money to

[5:23:42] go into these two projects on the horizon and where

[5:23:46] the pot should. Where the pot should come from. In

[5:23:52] this situation is the question. And just to remind you,

[5:23:57] Our opportunities for funding. In addition to the 280 we're

[5:24:01] talking about is we have our investment income. That was

[5:24:06] unexpected. And the treasure suggested between 510,680 thousand could be

[5:24:12] available. So I guess that's the main amount. Is that

[5:24:21] right, treasure that I'm thinking of. Funds we could still

[5:24:24] allocate. Three. Mayor to the mayor. There is the investment

[5:24:30] income, and then there's also the 250,000 from the 2026

[5:24:34] Matt funding so in the staff report, that amount was

[5:24:37] used. To reduce the tax rate. However, council may wish

[5:24:42] to allocate that differently because there's that potential as well.

[5:24:47] But if we allocated that differently, the taxes would go

[5:24:50] up, correct? Right? Okay. All right. Yeah. Go ahead.

[5:25:00] We have a $250,000 amount that we hadn't decided how

[5:25:04] we were going. To allocate it. That part was supposed

[5:25:08] to go again. Operational tax site. What I was talking

[5:25:11] about when I talked. About the murphy. In the art

[5:25:16] center reserve. That's not operational taxes, so I would be

[5:25:20] looking. To get even more complicated. I was going to

[5:25:27] be putting on the table a motion to reduce the

[5:25:31] amount of the entity. From 60% back to 50%. Based

[5:25:35] on all of our conversations, I think it's. An appropriate

[5:25:38] move to do. And look at 26 allocation. And possibly

[5:25:44] look for a funding source for the merf. And our

[5:25:50] center reserve. So I'm just being clear about my intention.

[5:25:54] But as I said, I can't support. The motion as

[5:25:57] it is right now. Would it be useful at this

[5:26:01] stage to look through? Because if we assume we have

[5:26:07] up to about 700,000, we could allocate what if we

[5:26:10] were to look at the things that still haven't been

[5:26:13] funded in the staff. Report and see what that adds

[5:26:16] up to, and then. See where we're at. So I

[5:26:21] think what I have here. I'll start with. There was

[5:26:25] moving staff to P 55, which was 166,000. Then there

[5:26:30] was the capital S. I'm not saying we have to

[5:26:32] necessarily vote for all these things, but. What is the

[5:26:35] whole list? Okay, capital asset manager position. We would fund

[5:26:39] half of that at 80. Just from the staff report.

[5:26:43] That's with the budget today. Page three.

[5:26:55] Yeah. Page three. Yeah, it's everything that's in here. Okay.

[5:27:06] There's a question about additional insurance that I believe councilor

[5:27:09] Baines is going to make a motion on later. I'll

[5:27:16] put that to one side. The ccat request comes out

[5:27:20] of reserves. I don't have to worry if we want

[5:27:23] or we can take it out of taxes. But that's

[5:27:27] 40. I'll put it to one side. There's the question

[5:27:30] of the irrigation from rugby, but that seems that could

[5:27:35] come out from development charges. If I read that correctly.

[5:27:41] But we can check that. Accelerator request.

[5:27:54] Which. I can't even remember how much it was. Was

[5:27:59] it 131 30? I'll just. Put it in, for human's

[5:28:03] sake. Okay. Accelerator. Capital asset. B 55 and then there

[5:28:10] was topping up. The HR person from seasonal to full

[5:28:15] time, that was 54,000. I hate charm. And let's

[5:28:25] just throw another one in. Councilor Baines, when you bring

[5:28:31] your motion, how much were you going to. Just going

[5:28:33] to. Put everything in here. 14. Okay, I'll put in

[5:28:41] 14 for big numbers. Okay. And we haven't dealt with.

[5:28:45] The cheerlifts, and I think that'll be a bit of

[5:28:46] a discussion based on. The staff reports, okay? So let's

[5:28:52] just add up. These few things here.

[5:29:05] Maybe I need the treasure. 166 plus. 80 plus 130.

[5:29:13] Plus 54. Yeah. 54 plus 14 equals 444. That

[5:29:22] sounded about right. And so I took into account p

[5:29:25] 55 the capital manager. An accelerator position. Hr to full

[5:29:33] time. And the insurance. That was four. Four, four. And

[5:29:38] so what we haven't taken into account. Is uneas to

[5:29:44] the asset or management reserve or. Monies that we want

[5:29:48] to put more into that. Or funding. For our Merf

[5:29:55] and art center. So if we said 680 was the

[5:29:59] maximum, we're going to take from the investment income. And

[5:30:02] we use four. Four, four. That is seven, three. We

[5:30:07] still have 236,000 that could be allocated to VMURF. And

[5:30:13] what center? Does any of that make sense to anybody?

[5:30:17] With all that? Yeah. Let me just check with the

[5:30:20] treasure before I get to you depth. Treasure. Have I

[5:30:24] sort of covered most things here? I'm just trying to.

[5:30:32] Add up it as well. So the P 55 at

[5:30:35] 166 the asset management manager 80,000. Hr at 54,000. Were

[5:30:44] the additional. Resource requests that haven't been included. So that

[5:30:52] is a total of 300,000, and then I have 14,000.

[5:30:57] Because councilor Baines is going to bring a motion about

[5:30:58] insurance. And I put in the 130 for the accelerator.

[5:31:05] Yes, that is 444,000. okay and then if we were

[5:31:14] using the 680 as the unexpected income At 680. Take

[5:31:19] off. Four, four, four. We're left with 236. And if

[5:31:21] we divided that by two. We'd have one, one, eight.

[5:31:26] Each, and we already have 50, so we'd have 168

[5:31:30] going into the reserve funds for. Each of those for

[5:31:32] this year. So that's where my brain is going on

[5:31:36] all of this. And maybe we could work through these

[5:31:39] and decide if these are things that council wants. Deputy

[5:31:41] mayor. Regarding. The investment income. I'm following the direction of

[5:31:50] staff. When they gave us the estimate for surplus at

[5:31:53] the end of the year 3813, which includes. The investment

[5:31:57] income. And I can't accept the idea of putting it

[5:32:02] against operating costs going forward because that's only one year.

[5:32:07] All those things we just outlined carry over into 27,

[5:32:10] too. So you're looking at a point, percent and a

[5:32:12] half that you're putting on to the taxes in 27.

[5:32:17] With that methodology. I do intend on coming back again

[5:32:21] to talk about. The amount of capital levy, and that's.

[5:32:27] Where I'll be utilizing the investment income outcome for 25,

[5:32:31] which, as I said, led to the surplus of 813,000.

[5:32:36] That is estimated by. The treasury. So I just like

[5:32:41] to clarify with the treasure, because you're using a number

[5:32:45] of. Deputy mayor with sent upper 818. Yeah, from the

[5:32:53] report, the estimate is $813,000 surplus at the end. 25

[5:32:57] and that includes. The investment income. Oh, I see. The

[5:33:02] total surplus. Right. Okay, I got it. Okay. Comments on

[5:33:10] any of this. Or motions. Yeah. Thanks, Brian. Harold, you

[5:33:18] referenced in here, as you're going through the list about

[5:33:20] the capital. Manager stopping request just for clarification, do we

[5:33:25] not exclude that or are you just talking? About potentially

[5:33:28] including that. We haven't included it yet, okay. I wasn't

[5:33:37] sure if you were, if you were speaking to it

[5:33:39] already being included, because it wasn't included, okay? And I

[5:33:43] think there was a memo attached to the staff report

[5:33:47] today for today's meeting. About what that person's job would

[5:33:50] be. Yeah. Okay. Maybe it's a good time to ask

[5:33:55] councilor Baines to bring his motion on. Insurance. Also recommend

[5:34:00] including an additional 13,200 to our annual insurance premium as

[5:34:06] per the confidential email received from staff. The clerks reminded

[5:34:12] me there's another motion on the floor which I've lost

[5:34:14] track. Of castle door cut off. Right. Okay. Sorry. All

[5:34:21] right. Sorry. We'll come back to you. Councilor Baines. So

[5:34:25] sorry that I got way laid here. So could you.

[5:34:28] Just because you spoke about perhaps. Changing your motion. And

[5:34:35] I think that's where we got lost. Right. Okay. That's

[5:34:42] right. Based on the math that we've just discussed here,

[5:34:46] I'm not sure. We got. 283 at this point in

[5:34:52] time, So draw the motion for now. So are you

[5:34:56] withdrawing your original motion and putting a second one? Okay.

[5:35:01] It's another one right now. Do you want to put

[5:35:03] the other one on now? Yes. So. I would like

[5:35:08] to. Increase the contribution to the merf. And arts reserves.

[5:35:18] By 100,000 each. Bringing it back to the original. Recommended

[5:35:24] amount of 150,000. Per. Reserve.

[5:35:37] Okay, and there's seconder for that. Okay. Councilor baines. Councilor

[5:35:42] mccullough. This may be procedurally backwards. sorry But I find.

[5:35:51] We have kind of a moving shell game with amounts

[5:35:53] that are available versus amounts that need to be spent,

[5:35:56] and I don't think we've accounted for all the amounts

[5:35:58] that are available and determined which direction they should be

[5:36:01] going. So I'm not entirely comfortable voting on an amount

[5:36:04] for this given. I'm not comfortable with the total amount

[5:36:07] available. Right. Yeah. I'm not sure what else to do

[5:36:14] with this now. I'm going to ask the clerk to

[5:36:20] just explain her thought on this. Certainly through your worship.

[5:36:24] I was wondering if Councilor Dougherty. If the other items

[5:36:29] were voted on and having the understanding of how much

[5:36:32] is left in the pot. Makes sense. And then bring

[5:36:37] the final motion with whether it should be 100,000 each

[5:36:40] or whether it's 80,000 each or 110,000 each. If we

[5:36:45] do that. Mind you, I'm still cognizant that if there's

[5:36:49] no money left, at the end, then we may not.

[5:36:52] Get anything added, so I don't know. If our treasure

[5:36:56] has a running balance. Of the money that's available. And

[5:37:01] clerk, could you put up the motion we just passed?

[5:37:06] That councilor Dougherty brought.

[5:37:47] Just feeling. Plus, she's pulling it up. I know. Staff

[5:37:51] started working last spring, going through. Line by line in

[5:37:54] their budget and cutting out everything that was extraneous. So

[5:38:01] that we could come to a good number when we're

[5:38:04] sitting here. And also with this extra funding that's come.

[5:38:09] In from different places for different reasons. I just had

[5:38:12] a feeling. We can make all this happen if we

[5:38:15] figure it out properly, okay? All right, so. We've said.

[5:38:22] Of the month. So I just want to start with

[5:38:23] this, because this motion then says, We have $280,000 that

[5:38:31] we didn't have before. To spend. Is this right, treasure?

[5:38:36] It's money that when we did draft one and draft

[5:38:41] two, we didn't know. The amount that was going. To

[5:38:48] be allocated to the affordable housing. I just want to

[5:38:52] be careful because as we mentioned, the estate funding should

[5:38:57] be. Is required to. Be going to the affordable housing.

[5:39:02] The other amount, I think there's a little bit more

[5:39:04] discretion. So it's not so much that. It's additional funding.

[5:39:11] It's just reallocating. From what I've been following, reallocating the

[5:39:17] tax impact to contribution to reserves overall. So we're reducing

[5:39:25] the 400,000 to affordable housing that's coming from tax. We're

[5:39:28] still keeping 400,000, but utilizing this 280. So it's just

[5:39:35] nuanced on what we want to refer to. But it

[5:39:40] does mean for the numbers you've produced in budget number

[5:39:43] two. That there's additional funding available. Is that right? It

[5:39:51] does mean that if council were to maintain the tax

[5:39:55] rate that was presented, in staff report number two. Absolutely.

[5:39:59] It means that 280,000 could be redistributed. The tax 280,000

[5:40:05] could be redistributed as we didn't need. To raise the

[5:40:08] full 400,000 from taxes to still maintain the 400,000 affordable

[5:40:13] housing initiative contribution. Thank you. All right. And then there's

[5:40:17] just to go over where all the funds are coming

[5:40:19] from. Then there's the surplus from last year, which is

[5:40:23] eight. Hundred and 13,000. The treasurer suggested we spend up

[5:40:28] to 680 of that and the balance be put into

[5:40:32] assets management. Am I correctly summarizing that? Trevor Graham yeah.

[5:40:38] So I do want to caution when we do our

[5:40:41] quarter three forecasting. It's our best estimate at the time

[5:40:44] with the information. That we have. When we're anticipating what

[5:40:47] the surplus will be, I have no doubt. In my

[5:40:51] mind that we will still be in a surplus position,

[5:40:54] okay? This additional investment income was a result. Of income

[5:41:02] that was not budgeted in 2025. We saw the PPNS

[5:41:06] early. So while it does contribute to the surplus, It

[5:41:10] is sort of an opportunity for council to direct staff

[5:41:15] otherwise. It would go majority into the lifecycle reserve. So

[5:41:18] it's just an opportunity to cancel. Wish to direct staff

[5:41:24] to use it in a different manner. Okay. So that's

[5:41:28] 680. And so. That is. 960. All right.

[5:41:40] Councilor McCullough thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Just to clarify, There

[5:41:45] was mention of the Mat for 2026 thrown out at

[5:41:48] some point, which was the unallocated $250,000 portion of the

[5:41:53] town's mat. I think it's allocated or did I see?

[5:41:57] 250 is allocated and 250 isn't. Isn't? Yes, that's. It.

[5:42:01] So I just want to know if that's in the

[5:42:03] pot or in this discussion, or is it? Off. The

[5:42:07] table. I think it's off the table. I would suggest

[5:42:08] unless someone puts it on. But it would be good

[5:42:10] to see where we are next year. I would say,

[5:42:12] with how much we collect. Today. Just clarify. Treasure Gwen.

[5:42:21] I just want to clarify on that so we all

[5:42:24] have the same information. The 2025 390,000 has been fully

[5:42:28] allocated in the budget. The 250,000. Has not been allocated.

[5:42:35] However, the tax rate that was proposed, and staff, too,

[5:42:39] did incorporate that $250,000. Reducing the tax rate. So, in

[5:42:47] a way. It has been allocated. Maybe prematurely. I could

[5:42:55] back that out and let you know what the tax

[5:42:57] rate would have been. Had that not been. Okay, so

[5:43:01] let me just clarify to make sure I understand it.

[5:43:05] So we have thought for 2026, Conservatively, the town's portion

[5:43:11] of the mat would be 500,000. And of that, 500,000

[5:43:16] for 26. 250 has been used to reduce the tax

[5:43:22] rate. Has any other portion been used? No, it was

[5:43:28] through you, mayor. Note canceled direction was to only allocate

[5:43:32] 50% to be conservative. Because we don't know for sure.

[5:43:37] And I also did just. Want to also bring up,

[5:43:42] because we are approving that staff member or council so

[5:43:45] far as approving the staff member fully being funded by

[5:43:48] Matt. That would have to also be deducted. From the

[5:43:51] 2026 allocation because it's an ongoing. Staffing event, so we'll

[5:43:55] have to be funded through the 2026. So right now,

[5:44:00] the 250, which is the conservative half, is reducing our

[5:44:04] tax rate for next year. Okay. Deppy mayor. Okay, so

[5:44:11] just to clarify, There was nothing for affordable housing. And

[5:44:17] tax estimate that we got at the beginning. We decided

[5:44:20] to put 400,000 in, which is almost no. There was.

[5:44:24] There was nothing. It was in the option site. Everything

[5:44:28] had been moved over to the options site. Okay, I'll

[5:44:32] go through you and just clarify that with Treasurer Graham.

