[0:49] Good afternoon, everyone. Calling to order the council meeting for
[0:53] Monday, December 1, 2025. And we're going to start. By
[0:58] standing for the playing of our national anthem.
[2:07] Please be seated. Our land. Acknowledgment today will be read
[2:14] by Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you. Mayor Hamlin for more than
[2:17] 15,000 years, the first nations walked upon and cared for
[2:21] the lands we now caught home Anishnabek hod Nashoni Ajibway
[2:25] and many others who were families, friends and communities the
[2:28] way we are today. The town of Collingwood acknowledges the
[2:33] Lake Simcoe Natawa saga Treaty of 1818 and the relationship
[2:37] it establishes with the original inhabitants of Turtle island, we
[2:41] acknowledge the reality of our shared history and the current
[2:44] contributions of indigenous people within our community, we seek to
[2:48] continue empowering expressions of pride amongst all. Of the diverse
[2:52] stakeholders in this area, we seek to do better and
[2:56] to continue to recognize, learn, and grow in friendship and
[2:59] community, nation to nation. Thank you. Now, I have a
[3:04] motion to adopt the agenda. The motion as follows, that
[3:07] the content of the council committee of the whole agenda
[3:11] for December 1, 2025 be adopted as amended. There's two
[3:14] amendments, the addition of staff report for item 15.2.2, staff
[3:20] proposed budget and this is draft number two and. Secondly,
[3:23] we're going to switch the order in item 15.2. There's
[3:28] two. Items there and we're going to deal with the
[3:29] budget first, which is the second item. And then we'll
[3:32] deal with the master servicing plan contract as the second
[3:36] item. Could I have a mover in a second, please?
[3:39] Councilor Jeffrey. Seconded by councilor. Potts comments. Thank you, Mayor
[3:44] Hamlin, for a few reasons, including additional information I've got
[3:47] since the release of the draft agenda at this time,
[3:50] I'm going to withdraw the notice of motion. At 15.71,
[3:54] likely to bring something forward a later date after the
[3:57] pre consultations on provincial budget occur. Thank you, Councilor Jeffrey.
[4:02] Thank you, mayor. Hamlin and just heads up, I propose
[4:06] to pull from 8.3.1. C 2020 514 with respect to
[4:13] governance. For some input. Sorry, I'm just looking here. 8.3.1.
[4:19] And the committee of the whole and it's. C 2020
[4:24] 514 council governance structure. Got it. Thank you. Thank you.
[4:29] Okay. And with those other matters listed. All those in
[4:34] favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you. Are there any declarations
[4:38] of pecuniary interest? Today. If you find yourself in that
[4:42] position during the meeting, please let me know. The announcements.
[4:48] We're going to start by hearing from our youth mayor
[4:52] San v. Gupta. Welcome, Sandy. Hello. Thank you. Good evening,
[5:01] everyone. Being announced as the calling with youth mayor in
[5:09] late October was one of the biggest surprises and honors
[5:12] of my life. I filled out the application, hoping to
[5:15] learn about leadership, explore how our town works, and understand
[5:19] all the different jobs that keep this community running, and
[5:23] I got all of that and so much more. From
[5:26] speaking on the radio to shadowing the finance department to
[5:29] helping raise the pulley of flag, every experience to push
[5:32] me to grow. And made me proud to represent the
[5:36] youth of Collingwood. One of the biggest highlights was the
[5:39] Remembrance Day parade, where I had the privilege of laying
[5:42] the wreath on behalf of all young people in our
[5:45] community. Moments like that reminded me how meaningful this role
[5:50] truly is. I've also been really grateful for the recognition
[5:54] I've gotten from our community, including the article that was
[5:58] published about my work as a youth mayor. It's been
[6:02] amazing to hear from people in town who notice what
[6:05] I've been doing. And it made me realize how connected
[6:07] we all are. I've had so much fun meeting everyone
[6:11] here at council. And learning from each one of you.
[6:15] Thank you for welcoming me, supporting me and taking the
[6:18] time. To show me what real community leadership looks like.
[6:22] And a special thank you to Mayor Hamlin and the
[6:25] council members who chose me for this. Role. Thank you
[6:28] for believing in me and trusting me with this responsibility.
[6:32] A special thank you to Isabella as well for being
[6:36] beside me throughout. As this is my final council meeting,
[6:40] I just want to say how grateful I am for.
[6:42] This opportunity. This experience has been a huge part of
[6:45] my life and something I will always look back on.
[6:48] With pride. But I also know this isn't the end.
[6:51] It's just to start. Being a youth mayor has inspired
[6:54] me to take on more leadership roles involved in continue
[6:58] helping Collingwood in any way I can. Thank you again
[7:02] for everything. It has been an honor to represent the
[7:05] youth of this amazing community as a youth mayor.
[7:16] Well, thank you so much for being our youth mayor
[7:18] and for all your kind words today. Thank you. Thank
[7:21] you for having me. Thanks. Now back to the regular
[7:31] scheduled community announcements. How are you going to top that,
[7:33] Deputy mayor? Exactly. That's always a tough act. Of all
[7:40] of it, we've had such great use. Of marriage, and
[7:42] congratulations on all your hard work. On November 18, along
[7:47] with councilor Ring, we attended the first anniversary of the
[7:50] Campbell street support of rapid rehousing project that is operated
[7:54] by contact community services. As part of celebration of the
[7:57] very successful twelve months of operation. They've served about 28
[8:01] clients and have rehoused 13. To assist with senior homelessness.
[8:06] The complex was renamed the Rogers Way home after the
[8:10] very first. Person to move on to permanent housing. It
[8:15] honors. That very first client. And it's a ball about
[8:20] integrating into permanent housing for those over 55. The other
[8:27] announcement I was going to make is that we're very
[8:29] appreciative. Of the efforts of all the volunteers that are
[8:31] participating as part of the Christmas Day feast team. This
[8:36] is the return of a free community meal project that
[8:38] is open and welcoming to anyone who needs a place
[8:41] to go. Whether they are going to be spending a
[8:44] day loan, experiencing food insecurity or. Simply looking to connect
[8:51] with others. It's open to all denominations and ages. It
[8:56] will take place from 1230 to 02:00. P.m. at the
[8:59] legion on the 390 Ontario street. And so again, we're
[9:03] so grateful to the team for bringing together. These people
[9:07] in the spirit of caring community, wishing them all the
[9:10] best in their efforts, and if you want to reserve
[9:12] a seat, please just call our tremendous 2111 service. Thank
[9:17] you. Thank you. Councilor Jeffrey thank you. Mary Hamlin, the
[9:21] deputy mayor, just covered what I was hoping to bring
[9:23] up tonight and maybe I would only. Expand with one
[9:27] thing. To say that if you have the ability to
[9:29] become a sponsor of this great event. Please contact the
[9:32] organizers. I'm sure they can use all the help they
[9:34] can to deliver. This wonderful event. Thank you. Thank you,
[9:38] Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, mayor. Just a couple of items.
[9:42] The first is. Last week on November 25, I participated
[9:48] with you and members of council. In the raising of
[9:52] the flag for international day of elimination of violence against
[9:57] women. We do many flag raisings in this community, and
[10:02] I hope for the day when it is no longer
[10:04] necessary for us to do this one. This Wednesday, there
[10:09] will be a virtual open house where residents can receive
[10:12] an update on the waterfront. Development. It's between 630 and
[10:19] 730, and you can register online at Collingwood, CA. And
[10:25] then finally, are you a newcomer to Collingwood? You can
[10:30] find out virtually. Everything you need to know about your
[10:33] residency, including waste pickup, library, schools, building permits. And much,
[10:40] much more. All on the town website. Calling with ca.
[10:44] Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor Hamlin. Just
[10:49] a reminder that the outdoor Christmas market has returned. It
[10:54] will be each Friday evening, and we'll continue Friday evenings
[10:57] from 05:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m. Downtown until December 19.
[11:02] You can enjoy the magic of the dancers from Fleetwood
[11:04] Dance center in the store windows and strolling entertainers along
[11:07] the street, taking a free horse and wagon ride, leaving
[11:10] the town hall and visit with Santa's big red sleigh
[11:13] at the open space. At 84 here, Ontario street, across
[11:16] from town hall. And remember that Santa will also be
[11:19] returning each sat. Saturday from noon to 03:00 p.m. until
[11:22] December 20. And just on that I attended. The market
[11:27] Friday night and then followed up with the Blues game.
[11:30] And I just want to send an appreciation to director
[11:33] Cubit and her staff. The sound system was spectacular. And
[11:37] so it was with 1000 people in attendance, approximately. It
[11:42] was very well known that. It's been upgraded, so thank
[11:46] you. Counci. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. I just
[11:53] have one announcement to make about the. Calling with the
[11:58] affordable housing task force. Had another one other conversation. A
[12:04] community conversation in the series that we know the issue.
[12:07] Now let's talk solutions. This one was about how land
[12:11] trust. Are building affordable communities. And can they work in
[12:14] Collingwood? That was Wednesday, November 26, at the library as
[12:20] well attended. It was originally we had to cut it
[12:23] off because there's only so much room up there, so.
[12:27] We had breakout tables that deputy Mayor Friar and myself
[12:32] being on the affordable housing task force both facilitated a
[12:36] table. And also in attendance from our council was councilor
[12:39] Perry. The night went pretty well. There was a presentation
[12:44] and. I am sorry. The girl's name is escaping, but
[12:48] she's a representative of the canadian network of community land
[12:51] trust, and she gave a very good presentation. It stirred
[12:55] up a lot of conversation when we broke off into
[12:59] the breakout tables. And whether we got any solutions from
[13:04] this. There was a lot of good information and data
[13:07] that was tabulated. And I'm sure that when coordinator. Dasuza
[13:16] gets everything put together, we're going to hear about it.
[13:20] At the next affordable housing task force, and hopefully it's
[13:22] something we can look forward to. Helping. The crisis that
[13:27] we have with lack of affordable housing in this town.
[13:30] So that's all. I have. Thank you, Councilor Baines. Thank
[13:34] you, Mayor Hamlin. Two items. Today, tomorrow, December. 2 is
[13:39] giving Tuesday a global generosity movement. Celebrate by supporting the
[13:44] Collingwood Museum's mission to preserve and share stories that. Shape
[13:47] our community. Every donation, big or small, helps us care
[13:50] for Collingwood's collection, creating, engaging experiences and makes history accessible
[13:56] to everyone. This giving Tuesday. Your support helps us to
[13:59] inspire curiosity, connection and pride in Collingwood's past. Today and
[14:04] for years to come. You can donate in person at
[14:07] the Collingwood museum during regular operating hours Tuesday to Saturday
[14:11] from ten to four or over the phone by calling
[14:14] 705 4454-8111. Or. Going to their website at Collingwood causum.
[14:22] Donations of $20 or more are, of course, eligible for
[14:25] tax receipts. And the second item is that this morning
[14:28] at 1015. I and 45 other volunteers attended at the
[14:34] corner, actually at the Salvation army in a Congo line.
[14:38] Of gifts, if you will. We were able. And I
[14:42] know councilor Potts did this last year. We being members
[14:46] of the Optimus Club of Collingwood, the employees of reliability
[14:50] and the OPP. To unload two and a half trucks
[14:54] totaling 1210 items. I won't say what. Those items are
[15:00] for, but you can guess. This will go to make
[15:03] the Christmases of some 245 families in this community, up
[15:08] from. Up 40 families from last year, so the need
[15:12] is there. It took us about 90 minutes in the
[15:15] cold in this Congo line. Moving all of these items,
[15:19] 46 people. And in total. It was about $15,000 worth
[15:25] of items, shall I say 4000 donated from the Optimus
[15:29] club 12,000 from reliability. And I must say, shout out
[15:33] to Cliff and Terry Hollingshead. Who are extraordinary in organizing
[15:37] this year after year. And just to end it off,
[15:40] as Terry said. Or Jenny. Excuse me. From the Salvation
[15:43] army, the extraordinary. Generosity of this community. Continues to inspire.
[15:51] And amaze them. So on their behalf and everyone's behalf,
[15:54] thank you for all who participate. Thank you for that.
[15:59] Councilor Perry. Thank you, mayor Hamlin. I do have two
[16:03] library announcements. Genealogy club is a casual group for those
[16:07] wanting to learn more about genealogy and to share tips
[16:10] and information with others. New members are always welcome. The
[16:15] next meeting is Tuesday, December 9, at 10:00 a.m. also
[16:18] the library. Will be looking seasonal with winter. I spy
[16:23] you can pick up your game card in the children's.
[16:25] Area, and the search will take you through both floors
[16:27] of the library. Once you find all the items, submit
[16:30] a ballot for a chance to win your own board
[16:33] game. All ages are welcome to play. And it's from
[16:36] December 15 to the 23rd. I also will add that
[16:39] during councilor Potts. Announcement regarding downtown, et cetera. We did
[16:44] get an email that came in, and I'm sure he
[16:47] would have covered this. But I just want to share
[16:50] that the town of Collingwood is spreading holiday chair with
[16:52] free parking. In downtown and municipal parking lots from Saturday,
[16:57] December 6 to Sunday, January 4. Please note. Overnight. Parking
[17:03] restrictions remain in effect from 01:00 a.m. till 07:00 a.m.
[17:07] and for stays longer than 3 hours, please use the
[17:09] municipal parking lots. Take advantage of this festive offer while
[17:13] enjoying shopping, dining and seasonal activities in downtown Collingwood. Thanks
[17:19] for the reminder, Councilor McCullough. Thank you, mayor. I had
[17:22] two items, and they were very nicely covered by my
[17:24] colleagues on council. I hear you. So I'm going to
[17:31] just take a minute. To say how honored we all
[17:35] should be by having the number of people who were
[17:40] nominated for order of Collingwood this year. The committee. Had
[17:46] a tough choice picking who should be the recipients. And
[17:50] I'm just going to take a moment to say who
[17:52] these people are. So the order of Collingwood, just for
[17:56] those who need a little reminder. Is honoring those who,
[18:00] through exemplary volunteer efforts in the community. Enrich the well
[18:06] being. Social, natural or cultural environment of our community. And
[18:12] we also award at the same time if there are
[18:15] any nominated and worthy companion to the order of Collingwood.
[18:20] And these are people who already receive the Order of
[18:23] Collingwood award, but through their tireless volunteer efforts continue to
[18:28] further five years. So the 2025 recipients of the Order
[18:33] of Collingwood are these people? Barbara Kaiser Patterson, Deb. Pickett,
[18:38] Pearl Simons, Claire Tucker Reid and Paul Azubik, and the
[18:43] Companion to the order of Collingwood are Robert Graham and
[18:46] Larry Hogarth. So. These presentations of the awards will take
[18:52] place at the mayor's annual New Year's Levy, which will
[18:54] be Sunday, January 11, at the bear State, opens at
[18:58] 130. Everyone is welcome. We have three deputations
[19:08] today, and the first one is from the Collingwood climate
[19:12] action team. Welcome. Yeah, just a moment. Catherine, Clark
[19:22] has been okay. Thank you. Just to let the audience
[19:25] know. Through our gallery that we do have a room
[19:29] that's open just outside the council chambers. Called the brand
[19:33] of room, where the same information is being shared and
[19:36] displayed on a screen in there. If anybody who doesn't
[19:39] have a seat and wants to sit down, it is
[19:40] available. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Could you just state your
[19:48] name and why you're here? Thank you. My name is
[19:51] Catherine. Diam, the chair of the board for the Collingwood
[19:54] climate action team, and I'm here. To make a funding
[19:57] request. Good afternoon, everyone. Your honor, Mayor Hamlin, Deputy Mayor
[20:02] Friar, Counselor, staff, and those in the audience before we
[20:06] begin. I wanted to acknowledge the strong and trusting partnership
[20:11] we've built with the town of Collingwood. Since 2019. Partnerships
[20:15] like this just don't happen overnight. They take time, commitment,
[20:19] and two parties willing to show up equally at the
[20:22] table together. We've. Fostered a relationship, grounded and respectful dialogue,
[20:28] shared problem solving, and a clear understanding of what the
[20:30] climate crisis means for our community. We're also deeply grateful
[20:35] for the financial support the town has provided since 2020.
[20:39] The $20,000 contribution in 2022 gave us the confidence to
[20:43] take an important step hiring Laura. Vermander as our part
[20:47] time communications coronary. That role has since grown into our
[20:51] director. Of community engagement. A key position that strengthens our
[20:55] connection with residents. and we seriously appreciate the continued funding
[21:01] in 2024 and 25 Now, we are here today to
[21:04] request secure funding for the next three years as a
[21:07] community climate. Action plan moves into implementation in 2026. This
[21:13] is a pivotal moment, one where stable support will ensure
[21:17] continuity, capacity, and meaningful action as we work alongside the
[21:21] town and its citizens to deliver. On the goals of
[21:24] the plan. Next slide. Since 2019, the Collingwood Climate Action
[21:29] team has partnered closely with the town to advance climate
[21:32] action, build awareness and help create a healthy, resilient community.
[21:37] As Collingwood moves into implementation of its community climate action
[21:41] plan in 2026. Sea Cat's role, along with our volunteers,
[21:47] committees, and programs will be a core component of its
[21:51] capacity to make crow progress. Next slide. Today we are
[21:56] requesting. $40,000 per year for three years. $25,000 for core
[22:04] operational support, including partial funding of our director of community
[22:07] engagement and $15,000 to support CCAT's three core programs directly
[22:13] tied to the implementation. Of the Collingwood Climate Action Plan.
[22:17] We are suggesting that the funding could come from the
[22:19] Green Legacy Reserve fund with no impact on. The town's
[22:23] operating budget. Next slide. We have a track record in
[22:28] alignment with the town. Seeing Cat played an active role
[22:31] in developing the climate action plan. Our director of community
[22:35] engagement served on the town's project team through every stage.
[22:41] For five years, CCAT has delivered educational and action oriented
[22:45] programming that complements municipal climate work. And directly supports community
[22:49] participation. Our programs align closely with priority options within the
[22:54] town's plan and help ensure. A successful transition from planning
[22:59] to implementation. Next slide. While the town will take the
[23:04] role of facilitating the implementation of the community climate auction
[23:07] plan, It is a community wide responsibility requiring meaningful leadership
[23:14] from community organizations. CCAT is poised to be one of
[23:18] the primary leaders in community driven implementation, engaging residents, volunteers
[23:23] partners and businesses. Next slide. Our existing programs, climate connect,
[23:31] better homes, greener future, green Economy Canada and our annual
[23:35] community mobilization event Earthfest, along with our working teams and
[23:39] volunteers, will be important in supporting the planned success. These
[23:45] programs are a core element of our strategic plan and
[23:48] aligns with the initiatives that the Collingwood Climate community climate
[23:52] action plan outline and its implementation. We've also ensured our
[23:57] programming is easily accessible to all. We don't charge for
[24:00] attending workshops, seminars. We provide free access to resources, tools,
[24:05] and support, and we encourage members to join as volunteers
[24:08] and get involved. Along the way. I'm also proud to
[24:12] say that one of our volunteers has just become one
[24:14] of our board members. And she's in the audience. Bianca
[24:18] Creek, Earth's last. We'll be celebrating. Its fifth anniversary in
[24:22] 2026 and continues to grow annually. Annually, both in participation
[24:26] and programming, to meet a broad community audience. Next slide.
[24:32] Operational security strengthens our fundraising capacity. When our core operations
[24:37] are supported, we can focus external fundraising on program expansion,
[24:41] ensuring that donor and foundation dollars go directly to programs
[24:45] and have greater impact. Next slide. With town support. It
[24:52] strengthens our credibility with funders. A predictable municipal commitment signals
[24:57] that Collingwood recognizes CCAT as an essential partner in building
[25:01] the sustainable and resilient future. It aligns with how the
[25:05] town already supports other key nonprofits. Several community organizations such
[25:10] as Pride, GTHs, and Special Olympics have received multi year
[25:14] town support, providing similar stability to CCAT ensures climate auction
[25:20] is resourced as our other priority. Community initiatives next slide.
[25:27] It also reduces pressure on town staff to extend a
[25:30] higher level of effort. In the community plan. Stable cCAP
[25:36] funding allows the climate change spousalist another staff to focus
[25:39] on internal policy, corporate initiatives such as climate, lens integration,
[25:44] implementation across departments, and effective facilitation efforts rather than becoming
[25:49] involved with direct implementation efforts. While CCAT continues to build
[25:54] and lead key community. Engagement and mobilization. Next slide. CCAT
[26:00] respectfully asks the town of Collingwood to provide a three
[26:04] year commitment. Of $40,000 per year, which could come from
[26:10] the Green Legacy Reserve fund. This investment recognizes the town's
[26:14] commitment to their declaration of a climate crisis Ccat's. Essential
[26:19] role in implementing the community climate action plan and our
[26:23] shared vision of a safe, healthy and resilient future for
[26:26] everyone in Collingwood. Next slide. I'll take any questions that
[26:32] you have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Catherine. Would
[26:35] anyone like to ask questions? Go ahead, Councilor Dougherty. Thank
[26:42] you, chair. And thank you, Catherine. Our climate action team
[26:50] do such incredible work in our community, and I know
[26:53] how hard you all work at it, so congratulations. Thank
[26:57] you. Just wanted to be reminded as to what your
[27:01] funding was last year. Through the council grant, we received
[27:06] $7,984.14. Sure wasn't $0.15. No, it was not 15.
[27:17] Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Go ahead. Deputy
[27:25] MeL thank you, Mayor Hamillon, and thank you very much
[27:28] for the presentation and everything that the team is doing.
[27:33] I wondered if I could ask for you. Mayor Hamlin
[27:35] to the treasurer. Could she update us? On how much
[27:38] is in the green legacy fund that I guess at
[27:41] the end of 24. Would be last recorded. Thank you.
[27:46] Treasure. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin three you to the deputy
[27:49] mayor. I would be happy to at the end of
[27:51] 2024, there was 1 million. 82,513, and interest that was
[28:00] allocated to this reserve fund in 2024 was $35,833 thank
[28:06] you. Thank you, Mayor Hamlet. It's just good information to
[28:08] have. In regards to the presentation. Thank you. Thank you.
[28:12] Okay. Thank you for your presentation and taking. The time
[28:15] to come here today. Okay. Thank you. Do you still
[28:17] have something? not to catherine but thank you just through
[28:26] the process i'm assuming this is just going to go
[28:28] directly to the budget process then and we'll bring it
[28:31] up there okay thank you okay thank you very much
[28:33] everyone thank you The next deputation is Janet Carlyle. Objection
[28:34] to proposed motion on protest.
[28:56] It's a long time since I've done something like this.
[28:58] So if I stumble. I stumble. Thank you, everybody, for
[29:03] allowing me to have my time here. Madam Mayer, I
[29:06] don't know. Where to put this. Members of council. People
[29:11] in the assembly and people online. Thank you for hearing
[29:16] me out today. And thank you for the opportunity to
[29:20] be here. I am speaking collectively. For not just myself,
[29:25] quite a few people within the community and Simcoe County.
[29:30] Greater community and I will start out we object. This
[29:34] motion before you today was allegedly brought forth because five
[29:38] old white folks. I am one of those from this
[29:41] town stood on the boulevard at CCI, protesting the. Presence
[29:45] of the Friends of Simon Wesenthal Center, a group that
[29:48] many prominent groups, including independent jewish voices and Avi Lewis,
[29:53] who is the son of Stephen Lewis and Michelle Landberg.
[29:58] Have a criticized in recent months for its political ties
[30:00] to a foreign nation. That would be Israel delivering Holocaust
[30:04] education to students while muslim arab voices are silenced in
[30:09] Canada. However. Who is not what this is about. When
[30:14] I spoke to Madam mayor on Friday, and we had
[30:16] a great conversation at length, that was about an hour
[30:19] long. She indicated this rally was simply the straw that
[30:23] broke this camel's back and that the so to speak,
[30:27] that it was actually about the continued rallies that we
[30:30] had been holding downtown. Since May 10. This is about
[30:35] free speech. This is about our right. Our collective right
[30:41] as a community to be able to speak up. To
[30:45] about your free speech. It's about my speech? My free
[30:48] speech. And it's. About free speech for every other Canadian.
[30:53] So let's talk about the elephant in the room. We
[30:57] object. What this is really about, as stated earlier, is
[31:01] the weekly rallies near town hall and an attempt to
[31:04] shut them down. We object. I have been told that
[31:09] this is about businesses in this town claiming they're losing
[31:11] customers. Because of the rallies. Haven't heard from many customers,
[31:15] haven't heard from many businesses. I have reached out to
[31:18] the businesses. I have not heard anything back. What about
[31:22] the palestinian businesses? And there are a few in this
[31:25] town. Whose owners have been harassed at the farmers market
[31:30] and elsewhere. Nobody's speaking up for them. We object. I
[31:36] have been told that this is about excessive noise and
[31:39] or nuisance. At what point is a noise a nuisance?
[31:43] Is it during the summer when the pianos are out
[31:45] an unskilled players bang away at the keys. Is it
[31:49] when art crawl is on? And folks are singing with
[31:52] the bands. Is it when an amateur musician is playing
[31:56] at the farmers? Market. Is it when bagpipes practice at
[31:59] Sunset Park? What constitutes a nuisance and who gets to
[32:04] decide that? This is about free speech. We object. I've
[32:13] been told that this is about children's mental health. In
[32:17] fact, the headline from the recent Collingwood connection article reads,
[32:21] leave the kids alone. And according to the mayor and
[32:24] Ms. Feldman this is relative to the mental health of
[32:27] the children who are being affected by us being downtown.
[32:32] We object. We. Are all aware that mental health issues
[32:35] are growing, especially since the pandemic and lockdowns the data
[32:40] points to several reasons for this. Advocates say youth mental
[32:44] health has been in decline over the last decade. The
[32:47] pandemic certainly exacerbated these issues, leading to significant drops in
[32:53] physical activity and socialization, particularly among girls. Excessive screen time.
[33:00] Worries about the state of the world climate change have
[33:03] further added to the problem. We are sympathetic to all
[33:08] children's well being and concern that those who wish to
[33:11] put this motion to infect. Are inferring we somehow are
[33:16] responsible for the mental health of every child in this
[33:19] community. That's preposterous. This is about free speech. We object.
[33:26] I have been told that this is about us staying
[33:28] away from areas where someone might be offended. The law
[33:31] is clear. You do not have the right to not
[33:33] be offended. It is not illegal to be offended. A
[33:40] story. When I was getting treatment at Princess Margaret hospital
[33:44] during Covid lockdowns, there were rallies. Almost every day in
[33:49] the city. Some in front of PMH, some down at
[33:53] Sanofi. Square, some at the Eaton center, organized by Antivaxx
[33:58] folks, some directed towards staff trying to enter. The hospital,
[34:02] some directed toward patients trying to get our treatments. Some
[34:08] because of the masking up rules. Was I offended? Maybe.
[34:14] Did I call the mayor and the police and the
[34:16] papers and insist they shut it down. No. I do
[34:20] not have the right to not be offended. This is
[34:25] about free speech. We object? This motion was presented to
[34:30] town council on November 17. I was not advised of
[34:33] this. I am the founder of the Collingwood for Palestine
[34:38] rally group. Instagram social media did not hear anything about
[34:43] this. However, other people were notified. Several of us have
[34:48] been speaking with town counselors since then. From what I've
[34:52] been told not one was aware of why this was
[34:54] being brought up forward. And a few of them have
[34:57] said. They would have said yes without really thinking any
[34:59] deeper, because they didn't think. It was such a big
[35:02] deal. This is about free speech. We object. One of
[35:08] the counselors at the end of that meeting on November
[35:10] 7 said, I know we're not supposed to say anything,
[35:13] but I agree with this. He's referring to the issue
[35:18] of our rallies. How many other counselors had been influenced
[35:24] by his words. This is about. Free speech. We object.
[35:30] The mayor has said you can protest in front of
[35:32] me all day long, but leave. The kids alone. You
[35:36] know who else said that? Roger Waters. Pink Floyd. Is
[35:41] this the proposed bylaw? Just another brick in the wall.
[35:45] This is about free speech. What about the mental health?
[35:49] The Muslim Arab students? Did they not matter? No one's
[35:53] speaking up for them. We object. According to our next
[35:57] esteemed speaker, Michelle Feldman is quoted in a Collingwood connection
[36:00] article this week. I support freedom of expression, but there
[36:05] should be boundaries. Creating protocols and boundaries on how people
[36:10] express themselves is in the best interests of the community.
[36:14] We agree. That is why Collingwood has stringently enforced protections
[36:18] for marginalized folks and laws against harassment, hate speech and
[36:24] violence. That our children should feel protected and be safe
[36:28] is not in question. However, this is not about freedom
[36:31] of expression. This is about freedom of. Speech. Freedom of
[36:35] expression is a broader concept that includes all forms of
[36:39] communication, such as speech. Writing. Artistic work demonstrations. While freedom
[36:47] of speech is often used interchangeably, Can specifically refer to
[36:53] the right to voice opinions verbally. This is about free
[36:59] speech. We object. And if any of our esteemed members
[37:03] in this audience who are watching. Are. Of. Color? Indigenous
[37:13] members of the LGBTQ two s a community asian, south
[37:18] Asian, a pensioner standing on the side of the road
[37:21] in front of Park Bridge, protesting rent hikes. A farmer
[37:25] protesting for the rights of canadian farmers and rural communities.
[37:29] A person with disabilities. Who objects to the ODSP amounts
[37:34] or accessibility issues in this town, or if you are
[37:37] a person who speaks up for climate change. You're opposed
[37:41] to bill c nine or c. Five. Or if you
[37:43] have a person who's concerned about, just so you know,
[37:45] you have 1 minute left. Thank you. The watershed, the
[37:48] water treatment plant or the DND? Site. We object. To
[37:55] the community who enjoy Pride weekend. When Pride first started
[37:59] in this town, it was because of protests. Now it's
[38:02] a parade. I'll leave you with two quotes, one from
[38:05] a young lady who lost her life during the Holocaust.
[38:07] You will know her name. One who lost her life
[38:10] during the genocide in Gaza. You will probably not know
[38:13] her name. Anne. Frank. Whoever is happy will make others
[38:17] happy in the long run. The sharpest weapon of all.
[38:20] Is a kind and gentle spirit. Hindrajab, the six year
[38:24] old child in Gaza whose family was murdered in their
[38:27] car while she was even in it. Don't leave me
[38:30] alone, mama. I'm hungry. I'm. Thirsty. I am wounded. Her
[38:33] last words, recorded and spoken by the Red Crescent workers
[38:36] who were murdered trying to save her. I'm so scared.
[38:41] Please come. Come take me. Please. Will you come? And
[38:44] nobody could because they were silenced. This is about free
[38:48] speech for everybody in this town, not just some thank
[38:54] you for your time. Thank you. Should I be taking
[38:58] questions now? Would there be any questions?
[39:08] No, I think you're good. Thank you. Thank you.
[39:28] The next deputation this afternoon is Rochelle Feldman.
[39:42] Few breaths. Okay. Usually I have my husband flipping the
[39:46] slide, so I'm not sure how. This is working. Just
[39:50] say next slide. Slide, please. Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin
[39:54] and members of council. My name. Is Rochelle Feldman, and
[39:57] I'm the chair of the Southern Georgian Bay jewish community.
[40:00] I come before you today to speak both as an
[40:02] executive board member but also as a jewish mother and
[40:05] concern community member. That was slide one. And now we
[40:10] can skip to slide two. For those of you who
[40:13] may not know this. We have a vibrant, inclusive and
[40:15] peaceful group of jewish people and families living here. In
[40:18] Collingwood and the surrounding areas. Here are the kinds of
[40:21] things that the southern Georgian Bay jewish community have been
[40:23] doing in and around Collingwood, we believe and support Inc.
[40:27] Inclusion, equity and diversity and actively promote peace and community
[40:31] connection. We also happen to be local business owners, real
[40:35] estate agents, doctors, teachers, lawyers and therapists, just to name
[40:39] a few of our roles. I make mention of this
[40:41] to say that not only do we live in peace
[40:43] and togetherness, with our neighbors, but that we continue to
[40:46] play essential roles in the building. And the strengthening of
[40:49] the communities in which we live. Slide three would have
[40:53] been some antisemitic posts that you would find on the
[40:58] social media sites for Collingwood, for Palestine. And Simcoe for
[41:04] Palestine. But they referenced particular people, and so they won't
[41:10] be publicly shown. This is all despite the fact that
[41:14] there are geopolitical events occurring at this time that have
[41:16] caused an unprecedented rise in antisemitism not seen since 1940s
[41:21] in Europe. But we're not here today to discuss this
[41:24] or even to defend the truth. The geopolitical problems happening
[41:27] halfway around the world, or even people's opinions and perspectives
[41:30] on the matter. Living here in Collingwood. Are, in fact,
[41:33] irrelevant to the issue at hand. Slide four. There is
[41:38] no question that we're all in support and recognize the
[41:40] importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and the need
[41:42] to protect our freedom of expression, association and assembly in
[41:46] section two. B, C and D of the charter. We
[41:49] support council in upholding these rights. However, I'm here to
[41:52] discuss the absolute need to address the inappropriate and disturbing
[41:55] ways in which some of our neighbors, mainly members. Of
[41:58] Simcoe for Palestine and Collingwood for Palestine are choosing to
[42:02] exercise said rights under the guise of freedom of speech.
[42:06] What we're all entitled to freedom of expression and to
[42:08] associate with like minded individuals and. Organizations to assemble privately
[42:12] or publicly to do so. We do not have the
[42:15] right to violate our town bylaws while doing so, nor
[42:18] do we have the right to violate other people's. Basic
[42:21] human rights according to the Ontario Human Rights Code. Some
[42:24] jurisprudence has already found that leg. Legal measures affecting freedom
[42:27] of assembly through the reasonable regulation of public space and
[42:31] associated health and safety. Matters do not infringe on the
[42:34] charter right to freedom of expression. Section two C. Reference
[42:38] Canada's Department of Justice and the center for constitutional studies
[42:42] as a possible alternative to adopting a bubble zone by
[42:45] law, although I'm not opposed. To that, of course. It
[42:49] may be less labor intensive to consider amending our current
[42:52] public nuisance bylaw and actually enforcing it. Slide five. The
[42:58] town of Collingwood in 2013 attempted to address some of
[43:02] the possible concerns when they signed a public nuisance bylaw,
[43:04] 2013. that specifically indicates that no
[43:14] person shall loiter in any public place no person shall
[43:17] participate in a fight in a public place and no
[43:19] person shall engage with any type of disorderly conduct in
[43:22] any public place some of the definitions of disorderly conduct
[43:26] according to this bylaw means causing a public disturbance and
[43:30] without the limiting The generality of the foregoing includes yelling,
[43:30] screaming, shouting, singing, swearing, and interfaith fearing with reasonable enjoyment
[43:35] of someone else at a public place. I'd like to
[43:38] also note that newsin shall mean an activity that causes
[43:41] an unsafe environment and affects the well being of persons.
[43:43] Or enjoyment of a public place and shall be limited
[43:46] to the activities. Described in section 30. Slide seven would
[43:51] have been a video. That basically was a bit of
[43:55] a montage of some clips of some of the protests
[43:59] that have happened? Yes, at the school, but also downtown
[44:03] to show you sort of the yelling, the screaming. The
[44:07] swearing, the assaults that are occurring, the threats, but it
[44:11] apparently wasn't considered. Appropriate for counsel, which I totally support
[44:17] and understand, and I don't feel like that's. An infringement
[44:19] on my freedom of speech, but I will say that
[44:22] if it's not. Appropriate here in chambers. It's equally inappropriate
[44:26] outside of chambers. As the chair of the Southern Georgian
[44:30] Bay Jewish Community, I can report on some of what
[44:32] is actually taking place at these gatherings by our protesters.
[44:37] In the video, which I'm happy to share with anyone
[44:40] that contacts me directly. You will see unruly behavior, shoving
[44:44] of bystanders, antisemitic shouts calling. Jewish people, Nazis, disorderly conduct
[44:50] and nuisance activity in a public space, all in contravention.
[44:54] Of Collingwood's 2013 public nuisance bylaw. Slide eight. This is
[45:00] not peaceful assembly and has moved beyond the scope covered
[45:03] under the Charter of Rights and protected by the law
[45:05] according to Canada's Department of Justice. Now, let's talk about
[45:08] the impact this is having on our community. They've ruined
[45:11] our full enjoyment of the market. In downtown on weekends
[45:14] because of their theatrics and hostility. They have harassed, threatened
[45:18] and intimidated people shopping. And passing by the gathering on
[45:21] the sidewalk, whether they were jewish or not, with shouting
[45:25] and swearing. And yelling. Why? Banging on pots and pans.
[45:28] They've caused a security concern for a community such that
[45:31] we have to involve the police in all public events
[45:34] involving jewish people. Or jewish organizations because our members are
[45:37] afraid for their physical safety. Our children don't feel safe
[45:40] at school because the protesters behavior and harassment tourists are
[45:44] avoiding the downtown core because it's no longer a quaint
[45:47] town, but a town with unhinged and angry people projecting
[45:50] their instability and hate onto anyone that happens to challenge
[45:54] their facts. These protester. Protesters have disrupted, threatened to, and
[45:58] actually assaulted locals when questioned. Our elders are being retraumatized.
[46:03] By the open displays of hate against the jewish community,
[46:06] reminiscent of a time in history that resulted in entire
[46:08] families being wiped out. A time that none of us
[46:11] ever thought we would ever see again in our lifetimes.
[46:15] Kids are afraid. To go downtown or to the market
[46:18] for fear of. Confrontation, and jewish families are reporting that
[46:21] their children are afraid to place menorahs in windows. Or
[46:24] to visibly and publicly identifies Jewish in Collingwood for fear
[46:29] of the hate and harassment they might be met with.
[46:32] I've had to start a support group for people struggling
[46:35] with the increase. Of antisemitism, and 30% of the people
[46:38] in attendance are not even. Jewish, even the non jewish
[46:41] community is suffering with having to deal with the same
[46:43] harassment that we are. And yet not knowing how to
[46:46] stand up for what's right without becoming a target. Themselves
[46:50] as a mental health professional, I'll tell you that these
[46:52] types of disruptive and aggressive public gatherings. Absolutely are negatively
[46:57] impacting the sense of safety, actual safety, and certainly the
[47:00] overall well being of the community as a whole. Harassing,
[47:04] threatening, intimidating, scaring, retraumatizing, assaulting. Verbally attacking people in our
[47:11] community has caused anxiety, fear and depression. And when people
[47:15] become depress. Depressed, they withdraw and isolate, thereby increasing their
[47:19] risk of harming behaviors, all of which ultimately increases a
[47:23] person's risk of suicide. This is not peaceful assembly and
[47:27] association and how we exercise. Our right to freedom of
[47:30] speech. Slide nine. I would like to ask council to
[47:34] bring a motion. To make amendments to its current nuisance
[47:36] bylaw. To include specifically listing school zones in your definition
[47:39] of public places. I'd also like to see an update
[47:42] to the term violence that will now reflect the term
[47:45] adopted in the family law. Courts that would encompass a
[47:47] broader definition. This would include violence in all of its
[47:50] forms, physical, psychological, emotional and verbal examples of such might
[47:56] be. And include harassment, stalking, surveillance, and trolling a person
[48:00] or group or organization. Physical aggression, threatening, intimidating. Or verbally
[48:06] attacking a person or group with the use of swear
[48:08] words or derogatory terms. Slide ten. I come here today
[48:12] to ask on behalf of all members of the Collingwood
[48:14] community, to make it stop. Amend and strongly enforce your
[48:19] bylaws in a matter that achieves just balance while considering
[48:23] the interests of the rest of us who are just
[48:25] trying to live in peace and enjoy all that our
[48:28] town has to offer. And if making an amendment to
[48:31] your current nuisance bylaw, is not possible. Then consider a
[48:34] bubble zone by law, like the ones in Toronto and
[48:36] Vaughn, but. Most. Importantly, take back your power to protect
[48:40] and regulate public health and safety and well being of
[48:43] our community. According to Canada's Department of Justice, municipalities have
[48:48] the right to regulate or interfere with the activities the
[48:51] association, group, or protesters choose to pursue, including but not
[48:56] limited to behaviors Act. Actions and locations the group undertakes.
[49:01] I'm happy to provide any resources needed or references to
[49:04] any of these things, and I will state that these
[49:06] are not my opinions. I have sought legal counsel. That's
[49:11] it. Thank you. Thank you. Would there be any questions?
[49:17] No, I think we're good. Thank you very much for
[49:19] coming today.
[49:30] If anyone wants to leave now, feel free.
[49:58] The next item on our agenda is a public planning
[50:02] meeting, and there's quite a long intro. I have to
[50:05] read, so I'll get started here. Welcome to Collingwood's public
[50:13] planning meeting for proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendments
[50:17] for the property. At 11403 Highway 26, located on the
[50:23] south side of Highway 26. No decision will be made
[50:26] this afternoon. The purpose of this meeting is to introduce
[50:30] and obtain public comments on the proposed official plan and
[50:34] zoning bylaw amendments. The meeting will begin with presentations by
[50:38] staff and the applicant. Members of the public will then
[50:42] be invited to offer their comments or questions regarding the
[50:45] proposal. Once the public portion of the meeting has been
[50:49] completed. No more public comments or questions will be allowed.
