Good afternoon, everyone. Calling to order the council meeting for
Monday, December 1, 2025. And we're going to start. By
standing for the playing of our national anthem.
Please be seated. Our land. Acknowledgment today will be read
by Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you. Mayor Hamlin for more than
15,000 years, the first nations walked upon and cared for
the lands we now caught home Anishnabek hod Nashoni Ajibway
and many others who were families, friends and communities the
way we are today. The town of Collingwood acknowledges the
Lake Simcoe Natawa saga Treaty of 1818 and the relationship
it establishes with the original inhabitants of Turtle island, we
acknowledge the reality of our shared history and the current
contributions of indigenous people within our community, we seek to
continue empowering expressions of pride amongst all. Of the diverse
stakeholders in this area, we seek to do better and
to continue to recognize, learn, and grow in friendship and
community, nation to nation. Thank you. Now, I have a
motion to adopt the agenda. The motion as follows, that
the content of the council committee of the whole agenda
for December 1, 2025 be adopted as amended. There's two
amendments, the addition of staff report for item 15.2.2, staff
proposed budget and this is draft number two and. Secondly,
we're going to switch the order in item 15.2. There's
two. Items there and we're going to deal with the
budget first, which is the second item. And then we'll
deal with the master servicing plan contract as the second
item. Could I have a mover in a second, please?
Councilor Jeffrey. Seconded by councilor. Potts comments. Thank you, Mayor
Hamlin, for a few reasons, including additional information I've got
since the release of the draft agenda at this time,
I'm going to withdraw the notice of motion. At 15.71,
likely to bring something forward a later date after the
pre consultations on provincial budget occur. Thank you, Councilor Jeffrey.
Thank you, mayor. Hamlin and just heads up, I propose
to pull from 8.3.1. C 2020 514 with respect to
governance. For some input. Sorry, I'm just looking here. 8.3.1.
And the committee of the whole and it's. C 2020
514 council governance structure. Got it. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. And with those other matters listed. All those in
favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you. Are there any declarations
of pecuniary interest? Today. If you find yourself in that
position during the meeting, please let me know. The announcements.
We're going to start by hearing from our youth mayor
San v. Gupta. Welcome, Sandy. Hello. Thank you. Good evening,
everyone. Being announced as the calling with youth mayor in
late October was one of the biggest surprises and honors
of my life. I filled out the application, hoping to
learn about leadership, explore how our town works, and understand
all the different jobs that keep this community running, and
I got all of that and so much more. From
speaking on the radio to shadowing the finance department to
helping raise the pulley of flag, every experience to push
me to grow. And made me proud to represent the
youth of Collingwood. One of the biggest highlights was the
Remembrance Day parade, where I had the privilege of laying
the wreath on behalf of all young people in our
community. Moments like that reminded me how meaningful this role
truly is. I've also been really grateful for the recognition
I've gotten from our community, including the article that was
published about my work as a youth mayor. It's been
amazing to hear from people in town who notice what
I've been doing. And it made me realize how connected
we all are. I've had so much fun meeting everyone
here at council. And learning from each one of you.
Thank you for welcoming me, supporting me and taking the
time. To show me what real community leadership looks like.
And a special thank you to Mayor Hamlin and the
council members who chose me for this. Role. Thank you
for believing in me and trusting me with this responsibility.
A special thank you to Isabella as well for being
beside me throughout. As this is my final council meeting,
I just want to say how grateful I am for.
This opportunity. This experience has been a huge part of
my life and something I will always look back on.
With pride. But I also know this isn't the end.
It's just to start. Being a youth mayor has inspired
me to take on more leadership roles involved in continue
helping Collingwood in any way I can. Thank you again
for everything. It has been an honor to represent the
youth of this amazing community as a youth mayor.
Well, thank you so much for being our youth mayor
and for all your kind words today. Thank you. Thank
you for having me. Thanks. Now back to the regular
scheduled community announcements. How are you going to top that,
Deputy mayor? Exactly. That's always a tough act. Of all
of it, we've had such great use. Of marriage, and
congratulations on all your hard work. On November 18, along
with councilor Ring, we attended the first anniversary of the
Campbell street support of rapid rehousing project that is operated
by contact community services. As part of celebration of the
very successful twelve months of operation. They've served about 28
clients and have rehoused 13. To assist with senior homelessness.
The complex was renamed the Rogers Way home after the
very first. Person to move on to permanent housing. It
honors. That very first client. And it's a ball about
integrating into permanent housing for those over 55. The other
announcement I was going to make is that we're very
appreciative. Of the efforts of all the volunteers that are
participating as part of the Christmas Day feast team. This
is the return of a free community meal project that
is open and welcoming to anyone who needs a place
to go. Whether they are going to be spending a
day loan, experiencing food insecurity or. Simply looking to connect
with others. It's open to all denominations and ages. It
will take place from 1230 to 02:00. P.m. at the
legion on the 390 Ontario street. And so again, we're
so grateful to the team for bringing together. These people
in the spirit of caring community, wishing them all the
best in their efforts, and if you want to reserve
a seat, please just call our tremendous 2111 service. Thank
you. Thank you. Councilor Jeffrey thank you. Mary Hamlin, the
deputy mayor, just covered what I was hoping to bring
up tonight and maybe I would only. Expand with one
thing. To say that if you have the ability to
become a sponsor of this great event. Please contact the
organizers. I'm sure they can use all the help they
can to deliver. This wonderful event. Thank you. Thank you,
Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, mayor. Just a couple of items.
The first is. Last week on November 25, I participated
with you and members of council. In the raising of
the flag for international day of elimination of violence against
women. We do many flag raisings in this community, and
I hope for the day when it is no longer
necessary for us to do this one. This Wednesday, there
will be a virtual open house where residents can receive
an update on the waterfront. Development. It's between 630 and
730, and you can register online at Collingwood, CA. And
then finally, are you a newcomer to Collingwood? You can
find out virtually. Everything you need to know about your
residency, including waste pickup, library, schools, building permits. And much,
much more. All on the town website. Calling with ca.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor Hamlin. Just
a reminder that the outdoor Christmas market has returned. It
will be each Friday evening, and we'll continue Friday evenings
from 05:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m. Downtown until December 19.
You can enjoy the magic of the dancers from Fleetwood
Dance center in the store windows and strolling entertainers along
the street, taking a free horse and wagon ride, leaving
the town hall and visit with Santa's big red sleigh
at the open space. At 84 here, Ontario street, across
from town hall. And remember that Santa will also be
returning each sat. Saturday from noon to 03:00 p.m. until
December 20. And just on that I attended. The market
Friday night and then followed up with the Blues game.
And I just want to send an appreciation to director
Cubit and her staff. The sound system was spectacular. And
so it was with 1000 people in attendance, approximately. It
was very well known that. It's been upgraded, so thank
you. Counci. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. I just
have one announcement to make about the. Calling with the
affordable housing task force. Had another one other conversation. A
community conversation in the series that we know the issue.
Now let's talk solutions. This one was about how land
trust. Are building affordable communities. And can they work in
Collingwood? That was Wednesday, November 26, at the library as
well attended. It was originally we had to cut it
off because there's only so much room up there, so.
We had breakout tables that deputy Mayor Friar and myself
being on the affordable housing task force both facilitated a
table. And also in attendance from our council was councilor
Perry. The night went pretty well. There was a presentation
and. I am sorry. The girl's name is escaping, but
she's a representative of the canadian network of community land
trust, and she gave a very good presentation. It stirred
up a lot of conversation when we broke off into
the breakout tables. And whether we got any solutions from
this. There was a lot of good information and data
that was tabulated. And I'm sure that when coordinator. Dasuza
gets everything put together, we're going to hear about it.
At the next affordable housing task force, and hopefully it's
something we can look forward to. Helping. The crisis that
we have with lack of affordable housing in this town.
So that's all. I have. Thank you, Councilor Baines. Thank
you, Mayor Hamlin. Two items. Today, tomorrow, December. 2 is
giving Tuesday a global generosity movement. Celebrate by supporting the
Collingwood Museum's mission to preserve and share stories that. Shape
our community. Every donation, big or small, helps us care
for Collingwood's collection, creating, engaging experiences and makes history accessible
to everyone. This giving Tuesday. Your support helps us to
inspire curiosity, connection and pride in Collingwood's past. Today and
for years to come. You can donate in person at
the Collingwood museum during regular operating hours Tuesday to Saturday
from ten to four or over the phone by calling
705 4454-8111. Or. Going to their website at Collingwood causum.
Donations of $20 or more are, of course, eligible for
tax receipts. And the second item is that this morning
at 1015. I and 45 other volunteers attended at the
corner, actually at the Salvation army in a Congo line.
Of gifts, if you will. We were able. And I
know councilor Potts did this last year. We being members
of the Optimus Club of Collingwood, the employees of reliability
and the OPP. To unload two and a half trucks
totaling 1210 items. I won't say what. Those items are
for, but you can guess. This will go to make
the Christmases of some 245 families in this community, up
from. Up 40 families from last year, so the need
is there. It took us about 90 minutes in the
cold in this Congo line. Moving all of these items,
46 people. And in total. It was about $15,000 worth
of items, shall I say 4000 donated from the Optimus
club 12,000 from reliability. And I must say, shout out
to Cliff and Terry Hollingshead. Who are extraordinary in organizing
this year after year. And just to end it off,
as Terry said. Or Jenny. Excuse me. From the Salvation
army, the extraordinary. Generosity of this community. Continues to inspire.
And amaze them. So on their behalf and everyone's behalf,
thank you for all who participate. Thank you for that.
Councilor Perry. Thank you, mayor Hamlin. I do have two
library announcements. Genealogy club is a casual group for those
wanting to learn more about genealogy and to share tips
and information with others. New members are always welcome. The
next meeting is Tuesday, December 9, at 10:00 a.m. also
the library. Will be looking seasonal with winter. I spy
you can pick up your game card in the children's.
Area, and the search will take you through both floors
of the library. Once you find all the items, submit
a ballot for a chance to win your own board
game. All ages are welcome to play. And it's from
December 15 to the 23rd. I also will add that
during councilor Potts. Announcement regarding downtown, et cetera. We did
get an email that came in, and I'm sure he
would have covered this. But I just want to share
that the town of Collingwood is spreading holiday chair with
free parking. In downtown and municipal parking lots from Saturday,
December 6 to Sunday, January 4. Please note. Overnight. Parking
restrictions remain in effect from 01:00 a.m. till 07:00 a.m.
and for stays longer than 3 hours, please use the
municipal parking lots. Take advantage of this festive offer while
enjoying shopping, dining and seasonal activities in downtown Collingwood. Thanks
for the reminder, Councilor McCullough. Thank you, mayor. I had
two items, and they were very nicely covered by my
colleagues on council. I hear you. So I'm going to
just take a minute. To say how honored we all
should be by having the number of people who were
nominated for order of Collingwood this year. The committee. Had
a tough choice picking who should be the recipients. And
I'm just going to take a moment to say who
these people are. So the order of Collingwood, just for
those who need a little reminder. Is honoring those who,
through exemplary volunteer efforts in the community. Enrich the well
being. Social, natural or cultural environment of our community. And
we also award at the same time if there are
any nominated and worthy companion to the order of Collingwood.
And these are people who already receive the Order of
Collingwood award, but through their tireless volunteer efforts continue to
further five years. So the 2025 recipients of the Order
of Collingwood are these people? Barbara Kaiser Patterson, Deb. Pickett,
Pearl Simons, Claire Tucker Reid and Paul Azubik, and the
Companion to the order of Collingwood are Robert Graham and
Larry Hogarth. So. These presentations of the awards will take
place at the mayor's annual New Year's Levy, which will
be Sunday, January 11, at the bear State, opens at
130. Everyone is welcome. We have three deputations
today, and the first one is from the Collingwood climate
action team. Welcome. Yeah, just a moment. Catherine, Clark
has been okay. Thank you. Just to let the audience
know. Through our gallery that we do have a room
that's open just outside the council chambers. Called the brand
of room, where the same information is being shared and
displayed on a screen in there. If anybody who doesn't
have a seat and wants to sit down, it is
available. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Could you just state your
name and why you're here? Thank you. My name is
Catherine. Diam, the chair of the board for the Collingwood
climate action team, and I'm here. To make a funding
request. Good afternoon, everyone. Your honor, Mayor Hamlin, Deputy Mayor
Friar, Counselor, staff, and those in the audience before we
begin. I wanted to acknowledge the strong and trusting partnership
we've built with the town of Collingwood. Since 2019. Partnerships
like this just don't happen overnight. They take time, commitment,
and two parties willing to show up equally at the
table together. We've. Fostered a relationship, grounded and respectful dialogue,
shared problem solving, and a clear understanding of what the
climate crisis means for our community. We're also deeply grateful
for the financial support the town has provided since 2020.
The $20,000 contribution in 2022 gave us the confidence to
take an important step hiring Laura. Vermander as our part
time communications coronary. That role has since grown into our
director. Of community engagement. A key position that strengthens our
connection with residents. and we seriously appreciate the continued funding
in 2024 and 25 Now, we are here today to
request secure funding for the next three years as a
community climate. Action plan moves into implementation in 2026. This
is a pivotal moment, one where stable support will ensure
continuity, capacity, and meaningful action as we work alongside the
town and its citizens to deliver. On the goals of
the plan. Next slide. Since 2019, the Collingwood Climate Action
team has partnered closely with the town to advance climate
action, build awareness and help create a healthy, resilient community.
As Collingwood moves into implementation of its community climate action
plan in 2026. Sea Cat's role, along with our volunteers,
committees, and programs will be a core component of its
capacity to make crow progress. Next slide. Today we are
requesting. $40,000 per year for three years. $25,000 for core
operational support, including partial funding of our director of community
engagement and $15,000 to support CCAT's three core programs directly
tied to the implementation. Of the Collingwood Climate Action Plan.
We are suggesting that the funding could come from the
Green Legacy Reserve fund with no impact on. The town's
operating budget. Next slide. We have a track record in
alignment with the town. Seeing Cat played an active role
in developing the climate action plan. Our director of community
engagement served on the town's project team through every stage.
For five years, CCAT has delivered educational and action oriented
programming that complements municipal climate work. And directly supports community
participation. Our programs align closely with priority options within the
town's plan and help ensure. A successful transition from planning
to implementation. Next slide. While the town will take the
role of facilitating the implementation of the community climate auction
plan, It is a community wide responsibility requiring meaningful leadership
from community organizations. CCAT is poised to be one of
the primary leaders in community driven implementation, engaging residents, volunteers
partners and businesses. Next slide. Our existing programs, climate connect,
better homes, greener future, green Economy Canada and our annual
community mobilization event Earthfest, along with our working teams and
volunteers, will be important in supporting the planned success. These
programs are a core element of our strategic plan and
aligns with the initiatives that the Collingwood Climate community climate
action plan outline and its implementation. We've also ensured our
programming is easily accessible to all. We don't charge for
attending workshops, seminars. We provide free access to resources, tools,
and support, and we encourage members to join as volunteers
and get involved. Along the way. I'm also proud to
say that one of our volunteers has just become one
of our board members. And she's in the audience. Bianca
Creek, Earth's last. We'll be celebrating. Its fifth anniversary in
2026 and continues to grow annually. Annually, both in participation
and programming, to meet a broad community audience. Next slide.
Operational security strengthens our fundraising capacity. When our core operations
are supported, we can focus external fundraising on program expansion,
ensuring that donor and foundation dollars go directly to programs
and have greater impact. Next slide. With town support. It
strengthens our credibility with funders. A predictable municipal commitment signals
that Collingwood recognizes CCAT as an essential partner in building
the sustainable and resilient future. It aligns with how the
town already supports other key nonprofits. Several community organizations such
as Pride, GTHs, and Special Olympics have received multi year
town support, providing similar stability to CCAT ensures climate auction
is resourced as our other priority. Community initiatives next slide.
It also reduces pressure on town staff to extend a
higher level of effort. In the community plan. Stable cCAP
funding allows the climate change spousalist another staff to focus
on internal policy, corporate initiatives such as climate, lens integration,
implementation across departments, and effective facilitation efforts rather than becoming
involved with direct implementation efforts. While CCAT continues to build
and lead key community. Engagement and mobilization. Next slide. CCAT
respectfully asks the town of Collingwood to provide a three
year commitment. Of $40,000 per year, which could come from
the Green Legacy Reserve fund. This investment recognizes the town's
commitment to their declaration of a climate crisis Ccat's. Essential
role in implementing the community climate action plan and our
shared vision of a safe, healthy and resilient future for
everyone in Collingwood. Next slide. I'll take any questions that
you have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Catherine. Would
anyone like to ask questions? Go ahead, Councilor Dougherty. Thank
you, chair. And thank you, Catherine. Our climate action team
do such incredible work in our community, and I know
how hard you all work at it, so congratulations. Thank
you. Just wanted to be reminded as to what your
funding was last year. Through the council grant, we received
$7,984.14. Sure wasn't $0.15. No, it was not 15.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Go ahead. Deputy
MeL thank you, Mayor Hamillon, and thank you very much
for the presentation and everything that the team is doing.
I wondered if I could ask for you. Mayor Hamlin
to the treasurer. Could she update us? On how much
is in the green legacy fund that I guess at
the end of 24. Would be last recorded. Thank you.
Treasure. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin three you to the deputy
mayor. I would be happy to at the end of
2024, there was 1 million. 82,513, and interest that was
allocated to this reserve fund in 2024 was $35,833 thank
you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlet. It's just good information to
have. In regards to the presentation. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you for your presentation and taking. The time
to come here today. Okay. Thank you. Do you still
have something? not to catherine but thank you just through
the process i'm assuming this is just going to go
directly to the budget process then and we'll bring it
up there okay thank you okay thank you very much
everyone thank you The next deputation is Janet Carlyle. Objection
to proposed motion on protest.
It's a long time since I've done something like this.
So if I stumble. I stumble. Thank you, everybody, for
allowing me to have my time here. Madam Mayer, I
don't know. Where to put this. Members of council. People
in the assembly and people online. Thank you for hearing
me out today. And thank you for the opportunity to
be here. I am speaking collectively. For not just myself,
quite a few people within the community and Simcoe County.
Greater community and I will start out we object. This
motion before you today was allegedly brought forth because five
old white folks. I am one of those from this
town stood on the boulevard at CCI, protesting the. Presence
of the Friends of Simon Wesenthal Center, a group that
many prominent groups, including independent jewish voices and Avi Lewis,
who is the son of Stephen Lewis and Michelle Landberg.
Have a criticized in recent months for its political ties
to a foreign nation. That would be Israel delivering Holocaust
education to students while muslim arab voices are silenced in
Canada. However. Who is not what this is about. When
I spoke to Madam mayor on Friday, and we had
a great conversation at length, that was about an hour
long. She indicated this rally was simply the straw that
broke this camel's back and that the so to speak,
that it was actually about the continued rallies that we
had been holding downtown. Since May 10. This is about
free speech. This is about our right. Our collective right
as a community to be able to speak up. To
about your free speech. It's about my speech? My free
speech. And it's. About free speech for every other Canadian.
So let's talk about the elephant in the room. We
object. What this is really about, as stated earlier, is
the weekly rallies near town hall and an attempt to
shut them down. We object. I have been told that
this is about businesses in this town claiming they're losing
customers. Because of the rallies. Haven't heard from many customers,
haven't heard from many businesses. I have reached out to
the businesses. I have not heard anything back. What about
the palestinian businesses? And there are a few in this
town. Whose owners have been harassed at the farmers market
and elsewhere. Nobody's speaking up for them. We object. I
have been told that this is about excessive noise and
or nuisance. At what point is a noise a nuisance?
Is it during the summer when the pianos are out
an unskilled players bang away at the keys. Is it
when art crawl is on? And folks are singing with
the bands. Is it when an amateur musician is playing
at the farmers? Market. Is it when bagpipes practice at
Sunset Park? What constitutes a nuisance and who gets to
decide that? This is about free speech. We object. I've
been told that this is about children's mental health. In
fact, the headline from the recent Collingwood connection article reads,
leave the kids alone. And according to the mayor and
Ms. Feldman this is relative to the mental health of
the children who are being affected by us being downtown.
We object. We. Are all aware that mental health issues
are growing, especially since the pandemic and lockdowns the data
points to several reasons for this. Advocates say youth mental
health has been in decline over the last decade. The
pandemic certainly exacerbated these issues, leading to significant drops in
physical activity and socialization, particularly among girls. Excessive screen time.
Worries about the state of the world climate change have
further added to the problem. We are sympathetic to all
children's well being and concern that those who wish to
put this motion to infect. Are inferring we somehow are
responsible for the mental health of every child in this
community. That's preposterous. This is about free speech. We object.
I have been told that this is about us staying
away from areas where someone might be offended. The law
is clear. You do not have the right to not
be offended. It is not illegal to be offended. A
story. When I was getting treatment at Princess Margaret hospital
during Covid lockdowns, there were rallies. Almost every day in
the city. Some in front of PMH, some down at
Sanofi. Square, some at the Eaton center, organized by Antivaxx
folks, some directed towards staff trying to enter. The hospital,
some directed toward patients trying to get our treatments. Some
because of the masking up rules. Was I offended? Maybe.
Did I call the mayor and the police and the
papers and insist they shut it down. No. I do
not have the right to not be offended. This is
about free speech. We object? This motion was presented to
town council on November 17. I was not advised of
this. I am the founder of the Collingwood for Palestine
rally group. Instagram social media did not hear anything about
this. However, other people were notified. Several of us have
been speaking with town counselors since then. From what I've
been told not one was aware of why this was
being brought up forward. And a few of them have
said. They would have said yes without really thinking any
deeper, because they didn't think. It was such a big
deal. This is about free speech. We object. One of
the counselors at the end of that meeting on November
7 said, I know we're not supposed to say anything,
but I agree with this. He's referring to the issue
of our rallies. How many other counselors had been influenced
by his words. This is about. Free speech. We object.
The mayor has said you can protest in front of
me all day long, but leave. The kids alone. You
know who else said that? Roger Waters. Pink Floyd. Is
this the proposed bylaw? Just another brick in the wall.
This is about free speech. What about the mental health?
The Muslim Arab students? Did they not matter? No one's
speaking up for them. We object. According to our next
esteemed speaker, Michelle Feldman is quoted in a Collingwood connection
article this week. I support freedom of expression, but there
should be boundaries. Creating protocols and boundaries on how people
express themselves is in the best interests of the community.
We agree. That is why Collingwood has stringently enforced protections
for marginalized folks and laws against harassment, hate speech and
violence. That our children should feel protected and be safe
is not in question. However, this is not about freedom
of expression. This is about freedom of. Speech. Freedom of
expression is a broader concept that includes all forms of
communication, such as speech. Writing. Artistic work demonstrations. While freedom
of speech is often used interchangeably, Can specifically refer to
the right to voice opinions verbally. This is about free
speech. We object. And if any of our esteemed members
in this audience who are watching. Are. Of. Color? Indigenous
members of the LGBTQ two s a community asian, south
Asian, a pensioner standing on the side of the road
in front of Park Bridge, protesting rent hikes. A farmer
protesting for the rights of canadian farmers and rural communities.
A person with disabilities. Who objects to the ODSP amounts
or accessibility issues in this town, or if you are
a person who speaks up for climate change. You're opposed
to bill c nine or c. Five. Or if you
have a person who's concerned about, just so you know,
you have 1 minute left. Thank you. The watershed, the
water treatment plant or the DND? Site. We object. To
the community who enjoy Pride weekend. When Pride first started
in this town, it was because of protests. Now it's
a parade. I'll leave you with two quotes, one from
a young lady who lost her life during the Holocaust.
You will know her name. One who lost her life
during the genocide in Gaza. You will probably not know
her name. Anne. Frank. Whoever is happy will make others
happy in the long run. The sharpest weapon of all.
Is a kind and gentle spirit. Hindrajab, the six year
old child in Gaza whose family was murdered in their
car while she was even in it. Don't leave me
alone, mama. I'm hungry. I'm. Thirsty. I am wounded. Her
last words, recorded and spoken by the Red Crescent workers
who were murdered trying to save her. I'm so scared.
Please come. Come take me. Please. Will you come? And
nobody could because they were silenced. This is about free
speech for everybody in this town, not just some thank
you for your time. Thank you. Should I be taking
questions now? Would there be any questions?
No, I think you're good. Thank you. Thank you.
The next deputation this afternoon is Rochelle Feldman.
Few breaths. Okay. Usually I have my husband flipping the
slide, so I'm not sure how. This is working. Just
say next slide. Slide, please. Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin
and members of council. My name. Is Rochelle Feldman, and
I'm the chair of the Southern Georgian Bay jewish community.
I come before you today to speak both as an
executive board member but also as a jewish mother and
concern community member. That was slide one. And now we
can skip to slide two. For those of you who
may not know this. We have a vibrant, inclusive and
peaceful group of jewish people and families living here. In
Collingwood and the surrounding areas. Here are the kinds of
things that the southern Georgian Bay jewish community have been
doing in and around Collingwood, we believe and support Inc.
Inclusion, equity and diversity and actively promote peace and community
connection. We also happen to be local business owners, real
estate agents, doctors, teachers, lawyers and therapists, just to name
a few of our roles. I make mention of this
to say that not only do we live in peace
and togetherness, with our neighbors, but that we continue to
play essential roles in the building. And the strengthening of
the communities in which we live. Slide three would have
been some antisemitic posts that you would find on the
social media sites for Collingwood, for Palestine. And Simcoe for
Palestine. But they referenced particular people, and so they won't
be publicly shown. This is all despite the fact that
there are geopolitical events occurring at this time that have
caused an unprecedented rise in antisemitism not seen since 1940s
in Europe. But we're not here today to discuss this
or even to defend the truth. The geopolitical problems happening
halfway around the world, or even people's opinions and perspectives
on the matter. Living here in Collingwood. Are, in fact,
irrelevant to the issue at hand. Slide four. There is
no question that we're all in support and recognize the
importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and the need
to protect our freedom of expression, association and assembly in
section two. B, C and D of the charter. We
support council in upholding these rights. However, I'm here to
discuss the absolute need to address the inappropriate and disturbing
ways in which some of our neighbors, mainly members. Of
Simcoe for Palestine and Collingwood for Palestine are choosing to
exercise said rights under the guise of freedom of speech.
What we're all entitled to freedom of expression and to
associate with like minded individuals and. Organizations to assemble privately
or publicly to do so. We do not have the
right to violate our town bylaws while doing so, nor
do we have the right to violate other people's. Basic
human rights according to the Ontario Human Rights Code. Some
jurisprudence has already found that leg. Legal measures affecting freedom
of assembly through the reasonable regulation of public space and
associated health and safety. Matters do not infringe on the
charter right to freedom of expression. Section two C. Reference
Canada's Department of Justice and the center for constitutional studies
as a possible alternative to adopting a bubble zone by
law, although I'm not opposed. To that, of course. It
may be less labor intensive to consider amending our current
public nuisance bylaw and actually enforcing it. Slide five. The
town of Collingwood in 2013 attempted to address some of
the possible concerns when they signed a public nuisance bylaw,
2013. that specifically indicates that no
person shall loiter in any public place no person shall
participate in a fight in a public place and no
person shall engage with any type of disorderly conduct in
any public place some of the definitions of disorderly conduct
according to this bylaw means causing a public disturbance and
without the limiting The generality of the foregoing includes yelling,
screaming, shouting, singing, swearing, and interfaith fearing with reasonable enjoyment
of someone else at a public place. I'd like to
also note that newsin shall mean an activity that causes
an unsafe environment and affects the well being of persons.
Or enjoyment of a public place and shall be limited
to the activities. Described in section 30. Slide seven would
have been a video. That basically was a bit of
a montage of some clips of some of the protests
that have happened? Yes, at the school, but also downtown
to show you sort of the yelling, the screaming. The
swearing, the assaults that are occurring, the threats, but it
apparently wasn't considered. Appropriate for counsel, which I totally support
and understand, and I don't feel like that's. An infringement
on my freedom of speech, but I will say that
if it's not. Appropriate here in chambers. It's equally inappropriate
outside of chambers. As the chair of the Southern Georgian
Bay Jewish Community, I can report on some of what
is actually taking place at these gatherings by our protesters.
In the video, which I'm happy to share with anyone
that contacts me directly. You will see unruly behavior, shoving
of bystanders, antisemitic shouts calling. Jewish people, Nazis, disorderly conduct
and nuisance activity in a public space, all in contravention.
Of Collingwood's 2013 public nuisance bylaw. Slide eight. This is
not peaceful assembly and has moved beyond the scope covered
under the Charter of Rights and protected by the law
according to Canada's Department of Justice. Now, let's talk about
the impact this is having on our community. They've ruined
our full enjoyment of the market. In downtown on weekends
because of their theatrics and hostility. They have harassed, threatened
and intimidated people shopping. And passing by the gathering on
the sidewalk, whether they were jewish or not, with shouting
and swearing. And yelling. Why? Banging on pots and pans.
They've caused a security concern for a community such that
we have to involve the police in all public events
involving jewish people. Or jewish organizations because our members are
afraid for their physical safety. Our children don't feel safe
at school because the protesters behavior and harassment tourists are
avoiding the downtown core because it's no longer a quaint
town, but a town with unhinged and angry people projecting
their instability and hate onto anyone that happens to challenge
their facts. These protester. Protesters have disrupted, threatened to, and
actually assaulted locals when questioned. Our elders are being retraumatized.
By the open displays of hate against the jewish community,
reminiscent of a time in history that resulted in entire
families being wiped out. A time that none of us
ever thought we would ever see again in our lifetimes.
Kids are afraid. To go downtown or to the market
for fear of. Confrontation, and jewish families are reporting that
their children are afraid to place menorahs in windows. Or
to visibly and publicly identifies Jewish in Collingwood for fear
of the hate and harassment they might be met with.
I've had to start a support group for people struggling
with the increase. Of antisemitism, and 30% of the people
in attendance are not even. Jewish, even the non jewish
community is suffering with having to deal with the same
harassment that we are. And yet not knowing how to
stand up for what's right without becoming a target. Themselves
as a mental health professional, I'll tell you that these
types of disruptive and aggressive public gatherings. Absolutely are negatively
impacting the sense of safety, actual safety, and certainly the
overall well being of the community as a whole. Harassing,
threatening, intimidating, scaring, retraumatizing, assaulting. Verbally attacking people in our
community has caused anxiety, fear and depression. And when people
become depress. Depressed, they withdraw and isolate, thereby increasing their
risk of harming behaviors, all of which ultimately increases a
person's risk of suicide. This is not peaceful assembly and
association and how we exercise. Our right to freedom of
speech. Slide nine. I would like to ask council to
bring a motion. To make amendments to its current nuisance
bylaw. To include specifically listing school zones in your definition
of public places. I'd also like to see an update
to the term violence that will now reflect the term
adopted in the family law. Courts that would encompass a
broader definition. This would include violence in all of its
forms, physical, psychological, emotional and verbal examples of such might
be. And include harassment, stalking, surveillance, and trolling a person
or group or organization. Physical aggression, threatening, intimidating. Or verbally
attacking a person or group with the use of swear
words or derogatory terms. Slide ten. I come here today
to ask on behalf of all members of the Collingwood
community, to make it stop. Amend and strongly enforce your
bylaws in a matter that achieves just balance while considering
the interests of the rest of us who are just
trying to live in peace and enjoy all that our
town has to offer. And if making an amendment to
your current nuisance bylaw, is not possible. Then consider a
bubble zone by law, like the ones in Toronto and
Vaughn, but. Most. Importantly, take back your power to protect
and regulate public health and safety and well being of
our community. According to Canada's Department of Justice, municipalities have
the right to regulate or interfere with the activities the
association, group, or protesters choose to pursue, including but not
limited to behaviors Act. Actions and locations the group undertakes.