[5:44:35] But the full $350,000. Had moved in the base number

[5:44:41] that. Was the 2.75? At the beginning, I think there

[5:44:45] was 200, but we'll ask. The treasure. Go ahead. It's

[5:44:49] a bit of a tricky, but yes. The 350 was

[5:44:52] removed from the base. We still have in the base

[5:44:56] 155,000 towards affordable housing, and that's for staffing. And staffing

[5:45:02] costs and some initiatives. We also have 230,000 in the

[5:45:06] base budget. For social housing. As well, but the 400,000

[5:45:11] was not included in the base budget in the 2.75

[5:45:15] it is included in the budget now for draft two.

[5:45:20] So decision, the council was to move that back into

[5:45:23] the base budget. And I supported that. Now we're saying

[5:45:28] because we had affordable housing reserve increases that were going

[5:45:32] to happen. Because of the agreements we have in regards

[5:45:37] to culvert, and I do believe in regards to birch

[5:45:39] street as well. The agreement with Johnson was that. That

[5:45:43] was for social housing, and if it was a carryover

[5:45:45] of reserve that was there when we took over from

[5:45:48] rotary. Appropriately, it should stay into the affordable housing reserve.

[5:45:53] I'm not going to support taking the fact that we're

[5:45:57] putting $280,000. Into reserve through two obligations. We had to

[5:46:04] turn around then and say, okay, well, that frees up

[5:46:07] $280,000 of what we were putting in for the affordable

[5:46:10] housing reserve amount. And that's per the request of the

[5:46:15] affordable housing task force, again, because that means you're looking

[5:46:19] at a three quarter percent impact in 27. If you're

[5:46:23] going to maintain the 400 right off the bat. So

[5:46:28] when I talked about the mat, it was because. I

[5:46:32] do believe there's an appetite to try to find some

[5:46:35] more funds towards. The reserve for art center and for

[5:46:39] Merf. I think there's an opportunity with that. Unallocated portion.

[5:46:44] That we talked about for 26, but I'll get into

[5:46:47] that separately when we deal with this particular motion. So

[5:46:52] I think. There's so many ways to cut this, and

[5:46:55] I think we're very fortunate. I'm just going to say

[5:46:57] that. But. For argument's sake, let's leave the 280 out

[5:47:05] of our discussion and let's. Assume it all goes. To

[5:47:11] affordable housing reserve fund right now. We're still left with

[5:47:15] 680, which was if I could just go back to

[5:47:18] where I was before. 680 was the amount from the

[5:47:22] surplus. That the treasurer suggests would be the maximum, which

[5:47:27] you would suggest we use. For 26. And this was

[5:47:32] the number we are going through before. Where if we

[5:47:35] put in 166 for the p 55 80 for a

[5:47:39] capital manager, 130 for the accelerator 54 for the hr

[5:47:44] person. And 14 for the insurance. That was 444. And

[5:47:49] from the 680, we're left with 236. Divided by two,

[5:47:53] it's 118,000 to go to each of the murph and

[5:47:57] the art center. And there's already 50 there, so. It

[5:48:01] would mean this year we're putting 168 into each of

[5:48:03] them. So that was where my mind was sort of

[5:48:07] going on this, but let's get councilor. Baines motion on

[5:48:10] the floor if we could. Okay. Thank you. That council

[5:48:14] recommend including an additional $13,200 to our annual insurance premium.

[5:48:20] As per the confidential email received from staff, Hey, would

[5:48:27] there be a second or. Councilor Jeffrey. Any comments? All

[5:48:33] those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Yay.

[5:48:39] 14,000 or 13,200? Okay. So what about the HR position?

[5:48:47] We'll maybe just go through these. So this was conversion

[5:48:51] from a seasonal to a full. Time person. I did

[5:48:55] note that I would like to put a motion on

[5:48:58] about the mat. Okay, but I thought we still had

[5:49:05] an emotion from councilor Dougherty. I think she withdrew. That

[5:49:08] one for now. I think. I'd like to see what

[5:49:15] we're left with now. I feel like I'm trying to

[5:49:19] work backwards into something. So let's see what we're left

[5:49:23] with. Thank you. So. If I understand your

[5:49:33] motion, I'll let you say it in a minute. But

[5:49:35] the decision. We made a few months ago or a

[5:49:38] year ago, where we divided them at taxes. 40% for

[5:49:43] the town and 60% for tourism. Collingwood, this is what

[5:49:49] you would like to change. Is that correct? Thank you,

[5:49:52] Mayor Hamilton. And I was the one who put the

[5:49:54] motion on. The table because I was the one who

[5:49:57] said, let's not allocate, but let's show the entity that

[5:50:00] we're really. Serious about tourism. Now that I've seen what

[5:50:05] we've done with the 390 for this year. I think

[5:50:08] we're serious about tourism, so I do believe that it's

[5:50:12] better that it's a 50 50 split with the entity,

[5:50:15] so I'm prepared, right? Now. To submit the council that

[5:50:20] we changed that back to a 50 50 split, and

[5:50:24] then based on the outcome of that motion. I would

[5:50:28] put another motion forward, but we'll deal with that only

[5:50:31] at this point in time. Okay. Does there a second

[5:50:34] or for that councilor ring? Okay, anyone like to address

[5:50:37] this councilor? Baines. Just a question of clarification. 50 50

[5:50:41] for 26. I'm assuming. For 2020. It can be for

[5:50:48] 26 because. No, sorry. In my view, it should be

[5:50:52] 25 and 26, because we're taking our whole portion of

[5:50:57] 25, and we're putting it towards tourism. In a realm

[5:51:02] of tourism, right? There's economic development and things like that.

[5:51:05] But I think the whole concept is built around furthering

[5:51:08] the tourism and downtown visioning which I look as part

[5:51:11] of tours. I understand, but seeing is that the entity

[5:51:14] is not up. And working right now, we can retroactively

[5:51:18] go back for 25 and say it's 50 50 rather

[5:51:21] than 60 40. Thank you. We can get clarification from

[5:51:25] the treasurer, but I do believe we would be able

[5:51:28] to. Yes. So the legislation requires us to. Put to

[5:51:36] only have access to 50% of the funds from that.

[5:51:41] As I've heard from our staff and the reports we've

[5:51:44] had, best practices is to put 60% in. And what

[5:51:51] is before us so far. Is. To work on that

[5:51:57] 60% for next year. So how we're going to allocate?

[5:52:00] The funds. Who can come in? Is this something? For.

[5:52:05] Director Qubit about what happens if we change this. Valentine.

[5:52:14] Dr. Valentine. Okay, go ahead. Thank you, chair. And through

[5:52:16] you. It's a difficult question from my recollection of the

[5:52:20] legislation. Not being a lawyer. Is that if we committed

[5:52:25] to the 60%, to the ETE, we need to honor

[5:52:28] that. For that year where it was committed. So my

[5:52:32] recollection of the legislation is we have to make at

[5:52:34] least one payment to the ete that covers that year

[5:52:39] of the 60%. That was committed. So I don't believe.

[5:52:42] Although you can certainly direct us to get legal advice

[5:52:45] to confirm. This that we can go back now and

[5:52:48] change the allocation for 2025. However, council can certainly go

[5:52:52] forward and change the allocation for 2026 that is within

[5:52:55] your purview under the legislation. So long as that you

[5:52:58] don't go below 50% going to the Ete. And with

[5:53:03] respect to the funds that would be spent in 26.

[5:53:09] How is that impacted by? If we were to shift

[5:53:12] the allocation now. Like in the budget. You've got a

[5:53:16] plan for 2026 for the 60% of. The mat funds.

[5:53:22] Or through the chair. I'm a little bit at a

[5:53:24] disadvantage because I missed the November. meeting however I believe

[5:53:32] that we're only talking about the municipal portion that was

[5:53:35] allocated in 2026. Not the portion that was going to

[5:53:39] the Ete. So presumably, if you were to increase the

[5:53:43] municipal portion, then that allocation could also increase within the

[5:53:48] budget. I would say, though, that I understand from the

[5:53:52] meeting on the 24 November there was a lot of

[5:53:55] discussion about how much of the tourism master plan could

[5:53:57] be essentially moved to the Ete. To implement. Provided that

[5:54:04] those stay within the etE's legislative guide rails, which are

[5:54:09] you must spend your money on tourism promotion, which could

[5:54:12] include tourism product development, and we think there's about ten

[5:54:16] out of 30. Some recommendations from the tourism master plan

[5:54:20] that could fall under that bucket, so. Just a little

[5:54:22] caution there that if that was. Council's expectation that the

[5:54:26] Ete drive forward those ten recommendations, it will be more

[5:54:29] challenging. For them to do so. If we reduce the

[5:54:31] amount of money flowing to them in 2026. Right. Okay.

[5:54:38] Any other comments? We'll come back to you. Anyone else

[5:54:41] want to speak to this? Okay, your turn. In the

[5:54:46] original proposal from staff, it was a 50 50 split

[5:54:50] and. It was therefore. Also further recommended about 35% being

[5:54:57] kept in tourism and 15% being used for other purposes.

[5:55:02] Again. I do believe the right thing to do. Is

[5:55:10] to drop back to 50%. I appreciate. The recollection of

[5:55:16] Director Valentine that it obligates us. To stay with 25.

[5:55:23] So. It would only be in my motion for it

[5:55:27] to be for 26 on. And. It will be following

[5:55:33] what staff had recommended. And as I said, We are

[5:55:36] talking about simply then taking our 50% and splitting it

[5:55:40] in half. And so 25 will be going to still

[5:55:44] be used for tourism things. It'll just be. At our.

[5:55:47] And one of them, I think, is being able to

[5:55:50] put some money into reserve for Murph. And our center.

[5:55:56] So the motion I'm making right now is just simply

[5:55:59] to change back to a 50%. Allocation as of. 26,

[5:56:06] forward. I just have to confess, I feel like I'm

[5:56:09] standing on 1ft, not knowing, really. What it would mean

[5:56:13] to do this. Councilor Dougherty. I had a thought.

[5:56:24] And. That was what if we were to run through

[5:56:28] these outstanding items, vote on each one, and have the

[5:56:33] treasurer if she doesn't mind. To give us a riding

[5:56:39] total of where we sit. Taking into account. That we

[5:56:44] have some surplus funds that we can use for. These

[5:56:49] projects. Because. I'm very confused right now, honestly. So, deputy

[5:56:56] mayor, would you be content to hold your motion down

[5:56:58] till the end, or do you want to dealt with

[5:56:59] now. No, I'm prepared to take the outcome of it

[5:57:03] and then. Decide because, as I said, the next step

[5:57:06] is going to be to try to deal with the

[5:57:07] Murphy art Center situation. Okay, so I'd like it to

[5:57:11] call the vote, all right? Councilor ring. If

[5:57:21] that's all the comments. All in favor? And those opposed.

[5:57:30] Just me, okay? So, Mary Hamlin, the second part of

[5:57:33] my motion would be based on the fact that we

[5:57:36] know there's some additional funds coming in. I'd like to

[5:57:39] propose that. From the mat portion that is considered the

[5:57:46] towns. We put $100,000. 50,000 for them, for the merf.

[5:57:55] And 50,000 for the art center to come out of.

[5:58:01] The other portion of. The mat for 26. So I

[5:58:05] think what I would like to ask the treasurer is.

[5:58:09] By switching. Our portion of the Mat to 60% from

[5:58:15] 50. What additional funds do you see us having? In

[5:58:21] our little hand. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. It would be

[5:58:26] 50% for 2026. And again, this is a very conservative

[5:58:30] estimate. Would then be 625,000 as opposed to the 500,000.

[5:58:36] So a total of 312,500. Would be. What council could

[5:58:44] allocate based on their prior direction. So an increase of

[5:58:47] $62,500. Before we get to that, I

[5:58:57] just want to clarify what the treasure said. So. Treasure

[5:59:01] Graham. The additional. 10% going to the town, as opposed

[5:59:08] to the tourism entity, would give us an additional 62,500.

[5:59:15] Is that what you said? it would give an additional

[5:59:20] $125,000 for the year that council had directed staff to

[5:59:24] include 50% To be what you would pre allocate for

[5:59:26] 2026, again, noting that this estimate is based. On our

[5:59:31] short year that we've had in 2025, and there's potential

[5:59:34] for it to be higher. Okay. So we have an

[5:59:39] additional 62,500 if we follow the same process. I'm sort

[5:59:44] of wondering, deputy mayor. I definitely hear how you'd like

[5:59:48] to allocate it. I'm sort of. Wondering if we shouldn't

[5:59:50] go through everything and see how much is left at

[5:59:52] the end. But it's up to you. But if we

[5:59:57] have 62,500. You're wanting to allocate 100. Because I think

[6:00:05] that conservatively means that. We should be fined in total

[6:00:11] for the reserve for the year. And. It meets some

[6:00:16] concerns about trying to increase the Murphy and the rec

[6:00:20] center. Okay, well, I think what we'll do is we'll

[6:00:23] just put that to one side that we voted. On

[6:00:26] having another 62,500 on top of the 680. 62. Five.

[6:00:35] So that. Is 742,500. All right, how are we going

[6:00:40] to spend all this good money? All right, so let's

[6:00:42] go back. Let's go through these things here. Mayor Hamlin.

[6:00:46] Sorry, I'm putting. A motion on table. And if I

[6:00:54] don't have a second her, that's fine. But I'd like

[6:00:57] to make a motion to increase. The murph in the

[6:01:03] art center. Allocation by $50,000 each to come from the.

[6:01:09] Merf or the mat for 26. Knowing that the proportion

[6:01:14] that the treasurer is recommending would be 62,500. I don't

[6:01:21] believe treasure is recommending it. She said that it's going

[6:01:24] to. Increase by $125,000. And as I said, I'm conservatively

[6:01:28] allocating 100. Of that. We did outline that we are

[6:01:33] going to be able to use 50% for town purposes,

[6:01:37] but. Right now, we've only approved $250,000. So we haven't

[6:01:42] approved the other 62,500. Let me break this down a

[6:01:47] bit. So what the trigger had suggested to us, that

[6:01:53] of our mat funds, I'll say the town the portion

[6:01:56] that the town can spend for 2026. We shouldn't spend

[6:02:02] more than half of what our estimate is. Because we

[6:02:06] should be conservative. What if. There's a recession and nobody

[6:02:10] goes to hotels. It's hard to predict. We're looking ahead.

[6:02:15] For funds that aren't guaranteed. So in her view, I'll

[6:02:18] just say, It was that. We would have available and

[6:02:24] spend up to 50%. Of what our share could be.

[6:02:30] So. I think the first thing we have to decide

[6:02:34] is, do we want to change that? Because if we

[6:02:38] don't get to 100 that you would like to allocate

[6:02:41] unless. We change the premise that's in the budget? No.

[6:02:47] So. I'm not proposing that. I'm proposing the 100,000 comes

[6:02:51] from the. Mat. That is the tourism portion. That. We

[6:02:58] allocated $390,000 towards tourism from the mat in 25. We

[6:03:04] said that we want 50% of 26 to be allocated

[6:03:08] towards. At the time, that was $250,000, and that's what

[6:03:11] we passed. That allocation still remains fixed. That meant there

[6:03:17] was another $250,000 that we maintained we would use for

[6:03:23] tourism related purposes. In future, but we would wait until

[6:03:28] 26 to allocate that, but. I'm suggesting that the $100,000

[6:03:34] comes from that portion. And that's what I'm putting on,

[6:03:38] is emotion. Is this clear to everyone except me? Okay.