[50:53] At today's meeting. I will then ask council. Members if
[50:57] they have any questions. Once all public and counselor questions
[51:01] and comments have been received, staff will have an opportunity
[51:05] to respond. Or provide clarification, if appropriate. All questions and
[51:10] comments specific to the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw
[51:13] amendments will be addressed in a future staff report. It
[51:18] is very important the town receives the correct names, email
[51:21] addresses and mailing addresses of. The individuals having an interest
[51:26] in this application. If you plan to speak to council
[51:30] at this meeting or if you want to be notified
[51:32] of any future council or committee meetings concerning the application
[51:36] being considered, you must provide this information. Public comment and
[51:41] feedback on development proposals are important to the town of
[51:45] Collingwood and are in a core part of a transparent
[51:48] and inclusive land use planning process. We encourage you to
[51:52] express comments, verbally or in writing. However, please note that
[51:56] the rights of third parties. To appeal official planning zoning
[52:00] bylaw amendment decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal have been
[52:04] restricted under the Planning act. If you do not make
[52:07] an oral submission today or a written submission to council
[52:11] before the council decision. You may not be added as
[52:14] a party to the appeal before the Ontario land tribunal
[52:17] unless in the opinion of. The tribunal, there are reasonable
[52:20] grounds to do so. This meeting is being recorded and
[52:24] streamed on the municipal YouTube channel. Your name, address, comments
[52:28] and other personal information are being recorded according to the
[52:32] municipal act and the municipal freedom of information. And Protection
[52:36] of Privacy Act. The minutes will be available to the
[52:40] general public on the town's website. I will ask the
[52:43] planning services also confirm the notification that the public has
[52:47] been given as required. By the planning act within their
[52:50] presentation today. Again, I would like to remind everyone that
[52:54] no decision will be made today and the official plan
[52:57] and zoning bylaw amendments will be considered by council. On
[53:00] a future date. I will now turn over the microphone
[53:04] to community planner Wainwright. Welcome. Staff and members of the
[53:09] public. My name is Jocelyn Wainwright, and I'm the community
[53:12] planner. Assigned to the file for the proposed official plan
[53:16] and zoning bylaw amendments for lands municipally addressed as one
[53:20] 1403 Highway 26, also known as Reverie. This public meeting
[53:27] is a statutory requirement under the Planning act. Next slide,
[53:31] please. The agenda for this afternoon will follow the town's
[53:36] standard public meeting format. Mayor Hamlin. Has already introduced the
[53:39] public meeting. The remainder of the meeting will consist of
[53:43] confirmation of public notice. Overview of the town's development review
[53:47] process, a summary of the applications provided by staff and
[53:51] a brief presentation by the applicants. There will then be
[53:54] time for public comments and questions, followed by council comments
[53:57] and questions. Next slide please. In accordance with the Planning
[54:02] Act, I confirm that a notice of public meeting was
[54:04] circulated to internal and external agencies on October 31, 2025,
[54:10] and was also published in the Collingwood today online newspaper
[54:14] on October 29. And amended notice was published on November
[54:20] 5. The amended notice was published to include legislatively required
[54:25] language that was absent from the original notice. This satisfies
[54:29] the statutory notice requirement under the Planning act. Additionally, as
[54:33] a courtesy, the notice and amended notice were mailed to
[54:35] the property owners. And condominium corporations within. 120 meters of
[54:40] the subject property. Next slide, please. Before getting into a
[54:45] discussion on the current proposal, I wanted to provide a
[54:48] high level overview of the property's development history. In 2022,
[54:54] council approved a vacant land condo for the entirety of
[54:57] the property. At that time, council also granted site plan
[55:01] approval and servicing allocation for the residences at Silver Creek
[55:05] which is the development located on the western half of
[55:08] the property and is comprised of three apartment buildings containing
[55:12] 187 rental apartment units. From the outset, a townhouse development
[55:17] has been contemplated for the eastern half of the property.
[55:21] However, when council made its decision in September of 2022,
[55:25] There was insufficient servicing capacity available to facilitate the approval
[55:29] of the entire development across the whole property. So only
[55:32] the apartments were approved at that time. With additional servicing
[55:36] capacity available in 2023. A site plan consisting of twelve
[55:41] buildings with a total of 60 bungalow townhouse units for
[55:45] the east lands was conditionally approved by the director of
[55:47] growth and development and servicing allocation was approved by council.
[55:52] Fast forward to December of 2024. The proponent. In light
[55:56] american conditions submitted a pre consultation application for official plan
[56:01] and zoning bylaw amendments to facilitate a revised development concept
[56:05] for the Eastlands. Which brings us to the current point
[56:08] in time. Next slide, please. This slide provides a general
[56:13] overview of the town's development review process. The steps highlighted
[56:20] in blue have been completed. As noted, the applicant had
[56:24] initiated pre consultation with staff. Last winter and formal official
[56:28] plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications were submitted in September,
[56:31] 2025. The submission was circulated to all internal departments, external
[56:37] agencies and peer reviewers for technical review and comment. The
[56:42] amended notice of public meeting was subsequently circulated and published
[56:46] on November 5, 2025. This brings us to step six,
[56:50] the statutory public meeting, and this afternoon we will receive
[56:54] comments from members of the public on the proposed official
[56:56] plan and zoning bylaw amendments. Next slide, please. The subject
[57:02] property is located on the south side of Highway 26
[57:06] and is located southwest of the town owned Carmichael Reservoir.
[57:10] The subject development is within the broader residences at Silver
[57:14] Creek development. Surrounding land uses include residential condominium developments, including
[57:22] lighthouse Point to the North Rupert's landing to the east
[57:25] and wild wood to the south. The proposed development includes
[57:29] twelve one and a half story stack townhouse buildings containing
[57:33] 124 dwelling units, 149 service parking spaces includ. Including four
[57:39] accessible parking spaces, an outdoor amenity area and site landscaping
[57:43] are also proposed. Next slide, please. The conceptual site plan
[57:49] shown on the screen was received from the applicant in
[57:51] support of the subject. Application submitted in September. The staff
[57:57] townhouse units are grouped within twelve buildings or blocks. The
[58:01] parking area contains 149 parking spaces, including four accessible spaces,
[58:07] and site landscaping is also provided. further cash in lieu
[58:12] of parkland was provided through the broader development application notwithstanding
[58:16] The development proposes an outdoor amenity area, shown here with
[58:19] a children's play structure. Next slide, please. This slide includes
[58:25] a conceptual rendering of one of the proposed one and
[58:28] a half story stack townhouse buildings. The building on display
[58:31] would include eight units, four of which would be partially
[58:34] below grade. And the remaining four units would be wholly
[58:37] above grade. Next slide, please. This slide shows the applicable
[58:45] land use designations in the 2024 official plan. The portion
[58:50] of the subject property where the development is proposed is
[58:52] designated existing neighborhoods. The intent of the existing neighborhood's. Designation
[58:57] is two, among other matters, provide housing in a variety
[59:00] of residential forms. Such as apartment buildings, townhouses, single, detached
[59:07] and semi detached dwellings. The existing neighborhood's designation permits residential
[59:12] units in both low rise and mid rise buildings. Built.
[59:17] Forums that are considered to be low rise include, but
[59:21] are not limited to single detached dwellings duplex and semidetached
[59:25] dwellings, streets, townhouses, and any other use that is accommodated.
[59:29] In a building that is a maximum of three stories
[59:32] or 11 meters in height, whichever is less. The new
[59:37] official plan permits mid rise buildings with a maximum height
[59:40] of eight stories or 27 meters. Whichever is less. As
[59:44] of right, however, the developer is maintaining the original low
[59:47] rise building form that was contemplated previously. Next slide, please.
[59:53] The proposed residential development includes one and a half story
[59:56] tall stack tone house buildings, which fall under the low
[59:59] rise building category. The official plan provides that low rise
[1:00:07] building shall have a minimum density of ten units per
[1:00:09] net. Hectare and a maximum density of 40 units per
[1:00:12] net hectare. The purpose of the proposed official plan amendment
[1:00:17] is to redesignate the subject lands. Sorry. Can you go
[1:00:23] back one slide? Thank you. The purpose of the proposed
[1:00:30] official plan amendment is to redesign. Redesignate the subject lands
[1:00:36] from existing neighborhoods to an existing neighborhood. Site specific designation
[1:00:41] to increase the maximum permitted density of 40 units per
[1:00:45] net hectare for low rise buildings to permit 68 units
[1:00:49] per hectare to facilitate the proposed one and a half
[1:00:52] story stack. Townhouse buildings. Next slide, please. With respect to
[1:01:01] zoning, the entirety of the property is owned residential. Third
[1:01:04] density exception 33 or r 33. However, the proposed zoning
[1:01:09] bylaw amendment would apply only to the portion of the
[1:01:12] property that is within the development area as shown in
[1:01:15] the figure on the right. Next slide, please. The provisions
[1:01:19] of the r 333 zone specify that the permitted uses
[1:01:23] shall be limited to single, detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings, apartment
[1:01:27] dwellings, and grouper cluster dwellings. As the zoning bylaw defines
[1:01:32] the term stack townhouse, dwelling separately from. A townhouse dwelling
[1:01:40] stack. Townhouse dwellings are not currently. At permitted use on
[1:01:43] the subject property. Therefore, the proposed zoning bylaw amendment would
[1:01:47] amend the r 333 zone to add site specific provisions,
[1:01:51] including that. A stack townhouse dwelling be a permitted use
[1:01:56] and that the stack townhouse development shall require. A minimum
[1:01:59] of 149 parking spaces, including four accessible parking spaces. Next
[1:02:04] slide, please. The town has received comments from Enbridge, Simcoe
[1:02:09] county and the Simcoe County District School board in response
[1:02:12] to the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendments. Planning
[1:02:19] services has also received comments from town divisions and peer
[1:02:23] reviewers who are identified on this slide. Further comments are
[1:02:28] anticipated as the technical review continues. Next slide, please. Today
[1:02:33] we have received comments from four members of the public
[1:02:36] with concerns. That primarily relate to the environmental impacts increased
[1:02:44] traffic and density, trespassing, relocation of the roads, on the
[1:02:47] subject, property and landscaping. I would note that two of
[1:02:51] the four comments were received after the publishing of this
[1:02:53] presentation. Concerns from members of the public have been noted
[1:02:58] and will be considered throughout the technical review process. And
[1:03:01] addressed in the future staff report. Next slide, please. The
[1:03:06] next steps for these applications are to review and address
[1:03:09] the public and agency comments and receive the results from
[1:03:13] the remaining peer reviewers. As previously noted, we have received
[1:03:19] landscape architecture peer review results, and we anticipate that comments
[1:03:23] from the town's peer reviewer for traffic will be provided
[1:03:26] through the course of the technical review. Staff will contemplate
[1:03:30] the technical review and provide the applicant. With a compiled
[1:03:34] package of comments. The applicant will review and address the
[1:03:37] comments and make changes. If any based on the comments
[1:03:40] received prior to advancing a staff report to the committee
[1:03:43] of the whole and counsel for consideration. Future applications required
[1:03:49] would include a plan of condominium or condominium exemption application
[1:03:53] as well as a site plan control application. Next slide,
[1:03:56] please. If members of the public have comments regarding the
[1:04:00] subject applications, they can be emailed to me. At jwainwright
[1:04:04] at Collingwood, CA, or mail to the town at the
[1:04:07] address on the slide. You may also voice your comments
[1:04:10] verbally at the public meeting today or at the committee
[1:04:13] of the whole meeting prior to. A decision being made.
[1:04:19] Next slide, please. If any members of the public wish
[1:04:23] to receive notice of council decision or of future meetings
[1:04:27] regarding these applications, please provide your contact details, including your
[1:04:31] name, email and mailing address on the forum. Provided in
[1:04:34] council chambers on the table this afternoon or send me
[1:04:37] an email. At the email address provided on the screen.
[1:04:43] Committee and council meeting schedules and agendas are posted on
[1:04:46] the town's website. Collingwood, Ca. Agendas are posted on the
[1:04:51] town's website Wednesday afternoon prior to a Monday meeting. Thank
[1:04:55] you for your time and attention as I outlined the
[1:04:57] technical details of the application. This concludes my presentation. The
[1:05:02] applicant's agent, Kristin Renney from Georgian Planning Solutions and Jeff
[1:05:06] Robinsons from Reed's heritage homes are here this afternoon and
[1:05:09] would like to. Make a brief presentation regarding this proposal.
[1:05:12] Thank you. Thank you. Community planner Wayne Wright. That was
[1:05:16] excellent. Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam
[1:05:25] Mayor, members of council. Staff and the public. My name
[1:05:33] is Kristen Rennie from Georgian Planning Solutions. We do have
[1:05:37] a presentation. Can I have it on my screen as
[1:05:41] well, please?
[1:07:08] Okay, I think we're ready. Thank you. Thank you. Next
[1:07:14] slide, please. I would like to introduce our project team
[1:07:23] that we have here with me this afternoon. I'm Kristen
[1:07:26] Renny from Georgian Planning Solutions, and I'm a registered professional
[1:07:28] planner. I also have Jeff Robinson from Reed's Heritage Home,
[1:07:31] who's a senior director of development and Rebecca from Crozia
[1:07:36] Rebecca Alexander Crozier from. Consulting, Crozier Consulting engineers who is
[1:07:44] a project manager with land development. Next slide, please. Read,
[1:07:48] heritage homes and Sherwood homes have been creating communities in
[1:07:52] this area for 20 years. In Collingwood notable projects include
[1:07:56] Royal Windsor and Balmoral, georgian meadows subdivision and silver Glenn.
[1:08:02] Additionally, they also have developments in Thornbury and Georgian Bluffs
[1:08:05] and other surrounding regions. Next sl. Slide, please. As mentioned,
[1:08:10] the purpose of the public meeting today is to consider
[1:08:13] an official plan, amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment to
[1:08:16] support a proposed development with twelve bungalow stack townhome homes
[1:08:21] that are one and a half stories in height and
[1:08:22] providing 124 dwelling units. Next slide, please. Actually, we'll just
[1:08:28] flip this slide because Jocelyn covered it. As part of
[1:08:33] our complete submission, the following support documents were submitted the
[1:08:37] planning justification report and architectural and urban design brief functional
[1:08:41] servicing and stormwater management report, a traffic opinion letter, a
[1:08:45] landscape plan parking, justification study and elevation drawings. Next slide,
[1:08:50] please. So the purpose of the official plan amendment is
[1:08:54] to redesignate the subject lands from existing neighborhoods. To existing
[1:08:58] neighborhoods exception. The exemption is to increase the density to
[1:09:01] permit 68 units per hectare for a low rise residential
[1:09:04] building. Only site specific amendment. This is the only site
[1:09:11] specific amendment required for the official plan. I just want
[1:09:15] to note there are other policies within the official plan
[1:09:17] that encourage and support this. Type of development we have
[1:09:20] to. Take the whole plan into consideration. Community priorities include
[1:09:24] the official plan within the official plan. Note that the
[1:09:27] town is to provide a full range of housing options.
[1:09:30] That the town will plan to provide housing options that
[1:09:33] meet the social, health, economic and wellbeing requirements of the
[1:09:36] current and future residents that the range and mix of
[1:09:39] housing options will accommodate. A full spectrum of housing promoting
[1:09:43] compact development and intensification. Intensification will be compatible with the
[1:09:48] existing development pattern patterns while supporting the evolution to a
[1:09:53] more compact, walkable and transit supportive urban structure to be
[1:09:57] a healthy community that is accessible, connected and inclusive, with
[1:10:00] a range of housing options. Next slide, please. The purpose
[1:10:06] of the zoning bylaw is to rezone the property from
[1:10:09] residential third density exception. 33 to residential third density exception.
[1:10:17] With an exception to permit the stack townhome dwellings to
[1:10:20] permit a minimum of 149 parking spaces, including 25 visitor
[1:10:25] and four accessible spots. But all other zoning standards have
[1:10:29] been met. And just on a side note, The ones
[1:10:33] that normally are spoken to are maximum lot coverage. Within
[1:10:38] the zoning bylaw, which is 45%. We are providing 30.6
[1:10:43] and. Related to the landscaping and the open space. The
[1:10:47] minimum requirement is 35%, and we're obtaining 38.1%. Next slide,
[1:10:53] please. This is the conceptual landscape plan that was shown
[1:10:58] earlier as well. So this plan includes the location. Of
[1:11:01] the buildings, the landscaping and the park area for the
[1:11:03] residents. As well, residents within this development have access to
[1:11:09] the broader amenities within the larger development in the area.
[1:11:13] There is also trails that connect to the Georgian Trail
[1:11:15] as well as the broader Collingwood Trail system. As mentioned
[1:11:19] before, it's cash and loofer. Parkland has been paid for
[1:11:22] the overall development, as most municipalities prefer to improve and
[1:11:26] maintain existing parks and trails and facilities rather than manage
[1:11:29] many small parks throughout the community. This plan also shows
[1:11:34] the landscaping proposed and the fencing that is along the
[1:11:36] perimeter of the property. The development to the south will
[1:11:39] have a retaining ball and a retaining wall and a
[1:11:43] privacy fence. And it is adjacent to an existing parking
[1:11:45] lot on that property. The northern property line will have
[1:11:48] the same fencing, and there will be a 2.4 meters
[1:11:51] high acoustic fence. Along Highway 26. At this point. I'm
[1:11:56] now going to pass it over to. Jeff Robinson from
[1:11:59] raids Heritage homes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Kristen.
[1:12:06] Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin, members of council, staff and residents.
[1:12:16] Thank you very much for taking the time today to
[1:12:18] hear our application again. My name is Jeff. Robinson. I'm
[1:12:21] senior director of development with Reed's heritage homes in Sherwood
[1:12:25] Homes. I really want to provide a little bit of
[1:12:28] context as to why we're here today. Given that this
[1:12:32] development. Had already gone through several planning approvals. We've done
[1:12:36] some site servicing works on the site, which you've likely
[1:12:39] seen if you've driven past it. So we're kind of
[1:12:42] midstream in our development. And we've taken a pause for
[1:12:45] a minute and are reinitiating some planning applications. Our updated
[1:12:51] plans for this community. That. Both staff and Kristen have
[1:12:57] just gone through. And the associated applications that are before
[1:13:01] you today are really a result of significant changes and
[1:13:04] challenges. That we've seen in the housing market over the
[1:13:07] last, I would say, year to two. Years. And as
[1:13:11] well to address some items that have come up on
[1:13:15] the town's updated official plan. With the challenges that we've
[1:13:19] seen in the current housing market. We looked at ways
[1:13:22] in which. We're able to offer homes for this community
[1:13:27] that are really attainable for members of the community. Whether
[1:13:31] they're first time home buyers. Young families that are just
[1:13:35] starting out in home ownership and potentially some retirees. And
[1:13:40] our goal with this was also to keep. The existing
[1:13:46] low rise development concept that we had initially proposed, and
[1:13:49] that was approved through site plan. Approval. And that has
[1:13:53] led us to the stacked bungalow concept that you're seeing
[1:13:56] today before you. As I mentioned, we are targeting first
[1:14:01] time home buyers, young families. And possibly retirees in a
[1:14:05] move down market. As you can see on the elevations
[1:14:09] on the screen right now. These are still bungalow townhomes.
[1:14:14] What we've done, basically, is added a lower separate. Unit,
[1:14:17] and that lower unit will be a completely separate dwelling
[1:14:21] unit from the unit above. It will be a half
[1:14:24] story below grade, it will have nine foot ceilings, and
[1:14:28] we've provided a lot of windows within those units to
[1:14:31] provide as much. Light and airy feel as possible for
[1:14:35] those units. This has allowed us to keep the look
[1:14:39] and the feel of our original community plan. And as
[1:14:43] Kristen had noted. With the stacked orientation. Now, we're only
[1:14:48] a half story higher than the previous plan, so. This
[1:14:51] is still. A very much. A gentle density community of
[1:14:56] low rise homes. These units are going to range in
[1:15:00] size from about 1100. All the units will have two
[1:15:08] bedrooms. The homes will also each have a parking space
[1:15:13] for their units. We do have some additional parking spaces
[1:15:17] on the site concept that you've seen. We are anticipating
[1:15:22] that there will be some purchasers that likely will have
[1:15:25] two cars, and we did want to have some additional
[1:15:28] spaces available for some of those units. We anticipate going
[1:15:33] on sale with these homes as early as next spring
[1:15:36] or summer, with starting prices in the high 400,000. This
[1:15:44] is a significant reduction from the selling prices that we
[1:15:47] were originally seeking on the bungalow townhomes. A year and
[1:15:51] a half ago. And really, the stacked orientation, the efficiency
[1:15:56] of building a stacked unit still within the same footprint
[1:16:00] for these buildings. Has allowed us to lower our construction
[1:16:06] cost per square foot significantly. Which is translated into a
[1:16:10] much lower. Purchase price that we can offer to home
[1:16:14] buyers. With. These planning applications that you see before you.
[1:16:23] The site works that have already taken place. And our
[1:16:27] ability to market and sell. These stacked townhomes at a
[1:16:31] much lower price point. We are confident that we can
[1:16:34] move forward. With this community and sell to residents within
[1:16:38] Collingwood and the greater area. Thank you very much for
[1:16:41] your time today. Kristen and I are both available to
[1:16:45] answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you
[1:16:49] so much. So at this time, we're going to ask
[1:16:52] members of the community who wish to address council to
[1:16:56] come forward. Yes, go ahead. I left all my stuff.
[1:17:04] Go ahead. Good afternoon.
[1:17:15] Your worship. Deputy mayor and town counselors. My name is
[1:17:19] Grace Ignitis, and I am the chair of the shared
[1:17:22] facilities committee at Lighthouse Point. Please excuse my slightly hoarse
[1:17:28] voice. This is as good as it gets. This time
[1:17:31] of year. I am here to present. Comments and concerns
[1:17:37] of the Lighthouse Point community that has been referenced in
[1:17:40] the prior presentations. My address is 562 Mariners way. Lighthouse
[1:17:48] Point is a large and a long established community of
[1:17:51] 576 units who have contributed significantly to the town in
[1:17:57] terms of a stable tax base for many years. As
[1:18:01] concerned residents of Collingwood, we respectfully request that town council
[1:18:06] reject the current application by the developer Sherwood Homes, requesting
[1:18:11] amendments to the official plan and town zoning bylaw to
[1:18:16] permit. A residential stack townhouse development of twelve one and
[1:18:21] a half story buildings totaling 124 units. And 149 onsite
[1:18:28] parking spaces on the reverie property. Our request is based
[1:18:33] on a number of concerns with the submitted application and
[1:18:36] how it will impact our neighborhood. The official plan, which
[1:18:41] has been referred to multiple times, is there to protect
[1:18:44] Collingwood, to take care of our environment to protect the
[1:18:48] town's current and future residents who are fortunate enough to
[1:18:53] be part of this community, as well as to define
[1:18:56] the boundaries and the limits within. Which developers are to
[1:19:01] build their plans and construct their projects. The developer's initial
[1:19:07] proposal was to build 60 bungalow townhouses on this property
[1:19:12] with a resulting density of 26 units per hectare currently
[1:19:17] under the existing neighborhood's designation. The maximum permitted density is
[1:19:22] 40 units per hectare. The developer is asking to increase
[1:19:27] density to 68. Units per hectare, a 70% increase about
[1:19:32] what the current designation allows, and a 260% increase over
[1:19:38] what the developer originally proposed. A short while ago. The
[1:19:44] developer made reference to a gentle density. A 260. Percent
[1:19:50] increase over what was originally proposed. Would not be my
[1:19:54] definition of a gentle density. This proposed density significantly higher
[1:20:00] than the density of other developments in the neighborhood, which
[1:20:03] range from a high of 48 units per hectare at
[1:20:07] Waterstone to. Wildwood cove 40. Rupert's landing. 34. Dockside 22,
[1:20:16] lighthouse Point 26 and Green tree 25. All those coded
[1:20:22] numbers were the density per hectare. The density that the
[1:20:26] developer is requesting for reverie. Is 40% higher than the
[1:20:30] neighborhood's highest density development, Waterstone, and 270% higher than that
[1:20:37] of lighthouse Point and green tree. Parkland is a required
[1:20:42] part of all developments, yet there is zero park land
[1:20:45] for reverie. The developer is making a cash payment in
[1:20:49] lieu of parkland on more than one occasion in recent
[1:20:53] past members of council have spoken about not allowing this
[1:20:57] practice to continue. Given the type of housing being planned,
[1:21:02] I. E. Townhouses, as well as the proposed starting price,
[1:21:06] point. This developer will appeal to young families. Excuse me.
[1:21:15] That was noted. In the developer's earlier comments, there was
[1:21:19] a single amenity being proposed, a playground structure in a
[1:21:23] small landscaped area on the northeast corner of the property.
[1:21:28] For the proposed 124 units. That is a minuscule amount
[1:21:32] of space for children, their parents and other reverie residents
[1:21:36] to enjoy. Parking is another issue. The town zoning bylaws
[1:21:41] requirement for townhoses is two parking spaces for dwelling unit,
[1:21:46] so 248 required parking spaces. The developers proposing a total
[1:21:52] of 149 parking spaces. One parking space per unit, plus
[1:21:57] 20. Five visitor parking spots. Some and possibly many of
[1:22:02] the proposed 124 units will be two car families. That
[1:22:08] is a fact. Of life. Where will they park? The
[1:22:12] access road. Princess of Wales Drive is a fire route
[1:22:16] and does not show parking being available. There is no
[1:22:19] street parking on Highway 26. Congestion will be an ongoing
[1:22:24] issue with the accompanying safety risks. The issues and risks
[1:22:28] will be compounded during the winter months when there is
[1:22:31] ongoing snow to deal with, not only on the roads,
[1:22:35] but piled up in piles besides the parking lot. This
[1:22:39] further reduces available parking space. Lighthouse Point residents are realistic
[1:22:45] and aware of the needs in their community. We recognize
[1:22:49] more housing is required that housing needs to be built
[1:22:52] in Collingwood and that higher density helps make housing more
[1:22:57] affordable. The developer also wants to make any project worth
[1:23:01] their while, but. New development needs to be balanced within
[1:23:05] the structure and needs of the existing community and. The
[1:23:10] impact on existing neighborhoods need to be taken into consideration.
[1:23:16] The developer's desire for more density should not override the
[1:23:21] existing community's environment. And safety. Place undue strain on local
[1:23:26] infrastructure, nor limit the new community's residents in the basic
[1:23:32] amenities that they are to be provided. For their everyday
[1:23:36] life. Things like parking, green space, a safe environment. We
[1:23:41] respectfully submit that the reverie application should not be approved
[1:23:46] as currently proposed. On behalf of the lighthouse Point community,
[1:23:51] thank you for your attention. And consideration this afternoon. In
[1:23:56] addition to these comments, Lighthouse Point has a petition underway.
[1:24:01] We've received currently over 300 signatures with comments additional comments
[1:24:06] attached. I assume the applicable process is that information should
[1:24:12] be passed on to the town clerk or should it
[1:24:14] go to the town planner. Yeah, either is fine. Thank
[1:24:19] you for your time. Okay. Thank you.
[1:24:35] Welcome. Madam Mayor, deputy mayor, councilor, staff, and our audience.
[1:24:42] This is completely unplanned. My name is Brian Vermander. I'm
[1:24:46] with the calling, the climate action team and. I'm here
[1:24:49] to provide a couple of quick comments. I happen to
[1:24:53] see this in the calling with today that was going
[1:24:55] to be here. And as you know, I've been here
[1:24:58] before for new developments, advocating for fossil free development. And
[1:25:03] I'm ecstatic. With my two comments from the perspective of
[1:25:07] the first one being, as you know, densification. As gentlemen,
[1:25:10] Reed mentioned, does reduce carbon footprint. So not only. Is
[1:25:15] it economical? On his part. But it's economical from a
[1:25:18] climate pollution point of view. And it also reduces costs.
[1:25:21] So we talked about affordable housing, the price on these,
[1:25:24] it kind of shocked me. My biggest comment is I
[1:25:27] happened to look at the architectural drawings. And. Was completely
[1:25:32] blown away that this development looks like it is a
[1:25:35] fully electrified, assuming your hot water heaters are electric and
[1:25:38] not gas because they have heat pumps. So I just
[1:25:41] wanted to do a shout out to Sherwood Reed. From
[1:25:44] the point of view, this looks like maybe a landmark.
[1:25:47] Gold. Standard development that's coming. That is actually providing heat
[1:25:52] pumps from an energy point of view. So I just
[1:25:54] wanted to give them credit for. Now, I don't have
[1:25:56] to advocate here. We've got one coming. Thank you. Thanks,
[1:26:00] Brent. Yes, please come up.
[1:26:10] Hello. My name is deborah eaton kent. I'm at. Ellison.
[1:26:20] Cfa 86 out hotmail ca. And I have low vision
[1:26:26] issues, so I'm a little bit nervous. Can't see. Any
[1:26:29] of your faces. But mayor, council, staff, members of the
[1:26:34] public, I am a condo owner at Rupert's Landing. And
[1:26:39] I am offering comments, of course. My own thoughts, et
[1:26:44] cetera, but with such short notice. We didn't have a
[1:26:49] whole lot of time to gather opinions, though we have
[1:26:52] spoken a couple of us with other members of Ruperts,
[1:26:56] and we're here as supporters of the previous presentation from
[1:27:01] our neighbor's lighthouse. And also as members. Of this community.
[1:27:08] And the concerns that are outlined by lighthouse representation. Really
[1:27:14] echo. Personally. My concerns, especially. The density of the project
[1:27:24] and the concern is about traffic is bad enough on
[1:27:28] Highway 26. The development along the corridor. I understand, but
[1:27:34] there is the traffic issue, there's the environmental impact. And
[1:27:39] also. The impact on the neighborhood. There has been unbelievable
[1:27:45] amount of development. From a personal viewpoint, thank the universe
[1:27:50] that I live on the side of the highway where
[1:27:53] there is a bus stop. I recently had two eye
[1:27:56] strokes. My vision. I could never cross that highway. And
[1:28:02] if anyone's listening, it'd be great to have a crosswalk,
[1:28:05] but that aside. I'm not in favor of this development.
[1:28:10] Thank you. Thank you. Yes, please come up.
[1:28:21] Good afternoon, Mayor Hamlin, councilors, town staff, and members of
[1:28:25] the public. My name is Kevin. Marshman. I live at
[1:28:29] 19 Woodland Court. Which about Cranberry Marsh and I am
[1:28:33] a director of our condo association. I appreciate the opportunity
[1:28:43] to share my thoughts with you today. I will be
[1:28:46] brief and hopefully you can hear me clearly. If I
[1:28:48] had some dental surgery, this morning. So I will keep
[1:28:53] the pain to a minimum. The cranberry. And by the
[1:28:58] way, I would say that I echo. Some of the
[1:29:02] comments. Of the. Previous speakers. I will not reiterate those.
[1:29:08] My focus is around the cranberry marsh area. And as
[1:29:12] you know, Cranberry marsh has routinely been used as a
[1:29:17] watershed for drainage by developers in this area. And while
[1:29:22] 25 years ago that might have seemed appropriate, I would
[1:29:25] suggest that that is no longer the case, and I
[1:29:27] believe that the cranberry marsh is going to continue to
[1:29:30] be used. As a watershed for this development. Residential communities.
[1:29:37] As well as areas of the golf course surrounding the
[1:29:39] cranberry marsh, are already dealing with the consequences of flooding
[1:29:43] in the marsh area. And while I acknowledge that the
[1:29:46] drug conditions this past summer have reduced the water levels.
[1:29:51] As has been previously documented before council and presentations that
[1:29:55] we have made, Wood lots and neighborhoods are under pressure
[1:29:58] due to higher water levels. The cranberry trail West Road
[1:30:02] regularly floods at its entrance to Highway 26. And our
[1:30:06] small community of Woodland Court, which is a community of
[1:30:09] 22 homes. Two homes have already experienced basement flooding due
[1:30:14] to hydrostatic pressure from an increasing water table. And their
[1:30:19] cresity density increase, which I would confirm again is the
[1:30:23] 70% increase from 40 to 68 homes. Per hectare. Will
[1:30:30] only exacerbate the watershed issues. Into the cranberry marsh and
[1:30:35] generally. As well as in particular in peak runoff periods.
[1:30:42] In addition, that's been noted by other speakers. The increase
[1:30:45] in density will also add to the worsting traffic congestion
[1:30:48] on Highway 26. Presumably the developer had a positive business
[1:30:53] case. At the plan density prior to the requested increase
[1:30:57] and accordingly does not need a requested inquiry despite changing
[1:31:01] conditions to make the economics work. It is for these
[1:31:06] reasons that I recommend. Council reject the recommended increase, however.
[1:31:12] If it is council's view that the density increase will
[1:31:15] prevail upon appeal, then I would recommend that the town
[1:31:19] require the developer to revise their groundwater drainage plans to
[1:31:24] exit the property north across Highway 26 directly into Georgian
[1:31:28] Bay. Rather than using the cranberry marsh as. Its watershed.
[1:31:33] Thank you for your time. Thank you. Would anyone
[1:31:43] else like to address council? Who's in the chambers? Yes,
[1:31:50] gret. My name is Colin Inglass for 18 mariners Way.
[1:31:53] Good afternoon, your worship. Deputy mayor, councilors. Staff and the
[1:31:57] great unwashed. A little bit about economics. So I see
[1:32:05] any number of approved developments around town, but no shovels.
[1:32:08] In the ground. So it seems like economics is superseding
[1:32:16] the province's desire to build homes. So if we look
[1:32:19] at the economics of property development, every time we increase
[1:32:24] density, we add value to that property. So that allows
[1:32:28] the owner to bow against that increased value or to
[1:32:31] sell it. To somebody else. Which kind of tends to
[1:32:34] drive up the cost to the end user. So what's
[1:32:37] missing? From this equation is a guarantee that something will
[1:32:40] actually get billed. You can have platitudes. We hope to
[1:32:42] build immediately. We hope to be available next spring. But
[1:32:46] you have no teeth. So you have to be cautious
[1:32:49] about approving something that's a significant jump like this. Where
[1:32:54] it significantly increases the value, but doesn't guarantee that anything
[1:32:57] actually happens. A couple of comments about what the developers
[1:33:01] also tell you. They say, okay, this is a one
[1:33:03] and a half story above grade. But what we've already
[1:33:07] seen on this property of Skydev is the virgin grade.
[1:33:10] If you will before development has been raised by roughly
[1:33:13] 3 meters. So what they really should tell you is
[1:33:16] the height of the top of the building above sea.
[1:33:19] Level so it can be compared to what the surrounding
[1:33:22] buildings are at. That's a bit disingenuous. I also find
[1:33:28] it somewhat disrespectful that. This is proposed, development is already
[1:33:33] being marketed by a billboard on the property. And that
[1:33:36] would seem. To assume that this public process has no
[1:33:40] value, so. I'm not particularly fond of that particular tactic.
[1:33:47] So let's look at what we're doing. We've got. A
[1:33:51] community. Driven official plan, which presumably contemplates things like schools,
[1:33:56] parks, transportation, and now. We're about to throw a portion
[1:34:00] of that out the window. By doubling the density, we
[1:34:04] have a master transportation plan that's in the works that
[1:34:07] presumably is based on that official plan and the current
[1:34:10] bylaws we have contemplating a parks plan. In the next
[1:34:16] year or two. Parks master plan. Though I will say
[1:34:21] that the last master plan was full of altruisms. But
[1:34:23] nothing to actually put a park in this particular area.
[1:34:27] So we're contemplating a high density, much higher density development
[1:34:32] in this area, one that as the developer says will
[1:34:35] appeal to young families. So we've got no parks. We've
[1:34:40] got. No active transportation trails. Certainly not one that's winter
[1:34:44] maintained. We've got no primary school in the area. I
[1:34:49] suspect that the primary school that is. Closest is probably
[1:34:51] full. So we've got a number of no's. We just
[1:34:55] need two more no's. From you. No official planned amendment,
[1:34:58] no bylaw amendment. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:35:10] Would anyone else like to come forward? Clerk on is
[1:35:14] there anyone online? Yes, your worship. We have 50 people
[1:35:22] online. Yes. So I would like to ask at this
[1:35:25] time if there's anyone that would like. To address council
[1:35:28] regarding this application, please press or raise your hand at
[1:35:30] the bottom of the screen.
[1:35:43] Doesn't look like any further request to speak to this
[1:35:46] application at this time, your worship. Okay, so if there's
[1:35:51] no other comments from the public, I'll close the public
[1:35:55] portion of. This public meeting and turn it over to
[1:35:59] council should they have any questions or comments at this
[1:36:03] stage. Councilor Baines. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin, through you, if
[1:36:08] I may, to community planner wane. Wright. If she's there.
[1:36:24] We've heard some concerns expressed, and I didn't see the
[1:36:28] dimensions, if you will. Of the children's playground. Can you
[1:36:32] give us more details about the size of that and
[1:36:35] what percentage of the overall. Development is that. If you
[1:36:44] can estimate that, what that represents. Thank you for the
[1:36:48] question and through the chair. At this time. It's just
[1:36:51] a conceptual plan, so I don't have specific dimensions. But
[1:36:55] as we work through the technical review process, we can
[1:36:58] get that information and make sure it's in the staff
[1:37:01] report. Thank you. Thank you. One more question that presumably
[1:37:04] may go to director Valentine, though, and. That's about. The
[1:37:09] number of accessible parking spaces. I'm assuming it's the province.
[1:37:13] That either dictates or restricts the total number of parking
[1:37:17] spaces for 149 spaces. But only four accessible, it would
[1:37:22] seem to me. This is a comment, an editorialized comment,
[1:37:26] if you will, of our aging demographics. That. It might
[1:37:31] be a prudent to have more accessible parking spaces. But.
[1:37:37] Does the planning act allow the flexibility? Or perhaps it's
[1:37:40] our own bylaws for the condo corporation at some time
[1:37:43] in the future to grant more accessible parking spaces should
[1:37:48] the community want those. Go ahead. So the province does
[1:37:54] require a minimum number of accessible parking spaces. I don't
[1:38:00] believe there's a restriction on the number that can be
[1:38:03] provided as long as the minimum number is. So the
[1:38:06] maximum. There's no cap. Okay, one further question. On this
[1:38:10] point particularly. Would the owners of the condo corporation. Should
[1:38:14] they require accessible parking spaces, have the opportunity to get
[1:38:20] that. In front of their unit. Perhaps this is up
[1:38:24] to the condo board itself at some time in the
[1:38:27] future to decide. I'm just curious to know that. I
[1:38:31] would look to direct a Valentine. Thank you. Go ahead.
[1:38:34] Thank you. And through the chair, I think it's important
[1:38:36] to note that the accessible parking spaces are in relation
[1:38:38] to the visitor. Parking only. So for the parking, for
[1:38:41] the units, it's a driveway or parking like any. Other
[1:38:45] unit within town. So that's an important distinction. The other
[1:38:49] piece, as planner Wayne Wright. Mentioned was with respect to
[1:38:53] provincial requirements. So even if our zoning bylaw did have
[1:38:56] a higher requirement for accessible parking. It's essentially trumped by
[1:39:00] higher order legislation, so it's a bit difficult, but I
[1:39:02] think the applicants. Have heard the request and perhaps can
[1:39:07] take that back and think about whether additional parking would
[1:39:10] be required and have additional comments on the size of
[1:39:13] the individual. Parking spaces for the units and whether those
[1:39:17] meet the accessibility size or whether they're a standard parking
[1:39:20] size for, essentially, the driveway in front of these units.
[1:39:24] Thank you. And just one further comment. Also, I'm concerned
[1:39:28] in regard to. The drainage, if you will, of the
[1:39:32] development itself and where that would end up. And I'm
[1:39:35] assuming that we can discuss that further. At director Alcoca's
[1:39:39] report. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Cassor
[1:39:46] dougherty. Thank you, chair. And thank you for your presentation.
[1:39:50] Very thorough. I had a couple of questions. And actually
[1:39:57] following up on councilor Baines, I would be interested to
[1:40:01] know. What the percent. Of and the development space is
[1:40:08] being devoted to that park area, which right now, conceptually
[1:40:13] is a playground. And I also wanted to clarify what
[1:40:18] there was reference to. This development, having access to. Other
[1:40:24] amenities on the lands, and I'm just wondering what those
[1:40:28] are and where they're. Located. Go ahead. Thank you. And
[1:40:34] through the chair. So, in addition to the outdoor amenity
[1:40:37] areas on the subject lands residents from the townhouse. Development
[1:40:41] would have access to the amenity building and outdoor amenity
[1:40:44] areas. On the side of the property with the apartment
[1:40:49] buildings. And there's also some recreational improvements happening as well.
[1:40:57] The construction of a multi use trail along the south
[1:41:00] side of highway trick 26 between the termination of the
[1:41:03] vacation entrail to the west and Highway 26, Cranberry trail
[1:41:08] intersection to the east as planned for and this trail
[1:41:11] connection will be installed as part of the construction of
[1:41:13] the townhouse develop. Development, which would have been referred to
[1:41:20] as the phase two construction under the previous planning approval
[1:41:24] for the apartment buildings. Thank you. So, just as a
[1:41:28] follow up, As the site plan progresses, I would be
[1:41:34] interested to know what the total percentage of. Recreation or
[1:41:41] amenity space amounts to. And this would be potentially through
[1:41:47] you to the developer. These are condominiums. So. They just
[1:41:54] common area condominiums. Or total. Complete condominiums. I might look
[1:42:03] to the developers just to have that specific answer, if
[1:42:06] that's okay, Jeff. You chair to the
[1:42:14] councilor. This is proposed to be a standard condominium. So
[1:42:20] the homeowners would own their units and then all of
[1:42:24] the common in many areas. The roadways. Visitor parking areas
[1:42:30] would all be common element. So all homeowners would contribute
[1:42:33] towards. The maintenance of those areas. Right. Okay. Thank you.
[1:42:40] So where I was going with that is. The price
[1:42:44] that you have quoted certainly is. Lower than what we
[1:42:50] have seen in this market, which is a good thing.
[1:42:54] But. If the condominium fees. Are excessive. Then we're back
[1:43:01] at the same situation about affordability. Yes. Through you, chair
[1:43:06] to the councilor. Yes. And that's something we always try
[1:43:09] to balance. Obviously purchase price and then condominium fees as
[1:43:13] well to keep those as low as possible because you're
[1:43:17] right, councilor. That is part of the purchase price that
[1:43:22] home buyers do consider. When they're looking to buy a
[1:43:24] unit, so. We are looking to keep those condominium fees
[1:43:29] as low as possible. As you see on the plan.
[1:43:34] We do have the playground. We have some common in
[1:43:36] many areas, but I wouldn't say it's extravagant. There's not
[1:43:40] amenity buildings within our site to try to, in order
[1:43:45] to keep those fees to a reasonable level, right? And
[1:43:52] my next question is to do with the grading. And
[1:43:57] also councilor Baines did reference. The proposed grading. Will we
[1:44:03] be seeing? Substantially increased elevation on these lands, or will
[1:44:09] we be? Are you building on. What can be seen.
[1:44:14] Right now. If you drive by the land. Through your
[1:44:18] chair to the councilor. There certainly will not be substantial
[1:44:22] grading increases. The final grading plans do need to be
[1:44:27] done through the site plan approval process, which will follow.
[1:44:31] The official plan and zoning bylaw amendment process. That's when
[1:44:34] the detailed design, in terms of grading is done. But
[1:44:40] the site is rough graded at this time. There will
[1:44:42] not be substantial increases to it. Thank you. And then
[1:44:48] finally. As the proposed development been circulated. To the boards
[1:44:56] of education. Through you to our planner. Yeah. Thank you.
[1:45:07] Thank you for the question and through the chair. Yes,
[1:45:10] they have been included in the technical circulation. And we
[1:45:13] have received comments so far from the Simcoe County District
[1:45:16] school board. Thank you. Could you elaborate on what the
[1:45:20] comments are? Yes. They will be included. In the staff
[1:45:26] report. That's to come. But. The general sense of the
[1:45:32] comment is just noting that. Width of the internal roads
[1:45:37] are too narrow in the condominium, so the school board
[1:45:40] has asked for a provision that bus stop, pickup and
[1:45:43] drop off locations be cited outside the development. Thank you.
[1:45:49] Please make no noise, please. And those are my questions.
[1:45:56] Thank you, Mayor. Councilor mccawk here. Next. Thank you, mayor.
[1:46:02] And this one, I believe, will go to Mr. Robinson.