I'm happy to provide any resources needed or references to
any of these things, and I will state that these
are not my opinions. I have sought legal counsel. That's
it. Thank you. Thank you. Would there be any questions?
No, I think we're good. Thank you very much for
coming today.
If anyone wants to leave now, feel free.
The next item on our agenda is a public planning
meeting, and there's quite a long intro. I have to
read, so I'll get started here. Welcome to Collingwood's public
planning meeting for proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendments
for the property. At 11403 Highway 26, located on the
south side of Highway 26. No decision will be made
this afternoon. The purpose of this meeting is to introduce
and obtain public comments on the proposed official plan and
zoning bylaw amendments. The meeting will begin with presentations by
staff and the applicant. Members of the public will then
be invited to offer their comments or questions regarding the
proposal. Once the public portion of the meeting has been
completed. No more public comments or questions will be allowed.
At today's meeting. I will then ask council. Members if
they have any questions. Once all public and counselor questions
and comments have been received, staff will have an opportunity
to respond. Or provide clarification, if appropriate. All questions and
comments specific to the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw
amendments will be addressed in a future staff report. It
is very important the town receives the correct names, email
addresses and mailing addresses of. The individuals having an interest
in this application. If you plan to speak to council
at this meeting or if you want to be notified
of any future council or committee meetings concerning the application
being considered, you must provide this information. Public comment and
feedback on development proposals are important to the town of
Collingwood and are in a core part of a transparent
and inclusive land use planning process. We encourage you to
express comments, verbally or in writing. However, please note that
the rights of third parties. To appeal official planning zoning
bylaw amendment decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal have been
restricted under the Planning act. If you do not make
an oral submission today or a written submission to council
before the council decision. You may not be added as
a party to the appeal before the Ontario land tribunal
unless in the opinion of. The tribunal, there are reasonable
grounds to do so. This meeting is being recorded and
streamed on the municipal YouTube channel. Your name, address, comments
and other personal information are being recorded according to the
municipal act and the municipal freedom of information. And Protection
of Privacy Act. The minutes will be available to the
general public on the town's website. I will ask the
planning services also confirm the notification that the public has
been given as required. By the planning act within their
presentation today. Again, I would like to remind everyone that
no decision will be made today and the official plan
and zoning bylaw amendments will be considered by council. On
a future date. I will now turn over the microphone
to community planner Wainwright. Welcome. Staff and members of the
public. My name is Jocelyn Wainwright, and I'm the community
planner. Assigned to the file for the proposed official plan
and zoning bylaw amendments for lands municipally addressed as one
1403 Highway 26, also known as Reverie. This public meeting
is a statutory requirement under the Planning act. Next slide,
please. The agenda for this afternoon will follow the town's
standard public meeting format. Mayor Hamlin. Has already introduced the
public meeting. The remainder of the meeting will consist of
confirmation of public notice. Overview of the town's development review
process, a summary of the applications provided by staff and
a brief presentation by the applicants. There will then be
time for public comments and questions, followed by council comments
and questions. Next slide please. In accordance with the Planning
Act, I confirm that a notice of public meeting was
circulated to internal and external agencies on October 31, 2025,
and was also published in the Collingwood today online newspaper
on October 29. And amended notice was published on November
5. The amended notice was published to include legislatively required
language that was absent from the original notice. This satisfies
the statutory notice requirement under the Planning act. Additionally, as
a courtesy, the notice and amended notice were mailed to
the property owners. And condominium corporations within. 120 meters of
the subject property. Next slide, please. Before getting into a
discussion on the current proposal, I wanted to provide a
high level overview of the property's development history. In 2022,
council approved a vacant land condo for the entirety of
the property. At that time, council also granted site plan
approval and servicing allocation for the residences at Silver Creek
which is the development located on the western half of
the property and is comprised of three apartment buildings containing
187 rental apartment units. From the outset, a townhouse development
has been contemplated for the eastern half of the property.
However, when council made its decision in September of 2022,
There was insufficient servicing capacity available to facilitate the approval
of the entire development across the whole property. So only
the apartments were approved at that time. With additional servicing
capacity available in 2023. A site plan consisting of twelve
buildings with a total of 60 bungalow townhouse units for
the east lands was conditionally approved by the director of
growth and development and servicing allocation was approved by council.
Fast forward to December of 2024. The proponent. In light
american conditions submitted a pre consultation application for official plan
and zoning bylaw amendments to facilitate a revised development concept
for the Eastlands. Which brings us to the current point
in time. Next slide, please. This slide provides a general
overview of the town's development review process. The steps highlighted
in blue have been completed. As noted, the applicant had
initiated pre consultation with staff. Last winter and formal official
plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications were submitted in September,
2025. The submission was circulated to all internal departments, external
agencies and peer reviewers for technical review and comment. The
amended notice of public meeting was subsequently circulated and published
on November 5, 2025. This brings us to step six,
the statutory public meeting, and this afternoon we will receive
comments from members of the public on the proposed official
plan and zoning bylaw amendments. Next slide, please. The subject
property is located on the south side of Highway 26
and is located southwest of the town owned Carmichael Reservoir.
The subject development is within the broader residences at Silver
Creek development. Surrounding land uses include residential condominium developments, including
lighthouse Point to the North Rupert's landing to the east
and wild wood to the south. The proposed development includes
twelve one and a half story stack townhouse buildings containing
124 dwelling units, 149 service parking spaces includ. Including four
accessible parking spaces, an outdoor amenity area and site landscaping
are also proposed. Next slide, please. The conceptual site plan
shown on the screen was received from the applicant in
support of the subject. Application submitted in September. The staff
townhouse units are grouped within twelve buildings or blocks. The
parking area contains 149 parking spaces, including four accessible spaces,
and site landscaping is also provided. further cash in lieu
of parkland was provided through the broader development application notwithstanding
The development proposes an outdoor amenity area, shown here with
a children's play structure. Next slide, please. This slide includes
a conceptual rendering of one of the proposed one and
a half story stack townhouse buildings. The building on display
would include eight units, four of which would be partially
below grade. And the remaining four units would be wholly
above grade. Next slide, please. This slide shows the applicable
land use designations in the 2024 official plan. The portion
of the subject property where the development is proposed is
designated existing neighborhoods. The intent of the existing neighborhood's. Designation
is two, among other matters, provide housing in a variety
of residential forms. Such as apartment buildings, townhouses, single, detached
and semi detached dwellings. The existing neighborhood's designation permits residential
units in both low rise and mid rise buildings. Built.
Forums that are considered to be low rise include, but
are not limited to single detached dwellings duplex and semidetached
dwellings, streets, townhouses, and any other use that is accommodated.
In a building that is a maximum of three stories
or 11 meters in height, whichever is less. The new
official plan permits mid rise buildings with a maximum height
of eight stories or 27 meters. Whichever is less. As
of right, however, the developer is maintaining the original low
rise building form that was contemplated previously. Next slide, please.
The proposed residential development includes one and a half story
tall stack tone house buildings, which fall under the low
rise building category. The official plan provides that low rise
building shall have a minimum density of ten units per
net. Hectare and a maximum density of 40 units per
net hectare. The purpose of the proposed official plan amendment
is to redesignate the subject lands. Sorry. Can you go
back one slide? Thank you. The purpose of the proposed
official plan amendment is to redesign. Redesignate the subject lands
from existing neighborhoods to an existing neighborhood. Site specific designation
to increase the maximum permitted density of 40 units per
net hectare for low rise buildings to permit 68 units
per hectare to facilitate the proposed one and a half
story stack. Townhouse buildings. Next slide, please. With respect to
zoning, the entirety of the property is owned residential. Third
density exception 33 or r 33. However, the proposed zoning
bylaw amendment would apply only to the portion of the
property that is within the development area as shown in
the figure on the right. Next slide, please. The provisions
of the r 333 zone specify that the permitted uses
shall be limited to single, detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings, apartment
dwellings, and grouper cluster dwellings. As the zoning bylaw defines
the term stack townhouse, dwelling separately from. A townhouse dwelling
stack. Townhouse dwellings are not currently. At permitted use on
the subject property. Therefore, the proposed zoning bylaw amendment would
amend the r 333 zone to add site specific provisions,
including that. A stack townhouse dwelling be a permitted use
and that the stack townhouse development shall require. A minimum
of 149 parking spaces, including four accessible parking spaces. Next
slide, please. The town has received comments from Enbridge, Simcoe
county and the Simcoe County District School board in response
to the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendments. Planning
services has also received comments from town divisions and peer
reviewers who are identified on this slide. Further comments are
anticipated as the technical review continues. Next slide, please. Today
we have received comments from four members of the public
with concerns. That primarily relate to the environmental impacts increased
traffic and density, trespassing, relocation of the roads, on the
subject, property and landscaping. I would note that two of
the four comments were received after the publishing of this
presentation. Concerns from members of the public have been noted
and will be considered throughout the technical review process. And
addressed in the future staff report. Next slide, please. The
next steps for these applications are to review and address
the public and agency comments and receive the results from
the remaining peer reviewers. As previously noted, we have received
landscape architecture peer review results, and we anticipate that comments
from the town's peer reviewer for traffic will be provided
through the course of the technical review. Staff will contemplate
the technical review and provide the applicant. With a compiled
package of comments. The applicant will review and address the
comments and make changes. If any based on the comments
received prior to advancing a staff report to the committee
of the whole and counsel for consideration. Future applications required
would include a plan of condominium or condominium exemption application
as well as a site plan control application. Next slide,
please. If members of the public have comments regarding the
subject applications, they can be emailed to me. At jwainwright
at Collingwood, CA, or mail to the town at the
address on the slide. You may also voice your comments
verbally at the public meeting today or at the committee
of the whole meeting prior to. A decision being made.
Next slide, please. If any members of the public wish
to receive notice of council decision or of future meetings
regarding these applications, please provide your contact details, including your
name, email and mailing address on the forum. Provided in
council chambers on the table this afternoon or send me
an email. At the email address provided on the screen.
Committee and council meeting schedules and agendas are posted on
the town's website. Collingwood, Ca. Agendas are posted on the
town's website Wednesday afternoon prior to a Monday meeting. Thank
you for your time and attention as I outlined the
technical details of the application. This concludes my presentation. The
applicant's agent, Kristin Renney from Georgian Planning Solutions and Jeff
Robinsons from Reed's heritage homes are here this afternoon and
would like to. Make a brief presentation regarding this proposal.
Thank you. Thank you. Community planner Wayne Wright. That was
excellent. Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam
Mayor, members of council. Staff and the public. My name
is Kristen Rennie from Georgian Planning Solutions. We do have
a presentation. Can I have it on my screen as
well, please?
Okay, I think we're ready. Thank you. Thank you. Next
slide, please. I would like to introduce our project team
that we have here with me this afternoon. I'm Kristen
Renny from Georgian Planning Solutions, and I'm a registered professional
planner. I also have Jeff Robinson from Reed's Heritage Home,
who's a senior director of development and Rebecca from Crozia
Rebecca Alexander Crozier from. Consulting, Crozier Consulting engineers who is
a project manager with land development. Next slide, please. Read,
heritage homes and Sherwood homes have been creating communities in
this area for 20 years. In Collingwood notable projects include
Royal Windsor and Balmoral, georgian meadows subdivision and silver Glenn.
Additionally, they also have developments in Thornbury and Georgian Bluffs
and other surrounding regions. Next sl. Slide, please. As mentioned,
the purpose of the public meeting today is to consider
an official plan, amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment to
support a proposed development with twelve bungalow stack townhome homes
that are one and a half stories in height and
providing 124 dwelling units. Next slide, please. Actually, we'll just
flip this slide because Jocelyn covered it. As part of
our complete submission, the following support documents were submitted the
planning justification report and architectural and urban design brief functional
servicing and stormwater management report, a traffic opinion letter, a
landscape plan parking, justification study and elevation drawings. Next slide,
please. So the purpose of the official plan amendment is
to redesignate the subject lands from existing neighborhoods. To existing
neighborhoods exception. The exemption is to increase the density to
permit 68 units per hectare for a low rise residential
building. Only site specific amendment. This is the only site
specific amendment required for the official plan. I just want
to note there are other policies within the official plan
that encourage and support this. Type of development we have
to. Take the whole plan into consideration. Community priorities include
the official plan within the official plan. Note that the
town is to provide a full range of housing options.
That the town will plan to provide housing options that
meet the social, health, economic and wellbeing requirements of the
current and future residents that the range and mix of
housing options will accommodate. A full spectrum of housing promoting
compact development and intensification. Intensification will be compatible with the
existing development pattern patterns while supporting the evolution to a
more compact, walkable and transit supportive urban structure to be
a healthy community that is accessible, connected and inclusive, with
a range of housing options. Next slide, please. The purpose
of the zoning bylaw is to rezone the property from
residential third density exception. 33 to residential third density exception.
With an exception to permit the stack townhome dwellings to
permit a minimum of 149 parking spaces, including 25 visitor
and four accessible spots. But all other zoning standards have
been met. And just on a side note, The ones
that normally are spoken to are maximum lot coverage. Within
the zoning bylaw, which is 45%. We are providing 30.6
and. Related to the landscaping and the open space. The
minimum requirement is 35%, and we're obtaining 38.1%. Next slide,
please. This is the conceptual landscape plan that was shown
earlier as well. So this plan includes the location. Of
the buildings, the landscaping and the park area for the
residents. As well, residents within this development have access to
the broader amenities within the larger development in the area.
There is also trails that connect to the Georgian Trail
as well as the broader Collingwood Trail system. As mentioned
before, it's cash and loofer. Parkland has been paid for
the overall development, as most municipalities prefer to improve and
maintain existing parks and trails and facilities rather than manage
many small parks throughout the community. This plan also shows
the landscaping proposed and the fencing that is along the
perimeter of the property. The development to the south will
have a retaining ball and a retaining wall and a
privacy fence. And it is adjacent to an existing parking
lot on that property. The northern property line will have
the same fencing, and there will be a 2.4 meters
high acoustic fence. Along Highway 26. At this point. I'm
now going to pass it over to. Jeff Robinson from
raids Heritage homes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Kristen.
Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin, members of council, staff and residents.
Thank you very much for taking the time today to
hear our application again. My name is Jeff. Robinson. I'm
senior director of development with Reed's heritage homes in Sherwood
Homes. I really want to provide a little bit of
context as to why we're here today. Given that this
development. Had already gone through several planning approvals. We've done
some site servicing works on the site, which you've likely
seen if you've driven past it. So we're kind of
midstream in our development. And we've taken a pause for
a minute and are reinitiating some planning applications. Our updated
plans for this community. That. Both staff and Kristen have
just gone through. And the associated applications that are before
you today are really a result of significant changes and
challenges. That we've seen in the housing market over the
last, I would say, year to two. Years. And as
well to address some items that have come up on
the town's updated official plan. With the challenges that we've
seen in the current housing market. We looked at ways
in which. We're able to offer homes for this community
that are really attainable for members of the community. Whether
they're first time home buyers. Young families that are just
starting out in home ownership and potentially some retirees. And
our goal with this was also to keep. The existing
low rise development concept that we had initially proposed, and
that was approved through site plan. Approval. And that has
led us to the stacked bungalow concept that you're seeing
today before you. As I mentioned, we are targeting first
time home buyers, young families. And possibly retirees in a
move down market. As you can see on the elevations
on the screen right now. These are still bungalow townhomes.
What we've done, basically, is added a lower separate. Unit,
and that lower unit will be a completely separate dwelling
unit from the unit above. It will be a half
story below grade, it will have nine foot ceilings, and
we've provided a lot of windows within those units to
provide as much. Light and airy feel as possible for
those units. This has allowed us to keep the look
and the feel of our original community plan. And as
Kristen had noted. With the stacked orientation. Now, we're only
a half story higher than the previous plan, so. This
is still. A very much. A gentle density community of
low rise homes. These units are going to range in
size from about 1100. All the units will have two
bedrooms. The homes will also each have a parking space
for their units. We do have some additional parking spaces
on the site concept that you've seen. We are anticipating
that there will be some purchasers that likely will have
two cars, and we did want to have some additional
spaces available for some of those units. We anticipate going
on sale with these homes as early as next spring
or summer, with starting prices in the high 400,000. This
is a significant reduction from the selling prices that we
were originally seeking on the bungalow townhomes. A year and
a half ago. And really, the stacked orientation, the efficiency
of building a stacked unit still within the same footprint
for these buildings. Has allowed us to lower our construction
cost per square foot significantly. Which is translated into a
much lower. Purchase price that we can offer to home
buyers. With. These planning applications that you see before you.
The site works that have already taken place. And our
ability to market and sell. These stacked townhomes at a
much lower price point. We are confident that we can
move forward. With this community and sell to residents within
Collingwood and the greater area. Thank you very much for
your time today. Kristen and I are both available to
answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you
so much. So at this time, we're going to ask
members of the community who wish to address council to
come forward. Yes, go ahead. I left all my stuff.
Go ahead. Good afternoon.
Your worship. Deputy mayor and town counselors. My name is
Grace Ignitis, and I am the chair of the shared
facilities committee at Lighthouse Point. Please excuse my slightly hoarse
voice. This is as good as it gets. This time
of year. I am here to present. Comments and concerns
of the Lighthouse Point community that has been referenced in
the prior presentations. My address is 562 Mariners way. Lighthouse
Point is a large and a long established community of
576 units who have contributed significantly to the town in
terms of a stable tax base for many years. As
concerned residents of Collingwood, we respectfully request that town council
reject the current application by the developer Sherwood Homes, requesting
amendments to the official plan and town zoning bylaw to
permit. A residential stack townhouse development of twelve one and
a half story buildings totaling 124 units. And 149 onsite
parking spaces on the reverie property. Our request is based
on a number of concerns with the submitted application and
how it will impact our neighborhood. The official plan, which
has been referred to multiple times, is there to protect
Collingwood, to take care of our environment to protect the
town's current and future residents who are fortunate enough to
be part of this community, as well as to define
the boundaries and the limits within. Which developers are to
build their plans and construct their projects. The developer's initial
proposal was to build 60 bungalow townhouses on this property
with a resulting density of 26 units per hectare currently
under the existing neighborhood's designation. The maximum permitted density is
40 units per hectare. The developer is asking to increase
density to 68. Units per hectare, a 70% increase about
what the current designation allows, and a 260% increase over
what the developer originally proposed. A short while ago. The
developer made reference to a gentle density. A 260. Percent
increase over what was originally proposed. Would not be my
definition of a gentle density. This proposed density significantly higher
than the density of other developments in the neighborhood, which
range from a high of 48 units per hectare at
Waterstone to. Wildwood cove 40. Rupert's landing. 34. Dockside 22,
lighthouse Point 26 and Green tree 25. All those coded
numbers were the density per hectare. The density that the
developer is requesting for reverie. Is 40% higher than the
neighborhood's highest density development, Waterstone, and 270% higher than that
of lighthouse Point and green tree. Parkland is a required
part of all developments, yet there is zero park land
for reverie. The developer is making a cash payment in
lieu of parkland on more than one occasion in recent
past members of council have spoken about not allowing this
practice to continue. Given the type of housing being planned,
I. E. Townhouses, as well as the proposed starting price,
point. This developer will appeal to young families. Excuse me.
That was noted. In the developer's earlier comments, there was
a single amenity being proposed, a playground structure in a
small landscaped area on the northeast corner of the property.
For the proposed 124 units. That is a minuscule amount
of space for children, their parents and other reverie residents
to enjoy. Parking is another issue. The town zoning bylaws
requirement for townhoses is two parking spaces for dwelling unit,
so 248 required parking spaces. The developers proposing a total
of 149 parking spaces. One parking space per unit, plus
20. Five visitor parking spots. Some and possibly many of
the proposed 124 units will be two car families. That
is a fact. Of life. Where will they park? The
access road. Princess of Wales Drive is a fire route
and does not show parking being available. There is no
street parking on Highway 26. Congestion will be an ongoing
issue with the accompanying safety risks. The issues and risks
will be compounded during the winter months when there is
ongoing snow to deal with, not only on the roads,
but piled up in piles besides the parking lot. This
further reduces available parking space. Lighthouse Point residents are realistic
and aware of the needs in their community. We recognize
more housing is required that housing needs to be built
in Collingwood and that higher density helps make housing more
affordable. The developer also wants to make any project worth
their while, but. New development needs to be balanced within
the structure and needs of the existing community and. The
impact on existing neighborhoods need to be taken into consideration.
The developer's desire for more density should not override the
existing community's environment. And safety. Place undue strain on local
infrastructure, nor limit the new community's residents in the basic
amenities that they are to be provided. For their everyday
life. Things like parking, green space, a safe environment. We
respectfully submit that the reverie application should not be approved
as currently proposed. On behalf of the lighthouse Point community,
thank you for your attention. And consideration this afternoon. In
addition to these comments, Lighthouse Point has a petition underway.
We've received currently over 300 signatures with comments additional comments
attached. I assume the applicable process is that information should
be passed on to the town clerk or should it
go to the town planner. Yeah, either is fine. Thank
you for your time. Okay. Thank you.
Welcome. Madam Mayor, deputy mayor, councilor, staff, and our audience.
This is completely unplanned. My name is Brian Vermander. I'm
with the calling, the climate action team and. I'm here
to provide a couple of quick comments. I happen to
see this in the calling with today that was going
to be here. And as you know, I've been here
before for new developments, advocating for fossil free development. And
I'm ecstatic. With my two comments from the perspective of
the first one being, as you know, densification. As gentlemen,
Reed mentioned, does reduce carbon footprint. So not only. Is
it economical? On his part. But it's economical from a
climate pollution point of view. And it also reduces costs.
So we talked about affordable housing, the price on these,
it kind of shocked me. My biggest comment is I
happened to look at the architectural drawings. And. Was completely
blown away that this development looks like it is a
fully electrified, assuming your hot water heaters are electric and
not gas because they have heat pumps. So I just
wanted to do a shout out to Sherwood Reed. From
the point of view, this looks like maybe a landmark.
Gold. Standard development that's coming. That is actually providing heat
pumps from an energy point of view. So I just
wanted to give them credit for. Now, I don't have
to advocate here. We've got one coming. Thank you. Thanks,
Brent. Yes, please come up.
Hello. My name is deborah eaton kent. I'm at. Ellison.
Cfa 86 out hotmail ca. And I have low vision
issues, so I'm a little bit nervous. Can't see. Any
of your faces. But mayor, council, staff, members of the
public, I am a condo owner at Rupert's Landing. And
I am offering comments, of course. My own thoughts, et
cetera, but with such short notice. We didn't have a
whole lot of time to gather opinions, though we have
spoken a couple of us with other members of Ruperts,
and we're here as supporters of the previous presentation from
our neighbor's lighthouse. And also as members. Of this community.
And the concerns that are outlined by lighthouse representation. Really
echo. Personally. My concerns, especially. The density of the project
and the concern is about traffic is bad enough on
Highway 26. The development along the corridor. I understand, but
there is the traffic issue, there's the environmental impact. And
also. The impact on the neighborhood. There has been unbelievable
amount of development. From a personal viewpoint, thank the universe
that I live on the side of the highway where
there is a bus stop. I recently had two eye
strokes. My vision. I could never cross that highway. And
if anyone's listening, it'd be great to have a crosswalk,
but that aside. I'm not in favor of this development.
Thank you. Thank you. Yes, please come up.
Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin, councilors, town staff, and members of
the public. My name is Kevin. Marshman. I live at
19 Woodland Court. Which about Cranberry Marsh and I am
a director of our condo association. I appreciate the opportunity
to share my thoughts with you today. I will be
brief and hopefully you can hear me clearly. If I
had some dental surgery, this morning. So I will keep
the pain to a minimum. The cranberry. And by the
way, I would say that I echo. Some of the
comments. Of the. Previous speakers. I will not reiterate those.
My focus is around the cranberry marsh area. And as
you know, Cranberry marsh has routinely been used as a
watershed for drainage by developers in this area. And while
25 years ago that might have seemed appropriate, I would
suggest that that is no longer the case, and I
believe that the cranberry marsh is going to continue to
be used. As a watershed for this development. Residential communities.
As well as areas of the golf course surrounding the
cranberry marsh, are already dealing with the consequences of flooding
in the marsh area. And while I acknowledge that the
drug conditions this past summer have reduced the water levels.
As has been previously documented before council and presentations that
we have made, Wood lots and neighborhoods are under pressure
due to higher water levels. The cranberry trail West Road
regularly floods at its entrance to Highway 26. And our
small community of Woodland Court, which is a community of
22 homes. Two homes have already experienced basement flooding due
to hydrostatic pressure from an increasing water table. And their
cresity density increase, which I would confirm again is the
70% increase from 40 to 68 homes. Per hectare. Will
only exacerbate the watershed issues. Into the cranberry marsh and
generally. As well as in particular in peak runoff periods.
In addition, that's been noted by other speakers. The increase
in density will also add to the worsting traffic congestion
on Highway 26. Presumably the developer had a positive business
case. At the plan density prior to the requested increase
and accordingly does not need a requested inquiry despite changing
conditions to make the economics work. It is for these
reasons that I recommend. Council reject the recommended increase, however.
If it is council's view that the density increase will
prevail upon appeal, then I would recommend that the town
require the developer to revise their groundwater drainage plans to
exit the property north across Highway 26 directly into Georgian
Bay. Rather than using the cranberry marsh as. Its watershed.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. Would anyone
else like to address council? Who's in the chambers? Yes,
gret. My name is Colin Inglass for 18 mariners Way.
Good afternoon, your worship. Deputy mayor, councilors. Staff and the
great unwashed. A little bit about economics. So I see
any number of approved developments around town, but no shovels.
In the ground. So it seems like economics is superseding
the province's desire to build homes. So if we look
at the economics of property development, every time we increase
density, we add value to that property. So that allows
the owner to bow against that increased value or to
sell it. To somebody else. Which kind of tends to
drive up the cost to the end user. So what's
missing? From this equation is a guarantee that something will
actually get billed. You can have platitudes. We hope to
build immediately. We hope to be available next spring. But
you have no teeth. So you have to be cautious
about approving something that's a significant jump like this. Where
it significantly increases the value, but doesn't guarantee that anything
actually happens. A couple of comments about what the developers
also tell you. They say, okay, this is a one
and a half story above grade. But what we've already
seen on this property of Skydev is the virgin grade.
If you will before development has been raised by roughly
3 meters. So what they really should tell you is
the height of the top of the building above sea.
Level so it can be compared to what the surrounding
buildings are at. That's a bit disingenuous. I also find
it somewhat disrespectful that. This is proposed, development is already
being marketed by a billboard on the property. And that
would seem. To assume that this public process has no
value, so. I'm not particularly fond of that particular tactic.
So let's look at what we're doing. We've got. A
community. Driven official plan, which presumably contemplates things like schools,
parks, transportation, and now. We're about to throw a portion
of that out the window. By doubling the density, we
have a master transportation plan that's in the works that
presumably is based on that official plan and the current
bylaws we have contemplating a parks plan. In the next
year or two. Parks master plan. Though I will say
that the last master plan was full of altruisms. But
nothing to actually put a park in this particular area.
So we're contemplating a high density, much higher density development
in this area, one that as the developer says will
appeal to young families. So we've got no parks. We've
got. No active transportation trails. Certainly not one that's winter
maintained. We've got no primary school in the area. I
suspect that the primary school that is. Closest is probably
full. So we've got a number of no's. We just
need two more no's. From you. No official planned amendment,
no bylaw amendment. Thank you. Thank you.
Would anyone else like to come forward? Clerk on is
there anyone online? Yes, your worship. We have 50 people
online. Yes. So I would like to ask at this
time if there's anyone that would like. To address council
regarding this application, please press or raise your hand at
the bottom of the screen.
Doesn't look like any further request to speak to this
application at this time, your worship. Okay, so if there's
no other comments from the public, I'll close the public
portion of. This public meeting and turn it over to
council should they have any questions or comments at this
stage. Councilor Baines. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin, through you, if
I may, to community planner wane. Wright. If she's there.
We've heard some concerns expressed, and I didn't see the
dimensions, if you will. Of the children's playground. Can you
give us more details about the size of that and
what percentage of the overall. Development is that. If you
can estimate that, what that represents. Thank you for the
question and through the chair. At this time. It's just
a conceptual plan, so I don't have specific dimensions. But
as we work through the technical review process, we can
get that information and make sure it's in the staff
report. Thank you. Thank you. One more question that presumably
may go to director Valentine, though, and. That's about. The
number of accessible parking spaces. I'm assuming it's the province.
That either dictates or restricts the total number of parking
spaces for 149 spaces. But only four accessible, it would
seem to me. This is a comment, an editorialized comment,
if you will, of our aging demographics. That. It might
be a prudent to have more accessible parking spaces. But.
Does the planning act allow the flexibility? Or perhaps it's
our own bylaws for the condo corporation at some time
in the future to grant more accessible parking spaces should
the community want those. Go ahead. So the province does
require a minimum number of accessible parking spaces. I don't
believe there's a restriction on the number that can be
provided as long as the minimum number is. So the
maximum. There's no cap. Okay, one further question. On this
point particularly. Would the owners of the condo corporation. Should
they require accessible parking spaces, have the opportunity to get
that. In front of their unit. Perhaps this is up
to the condo board itself at some time in the
future to decide. I'm just curious to know that. I
would look to direct a Valentine. Thank you. Go ahead.
Thank you. And through the chair, I think it's important
to note that the accessible parking spaces are in relation
to the visitor. Parking only. So for the parking, for
the units, it's a driveway or parking like any. Other
unit within town. So that's an important distinction. The other
piece, as planner Wayne Wright. Mentioned was with respect to
provincial requirements. So even if our zoning bylaw did have
a higher requirement for accessible parking. It's essentially trumped by
higher order legislation, so it's a bit difficult, but I
think the applicants. Have heard the request and perhaps can
take that back and think about whether additional parking would
be required and have additional comments on the size of
the individual. Parking spaces for the units and whether those
meet the accessibility size or whether they're a standard parking
size for, essentially, the driveway in front of these units.
Thank you. And just one further comment. Also, I'm concerned
in regard to. The drainage, if you will, of the
development itself and where that would end up. And I'm
assuming that we can discuss that further. At director Alcoca's
report. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Cassor
dougherty. Thank you, chair. And thank you for your presentation.
Very thorough. I had a couple of questions. And actually
following up on councilor Baines, I would be interested to
know. What the percent. Of and the development space is
being devoted to that park area, which right now, conceptually
is a playground. And I also wanted to clarify what
there was reference to. This development, having access to. Other
amenities on the lands, and I'm just wondering what those
are and where they're. Located. Go ahead. Thank you. And
through the chair. So, in addition to the outdoor amenity
areas on the subject lands residents from the townhouse. Development
would have access to the amenity building and outdoor amenity
areas. On the side of the property with the apartment
buildings. And there's also some recreational improvements happening as well.