[6:03:44] I'm just not getting it. Treasure, I think you need

[6:03:46] to explain it to me. My brain's not working. Yeah,

[6:03:50] go ahead. I'm having trouble getting to where the hundred

[6:03:56] is when we only have 62 five. This is. Three

[6:04:03] mayor. It's an estimate. So the amount that we're estimating,

[6:04:07] that we're going to collect in 2026. In total for

[6:04:12] the mat is just $1.25 million. If now that we're

[6:04:17] doing 50, 5625 thousand of that will be going towards

[6:04:22] Collingwood. And not tourism. Collingwood. Council had directed staff at

[6:04:26] the last meeting to use 50% of that as a

[6:04:30] conservative estimate. I do think council could go a little

[6:04:34] bit higher if they did want to meet that 100,000.

[6:04:37] Again, this is an estimate. I cautioned at the last

[6:04:41] meeting because it is an estimate and we've only had

[6:04:45] nine months. Of Matt. Until we really see trend analysis,

[6:04:50] we likely don't want to spend something. We haven't actually

[6:04:53] collected. Would I be comfortable increasing that to the 100?

[6:04:58] Yeah, I would be. I think that's fine. And if

[6:05:01] that's cancel direction. Yeah, I'm still trying to

[6:05:11] clarify it myself. Because that's not my intention. The 250,000

[6:05:18] we set on was based on a 50% allocation that

[6:05:21] could be used. To help on the operating tax site.

[6:05:26] The other portion is what I'm talking about, that we

[6:05:30] left there because we thought there. Might be other tourism

[6:05:32] things that we want to go and use forward, and

[6:05:35] I would maintain that. The creation of a murph and

[6:05:38] the creation of an art center has tourism based fish.

[6:05:41] So I'm looking at the 100,000 coming from. That non

[6:05:46] allocated to the operating side portion. Recognizing that, as you

[6:05:51] have said, The conservative estimate is 625. What I'm proposing

[6:05:56] is an allocation that totals $350,000, 250 from our portion.

[6:06:03] That we can allocate. And 100 from the other portion.

[6:06:07] I'm hoping that's clear to the treasurer and. Can she

[6:06:10] just verify to me that it is okay? Go ahead.

[6:06:14] Thank you. Yes, that is clear. And that is how

[6:06:17] I understood it too. Just noting. That. That's just a

[6:06:19] little bit more than 50%. And that was the last

[6:06:21] cancel. Direction, and that's okay. It's council's direction with the

[6:06:25] 50%, so. If cancel wants to increase it by that

[6:06:27] small amount. Absolutely. It's okay. So that was. Where I

[6:06:30] was coming to ten minutes ago, I think. We need

[6:06:34] to have a motion first. To increase. Spending more than

[6:06:38] 50% of the mat for 2026. Deputy mayor Hamlin. That's

[6:06:45] not what I'm proposing. Well, that's fine. I understand. I'm

[6:06:50] glad I asked the clarification at the treasure. What I'm

[6:06:55] saying is. We have $250,000 we're taking out to be

[6:06:59] used to help on the operating tax side. I'm asking

[6:07:03] that the other hundred thousand is coming out of that

[6:07:06] other portion that's. There. Not. The 50% that we had

[6:07:12] established last meeting. I don't believe we need emotion because

[6:07:16] we're dealing with that other portion, not. The allocated portion

[6:07:21] that we decided on about the 50%. And again through

[6:07:25] you, Mayor Hammond, I'll just check with the treasurer and

[6:07:27] see if I'm being clear there or not. Treasure. While

[6:07:34] you're explaining, can you explain where the 100 comes from

[6:07:35] then? Thank you. Okay. I'm following. So in total, our

[6:07:42] estimate for 2026 Matt collection at 50%. Of. There's a

[6:07:49] lot of 50% going around right now. The revised 50%

[6:07:53] tourism colluwood, 50% Collingwood portion. The Colliewood portion is 625,000.

[6:08:00] Estimate it we've included 250,000, which was the 50% that

[6:08:04] we had estimated when it was 60 40 split. Their

[6:08:08] 100,000 would still come from the 625,000. So in total.

[6:08:14] We're just pre allocating 56% of what we are estimating

[6:08:17] it to be. But. They're not necessarily tied to each

[6:08:20] other. I believe the deputy mayor is just asking for

[6:08:23] an additional 100,000. From the 625,000 to be allocated towards

[6:08:30] the Murphy art Center? I don't know. If I'm losing

[6:08:32] my mind here, but doesn't that mean we're taking more

[6:08:35] than 50% for 26 treasure, it means we're taking 56%.

[6:08:40] Okay, but that. 50%. That council had decided on the

[6:08:44] 250,000. Again, is the council direction. It's not a right.

[6:08:47] I totally understand that, but the distinction here. And this

[6:08:52] is where I'm losing. It is. The deputy mayor is

[6:08:54] insisting as I've heard them that. It's not increasing the

[6:08:58] 50% share. So I think, Deputy mayor, perhaps you could

[6:09:03] clarify. This with the treasurer, so we understand it. So

[6:09:07] if we. Call the 150% portion the tourism portion, and

[6:09:15] we call the other portion the operating tax portion. I'm

[6:09:20] leaving that alone. I am saying from the tourism portion,

[6:09:25] which we don't know what it's going to be. When

[6:09:28] we have estimates as to how much we think it'll

[6:09:29] be. It could turn out that the 250 that we're

[6:09:32] allocating the operations side is 50%. When it all comes

[6:09:38] in. So I'm saying that tourism portion. I'm suggesting we

[6:09:43] use $100,000. Of it to put 50 into the MeRf

[6:09:47] and 50 into the AC reserve. And I understand the

[6:09:53] overall impact of that is 56% of the 625, but

[6:09:58] I'm trying to discern between the two. Because I don't

[6:10:02] believe there needs to be emotion, because. We're not allocating

[6:10:07] more than $625,000. Okay, so maybe. What you're saying. Then

[6:10:12] we'll have one more go at it. The 50% that

[6:10:16] would go to tourism. Collingwood. Are you saying we should

[6:10:20] take the funds from. There. Not Hollywood, because that's the

[6:10:23] entity. Yeah, I understand. Calling it the tourism portion. Okay,

[6:10:28] I think we'll just. Vote, okay? 225%

[6:10:37] and not be operating. I have never heard this division

[6:10:42] between operating in capital. I don't know where. I didn't

[6:10:44] see that anywhere, so I'm not understanding that. Either. Yeah,

[6:10:49] tourism. Yeah, which is the 56. So it's 56% of

[6:10:57] our share instead of 50. Okay, so we're going to

[6:11:01] vote on whether we're going to. That's how I understand

[6:11:03] it. I've heard from the treasurer. 56% of our share

[6:11:07] instead of 50. All those in favor? Okay. What's the

[6:11:13] dollar amount on that 100? It puts $50,000. We're having

[6:11:18] a vote here. All those in favor? Those opposed? One

[6:11:24] opposed. Okay. It would put $50,000 into the Murph and

[6:11:30] the AC reserves. So they would increase to 100,000. Without

[6:11:35] a tax impact. Yes. I'm sorry. I

[6:11:45] don't see how that can happen without a tax impact.

[6:11:50] Because the 250 was fully allocated to reduce tax, and

[6:11:53] it still is. So this is the additional 100,000 is

[6:11:57] coming from. Matt, so. You're allocating beyond the 250. To.

[6:12:06] Worth the additional. Okay, so. That was what. We were

[6:12:10] trying to clarify earlier. Now I understand. So it's beyond

[6:12:13] the 250? Yeah. I still would have liked it to

[6:12:17] be discerned, but I'll accept the 56%. Just to get

[6:12:21] it through. There's no other way to look at it.

[6:12:27] Okay, that was it, though. All right, so let's now

[6:12:29] go through the other items. Right.

[6:12:39] Okay. Anyone want to extend? Councilor Dougherty to councilor Dougherty.

[6:12:46] Councilor Jeffrey, seconded by councilor Dougherty. All those in favor?

[6:12:52] And that's it. So councilor Jeffrey's just reminding me. We

[6:12:56] need to add in an amount. For a discussion still

[6:13:01] to be had for council reneweration.

[6:13:31] So just to recap right now where we are, Is.

[6:13:38] We have 100 in each of the reserve funds for

[6:13:41] the Mat and sorry for the art. Center and the

[6:13:44] Murph. Okay. All right. Okay. Is anyone opposed to us

[6:13:51] going through the list of aspen voting on them? Okay,

[6:13:56] Hr, for the third time. This is the one to

[6:13:59] reduce the part time position to full time. Anyone interested

[6:14:04] in making a motion on that? Councilor. Banks. As I

[6:14:12] recall, last year at this time, did we not defer.

[6:14:17] This. I look at director peg. And said, we'll get

[6:14:21] back to this next year, and now we're here. This

[6:14:25] opportunity to address this from last year. So that being

[6:14:30] the case, To that undertaking that I think we made

[6:14:33] last year, at least to revisit it. I would put

[6:14:36] this motion on that. This 54. Be adopted. Okay. Thank

[6:14:41] you. Would there be a seconder, councilor Dougherty? Anyone like

[6:14:45] to speak to it? Deputy mayor, please. With the report

[6:14:53] from the treasurer. We're looking at 3.15% impact. I can't.

[6:14:58] Support additional spending right now. So I'm just putting out

[6:15:03] there and I won't have to repeat myself. I won't

[6:15:05] be supporting any additional. At this point in time. I

[6:15:11] think the blended tax rate, if I can just practice

[6:15:13] 2.84%, that's. The blended. Yeah, I'm only talking about the

[6:15:17] municipal portion. Oh, I see. Okay. I think I should

[6:15:27] be just making sure we have a good understanding of

[6:15:31] the funds we're. Going to allocate potentially. So. It was

[6:15:39] the 680. And.

[6:15:52] From. The 680. Well, we have 680, or there's 813,

[6:15:58] which is the full amount of the surplus. And the

[6:16:03] treasure suggested we not allocate more than 680. Does anyone.

[6:16:10] Want to keep that in mind, deputy mayor. I think

[6:16:14] we better have a vote on whatever the $600,000 amount

[6:16:18] is, because I'm not in favor of allocating that. To

[6:16:24] specific items. My thought all along had been the opportunity

[6:16:30] exists to reduce the capital requirement. For amp. So. I

[6:16:39] think if it's being suggested that we have. 15, but

[6:16:43] I just heard 680. So whatever the number is, I

[6:16:46] think we need to have a vote on that so

[6:16:48] I can oppose that. If that's the intention. Well, I

[6:16:55] don't think we need to vote on that yet. We're

[6:16:56] going through as I said earlier, the different amounts, and

[6:17:00] we're still on a motion for the HR. Position. Finally.

[6:17:04] It wasn't me. Any other comments on the HR position?

[6:17:15] Okay, let's bring it to a vote. All those in

[6:17:17] favor? 12345 opposed.

[6:17:26] That carries the next one was. Let's see here. Moving

[6:17:34] to P 55 for our staff. I think we've had

[6:17:37] a lot of discussion about that. Would anyone like to

[6:17:40] bring that as a motion? Councilor Dougherty. Would there be

[6:17:45] a seconder? Councilor Bains. Okay. Any discussion.

[6:17:55] Councilor Dougherty. Absolutely. We've been kicking this down the road

[6:18:02] for a couple of years now. And. We've already demonstrated

[6:18:09] that. We're losing staff because. Other municipalities are paying more,

[6:18:17] so. Let's get competitive. It's just as simple as that.

[6:18:21] And like I say, We've been discussing this now for

[6:18:25] the last couple of years, and we never moved forward.

[6:18:28] It's time to move forward on this. Be fair to

[6:18:32] our staff. Okay. Thank you. Councilor jeffrey. Thank you. Mary

[6:18:39] Hamlin. I think we are competitive, and I would challenge.

[6:18:45] You on a wholesale comment that people are leaving because

[6:18:49] of money. I would disagree with that totally. I'm not

[6:18:54] prepared to go to the P 55. I just think

[6:19:00] the impact is. Too great. At this point in time,

[6:19:05] so I will not be voting in favor of this.

[6:19:08] Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to ask a

[6:19:13] treasurer. Actually, it was executive director, peg. I have this

[6:19:19] different recollection than Councillor Jefferies, which was. That. My recollection

[6:19:24] was that our comparator municipalities were at P 55 and

[6:19:28] P 60. But I know you are the fountain of

[6:19:32] all this knowledge. Could you remind us? Thank you. Thank

[6:19:37] you, mayor. So through you to all of council. So

[6:19:40] we do certainly have missed comparators that are at p

[6:19:44] 55 and p 60. And part of the base budget

[6:19:48] includes. Moving our current pay policy in alignment to the

[6:19:52] P 50. But the P 55 would be in addition

[6:19:55] and put us at 5% above the medium of our

[6:19:59] comparator group. Which we do certainly have comparators that are

[6:20:04] at P 55 and P 60. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[6:20:09] Councilor Potts. Thanks, mayor Hamlin. Just curious. On the comments

[6:20:16] of my colleague, councilor Dougherty. Do we have supporting documentation

[6:20:19] that our staff are leaving because of neighboring or comparators

[6:20:25] or neighbor municipalities are paying more. Do we actually have

[6:20:28] that supporting documentation. That's the statistics. I think that's a

[6:20:35] question for stop. Sure. Executive director thank you, mayor. Through

[6:20:41] to councilor Pott. So we do conduct exit interviews when

[6:20:45] employees leave. Year to date, we're at 8.1% employee turnover,

[6:20:50] and I would say it's reasonable. That a proportion of

[6:20:53] those employees. Are leaving due to salary. There are other

[6:20:58] considerations why employees leave municipality, including Morrell. And although compensation.

[6:21:08] Is quantified separate. Apart from that, I think discussions and

[6:21:11] conversations around compensation do also impact morale. Yeah. Thank you.

[6:21:18] Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. totally all due respect

[6:21:25] the staff i'm not going to support it Because we're

[6:21:28] starting to push towards 4%. And. For 25. Our investments

[6:21:36] earned $10 million. Some of it's been brought in, some

[6:21:41] of it's? There if we cash out. And we're talking

[6:21:45] about increasing taxes 4%. That's where we're starting to push

[6:21:50] towards. If we start accepting some of these and the

[6:21:53] municipal portion. As I say, all due respect to staff,

[6:21:57] I'm not supporting any more spending. i've put

[6:22:07] a good proposal on about a significant reduction By not

[6:22:08] having to take as much in the amp, and that

[6:22:10] was defeated. But I will be bringing that back onto

[6:22:13] the table another time, but I'm not supporting it, and

[6:22:18] I wanted to make sure that I said this has

[6:22:20] nothing to do with stop performance. It's totally about the

[6:22:24] overall increase. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. I

[6:22:33] did. Threw the chair. Want to add a couple of

[6:22:35] items here? We did, in the end, do quite well

[6:22:42] on our investments recently. That said, most of that amount

[6:22:49] has been reinvested back into the reserve funds, which produced

[6:22:54] the income, both that original amount of funding. When we

[6:22:59] put. Aside. Council puts enough aside, for example, to pay

[6:23:04] the kilometer of road. We do that sometimes, so. We

[6:23:08] can save up to pave so many kilometers at once.

[6:23:11] But what that means is when. We do ultimately spend

[6:23:13] that money, we still want to be able to pave

[6:23:15] a kilometer road. So the investment income is reinvested, quite

[6:23:21] appropriately, in those capital asset type reserves. So. We wouldn't

[6:23:29] be expecting to apply that generally to taxes, but there

[6:23:32] is an amount that we have on the table here

[6:23:34] today? The surplus. That includes the unexpected investment income between

[6:23:39] 510 and 680, which is not that situation, but a

[6:23:42] large portion of the 10 million is in that situation.