[1:46:04] Just a quick question. Not sure. You need to come
[1:46:07] forward. Discussion of accessible parking spaces. Just in a quick
[1:46:14] view of the townhouses. They're proposed they look to me
[1:46:17] to be upstairs, downstairs, so probably not accessible. Yeah, go
[1:46:23] ahead through. You, chair to the councilor. You are correct.
[1:46:27] There's a lower. Unit, which is a half story below
[1:46:29] grade, and then an upper unit. Which is a half
[1:46:32] story grade. At this time. There's not accessible units that
[1:46:38] have been contemplated. When we do get to. The site
[1:46:43] plan approval process and the detailed elevations. And floor plans
[1:46:49] are reviewed with staff. That level of detail will be
[1:46:54] addressed through the site plan process. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:47:02] Councilor jeffrey. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I think a lot
[1:47:05] of the important questions have already been asked. I just
[1:47:07] would really comment further with respect to traffic, I would
[1:47:11] be flabbergasted if there's not something that comes out of
[1:47:14] the traffic report because I think at some point we're
[1:47:16] going to have to tap out on the capacity of
[1:47:19] Highway 26 west, and I'm not sure where that happens.
[1:47:24] But. No clapping, please. I know from my personal experience
[1:47:29] right now, Some nights can feel like a parking lot.
[1:47:32] And we're not even at ski season yet. And I
[1:47:36] have to ask myself, what night of the week is
[1:47:37] it? And it's only Tuesday or Wednesday. I think that
[1:47:42] I'll be really interested to see what comes out of
[1:47:45] the traffic notes. Okay. Thank you, deputy mayor thank you,
[1:47:50] Mayor Hamlin. And I think just first off, I want
[1:47:52] to thank the presenters, all the presenters, the public. It's
[1:47:55] all good food for thought, for. Us to have. so
[1:47:59] I'm looking forward to the staff report. As a member
[1:48:02] of the Affordable Housing Task force, I do just want
[1:48:04] to comment that I appreciate the efforts as a developer
[1:48:07] in regards to. Coming up with some concept in regards
[1:48:11] to helping us with our working middle, which we've identified
[1:48:15] as a crisis situation in Collingwood. We have commented at
[1:48:20] the task force level about how cooperative our development community
[1:48:24] has been because. Municipality doesn't have an awful lot of
[1:48:29] tools to work on affordable housing directly. We rely. Completely
[1:48:35] on a cooperative effort by everybody involved. And so I
[1:48:39] do want to commend you for your efforts in that
[1:48:41] regard, and I look forward to the staff report because
[1:48:44] that gives us the meat of everything that we've been
[1:48:47] hearing today the impacts of it and that. When we
[1:48:51] get that, that, of course, we'll be in a public
[1:48:53] environment where people have an opportunity to also share their
[1:48:57] expressions of interest in regards to those reports. So I'm
[1:49:00] looking forward to that next stage. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:49:04] I'm sorry. The public portion of the meeting. Has been
[1:49:07] closed. But this council meeting is not finished yet. I'm
[1:49:11] just addressing a gentleman in the back. Who's got his
[1:49:14] hand up, but you can write in and let us
[1:49:17] know. Any other comments? Yes, go ahead. This part of
[1:49:25] the meeting is not over yet. If you're wanting to
[1:49:28] hear the rest. Of it. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I
[1:49:34] just wanted to springboard off of deputy mayor Fryer's comments
[1:49:37] to note that there is a sign up sheet at
[1:49:39] the front. And some members have found that on their
[1:49:42] way out. But community planner Wayne Wright will take that
[1:49:46] out with her, and we would appreciate those who would
[1:49:49] like to be updated when the staff report comes forward
[1:49:52] to include your name and email address on that sign
[1:49:55] up sheet so that you can continue to be informed
[1:49:57] on this project. And I have a few questions as
[1:50:01] well. I was wondering if there's just one parking spot
[1:50:05] or unit, where will people park? Who? Have two cars.
[1:50:11] I'll leave that in the ether, because I know this.
[1:50:17] Can be addressed in the staff report. I'd be grateful.
[1:50:20] I also would like to know if there's any amenity
[1:50:22] space, outdoor amenity space. Associated with each unit. Because that
[1:50:29] might influence how we see other things. And the third
[1:50:33] thing is, I'm a bit concerned about the private roads.
[1:50:38] I've expressed my view about private roads a number of
[1:50:39] times. At council. And it's really associated with the fact
[1:50:45] that. These owners, who presumably are buying more moderately priced
[1:50:50] homes. Are in the future going to be saddled with
[1:50:53] the cost of maintaining roads and the infrastructure. Under them.
[1:50:58] And it's a hidden cost. And we know, sitting here,
[1:51:02] how much it costs to repair. And replace. Services that
[1:51:07] are under the ground and the pavement and so on.
[1:51:11] So I do have a concern about that. And I
[1:51:13] also have a concern about the width of it. I
[1:51:17] heard the comment about the school buses, but also. I
[1:51:23] think it's important that we make sure that the width
[1:51:26] of any road is wide. Enough to accommodate. The garbage
[1:51:29] trucks from Simcoe County. We pay so much in our
[1:51:34] community to the county of Simcoe for garbage collection, and
[1:51:39] so. Many of our residents. I think it could be
[1:51:41] as high as a third. Get no garbage collection. Because
[1:51:45] their roads aren't wide enough or some other rule that
[1:51:49] we just didn't. Know about when these things were, when
[1:51:52] buildings were being built. And that is really an excessive
[1:51:56] cost for a community to have to look after its
[1:52:00] own garbage. Account. So those are my comments. And if
[1:52:04] there's none other here, I see none others. That's the
[1:52:08] end of this part of the meeting. Thank you. All
[1:52:11] right. So why don't we take a ten minute break?
[1:52:20] And then we'll come back. Thank you.
[1:52:34] Pat. Pathology.
[2:05:24] Okay, council, we'll get back to work. Next item on
[2:05:30] the agenda is 8.1. Our recommendation is that the minutes
[2:05:34] of the Special Council committee of the whole held November
[2:05:38] 12, 2025 excluding committee of the whole recommendations. Council committee
[2:05:45] of the whole meeting held November 17, 2025. Excluding committee
[2:05:49] of the whole recommendations. Special council meeting held November 19,
[2:05:54] 2025 and council meeting held November 24, 2025. The approved
[2:06:00] as presented. Could I have a move in a seconder,
[2:06:02] please? Councilor Baines? Seconded by councillor Perry. Comments? All those
[2:06:07] in favor? And that's unanimous. Is there any business arising
[2:06:15] from those previous minutes? Seeing none. The next is. Recommendation
[2:06:24] for approval from the committee of the whole recommendations and
[2:06:28] Councilor Jeffrey at the beginning. Asked if we could pull
[2:06:33] c 2020 514. So. Except for that one. Can I
[2:06:40] have a mover in a second to approve the recommendations
[2:06:44] from the committee of the. Whole meeting held November 12
[2:06:47] and November 17, 2025. Councilor McCullough seconded by councilor Dougherty
[2:06:53] comments. Jesus. All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank
[2:06:58] you. And then item c 2020 514, can I have
[2:07:04] a mover in a seconder for that one, please. Councilor
[2:07:10] Dougherty, as seconded by councilor Perry. And over to you,
[2:07:13] Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. So in
[2:07:18] reviewing the meeting and the minutes and things. I was
[2:07:23] really quite surprised. I had expected a much more robust.
[2:07:28] Conversation in terms of. Our governance side of the decisions
[2:07:33] that were made or not made. And about the seriousness
[2:07:37] of, about being able to attract younger and more diverse
[2:07:41] candidates for council. And when you think of the complexity
[2:07:46] of our files that we have, As counselors and council
[2:07:51] members. I was explaining earlier to the clerk and the
[2:07:56] CAO that the absorption of information. In a much more
[2:08:00] shorter time. From the CAO as she oversees all of
[2:08:04] the departments that we have to take that on board.
[2:08:07] And digest it very quickly and responsibly to make really
[2:08:11] good decisions. So I thought there would have been a
[2:08:14] bit more conversation, with respect. To. The more demand that
[2:08:21] is occurring on council members as we move forward in
[2:08:24] different years and provincial policy that's been changing. And the
[2:08:28] other thing that didn't get discussed, I don't think was.
[2:08:31] A differential that has occurred now. With the county increase
[2:08:35] for our mayor and deputy mayors. So the differential between.
[2:08:40] The mayor. Who will. The mayor position will reach maybe
[2:08:43] one 2120 thousand a year going forward. By 2027, and
[2:08:50] the deputy mayor, who I think is maybe 80 and.
[2:08:53] These aren't for sure, but I think I'm pretty close.
[2:08:56] That we have council members at 28 five plus special
[2:09:01] meetings. So I think that brings us in. Around a
[2:09:04] base of 30,000. And it's difficult politically for an incoming
[2:09:10] council to vote increases. So I think it's, incumbent upon
[2:09:14] us as a council to take a really serious look
[2:09:17] at that, to make that decision now for the incoming
[2:09:22] council members. Given their responsibilities. And it won't impact the
[2:09:28] 2026 budget seriously, because that will only be about seven.
[2:09:33] Weeks at the end of 2026. But the impact that
[2:09:36] would come in and again, I don't think it's that
[2:09:39] much. Depending on what? If I were able to have
[2:09:43] council. Support an increase for council members in 2020. Seven
[2:09:47] wouldn't be a really overburdensome one. So I guess for
[2:09:52] the discussion. The other part of the discussion I thought
[2:09:55] was important. Is that I didn't see us talking about
[2:09:58] time of meetings, length of meetings, time of. Day, day.
[2:10:04] All of those things that can weigh on the people
[2:10:08] that you can attract around the table. To run this
[2:10:12] business. So I guess what I'm asking is, I'd like
[2:10:16] to refer to the budget. Process. The request for an
[2:10:20] increase for council members to be considered in that budget
[2:10:23] process. And I think the clerk agreed that that's the
[2:10:26] appropriate process. If there's a time at future that we
[2:10:31] can talk about all those other things, other than just.
[2:10:36] Remuneration. I'd be certainly pleased to be able to participate
[2:10:40] in that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So with that
[2:10:47] comment in mind, Did you want to speak to this
[2:10:50] as well? No. Yeah. I'm pretty sure. If I remember
[2:10:58] correctly, I did speak to some of the topics of
[2:11:01] the times and meetings and stuff. Through it. And the
[2:11:05] challenging of everything happened during the day. So it definitely
[2:11:08] was discussed. Deputy mayor thank you, Mayor Hamlin, and. I'll
[2:11:15] just note that I agree fully. It's a challenging environment
[2:11:18] to try to look, but I recognize. There's a real
[2:11:22] change. In the differential between the county council members. And
[2:11:29] the rest of council, and I don't see that being
[2:11:31] a positive situation. So I did look at my method
[2:11:36] for it was to reduce size and use the money
[2:11:40] to spread out, and that was defeated, and I'll accept
[2:11:43] that. The one question I was going to ask, and
[2:11:46] it has a little bit to do with I had
[2:11:48] been thinking of suggesting that putting a question on the
[2:11:52] ballot. And whether the public would be receptive to going
[2:11:57] down to seven, but. I know there was discussion from
[2:12:02] councilor Baines about ward, so I wondered if we could.
[2:12:05] Just my understanding of the situation. If you're going to
[2:12:09] put a question on the ballot. Is, if council decides
[2:12:13] there's going to be a question, it has to go
[2:12:14] through a public process, including a public meeting. And that's
[2:12:19] how you educate the public. In advance of answering the
[2:12:23] question. And I'll just through you if I could marry
[2:12:26] him. And just verify with the clerk that that's the
[2:12:28] situation. And perhaps what kind of timing. Would be kind
[2:12:32] of the last. Ability to do it. Yeah, go ahead,
[2:12:36] clerk Thomas. Certainly. Thank you, your worship. To deputy Mary
[2:12:39] Fryer's. Question. I don't have my specific notes up with
[2:12:43] me regarding that question, but. There is set deadlines, and
[2:12:48] I believe they're around the beginning of March. Processes have
[2:12:51] to be starting. Within generally mid January, and then there's
[2:12:56] certain notice period that's required for the public and then
[2:12:59] council has to pass a bylaw. But I can provide
[2:13:02] further detail on what. Those timelines are. Just to clarify,
[2:13:06] though, I believe the March 1 date is when it
[2:13:10] all have to be completed. By right. It's not educating
[2:13:15] the public. After March 1, you would still do that,
[2:13:19] but there's. A requirement you have to meet. And that's
[2:13:21] up to March 1, right? Yeah. Thank you. I'll just
[2:13:26] add I didn't find it. I know you found it
[2:13:28] surprising we didn't talk about councilor compensation. But. It's not
[2:13:34] been raised here while I've been married. I'm not opposed.
[2:13:38] To having a discussion. I know. Usually. We have a
[2:13:44] report done for us to show how comparative municipalities are
[2:13:47] done. So I guess we'll get into that more when.
[2:13:53] We talk about the budget, whether that's needed. The only
[2:13:56] thing I'll correct is. I think the compensation for the
[2:14:00] mayor. Once the county. Is fully integrated because there hadn't
[2:14:06] been an increase there for 20 years. County Council was
[2:14:10] the lowest paid of all the upper tier. Local government.
[2:14:17] So I think with that, My calculation is about 110.
[2:14:21] So it's close, but 110. But anyway, we'll look. Forward
[2:14:24] to discussing that during the budget. Mary Hamilton I guess
[2:14:29] I made the assumption based on the fact that. Management.
[2:14:32] Quag's report was in touched to the agenda which had
[2:14:36] all the comparators from. 21, 22. And so I made
[2:14:42] the assumption that the information was there and had the
[2:14:44] potential to be discussed. But I wasn't here to bring
[2:14:46] it up. Yeah, okay. Thank you. So we'll bring this
[2:14:50] to a vote then. This is with respect to that
[2:14:53] one item. C 20 514. All those in favor. And
[2:14:58] that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is. So this
[2:15:03] was dealt with. At the committee of the whole meeting
[2:15:05] and carried five to three. The recommendation is that staff
[2:15:09] report. C 2020 513 naming the new waterfront park twelve
[2:15:14] side launch wave you received and the Council endorsed the
[2:15:18] name Harbor Junction is the official name for the new
[2:15:20] waterfront park at twelve side launch. Way. As recommended by
[2:15:25] the naming committee in accordance with the facility naming policy.
[2:15:29] Could I have a mover in a seconder to get
[2:15:31] this on the floor? You have. Something to say before
[2:15:33] we get it on the floor. Okay, good. Anyone want
[2:15:38] to put this on the floor? For discussion. Councilor Dougherty,
[2:15:42] seconder. Okay, so this item goes off the agenda. Mayor
[2:15:49] Hammond, I was going to ask to sever so that
[2:15:51] we could receive first. Sure, but I feel like we
[2:15:54] have to get it on the floor first or this
[2:15:56] item will disappear. I'm just saying you have to bring
[2:15:59] it with another motion and notice emotion and. So on.
[2:16:02] I'll second. Thank you. Discuss. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And
[2:16:06] you would like the two items severed, so that's good.
[2:16:11] So let's just deal with the first one, which is
[2:16:13] receiving the report. All those in favor? And that's unanimous.
[2:16:18] Thank you. The second part. Who would like to. Speak
[2:16:21] to this. councilor beans Thank you, Mayor Hamlet. I
[2:16:30] respect greatly the process that came up with a name.
[2:16:35] And supported it at that time. However, subsequent to that,
[2:16:38] I've had discussions with various members. Of the community. And
[2:16:44] read with great interest the museum's article about. The. Dry.
[2:16:53] What am I thinking of? The name escapes me right
[2:16:56] now, but the dry talks. Yes, of course. And frankly,
[2:17:01] I must say, touched by my colleague. Councilor rings plea,
[2:17:05] if you will, for that name, actually, and I have
[2:17:08] changed my position on this. And now support. Dry dock
[2:17:14] junction, I think as an appropriate name at this point.
[2:17:19] I don't do this lightly, but I really do think
[2:17:21] it's the appropriate name. Upon reflection, so that will be
[2:17:25] my position. That. That name, I think, is appropriate at
[2:17:28] this time. Okay, so it's the name you're putting forward
[2:17:33] is dry docks junction. Is that. Correct. Dry dock junction.
[2:17:38] Dry dock junction. Got it. Okay. Anyone else like to
[2:17:42] speak to this councilor Perry? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I've
[2:17:47] pondered this for two weeks now. And written down my
[2:17:52] thoughts. So please bear with me because I don't want
[2:17:54] to forget. Anything. I've been thinking about this a lot
[2:17:58] and very uneasy about it. Dry dock junction is a
[2:18:02] strong name that reflects our shipyard heritage and past employees.
[2:18:07] My worry is that we have asked the public for
[2:18:09] input, and we probably had the best public response. We've
[2:18:13] had for anything. At least that I can remember. My
[2:18:17] concern is by changing the name that was chosen by
[2:18:19] the committee because. We perhaps don't like it or we
[2:18:23] don't feel it represents the area. What kind of message.
[2:18:27] Is it sending to residents who may want to have
[2:18:30] their opinions heard, but we just ignore them? And do
[2:18:33] what we want anyway. After careful consideration and conversations with
[2:18:39] councilor ring, councilor Baines and others. I fully support dry
[2:18:45] docked junction. As I said. It's a great name, but
[2:18:49] I think some thoughts should have been put into the
[2:18:52] junction. Or the yard. Both simplified names, and it removes
[2:18:55] any confusion over harborhouse. The junction was one of the
[2:18:59] top five that was chosen by the committee. And I
[2:19:02] venture to say that it will end up being called
[2:19:04] the junction if dry dock junction. Does become the name,
[2:19:07] just to shorten it up, as we always do. My
[2:19:10] thoughts are about trying to honor the process of public
[2:19:13] engagement, respect the important history and past employees of the
[2:19:17] shipyard, and I know there will be many references to
[2:19:20] dry dock and to the shipyards all through the park.
[2:19:24] As Director Cubit mentioned two weeks ago. Anyway, that's where
[2:19:28] I stand. Thank you. Deputy mayor. Thank you, mayor. I'm
[2:19:37] going to also say. I understand the facility naming process
[2:19:41] and appreciate the work that was done. And brought forward
[2:19:46] the recommendation. That council is the one who has to
[2:19:50] consider it. Council is the one who has to make
[2:19:51] the decision. Or it wouldn't be coming back to us.
[2:19:55] The committee would just decide what it is. And that's
[2:19:57] what it is. When Terminal's point was the name selected
[2:20:01] for the process, I didn't fully agree. With it. But
[2:20:05] I supported the choice of the committee in that case.
[2:20:08] In the case of Piazza, though. To a much greater
[2:20:12] extent. I don't agree with it and can't support any
[2:20:15] of the five names that were proposed, I do support.
[2:20:19] The dry dock junction name that has been proposed. Dry
[2:20:23] dock number one pioneered large scale shipbuilding in Ontario, as
[2:20:27] it was the first major dry dock. That was born
[2:20:31] from calling with success. With the advent of rail service,
[2:20:34] including the building of the original grain terminals. As a
[2:20:37] step forward. The initial name captured the significant step forward
[2:20:41] of dry dock one as it was Collingwood dry dock
[2:20:44] shipbuilding and foundry. Dry duck number one operated for the
[2:20:48] entire 103 years life. Of the shipyards. Regarding the harbor
[2:20:52] reference, I can see why some favorite, but just can't.
[2:20:56] Look past. The fact that Harbor House condo building is
[2:20:58] immediately adjacent, and I think it creates an appearance of
[2:21:02] the piazza being a private park for harbor house. Yeah.
[2:21:07] Signage will be in place and identify that it isn't,
[2:21:10] but I think there may be cases where people move
[2:21:12] on to another location because they're not unsure before they
[2:21:16] have a chance to see the signage, so I continue
[2:21:19] to support. Dry dog junction going forward, and I want
[2:21:25] to just explain the reasons why. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:21:31] Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, chair. I'm sort of. Of the
[2:21:38] same. View. As councilor Perry. That the public spoke. We
[2:21:47] put a committee in place. They came forward with a
[2:21:49] recommendation. I also appreciate the fact that. Ultimately, council does
[2:21:57] have the last say. So to that end, Through you
[2:22:03] to Director Cubit. Did dry dock junction even appear? On
[2:22:10] the list. Go ahead. Director Cuban. Sorry. Thank you. I'm
[2:22:14] going to refer back to clerk Almaz. As I was
[2:22:17] not part of the naming committee. Clerk Thomas. Ironically, I've
[2:22:25] just been doing a little search on that through to
[2:22:27] Councilor Dougherty. Dried out junction was not. however The reference
[2:22:34] to drydock was eight times. So out of the 160
[2:22:41] plus submissions, Drydock was noted. Eight out of harbor, it
[2:22:45] was noted 17. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor
[2:22:54] ring. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlin. And I, too.
[2:23:00] You know what? I've spoke quite a bit against. The
[2:23:06] proposed name of Harbor Junction at that last meeting and
[2:23:08] was one of. The three knee votes at that time.
[2:23:13] And I do appreciate the process. I still couldn't get
[2:23:17] over the fact that. When this all started, we said
[2:23:23] we were going to try to name the park that
[2:23:25] had some significance to our heritage, our history. Location where
[2:23:29] it is. And I just couldn't see. How we could
[2:23:34] not pick drydock over harbor and then. With the location
[2:23:40] of the park going to be basically on the same
[2:23:43] property as Harbor House. It's not going to have any
[2:23:47] special significance to the economy. Shipyards. It's been 40 years
[2:23:52] since it's been closed. But. If we keep not. Trying
[2:23:58] to carry the name on. At some point, we're going
[2:24:01] to forget what it is. Dry dock junction. Is exactly
[2:24:11] what it should be called. Because of deputy Fryer. Just
[2:24:14] give them a little bit of history there with the
[2:24:16] significance, with the railway railroad. And. The part. The two
[2:24:21] of them both play at the same time. I'm having
[2:24:24] a hard time because I'm a diehard supporter of this
[2:24:28] town. And the history of this town. I think. We
[2:24:37] all know that. Since I've been alive, we've had all
[2:24:41] kinds of. Manufacturing. Plants within the town of Collingwood that
[2:24:46] have closed. But the only one that still anybody ever
[2:24:51] talks about is a shipyard. I don't want that to
[2:24:55] ever end, so, I mean. This town was built on
[2:24:59] ship building, and I think just a little thing, like
[2:25:02] a significant name. That reflects that. Is worth the change
[2:25:09] to this suggested name today. Hey. Thank you, Councilor Dougherty.
[2:25:16] Wait, I should just see if anyone else. Spoken. Councilor
[2:25:21] JeffRey well, thank you very much, Mayor ham. And someone
[2:25:24] who was reading about this from afar. I have to
[2:25:27] say I'm relieved to get back and hear this conversation.
[2:25:32] Because. I was with some long the tooth Collingwood people
[2:25:35] as well, and we all had kind of the same.
[2:25:39] Feeling about it without knowing what was going on here
[2:25:41] in the background, so. I'm really relieved. And would really
[2:25:46] support. And again, I do understand we've had that process
[2:25:50] as long as we've had advisory committees. There's always had
[2:25:54] to be this understanding that as much of the work
[2:25:56] it's an evolution. And what they bring, they've already processed
[2:25:59] through to us, and we get it. At a very
[2:26:01] finite place, and then we do make that decision. And
[2:26:04] that's never going to change as long as we have
[2:26:06] advisory committees. And committees that support us in many ways,
[2:26:12] like facility naming. So very much a supporter of dry
[2:26:16] dog junction. Okay, thank you. Councilor Potts. Thanks, Mayor Hamlin.
[2:26:21] As I was one of the naysayers at the last
[2:26:25] meeting. Again, I would not support Harvard Junction. I do
[2:26:29] support the dry dock junction name. Even after last meeting,
[2:26:34] I spoke with a lot of residents in the municipality.
[2:26:38] Some that were new to Collingwood, long term Collingwood, and
[2:26:42] it was all a common theme that. It was, I
[2:26:46] guess, the history that. The heritage in history that really
[2:26:50] should be displayed here. So again, I do support the
[2:26:54] dry dock name. I do appreciate the time that committees
[2:26:58] put in. And people put in for their efforts, but
[2:27:01] in something like this. The harbor name. I just. Right
[2:27:04] from the get go. I just do not think it
[2:27:08] justifies. What we're all about. So I would support the
[2:27:13] dry dock name. Thanks. Thank you. Clerk Thomas. Thank you.
[2:27:19] Just for reference. The yard was referenced 22 times. Okay.
[2:27:29] Councilor Dougherty. Thank you, chair. So. In the staff report,
[2:27:37] there was an alternative recommendation and. If the main motion
[2:27:44] fails, I'd like to put that forward and that is
[2:27:47] that, council. Would proceed with. A 15 day public consultation
[2:27:52] to receive comments on the recommended name. So if council
[2:27:56] feels strongly about the dry dock junction. Let's put it
[2:28:00] to our residents before we make a unilateral. Decision. Okay,
[2:28:06] so perhaps at this time I should be asking if
[2:28:09] there is an amendment to the main. Motion to change
[2:28:12] the name that's proposed. Because. It says right now, harbor
[2:28:19] Junction. So I think. I'm looking for an amendment. Is
[2:28:24] that correct, or do you think we should vote this?
[2:28:26] Down. Voted down. Okay. All right, so we'll do that.
[2:28:32] Or not, depending on how the vote goes. Is there
[2:28:35] anyone else who'd like to speak before we come to
[2:28:37] a vote on the. Second part of this motion, then
[2:28:40] the name. No. Okay. All those in favor of the
[2:28:46] Harvard junction. And those opposed. Hey, that's unanimous. Thank you.
[2:28:53] All right. Counselor ring. Oh, sorry. No, you got to
[2:29:01] add up. After you. No, after you. Okay, go ahead,
[2:29:07] Kelsey. Thank you very much, Mayor Hamlet. Thank you very.
[2:29:10] Much councilor beans. I know you mentioned it and brought
[2:29:15] this topic up, but I'd like to make a motion
[2:29:17] to go with the name. Of the piazza park down
[2:29:22] at the waterfront there. The renamed. To dry, dark junction.
[2:29:30] Okay. Thank you. And Councilor Maines will second that. Any
[2:29:33] further discussion? councilor doherty Thank you, mayor. So just per
[2:29:41] my previous comments, I'd like to ask that. Should council
[2:29:45] agree on that name, that we would at least. Provide
[2:29:49] a 15 day public consultation. On the council recommended name.
[2:29:56] Okay, so I'll treat this as an amendment to councilor.
[2:29:59] Ring's motion. Would there be a seconder? Councilor Baines. Sir.
[2:30:15] Negligible. Thank you. Is there a seconder for Councilor Dougherty's
[2:30:20] motion? Yell second at. Okay, so we'll deal with the
[2:30:25] amendment. And deputy mayor. You'd like to speak to it?
[2:30:30] Amendment. Yes. I just wanted to ask councilor Dougherty if
[2:30:34] she wants to go first or last. In speaking to
[2:30:37] it. Deputy mayor Virtila one thing I had in mind
[2:30:43] over the two weeks was. It seemed to me that
[2:30:47] we hadn't had any input from the Heritage committee. So.
[2:30:53] I can certainly support the idea of putting the name
[2:30:56] out there and seeing what response we get. From the
[2:30:58] public. But. I would specifically ask that the Heritage committee
[2:31:03] be asked for their input. So would you accept that
[2:31:08] as a friendly amendment to the 15 day period? I
[2:31:13] believe they have a meeting coming up on Thursday the
[2:31:15] fourth. Thank you. Yeah. So. During that 15 day that
[2:31:23] it would go to the heritage committee and the public.
[2:31:28] Okay. All right. Anyone else like to speak to this
[2:31:32] councilor ring? Just a question through you. To clerk Almas
[2:31:36] what takes place in the 15 days? Go ahead. Thank
[2:31:43] you. Through Mary Hamlin to Councilor Ring. I'm not sure
[2:31:46] if we've. Had to undertake this. In this process, but.
[2:31:53] It would be using our social media channels, using engage
[2:31:57] Collingwood, putting a survey up, getting people to comment accepting
[2:32:00] email feedback. Any sort of way that we can solicit
[2:32:06] feedback on the name. We would undertake. Let me follow
[2:32:11] up with that. So then after the 15 days. Is
[2:32:16] just. To tabulate all the information that you've got from
[2:32:19] the public and who determines. Certainly. So, for clarification, we
[2:32:25] will put it back in a report, bring it back
[2:32:26] to council that this is the feedback that we heard
[2:32:28] and then council would make the final decision. Councilor Perry,
[2:32:33] I think. Clerk. The clerk just answered my question. But
[2:32:35] we'd be voting. On this again, just so I'm clear.
[2:32:38] Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'll come back to you. Councilor
[2:32:44] McCullough. Thank you, Merrick. Just a quick follow up to
[2:32:47] that question. What? If the answer comes back. No. The
[2:32:51] people who submit do not like that name. Where do
[2:32:54] we go from there? I think that's a good rhetorical
[2:32:56] question. Go ahead. And we can't answer it until we
[2:33:04] see. Right, but that's the type of information I think
[2:33:07] is being sought by. The suggested amendment, so I would
[2:33:12] just clarify if I could. Hoping that knowing that 15
[2:33:18] days after today would be. Past the release of the
[2:33:21] agenda for the 19th. Do you think it's doable to
[2:33:26] still get it on as an amendment where we have
[2:33:28] the information so that we can make a decision on
[2:33:30] 19th. Our next council committee. The whole meeting is the
[2:33:35] 15th. And no, we would not. It would come. Back
[2:33:38] in the new year, so. And we would extend it,
[2:33:42] allow additional comments as needed. I'll just weigh in with.
[2:33:49] Every counselor has to ask themselves in their heart, will
[2:33:53] they? Change their mind on the name that's before us
[2:33:57] today. Because don't forget, we had 166 people weigh in
[2:34:03] already on what they thought the name should be. And
[2:34:07] that has been the most who have ever weighed in.
[2:34:10] So our staff told us. So we can expect we're
[2:34:13] going to hear from quite a number of people. So.
[2:34:18] If you feel my view would be if you feel
[2:34:20] your mind is open. Then you would support Councilor Dougherty's
[2:34:24] motion. But if your mind is closed. Let's not put
[2:34:28] our public through this and agonize over this again at
[2:34:31] council. And. I'm not going to support it. Thank you.
[2:34:36] This is your last goal. And I'm just going to
[2:34:40] do what you suggested is state that I won't. Support
[2:34:44] it for that reason. I thought it was doable in
[2:34:46] the near future, and since it's not. I'm supportive of
[2:34:51] dry dock junction and going forward, thank you. Anyone else
[2:34:56] before I let councilor Dougherty have the last word. Go
[2:35:00] ahead, councilor Dougherty. Thank you, mayor. My rationale is, I
[2:35:07] think, very simple. The name that council have put forward
[2:35:12] is not a name that the public. Chose with any
[2:35:17] frequency. So why not just offer two weeks of additional
[2:35:23] consultation? Maybe they'll like the ring of it, and they'll
[2:35:26] all come back and say it's a great name. My
[2:35:30] mind is open either way. But. I think that. If
[2:35:38] we're going to offer people the opportunity. To weigh in
[2:35:42] on things like this. Let's listen to them. This is
[2:35:47] what really. Is sort of bothering me about. The alternative
[2:35:52] name. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So we'll bring this
[2:35:55] to a vote. So we're voting on the amendment. To
[2:36:03] the name. Which. Is the amendment to the motion to
[2:36:08] change the name. Which is if we change the name.
[2:36:12] That we would go to the public with it for
[2:36:14] a 15 day period to solicit. Further advice. And a
[2:36:18] report back from the clerk. I think I've captured that.
[2:36:22] Yes. Okay. All those. In favor. It's one. And those
[2:36:26] opposed? So that fails. Thank you. Okay, now, the main
[2:36:32] motion is. To name the Nukewaterfront park at twelve side
[2:36:37] launch, way to be dry dock junction. And we had
[2:36:42] a mover in a seconder, so I'm just going to
[2:36:44] bring this to a vote. All those in favor? And
[2:36:48] opposed. Okay, that carries with one opposed. Okay, thank you,
[2:36:53] everybody. That was a thing. All right. No staff reports,
[2:36:59] but we do have two bylaws here. The first one,
[2:37:02] and I'm looking for a mover and a seconder. That
[2:37:07] we enact and pass bylaw 2025. 82, being a bylaw
[2:37:12] to provide for the 2026 interim tax levy could have
[2:37:15] a mover and a seconder. Councilor Jeffrey send seconded by
[2:37:19] councilor McCullough. Comment all those in favor? And that's approved.
[2:37:25] The second one is to enact and pass bylaw 20
[2:37:29] 25. 83 being a bylaw to authorize the execution of
[2:37:34] a development charge exemption agreement between the corporation of the
[2:37:38] town of Collingwood and Simata Properties, Inc. For the property,
[2:37:42] address is 4726. 6th street could have him move her
[2:37:45] in a second. Councilor Perry, seconded by Counselor Dougherty. Comments.
[2:37:54] Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I threw you. Could
[2:37:58] we turn to the Cao or. To director Valentine. Or
[2:38:03] maybe director Graham, I guess. Can they give us a
[2:38:08] little bit of background on this? Just to refamiliarize myself
[2:38:13] on it. Yeah, I think director Valentine is happy to
[2:38:16] speak. To this. Or not? Yes. Thank you, chair. I
[2:38:21] can certainly start and had director Graham can layer on
[2:38:25] on. Top, I did anticipate that council would want some
[2:38:28] additional context with respect to this bylaw so with the
[2:38:32] assistance of coordinator D'Souza, we came up with some remarks.
[2:38:36] As background. Earlier this year, the owner and developer of
[2:38:39] this particular property. Thought land use planning approvals to sever
[2:38:43] the property into two parcels, and then they moved. Forward
[2:38:46] with plans to build four dwelling units on each of
[2:38:49] the resultant lots. So that's eight rental units that are
[2:38:53] part of their project. This critical infill project was enabled
[2:38:58] through the council's proactive passing of the quick wins support
[2:39:03] for affordable housing zoning bylaw update and that does allow
[2:39:06] up to four units as of right on. Residential properties
[2:39:10] with appropriate servicing. This project. In staff's opinion, will contribute
[2:39:16] to increasing the supply of rental housing within the community.
[2:39:19] The developer's meta properties has decided on top of this
[2:39:22] to make two of the rental units. Affordable, as per
[2:39:25] the definition of affordable rentals under the Development Charges act,
[2:39:29] and that does align with the town's own goals of
[2:39:33] target for affordable rent. Rents to middle income houses. This
[2:39:38] allows the project to take advantage of the legislative exemptions
[2:39:41] for affordable housing units under the Development Charges act, meaning
[2:39:45] that no dcs would be levied against those two affordable
[2:39:48] units and they'd be required to be remained at an
[2:39:51] affordable rent for a minimum of 25 years. In accordance
[2:39:55] with the agreement, that would be execute. Executed with the
[2:39:58] town. These are the first two affordable units that have
[2:40:01] been eligible for the DC exemptions in Collingwood that we're
[2:40:04] aware of. We do continue to hear consistent messaging from
[2:40:08] the development community. That high costs, including development charges, are
[2:40:12] a barrier to building affordable housing and housing supply more
[2:40:16] generally. The exemption before you today does demonstrate that reductions
[2:40:21] or exemptions in dcs that were put in place by
[2:40:24] the province can make a difference in project performas and
[2:40:27] can unlock affordable housing. In Collingwood. However, we're also compelled
[2:40:32] to remind council that the province has not yet committed
[2:40:35] to making municipalities whole with respect to DC exemptions and
[2:40:38] reductions, and any loss of DC revenue would need to
[2:40:41] be made up by other funding sources. Nonetheless, this marks
[2:40:45] an important step in our affordable housing work. To date,
[2:40:49] as you will recall, we have secured voluntary contributions from
[2:40:53] developers of 34 affordable rental units. Within our community. And
[2:40:57] although that seems modest, when we look at the overall
[2:41:00] shortfall, it sees incremental steps that make a meaningful change
[2:41:04] in our community. I'm not sure. Treasure. Graham, if you
[2:41:07] wanted to add further comments to that, I'm. Seeing a
[2:41:09] shake of the heads, so we will leave it at
[2:41:11] that. Unless there is questions. Okay. Thank you for that
[2:41:14] explanation. This is a follow up, then, Mayor Hamlin. I
[2:41:18] want to highlight the efforts of staff in this regard.
[2:41:23] We put some, what is called quickwind solutions in place.
[2:41:28] And again, it highlights that the development community is working.
[2:41:32] But the efforts of staff. These are nuances to the
[2:41:36] regular way we do things. And they have to put
[2:41:39] the extra effort in to make this all work. And
[2:41:43] it's not just one department, it's many departments, so. It
[2:41:48] is a pioneer approach that we've introduced. And are having
[2:41:55] success with it. It doesn't matter how many units it
[2:41:57] are that's. Successful, so. I do really want to express
[2:42:02] appreciation to staff. And do that on behalf of my
[2:42:06] colleagues, Councilor Dougherty and councilor Ring, who sit on the
[2:42:09] affordable housing task force because it's certainly discussions that we
[2:42:13] have regularly. At that meeting. So again, thank you for
[2:42:18] the extra information. And again, thank you to staff for
[2:42:21] all their efforts. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other
[2:42:26] questions or comments about this bylaw? All those in favor?
[2:42:32] And that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is 11.3.
[2:42:39] Perhaps I'll just say there's no updates for 11.1 or
[2:42:43] 11.2 so 11.3 is we're going to hear from manager
[2:42:48] Leo. About Crenberry marsh water level monitoring update. Please come
[2:42:56] to the podium. Yeah, sorry. I'll get it eventually.
[2:43:06] Good afternoon. I'm just here to introduce project engineer Stuart
[2:43:10] west to give an operational update. On the cranberry marsh,
[2:43:14] and I'll just let everybody know that Ian Auckenden from
[2:43:16] the NVCA is also online to answer any questions afterwards.
[2:43:20] Okay, thank you.
[2:43:30] Thank you very much, Manager Leo. It is hard to
[2:43:32] pronounce. Sometimes I get it wrong. Good afternoon, members of
[2:43:38] council, Madam mayor and members of the public. Next slide,
[2:43:43] please. So just to provide a bit of background. Following
[2:43:51] the council meeting on April 8, council provided a resolution
[2:43:54] for staff to report back on remedial steps to take
[2:43:57] to lure and maintain the water level within the cranberry
[2:43:59] marsh. On November 4. Staff. Provided an operational update to
[2:44:04] council on some of the initial steps taken. To date
[2:44:07] during the investigation, which include. Incorporating the marsh within the
[2:44:11] stormwater. Master plan. A partnership with the NBCA on water
[2:44:16] level monitoring within the marsh for a full year. Our
[2:44:19] public works and parks departments also assisted by cleaning brush
[2:44:23] and debris from the cranberry trail. East outlet channel. Or
[2:44:27] creek, and removal of a beaver by a licensed trapper
[2:44:29] retained by the town. Next slide. Please. Monitoring within the
[2:44:33] mersh started in august 2024. Three monitoring wells were installed,
[2:44:42] one near the marsh outlet at Cranberry Trail east, one
[2:44:45] near the boardwalk viewing platform. And a third near the
[2:44:49] northwest corner of the marsh. Next slide, please. Signage was
[2:44:54] installed near the lookout along the boardwalk, allowing the public
[2:44:57] to learn more about the purpose of the water monitoring
[2:45:00] stations and to participate in the ongoing monitoring of the
[2:45:03] marsh. The NBCA received excellent participation from the public reporting
[2:45:07] that they received 70 stakeholders. Sorry. Pictures from Stephanie stakeholders
[2:45:15] that submitted photos and water levels for verification. March, April
[2:45:19] and may receive the highest level of engagement each month,
[2:45:23] receiving twelve submissions. Each month. Excuse me. Beaver activity was
[2:45:28] also noted several times by NBCA staff and the public.
[2:45:32] And the picture here near the lookout, is an image
[2:45:35] of a beaver lutch. Next slide, please. These are the
[2:45:40] results over the last year of data collection. For some
[2:45:46] reference. Then, just to help explain what it is, we're
[2:45:48] looking at the elevations. On the left of the screen
[2:45:51] are elevations in meters above sea level. The green, yellow
[2:45:55] and gray lines are the three monitoring sites that were
[2:45:59] indicated on the map. And the blue vertical lines at
[2:46:02] the bottom of the screen are the precipitation events that
[2:46:05] occurred during the year. You will note that major rainfall
[2:46:09] events at the beginning of April this year. Where 80
[2:46:13] mm fell over the course of approximately four days. And
[2:46:18] then, however, it was also an exceptionally dry July. July
[2:46:22] with only 20 total precipitation over the month, and that
[2:46:27] caused water levels to decrease further below fall levels. Next
[2:46:31] slide, please. Water within the marsh travels about half a
[2:46:36] kilometer from the west end of the marsh to the
[2:46:38] east end. So the outlet levels are approximately 1ft lower
[2:46:45] than the levels within the main body of the marsh.
[2:46:48] However, both the outlet and the main marsh show pretty
[2:46:51] consistent trends. In that it reaches its highest elevation in
[2:46:55] the springtime after the winter thaw and the lowest levels
[2:46:58] after the warmer and drier summer that we witnessed this
[2:47:01] year. Next slide, please. And just finally, some statistics of
[2:47:06] the data that was collected. If we ignore the outlet.
[2:47:13] The main body of the Marsh saw maximum elevation of
[2:47:15] 179.24. The average level was 178.9. And the minimum was
[2:47:21] 178.66 meters above sea level. This means that if you
[2:47:26] take the average level as typical. The seasonal variation to
[2:47:30] the highs and lows were approximately zero. Point. 35 meters
[2:47:33] or just over 1ft. Next slide, please. Hydrologic study was
[2:47:40] completed in 2007 as part of municipal and NBCA development
[2:47:45] related approvals. The previous modeling report used a low elevation
[2:47:51] in the marsh as 178.8 meters, which is right in
[2:47:56] between the average and minimum elevations recorded in the March
[2:47:58] this year, the spring 2025 high of 179.24 is just
[2:48:05] slightly greater than what would be modeled during an expected
[2:48:09] one. In ten. Year storm event. Anecdotally as well, the
[2:48:12] April storms that we witnessed this year were also, coincidentally,
[2:48:17] approximately a one in ten year storm event. These preliminary
[2:48:21] results do not indicate that water levels are substantially higher
[2:48:24] than they were previously. There are seasonal highs and lows
[2:48:27] that occur over any given year. But there is risk,
[2:48:31] though, to arbitrarily just lowering water levels within natural habitats
[2:48:36] and ecosystems such as the Mersh. Approvals to undertake. This
[2:48:40] level of effort would also involve other authorities, including but
[2:48:43] not limited to the Department of Fisheries Conservation Authority, the
[2:48:47] NVCA. And potentially the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.