The construction of a multi use trail along the south
side of highway trick 26 between the termination of the
vacation entrail to the west and Highway 26, Cranberry trail
intersection to the east as planned for and this trail
connection will be installed as part of the construction of
the townhouse develop. Development, which would have been referred to
as the phase two construction under the previous planning approval
for the apartment buildings. Thank you. So, just as a
follow up, As the site plan progresses, I would be
interested to know what the total percentage of. Recreation or
amenity space amounts to. And this would be potentially through
you to the developer. These are condominiums. So. They just
common area condominiums. Or total. Complete condominiums. I might look
to the developers just to have that specific answer, if
that's okay, Jeff. You chair to the
councilor. This is proposed to be a standard condominium. So
the homeowners would own their units and then all of
the common in many areas. The roadways. Visitor parking areas
would all be common element. So all homeowners would contribute
towards. The maintenance of those areas. Right. Okay. Thank you.
So where I was going with that is. The price
that you have quoted certainly is. Lower than what we
have seen in this market, which is a good thing.
But. If the condominium fees. Are excessive. Then we're back
at the same situation about affordability. Yes. Through you, chair
to the councilor. Yes. And that's something we always try
to balance. Obviously purchase price and then condominium fees as
well to keep those as low as possible because you're
right, councilor. That is part of the purchase price that
home buyers do consider. When they're looking to buy a
unit, so. We are looking to keep those condominium fees
as low as possible. As you see on the plan.
We do have the playground. We have some common in
many areas, but I wouldn't say it's extravagant. There's not
amenity buildings within our site to try to, in order
to keep those fees to a reasonable level, right? And
my next question is to do with the grading. And
also councilor Baines did reference. The proposed grading. Will we
be seeing? Substantially increased elevation on these lands, or will
we be? Are you building on. What can be seen.
Right now. If you drive by the land. Through your
chair to the councilor. There certainly will not be substantial
grading increases. The final grading plans do need to be
done through the site plan approval process, which will follow.
The official plan and zoning bylaw amendment process. That's when
the detailed design, in terms of grading is done. But
the site is rough graded at this time. There will
not be substantial increases to it. Thank you. And then
finally. As the proposed development been circulated. To the boards
of education. Through you to our planner. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you for the question and through the chair. Yes,
they have been included in the technical circulation. And we
have received comments so far from the Simcoe County District
school board. Thank you. Could you elaborate on what the
comments are? Yes. They will be included. In the staff
report. That's to come. But. The general sense of the
comment is just noting that. Width of the internal roads
are too narrow in the condominium, so the school board
has asked for a provision that bus stop, pickup and
drop off locations be cited outside the development. Thank you.
Please make no noise, please. And those are my questions.
Thank you, Mayor. Councilor mccawk here. Next. Thank you, mayor.
And this one, I believe, will go to Mr. Robinson.
Just a quick question. Not sure. You need to come
forward. Discussion of accessible parking spaces. Just in a quick
view of the townhouses. They're proposed they look to me
to be upstairs, downstairs, so probably not accessible. Yeah, go
ahead through. You, chair to the councilor. You are correct.
There's a lower. Unit, which is a half story below
grade, and then an upper unit. Which is a half
story grade. At this time. There's not accessible units that
have been contemplated. When we do get to. The site
plan approval process and the detailed elevations. And floor plans
are reviewed with staff. That level of detail will be
addressed through the site plan process. Thank you. Thank you.
Councilor jeffrey. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I think a lot
of the important questions have already been asked. I just
would really comment further with respect to traffic, I would
be flabbergasted if there's not something that comes out of
the traffic report because I think at some point we're
going to have to tap out on the capacity of
Highway 26 west, and I'm not sure where that happens.
But. No clapping, please. I know from my personal experience
right now, Some nights can feel like a parking lot.
And we're not even at ski season yet. And I
have to ask myself, what night of the week is
it? And it's only Tuesday or Wednesday. I think that
I'll be really interested to see what comes out of
the traffic notes. Okay. Thank you, deputy mayor thank you,
Mayor Hamlin. And I think just first off, I want
to thank the presenters, all the presenters, the public. It's
all good food for thought, for. Us to have. so
I'm looking forward to the staff report. As a member
of the Affordable Housing Task force, I do just want
to comment that I appreciate the efforts as a developer
in regards to. Coming up with some concept in regards
to helping us with our working middle, which we've identified
as a crisis situation in Collingwood. We have commented at
the task force level about how cooperative our development community
has been because. Municipality doesn't have an awful lot of
tools to work on affordable housing directly. We rely. Completely
on a cooperative effort by everybody involved. And so I
do want to commend you for your efforts in that
regard, and I look forward to the staff report because
that gives us the meat of everything that we've been
hearing today the impacts of it and that. When we
get that, that, of course, we'll be in a public
environment where people have an opportunity to also share their
expressions of interest in regards to those reports. So I'm
looking forward to that next stage. Thank you. Thank you.
I'm sorry. The public portion of the meeting. Has been
closed. But this council meeting is not finished yet. I'm
just addressing a gentleman in the back. Who's got his
hand up, but you can write in and let us
know. Any other comments? Yes, go ahead. This part of
the meeting is not over yet. If you're wanting to
hear the rest. Of it. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I
just wanted to springboard off of deputy mayor Fryer's comments
to note that there is a sign up sheet at
the front. And some members have found that on their
way out. But community planner Wayne Wright will take that
out with her, and we would appreciate those who would
like to be updated when the staff report comes forward
to include your name and email address on that sign
up sheet so that you can continue to be informed
on this project. And I have a few questions as
well. I was wondering if there's just one parking spot
or unit, where will people park? Who? Have two cars.
I'll leave that in the ether, because I know this.
Can be addressed in the staff report. I'd be grateful.
I also would like to know if there's any amenity
space, outdoor amenity space. Associated with each unit. Because that
might influence how we see other things. And the third
thing is, I'm a bit concerned about the private roads.
I've expressed my view about private roads a number of
times. At council. And it's really associated with the fact
that. These owners, who presumably are buying more moderately priced
homes. Are in the future going to be saddled with
the cost of maintaining roads and the infrastructure. Under them.
And it's a hidden cost. And we know, sitting here,
how much it costs to repair. And replace. Services that
are under the ground and the pavement and so on.
So I do have a concern about that. And I
also have a concern about the width of it. I
heard the comment about the school buses, but also. I
think it's important that we make sure that the width
of any road is wide. Enough to accommodate. The garbage
trucks from Simcoe County. We pay so much in our
community to the county of Simcoe for garbage collection, and
so. Many of our residents. I think it could be
as high as a third. Get no garbage collection. Because
their roads aren't wide enough or some other rule that
we just didn't. Know about when these things were, when
buildings were being built. And that is really an excessive
cost for a community to have to look after its
own garbage. Account. So those are my comments. And if
there's none other here, I see none others. That's the
end of this part of the meeting. Thank you. All
right. So why don't we take a ten minute break?
And then we'll come back. Thank you.
Pat. Pathology.
Okay, council, we'll get back to work. Next item on
the agenda is 8.1. Our recommendation is that the minutes
of the Special Council committee of the whole held November
12, 2025 excluding committee of the whole recommendations. Council committee
of the whole meeting held November 17, 2025. Excluding committee
of the whole recommendations. Special council meeting held November 19,
2025 and council meeting held November 24, 2025. The approved
as presented. Could I have a move in a seconder,
please? Councilor Baines? Seconded by councillor Perry. Comments? All those
in favor? And that's unanimous. Is there any business arising
from those previous minutes? Seeing none. The next is. Recommendation
for approval from the committee of the whole recommendations and
Councilor Jeffrey at the beginning. Asked if we could pull
c 2020 514. So. Except for that one. Can I
have a mover in a second to approve the recommendations
from the committee of the. Whole meeting held November 12
and November 17, 2025. Councilor McCullough seconded by councilor Dougherty
comments. Jesus. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank
you. And then item c 2020 514, can I have
a mover in a seconder for that one, please. Councilor
Dougherty, as seconded by councilor Perry. And over to you,
Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. So in
reviewing the meeting and the minutes and things. I was
really quite surprised. I had expected a much more robust.
Conversation in terms of. Our governance side of the decisions
that were made or not made. And about the seriousness
of, about being able to attract younger and more diverse
candidates for council. And when you think of the complexity
of our files that we have, As counselors and council
members. I was explaining earlier to the clerk and the
CAO that the absorption of information. In a much more
shorter time. From the CAO as she oversees all of
the departments that we have to take that on board.
And digest it very quickly and responsibly to make really
good decisions. So I thought there would have been a
bit more conversation, with respect. To. The more demand that
is occurring on council members as we move forward in
different years and provincial policy that's been changing. And the
other thing that didn't get discussed, I don't think was.
A differential that has occurred now. With the county increase
for our mayor and deputy mayors. So the differential between.
The mayor. Who will. The mayor position will reach maybe
one 2120 thousand a year going forward. By 2027, and
the deputy mayor, who I think is maybe 80 and.
These aren't for sure, but I think I'm pretty close.
That we have council members at 28 five plus special
meetings. So I think that brings us in. Around a
base of 30,000. And it's difficult politically for an incoming
council to vote increases. So I think it's, incumbent upon
us as a council to take a really serious look
at that, to make that decision now for the incoming
council members. Given their responsibilities. And it won't impact the
2026 budget seriously, because that will only be about seven.
Weeks at the end of 2026. But the impact that
would come in and again, I don't think it's that
much. Depending on what? If I were able to have
council. Support an increase for council members in 2020. Seven
wouldn't be a really overburdensome one. So I guess for
the discussion. The other part of the discussion I thought
was important. Is that I didn't see us talking about
time of meetings, length of meetings, time of. Day, day.
All of those things that can weigh on the people
that you can attract around the table. To run this
business. So I guess what I'm asking is, I'd like
to refer to the budget. Process. The request for an
increase for council members to be considered in that budget
process. And I think the clerk agreed that that's the
appropriate process. If there's a time at future that we
can talk about all those other things, other than just.
Remuneration. I'd be certainly pleased to be able to participate
in that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So with that
comment in mind, Did you want to speak to this
as well? No. Yeah. I'm pretty sure. If I remember
correctly, I did speak to some of the topics of
the times and meetings and stuff. Through it. And the
challenging of everything happened during the day. So it definitely
was discussed. Deputy mayor thank you, Mayor Hamlin, and. I'll
just note that I agree fully. It's a challenging environment
to try to look, but I recognize. There's a real
change. In the differential between the county council members. And
the rest of council, and I don't see that being
a positive situation. So I did look at my method
for it was to reduce size and use the money
to spread out, and that was defeated, and I'll accept
that. The one question I was going to ask, and
it has a little bit to do with I had
been thinking of suggesting that putting a question on the
ballot. And whether the public would be receptive to going
down to seven, but. I know there was discussion from
councilor Baines about ward, so I wondered if we could.
Just my understanding of the situation. If you're going to
put a question on the ballot. Is, if council decides
there's going to be a question, it has to go
through a public process, including a public meeting. And that's
how you educate the public. In advance of answering the
question. And I'll just through you if I could marry
him. And just verify with the clerk that that's the
situation. And perhaps what kind of timing. Would be kind
of the last. Ability to do it. Yeah, go ahead,
clerk Thomas. Certainly. Thank you, your worship. To deputy Mary
Fryer's. Question. I don't have my specific notes up with
me regarding that question, but. There is set deadlines, and
I believe they're around the beginning of March. Processes have
to be starting. Within generally mid January, and then there's
certain notice period that's required for the public and then
council has to pass a bylaw. But I can provide
further detail on what. Those timelines are. Just to clarify,
though, I believe the March 1 date is when it
all have to be completed. By right. It's not educating
the public. After March 1, you would still do that,
but there's. A requirement you have to meet. And that's
up to March 1, right? Yeah. Thank you. I'll just
add I didn't find it. I know you found it
surprising we didn't talk about councilor compensation. But. It's not
been raised here while I've been married. I'm not opposed.
To having a discussion. I know. Usually. We have a
report done for us to show how comparative municipalities are
done. So I guess we'll get into that more when.
We talk about the budget, whether that's needed. The only
thing I'll correct is. I think the compensation for the
mayor. Once the county. Is fully integrated because there hadn't
been an increase there for 20 years. County Council was
the lowest paid of all the upper tier. Local government.
So I think with that, My calculation is about 110.
So it's close, but 110. But anyway, we'll look. Forward
to discussing that during the budget. Mary Hamilton I guess
I made the assumption based on the fact that. Management.
Quag's report was in touched to the agenda which had
all the comparators from. 21, 22. And so I made
the assumption that the information was there and had the
potential to be discussed. But I wasn't here to bring
it up. Yeah, okay. Thank you. So we'll bring this
to a vote then. This is with respect to that
one item. C 20 514. All those in favor. And
that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is. So this
was dealt with. At the committee of the whole meeting
and carried five to three. The recommendation is that staff
report. C 2020 513 naming the new waterfront park twelve
side launch wave you received and the Council endorsed the
name Harbor Junction is the official name for the new
waterfront park at twelve side launch. Way. As recommended by
the naming committee in accordance with the facility naming policy.
Could I have a mover in a seconder to get
this on the floor? You have. Something to say before
we get it on the floor. Okay, good. Anyone want
to put this on the floor? For discussion. Councilor Dougherty,
seconder. Okay, so this item goes off the agenda. Mayor
Hammond, I was going to ask to sever so that
we could receive first. Sure, but I feel like we
have to get it on the floor first or this
item will disappear. I'm just saying you have to bring
it with another motion and notice emotion and. So on.
I'll second. Thank you. Discuss. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And
you would like the two items severed, so that's good.
So let's just deal with the first one, which is
receiving the report. All those in favor? And that's unanimous.
Thank you. The second part. Who would like to. Speak
to this. councilor beans Thank you, Mayor Hamlet. I
respect greatly the process that came up with a name.
And supported it at that time. However, subsequent to that,
I've had discussions with various members. Of the community. And
read with great interest the museum's article about. The. Dry.
What am I thinking of? The name escapes me right
now, but the dry talks. Yes, of course. And frankly,
I must say, touched by my colleague. Councilor rings plea,
if you will, for that name, actually, and I have
changed my position on this. And now support. Dry dock
junction, I think as an appropriate name at this point.
I don't do this lightly, but I really do think
it's the appropriate name. Upon reflection, so that will be
my position. That. That name, I think, is appropriate at
this time. Okay, so it's the name you're putting forward
is dry docks junction. Is that. Correct. Dry dock junction.
Dry dock junction. Got it. Okay. Anyone else like to
speak to this councilor Perry? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I've
pondered this for two weeks now. And written down my
thoughts. So please bear with me because I don't want
to forget. Anything. I've been thinking about this a lot
and very uneasy about it. Dry dock junction is a
strong name that reflects our shipyard heritage and past employees.
My worry is that we have asked the public for
input, and we probably had the best public response. We've
had for anything. At least that I can remember. My
concern is by changing the name that was chosen by
the committee because. We perhaps don't like it or we
don't feel it represents the area. What kind of message.
Is it sending to residents who may want to have
their opinions heard, but we just ignore them? And do
what we want anyway. After careful consideration and conversations with
councilor ring, councilor Baines and others. I fully support dry
docked junction. As I said. It's a great name, but
I think some thoughts should have been put into the
junction. Or the yard. Both simplified names, and it removes
any confusion over harborhouse. The junction was one of the
top five that was chosen by the committee. And I
venture to say that it will end up being called
the junction if dry dock junction. Does become the name,
just to shorten it up, as we always do. My
thoughts are about trying to honor the process of public
engagement, respect the important history and past employees of the
shipyard, and I know there will be many references to
dry dock and to the shipyards all through the park.
As Director Cubit mentioned two weeks ago. Anyway, that's where
I stand. Thank you. Deputy mayor. Thank you, mayor. I'm
going to also say. I understand the facility naming process
and appreciate the work that was done. And brought forward
the recommendation. That council is the one who has to
consider it. Council is the one who has to make
the decision. Or it wouldn't be coming back to us.
The committee would just decide what it is. And that's
what it is. When Terminal's point was the name selected
for the process, I didn't fully agree. With it. But
I supported the choice of the committee in that case.
In the case of Piazza, though. To a much greater
extent. I don't agree with it and can't support any
of the five names that were proposed, I do support.
The dry dock junction name that has been proposed. Dry
dock number one pioneered large scale shipbuilding in Ontario, as
it was the first major dry dock. That was born
from calling with success. With the advent of rail service,
including the building of the original grain terminals. As a
step forward. The initial name captured the significant step forward
of dry dock one as it was Collingwood dry dock
shipbuilding and foundry. Dry duck number one operated for the
entire 103 years life. Of the shipyards. Regarding the harbor
reference, I can see why some favorite, but just can't.
Look past. The fact that Harbor House condo building is
immediately adjacent, and I think it creates an appearance of
the piazza being a private park for harbor house. Yeah.
Signage will be in place and identify that it isn't,
but I think there may be cases where people move
on to another location because they're not unsure before they
have a chance to see the signage, so I continue
to support. Dry dog junction going forward, and I want
to just explain the reasons why. Thank you. Thank you.
Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, chair. I'm sort of. Of the
same. View. As councilor Perry. That the public spoke. We
put a committee in place. They came forward with a
recommendation. I also appreciate the fact that. Ultimately, council does
have the last say. So to that end, Through you
to Director Cubit. Did dry dock junction even appear? On
the list. Go ahead. Director Cuban. Sorry. Thank you. I'm
going to refer back to clerk Almaz. As I was
not part of the naming committee. Clerk Thomas. Ironically, I've
just been doing a little search on that through to
Councilor Dougherty. Dried out junction was not. however The reference
to drydock was eight times. So out of the 160
plus submissions, Drydock was noted. Eight out of harbor, it
was noted 17. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor
ring. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. And I, too.
You know what? I've spoke quite a bit against. The
proposed name of Harbor Junction at that last meeting and
was one of. The three knee votes at that time.
And I do appreciate the process. I still couldn't get
over the fact that. When this all started, we said
we were going to try to name the park that
had some significance to our heritage, our history. Location where
it is. And I just couldn't see. How we could
not pick drydock over harbor and then. With the location
of the park going to be basically on the same
property as Harbor House. It's not going to have any
special significance to the economy. Shipyards. It's been 40 years
since it's been closed. But. If we keep not. Trying
to carry the name on. At some point, we're going
to forget what it is. Dry dock junction. Is exactly
what it should be called. Because of deputy Fryer. Just
give them a little bit of history there with the
significance, with the railway railroad. And. The part. The two
of them both play at the same time. I'm having
a hard time because I'm a diehard supporter of this
town. And the history of this town. I think. We
all know that. Since I've been alive, we've had all
kinds of. Manufacturing. Plants within the town of Collingwood that
have closed. But the only one that still anybody ever
talks about is a shipyard. I don't want that to
ever end, so, I mean. This town was built on
ship building, and I think just a little thing, like
a significant name. That reflects that. Is worth the change
to this suggested name today. Hey. Thank you, Councilor Dougherty.
Wait, I should just see if anyone else. Spoken. Councilor
JeffRey well, thank you very much, Mayor ham. And someone
who was reading about this from afar. I have to
say I'm relieved to get back and hear this conversation.
Because. I was with some long the tooth Collingwood people
as well, and we all had kind of the same.
Feeling about it without knowing what was going on here
in the background, so. I'm really relieved. And would really
support. And again, I do understand we've had that process
as long as we've had advisory committees. There's always had
to be this understanding that as much of the work
it's an evolution. And what they bring, they've already processed
through to us, and we get it. At a very
finite place, and then we do make that decision. And
that's never going to change as long as we have
advisory committees. And committees that support us in many ways,
like facility naming. So very much a supporter of dry
dog junction. Okay, thank you. Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor Hamlin.
As I was one of the naysayers at the last
meeting. Again, I would not support Harvard Junction. I do
support the dry dock junction name. Even after last meeting,
I spoke with a lot of residents in the municipality.
Some that were new to Collingwood, long term Collingwood, and
it was all a common theme that. It was, I
guess, the history that. The heritage in history that really
should be displayed here. So again, I do support the
dry dock name. I do appreciate the time that committees
put in. And people put in for their efforts, but
in something like this. The harbor name. I just. Right
from the get go. I just do not think it
justifies. What we're all about. So I would support the
dry dock name. Thanks. Thank you. Clerk Thomas. Thank you.
Just for reference. The yard was referenced 22 times. Okay.
Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, chair. So. In the staff report,
there was an alternative recommendation and. If the main motion
fails, I'd like to put that forward and that is
that, council. Would proceed with. A 15 day public consultation
to receive comments on the recommended name. So if council
feels strongly about the dry dock junction. Let's put it
to our residents before we make a unilateral. Decision. Okay,
so perhaps at this time I should be asking if
there is an amendment to the main. Motion to change
the name that's proposed. Because. It says right now, harbor
Junction. So I think. I'm looking for an amendment. Is
that correct, or do you think we should vote this?
Down. Voted down. Okay. All right, so we'll do that.
Or not, depending on how the vote goes. Is there
anyone else who'd like to speak before we come to
a vote on the. Second part of this motion, then
the name. No. Okay. All those in favor of the
Harvard junction. And those opposed. Hey, that's unanimous. Thank you.
All right. Counselor ring. Oh, sorry. No, you got to
add up. After you. No, after you. Okay, go ahead,
Kelsey. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlet. Thank you very.
Much councilor beans. I know you mentioned it and brought
this topic up, but I'd like to make a motion
to go with the name. Of the piazza park down
at the waterfront there. The renamed. To dry, dark junction.
Okay. Thank you. And Councilor Maines will second that. Any
further discussion? councilor doherty Thank you, mayor. So just per
my previous comments, I'd like to ask that. Should council
agree on that name, that we would at least. Provide
a 15 day public consultation. On the council recommended name.
Okay, so I'll treat this as an amendment to councilor.
Ring's motion. Would there be a seconder? Councilor Baines. Sir.
Negligible. Thank you. Is there a seconder for Councilor Dougherty's
motion? Yell second at. Okay, so we'll deal with the
amendment. And deputy mayor. You'd like to speak to it?
Amendment. Yes. I just wanted to ask councilor Dougherty if
she wants to go first or last. In speaking to
it. Deputy mayor Virtila one thing I had in mind
over the two weeks was. It seemed to me that
we hadn't had any input from the Heritage committee. So.
I can certainly support the idea of putting the name
out there and seeing what response we get. From the
public. But. I would specifically ask that the Heritage committee
be asked for their input. So would you accept that
as a friendly amendment to the 15 day period? I
believe they have a meeting coming up on Thursday the
fourth. Thank you. Yeah. So. During that 15 day that
it would go to the heritage committee and the public.
Okay. All right. Anyone else like to speak to this
councilor ring? Just a question through you. To clerk Almas
what takes place in the 15 days? Go ahead. Thank
you. Through Mary Hamlin to Councilor Ring. I'm not sure
if we've. Had to undertake this. In this process, but.
It would be using our social media channels, using engage
Collingwood, putting a survey up, getting people to comment accepting
email feedback. Any sort of way that we can solicit
feedback on the name. We would undertake. Let me follow
up with that. So then after the 15 days. Is
just. To tabulate all the information that you've got from
the public and who determines. Certainly. So, for clarification, we
will put it back in a report, bring it back
to council that this is the feedback that we heard
and then council would make the final decision. Councilor Perry,
I think. Clerk. The clerk just answered my question. But
we'd be voting. On this again, just so I'm clear.
Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'll come back to you. Councilor
McCullough. Thank you, Merrick. Just a quick follow up to
that question. What? If the answer comes back. No. The
people who submit do not like that name. Where do
we go from there? I think that's a good rhetorical
question. Go ahead. And we can't answer it until we
see. Right, but that's the type of information I think
is being sought by. The suggested amendment, so I would
just clarify if I could. Hoping that knowing that 15
days after today would be. Past the release of the
agenda for the 19th. Do you think it's doable to
still get it on as an amendment where we have
the information so that we can make a decision on
19th. Our next council committee. The whole meeting is the
15th. And no, we would not. It would come. Back
in the new year, so. And we would extend it,
allow additional comments as needed. I'll just weigh in with.
Every counselor has to ask themselves in their heart, will
they? Change their mind on the name that's before us
today. Because don't forget, we had 166 people weigh in
already on what they thought the name should be. And
that has been the most who have ever weighed in.
So our staff told us. So we can expect we're
going to hear from quite a number of people. So.
If you feel my view would be if you feel
your mind is open. Then you would support Councilor Dougherty's
motion. But if your mind is closed. Let's not put
our public through this and agonize over this again at
council. And. I'm not going to support it. Thank you.
This is your last goal. And I'm just going to
do what you suggested is state that I won't. Support
it for that reason. I thought it was doable in
the near future, and since it's not. I'm supportive of
dry dock junction and going forward, thank you. Anyone else
before I let councilor Dougherty have the last word. Go
ahead, councilor Dougherty. Thank you, mayor. My rationale is, I
think, very simple. The name that council have put forward
is not a name that the public. Chose with any
frequency. So why not just offer two weeks of additional
consultation? Maybe they'll like the ring of it, and they'll
all come back and say it's a great name. My
mind is open either way. But. I think that. If
we're going to offer people the opportunity. To weigh in
on things like this. Let's listen to them. This is
what really. Is sort of bothering me about. The alternative
name. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So we'll bring this
to a vote. So we're voting on the amendment. To
the name. Which. Is the amendment to the motion to
change the name. Which is if we change the name.
That we would go to the public with it for
a 15 day period to solicit. Further advice. And a
report back from the clerk. I think I've captured that.
Yes. Okay. All those. In favor. It's one. And those
opposed? So that fails. Thank you. Okay, now, the main
motion is. To name the Nukewaterfront park at twelve side
launch, way to be dry dock junction. And we had
a mover in a seconder, so I'm just going to
bring this to a vote. All those in favor? And
opposed. Okay, that carries with one opposed. Okay, thank you,
everybody. That was a thing. All right. No staff reports,
but we do have two bylaws here. The first one,
and I'm looking for a mover and a seconder. That
we enact and pass bylaw 2025. 82, being a bylaw
to provide for the 2026 interim tax levy could have
a mover and a seconder. Councilor Jeffrey send seconded by
councilor McCullough. Comment all those in favor? And that's approved.
The second one is to enact and pass bylaw 20
25. 83 being a bylaw to authorize the execution of
a development charge exemption agreement between the corporation of the
town of Collingwood and Simata Properties, Inc. For the property,
address is 4726. 6th street could have him move her
in a second. Councilor Perry, seconded by Counselor Dougherty. Comments.
Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I threw you. Could
we turn to the Cao or. To director Valentine. Or
maybe director Graham, I guess. Can they give us a
little bit of background on this? Just to refamiliarize myself
on it. Yeah, I think director Valentine is happy to
speak. To this. Or not? Yes. Thank you, chair. I
can certainly start and had director Graham can layer on
on. Top, I did anticipate that council would want some
additional context with respect to this bylaw so with the
assistance of coordinator D'Souza, we came up with some remarks.
As background. Earlier this year, the owner and developer of
this particular property. Thought land use planning approvals to sever
the property into two parcels, and then they moved. Forward
with plans to build four dwelling units on each of
the resultant lots. So that's eight rental units that are
part of their project. This critical infill project was enabled
through the council's proactive passing of the quick wins support
for affordable housing zoning bylaw update and that does allow
up to four units as of right on. Residential properties
with appropriate servicing. This project. In staff's opinion, will contribute
to increasing the supply of rental housing within the community.
The developer's meta properties has decided on top of this
to make two of the rental units. Affordable, as per
the definition of affordable rentals under the Development Charges act,
and that does align with the town's own goals of
target for affordable rent. Rents to middle income houses. This
allows the project to take advantage of the legislative exemptions
for affordable housing units under the Development Charges act, meaning
that no dcs would be levied against those two affordable
units and they'd be required to be remained at an
affordable rent for a minimum of 25 years. In accordance
with the agreement, that would be execute. Executed with the
town. These are the first two affordable units that have
been eligible for the DC exemptions in Collingwood that we're
aware of. We do continue to hear consistent messaging from
the development community. That high costs, including development charges, are
a barrier to building affordable housing and housing supply more
generally. The exemption before you today does demonstrate that reductions
or exemptions in dcs that were put in place by
the province can make a difference in project performas and
can unlock affordable housing. In Collingwood. However, we're also compelled
to remind council that the province has not yet committed
to making municipalities whole with respect to DC exemptions and
reductions, and any loss of DC revenue would need to
be made up by other funding sources. Nonetheless, this marks
an important step in our affordable housing work. To date,
as you will recall, we have secured voluntary contributions from
developers of 34 affordable rental units. Within our community. And
although that seems modest, when we look at the overall
shortfall, it sees incremental steps that make a meaningful change
in our community. I'm not sure. Treasure. Graham, if you
wanted to add further comments to that, I'm. Seeing a
shake of the heads, so we will leave it at
that. Unless there is questions. Okay. Thank you for that
explanation. This is a follow up, then, Mayor Hamlin. I
want to highlight the efforts of staff in this regard.
We put some, what is called quickwind solutions in place.
And again, it highlights that the development community is working.
But the efforts of staff. These are nuances to the
regular way we do things. And they have to put
the extra effort in to make this all work. And
it's not just one department, it's many departments, so. It
is a pioneer approach that we've introduced. And are having
success with it. It doesn't matter how many units it
are that's. Successful, so. I do really want to express
appreciation to staff. And do that on behalf of my
colleagues, Councilor Dougherty and councilor Ring, who sit on the
affordable housing task force because it's certainly discussions that we
have regularly. At that meeting. So again, thank you for
the extra information. And again, thank you to staff for
all their efforts. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other
questions or comments about this bylaw? All those in favor?
And that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is 11.3.
Perhaps I'll just say there's no updates for 11.1 or
11.2 so 11.3 is we're going to hear from manager
Leo. About Crenberry marsh water level monitoring update. Please come
to the podium. Yeah, sorry. I'll get it eventually.
Good afternoon. I'm just here to introduce project engineer Stuart
west to give an operational update. On the cranberry marsh,
and I'll just let everybody know that Ian Auckenden from
the NVCA is also online to answer any questions afterwards.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much, Manager Leo. It is hard to
pronounce. Sometimes I get it wrong. Good afternoon, members of
council, Madam mayor and members of the public. Next slide,
please. So just to provide a bit of background. Following
the council meeting on April 8, council provided a resolution
for staff to report back on remedial steps to take
to lure and maintain the water level within the cranberry
marsh. On November 4. Staff. Provided an operational update to
council on some of the initial steps taken. To date
during the investigation, which include. Incorporating the marsh within the
stormwater. Master plan. A partnership with the NBCA on water
level monitoring within the marsh for a full year. Our
public works and parks departments also assisted by cleaning brush
and debris from the cranberry trail. East outlet channel. Or
creek, and removal of a beaver by a licensed trapper
retained by the town. Next slide. Please. Monitoring within the
mersh started in august 2024. Three monitoring wells were installed,
one near the marsh outlet at Cranberry Trail east, one
near the boardwalk viewing platform. And a third near the
northwest corner of the marsh. Next slide, please. Signage was
installed near the lookout along the boardwalk, allowing the public
to learn more about the purpose of the water monitoring
stations and to participate in the ongoing monitoring of the
marsh. The NBCA received excellent participation from the public reporting
that they received 70 stakeholders. Sorry. Pictures from Stephanie stakeholders
that submitted photos and water levels for verification. March, April
and may receive the highest level of engagement each month,
receiving twelve submissions. Each month. Excuse me. Beaver activity was
also noted several times by NBCA staff and the public.