[6:23:45] So it's gone back to make sure we can build

[6:23:49] and do things in the future. I also did want

[6:23:54] to echo. Executive director Peg in the sense that. It

[6:24:03] is important that. We do keep our staff most of

[6:24:08] the positions that we have. Are four plus and sometimes

[6:24:11] a lot more than four years of education, and we

[6:24:14] keep people around. For five or seven or ten years

[6:24:17] to really learn. Their jobs and be experts in something.

[6:24:20] That's an unusual, often an unusual thing to do. Water

[6:24:24] treatment. Public works. Engineering. And it hurts us quite a

[6:24:32] bit when we lose them. We have been losing. clerking

[6:24:37] Planners. We've been losing folks to the county. There's engineer

[6:24:41] pieces. There's people in the rec field that. Have been

[6:24:46] leaving, I would be the last person to ask council

[6:24:50] to approve all of the items. That are on your

[6:24:52] list? Because I think that that's the hard decisions that.

[6:24:56] You do make? But with the funding that you have,

[6:25:00] the P 55 and potentially the capital asset manager are

[6:25:04] pieces that I think are investments in things that you

[6:25:07] built through good decisions. And I would ask you to

[6:25:10] put those near the top of your priority list. Sorted.

[6:25:13] Of course. Through your view of the municipality. Thank you.

[6:25:18] Okay. Thank you. Just wait. I think we'll see if

[6:25:21] anyone else would like to speak to. This. Yes, please

[6:25:29] do. And I wasn't going to get into the full

[6:25:38] conversation at this point in time as I said I'm

[6:25:40] going to bring up both the capital at another time.

[6:25:43] I pointed all this out. In my. Motion last time

[6:25:48] to reduce the 0.8%. And explain that I understood. $4

[6:25:54] million came into lifecycle reserve. And in my opinion, The

[6:26:00] $15 million annual requirement is almost all being made up

[6:26:03] by. The amounts we have coming in now, but as

[6:26:07] I said, I wasn't going to get into all those

[6:26:09] conversations. The reality is. The investments that were made made

[6:26:14] $10 million that are not included in any of our

[6:26:17] budgeting. Or anything like that. That's great performance of our

[6:26:20] investments. I'm looking to try to reward the taxpayer. Because

[6:26:26] they're the ones who made the investment. Thank you. Okay.

[6:26:29] Thank you. On the P 55. I know there's five

[6:26:35] people who've gone to the town of the Blue Mountains.

[6:26:37] I ran into somebody who recently had left our municipality

[6:26:41] for the town of Blue Mountains. About ten months ago,

[6:26:45] and there were five people there. And I don't know.

[6:26:51] I just feel like with the county at P 60.

[6:26:55] And the municipalities we mostly compete with for staff at

[6:26:58] p 55. I'm going to support this. Yes, Councilor Potts,

[6:27:05] thanks for Hamlin the one. Challenge I have when we

[6:27:08] talk about the comparators. With the municipality. I spoke to

[6:27:13] a staff from another municipality. Yes. There was no doubt

[6:27:17] that. Their pay grade is a little bit more. However

[6:27:23] they're doing the job, the position they hold. In that

[6:27:26] municipality, we have three people. Three staff in the town

[6:27:30] of calling who are doing the same job. So when

[6:27:32] you look at three stop in the town of calling.

[6:27:35] We're getting paid x number of dollars. Of course. One

[6:27:39] position handling all that workload. That's where I have the

[6:27:42] issue. And that goes. Back to the amount of staff

[6:27:45] that goes back to, so to say, comparators. Absolutely. I'm

[6:27:49] sure there are municipalities that are paying a little bit

[6:27:51] more, but they're also doing the workload of double or

[6:27:54] triple of three people over staff. Okay, well, I don't.

[6:27:58] Know that we have information. On that. Okay. Anyone else

[6:28:00] want to talk before we bring this forward? Councilor Baines.

[6:28:05] No one likes. Perhaps paying this, but I think if

[6:28:10] you're running an efficient organization, You have to pay people

[6:28:15] a good salary. And some may disagree what the definition

[6:28:19] of a good salary is, but. I think executive director

[6:28:23] Pig's percentage there of turnover. Is disappointing, and I think.

[6:28:31] It can only get worse if we don't pass this.

[6:28:33] I think you need to get good people. You need

[6:28:35] to keep good people, and you need to pay for

[6:28:37] good people, and that's what I think this does, and

[6:28:40] that's why I'm supportive of it. Okay, we'll bring this

[6:28:43] to a vote, then. All those in favor? P 55.

[6:28:47] On 2345 opposed. That's four that passes. Thank you. Okay,

[6:28:53] next item is. The capital. What's this person called? I

[6:29:00] can't find a song report here. Okay. You have to

[6:29:08] help me out here, CEO. Why can't I find it?

[6:29:11] I believe it's called the capital asset manager. Looking up

[6:29:16] myself here, And because this is a new position. For

[6:29:21] us. Should council approve it? Could you just take a

[6:29:24] moment and explain? Exactly what this person would do. Sure.

[6:29:33] In an attachment to the report. If anyone wanted to

[6:29:36] look it up later is the asset manager. Position or

[6:29:40] the capital asset manager position. And this is taking on

[6:29:45] some net new work. It's not work that largely we're

[6:29:48] doing now, and I think I'm going to just point

[6:29:51] out briefly to you. A couple of the things that

[6:29:55] we already do. We do basic asset tracking. Annual capital

[6:29:59] submissions done by the department. 's planning and design and

[6:30:04] construction of $100 million of work per year or more.

[6:30:09] And corporate coordination. But the new position would be providing

[6:30:12] dedicated leadership to integrate, analyze, and optimize our asset portfolio.

[6:30:18] With better evidence based capital planning, asset management expertise, regulatory

[6:30:23] compliance. And that type of thing. And I want to

[6:30:26] just talk briefly about the asset management expertise. Sometimes it's

[6:30:32] hard for people who aren't in the municipal world. To

[6:30:37] understand this work. But it's like as if you have

[6:30:40] one roof. And maybe you run some apartment buildings you've

[6:30:44] got. The roof. You want to get in there and

[6:30:47] replace those shingles when they first start to. Come off

[6:30:49] before someone's bathroom has started to decay because you haven't

[6:30:54] fixed the roof. And then sometimes you can even get

[6:30:56] up on those roofs a little early and look at

[6:30:58] the shingles that haven't even come off yet and make

[6:31:00] sure that they're taken care of on a nice sunny

[6:31:02] day in the summer instead of the middle of the

[6:31:04] winter. But if you multiply that over the billion dollars

[6:31:08] of assets that the municipality has, it becomes quite. A

[6:31:13] big process. However, the outcomes. Can be advantageous for us.

[6:31:21] We spend about 100 million. It does fluctuate quite a

[6:31:24] bit. We have a lot going. Out the door a

[6:31:25] bit more than that right now because of our water

[6:31:27] treatment plant, but if we can make decisions that would

[6:31:31] stretch our dollars further or put the money in the

[6:31:34] right places. There's a potential that of the about 80,000

[6:31:39] that would come from taxes for this, it could be

[6:31:42] more than offset within the 100 million. The other thing

[6:31:45] that we're really putting our brains to right now is

[6:31:48] that. We are down about 15 million, and I hope.

[6:31:54] We could figure out a way to make that a

[6:31:56] lot less if we could figure out our asset management

[6:31:59] investments. Some of that will be. To some of that.

[6:32:07] Will be. To change our asset management target condition levels,

[6:32:12] we may need to reduce some. Some of that may

[6:32:14] be retiring assets. But that work would also be the

[6:32:18] work of this position. And the final piece. That's been

[6:32:21] a lot of pressure lately is the development charges. The

[6:32:25] province has changed the timing of when a lot of

[6:32:27] development charges will come in and. There's quite a bit

[6:32:30] of pressure to relook at what municipalities are charging for.

[6:32:34] Development charges. So the capital planning involved in updating development

[6:32:40] charges and coordinating that work with the work from master

[6:32:43] plans and the asset management plan. Is a level of

[6:32:48] sophistication that we haven't had to get to in the

[6:32:52] past. I'm sure that's more than you expected, mayor, but

[6:32:54] I just wanted. To do the position justice. Thank you.

[6:32:58] And what department would this person slot into? The expertise

[6:33:04] would be engineering and finance. But our proposal is that

[6:33:07] the person would be from the finance department. The intention

[6:33:10] is that it's a central, non siloed position. They probably

[6:33:15] will do most of their work with the infrastructure department,

[6:33:17] but there's pieces of it that they would work with

[6:33:19] parks. And others to coordinate our entire capital program. And

[6:33:25] our minor capital program, which would include public works. And

[6:33:29] the concept is to cover half of the cost, which

[6:33:33] was 80,000. Through taxes. And where does the other half

[6:33:36] come from? I think that would be. A question for

[6:33:41] Treasurer Graham, please. Treasure Graham. Thank you. It comes from

[6:33:45] our OSAF allocation. So OSAF allows us to allocate 80,000

[6:33:49] up to $80,000 to staffing work on asset management. Okay.

[6:33:54] And that's? An ongoing. Amount. Okay, would anyone like to

[6:33:58] move this as an item? Councilor Dougherty. And we have

[6:34:03] a second. I don't think anyone understood what you said.

[6:34:08] Sorry. Okay, good. Yes, councilor

[6:34:17] reigned. I just have a question before. Seconding or a

[6:34:23] second or for councilor Dougherty's motion, and that is if.

[6:34:28] For whatever reason, we decided to defer this one year.

[6:34:31] Does the Osam grant still exist? Next year for the

[6:34:34] funding of half of this. Pressure three. Mayor yes, it

[6:34:39] does. No second. Okay. Is this relating to this motion,

[6:34:49] or is this a different point? While it's relating to

[6:34:52] what we just heard from the Cao. Well, it's not

[6:34:57] on the table. There's nothing to be said. Okay, next.

[6:35:04] The next item is. The accelerator position. So just to

[6:35:13] remind you, the gentleman came who is running our accelerator

[6:35:19] and made his pitch for 130,000. He's the sole employee

[6:35:24] there with someone else who is there part time. In

[6:35:29] fact, I don't think he's an employee. I think. Well,

[6:35:31] anyway, just matter. How that worked. Pardon? It does matter.

[6:35:37] Oh, I was going to say, I think he's an

[6:35:38] independent contractor. I think that's how they've arranged his compensation

[6:35:43] with the board there. So he gets half of his

[6:35:50] funding from Collingwood this year and half from the federal

[6:35:54] government. The federal government's funding, as I understand, will run

[6:35:57] out after 26, if I understood that correctly. He has

[6:36:03] gone to other municipalities and. They have not been agreeable

[6:36:08] to funding this position. So it's whether we want the

[6:36:13] accelerator to continue. Counselor, bacolic. Thank you. Mary Hamlin. The

[6:36:21] one thing I walked away from after that presentation was

[6:36:24] that there was no stipulation that the business be located

[6:36:27] in Collingwood, and neighboring municipalities had not stepped up to

[6:36:31] the table. So I take issue with the fact that

[6:36:34] we're funding businesses that exist elsewhere. And I don't know

[6:36:38] how much that impacts the funding request, but I think

[6:36:41] that needs to be addressed. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Jeffrey.

[6:36:46] Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So if we did the funding.

[6:36:49] Can we make that stipulation? I mean, when you make

[6:36:51] a donation to anywhere. To organizations. You can say where

[6:36:54] you want the money to go to. Cao, can you

[6:36:57] respond? Thank you. Through the chair. Yes. In the past

[6:37:03] we have made the stipulation that businesses had to be

[6:37:06] in town. Of Collingwood. There have been some challenges with

[6:37:10] that in interpreting. Where businesses are based. And I don't

[6:37:18] know if Director Valentine may have more to say. On

[6:37:23] that one. But certainly, if you did choose to fund

[6:37:27] the accelerator again, I would be very supportive of wanting

[6:37:30] to prioritize Collingwood businesses for any supports provided. And also.

[6:37:39] That the accelerator has been doing work. In the ideation

[6:37:45] and growth as well. Or the ideation than sort of

[6:37:48] small business side. As well as that larger piece, which

[6:37:52] is all about getting investors and really magnifying the growth

[6:37:56] of businesses. And we do have the small business enterprise

[6:38:00] center that does that. Original ideation and in. Initial sort

[6:38:04] of. You don't have any employees or you have one

[6:38:06] or two and you're. Just building your business. So items

[6:38:09] that really focus the accelerator on those businesses in Collingwood.

[6:38:13] That are approaching readiness for that spurt of growth would

[6:38:17] also be quite positive. If I can also just add

[6:38:20] a fact that he mentioned when he was here. The

[6:38:25] funding that comes from the federal government. Was contingent on

[6:38:30] it being spent in a broader region, like, I think

[6:38:33] it was Simcoe Gray. And Bruce. And so in particular,

[6:38:39] I think they wanted to make sure. He was involved

[6:38:42] over. Where the nuclear Bruce nuclear expansions going on because.

[6:38:49] There's, I don't know, many, many millions of dollars of

[6:38:54] new business that's. Going to come out of that. And

[6:38:57] the other thing he mentioned was. Almost all of his

[6:39:02] mentors come from town of Blue Mountains. So it wasn't

[6:39:07] exactly you could draw a line around Collingwood, but I

[6:39:11] just wanted to. Add those points that you had. Okay.

[6:39:16] The other thing that's on my mind, if I could

[6:39:17] say, is it really struck me. When he was here,

[6:39:21] that there needed to be more coordination between the work

[6:39:25] he does and the work of our economic development manager

[6:39:29] because. There was some. Cross things I thought they were

[6:39:39] getting and they were both looking at the same thing,

[6:39:41] and perhaps this is what the CEO was just saying.

[6:39:45] And I would be in support of some funding going

[6:39:48] if there was some time to cooperation and coordination. with

[6:39:55] our economic development department So those are all my thoughts,

[6:39:59] Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mar Hamlin. Well. I'd like to

[6:40:04] move that we. Invest the $130,000 into the accelerator. On

[6:40:11] the stipulation that our investment, they can spend the Fed

[6:40:15] money wherever they want, but. Our investment would be spent

[6:40:18] on Collingwood businesses and coordinating with our economic development department.

[6:40:24] Okay. Would there be a seconder for that? Councilor Dougherty?

[6:40:27] Further comments. Councilor Paynes. I have a hard time supporting

[6:40:32] 130. But on the other hand, at this point, if.

[6:40:38] We suggested 80 or a lesser amount. I'm not sure

[6:40:40] that's the critical mass. For him to continue doing that

[6:40:43] function in that position, so. It's an untenable situation for

[6:40:47] me, as I just think 130 is a little rich.

[6:40:52] I think it's what we put into it the last

[6:40:53] few years. I think this would be a good year.

[6:40:56] And perhaps once we're finished, the budget discussions. But a

[6:41:00] good year to just sort of drill down. Into how

[6:41:04] the accelerator is organized, how we can better. Align everything

[6:41:08] with our own. Initiatives. Councilor Perry thanks, Mayor Hamill. And

[6:41:15] I totally agree with Councilor Jeffrey. The only question I

[6:41:18] have is. How do you track it? I'm not sure

[6:41:23] how you would do that. It looks like councilor McCallick

[6:41:27] might have an idea. Councilor McCullough. Thank you. You read

[6:41:32] my mind. I would like to see some reporting as

[6:41:35] in other agencies and people that we deal with. So

[6:41:38] we gave you 130. How did you spend it? Who

[6:41:42] did you give it to? And how often should we

[6:41:46] ask for this reporting? I can't think twice a year.