[2:48:54] Regardless, staff have extended the water monitoring into 2026 to
[2:48:58] provide additional background study for a potential study in the
[2:49:02] teacher. Next slide, please. Regarding next steps. Staff expect that
[2:49:09] council will receive the stormwater master plan in early 2026.
[2:49:11] And within it. It will include capital improvement recommendations and
[2:49:17] future studies that the town could undertake for council endorsement.
[2:49:24] In 2026. Staff will also continue to partner with the
[2:49:26] NVCA to collect further water levels within the marsh, which
[2:49:29] will provide. Information. Related to future studies in 2027. A
[2:49:37] site specific range study could be initiated, at which point
[2:49:39] it would make sense to involve community. Stakeholders further. And
[2:49:44] to initiate the study and ensure collaboration between the various
[2:49:47] parties. Longer term actions would be identified within the study
[2:49:51] if mitigation is required. Next slide, please. And just in
[2:49:57] closing, Marshes and swamps are complicated ecosystems. They are great
[2:50:05] at acting like sponges to absorb groundwater, stormwater, and even
[2:50:09] some pollutants. I do have Ian Okaton on the zoom
[2:50:14] call. For any questions on the ecological impacts that may
[2:50:21] also occur by lowering the wetland. And he'd be able
[2:50:25] to provide. Any answers on questions from an ecological standpoint
[2:50:31] as well. Thank you very much. Next slide. Thank you
[2:50:35] very much. And we're here for any questions that might
[2:50:37] arise, okay? Well, thank you very much. For this work
[2:50:41] and for bringing this update to us. Questions from council.
[2:50:46] Councilor Baines. Go ahead. Thank you. Manager Wes through you
[2:50:51] or perhaps to Mr. Auckland. Is that the proper pronunciation?
[2:50:59] Of Auckenden, I believe, but I could be mispronouncing it
[2:51:01] as well. Who should know, as a board member of
[2:51:04] NVCA, Is something such as this. You being an engineer,
[2:51:10] is there any need for this to be peer? Reviewed.
[2:51:12] I mean, I believe everything I'm reading, but I always
[2:51:16] see that peer review. Is a necessary part of the
[2:51:19] process because. As an amateur, sort of surprised 20 years
[2:51:23] of development around the cranberry marsh, and you're seeing the
[2:51:26] water level. Is basically still the same now as it
[2:51:30] was 20 years ago. It's more or less. I don't
[2:51:34] have the benefit. Of being around 20 years ago. Absolutely.
[2:51:41] Well, I was around, but not necessarily in Collingwood. But
[2:51:46] just having said that. We're basing that again, preliminary conclusion.
[2:51:54] On the information that's in front of us. And unfortunately,
[2:51:56] right now, all the information that we have is this
[2:52:00] previous hydrologic study that was prepared in 2007, likely the
[2:52:04] background data collection. Was prepared in 2006. And now fast
[2:52:09] forward 20 years later. We have a year of water
[2:52:12] level monitoring that was done this year. So. The in
[2:52:18] between and. The water level fluctuations that may have occurred
[2:52:21] over the the previous 20 years certainly are difficult to
[2:52:25] know, with. Any real authority, I guess, above how that
[2:52:29] may have changed over 20 years. Great. And if I
[2:52:32] may a follow up. Then the residents who. Last year
[2:52:37] or the year before were complaining. A one of them
[2:52:40] has had for the last five years. Essentially a river
[2:52:43] running under. His condo basement, which he's complaining about. And
[2:52:48] secondly, another landowner. Right at the edge. There by Cranberry
[2:52:56] east, by the big culvert, who complains about flooding to
[2:52:59] their property line and indeed, into their basement at one
[2:53:02] point. So the response to them would be because I'm
[2:53:06] sure these people will ask me. No, the marsh is
[2:53:11] essentially okay as it is, and that no remedial action,
[2:53:15] I. E. Particularly lowering of the marsh water level. The
[2:53:20] mean marsh water level is required. At least it would
[2:53:23] seem to me that that's at this point, with this
[2:53:25] preliminary study, the takeaway am I correct in that? Go
[2:53:30] ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Through the chair. I may defer
[2:53:34] to manager Lee Al if she has any further thoughts
[2:53:36] on it. But preliminary, though. And this wouldn't necessarily be.
[2:53:42] A full engineering study that's been conducted so far. It's
[2:53:45] just monitoring of the year and then hear the results.
[2:53:49] So. There's really nothing that we're seeing with the results
[2:53:54] that have been provided. Saying that water levels are higher.
[2:54:00] And that groundwater elevations. If residents basements are getting wets
[2:54:06] or flooded, certainly. That is a common challenge, I guess,
[2:54:11] that many residents are facing as well. Based on the
[2:54:15] information that we have so far today, there's nothing. That.
[2:54:23] Is really screaming that there's a problem that needs to
[2:54:26] be addressed immediately, but certainly with the level of interest
[2:54:30] in the Martian and. What's been the interest and feedback
[2:54:34] that we've received over the years? Certainly. We do want
[2:54:38] to keep an eye on it. And look to studies
[2:54:41] in the future about that. Does that make sense? Okay.
[2:54:44] Also, director Alcok, I'd like to just weigh in for
[2:54:47] a second. Go. Ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin, through to
[2:54:51] you, through you to council. Ben Stewart had answered some
[2:54:56] of the questions that this is not a complete engineering
[2:54:59] study. We definitely need to collect more information to add
[2:55:02] to the database so the analysis would be more thorough.
[2:55:05] So that's going to continue. Over next year. As well
[2:55:08] as the perception by the residents. Maybe. Require more analysis
[2:55:17] to a site specific because the marsh may not be
[2:55:20] the cause of this flooding. It could participate. It could
[2:55:22] have, but in it. But it may not be a
[2:55:25] full cost, so. We don't have enough information to make
[2:55:27] this determination, so that might be another approach to see
[2:55:31] if there's a specific site that they need to look
[2:55:33] at. It for those locations. But our best analysis is
[2:55:38] that information. We're collecting hard data that we can analyze.
[2:55:43] And so far, since the march is acting properly, Thank
[2:55:49] you. And follow the science, please. Also. I'll just say
[2:55:52] the residents you're speaking about with concerns about water. At
[2:55:57] the time, we were doing, I'll say, an open house
[2:55:59] for our stormwater management. Study. I connected them with a
[2:56:04] consultant doing that, and I think they were going to
[2:56:07] go visit. The residents. Hopefully out of all of this,
[2:56:12] looking at the water in the area. We'll come up
[2:56:15] with something. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Councilor
[2:56:22] Dougherty. Thank you. First of all, I would really like
[2:56:29] to express. Gratitude for this study. It's the residents in
[2:56:34] the area have had. Deep concerns. For this entire term,
[2:56:41] and I'm so glad that. We have taken this initiative
[2:56:45] to respond. To their concerns so thoroughly. I am surprised.
[2:56:53] When. I see the evidence that had been provided previously
[2:56:59] by the residents of photos that they had taken. And
[2:57:02] whatnot. I am surprised. With this, the findings of this
[2:57:07] study, but I am very happy that we're going to
[2:57:10] pursue it for another year. And I'm also glad that
[2:57:14] is going to form part of our stormwater master plan
[2:57:18] because. We continue to have more developments with higher grades.
[2:57:24] That are all ultimately going to be draining into. This
[2:57:29] swamp. So it's important for us to understand. The dynamics
[2:57:36] and ensure that our residents. Are safe and high and
[2:57:43] dry. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:57:50] See you. Thank you. I just wanted to add through
[2:57:57] the chair one comment around. Approving development applications. And I
[2:58:05] think that a lot of folks. Are not aware of
[2:58:09] some of the requirements that we have when a new
[2:58:13] subdivision, for example, is approved when that report comes to
[2:58:17] council and. The items that have been. Provided comment upon.
[2:58:23] By the public like you've seen today with one of
[2:58:25] the developments. What happens is that we have rules. For
[2:58:31] the stormwater and for Collingwood. One of the rules is
[2:58:34] that the flows shall not exceed. The Max flow prior
[2:58:37] to development. So there's different ways to look at how
[2:58:41] those flows. You can also look at the max amount.
[2:58:43] You can look at the max flow, but our requirement
[2:58:45] right now is the max flow. Shall not exceed. So
[2:58:48] I think that. I'm not positive exactly. When that rule
[2:58:52] came into effect, or if it was before all of
[2:58:55] the development around this particular marsh. But one thing I
[2:58:59] would say is that the newer developments, and potentially all
[2:59:01] but most likely all the newer developments. Would be required
[2:59:06] to mitigate the flows and how fast those flows would
[2:59:09] go into something like a receiving body of water. Or
[2:59:13] out into the bay. So I don't want to absolve
[2:59:16] us of having to do more study and. You'll see
[2:59:19] here that there's a strong recommendation that we continue with
[2:59:22] this work. And in fact, enhance it, as all the
[2:59:24] technical folks have just told you. That said, each development
[2:59:29] is monitored as it's approved to make sure that. The
[2:59:35] overall. Drainage ecosystem in Collingwood continues to work. And I
[2:59:39] just wanted to add that piece mostly for the people
[2:59:42] who are hopefully still listening online to know that there's
[2:59:45] a lot of thought as each development proceeds forward. Okay.
[2:59:50] Thank you. Any other questions? I think you're good. Thanks
[2:59:59] so much. Thank you very much. Item twelve is our
[3:00:05] consent agenda. And the recommendation before us is that we
[3:00:14] receive the general consent agenda and note that the information
[3:00:19] and opinions provided in the general consent agenda. Items are
[3:00:22] those of the authors and are not verified or approved
[3:00:25] as being correct. And there's two items. The first is
[3:00:29] Bradford west. Oh, that's. The one. We're deferring the west
[3:00:33] or you're withdrawing that I'm going. To read them in.
[3:00:35] Sorry, my head's going in a different direction here, so
[3:00:38] there's. Two items. The first one is Bradford West Williambury
[3:00:41] resolution re removing HStg GST. From new homes to support
[3:00:47] housing affordability, and the second one is Clearview Township. Resolution
[3:00:52] reupposing the use of agricultural lands for national defense. Aothr
[3:00:59] receive site. So could I get a mover in a
[3:01:02] second or please to receive. These? Councilor Dougherty, segmented by
[3:01:06] councilor Baines. All those in favor? Unanimous. Would anyone like
[3:01:11] to pull the steppie? Mayor in regards to 12.2 if
[3:01:15] I could. Mary Hammond clearviews letter. I'd like to submit
[3:01:19] the council that I will be putting a notice of
[3:01:21] motion forward. Later, and I will ask for waiving because.
[3:01:27] I think it can be handled today. And it's simply
[3:01:30] to request clerk services to issue a letter of support.
[3:01:34] On council's behalf to the minister in same contacts that
[3:01:36] Clearview's letter does. A major reason for the request is
[3:01:41] to support our immediate neighbor for their consideration. Of the
[3:01:45] concerns that are identified in their correspondence. It stands out
[3:01:49] that one of the key goals of the Department of
[3:01:51] Defense is to locate required protection projects such as the.
[3:01:57] Deputy mayor. Would you like to just introduce that now
[3:01:58] while you're speaking to them? Okay? Yeah. And again, a
[3:02:04] goal of the defense, Department of Defense is to locate.
[3:02:08] Required protection projects such as the article over the horizon
[3:02:12] receiving station within remote areas as much as possible. Clearview
[3:02:16] maintains, and I would support that. The current proposed location
[3:02:20] is not remote. And. Requests the federal government to. Continue
[3:02:26] or consider. In alternative sightings, such as on land within
[3:02:29] the nearby base, Borden. So it is in support of
[3:02:33] a neighbor, and it is a contentious issue that has
[3:02:37] become between the community and the federal government. So I
[3:02:41] would like to put on the floor then, now. A
[3:02:45] request to ask clerk services. To submitted a letter of
[3:02:50] support on council's behalf to the minister in the same
[3:02:53] context. And look to see if I have a seconder.
[3:02:59] Of course. Yeah. Are you bringing a motion to waive?
[3:03:05] Would you like to speak to that? We should get
[3:03:07] a mover in a seconder, so. You're moving that. And
[3:03:10] councilor Jeffrey will second that. So would you like to
[3:03:12] speak? To first, my comments have been made. Mayor Hamlet.
[3:03:15] Thank you. Thank you. Maybe I'll just ask if you
[3:03:19] have any thought of urgency about this. Or what your
[3:03:24] reasoning was. I had a conversation with mayor measures about
[3:03:28] it, and as you note, we weren't originally copied with
[3:03:33] their September 23 circulation. He thought that was a missed
[3:03:39] step on their part. So I said that. We would
[3:03:44] be considering it at this meeting coming up. So the
[3:03:48] only urgency is that. It probably would have been done
[3:03:52] sooner if we've been circulated, but. Whatever council wants. In
[3:03:57] that regard, I'm fine with. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone
[3:04:00] else like. To speak to the. Yes, Councilor Doherty. Thank
[3:04:06] you, mayor. First, I just like clarification. Are you going
[3:04:11] to be asking? For waiving notice or are you just
[3:04:16] going to put. Yeah, that's what's. On the floor right
[3:04:19] now. Okay. I can't support a waiving of notice when
[3:04:24] I don't even understand. The implications of approving or not.
[3:04:30] Approving. These radar sites, so I would not be prepared
[3:04:35] to vote for sure. Without getting some feedback from staff.
[3:04:41] Okay. Thank you, Councilor Baines. Thank you. On that actual
[3:04:45] point. I would love to hear back from the federal
[3:04:48] government as to. Why you couldn't put this on baseboarding,
[3:04:52] but presumably they have a response to that. But I
[3:04:55] like Councilor Dougherty. Sort of feel in the dark about.
[3:04:59] Blindly approving this as much as I might be in
[3:05:01] support of it, but I'd like to hear from somebody
[3:05:04] in the federal government as to why it couldn't be
[3:05:06] on baseboard. Or it has to be on this 4000
[3:05:09] acres that they want. Thank you. Okay. So I guess
[3:05:15] the question. So I might need the clerk almost to
[3:05:18] help me with this. We have a motion. To. Waive
[3:05:24] notice, but we also have a request I'm hearing, to
[3:05:28] refer this to staff. For a report. So how do
[3:05:33] you suggest we deal with this order?
[3:05:43] so for clarification if the motion to waive notice doesn't
[3:05:47] pass then it becomes A notice of motion, and the
[3:05:49] motion will appear on the December 15 meeting. However, if
[3:05:54] there's additional information that's being requested. Will require. Direction. To
[3:06:02] gather that additional information. Okay. Thank you. That's very good
[3:06:04] advice. Okay. Anyone else like. To speak to. The waiving
[3:06:09] of notice. Okay, so. We can. New spoke, and everyone's
[3:06:15] done. Okay, so all those in favor of waiving notice?
[3:06:19] 123456. Okay. And a post. One, two, three. So. Notice
[3:06:28] is waived. And then we have the motion now in
[3:06:31] front of us. Did you like to speak first or
[3:06:37] last? I haven't spoken, but I won't speak last in
[3:06:42] case there's any. Clarification that's needed, but thank you. All
[3:06:46] right. Would anyone like to speak to. This motion. Councilor
[3:06:50] Dort. Thank you. I'm just very surprised. That we would
[3:06:57] be considering. Supporting this motion without. Any background information. Particularly
[3:07:06] from federal government. And Department of National Defense, so. In
[3:07:13] my views, actually irresponsible for us to support this. Without
[3:07:17] that information, I will. Adamantly not support it. Hey. Thank
[3:07:22] you, Councilor Paynes. Councilor Doherty said it all, so I
[3:07:26] agree. Thank you. Anyone else? I'm sorry. I have spoken.
[3:07:36] Okay. To me, this is a really hard one, because
[3:07:39] if we're good neighbors, this is a good neighbor motion,
[3:07:43] right? Please be a good neighbor to me and support
[3:07:45] me. But we don't have any information other than wanting
[3:07:50] to be a good neighbor. I can tell you what
[3:07:53] I know, and you probably read the same things I
[3:07:55] do. This. Is sort of south and east of Stainer.
[3:08:02] Part of Clearview. There's many acres that are involved. There's
[3:08:08] going to be a lot of antennas. Set up. It's
[3:08:12] going to be one receiving site in Clearview that will
[3:08:15] have a companion site. I think it's in the corpus
[3:08:20] and between them they'll be able to identify. I'll say.
[3:08:25] Foreign objects in the Arctic. It's about our security in
[3:08:29] the Arctic. And Department of National Defense has said these
[3:08:33] are two good places that between them they can identify
[3:08:37] things in the Arctic. It will take. A lot of
[3:08:42] agricultural land out of production, and I think this is
[3:08:46] the basis of the concerns that Clearview has that they
[3:08:51] don't want that. I know that. I think it was.
[3:08:54] Spring water has done a good neighbor. Kind of motion
[3:08:57] and support. And that's about all I know. That's helpful,
[3:09:02] Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So I didn't feel
[3:09:06] completely in the dark. I felt on page two of
[3:09:09] two, they did explain the rationale in terms of the
[3:09:12] agricultural land being taken out of. Taken out of inventory,
[3:09:16] and I don't. Know how successful they will be with
[3:09:20] the appeal, given the technology that's requ? Required and the
[3:09:23] identification of the locations, but. I'm quite prepared. To support
[3:09:28] them in their quest to maybe push for the consideration
[3:09:31] of somewhere not chewing up agricultural land. Okay. Thank you.
[3:09:36] Would anyone else like to speak to this? Okay, so.
[3:09:41] Yes, go ahead. I will just say. That I don't
[3:09:45] think we're being irresponsible. I think that's. A little harsh
[3:09:49] of a term to be putting out there. It's simply,
[3:09:53] in my case, supporting our neighbor on the basis of
[3:09:58] don't use. Agricultural land. Plain, simple, right? Let's not complicate
[3:10:03] the issue there. They're saying? My understanding of it is
[3:10:08] that the receiving station will be temporary in nature, so
[3:10:12] to speak. It's not a 300 year thing. I think
[3:10:16] it's a 30 year thing, but. Once it leaves. The
[3:10:21] land is no longer usable for some period of time.
[3:10:25] As I said. I wasn't trying to complicate it. Claireview
[3:10:30] is the one who has to go through the hoops
[3:10:32] and the understanding this is simply just to support our
[3:10:35] neighbor. Thank you. Okay, well, with that said. All those
[3:10:40] in favor of the resolution put forward. 123-4567 and those
[3:10:48] opposed? That's two opposed. Okay, thank you. That passes. County
[3:10:54] report. Deputy Mayor Mayor Hallen I'm going to start out
[3:10:57] with. Saying on behalf of calling with council our condolences
[3:11:03] to the family of the simple county. Employee who was
[3:11:07] tragically killed today. At the Oral Madante landfill site. It
[3:11:13] sounds like a very unfortunate accident amongst. About coworkers are
[3:11:18] certainly the contractors who work very closely with the family
[3:11:22] of employees there. So. I'm saddened to hear of that
[3:11:27] tragic occurrence. I also wanted to inform council that the
[3:11:33] province introduced legislation last week. That they expect will be
[3:11:38] passed and it'll go for January 1 transition for the
[3:11:42] transfer. Of over 4000 acres to Barry from Springwater and
[3:11:46] Ora Madante. It impacts the county as well. It is
[3:11:50] being done on the basis of Barry has the capacity
[3:11:54] to service additional land, but not enough developable land. The
[3:11:59] townships lack the ability to do both. It is further
[3:12:04] contended that it will unlock new homes and therefore major
[3:12:09] economic investment continuing. And align with the key transportation infrastructure
[3:12:15] projects, notably Barry Go and the Bradford bypass for the
[3:12:20] province. And likely simple county transit implications as well. Issues
[3:12:26] such as financial compensation from Barry are still being discussed,
[3:12:30] and Minister Flack will regulate the transition in that regard.
[3:12:35] Until those terms are decided. It's difficult to fully report
[3:12:39] to council about the impacts on Simcoe. There has been
[3:12:43] terms put forward by simple county regarding other areas of
[3:12:46] the county. In regards to development of other areas of
[3:12:50] the county that could influence the outcome as well. So
[3:12:54] hopefully those will get accepted and provide the compensation that
[3:12:58] we've requested. And the last item? I'll update on. And
[3:13:03] unfortunately, no. Changes January 1. Recycling switches, so people need
[3:13:09] to be expecting to see two trucks. Don't take your
[3:13:13] one empty and one not empty. Bins back into your
[3:13:19] house. Make sure that both trucks are circulated. And again,
[3:13:26] no. Industrial. Small industrial, commercial or institutional. And I know
[3:13:34] staff, simply staff, are still working on trying to figure
[3:13:37] out if there's a way to continue some of the
[3:13:41] recycling services that we were doing over and above what.
[3:13:46] The government regulated us to. But unfortunately. I can't give
[3:13:51] you any more news than that. It's the same as
[3:13:54] what? You've heard before, but I'll repeat it again on
[3:13:56] the 15th because I am concerned about January 1 going
[3:14:01] forward, that people aren't going to realize the change. Is
[3:14:05] that the end of your report? Thank you, Councilor Dougherty.
[3:14:11] Thank you. We'll just say that. This is a matter
[3:14:16] of deep concern also for Amel and. They are working.
[3:14:23] Very closely with the ministry. Trying to find some resolution
[3:14:29] before January 1, because there's no question that this is
[3:14:33] going to have a myriad of. Negative fallout. So just
[3:14:39] stay tuned because it is. A very important pursuit right
[3:14:43] now. Speaking of the ways the change in recycling. Okay,
[3:14:47] thank you. So many things happening January 1. Yes, councilor
[3:14:51] Potts. Thanks, Mayor Hammond. Through you to W. Mer Fryer.
[3:14:56] So it's. My understanding now, when this happens for any
[3:14:59] of these facilities that want to take the recycling to
[3:15:01] the landfill. There's a charge for commercial and businesses to
[3:15:06] take it, but if you're residential, there's no charge. If
[3:15:11] you just clarify that, and I have a follow up.
[3:15:15] The responsibility of. The producer's responsibility as of January 1
[3:15:20] is to provide service. To residents who were using recycling
[3:15:27] depots that the county had. Because they didn't have curbside
[3:15:32] pickup. So it is their responsibility, the producer, to make
[3:15:38] sure that. Services made available free of charge. County has
[3:15:44] been trying to work out a way to do that
[3:15:46] and still maintain locations like the Collingwood. For the Collingwood
[3:15:49] residents. There's nothing in the regulation, though, that says that
[3:15:54] circular materials can't say that. Okay, well, you can deliver
[3:15:57] them to Barry, which would make it completely impossible to
[3:16:03] continue service in. All likelihood. So county is trying to
[3:16:08] work on that. They're still, unfortunately, negotiating with circular materials
[3:16:13] in that regard, but they're trying to make that available.
[3:16:17] For the ici. That we're getting service. Unfortunately, the producer
[3:16:24] does not have responsibility in that regard. I think it'll
[3:16:28] become clearer the time January 1 comes because, as the
[3:16:32] deputy mayor says, these are really important details, the questions
[3:16:35] you're asking, and I don't think they're quite shortage yet.
[3:16:39] Yeah, and just to follow up, but guess where I'm
[3:16:41] going? With this is until we really know what's going
[3:16:44] on. Does the county have any kind of internal solution?
[3:16:51] For the user to be able to drop stuff off.
[3:16:55] At no charge. Because when I go out to the
[3:16:57] sites, there's signs that say there's no charge. And when
[3:17:00] you hear there is charges. Understand. Nobody really knows. Are
[3:17:05] they willing to work with the transition, to work with
[3:17:09] the residents and business owners. I'm sort of wondering if
[3:17:13] we shouldn't ask if this is a matter for. Our
[3:17:15] staff, but we need a bit of a. Maybe I'm
[3:17:18] too right, but we need. A bit of a cheat
[3:17:21] sheet on exactly how this is going to work because
[3:17:25] we get hundreds of pages of reports at the county.
[3:17:29] But. Yes. Executive Director Peg, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor
[3:17:33] Hamlin through you twelve council so the county has been
[3:17:36] hosting information sessions. And a number of staff were able
[3:17:40] to attend those. They're also providing us with information. Pamphlets
[3:17:44] that we're looking to distribute locally throughout Collingwood, but happy
[3:17:49] to report back whether that's through our weekly operational update
[3:17:52] or at a council meeting on the plans that the
[3:17:55] county has for the rollout because we too are hearing
[3:17:58] some discrepan. Discrepancies in terms of fees, no fees. And
[3:18:02] we'd be happy to get that clarity and provide it
[3:18:04] with council. Okay. I think staff of the county know
[3:18:09] they've got, well now, 30 days to clarify this. In
[3:18:13] some fashion, and I don't know if it's an issue
[3:18:15] across the province. Or if it's just county of Simcoe,
[3:18:18] but it's not totally sorted, right? And again, I appreciate
[3:18:23] that. And I'll speak just from the downtown businesses in
[3:18:27] Collingwood. If I was a business, right. Now. What do
[3:18:30] I do on January 1? The problem is going to
[3:18:33] be there. We all know it's going to be there,
[3:18:35] but. In the meantime, what do they do? So if
[3:18:38] there's any kind of clarification. I think before it escalates
[3:18:41] on January 1 on the main street, I call you
[3:18:44] with eight foot snowbanks. I think it would be nice
[3:18:47] to know what do the businesses do? So, executive director,
[3:18:51] do you think you could report back? At our next
[3:18:54] council meeting on the 15th. On whatever the county can
[3:19:00] tell us, the county staff could tell us, as at
[3:19:02] that date. Yeah. Great. Thank you, mayor. I saw co
[3:19:06] skitter mover card turned over to our Cao. Yes, go
[3:19:09] ahead. Thank you. I have no concerns with us reporting
[3:19:14] back and to asking the county staff what the situation
[3:19:17] is. I think if there's items that might require county
[3:19:21] action that we might even want to have the county
[3:19:23] folks here or perhaps online to answer questions, if that
[3:19:26] could be arranged. Okay by that? I mean, the staff
[3:19:29] side. Yeah, that'd be awesome. Thank you. Deputy mayor. The
[3:19:35] reality is, though, The county is letting the public know
[3:19:41] that. There's fees for anybody bringing recycling as of January
[3:19:45] 1. The only thing that can happen different than that
[3:19:49] is it gets better. But right now that's the situation
[3:19:53] because. There's no change. It's producer responsibility. And the county
[3:19:58] does not have the responsibility. So they're advertising right now.
[3:20:02] That recycling will have a fee if you bring it
[3:20:05] to the fish. Hopefully something gets worked out. And permits
[3:20:09] get issued to those people who are using. It. Up
[3:20:14] now because they didn't have curbside serious and it wasn't
[3:20:16] being picked. Up by the county. And in regards to
[3:20:21] the ICi, It's being said that it ends on January
[3:20:26] 1. I hope that there's changes, but what they're saying
[3:20:31] right now. Is. What they're anticipating is going to happen.
[3:20:39] Go ahead, just quick. One of the big reasons I
[3:20:43] see this is I can see this adding large pressure
[3:20:46] on our public works operations, especially for garbage and recycling
[3:20:50] pickup on the mini street, too. So I think. It's
[3:20:54] going to be completely insane. And just knowing. What we
[3:20:58] deal with down here on the main street to begin
[3:21:00] with. It's certainly not going to be pretty. And I
[3:21:03] know it's out of our control. But January 1 has
[3:21:06] to be probably the worst date to start it, if
[3:21:09] anything. I can't advocate anymore, but the businesses just need
[3:21:13] to know what to do. I think that's what we're
[3:21:18] trying to do with getting staff to come back. To
[3:21:21] us. Because even though we can say it's not our
[3:21:24] responsibility, you know who's going? To be blamed. Right. So
[3:21:27] we want to make sure that. We're notifying the public
[3:21:30] of what it's going to be and that's. Your point?
[3:21:33] I'm trying to say the same thing right. We need
[3:21:37] to communicate it to the public. And again why they
[3:21:40] choose January 1 beyond me. Thank you. And even in
[3:21:46] a bit of a broader context, and this might be
[3:21:48] a set of questions I would be asking of the
[3:21:50] county staff. There's a provincial paradigm where the province has
[3:21:54] put in some new rules, including. Regulations related to. Suppliers
[3:22:02] taking accountability for more of recycling. But I don't understand
[3:22:07] myself why some of the recycling services that are not
[3:22:11] taken over. Wouldn't continue to live with the entities that
[3:22:14] have run them in the past. In this case, it
[3:22:17] could be the county. Or if there's provincial rules that
[3:22:20] require that they not be offered moving forward somehow. What?
[3:22:24] The basket of services. That arrived at the front door
[3:22:28] of residents and businesses in our town. Has been adjusted
[3:22:31] through. A trigger. That was a regulation. But it doesn't
[3:22:36] seem that that regulation would require the service at the
[3:22:39] front lines be changed, and I know that. I'm putting
[3:22:43] maybe a difficult task in front of county folks. So
[3:22:48] I would like to ask them a bit more about
[3:22:49] that at the staff level as well. Yeah, I think
[3:22:52] what I've heard. Is that? The county was getting. I'm
[3:22:58] going to call it a subsidy. From the province for
[3:23:02] the recycling. Every year, and I think it was $400,000
[3:23:06] of memory serves. And under this new system. They don't
[3:23:11] get any of it, any of that subsidy, because it's
[3:23:14] all now. To be collected by the producers. So if
[3:23:18] they continued offering a service because this, to me, was
[3:23:22] logical. You always been picking. What? We'd have to raise
[3:23:27] the taxes at the county to continue offering the same
[3:23:30] level of service. That was before. All the responsibility. Although
[3:23:36] it's not all the responsibility. Was given to the producers,
[3:23:40] so. I think that's where I understand it is, but
[3:23:44] you'll find it more about it. And that would be?
[3:23:47] Maybe we could all be writing the province. Municipalities to
[3:23:51] make some suggestions. Okay, let's bring this to a close.
[3:23:53] We have a lot to do if you have one
[3:23:55] quick more thing, just a continuation, because you're totally correct.
[3:24:00] What was identified in the staff report to us is
[3:24:02] the net impact on the county is $4.2 million going
[3:24:05] forward. So they didn't have an awful lot of room
[3:24:10] to look at continuing things that they didn't have a
[3:24:14] responsibility for. And I just wanted to add that to
[3:24:18] your comments. Okay. Thank you. All right. The next is.
[3:24:28] Motions. And we have two motions. The first one is
[3:24:32] mine, so I'll turn the chair. Over to deputy mayor.
[3:24:36] Thank you, Mayor Hammond. So we'll have you read in
[3:24:39] the motion. And look for a seconder, and then you
[3:24:43] can indicate. If you'd like to speak first or last.
[3:24:47] Okay. And I'm going to ask. Clerk almonds to put
[3:24:50] the motion up. There's been some relatively minor changes. Since
[3:24:55] it was put in the agenda, so he'll just read
[3:24:57] away. Is this okay? Protection. Whereas the town of Collingwood's
[3:25:05] community based strategic plan, that's 2024 to 2028. Commits to
[3:25:11] fostering a safe, connected and inclusive community that promotes well
[3:25:15] being, belonging and respect for all residents and visitors. And
[3:25:19] whereas recent protests near school properties have raised concerns regarding
[3:25:24] the safety, security and well being of students, staff and
[3:25:27] families and have the potential. To disrupt educational environments and
[3:25:33] community harmony. And whereas the strategic plan emphasizes the pillars
[3:25:38] of connected. Fostering, well being and belonging, responsible. Service, excellence
[3:25:43] and collaboration, and vibrant creating spaces that support positive community
[3:25:49] engagement. And whereas the town recognizes that the Canadian Charter
[3:25:53] of rights and freedoms guarantees everyone the right to freedom
[3:25:57] of expression, peaceful assembly. And association. And affirms that it
[3:26:02] is not intending to prohibit peaceful gatherings, protests or demonstrations,
[3:26:07] including those related to labor strikes, but rather to restrict
[3:26:11] nuisance demonstrations. And whereas section 128 of the Municipal Act
[3:26:16] 2001 authorizes municipalities to prohibit and regulate public nuisances including
[3:26:24] activities that in the opinion of council, are or could
[3:26:28] become or cause public nuisances. And whereas the town is
[3:26:32] committed to protecting vulnerable students, We're speaking about junior kindergarten
[3:26:37] to grade twelve. From nuisance demonstrations that compromise safety, disrupt
[3:26:42] the ability to learn and negatively impact the well being
[3:26:46] of student, staff, and families. Therefore, be resolved that council
[3:26:50] directs staff to prepare a bylaw. To prepare a draft
[3:26:53] bylaw. Or bylaw amendment to prohibit or regulate nuisance protests
[3:26:59] within a defined buffer zone around schools. In the town
[3:27:02] of Collingwood. With consideration for these items, a clear definition
[3:27:08] of nuisance protest. For example, protests that obstruct access creates
[3:27:14] safety risks or to cause significant disruption to school operations.
[3:27:19] Reasonable distance parameters for restricted zones, exemptions for peaceful lawful
[3:27:25] assemblies that do not interfere with school safety or operations.
[3:27:30] Enforcement provisions in collaboration with COP and lastly, compliance with
[3:27:35] charter rights and relevant legal standards. And further that staff
[3:27:39] consult with legal counsel Collingwood, OPP, and local public stakeholders.
[3:27:44] Public school stakeholders to ensure the proposed bylaw is enforceable,
[3:27:48] balanced and aligned with the town's values. Vision and strategic
[3:27:53] priorities and further that council request a staff report to
[3:27:57] be prepared to. Consider if there are other location types
[3:28:01] in our community that should be reviewed for additional protest
[3:28:05] related protection. Do we have a secondary? Councilor Perry. So,
[3:28:11] Mayor Hamlin, you'll speak first? I'll speak first. Yeah. Thank
[3:28:14] you. We all know we've had protesters in front of
[3:28:19] town hall for a long time, and the first deputy
[3:28:22] today spoke to those protests as a reason. She almost
[3:28:30] was suggesting, I think, that my motion was a back
[3:28:32] doorway of stopping the protests in front of town hall.
[3:28:37] But that's, in fact, not the case. My motion is
[3:28:42] specifically directed. To a vulnerable section of our community, children.
[3:28:49] For sure and I can't emphasize enough. That Collingwood. Clearly.
[3:28:57] Accepts the idea of. Democratic ability. To legally and peacefully
[3:29:04] protest. Nobody is at all speaking about that. Certainly not
[3:29:09] me. but i have heard so much and perhaps you
[3:29:15] have as well About these targeted attacks that end up
[3:29:19] affecting our children. I know that. Some of the kids
[3:29:25] at CCI have had things happen to their lockers who.
[3:29:32] Are of a jewish religion. I know. Things are scratched
[3:29:35] on sidewalks, in front of their homes. And. This latest.
[3:29:41] Effort of the protesters was because. A bus that was
[3:29:47] going from school to school. Primarily with the job of
[3:29:51] explaining what the Holocaust was. Caused them to run out.
[3:29:57] And. Protest this as well. What people are protesting about
[3:30:01] doesn't really matter. Lots of people are going to protest
[3:30:07] if they don't like the war. It's fine. In the
[3:30:11] Middle east, there's no end of wars to say we
[3:30:13] don't support. I can think of about ten right now.
[3:30:18] And. They're certainly entitled to be protesting that these wars
[3:30:22] are going on. But I feel that. The safety and
[3:30:27] security of our kids and how they feel intimidated. And
[3:30:32] the fact that people show up. To protest outside their
[3:30:36] school, who, by all accounts, and this was one of
[3:30:38] the slides that was. Pulled today. With swearing and so
[3:30:42] on going on. It not only intimidates the kids in
[3:30:46] the school, but I worry that it gives a license
[3:30:50] to those who are otherwise bullying to feel like, well,
[3:30:54] this must be okay if there's. Some adults out there
[3:30:56] who. think that this is a great thing to do
[3:31:01] So. I'm trying to straddle that line between. Not limiting
[3:31:07] anyone's right to protest, but making sure that the protests
[3:31:11] aren't in locations that cause harm, jeopardize safety, or target
[3:31:15] our kids. So that's the nature of my motion. Now,
[3:31:21] I did add on. The further request to staff report
[3:31:25] if there's other locations that should be reviewed. Because I
[3:31:30] have had, and again, perhaps you've had people reach out
[3:31:33] to you saying, well, Why just the schools? What about.
[3:31:38] This kind of. Sensitive infrastructure, whether it's a hospital, a
[3:31:41] daycare, Whatever. There's a whole list. I've certainly had sent
[3:31:46] to me. So I haven't really got any opinions about
[3:31:50] that, but. I thought I would add on to the
[3:31:53] motion. For staff to report back to us. I so
[3:31:58] recognize that some communities have taken. A very big approach
[3:32:02] to this. VAUGHN in June, I think, did bubbles around
[3:32:06] all kinds of what they call sensitive public infrastructure. But
[3:32:10] my motion today is primarily to protect our kids, and
[3:32:15] with a side motion or a second. Part of the
[3:32:18] motion. That staff review and provide any advice they can
[3:32:22] give us on whether we need to think about this
[3:32:24] further. Thank you. Thanks. Debut mer Fryer. And. On the
[3:32:32] last part. Of your motion, Mayor Hamlin, when it talks
[3:32:35] with the other community spaces I received, which I believe
[3:32:38] you have to. Some correspondence from the bia. And maybe
[3:32:41] not so much directly from the BIA to you, but
[3:32:44] members of the BIA. And there was some incidents over
[3:32:47] the weekend that involved Santa. And I think in a
[3:32:51] case like this looking at understanding free speech, understanding out
[3:32:55] there that. I look at. The young kids that are
[3:33:00] on Santa's knee talking about what they want for Christmas.
[3:33:03] Really? Should not be involved in anything along these kinds
[3:33:06] of behaviors. And then to be harassing Santa on the
[3:33:10] main street of Collingwood, I think is out of line
[3:33:13] and. Not right. The one question I do have, and
[3:33:18] we can create bylaws and stuff, but. The enforcement piece
[3:33:22] of it. I haven't seen personally, but I've heard firsthand
[3:33:27] that these kind of options have had our own staff
[3:33:30] in tears. When speaking with members of the OBP at
[3:33:34] flagrazings to see if they were aware. And it doesn't
[3:33:39] seem to be enforced. Where does the enforcement piece come
[3:33:43] into this? And an understanding. I believe the police might
[3:33:46] have been. Present at the school. Are they actually going
[3:33:51] to step up and enforce it? Because. Or is this
[3:33:55] just time of hot air? So that's my question. I've
[3:33:59] had a few discussions with our detachment commander over the
[3:34:03] last year or so. About. These protests. What I think
[3:34:11] their job is to enforce the criminal law. And there's
[3:34:16] a really narrow definition of hate in the criminal code
[3:34:19] right now. As I understand it. The officers haven't seen.
[3:34:28] Any. Breaking of that law. But I think the motion
[3:34:34] here, part of it. Is going to be addressing enforcement.
[3:34:37] How will that be addressed? And I'm looking forward to.
[3:34:42] We'll have a further discussion on that as far as
[3:34:44] I'm concerned. Yeah, just a quick follow up. Absolutely. And
[3:34:47] again. I've had the opportunity to speak with my two
[3:34:51] kids who both attend CCI. And they were aware of.
[3:34:59] The bus and being there, however, didn't really know what
[3:35:02] it was all about. They hadn't been aware of any
[3:35:07] hostile environment. But at the same time, Talking to friends
[3:35:11] since there is a little bit of animosity in angst
[3:35:15] and anxiety. That goes along with it. So given the
[3:35:18] fact of the school areas and then obviously with what's
[3:35:21] happened downtown. I know for myself. Just attending the farmers
[3:35:26] market, just walking across the street. I've been approached in
[3:35:28] a very hostile manner. And again, speak all you want
[3:35:32] on what you believe in, but certainly the options I
[3:35:35] wouldn't. Support. Thanks. To deputy mayor. So
[3:35:45] understanding. The challenges in terms of enforcement and or. What
[3:35:52] as a municipality we can put in place. I think
[3:35:56] what I'd be asking is that the. Mayor's motion in
[3:36:00] its entirety. Go to legal before we go to all
[3:36:03] the other avenues. That we get legal advice on. Exactly
[3:36:09] what it is that we can do. We've been through
[3:36:13] this process before and other things. And I think it'd
[3:36:17] be really critically important to start out. I mean, you've
[3:36:20] put it as part, but I think you should just
[3:36:22] start with the whole thing right up front. And then
[3:36:24] we move to the other pieces, and I think that.
[3:36:28] That would satisfy a lot of our questions before we
[3:36:30] got into the details of where, how many places and
[3:36:34] those kind of questions, so. That would be maybe a
[3:36:38] referral back to staff to run our existing bylaw. Your
[3:36:41] motion. And everything through legal first, and then we can
[3:36:45] have an understanding of what exactly. We can do. Yeah.
[3:36:51] I thought that's, in fact, what would happen. The second
[3:36:54] part is that staff consult with legal counsel Collingwood Opp.
[3:37:01] Local public school stakeholders to ensure the proposed bylaw is
[3:37:04] enforceable, balanced and aligned with town's values. Vision and strategic
[3:37:09] priorities, but perhaps through. You chair. Could we ask the
[3:37:14] clerk if that's also her intention? We'll get clerk on
[3:37:18] us first, and then I'll come back to you. I
[3:37:21] don't think we should be putting through staff trying to
[3:37:24] draft something until we have a clear understanding from legal
[3:37:27] where we can go in terms of the drafting or
[3:37:29] if. There is. A shorter way to address, per one
[3:37:37] of the deputies requests through our existing bylaw, But. I
[3:37:42] don't want staff to go through a lot of work
[3:37:44] until we have a clear understanding from legal. We'll have
[3:37:48] the clerk respond, and then I'll look to you to
[3:37:50] see if you are looking to put an amendment on
[3:37:52] for. Thank you. Through the deputy mayor. We could easily
[3:37:57] just note where the LiNe says in further that stock,
[3:38:00] consult with legal counsel. First. We can just add the
[3:38:06] word first in there and then I think that so
[3:38:08] if the mover in seconder would be okay with that?
[3:38:12] I would be fine. I
[3:38:21] think that's all the clerk is going to add right
[3:38:23] now, but. Will that cover what you would like to
[3:38:28] cover? Yeah, I think that's fine. I think it's important
[3:38:33] that council understand the legal as well, not just staff.
[3:38:38] So I think there's kind of a couple of steps
[3:38:40] here where we go to legal. And then we come
[3:38:43] back, and then. Whether we direct staff further or not
[3:38:46] after that. I see it as two steps, okay? Further
[3:38:52] comment, councilor Ring had his card up first, and then
[3:38:55] I'll go to councilor. Dougherty. Thank you, deputy Mayor Fryer.