And the picture here near the lookout, is an image
of a beaver lutch. Next slide, please. These are the
results over the last year of data collection. For some
reference. Then, just to help explain what it is, we're
looking at the elevations. On the left of the screen
are elevations in meters above sea level. The green, yellow
and gray lines are the three monitoring sites that were
indicated on the map. And the blue vertical lines at
the bottom of the screen are the precipitation events that
occurred during the year. You will note that major rainfall
events at the beginning of April this year. Where 80
mm fell over the course of approximately four days. And
then, however, it was also an exceptionally dry July. July
with only 20 total precipitation over the month, and that
caused water levels to decrease further below fall levels. Next
slide, please. Water within the marsh travels about half a
kilometer from the west end of the marsh to the
east end. So the outlet levels are approximately 1ft lower
than the levels within the main body of the marsh.
However, both the outlet and the main marsh show pretty
consistent trends. In that it reaches its highest elevation in
the springtime after the winter thaw and the lowest levels
after the warmer and drier summer that we witnessed this
year. Next slide, please. And just finally, some statistics of
the data that was collected. If we ignore the outlet.
The main body of the Marsh saw maximum elevation of
179.24. The average level was 178.9. And the minimum was
178.66 meters above sea level. This means that if you
take the average level as typical. The seasonal variation to
the highs and lows were approximately zero. Point. 35 meters
or just over 1ft. Next slide, please. Hydrologic study was
completed in 2007 as part of municipal and NBCA development
related approvals. The previous modeling report used a low elevation
in the marsh as 178.8 meters, which is right in
between the average and minimum elevations recorded in the March
this year, the spring 2025 high of 179.24 is just
slightly greater than what would be modeled during an expected
one. In ten. Year storm event. Anecdotally as well, the
April storms that we witnessed this year were also, coincidentally,
approximately a one in ten year storm event. These preliminary
results do not indicate that water levels are substantially higher
than they were previously. There are seasonal highs and lows
that occur over any given year. But there is risk,
though, to arbitrarily just lowering water levels within natural habitats
and ecosystems such as the Mersh. Approvals to undertake. This
level of effort would also involve other authorities, including but
not limited to the Department of Fisheries Conservation Authority, the
NVCA. And potentially the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.
Regardless, staff have extended the water monitoring into 2026 to
provide additional background study for a potential study in the
teacher. Next slide, please. Regarding next steps. Staff expect that
council will receive the stormwater master plan in early 2026.
And within it. It will include capital improvement recommendations and
future studies that the town could undertake for council endorsement.
In 2026. Staff will also continue to partner with the
NVCA to collect further water levels within the marsh, which
will provide. Information. Related to future studies in 2027. A
site specific range study could be initiated, at which point
it would make sense to involve community. Stakeholders further. And
to initiate the study and ensure collaboration between the various
parties. Longer term actions would be identified within the study
if mitigation is required. Next slide, please. And just in
closing, Marshes and swamps are complicated ecosystems. They are great
at acting like sponges to absorb groundwater, stormwater, and even
some pollutants. I do have Ian Okaton on the zoom
call. For any questions on the ecological impacts that may
also occur by lowering the wetland. And he'd be able
to provide. Any answers on questions from an ecological standpoint
as well. Thank you very much. Next slide. Thank you
very much. And we're here for any questions that might
arise, okay? Well, thank you very much. For this work
and for bringing this update to us. Questions from council.
Councilor Baines. Go ahead. Thank you. Manager Wes through you
or perhaps to Mr. Auckland. Is that the proper pronunciation?
Of Auckenden, I believe, but I could be mispronouncing it
as well. Who should know, as a board member of
NVCA, Is something such as this. You being an engineer,
is there any need for this to be peer? Reviewed.
I mean, I believe everything I'm reading, but I always
see that peer review. Is a necessary part of the
process because. As an amateur, sort of surprised 20 years
of development around the cranberry marsh, and you're seeing the
water level. Is basically still the same now as it
was 20 years ago. It's more or less. I don't
have the benefit. Of being around 20 years ago. Absolutely.
Well, I was around, but not necessarily in Collingwood. But
just having said that. We're basing that again, preliminary conclusion.
On the information that's in front of us. And unfortunately,
right now, all the information that we have is this
previous hydrologic study that was prepared in 2007, likely the
background data collection. Was prepared in 2006. And now fast
forward 20 years later. We have a year of water
level monitoring that was done this year. So. The in
between and. The water level fluctuations that may have occurred
over the the previous 20 years certainly are difficult to
know, with. Any real authority, I guess, above how that
may have changed over 20 years. Great. And if I
may a follow up. Then the residents who. Last year
or the year before were complaining. A one of them
has had for the last five years. Essentially a river
running under. His condo basement, which he's complaining about. And
secondly, another landowner. Right at the edge. There by Cranberry
east, by the big culvert, who complains about flooding to
their property line and indeed, into their basement at one
point. So the response to them would be because I'm
sure these people will ask me. No, the marsh is
essentially okay as it is, and that no remedial action,
I. E. Particularly lowering of the marsh water level. The
mean marsh water level is required. At least it would
seem to me that that's at this point, with this
preliminary study, the takeaway am I correct in that? Go
ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Through the chair. I may defer
to manager Lee Al if she has any further thoughts
on it. But preliminary, though. And this wouldn't necessarily be.
A full engineering study that's been conducted so far. It's
just monitoring of the year and then hear the results.
So. There's really nothing that we're seeing with the results
that have been provided. Saying that water levels are higher.
And that groundwater elevations. If residents basements are getting wets
or flooded, certainly. That is a common challenge, I guess,
that many residents are facing as well. Based on the
information that we have so far today, there's nothing. That.
Is really screaming that there's a problem that needs to
be addressed immediately, but certainly with the level of interest
in the Martian and. What's been the interest and feedback
that we've received over the years? Certainly. We do want
to keep an eye on it. And look to studies
in the future about that. Does that make sense? Okay.
Also, director Alcok, I'd like to just weigh in for
a second. Go. Ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin, through to
you, through you to council. Ben Stewart had answered some
of the questions that this is not a complete engineering
study. We definitely need to collect more information to add
to the database so the analysis would be more thorough.
So that's going to continue. Over next year. As well
as the perception by the residents. Maybe. Require more analysis
to a site specific because the marsh may not be
the cause of this flooding. It could participate. It could
have, but in it. But it may not be a
full cost, so. We don't have enough information to make
this determination, so that might be another approach to see
if there's a specific site that they need to look
at. It for those locations. But our best analysis is
that information. We're collecting hard data that we can analyze.
And so far, since the march is acting properly, Thank
you. And follow the science, please. Also. I'll just say
the residents you're speaking about with concerns about water. At
the time, we were doing, I'll say, an open house
for our stormwater management. Study. I connected them with a
consultant doing that, and I think they were going to
go visit. The residents. Hopefully out of all of this,
looking at the water in the area. We'll come up
with something. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Councilor
Dougherty. Thank you. First of all, I would really like
to express. Gratitude for this study. It's the residents in
the area have had. Deep concerns. For this entire term,
and I'm so glad that. We have taken this initiative
to respond. To their concerns so thoroughly. I am surprised.
When. I see the evidence that had been provided previously
by the residents of photos that they had taken. And
whatnot. I am surprised. With this, the findings of this
study, but I am very happy that we're going to
pursue it for another year. And I'm also glad that
is going to form part of our stormwater master plan
because. We continue to have more developments with higher grades.
That are all ultimately going to be draining into. This
swamp. So it's important for us to understand. The dynamics
and ensure that our residents. Are safe and high and
dry. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
See you. Thank you. I just wanted to add through
the chair one comment around. Approving development applications. And I
think that a lot of folks. Are not aware of
some of the requirements that we have when a new
subdivision, for example, is approved when that report comes to
council and. The items that have been. Provided comment upon.
By the public like you've seen today with one of
the developments. What happens is that we have rules. For
the stormwater and for Collingwood. One of the rules is
that the flows shall not exceed. The Max flow prior
to development. So there's different ways to look at how
those flows. You can also look at the max amount.
You can look at the max flow, but our requirement
right now is the max flow. Shall not exceed. So
I think that. I'm not positive exactly. When that rule
came into effect, or if it was before all of
the development around this particular marsh. But one thing I
would say is that the newer developments, and potentially all
but most likely all the newer developments. Would be required
to mitigate the flows and how fast those flows would
go into something like a receiving body of water. Or
out into the bay. So I don't want to absolve
us of having to do more study and. You'll see
here that there's a strong recommendation that we continue with
this work. And in fact, enhance it, as all the
technical folks have just told you. That said, each development
is monitored as it's approved to make sure that. The
overall. Drainage ecosystem in Collingwood continues to work. And I
just wanted to add that piece mostly for the people
who are hopefully still listening online to know that there's
a lot of thought as each development proceeds forward. Okay.
Thank you. Any other questions? I think you're good. Thanks
so much. Thank you very much. Item twelve is our
consent agenda. And the recommendation before us is that we
receive the general consent agenda and note that the information
and opinions provided in the general consent agenda. Items are
those of the authors and are not verified or approved
as being correct. And there's two items. The first is
Bradford west. Oh, that's. The one. We're deferring the west
or you're withdrawing that I'm going. To read them in.
Sorry, my head's going in a different direction here, so
there's. Two items. The first one is Bradford West Williambury
resolution re removing HStg GST. From new homes to support
housing affordability, and the second one is Clearview Township. Resolution
reupposing the use of agricultural lands for national defense. Aothr
receive site. So could I get a mover in a
second or please to receive. These? Councilor Dougherty, segmented by
councilor Baines. All those in favor? Unanimous. Would anyone like
to pull the steppie? Mayor in regards to 12.2 if
I could. Mary Hammond clearviews letter. I'd like to submit
the council that I will be putting a notice of
motion forward. Later, and I will ask for waiving because.
I think it can be handled today. And it's simply
to request clerk services to issue a letter of support.
On council's behalf to the minister in same contacts that
Clearview's letter does. A major reason for the request is
to support our immediate neighbor for their consideration. Of the
concerns that are identified in their correspondence. It stands out
that one of the key goals of the Department of
Defense is to locate required protection projects such as the.
Deputy mayor. Would you like to just introduce that now
while you're speaking to them? Okay? Yeah. And again, a
goal of the defense, Department of Defense is to locate.
Required protection projects such as the article over the horizon
receiving station within remote areas as much as possible. Clearview
maintains, and I would support that. The current proposed location
is not remote. And. Requests the federal government to. Continue
or consider. In alternative sightings, such as on land within
the nearby base, Borden. So it is in support of
a neighbor, and it is a contentious issue that has
become between the community and the federal government. So I
would like to put on the floor then, now. A
request to ask clerk services. To submitted a letter of
support on council's behalf to the minister in the same
context. And look to see if I have a seconder.
Of course. Yeah. Are you bringing a motion to waive?
Would you like to speak to that? We should get
a mover in a seconder, so. You're moving that. And
councilor Jeffrey will second that. So would you like to
speak? To first, my comments have been made. Mayor Hamlet.
Thank you. Thank you. Maybe I'll just ask if you
have any thought of urgency about this. Or what your
reasoning was. I had a conversation with mayor measures about
it, and as you note, we weren't originally copied with
their September 23 circulation. He thought that was a missed
step on their part. So I said that. We would
be considering it at this meeting coming up. So the
only urgency is that. It probably would have been done
sooner if we've been circulated, but. Whatever council wants. In
that regard, I'm fine with. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone
else like. To speak to the. Yes, Councilor Doherty. Thank
you, mayor. First, I just like clarification. Are you going
to be asking? For waiving notice or are you just
going to put. Yeah, that's what's. On the floor right
now. Okay. I can't support a waiving of notice when
I don't even understand. The implications of approving or not.
Approving. These radar sites, so I would not be prepared
to vote for sure. Without getting some feedback from staff.
Okay. Thank you, Councilor Baines. Thank you. On that actual
point. I would love to hear back from the federal
government as to. Why you couldn't put this on baseboarding,
but presumably they have a response to that. But I
like Councilor Dougherty. Sort of feel in the dark about.
Blindly approving this as much as I might be in
support of it, but I'd like to hear from somebody
in the federal government as to why it couldn't be
on baseboard. Or it has to be on this 4000
acres that they want. Thank you. Okay. So I guess
the question. So I might need the clerk almost to
help me with this. We have a motion. To. Waive
notice, but we also have a request I'm hearing, to
refer this to staff. For a report. So how do
you suggest we deal with this order?
so for clarification if the motion to waive notice doesn't
pass then it becomes A notice of motion, and the
motion will appear on the December 15 meeting. However, if
there's additional information that's being requested. Will require. Direction. To
gather that additional information. Okay. Thank you. That's very good
advice. Okay. Anyone else like. To speak to. The waiving
of notice. Okay, so. We can. New spoke, and everyone's
done. Okay, so all those in favor of waiving notice?
123456. Okay. And a post. One, two, three. So. Notice
is waived. And then we have the motion now in
front of us. Did you like to speak first or
last? I haven't spoken, but I won't speak last in
case there's any. Clarification that's needed, but thank you. All
right. Would anyone like to speak to. This motion. Councilor
Dort. Thank you. I'm just very surprised. That we would
be considering. Supporting this motion without. Any background information. Particularly
from federal government. And Department of National Defense, so. In
my views, actually irresponsible for us to support this. Without
that information, I will. Adamantly not support it. Hey. Thank
you, Councilor Paynes. Councilor Doherty said it all, so I
agree. Thank you. Anyone else? I'm sorry. I have spoken.
Okay. To me, this is a really hard one, because
if we're good neighbors, this is a good neighbor motion,
right? Please be a good neighbor to me and support
me. But we don't have any information other than wanting
to be a good neighbor. I can tell you what
I know, and you probably read the same things I
do. This. Is sort of south and east of Stainer.
Part of Clearview. There's many acres that are involved. There's
going to be a lot of antennas. Set up. It's
going to be one receiving site in Clearview that will
have a companion site. I think it's in the corpus
and between them they'll be able to identify. I'll say.
Foreign objects in the Arctic. It's about our security in
the Arctic. And Department of National Defense has said these
are two good places that between them they can identify
things in the Arctic. It will take. A lot of
agricultural land out of production, and I think this is
the basis of the concerns that Clearview has that they
don't want that. I know that. I think it was.
Spring water has done a good neighbor. Kind of motion
and support. And that's about all I know. That's helpful,
Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So I didn't feel
completely in the dark. I felt on page two of
two, they did explain the rationale in terms of the
agricultural land being taken out of. Taken out of inventory,
and I don't. Know how successful they will be with
the appeal, given the technology that's requ? Required and the
identification of the locations, but. I'm quite prepared. To support
them in their quest to maybe push for the consideration
of somewhere not chewing up agricultural land. Okay. Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak to this? Okay, so.
Yes, go ahead. I will just say. That I don't
think we're being irresponsible. I think that's. A little harsh
of a term to be putting out there. It's simply,
in my case, supporting our neighbor on the basis of
don't use. Agricultural land. Plain, simple, right? Let's not complicate
the issue there. They're saying? My understanding of it is
that the receiving station will be temporary in nature, so
to speak. It's not a 300 year thing. I think
it's a 30 year thing, but. Once it leaves. The
land is no longer usable for some period of time.
As I said. I wasn't trying to complicate it. Claireview
is the one who has to go through the hoops
and the understanding this is simply just to support our
neighbor. Thank you. Okay, well, with that said. All those
in favor of the resolution put forward. 123-4567 and those
opposed? That's two opposed. Okay, thank you. That passes. County
report. Deputy Mayor Mayor Hallen I'm going to start out
with. Saying on behalf of calling with council our condolences
to the family of the simple county. Employee who was
tragically killed today. At the Oral Madante landfill site. It
sounds like a very unfortunate accident amongst. About coworkers are
certainly the contractors who work very closely with the family
of employees there. So. I'm saddened to hear of that
tragic occurrence. I also wanted to inform council that the
province introduced legislation last week. That they expect will be
passed and it'll go for January 1 transition for the
transfer. Of over 4000 acres to Barry from Springwater and
Ora Madante. It impacts the county as well. It is
being done on the basis of Barry has the capacity
to service additional land, but not enough developable land. The
townships lack the ability to do both. It is further
contended that it will unlock new homes and therefore major
economic investment continuing. And align with the key transportation infrastructure
projects, notably Barry Go and the Bradford bypass for the
province. And likely simple county transit implications as well. Issues
such as financial compensation from Barry are still being discussed,
and Minister Flack will regulate the transition in that regard.
Until those terms are decided. It's difficult to fully report
to council about the impacts on Simcoe. There has been
terms put forward by simple county regarding other areas of
the county. In regards to development of other areas of
the county that could influence the outcome as well. So
hopefully those will get accepted and provide the compensation that
we've requested. And the last item? I'll update on. And
unfortunately, no. Changes January 1. Recycling switches, so people need
to be expecting to see two trucks. Don't take your
one empty and one not empty. Bins back into your
house. Make sure that both trucks are circulated. And again,
no. Industrial. Small industrial, commercial or institutional. And I know
staff, simply staff, are still working on trying to figure
out if there's a way to continue some of the
recycling services that we were doing over and above what.
The government regulated us to. But unfortunately. I can't give
you any more news than that. It's the same as
what? You've heard before, but I'll repeat it again on
the 15th because I am concerned about January 1 going
forward, that people aren't going to realize the change. Is
that the end of your report? Thank you, Councilor Dougherty.
Thank you. We'll just say that. This is a matter
of deep concern also for Amel and. They are working.
Very closely with the ministry. Trying to find some resolution
before January 1, because there's no question that this is
going to have a myriad of. Negative fallout. So just
stay tuned because it is. A very important pursuit right
now. Speaking of the ways the change in recycling. Okay,
thank you. So many things happening January 1. Yes, councilor
Potts. Thanks, Mayor Hammond. Through you to W. Mer Fryer.
So it's. My understanding now, when this happens for any
of these facilities that want to take the recycling to
the landfill. There's a charge for commercial and businesses to
take it, but if you're residential, there's no charge. If
you just clarify that, and I have a follow up.
The responsibility of. The producer's responsibility as of January 1
is to provide service. To residents who were using recycling
depots that the county had. Because they didn't have curbside
pickup. So it is their responsibility, the producer, to make
sure that. Services made available free of charge. County has
been trying to work out a way to do that
and still maintain locations like the Collingwood. For the Collingwood
residents. There's nothing in the regulation, though, that says that
circular materials can't say that. Okay, well, you can deliver
them to Barry, which would make it completely impossible to
continue service in. All likelihood. So county is trying to
work on that. They're still, unfortunately, negotiating with circular materials
in that regard, but they're trying to make that available.
For the ici. That we're getting service. Unfortunately, the producer
does not have responsibility in that regard. I think it'll
become clearer the time January 1 comes because, as the
deputy mayor says, these are really important details, the questions
you're asking, and I don't think they're quite shortage yet.
Yeah, and just to follow up, but guess where I'm
going? With this is until we really know what's going
on. Does the county have any kind of internal solution?
For the user to be able to drop stuff off.
At no charge. Because when I go out to the
sites, there's signs that say there's no charge. And when
you hear there is charges. Understand. Nobody really knows. Are
they willing to work with the transition, to work with
the residents and business owners. I'm sort of wondering if
we shouldn't ask if this is a matter for. Our
staff, but we need a bit of a. Maybe I'm
too right, but we need. A bit of a cheat
sheet on exactly how this is going to work because
we get hundreds of pages of reports at the county.
But. Yes. Executive Director Peg, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor
Hamlin through you twelve council so the county has been
hosting information sessions. And a number of staff were able
to attend those. They're also providing us with information. Pamphlets
that we're looking to distribute locally throughout Collingwood, but happy
to report back whether that's through our weekly operational update
or at a council meeting on the plans that the
county has for the rollout because we too are hearing
some discrepan. Discrepancies in terms of fees, no fees. And
we'd be happy to get that clarity and provide it
with council. Okay. I think staff of the county know
they've got, well now, 30 days to clarify this. In
some fashion, and I don't know if it's an issue
across the province. Or if it's just county of Simcoe,
but it's not totally sorted, right? And again, I appreciate
that. And I'll speak just from the downtown businesses in
Collingwood. If I was a business, right. Now. What do
I do on January 1? The problem is going to
be there. We all know it's going to be there,
but. In the meantime, what do they do? So if
there's any kind of clarification. I think before it escalates
on January 1 on the main street, I call you
with eight foot snowbanks. I think it would be nice
to know what do the businesses do? So, executive director,
do you think you could report back? At our next
council meeting on the 15th. On whatever the county can
tell us, the county staff could tell us, as at
that date. Yeah. Great. Thank you, mayor. I saw co
skitter mover card turned over to our Cao. Yes, go
ahead. Thank you. I have no concerns with us reporting
back and to asking the county staff what the situation
is. I think if there's items that might require county
action that we might even want to have the county
folks here or perhaps online to answer questions, if that
could be arranged. Okay by that? I mean, the staff
side. Yeah, that'd be awesome. Thank you. Deputy mayor. The
reality is, though, The county is letting the public know
that. There's fees for anybody bringing recycling as of January
1. The only thing that can happen different than that
is it gets better. But right now that's the situation
because. There's no change. It's producer responsibility. And the county
does not have the responsibility. So they're advertising right now.
That recycling will have a fee if you bring it
to the fish. Hopefully something gets worked out. And permits
get issued to those people who are using. It. Up
now because they didn't have curbside serious and it wasn't
being picked. Up by the county. And in regards to
the ICi, It's being said that it ends on January
1. I hope that there's changes, but what they're saying
right now. Is. What they're anticipating is going to happen.
Go ahead, just quick. One of the big reasons I
see this is I can see this adding large pressure
on our public works operations, especially for garbage and recycling
pickup on the mini street, too. So I think. It's
going to be completely insane. And just knowing. What we
deal with down here on the main street to begin
with. It's certainly not going to be pretty. And I
know it's out of our control. But January 1 has
to be probably the worst date to start it, if
anything. I can't advocate anymore, but the businesses just need
to know what to do. I think that's what we're
trying to do with getting staff to come back. To
us. Because even though we can say it's not our
responsibility, you know who's going? To be blamed. Right. So
we want to make sure that. We're notifying the public
of what it's going to be and that's. Your point?
I'm trying to say the same thing right. We need
to communicate it to the public. And again why they
choose January 1 beyond me. Thank you. And even in
a bit of a broader context, and this might be
a set of questions I would be asking of the
county staff. There's a provincial paradigm where the province has
put in some new rules, including. Regulations related to. Suppliers
taking accountability for more of recycling. But I don't understand
myself why some of the recycling services that are not
taken over. Wouldn't continue to live with the entities that
have run them in the past. In this case, it
could be the county. Or if there's provincial rules that
require that they not be offered moving forward somehow. What?
The basket of services. That arrived at the front door
of residents and businesses in our town. Has been adjusted
through. A trigger. That was a regulation. But it doesn't
seem that that regulation would require the service at the
front lines be changed, and I know that. I'm putting
maybe a difficult task in front of county folks. So
I would like to ask them a bit more about
that at the staff level as well. Yeah, I think
what I've heard. Is that? The county was getting. I'm
going to call it a subsidy. From the province for
the recycling. Every year, and I think it was $400,000
of memory serves. And under this new system. They don't
get any of it, any of that subsidy, because it's
all now. To be collected by the producers. So if
they continued offering a service because this, to me, was
logical. You always been picking. What? We'd have to raise
the taxes at the county to continue offering the same
level of service. That was before. All the responsibility. Although
it's not all the responsibility. Was given to the producers,
so. I think that's where I understand it is, but
you'll find it more about it. And that would be?
Maybe we could all be writing the province. Municipalities to
make some suggestions. Okay, let's bring this to a close.
We have a lot to do if you have one
quick more thing, just a continuation, because you're totally correct.
What was identified in the staff report to us is
the net impact on the county is $4.2 million going
forward. So they didn't have an awful lot of room
to look at continuing things that they didn't have a
responsibility for. And I just wanted to add that to
your comments. Okay. Thank you. All right. The next is.
Motions. And we have two motions. The first one is
mine, so I'll turn the chair. Over to deputy mayor.
Thank you, Mayor Hammond. So we'll have you read in
the motion. And look for a seconder, and then you
can indicate. If you'd like to speak first or last.
Okay. And I'm going to ask. Clerk almonds to put
the motion up. There's been some relatively minor changes. Since
it was put in the agenda, so he'll just read
away. Is this okay? Protection. Whereas the town of Collingwood's
community based strategic plan, that's 2024 to 2028. Commits to
fostering a safe, connected and inclusive community that promotes well
being, belonging and respect for all residents and visitors. And
whereas recent protests near school properties have raised concerns regarding
the safety, security and well being of students, staff and
families and have the potential. To disrupt educational environments and
community harmony. And whereas the strategic plan emphasizes the pillars
of connected. Fostering, well being and belonging, responsible. Service, excellence
and collaboration, and vibrant creating spaces that support positive community
engagement. And whereas the town recognizes that the Canadian Charter
of rights and freedoms guarantees everyone the right to freedom
of expression, peaceful assembly. And association. And affirms that it
is not intending to prohibit peaceful gatherings, protests or demonstrations,
including those related to labor strikes, but rather to restrict
nuisance demonstrations. And whereas section 128 of the Municipal Act
2001 authorizes municipalities to prohibit and regulate public nuisances including
activities that in the opinion of council, are or could
become or cause public nuisances. And whereas the town is
committed to protecting vulnerable students, We're speaking about junior kindergarten
to grade twelve. From nuisance demonstrations that compromise safety, disrupt
the ability to learn and negatively impact the well being
of student, staff, and families. Therefore, be resolved that council
directs staff to prepare a bylaw. To prepare a draft
bylaw. Or bylaw amendment to prohibit or regulate nuisance protests
within a defined buffer zone around schools. In the town
of Collingwood. With consideration for these items, a clear definition
of nuisance protest. For example, protests that obstruct access creates
safety risks or to cause significant disruption to school operations.
Reasonable distance parameters for restricted zones, exemptions for peaceful lawful
assemblies that do not interfere with school safety or operations.
Enforcement provisions in collaboration with COP and lastly, compliance with
charter rights and relevant legal standards. And further that staff
consult with legal counsel Collingwood, OPP, and local public stakeholders.
Public school stakeholders to ensure the proposed bylaw is enforceable,
balanced and aligned with the town's values. Vision and strategic
priorities and further that council request a staff report to
be prepared to. Consider if there are other location types
in our community that should be reviewed for additional protest
related protection. Do we have a secondary? Councilor Perry. So,
Mayor Hamlin, you'll speak first? I'll speak first. Yeah. Thank
you. We all know we've had protesters in front of
town hall for a long time, and the first deputy
today spoke to those protests as a reason. She almost
was suggesting, I think, that my motion was a back
doorway of stopping the protests in front of town hall.
But that's, in fact, not the case. My motion is
specifically directed. To a vulnerable section of our community, children.
For sure and I can't emphasize enough. That Collingwood. Clearly.
Accepts the idea of. Democratic ability. To legally and peacefully
protest. Nobody is at all speaking about that. Certainly not
me. but i have heard so much and perhaps you
have as well About these targeted attacks that end up
affecting our children. I know that. Some of the kids
at CCI have had things happen to their lockers who.
Are of a jewish religion. I know. Things are scratched
on sidewalks, in front of their homes. And. This latest.
Effort of the protesters was because. A bus that was
going from school to school. Primarily with the job of
explaining what the Holocaust was. Caused them to run out.
And. Protest this as well. What people are protesting about
doesn't really matter. Lots of people are going to protest
if they don't like the war. It's fine. In the
Middle east, there's no end of wars to say we
don't support. I can think of about ten right now.
And. They're certainly entitled to be protesting that these wars
are going on. But I feel that. The safety and
security of our kids and how they feel intimidated. And
the fact that people show up. To protest outside their
school, who, by all accounts, and this was one of
the slides that was. Pulled today. With swearing and so
on going on. It not only intimidates the kids in
the school, but I worry that it gives a license
to those who are otherwise bullying to feel like, well,
this must be okay if there's. Some adults out there
who. think that this is a great thing to do
So. I'm trying to straddle that line between. Not limiting
anyone's right to protest, but making sure that the protests
aren't in locations that cause harm, jeopardize safety, or target
our kids. So that's the nature of my motion. Now,
I did add on. The further request to staff report
if there's other locations that should be reviewed. Because I
have had, and again, perhaps you've had people reach out
to you saying, well, Why just the schools? What about.
This kind of. Sensitive infrastructure, whether it's a hospital, a
daycare, Whatever. There's a whole list. I've certainly had sent
to me. So I haven't really got any opinions about
that, but. I thought I would add on to the
motion. For staff to report back to us. I so
recognize that some communities have taken. A very big approach
to this. VAUGHN in June, I think, did bubbles around
all kinds of what they call sensitive public infrastructure. But
my motion today is primarily to protect our kids, and
with a side motion or a second. Part of the
motion. That staff review and provide any advice they can
give us on whether we need to think about this
further. Thank you. Thanks. Debut mer Fryer. And. On the
last part. Of your motion, Mayor Hamlin, when it talks
with the other community spaces I received, which I believe
you have to. Some correspondence from the bia. And maybe
not so much directly from the BIA to you, but
members of the BIA. And there was some incidents over
the weekend that involved Santa. And I think in a
case like this looking at understanding free speech, understanding out
there that. I look at. The young kids that are
on Santa's knee talking about what they want for Christmas.
Really? Should not be involved in anything along these kinds
of behaviors. And then to be harassing Santa on the
main street of Collingwood, I think is out of line
and. Not right. The one question I do have, and
we can create bylaws and stuff, but. The enforcement piece
of it. I haven't seen personally, but I've heard firsthand
that these kind of options have had our own staff
in tears. When speaking with members of the OBP at
flagrazings to see if they were aware. And it doesn't
seem to be enforced. Where does the enforcement piece come
into this? And an understanding. I believe the police might
have been. Present at the school. Are they actually going
to step up and enforce it? Because. Or is this
just time of hot air? So that's my question. I've
had a few discussions with our detachment commander over the
last year or so. About. These protests. What I think
their job is to enforce the criminal law. And there's
a really narrow definition of hate in the criminal code
right now. As I understand it. The officers haven't seen.
Any. Breaking of that law. But I think the motion
here, part of it. Is going to be addressing enforcement.
How will that be addressed? And I'm looking forward to.
We'll have a further discussion on that as far as
I'm concerned. Yeah, just a quick follow up. Absolutely. And
again. I've had the opportunity to speak with my two
kids who both attend CCI. And they were aware of.
The bus and being there, however, didn't really know what
it was all about. They hadn't been aware of any
hostile environment. But at the same time, Talking to friends
since there is a little bit of animosity in angst
and anxiety. That goes along with it. So given the
fact of the school areas and then obviously with what's
happened downtown. I know for myself. Just attending the farmers
market, just walking across the street. I've been approached in
a very hostile manner. And again, speak all you want
on what you believe in, but certainly the options I
wouldn't. Support. Thanks. To deputy mayor. So
understanding. The challenges in terms of enforcement and or. What
as a municipality we can put in place. I think
what I'd be asking is that the. Mayor's motion in
its entirety. Go to legal before we go to all
the other avenues. That we get legal advice on. Exactly
what it is that we can do. We've been through
this process before and other things. And I think it'd
be really critically important to start out. I mean, you've
put it as part, but I think you should just
start with the whole thing right up front. And then
we move to the other pieces, and I think that.
That would satisfy a lot of our questions before we
got into the details of where, how many places and
those kind of questions, so. That would be maybe a
referral back to staff to run our existing bylaw. Your
motion. And everything through legal first, and then we can
have an understanding of what exactly. We can do. Yeah.
I thought that's, in fact, what would happen. The second
part is that staff consult with legal counsel Collingwood Opp.