[6:41:51] Minimum. More. Quarterly? I don't know. It's up to you

[6:41:57] guys. Motion. Counseling. I just like to add. We have

[6:42:04] been giving them the money, and it sounds like it's

[6:42:07] a good investment, but. It still bother me that it's

[6:42:10] called South Georgian Bay and nobody else gives them any?

[6:42:14] Money. Okay, so we give them the $130,000. Okay, we're

[6:42:20] going to hopefully come up with a solution, how to

[6:42:22] track that to see what he's doing with the money,

[6:42:24] but the last two or three years. When he comes

[6:42:27] back and makes his sales pitch to us for the

[6:42:30] money for the following year. He talks about same business

[6:42:33] as they did previous year. Impossible metals must be because

[6:42:38] he talks about them all the time. 90% of his

[6:42:41] pitches for them, which is they're doing great things. Don't

[6:42:45] get me wrong. And they're maybe worth it. But. I

[6:42:51] don't know how we're getting 130,000. Yeah, I curious, is

[6:42:55] he? Still working with them, or is this just old

[6:42:57] news? Right? Yeah, exactly. Deputy mayor. Thank you. Mayor Hamlin

[6:43:05] and I spoke about this last meeting. I not supportive

[6:43:09] of carrying on with the business accelerator? Because the initiative

[6:43:14] that we're putting forward is to hire another staff person

[6:43:17] to economic development. Out of the Mat funding. And it

[6:43:21] would have to be on an. Ongoing basis out of

[6:43:24] the mount funding. Because. It's not coming back on the

[6:43:28] taxes. And. I would need to see a lot because

[6:43:33] it talks also as well. We're putting 35,000 towards. Economic

[6:43:38] Development Action plan. That we're getting a $35,000 grant for,

[6:43:44] so I'm not supportive. Of putting another 130 into economic

[6:43:48] development. And then wait for reporting. I'd like to see

[6:43:52] the action plan. I'd like to see how we're going

[6:43:55] to incorporate the new staff person. If it's just going

[6:43:59] to be doing exactly what this accelerator was doing, then

[6:44:04] that's. Great. I'm just not going to support putting $130,000

[6:44:08] towards the accelerator. Director Valentine. Would the person. Who's been

[6:44:16] proposed to be at a technic development. Be doing the

[6:44:20] same kind of work as the accelerator. Thank you, chair.

[6:44:25] And through you at this point in time, we had

[6:44:27] proposed that that position would work on driving forward the

[6:44:30] tourism master plan. A different bucket of tasks, separate and

[6:44:39] apart from the accelerator. But I would underscore. and the

[6:44:38] downtown master plan so it would be The comments previously

[6:44:43] made by I believe it was Cao Skinner that the

[6:44:47] accelerator does duplicate with the sBAC. So. They were initially

[6:44:53] set up to be only the growth phase of businesses,

[6:44:56] with the SBEC taking care of ideation and launch. And

[6:45:00] then we found that there was a missing step within

[6:45:02] our ecosystem. How do we get those who have been

[6:45:05] successful at ideation and launch to then move? Towards that

[6:45:08] scaling upward growth phase. As I understand it, the accelerator

[6:45:12] couldn't find that critical mass within our area. So they

[6:45:16] opened up. What they were offering to businesses and now

[6:45:19] duplicate on those initial two phases with the aspect so

[6:45:23] it's that duplication that I would be perhaps more concerned

[6:45:26] about than the new staff. Person that's being proposed. So

[6:45:31] perhaps I'll just ask you then. The motion that's on

[6:45:35] the floor right now is about coordinating. Do you feel?

[6:45:41] That. can happen and we can get some benefit out

[6:45:45] of having because it was struck me About Peter was.

[6:45:49] He's so well connected with the businesses and the mentors

[6:45:53] in our area, and I'd hate to lose that. But

[6:45:58] what are your thoughts on that? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin.

[6:46:05] As. Staff have communicated with council. It is somewhat difficult

[6:46:11] for us to support a full 130,000. Given that only

[6:46:14] four businesses from Collingwood were supported last year with our

[6:46:18] contribution, and we are the only municipal contributor. hearing i

[6:46:27] think what councilor jeffrey is suggesting though if i'm correct

[6:46:30] on her intention is that full 130,000 be directed towards

[6:46:33] collingwood businesses which is a different scenario If those businesses

[6:46:32] can be found, we would certainly welcome more collaboration with

[6:46:36] the accelerator. We have made some overtures and attempts in

[6:46:40] the past, and they haven't been too successful. But I

[6:46:43] think if the accelerator hears Council's desire for additional coordination

[6:46:48] and that that be tied to the funding that. That

[6:46:52] would be a nice push in the right direction. Okay.

[6:46:54] And Councilor Jeffrey. I heard a possible amendment. From? I

[6:47:02] don't know who would have been, but anyway. It had

[6:47:06] to do with financial reporting. Financial reporting, I'm happy to

[6:47:10] add quarterly financial reporting. Okay. The feds are going to

[6:47:13] require stats anyway. okay so here is the motion that

[6:47:20] councilor jeffries put on the table

[6:47:32] Does that cover? Cover it? Okay. And I just want

[6:47:42] to ask. Who seconded this? Yes, Councilor Dori. Are you

[6:47:47] happy with those changes? Yeah, okay. So you want to

[6:47:52] speak again? Yeah. I'm going to ask for clarification to

[6:47:55] see if I recall correctly from the report. Did it.

[6:47:59] Talk about succession planning. And the fact that there was

[6:48:03] going to be a new person becoming involved in running

[6:48:07] the accelerator. Or do I recall that incorrectly? I didn't

[6:48:11] read that. But. Director Valentine. Did you see that? Thank

[6:48:17] you. Chair through you. I've not seen that directly. In

[6:48:22] any written correspondence. I've heard that there's potential for staff

[6:48:27] turnover, but I think some of it depends on council's

[6:48:29] decision tonight and how that will affect the accelerator's operations

[6:48:33] and. If they are able to move forward. With their

[6:48:36] current staff compliment or have a change up in someone

[6:48:40] of a hell more additional staff. People. So, mayor hamlin.

[6:48:46] It can only have come from the report that I

[6:48:47] remember. Read that. and i guess what it was was

[6:48:53] Just the possibility, right? It was just, as you say,

[6:48:56] that there was a possibility of success. Succession. At the

[6:49:01] accelerator. But again, I'm not supportive of it going forward.

[6:49:07] Okay, I actually have a question for the treasurer. If

[6:49:11] this motion passes. How do the funds get distributed to

[6:49:15] the excel operator? And what's on my mind is if

[6:49:19] the gentleman running it leaves. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you,

[6:49:23] Mayor Hamlin. In the past, We receive a payment requisition

[6:49:28] from the folks in Ectev based on the signed memo

[6:49:31] of understanding, and it stipulates when the payments are to

[6:49:34] be made. Okay. I would have to look at what

[6:49:36] the entity's name is. That we're making the payment to

[6:49:41] be 100%, but it would tie into whatever the memo

[6:49:44] of understanding was it's not made to the specific individual.

[6:49:47] It's made to. Entity. All right. Okay. Director Valentine. Do

[6:49:54] you know how often those payments are made? Is it

[6:49:57] more than once a year? Through you chair. My recollection

[6:50:01] for the MoU for 2025. That there was one lump

[6:50:10] sum payment and then there was a hold back for

[6:50:12] the reporting, so. It was essentially two payments, but staff

[6:50:16] would certainly be supportive. Of payments being tied to the

[6:50:21] reporting that council. Desires. Further amendment. Further amendment.

[6:50:34] Yes. So the clerk would just need to add in

[6:50:36] that payment, be tied to the financial reporting. Does

[6:50:46] anyone need to see that up on the screen or

[6:50:48] is that straightforward? Okay. No more comments. All those in

[6:50:57] favor? 12345. Those opposed? 1234. Okay, so that carries.

[6:51:12] I covered everything. Have a look. Two

[6:51:22] stair seat lifts at the Eddie Bush.

[6:51:34] I'll leave that for now. It's a pretty hard one.

[6:51:44] Is there anything we've left out here? Oh, Councilor Dorothy,

[6:51:48] are you still thinking? No. Go ahead. The CCAT requires

[6:51:53] over 40,000. Right. Thank you. Right. Did you want to

[6:52:02] bring a motion on that? yes i will bring a

[6:52:08] motion on that and i will add that the degree

[6:52:12] to which they work with and coordinate with our climate

[6:52:16] change specialist Is. You could not. Get a staff person

[6:52:21] for that annual amount. For the work that they do.

[6:52:26] They're valuable to the community, and I think. That's a

[6:52:31] very good investment. Yeah, definitely second that. Anyone like to

[6:52:34] second the motion? Councilor Jeffrey, any comments? Councilor Potts. Thanks,

[6:52:42] mayor Hamlin. Still not 100% decided on this. Only thing

[6:52:47] with a three year equipment is I'd hate to throw

[6:52:49] that commitment on the next council for. A two year

[6:52:54] commitment. So I'll wait to hear what my colleagues. I

[6:52:58] understand the work. They put in and certainly do. But

[6:53:00] it's when you're throwing that kind of commitment out there.

[6:53:06] I'm still undecided at this point. Okay. Which of our

[6:53:10] staff could comment on whether. It's a three year commitment.

[6:53:16] Is helpful. Executive director. Thank you. Mayor. If I may,

[6:53:20] I'd like to make just a couple of comments about

[6:53:22] the request overall, please. Thank you. So, first of all,

[6:53:25] of course, staff want to acknowledge the work. That CCAT

[6:53:29] has done specifically in working with our climate change specialists,

[6:53:32] but also in general, in that portfolio, working with all

[6:53:35] staff. We do have several examples where CCAT has been

[6:53:42] instrumental in moving projects forward, specifically our greener Homes Better

[6:53:46] Futures Project Earth Fest. They were key leads in 2024

[6:53:50] and 2025. Participation in municipal climate initiatives like our community

[6:53:56] climate Action Plan. They were very involved in the consultation

[6:54:00] process and working with Tamarac on that project. If council

[6:54:04] did desire to proceed with funding to CCAT, it would

[6:54:07] be staff's recommendation. That that was tied to projects specifically

[6:54:12] that were linked to town purposes. That would just help

[6:54:15] ensure that the initiatives that CCAT worked on were tied

[6:54:19] to, for example, our community climate action plan or a

[6:54:21] corporate climate action plan. Because certainly they do bring a

[6:54:26] great skill set and additional capacity that we don't have.

[6:54:29] In house today. But. It would be definitely beneficial if

[6:54:33] it was tied to town projects. Got it. What do

[6:54:39] you think, mover? I think really similarly to our last

[6:54:44] scenario that you do stipulate that it's specific to. Collingwood

[6:54:49] projects, and I do understand the necessity of having to

[6:54:52] have the momentum that some of these projects go over

[6:54:55] more than one year, so you can't fund them from

[6:54:57] this year. And then they find out next year they

[6:55:00] may or may not get funding, and they don't. Know

[6:55:02] if they can keep going with it. And I think

[6:55:05] financial reporting is also important piece of this. Maybe not

[6:55:08] as often, but. I think. Maybe. Even annually or semiannually,

[6:55:16] something. Do you think, executive director, how often? If they

[6:55:21] were going to report to us on their funding, would

[6:55:23] you suggest, or do you have a thought? Thank you.

[6:55:26] Mary Hamlin, I think semiannually. Would be more than sufficient.

[6:55:29] We do have regular communications with CCAT, so I'm confident

[6:55:33] that that would be an appropriate number. Okay, that's great.

[6:55:37] Who? Is the secondor on this one? Do we have

[6:55:40] a honey? Who moved it? All right. So are you

[6:55:45] happy with the changes here? Which. Yes. Okay. All right.

[6:55:50] And you're happy? Okay. I'm all happy. Deputy mayor. Thank

[6:55:55] you, Mayor Hamlin. So just clarification, this is just single

[6:55:58] year. They asked for commitment for. We can't tie the

[6:56:04] hands of the next council. That's what I'm saying. For

[6:56:11] the year. My understanding from the mover is that we're

[6:56:13] doing the three year. I can't support. Tying hands, as

[6:56:22] you say of next council in regards to CCAT. And

[6:56:27] tremendous work, tremendous people. The energy level is unbelievable in

[6:56:32] what they've done. So I can't support, though, for a

[6:56:36] three year allocation when we've got one. Year left in

[6:56:39] term. The other question I was going to ask is

[6:56:43] they outlined it as 25,000 to go. To core operations,

[6:56:46] including their director of community engagement and 15,000 to program

[6:56:51] support. So I was wondering. If the motion was looking

[6:56:56] to allocate that differently. But in any event, because it's.

[6:57:00] Three years. I can't support it. I actually am not

[6:57:04] concerned with the three years, because if they're doing semiannually,

[6:57:08] reporting. If they're not meeting their targets, we would hear

[6:57:14] this from our staff. And this could be discussed at

[6:57:19] the next budget. I sort of quite understand. They've been

[6:57:25] working hard for our community as volunteers for a number

[6:57:28] of years now. And there is some sense to have

[6:57:32] a continuity of funding available so they can make plans

[6:57:36] for the next year. So I think also I'll support

[6:57:39] the motion. Any other comments? I think. We're ready to

[6:57:45] vote now. All those in favor? 123456 those opposed. One,

[6:57:53] two, three. That passes. Thank you. Councilor Potts. The rugby

[6:58:00] irrigation. Yeah. So I think you had mentioned earlier that

[6:58:05] they could potentially come out of. Some other charges. I

[6:58:14] think we still have to have a motion for that.

[6:58:18] Yes. I put that motion on the table, whatever. Okay,

[6:58:23] I think it was. To think. Staff reported further, but.

[6:58:29] It was to proceed with the plan proposed by staff

[6:58:33] to irrigate the rugby field and that it would come

[6:58:36] from development charges in the amount of 55,000. Did I

[6:58:40] get that? Right. Treasure. Is that for you? Yes. I'd

[6:58:48] be happy to speak to that. The dollar amount is

[6:58:50] correct. I don't. Believe that this is DC eligible, though

[6:58:53] it would come from our lifecycle reserve. Lifecycle reserve. There

[6:59:00] we go. Thank you. Okay. So we have a mover.

[6:59:05] Seconder council ring comment councilor Baines. It's through you, mayor.

[6:59:13] If the treasurer could just tell us what does that

[6:59:15] will that. Bring the lifecycle reserve down. I'm sure it's

[6:59:19] just. -54,000. Yes, go ahead. 56. I wouldn't be able

[6:59:24] to do an accurate amount right now. I could tell

[6:59:28] you what 2024 reserve is, but we're still funding 2025

[6:59:32] capital. I couldn't quite answer that. Do you want to

[6:59:40] know what the 24 number was? Sure. Okay. Yeah,

[6:59:50] I figured as much. But. The 2024 is 7.3 million.

[6:59:58] Okay? We can afford it. Thank you. Councilor ring. Just

[7:00:04] a quick question through you. Too. I'm assuming the director

[7:00:09] of finance. I seconded it and I will support it,

[7:00:14] but I'm wondering if we have to. Why would this

[7:00:17] not be? Through our insurance. My understanding was. Was this

[7:00:25] damage to this system was done with somebody driving around.

[7:00:30] A motor vehicle. On the arc. Did we know that?

[7:00:33] Or is that my hearing rumors? I heard it was

[7:00:37] damaged with somebody driving around in a truck or something

[7:00:39] on the property. And the repairs have got to be

[7:00:44] done. Maybe I'm just hearing rumors. How long ago would

[7:00:47] that have been, do you know? It'd be a couple

[7:00:51] of years. It's been a couple of years since they

[7:00:52] haven't had it working right. Well, I think our clerk

[7:00:56] could take that away. And find out more about it.