[3:39:02] Through. I guess. Kirk albus. I'm not doubting
[3:39:12] what was just mentioned. By. Councilor. Jeffrey. I guess what
[3:39:20] I'm trying to say is. I really thought that that's
[3:39:24] the way. This would pair out the way, the way
[3:39:27] it's worded here. But adding right in there, I always
[3:39:30] thought it was going to be two steps. Anyways, this
[3:39:32] isn't here. It's given direction to come back with a
[3:39:37] bylaw, so. I'm thinking that that's the second step, right?
[3:39:43] How they get the information would be the first step.
[3:39:46] And if it's not clear? I was like the mayor.
[3:39:50] I thought it was covered in that one paragraph, but
[3:39:52] adding the word write. Or I mean, first. Sorry, not
[3:39:55] right. Clarifies it, then I'm happy with that. But I
[3:40:00] think the second steps. It's going to be before they
[3:40:03] bring a bylaw back. They would have to consult with
[3:40:07] these people first, would they not? I'm going to turn
[3:40:11] to council, Jeffrey, but that's my understanding, too. We're adding
[3:40:14] the first. I think what it's meant to do is
[3:40:16] if there's any red flags? Then councilor Jeffrey expects that
[3:40:21] it would come back to council. I wouldn't have brought
[3:40:24] it up if I didn't think it wasn't. Clear, and
[3:40:26] I don't think it was clear that there was two
[3:40:27] steps and that we would have staff doing a lot
[3:40:29] of work before council was privy to the legal consultation,
[3:40:33] so I think it's important that we're all involved in
[3:40:36] this as we move it forward. Follow up councilor ring.
[3:40:42] Question. I thought it was clear. I can give my
[3:40:45] opinion too. So I thought it was clear enough, but,
[3:40:49] I mean, I guess apparently it wasn't. If that's the
[3:40:51] case. Then let's go with the third step then. I
[3:40:53] don't. Care. And Claire Thomas like to speak. Certainly. So
[3:41:01] for clarity, the report that's coming back is looking at
[3:41:05] other. Related or other locations for additional protest related protections.
[3:41:11] So as this is worded, we would do a consultation
[3:41:15] with these other parties if they have no concern in
[3:41:18] how the bylaw is drafted. But the intent is that
[3:41:21] it's not going to be an additional staff report. It
[3:41:23] will. Either be a bylaw or it will be a
[3:41:25] bylaw amendment. So when it comes back, But if legal
[3:41:28] says right off the get go. No, we don't recommend
[3:41:32] you doing it. Then we would report back if they
[3:41:34] said yes. You can do it. There are sample bylaws
[3:41:36] out there. We can move forward. Pending to further conversation
[3:41:41] too, with our detachment commander and their resources available. And
[3:41:45] what that would mean. For them. A bile could come
[3:41:49] directly back. Or additional information if it's not recommended. And
[3:41:55] before I turn to councilor Jeffrey, you said directly, and
[3:41:58] I'm just going to check this because it is a
[3:42:00] question I have. When the report comes back, it'll come.
[3:42:03] Through the community. The whole process, or is it coming
[3:42:08] back directly to council? So it is. At this point
[3:42:12] in time, it would come back directly to council. With.
[3:42:18] The only opportunity for public input. Is it written or
[3:42:21] asking for delegation? So, Councilor Ring, did you have any
[3:42:25] further follow up? Okay, so I'll turn to Councilor Dorita.
[3:42:31] Thank you. I'm very glad that Councilor Jeffrey made the
[3:42:36] suggestion that she did. Because. Although I understand. Totally the
[3:42:45] mayor's intent. I think that. This is the thin edge
[3:42:50] of the wedge. In terms of. Limiting. an ability For
[3:42:57] freedom of expression. And lawful gathering. And I do not
[3:43:06] think that it is the place of the municipality. To
[3:43:10] say. Where these demonstration. Demonstrations. Can be held. The
[3:43:19] issue, in my view. Is an issue of definition and
[3:43:26] enforcement. We don't have a definition of what a nuisance.
[3:43:32] Demonstration is we need one and we need it enforced.
[3:43:36] And I think that. Once. Our police services. Have. A
[3:43:43] proper definition of what a nuisance gathering might be. Then.
[3:43:49] We would have some tools to work. With. People in
[3:43:54] our municipality really, whether. Whatever side of an issue that
[3:44:01] they might be on. Oh, I had something else in
[3:44:04] my head. It just jumped right out. Okay, I'll leave
[3:44:10] it at that. Definition and enforcement. I know what I
[3:44:17] was going to say. Of all places. I think. That.
[3:44:26] Schools. And the students in those schools. Should have the
[3:44:32] ability to. See how our democratic. Process works and that
[3:44:39] they are free to express themselves. But again, the issue
[3:44:44] here is the definition of what is a nuisance. Demonstration.
[3:44:50] Not demonstration, per se. Comment from any other counselors. I'll
[3:44:58] just check with the others first, counselor. Councilor Baines. Go
[3:45:08] ahead, and then I'll come back to you. Counselor. Thank
[3:45:11] you. Deputy Mayor friar. I would just like to compliment
[3:45:15] the mayor, actually. On bringing forward. Unfortunately, it would seem.
[3:45:23] And I may disagree with my colleague here, Councilor Doherty.
[3:45:28] At least under. The certain circumstances now and necessary. But.
[3:45:33] Prudent, I hope. Response. It's unfortunate it has to be
[3:45:36] even considered. But. I'm sensitive to its limited scope of
[3:45:43] the bubble. As proposed here and look forward to the
[3:45:48] next step of this. Actually, from hearing a response back
[3:45:51] from staff. Thank you. Councilor McCullough. Thank you, chair. Just
[3:45:59] picking up on some of what councilor Dougherty had said.
[3:46:04] My feeling is it is more about. The nuisance. The
[3:46:08] definition of the nuisance. It's the conduct we're trying. To
[3:46:13] measure and contain when it's out of step with our
[3:46:17] norms, not the content it is the conduct, and I
[3:46:20] think once you've defined that, it can be applied anywhere
[3:46:23] in Collingwood. Not only at a school. Anywhere where a
[3:46:28] protest or a demonstration takes place that exceeds acceptable standards
[3:46:33] of conduct. So I think it's a fairly universal tool
[3:46:37] that can be used to deal with situations that become
[3:46:40] out of control or border on harassment or threatening behavior.
[3:46:45] Thank you. Any further, Councilor Perry. Okay, so councilor ring.
[3:46:55] It was just, again, going to say that I thought
[3:46:58] that. At what request of Councilor Dougherty is already in
[3:47:02] the motion. I'm seeing here a clear definition of nuisance
[3:47:06] protest. And that explains what? And then where the enforcement.
[3:47:11] Enforcement provisions and collaboration with the Ontario provincial police. So
[3:47:17] the two things she thought she'd like to see in
[3:47:20] this notice of motion are. Both there. Councilor Dougherty. Go
[3:47:24] ahead. What I'm not comfortable with in. This motion is.
[3:47:33] Reference to any defined buffer zone. Around any public. Entity.
[3:47:42] Like a school. Or a bia district. That's what I'm
[3:47:48] not comfortable with at this point in time. Thank you.
[3:47:54] Councilor Perry. Go ahead. Thank you. I wasn't going to
[3:47:57] comment, but I do believe. This motion covers everything. And
[3:48:03] as far as even going, what is a bubble zone?
[3:48:06] I think everything's covered in there. I'm totally comfortable with
[3:48:08] it. And I don't know if we need to make
[3:48:13] it anymore. I'm not saying it's complicated, but we don't
[3:48:16] need to make it more complicated. Don't see any more
[3:48:25] comments, so I'll make my comments. And. I feel the
[3:48:29] current nuisance bylaw outlines most of what's already been talked
[3:48:34] about. I've got no problem with supporting this going forward.
[3:48:39] But I'd be surprised if there's much change to the
[3:48:42] current nuisance bylaw that we have. I think it's being
[3:48:44] established. It says, nuisance shall mean an activity that causes
[3:48:47] an unsafe environment affects the well being of persons and
[3:48:50] where the enjoyment of public space and shall be limited
[3:48:53] to activities described in section three. And there's. Twelve activities
[3:48:58] that I think cover an awful lot of what we've
[3:49:00] just been talking about. So. It is a 2013 bylaw,
[3:49:06] and things have changed dramatically, so. I could be wrong.
[3:49:11] But. I do believe we have a good bylaw enforcement.
[3:49:16] Is always going to be the problem. With this. I'm
[3:49:21] concerned about trying to have one of our municipal officers
[3:49:23] do something enforcement wise. It is identified in the nuisance
[3:49:27] by law. That the police officer. Is also. An enforcement
[3:49:34] agent. But. As Mary Hamill explained, They're even hesitant to
[3:49:41] step into this. But anyway, so we've had good discussion
[3:49:45] of it. Is everybody comfortable that they understand the lengthy
[3:49:51] motion that's had a few amendments to it? Does anybody
[3:49:55] need to go ahead? Councilor Dory. Thank you. I'd like
[3:50:00] to request a sever. Severe, whereas recent. Protests near
[3:50:10] school property. And. The last and whereas, and therefore
[3:50:20] be it. Separate that out. So the second and the
[3:50:27] last, whereas, yeah. I'm not asking to sever that. Therefore,
[3:50:34] be it resolved as well. And that doesn't require a
[3:50:39] secondary. I need clarity and looking. I've just put the
[3:50:46] motion back up on the screen. So there's three pieces.
[3:50:54] So the main be it resolve line and then. Further
[3:50:57] that in another and further. Ad. Yeah. So. If you
[3:51:03] scroll to the top. Click on this. So moved. Seconded.
[3:51:09] Whereas. Okay, so. And whereas. Recent protest near school properties
[3:51:15] to separate that out. Please. The second. And then also
[3:51:23] sever. And whereas the town is committed to protecting. So,
[3:51:29] Councilor Dory, that is the preamble, right? We'd be voting.
[3:51:36] On. The therefore and the further that. The preamble. Isn't
[3:51:44] something that's being considered from a voting standpoint. Am I
[3:51:48] correct? It's a reference to specific locations that I have
[3:51:51] a problem with. But the staff report is to consider
[3:51:56] other location types. Would you like?
[3:52:07] That third part of the motion, which is the amended
[3:52:11] inclusion and further, that council request a staff report. Be
[3:52:16] prepared to consider if there are other location types in
[3:52:18] our community that should be reviewed. Would you like that
[3:52:21] severed? Actually. I think. If we could just sever.
[3:52:32] The therefore. And further that and what I would do
[3:52:36] is support just second part. We will vote separately. On
[3:52:43] the therefore. The first and further that and the second
[3:52:48] and further in that. So I'm going to call a
[3:52:50] vote to the. First. In case anybody else would like
[3:52:55] to say anything. And this is to therefore be it
[3:52:59] resolved at council direct staff. As highlighted by Kirkham is
[3:53:04] there for us on the screen. Everybody's okay with that?
[3:53:10] Go ahead, councilor. Ring terribly. Yeah, it was a gray
[3:53:15] highlight that I meant. Sorry. You need this to go
[3:53:20] with that. So that's what we'll do. We're? Voting on
[3:53:23] the yellow highlight. On the screen. Just that the
[3:53:33] second and further that. Is so much an integral part
[3:53:37] of the first part of this motion. I don't know
[3:53:40] if Councilor Dougherty needs that second one. What that suggests
[3:53:46] to me is that we are going to rely on
[3:53:48] legal counsel before we do. Another thing. And that's why
[3:53:51] I would support that. And further the staff consult with
[3:53:56] radio. Casting. Okay, let's keep going.
[3:54:06] For me, anyway. That's the only part of this motion
[3:54:13] that I would support. The request is for severing and
[3:54:16] that can be made. So we will vote on the
[3:54:18] yellow highlight. All those in favor? And opposed. And so
[3:54:24] noted. That carries on the blue highlight. All those in
[3:54:33] favor? And that is unanimous. On the fuchsia. Highlight.
[3:54:43] Ready to vote. All those in favor? And opposed. And
[3:54:53] so noted, but carries and I'll turn back to you.
[3:54:57] Thank you. The next item on our agenda is 14.2,
[3:55:02] which is. A motion concerning mandatory water safety and survive
[3:55:08] to swim training. And I'll turn it over. To you,
[3:55:10] deputy mayor, to read in your motion. Thank you, Mayor
[3:55:14] Hamlin. Whereas drowning is a leading cause of preventable death
[3:55:18] among children in Ontario and basic swimming and widow otter
[3:55:21] survival skills significantly reduced this risk. And whereas Collingwood's community
[3:55:26] based strategic plan emphasizes safety, well being, and active lifestyles,
[3:55:31] particularly given our waterfront in recreational. Amenities. Therefore be resolved
[3:55:36] at Council of Town of Collingwood endorsed and support the
[3:55:39] initiative to advocate for mandatory water swimming, water safety and
[3:55:43] swim to survive training in the Ontario elementary school curriculum
[3:55:48] and that this resolution be forwarded to the applicable government
[3:55:51] authorities. MPP, Saunderson, local school boards and the association. Of
[3:55:56] municipal municipalities of Ontario for their endorsement. And I look
[3:56:02] for a secondary. Oh, sorry. Forgot I was
[3:56:12] cheering already. Councilor Perry. Okay. Do you want to speak
[3:56:17] first or last? I'll just speak for. Mary allen. Somewhat
[3:56:24] similar. This is. A supportive motion to our neighbor. But
[3:56:30] in this particular case, It does involve a situation where
[3:56:34] we have an extensive shoreline as well, and therefore I
[3:56:37] went to staff and asked for their input before bringing
[3:56:41] this forward, and they were very supportive. Of asking for
[3:56:47] mandatory. Provincial mandatory. Directives. And that they would
[3:56:57] be prepared to. Help. The local schools be able to
[3:57:02] provide that if the prophets chose to go that direction.
[3:57:07] And I will leave it at that parahamela. Okay. Thank
[3:57:10] you. Any comments or questions. Seeing none. All those in
[3:57:16] favor? And that's unanimous? Okay, so what we're going to
[3:57:22] do is move into the community of the whole there's.
[3:57:26] Two primary things left on the agenda. The first ones
[3:57:29] are budget, and the second one is. Master servicing plan
[3:57:33] award of contract. And what I'm going to suggest we
[3:57:37] can move into committee of the whole as I mentioned.
[3:57:42] Earlier. We're going to deal with the budget first. And.
[3:57:47] I'll be chairing that part of the meeting. And then
[3:57:51] we'll. Switch seats. With what will then be chair Perry
[3:57:55] and he'll continue on with the rest of the agenda.
[3:57:59] And so before I'll get to our sean in a
[3:58:02] second, I also wanted to suggest. That we take a
[3:58:05] 40 minutes break before we pursue this. Yes, go ahead.
[3:58:28] Okay. CEO is raising the point that perhaps. If we
[3:58:36] dealt with the master servicing plan now. Then manager Lill
[3:58:42] could leave. How does that sound? Manager? I'd love to
[3:58:48] see it. Okay, that was a good request then. Co
[3:58:51] skinner. So we'll do the motion to go into committee
[3:58:57] as a whole, and maybe, councilor. Perry. You can share
[3:59:00] from there, all right? So the recommendation council move into
[3:59:04] the committee of the whole session move in a seconder
[3:59:07] deputy mayor. Seconded by councilor McCullough. All those in favor,
[3:59:13] and that's unanimous. Okay. Chair Perry, over to you. Thank
[3:59:18] you, Mayor Hamlin. I will go right to item 15.2.1,
[3:59:23] master servicing. Plan MSP award contract. Rpf 2025. And I'll
[3:59:31] hand it over to director Alcoca. Internal. Just. Okay. Manager
[3:59:40] to Elmel. Thank you. This is going to be a
[3:59:44] quick one. Good evening, council and staff. Thank you, Cao
[3:59:51] Skinner. That was super awesome. So let me just introduce.
[3:59:57] The staff report. I'm Amber Leal, the manager of development
[4:00:00] engineering, and I'm going to provide a quick and brief
[4:00:03] introduction for the staff. Report 20250. One two award of
[4:00:07] the RFP for the master servicing plan. Next slide, please.
[4:00:13] The strategic purpose of the MSP is to guide long
[4:00:16] term water and wastewater infrastructure planning. It aligns our servicing
[4:00:20] capacity with population and employment growth. Current regulations. And intermicipal
[4:00:26] obligations. It provides a defensible, future ready roadmap for infrastructure
[4:00:31] delivery. It incorporates our asset management planning, new official plan
[4:00:37] objectives, and municipal comprehensive review growth projections. And it feeds
[4:00:42] essential information to the upcoming wastewater treatment plant expansion, environmental
[4:00:47] assessment. Next slide, please. To provide a bit of a
[4:00:52] financial overview. Staff originally budgeted this project over three years.
[4:01:01] With an anticipated mid year start, staff allotted 75,000 in
[4:01:05] 2025, 150,000 in 2026, and a further 75,000 in 2027.
[4:01:12] Staff were delayed in issuing the RFP due to its
[4:01:15] complexity and further due to the project's. Complexity, staff extended
[4:01:19] the period of time that vendors had to prepare proposals
[4:01:23] upon completion of the review process, staff have had to
[4:01:25] prepare for council's approval of an additional budget request. To
[4:01:29] top up the original budget to support this project, follow.
[4:01:32] Following a length the intent technical procurement process. The company
[4:01:36] with the highest ranked score was WSP Canada and WSP
[4:01:41] Canada had a very thorough and detailed work plan covering
[4:01:44] everything the town has asked for, including a very detailed
[4:01:48] and extensive modeling calibration regime. Excuse me. The recommended proposal
[4:01:54] came in at $430,022.50. Including nonrebatable tax. The total shortfall
[4:02:02] being 130,022 dollarsfifty. Cents given the time of the year.
[4:02:10] It is not expected that any invoicing on this project
[4:02:13] will occur until the new year. And with that in
[4:02:15] mind, staff recommend sending the remaining funds left from 25
[4:02:19] back to source and fully funding the project through the
[4:02:22] 26 and 27 budget process to be funded through the
[4:02:26] development charges. Reserve funds. Next slide. Next steps would be
[4:02:31] that council endorse the contract award to WSP as recommended
[4:02:34] and approve the budget allocations and recommend. Recommendations. Finance would
[4:02:42] update the budgets accordingly, purchasing would award the contract and
[4:02:46] development engineering staff would take this project through project. Execution
[4:02:50] over the next 18 months. Next slide. Thank you so
[4:02:54] much. Any questions? Thank you, Manager Leal. I'll look to
[4:02:58] the gallery. Jessica, any comments? Okay. Co. Anyone online? The
[4:03:07] clerk announced that. The clerk. Thank you. We do have
[4:03:14] still a number of participants online, so if there is
[4:03:17] anybody that's. Participating remotely through zoom. Please press the raise
[4:03:22] your hand feature at the bottom of your screen. And
[4:03:26] not at this time. Chair Perry. Okay. Thank you. So,
[4:03:29] I'll read in the recommendation. That staff report in 2020,
[4:03:34] 512 Master Servicing Plan, award of contract be received and
[4:03:39] that council approves an additional 130,022. Dollars and be funded
[4:03:48] from the development charges reserves through the 2026 and 2027
[4:03:53] budget process. Can have a mover. Councilor Dougherty. Seconded, Councilor
[4:03:59] Ring and I'll put it in the floor. For discussion.
[4:04:03] Comments. Councilor jeffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question,
[4:04:09] I guess through to Andrew Le. I guess I wasn't
[4:04:13] here for the other conversation, but to me, a 43%
[4:04:16] increase. Is a pretty significant one. And I'm just wondering,
[4:04:21] are we really bad budgeters or did something really change?
[4:04:25] Value added. Within this. But, I mean, I read that
[4:04:31] from afar, and it was a bit of a shocker
[4:04:33] to me. I got my calculator out and one that's
[4:04:36] pretty serious. And Juliet to the chair, to the counselor.
[4:04:42] So at the onset of budgeting, sometimes you have to
[4:04:45] do more of a high level exercise. At this point,
[4:04:48] this contract contains not only a very robust calibration, Exercise
[4:04:54] for both the water and the sanitary models, but it
[4:04:56] includes a duplicate of that in three years. So that
[4:04:59] our information stays up to date in this very rapid
[4:05:02] growth period that we're experiencing. In addition. There's funds within
[4:05:06] this contract set aside for modeling requests that come through
[4:05:10] to staff. A certain percentage of that. And then we
[4:05:15] also have a small provisional allowance set aside for any
[4:05:18] additional work that might be needed through the EA process.
[4:05:22] Should there be any part 16 orders at the end?
[4:05:27] So I think that the project that we have now
[4:05:29] is very robust, and it helps to support the wastewater
[4:05:34] treatment EA expansion that's coming up. Councilor Jeffrey. No. Ouch.
[4:05:44] Any other questions or comments? Deputy mayor friar. Yeah. And
[4:05:53] also, thank you for the presentation. And totally understand the
[4:05:57] need for it. For sure, but it did jump that
[4:06:02] substantial amount. So you mentioned about. Because I was going
[4:06:07] to ask what was the amount of contingency? Built into
[4:06:09] it. And you did say small amount. So can you
[4:06:14] elaborate just how much contingency is built? It's not a
[4:06:17] contingency. Sorry. Through the chair to the counselor. It is
[4:06:20] a provisional amount set aside for modeling, and it is
[4:06:23] 25,000. To be used over the course of. Three years.
[4:06:31] And the 2051 horizon that's being used. Is that something
[4:06:38] that changed along the way as well? Just thinking of
[4:06:42] some of the things that have happened that the county
[4:06:44] specifically in regards to the annexation debate about. Barry all
[4:06:49] of a sudden? The number of years that was being
[4:06:53] projected out changed in that, but. The horizon was always
[4:06:57] 2051. For as long as I've been involved with this
[4:07:01] project. Yeah, I thought that might be to align with
[4:07:05] the official plan. I just thought that might have. Been
[4:07:07] another reason why it might have bumped up the way
[4:07:09] it did. But to your belief, it was always projected
[4:07:13] for 2051. Thank you, chair. That's. Okay. Any other. Councilor
[4:07:20] Baines. It looks like you're okay anyway. I'll call the
[4:07:26] motion to or the recommendation to a vote. All those
[4:07:28] in favor? And that's unanimous. Mayor, do I hand it
[4:07:34] back to you, or do we just take a break?
[4:07:38] Okay. So. You recommended 40 minutes. Okay, 40 minutes break.
[4:07:43] So we'll be back here. At. 650, I guess. Thank
[4:07:50] you.
[4:50:57] Welcome back, council. The next item on our agenda is.
[4:51:05] 15.2.2. It's our draft. Two of the budget. And the
[4:51:09] recommendation before us is that staff report t 2025 20.
[4:51:15] Staff. Proposed budget draft two be received. Could I have
[4:51:18] a mover in a seconder, please? Councilor McCullough, seconded by
[4:51:22] councilor Baines. And now we'll open. This up for discussion.
[4:51:29] Go ahead, councilor Potts. Thanks for your hamlet. This is
[4:51:32] where we can start. To talk about adding stuff. Go
[4:51:39] for it. Absolutely. I wanted to bring up, and I
[4:51:43] know. I asked just the question last meeting regarding? The
[4:51:49] open space across the street from Town hall at 84
[4:51:52] here, Ontario and. Again. I recognize there's $25,000 in the
[4:51:58] budget. For some testing and some studies, and I was
[4:52:04] curious to see. If we could. Not even so much
[4:52:08] a wish list, but something as far as moving it
[4:52:11] forward, knowing that it was one of the priorities. On
[4:52:15] the downtown master plan that. We could go low hanging
[4:52:18] fruit. I was curious to see if there was a
[4:52:21] chance I'd. Like to add some additional. Funding. For. On
[4:52:27] top of the funding for studies and stuff, but even
[4:52:30] as far as into the design work, for 2026. So
[4:52:33] that way 2027 was kind of. Ready to go as
[4:52:39] far as the next steps, and I didn't know if
[4:52:41] there was. The ability. And again, looking at potentially, I
[4:52:45] don't know what the costs are, maybe. You guys can.
[4:52:48] Maybe staff has an idea, but I was thinking somewhere
[4:52:50] along with the 80,000 mark. I know there's 25,000, so
[4:52:53] it would be that difference, and I was wondering if
[4:52:55] it could be potentially taken into. The mat funding, so
[4:52:59] I think I'll start there. Thanks. Okay. So would you
[4:53:04] like Director Cubit to comment on this? If possible, I
[4:53:10] think the starting would be. Is there any idea of
[4:53:12] what. Costing. We would need to get it to. I
[4:53:17] guess beyond even. Shovel ready? Shovel ready would be. The
[4:53:23] best start. And maybe for the rest of us if
[4:53:26] you could start with what's planned for 26. Already. Okay.
[4:53:31] Thank you. Thank you. Through you. The plan for 26.
[4:53:37] In reference to 84 here on Tarot street, was to
[4:53:39] invest funds. Into. Some engineering studies to see what it
[4:53:44] is we are working with and what is happening below
[4:53:46] grade. At that site and then also conduct some public
[4:53:50] engagement. To see what the community feels should be done
[4:53:54] with that space as an open space, as so directed
[4:53:57] by council because there could be various different treatments and
[4:53:59] various investments. I would hesitate to. Give an idea of
[4:54:06] what that could look like or pricing without going back
[4:54:09] to the team to get a sense, but I am
[4:54:12] happy to return with some information if needed. Through you,
[4:54:16] mayor ham. As a follow up. I think we can
[4:54:21] probably all agree 25,000 won't go far. I wouldn't imagine
[4:54:26] it would go far. I'd be shocked if it did.
[4:54:28] And. I'm just looking at if we can get it
[4:54:31] to a point of get it out. To the public
[4:54:33] consultation and design and all that stuff. I just think
[4:54:37] that as we see. The area has been quite activated.
[4:54:42] Given with the winter festivities. And the weekend with the
[4:54:46] menorah lighting and the large crowd that was there for
[4:54:49] that. i think we're just running on such a Positive
[4:54:54] note with that facility that while it's there, and it's
[4:54:58] a low hanging fruit of the master plan. I would
[4:55:01] hope that if we could. My next question would be
[4:55:03] if we could get the funding. From the mat tax.
[4:55:06] Would that be something that would qualify for that? Okay,
[4:55:10] treasure. Graham, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I'm happy
[4:55:14] to comment on this. At this point, cancel has already
[4:55:20] pre approved 215,000 from the MAT funding to go towards
[4:55:24] the initiatives from the downtown master plan. And deterrismaster plan.
[4:55:30] We could make that a priority in those initiatives. And
[4:55:35] use that part of that 215,000. Yeah, I think that's
[4:55:40] through you, Mayor Hamlin. Thanks, Jekard Graham. I think that
[4:55:43] makes a lot of sense. So at this point, we
[4:55:46] probably wouldn't even need to label a dollar amount. It
[4:55:49] would just be that we would direct funds from there.
[4:55:51] Okay, awesome. So I don't know, do we need to
[4:55:54] do a recommendation on that, or is this. Just all
[4:55:56] I think. Sounds like it's good. Okay. All right. Sorry.
[4:56:02] Hold on. Okay, co skinner. Okay. I just wasn't clear.
[4:56:12] Around. The funding intentions. I know council has asked directed.
[4:56:18] That what is estimated to be 50% of the 2026
[4:56:21] mat income, or about $250,000. Exactly $250,000. Be put into
[4:56:28] the budget as a funding source for 2026. Right now.
[4:56:33] It hasn't been allocated. It's just used to reduce. The
[4:56:38] overall need for taxes or fees or other income. So
[4:56:43] if, in fact, you wish to use some of that,
[4:56:46] I think a vote would be warranted. If you. Wish
[4:56:50] to. Allocate the money. To this item. Now, if you
[4:56:57] wish to wait until 2026 is partway through and look
[4:57:02] at what has actually come in, potentially after the initial
[4:57:06] work is complete, then that might be a different. I
[4:57:09] think if I can just help clarify. In the report
[4:57:12] now, it says from draft two, The 390 from the
[4:57:17] 25 mat tax. 215,000 would go to implement downtown master
[4:57:23] plan, and I think that was the thought. That. As
[4:57:29] I assumed from the treasurer, we would give some priorities
[4:57:33] within that spending to 84 year Ontario. Street, if that's
[4:57:37] possible. Okay. Yeah. In addition to the 25,000 that's already
[4:57:44] allocated in the budget. Yes. So, Karen. Sorry. Thank you.
[4:57:50] Through the chair. Just for clarification, for the minuteing. Purposes.
[4:57:53] I'm thinking a motion might be required because we want
[4:57:56] to make sure. We're prioritizing what you want to be
[4:57:59] included. In addition to that 25,000. So I'm thinking a
[4:58:03] motion might be better to make sure it's clear. Otherwise.
[4:58:07] I just don't want to the work not meet what
[4:58:10] council's expectations were. Okay. And I think one other thing
[4:58:15] that's on my mind as part of this is. what
[4:58:22] the 215,000 has been allocated for just in case we
[4:58:27] don't want to take away anything that's really important Maybe.
[4:58:28] Anyway, does this make sense? Okay, so who can speak
[4:58:32] to that? What? The 215,000? Was identified for some. Director
[4:58:38] Valentine. Go ahead. Thank you, chair. And through you. The
[4:58:44] 215,000 was essentially a placeholder. The thought was, that should
[4:58:49] counsel endorse a staff or consultant or a contract position
[4:58:55] to drive forward the tourism master plan and the downtown
[4:58:58] master plan, that that individual would come back to you.
[4:59:02] With a fully costed and timed work plan for 2026
[4:59:05] and beyond, similar to what we do with the affordable
[4:59:08] housing master plan. So certainly a council's direction was to
[4:59:11] prioritize 84 here on street as part of that work
[4:59:14] plan. That could be communicated. To the staff person, the
[4:59:18] consultant or other resource that council determines is appropriate to
[4:59:22] drive forward those plans. Okay, that's clear. Do you want
[4:59:24] to make a motion? Yeah. Just for clarification on that,
[4:59:28] though. Again. I guess I'm looking at. Do we need
[4:59:33] a staff or a consultant or a new staff resource
[4:59:37] to drive? That implementation over the next year. I don't
[4:59:44] know. If you understand what I mean, but. If we
[4:59:50] allocate this money, boat is still on the hands of
[4:59:53] having a resource or. A consultant stuff. It's just going
[4:59:56] to drag into 27 and probably into 28 anyways. So
[4:59:59] I'm just wondering if there's any chance. Basically, my motion
[5:00:03] would be. Along the lines, with some help from the
[5:00:07] clerk on some wording, would be that. We use funding
[5:00:12] from the MAT to get the 84 here interior shovel
[5:00:15] ready for 2027. That would include public consultation studies, environmental
[5:00:23] studies services, all that kind of whatever goes with that.
[5:00:27] I fear when I hear that we have to wait
[5:00:29] for consultants or stopping because we'll be halfway through next
[5:00:32] year before we even see anything, so in house would
[5:00:35] be best. Thanks. Can I have a seconder for that
[5:00:41] motion? Councilor Jeffrey and I know you're dying to say
[5:00:44] something. Go ahead. This is one of those unique situations
[5:00:49] where we got money and we don't know what. We're
[5:00:50] going to do with it. My understanding from our conversation
[5:00:54] last meeting was we recognized what staff had broken out
[5:00:58] here for the 390 from 25 from 2025. Was.
[5:01:09] Their 30,000 level look at the funds they need to
[5:01:13] start to implement. And we knew that that would mean
[5:01:16] that they would be probably coming back at some point
[5:01:18] in time to us. And saying kind of. This is
[5:01:20] the layout of it to me. If I remember correctly,
[5:01:23] the downtown master plan. One of the low hanging fruit
[5:01:26] was 84. I think it was one of the first.
[5:01:29] Things. That. So to me, it would be something that.
[5:01:33] Would be taken to that level that you're talking about
[5:01:36] as quickly as possible. And may not need a resource
[5:01:39] for that reason. Just go through to your studies and
[5:01:42] things like that. So I'm very supportive of putting the
[5:01:46] direction there so it's there. But. I did believe that
[5:01:51] it was part of that 215,000 mayor Hamlin talked about.
[5:01:56] Is to do that. And the money is there for
[5:01:58] 25. We decided not to allocate. The town or that
[5:02:03] tourism kind of portion of the 26 amount. In what
[5:02:08] we're doing right now. But that 25. The money is
[5:02:14] there, as I said. And I'm happy to support. Given
[5:02:19] that extra direction. If that's what staff want us to
[5:02:21] do. Okay. Anyone else like. To comment on this. Bring
[5:02:26] it. Two of all those in favor? Unanimous. Thank you.
[5:02:32] Okay, next. Elsa. Dirty. Thank you. I am certainly not
[5:02:39] the mathematician. As my colleague. Is to my left, however.
[5:02:49] We have some funding that has come available. From the
[5:02:56] sale of the Culbert. Property. That is 280,000. Dollars, so.
[5:03:08] As a suggestion. I was going to propose that. That
[5:03:14] be allocated to the affordable housing. Task force. Instead of.
[5:03:25] And against the 400,000 that is currently. Been allocated to
[5:03:30] that budget. So. If it's 400,000 -280. Which would be
[5:03:37] coming from Culvert, would free up. $120,000. And out of
[5:03:45] that. I was going to propose that we increase. The
[5:03:52] contribution to the merf. And to the art center reserves.
[5:04:00] Increase each by 50,000. So a total. Of $100,000, which
[5:04:07] would leave. 20 out of that budget. For some other
[5:04:13] purpose. Is that clear? As mud. Let me try and
[5:04:20] paraphrase. That the $280,000, which is from the Culvert estate
[5:04:28] and some bird street. Funding. Would go into the affordable
[5:04:33] housing reserve. And since council wanted 400,000 in that reserve.
[5:04:41] As a total amount if we put this 280 in,
[5:04:46] because those funds should go to affordable housing. As our
[5:04:49] staff report suggests, it means. We have 120 that we
[5:04:54] could notionally take out of the affordable Housing Reserve fund
[5:04:58] that we've put in in a previous meeting. And that
[5:05:02] the 120 would then. Get split between the Merf reserve
[5:05:07] fund and the r reserve fund. Okay, so that's. The
[5:05:10] concept. Is there a seconder for this? Councilor Baines comments.
[5:05:16] Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So I really believe
[5:05:20] that that commitment. From the Calberta state should not. Be
[5:05:27] netted with our other commitments. I think it was always.
[5:05:31] Intended that it would go there over and above what
[5:05:33] we're doing. And I just don't think. We should. Be.
[5:05:39] Watering it down. It's like it got washed out. And
[5:05:44] I don't like that it was given to us for
[5:05:46] a specific purpose. Over and above our other commitments, and
[5:05:49] I think that it shouldn't be part of that $400,000.
[5:05:54] Okay, who else would like to comment on this? Deputy
[5:05:58] mayor. I'm going to have to get some clarity because
[5:06:01] I feel that 280. Is freed up and not 120.
[5:06:05] And maybe I'm just following this incorrectly. But. Right now
[5:06:12] we have 400,000. As an impact on taxes. And part
[5:06:20] of that is actually operational cost. Costs, and then whatever
[5:06:25] the net is at the end of the day goes
[5:06:26] into the reserve. So if we've got 400,000 in taxes
[5:06:30] and we're going to put 280,000 against it. Then I
[5:06:35] think you've got $280,000, not 120. To distribute. Us the
[5:06:41] treasure. Is this hard question? Go ahead, treasure. Thank you.
[5:06:46] Mary Hamlin, the deputy mayor, is correct. It would be
[5:06:50] the 280,000 to allocate. yes I just wanted to add
[5:06:58] as well. The 280 represents funds from two sources. It
[5:07:05] is the culprit estate greatly appreciated. And the net. Of
[5:07:12] what was left in the accounts. From the Birch street
[5:07:16] housing, so the individual amounts are not yet available and.
[5:07:22] There'll be some announcements. On the Culbert amount to come,
[5:07:26] but that there is two sources in there. So that's
[5:07:31] what I was going to touch on next, because I
[5:07:34] knew it said social. Housing under 24 reserves that there
[5:07:37] was 100,000. In that town. And I thought, that's what
[5:07:42] I recollected as well as. The 280 was a combination
[5:07:45] of that 180 roughly from Culvert and then the 100
[5:07:49] from social that could both end up in affordable housing
[5:07:52] because certainly both are applicable to affordable housing. But anyway.
[5:07:58] I just wanted clarity on that. And then I'll listen
[5:08:01] to everybody else and go from there. Councilor Paynes thank
[5:08:07] you, Mayor Hamlin, through you, I think, to councilor Jeffrey
[5:08:11] in regard to the potential top up or if you
[5:08:14] will, assignment to the affordable housing fund. Would it not
[5:08:20] be? Within the intent of the Culbert. Estate stipulations to
[5:08:27] the town. Would it not favor what we're attempting to
[5:08:31] do in affordable housing, do you think? As to the
[5:08:36] beneficiaries wishes. Well, you should just comment, I think. That's
[5:08:42] your comment? Anyway, go ahead. Do you want to say
[5:08:45] it again? Sure, I'll say it again. Whatever the amount
[5:08:49] is, understanding now that it's not 280. I think that
[5:08:54] that amount should be committed over the top of what
[5:08:56] we're doing. I don't think we should be netting it
[5:08:58] out and watering it out. We were already committed. To
[5:09:02] doing that. 400,000 a year, and I don't think we
[5:09:04] should be washing. It out with money from other places.
[5:09:07] I think we need to stay committed and add that
[5:09:10] to the coffers. It has struck me that we're not
[5:09:14] committed to 400. It's been suggested that we put 400
[5:09:17] in this year. I think we've been putting in 300,
[5:09:21] if memory serves. What was it, 350? Okay, 350. All
[5:09:30] right. Okay, who else? Wants to speak to this. Okay,
[5:09:38] bring it to a vote. So do you want to
[5:09:40] divide this into a couple of things? Here or. Yeah,
[5:09:42] go ahead. Can I just close before we call
[5:09:52] it to the vote? The 280.
[5:10:02] Was non tax. Related funding. So, in effect, what we're
[5:10:08] doing is we're just reducing the taxation commitment to affordable
[5:10:13] housing and allocating the funding elsewhere. As I said the
[5:10:20] last time we discussed. Allocations to the reserve for the
[5:10:27] Merf and for the art center at $50,000 commitment. We
[5:10:32] will never get there. We need to make. A decent
[5:10:37] commitment to reserves, to both of. These projects. Council. Has
[5:10:46] already declined to support $150,000 per reserve. I'm suggesting. A
[5:10:55] reduced amount to a 100,000, which is 50,000 more than
[5:10:59] what was voted. On.
[5:11:13] Okay, so the clerk has just asked if she could
[5:11:16] have clarification on the motion. So perhaps I'll let you
[5:11:23] ask the questions you have. Go ahead. Sorry. Certainly through,
[5:11:28] you, worship. I started with. Council. Council, okay?
[5:11:40] Sorry. I'll just confirm to you I was doing multiple
[5:11:43] tasks here at the same time, so. The ask team
[5:11:45] that was before the court for the Culbert estate indicated
[5:11:49] that. The money would go to affordable housing initiatives. So.
[5:11:59] That was clear with the intention. That's what it was
[5:12:01] going to go towards. So right now. You're looking at
[5:12:06] utilizing the combined amount of 280,000 from the culvert. Estate
[5:12:10] in the birch street department to go towards. The 400,000
[5:12:15] that council has allocated. Out of taxation revenue to affordable
[5:12:22] housing task force. So I'm suggesting we reduce that taxation.
[5:12:26] Commitment. Which would leave us with a balance. Of 120,000.
[5:12:35] And I'm suggesting we split that. Between.
[5:12:46] The multi use recreation facility. Reserves. And the art center
[5:12:52] reserves. Sure? Yeah. We'll do them as two separate motions.
[5:12:57] That's okay. All right. So the first part may be
[5:13:03] Clark Thomas. You could just tell us what it would
[5:13:06] be. Certainly. Thank you, you, worship. The council allocate the
[5:13:11] combined 250,000 from the culvert. Estate and Birch street apartment.
[5:13:17] Allocations to the affordable housing initiatives. Going towards the total
[5:13:21] of the 400,000. For the affordable housing initiatives. Basically, we'll
[5:13:27] deal with that one first and then we'll vote on
[5:13:29] the splitting of that. Okay. All right. Councilor ring. Thank
[5:13:35] you very much. So then. We've got. Is it 252
[5:13:44] 80? Okay, so we've got 280,000 this year between Murphy.
[5:13:48] Yeah. Okay, because. The second most time you spoke about
[5:13:52] it, you didn't specify. No. We wouldn't have 280. No,
[5:13:57] 140 for each one. Because the 280. Would be. Allocated
[5:14:06] to. We have 400,000 in. Affordable housing right now, so
[5:14:12] I'm suggesting. That's based on taxation. Let's reduce it. By
[5:14:19] the 280,000 from Culbert and Birch. Which leaves us with
[5:14:26] $120,000. You got 400, you put 280 and so you
[5:14:31] take a 280 and you'll still have 400, so you
[5:14:33] got 280,000 out. Councilor Dougherty. Maybe the treasurer could just
[5:14:40] explain that. I think that you're not quite right. Okay,
[5:14:44] treasure, go for it. Thank you. Pardon me. I'll try
[5:14:50] and explain it. So 400,000 right now is what's been
[5:14:53] allocated to the affordable housing reserve. The source of that
[5:14:56] funding is taxation. With this motion, we'll be using 280,000
[5:15:03] from other sources of funding. To still equal 400,000, so
[5:15:08] we're only needing 120,000 raised by taxes. If we were
[5:15:12] to maintain our current tax rate that's proposed in the
[5:15:15] draft report. Which uses the full 400,000. We would therefore
[5:15:20] then have 280,000 to allocate. Out to the two different
[5:15:24] reserve funds. Should that be council direction? I hope that
[5:15:27] helps explain. It. Would. Yeah. Okay. I am such a
[5:15:36] numb skull when it comes to numbers, I'll tell you.
[5:15:41] It's as the treasurer stated. Okay. That's a good decision.
[5:15:51] So I just want to go back then, so. The
[5:15:55] motion that we'll vote on. Is. I think you have
[5:15:58] to tell us again. The council allocate 280,000 from the
[5:16:04] Culvert State and Bert street apartments. To the affordable housing
[5:16:08] initiatives, going against the total of $400,000, reducing the allocation
[5:16:13] from taxation. Right. Okay. You'd like to speak.
[5:16:23] I didn't get any clarity because the clerk's saying 280.
[5:16:28] From Culvert and the way I understood it when the
[5:16:32] CEO spoke about it is there's. 100, roughly in social
[5:16:36] housing for Birch street in reserve at the end of
[5:16:40] 2024. So I'm just going to seek clarification. With the
[5:16:45] clerk. Was the proceeds from Culvert. $280,000. Thank you. As
[5:16:55] noted by the CAO, we're not disclosing the Culbert estate
[5:16:58] amount, right? Now. We're doing a joint press release once
[5:17:01] the money has been received. I totally can understand that.