Local public school stakeholders to ensure the proposed bylaw is
enforceable, balanced and aligned with town's values. Vision and strategic
priorities, but perhaps through. You chair. Could we ask the
clerk if that's also her intention? We'll get clerk on
us first, and then I'll come back to you. I
don't think we should be putting through staff trying to
draft something until we have a clear understanding from legal
where we can go in terms of the drafting or
if. There is. A shorter way to address, per one
of the deputies requests through our existing bylaw, But. I
don't want staff to go through a lot of work
until we have a clear understanding from legal. We'll have
the clerk respond, and then I'll look to you to
see if you are looking to put an amendment on
for. Thank you. Through the deputy mayor. We could easily
just note where the LiNe says in further that stock,
consult with legal counsel. First. We can just add the
word first in there and then I think that so
if the mover in seconder would be okay with that?
I would be fine. I
think that's all the clerk is going to add right
now, but. Will that cover what you would like to
cover? Yeah, I think that's fine. I think it's important
that council understand the legal as well, not just staff.
So I think there's kind of a couple of steps
here where we go to legal. And then we come
back, and then. Whether we direct staff further or not
after that. I see it as two steps, okay? Further
comment, councilor Ring had his card up first, and then
I'll go to councilor. Dougherty. Thank you, deputy Mayor Fryer.
Through. I guess. Kirk albus. I'm not doubting
what was just mentioned. By. Councilor. Jeffrey. I guess what
I'm trying to say is. I really thought that that's
the way. This would pair out the way, the way
it's worded here. But adding right in there, I always
thought it was going to be two steps. Anyways, this
isn't here. It's given direction to come back with a
bylaw, so. I'm thinking that that's the second step, right?
How they get the information would be the first step.
And if it's not clear? I was like the mayor.
I thought it was covered in that one paragraph, but
adding the word write. Or I mean, first. Sorry, not
right. Clarifies it, then I'm happy with that. But I
think the second steps. It's going to be before they
bring a bylaw back. They would have to consult with
these people first, would they not? I'm going to turn
to council, Jeffrey, but that's my understanding, too. We're adding
the first. I think what it's meant to do is
if there's any red flags? Then councilor Jeffrey expects that
it would come back to council. I wouldn't have brought
it up if I didn't think it wasn't. Clear, and
I don't think it was clear that there was two
steps and that we would have staff doing a lot
of work before council was privy to the legal consultation,
so I think it's important that we're all involved in
this as we move it forward. Follow up councilor ring.
Question. I thought it was clear. I can give my
opinion too. So I thought it was clear enough, but,
I mean, I guess apparently it wasn't. If that's the
case. Then let's go with the third step then. I
don't. Care. And Claire Thomas like to speak. Certainly. So
for clarity, the report that's coming back is looking at
other. Related or other locations for additional protest related protections.
So as this is worded, we would do a consultation
with these other parties if they have no concern in
how the bylaw is drafted. But the intent is that
it's not going to be an additional staff report. It
will. Either be a bylaw or it will be a
bylaw amendment. So when it comes back, But if legal
says right off the get go. No, we don't recommend
you doing it. Then we would report back if they
said yes. You can do it. There are sample bylaws
out there. We can move forward. Pending to further conversation
too, with our detachment commander and their resources available. And
what that would mean. For them. A bile could come
directly back. Or additional information if it's not recommended. And
before I turn to councilor Jeffrey, you said directly, and
I'm just going to check this because it is a
question I have. When the report comes back, it'll come.
Through the community. The whole process, or is it coming
back directly to council? So it is. At this point
in time, it would come back directly to council. With.
The only opportunity for public input. Is it written or
asking for delegation? So, Councilor Ring, did you have any
further follow up? Okay, so I'll turn to Councilor Dorita.
Thank you. I'm very glad that Councilor Jeffrey made the
suggestion that she did. Because. Although I understand. Totally the
mayor's intent. I think that. This is the thin edge
of the wedge. In terms of. Limiting. an ability For
freedom of expression. And lawful gathering. And I do not
think that it is the place of the municipality. To
say. Where these demonstration. Demonstrations. Can be held. The
issue, in my view. Is an issue of definition and
enforcement. We don't have a definition of what a nuisance.
Demonstration is we need one and we need it enforced.
And I think that. Once. Our police services. Have. A
proper definition of what a nuisance gathering might be. Then.
We would have some tools to work. With. People in
our municipality really, whether. Whatever side of an issue that
they might be on. Oh, I had something else in
my head. It just jumped right out. Okay, I'll leave
it at that. Definition and enforcement. I know what I
was going to say. Of all places. I think. That.
Schools. And the students in those schools. Should have the
ability to. See how our democratic. Process works and that
they are free to express themselves. But again, the issue
here is the definition of what is a nuisance. Demonstration.
Not demonstration, per se. Comment from any other counselors. I'll
just check with the others first, counselor. Councilor Baines. Go
ahead, and then I'll come back to you. Counselor. Thank
you. Deputy Mayor friar. I would just like to compliment
the mayor, actually. On bringing forward. Unfortunately, it would seem.
And I may disagree with my colleague here, Councilor Doherty.
At least under. The certain circumstances now and necessary. But.
Prudent, I hope. Response. It's unfortunate it has to be
even considered. But. I'm sensitive to its limited scope of
the bubble. As proposed here and look forward to the
next step of this. Actually, from hearing a response back
from staff. Thank you. Councilor McCullough. Thank you, chair. Just
picking up on some of what councilor Dougherty had said.
My feeling is it is more about. The nuisance. The
definition of the nuisance. It's the conduct we're trying. To
measure and contain when it's out of step with our
norms, not the content it is the conduct, and I
think once you've defined that, it can be applied anywhere
in Collingwood. Not only at a school. Anywhere where a
protest or a demonstration takes place that exceeds acceptable standards
of conduct. So I think it's a fairly universal tool
that can be used to deal with situations that become
out of control or border on harassment or threatening behavior.
Thank you. Any further, Councilor Perry. Okay, so councilor ring.
It was just, again, going to say that I thought
that. At what request of Councilor Dougherty is already in
the motion. I'm seeing here a clear definition of nuisance
protest. And that explains what? And then where the enforcement.
Enforcement provisions and collaboration with the Ontario provincial police. So
the two things she thought she'd like to see in
this notice of motion are. Both there. Councilor Dougherty. Go
ahead. What I'm not comfortable with in. This motion is.
Reference to any defined buffer zone. Around any public. Entity.
Like a school. Or a bia district. That's what I'm
not comfortable with at this point in time. Thank you.
Councilor Perry. Go ahead. Thank you. I wasn't going to
comment, but I do believe. This motion covers everything. And
as far as even going, what is a bubble zone?
I think everything's covered in there. I'm totally comfortable with
it. And I don't know if we need to make
it anymore. I'm not saying it's complicated, but we don't
need to make it more complicated. Don't see any more
comments, so I'll make my comments. And. I feel the
current nuisance bylaw outlines most of what's already been talked
about. I've got no problem with supporting this going forward.
But I'd be surprised if there's much change to the
current nuisance bylaw that we have. I think it's being
established. It says, nuisance shall mean an activity that causes
an unsafe environment affects the well being of persons and
where the enjoyment of public space and shall be limited
to activities described in section three. And there's. Twelve activities
that I think cover an awful lot of what we've
just been talking about. So. It is a 2013 bylaw,
and things have changed dramatically, so. I could be wrong.
But. I do believe we have a good bylaw enforcement.
Is always going to be the problem. With this. I'm
concerned about trying to have one of our municipal officers
do something enforcement wise. It is identified in the nuisance
by law. That the police officer. Is also. An enforcement
agent. But. As Mary Hamill explained, They're even hesitant to
step into this. But anyway, so we've had good discussion
of it. Is everybody comfortable that they understand the lengthy
motion that's had a few amendments to it? Does anybody
need to go ahead? Councilor Dory. Thank you. I'd like
to request a sever. Severe, whereas recent. Protests near
school property. And. The last and whereas, and therefore
be it. Separate that out. So the second and the
last, whereas, yeah. I'm not asking to sever that. Therefore,
be it resolved as well. And that doesn't require a
secondary. I need clarity and looking. I've just put the
motion back up on the screen. So there's three pieces.
So the main be it resolve line and then. Further
that in another and further. Ad. Yeah. So. If you
scroll to the top. Click on this. So moved. Seconded.
Whereas. Okay, so. And whereas. Recent protest near school properties
to separate that out. Please. The second. And then also
sever. And whereas the town is committed to protecting. So,
Councilor Dory, that is the preamble, right? We'd be voting.
On. The therefore and the further that. The preamble. Isn't
something that's being considered from a voting standpoint. Am I
correct? It's a reference to specific locations that I have
a problem with. But the staff report is to consider
other location types. Would you like?
That third part of the motion, which is the amended
inclusion and further, that council request a staff report. Be
prepared to consider if there are other location types in
our community that should be reviewed. Would you like that
severed? Actually. I think. If we could just sever.
The therefore. And further that and what I would do
is support just second part. We will vote separately. On
the therefore. The first and further that and the second
and further in that. So I'm going to call a
vote to the. First. In case anybody else would like
to say anything. And this is to therefore be it
resolved at council direct staff. As highlighted by Kirkham is
there for us on the screen. Everybody's okay with that?
Go ahead, councilor. Ring terribly. Yeah, it was a gray
highlight that I meant. Sorry. You need this to go
with that. So that's what we'll do. We're? Voting on
the yellow highlight. On the screen. Just that the
second and further that. Is so much an integral part
of the first part of this motion. I don't know
if Councilor Dougherty needs that second one. What that suggests
to me is that we are going to rely on
legal counsel before we do. Another thing. And that's why
I would support that. And further the staff consult with
radio. Casting. Okay, let's keep going.
For me, anyway. That's the only part of this motion
that I would support. The request is for severing and
that can be made. So we will vote on the
yellow highlight. All those in favor? And opposed. And so
noted. That carries on the blue highlight. All those in
favor? And that is unanimous. On the fuchsia. Highlight.
Ready to vote. All those in favor? And opposed. And
so noted, but carries and I'll turn back to you.
Thank you. The next item on our agenda is 14.2,
which is. A motion concerning mandatory water safety and survive
to swim training. And I'll turn it over. To you,
deputy mayor, to read in your motion. Thank you, Mayor
Hamlin. Whereas drowning is a leading cause of preventable death
among children in Ontario and basic swimming and widow otter
survival skills significantly reduced this risk. And whereas Collingwood's community
based strategic plan emphasizes safety, well being, and active lifestyles,
particularly given our waterfront in recreational. Amenities. Therefore be resolved
at Council of Town of Collingwood endorsed and support the
initiative to advocate for mandatory water swimming, water safety and
swim to survive training in the Ontario elementary school curriculum
and that this resolution be forwarded to the applicable government
authorities. MPP, Saunderson, local school boards and the association. Of
municipal municipalities of Ontario for their endorsement. And I look
for a secondary. Oh, sorry. Forgot I was
cheering already. Councilor Perry. Okay. Do you want to speak
first or last? I'll just speak for. Mary allen. Somewhat
similar. This is. A supportive motion to our neighbor. But
in this particular case, It does involve a situation where
we have an extensive shoreline as well, and therefore I
went to staff and asked for their input before bringing
this forward, and they were very supportive. Of asking for
mandatory. Provincial mandatory. Directives. And that they would
be prepared to. Help. The local schools be able to
provide that if the prophets chose to go that direction.
And I will leave it at that parahamela. Okay. Thank
you. Any comments or questions. Seeing none. All those in
favor? And that's unanimous? Okay, so what we're going to
do is move into the community of the whole there's.
Two primary things left on the agenda. The first ones
are budget, and the second one is. Master servicing plan
award of contract. And what I'm going to suggest we
can move into committee of the whole as I mentioned.
Earlier. We're going to deal with the budget first. And.
I'll be chairing that part of the meeting. And then
we'll. Switch seats. With what will then be chair Perry
and he'll continue on with the rest of the agenda.
And so before I'll get to our sean in a
second, I also wanted to suggest. That we take a
40 minutes break before we pursue this. Yes, go ahead.
Okay. CEO is raising the point that perhaps. If we
dealt with the master servicing plan now. Then manager Lill
could leave. How does that sound? Manager? I'd love to
see it. Okay, that was a good request then. Co
skinner. So we'll do the motion to go into committee
as a whole, and maybe, councilor. Perry. You can share
from there, all right? So the recommendation council move into
the committee of the whole session move in a seconder
deputy mayor. Seconded by councilor McCullough. All those in favor,
and that's unanimous. Okay. Chair Perry, over to you. Thank
you, Mayor Hamlin. I will go right to item 15.2.1,
master servicing. Plan MSP award contract. Rpf 2025. And I'll
hand it over to director Alcoca. Internal. Just. Okay. Manager
to Elmel. Thank you. This is going to be a
quick one. Good evening, council and staff. Thank you, Cao
Skinner. That was super awesome. So let me just introduce.
The staff report. I'm Amber Leal, the manager of development
engineering, and I'm going to provide a quick and brief
introduction for the staff. Report 20250. One two award of
the RFP for the master servicing plan. Next slide, please.
The strategic purpose of the MSP is to guide long
term water and wastewater infrastructure planning. It aligns our servicing
capacity with population and employment growth. Current regulations. And intermicipal
obligations. It provides a defensible, future ready roadmap for infrastructure
delivery. It incorporates our asset management planning, new official plan
objectives, and municipal comprehensive review growth projections. And it feeds
essential information to the upcoming wastewater treatment plant expansion, environmental
assessment. Next slide, please. To provide a bit of a
financial overview. Staff originally budgeted this project over three years.
With an anticipated mid year start, staff allotted 75,000 in
2025, 150,000 in 2026, and a further 75,000 in 2027.
Staff were delayed in issuing the RFP due to its
complexity and further due to the project's. Complexity, staff extended
the period of time that vendors had to prepare proposals
upon completion of the review process, staff have had to
prepare for council's approval of an additional budget request. To
top up the original budget to support this project, follow.
Following a length the intent technical procurement process. The company
with the highest ranked score was WSP Canada and WSP
Canada had a very thorough and detailed work plan covering
everything the town has asked for, including a very detailed
and extensive modeling calibration regime. Excuse me. The recommended proposal
came in at $430,022.50. Including nonrebatable tax. The total shortfall
being 130,022 dollarsfifty. Cents given the time of the year.
It is not expected that any invoicing on this project
will occur until the new year. And with that in
mind, staff recommend sending the remaining funds left from 25
back to source and fully funding the project through the
26 and 27 budget process to be funded through the
development charges. Reserve funds. Next slide. Next steps would be
that council endorse the contract award to WSP as recommended
and approve the budget allocations and recommend. Recommendations. Finance would
update the budgets accordingly, purchasing would award the contract and
development engineering staff would take this project through project. Execution
over the next 18 months. Next slide. Thank you so
much. Any questions? Thank you, Manager Leal. I'll look to
the gallery. Jessica, any comments? Okay. Co. Anyone online? The
clerk announced that. The clerk. Thank you. We do have
still a number of participants online, so if there is
anybody that's. Participating remotely through zoom. Please press the raise
your hand feature at the bottom of your screen. And
not at this time. Chair Perry. Okay. Thank you. So,
I'll read in the recommendation. That staff report in 2020,
512 Master Servicing Plan, award of contract be received and
that council approves an additional 130,022. Dollars and be funded
from the development charges reserves through the 2026 and 2027
budget process. Can have a mover. Councilor Dougherty. Seconded, Councilor
Ring and I'll put it in the floor. For discussion.
Comments. Councilor jeffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question,
I guess through to Andrew Le. I guess I wasn't
here for the other conversation, but to me, a 43%
increase. Is a pretty significant one. And I'm just wondering,
are we really bad budgeters or did something really change?
Value added. Within this. But, I mean, I read that
from afar, and it was a bit of a shocker
to me. I got my calculator out and one that's
pretty serious. And Juliet to the chair, to the counselor.
So at the onset of budgeting, sometimes you have to
do more of a high level exercise. At this point,
this contract contains not only a very robust calibration, Exercise
for both the water and the sanitary models, but it
includes a duplicate of that in three years. So that
our information stays up to date in this very rapid
growth period that we're experiencing. In addition. There's funds within
this contract set aside for modeling requests that come through
to staff. A certain percentage of that. And then we
also have a small provisional allowance set aside for any
additional work that might be needed through the EA process.
Should there be any part 16 orders at the end?
So I think that the project that we have now
is very robust, and it helps to support the wastewater
treatment EA expansion that's coming up. Councilor Jeffrey. No. Ouch.
Any other questions or comments? Deputy mayor friar. Yeah. And
also, thank you for the presentation. And totally understand the
need for it. For sure, but it did jump that
substantial amount. So you mentioned about. Because I was going
to ask what was the amount of contingency? Built into
it. And you did say small amount. So can you
elaborate just how much contingency is built? It's not a
contingency. Sorry. Through the chair to the counselor. It is
a provisional amount set aside for modeling, and it is
25,000. To be used over the course of. Three years.
And the 2051 horizon that's being used. Is that something
that changed along the way as well? Just thinking of
some of the things that have happened that the county
specifically in regards to the annexation debate about. Barry all
of a sudden? The number of years that was being
projected out changed in that, but. The horizon was always
2051. For as long as I've been involved with this
project. Yeah, I thought that might be to align with
the official plan. I just thought that might have. Been
another reason why it might have bumped up the way
it did. But to your belief, it was always projected
for 2051. Thank you, chair. That's. Okay. Any other. Councilor
Baines. It looks like you're okay anyway. I'll call the
motion to or the recommendation to a vote. All those
in favor? And that's unanimous. Mayor, do I hand it
back to you, or do we just take a break?
Okay. So. You recommended 40 minutes. Okay, 40 minutes break.
So we'll be back here. At. 650, I guess. Thank
you.
Welcome back, council. The next item on our agenda is.
15.2.2. It's our draft. Two of the budget. And the
recommendation before us is that staff report t 2025 20.
Staff. Proposed budget draft two be received. Could I have
a mover in a seconder, please? Councilor McCullough, seconded by
councilor Baines. And now we'll open. This up for discussion.
Go ahead, councilor Potts. Thanks for your hamlet. This is
where we can start. To talk about adding stuff. Go
for it. Absolutely. I wanted to bring up, and I
know. I asked just the question last meeting regarding? The
open space across the street from Town hall at 84
here, Ontario and. Again. I recognize there's $25,000 in the
budget. For some testing and some studies, and I was
curious to see. If we could. Not even so much
a wish list, but something as far as moving it
forward, knowing that it was one of the priorities. On
the downtown master plan that. We could go low hanging
fruit. I was curious to see if there was a
chance I'd. Like to add some additional. Funding. For. On
top of the funding for studies and stuff, but even
as far as into the design work, for 2026. So
that way 2027 was kind of. Ready to go as
far as the next steps, and I didn't know if
there was. The ability. And again, looking at potentially, I
don't know what the costs are, maybe. You guys can.
Maybe staff has an idea, but I was thinking somewhere
along with the 80,000 mark. I know there's 25,000, so
it would be that difference, and I was wondering if
it could be potentially taken into. The mat funding, so
I think I'll start there. Thanks. Okay. So would you
like Director Cubit to comment on this? If possible, I
think the starting would be. Is there any idea of
what. Costing. We would need to get it to. I
guess beyond even. Shovel ready? Shovel ready would be. The
best start. And maybe for the rest of us if
you could start with what's planned for 26. Already. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you. Through you. The plan for 26.
In reference to 84 here on Tarot street, was to
invest funds. Into. Some engineering studies to see what it
is we are working with and what is happening below
grade. At that site and then also conduct some public
engagement. To see what the community feels should be done
with that space as an open space, as so directed
by council because there could be various different treatments and
various investments. I would hesitate to. Give an idea of
what that could look like or pricing without going back
to the team to get a sense, but I am
happy to return with some information if needed. Through you,
mayor ham. As a follow up. I think we can
probably all agree 25,000 won't go far. I wouldn't imagine
it would go far. I'd be shocked if it did.
And. I'm just looking at if we can get it
to a point of get it out. To the public
consultation and design and all that stuff. I just think
that as we see. The area has been quite activated.
Given with the winter festivities. And the weekend with the
menorah lighting and the large crowd that was there for
that. i think we're just running on such a Positive
note with that facility that while it's there, and it's
a low hanging fruit of the master plan. I would
hope that if we could. My next question would be
if we could get the funding. From the mat tax.
Would that be something that would qualify for that? Okay,
treasure. Graham, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I'm happy
to comment on this. At this point, cancel has already
pre approved 215,000 from the MAT funding to go towards
the initiatives from the downtown master plan. And deterrismaster plan.
We could make that a priority in those initiatives. And
use that part of that 215,000. Yeah, I think that's
through you, Mayor Hamlin. Thanks, Jekard Graham. I think that
makes a lot of sense. So at this point, we
probably wouldn't even need to label a dollar amount. It
would just be that we would direct funds from there.
Okay, awesome. So I don't know, do we need to
do a recommendation on that, or is this. Just all
I think. Sounds like it's good. Okay. All right. Sorry.
Hold on. Okay, co skinner. Okay. I just wasn't clear.
Around. The funding intentions. I know council has asked directed.
That what is estimated to be 50% of the 2026
mat income, or about $250,000. Exactly $250,000. Be put into
the budget as a funding source for 2026. Right now.
It hasn't been allocated. It's just used to reduce. The
overall need for taxes or fees or other income. So
if, in fact, you wish to use some of that,
I think a vote would be warranted. If you. Wish
to. Allocate the money. To this item. Now, if you
wish to wait until 2026 is partway through and look
at what has actually come in, potentially after the initial
work is complete, then that might be a different. I
think if I can just help clarify. In the report
now, it says from draft two, The 390 from the
25 mat tax. 215,000 would go to implement downtown master
plan, and I think that was the thought. That. As
I assumed from the treasurer, we would give some priorities
within that spending to 84 year Ontario. Street, if that's
possible. Okay. Yeah. In addition to the 25,000 that's already
allocated in the budget. Yes. So, Karen. Sorry. Thank you.
Through the chair. Just for clarification, for the minuteing. Purposes.
I'm thinking a motion might be required because we want
to make sure. We're prioritizing what you want to be
included. In addition to that 25,000. So I'm thinking a
motion might be better to make sure it's clear. Otherwise.
I just don't want to the work not meet what
council's expectations were. Okay. And I think one other thing
that's on my mind as part of this is. what
the 215,000 has been allocated for just in case we
don't want to take away anything that's really important Maybe.
Anyway, does this make sense? Okay, so who can speak
to that? What? The 215,000? Was identified for some. Director
Valentine. Go ahead. Thank you, chair. And through you. The
215,000 was essentially a placeholder. The thought was, that should
counsel endorse a staff or consultant or a contract position
to drive forward the tourism master plan and the downtown
master plan, that that individual would come back to you.
With a fully costed and timed work plan for 2026
and beyond, similar to what we do with the affordable
housing master plan. So certainly a council's direction was to
prioritize 84 here on street as part of that work
plan. That could be communicated. To the staff person, the
consultant or other resource that council determines is appropriate to
drive forward those plans. Okay, that's clear. Do you want
to make a motion? Yeah. Just for clarification on that,
though. Again. I guess I'm looking at. Do we need
a staff or a consultant or a new staff resource
to drive? That implementation over the next year. I don't
know. If you understand what I mean, but. If we
allocate this money, boat is still on the hands of
having a resource or. A consultant stuff. It's just going
to drag into 27 and probably into 28 anyways. So
I'm just wondering if there's any chance. Basically, my motion
would be. Along the lines, with some help from the
clerk on some wording, would be that. We use funding
from the MAT to get the 84 here interior shovel
ready for 2027. That would include public consultation studies, environmental
studies services, all that kind of whatever goes with that.
I fear when I hear that we have to wait
for consultants or stopping because we'll be halfway through next
year before we even see anything, so in house would
be best. Thanks. Can I have a seconder for that
motion? Councilor Jeffrey and I know you're dying to say
something. Go ahead. This is one of those unique situations
where we got money and we don't know what. We're
going to do with it. My understanding from our conversation
last meeting was we recognized what staff had broken out
here for the 390 from 25 from 2025. Was.
Their 30,000 level look at the funds they need to
start to implement. And we knew that that would mean
that they would be probably coming back at some point
in time to us. And saying kind of. This is
the layout of it to me. If I remember correctly,
the downtown master plan. One of the low hanging fruit
was 84. I think it was one of the first.
Things. That. So to me, it would be something that.
Would be taken to that level that you're talking about
as quickly as possible. And may not need a resource
for that reason. Just go through to your studies and
things like that. So I'm very supportive of putting the
direction there so it's there. But. I did believe that
it was part of that 215,000 mayor Hamlin talked about.
Is to do that. And the money is there for
25. We decided not to allocate. The town or that
tourism kind of portion of the 26 amount. In what
we're doing right now. But that 25. The money is
there, as I said. And I'm happy to support. Given
that extra direction. If that's what staff want us to
do. Okay. Anyone else like. To comment on this. Bring
it. Two of all those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.
Okay, next. Elsa. Dirty. Thank you. I am certainly not
the mathematician. As my colleague. Is to my left, however.
We have some funding that has come available. From the
sale of the Culbert. Property. That is 280,000. Dollars, so.
As a suggestion. I was going to propose that. That
be allocated to the affordable housing. Task force. Instead of.
And against the 400,000 that is currently. Been allocated to
that budget. So. If it's 400,000 -280. Which would be
coming from Culvert, would free up. $120,000. And out of
that. I was going to propose that we increase. The
contribution to the merf. And to the art center reserves.
Increase each by 50,000. So a total. Of $100,000, which
would leave. 20 out of that budget. For some other
purpose. Is that clear? As mud. Let me try and
paraphrase. That the $280,000, which is from the Culvert estate
and some bird street. Funding. Would go into the affordable
housing reserve. And since council wanted 400,000 in that reserve.
As a total amount if we put this 280 in,
because those funds should go to affordable housing. As our
staff report suggests, it means. We have 120 that we
could notionally take out of the affordable Housing Reserve fund
that we've put in in a previous meeting. And that
the 120 would then. Get split between the Merf reserve
fund and the r reserve fund. Okay, so that's. The
concept. Is there a seconder for this? Councilor Baines comments.
Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So I really believe
that that commitment. From the Calberta state should not. Be
netted with our other commitments. I think it was always.
Intended that it would go there over and above what
we're doing. And I just don't think. We should. Be.
Watering it down. It's like it got washed out. And
I don't like that it was given to us for
a specific purpose. Over and above our other commitments, and
I think that it shouldn't be part of that $400,000.
Okay, who else would like to comment on this? Deputy
mayor. I'm going to have to get some clarity because
I feel that 280. Is freed up and not 120.
And maybe I'm just following this incorrectly. But. Right now
we have 400,000. As an impact on taxes. And part
of that is actually operational cost. Costs, and then whatever
the net is at the end of the day goes
into the reserve. So if we've got 400,000 in taxes
and we're going to put 280,000 against it. Then I
think you've got $280,000, not 120. To distribute. Us the
treasure. Is this hard question? Go ahead, treasure. Thank you.
Mary Hamlin, the deputy mayor, is correct. It would be
the 280,000 to allocate. yes I just wanted to add
as well. The 280 represents funds from two sources. It
is the culprit estate greatly appreciated. And the net. Of
what was left in the accounts. From the Birch street
housing, so the individual amounts are not yet available and.
There'll be some announcements. On the Culbert amount to come,
but that there is two sources in there. So that's
what I was going to touch on next, because I
knew it said social. Housing under 24 reserves that there
was 100,000. In that town. And I thought, that's what
I recollected as well as. The 280 was a combination
of that 180 roughly from Culvert and then the 100
from social that could both end up in affordable housing
because certainly both are applicable to affordable housing. But anyway.
I just wanted clarity on that. And then I'll listen
to everybody else and go from there. Councilor Paynes thank
you, Mayor Hamlin, through you, I think, to councilor Jeffrey
in regard to the potential top up or if you
will, assignment to the affordable housing fund. Would it not
be? Within the intent of the Culbert. Estate stipulations to
the town. Would it not favor what we're attempting to
do in affordable housing, do you think? As to the
beneficiaries wishes. Well, you should just comment, I think. That's
your comment? Anyway, go ahead. Do you want to say
it again? Sure, I'll say it again. Whatever the amount
is, understanding now that it's not 280. I think that
that amount should be committed over the top of what
we're doing. I don't think we should be netting it
out and watering it out. We were already committed. To
doing that. 400,000 a year, and I don't think we
should be washing. It out with money from other places.
I think we need to stay committed and add that
to the coffers. It has struck me that we're not
committed to 400. It's been suggested that we put 400
in this year. I think we've been putting in 300,
if memory serves. What was it, 350? Okay, 350. All
right. Okay, who else? Wants to speak to this. Okay,
bring it to a vote. So do you want to
divide this into a couple of things? Here or. Yeah,
go ahead. Can I just close before we call
it to the vote? The 280.
Was non tax. Related funding. So, in effect, what we're
doing is we're just reducing the taxation commitment to affordable
housing and allocating the funding elsewhere. As I said the
last time we discussed. Allocations to the reserve for the
Merf and for the art center at $50,000 commitment. We
will never get there. We need to make. A decent
commitment to reserves, to both of. These projects. Council. Has
already declined to support $150,000 per reserve. I'm suggesting. A
reduced amount to a 100,000, which is 50,000 more than
what was voted. On.
Okay, so the clerk has just asked if she could
have clarification on the motion. So perhaps I'll let you
ask the questions you have. Go ahead. Sorry. Certainly through,
you, worship. I started with. Council. Council, okay?
Sorry. I'll just confirm to you I was doing multiple
tasks here at the same time, so. The ask team
that was before the court for the Culbert estate indicated
that. The money would go to affordable housing initiatives. So.
That was clear with the intention. That's what it was
going to go towards. So right now. You're looking at
utilizing the combined amount of 280,000 from the culvert. Estate
in the birch street department to go towards. The 400,000
that council has allocated. Out of taxation revenue to affordable
housing task force. So I'm suggesting we reduce that taxation.
Commitment. Which would leave us with a balance. Of 120,000.
And I'm suggesting we split that. Between.
The multi use recreation facility. Reserves. And the art center
reserves. Sure? Yeah. We'll do them as two separate motions.
That's okay. All right. So the first part may be
Clark Thomas. You could just tell us what it would
be. Certainly. Thank you, you, worship. The council allocate the
combined 250,000 from the culvert. Estate and Birch street apartment.
Allocations to the affordable housing initiatives. Going towards the total
of the 400,000. For the affordable housing initiatives. Basically, we'll
deal with that one first and then we'll vote on
the splitting of that. Okay. All right. Councilor ring. Thank
you very much. So then. We've got. Is it 252
80? Okay, so we've got 280,000 this year between Murphy.
Yeah. Okay, because. The second most time you spoke about
it, you didn't specify. No. We wouldn't have 280. No,
140 for each one. Because the 280. Would be. Allocated
to. We have 400,000 in. Affordable housing right now, so
I'm suggesting. That's based on taxation. Let's reduce it. By
the 280,000 from Culbert and Birch. Which leaves us with
$120,000. You got 400, you put 280 and so you
take a 280 and you'll still have 400, so you
got 280,000 out. Councilor Dougherty. Maybe the treasurer could just
explain that. I think that you're not quite right. Okay,
treasure, go for it. Thank you. Pardon me. I'll try
and explain it. So 400,000 right now is what's been
allocated to the affordable housing reserve. The source of that
funding is taxation. With this motion, we'll be using 280,000
from other sources of funding. To still equal 400,000, so
we're only needing 120,000 raised by taxes. If we were
to maintain our current tax rate that's proposed in the
draft report. Which uses the full 400,000. We would therefore
then have 280,000 to allocate. Out to the two different
reserve funds. Should that be council direction? I hope that
helps explain. It. Would. Yeah. Okay. I am such a
numb skull when it comes to numbers, I'll tell you.