[7:01:01] Director. Cuba? Yes, go ahead. Thank you, sir. You. I

[7:01:06] will say this is not a report that I've received.

[7:01:10] Not to say it isn't factual, but it's not something

[7:01:13] that I have learned. Of. In my research. My understanding

[7:01:16] is that. Just over the years. This particular field is

[7:01:22] really close to the bedrock. And so the irrigation system

[7:01:26] is. That much closer underneath the surface. And when it

[7:01:30] was used. For soccer. It could withstand a little bit

[7:01:35] more, but rugby is a lot harder on the field,

[7:01:36] and so we were just getting constant. Repairs needing done

[7:01:41] and just could not keep up with that. So that's

[7:01:43] why we find ourselves a place of needing. A full

[7:01:47] replacement and. A different maintenance program to maintain a new

[7:01:53] system being used by rugby. Okay. Councilor ring. Thank you.

[7:01:59] I apologize. But I had heard that, and I thought

[7:02:02] it was common knowledge. That's why I'm. Asking the question

[7:02:05] I guess I should ask before we started, but I'll

[7:02:07] support it. I mean, it's got to be done. I

[7:02:10] just was trying to save the town some. Money. If

[7:02:12] that's the case. Good thinking. Okay. Councilor Potts. Yeah, just

[7:02:17] quick. Mayor Hamlin. So what was reported to me through

[7:02:21] the ask and through the request was that. It was

[7:02:27] damaged. And it wasn't that long ago that the field

[7:02:31] was rehabilitated. With topsoil to kind of cover up what

[7:02:35] the damage was. And the irrigation piece. Was damaged and

[7:02:40] not repaired. That'd be about a year ago, maybe even

[7:02:44] a bit longer. So, through the last summer. Was the

[7:02:46] heavy drought. Which turned the field almost into concrete, so.

[7:02:53] Happy to see that it can get repaired. Not happy

[7:02:56] to see that it would cost $58,000. To repair it,

[7:03:00] but I guess it's a step in the right direction.

[7:03:04] Okay, so I'll bring this to a vote then. This

[7:03:06] is on the irrigation system to. Be paid for from

[7:03:09] the lifecycle reserve. All those in favor. And that's unanimous.

[7:03:16] Thank you. Have I left out any of the. Items

[7:03:22] in the staff report or that anyone else wanted to

[7:03:25] raise. Councilor jeffrey. I wanted to have conversation about council

[7:03:33] remunery. Of course. Go ahead. Thanks. I'm not sure what

[7:03:37] the amount should be, honestly. I read through comparators, but

[7:03:42] for some reason, town of Blue Mountains was not considered

[7:03:46] fully but. I googled it today, and they're at 49,000.

[7:03:52] Including that includes benefits for those who are taking them.

[7:03:57] We're around the 30. Thousand. Base rate. The treasurer can

[7:04:04] correct me if I'm wrong, but if I proposed. A

[7:04:09] 5000 annual per. Counselor. Increase for this budget.

[7:04:20] It would be the 5000 divided by 52 weeks times

[7:04:24] six weeks plus 8%. Estimated. For 623. Seven times seven

[7:04:31] members would be around $4,500. Impact on. The. 20. What

[7:04:38] did I say? 4500? Yeah. What did I say? Yeah.

[7:04:44] Well. That's my calculations I get for six weeks. I

[7:04:49] didn't understand all those. $5,000 annual. Right? So if you

[7:04:52] divide by 52 weeks in a year, multiply. Six weeks.

[7:04:56] So wait, 52 weeks in a year is how much?

[7:05:02] I think I got 576 97. 576, 97 or 92.

[7:05:10] Am I ready? And then I added 8% to get

[7:05:12] to 623, seven per each, so. What's 8%? Where did

[7:05:17] that come from? Just for benefits or whatever? Benefits. Are

[7:05:21] the benefits based on salary? Well, it's just a calculation

[7:05:27] we use in forecasting for estimates. Okay. All right. Yeah,

[7:05:33] I got so 623, seven times seven people. Is 43.

[7:05:39] 61 49. So I just said 4500. That's for 20.

[7:05:45] That's weekly. No. 5000 divided by 52 times six. Oh.

[7:05:55] Maybe I did something wrong. I'm only doing six weeks

[7:05:59] for 2026, right? Six weeks. That's all there is, six

[7:06:04] weeks in 2026. In 25. No, the elections aren't until

[7:06:09] 2026. Yeah. Pretty good. I'm just. Counsel, okay? Yes. You

[7:06:18] didn't clarify that, but I totally understand that we've done

[7:06:21] that previously. Three times. As I said, it's politically difficult.

[7:06:27] Increase your own. And I'm not going to sit here

[7:06:28] and increase hours at this point. Okay. I mean, if

[7:06:32] you wanted to suggest that you. 're sold with $4,500

[7:06:36] for 2026. So then when you get to 2027, annually.

[7:06:45] It's the 5000 plus whatever the benefits are, times seven,

[7:06:48] so it's around $40,000. Difference for 2027. But I think

[7:06:53] for what we're investing and what we're going to expect,

[7:06:57] two years out. For the new people coming. Into or

[7:07:04] whoever's sitting around the table here to invest. I think

[7:07:08] that that's reasonable. Yeah. Okay. Would there be a seconder

[7:07:12] for this? Councilor Dougherty. Okay, Castor Baines, just to put

[7:07:18] this in perspective, a good friend. Of mine who's a

[7:07:20] counselor in the township at Georgian Bay, where my cottages.

[7:07:25] 31,000 a year. 7600 permanent residents, about 13,000. Seasonal residents,

[7:07:33] but Holy moly. It's quite a difference. Thanks. they're probably

[7:07:40] not building wastewater treatment plants Okay. Yeah. Deputy Mayor thank

[7:07:47] you, Mayor Hamlin. And if I recall from the governance

[7:07:51] report correctly, That'll mean the councilors have paid the same

[7:07:55] amount as the deputy mayor. Going into the next term.

[7:08:01] And. I have no problem supporting the change for the.

[7:08:09] It probably is a little bit based on the fact

[7:08:10] that there is potential for the deputy mayor. To be

[7:08:13] going up quite a bit with the change, but if

[7:08:16] the government comes through and says, that the downsizing happens.

[7:08:21] Then the deputy will be the alternate. And only making

[7:08:25] what the perm meeting fee is at this point in

[7:08:27] time because we don't know how the allocation goes. As

[7:08:32] I said, I have no problem with supporting more compensation

[7:08:35] for counselors. I think you do have to do something

[7:08:44] with the deputy mayor position for 27 as well. And

[7:08:48] again, because I think there does need to be a

[7:08:50] differential between the counselor and. I'm recalling. As I say,

[7:08:57] I don't have it in front of me. I'm recalling

[7:08:59] that the report said that. The 35 for the deputy

[7:09:04] mayor and 30 for. The counselors. So if you're adding

[7:09:09] the five, that's why I'm. Saying. I believe then counselors

[7:09:12] and deputy mayor would be at the same amount. Yes,

[7:09:16] go ahead. Thank you. So understanding that they would be

[7:09:19] at the same base rate. I'm not sure what the

[7:09:22] fairness of that is, but you have the potential for

[7:09:25] 47,000. At county. I'm not sure. I think if you

[7:09:33] want to deal with that in 2026 for the 2020.

[7:09:37] Seven budget. Whoever's doing that. That you would have more

[7:09:41] facts than. I'm talking about six weeks in 2026. We

[7:09:48] could add five to the deputy mayor if that's what

[7:09:50] we want to do to keep it even. For the

[7:09:53] treasurer. Could we add an amount? That would apply. Like

[7:10:02] we're going to know. Within a few months, I would

[7:10:05] expect, whether or not the province. Is going to leave

[7:10:09] the deputy mayor positions at the county or not. So

[7:10:13] if the deputy mayor positions are left at the county,

[7:10:16] there would be a substantial increase. Can we make it?

[7:10:22] And because this won't kick in till the end of

[7:10:24] next year. Can we make a decision contingent. So in

[7:10:28] other words, it would increase, let's say, 5000. For the

[7:10:32] deputy mayor position. Unless the deputy mayor is still sitting

[7:10:38] at county because the salary at GLoB 47, I just

[7:10:41] want to hear from the treasurer, please. Well, I don't

[7:10:45] remember. You were in the middle of a question. Well,

[7:10:48] sorry, I'll. Come back to you shortly. Okay, let me

[7:10:55] just ask the councilor and are the treasurer and we'll

[7:10:57] come right. Back to you. Yeah, go ahead. Can we

[7:10:59] do contingent kind of thanks? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. For

[7:11:04] this dollar amount. Absolutely. So if we're looking at six

[7:11:07] weeks at $5,000 for one member, that's less than $650.

[7:11:15] so absolutely cancel can vote later to include that $650

[7:11:20] Without an issue. Thank you, deputy mayor. So that's what

[7:11:24] I was going to say to the councilor. Would a

[7:11:26] friendly amendment be to include the 5000 for 26. For

[7:11:32] deputy mayor and know that the next council will know

[7:11:37] when they're trying to deal. With going forward. The impact

[7:11:40] in 27. So that's what I was going to suggest.

[7:11:45] And it's on the premise that the belief is. At

[7:11:49] this point in time, there needs to be that differential.

[7:11:54] And then that may change depending on what the problem

[7:11:56] decides. So that was going to be a friendly amendment.

[7:12:00] That's fine. I think you and the mayor and the

[7:12:03] treasure are all saying the same thing. So that's fine.

[7:12:07] The second or whatever is willing. We just include that

[7:12:09] the 5000 annual differential for the six weeks for the

[7:12:12] deputy mayor as well. Yeah. But rather than leaving it

[7:12:19] on the next council, To have to change the compensation.

[7:12:25] Within the few weeks in their first budget. I would

[7:12:28] just like to have a consideration that if the Deputy

[7:12:32] mayor is going to be at the county that the

[7:12:35] increase not be given. I don't know. That's sort of

[7:12:39] what's on my mind, because that would be really a

[7:12:43] lot of an increase otherwise. Hard to say. I think

[7:12:50] that if we budgeted for the $650. Times. Six weeks

[7:12:59] or whatever it is. Well, we start November 15. We

[7:13:04] started last term, so it wasn't a full November. I

[7:13:08] don't think. Anyway, the clerk has a card up. Yeah,

[7:13:12] per commas. Certainly part of through your worship to council

[7:13:18] part of the information and nomination packages are counsel indicate

[7:13:24] what the remuneration is. And further to the staff report

[7:13:28] that was presented on November the 17th, the deputy mayor's

[7:13:32] salary would be. For? I believe it's 2026. Or it

[7:13:36] could be. With the applicable coal, I can't. Remember offhand.

[7:13:39] It's $35,509 in a counselor's. Salary is 30,079. So that

[7:13:47] would mean the council members would be making $400. Less

[7:13:51] than the deputy mayor. So I was amending mine to

[7:13:56] do the 5000 for the counselors plus the deputy mayor.

[7:14:02] Moving forward. Moving forward. And then 2026 budget people can

[7:14:07] do whatever they need to do. And. Can we ask

[7:14:13] staff to raise this as an issue in 26? Yeah,

[7:14:16] okay. All right. So what is the motion? I think

[7:14:20] we understand what the motion is. Any other comments, councilor?

[7:14:23] Ring. I'm not going to support this motion. We just

[7:14:29] sat here. And turned down. I voted against staff for

[7:14:35] P 55 and turn around and say whether I'm running

[7:14:40] again. Or get elected again. I don't feel comfortable. Increasing.

[7:14:47] Council salary when. I voted against all the ones for

[7:14:54] staff, so I'm going to vote against this. okay We

[7:14:59] get call anyways, right? So it's not. You're not going

[7:15:01] to get. An increase. We get call adjustments every year

[7:15:04] anyway. Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And I'm not

[7:15:09] going to support it as well. I'm just letting everybody

[7:15:11] know. Okay. Other comments. Councilor Baines.

[7:15:23] I think Councilor Jeffrey has proposed a modest. Increase. Which

[7:15:28] is necessary to attract other potential candidates to sit in

[7:15:32] these seats. So I'm fully in support of it. Thank

[7:15:35] you. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Ring. Thank you very much.

[7:15:39] Is this a motive to get better counselors? Because we're

[7:15:45] saying here that we're not getting quality people unless we

[7:15:48] pay them. So. I'm kind of like. I don't know

[7:15:51] what we. Don't think it's supposed to take here and

[7:15:56] to get good people to get quality people. Got to

[7:16:01] pay them a little bit more. I was always running

[7:16:03] through my mind. Is to get people. Who? Have to

[7:16:10] be independently working or independently. Retired and can

[7:16:20] otherwise support themselves. Right? But someone has a full time

[7:16:23] job to take off the time that's required to be

[7:16:26] accounting. I would expect 30,000 doesn't necessarily enumerate everybody, but

[7:16:33] I don't. Know. That's my thought on it, Councilor Jeffrey.

[7:16:36] Well, I am self employed and. I can tell you,

[7:16:38] Miraman, that the hours that we do these meetings in

[7:16:42] the billable hours that I lose. I don't even think

[7:16:46] I break even. So I think that if you want

[7:16:48] to attract younger people. If you look at the average

[7:16:51] age of this council, other than this young guy, right?

[7:16:54] Here. I think that we want to be building a

[7:16:59] farm team and succession planning. And interest, and right now.

[7:17:05] I don't know that we're seeing a lot of interest

[7:17:07] in terms of running. For council. So I think the

[7:17:11] better job we do of making it attractive, and this

[7:17:14] is just one piece. Like I said, I felt there

[7:17:16] would have been a more robust discussion on time of

[7:17:18] meetings. Length of meetings. All the other factors that go.

[7:17:25] Into making. It. Attractive or possible, even possible for younger

[7:17:32] people to run. Councilor putts. Thanks. Mary Hamlin. The only

[7:17:40] reason I would support this. I've advocated being somebody who

[7:17:45] works and raises a family and does all the in

[7:17:48] between. during every day If we had meetings in the

[7:17:53] evenings and we're able to accommodate other things, but we

[7:17:57] seem to do everything during the day when you have

[7:17:59] to take time away from work and. You have to

[7:18:04] be almost self employed or have a very understanding employer,

[7:18:08] which I've had. Over the last couple of years now

[7:18:11] into my own thing, but. I just look at again,

[7:18:14] this goes back to there's no reason why we can't.

[7:18:19] If we don't want to give an adjustment, there's no

[7:18:20] reason why we can't. Be doing things after hours. And

[7:18:24] at different times. But if we continue to schedule. Everything

[7:18:28] at 02:00 in the afternoon or 11:00 in the morning.

[7:18:31] This is, unfortunately if you do want to attract the

[7:18:34] generations that you're hoping to get on the other hand.

[7:18:39] If you do an increase. Sometimes if you get people

[7:18:42] that just want to sign up for the money. It's

[7:18:44] not always at the best interest of the town either.

[7:18:47] But the only reason I support this again is I've

[7:18:51] tried to advocate, to do things. At different hours of

[7:18:54] the day, but always been turned down and not heard.

[7:18:57] So I will support this motion. Okay? Thank you. I'm

[7:19:02] going to support the motion as well. I do think.