[5:17:09] And I will say, though, that. I'm looking at the
[5:17:13] 280 that we've been talked about as including the social
[5:17:17] housing reserve too. I think our treasurer would just like
[5:17:20] to have a work here. Okay, go ahead. To make
[5:17:24] things. Thank you, madam mayor. Just to make things a
[5:17:26] little bit more complicated, the deputy mayor is referring to
[5:17:29] social housing in the reserve in 2024, and that's accurate.
[5:17:32] There was about 97,000 added to it in 2023, and
[5:17:36] that was from when the town took over from the
[5:17:38] rotary, and they had a small capital reserve fund for
[5:17:42] the Burt street apartments. We transferred that. Into. The affordable
[5:17:46] housing reserve fund. This amount that's part of the 280,000
[5:17:51] is a separate amount. We had a management service. Managed
[5:17:58] first street apartments for us, and it was the amount
[5:18:00] owing from rent that they had collected. Since they took
[5:18:03] over from the rotary department. So it's separate from that
[5:18:06] amount that's? Already showing in the reserve fund. It's additional
[5:18:10] amount. I hope that helps provide some background. Yeah, thank
[5:18:13] you for explaining that. The motion is about. Putting covert
[5:18:20] into affordable housing. If I don't support that. Any funds
[5:18:28] from culprit should be going into affordable housing anyway. As
[5:18:31] a matter of our typical reserve allocation, right? Will it
[5:18:38] be the same for the social housing amount we just
[5:18:40] talked about? That sitting in for Birch Street. It just
[5:18:46] would essentially move in. To affordable housing. I think that's
[5:18:53] our. We'd have that. Sorry. We have the flexibility. Okay.
[5:19:01] I'm not going to support the motion because I think
[5:19:04] it will end up in there. Anyway. Okay. Thank you.
[5:19:10] Okay. All in support of the motion. 234. Okay.
[5:19:21] And there's a post. And that passes. Okay. And then
[5:19:29] the second part of the motion was, we now have
[5:19:32] 280,000 that we didn't have before. And. What was your
[5:19:39] recommendation, Councilor Dougherty? Did that be split to the break
[5:19:43] facility and arts? Facility reserve funds. It's about twice as
[5:19:48] much money sorry? It's about twice as much money as.
[5:19:52] What I had estimated. But my proposal was to allocate
[5:19:59] $100,000 in total, so $50,000 to the MERF and $50,000
[5:20:07] to the art center, giving us a total of $100,000.
[5:20:17] Allocated to each of those reserves. Okay, so secondary for
[5:20:21] that. Councilor Baines. Okay. Do you want to speak first
[5:20:25] or last? I will speak last.
[5:20:38] Falls to me. If I originally proposed the 50,000. But
[5:20:42] if council is of the opinion. again that This is
[5:20:47] an appropriate allocation to make to keep the momentum going
[5:20:52] for this, which is what I think it will do.
[5:20:55] I would hope they would support this. I'm not going
[5:20:58] to support it because I think it should be the
[5:21:00] full amount. I honestly am of the view that if
[5:21:07] we have these funds, we know our community wants a
[5:21:10] recreation complex we know our community would like in our
[5:21:13] complex, and I realize. Those. Aren't always the same people,
[5:21:19] but sometimes they are. And if we don't start putting
[5:21:23] money into this, we'll never get there. So I'm not
[5:21:27] going to support this, but when we're finished, if it
[5:21:29] doesn't. Pass, I'll be suggesting 140. Go to each of
[5:21:33] those two reserve funds, okay? Any other comments?
[5:21:43] Councilor rain just. To. I'm not going to support it
[5:21:48] for that reason. If we've got the money. To put
[5:21:51] in those two reserves, I would put the whole amount.
[5:21:54] So I'll be the same way. I won't support it,
[5:21:56] hopefully. We can have another motion to put it. 140
[5:22:00] in each one. And with a 50 that we're already
[5:22:04] there, we'd get. 190. Each because. I think the draft
[5:22:10] budget two has 50 in there. Okay, let's bring this
[5:22:14] to a vote. All in favor? Sorry. Oh, yeah, sorry.
[5:22:17] Thank you. So. I was trying to be conservative. Because
[5:22:27] of the original vote. However, if it was the will
[5:22:31] of counsel to split it and put it in each
[5:22:34] of those reserves. Then I would happily withdraw my motion.
[5:22:40] You could amend it. And move that instead. Okay. How
[5:22:46] does the secondary feel? Okay. Comments on this deputy mayor.
[5:22:55] So we have money going into affordable housing that was
[5:22:58] going to go into affordable housing anyway, and now we're
[5:23:01] going to turn around and use it to fund. Recreation
[5:23:06] facility and art centers. So I can't accept that. What
[5:23:11] I was going to be proposing. If this was defeated
[5:23:15] because I wasn't going to support it was consideration of
[5:23:19] the Mat. For 2026. Because I look at that as
[5:23:22] more appropriate for Murphy, for an art center, because of
[5:23:27] the tourist. Based part of it, but. I can't support
[5:23:31] money that was going into affordable housing in the first
[5:23:33] place, and then saying, oh, that gives us money to
[5:23:35] give to something else that I won't be supporting. I
[5:23:40] think our challenge is we all want more money to
[5:23:42] go into these two projects on the horizon and where
[5:23:46] the pot should. Where the pot should come from. In
[5:23:52] this situation is the question. And just to remind you,
[5:23:57] Our opportunities for funding. In addition to the 280 we're
[5:24:01] talking about is we have our investment income. That was
[5:24:06] unexpected. And the treasure suggested between 510,680 thousand could be
[5:24:12] available. So I guess that's the main amount. Is that
[5:24:21] right, treasure that I'm thinking of. Funds we could still
[5:24:24] allocate. Three. Mayor to the mayor. There is the investment
[5:24:30] income, and then there's also the 250,000 from the 2026
[5:24:34] Matt funding so in the staff report, that amount was
[5:24:37] used. To reduce the tax rate. However, council may wish
[5:24:42] to allocate that differently because there's that potential as well.
[5:24:47] But if we allocated that differently, the taxes would go
[5:24:50] up, correct? Right? Okay. All right. Yeah. Go ahead.
[5:25:00] We have a $250,000 amount that we hadn't decided how
[5:25:04] we were going. To allocate it. That part was supposed
[5:25:08] to go again. Operational tax site. What I was talking
[5:25:11] about when I talked. About the murphy. In the art
[5:25:16] center reserve. That's not operational taxes, so I would be
[5:25:20] looking. To get even more complicated. I was going to
[5:25:27] be putting on the table a motion to reduce the
[5:25:31] amount of the entity. From 60% back to 50%. Based
[5:25:35] on all of our conversations, I think it's. An appropriate
[5:25:38] move to do. And look at 26 allocation. And possibly
[5:25:44] look for a funding source for the merf. And our
[5:25:50] center reserve. So I'm just being clear about my intention.
[5:25:54] But as I said, I can't support. The motion as
[5:25:57] it is right now. Would it be useful at this
[5:26:01] stage to look through? Because if we assume we have
[5:26:07] up to about 700,000, we could allocate what if we
[5:26:10] were to look at the things that still haven't been
[5:26:13] funded in the staff. Report and see what that adds
[5:26:16] up to, and then. See where we're at. So I
[5:26:21] think what I have here. I'll start with. There was
[5:26:25] moving staff to P 55, which was 166,000. Then there
[5:26:30] was the capital S. I'm not saying we have to
[5:26:32] necessarily vote for all these things, but. What is the
[5:26:35] whole list? Okay, capital asset manager position. We would fund
[5:26:39] half of that at 80. Just from the staff report.
[5:26:43] That's with the budget today. Page three.
[5:26:55] Yeah. Page three. Yeah, it's everything that's in here. Okay.
[5:27:06] There's a question about additional insurance that I believe councilor
[5:27:09] Baines is going to make a motion on later. I'll
[5:27:16] put that to one side. The ccat request comes out
[5:27:20] of reserves. I don't have to worry if we want
[5:27:23] or we can take it out of taxes. But that's
[5:27:27] 40. I'll put it to one side. There's the question
[5:27:30] of the irrigation from rugby, but that seems that could
[5:27:35] come out from development charges. If I read that correctly.
[5:27:41] But we can check that. Accelerator request.
[5:27:54] Which. I can't even remember how much it was. Was
[5:27:59] it 131 30? I'll just. Put it in, for human's
[5:28:03] sake. Okay. Accelerator. Capital asset. B 55 and then there
[5:28:10] was topping up. The HR person from seasonal to full
[5:28:15] time, that was 54,000. I hate charm. And let's
[5:28:25] just throw another one in. Councilor Baines, when you bring
[5:28:31] your motion, how much were you going to. Just going
[5:28:33] to. Put everything in here. 14. Okay, I'll put in
[5:28:41] 14 for big numbers. Okay. And we haven't dealt with.
[5:28:45] The cheerlifts, and I think that'll be a bit of
[5:28:46] a discussion based on. The staff reports, okay? So let's
[5:28:52] just add up. These few things here.
[5:29:05] Maybe I need the treasure. 166 plus. 80 plus 130.
[5:29:13] Plus 54. Yeah. 54 plus 14 equals 444. That
[5:29:22] sounded about right. And so I took into account p
[5:29:25] 55 the capital manager. An accelerator position. Hr to full
[5:29:33] time. And the insurance. That was four. Four, four. And
[5:29:38] so what we haven't taken into account. Is uneas to
[5:29:44] the asset or management reserve or. Monies that we want
[5:29:48] to put more into that. Or funding. For our Merf
[5:29:55] and art center. So if we said 680 was the
[5:29:59] maximum, we're going to take from the investment income. And
[5:30:02] we use four. Four, four. That is seven, three. We
[5:30:07] still have 236,000 that could be allocated to VMURF. And
[5:30:13] what center? Does any of that make sense to anybody?
[5:30:17] With all that? Yeah. Let me just check with the
[5:30:20] treasure before I get to you depth. Treasure. Have I
[5:30:24] sort of covered most things here? I'm just trying to.
[5:30:32] Add up it as well. So the P 55 at
[5:30:35] 166 the asset management manager 80,000. Hr at 54,000. Were
[5:30:44] the additional. Resource requests that haven't been included. So that
[5:30:52] is a total of 300,000, and then I have 14,000.
[5:30:57] Because councilor Baines is going to bring a motion about
[5:30:58] insurance. And I put in the 130 for the accelerator.
[5:31:05] Yes, that is 444,000. okay and then if we were
[5:31:14] using the 680 as the unexpected income At 680. Take
[5:31:19] off. Four, four, four. We're left with 236. And if
[5:31:21] we divided that by two. We'd have one, one, eight.
[5:31:26] Each, and we already have 50, so we'd have 168
[5:31:30] going into the reserve funds for. Each of those for
[5:31:32] this year. So that's where my brain is going on
[5:31:36] all of this. And maybe we could work through these
[5:31:39] and decide if these are things that council wants. Deputy
[5:31:41] mayor. Regarding. The investment income. I'm following the direction of
[5:31:50] staff. When they gave us the estimate for surplus at
[5:31:53] the end of the year 3813, which includes. The investment
[5:31:57] income. And I can't accept the idea of putting it
[5:32:02] against operating costs going forward because that's only one year.
[5:32:07] All those things we just outlined carry over into 27,
[5:32:10] too. So you're looking at a point, percent and a
[5:32:12] half that you're putting on to the taxes in 27.
[5:32:17] With that methodology. I do intend on coming back again
[5:32:21] to talk about. The amount of capital levy, and that's.
[5:32:27] Where I'll be utilizing the investment income outcome for 25,
[5:32:31] which, as I said, led to the surplus of 813,000.
[5:32:36] That is estimated by. The treasury. So I just like
[5:32:41] to clarify with the treasure, because you're using a number
[5:32:45] of. Deputy mayor with sent upper 818. Yeah, from the
[5:32:53] report, the estimate is $813,000 surplus at the end. 25
[5:32:57] and that includes. The investment income. Oh, I see. The
[5:33:02] total surplus. Right. Okay, I got it. Okay. Comments on
[5:33:10] any of this. Or motions. Yeah. Thanks, Brian. Harold, you
[5:33:18] referenced in here, as you're going through the list about
[5:33:20] the capital. Manager stopping request just for clarification, do we
[5:33:25] not exclude that or are you just talking? About potentially
[5:33:28] including that. We haven't included it yet, okay. I wasn't
[5:33:37] sure if you were, if you were speaking to it
[5:33:39] already being included, because it wasn't included, okay? And I
[5:33:43] think there was a memo attached to the staff report
[5:33:47] today for today's meeting. About what that person's job would
[5:33:50] be. Yeah. Okay. Maybe it's a good time to ask
[5:33:55] councilor Baines to bring his motion on. Insurance. Also recommend
[5:34:00] including an additional 13,200 to our annual insurance premium as
[5:34:06] per the confidential email received from staff. The clerks reminded
[5:34:12] me there's another motion on the floor which I've lost
[5:34:14] track. Of castle door cut off. Right. Okay. Sorry. All
[5:34:21] right. Sorry. We'll come back to you. Councilor Baines. So
[5:34:25] sorry that I got way laid here. So could you.
[5:34:28] Just because you spoke about perhaps. Changing your motion. And
[5:34:35] I think that's where we got lost. Right. Okay. That's
[5:34:42] right. Based on the math that we've just discussed here,
[5:34:46] I'm not sure. We got. 283 at this point in
[5:34:52] time, So draw the motion for now. So are you
[5:34:56] withdrawing your original motion and putting a second one? Okay.
[5:35:01] It's another one right now. Do you want to put
[5:35:03] the other one on now? Yes. So. I would like
[5:35:08] to. Increase the contribution to the merf. And arts reserves.
[5:35:18] By 100,000 each. Bringing it back to the original. Recommended
[5:35:24] amount of 150,000. Per. Reserve.
[5:35:37] Okay, and there's seconder for that. Okay. Councilor baines. Councilor
[5:35:42] mccullough. This may be procedurally backwards. sorry But I find.
[5:35:51] We have kind of a moving shell game with amounts
[5:35:53] that are available versus amounts that need to be spent,
[5:35:56] and I don't think we've accounted for all the amounts
[5:35:58] that are available and determined which direction they should be
[5:36:01] going. So I'm not entirely comfortable voting on an amount
[5:36:04] for this given. I'm not comfortable with the total amount
[5:36:07] available. Right. Yeah. I'm not sure what else to do
[5:36:14] with this now. I'm going to ask the clerk to
[5:36:20] just explain her thought on this. Certainly through your worship.
[5:36:24] I was wondering if Councilor Dougherty. If the other items
[5:36:29] were voted on and having the understanding of how much
[5:36:32] is left in the pot. Makes sense. And then bring
[5:36:37] the final motion with whether it should be 100,000 each
[5:36:40] or whether it's 80,000 each or 110,000 each. If we
[5:36:45] do that. Mind you, I'm still cognizant that if there's
[5:36:49] no money left, at the end, then we may not.
[5:36:52] Get anything added, so I don't know. If our treasure
[5:36:56] has a running balance. Of the money that's available. And
[5:37:01] clerk, could you put up the motion we just passed?
[5:37:06] That councilor Dougherty brought.
[5:37:47] Just feeling. Plus, she's pulling it up. I know. Staff
[5:37:51] started working last spring, going through. Line by line in
[5:37:54] their budget and cutting out everything that was extraneous. So
[5:38:01] that we could come to a good number when we're
[5:38:04] sitting here. And also with this extra funding that's come.
[5:38:09] In from different places for different reasons. I just had
[5:38:12] a feeling. We can make all this happen if we
[5:38:15] figure it out properly, okay? All right, so. We've said.
[5:38:22] Of the month. So I just want to start with
[5:38:23] this, because this motion then says, We have $280,000 that
[5:38:31] we didn't have before. To spend. Is this right, treasure?
[5:38:36] It's money that when we did draft one and draft
[5:38:41] two, we didn't know. The amount that was going. To
[5:38:48] be allocated to the affordable housing. I just want to
[5:38:52] be careful because as we mentioned, the estate funding should
[5:38:57] be. Is required to. Be going to the affordable housing.
[5:39:02] The other amount, I think there's a little bit more
[5:39:04] discretion. So it's not so much that. It's additional funding.
[5:39:11] It's just reallocating. From what I've been following, reallocating the
[5:39:17] tax impact to contribution to reserves overall. So we're reducing
[5:39:25] the 400,000 to affordable housing that's coming from tax. We're
[5:39:28] still keeping 400,000, but utilizing this 280. So it's just
[5:39:35] nuanced on what we want to refer to. But it
[5:39:40] does mean for the numbers you've produced in budget number
[5:39:43] two. That there's additional funding available. Is that right? It
[5:39:51] does mean that if council were to maintain the tax
[5:39:55] rate that was presented, in staff report number two. Absolutely.
[5:39:59] It means that 280,000 could be redistributed. The tax 280,000
[5:40:05] could be redistributed as we didn't need. To raise the
[5:40:08] full 400,000 from taxes to still maintain the 400,000 affordable
[5:40:13] housing initiative contribution. Thank you. All right. And then there's
[5:40:17] just to go over where all the funds are coming
[5:40:19] from. Then there's the surplus from last year, which is
[5:40:23] eight. Hundred and 13,000. The treasurer suggested we spend up
[5:40:28] to 680 of that and the balance be put into
[5:40:32] assets management. Am I correctly summarizing that? Trevor Graham yeah.
[5:40:38] So I do want to caution when we do our
[5:40:41] quarter three forecasting. It's our best estimate at the time
[5:40:44] with the information. That we have. When we're anticipating what
[5:40:47] the surplus will be, I have no doubt. In my
[5:40:51] mind that we will still be in a surplus position,
[5:40:54] okay? This additional investment income was a result. Of income
[5:41:02] that was not budgeted in 2025. We saw the PPNS
[5:41:06] early. So while it does contribute to the surplus, It
[5:41:10] is sort of an opportunity for council to direct staff
[5:41:15] otherwise. It would go majority into the lifecycle reserve. So
[5:41:18] it's just an opportunity to cancel. Wish to direct staff
[5:41:24] to use it in a different manner. Okay. So that's
[5:41:28] 680. And so. That is. 960. All right.
[5:41:40] Councilor McCullough thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Just to clarify, There
[5:41:45] was mention of the Mat for 2026 thrown out at
[5:41:48] some point, which was the unallocated $250,000 portion of the
[5:41:53] town's mat. I think it's allocated or did I see?
[5:41:57] 250 is allocated and 250 isn't. Isn't? Yes, that's. It.
[5:42:01] So I just want to know if that's in the
[5:42:03] pot or in this discussion, or is it? Off. The
[5:42:07] table. I think it's off the table. I would suggest
[5:42:08] unless someone puts it on. But it would be good
[5:42:10] to see where we are next year. I would say,
[5:42:12] with how much we collect. Today. Just clarify. Treasure Gwen.
[5:42:21] I just want to clarify on that so we all
[5:42:24] have the same information. The 2025 390,000 has been fully
[5:42:28] allocated in the budget. The 250,000. Has not been allocated.
[5:42:35] However, the tax rate that was proposed, and staff, too,
[5:42:39] did incorporate that $250,000. Reducing the tax rate. So, in
[5:42:47] a way. It has been allocated. Maybe prematurely. I could
[5:42:55] back that out and let you know what the tax
[5:42:57] rate would have been. Had that not been. Okay, so
[5:43:01] let me just clarify to make sure I understand it.
[5:43:05] So we have thought for 2026, Conservatively, the town's portion
[5:43:11] of the mat would be 500,000. And of that, 500,000
[5:43:16] for 26. 250 has been used to reduce the tax
[5:43:22] rate. Has any other portion been used? No, it was
[5:43:28] through you, mayor. Note canceled direction was to only allocate
[5:43:32] 50% to be conservative. Because we don't know for sure.
[5:43:37] And I also did just. Want to also bring up,
[5:43:42] because we are approving that staff member or council so
[5:43:45] far as approving the staff member fully being funded by
[5:43:48] Matt. That would have to also be deducted. From the
[5:43:51] 2026 allocation because it's an ongoing. Staffing event, so we'll
[5:43:55] have to be funded through the 2026. So right now,
[5:44:00] the 250, which is the conservative half, is reducing our
[5:44:04] tax rate for next year. Okay. Deppy mayor. Okay, so
[5:44:11] just to clarify, There was nothing for affordable housing. And
[5:44:17] tax estimate that we got at the beginning. We decided
[5:44:20] to put 400,000 in, which is almost no. There was.
[5:44:24] There was nothing. It was in the option site. Everything
[5:44:28] had been moved over to the options site. Okay, I'll
[5:44:32] go through you and just clarify that with Treasurer Graham.
[5:44:35] But the full $350,000. Had moved in the base number
[5:44:41] that. Was the 2.75? At the beginning, I think there
[5:44:45] was 200, but we'll ask. The treasure. Go ahead. It's
[5:44:49] a bit of a tricky, but yes. The 350 was
[5:44:52] removed from the base. We still have in the base
[5:44:56] 155,000 towards affordable housing, and that's for staffing. And staffing
[5:45:02] costs and some initiatives. We also have 230,000 in the
[5:45:06] base budget. For social housing. As well, but the 400,000
[5:45:11] was not included in the base budget in the 2.75
[5:45:15] it is included in the budget now for draft two.
[5:45:20] So decision, the council was to move that back into
[5:45:23] the base budget. And I supported that. Now we're saying
[5:45:28] because we had affordable housing reserve increases that were going
[5:45:32] to happen. Because of the agreements we have in regards
[5:45:37] to culvert, and I do believe in regards to birch
[5:45:39] street as well. The agreement with Johnson was that. That
[5:45:43] was for social housing, and if it was a carryover
[5:45:45] of reserve that was there when we took over from
[5:45:48] rotary. Appropriately, it should stay into the affordable housing reserve.
[5:45:53] I'm not going to support taking the fact that we're
[5:45:57] putting $280,000. Into reserve through two obligations. We had to
[5:46:04] turn around then and say, okay, well, that frees up
[5:46:07] $280,000 of what we were putting in for the affordable
[5:46:10] housing reserve amount. And that's per the request of the
[5:46:15] affordable housing task force, again, because that means you're looking
[5:46:19] at a three quarter percent impact in 27. If you're
[5:46:23] going to maintain the 400 right off the bat. So
[5:46:28] when I talked about the mat, it was because. I
[5:46:32] do believe there's an appetite to try to find some
[5:46:35] more funds towards. The reserve for art center and for
[5:46:39] Merf. I think there's an opportunity with that. Unallocated portion.
[5:46:44] That we talked about for 26, but I'll get into
[5:46:47] that separately when we deal with this particular motion. So
[5:46:52] I think. There's so many ways to cut this, and
[5:46:55] I think we're very fortunate. I'm just going to say
[5:46:57] that. But. For argument's sake, let's leave the 280 out
[5:47:05] of our discussion and let's. Assume it all goes. To
[5:47:11] affordable housing reserve fund right now. We're still left with
[5:47:15] 680, which was if I could just go back to
[5:47:18] where I was before. 680 was the amount from the
[5:47:22] surplus. That the treasurer suggests would be the maximum, which
[5:47:27] you would suggest we use. For 26. And this was
[5:47:32] the number we are going through before. Where if we
[5:47:35] put in 166 for the p 55 80 for a
[5:47:39] capital manager, 130 for the accelerator 54 for the hr
[5:47:44] person. And 14 for the insurance. That was 444. And
[5:47:49] from the 680, we're left with 236. Divided by two,
[5:47:53] it's 118,000 to go to each of the murph and
[5:47:57] the art center. And there's already 50 there, so. It
[5:48:01] would mean this year we're putting 168 into each of
[5:48:03] them. So that was where my mind was sort of
[5:48:07] going on this, but let's get councilor. Baines motion on
[5:48:10] the floor if we could. Okay. Thank you. That council
[5:48:14] recommend including an additional $13,200 to our annual insurance premium.
[5:48:20] As per the confidential email received from staff, Hey, would
[5:48:27] there be a second or. Councilor Jeffrey. Any comments? All
[5:48:33] those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Yay.
[5:48:39] 14,000 or 13,200? Okay. So what about the HR position?
[5:48:47] We'll maybe just go through these. So this was conversion
[5:48:51] from a seasonal to a full. Time person. I did
[5:48:55] note that I would like to put a motion on
[5:48:58] about the mat. Okay, but I thought we still had
[5:49:05] an emotion from councilor Dougherty. I think she withdrew. That
[5:49:08] one for now. I think. I'd like to see what
[5:49:15] we're left with now. I feel like I'm trying to
[5:49:19] work backwards into something. So let's see what we're left
[5:49:23] with. Thank you. So. If I understand your
[5:49:33] motion, I'll let you say it in a minute. But
[5:49:35] the decision. We made a few months ago or a
[5:49:38] year ago, where we divided them at taxes. 40% for
[5:49:43] the town and 60% for tourism. Collingwood, this is what
[5:49:49] you would like to change. Is that correct? Thank you,
[5:49:52] Mayor Hamilton. And I was the one who put the
[5:49:54] motion on. The table because I was the one who
[5:49:57] said, let's not allocate, but let's show the entity that
[5:50:00] we're really. Serious about tourism. Now that I've seen what
[5:50:05] we've done with the 390 for this year. I think
[5:50:08] we're serious about tourism, so I do believe that it's
[5:50:12] better that it's a 50 50 split with the entity,
[5:50:15] so I'm prepared, right? Now. To submit the council that
[5:50:20] we changed that back to a 50 50 split, and
[5:50:24] then based on the outcome of that motion. I would
[5:50:28] put another motion forward, but we'll deal with that only
[5:50:31] at this point in time. Okay. Does there a second
[5:50:34] or for that councilor ring? Okay, anyone like to address
[5:50:37] this councilor? Baines. Just a question of clarification. 50 50
[5:50:41] for 26. I'm assuming. For 2020. It can be for
[5:50:48] 26 because. No, sorry. In my view, it should be
[5:50:52] 25 and 26, because we're taking our whole portion of
[5:50:57] 25, and we're putting it towards tourism. In a realm
[5:51:02] of tourism, right? There's economic development and things like that.
[5:51:05] But I think the whole concept is built around furthering
[5:51:08] the tourism and downtown visioning which I look as part
[5:51:11] of tours. I understand, but seeing is that the entity
[5:51:14] is not up. And working right now, we can retroactively
[5:51:18] go back for 25 and say it's 50 50 rather
[5:51:21] than 60 40. Thank you. We can get clarification from
[5:51:25] the treasurer, but I do believe we would be able
[5:51:28] to. Yes. So the legislation requires us to. Put to
[5:51:36] only have access to 50% of the funds from that.
[5:51:41] As I've heard from our staff and the reports we've
[5:51:44] had, best practices is to put 60% in. And what
[5:51:51] is before us so far. Is. To work on that
[5:51:57] 60% for next year. So how we're going to allocate?
[5:52:00] The funds. Who can come in? Is this something? For.
[5:52:05] Director Qubit about what happens if we change this. Valentine.
[5:52:14] Dr. Valentine. Okay, go ahead. Thank you, chair. And through
[5:52:16] you. It's a difficult question from my recollection of the
[5:52:20] legislation. Not being a lawyer. Is that if we committed
[5:52:25] to the 60%, to the ETE, we need to honor
[5:52:28] that. For that year where it was committed. So my
[5:52:32] recollection of the legislation is we have to make at
[5:52:34] least one payment to the ete that covers that year
[5:52:39] of the 60%. That was committed. So I don't believe.
[5:52:42] Although you can certainly direct us to get legal advice
[5:52:45] to confirm. This that we can go back now and
[5:52:48] change the allocation for 2025. However, council can certainly go
[5:52:52] forward and change the allocation for 2026 that is within
[5:52:55] your purview under the legislation. So long as that you
[5:52:58] don't go below 50% going to the Ete. And with
[5:53:03] respect to the funds that would be spent in 26.
[5:53:09] How is that impacted by? If we were to shift
[5:53:12] the allocation now. Like in the budget. You've got a
[5:53:16] plan for 2026 for the 60% of. The mat funds.
[5:53:22] Or through the chair. I'm a little bit at a
[5:53:24] disadvantage because I missed the November. meeting however I believe
[5:53:32] that we're only talking about the municipal portion that was
[5:53:35] allocated in 2026. Not the portion that was going to
[5:53:39] the Ete. So presumably, if you were to increase the
[5:53:43] municipal portion, then that allocation could also increase within the
[5:53:48] budget. I would say, though, that I understand from the
[5:53:52] meeting on the 24 November there was a lot of
[5:53:55] discussion about how much of the tourism master plan could
[5:53:57] be essentially moved to the Ete. To implement. Provided that
[5:54:04] those stay within the etE's legislative guide rails, which are
[5:54:09] you must spend your money on tourism promotion, which could
[5:54:12] include tourism product development, and we think there's about ten
[5:54:16] out of 30. Some recommendations from the tourism master plan
[5:54:20] that could fall under that bucket, so. Just a little
[5:54:22] caution there that if that was. Council's expectation that the
[5:54:26] Ete drive forward those ten recommendations, it will be more
[5:54:29] challenging. For them to do so. If we reduce the
[5:54:31] amount of money flowing to them in 2026. Right. Okay.
[5:54:38] Any other comments? We'll come back to you. Anyone else
[5:54:41] want to speak to this? Okay, your turn. In the
[5:54:46] original proposal from staff, it was a 50 50 split
[5:54:50] and. It was therefore. Also further recommended about 35% being
[5:54:57] kept in tourism and 15% being used for other purposes.
[5:55:02] Again. I do believe the right thing to do. Is
[5:55:10] to drop back to 50%. I appreciate. The recollection of
[5:55:16] Director Valentine that it obligates us. To stay with 25.
[5:55:23] So. It would only be in my motion for it
[5:55:27] to be for 26 on. And. It will be following
[5:55:33] what staff had recommended. And as I said, We are
[5:55:36] talking about simply then taking our 50% and splitting it
[5:55:40] in half. And so 25 will be going to still
[5:55:44] be used for tourism things. It'll just be. At our.
[5:55:47] And one of them, I think, is being able to
[5:55:50] put some money into reserve for Murph. And our center.
[5:55:56] So the motion I'm making right now is just simply
[5:55:59] to change back to a 50%. Allocation as of. 26,
[5:56:06] forward. I just have to confess, I feel like I'm
[5:56:09] standing on 1ft, not knowing, really. What it would mean
[5:56:13] to do this. Councilor Dougherty. I had a thought.
[5:56:24] And. That was what if we were to run through
[5:56:28] these outstanding items, vote on each one, and have the
[5:56:33] treasurer if she doesn't mind. To give us a riding
[5:56:39] total of where we sit. Taking into account. That we
[5:56:44] have some surplus funds that we can use for. These
[5:56:49] projects. Because. I'm very confused right now, honestly. So, deputy
[5:56:56] mayor, would you be content to hold your motion down
[5:56:58] till the end, or do you want to dealt with
[5:56:59] now. No, I'm prepared to take the outcome of it
[5:57:03] and then. Decide because, as I said, the next step
[5:57:06] is going to be to try to deal with the
[5:57:07] Murphy art Center situation. Okay, so I'd like it to
[5:57:11] call the vote, all right? Councilor ring. If
[5:57:21] that's all the comments. All in favor? And those opposed.
[5:57:30] Just me, okay? So, Mary Hamlin, the second part of
[5:57:33] my motion would be based on the fact that we
[5:57:36] know there's some additional funds coming in. I'd like to
[5:57:39] propose that. From the mat portion that is considered the
[5:57:46] towns. We put $100,000. 50,000 for them, for the merf.
[5:57:55] And 50,000 for the art center to come out of.
[5:58:01] The other portion of. The mat for 26. So I
[5:58:05] think what I would like to ask the treasurer is.
[5:58:09] By switching. Our portion of the Mat to 60% from
[5:58:15] 50. What additional funds do you see us having? In
[5:58:21] our little hand. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. It would be
[5:58:26] 50% for 2026. And again, this is a very conservative
[5:58:30] estimate. Would then be 625,000 as opposed to the 500,000.
[5:58:36] So a total of 312,500. Would be. What council could
[5:58:44] allocate based on their prior direction. So an increase of
[5:58:47] $62,500. Before we get to that, I
[5:58:57] just want to clarify what the treasure said. So. Treasure
[5:59:01] Graham. The additional. 10% going to the town, as opposed
[5:59:08] to the tourism entity, would give us an additional 62,500.
[5:59:15] Is that what you said? it would give an additional
[5:59:20] $125,000 for the year that council had directed staff to
[5:59:24] include 50% To be what you would pre allocate for
[5:59:26] 2026, again, noting that this estimate is based. On our
[5:59:31] short year that we've had in 2025, and there's potential
[5:59:34] for it to be higher. Okay. So we have an
[5:59:39] additional 62,500 if we follow the same process. I'm sort
[5:59:44] of wondering, deputy mayor. I definitely hear how you'd like
[5:59:48] to allocate it. I'm sort of. Wondering if we shouldn't
[5:59:50] go through everything and see how much is left at
[5:59:52] the end. But it's up to you. But if we
[5:59:57] have 62,500. You're wanting to allocate 100. Because I think
[6:00:05] that conservatively means that. We should be fined in total
[6:00:11] for the reserve for the year. And. It meets some
[6:00:16] concerns about trying to increase the Murphy and the rec
[6:00:20] center. Okay, well, I think what we'll do is we'll
[6:00:23] just put that to one side that we voted. On
[6:00:26] having another 62,500 on top of the 680. 62. Five.
[6:00:35] So that. Is 742,500. All right, how are we going
[6:00:40] to spend all this good money? All right, so let's
[6:00:42] go back. Let's go through these things here. Mayor Hamlin.
[6:00:46] Sorry, I'm putting. A motion on table. And if I
[6:00:54] don't have a second her, that's fine. But I'd like
[6:00:57] to make a motion to increase. The murph in the
[6:01:03] art center. Allocation by $50,000 each to come from the.
[6:01:09] Merf or the mat for 26. Knowing that the proportion
[6:01:14] that the treasurer is recommending would be 62,500. I don't
[6:01:21] believe treasure is recommending it. She said that it's going
[6:01:24] to. Increase by $125,000. And as I said, I'm conservatively
[6:01:28] allocating 100. Of that. We did outline that we are
[6:01:33] going to be able to use 50% for town purposes,
[6:01:37] but. Right now, we've only approved $250,000. So we haven't
[6:01:42] approved the other 62,500. Let me break this down a
[6:01:47] bit. So what the trigger had suggested to us, that
[6:01:53] of our mat funds, I'll say the town the portion
[6:01:56] that the town can spend for 2026. We shouldn't spend
[6:02:02] more than half of what our estimate is. Because we
[6:02:06] should be conservative. What if. There's a recession and nobody
[6:02:10] goes to hotels. It's hard to predict. We're looking ahead.
[6:02:15] For funds that aren't guaranteed. So in her view, I'll
[6:02:18] just say, It was that. We would have available and
[6:02:24] spend up to 50%. Of what our share could be.
[6:02:30] So. I think the first thing we have to decide
[6:02:34] is, do we want to change that? Because if we
[6:02:38] don't get to 100 that you would like to allocate
[6:02:41] unless. We change the premise that's in the budget? No.
[6:02:47] So. I'm not proposing that. I'm proposing the 100,000 comes
[6:02:51] from the. Mat. That is the tourism portion. That. We
[6:02:58] allocated $390,000 towards tourism from the mat in 25. We
[6:03:04] said that we want 50% of 26 to be allocated
[6:03:08] towards. At the time, that was $250,000, and that's what
[6:03:11] we passed. That allocation still remains fixed. That meant there
[6:03:17] was another $250,000 that we maintained we would use for
[6:03:23] tourism related purposes. In future, but we would wait until
[6:03:28] 26 to allocate that, but. I'm suggesting that the $100,000
[6:03:34] comes from that portion. And that's what I'm putting on,
[6:03:38] is emotion. Is this clear to everyone except me? Okay.
[6:03:44] I'm just not getting it. Treasure, I think you need
[6:03:46] to explain it to me. My brain's not working. Yeah,
[6:03:50] go ahead. I'm having trouble getting to where the hundred
[6:03:56] is when we only have 62 five. This is. Three
[6:04:03] mayor. It's an estimate. So the amount that we're estimating,
[6:04:07] that we're going to collect in 2026. In total for
[6:04:12] the mat is just $1.25 million. If now that we're
[6:04:17] doing 50, 5625 thousand of that will be going towards
[6:04:22] Collingwood. And not tourism. Collingwood. Council had directed staff at
[6:04:26] the last meeting to use 50% of that as a
[6:04:30] conservative estimate. I do think council could go a little
[6:04:34] bit higher if they did want to meet that 100,000.
[6:04:37] Again, this is an estimate. I cautioned at the last
[6:04:41] meeting because it is an estimate and we've only had
[6:04:45] nine months. Of Matt. Until we really see trend analysis,
[6:04:50] we likely don't want to spend something. We haven't actually
[6:04:53] collected. Would I be comfortable increasing that to the 100?
[6:04:58] Yeah, I would be. I think that's fine. And if
[6:05:01] that's cancel direction. Yeah, I'm still trying to
[6:05:11] clarify it myself. Because that's not my intention. The 250,000
[6:05:18] we set on was based on a 50% allocation that
[6:05:21] could be used. To help on the operating tax site.
[6:05:26] The other portion is what I'm talking about, that we
[6:05:30] left there because we thought there. Might be other tourism
[6:05:32] things that we want to go and use forward, and
[6:05:35] I would maintain that. The creation of a murph and
[6:05:38] the creation of an art center has tourism based fish.
[6:05:41] So I'm looking at the 100,000 coming from. That non
[6:05:46] allocated to the operating side portion. Recognizing that, as you
[6:05:51] have said, The conservative estimate is 625. What I'm proposing
[6:05:56] is an allocation that totals $350,000, 250 from our portion.
[6:06:03] That we can allocate. And 100 from the other portion.
[6:06:07] I'm hoping that's clear to the treasurer and. Can she
[6:06:10] just verify to me that it is okay? Go ahead.
[6:06:14] Thank you. Yes, that is clear. And that is how
[6:06:17] I understood it too. Just noting. That. That's just a
[6:06:19] little bit more than 50%. And that was the last
[6:06:21] cancel. Direction, and that's okay. It's council's direction with the
[6:06:25] 50%, so. If cancel wants to increase it by that
[6:06:27] small amount. Absolutely. It's okay. So that was. Where I
[6:06:30] was coming to ten minutes ago, I think. We need
[6:06:34] to have a motion first. To increase. Spending more than
[6:06:38] 50% of the mat for 2026. Deputy mayor Hamlin. That's
[6:06:45] not what I'm proposing. Well, that's fine. I understand. I'm
[6:06:50] glad I asked the clarification at the treasure. What I'm
[6:06:55] saying is. We have $250,000 we're taking out to be
[6:06:59] used to help on the operating tax side. I'm asking
[6:07:03] that the other hundred thousand is coming out of that
[6:07:06] other portion that's. There. Not. The 50% that we had
[6:07:12] established last meeting. I don't believe we need emotion because
[6:07:16] we're dealing with that other portion, not. The allocated portion
[6:07:21] that we decided on about the 50%. And again through
[6:07:25] you, Mayor Hammond, I'll just check with the treasurer and
[6:07:27] see if I'm being clear there or not. Treasure. While
[6:07:34] you're explaining, can you explain where the 100 comes from
[6:07:35] then? Thank you. Okay. I'm following. So in total, our
[6:07:42] estimate for 2026 Matt collection at 50%. Of. There's a
[6:07:49] lot of 50% going around right now. The revised 50%
[6:07:53] tourism colluwood, 50% Collingwood portion. The Colliewood portion is 625,000.
[6:08:00] Estimate it we've included 250,000, which was the 50% that
[6:08:04] we had estimated when it was 60 40 split. Their
[6:08:08] 100,000 would still come from the 625,000. So in total.
[6:08:14] We're just pre allocating 56% of what we are estimating
[6:08:17] it to be. But. They're not necessarily tied to each
[6:08:20] other. I believe the deputy mayor is just asking for
[6:08:23] an additional 100,000. From the 625,000 to be allocated towards
[6:08:30] the Murphy art Center? I don't know. If I'm losing
[6:08:32] my mind here, but doesn't that mean we're taking more
[6:08:35] than 50% for 26 treasure, it means we're taking 56%.
[6:08:40] Okay, but that. 50%. That council had decided on the
[6:08:44] 250,000. Again, is the council direction. It's not a right.
[6:08:47] I totally understand that, but the distinction here. And this
[6:08:52] is where I'm losing. It is. The deputy mayor is
[6:08:54] insisting as I've heard them that. It's not increasing the
[6:08:58] 50% share. So I think, Deputy mayor, perhaps you could
[6:09:03] clarify. This with the treasurer, so we understand it. So
[6:09:07] if we. Call the 150% portion the tourism portion, and
[6:09:15] we call the other portion the operating tax portion. I'm
[6:09:20] leaving that alone. I am saying from the tourism portion,
[6:09:25] which we don't know what it's going to be. When
[6:09:28] we have estimates as to how much we think it'll
[6:09:29] be. It could turn out that the 250 that we're
[6:09:32] allocating the operations side is 50%. When it all comes
[6:09:38] in. So I'm saying that tourism portion. I'm suggesting we
[6:09:43] use $100,000. Of it to put 50 into the MeRf
[6:09:47] and 50 into the AC reserve. And I understand the
[6:09:53] overall impact of that is 56% of the 625, but
[6:09:58] I'm trying to discern between the two. Because I don't
[6:10:02] believe there needs to be emotion, because. We're not allocating
[6:10:07] more than $625,000. Okay, so maybe. What you're saying. Then
[6:10:12] we'll have one more go at it. The 50% that
[6:10:16] would go to tourism. Collingwood. Are you saying we should
[6:10:20] take the funds from. There. Not Hollywood, because that's the
[6:10:23] entity. Yeah, I understand. Calling it the tourism portion. Okay,
[6:10:28] I think we'll just. Vote, okay? 225%
[6:10:37] and not be operating. I have never heard this division
[6:10:42] between operating in capital. I don't know where. I didn't
[6:10:44] see that anywhere, so I'm not understanding that. Either. Yeah,
[6:10:49] tourism. Yeah, which is the 56. So it's 56% of
[6:10:57] our share instead of 50. Okay, so we're going to
[6:11:01] vote on whether we're going to. That's how I understand
[6:11:03] it. I've heard from the treasurer. 56% of our share
[6:11:07] instead of 50. All those in favor? Okay. What's the
[6:11:13] dollar amount on that 100? It puts $50,000. We're having
[6:11:18] a vote here. All those in favor? Those opposed? One
[6:11:24] opposed. Okay. It would put $50,000 into the Murph and
[6:11:30] the AC reserves. So they would increase to 100,000. Without
[6:11:35] a tax impact. Yes. I'm sorry. I
[6:11:45] don't see how that can happen without a tax impact.