It's as the treasurer stated. Okay. That's a good decision.
So I just want to go back then, so. The
motion that we'll vote on. Is. I think you have
to tell us again. The council allocate 280,000 from the
Culvert State and Bert street apartments. To the affordable housing
initiatives, going against the total of $400,000, reducing the allocation
from taxation. Right. Okay. You'd like to speak.
I didn't get any clarity because the clerk's saying 280.
From Culvert and the way I understood it when the
CEO spoke about it is there's. 100, roughly in social
housing for Birch street in reserve at the end of
2024. So I'm just going to seek clarification. With the
clerk. Was the proceeds from Culvert. $280,000. Thank you. As
noted by the CAO, we're not disclosing the Culbert estate
amount, right? Now. We're doing a joint press release once
the money has been received. I totally can understand that.
And I will say, though, that. I'm looking at the
280 that we've been talked about as including the social
housing reserve too. I think our treasurer would just like
to have a work here. Okay, go ahead. To make
things. Thank you, madam mayor. Just to make things a
little bit more complicated, the deputy mayor is referring to
social housing in the reserve in 2024, and that's accurate.
There was about 97,000 added to it in 2023, and
that was from when the town took over from the
rotary, and they had a small capital reserve fund for
the Burt street apartments. We transferred that. Into. The affordable
housing reserve fund. This amount that's part of the 280,000
is a separate amount. We had a management service. Managed
first street apartments for us, and it was the amount
owing from rent that they had collected. Since they took
over from the rotary department. So it's separate from that
amount that's? Already showing in the reserve fund. It's additional
amount. I hope that helps provide some background. Yeah, thank
you for explaining that. The motion is about. Putting covert
into affordable housing. If I don't support that. Any funds
from culprit should be going into affordable housing anyway. As
a matter of our typical reserve allocation, right? Will it
be the same for the social housing amount we just
talked about? That sitting in for Birch Street. It just
would essentially move in. To affordable housing. I think that's
our. We'd have that. Sorry. We have the flexibility. Okay.
I'm not going to support the motion because I think
it will end up in there. Anyway. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. All in support of the motion. 234. Okay.
And there's a post. And that passes. Okay. And then
the second part of the motion was, we now have
280,000 that we didn't have before. And. What was your
recommendation, Councilor Dougherty? Did that be split to the break
facility and arts? Facility reserve funds. It's about twice as
much money sorry? It's about twice as much money as.
What I had estimated. But my proposal was to allocate
$100,000 in total, so $50,000 to the MERF and $50,000
to the art center, giving us a total of $100,000.
Allocated to each of those reserves. Okay, so secondary for
that. Councilor Baines. Okay. Do you want to speak first
or last? I will speak last.
Falls to me. If I originally proposed the 50,000. But
if council is of the opinion. again that This is
an appropriate allocation to make to keep the momentum going
for this, which is what I think it will do.
I would hope they would support this. I'm not going
to support it because I think it should be the
full amount. I honestly am of the view that if
we have these funds, we know our community wants a
recreation complex we know our community would like in our
complex, and I realize. Those. Aren't always the same people,
but sometimes they are. And if we don't start putting
money into this, we'll never get there. So I'm not
going to support this, but when we're finished, if it
doesn't. Pass, I'll be suggesting 140. Go to each of
those two reserve funds, okay? Any other comments?
Councilor rain just. To. I'm not going to support it
for that reason. If we've got the money. To put
in those two reserves, I would put the whole amount.
So I'll be the same way. I won't support it,
hopefully. We can have another motion to put it. 140
in each one. And with a 50 that we're already
there, we'd get. 190. Each because. I think the draft
budget two has 50 in there. Okay, let's bring this
to a vote. All in favor? Sorry. Oh, yeah, sorry.
Thank you. So. I was trying to be conservative. Because
of the original vote. However, if it was the will
of counsel to split it and put it in each
of those reserves. Then I would happily withdraw my motion.
You could amend it. And move that instead. Okay. How
does the secondary feel? Okay. Comments on this deputy mayor.
So we have money going into affordable housing that was
going to go into affordable housing anyway, and now we're
going to turn around and use it to fund. Recreation
facility and art centers. So I can't accept that. What
I was going to be proposing. If this was defeated
because I wasn't going to support it was consideration of
the Mat. For 2026. Because I look at that as
more appropriate for Murphy, for an art center, because of
the tourist. Based part of it, but. I can't support
money that was going into affordable housing in the first
place, and then saying, oh, that gives us money to
give to something else that I won't be supporting. I
think our challenge is we all want more money to
go into these two projects on the horizon and where
the pot should. Where the pot should come from. In
this situation is the question. And just to remind you,
Our opportunities for funding. In addition to the 280 we're
talking about is we have our investment income. That was
unexpected. And the treasure suggested between 510,680 thousand could be
available. So I guess that's the main amount. Is that
right, treasure that I'm thinking of. Funds we could still
allocate. Three. Mayor to the mayor. There is the investment
income, and then there's also the 250,000 from the 2026
Matt funding so in the staff report, that amount was
used. To reduce the tax rate. However, council may wish
to allocate that differently because there's that potential as well.
But if we allocated that differently, the taxes would go
up, correct? Right? Okay. All right. Yeah. Go ahead.
We have a $250,000 amount that we hadn't decided how
we were going. To allocate it. That part was supposed
to go again. Operational tax site. What I was talking
about when I talked. About the murphy. In the art
center reserve. That's not operational taxes, so I would be
looking. To get even more complicated. I was going to
be putting on the table a motion to reduce the
amount of the entity. From 60% back to 50%. Based
on all of our conversations, I think it's. An appropriate
move to do. And look at 26 allocation. And possibly
look for a funding source for the merf. And our
center reserve. So I'm just being clear about my intention.
But as I said, I can't support. The motion as
it is right now. Would it be useful at this
stage to look through? Because if we assume we have
up to about 700,000, we could allocate what if we
were to look at the things that still haven't been
funded in the staff. Report and see what that adds
up to, and then. See where we're at. So I
think what I have here. I'll start with. There was
moving staff to P 55, which was 166,000. Then there
was the capital S. I'm not saying we have to
necessarily vote for all these things, but. What is the
whole list? Okay, capital asset manager position. We would fund
half of that at 80. Just from the staff report.
That's with the budget today. Page three.
Yeah. Page three. Yeah, it's everything that's in here. Okay.
There's a question about additional insurance that I believe councilor
Baines is going to make a motion on later. I'll
put that to one side. The ccat request comes out
of reserves. I don't have to worry if we want
or we can take it out of taxes. But that's
40. I'll put it to one side. There's the question
of the irrigation from rugby, but that seems that could
come out from development charges. If I read that correctly.
But we can check that. Accelerator request.
Which. I can't even remember how much it was. Was
it 131 30? I'll just. Put it in, for human's
sake. Okay. Accelerator. Capital asset. B 55 and then there
was topping up. The HR person from seasonal to full
time, that was 54,000. I hate charm. And let's
just throw another one in. Councilor Baines, when you bring
your motion, how much were you going to. Just going
to. Put everything in here. 14. Okay, I'll put in
14 for big numbers. Okay. And we haven't dealt with.
The cheerlifts, and I think that'll be a bit of
a discussion based on. The staff reports, okay? So let's
just add up. These few things here.
Maybe I need the treasure. 166 plus. 80 plus 130.
Plus 54. Yeah. 54 plus 14 equals 444. That
sounded about right. And so I took into account p
55 the capital manager. An accelerator position. Hr to full
time. And the insurance. That was four. Four, four. And
so what we haven't taken into account. Is uneas to
the asset or management reserve or. Monies that we want
to put more into that. Or funding. For our Merf
and art center. So if we said 680 was the
maximum, we're going to take from the investment income. And
we use four. Four, four. That is seven, three. We
still have 236,000 that could be allocated to VMURF. And
what center? Does any of that make sense to anybody?
With all that? Yeah. Let me just check with the
treasure before I get to you depth. Treasure. Have I
sort of covered most things here? I'm just trying to.
Add up it as well. So the P 55 at
166 the asset management manager 80,000. Hr at 54,000. Were
the additional. Resource requests that haven't been included. So that
is a total of 300,000, and then I have 14,000.
Because councilor Baines is going to bring a motion about
insurance. And I put in the 130 for the accelerator.
Yes, that is 444,000. okay and then if we were
using the 680 as the unexpected income At 680. Take
off. Four, four, four. We're left with 236. And if
we divided that by two. We'd have one, one, eight.
Each, and we already have 50, so we'd have 168
going into the reserve funds for. Each of those for
this year. So that's where my brain is going on
all of this. And maybe we could work through these
and decide if these are things that council wants. Deputy
mayor. Regarding. The investment income. I'm following the direction of
staff. When they gave us the estimate for surplus at
the end of the year 3813, which includes. The investment
income. And I can't accept the idea of putting it
against operating costs going forward because that's only one year.
All those things we just outlined carry over into 27,
too. So you're looking at a point, percent and a
half that you're putting on to the taxes in 27.
With that methodology. I do intend on coming back again
to talk about. The amount of capital levy, and that's.
Where I'll be utilizing the investment income outcome for 25,
which, as I said, led to the surplus of 813,000.
That is estimated by. The treasury. So I just like
to clarify with the treasure, because you're using a number
of. Deputy mayor with sent upper 818. Yeah, from the
report, the estimate is $813,000 surplus at the end. 25
and that includes. The investment income. Oh, I see. The
total surplus. Right. Okay, I got it. Okay. Comments on
any of this. Or motions. Yeah. Thanks, Brian. Harold, you
referenced in here, as you're going through the list about
the capital. Manager stopping request just for clarification, do we
not exclude that or are you just talking? About potentially
including that. We haven't included it yet, okay. I wasn't
sure if you were, if you were speaking to it
already being included, because it wasn't included, okay? And I
think there was a memo attached to the staff report
today for today's meeting. About what that person's job would
be. Yeah. Okay. Maybe it's a good time to ask
councilor Baines to bring his motion on. Insurance. Also recommend
including an additional 13,200 to our annual insurance premium as
per the confidential email received from staff. The clerks reminded
me there's another motion on the floor which I've lost
track. Of castle door cut off. Right. Okay. Sorry. All
right. Sorry. We'll come back to you. Councilor Baines. So
sorry that I got way laid here. So could you.
Just because you spoke about perhaps. Changing your motion. And
I think that's where we got lost. Right. Okay. That's
right. Based on the math that we've just discussed here,
I'm not sure. We got. 283 at this point in
time, So draw the motion for now. So are you
withdrawing your original motion and putting a second one? Okay.
It's another one right now. Do you want to put
the other one on now? Yes. So. I would like
to. Increase the contribution to the merf. And arts reserves.
By 100,000 each. Bringing it back to the original. Recommended
amount of 150,000. Per. Reserve.
Okay, and there's seconder for that. Okay. Councilor baines. Councilor
mccullough. This may be procedurally backwards. sorry But I find.
We have kind of a moving shell game with amounts
that are available versus amounts that need to be spent,
and I don't think we've accounted for all the amounts
that are available and determined which direction they should be
going. So I'm not entirely comfortable voting on an amount
for this given. I'm not comfortable with the total amount
available. Right. Yeah. I'm not sure what else to do
with this now. I'm going to ask the clerk to
just explain her thought on this. Certainly through your worship.
I was wondering if Councilor Dougherty. If the other items
were voted on and having the understanding of how much
is left in the pot. Makes sense. And then bring
the final motion with whether it should be 100,000 each
or whether it's 80,000 each or 110,000 each. If we
do that. Mind you, I'm still cognizant that if there's
no money left, at the end, then we may not.
Get anything added, so I don't know. If our treasure
has a running balance. Of the money that's available. And
clerk, could you put up the motion we just passed?
That councilor Dougherty brought.
Just feeling. Plus, she's pulling it up. I know. Staff
started working last spring, going through. Line by line in
their budget and cutting out everything that was extraneous. So
that we could come to a good number when we're
sitting here. And also with this extra funding that's come.
In from different places for different reasons. I just had
a feeling. We can make all this happen if we
figure it out properly, okay? All right, so. We've said.
Of the month. So I just want to start with
this, because this motion then says, We have $280,000 that
we didn't have before. To spend. Is this right, treasure?
It's money that when we did draft one and draft
two, we didn't know. The amount that was going. To
be allocated to the affordable housing. I just want to
be careful because as we mentioned, the estate funding should
be. Is required to. Be going to the affordable housing.
The other amount, I think there's a little bit more
discretion. So it's not so much that. It's additional funding.
It's just reallocating. From what I've been following, reallocating the
tax impact to contribution to reserves overall. So we're reducing
the 400,000 to affordable housing that's coming from tax. We're
still keeping 400,000, but utilizing this 280. So it's just
nuanced on what we want to refer to. But it
does mean for the numbers you've produced in budget number
two. That there's additional funding available. Is that right? It
does mean that if council were to maintain the tax
rate that was presented, in staff report number two. Absolutely.
It means that 280,000 could be redistributed. The tax 280,000
could be redistributed as we didn't need. To raise the
full 400,000 from taxes to still maintain the 400,000 affordable
housing initiative contribution. Thank you. All right. And then there's
just to go over where all the funds are coming
from. Then there's the surplus from last year, which is
eight. Hundred and 13,000. The treasurer suggested we spend up
to 680 of that and the balance be put into
assets management. Am I correctly summarizing that? Trevor Graham yeah.
So I do want to caution when we do our
quarter three forecasting. It's our best estimate at the time
with the information. That we have. When we're anticipating what
the surplus will be, I have no doubt. In my
mind that we will still be in a surplus position,
okay? This additional investment income was a result. Of income
that was not budgeted in 2025. We saw the PPNS
early. So while it does contribute to the surplus, It
is sort of an opportunity for council to direct staff
otherwise. It would go majority into the lifecycle reserve. So
it's just an opportunity to cancel. Wish to direct staff
to use it in a different manner. Okay. So that's
680. And so. That is. 960. All right.
Councilor McCullough thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Just to clarify, There
was mention of the Mat for 2026 thrown out at
some point, which was the unallocated $250,000 portion of the
town's mat. I think it's allocated or did I see?
250 is allocated and 250 isn't. Isn't? Yes, that's. It.
So I just want to know if that's in the
pot or in this discussion, or is it? Off. The
table. I think it's off the table. I would suggest
unless someone puts it on. But it would be good
to see where we are next year. I would say,
with how much we collect. Today. Just clarify. Treasure Gwen.
I just want to clarify on that so we all
have the same information. The 2025 390,000 has been fully
allocated in the budget. The 250,000. Has not been allocated.
However, the tax rate that was proposed, and staff, too,
did incorporate that $250,000. Reducing the tax rate. So, in
a way. It has been allocated. Maybe prematurely. I could
back that out and let you know what the tax
rate would have been. Had that not been. Okay, so
let me just clarify to make sure I understand it.
So we have thought for 2026, Conservatively, the town's portion
of the mat would be 500,000. And of that, 500,000
for 26. 250 has been used to reduce the tax
rate. Has any other portion been used? No, it was
through you, mayor. Note canceled direction was to only allocate
50% to be conservative. Because we don't know for sure.
And I also did just. Want to also bring up,
because we are approving that staff member or council so
far as approving the staff member fully being funded by
Matt. That would have to also be deducted. From the
2026 allocation because it's an ongoing. Staffing event, so we'll
have to be funded through the 2026. So right now,
the 250, which is the conservative half, is reducing our
tax rate for next year. Okay. Deppy mayor. Okay, so
just to clarify, There was nothing for affordable housing. And
tax estimate that we got at the beginning. We decided
to put 400,000 in, which is almost no. There was.
There was nothing. It was in the option site. Everything
had been moved over to the options site. Okay, I'll
go through you and just clarify that with Treasurer Graham.
But the full $350,000. Had moved in the base number
that. Was the 2.75? At the beginning, I think there
was 200, but we'll ask. The treasure. Go ahead. It's
a bit of a tricky, but yes. The 350 was
removed from the base. We still have in the base
155,000 towards affordable housing, and that's for staffing. And staffing
costs and some initiatives. We also have 230,000 in the
base budget. For social housing. As well, but the 400,000
was not included in the base budget in the 2.75
it is included in the budget now for draft two.
So decision, the council was to move that back into
the base budget. And I supported that. Now we're saying
because we had affordable housing reserve increases that were going
to happen. Because of the agreements we have in regards
to culvert, and I do believe in regards to birch
street as well. The agreement with Johnson was that. That
was for social housing, and if it was a carryover
of reserve that was there when we took over from
rotary. Appropriately, it should stay into the affordable housing reserve.
I'm not going to support taking the fact that we're
putting $280,000. Into reserve through two obligations. We had to
turn around then and say, okay, well, that frees up
$280,000 of what we were putting in for the affordable
housing reserve amount. And that's per the request of the
affordable housing task force, again, because that means you're looking
at a three quarter percent impact in 27. If you're
going to maintain the 400 right off the bat. So
when I talked about the mat, it was because. I
do believe there's an appetite to try to find some
more funds towards. The reserve for art center and for
Merf. I think there's an opportunity with that. Unallocated portion.
That we talked about for 26, but I'll get into
that separately when we deal with this particular motion. So
I think. There's so many ways to cut this, and
I think we're very fortunate. I'm just going to say
that. But. For argument's sake, let's leave the 280 out
of our discussion and let's. Assume it all goes. To
affordable housing reserve fund right now. We're still left with
680, which was if I could just go back to
where I was before. 680 was the amount from the
surplus. That the treasurer suggests would be the maximum, which
you would suggest we use. For 26. And this was
the number we are going through before. Where if we
put in 166 for the p 55 80 for a
capital manager, 130 for the accelerator 54 for the hr
person. And 14 for the insurance. That was 444. And
from the 680, we're left with 236. Divided by two,
it's 118,000 to go to each of the murph and
the art center. And there's already 50 there, so. It
would mean this year we're putting 168 into each of
them. So that was where my mind was sort of
going on this, but let's get councilor. Baines motion on
the floor if we could. Okay. Thank you. That council
recommend including an additional $13,200 to our annual insurance premium.
As per the confidential email received from staff, Hey, would
there be a second or. Councilor Jeffrey. Any comments? All
those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Yay.
14,000 or 13,200? Okay. So what about the HR position?
We'll maybe just go through these. So this was conversion
from a seasonal to a full. Time person. I did
note that I would like to put a motion on
about the mat. Okay, but I thought we still had
an emotion from councilor Dougherty. I think she withdrew. That
one for now. I think. I'd like to see what
we're left with now. I feel like I'm trying to
work backwards into something. So let's see what we're left
with. Thank you. So. If I understand your
motion, I'll let you say it in a minute. But
the decision. We made a few months ago or a
year ago, where we divided them at taxes. 40% for
the town and 60% for tourism. Collingwood, this is what
you would like to change. Is that correct? Thank you,
Mayor Hamilton. And I was the one who put the
motion on. The table because I was the one who
said, let's not allocate, but let's show the entity that
we're really. Serious about tourism. Now that I've seen what
we've done with the 390 for this year. I think
we're serious about tourism, so I do believe that it's
better that it's a 50 50 split with the entity,
so I'm prepared, right? Now. To submit the council that
we changed that back to a 50 50 split, and
then based on the outcome of that motion. I would
put another motion forward, but we'll deal with that only
at this point in time. Okay. Does there a second
or for that councilor ring? Okay, anyone like to address
this councilor? Baines. Just a question of clarification. 50 50
for 26. I'm assuming. For 2020. It can be for
26 because. No, sorry. In my view, it should be
25 and 26, because we're taking our whole portion of
25, and we're putting it towards tourism. In a realm
of tourism, right? There's economic development and things like that.
But I think the whole concept is built around furthering
the tourism and downtown visioning which I look as part
of tours. I understand, but seeing is that the entity
is not up. And working right now, we can retroactively
go back for 25 and say it's 50 50 rather
than 60 40. Thank you. We can get clarification from
the treasurer, but I do believe we would be able
to. Yes. So the legislation requires us to. Put to
only have access to 50% of the funds from that.
As I've heard from our staff and the reports we've
had, best practices is to put 60% in. And what
is before us so far. Is. To work on that
60% for next year. So how we're going to allocate?
The funds. Who can come in? Is this something? For.
Director Qubit about what happens if we change this. Valentine.
Dr. Valentine. Okay, go ahead. Thank you, chair. And through
you. It's a difficult question from my recollection of the
legislation. Not being a lawyer. Is that if we committed
to the 60%, to the ETE, we need to honor
that. For that year where it was committed. So my
recollection of the legislation is we have to make at
least one payment to the ete that covers that year
of the 60%. That was committed. So I don't believe.
Although you can certainly direct us to get legal advice
to confirm. This that we can go back now and
change the allocation for 2025. However, council can certainly go
forward and change the allocation for 2026 that is within
your purview under the legislation. So long as that you
don't go below 50% going to the Ete. And with
respect to the funds that would be spent in 26.
How is that impacted by? If we were to shift
the allocation now. Like in the budget. You've got a
plan for 2026 for the 60% of. The mat funds.
Or through the chair. I'm a little bit at a
disadvantage because I missed the November. meeting however I believe
that we're only talking about the municipal portion that was
allocated in 2026. Not the portion that was going to
the Ete. So presumably, if you were to increase the
municipal portion, then that allocation could also increase within the
budget. I would say, though, that I understand from the
meeting on the 24 November there was a lot of
discussion about how much of the tourism master plan could
be essentially moved to the Ete. To implement. Provided that
those stay within the etE's legislative guide rails, which are
you must spend your money on tourism promotion, which could
include tourism product development, and we think there's about ten
out of 30. Some recommendations from the tourism master plan
that could fall under that bucket, so. Just a little
caution there that if that was. Council's expectation that the
Ete drive forward those ten recommendations, it will be more
challenging. For them to do so. If we reduce the
amount of money flowing to them in 2026. Right. Okay.
Any other comments? We'll come back to you. Anyone else
want to speak to this? Okay, your turn. In the
original proposal from staff, it was a 50 50 split
and. It was therefore. Also further recommended about 35% being
kept in tourism and 15% being used for other purposes.
Again. I do believe the right thing to do. Is
to drop back to 50%. I appreciate. The recollection of
Director Valentine that it obligates us. To stay with 25.
So. It would only be in my motion for it
to be for 26 on. And. It will be following
what staff had recommended. And as I said, We are
talking about simply then taking our 50% and splitting it
in half. And so 25 will be going to still
be used for tourism things. It'll just be. At our.
And one of them, I think, is being able to
put some money into reserve for Murph. And our center.
So the motion I'm making right now is just simply
to change back to a 50%. Allocation as of. 26,
forward. I just have to confess, I feel like I'm
standing on 1ft, not knowing, really. What it would mean
to do this. Councilor Dougherty. I had a thought.
And. That was what if we were to run through
these outstanding items, vote on each one, and have the
treasurer if she doesn't mind. To give us a riding
total of where we sit. Taking into account. That we
have some surplus funds that we can use for. These
projects. Because. I'm very confused right now, honestly. So, deputy
mayor, would you be content to hold your motion down
till the end, or do you want to dealt with
now. No, I'm prepared to take the outcome of it
and then. Decide because, as I said, the next step
is going to be to try to deal with the
Murphy art Center situation. Okay, so I'd like it to
call the vote, all right? Councilor ring. If
that's all the comments. All in favor? And those opposed.
Just me, okay? So, Mary Hamlin, the second part of
my motion would be based on the fact that we
know there's some additional funds coming in. I'd like to
propose that. From the mat portion that is considered the
towns. We put $100,000. 50,000 for them, for the merf.
And 50,000 for the art center to come out of.
The other portion of. The mat for 26. So I
think what I would like to ask the treasurer is.
By switching. Our portion of the Mat to 60% from
50. What additional funds do you see us having? In
our little hand. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. It would be
50% for 2026. And again, this is a very conservative
estimate. Would then be 625,000 as opposed to the 500,000.
So a total of 312,500. Would be. What council could
allocate based on their prior direction. So an increase of
$62,500. Before we get to that, I
just want to clarify what the treasure said. So. Treasure
Graham. The additional. 10% going to the town, as opposed
to the tourism entity, would give us an additional 62,500.
Is that what you said? it would give an additional
$125,000 for the year that council had directed staff to
include 50% To be what you would pre allocate for
2026, again, noting that this estimate is based. On our
short year that we've had in 2025, and there's potential
for it to be higher. Okay. So we have an
additional 62,500 if we follow the same process. I'm sort
of wondering, deputy mayor. I definitely hear how you'd like
to allocate it. I'm sort of. Wondering if we shouldn't
go through everything and see how much is left at
the end. But it's up to you. But if we
have 62,500. You're wanting to allocate 100. Because I think
that conservatively means that. We should be fined in total
for the reserve for the year. And. It meets some
concerns about trying to increase the Murphy and the rec
center. Okay, well, I think what we'll do is we'll
just put that to one side that we voted. On
having another 62,500 on top of the 680. 62. Five.
So that. Is 742,500. All right, how are we going
to spend all this good money? All right, so let's
go back. Let's go through these things here. Mayor Hamlin.
Sorry, I'm putting. A motion on table. And if I
don't have a second her, that's fine. But I'd like
to make a motion to increase. The murph in the
art center. Allocation by $50,000 each to come from the.
Merf or the mat for 26. Knowing that the proportion
that the treasurer is recommending would be 62,500. I don't
believe treasure is recommending it. She said that it's going
to. Increase by $125,000. And as I said, I'm conservatively
allocating 100. Of that. We did outline that we are
going to be able to use 50% for town purposes,
but. Right now, we've only approved $250,000. So we haven't
approved the other 62,500. Let me break this down a
bit. So what the trigger had suggested to us, that
of our mat funds, I'll say the town the portion
that the town can spend for 2026. We shouldn't spend
more than half of what our estimate is. Because we
should be conservative. What if. There's a recession and nobody
goes to hotels. It's hard to predict. We're looking ahead.
For funds that aren't guaranteed. So in her view, I'll
just say, It was that. We would have available and
spend up to 50%. Of what our share could be.
So. I think the first thing we have to decide
is, do we want to change that? Because if we
don't get to 100 that you would like to allocate
unless. We change the premise that's in the budget? No.
So. I'm not proposing that. I'm proposing the 100,000 comes
from the. Mat. That is the tourism portion. That. We
allocated $390,000 towards tourism from the mat in 25. We
said that we want 50% of 26 to be allocated
towards. At the time, that was $250,000, and that's what
we passed. That allocation still remains fixed. That meant there
was another $250,000 that we maintained we would use for
tourism related purposes. In future, but we would wait until
26 to allocate that, but. I'm suggesting that the $100,000
comes from that portion. And that's what I'm putting on,
is emotion. Is this clear to everyone except me? Okay.
I'm just not getting it. Treasure, I think you need
to explain it to me. My brain's not working. Yeah,
go ahead. I'm having trouble getting to where the hundred
is when we only have 62 five. This is. Three
mayor. It's an estimate. So the amount that we're estimating,
that we're going to collect in 2026. In total for
the mat is just $1.25 million. If now that we're
doing 50, 5625 thousand of that will be going towards
Collingwood. And not tourism. Collingwood. Council had directed staff at
the last meeting to use 50% of that as a
conservative estimate. I do think council could go a little
bit higher if they did want to meet that 100,000.
Again, this is an estimate. I cautioned at the last
meeting because it is an estimate and we've only had
nine months. Of Matt. Until we really see trend analysis,
we likely don't want to spend something. We haven't actually
collected. Would I be comfortable increasing that to the 100?
Yeah, I would be. I think that's fine. And if
that's cancel direction. Yeah, I'm still trying to
clarify it myself. Because that's not my intention. The 250,000
we set on was based on a 50% allocation that
could be used. To help on the operating tax site.
The other portion is what I'm talking about, that we
left there because we thought there. Might be other tourism
things that we want to go and use forward, and
I would maintain that. The creation of a murph and
the creation of an art center has tourism based fish.
So I'm looking at the 100,000 coming from. That non
allocated to the operating side portion. Recognizing that, as you
have said, The conservative estimate is 625. What I'm proposing
is an allocation that totals $350,000, 250 from our portion.
That we can allocate. And 100 from the other portion.
I'm hoping that's clear to the treasurer and. Can she
just verify to me that it is okay? Go ahead.
Thank you. Yes, that is clear. And that is how
I understood it too. Just noting. That. That's just a
little bit more than 50%. And that was the last
cancel. Direction, and that's okay. It's council's direction with the
50%, so. If cancel wants to increase it by that
small amount. Absolutely. It's okay. So that was. Where I
was coming to ten minutes ago, I think. We need
to have a motion first. To increase. Spending more than
50% of the mat for 2026. Deputy mayor Hamlin. That's
not what I'm proposing. Well, that's fine. I understand. I'm
glad I asked the clarification at the treasure. What I'm
saying is. We have $250,000 we're taking out to be
used to help on the operating tax side. I'm asking
that the other hundred thousand is coming out of that
other portion that's. There. Not. The 50% that we had
established last meeting. I don't believe we need emotion because
we're dealing with that other portion, not. The allocated portion
that we decided on about the 50%. And again through
you, Mayor Hammond, I'll just check with the treasurer and
see if I'm being clear there or not. Treasure. While
you're explaining, can you explain where the 100 comes from
then? Thank you. Okay. I'm following. So in total, our
estimate for 2026 Matt collection at 50%. Of. There's a
lot of 50% going around right now. The revised 50%
tourism colluwood, 50% Collingwood portion. The Colliewood portion is 625,000.
Estimate it we've included 250,000, which was the 50% that
we had estimated when it was 60 40 split. Their
100,000 would still come from the 625,000. So in total.
We're just pre allocating 56% of what we are estimating
it to be. But. They're not necessarily tied to each
other. I believe the deputy mayor is just asking for
an additional 100,000. From the 625,000 to be allocated towards
the Murphy art Center? I don't know. If I'm losing
my mind here, but doesn't that mean we're taking more
than 50% for 26 treasure, it means we're taking 56%.
Okay, but that. 50%. That council had decided on the
250,000. Again, is the council direction. It's not a right.
I totally understand that, but the distinction here. And this
is where I'm losing. It is. The deputy mayor is
insisting as I've heard them that. It's not increasing the
50% share. So I think, Deputy mayor, perhaps you could
clarify. This with the treasurer, so we understand it. So
if we. Call the 150% portion the tourism portion, and
we call the other portion the operating tax portion. I'm
leaving that alone. I am saying from the tourism portion,
which we don't know what it's going to be. When
we have estimates as to how much we think it'll
be. It could turn out that the 250 that we're
allocating the operations side is 50%. When it all comes
in. So I'm saying that tourism portion. I'm suggesting we
use $100,000. Of it to put 50 into the MeRf
and 50 into the AC reserve. And I understand the
overall impact of that is 56% of the 625, but
I'm trying to discern between the two. Because I don't
believe there needs to be emotion, because. We're not allocating
more than $625,000. Okay, so maybe. What you're saying. Then
we'll have one more go at it. The 50% that
would go to tourism. Collingwood. Are you saying we should
take the funds from. There. Not Hollywood, because that's the
entity. Yeah, I understand. Calling it the tourism portion. Okay,
I think we'll just. Vote, okay? 225%
and not be operating. I have never heard this division
between operating in capital. I don't know where. I didn't
see that anywhere, so I'm not understanding that. Either. Yeah,
tourism. Yeah, which is the 56. So it's 56% of
our share instead of 50. Okay, so we're going to
vote on whether we're going to. That's how I understand
it. I've heard from the treasurer. 56% of our share
instead of 50. All those in favor? Okay. What's the
dollar amount on that 100? It puts $50,000. We're having
a vote here. All those in favor? Those opposed? One
opposed. Okay. It would put $50,000 into the Murph and
the AC reserves. So they would increase to 100,000. Without
a tax impact. Yes. I'm sorry. I
don't see how that can happen without a tax impact.