[7:19:09] I do think that we have to pay more for

[7:19:11] our counselors, and I think this has been a problem

[7:19:13] in our province for a long time. In fact, I

[7:19:18] think the province should be encouraging municipal counsels to pay

[7:19:23] their counselors more. Because it's really hard at this level

[7:19:28] for counselors to vote themselves a pay increase. But the

[7:19:31] hours that are put in by the members of the

[7:19:33] council and the dedication that's. Required. Is a lot. It's

[7:19:39] a lot. But anyway, I think this is a relatively

[7:19:43] modest increase, and I would support it. Anything else? All

[7:19:49] those in favor? And opposed. To oppose that carries. Thank

[7:19:56] you. Is there anything we haven't covered here that anyone

[7:19:59] can see or that they'd like raised. Okay. So I

[7:20:06] think I was adding these up, but now I have

[7:20:08] so many pieces of paper on the go. Treasure. Did

[7:20:12] you add these up? You did. Thank you. Go ahead.

[7:20:18] Thank you. And I welcome the opportunity to make sure

[7:20:21] that I've included the correct amount, so this is great

[7:20:24] timing. What I have noted is an increase for insurance

[7:20:29] of 14,000. An additional 50,000 each to the murph in

[7:20:34] art center reserve funds to be funded through the mat.

[7:20:37] So zero tax increase. A reduction of 280,000 to the

[7:20:44] funding source for affordable housing to not come from taxes.

[7:20:49] Hr position at 54,000. P 55 at 166,000. Georgian bay

[7:20:57] accelerator 130,000. CCAT funding at 40,000, but to come from

[7:21:02] the green reserve. Irrigation to the rugby field. 55,000 to

[7:21:08] come from lifecycle reserve and cancel remuneration increase of 5100.

[7:21:14] That brings our overall. Tax rate increase the municipal town

[7:21:19] portion 3.35% in an overall blended rate f 2.97%. Hey.

[7:21:27] Thank you. For doing that. Can I ask clarification, please?

[7:21:37] Yeah, go ahead. Get per total right now. The report

[7:21:44] says it was 3.14% at this Point in time for

[7:21:48] the municipal portion. So what are we saying? It is

[7:21:51] now 3.35. With adding 130,000 for accelerator, 166,000.

[7:22:01] For p. 55. 54,000. For. The. What's that for? The

[7:22:11] staff person for HR and the 14, that comes to

[7:22:15] $364,000, which I would think would be around the 0.9%.

[7:22:22] Council also. Voted to reduce the affordable housing reserve contribution

[7:22:28] coming from taxes by 280,000. So we're still putting 400,000.

[7:22:34] To the affordable housing initiatives, but only 120,000 is funded

[7:22:38] through taxes. Sorry. So the 280 is reduced from that,

[7:22:43] and that has to do with the affordable housing money.

[7:22:48] That was going into affordable housing. Yeah. So in total,

[7:22:51] the net change is 89,100. That was so far approved

[7:22:55] tonight. Thank you. Okay. Now, I think we also can

[7:23:01] make a decision. About. I'll say financing part of this

[7:23:09] or all of it. From the surplus that treasurer said

[7:23:17] she felt comfortable on, which was the 510 to 680.

[7:23:22] Or also adding more to the reserves for the murph

[7:23:26] and the art center. Or affordable housing, for that matter.

[7:23:32] So this total amount. Sorry, did I get something wrong?

[7:23:34] Go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I

[7:23:38] was going to say. Or our asset management lifecycle. Right.

[7:23:41] Which is also a very good. Okay. Right. Okay, so

[7:23:46] that total amount was 364. Treasure gram. Is that right?

[7:23:51] All those things that were added up, that came out

[7:23:53] for taxes. Then that demand is 89,100 because we had

[7:23:58] that 280,000 reduction. right

[7:24:08] Okay. Anyone want to do anything with this councilor McCullough?

[7:24:13] Sorry, I just have a rookie question. Are we trying

[7:24:17] to work to? A number? Is there a target that

[7:24:19] we're trying to. Achieve. You get to pick. Yeah.

[7:24:30] So we're at 2.97. Two and a half. I had

[7:24:33] suggested to staff early. On to target 2.75, but. It's

[7:24:40] really the mood of the will of council, what the

[7:24:42] tax increase should be.

[7:24:56] I think what I'd like to suggest is, or just

[7:24:59] put out to think about. So. If we say the

[7:25:05] 680 from the surplus is something. We could use part

[7:25:11] of, let's say. I would love to see some of

[7:25:15] that 280 going back into the affordable housing. And. Something

[7:25:24] more into the reserves for the Murph and the art

[7:25:26] center. And then also, could we reduce our tax rate

[7:25:31] a bit? Okay, treasure, here's your job. Make all this

[7:25:36] happen. Magic. Is any of that possible? Yeah, go ahead.

[7:25:41] Just to clarify, You would like me to let you

[7:25:48] know the amount we need to get to 2.5%. Municipal

[7:25:51] portion, not the blended rate. Yeah, okay. One moment.

[7:26:28] I'm ready. Okay, we would need approximately $375,000.

[7:26:40] To be allocated from the investment analysis to achieve everything

[7:26:44] that has been approved the last three meetings. To get

[7:26:49] just shy of 2.5. Percent increase. Okay. And what would

[7:26:53] the blended rate be if we did that? The blended

[7:26:57] rate would decrease to just under 2.4%. Okay. All right,

[7:27:04] so 375,000 if we wanted to get to our rate

[7:27:09] of 2.5. And would there be any appetite to also

[7:27:16] be putting more money into the reserves for the Murph

[7:27:19] and the art center. I guess I'll put that out

[7:27:21] there. Catherine doherty. But, yes, I would propose that we

[7:27:31] add an additional 50. To each of the murph and

[7:27:38] art center. Reserves. To be consistent with staff's initial recommendation

[7:27:46] for these two reserve accounts. Would there be a second

[7:27:51] or for that councilor beans. So that would add 100,000.

[7:27:56] To the 375. So that would take us to 475

[7:28:01] from the reserve spending. If everyone understood what that. Yeah,

[7:28:08] okay. Comments Council ring. With that. We've put off of

[7:28:16] the request. By councilor Jeffrey for the chairlifts for the

[7:28:24] Eddie Bush. How are we going to finance them? Or

[7:28:28] should we save some of this money for that? I

[7:28:31] thought there maybe wasn't an appetite to deal with that.

[7:28:35] I thought we just put off. Oh, I thought I

[7:28:36] had invited you in, that there was no. Take up.

[7:28:39] Okay. Please go ahead. Thank you. Did you follow us?

[7:28:45] Yeah. The mayor looked at me at the time and

[7:28:49] I just went because the staff report was. So. Every

[7:28:54] time I asked for one of those, I get so

[7:28:56] depressed because they make it so impossible. To get stuff

[7:28:59] done. I know it's not their fault, but. We have

[7:29:03] so many people who want to get up those stairs,

[7:29:05] and I know we can't. Get everybody up. And. You

[7:29:12] know what? Clerk almost is just reminding me we should

[7:29:17] deal with one thing at a time. At 930, I

[7:29:21] tend to wander a little, so I think with the

[7:29:23] motion on the floor is Councilor Dougherty had put on.

[7:29:29] Another 50 to each of the reserves to bring us

[7:29:33] up to where the staff had suggested in budget number

[7:29:36] one and councilor ranger. Just a quick follow up. And

[7:29:39] that's what I was talking about this motion. I just

[7:29:41] wondered whether we had the money, if we were still

[7:29:44] going. To have to pay. I guess we're not going

[7:29:46] to do the list and I could support this. That's.

[7:29:49] Fine. I just wanted to know. Okay, I see. If

[7:29:54] we added 100,000 as councilor Dougherty. Has put in as

[7:30:01] a suggestion. That would take our total amount that we

[7:30:07] would need. To keep at 2.5% locally. To 475. And

[7:30:14] the amount is 680 that we could access from our

[7:30:18] surplus, should we be so inclined. Councilor. Sorry. Deputy mayor.

[7:30:25] Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I'm not going to support it

[7:30:30] with the three use of the 375 and the 280.

[7:30:34] Coming out of affordable housing reserve. That's 1.6. Percent automatically

[7:30:41] onto 27 budget for. Whoever's dealing with 27 budget. You're

[7:30:48] taking funds to handle operation costs to get your rate

[7:30:52] changed down, that's going to come back on top of

[7:30:56] the next council. In my opinion, it isn't correct to

[7:31:01] be using it to drive down operation costs. Well, it's

[7:31:06] not. Sorry, if I can just clarify, it's not all

[7:31:09] operation costs. Because the motion we have on the floor

[7:31:12] is reserve funds. Yeah, I'm not supporting. The hundred from

[7:31:17] the reserve funds because of the impact already being felt.

[7:31:23] With the other changes that have been made. Okay. Thank

[7:31:25] you. Would anyone else like to comment on this? I'm

[7:31:30] just really worried if we don't start putting money into

[7:31:33] this like we'll never get there. And. To me if

[7:31:39] we can come up with $150,000 for this year to

[7:31:43] put in. The reserve fund. That's going to be a

[7:31:46] good number to get started. I mean, I know there's.

[7:31:49] A bit there now. There's three for the murph, I

[7:31:53] think, and one for the art center, something. Like that.

[7:31:57] But we have lots of monies ahead of us to

[7:31:59] plan these facilities and get going. So, Councilor Dougherty. I

[7:32:06] think it also signals to our community that. We're very

[7:32:11] serious about these two projects. that are in very high

[7:32:16] demand Absolutely. Councilor jeffrey. Thank you so along. Councilor rings

[7:32:23] thought process. It's hard to support this without having the

[7:32:27] discussion because at the end of the day, I also

[7:32:29] think the people who are paying the taxes and using

[7:32:32] the facilities we have now deserve some consideration of having

[7:32:37] some accessibility. At the Eddie Bush. So I'd rather talk

[7:32:41] about what we may or may not be. Able to

[7:32:43] do with the stereliphs first. And then decide what's left

[7:32:47] to go into the future planning. So you're asking.

[7:32:58] what are you asking for i'm asking to hold off

[7:33:00] on the 100,000 until we talk about the stairs Are

[7:33:02] you groupal to that, Councilor Dougherty? Yes. Okay. Stairless it

[7:33:07] is. Would you like to address that issue? I do.

[7:33:14] I started. So I've lost it in here where stuff

[7:33:21] had the report. But. I think. If I could ask

[7:33:28] Director Cuba just to remind us what the cost. Options

[7:33:31] were in terms of addressing it. And I know, I

[7:33:34] understand the one isn't fully. Oada. But. Oh, is it

[7:33:42] okay? Sorry. I thought it was. Well. It's responsible. Stand

[7:33:48] up. Go ahead, executive director. Peg. Yeah. Thank you. Mayor

[7:33:52] Hamlin through. To Councilor Jeffrey. So in the report. And

[7:33:55] I'll start by apologizing. Certainly. Don't mean to dishearten counsel

[7:33:59] with some of the reports around. What's possible. We did

[7:34:03] start looking into. What might be options for council to

[7:34:06] consider and quickly realize that we don't have access. To

[7:34:09] all the information we need. To give the best advice.

[7:34:14] Hence why in the recommendation we were suggesting if we

[7:34:17] wanted to go. Forward. If council did desire to go

[7:34:20] forward, that we went out to the market with a

[7:34:22] request. For information. So that we could see what is

[7:34:26] possible in a commercial setting. Unfortunately, when looking online, there's

[7:34:31] lots of options that are potentially available for residential there

[7:34:35] are some that say they're commercial. But there are building

[7:34:39] permits involved, engineering assessments that may need to be involved,

[7:34:43] we would recommend consultation with our accessibility advisory committee. And

[7:34:48] it therefore starts to feel. Very. Prohibitive. Which isn't the

[7:34:55] intention when we understand that this would be. A very

[7:34:59] positive step for accessibility. The costs are anywhere from the

[7:35:04] research we are able to do online, from 10,000. To

[7:35:10] a million dollars, depending on what option council selected. Chairlift

[7:35:14] option was between 10,000 to 20,000. But we did have

[7:35:19] some concerns. On their ability to be installed in a

[7:35:23] commercial setting and had some liability questions as well. Estimates.

[7:35:30] For the platform lift was 40,000 80,000. But again, we'd

[7:35:35] want more information. From suppliers to know if that estimate

[7:35:40] was accurate. And then when you get into elevators, you're.

[7:35:43] At a million dollars plus. So, basically. We recognize that

[7:35:48] this is a good move. In a positive direction for

[7:35:51] accessibility, but would need to ask the market what's possible.

[7:35:56] And what assessments would be required should council direct staff

[7:36:00] to. Go out and purchase a chair lick, there would

[7:36:03] be a process. We'd have to go. Through for building

[7:36:06] permits, et cetera, similar to any other commercial setting in

[7:36:10] our town. And I realized that was a long answer,

[7:36:13] but no. Make sure you have the right advice. No.

[7:36:16] Appreciate that very much. So the problem in terms of

[7:36:21] timing, and maybe you can help me with this through

[7:36:24] the mirror. Is, once we get to this RFI process

[7:36:28] is the same as what councilor Potts? Was already saying

[7:36:31] before about the planning for the open space. All of

[7:36:33] a sudden, you're. A year and a half. You're two

[7:36:35] years out. And. It's municipal government is the worst possible

[7:36:41] place to get things done. So I guess.

[7:36:52] The ask would be to put in. I guess up

[7:37:02] to 100,000. That would facilitate either. Two lifts and or

[7:37:08] a platform lift. And then have staff start the process

[7:37:13] of looking into it, knowing the funding was there. Looks

[7:37:18] like maybe it's 80,000. Is the platform, lister. Between 40

[7:37:24] and 80. Yeah, but. There's always some other cost plus

[7:37:28] that goes into having. To do the research or whatever.

[7:37:35] Well, maybe that's quite a difference. I wish maybe could.

[7:37:37] I'll ask when it's my turn to talk. Go ahead.

[7:37:40] That's fine. If it's 80,000 we can do 80,000. I'm

[7:37:44] not sure. If we only need the two chairlifts, there's

[7:37:48] going to be some money left. Over. If there's a

[7:37:51] commercial way of doing that. That. Doesn't open us up

[7:37:56] to vulnerability in terms of liability. And I'd like to

[7:38:00] put that place marker in there. We did such a

[7:38:03] fabulous job. With our facilities in 2008 with the Ontario

[7:38:06] Paralympic Winter championships, the curling club, whatever. But we've. Really

[7:38:10] fallen behind in terms of that accessibility. In our older

[7:38:15] facilities, and I think this is one case where we

[7:38:19] can do a bit of catch up in a building

[7:38:21] that's used for a lot of functions and for people

[7:38:24] who would really like to get to that next level.

[7:38:27] In the warmer. Okay, councilor. Pause. Thanks, Mary. Evelyn, I

[7:38:31] have a question. I'm assuming through. You to executive director

[7:38:34] peg if there is an individual currently tomorrow that requested

[7:38:39] to access the second level of the Eddie Bush that

[7:38:42] had. Accessibility challenges, and they couldn't get up there. What

[7:38:47] do we tell them? How do we relay that? How

[7:38:52] are we dealing with it now? If there was that

[7:38:55] situation. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through to councilor

[7:39:01] pod. So it would be definitely on. A case by

[7:39:03] case scenario. And also we'd be looking at. What is

[7:39:09] the item that they're looking to access that was on

[7:39:11] the second floor and could it be something that could

[7:39:14] be accessed depending on the individual's abilities? Through town hall.

[7:39:18] Up to the second level. That being said, I think

[7:39:22] there would be potentially legal implications that we'd want to

[7:39:26] explore. And potentially require closed session discussion on some previous

[7:39:30] case law. Is there a seconder for the motion? Okay,

[7:39:36] is there a seconder for councilor Jeffrey's? Motion on stairblast

[7:39:39] council. Councilor Potts. 80,000. Yeah.