[6:11:50] Because the 250 was fully allocated to reduce tax, and
[6:11:53] it still is. So this is the additional 100,000 is
[6:11:57] coming from. Matt, so. You're allocating beyond the 250. To.
[6:12:06] Worth the additional. Okay, so. That was what. We were
[6:12:10] trying to clarify earlier. Now I understand. So it's beyond
[6:12:13] the 250? Yeah. I still would have liked it to
[6:12:17] be discerned, but I'll accept the 56%. Just to get
[6:12:21] it through. There's no other way to look at it.
[6:12:27] Okay, that was it, though. All right, so let's now
[6:12:29] go through the other items. Right.
[6:12:39] Okay. Anyone want to extend? Councilor Dougherty to councilor Dougherty.
[6:12:46] Councilor Jeffrey, seconded by councilor Dougherty. All those in favor?
[6:12:52] And that's it. So councilor Jeffrey's just reminding me. We
[6:12:56] need to add in an amount. For a discussion still
[6:13:01] to be had for council reneweration.
[6:13:31] So just to recap right now where we are, Is.
[6:13:38] We have 100 in each of the reserve funds for
[6:13:41] the Mat and sorry for the art. Center and the
[6:13:44] Murph. Okay. All right. Okay. Is anyone opposed to us
[6:13:51] going through the list of aspen voting on them? Okay,
[6:13:56] Hr, for the third time. This is the one to
[6:13:59] reduce the part time position to full time. Anyone interested
[6:14:04] in making a motion on that? Councilor. Banks. As I
[6:14:12] recall, last year at this time, did we not defer.
[6:14:17] This. I look at director peg. And said, we'll get
[6:14:21] back to this next year, and now we're here. This
[6:14:25] opportunity to address this from last year. So that being
[6:14:30] the case, To that undertaking that I think we made
[6:14:33] last year, at least to revisit it. I would put
[6:14:36] this motion on that. This 54. Be adopted. Okay. Thank
[6:14:41] you. Would there be a seconder, councilor Dougherty? Anyone like
[6:14:45] to speak to it? Deputy mayor, please. With the report
[6:14:53] from the treasurer. We're looking at 3.15% impact. I can't.
[6:14:58] Support additional spending right now. So I'm just putting out
[6:15:03] there and I won't have to repeat myself. I won't
[6:15:05] be supporting any additional. At this point in time. I
[6:15:11] think the blended tax rate, if I can just practice
[6:15:13] 2.84%, that's. The blended. Yeah, I'm only talking about the
[6:15:17] municipal portion. Oh, I see. Okay. I think I should
[6:15:27] be just making sure we have a good understanding of
[6:15:31] the funds we're. Going to allocate potentially. So. It was
[6:15:39] the 680. And.
[6:15:52] From. The 680. Well, we have 680, or there's 813,
[6:15:58] which is the full amount of the surplus. And the
[6:16:03] treasure suggested we not allocate more than 680. Does anyone.
[6:16:10] Want to keep that in mind, deputy mayor. I think
[6:16:14] we better have a vote on whatever the $600,000 amount
[6:16:18] is, because I'm not in favor of allocating that. To
[6:16:24] specific items. My thought all along had been the opportunity
[6:16:30] exists to reduce the capital requirement. For amp. So. I
[6:16:39] think if it's being suggested that we have. 15, but
[6:16:43] I just heard 680. So whatever the number is, I
[6:16:46] think we need to have a vote on that so
[6:16:48] I can oppose that. If that's the intention. Well, I
[6:16:55] don't think we need to vote on that yet. We're
[6:16:56] going through as I said earlier, the different amounts, and
[6:17:00] we're still on a motion for the HR. Position. Finally.
[6:17:04] It wasn't me. Any other comments on the HR position?
[6:17:15] Okay, let's bring it to a vote. All those in
[6:17:17] favor? 12345 opposed.
[6:17:26] That carries the next one was. Let's see here. Moving
[6:17:34] to P 55 for our staff. I think we've had
[6:17:37] a lot of discussion about that. Would anyone like to
[6:17:40] bring that as a motion? Councilor Dougherty. Would there be
[6:17:45] a seconder? Councilor Bains. Okay. Any discussion.
[6:17:55] Councilor Dougherty. Absolutely. We've been kicking this down the road
[6:18:02] for a couple of years now. And. We've already demonstrated
[6:18:09] that. We're losing staff because. Other municipalities are paying more,
[6:18:17] so. Let's get competitive. It's just as simple as that.
[6:18:21] And like I say, We've been discussing this now for
[6:18:25] the last couple of years, and we never moved forward.
[6:18:28] It's time to move forward on this. Be fair to
[6:18:32] our staff. Okay. Thank you. Councilor jeffrey. Thank you. Mary
[6:18:39] Hamlin. I think we are competitive, and I would challenge.
[6:18:45] You on a wholesale comment that people are leaving because
[6:18:49] of money. I would disagree with that totally. I'm not
[6:18:54] prepared to go to the P 55. I just think
[6:19:00] the impact is. Too great. At this point in time,
[6:19:05] so I will not be voting in favor of this.
[6:19:08] Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to ask a
[6:19:13] treasurer. Actually, it was executive director, peg. I have this
[6:19:19] different recollection than Councillor Jefferies, which was. That. My recollection
[6:19:24] was that our comparator municipalities were at P 55 and
[6:19:28] P 60. But I know you are the fountain of
[6:19:32] all this knowledge. Could you remind us? Thank you. Thank
[6:19:37] you, mayor. So through you to all of council. So
[6:19:40] we do certainly have missed comparators that are at p
[6:19:44] 55 and p 60. And part of the base budget
[6:19:48] includes. Moving our current pay policy in alignment to the
[6:19:52] P 50. But the P 55 would be in addition
[6:19:55] and put us at 5% above the medium of our
[6:19:59] comparator group. Which we do certainly have comparators that are
[6:20:04] at P 55 and P 60. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
[6:20:09] Councilor Potts. Thanks, mayor Hamlin. Just curious. On the comments
[6:20:16] of my colleague, councilor Dougherty. Do we have supporting documentation
[6:20:19] that our staff are leaving because of neighboring or comparators
[6:20:25] or neighbor municipalities are paying more. Do we actually have
[6:20:28] that supporting documentation. That's the statistics. I think that's a
[6:20:35] question for stop. Sure. Executive director thank you, mayor. Through
[6:20:41] to councilor Pott. So we do conduct exit interviews when
[6:20:45] employees leave. Year to date, we're at 8.1% employee turnover,
[6:20:50] and I would say it's reasonable. That a proportion of
[6:20:53] those employees. Are leaving due to salary. There are other
[6:20:58] considerations why employees leave municipality, including Morrell. And although compensation.
[6:21:08] Is quantified separate. Apart from that, I think discussions and
[6:21:11] conversations around compensation do also impact morale. Yeah. Thank you.
[6:21:18] Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. totally all due respect
[6:21:25] the staff i'm not going to support it Because we're
[6:21:28] starting to push towards 4%. And. For 25. Our investments
[6:21:36] earned $10 million. Some of it's been brought in, some
[6:21:41] of it's? There if we cash out. And we're talking
[6:21:45] about increasing taxes 4%. That's where we're starting to push
[6:21:50] towards. If we start accepting some of these and the
[6:21:53] municipal portion. As I say, all due respect to staff,
[6:21:57] I'm not supporting any more spending. i've put
[6:22:07] a good proposal on about a significant reduction By not
[6:22:08] having to take as much in the amp, and that
[6:22:10] was defeated. But I will be bringing that back onto
[6:22:13] the table another time, but I'm not supporting it, and
[6:22:18] I wanted to make sure that I said this has
[6:22:20] nothing to do with stop performance. It's totally about the
[6:22:24] overall increase. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. I
[6:22:33] did. Threw the chair. Want to add a couple of
[6:22:35] items here? We did, in the end, do quite well
[6:22:42] on our investments recently. That said, most of that amount
[6:22:49] has been reinvested back into the reserve funds, which produced
[6:22:54] the income, both that original amount of funding. When we
[6:22:59] put. Aside. Council puts enough aside, for example, to pay
[6:23:04] the kilometer of road. We do that sometimes, so. We
[6:23:08] can save up to pave so many kilometers at once.
[6:23:11] But what that means is when. We do ultimately spend
[6:23:13] that money, we still want to be able to pave
[6:23:15] a kilometer road. So the investment income is reinvested, quite
[6:23:21] appropriately, in those capital asset type reserves. So. We wouldn't
[6:23:29] be expecting to apply that generally to taxes, but there
[6:23:32] is an amount that we have on the table here
[6:23:34] today? The surplus. That includes the unexpected investment income between
[6:23:39] 510 and 680, which is not that situation, but a
[6:23:42] large portion of the 10 million is in that situation.
[6:23:45] So it's gone back to make sure we can build
[6:23:49] and do things in the future. I also did want
[6:23:54] to echo. Executive director Peg in the sense that. It
[6:24:03] is important that. We do keep our staff most of
[6:24:08] the positions that we have. Are four plus and sometimes
[6:24:11] a lot more than four years of education, and we
[6:24:14] keep people around. For five or seven or ten years
[6:24:17] to really learn. Their jobs and be experts in something.
[6:24:20] That's an unusual, often an unusual thing to do. Water
[6:24:24] treatment. Public works. Engineering. And it hurts us quite a
[6:24:32] bit when we lose them. We have been losing. clerking
[6:24:37] Planners. We've been losing folks to the county. There's engineer
[6:24:41] pieces. There's people in the rec field that. Have been
[6:24:46] leaving, I would be the last person to ask council
[6:24:50] to approve all of the items. That are on your
[6:24:52] list? Because I think that that's the hard decisions that.
[6:24:56] You do make? But with the funding that you have,
[6:25:00] the P 55 and potentially the capital asset manager are
[6:25:04] pieces that I think are investments in things that you
[6:25:07] built through good decisions. And I would ask you to
[6:25:10] put those near the top of your priority list. Sorted.
[6:25:13] Of course. Through your view of the municipality. Thank you.
[6:25:18] Okay. Thank you. Just wait. I think we'll see if
[6:25:21] anyone else would like to speak to. This. Yes, please
[6:25:29] do. And I wasn't going to get into the full
[6:25:38] conversation at this point in time as I said I'm
[6:25:40] going to bring up both the capital at another time.
[6:25:43] I pointed all this out. In my. Motion last time
[6:25:48] to reduce the 0.8%. And explain that I understood. $4
[6:25:54] million came into lifecycle reserve. And in my opinion, The
[6:26:00] $15 million annual requirement is almost all being made up
[6:26:03] by. The amounts we have coming in now, but as
[6:26:07] I said, I wasn't going to get into all those
[6:26:09] conversations. The reality is. The investments that were made made
[6:26:14] $10 million that are not included in any of our
[6:26:17] budgeting. Or anything like that. That's great performance of our
[6:26:20] investments. I'm looking to try to reward the taxpayer. Because
[6:26:26] they're the ones who made the investment. Thank you. Okay.
[6:26:29] Thank you. On the P 55. I know there's five
[6:26:35] people who've gone to the town of the Blue Mountains.
[6:26:37] I ran into somebody who recently had left our municipality
[6:26:41] for the town of Blue Mountains. About ten months ago,
[6:26:45] and there were five people there. And I don't know.
[6:26:51] I just feel like with the county at P 60.
[6:26:55] And the municipalities we mostly compete with for staff at
[6:26:58] p 55. I'm going to support this. Yes, Councilor Potts,
[6:27:05] thanks for Hamlin the one. Challenge I have when we
[6:27:08] talk about the comparators. With the municipality. I spoke to
[6:27:13] a staff from another municipality. Yes. There was no doubt
[6:27:17] that. Their pay grade is a little bit more. However
[6:27:23] they're doing the job, the position they hold. In that
[6:27:26] municipality, we have three people. Three staff in the town
[6:27:30] of calling who are doing the same job. So when
[6:27:32] you look at three stop in the town of calling.
[6:27:35] We're getting paid x number of dollars. Of course. One
[6:27:39] position handling all that workload. That's where I have the
[6:27:42] issue. And that goes. Back to the amount of staff
[6:27:45] that goes back to, so to say, comparators. Absolutely. I'm
[6:27:49] sure there are municipalities that are paying a little bit
[6:27:51] more, but they're also doing the workload of double or
[6:27:54] triple of three people over staff. Okay, well, I don't.
[6:27:58] Know that we have information. On that. Okay. Anyone else
[6:28:00] want to talk before we bring this forward? Councilor Baines.
[6:28:05] No one likes. Perhaps paying this, but I think if
[6:28:10] you're running an efficient organization, You have to pay people
[6:28:15] a good salary. And some may disagree what the definition
[6:28:19] of a good salary is, but. I think executive director
[6:28:23] Pig's percentage there of turnover. Is disappointing, and I think.
[6:28:31] It can only get worse if we don't pass this.
[6:28:33] I think you need to get good people. You need
[6:28:35] to keep good people, and you need to pay for
[6:28:37] good people, and that's what I think this does, and
[6:28:40] that's why I'm supportive of it. Okay, we'll bring this
[6:28:43] to a vote, then. All those in favor? P 55.
[6:28:47] On 2345 opposed. That's four that passes. Thank you. Okay,
[6:28:53] next item is. The capital. What's this person called? I
[6:29:00] can't find a song report here. Okay. You have to
[6:29:08] help me out here, CEO. Why can't I find it?
[6:29:11] I believe it's called the capital asset manager. Looking up
[6:29:16] myself here, And because this is a new position. For
[6:29:21] us. Should council approve it? Could you just take a
[6:29:24] moment and explain? Exactly what this person would do. Sure.
[6:29:33] In an attachment to the report. If anyone wanted to
[6:29:36] look it up later is the asset manager. Position or
[6:29:40] the capital asset manager position. And this is taking on
[6:29:45] some net new work. It's not work that largely we're
[6:29:48] doing now, and I think I'm going to just point
[6:29:51] out briefly to you. A couple of the things that
[6:29:55] we already do. We do basic asset tracking. Annual capital
[6:29:59] submissions done by the department. 's planning and design and
[6:30:04] construction of $100 million of work per year or more.
[6:30:09] And corporate coordination. But the new position would be providing
[6:30:12] dedicated leadership to integrate, analyze, and optimize our asset portfolio.
[6:30:18] With better evidence based capital planning, asset management expertise, regulatory
[6:30:23] compliance. And that type of thing. And I want to
[6:30:26] just talk briefly about the asset management expertise. Sometimes it's
[6:30:32] hard for people who aren't in the municipal world. To
[6:30:37] understand this work. But it's like as if you have
[6:30:40] one roof. And maybe you run some apartment buildings you've
[6:30:44] got. The roof. You want to get in there and
[6:30:47] replace those shingles when they first start to. Come off
[6:30:49] before someone's bathroom has started to decay because you haven't
[6:30:54] fixed the roof. And then sometimes you can even get
[6:30:56] up on those roofs a little early and look at
[6:30:58] the shingles that haven't even come off yet and make
[6:31:00] sure that they're taken care of on a nice sunny
[6:31:02] day in the summer instead of the middle of the
[6:31:04] winter. But if you multiply that over the billion dollars
[6:31:08] of assets that the municipality has, it becomes quite. A
[6:31:13] big process. However, the outcomes. Can be advantageous for us.
[6:31:21] We spend about 100 million. It does fluctuate quite a
[6:31:24] bit. We have a lot going. Out the door a
[6:31:25] bit more than that right now because of our water
[6:31:27] treatment plant, but if we can make decisions that would
[6:31:31] stretch our dollars further or put the money in the
[6:31:34] right places. There's a potential that of the about 80,000
[6:31:39] that would come from taxes for this, it could be
[6:31:42] more than offset within the 100 million. The other thing
[6:31:45] that we're really putting our brains to right now is
[6:31:48] that. We are down about 15 million, and I hope.
[6:31:54] We could figure out a way to make that a
[6:31:56] lot less if we could figure out our asset management
[6:31:59] investments. Some of that will be. To some of that.
[6:32:07] Will be. To change our asset management target condition levels,
[6:32:12] we may need to reduce some. Some of that may
[6:32:14] be retiring assets. But that work would also be the
[6:32:18] work of this position. And the final piece. That's been
[6:32:21] a lot of pressure lately is the development charges. The
[6:32:25] province has changed the timing of when a lot of
[6:32:27] development charges will come in and. There's quite a bit
[6:32:30] of pressure to relook at what municipalities are charging for.
[6:32:34] Development charges. So the capital planning involved in updating development
[6:32:40] charges and coordinating that work with the work from master
[6:32:43] plans and the asset management plan. Is a level of
[6:32:48] sophistication that we haven't had to get to in the
[6:32:52] past. I'm sure that's more than you expected, mayor, but
[6:32:54] I just wanted. To do the position justice. Thank you.
[6:32:58] And what department would this person slot into? The expertise
[6:33:04] would be engineering and finance. But our proposal is that
[6:33:07] the person would be from the finance department. The intention
[6:33:10] is that it's a central, non siloed position. They probably
[6:33:15] will do most of their work with the infrastructure department,
[6:33:17] but there's pieces of it that they would work with
[6:33:19] parks. And others to coordinate our entire capital program. And
[6:33:25] our minor capital program, which would include public works. And
[6:33:29] the concept is to cover half of the cost, which
[6:33:33] was 80,000. Through taxes. And where does the other half
[6:33:36] come from? I think that would be. A question for
[6:33:41] Treasurer Graham, please. Treasure Graham. Thank you. It comes from
[6:33:45] our OSAF allocation. So OSAF allows us to allocate 80,000
[6:33:49] up to $80,000 to staffing work on asset management. Okay.
[6:33:54] And that's? An ongoing. Amount. Okay, would anyone like to
[6:33:58] move this as an item? Councilor Dougherty. And we have
[6:34:03] a second. I don't think anyone understood what you said.
[6:34:08] Sorry. Okay, good. Yes, councilor
[6:34:17] reigned. I just have a question before. Seconding or a
[6:34:23] second or for councilor Dougherty's motion, and that is if.
[6:34:28] For whatever reason, we decided to defer this one year.
[6:34:31] Does the Osam grant still exist? Next year for the
[6:34:34] funding of half of this. Pressure three. Mayor yes, it
[6:34:39] does. No second. Okay. Is this relating to this motion,
[6:34:49] or is this a different point? While it's relating to
[6:34:52] what we just heard from the Cao. Well, it's not
[6:34:57] on the table. There's nothing to be said. Okay, next.
[6:35:04] The next item is. The accelerator position. So just to
[6:35:13] remind you, the gentleman came who is running our accelerator
[6:35:19] and made his pitch for 130,000. He's the sole employee
[6:35:24] there with someone else who is there part time. In
[6:35:29] fact, I don't think he's an employee. I think. Well,
[6:35:31] anyway, just matter. How that worked. Pardon? It does matter.
[6:35:37] Oh, I was going to say, I think he's an
[6:35:38] independent contractor. I think that's how they've arranged his compensation
[6:35:43] with the board there. So he gets half of his
[6:35:50] funding from Collingwood this year and half from the federal
[6:35:54] government. The federal government's funding, as I understand, will run
[6:35:57] out after 26, if I understood that correctly. He has
[6:36:03] gone to other municipalities and. They have not been agreeable
[6:36:08] to funding this position. So it's whether we want the
[6:36:13] accelerator to continue. Counselor, bacolic. Thank you. Mary Hamlin. The
[6:36:21] one thing I walked away from after that presentation was
[6:36:24] that there was no stipulation that the business be located
[6:36:27] in Collingwood, and neighboring municipalities had not stepped up to
[6:36:31] the table. So I take issue with the fact that
[6:36:34] we're funding businesses that exist elsewhere. And I don't know
[6:36:38] how much that impacts the funding request, but I think
[6:36:41] that needs to be addressed. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Jeffrey.
[6:36:46] Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. So if we did the funding.
[6:36:49] Can we make that stipulation? I mean, when you make
[6:36:51] a donation to anywhere. To organizations. You can say where
[6:36:54] you want the money to go to. Cao, can you
[6:36:57] respond? Thank you. Through the chair. Yes. In the past
[6:37:03] we have made the stipulation that businesses had to be
[6:37:06] in town. Of Collingwood. There have been some challenges with
[6:37:10] that in interpreting. Where businesses are based. And I don't
[6:37:18] know if Director Valentine may have more to say. On
[6:37:23] that one. But certainly, if you did choose to fund
[6:37:27] the accelerator again, I would be very supportive of wanting
[6:37:30] to prioritize Collingwood businesses for any supports provided. And also.
[6:37:39] That the accelerator has been doing work. In the ideation
[6:37:45] and growth as well. Or the ideation than sort of
[6:37:48] small business side. As well as that larger piece, which
[6:37:52] is all about getting investors and really magnifying the growth
[6:37:56] of businesses. And we do have the small business enterprise
[6:38:00] center that does that. Original ideation and in. Initial sort
[6:38:04] of. You don't have any employees or you have one
[6:38:06] or two and you're. Just building your business. So items
[6:38:09] that really focus the accelerator on those businesses in Collingwood.
[6:38:13] That are approaching readiness for that spurt of growth would
[6:38:17] also be quite positive. If I can also just add
[6:38:20] a fact that he mentioned when he was here. The
[6:38:25] funding that comes from the federal government. Was contingent on
[6:38:30] it being spent in a broader region, like, I think
[6:38:33] it was Simcoe Gray. And Bruce. And so in particular,
[6:38:39] I think they wanted to make sure. He was involved
[6:38:42] over. Where the nuclear Bruce nuclear expansions going on because.
[6:38:49] There's, I don't know, many, many millions of dollars of
[6:38:54] new business that's. Going to come out of that. And
[6:38:57] the other thing he mentioned was. Almost all of his
[6:39:02] mentors come from town of Blue Mountains. So it wasn't
[6:39:07] exactly you could draw a line around Collingwood, but I
[6:39:11] just wanted to. Add those points that you had. Okay.
[6:39:16] The other thing that's on my mind, if I could
[6:39:17] say, is it really struck me. When he was here,
[6:39:21] that there needed to be more coordination between the work
[6:39:25] he does and the work of our economic development manager
[6:39:29] because. There was some. Cross things I thought they were
[6:39:39] getting and they were both looking at the same thing,
[6:39:41] and perhaps this is what the CEO was just saying.
[6:39:45] And I would be in support of some funding going
[6:39:48] if there was some time to cooperation and coordination. with
[6:39:55] our economic development department So those are all my thoughts,
[6:39:59] Councilor Jeffrey. Thank you, Mar Hamlin. Well. I'd like to
[6:40:04] move that we. Invest the $130,000 into the accelerator. On
[6:40:11] the stipulation that our investment, they can spend the Fed
[6:40:15] money wherever they want, but. Our investment would be spent
[6:40:18] on Collingwood businesses and coordinating with our economic development department.
[6:40:24] Okay. Would there be a seconder for that? Councilor Dougherty?
[6:40:27] Further comments. Councilor Paynes. I have a hard time supporting
[6:40:32] 130. But on the other hand, at this point, if.
[6:40:38] We suggested 80 or a lesser amount. I'm not sure
[6:40:40] that's the critical mass. For him to continue doing that
[6:40:43] function in that position, so. It's an untenable situation for
[6:40:47] me, as I just think 130 is a little rich.
[6:40:52] I think it's what we put into it the last
[6:40:53] few years. I think this would be a good year.
[6:40:56] And perhaps once we're finished, the budget discussions. But a
[6:41:00] good year to just sort of drill down. Into how
[6:41:04] the accelerator is organized, how we can better. Align everything
[6:41:08] with our own. Initiatives. Councilor Perry thanks, Mayor Hamill. And
[6:41:15] I totally agree with Councilor Jeffrey. The only question I
[6:41:18] have is. How do you track it? I'm not sure
[6:41:23] how you would do that. It looks like councilor McCallick
[6:41:27] might have an idea. Councilor McCullough. Thank you. You read
[6:41:32] my mind. I would like to see some reporting as
[6:41:35] in other agencies and people that we deal with. So
[6:41:38] we gave you 130. How did you spend it? Who
[6:41:42] did you give it to? And how often should we
[6:41:46] ask for this reporting? I can't think twice a year.
[6:41:51] Minimum. More. Quarterly? I don't know. It's up to you
[6:41:57] guys. Motion. Counseling. I just like to add. We have
[6:42:04] been giving them the money, and it sounds like it's
[6:42:07] a good investment, but. It still bother me that it's
[6:42:10] called South Georgian Bay and nobody else gives them any?
[6:42:14] Money. Okay, so we give them the $130,000. Okay, we're
[6:42:20] going to hopefully come up with a solution, how to
[6:42:22] track that to see what he's doing with the money,
[6:42:24] but the last two or three years. When he comes
[6:42:27] back and makes his sales pitch to us for the
[6:42:30] money for the following year. He talks about same business
[6:42:33] as they did previous year. Impossible metals must be because
[6:42:38] he talks about them all the time. 90% of his
[6:42:41] pitches for them, which is they're doing great things. Don't
[6:42:45] get me wrong. And they're maybe worth it. But. I
[6:42:51] don't know how we're getting 130,000. Yeah, I curious, is
[6:42:55] he? Still working with them, or is this just old
[6:42:57] news? Right? Yeah, exactly. Deputy mayor. Thank you. Mayor Hamlin
[6:43:05] and I spoke about this last meeting. I not supportive
[6:43:09] of carrying on with the business accelerator? Because the initiative
[6:43:14] that we're putting forward is to hire another staff person
[6:43:17] to economic development. Out of the Mat funding. And it
[6:43:21] would have to be on an. Ongoing basis out of
[6:43:24] the mount funding. Because. It's not coming back on the
[6:43:28] taxes. And. I would need to see a lot because
[6:43:33] it talks also as well. We're putting 35,000 towards. Economic
[6:43:38] Development Action plan. That we're getting a $35,000 grant for,
[6:43:44] so I'm not supportive. Of putting another 130 into economic
[6:43:48] development. And then wait for reporting. I'd like to see
[6:43:52] the action plan. I'd like to see how we're going
[6:43:55] to incorporate the new staff person. If it's just going
[6:43:59] to be doing exactly what this accelerator was doing, then
[6:44:04] that's. Great. I'm just not going to support putting $130,000
[6:44:08] towards the accelerator. Director Valentine. Would the person. Who's been
[6:44:16] proposed to be at a technic development. Be doing the
[6:44:20] same kind of work as the accelerator. Thank you, chair.
[6:44:25] And through you at this point in time, we had
[6:44:27] proposed that that position would work on driving forward the
[6:44:30] tourism master plan. A different bucket of tasks, separate and
[6:44:39] apart from the accelerator. But I would underscore. and the
[6:44:38] downtown master plan so it would be The comments previously
[6:44:43] made by I believe it was Cao Skinner that the
[6:44:47] accelerator does duplicate with the sBAC. So. They were initially
[6:44:53] set up to be only the growth phase of businesses,
[6:44:56] with the SBEC taking care of ideation and launch. And
[6:45:00] then we found that there was a missing step within
[6:45:02] our ecosystem. How do we get those who have been
[6:45:05] successful at ideation and launch to then move? Towards that
[6:45:08] scaling upward growth phase. As I understand it, the accelerator
[6:45:12] couldn't find that critical mass within our area. So they
[6:45:16] opened up. What they were offering to businesses and now
[6:45:19] duplicate on those initial two phases with the aspect so
[6:45:23] it's that duplication that I would be perhaps more concerned
[6:45:26] about than the new staff. Person that's being proposed. So
[6:45:31] perhaps I'll just ask you then. The motion that's on
[6:45:35] the floor right now is about coordinating. Do you feel?
[6:45:41] That. can happen and we can get some benefit out
[6:45:45] of having because it was struck me About Peter was.
[6:45:49] He's so well connected with the businesses and the mentors
[6:45:53] in our area, and I'd hate to lose that. But
[6:45:58] what are your thoughts on that? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin.
[6:46:05] As. Staff have communicated with council. It is somewhat difficult
[6:46:11] for us to support a full 130,000. Given that only
[6:46:14] four businesses from Collingwood were supported last year with our
[6:46:18] contribution, and we are the only municipal contributor. hearing i
[6:46:27] think what councilor jeffrey is suggesting though if i'm correct
[6:46:30] on her intention is that full 130,000 be directed towards
[6:46:33] collingwood businesses which is a different scenario If those businesses
[6:46:32] can be found, we would certainly welcome more collaboration with
[6:46:36] the accelerator. We have made some overtures and attempts in
[6:46:40] the past, and they haven't been too successful. But I
[6:46:43] think if the accelerator hears Council's desire for additional coordination
[6:46:48] and that that be tied to the funding that. That
[6:46:52] would be a nice push in the right direction. Okay.
[6:46:54] And Councilor Jeffrey. I heard a possible amendment. From? I
[6:47:02] don't know who would have been, but anyway. It had
[6:47:06] to do with financial reporting. Financial reporting, I'm happy to
[6:47:10] add quarterly financial reporting. Okay. The feds are going to
[6:47:13] require stats anyway. okay so here is the motion that
[6:47:20] councilor jeffries put on the table
[6:47:32] Does that cover? Cover it? Okay. And I just want
[6:47:42] to ask. Who seconded this? Yes, Councilor Dori. Are you
[6:47:47] happy with those changes? Yeah, okay. So you want to
[6:47:52] speak again? Yeah. I'm going to ask for clarification to
[6:47:55] see if I recall correctly from the report. Did it.
[6:47:59] Talk about succession planning. And the fact that there was
[6:48:03] going to be a new person becoming involved in running
[6:48:07] the accelerator. Or do I recall that incorrectly? I didn't
[6:48:11] read that. But. Director Valentine. Did you see that? Thank
[6:48:17] you. Chair through you. I've not seen that directly. In
[6:48:22] any written correspondence. I've heard that there's potential for staff
[6:48:27] turnover, but I think some of it depends on council's
[6:48:29] decision tonight and how that will affect the accelerator's operations
[6:48:33] and. If they are able to move forward. With their
[6:48:36] current staff compliment or have a change up in someone
[6:48:40] of a hell more additional staff. People. So, mayor hamlin.
[6:48:46] It can only have come from the report that I
[6:48:47] remember. Read that. and i guess what it was was
[6:48:53] Just the possibility, right? It was just, as you say,
[6:48:56] that there was a possibility of success. Succession. At the
[6:49:01] accelerator. But again, I'm not supportive of it going forward.
[6:49:07] Okay, I actually have a question for the treasurer. If
[6:49:11] this motion passes. How do the funds get distributed to
[6:49:15] the excel operator? And what's on my mind is if
[6:49:19] the gentleman running it leaves. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you,
[6:49:23] Mayor Hamlin. In the past, We receive a payment requisition
[6:49:28] from the folks in Ectev based on the signed memo
[6:49:31] of understanding, and it stipulates when the payments are to
[6:49:34] be made. Okay. I would have to look at what
[6:49:36] the entity's name is. That we're making the payment to
[6:49:41] be 100%, but it would tie into whatever the memo
[6:49:44] of understanding was it's not made to the specific individual.
[6:49:47] It's made to. Entity. All right. Okay. Director Valentine. Do
[6:49:54] you know how often those payments are made? Is it
[6:49:57] more than once a year? Through you chair. My recollection
[6:50:01] for the MoU for 2025. That there was one lump
[6:50:10] sum payment and then there was a hold back for
[6:50:12] the reporting, so. It was essentially two payments, but staff
[6:50:16] would certainly be supportive. Of payments being tied to the
[6:50:21] reporting that council. Desires. Further amendment. Further amendment.
[6:50:34] Yes. So the clerk would just need to add in
[6:50:36] that payment, be tied to the financial reporting. Does
[6:50:46] anyone need to see that up on the screen or
[6:50:48] is that straightforward? Okay. No more comments. All those in
[6:50:57] favor? 12345. Those opposed? 1234. Okay, so that carries.
[6:51:12] I covered everything. Have a look. Two
[6:51:22] stair seat lifts at the Eddie Bush.
[6:51:34] I'll leave that for now. It's a pretty hard one.
[6:51:44] Is there anything we've left out here? Oh, Councilor Dorothy,
[6:51:48] are you still thinking? No. Go ahead. The CCAT requires
[6:51:53] over 40,000. Right. Thank you. Right. Did you want to
[6:52:02] bring a motion on that? yes i will bring a
[6:52:08] motion on that and i will add that the degree
[6:52:12] to which they work with and coordinate with our climate
[6:52:16] change specialist Is. You could not. Get a staff person
[6:52:21] for that annual amount. For the work that they do.
[6:52:26] They're valuable to the community, and I think. That's a
[6:52:31] very good investment. Yeah, definitely second that. Anyone like to
[6:52:34] second the motion? Councilor Jeffrey, any comments? Councilor Potts. Thanks,
[6:52:42] mayor Hamlin. Still not 100% decided on this. Only thing
[6:52:47] with a three year equipment is I'd hate to throw
[6:52:49] that commitment on the next council for. A two year
[6:52:54] commitment. So I'll wait to hear what my colleagues. I
[6:52:58] understand the work. They put in and certainly do. But
[6:53:00] it's when you're throwing that kind of commitment out there.
[6:53:06] I'm still undecided at this point. Okay. Which of our
[6:53:10] staff could comment on whether. It's a three year commitment.
[6:53:16] Is helpful. Executive director. Thank you. Mayor. If I may,
[6:53:20] I'd like to make just a couple of comments about
[6:53:22] the request overall, please. Thank you. So, first of all,
[6:53:25] of course, staff want to acknowledge the work. That CCAT
[6:53:29] has done specifically in working with our climate change specialists,
[6:53:32] but also in general, in that portfolio, working with all
[6:53:35] staff. We do have several examples where CCAT has been
[6:53:42] instrumental in moving projects forward, specifically our greener Homes Better
[6:53:46] Futures Project Earth Fest. They were key leads in 2024
[6:53:50] and 2025. Participation in municipal climate initiatives like our community
[6:53:56] climate Action Plan. They were very involved in the consultation
[6:54:00] process and working with Tamarac on that project. If council
[6:54:04] did desire to proceed with funding to CCAT, it would
[6:54:07] be staff's recommendation. That that was tied to projects specifically
[6:54:12] that were linked to town purposes. That would just help
[6:54:15] ensure that the initiatives that CCAT worked on were tied
[6:54:19] to, for example, our community climate action plan or a
[6:54:21] corporate climate action plan. Because certainly they do bring a
[6:54:26] great skill set and additional capacity that we don't have.
[6:54:29] In house today. But. It would be definitely beneficial if
[6:54:33] it was tied to town projects. Got it. What do
[6:54:39] you think, mover? I think really similarly to our last
[6:54:44] scenario that you do stipulate that it's specific to. Collingwood
[6:54:49] projects, and I do understand the necessity of having to
[6:54:52] have the momentum that some of these projects go over
[6:54:55] more than one year, so you can't fund them from
[6:54:57] this year. And then they find out next year they
[6:55:00] may or may not get funding, and they don't. Know
[6:55:02] if they can keep going with it. And I think
[6:55:05] financial reporting is also important piece of this. Maybe not
[6:55:08] as often, but. I think. Maybe. Even annually or semiannually,
[6:55:16] something. Do you think, executive director, how often? If they
[6:55:21] were going to report to us on their funding, would
[6:55:23] you suggest, or do you have a thought? Thank you.
[6:55:26] Mary Hamlin, I think semiannually. Would be more than sufficient.
[6:55:29] We do have regular communications with CCAT, so I'm confident
[6:55:33] that that would be an appropriate number. Okay, that's great.
[6:55:37] Who? Is the secondor on this one? Do we have
[6:55:40] a honey? Who moved it? All right. So are you
[6:55:45] happy with the changes here? Which. Yes. Okay. All right.
[6:55:50] And you're happy? Okay. I'm all happy. Deputy mayor. Thank
[6:55:55] you, Mayor Hamlin. So just clarification, this is just single
[6:55:58] year. They asked for commitment for. We can't tie the
[6:56:04] hands of the next council. That's what I'm saying. For
[6:56:11] the year. My understanding from the mover is that we're
[6:56:13] doing the three year. I can't support. Tying hands, as
[6:56:22] you say of next council in regards to CCAT. And
[6:56:27] tremendous work, tremendous people. The energy level is unbelievable in
[6:56:32] what they've done. So I can't support, though, for a
[6:56:36] three year allocation when we've got one. Year left in
[6:56:39] term. The other question I was going to ask is
[6:56:43] they outlined it as 25,000 to go. To core operations,
[6:56:46] including their director of community engagement and 15,000 to program
[6:56:51] support. So I was wondering. If the motion was looking
[6:56:56] to allocate that differently. But in any event, because it's.
[6:57:00] Three years. I can't support it. I actually am not
[6:57:04] concerned with the three years, because if they're doing semiannually,
[6:57:08] reporting. If they're not meeting their targets, we would hear
[6:57:14] this from our staff. And this could be discussed at
[6:57:19] the next budget. I sort of quite understand. They've been
[6:57:25] working hard for our community as volunteers for a number
[6:57:28] of years now. And there is some sense to have
[6:57:32] a continuity of funding available so they can make plans
[6:57:36] for the next year. So I think also I'll support
[6:57:39] the motion. Any other comments? I think. We're ready to
[6:57:45] vote now. All those in favor? 123456 those opposed. One,
[6:57:53] two, three. That passes. Thank you. Councilor Potts. The rugby
[6:58:00] irrigation. Yeah. So I think you had mentioned earlier that
[6:58:05] they could potentially come out of. Some other charges. I
[6:58:14] think we still have to have a motion for that.
[6:58:18] Yes. I put that motion on the table, whatever. Okay,
[6:58:23] I think it was. To think. Staff reported further, but.
[6:58:29] It was to proceed with the plan proposed by staff
[6:58:33] to irrigate the rugby field and that it would come
[6:58:36] from development charges in the amount of 55,000. Did I
[6:58:40] get that? Right. Treasure. Is that for you? Yes. I'd
[6:58:48] be happy to speak to that. The dollar amount is
[6:58:50] correct. I don't. Believe that this is DC eligible, though
[6:58:53] it would come from our lifecycle reserve. Lifecycle reserve. There
[6:59:00] we go. Thank you. Okay. So we have a mover.
[6:59:05] Seconder council ring comment councilor Baines. It's through you, mayor.
[6:59:13] If the treasurer could just tell us what does that
[6:59:15] will that. Bring the lifecycle reserve down. I'm sure it's
[6:59:19] just. -54,000. Yes, go ahead. 56. I wouldn't be able
[6:59:24] to do an accurate amount right now. I could tell
[6:59:28] you what 2024 reserve is, but we're still funding 2025
[6:59:32] capital. I couldn't quite answer that. Do you want to
[6:59:40] know what the 24 number was? Sure. Okay. Yeah,
[6:59:50] I figured as much. But. The 2024 is 7.3 million.
[6:59:58] Okay? We can afford it. Thank you. Councilor ring. Just
[7:00:04] a quick question through you. Too. I'm assuming the director
[7:00:09] of finance. I seconded it and I will support it,
[7:00:14] but I'm wondering if we have to. Why would this
[7:00:17] not be? Through our insurance. My understanding was. Was this
[7:00:25] damage to this system was done with somebody driving around.
[7:00:30] A motor vehicle. On the arc. Did we know that?
[7:00:33] Or is that my hearing rumors? I heard it was
[7:00:37] damaged with somebody driving around in a truck or something
[7:00:39] on the property. And the repairs have got to be
[7:00:44] done. Maybe I'm just hearing rumors. How long ago would
[7:00:47] that have been, do you know? It'd be a couple
[7:00:51] of years. It's been a couple of years since they
[7:00:52] haven't had it working right. Well, I think our clerk
[7:00:56] could take that away. And find out more about it.
[7:01:01] Director. Cuba? Yes, go ahead. Thank you, sir. You. I
[7:01:06] will say this is not a report that I've received.
[7:01:10] Not to say it isn't factual, but it's not something
[7:01:13] that I have learned. Of. In my research. My understanding
[7:01:16] is that. Just over the years. This particular field is
[7:01:22] really close to the bedrock. And so the irrigation system
[7:01:26] is. That much closer underneath the surface. And when it
[7:01:30] was used. For soccer. It could withstand a little bit
[7:01:35] more, but rugby is a lot harder on the field,
[7:01:36] and so we were just getting constant. Repairs needing done
[7:01:41] and just could not keep up with that. So that's
[7:01:43] why we find ourselves a place of needing. A full
[7:01:47] replacement and. A different maintenance program to maintain a new
[7:01:53] system being used by rugby. Okay. Councilor ring. Thank you.
[7:01:59] I apologize. But I had heard that, and I thought
[7:02:02] it was common knowledge. That's why I'm. Asking the question
[7:02:05] I guess I should ask before we started, but I'll
[7:02:07] support it. I mean, it's got to be done. I
[7:02:10] just was trying to save the town some. Money. If
[7:02:12] that's the case. Good thinking. Okay. Councilor Potts. Yeah, just
[7:02:17] quick. Mayor Hamlin. So what was reported to me through
[7:02:21] the ask and through the request was that. It was
[7:02:27] damaged. And it wasn't that long ago that the field
[7:02:31] was rehabilitated. With topsoil to kind of cover up what
[7:02:35] the damage was. And the irrigation piece. Was damaged and
[7:02:40] not repaired. That'd be about a year ago, maybe even
[7:02:44] a bit longer. So, through the last summer. Was the
[7:02:46] heavy drought. Which turned the field almost into concrete, so.
[7:02:53] Happy to see that it can get repaired. Not happy
[7:02:56] to see that it would cost $58,000. To repair it,
[7:03:00] but I guess it's a step in the right direction.
[7:03:04] Okay, so I'll bring this to a vote then. This
[7:03:06] is on the irrigation system to. Be paid for from
[7:03:09] the lifecycle reserve. All those in favor. And that's unanimous.
[7:03:16] Thank you. Have I left out any of the. Items
[7:03:22] in the staff report or that anyone else wanted to
[7:03:25] raise. Councilor jeffrey. I wanted to have conversation about council
[7:03:33] remunery. Of course. Go ahead. Thanks. I'm not sure what
[7:03:37] the amount should be, honestly. I read through comparators, but
[7:03:42] for some reason, town of Blue Mountains was not considered
[7:03:46] fully but. I googled it today, and they're at 49,000.
[7:03:52] Including that includes benefits for those who are taking them.
[7:03:57] We're around the 30. Thousand. Base rate. The treasurer can
[7:04:04] correct me if I'm wrong, but if I proposed. A
[7:04:09] 5000 annual per. Counselor. Increase for this budget.
[7:04:20] It would be the 5000 divided by 52 weeks times
[7:04:24] six weeks plus 8%. Estimated. For 623. Seven times seven
[7:04:31] members would be around $4,500. Impact on. The. 20. What
[7:04:38] did I say? 4500? Yeah. What did I say? Yeah.
[7:04:44] Well. That's my calculations I get for six weeks. I
[7:04:49] didn't understand all those. $5,000 annual. Right? So if you
[7:04:52] divide by 52 weeks in a year, multiply. Six weeks.