Because the 250 was fully allocated to reduce tax, and
it still is. So this is the additional 100,000 is
coming from. Matt, so. You're allocating beyond the 250. To.
Worth the additional. Okay, so. That was what. We were
trying to clarify earlier. Now I understand. So it's beyond
the 250? Yeah. I still would have liked it to
be discerned, but I'll accept the 56%. Just to get
it through. There's no other way to look at it.
Okay, that was it, though. All right, so let's now
go through the other items. Right.
Okay. Anyone want to extend? Councilor Dougherty to councilor Dougherty.
Councilor Jeffrey, seconded by councilor Dougherty. All those in favor?
And that's it. So councilor Jeffrey's just reminding me. We
need to add in an amount. For a discussion still
to be had for council reneweration.
So just to recap right now where we are, Is.
We have 100 in each of the reserve funds for
the Mat and sorry for the art. Center and the
Murph. Okay. All right. Okay. Is anyone opposed to us
going through the list of aspen voting on them? Okay,
Hr, for the third time. This is the one to
reduce the part time position to full time. Anyone interested
in making a motion on that? Councilor. Banks. As I
recall, last year at this time, did we not defer.
This. I look at director peg. And said, we'll get
back to this next year, and now we're here. This
opportunity to address this from last year. So that being
the case, To that undertaking that I think we made
last year, at least to revisit it. I would put
this motion on that. This 54. Be adopted. Okay. Thank
you. Would there be a seconder, councilor Dougherty? Anyone like
to speak to it? Deputy mayor, please. With the report
from the treasurer. We're looking at 3.15% impact. I can't.
Support additional spending right now. So I'm just putting out
there and I won't have to repeat myself. I won't
be supporting any additional. At this point in time. I
think the blended tax rate, if I can just practice
2.84%, that's. The blended. Yeah, I'm only talking about the
municipal portion. Oh, I see. Okay. I think I should
be just making sure we have a good understanding of
the funds we're. Going to allocate potentially. So. It was
the 680. And.
From. The 680. Well, we have 680, or there's 813,
which is the full amount of the surplus. And the
treasure suggested we not allocate more than 680. Does anyone.
Want to keep that in mind, deputy mayor. I think
we better have a vote on whatever the $600,000 amount
is, because I'm not in favor of allocating that. To
specific items. My thought all along had been the opportunity
exists to reduce the capital requirement. For amp. So. I
think if it's being suggested that we have. 15, but
I just heard 680. So whatever the number is, I
think we need to have a vote on that so
I can oppose that. If that's the intention. Well, I
don't think we need to vote on that yet. We're
going through as I said earlier, the different amounts, and
we're still on a motion for the HR. Position. Finally.
It wasn't me. Any other comments on the HR position?
Okay, let's bring it to a vote. All those in
favor? 12345 opposed.
That carries the next one was. Let's see here. Moving
to P 55 for our staff. I think we've had
a lot of discussion about that. Would anyone like to
bring that as a motion? Councilor Dougherty. Would there be
a seconder? Councilor Bains. Okay. Any discussion.
Councilor Dougherty. Absolutely. We've been kicking this down the road
for a couple of years now. And. We've already demonstrated
that. We're losing staff because. Other municipalities are paying more,
so. Let's get competitive. It's just as simple as that.
And like I say, We've been discussing this now for
the last couple of years, and we never moved forward.
It's time to move forward on this. Be fair to
our staff. Okay. Thank you. Councilor jeffrey. Thank you. Mary
Hamlin. I think we are competitive, and I would challenge.
You on a wholesale comment that people are leaving because
of money. I would disagree with that totally. I'm not
prepared to go to the P 55. I just think
the impact is. Too great. At this point in time,
so I will not be voting in favor of this.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to ask a
treasurer. Actually, it was executive director, peg. I have this
different recollection than Councillor Jefferies, which was. That. My recollection
was that our comparator municipalities were at P 55 and
P 60. But I know you are the fountain of
all this knowledge. Could you remind us? Thank you. Thank
you, mayor. So through you to all of council. So
we do certainly have missed comparators that are at p
55 and p 60. And part of the base budget
includes. Moving our current pay policy in alignment to the
P 50. But the P 55 would be in addition
and put us at 5% above the medium of our
comparator group. Which we do certainly have comparators that are
at P 55 and P 60. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Councilor Potts. Thanks, mayor Hamlin. Just curious. On the comments
of my colleague, councilor Dougherty. Do we have supporting documentation
that our staff are leaving because of neighboring or comparators
or neighbor municipalities are paying more. Do we actually have
that supporting documentation. That's the statistics. I think that's a
question for stop. Sure. Executive director thank you, mayor. Through
to councilor Pott. So we do conduct exit interviews when
employees leave. Year to date, we're at 8.1% employee turnover,
and I would say it's reasonable. That a proportion of
those employees. Are leaving due to salary. There are other
considerations why employees leave municipality, including Morrell. And although compensation.
Is quantified separate. Apart from that, I think discussions and
conversations around compensation do also impact morale. Yeah. Thank you.
Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. totally all due respect
the staff i'm not going to support it Because we're
starting to push towards 4%. And. For 25. Our investments
earned $10 million. Some of it's been brought in, some
of it's? There if we cash out. And we're talking
about increasing taxes 4%. That's where we're starting to push
towards. If we start accepting some of these and the
municipal portion. As I say, all due respect to staff,
I'm not supporting any more spending. i've put
a good proposal on about a significant reduction By not
having to take as much in the amp, and that
was defeated. But I will be bringing that back onto
the table another time, but I'm not supporting it, and
I wanted to make sure that I said this has
nothing to do with stop performance. It's totally about the
overall increase. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. I
did. Threw the chair. Want to add a couple of
items here? We did, in the end, do quite well
on our investments recently. That said, most of that amount
has been reinvested back into the reserve funds, which produced
the income, both that original amount of funding. When we
put. Aside. Council puts enough aside, for example, to pay
the kilometer of road. We do that sometimes, so. We
can save up to pave so many kilometers at once.
But what that means is when. We do ultimately spend
that money, we still want to be able to pave
a kilometer road. So the investment income is reinvested, quite
appropriately, in those capital asset type reserves. So. We wouldn't
be expecting to apply that generally to taxes, but there
is an amount that we have on the table here
today? The surplus. That includes the unexpected investment income between
510 and 680, which is not that situation, but a
large portion of the 10 million is in that situation.
So it's gone back to make sure we can build
and do things in the future. I also did want
to echo. Executive director Peg in the sense that. It
is important that. We do keep our staff most of
the positions that we have. Are four plus and sometimes
a lot more than four years of education, and we
keep people around. For five or seven or ten years
to really learn. Their jobs and be experts in something.
That's an unusual, often an unusual thing to do. Water
treatment. Public works. Engineering. And it hurts us quite a
bit when we lose them. We have been losing. clerking
Planners. We've been losing folks to the county. There's engineer
pieces. There's people in the rec field that. Have been
leaving, I would be the last person to ask council
to approve all of the items. That are on your
list? Because I think that that's the hard decisions that.
You do make? But with the funding that you have,
the P 55 and potentially the capital asset manager are
pieces that I think are investments in things that you
built through good decisions. And I would ask you to
put those near the top of your priority list. Sorted.
Of course. Through your view of the municipality. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Just wait. I think we'll see if
anyone else would like to speak to. This. Yes, please
do. And I wasn't going to get into the full
conversation at this point in time as I said I'm
going to bring up both the capital at another time.
I pointed all this out. In my. Motion last time
to reduce the 0.8%. And explain that I understood. $4
million came into lifecycle reserve. And in my opinion, The
$15 million annual requirement is almost all being made up
by. The amounts we have coming in now, but as
I said, I wasn't going to get into all those
conversations. The reality is. The investments that were made made
$10 million that are not included in any of our
budgeting. Or anything like that. That's great performance of our
investments. I'm looking to try to reward the taxpayer. Because
they're the ones who made the investment. Thank you. Okay.
Thank you. On the P 55. I know there's five
people who've gone to the town of the Blue Mountains.
I ran into somebody who recently had left our municipality
for the town of Blue Mountains. About ten months ago,
and there were five people there. And I don't know.
I just feel like with the county at P 60.
And the municipalities we mostly compete with for staff at
p 55. I'm going to support this. Yes, Councilor Potts,
thanks for Hamlin the one. Challenge I have when we
talk about the comparators. With the municipality. I spoke to
a staff from another municipality. Yes. There was no doubt
that. Their pay grade is a little bit more. However
they're doing the job, the position they hold. In that
municipality, we have three people. Three staff in the town
of calling who are doing the same job. So when
you look at three stop in the town of calling.
We're getting paid x number of dollars. Of course. One
position handling all that workload. That's where I have the
issue. And that goes. Back to the amount of staff
that goes back to, so to say, comparators. Absolutely. I'm
sure there are municipalities that are paying a little bit
more, but they're also doing the workload of double or
triple of three people over staff. Okay, well, I don't.
Know that we have information. On that. Okay. Anyone else
want to talk before we bring this forward? Councilor Baines.
No one likes. Perhaps paying this, but I think if
you're running an efficient organization, You have to pay people
a good salary. And some may disagree what the definition
of a good salary is, but. I think executive director
Pig's percentage there of turnover. Is disappointing, and I think.
It can only get worse if we don't pass this.
I think you need to get good people. You need
to keep good people, and you need to pay for
good people, and that's what I think this does, and
that's why I'm supportive of it. Okay, we'll bring this
to a vote, then. All those in favor? P 55.
On 2345 opposed. That's four that passes. Thank you. Okay,
next item is. The capital. What's this person called? I
can't find a song report here. Okay. You have to
help me out here, CEO. Why can't I find it?
I believe it's called the capital asset manager. Looking up
myself here, And because this is a new position. For
us. Should council approve it? Could you just take a
moment and explain? Exactly what this person would do. Sure.
In an attachment to the report. If anyone wanted to
look it up later is the asset manager. Position or
the capital asset manager position. And this is taking on
some net new work. It's not work that largely we're
doing now, and I think I'm going to just point
out briefly to you. A couple of the things that
we already do. We do basic asset tracking. Annual capital
submissions done by the department. 's planning and design and
construction of $100 million of work per year or more.
And corporate coordination. But the new position would be providing
dedicated leadership to integrate, analyze, and optimize our asset portfolio.
With better evidence based capital planning, asset management expertise, regulatory
compliance. And that type of thing. And I want to
just talk briefly about the asset management expertise. Sometimes it's
hard for people who aren't in the municipal world. To
understand this work. But it's like as if you have
one roof. And maybe you run some apartment buildings you've
got. The roof. You want to get in there and
replace those shingles when they first start to. Come off
before someone's bathroom has started to decay because you haven't
fixed the roof. And then sometimes you can even get
up on those roofs a little early and look at
the shingles that haven't even come off yet and make
sure that they're taken care of on a nice sunny
day in the summer instead of the middle of the
winter. But if you multiply that over the billion dollars
of assets that the municipality has, it becomes quite. A
big process. However, the outcomes. Can be advantageous for us.
We spend about 100 million. It does fluctuate quite a
bit. We have a lot going. Out the door a
bit more than that right now because of our water
treatment plant, but if we can make decisions that would
stretch our dollars further or put the money in the
right places. There's a potential that of the about 80,000
that would come from taxes for this, it could be
more than offset within the 100 million. The other thing
that we're really putting our brains to right now is
that. We are down about 15 million, and I hope.
We could figure out a way to make that a
lot less if we could figure out our asset management
investments. Some of that will be. To some of that.
Will be. To change our asset management target condition levels,
we may need to reduce some. Some of that may
be retiring assets. But that work would also be the
work of this position. And the final piece. That's been
a lot of pressure lately is the development charges. The
province has changed the timing of when a lot of
development charges will come in and. There's quite a bit
of pressure to relook at what municipalities are charging for.
Development charges. So the capital planning involved in updating development
charges and coordinating that work with the work from master
plans and the asset management plan. Is a level of
sophistication that we haven't had to get to in the
past. I'm sure that's more than you expected, mayor, but
I just wanted. To do the position justice. Thank you.
And what department would this person slot into? The expertise
would be engineering and finance. But our proposal is that
the person would be from the finance department. The intention
is that it's a central, non siloed position. They probably
will do most of their work with the infrastructure department,
but there's pieces of it that they would work with
parks. And others to coordinate our entire capital program. And
our minor capital program, which would include public works. And
the concept is to cover half of the cost, which
was 80,000. Through taxes. And where does the other half
come from? I think that would be. A question for
Treasurer Graham, please. Treasure Graham. Thank you. It comes from
our OSAF allocation. So OSAF allows us to allocate 80,000
up to $80,000 to staffing work on asset management. Okay.
And that's? An ongoing. Amount. Okay, would anyone like to
move this as an item? Councilor Dougherty. And we have
a second. I don't think anyone understood what you said.
Sorry. Okay, good. Yes, councilor
reigned. I just have a question before. Seconding or a
second or for councilor Dougherty's motion, and that is if.
For whatever reason, we decided to defer this one year.
Does the Osam grant still exist? Next year for the
funding of half of this. Pressure three. Mayor yes, it
does. No second. Okay. Is this relating to this motion,
or is this a different point? While it's relating to
what we just heard from the Cao. Well, it's not
on the table. There's nothing to be said. Okay, next.
The next item is. The accelerator position. So just to
remind you, the gentleman came who is running our accelerator
and made his pitch for 130,000. He's the sole employee
there with someone else who is there part time. In
fact, I don't think he's an employee. I think. Well,
anyway, just matter. How that worked. Pardon? It does matter.
Oh, I was going to say, I think he's an
independent contractor. I think that's how they've arranged his compensation
with the board there. So he gets half of his
funding from Collingwood this year and half from the federal
government. The federal government's funding, as I understand, will run
out after 26, if I understood that correctly. He has
gone to other municipalities and. They have not been agreeable
to funding this position. So it's whether we want the
accelerator to continue. Counselor, bacolic. Thank you. Mary Hamlin. The
one thing I walked away from after that presentation was
that there was no stipulation that the business be located
in Collingwood, and neighboring municipalities had not stepped up to
the table. So I take issue with the fact that
we're funding businesses that exist elsewhere. And I don't know
how much that impacts the funding request, but I think
that needs to be addressed. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Jeffrey.
Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So if we did the funding.
Can we make that stipulation? I mean, when you make
a donation to anywhere. To organizations. You can say where
you want the money to go to. Cao, can you
respond? Thank you. Through the chair. Yes. In the past
we have made the stipulation that businesses had to be
in town. Of Collingwood. There have been some challenges with
that in interpreting. Where businesses are based. And I don't
know if Director Valentine may have more to say. On
that one. But certainly, if you did choose to fund
the accelerator again, I would be very supportive of wanting
to prioritize Collingwood businesses for any supports provided. And also.
That the accelerator has been doing work. In the ideation
and growth as well. Or the ideation than sort of
small business side. As well as that larger piece, which
is all about getting investors and really magnifying the growth
of businesses. And we do have the small business enterprise
center that does that. Original ideation and in. Initial sort
of. You don't have any employees or you have one
or two and you're. Just building your business. So items
that really focus the accelerator on those businesses in Collingwood.
That are approaching readiness for that spurt of growth would
also be quite positive. If I can also just add
a fact that he mentioned when he was here. The
funding that comes from the federal government. Was contingent on
it being spent in a broader region, like, I think
it was Simcoe Gray. And Bruce. And so in particular,
I think they wanted to make sure. He was involved
over. Where the nuclear Bruce nuclear expansions going on because.
There's, I don't know, many, many millions of dollars of
new business that's. Going to come out of that. And
the other thing he mentioned was. Almost all of his
mentors come from town of Blue Mountains. So it wasn't
exactly you could draw a line around Collingwood, but I
just wanted to. Add those points that you had. Okay.
The other thing that's on my mind, if I could
say, is it really struck me. When he was here,
that there needed to be more coordination between the work
he does and the work of our economic development manager
because. There was some. Cross things I thought they were
getting and they were both looking at the same thing,
and perhaps this is what the CEO was just saying.
And I would be in support of some funding going
if there was some time to cooperation and coordination. with
our economic development department So those are all my thoughts,
Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mar Hamlin. Well. I'd like to
move that we. Invest the $130,000 into the accelerator. On
the stipulation that our investment, they can spend the Fed
money wherever they want, but. Our investment would be spent
on Collingwood businesses and coordinating with our economic development department.
Okay. Would there be a seconder for that? Councilor Dougherty?
Further comments. Councilor Paynes. I have a hard time supporting
130. But on the other hand, at this point, if.
We suggested 80 or a lesser amount. I'm not sure
that's the critical mass. For him to continue doing that
function in that position, so. It's an untenable situation for
me, as I just think 130 is a little rich.
I think it's what we put into it the last
few years. I think this would be a good year.
And perhaps once we're finished, the budget discussions. But a
good year to just sort of drill down. Into how
the accelerator is organized, how we can better. Align everything
with our own. Initiatives. Councilor Perry thanks, Mayor Hamill. And
I totally agree with Councilor Jeffrey. The only question I
have is. How do you track it? I'm not sure
how you would do that. It looks like councilor McCallick
might have an idea. Councilor McCullough. Thank you. You read
my mind. I would like to see some reporting as
in other agencies and people that we deal with. So
we gave you 130. How did you spend it? Who
did you give it to? And how often should we
ask for this reporting? I can't think twice a year.
Minimum. More. Quarterly? I don't know. It's up to you
guys. Motion. Counseling. I just like to add. We have
been giving them the money, and it sounds like it's
a good investment, but. It still bother me that it's
called South Georgian Bay and nobody else gives them any?
Money. Okay, so we give them the $130,000. Okay, we're
going to hopefully come up with a solution, how to
track that to see what he's doing with the money,
but the last two or three years. When he comes
back and makes his sales pitch to us for the
money for the following year. He talks about same business
as they did previous year. Impossible metals must be because
he talks about them all the time. 90% of his
pitches for them, which is they're doing great things. Don't
get me wrong. And they're maybe worth it. But. I
don't know how we're getting 130,000. Yeah, I curious, is
he? Still working with them, or is this just old
news? Right? Yeah, exactly. Deputy mayor. Thank you. Mayor Hamlin
and I spoke about this last meeting. I not supportive
of carrying on with the business accelerator? Because the initiative
that we're putting forward is to hire another staff person
to economic development. Out of the Mat funding. And it
would have to be on an. Ongoing basis out of
the mount funding. Because. It's not coming back on the
taxes. And. I would need to see a lot because
it talks also as well. We're putting 35,000 towards. Economic
Development Action plan. That we're getting a $35,000 grant for,
so I'm not supportive. Of putting another 130 into economic
development. And then wait for reporting. I'd like to see
the action plan. I'd like to see how we're going
to incorporate the new staff person. If it's just going
to be doing exactly what this accelerator was doing, then
that's. Great. I'm just not going to support putting $130,000
towards the accelerator. Director Valentine. Would the person. Who's been
proposed to be at a technic development. Be doing the
same kind of work as the accelerator. Thank you, chair.
And through you at this point in time, we had
proposed that that position would work on driving forward the
tourism master plan. A different bucket of tasks, separate and
apart from the accelerator. But I would underscore. and the
downtown master plan so it would be The comments previously
made by I believe it was Cao Skinner that the
accelerator does duplicate with the sBAC. So. They were initially
set up to be only the growth phase of businesses,
with the SBEC taking care of ideation and launch. And
then we found that there was a missing step within
our ecosystem. How do we get those who have been
successful at ideation and launch to then move? Towards that
scaling upward growth phase. As I understand it, the accelerator
couldn't find that critical mass within our area. So they
opened up. What they were offering to businesses and now
duplicate on those initial two phases with the aspect so
it's that duplication that I would be perhaps more concerned
about than the new staff. Person that's being proposed. So
perhaps I'll just ask you then. The motion that's on
the floor right now is about coordinating. Do you feel?
That. can happen and we can get some benefit out
of having because it was struck me About Peter was.
He's so well connected with the businesses and the mentors
in our area, and I'd hate to lose that. But
what are your thoughts on that? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin.
As. Staff have communicated with council. It is somewhat difficult
for us to support a full 130,000. Given that only
four businesses from Collingwood were supported last year with our
contribution, and we are the only municipal contributor. hearing i
think what councilor jeffrey is suggesting though if i'm correct
on her intention is that full 130,000 be directed towards
collingwood businesses which is a different scenario If those businesses
can be found, we would certainly welcome more collaboration with
the accelerator. We have made some overtures and attempts in
the past, and they haven't been too successful. But I
think if the accelerator hears Council's desire for additional coordination
and that that be tied to the funding that. That
would be a nice push in the right direction. Okay.
And Councilor Jeffrey. I heard a possible amendment. From? I
don't know who would have been, but anyway. It had
to do with financial reporting. Financial reporting, I'm happy to
add quarterly financial reporting. Okay. The feds are going to
require stats anyway. okay so here is the motion that
councilor jeffries put on the table
Does that cover? Cover it? Okay. And I just want
to ask. Who seconded this? Yes, Councilor Dori. Are you
happy with those changes? Yeah, okay. So you want to
speak again? Yeah. I'm going to ask for clarification to
see if I recall correctly from the report. Did it.
Talk about succession planning. And the fact that there was
going to be a new person becoming involved in running
the accelerator. Or do I recall that incorrectly? I didn't
read that. But. Director Valentine. Did you see that? Thank
you. Chair through you. I've not seen that directly. In
any written correspondence. I've heard that there's potential for staff
turnover, but I think some of it depends on council's
decision tonight and how that will affect the accelerator's operations
and. If they are able to move forward. With their
current staff compliment or have a change up in someone
of a hell more additional staff. People. So, mayor hamlin.
It can only have come from the report that I
remember. Read that. and i guess what it was was
Just the possibility, right? It was just, as you say,
that there was a possibility of success. Succession. At the
accelerator. But again, I'm not supportive of it going forward.
Okay, I actually have a question for the treasurer. If
this motion passes. How do the funds get distributed to
the excel operator? And what's on my mind is if
the gentleman running it leaves. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you,
Mayor Hamlin. In the past, We receive a payment requisition
from the folks in Ectev based on the signed memo
of understanding, and it stipulates when the payments are to
be made. Okay. I would have to look at what
the entity's name is. That we're making the payment to
be 100%, but it would tie into whatever the memo
of understanding was it's not made to the specific individual.
It's made to. Entity. All right. Okay. Director Valentine. Do
you know how often those payments are made? Is it
more than once a year? Through you chair. My recollection
for the MoU for 2025. That there was one lump
sum payment and then there was a hold back for
the reporting, so. It was essentially two payments, but staff
would certainly be supportive. Of payments being tied to the
reporting that council. Desires. Further amendment. Further amendment.
Yes. So the clerk would just need to add in
that payment, be tied to the financial reporting. Does
anyone need to see that up on the screen or
is that straightforward? Okay. No more comments. All those in
favor? 12345. Those opposed? 1234. Okay, so that carries.
I covered everything. Have a look. Two
stair seat lifts at the Eddie Bush.
I'll leave that for now. It's a pretty hard one.
Is there anything we've left out here? Oh, Councilor Dorothy,
are you still thinking? No. Go ahead. The CCAT requires
over 40,000. Right. Thank you. Right. Did you want to
bring a motion on that? yes i will bring a
motion on that and i will add that the degree
to which they work with and coordinate with our climate
change specialist Is. You could not. Get a staff person
for that annual amount. For the work that they do.
They're valuable to the community, and I think. That's a
very good investment. Yeah, definitely second that. Anyone like to
second the motion? Councilor Jeffrey, any comments? Councilor Potts. Thanks,
mayor Hamlin. Still not 100% decided on this. Only thing
with a three year equipment is I'd hate to throw
that commitment on the next council for. A two year
commitment. So I'll wait to hear what my colleagues. I
understand the work. They put in and certainly do. But
it's when you're throwing that kind of commitment out there.
I'm still undecided at this point. Okay. Which of our
staff could comment on whether. It's a three year commitment.
Is helpful. Executive director. Thank you. Mayor. If I may,
I'd like to make just a couple of comments about
the request overall, please. Thank you. So, first of all,
of course, staff want to acknowledge the work. That CCAT
has done specifically in working with our climate change specialists,
but also in general, in that portfolio, working with all
staff. We do have several examples where CCAT has been
instrumental in moving projects forward, specifically our greener Homes Better
Futures Project Earth Fest. They were key leads in 2024
and 2025. Participation in municipal climate initiatives like our community
climate Action Plan. They were very involved in the consultation
process and working with Tamarac on that project. If council
did desire to proceed with funding to CCAT, it would
be staff's recommendation. That that was tied to projects specifically
that were linked to town purposes. That would just help
ensure that the initiatives that CCAT worked on were tied
to, for example, our community climate action plan or a
corporate climate action plan. Because certainly they do bring a
great skill set and additional capacity that we don't have.
In house today. But. It would be definitely beneficial if
it was tied to town projects. Got it. What do
you think, mover? I think really similarly to our last
scenario that you do stipulate that it's specific to. Collingwood
projects, and I do understand the necessity of having to
have the momentum that some of these projects go over
more than one year, so you can't fund them from
this year. And then they find out next year they
may or may not get funding, and they don't. Know
if they can keep going with it. And I think
financial reporting is also important piece of this. Maybe not
as often, but. I think. Maybe. Even annually or semiannually,
something. Do you think, executive director, how often? If they
were going to report to us on their funding, would
you suggest, or do you have a thought? Thank you.
Mary Hamlin, I think semiannually. Would be more than sufficient.
We do have regular communications with CCAT, so I'm confident
that that would be an appropriate number. Okay, that's great.
Who? Is the secondor on this one? Do we have
a honey? Who moved it? All right. So are you
happy with the changes here? Which. Yes. Okay. All right.
And you're happy? Okay. I'm all happy. Deputy mayor. Thank
you, Mayor Hamlin. So just clarification, this is just single
year. They asked for commitment for. We can't tie the
hands of the next council. That's what I'm saying. For
the year. My understanding from the mover is that we're
doing the three year. I can't support. Tying hands, as
you say of next council in regards to CCAT. And
tremendous work, tremendous people. The energy level is unbelievable in
what they've done. So I can't support, though, for a
three year allocation when we've got one. Year left in
term. The other question I was going to ask is
they outlined it as 25,000 to go. To core operations,
including their director of community engagement and 15,000 to program
support. So I was wondering. If the motion was looking
to allocate that differently. But in any event, because it's.
Three years. I can't support it. I actually am not
concerned with the three years, because if they're doing semiannually,
reporting. If they're not meeting their targets, we would hear
this from our staff. And this could be discussed at
the next budget. I sort of quite understand. They've been
working hard for our community as volunteers for a number
of years now. And there is some sense to have
a continuity of funding available so they can make plans
for the next year. So I think also I'll support
the motion. Any other comments? I think. We're ready to
vote now. All those in favor? 123456 those opposed. One,
two, three. That passes. Thank you. Councilor Potts. The rugby
irrigation. Yeah. So I think you had mentioned earlier that
they could potentially come out of. Some other charges. I
think we still have to have a motion for that.
Yes. I put that motion on the table, whatever. Okay,
I think it was. To think. Staff reported further, but.
It was to proceed with the plan proposed by staff
to irrigate the rugby field and that it would come
from development charges in the amount of 55,000. Did I
get that? Right. Treasure. Is that for you? Yes. I'd
be happy to speak to that. The dollar amount is
correct. I don't. Believe that this is DC eligible, though
it would come from our lifecycle reserve. Lifecycle reserve. There
we go. Thank you. Okay. So we have a mover.
Seconder council ring comment councilor Baines. It's through you, mayor.
If the treasurer could just tell us what does that
will that. Bring the lifecycle reserve down. I'm sure it's
just. -54,000. Yes, go ahead. 56. I wouldn't be able
to do an accurate amount right now. I could tell
you what 2024 reserve is, but we're still funding 2025
capital. I couldn't quite answer that. Do you want to
know what the 24 number was? Sure. Okay. Yeah,
I figured as much. But. The 2024 is 7.3 million.
Okay? We can afford it. Thank you. Councilor ring. Just
a quick question through you. Too. I'm assuming the director
of finance. I seconded it and I will support it,
but I'm wondering if we have to. Why would this
not be? Through our insurance. My understanding was. Was this
damage to this system was done with somebody driving around.
A motor vehicle. On the arc. Did we know that?
Or is that my hearing rumors? I heard it was
damaged with somebody driving around in a truck or something
on the property. And the repairs have got to be
done. Maybe I'm just hearing rumors. How long ago would
that have been, do you know? It'd be a couple
of years. It's been a couple of years since they
haven't had it working right. Well, I think our clerk
could take that away. And find out more about it.
Director. Cuba? Yes, go ahead. Thank you, sir. You. I
will say this is not a report that I've received.
Not to say it isn't factual, but it's not something
that I have learned. Of. In my research. My understanding
is that. Just over the years. This particular field is
really close to the bedrock. And so the irrigation system
is. That much closer underneath the surface. And when it
was used. For soccer. It could withstand a little bit
more, but rugby is a lot harder on the field,
and so we were just getting constant. Repairs needing done
and just could not keep up with that. So that's
why we find ourselves a place of needing. A full
replacement and. A different maintenance program to maintain a new
system being used by rugby. Okay. Councilor ring. Thank you.
I apologize. But I had heard that, and I thought
it was common knowledge. That's why I'm. Asking the question
I guess I should ask before we started, but I'll
support it. I mean, it's got to be done. I
just was trying to save the town some. Money. If
that's the case. Good thinking. Okay. Councilor Potts. Yeah, just
quick. Mayor Hamlin. So what was reported to me through
the ask and through the request was that. It was
damaged. And it wasn't that long ago that the field
was rehabilitated. With topsoil to kind of cover up what
the damage was. And the irrigation piece. Was damaged and
not repaired. That'd be about a year ago, maybe even
a bit longer. So, through the last summer. Was the
heavy drought. Which turned the field almost into concrete, so.
Happy to see that it can get repaired. Not happy
to see that it would cost $58,000. To repair it,
but I guess it's a step in the right direction.
Okay, so I'll bring this to a vote then. This
is on the irrigation system to. Be paid for from
the lifecycle reserve. All those in favor. And that's unanimous.
Thank you. Have I left out any of the. Items
in the staff report or that anyone else wanted to
raise. Councilor jeffrey. I wanted to have conversation about council
remunery. Of course. Go ahead. Thanks. I'm not sure what
the amount should be, honestly. I read through comparators, but
for some reason, town of Blue Mountains was not considered
fully but. I googled it today, and they're at 49,000.
Including that includes benefits for those who are taking them.
We're around the 30. Thousand. Base rate. The treasurer can
correct me if I'm wrong, but if I proposed. A
5000 annual per. Counselor. Increase for this budget.