[7:39:52] Deputy mayor. Clarification, please, through you to Councilor Jeffrey. Funds

[7:39:57] coming from. I guess the funds we're working on right

[7:40:02] now. I don't know if there's the treasurer could advise.

[7:40:10] Through the mayor if there were any other avenues for

[7:40:13] the funding to come from. But treasure grant. I don't

[7:40:17] know if we have any accessibility reserve funds or those

[7:40:20] kinds. Of things. We could raise taxes, which is what

[7:40:24] we're discussing now. We could also use the general. Reserve,

[7:40:28] and we do have the working capital reserve, should that

[7:40:30] be needed as well, if you prefer. To come from

[7:40:32] existing reserves. Follow up, if I may. Sure. That's kind

[7:40:39] of tomatoes. Tomatoes, right. Because the surplus will go into.

[7:40:46] Reserves, right? But I think the main thing is that

[7:40:50] the plan is for it to come from reserves. And

[7:40:54] I'll support it for that reason. Canceling. Thank you. Just

[7:41:03] one more question. That. If we're going to set aside

[7:41:06] $80,000, is that what we're going to see what we

[7:41:09] can get for 80,000. And what if we can't? Get

[7:41:12] anything for that. I'm thinking that there's going to be

[7:41:15] a lot more. Work. Than I'd like to say. We've

[7:41:18] been able to get it. But I think we got

[7:41:21] to not even consider the stair lifts to me. They're

[7:41:26] just basically something you'd install at home. For yourself. Like

[7:41:30] you know all us old. Counselors. That's what we'll be.

[7:41:34] Stalin. But. The other lift is. We got to meet

[7:41:41] building codes. We got to meet a whole bunch of

[7:41:43] standards before we can. Even say whether we can install

[7:41:46] them. I'll support it if we know we can get

[7:41:51] it done. For 80,000, I just wondering, is there going

[7:41:54] to be a lot more hidden costs before we get

[7:41:57] to the 80,000? Executive director. Do you have any thoughts

[7:42:04] on that? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through to Councilor Ring.

[7:42:12] The rough estimate that we were able to obtain from

[7:42:15] doing some research online was that the lists themselves would

[7:42:18] be 40,000, $80,000 if there was any additional assessments that

[7:42:24] were required above and beyond those list costs, it may

[7:42:27] be appropriate to earmark $100,000 that being said, We're not

[7:42:33] sure if one or two lifts would be required. Maybe

[7:42:35] one would be sufficient. But certainly consultation with the accessibility

[7:42:39] advisory committee would help us in determining what number of

[7:42:42] lists would be appropriate. And I'm sorry I can't be

[7:42:46] more helpful in terms of pricing, we're. Going by research

[7:42:49] we were able to do. On the topic. Yeah. Thank

[7:42:54] you, Catherine. Just to follow up, then, if that's the

[7:42:58] case. Could I amend the original motion to 100,000? Sure.

[7:43:03] That's where I started. And. I would accept that. Okay.

[7:43:06] Thank you. And the seconder, do they agree? Yeah. Okay.

[7:43:12] This is a hard one. This is a hard one

[7:43:14] for me because. I think we know that the Eddie

[7:43:18] Bush is not an accessible structure. Luckily, you can get

[7:43:23] in. On the main floor. And see what's happening and

[7:43:28] use the washroom. But if you wanted to go up.

[7:43:31] To the second level. You're not getting there. And that

[7:43:35] is a very well used facility, and that's a shame.

[7:43:40] On the other hand. This whole building needs to be

[7:43:44] renovated. I mean, it's like putting lipstick on a pig.

[7:43:47] I think we're spending over 200,000 this year's budget. To

[7:43:52] sort of do the band aids for this year. I

[7:43:55] don't know what the right answer is. I think a

[7:43:57] future council is going to have to make a decision,

[7:44:00] hopefully with the blues. On funding what needs to be

[7:44:07] done there, or if we have a replacement facility or

[7:44:11] whatever comes. Of it. But. I can all support. This

[7:44:20] motion. But I'm going to say reluctantly, I so want

[7:44:24] people to be access every one of our buildings to

[7:44:26] everywhere they want to go, but. I'm so conflicted about

[7:44:31] this building because. It needs so much work and. It's

[7:44:37] still not there. So, anyway, that's what I think. Everyone

[7:44:43] want to vote? Okay, all those in favor? One. Okay,

[7:44:50] that's unanimous. That was easy. Okay. Yes, sorry. See you.

[7:44:56] Thank you. Through the chair. I did want to make

[7:44:59] a quick, positive comment on municipal government being the responsible

[7:45:04] place to get things done. We are. The closest to

[7:45:09] the people. I know that our council members here. From

[7:45:13] people every day. And staff hear from people every day,

[7:45:16] too. I think Collingwood does punch above its weight, and

[7:45:19] we do get a lot done. So I just wanted

[7:45:22] to put that on the record. And we'll arm wrestle

[7:45:26] about it later. No, we do good things. We do

[7:45:29] great things. Here, but it just takes a long time.

[7:45:33] Those darn procurement roles, too. Okay, I won't go there.

[7:45:39] Okay. So just. Can I clarify with the treasure? So

[7:45:43] the 100 was coming out of reserves, was that. The

[7:45:46] motion. Okay, so we're still at 475. No, sorry. 375.

[7:45:56] Okay, to get us to the 2.5% local blended 2.4.

[7:46:02] Did we want to put more funds into the reserves.

[7:46:07] Houser Doherty. Oh, you had your motion. You were deferring

[7:46:09] your motion. Thank you. So your motion was to take.

[7:46:15] 50 into each of those reserve funds, right, for a

[7:46:19] total of 100,000. And. These are reserves. Right. So that

[7:46:26] would mean we'd have to. The 375 would become 475

[7:46:31] that we would need. Out of the 680 if we

[7:46:35] were to use those funds. Okay. All right. Seconder. Seconderbank's

[7:46:41] comments. I know. We've heard you. So that's why I

[7:46:45] want to hear from somebody. Else. This is a different

[7:46:51] motion. I thought you had already calmed. I was going

[7:46:55] to let you speak, but I thought you had. Already

[7:46:57] spoken on this. Okay, go ahead. Again. It's a tomatoes,

[7:47:04] tomatoes thing, right? You're taking it out of. The you're

[7:47:10] reducing. Your overall surplus. By now. If you put this

[7:47:16] through, $475,000, that would have ended up going into lifecycle

[7:47:20] reserve. And I was trying to get you to agree

[7:47:25] to reduce the component. Of increase for lifecycle reserve. And

[7:47:32] what you're doing now is you're actually taking more out

[7:47:34] of lifecycle. Reserve. So. I'm going to support it. I

[7:47:39] don't disagree. That. Really? 150,000 is in a substantial amount,

[7:47:45] right? Because again, as I say, it's just tomatoes and

[7:47:49] tomatoes. It's not the way you typically, in my opinion,

[7:47:54] would do your setting your budget. You're notified of your

[7:47:59] surplus and you look at your impacts on your lifecycle

[7:48:02] reserve. And make your decisions about your asset management. And

[7:48:08] that would have given you room to do what you're

[7:48:10] doing. So I will support this, though, because, as I

[7:48:15] say, it's similar to the lyfts. That it is coming.

[7:48:20] From reserve. Okay. All right. Anyone else like to speak

[7:48:26] to this? All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank

[7:48:32] you. So. I think. The next question is. Whether we

[7:48:41] will use. The 680,000 to pay for the $475,000. Am

[7:48:49] I right on this next decision? Anyone want to move

[7:48:53] that? Elsa dougherty.

[7:49:07] I will move it to start the discussion. Okay? Any

[7:49:10] second. Or councilor McCulloch. And this would just recap here.

[7:49:18] 680. Minus 475 is 50 two. So if we were

[7:49:27] to use the 680 portion of the surplus. To cover

[7:49:33] 475,000 that we've been talking about here, which. Would keep

[7:49:38] our local tax rate to 2.5%. It would also leave

[7:49:43] 205,000 of the 680 to go into the lifecycle reserves.

[7:49:49] So we'd have 205 in the lifecycle reserves. We'd have

[7:49:52] 100 into the reserves. For the murph and the art

[7:49:56] center. And we would have 375 into other things. Okay,

[7:50:01] anyone else want to comment? Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor

[7:50:05] Hamlin. Again. No surprise. I'm not going to support it.

[7:50:12] Again. $655,000 of what you're doing is going to impact

[7:50:20] 27. So that's percent and a half. The other side

[7:50:25] of the whole thing is. I just can't. Use the

[7:50:33] funds for a short period of time, knowing it's going

[7:50:36] to put it on. To the next council. So I'm

[7:50:39] not supportive of it. I do intend on putting on

[7:50:42] the table again about the asset management reduction, which will

[7:50:47] help reduce that way. But I'm not in favor of

[7:50:50] using those funds specifically the way they're being. Incorporated in

[7:50:54] this. Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak

[7:50:57] to this? So we'll. Bring it to a vote. All

[7:51:00] those. Sorry. Pardon. I'm confused, Mayor Hamlin. I thought that's

[7:51:05] what we were voting to do. As we voted on

[7:51:07] each of these things that it was coming out of

[7:51:08] the 680 because you were adding it up, so I

[7:51:10] don't know why we're doing this again, okay? Is that

[7:51:13] what everyone else filed? Okay, so there we go. No

[7:51:17] need to vote. Thank you. Voting is overrated. Okay, what

[7:51:23] else do we have to do here? Okay, motion to

[7:51:27] extend. Are we ready for one more hour or what?

[7:51:33] That's the other things. We're almost done. Are we almost

[7:51:36] done on the budget? No. How come? You got plenty

[7:51:43] to tap, so pardon me. Thank you, Mary Hanlon. I

[7:51:47] think we could use another when we're less tired. Just.

[7:51:50] To do one final review and any final, other suggestions,

[7:51:53] so I think it's going to take another. Okay, we

[7:51:56] have one suggestion. Not to extend an hour. I'll just

[7:52:00] say. On the agenda still for today. Perhaps the clerk

[7:52:06] could help us decide whether there's anything we need to

[7:52:09] deal with other than. Another option is to recess the

[7:52:14] meeting and we can reconvene it on another date. Before

[7:52:18] the 15th at the sensor. Okay. Recess. The meeting. So

[7:52:25] what she was saying is we would recess it so

[7:52:27] we could reconvene at another day before the 15th. I

[7:52:33] think there's some interest in getting the budget finalized in

[7:52:37] December, if we could. So. The. Clerk. She's going to

[7:52:47] canvass people's availability. Is that right? The recess be part.

[7:52:50] Of. I don't know if we have many items on

[7:52:52] December 8, right? Push it to next Monday. So Kriopol.

[7:52:59] Okay, and again, I'll just ask the clerk. Is there

[7:53:02] anything on the rest of the agenda for the committee

[7:53:05] of the whole that can't wait in your view to

[7:53:09] next Monday. You could do the confirmatory bylaw. Okay.

[7:53:21] No. We're recessing. Yeah. I think if you want to

[7:53:25] quickly run through the other aims, we can just defer,

[7:53:27] so. It's just the budget conversation on the 8th. You

[7:53:29] can do that? So is that agreeable, Councilor Jeffrey? For

[7:53:38] sure. Okay, so. Were you going to say something? Yeah.

[7:53:44] I understand that. Thank you. Through you that we're about

[7:53:48] at the end of our brain. Power for the budget

[7:53:50] tonight. I did hear the deputy mayor say that he

[7:53:54] was going to make a proposal. I was wondering. If

[7:53:57] there was a way that we could hear a bit

[7:53:59] about the proposal and thus be well. Prepared with numbers

[7:54:03] and the like at the next meeting, if that works

[7:54:06] for the deputy and the chair. Yeah, go ahead. Thank

[7:54:09] you. And I've already provided treasurer with some information, but

[7:54:13] unfortunately. It could only be today. So I knew that

[7:54:17] the likelihood would be that it would carry over into

[7:54:20] the next meeting, so. It should be okay. I do

[7:54:24] anticipate that the treasurer and I will do some emailing

[7:54:27] back and forth. To make sure that the clear. But

[7:54:32] basically what I'm coming forward with is a reduction of

[7:54:35] the 1.2 that's proposed in the budget for the asset

[7:54:39] management. And I've started to explain the reasoning to the

[7:54:44] treasurers through the email. Okay.

[7:54:53] So what's left on the committee as a whole starts

[7:54:57] on page seven of the agenda. I guess at item

[7:55:00] 15.3. So can I turn the chair back to you?

[7:55:07] Sure, if you want. Or you can keep rolling, but

[7:55:10] I'll try and get through it. As quickly as I

[7:55:11] can. Go ahead. Okay. Item 15.3, deputations unregistered. Thank you,

[7:55:18] chairper. We do have one individual online if they would

[7:55:21] like to address the committee. At this time, please press

[7:55:24] the raise your hand feature at the bottom of your

[7:55:26] screen. Okay. Thank you.

[7:55:36] Item 15.4 reports minutes of other committees and boards. The

[7:55:41] recommendation is that the following minutes of other committees and

[7:55:44] boards be received and the recommendations contained therein be approved.

[7:55:49] Minutes, trails and active Transportation Advisory Committee, October 9, 2025.

[7:55:56] Minutes. The Collingwood Heritage Committee, November 6, 2025 and the

[7:56:01] minutes for the accessibility advisory committee, October 16 2025. Can

[7:56:07] I have a mover? Councilor Potts. Seconded. Councilor, ring all.

[7:56:12] In favor. Rolling right along. Okay. Item 15.5. Old or

[7:56:20] deferred business. Anything. Don't hold that up. Okay. Thank you.

[7:56:31] Item 15.6 other business. No other business. Item 15.7, notice

[7:56:38] of motions. Mayor Hamlin.

[7:56:49] No, I know Deputy Mayor Friars was, but I think

[7:56:52] Mayor Hamlin had something, I believe. Sorry. Thank you. My

[7:56:56] notice is that I will bring a motion at the

[7:56:59] next meeting. To request. A stop sign be installed at

[7:57:05] the intersection. To make it a four way stop at

[7:57:09] the intersection of Cedar and third. And that also we

[7:57:14] ask staff to consider a phase in for the rest

[7:57:19] of intersections in our community. In residential areas. And third

[7:57:25] part would be that the school and safety zones. Be

[7:57:30] given a priority in that phase in. Okay. Thank you.

[7:57:36] Item 15.8.1 rise from committee of the whole the motion

[7:57:42] is to and the recommendation is. Sorry. That council herein

[7:57:46] rise from committee as a whole in return to regular

[7:57:49] council. Meeting. Can I have a mover? Councilor McCullough, seconded

[7:57:53] vice chair. Baines. All in favor? And that is unanimous.

[7:58:00] Thank you. And at this point, I'm looking for a

[7:58:02] motion to recess this meeting. We can do the confirmatory

[7:58:07] bylaw and the adjournment, and we'll. Just add. Change. We're

[7:58:14] not recessing. Okay. Confirmatory bylaw. Is that bylaw number 20?

[7:58:18] 25 84, being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of

[7:58:22] the regular meeting of council held December 1, 2025 be

[7:58:26] enacted and passed this first day of December 2025, mover

[7:58:30] and I seconder deputy mayor seconded. By councilor Dougherty. All

[7:58:34] those in favor? Passed unanimously. And we have a fight.

[7:58:39] But I think I saw councilor Potts go up. First.

[7:58:43] For an adjournment. All those in favor? Adjourned. Thank you,

[7:58:46] everybody. It was tough. We almost didn't make it.

Council - Committee of the Whole

Agenda

Transcript