[7:04:56] So wait, 52 weeks in a year is how much?
[7:05:02] I think I got 576 97. 576, 97 or 92.
[7:05:10] Am I ready? And then I added 8% to get
[7:05:12] to 623, seven per each, so. What's 8%? Where did
[7:05:17] that come from? Just for benefits or whatever? Benefits. Are
[7:05:21] the benefits based on salary? Well, it's just a calculation
[7:05:27] we use in forecasting for estimates. Okay. All right. Yeah,
[7:05:33] I got so 623, seven times seven people. Is 43.
[7:05:39] 61 49. So I just said 4500. That's for 20.
[7:05:45] That's weekly. No. 5000 divided by 52 times six. Oh.
[7:05:55] Maybe I did something wrong. I'm only doing six weeks
[7:05:59] for 2026, right? Six weeks. That's all there is, six
[7:06:04] weeks in 2026. In 25. No, the elections aren't until
[7:06:09] 2026. Yeah. Pretty good. I'm just. Counsel, okay? Yes. You
[7:06:18] didn't clarify that, but I totally understand that we've done
[7:06:21] that previously. Three times. As I said, it's politically difficult.
[7:06:27] Increase your own. And I'm not going to sit here
[7:06:28] and increase hours at this point. Okay. I mean, if
[7:06:32] you wanted to suggest that you. 're sold with $4,500
[7:06:36] for 2026. So then when you get to 2027, annually.
[7:06:45] It's the 5000 plus whatever the benefits are, times seven,
[7:06:48] so it's around $40,000. Difference for 2027. But I think
[7:06:53] for what we're investing and what we're going to expect,
[7:06:57] two years out. For the new people coming. Into or
[7:07:04] whoever's sitting around the table here to invest. I think
[7:07:08] that that's reasonable. Yeah. Okay. Would there be a seconder
[7:07:12] for this? Councilor Dougherty. Okay, Castor Baines, just to put
[7:07:18] this in perspective, a good friend. Of mine who's a
[7:07:20] counselor in the township at Georgian Bay, where my cottages.
[7:07:25] 31,000 a year. 7600 permanent residents, about 13,000. Seasonal residents,
[7:07:33] but Holy moly. It's quite a difference. Thanks. they're probably
[7:07:40] not building wastewater treatment plants Okay. Yeah. Deputy Mayor thank
[7:07:47] you, Mayor Hamlin. And if I recall from the governance
[7:07:51] report correctly, That'll mean the councilors have paid the same
[7:07:55] amount as the deputy mayor. Going into the next term.
[7:08:01] And. I have no problem supporting the change for the.
[7:08:09] It probably is a little bit based on the fact
[7:08:10] that there is potential for the deputy mayor. To be
[7:08:13] going up quite a bit with the change, but if
[7:08:16] the government comes through and says, that the downsizing happens.
[7:08:21] Then the deputy will be the alternate. And only making
[7:08:25] what the perm meeting fee is at this point in
[7:08:27] time because we don't know how the allocation goes. As
[7:08:32] I said, I have no problem with supporting more compensation
[7:08:35] for counselors. I think you do have to do something
[7:08:44] with the deputy mayor position for 27 as well. And
[7:08:48] again, because I think there does need to be a
[7:08:50] differential between the counselor and. I'm recalling. As I say,
[7:08:57] I don't have it in front of me. I'm recalling
[7:08:59] that the report said that. The 35 for the deputy
[7:09:04] mayor and 30 for. The counselors. So if you're adding
[7:09:09] the five, that's why I'm. Saying. I believe then counselors
[7:09:12] and deputy mayor would be at the same amount. Yes,
[7:09:16] go ahead. Thank you. So understanding that they would be
[7:09:19] at the same base rate. I'm not sure what the
[7:09:22] fairness of that is, but you have the potential for
[7:09:25] 47,000. At county. I'm not sure. I think if you
[7:09:33] want to deal with that in 2026 for the 2020.
[7:09:37] Seven budget. Whoever's doing that. That you would have more
[7:09:41] facts than. I'm talking about six weeks in 2026. We
[7:09:48] could add five to the deputy mayor if that's what
[7:09:50] we want to do to keep it even. For the
[7:09:53] treasurer. Could we add an amount? That would apply. Like
[7:10:02] we're going to know. Within a few months, I would
[7:10:05] expect, whether or not the province. Is going to leave
[7:10:09] the deputy mayor positions at the county or not. So
[7:10:13] if the deputy mayor positions are left at the county,
[7:10:16] there would be a substantial increase. Can we make it?
[7:10:22] And because this won't kick in till the end of
[7:10:24] next year. Can we make a decision contingent. So in
[7:10:28] other words, it would increase, let's say, 5000. For the
[7:10:32] deputy mayor position. Unless the deputy mayor is still sitting
[7:10:38] at county because the salary at GLoB 47, I just
[7:10:41] want to hear from the treasurer, please. Well, I don't
[7:10:45] remember. You were in the middle of a question. Well,
[7:10:48] sorry, I'll. Come back to you shortly. Okay, let me
[7:10:55] just ask the councilor and are the treasurer and we'll
[7:10:57] come right. Back to you. Yeah, go ahead. Can we
[7:10:59] do contingent kind of thanks? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. For
[7:11:04] this dollar amount. Absolutely. So if we're looking at six
[7:11:07] weeks at $5,000 for one member, that's less than $650.
[7:11:15] so absolutely cancel can vote later to include that $650
[7:11:20] Without an issue. Thank you, deputy mayor. So that's what
[7:11:24] I was going to say to the councilor. Would a
[7:11:26] friendly amendment be to include the 5000 for 26. For
[7:11:32] deputy mayor and know that the next council will know
[7:11:37] when they're trying to deal. With going forward. The impact
[7:11:40] in 27. So that's what I was going to suggest.
[7:11:45] And it's on the premise that the belief is. At
[7:11:49] this point in time, there needs to be that differential.
[7:11:54] And then that may change depending on what the problem
[7:11:56] decides. So that was going to be a friendly amendment.
[7:12:00] That's fine. I think you and the mayor and the
[7:12:03] treasure are all saying the same thing. So that's fine.
[7:12:07] The second or whatever is willing. We just include that
[7:12:09] the 5000 annual differential for the six weeks for the
[7:12:12] deputy mayor as well. Yeah. But rather than leaving it
[7:12:19] on the next council, To have to change the compensation.
[7:12:25] Within the few weeks in their first budget. I would
[7:12:28] just like to have a consideration that if the Deputy
[7:12:32] mayor is going to be at the county that the
[7:12:35] increase not be given. I don't know. That's sort of
[7:12:39] what's on my mind, because that would be really a
[7:12:43] lot of an increase otherwise. Hard to say. I think
[7:12:50] that if we budgeted for the $650. Times. Six weeks
[7:12:59] or whatever it is. Well, we start November 15. We
[7:13:04] started last term, so it wasn't a full November. I
[7:13:08] don't think. Anyway, the clerk has a card up. Yeah,
[7:13:12] per commas. Certainly part of through your worship to council
[7:13:18] part of the information and nomination packages are counsel indicate
[7:13:24] what the remuneration is. And further to the staff report
[7:13:28] that was presented on November the 17th, the deputy mayor's
[7:13:32] salary would be. For? I believe it's 2026. Or it
[7:13:36] could be. With the applicable coal, I can't. Remember offhand.
[7:13:39] It's $35,509 in a counselor's. Salary is 30,079. So that
[7:13:47] would mean the council members would be making $400. Less
[7:13:51] than the deputy mayor. So I was amending mine to
[7:13:56] do the 5000 for the counselors plus the deputy mayor.
[7:14:02] Moving forward. Moving forward. And then 2026 budget people can
[7:14:07] do whatever they need to do. And. Can we ask
[7:14:13] staff to raise this as an issue in 26? Yeah,
[7:14:16] okay. All right. So what is the motion? I think
[7:14:20] we understand what the motion is. Any other comments, councilor?
[7:14:23] Ring. I'm not going to support this motion. We just
[7:14:29] sat here. And turned down. I voted against staff for
[7:14:35] P 55 and turn around and say whether I'm running
[7:14:40] again. Or get elected again. I don't feel comfortable. Increasing.
[7:14:47] Council salary when. I voted against all the ones for
[7:14:54] staff, so I'm going to vote against this. okay We
[7:14:59] get call anyways, right? So it's not. You're not going
[7:15:01] to get. An increase. We get call adjustments every year
[7:15:04] anyway. Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. And I'm not
[7:15:09] going to support it as well. I'm just letting everybody
[7:15:11] know. Okay. Other comments. Councilor Baines.
[7:15:23] I think Councilor Jeffrey has proposed a modest. Increase. Which
[7:15:28] is necessary to attract other potential candidates to sit in
[7:15:32] these seats. So I'm fully in support of it. Thank
[7:15:35] you. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Ring. Thank you very much.
[7:15:39] Is this a motive to get better counselors? Because we're
[7:15:45] saying here that we're not getting quality people unless we
[7:15:48] pay them. So. I'm kind of like. I don't know
[7:15:51] what we. Don't think it's supposed to take here and
[7:15:56] to get good people to get quality people. Got to
[7:16:01] pay them a little bit more. I was always running
[7:16:03] through my mind. Is to get people. Who? Have to
[7:16:10] be independently working or independently. Retired and can
[7:16:20] otherwise support themselves. Right? But someone has a full time
[7:16:23] job to take off the time that's required to be
[7:16:26] accounting. I would expect 30,000 doesn't necessarily enumerate everybody, but
[7:16:33] I don't. Know. That's my thought on it, Councilor Jeffrey.
[7:16:36] Well, I am self employed and. I can tell you,
[7:16:38] Miraman, that the hours that we do these meetings in
[7:16:42] the billable hours that I lose. I don't even think
[7:16:46] I break even. So I think that if you want
[7:16:48] to attract younger people. If you look at the average
[7:16:51] age of this council, other than this young guy, right?
[7:16:54] Here. I think that we want to be building a
[7:16:59] farm team and succession planning. And interest, and right now.
[7:17:05] I don't know that we're seeing a lot of interest
[7:17:07] in terms of running. For council. So I think the
[7:17:11] better job we do of making it attractive, and this
[7:17:14] is just one piece. Like I said, I felt there
[7:17:16] would have been a more robust discussion on time of
[7:17:18] meetings. Length of meetings. All the other factors that go.
[7:17:25] Into making. It. Attractive or possible, even possible for younger
[7:17:32] people to run. Councilor putts. Thanks. Mary Hamlin. The only
[7:17:40] reason I would support this. I've advocated being somebody who
[7:17:45] works and raises a family and does all the in
[7:17:48] between. during every day If we had meetings in the
[7:17:53] evenings and we're able to accommodate other things, but we
[7:17:57] seem to do everything during the day when you have
[7:17:59] to take time away from work and. You have to
[7:18:04] be almost self employed or have a very understanding employer,
[7:18:08] which I've had. Over the last couple of years now
[7:18:11] into my own thing, but. I just look at again,
[7:18:14] this goes back to there's no reason why we can't.
[7:18:19] If we don't want to give an adjustment, there's no
[7:18:20] reason why we can't. Be doing things after hours. And
[7:18:24] at different times. But if we continue to schedule. Everything
[7:18:28] at 02:00 in the afternoon or 11:00 in the morning.
[7:18:31] This is, unfortunately if you do want to attract the
[7:18:34] generations that you're hoping to get on the other hand.
[7:18:39] If you do an increase. Sometimes if you get people
[7:18:42] that just want to sign up for the money. It's
[7:18:44] not always at the best interest of the town either.
[7:18:47] But the only reason I support this again is I've
[7:18:51] tried to advocate, to do things. At different hours of
[7:18:54] the day, but always been turned down and not heard.
[7:18:57] So I will support this motion. Okay? Thank you. I'm
[7:19:02] going to support the motion as well. I do think.
[7:19:09] I do think that we have to pay more for
[7:19:11] our counselors, and I think this has been a problem
[7:19:13] in our province for a long time. In fact, I
[7:19:18] think the province should be encouraging municipal counsels to pay
[7:19:23] their counselors more. Because it's really hard at this level
[7:19:28] for counselors to vote themselves a pay increase. But the
[7:19:31] hours that are put in by the members of the
[7:19:33] council and the dedication that's. Required. Is a lot. It's
[7:19:39] a lot. But anyway, I think this is a relatively
[7:19:43] modest increase, and I would support it. Anything else? All
[7:19:49] those in favor? And opposed. To oppose that carries. Thank
[7:19:56] you. Is there anything we haven't covered here that anyone
[7:19:59] can see or that they'd like raised. Okay. So I
[7:20:06] think I was adding these up, but now I have
[7:20:08] so many pieces of paper on the go. Treasure. Did
[7:20:12] you add these up? You did. Thank you. Go ahead.
[7:20:18] Thank you. And I welcome the opportunity to make sure
[7:20:21] that I've included the correct amount, so this is great
[7:20:24] timing. What I have noted is an increase for insurance
[7:20:29] of 14,000. An additional 50,000 each to the murph in
[7:20:34] art center reserve funds to be funded through the mat.
[7:20:37] So zero tax increase. A reduction of 280,000 to the
[7:20:44] funding source for affordable housing to not come from taxes.
[7:20:49] Hr position at 54,000. P 55 at 166,000. Georgian bay
[7:20:57] accelerator 130,000. CCAT funding at 40,000, but to come from
[7:21:02] the green reserve. Irrigation to the rugby field. 55,000 to
[7:21:08] come from lifecycle reserve and cancel remuneration increase of 5100.
[7:21:14] That brings our overall. Tax rate increase the municipal town
[7:21:19] portion 3.35% in an overall blended rate f 2.97%. Hey.
[7:21:27] Thank you. For doing that. Can I ask clarification, please?
[7:21:37] Yeah, go ahead. Get per total right now. The report
[7:21:44] says it was 3.14% at this Point in time for
[7:21:48] the municipal portion. So what are we saying? It is
[7:21:51] now 3.35. With adding 130,000 for accelerator, 166,000.
[7:22:01] For p. 55. 54,000. For. The. What's that for? The
[7:22:11] staff person for HR and the 14, that comes to
[7:22:15] $364,000, which I would think would be around the 0.9%.
[7:22:22] Council also. Voted to reduce the affordable housing reserve contribution
[7:22:28] coming from taxes by 280,000. So we're still putting 400,000.
[7:22:34] To the affordable housing initiatives, but only 120,000 is funded
[7:22:38] through taxes. Sorry. So the 280 is reduced from that,
[7:22:43] and that has to do with the affordable housing money.
[7:22:48] That was going into affordable housing. Yeah. So in total,
[7:22:51] the net change is 89,100. That was so far approved
[7:22:55] tonight. Thank you. Okay. Now, I think we also can
[7:23:01] make a decision. About. I'll say financing part of this
[7:23:09] or all of it. From the surplus that treasurer said
[7:23:17] she felt comfortable on, which was the 510 to 680.
[7:23:22] Or also adding more to the reserves for the murph
[7:23:26] and the art center. Or affordable housing, for that matter.
[7:23:32] So this total amount. Sorry, did I get something wrong?
[7:23:34] Go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I
[7:23:38] was going to say. Or our asset management lifecycle. Right.
[7:23:41] Which is also a very good. Okay. Right. Okay, so
[7:23:46] that total amount was 364. Treasure gram. Is that right?
[7:23:51] All those things that were added up, that came out
[7:23:53] for taxes. Then that demand is 89,100 because we had
[7:23:58] that 280,000 reduction. right
[7:24:08] Okay. Anyone want to do anything with this councilor McCullough?
[7:24:13] Sorry, I just have a rookie question. Are we trying
[7:24:17] to work to? A number? Is there a target that
[7:24:19] we're trying to. Achieve. You get to pick. Yeah.
[7:24:30] So we're at 2.97. Two and a half. I had
[7:24:33] suggested to staff early. On to target 2.75, but. It's
[7:24:40] really the mood of the will of council, what the
[7:24:42] tax increase should be.
[7:24:56] I think what I'd like to suggest is, or just
[7:24:59] put out to think about. So. If we say the
[7:25:05] 680 from the surplus is something. We could use part
[7:25:11] of, let's say. I would love to see some of
[7:25:15] that 280 going back into the affordable housing. And. Something
[7:25:24] more into the reserves for the Murph and the art
[7:25:26] center. And then also, could we reduce our tax rate
[7:25:31] a bit? Okay, treasure, here's your job. Make all this
[7:25:36] happen. Magic. Is any of that possible? Yeah, go ahead.
[7:25:41] Just to clarify, You would like me to let you
[7:25:48] know the amount we need to get to 2.5%. Municipal
[7:25:51] portion, not the blended rate. Yeah, okay. One moment.
[7:26:28] I'm ready. Okay, we would need approximately $375,000.
[7:26:40] To be allocated from the investment analysis to achieve everything
[7:26:44] that has been approved the last three meetings. To get
[7:26:49] just shy of 2.5. Percent increase. Okay. And what would
[7:26:53] the blended rate be if we did that? The blended
[7:26:57] rate would decrease to just under 2.4%. Okay. All right,
[7:27:04] so 375,000 if we wanted to get to our rate
[7:27:09] of 2.5. And would there be any appetite to also
[7:27:16] be putting more money into the reserves for the Murph
[7:27:19] and the art center. I guess I'll put that out
[7:27:21] there. Catherine doherty. But, yes, I would propose that we
[7:27:31] add an additional 50. To each of the murph and
[7:27:38] art center. Reserves. To be consistent with staff's initial recommendation
[7:27:46] for these two reserve accounts. Would there be a second
[7:27:51] or for that councilor beans. So that would add 100,000.
[7:27:56] To the 375. So that would take us to 475
[7:28:01] from the reserve spending. If everyone understood what that. Yeah,
[7:28:08] okay. Comments Council ring. With that. We've put off of
[7:28:16] the request. By councilor Jeffrey for the chairlifts for the
[7:28:24] Eddie Bush. How are we going to finance them? Or
[7:28:28] should we save some of this money for that? I
[7:28:31] thought there maybe wasn't an appetite to deal with that.
[7:28:35] I thought we just put off. Oh, I thought I
[7:28:36] had invited you in, that there was no. Take up.
[7:28:39] Okay. Please go ahead. Thank you. Did you follow us?
[7:28:45] Yeah. The mayor looked at me at the time and
[7:28:49] I just went because the staff report was. So. Every
[7:28:54] time I asked for one of those, I get so
[7:28:56] depressed because they make it so impossible. To get stuff
[7:28:59] done. I know it's not their fault, but. We have
[7:29:03] so many people who want to get up those stairs,
[7:29:05] and I know we can't. Get everybody up. And. You
[7:29:12] know what? Clerk almost is just reminding me we should
[7:29:17] deal with one thing at a time. At 930, I
[7:29:21] tend to wander a little, so I think with the
[7:29:23] motion on the floor is Councilor Dougherty had put on.
[7:29:29] Another 50 to each of the reserves to bring us
[7:29:33] up to where the staff had suggested in budget number
[7:29:36] one and councilor ranger. Just a quick follow up. And
[7:29:39] that's what I was talking about this motion. I just
[7:29:41] wondered whether we had the money, if we were still
[7:29:44] going. To have to pay. I guess we're not going
[7:29:46] to do the list and I could support this. That's.
[7:29:49] Fine. I just wanted to know. Okay, I see. If
[7:29:54] we added 100,000 as councilor Dougherty. Has put in as
[7:30:01] a suggestion. That would take our total amount that we
[7:30:07] would need. To keep at 2.5% locally. To 475. And
[7:30:14] the amount is 680 that we could access from our
[7:30:18] surplus, should we be so inclined. Councilor. Sorry. Deputy mayor.
[7:30:25] Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. I'm not going to support it
[7:30:30] with the three use of the 375 and the 280.
[7:30:34] Coming out of affordable housing reserve. That's 1.6. Percent automatically
[7:30:41] onto 27 budget for. Whoever's dealing with 27 budget. You're
[7:30:48] taking funds to handle operation costs to get your rate
[7:30:52] changed down, that's going to come back on top of
[7:30:56] the next council. In my opinion, it isn't correct to
[7:31:01] be using it to drive down operation costs. Well, it's
[7:31:06] not. Sorry, if I can just clarify, it's not all
[7:31:09] operation costs. Because the motion we have on the floor
[7:31:12] is reserve funds. Yeah, I'm not supporting. The hundred from
[7:31:17] the reserve funds because of the impact already being felt.
[7:31:23] With the other changes that have been made. Okay. Thank
[7:31:25] you. Would anyone else like to comment on this? I'm
[7:31:30] just really worried if we don't start putting money into
[7:31:33] this like we'll never get there. And. To me if
[7:31:39] we can come up with $150,000 for this year to
[7:31:43] put in. The reserve fund. That's going to be a
[7:31:46] good number to get started. I mean, I know there's.
[7:31:49] A bit there now. There's three for the murph, I
[7:31:53] think, and one for the art center, something. Like that.
[7:31:57] But we have lots of monies ahead of us to
[7:31:59] plan these facilities and get going. So, Councilor Dougherty. I
[7:32:06] think it also signals to our community that. We're very
[7:32:11] serious about these two projects. that are in very high
[7:32:16] demand Absolutely. Councilor jeffrey. Thank you so along. Councilor rings
[7:32:23] thought process. It's hard to support this without having the
[7:32:27] discussion because at the end of the day, I also
[7:32:29] think the people who are paying the taxes and using
[7:32:32] the facilities we have now deserve some consideration of having
[7:32:37] some accessibility. At the Eddie Bush. So I'd rather talk
[7:32:41] about what we may or may not be. Able to
[7:32:43] do with the stereliphs first. And then decide what's left
[7:32:47] to go into the future planning. So you're asking.
[7:32:58] what are you asking for i'm asking to hold off
[7:33:00] on the 100,000 until we talk about the stairs Are
[7:33:02] you groupal to that, Councilor Dougherty? Yes. Okay. Stairless it
[7:33:07] is. Would you like to address that issue? I do.
[7:33:14] I started. So I've lost it in here where stuff
[7:33:21] had the report. But. I think. If I could ask
[7:33:28] Director Cuba just to remind us what the cost. Options
[7:33:31] were in terms of addressing it. And I know, I
[7:33:34] understand the one isn't fully. Oada. But. Oh, is it
[7:33:42] okay? Sorry. I thought it was. Well. It's responsible. Stand
[7:33:48] up. Go ahead, executive director. Peg. Yeah. Thank you. Mayor
[7:33:52] Hamlin through. To Councilor Jeffrey. So in the report. And
[7:33:55] I'll start by apologizing. Certainly. Don't mean to dishearten counsel
[7:33:59] with some of the reports around. What's possible. We did
[7:34:03] start looking into. What might be options for council to
[7:34:06] consider and quickly realize that we don't have access. To
[7:34:09] all the information we need. To give the best advice.
[7:34:14] Hence why in the recommendation we were suggesting if we
[7:34:17] wanted to go. Forward. If council did desire to go
[7:34:20] forward, that we went out to the market with a
[7:34:22] request. For information. So that we could see what is
[7:34:26] possible in a commercial setting. Unfortunately, when looking online, there's
[7:34:31] lots of options that are potentially available for residential there
[7:34:35] are some that say they're commercial. But there are building
[7:34:39] permits involved, engineering assessments that may need to be involved,
[7:34:43] we would recommend consultation with our accessibility advisory committee. And
[7:34:48] it therefore starts to feel. Very. Prohibitive. Which isn't the
[7:34:55] intention when we understand that this would be. A very
[7:34:59] positive step for accessibility. The costs are anywhere from the
[7:35:04] research we are able to do online, from 10,000. To
[7:35:10] a million dollars, depending on what option council selected. Chairlift
[7:35:14] option was between 10,000 to 20,000. But we did have
[7:35:19] some concerns. On their ability to be installed in a
[7:35:23] commercial setting and had some liability questions as well. Estimates.
[7:35:30] For the platform lift was 40,000 80,000. But again, we'd
[7:35:35] want more information. From suppliers to know if that estimate
[7:35:40] was accurate. And then when you get into elevators, you're.
[7:35:43] At a million dollars plus. So, basically. We recognize that
[7:35:48] this is a good move. In a positive direction for
[7:35:51] accessibility, but would need to ask the market what's possible.
[7:35:56] And what assessments would be required should council direct staff
[7:36:00] to. Go out and purchase a chair lick, there would
[7:36:03] be a process. We'd have to go. Through for building
[7:36:06] permits, et cetera, similar to any other commercial setting in
[7:36:10] our town. And I realized that was a long answer,
[7:36:13] but no. Make sure you have the right advice. No.
[7:36:16] Appreciate that very much. So the problem in terms of
[7:36:21] timing, and maybe you can help me with this through
[7:36:24] the mirror. Is, once we get to this RFI process
[7:36:28] is the same as what councilor Potts? Was already saying
[7:36:31] before about the planning for the open space. All of
[7:36:33] a sudden, you're. A year and a half. You're two
[7:36:35] years out. And. It's municipal government is the worst possible
[7:36:41] place to get things done. So I guess.
[7:36:52] The ask would be to put in. I guess up
[7:37:02] to 100,000. That would facilitate either. Two lifts and or
[7:37:08] a platform lift. And then have staff start the process
[7:37:13] of looking into it, knowing the funding was there. Looks
[7:37:18] like maybe it's 80,000. Is the platform, lister. Between 40
[7:37:24] and 80. Yeah, but. There's always some other cost plus
[7:37:28] that goes into having. To do the research or whatever.
[7:37:35] Well, maybe that's quite a difference. I wish maybe could.
[7:37:37] I'll ask when it's my turn to talk. Go ahead.
[7:37:40] That's fine. If it's 80,000 we can do 80,000. I'm
[7:37:44] not sure. If we only need the two chairlifts, there's
[7:37:48] going to be some money left. Over. If there's a
[7:37:51] commercial way of doing that. That. Doesn't open us up
[7:37:56] to vulnerability in terms of liability. And I'd like to
[7:38:00] put that place marker in there. We did such a
[7:38:03] fabulous job. With our facilities in 2008 with the Ontario
[7:38:06] Paralympic Winter championships, the curling club, whatever. But we've. Really
[7:38:10] fallen behind in terms of that accessibility. In our older
[7:38:15] facilities, and I think this is one case where we
[7:38:19] can do a bit of catch up in a building
[7:38:21] that's used for a lot of functions and for people
[7:38:24] who would really like to get to that next level.
[7:38:27] In the warmer. Okay, councilor. Pause. Thanks, Mary. Evelyn, I
[7:38:31] have a question. I'm assuming through. You to executive director
[7:38:34] peg if there is an individual currently tomorrow that requested
[7:38:39] to access the second level of the Eddie Bush that
[7:38:42] had. Accessibility challenges, and they couldn't get up there. What
[7:38:47] do we tell them? How do we relay that? How
[7:38:52] are we dealing with it now? If there was that
[7:38:55] situation. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through to councilor
[7:39:01] pod. So it would be definitely on. A case by
[7:39:03] case scenario. And also we'd be looking at. What is
[7:39:09] the item that they're looking to access that was on
[7:39:11] the second floor and could it be something that could
[7:39:14] be accessed depending on the individual's abilities? Through town hall.
[7:39:18] Up to the second level. That being said, I think
[7:39:22] there would be potentially legal implications that we'd want to
[7:39:26] explore. And potentially require closed session discussion on some previous
[7:39:30] case law. Is there a seconder for the motion? Okay,
[7:39:36] is there a seconder for councilor Jeffrey's? Motion on stairblast
[7:39:39] council. Councilor Potts. 80,000. Yeah.
[7:39:52] Deputy mayor. Clarification, please, through you to Councilor Jeffrey. Funds
[7:39:57] coming from. I guess the funds we're working on right
[7:40:02] now. I don't know if there's the treasurer could advise.
[7:40:10] Through the mayor if there were any other avenues for
[7:40:13] the funding to come from. But treasure grant. I don't
[7:40:17] know if we have any accessibility reserve funds or those
[7:40:20] kinds. Of things. We could raise taxes, which is what
[7:40:24] we're discussing now. We could also use the general. Reserve,
[7:40:28] and we do have the working capital reserve, should that
[7:40:30] be needed as well, if you prefer. To come from
[7:40:32] existing reserves. Follow up, if I may. Sure. That's kind
[7:40:39] of tomatoes. Tomatoes, right. Because the surplus will go into.
[7:40:46] Reserves, right? But I think the main thing is that
[7:40:50] the plan is for it to come from reserves. And
[7:40:54] I'll support it for that reason. Canceling. Thank you. Just
[7:41:03] one more question. That. If we're going to set aside
[7:41:06] $80,000, is that what we're going to see what we
[7:41:09] can get for 80,000. And what if we can't? Get
[7:41:12] anything for that. I'm thinking that there's going to be
[7:41:15] a lot more. Work. Than I'd like to say. We've
[7:41:18] been able to get it. But I think we got
[7:41:21] to not even consider the stair lifts to me. They're
[7:41:26] just basically something you'd install at home. For yourself. Like
[7:41:30] you know all us old. Counselors. That's what we'll be.
[7:41:34] Stalin. But. The other lift is. We got to meet
[7:41:41] building codes. We got to meet a whole bunch of
[7:41:43] standards before we can. Even say whether we can install
[7:41:46] them. I'll support it if we know we can get
[7:41:51] it done. For 80,000, I just wondering, is there going
[7:41:54] to be a lot more hidden costs before we get
[7:41:57] to the 80,000? Executive director. Do you have any thoughts
[7:42:04] on that? Thank you, Mayor Hamlin. Through to Councilor Ring.
[7:42:12] The rough estimate that we were able to obtain from
[7:42:15] doing some research online was that the lists themselves would
[7:42:18] be 40,000, $80,000 if there was any additional assessments that
[7:42:24] were required above and beyond those list costs, it may
[7:42:27] be appropriate to earmark $100,000 that being said, We're not
[7:42:33] sure if one or two lifts would be required. Maybe
[7:42:35] one would be sufficient. But certainly consultation with the accessibility
[7:42:39] advisory committee would help us in determining what number of
[7:42:42] lists would be appropriate. And I'm sorry I can't be
[7:42:46] more helpful in terms of pricing, we're. Going by research
[7:42:49] we were able to do. On the topic. Yeah. Thank
[7:42:54] you, Catherine. Just to follow up, then, if that's the
[7:42:58] case. Could I amend the original motion to 100,000? Sure.
[7:43:03] That's where I started. And. I would accept that. Okay.
[7:43:06] Thank you. And the seconder, do they agree? Yeah. Okay.
[7:43:12] This is a hard one. This is a hard one
[7:43:14] for me because. I think we know that the Eddie
[7:43:18] Bush is not an accessible structure. Luckily, you can get
[7:43:23] in. On the main floor. And see what's happening and
[7:43:28] use the washroom. But if you wanted to go up.
[7:43:31] To the second level. You're not getting there. And that
[7:43:35] is a very well used facility, and that's a shame.
[7:43:40] On the other hand. This whole building needs to be
[7:43:44] renovated. I mean, it's like putting lipstick on a pig.
[7:43:47] I think we're spending over 200,000 this year's budget. To
[7:43:52] sort of do the band aids for this year. I
[7:43:55] don't know what the right answer is. I think a
[7:43:57] future council is going to have to make a decision,
[7:44:00] hopefully with the blues. On funding what needs to be
[7:44:07] done there, or if we have a replacement facility or
[7:44:11] whatever comes. Of it. But. I can all support. This
[7:44:20] motion. But I'm going to say reluctantly, I so want
[7:44:24] people to be access every one of our buildings to
[7:44:26] everywhere they want to go, but. I'm so conflicted about
[7:44:31] this building because. It needs so much work and. It's
[7:44:37] still not there. So, anyway, that's what I think. Everyone
[7:44:43] want to vote? Okay, all those in favor? One. Okay,
[7:44:50] that's unanimous. That was easy. Okay. Yes, sorry. See you.
[7:44:56] Thank you. Through the chair. I did want to make
[7:44:59] a quick, positive comment on municipal government being the responsible
[7:45:04] place to get things done. We are. The closest to
[7:45:09] the people. I know that our council members here. From
[7:45:13] people every day. And staff hear from people every day,
[7:45:16] too. I think Collingwood does punch above its weight, and
[7:45:19] we do get a lot done. So I just wanted
[7:45:22] to put that on the record. And we'll arm wrestle
[7:45:26] about it later. No, we do good things. We do
[7:45:29] great things. Here, but it just takes a long time.
[7:45:33] Those darn procurement roles, too. Okay, I won't go there.
[7:45:39] Okay. So just. Can I clarify with the treasure? So
[7:45:43] the 100 was coming out of reserves, was that. The
[7:45:46] motion. Okay, so we're still at 475. No, sorry. 375.
[7:45:56] Okay, to get us to the 2.5% local blended 2.4.
[7:46:02] Did we want to put more funds into the reserves.
[7:46:07] Houser Doherty. Oh, you had your motion. You were deferring
[7:46:09] your motion. Thank you. So your motion was to take.
[7:46:15] 50 into each of those reserve funds, right, for a
[7:46:19] total of 100,000. And. These are reserves. Right. So that
[7:46:26] would mean we'd have to. The 375 would become 475
[7:46:31] that we would need. Out of the 680 if we
[7:46:35] were to use those funds. Okay. All right. Seconder. Seconderbank's
[7:46:41] comments. I know. We've heard you. So that's why I
[7:46:45] want to hear from somebody. Else. This is a different
[7:46:51] motion. I thought you had already calmed. I was going
[7:46:55] to let you speak, but I thought you had. Already
[7:46:57] spoken on this. Okay, go ahead. Again. It's a tomatoes,
[7:47:04] tomatoes thing, right? You're taking it out of. The you're
[7:47:10] reducing. Your overall surplus. By now. If you put this
[7:47:16] through, $475,000, that would have ended up going into lifecycle
[7:47:20] reserve. And I was trying to get you to agree
[7:47:25] to reduce the component. Of increase for lifecycle reserve. And
[7:47:32] what you're doing now is you're actually taking more out
[7:47:34] of lifecycle. Reserve. So. I'm going to support it. I
[7:47:39] don't disagree. That. Really? 150,000 is in a substantial amount,
[7:47:45] right? Because again, as I say, it's just tomatoes and
[7:47:49] tomatoes. It's not the way you typically, in my opinion,
[7:47:54] would do your setting your budget. You're notified of your
[7:47:59] surplus and you look at your impacts on your lifecycle
[7:48:02] reserve. And make your decisions about your asset management. And
[7:48:08] that would have given you room to do what you're
[7:48:10] doing. So I will support this, though, because, as I
[7:48:15] say, it's similar to the lyfts. That it is coming.
[7:48:20] From reserve. Okay. All right. Anyone else like to speak
[7:48:26] to this? All those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank
[7:48:32] you. So. I think. The next question is. Whether we
[7:48:41] will use. The 680,000 to pay for the $475,000. Am
[7:48:49] I right on this next decision? Anyone want to move
[7:48:53] that? Elsa dougherty.
[7:49:07] I will move it to start the discussion. Okay? Any
[7:49:10] second. Or councilor McCulloch. And this would just recap here.
[7:49:18] 680. Minus 475 is 50 two. So if we were
[7:49:27] to use the 680 portion of the surplus. To cover
[7:49:33] 475,000 that we've been talking about here, which. Would keep
[7:49:38] our local tax rate to 2.5%. It would also leave
[7:49:43] 205,000 of the 680 to go into the lifecycle reserves.
[7:49:49] So we'd have 205 in the lifecycle reserves. We'd have
[7:49:52] 100 into the reserves. For the murph and the art
[7:49:56] center. And we would have 375 into other things. Okay,
[7:50:01] anyone else want to comment? Deputy mayor. Thank you, Mayor
[7:50:05] Hamlin. Again. No surprise. I'm not going to support it.
[7:50:12] Again. $655,000 of what you're doing is going to impact
[7:50:20] 27. So that's percent and a half. The other side
[7:50:25] of the whole thing is. I just can't. Use the
[7:50:33] funds for a short period of time, knowing it's going
[7:50:36] to put it on. To the next council. So I'm
[7:50:39] not supportive of it. I do intend on putting on
[7:50:42] the table again about the asset management reduction, which will
[7:50:47] help reduce that way. But I'm not in favor of
[7:50:50] using those funds specifically the way they're being. Incorporated in
[7:50:54] this. Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak
[7:50:57] to this? So we'll. Bring it to a vote. All
[7:51:00] those. Sorry. Pardon. I'm confused, Mayor Hamlin. I thought that's
[7:51:05] what we were voting to do. As we voted on
[7:51:07] each of these things that it was coming out of
[7:51:08] the 680 because you were adding it up, so I
[7:51:10] don't know why we're doing this again, okay? Is that
[7:51:13] what everyone else filed? Okay, so there we go. No
[7:51:17] need to vote. Thank you. Voting is overrated. Okay, what
[7:51:23] else do we have to do here? Okay, motion to
[7:51:27] extend. Are we ready for one more hour or what?
[7:51:33] That's the other things. We're almost done. Are we almost
[7:51:36] done on the budget? No. How come? You got plenty
[7:51:43] to tap, so pardon me. Thank you, Mary Hanlon. I
[7:51:47] think we could use another when we're less tired. Just.
[7:51:50] To do one final review and any final, other suggestions,
[7:51:53] so I think it's going to take another. Okay, we
[7:51:56] have one suggestion. Not to extend an hour. I'll just
[7:52:00] say. On the agenda still for today. Perhaps the clerk
[7:52:06] could help us decide whether there's anything we need to
[7:52:09] deal with other than. Another option is to recess the
[7:52:14] meeting and we can reconvene it on another date. Before
[7:52:18] the 15th at the sensor. Okay. Recess. The meeting. So
[7:52:25] what she was saying is we would recess it so
[7:52:27] we could reconvene at another day before the 15th. I
[7:52:33] think there's some interest in getting the budget finalized in
[7:52:37] December, if we could. So. The. Clerk. She's going to
[7:52:47] canvass people's availability. Is that right? The recess be part.
[7:52:50] Of. I don't know if we have many items on
[7:52:52] December 8, right? Push it to next Monday. So Kriopol.
[7:52:59] Okay, and again, I'll just ask the clerk. Is there
[7:53:02] anything on the rest of the agenda for the committee
[7:53:05] of the whole that can't wait in your view to
[7:53:09] next Monday. You could do the confirmatory bylaw. Okay.
[7:53:21] No. We're recessing. Yeah. I think if you want to
[7:53:25] quickly run through the other aims, we can just defer,
[7:53:27] so. It's just the budget conversation on the 8th. You
[7:53:29] can do that? So is that agreeable, Councilor Jeffrey? For
[7:53:38] sure. Okay, so. Were you going to say something? Yeah.
[7:53:44] I understand that. Thank you. Through you that we're about
[7:53:48] at the end of our brain. Power for the budget
[7:53:50] tonight. I did hear the deputy mayor say that he
[7:53:54] was going to make a proposal. I was wondering. If
[7:53:57] there was a way that we could hear a bit
[7:53:59] about the proposal and thus be well. Prepared with numbers
[7:54:03] and the like at the next meeting, if that works
[7:54:06] for the deputy and the chair. Yeah, go ahead. Thank
[7:54:09] you. And I've already provided treasurer with some information, but
[7:54:13] unfortunately. It could only be today. So I knew that
[7:54:17] the likelihood would be that it would carry over into
[7:54:20] the next meeting, so. It should be okay. I do
[7:54:24] anticipate that the treasurer and I will do some emailing
[7:54:27] back and forth. To make sure that the clear. But
[7:54:32] basically what I'm coming forward with is a reduction of
[7:54:35] the 1.2 that's proposed in the budget for the asset
[7:54:39] management. And I've started to explain the reasoning to the
[7:54:44] treasurers through the email. Okay.
[7:54:53] So what's left on the committee as a whole starts
[7:54:57] on page seven of the agenda. I guess at item
[7:55:00] 15.3. So can I turn the chair back to you?
[7:55:07] Sure, if you want. Or you can keep rolling, but
[7:55:10] I'll try and get through it. As quickly as I
[7:55:11] can. Go ahead. Okay. Item 15.3, deputations unregistered. Thank you,
[7:55:18] chairper. We do have one individual online if they would
[7:55:21] like to address the committee. At this time, please press
[7:55:24] the raise your hand feature at the bottom of your
[7:55:26] screen. Okay. Thank you.
[7:55:36] Item 15.4 reports minutes of other committees and boards. The
[7:55:41] recommendation is that the following minutes of other committees and
[7:55:44] boards be received and the recommendations contained therein be approved.
[7:55:49] Minutes, trails and active Transportation Advisory Committee, October 9, 2025.
[7:55:56] Minutes. The Collingwood Heritage Committee, November 6, 2025 and the
[7:56:01] minutes for the accessibility advisory committee, October 16 2025. Can
[7:56:07] I have a mover? Councilor Potts. Seconded. Councilor, ring all.
[7:56:12] In favor. Rolling right along. Okay. Item 15.5. Old or
[7:56:20] deferred business. Anything. Don't hold that up. Okay. Thank you.
[7:56:31] Item 15.6 other business. No other business. Item 15.7, notice
[7:56:38] of motions. Mayor Hamlin.
[7:56:49] No, I know Deputy Mayor Friars was, but I think
[7:56:52] Mayor Hamlin had something, I believe. Sorry. Thank you. My
[7:56:56] notice is that I will bring a motion at the
[7:56:59] next meeting. To request. A stop sign be installed at
[7:57:05] the intersection. To make it a four way stop at
[7:57:09] the intersection of Cedar and third. And that also we
[7:57:14] ask staff to consider a phase in for the rest
[7:57:19] of intersections in our community. In residential areas. And third
[7:57:25] part would be that the school and safety zones. Be
[7:57:30] given a priority in that phase in. Okay. Thank you.
[7:57:36] Item 15.8.1 rise from committee of the whole the motion
[7:57:42] is to and the recommendation is. Sorry. That council herein
[7:57:46] rise from committee as a whole in return to regular
[7:57:49] council. Meeting. Can I have a mover? Councilor McCullough, seconded
[7:57:53] vice chair. Baines. All in favor? And that is unanimous.
[7:58:00] Thank you. And at this point, I'm looking for a
[7:58:02] motion to recess this meeting. We can do the confirmatory
[7:58:07] bylaw and the adjournment, and we'll. Just add. Change. We're
[7:58:14] not recessing. Okay. Confirmatory bylaw. Is that bylaw number 20?
[7:58:18] 25 84, being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of
[7:58:22] the regular meeting of council held December 1, 2025 be
[7:58:26] enacted and passed this first day of December 2025, mover
[7:58:30] and I seconder deputy mayor seconded. By councilor Dougherty. All
[7:58:34] those in favor? Passed unanimously. And we have a fight.
[7:58:39] But I think I saw councilor Potts go up. First.
[7:58:43] For an adjournment. All those in favor? Adjourned. Thank you,
[7:58:46] everybody. It was tough. We almost didn't make it.