It would be the 5000 divided by 52 weeks times
six weeks plus 8%. Estimated. For 623. Seven times seven
members would be around $4,500. Impact on. The. 20. What
did I say? 4500? Yeah. What did I say? Yeah.
Well. That's my calculations I get for six weeks. I
didn't understand all those. $5,000 annual. Right? So if you
divide by 52 weeks in a year, multiply. Six weeks.
So wait, 52 weeks in a year is how much?
I think I got 576 97. 576, 97 or 92.
Am I ready? And then I added 8% to get
to 623, seven per each, so. What's 8%? Where did
that come from? Just for benefits or whatever? Benefits. Are
the benefits based on salary? Well, it's just a calculation
we use in forecasting for estimates. Okay. All right. Yeah,
I got so 623, seven times seven people. Is 43.
61 49. So I just said 4500. That's for 20.
That's weekly. No. 5000 divided by 52 times six. Oh.
Maybe I did something wrong. I'm only doing six weeks
for 2026, right? Six weeks. That's all there is, six
weeks in 2026. In 25. No, the elections aren't until
2026. Yeah. Pretty good. I'm just. Counsel, okay? Yes. You
didn't clarify that, but I totally understand that we've done
that previously. Three times. As I said, it's politically difficult.
Increase your own. And I'm not going to sit here
and increase hours at this point. Okay. I mean, if
you wanted to suggest that you. 're sold with $4,500
for 2026. So then when you get to 2027, annually.
It's the 5000 plus whatever the benefits are, times seven,
so it's around $40,000. Difference for 2027. But I think
for what we're investing and what we're going to expect,
two years out. For the new people coming. Into or
whoever's sitting around the table here to invest. I think
that that's reasonable. Yeah. Okay. Would there be a seconder
for this? Councilor Dougherty. Okay, Castor Baines, just to put
this in perspective, a good friend. Of mine who's a
counselor in the township at Georgian Bay, where my cottages.
31,000 a year. 7600 permanent residents, about 13,000. Seasonal residents,
but Holy moly. It's quite a difference. Thanks. they're probably
not building wastewater treatment plants Okay. Yeah. Deputy Mayor thank
you, Mayor Hamlin. And if I recall from the governance
report correctly, That'll mean the councilors have paid the same
amount as the deputy mayor. Going into the next term.
And. I have no problem supporting the change for the.
It probably is a little bit based on the fact
that there is potential for the deputy mayor. To be
going up quite a bit with the change, but if
the government comes through and says, that the downsizing happens.
Then the deputy will be the alternate. And only making
what the perm meeting fee is at this point in
time because we don't know how the allocation goes. As
I said, I have no problem with supporting more compensation
for counselors. I think you do have to do something
with the deputy mayor position for 27 as well. And
again, because I think there does need to be a
differential between the counselor and. I'm recalling. As I say,
I don't have it in front of me. I'm recalling
that the report said that. The 35 for the deputy
mayor and 30 for. The counselors. So if you're adding
the five, that's why I'm. Saying. I believe then counselors
and deputy mayor would be at the same amount. Yes,
go ahead. Thank you. So understanding that they would be
at the same base rate. I'm not sure what the
fairness of that is, but you have the potential for
47,000. At county. I'm not sure. I think if you
want to deal with that in 2026 for the 2020.
Seven budget. Whoever's doing that. That you would have more
facts than. I'm talking about six weeks in 2026. We
could add five to the deputy mayor if that's what
we want to do to keep it even. For the
treasurer. Could we add an amount? That would apply. Like
we're going to know. Within a few months, I would
expect, whether or not the province. Is going to leave
the deputy mayor positions at the county or not. So
if the deputy mayor positions are left at the county,
there would be a substantial increase. Can we make it?
And because this won't kick in till the end of
next year. Can we make a decision contingent. So in
other words, it would increase, let's say, 5000. For the
deputy mayor position. Unless the deputy mayor is still sitting
at county because the salary at GLoB 47, I just
want to hear from the treasurer, please. Well, I don't
remember. You were in the middle of a question. Well,
sorry, I'll. Come back to you shortly. Okay, let me
just ask the councilor and are the treasurer and we'll
come right. Back to you. Yeah, go ahead. Can we
do contingent kind of thanks? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. For
this dollar amount. Absolutely. So if we're looking at six
weeks at $5,000 for one member, that's less than $650.
so absolutely cancel can vote later to include that $650
Without an issue. Thank you, deputy mayor. So that's what
I was going to say to the councilor. Would a
friendly amendment be to include the 5000 for 26. For
deputy mayor and know that the next council will know
when they're trying to deal. With going forward. The impact
in 27. So that's what I was going to suggest.
And it's on the premise that the belief is. At
this point in time, there needs to be that differential.
And then that may change depending on what the problem
decides. So that was going to be a friendly amendment.
That's fine. I think you and the mayor and the
treasure are all saying the same thing. So that's fine.
The second or whatever is willing. We just include that
the 5000 annual differential for the six weeks for the
deputy mayor as well. Yeah. But rather than leaving it
on the next council, To have to change the compensation.
Within the few weeks in their first budget. I would
just like to have a consideration that if the Deputy
mayor is going to be at the county that the
increase not be given. I don't know. That's sort of
what's on my mind, because that would be really a
lot of an increase otherwise. Hard to say. I think
that if we budgeted for the $650. Times. Six weeks
or whatever it is. Well, we start November 15. We
started last term, so it wasn't a full November. I
don't think. Anyway, the clerk has a card up. Yeah,
per commas. Certainly part of through your worship to council
part of the information and nomination packages are counsel indicate
what the remuneration is. And further to the staff report
that was presented on November the 17th, the deputy mayor's
salary would be. For? I believe it's 2026. Or it
could be. With the applicable coal, I can't. Remember offhand.
It's $35,509 in a counselor's. Salary is 30,079. So that
would mean the council members would be making $400. Less
than the deputy mayor. So I was amending mine to
do the 5000 for the counselors plus the deputy mayor.
Moving forward. Moving forward. And then 2026 budget people can
do whatever they need to do. And. Can we ask
staff to raise this as an issue in 26? Yeah,
okay. All right. So what is the motion? I think
we understand what the motion is. Any other comments, councilor?
Ring. I'm not going to support this motion. We just
sat here. And turned down. I voted against staff for
P 55 and turn around and say whether I'm running
again. Or get elected again. I don't feel comfortable. Increasing.
Council salary when. I voted against all the ones for
staff, so I'm going to vote against this. okay We
get call anyways, right? So it's not. You're not going
to get. An increase. We get call adjustments every year
anyway. Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And I'm not
going to support it as well. I'm just letting everybody
know. Okay. Other comments. Councilor Baines.
I think Councilor Jeffrey has proposed a modest. Increase. Which
is necessary to attract other potential candidates to sit in
these seats. So I'm fully in support of it. Thank
you. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Ring. Thank you very much.
Is this a motive to get better counselors? Because we're
saying here that we're not getting quality people unless we
pay them. So. I'm kind of like. I don't know
what we. Don't think it's supposed to take here and
to get good people to get quality people. Got to
pay them a little bit more. I was always running
through my mind. Is to get people. Who? Have to
be independently working or independently. Retired and can
otherwise support themselves. Right? But someone has a full time
job to take off the time that's required to be
accounting. I would expect 30,000 doesn't necessarily enumerate everybody, but
I don't. Know. That's my thought on it, Councilor Jeffrey.
Well, I am self employed and. I can tell you,
Miraman, that the hours that we do these meetings in
the billable hours that I lose. I don't even think
I break even. So I think that if you want
to attract younger people. If you look at the average
age of this council, other than this young guy, right?
Here. I think that we want to be building a
farm team and succession planning. And interest, and right now.
I don't know that we're seeing a lot of interest
in terms of running. For council. So I think the
better job we do of making it attractive, and this
is just one piece. Like I said, I felt there
would have been a more robust discussion on time of
meetings. Length of meetings. All the other factors that go.
Into making. It. Attractive or possible, even possible for younger
people to run. Councilor putts. Thanks. Mary Hamlin. The only
reason I would support this. I've advocated being somebody who
works and raises a family and does all the in
between. during every day If we had meetings in the
evenings and we're able to accommodate other things, but we
seem to do everything during the day when you have
to take time away from work and. You have to
be almost self employed or have a very understanding employer,
which I've had. Over the last couple of years now
into my own thing, but. I just look at again,
this goes back to there's no reason why we can't.
If we don't want to give an adjustment, there's no
reason why we can't. Be doing things after hours. And
at different times. But if we continue to schedule. Everything
at 02:00 in the afternoon or 11:00 in the morning.
This is, unfortunately if you do want to attract the
generations that you're hoping to get on the other hand.
If you do an increase. Sometimes if you get people
that just want to sign up for the money. It's
not always at the best interest of the town either.
But the only reason I support this again is I've
tried to advocate, to do things. At different hours of
the day, but always been turned down and not heard.
So I will support this motion. Okay? Thank you. I'm
going to support the motion as well. I do think.
I do think that we have to pay more for
our counselors, and I think this has been a problem
in our province for a long time. In fact, I
think the province should be encouraging municipal counsels to pay
their counselors more. Because it's really hard at this level
for counselors to vote themselves a pay increase. But the
hours that are put in by the members of the
council and the dedication that's. Required. Is a lot. It's
a lot. But anyway, I think this is a relatively
modest increase, and I would support it. Anything else? All
those in favor? And opposed. To oppose that carries. Thank
you. Is there anything we haven't covered here that anyone
can see or that they'd like raised. Okay. So I
think I was adding these up, but now I have
so many pieces of paper on the go. Treasure. Did
you add these up? You did. Thank you. Go ahead.
Thank you. And I welcome the opportunity to make sure
that I've included the correct amount, so this is great
timing. What I have noted is an increase for insurance
of 14,000. An additional 50,000 each to the murph in
art center reserve funds to be funded through the mat.
So zero tax increase. A reduction of 280,000 to the
funding source for affordable housing to not come from taxes.
Hr position at 54,000. P 55 at 166,000. Georgian bay
accelerator 130,000. CCAT funding at 40,000, but to come from
the green reserve. Irrigation to the rugby field. 55,000 to
come from lifecycle reserve and cancel remuneration increase of 5100.
That brings our overall. Tax rate increase the municipal town
portion 3.35% in an overall blended rate f 2.97%. Hey.
Thank you. For doing that. Can I ask clarification, please?
Yeah, go ahead. Get per total right now. The report
says it was 3.14% at this Point in time for
the municipal portion. So what are we saying? It is
now 3.35. With adding 130,000 for accelerator, 166,000.
For p. 55. 54,000. For. The. What's that for? The
staff person for HR and the 14, that comes to
$364,000, which I would think would be around the 0.9%.
Council also. Voted to reduce the affordable housing reserve contribution
coming from taxes by 280,000. So we're still putting 400,000.
To the affordable housing initiatives, but only 120,000 is funded
through taxes. Sorry. So the 280 is reduced from that,
and that has to do with the affordable housing money.
That was going into affordable housing. Yeah. So in total,
the net change is 89,100. That was so far approved
tonight. Thank you. Okay. Now, I think we also can
make a decision. About. I'll say financing part of this
or all of it. From the surplus that treasurer said
she felt comfortable on, which was the 510 to 680.
Or also adding more to the reserves for the murph
and the art center. Or affordable housing, for that matter.
So this total amount. Sorry, did I get something wrong?
Go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I
was going to say. Or our asset management lifecycle. Right.
Which is also a very good. Okay. Right. Okay, so
that total amount was 364. Treasure gram. Is that right?
All those things that were added up, that came out
for taxes. Then that demand is 89,100 because we had
that 280,000 reduction. right
Okay. Anyone want to do anything with this councilor McCullough?
Sorry, I just have a rookie question. Are we trying
to work to? A number? Is there a target that
we're trying to. Achieve. You get to pick. Yeah.
So we're at 2.97. Two and a half. I had
suggested to staff early. On to target 2.75, but. It's
really the mood of the will of council, what the
tax increase should be.
I think what I'd like to suggest is, or just
put out to think about. So. If we say the
680 from the surplus is something. We could use part
of, let's say. I would love to see some of
that 280 going back into the affordable housing. And. Something
more into the reserves for the Murph and the art
center. And then also, could we reduce our tax rate
a bit? Okay, treasure, here's your job. Make all this
happen. Magic. Is any of that possible? Yeah, go ahead.
Just to clarify, You would like me to let you
know the amount we need to get to 2.5%. Municipal
portion, not the blended rate. Yeah, okay. One moment.
I'm ready. Okay, we would need approximately $375,000.
To be allocated from the investment analysis to achieve everything
that has been approved the last three meetings. To get
just shy of 2.5. Percent increase. Okay. And what would
the blended rate be if we did that? The blended
rate would decrease to just under 2.4%. Okay. All right,
so 375,000 if we wanted to get to our rate
of 2.5. And would there be any appetite to also
be putting more money into the reserves for the Murph
and the art center. I guess I'll put that out
there. Catherine doherty. But, yes, I would propose that we
add an additional 50. To each of the murph and
art center. Reserves. To be consistent with staff's initial recommendation
for these two reserve accounts. Would there be a second
or for that councilor beans. So that would add 100,000.
To the 375. So that would take us to 475
from the reserve spending. If everyone understood what that. Yeah,
okay. Comments Council ring. With that. We've put off of
the request. By councilor Jeffrey for the chairlifts for the
Eddie Bush. How are we going to finance them? Or
should we save some of this money for that? I
thought there maybe wasn't an appetite to deal with that.
I thought we just put off. Oh, I thought I
had invited you in, that there was no. Take up.
Okay. Please go ahead. Thank you. Did you follow us?
Yeah. The mayor looked at me at the time and
I just went because the staff report was. So. Every
time I asked for one of those, I get so
depressed because they make it so impossible. To get stuff
done. I know it's not their fault, but. We have
so many people who want to get up those stairs,
and I know we can't. Get everybody up. And. You
know what? Clerk almost is just reminding me we should
deal with one thing at a time. At 930, I
tend to wander a little, so I think with the
motion on the floor is Councilor Dougherty had put on.
Another 50 to each of the reserves to bring us
up to where the staff had suggested in budget number
one and councilor ranger. Just a quick follow up. And
that's what I was talking about this motion. I just
wondered whether we had the money, if we were still
going. To have to pay. I guess we're not going
to do the list and I could support this. That's.
Fine. I just wanted to know. Okay, I see. If
we added 100,000 as councilor Dougherty. Has put in as
a suggestion. That would take our total amount that we
would need. To keep at 2.5% locally. To 475. And
the amount is 680 that we could access from our
surplus, should we be so inclined. Councilor. Sorry. Deputy mayor.
Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I'm not going to support it
with the three use of the 375 and the 280.
Coming out of affordable housing reserve. That's 1.6. Percent automatically
onto 27 budget for. Whoever's dealing with 27 budget. You're
taking funds to handle operation costs to get your rate
changed down, that's going to come back on top of
the next council. In my opinion, it isn't correct to
be using it to drive down operation costs. Well, it's
not. Sorry, if I can just clarify, it's not all
operation costs. Because the motion we have on the floor
is reserve funds. Yeah, I'm not supporting. The hundred from
the reserve funds because of the impact already being felt.
With the other changes that have been made. Okay. Thank
you. Would anyone else like to comment on this? I'm
just really worried if we don't start putting money into
this like we'll never get there. And. To me if
we can come up with $150,000 for this year to
put in. The reserve fund. That's going to be a
good number to get started. I mean, I know there's.
A bit there now. There's three for the murph, I
think, and one for the art center, something. Like that.
But we have lots of monies ahead of us to
plan these facilities and get going. So, Councilor Dougherty. I
think it also signals to our community that. We're very
serious about these two projects. that are in very high
demand Absolutely. Councilor jeffrey. Thank you so along. Councilor rings
thought process. It's hard to support this without having the
discussion because at the end of the day, I also
think the people who are paying the taxes and using
the facilities we have now deserve some consideration of having
some accessibility. At the Eddie Bush. So I'd rather talk
about what we may or may not be. Able to
do with the stereliphs first. And then decide what's left
to go into the future planning. So you're asking.
what are you asking for i'm asking to hold off
on the 100,000 until we talk about the stairs Are
you groupal to that, Councilor Dougherty? Yes. Okay. Stairless it
is. Would you like to address that issue? I do.
I started. So I've lost it in here where stuff
had the report. But. I think. If I could ask
Director Cuba just to remind us what the cost. Options
were in terms of addressing it. And I know, I
understand the one isn't fully. Oada. But. Oh, is it
okay? Sorry. I thought it was. Well. It's responsible. Stand
up. Go ahead, executive director. Peg. Yeah. Thank you. Mayor
Hamlin through. To Councilor Jeffrey. So in the report. And
I'll start by apologizing. Certainly. Don't mean to dishearten counsel
with some of the reports around. What's possible. We did
start looking into. What might be options for council to
consider and quickly realize that we don't have access. To
all the information we need. To give the best advice.
Hence why in the recommendation we were suggesting if we
wanted to go. Forward. If council did desire to go
forward, that we went out to the market with a
request. For information. So that we could see what is
possible in a commercial setting. Unfortunately, when looking online, there's
lots of options that are potentially available for residential there
are some that say they're commercial. But there are building
permits involved, engineering assessments that may need to be involved,
we would recommend consultation with our accessibility advisory committee. And
it therefore starts to feel. Very. Prohibitive. Which isn't the
intention when we understand that this would be. A very
positive step for accessibility. The costs are anywhere from the
research we are able to do online, from 10,000. To
a million dollars, depending on what option council selected. Chairlift
option was between 10,000 to 20,000. But we did have
some concerns. On their ability to be installed in a
commercial setting and had some liability questions as well. Estimates.
For the platform lift was 40,000 80,000. But again, we'd
want more information. From suppliers to know if that estimate
was accurate. And then when you get into elevators, you're.
At a million dollars plus. So, basically. We recognize that
this is a good move. In a positive direction for
accessibility, but would need to ask the market what's possible.
And what assessments would be required should council direct staff
to. Go out and purchase a chair lick, there would
be a process. We'd have to go. Through for building
permits, et cetera, similar to any other commercial setting in
our town. And I realized that was a long answer,
but no. Make sure you have the right advice. No.
Appreciate that very much. So the problem in terms of
timing, and maybe you can help me with this through
the mirror. Is, once we get to this RFI process
is the same as what councilor Potts? Was already saying
before about the planning for the open space. All of
a sudden, you're. A year and a half. You're two
years out. And. It's municipal government is the worst possible
place to get things done. So I guess.
The ask would be to put in. I guess up
to 100,000. That would facilitate either. Two lifts and or
a platform lift. And then have staff start the process
of looking into it, knowing the funding was there. Looks
like maybe it's 80,000. Is the platform, lister. Between 40
and 80. Yeah, but. There's always some other cost plus
that goes into having. To do the research or whatever.
Well, maybe that's quite a difference. I wish maybe could.
I'll ask when it's my turn to talk. Go ahead.
That's fine. If it's 80,000 we can do 80,000. I'm
not sure. If we only need the two chairlifts, there's
going to be some money left. Over. If there's a
commercial way of doing that. That. Doesn't open us up
to vulnerability in terms of liability. And I'd like to
put that place marker in there. We did such a
fabulous job. With our facilities in 2008 with the Ontario
Paralympic Winter championships, the curling club, whatever. But we've. Really
fallen behind in terms of that accessibility. In our older
facilities, and I think this is one case where we
can do a bit of catch up in a building
that's used for a lot of functions and for people
who would really like to get to that next level.
In the warmer. Okay, councilor. Pause. Thanks, Mary. Evelyn, I
have a question. I'm assuming through. You to executive director
peg if there is an individual currently tomorrow that requested
to access the second level of the Eddie Bush that
had. Accessibility challenges, and they couldn't get up there. What
do we tell them? How do we relay that? How
are we dealing with it now? If there was that
situation. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through to councilor
pod. So it would be definitely on. A case by
case scenario. And also we'd be looking at. What is
the item that they're looking to access that was on
the second floor and could it be something that could
be accessed depending on the individual's abilities? Through town hall.
Up to the second level. That being said, I think
there would be potentially legal implications that we'd want to
explore. And potentially require closed session discussion on some previous
case law. Is there a seconder for the motion? Okay,
is there a seconder for councilor Jeffrey's? Motion on stairblast
council. Councilor Potts. 80,000. Yeah.
Deputy mayor. Clarification, please, through you to Councilor Jeffrey. Funds
coming from. I guess the funds we're working on right
now. I don't know if there's the treasurer could advise.
Through the mayor if there were any other avenues for
the funding to come from. But treasure grant. I don't
know if we have any accessibility reserve funds or those
kinds. Of things. We could raise taxes, which is what
we're discussing now. We could also use the general. Reserve,
and we do have the working capital reserve, should that
be needed as well, if you prefer. To come from
existing reserves. Follow up, if I may. Sure. That's kind
of tomatoes. Tomatoes, right. Because the surplus will go into.
Reserves, right? But I think the main thing is that
the plan is for it to come from reserves. And
I'll support it for that reason. Canceling. Thank you. Just
one more question. That. If we're going to set aside
$80,000, is that what we're going to see what we
can get for 80,000. And what if we can't? Get
anything for that. I'm thinking that there's going to be
a lot more. Work. Than I'd like to say. We've
been able to get it. But I think we got
to not even consider the stair lifts to me. They're
just basically something you'd install at home. For yourself. Like
you know all us old. Counselors. That's what we'll be.
Stalin. But. The other lift is. We got to meet
building codes. We got to meet a whole bunch of
standards before we can. Even say whether we can install
them. I'll support it if we know we can get
it done. For 80,000, I just wondering, is there going
to be a lot more hidden costs before we get
to the 80,000? Executive director. Do you have any thoughts
on that? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through to Councilor Ring.
The rough estimate that we were able to obtain from
doing some research online was that the lists themselves would
be 40,000, $80,000 if there was any additional assessments that
were required above and beyond those list costs, it may
be appropriate to earmark $100,000 that being said, We're not
sure if one or two lifts would be required. Maybe
one would be sufficient. But certainly consultation with the accessibility
advisory committee would help us in determining what number of
lists would be appropriate. And I'm sorry I can't be
more helpful in terms of pricing, we're. Going by research
we were able to do. On the topic. Yeah. Thank
you, Catherine. Just to follow up, then, if that's the
case. Could I amend the original motion to 100,000? Sure.
That's where I started. And. I would accept that. Okay.
Thank you. And the seconder, do they agree? Yeah. Okay.
This is a hard one. This is a hard one
for me because. I think we know that the Eddie
Bush is not an accessible structure. Luckily, you can get
in. On the main floor. And see what's happening and
use the washroom. But if you wanted to go up.
To the second level. You're not getting there. And that
is a very well used facility, and that's a shame.
On the other hand. This whole building needs to be
renovated. I mean, it's like putting lipstick on a pig.
I think we're spending over 200,000 this year's budget. To
sort of do the band aids for this year. I
don't know what the right answer is. I think a
future council is going to have to make a decision,
hopefully with the blues. On funding what needs to be
done there, or if we have a replacement facility or
whatever comes. Of it. But. I can all support. This
motion. But I'm going to say reluctantly, I so want
people to be access every one of our buildings to
everywhere they want to go, but. I'm so conflicted about
this building because. It needs so much work and. It's
still not there. So, anyway, that's what I think. Everyone
want to vote? Okay, all those in favor? One. Okay,
that's unanimous. That was easy. Okay. Yes, sorry. See you.
Thank you. Through the chair. I did want to make
a quick, positive comment on municipal government being the responsible
place to get things done. We are. The closest to
the people. I know that our council members here. From
people every day. And staff hear from people every day,
too. I think Collingwood does punch above its weight, and
we do get a lot done. So I just wanted
to put that on the record. And we'll arm wrestle
about it later. No, we do good things. We do
great things. Here, but it just takes a long time.
Those darn procurement roles, too. Okay, I won't go there.
Okay. So just. Can I clarify with the treasure? So
the 100 was coming out of reserves, was that. The
motion. Okay, so we're still at 475. No, sorry. 375.
Okay, to get us to the 2.5% local blended 2.4.
Did we want to put more funds into the reserves.
Houser Doherty. Oh, you had your motion. You were deferring
your motion. Thank you. So your motion was to take.
50 into each of those reserve funds, right, for a
total of 100,000. And. These are reserves. Right. So that
would mean we'd have to. The 375 would become 475
that we would need. Out of the 680 if we
were to use those funds. Okay. All right. Seconder. Seconderbank's
comments. I know. We've heard you. So that's why I
want to hear from somebody. Else. This is a different
motion. I thought you had already calmed. I was going
to let you speak, but I thought you had. Already
spoken on this. Okay, go ahead. Again. It's a tomatoes,
tomatoes thing, right? You're taking it out of. The you're
reducing. Your overall surplus. By now. If you put this
through, $475,000, that would have ended up going into lifecycle
reserve. And I was trying to get you to agree
to reduce the component. Of increase for lifecycle reserve. And
what you're doing now is you're actually taking more out
of lifecycle. Reserve. So. I'm going to support it. I
don't disagree. That. Really? 150,000 is in a substantial amount,
right? Because again, as I say, it's just tomatoes and
tomatoes. It's not the way you typically, in my opinion,
would do your setting your budget. You're notified of your
surplus and you look at your impacts on your lifecycle
reserve. And make your decisions about your asset management. And
that would have given you room to do what you're
doing. So I will support this, though, because, as I
say, it's similar to the lyfts. That it is coming.
From reserve. Okay. All right. Anyone else like to speak
to this? All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank
you. So. I think. The next question is. Whether we
will use. The 680,000 to pay for the $475,000. Am
I right on this next decision? Anyone want to move
that? Elsa dougherty.
I will move it to start the discussion. Okay? Any
second. Or councilor McCulloch. And this would just recap here.
680. Minus 475 is 50 two. So if we were
to use the 680 portion of the surplus. To cover
475,000 that we've been talking about here, which. Would keep
our local tax rate to 2.5%. It would also leave
205,000 of the 680 to go into the lifecycle reserves.
So we'd have 205 in the lifecycle reserves. We'd have
100 into the reserves. For the murph and the art
center. And we would have 375 into other things. Okay,
anyone else want to comment? Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor
Hamlin. Again. No surprise. I'm not going to support it.
Again. $655,000 of what you're doing is going to impact
27. So that's percent and a half. The other side
of the whole thing is. I just can't. Use the
funds for a short period of time, knowing it's going
to put it on. To the next council. So I'm
not supportive of it. I do intend on putting on
the table again about the asset management reduction, which will
help reduce that way. But I'm not in favor of
using those funds specifically the way they're being. Incorporated in
this. Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak
to this? So we'll. Bring it to a vote. All
those. Sorry. Pardon. I'm confused, Mayor Hamlin. I thought that's
what we were voting to do. As we voted on
each of these things that it was coming out of
the 680 because you were adding it up, so I
don't know why we're doing this again, okay? Is that
what everyone else filed? Okay, so there we go. No
need to vote. Thank you. Voting is overrated. Okay, what
else do we have to do here? Okay, motion to
extend. Are we ready for one more hour or what?
That's the other things. We're almost done. Are we almost
done on the budget? No. How come? You got plenty
to tap, so pardon me. Thank you, Mary Hanlon. I
think we could use another when we're less tired. Just.
To do one final review and any final, other suggestions,
so I think it's going to take another. Okay, we
have one suggestion. Not to extend an hour. I'll just
say. On the agenda still for today. Perhaps the clerk
could help us decide whether there's anything we need to
deal with other than. Another option is to recess the
meeting and we can reconvene it on another date. Before
the 15th at the sensor. Okay. Recess. The meeting. So
what she was saying is we would recess it so
we could reconvene at another day before the 15th. I
think there's some interest in getting the budget finalized in
December, if we could. So. The. Clerk. She's going to
canvass people's availability. Is that right? The recess be part.
Of. I don't know if we have many items on
December 8, right? Push it to next Monday. So Kriopol.
Okay, and again, I'll just ask the clerk. Is there
anything on the rest of the agenda for the committee
of the whole that can't wait in your view to
next Monday. You could do the confirmatory bylaw. Okay.
No. We're recessing. Yeah. I think if you want to
quickly run through the other aims, we can just defer,
so. It's just the budget conversation on the 8th. You
can do that? So is that agreeable, Councilor Jeffrey? For
sure. Okay, so. Were you going to say something? Yeah.
I understand that. Thank you. Through you that we're about
at the end of our brain. Power for the budget
tonight. I did hear the deputy mayor say that he
was going to make a proposal. I was wondering. If
there was a way that we could hear a bit
about the proposal and thus be well. Prepared with numbers
and the like at the next meeting, if that works
for the deputy and the chair. Yeah, go ahead. Thank
you. And I've already provided treasurer with some information, but
unfortunately. It could only be today. So I knew that
the likelihood would be that it would carry over into
the next meeting, so. It should be okay. I do
anticipate that the treasurer and I will do some emailing
back and forth. To make sure that the clear. But
basically what I'm coming forward with is a reduction of
the 1.2 that's proposed in the budget for the asset
management. And I've started to explain the reasoning to the
treasurers through the email. Okay.
So what's left on the committee as a whole starts
on page seven of the agenda. I guess at item
15.3. So can I turn the chair back to you?
Sure, if you want. Or you can keep rolling, but
I'll try and get through it. As quickly as I
can. Go ahead. Okay. Item 15.3, deputations unregistered. Thank you,
chairper. We do have one individual online if they would
like to address the committee. At this time, please press
the raise your hand feature at the bottom of your
screen. Okay. Thank you.
Item 15.4 reports minutes of other committees and boards. The
recommendation is that the following minutes of other committees and
boards be received and the recommendations contained therein be approved.
Minutes, trails and active Transportation Advisory Committee, October 9, 2025.
Minutes. The Collingwood Heritage Committee, November 6, 2025 and the
minutes for the accessibility advisory committee, October 16 2025. Can
I have a mover? Councilor Potts. Seconded. Councilor, ring all.
In favor. Rolling right along. Okay. Item 15.5. Old or
deferred business. Anything. Don't hold that up. Okay. Thank you.
Item 15.6 other business. No other business. Item 15.7, notice
of motions. Mayor Hamlin.
No, I know Deputy Mayor Friars was, but I think
Mayor Hamlin had something, I believe. Sorry. Thank you. My
notice is that I will bring a motion at the
next meeting. To request. A stop sign be installed at
the intersection. To make it a four way stop at
the intersection of Cedar and third. And that also we
ask staff to consider a phase in for the rest
of intersections in our community. In residential areas. And third
part would be that the school and safety zones. Be
given a priority in that phase in. Okay. Thank you.
Item 15.8.1 rise from committee of the whole the motion
is to and the recommendation is. Sorry. That council herein
rise from committee as a whole in return to regular
council. Meeting. Can I have a mover? Councilor McCullough, seconded
vice chair. Baines. All in favor? And that is unanimous.
Thank you. And at this point, I'm looking for a
motion to recess this meeting. We can do the confirmatory
bylaw and the adjournment, and we'll. Just add. Change. We're
not recessing. Okay. Confirmatory bylaw. Is that bylaw number 20?
25 84, being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of
the regular meeting of council held December 1, 2025 be
enacted and passed this first day of December 2025, mover
and I seconder deputy mayor seconded. By councilor Dougherty. All
those in favor? Passed unanimously. And we have a fight.
But I think I saw councilor Potts go up. First.
For an adjournment. All those in favor? Adjourned. Thank you,
everybody. It was tough. We almost didn't make it.